Anyone use Apogee's Blue Tube? - Northern Colorado Rocketry

This topic has 24 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by bryans.

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 25 total)

← 1 2 3 →

Author

Posts
June 8, 2010 at 5:24 pm #52848
new2hpr
Participant
I don’t think I’d recommend trying a Warp in anything but fiberglass.

I’ve flown Warp9 in unreinforced LOC paper tube, granted not a high performance min diameter design, but no ill effects, just a stupid grin that wouldn’t go away. 😀

Ken
June 8, 2010 at 6:27 pm #52849
John A. Wilke
Participant
No doubt, every situation is different. I honestly don’t remember the last time I flew a rocket that wasn’t minimum diameter – Adrian is likely in the same boat…. so from my perspective, QT is not a good solution. For others, it might be great.

That is good to know about the LOC tubing – that is the same material Madcow uses..
June 9, 2010 at 12:05 am #52850
djsroc
Keymaster
I totaly love QT. Its cheap, takes a killer beating and best of all- no effort to finish. Then again I never fly anything over a J and most of my stuff is 3-4″. The only thing I dont like about it is trying to get epoxy to stick well.

It is quite heavy too, but for what I do, no need for performance.

I really want to try the blue tube in the future for a upscale project because again I dont like sanding glass.
June 9, 2010 at 12:51 am #52851
Chris LaPanse
Really? I’d fly warp in plain QT, honestly. It’s surprisingly difficult to shred a body tube from thrust alone.

I partly agree, but mostly disagree…. you can’t fly QT in minimum diameter as it will melt. So you are putting a bigger airframe onto a smaller motor.

Personally, I don’t think a 54mm rocket in QT would hold together w/ a J570 😀 The Warp 9 stuff, as well as V-Max, etc would be better served in something other than paper or QT…. There are other obvious variables that come into play. A very tall, skinny rocket is more likely to have issues vs. a squatty one.

I’m not a fan of Quantum. I do really like PML phenolic – I think it is a much better material.

You don’t think a 54mm QT rocket would hold up to a 570? Why not? It’s more than strong enough. Most people vastly underestimate QT, primarily because PML includes those thin, flexible G10 fins in all their kits, making them prone to shredding at mach or so (which is no fault of the QT – the fins are the problem). I’d quite happily fly 54mm or 3″ QT supersonic.
June 9, 2010 at 2:03 am #52852
edward
Moderator
I’m even betting that you could fly a 54mm minimum diameter rocket out of LOC paper on that newfangled CTI longburner. The maximum thrust is 126#, but you’d need a nice paint job so you don’t scorch the wax paper 🙂

Edward
June 9, 2010 at 2:30 am #52853
Steve Jensen
Participant
My Sudden Rush PML QT Kit (a.k.a. Sudden Habanero Rush) I’ve built to accommodate 4 grain 54mm engines. I’ve punched it up once on a J210. Next launch I’ve a 3 grain J380 SS. And I’m then going to use the K400 Green, which should have it somewhere around .9 to 1.0 Mach. It has the thicker G10 (.095″0 fins).

From this discussion, it seems as if it should work.

Empirical testing is fun…

I may still build some sport flyer with blue tube, just to check it out.
June 9, 2010 at 2:40 am #52854
Steve Jensen
Participant
Went to check them out and found “Robert Synoski, prefect of Tripoli Tampa flew his 2.6 inch 4.5 lb inch Blue Tube to 47g’s and 547mph on an Aerotech J1299 Warp-9 motor. The 0.45 second burn coasted his rocket to 5500 feet where it was recovered without a scratch.

At least they got this one back. It’s the source of the video, but an earlier attempt with rocket recovery.

Seems to confirm Warp Engines and Blue Tube work. Still like to examine the one they lost in the video…
June 9, 2010 at 3:53 am #52855
edward
Moderator
Seeing that Mike Fisher put his famous 38mm L motor in a minimum diameter Blue tube rocket and it didn’t fail I think it should be fine. I don’t think the Warp 9 kicks as hard as the 38mm L motor.

He did note that it was severely blistered from aerodynamic heating and motor heat soak.

Edward
June 9, 2010 at 6:56 pm #52856
bryans
Airframes are very much a personal choice of what works best for you. Here’s my thoughts:

John, love ya, but glass (which i will keep buying from you in many cases) is about twice the price of the blue stuff. Say 44″ piece of 98mm is $39 vs $80 for glass. The stuff certainly has its place in the market. I’ll use it in preference to light glassing plus phenolic or paper, saves some effort. But if building a tank or for some kinda max-Q situation, yeah glass still wins.

I have just started using the blue tube on two projects. Have not flown it yet, however I am seriously impressed so far. It seems the best of many worlds to me, quite strong but not brittle. Had a piece stood on end on workbench which fell off, top end going 6 feet to concrete and landing on the corner doesnt bother it a bit… I’d expect cracks and at least a little damage with glass or phenolic! It is as advertised, easy to cut and machine slots into. Not quite as precise as convolute glass, but does not chew up bits as fast either. Fills and sands like LOC paper, except you dont have to fool with roughing up the glassine first.

One of my two projects is a min diameter 38mm, i do not intend to reinforce the airframe at all, just a few layers of tip to tip, the fins staying on is much more worrisome than the tube. Should be educational on J570 🙂
June 10, 2010 at 5:08 am #52857
Tim Thomas
8) My thoughts are kind of from a “insider”. Blue tube looks to be great stuff. My problem is the price. I know for a fact that from a large tube maker, “fish tube” in 4″ is 9.10 a 4ft. stick – plus shipping. Giant Leap has a new custom tube (gray) a little stronger and without the problems of blue tube. And it retails for 10.00 a stick less. But I have to admit, just like with motors, having all those choices is much better than only one or two to pick from! 😀 This is truely the golden age of rocketry!
Author

Posts