Scrounged-Up Designs 2006

[CPMcGraw]

Here's a cheap-n-dirty quickie that I whipped out last night to kill off some extra components that were just laying around, otherwise minding their own business... :D

The NC came from an Estes Hi Flyer that I scavenged for the motor hook, and the BT started out as a whistle tube from the Estes Screamin' Mimi.

I call it PUG, and it uses 13mm motors. Streamer recovery.

Enjoy.


Craig McGraw

[ScaleNut]

nice !.. reminds me of the old goblin

[CPMcGraw]

Here's another quickie, though not as simple as the Pug. This one is more along the lines of the Estes Interceptor and Quest Intruder.

The canopy is modeled in RS as a chunk of balsa, and should actually be more rounded than the simulation allows. This piece could also be created in clear plastic sheet, vacuum-formed. The engine intake cheeks are also shown as balsa chunks, and can probably be left this way. Again, this is a limitation of the simulator. You might choose balsa sheet to form a hollow cheek set to reduce some weight, but probably not much.

There should also be 6 simulated cooling fins attached to the motor tube, for show...

500' on a C6-5. This is the preferred motor.

Enjoy.


Craig McGraw

[CPMcGraw]

Here's another quickie...

These designs will be worked up into full PDF plan booklets, with templates and alignment guides, and possibly decal images, at a later date. When completed, they will be sent to Scott for posting to the BARCLONE website.

I'm posting them here first to let everyone have a go at them and hack on them, hopefully so you can send me some feedback on them before I get so far along with the PDFs that there's something missing.

Craig...

[rkt2k1]

Craig,

I like your designs! If these are "scrounged up" designs, I'd love to see your "better" designs! :D

I tweaked the Scorpion design a little to add the cooling fins you mentioned in your post. Is this what you had in mind?

... Bill

[CPMcGraw]

A "Flying Cone Of Death" design...

Don't ask about the name. It's just a play on a word that I heard somewhere and can't get out of my head!

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

Craig,

I like your designs! If these are "scrounged up" designs, I'd love to see your "better" designs! :D

I tweaked the Scorpion design a little to add the cooling fins you mentioned in your post. Is this what you had in mind?

... Bill

Thanks, Bill! I appreciate that!

Yes, this is just what I had in mind for the cooling fins.

"Scrounged Up" doesn't always mean I have the parts on hand, but this is what I'd toss together if I had them... :D

RockSIM makes it so much easier to try new designs out...

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

Here's another truly "scrounged-up" design...

Think of a stretched "Totally Tubular"...

One plan note: The launch lug needs to be mounted on a standoff such that the rod passes through the center of one of the tube fins. The plan does not show this -- it has the rod running through the gap between the main tube and two of the tube fins. This might work, but I think it would be unnecessarily tight.

Craig...

[John Brohm]

Hi Craig;

Here's a quick way to calculate an answer to your question: if the body tubes are the same size then the space, or "void", between the tubes when they are just touching (are tangent) can be calculated from the following:

CV = 0.155BT, where CV = the diameter of the void, and BT = the OD of the body tubes.

I'd provide the full formula here except that the Forum's text window doesn't seem to permit me to cut and paste data from Equation Writer (but that's not a complaint Scott. Just an observation...).

So in the case of your tubular design, if the tubes were, say, BT-50s (OD = 0.976"), then the space between the tubes would accept a maximum diameter of 0.151"; I'd say a 1/8" rod has a good chance of sliding in there friction free so long as there wasn't too much paint build up. Saves you the lug and the drag that goes with it.



<Craig speculates:>

it has the rod running through the gap between the main tube and two of the tube fins. This might work, but I think it would be unnecessarily tight.

[Ltvscout]

I'd provide the full formula here except that the Forum's text window doesn't seem to permit me to cut and paste data from Equation Writer (but that's not a complaint Scott. Just an observation...).
Hmmm, I've never used Equation Writer, but I know that cut & pastes work in the text edit box. Try pasting the equation to Notepad first, then cutting it out of notepad and pasting into the forum.

[John Brohm]

Hmmm, I've never used Equation Writer, but I know that cut & pastes work in the text edit box. Try pasting the equation to Notepad first, then cutting it out of notepad and pasting into the forum.

Scott;

Notepad won't accept objects from Equation Writer either; I have no problems cutting and pasting between Word documents though. I imagine the "problem" is that the elements from Equation Writer are objects, not text.

[Ltvscout]

Scott;

Notepad won't accept objects from Equation Writer either; I have no problems cutting and pasting between Word documents though. I imagine the "problem" is that the elements from Equation Writer are objects, not text.
Ah, yes, that could well be. Paste the equation into Photoshop then save it as a jpg and insert the image into the message. heh

[CPMcGraw]

Scott;

Notepad won't accept objects from Equation Writer either; I have no problems cutting and pasting between Word documents though. I imagine the "problem" is that the elements from Equation Writer are objects, not text.

John, can you "zip" the file and then send it to me via this forum as an attachment? I have a copy of OpenOffice 2.0 Beta (v1.9.104), and it has a math formula editor. Maybe I can open it from there...

Craig

[John Brohm]

Ah, yes, that could well be. Paste the equation into Photoshop then save it as a jpg and insert the image into the message. heh

Ok Scott - good point! Must be why you make the big bucks(!).

Let's try this as an attachment. In the formula, CV is the Center Void, MMT is the Body Tube diameter (OD), and n is the number of tubes.

[CPMcGraw]

Ok Scott - good point! Must be why you make the big bucks(!).

Let's try this as an attachment. In the formula, CV is the Center Void, MMT is the Body Tube diameter (OD), and n is the number of tubes.

OpenOffice forces an additional set of square brackets around the cosine function to make it show up as purty as yours... :D

If you have a copy of OpenOffice, I've attached the file in a zip.

Did anyone ever think this forum would become THIS geeky? :eek:

Craig McGraw

[CPMcGraw]

Another ST-10 design, to show support for Carl and SEMROC!

The tips of the main fins are supposed to have some 1/8" diameter dowels attached, 3.5" long, and pointed at the top. These are supposed to be the "landing legs" of this rocket, but I didn't include any feet. You could use some small circles of thick pressed paper board for this, but I'd leave them bare myself.

Attach them with 1" of the dowel ahead of the leading edge of the tip. The dowel is supposed to extend farther below the trailing edge of the fin tip, about 1.625"

Be sure to epoxy them to the fin tips, or they'll be the first to get knocked off in a bad landing...

Enjoy!


Craig McGraw

[Ltvscout]

Ok Scott - good point! Must be why you make the big bucks(!).

Let's try this as an attachment. In the formula, CV is the Center Void, MMT is the Body Tube diameter (OD), and n is the number of tubes.
It worked! Thanks for sending that over, John.

[John Brohm]

It worked! Thanks for sending that over, John.

No problem; but watch what happens when you plug in n=6. Ain't geometry neat?

Oh and Craig, about the Geeky thing. You are aware that this is a forum mainly frequented by middling age guys still fascinated about model rockets, right? I don't think the math stuff is our biggest issue (!)

[CPMcGraw]

No problem; but watch what happens when you plug in n=6. Ain't geometry neat?

Oh and Craig, about the Geeky thing. You are aware that this is a forum mainly frequented by middling age guys still fascinated about model rockets, right? I don't think the math stuff is our biggest issue (!)

Touche', John. :D

My middling is a little bigger than my age, though... :eek:

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

The cheeks are balsa in the simulation, these probably should be hollowed out to reduce weight. The canopy should be rounded out, of course. Keep the tube length at 18" to eliminate having to add weight to the nose area.

Enjoy!

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

Another in the family line...

Same notations as Empyria.

Enjoy!

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

For 13mm motors.

Only one motor recommended: A3-4T.

Enjoy!


Craig...

[John Brohm]

For 13mm motors.

Only one motor recommended: A3-4T.

Enjoy!


Craig...

Craig - I like this one; how would it look without the canopy?

[CPMcGraw]

Craig - I like this one; how would it look without the canopy?

Here you go, John. Not terribly bad. I might build this version myself...

Craig...

[John Brohm]

Here you go, John. Not terribly bad. I might build this version myself...

Craig...

Craig;

I've not updated my RockSim yet- two fins or three? If two, I'd be a little concerned with the sturdiness of the ring fin. Your view?

[John Brohm]

Here you go, John. Not terribly bad. I might build this version myself...

Craig...

And what do you think about bumping this one up to say a BT-50? Then you could bring in the PNC-50SP nose (Argosy, Venom), or the P/N 071005 nose (Star Rider, Nemesis). Could be slick.

[CPMcGraw]

Craig;

I've not updated my RockSim yet- two fins or three? If two, I'd be a little concerned with the sturdiness of the ring fin. Your view?

I chose two; The shapes of the support pylons were originally curved on the leading and trailing edges, to form the "stock" of a standard "six-shooter". If you look at the model with the fins top and bottom, the body tube was supposed to resemble a lawman's peacekeeper...

Limitations of the simulator prevented me from drawing that shape completely as I wanted...

Having said that, your comment about sturdiness is interesting. I thought about the possible vibration of the ring as I drew this up, but considered it a lesser problem given the smaller motors I intended to use. Perhaps if you add two thin, narrow pylons inside the ring toward the center, so that they're not seen in profile, maybe that would keep the ring from fluttering. Another possible solution is to glue two doublers at the ring-to-pylon joint, both sides, to reinforce the joint. Might be you could get by with two strips of cardstock, folded down the middle, and glued right into the corner on both sides, like a piece of welded angle stock...

One thing I was trying to avoid was to make it look like the Estes Sprite.

And what do you think about bumping this one up to say a BT-50? Then you could bring in the PNC-50SP nose (Argosy, Venom), or the P/N 071005 nose (Star Rider, Nemesis). Could be slick.

Like going from a peashooter to a "Dirty Harry Magnum"? How large would the ring fin need to be to stay in proportion? I haven't looked at that yet, but I might. Interesting idea.

Craig

[John Brohm]

One thing I was trying to avoid was to make it look like the Estes Sprite.

Craig

Craig - that was my thought as well. Bringing in the 3rd fin would provide better support for the ring (a smaller propensity for flutter, not that there would necessarily be that much), but then the design conjures up the Sprite. It's what caused me to suggest bringing in those other noses that I mentioned.

[CPMcGraw]

Same notes as with the Empyria...

Enjoy!

Craig

[CPMcGraw]

Combination ring-fin and tube-fin, using 24mm motors.

D12-3 and E9-4 are the only motors recommended. Altitudes of 319' and 515' respectively suggested by RS.

Enjoy!

Craig

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Cool. Kind of Andromeda-esque. :cool:

[CPMcGraw]

Cool. Kind of Andromeda-esque. :cool:

And since it uses SEMROC components, you can think of it as "What Centuri might have done if Centuri had done the Andromeda..." :D

I'm learning some tricks with RS now (you can tell, right?), and some really interesting results when I put fins in various locations. I'm trying to take advantage of some of those wierd numbers in some of these new designs...

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

One custom BMS transition required, and a long streamer, but otherwise uses SEMROC components.

The long ST-5 tube is shown in two pieces -- a 1" long inside tube and an 11" outside tube. This is a limitation of the simulator. Use one continuous 12" length of ST-5, and insert 1" up into the transition's core from the front.

Enjoy!

Craig.

[rkt2k1]

Craig,

Very cool :cool: designs!! I especially like the Willow! Thanks for sharing your designs with the rest of us!

... Bill

[CPMcGraw]

This is one of my Schoolyard Sounders series...

13mm motors, ST-8 body tubes...

Designed for very small fields without making you feel like you're flying a small model...

Enjoy!

Craig

[CPMcGraw]

Another Schoolyard Sounder...

Enjoy!

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

A couple of design adjustments were needed for this plan, nothing that changes the appearance or the dimensions, but which should explain what I had to do to get the plan to work on the simulator.

The connecting tunnel, between the forward crew compartment and the rear engineering section, should be a single piece of ST-5, 12" long. The two BMS custom transitions are to be cored to accept the ST-7 tube. 3" of the tube at each end are embedded through these cores, and this forms a "backbone" to keep the two sections steady. Doing this also required the addition of a BTC-5 bulkhead in the rear of the tube, to have something to mount the screw eye into. EPOXY the screw eye into the bulkhead, and EPOXY the bulkhead into the tube.

The BR-1013 transition should also be cored, with a 1.75" length of ST-5 embedded as a liner for the deployment gasses to pass through.

Hope this clears up any confusion...


Craig.

[CPMcGraw]

Craig,

Very cool :cool: designs!! I especially like the Willow! Thanks for sharing your designs with the rest of us!

... Bill

Thanks for the kind words. I'm happy that folks are liking what I've come up with.

Be sure to download the updated plan for the Willow, because I made a couple of changes that should make the plan more understandable. Read the comments section "hidden" on the first tab of the simulation file. The simulator has a few limitations in what it understands about construction, and I've had to adapt my thinking around it.

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

Another in the Schoolyard Sounders series.

Schoolyard Sounders are all 13mm motor designs, intended for flying in small fields and small schoolyards, but without compromising the size and feel of larger 18mm designs. These designs offer great performance with minimal power.

Enjoy!

Craig McGraw

[CPMcGraw]

When Flying Cones Of Death develop attitudes, they often look painful just standing still...

The simulator says this will fly, and not too shabbily, either.

Enjoy...with care!


Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

The thread on the "E"-powered ThunderRoc got me started thinking (dangerous, you all know that! :eek: ) about coming up with an appropriate design for BARCLONE...

I think everyone will like the name, anyway... :D

SEMROC components for the nose cone and body tubes, but there's a mix of custom-built pieces and some Estes pieces. I used a 6" length of BT-50 for the motor tube...

The main body tubes are 30" lengths of ST-175. Carl doesn't have these listed as "In Stock" yet, just as "Coming Soon". The hollow tube coupler shown in the list has to be made from a length of ST-175 tubing, 4" long, split and a strip taken out. Easier to do than to tell you how to do it...

No launch lugs for this bird; you need a launch tower to be effective, as the rocket doesn't reach flight speed until it gets about 60" off the ground. Composite motors only.

Enjoy!

Craig McGraw

[Ltvscout]

The thread on the "E"-powered ThunderRoc got me started thinking (dangerous, you all know that! :eek: ) about coming up with an appropriate design for BARCLONE...

I think everyone will like the name, anyway... :D

SEMROC components for the nose cone and body tubes, but there's a mix of custom-built pieces and some Estes pieces. I used a 6" length of BT-50 for the motor tube...

The main body tubes are 30" lengths of ST-175. Carl doesn't have these listed as "In Stock" yet, just as "Coming Soon". The hollow tube coupler shown in the list has to be made from a length of ST-175 tubing, 4" long, split and a strip taken out. Easier to do than to tell you how to do it...
So how long is it?! :)

[CPMcGraw]

So how long is it?! :)

Total length is 101.7". It uses three lengths of tube, with separation between the top two. Two 24" parachutes for recovery listed, but you might reduce this to a single chute.

Craig

[CPMcGraw]

OK, folks, this is what happens when one person suggests a name, and another puts two of his few, underworked brain cells in contact with each other...

Jay suggested the name "Kick A Pig", and I went hog wild...

This model was going to be a flying football, aka "pigskin"...

Fat chance...

The name is pronounced "Swine-ing-ton", sounds like "Lexington"...

These drawings are by no means complete. They're only posted here to give you an idea of a simple concept that has gone horribly bonkers...

For example, there is no hatch designed in for the parachute to escape through. And, the center tube is longer than any existing tube of that diameter -- it needs to be divided into at least two. There is no launch lug yet -- it is supposed to be the full length of the main body, centered inside the core inside tube and large enough for a 1/4" diameter rod. The nacelles have no real structure, and need some additional bracing. They are supposed to act as tube fins at the end of those pylons.

Believe it or not, the simulator says it doesn't need that lower pylon, but it would require about 8 oz of mass at the tip of the nose without it.

The composite motors in the flight simulation are the only recommended motors at this time. Yes, you must use 4 of them!

So fry up some ham and eggs, dig out a DVD of the Muppets' Swine Trek skits, and Enjoy!

Craig McGraw

[CPMcGraw]

Well, this seems to be a very popular rocket series...

This is not a modification to the Longneck. The Longneck uses ST-175 tubes...

Sorry 'bout the confusion I may have caused before...

The fins are 30% enlargements of the Thunder Bird patterns, and the nosecone is a new SEMROC BC-1364 rounded-ogive (the simulation file shows an elliptical shape, only because it doesn't have a correct profile for this cone).

The paint scheme remains the same as the original Thunder series.

Enjoy!

Craig

[Tweener]

Hey, it had to happen. :D

Anyone want to try for a decal for this? Uses original size Thunder Roc fins, a single BT-60 (which I have since I bash Mean Machines for Thunder Rocs), a Baby Bertha could supply the nose cone and engine mount.

[CPMcGraw]

Hey, it had to happen. :D

Anyone want to try for a decal for this? Uses original size Thunder Roc fins, a single BT-60 (which I have since I bash Mean Machines for Thunder Rocs), a Baby Bertha could supply the nose cone and engine mount.

Lance,

Not to steal your Thunder :p , but how about this version, which uses the Baby Bertha nose cone and 9" body tube?

Craig...

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Why not just call it "Thunder Goon"?

[CPMcGraw]

Why not just call it "Thunder Goon"?

OK. Here it is...

Craig

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Or Thunder Booby. :D :eek:

[Tweener]

<snip>how about this version, which uses the Baby Bertha nose cone and 9" body tube?

I liked the 18" because it still hinted at the "longness" of the Thunder series, but had the squashed "been-chasing-parked-cars" look of the other goonies. I have since tried the color separation at 6" red, 12" white and it looks a lot better that way too. :)

As for a name, I also (re)considered "Goony Roc" which may be more appropriate since the fins and BT diameter are the same.

This is fun. :D I wonder how I'm going to talk my wife into letting me buy this program once the trial period runs out. :rolleyes:

[CPMcGraw]

I liked the 18" because it still hinted at the "longness" of the Thunder series, but had the squashed "been-chasing-parked-cars" look of the other goonies. I have since tried the color separation at 6" red, 12" white and it looks a lot better that way too. :)

As for a name, I also (re)considered "Goony Roc" which may be more appropriate since the fins and BT diameter are the same.

This is fun. :D I wonder how I'm going to talk my wife into letting me buy this program once the trial period runs out. :rolleyes:

I shrunk the length because we had just seen one at 18" earlier, and because most of the Goony series from Jim Flis were short-bodied...

Now, here's one for you and Jay...

The Thunder Pig, aka Thunder Swine... :eek:

Starting point is the Fat Boy...

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

Whew-wee! :D

Had to take a quickie break from the barnyard for a while... :p

This is an Estes-diametered model, similar to the Empyria-class ships, but smaller. The engine shrouds and the canopy are hollow balsa, but could be created from vacuum-formed styrene to make the model lighter. The simulations show it will fly as-is, with reasonable performance.

Enjoy!

Craig McGraw

[Tweener]

Now, here's one for you and Jay...

The Thunder Pig, aka Thunder Swine... :eek:

Starting point is the Fat Boy...
Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "when pigs fly"! :p

[CPMcGraw]

Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "when pigs fly"! :p

How about "Watching... for pigs on the wing..." :rolleyes:

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

You know I HAD to mention something about pink flying objects... :D

I presume everyone's heard that TPF is getting together -- INCLUDING Waters :eek: -- for a benefit concert hosted by Bono...

First time in 25 years with all four on the same stage -- at the same time -- not trying to sue the bangers out of each other...

I wonder if the reunion will last as long as it takes Titebond III to dry? :p

Of course, we all know hell froze over back in 1995, so I suppose this was ultimately inevitable... :rolleyes:

Anyone care to come up with some Pink-sounding names? Keep in mind "Interstellar Overdrive" has already been claimed by at least one fellow BAR on this forum...

Care for a rocket called a "Relic"?

Or how about "The Pict"?

Or even "Eugene's Axe"?

Lasers...

Craig...

[Tweener]

Ha! :D Taking from the Animals album, how about Thunder Dog? (There's no need to fear, Thunder Dog is here!) :rolleyes: Okay, I'm just being corny.

As far as Floyd themes go, maybe Crazy Diamond (a "cone of death" with triangle fins). I'll have to look through my CD's and come up with some more.

[CPMcGraw]

Ha! :D Taking from the Animals album, how about Thunder Dog? (There's no need to fear, Thunder Dog is here!) :rolleyes: Okay, I'm just being corny.

As far as Floyd themes go, maybe Crazy Diamond (a "cone of death" with triangle fins). I'll have to look through my CD's and come up with some more.

Thunder Dog is a good name... Like TurboDog is a good name for a brew... :D

Crazy Diamond is also good...

Sky Gig...

Arnold's Laundry...


Craig

[CPMcGraw]

Not a pig on the wing, or a pig in a poke, either...

Watch out for the Axe Man, Eugene, as this bird takes to flight!

RS8 says it's stable to over 900' with a D12.

Enjoy!

Craig McGraw

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

I'm thinking this Floyd reunion is going to be like the Guess Who reunion of a few years back. Everyone will have their own quadrant of the stage to prowl and none of the others will be allowed to cross predetermined lines. No looking at one another either. Sounds good on paper, but I'll call it a success when an album of new, collaborative material shows up in stores. Shall I start holding my breath? :rolleyes:

[Tweener]

How's this? ;) A little more nose weight could be added for assured stability. :D No engine lock, friction fit with tape. (KISS principle) Oops, just noticed, no launch lug either. :o I'll have to fix that.

[Nuke Rocketeer]

At one scout launch several years ago, one of the boys who was into rockets cut out some cardboard fins and a conical nose from some thin cardstock he found in his Mom's station wagon and glued them to an A10-3T along with a launch lug. I was helping another prep his rocket and did not see him put it on the pad and launch it. It went up about 50 ft and then started doing loops, nose diving into the ground and then popping the ejection charge. ALL the kids then wanted to do more of those, but I put a stop to that. I later told one of the adults that stuff like that is better left to those with delusions of grandeur enhanced by a few beers (not that I'm ever guilty of stunts like that! :D )

[Tweener]

Here's Crazy Diamond updated with a little more nose weight, a launch lug, and no A8-3 recommended. If I actually build this, I will definitely do a swing test and add nose weight as needed, then weigh the model, put the actual values back into RockSim and see what happens.

[CPMcGraw]

Here's Crazy Diamond updated with a little more nose weight, a launch lug, and no A8-3 recommended. If I actually build this, I will definitely do a swing test and add nose weight as needed, then weigh the model, put the actual values back into RockSim and see what happens.

Lance, I'd drop the B4-4 as well. Go with the B6-4 to achieve the lower deployment velocity.

Minor adjustments to make:

1. When loading engines, remember that the amount of motor hanging out the end is only 0.25", instead of 0.5". You are placing the thrust block 2.5" from the end of the tube...

2. Make the nose cone solid balsa. Anyone who builds this plan will probably order the cone from BMS. If your RS part database shows "G10" as the material for this component, it's wrong...

3. Move the nose weight just aft of the shoulder on the nose cone. This being a solid balsa cone, the easiest place to put this weight is under the screw eye, in the form of washers. Don't forget to add the screw eye as a mass object, too. I don't see too many builders hollowing out a balsa cone, or custom-molding a fiberglass cone, for something like this.

This looks like it would be a fun model to build and fly. I've made the corrections mentioned above on the copy I have here. Shall I send it to BARCLONE for public posting?

Craig

[Tweener]

Make the nose cone solid balsa.
I was actually thinking to use the Estes PNC-20Y (P/N 070323) with modeling clay inside, since I have a few of those here at home. (Bought for the X-24 Bug clone before I discovered Moldin' Oldies and Semroc ST-7's.)

Shall I send it to BARCLONE for public posting?
By all means. I can think of no greater honor. :D By the way, my last name is Ladd.

[CPMcGraw]

I was actually thinking to use the Estes PNC-20Y (P/N 070323) with modeling clay inside, since I have a few of those here at home. (Bought for the X-24 Bug clone before I discovered Moldin' Oldies and Semroc ST-7's.)

I just wonder how many other builders have that cone laying around, minding its own business? :rolleyes:

Maybe Moldin' Oldies will whip this cone up. Scott says there's a big update about to hit the website, so maybe this cone is now available in resin? Don't know if that will bring the weight up, though...

The balsa cone with the additional weight added to the shoulder worked on the simulation, so I would guess the stability range of the model is wide enough to cover the differences.

I'll get the RKT file sent to the BARCLONE file queue tonight; Scott has been busily working all of the YORS sites with updates, so it'll be posted along with a bunch of others.

Backburner for now, I'll try to create the PDF to go along with this plan after the holiday has passed.

Craig..

[CPMcGraw]

I just wonder how many other builders have that cone laying around, minding its own business? :rolleyes: Craig..

...And I just realized Estes still has (or had) this cone in production -- for the Yankee. Doh! :eek:

Craig...

[Tweener]

The Estes PNC-20 nose cone 4 pack includes 2 of these also as well as 2 PNC-20A's. That's how I got mine. :) (Now I gotta design something to use the 20A's.) ;)

[JRThro]

Here's another truly "scrounged-up" design...

Think of a stretched "Totally Tubular"...

One plan note: The launch lug needs to be mounted on a standoff such that the rod passes through the center of one of the tube fins. The plan does not show this -- it has the rod running through the gap between the main tube and two of the tube fins. This might work, but I think it would be unnecessarily tight.

Craig...
I've built a stretched Totally Tubular from, IIRC, 3 kits, and it flies great. The tube fins are alternating blue and yellow, as is the BT. The launch lug is mounted between the outside of two of the tube fins and is barely visible in the second picture. Another option might be to glue the launch lug to the inside of one of the tube fins, adjacent to where that fin is glued to the body tube.

-John T., NAR #84553

[CPMcGraw]

Big name for this rocket, huh?

Thanks to Geoffrey Kerbel for this suggestion (from the OldRockets list), and to whoever originally designed it for Estes back in the '80s...

There are a few minor parts not shown in the RKT file, or in the 3D image, as there is no simple (or complicated, for that matter) way to draw them in. Mostly fiddly bits like the tip probes and the "T" tail piece of balsa at the top of the vertical fin.

One important note: This design brings up a bug in the RockSim program. Notice the orientation of the tube fins in the 2D (plan) view. Then, compare that to what the 3D (solid model) view shows. The tube fins are 180 degrees out of sync, and this is consistent no matter what radial position is given.

Don't try to fly this model with anything less than the C6-5. There's just way too much drag in this model to reach a respectable altitude on anything A or B. I also wouldn't suggest a D or E motor, as this would require additional ballast in the nose. Overall, this is not a very good design, and I might try tweaking it a bit to get some better performance out of it. Example -- those forward fins do not help the model, they actually hurt by destabilizing the model. They need to be greatly reduced, as their best function is strictly for looks.

Enjoy!


Craig McGraw

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

How about this one?
http://www.dars.org/jimz/estp741.htm
Page two, lower left-hand corner. I've had the parts for almost a year. (In fact, I first worked on it while in Gulf Shores on vacation last August.)

[CPMcGraw]

How about this one?
http://www.dars.org/jimz/estp741.htm
Page two, lower left-hand corner. I've had the parts for almost a year. (In fact, I first worked on it while in Gulf Shores on vacation last August.)

This one flies without needing ballast, but again, not on anything less than a C6-5. It's a pig...

It looks better with the nose cone in the simulation, as opposed to the Mercury capsule. More like a family member with the Taurus...

The fins are approximated, and I chose to use three fins. I don't know what the original was supposed to use, looks like it might be four, but that would only add weight. Rocksim says three is all it needs...

Craig...

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

I didn't think you'd be able to resist that challenge. I've laid in a supply of C5-3's that I plan to fly it on. I was a little iffy about the C6-5. I've got mine laid out as a three fin rocket. The fins are HUGE!
I call it the Cosmik Debris. :D (Dinah-Mo-Humm didn't quite fit for some reason.)

[CPMcGraw]

I didn't think you'd be able to resist that challenge. I've laid in a supply of C5-3's that I plan to fly it on. I was a little iffy about the C6-5. I've got mine laid out as a three fin rocket. The fins are HUGE!
I call it the Cosmik Debris. :D (Dinah-Mo-Humm didn't quite fit for some reason.)

The C5-3 will only give you a 25' altitude advantage over the C6-5, and a 500 fps acceleration rate versus a 314 fps rate. However, this is interesting -- the deployment velocity with the C5-3 is 25 fps, while the C6-5 allows a 40 fps deployment rate.

You thus have a choice: Do I shred now, or shred later? :eek:

Good name. Fits the concept, I think. Another SPEV...

Craig...

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

I was just thinking along the lines of clearing the rod.

[Maniac BAR]

Hey Scott! When I did the design work on RS 7 I had no problem with the "fiddly" parts. The body side tubes are also in the proper positions on the main body tube in each of the other views on the sim. Is there a problem with version 8?
I tweaked the program myself and came up with much larger rear fins and smaller front fins than you show. Mine also shows all the little "fiddley" parts quite well except for the sub fins. They are included in the calculations for C/P and C/G but only show up on the end view and in the center of the main body tube. Strange quirk of the program. My flight sims show 190' with a B6-4 and 450' with a C6. A 3 delay will be on the way up and a 5 delay will be on the way down. A C5-3 will get it up over 500' if you have those engines. All the flights show the rocket as stable.
Here are my sims. If anyone is interested in the full file ,you can get them from me. Just send an email for the RKT file and I should be able to send it direct. You can reach me at blkgtx@cox.net.

[CPMcGraw]

I was just thinking along the lines of clearing the rod.

I didn't even check that out. :eek: Thanks for reminding me.

Try out this variation. A little more exciting in appearance, I think... :D

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

Hey Scott! When I did the design work on RS 7 I had no problem with the "fiddly" parts. The body side tubes are also in the proper positions on the main body tube in each of the other views on the sim. Is there a problem with version 8?
I tweaked the program myself and came up with much larger rear fins and smaller front fins than you show. Mine also shows all the little "fiddley" parts quite well except for the sub fins. They are included in the calculations for C/P and C/G but only show up on the end view and in the center of the main body tube. Strange quirk of the program. My flight sims show 190' with a B6-4 and 450' with a C6. A 3 delay will be on the way up and a 5 delay will be on the way down. A C5-3 will get it up over 500' if you have those engines. All the flights show the rocket as stable.
Here are my sims. If anyone is interested in the full file ,you can get them from me. Just send an email for the RKT file and I should be able to send it direct. You can reach me at blkgtx@cox.net.

I don't suppose you could wrap the RKT file up into a ZIP and post it as an attachment here, could you? I'd like to compare your RS7 file to the RS8 file I came up with.

I'm always tring to steal... (hack, sputter) Uh... LEARN new techniques... :D

Craig...

[CPMcGraw]

I was just thinking along the lines of clearing the rod.

Just checked the sims with both motors...

C6 requires 80" of rod...
C5 requires 31"...

A real PIG of a rocket!

75" and 31" respectively for the Stretch Limo version, too...

PIGGIES, nothin' more than PIGGIES...

Craig "Pork Fat rocks, it just don't roll" McGraw

[Maniac BAR]

Could be worse! :( How so he asks! :) It could be raining!!!! :o Actually, your post brings up the image of the USS America by Centuri. I have one I fly quite a bit and it is always a nail bite'er on any C engine. However I have just come into two composite D10 motors that I think will make this bird actually FLY!!!!! :p

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

I have the parts collected and partially cut out for an ESS Raven clone, but I've planned for it to be D or E powered from the start.
But I also bought some Silly Putty when I was buying my engines on Saturday so that I could try my hand at a BT-60 upscale. (It was right there at the checkout, just calling to me. ;) )

[Ltvscout]

I didn't think you'd be able to resist that challenge. I've laid in a supply of C5-3's that I plan to fly it on. I was a little iffy about the C6-5. I've got mine laid out as a three fin rocket. The fins are HUGE!
I call it the Cosmik Debris. :D (Dinah-Mo-Humm didn't quite fit for some reason.)
Don't forget Quest is coming out with their 18mm D which would work great with these large 18mm designs Craig has.

I haven't seen any loaded motor weight specs yet, bet the empty casing I held at NARCON felt lighter than an empty Estes paper 18mm casing.

[Ltvscout]

The C5-3 will only give you a 25' altitude advantage over the C6-5, and a 500 fps acceleration rate versus a 314 fps rate. However, this is interesting -- the deployment velocity with the C5-3 is 25 fps, while the C6-5 allows a 40 fps deployment rate.

You thus have a choice: Do I shred now, or shred later? :eek:

Good name. Fits the concept, I think. Another SPEV...

Craig...
Did you try the sim with a C6-3? Also, try it with Quest C6 motors. They are different from Estes C6's.

[Ltvscout]

Hey Scott! When I did the design work on RS 7 I had no problem with the "fiddly" parts. The body side tubes are also in the proper positions on the main body tube in each of the other views on the sim. Is there a problem with version 8?
George,

I think you meant to direct your message to Bill or Craig. Anywho, if you send a zip of your rkt file to Craig or attach it to a message here, we can include it on the BARCLONE website.

[CPMcGraw]

Did you try the sim with a C6-3? Also, try it with Quest C6 motors. They are different from Estes C6's.

Scott,

Tried the Estes C6-3 just now on the 741 version. This actually works better, deployment is pre-apogee, about 4' before max altitude, with a 22.5 fps deployment velocity. Still requires a 76" launch rod, however. It's the degree of kick at ignition. The C5 had plenty, the C6 is terribly weak for this model. The model weight is 4.7 oz with the C6 loaded, and 3.9 oz empty.

Using the Quest C6-3, the performance was about the same, maybe even a bit less overall, but there is a big difference in the kick off the pad. It gets to flight speed at 47".

I'd like to see that Quest 18mm D when it becomes available. As long as it has the kick of the C5, these models should perform better. If the C5 can get 400', then a D should easily get 600'-750' without any trouble.

Craig

[Eagle3]

Hey Craig, have you tried any of the RMS 18mm D's or the single use D21? I bet that D21 will do the trick. :D

[CPMcGraw]

Hey Craig, have you tried any of the RMS 18mm D's or the single use D21? I bet that D21 will do the trick. :D

I just ran the Aerotech D13 and D21 motors, and got some good results:

D13 reaches flight V at 25", the D21 reaches flight V at 17"...

D13 deployment V is 47.5 fps, D21 deployment V is 30.9 fps...

D13 altitude is 1008', D21 altitude is 1037'...

HOWEVER...

D13 Max Acceleration is 477.4 fps/s, and Max V is 325 fps, but the D21 reaches 744 fps/s, with Max V at 392 fps. Both of these may kill the model before it reaches altitude... :(

Craig

[Eagle3]

I would think it would survive the D13, but the D21 is a monster. I watched a Little Ivan do a strip tease yesterday on a E25, which is just s slightly hotter D21.

BTW - D21's are excellent motors for the Centuri Argus and Estes Interceptor. :D

[CPMcGraw]

D13 Max Acceleration is 477.4 fps/s, and Max V is 325 fps, but the D21 reaches 744 fps/s, with Max V at 392 fps. Both of these may kill the model before it reaches altitude...

Just ran a quickie on these numbers...

D13 = 221.6 MPH...

D21 = 267.3 MPH...

Someone with more technical flight experience can suggest whether this might result in a shred for this design. The model as-designed does not use TTW fins. This might be an issue with 1/8" balsa...

TTW and 3/16" balsa might be a better construction choice...

Craig

[CPMcGraw]

BTW - D21's are excellent motors for the Centuri Argus and Estes Interceptor. :D

Is that for an original, unmodified Interceptor, or one that has been engineered for high-acceleration boosts?

Craig

[Eagle3]

Bone stock. It's so old the white paint is almost as yellowed as the decals. :p The last two times I flew it was with D21's and they were great flights. I've since retired it until I can clean it up and get some new decals on it.

[dtomko]

I flew my Interceptor clone, made using the Moldin' Oldies parts, last weekend and it was marginal on a C6-3. It was a tad windy, but I'm not sure I will repeat with a C. The resin pfin pods shift more weight toward the rear, I suppose.
Drew Tomko

[CPMcGraw]

Uses 13mm motors...

A3-4T reaches 339', with a 17.3 fps deployment V. A10-3T reaches 324' with a deployment V of 8.3 fps, but an acceleration of 1448 fps/s.

Skill Level 3...

Plan shows a balsa 50Y with a shaped balsa cockpit added. Cut the pattern oversize in the height, then conform the curve to the 50Y. Angle the sides of the canopy in toward the top for a better appearance.

Another in the Schoolyard Sounders series..

Enjoy!

Craig McGraw

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

I flew my Interceptor clone, made using the Moldin' Oldies parts, last weekend and it was marginal on a C6-3. It was a tad windy, but I'm not sure I will repeat with a C. The resin pfin pods shift more weight toward the rear, I suppose.
Drew Tomko

I've got one of these ready to go also. Sounds like it might be worth thinking about going with a 24mm engine mount if I ever get that far.
Any pics?

[Eagle3]

I flew my Interceptor clone, made using the Moldin' Oldies parts, last weekend and it was marginal on a C6-3. It was a tad windy, but I'm not sure I will repeat with a C. The resin pfin pods shift more weight toward the rear, I suppose.
Drew Tomko

The clone I saw fly Sunday was built with a 24mm mount and moldin oldies parts. It wobbled and spun a little, not straight and true like I'm used to seeing them fly. I didn't get a close up look to check fin alignment. I'm leaning towards building my clone with a 24mm mount. When it's done I can compare the CG with my old orginal kit. I wonder if Carl's Krellvinator can spit out some laser cut Interceptor fins. :D

[dtomko]

I've got one of these ready to go also. Sounds like it might be worth thinking about going with a 24mm engine mount if I ever get that far.
Any pics?

Bunch of shots of build and finished and decaled here:
http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10666&perpage=20&highlight=interceptor%20clone&pagenumber=1

Somewhere I have a shot of it on the pad at NERRF, but no flight pics; it was pretty wobbly going up.
It would probably be fine on a C5-3; I have one of those left. I may try one of the new Quest 18mm Ds when they come out, but I'm afraid of fin shredding. If you do convert to 24mm, you might need to do some work on the tailcone to make the mount fit.

[JRThro]

I'm thinking this Floyd reunion is going to be like the Guess Who reunion of a few years back. Everyone will have their own quadrant of the stage to prowl and none of the others will be allowed to cross predetermined lines. No looking at one another either. Sounds good on paper, but I'll call it a success when an album of new, collaborative material shows up in stores. Shall I start holding my breath? :rolleyes:
Not if you expect to remain conscious until the concert, man.

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

If you do convert to 24mm, you might need to do some work on the tailcone to make the mount fit.

Okay. Everybody say "DUH, BILL!" I completely forgot about the tail cone. :D

[dtomko]

Okay. Everybody say "DUH, BILL!" I completely forgot about the tail cone. :D

D'oh! There's not a lot of room around the 18mm tube in the tailcone, but nothing a Dremel couldn't take care of

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

I almost killed my Semroc Taurus with my Dremel. I'm not detail oriented enough to start trying to modify things like the tail cone with it. The resin dust isn't something I'd like to be working in a cloud of either. :eek:

[dtomko]

Another option would be to have the 24mm tube stick out from the main BT and glue strips of balsa to it to simulate the ridges on the original tailcone. Since it's painted black it would probably look pretty close.

"The resin dust isn't something I'd like to be working in a cloud of either."

Sometimes I feel like I'm working in a cloud of "ether" :p

[CPMcGraw]

When I did the design work on RS 7 I had no problem with the "fiddly" parts. The body side tubes are also in the proper positions on the main body tube in each of the other views on the sim. Is there a problem with version 8?

Attached is an updated RS8 version of the 87 Catalog Demo. After seeing what Geoffrey had in his RKT file, I now understand a little more of what he was doing. I also understand now why he didn't see my tube fins when viewing the file in RS7.

When I whipped up my RKT file, I took advantage of RS8 having a "Tube Fin" feature, which RS7 doesn't have. RS7 cannot recognize the script, and so it omits trying to draw the tubes. Geoffrey used a simple "inside tube" approach, which is all that RS7 offered. I can see his RKT file completely, but he cannot see mine because of the RS8-specific scripting.

Craig McGraw

[Ltvscout]

Attached is an updated RS8 version of the 87 Catalog Demo. After seeing what Geoffrey had in his RKT file, I now understand a little more of what he was doing. I also understand now why he didn't see my tube fins when viewing the file in RS7.
Cool. I like how the little dowels just float out in the air. Less drag that way! ;)

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Cool. I like how the little dowels just float out in the air. Less drag that way! ;)

:D :D :D

[CPMcGraw]

Here's another ring-fin, this time for 13mm motors. The A10-3T is the only recommended motor for this design, as the A3-4T deploys the parachute at too high a velocity. The maximum altitude is only about 190'.

Skill Level 2...

Schoolyard Sounders series.

[CPMcGraw]

This plan is modernized and updated from a design I saw about 15 years ago by Pete Alway, in AmericanSpacemodeling magazine. His design was intended to be a gap-staged full-stack Aerobee-Hi, using a BT-60 upper body and a BT-55 booster. His original design was truly gap-staged, with a wide open area between the stages, per the prototype.

The BARCLONE version is just the upper stage of this stack, as I don't have the drawings for the booster available anymore. This version is a 181% upscale of the BARCLONE Aerobee-Hi, which was itself a 10% upscale of the original MMI-EIRP version. This model uses a SEMROC turned balsa nosecone following the dimensions of the currently-OOP PNC-60RL. (Please note: The SEMROC version also doesn't yet exist, but I'm hoping our good friend Carl will see his way to replicating it and making it available on his website).

Skill Level 1. Not a difficult model at all, in this configuration.

Flies to 900' on a D12-5; 1936' on an E15-7; 2336' on an F21W-8.

Respectable performance, I'd say... :cool:

Enjoy!

[Eagle3]

Sweet Craig. I can get you the booster dimensions, but you're going to have a helluva time with the interstage posts. I'd just go CHAD and make it one solid tube up the sustainer. :D

Pete built this around the same time I built a gap-staged Standard Missile 2 ER. Both models staged well except when Pete tried a B4 for the upper stage once and it didn't ignite. My SM-2 had the problem where the booster was stable after staging and cored in most of the time. That lead me to work on some gap stage booster recovery ideas.

[CPMcGraw]

Long title, but a good performer on a B6-4 or a C6-5. The Drakken Defender is a "family member" to the Empyria, Rampage, Scorpion, and Spectre.

Skill Level 3. A PDF of this design is almost ready, and it contains additional detailing pieces; the wing tips are 1/8" dowels and there are some small fins that are attached to the engine pod tubes.

(Cormes is pronounced KOR-meez...)

[CPMcGraw]

I can get you the booster dimensions, but you're going to have a helluva time with the interstage posts.

Thanks, Buzz. I could use them...

I remember the AmSpaM article, and Pete's construction method of using a JT-60 coupler epoxied to the struts; I'll probably just "borrow" that method, unless I can develop something more rugged and stout. If his method worked reasonably well most of the time, it still will... :D

[EchoVictor]

Long title, but a good performer on a B6-4 or a C6-5. The Drakken Defender is a "family member" to the Empyria, Rampage, Scorpion, and Spectre.


Craig, I dig the design a lot, but the name makes me wonder when you'll have a black and light green design with "She-Go" in the name. :D (Those of you with kids will understand)...

Later,
EV

[CPMcGraw]

Craig, I dig the design a lot, but the name makes me wonder when you'll have a black and light green design with "She-Go" in the name. :D (Those of you with kids will understand)...

Since I'm blissfully still a kid myself (even if I am 43...) :cool: and a batchelor (how could I afford rockets AND a wife?) :D with NO kids :p , that reference just whizzes over my head without so much as registering a raised eyebrow. :o

Do I even WANT to know? :eek:

[CPMcGraw]

OK...

It's black and light green... :D

Not the highest performer, but probably loud and slow, with lots of latent smoke... :cool:

Enjoy!

[EchoVictor]

http://psc.disney.go.com/disneychannel/kimpossible/villains/index.html

Scroll through the "Villain Files" and you'll see what I'm talkin' about....

Later,
EV

[CPMcGraw]

Scroll through the "Villain Files" and you'll see what I'm talkin' about....

OK, I get the connection now... :)

I'll think about it... :rolleyes:

[CPMcGraw]

I see there are some cluster fanatics on this forum... :D

OK.

Here's a BARCLONE cluster that should prove popular, if you can lathe out the nose cone!

Length: 59.22"
Diameter: 2.80" (SEMROC ST-275)
Fin Span: 11.84"
Weight Empty: 31.33 oz
Motors: 3
Motor Diameter: 24 mm
Suggested Motors: D12-3, E28-8, F32-10

Simulated Flight Specs:

On D12's, altitude = 295', deployment V = 11.38 fps
On E28's, altitude = 1386', deployment V = 5.4 fps
On F32's, altitude = 3187', deployment V = 17.82 fps

[CPMcGraw]

Blue Sneek 2 is the two-stage progression of the Blue Sneek design. This model uses all SEMROC components and is simple to build.

Length: 28.2"
Fin Span: 4.54"
Body Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Weight: 2.1821 oz

Performance:

B6-0/A8-5, 550'+, 17 fps deployment V, 48" rod required
C6-0/A8-5, 940'+, 5.8 fps deployment V, 48" rod required
C6-0/B6-6, 1170'+, 9.13 fps deployment V, 48" rod required

Enjoy!

[Tau Zero]

Blue Sneek 2 is the two-stage progression of the Blue Sneek design. This model uses all SEMROC components and is simple to build.

Length: 28.2"
Fin Span: 4.54"
Body Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Weight: 2.1821 oz

So if I hack off the second stage, I'll already have a RockSim file for the original Blue Sneek? :confused: (which is conspicuous by its absence at BarClone)


Cheers,

--Jay

[CPMcGraw]

So if I hack off the second stage, I'll already have a RockSim file for the original Blue Sneek? :confused: (which is conspicuous by its absence at BarClone)


Cheers,

--Jay

Not quite...

There should be a PDF of the original version up on BARCLONE...

The original Blue Sneek used a 12" body tube. I wasn't using RockSim at the time I drew up that version. I created a RKT version much later -- after I had built my prototype. When Scott gets all of the latest updates to YORP and BARCLONE put up on the websites, an updated PDF and a RKT file of the Blue Sneek will be part of it.

I'll put the Blue Sneek RKT file up now, though, for comparison...

A8-3........163'.............10.3 fps
B4-4........436'.............7.9 fps
C6-5........1041'............28.2 fps

[CPMcGraw]

A question about the stability of this model came up on the OldRockets list, and I wanted to see what the issue was. The model, as described in the plans, is tail-heavy and needs ballast to make it fly correctly.

Attached is a quickie-RKT file minus the tip fins and the elevator. While the tip fins do correct for yaw, the elevator in this simulation would aggravate the negative balance problem. Granted, the simulation is not fully accurate for this reason, but that is a limitation of the current version of the software.

A8-3......218'........3.6 fps
B4-4......531'.......20.5 fps
B6-4......540'.......25.2 fps
C6-5......1151'......32.2 fps
C6-7......1162'......31.4 fps

[Tau Zero]

Not quite...

There should be a PDF of the original version up on BARCLONE...

The original Blue Sneek used a 12" body tube. I wasn't using RockSim at the time I drew up that version.Funny, now that I see the two versions together... I find I actually prefer the 18" version, but as a single-stager. Kind of a Blue Sneek Stretch. :eek: :p

(Hmm... An entry for the possible Semroc plan book?) ;) :D


Cheers,

--Jay

[CPMcGraw]

Funny, now that I see the two versions together... I find I actually prefer the 18" version, but as a single-stager. Kind of a Blue Sneek Stretch. :eek: :p

Don't forget to check out the 29mm version, using larger SEMROC components... :D

The same basic plan for the BS2 can be enlarged the same way... :rolleyes:

[CPMcGraw]

This is based on a message from Roy Green over on OldRockets about his acquisition of an original 1966 Czech ALFA kit.

The BARCLONE version uses the BMS version of the BNC-50J nose cone, which is reasonably close to the nose cone shape seen in a photo in MRN v6 N2 (page 6). I chose the BT-50W body tube (9.5"), and created fins that are similar. This version uses a standard 18mm mount.

I sent Roy a message that he should measure, scan, trace, and photograph his kit for YORP... :D

[CPMcGraw]

I thought of this design as an early development prototype to the Estes Andromeda and Alien Explorer classes of starships. Not as flashy as those later designs, as this is intended to be an early "technology demonstrator" for the systems they would later use...

All SEMROC components this time...

Specs are as follows:

Length = 40.2"
Fin Span = 8.1"
Weight = 3.03 oz

Altitude = 330'
Deployment V = 6.75 fps

Recovery = SEMROC 20" parachute

Motor = C6-3

Do not use any other motor for this model!

[CPMcGraw]

This is a very rough prototype simulation of a design inspired by those beautiful Sunward/Canaroc models...

Surprisingly, RS allows me to simulate most of the design, although it won't draw the nose and tail cones on the non-centerline tubes. I hope Apogee is looking into this for their next version. Try to imagine those cones in-place when you look at the 3D image.

This design will be prototyped and flown before a PDF is available, but I wanted to put this sim out here to get some feedback...

[EchoVictor]

Very pretty, Craig. It's nice to see your "Scrounged" designs getting more adventurous. I would caution that the tail section of the Regulus here has quite a bit of feel like Rockitflite's new Odyessy kit.

Keep on chugging out the new designs!

By the way, the latest file you sent me on my "starter" model with the twin tails? It's really cool, but it's even further from the look I'm going for. Why don't you change the name and post the twin-tail here?

Later,
EV

[CPMcGraw]

Very pretty, Craig. It's nice to see your "Scrounged" designs getting more adventurous. I would caution that the tail section of the Regulus here has quite a bit of feel like Rockitflite's new Odyessy kit.

I'll make some changes to the Regulus, since I wasn't trying to "copy" anything. This was just a "first draft" sim...

Keep on chugging out the new designs!

By the way, the latest file you sent me on my "starter" model with the twin tails? It's really cool, but it's even further from the look I'm going for. Why don't you change the name and post the twin-tail here?

Later,
EV

Are we talking about the swept-tip version, or the flat-tip version?

[CPMcGraw]

Here's an updated version of the Regulus, with minor changes to the tail area. Be sure to check the flight specs on the RKT file...

Small sample:

Max Alt = 670'
Deployment V = 1.1 fps
Motor = C6-5

[CPMcGraw]

Here's yet another revision to the tail section. I gave the pylons some curves to break the sharp edge look of the earlied versions...

[CPMcGraw]

Are we talking about the swept-tip version, or the flat-tip version?

DOH! :o :eek:

I know which one... :D


Here is a new design from EchoVictor, which is a derivative of yet another model still under development...

Simple to build, nothing very complicated, which are usually the qualities found in a very good model. Performance is excellent on the A3-4T motor, reaching 430', and deploying at a gentle 5 fps.

[EchoVictor]

Here is a new design from EchoVictor, which is a derivative of yet another model still under development...

Honestly, Craig, give yourself some credit. This design has morphed so much from my original vision that it has become its own design. So really, it's the Craig McGraw/BARCLONE Nightwing. If you want you could say it was inspired by an EVR (EchoVictor Rocketry - it's the name I'll use once I get the ball rolling early next year) design.

Later,
EV

[CPMcGraw]

Honestly, Craig, give yourself some credit. This design has morphed so much from my original vision that it has become its own design. So really, it's the Craig McGraw/BARCLONE Nightwing. If you want you could say it was inspired by an EVR (EchoVictor Rocketry - it's the name I'll use once I get the ball rolling early next year) design.

Later,
EV

Eric,

You provided the original design, I just altered its personality a bit... :eek: :D

I put my name in the project description area of the RKT file, but I like the idea of having other designers' names showing up on BARCLONE, not just mine all the time. ;)

[EchoVictor]

Craig,

here's the graphic for the side.....

[CPMcGraw]

Craig,

here's the graphic for the side.....


Ah, now that looks great. Can you "flip" the sword around for me, so that I can have a left-right pair?

[EchoVictor]

Done.

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Ah, now that looks great. Can you "flip" the sword around for me, so that I can have a left-right pair?

Otherwise he'll walk funny. :eek: :D

[CPMcGraw]

Otherwise he'll walk funny. :eek: :D

Not unless the swords get crossed in the wrong place... :eek: :D

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Not unless the swords get crossed in the wrong place... :eek: :D

I had that procedure a while back. No big deal. :p :eek:
(Although I did get moved up front in choir. :confused: )

[CPMcGraw]

Done.

Thanks. I'll work on this after some down-time. RockSim doesn't want to render the images correctly again tonight; it's one of a couple of really annoying bugs that I hope TVM can get straightened out soon with the rendering engine.

[CPMcGraw]

Some ideas just come like an itch that needs to be scratched...

First of all, CSL means "Civil Space Liner", and I have a few of these on the back-burner. I wanted all the designs in this series to have the names of famous musical entertainers of the 20th century. This one is named after a particular favorite singer from the 70's and 80's -- Anne Murray (Snowbird, Cotton Jenny, etc...).

The design is really a simple one, very much based around the Astron Trident in the way the exhaust gasses flow through connections between the parallel tubes. It's the way I managed to get RS to display the tubes that needs studying...

Some details are missing from the RKT file, such as a solid support "crutch" between the two motor tubes. The bulkheads seen in the forward ends of the motor tubes, and in the trailing ends of the long passage tubes, are as close a representation to a nose cone as I can manage.

RS performance on this model:

Use only C6-5s in the two motor tubes. Recovery is via a 24" parachute.

Max Alt.....825'
Deployment V.....a very soft 7.5 fps
Deployment is pre-apogee, by less than 1'
Stable flight is reached at 28.5"

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Some ideas just come like an itch that needs to be scratched...

First of all, CSL means "Civil Space Liner", and I have a few of these on the back-burner. I wanted all the designs in this series to have the names of famous musical entertainers of the 20th century. This one is named after a particular favorite singer from the 70's and 80's -- Anne Murray (Snowbird, Cotton Jenny, etc...).

Speaking of an itch that needs scratching, can I design the Courtney Love rocket? :eek:

[CPMcGraw]

Speaking of an itch that needs scratching, can I design the Courtney Love rocket? :eek:

Let's see... I said famous, not infamous...

Describe this rocket... Is this one that goes nowhere very fast, makes a lot of noise but says nothing truly memorable, produces a lot of smoke and flash, but gives no lasting performance? :rolleyes:

Sort of like the Estes Maxi Brute Pershing?

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Let's see... I said famous, not infamous...

Describe this rocket... Is this one that goes nowhere very fast, makes a lot of noise but says nothing truly memorable, produces a lot of smoke and flash, but gives no lasting performance? :rolleyes:

Sort of like the Estes Maxi Brute Pershing?

At least the Pershing is good looking. Courtney could be the poster child for body odor.

[CPMcGraw]

At least the Pershing is good looking. Courtney could be the poster child for body odor.

I'll give it that. It does look like a rocket...

[CPMcGraw]

Some slight mods here, mostly to beef up the two passage pipes. I also needed to adjust the two side wings a little to get some additional stability which was lost when I added the stiffeners. Third mod was to increase the length of the top/bottom motor housings by one inch. This allows more passageway opening between the tubes, and a 3" contact area.

I was a little nervous about the use of ST-5 tubing by themselves for those passage tubes, but I really didn't want to increase them to ST-7. Too large, and the gap between them is part of the styling effect...

Anyway, RS updates as follows:

Max Alt.....740'
Deployment V.....8.33 fps
Weight.....4.16 oz empty
Stability margin.....1.33, with two C6-5s loaded
Length.....37.75"
Flight Speed reached at 28.5"

[CPMcGraw]

Futuristic interstellar pirate raider...

Use only the C6-5 motor for this model, and it will require a 48" launch rod...

680' altitude, deployment-V is a very soft 2.1 FPS...

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

OK, all you Cherokee-D, Double-D, Triple-D, and anything related, fans...

This version is NOT intended for the feint-of-heart (or feint-of-wallet) types. It is also not intended for general release as a PDF anytime soon. I really need some of you HPR folks to evaluate the construction of this one, keeping in mind that none of the body components actually exist in the wild (only as a RockSim file for now). The nose cone, couplers and rings, and body tubes have no current manufacturer, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

The version presented in this file is a true 4X upscale of the BT-55 CDD, and is more of an academic exercise than anything else. My suspicions are that the airframe is rather weak and probably would not withstand the stress of one flight. However, those of you with real-world experience in HPR construction can study the parts and tell me what I might want to improve upon.

Important note: I have not included any recovery devices in the booster stage, meaning that as shown, the booster free-falls, which may be from a considerable altitude. I am considering a slight lengthening of the booster body to accomodate a small drogue parachute, but this version does not include one.

Here's some text specs:

Motors -- (6) Aerotech Reloadable J-135W with no ejection charges.

Electronics -- One altimeter for the parachute deployment, one accelerometer for the sustainer ignition.

Length -- 124.5"
Diameter -- 5.3"
Weight -- 202 oz
Fin Span -- 24"

Deployment V -- 22.5 FPS <--- Not really bad for a rocket this size!

Max Altitude -- 14,700'

The rocket as shown here also requires a 12' (144") launch tower to ensure flight stability. It will take nearly every inch of this tower to reach the correct flight velocity!

It's your turn, now. I just had to get this one out of my system. :D

[Eagle3]

Off the bat Craig I say it's doable, but you're right. It'd be expen$ive! Not to create more work for you ;), but if you design a 3X Cherokee you can use 4" LOC tubing and the 4" Ace nose cone. That's within my budget and I'd build one of those. :D

[CPMcGraw]

Off the bat Craig I say it's doable, but you're right. It'd be expen$ive! Not to create more work for you ;), but if you design a 3X Cherokee you can use 4" LOC tubing and the 4" Ace nose cone. That's within my budget and I'd build one of those. :D

I thought I had, but I'll go back and look through my files. Sounds like another simulation to run... :D

[CPMcGraw]

All,

I've gone through the 4X version and basically redesigned it from end-to-end. One of the things I really wanted to simplify was the motor configuration. Six reloadable motors gives me a lot of power to work with, but it also multiplies the failure chances by a higher margin than I feel comfortable with. This revision reduces the ignition risks back to two motors -- both "L-330" reloadables. Again, the booster is a simple ground-fired motor, and the sustainer is air-started by an accelerometer. The booster still does not have an adaquate recovery device built in yet, so that is one area I need to address.

The nose cone for this version was changed from a hollow plastic to a hollowed hard maple cone with a 3/8" thick shell. A solid maple cone is too heavy. Hollowing out the center might prove to be a challenge, but I think this could be turned on a large lathe more quickly than trying to get a polystyrene cone fabricated...

One additional note about the weight. The listed weight does not take into consideration what the final finish might add to the total. If we're talking about a simple filler-primer-paint style of finish, the weight shouldn't be that much. But a glassed finish might change these numbers considerably. The upside of a glass finish is that it would strengthen the outer tube a little and possibly give it more resilience against a rough landing.

The booster body tube was again lengthened to 18" to accomodate the motor, and this also gives much more room for the addition of a parachute compartment and an altimeter deployment system via a side compartment. Alternately, using a delay charge on the motor and having that pressurize the compartment would eliminate the additional weight of the electronics. Isn't that a strange turn of design -- having a booster motor with a delay charge, and no delay or charge on the sustainer?

RockSim gives me some really interesting flight data...

The booster continues upward beyond the separation point to an altitude of over one mile before arcing over. Sustainer apogee occurs before the booster reaches the ground (in tumble mode).

Altitude -- 16,300' (over three miles)...

Time to apogee -- 33 seconds...

Motors -- (2) Ellis Mountain L-330W reloadables...

Stability margin with motors -- 2...

Empty weight -- 140.5 oz (or 8.75 lbs)...
Weight with motors -- 310 oz (or 19.375 lbs)...

Deployment V -- 1.31 FPS <--- Remarkable deployment velocity; very safe condition!

Flight V reached at 109", so it still needs that 12' launch tower. It's travelling at 51 FPS when it exits the tower 0.5 seconds after ignition. If the 2D flight profile is any indicator, this is a relatively slow liftoff, but with 8-second burn times on these motors, the launch ought to be spectacular.

Once again, I would appreciate comments on this beast. I'm trying to learn about HPR construction, so anything you guys with experience can offer will be taken to heart!

[Eagle3]

I thought I had, but I'll go back and look through my files. Sounds like another simulation to run... :D

If you made a 4" version already I missed it. I like the newer config with two EM L330's sweeeeeeeeet!

[CPMcGraw]

If you made a 4" version already I missed it. I like the newer config with two EM L330's sweeeeeeeeet!

If I did, I can't locate it...

So, I came up with a new one...

Specs on this version:

Altitude -- 7600'

Deployment V -- 1.3 FPS, altimeter-triggered recovery [booster still needs a recovery system, but this is do-able]

Motors -- (2) Aerotech J-460 Reloadables

Length -- 92.75"

Span -- 18"

Weight -- 88 oz empty, 146.2 oz loaded

Requires a 48" tower, reaches flight speed at 31"

Stability margin with motors is 5.6

Enjoy!

[Eagle3]

Coolness Craig, Thanks! This will be a blast to build after I get my L2 out of the way. :D

[Green Dragon]

a cpouple comments,questions on this paper project, lol...

looks VERY doable, in fact if I was 'into' Cherokee-double-D , I;d build it to prove the design, but with all my regular sized clones, plus the 7.67" Goblin and a pair of Black Brant 3's ( 4" and 10.25")... well....

anyways,m the rocksim weights are good, in fact if the ready to fly weight can be done at 20 lbs loaded - which I highly doubt those figures - it sure doesn;t need L330 motors.

My brothers 1:3 scale Nike-Tomahawk ( 5.54" booster / 3" upper ), was 27 lbs loaded and flew perfect on K700 ( Kosdon 1400 nsec, current AMW 1400 would be fine),and that was not only 27 lbs loaded, but more drag than a cherokee would have .

also brings up my last question - why not just design / simulate this with the Loc 5.54" tubing ? ,seems the Loc cone is close looking, or if you're a purist, long 5.54 ogive is made by performance rocketry.

if anyone builds this, I'll keep a close watch :-)

- a couple guys in our club has started on a 5.54" BETA upscale about 15 years back... I remember cutting the fins and rings for them, they had the parts,etc but one guy left the hobby, and the other is not real active now, far as I know, last he flew as LDRS 13....
Beta scale length booster did not leave much room for chutes though......

~ AL

[snaquin]

I reworked my Loc Big Nuke 3E file using the fin pattern Craig has in his large version, sustainer only. The design includes an adapter that I built for 54mm motors.

I was thinking the same thing about Loc parts although not a perfect upscale, pretty close.

As for some construction tips and a good view of the included parts, this is how I built my built my Big Nuke 3E

Big Nuke 3E EMRR Review (http://www.rocketreviews.com/reviews/kits/loc_big_nuke.html)

Only things I would recommend if built with Loc parts would be thru-the-wall fins to the motor mount and I prefer 0.25" plywood for the fins instead of G10 for better epoxy bonds. Centering rings and bulkheads 0.25" instead of 0.125" and stiffy tube couplers at all the airframe joints where a coupler is used. I've seen a Loc Magnum buckle and fail with a coupler only at those joints under high thrust HPR motors. Barry at Loc has included the stiffy tube couplers into the kits for that reason.

[Green Dragon]

I reworked my Loc Big Nuke 3E file using the fin pattern Craig has in his large version, sustainer only. The design includes an adapter that I built for 54mm motors.

I was thinking the same thing about Loc parts although not a perfect upscale, pretty close.

As for some construction tips and a good view of the included parts, this is how I built my built my Big Nuke 3E

Big Nuke 3E EMRR Review (http://www.rocketreviews.com/reviews/kits/loc_big_nuke.html)

Only things I would recommend if built with Loc parts would be thru-the-wall fins to the motor mount and I prefer 0.25" plywood for the fins instead of G10 for better epoxy bonds. Centering rings and bulkheads 0.25" instead of 0.125" and stiffy tube couplers at all the airframe joints where a coupler is used. I've seen a Loc Magnum buckle and fail with a coupler only at those joints under high thrust HPR motors. Barry at Loc has included the stiffy tube couplers into the kits for that reason.

Sounds like a Big Nuke or similar could be a starting point, although cheaper to just buy the parts ( have to plug my friend Pat's site at http://www.centeringrings.com/index.htm for best prices on LOC spec tubing )

1/4" plywood is overkill, but thicker is closer to scale, so not a bad choice.

As for the stiffy coupler reccomendation - I agree 110% if it's a bulkhead or similar, had my LOC K-Load fold at the payload / airframe coupler joint.. thought it took a hit tot he electronics and ejected, but video's inconclusive, new version has the stiffy couplers installed.. although L600 might be a little extreme for that bird :-)

thinking about the guys and the Beta upscale has me thinking large 2 stage, biggest I've done myself is the US Rockets Sonic 2200, although my brother had the 1:3 Nike as noted.... not sure a Cherokee, thouhg, but a true upscale 2 stage .... hmmm.....

~ AL

[CPMcGraw]

...brings up my last question - why not just design / simulate this with the Loc 5.54" tubing ? ,seems the Loc cone is close looking, or if you're a purist, long 5.54 ogive is made by performance rocketry
~ AL

Al,

I was not really thinking in terms of kitbashing when I started this version. This was really an academic exercise to see what a "true" 4X version would look like and perform like. If I were to rework the design again (and I just might, now that you guys have mentioned the tube diameter is so close), then the LOC tubing would be the tube of choice.

My thoughts were simply "If I were setting up for a kit, I could simply order the tube size that I wanted, and not just accept what someone else already has. The price to order the correct size directly from the manufacturer would be no more, and very likely a lot less, than purchasing the same tubes from a distributor. If I'm ordering from the manufacturer, why not go with the exact size?"

Don't misunderstand -- I'm NOT kitting this beast! But one can dream, right? :D

[CPMcGraw]

Coolness Craig, Thanks! This will be a blast to build after I get my L2 out of the way. :D

Pictures and a build report will be required... :D

[Green Dragon]

Al,

I was not really thinking in terms of kitbashing when I started this version. This was really an academic exercise to see what a "true" 4X version would look like and perform like. If I were to rework the design again (and I just might, now that you guys have mentioned the tube diameter is so close), then the LOC tubing would be the tube of choice.

My thoughts were simply "If I were setting up for a kit, I could simply order the tube size that I wanted, and not just accept what someone else already has. The price to order the correct size directly from the manufacturer would be no more, and very likely a lot less, than purchasing the same tubes from a distributor. If I'm ordering from the manufacturer, why not go with the exact size?"

Don't misunderstand -- I'm NOT kitting this beast! But one can dream, right? :D

No problem - I understand that for sake of simulating / test-running the design, that the exact scale sizes were used, just thought the difference between 5.3 and 5.54 would not be very significant.
And you're correct on buying the tubes dorect, much less costly, especially in quantity, of course the cone would still be an issue.

Either way it's an interesting concept study, I've seen various Cherokee upscales, so no reason a booster addition would not be feasable -
I'm definately thinking on a large 2 stager now, have to look around and see what designs look nice :-)

~ AL

[CPMcGraw]

I'm definately thinking on a large 2 stager now, have to look around and see what designs look nice :-)

~ AL

You know, I was just thinking about doing another monster upscale of something... :D :eek:

Check out the BARCLONE Hawk design and let me know if that appeals to you...

[snaquin]

Once again, I would appreciate comments on this beast. I'm trying to learn about HPR construction, so anything you guys with experience can offer will be taken to heart!

The size of your Updated 4X CDD lends itself really well to HPR. With the span diamter of 24" stability sure wouldn't be a problem. I guess my angle on it was viewed from the construction and parts similarities to the Big Nuke as far as the sustainer is concerned. Those similarities being three centering rings with a 75mm motor mount, nose cone 21", diameter, electronics capable.

Although your real intent was a true 4X upscale I found it interesting that the Big Nuke extended with your fin design and a coupler could be built pretty close to your sustainer with currently available components. If I had seen your design before I built that kit it would have certainly have been a consideration to try that approach since the CD was always one of my favorites.

Actually your 4" Cherokee Double-J is the design size I like best.

So when did you say this kit would be available?

just kidding ;)

[CPMcGraw]

The size of your Updated 4X CDD lends itself really well to HPR. With the span diamter of 24" stability sure wouldn't be a problem. I guess my angle on it was viewed from the construction and parts similarities to the Big Nuke as far as the sustainer is concerned. Those similarities being three centering rings with a 75mm motor mount, nose cone 21", diameter, electronics capable.

Although your real intent was a true 4X upscale I found it interesting that the Big Nuke extended with your fin design and a coupler could be built pretty close to your sustainer with currently available components. If I had seen your design before I built that kit it would have certainly have been a consideration to try that approach since the CD was always one of my favorites.

Actually your 4" Cherokee Double-J is the design size I like best.

So when did you say this kit would be available?

just kidding ;)

When my rich uncle gets out of the poor house... :(

[Bessie5392]

A w e s o m e !

[CPMcGraw]

All,

I have run all of the PUNK series through RockSim tonight, and finally proved to myself that these rockets are as stable as I felt they should have been. They are, so I'm going to post the RKT files here for everyone to take a look at.

For those who may not remember the Punks, they're a series of simple 4FNC models that stay about the same height, but are each larger in diameter than the one before. The phrase I used to describe them was "Punks -- They don't grow up, they just GROW!"

These will make great flyers for just getting into the air quickly without a lot of breakable fiddly bits. All but the largest one use streamers for recovery. They are all reasonably good performers, too, with one having a 1600' service ceiling.

[CPMcGraw]

Well, this one is finally a PDF! This was one of my earlier designs from 2003, and one of the only known BARCLONE designs to have been built prior to the Cherokee Double-D. I've been wanting to get this one written into a more traditional instruction guide format ever since it was first posted, but other things kept me from it. Now I can sit back for a bit and relax...

I need you to do something for me before I post this to the BARCLONE website. As far as I know (and understand this -- it's past midnight here in Mobile as I post this, and my eyes are buggin' out from all the text...) the text is complete and the sequence is sound. Read through the PDF sheets and see if you can follow the flow. Try to visualize all of the tools I had to create for this model to be built (remember, too, that I'm hoping others will download this plan and build it, not just you experts... :rolleyes: :D ). Let me know if there is a step out-of-place, or a step missing, or just not explained right. Imagine how the tools work, and if the steps to build those are adaquate, or need work. I want to improve these plans as much as possible, so feedback is important!

To download the PDF (which is too large for this forum), use this url:

http://www.savefile.com/files/3257894

Thanks!

[PaulK]

I like the antares Craig. Right up my retro-sci-fi alley.

-Paul

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Yeah, I printed it off last night at work and was very impressed. Nice work all around. :cool:

[CPMcGraw]

I like the antares Craig. Right up my retro-sci-fi alley.

I printed it off last night at work and very impressed. Nice work all around...


Thanks, guys. It was a very early effort at doing something that wasn't just 4FNC.

[CPMcGraw]

This one was presented here on the forum in a semi-finished draft. It's not on the website yet. I'm starting to get the hang of RockSim, and I've been able to make some improvements to the appearance of the 3D image.

[Ltvscout]

I'm starting to get the hang of RockSim, and I've been able to make some improvements to the appearance of the 3D image.
Did you get the build 14 update yesterday or today?

[CPMcGraw]

Did you get the build 14 update yesterday or today?

Ummm...

Yes. :D :rolleyes:

I haven't had much of a chance to try out the new features, however.

How about you?

[CPMcGraw]

...yesterday or today?

I think it was yesterday, because I was still working on the Antares PDF at the time.

[Ltvscout]

Ummm...

Yes. :D :rolleyes:

I haven't had much of a chance to try out the new features, however.

How about you?
Heh, I rarely use the program myself. So, no, I haven't played with any of the new features yet. ;)

[CPMcGraw]

From 2003...

This is another "Schoolyard Sounder", with very classic styling. The performance is outstanding, too!

1/4A3-3T......190'......3.52 FPS
1/2A3-4T......425'......7.71 FPS

The full A3-4T and the A10-3T are NOT recommended for this model; the deployment V is too high, because the delay times are too short.

First time I've run this one through RockSim. This one is going to become part of my personal inventory soon!

[CPMcGraw]

I've gone back to this design and changed the nose cone to look more like the Gemini capsule from the original. I wound up using two balsa transitions and a solid balsa piece which look like and approximate the length of the BNC-60AB.

The pod nose and tail cones are still simulated as mass objects...

It still flies like a pig...

[CPMcGraw]

This model is a simple 60% downscale of the Estes Astron Omega. Excellent performance on 18mm motors.

B6-0/B6-6.....1115'.....7.54 FPS
C6-0/B6-6.....1540'.....10.33 FPS
B6-0/C6-7.....1720'.....19.62 FPS
C6-0/C6-7.....2110'.....12.83 FPS

All simulations show a 36" rod is sufficient for stability.

Enjoy!

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

I've gone back to this design and changed the nose cone to look more like the Gemini capsule from the original. I wound up using two balsa transitions and a solid balsa piece which look like and approximate the length of the BNC-60AB.

The pod nose and tail cones are still simulated as mass objects...

It still flies like a pig...

We'll see about that come spring. :cool:

[CPMcGraw]

This was never posted here on the forum, but there is a PDF on the website. Up to this point it has remained a CONCEPT design, without being run through RockSim. I have now run the simulation, and have some good numbers, meaning it will shortly be moved to the PROVEN page.

B6-0/A8-5......550'.....22 FPS
B6-0/B6-6......790'.....30.2 FPS
C6-0/A8-5......900'.....10 FPS
C6-0/B6-6.....1120'.....22 FPS

This model uses a paper shroud, similar to the Laser-X. The upper body tube is hidden behind the shroud in the simulation, but on the model it would be there... :D

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

Another plan from the CONCEPT page on the website...

This is a three-stage model, with a wide range of motor combinations to reach anywhere from 935' to 2400' altitude. All SEMROC components.

This model requires an 8'-10' launch tower for safe flight.

B6-0/B6-0/A8-5......935'......9 FPS
B6-0/B6-0/B6-6.....1217'......4 FPS
C6-0/B6-0/B6-6.....1495'......10 FPS
B6-0/C6-0/B6-6.....1585'......20 FPS
C6-0/C6-0/A8-5.....1620'......29 FPS
B6-0/B6-0/C6-7.....1770'......26 FPS
C6-0/C6-0/B6-6.....1875'......15 FPS
B6-0/C6-0/C6-7.....2140'......18 FPS
C6-0/C6-0/C6-7.....2400'......18 FPS


Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

Yet another revision of an early plan, the Deltoid was loosely based around the Boeing Delta and the Custom Serval. This model has a good power range, from BP D12 to AP F21.

Important note -- When using either a D12 or an E9, you need to use a 48" launch rod. All other motors have sufficient impulse to achieve safe flight velocity on a 36" rod.

Power settings:

D12-5.......690'......16 FPS
E9-4.......1080'......29 FPS
E28-5......1280'......24 FPS
F12-5......1470'.......2 FPS
F39-6......1480'.......5 FPS
F21W-6.....1675'......23 FPS

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

One more 2003 design brought up-to-date through RockSim...

Big, burly payload lofter capable of decent performance. Skill Level 2.

Power settings:

D12-5.......590'.......12.0 FPS......48" x 3/16" rod
E9-6.......1040'.......20.0 FPS.......8' tower
E15-7......1600'.......17.0 FPS......48" x 3/16" rod
F24-7......1810'........5.2 FPS......48" x 3/16" rod

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

For all of you power hogs out there, here's an upscale of Buzz Nau's Cluros Mk II that I hope everyone likes...

The RKT file is very simplistic, no special features included, and probably will need some adjusting before a full working model can be constructed. However, I put this out to the forum for study (and drooling...).

The power is a pair of Ellis Mountain L330s. The deployment needs to be set by time, and not by altitude, as the rocket will travel into an unsafe Dv range if set strictly for max altitude deployment. The simulation I'm giving has deployment at 30 seconds after ignition, which allows 2 seconds before apogee. This gives me a less-than-2-FPS Dv. Nice and gentle for a model this size...

Length -- 139"
Weight -- 327.3 oz (w/motors)
Fin Span -- 28.8"
Diameter -- 5.54"

This has not been sent to BARCLONE yet.

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

The original Triton design (three-stage, all 18mm motors) left a lot to be desired in the full-house configuration. There simply was not enough power in an 18mm motor to lift the stack to a reasonable height, nor was there enough final acceleration to reach a safe flight velocity without the use of a very tall tower.

This revised version has better performance in the full-house stack. The first booster has been slightly enlarged to accept a 24mm "D" or "C" motor. All of the simulated flights in the RKT file reach flight V in the length of a 48" rod; the "C" booster stack reaches flight V in 37", and the "D" booster stacks reach flight V in 34". Use the 48" rod for safety.

[Tau Zero]

From 13mm "mini" to 18mm "midi," just because the lines of Craig's "Mini-Loader" are cool...

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=4980&postcount=173

...but I wanted a bigger version, since that's what I already had parts for! :o :p

Additionally, the "logo" symbol contains an electronic music joke. ;) "MIDI" stands for "Musical Instrument Digital Interface," and the circle off to the left of the name represents the business end of a MIDI plug. (the sound of illumination dawning) :rolleyes:

I had to make up a similar decal for this one anyway:

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=5284&postcount=191


A tip of the hat to you, Craig! :D


Cheers,

--Jay

[CPMcGraw]

From 13mm "mini" to 18mm "midi," just because the lines of Craig's "Mini-Loader" are cool...

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=4980&postcount=173

...but I wanted a bigger version, since that's what I already had parts for! :o :p

Additionally, the "logo" symbol contains an electronic music joke. ;) "MIDI" stands for "Musical Instrument Digital Interface," and the circle off to the left of the name represents the business end of a MIDI plug. (the sound of illumination dawning) :rolleyes:


A tip of the hat to you, Craig! :D


Cheers,

--Jay

As Bill E would agree, "I'm touched"...:eek: :D

I like the upscale. And yes, I understand the reference. My first computer was the Commodore 64, and that was often used as a MIDI controller.

I might have to "upscale" the ML even more with some of Carl's large-diameter tubing...

[CPMcGraw]

From 13mm "mini" to 18mm "midi," just because the lines of Craig's "Mini-Loader" are cool...

This design will get sent to my growing PDF queue. Your RKT file and a 3D image will get posted to BARCLONE at the next update cycle.

Your simulation numbers are great! Those are some awesome deployment Vs for a payload model.

One more in the "todo" pile...:D

[Tau Zero]

I might have to "upscale" the ML even more with some of Carl's large-diameter tubing...
*Maxi*-Loader? :eek: :D :cool:

--Jay

[CPMcGraw]

*Maxi*-Loader? :eek: :D :cool:

--Jay

Yes, with another even-larger upscale being called the "Mega Loader"...

To be quickly followed by a Goony called the Diaper Loader...

[Eagle3]

Yes, with another even-larger upscale being called the "Mega Loader"...

To be quickly followed by a Goony called the Diaper Loader...

LMAO! :D

[Eagle3]

Craig, I've been wanting to knock one of these out for awhile and finally threw one together last night. I changed the design a bit. I used an old Apogee BT-20 nose cone and T-520 plastic transition. Cool design. :)

[CPMcGraw]

Craig, I've been wanting to knock one of these out for awhile and finally threw one together last night. I changed the design a bit. I used an old Apogee BT-20 nose cone and T-520 plastic transition. Cool design. :)

Looks good! Yours is farther along than mine - the plan has been out on the website since 2003, and I just this week got the parts to build it...:o

I'm sooo slooow these days; must be getting old...

[Tau Zero]

And yes, I understand the reference. My first computer was the Commodore 64, and that was often used as a MIDI controller.Actually, the explanation was for those of us here who might not have ever heard of the "new-fangled" (post 1960s and -70s) meaning for "midi" ... I mean, "MIDI." :o

I also made up a preliminary decal for a "MIDI-Roc" design, which will probably be a Semroc LT-115/125 2.25X upscale of my BT-5 original BAR "Mini-Roc," which involved kitbashing an Estes "Nike Arrow." The decal has 3 MIDI port symbols which are labeled "IN," "OUT," and "THRU." ;) :rolleyes:


Cheers,

--Jay

[CPMcGraw]

Another "Schoolyard Sounder"...

Uses 13mm A3-4T. Over 450' altitude. Less than 5 FPS deployment V...

Although the fin is shown in the RKT file as having a split (limitation of the program, grrrrr...) the actual fin shape has no split. You might find it necessary to construct the fin in multiple pieces to align the grain for better strength and dimensional stability.

See the attached fin patterns...

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

Borrowing a bit from the Centuri Stiletto, the BARCLONE version is based around a 12" ST-7 tube. Ours is a single-stage model, using the 13mm A3-4T to reach over 500'.

A simple build, with lots of performance for small-field flying.

Skill Level 1.

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

An upscale of the Stiletto I, this version is also a single-stage model, but uses a full 18" ST-8 tube. Altitudes from 200' to over 1000' on 18mm motors.

Streamer recovery.

Skill Level 1.

[CPMcGraw]

This one started out as just a phrase, and sat on my computer as an empty folder for nearly two years before I decided to do something with it. I wanted to present an egglofter, but not just another "Scrambler" or "Omloid" style of design. Still, there are certain patterns such vehicle design tends to migrate toward, and this one is no exception. Basic large-diameter payload on a slender sustainer body, tricked out with an oversized horse of a motor...:eek: :D

The builder will need to mold the nose cone and transition in FG or VacForm plastic using a custom-turned form. The transition uses an ogive shape, just to make things different...:rolleyes:

General specs:

Length: 36.7"
Payload diameter: 2.04" (ST-20 tubing)
Sustainer diameter: 1.34" (ST-125 tubing)
Motor: 29mm (ST-115 tubing)
Weight: 9.25 oz empty
Fin Span: 6.34"

F26FJ-9..........2130'...........22 FPS
F25-9............2458'...........13 FPS
G40W-10..........3280'............5 FPS
G64-10...........3730'...........28 FPS

[CPMcGraw]

I am pleased to announce that this model has been built and flown successfully on both A3-4T and A10-3T motors by Geoffrey Kerbel. His observed flight performance was very close to what RockSim predicted it should be, between 400' and 460' on both motors.

Attached is a photo of his model, with a true conical NC instead of the Ogive of the original design.

[CPMcGraw]

Uhmm huh, one of them thar Flyin' Slingblades O' Death...:eek:

The RKT file has a simplistic color scheme, but you can probably match the colors better if you visit a farm supply shop and look at the self-propelled hay harvesters...:D

RockSim says this model is very stable, with a margin of 16 using a B6-2, and 15 using the C6-3. Don't fly with any other motors, as this model only reaches 400' with the C6, and 130' with the B6.

Use two 12" parachutes for recovery.

Skill Level 2 (mostly for size)...

[CPMcGraw]

A 1.4X upscale of the Spear Tip, suggested by Geoffrey Kerbel. This one uses the ST-10180 body tube and the BC-1052 NC.

Simulation shows the performance to match the smaller design, with all three power selections giving deployment Vs of below 10 FPS.

Length: 26.1:
Fin Span: 6.125"
Empty Weight: 1.53 oz

A8-3.....174'.....9 FPS
B4-4.....410'.....3 FPS
C6-5.....875'.....2 FPS

[CPMcGraw]

I mentioned this one tongue-in-cheek awhile back, but realized it might just make a great model if the right image could be located. For the record, the image I chose was a toon-ish graphic located through Google. The artist is listed as Torben Soettrup...

Flight specs are nothing to sneeze at, either:

B4-4.....295'.....16 FPS
B6-4.....305'.....10 FPS
C6-5.....810'.....13 FPS
D3-5....1925'.....17 FPS

Stability with a C6 is 1.02 with a 3/8 oz weight in the tip of the NC. Do not use the A8-3, as the deployment V is too high, and the max altitude is only 100'.

[CPMcGraw]

Last year I tossed up a semi-scale version of the MMI/EIRP semi-scale Aerobee-Hi. While this was a good-looking model in its own right, it was not entirely accurate in some of the dimensions, notably the nose cone.

Using scale data located on the internet, I have drawn up and simulated three different versions of this model, which was also known as the Aerobee 150. As with the earlier models, these represent only the upper stage, and not a full-house two-stage stack. I will try to come up with a correct booster for these variants at a later date. I am sticking with the ST-8 body tube, and I am resizing the fins to their correct scale width of 23.5" (1.4" model fin width). The original rocket was 15" in diameter.

The three versions presented here are:

Aerobee 150 RTV-N-8, 241.8" long (14.64" model length)
Aerobee 150 'Standard', 283.6" (17.17" model length)
Aerobee 150 RV-N-13b, 298.6" (18.08" model length)

One additional version, the RTV-A-1a/RTV-N-10a, was the same length as the RTV-N-8, but used a different sustainer motor with a higher initial impulse (4100 lbs for 32 seconds, versus 2600 lbs for 45 seconds).

Note that there were many variations of the basic Aerobee 150 design, with differing lengths of the conduit shrouds and even the shape of the fins. The fins drawn for these models represent the common rounded-tip fins seen in a number of images, and are now based on actual photographs; they have been widened to the correct span, and are as close to the correct LE sweep and chord length as the photograph allowed. One notable variation also seen was a sharp-cornered fin set.

These models represent the original series configuration. There was a later "A" series that used four sharp-cornered fins and which was mated to a more powerful NIKE booster.

You will note in the RKT file a designation for a SEMROC BC-853 nose cone. :D :D :D I'm wearing a big Cheshire Cat grin right now, because I asked Carl if this nose cone could be created, and he agreed to add it to the collection. This is a Tangent-Ogive shape, with a length of 5.3". It closely matches the actual nose cone length of 87.8". When you compare these models to the earlier BARCLONE version, you can see the improvement.

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

Think of this as a "base model" for a futuristic transport design. It could use some more details and "fiddly bits", as I like to call them. However, the predicted flight curves for this model as-is is respectable.

B6-2.....140'.....13 FPS
C6-3.....380'.....17 FPS

I don't recommend other motors at this time.

My "rough sketches" of this design had wings that resembled the Orbital Transport, with large, chunky engine shrouds outbound of the main engineering section, and Gyroc-type winglets top and bottom of those. I may try to recycle these ideas together into another model later on.

Skill Level 2.

Enjoy!

[Eagle3]

That's a cool design there Craig!

[CPMcGraw]

That's a cool design there Craig!

Thanks. I've had the sketches taped up at my desk for over a year, and it really looks better "visually". Making it fly without resorting to ballast and a 24mm motor, however, might prove to be a bigger challenge...

I scanned the sheets I've been staring at to show you the original idea...

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

I like the second version better. The first looks too much like one of the Estes DOM birds.

[CPMcGraw]

For those interested in seeing how a twisted and demented rocket designer's mind can often work, here's another idea that's been giving me some trouble in getting it simulated. It's called "Star Sabre", and it's based around a 50's Buick Le Sabre. I'll go ahead and post the raw idea here to see if anyone else might make it work...

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

I like the second version better. The first looks too much like one of the Estes DOM birds.

You mean Sketch II, right? The images are in reverse sequence...

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Yeah. The Caddy is also cool. Almost Goony-like in a way. :cool:

[JRThro]

I mentioned this one tongue-in-cheek awhile back, but realized it might just make a great model if the right image could be located. For the record, the image I chose was a toon-ish graphic located through Google. The artist is listed as Torben Soettrup...

Flight specs are nothing to sneeze at, either:

B4-4.....295'.....16 FPS
B6-4.....305'.....10 FPS
C6-5.....810'.....13 FPS
D3-5....1925'.....17 FPS

Stability with a C6 is 1.02 with a 3/8 oz weight in the tip of the NC. Do not use the A8-3, as the deployment V is too high, and the max altitude is only 100'.
Craig, I like this one. It looks vaguely like my BT-80/70 3-motor cluster model, only smaller and with fewer fins.

[CPMcGraw]

Here's a simple, "take-a-breather" type of model for all-around sport flying. Nice proportions using the ST-10 tube. Gentle parachute deployments. All-in-all, it's a relaxed-envelope modroc.

Length: 23.45"
Fin Span: 3.54"
Diameter: 1.04"
Weight: 1.38 oz (empty)

A8-3.....190'.....5 FPS
B4-4.....450'.....4 FPS
B6-4.....460'.....8 FPS
C6-5.....980'.....7 FPS

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

A sport design with four fins and a nose cone, but taken just a little beyond bland and boring. Performance marks are better than you might expect for something looking like this one. Note: A parachute is shown in the RKT file being stuffed into the ST-5 forward tube. This might be a little too tight a fit, and can probably be replaced with a pair of 1" x 10" streamers, or a single 2" x 20" streamer. It should still be recovered safely, given the light weight of the model.

Skill Level 2

Length: 22.90"
Diameter: 0.908"
Fin Span: 3.658"
Weight: 1 oz

A8-3.....270'.....13 FPS
B4-4.....575'.....17 FPS
B6-4.....575'.....20 FPS (32 FPS/S higher acceleration than B4-4)
C6-5....1120'.....10 FPS

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

The Aerobee 150 was originally a two-stage vehicle, using a solid booster and a liquid sustainer. Most model configurations, including the MMI/EIRP version, the Estes "Sparrowbee" (AKA Aerobee 300), the new SEMROC version, and all four of the BARCLONE editions, have either been flown, kitted, or drawn as a single-stage model. The Aerobee booster is a bit odd in size compared to the sustainer. It is smaller in diameter, and when viewed in side profile this difference is noticeable. Finding an appropriate booster body tube to match up to the sustainer, without having a grossly obvious distortion of scale, has been a challenge no matter what size of model is built.

Also, the transition at the top of the booster is a difficult build as it is a simple tubular structure with an open-air gap between the nozzle of the sustainer and the top of the booster body. The prototype Aerobee ignited the sustainer 0.3 seconds after booster ignition, so there was a measure of thrust blasting down on the top of the booster for 2.2 seconds before separation.

The BARCLONE version of the booster simplifies the transition to a cardstock shroud, which can be printed with a tubular frame image. A 4.125" length of ST-7 tubing runs from the rear edge of the sustainer motor tube through a 3" length of BT-40 tube, and couples onto the sustainer motor tube with a SEMROC HTC-7B (outside) coupler. This is hidden behind the tapered shroud. Any loose fit between the ST-7 and the BT-40 can be filled with a couple of 0.25" wide strips of self-adhesive label stock wrapped around the ST-7. The fins are the same size as the sustainer, but with non-rounded corners, and these hang behind the rear edge of the booster tube 0.5". One change that has to be made to all three Aerobee 150 designs is the elimination of the motor hook from the engine mount, as this would interfere with the coupler. Both motors are friction-fit.

New design data for the Aerobee 150 Standard:

Overall Length: 21.11"
Sustainer Diameter: 0.908"
Booster Diameter: 0.825"
Stack Weight: 1.34 oz

B6-0/A8-5......760'......6 FPS
B6-0/B6-6.....1030'.....13 FPS
C6-0/A8-5.....1200'.....19 FPS
C6-0/B6-6.....1440'......9 FPS
C6-0/C6-7.....1960'.....25 FPS

All stack configurations achieve safe flight V in 30" or less. The booster shown in this RKT file should mate to the other two A150 versions with similar performance numbers.

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

The second in the Civil Space Liner fleet, named for Bluegrass Artist Jerry Douglas -- called by many "The Jimi Hendrix of acoustic music".

Uses a 24mm motor, or an 18mm motor in an adapter.

Length: 27.35"
Diameter: 1.34"
Fin Spam: 6.75"
Weight: 2.62 oz

B6-4......240'......24 FPS
C11-5.....575'.......2 FPS
C6-5......630'......14 FPS
D12-5....1130'......33 FPS

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

This is another design that requires a motor which is currently OOP, but that's never stopped me before!

Maybe if I can generate enough designs to use 13mm boosters, some manufacturer somewhere might take notice and see a market need for it...

The Vireo is a small ST-7 model for two-stage 13mm operation. It can be flown single-stage using the A3-4T with great results.

Full Length: 16.5"
Sustainer Length: 12.5"
Diameter: 0.759"
Fin Span: 3.8"
Full Weight: 0.7141 oz
Sustainer Weight: 0.4624 oz

(Full stack operation)
A10-0T/A3-4T.....826'.....13 FPS

(Sustainer only)
A3-4T............530'......4 FPS

Skill Level 1

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

Another two-stage 13mm design...

I tried to use some classic Centuri styling here. The clear plastic section was really an afterthought, but it looks good.

Length: 18.657"
Diameter: 0.759"
Fin Span: 4.26"
Weight: 1.07 oz

A10-0 / 1/2A3-4......540'......18 FPS
A10-0 / A3-4.........800'......36 FPS

Streamer recovery.

Skill Level 1

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

A two-motor cluster design for 13mm motors. Simple sport rocket, with good performance.

Length: 20.13"
Diameter: 1.34"
Fin Span: 3.78"
Weight: 1.3 oz

(2) A3-4T.....500'.....10 FPS

The other 13mm motors currently in production deploy the parachute at too high a velocity to be safe. Safe flight velocity is reached at 23", so a 36" rod is sufficient.

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

Another Schoolyard Sounder...

Simple construction for 13mm motors, follows the pattern of long-body models with small-ish fins. Provides 300' flights on either of the recommended motors.

Length: 23.3"
Diameter: 0.908"
Fin Span: 2.905"
Weight: 1.21 oz

A3-4......310'.....18 FPS
A10-3.....300'.....11 FPS

Streamer recovery.

Skill Level 1


Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

This is an upscale of the Strega, for use with 18mm sustainer motors and 24mm booster motors...

All power combinations require a 3/16" diameter x 48" launch rod. Do not attempt to fly using 18mm boosters. This model requires a higher initial impulse to get off the pad than is provided with B6 or C6 18mm motors.

Length: 26.8"
Diameter: 1.04"
Fin Span: 5.84"
Weight: 2.6 oz

C11-0 / A8-5......800'.....11 FPS
C11-0 / B6-6.....1030'......3 FPS
C11-0 / C6-7.....1500'.....22 FPS
D12-0 / B6-6.....1580'.....19 FPS
D12-0 / C6-7.....2000'.....12 FPS

Skill Level 2.

12" parachute recovery when flown without a payload. Increase the size of the canopy when carrying weight, and reef the shroud lines to prevent shredding.

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

I get a lot of strange ideas when I eat at Cracker Barrel. I always take my notebook, because I usually have some time to kill before the food arrives. Hunger can make the mind twist and bend in normally unimagined ways...

Vostakyre (vos - ta - KEER - ee) is part Vostok, part mythical Valkyre. Imagine those strap-on boosters as looking like the traditional Vostok strap-ons, and you'll have a better picture of what I had in my mind than what RocSim can actually render.

This was just an experiment in sticking parts together, not really much more than that. However, the flight performance figures show that it should actually work quite well.

Length: 18.52"
Diameter: 0.908"
Fin Span: 2.77"
Weight: 1.66 oz

A8-3......180'......5 FPS
B4-4......500'.....25 FPS
C6-7.....1300'......1 FPS

Enjoy!

[James Pierson]

Well I finally finished the crazy design in Rocsim. I have had the program for two weeks now and have had alot to learn in order to create the Static Probe II. I hope you folks like it.
Also I dont know if I posted the thumbnail or if I am posting in the right thread what. I know Craig will fix it. :D

[James Pierson]

Ok here is another one I had fun cooking up. I call it the Thimgus 1. Hope you will enjoy this one as well. ;)

James Pierson
NAR #77907

[CPMcGraw]

Here's the 3D version of Thingus I. Flight specs are pretty good, too.

Length: 12.41"
Diameter: 0.976"
Fin Span: 4.25"
Weight: 1.5 oz

A8-3.....175'.....10 FPS
B6-4.....410'......2 FPS
C6-5.....865'......6 FPS

Thanks, James!

Enjoy!

[CPMcGraw]

...I dont know if I posted the thumbnail or if I am posting in the right thread what. I know Craig will fix it. :D

Craig fixed it...:D

I really like this design -- shades of the Custom Landviper, with a twist...:cool:

Length: 37.375"
Diameter: 1.64"
Fin Span: 7.643"
Weight: 5.3 oz

Almost 2900' on an F39... I need to tweak the delay times a bit from the original motor list before I turn it loose...

It has appeal...

[CPMcGraw]

Craig has been tweaking it...:D

Almost 2900' on an F39... I need to tweak the delay times a bit from the original motor list before I turn it loose...

I did have to add a "few" items to the parts list, James. Hope you don't mind...

The new parts include an electronics package for triggering the deployment charge as a separate event, instead of as a built-in feature of the motor. I elected to lengthen the motor tube a little and change the motor selection to only 24mm reloadables. This allowed me to shift the deployment to apogee, instead of an arbitrary time after burn-out. This allowed the rocket to drift upward to the maximum it would achieve, and then deploy the laundry at very gentle velocities, none greater than 15 FPS; most below 10 FPS.

Altitude performance suffers from the added weight, and of course, the selected packages may not be the final units one would use; but it allows the weight of the rocket to be close in the simulation. That same F39 only gets 2100' now, but the deployment velocity is below 2 FPS, and I'll take that compromise instead of shredded laundry any time.

[James Pierson]

This one I call the Sabre Dart. I got the idea from one of the Star Wars movies last year and built it. Feel free to "Tweek" these designs all you want. I personally love to see a mid to high power Sabre Dart, yet I worry about fin sheer with these forward pointing fins?? Enjoy and thanks for helping the computer un-ed-u-ma-ca-ted. :rolleyes:

James Pierson NAR#77907

[CPMcGraw]

This one I call the Sabre Dart. I got the idea from one of the Star Wars movies last year and built it.

James Pierson NAR#77907

Good looking design, James! Keep these coming!

This one really has only one good motor to fly with, and that's the A3-4T. One thing to look at is the deployment velocity column. This tells you how fast the rocket is moving when the recovery device is deployed. When you work up a new design, always look at this number and try to get the lowest possible value.

I personally like to get under 20 FPS for my designs, not always achieved, but that's my target number. I consider anything above 20 in the danger zone, and a potential shred. When I see a design come in under 20, it's a "proven"; under 10 and it's really in safe territory; under 5 and I try to examine everything I've done, so that I can learn from it. Sometimes I get a hit below 2 FPS, and what this amounts to is the model is practically hovering in one place while the recovery laundry just liesurely pops out...

As you get comfortable with RS, you'll start to get the feel for picking working combinations of components. You're already on your way! Just keep pushing. I have to do that, or my gears get rusty...

Anyway, here's the 3D shot...

[James Pierson]

I hope you all enjoy this one. To the Final design I added three centering ring near the NC and added 1/2 oz. of nose wieght to slow it at apogee. I wanted to be able to use a B6-2 for first flight purposes. Tweeking like Craig said. :D It flies great on C5-3 and C6-6.

James Pierson
NAR #77907

[CPMcGraw]

...And here's the 3D image...

...It's blue...:D

[CPMcGraw]

...I added three centering ring near the NC and added 1/2 oz. of nose wieght to slow it at apogee. I wanted to be able to use a B6-2 for first flight purposes.

You really did tweak this one, James!

The best motor is the C6-3, on which I got one run as low as 0.92 FPS on the simulator, with an altitude of just over 350'. That's plenty for a model with this fragility and complexity. Mid-body separation, with an 18" parachute for recovery.

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

...And here's the 3D image...

...It's blue...:D

Well do something to cheer it up. :rolleyes:

[James Pierson]

Here is a great little park flier. I have been calling it the Mini Jet #1 for lack of a better name. I built it last year and test flew it on a A3T-4 and man was I supprised. It was gone in a flash with a good streamer deployment and then a gently, twirling, and rolling tumble recovery. Very sweet. :D

PS: And its not BLUE ;)

James Pierson
NAR #77907

[CPMcGraw]

Here is a great little park flier. I have been calling it the Mini Jet #1 for lack of a better name. I built it last year and test flew it on a A3T-4 and man was I supprised. It was gone in a flash with a good streamer deployment and then a gently, twirling, and rolling tumble recovery. Very sweet. :D

PS: And its not BLUE ;)

James Pierson
NAR #77907

...And here are the 3D images for Mini Jet #1...

One "tweak" to this model -- the original design used a 1/4 oz ballast of clay in the nose cone. The model will perform a little better, with lower deployment Vs, if this is reduced to 1/8 oz (half of the original amount). The heaviest motor in the simulation list -- the Apogee B7-6 -- can still be balanced out with the 1/8 oz ballast, with the model retaining a 1.7 margin.

Additionally, this should improve the low-impact speed on landing using the streamer.

For most flying, and to keep the model within visual range, use the 1/2A3-4T instead of the full A3-4T. The 1/2A will get over 300', and deploys at the lowest V -- below 10 FPS. The full A3 will get over 650', which would be BVR for a model this size. The 1/4A will still provide a flight to 130', which might be a good first-flight motor.

[CPMcGraw]

Here is a great little park flier...

James,

I like these small park flyer models, mostly because the field I fly in - a schoolyard - is small and is surrounded by residential buildings on three sides (with a graveyard on the north boundary... Some of the best neighbors, actually. They don't complain about the noise and smoke... :D )...

This is one for my own "build pile"...

Thanks!

[James Pierson]

Add more to your build pile Craig. Last year when I came up with this design style I came up with a few more just by changing the main wings. Here is one more, Mini Jet #2. Only 15 more to go. :D

PS. I also have launch field problem as I live in the middle of a stinking rain forest here in WA. surrounder by rocket eating TREES. :eek:

James Pierson
NAR #77907

[CPMcGraw]

Add more to your build pile Craig. Last year when I came up with this design style I came up with a few more just by changing the main wings. Here is one more, Mini Jet #2. Only 15 more to go. :D

PS. I also have launch field problem as I live in the middle of a stinking rain forest here in WA. surrounder by rocket eating TREES. :eek:

James Pierson
NAR #77907

Your weather has been getting as much national attention as ours down here...:eek:. Our "windy & rainy season" is just about to start...

Similar tweaking for this one, you can reduce the ballast in the nose to 0.15 oz, which is a hairsbreath above 1/8 oz. This provides a margin of 1.26, which is more than enough. Don't reduce it below this weight, though, as the balance is a bit critical for this bird. James has balanced his model with a large stability margin, which is good and doesn't compromise much on performance. I trimmed out the extra weight to find the "optimal" margin, and this gave me as much as 60' of extra altitude using the A3-4T. Keep this in mind -- an altitude of 740' versus 680' doesn't change the fact that you still can't see the model reaching apogee...:D

Use the 1/2A3-4T for most flying, as this keeps the model below 350', which is just at the edge of visual range.

[James Pierson]

Craig, I really appreciate all your input and please help me in these designs get a few numbers figured out. :confused:

Acceptable streamer decent rate?
Acceptable paprchute decent rate?
Accetable static margin size?
Acceptable deployment velocity parachute and streamer?
Does Ricsim account for Fin sheer?
Any other important numbers I am not thimking of?

Thanks, for all the tweaking,

James Pierson
NAR #77907

[Ltvscout]

Craig, I really appreciate all your input and please help me in these designs get a few numbers figured out. :confused:

Acceptable streamer decent rate?
Acceptable paprchute decent rate?
Accetable static margin size?
Acceptable deployment velocity parachute and streamer?
Does Ricsim account for Fin sheer?
Any other important numbers I am not thimking of?

Thanks, for all the tweaking,

James Pierson
NAR #77907
James,

Can the designs you're making go up on the BARCLONE site at the next update? If so, Craig, please upload the files for his designs along with the pics to your ftp area. Also, if you would please rip James' descriptions from the forums and put them in a text file for me to use on the site. Thanks, guys.

[James Pierson]

Craig and Scott, I would be honored if you would post these designs at Barclone. Also please include any and or all changes that help improve the designs.

Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR #77907

[James Pierson]

I meant to add this one to the last post but forgot. I need alot of help tweaking this one Craig. I still dont like the velocity at ejection, but motor choices are limited. :confused:

I call it the Master Blaster. Kind of a retro/vintage/ Galactic Pirates spinoff. I think that the Sandman might appreciate this one the most. Enjoy.

James Pierson
NAR #77907

[CPMcGraw]

Craig, I really appreciate all your input and please help me in these designs get a few numbers figured out. :confused:

You're welcome, James.


Acceptable streamer decent rate?
Acceptable paprchute decent rate?
Accetable static margin size?
Acceptable deployment velocity parachute and streamer?
Does Ricsim account for Fin sheer?

Of these data points, only the margin and the Dv tend to get my attention. For the static margin, or margin of stability, the magic number is 1.00. You will also see this called the "calibre" of the rocket, and it represents an ideal distance of one body tube diameter separating the center of gravity from the center of pressure. Any margin value above 1.00 (greater than one body tube diameter) will fly without chasing its tail. Below this number, and the model is (generally) unstable. A negative number is out of the question.

Having said that, you can "tweak" a design to fly when the initial margin is less than 1.00. What you have to account for is the amount of weight that is burned off in the motor between ignition and when the rocket exits the rod. The margin can actually change (increase) in that short distance from unstable to stable, and if you're designing a very high performance model, you can take advantage of this. I try to get my designs to be anywhere from 1.00 to 1.20 when using the C6 motors (in 18mm designs).

The drawback to having higher margins than 1.20 is the tendency to weathercock significantly when the rocket exits the rod. The greater the margin, the greater the reaction to the fins' correcting force. For lack of a better way of putting it, when the margin is 1.00, the amount of correcting force applied by the fins is equal to the amount of opposing force applied to take the rocket away from its straight-line path. You can generally use this value as a multiplier to the opposition force to get the correction force.

Note, though, too much of a good thing is not always a good thing. In winds that are in the upper limits of safe flying, the rocket may shift into a near horizontal path and not gain very much altitude. I've seen a Big Bertha do this on a B6 coming off a 36" rod. It was like watching a ground-to-ground missile aiming for its target.

For deployment velocities, try to get below 20 FPS for either parachute or streamer models, though you can sneak this up a bit with streamer models that are very lightweight. A Dv below 10 FPS is an excellent gentle deployment and you generally will not shread the lines. Dv's below 5 FPS are better still, and if you can get below 2 FPS, the model is just barely ticking over the top -- almost standing still. Above 20 FPS for parachutes, however, is not a good thing. The parachute typically "explodes" open with a loud, audible "pop" that you can often hear on the ground. That's a lot of shock and stress on the lines and the plastic sheet used in most of our models. They won't survive too many such openings.

As for descent rates, this is a function of parachute (or streamer) size and is useful only if your goal is to design an optimized parachute diameter, or streamer length. From my POV, you have very limited options short of cutting your own. SEMROC's 12" and Estes' 12", 18", or 24" parachutes are my "usual suspects"; for streamers, you can get the material at Lowes and Home Depot. Just follow the basic pattern of 10:1 length-to-width. Use multiple streamers if you need to slow it down a bit more.

Any other important numbers I am not thimking of?

Watch the acceleration at liftoff. Some motors can rip a model apart from the stresses of having too much power. With our A-E motors, this is not that big of a problem, but when you start talking about "mach busting" in MPR and HPR, these forces can destroy a model that may not be constructed to withstand such forces.

This is what usually results in "fin shear", or causing a model to attain "the speed of balsa" -- accelerating to a point where the balsa fails. Be careful when using the A10-3T, for example, in some very small and light models. It is a very powerful motor with the capability of accelerating a small model past a safe limit. If this was a booster, it would be a better motor...

Thanks, for all the tweaking,

James Pierson
NAR #77907

[CPMcGraw]

James,

Can the designs you're making go up on the BARCLONE site at the next update? If so, Craig, please upload the files for his designs along with the pics to your ftp area. Also, if you would please rip James' descriptions from the forums and put them in a text file for me to use on the site. Thanks, guys.

Scott, they're already in the FTP area. I just need to do the blurbs. I'll try to get them done this weekend.

[CPMcGraw]

I meant to add this one to the last post but forgot. I need alot of help tweaking this one Craig. I still dont like the velocity at ejection, but motor choices are limited. :confused:

I call it the Master Blaster. Kind of a retro/vintage/ Galactic Pirates spinoff. I think that the Sandman might appreciate this one the most. Enjoy.

James Pierson
NAR #77907

Wicked!

Nothing to change on this one, James. You have good Dv's and a great margin with that C6. One thing to note on your simulation runs -- the C5 has been OOP for a long time. There might be a few packs still available, but they're not widely available. I wouldn't use them in simulations except as a comparison for what "might be possible, if only..."...

3D image attached below...

[CPMcGraw]

Another in the "Schoolyard Sounders" series, this is a minimal-diameter, minimal-component, highly aerodynamic model ideal for small field operation.

Performance is BVR with any motor above the 1/4A3-3T.

Motor........Alt........Dv........Max Accel
A3-4T.......1018'.....75 FPS.....1111 FPS/S
A10-3T.......928'.....98 FPS.....3260 FPS/S
1/2A3-4T.....500'.....27 FPS.....1683 FPS/S
1/4A3-3T.....205'.....10 FPS.....1085 FPS/S


Skill Level 1.

Use only the 1/4A3-3T or 1/2A3-4T for general flights. Use extreme caution with the other motors.

Enjoy!

[James Pierson]

Craig the Spike looks great. What is your opinion of minimal Dia rockets with motor retension of just a tape friction fit. Are we OK with the NAR saftey code or do we to somehow hide a retaining hook?

Anyway here is Mini Jet #3. Enjoy. JP

James Pierson
NAR #77907

[CPMcGraw]

Craig the Spike looks great. What is your opinion of minimal Dia rockets with motor retension of just a tape friction fit. Are we OK with the NAR saftey code or do we to somehow hide a retaining hook?

Anyway here is Mini Jet #3. Enjoy. JP

James Pierson
NAR #77907

AFAIK, tape / friction fit is still acceptable. Some designs simply will not allow the use of a hook, and even some HPR designs don't bother with them.

[CPMcGraw]

...here is Mini Jet #3. Enjoy.

James,

My only revision was to cut your ballast in half, but this wasn't really nescessary. Your numbers were below 10 FPS on both motors. I managed to get below 5 FPS with this trim, but it makes the model unstable if you should ever want to use the full A3-4T. Simple solution? Don't use the A3-4T, or the A10-3T. These are much too powerful for this size model.

Very nice!

[CPMcGraw]

Craig the Spike looks great. What is your opinion of minimal Dia rockets with motor retension of just a tape friction fit?

As for an opinion, I don't have any problem with it. I think in some of the designs that Estes, for example, has put out recently, and even some classic designs, like the original Century Javelin, it was an unnescessary addition. There was no real benefit gained. For larger models, a motor hook can make removal easier, but that's about all. They're a convienience item, not an absolute necessity.

[CPMcGraw]

This design borrows from several earlier BARCLONE models, including some very recent contributions... :D

I noticed some curious things in RockSim as I worked the numbers. The canards actually increased the static margin by several points, as compared to not having them at all. This must be a critical shape and position result, as most texts on the subject suggest that canards normally reduce the margin, which is why we typically use only tiny, dress-up fins ahead of the CP/CG points. These, most interestingly, are active aerodynamic contributing surfaces on this model.

Give this one a Skill Level 3 for complexity.

Model flies with a 1.65 margin using the C6-5, and a 2.07 using the B6-4.

B6-4.....275'.....21 FPS
C6-5.....635'.....22 FPS

Other motors are not recommended.

Enjoy!

[James Pierson]

Craig, the Rouge Bear is one sweet design. I still have not figure out how you are doing the sub assemblies.

This design borrows from several earlier BARCLONE models, including some very recent contributions...

Anytime, but I hope for the same in return. I'm thinking of an Maxi-Spike. :D

James Pierson
NAR#77907

[CPMcGraw]

Craig, the Rouge Bear is one sweet design. I still have not figure out how you are doing the sub assemblies.



Anytime, but I hope for the same in return. I'm thinking of an Maxi-Spike. :D

James Pierson
NAR#77907

I'm not only hoping for it, I'm counting on it!!! :D :D :D

I haven't mastered the subassemblies yet, but they're not hard to set up. RocSim saves subassemblies in their own special file, then pulls out the code when you use it. Like a DLL in Windows programming...

[CPMcGraw]

Here's a challenge build...

This model is a cluster, but the main body tube has no motor tubes inside. The engine pods are actually the motor tubes, with the deployment gasses vented through the pylons into the main tube. An internal stuffer tube reduces the volume of the pressurized area to allow the pair of 13mm A10-3T motors to deploy the laundry.

The pylon patterns shown in RocSim are distorted in the 3D rendering, but it's the distorted view that needs to be cut. The pylons are supposed to contour around the tail cone in the way the 3D image makes it appear.

RocSim says this model will actually fly, and fly well:

(2) A10-3T.....198'.....6 FPS

I'm setting this as a Skill Level 3.