Fin size

[Launch Lug]

I was wondering if there is a general "rule of thumb" for determining fin size/area for a specific size of a rocket.

I'm into scratch building and have successfully built and flown a handful of small LPR's but am now wishing to scratch build an MPR (36-40" tall including NC, BT80, 4 fin)

Thanks!

 

[Barracuda]

I had ask the same question 2 or 3 wks ago..I'll let someone else chime in who's more knowledgable..take a look at my "Bumble bee" in the scratch build section sounds a lot like what your wanting to do

 

[Launch Lug]

Well I did some searching on the site (should have done that first) and I found a post that seemed to answer the question. Here is what it said for fin size in relation to Body Tube size ONLY.

Root Length = 2 x BT diameter
Span = 1.5 x BT diameter
Tip Length = BT diameter

Assuming this works as a general rule of thumb it doesn't take into account the overall length of the rocket or # of fins (3 or 4). Other questions that now come to mind are:

1. Does the overall length of a rocket for a given BT size have an affect on the above formulas?

2. Does using 3 or 4 fins make a difference?

 

[bjphoenix]

Everything has an affect to some extent. Every change to the construction will alter the location of the center of pressure and also the center of gravity. It is the relationship of CP to CG that determines stability, so any change to one or both of these can have an affect. I think it also depends on the components involved. For instance I have a LOC Vulcanite (2.26" diameter x 54" long) Its CG seems to be at about mid-length, and the rocket is relatively heavy so with the small motors that I use the CG probably isn't affected much with the motor in place. OTOH a lot of Estes type rockets have the CG much closer to the engine because the airframe is so light. So comparing the Vulcanite with an Estes type rocket of the same proportions, the Estes type rocket would need larger fins for stability.

The best way to judge fin size would be to look at a lot of different kits that have been produced over the years. After awhile you get a feel for what fin size is about right. Some of the Estes designers have said that they always knew if a fin was the right size by looking at it and they never had to do stability calculations. I've done it both ways, and if I wasn't sure about stability then I would check it.

I don't know if I've ever read about 3 fins vs. 4 fins but I think 4 fins is a little more efficient for a given fin size. OTOH 3 slightly bigger fins might be just as effective as 4 slightly smaller fins, and weigh less.

Nowadays there some good simulation programs available that will do the stability checks for you and allow you to experiment with different fin sizes.

 

[JStarStar]

The best way to judge fin size would be to look at a lot of different kits that have been produced over the years. After awhile you get a feel for what fin size is about right. Some of the Estes designers have said that they always knew if a fin was the right size by looking at it and they never had to do stability calculations.

Well, actual flight results over the years have shown that some Estes kits are marginally stable at best.

Most in fact have been safely overstable but there have been some exceptions (usually scale kits or sci-fi models or 'oddrocs'). Some are stable with smaller motors and then unstable (or neutral-stable) with heavier ones.

The rules of thumb cited by Launch Lug are probably a good guide but if you follow them strictly you are going to end up with almost identical-looking rockets every time.

Of course it makes a difference if you have 4 versus 3 fins -- each additional fin moves the CP back by more than the CG -- unless the fins are made of unusually heavy/dense material.

Summing it up, basing your design on a commercial kit, you will probably be OK for stability, but you can't really know for sure unless you do a simulation or a swing test.

 

[G2Rockets]

Well I did some searching on the site (should have done that first) and I found a post that seemed to answer the question. Here is what it said for fin size in relation to Body Tube size ONLY.

Root Length = 2 x BT diameter
Span = 1.5 x BT diameter
Tip Length = BT diameter

Assuming this works as a general rule of thumb it doesn't take into account the overall length of the rocket or # of fins (3 or 4). Other questions that now come to mind are:

1. Does the overall length of a rocket for a given BT size have an affect on the above formulas?

2. Does using 3 or 4 fins make a difference?

As far as rules of thumb go, this is probably a very safe rule. The thing to keep in mind is that there are always exceptions to the rule. A Saturn V for instance. It by no means fits that criteria. or a Pershing doesn't either, yet both fly straight as an arrow. Some of their success is due to airframe transition and some is for other reasons, Thus that is why there is always an exception to the rule. My suggestion is to sim it. If it shows stable, build and fly it. It may not fly as well as you like, but sometimes you can engineer something to death, only to find you over built it and it still didn't fly like you wanted it to.

