AGM-12C Bullpup B

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

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

BigMacDaddy

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
3,401
Location
Northern NJ
I posted about this in the what I did today rocket-wise thread but decided to post a bit more of my process since I had not designed a model by measuring pictures in a while. I could not find a good blueprint, plan, or dimensions for this rocket so needed to measure parts.

I first search extensively for prototype pictures. Looking for one that is square to camera (and has fins square to camera). I prefer to find a clear picture of an actual rocket but the measurements will be distorted if the picture is not square (or if the camera person was too close to the rocket). Given this I sometimes need to rely on pictures of the model or diagrams. Some examples:

1641936513954.jpeg 1641936527461.jpeg 1641936693493.png

I use Inkscape to measure one picture. It has a convenient ruler tool that returns results in pixels. You can also measure multiple pictures if different parts are clear in various pictures but need to anchor your measurements on something common so that you can adjust and compute sizes. I usually anchor on main body diameter.

1641937215037.png
I enter all my measurements in an Excel spreadsheet. You basically need to set the dimensions to the scale appropriate for the model you are building. In this case I wanted to make the main body tube a BT-80 tube so I enter the OD for that body tube into the table next to all the measurements. I then take a proportion of the measured dimension to the actual BT-80 dimension. 66.04 / 75.3 = .877% So basically I multiply all my measured dimensions by that ratio/percentage. This gives me the numbers in the right column. Note: I measure fins the way I design them (a square with triangle cutouts) but you can also measure fins with points that help you enter them into OR or RockSim.
1641936955767.png

I then use these dimensions (rounded to reasonable numbers) to mock up the main elements to see how realistic the rocket is to make. I replace any cylinders with standard body tubes (I am willing to make compromise to use a cheap standard body tube rather than custom ordering something that is more exact), design simple 3D parts, replace fins with 2mm elements that represent the plywood fins I will use, etc...

1641937633196.png
 

Attachments

  • 1641936823950.jpeg
    1641936823950.jpeg
    97 KB · Views: 21
  • 1641937099267.png
    1641937099267.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 14
  • 1641937735996.jpeg
    1641937735996.jpeg
    95.2 KB · Views: 20
  • 1641937779665.jpeg
    1641937779665.jpeg
    76.4 KB · Views: 18
Last edited:
Once it seems realistic to build, I make the main parts hollow (I use cutouts that are 2.5 or 3.5mm smaller than the main body to create a 3 or 4 wall thick side around the object) and I design in shoulders/coupler parts, shock chord attachments, motor mounts, etc... I also have to break up parts that are either too large to print or that will not print well (or without a ton of supports).

1641938011928.png

I also look for a number of good quality pictures of the detailed parts so that I can add some details to the parts that will be 3D printed. These are some of the better ones I found.

View attachment 499321
View attachment 499327

I also found a ton of pictures of this rocket but it seems to be modified, rebuilt, or parts were recreated (or it has a ton of coats of paint on it). Not sure why this rocket is so rough. There are actually not many good pictures of this variant of the ever-popular Bullpup.

View attachment 499326

Some great pictures of a 3D design are out there but I usually rely on these last since I am not sure how much creative license was taken.

1641938141053.jpeg 1641938153353.jpeg

Same thing goes for models -- some beautiful models out there (although OOP and not too many versions).

1641938218176.jpeg

Anyway, then I start doing test prints. Testing fit, look for print issues, etc...Still need to design the detailed parts for the main fin mounting brackets.

1641938281845.png 1641938335840.png

Finally, I setup fins for cutting on the CNC - not done with the main fins here yet but I have to go teach...

1641938503897.png
 
Let me know if you need any extra measurements - I have two Launch Pad kits sitting in my build pile (3.75" K006 and 2.6" / BT-80 K005 versions).

I don't know how accurate those kits are, but they are way more available then the source model ;-).

a
 
Let me know if you need any extra measurements - I have two Launch Pad kits sitting in my build pile (3.75" K006 and 2.6" / BT-80 K005 versions).

I don't know how accurate those kits are, but they are way more available then the source model ;-).

Thanks so much for the offer. Those kits seem to be pretty high demand from what I was reading. Seems like this is still a pretty uncommon model rocket! In the end, I wonder how much more the 3D printed version will weigh than the BT-80 kit version.
 
Those kits seem to be pretty high demand from what I was reading. Seems like this is still a pretty uncommon model rocket!

I can only speak for myself, but I'm a big fan of BullPup's excessive number of fins, transitions, and the tail cone. Funky shape of the aft fins only adds to the uniqueness of the shape.

In the end, I wonder how much more the 3D printed version will weigh than the BT-80 kit version.

It will certainly require a lot more nose weight, especially if you will be 3D-printing the tail cone.
I would consider modeling everything in OR to figure out the required nose cone weight, and then printing attachment points for ballast placement in the NC.

Anything you could do to reduce the tail cone weight (re-use parts of butchered plastic nose cone for main shape) would aid stability of the model with minimum additional ballast and overall weight.

a
 
I can only speak for myself, but I'm a big fan of BullPup's excessive number of fins, transitions, and the tail cone. Funky shape of the aft fins only adds to the uniqueness of the shape.

It will certainly require a lot more nose weight, especially if you will be 3D-printing the tail cone.
I would consider modeling everything in OR to figure out the required nose cone weight, and then printing attachment points for ballast placement in the NC.

Anything you could do to reduce the tail cone weight (re-use parts of butchered plastic nose cone for main shape) would aid stability of the model with minimum additional ballast and overall weight.

Thanks for comment -- made me think about tail cone before printing. I did lighten things up a bit but also moved engine forward around 15mm - should move CG forward a bit and give a little GDS boost to stability if it does not melt the tail cone (I don't think it will). Although looking at this again I worry that it might restrict the engines ability to fire if the tail hole is too small..

1641955991218.png

EDIT: I am probably going to go with the safer motor setup with motor sticking out the rear. Other than possible GDS effect the placement of motor has surprisingly little impact on CG / stability.

1641993754587.png
 
Last edited:
I would normally (and I recommend) modeling in OpenRocket (or Rocksim if your hobby budget is larger than mine) earlier in the process. However, I thought this rocket was pretty safe and would be stable. Mostly true - however, this needs a surprising amount of weight in nose cone to be stable -- around 100-115g. I guess those forward placed reverse swept fins push CP forward. I am definitely going to need to put something inside to be sure the parachute does not slide to the rear during launch.

1641993198306.png

p.s., made a couple of small compromises above. Body tube is around 1.6cm longer than my measurements (that is a full-size Estes BT-80 tube and nice to not have to cut it). Also moved fins back 1.5 or so cm. Both of these reduce the nose weight needed by a fair amount (20-30 or so grams less).

Would be nice if I knew I could recess to motor to have a bit of GDS help and reduce nose weight...
 
I would normally (and I recommend) modeling in OpenRocket (or Rocksim if your hobby budget is larger than mine) earlier in the process. However, I thought this rocket was pretty safe and would be stable. Mostly true - however, this needs a surprising amount of weight in nose cone to be stable -- around 100-115g. I guess those forward placed reverse swept fins push CP forward. I am definitely going to need to put something inside to be sure the parachute does not slide to the rear during launch.

View attachment 499393

p.s., made a couple of small compromises above. Body tube is around 1.6cm longer than my measurements (that is a full-size Estes BT-80 tube and nice to not have to cut it). Also moved fins back 1.5 or so cm. Both of these reduce the nose weight needed by a fair amount (20-30 or so grams less).

Would be nice if I knew I could recess to motor to have a bit of GDS help and reduce nose weight...
in order to get Gas Dynamic Stabilization benefits, there needs to be ports for air to flow through in the sides of the rocket. Pushing the motor deeper into the airframe simply moves the CG forward normally, but pushing it too far forward can lead to bernoulli lock, krushnic effect, and or "hibachi effect" where the inside of the airframe gets BBQ'd by the exhaust, so lots of tradeoffs to consider.
 
in order to get Gas Dynamic Stabilization benefits, there needs to be ports for air to flow through in the sides of the rocket. Pushing the motor deeper into the airframe simply moves the CG forward normally, but pushing it too far forward can lead to bernoulli lock, krushnic effect, and or "hibachi effect" where the inside of the airframe gets BBQ'd by the exhaust, so lots of tradeoffs to consider.

Thanks you -- I definitely think the boattail is more likely to restrict airflow and thus reduce the power of the motor. However, and I am totally new / learning naively about GDS, the argument is that a recessed motor does create some GDS impact.

https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter379.pdf
1642002780816.png
 
Some cruddy pics.
I have dimensions somewhere but have to dig them out.
 

Attachments

  • agm-12d 040.jpg
    agm-12d 040.jpg
    161.9 KB · Views: 16
  • agm-12d 041.jpg
    agm-12d 041.jpg
    168.2 KB · Views: 14
  • agm-12d 042.jpg
    agm-12d 042.jpg
    172.9 KB · Views: 14
  • agm-12d 044.jpg
    agm-12d 044.jpg
    158.3 KB · Views: 14
  • bullpup 42.jpg
    bullpup 42.jpg
    145.5 KB · Views: 12
  • bullpup 43.jpg
    bullpup 43.jpg
    168.4 KB · Views: 13
  • bullpup 44.jpg
    bullpup 44.jpg
    120 KB · Views: 13
  • bullpup 45.jpg
    bullpup 45.jpg
    116.6 KB · Views: 13
  • bullpup 47.jpg
    bullpup 47.jpg
    103.3 KB · Views: 12
  • bullpup 46.jpg
    bullpup 46.jpg
    115.6 KB · Views: 11
More cruddy pics
 

Attachments

  • bullpup 48.jpg
    bullpup 48.jpg
    105.8 KB · Views: 14
  • bullpup 49.jpg
    bullpup 49.jpg
    102 KB · Views: 15
  • bullpup 50.jpg
    bullpup 50.jpg
    89.6 KB · Views: 13
  • bullpup 51.jpg
    bullpup 51.jpg
    98.8 KB · Views: 12
  • bullpup 52.jpg
    bullpup 52.jpg
    111.2 KB · Views: 11
  • bullpup 53.jpg
    bullpup 53.jpg
    126.4 KB · Views: 12
  • bullpup 54.jpg
    bullpup 54.jpg
    97 KB · Views: 11
  • bullpup 55.jpg
    bullpup 55.jpg
    95.3 KB · Views: 11
  • bullpup 56.jpg
    bullpup 56.jpg
    103.6 KB · Views: 11
  • bullpup 57.jpg
    bullpup 57.jpg
    114.1 KB · Views: 9
Last batch.
 

Attachments

  • bullpup 58.jpg
    bullpup 58.jpg
    117.6 KB · Views: 9
  • bullpup 59.jpg
    bullpup 59.jpg
    120.2 KB · Views: 11
  • bullpup 60.jpg
    bullpup 60.jpg
    150.3 KB · Views: 12
  • bullpup 61.jpg
    bullpup 61.jpg
    104.2 KB · Views: 11
  • bullpup 62.jpg
    bullpup 62.jpg
    108.1 KB · Views: 11
  • bullpup 63.jpg
    bullpup 63.jpg
    94 KB · Views: 11
  • bullpup 65.jpg
    bullpup 65.jpg
    98.1 KB · Views: 11
  • bullpup 66.jpg
    bullpup 66.jpg
    97 KB · Views: 10
Amazing how quickly a rocket can come together when it does not break too many assumptions of model rocketry (i.e., a model that can be accurately simulated in Open Rocket). Some glue still needs to dry, motor mount as well as nose cone sections still need to be glued together, and nose weight needs to get added but pretty close to done. Can I say again how much I love the CNC for cutting out fins.

