Calling All Talented "Photo Scalers" . . . I Need More Eyes - NIKE-TOMAHAWK 18.26 IA !

[Ez2cDave]

This is the Nose Cone of NIKE-TOMAHAWK 18.36 IA, flown in 1967, from Wallops Island.

I am dealing with a couple of drawings that have discrepancies in cited measurements.

Please give me a hand by scaling this photo to generate accurate dimensions. The Nose Cone STOPS at the "seam" below the first row of bolts and DOES NOT include the thick ring, below them.

This Nose Cone is constructed from two components, bonded together. The upper section is a Ceramic material, while the bottom Shoulder is Phenolic.

The "infamous" Cream Stripe" is clearly visible ( I believe that the "Cream Stripe" is actually a wrap of Masking Tape, either partially over the "seam", or immediately adjacent to it. My theory is that Masking Tape was used to prevent the adhesive from "oozing out", before it cured. The tape was simply left in place, afterwards.I believe that the tape used might be 5/8" width ( .625" ).

NOTE : The diameter of the TE-416 TOMAHAWK is 9.000", for reference.







Thnaks for your help !

Dave F.

 

[SolarYellow]

I can pull that stuff into AutoCAD. PM me files if you have any higher res than what's posted above.

 

[rocketguy101]

Here's what I came up with, using your posted photos. I first used MB-Ruler, a handy tool for measuring photos, then I brought them into SolidWorks and scaled them to 9" dia. I got nearly the same dimensions between MBR and SWX.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Here's what I came up with, using your posted photos. I first used MB-Ruler, a handy tool for measuring photos, then I brought them into SolidWorks and scaled them to 9" dia. I got nearly the same dimensions between MBR and SWX.

David,

Wow . . . Excellent work !

It also resolved several "Gremlins" with dimensioned drawings. Namely, the "blueprint" was not drawn precisely to scale, which surprised me. That issue, I am now convinced, was a major issue back when Don Larson was compiling data, in the pre-computer era ( circa 1973 ) that resulted in errors which affected the accuracy of the 1974 & 1983 Model Rocketeer Scale Data Articles, Peter Alway's ROTW data ( he cited the 1974 MR data ), Bob Biedron's WSMC Nike-Tomahawk and, likely, virtually every Scale Model ever constructed of NIKE-TOMAHAWK 18.26 IA.

A major mistake, made by Don Larson, was in trusting the measurements he took from the "Nike-Tomahawk", on display at the Goddard Space Flight Center. Virtually, the entire display is constructed either from incorrect parts or sections of "pipe", rather than true airframes.

The Interstage is the wrong unit ( the "real" NT Interstage allows the aft end of the TE-416 TOMAHAWK rocket motor to recess into it ). The one on the Goddard display appears to have come from a Nike-Cajun or Nike-Apache, which does not have the "recess" and whose upper end is too small in diameter, resulting in the Tomahawk slipping over it, which makes the Interstage the incorrect length and further destroys any hope of accurate measurements from it. The Payload Section is just a length of pipe. The NIKE booster has the incorrect Fin Can, etc, etc, etc, .

The last few images are from 2004, when I met Don Larson and got the scale data from him . . . The very last image is a drawing, by Bob Biedron, which shows the correct data for the Interstage, showing the Tomahawk recessed into it.

Dave F.

 

[Hobie1dog]

wow, cool stuff.

 

[Ez2cDave]

wow, cool stuff.

In the near future (a few months), an ACCURATE version of NIKE-TOMAHAWK 18.26 IA Scale Data will be created. A Sport Rocketry article will also be written and full-resolution files will be made available for personal downloading, separately.

Finally, I have found the correct person to collaborate with, after 19 years of disappointments, attempting to work with FIVE, well-known, USA scale modelers ( two of them are now deceased ), even though he hails from over 6,000 miles away, in Croatia !

 

[Hobie1dog]

Finally, I have found the correct person to collaborate with, after 19 years of disappointments, attempting to work with FIVE, well-known, USA scale modelers ( two of them are now deceased ), even though he hails from over 6,000 miles away, in Croatia !

how did you find him?

 

[Ez2cDave]

how did you find him?

A friend of mine, formerly from the UK ( currently living in Moldova ) is friends with his brother, So, he introduced me !

This is a small portion of one of his drawings ( for the GENIE missile ).

 

[kjhambrick]

@Ez2cDave --

I love the Nike-Tomahawk.

Shucks, I loved most of the NACA-era sounding rockets

Thanks for wotking on this !

-- kjh

p.s. I always wanted to create multi-stage composite rockets back in the 1990s but I was never comfortable with simple timer ignition of the sustainer.

The state of the art with today's flight computers make staging attractive and fairly safe !

Maybe I'll finally do a Nike-Tomahawk along with a Bumper-WAC

Thanks again !

 

[Ez2cDave]

Maybe I'll finally do a Nike-Tomahawk along with a Bumper-WAC

For data and advice, James Duffy is the "Guru" of the Bumper Wac .

I also have ALL of Howard Kuhn's original scale data for the I-Beam Launcher.

A small sample . . .

 

[solidfluid]

Dave, you forgot to write that there will actually be a book made about the Nike Tomahawk
Hello from the opposite side of the planet

 

[solidfluid]

Nike Tomahawk on Antarctica:

 

[OverTheTop]

In the near future (a few months), an ACCURATE version of NIKE-TOMAHAWK 18.26 IA Scale Data will be created. A Sport Rocketry article will also be written and full-resolution files will be made available for personal downloading, separately.

Finally, I have found the correct person to collaborate with, after 19 years of disappointments, attempting to work with FIVE, well-known, USA scale modelers ( two of them are now deceased ), even though he hails from over 6,000 miles away, in Croatia !

Where in Croatia? Have toured there, catching up with my wife's family. Also went to Nikola Tesla's home. Very nice country to visit.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Where in Croatia? Have toured there, catching up with my wife's family. Also went to Nikola Tesla's home. Very nice country to visit.

He lives in Zagreb.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Dave, you forgot to write that there will actually be a book made about the Nike Tomahawk
Hello from the opposite side of the planet

This project, on the USA side, was being done, "quietly", with NOTHING being disclosed, until it was completed.
It was my intention for NOTHING to be revealed, including the parties involved ( you ), until later.

Unfortunately, the "cat is out of the bag" ( Mačka je iz torbe ), now.

To my Croation counterpart, "solidfluid", please DO NOT post any additional Data about 18.26 IA ( or supply data to anyone who may contact you ), until our project is COMPLETED . . . !

With that said, to all TRF and YORF rocketeers . . . Unless you have MEANINGFUL data to contribute ( I have ORIGINAL blueprints and other "one of a kind" data ). If you can, actually, contribute to this project, contact ME, directly . . . E-Mail : [email protected] .

"Joiners" and "Hangers-On" will NOT be welcomed . . . Sorry, but this is a SERIOUS project.

My data PROVES that the 1974 Model Rocketeer ( Don Larson ), 1983 Model Rocketeer, ( Craig Beyers ), and Rockets of the World ( Peter Alway ) data is all incorrect ( because Peter used the Model Rocketeer data as reference sources and his drawings contain the SAME errors ). So, the real impact of this is that any Rocketeer ( in the USA or International ), that has EVER built a Scale model of Nike-Tomahawk 18.26 IA, including Bob Biedron, Don Larson, or any other modelers, has NEVER built an accurate model.

This is about to change and ACCURATE data will, finally, be made available, almost 50 years later !

This is one, SMALL example ( from the TE-416 TOMAHAWK Blueprint ), below . . . There is similar data for the ENTIRE 18.26 IA Nike-Tomahawk. It took MANY years and NUMEROUS FOIA requests to compile everything

IF you have data of this level, please contact me ( Nose Cone, Payload Section, De-Spin / Firing Module, TE-416 Tomahawk, Interstage Adapter, Nike M-5 Booster )

NOTE : The "Nike-Tomahawk" on display at Goddard is a "counterfeit" . . .

(1) At one point, the Nose Cone was "cut" to allow for a lateral support to be inserted.
(2) The "Payload Section" is only a length of 9" diameter Sewer Pipe.
(3) The Interstage Adapter is NOT, from a Nike-Tomahawk ( it's from a Nike-Cajun or Nike Apache ) and is the WRONG length and creates an "error", not only for itself, but the measurements of the Tomahawk, also.
(4) The TE-416 Tomahawk motor is real and has the correct Fins.
(5) The Firing / De-Spin Module is missing, entirely.
(6) The Nike Booster is real, BUT it has the WRONG Fin Can and Fins on it, for 18.36 IA.

A nice display, but USELESS for Scale Modeling.

Dave F.

 

[solidfluid]

"To my Croation counterpart, "solidfluid", please DO NOT post any additional Data about 18.26 IA ( or supply data to anyone who may contact you ), until our project is COMPLETED . . . !"

Hey, it's my idea, don't steal, hahaha...

p.s. Mačka je izvađena iz torbe is correct. Or if you want to say We let the cat out of the bag (together), Mačku smo izvadili iz torbe

p.p.s. But since the cat is over 50 years old, it has probably already died. That's why we will prepare it well, once and forever

 

[solidfluid]

Where in Croatia? Have toured there, catching up with my wife's family. Also went to Nikola Tesla's home. Very nice country to visit.

In fact, Tesla was born in village Štikada in Church of St. Peter and St. Paul

 

[OverTheTop]

In fact, Tesla was born in village Štikada in Church of St. Peter and St. Paul

Hi solidfluid. I visited Tesla's fathers church there also.

Zagreb is a very pretty capital city. We visited there to see some relatives, on the way to see some more at Sveti Martin na Muri.

 

[Ez2cDave]

"To my Croation counterpart, "solidfluid", please DO NOT post any additional Data about 18.26 IA ( or supply data to anyone who may contact you ), until our project is COMPLETED . . . !"

Hey, it's my idea, don't steal, hahaha...

p.s. Mačka je izvađena iz torbe is correct. Or if you want to say We let the cat out of the bag (together), Mačku smo izvadili iz torbe

p.p.s. But since the cat is over 50 years old, it has probably already died. That's why we will prepare it well, once and forever

Hey, they are my blueprints . . . Let us steal, TOGETHER - LOL !

Moj brat . . . Mi smo tim i imamo još puno toga za napraviti u budućnosti ! ( My brother . . . We are a team and we have a lot more to do in the future ! )

 

[solidfluid]

Hi solidfluid. I visited Tesla's fathers church there also.

Zagreb is a very pretty capital city. We visited there to see some relatives, on the way to see some more at Sveti Martin na Muri.

Relatives? Aha, you mean Family? Because the word Relatives sounds in croatian like "some Relative", so at first I thought "and what about Absolutes"?
I've never been there. It is a small village, but musically, Međimurje is very interesting because it has a mix with Hungarian music, just as Macedonia has a special musical expression in the whole ex-Yugoslavia, these are two areas with particularly specific melodies and rhythms. One song from Međimurje in a new version, but in essence it is so specific that no matter how many versions there are, you can hardly move away from the original: Love is neither sold nor bought (Ljubav se ne trži niti ne kupuje):

Love is neither sold nor bought Who does not know how to love, who does not know how to love Don't pretend to be important - If true and honest love is found It doesn't wash from the heart, the heart doesn't wash it Mura nor Drava - Love is not torn apart by the police or the gendarmes The police and the gendarmes, the police and the gendarmes Nor the government

Mura and Drava are two rivers between which Međimurje is

...but it is an approximate translation because it was sung in a dialect that is difficult to understand in many parts of Croatia or ex Yugoslavia, and hard to translate




You should see Zagreb 100 years ago. It was a specific town with pure white streets, which were sprinkled with small stone from a quarry near Zagreb, from Samobor. Today, little of it remains (better to say nothing), especially after the war. Idiots destroyed everything

search in google: zagreb stare fotografije

 

[solidfluid]

Hey, they are my blueprints . . . Let us steal, TOGETHER - LOL !

Moj brat . . . Mi smo tim i imamo još puno toga za napraviti u budućnosti ! ( My brother . . . We are a team and we have a lot more to do in the future ! )

Wow. Excellent translation. This Google is getting better and better. Until it eats us all together one day...
Here is 3 AM
I was sleeping, then I woke up...I think it's all from sleeping for the night. I have to be careful how I type on google translate, it misspells a lot of things, so I type half English and half Croatian and then correct it

Ljubav se ne trži...also for you Dave
A song with a short and wise text

 

[solidfluid]

My brother . . . We are a team and we have a lot more to do in the future !

In Zagreb slang: Buraz, kompe smo i još puno tog imamo za delat
Or: Još puno tog treba napravit buraz
Or much harder: Jebenica buraz, imamo za šljakat dok ne krepamo (F*ck it brother, we have to work until we die)


pssst....! Dave hates this music

 

[Ez2cDave]

Or much harder: Jebenica buraz, imamo za šljakat dok ne krepamo (F*ck it brother, we have to work until we die)

That phrase, after two passes through Google Translate . . . "Prokletstvo, brate, imamo puno toga za obaviti prije nego što završimo" ( "Damn bro, we got a lot to do before we're done" ).

