The mission of S.A.M.E.

general discussions of the explosive kind.
User avatar
bernomatic
Site Admin
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue, 29 Mar 16, 03:55 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

The mission of S.A.M.E.

Post #1 by bernomatic » Thu, 23 Feb 17, 19:06 pm

The Survey of Anecdotal Malfunctioning Engines is kind of like that other survey done by the NAR, but this one allows anyone to see the information. While all reports are from witness reports, we can not verify the accuracy of any reports. This information is given here to let you be informed and decide if that beautiful newly built rocket should take a chance.
Chief Cook -n- bottle washer

User avatar
luke strawwalker
Posts: 1206
Joined: Thu, 07 Apr 16, 04:45 am

Re: The mission of S.A.M.E.

Post #2 by luke strawwalker » Thu, 23 Feb 17, 19:22 pm

Cool... is this a new NAR program, to go hand-in-hand with the MESS reports of motor failures??

I always thought the information should be freely available anyway... let people come to their own conclusions. It would also be good for research projects...

Later! OL J R :)
*THE* ultimate weapon in homeland defense and only $52 million per round!

User avatar
bernomatic
Site Admin
Posts: 596
Joined: Tue, 29 Mar 16, 03:55 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: The mission of S.A.M.E.

Post #3 by bernomatic » Fri, 24 Feb 17, 00:00 am

No, this is a feature of the Cantina. I'm trying to get it more exposure. NAR has nothing to do with it. They like keeping things to themselves.
Chief Cook -n- bottle washer

User avatar
luke strawwalker
Posts: 1206
Joined: Thu, 07 Apr 16, 04:45 am

Re: The mission of S.A.M.E.

Post #4 by luke strawwalker » Fri, 24 Feb 17, 01:25 am

Oh, ok... you mentioned the NAR, so I figured they had "turned over a new leaf" and were doing something useful... Guess I expected too much LOL:)

Like I said I thought it was always pretty ignorant to not release the information on the MESS forms to the rocketry community at large... the statistics could be very useful for research or, as you pointed out, personal decision making.

I know I learned the hard way to not trust a model you really like to the Quest motors-- their "flea fart" ejection charges dislodged the nosecone on a couple of flights but wasn't enough to push out the laundry, and I ended up with some damaged rockets because of it. Not quite "lawn darts" but not far from it either!

IF I had but KNOWN that Quest ejection charges were SO limp, I would have packed the rockets differently. I guess most folks (me included) have gotten used to the Estes "shotgun ejections" and pack accordingly, and the Quest "flea fart" ejection charges just don't cut it.

Similarly, the Quest motors, while "longer burning" also have a lot less "oomf" off the pad, and aren't suitable to larger/fatter/heavier/draggier rockets that would fly fine with an "equivalent" Estes engine. I learned that the hard way too. One other thing on the Quest motors-- the things have THIN casings and get scalding hot due to the longer burn. The first Quest C motor I ever flew came back with the white label completely CARMELIZED (turned the paper brown from the heat cooking the paper label) and was ALMOST burned through in several spots-- you could literally feel the "mushy spots" on the casing surface with your fingers, and dissection of the case after the flight was recovered verified that the interior of the casing, especially the lower half, was SO charred on the inside it was very nearly burned through!

I bought a bunch of Quest motors, and they fly nicely (in the right rocket) and do okay on ejection (if you take account for it and pack the wadding and recovery device so it practically FALLS out of the tube!) BUT, they're more for "sport rockets", ie the little "3FNC" type rockets that are sleek and light and just made to go "woosh, pop". If you're like me and you like the cooler-looking sci-fi rockets, semi-scalers, and other such "bigger, heavier, draggier" rockets, the Quest motors will put in some hairy flights at best... Estes motors have more "oomf" because they're burning the same propellant in a shorter time, so more "kick" off the pad, but burn shorter so less total altitude because of lower peak velocity. Longer burning Quest motors will accelerate a lightweight streamlined rocket to a higher speed and thus a higher altitude than an equivalent Estes motor. Both have their place, but for me the Estes motors work better. If I flew a lot of light weight 3FNC's, I'd probably favor the Quests...

Later! OL J R :)
*THE* ultimate weapon in homeland defense and only $52 million per round!

User avatar
luke strawwalker
Posts: 1206
Joined: Thu, 07 Apr 16, 04:45 am

Re: The mission of S.A.M.E.

Post #5 by luke strawwalker » Fri, 24 Feb 17, 01:33 am

One other thing I've seen firsthand-- I'd be very cautious about the Estes E9's. When they work, they're a fun motor, but again, IN THE RIGHT ROCKET! They're not a very "high thrust" kind of motor, but they'll really put a rocket up there with plenty of sound and smoke, so long as it's not TOO heavy or draggy... The E9's I understand were replacements for the E15's Estes had originally put out when they came out with an E motor... and similar to the old D13's, the E15's were "boom machines" that tended to CATO far too often compared to other motors. SO, like the D13, they retooled them and re-released them as D12's, much like the E15's became E9's.

The problem I've seen, and I've seen it personally TWICE, is that they tend to spit nozzles at ignition and do a "road flare", sitting on the pad puking fire and smoke and flames and bits of crap out the back and burning the ass end right out of your rocket. The one I had do that was, IIRC, a "Maniac" (Estes, used to be the "Challenger II" used to launch Astrocams on D motors) that fortunately had started up the rod when the nozzle spit, came out hard enough to make a loud PING! off the blast deflector... the rocket then slid back down the rod as the motor sputtered and burned down to the delay grain, then popped the nosecone when the ejection charge fired out both ends... a buddy of mine had his prized FSI Maverick or Black Brant spit the nozzle on the E9 at ignition, sending it flying off the blast deflector with a loud PING! and it sat there and fizzled and smoked and burned and just burned the whole ass out of it. Mine was relatively unscathed. His needed a total rebuild...

I haven't tried the newer Estes big motors yet, so I can't comment on them.

Later! OL J R :)
*THE* ultimate weapon in homeland defense and only $52 million per round!

User avatar
Joe Wooten
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed, 06 Apr 16, 13:26 pm

Re: The mission of S.A.M.E.

Post #6 by Joe Wooten » Mon, 27 Feb 17, 15:28 pm

The F-15 and E-16 motors work quite well. I really like them. I've burned 4 F-15's and 6 E-16's and have had no issues.

User avatar
Joe Wooten
Posts: 266
Joined: Wed, 06 Apr 16, 13:26 pm

Re: The mission of S.A.M.E.

Post #7 by Joe Wooten » Mon, 27 Feb 17, 15:29 pm

The E-12's also have worked well. I've launched about dozen of them.