I remember reading about this in an issue of SR a while back, but
since have mis-placed the magazine.
Anyone tried this?
The reason I'm asking is I've been tapped to conduct a rocket launch
commerating the last day of our local school building (district has
built a new school, and the current one will be decommissioned). The
St. Louis arch trick looked pretty cool, as there will be a fair
number of people present.
Comments, and success/failure storys are welcome!
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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
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....