Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > The Doctor is In! > Ask the Doctor
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-07-2008, 09:10 PM
PaulK PaulK is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: WI
Posts: 1,847
Default A10 Thrust Curve

Hi Doc,

I recently bought some A10-0T motors with the COBRA labels, and noticed the thrust curve looks different from the current A10 packs. I'm familiar with the current A10 thrust curve, which has a short peak of ~12N, then drops down to ~1N for a full burn time of about 0.8 sec. The cobra labeled A10 motors include a thrust curve that drops to 0 at 0.25 sec. Has the curve on these motors actually changed over the years, or was that older thrust curve just wishful thinking?

Thanks
__________________
Paul
If we weren't all crazy, we would go insane - Jimmy Buffett
NAR #87246 www.wooshrocketry.org
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-07-2008, 09:41 PM
shockwaveriderz shockwaveriderz is offline
rocket dinosaur
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My Old Kentucky Home
Posts: 1,184
Default

wishful thinking

terry dean
__________________
"Old Rocketeer's don't die; they just go OOP".....unless you 3D print them.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-07-2008, 10:33 PM
Carl@Semroc's Avatar
Carl@Semroc Carl@Semroc is offline
Junior ??? Rocketeer
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Knightdale, NC
Posts: 1,470
Default

Since the 2004 Estes catalog and the latest (1995) curves from S&T both show the long tail and a 2.38N average thrust instead of 10N average thrust. I would think that someone must have put at least a few on a test stand and got those results, then just mislabeled the engines as A10 instead of A2.

The earliest ones must have been about a .25 second burn to have given them the higher average of 10N. I wish I had been watching all the engine designations versus actual performance more closely over the years. It is hard to separate reality and wishful thinking.
__________________
Carl McLawhorn
NAR#4717 L2
semroc.com
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-08-2008, 07:46 AM
billspad's Avatar
billspad billspad is offline
MMXCVII
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Saugus, MA
Posts: 371
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl@Semroc
Since the 2004 Estes catalog and the latest (1995) curves from S&T both show the long tail and a 2.38N average thrust instead of 10N average thrust. I would think that someone must have put at least a few on a test stand and got those results, then just mislabeled the engines as A10 instead of A2.

The earliest ones must have been about a .25 second burn to have given them the higher average of 10N. I wish I had been watching all the engine designations versus actual performance more closely over the years. It is hard to separate reality and wishful thinking.


For model rocket motors the average thrust labeled on the motor is a combination of wishful thinking and marketing. The wording of NFPA 1125 allows the manufacturer to use pretty much any number he wants. I'm told the problem goes back many years and is unfixable because the NFPA will not allow any wording that allows grandfathering existing products and there's no way anybody is going to convince the manufacturers to voluntarily rename a lot of their motors.

The A10 is probably the only example where the mislabeling is actually a good thing. As you can see from the thrust time curve the 10 is caused by the large initial spike and the average is brought down by the long tail. I believe the long tail is there so the booster version of the motor won't blow through too soon. For the A10-3 you'll notice that the measured delay was 2.35 seconds. If you take the tail off of about .6 seconds and add it to the delay you get an honest A10-3.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-08-2008, 09:27 PM
PaulK PaulK is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: WI
Posts: 1,847
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billspad
...The A10 is probably the only example where the mislabeling is actually a good thing. As you can see from the thrust time curve the 10 is caused by the large initial spike and the average is brought down by the long tail. I believe the long tail is there so the booster version of the motor won't blow through too soon...
Funny, I was thinking that the booster would be better off without the tail; we want the sustainer to light at max velocity, which would be right at the end of the initial peak. Wouldn't the rocket be slowing down during that long tail?
__________________
Paul
If we weren't all crazy, we would go insane - Jimmy Buffett
NAR #87246 www.wooshrocketry.org
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-08-2008, 09:36 PM
STRMan's Avatar
STRMan STRMan is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 873
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulK
Funny, I was thinking that the booster would be better off without the tail; we want the sustainer to light at max velocity, which would be right at the end of the initial peak. Wouldn't the rocket be slowing down during that long tail?


F=MA

As long as the force of the thrust is = to the force of gravity + the force of friction, the speed will remain constant during the long tail. If the model is too heavy or draggy, it will decelerate. A lightweight slippery sustainer would not, and might even continue to accelerate.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-08-2008, 09:40 PM
billspad's Avatar
billspad billspad is offline
MMXCVII
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Saugus, MA
Posts: 371
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulK
Funny, I was thinking that the booster would be better off without the tail; we want the sustainer to light at max velocity, which would be right at the end of the initial peak. Wouldn't the rocket be slowing down during that long tail?


Going by what I've seen when A10's cato by blowing through too soon, I think that without that tail you'd be staging somewhere around the top of the rod.

The rocket would be slowing down but you don't always want to stage at maximum velocity since drag increases with velocity. That's assuming you're going for maximum altitude. A lot of things come into play but I think the A10 is the way it is because it's the only way it can be made.
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 06:20 AM.


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