May your rocket fly straight and your chute open wide, but if they don't... find a place to hide

 

[Aksrockets]

https://openrocket.sourceforge.net/
openrocket is your friend.

 

[Launch Lug]

Thanks for the link. I downloaded Open Rocket... wow!

 

[RocketManDan]

Well I did some searching on the site (should have done that first) and I found a post that seemed to answer the question. Here is what it said for fin size in relation to Body Tube size ONLY.

Root Length = 2 x BT diameter
Span = 1.5 x BT diameter
Tip Length = BT diameter

Assuming this works as a general rule of thumb it doesn't take into account the overall length of the rocket or # of fins (3 or 4). Other questions that now come to mind are:

1. Does the overall length of a rocket for a given BT size have an affect on the above formulas?

2. Does using 3 or 4 fins make a difference?

I just wing it and build using ROCKSIM...seems to work fine, but it's nice to have a baseline that you provided above

 

[powderburner]

I was wondering if there is a general "rule of thumb" for determining fin size/area for a specific size of a rocket.

I would like to ask you a couple qstns but before I do, I want to try to make clear that these are NOT meant to be 'snarky,' or belittling, or sarcastic, or insulting in any way (really). I am curious about what new people do when they come here to TRF to ask qstns like yours. (And there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking qstns, we kinda like to help other people here on TRF.)

Did you spend any time looking at other current threads to see if this issue was being asked anywhere else?

Did you look over the information posted in the 'Beginners' forum to see if this issue had been addressed there?

Had you seen the 'Search' button, and/or did you try using it to find this information?

Did you know there was an archive of old posts from TRF 1.0 (actually, many years' worth of posts) that included answers to your question?

Have you ever seen or heard of the book Handbook of Model Rocketry? (by Stine)

The reason I ask is, questions like yours get asked over and over again in one form or another (and I mean exactly your qstn) and I am wondering if we need to re-think how we organise and present our information here on TRF. It would be nice to think that for all the knowledge that has been posted here (and for all the time it has taken many people to compose and write all that stuff) that it would be more useful to new people, and easier to find.

Instead, I get the feeling that we are only answering the same thing over and over again (can you say, 'Groundhog Day'?) and all those old posts have gone to waste. And I'd like to fix that.

Very interested in your replies, (really)

-powderburner

 

[G2Rockets]

I would like to ask you a couple qstns but before I do, I want to try to make clear that these are NOT meant to be 'snarky,' or belittling, or sarcastic, or insulting in any way (really). I am curious about what new people do when they come here to TRF to ask qstns like yours. (And there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking qstns, we kinda like to help other people here on TRF.)

Did you spend any time looking at other current threads to see if this issue was being asked anywhere else?

Did you look over the information posted in the 'Beginners' forum to see if this issue had been addressed there?

Had you seen the 'Search' button, and/or did you try using it to find this information?

Did you know there was an archive of old posts from TRF 1.0 (actually, many years' worth of posts) that included answers to your question?

Have you ever seen or heard of the book Handbook of Model Rocketry? (by Stine)

The reason I ask is, questions like yours get asked over and over again in one form or another (and I mean exactly your qstn) and I am wondering if we need to re-think how we organise and present our information here on TRF. It would be nice to think that for all the knowledge that has been posted here (and for all the time it has taken many people to compose and write all that stuff) that it would be more useful to new people, and easier to find.

Instead, I get the feeling that we are only answering the same thing over and over again (can you say, 'Groundhog Day'?) and all those old posts have gone to waste. And I'd like to fix that.

