Apogee fin shape experiment build

Discussion in 'Low Power Rocketry (LPR)' started by bikefxr, Feb 17, 2019.

Help Support The Rocketry Forum by donating:

  1. Mar 25, 2019 #31

    bikefxr

    bikefxr

    bikefxr

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2017
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    22
    Yes we launched on the same day same angle same weather conditions
     
    lakeroadster likes this.
  2. Mar 25, 2019 #32

    dhbarr

    dhbarr

    dhbarr

    Amateur Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2016
    Messages:
    5,043
    Likes Received:
    337
    The square pointy bit broke the air up before it hit the square flat bit?

    I believe if they were all rounded ( OP points out the difficulty with identical rounding ) your instincts would have been pretty close.
     
  3. Mar 26, 2019 #33

    neil_w

    neil_w

    neil_w

    Fiddly bits enthusiast TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    5,154
    Likes Received:
    456
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    Hey, don't get all technical with me.

    Do you really think round fins would actually *invert* the standings?

    I really am curious to understand these results. Short of a wind tunnel test I suspect we'll be left to speculate.
     
  4. Mar 26, 2019 #34

    dhbarr

    dhbarr

    dhbarr

    Amateur Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2016
    Messages:
    5,043
    Likes Received:
    337
    For #10 that really is my best guess.

    And I don't think it would invert them precisely, just reorder them to match what the collective experience of these forums suggest.

    In any case, cool experiment and good science!
     
    neil_w likes this.
  5. Mar 26, 2019 #35

    bikefxr

    bikefxr

    bikefxr

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2017
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    22
    I have the pattern for the fin if someone wants to try....all the fins had an area of 4.09 square inches
     
    BABAR and dhbarr like this.
  6. Mar 26, 2019 #36

    neil_w

    neil_w

    neil_w

    Fiddly bits enthusiast TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    5,154
    Likes Received:
    456
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    Ah, I was wondering about that too. Cool experiment for sure.
     
    dhbarr likes this.
  7. Mar 26, 2019 #37

    shanejohnson2002

    shanejohnson2002

    shanejohnson2002

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2019
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    19
    Gender:
    Male
    Very cool, and a very unintuitive result. I wonder if some further fluid modeling / testing might give an answer? I'd also be interested in a deeper statistical dive. Extreme spread, standard deviation.

    My guess is the pointy part is probably right inside a boundary / laminar flow layer, although I have no idea what that would mean for the turbulent air on the forward-swept area vs "clean" air on the outer, rearward-swept area.
     
  8. Mar 26, 2019 #38

    boatgeek

    boatgeek

    boatgeek

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,604
    Likes Received:
    304
    Like Neil, I'm kind of puzzling over the counterintuitive results. Were all of the fin cans the same weight? Did they all fly straight up with no weathercocking?

    You could have made some serious money on bets from the crowd on what we thought would be fastest/highest. I would have picked #9.
     
    shanejohnson2002 likes this.
  9. Mar 26, 2019 #39

    neil_w

    neil_w

    neil_w

    Fiddly bits enthusiast TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    5,154
    Likes Received:
    456
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    I would have picked "anything other than #10". :)
     
    Nytrunner and boatgeek like this.
  10. Mar 26, 2019 #40

    hutch

    hutch

    hutch

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2010
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    20
    I would have bet the farm on #1 and lost big.

    My competition training always told me that eliptical (and airfoiled) fins where always the best shape for altitude.
     
  11. Mar 26, 2019 #41

    bikefxr

    bikefxr

    bikefxr

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2017
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    22
    The rocket weighed 4pounds 3oz and they all flew fairly straight
     
  12. Mar 27, 2019 #42

    BA_Incognito

    BA_Incognito

    BA_Incognito

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2018
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    62
    Did you try to sim the various fin patterns in OpenRocket or RockSim to see how they compared to your actual results?
     
  13. Mar 27, 2019 #43

    bikefxr

    bikefxr

    bikefxr

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2017
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    22
    I did not do that .. just built then flew
     
    dhbarr likes this.
  14. Mar 27, 2019 #44

    Andrew_ASC

    Andrew_ASC

    Andrew_ASC

    UTC SEDS 2017 3rd/ SEDS 2018 1st

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,303
    Likes Received:
    364
    Gender:
    Male
    How about uncertainities for the experiment? Winds aloft, motor thrust deviation, wadding mass, and launch rod angle from flight to flight? Most experiments even simple ones have uncertain errors associated with them. I suspect of the uncertainties that the motor thrust from flight to flight being the biggest source of error.
     
    shanejohnson2002 likes this.
  15. Mar 27, 2019 #45

    lakeroadster

    lakeroadster

    lakeroadster

    Lone Wolf... No Club TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,104
    Likes Received:
    197
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Central Colorado
    1st let me thank you for posting this thread. Very interesting!

    if your are willing, post up the dimensional data for the rocket... and the various fin designs. I'd be glad to run the Open Rocket simulations. If you'd rather, PM the data to me.
     
    BA_Incognito likes this.
  16. Mar 27, 2019 #46

    jlabrasca

    jlabrasca

    jlabrasca

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    210
    On a C6-5? That's like a 1:4 thrust-to-weight.

    The second-best altitude result, the clipped delta with rounded corners, seems likely. What was the variance in the three trial sets? I wonder if you might have outliers in your data for #1 and #10?
     
  17. Mar 27, 2019 #47

    Andrew_ASC

    Andrew_ASC

    Andrew_ASC

    UTC SEDS 2017 3rd/ SEDS 2018 1st

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,303
    Likes Received:
    364
    Gender:
    Male
    His fins weren’t even in compressible flow at Mach 0.3 which is more troubling to understand at such low velocities. A wind tunnel or CFD would get you the drag coefficients to compute the drag forces something that open rocket can’t do accurately. The damnest thing about a drag coefficient is itself varies usually from object to object by geometry and along Mach numbers as velocity changes the coefficient sometimes also changes. In theory as the sweep angles increase the induced drag decreases. But that change also affects stability. It could be that #10 was the most stable of the other designs. I would be guessing fully developed turbulent flow and near negligible changes in flow characteristics at such low velocities. Then again I’m not an Aero just a mech here.
     
  18. Mar 27, 2019 #48

    mjennings

    mjennings

    mjennings

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,515
    Likes Received:
    4
    Interesting results, I was going to ask about holding the area constant, but that's been covered. is the weight between the 10 fin units consistent? also did you weigh the motors?

    I'm spitballing here but lets say that motor performance can vary +5% (There is an official figure but I'm not sure what it is off hand). Setting Fin Unit 10 at the +5% end and looking at Altitude only, fin units 3, 6, and 7 fall in the 10% variance range and #5 is just outside of the low end. (409 ft * 0.9 = 368.1 ft)
    #3 being a trapezoidal fin plan makes sense
    #6 is an elliptical approximation results make sense
    #7 rounded trapezoid also falls in line
    #5 swept back trapezoid also makes sense for good performance
    Total spread is 32% difference in altitude, and if we toss Unit 1 it's 26%. That's pretty good for a school science fair.
    As for why 10 came out on top some thoughts, if you remove the spikes it is roughly elliptical, the spikes push the fins moment of inertia outward, and the boundary layer trip thoughts may have some merit.
     
  19. Mar 27, 2019 #49

    Charles_McG

    Charles_McG

    Charles_McG

    Ciderwright

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,731
    Likes Received:
    169
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    Standard deviation of each design?

    Sometimes the mean is not the message.
     
  20. Mar 27, 2019 #50

    lakeroadster

    lakeroadster

    lakeroadster

    Lone Wolf... No Club TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,104
    Likes Received:
    197
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Central Colorado
    Some research on the ThrustCurve's site shows that NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors, allows an alarming amount of motor deviation from stated values....
    • The total impulse must not have a standard deviation greater than 6.7%.
    • The ejection delay must not vary more than 1.5 second or 20% (whichever is greater, up to 3s) from average.
    • The average thrust must not vary more than 20% (or 1N for model rocket motors, 10N for high-power motors, whichever is greater) from average.
    That's why running all these through a simulator would be great.

    Add the impulse deviation and the average thrust deviation and we end up with results that vary so wildly that it's hard to gather any useful data from a test unless some sort of on-board electronics are used to evaluate that actual motor performance during the test.
     
  21. Mar 29, 2019 #51

    bikefxr

    bikefxr

    bikefxr

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2017
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    22
    Ready for the science fair IMG_0728.jpg
     
  22. Mar 29, 2019 #52

    BA_Incognito

    BA_Incognito

    BA_Incognito

    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2018
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    62
    Looking GOOD!!
     
  23. Mar 29, 2019 #53

    lakeroadster

    lakeroadster

    lakeroadster

    Lone Wolf... No Club TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,104
    Likes Received:
    197
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Central Colorado
    What a fun science fair project. Well done.
     
  24. Mar 29, 2019 #54

    neil_w

    neil_w

    neil_w

    Fiddly bits enthusiast TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    5,154
    Likes Received:
    456
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    Fantastic!
     
  25. Apr 3, 2019 #55

    mjennings

    mjennings

    mjennings

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,515
    Likes Received:
    4
    That's the data I couldn't find thanks, definitely lends to motor variability being the most likely explanation.

    The display looks great! Well done hope he does well!
     
  26. Apr 3, 2019 #56

    GlenP

    GlenP

    GlenP

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,430
    Likes Received:
    91
    Not sure I would have guessed this result, but having the luxury of Monday-morning Quarterbacking, I might suggest that the base drag is impacted by the unique shape of #10, in that it serves as a trip to make the boundary layer turbulent and slightly less base drag than a laminar fin. Very counter intuitive since skin friction drag would be higher, but overall base drag may be a larger quantity than skin friction.

    Granted these are thin fins, but a very simple example would be the dimples on a golf ball make it go farther due to less base drag.
     
  27. Apr 6, 2019 #57

    BABAR

    BABAR

    BABAR

    Builds Rockets for NASA TRF Supporter TRF Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    187
    Hey, I told you I liked 10!
     
  28. Apr 6, 2019 #58

    Heli Hacker

    Heli Hacker

    Heli Hacker

    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a construction question. I assume you had one or two rockets, and you swapped out the fin section on them. How are the fin sections held on for flight?
     
  29. Apr 15, 2019 #59

    bikefxr

    bikefxr

    bikefxr

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2017
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    22
    We had one rocket and slid the fin sections over the motor mount then used blue painters tape to make sure they didn’t come off
     
    Heli Hacker likes this.

Share This Page