HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott)
Subject: Re: belleville hobby?
Organization: NEC America, Radio Software Dept
Distribution: rec
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:18:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.094523.15378@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>, iqv@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
|> What's the scoop with belleville hobby?  the number that's been posted a couple
|> of times seems to be wrong, and it wasn't listed in Ill. information.  Does
|> anyone know what the phone number is?  I just got my first order of parts from
|> estes, and it seems pretty expensive.  ( I forgot to order the nose cone :-(  )
|> or does anyone know of discount mail order places?
|> 
|>                                       	Thanks
|>                                            David Sebba

The latest _AmSpam_ has a Belleville add with the address and # listed as:

    Belleville Wholesale Hobby
    1827 North Charles Street
    Belleville, IL 62221-4025
    (618)234-5989  FAX (618)234-9202

Is this the number you were trying?

============================================================================
Buzz McDermott                   Internet: buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com
NAR   13559
TRA    1785
============================================================================
From: jffowler@beerbust.Eng.Sun.COM (John F. Fowler)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: RE: More NCR Problems
Date: 15 Oct 1992 01:27:55 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: beerbust
Keywords: NCR

I'd like to come to NCR's defense, to some extent.  I've built
and flown the NCR Patriot, and have friends here that have
flown the SA-14 Archer, the Big Brute, RotaRoc, and have a Corporal
under construction.

We've had some of the problems mentioned by other customers. 
The Patriot was missing launch lugs (no big deal).  The Archer
was missing the decal sheet, but Matt Steele of NCR brought
one to us at LDRS-XI.  

NCR was recently relocated to Utah and consolidated; previously
this year the principals were in Alabama, with manufacturing
in Ohio.  Now Matt Steele and his partner have gone for it and
quit their "regular" jobs and moved the whole operation to Utah.
They've been revamping their product line and working on quality.

One of the reasons that we have done business with them is that
Matt Steele has been *extremely* helpful to us with construction,
motor selection, and finishing tips and ideas.  He has a pretty
nice set of tech notes and is very willing to discuss them in
detail with you.

Each kit manufacturer seems to have their "one good idea".  NCR's
is the "Gorilla" shock cord mount, which is essentially a steel
wire that is looped and threaded through two holes in the upper
centering ring, crimped, and a loop crimped at the free end that
you tie your shock cord on to.  It's super strong, and you can 
easily change shock cords by just tying a different one on.  Since
then we've used the "Gorilla" mounting technique on two custom
rockets that debuted at Octoberfest and I'm putting together a LOC
that I want to use it with.

We've had nice Archer flights on H128, H180, and H97 loads, with
the latter being the most impressive.  The Big Brute flew well at 
Octoberfest on G54 and H97 loads.  Unfortunately I built the Patriot
before I understood the different casing lengths of the ISP motors
and made the mistake of glueing in a thrust ring (gasp!) and can't
accomodate anything bigger than the 100Ns ISP size, but my bird
has flown numerous times on F50 single-use and G54 loads.

Anyway, although I've seen a couple of the problems that others have
experienced with missing parts, I wouldn't cross NCR off your list.
It's easy to inventory your kit and just call them up if you are
missing something.   Matt's tech notes and Matt himself can be
very helpful.

John Fowler
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: NARAM SUMMARY????
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:13:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Bw6o9G.AK1@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.203341.2269@ultb.isc.rit.edu> jsvrc@rc.rit.edu (J A Stephen Viggiano) writes:
> |Nice idea, but falls completely apart once we examine the facts. The specific
> |impulse of BlackJack propellant is about one-third less than that of
> |Blue Thunder and White Lightning. One could easily have a G which is no
> |heavier than the heaviest F. One could easily have a 55 NS F which is no
> |heavier than the heaviest E. A triple-beam balance, or an analytic balance,
> |for that matter, is completely inadequate for the purpose.
> 
> Are all three available as reloads? I assume that there would be some 
> rule that says one can only use approved reloads.. then again theres 
> no real way to check... well heck, theres one big problem right there.

Well, this is sort of a circular argument.  NONE of them are currently
NAR certified, never mind Contest Certified.  You may recall that this
whole thread BEGAN as a discussion of the extra problems involved in
Contest-Certifying reloadables.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: jsvrc@rc.rit.edu (J A Stephen Viggiano)
Subject: Dual Egglofting (Was: Re: NARAM SUMMARY????)
Organization: RIT Research Corp
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:16:39 GMT

In article <Bw6Jy6.55s@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

>Now I'm curious. Do the eggs have to rest on one another?

No, unless you want them broken.

> Do people protect them with padding?

Yes, unless they want them broken.

> Is there a "standard egg" or do people draw lots for eggs?

Yes, in the sense that mass limits are in the sporting code (between 57 and
63 grams), and a maximum diameter (minor semi-axis, I imagine) of 45 mm. Yes,
in the sense that conforming eggs are often selected at random, though nobody
has to fly an egg previously flown by somebody else.

>Do people put them in plastic bags to protect against breakages?

People put them in plastic bags to make it easier to remove scrambled egg from
their rockets after they break them.

To paraphrase Galloway, "Egg lofting is FUN!!!" Have FUN!!! and fly an egg
or two.

John Viggiano, jsvrc@rc.rit.edu
NAR 25615
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: wyvern@iastate.edu (Nuno Bettencourt)
Subject: Re: Guidance Alternatives
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:56:52 GMT

In article <15OCT199211021604@vx.cis.umn.edu> soc1070                          writes:
>Does anyone have any experiences with alternative guidance methods - I
>mean alternatives to fins, not like launch rods, rails, towers, etc.
>
>Someone told me there was a company that sold micro gyros suitable
>for HPR models, but he couldn't remember the company's name.
>
>Or how 'bout exhaust vectoring, like the A4/V2?
>
>Or maybe various combinations of things.
>
>Weeeellllll?
>
>------ 
>Tim Harincar				Kill Your Television.			
>Central Minnesota 		
>Association of Rocketry		
>soc1070@vx.acs.umn.edu		

	Not very important, but I happened to read in a Popular Science
magazine that they've been able to make gyroscopes the size of a computer
chip. Could you imagine what this'd do to the model rocket industry if
the technology ever became available to the private sector? :)
	(Think of all the terrorism you could do too! Muahahahaha!)


Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: soc1070                         
Subject: RE: More NCR Problems
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Minnesota CIS
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:48:00 GMT

I should have pointed out the I personally have never purchased any
NCR product. The reason being that I have heard (and seen) that they
have all sorts of QT problems - centering rings too small and such.

When Dale received his cone, the was no additional information from
NCR on where it came from (AeroTech) or how to make it work (with
the stage coupler as an adapter). Maybe this was an oversite on their
part - but enough to really piss off a customer.

The shoulder being off center is truely a problem, but maybe it was just 
part of a bad lot, maybe not (maybe NCR only gets the rejects from the
other manufacturers, who knows?).

I would like to hear other people's experiences with NCR, as I have looked
at some of their stuff for potential purchase, but always shied away.

Tim Harincar				Kill Your Television.			
Central Minnesota 		
Association of Rocketry		
soc1070@vx.acs.umn.edu
From: jsvrc@rc.rit.edu (J A Stephen Viggiano)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: NARAM SUMMARY????
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:28:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: ultb.1992Oct16.152848.9971
Distribution: na
Organization: RIT Research Corp

In article <Bw6o9G.AK1@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

>Otherwise I'd say dispense with the impulse limits and institute a 
>weight limit. After all other sports have irrational limits (eg. en-
>gine displacement for model planes - a good, schnuerle ported .15 
>can put out three times the horsepower of an old baffle piston .15).

Sure, let's dispense with impulse limits, one of the most important elements
of the sporting code. Doing so would be the end of NAR and FAI competition.

John Viggiano, jsvrc@rc.rit.edu		| The only thing worse than Peach
NAR 25615				| ala Frog is competition without
					| impulse classes.
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: jsvrc@rc.rit.edu (J A Stephen Viggiano)
Subject: National Sport Launch
Organization: RIT Research Corp
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:31:35 GMT

I saw the advertisment for the NSL in the most recent issue of A.S. It wasn't
particularly specific about the dates (President's Weekend). Does anybody
know any more specific, especially regarding the dates? Other discussion
encouraged, as well. My friend Ferenc says he'd like to fly a G before he
shuffles off this mortal coil. (BTW, he's healthy, just not optimistic about
the G situation.)

John Viggiano, jsvrc@rc.rit.edu
NAR 25615
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: <Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu>  (Roger Wilfong)
Subject: Re: NARAM SUMMARY????
Organization: UofM Hospitals
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 11:56:00 GMT

In Article <7065@transfer.stratus.com> "cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)" says:
> 
> Two 1/4A's, three 1/2A's, four A's, five B's, etc., etc., and a partridge
> in a pear tree.
> 
 
I hunted back through the AmSpac's last night and found the rules for the 
provisional event and got to thinking about the problems to solve in making
a competitive model.  This event has possibilities for some interesting 
solutions to those problems.
 
Let's take 1/2A (three 1/2A's clustered).  That's a wimpy B (7.5N-S) impulse.
Without having run the calculations, three 1/2A3's are probably going to be
pushing the optimum weight for that impulse without putting a body tube and
fins on.  That would imply that you need to build as light as possible but
still strong enough to survive.  Then there is the problem of launching - 
I'd generally opt for a piston/tower combination in altitude, but there is 
the problem of getting all three motors to light inside of a piston (or do 
you use a cluster of three pistons.  I didn't see anything in rules implying
that all three motors had to be ignited at the same time - how would a 
straight line cluster igniting the two outsides at litf off and air starting 
the center fare against a triangle of three lit at the same time. 
 
This could be interesting - like HD when it first started.
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: bwatson@nyx.cs.du.edu (bruce watson)
Subject: Wakefield Rocket Society
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 16:45:25 GMT

Any alumni here?

--
Bruce Watson  wats@nyx.cs.du.edu  Toy Cows, Toy Cows in Africa, Toy Cows
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Changes to FAQ
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:31:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcvaac.1992Oct13.173156.23102
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty) writes:
: 
: 1.1 Camroc - The first purpose-designed rocket camera. Designed by Estes and 
:    sold from 1965 to 1974. A marvel of simplicity, it was patterned after 
:    several homebrew cameras of the early '60s (see 2.1.1). It was simply a 
:    cylindrical body that held the film topped by a hemispherical nose that 
:    was flattened off to accept the optical window which the forward facing 
:    lens looked through. One shot per flight on "Astropan 400" (Kodak Tri-X) 
:    cut into a 1 1/2" dia. round negative. Easy to process at home. Extremely 
:    valuable on the collector market.

How valuable?  I might be willing to sell mine - with a couple of spare
film magazines.

Bill
From: soc1070
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: NARAM SUMMARY????
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:58:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Minnesota CIS
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <7297@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes...
>In article <Bw6o9G.AK1@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct1.203341.2269@ultb.isc.rit.edu> jsvrc@rc.rit.edu (J A Stephen Viggiano) writes:
>> |Nice idea, but falls completely apart once we examine the facts. The specific
>> |impulse of BlackJack propellant is about one-third less than that of
>> |Blue Thunder and White Lightning. One could easily have a G which is no
>> |heavier than the heaviest F. One could easily have a 55 NS F which is no
>> |heavier than the heaviest E. A triple-beam balance, or an analytic balance,
>> |for that matter, is completely inadequate for the purpose.
>> 
>> Are all three available as reloads? I assume that there would be some 
>> rule that says one can only use approved reloads.. then again theres 
>> no real way to check... well heck, theres one big problem right there.
> 
>Well, this is sort of a circular argument.  NONE of them are currently
>NAR certified, never mind Contest Certified.  You may recall that this
>whole thread BEGAN as a discussion of the extra problems involved in
>Contest-Certifying reloadables.
>-- 
> 
>cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com 

You could do this for verification:

1. The flyer presents the casing and reload (unopened) to a judge.
2. The judge weighs the casing and all the flight components of the
   reload (after it is opened).
3. The assembled motor is then re-weighed. Allowing for vasaline,
   if the motor's weights do not match within, say, 5% the motor
   has to be rebuilt.