 

[Meatball 1]

Dave, I'm going to gather all the files that I have and share them on dropbox or google drive sometime in the next week or so. I can tell you that I have been trying to troubleshoot the nose cone length as recently as September 2021 by modeling the entire payload from the MPE drawings and the wood base that the thing is sitting in to try to recreate the photo perspective, and I've done various 2D photo scaling and tracing in TurboCAD over and over for years with results never to my satisfaction. You can get in the ballpark and even very close, but it's difficult to get this "on the nose" for various reasons, from photo distortion, to scanner distortion (yes 2D scanners distort the flat original), to the fact that perspective in a CAD program doesn't have distortion like a photo. But I can never find time or energy to spend more than a couple weeks on the project every couple of years (and by a couple of weeks, I mean dedicated hours of pretty much all my free time for a week or two before I have to move on to other things after I run into a road block or because of some more pressing issue, then the steam is gone and I have to try to leave myself notes for the next time). So I will gather my stuff together and share it with Dave so he can pass it along to his collaborator, as there's just no way for me to do anything more with this subject in any efficient manner, and it's been that way since 2009. Maybe someday I'll finish my drawings for my own use, but not anytime soon, I don't expect.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Dave, I'm going to gather all the files that I have and share them on dropbox or google drive sometime in the next week or so. I can tell you that I have been trying to troubleshoot the nose cone length as recently as September 2021 by modeling the entire payload from the MPE drawings and the wood base that the thing is sitting in to try to recreate the photo perspective, and I've done various 2D photo scaling and tracing in TurboCAD over and over for years with results never to my satisfaction. You can get in the ballpark and even very close, but it's difficult to get this "on the nose" for various reasons, from photo distortion, to scanner distortion (yes 2D scanners distort the flat original), to the fact that perspective in a CAD program doesn't have distortion like a photo. But I can never find time or energy to spend more than a couple weeks on the project every couple of years (and by a couple of weeks, I mean dedicated hours of pretty much all my free time for a week or two before I have to move on to other things after I run into a road block or because of some more pressing issue, then the steam is gone and I have to try to leave myself notes for the next time). So I will gather my stuff together and share it with Dave so he can pass it along to his collaborator, as there's just no way for me to do anything more with this subject in any efficient manner, and it's been that way since 2009. Maybe someday I'll finish my drawings for my own use, but not anytime soon, I don't expect.

Josh,

The answer to the Nose Cone is an interesting one . . . To make a long story short, Don Larson altered dimensions on Drawing GD-28-195 to try to compensate for the compound errors that were introduced when he made the mistake of measuring and "trusting" the Goddard "Nike-Tomahawk" display.

Once Don did that, he was compelled to "fudge the numbers", trying to make things "fit". Virtually everything about the Goddard display is wrong. It is, truly, a "Frankenstein's Monster", in terms of accuracy.

So, Don, in pre-computer era 1974, created his drawings and article for 18.26 IA, featured in the "Model Rocketeer", in 1974. That flawed data became the basis for the 1983 Craig Beyers article, in "Model Rocketeer" ( which introduced additional errors ), and then was used by Peter Alway, for ROTW, rendering it inaccurate and causing its own problems there . Other, international, sources have made the same errors, in their own articles, spreading the problems farther and wider.

My goal is to correct all of that, once and for all.

Dave F.

 

[Meatball 1]

Josh,

The answer to the Nose Cone is an interesting one . . . To make a long story short, Don Larson altered dimensions on Drawing GD-28-195 to try to compensate for the compound errors that were introduced when he made the mistake of measuring and "trusting" the Goddard "Nike-Tomahawk" display.

Once Don did that, he was compelled to "fudge the numbers", trying to make things "fit".

Yeah, Dave. The fact that Don fudged the numbers is old news to the both of us (very old news indeed, unfortunately). But I think it would be more accurate to say that Don fudged both the nose and payload numbers based not based on the Goddard display, though it is the source of other issues. In my opinion, Don tried to force the 27" (per drawing) white nose, plus the cream/brown section (as measured in photo because it's shorter than the drawing), plus the MPE payload and despin unit into what he assumed was a hard-and-fast overall length of 82.6 inches, which was provided in the Flight Requirements Plan document--and is reflected in all subsequent Larson-derived drawings. I don't think the German MPE drawings were available to him until after he made these drawings, so that means he maybe took photo measurements for those, as well and just did his best to shoehorn them into that 82.6" (resulting in a number of more and less-detailed drafts with varying dimension schemes before he settled on the one published in 1974 Model Rocketeer).

