Should I be thinking about Hybrid?

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:
Reply to
dixontj93060
Loading thread data ...
It doesn't bother me that you can't use motor ejection since I intended > 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: > > Hi Everyone, > > I got my L1 cert at the October skies, TCC launch last weekend, and I > > am worried about the fate of amateur rocketry from current trends in > > overzealous regulation. I am at a point where I haven't yet invested > > in too much motor hardware and I am wondering if I should just make the > > switch to hybrid now to avoid this misguided overregulation by the ATF. > > I don't live in a place where an LEUP is possible and it seems that > > going hybrid is a reasonable alternative. I didn't have a lot of time > > to wander around at the launch, but I didn't hear of anyone using > > hybrid. Are any of you using hybrid? Why is it not more accepted by > > the HPR community as a whole? > > > > -- > Will Marchant, NAR 13356, Tripoli 10125 L3 > snipped-for-privacy@amsat.org
formatting link
Reply to
lizardqueen
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..
Reply to
tai fu
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:
Reply to
lunarlos
formatting link
says you may have 50 pounds for use in antique firearms which is why
formatting link
says to list BP on your LEUP application. Do a search and you'll come up with numerous references such as
formatting link
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:
Reply to
Will Marchant
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-)
Reply to
Alex Mericas
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
Reply to
John Wickman
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
Reply to
John Wickman
You must have a slightly higher level of intelligence and come from a better gene pool than typical solid motor rocketeers to fly hybrids......
;-)
Reply to
jdMARS
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:
Reply to
lizardqueen
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
formatting link
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:
Reply to
Will Marchant
Alex, I found a PDF document with an article you wrote about hybrids. Do you have any ideas on which system is best to start with? I am mostly concerned with cost and versatility over the Classes H through K. I also need to know how to modify my rocket to accommodate the motors. I am currently am building a 3 inch rocket that would be nice to put the necessary motor mount into. I also have a 54mm, 4 inch rocket, but the motor tube is only about 16 inches long. I don't care so much about the sound or smoke, or even complexity. I look forward to a challenge.
Alex Mericas wrote:
Reply to
lizardqueen
I have a 3" rocket with a 54mm mount that flies very nicely on a Hypertek 54mm 440cc or 835cc motors. With these two tanks I can put together 11 different motors ranging from an I260 to a K240, but mainly in the J range. With the smaller 300cc tank I can fly 6 different I combinations. I really like the Hypertek system and it was what I used to get into Hybrids. I've also flown RATTworks 29mm and 76mm motors. I personally don't like the 29mm RATTworks but love the 76mm K240. I have a WestCoast Hybrids I110 which I love, nice sound and smoke.
The HT system uses non-pyro ignition which requires an O2 tank. Most of the mono-tube hybrids use a sliver of APCP (under 62.5g) to heat the motor and burn through the fill stem. If you like that concept and you want to fly L1 motors you should look at Skyripper or West Coast hybrids as good starter motors. If there are gas passers nearby, find out what they fly.
As far as how to modify a rocket for hybrids, it's pretty simple. The rocket has to be long enough for the motor. You don't have to fully support the top part of the motor but you can't have the motor sticking out the top! Watch your stability to make sure you don't run into problems with extra weight at the back of the motor (sim it fully loaded with N2O). Make sure you have a way to vent the motor externally, which will vary depending on your motor.
lizardqueen wrote: > Alex, > I found a PDF document with an article you wrote about hybrids. Do you > have any ideas on which system is best to start with? I am mostly > concerned with cost and versatility over the Classes H through K. I > also need to know how to modify my rocket to accommodate the motors. I > am currently am building a 3 inch rocket that would be nice to put the > necessary motor mount into. I also have a 54mm, 4 inch rocket, but the > motor tube is only about 16 inches long. I don't care so much about > the sound or smoke, or even complexity. I look forward to a challenge.
Reply to
Alex Mericas
Liz,
Hybrid support is available at your local club(s). I own GSE for Ratt type monotube hybrids. And AeroPAC owns GSE for Hypertek motors, which can be made available at both LUNAR and TCC launches. You see, you have an advantage... You know several of the officers in all 3 clubs... 8^)
(We met at October Skies. My buddy Dave did your certification. BTW, Dave is the recording secretary for LUNAR, and I'm Launch Director for AeroPAC, and we're both good buddies with the equipment guys for both clubs. You want GSE for hybrids? You've got it...) 8^)
James L. Marino SAS, LUNAR, TCC, AEROPAC, NAR #75764 L3 TRA #9489 L3 JPS Propulsion KI6BZS
(@ @) ---o00-(_)-00o--- Will Work for AP
Reply to
James L. Marino
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'?
Reply to
Cno Knu
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
Reply to
kimballt
Skyripper, Ratt, or Contrail. These will all fly from Doug's ULS system + RTLS2 without any additional ground support, except various sized fittings. I personally like the Skyripper motors for reliability and Contrail for the large number of certified combinations.
The monotube motors I fly use four different sizes of fill line, so I made a series of quick-connect hoses with the correct fitting on each end. That way swapping out the fitting is a matter of a few seconds and requires no tools.
Kevin OClassen
Reply to
Kevin OClassen

Site Timeline

  • What ever happened to Shrox? last I heard he moved from CA to NC... hes over on...
  • previous in

    Model rockets

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.