Adjusting Aerotech delays

Using the same reloads as I described in my other post. E18W-10, 24 mm RMS.

wRASP said that I needed a 4 second delay to get to apogee with my 9.5 ounce Phoenix. The delay for the E18s were 10 seconds. Here are the calcs....

10 second delay, 2 second motor burn, 12 second total delay element burn. 16mm long delay element 16mm/12 seconds = 1.33 mm/second burn rate.

I needed 4 seconds delay plus 2 seconds burn so 6 seconds total.

This one is easy cuz 6 is half of 12 so I needed to drill in 8 mm to get to

6 seconds. I left it just a little shy of the full 8 mm so it goes after the turn at the top. It went off just after the turn at the top.

Same motor for the Airspike. wRASP says I needed 6 seconds.

6 second delay plus 2 second burn = 8 seconds. 12 seconds - 8 seconds means I have to remove 4 seconds.

4seconds at 1.33 mm/second = 5.33 mm

I drilled about 5 mm and got an ejection right at the top.

My son was timing the burns, but I think he started at first smoke instead of liftoff (when the real burning starts). These old white lightnings are tough to light. He got about 8 for the Phoenix, which should have been 6. I guess I shoulda let him push the button and leave me to do the timing. Next time.

I would expect that there is at least a little delay between grain ignition and delay ignition, which may account for part of the "bonus delay" that we always here about. I would expect it even more here since the E18 does not fill the whole case and has the masking tape at the end of the grain for the ignitor to butt against. The F's that fill the whole case would probably ignite both nearly simultaneously, minimizing that difference.

Reply to
Thomas Koszuta
Loading thread data ...

Oops!!

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

WRONG!!!!

We have our first "poster child for you you shouldn't modify delays unless you REALLY understand what yuou're doing".

Go back and re-read the AeroTech delay modification instructions. The delay burnoff is SIGNIFICANTLY faster while the motor burns compared to after burnout.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Poster child here.

The directions tell you how, but don't' tell you why. The directions say "the drill depth can be approximately determined by multiplying the number of seconds of delay time reduction desired by .024"-.031" per second." This statement definitely makes more sense in light of your comment, so lets run the numbers.

Putting it back into mm (cuz that's how I measured the first time) delay reduction is 0.61 to 0.79 mm/s. So 10 seconds of delay is 6.1 to 7.9 mm and the motor consumes 8.1 to 9.9 mm of delay element. I know that it is not

8.1 mm for White Lightning because the ejection charge did not fire at burnout and I drilled an 8 mm hole into the delay.

It looks like the truth lies between my method and Aerotechs.

Let's look at some alternatives. Lets say the delay burns at the average published rate - about 0.7mm/s. Then 4 seconds of delay is 2.8mm. So 5.2 mm of delay was eaten during propellant burn.

Same load drilled to 5 mm leaves 11mm. Eat 5.2 during propellant burn, 5.8 left over, 5.8/0.7 = 8 second delay. Well within the accuracy of my crude timing.

The real unknown here, is how fast the delay grain lights after the propellant ignites. The "small" reloads have a piece of tape over the slot to provide a stop for the ignitor. I would expect this to blow right off from the pressure of the burn. Could this be the source of the bonus delay?

Reply to
Thomas Koszuta

The tried and true method of delay reduction assumes the delay is initially correct. We know to a near certainty that is not the case with most AT delays. Bonus is common.

1/32 inches per second is very accurate. 0.794 mm/s 0.8 if rounded.

It is unknowable without testing either. Even the manufacturer cannot reliably predict it.

Yes.

One of them.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Jerry et al wrote,

Jerry,

We don't seem to have a problem, but then again our initiation sequence is different.

Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace

formatting link
887-2370 x222 Toronto (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota (410) 571-8292 Annapolis

Reply to
Anthony Cesaroni

Another variable everyone seems to have left out .....is the + or - 20% on the delay time.... that is specfied .....and as has been said before considering the age of the grain.....the amount of time from ignition to full pressure before lift off, the count should begin from ignition.......on small, old motors, I have had them sit on the pad for 2-3 sec. before launch, while they were coming up to pressure, due to age and difficulty lighting....jim h.

Reply to
james hendricksen

Poster:

  1. We were talking about Aerotech by RCS not CTI or USR or "other rational" manufacturers.
  2. Testing IS required to determine it. Some people do their testing at TMT.
  3. The initiation sequence (BP igniter head or any igniter head) makes a HUGE difference. Not the case in consumer AT by RCS motors.

BUT AT (by RCS) motors DO have masking tape delay covers, spacer plates, no BP igniters, no head igniters, and plenty of "Leak Points"-tm.

Jerry

Welcome back to rmr.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

That is a NFPA standard to "tolerate BP motor variances"

AT makes APCP motors.

More to the point, given how wide a tolerance it is (and the simple fact it is codified with AT's principal on the committee), why is exceeding that tolerance by AT by RCS tolerated at all?

Make the rules, follow the rules? Nope!

Yet another NFPA violation. No kidding!

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

The directions tell you to look at the difference between delays for the same motor. For almost all of the delays, it's 1/32" per second [In order to get a longer delay for the BJ motors, a few motors use a slower burning delay train, which is where the .024" comes in]. During the burn, it's "much higher". That's why the same delay gives a long delay in BT, a medium in WL, and a short in BJ, because of the longer burn times in the same progression.

Virtually instantly. Once the motor is ignited, anything inside the motor that can bur is burning. Even in a motor like the E16 or D15, where there is the spacer between the propellant and the delay.

I don't know what the source of bonus delays is. I've had more way short delays than bonus delay. Almost always in 38mm WL motors.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Bingo! It's been 12 years since TMT delay data was made public at all. We've got no idea if the delays are right or wrong, no idea which way they are off, and for that matter ABSOLUTELY SERO CONFIDENCE THAT TMT IS ACTUALLY TESTING THE DELAYS TO MAKE SURE THEY MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS.

We do know that there are several AT model rocket reloads with delays so far off that the NAR delay designation is different from the manufacturer value. For example we have the E28-4(2) that AT claims is a 4, but tests to a 2. I've flown enougfh of them to know that the 2 number is right. But yopu can go to the NAR S&T data web pages and see exactly what each different delay tested out as. Only TMT hides this data from us, the users. I've asked for it several times, and never got it. THat is a violation of their NFPA duty to the consumer.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Then I got exactly what I wanted, twice, by chance?

Both would have zippered or worse (plastic chute) if I would have followed the instructions exactly. Interesting. I have three more of the same vintage E18W-10's left. Gonna have to see how they behave.

Reply to
Thomas Koszuta

Phunnie, eh?

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

This should be in the FAQ.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

This should be in the FAQ.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

38mm WL (crippled delays) has different dynamics at work than the 24mm WL with typical bonus delays.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Inconsistency between batches of chemicals. Jerry, when you made delays, did you always collect the manure from the same cow at the same time of day? Also they have to have a consistent diet. If not, that could be the problem. 8-)

Reply to
Phil Stein

Given your obvious and clear expertise, I am SURE that is what it is.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I learned from the master. 8-)

Reply to
Phil Stein

formatting link

Reply to
shreadvector

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.