Posted this elsewhere, but thought it might be welcome here as well...
I was on a ski vacation in Southern Utah last week when the ski area closed, so I had time to mess around in Open Rocket. I've been wanting to do an HP WAC Corporal for a while now, so I used Peter Alway's drawing and some data found on the net to come up with the attached plan in OR.
Just a few things to point out about the file:
I want this to be a scale WAC Corporal as opposed to an upscale Estes K-11 or pseudo-scale TFNC TLAR-scale.
I was being lazy and didn't take time to use the freeform fin tool to do the rounded fin corners, but the model will have them. I will most likely go back and add this detail to the file at some point after measuring photos to obtain the proper radius (Or as close as I can approximate, anyway).
Peter's drawing does not call out the over all length of the conduit down the side or it's precise position, though both are are easy to estimate. Looking at various photos of different WAC rounds, it appears that the length of the conduit and the shape of it's it's end caps varied from round to round. For example, the famous photos of the early version (is it round number five?) show the typical conical end caps, but the Smithsonian's example has ogive end caps and a much longer conduit.
On my file, the conduit is placed as in Peter's drawing at the aft end (referenced by the tank/fin can joint), but the length is a bit short so as to (conveniently) not overlap the booster/payload seam.
I promise I will quit being so daggum lazy and will come up with a more accurate length.
The payload bay is kind of short, but I figure that with a big, hollow fiberglass cone there will be plenty of room for the main and all of it's business.
The switch band is only .667" wide. This should be plenty of room for switch access (I like screw switches) and conveniently made up for the scale fractions between two standard length airframe tubes.
As I said, I'm wanting to make a fairly accurate scale WAC here, so any comments, corrections, advice or smart remarks are welcome!!
Thanks for looking!
Mike
I was on a ski vacation in Southern Utah last week when the ski area closed, so I had time to mess around in Open Rocket. I've been wanting to do an HP WAC Corporal for a while now, so I used Peter Alway's drawing and some data found on the net to come up with the attached plan in OR.
Just a few things to point out about the file:
I want this to be a scale WAC Corporal as opposed to an upscale Estes K-11 or pseudo-scale TFNC TLAR-scale.
I was being lazy and didn't take time to use the freeform fin tool to do the rounded fin corners, but the model will have them. I will most likely go back and add this detail to the file at some point after measuring photos to obtain the proper radius (Or as close as I can approximate, anyway).
Peter's drawing does not call out the over all length of the conduit down the side or it's precise position, though both are are easy to estimate. Looking at various photos of different WAC rounds, it appears that the length of the conduit and the shape of it's it's end caps varied from round to round. For example, the famous photos of the early version (is it round number five?) show the typical conical end caps, but the Smithsonian's example has ogive end caps and a much longer conduit.
On my file, the conduit is placed as in Peter's drawing at the aft end (referenced by the tank/fin can joint), but the length is a bit short so as to (conveniently) not overlap the booster/payload seam.
I promise I will quit being so daggum lazy and will come up with a more accurate length.The payload bay is kind of short, but I figure that with a big, hollow fiberglass cone there will be plenty of room for the main and all of it's business.
The switch band is only .667" wide. This should be plenty of room for switch access (I like screw switches) and conveniently made up for the scale fractions between two standard length airframe tubes.
As I said, I'm wanting to make a fairly accurate scale WAC here, so any comments, corrections, advice or smart remarks are welcome!!
Thanks for looking!
Mike
Last edited:
