1lb Rocket plugs

[LTUPyro]

I just got my 1lb BP tooling and tried some rockets. I tested just motor without any header and that worked okay. Then I tried to make some rockets with 2inch shells, they all blow plugs off, maybe fuel was to fast. Fuel I use is 60/30/10 with BBQ charcoal. Any ideas what to do?

[psyco_1322]

Use a bigger hammer. At least 10 heavy blows per increment.

[kpknd]

I give at least 12 good blows each incerment for the nozzel and a few more than that for the bulkhead. Try it again.

 

What are you using for clay?

Edited May 5, 2013 by kpknd

[Oinikis]

i use 6/3/1 with BBQ charcoal slightly ballmilled, plugs are coffemilled bentonite with 8% paraffin wax melted in, makes hard plugs. however i do recess both ends, becouse i had issue with them shooting out. i use wooden hammer, 8-10 hit per increment. however i use like at least 3 incrememnts for nozzle. what are you using for the clay, and do you recess ends? Edited May 6, 2013 by Oinikis

[dan999ification]

Go nozzleless with no top plug, no problem.

 

Dan.

[LTUPyro]

For clay Im using fine betonite with 6% paraffin. I like to ram with 15 hits per each increment. Going to try some nozzeless engines today. But isn't nozzeless have less power?

[Mortartube]

I tried nozzleless and they are brilliant. You need fast hot BP but they are so simple.

 

If you want to stick with nozzles I would recommend two thuings that I found made a BIG difference. Get a heavy hammer made of wood or rawhide. I have used a 2lb club hammer on non spark tooling before AND (and I found that this made a big difference.) Don't ram them on a work bench. Use a sturdy ramming post with a sturdy base, such as on concrete. Benches bounce a little and take some of the hammer blow energy away. A 4 inch square post long enough to be at a comfortable work height and securely supported upright will help lots.

[LTUPyro]

Mortartube, thanks for advices. what is biggest weigh your rockets can lift?

[dagabu]

Real world difference for me:

 

 

A nozzled .75" ID rocket will lift a 4" shell to about 600' but the rocket takes off slowly, tips a little and goes off horizontally. The shell is too far away to truly enjoy for me.

 

A nozzle-less .75" ID rocket will lift a 4" shell to about 600' but the rocket takes off quickly and stays almost perfectly straight up. The shell goes off right overhead and I truly enjoy them when they do!

[dan999ification]

They both have a similar "safe" carrying capability as far as headers go, there are too many variables with rammed hobby rockets to favour one over the other as far as performance is

Concerned. For me it's ease of manafacture and the forgiving nature of nzless that I prefer.

 

They go straight aswell dag knows.

 

Dan.

Damn I phone

 

Edited May 6, 2013 by dan999ification

[Oinikis]

well, if you say nozzleless has pretty much the same power, but don't they uuse more fuel? i mean you get same results with same lenght of spindle?

[nater]

A nozzleless rocket with only use about 1 more increment of fuel than a motor with a nozzle. The difference is you need to use the hottest BP you can make to make a nozzleless motor fly. If you use the same hot fuel with a nozzle, you will most likely have a CATO. It is not an apples to apples comparison. They are different motors which use different fuel and techniques and have different results.

[psyco_1322]

To add to what Nater said, yes, you just use the same spindle. The tooling you would normally make core burning bp rockets with, will work excellent for nozzleless motors. The extra increment being the first one, instead of clay, it's fuel.

[AirCowPeacock]

The thing is, hot nozzelless fuel has more enrergy than the slower nozzeled fuel. So even though nozzelless is less efficient, the extra energy from the hotter fuel makes up for that--more or less.

[dagabu]

The thing is, hot nozzleless fuel has more enrergy than the slower nozzeled fuel. So even though nozzleless is less efficient, the extra energy from the hotter fuel makes up for that--more or less.

 

Whistle fuel has more power then BP fuel too. The point is that for the use of the very same BP, nozzleless rockets have a lifting capability off the pad but will not lift as high as a nozzled motor.

[Flaky234]

Hi,

 

This is a little off topic but can willow be to fast for 60/30/10??? And can I use bbq charcoal for coreburner fuel?

 

Thanks

[LTUPyro]

Hi,

 

This is a little off topic but can willow be to fast for 60/30/10??? And can I use bbq charcoal for coreburner fuel?

 

Thanks

You can use Willow ,but I guess fuel would be better to fast. I use bbq charcoal for coreburners right now I it actually do it's job.

[nater]

I have a mix of 70-20-10 using Willow which will be flown in rockets this weekend. I don't anticipate any problems with the tooling I have. I also like to use Alder charcoal, which also makes a hot BP, using a 60-30-10 BP and ball milled when I use a standard BP spindle. When you have a hot fuel and are close to the red line, pressing to higher pressures helps the reliability. Some fuels which will CATO when hand rammed, fly just fine when they are pressed hard.

[Oinikis]

well, nozzled fuel is cheaper, and has the same power. also nozzled can have a nice sparky tail from 6/3/1. so that's what i'm going to stay. with small ballmill i do not make that much hot BP. it's not that hard to make nozzled fly. also i preffer nozzled more, becouse they are a bit more complicated, so more interesting.

 

I used to make nozzleless rcandy rockets, and they flew pretty well.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Oinikis

[dagabu]

well, nozzled fuel is cheaper, and has the same power. also nozzled can have a nice sparky tail from 6/3/1. so that's what i'm going to stay. with small ballmill i do not make that much hot BP. it's not that hard to make nozzled fly. also i preffer nozzled more, becouse they are a bit more complicated, so more interesting.

 

I used to make nozzleless rcandy rockets, and they flew pretty well.

 

Yup, most rockets do have nozzles and for the enjoyment of the rockets flight with no serious lifting needed, nozzled rockets are the way to go.

[LTUPyro]

I prefer nozzled too just because nozzleles requires faster and hotter Bp wich I better keep for lifting shells. For nozzled coreburner I use just 60/30/10 unmilled fuel with bbq charcoal and it works perfect if it's done right, nozzled requires little bit of work to get them right.

[dagabu]

I prefer nozzled too just because nozzleles requires faster and hotter Bp wich I better keep for lifting shells. For nozzled coreburner I use just 60/30/10 unmilled fuel with bbq charcoal and it works perfect if it's done right, nozzled requires little bit of work to get them right.

 

Obviously you have no been listening, you do not need to use hotter fuel, you CAN use it but you do not HAVE to use it. The same fuel will yield different results in lifting shells.

[LTUPyro]

Obviously you have no been listening, you do not need to use hotter fuel, you CAN use it but you do not HAVE to use it. The same fuel will yield different results in lifting shells.

Sorry for misunderstanding, as you can see my english is not the best

[oldspark]

Another thing I have found is just pressing the rockets at low pressure with no support (works better with a good quality tube) seems to give better results then hand rammed, has any one else found this to be true, I am sure some varibles could come into play but just playing around with my stuff has yielded these findings.

[dagabu]

No, in fact I have found pressing at low pressures to give me poor results as one would CATO and the next fly well. I press ALL my rockets at 6000lpi or greater. I also find a supported motor to all ways give better results.