Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Weather-Cocked > Current Kit Talk
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old 10-26-2012, 09:00 PM
Raygun's Avatar
Raygun Raygun is offline
Star Voyager
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 227
Default

I really like the fin build up strategy of the Mega Max fins. I wish mid and high power sport would see more value in this approach as an alternative choice to solid slab construction. I'm not of fan of pitching a brick in the air- too much of a waste of impulse. I think some folks slowly are picking up on this aspect of the power range. I like what Giant Leap is doing with regards aerospace materials and methods.
John, nice work on that fin detail!
__________________
Patriot
464 CMASS
MMMSClub.org
NAR #92766
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-28-2012, 12:56 PM
Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
Right Wing Wacko Right Wing Wacko is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 24
Default

I've noticed that Hobbylinc's status on the Mega Max has changed from Out of Stock to "Ships within 24 Hours".

However my order still says waiting for backordered stock to arrive
__________________
Member: Washington Aerospace Club NAR Section #578
NAR #94383
TRA #15009
HPR Level 2

Last edited by Right Wing Wacko : 10-28-2012 at 12:57 PM. Reason: Spelling
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-28-2012, 01:02 PM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VonMises
I'd like to get hold of the Max Nose Cone. Then I could build the rest of the rocket with quality parts.
The Estes parts are of high quality. They are also of specific strength to limit power waste due to excessive mass.

If one were to make a high end HPR style Der Red Max, even a 50% increase in tube thickness would about do it. Currently 050 wall so 070 would be nice. maybe Estes could offer a heavy wall variant of the tube or a third party could do that and buy the stock kit and exchange the tubes out and add proper motor mounts.

Pay twice. Why pay less for Estes IP?

Jerry

Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 10-29-2012 at 11:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-28-2012, 01:57 PM
BEC's Avatar
BEC BEC is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auburn, Washington
Posts: 3,643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raygun
I really like the fin build up strategy of the Mega Max fins.

But have plenty of books to hand when you glue them up.
Quote:
I wish mid and high power sport would see more value in this approach as an alternative choice to solid slab construction. I'm not of fan of pitching a brick in the air- too much of a waste of impulse. I think some folks slowly are picking up on this aspect of the power range. I like what Giant Leap is doing with regards aerospace materials and methods.
John, nice work on that fin detail!


<rant>I've been a BAR for what - about four years or so now? - after a more than 30 year hiatus. I'd also been an active aeromodeler the entire time (and I also work for an aerospace company). When I first saw "high power construction techniques" in Sport Rocketry I was, to be gentle about it, very dismayed. It looks to me like people are trying to fly pieces of furniture than proper flying machines. That article on crash-proofing an Estes rocket just about made me ill. I seems obvious to me that people who build to survive a crash rather than learning how to fly/recover properly are people I want to be far, far away from when I'm flying. I also don't see the point of lobbing something to 500 feet on an H when I can put a model up that high on a B easily and if I try I can get there with an A. Designing something to fly rather than to crash always leads to better performance and for things that might just come falling out of the sky rather less risk for people and things on the ground.

I know high performance isn't always the point of a particular design but still there are better answers than adding more steel, more plywood, more epoxy and more carbon.</rant>

The four inch Mega Der Red Max tubing appears to be .050 wall. I'll be getting back to working on mine (got it from AC Supply) after I rake some wet leaves.....
__________________
Bernard Cawley
NAR 89040 L1 - Life Member
SAM 0061
AMA 42160
KG7AIE
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-29-2012, 09:16 AM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BEC
When I first saw "high power construction techniques" in Sport Rocketry I was, to be gentle about it, very dismayed. It looks to me like people are trying to fly pieces of furniture than proper flying machines. That article on crash-proofing an Estes rocket just about made me ill. I seems obvious to me that people who build to survive a crash rather than learning how to fly/recover properly are people I want to be far, far away from when I'm flying.

The four inch Mega Der Red Max tubing appears to be .050 wall.
Exactly. I have been flying 050 wall 4 inch rockets for DECADES on up to full K motors with low thrust like 54mm K125 and K250 and lower power moderate thrust motors like J125 and J250 (each letter class full power).

http://v-serv.com/usr/54mm.htm

They were TRA certified for many years and from 1982-1992 were the most popular style used, including flights at LDRS 2 and beyond.

It is more common to loose a fin than to crush a tube from flight speeds and recovery is now so easy with dual deploy it's silly not to use an oversize chute.

Jerry
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-29-2012, 09:42 AM
Raygun's Avatar
Raygun Raygun is offline
Star Voyager
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 227
Default

Quote:
But have plenty of books to hand when you glue them up.



Heck, I would monokote those fins instead!
__________________
Patriot
464 CMASS
MMMSClub.org
NAR #92766
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-29-2012, 11:10 PM
BEC's Avatar
BEC BEC is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auburn, Washington
Posts: 3,643
Default

If you did they'd look pretty thin on that big rocket. Not saying it wouldn't work, though .
__________________
Bernard Cawley
NAR 89040 L1 - Life Member
SAM 0061
AMA 42160
KG7AIE
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-01-2012, 11:45 AM
ghrocketman's Avatar
ghrocketman ghrocketman is offline
President, MAYHEM AGITATORS, Inc.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Nunya Bizznuss, Michigan
Posts: 13,443
Default

When intended power is to be Composite "E" or above, AS A RULE, I use the "Build Strong Like OX/tank" philosophy. I don't wan't hangar-rash or flight damage. Don't care about the weight penalty trade-off. I just use a bigger motor. 'NUF SAID !
__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL
, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !

Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:41 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2024