Project
517 Static - IE24G engine test

Results

• The first static test with a sugar / Kno3 tracer smoke element fired perfectly with a 25 second smoke burn after the engine was spent. The second static test with an epoxy / Kno3 tracer smoke element leaked exhaust gasses around the epoxy element and out through the engine casing.

Construction

• This was revision G of the IE24 engine. Three main differences from revision F were being tested on this design.
• Cotton was put in the engine core just below the igniter. The purpose of the cotton was to allow some of the exhaust gasses from the igniter to escape while leaving the burning igniter in the engine core just a little longer to help light the engine.
• The space between the fuel and the end cap was no longer filled with a bead of silicone and Pourstone. Instead, two part RTV silicone replaced both the silicone bead and the Pourstone.
• A solid tracer smoke element was put between the fuel and the end cap. This end burning element will still be burning after the engine has been spent creating tracer smoke for the rocket.
• Two smoke elements were tested in this static test. One engine had an element comprised of epoxy and Kno3 and the second used a 60/40 sugar / Kno3 fuel slug. Both elements were 1 5/8" long.

Pros

• Tracer smoke is part of the engine and not separate thus lit by the same igniter.
• There is a weight savings by having the tracer smoke in the engine casing and not in it's own component.
• Smoke comes out of the engine nozzle and there is no danger of exposing other parts of the rocket to hot gasses.
• Sugar smoke element worked great.

Cons

• Epoxy smoke element did not work.

Pictures

• 2 part RTV silicone used in the end cap.
• Static 01 ready to test.
• A cut-away view of the end caps after firing. Top is epoxy and bottom is sugar.
• Another view of the end caps after firing.

Video

• Sugar smoke element static.
• Epoxy smoke element static.

CAD Drawings

• IE24G design.

Home