Centuri X-24 "Bug"

[Ironnerd]

HEY! Interestingly enough, this can also go under CARDSTOCK ROCKETRY... But I digress.

I have built a few cones that have kind of glided (glid?). One was just a cone with no fins or triangular bulkhead, the other was a Quest HL-20. Now I have 4 Noses for the X-24 (Mui-Arigatto SEMROC), and the body and fin patterns (Danke Jim Z). I also have a boiler plate model I use for Toss-n-glide testing.

My question is - do any of you'se guys have any real experience with this rocket? Any tricks, tips, or warnings?

My plan is to build one [almost] to the plans and try to get it to glide. Experience tells me to expect a rather steep glide-path, but my flying field is small, so that's a good thing. Then I'll start tinkering to get the best hang-time.

By "Almost" to plan, I mean that I will put the motor in an internal pop-pod with a streamer (NAR friendly), and I'll change to an internal launch lug.

Thanks for any advice (or warnings).

So... Any suggestions/comments/claims that I may be insane?

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Use fairly stout cardstock, because there have been instances of the rear edges of the shroud bending back into the exhaust stream and igniting the shroud. Glue the nose cone on securely because Estes shotgun ejection charges can really pack a punch.

[Doug Sams]

Use fairly stout cardstock, because there have been instances of the rear edges of the shroud bending back into the exhaust stream and igniting the shroud. Yeah, like this:

http://www.doug79.com/x24-bug/X24-3-3.jpg

FWIW, the C5-3 was the culprit. A C6-3 mighta not done this.

BTW, you'll want to read TIR-24, attached.

Doug

.

[Earl]

It is a fun little bird to fly, but does not glide super far. No real tricks to trimming; just add clay weight to the inside bottom until you can get some kind of a decent glide. May need to do some final trimming after the first flight.

I trimmed my vintage one back in '76 by tossing out of an upstairs window into the front yard.

With a C6-3 it leaves a decent smoke trail as it heads off the pad.


Earl

[Ironnerd]

Ah... I left something out.

I build my cones from 110 lb card stock, and add several "Longerons" lengthwise aft of the bulkhead.

I fly simple cones based on my glider cones sometimes. I have had one collapse due to wind-force and Krushnik effect. Once I added the longerons, I had no more troubles - even when launching on "D" motors.

The longerons themselves are strips of 110lb card stock folded to look like this when seen from the end "_/\_". They add rigidity and move the CG aft (a TWO-FER!).

[gpoehlein]

I built one pretty much stock a few years ago - printed it on 110# cardstock and I never had any trouble with the rear end bowing into the exhaust. I used the Yankee nose cone (which is a pretty close approximation of the original) and 1/4" foam core for the fibre board bulkhead. It flew fine until the cardstock started warping from age and gravity (time is not kind to cardstock models). If you use the plastic nose cone, you'll want to get some self adhesive label stock and stick that around the shoulder, then glue that to the body tube. Mine held up fine to the ejection charges.

Greg

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Yeah, like this:

http://www.doug79.com/x24-bug/X24-3-3.jpg

FWIW, the C5-3 was the culprit. A C6-3 mighta not done this.

BTW, you'll want to read TIR-24, attached.

Doug

.
:chuckle: I was going to name-check you, but I figured you'd chime in eventually. This was the image that I had in mind when I commented. :D

[Doug Sams]

This was the image that I had in mind when I commented. :DI wondered as much :)

Doug

.

[rosko_racer]

This was the first clone I did this year and worked on a few different looks for it. Enjoy!

[Ironnerd]

WOW! Good info!

And "Rosko_Racer": SWEET patterns! I'm gonna need more nose-cones...

Something occurred to me this morning; the FINS may be causing the cone to warp into the exhaust stream. The "corners" should be pretty stiff, but the sides have the fins are a less stiff, and carry the aero loads of the fins. I'll look into adding a bit of beefage in that area. None of my cones ever had fins, so they didn't have these loads.

Thanks, Guys!

[blackshire]

Below are links to information on two subjects for *scale* conical boost-gliders that would fulfill your needs (having low lift/drag ratios, so that they wouldn't glide beyond the boundaries of your flying field). Axisymmetric conical gliders such as these would fly best with an offset Center of Gravity (with the CG not in line with the centerline axis, but to one side). To more easily trim such models for good gliding characteristics, the trim ballast could be movable, capable of being slid forward and backward in a track and then being locked into position with a set screw.

As the Centuri Technical Information Report TIR-24 "Model Rocket Lifting Bodies" that Doug posted in Reply #3 above shows (see: http://sargrocket.org/Documents/Centuri/tir-24.pdf ), the offset CG gives a conical lifting body the proper pitch trim to provide aerodynamic lift for gliding, and it also provides the analog of dihedral in the wings of a conventional airplane (the triangular cross-sections of conical model rocket lifting bodies such as the X-24 Bug and the HL-20 provide actual dihedral). Also, space capsules that could/can maneuver during re-entry such as Gemini, Apollo, Soyuz, Zond, and Dragon also had/have offset centers of gravity to provide lift. Here are the links:

[1] The BGRV (Boost Glide Re-entry Vehicle, see: www.astronautix.com/craft/boohicle.htm and www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/BGRV.html ) was a test vehicle for a maneuverable ICBM re-entry vehicle that was launched aboard Atlas F missiles. The BGRV used thrusters and (I think, judging by the appearance of its aft end) movable hinged rectangular drag flaps. Several test flights in the late 1960s demonstrated its ability to suddenly maneuver to "fall short" as well as to strike targets out of the plane of (to either side of, that is) its ballistic trajectory.

[2] The Alpha Draco test vehicle (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Draco and www.robsv.com/cape/c10ad.html ) was a two-stage suborbital boost-glide re-entry test vehicle that validated the technology in 1959. It would make a nice scale model as a complete vehicle (booster + re-entry vehicle). In addition, here are links to documents on early maneuverable re-entry vehicles, including the BGRV and Alpha Draco (see: http://books.google.com/books?id=lN0w6X0PG3QC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=boost+glide+reentry+vehicle+bgrv&source=bl&ots=DyCA2eGfts&sig=y3XCZWbPYEgLhYLdkKx04qt49yo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=AK6OT4KeMsXPiALwzpn_Ag&ved=0CB0Q6AEwADgU and https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:XDj1n6LbJZAJ:www.afa.org/mitchell/reports/MP6_Hypersonics_0610.pdf+boost+glide+reentry+vehicle+bgrv&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj8ZQ02uANiZEju82LoIJhdcT5HjXe8z6KcQf7KuU3sQYM5u1ia8aoKNPTnL1CypaIXTPbbpqXL95XJcLuW0UnJLmjtaUY8nOjVrZg_7SQGubhaavNneDLHbliSe4YIJ3RGT1IN&sig=AHIEtbTvJOO-BblbSWiRmru6CerRhjgDRA )

I hope this information will be helpful.

[Ironnerd]

Thanks, blackshire!

I have always favored the PRIME and X-24B - but they flew like polished bricks. In the NASA book on the Lifting Bodies, one pilot even states that if one of the lifting bodies and a brick were dropped at the same time, the lifting body would touch ground first.

I did not know about the Alpha Drago - pretty slick. Could almost be a nose for a Nike Smoke ... hmmmm ...

My "SCALE" lifting body of choice is the FMX-4 "Facetmobile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facetmobile)"

One of the things I wanna try with the X-24 is staging. TIR-24 shows an X-24 being launched on a Little Joe. If the booster is under 10" it can be simply gap-staged. This would allow me to two of my favorite rocket things (Stage and Glide) at the SAME TIME! My Rubicon might work for this.

1: I gotta get building
2: I'll post pics

[blackshire]

Thanks, blackshire!

I have always favored the PRIME and X-24B - but they flew like polished bricks. In the NASA book on the Lifting Bodies, one pilot even states that if one of the lifting bodies and a brick were dropped at the same time, the lifting body would touch ground first.Did you mean the X-24A? In a "Popular Science" article at the time, John Manke (if memory serves) said that the long-nosed X-24B--to his pleasant surprise--had positive lift after separation, while the X-24A, M2-F2/M2-F3, and HL-10 all dropped like bombs after release from the B-52's wing pylon (I'd also read that comment regarding the brick).I did not know about the Alpha Drago - pretty slick. Could almost be a nose for a Nike Smoke ... hmmmm ...For an Alpha Draco scale model, the glide trim ballast could be placed in one of the four conical fairings, and the gliding second stage could be built so that the upper stage's motor (or motor mount, which could use streamer recovery) would eject itself to lighten the glider.My "SCALE" lifting body of choice is the FMX-4 "Facetmobile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facetmobile)"I remember that 'un...like Vincent Burnelli's flying wings, the Facetmobile is very crash-resistant. Its stall speed is also quite impressive--just 33 miles per hour! With its large exposed area, it would lend itself to solar cell-charged Li-Po electric battery power, which some full-scale motorgliders are already using (without the solar charging).One of the things I wanna try with the X-24 is staging. TIR-24 shows an X-24 being launched on a Little Joe. If the booster is under 10" it can be simply gap-staged. This would allow me to two of my favorite rocket things (Stage and Glide) at the SAME TIME! My Rubicon might work for this.

1: I gotta get building
2: I'll post picsYes--a BT-5 "stuffer tube" could help direct the burning propellant particles from the first stage motor up into the second stage motor's nozzle.

[Ironnerd]

Did you mean the X-24A?

Agreed. I forgot the X-24B fell slower than a brick :D


For an Alpha Draco scale model, the glide trim ballast could be placed in one of the four conical fairings, and the gliding second stage could be built so that the upper stage's motor (or motor mount, which could use streamer recovery) would eject itself to lighten the glider.

This will require more study

I remember that 'un...like Vincent Burnelli's flying wings, the Facetmobile is very crash-resistant. Its stall speed is also quite impressive--just 33 miles per hour! With its large exposed area, it would lend itself to solar cell-charged Li-Po electric battery power, which some full-scale motorgliders are already using (without the solar charging).

I was thinking the exact same thing - (great minds, etc...) the FMX-4 would be a great candidate for an electric plane (see also Sonex's Electric plane - very kewl)

Yes--a BT-5 "stuffer tube" could help direct the burning propellant particles from the first stage motor up into the second stage motor's nozzle.

'Twould be a hoot! The stuffer tube would be required or the X-24 would just be blown off the booster. It would make for a very "Observer Friendly" flight.
But first I gotta get these little guys sussed out. I know the term "peak performance" is pretty relative in this instance, but I'm curious to see how much hang time I can get from a cone.

[Doug Sams]

I used the Yankee nose cone (which is a pretty close approximation of the original) and 1/4" foam core for the fibre board bulkhead. Greg,

I've used the Yankee cone as well. But it does weigh several more grams than the balsa cone. And that means a few more grams of weight aft to balance it out. The result is that you can end up with even more of a brick :)

Don @ Squirrel Works turned me on to this tidbit of knowledge. And I can't argue with it. That is, I have had more problems trying to trim my Yankee-coned bugs than the balsa ones. So, while it's only a few grams, this barely gliding glider needs all the lightening help you can give it.

Doug

.

[MarkB.]

I seem to recall that the Centuri X-24 instructions suggested/recommended cutting the size of the fins down to improve boost performance. I did this as a kid after one of the fins tore on a cactus. I remember thinking the improvement was visibly noticeable both in boost and in glide.

Just a thought . . . .

EDIT: I just saw it in the tech report attached to another post.

[mikeyd]

I seem to recall that the Centuri X-24 instructions suggested/recommended cutting the size of the fins down to improve boost performance. I remember doing this as a kid after one of the fins tore on a cactus. I remember thinking the improvement was visably noticable both in boost and in glide.

Just a thought . . . .


As I recall, the instructions said you could leave the Fins off, and build a booster for it, basically using it as a nose cone.

[Ironnerd]

I am using balsa nose cones from Semroc - they are inexpensive and add lightness.

I plan to build four (4) of these things and compair performance.

1: Basically Stock
2: Stubby Finned
3: Finless
4: Dunno yet.

[blackshire]

I am using balsa nose cones from Semroc - they are inexpensive and add lightness.

I plan to build four (4) of these things and compair performance.

1: Basically Stock
2: Stubby Finned
3: Finless
4: Dunno yet.Although I haven't tried it myself, the stubby-finned "Semi-Finless X-24 'Bug'" described and illustrated in TIR-24 "Model Rocket Lifting Bodies" (see: http://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/tr/tir-24.pdf ) looks like it would perform well in both the powered ascent and gliding return portions of the flight. As the report says, "The addition of a little more rearward weight will coc.k the body's nose up to give longer, more gradual gliding returns." Also:

Eliminating most of the weight (as well as the drag) of the full-size fins by trimming them down for the semi-finless configuration would allow you to add that mass to the model's rear trim ballast instead, to coc.k the model's nose higher for better glide characteristics. (I apologize for having to mis-spell "coc.k" with an included period; the system's "dirty word detector" thinks I'm using that word in a vulgar manner--which I am not--and "blanks it out" with asterisks otherwise...*Sigh*) In addition:

A "triangular ring fin" (a ring fin whose perimeter follows the shape of the rear of the X-24's conical body) could be attached to the rear of the cone by three or more stubby (0.5" - 0.75" high) stand-off fins. If the chord of the ring fin is parallel to the model's direction of motion (if the chord *isn't* parallel to the cone's rearward sweep angle, in other words), its drag will be lower than that of a ring fin whose chord is parallel to the cone's rearward sweep angle.

[rosko_racer]

Although I haven't tried it myself, the stubby-finned "Semi-Finless X-24 'Bug'" described and illustrated in TIR-24 "Model Rocket Lifting Bodies" (see: http://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/tr/tir-24.pdf ) looks like it would perform well in both the powered ascent and gliding return portions of the flight. As the report says, "The addition of a little more rearward weight will coc.k the body's nose up to give longer, more gradual gliding returns." ...


Does this mean that I will have to rework my X-24 patterns to include a stubby fin version?

[blackshire]

Does this mean that I will have to rework my X-24 patterns to include a stubby fin version?This isn't a chore--it's an opportunity! I'm sure I am not the only YORF member (or model rocketeer in general) who would be interested in buying such "after market" 'semi-finless Bug' X-24 fin sets from you.

[MarkB.]

I'd buy a couple.

[blackshire]

I'd buy a couple.Comrade Korolev, that makes you a B*A*D Marxist-Leninist, to so descend into decadent capitalism!...but thank you for doing so!!! :-)

[blackshire]

-SNIP-
My plan is to build one [almost] to the plans and try to get it to glide. Experience tells me to expect a rather steep glide-path, but my flying field is small, so that's a good thing. Then I'll start tinkering to get the best hang-time.The X-24 Bug kit instructions (see: www.spacemodeling.org/JimZ/centuri/ka-12.pdf ) say that it has a ~2:1 glide ratio (it will travel forward about 2 meters for every 1 meter loss of altitude), so it is definitely (as its instructions also say) a good small-field boost-glider. Also:By "Almost" to plan, I mean that I will put the motor in an internal pop-pod with a streamer (NAR friendly), and I'll change to an internal launch lug.
-SNIP-The internal launch lug (glued to the side of the X-24 Bug's motor mount tube) is a very good idea, as it ensures a straight (and faster) departure off the launch rod, which is helpful if there is any wind. Surprisingly, the ejecting motor is no problem, even at NAR contests, as there is a simple solution to this problem:

There is no need to modify the X-24 Bug *itself* to make it "NAR contest-kosher" with regard to it ejecting its motor. The kit instructions for the Centuri Hummingbird boost-glider, which also ejects its motor (see: www.oldrocketplans.com/centuri/cenKF-2/KF-2.pdf ), describe and illustrate a little tip for getting around this problem (please see below).

For contest flying, one end of a 16" length of string is glued to the inside wall of the motor above the ejection charge cap, using a small square paper tab. The free end of the string is tied to one end of a rubber band (which is cut beforehand to create a single length). The other end of the rubber band is taped to one end of a crepe paper streamer. A tiny bit of recovery wadding is placed into the front of the motor (seated atop the ejection charge cap), the streamer and its string/rubber band shock cord are rolled up and inserted into the motor's front end, and then the motor is prepped with an igniter and is inserted into the model. To speed up the motor preparation at a contest, the lengths of string could be glued into the front ends of the contest motors at home. At the contest flying site, the streamer could be transferred from an expended motor to a fresh one if desired.

I hope this information will be helpful.

[blackshire]

This was the first clone I did this year and worked on a few different looks for it. Enjoy!Thank you for posting those X-24 Bug cardstock part sheets (in Reply #9, for any newcomers to this thread) with the creative variations on the original X-24 Bug decor scheme! (Having a somewhat slow internet connection, I didn't try looking at them yesterday.) The printed triangular former bulkheads are nice additional detail touches. All of your X-24 decor schemes would look great for X-24 Bugs built in the stubby-finned "semi-finless" configuration as well as in the "standard fin" configuration.

[Ironnerd]

There is no need to modify the X-24 Bug *itself* to make it "NAR contest-kosher" with regard to it ejecting its motor. The kit instructions for the Centuri Hummingbird boost-glider, which also ejects its motor (see: www.oldrocketplans.com/centuri/cenKF-2/KF-2.pdf (http://www.oldrocketplans.com/centuri/cenKF-2/KF-2.pdf) ), describe and illustrate a little tip for getting around this problem (please see below).
(snip)

Thanks! Them's some HI-lacious reserchin' skills! (and HI-Lacious may be the name of my next rocket...)

The only issue I see with the motor-streamer space. The Hummingbird flew on 1/2A and A motors which have a lot of empty space in ths case. The X-24 needs a "B", and there is not much room in there. Of course, I am going to try this method ;) . I mean it's a cool-simple solution, how could I not try it?

[blackshire]

Thanks! Them's some HI-lacious reserchin' skills! (and HI-Lacious may be the name of my next rocket...)You're most welcome. It wasn't research skills, though--just my equine visual memory. Also:The only issue I see with the motor-streamer space. The Hummingbird flew on 1/2A and A motors which have a lot of empty space in ths case. The X-24 needs a "B", and there is not much room in there. Of course, I am going to try this method ;) . I mean it's a cool-simple solution, how could I not try it?If you used an aluminized mylar streamer (although crepe paper should also work) and equipped the X-24 Bug with an ST-7 motor tube, the streamer could be taped to the middle of the motor case on the outside and be wrapped around the motor (European boost-glider competitors often do this to make their models "contest-legal"). An aluminized mylar streamer might (but might not) melt if wrapped around a "C" motor in that way, but a crepe paper streamer (especially one made of flame-proofed crepe paper) should work okay.

[blackshire]

Another X-24 Bug motor streamer idea just occurred to me:The only issue I see with the motor-streamer space. The Hummingbird flew on 1/2A and A motors which have a lot of empty space in ths case. The X-24 needs a "B", and there is not much room in there. Of course, I am going to try this method ;) . I mean it's a cool-simple solution, how could I not try it?Flame-proofed, brightly colored art tissue (the kind that is used to make paper hot-air balloons in school projects--Michael's and other craft stores sell it) might be ideal for recovering ejected motors from boost-gliders such as the X-24 Bug. The tissue is very thin, so it could be wrapped around an 18 mm motor and have room to fit inside an ST-7 motor tube (especially if you used the slightly narrower Quest motors). The art tissue is reasonably strong, and although streamers made from it could probably be used only once, the tissue is so cheap that this would not be a problem.

[the mole]

Another X-24 idea you might think about if you have a spare Saturn V laying around. :chuckle: Go to page four.

http://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/enerjet/ejn01.pdf

[Earl]

Another X-24 Bug motor streamer idea just occurred to me:Flame-proofed, brightly colored art tissue (the kind that is used to make paper hot-air balloons in school projects--Michael's and other craft stores sell it) might be ideal for recovering ejected motors from boost-gliders such as the X-24 Bug. The tissue is very thin, so it could be wrapped around an 18 mm motor and have room to fit inside an ST-7 motor tube (especially if you used the slightly narrower Quest motors). The art tissue is reasonably strong, and although streamers made from it could probably be used only once, the tissue is so cheap that this would not be a problem.

I used to use red crepe paper strips for engine mounted (inside the forward end of the motor) recovery streamers. I would buy the large crepe paper sheets at the local department store to cut my normal recovery wadding from (a la the Centuri recovery wadding which is what I started my rocketry endeavors with), but would also cut my various recovery streamers from the same material when needed.

The crepe paper in those large packages was dirt cheap compared to buying any commercially available recovery wadding from Centuri or Estes. I don't think I ever bought any chute wadding from either source and still use 'home cut' crepe paper wadding.

Earl

[blackshire]

Another X-24 idea you might think about if you have a spare Saturn V laying around. :chuckle: Go to page four.

http://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/enerjet/ejn01.pdfThank you for posting this! It calls to mind the intermediate early 1970s Space Shuttle designs which used a Saturn 5 S-IC first stage to boost various designs of winged orbiters with one or more external tanks. The X-24 in that stack is a stubby-finned "semi-finless" one. I wonder if they ever tried the 24" up-scaled X-24 with "pre-programmed guidance" that was mentioned in the article? The article on unibody staging on pages 2 and 3 (which could even be combined with clustering) is also very interesting.

[Ironnerd]

Another X-24 idea you might think about if you have a spare Saturn V laying around. :chuckle: Go to page four.

http://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/enerjet/ejn01.pdf

Very nice! I was going to use my Rubicon just because I almost never fly it anymore and it's close to the right size. But Semorc carries BT-101 which is only 3/100" off from being 1/100th scale diameter for a Saturn-V. A booster about that size would be pretty flippin' cool for the Bug.

Also, I have to comment on the guy in the photo: Moustache, pork-chops, turttle-neck, sport coat - that was one happanin' rocketeer.


I used to use red crepe paper strips for engine mounted (inside the forward end of the motor) recovery streamers. I would buy the large crepe paper sheets at the local department store to cut my normal recovery wadding from (a la the Centuri recovery wadding which is what I started my rocketry endeavors with), but would also cut my various recovery streamers from the same material when needed.


Not a bad idea. We use "DOG BARF" at our section launches, but most of my streamers are orange party-store streamer.


Flame-proofed, brightly colored art tissue (the kind that is used to make paper hot-air balloons in school projects--Michael's and other craft stores sell it) might be ideal for recovering ejected motors from boost-gliders such as the X-24 Bug. The tissue is very thin, so it could be wrapped around an 18 mm motor and have room to fit inside an ST-7 motor tube (especially if you used the slightly narrower Quest motors). The art tissue is reasonably strong, and although streamers made from it could probably be used only once, the tissue is so cheap that this would not be a problem.


I'm still leaning towards the 24mm motor mount. It allows a lot of flexability, like 24mm "D" motors... I have done this with finless cones, and it worked fine as long as I had the longerons installed. Without them, the cone collapses when launched on a "C".


I checked last night, and the streamer will fit into an 18mm "B" motor, so I will have to give that system a try. I'll drop a bit of Dog Barf into the motor, then slide the streamer in on top.

I have found that adding DB in the ejection end of the motor also reduces the amount of schmutz and gunk left in the cone, it also reduces burning (when you use a booster motor).

Thanks guys!

[Ironnerd]

The wife and kids are still sleeping, so I had time to work on three Bugs.

I have one that will not get an engine. I am using it to check glide trim for the others (best glide CG location). I call it Enterprise.

The others are:

Columbia:: Standard fins
Challenger: Stubby fins
Discovery: No fins (:eek: it's NEKKID!)

If I make three pop-pods, I'll be able to check performance differences with drag races.

I have fuselages for Atlantis and Endeavour but don't know which variant I'll use them for. One will use the Quest HL-20 shroud I have sitting on my desk.

Original names, I know, but why not?

[dlazarus6660]

The wife and kids are still sleeping, so I had time to work on three Bugs.

I have one that will not get an engine. I am using it to check glide trim for the others (best glide CG location). I call it Enterprise.

The others are:

Columbia:: Standard fins
Challenger: Stubby fins
Discovery: No fins (:eek: it's NEKKID!)

If I make three pop-pods, I'll be able to check performance differences with drag races.

I have fuselages for Atlantis and Endeavour but don't know which variant I'll use them for. One will use the Quest HL-20 shroud I have sitting on my desk.

Original names, I know, but why not?


Got any pic's?

[Ironnerd]

Got any pic's?

Funny you should ask...

In the first two pics, they are (from left to right) Enterprise, Columbia, Challenger, and Discovery.

The next two are of Columbia with the 24mm motor mount removed (I have not glued any of them in yet)

The last is the tail end of Enterprise to show the trim weights (2 U.S. pennies)

[Ironnerd]

And we have side views of Challenger and Discovery, and a look at the motor mount/nose cone/bulkhead assembly.

[blackshire]

Thank you for posting those pictures (and I concur with your name choices)! I noticed that Enterprise does not have the "inverted-Vee" semi-monocoque skin stiffener longerons (beams) that you mentioned earlier in this thread. Does Columbia (the 24 mm motor powered X-24 Bug) have them?

[Ironnerd]

Thank you for posting those pictures (and I concur with your name choices)! I noticed that Enterprise does not have the "inverted-Vee" semi-monocoque skin stiffener longerons (beams) that you mentioned earlier in this thread. Does Columbia (the 24 mm motor powered X-24 Bug) have them?

Your welcome! My wife gave me a few odd looks while I was taking the pics :rolleyes:

Enterprise doesn't need the longerons, but the remaining three will get them - I just need some spare time to whip them up. I'll post pics as soon as the glue dries. I still have to cut the slots for the launch rod.

Oh.. Trimming tip! - DO NOT glue the motor mount in place until trimming is almost complete. Enterprise has the bulkhead glued in only, this way, when the thing nose dives into the dirt, the nose-cone and motor tube just slide backwards. Since the fit into the bulkhead is pretty snug, it acts lie a shock-absorber preventing the nose cone from getting all banged up.

[MarkB.]

This is a cool thread.

I'd like to make a suggestion though: I think the fin design on the Quest HL-20 is superior to the old Centuri X-24 fin design. The folded leading edge on the HL-20 would seem to reduce surface drag by 50% and eliminating the three draggy lugs in the fins can't hurt either.

I'm not being critical, this is just a suggestion since you seem to be embarking on a development program. I am insanely jealous of anyone having the time to do this.

Perhaps the article with the HL-20 style fins could be Atlantis or Calypso or Beagle.

[Doug Sams]

I'd like to make a suggestion though: I think the fin design on the Quest HL-20 is superior to the old Centuri X-24 fin design. The folded leading edge on the HL-20 would seem to reduce surface drag by 50% and eliminating the three draggy lugs in the fins can't hurt either.

...this is just a suggestion...Great idea! I think it's just a matter of taking the old pattern and moving the sections around so that it can be folded that way. (Ie, some Photoshopping and Illustrator work.)

One other mod I prefer on these type designs is to mount the launch lug on the motor tube. The triangular ring thingy will need a relief cut in it for the lug, and the shroud forward will need a little hole cut in line with the lug. But the birds will move up the rod on-axis at launch, which should get them in the air with a little more velocity.

Doug

.

[blackshire]

This is a cool thread.Heartily agreed!I'd like to make a suggestion though: I think the fin design on the Quest HL-20 is superior to the old Centuri X-24 fin design. The folded leading edge on the HL-20 would seem to reduce surface drag by 50% and eliminating the three draggy lugs in the fins can't hurt either.Never having built a Quest HL-20, I'm wondering--are its fins simply folded over at their leading edges to create "two-ply" cardstock fins (whose inner faces are glued together, I would presume)? Or does each fin have a spanwise spar (a length of dowel, maybe?) that is glued between the fin skins at the (swept-back, of course) mid-chord line? That would stiffen and strengthen the fins and give them a double-wedge airfoil shape. (Yet another--and structurally strong--option would be to give the fins a single-wedge airfoil shape, like the X-15's vertical stabilizer fin and ventral fin.) Also:

In your experience, how well (or poorly) does the Quest HL-20's "Northrop HL-10-like" fin *placement* affect its boost stability and glide ratio as compared to the X-24 Bug's boost stability and glide ratio? (Just looking at both designs, I would guess that the X-24 Bug might boost straighter but that the HL-20's two outer fin "winglets" might enhance its lift/drag ratio when gliding, as well as improve its roll stability during the glide, because those two fins' dihedral would "amplify" the dihedral effect of the cone fuselage's triangular cross-section.)I'm not being critical, this is just a suggestion since you seem to be embarking on a development program. I am insanely jealous of anyone having the time to do this.Or in my case, having the energy and the model-building space! :-)Perhaps the article with the HL-20 style fins could be Atlantis or Calypso or Beagle.Anything other than Baychimo or Marie Celeste... :-)

[Ironnerd]

Whoa... lotsa feedback.

I do prefer the HL-20-style fins. They are a little more aerodynamic as well as being stiffer.

The main difference is that the HL-20 fins are folded along the leading edge into a "V" shape with the tip glued closed but the root and trailing edge open. No spars or anything inside. I was just going to make a little strip of cardstock, fold it in half and glue it inside the leading edge of the X-24 fins.

The HL-20 goes pretty straight up. It wobbles somewhat, but I think that is due mostly to the launch lug being on the outside of the fuselage. As far as the glide... I don't know:rolleyes: . Neither glide terrably well - Centuri stated a 2:1 glide ratio, and my HL-20 came reasonably close to that. (DANG! looks like I gotta build that thing after all - Atlantis)

One of the reasons I wanted to give the X-24 a try was because it is a really easy model the requires very little time (or money) to assemble (no sanding or painting).


PROPOSED NAMES FOR ENDEAVOUR: (from NASA web site (http://www2.gcs.k12.in.us/bholt/Proposed%20Names.htm))
Adventure, Calypso, Chatham, Deepstar, Desire, Dove
Godspeed, Horizon, Nautilus, North Star, Pathfinder
Phoenix, Resolution, Trieste, Victoria, Victory, Blake,
Hokule'a, Eagle, Endurance, Griffin, Gulf Stream,
Investigator, Meteor, Polar Star, Rising Star, Royal Tern

[rosko_racer]

Whoa... lotsa feedback.

I do prefer the HL-20-style fins. They are a little more aerodynamic as well as being stiffer.



Has anyone consider a Hybrid of both desings? Sounds interesting. I am extremely busy for rocketry for the next three weeks to take up this challenge, but maybe a fellow rocketeer can take up this challenge and report their findings... Just thinking...

[Ironnerd]

I'm going to do at least one X-24 with the "wedge fins" like the HL-20 uses. Depends on which one has the best hang time. Looks like it will be VERY Endeavour (built from spare parts).

[naoto]

A relative to the X-24 Bug?
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/UFO_ShadoLiftingBody/ShadoLiftingBodyTop.htm

[Ironnerd]

Innnnnteresting, Naoto...

UFO came out about 2 years before the X-24 appeared in the Centuri catalogue. I wonder if Mr Piester was/is a fan of the show...

[Earl]

Innnnnteresting, Naoto...

UFO came out about 2 years before the X-24 appeared in the Centuri catalogue. I wonder if Mr Piester was/is a fan of the show...

Could have been though I think Larry Brown of the Centuri staff specifically developed their X-24 product if I recall correctly. but no telling what his actual influences may have been for the final design.


Earl

[Ironnerd]

Okay. I got a few minutes so I uploaded these

First pic: Columbia, Challenger, and Discovery showing longerons and balance weights

Second pic: Columbia - back end (yeah... I got the bulkhead off-center...:rolleyes:)

[Doug Sams]

(yeah... I got the bulkhead off-center...:rolleyes:)Yeah, I did that with my first one, too. It's sorta like a fat woman with her skirt on crooked, eh? :D

Doug

.

[Ironnerd]

I have since learned to get everything lined up, put a drop of glue at each cover of the bulkhead, and set the model nose down in an empty cup to dry. THEN glue around the rest of the bulkhead.

Challenger and Discovery have much better alignment, and smoother exterior (Columbia has a pucker just in front of the bulkhead, but it's very slight - not enough to affect performance)

[blackshire]

Okay. I got a few minutes so I uploaded these

First pic: Columbia, Challenger, and Discovery showing longerons and balance weights

Second pic: Columbia - back end (yeah... I got the bulkhead off-center...:rolleyes:)Thank you for posting those! For very high-acceleration flights (using Aerotech composite propellant D21 motors), the longerons could be "tied together" with one or two transverse triangular frames (lengths of dowel might serve) to give the cone strength in compression against the airflow during powered ascent (although the cone might experience "paper fatigue" structural failure after not too many D21-powered flights!).

[blackshire]

Whoa, naoto...that UFO SHADO lifting body (which I'd never seen before--thank you for posting the link!) whose photographs you posted (here's the link again: www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/UFO_ShadoLiftingBody/ShadoLiftingBodyTop.htm ) looks like the Dove lander in the 1969 film "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" (also called "Doppelgänger," see: www.cloudster.com/sets&vehicles/Doppleganger/DoveTop.htm ). Since Gerry and Sylvia Anderson worked on both "Doppelgänger" and UFO, the resemblance between the two spacecraft is not coincidental. Interesting, the logo for EUROSEC (EUROpean Space Exploration Council) on the vertical stabilizer of Dove resembles the symbol for the euro currency. Also:

The SHADO lifting body pretty strongly resembles the hypothetical orbital lifting body that is illustrated and described in the section entitled "A Real Vehicle Concept" on page 2 of Centuri's Technical Information Report "TIR-24 Model Rocket Lifting Bodies" (see: www.spacemodeling.org/JimZ/tr/tir-24.pdf ). In addition:

The European Space Agency plans to test its IXV (Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_eXperimental_Vehicle ) lifting body in an orbital flight next year; the IXV will be launched aboard ESA's new Vega satellite launch vehicle. It is rather like a finless X-24 Bug, although it is flat-bottomed like the Martin X-23A (SV-5D) and X-24A lifting bodies.

[Ironnerd]

For very high-acceleration flights (using Aerotech composite propellant D21 motors), the longerons could be "tied together" with one or two transverse triangular frames (lengths of dowel might serve) to give the cone strength in compression against the airflow during powered ascent ...

What the model needs is a LONG burning motor of moderate thrust and short delay - like a D6-2

[naoto]

Might as well mention these too:
ASSET: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/asset.htm
Winged Gemini: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/winemini.htm

And just how many different configurations of Kliper have they gone through anyway?
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm


speaking of unusual lifting body...
http://www.facetmobile.com/

[blackshire]

What the model needs is a LONG burning motor of moderate thrust and short delay - like a D6-2Yes. I'm not as familiar with Aerotech's motors as with Estes' and Quest's, but if memory serves they have a D10 single-use 18 mm motor and D3 reloads for their reloadable 18 mm motors (I'd definitely use streamer recovery to more gently lower--and find after landing--the reloadable motor case!).

[blackshire]

Might as well mention these too:
ASSET: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/asset.htm
Winged Gemini: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/winemini.htm

And just how many different configurations of Kliper have they gone through anyway?
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm


speaking of unusual lifting body...
http://www.facetmobile.com/With its flat, "low-wing" bottom side, an X-24 Bug-type ASSET boost-glider might "want" to glide upside down, but "dihedraled" clear plastic fins attached to the tips of its wings would remedy any such tendency. The winged Gemini would be perfect for an X-24 Bug-type boost-glider... Also:

I don't remember its name (but I saw it on Astronautix.com), but the Russians also studied a considerably larger "winglet-less" lifting body some years before Kliper as a Soyuz replacement (it looked rather like Kliper, but had a higher fineness ratio). What killed it was its size--it was so large (over 40 feet long, if memory serves) that it would have landed nose-down into the soil under parachutes, and removing it from its landing site for checkout and reuse would have been very difficult. The facetmobile has come up on here before--Dr. Zooch makes a parasite boost-glider that is also faceted.

[Ironnerd]

Of all the NASA/USAF lifting bodies, the X-24B flew the best - I hope to give that one a try one day.

The M2-F3 would be the easiest to model and launch

The HL-10 would not be too bad, but would be a pain to launch w/o radio control, it was the second best flier (to the X-24B)

The X-24A/PRIME is the hardest to model (in paper), and the hardest to launch.

PRIME would not be too bad, but like Winged Gemini, it would have... wings.

Besides, this is not an experiment to find the best paper lifting body (the Facetmobile is gonna be really hard to beat), it is to find the best configuration for the X-24 "Bug".

[blackshire]

Of all the NASA/USAF lifting bodies, the X-24B flew the best - I hope to give that one a try one day.

The M2-F3 would be the easiest to model and launch

The HL-10 would not be too bad, but would be a pain to launch w/o radio control, it was the second best flier (to the X-24B)

The X-24A/PRIME is the hardest to model (in paper), and the hardest to launch.

PRIME would not be too bad, but like Winged Gemini, it would have... wings.

Besides, this is not an experiment to find the best paper lifting body (the Facetmobile is gonna be really hard to beat), it is to find the best configuration for the X-24 "Bug".I'm not sure what you meant about PRIME (the unmanned X-23A test vehicle [also called SV-5D], three examples of which tested high cross-range re-entries at near-orbital velocities after being launched from Vandenberg AFB atop Atlas ICBMs). The X-23A was identical in shape to the larger, piloted X-24A lifting body; the only external difference between the two was that the X-24A had a third, center-mounted vertical stabilizer that improved the effectiveness of the two outward-angled fins (the M2-F2 was also fitted with a center fin when it was re-built after its crash, after which it was re-designated M2-F3). The two outward-angled fins on the X-23A and the X-24A no doubt produced a little bit of lift (they were like "extreme dihedral wings"), but their primary function was as vertical stabilizers with rudders (although I think the X-23A used thrusters for yaw control and only had two lower body flap control surfaces).

[naoto]

You don't have to be an astronaut/cosmonaut to "pilot" a Lifting body -- the "Star Jets" attraction (basically the the same ride that was called "Rocket Jets" at Disneyland in Anaheim) in Tokyo Disneyland.
http://www.tokyodisneyresort.co.jp/en/tdl/atrc/tomorrow/jets/index.html

[mycrofte]

Of the lifting body test craft, the HL-10 is still my favorite...
______________________

[naoto]

Of the lifting body test craft, the HL-10 is still my favorite...
______________________
Ah yes... the one that astronaut Steve Austin flew in...

Never quite figured out how he switches between HL-10 and M2F2 during that fateful flight...

[mycrofte]

Ah yes... the one that astronaut Steve Austin flew in...

Never quite figured out how he switches between HL-10 and M2F2 during that fateful flight...

That show may be part of the reason none of my GI Joe stuff survived...
________

[Bill]

That show may be part of the reason none of my GI Joe stuff survived...
________


...so you didn't have the technology...


Bill

[blackshire]

Speaking of the HL-10, in one of the Centuri "Enerjet News" or CAT (Centuri Aerospace Team) publications (whose scans are on the Ninfinger web site and/or the "Ye Olde Rocket Plans" web site--I don't remember which site I saw it on), there is a brief article about an HL-10-like boost-glider that was made from an Egg Capsule kit (the same one Estes later used in one of their egglofter kits). The lifting body glider used the lightweight, thin-walled blow-molded egg capsule nose cone (which looks like a larger version of the Big Bertha's blow-molded nose cone) and a length of the egg capsule tubing, with two outward-angled fins and a central vertical stabilizer (which resembled those of the HL-10) glued onto the rear end of the tube. Also:

The glider was slipped over the nose cone of a carrier rocket and slipped off at ejection. If memory serves, the article said that they were going to try the glider with an internal power pod whose motor tube would be offset from the glider's axis because of its asymmetrical shape. I'll look for this publication and post a link when I find it.

[Earl]

Speaking of the HL-10, in one of the Centuri "Enerjet News" or CAT (Centuri Aerospace Team) publications (whose scans are on the Ninfinger web site and/or the "Ye Olde Rocket Plans" web site--I don't remember which site I saw it on), there is a brief article about an HL-10-like boost-glider that was made from an Egg Capsule kit (the same one Estes later used in one of their egglofter kits). The lifting body glider used the lightweight, thin-walled blow-molded egg capsule nose cone (which looks like a larger version of the Big Bertha's blow-molded nose cone) and a length of the egg capsule tubing, with two outward-angled fins and a central vertical stabilizer (which resembled those of the HL-10) glued onto the rear end of the tube. Also:

The glider was slipped over the nose cone of a carrier rocket and slipped off at ejection. If memory serves, the article said that they were going to try the glider with an internal power pod whose motor tube would be offset from the glider's axis because of its asymmetrical shape. I'll look for this publication and post a link when I find it.


It was one of the 'Enerjet News' issues....on the front page, but I don't recall which issue....maybe Issue 3 or 4.

Earl

[blackshire]

It was one of the 'Enerjet News' issues....on the front page, but I don't recall which issue....maybe Issue 3 or 4.

EarlThank you, Earl--here it is! (See: http://www.oldrocketplans.com/pubs/Enerjet/1-73/enerjet173.htm ). They called this "scale inspired" lifting body the PRIME, and the text mentions using an internal motor pod with B4-2 motors for trimming flights.

[Ironnerd]

I wonder if the Baby Bertha nose would work for this...

[blackshire]

I wonder if the Baby Bertha nose would work for this...That thought crossed my mind as well...if nothing else (even if it's heavier), I'll bet it would make a good windy-day boost-glider because of the PRIME design's high "wing loading."

[blackshire]

Something else just occurred to me regarding the Centuri PRIME lifting body's design (see: http://www.oldrocketplans.com/pubs/Enerjet/1-73/enerjet173.htm ). Just as there are airplane wings with asymmetrical (flat-bottomed) airfoils and airplane wings with symmetrical airfoils (aerobatic planes use symmetrical airfoils--they fly at a slight positive angle of attack to produce lift, whether they're flying upright or flying inverted), lifting bodies could also use either type of airfoil shape. Also:

The Centuri PRIME is an example of a "symmetrical airfoil lifting body," which glides at a slight nose-up angle in order to produce lift. (The biconical re-entry vehicles such as the BGRV, Alpha Draco, and Blue Origin's capsule are "symmetrical airfoil lifting bodies.") This means that nose cone/body tube combinations can also--if fitted with appropriate tail surfaces--function as such lifting bodies.

[Ironnerd]

Wow! Has it been so long since I built these things?

Well... I might actually get to go to a launch this weekend and MAYBE test my "gliders".

Wish me luck - I still need to trim all three of them.

Update: They seem mostly trimmed, but the field was still damp from rain over the last few days. Not bad for painted models, but I have found that ink-on-cardstock does not last long when it gets damp... Hopefully I'll fly them in two weeks.

[Ironnerd]

I figured it would be nice to have some "Coloring Book" sheets for the X-24. Now you can customize them all you like - fun for the whole family!

[Ironnerd]

Well, this has been a rather protracted saga...

I finally flew my Bugs. The best glide was the version with big fins.

SoAR had a launch on the 11th of August and me and another guy flew our bugs drag race style, only in this version the LAST one to touch the ground was the winner (kind of "comparative duration", I guess).

My bug won, mostly because I have an internal launch lug, and that allows for a straight take-off and boost (versus the standard external lug), resulting in greater altitude. The bug also stayed up longer than the HL-20.

I still need to work on the trimming though, it still tends to stall, then enter a one-turn spin before recovering to a pretty nice glide for a few seconds. I just need to file the pennies down a hair to lower the nose a tiny little bit.

[naoto]

I don't recall if I'd mentioned yet another lifting body craft that appeared in a Gerry Anderson production -- the re-entry glider that appeared in the Space 1999 episode "immunity Syndrome".
http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/models/glider/w2mglider.html

[Ironnerd]

VERY nice! The models for Space: 1999 we all pretty cool. I have always liked the Eagles.

I actually tried a lifting body that was similar in shape to the Hyper III. I could never get it to fly very well at all. It was EXTREMELY sensitive to CG, to the point where I was trimming it with bits of masking tape I punched out of a paper hole puncher.

The best lifting body glider I have built is a model of the FMX-4 Facetmobile. It's a nice slope glider, but as a rocket, it would have to be a shuttle-type piggy-back model - and those just don't appeal to me right now.

[naoto]

On the topic of fictitious lifting body craft... Here's two that might be a bit obscure:
http://homepage2.nifty.com/celluloid/WFreport.htm
(scroll down a bit - about halfway down)
The dark grey one is the Jade III that appeared in the live-action film "Sayonara Jupiter" [aka "Bye Bye Jupiter"] made by the famous Japanese studio Toho Studios (probably best known for folks for their "tokusatsu" [special effect] and "kaiju" [monster] films such as Chikyuu Boueigun [aka The Mysterians], Kaitei Gunkan [aka Atragon], Gorjira [aka Godzilla], Mosura [aka Mothra], Radon [aka Rodan], etc.). Story-wise the film "Sayonara Jupiter" wasn't so good (it's got a mish-mash of story elements that are barely held together -- you've got mysterious geoglyphs on Mars, "space-whale" on Jupiter, a plan to convert the planet Jupiter into a second sun, environmentalist hippies turned terrorsts, a black hole, and a dolphin named Jupiter), but the "old-school" miniature work was pretty darned good.
The white-coloured one is the NASA/Northrop F-1 SuperBird Type C -- which was an ancestor of the "Ghost" automated fighter craft from the 1980s anime Macross (which was one of three unrelated anime that was combined to by Harmony Gold to be released in USA as "Robotech").
SuperBird: http://www3.ocn.ne.jp/~tac1991/m01.htm
QF-3000 Ghost: http://www.macross2.net/m3/sdfmacross/qf3000e-ghost.htm


.... and on the topic of real-life vehicles, how about the Aereon 26? (I remember reading a short article back in the early 1970s in which it was mentioned -- can't remember if it was Popular Science or Popular Mechanics -- the article was about hybrid vehicles combining aspects of lighter-than-air aspects of dirigible and lifiting body)
http://www.aereoncorp.com/pages/aereon26.html
http://eb-misfit.blogspot.com/2011/05/forgotten-aircraft.html

[stantonjtroy]

Yeah, like this:

http://www.doug79.com/x24-bug/X24-3-3.jpg

FWIW, the C5-3 was the culprit. A C6-3 mighta not done this.

BTW, you'll want to read TIR-24, attached.

Doug

.

Had the EXACT same thing happen to my clone.

[blackshire]

On the topic of fictitious lifting body craft... Here's two that might be a bit obscure:
http://homepage2.nifty.com/celluloid/WFreport.htm
(scroll down a bit - about halfway down)
The dark grey one is the Jade III that appeared in the live-action film "Sayonara Jupiter" [aka "Bye Bye Jupiter"] made by the famous Japanese studio Toho Studios (probably best known for folks for their "tokusatsu" [special effect] and "kaiju" [monster] films such as Chikyuu Boueigun [aka The Mysterians], Kaitei Gunkan [aka Atragon], Gorjira [aka Godzilla], Mosura [aka Mothra], Radon [aka Rodan], etc.). Story-wise the film "Sayonara Jupiter" wasn't so good (it's got a mish-mash of story elements that are barely held together -- you've got mysterious geoglyphs on Mars, "space-whale" on Jupiter, a plan to convert the planet Jupiter into a second sun, environmentalist hippies turned terrorsts, a black hole, and a dolphin named Jupiter), but the "old-school" miniature work was pretty darned good.
The white-coloured one is the NASA/Northrop F-1 SuperBird Type C -- which was an ancestor of the "Ghost" automated fighter craft from the 1980s anime Macross (which was one of three unrelated anime that was combined to by Harmony Gold to be released in USA as "Robotech").
SuperBird: http://www3.ocn.ne.jp/~tac1991/m01.htm
QF-3000 Ghost: http://www.macross2.net/m3/sdfmacross/qf3000e-ghost.htm


.... and on the topic of real-life vehicles, how about the Aereon 26? (I remember reading a short article back in the early 1970s in which it was mentioned -- can't remember if it was Popular Science or Popular Mechanics -- the article was about hybrid vehicles combining aspects of lighter-than-air aspects of dirigible and lifiting body)
http://www.aereoncorp.com/pages/aereon26.html
http://eb-misfit.blogspot.com/2011/05/forgotten-aircraft.htmlThere is an actual lifting body, the DARPA HTV-2 hypersonic test vehicle (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_Technology_Vehicle ), that rather resembles the fictional Icarus spaceship from the original "Planet of the Apes" movies. Also, John McPhee's book "The Deltoid Pumpkin Seed" contains material on the Aereon lifting body airships.

[mycrofte]

Looks like most of those models could be made into rockets.

At the very least, a Bug could be colored to look like the Jade III. So, I may have some work to do...
_________________________________________________

[Ironnerd]

Had the EXACT same thing happen to my clone.

The little longerons shown here actually do help to stiffen the X-24:
http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=145010&postcount=48

I have launched round cones on D12's and never had a collapse. The cones don't fly quite as well as the bugs.

[mycrofte]

Thought I would try the Jade III skin on one. Thought I might get a second opinion here.
_______________________________________________________________________

[Ironnerd]

Not bad. Not bad at all!

So... yer gonna share that, right?

[mycrofte]

It is a very simple layout. Thought I would get some feedback before uploading a finished version.
_______________________________________________________________________________

[mycrofte]

Seems you are the only one interested so I may as well put it up here as is.

The "C" is windowed and the "D" is not to use the cockpit.
____________________________________________________________

[Ironnerd]

VERY nice.

Thanks-you for posting these. I am acquiring quite a collection of X-24 shrouds, one day I hope to build them all.

[stantonjtroy]

Okay. I got a few minutes so I uploaded these

First pic: Columbia, Challenger, and Discovery showing longerons and balance weights

Second pic: Columbia - back end (yeah... I got the bulkhead off-center...:rolleyes:)


Thanks for the heads up. I'll incorperate them into my next build.

[Ironnerd]

Columbia, the "full finned" variant glides the best even though it still needs some fine-tuning.
Discovery, the "Finless" variant was the easiest to trim, but it glides like sack of marbles. It will be modified to add full-size fins. I have some ideas on the fins for this one based on some stuff I learned from "White Wings" gliders.
Challenger, the "Stubby Fin" variant performs somewhere between the other two, but is close to Discovery. I plan on re-finning this one as well.

Next time I fly them, I'll take along a stopwatch and see what kind of hang-time I get.

[MarkB.]

Don't be fooled if nobody posts, this is one of my favorite threads, please keep posting. The part about instaling a launch lug on the centerline was absolutely golden.

I was wondering if you had built an X-24 with the folded fins like on the Quest HL-20 (placing regular-sized X-24 fins but of folded wedge shape in the regular X-24 locations) and if so how did it perform compared to the "regular" X-24s.

Please keep posting. I'm also saving the skins.

[mycrofte]

I was thinking about making fins like that. I had forgotten about the Quest version.
___________________________________________________________________

[Ironnerd]

I was going to modify the finless Discovery with the Quest HL-20-style fins in the locations for the X-24.

The Stub-finned Challenger will get "modified" X-24 fins in the normal X-24 locations. Beefed up a little, maybe with rounded leading edges.

I'm thinking of using the X-24 fins in the HL-20 locations on the next version I build.

I gotta order some stuff from Semroc anyway - may as well toss in a couple more nose cones.

[blackshire]

Don't be fooled if nobody posts, this is one of my favorite threads, please keep posting. The part about instaling a launch lug on the centerline was absolutely golden.

I was wondering if you had built an X-24 with the folded fins like on the Quest HL-20 (placing regular-sized X-24 fins but of folded wedge shape in the regular X-24 locations) and if so how did it perform compared to the "regular" X-24s.

Please keep posting. I'm also saving the skins.Seconded! I'm reading this thread to learn about the modifications. The Quest HL-20 version should have a better L/D ratio (not to mention better roll stability and damping of "disturbed motions") because of the winglets' positive dihedral. Also, at high angles of attack (nose-high attitudes), winglet tip plate rudders should be more effective than the HL-20's center-mounted vertical stabilizer, because it is on the "lee side" of the body when it's gliding with its nose high; the twin tails could each be smaller than the single vertical stabilizer.

[mycrofte]

Getting interested in the HL-20, I noticed it might be hard to replace the canopy. Therefore, I designed one for cardstock.
_________________________________________________________________

[blackshire]

Getting interested in the HL-20, I noticed it might be hard to replace the canopy. Therefore, I designed one for cardstock.
_________________________________________________________________Thank you! Yes, those three Quest HL-20 canopy variations are definitely easier to replicate in cardstock--in fact, the SV-5D PRIME (the X-23A) and the X-24A and B lifting bodies all had canopies (simulated and actual) that, while having rounded corners, were basically similar to yours.

[Ironnerd]

I have actually considered using the canopy from the Vulcan. It has a bit in common with the X-24 (same construction, same bulkhead), and has TWO canopy patterns.

[LINK (http://www.spacemodeling.org/JimZ/centuri/ka-10e.jpg)] (the picture is too big to post on a forum)


For a greater glide ratio, you could always "cheat" (see attached).

[mycrofte]

I redrew the files for the HL-20 into normal PDF sheets to print out but wanted something different. So, I went for a steampunk version. I was going to put it up for review but the file is to big.
______________________________________________

Well, I managed to create a crappy but viewable version to upload.
______________________________________________________

[Ironnerd]

GASP!!!!

WINGS!

You're cheating!!!!! And I could see myself building one of those :)

So, other than the paint job and the plywood bulkhead, are there any other differences between the X-24 and X-RV?

I redrew the files for the HL-20 into normal PDF sheets to print out but wanted something different. So, I went for a steampunk version. I was going to put it up for review but the file is to big.
______________________________________________

Well, I managed to create a crappy but viewable version to upload.
______________________________________________________

Pretty cool - but if it's gonna be Steampunk it need a LOT more... "Stuff". Still, an excellent start!

[mycrofte]

Well, I added more stuff, but we'll see...
________________________________

[Ironnerd]

Dude! That's pretty darn cool!

[mycrofte]

Been busy working. I'll have to do the fins next. What do you think, scalloped bat wings or straight?
_______________________________________________________________________________

[dlazarus6660]

Been busy working. I'll have to do the fins next. What do you think, scalloped bat wings or straight?
_______________________________________________________________________________


Both, of course! :rolleyes:

[mycrofte]

Here are a set of straight fins for the steampunk. And yes, it takes a lot of time placing those rivets!
________________________________________________________________________________

[mycrofte]

This is an attempt at curved fins. Turned out to be tougher than I expected. Let me know what you think.
___________________________

[Ironnerd]

MYCROFTE - that is some excellent work!

[mycrofte]

Thanks. Wish I could get paid for design work but so far it is just a hobby.
__________________________________________________________

[blackshire]

Thanks. Wish I could get paid for design work but so far it is just a hobby.
__________________________________________________________An idea (for how you *could* make money from your design work--I've included a similar example below): Why not create and sell a self-published (through CreateSpace.com www.createspace.com or Lulu.com www.lulu.com ) book of your designs? Here is a similar example (and below it, I've included a few more ideas that are pertinent to your design work):

Norman Schmidt's book "Fabulous Paper Gliders" (see: www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Schmidt%2C+Norman&sts=t&tn=Fabulous+Paper+Gliders ) contains "scan-able/photocopy-able" patterns for simple, flying scale models of historic gliders, which the readers can photocopy onto 8-1/2" X 11" sheets of 110 pound cardstock. Complete instructions for building, trimming, flying, and even storing the model gliders are provided. The illustrated text describes each glider and explains (with accompanying drawings) how motorless aircraft work, including lift/drag ratios, the different types of soaring (slope, thermal, and mountain wave), the finer points of trimming full-scale sailplanes, etc. The history of soaring and the pioneers of soaring (Otto Lilienthal, the Wright Brothers, etc.) are also covered. This is an educational book that was written for school use, so teachers also find it useful. Also:

You could create a similarly-formatted book (which could include cardstock model rockets similar to these Civil Air Patrol ones www.nmcap.org/ae/Activities/ , as well as your X-24 "Bug" fuselage shrouds) that would be aimed at model rocketeers, including beginners in the hobby. Such a book of "roll-your-own" cardstock model rockets would also be an inexpensive option for teachers who want to utilize model rocketry in their schools. In addition to their educational value in STEM courses, such rockets would also be good for use in Industrial Arts classes. What do you think? In addition:

CreateSpace.com and Lulu.com handle all of the book order-taking and shipping, so that the author doesn't have to. CreateSpace.com-published books are advertised on Amazon.com, and Lulu.com has a marketing arrangement with Amazon.com. CreateSpace.com and Lulu.com make a percentage on each book sold, and the author retains the copyright to his or her work. I have my book (whose link is below, in my sig file) published by Lulu.com.

[Ironnerd]

So... you are thinking about a book full of printable paper rockets?

Things like the X-24/HL-20, Quest NASP, Applewhite-style saucers, and other similar models.

You print the thing out on card stock, cut out parts, and glue together sort of like White-Wings?

[Jerry Irvine]

Is there a need for a dealer available paper skin rocket series? If so perhaps I would consider perhaps 5 of the best 50 designs.

DIY or custom or downloadable is great, but at some point you all realize the reason this thread on X-24 Bug is so popular is because most people got one in their LHS, right?

Jerry

[Ironnerd]

I don't think there is a great need, or that anyone making such a book would make enough money to justify the effort. As a hobby, it's great, and if you come up with something for yourself, then wish to sell it on line as is done with many 3D paper models, then you may manage to get a little coin for the effort.

I don't think many people are actually getting X-24's at LHS's since they and the HL-20 are no longer in print. I downloaded mine from Jim Z's, along with the pattern for the Vulcan. The HL-20 is available through YORP.

I don't imagine Squirrel works sells a lot of X-RV's simply because you can download the X-24 for free rather than pay actual money for the X-RV. Maybe the X-RV is significantly improved, but since I've never seen one, or even a review of one, I can't say.

As for interest in this thread - I have no idea. I think it is just one of those rockets that is just "kinda cool", and people wonder if they really glide at all.

[mycrofte]

I have several other graphic ventures out there already. I might get $10 a year out of them. It is just cool to be published. With something like this, it is already someone else' design I am playing with. It gives me an opportunity to keep my skills active and try new things.

Now, if I came up with something spectacular on my own, it would be a different story...
______________________________________________________________________

[blackshire]

So... you are thinking about a book full of printable paper rockets?

Things like the X-24/HL-20, Quest NASP, Applewhite-style saucers, and other similar models.

You print the thing out on card stock, cut out parts, and glue together sort of like White-Wings?No. I described this as something that mycrofte could do to make money from his design work. It isn't even necessary to cut out the pages--for example, with Norman Schmidt's book "Fabulous Paper Gliders" (a book about the history of gliders, which also contains 16 WhiteWings-style scale sailplane model pattern sets and plans), I photocopy the parts patterns onto 8-1/2" X 11" sheets of 110 pound cardstock using my HP psc 1210xi printer/scanner/copier; as long as the cardstock sheets are fed through one at a time (not stacked in the paper tray), it works fine. Also:

Self-publishing a book of cardstock model rockets and gliders similar to this through CreateSpace.com or Lulu.com costs the author *nothing* (except the time used to write it)--they make a percentage on each book sold, and they handle all of the order-taking and shipping; with CreateSpace.com, self-publishing a book through them also gets it listed on Amazon.com (this may require the book to have an ISBN). Lulu.com also offers this for books that have ISBNs, but an ISBN isn't required to self-publish through either company; my Lulu.com-published book doesn't have an ISBN. It was listed on Amazon.com for a while, before Lulu.com started requiring ISBNs in order to list their published books on Amazon.com. I saw no reason to get an ISBN because it sells at about the same rate on Lulu.com alone (two or three copies a week) as it did on both Lulu.com and Amazon.com; considering its highly unusual subject matter, I'm amazed at its steady if not spectacular sales.

[the mole]

This thread got me to thinking if a X-24 could be built for the Micro Maxx size.
The tube size is the BT-3. I'm using the Mudwasp kit from FlisKits for parts.
Post more as things go a long. Will it be alright to post to this thread?

[Ironnerd]

Cool! I dunno if it will "glide", but it's still really cool!

The issue with these is "fluffiness". The lower the weight to mass ratio, the better they fly - to a point. I made a finless X-24 that kicked out the engine mount and bulkhead, leaving just an empty cone. It just fell gently straight down in a horizontal position. They need a little weight to provide forward movement. Totally empty, they don't have enough weight to overcome their own drag.

At micro-maxx scale, I think trimming will be tough (maybe bits of tape, rather than clay), and the sink rate will be high. But, it will also be a pretty rugged model.

GOOD LUCK, and keep us posted!

[blackshire]

This thread got me to thinking if a X-24 could be built for the Micro Maxx size.
The tube size is the BT-3. I'm using the Mudwasp kit from FlisKits for parts.
Post more as things go a long. Will it be alright to post to this thread?I didn't start this thread, but I'd love to see it, and I suspect I'm not alone in that. :-)

[Doug Sams]

This thread got me to thinking if a X-24 could be built for the Micro Maxx size.
The tube size is the BT-3. I'm using the Mudwasp kit from FlisKits for parts.
Post more as things go a long. Will it be alright to post to this thread?What kind of paper did you use?

My first instinct is to use a lighter weight paper than card stock. That is, to scale the paper thickness down. That said, as John points out, it needs some added weight anyway, so maybe that lightening is not needed. OTOH, it's always easier to add weight to an underweight rocket than to take weight off a heavy one ;)

FWIW, I've done a few MicroMaxx downscales, but only one MicroMaxx glider. I bought a DVD from James Duffy (Austin rocketeer) and he included a hand launched glider as a free gift. So I added a MicroMaxx motor mount and turned it into a rocket glider :) But I never thought of downscaling existing rocket gliders. Cool idea.

Doug

.

[blackshire]

Cool! I dunno if it will "glide", but it's still really cool!

The issue with these is "fluffiness". The lower the weight to mass ratio, the better they fly - to a point. I made a finless X-24 that kicked out the engine mount and bulkhead, leaving just an empty cone. It just fell gently straight down in a horizontal position. They need a little weight to provide forward movement. Totally empty, they don't have enough weight to overcome their own drag.

At micro-maxx scale, I think trimming will be tough (maybe bits of tape, rather than clay), and the sink rate will be high. But, it will also be a pretty rugged model.

GOOD LUCK, and keep us posted!You've brought up a very important fact here, which even some model aviation enthusiasts overlook: As full-scale sailplane pilots point out, a glider *does* have an engine. Its engine is gravity, which causes the glider to coast downhill through the air. (Soaring is possible because updrafts--thermals, ridge [slope] winds, and mountain lee waves--rise faster than the sink rates of efficient gliders; a sailplane has a minimum Lift/Drag ratio of 20:1, sinking 1 foot [or meter] for every 20 feet [or meters] that it flies forward, but it's the glider's sink rate in still air that determines whether or not it can soar. Sailplanes have sink rates from less than 1 foot per second to about 2-1/2 feet per second.) Also:

Because gravity is what pulls gliders forward (with their lift in the air preventing gravity from pulling them *straight down*--the balance between gravity and lift results in their gradual downhill descents, in the absence of updrafts), a glider must have appreciable mass in order to glide. Otherwise, aerodynamic drag will over-power the lift, and the glider will act like a parachute or a feather, slowly descending more-or-less straight down as your X-24's empty body shroud did. In addition:

That is why the early sailplane designs, which were very large and lightweight, were abandoned. They were "floaters," which had minimum sink rates when flying at low speeds (they could have relatively low Lift/Drag ratios and still stay up), but they were at the mercy of the winds (just like "fair weather" boost-gliders) and were inefficient at other airspeeds. Modern sailplanes are heavier, which enables them to glide fast in shallow descents, so that they can speed for miles across the countryside between thermals; in soaring parlance, they have good "wind penetration" (just like "foul weather" boost-gliders). Advanced sailplanes can carry jettisonable water ballast for faster glides, and many of them have full-span, camber-changing wing flaps, which enable them to fly like the old "floaters" in low-wind, weak-lift conditions. Now:

The X-24 "Bug" is definitely *not* a "floater," because when it glides at its minimum sink rate (which is pretty high) it's gliding rather fast. Aerodynamically, it has more in common with a short-winged R/C aerobatic plane that's landed dead stick (with its engine off) than with a boost-glider like the Nighthawk, Falcon, or Hawk. Because it's a fast glider, it's important to make sure an X-24 doesn't weigh too much overall, or it can easily glide fast enough to irreparably damage itself on landing (even on soft grass, it can do a "Steve Austin tumble") that bangs up its fins. :-) The MicroMaxx-powered one that "the mole" is building, being so lightweight to begin with, shouldn't have this problem--as Doug suggested, it could be helped by having extra mass.

[the mole]

What kind of paper did you use?





.
I printed the X-24 out on 6mil photo paper Matte finish. There's a lot of tech talk going on here that is interesting, but I know nothing about.

I thought I would build the little glider, use a 8 or 10 foot ladder to do some drop test from.
If it needs some weight I am going to use very small pieces of sticky tack in the rear till I get a half way decent glide.

I will be happy if it doesen't go end over end when I use an engine in it.

[blackshire]

I printed the X-24 out on 6mil photo paper Matte finish. There's a lot of tech talk going on here that is interesting, but I know nothing about.I apologize for that long posting. Mark II and Solomoriah have posted about having *no* success at getting their boost-gliders to glide, so I posted some background information that they and/or anyone else who's having such problems could use.I thought I would build the little glider, use a 8 or 10 foot ladder to do some drop test from.
If it needs some weight I am going to use very small pieces of sticky tack in the rear till I get a half way decent glide.

I will be happy if it doesen't go end over end when I use an engine in it.The standard glider trim technique is to have the glider be very slightly nose-heavy, then use a very small amount of "up elevator" (either with tiny elevator tabs or a horizontal stabilizer that's mounted on the rear fuselage at a slight nose-down angle) to trim it for a nice flat glide (a boost-glider can't have much "up elevator," or else it will do an inside loop under power). Also:

For a lifting body boost-glider like the X-24 or the HL-20, that can be done by adding elevator tabs to the winglets or by cutting such control surfaces into the trailing edges of the winglets. It is also possible to add (or cut out) one or more elevator surfaces at the rear edge of the top surface of the triangular cone body, but it/they would lose control effectiveness at high nose-up angles of attack, because the elevator(s) would be in the "lee" ('airflow shadow') of the model's body.

[mycrofte]

Yeah, I would be happy if I can get an X-24 to do a 1-1 glide and not tumble. And with that, I wouldn't have to march a mile across a field to retrieve it.
_____________________________________________________________

[blackshire]

Yeah, I would be happy if I can get an X-24 to do a 1-1 glide and not tumble. And with that, I wouldn't have to march a mile across a field to retrieve it.
_____________________________________________________________Quite true--but we need not trade good B/G and RG gliding performance for short recovery walks. Back in the mid-1970s, I read an article in "Flying Models" magazine about a concept called "R/C-assisted F/F"; that is, an F/F (Free-Flight) glow engine model airplane would be fitted with a simple 1-channel (rudder-only) radio-control system. It would be used only at intervals, to keep the model from flying (or gliding, after its engine cut out) beyond the field boundaries or from landing in inaccessible areas on the field (patches of trees, etc.). Also:

Since the model, being an F/F design, would be inherently stable (having ample wing dihedral or polyhedral), it wouldn't have to be continuously piloted. The author (Bob Eberle, if memory serves) added a 1-channel rudder control system to a Midwest Models "Sniffer," which he fitted with a tiny Cox .010 glow engine. After some adjustments (the model initially did barrel rolls under power when the rudder was used), the R/C-assisted F/F concept proved to be very practical and convenient, making long F/F model airplane recovery walks unnecessary. In addition:

With today's micro R/C systems, boost-gliders and rocket gliders could be flown in this semi-active mode during the glide (and even during powered ascent [it's been done], although quick reflexes are required during this portion of flight). This would enable B/Gs and RGs to be flown on small fields, and we could refer to such R/C-assisted F/F systems as "knee savers." :-)

[Ironnerd]

Hey all. I know it's been a while, but I got a little side tracked.

A while back my section (Southern Area Rocketry) had a small contest and one of the events was Lifting Body Duration Drag Race. It was pretty cool to watch TWO X-24's launch at once.

I did win, but that's not important. I told the other guy all the stuff I did to make mine fly a hair longer than his. Next month we are doing it again - this time timed instead of Drag Race Style. The guy I flew against is already working on his new, updated X-24, and it looks as though one or two other members may give it a try as well.

The idea is to see how long one of these things can stat up in the air. Like all competition, the end goal is to improve the breed as much as possible.

Side Note:
My flights indicate that:

1: The full-size fins work best. Smaller fins give you higher altitude, but much steeper glide angle.

2: A short delay is slightly preferable to a booster motor.

[blackshire]

Thank you for posting your results. The large-fins X-24 is a boost-GLIDER (it won't go as high, but has a better glide) while the small-fins X-24 is a BOOST-glider (it has less total lifting surface and a higher "wing and body loading," but will boost higher due to its lower frontal area). And:

You all's altitude results with short-delay motors versus booster motors also make perfect sense. Since the booster motors eject as soon as their propellant is (nearly) all consumed, the models are suddenly lighter, and thus are slowed more by drag while coasting upward. X-24s flown with short-delay motors retain the motors' mass all during their ascents, and their greater mass enables them to ascend higher against drag. The tiny and lightweight (possibly as light as 10 - 15 grams) micro R/C systems that are used in the Axion micro glider series (see: http://www2.ripmax.net/Category_List.aspx?Category=010-035 ) could be used in the X-24 "Bug."

[Ironnerd]

Pretty much, Blackshire. No delay or short delay are both preferable to a long delay. B4-2's work pretty well - our contest is limited to B-impulse.

It's a light-weight/high-drag rocket so a longer burn is always better than higher thrust (like a B6).

I am looking into A10-0 to A3-4 or A10-0 to A10-3. The result is longer burn time (about 50% longer), with less initial weight. That should give me more altitude and a longer resulting glide.

[blackshire]

That sounds like an excellent idea! The front end of the upper stage mini motor could be located up inside the nose cone (with that end of the motor mount tube blocked off with a fiber disc) so that the lower stage motor's nozzle would be in the same location as the 18 mm motor nozzle. My guess is that the A3-4T upper stage would give better altitude because of its lower thrust/longer burn characteristic, which would delay the onset of maximum drag until late in its burn. Also, it would be interesting to see how the X-24 might fly *horizontally*, under the power of a Rapier jet motor.

[Ironnerd]

...The front end of the upper stage mini motor could be located up inside the nose cone (with that end of the motor mount tube blocked off with a fiber disc) so that the lower stage motor's nozzle would be in the same location as the 18 mm motor nozzle...

Can't do it that way - you get Krushnick unless the rocket is vented (like The Point).
I plan on setting the nozzle of the sustainer in the same location as the normal B4 motor I am using now. I'll just stick the booster motor to the bottom of the sustainer. These cones are really stable, and quite forgiving.

The trick here is that I have to use the same model for both the B4 and A10-A3 flights so I can see if the different propulsion arrangement really makes a difference. With two models, I'll have too many other factors to deal with. Bugs are easy to build but it is difficult to build two that are identical. Most of the "magic" will be in the "pop pod/s".

[blackshire]

Can't do it that way - you get Krushnick unless the rocket is vented (like The Point).
I plan on setting the nozzle of the sustainer in the same location as the normal B4 motor I am using now. I'll just stick the booster motor to the bottom of the sustainer. These cones are really stable, and quite forgiving.I was envisioning (which I apologize for failing to mention before) a CHAD-staged arrangement with no 18 mm motor tube at all, and a larger opening in the triangular former "bulkhead" (although that would necessitate building another model with the dedicated mini motor mount for the upper stage motor). If it'll fly okay with the staged mini motors extending farther back, go for it!The trick here is that I have to use the same model for both the B4 and A10-A3 flights so I can see if the different propulsion arrangement really makes a difference. With two models, I'll have too many other factors to deal with. Bugs are easy to build but it is difficult to build two that are identical. Most of the "magic" will be in the "pop pod/s".*Nods* Yes, it's best to make these versions readily comparable, as two different 'Bugs can fly very differently, making comparisons difficult.

[Ironnerd]

I think I would still need to vent the interior of the rocket - which is a planned experiment anyway.

Right now, the 18mm motor mount sits in a 24mm tube, which is about as big as you can practically go in the small space. The issue is the amount of space available up front. I was pondering a recessed 18mm nose-cone with air passages between it and the 24mm mount tube, then 13mm motor tubes with attached recovery devices.

But that will all take pace a bit farther down the road.

[astronot]

So I was playing around with my X24 bug yesterday, trying to get an idea of how this thing is suppose to perform. Primarily I'm concerned with the glide part.

How is this thing suppose to glide? I built this one true to it's original design, to get a baseline before I start toying with it for the sake of higher performance. Can anyone tell me if this Bug is suppose to glide in nose down at about 20 degrees? The glide looked fairly stable, I just thought the glide was a bit steep.

This is how it played out for me yesterday. I'm doing this in my from yard, and there are hazards around like trees and water, so I trying to keep it fairly low. I'm using A8-3 engines.

First launch I get a rod hang. I back up 10 and punt. I clean the rod and I bore out the launch lug with a drill bit a little.

Second launch is a nice flight, decent altitude, nice CG transition, and a stable glide. It just seemed a little steep and fast to me.

Third launch I added a little more tail weight to get the nose up some. I launch, the rocket get good altitude, and then the ejection charge goes off, a fireball is heading straight to me, so I duck. There was no coast flight. That A8-3 acted like a booster. My immediate thought was,"that will shred a parachute for sure". Glad that didn't happen to one of my Alpha rockets.

Anyway, that fireball turned out to be the motor casing with the delay charge still burning inside. I don't think I've ever had an A8-3 motor do that. I know it wasn't an A*-0 boost motor. I don't have any in my inventory.

Anyway, all this to tell you that I've got to start over.

My Bug landed in the top of a huge Oak Tree. I got to go build a new one. But I am curious about the proper glide path, if anyone wants to chime in. I started with two pennies as rear weight. I added a third penny on the last flight but I never got to see the glide.

David

[hcmbanjo]

It's interesting you used pennies for weight.
The Quest HL-20 (their version of the Centuri X-24 Bug) used two pennies set in a folded piece of card stock.

I had an X-24 years ago. When it did finally "glide" it was fast and steep.
At ejection the model turned horizontal and descended at a angle.

[astronot]

It's interesting you used pennies for weight.
The Quest HL-20 (their version of the Centuri X-24 Bug) used two pennies set in a folded piece of card stock.

I had an X-24 years ago. When it did finally "glide" it was fast and steep.
At ejection the model turned horizontal and descended at a angle.

Yup! that's pretty much what mine did, that one time, that I was able to get a glide out of it. Thanks.

I was not sure if that was normal or not. I've got to figure out a way to get more altitude while minimizing drag or figure out how to get the Bug to descend a little more gracefully and slower. It's a lifting body though. I'm not sure if I can slow it down too much, it may stall. It probably needs a pretty good bit of air speed to remain in stable flight.

I'm gonna have to research that a little more.

Thanks,

David

[Ironnerd]

I set mine to glide with the nose a bit higher. I try to get the top of the "glider" almost parallel to the ground. Sometimes they stall when set up like that, so I just remove a little weight until I get a good glide.

Don't look for a long hang-time. They have about a 1:1 glide ration (one foot forward for every foot down), which is why I like them so much for small fields.

Try flying the new one on a B4-2. It's a very draggy rocket, so you want a long thrust duration and a short delay. The B4 burns for 1.2 seconds vs the B6's 0.83 seconds and the A8's 0.32 seconds. It may be better to use an A3 in place of the A8. The A3 is lighter and burns 0.86 seconds, and they cost less per flight. Be wary of the C6 unless you beef up the back end a little - the greater aerodynamic forces can cause the sides to bow in to the exhaust plume - and that just sucks.

I also modded mine to have an internal pop-pod with a recovery streamer (see attached), and to have the launch rod run along the motor mount tube and out a small hole in the skin up by the nose (straighter launch, fewer rod hangs, higher flight, longer hang-time).

[astronot]

Thanks Ironnerd for the tips. That helps a lot.

I was using the A8-3 because that's what I had on hand in good quantity. I was already leaning towards a B4-2 as a better choice. I still trying to learn how this thing is suppose to fly. Lol. This lifting body design is very new to me. I've never owned one or flown one. You are right though an A3-4T may be an even better option. Or maybe even a stack staged A10-0T to and A3-4T.

I think my next one will be one that utilizes a 13mm motor.

Back to the drawing board.

David

[Doug Sams]

You are right though an A3-4T may be an even better option. I think the A3-4T thrust curve is probably better, but I'm afraid the delay will be too long.

The old, defunct A3-2T might be better, but those are scarce as hen's teeth. In my 14 years as BAR, I've collected quite a few OOP motors, but don't think I've ever had any of those.

As for making one fly, I'm not much help. I've always gotten the best flights after letting Don Magness or Dave Schaefer fiddle with 'em for me :o

Doug

.

[Ironnerd]

I think the A3-4T thrust curve is probably better, but I'm afraid the delay will be too long.

The old, defunct A3-2T might be better, but those are scarce as hen's teeth. In my 14 years as BAR, I've collected quite a few OOP motors, but don't think I've ever had any of those.

As for making one fly, I'm not much help. I've always gotten the best flights after letting Don Magness or Dave Schaefer fiddle with 'em for me :o

Doug

.

We'll see. The Bug is pretty resilient thanks to it's low fall speed so a low deploy is not a disaster. Still, I think the model needs "B" impulse at a minimum. I am working on A10-0T to A3-4T two-stage bug, 1.8 seconds of thrust, but probably too much delay... I'm curious to see what happens.

My fleet has expanded a little (doubled actually).
In addition to Columbia, Challenger, and Discovery, I now have Atlantis and Endeavour (both HL-20's), and Odyssey (an X-24 with modified fins - normal X-24 fins with the leading edges taped closed, similar to HL-20 fins).

[Doug Sams]

I am working on A10-0T to A3-4T two-stage bug, 1.8 seconds of thrust, but probably too much delay... I'm curious to see what happens.I'm curious, too :D:D:D

As I understand it, you're gonna chad stage it, right? I'd swag that it'll be stable, but ain't bettin' sure :)

FWIW, I do like the idea of staging this, but with some sort of more complex booster section. Lots of possibilities (one of which I think I posted herein many moons ago but am too lazy to look). Anyway, a staged bug will be cool :)

Doug

.

[blackshire]

So I was playing around with my X24 bug yesterday, trying to get an idea of how this thing is suppose to perform. Primarily I'm concerned with the glide part.

How is this thing suppose to glide? I built this one true to it's original design, to get a baseline before I start toying with it for the sake of higher performance. Can anyone tell me if this Bug is suppose to glide in nose down at about 20 degrees? The glide looked fairly stable, I just thought the glide was a bit steep.

This is how it played out for me yesterday. I'm doing this in my from yard, and there are hazards around like trees and water, so I trying to keep it fairly low. I'm using A8-3 engines.

First launch I get a rod hang. I back up 10 and punt. I clean the rod and I bore out the launch lug with a drill bit a little.

Second launch is a nice flight, decent altitude, nice CG transition, and a stable glide. It just seemed a little steep and fast to me.

Third launch I added a little more tail weight to get the nose up some. I launch, the rocket get good altitude, and then the ejection charge goes off, a fireball is heading straight to me, so I duck. There was no coast flight. That A8-3 acted like a booster. My immediate thought was,"that will shred a parachute for sure". Glad that didn't happen to one of my Alpha rockets.

Anyway, that fireball turned out to be the motor casing with the delay charge still burning inside. I don't think I've ever had an A8-3 motor do that. I know it wasn't an A*-0 boost motor. I don't have any in my inventory.

Anyway, all this to tell you that I've got to start over.

My Bug landed in the top of a huge Oak Tree. I got to go build a new one. But I am curious about the proper glide path, if anyone wants to chime in. I started with two pennies as rear weight. I added a third penny on the last flight but I never got to see the glide.

DavidFrom what I've read (the links are below), these "dihedraled cone" lifting bodies fly best at a slight nose-up attitude. The original Centuri X-24 "Bug" kit instructions (see: http://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/centuri/ka-12.pdf ) say that it has a 2:1 glide ratio (which may be a bit optimistic, or perhaps it was achieved under ideal still-air conditions). Also, here is the Centuri Technical Information Report "TIR-24 Model Rocket Lifting Bodies" (see: http://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/tr/tir-24.pdf ), which contains much information on trimming these models for a good glide. In addition:

I'd fill out a MESS (Malfunctioning Engine Statistical Survey, see: http://www.nar.org/NARmessform.html ) form on that non-ejecting-yet-fireball-producing A8-3 motor--while that was not "a major malfunction" (although it could have consumed your X-24 in flames), it did not perform as designed. As well:

It could be just the angle and/or the lighting, but the X-24 sitting on the table in this photo in the 1972 Centuri catalog (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/72cen002.html ) *looks* narrower than mine (which I never flew because I did such a lousy job building it back in the '70s, before I developed good manual dexterity). It makes me wonder, though, if a biconical shape (like Blue Origin's space capsule and some ICBM re-entry vehicles, which glide at hypersonic airspeeds) might also improve the glide characteristics (even marginally) at subsonic speeds?

[Ironnerd]

2:1... I'll give them 1.5:1. Actually I have done even better than 2:1, but that was on a windy-as-heck day with a finless cone launched on an Estes "D". Once the wind grabbed the cone, it took off like... well, kinda like a rocket :)

The pre-flight checklist in the instructions for the Bug point out something important: Clean the model, and check trim before each flight. The gunk from the motor does actually change the CG! Packing some ejection wadding in the top of the motor really helps to reduce gunk buildup and charring.

[blackshire]

2:1... I'll give them 1.5:1. Actually I have done even better than 2:1, but that was on a windy-as-heck day with a finless cone launched on an Estes "D". Once the wind grabbed the cone, it took off like... well, kinda like a rocket :)Some sailplane pilots have probably wistfully thought that as well ("I wish my Schweizer 1-26 had *really* achieved a 32:1 L/D on that X-C [Cross-Country] flight, but it was just a tailwind...") :-)The pre-flight checklist in the instructions for the Bug point out something important: Clean the model, and check trim before each flight. The gunk from the motor does actually change the CG! Packing some ejection wadding in the top of the motor really helps to reduce gunk buildup and charring.Being short for its length, I'm not surprised that the X-24, like a flying wing, is sensitive in pitch, which would markedly change its glide characteristics with even small changes of mass at the model's ends. The wadding is a very good idea!

[Ironnerd]

Some progress. Forgive the poor photography, I was forced to borrow my daughter's "Princess Camera"...

I have christened my latest Bug "Odyssey" (first pic) - Thanks to Rosko Racer for posting the cool color scheme.

The second pic is of my "fleet". Clockwise from Upper Left:
Columbia, Odyssey, Discovery, and Challenger. The latter two have been modded for full-sized fins to improve glide.

Picture Three shows the different fins used on Odyssey. I just took normal bug fins and taped the leading edge closed. I'm curious to see if there is any improvement. Look closely and you'll see it behind the cockpit on Odyssey. The base of the fin is not in line with the parallel stripes on either side. Look closely at Columbia, and you will see the through-the-body launch lug next to the base of the NC.

The last pic shows the pop-pod and streamer. This is Version 1.1 (it has an engine hook).

I hope to one or more of them on 11-Jan-2014.

Oh... Atlantis and Endeavor are in-work, they will be HL-20's (which are actually a bit larger than the X-24). I am trying to find the right Nosecone.

I changed the tail weight a little. Instead of the basic two pennies, I drilled a hole in each penny (Columbia still wants to stall on me), and my in-house glide tests on Odyssey look to be right on the money. Again, we'll see next Saturday.

[astronot]

Great looking Bugs Ironnerd. I'm interested in how closing up that leading edge on the wings will affect altitude on boost as well as glide.

I'm not sure if I'll make it up to the launch on the 11th. Things are conspiring to keep me away. I haven't given up all hope, but it's not looking viable at this moment.

Do me a favor and give us all an update on your results when you return from the contest if you can. I, for one, would be interested in knowing which design performed the best.

David

[Ironnerd]

I'll do that. It looks like one of the other guys will be flying an HL-20, so I can have that point of comparison. I also plan to add a "conventional" launch lug to Challenger or Discovery to see how much of a difference that makes.

I suspect that moving the launch lug is the single biggest performance improvement I have made to these little "gliders".

Hope you manage to make the launch :)

[blackshire]

I'll do that. It looks like one of the other guys will be flying an HL-20, so I can have that point of comparison. I also plan to add a "conventional" launch lug to Challenger or Discovery to see how much of a difference that makes.

I suspect that moving the launch lug is the single biggest performance improvement I have made to these little "gliders".

Hope you manage to make the launch :)I agree; even under the best of circumstances, the off-center thrust that results from the "stock" launch lug attachment wastes a significant fraction of the motor's available impulse. It causes greater lug/rod friction, and then the aerodynamic drag during the model's "yaw-over" eats some more potential speed and altitude. On windy days when the launch rod moves, the off-center thrust might also increase the odds of the model hanging up on the rod. Even if it's only for an instant, such a hang-up could cost 1/3 to 1/2 of the altitude the model could otherwise reach.

[Ironnerd]

So it looks as though the planned 11-Jan-2014 launch will not take place due to rain. this gives me time to ponder more Bug-mods.

A lot of thrust is lost in X-24's and similar models due to the Krushnic effect. I was thinking of making a MiG-21 intake at the nose of the rocket with ducting around to the nozzle area of the engine. I can't just modify an existing model to do this, so I guess I'll have to build another one...

Any name suggestions? (I was thinking "Intrepid")

Anyway, I know there will be drag from this installation, but I hope it will be outweighed by the improved thrust. I may even try to install a "Jet Pump" venturi - cause that would be kinda cool.
Either way, it would require a totally different motor installation and pop-pod.
I need a pencil!

[blackshire]

So it looks as though the planned 11-Jan-2014 launch will not take place due to rain. this gives me time to ponder more Bug-mods.

A lot of thrust is lost in X-24's and similar models due to the Krushnic effect. I was thinking of making a MiG-21 intake at the nose of the rocket with ducting around to the nozzle area of the engine. I can't just modify an existing model to do this, so I guess I'll have to build another one...

Any name suggestions? (I was thinking "Intrepid")

Anyway, I know there will be drag from this installation, but I hope it will be outweighed by the improved thrust. I may even try to install a "Jet Pump" venturi - cause that would be kinda cool.
Either way, it would require a totally different motor installation and pop-pod.
I need a pencil!A simple yet effective ducting system might be to cut two NACA-type, flush-with-the-mold-line "inward-curved triangle" boundary layer suction intakes (the kind used on radial aircraft engine cowlings and race cars for drawing in cooling or engine intake air) where the printed "cheek" air intakes are on the body wrap. If necessary, ducts could be run from them to just forward of the rear end of the installed rocket motor, and their airflow would mix with the motor exhaust plume. The motor ends of the ducts could be "scarfed" in order to encourage the air to flow along the nozzle end of the motor. Also:

Regarding names (that's a nice MiG-21, by the way!), the first Space Shuttle orbiter was going to be named Constitution before the Star Trek letter-writing campaign got NASA to go for Enterprise instead. Some of NCC-1701 Enterprise's sister ships had names such as Constellation, Yorktown, and Kongo.

[astronot]

So it looks as though the planned 11-Jan-2014 launch will not take place due to rain. this gives me time to ponder more Bug-mods.

A lot of thrust is lost in X-24's and similar models due to the Krushnic effect. I was thinking of making a MiG-21 intake at the nose of the rocket with ducting around to the nozzle area of the engine. I can't just modify an existing model to do this, so I guess I'll have to build another one...

Any name suggestions? (I was thinking "Intrepid")

Anyway, I know there will be drag from this installation, but I hope it will be outweighed by the improved thrust. I may even try to install a "Jet Pump" venturi - cause that would be kinda cool.
Either way, it would require a totally different motor installation and pop-pod.
I need a pencil!

Are talking about something similar to what was designed into "The Amazing Point"?
Or something different entirely. I have one of those Amazing Points. It doesn't fly real stable. It likes to corkscrew on me when launched. I need to give it a swing test and find out what's going on with it.

David

[Ironnerd]

NACA inlets are pretty cool. That may also work. I`'ll see what the pencil says. I may just do one of each.

Enterprise`s sister ships included Hood, Constellation, Potempkin, Defiant, Excaliber, Exeter, Lexington, and Intrepid. Original series, of course :)

Intrepid was also that Apollo 12 lunar module. ...but I digress...

[blackshire]

Are talking about something similar to what was designed into "The Amazing Point"?
Or something different entirely. I have one of those Amazing Points. It doesn't fly real stable. It likes to corkscrew on me when launched. I need to give it a swing test and find out what's going on with it.

DavidI wonder if the Coanda Effect (the tendency for a fluid flow--either gas or liquid--to 'adhere' to one side of a chamber) might be causing that? If the exhaust stains on the inside of your Point have seemed longer on one side than on others (over several flights, the multiple stains could become of more-or-less uniform length all around the inside of the body wrap), that could indicate Coanda flow adhesion, which would cause asymmetrical thrust.

[blackshire]

NACA inlets are pretty cool. That may also work. I`'ll see what the pencil says. I may just do one of each.Thank you. While I've always liked scoop inlets too (like on the Snark and Regulus II cruise missiles), I've always admired the aesthetics of the NACA inlet, which worked fine on the Matador and Mace cruise missiles.Enterprise`s sister ships included Hood, Constellation, Potempkin, Defiant, Excaliber, Exeter, Lexington, and Intrepid. Original series, of course :)I remember Carl Sagan once commenting that their names seemed rather Euro-centric for a federation in which a united Earth was a member. :-)Intrepid was also that Apollo 12 lunar module. ...but I digress...I wouldn't recommend having a fleet named after Apollo LMs (or CSMs), as Spider, Gumdrop, and Snoopy just don't have..."'nomenclatural' gravitas." :-)

[Ironnerd]

Astronot: Yeah! Something like "The Amazing Point", but a bit stubbier. I think I have seen your Point fly, but I don't remember seeing corckscrew (I just don't remember how it flew at all, but I am certain I have seen one fly).

Experiment: make a paper cone section to go over the inlets, see if that changes the flight profile.

Blackshire: I agree, the ships in Star Trek: TOS did have very Euro-centric names, and gumdrop, Charlie Brown, and Snoopy would not be my first choices for a rocket name. Maybe I'll call it the "Shiawassee" after a river in MI.

[Doug Sams]

Any name suggestions?[Re: Hood, Constellation, Potempkin, Defiant, Excaliber, Exeter, Lexington, and Intrepid]

I remember Carl Sagan once commenting that their names seemed rather Euro-centric for a federation in which a united Earth was a member. :-) No doubt, it's a list of Earth-centric names :) But I'm not sure how Euro-centric it is.

Constellation, Lexington, and Intrepid have all been used on multiple US Navy ships (plus other applications). I agree that Hood and Defiant are, no doubt, Royal Navy names. But cannot say if Constellation and Intrepid were not, at one time, used by the RN prior to the revolution.
...
Anyway, I think my favorite name is Lexington. I went to school there in Kentucky, and have been to Lexington, Massachusetts many times on business. And have spent the night aboard the carrier USS Lexington down in Corpus Christi.

So, I vote for Lexington for one of these not-so-lifting bodies :)


Doug

.

[GregGleason]

... And have spent the night aboard the carrier USS Lexington down in Corpus Christi...


I've done that a couple of times with scouts, once with a nephew and once with one of my sons. My son thought it was one of the most enjoyable thing he did as a cub scout.

Greg

[blackshire]

I apologize for not clarifying that those names are from Euro-centric *culture*, as several of them are indeed from U.S. Navy vessels. Regarding names, the ones used for the interplanetary freighters in the movie Silent Running sound majestic; I think they were the names of U.S. national forests (Sequoia, Valley Forge, etc.), because they carried biodomes housing the last plants and trees from Earth.

[Ironnerd]

I figure the "Air Breathing" X-24 will look a little like this (see pics - I put in my normal build for comparison). It seems to be the simplest method since I am just sliding the nose back.

The strut holds the motor tube (BT-20) centered in the duct (BT-50). There is one in the model, and another on the pop pod. To make sure it is the right size, I glue an over-sized piece to the motor mount, slide a CR-2050 on either side and trim/sand the strut flush to the CR. Much easier than measuring.

[blackshire]

I figure the "Air Breathing" X-24 will look a little like this (see pics - I put in my normal build for comparison). It seems to be the simplest method since I am just sliding the nose back.

The strut holds the motor tube (BT-20) centered in the duct (BT-50). There is one in the model, and another on the pop pod. To make sure it is the right size, I glue an over-sized piece to the motor mount, slide a CR-2050 on either side and trim/sand the strut flush to the CR. Much easier than measuring.The ramjet diffuser intake looks cool! Also, having the motor mount installed farther back should reduce the amount of rear ballast it will need for a good glide, and that lower total weight (after the motor mount ejects itself and the streamer) should improve the glide ratio. The "pass-through air venting" via the annular duct should also reduce the model's base pressure drag during both powered ascent and the glide, and it should give a nice, broad smoke trail of mixed smoke and "bypass airflow."

[Ironnerd]

There should be some aft CG movement with the Air-Breather, since the NC is moved aft, a bulkhead that is normally located at the fore end of the BT-50 tube is omitted along with the short piece of BT-20 that is glued to the front of the bulkhead (where the NC would normally be located).

In glide phase, it should be a little lighter than the normal build, but not much.

I have found that making them too light does not work - they just stop in the air. They need a little weight to overcome their own drag. Of course too heavy does not work either (I built one out of a pizza box, all it does it tumble to the ground).

[blackshire]

There should be some aft CG movement with the Air-Breather, since the NC is moved aft, a bulkhead that is normally located at the fore end of the BT-50 tube is omitted along with the short piece of BT-20 that is glued to the front of the bulkhead (where the NC would normally be located).

In glide phase, it should be a little lighter than the normal build, but not much.

I have found that making them too light does not work - they just stop in the air. They need a little weight to overcome their own drag. Of course too heavy does not work either (I built one out of a pizza box, all it does it tumble to the ground).Yes, these models' unusual frontal area, base drag, and mass inter-relationships can easily land them in "pointed brick with fins" or "Peacock feather" territory, aerodynamically speaking. The body pass-through air venting and its effect on the drag may give somewhat greater latitude in workable glide masses.

[luke strawwalker]

Yes, these models' unusual frontal area, base drag, and mass inter-relationships can easily land them in "pointed brick with fins" or "Peacock feather" territory, aerodynamically speaking. The body pass-through air venting and its effect on the drag may give somewhat greater latitude in workable glide masses.

I wonder what effect the bypass air will have on lift in the glide??

Later! OL JR :)

[Ironnerd]

I can't wait to find out :)

[blackshire]

I can't wait to find out :)Luke's question raises an intriguing possibility: Some Rapier-powered jet models (particularly profile and profile scale ones, in which the Rapier motor mount tube is often attached to the underside of the fuselage) have a flat "jet tab" mounted behind the motor mount. This provides down-thrust during the Rapier motor's burn, which prevents the model from looping under thrust. Similarly:

One or more adjustable "jet tabs" *inside* the X-24, acting on the bypass airflow during the ascent and/or the glide, might be useful for fine-tuning the flight characteristics. Three or four of the tabs, equidistantly spaced (either 120 degrees or 90 degrees apart, respectively) and located far enough forward to avoid the motor's exhaust plume, might do the trick.

[Ironnerd]

I am really enjoying this conversation.

I printed out the shroud and fins for "Intrepid" last night. I actually printed two, but about half way through the second body shroud, the printer ran out of red... [shrug] - it'll look good in the air :)

I'm starting to think that it's time to build a cheap and dirty wind tunnel. Maybe I'll use the leaf blower for a fan :)

Air flow through the duct in glide flight won't be too bad. It should slightly reduce base drag in all flight modes, but not much. In my admittedly addled mind, the base drag will produce a low pressure area behind the glider which should pull some air through the duct in glide mode. That should allow the body to glide at a slightly higher speed. More speed equals more lift, and that makes for more glide time.

How much more glide time? Well, I'll be shocked if I can even measure the difference. But even without improved performance it has some things going for it:

1: It's "Differnt".
2: Modest cool factor.
3: Cheap and Easy Experiment.
4: It's still a flippin' rocket!

[luke strawwalker]

I am really enjoying this conversation.

I printed out the shroud and fins for "Intrepid" last night. I actually printed two, but about half way through the second body shroud, the printer ran out of red... [shrug] - it'll look good in the air :)

I'm starting to think that it's time to build a cheap and dirty wind tunnel. Maybe I'll use the leaf blower for a fan :)

Air flow through the duct in glide flight won't be too bad. It should slightly reduce base drag in all flight modes, but not much. In my admittedly addled mind, the base drag will produce a low pressure area behind the glider which should pull some air through the duct in glide mode. That should allow the body to glide at a slightly higher speed. More speed equals more lift, and that makes for more glide time.

How much more glide time? Well, I'll be shocked if I can even measure the difference. But even without improved performance it has some things going for it:

1: It's "Differnt".
2: Modest cool factor.
3: Cheap and Easy Experiment.
4: It's still a flippin' rocket!

That's what my initial thoughts run to as well as far as aero effects...

Next question is, what will the additional airflow THROUGH the vehicle do to its lift characteristics?? The reduced drag from air ingested through the inlets should help relieve base drag and thereby give longer/faster flight, but I just wonder what the air moving THROUGH it is going to do...

My main theory would be "nothing" as it SHOULD just expand out into the low pressure area at the rear of the cone where the outside air is flowing around it and into the base drag region...

I'll be interested in finding out!
Later! OL JR :)

[Ironnerd]

I got distracted by R/C helicopters (which are cheaper than rockets at this point), and house stuff. Also had to buy a car as I was finding parts of my truck in lying in my driveway...:mad:

The nearest flying field for my local NAR chapter is about a 1 hour drive so I have been working with local parks and recreation to find a local launch field. I got that all hammered out, and now it's back to raining every weekend...
<update>
Weather report is for Thunderstorms from today (21 July) through Sunday (27 July). Lovely...
</update>

I planned to launch on Saturday mornings, but the washing machine committed sepuku so I now spend that time at the laundromat.

At any rate... once I get a few minutes, I'll run over to the new school yard with my old "Flip" video camera, see what these paper wonders can do, and (hopefully) post video.

[astronot]

That'll be interesting to see. I look forward to your video. I know you spent a lot of time on those X-24 Bugs. I'm gonna send you a PM and ask where you are flying these days.

David

[Ironnerd]

OH! Something of note that I forgot to mention.
The smaller the fins, the less ballast a Bug requires. Basically, full fins = 2 pennies, half fins = about 1.5 pennies (about), and finless = 1 penny and a bit of clay.

I am hoping for clear skies and dry grass this weekend.

[Bill]

OH! Something of note that I forgot to mention.
The smaller the fins, the less ballast a Bug requires. Basically, full fins = 2 pennies, half fins = about 1.5 pennies (about), and finless = 1 penny and a bit of clay.



And that's your 2 cents...


Bill

[Ironnerd]

And that's your 2 cents...


Bill

Yargh... (LOL).
:chuckle:

[Ironnerd]

I had a great day for rocketry today. Clear, sunny, light winds. I took three X-24's to North Cooper Lake Park in Smyrna, GA (now you can Google map it) . I had a great time, despite what you are about to read :rolleyes:

So, my first launch was the basic X-24 on a B4-2. I wanted some baseline data on glide time. Unfortunately, it did not glide. When I recovered it, I found the nose cone and engine mount bulkhead had left the party - and were never found... Then I launched the version with the closed leading edges. I did not time this one, I figured I would use the video from my handy flip camera to get the flight time. Unfortunately, I never hit the "record" button. No time and no video :(

THEN I figured I would try the vented variant. Guess what, it worked! Higher boost, and it sounded like a normal rocket (X-24's have a weird sound to them). Of course the nose cone and bulkhead blew off of this one as well (also never to be seen again), so the cg was WAY off, and I got no glide... But I did time the flight at 10.5 seconds.

I tweaked the only surviving X-24's CG with some masking tape and flew it again on a B4-2, Got a really good flight - apparently because I had no video camera running. Flight time of 13.6 seconds, and a very nice circling glide.

So I guess that's my baseline... 13.6 seconds.

Just to load test the rocket, I loaded in a C6-5. It stayed together, but the sides did bow it (not enough to burn, but enough to cause a sudden roll on ascent). The rocket then descended to about 20 feet up when the motor finally ejected, at which point the bug entered a nice glide, and landed about 20ish feet from the pop pod.

I looked for my nose cones for about 40 minutes. I found an inhaler, an RC Helicopter battery, and a piece of foam about 1"x1", but no nosecones...

I will return to the drawing board, make some changes, and fly again soon - next time I will take another person along to take video, so I'll have something to post.

[luke strawwalker]

I had a great day for rocketry today. Clear, sunny, light winds. I took three X-24's to North Cooper Lake Park in Smyrna, GA (now you can Google map it) . I had a great time, despite what you are about to read :rolleyes:

So, my first launch was the basic X-24 on a B4-2. I wanted some baseline data on glide time. Unfortunately, it did not glide. When I recovered it, I found the nose cone and engine mount bulkhead had left the party - and were never found... Then I launched the version with the closed leading edges. I did not time this one, I figured I would use the video from my handy flip camera to get the flight time. Unfortunately, I never hit the "record" button. No time and no video :(

THEN I figured I would try the vented variant. Guess what, it worked! Higher boost, and it sounded like a normal rocket (X-24's have a weird sound to them). Of course the nose cone and bulkhead blew off of this one as well (also never to be seen again), so the cg was WAY off, and I got no glide... But I did time the flight at 10.5 seconds.

I tweaked the only surviving X-24's CG with some masking tape and flew it again on a B4-2, Got a really good flight - apparently because I had no video camera running. Flight time of 13.6 seconds, and a very nice circling glide.

So I guess that's my baseline... 13.6 seconds.

Just to load test the rocket, I loaded in a C6-5. It stayed together, but the sides did bow it (not enough to burn, but enough to cause a sudden roll on ascent). The rocket then descended to about 20 feet up when the motor finally ejected, at which point the bug entered a nice glide, and landed about 20ish feet from the pop pod.

I looked for my nose cones for about 40 minutes. I found an inhaler, an RC Helicopter battery, and a piece of foam about 1"x1", but no nosecones...

I will return to the drawing board, make some changes, and fly again soon - next time I will take another person along to take video, so I'll have something to post.


Sounds really cool...

Next time you fly lifting bodies, get Col. Steve Austin to go with you... that should help...

"Gentlemen, we can rebuild them... we have the technology..."

Good luck and KUTGW!!! OL JR :)

[blackshire]

I had a great day for rocketry today. Clear, sunny, light winds. I took three X-24's to North Cooper Lake Park in Smyrna, GA (now you can Google map it) . I had a great time, despite what you are about to read :rolleyes:

So, my first launch was the basic X-24 on a B4-2. I wanted some baseline data on glide time. Unfortunately, it did not glide. When I recovered it, I found the nose cone and engine mount bulkhead had left the party - and were never found... Then I launched the version with the closed leading edges. I did not time this one, I figured I would use the video from my handy flip camera to get the flight time. Unfortunately, I never hit the "record" button. No time and no video :(

THEN I figured I would try the vented variant. Guess what, it worked! Higher boost, and it sounded like a normal rocket (X-24's have a weird sound to them). Of course the nose cone and bulkhead blew off of this one as well (also never to be seen again), so the cg was WAY off, and I got no glide... But I did time the flight at 10.5 seconds.

I tweaked the only surviving X-24's CG with some masking tape and flew it again on a B4-2, Got a really good flight - apparently because I had no video camera running. Flight time of 13.6 seconds, and a very nice circling glide.

So I guess that's my baseline... 13.6 seconds.

Just to load test the rocket, I loaded in a C6-5. It stayed together, but the sides did bow it (not enough to burn, but enough to cause a sudden roll on ascent). The rocket then descended to about 20 feet up when the motor finally ejected, at which point the bug entered a nice glide, and landed about 20ish feet from the pop pod.

I looked for my nose cones for about 40 minutes. I found an inhaler, an RC Helicopter battery, and a piece of foam about 1"x1", but no nosecones...

I will return to the drawing board, make some changes, and fly again soon - next time I will take another person along to take video, so I'll have something to post.That suggests that even with the recommended C6-3, the X-24 will fall some distance from apogee before the motor ejects itself. This may be a case where the Chinese-made Quest C6-3 motors (which are more like C4 motors) would work better, to reduce or avoid the fuselage bowing during powered ascent. If those motors have briefer thrusting times than Estes C6-3s, Quest C6-0 motors might be "just right."

[mwtoelle]

IIRC, the Chinese-made Quest "C6"s have a longer burn time than the Estes C6s. My experiences with those Quest motors is that they are best used for lightweight, low-drag rockets. YMMV.

[blackshire]

IIRC, the Chinese-made Quest "C6"s have a longer burn time than the Estes C6s. My experiences with those Quest motors is that they are best used for lightweight, low-drag rockets. YMMV.Thank you! It sounds like those "Sino-Quest" C6 motors can give lifting bodies (and other light rockets) a gentler ride with regard to both dynamic pressure and acceleration.

[Ironnerd]

IIRC, the Chinese-made Quest "C6"s have a longer burn time than the Estes C6s. My experiences with those Quest motors is that they are best used for lightweight, low-drag rockets. YMMV.

For 3FNC style rockets your are absolutely correct. But the X-24 is an oddball. The low weight and HIGH drag actually make better use of a long burn, short delay motor. The B4-2 is about as good as I can get right now. A C4-2 would be great, and a D4-2 would be worth redesigning the motor mount (again).

Since I have to to some repairs anyway (and buy more nose cones), I though I would optimize the "Ventilated Bug" for 13 mm motors (A10-0T to A3-4T). The better boost performance and longer burn time may make a nice combination.


Something to point out though, the best I have managed is a 10 second glide (1.1 seconds fo the 13 1/2 second flight was boost, and 2 seconds was delay). Still it's a fascinating little rocket, and when it actually glides, it is so cool to watch.

[luke strawwalker]

IIRC, the Chinese-made Quest "C6"s have a longer burn time than the Estes C6s. My experiences with those Quest motors is that they are best used for lightweight, low-drag rockets. YMMV.
Quite true.... Longer thrust duration, lower average thrust. Later! OL JR

[eljefe]

I thought the nose cones were glued in place on these. Why are you losing so many?

[luke strawwalker]

I thought the nose cones were glued in place on these. Why are you losing so many?

My guess-- Estes "shotgun ejections"....

Later! OL JR :)

[Ironnerd]

I thought the nose cones were glued in place on these. Why are you losing so many?

Looks like the glue joint was not strong enough to hold against the ejection charge. The "Base Model" lost the bulkhead at the top of the mount, and that took the nose cone with it.

The fix is simple, I'll extend the motor mount tube a little and put a centering ring on top of the bulkhead to add more gluing surface.

[Bill]

I tweaked the only surviving X-24's CG with some masking tape and flew it again on a B4-2, Got a really good flight - apparently because I had no video camera running. Flight time of 13.6 seconds, and a very nice circling glide.



You know that old saying...a camera adds 10 pounds...

...though with rockets, being light to begin with, the effect is not quite so pronounced.


Bill

[dlazarus6660]

I just reread this post and enjoyed it very much. I'm surprised none of you ever thought of using thin super glue on the inside of the bug and fins to both strengthen and flame-proof the glider. There is little to no weight gain using this method. It will distort the printing a little if your not careful. Also, I use epoxy when it requires the N/C to be glued on. Over time the epoxy will give way because epoxy will crystallize with high heat from an ejection charge.
Just sharing some info.

[Ironnerd]

Since I got my nosecones from Semroc, I am on hiatus for a bit on this.

Actually, that's not fair. The real issue is that I kinda reached a point last year when I had totally had it with rocketry in general. I have been attempting to secure a local field for several years now, and keep getting rejected. I got a little sick of hearing about how rocketry was too dangerous, only to see the same field used for youth rugby. I also got tired of being jerked around by NAR. I put in a very simple Rules Change Proposal; to add STAGED ALTITUDE as an event, after all, we have CLUSTER ALTITUDE - and a provisional even involving the timed drop of a Wiffle Ball . For a few years now, the NAR has strung me along, passing me from one officer to another. They never even put it out for a vote by membership. If they said "No" I would be cool with that, but answering by not answering is for little kids.

So, I just stopped being a rocket nerd.

...for a while...

Lately, however, I find that I still wanna fly rockets. I still dig my 13-second gliders, so they will be back once I get them fixed back up.

Oh... and I gonna get that futzing field...

[blackshire]

Since I got my nosecones from Semroc, I am on hiatus for a bit on this.

Actually, that's not fair. The real issue is that I kinda reached a point last year when I had totally had it with rocketry in general. I have been attempting to secure a local field for several years now, and keep getting rejected. I got a little sick of hearing about how rocketry was too dangerous, only to see the same field used for youth rugby. I also got tired of being jerked around by NAR. I put in a very simple Rules Change Proposal; to add STAGED ALTITUDE as an event, after all, we have CLUSTER ALTITUDE - and a provisional even involving the timed drop of a Wiffle Ball . For a few years now, the NAR has strung me along, passing me from one officer to another. They never even put it out for a vote by membership. If they said "No" I would be cool with that, but answering by not answering is for little kids.

So, I just stopped being a rocket nerd.

...for a while...

Lately, however, I find that I still wanna fly rockets. I still dig my 13-second gliders, so they will be back once I get them fixed back up.

Oh... and I gonna get that futzing field...There are parks that have recroc (recreational model rocketry) programs, and some even have rack launchers that they rent to users (one in New Mexico, near White Sands, does this). I'd use that as legal/logical ammunition, and a set of printed comparative activity safety statistics (the NAR has them) could be used to back it up. Regarding your perfectly understandable frustration at the NAR's apparent "run-around" concering the Staged Altitude event:

I'd recommend doing what our local Girl Scouts did when the national organization went "anti-gun," but the local ones -wanted- to earn shooting merit badges. They organized a shooting merit badge program themselves and award unofficial (to the national organization) shooting merit badges for achievements in that field. I don't hate the NAR (I'm a member of it myself), but I also don't defer to their every edict, either. So what if the NAR doesn't sanction your contest concept? Hold it anyway! I enjoyed flying model rockets long before I ever even heard of the NAR, and my enjoyment of the hobby is NOT contingent upon their official approval!

[dlazarus6660]

Since I got my nosecones from Semroc, I am on hiatus for a bit on this.

Actually, that's not fair. The real issue is that I kinda reached a point last year when I had totally had it with rocketry in general. I have been attempting to secure a local field for several years now, and keep getting rejected. I got a little sick of hearing about how rocketry was too dangerous, only to see the same field used for youth rugby. I also got tired of being jerked around by NAR. I put in a very simple Rules Change Proposal; to add STAGED ALTITUDE as an event, after all, we have CLUSTER ALTITUDE - and a provisional even involving the timed drop of a Wiffle Ball . For a few years now, the NAR has strung me along, passing me from one officer to another. They never even put it out for a vote by membership. If they said "No" I would be cool with that, but answering by not answering is for little kids.

So, I just stopped being a rocket nerd.

...for a while...

Lately, however, I find that I still wanna fly rockets. I still dig my 13-second gliders, so they will be back once I get them fixed back up.

Oh... and I gonna get that futzing field...

Welcome back!

Just use the field anyway!

Asking for forgiveness is easier than asking for permission.

[mycrofte]

I have been flying rockets for 40 years and never been a member or within a 100 miles of a NAR Event.

At one time, our local R/C club got taken over by doctors and lawyers. If your airplane didn't cost $600 or more, they wouldn't even talk to you. So, we flew out in the corn field by our selves...
___________________________________________________________

[Ironnerd]

Thanks guys!

Blackshire, can you name those parks for me. I'll contact the good people out there and see how they run things. Maybe the people here in Atlanta can learn something from New Mexico (although, the terrain is a little different).

The field I have looked at (and used) is fine for the small stuff, and for X-24's on B-power ( PLENTY of room). It is also a part-time R/C plane field complete with wind sock. Of course the local Parks and Rec want to put in a play-scape in the middle of it, so I'll start looking for another one.

I will fill out the PRC form again, as I think staging is enjoyable, challenging, and has left out of contests for too long now.

BUT... although I needed to vent, I don't wanna move 'dis here thread too far off topic.

My record flight time for a "bug" is just over 13 seconds. Can any of you'se guys top that?

[blackshire]

I have been flying rockets for 40 years and never been a member or within a 100 miles of a NAR Event.

At one time, our local R/C club got taken over by doctors and lawyers. If your airplane didn't cost $600 or more, they wouldn't even talk to you. So, we flew out in the corn field by our selves...
___________________________________________________________"Even in vain do they..." [fill in the blank *any* activity] Such folks miss the whole point of hobbies, which is to HAVE FUN (even when contests are involved), not "exceed the Joneses." :-( You and your fellow fun-flyers shared the spirit of what it's all about--"*good* on all o' ye!"

[blackshire]

Thanks guys!

Blackshire, can you name those parks for me. I'll contact the good people out there and see how they run things. Maybe the people here in Atlanta can learn something from New Mexico (although, the terrain is a little different).

The field I have looked at (and used) is fine for the small stuff, and for X-24's on B-power ( PLENTY of room). It is also a part-time R/C plane field complete with wind sock. Of course the local Parks and Rec want to put in a play-scape in the middle of it, so I'll start looking for another one.

I will fill out the PRC form again, as I think staging is enjoyable, challenging, and has left out of contests for too long now.

BUT... although I needed to vent, I don't wanna move 'dis here thread too far off topic.

My record flight time for a "bug" is just over 13 seconds. Can any of you'se guys top that?Here are some (I believe Albuquerque is the one with the "full-service" recroc program, but other listed cities permit rocket flying in their parks): https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Park+recreational+rocketry+program&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=2 ALSO:

Another statistic (the NAR may have it somewhere on their website www.nar.org ) could be used on "Nervous Nellie" parks & recreation officials. This number may be larger by now, but something like 600 million-plus model rockets have been launched since 1957. You could say (nicely, of course): "When is the last time you heard or saw a news report about a model rocket accident?" The official will probably not be able to name any, or if s/he can name one, it will almost certainly involve a *mis-use* of the products (which you could point out). Then you could show him or her the number of launches since 1957 and ask, "600 million-plus launches and no accidents worth reporting [or one, which involved mis-use of the products] over nearly six decades...what does that tell you about the safety of the hobby?" AND:

In his "Handbook of Model Rocketry," G. Harry Stine discussed the relative safety of model rocketry as compared with other recreational activities (including ones that are engaged in at public parks), and all of them are, at best, rather distant seconds to model rocketry in terms of their safety. You could also mention how many model rockets you and your family and friends have flown and for how long, and how none of you have ever even had any close calls, much less accidents that caused injury or property damage. In addition:

Perhaps before you presented that statistic, you could show him or her print-outs from the "Estes Model Rocketry Manual" (see: http://ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/estesmrm.html ) and the "Alpha Book of Model Rocketry" (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/alpha.pdf ), of the pages that discuss the hobby's safety and how model rocketry was developed to provide a safe and educational alternative to the often-deadly and frequently-maiming, crippling, and blinding home-made "basement bomber" youth rocketry activities. (As well, the Ninfinger Productions Model Rocketry section [see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/ ] includes scans other safety publications by Estes and other model rocket companies.) Plus:

Please *do* approach the NAR again about the Staged Altitude event, and please tell them that NAR Senior Member 54895 SR, James Jason Wentworth in Fairbanks, Alaska (who *will* "re-up" his membership as soon as he gets the money, in a few days), also likes the idea of a Staged Altitude event! Regarding the X-24 "Bug" glide duration record (that could *also* be a challenging event [and perfect for small fields and/or breezy days], now that you've inspired ruminations about it...), I could beat -any- duration record--with a big upward-aimed fan! :-)

[Ironnerd]

BLACKSHIRE: Thanks for the information. I will put it to good use.

If I could figure out a bullet-proof way to define a "Lifting body boost glider" I would put it in as an event. I don't mind doing it as a committee-submission. I just need a solid definition that can include both X-24 and HL-20. I'm concerned that it would end up sounding like the rules go formula one racing.

Perhaps the contestants would have to use a specific pdf for the shroud and the bulkhead. Then just an imaginary box it must fit into (A x B x C). Just thinking in text.

[blackshire]

BLACKSHIRE: Thanks for the information. I will put it to good use.

If I could figure out a bullet-proof way to define a "Lifting body boost glider" I would put it in as an event. I don't mind doing it as a committee-submission. I just need a solid definition that can include both X-24 and HL-20. I'm concerned that it would end up sounding like the rules go formula one racing.

Perhaps the contestants would have to use a specific pdf for the shroud and the bulkhead. Then just an imaginary box it must fit into (A x B x C). Just thinking in text.You're welcome. You might even be able--based on municipal pride--to persuade the Atlanta parks & receation folks to "keep up with the Joneses" in Albuquerque, by establishing their own park recroc program (couching it as something to keep kids out of trouble and encourage their interest in math and science in school [your local Boys' and Girls' Clubs and 4-H Clubs might help, too] would be what they would want to hear, and it's also true!). Regarding the lifting body competition:

Maybe as an introductory provisional event, it could make use of X-24 and HL-20 models (all of the various available body wrap decor schemes and finned, "semi-finless," and finless design variations [as shown in Centuri's "Model Rocket Lifting Bodies" Tech Report TIR-24--it's the top link *here*: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Model+Rocket+Lifting+Bodies&gbv=2&oq=Model+Rocket+Lifting+Bodies&gs_l=heirloom-hp.12...4847.12869.0.14882.27.20.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..27.0.0.i8f__M8trWY ] would allow a lot of variety among the models). Your 3-D "box" sounds like a workable start for a full-blown set of rules for the event.

[luke strawwalker]

I have been flying rockets for 40 years and never been a member or within a 100 miles of a NAR Event.

At one time, our local R/C club got taken over by doctors and lawyers. If your airplane didn't cost $600 or more, they wouldn't even talk to you. So, we flew out in the corn field by our selves...
___________________________________________________________

I WAS a NAR member back in the 80's, when I was in junior high/high school. I dropped out of NAR when I dropped out of rocketry for about 10-15 years from the early 90's til the mid 2000's... NAR membership wasn't cheap even back then, but the magazine was good, and it wasn't TOO expensive, so I joined up. The main difference back then was the insurance was NOT MANDATORY for membership and if you wanted it you paid an extra $26 bucks a year to get the insurance. IIRC my junior membership back then was like $14 bucks a year.

I never flew competition, was never particularly interested in it... never attended a NAR function until just a few years ago. When I became a BAR, I joined briefly (one year) but found the $60 membership fees excessive... the insurance is now MANDATORY and added into that total, and I don't particularly need or want it-- I fly off my own farm (in fact allow a couple clubs to use our farms for launches) and since I don't compete, I don't need a NAR number for that either, so I dropped it. Just can't afford to give a quarter to a third of my "yearly hobby budget" to NAR for a magazine that isn't anywhere NEAR as good as it used to be IMHO... (well, unless you're a competitions or HPR junkie-- then there's PLENTY in SR for you!)

I like NAR and support their aims, and yeah I'd probably buy the magazine anyway if I could just subscribe to it without having to pop for an expensive membership that I don't really need. I've suggested as much when the former NAR Prez put out the word looking for moneymaking ideas... never heard a word-- guess they didn't like that suggestion...

Made a different suggestion that actually they ended up finally doing, here a half-dozen years (or thereabouts) later... When they were asking for input for moneymaking ideas and such, I sent in a suggestion saying they should offer all the old "Model Rocketeer" and "American Spacemodeling" magazines on a DVD-ROM so that folks can read all the old magazines and articles, without having to spend hundreds or thousands of bucks chasing collector's items from decades ago in the form of the original magazines. IOW, make that information available to a whole new generation of rocketeers, for research, historical, as well as information that can be applicable even today, like designs and methods or techniques which are equally as valid now as they were when first published. I pointed out that "FARM SHOW" magazine, one of the only farm magazines I will actually pay a subscription to get (I get several "free of charge" thanks to the heavy advertising and yellow dog journalism found in them worshipping their advertiser's products, which is exactly the reason I WON'T subscribe to them-- I don't like the biased coverage). Anyway, "FARM SHOW" released every issue of their magazine on DVD-ROM awhile back and periodically releases "updated" versions to include the latest issues... They also indexed their DVD-ROM so you can look for various subjects by topics and thus read up on a particular issue and any information published, ideas, designs, modifications, updates, new offerings, etc. published in the magazine regardless of year throughout their entire print run. I suggested that, if the time and talent was available, that might be a great "value added" thing to add to the DVD-ROM and thus entice folks to be willing to buy the thing, and at a higher price...

I got a curt response "thanking me for my suggestion" from the then-NAR Prez but immediately launching into a "are you volunteering to do the work?" speech, stressing their limited manpower and resources and all of that. I wrote back that while I would be WILLING to do the work, I sadly had neither the equipment (high quality scanner, and various computer programs) NOR the talent, skills, or expertise in how to properly make such a DVD-ROM... let alone all the magazines... (I have some dating back to the first post-Challenger issue in 1986, but that's it). I don't know enough about computers to do the job properly, so NO, I wasn't volunteering, but CERTAINLY there are OTHER NAR members who WOULD have the talents, skills, and abilities to do the project if given access to the materials (someone's magazine collection or NAR back-issues). I then received another VERY curt response that basically was saying, "IF YOU'RE NOT VOLUNTEERING TO DO IT, THEN STFU..."

Certainly didn't endear NAR HQ or leadership to me, that's for sure... I just trashed it and thought to myself, "you asked-- so screw you and go pound sand for all I care..."

Anyway, just as happy w/o NAR membership as with it... Couldn't help but smirk a bit when I saw NARTS carrying CD-ROMs with the old issues available on them...

Later! OL JR :)

[luke strawwalker]

I have been flying rockets for 40 years and never been a member or within a 100 miles of a NAR Event.

At one time, our local R/C club got taken over by doctors and lawyers. If your airplane didn't cost $600 or more, they wouldn't even talk to you. So, we flew out in the corn field by our selves...
___________________________________________________________

Sounds like more than a few HPR types I've run across...

If you're not "suitably impressed" to the point of fawning over them and their expensive rockets, they can get downright p!$$y with you... That, or they feel compelled to point out "oh, I use bigger motors than your flying as IGNITORS" or other stupid stuff like that... Or they go on about how much more 'bad-@ss' they are than you because they fly HPR and you don't... or how much more "scientific" or "difficult" their bigger "whoosh-pop" is than your "little whoosh-pop".

For the most part, all I can see is the difference in cost, with a few exceptions, that's about it.

Not ALL HPR guys are that way, but enough of them ARE that I don't usually like to hang around with guys unless they fly at least SOME LPR/MPR rockets...

Later! OL JR :)

[Doug Sams]

If I could figure out a bullet-proof way to define a "Lifting body boost glider" I would put it in as an event. I don't mind doing it as a committee-submission. I just need a solid definition that can include both X-24 and HL-20. I'm concerned that it would end up sounding like the rules go formula one racing.I don't think you can come up with a set of truly fair rules without writing the F1 rule book.

Instead, I think you have to take the approach that it's a _fun_ event - ie, not cutthroat NAR competition - and put together a reasonable set of rules and then let it happen. You might include a static display judging before any flights, then have judges score the flights (rather than having altitude rules, etc).

But do make sure you allow for the Squirrel Works X-RV (IIRC). It's very close to the X-24.

BTW, it sounds like a fun event :)

Doug

.

[Doug Sams]

Sounds like more than a few HPR types I've run across...

If you're not "suitably impressed" to the point of fawning over them and their expensive rockets, they can get downright p!$$y with you... That, or they feel compelled to point out "oh, I use bigger motors than your flying as IGNITORS" or other stupid stuff like that... JR, I can think of a few jerk HPR fliers, but there are a few jerks in every hobby, at all levels.

My experiences at big HPR events have been pretty much the opposite of what you describe. I've stood in line at the safety check table and had big time HPR fliers tell me what a great paint job I had on my 2" diameter upscale Midget, or wonder how I was gonna get all four of those 1st stage motors lit in my Uber Tuber.

And when I flew a full stack (D-C-C) Comanche at LDRS a few years ago, I got quite a few kudos from the folks there who understand what a challenging flight that is even if it doesn't use an L9000 motor.

The sport has a broad spectrum of appeal. But we're a fairly small hobby. So I've always felt it was in our best interests to include everyone. And, fortunately for me, I can't think of any flight I've ever had where I felt like someone was condescending to me. So knock wood for me.

But that may also be because I just refuse to let some jerk bother me ;)

Doug

.

[luke strawwalker]

You're welcome. You might even be able--based on municipal pride--to persuade the Atlanta parks & receation folks to "keep up with the Joneses" in Albuquerque, by establishing their own park recroc program (couching it as something to keep kids out of trouble and encourage their interest in math and science in school [your local Boys' and Girls' Clubs and 4-H Clubs might help, too] would be what they would want to hear, and it's also true!). Regarding the lifting body competition:

Maybe as an introductory provisional event, it could make use of X-24 and HL-20 models (all of the various available body wrap decor schemes and finned, "semi-finless," and finless design variations [as shown in Centuri's "Model Rocket Lifting Bodies" Tech Report TIR-24--it's the top link *here*: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=Model+Rocket+Lifting+Bodies&gbv=2&oq=Model+Rocket+Lifting+Bodies&gs_l=heirloom-hp.12...4847.12869.0.14882.27.20.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.msedr...0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..27.0.0.i8f__M8trWY ] would allow a lot of variety among the models). Your 3-D "box" sounds like a workable start for a full-blown set of rules for the event.

Yeah, the STEM approach is a good one... they're REALLY emphasizing that in the schools now, and name ANY other hobby that has as much directly-applicable STEM education value as rocketry??

Good luck in your search... Parks are challenging flying fields to get and keep nowdays, and of course NOBODY wants to share "their space" with anybody doing anything different... there's always going to be the dog people or the soccer people or whomever who generally will have a total sh!t hemorrhage if you 'scare their varmints' or whatever... increasingly they are adding sports fields or soccer fields or whatever, usually in about the worst place possible (to take up as much open space as possible... )

Later! OL JR :)

[Ironnerd]

STATIC JUDGING!!! I would not have thought of that! Awesome. But we'll need to work up some judging criterion.

Just off the top of my head, I would go with a "Lifting Body Biathlon"
1: Static Judging
2: Flight Duration

Maybe make it a "Grass Roots" competition where we just build them and fly them at our sectional launches for a couple of years, then present to NAR.

For a more "Extreme" event, we make it a Triathlon
1: Time to build a flyable X-24/HL-20/X-RV at the event starting with just parts.
2: Static Judging
3: Flight Duration
(Yes, I've gone barking mad, but we do need some fun events)

I agree on the Squirrel Works X-RV (http://www.squirrel-works.com/catalog/xrv/xrv.html) . Also "Official" Scans of the shrouds for X-24 and HL-20 need to be posted on the NAR contest flight web site - assuming we can get permission from the owners of the designs.

To be honest, it's pretty hard to mess up an X-24/HL-20. It's MUCH easier to buy the X-RV kit than it is to build from scratch, so that $10 kit saves you some time and frustration. Also, building from scratch does not save very much money over the X-RV. One thing to keep in mind is that above "B" impulse, one needs to consider some enhanced structure to prevent the dreaded fold-n-burn.

As an aside Doug, I agree on the Comanche 3. VERY cool to build and REALLY cool to fly, but it will bite you. I have seen a lot of them do the dirt dive.

[KidShelleen]

Glad to see you are back Ironnerd. The lifting bodies were favorites of mine when I was younger and they are responsible for being a BAR. And this thread also had a lot to do with it. I have enjoyed this thread too much. Thanks for all the posts, I think I have built every X-24 variation that you posted. You are something of a guru to me.

You being an expert on the Bug, I have an idea that I would like to get your opinion on. What do you think about a 2-stage X-24? What do you think the chances of this working are? Do you think it would stand up to a C on the first stage and B on the second?

All comments welcome.

[rosko_racer]

Glad to see you are back Ironnerd. The lifting bodies were favorites of mine when I was younger and they are responsible for being a BAR. And this thread also had a lot to do with it. I have enjoyed this thread too much. Thanks for all the posts, I think I have built every X-24 variation that you posted. You are something of a guru to me.

You being an expert on the Bug, I have an idea that I would like to get your opinion on. What do you think about a 2-stage X-24? What do you think the chances of this working are? Do you think it would stand up to a C on the first stage and B on the second?

All comments welcome.



One of the most original ideas I have seen in a while... I say fly it and post a flight report.

- r_r

[blackshire]

Yeah, the STEM approach is a good one... they're REALLY emphasizing that in the schools now, and name ANY other hobby that has as much directly-applicable STEM education value as rocketry??Indeed, that's another selling point--as G. Harry Stine pointed out in his "Handbook of Model Rocketry," model rockets are among the few objects encountered in everyday life that demonstrate all three of Newton's Laws of Motion, which is great for physics classes as well as for other STEM courses.Good luck in your search... Parks are challenging flying fields to get and keep nowdays, and of course NOBODY wants to share "their space" with anybody doing anything different... there's always going to be the dog people or the soccer people or whomever who generally will have a total sh!t hemorrhage if you 'scare their varmints' or whatever... increasingly they are adding sports fields or soccer fields or whatever, usually in about the worst place possible (to take up as much open space as possible... )

Later! OL JR :)If a reservation system is worked out, that problem can be avoided. I've read about model airplane and model rocket flyers doing that in municipalities where the parks' sports fields can be reserved (a book I have on R/C sailplanes shows this being done at a park, where the club members had put up their club's "This Area Reserved for Club Fliers Only" signs). This, and your comment, also inspired an idea:

To address the noise complaints of other park users, the model airplane manufacturers introduced a class of C/L (Control Line) and R/C models with muffler-equipped glow engines, in a new category called "park flyer"; such models are quiet, slower-flying, and unobjectionable to other park visitors (electric-powered model airplanes are park flyers by definition). Likewise:

The model rocket manufacturers could designate those models of theirs that can fly comfortably within typical park boundaries (particularly on quieter, lower-impulse motors) as park flyers; numerous existing model rocket kits have these characteristics. They could also offer new rocket kits that are specifically intended to be flown in such places (such rockets are also good for school programs). The Estes mini launcher (the one with an 18" launch rod and an easily-disassembled, wooden dowel-legged tripod), and the 13 mm & 18 mm motor-powered rockets that can fly from it, can easily be carried to and from parks (or schools) on foot, by bicycle, or on a bus, in a range box or in a large fabric department store shopping bag (the kind made of stiff fabric, with multiple pockets inside it).

[blackshire]

One of the most original ideas I have seen in a while... I say fly it and post a flight report.

- r_rSeconded! It's been a long time since I've seen a multi-stage model with a gliding first stage (Centuri's Black Widow), and only Rob Edmonds, to my knowledge, has ever produced a two-stage boost-glider kit in which *both* stages glide!

[blackshire]

STATIC JUDGING!!! I would not have thought of that! Awesome. But we'll need to work up some judging criterion.

Just off the top of my head, I would go with a "Lifting Body Biathlon"
1: Static Judging
2: Flight Duration

Maybe make it a "Grass Roots" competition where we just build them and fly them at our sectional launches for a couple of years, then present to NAR.

For a more "Extreme" event, we make it a Triathlon
1: Time to build a flyable X-24/HL-20/X-RV at the event starting with just parts.
2: Static Judging
3: Flight Duration
(Yes, I've gone barking mad, but we do need some fun events)

I agree on the Squirrel Works X-RV (http://www.squirrel-works.com/catalog/xrv/xrv.html) . Also "Official" Scans of the shrouds for X-24 and HL-20 need to be posted on the NAR contest flight web site - assuming we can get permission from the owners of the designs.

To be honest, it's pretty hard to mess up an X-24/HL-20. It's MUCH easier to buy the X-RV kit than it is to build from scratch, so that $10 kit saves you some time and frustration. Also, building from scratch does not save very much money over the X-RV. One thing to keep in mind is that above "B" impulse, one needs to consider some enhanced structure to prevent the dreaded fold-n-burn.

As an aside Doug, I agree on the Comanche 3. VERY cool to build and REALLY cool to fly, but it will bite you. I have seen a lot of them do the dirt dive.Those sound like workable rules. Also, this could have application beyond the NAR. A challenging small-field/breezy-day boost-glider event such as this would also be useful in the world of FAI international flying, where their sailplane-like B/Gs can be grounded in conditions in which lifting bodies could safely--and effectively--fly. The fact that lifting bodies are low L/D gliders is no slight against them, nor would it detract from the excitement of competition, because every 0.1 second of flight duration for a model rocket lifting body is a hard-earned 0.1 second!

[blackshire]

Glad to see you are back Ironnerd. The lifting bodies were favorites of mine when I was younger and they are responsible for being a BAR. And this thread also had a lot to do with it. I have enjoyed this thread too much. Thanks for all the posts, I think I have built every X-24 variation that you posted. You are something of a guru to me.

You being an expert on the Bug, I have an idea that I would like to get your opinion on. What do you think about a 2-stage X-24? What do you think the chances of this working are? Do you think it would stand up to a C on the first stage and B on the second?

All comments welcome.That's an intriguing model! With an A10-0T in the first stage (if it can lift the vehicle with a live second stage motor), its lower mass when expended might improve the glide duration of the first stage. Also:

Here are M2-type lifting bodies (see: http://www.jleslie48.com/gallery_models_apollo.html and http://www.wired.com/2013/03/a-novel-1964-plan-for-a-piloted-earth-orbital-spacecraft-with-staged-reentry/ - they're from this group https://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=model+rocket+lifting+bodies&gbv=2&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ei=37jJVIL4NcPdoATJw4KYCw&ved=0CCQQsAQ of links), and here is the full set of Google citations for "model rocket lifting bodies" (see: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=model+rocket+lifting+bodies&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=2 ). Plus, here is Centuri's classic Tech Report TIR-24, "Model Rocket Lifting Bodies" (see: http://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/tr/tir-24.pdf ).

[Ironnerd]

Glad to see you are back Ironnerd. The lifting bodies were favorites of mine when I was younger and they are responsible for being a BAR. And this thread also had a lot to do with it. I have enjoyed this thread too much. Thanks for all the posts, I think I have built every X-24 variation that you posted. You are something of a guru to me.

You being an expert on the Bug, I have an idea that I would like to get your opinion on. What do you think about a 2-stage X-24? What do you think the chances of this working are? Do you think it would stand up to a C on the first stage and B on the second?

All comments welcome.

That is beautiful! As stable as the bug is, I am betting it will fly just fine. I did some math a while back and I think the bug can be staged by simply taping the motors together, without any added airframe for the booster. Not NAR-friendly, but functional.

Now that I have seen it the way you did it... I gotta try it. :)

Awesome work.

To the contest aspect. The X-24 is a LOT of fun for a small field. My club tried X-24 drag races. It was REALLY cool to see a couple of these fly at one time, but it was almost impossible to keep track of which model was which since they cross each others paths so much and are so fast on the way down. Still it was a real crowd-pleaser. The nice thing is that they are really easy to build, and if you mess it up so that it won't glide, it will just tumble. Even if it nose-dives, it has so much drag that it returns like a shuttlecock ([art of a provisional NAR event).

I'm actually looking around for some 18mm rubber or foam balls to use as nosecones to make it more shuttlecock-like. I tried styrofoam - too easy to damage and it makes trimming for glide a real pain.

[STRMan]

Someone should boost a bug on top of a Semroc Hydra 7 loaded with 7 C's. That would be a site to see! I wonder if the CG would balance out to make the rig stable.

[Ironnerd]

Someone should boost a bug on top of a Semroc Hydra 7 loaded with 7 C's. That would be a site to see! I wonder if the CG would balance out to make the rig stable.
That would be a lot of smoke and noise for a pretty short-duration glide... So I like the idea. It would look REALLY weird though... Not bad, just weird.

Back in "the day" Centuri boosted the bug on top of a 1/45 scale Little Joe. The Bug was motorless and popped off like a nose cone. But with a little effort, it could be flown as a powered upper stage.

I have pondered using my aging, and rarely flown Estes Rubicon as a "Bug Booster".

KIDSHELLEEN did you just put the normal bulkhead in place and cut the shroud off at the front? Cause... I have a couple that are missing front enclosures and nose-cones... [unsettling laughter].

[luke strawwalker]

Indeed, that's another selling point--as G. Harry Stine pointed out in his "Handbook of Model Rocketry," model rockets are among the few objects encountered in everyday life that demonstrate all three of Newton's Laws of Motion, which is great for physics classes as well as for other STEM courses.If a reservation system is worked out, that problem can be avoided. I've read about model airplane and model rocket flyers doing that in municipalities where the parks' sports fields can be reserved (a book I have on R/C sailplanes shows this being done at a park, where the club members had put up their club's "This Area Reserved for Club Fliers Only" signs). This, and your comment, also inspired an idea:

To address the noise complaints of other park users, the model airplane manufacturers introduced a class of C/L (Control Line) and R/C models with muffler-equipped glow engines, in a new category called "park flyer"; such models are quiet, slower-flying, and unobjectionable to other park visitors (electric-powered model airplanes are park flyers by definition). Likewise:

The model rocket manufacturers could designate those models of theirs that can fly comfortably within typical park boundaries (particularly on quieter, lower-impulse motors) as park flyers; numerous existing model rocket kits have these characteristics. They could also offer new rocket kits that are specifically intended to be flown in such places (such rockets are also good for school programs). The Estes mini launcher (the one with an 18" launch rod and an easily-disassembled, wooden dowel-legged tripod), and the 13 mm & 18 mm motor-powered rockets that can fly from it, can easily be carried to and from parks (or schools) on foot, by bicycle, or on a bus, in a range box or in a large fabric department store shopping bag (the kind made of stiff fabric, with multiple pockets inside it).

Yes, it's a good idea, in theory... getting park officials to actually do the 'legwork' to set aside specific times and areas and mark or "enforce" the rules is something else altogether.

People not "part of the group" generally won't or don't have much if any respect for other users anyway... what do you do with some busybody old lady that shows up to walk her poodle and *demands* her *right* to use *her* park *anytime she wants to* and then goes into hysterics or worse because a rocket launch "scared her little Fluffy all to pieces"?? Same thing with the soccer hooligans that show up on launch day and simply ignore everything and go out to "practice" and end up stomping rockets and land in their vicinity simply *because they can*...

It's a mess...

Heck, the county actually set up a nice model airplane flying field on an unused bit of county land behind the fairgrounds a few years ago-- even built a covered prep/setup area and small runway, keep the grass mowed, etc... even was a storage building for equipment/office type thing during club flying days. As it turned out, the neighbor was a rabid nutjob who "forbid" overflights of his property, claiming "damage" to his cotton crops from folks walking out into the fields to retrieve planes that went down, or whatever... he even shot a couple RC planes down, and later he got ahold of a transmitter and used it to jam/crash an RC jet costing several thousand dollars, for which he was sued (and lost and had to pay for it). It was SUCH a big problem that the county found another scrap of unused land and relocated the RC club to the new field, far away from this a-hole... of course all the facilities are still standing there, unused...

Personally I hope they put a county dump there-- would serve the a-hole right... put the smelliest crap they can find there. LOL:)

Just goes to show ya... PEOPLE SUCK!!!!

Later! OL JR :)

[Joe Wooten]

Yes, it's a good idea, in theory... getting park officials to actually do the 'legwork' to set aside specific times and areas and mark or "enforce" the rules is something else altogether.

People not "part of the group" generally won't or don't have much if any respect for other users anyway... what do you do with some busybody old lady that shows up to walk her poodle and *demands* her *right* to use *her* park *anytime she wants to* and then goes into hysterics or worse because a rocket launch "scared her little Fluffy all to pieces"?? Same thing with the soccer hooligans that show up on launch day and simply ignore everything and go out to "practice" and end up stomping rockets and land in their vicinity simply *because they can*...

It's a mess...

Heck, the county actually set up a nice model airplane flying field on an unused bit of county land behind the fairgrounds a few years ago-- even built a covered prep/setup area and small runway, keep the grass mowed, etc... even was a storage building for equipment/office type thing during club flying days. As it turned out, the neighbor was a rabid nutjob who "forbid" overflights of his property, claiming "damage" to his cotton crops from folks walking out into the fields to retrieve planes that went down, or whatever... he even shot a couple RC planes down, and later he got ahold of a transmitter and used it to jam/crash an RC jet costing several thousand dollars, for which he was sued (and lost and had to pay for it). It was SUCH a big problem that the county found another scrap of unused land and relocated the RC club to the new field, far away from this a-hole... of course all the facilities are still standing there, unused...

Personally I hope they put a county dump there-- would serve the a-hole right... put the smelliest crap they can find there. LOL:)

Just goes to show ya... PEOPLE SUCK!!!!

Later! OL JR :)

I'd get some 2-4d and spray his cotton after he shot down one of my R/C planes. What a jacka$$.

[blackshire]

Yes, it's a good idea, in theory... getting park officials to actually do the 'legwork' to set aside specific times and areas and mark or "enforce" the rules is something else altogether.

People not "part of the group" generally won't or don't have much if any respect for other users anyway... what do you do with some busybody old lady that shows up to walk her poodle and *demands* her *right* to use *her* park *anytime she wants to* and then goes into hysterics or worse because a rocket launch "scared her little Fluffy all to pieces"?? Same thing with the soccer hooligans that show up on launch day and simply ignore everything and go out to "practice" and end up stomping rockets and land in their vicinity simply *because they can*...

It's a mess...

Heck, the county actually set up a nice model airplane flying field on an unused bit of county land behind the fairgrounds a few years ago-- even built a covered prep/setup area and small runway, keep the grass mowed, etc... even was a storage building for equipment/office type thing during club flying days. As it turned out, the neighbor was a rabid nutjob who "forbid" overflights of his property, claiming "damage" to his cotton crops from folks walking out into the fields to retrieve planes that went down, or whatever... he even shot a couple RC planes down, and later he got ahold of a transmitter and used it to jam/crash an RC jet costing several thousand dollars, for which he was sued (and lost and had to pay for it). It was SUCH a big problem that the county found another scrap of unused land and relocated the RC club to the new field, far away from this a-hole... of course all the facilities are still standing there, unused...

Personally I hope they put a county dump there-- would serve the a-hole right... put the smelliest crap they can find there. LOL:)

Just goes to show ya... PEOPLE SUCK!!!!

Later! OL JR :)Reading that makes me feel like a unicorn who just stepped delicately out of an enchanted forest... I grew up in Miami (which is infamous for its drug crime and violence), yet my park model rocketry experience was a "photographic negative" of yours. For decades, our family flew model rockets at Tamiami Park (the site of the former Old Tamiami Airport [for light aircraft], now mostly occupied by FIU [Florida International University]), and people there whom I know still fly rockets at the park, all without any strife. Also:

The airport runway was preserved for R/C model airplane flyers (with a roofed, open-fronted preparation building situated next to the runway). The grassy areas are used by model rocketeers, C/L airplane flyers, kite flyers, joggers, FIU students (who often like to read and study while sitting in portable chairs or on the ground), "picnic-ers" (there are numerous tables set up near the parking area), soccer players, and folks who just enjoy the open space or watching the models fly. No reservations are needed to fly there, and we never had any problems--in fact, on more than one occasion, other park visitors picked up rockets that landed far from our pad and brought them over to us as we were walking over there, and the folks who fly rockets there today enjoy the same situation. I would like to think that my positive park-flying model rocketry experience wasn't unique...

[blackshire]

That is beautiful! As stable as the bug is, I am betting it will fly just fine. I did some math a while back and I think the bug can be staged by simply taping the motors together, without any added airframe for the booster. Not NAR-friendly, but functional.

Now that I have seen it the way you did it... I gotta try it. :)

Awesome work.You've just brought up something else in the NAR rules that I think could/should be changed. I think CHAD staging with 13 mm and 18 mm motors is safe, as long as the motors are either sheathed in motor mount tubes (which are painted bright fluorescent colors or wrapped with metallized mylar or foil, for enhanced visibility) or the motors themselves are so painted or wrapped.To the contest aspect. The X-24 is a LOT of fun for a small field. My club tried X-24 drag races. It was REALLY cool to see a couple of these fly at one time, but it was almost impossible to keep track of which model was which since they cross each others paths so much and are so fast on the way down. Still it was a real crowd-pleaser. The nice thing is that they are really easy to build, and if you mess it up so that it won't glide, it will just tumble. Even if it nose-dives, it has so much drag that it returns like a shuttlecock ([art of a provisional NAR event).The now-cheap video cameras would permit documentation for "instant replays," if needed. :-)I'm actually looking around for some 18mm rubber or foam balls to use as nosecones to make it more shuttlecock-like. I tried styrofoam - too easy to damage and it makes trimming for glide a real pain.Some of the dime-store and "FOIZ" vending machine rubber balls (they're like mini-Super Balls) might be the right size--*or*, you could cast custom-size silicone rubber or polyurethane rubber hemispherical nose cones using resin molds ("resin casting in reverse"--the master part could be sprayed with a mold release agent so that the resin mold material wouldn't bond to it).

[KidShelleen]

I appreciate the encouragement everyone.

It's been a long time since I've seen a multi-stage model with a gliding first stage (Centuri's Black Widow),

Blackshire, I have to confess that having the booster glide down wasn't my intention. I expected a graceful tumble but I think I am going to accept the challenge and see if it will glide. Or at least fall in an upright position and land on it's belly.

And thanks for the links, especially the Centuri Tech Report TIR-24.

Ironnerd: I'm actually looking around for some 18mm rubber or foam balls to use as nosecones to make it more shuttlecock-like.

Here's an unconventional idea, memory foam. I've never worked with so I don't know how easy it would be to shape, paint, etc. but it is probably dense enough to hold shape during flight. It is about half the density of balsa so you could make it a little bigger. It would accept a lot of force and return to shape. There would need to be a bulkhead to protect it from the hot gasses.

did you just put the normal bulkhead in place and cut the shroud off at the front?

Yup. The picture is sort of a mock up, the forward bulkhead is .25 styrofoam board and the rear bulkhead is this corrugated cardboard. Attached are the booster mock up files. The BT needs to be 4.75 inches.

There needs to be a .25 inch hole below where the booster BT connects to the glider BT. I'm a little concerned that the escaping hot gasses and flames will burn the glider shroud before they separate. What are the chances of that happening?

[blackshire]

I appreciate the encouragement everyone.

Blackshire, I have to confess that having the booster glide down wasn't my intention. I expected a graceful tumble but I think I am going to accept the challenge and see if it will glide. Or at least fall in an upright position and land on it's belly.

And thanks for the links, especially the Centuri Tech Report TIR-24.You're welcome. TIR-24 also suggests a few possibilities:

A lightweight nose section could be added to your booster (or to a second one, for testing and comparison), to lower its drag and improve its gliding performance. A short, blunt nose "cone" shroud could extend from its forward bulkhead to the front edge of its motor mount tube, giving the booster a biconical profile (with the "bicone" being three-sided with rounded corners, of course). The forward shroud's cardstock could be treated with "waterglass" (a solution of sodium silicate, which is used for flame-proofing the rolled balsa or cardstock tailpipes in Jetex and Rapier model jet planes), to protect it from the flames at staging. Also:

If the booster's full-size fins cause any problems (they might or might not), the reduced-size "semi-finless" X-24 "Bug" fins shown in TIR-24 should work well (the Cuckoo motor-boosted versions of the British Skylark sounding rocket [see: http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/skylark_cuckoo.htm and http://www.spaceuk.org/ ] and Brazil's VSB-30 sounding rocket [see: http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/Rest_World/VLS-1/Gallery/VSB-30.jpg ] have first stage fins that are considerably smaller than their second stage fins).

[luke strawwalker]

I'd get some 2-4d and spray his cotton after he shot down one of my R/C planes. What a jacka$$.

Getting dragged into court and having to pay $6,000 bucks for a jet he crashed sorta got his attention...

Yeah, surprised there wasn't some "midnight sabotage" involved with a total knob like that...

People suck...

Later! OL JR :)

[luke strawwalker]

Reading that makes me feel like a unicorn who just stepped delicately out of an enchanted forest... I grew up in Miami (which is infamous for its drug crime and violence), yet my park model rocketry experience was a "photographic negative" of yours. For decades, our family flew model rockets at Tamiami Park (the site of the former Old Tamiami Airport [for light aircraft], now mostly occupied by FIU [Florida International University]), and people there whom I know still fly rockets at the park, all without any strife. Also:

The airport runway was preserved for R/C model airplane flyers (with a roofed, open-fronted preparation building situated next to the runway). The grassy areas are used by model rocketeers, C/L airplane flyers, kite flyers, joggers, FIU students (who often like to read and study while sitting in portable chairs or on the ground), "picnic-ers" (there are numerous tables set up near the parking area), soccer players, and folks who just enjoy the open space or watching the models fly. No reservations are needed to fly there, and we never had any problems--in fact, on more than one occasion, other park visitors picked up rockets that landed far from our pad and brought them over to us as we were walking over there, and the folks who fly rockets there today enjoy the same situation. I would like to think that my positive park-flying model rocketry experience wasn't unique...

Wow... fairy rocket land! LOL:)

Seriously, proximity to the space coast probably helped, among other things... (university atmosphere).

In most places, cross horns with "Grandma Bitty and her prize poodle" and you've got trouble... or land in anywhere near the soccer hooligans and you'll be rekitted and shovel recovery all in the same flight no matter how softly it landed!

Shine up yer horn there, unicorn! LOL:)

Later! OL JR :)

[blackshire]

Wow... fairy rocket land! LOL:)

Seriously, proximity to the space coast probably helped, among other things... (university atmosphere).

In most places, cross horns with "Grandma Bitty and her prize poodle" and you've got trouble... or land in anywhere near the soccer hooligans and you'll be rekitted and shovel recovery all in the same flight no matter how softly it landed!

Shine up yer horn there, unicorn! LOL:)

Later! OL JR :)A sharp, brightly-flickering alicorn definitely helps to maintain the peace... :-) In addition to what you observed (all of which is spot-on), I think another factor is the familiarity of model rockets, airplanes, and kites at Tamiami Park, as they've been flown there since before it became a park. In its latter years, the Old Tamiami Airport (there's a New Tamiami Airport, near the Everglades if memory serves) was very seldom used, and they didn't mind us flying models there (I remember recovering my father's Astron Falcon boost-glider near the control tower, which is now FIU's campus police headquarters). Also:

Dogs are fairly common at the park, but I never saw one freaked out by a model rocket or airplane. I think they were so used to seeing and hearing the models flying (which goes on there a lot) that it just didn't faze them. It's also big enough that folks can play soccer or jog without being too close to the model flying, and vice-versa.

[Ironnerd]

Fellow Rocket Nerds...

I am going to start another thread for "Field Frustrations (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showthread.php?p=190464#post190464) ", so we can have the whole field discussion over there. It's totally my fault for bringing up my frustrations in this thread, but I would really like to keep this discussion as "Lifting Body-centric" as possible.

I'll see about moving some posts over to the new thread so we can have the whole discussion there.

Thank-you

John "Ironnerd" Adams

[Ironnerd]

Alright... Modification number ... whatever...

I have some issues with the forward bulkheads/thrust disk blowing out. My interim fix was so add a Semroc centering ring to the bulkhead and glue in place (actually the glue went in first).

That should give a little more grip for the bulkhead, plus there is some more glue up there.

My next section launch is March-14th, so we'll see how it works then - gives me just enough time to re-trim them...

[Bill]

I also got tired of being jerked around by NAR. I put in a very simple Rules Change Proposal; to add STAGED ALTITUDE as an event, after all, we have CLUSTER ALTITUDE - and a provisional even involving the timed drop of a Wiffle Ball . For a few years now, the NAR has strung me along, passing me from one officer to another. They never even put it out for a vote by membership. If they said "No" I would be cool with that, but answering by not answering is for little kids.


I did not know they could keep your proposal off the ballot. If "craftspersonship" made it, anything should.


Bill

[Ironnerd]

I put it in on time, and never saw it on the ballot. I was told it was really just a sub-set of the altitude event. It was then passed on to another contest director who replaced the outgoing contest director. Then it just went away.

I have a new proposal for the same event typed up and printed. I plan to send it out to NAR HQ on 15-July of this year. It is worded a little differently this time as it is "...a competitive event specifically for, and exclusive to, multi-stage rockets."

[blackshire]

I put it in on time, and never saw it on the ballot. I was told it was really just a sub-set of the altitude event. It was then passed on to another contest director who replaced the outgoing contest director. Then it just went away.

I have a new proposal for the same event typed up and printed. I plan to send it out to NAR HQ on 15-July of this year. It is worded a little differently this time as it is "...a competitive event specifically for, and exclusive to, multi-stage rockets."Having just read your posting about your proposed Staged Altitude event above, an idea occurred to me: Why not *also* suggest it to Stuart Lodge (e-mail: stuart.lodge1@ntlworld.com ) as an FAI level, international space modeling event? Stuart, who is a long-time FAI model rocketry competitor *and* contest judge (as well as the author of several books on model rocketry), has lamented the "stagnant" status of FAI competition, saying that new events--and modifications to existing ones--are badly needed. Your event is just the sort of new, fresh event that he would love to cover and discuss in his interspace... FAI competition space modeling e-mail newsletter (subscription to it is *free* for the asking!). He recently ran an article on the NAR Concept Scale category, which he also thinks would invigorate FAI model rocketry competition. Wouldn't it be peachy if the NAR ignored your proposal (I certainly hope they won't this time), but the *world's* space modeling organization picked up your idea and ran with it? :-)