What Became Of The Launch Pad TALOS???

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Very interesting!
Took me a while to catch up to here.
I'm going to keep an eye on this one too TR!

JP
 
One more time: for subsonic, unpowered, moveable surfaces, the center of mass of the surface should be on or ahead of the pivot axis to avoid high speed flutter problems. And ahead is much better than on.

If you have squeaked by with your own designs by keeping down flight velocities, more power to you. You should be aware that even at reduced speeds, these surfaces can still run into flutter problems.

But hey, what do I know, I only worked professionally in aerospace as a design and mass prop engineer for 35 years.
 
Actually you've been a great help in this, so thanks!
Your wise guidance and all your responses in this Thread have been most helpful and insightful.
When it flies, and is successful, I will add you to the list of folks that can take Credit for this Build.:)
Just your interest has helped keep the Thread going, and that's what inspires me to keep building.
If nobody is interested in the "How, Why and History" of what I'm building then I migh aswell buy a RTF Kit.
Folks like yourself here on the Forum really help me expand my "Modeling Horizons".
It's great when you all can see my progression as a Modeler and have faith in and get behind a project like this.

:blush:

Twern't nuthin'.... :) KUTGW! OL JR :)
 
One more time: for subsonic, unpowered, moveable surfaces, the center of mass of the surface should be on or ahead of the pivot axis to avoid high speed flutter problems. And ahead is much better than on.

If you have squeaked by with your own designs by keeping down flight velocities, more power to you. You should be aware that even at reduced speeds, these surfaces can still run into flutter problems.

But hey, what do I know, I only worked professionally in aerospace as a design and mass prop engineer for 35 years.

Maybe so, but I've never read this before... and folks have been flying these sorts of things for awhile now with pivoting fins where, simply looking at the materials and fin size, the CG of the fin is probably somewhere between the half-chord and 3/4 chord line, by gross estimation... and they've worked fine.

An ounce of experience is worth a pound of theory...

Later! OL JR :)
 
It could be that at the reynolds numbers, speed, masses of control surfaces, direction of flight, wind disturbances etc that have been exercised previously we just have not run into the flight regime where this shows up without any cg alteration. That said I'm all for simple...testing will show if your design has an issue or not, I'd do testing of your motors you want to fly on a few times on each motor before flying in front of people, which I think you said you would do already.

Frank
 
Hey Top,

I am waiting for some parts to arrive before I can begin construction of the passive vane section of this build...

I have searched for a profile view of this rocket to assist me in getting as close to scale as possible...

What I have come up with is a 22" sustainer section and a 11" booster section based upon a 2.6" sustainer airframe...

This will make the total length 33"... Are your figures similar?

Do you have any side view technical drawings of this rocket other than what has been posted?

Also, where did you find the 3' to 2.6" transition? How long is the exposed tapered section? Is it located under the rear fins near the end of the sustainer?

Y
 
Hey Top,

I am waiting for some parts to arrive before I can begin construction of the passive vane section of this build...

I have searched for a profile view of this rocket to assist me in getting as close to scale as possible...

What I have come up with is a 22" sustainer section and a 11" booster section based upon a 2.6" sustainer airframe...

This will make the total length 33"... Are your figures similar?

Do you have any side view technical drawings of this rocket other than what has been posted?

Also, where did you find the 3' to 2.6" transition? How long is the exposed tapered section? Is it located under the rear fins near the end of the sustainer?

Y



I have not yet do the Scaling Math, because I suck at Math and it will challenge me. When I do, I'll post the Figures here. I may just "Eyeball it".
I don't beleive from what I've seen that there is any taper in the Transition between the Booster and the Sustainer, and some drawings I've found show the center set of Fins being mounted on an aft section of the Sustainer that is the same diameter as the Booster, but that is not the case based on the Pictures and Videos I've watched, to include the Video on Youtube that shows Crews the general Idea of how the process of loading the TALOS inside the Ship is supposed to work.
I have found a "Drawing" if you can call it that. It's more like a Decal Scheme, but I'll go get it and come back to post it here.
I did find some plastic piping at the Hobby Shop that will make good Homing Antenna for the Cone.
This is just a dry fit mockup:

Homing Antenna 001.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't know what the measurement is that they are using, but this is supposed to mean something.

Talos%20Dims.gif

It says the Dimensions are in Inches, but there's no way!!!
 
I don't know what the measurement is that they are using, but this is supposed to mean something.

View attachment 249282

It says the Dimensions are in Inches, but there's no way!!!

This is exactly what I am looking for... I can get real close with this data...

I think it is inches... Consider the tip of the cone at station 14.0...

Then consider the base of the booster at station 400.0...

400 - 14 = 386

386/12 = 32.17 Feet long (that's probably how long these actually were with the booster attached)

Then consider the booster fins tip to tip... It says 76.6...

