KLOB 2003 videos

what reason found?

ground level was too high, right?

My guess would be one of two things, CG - CP relationship created an unstable rocket for the motor selected. Or the weight of the rocket exceeded the motor manufacturers recommendations (The rocket never reached a speed that would allow the fins to stabilize it).

Just a couple of guesses.

That flight has all the earmarks of marginal aero stability. Those motors have an initial thrust of over 300 pounds and have hauled 12" 70 pound V2's off the pad reliably. Note the small fins - with a lighter solid motor installed the CG/CP relationship may have been more favorable. I watched the flight several times and had no other ideas. Anyone know the GTOW?

Mike Dennett CTI

recommendations

Two Hypertek failures and one composite success. This is about right. I have seen others average on to two failures per launch then switch to a composite and get something up.

After adding in the failure, NOS is definitely not cheaper than composites.

An unsupportable claim, I'm afraid, Arnold. Even at the high-end market price for N2O of $5.00/lb, a wasted HTM1010 load only cost you $60.00. You can fail a number of times before you lose against the $500.00 price tag on a comparable AT M load.

So long as you disregard the cost, materials, labor and love of the rocket, which *I* cannot.

Jerry

Solids bigot.

Yes, my point exactly. If you launch lots, and lots of Ms, the price may be up to debate. Most people do not launch lots, and lots of Ms. For them the price is a wash. Throw in a fried stand or two, burnt up rockets, crashed rockets and the cost gets up there real fast. Now ad to that, frustration, wasted time driving, filling up NOX tanks and $500 starts looking good. Oh, let us not forget fried NOS solenoids which when replaced with solenoids that do not fry as easily get pretty pricey. Oh, let us ad the replacement launch stand put out by another vendor because the Hypertek set up is difficult and often leads to failures and the price keeps going up.

But Arnold was specifically quoting the case in which the user switches to a composite, which presumably means still-functional rocket, not a failure mode in which the rocket is damaged by a poor hybrid startup.

-Marcus

Hybrids bigot :-)

Or selects the composite in advance not uncurring the sunk costs lited in detail: GSE Tank-Flight Tank-ground Pad Controller Battery 01 Battery 02

VS an expendable M for about $1000 or a load for about $700.

Done. Next project.

Jerry

Solids Bigot. Need a 98mm "O"?

AMW 75/6000: $320.

Tom

Not quite comparable, because we're talking a near-full 'M' hybrid here, and I was comparing against a near-full 'M' AT composite. But even setting that aside, you still get three tries on the hybrid before you lose against that AMW 75/6000 composite (ignoring the amortized GSE costs, since I'm assuming a well-used club system).

I don't think so, I mean I don't feel that way.

I have my own PP/Ratt/Skyrippers GSE system myself and it did not cost very much at all, thanks to Doug.

Using it I had the only successful hybrid flight at Naram, using the knowledge help of My Friend Scott Miller of SFSM industries.

Scott also hosts Hypertech flights at the Jackson Mich. Rocket Club and I see lots, and lots and lots of Hypertek and many Skyripper demos flying each month I attend.

I belong to the TriCity Skybusters, one of the most experienced Hybrids flying clubs I have seen this summer in the US.

They have a very excellent record in Hypertek flights, and had the best Hypertek Pad at Nypower getting all hyperteks up in the air as I recall.

It's great to have a good club GSE, and vendors who support GSE and Hybrids: Like Scott Miller, Doug Pratt and Martin Dorociak of X-rockets who works with Skybusters along with Barry of LOC.

P.S. I love LARGE SOLIDS as well, so I'm not biased. It's fun to have variety. (don't let my wife hear that)

Art Upton K8XG, Inc.