F-23 Ramjet Research Vehicle (Sport-Scale w/ 3D Printed Parts + BT-55 main tube / BT-50 Engine Pods + Plywood fins)

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

BigMacDaddy

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
3,402
Location
Northern NJ
Retroactive post about this build and design since I finally got to launch this today. This is a semi-scale build designed after the rocket that is at the Udvar-Hazy Center in DC/VA. The F-23 has some nice size vertical fins and provided a good balance of size vs print time while providing some details I could do better with 3D printing. I measured scale from pictures and decided to do a BT-55 version with BT-50 ramjets -- comes in at a bit over 32" long (BT-60 + BT-55 also works for sport-scale proportions but was quite a bit bigger). The plan is to channel ejection gasses through the thick ramjet support members into the main tube. I was not sure this would work but it worked great -- better than I ever would have guessed. You could also build it with smaller chutes or streamers in the side engine pods if you taped off the connecting channels into the main body.

1693948346615.png 1693948382935.png

Here is my completed built version.
1693948029963.png
1693948553095.png

This model / design is in a good space for me since there are some nice details I can incorporate into the model to take it beyond something generic. It was a bit of a challenge to get the main connecting piece to print as a single part without tons of supports but I got the design to work well and minimized cleanup.

1693948170187.png
1693948199832.png

I had to do some gymnastics to get it to simulate in OR -- OR ignores the side ramjet tubes, unless they are tube fins, in stability calculations. I decided to put mock fins the same area as the tubes since these provide the majority of horizontal fin surface area. Surprised I still needed so much nose weight but it flew great. Should be nice launches on a pair of C5-3 or a D12-5 (assuming both engines ignite - rocket should get hung up on launch rail if only one lights up).

1693948294097.png

Finally had a chance to test launch this today and it flew great and ejected the nosecone with no issues. Sadly, my 8yo videographer is still in summer mode and so is out of practice making videos... Rocket flew nice and straight although it did rotate some (I think one engine might have ignited a little faster than the other which put it to spin around the launch rod a little on take off). To let him off a little easy, this did take off really fast due to the two engines. I decided to launch with smaller engines this time and it flew really nicely on a pair of B6-4 engines.

1693947893773.png1693949299561.png
 

Attachments

  • 1693948506562.png
    1693948506562.png
    5.5 MB · Views: 0
That’s a nice elegant design.

i am thinking it would be stable even if only one motor lit, the outboards are not “too” outboard.

are the fins through the wall?

I may have missed it, what’s you adhesive of choice plastic to paper or wood? Epoxy?
 
That’s a nice elegant design.

i am thinking it would be stable even if only one motor lit, the outboards are not “too” outboard.

are the fins through the wall?

I may have missed it, what’s you adhesive of choice plastic to paper or wood? Epoxy?
Thanks, yes - 3d parts are slotted so the fins are through-wall. I use CA glue usually but have also used Fabritac sometimes when I want something thicker.
 
Widely spaced pods, ducted ejection, cool design... great stuff, dunno how I missed this one the first time around.
i am thinking it would be stable even if only one motor lit, the outboards are not “too” outboard.
Hmm, I was thinking the opposite, those are pretty far outboard. Too bad there is no practical way to ensure all motors light simultaneously, or hold the rocket down until all are lit. Would open up a lot of fun designs that otherwise would be unsafe.
 
image.jpg

Done.

Picture only shows hook up on one side for clarity. Each motor has its own hookup.

Parts needed

Two S hooks

2 #16 rubber bands (low power, anyway)

Two wire fishing leaders

Two pieces of string.

Cut small notches at edges of blast plate.

Rubber bands loop around forward end of outboards, twist once, run around pylon top to bottom, twist again, then loop to S hook just below the motor nozzle (watch out for igniter clips).

Hook attached to flame proof wire fishing leader, runs to notch at blast plate edge, then to adjustable tie band below plate.

Optional: The motor casing stand off has metal plate dividers (cut tin can plates) so blast from one motor can’t cross midline to melt opposite band. Could have two plates for two motors, three or four for more motors.

Should easily adapt to different “widths” of outboard spacing by adjusting the tie strings (attached to leaders) below the plate.

If any motor with a burn band does NOT ignite, band doesn’t burn and keeps rocket firmly on the pad .

. Too bad there is no practical way to ensure all motors light simultaneously, or hold the rocket down until all are lit. Would open up a lot of fun designs that otherwise would be unsafe.
 
Chuffing of one motor might be a problem, if one motor doesn’t come up to thrust with the other.
 
If any motor with a burn band does NOT ignite, band doesn’t burn and keeps rocket firmly on the pad .

Chuffing of one motor might be a problem, if one motor doesn’t come up to thrust with the other.

Ooooooor, if the thrust of one motor exceeds the weight of the pad.

I was lucky enough to go to Space Camp when I was in 6th grade. One of my memories is that they did a model rocket exhibition, except every single rocket (save one!) went spectacularly wrong. One of them tipped over the launch pad and then went rocket sled style across the grass.
 
.
F-23 has already been taken. It was a competitor to the winning F-22.
some alphanumeric designations and names have been re-used.

F4 Corsair (maybe technically F4U) and F4 Phantom.

Thunderbolt P47 and Thunderbolt A10

call it whatever you want. I don’t think military or government is gonna care, let alone give you heartburn.

have fun with it.

Apogee did a revised SR-71 blackbird they called the SR-72 DarkBird. I did my own upscale of the Apogee model (with a lot of revision) and called it the SR-73 Raven.
 
What's that other rocket in the background? You gotta do one of those too!
I am not sure -- I am thinking it might be a Farside -- yep confirmed that... https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-media/NASM-A19680013000cp06

It is a really cool looking rocket that is so far fetched in concept. But not sure how realiable a 4 > 1 > 4 > 1 rocket would be with those huge gaps between stages. Definitely a candidate for electronic ignition but that is beyond me.
 
Cool rocket. You could run a simulation in OpenRocket or RockSim and see what happens on one engine.
F-23 has already been taken. It was a competitor to the winning F-22.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-23
Does OpenRocket simulate off-center engine thrust?

I modified the sim to allow me to drop one engine. Put a C6-3 in the other slot and it seems like OR suggests 21 meter horizontal movement in around 210m of altitude. Not sure I am doing / reading that correctly though.
 
Does OpenRocket simulate off-center engine thrust?

I modified the sim to allow me to drop one engine. Put a C6-3 in the other slot and it seems like OR suggests 21 meter horizontal movement in around 210m of altitude. Not sure I am doing / reading that correctly though.
I do not think OR simulated off-axis thrust. (I should be able to provide a more definitive answer but I’m doubting myself at the moment).
 
I do not think OR simulated off-axis thrust. (I should be able to provide a more definitive answer but I’m doubting myself at the moment).
Yeah, I remembered airspeed and dropped that to 0 and then there is barely any lateral distance (so I guess it does not model off-center thrust as far as I can tell).
 
Widely spaced pods, ducted ejection, cool design... great stuff, dunno how I missed this one the first time around.

Hmm, I was thinking the opposite, those are pretty far outboard. Too bad there is no practical way to ensure all motors light simultaneously, or hold the rocket down until all are lit. Would open up a lot of fun designs that otherwise would be unsafe.

Thanks! I was really worried that the ducted ejection would not work and that the ramjet pods or nosecones would get blown off.
 
Very cool!

Regarding the ducting and what if one outboard engine doesn't light, this YouTuber made a dual engine Estes SR71 with rear piston eject and the outboard motors look almost the same distance apart as your design. He had a lot of failures, but eventually got it working.

At 0:20, I suspect this launch only had one motor light...
 
Not an issue if you limit yourself to BP motors.
So far my Lipo battery based launch trigger has worked really well on these small clusters. Is ignites engines so much faster than my backup Estes controller with AA batteries in it. Helps to get clusters lit reliably.

For this rocket and also my F-104 BT-80 scale with main + booster I needed to run some copper wires between the igniters so that I could reach both engines with my clips (I don't have a clip-whip). So far this has worked well and I thought about making some simple two-wire rigs for my clusters to wrap igniter leads around instead of using a clip whip.
 
That's a really cool design! Love how you ducted the ejection charge gasses through the engine pylons. Do you need to use wadding or a blanket to protect the parachute?
 
That's a really cool design! Love how you ducted the ejection charge gasses through the engine pylons. Do you need to use wadding or a blanket to protect the parachute?
Thank you very much!

I use wadding or dog barf when I launch (although I would guess a chute protector would also work).

I have been wondering about integrating pistons or baffle into models. For example, if I put coarse steel wool in the 3D printed transition part would that allow gasses to pass through but stop the flammable bits (or photons depending on which science you adhere to).
 
Last edited:
Flaming bits or photons, wooly steel wool will stip. Very hot gas will come out as merely hot gas. Did you mention "which science" because you're thinking about buffering an ignition charge for staging? No, you wouldn't do that.
 
Flaming bits or photons, wooly steel wool will stip. Very hot gas will come out as merely hot gas. Did you mention "which science" because you're thinking about buffering an ignition charge for staging? No, you wouldn't do that.
Sorry - meant baffle, not buffer.

Actually the reason I was thinking of it was because my StarStreak has 1x center 24mm motor that triggers 2nd stage darts but has 3 motors that eject the nosecone. Seems a bit difficult to get wadding over the 3 engines with the center tube so thought about integrating a baffle into a centering ring.
 
Back
Top