L3 Winter Build Thread - 3/4 Scale PAC-3 Patriot

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Change of plans. One of my TAPs, Tim Lehr, strongly cautioned me about breeze through and sunlight issues with so many 3/8" holes. Obviously, I trust others with more experience than me. I've built a lot of scratch models and a few scratch HPR models. My past builds have been 4" airframes with 3 holes max, so it's an education for me to deal with a few issues on a larger airframe. Partly why I went with this larger scratch build.

I'll follow his advice and also see if I can add scientific backing into my documentation, so others can use it as an educational reference.
 
breeze through and sunlight issues

Since I've got a 5.5" diam x 12" bay in my future, I'm also interested in these factors.
Sunlight issues? I thought that was only a problem for older style altimeters? Did he say more on the reasoning behind this?


The scientist in me is having little data-gasms at this. Gotta read and digest what's here.

https://www.offwegorocketry.com/userfiles/file/Documents/Static Port Holes.pdf

I keep forgetting Gary's website has such great reference material on it.

Those two paragraphs are fantastic. I find myself slowly slipping away from the rigor as my rocketry move farther from college competition into personal pastime. Thank you for sharing
 
Ok. After reading and digesting the paper on static port holes, they bring up some very good points.

The rule of thumb was 0.25" static ports for every 100 cc of payload bay. That had no scientific foundation. It was just a general guideline based on some empirical observations.

The old equations also did not take into account the speed of the rocket. If I strapped my rocket to a balloon and let it drift slowly upward, I can practically get by with no holes to let the pressure normalize since it's not a hermetically sealed compartment. However, if I blast upward at high mach with a VMax motor, I'm going to need larger holes to let the rapidly escaping gas keep up with the atmospheric changes. Velocity of the rocket must be accounted for.

Also, lower altitudes have higher density air. The fluid dynamics of higher density gases would mean they escape more slowly through a static port. So starting altitudes closer to sea level will need slightly larger ports. Temperature also affects this.

I'm using the more advanced calculator provided by OffWeGoRocketry. Here's their link.

https://www.offwegorocketry.com/userfiles/file/Calculators/Static Port Holes.xls

I'm plugging in the following:

Highest Launch Temperature: 95 °F
Lowest Launch Altitude: 459 ft (use https://veloroutes.org/elevation/?location=addieville,+IL&units=e to get this info. I plugged in our club's HPR site)
Maximum Velocity: 824 ft/s (I got this from OpenRocket using an M1969 planned motor)
Altimeter Bay Radius 3.875 in
Altimeter Bay Length: 22 in
Number of Ports: 3

The calculator says 3 ports with a diameter of 22/64 in (0.34375 in). That's just about perfectly a 11/32" drill bit (which I have).

I don't see anything in there about sunlight or cross flow specifically. They do recommend ports be evenly spaced to prevent turbulence. And the drilled holes need to be nice and square.
 
Last edited:
When the port holes seem too large, make the empty volume smaller. I fill my large AV bays (6-16" x 12-32") with pink foam. It weighs almost nothing and it's easy to cut rectangular slabs or circular disks that fit into the AV bay. Punch holes through the foam for any threaded rods. Subtract the volume of the pink stuff and drill smaller holes! I can usually get rid of 50-80% of the internal volume with a few foam chunks.

P.S. Don't get carried away, preserve an open airway from the external holes to the altimeters. :)
 
Since I've got a 5.5" diam x 12" bay in my future, I'm also interested in these factors.
Sunlight issues? I thought that was only a problem for older style altimeters? Did he say more on the reasoning behind this?

I was under the impression that sunlight hitting the sensor itself on some altimeters could confuse the altimeter enough to fire charges at the wrong time. Manufacturers started mounted the pressure sensors to the back side of the boards and adding logic to prevent this. If your board isn't visible from the port, i think you should be fine. I'm not the expert on this one though...

Breeze has been all but eliminated as an issue on all but the windiest days by better launch detect logic, g-switches, and accelerometers. This was also the reason for everyone going to 3 ports instead of just one. Wind has occasionally caused pressure variations great enough to fool a barometric only altimeter into thinking it was flying while it was waiting on the pad.
 
When the port holes seem too large, make the empty volume smaller. I fill my large AV bays (6-16" x 12-32") with pink foam. It weighs almost nothing and it's easy to cut rectangular slabs or circular disks that fit into the AV bay. Punch holes through the foam for any threaded rods. Subtract the volume of the pink stuff and drill smaller holes! I can usually get rid of 50-80% of the internal volume with a few foam chunks.

P.S. Don't get carried away, preserve an open airway from the external holes to the altimeters. :)

Some good advice there.

Light sensitivity of electronics is real. Be mindful of it.
 
Velocity of the rocket must be accounted for.

Only if you require accurate pressure readings while at high velocity.

You don't need that accuracy to control deployment since the rockets vertical velocity will be approaching zero at apogee. What is important is the time required for changes in external pressure to make it into the altimeter bay. A good way to work with that sort of problem is to calculate the time constant. (The time required to reach some threshold, usually 0.707, of a step change.) Dr. Bob Krech published such an equation at Rocketry Online many years ago.

