Plasma Dart II Build Thread

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Here's a new thing, the last pic in the thread needs to be a reenactment of the first sim pic in the thread
Is that a rule now? If so then I am...
aeb4d945648629.5837b65ff4037.gif
 
Can always use GIMP. Overlay the actual rocket picture on the space background from the sim pic, you know, for the face card.
 
Weighed the finished rocket at 2.7 oz, vs. 2.4 in OR. Not bad. Still building a bit heavy, maybe just all the glue and paint. CG came out about an inch behind OR. Still yields a bit over 1 caliber stability with a D16, so I'm feeling pretty good about it.

*Hoping* to launch it next weekend.
 
Weighed the finished rocket at 2.7 oz, vs. 2.4 in OR. Not bad. Still building a bit heavy, maybe just all the glue and paint. CG came out about an inch behind OR. Still yields a bit over 1 caliber stability with a D16, so I'm feeling pretty good about it.

*Hoping* to launch it next weekend.

Wow, that is quite good agreement, about 10% variation sure isn't much at all. I'm impressed that it is so light, with so many glue joints, paint surface area, and details. That should fly quite well! Will it be a D16 for the maiden flight? I hope it works out next weekend.
 
Still building a bit heavy, maybe just all the glue and paint.
I never thought of this until just now: what if one edited the parts and materials databases to account (approximately) for the weight of finished parts? Instead of weighing, for example, a foot of BT50 and entering the observed mass per length, do that to a piece that's been filled, sanded, primed, sanded, etc. How much closer to final weights and CGs could one come that way?

It certainly wouldn't work for bulk materials. I don't know about OR but I guess it's probably the same as RS in that for many items one specifies a bulk material, like Balsa for a fin for example, and then the planform dimensions and thickness. One would have to change that to 3/32 balsa, 1/8" balsa, 5/32" balsa, etc. each as different materials. Maybe worth it if the results are good.
 
I never thought of this until just now: what if one edited the parts and materials databases to account (approximately) for the weight of finished parts? Instead of weighing, for example, a foot of BT50 and entering the observed mass per length, do that to a piece that's been filled, sanded, primed, sanded, etc. How much closer to final weights and CGs could one come that way?
That is certainly doable, although plenty of work to figure out the numbers. Also, different folks finish things differently, so there are a lot of variables to take into account.

What I'd probably most like is for the program to have "finishing" as an optional switch... I.e, if I choose "heavy paint" as an option, it'll add paint weight (and distribution across the object) according to the area of the object. They already have paint finish as an option to set surface friction, but this would be somewhat more complex.

Then there's glue, which might be more important because there's usually more of it around the fin can and engine mount, and that brings CG back. The finishing adds weight but it's pretty well distributed, and probably doesn't move CG much (although there is at least a bit more paint in the rear).

It would definitely be nice to have these options, but whether it is worth the implementation effort is unclear.

It certainly wouldn't work for bulk materials. I don't know about OR but I guess it's probably the same as RS in that for many items one specifies a bulk material, like Balsa for a fin for example, and then the planform dimensions and thickness. One would have to change that to 3/32 balsa, 1/8" balsa, 5/32" balsa, etc. each as different materials. Maybe worth it if the results are good.
I do already have a custom material for 1/8" papered balsa, since the papering adds very noticeable weight. I use it for 3/32" as well because the density difference is small, and I don't mind slightly overestimating the weight of the wood in the tail. But I haven't factored in finishing or glue, beyond that.
 
PDII flew yesterday at the RadRocks launch. @mbeels and @jqavins were there to witness. The flight was OK, but weathercocked into the gusty wind and didn't fly as vertically as I would like. But it went up and came down safely, and the launch lug stayed secure, so I'm happy. This one will fly again.

Marten's PD2XL flew as well, and it was awesome.
Photo Sep 14, 12 16 36 PM.jpg

Having now flown successfully, the PDII assumes its place on the rocket wall:
fleet wall.jpg
The rocket wall is running out of room. :(
 
Last edited:
The flight was OK, but weathercocked into the gusty wind and didn't fly as vertically as I would like.

It looked to me that it boosted very straight, after a small weather cock just after it left the rail. I think that the wind is to blame here, it flew straight and true after that. These two photos seem to capture the weathercock.

P9140680.JPG

P9140681.JPG
 
Here's the launch phase of the D16 thrust curve:
upload_2019-9-16_8-36-55.png
That's a darnsight better than a C6, but if weathercocking is really your worry, compare it to the D10:
upload_2019-9-16_8-37-55.png
 
And here's a more proper overview of the design:
View attachment 384395

Some notes:

1) Those paying attention may notice that a number of changes have been made since last I fussed over it over in my half-baked design thread. I had more trouble finalizing this design than any other I've worked on thus far, and can't say for I'm totally satisfied with it even now. But I'm happy enough to move forward with it. Huge thanks go out to @Nytrunner and @jqavins for their help in getting me to this point.

2) I originally intended this to have a 24mm mount, but I became frustrated with the retention issues (don't like friction fit) and so downgraded to 18mm. Due to the dragginess of the design, OR doesn't seem to think it'll go very high, even on a Questjet D16. I've got an altimeter bay up front, so we'll see. I think OR is being a bit pessimistic here. Still, this thing isn't going to win any altitude competitions.

3) I made this rocket one click too small. One size bigger would have made a 24mm mount straightforward, and also some of the bits of fabrication would have been a lot easier. Unfortunately I realized this too late to change.

4) In contrast to all my other builds, I'm doing massive amounts of parts preparation before actually putting stuff together. We'll see how it goes.
How do you do it Neil do you have some Galactic powers?
 
Back
Top