Hi all,
This is a build thread for my 24 mm MD (called "difuminar" spanish for blur). It is essentially designed to get the most possible altitude out of a non-HPR motor. It consists of a Polystyrene 8.7:1 Von Karman nose cone resting on top of a CF body tube with 4 CF fins.
The design of this rocket depended heavily on the reduction of drag which was a key factor in gaining altitude. Openrocket was used mostly to test out different configurations.
View attachment 316139
​
Nose Cone
As the body tube was designed to be as short as possible, most of the electronics were transferred to the nose cone as to cut down on unnecessary length. The electronics are mounted on top of a 3D printed sled and secured inside the nose cone with another 3D printed bulkhead/deployment charge. Stability was ensured throughout the rocket by implanting 30 grams of tungsten powder with epoxy in the tip of the nose cone.
3D printed polystyrene was chosen for the material for the nose cone due to its low price and easy machinability. Fiberglass and Carbon Fiber were originally considered as materials for the nose cone due to their high strength to weight ratio but they were more expensive and not as easy to machine.
For the Nose cone, a Von Karman shape was optimum for the speeds achieved by the rocket. A number of different lengths were experimented with and in the end a 8.8:1 ratio was ideal for achieving maximum altitude and also for storing the electronics, including the telemini's 6.5 inch antenna.
Body Tube
The material chosen for the body tube was Carbon fiber. Fiberglass is cheaper but due to the small size of the rocket the cost was not substantial.
The main source of the drag was the body tube which caused more than 50% of the drag on the rocket. Compressing the components in the payload section allowed the length to be shortened a good deal and therefore cut down on the drag.
m
Fins
Carbon fiber was found to be the best material for the fins due to its high strength to weight ratio. Most other materials were found to either be too heavy or too weak. Fiberglass possesses similar characteristics to carbon fiber but carbon fiber has an edge over fiberglass in strength and weight and so CF was chosen to be the final material.
The design of the fins was also crucial to get the maximum possible altitude out of the rocket and went through over 50 different configurations before the final design was implemented. From the start, it was obvious that a three-pointed fin had a significant advantage over a delta fin performance-wise. For the three-pointed fin, three different designs were considered. Swept fins are more efficient when tilted back a long distance but they become structurally weak after and prone to fin flutter after a certain extent. They also do not offer an advantage over a short distance and so were disregarded as an option. Clipped fins cause too much drag and although they are more structurally sound, the 1/32" mm thick CF plate provides more than enough structural integrity. A balance was found between the two by making fin halfway between clipped and swept (a 90-degree triangle). This provided a good deal of strength while also keeping drag to a minimum.
Another challenge was finding the perfect balance between the Tungsten weight in the nose cone and the size of the fins. Increasing the weight in the nose cone and decreasing the fin size ultimately ended up with a higher altitude in the simulation but in real life an insufficient fin size would have resulted in weather cocking soon after leaving the rail. To lessen this effect, the fin size was increased to a sufficient amount (enough to ward off the effects of weather cocking) and the weight in the nose was lowered to 30 grams.
A four fin design allows the span of the four fins to be reduced to return to around the same stability margin with a three finned rocket. Although this may seem to have no real advantages, lowering the span means the fin itself will be stiffer and less prone to flutter. The fins themselves will weigh more, but since the rocket is about as close to optimal weight as you can get, adding ~1 gram of weight does not provide a real impact on the flight.
The fins will be tacked on with BSI 5 minute epoxy and filleted with JB weld.
Avionics
The model will be tracked with a Telemini altimeter, which also will enable deployment and measurement of the rockets final altitude.
Propulsion
Out of the Pro24 6 grain motors the G150 was picked to be the propulsion system for this rocket. Most other motors in the Pro24 6G case offered less impulse than the G150 except for the G117 and G65. The G65 offered a longer burn time as well as more impulse but the offset core produces stability issues and weathercocking. The G117 has a longer burn time and just 1 less newton/sec of impulse than the G150 but the G150 has more ISP and less weight and so produces better performance.
So anyway, there is the introduction. build should start in a month or so while I get the parts. So far the RASAero and Openrocket results are similar (about 9,500 ft AGL) so I'm pretty confident that the rocket will reach the expected altitude.
Openrocket file
View attachment 316140
3D File in Openrocket
View attachment 316141
RASAero file
View attachment 316143
Project Writeup
View attachment 316142
This is a build thread for my 24 mm MD (called "difuminar" spanish for blur). It is essentially designed to get the most possible altitude out of a non-HPR motor. It consists of a Polystyrene 8.7:1 Von Karman nose cone resting on top of a CF body tube with 4 CF fins.
The design of this rocket depended heavily on the reduction of drag which was a key factor in gaining altitude. Openrocket was used mostly to test out different configurations.
View attachment 316139
​
Nose Cone
As the body tube was designed to be as short as possible, most of the electronics were transferred to the nose cone as to cut down on unnecessary length. The electronics are mounted on top of a 3D printed sled and secured inside the nose cone with another 3D printed bulkhead/deployment charge. Stability was ensured throughout the rocket by implanting 30 grams of tungsten powder with epoxy in the tip of the nose cone.
3D printed polystyrene was chosen for the material for the nose cone due to its low price and easy machinability. Fiberglass and Carbon Fiber were originally considered as materials for the nose cone due to their high strength to weight ratio but they were more expensive and not as easy to machine.
For the Nose cone, a Von Karman shape was optimum for the speeds achieved by the rocket. A number of different lengths were experimented with and in the end a 8.8:1 ratio was ideal for achieving maximum altitude and also for storing the electronics, including the telemini's 6.5 inch antenna.
Body Tube
The material chosen for the body tube was Carbon fiber. Fiberglass is cheaper but due to the small size of the rocket the cost was not substantial.
The main source of the drag was the body tube which caused more than 50% of the drag on the rocket. Compressing the components in the payload section allowed the length to be shortened a good deal and therefore cut down on the drag.
m
Fins
Carbon fiber was found to be the best material for the fins due to its high strength to weight ratio. Most other materials were found to either be too heavy or too weak. Fiberglass possesses similar characteristics to carbon fiber but carbon fiber has an edge over fiberglass in strength and weight and so CF was chosen to be the final material.
The design of the fins was also crucial to get the maximum possible altitude out of the rocket and went through over 50 different configurations before the final design was implemented. From the start, it was obvious that a three-pointed fin had a significant advantage over a delta fin performance-wise. For the three-pointed fin, three different designs were considered. Swept fins are more efficient when tilted back a long distance but they become structurally weak after and prone to fin flutter after a certain extent. They also do not offer an advantage over a short distance and so were disregarded as an option. Clipped fins cause too much drag and although they are more structurally sound, the 1/32" mm thick CF plate provides more than enough structural integrity. A balance was found between the two by making fin halfway between clipped and swept (a 90-degree triangle). This provided a good deal of strength while also keeping drag to a minimum.
Another challenge was finding the perfect balance between the Tungsten weight in the nose cone and the size of the fins. Increasing the weight in the nose cone and decreasing the fin size ultimately ended up with a higher altitude in the simulation but in real life an insufficient fin size would have resulted in weather cocking soon after leaving the rail. To lessen this effect, the fin size was increased to a sufficient amount (enough to ward off the effects of weather cocking) and the weight in the nose was lowered to 30 grams.
A four fin design allows the span of the four fins to be reduced to return to around the same stability margin with a three finned rocket. Although this may seem to have no real advantages, lowering the span means the fin itself will be stiffer and less prone to flutter. The fins themselves will weigh more, but since the rocket is about as close to optimal weight as you can get, adding ~1 gram of weight does not provide a real impact on the flight.
The fins will be tacked on with BSI 5 minute epoxy and filleted with JB weld.
Avionics
The model will be tracked with a Telemini altimeter, which also will enable deployment and measurement of the rockets final altitude.
Propulsion
Out of the Pro24 6 grain motors the G150 was picked to be the propulsion system for this rocket. Most other motors in the Pro24 6G case offered less impulse than the G150 except for the G117 and G65. The G65 offered a longer burn time as well as more impulse but the offset core produces stability issues and weathercocking. The G117 has a longer burn time and just 1 less newton/sec of impulse than the G150 but the G150 has more ISP and less weight and so produces better performance.
So anyway, there is the introduction. build should start in a month or so while I get the parts. So far the RASAero and Openrocket results are similar (about 9,500 ft AGL) so I'm pretty confident that the rocket will reach the expected altitude.
Openrocket file
View attachment 316140
3D File in Openrocket
View attachment 316141
RASAero file
View attachment 316143
Project Writeup
View attachment 316142
Last edited: