Lakeroadster's X-Wing Alpha Build Thread

[lakeroadster]

 

[lakeroadster]

Preliminary Drawings For The TIE Advanced X1 Booster

 

[BABAR]

Maybe try rolling the X-Wing 45°~90° on it's longitudinal axis, like the X-Wing was performing a barrel-roll as a defensive maneuver.

darn, you beat me to it, I was thinking the same thing.

lake, not trying to yellow your cornflakes, but wouldn’t it be a good idea to FLY the sustainer (or did I miss it) BEFORE you start designing a booster? You may find the sustainer needs more nose weight to be stable, that would significantly affect adding a booster.

i love the concept, it is gonna be quite a challenge. While there are ways to put a streamer on a booster (don’t try a chute, been dere, done dat, deploying a chute to a booster when it is at max velocity [it should be, at separation] isn’t pretty, I had one of eight shroud lines still intact when I did it!), it’s complicated, so your best bet is tumble recovery. Which means it needs to be very light but very tough

something that may help your stability (well, maybe not YOUR stability, but the rocket anyway) is that if you go with the booster, adapt the sustainer DOWN to an A10-3T at least for the first flight.

this keeps the tail weight down, which is good For stability.

reduces mass, so gets off pad faster, also good.

A10-3T has a big nozzle bore, which in my opinion increases probability of successful ignition at staging.

two stage rockets tend to got higher (logical) and also frequently the staging is not quite vertical (and occasionally not at ALL vertical), both cases tend to make for a long walk tracking down sustainer, especially if it goes cruise missile on you. You really don’t need much motor in the sustainer as for A successful flight it must be at stable velocity BEFORE the sustainer motor kicks in. So going with the smallest practical motor gives you a “proven” successful staging flight (if it works) with a much safer profile and shorter walk if you hit fecal turbine interaction.

just my (as usual) uninvited opinion, but I can say I have backed this with real world experience.

best wishes!

 

[dhbarr]

Exhaust stuffer tube and a lead donut?

 

[lakeroadster]

lake, not trying to yellow your cornflakes, but wouldn’t it be a good idea to FLY the sustainer (or did I miss it) BEFORE you start designing a booster? You may find the sustainer needs more nose weight to be stable, that would significantly affect adding a booster.

Thanks for joining the discussion.

I plan to fly the X-wing soon. The TIE booster will be down the road a bit, long ago, in a galaxy not to far away.

i love the concept, it is gonna be quite a challenge. While there are ways to put a streamer on a booster (don’t try a chute, been dere, done dat, deploying a chute to a booster when it is at max velocity [it should be, at separation] isn’t pretty, I had one of eight shroud lines still intact when I did it!), it’s complicated, so your best bet is tumble recovery. Which means it needs to be very light but very tough

something that may help your stability (well, maybe not YOUR stability, but the rocket anyway) is that if you go with the booster, adapt the sustainer DOWN to an A10-3T at least for the first flight.

this keeps the tail weight down, which is good For stability.

reduces mass, so gets off pad faster, also good.

A10-3T has a big nozzle bore, which in my opinion increases probability of successful ignition at staging.

two stage rockets tend to got higher (logical) and also frequently the staging is not quite vertical (and occasionally not at ALL vertical), both cases tend to make for a long walk tracking down sustainer, especially if it goes cruise missile on you. You really don’t need much motor in the sustainer as for A successful flight it must be at stable velocity BEFORE the sustainer motor kicks in. So going with the smallest practical motor gives you a “proven” successful staging flight (if it works) with a much safer profile and shorter walk if you hit fecal turbine interaction.

just my (as usual) uninvited opinion, but I can say I have backed this with real world experience.

best wishes!

I really don't know how much nose weight it will need, until I do a swing test. My past swing tests have shown my oddrocs tend to be more stable than Open Rocket calculates. And until I know how much nose weight it needs, I really can't accurately determine which motor combination is optimal.

