Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Swap Shoppe > Wanted: Dead or Alive!
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-24-2023, 05:53 PM
SolarYellow SolarYellow is offline
Craftsman
 
Join Date: Feb 2023
Posts: 201
Default

I'd also be curious to know whether the NC has changed since being introduced as plastic. The blow-molded NC in the now-just-discontinued-again kits has some particular, unique geometry. It makes up- or downscaling it by substitution of another COTS nose cone essentially impossible if you want it to look right. Wondering how far back that goes.

On the other hand, this is getting seriously OCD. The old instructions at JimZ show clearly, visibly different NC shapes on different rocket photos in the same instruction document in the balsa era. I gather from that that the balsa cones were pretty inconsistent, as in all over the place. Or perhaps just ended up that way after different builders were done sanding and filling them.

Also, just to note it, there's more different in the older vs. laser cut fins than the size. The laser cut fins have visibly more sweep and I think a little taper. I have not yet put scans of both in AutoCAD to quantify the differences, though.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-25-2023, 11:25 AM
ArkNorth's Avatar
ArkNorth ArkNorth is offline
Ye Old Rocket Feind
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Newtown, PA
Posts: 5
Send a message via AIM to ArkNorth
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarYellow
I'd also be curious to know whether the NC has changed since being introduced as plastic. The blow-molded NC in the now-just-discontinued-again kits has some particular, unique geometry. It makes up- or downscaling it by substitution of another COTS nose cone essentially impossible if you want it to look right. Wondering how far back that goes.


Using the catalogs as a guide, towards the end of the original kit's release, Estes Catalogs gave a visual cue in the form of icons below each model's description - the icon on the Goblin's still shows that the model was using the BNC-55AO clear to the end of its initial run. The plastic NC was for the modern era version only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarYellow
On the other hand, this is getting seriously OCD. The old instructions at JimZ show clearly, visibly different NC shapes on different rocket photos in the same instruction document in the balsa era. I gather from that that the balsa cones were pretty inconsistent, as in all over the place. Or perhaps just ended up that way after different builders were done sanding and filling them.


I currently have beside me my pair of Goblins - my modern plastic NC beast, and my barn find 1970 Freebie Kit that I recently restored, and I can see what you're on about the difference between the plan's kit photos and reality - as a former art director and kit manufacturer, I can give you a simple answer to this issue - what is pictured on the plans is the prototype with a hand-carved nose cone, as the first kit to use the BNC-55AO was the Goblin. The taper matches more closely to what came out with the PNC of the resent kit. To drive home this 'error', if it really is one (Prototypes always differ from their final design specs), is that in 1973's catalog, where all the rockets are rendered in paint, the artist obviously used the same pre-production photo as a guide, as the NC has the same flat inch or two before curving inwards at the tip. To drive home the fact that this was the case, a few pages down the line, we find a picture of the other rocket using the BNC-55AO at the time, the Astron BANDIT, with a nearly perfect shape, though not happily rendered, as you can see where the artist attempted to fix a curve error in the NC/Payload section of the rocket, and did not color match it well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarYellow
Also, just to note it, there's more different in the older vs. laser cut fins than the size. The laser cut fins have visibly more sweep and I think a little taper. I have not yet put scans of both in AutoCAD to quantify the differences, though.


Shape wise, I didn't see visually at first between these two beside me - making a simple paper template using a PostIt note and tracing the 1970 model's fin, then laying the laser cut version over it, there is a slight variation - Root edge, trailing edge and outer edge are all the same, but the leading edge, which has the same length along the root edge, tapers down ever so slightly at the outer edge by about 3/32 of an inch. Now this could have many variables for this issue - all classic Goblins used a template to make the fins, and the former owner couldn't cut straight - tracing a template to the balsa is always larger than planned, as the width of the pencil/pen's point would add thickness, and who cuts balsa on the inside of a traced line anyway? No one, I tell you, NO ONE!

The one thing I did notice while examining these two beside me, is the fact that the original model uses thicker balsa. The modern version is using 3/32" balsa for its fins, while the classic is 1/8". Note that in my restoring of the 1970 model, the fins were original and never flown, as the original owner had not installed an engine mount (unless he was trying to fly this thing on a 29mm - I think not). It arrive to me painted in Day-Glo Pink, with the balsa simply painted, not sealed beforehand, leaving the model with a bad case of balsa beard. I carefully removed all the fins since the numb-nuts also hadn't rounded the leading or trailing edges, and the glue was sub-par anyway. As for the engine mount, I dug out some spare CR-5055s, a section of BT-50 tubing and an EB-50. I purposefully did not add the engine hook, as it would get in the way of allowing the rocket to stand on its fins properly, and any good rocket fiend worth their salt knows how to friction fit an engine.

https://www.oldrocketforum.com/atta...tid=68025&stc=1
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:  IMG_1928sm.JPG
Views: 21
Size:  513.5 KB  
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-25-2023, 05:11 PM
SolarYellow SolarYellow is offline
Craftsman
 
Join Date: Feb 2023
Posts: 201
Default

Been meaning to do this for awhile. This thread finally prompted me to do it.

Pulled the scans of the laser cut fins and the old paper template from the JimZ archives into AutoCad and marked the lines, eyeballing to the center of the pixelated messes. Then put dimensions on them as would be needed to enter into OpenRocket on the free form fin option. Did all four of the fins on the lasered sheet and took an average; just did the one on the old paper template.

The result was not quite as great as I expected. Almost more interesting that a difference that subtle could actually be seen visually.

It does seem to indicate to me that a lot of the upscales and downscales available commercially in the marketplace are not very accurate in their reproduction of the original, either old or new, as there are really significant visual differences between the Estes fins and some of the other kits out there.

Anyway, here are the results, both visual and numeric. Old fin outline is green, new is orange. (ETA: swapped out the graphic with a new one IDing the outlines and aligned them at the TE root apex rather than the LE root apex, because that's how they're installed on the rocket.)

OCD can be a serious PITA, but I do like knowing answers.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:  Goblin fin dims 007237 vs K-55.png
Views: 10
Size:  67.3 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  Goblin fins 007237 vs K-55.png
Views: 6
Size:  19.4 KB  

Last edited by SolarYellow : 05-26-2023 at 10:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-25-2023, 09:17 PM
BEC's Avatar
BEC BEC is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auburn, Washington
Posts: 3,643
Default

As has been noted in other places (both here and on that other forum), a similar thing happened to the Alpha when they went from the SP-25 template/die cut fins (which match) to the laser cut fins (which differ from the originals about the same amount as you’re showing for the Goblin). I’m glad I’m not the only one who has looked at such things….
__________________
Bernard Cawley
NAR 89040 L1 - Life Member
SAM 0061
AMA 42160
KG7AIE
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-27-2023, 03:18 PM
jdbectec jdbectec is offline
the middle-aged rocketeer
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Urbana, Illinois.....the birthplace of HAL
Posts: 468
Default

The cutters used for balsa nosecones were notorious for wearing down.And then when they were sharpened they wouldn't be the same exact shape When you compare balsa nose cones from different years or possibly even the same they will not match the same because of the way the cutters worked.I based this on a discussion I had with Lee peister from centuri.
__________________
Jeffrey Deem
NAR16741
CIA section 527
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-27-2023, 10:47 PM
SolarYellow SolarYellow is offline
Craftsman
 
Join Date: Feb 2023
Posts: 201
Default

That's interesting, and makes sense in the pre-CNC era. There has been discussion of how the shapes of the Alpha and other nose cones changed over the years. Would be logical if that was the/a reason, at least in the balsa era.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:14 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2024