Bell X-1 ?

Anyone built one? Or know of where to buy a kit or something? Like to make an RC one..

I don't think a kit exists. I think on Rocketry Reviews (formerly EMRR) there is low power scratch built documented. George Gassaway has built a fancy mid-powered one. There is a HPR scratch built documented here on TRF that was launched in Nevada.

There used to be a kit (can't remember the maker), but that's long OOP, usually goes for good money on ebay and I don't know if they flew very well...rockets with big wings sticking out usually crash better than rocketing upwards in a straight line. There are PMCs (Plastic Model Conversions) around.

KenECoyote said:

There used to be a kit (can't remember the maker), but that's long OOP, usually goes for good money on ebay and I don't know if they flew very well...rockets with big wings sticking out usually crash better than rocketing upwards in a straight line. There are PMCs (Plastic Model Conversions) around.

Click to expand...

As KenECoyote said: Currently there are at least three different scale Bell-X1's available plastic models at least two of which can and have been successfully Converted for Mod-Roc Powered flight. in 1/72nd MMX powered and 1/32nd C6 or 18mm reload powered. the 1/32nd can be fitted with a 24mm D12 motor mount but a good bit of Aft Body work is required resulting in not as close to scale looking models. Unfortunately the Dragon 144th scale Bell X-1 body requires the same drastic body reworking to get a MMX motor in so it's not considered Convertable

If memory serves me I believe George Gassaway Scratch built a RC bell X-1 several years ago. Perhaps he'll see this thread or you might drop him an PM to see if he still has the plans used for his model?

Here is the non-gliding scratch built X-1 that is documented on Rocket Reviews.

https://www.rocketreviews.com/scratch-120-bell-x-1-glamorous-glennis-by-larry-brand.html

Earlier this year someone posted a very large Bell X-2 scratch built flight.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...l-X-2-at-the-Balls-23-launch-in-Black-Rock-NV

That first one is cool, I thought about bashing a V-2, but the nose is way too wrong for me, Ive also thought hard about making one out of depron, as that guy did with the big rockets not long ago, since I have a CNC Laser and alot of depron...

If I could find a nice set of plans

Depron can be made into compound curves, but it takes some skill and cunning and lots of careful joint filling or a set of molds and a very special type of vacuform machine (that actually needs the Depron type/extruded polystyrene foam sheet in its unexpanded form, like it comes off the rolls of foam that are molded into egg cartons and such).

Personally, I would either build up an X-1 up out of balsa and sheet it the good old fashioned way, or carve one out of a foam block (Hollowed out for the fuse) and use some balsa, carbon fiber and Depron as needed.

You could also do an X-1 as a Depron profile in the Frank Burke style. This would be a fast and simple way to get an RC X-1 flying. Check out his threads over in the rocket glider discussion area.

There are a lot of rocket folks out there that are afraid of rockets with wings simply because the do not understand them. The only reason a rocket with wings is unstable is because the CG is not located correctly. If the CG is in front of the CP by an appropriate amount, it will boost just fine.

If it will fly as an aircraft, it will boost as a rocket if you balance it correctly.

I just converted an Estes V2 into a winged manned A4b with radio control. Several folks thought it would be problematic or not work at all. Their fears were ungrounded.

I've done an X-1 as a profile and an X-1A as a cruciform, both I flew as both pusher electric and rocket boosted and flew fine. The X-1A I actually later mounted a nose mounted tractor motor so I could do airstarts...You could certainly start with a cruciform and add formers and some 2mm plank sheeting to fill out the fuse at the cost of weight and reduced lifting surface. These were both around 39" long..I think the cruciform is a better tradeoff of shape versus strength and wing area..I'd do a few things differently if I build another, these were pretty early models I did.

tab28682 said:

There are a lot of rocket folks out there that are afraid of rockets with wings simply because the do not understand them. The only reason a rocket with wings is unstable is because the CG is not located correctly. If the CG is in front of the CP by an appropriate amount, it will boost just fine.

If it will fly as an aircraft, it will boost as a rocket if you balance it correctly.

I just converted an Estes V2 into a winged manned A4b with radio control. Several folks thought it would be problematic or not work at all. Their fears were ungrounded.

