Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Discussions on high/extreme altitude and mach busting rockets.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
jase
It runs on moonshine
It runs on moonshine
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 11:06 pm
Location: 43° South

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby jase » Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:28 am

:shock: Well, the good folk at unitech replied to my email:

"Dear [Jase] ,

Thank you for your interest in RP46. Yes, the RP46 products are commercially available. At Unitech, we produce the RP46 resin as a solution and neat resin powder. For composite applications, we typically work with pre-preggers who use our resin to produce RP46 prepreg with fiber or fabric reinforcement.

What type of processing capabilities do you have? RP46 composites are fabricated via compression molding or autoclave processing and require a staged cure to 325C and 200psi consolidation pressure.

Please feel free to contact me with any further questions or concerns."

I dont have an autoclave (or anything capable of producing 325c/200psi)... :(

Anyway, if any of you guys want to enquire further or get some their contact details are on their website...
Me and my rockets run on Moonshine.

User avatar
OverTheTop
It's only money...
It's only money...
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby OverTheTop » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:13 am

Remember the figures quoted will be for optimum mechanical properties. Slower curing and lower pressure will still get you a composite but with sub-optimal properties.
Probably would be ok to try if you are into gambling :shock:

Or make a test article and test it to destruction. Seems to be the best way to characterise composites.
TRA #13430
L3
"Everybody's simulation model is guilty until proven innocent" (Thomas H. Lawrence 1994)

rocket_troy
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby rocket_troy » Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:28 am

drew wrote:And to bring this discussion back, can anyone recommend a brand/supplier of phenolic resin that would be suitable for our endeavours? Currently out of all the exotic epoxies, composites, and various Burt supplied unobtanium materials we've discussed phenolic resin the only component I've yet to get a firm grasp of in terms of availability and cost.

Huntsman Chem used to make it, but not any more. We've had a bit of a look around, but it (the laminating flavour) is hard to track down. I'm down to my last few L of some phenolic laminating resin and I'm also interested in sourcing more.

TP
ERG #02

Bourney
Rocket Flyer
Rocket Flyer
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 8:02 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby Bourney » Thu Jun 28, 2012 6:34 pm

A friend of mine used to work as an industrial chemist for one of the two major producers of Phenolic resin in Aus.

This is a few years ago now but Orica was one and Borden (then owners of Corningware amongst other brands) was the other.

The primary consumers of their product were Laminex and the plywood industry.

You may be able to back track to a supplier by talking to some of these consumers and finding out who they use.

Bit of a long shot, I know.
Bourney
TRA 12956
L2

rocket_troy
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby rocket_troy » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:33 am

Thanks for that Mark. I'll keep that in mind.

Cheers.

TP
ERG #02

User avatar
jase
It runs on moonshine
It runs on moonshine
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 11:06 pm
Location: 43° South

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby jase » Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:09 am

Some more 'unobtainium'...

This stuff looks fantastic (whilst we are still on topic) - http://www.pyromeral.com/high-temperatu ... rokarb.htm (the exhuast duct pic is somewhat impressive!)

Most of these folks seem happy to help - LOL - I even got an email from Composite World with a link to their 'Sourcebook', which may come in handy: http://www.compositesworld.com/suppliers

I was thinking ceramic composites would be suitable too...
Me and my rockets run on Moonshine.

rocket_troy
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:30 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby rocket_troy » Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:52 pm

Interesting. Thanks for the info Jase.

TP
ERG #02

Space Mark
Juicy Fruit
Juicy Fruit
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:57 am
Location: Perth, WA
Contact:

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby Space Mark » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:03 pm

How go your plans for this Drew?
TRA 13845 - Level 3

High Impulse
Rocket Crew
Rocket Crew
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 6:06 pm

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby High Impulse » Tue Jul 14, 2015 3:22 pm

Not sure if this is the right thread but it fits the definition of composite, breaking mach and given i might be making it that fills in the stupidity side of things ;).

So i have been designing a bigger badder rocket to accompany my Callisto in the world of high power, still only on open rocket, but i wanted to clarify a couple of things before i put any real effort into it. Firstly, it will be a 3 inch diameter body and about 2m long, it will probably have a 54mm motor mount and i intend for it to handle at least a decent K if i ever get enough money for one, but bear minimum it will run on 38 H,I,J and maybe large 29 I's. Furthermore, i want it to be able to break mach 1 in the right circumstances (it wont do it on a 38 J but i could do it on a three grain 54mm baby K) but i want it to be cheap, hence, why i thought phenolic tubing.

Now i have heard that it is fairly brittle and on top of that i am dubious about its structural integrity during Mach 1+ flights or transonic flights at any rate. Now given this i have thought perhaps i should wrap the phenolic in a layer or two of glass (something i have never done before but i am willing to try), will this be sufficient or can i get away without the layer of glass?

