Doorknob1 Vs. Doorknob2 variance

[Ez2cDave]

Please report any schematics that are not public domain that show up here. We don't need them, and the very most should be a link to where they can LEGALLY be obtained.

Since ROTW is long OOP, what is your link to obtain a copy, without paying $150 + ?

https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?...eter%20alway&title=rockets%20of%20the%20world

Peter Alway's data is all over the Internet, in various forms .

https://www.polytechforum.com/rockets/corporal-scale-data-82725-.htm
https://www.jcrocket.com/images/waccorporal/rotwdrawing.jpg
https://www.jcrocket.com/otrag.shtml
https://billsrockets.blogspot.com/2017/

There are THOUSANDS more examples out there . . .

Dave F.

 

[Gus]

Since it is Peter Alway's material, let him speak for himself . . .

There are a number of us who consider ourselves good friends of Peter's and have tremendous respect for what he has done for our hobby. We don't want to see this very quiet, kind man taken advantage of in any form. Not only are his 30+ years of writing a godsend for scale Rocketeers all over the world, he has gone the extra mile multiple times helping out the U.S. Spacemodeling team researching extremely obscure rockets. I personally spent 8 hours with Pete on behalf of my teammates going through over 50+ huge binders of scale data looking for single stage rockets with a 20:1 aspect ratio that had not been printed in ROTW. Pete and I also recently spent 5 hours going through every book in his voluminous scale library trying to identify books we thought should be included in Estes in-house scale library. He does this kind of thing all the time and asks nothing in return because he is just extremely kind and actually, after all these years, still loves model rocketry.

No one should do anything to disincentivize Peter from continuing to work on ROTW 5.

A note to scale fans, Peter views ROTW somewhat differently from most of the rest of us. Yes, it evolved as a resource for scale data to help us build models. But Peter sees ROTW, and especially the upcoming 5th edition, as "telling the story" of rocketry through the ages. Yes, most of that story has transpired in the last 100 years. But that's why Peter recently did a huge amount of research and drawing which resulted in The First Seven Centuries of Rocketry, to fill in essentials in the backstory. Likewise with his recent Eighteen Rockets and Missiles of WWII.

I've been extremely fortunate to have helped proofread several of Peter's recent books prior to publication. What an eye opener that has been. I'm pretty sure almost none of you ever sit down and read all the verbiage in his books from beginning to end, but you should. He's a masterful writer and his vignettes of these rockets are just wonderful. He really is "telling a story," not just producing scale data.

So, although Peter is certainly capable of speaking for himself, those of us who truly love what he has done for our hobby will always speak out on his behalf. Such an incredible treasure for rocketeers all over the world always deserves our accolades and support. Thank you, Peter!

 

[James Duffy]

Since ROTW is long OOP, what is your link to obtain a copy, without paying $150 + ?

The world does not owe you (or anyone else) an inexpensive copy of any copyrighted work.

James

 

[MarkB.]

Think of it this way; you have a rough sketch filled with measurements of some rocket like Doorknob. How long would it take you personally to turn that in to a scaled, dimensioned computer drawing? An hour? Two or three?

OK, and how long would it take you to do the same thing for something complicated like an Energyia Buran? A day or two? More? And that doesn't include time for researching, compiling or computing the info in the first place.

And what's your pay rate? I'm certain there are guys on this site making three figures per hour. So figure out how much you think it'd cost you in time to make Rockets of the World. My guess is it was 20,000+ hours (literally, years of work) including the supplements. And not just the drawings but the descriptions as well.

So when someone republishes, the owner (Peter or whoever) doesn't get compensation for his work product; a lot of work product. Obviously, Peter is not getting a piece of the action from someone scalping the book on eBay or Amazon but he did when it was originally purchased and he will again when a new edition is put out. Supply is low, demand is high, price goes up. When the new edition comes out, everyone on this and the other website will probably want a copy. And doing the math, he's not even close to being compensated for the time and labor he's put into this book. My opinion is we shouldn't further devalue his work no matter how well-intentioned the republication.

Same is true of images. In the digital age you can cut and paste a 3-D image that someone worked very hard on. Spent many hours sharpening. And it's republished somewhere without even an attribution. Not only is that not right it's a violation of copyright law. NASA images are public domain as are many images from the Smithsonian, colleges and the military; post away. Everything else, think twice.

I don't know for sure but I'm fairly certain one of the reasons we don't have a lot of new scale models of new 21st Century rockets from Estes and other manufacturers is they have difficulty getting the IP rights to make a model or the original manufacturer asks for a license payment that makes production of a scale rocket cost prohibitive.

IP is a big deal to people who have such assets. I have neither the time nor the skill to create such. All I can do is respect their rights.

 

[Ez2cDave]

The world does not owe you (or anyone else) an inexpensive copy of any copyrighted work.

James

So, it's ok to "price gouge" on copyrighted work, but not to provide it for free . . . Very ironic !

What do you propose to do about the thousands of items that are all over the Internet, globally ?

 

[MarkB.]

And I want to be clear that I'm not picking on Dave.