Click to expand...

Well, actually I'm not afraid of winged rockets...I'm actually a fan. I even launched a Dynastar Snarky and Firefox SHX successfully this past weekend. However I do have to admit that when I said "rockets with big wings sticking out usually crash better than rocketing upwards in a straight line", it was purely my opinion based on my research of the X-1 rocket from last year when I wanted to get one or build one (and I do recall seeing your A4b post...awesome!). The problem with the X1 is that the wings aren't swept like the A4b or the X2 and are quite wide...this (from what I can tell) moves the CP way up front (hence a lot of nose weight needed) and causes more drag. Additionally the big wing makes it more susceptible to wind as well as imperfections in build affecting the straight line flight performance. Quite a lot of things working against this design rocket-wise; however it isn't impossible...just very tricky.

I've found two X-1 rocket builds on-line (including the Estes Canadian Arrow modification Aerostadt listed above) and both only lasted one flight and was destroyed on the second. I came close to getting a OOP large X1 rocket kit on ebay last year, but the other guy just wanted it more and outbid me (and I usually don't lose when I really want something...lol). I do plan on building one eventually (on my loooong list of to-do's), but I have to be realistic about the challenges this design presents.

The bigger question I guess is whether the OP is looking for an RC X1 plane with rocket boost while in flight or a X1 rocket with RC for recovery glide (or even used for small trim adjustments on boost).

Regardless, I think the one opinion almost everyone here shares is that the Bell X1 is AWESOME!!!

EDIT: Almost forgot...I also have a Madcow Bomarc almost ready for launch (was going to past weekend, but trying to resolve a wing warp issue) and also a High Power X-15 I'm itching to build. Yes...I'm a wing-nut!

KenECoyote said:

......The problem with the X1 is that the wings aren't swept like the A4b or the X2 and are quite wide...this (from what I can tell) moves the CP way up front (hence a lot of nose weight needed) and causes more drag. Additionally the big wing makes it more susceptible to wind as well as imperfections in build affecting the straight line flight performance. Quite a lot of things working against this design rocket-wise; however it isn't impossible...just very tricky.

I've found two X-1 rocket builds on-line (including the Estes Canadian Arrow modification Aerostadt listed above) and both only lasted one flight and was destroyed on the second. I came close to getting a OOP large X1 rocket kit on ebay last year, but the other guy just wanted it more and outbid me (and I usually don't lose when I really want something...lol). I do plan on building one eventually (on my loooong list of to-do's), but I have to be realistic about the challenges this design presents.

......

Click to expand...

Yes, having a straight wing more forward does move the CP forward when compared to the overall length of the model. And a model like the X-1 can certainly take substantial nose weight to fly correctly. Given all that, the basic rule is still unchanged: if it is balanced right, it will fly right and boost right. If it is not balanced right, we all know what happens, as you pointed out with those other X-1 models. The same thing happens to model airplanes.

Not sure I agree that winged rockets are "tricky". Lots of things appear tricky until you learn how to deal with them. Perhaps a little, compared to a normal basic 3FNC model rocket, but with decent building skills so that you can built a winged rocket accurately and following that most important rule about balance, not so very tricky.

I don't agree that a straight wing is more drag then a swept wing for the purposes of this discussion. At the speeds we operate winged hobby rockets at, there is no difference in the drag of a swept wing and a straight wing. No real advantage to the swept wing until you are at high subsonic, transonic or supersonic and I don't think anyone is considering an X-1 model going transonic here.

I agree Tom, it isn't hard to do, just needs to be done correctly, straight wing or not doesn't make a bunch of difference, especially at slow boost speeds like I prefer..and nose weight, well sometimes that helps to keep speeds lower as well and make the boost more tame...My A-4B has about two ounces of nose weight, but it floats due to the wing area...

Frank

You guys have much more experience than me on this (kudos to both of you for your fine machines!); however I'll believe it when I see it made into a retail rocket kit which works. This rocket plane is really popular, so why hasn't there been any successful rocket kit of it? At least I don't believe there has been one in recent years...hence the OP's question.

