Tau Zero
04-29-2006, 12:02 AM
Pardon me while I hijack this article from the "Shrox Icarus" thread:
http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=7441&postcount=18
(John Thro and I were talking about aesthetic sensibilities, and how to *my* eye, the body tubes looked *way* too long. Bill Eichelberger has also mentioned that storing this model is a bit of a challenge, since it's so long and relatively skinny.)
As long as the Odyssey is, I'm sure you could remove a few inches of body tube and still have a great-looking and great-flying rocket. I'll agree that it is pretty darned long and thin. Even so, the forward section of BT-50 is barely big enough for the 18" plastic parachute to fit. Is the BT-20 the part of the body that looks too long to you? I've flown mine 3 times (I think. I *know* it's flown at least twice.), and that big parachute brings it down nice and soft, so even with the long section of BT-20, there's no damage at all on landing.
I'm pretty sure Scott/Rokitflite still has some kits available, btw.
I stole the image below from the USS Odyssey thread over on TRF:
http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19334
The parachute compartment (BT-50?) looks a bit long to me, and I'd cut it by at least a third. The long "middle" tube (BT-20?) looks like it's *way* too long, and I'd cut it in half. (So you could probably get away with a 14" 1.1 oz ripstop nylon chute -- *maybe.*)
*However,* my point again is that my aesthetic sensibilities are *not* the same as Scott's, and it's interesting to see which designs "look right" to me, and why. Heck, I even thought the fins for the Semroc Astrobee 350 looked too small:
http://www.semroc.com/Store/scripts/RocketKits.asp?SKU=KV-13
http://www.rocketreviews.com/reviews/kits/sem_astrobee_350.html
...and Chan Stevens' EMRR review confirmed my suspicions with his C6-7 flight of that model.
(Sorry, I've had a lot of coffee this morning and seem to be typing just to see myself talk.)So you're vibrating pretty good, eh? ;) :D
Cheers,
--Jay
http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=7441&postcount=18
(John Thro and I were talking about aesthetic sensibilities, and how to *my* eye, the body tubes looked *way* too long. Bill Eichelberger has also mentioned that storing this model is a bit of a challenge, since it's so long and relatively skinny.)
As long as the Odyssey is, I'm sure you could remove a few inches of body tube and still have a great-looking and great-flying rocket. I'll agree that it is pretty darned long and thin. Even so, the forward section of BT-50 is barely big enough for the 18" plastic parachute to fit. Is the BT-20 the part of the body that looks too long to you? I've flown mine 3 times (I think. I *know* it's flown at least twice.), and that big parachute brings it down nice and soft, so even with the long section of BT-20, there's no damage at all on landing.
I'm pretty sure Scott/Rokitflite still has some kits available, btw.
I stole the image below from the USS Odyssey thread over on TRF:
http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19334
The parachute compartment (BT-50?) looks a bit long to me, and I'd cut it by at least a third. The long "middle" tube (BT-20?) looks like it's *way* too long, and I'd cut it in half. (So you could probably get away with a 14" 1.1 oz ripstop nylon chute -- *maybe.*)
*However,* my point again is that my aesthetic sensibilities are *not* the same as Scott's, and it's interesting to see which designs "look right" to me, and why. Heck, I even thought the fins for the Semroc Astrobee 350 looked too small:
http://www.semroc.com/Store/scripts/RocketKits.asp?SKU=KV-13
http://www.rocketreviews.com/reviews/kits/sem_astrobee_350.html
...and Chan Stevens' EMRR review confirmed my suspicions with his C6-7 flight of that model.
(Sorry, I've had a lot of coffee this morning and seem to be typing just to see myself talk.)So you're vibrating pretty good, eh? ;) :D
Cheers,
--Jay