High Power Helicopter Recovery?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
39,228
Reaction score
17,187
Location
Glennville, GA
Excluding Master Blasters, has anyone seen a high power nose cone or rocket recovery by helicopter recovery? I have been thing about this off and on for years and would like to know what you all think?

I guess you could do a balsa nose cone with carbon fiber rotors.
 
Dave Leininger flew one at LDRS 21 in Amarillo. K motor, if I remember correctly.

-Kevin
 
Saw some University of Texas engineering students use one at a launch in Girvin, TX last year. Worked very well.
 
I sure hope so. I will buy one - heck maybe 2. I don't want my wife flying my build.
 
I had thought about an upscale Estes Gyroc, flying on an H or an I, but I have to figure away to make strong but extremely lightweight fins.
 
Rear ejection of the motor with parachute recover could remove enough weight for a safe recover by rotary.
 
The problem is that the original gyroc had balsa fins, but when you increase the size of the fins 3-4 times and put more stress on them with high power motors, you have to switch to plywood for better structural integrity. Plywood is 3.7 times heavier per cubic inch than balsa. So when you upsize a Gyroc fin 4x and make it plywood, the fin weight increases nearly 15 times. That moves the CG way behind the CP and makes the rocket unstable. If you switch to fiberglass it is even worse even if you go half the thickness.

In order to keep the CG in the same scaled location, you need to add weight equvalent to approx. 73% the weight of the upsized fins into the nose cone. That added nose weight makes the thing drop like a rock. I recently saw a fin design where the perimeter of the fins were plywood, but the area inside the perimeter was a lighter weight material (i.e. foam core) and that might provide a solution to the problem, but even there, you might not be able to make it high power.
 
The problem is that the original gyroc had balsa fins, but when you increase the size of the fins 3-4 times and put more stress on them with high power motors, you have to switch to plywood for better structural integrity. Plywood is 3.7 times heavier per cubic inch than balsa. So when you upsize a Gyroc fin 4x and make it plywood, the fin weight increases nearly 15 times. That moves the CG way behind the CP and makes the rocket unstable. If you switch to fiberglass it is even worse even if you go half the thickness.

In order to keep the CG in the same scaled location, you need to add weight equvalent to approx. 73% the weight of the upsized fins into the nose cone. That added nose weight makes the thing drop like a rock. I recently saw a fin design where the perimeter of the fins were plywood, but the area inside the perimeter was a lighter weight material (i.e. foam core) and that might provide a solution to the problem, but even there, you might not be able to make it high power.

I would think some of the challenge would be something strong enough to handle the force from roto recovery, yet also light enough to not cause the issues you describe.

Nomex honeycomb with a single layer of fiberglass or carbon fiber over it, sounds like it'd do the trick. It wouldn't be cheap, though!

-Kevin
 
If you build it like a kite, and keep the speed down, you definitely would be able to upscale a helicopter recovery rocket, at least the planform if not the thickness of parts.
 
I have been considering an upscale Gyroc also. I have a piece of 6" blue tube that I do not have a purpose for. This would be approx. 8X. I was considering making the body out of that, with thru the wall built up fins. 54mm MMT. I would build a nose cone out of foam, glass over it, then dissolve the foam out. The fins would be built up with spruce leading and trailing with a main spar, filed in with expanding foam and covered in 1/32" aircraft plywood. Would be about 3/4" thick for the wings and about 1/2" thick for the rudders. When the ejection charge (altimeter)goes off, the motor casing and chute would eject and deploy. At about 200', the second ejection charge goes off to blow a second chute out the tail to make sure it gets down softly and slowly, at least for the maiden flight. I do not want to get it too high or it will drift in the wind and make recovery more difficult. Bring it down too fast and you could damage something. Inside the main tube should leave enough room for a 38mm tube to hold the main chute .
 
I saw someone do a 2x upscale and was able to keep it to balsa. If you did a 3x upscale first and experimented with mid power 24mm - 29mm motors and some sort of ribbed fin design you can learn from there to see if you can take it up to high power.

As far as motor ejection goes, since the original ejected the motor, we don't really gain any weight loss benefits if we have a motor ejection system on the upscale version. At best, we break even. And if we are to be true to the original design, motor ejection is mandatory anyway. The recovery system for the motor needs to be factored into the dynamics of the CG issue as well, since in high power, if you eject the motor you must have some sort of recovery for it, while in the original Gyroc, you didn't.
 
Last edited:
Dave Leininger flew one at LDRS 21 in Amarillo. K motor, if I remember correctly.

-Kevin
As I remember his biggest complaint was he had to repair the fins every time it flew because they were still rotating when it landed. Seems the sideways force generated when the long spinning blade hit the ground was hell on hinges. :sad:
 
3x is achievable without special measures.

Here is my 3x upscale (BT-70) from the late 80s.
Weight minus motor is 274 grams. Length is 760mm. Diameter is 56mm
The fins are 3/16 balsa. That is a C battery for size reference.
It flew decent on Estes D12. Aerotech E15 gave more altitude.

I have desired for years now to do a 4 inch airframe version.

The motor tube slides back upon ejection charge to release the fins. The spent motor stays onboard.

GryocSide_zpsbb8288cb.jpg


GryocExtended_zpsd5003e91.jpg
 
That is really a great looking job. I presume that it came down at a slow enough speed it did not tear things up?
 
Real nice. The challenge is when you want to go to a 4", 5", or 7.5" airframe, and you have to go through the wall with your fins, and have to use stronger material than balsa.
 
Saw some University of Texas engineering students use one at a launch in Girvin, TX last year. Worked very well.


One of the students here, launched on a 54mm k to about 5200 feet. Broke mach as well. We had 5 blades made out of carbon fiber/kevlar.
 
Dave Leininger flew one at LDRS 21 in Amarillo. K motor, if I remember correctly.

-Kevin
Actually it was an upscale SkyWinder rocket on a J800 at LDRS 21 and it was a picture perfect flight. 8.3 inches tall, 17 pounds. The rotor blades were a combination of two part foam with plywood ribs, covered with rip stop nylon.
 

Attachments

  • Mega SkyWinder by Dave Leininger.png
    Mega SkyWinder by Dave Leininger.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 76
Back
Top