Has anyone used this aerosleeves for fiberglassing the airframe?

Your choice. I'd rather not bodge up something so badly designed in the first place so it'll last more than a few flights.

Chris

Wow! I didn't realize this was so controversial. I am sure that all opinions given have their merits and I guess I'll have to decide what I want this rocket to do.

I'm not in a hurry to get my certs. I am on a limited budget and just trying to plan ahead. Also, I'm not planning on getting it "wrong", which is why I am doing the research. I appreciate your input Chris, but you are making some assumptions about my level of skill in various areas. I used to manufacture and design prosthetics so I am not completely unfamiliar with composites. I just wanted get the opinions of others who have used the Aerosleeve product. Also, I may be flying this rocket in Illinois during the winter and the ground can be quite hard.

What? Whether the rocket is badly designed or not, it's what I have so I'd like to make the most of it. I also agree with Steve that it seems that the EZI65 in the article seems overbuilt, and I don't want mine to weigh as much as that one. That's why I'm wondering if there isn't a way to build something in between in terms of strength and weight. I'll talk to Aerosleeves and see what they have to say. I agree with you Chris that building a new rocket is always a learning experience and if I had unlimited resources that would be my choice also. On the other hand, if I don't try new things, I'll be doing the same old thing over and over-certifications aside.

I can't say that I'd call LOC/Precision kits 'badly designed', as they will usually still be flying when some of the other ones have tanked.

Fiberglassing the plywood fins gives them adaquate strenght with less weight than G10.

What is your real problem with fiberglass?

Phil

Although I'm impressed by the quality of LOC's kit and am sure it'll fly "stock" very well on H and I motors, I upgraded my rocket by fiberglassing it, adding zipper protection (a Giant Leap Fireball), adding positive motor retention, upgrading the recovery system, and adding conformal launch lugs.

I fiberglassed my EZI-65 for several reasons. First, I wanted to learn how to fiberglass a rocket. Second, I wanted to make the rocket heavier and sturdier for my Level 1 attempt. Third, with the other upgrades increasing the weight of the rocket, I thought it might need reinforcing. Fourth, I'd like to use the same rocket for my Level 2 whenever I decide to take the next step and it wasn't designed for J and K motors.

By fiberglassing the rocket, I was not rushing into Level 2. On the contrary, I used the building of the rocket to learn the skills I'll need for Level 2. I'm still using it to develop those skills by building an altimeter bay for it and experimenting with dual-deployment.

-- Roger

Yep - glass would have helped - if you would have added the weight of the fiberglass, the short delay would have been correct..... ;-)

Skip the glass on anything less than M powered. The only use for glass at these lower power levels is to survive the trip from your garage to the pad....you don't need it for the flight.

Whats the story on the Mach transition? There seems to be advice about that glassing is worthwhile beyond .85 mach but I dont see how any stresses on the airframe can be more than the thrust of the motor.

Halam

When I glass for mach, I don't glass the airframe, I glass the fins. Tip to tip on the fins to hold them onto the air frame.

When going beyond mach, some airframes will fail due to the stresses created at that speed. You have the thrust of the motor pushing up and the air and shock wave pushing down. If there is a weak (or short) coupler in the airframe, it can crumble/fold at that point. Fiberglassing the airframe will help to prevent the fold, but an easier answer, and normally much lighter, is to lengthen the coupler.

I have gone ~780 mph with a LOC Nuke Pro Maxx(I300T motor) with just glassing the fins (4 oz, T-to-T) and ~1100 mph on a PML Cirrus Dart(I435T motor). I have a 1/2 Scale Patriot, that when a M1900BB is installed and lit, will go about 800 mph.

The LOC Nuke Pro Maxx was totally stock LOC parts, with the exception of adding tip to tip on the fins and t-nuts for motor retention. I know others have gone faster or higher or both. You can break mach on a minimum diameter 24mm rocket if you build it right and use the right motor. No fiberglassing needed or wanted in that case.

Only time I ever fiberglass the entire airframe is when I want to make it heavier, thicker or easier to finish. A good glass job makes the airframe very smooth. :)

-Aaron

The LOC 2.26 tubing is much stronger than the tubing they use in the 4" kits.

I glass everything, as glassed rockets endure much better over the long run. Paper tubes rather quickly develop crinkles, dents and crimps in the tubing, which necessitate repair and repaint. Even 1 wrap of 2 oz. greatly reduces this tendency.

Oh I would. They're not designed for longevity, otherwise you'd never buy any more kits from them.

Chris

No-one _plans_ to get it wrong! ;o)

Chris

Then what would you say for other manufacturers? They all pretty much use the same techniques.

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

Hello, Rocket constructors.

I have flown a LOC EZI on a J125 with no glassing, it does work AOK. But after the flying season I Fiberglassed the fins and at the "fillet", That is just glassed the fin can area. I have flown the EZI many times on a J. I'm thinking of flying it on a small K this year. Bottom line, go ahead and glass the fin can area, but don't go nuts and glass the entire airframe. There is my 2 cents.

Well, now I'm sure I'll fiberglass this thing-I'll try not to hurt myself Chris! I have no choice but to dismiss those with the attitude that the kit is doomed so why bother. What I'm not sure of is whether aerosleeves is the way to go.

I used the fiberglass sock from Giant Leap as the first layer then added a finer cloth on top. I don't have much to compare it with (since this was my first experience at fiberglassing), but I think the sock made it much easier.

-- Roger

Using aerosleeve materials is very easy. No seams, no multiple wraps of cloth, no loose ends, just apply the sleeve(s) over the mandrel (or tube), wet it out, and that's it.

Kevin OClassen

PML in phenolic are a lot better than LOC IMO but they have some dumb ideas too like their CPR rig. US Rockets kits seem to be particularly s**te though. If I were to go out and buy a kit these days it'd be something the old Shockwave or Shockvalue kits from Shadow Composites.

Chris

Face it Chris...your a scratch builder, and obviously I mean that in a good way :)

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

It's all opinion. Personally? I detest phenolic, love paper, don't care for G10 and use an appropriate amount of fiberglass on everything I build. I like building, I don't like fixing.

But that's just me.