Help Support RocketryForum by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.


Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    27th August 2011
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    2,707

    Tank Killer--- update 11/15

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_5209.jpg 
Views:	107 
Size:	92.6 KB 
ID:	313531

    Last edited by BABAR; 15th November 2017 at 11:17 PM.
    It is amazing what you can do when you don't have a choice.

    Smart people learn from their mistakes.
    REALLY SMART PEOPLE learn from OTHERS' mistakes.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    26th June 2016
    Location
    Mobile, AL, USA
    Posts
    1,236
    A NC for a Panzerfaust! Lol!

    NAR # 37682

    All the weird kids are doing it!

    If at first you don't succeed... You're about average.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    14th July 2015
    Location
    Randolph, NJ
    Posts
    3,233
    Looks like you have the whole airframe ready to go. How about the fin "can"?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    5th December 2013
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    6,977
    Should float if you have a water landing.

    John S. ---- NAR #96911 ---- TRA #15253 ---- MDRA #067 ---- BARC #028
    L1, 3/15/14: Aerotech Sumo, CTI H133BS
    L2, 6/21/14: Giant Leap Vertical Assault, CTI J240RL
    L3, 3/12/16: MAC Performance Radial Flyer, CTI M1101WH
    Altitude: 13,028', L3 flight; Speed: Mach ???, L3 flight

  5. #5
    Join Date
    27th August 2011
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    2,707
    Okay, the creative juices are flowing, or perhaps in this case swirling
    I have only had one other rocket that just BEGGED for rear ejection more than this one, that was the Uranus Explorer

    https://www.rocketreviews.com/umm-me...om-markel.html



    This one however will have a twist.
    First, the nose itself is probably the toughest part of the rocket, so as opposed to other noses, having this one land nose first seems logical.

    Second, I put a dowel through the nose as a way of attachment, thinking to add a short segment of body tube either as a shoulder or even a short length of tube THEN a shoulder. But if I just glue it onto the tube, makes it even simpler, and just go eject.

    But third, and perhaps most mucho coolo (hey, I don't get out much okay?) I can leave the dowel on, put piston plug an the tail end of the dowel say 3 inches forward of the front no of the engine, then have to long tube inner rear eject simply slide off the piston. Will have to diagram this on my desk top computer to demonstrate. I have never seen this done before, but it seems like it incredibly simplifies the rear end eject mechanism,.
    Last edited by BABAR; 3rd March 2017 at 11:40 PM.
    It is amazing what you can do when you don't have a choice.

    Smart people learn from their mistakes.
    REALLY SMART PEOPLE learn from OTHERS' mistakes.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    14th July 2015
    Location
    Randolph, NJ
    Posts
    3,233
    Quote Originally Posted by BABAR View Post
    Okay, the creative juices are flowing, or perhaps in this case swirling
    I have only had one other rocket that just BEGGED for rear ejection more than this one, that was the Uranus Explorer
    I had forgotten that build was also yours.

    Will have to diagram this on my desk top computer to demonstrate. I have never seen this done before, but it seems like it incredibly simplifies the rear end eject mechanism,.
    I will await a picture.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    23rd November 2013
    Posts
    2,217
    I recommend using gas for your rear ejection method..

  8. #8
    Join Date
    27th August 2011
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    2,707
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowpuller View Post
    I recommend using gas for your rear ejection method..
    There will be sulfuric fumes all right. In fact this is one of my few scratchers (hmmmm, that in itself may be a less than optimal term for a rear ejection model) that will require an engine hook, as within the small initial space for the piston pressure tube the gas pressure will build up pretty fast.
    It is amazing what you can do when you don't have a choice.

    Smart people learn from their mistakes.
    REALLY SMART PEOPLE learn from OTHERS' mistakes.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    14th July 2015
    Location
    Randolph, NJ
    Posts
    3,233
    Quote Originally Posted by BABAR View Post
    within the small initial space for the piston pressure tube the gas pressure will build up pretty fast.
    I know how that goes.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    27th August 2011
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    2,707
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Tank Killer.jpg 
Views:	88 
Size:	66.8 KB 
ID:	313611

    Okay, here is diagram. Will probably double wall the BT-5 pressure chamber section, will also have an internal roll of aluminum from a soda can on the inside for flame retardant. Reason is that the ejection charge from the 24 mm engine is being ducted through the BT-5, thus a LOT of heat going through a very small tube. Plus whenever I see an engine fired on a stand so you can watch it, after the ejection charge there is a persistent flame that burns for a few seconds and extends maybe 2 or 3 inches from the forward end of the casing. I think this may be why Kevlar thread attached to motor mount and otherwise unprotected burns through a lot.

    Main reason for down-ducting of the BT-50 to BT-5: For me, biggest problem is rear engine eject models in not a lot of space for the recovery device between the engine pod tube and the outer fuselage tube. Downscaling from BT-50 inside a BT-60 to a BT-5 inside a BT-60 gives me a WHOLE lot more space.


    The red "shelf" section is sort of a centering ring around the mid portion of the BT-5. It is attached to the BT-5 but NOT to the outer fuselage. It is very loose, mainly serves to nudge the parachute out with the engine pod assembly..

    The grey blue "guides" around the motor mount likewise are centering rings attached to Motor Mount BT-50 but not to the outer fuselage. Just keeps the engine pod aligned within the outer fuselage.
    It is amazing what you can do when you don't have a choice.

    Smart people learn from their mistakes.
    REALLY SMART PEOPLE learn from OTHERS' mistakes.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    27th March 2013
    Location
    Has Changed
    Posts
    9,559
    I think there's a possible name for this... John...



    As for the rear eject, if it doesn't work, I'd just toss the whole idea into the crapper.
    Dreaming of making the rockets I dreamed of as a kid (and then some).


    NAR L1 Cert flight: Sheridan, Oregon, USA. Sept. 19, 2015. Flew Deep Space OFFl on an I357T-14A Blue Thunder

  12. #12
    Join Date
    29th July 2012
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by BABAR View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Tank Killer.jpg 
Views:	88 
Size:	66.8 KB 
ID:	313611

    Okay, here is diagram. Will probably double wall the BT-5 pressure chamber section, will also have an internal roll of aluminum from a soda can on the inside for flame retardant. Reason is that the ejection charge from the 24 mm engine is being ducted through the BT-5, thus a LOT of heat going through a very small tube. Plus whenever I see an engine fired on a stand so you can watch it, after the ejection charge there is a persistent flame that burns for a few seconds and extends maybe 2 or 3 inches from the forward end of the casing. I think this may be why Kevlar thread attached to motor mount and otherwise unprotected burns through a lot.

    Main reason for down-ducting of the BT-50 to BT-5: For me, biggest problem is rear engine eject models in not a lot of space for the recovery device between the engine pod tube and the outer fuselage tube. Downscaling from BT-50 inside a BT-60 to a BT-5 inside a BT-60 gives me a WHOLE lot more space.


    The red "shelf" section is sort of a centering ring around the mid portion of the BT-5. It is attached to the BT-5 but NOT to the outer fuselage. It is very loose, mainly serves to nudge the parachute out with the engine pod assembly..

    The grey blue "guides" around the motor mount likewise are centering rings attached to Motor Mount BT-50 but not to the outer fuselage. Just keeps the engine pod aligned within the outer fuselage.
    The one issue I can see is the eject pressure will be very high, probably over 200 PSI except for leaking. The piston won't really seal that well except for gunking making it tight later if it gets that far. If the pressure were somehow reduced the piston area is small so the total ejective force is low, so can't do a lot of that. Other things is I don't see a stop to keep the MMT from moving forward and if the shelf ring intended to be loose and the stop is behind it could hang up. And it's all delicate. What I see is a possibility of just leaving out the piston and dowel and just using the inner tube for bypassing the ejection and also wadding, with probably the shelf ring full diameter and maybe providing the stop. The piston would eliminate the need for wadding but that's the main thing it buys you. Rear eject also works without wadding if there's enough space for the ejection to go to and the shock cord out the back, but I'm not sure if you'll have enough protection without any. As to shielding, if the BT50 tube can be extended at all it would help and I'd probably concentrate on getting some epoxy e.g. JB Weld coasting the corner there. And while it's a big concern having enough space for a parachute with rear eject, your scale is closer to BT50 or even 29 mm (are you sure D size motors are enough?) inside BT55. Inside a long piece of BT60, a long enough piece of BT50 might be fine or a step down to BT20 would be less fragile.

    As to rear eject generally, I started off building rockets that stood and landed on their fins and a rear eject that neither stood or landed on its fins, so now I've started to fix that disparity.
    :dark:

  13. #13
    Join Date
    27th August 2011
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    2,707
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0182.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	142.7 KB 
ID:	314099
    Lucy likes it!Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0184.jpg 
Views:	43 
Size:	174.8 KB 
ID:	314100
    Last edited by BABAR; 8th March 2017 at 06:43 AM.
    It is amazing what you can do when you don't have a choice.

    Smart people learn from their mistakes.
    REALLY SMART PEOPLE learn from OTHERS' mistakes.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    27th August 2011
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    2,707
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_5247.jpg 
Views:	28 
Size:	165.9 KB 
ID:	314557Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_5248.jpg 
Views:	30 
Size:	105.7 KB 
ID:	314558

    Primer on. Letters on white primer background, will primer over the letters (white primer), then paint green and pull of letters.
    The dots are little stick ons, trying to simulate rivets.
    It is amazing what you can do when you don't have a choice.

    Smart people learn from their mistakes.
    REALLY SMART PEOPLE learn from OTHERS' mistakes.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    27th August 2011
    Location
    West Tennessee
    Posts
    2,707
    Successful Flight of Tank Killer

    First flight with rear eject was failure. Thought I was assuring engine retention with an engine hook (I usually use tape) Apparently hook not tight enough, engine ejected, pod didn't. Lawn dart. Interestingly I had two police officers who stopped to watch the flight (park was empty.) They didn't notice anything, thought it was cool. I wasn't ABOUT to say anything.

    Rebuilt for forward ejection, Had a great flight on D12-3. Altitude I am guessing about 300 feet. Angled slightly into wind, blew back and landed about 75 feet from pad.

    I like the look of this one.

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Tank Killer.jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	123.7 KB 
ID:	332138  
    It is amazing what you can do when you don't have a choice.

    Smart people learn from their mistakes.
    REALLY SMART PEOPLE learn from OTHERS' mistakes.

Similar Threads

  1. Goblin nose cone, pre-packed with epoxy inside nose cone?
    By Vigilante_A-20_DEMON in forum Low Power Rocketry (LPR)
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 21st October 2015, 03:23 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21st May 2012, 03:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •