Project
1115 Static tests
Results
- Four identical engines were static tested with epoxy / Kno3 nozzles. Each engine produced a pressure graph and fired with no problems. The main difference between this set of tests and the 1108 tests was a small structural modification to strengthen the nozzle assembly and a reduction of fuel in the engine by 1 inch or 5% of the total. The purpose behind the fuel reduction was to create a more comfortable buffer between the PVC rupture pressure and the chamber pressure to increase engine reliability.
- All engines fired perfectly and the nozzles produced smoke for 12 seconds after engine burn out. The main problem noted was a reduction in overall thrust. With a Pourstone nozzle and a .7" throat, 140 lbs. of peak thrust was common. With the epoxy / Kno3 nozzle and a .7" throat, only 75 lbs. of peak thrust was achieved. Of course, the overall fuel amount had been reduced by 5% but I believe the major contributor of the loss to be the epoxy / Kno3 nozzle's excessive erosion. Unfortunately, there was no way to tell how much nozzle eroded because the nozzle burns completely after the engine cuts out.
- Even with the nozzle erosion, all engines came in as solid J's.
- This was also the November launch for the San Diego Rocket Society. James Grover from Grover Aerospace was there and launched three rockets with a variaty of engines.
- Click on graphs to view pressure curves.
Construction
- Engines had a 2" PVC nozzle section 3.25" long and a 2" PVC fuel section 19.5" long. Each engine had a 2" PVC cap on the forward section of the engine. Nozzles were made from West Systems Epoxy and Kno3 to a 35/65 ratio. Nozzle throat was .75" long and .7" in diameter.
Pros
- I'm sure this design is very reliable.
- Inexpensive.
- Easy to construct.
- Easy source of smoke that is self igniting.
- Engine igniters worked perfectly.
Cons
- HUGE reduction in overall performance. Only 75 lbs. of peak thrust for a 5.5 lb. engine. I'd like to see at least 100 lbs.
Pictures
Video
CAD Drawings
Home