As a new BAR, my interests seem to be leaning toward scratch-built scale models, a facet of model rocketry that I only briefly touched on in the old days.

My question is: How do most of you scale modelers handle launch lugs on your birds?
Obviously, the standard 1/8 rod tube detracts considerably from true scale representations.

The most obvious answer is to launch from tower launchers.

Other solutions I see involve something like the old CMR pop-lugs. A non-scale slit would still have to be cut in the airframe for this. Not as noticeable as a glued-on tube lug, though.

I'm also toying with the idea of a 'strap on' section of body tube that would fit around the airframe, on which a standard lug is attached. This would be non-scale for launch, but is removable for display.

As a sidebar, I am impressed with the launch lug solution found on the old Estes K-11 semi-scale WAC Corporal, where they integrated the lug into the wiring shroud. Only thing is the prototype rocket had this shroud in line with one of the fins, which, of course Estes couldn't do because of the launch lug.

Anyway, what is the standard procedure for dealing with launch lugs that you guys use?

I have seen wire, bent in a couple of loops around a 3/16" rod, used as launch lugs. They were placed where the ends of the launch lug would reside if it were used. Still not to scale but less intrusive than a full lug.

__________________
Roy Tuinila

CMASS Member

NAR #90252

NARTREK Bronze

L1 w/Mega Der Red Max on an H87-IM-7

You can use a really short couple of lugs, or a couple of wire lugs, but the advent of rail guides gives you a removable lug option. Screw in, screw out. I like it.

Or a tower!

Don't forget CMR style pad retained lugs. Remember CMR?

Tech Scale Jerry

There's also "fly-away lugs" from Apogee... basically, they're a sort of "ring" that encloses the model, held together by the rod and "spring loaded" to fly apart with rubber bands. Once the rocket has left the launch rod, the halves are pulled apart by the rubber band and fly off the model, leaving it to fly onwards.

I usually just use short regular tubular lugs, cut at a 45 degree (roughly by eye) leading edge and a roughly 60 degree aft end, which makes them look MUCH more "aesthetically pleasing" and like they "belong" on the rocket-- sorta like some sort of 'camera pod' or something that was often added onto rockets (like the Saturn V, Saturn IB, and many others) for flight data and telemetry purposes. In the strictest sense, you're right, they don't belong, but then again, no matter HOW good, our models are NEVER 100% accurate in their representation of the prototype anyway. Certain functionality requirements (like fins for stability, and launch lugs) are just requirements for a flying model... requirements that make certain "inaccuracies" unavoidable, and which aren't present or required on 'static' models.

Later! OL J R

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

Thanks for all the replies, guys. I just wanted to pick your brains on this one. It's not like I'm going to be doing any scale model builds at the level of NAR competition, but I do wish to get the birds as close to authentic as my abilities allow.

Back in my earlier involvement in model rocketry, I made extensive use of the CMR pop lugs on nearly all of my high performance contest birds. I've actually found some pieces to one of those old lugs in my stash of earlier rocket stuff.

Right On!

One of the reasons I don't fill body tube sprials is due to the fact that many models are damaged before/after the first flight, not to mention I don't compete.

Bob

__________________
illegitimi non carborundum

NAR# 54643 L-1

SAM# 043

AMA# 157091

VRCS# 154

A&P# 42x xx xxxx.

I don't compete either (couldn't care less about competition) but I DO find that putting a great finish on a model (including filling the spiral seams, if they're noticeable) is kind of a matter of pride and REALLY improves the look of the rocket, ESPECIALLY semi-scalers and scalers...

Now, regular "3FNC" rockets, yeah-- why bother... but IMHO good finishing skills separate the "balsa butchers" from the real craftsmen... (at least that's how G. Harry Stine put it in "The Handbook of Model Rocketry"). I tend to agree, at least in principle. I freely admit that I think more highly of the skills of a rocketeer flying nicely-finished rockets rather than just 'slapdash' finished builds... but that's just me I guess...

Course, it IS a matter of personal preference and priorities... it's hard to see that pristinely finished rocket get road rash or do a shovel-recovery, but it happens. If some guy doesn't have a lot of time or patience or finishing skills and rather wants to build a bunch of rockets and go fly them without all the hassle, I can understand that. It IS a *hobby* after all... LOL

Later! OL J R

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

Scale, etc. I'm there... regular beaters and sport models not so much. I fill the grain, round
edges, etc.

FWIW,
I won 1st. in class at an IPMS contest in Dallas back in '89 entering a 1/72 PV-1 Ventura. 40+ hours work. Seams filled, all flying surfaces aligned, stretched sprue antennae, etc.

IPMS North Central Texas' judging criteria is based upon quality of build not outline. That's important! I've seen so-called inferior kits built that were jewels. Of course today's modern kits are something else...

Building time, is as we know, eaten by multiple processes - i.e. just painting the de-icer boots on the wings and stabs required masking, pre-painting, waiting to dry and then masking again before final painting-finishing, etc.. Modern International Plastic Modeler's Society entries/winners are something to behold!

Bob
p.s. FWIW, IPMS NCT was the first chapter formed in the USA - it originated in GB.

__________________
illegitimi non carborundum

NAR# 54643 L-1

SAM# 043

AMA# 157091

VRCS# 154

A&P# 42x xx xxxx.

http://www.papermodelers.com/

Enjoy! OL J R

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!