So off the top of my head, some missing data that you guys will want to address for your book:
1. The Nose and Nose Assembly length.

- The nose assembly is always referred to as 33" non-magnetic nose assembly. Is this 33" a hard-and-fast length or can it vary?​

- Is the white portion longer when the brown section is shorter in order to make up the 33 inches or does it really not matter?​

- Note the apparent white cylindrical area at the base of the white nose.​

- I don't think the measurements above solve the length issue, as the perspective is more complicated than that, and I really don't recommend using diameter of the part as the reference for scaling the part unless there's nothing else to go by--but you do have the length of the top red payload section, and that's what I typically use to measure the brown section. Note that if the cream band is tape, we don't exactly know where the white nose-brown cylinder interface is, though maybe it's centered under the "tape."​

2. Despin unit. I think the Luest pen sketch in millimeters is the only source that you have for overall length of the unit. I really don't think you'll find any official drawings to replace it. And I don't think you'll be able to get data on the umbilical connection on the unit, nor the one on the nose.

3. Recess of Tomahawk into adapter. The Biedron example is not fully correct, as a bit of the nozzle below the fin can is exposed, not fully recessed. It's either recessed 2" exactly (per Art Rose) or something slightly smaller (1.8-something?) per an unnamed drawing--my memory leans toward 1.817", but I'd need to revisit this to see the number and where the number came from. I think I went with the latter.

4. Beware of inaccuracy of adapter bolt hole locations in Art Rose drawing. The pairs of holes are on a circular bolt hole diameter per the Nike motor data, but Art had drawn them positioned squarely, which leads to inaccurately small recess shape in the adapter casting.

5. I recommend you follow the MPE payload dimensions for nozzle placement, not the Luest sketch. I put together a drawing of just that in 2013 (revised in 2021) showing that layout, including the position of the Tracer nozzle which (for whatever reason) does not have a cutout in the airframe, but which can be derived from the geometry of the Tracer assembly and mounting brackets.

6. Visible payload nozzle configuration and dims. It's really not clear to me what the relationship of the internal nozzle ports (which we have data for per MPE) and the external nozzles could be (quick glance at the internal nozzles in 3D here: http://meatballrocketry.com/wp-content/gallery/portfolio/PayloadCutaway.jpg). It does appear that there are holes or recesses and that they're not merely caps, though that's still a possibility (note the man's finger at the hole or recess in the one photo--that's a potentially useful photo, but it sucks that no photos have more direct view of the nozzles at close range). Maybe go with the Luest sketch on this one (I think I recall the sketch says 30mm dia nozzles?).

Lucky me, I have to be at work today and tomorrow while we receive LN2 deliveries (three separate trucks today), so I was able to fill some time by replying.

Josh T.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Yeah, Dave. The fact that Don fudged the numbers is old news to the both of us (very old news indeed, unfortunately). But I think it would be more accurate to say that Don fudged both the nose and payload numbers based not based on the Goddard display, though it is the source of other issues. In my opinion, Don tried to force the 27" (per drawing) white nose, plus the cream/brown section (as measured in photo because it's shorter than the drawing), plus the MPE payload and despin unit into what he assumed was a hard-and-fast overall length of 82.6 inches, which was provided in the Flight Requirements Plan document--and is reflected in all subsequent Larson-derived drawings. I don't think the German MPE drawings were available to him until after he made these drawings, so that means he maybe took photo measurements for those, as well and just did his best to shoehorn them into that 82.6" (resulting in a number of more and less-detailed drafts with varying dimension schemes before he settled on the one published in 1974 Model Rocketeer).

So off the top of my head, some missing data that you guys will want to address for your book:
1. The Nose and Nose Assembly length.

- The nose assembly is always referred to as 33" non-magnetic nose assembly. Is this 33" a hard-and-fast length or can it vary?​

- Is the white portion longer when the brown section is shorter in order to make up the 33 inches or does it really not matter?​

- Note the apparent white cylindrical area at the base of the white nose.​

- I don't think the measurements above solve the length issue, as the perspective is more complicated than that, and I really don't recommend using diameter of the part as the reference for scaling the part unless there's nothing else to go by--but you do have the length of the top red payload section, and that's what I typically use to measure the brown section. Note that if the cream band is tape, we don't exactly know where the white nose-brown cylinder interface is, though maybe it's centered under the "tape."​

2. Despin unit. I think the Luest pen sketch in millimeters is the only source that you have for overall length of the unit. I really don't think you'll find any official drawings to replace it. And I don't think you'll be able to get data on the umbilical connection on the unit, nor the one on the nose.

3. Recess of Tomahawk into adapter. The Biedron example is not fully correct, as a bit of the nozzle below the fin can is exposed, not fully recessed. It's either recessed 2" exactly (per Art Rose) or something slightly smaller (1.8-something?) per an unnamed drawing--my memory leans toward 1.817", but I'd need to revisit this to see the number and where the number came from. I think I went with the latter.

4. Beware of inaccuracy of adapter bolt hole locations in Art Rose drawing. The pairs of holes are on a circular bolt hole diameter per the Nike motor data, but Art had drawn them positioned squarely, which leads to inaccurately small recess shape in the adapter casting.

5. I recommend you follow the MPE payload dimensions for nozzle placement, not the Luest sketch. I put together a drawing of just that in 2013 (revised in 2021) showing that layout, including the position of the Tracer nozzle which (for whatever reason) does not have a cutout in the airframe, but which can be derived from the geometry of the Tracer assembly and mounting brackets.

6. Visible payload nozzle configuration and dims. It's really not clear to me what the relationship of the internal nozzle ports (which we have data for per MPE) and the external nozzles could be (quick glance at the internal nozzles in 3D here: http://meatballrocketry.com/wp-content/gallery/portfolio/PayloadCutaway.jpg). It does appear that there are holes or recesses and that they're not merely caps, though that's still a possibility (note the man's finger at the hole or recess in the one photo--that's a potentially useful photo, but it sucks that no photos have more direct view of the nozzles at close range). Maybe go with the Luest sketch on this one (I think I recall the sketch says 30mm dia nozzles?).

Lucky me, I have to be at work today and tomorrow while we receive LN2 deliveries (three separate trucks today), so I was able to fill some time by replying.

Josh T.

(1) Nose Cone - The Nose Cone used on the D-Region Tomahawk is different. Different variants of the Nose Cone may be available. ( see below )

(2) De-Spin Module - I believe that the Luest drawing may be inaccurate and not to be "taken as gospel" ( see below for De-Spin data ). The "umbilical" on the De-Spin unit is actually an access port to the timers for Upper Stage ignition and "Yo-Yo"deploy.

(3) Interstage Recess - The rear section of the TE-416, below the Fin Mount Assembly, has a length of 2.105" ( per actual blueprint of the TE-416 ) . When fully seated, the TE-416 recesses to a depth of 2.000" ( see below ).

(4) Umbilical connection - I believe the the TE-416 Umbilical connector is the same unit used on the D-Region Tomahawk. In that case, it is a 19-pin female "Cannon" connector ( see below ).



D-REGION NOSE CONE



DE-SPIN UNIT ( NOTE - There are TWO different "style: of mounting . . . One is STRAIGHT and the other is ANGLED . . . 18.26 IA uses the STRAIGHT version ) Photo's of ANGLED style below .










NOTE : the "TAG" number MATCHES the blueprint number


REAR of TE-416 TOMAHAWK - Note 2.105" length.




UMBILICAL CONNECTOR : 19-pin, female, Cannon connector

 

[Meatball 1]

(1) Nose Cone - The Nose Cone used on the D-Region Tomahawk is different. Different variants of the Nose Cone may be available. ( see below )

My point is that they may not be as different as you suppose. The D-Region data suffers from similar data/photo discrepancies, at least regarding the Nose. I had been looking at the D-Region and Taurus-Tomahawk data and comparing photos that seemed to lean toward a solid 33" assembly length to see if it would provide any insight into "design intent" or general patterns, given the known discrepancies. But my perspective analysis (flawed though it was) wasn't going as well as I wanted after lots of work, so I left it alone and haven't touched it since then. I've attached a PDF of my notes, so you can see the sort of annoyingness this was in 2021.

(2) De-Spin Module - I believe that the Luest drawing may be inaccurate and not to be "taken as gospel" ( see below for De-Spin data ). The "umbilical" on the De-Spin unit is actually an access port to the timers for Upper Stage ignition and "Yo-Yo"deploy.

The official despin unit drawing does not match the photos of the round (exposed cables are incorrect, the number of aft fasteners is double what it should be, and the forward interface of the interstage should be similar to the rear one in order to mate with "Tragring D" at the bottom of the MPE payload (both ends female with countersunk screws. Therefore, I don't think there is any data for the 18.26 IA despin unit except for the Luest sketch (or some derivative combo of the Luest sketch and the R-01707 model). Note: I also have some comments in my PDF below regarding the Despin length as part of my payload photo compare.

(3) Interstage Recess - The rear section of the TE-416, below the Fin Mount Assembly, has a length of 2.105" ( per actual blueprint of the TE-416 ) . When fully seated, the TE-416 recesses to a depth of 2.000" ( see below ).

Yeah, I would go with the 2.00" inch recess. That value is shown on multiple drawings, including Taurus Tomahawk drawings and Art Rose's drawing, and is easier to justify than my other (1.813") value, which I have since determined was derived from brochure configuratoin measurements (not usually the most reliable source). The only reason I had gone with it before was because it better matched a non-dimensioned view on an unnamed drawing source, but 2" is a better choice.

(4) Umbilical connection - I believe the the TE-416 Umbilical connector is the same unit used on the D-Region Tomahawk. In that case, it is a 19-pin female "Cannon" connector ( see below ).

I think you can mention in your data that you speculate it may be the same connector, but I don't think it should be on the drawing as such, as that would depend on the needs of the particular flight (see a pair of different connectors on a Taurus-Tomahawk example below). I would suggest not adding it to the drawing, but maybe pointing to the known umbilical locations and adding some notes. There's at least one connector on the brown part of the 18.16 IA nose cone that may be similar to one the Taurus-Tomahawk examples.





Taurus Tomahawk example of two different connectors at base of nose payload (maybe similar to the connector on the Nike-Tomahawk nose):

 

[Ez2cDave]

My point is that they may not be as different as you suppose. The D-Region data suffers from similar data/photo discrepancies, at least regarding the Nose. I had been looking at the D-Region and Taurus-Tomahawk data and comparing photos that seemed to lean toward a solid 33" assembly length to see if it would provide any insight into "design intent" or general patterns, given the known discrepancies. But my perspective analysis (flawed though it was) wasn't going as well as I wanted after lots of work, so I left it alone and haven't touched it since then. I've attached a PDF of my notes, so you can see the sort of annoyingness this was in 2021.

The official despin unit drawing does not match the photos of the round (exposed cables are incorrect, the number of aft fasteners is double what it should be, and the forward interface of the interstage should be similar to the rear one in order to mate with "Tragring D" at the bottom of the MPE payload (both ends female with countersunk screws. Therefore, I don't think there is any data for the 18.26 IA despin unit except for the Luest sketch (or some derivative combo of the Luest sketch and the R-01707 model). Note: I also have some comments in my PDF below regarding the Despin length as part of my payload photo compare.


I think you can mention in your data that you speculate it may be the same connector, but I don't think it should be on the drawing as such, as that would depend on the needs of the particular flight (see a pair of different connectors on a Taurus-Tomahawk example below). I would suggest not adding it to the drawing, but maybe pointing to the known umbilical locations and adding some notes. There's at least one connector on the brown part of the 18.16 IA nose cone that may be similar to one the Taurus-Tomahawk examples.



View attachment 600387

Taurus Tomahawk example of two different connectors at base of nose payload (maybe similar to the connector on the Nike-Tomahawk nose):
View attachment 600392

Nose Cone :

I have a "working theory" about the Nose Cone. Clearly, the phenolic "shoulder" is shorter than depicted on GD-28-195. The Phenolic SHOULDER, on the D-Region Nose Cone is shorter, while the Ceramic upper section is longer.

THEORY : What if the Ceramic Upper Section of GD-28-195 were bonded to the shorter Phenolic Shoulder of the D-REGION Nose Cone, either "accidentally", or "intentionally ? That might explain the "Cream Stripe" ( which I believe to be 3/4" masking tape ), especially if the two components of the Nose Cone, when assembled, were not a "perfect fit" ? It would have served to prevent the Adhesive from "oozing out", until it cured.







D-REGION NOSE CONE





De-Spin / Firing Module :

I am wondering if there is a "non-de-spin" firing module, as well as the de-spin unit ? The reason I am thinking this is that 18.26 IS was a Barium-Release flight only, There might have been no "need" to de-spin the payload. A module would still have been required to fire the Tomahawk upper stage, however.

Another possible "source" for a "non-de-spin" firing module might be the Sandia Tomahawk. The Stine drawing shows what appears to be a "non-de-spin" Firing Module, with a length of 8.156" - 8.158" .



A close-up crop of 18.26 IA on the launcher



MINAKOV's depiction of the Umbilical Connector and "Firing Unit" ( possible non-de-spin unit ) . . . NOTE he shows the ANGLED mount version ( not used on 18.26 IA ) version



"Tragring D" - I have looked over the "German Drawings', in detail. I have come to the conclusion that they are for a different Payload Section, not 18.26 IA. Except for 1 section and, possibly the Spacer Rings, nothing else matches up. In fact, the "Mantel II" drawing depicts 5 nozzles on that section, when photo's clearly show only 4. PLUS, the "spacing" between the Holes and the Bolts is way off, for 18.26 IA.

 

[Meatball 1]

Nose Cone :
I have a "working theory" about the Nose Cone. Clearly, the phenolic "shoulder" is shorter than depicted on GD-28-195. The Phenolic SHOULDER, on the D-Region Nose Cone is shorter, while the Ceramic upper section is longer.

THEORY : What if the Ceramic Upper Section of GD-28-195 were bonded to the shorter Phenolic Shoulder of the D-REGION Nose Cone, either "accidentally", or "intentionally ? That might explain the "Cream Stripe" ( which I believe to be 3/4" masking tape ), especially if the two components of the Nose Cone, when assembled, were not a "perfect fit" ? It would have served to prevent the Adhesive from "oozing out", until it cured.

That's unlikely to be true, for multiple reasons. The D-region mounting holes are countersunk and use flat head screws, not button-head. The D-Region brown section is too short, even in my "corrected" measurement of 4.5 inches (up from standard 3.75" in modelers' drawings). 18.26 IA is shorter than expected, but we don't know why. The white nose may be longer than expected--maybe to fit a 33" assembly, but maybe not. My hypothesis is that the longer white ogives and shorter white ogives are based on the same overall shape with same revolved arc radius making up the 3:1 ogive profile, which means that there may be a tangent cylindrical portion (white) at the base in longer versions (see attached Nose Assy Development PDF).

We don't actually know why the cream-colored stripe is there. We can assume tape, but we don't know why. I don't personally think the oozing glue hypothesis is likely.

De-Spin / Firing Module :
I am wondering if there is a "non-de-spin" firing module, as well as the de-spin unit ? The reason I am thinking this is that 18.26 IS was a Barium-Release flight only, There might have been no "need" to de-spin the payload. A module would still have been required to fire the Tomahawk upper stage, however.
Another possible "source" for a "non-de-spin" firing module might be the Sandia Tomahawk. The Stine drawing shows what appears to be a "non-de-spin" Firing Module, with a length of 8.156" - 8.158" .

No, it's a firing and despin unit. If anything the unit is shorter than the 7.4" of the Luest sketch, per my previous message attachment. And regarding umbilical connections, see attached schematic and red-boxed references, both from the Flight Requirements Plan.

A close-up crop of 18.26 IA on the launcher
MINAKOV's depiction of the Umbilical Connector and "Firing Unit" ( possible non-de-spin unit ) . . . NOTE he shows the ANGLED mount version ( not used on 18.26 IA ) version

Look closer at the black-and-white photo of the payload with the scientists. Definitely angled connector, similar to Taurus Tomahawk, but probably just the one instead of two (I assume).

"Tragring D" - I have looked over the "German Drawings', in detail. I have come to the conclusion that they are for a different Payload Section, not 18.26 IA. Except for 1 section and, possibly the Spacer Rings, nothing else matches up. In fact, the "Mantel II" drawing depicts 5 nozzles on that section, when photo's clearly show only 4. PLUS, the "spacing" between the Holes and the Bolts is way off, for 18.26 IA.

Yes, Mantel I and Mantel II and their adapter rings are from a different payload. But you forget that there are other drawings unrelated to the thick-walled "Mantel" drawings. These thinner-walled payload drawings with their various "Tragring" adapter rings appear to line up very well with the 18.26 IA payload photos and reflect the configuration as shown in NASA Tech Reports regarding the flight (ignoring the D-Region-style "plastic tip" on the nose diagram). The only obvious deviation from the 18.26 IA configuration is a lack of nozzle hole position for the "Tracer" nozzle, which is the aft-most nozzle. Using the tracer assembly config, I have derived what is the logical position of this nozzle when the assembly is mounted in its place on Tragring D--see attached PDF. See also NASA tech report screenshot of the payload config internals.

References attached.

Josh T.