lakeroadster
When in doubt... build hell-for-stout!
Would that give you base drag you need for stability?
It would indeed... if designed correctly.
Last edited:
Would that give you base drag you need for stability?
That’s the primary question. Hard to guess at it without testing.Would that give you base drag you need for stability?
Definite cool factor.
Are the rings really that thick?
when I originally built it I thought something draggy would be a better fit, less draggy than the saucer but more so than fins. Something like dowels maybe? Sketch isn’t scale but assume it’s a bt-50 for the sustainer. does this heat up the back burner at all?
View attachment 429803
Yes, my wings are small, with the goal of making it a more flyable rocket. CP/CG relationship still looks lousy for some reason.I thought your wings looked small, so I went looking for drawings rather than pictures.
View attachment 432116
I thought the Lockheed XB70 discussed in another thread looked cool, so I took a crack at it in OR. Two key observations:
1) It really needs a ribbed body a la Marten's Boom XB1. The arch of the body over the wing is really a key part of the look. Also, I wanted the tail to look the same as the real thing (6 motors in a line), with the middle two actually being motor mounts. There doesn't seem to be any reasonable way to approximate that in OR.
2) I realized after a while that the whole design is remarkably similar to the carrier in the Orbital Transport. Yeah, there are differences, but the broad strokes of the design are all pretty much in sync.
And so, the result is not bad, but I don't expect to pursue it further.
View attachment 432109
View attachment 432110View attachment 432111
I added some detail, adjusted the dimensions, updated the decals, and made it a two-stager:
It would be a fun rocket when completed, but it's not a very interesting build compared to the other stuff I've done recently. We'll see.
Yes, fun rocket, not-so-much-fun build. The nose cone is just a conical balsa cone with a decal on it. I'm sure I could spend some time fussing over the needle hub, but overall there's not much to it. Not a good winter build.Perhaps, but fabricating that nose cone doesn't look trivial, and I bet it'd be a hit with the spectators.
Not the best choice of words......Perhaps, but fabricating that nose cone doesn't look trivial, and I bet it'd be a hit with the spectators.
Perhaps, but fabricating that nose cone doesn't look trivial, and I bet it'd be a hit with the spectators.
Greatly appreciate the offer, but that's actually plain old BT5 and a conical nose cone I've already purchased. It's a bit thick compared to what the real needle would be, obviously (dock me points for scale accuracy) but as far as I'm concerned looks pretty good.Use a wooden dowel for the needle. The remaining nose cone would be easily turned on a lathe. If you decide to build this rocket I'd be glad to make it for you Neil, Pro bono.
Here’s hoping Estes comes out with a C5-0 in the near future. Should just about double the max lift off weight compared to C6-0Greatly appreciate the offer, but that's actually plain old BT5 and a conical nose cone I've already purchased. It's a bit thick compared to what the real needle would be, obviously (dock me points for scale accuracy) but as far as I'm concerned looks pretty good.
I've been working through the details on this design. Here's the current side view, shown with C6-0 => C6-3.
View attachment 439548
It's like a festival of centering rings. The challenge is that it is flirting with the max lift-off weight of the C6-0, and I will need to be extremely careful to avoid adding any excess mass. The sustainer is also a bit marginal with regard to stability (running around .8 right now), but since it would be starting at 100 mph it seems like it should be OK. Also it's a bit of a guess since the tail rings aren't factored into CP (I have put some compensation into the model, but accuracy is unknown). Need to avoid adding nose weight if possible. As it is, speed off the rail with C/C is just under 50 fps.
If I limit the sustainer to a B6, I buy a little margin back, but I'd *like* to be able to fly the C/C stack, which sims to about 800 ft, plus or minus.
That would be nice, but I've not heard that it is coming, so I can't assume. Not sure why, it seems like such an obvious use for that motor.Here’s hoping Estes comes out with a C5-0 in the near future. Should just about double the max lift off weight compared to C6-0
Somehow I find that really surprising; the sustainer is only modeled at 2.7 oz with motor, and doesn't look *that* draggy to me, certainly nothing like a lot of other more complex models
Here’s hoping Estes comes out with a C5-0 in the near future. Should just about double the max lift off weight compared to C6-0
Enter your email address to join: