#11
|
|||
|
|||
No the MRS-ROGUE and MRS-WACC had the 18" chute. The MRS-SNOOPER had a 30" chute and again the MRS-ANDROMEDA had a 30" chute packed into a BT-52 tube.
By baffle I mean supplying a parachute C-Ring to form a parachute compartment. My thinking here is the recovery system won't fall to the rear of the tube during acceleration and thus it will be closer to the nose cone. Does it make sense to move the snap ring closer to the nose cone? Instead of at the shock cord 1/3 spot maybe 8" away? Again it just seemed like either the Estes engines didn't have enough poop or the gases were just blowing by. The only reason I don't go for the gases going by is because at NERRF we didn't have any trouble and the MRS-SNOOPER was a 30" recovery system pack in a BT-60 tube and it still didn't come out. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I'm amazed that you fit the 30-inch chute package into a BT-52. It's already a snug fit in a BT-60. It must be packed like a flauta instead of a burrito, huh? Quote:
That might help pull the chute out of the body. However, on some of my other rockets I found that clipping the chute close to the nose cone increases the likelihood that the nose cone will pass between the shroud lines and cause them to partially tangle. Q: When the chute got stuck in the body, was the entire recovery package stuck? Did the bundle come out partway? Did any of the shroud lines get pulled free or were they still wrapped up inside the heat shield? Quote:
Could the humidity make a difference? I wonder if humidity would make the tubing swell resulting in a tighter nose cone fit. Or maybe it would make the interior of the tubing "sticky" so that the chute package wouldn't slide as easily. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
My experience with the new 24mm motors (C11s, E9s and recent vintage D12s) is that they have plenty of oomph in the ejection charges. Way plenty. Not that you couldn't have gotten some bad ones, but I think the problem may lie elsewhere. How good of a seal are you getting in the MMT? Could some of the ejection gases be coming out around the motor? It doesn't take too much of a leak to reduce the back pressure on the BP ejection charge resulting in a poor burn and a wimpy ejection. That can be cured with one or two wraps of tape. Another thought is to use more wadding. Several sheets layered to form a piston of sorts under the laundry. You mentioned where to connect the chute. I prefer to connect it right at the NC. If the NC is out, then the suspension lines should be, too. Furthermore, borrowing from HPR, I pack the chute on top of the shock cord so that it's the first thing out after the NC. This is contrary to ancient doctrine, but I've never come up with reasonable explanation why the shock cord should be on top of the chute. My two cents. YMMV. Doug |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I'd agree with you that MOST Estes 24mm motors have an excess of ejection charge. I have seen one E9 that didn't, though, and I have photos to prove it. Quote:
No wadding was used. QModeling kits use a Nomex heat shield wrapped around the chute like a burrito. It fills the body tube pretty full. I doubt that more wadding would help. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is along the lines of what I was thinking also. The mounts look great, but it seems that they'd pose a higher than normal risk of exhaust leak. I've never built one, mind you, but I've seen all the pics associated with the reviews. Like Doug says, YMMV.
__________________
Bill Eichelberger NAR 79563 http://wallyum.blogspot.com/ I miss being SAM 0058 Build floor: Centuri Design Contest F-150 Hurricane Estes - Low Boom SST Semroc - Gee'Hod, Shrike, SST Shuttle In paint: Canaroc Starfighter Scorpion Estes F-22 Air Superiority Fighter, Solar Sailer II Semroc Cyber III Ready to fly: Estes - Multi-Roc, Solar Sailer II Semroc - Earmark, Snake Jumper |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I've built three of them -- one BT-60 and two BT-80 designs. I don't know why they would be any more prone to ejection leak than any other design. The balsa "cage" around the mount has lots of holes to cut the weight, but both ends are covered by plates that are sealed to the motor tube and main body tube. The only leakage path they should have is around the engine itself. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Doug PS, please don't anyone get me wrong. I truly like the thick walled 24mm tubes. They're much more robust than the 0.013" walled BT-50 (in MMT applications). But a little extra prep may be required when using them. DS. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That's my pad. It's a 3.5:1 upscale port-a-pad. I built it years ago as I had built a collection of upscale Estes kits in the 3:1 - 4:1 ratio and wanted a pad to fly them on You may have seen it if you ever attened Pearl River MODRoc convention in NY or visited my personal web site. You can see a picture of it here: http://jflis.com/hobbies/rocketry/photos/collection.jpg |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I've never been there, but one of my favorite fraternity brothers at Kentucky was a Pearl River native. Doug |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|