What stability is too less and too much ?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Don't do this. The base drag cone does not improve accuracy for center of pressure.


Why is this method preferred over just using the component masses and CGs and let OR sum up the moment of inertia?
The shapes available for mass components in OR are very simple shapes, they don't account for mass distribution in the parts you are simulating. By doing this, you only have to model two simple mass objects and the results are a perfect match to reality (at least to the level of accuracy you manage when doing the pendulum test). Would be nice to have an option to just override moment of inertia directly for the rocket, like how you can override mass.
 
@Buckeye posted the results of a CFD simulation the other day that makes a pretty good case that it doesn't increase accuracy of the estimate.
I don't see why folks would abandon that method, when it's been proven to work and was developed by Bruce S. Levison, an industry recognized authority on the subject.​
"Applying this correction to the Estes Fatboy launched on a C6-5 motor (see figure 3, note stability margin of 0.67) moves the CP aft to give a stability margin of 1.14 (see figure 3.) This means the Estes Fatboy design should fly stable without any added nose weight on a C6-5 motor (as everyone knows it will)!" Bruce Levison Dec. 2005
 
Last edited:
I don't see why folks would abandon that method, when it's been proven to work and was developed by Bruce S. Levison, an industry recognized authority on the subject.​
"Applying this correction to the Estes Fatboy launched on a C6-5 motor (see figure 3, note stability margin of 0.67) moves the CP aft to give a stability margin of 1.14 (see figure 3.) This means the Estes Fatboy design should fly stable without any added nose weight on a C6-5 motor (as everyone knows it will)!" Bruce Levison Dec. 2005
Could also just be that it only needs 0.67 calibers of stability to fly well. Short stubby rocket means a lower longitudinal moment of inertia, which means for the same corrective moment it will damp out oscillations faster.
 
Could also just be that it only needs 0.67 calibers of stability to fly well. Short stubby rocket means a lower longitudinal moment of inertia, which means for the same corrective moment it will damp out oscillations faster.

How's that logic work for pyramids and cones...​
 
I mean, they still have lower moments of inertia than "normal" rockets. To be statically stable, your cp has to be behind your cg and that's it. To be dynamically stable (i.e. the reason we are generally told to have at least a caliber of stability), you need to be able to damp out oscillations and not just start coning or tumbling.
 
I don't see why folks would abandon that method, when it's been proven to work and was developed by Bruce S. Levison, an industry recognized authority on the subject.​
"Applying this correction to the Estes Fatboy launched on a C6-5 motor (see figure 3, note stability margin of 0.67) moves the CP aft to give a stability margin of 1.14 (see figure 3.) This means the Estes Fatboy design should fly stable without any added nose weight on a C6-5 motor (as everyone knows it will)!" Bruce Levison Dec. 2005
Levison's analysis makes a lot of sense to me, but to the best of my knowledge it has not been proven to work. The only way to *prove* it works would involve a wind tunnel; the closest thing to actually testing it I've seen is the CFD model (which casts a lot of doubt on it).
 
"Applying this correction to the Estes Fatboy launched on a C6-5 motor (see figure 3, note stability margin of 0.67) moves the CP aft to give a stability margin of 1.14 (see figure 3.) This means the Estes Fatboy design should fly stable without any added nose weight on a C6-5 motor (as everyone knows it will)!" Bruce Levison Dec. 2005

A margin of 0.67 is stable. Faking it to be 1.14 proves nothing.

New thread started here:

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/lets-put-an-end-to-the-base-drag-hack.184792/
 
Levison's analysis makes a lot of sense to me, but to the best of my knowledge it has not been proven to work. The only way to *prove* it works would involve a wind tunnel; the closest thing to actually testing it I've seen is the CFD model (which casts a lot of doubt on it).
"Bruce S. Levison has asked us to share this article with other RockSim users. It describes a method that he feels will help to simulate the Short-Wide Rockets (like spools, cubes and pyramids) in RockSim. While this treatment is based on wind tunnel data collected for spool shaped rockets, Bruce feels that the CP will be in the right location on these other types of rocket designs." Newsletter 154, circa December 2005​
 
Like most tools, it works in specific circumstances (refer to "based on wind tunnel data collected for spool shaped rockets"). It's not something that can just be applied to every rocket.
 
This is pretty easy to test. OR says for a FatBoy CP is 206mm from nosecone tip. Override the CG to to 171mm which with a loaded rocket puts the CG at 206mm,which is at the CP. Then apply the base drag hack and it says the CP moves toward the rear from 206 to 252mm this gives a stability margin of over 9% Close enough to 10% and close enough for a flight test if someone is up for it. Stick it on the away cell...... Pick a low wind day (no point in pushing it too much).
Let us know how it goes.
Gut says it's stable.
 

Attachments

  • FatBoy 29mm.ork
    2.8 KB · Views: 0
Don't do this. The base drag cone does not improve accuracy for center of pressure.


Why is this method preferred over just using the component masses and CGs and let OR sum up the moment of inertia?
That's basically what I do in RockSim. It lets you consider it as the parts come on. Not proficient enough in OR to say.
 
The competition that I am participating requires a min stability of 1.5 cal during boost and to satisfy this my static margin is 2.2 cal. Is this normal? It’s a 130 mm dia rocket of length 219cm with an L class SRAD motor. What stability is too much ? What factors would it depend ?
One factor is, “what is the goal/target for the competition?”

If the goal is max performance, usually either altitude or duration, generally you are going to tend toward pushing the lower margin of stability envelope as from the center of pressure (CP) aspect, fin surface area (larger fins or increased number of fins) is one of if not the most important method of pulling CP favorable tailward (outside of outside the box stuff like dynamic gas stabilization), and larger fin surface area usually equates to higher drag. So if it’s performance you want, I’d shoot for the minimum required of 1.5.

But if it’s something like TARC where the “target” is to get a various number of eggs safely to a certain altitude and then return to earth in one or more rocket pieces in a specified time, I’d say your goal for the rocket is likely to optimize for reliability and durability and consistency (and if required “egg protection”).

So what are the rules/goals/targets for your competition? If it isn’t altitude or duration, I’d shoot for “average” rocket stability, make the trailing edges of the fins perpendicular or forward swept and terminate them FORWARD of the tail of the body tube (think opposite of the Estes Alpha) to reduce breakage, and then mess with motor size and rocket mass to meet the other parameters, if any.

Kind of just hit me, you say this requires an L motor, so unless this is a paperwork exercise, at least in the U.S. SOMEBODY on your team must be level 2 certified (I’m a proud L-0, BTW). People on this forum are always glad to help, but seems like you ought to have a resource on your team that can easily answer questions like these.
 
Last edited:
I am probably in the minority but I do think a rocket can be overstable. Mach1's BT60 sized kits imo have this issue, they are all 7+ cal stability on like F motors because they are so long for their size and I was told the higher the caliber of stability, the higher chance the rocket will want to weathercock into the wind. I guess you could argue the Mean Machine has the same issue but flies fine. I never got into that rocket for some reason, I guess very long and thin cardboard tube = bendy and creasy for me
 
Back
Top