HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu (A. Roger Wilfong)
Subject: Re: 'Tiger tail' igniters
Organization: U of Michigan - Information & Networking Services
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:27:14 GMT

In article <wcsbeau.714785260@cunews> wcsbeau@alfred.carleton.ca (OPIRG)
writes:
>
>Has anyone else seen/used such an igniter?  I'm used to the standard
>Estes ones, and I've never seen anything like this before.

Yes.  The product you were looking at is from Quest - a new rocket company by
some old-time rocketeers.  The ignitor in question is also sold by Aerotech
witout the tigertail wrapper as the Copperhead.  These ignitors work well.

>How do they work? is the wire actually two strips insulated from each
>other with a standard igniter (nichrome, whatever) wire embedded in
>the chemically-coated end, or is heat generated between the clips
>simply conducted downd the wire into the chemicals at the engine end?
>(This seems a little unlikly).

What looks like a single lead is actually two layers of copper insulated from
each other.  All of the action occures under the pyrogen at the top.  If you
lose the tigertail wrapper, you can sill use the ignitor by placing tape on
opposite sides of the lead (see the FAQ for more details).

Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: sxr@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.l.russell)
Subject: Re: Astrocam Breakthrough
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:12:26 GMT

From article <6310010@hpgrla.gr.hp.com>, by galenr@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Galen Raben):
> In rec.models.rockets, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
> 
>>>Astrocam: Hmm, Estes will not make astrocam anymore due to market
>>>decision. I suppose that Estes should sell Astrocam continuously because
>>>many modelers still looking for it include me! I am looking for
>>>that R/C aircraft carrying 35mm/Video camera for aerophotography.
> 
>>I'd love it if someone described this AstroCam. I understand it takes
>>110 film, but what lens? How is the shutter actuated? Does it replace 
>>a segment of body tube and therefore is in a tubular shape? I suppose 
>>it gets ejected as part of the nose cone section.... Do you advance the
>>film between flight or do you have to break open the cartridge to put 
>>little segments of film in the camera? (horrors!)
> 
> Yes, it does take 110 film, preferably ASA 400.  I dunno about the lens,
> never payed too much attention to the specifications (someone else will
> either have to answer that or I can take a better look at mine).  It is a
> small cheap plastic lens though.  The camera looks out the side and a mirror
> points it behind.  No it doesn't replace a segment of the body tube (at least
> not without mods)...it IS the nosecone section.  The Astrocam comes with
> a "booster".  The body tube size is no longer sold by Estes, so if you want
> to fly it in something other than the stock rocket you will need to either
> make an adapter or modify a payload section to carry it (though I've heard
> of some netters finding body tubes that will fit).  Essentially the spring-
> loaded shutter snaps the picture on ejection.  The shutter release is
> friction-fit between the camera base and the rocket tube.  Yes, you advance
> the film manually (via a thumbwheel) between flights...
> 
> Hope that helps...
> - Galen -
> semi-resident BAR


There seems to be a lot of interest generated in the Astrocam here. I wonder if
Estes would bring it back? Better yet, there has been a lot of discussion by
R/C flyers on attaching the disposable cameras to their planes but has 
anyone tried this with a ROCKET? 

Anyone got any suggestions on how it could be done?

==============================================================
Scott Russell - AT&T Bell Labs Middletown, NJ
	Standard Disclamier Applies
"Man does not live by bread alone... there's always chocolate!"
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: 32mm RMS Usage
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 16:52:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.114431.27915@med.umich.edu> Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu (A. Roger Wilfong) writes:

>A couple of glider flyers in our club have tried to buy just the 32mm motor
>from Aerotech for their own designs and have been turned down.  I don't know if
>this was because Aerotech is putting their entire production into the Pheonix
>or they jsut won't sell them serepately.  So you might have a problem getting
>them.

Hmmm..

I wonder how many motors you'd need to boost a 2 meter glider to
altitude. The 2 meter is the smallest R/C competition class (besides
the tiny Hand Launched gliders..). For that matter I wonder what it 
would take to launch a Standard Class (100" wingspan) glider.

I wouldn't suggest putting one on a Gentle Lady though..   9-)






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Putting an airfoil on glider wings.  Help!
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 17:21:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.180122.18882@zip.eecs.umich.edu> bjue@engin.umich.edu (Brian Jeffrey Jue) writes:

>     Someone told me to somehow clamp the balsa on the table, then sweep the
>sanding block from the root of the wing out to the tip, and back.  It hasn't
>worked for me (although I am *not* that handy with tools and such) maybe I
>wasn't being patient enough.  But it didn't work for me.  Then my other problem
>is how to get it on the other side.  It's not so easy to clamp down the side
>of ther wing that's already curved and curve the other one.

How thick is this wing? My guess is that you can use a razor plane to 
take most of it down, then a sanding block to the rest. Or start with 
really coarse (50 grit?) sandpaper. 

As for the other side: try blocking up the leading and trailing edges 
on balsa strip stock.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: DOT/CPSC/FAA Situation
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:38:51 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <10490016@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM>, bo@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Bo Viger) writes:
> BTW, a distributor told me of "a NAR offical" in CA blowing the whistle to the
> fire marshall. I should have qualified that remark as hearsay.

The person in question, according to what both Fred Shecter and Martin 
Bowitz of the LA Rocket Society told me independently at NARAM, is Fred 
Shecter.

> Your remark 
> about Aerotech bending the regulations to a point of making actions like
> confiscation appropriate is understandable. However, knee-jerk reactions tend 
> towards overkill, and IF a "concerned hobbist" wanted to amend the situation, 
> perhaps a better course of action would have been to work through his NAR
> (or Tripoli, or both) organization to have THEM bring pressure to bear against
> Aerotech, so that all of us didn't end up with a crippled hobby.

Fred attempted to work with AeroTech and was rebuffed with double-speak.
I suppose he could have contacted the NAR, but I doubt it would have 
done anything but delay the inevitable confiscation.  In order to bring
any pressure to bear, the NAR would have had to threaten the same action
that Fred ultimately took.  We could not even have threatened them with
removal of NAR certification, since they never had any in the first place.
In fact, if the problem had been brought to the attention of the NAR, the
NAR would probably have been bound to contact the Fire Marshal immediately
themselves, to avoid being accomplices to the violation.

The California reload situation did not result in a crippled hobby, in 
any sense of the word.  It had no repercussions outside California, and
the only repercussion in California is that a new product that wasn't 
available there two years ago is still unavailable, until it gets the
Fire Marshal's seal.  That's frankly the same state it was in at the
moment when it was invented.

> All these problems could have easily been forseen (and maybe they were), but
> I'd like to think that my future membership dues will support organizations
> that can see fundamental changes in the hobby (like reloads) as reason for
> long-sighted action, both with the manufacturers and with the government
> agencies, by whose blessing, we exist.

Indeed; but there's a difference between being in favor of doing things in 
the right order to obtain a long-term desired result, and condoning shortcuts 
that ignore current laws and regulations to achieve the same result.
-- 

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: pfeiffer@nmsu.edu (Joe Pfeiffer)
Subject: Re: 'Tiger tail' igniters
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:24:45 GMT

In article <wcsbeau.714785260@cunews> wcsbeau@alfred.carleton.ca (OPIRG) writes:

<what's a Tiger Tail deleted>

   Has anyone else seen/used such an igniter?  I'm used to the standard
   Estes ones, and I've never seen anything like this before.

Yes, I have.  They work; I don't know if they're any more or less
reliable than Estes.  I have very few failures anyway...  That being
the case, it doesn't seem worth the hassle to me.

   How do they work? is the wire actually two strips insulated from each
   other with a standard igniter (nichrome, whatever) wire embedded in
   the chemically-coated end, or is heat generated between the clips

Yes.  Just like the Aerotech Copperheads ignitors.

-Joe.
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: soc1070                         
Subject: Ariel Photography
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Minnesota CIS
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:49:00 GMT

Last spring, a guy in our club (Dale Saukerson) constructed a 35mm
camera for an H powered rocket out of one of the all-in-one type
point-and-shoots. He did quite a bit of research on those cameras before
he tore it apart. On thing to remember - they DO NOT all have electroinc
shutters. Most, in fact, are mechanical, which means servos, etc
for in flight photos. He did find one, I believe an Olympus, that had
an electronic shutter. His release circuit included dip switches for
both number of frames shot (1-16) and time between frames. I've
been trying to get details and photos out of him for our newsletter,
and if I find out anything else interesting, I'll post it.

Tim Harincar			"Always listen to experts.			
Central Minnesota 		They'll tell you what can't
Association of Rocketry		be done and why. Then do it."
soc1070@vx.acs.umn.edu			-Lazarus Long
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets,rec.models.rc
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Astrocam
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:33:00 GMT

OK...

so after all this, can someone describe an Astrocam?


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: soc1070                         
Subject: Re: Astrocam
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Minnesota CIS
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:25:00 GMT

In article <1SEP199209281957@almach.caltech.edu>, shoppa@almach.caltech.edu (TIM SHOPPA) writes...
>In article <6052@transfer.stratus.com>, cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes...

>2.  A little more economical is to process the film yourself, by hand.  You
>would need what is called a "dark bag" to unload the film from the 35mm
>cartridge and wind the film onto a developing reel, which is then put in
>a light-proof developing tank.  (Actually, winding film inside a bag onto
>a reel isn't very easy unless you get one of the dark bags that has nice
>lightproof gloves on it!)  Then you go through the developing process,
>which consists of pouring different solutions in and out of the developing
>tank.  Developing is different for b/w, color negative, and color transparency
>films, but little kits for all of these processes are available at most
>photography stores.  The developing tank is lightproof with a little light-
>trapped funnel in the top for pouring the solutions in and out.
>You can easily get negatives or slides in an hour.  Total cost of permanent
>equipment is $50-$60 (most of which is for a dark bag), and the chemicals
>amount to $1-$2 per roll, depending on whether you are doing b/w,
>color negative, or color slides.
> 
I admit, this would be possible. Not, however, very practical. First of all
color is almost out of the question. Unless you absolutly DO NOT care what
the colors in the photos look like. Processing color slides and negitives
requires very careful temperatur control of the chemicals - to within one
degree for accurate color. Why shoot color if you can't reproduce the color
accuratly? So, assuming you are going to try B&W, lets go back to the
original problem - finding a lost R/C plane in the trees. What you now
have in the field is a very small negitive with an even smaller plane
somewhere in that frame - maybe.

I'd rather spend my hour picking up polaroids that fell off the plane...

Tim Harincar			"Always listen to experts.			
Central Minnesota 		They'll tell you what can't
Association of Rocketry		be done and why. Then do it."
soc1070@vx.acs.umn.edu			-Lazarus Long
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Competition Motors in Europe
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:33:52 GMT

In article <24AUG199214124700@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov> whitman@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Rusty Whitman) writes:

|There have been a couple of posts from people asking how the
|East Europeans and the (former) Soviets got their motors for
|competition.  I actually have a couple of these and have
|talked to some folks that know how they are made and who makes
|them.  The ones I have are about 11mm in diameter and I've seen
|some even smaller.  The 11mm motors are our equivalent of 1/2A
|and A motors.  The casings on the ones I have are much thinner
|than Estes motors but also much harder.  As for what the propellant
|is I was told this story by one of the people on the Internats team
|that spoke to one of the East Europeans.  The guy that made their
|motors lived near a munitions plant where they made morter rounds.
|He knew some of the people that worked there and they let him in
|at night after everyone had gone home.  He would sweep up the 
|propellant shavings from the milling process and take them home.
|This is what he used in the competition motors he made.

Heheheh....

Even if someone was pulling someone else's leg it'd still 
be a great urban legend!

Might be true though  9-)

Ever since Perestroika the model airplane mags have been 
running articles about modelling in the former Soviet Union.
Apparently the "State Sponsored Professional" stories were
only partially true.. a lot of the top modellers actually 
worked as machinists or engineers and were basically allowed 
to use the equipment at work to produce their motors etc. 
Sponsorship was essentially limited to holding model meets, 
running youth model clubs (from whose ranks the top model-
lers emerge), purchase/requisitioning of materials and trans-
port of national/regional teams to competitions. 

The Chinese, though, did have a system of modelling "schools"
and clubs where the idea was to turn out top modellers who 
would go on to become top engineers. The modellers were given 
enough materials to build motors, etc. while they were in 
school.








-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
Organization: Doctoral student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Date: Fri,  4 Sep 1992 11:35:03 -0400 
From: Lawrence Curcio <lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: _Handbook_ Update

I have been fooling around with three-observer altitude tracking, in
preparation for an experiment this weekend (Thanks to John Joseph for a
nice derivation, BTW). I compared my hypothetical altitude values with
those from the table in Appendix VII of Stine's _Handbook_. Problem is
that the table has no clear instructions. Stine says to look up the
"Subtract" number from table 1 in the "Sum of values" column of table 2
and read off the altitude. Here is the real procedure:

Look up the angles from the end trackers in table 1 and add the
corresponding numbers. Then look up the angle for the middle tracker in
table 1 and SUBTRACT the corresponding number. Look up the result in
table 2 and read off the altitude.

There is a description of the 3-observer method in the section on
tracking, in case all this makes no sense.                              
   
                                                          
Regards,
-Larry C.
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: sxr@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.l.russell)
Subject: Estes Bail-out
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:17:20 GMT

Has anyone purchased/flown this rocket?  My son wants to get this one
so he can use it with his "GI-JOE" men. Will those figures fit? I assume that
all it does is push the men out with the wadding and they float down
with their own parachute?

Thanks.

==============================================================
Scott Russell - AT&T Bell Labs Middletown, NJ
	Standard Disclamier Applies
"Man does not live by bread alone... there's always chocolate!"
===============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets,rec.models.rc
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Astrocam
Keywords: astrocam
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:35:56 GMT

In article <vz7m=7l.tstark@netcom.com> tstark@netcom.com (Timothy Stark) writes:
>jkonecn@andy.bgsu.edu (Joe Konecny) writes:

>> Also, has anyone tried out that new RC controlled rocket glider?  It says it
>>cost $75, does that include the controller?  Hopefully this kit is complete
>>for that price.


>No, it does not include the controller but you have buy the radio system.
>It should be glider-type servos (micro servos). For more information, you
>call call Estes to find out more information. Good Luck!

>Or you can call Tower Hobbies or Hobby Shack to find out more information for
>radio system (72 Mhz radio).

One caveat: Please please please get an instructor to teach
you how to fly before you attempt to fly R/C Rocket Gliders!

They tend to be small and fast, and are aerobatic. They use 
ailerons, and are therefore somewhat harder to fly than your
usual polyhedral rudder/elevator glider, and even these are 
a handful if you've never flown anything R/C. 

If you want your glider to survive beyond its first flight 
get an experienced pilot to help you out, and consider join-
ing a model airplane club.


>Astrocam: Hmm, Estes will not make astrocam anymore due to market
>decision. I suppose that Estes should sell Astrocam continuously because
>many modelers still looking for it include me! I am looking for
>that R/C aircraft carrying 35mm/Video camera for aerophotography.

I'd love it if someone described this AstroCam. I understand it takes
110 film, but what lens? How is the shutter actuated? Does it replace 
a segment of body tube and therefore is in a tubular shape? I suppose 
it gets ejected as part of the nose cone section.... Do you advance the
film between flight or do you have to break open the cartridge to put 
little segments of film in the camera? (horrors!)

R/C aircraft with a 35mm camera? Should be fairly simple. I'd think 
about using one of those cheap 35mm plastic things with the built in
autowinders and (ominous music here) cut into it and tap into the 
leads for the shutter release button (which on these things is an elec-
trical switch). Then mount a microswitch on a servo. 

Any large high-wing trainer type (eg. Sig Kadet Sr.) sould be able to 
handle the weight. So too would a standard class glider with, say, a 
.15 or .19 on the nose. 








-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: bo@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Bo Viger)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:27:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Estes composites (was Where did my rocket go??)
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets

>Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu writes:
>
>BTW - I have noticed a strange phenomenom as regards reloadable motors.  While
>a couple years ago, it seemed a couple of years ago, HP rockets were almost
>treated as throwaways - blast them out of sight and if we never see it again...
>well so goes the war.  Suddenly with reloads, this attitude seems to be
>changing.  Add a $60 motor casing to a $100 rocket and people are crying - not
>about loosing the rocket (that took them a lot of time to build and finish) -
>but about loosing the casing.
>
>Is this a real phenomenom?  Has any one else noticed it?  or am I just nuts? 

I'd say its a real phenomenom. When I lost (as in, "never saw it again") an
Aerotech on a G80, the first thing my fellow hobbists asked was, "Was your
RMS in that, or was it an expendable?"  At that same moment, I was thinking,
"Gee, sure am glad I had an expendable in that." (remembering that it just as
easily could have been my RMS with a G64)

Was I worried about losing a $30 rocket. Yeh, somewhat. Was I worried about
losing a $30 29mm RMS. YOU BET! .....go figure.....

Bo Viger
Tripoli #1864
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: AstroCams - Where?
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:58:33 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <BtzJD3.KoJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, smith@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg Smith) writes:
> > Estes made a camera called the Cineroc from about 1967 to 1971, but
> > it's been gone for a LONG time.  That was the only KIT movie camera 
> > ever produced.
> 
> ...I can tell you for sure that the Cineroc was 
> first introduced in the 1970 Estes catalog...
> I'm not exactly sure when the Cineroc was discontinued, but 1974 seems 
> about right...

I took a SWAG from the years I was out of the hobby (9/69 to 9/73).  I
thought I saw the Cineroc come in but not go out.  Maybe I saw it go out
but not come in.  I know for sure that I missed the demise of the Camroc;
the introduction of Estes D's (including the entire life of the D13); the 
introduction of mini-engines (and the death of the Series III "S" engines);
the death of Model Rocketry magazine and Enerjet; the metricization of 
engine designations; and the entire market lifetime of General Mills/MPC 
and Cox.  A lot can happen in four years!
-- 

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...