HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rbs@cyclops.micr.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Sisk)
Subject: Re: JULBPP.ZIP still bad on archive site
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:27:20 GMT

In article <24JAN199312523819@vill.edu> 161685732@vill.edu (JOE PRYSZLAK) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.172905.6280@ennews.eas.asu.edu>, elder@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (Greg Elder) writes...
>>Some months back, I had posted that the file julbpp.zip on the r.m.r
>>archive site (sunsite.unc.edu) appeared to be bad (it won't
>>unzip).  Someone, I don't remember who, was going to upload a
>>good version.  I looked today and it seems that the old file is still
>>there.  Does anyone know where, or if, a good copy is available?
>>Thanks.
>> 
>>--
>>Greg Elder                                        elder@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
>>Department of Computer Science            or      elder@seine.eas.asu.edu
>>Arizona State University
>> 
>
>
>I noticed the same thing.  I also noticed that the FAQs don't find their way
>to the FTP archive anymore.  Any objections to me uploading the newest one
>there?
>
>What's in this JULBPP.ZIP file anyway?

The FAQs have begun to find their way to the archive.  Please upload!  Feel
free to upload ANYTHING related to model rockets!!!!!  The problem with
the archive (now that all of the bugs are fixed 8-) ) is that very
little has been uploaded.

Bob

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert B. Sisk  PhD			Internet: rbs@virginia.edu
NAR #53448				UUCP:     uunet!virginia!rbs
TRIPOLI #1583                           CIS:      71501.1651@CompuServe.COM
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Tracking
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:56:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.011603.22455@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>soc1070 writes:
>: 
>: As for decent rates, I think a basic problem would be that two
>: different rockets, each exactly the same weight and with the 
>: same size 'chutes, would fall at different rates, because the one
>: with the larger exposed area (i.e. fins, tube, etc) would be carried
>: further down wind. A one pound rocket and a one pound sphere with 
>: identical chutes will not likely fall in the same place, so its
>: difficult to say. In your case, what you computed was the *closest*
>: possible distance.

>This is a little misleading. They will both fall at the same rate.
>They will not fall at the same descent angle - the one with the greater
>lateral area of resistance will drift further.

Actually, given enough time to accelerate to wind velocity, both 
will drift sideways at the same speed, which is zero airspeed and
whatever the wind velocity is for groundspeed. 

Now of course behavior will be different if wind shear or different
wind velocities at different altitudes exist.

This one's been beaten to death in model airplane circles - whether
a model will "feel" wind when in free flight, i.e. when there isn't 
an operator on the ground telling it what to do by his frame of 
reference.

An interesting thought experiment would be to fly an R/C pattern ship
off the deck of an aircraft carrier sailing downwind at exact wind 
velocity. The operator doesn't sense and wind, and the airplane doesn't 
seem to experience a wind either.




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: hrbob@ixstar.ih.att.com (R.E. Wiersbe)
Subject: Re: Payloads
Originator: news@cbnewsb.cb.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:08:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.172723.943@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbs@dayhoff.med.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Sisk) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.232138.8383@rsd0.rsd.dl.nec.com> buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott) writes:
>
>STUFF DELETED
>
>>
>>Finally, the FAQ on the archive is one of the original 2-part FAQs from last
>>year and is now out of date.  If the keeper of the archive will remind me how
>>to submit files I will get that updated.
>>
>
>The last posted copy of the FAQ (including the repost of one section, I
>forget which) is now located on the R.M.R Archive (SunSite.UNC.EDU).  You
>can find it in the RMRFAQ directory.  BTW,  I think all of the problems
>with uploading to SunSite (uploads/rockets) have been fixed.
>Someone let me know if this is not the true!!!!!!! So far anonymous FTP
>to SunSite works for me 8-).....   FEED BACK !!!!!!! ANYONE?????
>
>Bob
>
>
>-- 
>
>Robert B. Sisk				Internet: rbs@virginia.edu
>NAR #53448				UUCP:     uunet!virginia!rbs

Okay, I'm on sunsite....there's the RMRFAQ directory (with files)....hmmm...
the articles and plans directories are empty!!!! Can't create a POSTS directory..
getting rmrfaq.1.2....yep, it worked!!!

So what happened to the stuff in the articles and plans directories????!!!????

I'm going to put a file into the uploads/rockets directory now.....it worked!!

So how do I create a POSTS directory to put the posts for the last year into
the archives??? The files are waiting!!

Bob Wiersbe	hrbob@ihlpb.att.com

Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: sasso@flounder.phy.anl.gov (John F. Sasso)
Subject: Re: Tracking
Organization: Argonne National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:11:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.011603.22455@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>soc1070 writes:
>: 
>: As for decent rates, I think a basic problem would be that two
>: different rockets, each exactly the same weight and with the 
>: same size 'chutes, would fall at different rates, because the one
>: with the larger exposed area (i.e. fins, tube, etc) would be carried
>: further down wind. A one pound rocket and a one pound sphere with 
>: identical chutes will not likely fall in the same place, so its
>: difficult to say. In your case, what you computed was the *closest*
>: possible distance.
>
>This is a little misleading. They will both fall at the same rate.
>They will not fall at the same descent angle - the one with the greater
>lateral area of resistance will drift further.
>
>Bill


Um, just like a 1 gram piece of paper verses a one gram raison.
(Geez, I thought you guys would understand basic physics. ;-( )

jfs

-- 
"The only way to true inspiration is the study of TedDo.  And lots
of MauMau, of course."  The Elvis Lectures
"I am not the False Bob, I am a free man."  The Book of FalseBobs
"Since the introduction of MauMau, HP sales have skyrocketed." Book of MauMau
From: jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Shred Avoidance
Reply-To: jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Organization, City, State, etc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:43:35 GMT

There is an excellent article about rocket fin and airframe
aero-elasticity in the latest issue of HPR.
I have some comments about this.
I have been slowly solving 'shred' problems for HPR rockets.
One of the problems nowadays is the popularity of the ISP
reload motors. (Hopefully they will survive!)
But these babes are real stump pullers!  I don't think any
of the ISP reloads have a burn time over 3 sec and I think
most are 1 to 2 sec. This delivers a double wammy of flight
load to the aero-surfaces sheer motor acceleration and induced
drag loading( since this all takes place close to the ground
the air density is higher).(Lord knows what Kosdon motors do!)
 
Solving catastrophic failures I have done the following.
I don't fly craft paper tubing any more.
I don't fly with plywood fins.
I always fly with thu-the-wall fin mounting.
 
For airframe I use only Phenolic and Fiberglass
and am testing the new carbon fiber composites.
 
For fin material I find fiberglass works fine, tho
the higher the speed the thicker material, I have
torn 1/16 fiberglass. 
The problem I have with fiber glass is cutting the
overall shape, just don't have the tools or skill to
do a super job of it. (Putting on aero edges is not 
hard.)  For strong thick enough fins I have not found
harmonic flutter to be a problem. (I usually by pre cut
fins from Public Missiles.)
 
As alternative I have also used Aerotech fins.
These are beautifully molded (I am not sure out of
what) fins. I have Public Missiles cut slots in 
their phenolic airframe and CA or Epoxy in the fins.
Makes a good looking rocket. However since you can't
fillet them they seem to be little weaker that filleted
fiber glass fins. Tho one could strengthen the fins with
'channels' on the motor mount, such as on the Aerotech models.
 
 
For those flying J and K loads, I recommend Dynacom's
models. These are wicked! All fiberglass, but they are
the most sturdy non-metal rocket models I have ever seen.
I flew a K1100 in a Blackwidow at LDRS 11 and only cracked a fillet
which I think was my fault. (The fillets are put on with PC7
which is like steel when it hardens, so good craftsmanship is
essential.) This rocket took 31g's max, did even muss its hair!
These are heavy models, but have most perfect nose cones
on any model rockets, no seam, and I mean there is no seam!
I love the little pem T seats and 1/16 set screws for holding on
the nose cone and the payload section. 
Expensive, but you get your money's worth!
 
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: rbs@dayhoff.med.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Sisk)
Subject: Re: Payloads
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:27:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.232138.8383@rsd0.rsd.dl.nec.com> buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott) writes:

STUFF DELETED

>
>Finally, the FAQ on the archive is one of the original 2-part FAQs from last
>year and is now out of date.  If the keeper of the archive will remind me how
>to submit files I will get that updated.
>

The last posted copy of the FAQ (including the repost of one section, I
forget which) is now located on the R.M.R Archive (SunSite.UNC.EDU).  You
can find it in the RMRFAQ directory.  BTW,  I think all of the problems
with uploading to SunSite (uploads/rockets) have been fixed.
Someone let me know if this is not the true!!!!!!! So far anonymous FTP
to SunSite works for me 8-).....   FEED BACK !!!!!!! ANYONE?????

Bob


-- 

Robert B. Sisk				Internet: rbs@virginia.edu
NAR #53448				UUCP:     uunet!virginia!rbs
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Tracking
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:02:15 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

soc1070 writes:
: In article <1993Jan26.011603.22455@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes...
: >: 
: >: As for decent rates, I think a basic problem would be that two
: >: different rockets, each exactly the same weight and with the 
: >: same size 'chutes, would fall at different rates, because the one
: >: with the larger exposed area (i.e. fins, tube, etc) would be carried
: >: further down wind. A one pound rocket and a one pound sphere with 
: >: identical chutes will not likely fall in the same place, so its
: >: difficult to say. In your case, what you computed was the *closest*
: >: possible distance.
: > 
: >This is a little misleading. They will both fall at the same rate.
: >They will not fall at the same descent angle - the one with the greater
: >lateral area of resistance will drift further.
: > 
: 
: You are correct. When I first posted that, I started to type that the
: decent rates would be the same, then I confused myself and thought the
: rates would be different. Must be work-related stress :)
: 
: The decent rate is constant, the speed of the model relative to the
: ground changes.

Actually, my response is also incorrect. Given a constant wind velocity,
the speed relative to the ground will also be identical - regardless of
the respective lateral wind resistance of the objects.

: There are also other factors: thermals, sinks, gusts, wind direction
: changes, etc. All will effect the landing point of a model. I once thought
: of writing a computer program to figure the landing area of a model,
: but there are just too many variables changing too fast (or unmeasurable).

When the velocity changes rapidly, then the velocity over the ground will
not be identical. Constant thermals and sinks will not affect ground speed.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Shred Avoidance
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:07:27 GMT

jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

: I have been slowly solving 'shred' problems for HPR rockets.
: One of the problems nowadays is the popularity of the ISP
: reload motors. (Hopefully they will survive!)
: But these babes are real stump pullers!  I don't think any
: of the ISP reloads have a burn time over 3 sec and I think
: most are 1 to 2 sec. This delivers a double wammy of flight
: load to the aero-surfaces sheer motor acceleration and induced
: drag loading( since this all takes place close to the ground
: the air density is higher).(Lord knows what Kosdon motors do!)

If you want a hot motor - get a Teeling Technologies K-2300. That's
right - over twice the average impulse of the notorious K-1100 rocket
shredders. Or, how about a J-700 or a K-500? All these would do a
good job of seriously stress testing your pet rocket.

: Solving catastrophic failures I have done the following.
: I don't fly craft paper tubing any more.
: I don't fly with plywood fins.
: I always fly with thu-the-wall fin mounting.
:  
: For airframe I use only Phenolic and Fiberglass
: and am testing the new carbon fiber composites.

I think I am going to quit using phenolic - it is too brittle. I have
found that a slight crack or scratch produces a serious weak point. I
will stick to fiberglass or possibly carbon fiber construction.

I have had no problem with plywood fins - however, I make them thicker
than most people would. I get a bit more drag, but they seem to hold
together better.

: As alternative I have also used Aerotech fins.
: These are beautifully molded (I am not sure out of
: what) fins. I have Public Missiles cut slots in 
: their phenolic airframe and CA or Epoxy in the fins.
: Makes a good looking rocket. However since you can't
: fillet them they seem to be little weaker that filleted
: fiber glass fins. Tho one could strengthen the fins with
: 'channels' on the motor mount, such as on the Aerotech models.

Why can't you add fillets? I saw nothing on my Initiator fins
which would prohibit such an action. I would expect any molded
plastic to be quite a bit weaker than fiberglass.

Bill
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: HPR Launches
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:14:09 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
:  Having just gotten the latest issue of High Power Rocketry
: and The Tripoli Report and having been a member for Tripoli
: for a year and a half now, I note a particular deficiency with
: Tripoli pubs or maybe its just Tripoli itself.
: Where are the high power rockets meets?

A number of people have complained about this lack of a calander.
I suggest that you write the editor, and ask that it be included.
If you want to get a movement going, make it a letter to the editor.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Igniters
Reply-To: jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Organization, City, State, etc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:27:28 GMT


>The ignitor is innovative; however, the clip could stand improvement.  It 
>looses its grip after a while and needs a clothes-pin helper and it needs 
>to be disassembled to clean the contacts thoroughly.  Masking tape or 
>'Z' foling and micro clips is a more reliable attachment in my experience.
......................................................................

I used up three Aerotech clips before I just disposed of them all.
Now I just do the masking tape bit. I also buy sets of cheap alligator
clip leads that clip onto my regular clips, since in general the 
copper head leads are never long enough to keep one from eventually
destroying and kind of clip. 
(I wonder if Aerotech is aware of the flaw their clip design, or
is this 'planned obsolence'
>> 
.....................................
I have had a problem with Aerotech RMS G motor loads and chuffing.
Never had a problem with the E and F loads. 
I am not sure why this is. For the ISP loads since they are core-burners
, I think all are, its easy to put a piece of thermalite boster on the
CopperHead. 
Tho, I think I have notice that the wire-wrap themallite maybe works 
even better on these larger motors.
I think that it takes more energy in an ignitor to lite off composite
propellant than black powder. I think comercial motors really use 
'hot' ignitors to make sure of ignition.
I have found that the 'match head' squib types always work
(of course can't work one of those into the C-slot on the 
RMS reloads.)
There must be tons of reference material from gov and military work
on how ignitors work with composite propellants.
...............................



Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Shred Avoidance
Reply-To: jackson@sn.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Organization, City, State, etc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:26:58 GMT

>
>If you want a hot motor - get a Teeling Technologies K-2300. That's
>right - over twice the average impulse of the notorious K-1100 rocket
>shredders. Or, how about a J-700 or a K-500? All these would do a
>good job of seriously stress testing your pet rocket.
>
Ok, now what the diddly is a 'Teeling Technologies' motor,
saw this listed in HPR for the Octoberfest meet.

How do you get 'em. (These those Canadian jobs I saw at LDRS?)

What is a Urinsco motor? 
Gumby motor?
...and I figure U.S. Rocket motors are defunct.
  
>: For airframe I use only Phenolic and Fiberglass
>: and am testing the new carbon fiber composites.
>
>I think I am going to quit using phenolic - it is too brittle. I have
>found that a slight crack or scratch produces a serious weak point. I
>will stick to fiberglass or possibly carbon fiber construction.
>
 Yeah I know. I dont have any trouble with Phenolic as long as I am
flying on grass or soft ground. I have found phenolic fairly easy to
repair as long as its not a long twisted break.
The new cabon fiber reinforced stuff looks like it solves the brittle
phenolic problem. To bad its so expensive right now.


>I have had no problem with plywood fins - however, I make them thicker
>than most people would. I get a bit more drag, but they seem to hold
>together better.
>
 I have found I can make thinner fins from fiber glass than plywood for
high over mach 1 rocket flight. 

>
>: As alternative I have also used Aerotech fins.
>: These are beautifully molded (I am not sure out of
>: what) fins. I have Public Missiles cut slots in 
>: their phenolic airframe and CA or Epoxy in the fins.
>: Makes a good looking rocket. However since you can't
>: fillet them they seem to be little weaker that filleted
>: fiber glass fins. Tho one could strengthen the fins with
>: 'channels' on the motor mount, such as on the Aerotech models.
>
>Why can't you add fillets? I saw nothing on my Initiator fins
>which would prohibit such an action. I would expect any molded
>plastic to be quite a bit weaker than fiberglass.

Well I guess on can add fillets , after a fashion, but since the
Aero tech fins sort of have molded in filets one has to do a lot
more touch up work. 
Now I found the moulded aerotech fins pretty sturdy, but its true
for something fast I use fiberglass.
Soon to try composite.

Al

Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Tracking
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:53:43 GMT

ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
: 
: >This is a little misleading. They will both fall at the same rate.
: >They will not fall at the same descent angle - the one with the greater
: >lateral area of resistance will drift further.
: 
: Actually, given enough time to accelerate to wind velocity, both 
: will drift sideways at the same speed, which is zero airspeed and
: whatever the wind velocity is for groundspeed. 

Yeah - I corrected my statement in another response on another thread.

: Now of course behavior will be different if wind shear or different
: wind velocities at different altitudes exist.
: 
: This one's been beaten to death in model airplane circles - whether
: a model will "feel" wind when in free flight, i.e. when there isn't 
: an operator on the ground telling it what to do by his frame of 
: reference.

Anyone who has watched a glider closely should know that it does - if
there is a change in the relative wind.

: An interesting thought experiment would be to fly an R/C pattern ship
: off the deck of an aircraft carrier sailing downwind at exact wind 
: velocity. The operator doesn't sense and wind, and the airplane doesn't 
: seem to experience a wind either.

Or upwind so that the relative airspeed was equal to the takeoff velocity
of the airplane. No runway length would be necessary.

Bill
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Question about electronic ejection control
Date: 22 Jan 1993 21:57:12 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <1993Jan22.172703.15050@rsd0.rsd.dl.nec.com>, buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott) writes:

> What gets fuzzy after that is exactly what is used to provide
> the ejection change itself.  Do you use black powder in some type of container,
> which you ignite via the pulse from the capacitor/timer?

Many people do.

> Are there commercial products available?

I believe a "standard ejection package" is available from Robby's Rockets.
(Let me be clearer: I know one is available SOMEWHERE, and I THINK it's 
from Robby.)
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
From: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu  (Roger Wilfong)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Payloads
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993  13:03 edt
Organization: UofM Hospitals
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: robin.hosp.med.umich.edu
X-Newsreader: FTPNuz (DOS) v1.0

In Article <1993Jan22.172723.943@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> "rbs@dayhoff.med.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Sisk)" says:
> In article <1993Jan21.232138.8383@rsd0.rsd.dl.nec.com> buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott) writes:
> 
> STUFF DELETED
> 
> >
> >Finally, the FAQ on the archive is one of the original 2-part FAQs from last
> >year and is now out of date.  If the keeper of the archive will remind me how
> >to submit files I will get that updated.
> >
> 
> The last posted copy of the FAQ (including the repost of one section, I
> forget which) is now located on the R.M.R Archive (SunSite.UNC.EDU).  You
> can find it in the RMRFAQ directory.  BTW,  I think all of the problems
> with uploading to SunSite (uploads/rockets) have been fixed.
> Someone let me know if this is not the true!!!!!!! So far anonymous FTP
> to SunSite works for me 8-).....   FEED BACK !!!!!!! ANYONE?????
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Robert B. Sisk				Internet: rbs@virginia.edu
> NAR #53448				UUCP:     uunet!virginia!rbs
> 
I haven't had a problem getting stuff from SunSite except for the BPP zip 
files.  My guess is in one of the file transfers they got shipped in text 
mode instead of image.  Looking at the zips that come down, the text like 
headers are ok but the compressed data is corrupted.
 
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets