Considering The Dominator 4

[DRAGON64]

I've looked at this rocket long enough. I have compared it to all of the Extreme kits from Wildman, and Madcow and the Dominator 4 appeals to me most. Now I would like to hear from those that may own and have flown the Dominator 4; what do you think of the rocket?

[G_T]

I have one of the kits, but I was modifying the heck out of it. To start with, by my analysis it is rather overstable with any motor I would choose to put into it. So some fin chopping was in order. Since I was modifying it, I went quite a bit farther. In any event that project is on hold until I get the 6" Sprite flown. I missed the LDRS opportunity.

If someone wants my modded design let me know and I'll post a rocksim for it. Smaller fins of a bit different shape, and quite a bit shorter overall, tailcone retainer. Tether deploy, NC volume used for drogue. Intended for a wee bit more altitude...

I do think the Dominator 4 is a pretty rocket, with pretty good components, so I bought the kit. But by the time I get done with it, it won't even resemble the original design. So others should comment about the Dominator 4 kit and design.

Unfortunately, working quickly with a friend, one of the fins got chopped wrong... Anyone have a D.4 fin they can part with?

Gerald

[cwbullet]

Great kit. I have it next on my build list. I am planning on using an aluminum thrust plate. It has high quality parts.

[mjhall]

I recieved this as a Christmas present from my lovely wife. I made no major modifications to this kit other than to apply tip to tip carbon fiber fabric to the fins. This rocket is a real horse!
If built properly I am certain it can handle anything you give it!!

[Brent]

Great kit. I have an Aeropac tailcone retainer on mine. I think it will handle any motor you throw at it. The last flight on mine was on a L1150. The Stratologger reported back 7993 ft.

[CarVac]

Impact damage? I'm imagining throwing a 40-pound N motor at a rocket and seeing if it survives...

[DRAGON64]

Thanks for the input. Regarding the fins... I'm not a fan of the fin design, the concave cut at the trailing edge is ugly. If go ahead and get the kit, I was thinking I would go and chop the fins to look more like a Mongoose fins.

I was looking at going for gold, and upgrading the bulk plates to the dual charge canisters, adding the Aeropac tailcone retainer, and the nice Rocketry Warehouse 84" star-chute.

[GaryT]

J:
Depending on the motor you put in the 84" Star Chute will most likely be way too big, I use that on rockets up to 40lbs and still get a nice slow descent rate. The 62" would probably be a better choice.

Here is the 62" StarChute on my 4" ARROW 4.

[DRAGON64]

J:
Depending on the motor you put in the 84" Star Chute will most likely be way too big, I use that on rockets up to 40lbs and still get a nice slow descent rate. The 62" would probably be a better choice.

Here is the 62" StarChute on my 4" ARROW 4.

That would save me even more money on the purchase if I could get away with the 62" purchase. The largest motor that I have planed will be the equivalent of the Loki 6000ns motor. how much does your Arrow 4 weigh?

[sodmeister]

I shall have to look into those Star Chutes ,never noticed /heard of them before ,or noticed for that matter.I was very pleased with this vendor for my first order ,so can see several of these chutes in my near future !

Thanks for mentioning them !!

Paul T

[DRAGON64]

I am told that these chutes are built like a tank... not to mention they look awesome when deployed!

[sodmeister]

I am told that these chutes are built like a tank... not to mention they look awesome when deployed!

That`s what caught my eye ,the looks and the quality !


Paul T

[jsargevt]

Regarding the fins... I'm not a fan of the fin design, the concave cut at the trailing edge is ugly. If go ahead and get the kit, I was thinking I would go and chop the fins to look more like a Mongoose fins.

Funny how different looks appeal to different people! I like the cut on the trailing edge - it gives it a unique look among 3-fin design.

A sweet-looking kit for sure. I like the additions you're planning on as well. Be sure to show it off when you're all done!

[GaryT]

The StarChutes are awesome! I've used both the 62" and 84" a ton of times.

My ARROW 4 all loaded up no motor is 13lbs, I also use the 62" in my PR 5.5" Nike Smoke though which is 16lbs all loaded up no motor.

Here is the StarChute large or 84" on my FORMULA 150 at LDRS, Rocket was 40lbs on the pad with a CTI M2250CS.

[DRAGON64]

The StarChutes are awesome! I've used both the 62" and 84" a ton of times.

My ARROW 4 all loaded up no motor is 13lbs, I also use the 62" in my PR 5.5" Nike Smoke though which is 16lbs all loaded up no motor.

Here is the StarChute large or 84" on my FORMULA 150 at LDRS, Rocket was 40lbs on the pad with a CTI M2250CS.

Thanks Gary, that is the info I needed, very helpful.

Funny how different looks appeal to different people! I like the cut on the trailing edge - it gives it a unique look among 3-fin design.

A sweet-looking kit for sure. I like the additions you're planning on as well. Be sure to show it off when you're all done!

Don't get me wrong, of all of the Extreme Machines on the market, the Dominator is by far the better looking. I just prefer the edges and straight lines as opposed to curves. I would hope to shaop the fins closer to a Mongoose look when done.

