Teleflite mini-rocket plans?
 

Hello All,

When the Teleflite Corporation sold their "How-To" pamphlet about making small sugar rocket motors ("The Incredible Five Cent Sugar Rocket") back in the 1980s, it also came with a set of plans for a small (approximately BT-5 size, if memory serves) model rocket that could be made from existing household items, which used the sugar rocket motors. (It would also fly well using commercially-made 13 mm mini motors.) This rocket rather resembled the MPC Super/Star kit (see: http://www.rocketreviews.com/mpc-su...-jeff-lane.html and http://www.oldrocketplans.com/mpc/m...0/mpc3-0910.htm ).

Does anyone here have the plans for this Teleflite model rocket? I have found the sugar rocket pamphlet text reproduced online, but not the model plans.

Many thanks in advance to anyone who can help!

Blackshire,
If you are still looking for the teleflite sugar rockets plans, i might have it. Hang tight though, its back home in Miami and I will be there next week at my folks place. the minute i get there i will post something for you.

Kevin

Thank you very much! If you would, please also send it to Scott ("LTVScout") so that everyone can access it. Although the rocket was designed to use Teleflite's sugar propellant motors, it will accommodate 13 mm mini motors and/or 6 mm MicroMaxx motors. Since this rocket was designed to be made from common household materials, it would be a good model for Industrial Arts-type model rocket projects for schools, Scouts, 4-H Clubs, and other youth groups.

The Microsnde 1 by Teleflite
 

Hi Blackshire,
I have the sugar rocket plans from Teleflite. Its called The Microsond 1. Its for 'the incredible 5 cent sugar rocket' and the associated mini sugar engine, but can use for mini motors and Micro maxx engines. The original document was a single page sheet 11x14 with instructions on obverse side and patterns and plans on reverse side. I scanned both sides. Be sure to print on 8.5 x14 legal format for full layout. I will send to Scott as well. Enjoy :) !

Kevin A. Cespedes

Thank you very much, Kevin! I had forgotten that it also included a full-size circular parachute pattern. This would be a good Scout project rocket for making the rockets out of common household materials (in keeping with the "A Scout is thrifty" trait). Just one question--are the TIFs 100% size? It looks like they are, but I can't tell for sure because the original document didn't have a ruler scale printed on the side with the drawings.

Its true to size. I always opt to print at 100 percent scale rather than fit to scale. Be sure to print on legal and should be all set. Sorry the photo images aren't as sharp but I try to keep to the established format for Scott ( Hanson).
I'ms sure the scouts will have a lot of fun.
Good Luck.
Kevin

Thank you for this information. Strangely, my image viewer reduced the files to fit on an 8.5" X 11" sheet even though I selected "Print Full Size." (I think if I change the paper size in the selection table to 8.5" X 14" [I'll have to get some], it will print fine.)

Also, if you hadn't mentioned the photo quality I would never have suspected! :-) It's been a long time since I last saw the Microsond 1 plans.

Raygun:

If you have the entire manual, would it be too much to ask you to scan it in it's entirety and send it to Scott? I have a windows notepad type copy I got from the web somewhere, but I'd enjoy seeing the original 5 cent rocket manual.

Terry Dean

Terry,
I am not aware there existed a specific comprehensive manual for 'the five cent rocket'. I do own the How to make your own sugar rocket book by Teleflite Corp. ,dedicated to low-to-mid power sugar rocket engines and their construction. This is book is about engine construction and propellant formula only and no mention of rocket vehicles other than ' the 5 cent' on my separate leaflet which I posted. I think earlier in the post there was a reference to a pamphlet(?)--Are you sure this is what you are looking for?
Kevin

Teleflite's books ("Building Your Own Rocket Motors" and "Amateur Rocket Motor Construction") are concerned with black powder motors. David Sleeter, the owner of the Teleflite Corporation, wrote both books. His sugar rocket pamphlet was called "The Incredible Five Cent Sugar Rocket," and the Microsond 1 rocket plans and instructions were provided with it. "The Incredible Five Cent Sugar Rocket" pamphlet is online here (see: http://balloons.space.edu/ndra/nickle.html and http://www.alphalink.com.au/~brucej/nickle.htm ). Also, speaking of sugar rockets:

An amateur rocketry project group called "Sugar Shot to Space" ("SS2S," see: http://sugarshot.org/ ) is developing a space-capable sounding rocket that is powered by sugar propellant (as they refer to it, "The first amateur rocket with amateur propellant to reach space"), and they have test-flown a large sub-scale test vehicle. The relatively low ISP (specific impulse) of the sugar propellant (which has the advantages of being cheap and relatively safe to prepare and handle) is evidenced by the large size of the space-capable rocket, as is shown in the comparative sizes drawing on their web site.

At the risk of being excommunicated from the NAR and one day finding myself pulling coal wagons in a very warm place, I think building small, home-made sugar rockets of the type covered in "The Incredible Five Cent Sugar Rocket" is a safe and educational activity for individual children and youth groups such as Scout troops, 4-H Clubs, and Industrial Arts classes, as long as it is done under adult supervision. Such an activity teaches children about chemistry, materials, making & using tools, following detailed directions, factory mass production techniques (making multiple motors at one time is covered in the pamphlet), how to organize a workshop for efficient utilization of space and materials, and safety procedures. Equally important (especially in this instant-gratification, short-attention span "twittering-and-texting age"), children who make and use sugar propellant rockets learn patience, the joys of delayed gratification, and the satisfaction of making and flying something that they made from scratch, using their own hands and minds.

Oh yeah, that's right I forgot. The book is dedicated to Black powder...
That's right then, I don't have the sugar rocket manual as a certainty. There you go, as you now have a well documented source!

I was dissuaded from trying home-made black powder motors when I read "Making Your Own Rocket Motors," as Step 1 involved fabricating a thick steel plate explosion shield to be installed above the hand-ramming press! The sugar rocket propellant is much more benign. It is mixed moist, and as long as it is hand-mixed (not using an electric blender) in a plastic tub with a plastic spatula, it can be safely mixed, handled, and loaded into the rocket motor cases (which are made of rolled, gummed paper packing tape) at one's kitchen table. The finished and loaded sugar rocket motors are approximately the size of 13 mm mini motors.

Not sure what I meant actually. I have a text file, taken from an online source here:


http://balloons.space.edu/ndra/nickle.html

I thought this was either a manual or pamphlet ...

And he also had another book/manual...? Not 2004's Amateur Rocket Motor Construction

back in the late 1970's early 80's?

http://www.amazon.com/Building-Your...s/dp/B000IY6F20

http://estesrocketsstoreok.co.cc/Te...ration-the.html

Terry Dean

The powers-that-be at NAR, at least when Bunny was president (I do not know about Trip Barber), has always said, "If you have a desire for NAR to support motor making, write up a detailed proposal and submit it to the board. We will give it due consideration. But it had better be well thought out."

Given some of today's concerns, preventing wildfire is as important a consideration as avoiding injury and property damage. One thing NAR will be concerned about which the TRA Research Code is silent on is safe practices for the propellant making process itself, not just the flying and static testing of the resulting motors.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it...


Bill

I wasn't even -entertaining- the idea of trying to get the NAR to officially sanction motor making of any kind by individuals or groups. If a teacher, a Scout troop leader, or a 4-H Club leader is interested in making sugar rocket motors as a project, he or she need not get permission from the NAR. I was just referring to the probability that the NAR takes a dim view of *any* motor making (even involving only sugar motors), and that they would likely not be pleased for NAR members such as myself to be positively disposed toward motor making.

Totally not true. At least one member of the NAR board is an avid EXer.

If NAR sanctioned the making of sugar motors, then those can be flown at NAR club launches and may become more popular. Also, said teacher, scout or 4-H leader may have an easier time getting a place to fly with NAR landowner insurance available.

NAR currently has a volunteer problem. They do not have enough people to do all they would like to do, so they are leaving alone those things they do not feel are essential or one of the current volunteers has a personal interest. EXers within NAR so far are happy to do it with TRA sanction. Hence my thought that if someone interested in a NAR sanction for making sugar motors would do the thorough legwork needed to make it happen, the odds of getting it are significantly better than the current zero.


Bill

I think that's one of the keys to NAR not being into EX...er...research :) Supply and demand. Right now, I think, at the national level, there's not enough demand to justify a 2nd large organization supporting that aspect of the hobby.

In truth, what's even more important is local support, regardless of national sanction. It seems that having some others to share recipes, techniques, safety procedures, equipment, etc, is more important than whether the NAR supports it. I think that's the real key.

Dwelling on that, it seems to me that most of the accidents I hear about happen to loners. Seems to me it's best to have someone to help you, if for no other reason, than to extinguish your pants after you blow the garage door off the house :D

Doug

.

Agreed.

That said, if the NAR ever sanctioned research, my guess is they'd do APCP first, since it seems to be the safest of all the common propellant types (not to mention the most potent).

Doug

.

That is good to know. However, having a few EXers or pro-EXers on the NAR board can't change the organization's official policy toward making motors if their views are minority views.Agreed.Also agreed, but for health, stamina, and financial reasons, I am not the one to do this. My thoughts regarding sugar rocket building & flying projects were along the lines of what the Girl Scouts are doing here in Fairbanks with regard to rifle competitions:

The Boy Scouts have a rifle marksmanship merit badge program, and our local Girl Scouts also wanted to be able to earn marksmanship badges, but the national Girl Scouts organization doesn't have such a merit badge program for political reasons. The local Girl Scout outpost got together with a local firearms safety instructor who also teaches a concealed-carry handgun course, and they formulated an unofficial (as far as the national Girl Scouts organization is concerned) Girl Scouts rifle marksmanship merit badge program.

A sugar rocket building & flying youth program for Scouts, 4-H Clubs, and schools could be handled similarly outside of the NAR. I know (as Doug Sams posted above) that making composite propellant motors is also an option--in fact, I've read about a motor-making school called "Rocket Ranch" where the students make their own composite motors (I believe the article was in "Air & Space Smithsonian" magazine). Making composite motors is likely more appropriate for older (Explorer or Eagle) Scouts, while younger Scouts could safely (and cheaply) make sugar propellant motors, particularly the mini motor-size ones in "The Incredible Five Cent Sugar Rocket" pamphlet.

I stumbled upon this old thread while Googling for David G. Sleeter, author of these works. I purchased copies of "Building Your Own Rocket Motors" (1983) and "Amateur Rocket Motor Construction" (2004), both by Teleflite Corporation. I also have downloaded copies of the "Five Cent Sugar Rocket" and the "Homemade Hydrogen Report" by the elusive Mr. Sleeter. A search of Amazon and other rare book sites indicate I made a good investment.

I also obtained a copy of a sugar rocket construction manual entitled "Bravo Niner" by John Drayna, which appears to have been based upon Sleeter's work. http://www.privatedata.com/byb/rock...oberscience.pdf Drayna had apparently applied for a patent on a device he called "HANEES" for "Heat Activated Non-Explosive Ejection System". Very interesting stuff.

Way back in 85 (before my NAR membership) I made probably 200+ Teleflite C-9 motors. They would kick like a mule (or B-14) and I did use the blast shield, but never had any 'problems'.

Based on these prices http://www.amazon.com/Amateur-Rocke...or+construction perhaps I should put these works in a safe? :eek:

WOW!!! I've got that book also, cruise time.

As long as the motors are not failing in an unsafe manner with GREAT regularity ON THE PAD at a sanctioned launch, NAR should not be concerned with the safety of how they are MADE if they ever do allow 'research'. This is something Tripoli has gotten 100% correct...they butt the H&LL out of the research motor construction process. I however DISAGREE with Tripoli regarding requiring Level 2 to do research. Should be a free-for-all FIELD DAY.

In order to stay in "good graces" with their respective insurance carriers, both the NAR and Tripoli Clubs have no choice but to comply with the restrictions placed upon them via NFPA and the Alphabet Soup Agencies. It's the Golden Rule yet again:

He Who Has the Gold Makes the Rules

Quite frankly I think we ALL would be a lot better off with a whole lot more freedom without the NFPA, the alphabet soup agencies, and the insurance carriers having any say in what does/does not go. The insurance companies should have to cover whatever the customer wants wherever and have to eat it from the profit. 99.9% of the time insurance is a usurious RIPOFF industry.
I would much rather have a return to the "Wild Wild West" days of rocketry of the 50's and even 60's where regulations were nearly non-existent.

Not literally true. NFPA is a voluntary compliance regime to self-define model rocketry and high power rocketry. One of those clubs often skates its own rules. The insurance company is a separate entity that simply wants to see a claims history in the segment one is operating which is why amateur rocketry has a lower insurance cost than model rocketry. There is perceived risk to putting a product on every shelf.

The limit to HPR is actually the "small population" of "only" 5000 approved users worldwide. That makes premiums excessively high. TRA and NAR have designed the system to intentionally increase the barriers to entry to HPR to far above what they used to be when there were over 20,000 users and rising 20% per year.

Jerry

Why do you think that they have done that ?

Why would they want to DECREASE participation ?

All I got when I clicked on the URL was an "Address not valid" message.

http://www.privatedata.com/byb/rock...oberscience.pdf

I just tried this and it worked

http://tinyurl.com/p5llq24

Thank you for re-posting this! The sugar propellant is certainly much safer to mix and "pour" than the zinc/sulfur propellant. While the PVC motor case could potentially form shrapnel in the event of a CATO, it's safer than a metal case.

I never messed around with Zinc / Sulfur aka "MICROGRAIN" . . . I have heard that static electricity could set it off, right in your face.

http://www.raketenmodellbau.org/repository/archive/704

Here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdEije_CvQg is a 1/2" ID KNSU motor built according to specifications in David Sleeter's book, Amateur Rocket Motor Construction.

Produced almost 2 LBS peak thrust on 9 grams of fuel. Not bad and I still have all my fingers.

It is static-sensitive, yes. I believe Dr. Z (Dr. Jan Zigmund) used a deliberately "watered-down" (intentionally "oxidizer-rich" or "oxidizer-lean") zinc/sulfur mixture in his early Rapier single-use jet motors (Jetex replacement motors), but abandoned it because of the combination's sensitivity.

Your video doesn't have descriptive text accompanying it (having a rather slow connection, I haven't downloaded and watched it yet). Does KNSU stand for potassium nitrate (KN) sulfur (SU)?

KN = Potassium Nitrate
SU = Sucrose (confectioners sugar)

Sleeter refers to this fuel as KS in his 2004 book, which also contains a small percentage of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) to reduce the burn rate. There is no sulfur in this formula as there was in the formula referenced in the Bravo Niner booklet and as originally published in Sleeter's earlier efforts. Sleeter uses a dry rammed method and the motors produced are core burners.

I don't wish to disclose Mr. Sleeter's exact formulas as his work is copyright protected. Used copies of his 2004 book is available through Amazon by various vendors at inflated prices.

Thank you. He sent me a couple of his "The Incredible Five-Cent Sugar Rocket" reports and Micro-Sonde model rocket plans a little while back. I used to have his book on making black powder motors.

You are most welcome.

Hmmm, "....a little while back". Like how long ago? The reason I ask is I haven't or seen much about him in a good while. He seemed to have vanished from the mid-nineties until he published his masterpiece in 2004. I wonder, is he writing another book?