Very interested in your replies, (really)

-powderburner

I always cringe when I see the CTI VS AT thread reappear every so often(in fact I fear even bringing it up here). knowing that we will once again get to enjoy the same conversations and mud slinging over and over again, I wait like a dog in anticipation.:cry:
I think it is just how forums are. I wonder if we should ask Kevin to make a large "Frequently Asked Questions Thread" button.

 

[powderburner]

I wonder if we should ask Kevin to make a large "Frequently Asked Questions Thread" button.

That was sort of the intent of having the entire 'Beginners' forum, to lay out a set of info for how to get started at this stuff. If that forum is not working out, or not being used, or not being found, then we need to:

-- find a way to fix it (make it more useful and usable) or

-- dump it

 

[Che]

I would like to ask you a couple qstns but before I do, I want to try to make clear that these are NOT meant to be 'snarky,' or belittling, or sarcastic, or insulting in any way (really). I am curious about what new people do when they come here to TRF to ask qstns like yours. (And there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking qstns, we kinda like to help other people here on TRF.)

Did you spend any time looking at other current threads to see if this issue was being asked anywhere else?
r

What I find many times when I search for info is unclear descriptions, descriptions loaded with abbreviations, misinformation, a variety of terms for the same thing, a variety of OPINIONS, and some times contradictory information.

Personally, when my search turns up ancient posts; I want new or the most current info available.

I say re-ask the question. If any clarity is gained, fantastic!

If you don't want to answer the question or point the person to a useful link, ignore the post. Actually, I find the superior holier than thou attitude distasteful.

 

[Che]

BTW, I have seen three or four different versions of the Barrowman equations on here.

 

[powderburner]

BTW, I have seen three or four different versions of the Barrowman equations on here.

Would it be possible to point these out? (specific link?)

There is always the possibility that someone may try to make a 'simplified' version that looks a little different, or may just plain make a mistake. I would be interested in chasing down what different presentations you found and compare them. I don't like having misinformation left hanging out there (rocketry calcs seem to be totally confusing to some people as it is without there being other, incorrect representations of the calcs)

 

[G2Rockets]

That was sort of the intent of having the entire 'Beginners' forum, to lay out a set of info for how to get started at this stuff. If that forum is not working out, or not being used, or not being found, then we need to:

-- find a way to fix it (make it more useful and usable) or

-- dump it

I agree with the Beginners forum, but some things aren't in the beginners forums. Not many beginners ask about fin size or how to cut fiberglass, or...,because most beginners are building estes type kits. I empathize with what you are saying, but don't feel there is a clean cut answer for it.

Sorry, wish i could be more helpful.

Best
John

 

[bjphoenix]

That was sort of the intent of having the entire 'Beginners' forum, to lay out a set of info for how to get started

I first started building rockets over 45 years ago, and I seem to go in and out of the hobby about every 10 years. A lot of things have changed in the past 10 years, and has been discussed here. So when I come back rather than start asking questions that I'm sure have been discussed I start doing a search, but it might take an hour of searching and reading old posts before I start getting enough clues to maybe answer my question. Sometimes I never find a definitive answer, but I find a wide range of responses and I have to determine which response occurs the most frequently. I think it would be great if we had sticky threads or something like that which would capture threads so they would be easier for people to find.

 

[Launch Lug]

I would like to ask you a couple qstns but before I do, I want to try to make clear that these are NOT meant to be 'snarky,' or belittling, or sarcastic, or insulting in any way (really). I am curious about what new people do when they come here to TRF to ask qstns like yours. (And there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking qstns, we kinda like to help other people here on TRF.)

Did you spend any time looking at other current threads to see if this issue was being asked anywhere else?

Did you look over the information posted in the 'Beginners' forum to see if this issue had been addressed there?

Had you seen the 'Search' button, and/or did you try using it to find this information?

Did you know there was an archive of old posts from TRF 1.0 (actually, many years' worth of posts) that included answers to your question?

Have you ever seen or heard of the book Handbook of Model Rocketry? (by Stine)

The reason I ask is, questions like yours get asked over and over again in one form or another (and I mean exactly your qstn) and I am wondering if we need to re-think how we organise and present our information here on TRF. It would be nice to think that for all the knowledge that has been posted here (and for all the time it has taken many people to compose and write all that stuff) that it would be more useful to new people, and easier to find.

Instead, I get the feeling that we are only answering the same thing over and over again (can you say, 'Groundhog Day'?) and all those old posts have gone to waste. And I'd like to fix that.

Very interested in your replies, (really)

-powderburner

No Offense taken at all. To be honest with you I think my shotgun reaction to finding the answer was to simply ask.

I did scroll through some of the current threads and didn't find anything (in the titles) that pertained to my question.

As you can see from my follow up response to my own question I did go back later and do a search which led me to eventually find what I was looking for.

I'm new to the forum so I had no prior knowledge of the archive posts.

Have not heard of that book before.

I know for myself, and I can probably speak for others as well, one of the problems that I often find when doing a search for a particular topic on a forum is the number of "useless" threads that come up. By that I don't mean the thread itself is useless, I just mean it doesn't contain information useful for my specific inquiry. For example I did a search for some information yesterday on a comparison of two specific motors. Want to know what came up for a search result? Pages of threads and articles. After spending about an hour searching through those I found maybe two posts (not entire threads but posts) commenting on the topic I was researching. Even after all of that I still had to open a thread of my own asking the question anyway because the info I did find didn't solidify an answer for me. I typically make sure to spend a "reasonable" amount of time doing a search first. However I get tired of spending lengthy amounts of time trying to find the answer so sometimes its easier to just ask.

I agree 100% with the notion that the forum member should try to do the research first and then ask questions second if they can't find what they are looking for. At the same time this is a forum for asking questions and we don't all have the same time and circumstances to always do an extensive search so questions will be repeated. It's the same with every forum I've ever been a member of, it's inevitable.

I'm just throwing this out there in response to your concerns about organizing the information on the forum but I think it would be very useful to have an area that contains only information specific to the different components of a rocket. I see a section for Propulsion and one for Support and Recovery. Other than that there is no designated part of the forum, that I can see, that deals specifically with information about actual rocket components (Nose Cones, Airframes, Fins, Baffles, Motor Mounts,...) What section would one refer to to find info on any of those components, the Watering Hole section? I'm not suggesting that every little component of a rocket should be broken down into its own section on the forum (ie launch lugs, centering rings, suspension lines,...) but to have a place that one could specifically reference main and critical components instead of having to do a search of the entire forum would be very useful. I'm a member of a few Fast Electric Boating forums as well and there was a time when they had everything lumped into just a couple of categories, made searching for information a little difficult. Eventually they revamped the sites and made them more user friendly by breaking the components of the boats into their own place in the forum. Made searching and finding specific info much easier. Just a thought :grin:

This is a really cool site! Glad I found it for it has been a source of valuable information.

 

[bradycros]

No Offense taken at all. To be honest with you I think my shotgun reaction to finding the answer was to simply ask.

I did scroll through some of the current threads and didn't find anything (in the titles) that pertained to my question.

As you can see from my follow up response to my own question I did go back later and do a search which led me to eventually find what I was looking for.

I'm new to the forum so I had no prior knowledge of the archive posts.

Have not heard of that book before.

I know for myself, and I can probably speak for others as well, one of the problems that I often find when doing a search for a particular topic on a forum is the number of "useless" threads that come up. By that I don't mean the thread itself is useless, I just mean it doesn't contain information useful for my specific inquiry. For example I did a search for some information yesterday on a comparison of two specific motors. Want to know what came up for a search result? Pages of threads and articles. After spending about an hour searching through those I found maybe two posts (not entire threads but posts) commenting on the topic I was researching. Even after all of that I still had to open a thread of my own asking the question anyway because the info I did find didn't solidify an answer for me. I typically make sure to spend a "reasonable" amount of time doing a search first. However I get tired of spending lengthy amounts of time trying to find the answer so sometimes its easier to just ask.

