Should I be thinking about Hybrid?

AlMax wrote:


She's the wife of the NAR President.
Or maybe Bob in a dress.
--
Steve Humphrey
(replace "spambait" with "merlinus" to respond directly to me)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Humphrey wrote:

Thanks, Steve. I'll be all day getting THAT image out of my head.
Bill Sullivan
You're just jealous because the voices don't talk to YOU!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The president's wife. Just like any other president.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Glen
Clearly you're thinking of old hybrids. Yes they hissed and didn't have a smoke trail, but that stuff is ancient history. There is much better stuff available now. You should try the stuff from Contrail. They sound like (some reloads sound even better) than the equivalent solid at the same impulse rating. And depending on the vendor you can even get sparky and skidmark equivalents. Yeah, hybrids still might not quite the "oomph" of the solids, but you have a handful of new vendors making great strides.
-Tim
Glen Overby wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hybrids are a lot of fun. But you can't do motor based ejection systems. So you have to use electronics. And that means (for most people) ematches and BP. Doug Pratt has nichrome based canisters that avoid the e-match issue. But you still need BP or Pyrodex and you are supposed to have a LEUP to use either in a hobby rocket.
lizardqueen wrote:

--
Will Marchant, NAR 13356, Tripoli 10125 L3
snipped-for-privacy@amsat.org http://www.spaceflightsoftware.com/will /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Second Amendment no? It doesn't bother me that you can't use motor ejection since I intended on dual deployment anyway. Will Marchant wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://tinyurl.com/ty6sx says you may have 50 pounds for use in antique firearms which is why http://www.tripoli.org/tmt/LEUP_filing.shtml says to list BP on your LEUP application. Do a search and you'll come up with numerous references such as http://www.space-rockets.com/homeland.html
The discussions I've seen about Pyrodex say the situation is the same. The restrictions on selling it are much less than BP which is why it is seen in many more retail outlets than BP. But the claim, by people who have studied the situation much more than I have, is that if you intend to use it in something other than a firearm then you need a LEUP.
Please don't argue with me about how little sense this makes. I agree completely. 8(
lizardqueen wrote:

--
Will Marchant, NAR 13356, Tripoli 10125 L3
snipped-for-privacy@amsat.org http://www.spaceflightsoftware.com/will /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Will Marchant wrote:

Will,
Thanks for pointing out the discussions about Pyrodex. I was not aware people were being mislead on the use of Pyrodex without an ATFE license. Actually, Pyrodex is not covered by Federal Explosives Law. Below is a statement from the Pyrodex MSDS sheet provided by Hodgdon, the manufacturer of Pyrodex.
Regulatory Information:
Pyrodex is Extremely Flammable. Pyrodex is not an explosive regulated by Federal Explosive Law, but may explode if misused. Pyrodex is not smokeless powder, but is approved to ship (DOT) and store (NFPA) as such. Pyrodex is not allowed on passenger aircraft, but may be loaded into ammunition which may be allowed. It may be shipped as a flammable solid by road, rail, vessel, or cargo only aircraft, or as an explosive by road, rail or vessel. While Pyrodex contains no nitrocellulose, the flammable solid proper shipping name is "Smokeless powder for small arms". DOT classifications follow:
Flammable Solid (see 49 CFR 173.171): Smokeless powder for small arms, 4.1, NA3178, PG I Explosive: Propellant, solid, 1.3C, UN0499, PG II
John Wickman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Will Marchant wrote:

Will,
Thanks for pointing out the discussions about Pyrodex. I was not aware people were being mislead on the use of Pyrodex without an ATFE license. Actually, Pyrodex is not covered by Federal Explosives Law. Below is a statement from the Pyrodex MSDS sheet provided by Hodgdon, the manufacturer of Pyrodex.
Regulatory Information:
Pyrodex is Extremely Flammable. Pyrodex is not an explosive regulated by Federal Explosive Law, but may explode if misused. Pyrodex is not smokeless powder, but is approved to ship (DOT) and store (NFPA) as such. Pyrodex is not allowed on passenger aircraft, but may be loaded into ammunition which may be allowed. It may be shipped as a flammable solid by road, rail, vessel, or cargo only aircraft, or as an explosive by road, rail or vessel. While Pyrodex contains no nitrocellulose, the flammable solid proper shipping name is "Smokeless powder for small arms". DOT classifications follow:
Flammable Solid (see 49 CFR 173.171): Smokeless powder for small arms, 4.1, NA3178, PG I Explosive: Propellant, solid, 1.3C, UN0499, PG II
John Wickman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks, John! I'm happy to have been misinformed and to learn that Pyrodex is OK for use in rockets without a LUEP! Doug Pratt has some information at http://www.pratthobbies.com/info_pages/pyrodex/pyrotest.htm about using his Nichrome based canisters with Pyrodex. I think that means you can do a completely LEUP-less high power rocket if you fly a hybrid...     Best wishes,     Will
John Wickman wrote:

--
Will Marchant, NAR 13356, Tripoli 10125 L3
snipped-for-privacy@amsat.org http://www.spaceflightsoftware.com/will /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

People have been using black powder for years to make their parachute activation device systems. I've seen no posts or discussions of raids, arrests, or even warnings. Maybe you should ask more questions before reposting 'discusion advice'?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Will,
Thanks for the link. Doug did a nice job with the video presentation. As he points out the key is using electrical tape to seal the end of the Pyrodex P canister. I've used 1/2 " PVC pipe and an end cap on one end. I cross the open end of the pipe with electrical tape making a cross on the open end. Then, I put layer around the perimeter of the open end to hold those two pieces more securely in place. For ignition I use a 1/2" to 3/4" long piece of 36 gauge NiCr wire. No coating on the wire, just plain. It is wrapped around the wire and inserted into the Pyrodex. I use a little wadding to hold the Pyrodex down in the base of the pipe by the end cap so the powder stays in contact with the NiCr wire. Works every time.
For homemade, motors with a delay and charge, I use Pyrodex P as well. Just seal the open end of the ejection charge opening the same way with electrical tape.
I don't know if it is necessary, but I also add an extra gram of Pyrodex P from what I would use if going with 4F black powder. I haven't used black powder in years and never had a problem in over a hundred flights.
John
Will Marchant wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well then we should mount our rockets onto our guns and use the pyrodex to light them off. Oh.... That would be a missle launcher. Oh well.
KT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What makes you 'believe' that?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
you think there won't be any international air shipping restrictions on hybrids (the non pyrotechnic type that is)? I mean its like shipping plastics. Of course the GSE would be expensive..
--
TAI FU
"lizardqueen" < snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Liz,
To make this simple and sweet... YES YES HELL FING YES! Hybrids give you better performance than solids, and at a FRACTION of the cost, and NO GOVERNMENT regulation... think about that as your rule over your lizards!
Lunar
lizardqueen wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com says...

IIRC I heard someone say they look like a pain in the rear.
--
Tweak

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tweak wrote:

Almost always voiced by someone who has not flown hybrids.
IIRC, when reloadable motors first hit the market people said they were a pain in the rear. Oh, and unreliable too. I rarely see people make a big deal when an APCP motor spits an igniter or chuffs on the pad. But if a hybrid fails to launch on the first attempt there is a loud outcry about how unreliable and complicated they are. FWIW I do failure analysis on all my flights and the biggest problem I have with hybrids is getting a complete fill. That's mainly a procedural problem and I'm getting better every flight. Are hybrids more complex? Sure, who said rocket science was easy B-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Gotcha, ya sucka. Touchy touchy.
--
Tweak

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

hybrids. I think the future of AP is too unclear to invest a lot of money in hardware. I also like the fact that there seems to be no reasonable limit on the ultimate power you can get from these systems. I contacted my local club and hopefully I can get them to move on hybrids, but if they don't I'll probably still invest in my own ground support. It looks like you can get started with the less expensive ground support for a few hundred. It is a difficult decision which system to buy. For those that fly hybrids, which system should I go with? I'm looking in the I, J, and K class area since I would like to Cert L2 on a hybrid, buy still fly on L1. Can I use some of the same ground equipment on different systems with maybe small modifications such as fittings, adapters? So I guess I'm looking for cost and versatility in my decision. I'll leave the sparky-smokey things for later ;-) Any help will be appreciated since this is a pretty tough choice with my still limited knowledge. Alex Mericas wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.