Aerobee 100--an interesting new find.

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

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

PeterAlway

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
444
Reaction score
585
It seems that the Aerobee 100 (Aerobee Jr) photo I used for my NRL-51 drawing was deceptive. They photographed the rocket with the standard Aerobee nose, but then they pulled it off and replaced it with a weird nose consisting of a tapered adapter and an Arcon payload. I found evidence of this years ago, and put a little note in a later edition of my drawing that it was the rocket as photographed, rather than as flown. Today, Dan Meyer was kind enough to send me some material that included this photograph. I intend to do an accurate drawing at a later date. But I thought I'd let people see how weird this Aerobee looks.

Aerobee 100 NRL 51.jpg
 
I've been trying for a year to hold off doing a small Aerobee build. Sigh... I guess now I don't have a choice, except for the scale.

Thanks for posting, Peter!
 
Peter,

That's a very interesting photo. It appears that the Fairings extend into, and follow the taper of, the Transition Section.

Dave F.

1634616362426.png
 
It seems that the Aerobee 100 (Aerobee Jr) photo I used for my NRL-51 drawing was deceptive. They photographed the rocket with the standard Aerobee nose, but then they pulled it off and replaced it with a weird nose consisting of a tapered adapter and an Arcon payload. I found evidence of this years ago, and put a little note in a later edition of my drawing that it was the rocket as photographed, rather than as flown. Today, Dan Meyer was kind enough to send me some material that included this photograph. I intend to do an accurate drawing at a later date. But I thought I'd let people see how weird this Aerobee looks.

Peter,

What is the source of the documentation regarding the use of an ARCON on NRL-51 ?

The reason I ask is that the AEROBEE 100 has a diameter of 15.00" and the ARCON has a diameter of 6.09" ( 40.6% of the AEROBEE 100 diameter ).

Also the AEROBEE 100 motor has an overall length of 143.1" and the ARCON motor has an overall length of 102.6" / 102.56", per ROTW . . . ( 71.7% of the overall length of the AEROBEE 100 motor ). In scaling the "ARCON", I allowed for its overall length to extend to the bottom of the Transition Section. It was measured minus Nose Cone.

In scaling the photo of NRL-51, it appears that it might not be an ARCON. The diameter appears to be correct for an ARCON, but the overall length is MUCH shorter ( 38% vs. 71.7% ) . . .

Thoughts ?

Dave F.

Aerobee100.jpg


arcon.jpg
 
Here's a dimensioned drawing, but it has errors. I believe the dimensions are correct, but instead of a cylinder-ogive payload it shows a sort of cone-obive payload that doesn't match the photos. The report says that ogive is an Arcon nosecone. I have a copy of a brochure at home that gives a diameter of 6.09" and a length of either 30.25 or 31.25" (I have the data at home, not at the library, and the lengths are different in different sources). I have another document that gives a half-angle taper for the conical adapter of 7.5 degrees, which gives a length close to what the drawing shows, if you allow for that cylindrical bit at the base. That other document also gives an overall length that's pretty close to this drawing. This sort of thing is why I do my own drawings, and don't just reproduce drawings that I find.

The bottom main drawing shows the Aerobee 100 with the default nosecone. White Sands or Aerojet took pictures of this round with a default nosecone at the launch site, and then they switched to the weird flight nosecone.

Aerobee NRL 51 drawing.jpg
 
That looks like an angle of attack probe on the nose tip.
 
So here is the picture that misled me for years. Same rocket, different nose. Evidently Aerojet provided the standard 87.81-inch ogive with the rocket, but the NRL swapped it out for the flight nose (in the picture above) before launch. I guess Aerojet wanted a picture of the default configuration, so they posed the rocket with the original cone for this photo:

Aerobee 100 with standard ogive.png

Here is a factory photo with yet another nose:

Aerobee 100 mockup-model.png

It's not clear if this is a live round or a mockup. The caption calls this a model, but so does the caption of the very much live NRL-51.
 
Ugh. Quotey thing not working.

By "Arcon payload," I mean the payload was a payload originally designed to be flown on an Arcon. I don't mean that the payload is a complete Arcon rocket, flown 2-stage. So it's an Arcon nosecone with an Arcon-diameter payload cylinder. The source for this is from the report Mr. Meyer was kind enough to send me.
 
By "Arcon payload," I mean the payload was a payload originally designed to be flown on an Arcon. I don't mean that the payload is a complete Arcon rocket, flown 2-stage. So it's an Arcon nosecone with an Arcon-diameter payload cylinder. The source for this is from the report Mr. Meyer was kind enough to send me.

Peter,

Thanks for clarifying that !

Dave F.
 
It seems that the Aerobee 100 (Aerobee Jr) photo I used for my NRL-51 drawing was deceptive. They photographed the rocket with the standard Aerobee nose, but then they pulled it off and replaced it with a weird nose consisting of a tapered adapter and an Arcon payload. I found evidence of this years ago, and put a little note in a later edition of my drawing that it was the rocket as photographed, rather than as flown. Today, Dan Meyer was kind enough to send me some material that included this photograph. I intend to do an accurate drawing at a later date. But I thought I'd let people see how weird this Aerobee looks.

View attachment 486251

Another shot of this round without the Arcon Payload:

navy-aerobee-100.jpg
 
Pete,

Was the Aerobee 100 Jr ever flown single staged?
There are lots of Aerobees in ROTW but no Aerobee 100 or Aerobee Jr.
Where did the drawing you show above appear?
 
Pete,

Was the Aerobee 100 Jr ever flown single staged?
There are lots of Aerobees in ROTW but no Aerobee 100 or Aerobee Jr.
Where did the drawing you show above appear?
The modified Sea-Bee version flew single stage. It had shortened tanks and no booster. It also had a longer payload with a recovery system. They launched it dierectly out of the water (The big dark cylinder at the bottom end was a weight to keep the tail end down so the nose pointed up. It flew twice but the parachute failed the second time. I submitted scale data on this beast to Sport Rocketry last year, so it might appear there some time.
 

Attachments

  • Seabee Figure 13.jpg
    Seabee Figure 13.jpg
    798.1 KB
Pete,

Was the Aerobee 100 Jr ever flown single staged?
There are lots of Aerobees in ROTW but no Aerobee 100 or Aerobee Jr.
Where did the drawing you show above appear?
The drawing I posted here was in a report that Dan Meyer sent on the same flash drive as the photos and other good stuff.

For more details on the Aerobee 100 and SeaBee, check your mailbox for the Jan-Feb 2025 Sport Rocketry.
 
I wish the AeroBee Poster that covers 2 pages in the magazine were in the center so you could take the page out as one piece ...
I submitted it with that hope (the file name was "Aerobee Centerfold"), but such is life. I'm glad they were at least able to print it at full size. I had actually submitted a half-size version of the drawing in case they coudn't fit it. I also carefully arranged the layout so that no rockets would be lost in the gutter in case it wasn't a centerfold (or ruined by a staple or a crease if it were.
 
Yes, looking at it now it would have been much better to have the poster in the center of the publication.

These would make a great line of mid-power kits. I already have the Cosmodrome Aerobee HI. The standard nose cone is a big chunk of balsa. ASP makes the Aerobee Jr and Aerobee 300 but are on the small side.
 
I've never been against doing other Aerobees. The 300 would require a custom tube, so I'd need to know there is interest in it.
Probably would not want to get involved with custom tubing (turned wood instead for the 300?). I was looking more at the 150 or one of the Nike boosted versions like the 350.

I noticed all of the Cosmodrome kits sold out at Apogee, so that's great!
 
Probably would not want to get involved with custom tubing (turned wood instead for the 300?). I was looking more at the 150 or one of the Nike boosted versions like the 350.
I've always had my eye on the 350, would need a custom tube for that too. I wouldn't go with turned wood, way too much hands-on time. I'm not against custom tubes, as long as I think it will be a good seller or if I can incorporate the tube into 2 kits. This is what's holding up the Nike Apache's return. It was never a great seller and I am out of tubes. I've started to look at other kits I could use the same tube in, once I'm caught up on the others I'll do some serious looking.
 
About 20 years ago I bashed an AT Cheetah kit into a pseudo-Aerobee 100 because the tube and nosecone were pretty close and it was already slotted for 3 fins which I cut out 1/8 5-ply birch. I added tunnels along the sides using styrene channel CA'd into place and even tapered the leading edges IIRC (except the channel was rectangular not round so not really very scale). It really flew nicely. I think it's out in the shed somewhere wrapped in a pillowcase. I especially liked the looks of the 150A and wanted to do an upscale using AT 2.6" parts with a 38mm MMT but that was around the time we lost our local field to re-zoning and consequently a great many projects bit the dust. Or just gathered it, as the case may be.
 
I never knew a Estes Mosquito made it to space......View attachment 691527
Here's a drawing of the Angle of Attack probe from an Aerobee 350 article. As far as I can tell, it's the same beast on he Aerobee 100--the fins seem wider in the drawing because the photo is taken at a different angle. You could just about make one from an Alpha nosecone.
 

Attachments

  • Angle of Attack Probe.jpg
    Angle of Attack Probe.jpg
    94 KB
Back
Top