Oof, that looks like when I came back to my Ragnarok and found all the cuffs on the wings looking like.... well, like that. Good luck with the glue, and get a whole mess of pictures before and during the flight(s)!
Oh, man, now I regret suggesting tape. Sorry.
I really like the look of the XB-1.It started with neil_w's "imagination fuel" post, it got me firing on all cylinders, so to speak. I really love airplanes that look like rockets, and rockets that look like airplanes. As he observed:
and that challenge makes these candidates for an even more fun scratch built project. I started thinking about how to get away from cylinders and recreate the look of some of these exotic shapes. There is a lot that can be done with cylinders and planes (such as @lakeroadster 's slick F-79 Lone Wolf) , but I wanted to do some compound curves.
There are quite a few nice examples of non-cylindrical rockets here on TRF, such as @jqavins Elliptical Rocket, @boatgeek Spruce Goose, the current Steamship Barbicane build by @Ted Cochran , and I'm sure there are more. So this is nothing new, just my attempt at it.
View attachment 421157
This appears to be a concept image of a supersonic jet that is currently in production. There is a website with photos of the current progress as well as some descriptions and a 3D model:
https://boomsupersonic.com/xb-1/
The XB-1 will be a demonstration plane for their future Mach 2+ commercial jet liner ("Overture"), but it looks like a fun build. I don't expect this will be a quick build, there will be some experimentation along the way.
Ah, so some of you do use scroll saws! Something I'm considering buying.I turned off the scroll saw, put down the X-acto knife, and stepped away from the work bench.
Instead, I needed to sit down at the computer and come up with a plan. Between the website and 3D model, I picked out some views that would be helpful for getting more careful measurements.
View attachment 421293
With GIMP, I scaled a top view and side view to match, and then used the measure tool to get dimensions in units of pixels. Then I played with the scaling to figure out what size I wanted.
View attachment 421294
I placed purple lines on the side view where I'm going to put bulkheads. The forward most section will be a solid balsa nose cone, and behind that will be a BT-55 stuffer tube transitioning to BT-20 at the tail cone.
I then used the 3D model to infer what the cross section shape looked like, and sketched those shapes in boxes drawn to the dimensions I determined. That sets the height and width of each station.
View attachment 421295
I cut out half of the shape, and used that to get symmetric bulkheads drawn on 1/8" plywood by flipping it over a centerline.
View attachment 421296
Then I traced out a BT-55 hole through the middle, and cut them out on a scroll saw.
View attachment 421297
Ok. This seems more promising.
I bought a little gadget for cutting strips, called a Balsa Stripper. I don't know how they came up with that name.Not particularly, I have a long, wide aluminum straight edge, and press it down firmly on the balsa sheet with one hand, and cut with a sharp #11 blade using the other hand. This particular sheet of balsa is particularly light and soft, so it is cutting very smoothly and easily. Some of the harder sheets tend to pull the blade with the grain, but this sheet isn't doing that.
With the strip laying on the surface, I'm using a pencil point to approximately mark the intersections with the adjacent plank, slicing it off with a sharp blade, trimming if necessary, and then counting on some sanding and filler to cover everything up . The last piece in a section take the most time, it has to wedge against the top and bottom plank. So it takes some fiddling with a blade and swipes of sandpaper. There will be some sanding. Ok, there will be a lot of sanding. I'm starting at a corner (the bottom edge has a pretty well defined corner), and working towards the centers. More photos tonight.
The XB-1 "flew" today at MDRA on a D24. Recovery was good, although it ejected my 18/20 motor case, so that's gone. But flight was... well... watch:
For a sport rocket where you just want to see it fly and recover it intact, a little bit of a squirrel when the rocket is NOT a typical 3FNC is okay and even kind of fun, as long as net trajectory is vertical, ejection close to Apogee, and rocket recovers safely and preferably close by. I’d say you chalked up a huge win, the slightly less than nominal flight was like icing on the cake of a FAR from nominal rocket!
Ironically it was Bare Metal (which looks like a great paint job on a slick but pretty pretty straight forward symmetrical rocket) that tried to sign your name in the sky on its gazillion and first flight!
Also ironically your best pic included a pencil rocket.Thanks! It felt like a less-than successful day, given the number of flights I had do odd things. But I think you're right, although slightly unpredictable and surprising, it was basically a safe flight, and good recovery. Definitely exciting to watch.
I know, that surprised me. I think that is the first time I've had a rocket go skywriting like that. It's a pretty simple design. I think I'll retire this booster section (it's getting worn out and ragged anyway, and the shock cord needs replacing), and rebuild it with 4 fins (instead of 3).
My first such experience was with a mid-power 3FNC that I had built stock from a kit very well and solitly, and had been checked and endorsed by the very experien ed RSO. It should have been a perfect launch, but it went skywriting and "landed" hard under power. The concensus on the field was that the issue was with the motor, the nozzle either defective or partially blocked. All of which I mention because it may be the same issue is what bit you.I know, that surprised me. I think that is the first time I've had a rocket go skywriting like that. It's a pretty simple design. I think I'll retire this booster section (it's getting worn out and ragged anyway, and the shock cord needs replacing), and rebuild it with 4 fins (instead of 3).Ironically it was Bare Metal (which looks like a great paint job on a slick but pretty pretty straight forward symmetrical rocket) that tried to sign your name in the sky on its gazillion and first flight!
Also ironically your best pic included a pencil rocket.
Great to see and hear you end your son enjoying being together at the launch. Savor every moment, they grow up waaaay too fast.
The concensus on the field was that the issue was with the motor, the nozzle either defective or partially blocked. All of which I mention because it may be the same issue is what bit you.
Hence the adage, “The probability of a rough landing is proportional to the effort spent finishing it, squared” (roughly )My first such experience was with a mid-power 3FNC that I had built stock from a kit very well and solitly, and had been checked and endorsed by the very experien ed RSO. It should have been a perfect launch, but it went skywriting and "landed" hard under power.......The damage was minor and has been repaired. But the finish will never be the same.)
Hence the adage, “The probability of a rough landing is proportional to the effort spent finishing it, squared” (roughly )
In the extreme example, definitely true. If no time is spent in building the rocket, it will never land and never be damaged. (In fact, it will never be built or launched. In case someone claims the rule is violated by RTF rockets, even if BUYER didn’t put any effort to finish it, the manufacturer put in at least MINIMAL time )Doesn't that mean that after enough effort is put into finishing, the probabilityof a hard landing will exceed 1? (The answer is yes, it does.)
Perhaps the probablility of not experiencing a hard landing inversely proportional to the effort. That way it asympotically approaches zero.
Make sure you tweet your model build to Boom .
Outstanding!Hey this is cool, checkout Boom's Twitter and Facebook page:
Enter your email address to join: