Cherokee Double-D

[CPMcGraw]

All,

Back in August of 2004, on the OldRockets list, we had this discussion about a two-stage version of the Cherokee-D. Our general consensus was to start with the C-C Express...

I've sent Scott a set of modified decals and a set of fin templates to build one version of this model. This version has the booster fins reduced in size to 85% of the originals. The booster fin decals on the new sheet are reduced accordingly.

Thanks to James Gartrell for his original "Cherokee DD" name decal. The decal sheet I created borrows from his pattern, but uses the "D" of the original Cherokee-D. Since I can now post the images here on the Forum, I'll attach them to this message so anyone who wants a set can try it out...

The decal sheet here is in JPG format, but the version I sent to Scott is a TIF, with perhaps a bit more resolution.

Also included is a copy of an alignment guide that works well. Attach the pattern to a thicker piece of cardboard and remove everything inside the outline (you may have to use some sandpaper to adjust the opening...), and it will hold the fins in their correct positions while the glue dries.

Enjoy!


Craig McGraw

[Eagle3]

Why are the booster fins reduced and not the upper stage? I don't recall the discussion on oldrockets, so I don't know the history.

[CPMcGraw]

Why are the booster fins reduced and not the upper stage? I don't recall the discussion on oldrockets, so I don't know the history.

I had to look hard to find the thread, myself. Mid-August, message numbers between 21500 and 22000...

There were several suggested fin patterns in the discussions, but the thread died out without a final accepted booster pattern. One plan version used a set of fins similar to the main fins of the #2174 Polaris, while another suggested enlarging the original fins to use for the booster.

The reduced-area "booster" fin idea is not uncommon, and has been used by several Estes' kit designs, including the Clipper, the SARK, and the Guardian. I saw this version as just one more design in the list of possible solutions.


Craig...

[Eagle3]

Gotcha. The SARK and Clipper came to mind when I visualized this. I just thought that with two 24mm Ds that one might want the added fin area aft, especially if you build the original shorter tube Cherokee D. I'll have to rocksim it and see how it looks. :) Thanks for the image uploads!

[CPMcGraw]

Gotcha. The SARK and Clipper came to mind when I visualized this. I just thought that with two 24mm Ds that one might want the added fin area aft, especially if you build the original shorter tube Cherokee D. I'll have to rocksim it and see how it looks. :) Thanks for the image uploads!

Since we started with the CC Express kit, this offered the chance to do a long-body version (full 18" BT-55 tube), so the reduced fin area really shouldn't be a problem. The decal I sent uses the modern Estes logo, making this version more like an extension of the #1247 version rather than the "K" version.

I need to sim up the short-body version with this booster, but I still think the stability is OK. At the very least, the short-body version might need some weight added, but probably not much. The original Cherokee-D is a very stable design as-is...


Craig...

[ScaleNut]

either way , I like to make sure the booster is unstable enough to tumble ,

[CPMcGraw]

I need to sim up the short-body version with this booster, but I still think the stability is OK. At the very least, the short-body version might need some weight added, but probably not much. The original Cherokee-D is a very stable design as-is...

Craig...

OK, the sim is in! (AGAIN) :eek:

In fact, if you've already read this message once, I've updated the RKT file. Found something out that I didn't notice before, and had to correct it. The design is NOT naturally stable in two-stage mode, and DOES need some weight in the nose (0.25 oz at the tip). This gives the full-up rocket a 1.0 calibre margin.

The new RockSim 8 [Beta 3] gives me a 2155' altitude for this bad boy, using a D12-0/D12-7 combination. This is for the LONG-BODY version. Deployment is within a foot or two of apogee! :cool:

I'd say this confirms the stability of the (corrected) design... :D

ZIPped RKT file is attached...

Craig McGraw

[CPMcGraw]

either way , I like to make sure the booster is unstable enough to tumble ,

The booster is about the same size as the one for the Astron Avenger, so it should have the same (or similar) tumble characteristics....

And yes, I know, Famous Last Words... :eek:

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

OK, the sim is in! (AGAIN) :eek:

Third time usually gets it right... Just ask Scott! :D

Sorry about the confusion with the RKT files. I'm still trying to learn some of the new features of the program... :rolleyes:

I made a mistake by doing this after midnight, too. My brain says I should be in bed... :o

RockSim 8 B3 says 2181.6' this time, with a two-stage flight stability margin of 1.02, and a sustainer-stage post-booster-seperation flight margin of 2.05. My mistake was in attaching the nose weight to the booster (trying to show the sustainer in a single-stage mode without the added weight...) instead of directly to the NC. Problem with this is, in the simulation, the nose weight drops out at staging, which we know it doesn't do in reality... :eek:

And howdy, do I love those rendered images of the Cherokee Double-D! I was able to apply the decal wrap to them, with only a few minor glitches... :cool:


Craig...

[six-o-one]

Oh, man. Not gonna get into the tech discussion, but seeing as this is a combination of my two favorite things (the Cherokee-D and two-stagers), looks like I have a new project on the horizon.

[Tweener]

The decal sheet I created borrows from his pattern, but uses the "D" of the original Cherokee-D. Since I can now post the images here on the Forum, I'll attach them to this message so anyone who wants a set can try it out...
Craig,

Just so Marvel Comics doesn't see the sheet. Those D's look very similar to the front of the costume on a certain blind lawyer's red, horned alter ego. They might make you put a TM or something on it. ;)

[CPMcGraw]

Craig,

Just so Marvel Comics doesn't see the sheet. Those D's look very similar to the front of the costume on a certain blind lawyer's red, horned alter ego. They might make you put a TM or something on it. ;)

Lance,

That would be a coincidence, believe me. I'm not a comic book collector, so I wouldn't be familiar with the character you've described. I was simply using the existing "D" insignia from the original decal. Overlapping "D"s are seen in other artwork, so I think the context has a lot to do with it... :rolleyes:


Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

Oh, man. Not gonna get into the tech discussion, but seeing as this is a combination of my two favorite things (the Cherokee-D and two-stagers), looks like I have a new project on the horizon.

I'm going to work up a larger fin version of the booster to see if I can get the stability needed without the nose weight, but you've got to admit, 2200' ain't bad! :D

I've already built this version, it just needs all of the finishing work to be done... :eek:

A new copy of the RKT file will be available soon, showing the enlarged fin arrangement.


Craig...

[Eagle3]

Craig, if you already have the fins made up in Rocksim try putting the 86% fins on the upper stage and the normal fins on the booster? I'll try this myself if I get time tonight.

[CPMcGraw]

Craig, if you already have the fins made up in Rocksim try putting the 86% fins on the upper stage and the normal fins on the booster? I'll try this myself if I get time tonight.

Better than that, you only need to lengthen the sustainer with a 3" payload section and a balsa nose block. I tried this in one of the simulations, and it came out at just over 1 calibre stable. :)

I'm attaching two additional RKT files showing some variations on our theme...

Craig...

[Tweener]

That would be a coincidence, believe me. I'm not a comic book collector, so I wouldn't be familiar with the character you've described. I was simply using the existing "D" insignia from the original decal. Overlapping "D"s are seen in other artwork, so I think the context has a lot to do with it... :rolleyes:
I was refering to DareDevil, good logo shot here: http://www.emerchandise.com/product/GLMRV0003/s.LhsTx4hg . I didn't think it was intentional, it just immediately brought him to mind for me. (I was also attempting to make fun of copyright and trademark holders overzealous tendencies to litigation as well. ;) Watch out for the brassiere manufacturers! :D )

[ShieldWolf]

;) Watch out for the brassiere manufacturers! :D )


He he... the first thing I thought of when I read the title was Pamela Anderson.... :D

Randal

[Nuke Rocketeer]

I think a better decal for this rocket would be a buxom Indian gal. Kinda like the old WW2 plane nose art.

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

This is what I think of when I hear Double D.
http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/tv_shows/eds/
(Heavy sigh.) I remember when it brought other things to mind, but I have kids now. :(

[Eagle3]

Better than that, you only need to lengthen the sustainer with a 3" payload section and a balsa nose block. I tried this in one of the simulations, and it came out at just over 1 calibre stable. :)

I'm attaching two additional RKT files showing some variations on our theme...

Craig...

Sweet!

*scribbles Cherokee-DD onto "build" list*

[CPMcGraw]

This is what I think of when I hear Double D.
http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/tv_shows/eds/
(Heavy sigh.) I remember when it brought other things to mind, but I have kids now. :(

And I'm thinking about keeping it "G" rated, too. We don't want to completely overload the braincells of the young with such mind-numbing adult themes as this conjures up. They're already having trouble keeping two braincells together with Playstations, X-Boxes, and the like... :o

Kinda like the old WW2 plane nose art

I've seen photos of such artwork from both sides of the war...

English and German artwork was far more tame than American art. More political. American art was more of an "in your face" and "anything goes" attitude. A few pieces of B-17 and B-24 artwork would shock the sensibilities of even today's looser standards... :eek:

Let's don't go there... :D


Craig McGraw

[CPMcGraw]

...you only need to lengthen the sustainer with a 3" payload section and a balsa nose block...
Craig...

One additional thought...

Even using enlarged fins on the booster, you still need to either add nose weight, or add a payload section of at least 3-5", to achieve the needed stability. The larger fins by themselves did not do the job. Also, it needs to be a payload section, with a nose block, and not just a lengthening of the body. The weight of the nose block adds into the equation. Without this piece, you'd have to lengthen the body yet another inch or two...


Craig McGraw

[Eagle3]

One additional thought...

Even using enlarged fins on the booster, you still need to either add nose weight, or add a payload section of at least 3-5", to achieve the needed stability. The larger fins by themselves did not do the job. Also, it needs to be a payload section, with a nose block, and not just a lengthening of the body. The weight of the nose block adds into the equation. Without this piece, you'd have to lengthen the body yet another inch or two...


Craig McGraw

I was thinking of making a booster vision payload section for a Cherokee-DD. That oughta be enough nose weight. :D

[CPMcGraw]

I was thinking of making a booster vision payload section for a Cherokee-DD. That oughta be enough nose weight. :D

Man, THAT would be sweet! :D

What sort of weight (flying weight, that is...) would you expect from one of those set-ups?


Craig...

[Eagle3]

I'll weight the cam and a 9V battery tonight. It's not going to be a lot. The cam weighs less than the battery IIRC.

[CPMcGraw]

I'll weight the cam and a 9V battery tonight. It's not going to be a lot. The cam weighs less than the battery IIRC.

I've created a 4th RKT file, this time with a 4" payload body and a 1.5 oz mass to simulate the camera package. The simulation still achieves 1950' on a D12-0/D12-7 combination. :)

Enjoy!


Craig...

[Eagle3]

I've created a 4th RKT file, this time with a 4" payload body and a 1.5 oz mass to simulate the camera package. The simulation still achieves 1950' on a D12-0/D12-7 combination. :)

Enjoy!


Craig...

Awesome! I'm going to grab a CC Express this weekend and get started!

[CPMcGraw]

I've created a 4th RKT file, this time with a 4" payload body and a 1.5 oz mass to simulate the camera package. The simulation still achieves 1950' on a D12-0/D12-7 combination. :)


...And just for the exercise, here's the Cherokee Triple-D! :D

Would you believe..just under 2600'???? :eek:

First booster fins are 85% of the second booster fins, while the first booster body is still 3.5" long.

Flight profile uses D12-0/D12-0/D12-7 staging.

Craig "Over the edge" McGraw

[Nuke Rocketeer]

How about adding three strap-ons using C6-0's to the first stage? That ought to add a few feet in altitude! Hmmmm........Cherokee triple C-triple D. I just may have to build this.

[Ltvscout]

...And just for the exercise, here's the Cherokee Triple-D! :D

Would you believe..just under 2600'???? :eek:

First booster fins are 85% of the second booster fins, while the first booster body is still 3.5" long.

Flight profile uses D12-0/D12-0/D12-7 staging.

Craig "Over the edge" McGraw
Kind of funny how this design is the exact opposite of how Centuri and Estes use to design their multi-stage rockets. There designs always had the booster with the larger fins.

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Cherokee triple C-triple D.

Sounds like one of Doug's cartoon women. :D

[Eagle3]

I'll weight the cam and a 9V battery tonight. It's not going to be a lot. The cam weighs less than the battery IIRC.

9V Battery = 46.6gm
Cam and wire harness = 19.2gm

Total = 65.8gm or 2.3 ounces

Add maybe another 25grams for the mounting bay..... yes... yes.... this is most doable. :)

[CPMcGraw]

9V Battery = 46.6gm
Cam and wire harness = 19.2gm

Total = 65.8gm or 2.3 ounces

Add maybe another 25grams for the mounting bay..... yes... yes.... this is most doable. :)

So, maybe allow about 3.25 oz for the full package, including padding and "sloppy construction"...

Here's the results:

For the Double-D, we get 1654'.

For the Triple-D, we get 2283'.

In all of the simulations, with and without the camera package, I've averaged about 600' higher with the Triple-D. That's a farily good difference for the difference in power of one D12 motor.

Yes, I think this is a do-able project. I may have to break down and order a camera package myself just for this. :D


Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

Kind of funny how this design is the exact opposite of how Centuri and Estes use to design their multi-stage rockets. There designs always had the booster with the larger fins.

It is strange, isn't it? The formulas we use and the ones they used back then are basically the same. I guess that's the advantage we enjoy of having GUI-based computer tools like RockSim over what the pioneers in this hobby had, which was pencil and slide rule. :cool:

We're able to try out various design ideas and SEE what happens before the model ever gets built, which means we can change things faster and try again before the glue could dry on a fin. It could also be that we're willing to attempt odd-ball things more than designers were back in the 50's and 60's because the tools allow it. Designs like the Farside and the T-Bird reflect a more traditional, subdued, dare I say "conservative" approach to engineering. Pencils and slide rules allowed a measure of "what if?", but not to the same degree as our fast desktop computers with full-tilt simulators. Imagine if the Apollo engineers had access to a copy of RockSim 8 with just a "simple" eMachine to run it on? We might be sitting in our home offices on Mars reading these messages tonight... :rolleyes:

I'm just trying to show my appreciation by using these tools as often as I can! :D

Craig...

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

I took my kids out to eat at a Max & Erma's last night while my wife was out with some friends. The Max & Erma's in Eastgate has a giant. and I mean GIANT, slide rule hanging on the wall as a decoration. I don't know of anything locally significant that it would be there for, so I guess it's just a M & E warehouse thing. :confused:

[CPMcGraw]

How about adding three strap-ons using C6-0's to the first stage? That ought to add a few feet in altitude! Hmmmm........Cherokee triple C-triple D. I just may have to build this.

Yikes! What kind of a monster have I created here? :eek:

I think the biggest issue here is in the timing of the motors. The C6 burns 0.25 seconds LONGER than a D12, so there would still be residual thrust from the strap-ons when the second stage ignites. The strap-ons would still be "strapped on" at staging. Also, this setup requires the D12 to be lit 0.15 seconds AHEAD of the three C6s to achieve a peak thrust at the same moment. That means a complicated launch system with separate feed circuits, and all four motors MUST fire, without a failure. :rolleyes:

Not impossible, but not simple, either! :eek:

Something to consider for a later project...

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

... there would still be residual thrust from the strap-ons when the second stage ignites...

And as fast as I typed this in, another possibility came to me in that it doesn't really matter when the C6s 'shut down'. The act of booster separation could simply "release" the three strap-ons simultaneously, thus negating the residual effect of the extra thrust. The thrust from the three strap-ons would "die" at the same moment as the booster itself. :)

The added visual effect of the three strap-ons "peeling away" like from a Delta would also be"veer-ry een-ter-resting"... :cool:


Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

I took my kids out to eat at a Max & Erma's last night while my wife was out with some friends. The Max & Erma's in Eastgate has a giant. and I mean GIANT, slide rule hanging on the wall as a decoration. I don't know of anything locally significant that it would be there for, so I guess it's just a M & E warehouse thing. :confused:

Is M&E a chain, or just a local shop? What kind of grub-n-grog does it sling?

Maybe what it needs is a model of the SatV hanging next to that slide rule...

Or, less expensively, perhaps, a model of a Cherokee Triple-D??? :D

Craig "Eating is NOT against my religion!" McGraw

[CPMcGraw]

...this setup requires the D12 to be lit 0.15 seconds AHEAD of the three C6s to achieve a peak thrust at the same moment...

Another layer of proof that the human brain doesn't work after midnight... :o

Or even after 11 PM... :eek: :o

When I overlayed the C6 graph over the D12 graph, what I get is a 'double spike', or a two-tiered thrust curve, where the peak thrust of the combined C6s begins to decay before the D12 has come up to full chamber pressure. Essentially, the three C6s would be the dominant force lifting the rocket, although the D12 would contribute signifigantly to the overall effect. The three C6s also have greater residual thrust than the D12...

Three D12s plus three C6s also peg the limit on fuel at 3.96 oz of powder for the combined all-up stack...

So, as long as ALL FOUR motors ignite AT THE SAME TIME, this would be one impressive bird. Going to need a couple of gel-cells, or a really fresh deep-cycle truck battery on a relay-driven launch system with VERY reliable igniters to achieve this level of reliability. Anything short of perfection might cause a few folks to need a change of underware... :eek:

Craig...

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Is M&E a chain, or just a local shop? What kind of grub-n-grog does it sling?

Maybe what it needs is a model of the SatV hanging next to that slide rule...

Or, less expensively, perhaps, a model of a Cherokee Triple-D??? :D

Craig "Eating is NOT against my religion!" McGraw

Yes, it's a chain. The particular one we ate in the other night was pretty bad, and it's fairly new. They're kind of a rung or so down from Applebees, O'Charleys or TGIF. Not quite as expansive a menu as those three, but a little more than a Steak & Shake. We probably won't go back based on this past visit. I should have gone with Sonic. Longer drive, but cheaper and better food.

[Nuke Rocketeer]

Yikes! What kind of a monster have I created here? :eek:

I think the biggest issue here is in the timing of the motors. The C6 burns 0.25 seconds LONGER than a D12, so there would still be residual thrust from the strap-ons when the second stage ignites. The strap-ons would still be "strapped on" at staging. Also, this setup requires the D12 to be lit 0.15 seconds AHEAD of the three C6s to achieve a peak thrust at the same moment. That means a complicated launch system with separate feed circuits, and all four motors MUST fire, without a failure. :rolleyes:

Not impossible, but not simple, either! :eek:

Something to consider for a later project...

Craig...

Hmmm....Maybe then three B6-0's. I thought that the D12 had a slightly longer burn time. Thats what I get from operating from memory. Staging would take the strap-ons off with the 1st stage. Might be some interesting flight pattersn for that last 0.15 seconds on the C6's. Too bad the B14 ain't around anymore.

[Nuke Rocketeer]

And as fast as I typed this in, another possibility came to me in that it doesn't really matter when the C6s 'shut down'. The act of booster separation could simply "release" the three strap-ons simultaneously, thus negating the residual effect of the extra thrust. The thrust from the three strap-ons would "die" at the same moment as the booster itself. :)

The added visual effect of the three strap-ons "peeling away" like from a Delta would also be"veer-ry een-ter-resting"... :cool:


Craig...


Back in the 1980's during my second BAR-hood, I built a 2 stage 24 mm that used 2 of the CMR strap-ons. I used B14's and C6's in the strapons and had good success with it. The main rocket itself was a kitbashed Challenger II (without the fin can) and it was used to boost my astrocam. Worked great. I launched it several times. Had only one ignition failure with the strap-ons.

[Eagle3]

.....

Three D12s plus three C6s also peg the limit on fuel at 3.96 oz of powder for the combined all-up stack...

So, as long as ALL FOUR motors ignite AT THE SAME TIME, this would be one impressive bird. Going to need a couple of gel-cells, or a really fresh deep-cycle truck battery on a relay-driven launch system with VERY reliable igniters to achieve this level of reliability. Anything short of perfection might cause a few folks to need a change of underware... :eek:

Craig...

Hell Craig, if I flew that stack and it WORKED, I'd have to change MY underwear! :p

[Nuke Rocketeer]

Sounds like one of Doug's cartoon women. :D

Maybe he could design the decal for this rocket!

[Nuke Rocketeer]

So, as long as ALL FOUR motors ignite AT THE SAME TIME, this would be one impressive bird. Going to need a couple of gel-cells, or a really fresh deep-cycle truck battery on a relay-driven launch system with VERY reliable igniters to achieve this level of reliability. Anything short of perfection might cause a few folks to need a change of underware... :eek:

Craig...

The one time my 2 stager with strap-ons had an ignition failure, it took off and went up about 50 ft or so, went almost horizontal, but luckily on a slightly up angle. It stayed in that attitude through staging and went a LONG ways downrange, plowing into the ground before the ejection charge deployed. Dinged up BT and busted fins, and a scratched up astrocam.

I used the battery on my Ford Ranger and a FSI launch system with a cluster whip and the Estes solar 2 ignitors.

[CPMcGraw]

All,

I am attaching some new JPG files of decals for the Cherokee Double-D and Triple-D conversions. Higher resolution TIF files have been sent to Scott for posting on BARCLONE later, but these "might" be good enough to do something with... :D

Craig McGraw

[CPMcGraw]

9V Battery = 46.6gm
Cam and wire harness = 19.2gm

Total = 65.8gm or 2.3 ounces

Add maybe another 25grams for the mounting bay..... yes... yes.... this is most doable. :)

I don't suppose the camera package came with anything like a dimensioned three-view, did it? That might prove to be very helpful in designing the mounting brackets needed to fit the BT-55 tube. :)

Craig...

[Eagle3]

Better yet, you can view the dimensions here at boostervision.com;

http://www.boosterworks.com/cart/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=71

[CPMcGraw]

Back in the 1980's during my second BAR-hood, I built a 2 stage 24 mm that used 2 of the CMR strap-ons. I used B14's and C6's in the strapons and had good success with it. The main rocket itself was a kitbashed Challenger II (without the fin can) and it was used to boost my astrocam. Worked great. I launched it several times. Had only one ignition failure with the strap-ons.

I went back to RockSim this morning and re-entered the design, due to some errors that caused the Beta to crash. This simulation includes the weight of the BoosterVision MicroCam and some "fudge factor". As I started looking at the simulation results of the Triple-D without any strap-ons, I spotted something rather disturbing:

The launch rod is 48" long, 3/16" diameter. It takes 64.25" for the rocket to achieve a stable velocity.

"Houston, we have a problem!" :o

According to the printout, the rocket needs to be traveling at 44 fps to be stable, but when it departs the end of the rod, it's only doing 40.3 fps. Now, the simulation allows the rocket to continue flying in an upward manner, but I did notice a distinct tilt as the rocket goes into free-flight.

What this says to me is, the Triple-D actually NEEDS those strap-ons to get off the rod quickly enough to achieve stable flight.

Nuke, I don't know if you suggested this as just something fun-to-do with the design, given that it was already over-the-top, but you're idea of those strap-ons was absolutely right. By itself, the D12 just doesn't have the "oomph" needed to move that beast. I would be happier if we had a really good, reliable, STRONG black powder E for a booster, as we only need an additional 4-6 fps to make it safer. I'm not sure if we need the power of three C6s, or even three B6s; we might be able to achieve the needed results with three A10s and some BT-5-based strap-ons.

I've got to go back and read TVMs description of simulating strap-ons again. If I can get a good simulation created, I'll post a new copy of the Triple-D here.

If anyone has additional suggestions, SCREAM! :D


Craig McGraw

[Nuke Rocketeer]

Actually, I suggested it because I love the idea of strap-ons on a multistage rocket. (My favorite REAL rockets are the Titan 3 and the various Deltas.) I was really into this concept in my first BAR-hood in the 80's and used several of the CMR Marcus strap-ons as often as I could, especially on the Astrocam carriers. If I can get the time someday, I'm gonna rehab the four I have still and start using them again, and make a few longer versions to use on a 3 stage rocket, maybe a Comanche 3 using an old second stage from one I built in the 80's in place of the first stage. Or better yet, upscale it to a BT-55 and use 24 mm engines on all three stages and 18mm strap-ons! Hmmmmmm............

Too bad someone won't recreate a new reliable version of the old FSI E60. With that beast you could really get a 3 stage BP rocket going. I built one that was a 3 stage F100/F100/F7. I only got one launch out of it, as the sustainer drifted off to model rocket purgatory (even on a streamer, damn that Texas wind!) and the second stage went into the tall weeds/grass and was never seen again. (I quit using green paint after that!)

[CPMcGraw]

I've got to go back and read TVMs description of simulating strap-ons again. If I can get a good simulation created, I'll post a new copy of the Triple-D here.

OK, I've made an attempt to follow TVMs examples from the Apogee Newsletters #109 - #112. This seems to work, with some reservations as to a few drag parameters, and the results are startling. :rolleyes:

I chose a really short strap-on, 2" long plus the length of a nose cone, using BT-5 tubing and I limited the power to the A10 "plugged" motors. I say "limited" -- we all know the A10 has more initial kick than an A8, and it's that first kick that this model really needed. Using three A10s in the pods, this simulation gets back to a very respectable 2500'+, with the critical velocity for stability achieved at 30". The simulations still use the 48" rod, but it shows that with the right power, a 36" rod is acceptable. The 3D images don't show the NC on the pods, but they're simulated as mass objects.

I hope someone can take a look at this simulation and see if they can "tweak" the numbers better, then let us all know what I might have missed. This has been a really interesting project, which I might tackle one day. I am building the Double-D, but this Triple-D version has an appeal to it... ;)

And, yes, I also included the mass object of the MicroCam in the payload section, so whatever altitudes you achieve represent carrying a full video transmitter along for the ride!

Enjoy!


Craig...

[Nuke Rocketeer]

I guess I'm gonna have to break down and get Rocksim! BTW...what does the sim show with three C6-0's as the strap-ons.

[CPMcGraw]

I guess I'm gonna have to break down and get Rocksim! BTW...what does the sim show with three C6-0's as the strap-ons.

Nuke,

I really didn't get that far with the sim. I was testing a suspicion about the reason for the slow liftoff, and was looking for the least amount of power I could apply to get the job done. The A10 was just right for this application, because it had plenty of spike, but little else.

When I get caught up with some other projects, I'll try another sim with B6s and with C6s, to see what the final altitudes might be.


Craig...

[Eagle3]

...

I hope someone can take a look at this simulation and see if they can "tweak" the numbers better, then let us all know what I might have missed. This has been a really interesting project, which I might tackle one day. I am building the Double-D, but this Triple-D version has an appeal to it... ;)

And, yes, I also included the mass object of the MicroCam in the payload section, so whatever altitudes you achieve represent carrying a full video transmitter along for the ride!

Enjoy!


Craig...

I loaded this on RS7.4 (what I have at work) and adjusted the launch conditions. Chances are good that you'll never launch a rocket under the default "Standard Day" conditions. :rolleyes:
Launch altitude = 1k
Humidity = 75%
Latitude = 45 degrees
Temp = 80 degrees F
Winds = Light (3-7mph)
Baromentric PS = 31 Hg In
Cloud Coverage = Mostly Sunny

Max alt = 2158' vs 2338"
Max Vel = 408.77 vs 408.36
Max Accel = 520.97 vs 394.39
Deployment Vel = 79 fps vs 43.13 fps


Launch guide data:
Launch guide length: 36.000 In.
Velocity at launch guide departure: 39.405 ft / s
The launch guide was cleared at : 0.206 Seconds
User specified minimum velocity for stable flight: 43.999 ft / s
Minimum velocity for stable flight reached at: 47.510 In.



I'll try this at home with RS8, but it looks like a heads up flight.

[CPMcGraw]

I loaded this on RS7.4 (what I have at work) and adjusted the launch conditions....

Launch guide length: 36.000 In....Minimum velocity for stable flight reached at: 47.510 In.


Looks like you missed the same 'gotcha' I missed on my earlier attempts... :o

The rocket doesn't become flight-stable for another 11.5" AFTER it leaves the end of the rod... :eek: :eek:

Try it again with a 48" rod...

(Yes, this might prove to be 'heads up' under these conditions!)

Craig...

[Eagle3]

Looks like you missed the same 'gotcha' I missed on my earlier attempts... :o

The rocket doesn't become flight-stable for another 11.5" AFTER it leaves the end of the rod... :eek: :eek:

Try it again with a 48" rod...

(Yes, this might prove to be 'heads up' under these conditions!)

Craig...


That fixed it, but I still don't think I'd put my cam in it. :D

It would definitely rate high on the "WOW" meter though.

[CPMcGraw]

Everyone,

Here's the first image, albiet grainy, of an actual, "in-the-wild" Cherokee Double-D. It's still nekkid, in all its glory. You can get a better idea of the size when you compare it to the SEMROC Rocket Rack it's perched on... :D

This also gives you a better idea of the appearance with the smaller booster fins.

Craig

[CPMcGraw]

Here's another of those crazy conversions we've recently gone over. This is a two-stage conversion of the Der Big Red Max, using 24mm mounts in both stages.

The best overall performance was with a 24mm D12 in the booster, and a standard 18mm C6 in the sustainer.

Craig

[Eagle3]

Everyone,

Here's the first image, albiet grainy, of an actual, "in-the-wild" Cherokee Double-D. It's still nekkid, in all its glory. You can get a better idea of the size when you compare it to the SEMROC Rocket Rack it's perched on... :D

This also gives you a better idea of the appearance with the smaller booster fins.

Craig

Cool Craig! You're a lot further along than I am. I have the parts collected and the BT seams filled. Cutting wood tonight. :)

[Eagle3]

Here's mine so far. Can't wait to try this with the booster vision cam. :)

[CPMcGraw]

Here's mine so far. Can't wait to try this with the booster vision cam. :)

Looks really good. I just hope these modrocs fly as well "in the wild" as RockSIM says they should.

I need to sim this bird with Bs and Cs to see if I can fly it at the small field where I've been going. A full-house D-D flight might turn out to be its last...

Craig...

[Eagle3]

I think they'll perform well. I'm more worried about spin induced by the cam hood I plan on hanging out the side of the payload section. I'm going to streamline and make it as low profile as possible. Hopefully she'll be straight and true. :)

[rkt2k1]

Eagle,

Placing a duplicate dummy hood on the opposite side of the body should eliminate spin concerns. You can simulate camera hoods and cockpits in Rocksim by defining a single asymetrical fin defined with the necessary width.

... Bill

[ShieldWolf]

Here's another of those crazy conversions we've recently gone over. This is a two-stage conversion of the Der Big Red Max, using 24mm mounts in both stages.

The best overall performance was with a 24mm D12 in the booster, and a standard 18mm C6 in the sustainer.

Craig

You're further along in this than I am. I've built Der Big Red Max using a 24mm engine mount, but havent started on the booster yet. Got sidetracked with trying to make my own decals, and then got too busy with work and the end of the schoolyear. :(

Hope to build the booster this weekend, as well as assemble my Initiator. I don't think the weather's going to cooperate and let me do any painting or launching.

Randal

Oh, and to keep this somewhat on-topic, I just got a nosecone pack containing 4 PNC55 AC's, so it looks like I'll be cloning the Cherokee D, and possibly the Double D. :)

[CPMcGraw]

You're further along in this than I am. I've built Der Big Red Max using a 24mm engine mount, but havent started on the booster yet. Got sidetracked with trying to make my own decals, and then got too busy with work and the end of the schoolyear.

I built both sections of mine with 24mm mounts; the sim was tested with both 18mm and 24mm motors in the sustainer, but the D-D combo only achieved an additional 220' altitude. I'll build an 18mm adapter to fly in this one most of the time.

The D-D version also was sim-flown with the payload bay installed, but no camera...

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

Here's mine so far. Can't wait to try this with the booster vision cam. :)

Just noticed that "Omega Centauri Probe" on the shelf behind it. Another good-looker! :)

Craig

[Eagle3]

Just noticed that "Omega Centauri Probe" on the shelf behind it. Another good-looker! :)

Craig

Thanks Craig. I'm considering upscaling one. :) Problem is I have so many projects in the queue right now and less and less time to work on them. My main goal is to get the Cherokee Double D ready for the June JMRC launch with payload cam. I'd also like to get the painting finished on my Phoenix Brighthawk 2000. Those are my goals at least. :rolleyes:

[Nuke Rocketeer]

Another rocket I used the Marcus strap-ons on were my Omegas. Usually I would just use 2, but once I put 4 B14's on it. 3 of the 4 strap-ons lit along with the D12-0. Even with that, it flew straight.

[Ltvscout]

Another rocket I used the Marcus strap-ons on were my Omegas. Usually I would just use 2, but once I put 4 B14's on it. 3 of the 4 strap-ons lit along with the D12-0. Even with that, it flew straight.
And fast I'll bet!

[six-o-one]

Eagle3, CPMcGraw, either of you guys put the DD up yet? Just wondering. Mine just needs paint (along with another single D I built right along with it) and it'll be at least a week until I can get to it and would be interested to hear how yours flew.

Rob

[Eagle3]

Not yet. I got stalled working on the video payload bay. Hoping ot have it ready for the July 23rd JMRC launch with or without video cam.

[CPMcGraw]

Eagle3, CPMcGraw, either of you guys put the DD up yet? Just wondering. Mine just needs paint (along with another single D I built right along with it) and it'll be at least a week until I can get to it and would be interested to hear how yours flew.

Rob

Mine's not ready either. I'm a few parts shy of a full kit... :rolleyes:

Craig...

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Mine's not ready either. I'm a few parts shy of a full kit... :rolleyes:

Craig...

Story of my life, baby.

[six-o-one]

Thanks for the update, guys. Gonna primer tonight, hopefully by Tue. I will be done painting. Have Excelsior decal set coming for the single stage, and I have a computer printed set for the DD. Maybe by next weekend they will both be ready and I can have my biggest launch ever, six rockets (three 2-stagers). I will update with my DD flight results as soon as they go up.

[CPMcGraw]

Thanks for the update, guys. Gonna primer tonight, hopefully by Tue. I will be done painting. Have Excelsior decal set coming for the single stage, and I have a computer printed set for the DD. Maybe by next weekend they will both be ready and I can have my biggest launch ever, six rockets (three 2-stagers). I will update with my DD flight results as soon as they go up.

You'll have yours flying before I get mine finished. Remember to take plenty of before-flight photos for the BARCLONE site, as I'd like to get plenty of photos of these from everyone who builds it.

Craig McGraw

[six-o-one]

Well, best laid plans..... Didn't get the "DD" decaled yet. Went everywhere trying to find the laser sticker paper to do a reduction of the full size decals for the booster. Nobody has it. Called the art teacher who gave it to me originally and she may bring some by, but unless that happens I am dead in the water until Aug. 1 when we go back for teacher inservice and I can get some from the art room. Kinda frustrated, lots of time to do it right now and was really looking forward to finishing it and waiting for a good launch day.

[CPMcGraw]

I am very pleased to announce that Excelsior Rocketry has now produced a decal sheet for the Cherokee Double-D, which was described at length on Ye Olde Rocket Forum, and which originated from a thread on the OldRockets mailing list.

This decal sheet is based around the later Estes #1247 version (long-body), and retains the appropriately-dated logo in the large body wrap.

Price for this sheet is $6.00 + shipping & handling.

Craig McGraw
-----------------------------------------------------
BARCLONE Rocketry

[six-o-one]

Oh, great, that's lovely :( Guess my impatience cost me on this one, I could have gotten the DD and D decals all in one order. Now I either spend $10 on what amounts to booster decals, or wait until I can find the decal paper here so I can reduce the original down to booster size.. Neither option excites me. Oh, and under absolutely no circumstances may my Cherokee D or DD be flown sans decals (another of my little idiosyncracies).

[CPMcGraw]

Oh, great, that's lovely :( Guess my impatience cost me on this one, I could have gotten the DD and D decals all in one order. Now I either spend $10 on what amounts to booster decals, or wait until I can find the decal paper here so I can reduce the original down to booster size.. Neither option excites me. Oh, and under absolutely no circumstances may my Cherokee D or DD be flown sans decals (another of my little idiosyncracies).

Phred's been working on these along with other goodies for his shop. I just got the go-ahead today to make the announcement.

Oh, well, do any of us need an excuse to build another one? I certainly don't... :D

Hopefully the next time Hobby Lobby has one of their 1/2 price sales, they'll have some more CCX kits to use as CDD fodder. I need to re-stock my emergency supplies shelf...

Craig...

[Bob H]

Oh, and under absolutely no circumstances may my Cherokee D or DD be flown sans decals (another of my little idiosyncracies).

I hear ya and totally agree. Nothing of mine gets flown until it's "done".

I just can't bring myself to fly one nekid.

[Eagle3]

Craig, my payload bay measures 7.5" and I may cut that down some after I get the video cam insert figured out.

[CPMcGraw]

Craig, my payload bay measures 7.5" and I may cut that down some after I get the video cam insert figured out.

The altitude difference is only 70' between your 7.5" payload version and the standard 4" payload version. I'd say stick with what you have and fly with it; build a separate 4" payload module to measure the performance difference. Don't cut the one you have.

If I could find some clear 55 tube, I'd work up a payload module using that...

I've even tried adding a BT-60 payload module in one of the tests. Strange-looking, but only about 100' less than the 4" BT-55 standard version. What this means is, we have a versatile launch vehicle that has a lot of visual character and heritage.

Go with your long version. Report the results.

[six-o-one]

Woo-hoo, she's done. Just finished decaling the "DD" last night. Spread the joy over two nights. Just have to gloss coat it, but that will probably be tomorrow as the temps and humidity are too high today but we're supposed to get a brief respite tomorrow, just in time. After I coat it, I will take some pics and get them posted. Of course, I haven't done that on this site yet, so hopefully I can figure it out. Now, as usual, I am feeling the same old launch quandary. It looks nice, and goodness knows with the two D's putting her up there she is gonna hit pretty respectable altitude, so, I reeeeaaaalllllyyyyy hope for recovery. Anyway, I'll have the pics up Mon. hopefully so I look forward to comments--good, bad, or indifferent. And, before I forget, a huge thanks to all in this thread for info and inspiration and especially CPMCGraw for advice, tech info, and his cheerful attitude towards providing it. (Am I kinda overdoing it here?....kinda sounding like I just won an Oscar or something)

Rob

[Eagle3]

Cool Rob! Make sure you post a beauty shot.

I'm putting the gloss white on mine this weekend. Decals by next weekend I hope.

[CPMcGraw]

Woo-hoo, she's done... Now, as usual, I am feeling the same old launch quandary. It looks nice, and goodness knows with the two D's putting her up there she is gonna hit pretty respectable altitude, so, I reeeeaaaalllllyyyyy hope for recovery.

RockSim says she'll fly to about 900' on a D12/B6 combination, with a nice, gentle 15 fps deployment V; so you might want to adapt that sustainer for 18mm on your first flights. Use a 48" rod...

Anyway, I'll have the pics up Mon. hopefully so I look forward to comments--good, bad, or indifferent. And, before I forget, a huge thanks to all in this thread for info and inspiration and especially CPMCGraw for advice, tech info, and his cheerful attitude towards providing it.

:D

[six-o-one]

Thanks, Craig. Sounds prudent. BTW, are you gonna write this one up on the EMRR site? After I flew my home-cloned Vigilante, I planned on writing it up since nobody else has, and figured you could do an outstanding feature on the "DD".

Rob

[CPMcGraw]

Thanks, Craig. Sounds prudent. BTW, are you gonna write this one up on the EMRR site? After I flew my home-cloned Vigilante, I planned on writing it up since nobody else has, and figured you could do an outstanding feature on the "DD".

I might, if yours or one of the other CDD's doesn't fly first. I've got the decals, but I'm still needing a component or two to make it flight-ready.

One additional suggestion, which I didn't think about...

When I ran that simulation, it still included the weight of the camera package. For testing, you obviously don't need the camera. I ran the simulation again without the camera, and got better results.

Use a C11-0/B6-6 combination, and you'll get 879' with a stability margin of 1.8 and a deployment V of 20 fps. A little high, but maybe not horribly beyond what we often deploy at. Reduce the parachute to a standard 12" and you should recover close to the pad. A streamer might allow for safe recovery also, since the additional weight isn't there. I might use the streamer myself for the field I fly in.

[Eagle3]

First beauty shot. Decals are still drying. :D

[CPMcGraw]

First beauty shot. Decals are still drying. :D

It's a beauty, Buzz. Can't wait to hear the flight report. :)

[Eagle3]

Thanks Craig! She's going up this weekend whether I get the Future coat on or not! :D

[six-o-one]

Outstanding! Only slightly bummed you beat me to the punch (just kidding). Slight delay here, hope to coat it and to the pics tonight. Now launching, that is another story. Seems like it is ALWAYS windy here.

[Eagle3]

Thanks six-o-one. Saturday's still a few days off, but it looks like it's going to be hot with a 30% chance of storms. We'll see.....

[six-o-one]

It was still 91 degrees and humid at 8:00 tonight, so I gave up on coating it tonight. I gave in, though, and did some photos which I have to wait until in the morning to be able to upload from my computer at work.

[six-o-one]

OK, gonna try pics. Didn't realize I had put the single "D" decal on until I was looking back at Eagle's. Oh well, may change it out, may not. Still need to gloss it, but here it is. Thanks.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/kurri17/IMG_0116.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/kurri17/IMG_0118.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/kurri17/boos-sep.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v198/kurri17/IMG_0121.jpg

[Eagle3]

Very nice! Can't wait to hear your flight report.

[six-o-one]

Thanks Eagle3. Of course, my project pales in comparison to yours with the payload. Anxious to hear your flight reports also. That is my "show" Cherokee-D in the background sans decals of that one pic. Hope to send it up for it's lone flight the same day I do the "DD".

[CPMcGraw]

OK, gonna try pics. Didn't realize I had put the single "D" decal on until I was looking back at Eagle's. Oh well, may change it out, may not. Still need to gloss it, but here it is. Thanks.

Six,

You might want to upload these photos using the "Manage Attachments" button down below the text entry window when sending a message. That's how we get thumbnails below our messages, with the full-size images available for viewing separately.

I like your no-payload version, too. It has an early-family-member look to it, when standing next to stock Cherokee-D models. Build yourself a short-body CD and a new CDD sustainer to complete the collection. :D You should be pleased with this version's performance. :cool:

For the sake of those not familiar, this no-payload version will require 0.5 oz of weight at the tip of the nose cone. That was why I added the payload section originally -- it compensated for the weight with additional length, which also opened up the possibility of carrying payloads such as Art Upton's BoosterVision Micro Cam package.

[six-o-one]

OK, this time with thumbnails. Thanks, Craig.

[six-o-one]

Little better photo.

[Eagle3]

Little better photo.

Sweeeet. When is the first flight planned?

[six-o-one]

Well, that is kinda the burning question. I wanted to finish decaling the original short-body, balsa NC version that is in the background of those earlier pics, and then launch 'em all. If I don't launch next weekend, it will be at least three weeks before I can again. Gettin' antsy to put the "DD" up, especially. I have been following you and Craig in your discussion of your launch, interesting stuff.

[CPMcGraw]

Nice image, Six...

The clean background forces the eyes to focus on the model.

Speaking of getting antsy, I still need to get one major component (the balsa bulkhead for the payload body) before I start priming mine. I'm looking forward to flying mine on a lesser combination at the small field I have access to. I've flown a standard, short-body Cherokee-D on a C6 at this place, so I know about what my limitations are.

Hopefully I can get this one finished before January...

[CPMcGraw]

I've been looking at various ways to build a smaller-diametered clone of the CDD, and I think the best starting place is... the Quest Navaho AGM.

(The following should be read tongue-in-cheek with a ridiculous Monty Python voice-over... Same character from the "Blackmail" skit...)

Yes, we can change your Navaho into a Cherokee with this revolutionary, inexpensive, but culturally-insensitive and politically-incorrect, five-minute operation!

We start by cutting short the main body tube...

(End MP voice...)

If you look at the Navaho's nose cone, you'll notice that it has a Secant-ogive shape to it, as opposed to the tangent-ogive from most other models. It's also about the right length, probably not perfect, but close enough.

I am going to try this, as I have a couple of these just hanging around, minding their own business...

Write-up to follow...

[six-o-one]

Hmmmm. Amazing. Using my second favorite rocket to build a version of my first.** Brilliant! It has never entered my mind. Just love the Navaho AGM so much by itself I would never have thought of altering it. Now, I am considering building an upscale version of the Navaho AGM putting it more along the lines of the size of the Chreokee-DD. Probably the next thing I will bug you with, Craig :)

** Guess it's not hard to rate your rockets when you don't have that many. As a relatively new back-to-the-scene BAR, I only have seven rockets. Cherokee-D(short-body BNC), Cherokee-D (short-body PNC), Cherokee-DD (uh, notice a theme here), Navaho AGM, Vigilante clone, Quest Harpoon AGM, Bullpup 12D

[sandman]

I just started reading this thread and I can help on a few things...I think. :cool:

On the giant slide rule...I have one I got from a local high school, it was going into the dumpster. They were used for teaching...a loooong time ago! :D

And Eagle3 if you want a clear payload section for the Cherokee find a Super Nova Payloader kit. The payload bay is clear, way too long and it is a BT-56 O.D. but a BT-55 I.D. (it's thicker than the Estes body tubes). The difference isn't too noticable.

BTW if you substitute an E9 -8 in the upper stage of the Cherokee DDD (DDE!) Roc Sim gives you over 2,900'!!

[CPMcGraw]

BTW if you substitute an E9 -8 in the upper stage of the Cherokee DDD (DDE!) Roc Sim gives you over 2,900'!!

Yeah, it does... :rolleyes:

HOWEVER... :(

This is where you really have to look carefully through all of that data RockSim spits out.

Take a look at the deployment V: 70 fps. That's well over the safe deployment speed of around 20 fps maximum. Remember what just happened to the parachute on Eagle3's CDD? His shredded at a velocity below this number. :( :(

Also, the CDDD (or the CDDE, for that matter) won't clear the rod at a safe flight V without the help of three A10-P strap-on boosters. I think we determined that an E9 would put the model over the weight limit for BP. :( :( :(

[CPMcGraw]

Hmmmm. Amazing. Using my second favorite rocket to build a version of my first.** Brilliant! It has never entered my mind. Just love the Navaho AGM so much by itself I would never have thought of altering it. Now, I am considering building an upscale version of the Navaho AGM putting it more along the lines of the size of the Chreokee-DD. Probably the next thing I will bug you with, Craig :)

Before you tackle that project, take a glance at the Barclone Blue Sneek. I'm planning a two-stage stretch version with payload section. That'll give you Semroc's Series-10 components to work from... :D

** Guess it's not hard to rate your rockets when you don't have that many. As a relatively new back-to-the-scene BAR, I only have seven rockets. Cherokee-D(short-body BNC), Cherokee-D (short-body PNC), Cherokee-DD (uh, notice a theme here), Navaho AGM, Vigilante clone, Quest Harpoon AGM, Bullpup 12D

What??!! No Astron Omega? Not even the Der Dopple Max?

I'm shocked, I tell you! :eek:

[CPMcGraw]

I've been looking at various ways to build a smaller-diametered clone of the CDD, and I think the best starting place is... the Quest Navaho AGM.

OK, here's a very early version of this model. Using Quest's T-25 tubing makes this a 75% downscale.

This one requires no payload section to balance, but the deployment V's are all high (over 25 fps, but below 30 fps). I'll try payload bodies to see if I can get just enough weight and drag introduced that the deployment V's are below 20 fps.

