ANNOUNCING NARAM-46

What is an I55 I never heard of such a motor (but would love to fly one)

As I stated first flight would be I90 alone for simplicities sake (no cluster to fret over)

then alter after success I would add the H128 kicker.

once certified can I fly that combo or do I need to be L2 to fly that (never considered that so I really do not know)

the only motor I had any "trouble" getting was the H55 out of state I was not legally able to get this (is H55 what you meant ?)

as for that I had a fellow rocketeer helping me out all week he also purchased handled and installed that motor for me to keep everything on the up and up.

I did not say I was making the wing half as thick (already determined that is too thin to be structurally sound) but I SIMMED it at half thickness to see what would happen to the altitude.

My wing when I last flew was 1 and 3/8ths in thick (mentioned many times I guess you did not READ my posts)

the new one will be 1 inch thick. that is the thinnest I dare make it to keep the strength up.

excuse me. Thrust spike for the I90 is 80 pounds of thrust.

that is an 8 to 1 thrust to weight ration.

AFTER that when the thrust levels off at 22 pounds I believe (IIRC) I am still getting 2 to 1 (assuming I manage to get it down to 10 pounds)

MORE than sufficient for an RC glider as PROVEN by last years SUCCESSFULL BOOSTS (even if not successful glides) the boosts were FINE on both instances where both motors lit even if not as predicted.

boost was stable and full controllable at all speeds.

the stall speed for my glider is between 10 and 15mph which means basically if its moving its controllable and JUST fine bob.

the I90 is going to give me EVEN MORE POWER and EVEN MORE burn time and more power throughout the ENTIRE burn of the motor.

How could that be anything but good bob.

Suggested lift off whatever. irrelevant. I sim it if I like the sim I am happy. I designed the glider I know what it can do.

I was perfectly satisfied with the vertical boosts from last year and see no reason to "rocket the cradle" by changing this especially since I will be flying a lighter less draggy model with MORE power and burn time. all 4 things which will only help.

I prefer the safe predictable vertical boost.

too fast and too short a burn. IF the model survived the MASSIVE thrust it would only get MAYBE 100 ft since it would burn out WAY to fast. (sim it)

Sure bob let me answer this ONE LAST TIME FOR YOU.

YOUR suggestion would NOT ONLY not reduce weight by much if at all it would VERY LIKELY INCREASE IT and by a LOT.

let me tell you why.

Once I remove that Mylar/Poly coating from each side of the foam it will become LITERALLY as flexible as a wet noodle. I KNOW I made the mistake and BLEW $15 in foam TRYING IT.

Second REMOVING foam would be HARD and probably NOT doable with a hot wire (it has fiberglass or some other fibers THROUGHOUT the foam (gives it INSANE flexibility and light weight)

Now once I get it AIRFOILED after probably WEEKS of part time work if not MORE (I figure at least 20-30 HOURS of work MINIMUM)

Now I have an even weaker even more Floppy wet noodle.

NOW I have to add some Carbon Spars to reinforce this wing. (weight time and money)

Then I have to RESKIN the wing with some kind of epoxy layup (I know of NO airplane covering ANYWHER NEAR as strong as mylar by even a long shot) and I will NEVER attach it as LIGHT as the original was attached.

MANY more hours of work Dollars spent and WEIGHT ADDED.

I GUARENTEE the MASS of that Covering and Adhesive ALONE will exceed the mass of the removed foam by QUITE a large margin. (This foam is MUCH lighter than the normal pink or blue foam you get at home depot etc..)

So now I end up with a more complex heavier more work more costly wing that saved me NO weight and probably COST me weight and all for NOTHING since WEIGHT Is not an issue really DRAG IS.

And it will NOT reduce the drag much either.

Is that clear enough for you Bob ?

SHOW me where I am mistaken

Chris Taylor

Considering the model FLEW to over 150ft I would say they can lift 13 pounds JUST FINE thank you very much.

the TWO videos I have of TWO flight caught my MULTIPLE people's cameras as PROOF say you are dead wrong.

first Their is no time table. Stop trying to inject one.

Second that is not the reverse of what you said.

lets make is clearer.

Will you publicly admit that you were WRONG about GRR. WRong about the motor selections WRONG about design issues and in general WRONG regarding the Grr Glider if I make a Safe Nominal flight with a glider dimensionally similar to the grr (they are not negotiable makinga smaller model is not an option)

This should net you both good ends, youre reducing wt and drag concurrently. Too bad I dont have a way to import video or post it, because I *just found* the original Astron Excelsior video from 94. The one with 7lb glider on an old I154, perfect boost, transition, and glide. It didnt go up as fast as youd think, if you seen this youd be much more comfy with more avg impulse. Also have the next flight, on an I211, showing a very slight stall as it glided into a very hard breeze then.

AstronMike

In re: I195......

7lbs on an I154 (80% of 195) sure got a loooooot more than a 100ft for me. 10lbs on I195 would do a lot better than any sim will reveal.

Ok, sim *this*.....13#, J350, wing cross-section of 1/2" (yes, a HALF INCH) at a 52" span. This was the largest saucer glider Ive done. Now THAT got off the pad in a hurry, but please sim this and tell me what you got and Ill tell you how close to reality it was 8^).

AstronMike

Chris, exactly what foam is this, and how much did a 4x8 sheet weigh? I had some half inch foamboard way back that was only slightly heavier than the standard 3/16, but this stuff was stiff as a board, literally. Used what I had in two J powered gliders, and these didnt even think of fluttering with NO added reinforcing. Never seen this stuff again tho.....

AstronMike

Hey Chris, I was all over your site (nice work on NaramLive, even got Bob too) and I cannot find Grrr videos. I want to study your best boosts closely.

AstronMike

Well, I just cant transport a full sized Grrr properly, but I can do 85% tho.....this would be 5' span by 9' tall. Would you accept this as 'close enough'?

AstronMike

I think it's a RATTworks product.

-dave w

How does rocksim calculate the frontal area for a glider? I've had no trouble getting numbers out of pRASP that match your flight numbers. Using a CD in the 1.0-2.0 range. Of course the frontal area of Grrr is equivalent to a 23" diameter rocket!

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

Typo. SHould have been H55.

That's what I wanted to know. Thanks for the answer.

Read what you quoted below. Last I heard 1.375 was pretty close to 1 3/8

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

I guess there's no question here. Especially considering your last 4 attempts :-)

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

You mean George got it wrong, even though he was right there with a front row seat? ANd then spread the false information. Simply amazing!

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

Can you give me the brand of foam you are using. I need some for another project, and will play with this a bit and see what I find. Maybe I can make it work where you couldn't. If I can find the same stuff.

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