There are any number of posts on this site and others which violate IP rights that are not Dave's posts. I'm sure I've done it at some point. The question is, do we as a community of users choose to respect the IP rights of others, noting that Peter and other IP holders post here? If we do, we don't post their stuff.

Additionally, do the site administrators condone posts which do or may violate IP rights? I'm pretty sure they don't (or they won't after they ask legal.) The best solution is the administrators don't get involved because we as users are self-policing.

My opinion, nothing more.

 

[Sparky]

Since ROTW is long OOP, what is your link to obtain a copy, without paying $150 + ?

.

Dave F.

I don't care how many examples, just cause the XX jumped off a bridge does not mean you should do it.

We don't condone stealing here. This is an official warning to all, I've instructed the "staff volunteers" to delete and ban any one that has a history of doing this the NEXT time they post copyrighted material, and I'm asking all honest members to report it if the see it after this date.

 

[Ez2cDave]

I don't care how many examples, just cause the XX jumped off a bridge does not mean you should do it.

We don't condone stealing here. This is an official warning to all, I've instructed the "staff volunteers" to delete and ban any one that has a history of doing this the NEXT time they post copyrighted material, and I'm asking all honest members to report it if the see it after this date.

I trust that you did not just publicly "label" me a "dishonest" member . . . Please clarify that.

Dave F.

 

[Sparky]

Actually, I said nothing about any member. That is why there is a double break to indicate change of ideas in that quoted paragraph. Only you know your status.

But any member that posts copyrighted material, I'll ask for it to be deleted and once or twice a warning just to make sure it's communicated as something not to be done here. After that it would be a banning offense as they'd been warned more than once and then willfully broke the the forum rules.

If a person cannot afford something and wants it, does not cause the owner to price it to what first member can afford. The seller can put any price they want on something and it's up to the buyer to decide if it's worth it and buy it or not.

 

[Sparky]

@Rob40 Sorry your thread became derailed. Hopefully we can get it back to your topic.

 

[PeterAlway]

Thank you to the kind people who have stood up for me here.

Peter Alway.

 

[PeterAlway]

I'm trying to find all I can on the actual scale measures of these things, and to be honest, I'm not finding much accurate info. Looking at the estes release of the Doorknob this year, I'm seeing their claimed 1:12 scale, but listed at just shy of 26 inches tall.....one of those numbers is way off according to what full scale dimensions I'm finding. Since the Doorknob was based on Lacrosse project's Thiokol XM-10 motor. I found data HERE stating the Doorknob1 had a diameter of 1.31 feet, length 11.8 feet, but the Doorknob2 is listed with a diameter of 1.73 feet, length 18.7. I would like to think that the 2 is just a staged 1 with same diameter but I'm now wondering if the 2 was an enlarged variant in itself.

Another site with less information lists the DK's at 11.92'/18.58' long, and the scale rocket bash book I found to put the DK tube scales at 1/10 for bt-60 and 1/6 for bt-80. That places the diameter at 15-16" or close to 1.31 feet. So the real number in question I suppose is the true diameter of the DK2. It it in fact different, or is the listed data I'm finding bad? The variance in length at scale is now a marginal talking point, as at 1/4 scale that would be only .3 inches different.

multiplying Estes's 1:12 claim makes it 25 feet tall....which is over twice the real doorknob1. Which makes it tough to find out what body tube Estes is using. I would like to work on a two-stage DK2, but I need real documentation on the full scale measures. If I had the ROTW book, it might solve the problem, but the used pricing of it is getting out of hand now.

Anyone out there with the definitive dimensions of both versions to confirm size? Is Estes's 1:12 a misprint and actually using thickwall 3"? Because a 25" tall version is around 1/5 scale.

I'll try to answer what I can here. The Doorknob was propelled by the Lacrosse motor. The Lacrosse missile was 20.5" in diameter (1.7 feet), but the Doorknob was 15.88" in diameter (1.32 ft). Early in the history of missiles, it was more common to place a rocket motor inside a larger airframe. The Doorknob simply used the bare motor. The two-stage doorknob wad 15.86" in diamger for the whole length (though it is possible that there were some sections a fraction of an inch larger. My source data didn't really get to that level).

My drawings indicate (I don't have my original source material handy right now) that the single stage Doorknob and the upper stage of the 2-stage doorknob are *almost* identical, but that the single stage version is 5" longer in the motor section. Alas, I am fallible, so I'm not 100% sure if that was a mistake on my part, an error in my source data, or a real difference. Anyway the length of the single-stage version in my drawing is 143", an inch short of 12 feet. For a 26-inch-long model, that's 1/5.5 scale. That would give the model a diameter of 2.88". If the correct length is the shorter upper stage length of 138", the model scale would be 1/5.31. The model diameter would be almost exactly 3". One added complication is the 10.5" antenna probe. I just did all my calculations without that included in the length, because the Estes illustration doesn't show it.

Peter Alway

 

[Ez2cDave]

Photo of the two-stage DOORKNOB on the pad . . . Non-Copyrighted Material . . . PDF below.

Dave F.

 

[Ez2cDave]

The motor powering the Lacrosse missile is either the THIOKOL XM10 or XM10E1 . . .

Dave F.