I agree 100% with the notion that the forum member should try to do the research first and then ask questions second if they can't find what they are looking for. At the same time this is a forum for asking questions and we don't all have the same time and circumstances to always do an extensive search so questions will be repeated. It's the same with every forum I've ever been a member of, it's inevitable.

I'm just throwing this out there in response to your concerns about organizing the information on the forum but I think it would be very useful to have an area that contains only information specific to the different components of a rocket. I see a section for Propulsion and one for Support and Recovery. Other than that there is no designated part of the forum, that I can see, that deals specifically with information about actual rocket components (Nose Cones, Airframes, Fins, Baffles, Motor Mounts,...) What section would one refer to to find info on any of those components, the Watering Hole section? I'm not suggesting that every little component of a rocket should be broken down into its own section on the forum (ie launch lugs, centering rings, suspension lines,...) but to have a place that one could specifically reference main and critical components instead of having to do a search of the entire forum would be very useful. I'm a member of a few Fast Electric Boating forums as well and there was a time when they had everything lumped into just a couple of categories, made searching for information a little difficult. Eventually they revamped the sites and made them more user friendly by breaking the components of the boats into their own place in the forum. Made searching and finding specific info much easier. Just a thought :grin:

This is a really cool site! Glad I found it for it has been a source of valuable information.

Point well made. I agree the 'search' function is a drag to use and needs a tune up.

 

[bradycros]

Point well made. I agree the 'search' function is a drag to use and needs a tune up.

If people would speak up and voice their opinion, the tune up could happen sooner rather then later.

 

[powderburner]

Thanks for the feedback!, that was exactly the sort of info I was looking for. I know that many of us here on TRF are old-time, long-time rocket hobbyists that have done some of this stuff a thousand times, but that it still can trip up someone who is just starting into the hobby. Posting a lengthy discussion of some tiny part of the rocket (such as, where to put launch lugs?) will be boring to many TRFers, will cause others to respond with their own personal views, and if not organized and labeled properly will still be missed by new folks. I guess I would like to help work up some better way to get all this info presented in a way that makes sense (to the people trying to learn).

I'm just throwing this out there in response to your concerns about organizing the information on the forum but I think it would be very useful to have an area that contains only information specific to the different components of a rocket.

I'm just thinking out loud here, but perhaps if we created threads in the Beginners forum where the individual threads are clearly and specifically labeled for detailed subjects, would that make it any easier to scan the list of threads there and find info? I am thinking of separate threads for stuff like:

-- fin size
-- fin wood grain direction
-- fin root fillets
-- fins for competition
-- fins for sport flying
-- fin airfoils
-- fins on my grandpa's Buick

As you can see, this list has the dangerous potential to get pretty long, pretty quickly. I don't know if this is a good approach or not....

 

[JPVegh]

Perhaps just a sticky in the beginers section with links to some of the publications specific to design and safety. Many of these questions are answered in the Estes Model Rocket Technical Manual. A place to access the early tech papers from Estes, Centuri and others could be useful.

 

[powderburner]

Perhaps just a sticky in the beginers section with links to .....

If I am not mistaken, a lot of those links are already there.

 

[powderburner]

I agree the 'search' function is a drag to use and needs a tune up.

I agree, it could be better, but I don't have a clue how to write compatible software, and I don't know what I would be asking for if I pushed for a 'smarter' search (or how much $$$$$ it would cost), so I am going to be a little slow to criticize.

One idea that I think we could use with the existing search: Do a better job of including associated keywords. This would mean establishing an 'approved' list of terminology for each subject (kind of like we already use =scale= to highlight scale data) and then making sure that it gets used consistently. And no, I do not want to be the TRF keyword policeman.

 

[powderburner]

What I find many times when I search for info is unclear descriptions, descriptions loaded with abbreviations, misinformation, a variety of terms for the same thing, a variety of OPINIONS, and some times contradictory information.
Personally, when my search turns up ancient posts; I want new or the most current info available.
I say re-ask the question. If any clarity is gained, fantastic!
If you don't want to answer the question or point the person to a useful link, ignore the post. Actually, I find the superior holier than thou attitude distasteful.

unclear descriptions, abbreviations, misinformation, a variety of terms---
I understand and agree, there are many places (and not just on TRF) where someone is free to post incorrect info. Sometimes this is merely confusing and other times it is downright dangerous. If I may, one quick story to illustrate:
A few years back I saw an “expert” on another website giving the advice that it was good to add forward fins, that they improved stability. When I posted info to correct this he (of course) got defensive and belligerent and posted nasty comments that were supposed to hurt my feelings. Wow.

Think of it: anybody who has launched a rocket and has a couple posts under his belt looks like an ‘expert’ to the newbies who arrive here. Many of these guys are still learning stuff themselves, and post answers with the best of intentions (to try to help someone else), but in reality they are wrong as often as they are right. Unfortunately, that newbie asking the qstns cannot tell which posts are accurate and may end up following bad advice.
BTW, were you referring to the definitions on the old EMRR website?

I want new or the most current info available.
Yeah, I agree, there are a lot of areas where it is worth getting up-to-date info. Especially for new materials or techniques, for simulation improvements or software upgrades, for the newest electronics, for new motors, for new kits…. Heck, for lots of stuff.

At the same time, there are a lot of areas that basically do not change. This thread (fin size) is one. A lot of this stuff should be captured in some way that is useful to new people (we all know the natural tendency for people to be reluctant to ask qstns and look dumb if they can pick up the same info somewhere else by reading).

I say re-ask the question.
Again, I agree, if a previous answer was worded unclearly then it is perfectly legit to ask for more.

If you don't want to answer the question or point the person to a useful link, ignore the post.
Wow. Was that directed at me? Did you see what I wrote about ‘there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking qstns” or did you skip that? I think that anyone who has looked at my posts here on TRF already knows that I will bend over backwards to answer qstns and to try to help someone learn something. I enjoy doing this. If you will re-read my initial post on this thread, I believe I explained to Launch Lug that I was not trying to be snarky. What I was asking about were things to try to learn if/why the ‘Beginners’ forum was not working, as a lead-in to suggesting some improvements to the admins. I am sorry if you read it any other way but I am also at a loss to figure out how much more plainly I could say “I ain’t tryin’ to [urinate] at ya!”

I am not totally happy either with the search tool. There is a minimum size for search terms, if you don’t phrase your search perfectly you get nothing back, if you phrase it too broadly you get a list of threads so long that it is just about unusable, and I think the search button goes pretty much un-noticed by most people (and therefore, unused). I am not smart enough at programming forum software to make any sort of improvement that way, so I am left with trying to work with the available tools for any attempted improvements.

I don’t know what to suggest until some of the new guys can tell a little about what causes problems for them. So, it comes right back to guys like Launch Lug. If you, Che, feel that you are still ‘new’ enough to have an opinion, I would like to hear from you too.

 

[JPVegh]

If I am not mistaken, a lot of those links are already there.

You are right the links are there in a sticky.

 

[Launch Lug]

I don't really have an answer for the search button feature, it is what it is.

As for the other issue of having a designated place for talk about specific rocket components I think it could be something as simple as creating another sub-forum dedicated for this. Like I mentioned before there is one for Propulsion and one for Support and Recovery. There is no doubt where to post questions or do research on those topics, they have their own sub-forum so why not one for Rocket Components? For example it could look like this:

Rocket Components (10 Viewing)
An area dedicated to discussions about the different major components that make up a model rocket. This can include talk about fins, nose cones, air frames, motor mounts, ejection baffles and payload bays.

