Low mass, high drag designs?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I started working on some designs in OR today (instead of doing what I should have been doing... Priorities...), and I think I have a few that will work. All of the designs use one of the egg halves as a nosecone, foam core centering rings wrapped in card stock for the body, and big foam core fins. I think I have at least two workable designs! I've got go somewhere right now, but I'll update the thread with some details later.
 
Here is a photo of the Hobby lobby egg parts.

Hobby-lobby-egg.jpg


The can of beans is for reference. That actual sizes are as follows:


PartWeightDiameterLength
Green, long10.259.759.5
Green, short6.909.757.5
Pink, long5.257.57.25
Pink, Short3.407.54.875
Blue, long2.204.8754.875
Blue, Short1.454.8753.25
 
I did 3 quick Open Rocket designs using 3 different diameter cones. As I described earlier, the designs are all foam core CRs, skinned in card stick, with foam core fins. For the most part, I used materials sitting around the house or available from Hobby Lobby. I have a tube from a roll of foil that fits a 29mm motor to use as a motor mount, and I have some BT80 for a parachute bay, so all the designs are only as long as can be made with these two tubes. The card stock is 22" x 28", so I kept the BT length to 22" on all the designs, for comparison purposes. The 22" BT gives some overlap of the motor tube and parachute bay tube.

The small 4.875 cone design ended up weighing 9.8 oz, with 1.01 cal stability (unloaded). That weight is just about right for an F15, comparable to the PSII E2X kits. With the motor loaded, the stability drops to .37 cal! The rocket is just so light, that the heavy motor radically affects stability. The heavier composites are unstable without nose weight, which sort of defeats the purpose of what I'm trying to do. I'm sure there are some tweaks to the length and fin design that could improve this rocket and make a great rocket for F15 motors, but this was just quick and dirty to see if it would work at all. As it is, with my quick and dirty design, An F15-4 puts this rocket at mere 463' apogee, which is about what I'm looking for.

High-Drag-4-875-Sims.jpg

The 7.5" inch cone resulted in rockets that were a bit heavy for an Estes F15 --- about 17 oz, unloaded, and only 32 fps off the rod. Also, the only F15 that would work was the F15-2, which is a motor in the Open Rocket list, but I'm not sure it really exists in that short delay. It's too bad this is probably not viable, because otherwise this might be a really amazing thing to launch in the schoolyard to 240 feet!

The flights of the 7.5" rocket on the low-thrust composites were pretty good. The rocket put in flights under 1,000 feet even on the H motors. I had to sweep the fins back to get decent stability when loaded, which unfortunately seems like it would be a fragile design with foam core fins. The stability was pretty good though --- .95 cal unloaded, and about .5 cal with the composite motors, which should be fine given the high speeds off the rod.

High-Drag-7-5-Sims.jpg


I thought the 9.75" cone produced some interesting designs. Even though the cone itself is still very light for a 9.75" cone, it is significantly heavier than the other cones and is much heavier than the other construction materials, so it has a lot more nose weight, and it doesn't lose much stability compared to the 7.5", even though it is much fatter but just as short. The weight means the G33, is probably out due to low speed off the rail. I added in some other G motors to see if there would be other options for flying at my club's low power launches. Unfortunately, some of them have a minimum delay that is probably too long for such a slow rocket --- the long-burn motors have delays that can be trimmed very short, but most of the other propellants have minimums of 4 or 5 seconds. Looks like the G57 Classic would work, but the G68 white probably would not. The idea of launching a 10" rocket on a G motor at my club's LPR launch causes me to laugh maniacally!

High-Drag-9-75-Sims.jpg


I don't have much experience with analyzing simulation plots (usually just use sims to predict delays), but look at this plot below for the 9.75" rocket on the H53 Mellow Yellow. The motor burns for 4.4 seconds, but the acceleration drops below zero around 2.5. At that point, the motor still burns for almost another 2 seconds, but the rocket is actually slowing down. My interpretation is that the drag forces on the rocket at its peak speed are greater than the motor thrust. Presumably, if the motor continued to burn for an even longer period of time at constant thrust, the forces would balance at a certain speed, and the rocket would just maintain that speed until burnout. That would be fun to see. As it is, I think this rocket would be very fun to fly on that H53 mellow, with 4.4 seconds of burn in under 900 feet!


