Heavy Metal up front! Weight on hinny is sinful!Thanks for all the comments guys. I'm going to build it... but it may be a while before it gets onto the workbench though.
I'll tell ya what.... I'll attach a 8 ounce weight at the bottom for the first launch to move the cg down a bunch.
What do ya think.. sound like a plan?
View attachment 406980
Top men in the ways of science have told me the pendulum theory is bunk. An ancient theory that went the way of that comforting Earth centered universe we held for so long. Proven wrong by 20th Century aerodynamics the age of the tractors was over, only useful for LES applications and silly oddrocs.
The Apogee tech paper on 2 fined rockets with the fins and motors in back (Where they should be! I sure do love my traditional 34FNC rockets!) Says that sort of design won't work.
As for canted motors you can get by with a little sin, just needing them to light roughly at the same time. Lord willing they will burn roughly the same amount of time with roughly the same amount of thrust on each side. Pop-pop on the ejection timng is roughly the norm as is the more than adequate power of the ejection charge.
Now you add sin with less than ideal launch conditions. You add sin by not having a nice thick and long rod or rail or any fault in launch system or igniters. You add a little sin going all two dimensional. Keeping away from too much sin is hard to do.
Do not underestimate the power of the D motors ejection charge. In such a small area and venting sideways you need super strength for an instant, which may mean stamped steel construction like a cheap, late model Chicom AK. Lord willing you will not get a motor (s) with a shotgun ejection charge.
Would plugged motors with electronic ejection, maybe even CO2, be less sinful than a potential bomb of 2 side vented D12's?
Well enough blather already, don't want to upset the real rocket scientists.
Wait, are you saying fins in the opposite plane up top? It seems to me that would be the opposite of helpful. You could use four fins at the bottom, and you could even make them four different shapes: a triangle, a circle template, a French curve, and another template such as flow chart or electrical symbols.
Actually, that's the BIG "sin" here. In a "normal" rocket any sideways thrust is countered by the fins. But this design has no fin surface perpendicular to the direction of thrust.
Has the added benefit of not going very far before deployment, alway a plus when stability fails to be nominal.
If the rocket catches an unfortunate gust of wind the only thing to do is have the RSO call for a duck and cover!
Yep. It is rear eject and with tightly packed chutes that take awhile to unfurl it might work. Would avoid scary ejection charges while still using motor ejection. Lower pressure easier to deal with.
Just like the ChiComm rocket that took out that nearby Village.
Nobody kicked anybody's hinny in that movie. That would have been pointless and cruel.
Curious why they would have the dinner in February in Colorado... and on a Saturday when the highways are gridlock from all the snow bunnies? For the last decade in Colorado, February has been the snowiest month of the year.
I mean... looking at historical snowfall data isn't "Rocket Science"...
https://www.weather.gov/bou/seasonalsnowfall
View attachment 407132
I bet it's so draggy that it'll be fine, provided you fly it on a grassy field.