Then once inside this discussion area it could be required that every new thread must start with the component name, for example:

(FIN) Number of fins affecting peak altitude
Launch Lug

(NOSE CONE) Difference between Ogive and Parobolic
Launch Lug

(EJECTION BAFFLE) Placement of ejection baffle in my rocket
Launch Lug

...and so on. Doing it this way would eliminate the need for a separate sub-forum for each component. At the same time it would make scanning the current/recent threads for specific components a breeze since it would be clearly stated right in the title. This would also improve the search feature in a couple of different ways. First of all you would now be able to narrow down your search results to only include information from this specific sub-forum instead of the entire forum. Secondly you could do an advanced search to include "words found in titles only". So if I wanted to do a search for information on FINS I could type that into the search bar and it would only list the threads specifically talking about fins instead of a 101 other threads that happen to contain the word fin in them.

I don't think this would be an absolute "fix-all" but I think something simple like this would benefit the forum users by having a place specifically for talking about Rocket Components, which there currently isn't, and it would also improve the use of the search function at least in this particular sub-forum.

I hope I didn't make that too complicated sounding because it really is a simple concept, at least to me

What do you guys think?

 

[MarkII]

I would like to ask you a couple qstns but before I do, I want to try to make clear that these are NOT meant to be 'snarky,' or belittling, or sarcastic, or insulting in any way (really). I am curious about what new people do when they come here to TRF to ask qstns like yours. (And there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking qstns, we kinda like to help other people here on TRF.)

Did you spend any time looking at other current threads to see if this issue was being asked anywhere else?

Did you look over the information posted in the 'Beginners' forum to see if this issue had been addressed there?

Had you seen the 'Search' button, and/or did you try using it to find this information?

Did you know there was an archive of old posts from TRF 1.0 (actually, many years' worth of posts) that included answers to your question?

Have you ever seen or heard of the book Handbook of Model Rocketry? (by Stine)

The reason I ask is, questions like yours get asked over and over again in one form or another (and I mean exactly your qstn) and I am wondering if we need to re-think how we organise and present our information here on TRF. It would be nice to think that for all the knowledge that has been posted here (and for all the time it has taken many people to compose and write all that stuff) that it would be more useful to new people, and easier to find.

Instead, I get the feeling that we are only answering the same thing over and over again (can you say, 'Groundhog Day'?) and all those old posts have gone to waste. And I'd like to fix that.

Very interested in your replies, (really)

-powderburner

I try to provide a link or two in my reply, especially when the questioner is new to the forum. It's no big deal to me. I think that it is helpful to do that every now and then in order to demonstrate where additional information can be found. I don't mind doing it. I try not to put anything in my responses that discourages discussion or causes anyone to hesitate to ask questions. I try to keep in mind that behind the screen name and the avatar is a real person. And I recognize that you have very often taken the time to help people out, too.

 

[MarkII]

I first started building rockets over 45 years ago, and I seem to go in and out of the hobby about every 10 years. A lot of things have changed in the past 10 years, and has been discussed here. So when I come back rather than start asking questions that I'm sure have been discussed I start doing a search, but it might take an hour of searching and reading old posts before I start getting enough clues to maybe answer my question. Sometimes I never find a definitive answer, but I find a wide range of responses and I have to determine which response occurs the most frequently. I think it would be great if we had sticky threads or something like that which would capture threads so they would be easier for people to find.

That's fine, since you are a veteran of the hobby and of the forum. I wouldn't expect a newcomer to the forum to do the same at first.

I think that any further discussion of how to proactively and constructively limit the number of repetitive threads should be continued in its own thread in the Forum Feedback section.

 

[Launch Lug]

I think that any further discussion of how to proactively and constructively limit the number of repetitive threads should be continued in its own thread in the Forum Feedback section.

I was thinking the same thing. This information might get overlooked if it isn't moved out of this thread and into its own.