High-Drag-9-75-H53-Plot.jpg


If I have time, I'm going to build one of these. Which one should I try first?
 
I went to Hobby Lobby today, and they had these HUGE plastic Easter eggs. I'll post a pic later, but I'll describe it now. It's a set of three plastic eggs nested inside each other. They open into two pieces, one elliptical, and one almost hemispherical, just like the little plastic eggs used to hide gifts on Easter, but big. That means there are six parts, each one potentially a lightweight nose cone. I don't have measurements in front of me, but the big egg is about 9.75" in diameter, the middle one is about 7.5", and the small one is about 5.5". I don't recall the weights at all, but I think it was around 8 oz, for the biggest parts (maybe more) to under 3 oz for the small ones. I'll post the accurate details when I post the pics.

The huge nested egg set was usually $20, but on sale for 40% off its $16, for 6 big lightweight NCs. That's a decent deal. I also got a sheet of foam core material and a sheet of card stock. I think with other materials I have laying around, I might be able to put together a rocket now!

I've got a lot going on right now, so I won't guarantee I'll get right to it. But I'm pretty excited about the possibility!

FYI, when I made the hemispheric nose cone for my son's rocket I cut a tennis ball in half and laid up fiberglass in the perfectly hemispheric "bowl". It worked a treat, and was super easy. You could do the same thing with your eggs, and with glass I doubt you'd have egg on your face.
 
I just did a sim with a CTI 38mm I55 mellow. The burn is 7.5 seconds, and the rocket only goes to 1279 feet! It's the tortoise of I motors! I bet when it finally gets to apogee, it's totally out of breath, like a fat man climbing a hill. That would be such a weird flight profile. I wonder if it would continue in a straight upwardly direction or if it would arc over for 7.5 seconds of disaster.
 
I'm having an issue with all of these sims. I started with a Rocsim rkt file for a different rocket and then modified it from there. The file is not saving the motor configurations and sim data. Also, I'm not able to "Save as" an OR file. And whenever I open a file, it shows that CG overrides have been set for the items where I have made a mass override, even though I have not set a CG override. Anyone know what is going on?
 
Go for the 10" build! An I55 in a 10" foam rocket would be awesome. If you want to borrow a 38mm 3G case to save weight over using the 5G + spacers, I'd be happy to lend it to you.

ETA: try changing the extension to .ork in settings, and then the file should save flights.
 
Last edited:
Go for the 10" build! An I55 in a 10" foam rocket would be awesome ...

+1 on the 10", I'd like to see how our notes compare ;)

Fwiw, I found 'small diameter' (.37) carbon fiber arrow shafts at Walmart on clearance for $5.00. I think they were 29". I haven't priced out CF rod from Hobby Town yet lol
 
Go for the 10" build! An I55 in a 10" foam rocket would be awesome. If you want to borrow a 38mm 3G case to save weight over using the 5G + spacers, I'd be happy to lend it to you.

ETA: try changing the extension to .ork in settings, and then the file should save flights.

I knew I could count on you, SC, for the go big, or go home advice! If I do build it this size, I'll take you up on the loaner case. That would be a pretty amazing flight, wouldn't it? The sims show it only leaving the rail at 40 fps, which might be kind of low... The 29mm H53 has better speed off the rail, but that 7.5 second I55 would be crazy! The flight is so low, it might as well be a ground test!

There are also some J mellow motors, but it looks like no motor eject --- maybe it's light enough for tumble recovery...

Maybe that's how I'll get my L2 --- giant foam rocket with tumble recovery!

About the file format, is there a setting I don't know about? When I do a Save As, there is a drop-down for the file type with .rkt and .ork. But for some reason, I'm not able to select .ork. I click it, but when the drop-down closes, the .rkt extension is still selected. Do I need to set it somewhere else?
 
+1 on the 10", I'd like to see how our notes compare ;)

Fwiw, I found 'small diameter' (.37) carbon fiber arrow shafts at Walmart on clearance for $5.00. I think they were 29". I haven't priced out CF rod from Hobby Town yet lol

Thanks for the tip on the carbon fiber. The designs seem to favor the back-swept fins, but they look really thin and fragile to me. It could be that some kind of carbon fiber stiffener is in order.
 
FYI, when I made the hemispheric nose cone for my son's rocket I cut a tennis ball in half and laid up fiberglass in the perfectly hemispheric "bowl". It worked a treat, and was super easy. You could do the same thing with your eggs, and with glass I doubt you'd have egg on your face.

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't actually have any experience at all with fiberglass, so I'll probably stick to using the eggs themselves.
 
Thanks for the tip on the carbon fiber. The designs seem to favor the back-swept fins, but they look really thin and fragile to me. It could be that some kind of carbon fiber stiffener is in order.

Lol don't thank me, thank Frank! I borrowed HIS idea.

Like they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery :)

I put a link to HobbyTowns selection of tube in my 10" paper thread... It may be less expensive elsewhere (online) but I can drive there and have it...now.

I just need stay focused to make it -past- the rockets and quadcopters lol
 
Last edited:
I knew I could count on you, SC, for the go big, or go home advice! If I do build it this size, I'll take you up on the loaner case. That would be a pretty amazing flight, wouldn't it? The sims show it only leaving the rail at 40 fps, which might be kind of low... The 29mm H53 has better speed off the rail, but that 7.5 second I55 would be crazy! The flight is so low, it might as well be a ground test!

There are also some J mellow motors, but it looks like no motor eject --- maybe it's light enough for tumble recovery...

Maybe that's how I'll get my L2 --- giant foam rocket with tumble recovery!

About the file format, is there a setting I don't know about? When I do a Save As, there is a drop-down for the file type with .rkt and .ork. But for some reason, I'm not able to select .ork. I click it, but when the drop-down closes, the .rkt extension is still selected. Do I need to set it somewhere else?

It would be a great flight! 1200 ft with a 7 second burn would be quite the sight.

What length rail are you simming? LUNAR has some 8' rails, so if the 40 FPS is off a 6' rail I'm sure you could fly off an 8' for some extra safety margin.

For the file format I usually just rename the file. On a Mac, command-I on the file allows you to change the name and extension, so I just change it from example.rkt to example.ork

One other design option that could work, following the foam ideas, would be an upscaled Decaffinator. I kind of want to try a G33 or H42 in a heavier, longer variation of a Decaffinator-maybe with some fin pods for extra drag?
 
How about something like this? Pick up a LOC 3" nosecone. LOC 3" airframe and LOC 5.5" airframe. Use 1/8" ply. Weighs 13 oz. dry. 12 NS motors may not be enough, but this should give you a pretty impressive flight. An E9 is a little weak, but E12's are OK. Could be done as a 24mm or as a 29mm and use a G23 MY.

Low and Slow MPR.jpg
 
The best example of what you're speaking of must be the Harry Spears' Jumping Flaming Spider of Death:

Can't be bothered to rotate it. Yes, the legs are full length pool noodles. I believe it does about 800 feet on a K, but Harry could confirm.
THAT is a very cool idea! Image rotated:

Harry Spears' Jumping Flaming Spider of Death on K motor using full length pool noodles.jpg
 
Last edited:
I just did a sim with a CTI 38mm I55 mellow. The burn is 7.5 seconds, and the rocket only goes to 1279 feet! It's the tortoise of I motors! I bet when it finally gets to apogee, it's totally out of breath, like a fat man climbing a hill. That would be such a weird flight profile. I wonder if it would continue in a straight upwardly direction or if it would arc over for 7.5 seconds of disaster.
Don't forget to try the easy base drag compensation for short/fat designs described in Apogee newsletters 154, 158, and 162. It might let you get rid of some fin area and length below the base of the rocket.
 
Don't forget to try the easy base drag compensation for short/fat designs described in Apogee newsletters 154, 158, and 162. It might let you get rid of some fin area and length below the base of the rocket.

I've used that formula in OpenRocket, and it obviously does change the CP. Is it still recommended, even with a short, stubby rocket, to be at least 1 caliber stability? Would ~.8 be ok?

I would suppose a swing test would be the best way to truly determine it.
 
Don't forget to try the easy base drag compensation for short/fat designs described in Apogee newsletters 154, 158, and 162. It might let you get rid of some fin area and length below the base of the rocket.

Good point. I'll definitely do that.

I think for these kinds of rockets that are so fat, calibers is not the best way to measure stability. A ratio of length makes more sense to me than a ratio of diameter. For example, you could say the distance from CP to CG should be 10% or more of the total length to be stable. I'll have to double check, but I think the designs so far are at least 10%.

I've had two fat squatty rockets, the Big Daddy and the warlock, and they both do best on fast motors that get them moving quick off the rod/rail. The kinds of motors I want to try in these rockets aren't the fast kinds I'd usually pick for a short rocket, but some of them still show some decently fast speeds off the rail, even though they have low top speeds over the duration of the flight. I'll definitely start off with the ones with a quick launch speed.
 
The big problem with the 29mm Estes BP motors is their realtively slow thrust buildup and resulting low rod exit velocities. Just for the heck of it, although it's much less than ideal considering the extra complexity (cluster ignition) and additional motor cost, you might try simming a pair of A10s to give it a kick off the pad while not adding much to altitude because of their low total impulse. The square in the figure below indicates approximate total thrust at that time from a 2 A10, 1 F15 cluster.

F15 with A10.jpg
 
I've used that formula in OpenRocket, and it obviously does change the CP. Is it still recommended, even with a short, stubby rocket, to be at least 1 caliber stability? Would ~.8 be ok?

I would suppose a swing test would be the best way to truly determine it.

My warlock is a fat stubby rocket. With a motor loaded, it only has .242 cal of stability, as calculated by Open Rocket, with no base-drag tricks. CP and CG are only separated by 1.8 inches!

Open Rocket puts the CP at 35.9"

Rocsim puts it at 39.3. Whatever method it uses moves the CP 3.4", compared to OR. Stabiliy goes up to .7.

Using the zero-mass cone to simulate base drag in OR puts the CP at 42.6". So stability goes up to 1.12.

That's a pretty wide range of stability numbers! I'm not really sure what to believe, but in the case of a Warlock, it has flown great the two times I launched it. Of course, the first time it got off the rail at 65 fps, and the second time 85!
 
Here is a photo of the Hobby lobby egg parts.

View attachment 282178

It occurs to me that you could build a rocket around an entire egg, not just use it as a nose cone. Think something like the old Mars Lander, with spring-loaded legs. It wouldn't split at the joint for recovery, the two halves would be secured together during construction. It could use a normal parachute through a hole in the nose. If I had one of these, I think I'd like to play with this design...
 
Last edited:
It occurs to me that you could build a rocket around an entire egg, not just use it as a nose cone.

Here was my attempt at using the full egg - but not quite like a Mars Lander....

thats nuts pad.jpg

OK - not the full egg - it was cut down to make the acorn shape
 
Anyway, just one approach. I've seen cone-tailed rockets, but never one that combines a tail cone and fins like this.

Although no one cares, I wanted to correct myself on this one: The Fliskits ACME Spitfire has a tail cone integrated with the fins.
acme.jpg
 
It occurs to me that you could build a rocket around an entire egg, not just use it as a nose cone. Think something like the old Mars Lander, with spring-loaded legs. It wouldn't split at the joint for recovery, the two halves would be secured together during construction. It could use a normal parachute through a hole in the nose. If I had one of these, I think I'd like to play with this design...

My wife also suggested I just fly the egg instead of use the parts as a nose cone. Isn't that how Mork came to Earth?
 
Here was my attempt at using the full egg - but not quite like a Mars Lander....

View attachment 282454

OK - not the full egg - it was cut down to make the acorn shape

Forgive me for saying so, but that's nuts.

EDIT: Just went to check out the thread, and my joke is not even remotely original...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top