Gillard
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 1,973
- Reaction score
- 3
I'm sure i can't be the first to think this, but why are most of our rockets tubes.
i'm thinking of building a large(ish) rocket.
what would be wrong in building it square based, instead of circular based?
if i used fibreglass sheets, that where joined using triangluar angle, would there be any problems in flight, stresses at the edges etc
The rest of the rocket would be built as usual, with the exception of the nose cone which would be pyramid shaped and made of fibreglass.
It seems that construction of centering squares (rings) would be easier to make. sizes of body squares (tubes) would be easy to make. etc
With smaller model rockets, using carboard for the square sides would make the body far to weak, but on larger builds were glassing can be used, strength is lesson an issue, esp. on larger diameter tubes where internal bracing can easily applied.
So is there an obvious reason why squares don't work?
i'm thinking of building a large(ish) rocket.
what would be wrong in building it square based, instead of circular based?
if i used fibreglass sheets, that where joined using triangluar angle, would there be any problems in flight, stresses at the edges etc
The rest of the rocket would be built as usual, with the exception of the nose cone which would be pyramid shaped and made of fibreglass.
It seems that construction of centering squares (rings) would be easier to make. sizes of body squares (tubes) would be easy to make. etc
With smaller model rockets, using carboard for the square sides would make the body far to weak, but on larger builds were glassing can be used, strength is lesson an issue, esp. on larger diameter tubes where internal bracing can easily applied.
So is there an obvious reason why squares don't work?