There won't be much recovery walking in any of the configurations if the sim's can be trusted. I added an A10 to the sim per your recommendation, and with it and a D12 in Vader's keister, apogee is less than 389 feet. I'm a bit afraid of a lawn dart at that height.

Even with dual D12's, it's only a 935 feet apogee.

I'm hoping I can build the TIE booster lighter than simulated, and thus minimize nose weight. I plan on home-made basswood plywood for the fins and spars (good strong core), with maybe a foam body and some cardstock for pieces parts. The nice thing about the Sienar Fleet Systems design of this TIE Fighter is the body is basically in a cocoon of crash protection. Vader tested, Vader approved.

A nice calm day, with a heads up flight is the plan.

Bottom line is I have to build it to know how to sim it. If it's unstable, it'll still be a cool desk model. Either way, it's a fun project.

 

[jqavins]

I'm hoping I can build the TIE booster lighter than simulated, and thus minimize nose weight. I plan on home-made basswood plywood for the fins and spars (good strong core), with maybe a foam body and some cardstock for pieces parts.

Why not balsa plywood, since you're using home made anyway?

 

[lakeroadster]

Why not balsa plywood, since you're using home made anyway?

smashing into rocks... I prefer a basswood cocoon.

 

[Daddyisabar]

It mindsims just fine.

 

[lakeroadster]

Spent some time digging around in the barn and I found the cockpit for a TIE X1 Advanced Fighter! It was cloaked as a wiffle ball...

Have Wiffle Ball.. will CAD



Here's the drawing package.

 

[lakeroadster]

Started building the TIE Fighter. I used the fixture I built for aligning the wings on the X-Wing to align the stabilizer fins on the Tie Fighter.

Also modified the Wiffle Ball. Check this out: Dear WIFFLE® Enthusiast

Next up is figuring out how to make the fins? It seems straight forward. but running the wood grain in the proper orientation is problematic. I may just run it the length of the body, as shown in the drawing I made, and then paper both sides, then add some reinforcing strips out of 1/32" basswood. Still trying to figure out what is the best approach.

 

[jqavins]

For grain direction:

• I'm no expert, and this is just what I've read here from others.
• They say that papering fins is not a substiture for the correct grain direction. If you're using basswood rather than balsa maybe that's different. In your shoes, I wouldn't risk it.

What I woud do is lay up some home made plywood.

 

[lakeroadster]

For grain direction:

• I'm no expert, and this is just what I've read here from others.
• They say that papering fins is not a substiture for the correct grain direction. If you're using basswood rather than balsa maybe that's different. In your shoes, I wouldn't risk it.

What I would do is lay up some home made plywood.

Sure, yep, that was my plan. I've done that on nearly all my builds.

But I need to make a 1-7/8 x 6-5/8 fin. Think about doing that that from stock that is 4" wide.

Maybe something like this?

Revised 5:51 PM

 

[GlenP]

You might not need to make plywood for LPR, maybe take a look at how some Estes kits make larger wings from balsa sheets by joining portions with grain running in the preferred strength direction and using zig-zag edges. for example from the Skydart and from the Jetliner instructions, consider this option if you think you could incorporate a similar technique to keep the weight down. If you plan to go up to MPR, then sure add as much weight and strength as you need, but those techniques might bust through your weight limit for LPR motors. Just an alternative suggestion to consider. You could download the full instruction PDF to see how those parts are cut from the stock balsa sheet and respective grain directions, but kind of obvious:





you could basically incorporate a coarse grid mosaic of the different grain directions from your 3 plies above into one single ply as a patchwork quilt.

 

[lakeroadster]

You might not need to make plywood for LPR, maybe take a look at how some Estes kits make larger wings from balsa sheets by joining portions with grain running in the preferred strength direction and using zig-zag edges. for example from the Skydart and from the Jetliner instructions, consider this option if you think you could incorporate a similar technique to keep the weight down. If you plan to go up to MPR, then sure add as much weight and strength as you need, but those techniques might bust through your weight limit for LPR motors. Just an alternative suggestion to consider. You could download the full instruction PDF to see how those parts are cut from the stock balsa sheet and respective grain directions, but kind of obvious:

View attachment 514717

View attachment 514718

you could basically incorporate a coarse grid mosaic of the different grain directions from your 3 plies above into one single ply as a patchwork quilt.

Thanks Glen. What complicates this is the booster is tumble recovery... hauling a D12 spent motor along for the ride. It tumbles from about an apogee of 200 feet.

 

[BABAR]

I like the balsa plywood idea, you are right, tumble recovery is really rough on fins. It would likely add too much complexity to go break away where the booster blow through lights the upper motor AND burns a burn band (I use bands, not string) and the tie fighter breaks up into connected pieces (but really cool, like Han Solo hitting Darth and yelling.”You’re all clear kid!”)

love the wiffle ball!

remind me (I am just recovering from Covid), has the X-wing flown yet?

 

[lakeroadster]

remind me (I am just recovering from Covid), has the X-wing flown yet?

Nope

 

[jqavins]

The booster blow through lights the upper motor AND burns a burn band (I use bands, not string) and the tie fighter breaks up into connected pieces

Worth the effort or not is a matter of opinion, and not one of opinions. Still, it would be AWESOME.

 

[lakeroadster]

@BABAR @jqavins

Maybe something like this?



________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


In reality though, based on the cg, the long front tube and the amount of fin area, this should be pretty draggy and thus slow it's decent more than is reflected in the sim.... at least it seems that way to me?

 

[Tobor]

There is a disturbance in the Force, the MindSim is troubled...

 

[jqavins]

@BABAR @jqavinsMaybe something like this?

Something like, but something more is needed to hold the side panels in position before bands burn through. As @BABAR said, it'd be complicated. There are probably multiple ways to do it, as there virtually always are.

The way I see it working is this: the panels would have to have sockets of some sort to accept the horizontal fins/supports. (I don't see there being any way to avoid that part.) If the sockets are shallow there'd need to be bands above and below so the torques cancel out, or the panels will tip off. The sockets could be deeper, providing sufficient reaction torque against one band, but only if that band is run right up against the supports to minimize said torque.

But to repeat, there are surely other ways to do it.

 

[lakeroadster]

I don't know.. maybe a Luke vs Vader Drag Race would be more exciting than a Luke vs Vader Dog Fight? Probably not... Vader's ride is an aero turd...

 

[lakeroadster]

Something like, but something more is needed to hold the side panels in position before bands burn through. As @BABAR said, it'd be complicated. There are probably multiple ways to do it, as there virtually always are.

The way I see it working is this: the panels would have to have sockets of some sort to accept the horizontal fins/supports. (I don't see there being any way to avoid that part.) If the sockets are shallow there'd need to be bands above and below so the torques cancel out, or the panels will tip off. The sockets could be deeper, providing sufficient reaction torque against one band, but only if that band is run right up against the supports to minimize said torque.

But to repeat, there are surely other ways to do it.

I was thinking (2) 1/16 x 1/16 balsa spars attached to each wing. These would cradle the 1/8" horizontal elevator fin.

Then a dowel glues into the 1/8" horizontal fin, and a hole is drilled into the wing.

It's a cool concept, but I'm not sure the added weight is worth the end result.

Maybe a neat idea for Part Deux: "The Rise & Total Collapse of Vader"

 

[jqavins]

And center drilling the hole in a dowel 1/8" would be tough. One can buy small diameter tubes in CF (and I assume in polystyrene) at hobby shops, which might be a better idea.

For the tie fighter being hit, it would be even nicer of you add a small payload of powder to look like smoke. And it's a shame that a little flash powder isn't allowed.

If you're thinking of Part Deux, this would certainly be easier on a larger scale.

And this just occurred to me: since this break apart occurs immediately at booster motor burnout, it's a case of the booster employing "CATO recovery"^* for the booster while the sustainer continues. (Is that your gimmick, @BABAR? I forget who does that one.) I've never seen a hybrid design like that.

(Lake, in case you haven't seen those threads, one of the regulars here builds rockets that look (reasonably) normal from the outside, and fly to pieces with the ejection charge goes off. But, unlike the break apart recovery of the Whacky Wiggler and others, these 1) break the main tubes laterally rather than into neat sections, and 2) are meant to be flown on booster motors so the break apart happens at low altitude and very little flight time. You ask the LCO not to announce the motor. The result is that it simulates a CATO. It's basically a prank pulled on the crowd.)

 

[Daddyisabar]

Give in to the dark side. Quick and easy 3M label paper on both balsa sides, seal the edge with thin CA and you will be fine even if the grain is the wrong direction.

You can always soak everything in thin CA if you need more strength.

But Master, soaking with thin CA causes toxic vapors! I could glue my fingers to my face necessitating an EMERGENCY call like the old 1970's show of the same name! Much fear and danger.

Fear not young padawan, the power of the dark side will allow you to fly the rockets you love.

 

[BABAR]

And center drilling the hole in a dowel 1/8" would be tough. One can buy small diameter tubes in CF (and I assume in polystyrene) at hobby shops, which might be a better idea.

For the tie fighter being hit, it would be even nicer of you add a small payload of powder to look like smoke. And it's a shame that a little flash powder isn't allowed.

If you're thinking of Part Deux, this would certainly be easier on a larger scale.

And this just occurred to me: since this break apart occurs immediately at booster motor burnout, it's a case of the booster employing "CATO recovery"^* for the booster while the sustainer continues. (Is that your gimmick, @BABAR? I forget who does that one.) I've never seen a hybrid design like that.

(Lake, in case you haven't seen those threads, one of the regulars here builds rockets that look (reasonably) normal from the outside, and fly to pieces with the ejection charge goes off. But, unlike the break apart recovery of the Whacky Wiggler and others, these 1) break the main tubes laterally rather than into neat sections, and 2) are meant to be flown on booster motors so the break apart happens at low altitude and very little flight time. You ask the LCO not to announce the motor. The result is that it simulates a CATO. It's basically a prank pulled on the crowd.)

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/gone-fission-rides-again.157177/#post-1956274
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/hope-this-brings-a-smile-mayday-catos-on-b6-0.36075/
Haven’t tried it as a booster recovery technique. for my four sided rockets it would Be easy. Much more challenging for your Tie.

I very much enjoy your stuff!

 

[lakeroadster]

Decided to not do the plywood fins. Going to try 1/16" basswood, papered on both sides. I used Gorilla Wood glue this time instead of white glue.

Gorilla glue tends to be much stiffer when dry, compared to white glue. That's been my experience anyway.

I used some smooth boards this time to clamp the wet papered fins. Last time I used CDX plywood and it transferred some of it's imperfections into the basswood.

 

[lakeroadster]

Pulled the papered basswood pieces from the clamping fixture after about 26 hours. They were still damp* and not much stiffer so the pieces were placed on the drying rack, with some weight placed on them to keep the pieces flat.

I flip the pieces every couple of hours... they seem to be stiffening up nicely.

*I place wax paper on both sides of the papered basswood in the clamping fixture... that means almost no air can get in to dry the glue. It's understandable that they were still damp.

 

[lakeroadster]

Data Mining...

 

[lakeroadster]

Get Your Wings

Cut the Advanced TIE Starfighter wings out of the papered basswood. I used an X-Acto knife for the rip cuts, and my grandfather's 1940's vintage DeWalt radial arm saw (RAS) for the crosscuts. I typically wouldn't cut 1/16" basswood with the RAS... but the paper prevented the wood from splintering.

Gluing up the fins is a pretty easy task, with the aid of some blue painter's tape and a 1" thick spacer.

 

[jqavins]

Never mind.