Swissyhawk
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2013
- Messages
- 261
- Reaction score
- 4
Why not use a JLCR?
Thanks! The parachute is a 18" Elliptical Parachute with a Cd of about 1.6.
Well, you've gotten this far, so as long as you're confident in your trackers and prepared for a long walk/drive, single deployment isn't specifically disallowed.
I assume your TAP/L3CCs have signed off?
Wow, that should be quite the hike. Bring it down fast, but not so fast as to cause damage that would invalidate the cert. Also, if you land outside the waiver cylinder that is a no no.
As said previously- you best be very certain of your tracking system. Might I suggest an rdf beacon as well as the gps. I have seen several gps flights lose lock and not regain lock hence being less than useful.
Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
Why not use a JLCR?
...The thought of being first was kind of cool and so was the idea of having this rocket be my level 3 project. To my knowledge the only other person to get their L3 with a high altitude and multiple Mach number breaking flight is Jim Jarvis. He flew to ~34kft and M2.5, if I remember correctly. So with some arbitrary goals set out, I had a very simple design philosophy and a plan.
The execution of this plan, proved to take a couple of years as building started and stopped multiple times due to life getting in the way. The following will be my story of building this project from then to now. The road is always a very scenic one.
Hope everyone can learn from my project whether it is what to do or what not to do. I make no claims that what I do is the best way or the right way lol.
And, by using EX hardware, turn this into a not-L3 flight. Could you peddle elsewhere? Not every thread is about whatever idea you've just had.One goal you could try is to replace the aluminum motor case with carbon composite. This will approximately half your dry weight, so nearly double your mass ratio. This can result in significantly better performance than 34kft and M2.5.
Bob Clark
One goal you could try is to replace the aluminum motor case with carbon composite. This will approximately half your dry weight, so nearly double your mass ratio. This can result in significantly better performance than 34kft and M2.5.
Bob Clark
Nose Cone:
As I mentioned earlier I opted to reuse a 6:1 (24") Von Karmen FWFG cone, that I had previously made. The cone utilized a aluminum tip, to aid in the protection against aerodynamic heating and thus preventing possible delamination of the fibers. The base diameter measures 105mm (4.125") OD, has a wall thickness of 3.18mm (0.125"), and weighs in at 785g (1.73! lb). That's the 'double wall,' showing its colors :eyepop:.
How does one make their own filament wound nose cone, do you have a filament winder? Im jealous, that looks pretty professional.
One goal you could try is to replace the aluminum motor case with carbon composite. This will approximately half your dry weight, so nearly double your mass ratio. This can result in significantly better performance than 34kft and M2.5.
Bob Clark
I suggest discussing your descent speed with your TAPs. I would not consider 100 ft/S a "safe speed". You wouldn't either if it hit you.
In my opinion, based on experience, you should be more worried about high altitude separation failures causing the rocket to come in ballistic. Or any separation failure for that matter. That is extremely dangerous and very scary and far as the electronics and charges can be mitigated. I have had rockets come in hot, closer than any single deploy rocket. In the maybe 20 single deploy flights I've been part of, we have never had a rocket land close by. I can understand how someone might think of it, especially if they have never really done it, but I would bet that the chances for harm are much lower than most other 'standard,' things done in this hobby.
It's not a matter of what I should be concerned about. A certification flight must land under control of a parachute. Single deployment, as long as there are redundant electronics triggering deployment, is within the rules. But your flight must land safely, which in my opinion includes a safe descent rate.
I was being polite. Honestly, it is subjective and until TRA specifies a descent rate range with what they want the certification flights to fall within, I will continuing doing what I KNOW works and has been proven to be safe based on past results, up until this point in time. I don't need you state the rules, as I already know them. Again, I appreciate your attempt at helping.
You ignored my previous question- has a TAP signed off on this descent rate and design?
Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
LOL.Nice attitude, not..... Do you know who Steve is?
And that L1/L2 bird screams low and slow to me....just sayin......
LOL.
Do you know who A5tr0 An0n is?
Flying 200 pound full beer kegs? No problem.
A 14 pound rocket descending at 100ft/s? "ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL SOMEBODY!?!?!
Hmmm..
Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
Nice attitude, not..... Do you know who Steve is?
And that L1/L2 bird screams low and slow to me....just sayin......
Do you know who A5tr0 An0n is?
Yes and no.
Somebody with an attitude.....
Somebody who needs to hide behind a handle. (A beef with this forum)
Somebody who has yet to do their L3 .... and unless they listen to their TAPs (if they have any), will probably never get their L3.
You ignored my previous question- has a TAP signed off on this descent rate and design?
Secondly, Steve Shannon is trying to help. Also, you do realize he is the President of Tripoli, I believe a TAP and Prefect, and one of the nicest guys in the hobby?
Finally, several of us have been nicely trying to point out what we know to be an issue. One that I would be surprised a TAP would sign off on. Perhaps if a group of experienced fliers is pointing out a weakness you should strongly think about reconsidering your position. To put it another way- if I were the RSO and you came to me with this rocket and told me you had an 18" chute with a planned 100'/second descent rate I would not let you fly it. Not being nasty- being very concerned for the safety of all.
Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
Enter your email address to join: