Some quick numbers from the 2022 TARC Finals...

The 2021-2022 TARC Finals were held last weekend in northern Virginia. No Huntsville teams made it into the top 100, though 6 teams from Alabama (5 from north Alabama) did compete at the Finals. Of these 6, four were in the top 42 of round one and advanced to round 2. Alabama ended up with two teams in the top 25 - Tharptown, which finished in the money at #10, and Muscle Shoals, which was #20. These teams will receive invitations to participate in the NASA Student Launch Program next year, and I wish them well - it will be a very busy time for those students!

Trip Barber just sent out the stats of the flights conducted at the Finals - 1st round had 810 feet as the altitude goal and 860 feet was the target of the second. My natural instinct is to fiddle with numbers and that PDF full of stats was just too tempting for me to pass up. It also gave me an excuse to try extracting tables from PDF documents - something that I had never tried before. Turns out it's pretty easy - at least on a Mac. Anyway, on to the graphs...

Motor choices of the TARC teams attending the 2021-2022 Finals (Click to enlarge).

The above plot shows the breakdown of motors used by the 100 teams attending the Finals. Note that the Aerotech F39 was the most popular motor, accounting for 25% of the motors flown in round 1. It was followed by the Cesaroni F59, with Duane's favorite TARC motor, the Aerotech F32, coming in a distant 3rd. Exactly two-thirds of the finalists used reloads and 70% of the motors were made by Aerotech. This changes a bit when we look at the same information for the 42 teams making it to round 2:

Motor choices of the final 42 at the 2021-2022 TARC Finals (Click to enlarge).

Here the number of F39's increases to 33% of the total. Reloads account for nearly 74%, and the Aerotech share increases to 76%.

Ever since TARC instituted two altitude goals at Finals (one high and one low), I have always wondered whether it was easier for the teams to go higher or lower. I suspected that it would be easier to hit the low mark, as TARC teams making it into the top 100 would have had plenty of practice adjusting weight, etc. to bring their rockets' altitudes down. Not so much the other direction. The 2021-2022 Finals data give me a chance to see if my guess was right, at least for the recent season.

Altitude scores of the teams attending the 2021-2022 TARC Finals (Click to enlarge).

Looking at the above plot we see that the mean difference between the altimeter altitudes and the 810 foot goal was about 6 feet on the low side (i.e., average altitude was 804 feet). The dashed red lines give the one standard deviation bounds, which correspond to 38 feet above and below the average. In computing these numbers, I have thrown out flights with absurd altitudes or those that were disqualified.

Now let's look at the same data for the final 42:

Altitude scores of teams in the final 42 at the 2021-2022 TARC Finals (Click to enlarge).

In round 2 the average difference was also low, but by 25 feet - 4 times the round 1 difference. The scatter is also larger; 55 feet as opposed to 38 for the opening round. I noticed that 860 feet - 25 feet is 835 feet, meaning that the round 2 average is the same as the altitude mark the teams had to hit for their qualification flights. This implies that most of the teams in the second round did not really know how to adjust their rocket to make it go higher; perhaps they fell back on the configurations that got them to the Finals in the first place? The round 2 scores were certainly worse, by almost a factor of 2 (average of 95 in round 2 versus 55 in round 1) - which lends some support to my hypothesis. However, the weather was pretty bad at Finals this year, and it's hard to rule out worse conditions in round 2 as a cause.

I guess I am going to have to see if the trend is there next year...

New member of the fleet and pics from the last HARA launch of the season...

So I finished the Skylance - it turned out AOK. Now to apply primer to the Centuri Sabre and move on to the next project - whatever that is.

Finished Skylance (Click to enlarge).

HARA held its last launch of the 2021-2022 flying season back on April 9. I had to pass because of work, but the skies were mostly clear and the temps comfortable. However, the wind sucked; 3 high power rockets (level 1 certification models) were hung high in the trees, and so far we only have been able to retrieve one. Make that most of one - a part of it is still hanging in the tree. 

Anyway, Patrick and others passed on some pictures for the launch album on the HARA FaceBook page and I thought I would share a few below. Next time I expect to fly is Memorial Day weekend - I am going to launch more than my usual 4 or 5, I think. Have to come out of this dry spell properly.

A Student Launch team watches the sky while waiting for RSO check
(Photo by Patrick Morrison - Click to enlarge).

Top of Patrick's umbrella rocket (Photo by
Doug Aguilar - Click to enlarge).

The backside of the umbrella rocket (Photo by
Doug Aguilar - Click to enlarge).

The umbrella rocket under power (Photo by Patrick Morrison - Click to enlarge).

R2D2 pops his top (Photo by Patrick
Morrison - Click to enlarge).

The 18mm motor inside an Estes Long Ranger
CATOs (Photo by Patrick Morrison - Click to enlarge).

Student Launch rocket heads skyward
(Photo by Patrick Morrison - Click to enlarge).

Nice shot of a mid-power Crayon rocket
(Photo by Patrick Morrison - Click to enlarge).

Flyer posing by his Level 3 cert rocket
(Photo by Vince huegele - Click to enlarge).

On its way to a successful Level 3 cert flight
(Photo by Patrick Morrison - Click to enlarge).

Level 1 rocket hanging in tree (Photo by Patrick Morrison - Click to enlarge).

Estes Olympus falling out of the sky (Photo by Patrick Morrison - Click to enlarge).

Sometimes Estes parachutes do work... (Photo by Patrick Morrison - Click to enlarge).

The Estes MaxTrax rocket...

Estes MaxTrax starter set (Click to enlarge).

I recently acquired an Estes MaxTrax starter set (now out of production). The MaxTrax was a ready-to-fly BT-56 based rocket featuring an "altitude tracking capsule" that separated from the rocket at ejection. Slowed by a small streamer, it would fall to the ground at a constant speed; impact would stop the internal timer - which was triggered by a spring loaded switch at ejection - and the capsule would display the altitude, which was simply time of fall multiplied by the speed.

A 1990's application of an old idea based on some simple physics - first proposed in mid-1970, as rocketeers searched for an easier way to get the altitudes of their birds without having to use theodolites, which were cumbersome and hard to maintain. Back in 1974, Stephen Fentress suggested that ping pong balls might be a good option, as they were standardized as far as size and weight. His data and calculations showed that a ping pong ball fell at about 28.5 feet per second, so timing the ball's fall and multiplying that number by 28.5 would produce the altitude in feet. The experiments for the RX-16 rocket in Centuri's Power System outfit also suggested using a ping pong ball to get the altitude, except that the manual rounded 28.5 to 30 feet per second (page 17). The MaxTrax was the latest rocket to use the concept, creating a capsule with an internal timer to eliminate the need to time the fall with a stop watch. It's also probably the last time this will be used in a commercial rocket - accurate, small and cheap electronic altimeters have eliminated the other methods used in rocketry for many decades. 

Note - I wrote a bit more detail about this in a blog post 8 years ago. It was intended to be the first of a two-parter, but me being me, I never wrote the second piece.

My MaxTrax (Click to enlarge).

The altitude capsule (Click to enlarge).

So what to do with the MaxTrax? It's pretty obvious - stick an altimeter in the rocket body and compare its altitude at ejection (which we shall take as the "truth") to the reading on the MaxTrax capsule. Easy, and it will produces some numbers to play with. I was stoked until I happened to glance at the MaxTrax reviews on the various forums, which revealed a very important reason why the Estes concept never really worked out.

The darn thing didn't work most of the time.

It all has to do with stopping the internal electronic timer, which is started when the capsule is ejected from the body. There is a "bounce switch" in the nose, which consists of a small spring that on impact with the ground is supposed to travel forward and complete a circuit, stopping the timer. One problem is that there is too much space between the spring and the metal contact, requiring a hard impact to stop the timer. The other is that the capsule is fairly light, so it can land on its side - the bounce switch requires a nose-on impact with the ground.

Estes acknowledged the problem in a note packaged with the rocket:

Click to enlarge.

This can't be good. Still, I'm going to give it a try at my next launch. Some have suggested removing the foam around the nose cone to help close the bounce switch, so I'll start with that. I guess I can afford to waste a few B6-4 motors.

Stay tuned...

This TARC season is over...

Girl Scout team poses with their rocket (Click to enlarge).

Another TARC season has passed - and once again, no team from the Huntsville area made it to the Finals up in Virginia. I have some thoughts on why this keeps happening, which I will share later. But first, let's consider the good things that came out of this year's TARC:

• We had 2 new Girl Scout teams, who went from totally inexperienced to making 3 qualification flights in just three months. This is quite an accomplishment, especially when you consider that one group of scouts had the best scores, beating even the John Paul II teams. One cannot help being impressed, and I sincerely hope that these young ladies will be back next year.
• All teams made qualification flights.
• All rockets flew straight, though we had a few problems with fins popping off. So often, in fact, that it became a running joke.

So one can be pleased that the teams crossed the finish line, which is indeed something to be happy about. We just didn't do well enough to place.

Redstone Composite Squadron team member poses
with the rocket (Click to enlarge).

Girl scouts prep their rocket (Click to enlarge). 

So what went wrong? The Huntsville teams can obviously build stable rockets that meet the competition goals, and they certainly put in the practice time - these are not the issues. The problem is not in the building and the flying. It's what comes after the flying, in the analysis of the data from the practice flights.  Therein lies the difference between making so-so qualification flights and qualification flights good enough to make the TARC top 100.

The local teams simply do not bother to analyze their flight data. There are no plots, no analysis of the altitude versus mass, no accounting for weather conditions - even though these numbers are recorded for each flight. The strategy used by the teams in recent years is based on luck, i.e., let's practice until we get a flight that has a low score, then attempt the qualification flights immediately afterward. They are essentially making random guesses until the rocket makes a good flight. The specs of that flight - mass, motor, ballast, etc. - are then duplicated for the qualification flights, even when the weather conditions have changed significantly. The outcome is predictable - lacking compensations for the wind and temperature, the qualification flights have scores in the 40's, 50's and 60's, even though the good flight had a score of 10 or less.

Girl scout rocket takes to the air (Click to enlarge).

JurassicTARC team member retrieves the rocket
(Click to enlarge).

But you can't compensate by guessing. You have to look at the practice flight data to get those numbers. Unfortunately, that requires the local teams to put forth an effort beyond what they are currently willing to do. So they trust to luck. And sooner or later, that strategy will pay off for someone. On a rare day, Fortune will smile upon a team who will string together two decent qualification flights, setting them on a path to the TARC Finals. But to win in Virginia, you have to fly to a different altitude on a different field, and even Fortune can't help against those odds. Placing in the top 10 requires that you understand how to adjust the rocket to meet a different goal.

John Paul II teams hard at work (Click to enlarge).

We are planning to hold a TARC workshop early in the coming season - maybe there will be a team that will listen and realize that looking at the flight data is just as important as designing the rocket. 

I keep hoping.

Merging video and data

Rocket electronics have gotten quite cheap - small altimeters and decent HD cameras can be had for as little as $30, putting "instrumented rocket flight" within the reach of every rocketeer. Most folks are content with keeping the video and data separate, but I have always been intrigued with synchronizing the data with the video, so that each frame can be tied to a specific height, speed, acceleration, etc. My first experiments (back in 2017) in doing this involved my Windows PC laptop and a program called DashWare; the software was somewhat cumbersome from a usability perspective (hey, it was free!) and so I soon lost motivation. Too much work!

DashWare created video

Time passes and new software appears. Late last year, I discovered that there was this software application called RaceRender, with capabilities like those offered in DashWare. The good news was that it was available for MacOS, meaning I could make use of my big screen iMac in creating data-synced videos; the bad news was that it cost money, especially if you wanted to remove the stupid program logo/watermark from the videos. After a bit of research, I made the plunge and bought the software. Fortunately, I was not disappointed with this purchase (unlike some others in the past).

Regardless of whether you use DashWare or RaceRender, you need two things to create a data-synced video - the video from the camera and the data from the altimeter, flight computer, or whatever. The video must be in a format readable by the software - not a problem for the cameras generally used by rocketeers - and the data should be in a file with numbers arranged in a comma separated value format (csv). Files downloaded from all logging altimeters of which I am aware are in this format, so again no problem. You may have to edit the csv file to remove parts before launch and well after landing, but this is pretty easy using Excel or some other spreadsheet application. The only gotcha is understanding the limitations of the software - for example, RaceRender can't deal with negative speeds, so you need to take the absolute value of speeds from altimeters (e.g., FlightSketch Mini) that give the descent speeds as negative.

RaceRender screen capture (Click to enlarge).

Once you have the input files properly formatted, you import them into the software and select the ways you want the data displayed - simple numbers, gauges, or graphs; it's up to you. Then you have to sync the data to the video by selecting a video frame corresponding to the first line of data, usually t = 0, the time of first motion on the launch pad. This is easy to do with most rocket videos, as first motion is readily apparent when you step frame by frame through the movie (unless the camera is pointing up - then it is really hard). You then invoke application's sync feature, et voila! The data is now properly displayed on the video as it plays. The final step is exporting your project into a standalone video, which you can share with your buddies on YouTube, FaceBook, etc.

This past Sunday I flew my Estes Solo with an Estes Astrocam and a FlightSketch Mini, as I wanted to get some footage of the glider separating from the rocket near apogee. The flight was successful - the C6-3 motor carried the rocket up to 222 feet and the glider separated at 200 feet, on the way down. I would like a better camera than the Astrocam - the shutter can't handle fast motion (distorts) and it does not have a good depth of focus - but better cameras are heavier and not easily carried by low impulse model rockets. I eagerly look forward to such critters appearing on the market.

Frames from the data-synced Solo video (Click to enlarge).

Vendor review - Apogee Components

I decided some time ago that I should occasionally write reviews of some of the vendors I patronize - to heap praise on the things they do right (which is often) and to keep them honest when they muff things up. A recent email from Apogee asking for a review/testimonial has led to this post, as I can add to the blog and give Apogee what they asked for (well, sort of) in a single writing. Plus Apogee starts with an "A", making it a logical choice for the first review. So let's begin, shall we?

Apogee Components (https://www.apogeerockets.com)

Started by Ed LaCroix back in 1989, Apogee was bought by Tim Van Milligan in 1995. He grew the business from a small one room shop into what I consider a true small business, now having several paid employees and a dedicated building. Apogee is noted for its wide selection of kits, of its own make and from other manufacturers, and is the developer of what is (probably) the best rocket design/simulation software available, RockSim. I have purchased items from the company for many years, and it has been very nice to watch it expand, both in the product line and in the services offered. Tim is a long-time competition rocketeer who is dedicated to the hobby and he does a pretty darn good job in balancing his company's interests with serving the rocketry community.

Positive aspects of Apogee Components

• Extremely fast shipping and 100% reliability: Tim guarantees your order will be shipped by the end of the next business day (same day for orders placed before 2 PM) and has always lived up to that promise (in my experience). I also have never received the wrong stuff - some vendors make mistakes in matching the packing with the order, but not Apogee. Tim offers the buyer a choice of shipping methods (motors have limited options) and ships using the service selected by the buyer. This may seem stupid to highlight, but there are some vendors who offer a choice of shipper and then ship USPS, regardless of what the buyer selects (and pays for). Apogee is 100% reliable in shipping - in my opinion, they are the best in the business. 
• Outstanding selection of rocket kits: Apogee has a very large selection of low and mid power kits, along with some that are Level 1 class high power. Not only do they have the usual stuff from Estes, Semroc, LOC, Aerotech, etc., they also have offerings from less well-known companies like Aggressor Aerospace Rocketry and J&H Aerospace. Apogee's line of 4 inch kits is very popular among high power novices - I cannot recall a HPR launch in the past few years when there was not a Zephyr, Katana, or Peregrine present. The Zephyr is especially beloved - there are often multiple Zephyrs leaving HARA's pads on launch day. I guess that's why Tim started offering the 24 mm powered Zephyr Jr. for those hesitant to dip their toes in the high power waters - it's a beauty at any size. Recent Apogee releases include a line of BT-55 based beginner rockets (Habu, Atomizer), and I agree with Tim's idea that bigger body tubes are better for novice rocketeers - easier to manipulate and pack the parachute. Not a big fan of the Habu's snake decor though <shudder>.
• Competition kits and parts: I am currently aware of only 3 companies that have kit and parts offerings suited to rocketeers wanting to participate in non-scale NRC and FAI competitions - Apogee, ASP Rocketry, and Galactic Manufacturing. Apogee has a good selection of kits that span the range of competition, from the Cirrus Breeze rocket glider to the EggTosser egg lofter to the International Thermal Sailor duration bird to the Rotary Revolution gyro copter to the Spek payload altitude rocket to the... well, you get the idea. They have lots of competition kits. These tend to be a bit on the heavy side, so you probably won't be setting any records with them, but they are more than good enough to put you on the NRC National Scoreboard. Beginners should take note of these offerings, as they are an excellent first step in building competition experience. Apogee also offers some competition parts - egg capsules (they may be the only current supplier of these), lightweight styrene nose cones, foam plugs to replace wadding, "fly-away" rail guides and launch towers.
• TARC: Speaking of competition, Apogee is an excellent source of parts for the annual TARC competitions. There are the usual body tubes, rail guides, motor retainers and so forth, but the company makes the most awesome egg cushions on the market, capable of protecting the fragile egg payloads even in catastrophic circumstances. I kid you not - I have seen TARC rockets come in ballistic, suffering major damage, and eggs in these cushions survived with nary a crack. We strongly recommend these to the local rocket teams and the number of messes has gone down significantly since they started using them. I am also a big fan of the colorful Apogee printed nylon parachutes - they are not only good for TARC rockets; I stuff them into any rocket of mine in which they fit (BT-50 and larger). Much better than plastic parachutes! Another part of Apogee's TARC support is their "TARC Bulk Pack of Parts", tailored for the active TARC contest year. Unlike past offerings from Estes and others - which were basically SPEAs (Spare Parts Elimination Assortments) - thought has been put into the Apogee parts assemblage. You can actually build 2 very competitive TARC rockets from this product. The only negative is the provision for a two 24 mm cluster in this year's TARC bulk pack... C'mon Tim, what top 10 TARC team has ever used a cluster? Despite this minor flaw, the TARC Bulk Pack of Parts is an excellent set of components for TARC teams, especially new ones. I sincerely hope Apogee continues to offer this product in future years.
• Tutorial videos, newsletter, and rocket plans(!): Tim renders a valuable service to the rocketry community through his many tutorial videos on pretty much all aspects of rocketry. We often ask novice rocketeers (especially TARC teams) to view those pertaining to rocket construction. The company's "Peak of Flight" newsletter has informative articles, and occasionally features a rocket design one can build from Apogee parts. The plans are near and dear to my heart, bringing back fond memories of the old Estes "Design of the Month" contest and similar featured in the Centuri newsletters. I particularly love the old Shrox designs, but there have been some good ones recently, like the "Fabled Flyer." BTW, if you can't or don't want to make decals for these designs, you can buy the markings from Apogee - a nice encouragement from Tim.

Negative aspects of Apogee Components

In this universe, nothing is ever perfect. No matter how good you are, there are always flaws. Even Apogee has one...

• Cost - Buying from Apogee ain't cheap. Expect to pay retail or something pretty close, and I sometimes wince at the prices. 31 bucks for a 2 stage BT-55 based kit? Ouch - even if it is very cool in appearance. To be fair, Apogee is a business; Tim has several mouths to feed, overhead on a big building and equipment costs/maintenance, etc., etc. - plus the inflated costs of materials these days. So one should not expect the discounts offered by AC Supply and a few other vendors (which are not as good as in the past, BTW). Tim acknowledges the price issue on his website - see "We are a bit more expensive, but your goals are worth it" on this page. Partially balancing out the higher prices is the Apogee VIR (Very Important Rocketeer) program which allows you to accumulate points that you can apply to future purchases. It's pretty good; I just used some of my points to purchase a fin jig to help my aging carcass get the fins on straight.

In summary, Apogee is one of the best rocket vendors out there. It offers a wide variety of products and even caters to niche markets like NRC/FAI competition and TARC. The company also offers excellent tutorial videos and materials, produced by a rocketeer with many, many years of experience. On top of this, they are fast and 100% reliable in shipping - they have never screwed up one of my orders. The only downside is the prices, but I am willing to pay more for the services and unique products Apogee offers. So please consider them when you are buying rocket stuff - you won't regret the purchase.

If you read this Tim, I have a request - please lay off the snake-themed rockets. I don't want rocket powered snakes haunting my dreams.

P.S. - RockSim/Launch Visualizer review to come later. It merits a separate post.

I get a thing in the mail...

 I went to the mailbox earlier this week, expecting the usual bills and "waste of paper" ads. However, there was a surprise - tucked in amongst the Arby's and Dominos flyers was a nice little postcard, sent to me by Ed Mitton. The card was one of 20 flown in the payload section of his Icarus rocket, which made its maiden voyage on March 3. I had read about it on his blog, and thought it was a supremely cool resurrection of an old concept. Had no idea I was one of the recipients though - the blog post implied he sent the cards to those attending the launch. I am pretty stoked about receiving one - may even do this myself at future launch.

Thanks Ed!!!!

Free at last!

Today was a momentous day - I finally got around to putting primer on the Estes Skylance. 

Skylance in primer (Click to enlarge).

Doesn't sound like a big deal, but it is. After having several unfinished rockets lying around for months (years), I made a vow that I would attempt no new builds of significance until I cleared the backlog - and the Skylance is the last of that lot. I'm pretty good at finishing off rockets once they hit primer, as the bulk of the sanding is behind me at that point. Where I suck is the procrastination between the construction and the start of finishing - that twilight zone is where the rockets can remain trapped for many moons.

However, the Skylance has left the workbench and is now well on its way to the final decor of white with gold fins and nose cone. I even worked on the decal, grabbing the name from the plan sheet. All is good - I can hear the Astron Delta parts calling me from their bag, ready to be assembled into a 2 stage masterpiece for lofting my old Estes Camroc.

Skylance decal (Click to enlarge).

Except the Delta may have to wait a little bit longer, because I have been distracted by the evil Bill Eichelberger. An expert at creating clones and facsimiles of old rockets, it was he who asked for information concerning the old Centuri Sabre on Ye Old Rocket Forum. It was he who instigated the posting of the plans, parts list and decals for that kit. And it was he who uploaded pictures of the Sabre on the pad, ready to fly, in a recent Facebook post. And so I succumbed to the lure of the Sabre, putting the Delta off to another date.

Sabre face card (Click to enlarge).

It's an easy build - plastic PNC-20N nose cone, 9.75 inch body tube, forward raked fins, etc., etc. I'm not a big fan of forward raked fins - they just don't seem natural - but this model has an appeal. And the best thing is that I can start the build this weekend without suffering pangs of guilt over unfinished birds. The Delta is just a pile of parts in a bag - it can wait.

On the National Scoreboard...

In my post about this month's HARA launch, I talked about the NRC B eggloft altitude flights that Doug and I made. As well as providing great help and the use of his launch gear, Brian was also the score keeper and contest manager. He submitted our scores up to the NAR contest folk, and they appeared on the scoreboard a couple of days ago. We are not yet ranked, as the NAR contest director has not certified the flights, but as it stands now Doug is #8 and I am 5 points behind, at #9. This is out of 11, so it's not a colossal achievement. However,  I am reasonably excited to make my first "official" return to contest rocketry since NARAM 30 (1988).

NRC National Scoreboard for B eggloft altitude as of 2022 February 19.
(Click to enlarge). 

The scores in NRC altitude events are computed rather simply - one corrects the altitude reading for the temperature and the score is the corrected altitude in meters. The FlightSketch Comp altimeter gave a peak altitude of 263.4 feet (80.28 meters) but the temperature was 51.2 degrees Fahrenheit, about 8 degrees colder than the 59 degrees used by the altimeter algorithms. This means the reading was on the high side, and when we correct for temperature we get 79.1 meters. So my score is 79.

I'm eager to try to better this score, but I made a major faux pas in painting the Eggstravaganza - adds weight, and I want as light as I can get. So I'm sketching out my own design, built around the lighter Apogee vacuform styrene egg capsule and a BT-20 body tube. Only problem is the altimeter placement; there's no room to put it in the egg capsule. It looks like I'm going to have to create some sort of pouch to protect the altimeter from ejection gases. This pouch will be attached to the shock cord up at the parachute connection and I'll punch a couple of small vent holes near the top of the body tube. I figure I can get a significant weight reduction and more altitude with this approach.

We shall see.

A blustery club launch

Looking down the flight line (Click to enlarge).

HARA held its monthly launch this past Saturday. The day started off well, sunny and reasonably warm for mid-February, but the wind picked up dramatically in the afternoon. By the time of range closure at 3 PM, it averaged 14 miles per hour, with gusts up 18 - so severe that we had to take down the RSO/LCO canopy to prevent it from being damaged. Despite the wind, 46 flights were made, some of which were pretty spectacular. John Kraieski's upscale Mars Lander returned, wowing everyone with a dazzling performance on a L motor. Chuck flew a couple of his Dynasoar rocket gliders - the U.S.S. Orion and a delta-shaped "Man in High Castle" bird. There were also the usual certification attempts, and Brian brought out his tower and gear for a few NRC flights.

Brian's scratch NRC egglofter
(Click to enlarge).

Vince's reassembled Outlander heads
skyward on a Q-jet (Click to enlarge).

I packed 4 rockets - 3 of which were virgins, ready for their maiden voyages. Turns out only those 3 would fly, but more on that later. Let's start with my first flight of the day, that of the Estes Olympus.

Estes Olympus
(Click to enlarge).

My Olympus lifts off on a D12-5 (Click to enlarge).

The Olympus is one of those "Hobby Lobby exclusive" kits Estes produced a while back - I picked mine up with a 40% coupon, finding its Greek mythology decor very much to my liking. Powered by 24 mm motors, it is about 1.8" in diameter and features a large payload section, big enough to easily handle an egg or a PocketLab sensor. I built mine many months ago, and it has patiently sat on a shelf, its bronze and white paint scheme trying to grab enough attention to be chosen for flight. Saturday was the day, and an Estes D12 motor kicked it off the pad into the blue sky above. The Jolly Logic Altimeter 3 riding in the payload section reported a peak altitude of 635 feet, followed by gentle landing in the field 40 seconds later. I was a bit surprised at the altitude - it's kinda heavy, and so I expected something around 400 feet or so.

Altimeter 3 altitude profile for the Olympus (Click to enlarge).

Next up was the Mini-X, a two stage rocket built according to Estes Industries Rocket Plan #20. Dating from 1964, the Mini-X uses the old school method of staging, in which the booster and sustainer motors are held together by a wrap of scotch tape. While not as elegant as Passport or "Plug N' Play" staging, the tape joint will hold long enough for hot particles from the booster motor to ignite the upper stage - I have found this technique to be quite reliable over the years. I prepped the Mini-X with an A8-0/A8-5 motor combination, figuring a) the booster stage would fall close to the pad making it easy to find/recover, b) it would not fly high enough to drift very far and c) it would grab enough altitude to provide decent data to the FlightSketch Mini altimeter riding in the payload section.

Mini-X on the pad (Click to enlarge).

The Mini-X clears the rod (Click to enlarge).

I was right on 2 out of 3 - The booster did indeed fall close to the pad and the sustainer of the Mini-X soared to 470 feet, making for a good data take. However, the wind had begun to pick up and the rocket drifted downwind... drifted some more... and more... until finally landing near the eastern edge of the field. Duane generously recovered it for me, but it was quite a walk. Part of the problem was that the red mylar parachute was a bit too large, bringing the rocket down at a very slow 7 feet per second. It should have descended at twice that speed. I made a note to use a smaller parachute next time. The distance the Mini-X drifted caused me to can the flight of my 2-stage Estes Savage, which was set to go on a D12-0/C6-5 combo. Given the wind, that thing would have ended up crossing the Atlantic!

Yeah, I know - I'm a wimp. At least I still have the rocket. It'll fly on a calmer day.

My last flight was that of the ASP Rocketry Eggstravaganza 18. Loaded with an egg, a FlightSketch Comp altimeter and a Quest Q-jet B6-4W, it was my first official NRC flight. Even though the Eggstravaganza was a competition kit, I had committed a major faux pas in its construction - I painted the fins and lower body yellow. Paint is a no-no in competition - it adds lots of weight and yields very little benefit (other than increased visibility). Because of this - and my checkered past in competition egg lofting - I was hoping not to embarrass myself and to turn in a qualified flight.  I felt more than the usual amount of pressure because Doug was also making his first NRC launch, using the same kit and motor.

Brian helps load my rocket on the piston
(Click to enlarge).

The Eggstravaganza leaves the piston
(Click to enlarge).

Brian helped me load the model atop the piston attached to his spiffy tower. We stepped back, and after a quick 5 count, Brian launched the model. The piston kicked it up into the air nicely, but I was disappointed to see the model arc into the wind - a loss in altitude. Ejection seemed to occur a little late and the parachute only partially deployed. Brian ruled it a safe landing, but I was sweating as I opened the egg capsule - scrambled eggs are quite common when I egg loft; I should probably bring a camp stove and skillet. Fortunately the egg was undamaged and I had my first qualified NRC flight, a B Eggloft to 263 feet (not corrected for temperature). I am waiting for it to appear on the National Scoreboard - I wonder if I will rank with the kiddos (A division). We shall see. But I can tell you this much - Doug beat my altitude by 16 feet. Pretty good for his first contest flight ever!

And so Saturday's HARA launch saw my return to NAR competition. A unremarkable return, but a return nonetheless. It felt kinda good.

Sunday afternoon launch

Girl scouts watch as the rocket they prepped heads skyward (Click to enlarge).

The John Paul II TARC teams had scheduled a TARC practice for this past Sunday, which provided a perfect excuse for some of us to drag out rockets eager to be flown. We assembled at Pegasus around high noon - me, Duane, Brian, Doug and family, Vinny and Jeannie (Duane's neighbors), the two JPII teams and one of the Girl Scout TARC teams. After setting up the range, Duane shifted into TARC mentor mode, spending most of the launch showing the girl scouts how to prep and fly mid-power rockets and heckling the JPII TARCers with unsolicited commentary and advice, some of which was actually useful <smile>. He must have anticipated being very busy, as he only brought one rocket - an Estes Mammoth. 

The most interesting launches of the day were made by Brian, who brought a few of his FAI competition models, pistons, and a superb homemade tower. He made a couple of S9 helicopter duration flights - the first stayed aloft for a respectable 105 or so seconds before disappearing behind the Blue Origin building, while the second maxed out at 300 seconds (yay!). Unfortunately, both drifted way, way out of the field to the west and Brian was able to find/recover only one. He seemed unperturbed by the loss and went on to fly a S6 streamer duration bird, which stayed on the field - 40 mm diameter models don't drift very far on sub-A impulse.

Always cool to see pistons in action. I was timing the flights, so I don't have any pics to post - maybe next time.

Doug's V-2 gets going (Click to enlarge).

His Geezer TARC rocket starts its wacky flight
(Click to enlarge)

Doug made several flights, starting with his red Estes V-2. The thing I like about him is that he is fearless - he has absolutely no problem cramming a C motor into a light rocket and letting her rip. My Geezer self doesn't do that anymore; I'm too old for chases and too fearful of the rockets drifting away. Anyway, the V-2 put in a flawless flight, which is more than I can say for the next bird to launch - Doug's Pringles can Geezer TARC rocket. Loaded with a single egg and an Estes E16, it lumbered off the pad and immediately went unstable, tracing a nice spiral in the sky. Surprisingly, the egg survived smack down with the ground - pretty good packing on Doug's part!

Another of Doug's rockets on a Quest Q-jet
(Click to enlarge).

The Neon Tiger rises on a C6-3 (Click to enlarge).

The TARC rocket was followed by a four finned rocket I did not recognize, but it shot off the pad like a bullet, getting way up there before popping its parachute. An Estes Neon Tiger was next - the C6-3 carried it to a respectable altitude, whereupon the cylindrical glider detached for a nice circular glide in. I was jealous - my model's glider flies a straight path, making for long recovery walks (usually done by Duane).

The last image of Doug's Wizard before it became parts (Click to enlarge).

Doug's final flight of the day was a classic example of what happens when you pair a rocketeer who likes using the most powerful recommended motor with a contest rocketeer. Doug had brought along an unpainted Estes Wizard with misaligned fins and in not-so-good shape overall. Common sense would have it powered by a low impulse A motor - if it was to fly at all - but nooooooo... The two of them decided that cramming a composite Quest Q-jet C18W into the back end was a good idea, sure to achieve a spectacular altitude - if it held together. Which it did not; the model rekitted itself soon after leaving the pad, parts raining down on the field.

Alas, poor Wizard - its life was so short. And to think that its demise was celebrated by much laughter on the part of those on the field... A truly horrible ending.

Duane loads Jeannie's Ghost Chaser on the pad (Click to enlarge).

The last flight of the day was made by Jeannie's Estes Ghost Chaser on a Quest B6-4 - its first. Unfortunately I did not get a launch picture, as we were starting to break down the range and I was busy packing my stuff. The flight went well, with the parachute fully deployed for a gentle landing in the field. It should be noted that Duane still had not flown his Mammoth - indeed, it didn't fly on Sunday. I think Brian's helicopter birds sailing away on the breeze kinda spooked him a bit. I certainly can't blame him, as the Mammoth gets some decent altitude on Aerotech F motors.

And now for my flights...

The Star Traveler (Daffy Duck) lifts off on a C6-3 (Click to enlarge).

The first (and the first flight of the day) was that of my MPC Star Traveler, featuring Daffy Duck. Being somewhat heavy, the only recommended motor is the C6-3, which gets it to about 300 feet or so. My flight was fairly conventional and hohum - the parachute deployed near apogee and it touched down softly on the field. Boring, but it needed to fly. No shelf queens in my fleet.

Skyblazer II heads skyward (Click to enlarge).

And coming down under parachute (Click to enlarge).

My second and last flight was that of the Mad Science Skyblazer II rocket. An off-brand kit, it has plastic fins, couplers and nose cone; the latter is two piece, enabling one to put a small altimeter inside. This I did, loading a Flightsketch Mini, plus I strapped an Estes Astrocam to the side. I too was kinda spooked by the wind (too much electronics to lose), so I chose a B6-4 for the motor - turns out a C6-5 would have been a better choice as far as altitude, but I was playing it safe. Everything went well - the rocket struggled to 218 feet and was down in just under 45 seconds. I got good video and altimeter data, which I merged using RaceRender later that evening.

Frame from the Skyblazer II Astrocam video showing shock cord and wadding (Click to enlarge).

Here's the flight video: