ANNOUNCING NARAM-46

This story is disturbingly similar to my agreement to take over Tripolitan magazine at Chuck Rogers request only to find out there was a back room deal to turn it over for free to Bruce Kelly, a man with no such experience, and has consistently shown ever since this to be the case.

Scary, eh. Looks like it will have to wait a year or two assuming I am not removed first for suggesting NAR actually follow federal law like it asserts in its lawsuit, but it ignores or totally violates in practice.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

Not with a good razor plane, and those aluminum sanding "T"s with some agressive sandpaper. First I taper the wing from root to tip. How much varies, but my tip thickness is around 1/3 the root thickness. Then airfoil front to back. From the high point I go back to almost zero along the trailing edge, and round/taper the front.

Yes, it does take some work. Some folks are willing to put forth the effort. Some are not. The last pair of gliders that I did "the whole 9 yards" on were built for A BG at NARAM-42 in Colorado. Tapered, airfoiled, assembled, reinforced with carbon fiber and kevlar, tissued, assembled warp free, then had my collection of "standard" warps and adjustments added, and doped in place. CG adjusted to 20% forward of calculated NP with a couple grams of lead. Took them out to the back yard, and gave them each a couple initial tosses. Both dead on in trim.

Result: Flew them in A BG at NARAM-42. Placed 3rd in team division. Used them again for B BG at NARAM-44 last summer in McGregor. Took first in team and tied the US record.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Problem is he can't go much bigger than what he's already tried since it's his L1 cert flight. He's already using 2 H motors. Any more and he's into L2 range.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

I don't have them handy, but the numbers I got that gave altitudes like Chris got had coast times on the order of 1.0 - 1.5 seconds.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

As you know it is rediculous to have such a complicated and marginal rocket be your L1. Do a traditional L1 (LOC Legacy or whatever) and fly the insanely wacky Grrrrr! as a sport flight or if super-wacky, your L2.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

From: Chris Taylor Jr ( snipped-for-privacy@nerys.com) Subject: Re: ANNOUNCING NARAM-46 Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets Date: 2003-08-14 20:16:01 PST

"once above a certain amount of power you are just fighting drag and when that motor burns out the model does not really coast like a normal rocket does. it just (like my grr) STOPS in its tracks."

[I don't have time to search through all of last years postings about the four failed Grrr flights to find other times you said this. I'll leave that to you or George]

Aha. He finally understands.

Errors repeated several times are still wrong.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

I am not sure who threw mudd first but I can tell you that YOUR posts about how my grr glider was crap should never have been allowed to fly etc.. came FIRST before I turned around and got nasty back at you.

YOU started this between me and you. YOU were the one who was two faced. Nice at Naram a total asshole on RMR after naram (THAT is what got me mad)

if you do not like something I do SAY IT TO MY FACE. I am a big boy I can take it. or is it you who can not take it ?

same thing AGAIN this year.

Nice at Naram mean again here (well not as mean as you were last year)

YOU bob Kaplow started this. and by this I mean the crap fest between YOU and ME regarding my GRR glider.

off course that first post where you got nasty will be harder to come by since it was most likely in a different thread and your comments then SPAWNED the grr thread. convenient you would fail to mention that.

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

and how long did that take you.

now multiply that by the MASSIVE size of the Grr Glider wing AND consider the shape of my wing (Cranked Delta)

Then on top of that consider I NEED that strength that I just removed BACK.

Now consider that work and THAT mass and THAT Expense.

NOW consider the benifit it would get me (next to nothing)

and you think I should do all that.

Your nuts

that like spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of man hours to reduce the mass of a 3 gram bolt on the shuttle to 2.9 grams and then on top of that its the only one in the whole shuttle.

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

No its called the I90

MUCH more power and nearly TWICE the burn time.

Exactly what my model needs.

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

True..... but then the chickens escape!

Randy

Reply to
Randy

here is the problem with that jerry. let me explain ONCE again.

Scenario One. My way.

I certify on the Grr after x number of flight.

Result I get cert I fly Grr

Scenario Two.

I spend $40 on a loc rocket build it fly it and then retire it. Then I fly Grr X number of times till I fly grr.

Result I get cert I fly Grr I waste time and money on loc that I will never ever fly again just to end up doing the same thing. Fly Grr

and I lose the "accomplishment" of the Grr being my cert (personal goal)

your way just plain sucks.

you see the REASON your way sucks is that you are making assumptions that do not apply to me.

I am not Flying Grr to get certed. I am getting certed TO FLY GRR.

the only reason I am getting certed is that it is required to fly Grr.

I HAVE NO INTEREST AT ALL in sticking a $15 to $40 motor in a 3FNC

NONE whatsoever. It will very likely NEVER happen. I can get the EXACT same thrill with a D or G motor and spend a hell of a lot less money.

My SOLE AND ONLY interest in High Power is to Loft "interesting" things that I can not loft with G and under.

an 11ft logn 6ft wide glider qualifies as interesting. a Loc 3FNC does not. (sorry loc no offense)

I simply have no interest in HPR for the sake of powering larger cookie cutter rockets. My sole interet in HPR is lofting cool interesting things that are otherwise NOT loftable with lower power motors.

so I gain NOTHING by certing on a loc first. Nothing at all. NOTHING changes except I spent precious time and money on a rocket I will never fly again.

So you assume I want to fly rockets on HPR motors. that is where you assume wrong.

NOW with this new knowledge in place do you see ANY logical reason for me to cert on a loc rocket first ? I can "attempt" my cert as many times as I want. last I checked their was no limit (although I predict I will only need one more shot)

WHAT possible benifit could I gain by certing on a rocket that I will never ever fly again.?

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

I said nothing wrong. YOU EVEN quoted the PROOF that I said nothing wrong.

Let me REFINE the quote for you.

"model does not really coast like a normal rocket does"

refine further. "not really"

Exactly what I meant exactly what I said and PERFECTLY ACCURATE. Drag Limited models DO NOT coast like a normal rocket does.

on some (like saucers and my grr glider) the coast IS SO SMALL that it can be legitimately IGNORED for all intents and purposes.

COMPARED TO A ROCKET that gains over 75% of its altitide a rocket that coasts for what 5% of its final altitude ? for all practical intents and purposes it STOPS when the motor burns out. simple as that.

Technically it goes a little but that "little bit" is so damned little it is irrelevant and ignorable.

in rockets like this BURN TIME equals ALTITUDE. the longer you can burn (with mroe than 1to1 power of course) the higher you will go.

so higher power does NOT really work unless you spread that higher power out like the I90 does.

that is why I needed an H128 mated with an H55 the H128 gives me the initial KICK ad the H55 gives me the extended BURN I need to gain altitude.

PRoof. last flight only the H128 lit. result 50ft altitude achieved.

watch the video. look at the time the motor burns out till it peaks at apogee. look at the distance it got on that "coast"

almost NOTHING for all practical purposes.

I use the last flight for this example since it is distinctly clear when the rocket motor stops firing and the rocket stops climbing.

Chris Taylor

formatting link

impossibility if

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

Show me one post in this thread where I said your glider was crap. Or threw ANY mud (note correct spelling, unless you're refering to Harry Mudd from the original Star Trek series) in your direction other than in response to your obscenities.

I went out of my way to be nice to you at NARAM, and you seemed to respond well. That carried over to RMR until you started calling me names. So who is two-faced?

OK, if that's what you want. Grrr sucks. Bad design, bad execution.

It will be a lot harder to find, since it doesn't exist. Show me ANYTHING I've posted to RMR about Grrr in the past month, with the exception of Grrrs pilot having been found and installed on the PRANG award, outside this thread. YOU first brought up Grrr here this time, not me.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

For an A BG, perhaps 5-10 minutes each.

If I were to do that to a foam wing, I'd hot wire it. I don't have a hot wire setup, but know someone who does. Neat thing about hot wire is that it's pretty fast, even for a wing that big. Probably not much more than I spend on my balsa gliders.

What about them? Dry roasted, in the jar.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

OK, I ran that simulation for you. Using pRASP on my PDA!

Grrr 13#, 6'x1 3/8" flat plate wing.

H128/H55 combo 153' 1.3s coast time 24 f/s rod speed I90 204' - 16 f/s

Note that on the I90 you hit terminal velocity at T+3 seconds, and slow down for the rest of the burn as drag exceeds thrust.

I ran the sim 5 more times:

half the drag 236' half the weight 308' half the drag, half the weight 435'

1/10 the drag 339' 1/10 the weight 404'

So which is holding you back more, the drag, or the weight? While both are too high, the weight is hurting you more.

BTW, what's the MRLOW for an I90?

And how did you get that I55?

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

I spelled Grrrr! wrong?

Obviously this is the central and frankly almost the exclusive point. I get it. I assure you I do.

Reread my opinion below and see what else I get.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Yes, agreed that strapping and other wide tapes are good......and easy to NOT get on right.

AstronMike

Reply to
Mike Lee Kochel

Below

Your question is irrelevant since this is not the original thread. Ignored

No till you started trashing my glider again. SPin it like you want those are the facts.

Your opinion that you put across as a statement of fact and then try to prove with bogus crap.

Convenient answer. But I will find it just to put you in your place. also your second statement is irrelevant and ignored. this is from 12 months ago. not 1 month.

I had no problem with the grr pilot thing. in fact I thought that was pretty damned cool.

Chris Taylor

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

These sims mean nothing to be as they are not even close to what I simmed.

I imagine they are flawed (not the sim but the model you input into the sim)

in rocksim I gained less than 50ft by dropping the mass from 12.5 pounds to

9 pounds.

I gained 100ft by making the wing half as thick (no mass change)

SO my sims say I am right yours say you are right.

Also my sims say I will get over 400ft on the I90 at 10 pounds and half wing thickness.

if I add an H128 kicker I get over 500ft.

I will have to try this on the new rocksim now that it can do asymetrical fins.

Chris Taylor

formatting link

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

So then why do you suggest I cert on a loc model ?

I see NO gain to doing so at all on any level ?

Le> > > > > "Chris Taylor Jr" wrote in

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr

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.