1642114426529.jpeg

1642114441555.jpeg
1642114456688.jpeg 1642114464160.jpeg
 
So this rocket has been sitting on my shelf with a ton of nose weight in it and I just never bothered to fly it. Every time I put the details into OR it gave me what seemed like a crazy CP calculation that was too far forward (for my mind-sim).

Sooo... I had a thought in the last several days -- why not build it again without nose weight and spin test it to see where the CP-CG relationship seems to come out. I also figured what the heck I should make the canard fins free-spinning to help keep nose weight down as much as possible.

Here is the (what seems to be innacurate CP calculation in OR).
1671207407820.png

The CG and total weight are accurate to my newly built model. Here is the build freshly out of my successful swing test. The model flies stable (immediately faces forward so I would tentatively say "quite" stable or "very" stable if I am being optimistic). Now [I think,] I can add the motor to OR and then add nose weight till I get the CP in the same location it was for my swing test (looks like I will only need 2oz which is much better than the 5 that OR suggests is necessary). Note: I had to tape that nosecone on since my indoor spin test area now has a 65" TV in it and it would be just my luck that the nose cone flies off and hits the TV.

1671207437765.png

Thanks to @CTimm photos I also enhanced the details on the nose cone (I had done a pretty good job on the boat tail last time around). I also recessed the engine some to help shift CG forward and to use GDS to help with stability. Now the whole boat tail is a retainer cap basically. I also put some small tabs so I could mount the main fins through slots in tube -- helps get them mounted straight more easily.
1671207660959.png 1671207685953.png
 
Last edited:
Lookin’ good.

how much do the forward canards cost you in stability? I am guessing very little.

otherwise, and possibly more realistic although far more complex, I seem to remember someone modeling the Python air to air missile, and putting the forward canards on swivels which were attached well FORWARD of the center of pressure for the CANARD. If I remember it right (and I may be dreaming), the result was that the canards would rotate WITH the angle of attack, severally reducing thought not likely completely eliminating their contribution to instability.

my guess is that your small canards don’t hurt much in a fixed position, and that even if I am correct about the effect it may not be worth the complexity of building it into the rocket.
 
Lookin’ good.

how much do the forward canards cost you in stability? I am guessing very little.

otherwise, and possibly more realistic although far more complex, I seem to remember someone modeling the Python air to air missile, and putting the forward canards on swivels which were attached well FORWARD of the center of pressure for the CANARD. If I remember it right (and I may be dreaming), the result was that the canards would rotate WITH the angle of attack, severally reducing thought not likely completely eliminating their contribution to instability.

my guess is that your small canards don’t hurt much in a fixed position, and that even if I am correct about the effect it may not be worth the complexity of building it into the rocket.
Thank you!

In the latest version the canards do move - and mount point is pretty far forward so I think they should really eliminate the impact on CP. I did not weight them so they do not counter the angle of attack and stay facing upwards (is that what you mean?).

For my initial build (gray 3D printed parts) I thought the canards were so small they would not matter much but once I simmed the model I realized it was not as overly stable as I thought it would be. Therefore when I redesigned things (white 3D printed parts) I went ahead and made the canards pivot.

I did move the mounting point / axle forward some compared to the prototype to be sure they would affect the CP less. I also went ahead and made them beveled like the prototype etc... so I think they look much better than the original wood fins.

1671450719211.png
 
Last edited:
Thank you!

In the latest version the canards do move - and mount point is pretty far forward so I think they should really eliminate the impact on CP. I did not weight them so they do not counter the angle of attack and stay facing upwards (is that what you mean?).

For my initial build (gray 3D printed parts) I thought the canards were so small they would not matter much but once I simmed the model I realized it was not as overly stable as I thought it would be. Therefore when I redesigned things (white 3D printed parts) I went ahead and made the canards pivot.

I did move the mounting point / axle forward some compared to the prototype to be sure they would affect the CP less. I also went ahead and made them beveled like the prototype etc... so I think they look much better than the original wood fins.

View attachment 551852
Even though the canards pivot, there is still a pivot point that at the very least acts like a dowel in the airflow, so try that in the sim.

Edit add: Also while freely pivoting, there's still some friction and possible binding points.
 
Thank you!

In the latest version the canards do move - and mount point is pretty far forward so I think they should really eliminate the impact on CP. I did not weight them so they do not counter the angle of attack and stay facing upwards (is that what you mean?).

For my initial build (gray 3D printed parts) I thought the canards were so small they would not matter much but once I simmed the model I realized it was not as overly stable as I thought it would be. Therefore when I redesigned things (white 3D printed parts) I went ahead and made the canards pivot.

I did move the mounting point / axle forward some compared to the prototype to be sure they would affect the CP less. I also went ahead and made them beveled like the prototype etc... so I think they look much better than the original wood fins.

View attachment 551852
Lol, okay, that explains why one is tipped 30 degrees. I was kinda wondering.,,,,
 
So I am always trying to experiment with things in my designs. In the earlier version I had recessed my engine about 2.25" in an attempt to maximize GDS stabilizing forces. As you can see in the video above it flew stable but...

I have 3D printed lots of parts in ABS and although there can be some scorching / blackening I have very rarely had anything melt. Well apparently the 2.25" recess was a bit much with the big taper of this boat tail and the earlier model melted the opening in the boat tail (I will add a picture later but I am not by my rockets).

So I made a new version with the engine recessed about 3/4" or so and it flew great (really love using the boat tail as a retainer cap since it can be easily replaced). I really love this model for impressive 24mm flights in relatively small fields!

Video of the 2nd successful 2nd flight:
 
That's looking pretty sweet! Bullpups have always been one of my favorite missiles. Very much looking forward to when this kit is available.


Andrew
 
Today was the day for swing tests...

I decided to pack the motor compartment on my built model with 3.7oz of pennies to simulate how this would fly with a 29mm F15-6 engine. It flew stable without me having to add anymore weight than the 2oz I had for launching with E12-6 engines (even without a parachute - I usually use the Estes 30" nylon one which adds a good deal of weight to the front).

I'd recommend adding another 1/2 or even another 1oz to nose for 29mm motors but good to see the above result.

Anyway, I included both 24mm and 29mm mounts in the first set of kits I sent out today so hoping to see some 29mm launches!
 
So this rocket has been sitting on my shelf with a ton of nose weight in it and I just never bothered to fly it. Every time I put the details into OR it gave me what seemed like a crazy CP calculation that was too far forward (for my mind-sim).

Sooo... I had a thought in the last several days -- why not build it again without nose weight and spin test it to see where the CP-CG relationship seems to come out. I also figured what the heck I should make the canard fins free-spinning to help keep nose weight down as much as possible.

Here is the (what seems to be innacurate CP calculation in OR).
View attachment 551268

The CG and total weight are accurate to my newly built model. Here is the build freshly out of my successful swing test. The model flies stable (immediately faces forward so I would tentatively say "quite" stable or "very" stable if I am being optimistic). Now [I think,] I can add the motor to OR and then add nose weight till I get the CP in the same location it was for my swing test (looks like I will only need 2oz which is much better than the 5 that OR suggests is necessary). Note: I had to tape that nosecone on since my indoor spin test area now has a 65" TV in it and it would be just my luck that the nose cone flies off and hits the TV.

View attachment 551269

Thanks to @CTimm photos I also enhanced the details on the nose cone (I had done a pretty good job on the boat tail last time around). I also recessed the engine some to help shift CG forward and to use GDS to help with stability. Now the whole boat tail is a retainer cap basically. I also put some small tabs so I could mount the main fins through slots in tube -- helps get them mounted straight more easily.
View attachment 551270 View attachment 551271

BigDaddy Bulpup.jpg

Curious:

What's the OR stability caliber with the motor, and motor location, from your test flights?

Your model does not appear to match the finished rocket.. check out the above photo.
Front Canard size and placement​
Front nose cone length and shape​
Fin size, shape and location​

You also mentioned that you would post up some photo's of the melted components from the maiden flight. Any chance you still have those parts?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top