Ever Launch in Adverse Weather?

Back in my youth, I once flew a cold power rocket at launch that had been rained out. You still get wet during the recovery, not much fun, but then neither is sitting in car hoping the rain will stop.

Alan

I once flew a model rocket into fog...... I think the ceiling was less than

100ft at the time. The statute of limitations has run out on this one.

this was a very strange rocket. The nose cone was a single diamter intake and there where 3 "flexible" straws exhausted at 120 angles of attack.

It was thought that having a ram air effect out 3 opposing sides would go a long way towards improving stablitity. In addtion there was fine brass pipe screen at the exhaust end to collect air pollution samples. I never did see this rocket once it was launched in the "fog".

Using some form of passive or active ram air system would still be a good idea for trajectory control.

I got my idea to usr am air for stability control by reading Capt. Forrest Mims articles in the old Model Rocketry mag back in the early 70's.

shockie B)

FAA rules prohibit launching into clouds.

Which is kinda funny, isn't it? Take a few ounces of cardboard, add one piffling rocket motor, and you might knock an airplane out of the air (as planes are so succesful at hiding in those clouds...silently, even). Or maybe it's the hot air balloons with which they are concerned? Or a hydrogen filled zeppelin (hmmm..wonder if the regs were written as a result of the Hindenburg)?

Dateline Lakehurst: Local man being held under suspicion of blowing up Hindenburg with an Alpha III model rocket.

I would be VERY worried about drawing lightning. You have a rocket that is creating a particle stream (exhaust) down to the ground with alot of copper wires connected to a battery...and you on the end of the battery.

I guess its an easy way to get a tan in the rainy season.

When I first returned to rocketry (over a decade ago) I decided to try out one of those new (new to me) composite motors. 6 or 7 oz rocket with a Aerotech G40 motor. I busted a few clouds that day but it was a mostly sunny day. :)

My first attempt at my level2 was on an Aetotech J415 pushing a 8 pound rocket up to 5000 feet.(nose cone was lost on ejection) I did that between two thunderstorm cells about 5 miles apart. That was about as close as I'll ever come to trying to punch a hole in a rain cloud.

-Aaron

I didn't realize the FAA existed to protect us from ourselves. They let marginally trained individuals fly themselves around the friendly skies hanging underneath a chute with a prop on their back, so I can't see the regulation about clouds existing because of lightning concerns.

I don't know the reasons for the FAA regulations, but I would think that it would be to protect a pilot that is flying IFR through clouds and is suddenly nose-to-nose with a large rocket. I know that if I were a pilot flying through clouds, I wouldn't want to have to worry about a 30 pound rocket with almost 100 feet of tubular nylon and fiberglass hitting my prop.

Not to pick on anyone, but I would hope common sense would tell anyone that flying a rocket into a rain cloud is not a good idea unless you're going for a Darwin Award.

-Aaron

Absolutely verboten.

You really get wet waiting for the ceiling to lift, or breaking down after a launch in a cloudburst. I was part of 2 soakers.

This 2004 CMASS launch was the wettest I ever got at a launch.

Driving there was not fun. Nearly 2" of rain in an hour. Got to the soggy field. The rain stopped and we set up a few pads for modrocs. Ceiling lifted to 1000 ft., sun peaked out, launched ~150 rockets, then all hell broke loose. There was a quarry next to the field with dump trucks running. I thougth I heard thunder, but everyone else thought it was the tailgates on the dump trucks. 15 minutes later, with the first bolt of lightening, we realized we had waited 10 minutes too long. We did not like running with the pads (lightening rods) to the trailer. Everyone got totally soaked. Driving home was at least as bad as getting there.

Last year we brougth back NEMROC after a 14 year absence. We had had a pretty good fall, and the Columbus Day Weekend is usually a good weather weekend. Any other year than 2005.

We had well over 6" of rain on Friday and Saturday. Fortunately for the ~60 attendees, the conference was indoors. Unfortunately the hot dogs were outdoors. We rescheduled the Sunday launch to Monday in hopes that the rain would stop. It didn't, got atleast another 2". On Monday a dozen crazy hardcores showed up, set up the range, waited for the 0-0 ceiling to lift to ~1500 ft. and then started our launch. Rain, drizzle, cold east wind. Miserable. After about 3 dozen flight, the rain increased, and we called it a day after serving the hot dogs.

Yes. You can fly on bad day, but you really get soaked waiting for the openings.

Bob

That must be one quiet airplane. And a 30 lb. rocket in no way needs

100 ft. of TN, BTW.

Please. There are much more efficient methods at offing oneself. Fer instance, cluster 4 M motors and then put a la-z-boy on top and go for a ride.

Hey it worked on that saucer at Roswell didn't it?

Randy vernarockets.com

Well, yeah I suppose it makes me look stupid to have even asked such a rhetorical question but it's been raaaaaaining here almost non stop for at least the last two months.

We are already at over %150 of our water supply and the season lasts till June.

Every night the local news has stories of mudslides and so on, to actually have a few days strung together with blue skies and some starlight would be a great thing.

TBerk

Has it ever been done at a NARAM ?

Indeed, the odds are against it. A better reason to not fly into clouds, in my opinion at least, is to ensure that you know whether or not the rocket has deployed its recovery system, and to know where it is as it's coming down (in either case). And just to be able to enjoy the whole flight by being able to watch it all from start to finish.

A moot point for extreme-altitude flights, I know, but for flights to altitudes where the rocket should still be visible, it's safer and more enjoyable to be able to be able to see the rocket during its entire flight profile.

...Rick

Shhh.

Brought it right down is what I read in the Enquirer.

Not at all. Might even stimulate some logical thought as to why some regulations exist.

This I agree with wholeheartedly, as it's a good, logical reason for a safety code rule. It's not, however, a justification for FAA involvement.

I don't enjoy launching out of sight. 5k maybe for 4" diameter, 7 or 8k tops for 7.5". Any more than that with my eyes and it's the old "anybody got it?".

Which one, the Hindenburg or the saucer?

What I read was...shh...hey, did you hear somethi....