![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:38:32 +1030, "Dave Kearton"
wrote: I've just received a few pics of a small rocket motor, from a friend of mine. It's about 2Kg and about 45cm long with a 10cm wide nozzle. It's a liquid fuel motor and doesn't look like it has any electrical connections. We're all guessing it could be some form of reaction nozzle for (maybe) a Gemini or Apollo capsule. Can I buy a vowel please ? Dave, Not much of a vowel but here's the stuff I got from a bud who's pretty heavy into rocketry (I am not). He didn't know what it was, specifically, but here's a bit more info you can add to the stew. One other note, Q is correct about the "SN63(4??), which is preceeded by what looks like a part #, which looks to me like it may be " ?07705" Cheers, jc "About all I can add to this discussion is that I'd agree it's probably designed for hypergols since there's no provision for ignition. Hypergols are binary propellants that use 2 liquids that spontaneously combust on contact. The only 2 I can name are furfuryl alcohol with hydrogen peroxide and the WW2 German bstoff and cstoff. That was the stuff used in the ME163 Comet rocket plane, I'm pretty sure one of the stoffs was hydrazine. That's some nasty stuff, it dissolves flesh. I've heard stories about accidental leaks and human soup. Yuck! Looking at the pictures a couple of other things strike me. Obviously there's no gimbal on the nozzle so it's not a manuvering jet. I'd guess either a seperation motor for a really big stage or possibly some kind of retro-fire thing. The other thing is the way the fluid lines wrap around the can looks like preheat to me. That either means a fuel that doesn't vaporize easily, like kerosene, or a cold soaked environment. That goes along with the idea that it's designed for vacuum. Where did the guy get it? Looks like government surplus to me. Hope my input helps." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"jc" wrote in message
... Dave, Not much of a vowel but here's the stuff I got from a bud who's pretty heavy into rocketry (I am not). He didn't know what it was, specifically, but here's a bit more info you can add to the stew. One other note, Q is correct about the "SN63(4??), which is preceeded by what looks like a part #, which looks to me like it may be " ?07705" Cheers, jc "About all I can add to this discussion is that I'd agree it's probably designed for hypergols since there's no provision for ignition. Hypergols are binary propellants that use 2 liquids that spontaneously combust on contact. The only 2 I can name are furfuryl alcohol with hydrogen peroxide and the WW2 German bstoff and cstoff. That was the stuff used in the ME163 Comet rocket plane, I'm pretty sure one of the stoffs was hydrazine. That's some nasty stuff, it dissolves flesh. I've heard stories about accidental leaks and human soup. Yuck! Looking at the pictures a couple of other things strike me. Obviously there's no gimbal on the nozzle so it's not a manuvering jet. I'd guess either a seperation motor for a really big stage or possibly some kind of retro-fire thing. The other thing is the way the fluid lines wrap around the can looks like preheat to me. That either means a fuel that doesn't vaporize easily, like kerosene, or a cold soaked environment. That goes along with the idea that it's designed for vacuum. Where did the guy get it? Looks like government surplus to me. Hope my input helps." Thanks, every little bit helps. I'm currently trying to get comparision pics of the Rocketdyne LR64-NA-4 from the AQM-37. It was a fairly common engine - over 5K in service and possibly matches the size of the engine with the airframe. -- Cheers Dave Kearton |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
well this is a mixing chamber for a chrop duster. looks like its a old
grummend agcat around the 1960 design, the corossion has me worried... "Dave Kearton" wrote in message ... "jc" wrote in message ... Dave, Not much of a vowel but here's the stuff I got from a bud who's pretty heavy into rocketry (I am not). He didn't know what it was, specifically, but here's a bit more info you can add to the stew. One other note, Q is correct about the "SN63(4??), which is preceeded by what looks like a part #, which looks to me like it may be " ?07705" Cheers, jc "About all I can add to this discussion is that I'd agree it's probably designed for hypergols since there's no provision for ignition. Hypergols are binary propellants that use 2 liquids that spontaneously combust on contact. The only 2 I can name are furfuryl alcohol with hydrogen peroxide and the WW2 German bstoff and cstoff. That was the stuff used in the ME163 Comet rocket plane, I'm pretty sure one of the stoffs was hydrazine. That's some nasty stuff, it dissolves flesh. I've heard stories about accidental leaks and human soup. Yuck! Looking at the pictures a couple of other things strike me. Obviously there's no gimbal on the nozzle so it's not a manuvering jet. I'd guess either a seperation motor for a really big stage or possibly some kind of retro-fire thing. The other thing is the way the fluid lines wrap around the can looks like preheat to me. That either means a fuel that doesn't vaporize easily, like kerosene, or a cold soaked environment. That goes along with the idea that it's designed for vacuum. Where did the guy get it? Looks like government surplus to me. Hope my input helps." Thanks, every little bit helps. I'm currently trying to get comparision pics of the Rocketdyne LR64-NA-4 from the AQM-37. It was a fairly common engine - over 5K in service and possibly matches the size of the engine with the airframe. -- Cheers Dave Kearton |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
well this is a mixing chamber for a chrop duster. looks like its a old
grummend agcat around the 1960 design, the corossion has me worried... "Dave Kearton" wrote in message ... "jc" wrote in message ... Dave, Not much of a vowel but here's the stuff I got from a bud who's pretty heavy into rocketry (I am not). He didn't know what it was, specifically, but here's a bit more info you can add to the stew. One other note, Q is correct about the "SN63(4??), which is preceeded by what looks like a part #, which looks to me like it may be " ?07705" Cheers, jc "About all I can add to this discussion is that I'd agree it's probably designed for hypergols since there's no provision for ignition. Hypergols are binary propellants that use 2 liquids that spontaneously combust on contact. The only 2 I can name are furfuryl alcohol with hydrogen peroxide and the WW2 German bstoff and cstoff. That was the stuff used in the ME163 Comet rocket plane, I'm pretty sure one of the stoffs was hydrazine. That's some nasty stuff, it dissolves flesh. I've heard stories about accidental leaks and human soup. Yuck! Looking at the pictures a couple of other things strike me. Obviously there's no gimbal on the nozzle so it's not a manuvering jet. I'd guess either a seperation motor for a really big stage or possibly some kind of retro-fire thing. The other thing is the way the fluid lines wrap around the can looks like preheat to me. That either means a fuel that doesn't vaporize easily, like kerosene, or a cold soaked environment. That goes along with the idea that it's designed for vacuum. Where did the guy get it? Looks like government surplus to me. Hope my input helps." Thanks, every little bit helps. I'm currently trying to get comparision pics of the Rocketdyne LR64-NA-4 from the AQM-37. It was a fairly common engine - over 5K in service and possibly matches the size of the engine with the airframe. -- Cheers Dave Kearton |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dave Kearton" wrote in
message ... I'm currently trying to get comparision pics of the Rocketdyne LR64-NA-4 from the AQM-37. It was a fairly common engine - over 5K in service and possibly matches the size of the engine with the airframe. As Esmarelda whispered to Quasimodo "It's only a hunch, but I can't ignore it" I'm pretty sure the beast we're looking at is an LR64 variant, leastways that's close enough for me. I've sent a pic off to PWR and hopefully they'll own up to it as well. http://www.aeroconsystems.com/motors/lr64.htm Thanks to everyone for their thoughts - except for the retard on sci.space.history who told me to do my own research. I think my way was a lot more educational. -- Cheers Dave Kearton |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dave Kearton" wrote:
I'm currently trying to get comparision pics of the Rocketdyne LR64-NA-4 from the AQM-37. It was a fairly common engine - over 5K in service and possibly matches the size of the engine with the airframe. As Esmarelda whispered to Quasimodo "It's only a hunch, but I can't ignore it" I'm pretty sure the beast we're looking at is an LR64 variant, leastways that's close enough for me. I've sent a pic off to PWR and hopefully they'll own up to it as well. http://www.aeroconsystems.com/motors/lr64.htm Thanks to everyone for their thoughts - except for the retard on sci.space.history who told me to do my own research. I think my way was a lot more educational. I think you have it. Here's another picture, from http://www.astronautix.com/engines/p41ainer.htm --Bill Thompson |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"William R Thompson" wrote in message
link.net... "Dave Kearton" wrote: I'm currently trying to get comparision pics of the Rocketdyne LR64-NA-4 from the AQM-37. It was a fairly common engine - over 5K in service and possibly matches the size of the engine with the airframe. As Esmarelda whispered to Quasimodo "It's only a hunch, but I can't ignore it" I'm pretty sure the beast we're looking at is an LR64 variant, leastways that's close enough for me. I've sent a pic off to PWR and hopefully they'll own up to it as well. http://www.aeroconsystems.com/motors/lr64.htm Thanks to everyone for their thoughts - except for the retard on sci.space.history who told me to do my own research. I think my way was a lot more educational. I think you have it. Here's another picture, from http://www.astronautix.com/engines/p41ainer.htm --Bill Thompson The Stromberg twin barrel carbie on that one would make it go like a cut cat. -- Cheers Dave Kearton |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dave Kearton" wrote: I'm pretty sure the beast we're looking at is an LR64 variant, leastways that's close enough for me. I've sent a pic off to PWR and hopefully they'll own up to it as well. http://www.aeroconsystems.com/motors/lr64.htm Thanks to everyone for their thoughts - except for the retard on sci.space.history who told me to do my own research. I think my way was a lot more educational. I'm guessing that you were answered by Oswald Mosley, a man with nothing to say and no trouble proving it. http://www.astronautix.com/engines/p41ainer.htm The Stromberg twin barrel carbie on that one would make it go like a cut cat. According to astronautix.com at http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/aqm37.htm the AQM-37 can do up to Mach 3 or 4, depending on the version. It's a target drone, and the article in your pictures is probably the sustainer engine (the bigger thrust chamber must give it the initial boost up to speed, but it would burn a lot of fuel). Propellants are identified as liquid oxygen and kerosene. At least five thousand of these drones have been manufactured since 1959. Even allowing for the number that must have splashed into the oceans, it seems likely that one of them could have landed in the Skylab Parking Lot. --Bill Thompson |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
William R Thompson wrote:
"Dave Kearton" wrote: Thanks to everyone for their thoughts - except for the retard on sci.space.history who told me to do my own research. I think my way was a lot more educational. I'm guessing that you were answered by Oswald Mosley, a man with nothing to say and no trouble proving it. I think you've scored a direct hit with this one. Why anybody would select the identity of a Facist as his screen presence escapes me... "OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you need [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ " the AQM-37 can do up to Mach 3 or 4, depending on the version. It's a target drone, and the article in your pictures is probably the sustainer engine (the bigger thrust chamber must give it the initial boost up to speed, but it would burn a lot of fuel). Propellants are identified as liquid oxygen and kerosene. At least five thousand of these drones have been manufactured since 1959. Even allowing for the number that must have splashed into the oceans, it seems likely that one of them could have landed in the Skylab Parking Lot. --Bill Thompson Unfortunately, the motor is still in the US. The current 'owner' is quite happy with his purchase, and is fairly sure that it's legal - but until he's totally sure, he wants to keep quiet about it. Through the wonders of the Internet, we could assemble a quick think-tank to sort it out. There has to be something to counterbalance the porn and get rich quick schemes. Once again, thanks to (almost) all who put their oar in. -- Cheers Dave Kearton |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
William R Thompson wrote:
"Dave Kearton" wrote: Thanks to everyone for their thoughts - except for the retard on sci.space.history who told me to do my own research. I think my way was a lot more educational. I'm guessing that you were answered by Oswald Mosley, a man with nothing to say and no trouble proving it. I think you've scored a direct hit with this one. Why anybody would select the identity of a Facist as his screen presence escapes me... "OM -- ]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you need [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ " the AQM-37 can do up to Mach 3 or 4, depending on the version. It's a target drone, and the article in your pictures is probably the sustainer engine (the bigger thrust chamber must give it the initial boost up to speed, but it would burn a lot of fuel). Propellants are identified as liquid oxygen and kerosene. At least five thousand of these drones have been manufactured since 1959. Even allowing for the number that must have splashed into the oceans, it seems likely that one of them could have landed in the Skylab Parking Lot. --Bill Thompson Unfortunately, the motor is still in the US. The current 'owner' is quite happy with his purchase, and is fairly sure that it's legal - but until he's totally sure, he wants to keep quiet about it. Through the wonders of the Internet, we could assemble a quick think-tank to sort it out. There has to be something to counterbalance the porn and get rich quick schemes. Once again, thanks to (almost) all who put their oar in. -- Cheers Dave Kearton |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mooney Rocket | Al | Owning | 7 | September 1st 06 07:31 PM |
FS: Harmon Rocket II | Rob S. | Piloting | 0 | March 4th 06 11:50 PM |
Rocket Man.... | Gary Emerson | Soaring | 2 | November 5th 05 04:49 AM |
WW-II rocket motor on E-bay - opinions ? | BeepBeep | Naval Aviation | 32 | August 11th 05 03:29 PM |
TWO EXTREMELY RARE ROCKET BOOKS ON EBAY - INCREDIBLE ROCKET HISTORY! | TruthReigns | Military Aviation | 0 | July 10th 04 11:54 AM |