IMHO, even the differences in propellent components could not get you from
an F to a G and keep the reload weights that close (2-5%).

However, the red tape involved with such a check in system makes it
pretty impractable for competition meets.

------
Tim Harincar				Kill Your Television.			
Central Minnesota 		
Association of Rocketry		
soc1070@vx.acs.umn.edu		
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Not a NARAM Summary...
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:13:52 GMT

...But since people seem to be begging for summaries, I figured
I give a little summary of a V-2 50th anniversary launch I
went to last Saturday.  Well, it was actually advertised as an
A-4, but I personally couldn't tell the difference.

It was advertised as a high power demonstration launch where
the star of the show was to be a 21 pound, 7 1/2 foot tall
V-2 (oops, A-4) built by a local (Huntsville, AL) high school
student.  I had never seen a high power launch, so I went.

Sure enough, it was a BIG rocket (compared to what Estes sells).
It had a fiberglass body with an internal launch lug.  It was
designed to fly on a single J engine (J-800 if I heard right).
In order to be more of a crowd pleaser for those with inexpensive
cameras that wanted an impressive picture, it also help 3 FX
engines for a Realistic (tm) smoke effect.  It also had two
5-foot parachutes.  Supposed to fly to about 2500 feet.

First, every was brought close to get photos of the FX engines
in action (the J was still in a locked van).  They fired the
FX engines one at a time, boy was I underwhelmed.  They don't
really do much for 7.5 foot rocket.

Then we all had to back up while they installed the J and hooked
everything up.  Then, ... the countdown, the crowd was tense.
... 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, ... "This may take a couple of seconds",
... nothing happened.  Someone in the crowd says "Just like the
real V-2."

They go back and check things again.  Another countdown.  Nothing
happens.  They check again.  Another countdown.  Third time's a 
charm.

Like I said, this was my first high power launch.  It was LOUD.
Flew perfectly, ... arched over, ... nosed down, ... started
falling, ... kept falling, ... kept falling, ... (uh-oh), ...
straight into the cotton field, ... just like the real V-2, I
suppose :-(.

About 10 people trekked into the field while other launches went
as scheduled (including a V-2 probably using a 1/2A6-2).  After
about 30 minutes some people started filtering back from the field
saying they still hadn't found it.  Not a good sign, since the
cotton was only about 3 feet tall and they rocket was over 7 feet
tall and hadn't landed that far away.

After about an hour, they finally found it.  The body had
pretty well shattered.  I wanted to see what the remains looked
like, but when I realized they were trying to dig it out (slowly),
I decided to call it a day.

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
Intergraph Corporation       | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.b23b.ingr.com   | **THEN** try again.
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: soc1070                         
Subject: Re: How do I reach Ed LaCroix?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Minnesota CIS
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:03:00 GMT


In article <1992Oct9.143957.12897@research.nj.nec.com>, gll@phoenix (Gary Lindgren) writes...
>Does anyone out there know how I can reach Ed LaCroix of Apogee Systems? 
>I think he has an account on Compuserve (which I don't remember) and I don't
>know how to get from the Internet to Compuserve.
> 
>Any help would be appreciated.
> 
>TIA,
> 
>Gary Lindgren

Ed can be reached on compuserve at 71441.1111@compuserve.com (thats the
internet address for his account on compuserve). Address the mail
just like any other internet account.

Any compuserve account can be reached by the user number with the comma
replaced by a period followed by @compuserve.com.

Ed's full address is:
Apogee Components
19828 N. 43rd Dr.
Glendale, AZ 85308
602-780-2946 (which acts as a fax line as well)

If you call him, be prepared for a looooooonnnnggg conversation :)

P.S. too bad its not so easy to hook up with modelnet over there.
There is a lot of good chatter that takes place. But its not worth
$12.50 an hour.... :(

-----
Tim Harincar				Kill Your Television.			
Central Minnesota 		
Association of Rocketry		
soc1070@vx.acs.umn.edu
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Guidance Alternatives
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:50:54 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <Bw6FAu.7sv@news.iastate.edu>, wyvern@iastate.edu (Nuno Bettencourt) writes:
> 	Not very important, but I happened to read in a Popular Science
> magazine that they've been able to make gyroscopes the size of a computer
> chip. Could you imagine what this'd do to the model rocket industry if
> the technology ever became available to the private sector? :)

Sounds like they would be great for instrumentation (sensing directional
changes), but useless for physical control (via the mere mass of the gyro,
without requiring electronics).
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott)
Subject: Re: More NCR Problems
Organization: NEC America, Radio Software Dept
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:09:41 GMT

In article <12OCT199208114754@vx.cis.umn.edu>, soc1070                          writes:
|> Yesterday out at the flying field, one of our members brought out the 
|> latest offering from North Coast Rocketry - one of the new plastic cones.
|> 
|> This cone was pathetic! Oh, the plastic itself was ok - but the 
|> dimensions were way off! The cone was the NC-26P, designed for their
|> 2.7 inch O.D. tube. The section of the cone that is supposed to slide
|> into the tube was way too small, off by .130! Dale, the guy who bought
|> the cone, found out by accident that the cone fits really well into
|> the STAGE COUPLER (!). But, after thinking he may be able to save this
|> cone, Dale discovered that the diameter of the shoulder is off-center
|> by almost .063 (1/16) inch.
|> 
|> Needless to say, he is sending it back. I don't think NCR is going to 
|> be able to blame this one on differences in humidity between their
|> location and ours!

I've also received kits and parts from NCR which had bad parts, but they 
have always been prompt about making things right, and without any excuses.

I hope that NCR gets the kinks worked out with their nose cone suppliers. 
I never liked Aerofoam nose cones.  I've seen kits from two different kit
manufacturers (NCR and Summit) with Aerofoam cones and none of them ever
fit as nicely as I thought they should.

============================================================================
Buzz McDermott                   Internet: buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com
NAR   13559
TRA    1785
============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott)
Subject: Re: More NCR Problems
Organization: NEC America, Radio Software Dept
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:32:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.200941.26812@rsd0.rsd.dl.nec.com>, buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott) writes:
|> <comments on NCR nosecones deleted>
|> 
|> I've also received kits and parts from NCR which had bad parts, but they 
|> have always been prompt about making things right, and without any excuses.
|> 
|> I hope that NCR gets the kinks worked out with their nose cone suppliers. 
|> I never liked Aerofoam nose cones.  I've seen kits from two different kit
|> manufacturers (NCR and Summit) with Aerofoam cones and none of them ever
|> fit as nicely as I thought they should.

To correct my earlier posting, I meant to write 'Microbrick', not 'Summit'
(the Summit is a Microbrick kit).  To further correct the posting, the 
Microbrick noses cones are not 'Aerofoam' and there is no connection between 
NCR and Microbrick nose cones.  The nosecones on the two Summit kits I've
seen were made slightly off-center and could have fit better, though.
============================================================================
Buzz McDermott                   Internet: buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com
NAR   13559
TRA    1785
============================================================================
From: barrett@add.itg.ti.com
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: DOT Status?
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:56:57 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments, Austin, Tx.


  Does anyone out in netland know the status of the DOT regulations as
they pertain to reloadable engines.  Are we making progress?

  It seems that there are a lot of rumors flying.  Anyone know any
facts?


BTW: I did not get any responses to my request for a supplier of
nosecones that would fit a 29mm motor tube :-(  Sorry that I
accidentally posted the request twice.


Stu Barrett  barrett@add.itg.ti.com
TRA#1277  NAR#4341