That would be a 6 foot 4 inch span.... (seems likely)

Your cone is looking nice...
 
This is exactly what I am looking for... I can get real close with this data...

I think it is inches... Consider the tip of the cone at station 14.0...

Then consider the base of the booster at station 400.0...

400 - 14 = 386

386/12 = 32.17 Feet long (that's probably how long these actually were with the booster attached)

Then consider the booster fins tip to tip... It says 76.6...

That would be a 6 foot 4 inch span.... (seems likely)

Your cone is looking nice...


I'm glad you can understand the Alway Drawing. There's no way the middle of the Sustainer is 183. something inches across.
I can go get the actual dimensions of the missile quite easily from the Okieboat Link.
 
Last edited:
https://www.okieboat.com/Talos history.html

RIM-8E/G/H/J

Missile

Booster



Length (inches)

254

134



Diameter (inches)

28

30



Wing span (inches)

107






Fin span (inches)

74

77



Weight (pounds)

3360

4360


Notes:
1. Booster body length was 132 inches, but the fins extended 2.3 inches behind the body.
2. Missile wing span is often given as 110 inches. This would be the span if the tip was pointed (where the two straight edges would meet). However, the tip is filleted, reducing the span to 106.946 inches.
3. Missile fin span is sometimes listed as 82 inches and booster fin span as 72 inches. A quick look at a photo reveals that the spans are almost the same. Some drawings give the dimensions listed above, and a comparison of fin span to body diameter in photos supports these dimensions.
 
I'm glad you can understand the Alway Drawing. There's no way the middle of the Sustainer is 183. something inches across.
I can go get the actual dimensions of the missile quite easily from the Okieboat Link.

When you see a drawing that includes Station numbers, that is a reference to a datum point...

The datum point in this drawing starts at 14 inches in front of the nose cone...

The 138 you see is from the datum point...

Right below that number you will see (28.0) with two arrows associated with it...

That is the diameter of that particular section... (and so on)

I may decide to increase the rear section by a small percentage to enhance stability... (we will see)

Did I mention that your nose cone is SICK???
 
When you see a drawing that includes Station numbers, that is a reference to a datum point...

The datum point in this drawing starts at 14 inches in front of the nose cone...

The 138 you see is from the datum point...

Right below that number you will see (28.0) with two arrows associated with it...

That is the diameter of that particular section... (and so on)

I may decide to increase the rear section by a small percentage to enhance stability... (we will see)

Did I mention that your nose cone is SICK???

Thank You for both the compliment on the Cone and for explaining to me how the datum point thing works. Now the Drawing makes more sense.
 
Last edited:
Thank You for both the compliment on the Cone and for explaining to me how the datum point thing works. Now the Drawing makes more sense.

No problem, this information you have provided is one more piece of the puzzle...

So thank you as well...

The passive vane section in my design will include eight of these very small sealed bearings...

s-l140.jpg
 
No problem, this information you have provided is one more piece of the puzzle...

So thank you as well...

The passive vane section in my design will include eight of these very small sealed bearings...

Interesting! Very High-Speed!
I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
 
I don't know what the measurement is that they are using, but this is supposed to mean something.

View attachment 249282

It says the Dimensions are in Inches, but there's no way!!!

Station numbers... "STA" is the station number, in inches.

The station is a "zero point" either somewhere on the vehicle, or somewhere behind or ahead of it, depending on how the zero point is assigned by the design team. Hence, STA 2.5 would be 2.5 inches ahead of the station point, and STA 7.5 would be five inches ahead of that. It's sorta like the "110 foot level" on the NASA launch towers... 110 feet above the main launch platform deck, not above the ground (considerably higher than that).

If the back end or front end of the rocket is designated with a station number greater than zero, then the station number is somewhere out in front of or behind the front or back end. If the station number is designated with a "negative" number, say "STA -110", that would 110 inches BEHIND the zero point; a station number of say "STA 24" would thus be 134 inches ahead of the "STA -110" point. Make sense??

In this way you can derive measurements for anything on the vehicle by simply adding or subtracting the corresponding station numbers...

Later! OL JR :)
 
Station numbers... "STA" is the station number, in inches.

The station is a "zero point" either somewhere on the vehicle, or somewhere behind or ahead of it, depending on how the zero point is assigned by the design team. Hence, STA 2.5 would be 2.5 inches ahead of the station point, and STA 7.5 would be five inches ahead of that. It's sorta like the "110 foot level" on the NASA launch towers... 110 feet above the main launch platform deck, not above the ground (considerably higher than that).

If the back end or front end of the rocket is designated with a station number greater than zero, then the station number is somewhere out in front of or behind the front or back end. If the station number is designated with a "negative" number, say "STA -110", that would 110 inches BEHIND the zero point; a station number of say "STA 24" would thus be 134 inches ahead of the "STA -110" point. Make sense??

In this way you can derive measurements for anything on the vehicle by simply adding or subtracting the corresponding station numbers...

Later! OL JR :)


Now I understand it completely instead of kinda' sorta'. Awesome!
 
The sealed mini ball bearings arrived in today's mail...

Just in time for Christmas...

IMG_1703-1.jpg
 
Here are some pictures of the process of my design of the hub assembly for this build...

First, the aluminum tubing was cut and sanded to proper tolerance...

Second, the small bearing sub assemblies were put together by pressing and tapping the tubing into the inner bearing ring... (this is a very tight press fit)

Then, the outer portion of the bearings were cleaned and scuffed for glue retention...

The drill bit ensures proper alignment of vane mounts...

After picture #4, the entire assembly was flipped over and sanded on a flat surface to ensure solid adhesion off all surfaces...

Finally, the assembly was slid over a 29mm motor mount and clamped with the additional ring for final gluing...

All was accomplished using thick CA and will remain clamped for the next two hours...

The centering rings are BT-80 to 29mm...

IMG_1710.jpg

IMG_1709.jpg

IMG_1708.jpg

IMG_1707.jpg

IMG_1705.jpg

IMG_1704.jpg
 
Holy Cow! That's Awesome!
Should keep your CG plenty forward too, though this is only a guess as I don't know what those Bearings weigh.
I really like the Design.
Are you going to use some 29mm Tubing to seal the Bearings away from the Gases of Ejection? I immagine that BP Residue would find its way into them eventually otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Holy Cow! That's Awesome!
Should keep your CG plenty forward too, though this is only a guess as I don't know what those Bearings weigh.
I really like the Design.
Are you going to use some 29mm Tubing to seal the Bearings away from the Gases of Ejection? I immagine that BP Residue would find its way into them eventually otherwise.

The assembly weighs in at 1oz...

Good point on the ejection gases... (that may be an option)

IMG_1711.jpg
 
The assembly weighs in at 1oz...

Good point on the ejection gases... (that may be an option)

Very nice!
Do you mind if I Cheat, and ask you what you got for Dimensions on the Booster and Sustainer? Minus the Nose Cone ofcourse.
I literally get a Headache when I do even the simplest of Math, and it would be nice to start preparing some Tubes.
I got the Fin Dimensions by Zooming in on the Drawing on my Computer Screen til' the Tube was the same as my Tube held up to the Screen, the Traced the Fins/Wings with Paper held to the Screen. Problem is, my Screen is not large enough to do that to the entire Drawing.
 
Very nice!
Do you mind if I Cheat, and ask you what you got for Dimensions on the Booster and Sustainer? Minus the Nose Cone ofcourse.
I literally get a Headache when I do even the simplest of Math, and it would be nice to start preparing some Tubes.
I got the Fin Dimensions by Zooming in on the Drawing on my Computer Screen til' the Tube was the same as my Tube held up to the Screen, the Traced the Fins/Wings with Paper held to the Screen. Problem is, my Screen is not large enough to do that to the entire Drawing.


No problem...

I got around 33 inches when I did the math but I am extending the airframe to 36"

The booster will be 3" x 12"...

The sustanier will be 2.6" x 24" including nose...

I think I wil be increasing the size of the booster fins by approximately 10%...
 
No problem...

I got around 33 inches when I did the math but I am extending the airframe to 36"

The booster will be 3" x 12"...

The sustanier will be 2.6" x 24" including nose...

I think I wil be increasing the size of the booster fins by approximately 10%...



Awesome, Thanks.
 
I think I'm going to use this Coupler Stock from BMS, C300-34, 2.930x2.860x.035x34" for the Booster.
 
I am nearly finished with the first prototype vane for testing purposes...

I will also experiment with different build techniques if it becomes neccessary... (although I really like this one; it was super easy)

It is basically a plywood core between balsa...

I decided to go with the AOA / tetrahedron style airfoil... (wedge)

The CG is well aft of the pivot... (this may need to be adjusted some)

My son suggested a leaf blower for testing... (he is a genius)

Still have a bit of sanding left then it will get grey primer...

IMG_1102.jpg

IMG_1101.jpg

IMG_1100.jpg

IMG_1099.jpg

IMG_1098.jpg

IMG_1097.jpg

IMG_1096.jpg

IMG_1095.jpg
 
Last edited:
Looks great...

Problem with a leaf blower for testing-- the air isn't "clean"... it's going to be SO turbulent that I don't know how much use it'll be outside of just seeing if the fins point into the breeze...

At least your truck mounted wind tunnel idea had the virtue of getting into "clean air" so long as it's far enough away from the body of the vehicle itself...

Later! OL JR :)
 
Back
Top