Ye Olde Rocket Forum - BARCLONE Designer's Studio 2008

CPMcGraw

09-14-2007, 01:34 AM

Welcome to BARCLONE's Designer Studio, a thread dedicated to the development of new model rocket designs using classic construction methods, modern materials and software creation tools. All persons interested in designing models are encouraged to participate by posting their work here for others to study and critique, giving you a "peer review" by fellow model builders, flyers, designers, and even manufacturers. Generally speaking, the best review you can receive because it comes from people just like yourself!

BARCLONE was started with the ideal of "BARs Helping BARs", and that ideal is carried forward in this thread. Feel free to submit and post your work here, and listen to the advice offered. Because that's the point -- making the hobby more enjoyable not only for yourself, but for others as well.

The thread is now OPEN.

CPMcGraw

09-16-2007, 10:39 PM

To inaugurate this thread with the first new plan we have the Say Cheese, which as the name implies, is a Camera Ship. It has been trimmed to reach 800' consistently on a D12-5, and is intended to fly the Aiptek Mini Pen like TBZEP uses in his modified Stormcaster.

The starting point for this design is a Screamin' Mimi, with the main tube cut into 12" and 6" lengths. To save weight, I used a simple 0.07" thick matteboard bulkhead and a tube coupler instead of a solid balsa bulkhead to join the payload body to the booster body.

Fins are standard 1/8" thick balsa.

A 48" x 3/16" rod is needed to reach a safe flight speed. The camera is listed as 45g, and I allowed 50g to account for the needed padding and support. With that much mass to move, even the reliable D12 can't push hard enough to get it off in less than 38".

Length: 25.75"
Diameter: 1.637" (BT-60)
Fin Span: 4.13"
Weight (with camera): 5 oz
Weight (without camera): 3.25 oz

If you fly the rocket without ballast, you will need to reef the parachute shrouds, as the Dv is above 25 FPS. The unballasted altitude is over 1030', or 330' better than with the camera. Use the 48" rod for unballasted flights as well.

Enjoy! And, if you build it before I do, you're obligated to share some in-flight videos!!!

CPMcGraw

09-18-2007, 08:29 PM

Ahem...

Another reuse of an old name...

This is a 13mm cluster ship, probably Skill Level 3 for difficulty. It requires some very careful surgery on a BC-1032 (used as the tailcone) to fit the ST-5 tubes through without breaking the remaining balsa. Also, you will need to cut and trim the ST-5 tube where it overlaps the ST-10. The gaps must be sealed completely, as the deployment pressurization would escape otherwise. The ST-10 does not need to be slotted. Study the 2D and 3D images carefully to see what I'm trying to describe (poorly) in words.

Note the override in the mass of the tailcone, reduced about 30%. The final piece will likely be even less mass than this, considering what has to be removed to fit the tubes. This is critical to the simulation, as it has much higher Dv numbers if left "stock".

Length: 18.70"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Fin Span: 5.44"
Weight: 2.13 oz

(2) 1/2 A3-2T......120'......Dv 18 FPS.......23" guide length required
(2) A3-4T..........383'......Dv 3-7 FPS......33" guide length required

Don't try this with the 1/4 A3 as it never gets above 35'. The A10-3T is also not recommended as the Dv is above 30 FPS.

Enjoy!

James Pierson

09-19-2007, 12:54 AM

Another recycled name here as well ;) .

Here is another design I decided to call the Solar Sailor III after its two predecessors. This design will carry a 24 inch chute as well. The Dv's are a little high for the B4 and B6 so I reccomend flying this design on the C6-5.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Solar Sailor III (18mm)
Launch guide length: 48.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
B4-4..................205.06955 Ft............30.0259 ft/s
B6-4..................229.79921 Ft............25.3781 ft/s
C6-5..................640.47572 Ft............8.5704 ft/s

snaquin

09-21-2007, 11:28 PM

A two-stage PenCam carrier .....

While waiting the five days for my two Aiptek Mini PenCam 1.3 cameras to arrive, I set out to build a quick and basic rocket to fly the camera in. Appropriately named "Aiptek Mini PenCam 1.3 Rocket" I found parts & fin cans from a couple of Estes Eliminator and OOP Longshot kits and some lengths of Semroc series 13 tubing.

The parts I selected stacked up to be an Estes Longshot only with Estes & some additional Semroc parts including a Mars Lander nose cone - a short length of Semroc ST-16, and the short Semroc BR-1316 transition. Although it wasn't my intention, after looking at it in RockSim I realized the capsule somewhat resembled the old Estes Camroc.

My main design goal for this project was quick assembly with the plastic fin cans and to get the camera in the air and launch it tomorrow, but the weather is flaring up again. I have since abandoned this design although someone else on the forum may have interest in it.

Length: 35.75"
Diameter: 1.64" (ST-16)
Fin Span: 5.716"
Weight (with camera): 8.21 oz
Weight (without camers): 5.76 oz

.

barone

09-22-2007, 07:52 AM

CPMcGraw

09-22-2007, 11:32 AM

This is a bit tricky to describe, as once again RockSim gets in the way of doing what I want to do visually. Rogue Star is 18mm powered, and qualifies as an upper-end VR-Class bird on "C" power. There are some features that the 3D image just cannot show:

1. The pods use the SST: Shuttle-1 engine tube nose and tail cone set.
2. The four fins at the rear of the ST-13 tube really belong on the ST-5 pods, 2 each, angled outbound 45 degrees above and below the horizontal. Think Estes Titan-III stabilizing fins here.
3. The cockpit canopy is also from the SST: Shuttle-1 mothership.
4. The forward end of the ST-13 should be cut with a "French Curve" styling, such that the 'forward protrusion' occurs just behind the canopy. Think of a sine wave curve, but only using half of the curve. The 'hump' of the curve points forward, on the top side of the modle, and the straight edge falls to the bottom of the model.

Length: 23.30"
Diameter: 1.34" (ST-13)
Fin Span: 6.34"
Weight: 1.82 oz

A8-3......130'......Dv 21 FPS......requires 33"
B4-4......320'......Dv 19 FPS......requires 27"
B6-4......330'......Dv 14 FPS......requires 28"
C6-5......710'......Dv 20 FPS......requires 28"

A cutting pattern still needs to be drawn out for the ST-13. Obviously, there are other details that could be added by the builder, and a good decal set could go a long way toward trimming it out.

Enjoy!

CPMcGraw

10-31-2007, 05:14 PM

snaquin

10-31-2007, 11:32 PM

Got one of these in working order today, after picking up a dud yesterday. I wanted to see if I could come up with a better booster that would give some real performance, or at least gain some substantial altitude, compared to the booster you get with the camera. This first version is a throw-together, what-if type of design, and I'm just guessing about the actual weight of the camera. I have not yet weighed the payload to get an accurate value, but I'm guessing no more than 2.5 oz. It really doesn't feel that heavy, maybe just a little more than a hollow plastic NC of the same size.

The camera shoulder loose-fits into a standard ST-13 tube, so that's where I'm starting from. Other variations of this theme are coming, so this is just a beginning baseline.

Length: 19.30"
Diameter: 1.34 (ST-13)
Fin Span: 4.84"
Weight: 3.31 oz (Camera estimated at 2.5 oz)

D12-5......1015'......Dv 26 FPS......48" x 3/16" Rod

Takes about 7.2 seconds to reach apogee, so the 12-18 seconds of record time should be enough to get a flight video.

Enjoy!

Craig,

I really like the booster and your choice of fin design. Looks great!

There is however a limitation that I haven't been able to figure out in RockSim that is throwing your margin of stability out. Margin without engines in RockSim shows 32.28 & I think it's probably closer to 6.43

RockSim is throwing it out somewhere in your Nose Cone Tip, Transition or Fin used for the camera shroud estimation.

To determine this I eliminated those three items from the design file and replaced those items with a single ogive BC-12561 Semroc cone, same as used on the SLS Javelin. I then added a single mass object to the true CG of the Semroc cone at 4.595" to bring the total rocket weight to 3.3085 to match your designs weight and I get a 6.43 margin without engines.

RockSim just doesn't estimate the CG accurately in this case (and I'm not sure why it doesn't).

:confused:

.

CPMcGraw

11-01-2007, 12:02 PM

Craig,

I really like the booster and your choice of fin design. Looks great!

There is however a limitation that I haven't been able to figure out in RockSim that is throwing your margin of stability out. Margin without engines in RockSim shows 32.28 & I think it's probably closer to 6.43

RockSim is throwing it out somewhere in your Nose Cone Tip, Transition or Fin used for the camera shroud estimation.

To determine this I eliminated those three items from the design file and replaced those items with a single ogive BC-12561 Semroc cone, same as used on the SLS Javelin. I then added a single mass object to the true CG of the Semroc cone at 4.595" to bring the total rocket weight to 3.3085 to match your designs weight and I get a 6.43 margin without engines.

RockSim just doesn't estimate the CG accurately in this case (and I'm not sure why it doesn't).

:confused:

.

Jay Goemmer emailed me with the heads-up. Change the setting on the first tab "Rocket Design Attributes" where it says "Static Margin Reference" from the default setting of "Nose Cone Base Diameter" to "Maximum Frontal Diameter". Everything else being equal, this should bring a loaded margin (with a D12-5) to about 5. The base diameter of the nose cone is actually larger in this case than the body tube, which is what RockSim normally defaults to. Empty margin comes to 8.

Jay put this info in another thread not too long ago, and I just forgot to make this change. I used his NC drawing method to produce the AV shape.

snaquin

11-01-2007, 02:05 PM

Jay Goemmer emailed me with the heads-up. Change the setting on the first tab "Rocket Design Attributes" where it says "Static Margin Reference" from the default setting of "Nose Cone Base Diameter" to "Maximum Frontal Diameter". Everything else being equal, this should bring a loaded margin (with a D12-5) to about 5. The base diameter of the nose cone is actually larger in this case than the body tube, which is what RockSim normally defaults to. Empty margin comes to 8.

Jay put this info in another thread not too long ago, and I just forgot to make this change. I used his NC drawing method to produce the AV shape.

Thanks Jay / Craig

Jay shot me an email too. I'm going to have to make a mental note to check that feature in some of my designs. That's the same feature that Carl just tweaked on the two Semroc Laser-X design files he had too that showed the wrong margins.

I threw out a contest entry for EMRR one time because I couldn't figure out what was causing this to happen and I don't ever remember the maximum frontal diameter feature ever being covered in one of the Apogee newsletters.

Good to know & thanks guys!

.

snaquin

11-04-2007, 12:04 AM

Got one of these in working order today, after picking up a dud yesterday. I wanted to see if I could come up with a better booster that would give some real performance, or at least gain some substantial altitude, compared to the booster you get with the camera. This first version is a throw-together, what-if type of design, and I'm just guessing about the actual weight of the camera. I have not yet weighed the payload to get an accurate value, but I'm guessing no more than 2.5 oz. It really doesn't feel that heavy, maybe just a little more than a hollow plastic NC of the same size.

The camera shoulder loose-fits into a standard ST-13 tube, so that's where I'm starting from. Other variations of this theme are coming, so this is just a beginning baseline.

Length: 19.30"
Diameter: 1.34 (ST-13)
Fin Span: 4.84"
Weight: 3.31 oz (Camera estimated at 2.5 oz)

D12-5......1015'......Dv 26 FPS......48" x 3/16" Rod

Takes about 7.2 seconds to reach apogee, so the 12-18 seconds of record time should be enough to get a flight video.

Enjoy!

Craig,

Picked up my AstroVision today at Hobby Lobby with the 40% off coupon. Funny story ..... I took my wife with me to the Hobby Lobby in Hammond today. While I was in the check out line she glanced over at the price tag and said "Hey, how much is that rocket"? When I whipped out my 40% off coupon and it discounted the price of the rocket by $28.00 she said, "hey that's not such a bad deal". I sent her back with another 40% off coupon to pick up a pack of D12-5's.

I'm interested in this BARCLONE design and I'd like to build a dedicated D engine booster. I do want to fly the AstroVision at our launch Nov. 17th so I'll probably put it up on it's first few flights with my EnerJet 1340 booster with a Semroc EM-9115 adapter, since that's what I have already built with Semroc series 13 tubing. I'm interested to see the other booster designs you come up with.

Also, I weighed my AstroVision camera tonight on my scale and with the batteries loaded and flight ready it is 1.4oz. Much lighter than I thought it would be.

.

CPMcGraw

11-04-2007, 07:51 AM

Craig,

Picked up my AstroVision today at Hobby Lobby with the 40% off coupon. Funny story ..... I took my wife with me to the Hobby Lobby in Hammond today. While I was in the check out line she glanced over at the price tag and said "Hey, how much is that rocket"? When I whipped out my 40% off coupon and it discounted the price of the rocket by $28.00 she said, "hey that's not such a bad deal". I sent her back with another 40% off coupon to pick up a pack of D12-5's.

I'm interested in this BARCLONE design and I'd like to build a dedicated D engine booster. I do want to fly the AstroVision at our launch Nov. 17th so I'll probably put it up on it's first few flights with my EnerJet 1340 booster with a Semroc EM-9115 adapter, since that's what I have already built with Semroc series 13 tubing. I'm interested to see the other booster designs you come up with.

Also, I weighed my AstroVision camera tonight on my scale and with the batteries loaded and flight ready it is 1.4oz. Much lighter than I thought it would be.

.

Nice going, Steve! Those coupons do come in handy for "special" purchases...

Translation: She can use 'em, too... :D

Now I can run the sim over again and get a more accurate profile...

The altitude came to 1138' with a slightly reduced Dv, down to 24 FPS, when burning the D12-5.

Interesting outcome with the C11-5. I get 565' with a Dv of 8 FPS. That's a really nice, clean flight with low velocity over the top.

Both motors seem to need a 48" x 3/16" rod with this bird, as they take at least 33" of guide length to reach flight V. An extra 12" wouldn't hurt.

What I really want is a "D" bird that Dv's below 10 FPS, and still gets off easily on a 36" rod. This one comes close, but I want the next one to be a little quicker on the launch.

CPMcGraw

11-04-2007, 07:55 AM

...That's the same feature that Carl just tweaked on the two Semroc Laser-X design files he had too that showed the wrong margins...

It also just occurred to my feeble mind that I may want to check this setting on the Andromeda, as the "Maximum Frontal Diameter" is not the nose cone, but the Reactor Shrouds.

Jay, if you're reading this, did you ever run the Tau Zero with this changed setting?

barone

11-04-2007, 08:03 AM

CPMcGraw

11-04-2007, 08:21 AM

Something to keep in mind....you only get about 15-16 seconds of video with the AstroVision....

I managed 17-18 seconds with mine, but the point is taken. The box says "launch to landing coverage", which is clearly misleading. On this "D" bird, it takes nearly 8 seconds to reach the moment of deployment (about 2+ seconds of burn, and 5 seconds of delay), but once the parachute pops out, it may take over 60 seconds to reach the ground.

Even with the "snapshot mode", with only three snaps per flight at 1.5 second intervals, you will take all three snaps well before reaching apogee.

The technology of the AV is about three or four years behind the curve; even cell phones from two years ago have better video capability. What the AV has to offer is price - it's relatively cheap if you get one with the HL coupon. I don't think I would have ever shelled out $80 for it, more likely opting for one of those Aipteks instead. Two, if the refurbished prices are still holding.

What this camera needs badly is a better frame rate and an SD card slot, so that we could swap out the memory for each flight.

Tau Zero

11-04-2007, 03:44 PM

Jay, if you're reading this, did you ever run the Tau Zero with this changed setting?What's interesting about the Tau Zero is that the main body tube is actually *smaller* in diameter than the "base" of the nose cone, since the nose cone and "transition" are turned as a single piece.

I had RockSim guru Bruce S. "teflonrocketry1" Levison take a look at a relatively functional RS file that I'd cobbled together of the TZ. He said I'd done pretty good in working up a fairly complex design (or something to that effect), :cool: and he only tweaked about 4 elements of it to make it "better."

One of the things he did was to change the "Nose Cone Base" setting to the "Reference Base Diameter," and specified the outer diameter of the ST-7 body tube, which is 0.759".

So I guess my Tau Zero is the exception to *this* rule! :o

Cheers,

James Pierson

11-04-2007, 04:28 PM

CPMcGraw

11-04-2007, 04:41 PM

Here I am, all confused again. ;)
So, concider the following Mr. Wizard:

= Do I use the Full Frontal Diameter option if the nose cone is larger than the main body and only then?? :confused: If not then when??

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Obviously, there are some important exceptions to such a rule. Can anyone remember if the Apogee Newsletter ever covered this topic?

snaquin

11-05-2007, 09:50 PM

Something to keep in mind....you only get about 15-16 seconds of video with the AstroVision....

I'm thinking of using the AstroVision on it's first few flights in still mode and saving the video work for my two Aiptek cameras since those record in video mode for 120 secs.

I bring my laptop computer to the launch site to download data from my PerfectFlite altimeter anyway so I'll have it with me to download the AstroVision data.

I do wish the AstroVision had an SD card slot or more onboard memory for longer record times but considering the 40% off price I still think it's a worthwhile purchase. I'm excited to try it out.

.

snaquin

11-05-2007, 09:54 PM

Obviously, there are some important exceptions to such a rule. Can anyone remember if the Apogee Newsletter ever covered this topic?

I don't remember it being covered in the Apogee Newsletter and I usually do read the articles that deal specifically with RockSim. I may have overlooked it though. I may email Tim and see if he can shed some light on this feature. I had an entry for an EMRR virtual rocket contest that had a transition and reverse transition close to the nose cone and remember not being able to figure out why the calculations were so far off. I wasn't aware of this feature at the time so I trashed the design and went another direction.

.

snaquin

11-05-2007, 09:57 PM

Nice going, Steve! Those coupons do come in handy for "special" purchases...

Translation: She can use 'em, too... :D

Now I can run the sim over again and get a more accurate profile...

The altitude came to 1138' with a slightly reduced Dv, down to 24 FPS, when burning the D12-5.

Interesting outcome with the C11-5. I get 565' with a Dv of 8 FPS. That's a really nice, clean flight with low velocity over the top.

Both motors seem to need a 48" x 3/16" rod with this bird, as they take at least 33" of guide length to reach flight V. An extra 12" wouldn't hurt.

What I really want is a "D" bird that Dv's below 10 FPS, and still gets off easily on a 36" rod. This one comes close, but I want the next one to be a little quicker on the launch.

Craig,

I did get a little progress on the 24mm AV Booster tonight. Engine mount is finished and mounted with kevlar shock cord anchor and fins are cut and covered with label paper and edges sealed with CA. I would normally use a Semroc ST-13 baffle but I'm trying to get it built to paint this weekend since our next launch is on Nov. 17 and I want to fly it at least a few times.

.

CPMcGraw

11-06-2007, 11:31 AM

Here's the second design for a 24mm "D" power booster for the AstroVision package. My goals were to create something that could get off the pad on a 36" rod, and pop-the-top with a moderate Dv. I think this design meets those goals. If it looks vaguely familiar, then understand that some designs just can't be improved upon, just adapted...

Length: 18.30"
Diameter: 1.375" (AV base diameter)
Fin Span: 3.34"
Weight: 2.27 oz

D12-7......1350'......Dv 18 FPS......36" x 3/16" launch rod (only needs 30")

The flight from GL to deployment is 8.2 seconds.

CPMcGraw

11-13-2007, 08:11 PM

This one is a "Schoolyard Sounder".

Snark is a simple "Tau-styled" model with incredible performance on 13mm A3-4 motors. This is very likely going to be my next prototype!

Length: 18.27"
Diameter: 1.04" (BC-760)
Fin Span: 2.42"
Weight: 0.93 oz

A3-4T......460'......Dv 5.5 FPS......36" standard rod

Enjoy!

Tau Zero

11-14-2007, 09:52 PM

Craig,

This one definitely looks very "Snarky!" :cool: (No Apogee Components reference intended! :eek: )

Snark is a simple "Tau-styled" model with incredible performance on 13mm A3-4 motors. This is very likely going to be my next prototype!(BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD VOICES) "Heh heh, heh heh. He said, 'Tau-styled.' --That was *cool.*"

(DUDE, WHERE'S MY CAR? VOICES) "*Dude.* -- *Sweet.*"

Cheers,

--Jay

James Pierson

01-05-2008, 10:06 PM

Now that is it 2008 look like we need to bring this thread back on top. Lately I have added all of the Semroc Classic tubes and balsa transitions to my database and my parts options have doubled. Still have yet to get around to the Centering Rings files. I also need to update alot of early designs using the Maximum Frontal Diameter and other necessary changes in the next year.

The bad news is that Tranquility 1 will need a slight redesign. Only found this out after it was built. There is a problem with the lower retaining cup that hold the pods. I use a 1/2 inch piece of ST-16 and the pods fit just fine, however there is no room for a streamer once they are wraped around the pods. The fix will be to change the ST-16 to an ST-18 and replace all the lower fins :( . This give enough room for the streamer and a little extra for easy deployment. This is called learning the hard way :rolleyes: .

Here is a ring fin design that I call the Cap Ship. It was inspired by a vintage cap toy that I saw on ebay. It uses 1 inch section of ST3030 which are about 3.6 iches in diameter.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

Cap Ship (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
A8-3..................152.30348 Ft.............14.5008 ft/s
B4-4..................382.48360 Ft..............5.1734 ft/s
B6-4..................389.86549 Ft..............3.6389 ft/s
C6-5..................867.97244 Ft..............1.8969 ft/s

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

CPMcGraw

01-06-2008, 07:30 AM

As I continue working on the website update, I am watching the number of designs gradually inching upward as I 'discover' some additional designs posted on the forum that were somehow overlooked. So, I thought I'd share these numbers with you for encouragement...

In the PROVENS category, we have 413 designs, the most recent being James Pierson's Cap Ship.

In the CONCEPTS category (designs that have either not been sufficiently debugged, or cannot be simulated with RockSim) we have 41 entries.

This brings us up to 454 designs at the start of 2008. Can we make this number cross 500 before the end of the year? I think it's possible!

Also remember, now that we're into the new year, the "Scrounged...2007" thread is closed for new posts. All new submissions need to be posted here in the Designers Studio.

I'm looking forward to seeing what develops here!

Tau Zero

01-13-2008, 01:28 AM

CPMcGraw

01-13-2008, 06:22 PM

I did this one back in August, and sent it to Craig (so it may already count as a 2007 BARCLONE design) , but I unearthed it again this week. I sent propaganda to JP and BillE, but apparently I didn't share it with the rest of the forum until now. :o

From the Can't Leave Well Enough Alone Department, this is,

"A collision between Wolverine #0861 and Laser Torpedo #1311 -- Upscaled to 1.68X."

Any comments or suggestions (aside from, "So, tell us about these voices you hear in your head" :eek: ) are welcome.

Cheers,

AKA "Laserene"...:p

Be sure to look at those "launch guide lengths" in the sim sheets. Both the C11 and the D12 require 48" x 3/16" rods. The E9 takes 47 out of 48, so you need a 60" rod or tower.

I still like the design. "She jus' needs more power, Capt'n..." :o

...And as for those voices, you might try a few generous doses of " PF Dark Side" and "AP Valid Path". (Now there's a combination of music: A Valid Path to the Dark Side...)

James Pierson

01-13-2008, 07:37 PM

Looks great Jay, however after a closer look the Laser Wolf is a bit heavy as Craig has suggested. Its also way overstable. Both heavy and overstable are to blame for the take off speeds and launch rod length required.
Might concider the following:
Change from Nylon to plastic chute (Nylon Heavy)
Upper fins to 1/16" thickness
Other fin to 3/32" thickness
Reduce large lower fins size by 25% or so
Reduce length of upper BT-60

Hope this is helpful, and don't worry, I have to do the design diet thing all the time with my freaky design. ;) .

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

James Pierson

01-21-2008, 08:46 PM

Here is my version of the Star Wars Discord Missile. I decided to delete the froward nose
fins as they make the design unstable. For as many add on tubes as this design has the
preformance seems to be good. Gotta love this sci-fi stuff :D .

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

Discord Missile (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
B4-4..................326.50787 Ft.............12.6591 ft/s
B6-4..................336.08268 Ft..............7.4773 ft/s
C6-5..................817.55906 Ft..............6.8211 ft/s

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Tau Zero

01-26-2008, 05:21 PM

AKA "Laserene"...:p

Be sure to look at those "launch guide lengths" in the sim sheets. Both the C11 and the D12 require 48" x 3/16" rods. The E9 takes 47 out of 48, so you need a 60" rod or tower.

I still like the design. "She jus' needs more power, Capt'n..." :oLooks great Jay, however after a closer look the Laser Wolf is a bit heavy as Craig has suggested. Its also way overstable. Both heavy and overstable are to blame for the take off speeds and launch rod length required.
Might concider the following:
Change from Nylon to plastic chute (Nylon Heavy)
Upper fins to 1/16" thickness
Other fin to 3/32" thickness
Reduce large lower fins size by 25% or so
Reduce length of upper BT-60Craig and James,

I took your suggestions to heart (for the most part), and here is "Laser Wolf" Version 2. I hacked 5 inches off the BT-60, and moved the small fins forward from the LT-115. I put the fins on a diet, and reduced the largest fins from a 1.68X upscale to only 1.36X (about 26% smaller now). I moved the launch lug aft, and put it on a standoff.

While I was able to switch to a C11-5 instead of a C11-3, the launch rod lengths will need to stay at 48" for the C11 and D12 (which appear to stabilize at 38" and 35", respectively). The E9-6 doesn't "get stable" until 44", so a 60" rod will still be needed.

Hope this is helpful, and don't worry, I have to do the design diet thing all the time with my freaky designs. ;) ....And as for those voices, you might try a few generous doses of "PF Dark Side" and "AP Valid Path". (Now there's a combination of music: A Valid Path to the Dark Side...)"The lunatic is in the hall... The lunatic is IN MY HEAD..." :eek:

James Pierson

01-26-2008, 05:51 PM

I really like this design Jay. This one get my vote for your next kit release ;) . I you don't like the fin standoff amd the launch lug placement concider the following.

Cut that LL330 in half or just use two LL320 launch lugs.
One LL on the upper body tube and the other on the side of an large fin.
You end up with an Upper LL and an Lower LL. (Lower LL in rocksim Make Inside Tube)
One drawback to this is a launch rod is needed for alignment during assembly :rolleyes: .

Once again Jay, Great Design!

Your Pal, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

CPMcGraw

01-27-2008, 01:41 PM

Jay,

I like what you've done here, too. Dv numbers are high, but not horribly so. She just needs a bit more "kick" off the pad (like a lot of us...).

I'm still trying to figure out how I could inspire anything to go on a diet...

Tau Zero

01-27-2008, 10:53 PM

She just needs a bit more "kick" off the pad (like a lot of us...).

I'm still trying to figure out how I could inspire anything to go on a diet...Craig,

My wife's been insisting for years that I could lose some weight. I keep telling her I'd look stupid without a head and one arm. :eek:

I didn't start gaining weight until after I'd met her. So I ask her if she'd like me to be fat and happy or thin and miserable. ;)

She tells me that's *not* what she means. I just say, "Oh, well." :rolleyes: :p

Cheers,

Tau Zero

01-30-2008, 09:54 PM

I really like this design Jay. This one get my vote for your next kit release ;) .*I'd* probably pick something a lot simpler. ;)

Although I'd need to figure out a more effective (not to mention aesthetically pleasing) method for compiling instruction sheets. :o

Y'know, Dave at Sirius Rocketry uses black and white photos. (--Hmm...) :rolleyes:

--Sorry, did I say that out loud? :o

(It doesn't help that I get distracted with writing songs and screenplays, either. :eek: )

Cheers,

CPMcGraw

01-30-2008, 10:06 PM

...Although I'd need to figure out a more effective (not to mention aesthetically pleasing) method for compiling instruction sheets. :o...(It doesn't help that I get distracted with writing songs and screenplays, either. :eek: ) ...

You want distraction from rocketry? Try PHP/HTML/CSS/MySQL haiku...

Call it 'Ode to a BLOB I once thought I knew'...

My hair drops in clumps and my face turns dark blue...

Cause it takes all my time from drawing something new...

James Pierson

02-12-2008, 11:50 PM

I Have been fighting with this design for some time now. I think I have finally got it in a version that will actually fly. DV's are good and most importantly the lift off velocities are acceptable with a 36" rod. The DV's are still a little high so I used 1/4" shock cord that is 36" long. Also funny twist is that I actually have built this design (All Semrco Parts) as of 02-08-08 and am just now posting the Rocksim file. OOPS! I will post photo's later of all that I have built before they under go the spring test flights hopefully with Jon ;) .

A big THANK YOU to Carl nd Sheryl of SEMROC for sending me all the right part no matter how poorly I describe what I need. Carl always seem to go above and beyond the call of duty. Thanks Carl, the CR-KV-60 was exactly what I needed for the Tranquility 9 design (to be built and unvaled soon) ;) .

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

Hostile Intentions Version 4 (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
B4-4..................249.67093 Ft.............26.9488 ft/s
B6-4..................257.11778 Ft.............23.3635 ft/s
C6-5..................640.75787 Ft. ...........19.1385 ft/s

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

.

EchoVictor

02-13-2008, 01:19 PM

WOW, James, just WOW!

Later,
EV

James Pierson

02-13-2008, 10:49 PM

Thanks EV, I knew you would be tempted with the Sci-Fi design ;) . I am glad you like it and lets hope it flies as well as it looks :rolleyes: . One never knows when a test flight design will turns into a W.S.M. ( Worm Seeking Missile). Its happend to me twice now. :eek: LOL.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

jay

02-15-2008, 01:36 PM

Incredible design James! Great work! :)

CPMcGraw

02-28-2008, 10:00 PM

Check out this video camera (http://www.hobby-lobby.com/video-camera.htm) from Hobby-Lobby. It records on SD cards, and seems to have a really good frame rate. (Addendum: How does 25 Frames Per Second sound?)The demo video they show is clear and sharp when used on an RC airplane. With a 2GB card, it can store up to 30 minutes of video.

The price is not too bad, either. $98.80 plus shipping.

Resolution is 640x480 for video, and 1280 x 1024 for still shots. Camera measures 3" x 1.5" x 0.5". Contains a rechargeable Li-Ion, which uses power from your USB port to recharge in about 1 1/2 hours.

A Fish Named Wallyum

02-28-2008, 10:21 PM

Oh, good. You're posting pics. I guess that means you're downloading the launch pics next? ;)

CPMcGraw

02-28-2008, 10:34 PM

Oh, good. You're posting pics. I guess that means you're downloading the launch pics next? ;)

RSN :o

Daniel Runyon

02-29-2008, 01:24 AM

(Addendum: How does 25 Frames Per Second sound?)

The professional camera that I use to film weddings with is 24 fps, as are Hollywood movies... it's a good frame rate.

How much does it weigh?

A Fish Named Wallyum

02-29-2008, 02:54 AM

(Addendum: How does 25 Frames Per Second sound?)

Like this, clickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclick,
only faster. :D

Tom Swift

02-29-2008, 02:01 PM

I Have been fighting with this design for some time now. I think I have finally got it in a version that will actually fly.

xxxSNIPxxx

Hostile Intentions Version 4 (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
B4-4..................249.67093 Ft.............26.9488 ft/s
B6-4..................257.11778 Ft.............23.3635 ft/s
C6-5..................640.75787 Ft. ...........19.1385 ft/s

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

James, that is SWEET and just BEGGING to be a cluster!
:) :) :)

CPMcGraw

03-14-2008, 03:00 PM

A "cousin" to the Andromeda. Retains the open-fin pattern and general shape, but marginally simplified. The forward payload tube can be either clear plastic or standard spiral-wound. The nose cone needs a paper transition wrapped around the bottom portion so that the forward fins have something to glue against; If you use thinned white glue, you can bond them to the clear plastic tube without smearing or fogging. This gives you the ability to remove the nose cone for payload access.

All of the following specifications are based on a sport launch condition, with no payload mass.

Length: 28.70"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10); Rings are 1.84" (ST-175)
Fin Span: 5.04"
Weight: 1.84 oz

B4-4......355'......Dv 9 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
B6-4......360'......Dv 4 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
C6-5......810'......Dv 6 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod

The phrase "Ad Astra Ad Aspera" means "To the stars, with difficulties". Non Aspera should thus be translated "No Problem!"

Enjoy!

Tau Zero

03-30-2008, 01:20 AM

In the "Scrounged-Up Designs 2006 (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=10242&postcount=565)" thread, James Pierson wrote at 07:56 PM on 08-02-2006:

"I personally think that Jay is holding out on us and keeping his best designs for himself. (Feel the love, Jay.)"

I hate to admit this, but Jim was right. :o

However, I recently noticed that EMRR had a "Box O' Parts" contest (which I was too busy to participate in, due to the recurring intrusions of real life), and I threw together a list of parts that *I* would have included. Then I took it one step further, and tried to figure out how *I'd* put them together. :D

To that end, I present the "Zeta" (pronounced "ZAY-tuh"). :cool:

Parts list (all components by Semroc):

BC-760 Nose cone
SE-14 Screw eye
ST-7120 Body tube
ST-530 Body tube (2)
ST-1040 Body tube
CR-710 Centering rings (2)
EH-28 Engine hook
TR-7 Thrust ring
LL-117 Launch lug
EC-130 Elastic cord
SCK-24 Kevlar shock cord
CP-12 Parachute (Use a streamer for B and C-powered flights.)
3/32" balsa

(This may take a few consecutive posts, so I apologize in advance.)

As always, pertinent comments or questions are welcome. Impertinent ones will be dealt with accordingly. :eek: :rolleyes:

Thanks, and cheers,

pantherjon

03-31-2008, 01:04 AM

Very kewl:cool: Jay! Would be: 'Zeta see ya lata' on a D13!2015ft!:eek: But nice soft d/v of 13 ft/sec :D

A Fish Named Wallyum

03-31-2008, 01:11 AM

CPMcGraw

03-31-2008, 08:58 AM

That cone is becoming quite the workhorse out west. :rolleyes:

I'd be interested in seeing some production numbers from Carl as to how many of these cones he's pulled from the Krellvenator since Jay got him started. The "Tau" series really needed them, and I think there's a few more possibilities with it in the future...

James Pierson

03-31-2008, 10:21 PM

CenturiGuy Quote:
In the "Scrounged-Up Designs 2006" thread, James Pierson wrote at 07:56 PM on 08-02-2006:

"I personally think that Jay is holding out on us and keeping his best designs for himself. (Feel the love, Jay.)"

I hate to admit this, but Jim was right.

Yes! We have managed, once again, to squeeze another great design from Jay. Its good to hear from you Buddy and hope all is going well in your neck of the woods ;) .

CPMcGraw Quote:

I'd be interested in seeing some production numbers from Carl as to how many of these cones he's pulled from the Krellvenator since Jay got him started. The "Tau" series really needed them, and I think there's a few more possibilities with it in the future...

I agree Craig. I would really like to see an ST-10 based Tau Cone someday soon. Hint Hint Jay :rolleyes: .

As for me here in WA the weather really sucks! Still below 50 degrees, snowed again Friday & Saturday so I cannot primer the prototypes yet. I am waiting to post pre-testflight photo's after at least one coat of primer is on. Pre-testflight photo's just in case some don't come back in one piece :D . Still consumed with starting the build of the Tranquility 9 but still have not started it yet :( .

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Tau Zero

04-01-2008, 10:51 PM

I would really like to see an ST-10 based Tau Cone someday soon. Hint Hint Jay :rolleyes:That would be up to Carl, should he reconsider releasing more than just *one* nose cone. ;) :D (That April Fools' joke pretty much rivaled Nick's at EMRR several years back. :eek: )

Dredging up the original file posted on Ye Olde Rocket Forum (YORF) back on 06-08-2006:

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=8383&postcount=81

...I have updated it per young Mr. JP's request.

The cone section is 7.2" long, while the transition is 1.0" long. The widest point is 1.43", while I'm suggesting a shoulder of 0.75" long.

I humbly submit that its designation should be BC-1082. [EDIT] Instead of 10820... I got carried away and added that extra zero, which is used in *body tube lengths.* :o

Please notify Mr. McLawhorn if you feel his most excellent company should make this nose cone available. (Oh, and have him bring the dowels back. Gordon "Sandman" Agnello would probably like that. :eek: :rolleyes: :p )

Cheers,

CPMcGraw

04-02-2008, 12:13 AM

Jay,

An upscale Andromeda SLS was proposed HERE (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=12076&postcount=667), so I think another variant would be appropriate. Probably could work it into a 24mm power package (the SLS was 29mm)... :rolleyes:

If Carl says yes, I'll get one or two and try building this upscale.

Of course, this also means I need to upscale the Andromeda fin patterns, which Carl would need to feed into the Krellvenator to produce laser-cut frames; and some new bulkheads, too, for those shrouds...

James Pierson

04-05-2008, 10:41 PM

I don't know if I have posted this design of not? :confused: Cannot find it posted anywhere so here it is. I call it the Galactic Goblin and am posting version 3 of 5 with this design. It looks OK, but is not as stable as I would like it to be. This design really needs an ejection charge of 3 seconds on B motors according to Rocksim for better DV's.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

Galactic Goblin (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
A8-3..................125.45308 Ft.............21.9994 ft/s
B4-4..................314.03970 Ft.............18.4159 ft/s
B6-4..................320.77789 Ft.............13.9452 ft/s
C6-5..................713.53347 Ft.............18.4870 ft/s

James Pierson
NAR#77907

CPMcGraw

04-05-2008, 11:25 PM

...Galactic Goblin...not as stable as I would like it to be...needs an ejection charge of 3 seconds on B motors...

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
A8-3..................125.45308 Ft.............21.9994 ft/s
B4-4..................314.03970 Ft.............18.4159 ft/s
B6-4..................320.77789 Ft.............13.9452 ft/s
C6-5..................713.53347 Ft.............18.4870 ft/s

Interesting images, James. 19 and 14 FPS are not horrible DVs, but if they could be brought down a bit it would make for a not-quite-such-a-nail-biter at chute time...

Could the altitude performance be sacrificed for a softer DV? Larger diameter shroud, or larger fins (greater margin)?

James Pierson

04-06-2008, 11:34 PM

CPMcGraw Quote:

Interesting images, James. 19 and 14 FPS are not horrible DVs, but if they could be brought down a bit it would make for a not-quite-such-a-nail-biter at chute time...

Could the altitude performance be sacrificed for a softer DV? Larger diameter shroud, or larger fins (greater margin)?

I tried both and they did raise the margin only slightly. Maybe what this design needs is more length and some nose wieght, but it just don't look right any longer. Besides after it's built it will most likely be heavier than RocKsim says, as usual, and be better off with some nose wieght and a 2 second delay just like the Sabre Tooth on a C motor ;) .

Thanks for your input Craig, JP.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

James Pierson

04-08-2008, 10:21 PM

Here is another variation of a Lander I came up with called the Sky Champ. It uses an
BnC-55BE as a nose cone and the main body is shaped by using an BTC-70HZ hollow balsa
transition. I cheated the Static Margin reference for this file as I felt the Maximum Frontal
Diameter is too much for this short wide design.
I also added for extra drag at the bottom of the landing legs some CR-7 kockouts of
Carl's .05 cardstock to look like landing pads. I always save these and know I finally ahve a
purpose fro them. I don't know how to sim the drag for the landing pads so I will leave it up
to Jay to fiqure that out. These pads may just be the thing needed to fix the Neptune Lander

CG-CP as well.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

Sky Champ (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
1/2A3T-2..............70.68996 Ft..............4.7838 ft/s.
A10T-3................204.79724 Ft.............7.3262 ft/s

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

.

CPMcGraw

04-08-2008, 10:54 PM

Here is another variation of a Lander I came up with called the Sky Champ. It uses an BnC-55BE as a nose cone and the main body is shaped by using an BTC-70HZ hollow balsa transition...

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
1/2A3T-2..............70.68996 Ft..............4.7838 ft/s.
A10T-3................204.79724 Ft.............7.3262 ft/s...

I've GOT to build this one!

Great looking design, James! Let me guess (without looking at the RS file), the A3-4T has too high a Dv, or it deploys during the down-swing...

James Pierson

04-08-2008, 11:25 PM

CPMcGraw Quote:

I've GOT to build this one!

Great looking design, James! Let me guess (without looking at the RS file), the A3-4T has too high a Dv, or it deploys during the down-swing...

BINGO my friend, you guessed it. I am glad you like it. A3-4T has the power but too long of a delay. The A10T-3 should be the chosen motor for this design as actual biuild wieghts are usaully heavier so I would avoid the 1/2A3T-2.

Craig what is your opinion with my chaet to the Margin reference? I just used the inside of the BT-55 tube for the reference. If I could sim the drag of the landing pads we might be able to delete an WL-7 and get some more altitude.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

CPMcGraw

04-08-2008, 11:39 PM

BINGO my friend, you guessed it. I am glad you like it. A3-4T has the power but too long of a delay. The A10T-3 should be the chosen motor for this design as actual biuild wieghts are usaully heavier so I would avoid the 1/2A3T-2.

Craig what is your opinion with my chaet to the Margin reference? I just used the inside of the BT-55 tube for the reference. If I could sim the drag of the landing pads we might be able to delete an WL-7 and get some more altitude.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

I see what you mean...

Hard to say, JP. Using the MFD setting lowers the margin below 1.00 (about 0.74) even without the motor installed. However, using the NCBD brings it up to 2.74 with the A10-3T installed. Changing this to the URD drops it to 1.03, even though the specified diameter is exactly the same as the NCBD. I'd say it's neither, and more like somewhere in the middle.

I know it's heresy to say this, but RockSim doesn't always know what it's talking about...:eek:

James Pierson

04-08-2008, 11:49 PM

CPMcGraw Quote:

I know it's heresy to say this, but RockSim doesn't always know what it's talking about...

LOL, ain't that the truth though!

I guess only one way to find out if it will fly, built it and it will either fly or crash and burn.
Although the flying part is fun, the crash and burn part is always much cooler :D .

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

CPMcGraw

04-10-2008, 08:10 PM

Inspired in part by the Viking series of FSI kits.

Length: 17.74"
Diameter: 0.908" (ST-8)
Fin Span: 5.41"
Weight: 1.75 oz

A8-3......150'......Dv 14 FPS......36" x 1/8" standard rod
B4-4......390'......Dv 3 FPS.......36" x 1/8" standard rod
B6-4......395'......Dv 3 FPS.......36" x 1/8" standard rod
C6-5......895'......Dv 8 FPS.......36" x 1/8" standard rod

Although not illustrated in the RockSim images, the tubes really should be cut on a bevel at the top and bottom ends, matching the cut tubes of the FSI Vikings.

Enjoy!

James Pierson

04-19-2008, 11:58 PM

Well, I will admit that I have been too busy to post many new Rocksim designs these past few months. I have been busy doing something and that's building a few. So without any further do do, :D here they are ;) .

PS. The weather here stinks, in fact it snowed the past two days off and on so I havn't got much painting done and will postpone any test launches as well :( .

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Cap Ship and Outpost Voyager
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/rocketry_preservation_society/CapShipandOutpostVoyager.jpg

Nebula and Anti Cyclone
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/rocketry_preservation_society/NebulaandAnti-Cyclone.jpg

Sky Ace and Hostile Intentions
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/rocketry_preservation_society/SkyAceandHostileIntentions.jpg

Sky Champ Lander (Version 2)
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/rocketry_preservation_society/SkyChampLander.jpg

Ion Explorer (Version 2, 13mm) and Tranquility 1, and Away & Beyond
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/rocketry_preservation_society/SpringBuildsofIonT1andAway.jpg

.

James Pierson

06-06-2008, 09:46 PM

Finally found some time to finish some design files and get them ready to post. Here is a new design I call the Vulcan Shuttle. It has a combination of parts using an Semroc BC-1674 nose cone and an Balsa Machining BMS60V2B drilled tailcone that shapes the main body. Also, the rearward pointing fins with the ringfin look good, I tend to wonder about how they will fair with ground impact during recovery :confused: .

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

Vulcan Shuttle (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
B4-4..................270.99803 Ft.............22.7568 ft/s
B6-4..................278.26214 Ft.............18.5061 ft/s
C6-5..................687.48032 Ft.............11.4319 ft/s

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

CPMcGraw

06-07-2008, 11:49 AM

Finally found some time to finish some design files...

I know that feeling...

I had to force myself to build something this month, and wound up with a nice set of "K" series clones to add to the collection. The newest clones are a Mark and Mark II, an Aerobee 300, an A-20 Demon, and with a bit more looking around, I found a BNC-20B nose cone to build another Invader. Emptying out the parts bin, I found a spare Tau nose cone (BC-760), and I used this to build up a Tau Draconis prototype (13mm version). Add to this two prototypes of the Dominion Keeper, and you get the idea of what I've done in May...

Feels good, too!

...Also, the rearward pointing fins with the ringfin look good, I tend to wonder about how they will fair with ground impact during recovery...

Why not attach some hard dowel stock to the tips? Say, some 1" lengths of 3/32" or 1/8" diameter, with only about 1/8" below the balsa edge? Let this take the impact shock instead of the balsa.

jay

06-07-2008, 12:35 PM

James, nice work on the Tranquility 1! I love the design! How about a parts list? :)

James Pierson

06-07-2008, 06:17 PM

CPMcGraw Quote:
Why not attach some hard dowel stock to the tips? Say, some 1" lengths of 3/32" or 1/8" diameter, with only about 1/8" below the balsa edge? Let this take the impact shock instead of the balsa.

That's a good idea Craig, it would definitly help the tip of the fins from damage and/or breaking off :eek: .

jay Quote:
James, nice work on the Tranquility 1! I love the design! How about a parts list?

Let me complete a test launch first. A few week ago at the OPROC launch I preped this design for the test launch and then discovered that I forgot the upper and lower launch lugs. Must be the Dain Bramage thing again :o .

Some other design change on the Neptune Lander, Spaceman 2006, and the Sky Champ Lander are that I have removed the 13mm motor mount and have converted all three design to 18mm. Plan on trying the A8-3 first and then work my way up to B4-4 and B6-4's.
We will just have to see what happens :rolleyes: regardless of what Rocksim says :p .

Thanks for the input guys, JP.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907
.

Tau Zero

06-07-2008, 11:38 PM

Emptying out the parts bin, I found a spare Tau nose cone (BC-760), and I used this to build up a Tau Draconis prototype (13mm version).(tapping foot impatiently) Pictures, please! ;) :D :cool:

(Don't make me beg. It's *not* pretty. :o )

(Melodramatic, yes. Pretty, no. :eek: )

Cheers,

CPMcGraw

06-08-2008, 07:34 AM

(tapping foot impatiently) Pictures, please! ;) :D :cool:

(Don't make me beg. It's *not* pretty. :o )

(Melodramatic, yes. Pretty, no. :eek: )

Cheers,

(Overdubbed monotonic metallic-synthisized voice)
By your command... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ccKPSVQcFk)

James Pierson

06-10-2008, 07:16 PM

CPMcGraw

06-10-2008, 07:30 PM

Looks Great Craig. Looks like you have put thay set for French Curves to work. I hope you are not as disapointed in the 13mm motor performance as I have been :o . Best of luck with the test flight and looking forward to you report.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

It flew great, on both A10 and A3 power. Go check out the videos in the Flight Report (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=41584&postcount=113). I'm more than pleased with the results,

Tau Zero

06-11-2008, 11:59 PM

(Overdubbed monotonic metallic-synthisized voice)
By your command... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ccKPSVQcFk)"Stinkin' cool, that was." ;) :D :p

Cool design, too, Craig. :cool:

So that just *looks* like a two-stager, eh? :rolleyes:

Cheers,

CPMcGraw

06-12-2008, 02:00 PM

"Stinkin' cool, that was." ;) :D :p

Cool design, too, Craig. :cool:

So that just *looks* like a two-stager, eh? :rolleyes:

Cheers,

Made me look...:o

The model is perched on top of a SEMROC Rocket Rack, and the image was cropped just above the rack's base. You're seeing the display post... :p

You should be familiar with the concept of "Post Editing"...:D

James Pierson

06-12-2008, 11:09 PM

Finally got time to respond with a post :( .

CPMcGraw Quote:
It flew great, on both A10 and A3 power. Go check out the videos in the Flight Report. I'm more than pleased with the results,

Saw the video's about two minutes after reading your post. Most untimely on my part Craig. Looks like a great design that flies well on the 13mm motors. I am slowly learning to stay away from 13mm power when a design has a high surface drag area like some of my designs like Neptune Lander etc...

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

James Pierson

06-14-2008, 10:33 PM

Here is a design I have named the Sky Chieftain. This design is just under 30 inches long and flies well on standard 18mm motors. I went with an Upper and an Lower launch lug on this design as it seems to help a little bit with liftoff when the wind picks up.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

Sky Chieftain 2 (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
B4-4..................333.18242 Ft.............12.3799 ft/s
B6-4..................341.32874 Ft..............7.8697 ft/s
C6-5..................789.22900 Ft..............7.1362 ft/s

James Pierson
NAR#77907

.

jay

06-14-2008, 11:09 PM

Another GREAT design James, I'm really digg'n this one! :cool:

Tau Zero

06-15-2008, 01:03 AM

Made me look...:o

The model is perched on top of a SEMROC Rocket Rack, and the image was cropped just above the rack's base. You're seeing the display post... :pActually, I was able to identify the Rocket Rack. However, my middle-aged vision managed to misconstrue what I *now* perceive as (embarrassed look) the pencil mark for the upper root end of your fins. (turning a deep shade of vermilion)

You should be familiar with the concept of "Post Editing"...:DYou'd *think.* :eek: :rolleyes: :D

Cheers,

CPMcGraw

06-15-2008, 06:23 AM

...flies well on standard 18mm motors. I went with an Upper and an Lower launch lug on this design as it seems to help a little bit with liftoff when the wind picks up...

Nice work, JP. I take it this one has been built and flown?

CPMcGraw

06-15-2008, 06:32 AM

...my middle-aged vision managed to misconstrue what I *now* perceive as (embarrassed look) the pencil mark for the upper root end of your fins...

Ahh, *now I see* said the blind carpenter as he picked up his hammer and saw...

I mentioned earlier, I think, about finally getting my official "old man's glasses", yes? Progressive tri-focals...

Never mind a smooth progression from single-vision to bi-focals, oh, no...

And never mind about seeing clearly, either. Depending on how I hold my head, I can see the world in various trapezoidal dimensions...

Some things still look like they belong in a Salvadore Dali painting...

James Pierson

06-15-2008, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted jay Quote:

jay Another GREAT design James, I'm really digg'n this one!

Thanks jay, I am gald you enjoy it. The Sky Chieftain kind of reminds me of the Estes Sentinal in some ways.

Originally Posted CPMcGraw Quote:

Nice work, JP. I take it this one has been built and flown?

Thanks Craig, but not built yet. I have too many others in the "Test Flight Pending" file for this design to even be concidered to be built. Getting to the launch field seems to be my Spring and Summer priorities and building things when the rain hits in the Fall and Winter months. Well at least here in the Rain Forest anyways.

Originally Posted CentutiGuyQuote:

Actually, I was able to identify the Rocket Rack. However, my middle-aged vision managed to misconstrue what I *now* perceive as (embarrassed look) the pencil mark for the upper root end of your fins. (turning a deep shade of vermilion).

Key words here from our friendly Cameraman/Reporter are, Vision and Percieve. Must be that Idaho sun getting in your eyes again Jay. :D Please remind me what it looks like :confused: .

Happy Father Days To All.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

CPMcGraw

06-19-2008, 09:20 PM

I don't know where this is going to venture off to, but I just created a Wordpress blog for BARCLONE. My intent is to use it as a companion site to both the website, and to this forum. As Scott can attest to, he and I have had quite a difficult time trying to update the primary website with all of the designs that our team has produced. My attempts to create a working database-driven site have not met with success, so I made the decision to stop that work.

I am trying to get back to some serious model design work, and am spending some quality time getting to know my X-Acto knife again. :D I don't know how much content I can store right now on Wordpress, so I'm going to limit content for a while to just announcements of new designs and test flights.

This new site will in no way become a replacement for our YORF threads or the website. It's just an additional site to showcase the great work our little band of designers have been putting out. I hope it meets with everyone's approval.

The blog (http://barclone.wordpress.com) is active.

CPMcGraw

06-24-2008, 02:40 PM

Now that I'm getting back into the design and build swing, I thought about another open-frame design to get one's teeth into. I think Ephemera does this well. RockSim says it has a 1.36 static margin with a C6-5, so if the calculations are correct, this should be a rock-steady bird.

Length: 30.50"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Fin Span: 7.88"
Weight: 1.79 oz

A8-3......140'......Dv 17 FPS......48" x 3/16" rod (req LL-3 lugs)
B4-4......355'......Dv 10 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
B6-4......360'......Dv 5 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
C6-5......800'......Dv 6 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod

Skin the fins for strength, and it should hold up to repeated landings. I simmed with a 16" parachute, so the landing V would be low.

Enjoy!

James Pierson

06-25-2008, 09:39 PM

CPMcGraw

06-25-2008, 09:59 PM

Another excellent design Craig, I had no idea that there was ever a T-2 tube available. This design seems to have a real "Flow" to it :cool:.
Also I am wondering if you have a specific reason for placing the aft CR710 in a more forward position?

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

The T-2 is listed on TotallyTubular, so availability TBD. Maybe one day we can come up with enough designs using it for Carl to justify carrying it, too. :D

The aft CR-710 is 1" from the rear, which is a location I often place the ring at. Some plans only place it 3/4" from the rear, which I think is OK, but it makes the hook a bit stiff when it comes time to remove the spent casing. A stiff hook and a hot casing make it painful on older fingertips. :(

InFlight

06-25-2008, 10:09 PM

Craig,

BMS has the T2 tubes in 34" lengths. Cat (http://www.balsamachining.com/CATALOG.htm)

CPMcGraw

06-25-2008, 10:12 PM

Craig,

BMS has the T2 tubes in 34" lengths. Cat (http://www.balsamachining.com/CATALOG.htm)

VBG...:D

Thanks for the heads-up, Ray! I'll go take a look at BMS again.

CPMcGraw

06-27-2008, 03:43 PM

This is a kitbash, with parts added. Start with a SEMROC Squire for most components. You'll need to add a long 13mm motor tube, a TB-5 thrust block, four CR-58 rings, and the 3/32" hardwood dowels.

I took the Squire fins and open-framed them, then skinned them with label stock and CA. The forward fins came from the stock sheet, but were trimmed down to match the angle at the top of the main fins, so that the dowels would have a support. Cut the rear ST-8 at 4" long.

The motor mount only needs to be a thrust block, but you can take the long hook and the TB-7 that comes in the kit and still have a working hook retention for the 13mm motors...

Length: 19.70"
Diameter: 0.908" (ST-8)
Fin Span: 5.31"
Weight: 1.17 oz

1/2 A3-2T......90'......Dv 2.2 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
A10-3T........225'......Dv 7 FPS........36" x 1/8" rod

The Squire kit makes a nice starting platform for many designs. Carl has at least a dozen variations shown in the instruction booklet just using the kit parts alone.

Enjoy!

CPMcGraw

06-28-2008, 10:31 AM

I spotted some inconsistencies between the posted RockSim plan and the version I'm actually building. They are minor, and probably won't affect the performance of any model built from the first version. I just wanted to be accurate (as far as it's possible with RS...) with the presentation.

There isn't enough of an appearance change to notice, just a slight repositioning of the fins.

Here's what really changed: The rear tube is 3.5" long, not 4". The core tube has an exposed length of 3.5" instead of 3". It is still 8" long. The rear fins are located 0.25" from the rear edge of the tube, and the forward fins and dowels are adjusted to fit.

CPMcGraw

06-28-2008, 05:00 PM

This is not exactly a "new" plan, but it's new to this thread. :rolleyes:

The model is a payloader, capable of handling a 1/2 oz mass in the payload compartment. You will notice the payload tube is shown as "CPT-10", which is not currently available. Just substitute an equal length section of ST-10.

This model has flown "in the wild".

Length: 20.70"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Fin Span: 3.54"
Weight: 1.35 oz (empty)

A8-3......0.0 oz payload......202'......Dv 8 FPS.......36" rod
A8-3......0.5 oz payload......140'......Dv 19 FPS......40" rod
B6-4......0.0 oz payload......475'......Dv 14 FPS......36" rod
B6-4......0.5 oz payload......380'......Dv 12 FPS......36" rod
C6-5......0.0 oz payload......990'......Dv 14 FPS......36" rod
C6-5......0.5 oz payload......895'......Dv 17 FPS......36" rod

The A8-3 with a payload is not a recommended configuration. Only use this motor for initial test flights with no payload installed.

Enjoy!

CPMcGraw

06-28-2008, 06:07 PM

I've been adding to the list of designs shown on the new blog (http://barclone.wordpress.com/). You'll find these on the COLLECTIVE INSANITY page. But I've been limiting these to only designs that have been built and flown, not just simulated in RockSim. If you're curious as to which ones are "fully proven", this is where you'll see them.

Also, as new designs are posted here on the forum, I will post them to the HOME category first, as well as to a new page later (it has not been created or named yet).

I'd like for all of the BARCLONE contributors to let me know which of their designs have been built and successfully flown, too, so that I can include them in the list. That way, you can get recognition for your work.

The blog is open for comments in the HOME and DESIGN CATALOG categories. The COLLECTIVE INSANITY page does not have any comment area for itself (I'm keeping it exclusively for designs), so use the DESIGN CATALOG comment area for feedback.

I'm still adding content, and I would like to include an ABOUT page with a bio of each BARCLONE contributor (especially our core contributors!). PM me here on YORF if you want to have something posted on the ABOUT page.

CPMcGraw

06-30-2008, 03:54 PM

Everyone, but especially all of the BARCLONE contributors...

I've just posted the master list of designs on the blogsite. There are 426 designs shown, and I know there are still a few missing for various reasons. There are also a few which have been posted here that I just haven't downloaded yet to my own computer, so they're not on the list, either. It's a long list!

Eventually, I hope to have a separate page for each design, or at least for each unique design. Each page will contain the links for PDF and RKT files available for download.

Some of these designs go back to January of 2003, so this marks a five-year journey into design and development. Go check out the list.

Maniac BAR

07-06-2008, 01:02 AM

CPMcGraw

07-06-2008, 06:31 PM

Craig, can I add that the Star Ranger has been completed and flown! :p

It's maiden flight was on a C6-5 and was textbook from start to finish. I just finished the full paint job and except for a minor change to the mid fin area it is just as the paint scheme I sent you.

Very nice design :) :p

Great, Geoffrey! That really gives me the incentive to finish building up my copy. I have the body parts, just not the fins. Be sure to show me what you changed! :D :rolleyes:

I'll post the plan on the blog tonight.

James Pierson

07-06-2008, 07:22 PM

CPMcGraw
I've been adding to the list of designs shown on the new blog. You'll find these on the COLLECTIVE INSANITY page. But I've been limiting these to only designs that have been built and flown, not just simulated in RockSim. If you're curious as to which ones are "fully proven", this is where you'll see them.

Maybe we need to define "Fully Proven" :o I just cannot afford to "Prove" a design the way Vern did it and these motors are getting more expensive by the minute :mad: .
I'm thinking, "Fully Proven" should be three good flights and recovery with the largest motor the design was intended to fly with. Feel free to jump in anyone???

I'd like for all of the BARCLONE contributors to let me know which of their designs have been built and successfully flown, too, so that I can include them in the list. That way, you can get recognition for your work.

I be glad to make that list as soon as I figure out which ones they are :rolleyes: . My trouble lately is figuring out which designs are "Finished/Done" as I always seem to think of minor & major imporvements.

I'm still adding content, and I would like to include an ABOUT page with a bio of each BARCLONE contributor (especially our core contributors!). PM me here on YORF if you want to have something posted on the ABOUT page.

I will find the time to work on the bio soon Craig.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

PS. I managed to get a few front yard test flights in on the 4th. I have converted Sky Champ to 18mm and had a good flight on an A8-3 and a beautiful flight :D B6-4 to about 400 feet. I need to stretch this design another inch to make more room for the 12 inch parachute though as it is too tight of a pack. Barclone flight report upcoming!

.

Maniac BAR

07-06-2008, 10:05 PM

Great, Geoffrey! That really gives me the incentive to finish building up my copy. I have the body parts, just not the fins. Be sure to show me what you changed! :D :rolleyes:

I'll post the plan on the blog tonight.

Sorry, I did not mean for it to sound like I changed the rocket, only the paint scheme. :o

I extended the black color on the mid fins onto the tube as well. It is now a black strip going from one mid fin to the other. It seemed as though the white body tube needed some kind of color break and that was a convienent place to do it.

However, in my frantic, late night build session, as the norm, I did not read the RockSim parts list correctly. I cut a slew of launch lugs to length and glued them together in pairs. Then marked off the distance from the base of the rocket and started to glue them to the body tube. I was quite supprised when I ran out of the number of tubes called for on the file and was still only about halfway around the body tube. :o

After rereading the file, I realized that I had used 1/8 lugs instead of what was called out. :rolleyes:

Since the others were all ready attached, I just continued to add more of the smaller ones until they went all around. To tell the truth, I think they look better since they don't stick out as far. They are more compact and look like some kind of radiator. I painted them silver to accent the look. It also gave me a convenient place to put the actual launch lug to clear the nose cone section. Worked out great!!

Hope you don't mind the change. :eek:

P.S. The nose cone itself is red. Doesn't look it in the photo.

CPMcGraw

07-06-2008, 11:08 PM

...Maybe we need to define "Fully Proven"...I'm thinking, "Fully Proven" should be three good flights and recovery with the largest motor the design was intended to fly with...

I should have been clearer. What I meant was, these are designs that have been built with real parts, and have been flown with real motors from their respective motor call-out list. Even a single successful flight qualifies. My feeling here is, if the ascent is stable and does not exhibit any bad habits, then the flight is successful. Deployment failure does not necessarily mean a design failure...:p

...glad to make that list as soon as I figure out which ones they are...

Use my simplified criteria above. If it has flown at least once in the "real world", with a clean ascent, then let's use it. Recovery failures can be corrected without a redesign of the airframe...

I will find the time to work on the bio soon Craig.

Thanks, JP.

CPMcGraw

07-06-2008, 11:18 PM

I extended the black color on the mid fins onto the tube as well. It is now a black strip going from one mid fin to the other. It seemed as though the white body tube needed some kind of color break and that was a convienent place to do it.

I like the general color pattern. If I were to do a full set of decals, I might want additional panels to be highlighted. I'm not getting into decals for this one...:o

...in my frantic, late night build session, as the norm, I did not read the RockSim parts list correctly...After rereading the file, I realized that I had used 1/8 lugs...To tell the truth, I think they look better since they don't stick out as far. They are more compact and look like some kind of radiator...gave me a convenient place to put the actual launch lug to clear the nose cone section. Worked out great!!

That's sorta what those lugs are supposed to be, a cooling radiator. Silver looks good. Gold, with black edging, might also look good. And no, I don't mind the change at all! I figure, real capital ships (like cruise liners) would see variations over their service life, so your representation just means one service version in that ship's lifespan. :D

CPMcGraw

07-11-2008, 03:48 PM

This is a fantasy-sport model that I originally thought might be a good boost-glider. It might actually glide, if properly trimmed, and could be adapted as a parasite glider. For this post, I went with a 13mm mount so it could be flown in smaller fields.

Length: 16.700"
Diameter: 0.908" (ST-8)
Fin Span: 7.408"
Weight: 1.29 oz

One note to consider: The cheek cowls and the canopy are shown as solid balsa. If these are hollowed out, or if a lightweight cardstock canopy and cowls can be fabricated, this weight should be lower, and the resulting altitudes would be higher.

1/2 A3-2T......79'.......Dv 2 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
A10-3T.........210'......Dv 8 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod

Enjoy!

InFlight

07-11-2008, 08:58 PM

CPMcGraw

07-11-2008, 10:03 PM

Craig,

I see you're on a roll again. ;) that Wave Rider looks really sweet!
For fun, how about a second version with some open frame designage.

PS: I know it wont glide if there are holes in the fins but it would look cool. :D

Just for you, Ray!

Weight is now 1.23 oz.

1/2 A3-2T......83'......Dv 1 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
A10-3T........224'......Dv 5 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod

Enjoy!

CPMcGraw

07-12-2008, 04:22 PM

Here's a 13mm power pod for launching the Wave Rider as a glider. Remember, as a glider, the Wave Rider should have no motor mount.

Locate the CP on the glider, and position it directly above the "sleeve" shown at the CP location of the pod. This keeps both CPs together for the boost phase.

Mount a short piece of launch lug on the step of the upper fin on the pod. Similar to that found on the Orbital Transport orbiter, position a hold-down dowel on the bottom of the Wave Rider so that it aligns with the lug.

Remember to trim the glider for a stable flight, using trim tabs. Adjust the balance point with clay, as needed, to produce a modest straight-line glide with only a gentle loss of altitude.

Also remember, this is yet to be flight-tested... :D

Enjoy!

CPMcGraw

07-13-2008, 01:53 PM

A performance design for 13mm motors, but with a little more style than typically found. Also qualifies as a "Schoolyard Sounder".

Length: 14.70"
Diameter: 0.908" (ST-8)
Fin Span: 4.66"
Weight: 0.81 oz

A3-4T......420'......Dv 4 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod

Enjoy!

CPMcGraw

07-13-2008, 02:52 PM

Another in the "Empyria" class, just shorter.

Length: 18.20"
Diameter: 1.04"
Fin Span: 5.04"
Weight: 1.84 oz

B4-4......315'......Dv 18 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
B6-4......325'......Dv 15 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
C6-5......730'......Dv 16 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod

Enjoy!

CPMcGraw

07-14-2008, 06:12 PM

Another "Schoolyard Sounder"...

Length: 15.375"
Diameter: 0.908" (ST-8)
Fin Span: 5.16"
Weight: 0.84 oz

A3-4T......412'......Dv 5 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod

Enjoy!

CPMcGraw

07-15-2008, 10:37 PM

So, we have here a stretched, ST-8 version of the old Estes Sprite, doctored up with open-frame fins. It calls for the A10-3T exclusively, as the drag from that ringtail is whacko!

...And thus the name...

It's also a "Schoolyard Sounder"...

Length: 16.601"
Diameter: 0.908" (ST-8)
Fin Span: 3.906"
Weight: 1.03 oz

A10-3T......195'......Dv 21 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod

Enjoy!

James Pierson

07-15-2008, 10:59 PM

Yep, Craig seems to be on a roll here. Maybe I should just stay out of the way before I get runned over :D . Keep them coming Craig!

Here is a design that I have downscaled from it's original version to a ST-5 main BT just so I could use the Semroc BC-523 for a nose cone. It has been built and flown on an 1/2 A3T-2 to an altitude of around 90 feet in the front yard. I packed the recovery wadding too tight and the streamer failed to fully deploy resulting in a busted off fin at ground inpact. Easily and quickly fixed. My plan in the future for this one is back its original size while still keeping the look of the BC-523 which will be upscaled as well.

Ion Explorer ST-5 13mm
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
1/2A3T-2 .............145.64370 Ft.............17.7475 ft/s
A10T-3................302.26706 Ft.............1.2592 ft/s

Thanks Again and Enjoy, JP.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

CPMcGraw

07-15-2008, 11:25 PM

Yep, Craig seems to be on a roll here. Maybe I should just stay out of the way before I get runned over :D . Keep them coming Craig!

CLICK HERE (http://www.folloder.com/sounds/feelgood.wav)

Ion Explorer ST-5 13mm
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
1/2A3T-2 .............145.64370 Ft.............17.7475 ft/s
A10T-3................302.26706 Ft.............1.2592 ft/s

Good numbers on the altitudes and Dv, James. Nice and gentle over the top on that A10, and not excessively stressful on the 1/2A3-2. I've really liked this design, too. It has a late-70-early-80-ish Estes feel to it.

Don't wait for me to post, James. Look how long it took for me to get back in the swing of things - nearly two years. We need lots of regular design posts to keep the juices flowing.

We also still need 53 designs to reach 500... :D

James Pierson

07-16-2008, 12:01 AM

CPMcgarw Quote:
Don't wait for me to post, James. Look how long it took for me to get back in the swing of things - nearly two years. We need lots of regular design posts to keep the juices flowing.

We also still need 53 designs to reach 500...

My brain seems to be stuck in the finish what I got mode. I also seem to be very lost in files and need to take the time to see what I have or haven't posted, built, ubuilt, proven etc.. etc.. etc... Anyways, I sure will do what I can to help reach that 500 mark. I need to study the new Semroc nose cones and see what I can come up with ;) .

Thanks, JP.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

CPMcGraw

07-16-2008, 03:59 PM

Borrowing something from James Pierson here... :eek:

This design is "Saturn-like", with similarities to JP's Tranquility models. I'm using smaller tank tubes (and more of them), along with a 24mm mount for taking an E9-6. More powerful RMS-type motors could also be fitted with the proper delays, though I haven't simulated them.

The D12-5 has too high a Dv (over 30 FPS), so don't use it.

E9-6......1700'......Dv 19 FPS......48" x 3/16" rod

Important note: Yes, the tank tubes have to be trimmed just a little to fit them onto the ST-9 core tube. Cut a wedge out of each tube to allow the tanks to fit closer to the core, and so that all 10 fit inside the ST-16 tubes. Since the tank tubes are just for show and are not functional, they should also be plugged at the top to prevent deployment gasses from escaping.

Enjoy!

CPMcGraw

07-16-2008, 04:27 PM

The number is now 52 before we cross 500... :D

Ltvscout

07-16-2008, 07:33 PM

CPMcGraw

07-17-2008, 10:50 AM

The blog now has a long list of "In The Wild" BARCLONEs, meaning those designs which have actually been built and flown. Right now, I'm adding a bunch of James Pierson's designs to this list. His collection of flown designs is about as long as (if not longer than) mine.

I'm still looking for folks to let me know if they've built a BARCLONE and flown it, so that I can add it to this special list.

CPMcGraw

07-18-2008, 02:11 PM

Staying in the ST-8 "Schoolyard Sounders" series for a while longer...

This is a simple, high-performance design for 13mm A3-4 motors. It provides great altitude (400') with very low Dv numbers (less than 5 FPS) while still looking sharp and stylish.

Length: 17.453"
Diameter: 0.908" (ST-8)
Fin Span: 3.88"
Weight: 0.9 oz

A3-4T......401'......Dv 5 FPS (highest of 10 sims).......36" x 1/8" rod
A3-4T......402'......Dv 0.6 FPS (lowest of 10 sims)......36" x 1/8" rod

Enjoy!

CPMcGraw

07-18-2008, 02:13 PM

The magic number is now 51... :D

There are several of James Pierson's designs that haven't been added, so this number is likely to change.

JP, you need to clean out your PM box... :o

James Pierson

07-18-2008, 08:05 PM

CPMcGraw
JP, you need to clean out your PM box... :o

I did, I did. try to resend them :rolleyes: .

Thanks, Sorry, JP.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

James Pierson

07-19-2008, 10:40 PM

Here is a design that shows my rethinking of the 13mm powered design. I am keepimg them smaller and lightwieght and using the ST-10 tube which is much easier to pack and recovery device in. I hope to come up with some good variations of this basic design in the months to come. This particular Smarty design can be recovered with either an streamer and/or parachute depending on your launch field conditions.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Smarty (13mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
1/2A3T-4..............238.78839 Ft.............18.9038 ft/s
A3T-4.....................568.31037 Ft.............19.7759 ft/s

CPMcGraw

07-22-2008, 10:09 AM

50...

James Pierson

07-23-2008, 09:35 PM

Here is another design that keep growing over the months of development. I think it started out as a small lander and just kept growing into a sleek, long design. And yet, once again, that Tau nose cones really finishes off this bullet like design. The split upper and lower launch lug method I have been using seem to work well when the CG is in an difficult place. Also seems to be a good method to help hide those ugly launch lug stand-off fins.

FYI: The numbers after the design name is just for me keeping track on all the designs on what version I am working on and like the best. :rolleyes:

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

The Ballista (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
B4-4..................336.85235 Ft.............14.0138 ft/s
B6-4..................342.88691 Ft..............9.8087 ft/s
C6-5..................743.91689 Ft.............13.7583 ft/s

.

CPMcGraw

07-24-2008, 12:04 PM

43...

Some more of James Pierson's great designs have been added to the list, bringing the current total to 457...

James Pierson

07-25-2008, 10:23 PM

I have shown this design to a few friends and feel that it is time to release it to the public
after it had been built and test flown. I call it the Tranquility 9 and this Rocksim file is
Version 3. You could say that it's the Big Big Brother to Tranquility 1 and 7. The seven pods
that this design launches at ejection are 18 inch ST-8 tubes from Semroc that gently return to terra firma on 1 inch x 24 inch streamers.
*Note that until further tests are done I am requiring an 1/4 dia x 60 inch launch rod.

A BIG thanks goes to Carl and all at Semroc for the laser cut fins and custom parts and to John Ludwig for helping me successfully launch and recover this beast.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

Tranquility 9 Version 2 3X(18mm)
Launch guide length: 60.0000 In X 1/4"dia. Rod

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
3X B6Q-4..............232.29232 Ft.............21.7355 ft/s
3X C6Q-5..............612.68373 Ft..............8.6527 ft/s
3X C6-5.................605.58399 Ft.............11.9084 ft/s

Tranquility 9 with Paint.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/rocketry_preservation_society/Tranquility1and9.jpg

ST-8 Pods and streamers loaded.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/rocketry_preservation_society/Tranquility9Image2.jpg

Pods deployment at ejection, in Theory. ;)
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/rocketry_preservation_society/Tranquility9Image3.jpg

The Video of the first launch on a clucter of 3 C6-3's. And yes, I did yell "Yea, Baby!" :o upon liftoff and I really did not believe it would make it off the launch pad. For once I was glad to be proven wrong :rolleyes: .

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/rocketry_preservation_society/th_Tranquility9Launch.jpg (http://s134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/rocketry_preservation_society/?action=view&current=Tranquility9Launch.flv)

James Pierson

07-27-2008, 06:20 PM

Here is the second version built of another design I call the Slam Jett. Until built and
tested, I decided to hold from public viewing until the experimental wing design was proven
somewhat stable. It has flown on a C6-5 with 10-20 mph wind gusts and the result was fair.
This particluar design because of the larger than normal surface area of the wings should not be flown in winds higher that 10 mph. With winds any higher this designs suffers from wind shear at launch and will fly more horizantally off the pad than vertically. In calm or light winds it should be fine, however further flight testing will need to be completed. I have
recently added some Sirius Rocketry Decals to this bird which seems to give this design the
added fine details that it lacked with just paint. All other parts from Semroc. ;)

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Slam Jett Version 3 (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
B4-4..................268.44520 Ft. ...........25.2800 ft/s
B6-4..................274.50195 Ft.............21.2842 ft/s
C6-5..................634.34383 Ft.............22.4718 ft/s
B6Q-4.................312.75502 Ft.............13.7529 ft/s

Wing Design Close Up

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/rocketry_preservation_society/SlamJettSideClose-1.jpg

Full View with Decals from Sirius Rocketry

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/rocketry_preservation_society/SlammJett3withDecalsImage1.jpg

Close Up Side View with Decals

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q104/rocketry_preservation_society/SlammJett3withDecalsImage2.jpg

James Pierson

07-30-2008, 08:14 PM

Here is another design I call the Space Argosy which has no pesky paper transitions to deal with. It has a vintage sci-fi retro look to it as well. This Design has also been built and test flown on a C6-5 and the flight results look as Rocksim has predicted below. If I were to built this one again however, I would leave more room in the upper ST-20 BT area from easier loading of the parachute ;) .

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Space Argosy (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.........MAX. ALTITUDE.......DEP. VELOCITY
A8-3............150.02756 Ft............14.2679 ft/s
B4-4............398.12520 Ft............1.1394 ft/s
B6-4............408.73043 Ft............5.8463 ft/s
C6-5............964.07529 Ft. ..........18.1910 ft/s

.

CPMcGraw

07-31-2008, 03:49 PM

OK, not really a high-flying design, but it sounded good... :o

Borrowing some from the J-Loader and some from the recent Esquire, we have the Cloud Seeker. I'm really impressed with the performance of the A8-3 in this design, both in the altitude and Dv fields. All of the posted numbers are to be considered "no payload" flights, so if you choose to add a payload of some sort, you'll have to re-sim with that mass included.

Length: 18.65"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Fin Span: 3.78"
Weight: 0.73 oz

A8-3......255'......Dv < 2 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
B4-4......445'......Dv 13 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
B6-4......450'......Dv 16 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
C6-3......795'......Dv 27 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod (reef the parachute!)

Enjoy!

CPMcGraw

07-31-2008, 03:53 PM

42...

Tau Zero

07-31-2008, 11:35 PM

Here is another design I call the Space Argosy which has no pesky paper transitions to deal with. [SNIP] If I were to built this one again however, I would leave more room in the upper ST-20 BT area [for] easier loading of the parachute ;) . Jim,

I kept that in mind while I was morphing your Argosy into my twisted Argo-C version below. My solution was to use an ST-10 with an EM-10 motor mount, along with longer ST-13 and ST-20 sections. Oh, and you could wrap a Kevlar cord around the ST-10 tube between the two CR-1020's, and stick it through the front one into the parachute compartment.

*Now* I just have to wait for the SEMROCkin' folks to get back from NARAM-50 so I can order fiber CR-1013 and CR-1020 rings, for starters. :eek: ;) :D :cool:

(Jim, I twisted Craig's Mini-Loader into a MIDI-Loader, so this time it was *your* turn to be tweaked. :eek: ) Leave it to me to get Number 42.

Again, a giant tip of the hat to That State with the Space Needle, from the Planet of Giant Potatoes ("Mu-Tater!" (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=12335&postcount=694)),

Cheers,

CPMcGraw

08-01-2008, 12:39 AM

41...

And it's only August 1, so we still have plenty of time to reach 500... :D

James Pierson

08-01-2008, 11:06 PM

CenturiGuy Quote:
Jim,

I kept that in mind while I was morphing your Argosy into my twisted Argo-C version below. My solution was to use an ST-10 with an EM-10 motor mount, along with longer ST-13 and ST-20 sections. Oh, and you could wrap a Kevlar cord around the ST-10 tube between the two CR-1020's, and stick it through the front one into the parachute compartment.

Just what this design needed Jay ;) . I also see that you have added an engine hook as well. I, also have been thinking of going back to engine hooks in my design as you have Jay. The convienence and reloading speed of an engine hook has me rethinking the tape method. Taping up motors just takes too long and if hurried can result in an ejected casing headache :eek: .
And I have also started using Kevlar shock cord attachments as I have burned through too many nylon ones lately :o . I need to try to remember to include them in the Rocksim files though.

Thanks for the input and redesign, JP.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

CPMcGraw

08-03-2008, 09:24 PM

Perhaps this Falcon will fly better than the other one... :rolleyes:

This is just a slap-down throw-together of parts in RockSim, but occasionally it just works out great. Achieving just under 2000' on an 18mm motor ain't too shabby!

Length: 29.00"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Fin Span: 3.04"
Weight: 1.72 oz

B6-4.......425'.......Dv 9 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
C6-5.......995'.......Dv 23 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
D10-7......1950'......Dv 11 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod

Enjoy!

Magic number now stands at 40...

Tau Zero

08-03-2008, 10:22 PM

Just what this design needed Jay ;) . I also see that you have added an engine hook as well. I, also have been thinking of going back to engine hooks in my design as you have Jay. The convienence and reloading speed of an engine hook has me rethinking the tape method. Taping up motors just takes too long and if hurried can result in an ejected casing headache :eek: . [SNIP]

Thanks for the input and redesignJim,

No problem. You inspired me so much I actually ordered the nose cones and centering rings (CR-1013, 1020) for the Argo-C and my Mars Voyager (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=7388&postcount=353)

(pictures here (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=7098&postcount=309)) from Semroc this afternoon!

Cheers,

James Pierson

08-03-2008, 11:06 PM

CenturiGuy Quote:
Jim,

No problem. You inspired me so much I actually ordered the nose cones and centering rings (CR-1013, 1020) for the Argo-C and my Mars Voyager from Semroc this afternoon!

Cheers,

Thanks Jay, I am glad you are inspired and back in the mix of it. Craig and I are looking forward to the 500th design posting. Don't tell Craig but, :p I have already started saving a few designs for the next 12 Days Before Christmas 2008 :rolleyes: . One of them is my version of the Black Hole Space Probe II.

Your Pal, JP.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

.

CPMcGraw

08-05-2008, 01:47 PM

Here's another ring-fin plan for 18mm motors. More doodling...

Length: 18.81"
Diameter: 0.908" (ST-8)
Fin Span: 3.37"
Weight: 1.12 oz

A8-3......195'......Dv 9 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
B6-4......370'......Dv 17 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
B4-4......375'......Dv 20 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
C6-3......690'......Dv 26 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod

Enjoy!

CPMcGraw

08-05-2008, 01:53 PM

Another design using 1/8" dowel stock in the fin structure. For 18mm motors...

Length: 22.70"
Diameter: 0.908" (ST-8)
Fin Span: 5.55"
Weight: 1.23 oz

A8-3......240'.......Dv 9 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
B4-4......550'.......Dv 21 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
B6-4......555'.......Dv 26 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
C6-5......1145'......Dv 26 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod

Enjoy!

CPMcGraw

08-05-2008, 01:54 PM

38...

Tau Zero

08-05-2008, 11:14 PM

I actually ordered the nose cones and centering rings (CR-1013, 1020) for the Argo-C and my Mars Voyager [SNIP] from SemrocCraig, Jim, and all,

This one *doesn't* count toward the "Magic Number" since I'm updating it from 2006. I plan on building it with 3/32" balsa and "skinning" the fins with label paper. While the performance is slightly improved from using 1/8" balsa, *both* versions fly best using C6-3 (18mm) and E9-4 (24mm).

+++

Mars Voyager. version 3 (Semroc parts list)

BC-2032 Nose cone
ST-2060 Body tube
2 - LL-320 Launch lugs
4 ST-530 Body tubes
ST-10120 Body tube -- 12" L, 3.0" inside PR-1020, ST-2060
PR-1020 Paper Reducer (Transition)** -- 1.5" L
2 - CR-1020 Centering rings
EM-710 Engine mount (protrudes 0.125")
Includes:
* 2 - CR-710 Centering rings
* ST-730 Body tube
* TR-7 Thrust ring (Engine block)
* EH-28 Engine hook
CP-160 Parachute
Kevlar thread
Elastic cord
Fin set -- 3/32" balsa
Launch lug standoff -- 3/32" balsa

___

**Not all parts available from Semroc yet.

Motor / Max. Alt. / Dv / Calibers (stability)

18mm mount (standard)
C6-3 -- 431 ft. -- 8 fps -- 2.27

24mm mount (mod)
C11-3 -- 371 ft. -- 19 fps -- 1.84
D12-3 -- 672 ft. -- 28 fps -- 1.63
E9-4 -- 1051 ft. -- 0.8 fps -- 1.25

PLEASE USE AT *LEAST* a 48" launch rod!
This design first becomes stable at heights of 31", 31", 30", and 36" on the motors listed above.

+++

James Pierson

08-06-2008, 10:27 PM

Looks good Jay and thanks for the parts list ;) .

I tried to post this design the other night but the net was soooo sloooow or maybe I had my tower turned to an UHF channel or something :D . Sunspots that muat have been it :rolleyes: .

This next design called the Cloud Splitter (Name inspired by Craig's Cloud Seeker) has layer fin design along with a ring tail. This fin method I used a few years ago on the Static Probe design th help reienforce the narrow pointed fins against flight tear off. I used a simular method on the Cloud Splitter to help reinforce the pod looking fins that are attached to the ring tail fin as these pod fins have only a 3/4 inch root area to glue to. This fin designs system is somewhat elaborate and may be time concuming to build but should be structually sound in flight. We hope :rolleyes: .

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Cloud Splitter (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
A8-3..................211.02713 Ft..............2.3327 ft/s
B4-4..................482.73157 Ft..............7.0144 ft/s
B6-4..................488.82428 Ft.............11.2457 ft/s
C6-5.................1019.38453 Ft..............9.8856 ft/s

.

CPMcGraw

08-07-2008, 11:03 AM

37...

InFlight

08-07-2008, 02:47 PM

Hope you guys don't mind me crashing this party :eek: :D

Here's one I worked up a while back.

Length: 21.7"
Diameter: 1.32 (BT55)
Weight: 2.9 oz

DC Schnuck (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36"

Motor.........Atl................Deploy Velocity
B4-4...........295'.................17 FPS
B6-4...........300'.................12 FPS
C6-5...........735'.................4 FPS

.

CPMcGraw

08-07-2008, 06:27 PM

Hope you guys don't mind me crashing this party :eek: :D

We don't mind at all!

Interesting twist to the idea of "tube fins"...

Do you mind if we include this into the "official" BARCLONE line-up?

InFlight

08-07-2008, 06:36 PM

Do you mind if we include this into the "official" BARCLONE line-up?

Sure, I don't mind at all. :D

CPMcGraw

08-07-2008, 09:26 PM

36...

Tau Zero

08-07-2008, 11:22 PM

Hope you guys don't mind me crashing this partyThanks for jumping right in! Like Craig says, we need all the help we can get! ;) :D

(Except I think he was talking about *psychological* help. :eek: :o )

Here's one I worked up a while back.*Nice!* Thanks for sharing it with the rest of us inmates. :p

Cheers,

James Pierson

08-08-2008, 11:07 PM

Welcome to the assylm Ray. You will often find Sponge Bob, Patrick and I in the large cardboard box in the corner using our IMAGINATION. ;)

Don't worry, as it is all in good fun :D .

This design should be a fun build and a great fiier if the Dv's are any indication of the preformance of this bird. I just had to design a rocket that used the Semroc BC-838 and this design seemed to fall into place. Also I never can up with a fin design that I thought fit this style of rocket so I went with the fin pattern I originally designed :rolleyes: .

What do you folks think of the color scheme?? Grey with Orange?? Different I know.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Thunder Star 2 (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
B4-4..................379.96751 Ft.............5.3431 ft/s
B6-4..................387.00743 Ft. ...........3.9968 ft/s
C6-5..................849.76347 Ft.............6.5164 ft/s

.

Ltvscout

08-09-2008, 08:23 AM

Welcome to the assylm Ray. You will often find Sponge Bob, Patrick and I in the large cardboard box in the corner using our IMAGINATION. ;)
Hehe. We have another SpongeBob viewer, folks. That makes three that I know of so far. Kurt, myself and James. ;)

snaquin

08-09-2008, 03:26 PM

It's been a while since I've made a BARCLONE submission so here goes .....

Simple design using all Semroc parts except for the fins. Fins are Aerospace Specialty Products Laser-cut G10 fiberglass elliptical 0.016. Two Stage flights for 18mm motors with easy assembly using pre-cut fins. Streamer recovery but may benefit from a small parachute if recovery area is on hard terrain. Posted simulations assumed a 1/8" x 36" launch rod.

Length: 24"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Span Dia: 4.68" (Booster) 3.54" (Sustainer)
Weight: 1.75 oz

B6-0/A8-5......738'.........Dv 6 FPS
B6-0/B6-6......1069'.......Dv 7 FPS
C6-0/B6-6......1497'.......Dv 18 FPS
C6-0/C6-7......2026'.......Dv 6 FPS

:)

.

CPMcGraw

08-09-2008, 08:51 PM

Hehe. We have another SpongeBob viewer, folks. That makes three that I know of so far. Kurt, myself and James. ;)

Four...:D

Sometimes it's the only thing worth watching even on DirecTV...:(

CPMcGraw

08-09-2008, 08:52 PM

34...

Tau Zero

08-12-2008, 10:49 PM

You [James Pierson] inspired me so much I actually ordered the nose cones and centering rings (CR-1013, 1020) for the Argo-C (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=44264&postcount=127) and my Mars Voyager (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=7388&postcount=353) from Semroc this afternoon!Gentlemen (and Bill, who insists otherwise),

Please note the following products now available from Semroc for the aforementioned designs.

CR-1013:

http://www.semroc.com/Store/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1805

CR-1020:

http://www.semroc.com/Store/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1806

A very BIG thank you to Carl, Sheryl, and Bruce! ;) :D :cool:

Thanks, and cheers,

CPMcGraw

08-12-2008, 10:59 PM

...Please note the following products now available from Semroc for the aforementioned designs...

So, now, James and I are behind the Eight Ball and need to come up with something to start using these new rings, right? :o :rolleyes: :D

Tau Zero

08-12-2008, 11:04 PM

So, now, James and I are behind the Eight Ball and need to come up with something to start using these new rings, right? :o :rolleyes: :DCraig,

*If* you feel so inclined. ;) :p

Actually, I figured if I needed them, other people might like the *option* (wink wink, nudge nudge) of having them. :rolleyes: :eek:

So enjoy!

Cheers,

snaquin

08-15-2008, 06:50 PM

Design uses Semroc BTH-70 SLS grade heavy walled tubing and shares the SLS ARCAS nose cone with 1/8" thick sturdy basswood fins. My original design also shared the SLS ARCAS tail cone but I wasn't truly happy with the CG/CP when loaded with a 24mm adapter and engine inside the originally planned 29mm engine tube or with 29mm engines so the tail cone is custom.

Flight simulation with Estes E9 engines to almost 1,300 feet, D12 engines to about 800 feet.

Posted simulations assumed a 1/8" x 36" launch rod.

Length: 23.9"
Diameter: 2.25" (BTH-70)
Span Dia: 6.80"
Weight: 4.13 oz

D12-5......807'.........Dv 8 FPS
E9-6......1,295'........Dv 15 FPS

:)

.

CPMcGraw

08-16-2008, 12:52 PM

33...

CPMcGraw

08-16-2008, 08:58 PM

Another "Schoolyard Sounder" for 13mm motors.

It's always interesting to see what a simple design can do when it's loaded up with a 13mm motor. Never underestimate the power in an "A" class motor!

Length: 14.775"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Fin Span: 5.04"
Weight: 0.87 oz

Using 1/8" balsa fins:...A10-3T......315'......Dv 7.2 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
Using 3/32" balsa fins:..A10-3T......334'......Dv 9.8 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
Using 1/16" balsa fins:..A10-3T......350'......Dv 11.6 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod

The A3-4T will work, but the Dv is much higher, and the altitude isn't much better. Use the A10-3T.

Enjoy!

Magic Number is now 32...

CPMcGraw

08-17-2008, 03:19 PM

A quick-build design, with a paper boat tail. Flies on 18mm motors.

Length: 19.00"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Fin Span: 4.83"
Weight: 1.2 oz

A8-3......255'.......Dv 14 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
B6-6......630'.......Dv 26 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
C6-7......1350'......Dv 17 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod

Enjoy!

Magic number is now 31...

CPMcGraw

08-18-2008, 12:51 AM

Ever since I saw Jim Flis' "Borealis" design, it has made me think more than a few times about how he used those narrow rings as "tube fins". I've been wanting to do something similar. This new design is obviously more than a little inspired by Jim's imagination, meaning it just stood out to be... um... imitated (yeah, that's the ticket... :o :rolleyes: :D )...

To be fair, there is another design somewhere here on YORF using similar narrow tube fins, and that design has some additional bearing on how this design was worked out. (Solomoriah, didn't you share something with us a few years ago like this?)

To put this model into Jim's universe and story line, it represents a small demonstration ship that was built and flight-tested long before any of his fleet of capital ships using "Ram Scoop" technology came on-line. It would have been used to gather engineering data and to work out any major bugs and 'gotchas' before committing greater resources.

This design uses the A10-3T and still puts in a respectable 244' of altitude. However, I have to give this caveat about the way the design came together in RockSim: The fourth ring, which ties the outer rings to each other, is modeled as an INSIDE TUBE, and not as a RING FIN. This may affect the way the real-world model actually performs. Using the RF method, the altitude is cut in half and the Dv number shoots well above 20 FPS. Using the IT method, the Dv drops to a comfortable 2 FPS. After the experience with the BARCLONE Andromeda design, and with Jay's Tau Zero prototype, I am convinced the RockSim RF routine is in error, but by how much I cannot say. Here's the reason I say this: When I delete that ring, the altitude jumps up to 253', and the Dv only gets to a little over 3 FPS, in a run of 10 simulations. In other words, as an IT it has a documented effect, but it's not detrimental.

Length: 19.80"
Diameter: 0.908" (ST-8)
Fin Span: 7.24"
Weight: 1.27 oz

The A3-4T, 1/2A3 and 1/4A3 are not recommended.

Enjoy!

Magic number now at 30...

CPMcGraw

08-18-2008, 11:14 AM

29...

Jay just reminded me of one that slipped through the cracks: THREAD LINK (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=23756&postcount=53)

"Carrier Wave"...

James Pierson

08-19-2008, 09:31 PM

I have been working on this particular design, off and on, for about a year now. It was alot shorter and very unstable. In order to make this beast stable I had to lengthen the main BT to a full 18 inches long and use a longer nose cone as well. All seems to work well this the looks of this design however, it does lack altitude preformance.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Multi Probe 3 (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
B4-4.......................328.21850 Ft...............14.8204 ft/s
B6-4.......................336.45341 Ft.................9.9480 ft/s
C6-5.......................782.27362 Ft. ...............7.3040 ft/s

.

CPMcGraw

08-20-2008, 10:18 AM

...it does lack altitude preformance...

Doesn't look like it lacks much, JP. For a model with this much hanging out in the breeze, 320+ on a "B" sounds like a good compromise. I really like the Dv numbers.

Magic Number is now 28...

CPMcGraw

08-20-2008, 01:01 PM

OK, here's a strange idea that just happens to look cool. The concept should be self-evident...

Consider this as the first version, with a possible longer shaft version if I can get the Dv numbers down a bit.

Length: 24.47"
Diameter: 1.04" (BC-760)
Fin Span: 13.91"
Weight: 1.07 oz

A8-3......270'.......Dv 15 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
B4-4......595'.......Dv 25 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
B6-4......600'.......Dv 29 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
C6-5......1195'......Dv 25 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod

Addendum:

A10-3T......305'......Dv 13 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
A3-4T.......310'......Dv 16 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod (Takes 34", so consider this carefully)

Enjoy!

Magic Number now at 27...

CPMcGraw

08-21-2008, 12:48 PM

Another sport rocket in the "not quite a payloader" camp... :D

Should still be a great flyer... :cool:

Length: 24.70"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Fin Span: 3.04"
Weight: 1.63 oz

A8-3......160'......Dv 12 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
B4-4......400'......Dv 3 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
B6-4......410'......Dv 4 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
C6-5......900'......Dv 6 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod

Enjoy!

Magic Number now at 26...

CPMcGraw

08-22-2008, 03:34 PM

Long-body sport rocket, could be dressed up with goo-gahs and other breakable bits to become something really fantasy-oriented. I'm just presenting a flyable foundation here.

Length: 39.95"
Diameter: 1.84" (ST-18 shrouds)
Fin Span: 3.76"
Weight: 1.72 oz

A8-3.......160'......Dv 11 FPS......48" x 3/16" rod
B4-4.......420'......Dv 6 FPS.......36" x 1/8" rod
B6-4.......430'......Dv 11 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod
C6-5......1000'......Dv 24 FPS......36" x 1/8" rod (reefed chute)

Enjoy!

Magic Number now at 25...

CPMcGraw

08-23-2008, 12:29 PM

I think this one has some pleasing lines, in a classic arrangement borrowing from the Laser-X, the Taurus, and several BARCLONEs. Performance appears to be good on the common four motors, but you might need a 48" rod if you choose to use the A8-3. It only requires 34", but you don't really have the full 36" to start with on a traditional pad. The plans call out a 3/16" launch lug so you can use any standard 36" x 1/8", or 'maxi' 48" x 3/16" launch rod.

Length: 29.45"
Diameter: 1.34" (ST-13)
Fin Span: 6.34"
Weight: 1.74 oz

A8-3......155'......Dv 13 FPS
B4-4......400'......Dv 3 FPS
B6-4......410'......Dv 7 FPS
C6-5......940'......Dv 15 FPS

Enjoy!

Magic Number now at 24...

CPMcGraw

08-23-2008, 02:56 PM

Here's a file for anyone wanting to use the 'Recruiter' nose cone in their projects. It's a composite element, made up of six segments. Because this is intended to be a 'nose cone', it cannot be saved as a 'Subassembly'.

Addendum: RockSim says the weight of the nose cone is 0.096 oz, and the SEMROC website shows it as 0.12 oz. Not bad!

Enjoy!

James Pierson

08-23-2008, 08:17 PM

CPMcGraw Quote:
Here's a file for anyone wanting to use the 'Recruiter' nose cone in their projects. It's a composite element, made up of six segments. Because this is intended to be a 'nose cone', it cannot be saved as a 'Subassembly'.

Addendum: RockSim says the weight of the nose cone is 0.096 oz, and the SEMROC website shows it as 0.12 oz. Not bad!

Enjoy!

Sometimes Craig and I think so much alike, it scares me. :eek: :D . Here is my guess-timated version of an BC1038 from Semroc in the design below.

This following design that is showing my re-think of the 13mm powered designs. I call this design the Sky-Jack and it uses both my favorite tube the ST10 and nose cone the BC-1038. I would not be afraid to fly this design on an 1/2A3T-4 in a schoolyard or front yard. With the altitude predicted by Rocksim with the A3T-4 I would stick to a good size launch field.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Sky-Jack (13mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
1/2A3T-4..............232.13484 Ft............22.3026 ft/s
A3T-4.................527.64436 Ft............10.4633 ft/s
.

CPMcGraw

08-23-2008, 11:53 PM

23...

Solomoriah

08-24-2008, 08:18 AM

Bob Kaplow

08-24-2008, 11:15 AM

Hey, I haven't had time to dig back through all these posts... have any of you ever designed a rocket to fly on 3x13mm, specifically A10-3T? I may have a big pile of them soon, and I think such a rocket would be a cool way to use them.

THose of you that know NIRA member Adam Elliott know he is hard of hearing. Someone was flying a G80 and he heard "D80" and asked "What's that?"

Then he built one. It's a BT-70 rocket with a cluster of EIGHT A10-3Ts which adds up to a D80. It's a really cool rocket to see fly; lots of fire and smoke.

Say, maybe something like a 135% Cobra with 8x13 instead of 3x24mm MMT?

CPMcGraw

08-24-2008, 12:49 PM

Hey, I haven't had time to dig back through all these posts... have any of you ever designed a rocket to fly on 3x13mm, specifically A10-3T? I may have a big pile of them soon, and I think such a rocket would be a cool way to use them.

...Say, maybe something like a 135% Cobra with 8x13 instead of 3x24mm MMT?...

Talk about like minds thinking alike!

Look at the Goony Cobra (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=7837&postcount=367). 239' altitude, with a Dv of only 3 FPS, and flies off a 36" x 1/8" rod. Not an upscale, but a downscale, and slightly Goony to boot!

Addendum: OOPS! I didn't remember (or notice) this until after I posted the above. Goony Cobra only uses one A10-3T. A cluster of three produces a shredder with a Dv over 35 FPS.

James Pierson

08-24-2008, 08:59 PM

13mm Design Challenge ... At least for me. :confused:

Here is an 13mm design using an ST-1380 main body tube that seems to fly on three of the four 13mm motor choices. Most 13mm designs will usually fly on only two of the four motors with acceptable Dv's. I do not know of an 13mm design, using an parachute recovery, that uses all four ( 1/4A3T-3, 1/2A3T-2, A10T-3, A3T-4) motors with DV's below 20fps. his could be an design challenge worthy of spending some time on. All in all, the Lil' Star Smasher design should be an all around good flier.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Lil' Star Smasher (13mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
1/2A3T-2..............132.94783 Ft.............18.1665 ft/s
A10T-3................336.71260 Ft.............15.2575 ft/s
A3T-4.................349.07152 Ft.............12.3443 ft/s

.

Solomoriah

08-24-2008, 09:47 PM

Addendum: OOPS! I didn't remember (or notice) this until after I posted the above. Goony Cobra only uses one A10-3T. A cluster of three produces a shredder with a Dv over 35 FPS.
Yeah, I don't have Rocksim but I suspected that a cluster of 3xA10-3T's might have some high DV values on a lot of designs. I'm thinking about making a 3x13mm interchangeable mount for my New Centurion; after all, that's about 3/4 of a C engine, so a big heavy rocket like the NC shouldn't be going too fast when the ejection charges fire.

I'm also considering a 2x13mm X-24 Bug... two A10-3T's ought to work in that sort of rocket. I've already made a 74% downscale entirely from paper which I plan to fly on a single A10-3T. Soon, hopefully.

CPMcGraw

08-24-2008, 09:56 PM

21...

I just noticed my "Lil' Battle Axe" design was missing from the Master List! :eek:

CPMcGraw

08-24-2008, 09:59 PM

Yeah, I don't have Rocksim but I suspected that a cluster of 3xA10-3T's might have some high DV values on a lot of designs. I'm thinking about making a 3x13mm interchangeable mount for my New Centurion; after all, that's about 3/4 of a C engine, so a big heavy rocket like the NC shouldn't be going too fast when the ejection charges fire.

I'm also considering a 2x13mm X-24 Bug... two A10-3T's ought to work in that sort of rocket. I've already made a 74% downscale entirely from paper which I plan to fly on a single A10-3T. Soon, hopefully.

My Falconaire (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=6634&postcount=262) design uses two 13mm motors...

Lots of work, though. :o

Tau Zero

08-24-2008, 10:00 PM

Another sport rocket in the "not quite a payloader" camp... :D

[Tiercel] Should still be a great flyer... :cool:

Length: 24.70"
Diameter: 1.04" (ST-10)
Fin Span: 3.04"
Weight: 1.63 ozCraig,

This design wins my award for "Most Unusual Use of a BC-760!"

You and James have come up with plenty of eye-catching designs with that cone, so my thanks and congratulations to you both.

Me, all I could manage was "Tau Zero" and "Zeta." :eek: :o :rolleyes: ;)

Cheers,

CPMcGraw

08-24-2008, 10:05 PM

13mm Design Challenge ... At least for me. :confused:

Here is an 13mm design using an ST-1380 main body tube that seems to fly on three of the four 13mm motor choices...

Looks good, JP. ST-13 sized, and still gets 300+ altitude...

Now, wrangle up an ST-18 design, something simple will do, using a single 13mm, capable of ~125' with a low Dv. Streamer recovery is acceptable. The idea is to create a rocket that can be flown in almost any small yard, but still be larger than the typical stuff Estes puts out for 13mm. Like a Lionel train in young hands...

CPMcGraw

08-24-2008, 10:10 PM

Craig,

This design wins my award for "Most Unusual Use of a BC-760!" ...

Thanks, Jay. It's actually the second design where I've used the 760 in this way, but I can't remember the name of the other one right off hand... :o

Addendum: Found it! It was the Non Aspera (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=36013&postcount=48). Used a clear CPT-7 tube for dramatic effect...

Tau Zero

08-24-2008, 11:35 PM

Now, wrangle up an ST-18 design, something simple will do, using a single 13mm, capable of ~125' with a low Dv. Streamer recovery is acceptable.Okay, here you go, Craig. ;) :cool:

So much for 27 fps qualifying as "low Dv" (probably not, but I gave it my best shot). :mad: :o

I started out with a 9" long tube and a BC-1828, and kept adding nose weight (even an SE-14 and some WL-7 nose weights during the process), but that didn't really help things.

This basically ended up looking like a slightly more brutal Big Bertha variant, so I called him "Brutus." :rolleyes:

.

CPMcGraw

08-25-2008, 02:02 AM

...So much for 27 fps qualifying as "low Dv" (probably not, but I gave it my best shot). :mad: :o

Notice the 'optimal delay' time? 2.09 seconds. On a 3-second delay, it is falling for half as much time as it is coasting upward. That's why the Dv is high.

Good shot, Jay. You (nearly) met all of the parameters of the challenge. I'll include it in the list, but we need to tweak it a bit to get that Dv down below 20. Even a streamer becomes a screamer at some point... :eek:

Addendum: I think I'll just build one and see what screams - the model, or me...:D

Magic Number is now 20...

Solomoriah

08-25-2008, 11:01 PM

Hmm. As I said, I don't have Rocksim, but I do have a hunch.

Start with an Estes Patriot; remove all the body tubes and couplers, swapping in a Baby Bertha style 7.5" long BT-60 tube. Install a 13mm engine mount, and see what the DV is with an A10-3T.

I have a hunch it will be low. Admittedly, my hunch is based on notes I took when I played with the Baby Bertha and Patriot parts last year while still trying out Rocksim. But I never tried it with a 13mm mount and A10-3T, so I'm just guessing...

Every time I have a hundred bucks to spend on rocketry, I think "Rocksim or a big bunch of parts?" and the big box of parts wins every time.

Tau Zero

08-26-2008, 10:10 PM

I've had the name "Guerrero" (which is Spanish for "Warrior") as a possible name for a rocket for several years now, but hadn't come up with a design that the name really fit. :mad:

Until now. :eek: :rolleyes: :cool:

I was watching the 4th season of "Babylon 5" last night, and noticed some cool ships based on the number 5. (See picture #1 below.) I was able to identify them as "Drakh raiders."

One thing led to another (1982 "Fixx" reference), and tonight I bring you my sick and twisted B5-inspired model rocket adaption entitled... "Guerrero."

(And yes, I'll have to piece the fins together... Maybe from 1/16" balsa with the grain running in appropriate directions, and then a second layer oriented "crossways," topped off with computer label paper on the outside.)

Have fun, kids!

.

CPMcGraw

08-26-2008, 11:50 PM

19...

Les

09-01-2008, 06:42 PM

I know you've been having a 13mm challenge, but here is a big one. Over 4' tall and 24mm powered.

I'm working on the EMRR challenge. #5 is to design a rocket using a simulation program and then build and fly it. Here is my design.

Some things I've had to work around in Rocksim.
The mid and bottom fins (extending into landing points) are connected with 1/4" dowel.
The launch lugs will be on the ring fin and on the upper tube fins (I will need a spacer for the upper one).

This is my first real attempt at a Rocksim design. It has been doing weird things. It always shows I have margin - sometimes even over-stable. But when I do the flight profile, sometimes it is stable and other times it is not (once I just exited without saving and re-started with no changes and got different results). When it has shown to be unstable for the flight sim, I've removed a part of the design. It then flies stable. I then add the original part back, and it is still stable. I've also noted that when I make a design change, the 2D view would not immediately update. If I switched to the 3D (or rear) and then back to 2D the view would then be updated. Could this be part of my stable/unstable issue - when Rocksim updates? :confused:

Anyway, please look over and let me know what you think.
Thanks
Les

CPMcGraw

09-02-2008, 12:15 AM

...This is my first real attempt at a Rocksim design. It has been doing weird things. It always shows I have margin - sometimes even over-stable. But when I do the flight profile, sometimes it is stable and other times it is not (once I just exited without saving and re-started with no changes and got different results). When it has shown to be unstable for the flight sim, I've removed a part of the design. It then flies stable. I then add the original part back, and it is still stable. I've also noted that when I make a design change, the 2D view would not immediately update. If I switched to the 3D (or rear) and then back to 2D the view would then be updated. Could this be part of my stable/unstable issue...

Les,

Sounds like a program instability issue to me. Have you tried uninstalling the program, then re-installing, to see if that might clear things up?

A registry cleaner program might also help. Spoken from experience... :(

I'll look the design over and post back here...

Thanks!

CoachJT

09-04-2008, 10:41 PM

Well, someone was bound to do it sooner or later. I guess it was my turn :D

Ladies and Gentlemen.....

(drum roll please)

I give you........

The Goony Flare. An 18mm two stage Goonybird Payloader.

CPMcGraw

09-05-2008, 12:06 AM

Well, someone was bound to do it sooner or later. I guess it was my turn :D

Ladies and Gentlemen.....

(drum roll please)

I give you........

The Goony Flare. An 18mm two stage Goonybird Payloader.

Ahh, the sweet sounds of an asylum inmate going goony! :D

And an appropriate subject, too! The RockSim image looks nice, BTW...

This should bring the magic number to 18...

CoachJT

09-05-2008, 08:51 AM

Why thank you! I appreciate that. Coming from you, that's high praise.

I do think the orange on the ring really completes the look. :)

Now, maybe I can talk Phred into making some decals for it? Not sure which name would sound better though.

CPMcGraw

09-05-2008, 10:47 AM

...The Goony Flare. An 18mm two stage Goonybird Payloader...

I took a look at your RockSim file. Nice design overall, it really captures the goony philosophy. I do need to draw your attention to the "Margin" value on the 2D line drawing. "Margin" here represents the stability, or "calibre" (caliber), of the model. When you load up the model with a C6-0/C6-3 combination [which is the right combination for this bird] your stability gets whacked. Notice in your file that the margin falls below the "magic number" of 1.00 when you add the motors. As shown in your file, the rocket will cartwheel and go everywhere else but up.

Or, more graphically, this means it'll go "butt-up"... :eek: :D

It was a simple fix to get this number back into our "greater than 1.00" ballpark. The model just needed 1/4 oz of ballast at the inside tip of the nose cone. A couple of tiny fishing sinkers epoxied into the plastic nose cone should be enough.

I added a launch lug to the model, placing it at the CG. It does contribute to the drag value, but not enough to kill the performance.

I also 'tweaked' the model in the ringtail area by setting the "Pylon Count" to zero, instead of using the '3' you left in place. This removes those extra 'fins' from the simulation (which add a measure of drag, no matter how thin they are). When you want to use custom fins with a ringtail, set this value to '0', set the pylon thickness to 0.063" (1/16") so the program doesn't bark at you, and draw in your fins as you like.

I'm attaching the 'repaired' file below. Again, welcome to the goony side of life!

Addendum: And now, here's the real value in using RockSim. Finding out the model doesn't have enough OOMPH to get off the launch rod. After posting the above changes, I failed to notice the flight performance section of the full-stack simulation.

Launch guide data:
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In.
Velocity at launch guide departure: 36.0432 ft/s
The launch guide was cleared at : 0.249 Seconds
User specified minimum velocity for stable flight: 43.9993 ft/s
Minimum velocity for stable flight reached at: 74.0976 In.

This is a show-stopper issue. It took a full quarter-second to reach the top of the 36" rod, and still isn't going fast enough to be stable in free-flight. See that last (bold) line? You need an 80" launch rod before the model reaches a safe flight velocity.

The problem is that C6-0 booster motor. It just doesn't have the thrust spike needed to kick that model hard enough to get airborne properly. This is also one of the reasons you'll hear us talking about the elusive "B14" and "C5" motors, which would more than likely have done the job.

You might need to change the design to a 24mm mount in the booster, and use a D12-0 instead.

CoachJT

09-05-2008, 11:03 AM

Thank you Craig.

I did notice the margin went down to around .87 with the motors installed. I was going to add a little weight, but it was too close to the time when John McCain was going to speak when I posted the file. Never got to it. :o

Also, thanks for the tip about the pylons. I'll remember that for future designs.

Now.... if we get the rain up here that is being called for, maybe I can get it built up this weekend :D :D

CoachJT

09-05-2008, 11:09 AM

You might need to change the design to a 24mm mount in the booster, and use a D12-0 instead.

24mm to 18mm is even better :D More like the original design.

Excellent idea. I'll get right on it! :D :D

CPMcGraw

09-05-2008, 11:22 AM

Here's the up-rated Goony Flare, using a D12-0 booster and a C6-3 sustainer. The flight data looks better, too.

Launch guide data:
Launch guide length: 48.0000 In.
Velocity at launch guide departure: 55.0935 ft/s
The launch guide was cleared at : 0.257 Seconds
User specified minimum velocity for stable flight: 43.9993 ft/s
Minimum velocity for stable flight reached at: 36.0546 In.

If we ever get those nice cored 18mm motors again, maybe this rocket can go back to an 18mm booster. For now, though, this seems to be the only solution.

Addendum: Sorry I jumped ahead of you, but I found this to be an interesting design and wanted to see for myself what would happen.

CPMcGraw

09-05-2008, 11:32 AM

...Now.... if we get the rain up here that is being called for, maybe I can get it built up this weekend :D :D

Hanna might bring you some, even Gustav might still have some power to get you wet...

Right now, though, I don't like Ike... :eek:

We've dodged two bullets in Mobile already, but Ike looks like trouble for us along the Gulf Coast. The projected path right now has us centered in its gunsight...

CoachJT

09-05-2008, 11:42 AM

Hanna might bring you some, even Gustav might still have some power to get you wet...

Right now, though, I don't like Ike... :eek:

We've dodged two bullets in Mobile already, but Ike looks like trouble for us along the Gulf Coast. The projected path right now has us centered in its gunsight...

I hear ya.

About 5 or 6 years ago when a hurricane hit North Carolina, I can't recall the name, many of us in VA lost power for 5 days or more. My basement flooded because I had no power to my sump pump. Wet carpet and moldy drywall are not fun. :mad:

However, I consider myself lucky that's all that happened. Be careful down there.

Les

09-07-2008, 10:17 PM

Les,

Sounds like a program instability issue to me. Have you tried uninstalling the program, then re-installing, to see if that might clear things up?

Actually, I think I discovered my problems.
First, it showed I needed a 48" rod, I was only using 36".
The margin with respect to the nose cone looked ok, but compared to the largest diameter was marginal (I found about changing that attribute looking through past posts for this).
I also found if I set the launch conditions to 0 wind it was always stable - I was using what appeared to be a default of 8 ~ 15mph.

I moved some things around. I did change the small "radiator" fin tubes to just 3/8" X 1/8" X 3" fins (qty 12) that helped a lot.

It now always shows stable until I increase winds to the 15 ~ 25 mph setting - which I would not fly under anyway. It will launch OK with a 36" rod, although Rocksim indicates it wants a 42" rod. (It never went unstable with the 36" rod)

Finally, I tried to create the paint scheme (Light blue = silver, yellow = gold). I do plan to bevel the top of the tube fins - something I don't think you can do/show in Rock Sim. The inside of the beveled tube fin will be red.

I've ordered the parts so I should have them mid-week. I'll let you know how it flies.

Tau Zero

09-13-2008, 05:01 PM

CPMcGraw

09-13-2008, 08:16 PM

Okay, 'fess up. :D How many of you have designed a rocket, and when you actually built it, you decided you didn't like it after all? :eek: :o

If that was the case, what did you do?

Did you decide it would work better in a different scale (smaller or larger)?

Any comments would be useful.

Thanks, and cheers,

Uhmmm, I've got a few that never made it to the build pile because I really didn't like how it looked after working up the simulation file... :o

I've also got one or two that disappointed me after their first flights. Nothing a near-total re-design couldn't clear up... :rolleyes:

Do those count?

Tau Zero

09-21-2008, 11:00 PM

How many of you have designed a rocket, and when you actually built it, you decided you didn't like it after all? :eek: :o

If that was the case, what did you do?

Did you decide it would work better in a different scale (smaller or larger)?Okay, here's the deal: I started building my original 18mm sized "Carrier Wave," (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=23756&postcount=53) and I decided it was just too small. Then I took a took at the deployment rates, which turned out to be much too fast on 18mm motors.

So I did a roughly 137% upscale (main body tube went from ST-7 up to ST-10) with an 18mm mount. That gave me *much* better deployment times, so I shoved a 13mm mount into my original design. Voila, problem solved!

So now I'm referring to my upscale as the "Carrier Wave," while the original size is now "Carrier Wave Jr." I'd love to kit this one, but since it bears a striking resemblance to the Estes "rocket parts diagram" from 2004... Well, I'd just rather not take my chances. (Especially with a 2-stage version. :eek: )

Craig, I guess this only counts as "one" design. :o

Propaganda for your consumption follows immediately. :cool:

Tau Zero

09-21-2008, 11:07 PM

Okay, here's the "mas grande" version. :cool:

(Bill, that means "more bigger-er-er" in Spanish. Just in case you were wondering.)

Deployment velocity on the C6-5 is rather high... :eek: I'd suggest using a good-sized streamer instead of the standard parachute. :o ;)

Oh, and as usual, I have to issue the warning that not all of the parts listed for this model may be available from Semroc just yet... :o Namely, the 137% upscale of the BC-730P nose cone (I don't know if BC-1042 will be Carl's official designation for it), as well as the CPT-1040 clear plastic payload tube.

At any rate, there you go. ;) :D

CPMcGraw

09-22-2008, 02:06 PM

...Oh, and as usual, I have to issue the warning that not all of the parts listed for this model may be available from Semroc just yet... :o Namely, the 137% upscale of the BC-730P nose cone (I don't know if BC-1042 will be Carl's official designation for it)...D

Jay,

Why not just drop down to the BC-1041P? It's only 0.10" shorter, but has the right shape. And you could, in a pinch, substitute the ST-1040 for the clear tube. That would at least get it test flying.

Tau Zero

09-28-2008, 10:29 PM

the 137% upscale of the BC-730P nose cone (I don't know if BC-1042 will be Carl's official designation for it)Carl just released a bunch of new nose cones, and it turns out that the official name for this one is BC-1041G. (chuckling)

Two updated files are immediately below. :D :cool:

.

Tau Zero

09-28-2008, 11:14 PM

Okay, just as a joke I put the 137% upscaled BC-723P (which Carl calls the BC-1031) on the body of the Carrier Wave Jr. to come up with *this* one. :eek:

I added another inch to the body tube to make the design a little more stable *and* to make additional room for the recovery system.

The only other word I can think to describe the "Carrier Wedgie" is just plain twisted. *And* silly. Okay, that's *two* words, but there you go. :rolleyes: ;) :D

.

James Pierson

10-01-2008, 12:50 AM

I like the Wedgie design Jay. What I appreciate even more is the way you simmed the rounded olgive nose cone with two seperate parts :cool: . Absolutely genius idea ;) with that little detail. I would have never though of that!

Thanks for the tip Buddy.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Tau Zero

10-05-2008, 10:40 PM

What I appreciate even more is the way you simmed the rounded [ogive] nose cone with two [separate] parts :cool: . Absolutely genius idea ;) with that little detail. I would have never though of that!Dear Jim,

Apparently it's my "That does/doesn't look the way it's supposed to" trained TV cameraman's eye benefiting all of us in the rocketry community. :eek: :rolleyes: ;) :D

I've been using this technique to more closely approximate Centuri nose cones for a while now. I also used multiple transitions to sim the "Skylab" nose cone (Centuri PNC-102/Semroc BC-1043) (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=12335&postcount=694) and the "Wolverine" cone (Semroc BNC-50BC) (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showpost.php?p=8139&postcount=3).

And somewhere on here YORF are my Rocksim files for the Centuri PNC-73, -74, and -76 (Semroc BC-723P, 730P, 734P) nose cones (http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showthread.php?t=2317).

Cheers, and thanks,

CPMcGraw

10-06-2008, 11:34 AM

Thanks for the addition, Jay. Looks like a fun bird to take to the field, especially for wind testing... :D

What does this bring us up to now? I've lost count.

Tau Zero

10-15-2008, 10:51 PM

What does this bring us up to now? I've lost count.Craig,

With the Interstellar Cruise Liner, there were 19 designs left, and the Goony Flare dropped that number to 18. The Carrier Wave Jr. didn't count as a new design, but the "bigger" Carrier Wave did, which left us with 17 designs remaining. The Carrier WEDGIE :eek: means, as you would say...

This should bring the magic number to 16...

...*if* I counted correctly. :o

Jim Pierson's proposed "12 Designs for Christmas" mean we only need 4 more designs to break, what is it, 600 BARCLONE models?

Cheers,

CPMcGraw

10-16-2008, 11:17 AM

Craig,

With the Interstellar Cruise Liner, there were 19 designs left, and the Goony Flare dropped that number to 18. The Carrier Wave Jr. didn't count as a new design, but the "bigger" Carrier Wave did, which left us with 17 designs remaining. The Carrier WEDGIE :eek: means, as you would say...

This should bring the magic number to 16...

...*if* I counted correctly. :o

Jim Pierson's proposed "12 Designs for Christmas" mean we only need 4 more designs to break, what is it, 600 BARCLONE models?

Cheers,

Thanks, Jay. Although the count total is only 500, I knew we were getting close. I've been tied up with "other stuff" for several weeks, now, and just have not had any time to work on new designs.

I've got some sketches that I need to run sims on, but anything you guys can add to cross the finish line would be great!

Tau Zero

10-16-2008, 10:01 PM

I've been tied up with "other stuff" for several weeks, now, and just have not had any time to work on new designs.Craig,

No biggie. It seems like I've finally been freed up to actually do some rocket building lately, so I have no problem with "taking up the slack" for a change! ;) :D

I've got some sketches that I need to run sims on, but anything you guys can add to cross the finish line would be great!My creative "obsessive compulsions" seem to be doing ST-7 to ST-10 based 137% upscales of some classic Centuri designs. So far the "hit list" includes the Micron, Vector-V, Sky Devil, and (just last night!) the official Cub Scout rocket Akela-1. (Vector-V fins on a Sky Devil nose cone and body tube configuration. How's that for a rocketry epiphany? :rolleyes: ;) :D )

So here's my question: Should these modern-day updates (and upscales) count as new designs? (This is mostly rhetorical, but I'd like to get some objective input on my thinking here.)

Thanks, and cheers, as always,

CPMcGraw

10-17-2008, 02:08 PM

...So here's my question: Should these modern-day updates (and upscales) count as new designs? (This is mostly rhetorical, but I'd like to get some objective input on my thinking here.)...

In a nutshell, Yes. An upscale is still a new model, even if the design has been proven in a smaller scale. Larger versions, after all, don't always fly the same. I see a larger version as a separate design, since the construction may be different to achieve the same appearance.

Check out the full list of BARCLONEs, and you'll see quite a few upscales. Some of those are of BARCLONEs, others are of Estes and Centuri, and they're all logged as "new" designs.

James Pierson

10-20-2008, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by CenturiGuy
Jim Pierson's proposed "12 Designs for Christmas" mean we only need 4 more designs to break, what is it, 600 BARCLONE models?

Proposed Indeed :chuckle: . I am still feverishly working at it and have 9 of the 12 that meet a passing grade.

I will not be posting the 500th design however as I feel that honor belongs to the Barclone creator himself ;) . Mr. Craig McGraw :cool: .

Originally Posted by CPMcGraw
In a nutshell, Yes. An upscale is still a new model, even if the design has been proven in a smaller scale. Larger versions, after all, don't always fly the same. I see a larger version as a separate design, since the construction may be different to achieve the same appearance.

I totally agree with this.

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

CPMcGraw

10-20-2008, 08:56 PM

...I will not be posting the 500th design however as I feel that honor belongs to the Barclone creator himself ;) . Mr. Craig McGraw :cool: ...

James, You may, and you may not. I'm not worried about who rings up #500, but rather that we get there. You might have the 500th design, and in fact, I am counting on it! BARCLONE is a team effort, not a one-man-show. If it had been left up to me, we'd still be below 300... :eek:

Tau Zero

10-29-2008, 12:01 AM

Given our discussion about "original" Centuri tube sizes on proposed Estes re-releases for 2009... (dramatic pause)

...I bring you the 21st century version of Centuri's "Chuter-Two" (and later, the "Chuter-2"), using parts conveniently available from Semroc. ;) :cool:

From "Ye Olde Rocket Plans (YORP)":

http://www.oldrocketplans.com/centuri/cenKC-16/cenKC-16.htm

This design was available in the 1967, '68, '69, and '71 Centuri catalogs. The rocket's length was printed as 18.5", which was *apparently* a transposition of 15.8" (the length of the rocket in this Rocksim file), since it looks okay with an 8" long ST-8 tube, but *not* with one 11" long. :eek:

The first set of simulations is without the fin reinforcements, and the second is *with* them. (And *yes,* there's only one parachute in this file. :o )

Please enjoy, now that I've officially exorcised this re-implementation from my brain. :eek:

Tau Zero

10-29-2008, 10:50 PM

...I bring you the 21st century version of Centuri's "Chuter-Two" (and later, the "Chuter-2"), using parts conveniently available from Semroc.I wasn't real happy with the deployment velocities that RockSim spit out for the 1.00X Chuter-Two, so I *didn't* leave well enough alone :eek: :rolleyes: and I upscaled it from ST-8 to ST-13.

I left the fin thickness at 3/32" balsa, and I also used thinner fin reinforcements (1/16" instead of 3/32"), and put them on *both* sides of the fins. (As with my first attempt at this design, there's only one parachute in this one. :rolleyes: )

The performances (and deployment velocities) on the standard motors are *much* better (i.e., kinder and gentler) on this 1.48X upscale than on the original version. ;) :D

And I have to issue my usual parts disclaimer: The BC-1371 nose cone is *not* available from Semroc. :o At least not *yet.* :eek:

(For those who *insist* on knowing, the ST-13118 is 11.75" long.)

.

Tau Zero

10-29-2008, 10:57 PM

An upscale is still a new model, even if the design has been proven in a smaller scale. Larger versions, after all, don't always fly the same. I see a larger version as a separate design, since the construction may be different to achieve the same appearance.My experience with the original 1.00X and 1.48X Centuri "Chuter-Two" designs is proof positive of that. :rolleyes: ;) :D

Check out the full list of BARCLONEs, and you'll see quite a few upscales. Some of those are of BARCLONEs, others are of Estes and Centuri, and they're all logged as "new" designs.Okay, I guess that makes two more, with the two "Chuter-Twos." (Provided that I can even count correctly. :rolleyes: )

Cheers,

CPMcGraw

10-29-2008, 11:48 PM

And I need to get those posted to the list, Jay. Among other projects, I've done a nasty thing this weekend...

I installed Windows Vista Ultimate on my primary computer... :eek:

How many humans does it take to activate ONE copy of Windows Vista?

EIGHT! Along with THREE Product Keys!

Me, the DirectDeals sales rep, his Microsoft Tech rep (who provided the first replacement key), and FIVE Activation Service reps somewhere near Bombay who passed me around from one to the next like the proverbial hot potato (including one supervisor that I did not speak directly with, who provided the second replacement key).

Any wonder why Microsoft is releasing a new version of Windows sometime next year? Called simply Windows 7?

Short story long, I'm not running RockSim right now, and probably won't have it back up for awhile. So, you kids will have to make up the remaining designs between yourselves! I'm expecting the full 500 from you before December 31!

CPMcGraw

10-29-2008, 11:57 PM

Jay, how about running another sim for the list. Try working up an ST-7 downscale of the Chuter-II, with 13mm motors for power. I'm always looking for 13mm ideas for the "Schoolyard Sounders" program, as I think these will prove to be well suited for smaller school fields.

Solomoriah

10-30-2008, 07:30 AM

CPMcGraw

10-30-2008, 12:36 PM

So WHY did you install Vista?

The only "good" reason I've seen so far is gaming. Not good enough for me, and I sell the dang things. We've sold very little Vista so far (though, of course, the XP systems we are delivering now have Vista licenses on them).

Mostly for the pain. I like having holes bored into my skull, wild birds pecking out my brain, and having my teeth yanked out without Novocaine. :D :chuckle:

(There's a new quote for Bill's tagline... :D )

Vista has a bad rap sheet, and the "activation" issue is just one of many reasons why. Getting drivers to function properly is another.

Actually, in my case, my mom bought a laptop with Vista on it, and I figured I needed to learn the ins and outs of the OS so that I could maintain it. Vista does have some good points. It installs much easier, meaning the process of putting it on the computer is smoother and less painful than previous versions. It found everything on my system except the sound driver, and even that was quickly resolved. I also had to do something on my XP installation, as I had run out of disk space on the "C" partition, and it was affecting performance. This gave me a good opportunity to slide in a 500 GB drive, and put the old 300 GB drive into an external case.

Vista adds a feature that I could have used on XP - being able to expand or contract dynamic partitions without damaging the data. You can also take those external (or internal) slave drives and use some of the unallocated space from them to pad the size of a dynamic partition.

Solomoriah

10-30-2008, 08:56 PM

Basically, you're a masochist.

:D

Tau Zero

10-31-2008, 10:33 PM

Jay, how about running another sim for the list. Try working up an ST-7 downscale of the Chuter-II, with 13mm motors for power.Craig,

As an intermediate step (since the original 18mm Chuter-Two seemed *really* overpowered), here's a 13mm mount plugged into the ST-8 1.00X version. The deployment velocity times are a good deal more manageable, :D :cool: although the 1/2A and A10 are still ~20 f.p.s. (although that's a whole lot better than *~30* f.p.s.! :eek: ).

.

Tau Zero

10-31-2008, 11:25 PM

Try working up an ST-7 downscale of the Chuter-II, with 13mm motors for power. I'm always looking for 13mm ideas for the "Schoolyard Sounders" program, as I think these will prove to be well suited for smaller school fields."As you wish." ;) :D

The ST-768 is 6.75" long.

(I think maybe I can stop obsessing over this design. :o Just watch, next week it'll be Something Completely Different. :rolleyes: )

.

CPMcGraw

11-01-2008, 12:16 PM

...(I think maybe I can stop obsessing over this design. :o Just watch, next week it'll be Something Completely Different. :rolleyes: )...

Sure you will... ;)

You'll work up ST-13, ST-16, ST-18 and ST-20 versions of this design, just so you can have an entire family of Chuter-II's. The -18 and -20 versions might even be clusters, just to be obstinate and ornery. :D :chuckle:

I thought the original -8 version would do well with 13mm power, but I didn't expect it to do as well as the simulation predicted on the 1/2A3-4T. Thanks for the two runs. This gives us two more designs (a modified original, and the ST-7 version) to add to the list.

Now, let's see, where does that put us in terms of the 500 target?

Tau Zero

11-01-2008, 01:58 PM

Sure you will... ;)

You'll work up ST-13, ST-16, ST-18 and ST-20 versions of this design, just so you can have an entire family of Chuter-II's. The -18 and -20 versions might even be clusters, just to be obstinate and ornery. :D :chuckle:Please see the attached file. :o

.

James Pierson

11-02-2008, 05:22 PM

Here is a new design I call the Shadow Fox. I seem to have gotten a little lucky with this design as it flies on four types of 18mm motors with excellent Dv's. I have also started to add a few design changes to my Rocksim files. I will try to remember to add both Kevlar and elastic shock cords to the design files rather than just the elastic I have used in the past. Also have decided to go back to the engine hook, where possible, just for the convienence and speed of loading.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Shadow Fox (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
A8-3..................212.81201 Ft.............0.5395 ft/s
B4-4..................470.48885 Ft.............3.5083 ft/s
B6-4..................474.77034 Ft.............7.2434 ft/s
C6-5..................941.16142 Ft.............2.1599 ft/s
.

CPMcGraw

11-02-2008, 07:05 PM

OK, everyone, with the addition of JP's "Shadow Fox" we are officially at 488 . That means all we need is to post the "12 designs" that James has promised us, and we will have reached the target of 500.

James Pierson

11-04-2008, 09:25 PM

Since the topic of late has been of upscales/ downscales, how about an mini Hostile Intentions 13mm. With all the parts available from Carl at Semroc this downsizing was fairly easy to do. This design is only 10 inches long and still has has maintained the same design styling of its bigger brother. The flight specs and DV's seem to be good on three of the 13mm motors as well.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Mini Hostile Intentions (13mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
1/2A3T-2. ............147.99508 Ft.............20.3816 ft/s
A10T-3................331.60761 Ft..............6.5751 ft/s
A3T-4.................349.01247 Ft.............18.4297 ft/s
.

CPMcGraw

11-04-2008, 09:39 PM

489...

We are now projected to go over the top with the "12 Designs" in December.

CPMcGraw

11-04-2008, 10:05 PM

James Pierson

11-05-2008, 09:37 PM

CPMcGraw Quote:
I propose we begin an all-out effort to flex our muscles and strain our creative juices, and see how long it takes us to reach 1000 designs! There are over a dozen contributors to the BARCLONE project. If each member could design just ONE NEW MODEL EACH WEEK, we would reach that goal before the end of 2009.

Is this feasible? Or is it nuts?

Both!... Feasible and Nuts. :chuckle: No promises but I will do my best.

Here is an interesting design with an sleek body style I call the Swordfish 1, mainly for the lack of a better name. This design also has good Dv's and reaches good altitudes for its size. You know... when I start a "fish theme" I must be straining for an original idea :o .

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Swordfish 1 (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
B4-4..................366.46326 Ft............. 6.1055 ft/s
B6-4..................375.62992 Ft..............1.2310 ft/s
C6-5..................869.52756 Ft..............6.1394 ft/s
.

CPMcGraw

11-05-2008, 10:43 PM

CPMcGraw Quote:

Both!... Feasible and Nuts. :chuckle: No promises but I will do my best.

Here is an interesting design with an sleek body style I call the Swordfish 1, mainly for the lack of a better name. This design also has good Dv's and reaches good altitudes for its size. You know... when I start a "fish theme" I must be straining for an original idea :o .

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Swordfish 1 (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
B4-4..................366.46326 Ft............. 6.1055 ft/s
B6-4..................375.62992 Ft..............1.2310 ft/s
C6-5..................869.52756 Ft..............6.1394 ft/s
.

Nice-looking theme, JP. And it's hard to beat those numbers. Good ideas come from strange sources sometimes...

490...

Tau Zero

11-06-2008, 11:19 PM

Everyone should take note: In the recent "Peak of Flight" newsletter from Apogee, TVM makes mention of RockSim 9, and while he doesn't indicate a firm target date, the fact that he mentions it at all is of great interest. TVM mentions some features in the new version, and I hope they allow us some additional freedom in what we can incorporate into the new designs.Lemme tell ya, I was drooling all over Newsletter #221, which shows that we'll be able to put nose cones on pods, fins on fins, pods on fins, fins on pods on fins... (insert "drooling" emoticon here!).

On the Apogee website, TVM mentions that RS9 should be available in time for Christmas. ;) :D (I've already set my $100+ aside.)

I propose we begin an all-out effort to flex our muscles and strain our creative juices, and see how long it takes us to reach 1000 designs! There are over a dozen contributors to the BARCLONE project. If each member could design just ONE NEW MODEL EACH WEEK, we would reach that goal before the end of 2009.

Is this feasible? Or is it nuts? :D(Hispanic accent) "Okay Meestair Craig, ju know dat ju are chust craysee, no?"

(Stage whisper) Now *watch.* We'll make 1000, and he'll raise the number AGAIN! :eek:

All the same, see a following post with my contribution for this week. Or this month, given my decidedly non-James Pierson-like output capabilities. :eek: :o

Cheers,

Tau Zero

11-06-2008, 11:28 PM

I almost submitted this design late last night, until I decided it needed some more detailing. Hence the birch "Dowel Detail" assemblies (the middle dowel is 1" from the front of the body tube), which also added some additional nose weight. Then I threw the 3 CR-1013 centering rings on as well.

Surprisingly simple, but it follows my general design philosophy of, "Put a *bunch* of different-looking parts together." :rolleyes: ;)

(This is what I get for hanging out with JP. :o :D )

.

CPMcGraw

11-06-2008, 11:35 PM

Jay,

One thing I've found true in my case is, I tend to sketch on paper a lot more than I work up in RockSim. Those limitations really are significant, and if RS9 solves some of them, then I should see an increase in my sim count. I'm hoping others in the BARCLONE guild will take the time to work with the new version.

Even if just the three of us - You, Me, and James - did our "share" of 52 each, that's still 156 new designs! The 1000-count was, as you said, a gauntlet. It was a target, and a challenge. I'm hoping to see a much greater volume of designs in 2009 than we've seen this past year. We have the potential for new [booster] motors (re-releases, actually) and it's going to be our job to give modelers something new and interesting to burn them in. Many of my sketches lately have been 13mm 2-stagers.

CPMcGraw

11-06-2008, 11:43 PM

VERY good numbers on the XPL, Jay. Nice form, too. "Throwdowns" are tough personal challenges. You try to use shapes everyone knows blindfolded to make something no one has ever seen before.

"Ya did good, there!" :D

491...

Tau Zero

11-06-2008, 11:56 PM

VERY good numbers on the XPL, Jay.Craig,

I have to admit that that I was *really* surprised. I used launch lugs to simulate the dowel shapes, and the initial sims before changing the material from paper to birch *weren't* as good as I would have liked them to be. :mad: :(

Nice form, too. "Throwdowns" are tough personal challenges. You try to use shapes everyone knows blindfolded to make something no one has ever seen before.

"Ya did good, there!" :D

491...Thanks! (That's probably why I haven't submitted more designs. :o ) P.S. I just added your quote above to my .sig file. :cool:

"Dude." "*Sweet!*"

CPMcGraw

11-07-2008, 08:37 PM

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Go download the Apogee "Peak Of Flight" newsletter #221 (http://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter221.pdf) if you have not already done so! :eek: :D

The "pods" feature will not only allow us to put nose cones (and transitions) on external tubes, but it is also the feature that will allow us to put fins in different places, and create those hollow "cheek cowls". The cover of this issue has a full 3D rendering of the Orbital Transport, done with V9.

As Jay would say, [Insert hand-wringing and saliva-drooling emoticon here]... :D

James Pierson

11-07-2008, 10:21 PM

Yep, Rocksim 9 should open up, dare I say, an hole new "Demension" :D in our designing.
Might be interesting to go back through some of out design to see what we can improve upon that could not be done in version 8.

Here is a different design that I was inspired to create from viewing the recently posted build thread of the Alien Explorer. I have always like the original design and decided to give it my version of an "facelift/makeover. The colors were also inspired by and apprentice carpenter that showed up on the job site with a new rain coat of simular "High Visibility" colors. :eek: Wow!

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Looney Lander (18mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
A8-3..................171.77887 Ft.............9.7784 ft/s
B4-4..................414.70801 Ft.............1.6896 ft/s
B6-4..................421.24016 Ft.............4.6436 ft/s
C6-5..................900.51509 Ft.............2.2577 ft/s
.

CPMcGraw

11-08-2008, 07:22 AM

James,

I love it when the numbers fall well within the safe zone. Less stress and damage to the model. The design has now been posted to the Wordpress Blog list.

492...

Only 8 more needed to hit 500!

James Pierson

11-10-2008, 09:54 PM

Not a bird, plane, or an Mosquito, its the Flying Flea. I have been reading my Apogee
Newsletters, in particular Newsletter # 154 and #158 on designing short fat rockets. The
Flying Flea definetly meets the short & fat design catogory. Adding the mass-less transition
to the aft end gives this design the added drag from an "base Vortex" :confused: of airflow?? This one I may have to build before I trust this "base Vortex" theory.

The balsa nose cone is an BNC-60 AL and the balsa tail cone is an BTC-60A. I am not sure but I think I got it right when I simmed the BTC-60A with an core hole of .75 inches?? Only Carl knows for sure until I order one.

Enjoy and Thanks Again, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Flying Flea (13mm)
Launch guide length: 36.0000 In

MOTOR.................MAX. ALTITUDE...........DEP. VELOCITY
1/2A3T-2.................121.16207 Ft............14.4273 ft/s
A10T-3....................311.32480 Ft............12.0686 ft/s
A3T-4......................321.00000 Ft............17.0648 ft/s

.

CPMcGraw

11-10-2008, 11:08 PM

493...

Tau Zero

11-14-2008, 10:46 PM

I found out today that there's a brand new Team American Rocketry Challenge (TARC) team in the next town over. :eek: :D

They're having an informational meeting and fundraiser at the County Historical Museum next Tuesday night, which I'm hoping to attend. :cool:

Just as an exercise, I threw together a sample rocket (minus the TARC egglofting portion) and decided to paint it John Deere green and yellow. Then I started thinking about Jon Arbuckle's brother "Doc Boy" from the Garfield cartoon by Jim Davis, and well...

Here you go. "Doc Boy" on a C11-3. :rolleyes:

.

CPMcGraw

11-14-2008, 10:56 PM

494...

Tau Zero

11-14-2008, 11:13 PM

Yep, Rocksim 9 should open up, dare I say, an hole new "Demension" :D in our designing.You say "demension." I say "dement-tion." (Either way, we're both twisted. ;) :D )

Me, I'm waiting to see Craig's Antares "done justice" in RS9 :cool: , along with a bunch of other things I couldn't model before. <big evil grin>

.

Tau Zero

11-15-2008, 03:11 AM

I've been getting a handle on simulating tube and ring fins in RockSim 8 using Bruce S. "teflonrocketry1" Levison's techniques to make RS sim correctly.

I simmed the two ST-5 tube fins on my Zeta design incorrectly, so here are the updated files.

(Craig, this doesn't count as new since it's a re-release, but make sure you snap this one up for BARCLONE. ;) )

.

tonypv

11-15-2008, 06:23 AM

CPMcGraw

11-15-2008, 10:53 PM

You say "demension." I say "dement-tion." (Either way, we're both twisted. ;) :D )

Me, I'm waiting to see Craig's Antares "done justice" in RS9 :cool: , along with a bunch of other things I couldn't model before. <big evil grin>

.

You haven't seen my stuff on the sketchpad yet. Twisted is just another design... :D

I'm wanting to see Antares myself. Two prototypes have flown successfully, so this would just be a clean-up run. But it should look much better than the current version...

CPMcGraw

11-15-2008, 10:57 PM

This one isn't as fancy as some others I like it. :)
The Solaris is one that I designed and built this summer. I don't usually build my designs right away but this one I had to build.
I have flown it five times with great results. Once each on a B6-4 and B4-4 and three times on a C6-5. The last flight landed in a tree.
I plan to build another one this winter.

Alt. DV
B4-4 319ft. 16.35fps
B6-4 331ft. 9.08fps
C6-5 812ft. 18.85fps

Looks good to me, too. Consider it added to the list. I thought that last image looked familiar, as I've seen similar endings to a few of mine in the past... :o

495...

Only 5 more needed!!!