How can I decrease the stability during the flight

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

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

John Feller

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
63
Reaction score
1
Hi all!

I want to decrease the static margin of my HP rocket. I have designed it in OR and I want to have my stability vs. time graph between 1.5 and 3 during the flight, how can I achieve it? I added my .ork file so that you can make comments on that. Deployment system selected as non-pyro.

Thanks in advance!

John
 

Attachments

  • ORK119.ork
    109.1 KB · Views: 25
Sorry I haven't looked at your file. I'm on the wrong computer.

Before doing that, if you haven't already, weigh the actual components and put everything - everything - into the model. Even bolts, chutes, line, electronics, launch lugs, everything. Use actual measured weights - override everything. Then see how your stability margin looks. You might find it to be quite different.

Also beware of static margin measured in calibers. You might find it is not stable enough on a long skinny rocket and too stable on a squat fat one, for the same stability number.

All that said...

To decrease the static margin - lighten the front, add weight to the back, move fins forward, decrease area of fins, add tiny fins forward, decrease length of motor, etc. Altering weight and weight distribution moves the CG (Center of Gravity). Moving fins, decreasing number of fins, adding area forward, that sort of thing, alters the CP (Center of Pressure) and CG.

Motor choice often has a considerable effect. I don't know, but is OR using the length of the motor and its mass to alter the stability results? You can build up a motor as a tube, bulkhead, nozzle, liner, and propellant, and play with it to see the results. I did that when designing my L3 project some years back.

In the process I found the estimated weights (RockSim in this case) were not very representative of the weight of real materials. When I finished, the predicted weight was 86 pounds, but the actual pad weight was 83 pounds with the O motor that it was designed around. Default materials weights would have predicted closer to 70 pounds IIRC. Not including all the details such as chutes would have subtracted another 5 or more pounds. You can see how an incomplete model, based on inaccurate weights, could really mess up your sims!

Gerald
 
To change margin during flight, put water in a container and release as needed. It's up to you to figure out how to release during negative g's or weightless conditions :)
 
I used water ballast in the nose of my R/C X-1, because of the lost mass of the propellant of the G12 reload in the tail. The model had to have an exact glide CG, could not afford to be tail-heavy at liftoff, and could not be nose-heavy for glide.

https://georgesrockets.com/GRP/Scale/X1.htm

I came up with a system that let the water begin to drain as it lifted off (literally unplugged a plug), and the drain rate slightly longer than the burn time, I think 10-12 seconds to drain (in ground testing), the burn time was 8 seconds. I figured acceleration would increase the drain rate a bit, but still would not drain empty till after burnout. But it was easy to drain the rest., because the model was a glider and the dump port was plumbed to exit out underneath the nose. In the photo below, the X-1 nose section being built, with the water tank installed (white plastic conical tank, a custom vac-form I made from an old Shuttle SRB nose cone mold). The dump port is seen near the bottom, among the lower balsa stringers. The other port seen to the right of the tank base was the vent port (it had flexible silicone tubing added to it, to allow excess water to vent out thru the lower part of the nose when water was being forced in by the dump port. I used a rubber squeeze bulb (for model plane refueling use) to force the water in.
X1_Noseframe_1.jpg


X1_nsl99_41.JPG


To force water out of a regular rocket, one way would be to use a long skinny balloon, and use its pressure to squeeze the water out. But finding the right balloon to match the rocket diameter could be an issue. Also, if the balloon bursts, water damage among other issues.

Let me ask the big question: WHY? There must be a reason why you want the stability margin to change in flight. Hmm, in rereading, maybe you did not mean during flight?

There could also be a mechanical method. Such as a screw-drive system with a very long threaded rod causing a mass to move lengthwise inside the model to shift the CG.

Also aerodynamic methods, but those mess with the external appearance and get trickier to do.
 
Last edited:
Hi all!
I have designed it in OR and I want to have my stability vs. time graph between 1.5 and 3 during the flight, how can I achieve it?
Thanks in advance!

John

Looks like you are already there. What am I missing.
Man what have you got in that thing weighing over 60 lbs.
Fins are a bit small in span for me....

Screen Shot 2019-04-18 at 8.16.43 PM.png Screen Shot 2019-04-18 at 8.16.54 PM.png
 
I used water ballast in the nose of my R/C X-1, because of the lost mass of the propellant of the G12 reload in the tail. The model had to have an exact glide CG, could not afford to be tail-heavy at liftoff, and could not be nose-heavy for glide.

https://georgesrockets.com/GRP/Scale/X1.htm

I came up with a system that let the water begin to drain as it lifted off (literally unplugged a plug), and the drain rate slightly longer than the burn time, I think 10-12 seconds to drain (in ground testing), the burn time was 8 seconds. I figured acceleration would increase the drain rate a bit, but still would not drain empty till after burnout. But it was easy to drain the rest., because the model was a glider and the dump port was plumbed to exit out underneath the nose. In the photo below, the X-1 nose section being built, with the water tank installed (white plastic conical tank, a custom vac-form I made from an old Shuttle SRB nose cone mold). The dump port is seen near the bottom, among the lower balsa stringers. The other port seen to the right of the tank base was the vent port (it had flexible silicone tubing added to it, to allow excess water to vent out thru the lower part of the nose when water was being forced in by the dump port. I used a rubber squeeze bulb (for model plane refueling use) to force the water in.
X1_Noseframe_1.jpg


X1_nsl99_41.JPG


To force water out of a regular rocket, one way would be to use a long skinny balloon, and use its pressure to squeeze the water out. But finding the right balloon to match the rocket diameter could be an issue. Also, if the balloon bursts, water damage among other issues.

Let me ask the big question: WHY? There must be a reason why you want the stability margin to change in flight. Hmm, in rereading, maybe you did not mean during flight?

There could also be a mechanical method. Such as a screw-drive system with a very long threaded rod causing a mass to move lengthwise inside the model to shift the CG.

Also aerodynamic methods, but those mess with the external appearance and get trickier to do.

Hi! Thanks for the advise. I need to fly in that range (1.5 and 3) because of the stability and the more safer deployment. I am gonna use linear actuators for deployments.
 
To change margin during flight, put water in a container and release as needed. It's up to you to figure out how to release during negative g's or weightless conditions :)
Oh, no I don't need to change the static margin. I just need to have the stability in a range :)
 
Sorry I haven't looked at your file. I'm on the wrong computer.

Before doing that, if you haven't already, weigh the actual components and put everything - everything - into the model. Even bolts, chutes, line, electronics, launch lugs, everything. Use actual measured weights - override everything. Then see how your stability margin looks. You might find it to be quite different.

Also beware of static margin measured in calibers. You might find it is not stable enough on a long skinny rocket and too stable on a squat fat one, for the same stability number.

All that said...

To decrease the static margin - lighten the front, add weight to the back, move fins forward, decrease area of fins, add tiny fins forward, decrease length of motor, etc. Altering weight and weight distribution moves the CG (Center of Gravity). Moving fins, decreasing number of fins, adding area forward, that sort of thing, alters the CP (Center of Pressure) and CG.

Motor choice often has a considerable effect. I don't know, but is OR using the length of the motor and its mass to alter the stability results? You can build up a motor as a tube, bulkhead, nozzle, liner, and propellant, and play with it to see the results. I did that when designing my L3 project some years back.

In the process I found the estimated weights (RockSim in this case) were not very representative of the weight of real materials. When I finished, the predicted weight was 86 pounds, but the actual pad weight was 83 pounds with the O motor that it was designed around. Default materials weights would have predicted closer to 70 pounds IIRC. Not including all the details such as chutes would have subtracted another 5 or more pounds. You can see how an incomplete model, based on inaccurate weights, could really mess up your sims!

Gerald

Hi Gerald! Thanks for your advise. What about the lower limit? How can I increase the stability on stability vs. Time graph for the last part of the flight. I need to have it above 1.5
 
I just need to have the stability in a range :)

Kind of confused by this- what's the reason for this?

Are the rocket dimensions fixed? As I'd definitely go for a rocket with larger fins and shorter in length.
 
Kind of confused by this- what's the reason for this?

Are the rocket dimensions fixed? As I'd definitely go for a rocket with larger fins and shorter in length.

The reason is about the competition rule. It says that the static margin of the rocket during the flight(until the deployment) should be in the range of 1,5 and 3.

It is not fixed but we are gonna use linear actuators, so the dimensions are in their minimums for now. Or we will change the deployment system.
 
That rocket is likely to have stability problems as it is, due to the small size of the fins. Make the fins larger. Move them forwards a little if you need to.

That's the problem with rules such as calibers being interpreted liberally. They are an extreme shortcut to solving the actual stability equations for a rocket (not easy) but the rule is based on average length to diameter ratio. Change the ratio as you did with it being higher, and the rule is off - on the low side in this case.

Those low fins have much of their area masked in the turbulent flow next to the body. You don't have anywhere near the stability you think you do.

Gerald
 
You don't have anywhere near the stability you think you do.

This... even based on CJs sim file above, you're below 1 CAL of stability for the first second of the flight.

To be honest, even if you have some kind of active stability, I'd be very concerned with testing all of this on a near MD rocket with an M motor. Do you have some way to design something smaller in scope to run as a proof of concept?
 
The reason is about the competition rule. It says that the static margin of the rocket during the flight(until the deployment) should be in the range of 1,5 and 3.

It is not fixed but we are gonna use linear actuators, so the dimensions are in their minimums for now. Or we will change the deployment system.

Uh, what rules for what competition???

Unless there is a hell of a good reason (a technical invention challenge?), I suspect something is being taken far too literally, to the point of risking an unsafe flight by adding complexity (and mass) that is not necessary.

Or as some poorly thought out "safety" ideas tend to go, I call the inevitable results, "crashes caused in the name of safety".
 
Last edited:
Uh, what rules for what competition???

Unless there is a hell of a good reason (a technical invention challenge?), I suspect something is being taken far too literally, to the point of risking an unsafe flight by adding complexity (and mass) that is not necessary.

Or as some poorly thought out "safety" ideas tend to go, I call the inevitable results, "crashes caused in the name of safety".
Yeah, something like technical invention challenge.
 
The reason is about the competition rule. It says that the static margin of the rocket during the flight(until the deployment) should be in the range of 1,5 and 3..

May be ignorance on my part, but is there a competition category for H and higher motors?
 

I'm a little confused by the way the CP jumps around on the chart. Is that normal or an indication of some kind of weird motion?

It also seems likely that a shorter, larger diameter rocket would have less variation in CG as the motor burns. You might look into that, which would also likely solve your fin size issue because you'd need normal sized fins. If you do stick with this general rocket design, you will need to be an absolute tyrant about fitting those couplers snugly. Any wiggle there will make for a horrible mess (aka rocket folding in half) with a long rocket and lots of weight forward.
 
I'm a little confused by the way the CP jumps around on the chart. Is that normal or an indication of some kind of weird motion?
Heavy rocket plus small fins results in low damping so oscillations stick around a long time.
 
I came up with a system that let the water begin to drain as it lifted off (literally unplugged a plug),

Oh wow, that is amazing! How did you synchronize the unplugging of the plug with the ignition of the motor? Is the plug attached to the ground, like a break wire? Your X-1 sounds awesome!
 
Oh wow, that is amazing! How did you synchronize the unplugging of the plug with the ignition of the motor? Is the plug attached to the ground, like a break wire? Your X-1 sounds awesome!

When I said that when it lifted off it literally unplugged....it, well, unplugged.

Literally. :)

I used the same water ballast method with my Orbital SkyDart Project (STAGED twin R/C Rocket Gliders) https://georgesrockets.com/GRP/AOL/RBGliders/OSP/OSP.htm

Here's a pic as I was loading the water. The water tank's exit was brass tubing cut at an angle, so that a piece of telescoping brass tubing could slip inside it for the umbilical "plug". There was a tiny leak between them, solved by a coating of petroleum jelly.

Anyway, the "plug" piece of brass tubing was attached to some 1/16" music wire attached to the launcher. So as the model lifted off, the plug was pulled out by the music wire anchored to the launcher.
CIMG1513.JPG

However, the plug served a second purpose, for loading the water. You can make out some rubber tubing leaving from it. I had a rubber squeeze bulb sold for loading model airplane fuel, and plugged that into the rubber tubing to then squeeze the bulb to load water. Took about 2 to 3 loads of water to fill the tank, when full the overflow vent tubing I referred earlier allowed the excess water to flow out. When all the water was loaded, I used a solid brass rod to plug the rubber tubing at the lowest end, to keep the water from flowing out of the tank thru that load/plug umbilical. The system worked out very well, never a failure, and reasonable to prep.

Below is another view. The brass rod that plugged the lower end of the tubing was attached to a green streamer.
CIMG1517.JPG
 
Last edited:
Back
Top