[GaryT]

Thanks Gary, that is the info I needed, very helpful.

No problem John, The Dominator & StarChute make a great Combo.

[Kaycee]

My Dominator has been heavily modified...so much so that I don't call it a Dominator. I changed the fin shape, chopped the tubes where the motor is the coupler, has a very small floating electronics bay, is minimum diameter and it is 6-1/2" tall. I'll be using the 62" star chute.

Here is a picture just before T2T fiberglassing, shown with a 6G 98mm CTI case.

[DRAGON64]

While I am considering the Dominator 4, I inquired with Rocketry Warehouse about the Mad Dog 4. I asked what it would cost to upgrade the Mad Dog to make it an extreme machine... The answer is quite tempting. The Mad Dog would have an upgraded nosecone to the Filament wound with metal tip, a 75mm motor mount, and the AV bay lids with dual ejection canisters. All I would need to do is add the boat tail retainer and 62" Star Chute. The total is about $100 cheaper than the Dominator.

The only other benefit, besides cost, that the Mad Dog has over the Dominator, is the fin design. I like it a little better. Color tubing aside, I may end up jumping ship... We'll see what the Dominator R2 has in store first. It too is a rather elusive minx, that will have a tempting price tag I hear.

[G_T]

I have the Mad Dog 4 and have flown it a number of times, up to the limit of what it will take in motors and just under Mach and just under 10kft. It is a fine rocket. Mine is heavy and overbuilt a bit, and has extra electronics like a GoPro pointed out the side.

However, I'd not be using a 7600 M4000 like one I static tested a couple months back. With the Dominator 4, you might be tempted. With the Mad Dog 4, you might be shredded.

One of the differences between the two rockets is the thickness of the fins. The Dominator 4 fins are much stiffer - and much larger. Too large, really. The rocket is overstable by more than I'd tolerate, with any motor that could be put into it. Wildman's fins are a bit more reasonably sized IMO for this sort of rocket. I haven't run the numbers on the Mad Dog fins to see what the stability looks like with various length 76mm motors (stability changes based on motor length, and based on how much fuel has been burned). But that is part of the analysis you should do if you are thinking about making such a change to the rocket. 76mm motors are much heavier than 54mm.

Actually, I'm not sure the lower tube on the Mad Dog 4 is long enough for a 7600 motor, even if you tether deploy. You'll have to check the lengths.

I believe the electronics bay / coupler is a couple inches longer for the Dominator 4. So the coupling may be a bit stronger as well. This is not a bad idea for a rocket that could certainly hit Mach 1.5 or so.

Even for the Dominator 4, I'm substituting plywood rings for the motor mount. I think it is more rigid that way, though probably not necessary given the through the wall fin mounting. I picture a thousand pounds of thrust and consider whether I think the structure will hold it well. If not, I modify.

I included a picture of roughly what I'm doing with my Dominator 4, shown loaded with a 7600 motor. I have weight allowance for video, so if you are skipping that, knock a pound or so off. I call the new design Thorn.

Gerald

[andrewlathrop87]

Whats the "Dominator R2"? Is it different than the Regular "Dominator"?

[DRAGON64]

Whats the "Dominator R2"? Is it different than the Regular "Dominator"?

Red accents as I hear it...

I have the Mad Dog 4 and have flown it a number of times, up to the limit of what it will take in motors and just under Mach and just under 10kft. It is a fine rocket. Mine is heavy and overbuilt a bit, and has extra electronics like a GoPro pointed out the side.

However, I'd not be using a 7600 M4000 like one I static tested a couple months back. With the Dominator 4, you might be tempted. With the Mad Dog 4, you might be shredded.

One of the differences between the two rockets is the thickness of the fins. The Dominator 4 fins are much stiffer - and much larger. Too large, really. The rocket is overstable by more than I'd tolerate, with any motor that could be put into it. Wildman's fins are a bit more reasonably sized IMO for this sort of rocket. I haven't run the numbers on the Mad Dog fins to see what the stability looks like with various length 76mm motors (stability changes based on motor length, and based on how much fuel has been burned). But that is part of the analysis you should do if you are thinking about making such a change to the rocket. 76mm motors are much heavier than 54mm.

Actually, I'm not sure the lower tube on the Mad Dog 4 is long enough for a 7600 motor, even if you tether deploy. You'll have to check the lengths.

I believe the electronics bay / coupler is a couple inches longer for the Dominator 4. So the coupling may be a bit stronger as well. This is not a bad idea for a rocket that could certainly hit Mach 1.5 or so.

Even for the Dominator 4, I'm substituting plywood rings for the motor mount. I think it is more rigid that way, though probably not necessary given the through the wall fin mounting. I picture a thousand pounds of thrust and consider whether I think the structure will hold it well. If not, I modify.

I included a picture of roughly what I'm doing with my Dominator 4, shown loaded with a 7600 motor. I have weight allowance for video, so if you are skipping that, knock a pound or so off. I call the new design Thorn.

Gerald

Gerald,

Thanks for the run down, it is great to hear from someone who has both ariframes. The largest motor I have planned for the Dominator 4 or Mad Dog 4, which ever I choose, will be a 5-grain 76mm (30.49" case). Loki lists their 5-grain motor as a 6000 ns motor (M1882). I also have a more economical 2-grain 76mm K that I will do much of my flight testing with.

If I am patient, I will go ahead with the Dominator, otherwise Rocketry Warehouse has set me up with a custom order link for the Mad Dog custom build. I will look and see what my stability is like with the planned motors before I make a decision.

I really like your re-design of the fins, a look that I would consider a much better design for the Dominator. Luckily there is enough meat on the fins to cut in the changes.

[G_T]

The 6000 case will likely be the worst case for static loaded stability margin. The 7600 would likely be adding mass in front of the CP. The little two grain case is quite a bit lower mass and will likely yield a bit higher stability than the 6000.

A 6000 case should result in a supersonic rocket. I don't like the idea of the thin Mad Dog 4 fins at those speeds. I worry they may flutter. Of course they may not.

My RasAero sim for Thorn with an M1350WW - a fairly mild 6000 case reload - puts it in the neighborhood of 12,500ft from sea level, and about Mach 1.15. Something with a little more beef - an M3100-WT, puts the Thorn at 13,000ft and change, at Mach 1.47.

This rough size and weight rocket can get moving pretty well on a 6000 case. Besides, sometime you might want to make it really go, and use a fast erosive 7600. I'm pretty sure a Mad Dog 4 wouldn't survive that.

CTI M3700 puts you up around Mach 1.55. Still a 6 grain reload.

To put things in perspective, you are looking at something approaching 200lbs of drag around burnout.

Who knows, some day you might want to really play. I have a scary 7600 EX that is a somewhat erosive two second burn M4000.

If you are going to make it possible for the rocket to hold the motor, you might as well make sure it can take the motor! Because someday, sooner or later, you will be tempted...

Or not. I know I would be because I am!

Thanks for the complement on Thorn. I apologize for giving numbers against that rocket instead of against the MD4 or the D4, as I don't have RasAero models made up for those. Sims without real weights aren't worth all that much IMHO. I like to weigh things and assign real values, including everything that goes into the rocket. I use Rocksim for subsonic but I use RasAero for supersonic.

Gerald

[andrewlathrop87]

[QUOTE=DRAGON64;373727]Red accents as I hear it...

So what is the difference between the New "Dominator 4 R2" and the original "Dominator 4"?
Like is it heavier, longer, shorter, stuff like that.
What kind of red accents? Is it from a foreign country? LOL

[cwbullet]

[QUOTE=andrewlathrop87;374042]

Red accents as I hear it...

So what is the difference between the New "Dominator 4 R2" and the original "Dominator 4"?
Like is it heavier, longer, shorter, stuff like that.
What kind of red accents? Is it from a foreign country? LOL

I have been interested to see what the D4R2 and Mongoose 54 R2 are. I have been eagerly awaiting their release.

[andrewlathrop87]

I heard the "Dominator 4 R2" stands for "Dominator 4 Release 2".

[GaryT]

The New R2 version of the Dominator 4 will have a few very nice additions:

Upper section changed from 24" to 26"
Kit will have a Red and Black theme
Red Anodized NC tip
Red Anodized Aeropack Tail Cone (Included)
Red Anodized Bulk plates with Dual Black Anodized charge canisters
Red Vinyl Dominator 4 decal
Price - Around 359.99

[jsargevt]

Man that sounds awesome. Can't wait to see it.

[andrewlathrop87]

What happened to "Performance Rocketry?" Is PR now "Proline Rocketry?" I have heard that wildman sells PR kits and Rocketry Warehouse sells some to. Under the new name of Proline Rocketry will they have a website to order from or will there be new dealers selling proline rocketry kits?

[DRAGON64]

As I wait to see if Proline is ever going to open the "store front" and start selling kits, I have one more question about the Mad Dog; do the fins seem kind of small compared to the length of air frame?

Nevertheless, the Formula 150 has peeked my interest as a test bed rocket for my 76mm motors. I'm trying to hold out for the Dominator 4 R2, but Proline does seem to be in any hurry to get to that grand opening...

[G_T]

If one does a more complete modeling of a rocket, including all the internals, one may find that many commercial rocket kits are overstable. If you do anything to reinforce the nosecone, for instance, or substitute a filament wound one, the required fin size is reduced due to the noseweight. The Mad Dog 4 fins are not all that bad. I certainly wouldn't make them larger for the intended motor range! The rocket flies very straight under a wide range of motors. If one changes the mount to 76mm, then modeling is required with the new range of motors possible to the rocket.

People model their rockets in Rocksim etc and don't include things like chutes, quick links at 1oz each, their electronics in the ebay, etc. Then they try to make stability assessments of the rocket with this incomplete model. Such assessments are not worth much IMHO. The model needs to be more detailed and use as many actual weights as possible. Then the model becomes a useful tool.

Gerald