randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Longshot) (12/14/89)
So far I have gotten some pledges of support. I realise now that I should
have cross-posted to the two existing rec.models.* groups. So, for their
benefit, I will summarize:
I propose a new group for the discussion of modelling, scale,
scratchbuilt, etc. The tentative name (see below) is rec.models. I am
striving for an open forum where people can discuss things from finishing
techniques to reviews of new kits. I do not wish to have it restricted
only to modellers who exist for exact reproduction, nor do I want it
leaning hard towards scratchbuilding. Plastic, resin, wood, whatever the
medium of choice.
Since then, it has been suggested that the group be called rec.models.misc,
or .plastic, or some others. Granted that .misc is the most appealing of the
choices, I don't see anything wrong with rec.models. .rockets and .rc are
SIGs of modelling, each going beyond the questions of construction to the
questions of flight. I am still open to suggestions. I understand the
need for a period of discussion, followed by a period of voting. I would
like to start voting around January 5th - 12th, finishing by the 30th or
Febuary 6th. Until then, I welcome your comments.
Randy
--
Randy J. Ray University of Oklahoma, Norman Campus (405)/325-5370
!chinet!uokmax!randy randy@uokmax.uucp randy@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
I'd rather discuss religion with Charles Manson than talk ethics with Congress
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||ray@philmtl.philips.ca (Ray Dunn) (12/14/89)
In article <1989Dec14.052553.4849@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> randy@uokmax.UUCP (Longshot) writes: >...techniques to reviews of new kits. I do not wish to have it restricted >only to modellers who exist for exact reproduction, nor do I want it >leaning hard towards scratchbuilding. Plastic, resin, wood, whatever the >medium of choice. Because this group is being suggested as a catch-all rather than specialized topic group, it is closer to whatever USENET conventions exist to name it "sci.models", eh, no, I mean "rec.models.misc". With that name I will support it. As "rec.models" I will abstain. -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ray@philmt.philips.ca Philips Electronics Ltd. | ..!{uunet|philapd|philabs}!philmtl!ray 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext : 2347 (Phonemail) St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | FAX : (514) 744-6455 TLX : 05-824090
srb@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (steven.r.bodenstab) (12/15/89)
In article <1989Dec14.052553.4849@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> randy@uokmax.UUCP (Longshot) writes:
] I propose a new group for the discussion of modelling, scale,
] scratchbuilt, etc. The tentative name (see below) is rec.models.
As a general forum on modeling the name 'rec.models' is just fine.
In fact, IMHO, the group is LOOONNGG overdue!
--
Steven R. Bodenstab UUCP: ...!att!homxb!srb
AT&T Bell Laboratories ...!homxb.ATT.COM!srb
Naperville, Illinoisguhsd000@crash.cts.com (Paula Ferris) (12/15/89)
This group is fine as it is...let's not play with it.... boost/glider set ups. I would hate to see this another group stripped down, and segergated like many others that get caught in turmoil. .parachutes.big. If it works......
jeffm@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) (12/16/89)
In article <900@crash.cts.com> guhsd000@crash.cts.com (Paula Ferris) writes: > >This group is fine as it is...let's not play with it.... > >boost/glider set ups. I would hate to see this another group stripped down, and segergated like many others that get caught in turmoil. > >.parachutes.big. > >If it works...... This is the most confusing article not written by Richard Stallman that I have ever read. The proposal is not to adulterate any group (I presume that you read rec.models.rc or rec.models.rocket.), but rather to create a new group for the discussion of general modelling, whether kit or scratchbuilt, and also the discussion of technique, reviews of kits, sources of supply, and so on. Personally, I would prefer the name rec.models.misc. -- Jeff Medcalf jeffm@uokmax.{uucp|ecn.uoknor.edu} !chinet!uokmax!jeffm BoB smokes *my* pipe! We carry in our hearts the true country... In 1869, the waffle iron was invented, thus solving the annoying tendency of waffles to wrinkle in the dryer. No new tale to tell.
guhsd000@crash.cts.com (Paula Ferris) (12/20/89)
What Happened? It was going so well...or has my machine lost it's rocketry feed? Someone say something!
deanr@sco.COM (Dean Reece) (12/22/89)
In article <945@crash.cts.com> guhsd000@crash.cts.com (Paula Ferris) writes: > > >What Happened? It was going so well...or has my machine lost it's rocketry >feed? Someone say something! OK, I'll bite: I used to be into model rockets years ago. I was a regular mail order customer of Estes and Centari (sp?). Do either or both of these suppliers still exist? What are there addresses (to write for catalogs)? Are there any new model rocket suppliers? What are the current range of engine sizes (have they changed in the last 10 years or so?) I remember 3 physical sizes with different burn times and ejection charge delays): 1/4A & 1/2A = .5" diameter A, B & C = .75" diameter D = 1.0" diameter (I just subscribed to this newsgroup, so no flames about being totally ignorant, please) ______________________________________________________________________ | Dean Reece Member Technical Staff |"The flames are all long gone | | The Santa Cruz Operation 408/458-1422 | but the pain lingers on" | |___________deanr@sco.com_______________|___________________Pink_Floyd_|
guhsd000@crash.cts.com (Paula Ferris) (12/27/89)
Attention, and etc...... I did in fact loos my feed, and the machine has been acting a bit funny with the news groups. I posted a few messages to rocketry and all, but havn't seen them show up on my machine. We'll see what happens. About my (I guess failed) Super Sonic flight, I can't recall the engine I used, I remember it may have been from England, and manufactured in Germany. I don't think it was quite kosher with American standards reguarding weight and materials. I belive it was aluminium with a plasic coating inside and out, maybe to guard against any type of chemical reaction with the metal(?) Anyway, the tube was a carbon fiber tube I got from a friend at General Dynamics, and it was, I'd guess about .08 in an inch think, and was 3 inches in diameter. This tube was tough! I used a hacksaw to cut it. I used a 3 inch nosecone that was covered in lucite to harden it, and make a lip to better fit over the top edge of the tube. I belive this layer of plastic was about .010 or less thick. The fins were of 1/8 inch plexiglass sheets, (clear) and looked really nice after sanding and a ton of buffing. They were attached to the tube with a grove at the base is each fin similar to >< and these fit into slots cut from the base up into the rocket body. And were cemented into place using an expoxy similar to the type used for cementing road reflectors (cat eyes) to the pavement. The expoy was applied to the inside of the tube rather than the outside. Extreame care was taken in the alignment of the fins. The whole affair was very light for it's size, but I don't have a weight on it, it was about 20 inches tall over all. At launch I used a modified cardboard and balsa stage to get a D12 to get the beast away from me before the second ( 1.5 x 7 [about) in size) engine blasted this thing outta sight. At launch, I got the standard HisssWOOSH! and the stage fell away, so far everything was very straight, when the stage fell away, the rocket seemed to angle about 15 degrees out of vertical, which was fine. The main engine seemed to hesitate for a moment, then BLAM! It was like as if before the rocket was standing still, or someone was running a video on fast forward. I have never seen a boost in thrust like that anywhere. But this lasted for a brief moment then CRACK! Catastrophic Rocket Failure....To the best of our figuring at the time, (We never recovered much of it) The nose cone must have been forced down the tube, splitting it into nice 1/4 inch pieces as it went through it. We never found the bottom most part of the rocket, I guess the remaining thrust sent it out of the area. It was an expensive venture, I'd estimate the value of the rocket with all the time, and specialized materials used (although the most expensive tubing was donated by a generous goverment contracter) and the excellent workmanship (I'm so modest) was approaching $80 (not know what that tubing costs) and the engine was about $30, and the trip out to Clark's Dry Lake in Southern California (Not to be confused with Clark AFB) That $80 figure really doesn't include time spent, which would drive it up quite a bit. New Term: In this lesson, we learned CRF (Catastropic Rocket Failure). :)