Rocket Powered St. Louis Arch!

I have not done one myself but I saw a great one last September. The person who flew it told me that he has only ever had success flying an arch when using a Big Bertha or Big Betty style rocket. It seems to have the correct flight profile for the arch to form properly.

I got a great sequence of photos of it.

Len Bryan

Do you have any idea what he used for power, Len? I mean, we're talking drag city here, and I'll actually be attempting this off of a relatively small playground.

Don't want to screw up in front of 100 kids, teachers, and administrators!

tah

I'll see if I can find out. IIRC, it was a C6-5 but like I said, I will try to connect with the fellow who flew it. I will post here with the answer.

Len Bryan

Whatever engine power or model, for sure test fly this someplace else first so you can have confidence it will fly well enough to be "public demo" worthy.

- George Gassaway

Oh, absolutely!

tah

I've been watching this the past day or so, and can't stand it any more. Are you actually talking about flying something that is essentially a rectangular cylinder bent into a parabola?

LOL. No, it's a rocket that's flown while attached to a very long streamer. The streamer describes the shape of the arch as the rocket flies.

You're kidding! I, like AL, have been patiently waiting for a link that would show a replica of an arch (rectangular cross-section, as I recall) with an engine mount at the center underside of the arch.

But no one puts up a link, just talks like they already know what it is. And now you say its just a bloody streamer?!

Where does one get scale data on the St Louis arch?

Sorry to be the bringer of bad tidings ;-) Been looking for link online, but to no avail.

The article about the St. Louis Arch is in the May/June 2001 issue of Sport Rocketry. The article, by Mort Binstock, says that the only reliable combination is a Big Bertha with a C6-3. The streamer is a roll 1 3/4 inches by 60 feet, one end taped to a fin. The streamer unrolls on the way up, and the arch forms after burn out. Mort says that attempts to use a D12-5 tore the streamer.

I emailed the person who flew one at an Alberta launch back in September. He has not yet replied so I don't have the details. I'll post my photos of the arch on alt.binaries.models.rockets but this is the first time I have posted any images so bear with me a bit.

Len Bryan

Someone once said "Add enough nose weight and anything is stable"

Scratchbuilders, I charge you:

The only thing I have not found so far is the specification for the change in cross section as it reaches the apex.

A free G-80 to the first person who publicly posts a flyable Rocksim of this on ABMR.

this is an example of the kind of poster that we don't need....IF you can't be civil, just go away please... shockie B)

Huh? What provoked that?

I expect Shockie was either being ironic or confused about which message he was replying to.

-dave w

Look who's talking.

He was looking in a mirror when he typed it.

"Shockie" is a pariah on rocketry. Have you seen his manefesto against NAR?

Email me.

opps sorry this was supposed to go to a different thread..... my bad...please ignore

shockie B)

My "manifesto" against the NAR?

SO jerry you arer going to resort to "dity tactics" to smear me as I am being too vocal about your latest DOT episode by calling for your removal from the NAR?

Remember our email correspondance over the years is supposed to be private correspondance between you and me, not the world at large..... If you aborgate our confidences in these matters, the world will be shown how low and how far you will go to hurt somebody...

It is well know that I have major criticisms of the NAR and certain NAR members.... At least I don't air my dity laundry in public nor do I call people names in public....

And besure the dates are on the emails you provide anybody with.....my views may have changed since we had conversations in the past....

Just remember that I have copies of every email we ever had, so if you post or provide naything I have all of the originals.... so take your best shot....

here are some of my crimes:

1. at first I thought HPR was bad, now I don't
2. I have alwasy thought APCP was an explosive
3. I never thought rockets engines were PADS
4. I think the NAR/TRA speaks with a forked tongue: ie it playing both sides against the middle....on one hand it tells you to get a LEUP cuz APCP is an exploisve, then it goes to court against the ATF saying it isn't

5.I think the NAR/TRA speaks with a forked tongue: On one hand it sues the ATf saying there is No 62.5 gram limit, when the very same organization has 62.5g written all over the NFPA codes courtesy of the NAR....

Terry Dean aka shockie NAR 16158SR