Bristol Bloodhound Dimensions / Scale Data

[SteveO121]

Hi,
I am looking for scale data for the Bristol Bloodhound. I a starting my L3 cert project and for some reason I have fixated on this SAM as what I need to do for my first scratch build. I have found some very interesting photos from this site https://www.braw.co.uk/bloodhound/bloodhound.htm but I cannot find any dimensioned drawings.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
SteveO
TRA 11055

 

[adrian]

All I can find (which you've probably already found as well) are basic dimensions:

Length: 8.46m (27' 9")
Diameter: 546mm (21.5")
Span: 2.83m (9' 3.5")

You'll need to calculate other dimensions by measuring photos and scaling using the basics. And since this is a British pre-metric missile, remember to work in feet and inches.

 

[SteveO121]

Thanks I had found the basic stuff.
I just sent off a request to the RRAF museum in Australia. It seems that they just finished restoring one and may be able to furnish their measurements.
Thanks again,
Steve

 

[Fred22]

Would you mind scanning and or posting what they give you?
Cheers
fred

 

[powderburner]

Kind of a rough/simplistic drawing, but it might have enough to get you started?

 

[powderburner]

Have you seen any of these? They are posted somewhere on the 'net but I don't remember where.

BTW, did you ever receive any technical drawing data?

 

[powderburner]

Second round

 

[powderburner]

Third set

A few launcher shots for superscale?

 

[powderburner]

Last set for the night

SteveO, let me know if you want a few more?

 

[CTimm]

I may have a dimensioned drawing that could be helpful.
I can't remember whether it was the Bloodhound or the Thunderbird though.
Give me some time to search thru my files.

Chris

 

[SteveO121]

Hi all,
I just got the response back from the RRAF museum in Australia and was little disappointed at what was sent but I will scan it in and post this weekend. Thank you all for the images. There are some good ones that I had not seen before which will help in future designs.
I have been able to piece together some additional data after searching for the manufacture of the boosters and the ramjets. I will post that once I put a drawing together. I am going to contact the museum again and see if they can provide the dimensions of the fore and aft fins on the sustainer and the single fin on the booster.
I’ll let you know what I find out.
SteveO

 

[atlcdp]

I really hope you are still going to do this. I found this document (attached) that has some dimensions. I also have some measurements I took from this picture.

The Rocksim files are designs I made. The only difference is the size of the boosters. I am planning on building this as a low power composite design. I plan on using Aerotech D10's for the boosters and Estes E-9s in the ramjets. The E9s will ignite 3 seconds after take off.

 

[lkal32]

View attachment 134350

The drawing is of the Mk I, which is shorter than the Mk II and would cause some stability issues. I had planned on doing a large build of this (my favorite) rocket, but complexity on that scale was beyond me at the time.

 

[atlcdp]

Any chance you are going to pick it up again? From what I found, the only difference between the MK I and MK II was the length of the main body. I just received the parts I need to begin building a smaller version of this. The main body is going to be a BT-70. The Ramjets will be BT-60s. The boosters will be BT-50s with BT-20s for engine mounts. I am starting with the design of the boosters. I have an idea for making them fall away like they do on the real missile.

My model will not be perfectly to scale, but I am going to make it as close as I can with standard body tube sizes.

 

[lkal32]

I doubt it. I have had two builds halfway started but never finished for the past 2 years... Lets see if I get around to those first :blush:

The Mk I has a shorter body, a slightly different nosecone, modified ramjet details (notice the chance in small fins on the top and bottom ramjets). There are also a few small surface detail changes but probably too insignificant on a smaller build.

I had planned (and attempted to make the lower body) out of carbon fiber wrapped 5.5" loc tubing. I cut slits in the tube lengthwise to create the taper, but I didnt like how it turned out (too lumpy) so I scrapped it and never picked it back up. I always wanted to make canted nozzles for the boosters, but now that I have a lathe...

This was my old RockSim file

 

[atlcdp]

I would never have thought to try to induce the taper by slicing into the airframe. I can understand how it came out lumpy. I sure would have loved to see this fly built on a 5.5 airframe. Were you planning on ejecting the boosters in flight?

It is a complex build, no doubt about it. I am going to gloss over a few of the finer details. I have a nice long balsa nosecone I will use for the taper to the body, and two long balsa nose cones I will use to make into the Ramjet intakes. These won't be true to scale, but they will be close.

 

[lkal32]

Were you planning on ejecting the boosters in flight?

Yep, I was going to go as close to scale everything as possible. Ive been trying to come up with a new pop off booster method and I keep thinking of this.

 

[atlcdp]

I started the build today by trying to reinforce the balsa nose cones. I have one booster started, with a hinge for the ring holding the boosters together.

 

[adrian]

Yep, I was going to go as close to scale everything as possible. Ive been trying to come up with a new pop off booster method and I keep thinking of this.

Here is my Thunderbird, which was similar to the Bloodhound except that the Thunderbird's sustainer was powered by a single rocket motor rather than dual ramjets. If you're planning on having separating boosters, Thunderbird has the advantage that it has full sets of four fins - no ramjets replacing the vertical fins!

There's a further discussion about parallel boosters in this thread.