If your altimeter uses acceleration to control apogee deployment then venting is almost a non-issue. I routinely fly an AltAcc using only the two holes required for the arming screw switch and status LED. That is more than enough to allow for timely deployment of the main.
 
Got all my shear pin holes, metal screw holes, vents, and payload bay pressure holes drilled. Next up, cutting shear pin cutters to epoxy around their respective holes. When I was getting ready to drill, a club member asked if I was going to offset my front strakes by 45 degrees so they aren't in line with the rear fins. He was worried about turbulent air flow messing up the fins.

The front strakes have only a 1.5" span and are 1/4" thick. I wasn't worried, but I dug up a computational fluid dynamics program called EasyCFD. It's pretty easy to get the hang of. The simulation results told me what I suspected. The turbulent air from the back end of the strakes settled down to laminar flow well before the air reached the rear fins. I simmed air flow velocities from mach 0.75 to mach 1.3 and saw no real problems. My cert flight will be around mach 0.75.

CFD Analysis 2.jpg
 
Uh oh. Loki?

So...

I have my final weights on the rocket plus ranges for the motors. I went ahead and ordered the laundry that is appropriately sized for this rocket. I went with a set of Rocketman chutes.

Drogue: 4' ProXP
Main: 14' Standard chute
Pilot: 4' Standard chute (the nose cone separates from the body)
Deployment Bag: DB14

Looking at motors on my sims, I'm still right in the sweet spot for a Loki M1969. It gets off the rail fast, has an 9:1 TTW, and has an apogee of 6,500'. Max speed is a gently mach 0.67. Perfect!

However, I see that Loki isn't taking orders for an indeterminate time. Anyone heard an ETA?
CTI supply is still awful in the larger motors.
Aerotech supply is ok, but quite a bit more expensive than Loki

With Loki, I was looking at a cost of:
76/8000 complete set: $370
M1979: $435
Total: $805

As a backup, I'm looking at the Aerotech DMS M1350. It's quite a bit lighter, so I'm still ok with a 6.5:1 TTW.
 
Uh oh. Loki?

So...

I have my final weights on the rocket plus ranges for the motors. I went ahead and ordered the laundry that is appropriately sized for this rocket. I went with a set of Rocketman chutes.

Drogue: 4' ProXP
Main: 14' Standard chute
Pilot: 4' Standard chute (the nose cone separates from the body)
Deployment Bag: DB14

Looking at motors on my sims, I'm still right in the sweet spot for a Loki M1969. It gets off the rail fast, has an 9:1 TTW, and has an apogee of 6,500'. Max speed is a gently mach 0.67. Perfect!

However, I see that Loki isn't taking orders for an indeterminate time. Anyone heard an ETA?
CTI supply is still awful in the larger motors.
Aerotech supply is ok, but quite a bit more expensive than Loki

With Loki, I was looking at a cost of:
76/8000 complete set: $370
M1979: $435
Total: $805

As a backup, I'm looking at the Aerotech DMS M1350. It's quite a bit lighter, so I'm still ok with a 6.5:1 TTW.

Loki is still in full production . Scott is simply not taking orders thru his website . Contact your local Loki vendor to get your motor. I personaly would never use a M1350 for a cert fight . Also last I heard , they have been recalled due to case failures.

Eric
 
Yeah. No Loki at Wildman.
Chris has the load, but no hardware.
Teddy has the hardware.

Was hoping to not have to order from two places to cut shipping a bit, but beggar's can't be choosers.

I'm not flying until MWP, so I still have time to see if Loki sorts out their production backlog.

If I miss MWP, no biggie. Our club now has a TAP, so I can always launch at Addieville in 2018. Would prefer MWP, though.
 
Updates!

It's time to start tying everything together with shear pins and metal screws and then on to prime+paint.

First up is drilling for the shear pins and metal screws. Normally, with smaller rockets, I'll simply lay the frame out on my rack and drill the holes. However, since this is such a large and long model, when laid out, the seams between sections open up by about 1-2 mm due to all the weight trying to bend at the joints. It's not much, but I want to ensure a straight, tight fit.

To solve this, I assembled the rocket and let it sit upright. Duct tape secured everything to make sure it didn't get rotated accidentally while I was walking around drilling holes. Also, you can see in the image that I glued on short wooden tabs. These are alignment tabs to make sure I always match up the same holes when assembling on launch days. It takes out the guesswork. For smaller rockets, I'll use toothpicks. I simply epoxy it across the joint and saw the tab in half.

Here you can also see the registration marks where I'll drill.

20170806_170439.jpg

I'm using 4-40 shear pins, so I drilled a pilot hole and hardened with a dab of laminating epoxy. After curing, I bored out the pilot with a #43 tap to cut threads for the nylon screws. I tested each, and they screwed in nice and tight. Each tube has 4 x 4-40 shear pins. Note, only tap one tube. Don't cut threads into both holes. Otherwise, you run the risk of cross-threading and having trouble getting the screw in straight. Later on, I'll epoxy in a metal plate as a cutter.

I used 10-32 metal screws to join sections that I don't wish to separate. These were drilled out with a 3/16 drill bit and also hardened with laminating epoxy. I want these to be tight and secure, so I epoxied on nuts to the insides of the tubes. These are special nuts made for epoxy attachment. They have a mesh grid to allow solid attachment of adhesive.

First, I used nylon 10-32 screws to hold the nuts in place. JB Weld was spread thinly across the mesh and the tube. After curing, the nylon screws could be easily backed out since epoxy doesn't stick to nylon.

Here's the progression series:

20170807_121535.jpg
20170807_144813.jpg
20170807_185758.jpg

Before adding in the fin filets, I wanted to fix a few depressions in the tubes where the mylar didn't have good contact. It leaves a small depression where the weave is more exposed. For small jobs where I want a smooth tube, I typically use Bondo. However, this larger tube means I need more working time. That's when I prefer to use Evercoat Rage Ulta Xtra. This filler is lightweight, sands smooth with no real pinholes, and has a 40 minute working time while not sagging at all. I love it for jobs like this. It's supposedly greener chemistry, but it's still stinky as hell. I got it at a reasonable price from here:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/142060074703

1 gallon will last a LONG time. :p

After filling, I went over everything with an 80 grit palm sander. The tubes came out pretty smooth to the touch. I have trouble seeing if there are other imperfections in this glossy epoxy, so I'll need to wait until I shoot it with gray primer to see where else I need to smooth out.

Next up was the fin filets. I'm using a 1/2" PVC pipe to drag out the filets. To mark off where I need to tape, I use an old trick. Color the pipe with black marker and drag it across the fin and body like if I was smoothing out the filet. This leaves a black line exactly where I need to tape off. If I get it just right, the epoxy won't have a transition bump that needs sanding at all.

Here you can see the lines before I tape it all off.

20170813_213435.jpg

And then after taping... You can also see all the sanded down filler. Trust me, it feels smooth. :p

20170813_220516.jpg

I did the same marking and taping for the front strakes. After taping off, a filet of RocketPoxy was added and smoothed out. Since RocketPoxy has a honey-like consistency, it's great for filets as it will settle a bit and smooth itself out very well. The filets for the front strakes were dragged smooth using a popsicle craft stick. I didn't like the results as much as when I use PVC pipes wetted with isopropanol. I have better luck with that, but I wanted these filets to be smaller up front.

I let the epoxy cure for about 20' before pulling off the tape and giving it a final smoothing out with a gloves finger wetted with isopropyl alcohol.

Two filets curing a bit before tape removal.

20170813_151723.jpg
 
Last edited:
Remaining to-do:

Drill out payload bay ports
Epoxy strengthen fin leading edges
Add pressure vent to lower and upper airframes
Prime + sand sand sand sand + paint
Ground testing
Motor assembly

I was able to get a source for the M1969 and 76/8000 hardware, so I have those ordered. I have the grains now. Waiting on the liner and hardware for a few weeks before they arrive.

Still on track to fly this at MWP. Here's hoping for a less windy MWP than last year.
 
The final painting begin! I just put down the base paint of hi gloss steel gray. I'll let it cure a couple days and then mask off for the red and white. At 6' away, it all looks really nice and smooth. Up close, I see lots of little lumps, bumps, pinholes.... Prepping and painting is not my strong suit. My process was:

1. skim all around with Evercoat Rage Ultra XRA to fill pits and pinholes
2. sand smooth with 60 grit and a palm sander (repeat steps 1 and 2 a couple times as I keep spotting more pits)
3. prime with duplicolor high build gray primer
4. wet sand smooth with 120 grit sandpaper by hand
5. prime with duplicolor high build red primer
6. wet sand smooth with 120 grit sandpaper by hand
7. wet sand smooth 320 grit sandpaper by hand until the surface is shiny smooth
8. 2 x coat of paint waiting 20' in between coats. My base color is Kylon Supermaxx high gloss smoke gray

The results so far...

20170820_154859.jpg

My stickers from Stickershock just shipped. Woo! After I put those on, I'll protect them with a coat of high gloss clear coat before polishing with Meguire's.
 
Here's the paint scheme I mostly following.

Lockheed-Martin-Pens-Contract-for-First-Production-order-of-PAC-3-MSE.jpg
 
That outdoor shot of the primer stage really shows the beautiful job you did on the fins.

Thanks! The one finishing area I'm decent at are filets. They came out with transitions that smoothly melted into the body, so I didn't have to sand them snooth at all. The rest of the body isn't so great with little blemishes all around. Can't see them with the dull primer, but a high gloss really makes them pop. Looks good at a small distance, though.
 
Sounds like a wise move. Personally I think when it comes to working with military source designs that have some degree of instability built in (this, AMRAAM, HAWK etc) 'inspired by' is the way to go, rather than 'exact copy' - apart from the other obvious factors, it's also where your own creativity comes in. Good luck with the cert.
 
Back
Top