Immersive RC Oculus Rift FPV Cockpit for my Cruise Rockets

Going to post some video later on, but it's a huge long shot from the FPV flight project, as the X11 aircraft spawned some electrical issues the moment I arrived on the field. The servos would not respond to controls. Turns out the Rx was accidentally unbound from the transmitter. The rocket's flights were scrubbed as we didn't have the entire RC gear toolbox with us to properly diagnose, let alone resolve the problem.

This is a bummer because I really had loaded up on some simulator time for her, using a profile that matches the current design without the upgraded elevons and rudder, without the canards upgrade, etc.
[video=vimeo;79540584]https://vimeo.com/79540584[/video]

The little sister X10 then took to the skies to perform two tests: try out a new drag reduction skirt and attempt to test the TripleFire manual deployment mechanism
The TripleFire connects directly to the 2.4GHz RC Rx and allows manual deployment using switches on the RC transmitter. It's incredibly convenient and rocketry approved due to the multiple safety levels: Enable switch and 2G switch frequently used on rocketry timers. The TripleFire can be seen getting tested in the video below:
[video=youtube;QwgHFoeAFu8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwgHFoeAFu8[/video]

For the first flight X10's altimeter would take over parachute deployment 3s after apogee, leaving me that much time to fire the TripleFire before the altimeter fires its charge. This was done to test the mechanism while keeping things safe. the test was successful. However at the second flight, I had the altimeter completely disconnected from the charges and only used the TripleFire. After eight seconds of glide I fumbled with the switches and deployed much later than expected, resulting in a high speed, high impact deployment that severed the 2-strand nylon elastic lead. To add fault on myself that lead had flown over 15 flights on three different high impact deployment rockets. More on this failure will be shown in the video - and to some's surprise may actually INCREASE their confidence in elastic shock cord lead use. You'll see why.

Good thing is that nylon elastic lead was shared between X10 and X11; so if X11 could've flown it would have also used this worn out elastic lead. I guess through this failure we dodged one hell of a bullet.
Another good thing? Despite some worries, the drag reduction kit worked like a charm. It reduced the drag caused by the gap between the airframe and the wing. the mod may be applied to the upgraded X11.

I'll post the video report here in a few hours. I REALLY wanted to show off my VR Rift app but sadly circumstances have caused this thread's topic to go from "What's new for X11?" to "What the heck happened to X10?".
On the upside, for some with worries about such rockets, you can pretty well see the operation, even in the event of a failure, is no different from your ordinary rocket.

*Keep in mind the simulator profile is being updated with all the upgrades and it looks like this bird will fly four-fold better next year!

bobkrech said:

If the vehicle weighs not more than 1500 grams and the rocket motors contain not more than 125 grams of propellant, then he's probably legal.

If it's heavier than 1500 grams or has more than 125 grams of propellant, he needs a written FAA waiver and must activate the waiver before he launches to be legal.

Bob

Click to expand...

Yes, you just cited the rules for HPR. The X11 aircraft weights 3.21kg loaded and contains over 250gr of propellant, well above those limits. X10 can fly low power, but she now busts the weight limits, reaching 2.4kg loaded. Both are fully legal as long as you're at a sanctioned TRA / CAR event. Given rocket boosted gliders are rockets subjected somewhat to rocketry rules using a recovery mechanism known as flight, there's no HPR rule distinction other than the same as your traditional rockets. I am not familiar with NAR's bylaws so I can't speak on that club's rules.

This development program now has 26 flights. This kind of discussion will be made quite old by these aircraft's excellent track record, which actually beats most traditional rockets I've seen in existence.

Weekend report for X10C
[video=youtube;Vcrs2LkBgdA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcrs2LkBgdA[/video]

What are you using for video downlink?

budwheizzah said:

That normally means it won't be long until it's illegal. I hope the people behind these rules aren't the uninformed "knee jerk reaction of refusing when servos are spotted" kind of people.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It could be some simple guidelines such as maximum allowable deviation from the vertical during boost, requirements for some sort of failsafe mode in the event of loss of uplink and/or downlink, etc.

degreaser said:

Not necessarily. It could be some simple guidelines such as maximum allowable deviation from the vertical during boost, requirements for some sort of failsafe mode in the event of loss of uplink and/or downlink, etc.

Click to expand...

Which would result in a confusing ruleset effectively eliminating most the possibilities I currently use. What I'd propose is the status-quo is perfect for these types of rocket, which remain just as safe, if not safer, than a traditional rockets even in the event of a failure. Regulations on this would be overzealous and are not presently even required. There's no specific "gaping hole" to address, other than to further restrict members.

degreaser said:

What are you using for video downlink?

Click to expand...

X11 uses 900MHz/800mw. X10 has no video downlink... yet.

degreaser said:

Not necessarily. It could be some simple guidelines such as maximum allowable deviation from the vertical during boost, requirements for some sort of failsafe mode in the event of loss of uplink and/or downlink, etc.

Click to expand...

The ONE thing I'd be open to is defining a mode of recovery as a backup. Your cruise is your drogue descent, and your TripleFire/parachute is your main descent.
Say your TripleFire fails, there should be an altimeter set to deploy at a low altitude just in case. Say 250ft.

But again this should not be a requirement, only a recommendation. It would be unfair to someone new to impose on them that they require TWO expensive pieces of electronics on an already peculiar rocket design. I prefer to let folks ease in the hardware on a new rocket, not shove it all in at once. You're compromising the safety of the aircraft by having someone implement too much at once and this building an even unsafer aircraft! For example I recommend adding the altimeter first, THEN the TripleFire. This way the newbie gets the assurance of automatic deployment, and thus shorter glides, but at least gets to fly without having to cram in every single component in one shot.

We have to learn to trust each other's work more on the field in the context of rocketry. A lot think rules and more rules will cover everything and make it total perfection... Over-regulation can't make rocketry a perfect sport. They never will. They'll only end up pissing off and alienating members. We make rockets. Rockets f*** up ALL THE TIME.

About angle of ascent; look, some will pilot badly. She's extremely positively stable and odds of her staring at the crowd is extremely "trace-level" low. she could head for the wrong area, but she won't arc back to the ground.
Putting a limit on ascent angle would effectively cause some beginners to fly illegal. It would be an impossible rule to apply. The CAR did this mistake with the tilt-o-meter. There are no more two stage rockets because of that requirement. The tilt-o-meter component has been discontinued. I often use that as an example of the terrible effects of over regulation. An apparently common-sense rule has effectively killed two stage HPR rocketry in Canada.

Why don't you make a list of suggested rules and submit it for consideration? I suspect something is coming down the pipe in the next year or two. If you feel strongly and are a masochist, you could run for a BoD spot.

Regarding 900mhz, what sort of antenna? Internal or external?

FWIW: While Looking up the Eagle Tree Guardian 2D/3D stabilizer, found this:

https://www.eagletreesystems.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=82

Looks like with all this stuff going on, we're in the midst of a technological revolution.

Larry Curcio said:

FWIW: While Looking up the Eagle Tree Guardian 2D/3D stabilizer, found this:

https://www.eagletreesystems.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=82

Looks like with all this stuff going on, we're in the midst of a technological revolution.

Click to expand...

Hehehe yep... second person showing me the EagleTree stabilizer this week ;-)
One girl did a pretty interesting demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4M9Uso9EsY (Cred to Area66 for that link)

In my case if these birds go for a brain I might just use the ArduPilot with a few mods to the code.

Larry Curcio said:

Looks like with all this stuff going on, we're in the midst of a technological revolution.

Click to expand...

it's about time. Rocketry can be way more than pack perchlorate in the A$$ of a carboard tube

degreaser said:

Why don't you make a list of suggested rules and submit it for consideration? I suspect something is coming down the pipe in the next year or two. If you feel strongly and are a masochist, you could run for a BoD spot.

Regarding 900mhz, what sort of antenna? Internal or external?

Click to expand...

I am actually working on docs to reassure any RSO/RI new to this design. There would be little to consider other than the aspects of the aircraft itself. It's more in the inspection rather than the application of rules. For example one should be able to run a power-up and systems check in front of an RSO before flying, and maybe I can produce the doc to help the RSO understand what he'd be looking at. As for running as BoD support; lol, I don't meet the masochism requirement. Almost, though... this project itself has been a huge weight so far.

Over winter I should have every component in place - improved "production" design, plans, construction docs (even on video) and operating procedures, within which you'll find all the safety measures. Anyone reasonable reads those measures and will clear this aircraft for launch. They're more solid and rigorous than a traditional rocket's procedures. Oversight of the operating procedures is a good idea. Added regulation over the existing set which is itself already very reasonable is not a good idea.