BARCLONE Designer's Studio 2009

[CPMcGraw]

This post marks the beginning of our 2009 edition of the Studio. Please use this thread to post BARCLONE-related material and model rocket designs.

[CPMcGraw]

570...

[CPMcGraw]

Everyone,

Over the last few days, an attempt has been made to create a complete set of component database files (CSV files) for SEMROC items. Small sections of this work has already been posted, but as we check our work, we're finding measurement precision errors in the entries. The problem is easy to correct, but it is equally easy to slip through the cracks.

The new file, attached below, is the full set of body tubes as offered on the SEMROC website. It is being put here for review, so wait before we announce an "all clear" to install it.

Addendum: OK, so much for my ability to pick the right file to upload. I've attached the Semroc BTDATA.CSV file below.

[snaquin]

Everyone,

Over the last few days, an attempt has been made to create a complete set of component database files (CSV files) for SEMROC items. Small sections of this work has already been posted, but as we check our work, we're finding measurement precision errors in the entries. The problem is easy to correct, but it is equally easy to slip through the cracks.

The new file, attached below, is the full set of body tubes as offered on the SEMROC website. It is being put here for review, so wait before we announce an "all clear" to install it.

I hadn't run across any errors in the previously posted files yet but I've only used the components in two designs so far that I'm updating for BARCLONE. I kept a complete back up of my v9 install and it's easy enough to load the original component files back in. That's one thing I really like about RockSim is the ease in moving data in and out of the databases by editing the csv files.

Craig, a big thanks to you and Bill for you efforts with producing these component files!

:)

[CPMcGraw]

The BTDATA file is now attached to my earlier post, along with the NCDATA file. These contain only those components from the Semroc website which can be drawn with the 'wizards'. There are almost as many that cannot be drawn that way, and for those, we'll have to generate RKT files later.

[rkt2k1]

Here are the BHDATA (bulkhead) and TCDATA (tube coupler) data files that have been checked and verified for decimal precision.

Craig - please give these the once over and make sure the numeric precision looks ok. I used the technique you suggested in Microsoft Excel to ensure 3 decimal precision on all numeric fields.

Transition file may take a day or so to complete. I actually took a break from parts and was working on my first 2009 design. I hope to post both by the weekend.

Thanks for combining the nose cone and body tube parts into master files!

... Bill

[CPMcGraw]

Bill,

The data looks OK. The Estes Classic designs seem to have the proper 3-digit precision. I've already imported them into the program. Unless something breaks :eek: I'd say use them.

[CPMcGraw]

Here's my first for 2009. This is a simple 4FNC using the components from our new database files. I think the files are safe, now, after some teething trouble. This rocket is similar to our "Thunder" series from a few years ago, but uses a 13mm motor for power.

Length: 18.925"
Diameter: 0.908" (ST-8)
Fin Span: 3.908"
Weight: 1.001 oz


1/2 A3-2T......124'......Dv 17 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
A10-3T.........341'......Dv 21 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
A3-4T..........350'......Dv 9 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod


Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

571...

[CPMcGraw]

This first file covers the Series 085 and Series 10 Tail Cones, and the list of standard transitions from the original file. Unless you just want to get a batch of Semroc items into RockSim, hold off on installing this file. Wait until a full set of parts is posted.

Bill, one change from the other files you will need to make is the precision of one column. The "Rear OD" column needs to be set at 4-digit precision if you try creating the reversed nose cones. The OD value needs to be set at 0.0001". This value gives RockSim something to chew on, while not being large enough to be noticed visually.

[snaquin]

The SLS Lune R-1 is an upscale of the 1.04" diameter Semroc Lune R-1 to LT-175 tubing. This design shares many of the same parts as the Semroc SLS kits Aero-Dart & Explorer and includes the same removable engine mount for 24mm or 29mm flights.

I cut the fin set from basswood stock and used the same tab measurements to fit a Semroc pre-slotted body tube same as used in the SLS kits. This design uses LL-320 3/16" launch lugs although my test model used 1/4" lugs since that size is prevalent at the launch site I flew at. Lune R-1 upscaled color vinyl graphics by Graphix & Stuff. Some build pictures are included below. Pictures of the first F42-8T test flight in these links:

http://tinyurl.com/8a4x7j

http://tinyurl.com/axun89

http://tinyurl.com/7neq55

http://tinyurl.com/9troup

The F42T EconoJet using the 8 second delay proved to be a great choice for a picture perfect deployment on it's first flight. D12-5 & E9-6 flights would require a minimum 48" rod to get up to speed and those selections would be great for demo flights on a smaller field.


Length: 41.095"
Diameter: 1.840" (LT-175)
Span Dia: 7.146"
Weight: 6.807 oz


D12-5......529'......Dv 17 FPS......48" x 3/16" rod
E9-6........875'......Dv 29 FPS......48" x 3/16" rod
F42-8....1,861'......Dv 3 FPS.......36" x 3/16" rod

Thanks for looking!

:)

[Mark II]

A great version of a great rocket, Steve. The Lune-R1 is perfect for SLS upscaling! Nice job!

Mark \\.

[rkt2k1]

This first file covers the Series 085 and Series 10 Tail Cones, and the list of standard transitions from the original file. Unless you just want to get a batch of Semroc items into RockSim, hold off on installing this file. Wait until a full set of parts is posted.

Bill, one change from the other files you will need to make is the precision of one column. The "Rear OD" column needs to be set at 4-digit precision if you try creating the reversed nose cones. The OD value needs to be set at 0.0001". This value gives RockSim something to chew on, while not being large enough to be noticed visually.

Craig, I'll focus on the standard Semroc balsa reducers (transitions) and follow your lead regarding including both a normal and reversed part. I was just setting up the base template with decimal precision when I saw the file you posted. I am going to use it as template for basic transitions. I will probably post file later tonight for review.

After working with the .CSV files, I believe this is an area of Rocksim that the developers should look to update. Maybe a move to XML similar to the design file format. The .CSV files are not inherently the problem, but I've seen many inconsistencies while working with the files.

Some include:

- Extra field columns showing up at the end of the file.
- Question marks "?" appearing in the data.
- The inconsistent use of words versus value codes. (i.e. oz and mm versus 0 and 1, etc.)
- Errors in the data cause Rocksim to crash. (Stronger field validation could correct.)

Not complaining here. All these can be cleaned up and corrected manually. It's just my programming background showing through. I think the Rocksim program is a fantastic piece of software. I wouldn't be spending so much time in the data files if I didn't think so. However correcting some of these minor issues could make a great program even better! :)

... Bill

[CPMcGraw]

Craig, I'll focus on the standard Semroc balsa reducers (transitions) and follow your lead regarding including both a normal and reversed part. I was just setting up the base template with decimal precision when I saw the file you posted. I am going to use it as template for basic transitions. I will probably post file later tonight for review.

You're going to tackle the Estes Classic transitions, too, right?

After working with the .CSV files, I believe this is an area of Rocksim that the developers should look to update. Maybe a move to XML similar to the design file format. The .CSV files are not inherently the problem, but I've seen many inconsistencies while working with the files.

Some include:

- Extra field columns showing up at the end of the file.
- Question marks "?" appearing in the data.
- The inconsistent use of words versus value codes. (i.e. oz and mm versus 0 and 1, etc.)
- Errors in the data cause Rocksim to crash. (Stronger field validation could correct.)

I noticed those extra fields, too, but left them in place for this set, since the master file had them and it did not seem to be causing trouble. Yet, anyway. As for the words vs numerical values, it's probably a holdover from the earlier versions. I don't think these data files have changed that much over releases, other than adding new items.

As for those "?" in the data, are you seeing these in Notepad? In Calc, I see "xxx" whenever the column width is too small to show the data. If I resize the column, the data comes back up.

Not complaining here. All these can be cleaned up and corrected manually. It's just my programming background showing through. I think the Rocksim program is a fantastic piece of software. I wouldn't be spending so much time in the data files if I didn't think so. However correcting some of these minor issues could make a great program even better! :)

... Bill

I understand. And I agree. RockSim has a lot of potential and could be a very strong program with just a little clean-up. I do know this -- Apogee wants RS to be a teaser for the high-end program, RockSim Pro. I'll bet the code is much the same, though, just with some additional code hooks.

One thing I wish RockSim had was a way for third-party code to be hooked in, with published API points.

Anyway, I'll tackle the tailcones. It won't take too long, maybe by tomorrow night. I'll combine your file with mine to complete the collection and post it as a single CSV.

[rkt2k1]

Here is the DRAFT parts file for the Semroc balsa reducers (transitions.) It includes all transitions currently available on Semroc's web site except:

- BR-1120NT

It also contains "reversed" parts which are designated with a [R] after the part number. This allows you to easily add "small to large" and "large to small" transitions without the need to re-input data values. Have to give Craig credit for this cool time saver! :)

For CG location I used the same 71% of length used for nosecones for the standard transitions and to 29% of length for the "reversed" transitions. This can be changed based on any thoughts / feedback provided.

This file should be considered DRAFT for review purposes only until it can be validated and combined with the tail cone parts that Craig is working on.

Thanks,

... Bill

[snaquin]

SLS Magnum-D Hornet

Based on 5341 Centuri Magnum-D Hornet available from 1980-1983. Uses BTH-70 tubing and a BNC-70HAC nose cone are the same as used with the Semroc SLS ARCAS with a 29mm mount and EM-9115 for 24mm flights. Basswood fins, ejection baffle with elastic cord and other Semroc SLS kit standards that make for a strong and reliable rocket.

Length: 33.410"
Diameter: 2.247" (BTH-70)
Span Dia: 9.887"
Weight: 10.072 oz

D12-3.........305'.........Dv 11 FPS.........72" rod & calm conditions or Not Recommended
E9-4...........597'.........Dv 21 FPS.........Not Recommended (Don't even think about it)
F24-7.......1,364'.........Dv 10 FPS.........48" x 3/16" rod

Best suited for RMS or EconoJets. Try the RoadRunner single use E, F and G motors in your simulations. Not a good candidate for Estes D and E flights. Probably a good design to consider three motor clusters .....

Thanks for looking!

:)

[snaquin]

A great version of a great rocket, Steve. The Lune-R1 is perfect for SLS upscaling! Nice job!

Mark \\.

Thanks Mark .....

It proved to be a really simple but enjoyable build and it gets a lot of attention at the flying field. I fly it with my PerfectFlite Alt15K in the payload section and the black plastic rivets in the photo links are to secure the nose cone.

:)

[CPMcGraw]

573...

[rkt2k1]

SLS Magnum-D Hornet

Based on 5341 Centuri Magnum-D Hornet available from 1980-1983.


Steve - another great looking SLS upscale design!

I like how you incorporated the engine baffle into the design.

Keep 'em coming!

... Bill

[Tau Zero]

For CG location I used the same 71% of length used for nosecones for the standard transitions and to 29% of length for the "reversed" transitions. This can be changed based on any thoughts / feedback provided.Craig and Bill,

You guys are getting kind of sophisticated for me. :o

Can you explain (in layman's terms) what the thinking is behind specifying the CG locations in these balsa parts? ('Cause frankly I'm pretty clueless as to why you're doing that. :eek: )


Cheers,

[Peartree]

Craig and Bill,

You guys are getting kind of sophisticated for me. :o

Can you explain (in layman's terms) what the thinking is behind specifying the CG locations in these balsa parts? ('Cause frankly I'm pretty clueless as to why you're doing that. :eek: )


Cheers,

I have no involvement in this project, but one of the easiest ways to calculate the CG of an assembly is to sum the CG's of the component parts (with a little manipulation based on their relative locations).

[CPMcGraw]

Craig and Bill,

You guys are getting kind of sophisticated for me. :o

Can you explain (in layman's terms) what the thinking is behind specifying the CG locations in these balsa parts? ('Cause frankly I'm pretty clueless as to why you're doing that. :eek: )


Cheers,

You mean, why did we choose 71% as the position of the CG, or why we bothered at all? :D

The 71% location is a "best guess" ball-park figure for "getting the location close". It's not accurate, and can probably use some tweaking in the future. I'm already thinking that the value will be different with each shape, as some have more "bulk" in one direction than the other. It will help in the total balance of the model because RockSim uses these figures to work from, as a "starting point". It will, in the long haul, improve the flight simulation reports of our designs.

[snaquin]

Lune R-1 Plus 1

A simple booster added to the stock Lune R-1 kit for two staged flights. Only mod to the Lune R-1 sustainer is to move the rear centering ring slightly forward to clear the tube coupler on the booster. Fins are the same KV-35 fin set on the booster only reversed for a seamless transition.


Length: 26.275"
Diameter: 1.040" (ST-10)
Span Dia: 4.040"
Weight: 1.715 oz


B6-0 / A8-5..........637'.........Dv 11 FPS.........36" x 1/8" rod
B6-0 / B6-6..........906'.........Dv 19 FPS.........36" x 1/8" rod
C6-0 / B6-6.......1,292'.........Dv 5 FPS...........36" x 1/8" rod
C6-0 / C6-7.......1,728'.........Dv 30 FPS.........36" x 1/8" rod

May want to swap out the parachute for a streamer on high altitude flights .....

:)

[snaquin]

Steve - another great looking SLS upscale design!

I like how you incorporated the engine baffle into the design.

Keep 'em coming!

... Bill

Thanks Bill

I guess it's pretty obvious but I'm an SLS freak.

I'm finding I have a few designs including some that have been built and flown that I entered into RockSim and either posted them to other threads on the forum or just neglected to consider posting to BARCLONE. Shame on me .....

The next design I'll rework is an FSI rocket that was one of my favorite two stagers. I have to rework it with Semroc parts because all my FSI rockets were entered into RockSim 5 and I used FSI parts when I entered the data to create the files.

.

[CPMcGraw]

OK, so not exactly a "new" design, just something to test the new components with. Actually doesn't have bad C6-7 performance.

Length: 19.85"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Fin Span: 4.54"
Weight: 1.24 oz


A6-4Q......213'......Dv 23 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod......Parachute reefed
A8-3.......240'......Dv 10 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
B4-4.......574'......Dv 27 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod......Parachute reefed
C6-7......1336'......Dv 18 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod


Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

I just spotted an error in the NCDATA file, while transferring the data for transitions and tailcones. The "Rear OD" and "Insert OD" dimensions for the ST-20 series appear to be the same as the ST-18 series, with the exception of the first entry.

That's why we need additional pairs of eyes looking through these files besides ours. This is an on-going process, and there might be more errors before all of this data is ready.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled interruptions... :o

[CPMcGraw]

Here's the new TRDATA file, containing all of the wizard-gerated reducers and tailcones in the SEMROC lineup. Any nose cones that we could not put into the NCDATA file will likewise not be found here.

We still need you to look through the data before committing to the installation, however, barring any last-second "gotchas", the file should be usable.

[CPMcGraw]

575...

[rkt2k1]

Craig and Bill,

You guys are getting kind of sophisticated for me. :o

Can you explain (in layman's terms) what the thinking is behind specifying the CG locations in these balsa parts? ('Cause frankly I'm pretty clueless as to why you're doing that. :eek: )


Cheers,

Jay,

Because Craig said to why of course! :chuckle:

Actually, I think we are just shooting for as much accuracy as possible. As Craig mentioned, 71% is an estimate based on general shape of cones / transitions. Since we added "reversed" transitions and tail cones, it seemed logical that the CG location would switch orientation as well since the majority of the mass in the components was now also reversed. Again, these estimations are up for review / discussion and can be overridden and calculated by Rocksim.

... Bill

[rkt2k1]

I just spotted an error in the NCDATA file, while transferring the data for transitions and tailcones. The "Rear OD" and "Insert OD" dimensions for the ST-20 series appear to be the same as the ST-18 series, with the exception of the first entry.

That's why we need additional pairs of eyes looking through these files besides ours. This is an on-going process, and there might be more errors before all of this data is ready.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled interruptions... :o


Craig - nice catch! Yeah, the more eyes looking at these files the better!

After a while, one can get a little bleary eyed working directly with the CSV files! :eek:

I'm trying my best to review parts in design mode in Rocksim prior to submitting files to forum. But there be a lot of parts in them there files. :D

... Bill

[CPMcGraw]

Craig - nice catch! Yeah, the more eyes looking at these files the better!

After a while, one can get a little bleary eyed working directly with the CSV files! :eek:

I'm trying my best to review parts in design mode in Rocksim prior to submitting files to forum. But there be a lot of parts in them there files. :D

... Bill

I'm keeping local copies of these files in the ODS format, which preserves any formulas I want to use. That formula for figuring out the CG location is just such an animal, as I only have to do the formula once and copy/paste it down the column.

So, have we completed anything (pending review)? I think we've worked on BTDATA (body tubes), BHDATA (bulkheads), NCDATA (nose cones), TCDATA (tube couplers), and TRDATA (transitions, reducers, and tail cones). Have we actually completed the data for all of the SEMROC components in these categories, for both SEMROC Standards and LTs, and Estes Classics?

What other components have we not worked on yet? CRDATA (centering rings)? EBDATA (engine blocks)? LLDATA (launch lugs)? PCDATA (parachutes)? STDATA (streamers)? SLDATA (sleeves)? MODATA (mass objects)?

I just noticed RTDATA and TFDATA. Want to guess what these cover? :eek:

[CPMcGraw]

Thanks Bill

I guess it's pretty obvious but I'm an SLS freak.

I'm finding I have a few designs including some that have been built and flown that I entered into RockSim and either posted them to other threads on the forum or just neglected to consider posting to BARCLONE. Shame on me .....

The next design I'll rework is an FSI rocket that was one of my favorite two stagers. I have to rework it with Semroc parts because all my FSI rockets were entered into RockSim 5 and I used FSI parts when I entered the data to create the files.

.

Sorry I haven't said "Thanks" earlier. I've been a bit... distracted... :o :D

I really like that Hornet. I have a clone of the standard version waiting for some yellow paint. One day this century, I'll try to get around to it.

[rkt2k1]

So, have we completed anything (pending review)? I think we've worked on BTDATA (body tubes), BHDATA (bulkheads), NCDATA (nose cones), TCDATA (tube couplers), and TRDATA (transitions, reducers, and tail cones). Have we actually completed the data for all of the SEMROC components in these categories, for both SEMROC Standards and LTs, and Estes Classics?

I think pending final review, BTDATA, BHDATA, NCDATA, TCDATA, and TRDATA are as complete as possible based on the parts that can be created without using sub-assembly feature. I have included all parts from Semroc's website, including LTs and Estes classics, with files I've submitted.


What other components have we not worked on yet? CRDATA (centering rings)? EBDATA (engine blocks)? LLDATA (launch lugs)? PCDATA (parachutes)? STDATA (streamers)? SLDATA (sleeves)? MODATA (mass objects)?

Yes, I think these are the next part sets to begin working on. Not as much data on web site for some of these. Is the Material CSV data file updated for some of these parts? I was specifically thinking of the fiber used in some of the centering rings.


I just noticed RTDATA and TFDATA. Want to guess what these cover? :eek:

RTDATA = Ring Fins
TFDATA = Tube Fins

Neither have any data loaded in the default parts files.

Any particular parts area you'd like me to focus on next. Let me know.

... Bill

[CPMcGraw]

Another reduced-size version of one of the all-time favorite designs. This is an ST-8 variation of the Astron Alpha, using 13mm motors. The performance on the A3-4T is rather zippy.

Length: 12.00"
Diameter: 0.908" (ST-8)
Fin Span: 3.91"
Weight: 0.68 oz


1/2 A3-4T......215'......Dv 23 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
A3-4T..........528'......Dv 17 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod


Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

I think pending final review, BTDATA, BHDATA, NCDATA, TCDATA, and TRDATA are as complete as possible... Is the Material CSV data file updated for some of these parts? I was specifically thinking of the fiber used in some of the centering rings.

I was wondering about the materials file. We might want to create a new entry for "Matteboard" and use Carl's numbers for the 0.020", 0.050", and 0.070" boards he works with. That data could then be used to update the centering rings data already in the file.


RTDATA = Ring Fins
TFDATA = Tube Fins

Neither have any data loaded in the default parts files.

I was hoping Jay would take notice of those two... :D

I'm not sure just yet how those data files are supposed to work, since there's nothing in them.

Any particular parts area you'd like me to focus on next. Let me know.

Right now, only CRDATA and EBDATA are critical, since they have the most items. The remaining files can probably stay as they are, unless or until something new gets added. If you'd like to tackle those two, it works for me. I'll look at the LLDATA file, and see if anything is missing (I know already of a few missing items...).

[CPMcGraw]

Here's a two-stage design for Semroc components. It was one of the sketches posted last month, with minor adjustments.

Length: 29.75"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Fin Span: 5.04"
Weight: 2.11 oz


B6-0 / A8-5......592'.......Dv 15 FPS
B6-0 / B6-6......872'.......Dv 19 FPS
C6-0 / A8-5......996'.......Dv 10 FPS
C6-0 / B6-6......1245'......Dv 7 FPS
B6-0 / C6-7......1424'......Dv 29 FPS......parachute reefed
C6-0 / C6-7......1762'......Dv 24 FPS......parachute reefed


All combinations require a 48" x 3/16" rod for reaching safe flight V.

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

Bill,

Check the REAR OD values in the reversed transitions. I found one while working the Tiger Tail design (BR-710 [R]) that has a 0.0001" rear diameter. There may be others like this. That diameter was only used with the reversed nose cones.

[snaquin]

Mach 1 Dart with RX-1 Thruster System

I flew my first Mach 1 Dart with RX-1 Thruster System when I was a teenager .....

After several flights purchasing the motors (RX-1 Thruster System) I looked for a less expensive alternative and something for small field flights. The Dart model and booster that I built in the images below have the 21mm mounts in both stages, meaning Semroc ST-8F tubing less the motor mount in the Dart. When FSI 21mm motors were available I used D20 or D18's in the booster and usually D18's in the Dart. Always turned in perfect flights.

This design is based on 18mm motors and uses all Semroc parts. The chamfer on the top of the booster on the original was actually the top of the F100-0 that had been rounded for a smoother transition between the Dart and the booster. This is the perfect place to use Apogee Fix-It Epoxy clay. The inside tube should be just a little longer so you can run a little snake of clay around the tube and smooth a really nice transition. If you look closely you can see this on the images with the booster separated from the Dart.

Use 1.00" motor overhang to give the Dart motor enough length to slide into the booster ST-30 mount.


Length: 24.85"
Diameter: 0.921" Dart (ST-8F) / 1.170" Booster (ST-11)
Span Dia: 4.920"
Weight: 1.551 oz


C6-0 / C6-7.......2,181'.........DV 3 FPS.........36" x 1/8" rod

For kicks I left the data in the flight simulations from a Mach-1 Dart two stage model, since I revised my FSI file that used parts data that I had recorded from an original kit.

F100-0 / D20-10.......3,249'.......DV 26 FPS.......36" x 1/4" rod
Max Velocity: 1,070 Feet / Sec.
Max Acceleration: 1,778 Feet / Sec / Sec

:)

.

[snaquin]

Sorry I haven't said "Thanks" earlier. I've been a bit... distracted... :o :D

I really like that Hornet. I have a clone of the standard version waiting for some yellow paint. One day this century, I'll try to get around to it.

I'm always happy to contribute to BARCLONE and having some extra time off for the Holidays gave me a little extra time to play with version 9 and mess with a few old files.

:)

[rkt2k1]

Bill,

Check the REAR OD values in the reversed transitions. I found one while working the Tiger Tail design (BR-710 [R]) that has a 0.0001" rear diameter. There may be others like this. That diameter was only used with the reversed nose cones.

Craig,

I checked both the TRDATA file I posted and submitted and the master TRDATA file you posted with the combined tailcones, and could not find the error you mentioned. I looked at the entire file and only the tailcones show rear diameter of 0.0001". I've posted screen shots of the two files in Excel.

... Bill

[rkt2k1]

Here are the Semroc engine blocks / thrust ring parts for Rocksim. The defaults part file contained most of these parts. I just added a few additional parts found on the Semroc web-site and followed same formatting as other part files.

This file should be considered as DRAFT until it can be reviewed and validated. Craig will give ok or post as master file.

Data for these parts was pulled from Semroc web-site. If any of the parts or data seem inaccurate please let me know.

Thanks!

... Bill

[CPMcGraw]

Bill,

I just looked at my copy of the data file, and I couldn't see that error, either. It's possible that, with so many copies running around here, I might have been using an older data set which contained the error. If I spot something again, I'll post the visual output so you can see what I'm seeing.

[CPMcGraw]

This one probably belongs in the Empyria series. Gentle DV numbers, too...

Length: 24.20"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Fin Span: 7.85"
Weight: 1.56 oz


A8-3......166'......Dv 12 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
B4-4......397'......Dv 7 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
B6-4......404'......Dv 1 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
C6-5......864'......Dv 4 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod


Enjoy!

[rkt2k1]

Bill,

I just looked at my copy of the data file, and I couldn't see that error, either. It's possible that, with so many copies running around here, I might have been using an older data set which contained the error. If I spot something again, I'll post the visual output so you can see what I'm seeing.

Craig - no worries! I'm just glad there doesn't seem to be an error. :)

I've documented all the centering ring data from the Semroc website and have started working on the CRDATA file. It may take a day or so, as I start back to work tomorrow. :(

... Bill

[CPMcGraw]

579...

[CPMcGraw]

From the sketch collection...

RockSim says this bird will fly as-is, but I'm not making any promises. You will need to balance the glider and trim it for a good glide, then mark the CP. Arrange it directly over the CP position on the boost pod before mounting the launch lug hold down to the pod, and a dowel and pylon (not shown) on the bottom of the glider.

Length: 19.62" (this will change, depending on the final position of the glider)
Diameter: 1.50" (BC-1043)
Fin Span: 10.48"
Weight: 1.75 oz


B4-4......362'......Dv 10 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
B6-4......370'......Dv 5 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
C6-5......806'......Dv 7 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod


Do not use the A8-3. It doesn't have enough power to get the model moving rapidly enough off the rod.

Enjoy!

[Tau Zero]

"Now bigger, better, and even Scampier!" :eek: ;) :D


I'm dredging these up from my long-lost and ill-fated "Updated Classic Designs" thread from 2007-ish. :o Here are the ROCKSIM 8 files (even though you can see they're saved in my RS9 directory).

The 1.36X BT-55 upscale is 18mm, while the 1.68X BT-60 upscale has a 24mm mount.

To replicate the original paint scheme, paint one fin black, and along with the forward 2" of the 1.36X Scamp's BT-55. For the BT-60 version, paint the front 2.5" black.


Enjoy!

.

[CPMcGraw]

582...

[rkt2k1]

Here are the Semroc centering ring parts for Rocksim. This file should be considered a DRAFT until it can be reviewed and validated. Craig will give ok or post as master file.

Data for these parts was pulled from the Semroc web-site. If any of the parts or data seem inaccurate please let me know.

While importing and validating this file, I uncovered an issue with the import process. It appears that the material field entries much match capitalization for the part to imported correctly. If not the part is imported with an incorrect material. For example if the entry is "balsa" and not "Balsa" the part gets imported with the first entry in material database CSV (which is usually "G10 PML...".)

I'm including updated files with validated material spelling to resolve this issue.

Thanks!

... Bill

[rkt2k1]

Here are the Semroc launch lugs for Rocksim.

This file should be considered as DRAFT until it can be reviewed and validated. Craig will give ok or post as master file.

Data for these parts was pulled from Semroc web-site. If any of the parts or data seem inaccurate please let me know.

Thanks!

... Bill

[snaquin]

Here are the Semroc centering ring parts for Rocksim. This file should be considered a DRAFT until it can be reviewed and validated. Craig will give ok or post as master file.

Data for these parts was pulled from the Semroc web-site. If any of the parts or data seem inaccurate please let me know.

While importing and validating this file, I uncovered an issue with the import process. It appears that the material field entries much match capitalization for the part to imported correctly. If not the part is imported with an incorrect material. For example if the entry is "balsa" and not "Balsa" the part gets imported with the first entry in material database CSV (which is usually "G10 PML...".)

I'm including updated files with validated material spelling to resolve this issue.

Thanks!

... Bill

Bill,

Again, I'd like to thank you and Craig for the components files you have been working so hard to create. I downloaded these files and the LLDATA file in the other post.

I noticed you didn't repost the BTDATA file. Is this because there are no import issues with the BTDATA file?

Thanks!

.

[CPMcGraw]

Bill,

Again, I'd like to thank you and Craig for the components files you have been working so hard to create. I downloaded these files and the LLDATA file in the other post.

I noticed you didn't repost the BTDATA file. Is this because there are no import issues with the BTDATA file?

Thanks!

.

Steve,

Could you look through the data in these files and see if anything jumps out at you? We need another pair of eyes to see if anything obvious has slithered past ours. I know my eyes have gone blurry staring at spreadsheets, even though that's the only way to do this. I've already missed a few and caught a few, but that doesn't mean they're all clean and free.

[snaquin]

Steve,

Could you look through the data in these files and see if anything jumps out at you? We need another pair of eyes to see if anything obvious has slithered past ours. I know my eyes have gone blurry staring at spreadsheets, even though that's the only way to do this. I've already missed a few and caught a few, but that doesn't mean they're all clean and free.

I plan to bring the laptop home again this weekend and I'll look them over. I've been using the files and updating some designs but I'll view them in spreadsheet form to see if I can notice anything obvious in the details.

.

[rkt2k1]

Bill,

Again, I'd like to thank you and Craig for the components files you have been working so hard to create. I downloaded these files and the LLDATA file in the other post.

I noticed you didn't repost the BTDATA file. Is this because there are no import issues with the BTDATA file?

Thanks!

.

Steve, I've enjoyed working on these with Craig and sharing them with everyone.

Yes, I did not repost the BTDATA file as it looked ok when I reviewed it along with the others. The materials field entries looked ok.

Thanks,

... Bill

[snaquin]

Estes Omega 3-Stage Variant

First ..... I loved the original Estes Omega 2-stage rocket. I owned several of these and even used FSI conversion kits on one that I built to use F engines and never tired of flying the Omega. Why mess with such a great design? I've seen some rocketeers build a third stage for their Omega placing on the additional booster a set of the larger second stage fins of the original, and some using the smaller upper stage fins on the sustainer and second stage booster with only the larger fins on the first stage booster. Either way, the already overstable Omega becomes even more overstable and prone to weathercocking using D12's in all three stages.

I had intended to build this model using this RockSim file but never got to it. Less fin span and smaller fin area are what I went after to actually try to lessen the margin of stability since we are using twelve fins. The design is also stable in two stage configuration according to RockSim and it shows decent flights according to the simulations. Personally I like the streamlined look of the design.

Length: 35.75"
Diameter: 1.640" (BT-60)
Span Dia: 5.307"
Weight: 5.295 oz


D12-0 / D12-0 / D12-7 .......2,305'.........DV 5 FPS.........48" x 3/16" rod


You're going to need at least a 48" rod to fly this model and probably should upgrade the 1/8" launch lugs in the design to 3/16" to stiffen it up a bit since it weighs about 10oz loaded up for flight with three D12's. Dv is about 35fps with an E9-8 in the sustainer so I'm not recommending anything but D12's unless a payload is used to slow it down a little .....

I found this design on my back up disc. It's a RockSim v8 design and I didn't save over it so those of you with RockSim 8 should be able to use the attached file.


:)

.

[snaquin]

Steve,

Could you look through the data in these files and see if anything jumps out at you? We need another pair of eyes to see if anything obvious has slithered past ours. I know my eyes have gone blurry staring at spreadsheets, even though that's the only way to do this. I've already missed a few and caught a few, but that doesn't mean they're all clean and free.

So far I noticed no inaccuracies in the files I've had time to review .....

I'm going to look a couple more over tonight. Man, it's great to have all these new parts in RockSim. I wonder if Apogee will scoop these up and include them in a future update?

.

[rkt2k1]

So far I noticed no inaccuracies in the files I've had time to review .....

Ok, I found an issue with the units field values in the LLDATA file while working on a design. I actually forgot to add the "in" value for each of the parts!

I've attached the updated file.

I think were down to parachutes, streamers, and mass objects to complete Semroc parts set. :)

... Bill

[rkt2k1]

Here is my first Rocksim v9 design. All but a couple of design components in design are from the Semroc part sets we've been collectively working on.

Optimal engine for this design seems to be the C6-5.

I used Jay's "screw-eye" trick to add some nose weight and extra stability to the design.

I think it could use a good set of military type decals. Hope you like it!

... Bill

Design Name: Predator Advanced BGM-18M

Length: 22.1"
Diameter: 1.64" (ST-16)
Fin Span: 4.498"
Weight: 2.841 oz

Engine Size: 18mm
Launch Guide Length: 36" x 1/8"

Motor......Max Altitude......Dep. Velocity

A8-3...........71.76 ft.........37.39 ft/s
B4-4..........223.26 ft.........24.10 ft/s
B6-4..........233.09 ft.........24.55 ft/s
C6-5..........668.50 ft..........2.55 ft/s

[CPMcGraw]

Here is my first Rocksim v9 design. All but a couple of design components in design are from the Semroc part sets we've been collectively working on.

Optimal engine for this design seems to be the C6-5.

I used Jay's "screw-eye" trick to add some nose weight and extra stability to the design.

I think it could use a good set of military type decals. Hope you like it!

... Bill

Design Name: Predator Advanced BGM-18M

Length: 22.1"
Diameter: 1.64" (ST-16)
Fin Span: 4.498"
Weight: 2.841 oz

Engine Size: 18mm
Launch Guide Length: 36" x 1/8"

Motor......Max Altitude......Dep. Velocity

A8-3...........71.76 ft.........37.39 ft/s
B4-4..........223.26 ft.........24.10 ft/s
B6-4..........233.09 ft.........24.55 ft/s
C6-5..........668.50 ft..........2.55 ft/s

I agree, that C6-5 is the optimum motor in your list, and I would not recommend using any of the others. They are either at the edge of, or deep into, chute-shred territory. Getting about 670' on a C6-5 is good, though.

One thing I have to caution you on is the guide length. You call out a 36" x 1/8" rod, which is standard. However, you need to look at the flight summary. Double-click the line on the simulations screen where you flew the C6-5, and start reading through. You'll get to an area where it says "Launch Guide Data". RockSim says this design doesn't reach safe flight V until it's 38" up the rod. You're 2" short. This rocket needs a 48" x 3/16" rod using that motor, so that you get a full 38" of guide length. The extra won't hurt it.

Try simulating instead with the D13W-7. This is a composite D13 White Lightning. It jumps to velocity in only 20", reaches 1581', and has a Dv of just 5 FPS. Here is your optimum motor! Of course, it also has a Max V of 435 FPS, and an acceleration of 614 FPS/S. Really quick, but I think the TTW construction will hold up.

Good work for a RS9 first!

[James Pierson]

First off I would like to Thanks Craig, Bill and all other for all the great DATA files. Seems like we have more Semroc parts now than we ever did and know what to do with :eek: .

Well folks, I wanted to start off my first design in Rocksim 9 with something a little different ;) . You could say at least that I found a design that finally uses the B4-2 and the B6-2. I have always like this name and it never seem to fit anything yet designed. The Cone is an BNC-70AJ with an 2.5" piece of BT-70. The motor mount tube is an BT-30K 2.34" long in which I plan on taping the 1"x18" streamer to for recovery and motor retention. All the parts are in hand from Semroc and the winter builds are under way. Now to pray for the patience :rolleyes: in wainting for the Spring test flight.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Heeby Geeby (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
B4-2..................155.03122 Ft..............2.1932 ft/s
B6-2..................152.38607 Ft..............1.9207 ft/s
C6-3..................296.17638 Ft.............24.8177 ft/s
.

[rkt2k1]

I agree, that C6-5 is the optimum motor in your list, and I would not recommend using any of the others. They are either at the edge of, or deep into, chute-shred territory. Getting about 670' on a C6-5 is good, though.

One thing I have to caution you on is the guide length. You call out a 36" x 1/8" rod, which is standard. However, you need to look at the flight summary. Double-click the line on the simulations screen where you flew the C6-5, and start reading through. You'll get to an area where it says "Launch Guide Data". RockSim says this design doesn't reach safe flight V until it's 38" up the rod. You're 2" short. This rocket needs a 48" x 3/16" rod using that motor, so that you get a full 38" of guide length. The extra won't hurt it.

Try simulating instead with the D13W-7. This is a composite D13 White Lightning. It jumps to velocity in only 20", reaches 1581', and has a Dv of just 5 FPS. Here is your optimum motor! Of course, it also has a Max V of 435 FPS, and an acceleration of 614 FPS/S. Really quick, but I think the TTW construction will hold up.

Good work for a RS9 first!

Craig,

Thanks for the feedback. I haven't got much experience with composite motors. Are 18mm composites readily available?

I tweaked and updated the design and found another black powder engine that seems to work. The Quest B6-4 (B6Q-4 in Rocksim) has both a higher total impulse and average thrust numbers than the Estes B6-4.

I also increased the launch rod length to 48". The tweaked design reaches safe minimum launch velocity using both the Quest B6-4 and Estes C6-5.

Name: Predator BGM-18M

Length: 22.1"
Diameter: 1.64" (ST-16)
Fin Span: 4.498"
Weight: 2.8098 oz

Engine Size: 18mm
Launch Guide Length: 48" x 1/8"

Motor......Max Altitude......Dep. Velocity

B6Q-4.........282.92 ft.........12.37 ft/s
C6-5..........668.50 ft..........1.88 ft/s

[CPMcGraw]

RockSim 9.0.1 F70 is available today.

[rkt2k1]

Hi guys, I'm hoping someone can help with the latest design file I've been working on. After reading through the thread on the Centuri Bulldog #5354, I decided to try and sim it in order to clone.

I remember building and flying an original kit as a teenager and still have the BNC-70AJ from it. I used multiple transitions to duplicate the paper shroud detail on the nose cone. I used Semroc components in the Rocksim design and believe it to be a fairly accurate representation. Sim altitudes attained on both B6-4 and C6-5 engines seem to match those documented on the plan.

The problem I'm having is in getting the deployment velocity and minimal launch velocity off launch rod numbers in line. The DV numbers are at parachute shred levels and it looks like design requires a 48" launch rod which surprised me.

If anyone would like to take a look and make any suggestions it would be appreciated.

At some point I'd like to try the design with a 24mm mount.

Thanks,

... Bill

[CPMcGraw]

Hi guys, I'm hoping someone can help with the latest design file I've been working on. After reading through the thread on the Centuri Bulldog #5354, I decided to try and sim it in order to clone.

I remember building and flying an original kit as a teenager and still have the BNC-70AJ from it. I used multiple transitions to duplicate the paper shroud detail on the nose cone. I used Semroc components in the Rocksim design and believe it to be a fairly accurate representation. Sim altitudes attained on both B6-4 and C6-5 engines seem to match those documented on the plan.

The problem I'm having is in getting the deployment velocity and minimal launch velocity off launch rod numbers in line. The DV numbers are at parachute shred levels and it looks like design requires a 48" launch rod which surprised me.

If anyone would like to take a look and make any suggestions it would be appreciated.

At some point I'd like to try the design with a 24mm mount.

Thanks,

... Bill

I'm looking at the design, and I've looked at the plans from Centuri. The primary motors for this monstrosity are the B8-5 and C5-3. These are cored motors, with sharp spikes to kick it hard. I don't think your simulation has any major problems, since you matched it close to the original. It's the motors, and the lack thereof of motors with any serious power. Your idea of converting to 24mm might be the only viable solution unless or until someone ever produces core-burners again.

[pantherjon]

I'm looking at the design, and I've looked at the plans from Centuri. The primary motors for this monstrosity are the B8-5 and C5-3. These are cored motors, with sharp spikes to kick it hard. I don't think your simulation has any major problems, since you matched it close to the original. It's the motors, and the lack thereof of motors with any serious power. Your idea of converting to 24mm might be the only viable solution unless or until someone ever produces core-burners again.
Finicky design..One that lends itself to being a 'tweener'..One delay is too short and the next option is a tad too long..If 1oz of nose weight is added, the 18mm RMS loads look viable..Tho, again, it is a tweener..All the loads (D13,D21 and D24) show good DV numbers- but require shortening the 7 second delay to either 6 seconds for the D21 and D24 or to 5 seconds for the D13..DV numbers I got:
D13 11.32 @ 996 ft
D21 3.63 @ 1026 ft
D24 12.89 @ 938 ft

[CPMcGraw]

Finicky design..One that lends itself to being a 'tweener'..One delay is too short and the next option is a tad too long..If 1oz of nose weight is added, the 18mm RMS loads look viable..Tho, again, it is a tweener..All the loads (D13,D21 and D24) show good DV numbers- but require shortening the 7 second delay to either 6 seconds for the D21 and D24 or to 5 seconds for the D13..DV numbers I got:
D13 11.32 @ 996 ft
D21 3.63 @ 1026 ft
D24 12.89 @ 938 ft

Which brings up the question, If this model is such a pill to fly, what motors did they really test with? This model was a 1982 release, so what other motors did they have available in 1981 and 1982 (but didn't mention in the instructions) that would have flown the model reasonably well, and give a relatively soft Dv?

[CPMcGraw]

585...

[rkt2k1]

Which brings up the question, If this model is such a pill to fly, what motors did they really test with? This model was a 1982 release, so what other motors did they have available in 1981 and 1982 (but didn't mention in the instructions) that would have flown the model reasonably well, and give a relatively soft Dv?

Craig, this is exactly what I was wondering when I working on the Rocksim design. I'm going to see what it looks like with the 24mm mount and engine options.

Thanks for all those who looked over the design file and provided feedback.

Thanks,

... Bill

[rkt2k1]

Well I reworked the Bulldog with a 24mm engine mount and got much better performance numbers. Does a modification to a manufacturer design count as a Barclone entry?

... Bill


Design Name: Centuri Bulldog with 24mm Engine Mount

Length: 20.5"
Diameter: 2.217" (BT-70 / ST-13)
Fin Span: 6.967"
Weight: 4.822 oz (with 2oz nose weight and less engine)

Engine Size: 24mm
Launch Guide Length: 48" x 1/8"

Motor......Max Altitude......Dep. Velocity

Motor.....Max Alt......DV...

D12-5......735.91.......3.48
E9-6......1236.72......10.89
E30-7.....1727.58.......7.47
E15-7.....1808.73......11.03

[CPMcGraw]

Well I reworked the Bulldog with a 24mm engine mount and got much better performance numbers. Does a modification to a manufacturer design count as a Barclone entry?

... Bill


Design Name: Centuri Bulldog with 24mm Engine Mount

Length: 20.5"
Diameter: 2.217" (BT-70 / ST-13)
Fin Span: 6.967"
Weight: 4.822 oz (with 2oz nose weight and less engine)

Engine Size: 24mm
Launch Guide Length: 48" x 1/8"

Motor......Max Altitude......Dep. Velocity

Motor.....Max Alt......DV...

D12-5......735.91.......3.48
E9-6......1236.72......10.89
E30-7.....1727.58.......7.47
E15-7.....1808.73......11.03

It does. :D

Those numbers are a lot better. The general rule-of-thumb goes something like this:

Over 25 FPS = Chute-shred territory.
Less than 20 FPS = Good, but not best. Can still inflict explosive chute openings and broken shrouds.
Less than 15 FPS = Better, and similar to most kits now available.
Less than 10 FPS = Great! Very few hard pops.
Less than 5 FPS = Smooth operator!
Less than 3 FPS = Perfection!

[James Pierson]

Has anyone tried to change the Centuri Bulldog's aft BT55 to an BT60 or ST16 and use two 18mm motors or maybe even three 18mm. Just a thought :confused: . It would change the rear dia or the transition a little but it will have better motor choices in theory.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

[CPMcGraw]

OK, I've posted the names of as many of you I could locate who have submitted something to the BARCLONE project. I need everyone who does not already have your character totally assassinated to please scrape something together describing yourself in sad, suffering terms and send it to me via PM. Don't worry if it's short or lacks any panache -- I'll embellish it for you. Just read what I did for poor James Pierson!

[Tau Zero]

OK, I've posted the names of as many of you I could locate who have submitted something to the BARCLONE project. I need everyone who does not already have your character totally assassinated to please scrape something together describing yourself in sad, suffering terms and send it to me via PM. Don't worry if it's short or lacks any panache -- I'll embellish it for you. Just read what I did for poor James Pierson!
http://barclone.wordpress.com/meet-the-asylum-inmates/

IIRC, Craig actually had to *remove* some "embellishment" from James' somewhat lurid but compelling tale. :eek: ;) :D


Cheers,

[James Pierson]

http://barclone.wordpress.com/meet-the-asylum-inmates/

IIRC, Craig actually had to *remove* some "embellishment" from James' somewhat lurid but compelling tale. :eek: ;) :D


Cheers,


Lies, Lies, its all Lies! :chuckle:

Although my wife says " It's the cold hard truth and you know it." :chuckle:
Also she has a Rocket Widower's club meeting at 8pm on Tuesdays :o

James Pierson
NAR# 77907
.

[rkt2k1]

Has anyone tried to change the Centuri Bulldog's aft BT55 to an BT60 or ST16 and use two 18mm motors or maybe even three 18mm. Just a thought :confused: . It would change the rear dia or the transition a little but it will have better motor choices in theory.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

"By your command!" (a little Battlestar Galactica nostalgia in recognition of last season of new series! :) )

Great suggestion James! Motor selection is much greater with a dual 18mm motor mount.

I changed out the BT-55 tube with a BT-60 and modified the custom paper tailcone accordingly. I changed out the BT-50 engine mount with an appropriate BT-20 mount and used the cluster wizard to complete.

Although I retained the 48" launch rod, most of these motor combinations easily reach safe velocity withing the standard 36" rod length. Here are the numbers and the additional design file.

Enjoy!

... Bill

Centuri Bulldog - Dual 18mm Engine Mount

Motor........Max Alt......DV..

2 x B6-4......293.88.....13.36
2 x B6Q-4.....344.94......4.32
2 x c6-5......761.03......4.22
2 x C6Q-5.....756.35......3.86
2 x D13-7....1611.95......8.63
2 x D21-7....1638.28......8.85
2 x D24-7....1525.36......3.15

[CPMcGraw]

This is a design from about two years ago, where I tried to simulate fin pods using profile nose cones and tail cones. I've just worked it up in R9, with real pods, and thought I'd post the results...

Length: 23.30"
Diameter: 0.908" (ST-8)
Fin Span: 5.403"
Weight: 1.34 oz


A8-3.......211'......Dv < 3 FPS
B4-4.......503'......Dv 13 FPS
B6-4.......510'......Dv 18 FPS
C6-5......1072'......Dv 19 FPS


Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

587...

[rkt2k1]

Ok, here is one I originally developed in Rocksim v8. The recent article in the Apogee Peak of Flight newsletter on canted engine files caused me to dust it off and re-work the design in version 9. The new pods feature allowed me to better simulate the model.

The design uses a combination of Semroc and Fliskit parts.

I present the MATaDor: Maxi Advanced Target Deuce!

Features:

- 2.2x Upscale of classic Estes Advanced Target Drone #1913
- Semroc Body Tubes & Nylon Parachute
- Fliskits' Deuce's Wild Dual Canted 24mm Engine Mount
- Fliskits' Deuce's Wild Nosecone (BT-70)
- Fliskits' Engine Baffle (BT-70)
- Basswood Fins (covered in cardstock)
- Cardstock Air Intakes

Simulation Data:

Length: 35"
Diameter: 2.217" (BT-70 / ST-13)
Fin Span: 19.017"
Weight: 12.6955 oz (including .5 oz nose weight and less engines)

Engine Size: Dual 24mm (Canted)

Launch Guide Length: 48" x 1/8"

Standard:

Motor.....Max Alt......DV

C11-3.....209.21.......4.11
D12-5.....577.68.......9.87
E9-6.....1044.89......14.95
E15-7....1585.44......12.20
E30-7....1490.86.......5.64

Canted 15 Degrees:

C11-3.....195.96.......0.62
D12-5.....547.22......14.56
E9-6.....1000.48......15.44
E15-7....1528.75......15.03
E30-7....1450.04.......5.65


I'm still working on adding the decals to the Rocksim design, but they are taking longer than anticipated. Let me know what you think.

Enjoy!

... Bill

[CPMcGraw]

588...

[foose4string]

Has anyone tried to change the Centuri Bulldog's aft BT55 to an BT60 or ST16 and use two 18mm motors or maybe even three 18mm. Just a thought :confused: . It would change the rear dia or the transition a little but it will have better motor choices in theory.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

"By your command!" (a little Battlestar Galactica nostalgia in recognition of last season of new series! :) )

Great suggestion James! Motor selection is much greater with a dual 18mm motor mount.

I changed out the BT-55 tube with a BT-60 and modified the custom paper tailcone accordingly. I changed out the BT-50 engine mount with an appropriate BT-20 mount and used the cluster wizard to complete.

Although I retained the 48" launch rod, most of these motor combinations easily reach safe velocity withing the standard 36" rod length. Here are the numbers and the additional design file.

Enjoy!

... Bill

Centuri Bulldog - Dual 18mm Engine Mount

Motor........Max Alt......DV..

2 x B6-4......293.88.....13.36
2 x B6Q-4.....344.94......4.32
2 x c6-5......761.03......4.22
2 x C6Q-5.....756.35......3.86
2 x D13-7....1611.95......8.63
2 x D21-7....1638.28......8.85
2 x D24-7....1525.36......3.15

For some reason it never occurred to me to cluster the darn thing. I didn't mess with the shroud or rear tube sizes and just went with a 24mm mount. One thing's for a sure, a single 18mm as called for in the original plan is too limiting for motor choices, not to mention, altitude. Stabilty is marginal as well. Two words for this design: Nose weight. Love my Bulldog.


http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=50051&postcount=11

[rkt2k1]

For some reason it never occurred to me to cluster the darn thing. I didn't mess with the shroud or rear tube sizes and just went with a 24mm mount. One thing's for a sure, a single 18mm as called for in the original plan is too limiting for motor choices, not to mention, altitude. Stabilty is marginal as well. Two words for this design: Nose weight. Love my Bulldog.


http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=50051&postcount=11

Foose,

It was you build thread that originally inspired me to work up the Bulldog in Rocksim. Your Bulldog build looks great! I built one as a teenager but it didn't look anywhere near as good as yours.

How does your Bulldog perform on a single 18mm motor?

I tried to work up a triple 18mm design in Rocksim, but could not get deployment velocity numbers within recommended guidelines.

... Bill

[foose4string]

Bill, thanks! I've never flown it on 18mm. It would probably do ok on a Est.C6-3. I may try adapting it down from 24mm one of these days and see how it does. It came out lighter than I expected, but it's pretty draggy. This model would be a great candidate for a interchangeable mount. I thought about doing that several times during the build, and waited to install the mount until very last minute for that very reason. I knew I'd be flying it one 24mm most of the time anyway, so I glued the mount in. I was a little worried about adding weight to the rear also. I knew it would marginal, but I didn't think a D12 would tip the balance so adversely. It's got 1/2 ounce added in the nose now, and that seems to have worked out. C11-3 is a good motor choice. Not super high, around 400-500, and gives it a nice kick off the pad. Oddly, the cluster never crossed my mind. Two Quest C6-5 would probably work out great!

[Tau Zero]

From the "Comments" section of the attached RockSim 9 file:

"Hold your head up!" This rocket's name is a nod to keyboardist Rod Argent's 1970s rock group and their only hit song.

A surprisingly well performing old-school design using RockSim 9's handy-dandy "pods" feature. <big evil grin>

--Although you *may* want to use a nylon chute, given the 23+ f.p.s deployment on a C6-5. :eek: :o


My supervisor called me this morning and wanted me work a late shift, so this design is a result of my "non-structured" morning. :eek: :rolleyes: :cool:


Cheers,

[JRThro]

From the "Comments" section of the attached RockSim 9 file:

"Hold your head up!" This rocket's name is a nod to keyboardist Rod Argent's 1970s rock group and their only hit song.

A surprisingly well performing old-school design using RockSim 9's handy-dandy "pods" feature. <big evil grin>

--Although you *may* want to use a nylon chute, given the 23+ f.p.s deployment on a C6-5. :eek: :o


My supervisor called me this morning and wanted me work a late shift, so this design is a result of my "non-structured" morning. :eek: :rolleyes: :cool:


Cheers,
Nice one, Jay!

I like both the look and the name. A larger body tube on the forward end of rockets has come to be one of my favorite design elements, and I like "Hold Your Head Up," too.

Are the body and pod tubes painted silver (since Argent means silver or white metal)?

[Tau Zero]

Nice one, Jay!Hi John! :D


I like both the look and the name. A larger body tube on the forward end of rockets has come to be one of my favorite design elements, and I like "Hold Your Head Up," too.

Are the body and pod tubes painted silver (since Argent means silver or white metal)?Um... :o

After taking a second look at the RockSim file, the pod tubes are white, and the other tubes are silver/gray. So, basically you can paint them whatever color you'd like!

So yes, your Argent can be argent. :p If you want it to be. :rolleyes: ;) :chuckle:


Gotta go to work now!


Cheers,

[CPMcGraw]

Oooohhh! Nice!

I like the color scheme you have in these renderings, Jay. Blue and gray/silver just goes together.

Good numbers, too!

[Tau Zero]

On November 26, 2008, I posted:
Since Craig "threw down the gauntlet" on November 4th, I've had the occasional creative fit (despite the admission immediately above).

So if I average it out to one a week, it looks like this:

Week of

Nov. 02 -- XPL Experimental
Nov. 09 -- Doc Boy
Nov. 16 -- 5820 A
Nov. 23 -- 5820 B
Nov. 30 -- 5820 C
Dec. 07 -- 5820 D
Dec. 14 -- 5820 Ugly
Dec. 21 -- SONAR 7

It looks like my score is 8 done, 44 to go for 52 weeks' worth of designs, like Craig is lobbying for.


Some of my newest designs will have to wait for RockSim 9's added features, so those releases will be put on hold temporarily.Here's the update on my ongoing attempt to keep up:

Dec. 28 -- Premonition
Jan. 4 -- Epsilon 3*
Jan. 11 -- Estes Scamp 1.36X**
Jan. 18 -- Estes Scamp 1.68X**
Jan. 25 -- Argent


*One of the aforementioned "Waiting for RS9" designs.
**Resurrected from 2007(-ish).

It looks like my current score is 13 done, 39 to go for 52 weeks.


Craig and everybody else have been up to their eyeballs with outside projects, as well as generally tidying up. (And a certain scale project that doesn't include dragons shedding their skins. Sorry. That's all I can tell you.)


Cheers,

[Tau Zero]

Oooohhh! Nice!

I like the color scheme you have in these renderings, Jay. Blue and gray/silver just goes together.

Good numbers, too!Thanks! This was another one of those designs where I had the basic outline, and just kept plugging motors in until they worked. ("Okay, 24mm is too much!" [exasperated sigh] "Let's bump the motor mount down to 18mm. --Now, *that's* better!") :rolleyes: :D


Nice one, Jay!

I like both the look and the name. A larger body tube on the forward end of rockets has come to be one of my favorite design elements, and I like "Hold Your Head Up," too.

Are the body and pod tubes painted silver (since Argent means silver or white metal)?(mock disbelief) Are you telling me that Rod Argent's *real* last name was White? Or Silver? :eek: :rolleyes: :chuckle:


Thanks, guys! ;)

[CPMcGraw]

Jay's latest design "Argent" must have struck a chord... :o

The GSS Horizon follows the same basic pattern, but is smaller and capable of very good performance on the 13mm engines.

Length: 20.90"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Fin Span: 5.02"
Weight: 1.24 oz


1/2 A3-2T......98'.......Dv 8 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
A10-3T.........306'......Dv 21 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
A3-4T..........310.......Dv 12 FPS......48" x 3/16" rod


Note carefully the A3-4T line. The model has a very slow acceleration off the rod, and needs a full 40" to reach safe flight V. The A10-3T reaches flight V in 20".

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

590...

Only need 10 to hit 600!!!

[CPMcGraw]

A suggestion was made (over on TRF) for a forum thread which contains no discussions or comments, but works simply as a "placeholder" list of rocket designs. While I wait for my registration to process over there, I thought it might be a good idea for BARCLONE to set up a list of its own, which would make it easier for visitors (and we ourselves) to locate all 590 designs we currently show. It would also make it easier to link into from the blogsite, so that visitors there can download plans when they find something they like.

Comments?

[CPMcGraw]

I need links to the following plans:

4" Rhemus Upscale

5820 E (Possibly the 5820 Ugly :D )

3 Finset Simpleship


If anyone spots these (I've looked, but they may be hiding under assumed identities...) please let me know. I'm trying to put together an ordered list of all our design plans.

Thanks.

[Tau Zero]

I need links to the following plans:

5820 E (Possibly the 5820 Ugly :D )Ask, and you will receive. (Me, I just usually get strange looks. :eek: :o ;) :chuckle: )


Behold, the 5820 Ugly (not "E" :rolleyes: ) :

http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=52742&postcount=263


Cheers,

[CPMcGraw]

Ask, and you will receive. (Me, I just usually get strange looks. :eek: :o ;) :chuckle: )


Behold, the 5820 Ugly (not "E" :rolleyes: ) :

http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=52742&postcount=263


Cheers,

Thanks, Jay. This probably is the one I'm looking for. Do you want me to 'officially' change it to 'Ugly' in the lists?

[snaquin]

A suggestion was made (over on TRF) for a forum thread which contains no discussions or comments, but works simply as a "placeholder" list of rocket designs. While I wait for my registration to process over there, I thought it might be a good idea for BARCLONE to set up a list of its own, which would make it easier for visitors (and we ourselves) to locate all 590 designs we currently show. It would also make it easier to link into from the blogsite, so that visitors there can download plans when they find something they like.

Comments?

Sounds like a great idea to me. More exposure to that vast library of BARCLONE designs from other forums can only be a good thing. Some may spring over there from the BARCLONE link on Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe but I think a permanent link on TRF to allow interested users to download plans would be great.

.

[rkt2k1]

A suggestion was made (over on TRF) for a forum thread which contains no discussions or comments, but works simply as a "placeholder" list of rocket designs. While I wait for my registration to process over there, I thought it might be a good idea for BARCLONE to set up a list of its own, which would make it easier for visitors (and we ourselves) to locate all 590 designs we currently show. It would also make it easier to link into from the blogsite, so that visitors there can download plans when they find something they like.

Comments?

Craig - great idea! The posting with the list looks great and is much easier to navigate and find designs than going through the various Barclone design threads.

... Bill

[CPMcGraw]

Thanks for the good words, guys. I'm wondering why I didn't think to do this earlier. The list was already started on the blogsite, and I try to keep it updated when we have new designs posted, but for whatever reason posting a list here just never got a switch flipped in my head. :o I have so few switches left to flip, anyway... :D

The website is my newest project-to-resurrect. I really want to get that done this year, so that everyone can actually see what the designs look like. It would be nice if I could get it to look like one of the old Estes or Centuri catalogs from the late '60s...

[Tau Zero]

Thanks, Jay. This probably is the one I'm looking for. Do you want me to 'officially' change it to 'Ugly' in the lists?Yes, please.

(shuddering) *Ew.*


Cheers,

[Tau Zero]

This grew out of my experiments late last fall involving a 137% (ST-7 to ST-10) upscale of the Centuri Vector-V. It's my very first rocket on a slightly bigger scale.


From the attached RockSim 8 file:

Special thanks to "GIJoe" in Spokane, Washington, USA for posting a photo of an original silkscreened fin, and including a ruler in the photos on YORF:

http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=54651&postcount=15

http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=54821&postcount=19


Intriguingly enough, with this particular "enlargement factor," many of the original Centuri designs end up with higher deployment velocities than I'd like (shrugs), but there you go.

.

[Tau Zero]

From our fabulous sponsors at Ye Olde Rocket Plans (YORP):

http://www.oldrocketplans.com/centuri/cen1654/cen1654.htm


Here's another ST-7 to ST-10 137% upscale, which shows you what happens when the Centuri Javelin and Vector-V fins collide to make the Scouts' model rocket derby "Akela-1" even larger than you remember . :eek: :rolleyes: :cool:

.

[CPMcGraw]

592...

[Tau Zero]

I need links to the following plans:

4" Rhemus Upscale

5820 E (Possibly the 5820 Ugly :D )

3 Finset SimpleshipWell, to quote Meat Loaf, "Two out of three ain't bad."


4" Rhemus upscale:

http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=24487&postcount=124


SLS "Li'l" Hi-G Payloader:

http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=21768&postcount=3


(Sure, I had to steal the Hi-G from the missing SLS index, but who's looking? :rolleyes: )


Cheers,

[jbuscaglia]

SLS "Li'l" Hi-G Payloader:

http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=21768&postcount=3


(Sure, I had to steal the Hi-G from the missing SLS index, but who's looking? :rolleyes: )


Cheers,

I get an error when I try to access the Hi-G link. The Rhemus link works fine.

Thanks.

John

[CPMcGraw]

Thanks, Jay!

I knew they were somewhere nearby, but the search function just wasn't finding it for me.

If you spot any of the other "missing links", let me know. I'm trying to do these entries in batches, and if I don't see one immediately, I usually just skip it and move on.

I'll get these posted shortly...

[CPMcGraw]

I get an error when I try to access the Hi-G link. The Rhemus link works fine.

Thanks.

John

I just tried it, and the message it is attached to came up. The RKT file appears to have downloaded OK.

[jbuscaglia]

I just tried it, and the message it is attached to came up. The RKT file appears to have downloaded OK.

I tried it again and still get the same error:


jbuscaglia, you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

1. Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
2. If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.


I thought it might be because I still use the "forums.rocketshoppe.com" URL to access YORF, but I tried logging in via "www.oldrocketforum.com" and got the same thing. No problems with the Rhemus link, though. I haven't tried any others yet.

[CPMcGraw]

I'll post the links here in this message. Maybe there's something else getting in the way.

Jay's original post (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=21768&postcount=3) .

RockSim plan file (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6288) .

Screenshot 1 (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6285) .

Screenshot 2 (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6287) .


Try these and see if they work. If not, try flushing the browser cache and reloading the forum fresh. If that fails, you may have an ISP issue.

[CPMcGraw]

James, I am having a difficult time locating your "Away & Beyond" design. Could you locate the link and post it here?

Add to this the "XX-2"...

[CPMcGraw]

I just got this heads-up from George Gassaway on OldRockets. Lone Star Balsa, a long-time supplier of balsa in Lancaster, TX, has come back to life after it was seemingly wiped out by a fire back in November of 2007. Looking at the photos of the aftermath, it appeared to be a total loss. This was my #1 source for balsa sheets up until then, and I still have a few sheets from my last order. Their quality was good to excellent, and their prices were the among the lowest. I typically rated them as being well above Goldberg, Midwest, Bud Nosen, and AAA, about equal to Balsa USA or maybe a little better, and slightly under the old Sig sheets. I cannot say anything about Superior or National, since I've never used their balsa.

If you're a balsa junkie like me, this is great news!

Lone Star Balsa Website (http://www.lonestar-balsa.com/index.php)

[James Pierson]

Great idea with the thread index to the designs Craig!! I have spent hours surfing all the posts in the past just to find an particular design I may have changed or deleted from my files.

Will post the links ASAP.

Also I dont remember ever posting the Angel Express design as it was just not posible to sim with R8 so I will work one up in R9 soon too. Have been busy lately with builds and just cannot seem to stop :D .

Built List:
Heeby Geeby
Sky Champ II
Sky Champ III
Sky Champ IV 13mm
Flying Flea
Sky Marshall II (Craig forgotten design :rolleyes: )

James Pierson
NAR# 77907
.

[andrew scott]

Well here is my first RS9 design


AGS six D

Length: 465.76 mm, Diameter: 41.58 mm, Span diameter: 107.79 mm

Mass 221.915 g, Selected stage mass 221.915 g

CG: 199.48 mm, CP:299.40 mm, Margin 2.40 (no motor)

Engines----- Max Altitude in Feet--- Velocity at Deployment


C11-5 ----------- 151.51 ---------------64.75 Fs

D12-5 ----------- 472.68 ---------------21.49 Fs

E9-8------------917.66--------------- 61.46 Fs



:)

[andrew scott]

and here is the next

AGS six D2

Length: 465.76 mm, Diameter: 41.58 mm, Span diameter: 162.95 mm

Mass 182.927 g, Selected stage mass 182.927 g

CG: 221.35 mm, CP: 337.86 mm, Margin 2.80 (no motor)

Engines-----Max Altitude in Feet----- Velocity at Deployment

C11-5 --------- 212.34 ----------------51.93 Fs
D12-5 --------- 612.55 ---------------- 7.49 Fs
E9-8 -------- 1109.22 ----------------63.09 Fs



;)

[pantherjon]

Very cool designs Andrew!:cool:...However, looking at those DV numbers is kinda scary!:eek: That is WAAAAAY up in the 'shred the parachute/massive zipper' speed region...I downloaded the -D2 design and played a little with some different delays-mainly SHORTER delays and got the DV's down quite a bit...

Here is what I got:

C11-3 211 ft alt with a DV of 7 f/s
D12-5 613 ft alt with a DV of 8 f/s - Well, didn't have to change THIS one..:chuckle:
E9-6 1111 ft alt with a DV of 22 f/s

As you can see, the shorter delays are a bit better..But, maybe the long delays is all you can get 'down under'?

[andrew scott]

Here is my next in rocsim 9 design


TAU JA-7

Recovery system Streamer

Length: 459.85 mm, Diameter: 26.42 mm, Span diameter: 108.74 mm

Mass 27.705 g, Selected stage mass 27.705 g

CG: 266.89 mm, CP: 390.31 mm, Margin 4.67 (no motor)

Engines -- Max Altitude in Feet -- Velocity at Deployment

A8-3 --------------- 298.92 --------------------- 12.78 Fs
B6-4 --------------- 272.14 --------------------- 36.14 Fs
C6-5 --------------- 1349.26 -------------------- 36.26 Fs


Thanks, pantherjon

and there more designs to come, lots more :)

RS9 is the best programs to come out form Apogee.

I'm having a MAD design frenzies at the moment :chuckle: :cool::cool:

[InFlight]

Andrew, your TAU JA-7 is sweet looking!

The DV for the B and C are way too high even for a streamer. At that velocity the air frame will hit the nose cone putting dents in you balsa. :( try tweaking the design to bring the DV's down.

The DV for the A is good for a school yard sounder. ;)

[CPMcGraw]

Andrew,

I think you'll like this revision. It's minor, yet major in terms of performance. This design is just screaming for 13mm power! What I did was change the engine mount a bit to take a standard 13mm casing, then tried some runs with both the A3-4T and the A10-3T. The A10 is the better engine, but both give nearly the same altitude and Dv numbers. The A3 needs the whole launch rod, however...


A10-3T......317'......Dv 15 FPS
A3-4T.......324'......Dv 13 FPS


Don't be afraid to try 13mm power in designs like this one. The final numbers will surprise you.

[CPMcGraw]

Andrew,

You've probably noticed the changes we've made here on the BARCLONE forums. We tried to update the way we handle design posts and discussions, so that everyone can locate our latest plans easier.

As you develop your new designs, go ahead and start a new thread for each one in the "Designer's Studio" sub-forum area. I haven't locked this thread down yet, but it will at the end of the year if not sooner. We also have a weblog site, where I post a few RockSim 3D pictures of designs. And I am "committing myself, before this decade is out, to complete the BARCLONE website" that I've been promising for the last few years...

[CPMcGraw]

Andrew,

I'm going to post both versions to the Master List. This is a great-looking design!

Thanks!

[InFlight]

I just got a box of parts from Semroc today so I will start building a 13mm version of the TAU JA-7 :D

I've been looking for a unique 13mm to build from scratch and this one caught my eye.

Look for a build thread in a few days here on YORF. ;)

[sj_h1]

What software was used to build these? Where can I get it.

[Ltvscout]

What software was used to build these? Where can I get it.
RockSim. You can learn about it, try it/buy it from here:

http://www.apogeerockets.com/rocksim.asp

[sj_h1]

I thought so. The problem with rocsim is that it is just too expensive! I would gladly pay $50 for designer software but $120+ is much too high.

[minatour87]

i have tried to convert a comache 3 over to an arrow 300 but my rocksim skills is low.
has anyone done this rocket in rocksim? or even a parts list from an old rocket?
The stage couplers are for me an issue with not knowing where to get them....
peace minatour87

[CPMcGraw]

i have tried to convert a comache 3 over to an arrow 300 but my rocksim skills is low.
has anyone done this rocket in rocksim? or even a parts list from an old rocket?
The stage couplers are for me an issue with not knowing where to get them....
peace minatour87

Greetings, minatour87!

As for parts availability, go with SEMROC (http://www.semroc.com) . You can match up every part on the Arrow 300 from his catalog. Attached below is a representaion using RockSim 9. I think it is very close to at least one variation that saw production.

The Arrow 300 was similar to the Comanche III, but used a class of engines that just don't exist today. Estes went with a 24mm first booster to compensate for the lack of 18mm engines with enough power to move the rocket off the pad. You will need to do the same when you try to fly this model. There are just no 18mm boosters available with the needed power.

[minatour87]

thanks for the reply, i am a born again in to the sport, 8th grade i had this rocket and wish to build it again, i have a just started a comanche 3 which is similar, i first thought it was the same but oh well, things change, I am now 40,
my son is 5 and this is a great sport for the both of us. I am learning allot. peace minatour87

[mycrofte]

I thought so. The problem with rocsim is that it is just too expensive! I would gladly pay $50 for designer software but $120+ is much too high.

Same here! It is kind of fun to mess with but the price is out of my range. I was hoping someone would put up the old version 8 in the auctions...