Discussion in 'Mid Power Rocketry (MPR)' started by kuririn, Jul 16, 2018.
I had missed the stained wood part in previous pictures. That's cool. Whole thing looks great.
Definitely looks like a really interesting and different build.
Thanks guys. Kudos to Tim Van Milligan and Apogee for such an innovative design and fun build. Now I just hope I don't screw up the paint job!
Wrapping up the build:
Over the past few days
I brushed a coat of Flecto Varathane over the stained wood section. It sealed the wood, brought out the luster of the stain, and imparted a satin sheen on the surface. Highly recommended. If you're really O/C, you can sand this lightly and apply two or three more coats, sanding lightly in between. For me one coat is enough.
Shot a coat of fast drying gray automotive filler/primer and gave it a light sanding when dry.
Sorry, no pics. I forgot.
I wanted a darker metallic color, rather than the bright silver on Apogee's pages. This seems to be more attuned to the steam punk motif. Sprayed a sample of Rusto's forged hammered antique pewter on a scrap piece of tubing. Attached a scrap decal piece to check the contrast.
The "hammered" texture is very spotty and not consistent like on the cap. But I like the color so I'll be using it.
Sprayed the nose cone, booster pods, and main body separately and let everything dry.
Then applied the main decals. The yellow porthole decals did not show up well on the paint, so I left them off.
Close-up of nose cone and "hammering" texture
Close-up of ornamental detail
Close-up of bottom and main fins and booster pods.
I'll let the metallic completely dry before attempting to mask and paint the nose cone band. It'll be in a Florentine Gold. So I'm calling this build done!
Comments: Great looking kit, nice size, and a challenging build. Hope I don't lose it or destroy it on the first flight. Will post pics when I get to launch it. Thanks for looking in.
This looks incredible! I love the stained wood.
Very nice job, interesting model. Tim should sell plenty of those.
I looked at this on the Apogee site, and I'm confused. It says repeatedly to use 0 delay booster motors in the pods, yet they need an ejection charge to pop the nosecone and deploy a streamer. Are they really using a 0 delay as a very short delay and the blow-back as an ejection charge???
Apparently so. There is a video imbedded in the product description that shows the boosters separating and falling away. The nose cone has a slot in the shoulder and the bottom, when it pops out the booster has nothing holding it to the rocket so it falls away. Think about a two stage rocket with gap staging. There usually is a vent hole or two to facilitate release of blowback pressure to ensure contact of the hot gas with the sustainer propellant. And the laundry is small and packs loose in the booster pod.
Great result with the styling!
Just a word from my experience with those apogee booster pods.
I only flew mine once with zero delay motors in the booster.
Ejecting those pods while still under sustainer thrust resulted in zippers to both the pods..
I’d suggest low delay motors in the pods, as I think they’ll fare better than mine did if ejected during the coast phase rather than boost..
Just food for thought...
Looking at the Apogee video, what you say makes sense. Will take precautions against zippering.
Not arguing with your zipper experience. Putting a delay on the boosters kind of invalidates the aerodynamic performance “purpose”, which is adding thrust on lift off and then shedding the extra mass when the pods have expended all their fuel (done all they’re gonna do). At that point from a performance standpoint as long they remain attached they are both dead weight and added drag. Since for a hobby standpoint they are NOT being used for performance, but simply there for the “cool factor” the loss of performance is not really much of an issue, and the deployment forces causing the zipper will be less with a delay, especially if delay causes booster release a bit after main engine thrust ends (during main engine delay/coast.)
From a PRACTICAL standpoint flying the rocket, putting a delay charge Will result in booster release LATER and therefore at a HIGHER altitude. Means you won’t SEE the booster deployment as well, and boosters will likely land further from the pad.
More practical ways of avoiding zippers without using a delay type engine might be longer shock cord or shorter streamers. The boosters should be pretty light and “nose blow” recovery alone might be enough.
Cool rocket and really nice build.
Separate names with a comma.