I've attached the preliminary OR file, its pretty dodgy and the rocket is a bit of a this and a bit of that but my only other concern so far would be fin flutter given that the fins are pretty large but could that be alleviated with T2T? (note the fins are about 2.4mm thick (is this the approximate size for a vehicle of this dimension)?)

level_two_rocket.rar
(2.67 KiB) Downloaded 37 times


Cheers,

Adam.

P.s. if this is the wrong thread let me know and i will move it else where.
L1: Callisto - H410VM

User avatar
ROCKet STAR
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 1724
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:40 pm
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW
Contact:

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby ROCKet STAR » Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:34 pm

Hi Adam,

I guess that Mach 1 on a 3" airframe with a 54mm mount would be possible, but only with the largest, highest thrust 54mm motors. Given that you would be unlikely to exceed Mach 1 by much, you would probably get away with not glassing, though I would be inclined to give it a layer of glass to be sure.
Chris Barnes

AMRS# 29 - L3

UKRA - L3

martymonsta
Engineer
Engineer
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:57 am
Location: Drouin Vic.

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby martymonsta » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:20 pm

Hi Adam and congrats on your L1
I'll let you in on a secret, I'm about to start a 1.6m long 3" with 54mm MMT and using glass over phenolic construction, and will kick a build thread off soon. The PML website says regarding the use of phenolic tube,

When to use Phenolic Tube:
For all motor mounts and minimum diameter boosters.
For any rocket 1.1" through 2.5" diameter regardless of speed.
For any rocket 3.0" through 11.4" that will not exceed 0.85 mach.
For any rocket requiring extensive fiberglass, Kevlar, or carbon fiber reinforcing.


As for how it do it, I'm planning on trying to do it relatively similar to how John Coker demonstrates here
Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there."
Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it

MARS #21
AMRS #41 L2/LCO/RSO/CO

User avatar
OverTheTop
It's only money...
It's only money...
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby OverTheTop » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:48 pm

Interesting that they quote slower speeds for the larger rockets. I am wondering if that was put together in the past when most of the larger motors (capable of pushing big rockets to Mach) had fairly savage thrust curves.

It can be the accel that contributes to the bending failure of the airframe in some cases. A little shunt from a side wind sets up non-zero AoA and bends the airframe a little. The push from behind folds it up. These days there are some nice long-burn motors that won't try to ram the fin-can through the nosecone. A gentle run to maximum speed might get it through.

You could ask some questions (to yourself, and others) and think about your build in detail. You might be able to use the phenolic and still go well and truly Mach+.

Decisions, decisions...

What advantage does phenolic give you over fiberglass in your project? Consider the final rocket and the build capabilities/equipment available.

For my 2c worth, use a minimum diameter retainer and take the motor force to the airframe through that. It keeps more of the rocket in tension. Make sure the motor shoulder (aft end) doesn't contact the motor mount tube for this to happen. YMMV.

Good luck with the project :D
TRA #13430
L3
"Everybody's simulation model is guilty until proven innocent" (Thomas H. Lawrence 1994)

drew
Southern fried goodness
Southern fried goodness
Posts: 869
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 10:20 pm
Location: Perth

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby drew » Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:18 pm

Just a thought Adam, but you might be interested in exploring FG or CF sleeves over the phenolic instead of putting on a wrap or two of glass. Soller Composites have all sorts of sleeves for purchase.

http://www.sollercomposites.com/composites/carbon%20fiber%20sleeves.html
Andrew Hamilton
AMRS 28 L3
AMRS Records Committee Chairman
Max Alt AGL - 23,908ft - K300 - Balls 22
Max V - 2,488 ft/s, ~Mach 2.2 - M2250 - THUNDA 2015

User avatar
kopius
Elle3
Elle3
Posts: 2854
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:30 pm
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Contact:

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby kopius » Wed Jul 15, 2015 7:18 am

drew wrote:Just a thought Adam, but you might be interested in exploring FG or CF sleeves over the phenolic instead of putting on a wrap or two of glass.


Just my 2cents worth, I hate sleeves. I did some 4" and 7.5" lay ups of phenolic and blue tube wrapped tubes and found the sleeves to add a lot of overall weight. They also were a very bumpy finish and required a lot of work to smooth out the finish.

Yes, they were simple in the sense they did not require any special rolling technique, but I personally won't ever use them again.

On that note, I have about 4m of 7.5" sock/sleeve if any one wants it?

Actually sounds like a good time to plan a QRS glassing workshop...
QRS Secretary

AMRS #3 L3 ACO
Life member of QRS

NAR L2 #98260

MDRA Member #0241

User avatar
SpaceManMat
Astronaut
Astronaut
Posts: 2036
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:56 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Composites, breaking Mach, and other stupidity.

Postby SpaceManMat » Wed Jul 15, 2015 8:20 am

kopius wrote:Actually sounds like a good time to plan a QRS glassing workshop...

Great idea.
QRS: 124
AMRS: 32 L2 RSO
Highest Altitude: 13,647 feet
Fastest Flight: Mach 1.55
Largest Motor: CTI 1115J530 IM
Current Project: X Wing


Return to “Higher, Faster, Further”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests