Project
124 Static
Test Analysis
- This series of static tests was to evaluate if the performance of the epoxy / Kno3 nozzle could be increased by decreasing the diameter of the nozzle throat. Eight engines were tested.
- Two engines had Pourstone nozzles with a .7" throat.
- Two engines had epoxy nozzles with a .625" throat.
- Two engines had epoxy nozzles with a .5" throat.
- Two engines had epoxy nozzles with a .375" throat.
- The Pourstone nozzles performed well producing 1200 Ns of total impulse. There was some irregular burning at the end caused by plastic in the fuel mix.
- The epoxy nozzles performed well but only produced half the peak thrust of the Pourstone nozzle. The .375" throat epoxy nozzles exploded.
- The Pourstone nozzles eroded .13" during the test.
- Click on graph to view pressure curve.
Construction
- Engines were case bonded with a .625" core and 18.5" of fuel in a 2" PVC pipe. The cap consisted of a 2" PVC cap with a small layer of Pourstone separating the burning fuel from the plastic. The nozzles were held in place by four 1/4-20 x 3/8" nylon bolts as well as four 1-1/4" PVC half holes in the nozzle section. Igniters were cast in the engines.
Pros
- All the igniters worked perfectly.
- All the engines lit.
- Very easy to construct with low cost per engine.
- Pourstone nozzle erosion rate is low.
Cons
- Smoke element can not be integrated into the engine design. The penalty in lost thrust due to erosion is too high.
Pictures
Video
Drawings
Home