The running name of this version is CDD-75...

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

The running name of this version is CDD-75...

I was going to suggest the "Training Bar". (Ducks. Slips out unnoticed before the fruit-throwers geddit. :D )

[CPMcGraw]

I was going to suggest the "Training Bar". (Ducks. Slips out unnoticed before the fruit-throwers geddit. :D )

(Sound of crickets chirping...)

(Sound of head scratching...)

(S&G singing "Sounds of Silence...)

(Sound of my brain's gears creaking into action...)

Uh, OK... ... ... ? :D

[CPMcGraw]

OK, here's what all of the name means:

Cherokee Double-D, 75%, 4.5" payload module...

I found a combination that allows reasonably low deployment Vs using common 18mm motors. The (simulated) performance is great, matching that of the full BT-55 stack.

Included along with the ZIP file this time are the body wraps used in the BT-55 version. RockSim scales them down for this simulation. You may find the main body wrap needs rotating around both the R and S axis for the image to look right. The booster fin is drawn incorrectly when the payload body is used; this is a clear RockSim bug, and I don't have a clue how to correct it (if it can be corrected without RockSim being re-written).

[six-o-one]

No need to slip out unnoticed here. Guess I'm a little slow.

Yes, Craig, my rocket tastes run a little bland perhaps. Probably the funkiest thing on my "wanna build" list is the old Advanced Target Drone. Ooh, aaahh, intake shrouds. Really living on the edge there. Did build a Photon Disruptor when I was a teenager. Hated it, was truly disappointed when it performed flawlessly and returned to earth safely. Was hoping for something involving flame or explosion.

The Blue Sneek, huh. Yep, throw a booster on there and you have my attention. I will be looking for it.

[CPMcGraw]

Here's a much-revised version of the Quest Navaho-AGM conversion to build a 75% Cherokee Double-D.

I have left the booster and sustainer tubes of the Navaho as they come in the package -- 3" on the booster, 14" on the sustainer. You need to sacrifice a virgin...(cough, sputter...) AHH, I mean, you need to pick up one of Quest's Payloader One kits :D and use either the red-tinted plastic payload tube, or cut 4" from its main body tube, and use the plastic payload adapter that comes with it.

The simulation specs are very nice...

On a B6-0/A8-5, you should get 660'+, with a deployment V of only 7.4 fps. You also only need a 36" rod to launch from...

On a B6-0/B6-6, you should get 950'+, with a deployment V of only 8.75 fps, from a 36" rod...

The max-altitude simulation is the C6-0/C6-7, with 1900'+, a deployment V of 15.4 fps, on a 36" rod.

I said it matched the 55-sized Cherokee Double-D in performance...

[six-o-one]

Niiice. Of course, if I build one, fully half of my fleet will be Cherokee-Ds or their DD or DD 75 brethren. Well, guess everyone has to have their own niche. That could be mine. I can see the post now:

"Yeah, ole "six-o-one" really puts 'em out. Probably builds one a week and must be up to, like, fifty or so by now. Of course, forty-six of 'em are Cherokee-Ds."

Those are really nice performance numbers. Be fun to throw up a Navaho AGM-Cherokee-DD 75 drag race (actually, I have never done that, only read about it).

[CPMcGraw]

I'm posting the Blue Sneek 2 files in the "Scrounged" thread, where most of the other plans have been put.

Blue Sneek 2 is the two-stage version. No payload module needed.

[sandman]

I can't remember if I posted this or not.

If I did, I'm sorry...I'm old, I forget stuff!

This is my version a Cherokee cubes it's based on a BT-70 tube.

This was it's launch at NARAM this year on 3 D12-5's

Sort of a Cherokee triple.....sorta

[CPMcGraw]

I can't remember if I posted this or not.

If I did, I'm sorry...I'm old, I forget stuff!

This is my version a Cherokee cubes it's based on a BT-70 tube.

This was it's launch at NARAM this year on 3 D12-5's

Sort of a Cherokee triple.....sorta

I think I remember seeing it, but it's nice to see it again!

How did this flight turn out?

[six-o-one]

Very nice. Great photos. I finally got my booster motors (D12-0) just last weekend, so I am finally ready to go with the DD version. Maybe this weekend.

[sandman]

The flight was PEFECT...except for one thing.

The model next to it was supposed to be taking off, that's why IT'S centered in the frame.

The RSO hit the wrong button.

But it was all good.

[Green Dragon]

I can't remember if I posted this or not.

If I did, I'm sorry...I'm old, I forget stuff!

This is my version a Cherokee cubes it's based on a BT-70 tube.

This was it's launch at NARAM this year on 3 D12-5's

Sort of a Cherokee triple.....sorta

Looks real nice.

couple quick questions -

1) is that the Apogee cone ? or custom made ? (BMS,etc)

2) decals ? ( are upscale ones available, did not check Phreads for a BT70 version,so if that's a dumb question, lol ) .....

~ AL

( keep the pics coming, so I keep 'inspired' , lol )

[sandman]

Is the nose cone....WHAT??? :confused:

I AM the SANDMAN! ;)

I make custom nose cones.

I can make ANY nose cone you want in ANY scale.

I posted in the vendor section a quick pic of some of my work.

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showthread.php?p=4479#post4479

The decals came from Phred. Excellent decals too!

[Green Dragon]

Is the nose cone....WHAT??? :confused:

I AM the SANDMAN! ;)

I make custom nose cones.

I can make ANY nose cone you want in ANY scale.

I posted in the vendor section a quick pic of some of my work.

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showthread.php?p=4479#post4479

The decals came from Phred. Excellent decals too!


hmm.. oops :-) ... no offense met

looking at your post / pic now ( noting the " some of you don't know me " ) , looks good, might be interested in some work down the road ( so many projects, so little time .....

re: Phread's decals, have had excellent results myself, highly recommended.

just finished my restoration on vintage Vector V,using those, pic attached.

~ AL

[CPMcGraw]

I'm pleased to announce that the long-awaited PDF plan set for this "new classic" is now available on the BARCLONE website. You can download the file from the "PROVEN" page. It is a complete step-by-step instruction sequence such as everyone is familiar with, and it contains full-size templates for both sets of fins.

Remember that the decal sheet is available from Excelsior Rocketry, so there are no decal images in the set.

As I am always looking for ways to improve the PDF sets, please comment on this forum and let me know if the plan needs work to make it easier to understand.

barclone.rocketshoppe.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I am also happy to announce that all of the new plans will have an accompanying thumbnail image to show what the rocket looks like before you download anything. Over the course of the next year, other designs from the early days of BARCLONE will receive the same upgrade, as I run them through RockSim for analysis. Some designs are simply impossible to fully visualize even with RockSim, so those will be on a case-by-case basis.

Of course, all new plans will be previewed here on Ye Olde Rocket Forum before being posted to the BARCLONE website. Forum members will always receive the first peek of new designs.