WVB XR-1 Shuttle

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
You could also play with CG of the glider, if you are requiring more elevon area it might just be nose heavy...btw, are you increasing the wing area or just make more of the wing elevon area? If you are increasing wing you will need to move the cg forward of course.
 
Glen and Frank, I just went with simply gluing (yellow glue) on the 1/64" flaps to the back of the short elevator strip, nothing fancy. I am thinking of gluing 1/8" balsa on top of the ply, so that basically the surfaces are all the same thickness. I'm moving pretty slow these days due to the Holidays and family visits.

IMG_2765.jpg IMG_2766.jpg IMG_2768.jpg IMG_2769.jpg
 
Really cool project.....really interested to see how this turns out.
 
There was some more shrinkage and wrinkles on the upper cone. I filled these with a mixture of epoxy and micro-balloons and bondo in other places. Another problem I had was the launch lug. Internally there were 2 long plastic straws in the cone, but these became disconnected. I cut a hole in the base bulkhead and removed a plastic straw. I covered the hole in the bulkhead with a covering plate that had a new hole for the guide rod. This did not work real well and only allowed a 1/8" guide rod. I launched last Saturday with a D12-3 but I think that the guide rod I had was too short and too flimsy. The model weighed about 13.1 oz (about 370 grams) with motor. This is under the recommended maximum lift-off of 396 grams, but the model looked under-powered. The model is probably too draggy. The model was stable, but came off the guide rod at an angle, not going straight up. As a result it did not gain enough altitude for the parachute ejection. Sorry, but I do not have any lift-off photos. There was damage, but I think it is repairable.

IMG_2901.jpg IMG_2902.jpg IMG_2903.jpg IMG_2904.jpg
 
Last edited:
Congratulations! Success! No grievous injury to person or property. It went up and came down. OK I know my standards are low but now you know you need more power and a bigger rod. Trust in thrust.
 
Congratulations! Success! No grievous injury to person or property. It went up and came down. OK I know my standards are low but now you know you need more power and a bigger rod. Trust in thrust.

Daddy, thanks for the encouragement. BTW I love your latest project, Prinz Eugen! Yes, you are right a larger rod and an E-motor is what I need to do.
 
Daddy, thanks for the encouragement. BTW I love your latest project, Prinz Eugen! Yes, you are right a larger rod and an E-motor is what I need to do.

On the P E I went crazy and used a 1/2" rod! The Pad Fuehrer sure has a keen eye and low tolerance for Oddroc rod whip. These draggy and heavily nose weighted ships just suck up the trust.
 
To support the cone shell I made 4 triangular struts or fins...
View attachment 247648

You know, if the cone shape was too draggy and you don't get enough altitude, I was thinking you could go with this profile shape right here, to borrow the technique from Frank's profile booster gliders. Depends on if you are going for true scale realism for display and short 100' flights, or don't mind the profile approximation when it is soaring to heights of 500' and beyond.

of course more power and bigger rod would help too.
 
Last edited:
I flew this model this past Saturday and results were not that good. I do not have video and only still photos of the model on the pad. I followed the discussion of evildave42's "Cone Shaped Rockets" under the category of "Oddrocs". Evildave42 talks about using an Aerotech 24 mm single-use F44W-4 for his cone shaped rocket. I decided to use the same motor for my latest flight. It is about the same size as the Estes D12-3, but the total impulse is 41.4 n-s versus about 17 n-s for the D12-3. I used a 3/16" rod this time and the flight was straight up but there was considerable fish-tailing on the way up and some observers called it unstable. At apogee the model seemed to be out of forward momentum and was almost in a flat spin. There was enough altitude for the Estes 24" diameter parachute to be ejected, but the chute did not open and there was a hard landing. The fins were alright, but the front body tube was crunched. The glider was undamaged, but did not glide, but rather fluttered. I noticed that another piece was fluttering down and found out later that there was a burn-through in the 24 mm body tube that evidently broke out a piece of the plastic foam. The large 24" diameter parachute was packed in tight (the internal body tube coupler used for repair may also have contributed to tightness) and was probably difficult to eject. The parachute was partially melted, but not very bad. The model can be repaired and perhaps flown with a smaller chute, but there is a question that maybe a major re-design is necessary.

IMG_3047.jpg IMG_3046.jpg IMG_3020.jpg IMG_3019.jpg
 
I don't know how I missed this thread. The Von Braun shuttle is one of my favorites. I still have the one you see in the plans although I haven't flown it in years. It's hard to believe I built it over 20 years ago. I had the same problem stuffing a big enough parachute in it. If I did it again I'd separate it a little lower and use a larger tube. I'm not sure if it's in the CMASS plan booklet, but I know I converted the Glencoe model to fly and wrote up an article on it.
 
Congratulations again! You are making good progress and going with a very hot and powerful F 44 from wimpy D12 is quite a step up in power. Maybe a bit too much power too fast but it flew straight up - stable. Don't listen to the 4FNC wienies who expect every flight to be arrow straight and perfect and have little tolerance for oddrocs. You did well with a bit of "fishtailing" from a paper and balsa cone rocket on such a powerful motor. The ejection charge on the SU composite motors are really hot with plenty of hot propellant still burning and spewing up with the ejection charge. Maybe an F12-4 or F24-4 reload for this one with a softer charge. Repair and fly again. Chute and wadding packing with some talc lube might help, all kinds of good techniques can be used.
 
I don't know how I missed this thread. The Von Braun shuttle is one of my favorites. I still have the one you see in the plans although I haven't flown it in years. It's hard to believe I built it over 20 years ago. I had the same problem stuffing a big enough parachute in it. If I did it again I'd separate it a little lower and use a larger tube. I'm not sure if it's in the CMASS plan booklet, but I know I converted the Glencoe model to fly and wrote up an article on it.

Yes, Bill, this model is based on your plans in the CMASS booklet and you are right your Glencoe plastic model conversion is in the same booklet. I saw your comments on EvilDave42's /OddRoc/Cone Shaped Rockets/. If one were to re-build this model a larger motor mount tube diameter might be the way to go. Also, maybe a rear ejected parachute could be used.

Congratulations again! You are making good progress and going with a very hot and powerful F 44 from wimpy D12 is quite a step up in power. Maybe a bit too much power too fast but it flew straight up - stable. Don't listen to the 4FNC wienies who expect every flight to be arrow straight and perfect and have little tolerance for oddrocs. You did well with a bit of "fishtailing" from a paper and balsa cone rocket on such a powerful motor. The ejection charge on the SU composite motors are really hot with plenty of hot propellant still burning and spewing up with the ejection charge. Maybe an F12-4 or F24-4 reload for this one with a softer charge. Repair and fly again. Chute and wadding packing with some talc lube might help, all kinds of good techniques can be used.

Thanks, Daddy, for your encouragement. Coming from the OddRoc Master that means a lot. In fact, I was thinking of pitching this model, but you are inspiring me to re-think things. I saw your comments on EvilDave42's thread. The F24-4 reloadable motor is intriguing. I have the AT reloadable 24/40 case. The F-24 has lower thrust than the F-44, which might be good, and it also has more total impulse 50 n-s versus 41.4 n-s for the F-44. With a reloadable I could cut down on the ejection charge, even the delay time, if I wanted. I am thinking of a smaller chute. The fins are fairly strong and the model might be able to withstand a fast descent rate.
 
Thanks, Daddy, for your encouragement. Coming from the OddRoc Master that means a lot. In fact, I was thinking of pitching this model, but you are inspiring me to re-think things. I saw your comments on EvilDave42's thread. The F24-4 reloadable motor is intriguing. I have the AT reloadable 24/40 case. The F-24 has lower thrust than the F-44, which might be good, and it also has more total impulse 50 n-s versus 41.4 n-s for the F-44. With a reloadable I could cut down on the ejection charge, even the delay time, if I wanted. I am thinking of a smaller chute. The fins are fairly strong and the model might be able to withstand a fast descent rate.

Daddy, you idea for the F24 worked at least on a Thursday of Hellfire-21 with no wind. I used the F24-4 and the WVB flew straight up. The glider at first only fluttered, but then went into a steep spiral. The booster had a 24" plastic parachute that was a little tight, but packed carefully. The chute opened and all parts were recovered without damage. To find the c.g. I would need to reload the motor and take measurements.

IMG_3833.jpg IMG_3835.jpg IMG_3838.jpg
 
I have loaded up a 24 mm F24-4 and inserted into the WVB Shuttle and find the c.g. to be about 1-1/4 inch ahead of the aft fins on the cone. This is with about 1-7/8" tube (24 mm) ahead of the cone and just behind the glider.
 
I launched the WVB Shuttle on an F24-4 today with the c.g. reported in the post #47 above. Basically, the flight performance was a repeat of the Hellfire-21 flight (post #45). There was some fish-tailing on the way up, but I think that this was due to two contributing factors. First, there was wind, which I estimate to be on the order of 10 to 15 mph. However, the biggest effect was probably due to the Aerotech red cap on the nozzle-end not coming off at lift-off. It was stuck good. I noticed this before launch, when I needed a pair of pliers to pull it off to get the igniter in. I cut about half of the aft end of the red cap off, but because it stayed on, the motor had to burn through it and burn it out on the way up.

I put in about half the ejection charge, but nevertheless the motor was blown out the aft-end at the same time the parachute was ejected. Fortunately, I found the motor not too far from the glider. The glider had a auger-in with the same steep spiral as the previous flight, but there was no damage.

IMG_3947.jpg
 
Last edited:
I launched this again last Saturday on a F24-4 with some wind. I used only about 1/2 of the ejection charge on the re-load. I think that this is definitely the right motor for this model. The flight was similar to last November with fish-tailing near the end of flight. The red nozzle cap was not on this time, so I cannot blame the fish-tailing on that problem. It must be the wind. Looking at this flight and the previous 2 flights, I am thinking that the launch must be no wind at all. The ejection charge firing was very late only about 20 or 20 feet off the ground, so the landing was hard and the model broke 2 fins. Either the delay charge was late or there was not enough altitude due to the fish-tailing. Thinking back the delay charge was very late. Since I am out of F24-4 reloads, I have no immediate plans to launch in the near future. If I were to launch again, it would be with no wind and perhaps some drilling into the delay charge.

IMG_4101.jpg
 
How many V2's did Von Braun crash before they got it right? Persistence pays off and experience counts. A little coning during the coast is fine as long as it is straight up under power. Keep up the good work. Von Braun would be proud:)
 
This is the PMC of the Glencoe WVB Space Ferry. I recently bought this plastic model from Art Upton. Bill Spadafora has a PMC for the Glencoe model in the NARTS Produce #CMASS, "The Sentinel, Collected Plans 1989-1994". Bill passed away a few years ago, but his model rocket legacy lives on. One of the clever ideas I got from Bill was drilling out a 3/4" diameter hole in the plastic parts with a conical step drill bit. This made drilling the hole for the BT-20 tube very easy.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1158.JPG
    IMG_1158.JPG
    62.4 KB · Views: 7
  • IMG_1162.JPG
    IMG_1162.JPG
    115.4 KB · Views: 7
  • IMG_1168 (2).JPG
    IMG_1168 (2).JPG
    164.6 KB · Views: 7
  • IMG_1170 (2).JPG
    IMG_1170 (2).JPG
    73 KB · Views: 7


Extrapolating on this design, I wonder if a saucer rocket could be added as a booster to many rockets unlike a traditional model rocket booster. On many rockets, if one adds a booster without adding nose weight then doom ensues.

My thought being the massive drag could offset the tightening of cg cp caliber??
 
I put lead in the Glencoe upper glider. Bill cut the wings for "looks" in his instructions and stated that it was not for stability. I decided to not cut the wings and will try it "as is".
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1173.JPG
    IMG_1173.JPG
    76.6 KB · Views: 7
  • IMG_1175.JPG
    IMG_1175.JPG
    49.5 KB · Views: 10
  • IMG_1176.JPG
    IMG_1176.JPG
    46.9 KB · Views: 11
I tied a piece of light kevlar string to the BT-20 and epoxied it in place per Bill's instructions.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1187 (2).JPG
    IMG_1187 (2).JPG
    217 KB · Views: 9
  • IMG_1189.JPG
    IMG_1189.JPG
    255.2 KB · Views: 11
  • IMG_1190.JPG
    IMG_1190.JPG
    178.8 KB · Views: 14
Returning to the Glencoe PMC for the WVB Space Ferry, instead of using nose blocks for the screw-eye attachment of the shock cord, I drilled a small hole in the inside plastic and epoxied the screw-eye in place. I then attached a streamer. I followed Bill's instructions and made a wire loop for the upper launch lug. For launching Bill recommended that the shock cord be wrapped around the outside of the BT-20 and the upper glider wings should be aligned with the large booster fins.

BTW Bill posted on this thread back in 2015, see post #42. I think he would have approved of this PMC. I thank him for his ideas and documentation.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1194.JPG
    IMG_1194.JPG
    189.9 KB · Views: 7
  • IMG_1196.JPG
    IMG_1196.JPG
    233.5 KB · Views: 7
  • IMG_1199.JPG
    IMG_1199.JPG
    74.3 KB · Views: 5
Back
Top