Quantcast

54mm Hardware Tail Cone

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Which major OD would you prefer the tail cone match?

  • The motor case

  • The airframe


Results are only viewable after voting.

Loki Research

Motor Manufacturer
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
1,274
Reaction score
130
For quite some time now, I've been trying to work out a tail cone for use with 54mm 2800 and 4000 hardware using the single use nozzles. I need to pick a major diameter for the tail cone and I am leaning toward making it the same diameter of the motor case rather than most airframe tubing. I am thinking this because I would prefer these to be able to work for any type of setup where the hardware is used as a second stage. If it is the same as the motor case, the case can act as the interstage coupler. I thought I'd get some feedback just to make sure I'm not overlooking something.

For those who would purchase a tail cone for current and future reloads, which would you prefer the major OD match?
1) the motor case
2) the airframe
 

mpitfield

Moderator
Staff member
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
4,903
Reaction score
431
Location
Toronto, Ontario
Scott the timing of this is impeccable, I was going to call you to discuss this very subject. I am all for a tailcone on those cases and personally would prefer it to match the O/D of the case not the air-frame.
 

pondman

Serenity now......
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
712
Reaction score
112
For quite some time now, I've been trying to work out a tail cone for use with 54mm 2800 and 4000 hardware using the single use nozzles. I need to pick a major diameter for the tail cone and I am leaning toward making it the same diameter of the motor case rather than most airframe tubing. I am thinking this because I would prefer these to be able to work for any type of setup where the hardware is used as a second stage. If it is the same as the motor case, the case can act as the interstage coupler. I thought I'd get some feedback just to make sure I'm not overlooking something.

For those who would purchase a tail cone for current and future reloads, which would you prefer the major OD match?
1) the motor case
2) the airframe
Airframe please......
 

Onebadhawk

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,119
Reaction score
409
One of each please,, lol...

Hey,,
There are different people doing different projects...
This is what the poll is showing...

Teddy
 

Loki Research

Motor Manufacturer
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
1,274
Reaction score
130
I might add here, if it was made to the motor case, you could always sand a taper into the back of the airframe in order to somewhat blend it into the tail cone without too much trouble. Conversely, it would require a machine lathe to turn down the tail cone in order to match the motor case. That would make a mess of the hardcoat finish.

Keep the votes coming though please.
 

markkoelsch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,364
Reaction score
148
Scott, my thinking is that any way you do it somebody will not be happy. If you do it to the airframe which airframe- is it 54mm thick/standard, is it 54mm thin wall etc.

I would tend to lean towards the case for the above reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 

pondman

Serenity now......
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
712
Reaction score
112
Scott, my thinking is that any way you do it somebody will not be happy. If you do it to the airframe which airframe- is it 54mm thick/standard, is it 54mm thin wall etc.

I would tend to lean towards the case for the above reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
That is actually NOT a bad reason Mark. Either way I will adapt........
 

OverTheTop

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
4,837
Reaction score
2,080
Location
Melbourne Australia
What about having the main part of the tailcone to suit the motor casing, and an additional ring to make it ever so slightly longer and the larger OD of the airframe? You would probably need some sort of locating features to keep them coaxial, but probably easily achievable.
 

GrouchoDuke

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
1,030
Reaction score
430
If I have to choose just one, it’d be motor case diameter. For a max altitude record attempt kind of rocket, I’d want to taper the min-diameter rocket body to meet the taper on the motor.

On the other hand, if I want to do a quickly built, easy in the field min-diameter rocket, a constant diameter body tube with a tapered rear cone that matched its diameter would be great too. So...both! ;)
 

Salvage-1

Certified
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
2,672
Reaction score
5
Motor case, for reasons stated before, including use as a sustainer motor.
 

BDB

Absent Minded Professor
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
2,184
Reaction score
416
Case. I’d love to use it for a sustainer.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
 

Cl(VII)

Chris Bender, Lab Rat
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Feb 22, 2013
Messages
4,587
Reaction score
823
Location
Garland, TX
Which ever version you offer I'm sure I will happily end up with one.
 

GrouchoDuke

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
1,030
Reaction score
430
Forgot to mention...a tapered motor case diameter tail cone on a full-I 29mm Loki motor would be sweet too. ;)
 

dhbarr

Amateur Professional
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
6,966
Reaction score
1,428
Case. I have some CTI that are airframe flush, and I can't hang them out a caliber or two like I want to. If I machine them that's EX, no NAR events.
 

Tonimus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
4
The case makes the most sense. I could add a little ring of airframe and sand it to a taper if I wanted something to fit flush with the airframe and not want to modify existing rockets. Or you could possibly make/sell said ring for those who want something like that and it could match whatever your taper actually is.
 

mpitfield

Moderator
Staff member
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
4,903
Reaction score
431
Location
Toronto, Ontario
if it was made to the motor case, you could always sand a taper into the back of the airframe in order to somewhat blend it into the tail cone without too much trouble. Conversely, it would require a machine lathe to turn down the tail cone in order to match the motor case. That would make a mess of the hardcoat finish.
Without modifications it sounds like machined to the O/D of the motor case is more flexible.

Case. I have some CTI that are airframe flush, and I can't hang them out a caliber or two like I want to. If I machine them that's EX, no NAR events.
The CTI 54mm is external where the tapered closure replaces the regular closure and also becomes the thrust ring. So I can see how it would be considered EX, because you are modifying something that potentially affects the integrity of the motor hardware. However their 98mm is internal using a wider rear closer that the tailcone threads onto. So if you modified that tailcone I wonder if it would be considered EX because the modification would not have any affect on the motor case integrity.

At least that is how I see it, anyone know if that is an accurate perception?

If so, and Loki had the case threaded internally, and it was certified this way, then could you not go as far as to use your own rear tailcone?
 

plugger

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
483
Reaction score
175
Scott, my thinking is that any way you do it somebody will not be happy. If you do it to the airframe which airframe- is it 54mm thick/standard, is it 54mm thin wall etc.

I would tend to lean towards the case for the above reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum
+1. I hand roll my airframes and invariably my OD is smaller than commercial offerings. I always prefer tailcones flush with the casing.
 

AeroAggie

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
336
Reaction score
143
Location
DFW
I think case makes the most sense for all the above reasons, but:
  • What do you do with the thrust ring for staging coupler use? Do you use the forward closure to push against a bulkhead? I'm not into staging yet, so pardon my ignorance. But now I'm thinking about staging L to M on a 54 min diameter...:eyepop:
  • How would you attach any tailcone on a case with internal snap ring nozzle retention? I'm thinking you'll have a two piece design with a threaded ring held in by the snap ring, then the tailcone/nozzle screws into that...?

I've got both the 2800 and 4000 and my gears are turning. Can't wait to see what you come up with! :cheers:
 

CoyoteNumber2

Original San Diego High Power Rocketry
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
623
Reaction score
115
I'm abstaining from voting as I would love to see both case and airframe offerings. Here is the tail cone I had made for the L1040 (yes, I know the OD doesn't match the airframe.)

IMAG2245.jpg
 

Zebedee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
709
Reaction score
1
Matching the case with an optional thrust ring for the airframe seems like an interesting compromise.
 

mpitfield

Moderator
Staff member
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Global Mod
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
4,903
Reaction score
431
Location
Toronto, Ontario

CoyoteNumber2

Original San Diego High Power Rocketry
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
623
Reaction score
115
Is that the cone for which you needed the case/nozzle measurements? That's Nice!
Indeed. Thanks! I sketched it, and a coworker did the machining.

Hmm interesting, did you just use three set screws directly into the phenolic nozzle to hold that tail cone on?
Effectively. There's a few wraps of masking tape around the nozzle, which is about 1.71" OD, and the tail cone is made from 1.75" ID tubing. I'd be nervous about tightening set screws on the nozzle directly.
 

Loki Research

Motor Manufacturer
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
1,274
Reaction score
130
Matching the case with an optional thrust ring for the airframe seems like an interesting compromise.
Adding a second very small part just to transition between the airframe and case diameters adds a lot more cost and complexity in design than one might think. I'd still have the same problem that Mark mentioned. What type/brand/size airframe do you match the ring to?

Set screws directly to the phenolic nozzle is exactly how the prototype was done and it works great. The part is light enough in weight that doesn't take much to hold it in place, but the stock material has to be smaller than 1.75" in order to mate flush with the nozzles 1.710" OD. It is pictured here but I'll probably omit the flat ~1/4" long section.

If you've flown that L-1040 Coyote, please email me a short flight report and altimeter data if it has acceleration data.
 

Tonimus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
4
Scott, very interesting solution. Given how the tailcone attaches to the nozzle, I agree that a small added ring that's only going to me a millimeter or two thick is a bunch of added work without much benefit. Motor case diameter seems to be the most logical direction.
 

afadeev

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 21, 2017
Messages
1,544
Reaction score
768
I might add here, if it was made to the motor case, you could always sand a taper into the back of the airframe in order to somewhat blend it into the tail cone without too much trouble. Conversely, it would require a machine lathe to turn down the tail cone in order to match the motor case. That would make a mess of the hardcoat finish.
That, plus you can't control the airframe variations that people will build and fly.

Therefore - motor case.

a
 

Rocketjunkie

Addicted to APCP
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
4,291
Reaction score
510
Motor case. Leave the 1/4" straight section for those who want the cone to match the airframe. They can attach a tapered piece of airframe.
 
Top