(Note that I'm saying this in reference to the X1 as a rocket first and RC rocket-boosted glider second.)

KenECoyote said:

You guys have much more experience than me on this (kudos to both of you for your fine machines!); however I'll believe it when I see it made into a retail rocket kit which works. This rocket plane is really popular, so why hasn't there been any successful rocket kit of it? At least I don't believe there has been one in recent years...hence the OP's question.

(Note that I'm saying this in reference to the X1 as a rocket first and RC rocket-boosted glider second.)

Click to expand...

Kit makers, particularly the large volume ones, would be worried about and turned off by the large amount of ballast required for an non gliding X-1 model and the likelihood of builders leaving out the ballast and trying to fly the model in an unstable condition. Ergo, I am certain we will never see mass market kits.

I might have to do a low power non gliding X-1 just to show it can be made to boost well... If not very high due to the ballast required.

burkefj said:

I agree Tom, it isn't hard to do, just needs to be done correctly, straight wing or not doesn't make a bunch of difference, especially at slow boost speeds like I prefer..and nose weight, well sometimes that helps to keep speeds lower as well and make the boost more tame...My A-4B has about two ounces of nose weight, but it floats due to the wing area...

Frank

Click to expand...

You know, I had a though about you and the X-1 related to an RC technique concerning building with Depron.

I recently ran across a great idea for creating compound curves in Depron sheet. They basically made a homemade version of an English wheel (that is normally used for slowly introducing curves in thin sheet metal) and they use it on Depron Depron does not have as much workability as thin aluminum, but it has some promise for gentle compound curves.

This technique might make it feasible to build a full fuse X-1 large and light RC rocket glider by sheeting the lightweight internal frame with scale like individual panels worked to the needed shape and hand fitted.

tab28682 said:

Kit makers, particularly the large volume ones, would be worried about and turned off by the large amount of ballast required for an non gliding X-1 model and the likelihood of builders leaving out the ballast and trying to fly the model in an unstable condition. Ergo, I am certain we will never see mass market kits.

I might have to do a low power non gliding X-1 just to show it can be made to boost well... If not very high due to the ballast required.

Click to expand...

Agreed about the limitations being a obstacle to a mass market kit; however even garage or custom/special run kits are extremely rare. I think I've only seen or heard of one or possibly two.

I don't mean to be a naysayer or wet blanket on this...I actually do enjoy challenges (I have a book of odd-roc designs I've come up with...including a kitchen sink rocket!); however I try to be realistic about limitations and challenges presented. I've already given thought to a custom X1 scratch build to help counter some of the limitations and have considered slightly shorter "hollow" main wings made with two thin sheets of carbon fiber for each side (hollow in the middle...almost like the XR-V boost glider fins, which is a copy of a Centuri design) and also adding in additional clear dorsal or tail fins to bring the CP back. I'll probably try this in the winter when regular launch season is over for me since I have a lot of rockets being built already.

Best wishes for great luck to all willing to take up the X1 challenge!

Also, for kit makers being interested, you want something that looks decent. The X-1 has compound shapes. Doing something simple like a nose cone and tail cone and tube don't always lead to something that looks sufficiently like an X-1 that would be interesting to people. Another option is a vacu formed shell over tubing, but again someone has to want to create that. I did that with a buzzbomb design for 24mm with the motor in the fuselage and basswood wings/fins that flew really well.

If you are talking a built up rocket kit with stringers/sheeting etc I don't know how many people would actually go for that.

For RC rocket gliders, the market is even smaller. In order to invest the time/effort to create a nice looking kit there has to be some way to get back that investment. The electric RC market is much bigger and so if you design something for that market that has the option to also fly as a rocket that might be workable. However if you do a complex kit you need to be able to mass produce it, there are startup costs even when working with a laser/cnc cutter for parts. It's pretty hard to break even with less than 100 kits sold going that route. And you have to built multiple models to be sure that all parts fit, do instructions etc, it's a lot of work. That's why for my rc bg kits, I chose the simple but unique designs that i could make templates and cut myself because it just wasn't cost effective to outsource that.

It's not that you can't do it, it is entirely feasable to do a rocket or rc bg model, kitting it is another matter.

I found another photo of a cruciform X-1 I designed for a guy in england, it turned out quite nice...that is something that would be kittable and I know flies well, but I don't know if there is any interest in this style of model.



Frank

There was also this thread on rcgroups from two years ago that, like a lot of these things, never seems to have gone anywhere...

https://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2060038

The laser cutting place still shows it as coming soon, bit it's been like that for two years I think.

Frank

burkefj said:

I found another photo of a cruciform X-1 I designed for a guy in england, it turned out quite nice...that is something that would be kittable and I know flies well, but I don't know if there is any interest in this style of model.
Frank

Click to expand...

That one looks good and gets around the forward CP issue by being a flat/profile kit and note that the wings are also set back. while these fly nicely and are great in their own regard, they don't quite satisfy those who are looking for a scale/semi-scale looking rocket kit (like those Micromeister showed above).

Side note is that I've been into RC for over 30 years now and probably buy a dozen RC planes and vehicles annually.

yes, the wings are pushed back an inch or more, mainly because the top profile pushes the CG actually further forward, but you gain in lifting area so usually it's a win. The CG on this model is actually an inch ahead of where the wing leading edge meets the fuse shape. I understand about profiles, they work really well but some people just don't care for the look. I personally would rather have a good flying plane than a good looking plane, though if you can combine both that's better

Frank

KenECoyote said:

That one looks good and gets around the forward CP issue by being a flat/profile kit and note that the wings are also set back. while these fly nicely and are great in their own regard, they don't quite satisfy those who are looking for a scale/semi-scale looking rocket kit (like those Micromeister showed above).

Click to expand...

burkefj said:

yes, the wings are pushed back an inch or more, mainly because the top profile pushes the CG actually further forward, but you gain in lifting area so usually it's a win. The CG on this model is actually an inch ahead of where the wing leading edge meets the fuse shape. I understand about profiles, they work really well but some people just don't care for the look. I personally would rather have a good flying plane than a good looking plane, though if you can combine both that's better

Frank

Click to expand...

Hi Frank,

I actually like profile planes as well...years ago I crashed many fighter-style RC planes in the small park by me until I got some flat fliers and while they were slow, they flew fantastic there and were actually enjoyable rather than nerve-wracking.

I think a reason for the big difference in opinion here is that I'm talking about a semi-scale X1 rocket (since that has been a personal long search), but you guys are talking about a rocket-boost/assist RC X1 plane. Both are really cool in my book.

Happy flights!

KenECoyote said:

That one looks good and gets around the forward CP issue by being a flat/profile kit and note that the wings are also set back. while these fly nicely and are great in their own regard, they don't quite satisfy those who are looking for a scale/semi-scale looking rocket kit (like those Micromeister showed above).

Side note is that I've been into RC for over 30 years now and probably buy a dozen RC planes and vehicles annually.

Click to expand...

Actually, the profile only fuse helps with the CP issue a little bit. The cruciform fuse with both plan view and profile representation of the fuse actually is a little worse in the CP department that the real shape. As the real shape of the fuse pitches, it is less affected by the local airstream than the cruciform is.

Like Frank said, the extra lift from the planform fuse is usually worth the extra ballast to get the CG where it needs to be on the cruciform fuse.

Getting back to the rocket non-gliding category of X-1 models, I still think it is not going to be hard to get a scale outline X-1 model to fly right. You simply have to be willing to use enough ballast to get the CG right and to have enough motor to get it off the rod or rail with enough velocity to be stable. Some model sizes and motor choices will work better than others.

If you are willing to do some subtle tweaking of the tail size and wing placement, it gets easier.

tab28682 said:

Actually, the profile only fuse helps with the CP issue a little bit. The cruciform fuse with both plan view and profile representation of the fuse actually is a little worse in the CP department that the real shape. As the real shape of the fuse pitches, it is less affected by the local airstream than the cruciform is.

Like Frank said, the extra lift from the planform fuse is usually worth the extra ballast to get the CG where it needs to be on the cruciform fuse.

Getting back to the rocket non-gliding category of X-1 models, I still think it is not going to be hard to get a scale outline X-1 model to fly right. You simply have to be willing to use enough ballast to get the CG right and to have enough motor to get it off the rod or rail with enough velocity to be stable. Some model sizes and motor choices will work better than others.

If you are willing to do some subtle tweaking of the tail size and wing placement, it gets easier.

Click to expand...

I was originally thinking that the profile shape brings the CP back since the large frontal face of the rocket isn't present, thus there is less frontal profile in the air stream and I wasn't thinking of the flight dynamics as it goes through the air; however the profile shape itself helps keep the rocket straight much as fins do, so it basically keeps the pitch from increasing too much. That in itself helps stabilize this design some more, also making it a better platform.

Hence I agree that the outline X1 shouldn't be too hard to get to fly right and likely makes a great RC flier (unless it's windy of course).

Note: I'm guessing all of this off the top of my head...been decades since I studied aeronautics and aerodynamics. :wink:

Here's a link to info on my 1/10 scale R/C Bell X-1 that flew on a G12 reload:

https://georgesrockets.com/GRP/Scale/X1.htm

All-Balsa. Used water ballast in the nose to keep it properly balanced due to propellant burnoff.

Wow! Beautiful X-1 George! We're honored by your presence!

Tank ballast was a great idea to get around the shift in CG! Did you think of this yourself?

I am totally stealing Georges water ballast tank setup for a couple of projects I have in mind....

We actually discussed using water ballast for the HobbyLab SR-71, but never got around to trying it before I left the company.

Back to launching scale X-1 models: Given that the exact or close to exact scale plastic model kits have been flown successfully, it seems clear that the only real obstacle to making any size model fly as a pure rocket is adding enough weight to be stable, plus accurate construction.

I'm starting to think that the solution is actually a compromise and similar to what was already being done and also mentioned by George and Frank...having RC control of the X-1 on boost makes a lot of sense. My rocket club doesn't allow RC last I checked, so I never investigated that avenue (aka forbidden fruit), but perhaps I'll try it on my local field more as a means to control the craft during boost.

KenECoyote said:

I'm starting to think that the solution is actually a compromise and similar to what was already being done and also mentioned by George and Frank...having RC control of the X-1 on boost makes a lot of sense. My rocket club doesn't allow RC last I checked, so I never investigated that avenue (aka forbidden fruit), but perhaps I'll try it on my local field more as a means to control the craft during boost.

Click to expand...

Given that RC rocket gliders are covered by the NAR safety code, why would a rocket club not allow a RC rocket glider to fly at one of their launches?

That would be the first time I have ever heard of a misguided rule like that.

tab28682 said:

Given that RC rocket gliders are covered by the NAR safety code, why would a rocket club not allow a RC rocket glider to fly at one of their launches?

That would be the first time I have ever heard of a misguided rule like that.

Click to expand...

This was listed in the rules:

"NO RC’s permitted at the field. Our insurance only covers rocketry-related activities so anything other than that is not permitted. If you have an RC device in a rocket, please see a board member."

There may be provision for exceptions, but I've never asked...I usually don't even get in all the launches I have planned and I probably shouldn't add to my build pile right now. :blush: I do plan on asking a board member about it though...they'll likely make exceptions based on their discretion. The members are generally really cool about things.

KenECoyote said:

This was listed in the rules:

"NO RC’s permitted at the field. Our insurance only covers rocketry-related activities so anything other than that is not permitted. If you have an RC device in a rocket, please see a board member."

There may be provision for exceptions, but I've never asked...I usually don't even get in all the launches I have planned and I probably shouldn't add to my build pile right now. :blush: I do plan on asking a board member about it though...they'll likely make exceptions based on their discretion. The members are generally really cool about things.

Click to expand...

I have heard of some launches and clubs that do not allow normal RC aircraft, helis, quads, etc, and that is their prerogative. However, NAR rules and insurance cover RC rocket gliders at a launch, so if the board members are reasonable at all, RC rocket gliders should be allowed

Right, they probably don't want general RC flying, but as the note says, if there is RC and rocket, contact the board...they should be supportive...and it is covered by NAR.