HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zlau@arrl.org (Zack Lau)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Ignition Systems
Date: 28 Aug 92 08:34:28 EDT
Organization: American Radio Relay League

In rec.models.rockets, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>In article <5834@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>
>>About six years ago, not being able to find a small, cheap 12VDC PA system,
>>I tried building the one that appeared in the Handbook.  I got all the parts
>>except for two large transistors.  The guy at the electronics store said,
>>"We could get you those, but they would be $45 each."  When I asked him 
>>why, he said, "Because those are POWER transistors."  So I came away with
>>the impression that all power transistors were hideously expensive.  Perhaps
>>the guy lied.  Maybe the real answer was, "Because those are goddamn ANTIQUES!"

Prices for electronic components vary widely, depending on where you buy
them.  Generally, there is a tradeoff between selection, availability, and
cost.  An electronic store generally offers the selection and availability--
they are geared up to getting whatever you need in a reasonably short time--
  so you pay for it.  Since their main customers are repair people who pass
on the the cost, *almost* everyone is happy.  And, to be truthful, nobody is
really getting rich.  It costs lots of money to maintain a storefront and
for his distributor to maintain that huge inventory.

What a hobbyiest should do is to get catalogs from all the mail order places
and go looking for places that sell stuff cheaply.  You can do this because
you might find other neat stuff to buy, while you can imagine the uproar that
would result if there were a charge "for scanning catalogs
for the cheapest price."  And, when you do buy, buy *lots*.  Nothing like
having spares sitting on the shelf as insurance (its amazing what spares
does to the reliabilty of electronics :-)  ).

Zack Lau  KH6CP/1

Internet: zlau@arrl.org           Busy building 10 GHz SSB/CW gear     
			          Operating Interests: 10 GHz CW/SSB/FM
US Mail: c/o ARRL Lab				       80/40/20 CW
	225 Main Street		  Station capability: QRP, 1.8 MHz to 10 GHz
	Newington CT  06111	               modes: CW/SSB/FM/packet
						      amtor/baudot
Phone (if you really have to): 203-666-1541
>
>Heh,.. I wonder how big those antiques were physically.. Someone
>showed me a mid-sixties op amp. It was in a plastic case about an
>inch and a half square with four 1/16" diameter pins underneath.. 
>
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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: h198@hosp.med.umich.edu
Subject: Re: Scale rocket competition
Organization: U of M Hospitals
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:35:58 GMT

In article <5955@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
writes:
>
>They are officially rated by S&T as zero thrust engines.  However, I have
>at least twice seen FX engines "POP!" out of their mounts when ignited.
>The most recent time was last weekend, when it not only took itself out of
>the model, but yanked the main engine igniter out on the way down.
>-- 

Did it really spit the FX motor?  I've seen the FX motor spit an ignitor that
had been packed in with a ball of recovery wadding - sure that's not what
happened and the ignitor coming out pulled the ignitor out of the main motor.
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Estes Bail-out
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:51:11 EDT
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: sxr@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.l.russell)

In article <1992Sep4.131720.25637@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, sxr@cbnewsb (scott.l.russell) writes:
>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?

This is exactly why my 9 year old son bought one of these.  GI Joe is a snug
fit, but it works fine.  He had some similar sized monster-type dude with broad
shoulders who wouldn't fit.  He's launched some of a friend's figures too.

The kit is relatively easy to build.  The plastic fin unit doubles as the
engine holder, and the two parts of the fin unit twist together and are held in
place by small plastic tabs.  Once the 'chute failed to deploy (melted,
actually, due to a bad job on putting in the wadding) and the body hit hard
enough to break the tabs, which means the unit can't be flown without some jury
rigging.  The fin unit isn't in the Estes catalog, and when I called them to
inquire about purchasing one (and I made it clear the damage was not their
fault) they sent out a replacement fin unit for free.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Nike v.s. Mosquito
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:24:53 GMT

Hmmm.. Is this "mosquito" the one in the Estes catalog? The
little tiny thing with the huge fins?




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Subject: Re: Astrocam
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:00:37 GMT

regarding 35mm cameras in rockets and model airplanes ...

In article <1992Sep1.213703.18191@med.umich.edu> Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu writes:
>In article <1SEP199209281957@almach.caltech.edu> shoppa@almach.caltech.edu (TIM
>SHOPPA) writes:
[munch]
>>2.  A little more economical is to process the film yourself, by hand.
[munch]
>
>My recollection of film processing is that the wash takes a lot of water - not
>something readily available in the field.  B/W processing used to be done at 68
>degrees (times can be fudged to compensate for temperatures around 68) but,
>unless the chemistry has changed alot, color requires elevated temperatures
>(100 degrees typical) and tight temperature control - something else probably
>not easily done in the field.   Also trying to keep the film clean while it is
>drying may be a problem.
>
>I'll stick with the 1-hour film place.

If you decide to use color slide film, field developing is relatively
easy.  You need to use Ektachrome or Fujichrome, as Kodachrome is nearly
impossible for amateurs to develop - in fact, only a few labs in the US
do it themselves, most send it to Kodalux. Color print film is also a
bear, needing careful temp. control as you discuss. The temerature control for
Ektachrome is relatively loose, and only a gallon or two of distilled
water is needed for the wash.  You will need a place to hang the film to
dry that is as dust free as possible, but a tent with a garment storage
bag hanging in it would work. I scuba dive and most resorts offer slide
processing that they do on site with a light bag, a developing can and a
closet.  I watched some of my film being done on a liveaboard boat and
the chemicals were kept cool, but not temperature controlled. Everyting
worked out well.


-- 
| Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
| hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov    SpokesPersonp(Me,or(NASA,LESC)) = NIL
| "No the game never ends when your whole
|       world depends on the turn of a friendly card"
From: jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Ignition Systems
Date: 28 Aug 92 06:21:33 GMT
Reply-To: jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty)
Organization: Robotic Midwives, Ltd.

In article <1992Aug27.172003.8211@med.umich.edu> Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu writes:
>In article <BtnIxv.Goo@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
>(Iskandar Taib) writes:
>>
>>Someone showed me a mid-sixties op amp. It was in a plastic case about an
>>inch and a half square with four 1/16" diameter pins underneath.. 
>
>The OP amps you are refering to were probably hybrid or potted descrete
>component devices. ...they were often potted to provide a more uniforn 
>temperature environment.  I remember working with some that looked like 
>tubes (valves for you Brits) complete with 8-pin octal bases.

What both of you seem to be describing is (are?) the modular op-amps
like the type used in old analog computers circa 1955.  I took one of
the last analog computer classes at Berkeley (1975) and the insides of
those beasts were packed with hundreds of little octal-socketed boxes like
that, all glowing in the dark. 

The lab tech responsible for keeping them running (commercial parts 
sources had long since disappeared) had a dozen or so of them on his 
work bench at any one time, rebuilding them as the tubes and other 
components burned out.

As a bit of history, one of the computers was donated by Westinghouse
after it was determined to be obsolete. It was used in the design
of the Nautilus reactor used in the first atomic powered submarine.

- Jack

=============================================================================
||Jack Hagerty, Robotic Midwives, Ltd.                 jack@rml.com        ||
||Livermore, CA		           NOTE! New, improved address! ^^^        ||
||(510) 455-1143	            (old ones will still work)             ||
||-------------------------------------------------------------------------||
||               "Do or not do. There is no try." - Yoda                   ||
=============================================================================
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Where did my rocket go??
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:02:48 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA

msjohnso@daisy.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson) writes:
: In article <1992Aug18.223722.23955@primerd.prime.com> <J.Cook@ENS.Prime.COM> writes:
: >Estes did demonstrate some of their composite motors at NARAM-34.
: >Mary Roberts of Estes said although they had the correct propellant
: >formulations, they were not the final casings, etc.
: >
: >I don't remember any official promised date for their release.
: 
: Mike Hellmund of Estes told me they expected to be shipping by about
: March 31, 1993. I'm not certain whether this is initial quantities or 
: volume shipments. Given the state of the industry, it had better mean
: volume delivery into the distributor pipeline, but who knows.

I don't really care when they are available. Until the bit with the CPSC
etc are cleared up - I will not buy any Estes products. If I believe that
the trick that was pulled by Vulcan (which appeared to have backing by
Estes) did permanent harm to the hobby, then I will never buy another 
product produced by Estes. I have blackballed Vulcan for life - I will
never purposely purchase anything in which they were involved in producing.

Now, if my perceptions are wrong - someone please clear them up. Otherwise,
I will retain them.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: soc1070                         
Subject: Re: RE: Sounding Rockets (was Re: HPR thoughts & questions...)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Minnesota CIS
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:21:00 GMT

In article <875@daisy.WichitaKS.NCR.COM>, msjohnso@daisy.WichitaKS.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson) writes...

>I have a copy of the boosted Arcas film that was put together for NARAM-31
>(Manassas). I think Trip Barber did the editing, but I'm not sure. Mike
>Hellmund (now at Estes) may have had some involvement as well.


Great! Just what the hobby needs - more Estes *involvement* with video 
tape...

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
From: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Summary of NARAM Coming?
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:33:13 GMT
Organization: Taniwha Systems Design

In article <1992Aug25.214023.29639@primerd.prime.com> <J.Cook@ENS.Prime.COM> writes:
>confirm this.  Though neither have arrived yet, a friend also ordered the
>"Rocket Men 4" compilation tape which includes "Randall Redd's flying tank,
>Ray Dunakin's movie camera rockets, Neil Fishman's alternate propulsion 
>systems, and Greg Berg launching a Butterball turkey."

 ..... and my LOC Forte narrowly missing the crowd at Lucerne after seperation
(looks very sheepish ... walks away with tail between his legs ... :-)

Kyle showed bits of it in the bar at Bruno's at Blackrock ... some of it gets
rather off the wall including the examples of how to sand fins in the field
if you forget sandpaper (use the road ...) ...

	Paul
-- 
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul     AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P

	How do you tell when George Bush is lying?
	You read his lips ...
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 15:06:16 GMT

In article <ERICJ.92Sep1134052@calcutta.cfsat.Honeywell.COM> ericj@hwcae.Honeywell.COM (Eric Jacobsen) writes:

>I did a similar thing with a Goldberg Eagle and one of those el-cheapo
>Fuji cardboard develop-the-camera things. An extra servo inside pulling
>a bent coat-hangar arrangement to push the shutter button on the camera.
>The camera was rubber-banded to the bottom of the airplane and I had glued
>a couple of small balsa wood wedges in place to keep it from sliding around.
>Worked very well until my brother pulled the wings off the airplane in flight...


You know, there's an idea.. Put one of these cardboard thingies in
a rocket! They're fairly small and lightweight, and you don't have
to worry about landing to wind the film.....






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: barrett@add.itg.ti.com
Subject: LDRS XI - trip report(adendum)
Organization: Texas Instruments, Austin, Tx.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 18:34:00 GMT

  Oh yeah one more neat thing I saw was a launch of a model using the
new 98mm RMS motor.  It was the small casing (L950?).  The bost phase
was AUSOME.  I was at the far east end of the spectators line visiting
when it went off so I didn't hear any LCO chatter. The boost was so
impressive that it realy got my attention.

  However, no ejection.....  This thing fell from over 10,000' ft
straight down.  It hit 100 yds from me going faster than anything I've
ever seen before.  Needless to say the model was a total loss.  The
impact was so great that the front closure was driven back into the
casing!!  Only the rear closure was salvagable!!  I've never seen such
impact damage.

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 17:26:38 GMT

In article <5705@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.180122.18882@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, bjue@engin.umich.edu (Brian Jeffrey Jue) writes:
>>      I'm building a boost glider, and I read in Stine's book that the classic
>> curved on top, flat on bottom airfoil is not necessary. 
>
>No, but it's DESIRABLE, especially if you don't want to "glide" like a
>Space Shuttle.


Depends on how thick the wing is. If its as thin as I think
it is it won't matter. To make a difference you'd need an under-
cambered airfoil for something this thin. 

A symmetical airfoil has fewer "ballooning" tendencies.. you 
might get a better launch that way.


>You're going through a lot of trouble for a NON-optimal wing.  Just do one
>side, with a sanding block or a razor-plane.  Draw a line along the "high
>point" with a ball-point pen, and then try not to remove it much.


I agree, though, that the extra work might not be worth it.








-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: soc1070
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Nike v.s. Mosquito
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:10:00 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota CIS
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep1.154428.3642@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, mdavis@alex (M. Davis) writes...

>When I was younger, I didn't keep track but got at least a dozen flights with
>successful recoveries out of my first Mosquito.

Over the last 2 summers, I have put 26 flights on a Red Max that is at
least ten years old. Does that count for anything?

The other guys in my club are sick of seeing it on the rack...

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: whitman@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Rusty Whitman)
Subject: Re: Prang Film
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:37:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.205120.14495@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, hrbob@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.e.wiersbe) writes...
>In article <5928@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>
>>OK, here's what's happening (according to Judy Kaplow):
>>

	[stuff deleted about Bob's Prang film]
> 
>Ah, this explains all the mail messages I got asking for the tape! Imagine
>my surprise......
> 
>I talked with Bob Kaplow last night about this tape and making copies, but we
>hadn't discussed mass production. Bob's tape is Beta, I have both a Beta and
>a VHS machine so I can make copies. However, the tape is something like 2 1/2
>hours long, so it's going to take a long time to copy. The other thing is that
>the quality will probably be poor - a copy of a copy of a copy. Once I get the
>tape and copy it I'll know if it's worth doing (this should happen in the next
>few weeks).
> 
>In the meantime, send me an email message (I'll save them, but I won't respond
>now) to let me know if you're interested in the tape. I'll do what I can to 
>get you one. 
> 
>Bob Wiersbe	NAR# 44588	

I hesitate to mention this since I don't want to inflict on Alan what has
happened to Bob but since Alan is not on the net and not too many of you
know his phone number I'll go ahead and post this.  

The absolute best "Prang" film I have ever seen was put together by Alan
Williams of NARHAMS.  Alan usually shows this film at the CAPCONs so
anyone that has been to one has probably seen the film.  This film is
something like 30minutes or more of one Oops and Uh Oh and Look OUT
after another.  These are all NASA film clips of sounding rockets, test
flights, and unmanned launches that went awry.  I don't know where he got
all the footage but it has all the classics on it.  Its also in VHS.
The next time I see Alan I will ask him if he would consider selling copies
or if someone that knows Alan real well (C.D. ?) calls him and asks real
nice he might consider having copies made.

Rusty Whitman - Computer Sciences Corp - "I work for 'em, I don't speak for 'em"
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu
Subject: DOT vs Aerotech & Reloads
Organization: U of M Hospitals
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:15:04 GMT

I just got off the phone with Buzz Nau who is working part time for THOY.  They
just received a letter from Aerotech explaining the current situation with
reloads and the DOT.

The DOT has done some testing of reloads.  DOT feels it needs to do more
testing before it can issue a permanent classification; however, DOT has
currently classified reloads as 'flamable explosives', a more restrictive
designation than 'flamable solid'.  The effect is that for all practical
purposes reloads are unshippable.

------

Speculation:  

Apparently DOT is concerned that the cardboard casing around the propellant
grain acts like the case of a fire cracker to confine the combustion and make
it explosive.  If this is the case, they are ignoring the large openings on
either end of the grain which should effectively eliminate any pressure
build-up.  However, from my stand point, this is conjecture and theory - I've
never been inclined to light a grain outside of a motor housing so I don't know
what would happen.
-------

- Roger
Xref: sparky rec.models.rockets:2408 rec.models.rc:3624
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets,rec.models.rc
Subject: Re: Astrocam
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:04:39 GMT
Followup-To: rec.models.rockets
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Followups: rec.models.rockets

In article <1992Sep3.170438.20283@tin.monsanto.com>, lesnyd@monsanto.com (Larry E. Snyder) writes:
> The Astrocam was made by Estes for its rockets. It has been through several
> iterations. I owned one about 26 years ago (my how time flies) and it used
> circular film discs, one exposure per shot.

This was the "Camroc."  The name "Astrocam" is particular to the 110 film model.

> 1. The rocket hadn't heeled completely over and was pointing off somewhere
>    other than down (this was probably my fault for not having a long enough
>    time delay between the engine stopping and ejection charge firing).

Often it was the manufacturer's fault.  There WERE no engines with a long
enough time delay to ensure that the camera was both high enough AND pointed
down.  Estes introduced a D11-9 for a while strictly for the Astrocam.  It
was never very popular, and was a rather variable engine.  If you didn't get
a straight-up flight, the extra 2 seconds was often enough to put a draggy 
bird right into the ground (or at least cause it to deploy at such a high
speed that the parachute was history).

> 2. The camera was bouncing on its bungee connection to the parachute, causing
>    a blurry picture.

By the time the nose cone has half left the model, the shutter should have
opened AND closed.  Blurry pictures are usually caused by pitch or roll.

> That's what I know - and it has darned little to do with R/C planes!

Followups set appropriately.
-- 

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: hrbob@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.e.wiersbe)
Subject: Estes Replacement Policy
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:43:29 GMT

A few weeks ago an Estes D12-3 gutted my Saturn V in a beautiful pyrotechnic
display. I mailed the motor and the guts back to Estes, and today a new Saturn V
along with a pack of Cobra D12-3's came in the mail.  Estes has taken a lot of 
abuse on the net recently, but I have to give them credit for their replacement
policy. This is one thing they do right.

Hmmmm. I've done a stock Saturn V, a three stage Saturn V, guess it's time for 
a five motor cluster Saturn V!

Bob Wiersbe	NAR# 44588	hrbob@ihlpb.att.com