How Much Would It Cost?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

TopRamen

SA-5
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
9,955
Reaction score
111
I would like this for a RBG. Obviously without the things that make it a Single Use Item/Round.
It obviously can be balanced to fly in a controllable fashion, so don't even look silly by saying "It can't be done".
I've seen folks on here with the skills to do it. I don't possess those skill yet, nor can I even afford to aquire them within my budgetary constraints, but I dream of someday building such miraculous machines to marvel the masses!:)


[video=youtube;IuAYfTbtBh8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuAYfTbtBh8[/video]
 
This is a tube-launched round that deploys after it's left the tube - that begs the question to me what configuration did you have in mind to send it upwards in? All folded up then "deploy" at apogee and glides for some distance before popping a chute? Or were you thinking up and down in the deployed config?

Thanks for posting the vid - I'm proud to say I work on the pointing devices for those.
 
This is a tube-launched round that deploys after it's left the tube - that begs the question to me what configuration did you have in mind to send it upwards in? All folded up then "deploy" at apogee and glides for some distance before popping a chute? Or were you thinking up and down in the deployed config?

Thanks for posting the vid - I'm proud to say I work on the pointing devices for those.


I was thinking that it would deploy from a tube, just like it is supposed to, but the tube would be a booster rocket with independent recovery.
 
It probably wouldn't be that difficult to come up with an RC solution to get that design to fly. With folding wings and tail, you'd want to mount your aileron and tail servos right on the flying surfaces. Probably just use ailerons on two of the wings and two elevators (or add a rudder) on the tail. You could incorporate a receiver with a three-axis gyro to help a bit with stabilization. The problem would come with orientation - you'd most likely want to color the bottom in a dark color and the top in a light color so you could tell which way is up when flying it. Another issue is going to be landing it at a slow enough speed where it isn't going to dig something into the ground and break. Ideally you aren't going to want to be fixing this every time it goes up. But it is a doable and interesting project.
 
To keep from having to repair the awkward looking thing after every landing, I was thinking that you could set it up to use a servo to make it separate into two parts that would land on a small parachute.
You could fly it around or whatever, then when it was down 25-30ft. up you could press whichever button you had set up to deploy the chute'.
I don't think a gliding in landing would even be an option with those wings.
 
I think what I will do first is try to find all the appropriate data I'll need to at the very least create a non flying scale model of one.
A BT-60 based model would be able to be hand thrown to see how it would need to be balanced to fly/glide.
 
Build it and launch it as two swing wing RCBG fitted 90* to each other. launch with wings collapsed and deploy at apogee. RC it back.


Richard
 
Doable, but going to be hard to land without damage. Note that the real one never lands....;)

A second hand 2.4 gHz programmable TX can be had for a hundred bucks or so. The micro RX, four 5 or 6 gram servos, a micro lipo battery and a voltage regulator that you need for the model can be had new for as little as 25-30 bucks plus shipping.

Modern RC gear is inexpensive compared to rocket motors!...;)
 
Last edited:
It could go up upside down disguised as a 4 Finned Mega Mosquito, and benefit from maximum apogee before glide phase.
It is designed to achieve a certain velocity while descending. 9-1 descent ratio, but the real deal weighs 44 lbs, so a mock up flyable glider might be as light as a "properly built TLP Kit."
 
Last edited:
I would hate to be the guy driving the pickup that is pulling the target.
 
I would hate to be the guy driving the pickup that is pulling the target.

I was thinking that at first, and then I realized that it is most likely an RC unit. They can build missiles that can strike with 1 meter accuracy.
Its up-armoring is probably just to protect it just the same so that it does'nt degrade from shrapnel damage.
I'm betting they can hook up a truck as an ROV.
 
Man, that is sure one heck of a complicated thing to try to make fly like the real one.

The tailfins, being 90 degree curved arcs, have various issues. Aerodynamically, they will cause a "waterwheel" or Anemometer type of roll effect. Worst-case imagine that flying at a 90 degree angle of attack, wind from the side. The airflow will make it want to roll. Now in rocket flight it will not be at 90 degrees, but the restoring aerodynamic stability forces of the fins will also produce the same roll effect, just not as severe. I once had a rocket with offset fins that rolled due to this effect. And then for glide, you'd definitely have an angle of attack, wanting to make it roll.

BTW - there are "dumb" unguided air to surface missiles that use similar fin types. In some videos you can see them rolling, which is good in that case since the rolling helps to make them fly a straighter path, like a spinning rifle bullet or artillery shell.

The real thing must be using its own stability system to fight that roll.

Issue #2 with those fins is they are so thin, that anything like cardboard would flutter too easily. The real ones are some sort of very strong stiff metal (or usually are, I do not know if this specific one might not use carbon fiber).

Issue #3 with those fins is to try to work up a system to allow them to control pitch and yaw, and roll. Most likely the real one is not doing that. The "wings" are probably pivoting to provide pitch , yaw, and roll control.

And then of course those wings. For it to fit inside of a tube, they apparently are double-hinged. Not just swing-wings, since they do not swing out from recessed slots in the body. There appear to be flat spots on the outer body, so it seems the wings rotate in pitch 90 degrees and then fold "flat" to the body. So, that is a very complicated hinge system, with all sorts of "fun" to achieve the needed forces to get them to deploy fully (and lock open once deployed). Then on top of all that, as I said before, it seems the wings rotate a bit in pitch (angle of attack to the body) to achieve control for pitch, yaw, and roll, so the complex hinge system has to be even more complex to allow for that control motion, and for the mechanics of the "servos" (functional equivalent) inside the body to work properly.

As for RC glide......which side is "UP"? You've got 4 choices, choose wisely.... every time. Even if you painted it fluorescent on one side and black on the other, you might have trouble. If I was doing this (and I won't), I'd put an autopilot onboard, like an Eagle Tree Guardian in 2D mode (Wings and fuselage level to the ground mode), to keep it pointed wings level and fuselage level for glide (In this case, wings level would be set with the wings in the "X" roll orientation, not "+" orientation). The same Eagle Tree or other autopilot could not fly the boost vertically (if the model it was flown with wings deployed going up), you'd have to use another method, OR use a second autopilot oriented correctly for boost - one to fly the boost vertically, then flip a switch on the transmitter to go from boost autopilot off to glide autopilot on.

BTW - due to the glide in "X" pattern, you would need for all 4 wings to pivot for control, 4 servos . If it was something that glides in a "+" pattern, you would only need for two to be controlled, the horizontal surfaces for pitch and roll (2 servos). For yaw....bank it to turn as with an aileron/elevator model plane.

I agree that for landing, you'd want to pop a chute since the wings would be so fragile (especially the pivot system). But you'd want to fire it higher than 30 feet, more like at least 100 to give time for full deploy and deceleration.

A heck of a project to try to do like that.

Biggest thing no matter what.... you need to learn how to crawl, then walk, before you can run. So, you need to learn how to fly R/C first. The best bang for the buck to begin to fly R/C is something like the Ember. Almost indestructable.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpmWxKm5zdg

Now, you could also learn to fly using a flight simulator, like Realflight. That is preferable. If you did that , then after getting god at flying the simulator you could learn to fly a "real model" with something bigger, like the Radian Electric sailplane (It can take a lot of abuse but not as much as an Ember).

After leaning to fly R/C and being proficient with setting up a model enough to do a big scratch project... what about an A4b? No swing/deploy Rube Goldberg problems, the control surfaces could be in the tailfins. Basic boilerplate with a modified Estes BT-80 kit, and for R/C model, adapt an old Estes BT-101 V-2 off eBay


a4b_pattern.jpg



01.jpg
 
Last edited:
Man, that is sure one heck of a complicated thing to try to make fly like the real one.

The tailfins, being 90 degree curved arcs, have various issues. Aerodynamically, they will cause a "waterwheel" or Anemometer type of roll effect. Worst-case imagine that flying at a 90 degree angle of attack, wind from the side. The airflow will make it want to roll. Now in rocket flight it will not be at 90 degrees, but the restoring aerodynamic stability forces of the fins will also produce the same roll effect, just not as severe. I once had a rocket with offset fins that rolled due to this effect. And then for glide, you'd definitely have an angle of attack, wanting to make it roll.

BTW - there are "dumb" unguided air to surface missiles that use similar fin types. In some videos you can see them rolling, which is good in that case since the rolling helps to make them fly a straighter path, like a spinning rifle bullet or artillery shell.

The real thing must be using its own stability system to fight that roll.

Issue #2 with those fins is they are so thin, that anything like cardboard would flutter too easily. The real ones are some sort of very strong stiff metal (or usually are, I do not know if this specific one might not use carbon fiber).

Issue #3 with those fins is to try to work up a system to allow them to control pitch and yaw, and roll. Most likely the real one is not doing that. The "wings" are probably pivoting to provide pitch , yaw, and roll control.

And then of course those wings. For it to fit inside of a tube, they apparently are double-hinged. Not just swing-wings, since they do not swing out from recessed slots in the body. There appear to be flat spots on the outer body, so it seems the wings rotate in pitch 90 degrees and then fold "flat" to the body. So, that is a very complicated hinge system, with all sorts of "fun" to achieve the needed forces to get them to deploy fully (and lock open once deployed). Then on top of all that, as I said before, it seems the wings rotate a bit in pitch (angle of attack to the body) to achieve control for pitch, yaw, and roll, so the complex hinge system has to be even more complex to allow for that control motion, and for the mechanics of the "servos" (functional equivalent) inside the body to work properly.

As for RC glide......which side is "UP"? You've got 4 choices, choose wisely.... every time. Even if you painted it fluorescent on one side and black on the other, you might have trouble. If I was doing this (and I won't), I'd put an autopilot onboard, like an Eagle Tree Guardian in 2D mode (Wings and fuselage level to the ground mode), to keep it pointed wings level and fuselage level for glide (In this case, wings level would be set with the wings in the "X" roll orientation, not "+" orientation). The same Eagle Tree or other autopilot could not fly the boost vertically (if the model it was flown with wings deployed going up), you'd have to use another method, OR use a second autopilot oriented correctly for boost - one to fly the boost vertically, then flip a switch on the transmitter to go from boost autopilot off to glide autopilot on.

BTW - due to the glide in "X" pattern, you would need for all 4 wings to pivot for control, 4 servos . If it was something that glides in a "+" pattern, you would only need for two to be controlled, the horizontal surfaces for pitch and roll (2 servos). For yaw....bank it to turn as with an aileron/elevator model plane.

I agree that for landing, you'd want to pop a chute since the wings would be so fragile (especially the pivot system). But you'd want to fire it higher than 30 feet, more like at least 100 to give time for full deploy and deceleration.

A heck of a project to try to do like that.

Biggest thing no matter what.... you need to learn how to crawl, then walk, before you can run. So, you need to learn how to fly R/C first. The best bang for the buck to begin to fly R/C is something like the Ember. Almost indestructable.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpmWxKm5zdg

Now, you could also learn to fly using a flight simulator, like Realflight. That is preferable. If you did that , then after getting god at flying the simulator you could learn to fly a "real model" with something bigger, like the Radian Electric sailplane (It can take a lot of abuse but not as much as an Ember).

After leaning to fly R/C and being proficient with setting up a model enough to do a big scratch project... what about an A4b? No swing/deploy Rube Goldberg problems, the control surfaces could be in the tailfins. Basic boilerplate with a modified Estes BT-80 kit, and for R/C model, adapt an old Estes BT-101 V-2 off eBay


a4b_pattern.jpg



01.jpg


Good point. So how much would it cost? I kinda' figure that if such a project ever happened it would be the result of me being able to take on such a project.
I'm confident in the skills of the folks here on the Forum, and could immagine a scenario where I simply pay for materials and maybe something more for the sake of others helping my dream projects see fruition.
I certainly can not accomplish things like this on my own!
Maybe someone like KidRocket just takes the Idea and runs with it. Hopefully.
My TALOS thread found root in a rocketeer by the name of KidRocket, and he really nailed it!!!
All just because I asked if it could be done!:y:

This is a question worth asking.
 
Good point. So how much would it cost?

How much would it cost to TRY? Under $100.

To get it to WORK successfully, like the real thing until the last 100 feet? Many hundreds of dollars and a LOT of hours of design, building, testing, RE-design, RE-building, RE-testing, and so on.

That is not including learning how to fly R/C.

- George Gassaway
 
Last edited:
The Lacrosse flies at a much greater speed, and that allows it to maintain lift.
 
I'm pretty sure there is a tube (mortar) launched version of this weapon. It would be a perfect candidate for a chad booster.

The real weapon has a very reasonable 9:1 glide slope but I don't know what the forward velocity is. From the video the deployment is fairly simple, probably a spring forward, turn 90 degrees and lock. All maneuvering is empowered by the rear 4 fins to control pitch, yaw and roll.

The warhead is conveniently located in the center where an ejection charge and parachute could be located. I think if you balanced the model correctly you could successfully make it into a non-RC circling glider and use an altimeter to pop a chute at 200' or so when it is in nominally horizontal flight.

Bob
 
I'm pretty sure there is a tube (mortar) launched version of this weapon. It would be a perfect candidate for a chad booster.

The real weapon has a very reasonable 9:1 glide slope but I don't know what the forward velocity is. From the video the deployment is fairly simple, probably a spring forward, turn 90 degrees and lock. All maneuvering is empowered by the rear 4 fins to control pitch, yaw and roll.

The warhead is conveniently located in the center where an ejection charge and parachute could be located. I think if you balanced the model correctly you could successfully make it into a non-RC circling glider and use an altimeter to pop a chute at 200' or so when it is in nominally horizontal flight.

Bob

All control surfaces are on the wings.

Viper4.gifViper44 2015-05-09 001.jpg
 
After doing some figuring, I figure it would be most cost effective and doable if the recovery was done under thrust. A small motor on the tip of each wing could deploy braking propellers to arrest the descent and then balance the entire thing at the proper angle to the ground.
As it hovered down, before the nose cone tip contacted the surface, a ballast sensor switch could contact first and deploy some lightweight CF landing gear that would look like the antenna from the GBU-44.
All you would have to do to accomplish this recovery would be to hack one of the many readily available quadcopters and adapt its avionic to fit the wings of the GBU-44 model.
Some of them can be thrown by hand and stabilize themselves without control of the user. Simply have the circuit turn on at the desired altitude and override the default orientation codes to let it do what it can do while it is falling and gliding. No need for a parachute, and it negates redesigning the model from being an actual scale model for the most part. It also sound incredibly cool.
I honestly believe that given the technological prowess of today's youth, it is an entirely feasible idea.
I've seen enough crazy geniuses in youtube videos to be certain it is possible.
 
I've finally solved it!!!!

It can not be safely built with currently available materials, and still come in under the weight limit as a Rocket Boosted Glider.
The required nose weight and propellant weight leave no room for the proper amount of camera, telemetry, and guidance apparatus.

It needs to either be released from a tethered kite, or a tethered balloon, and simply use gravity to achieve adequate velocity for the wings to provide appropriate lift.

Problem solved. I was barking up the wrong tree. It needs to be an RG. "Released Glider". Not a Rocket Boosted Glider!


It works so well in the Video I posted because that is the way it is supposed to be deployed, if you want it to work so well.
Why try to reinvent the wheel?


I've also coincidentally re-ignited my fascination with Kites.

Now, all I need is a 1:1 Scale Glider!!!

I'm half way there, and eliminated the Rocket Science and applicable regulations!!!!

Level 1 Cert no longer necessary!
 
Last edited:
If a ground crew of three to four men with a ballast point can successfully fly this guy, I can successfully deliver a glider pod to an altitude of 450', to include a live feed altimeter cable, to certify that all drop launches are legal per regulations of tethered balloon or kite whatevers.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?131682-Man-Lifting-Kites-of-WWI

I don't mean to break the law, simply to fly this thing for jest, and safely and professionally at that.
I believe it is possible to do it safely and legally, as long as the whole experiment is conducted in a professional manner.
No hurry, but a plausible dream to aspire to, and would certainly learn a lot in the process.
 
Suddenly, I am empowered by the regulations, rather than restricted by them.
Small Scale models and tests are simple, and make the full blown machine possible, yet not necessary.
It is theoretically plausible that I could replicate the identical aerodynamic properties of the actual item.
 
I just watched it full screen, and realized that it must have a chain-geared adjustable CG inside the body tube for ballast adjustment in the fin-lock operation. Torsion or a timer could deploy the drogue chute at any desired moment of effect.
I think that once the glide phase is established, very little more than gyroscopic stabilization occur. The Fin design would support this in my Mindsim, though I have gotten conflicting reports from many different sources of how the object is actually stabilized.
 
Last edited:
[video=youtube;j09uoOvi1tk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j09uoOvi1tk[/video]

[video=youtube;hyaIrhGrCzo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyaIrhGrCzo[/video]
 
Last edited:
[video=youtube;26XYeQK1lm4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26XYeQK1lm4[/video]
 
Why have I now got this idea of a flying Bloodhound SAM in my head?? :wink: Only two control surfaces to move (Roll and pitch), could get boosters to separate like real thing, maybe even use a small ducted fan to simulate ram jets......... hmmmmmm:dark:
 
Back
Top