I am sure that is a big part of it -- no doubt. But knowing how much demand there is, wouldn't it make sense to talk to someone like you that could put the kits together? I mean, it's not like there is a competing product out there.
Come on, that's ridiculous. He works with her on occasion but he seems plenty well occupied doing his own stuff.
The latest video (skeleton launch) is indeed kind of a mess.... but her earlier rocket vids are quite good.
If you get it working will you give it to us (unlike joe).My goals are modest, I want the rocket to go straight up. There are Arduino based autopilots for drones and a clever programmer could certainly modify one for this application, or even TVC probably. I am a mechanical guy, so I am not a clever programmer. I am working on someone at work to do it for me though.
It is a little frustrating to know that AVA can do what I want but is not available. That's life.
I was thinking the same thing… “demand” would have to be less than a few dozen. Not enough to make it worthwhile for the hassle.
No I think that the scale model people will love it.
Really? I would have thought that most everyone that does scratch builds would want to try it at least once just for the novelty of it.
It's expensive and complicated. Not for everyone, no.
Not with a Arduino and a 3d printer which most people have access to.
I build a ton of rockets. From 1/2As to N motors. Kits and scratch builds. Thrust vectoring is never anything I had/have interest in. All the large events and club launches I go to, I think Ive heard it talked about once by a school team over the years.
What if you just had to do it like a standard MM.
You mean assembly as simple as a Standard Motor mount? Still no interest. Don’t want to deal with the complexity of the programming and setup. If I am going to add electronics in the aft-end, its going to be for staging and Ill let fins do the guidance with an airframe built straight and true.
Understood. Thanks everyone!
That is what I was thinking a Arduino would just be copy paste of the code and enter the mass and CG,CP all stuff you get from a standard sim.
Gimballing is just too inefficient when good old power, nose weight and creativity with canting and motor placement can do the same thing much better in most model rocket applications. Gimballing is a very limited application, maybe fitting with some sports scale or exotic oddroc models. It is expensive, complicated (weight on bottom of rocket bad!) and there are very few long burn motors with the required thrust necessary to produce results fitting with the TASTES of the modern rocketry community. Everyone at the launch chats once about the powered landing video and then pulls out their awesome 3-4FNC high power birds!
Not really.
Keep thinking that.
Gimballing an entire solid motor isn't "real" (as in utilised by the pros) rocket technology anyway. That will always be a visually cool looking gimmick whose appeal is centred around You Tube likes or engineering curiosities. I'm not even sure how much of that learned knowledge can be transferred over to more practical forms of TVC?
But we build lots of gimmicks just look at @lakeroadster he builds lots and lots of gimmicks, why , because gimmicks are fun.
Yes they are - the odder, the better.
It might be the gimmick that hooks you up with Xyla...
