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.
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..
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!
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 d> From what I understand, we are allowed to have BP without a permit.
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-)
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
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
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 l> Alex,
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
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'?
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.
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.