Persistence is a virtue!
Understood.I don't mean to be snarky but I've been following this thread (no pun intended) and trying to understand in what way this is "made practical". Is this simpler in some way than any of your previous builds?
Don't get me wrong, I really like these airbrake rockets of yours, I'm just struggling a bit with the "made practical" concept.
Next air brake rocket, or next post? Not that the posts have been bad, but that didn't seem like an answer to Neil's question, so maybe the "next one" will be.Next one will be much better!
Unfortunately next rocket.Next air brake rocket, or next post? Not that the posts have been bad, but that didn't seem like an answer to Neil's question, so maybe the "next one" will be.
Maybe I just need to invade your home and look at it in person. (Actually, it's much clearer now, and getting clearer all the time [with apologies to The Beatles] but I may just have to anyway.)
For me it tends to be "Measure twice, cut once, screw it up anyway, do it over." But the last part is sometimes replaced by "sand a lot", "apply filler", "burry it in the fillets", or "just live with it."Measure twice, cut once.
Hmmm...you lost me. How does dowel function to retain the motor?Core. Allows for motor retention post deployment.
Great question.Hmmm...you lost me. How does dowel function to retain the motor?
Didn't FlisKits kit your Tiddly Wink helicopter/gyrocopter design? (Or at least base it on one of your designs, with your permission)?Because “I have a dream” of a rocket that might eventually become popular enough to get someone to kit) it needs to have an option for either motor retention or streamer motor recovery.
This is a good thought. Without understanding the final product, it’s hard to interpret the build steps along the way.I will finish this one, but any future scratchers from me will be “built” rather than “build” threads. I will take pics to document, but won’t post until the product is complete. Then people can look at the final product and decide if the thread is worth their time.
Believe it or not, they were independent. To my knowledge (which is certainly far from omniscient!) these were the first rockets that integrated the rocket FINS into the rotors. One of my passions is designs where one part serves two functions.Didn't FlisKits kit your Tiddly Wink helicopter/gyrocopter design? (Or at least base it on one of your designs, with your permission)?
The missing pieceHmmm...you lost me. How does dowel function to retain the motor?
Not sure if it was previously used (I’m sure it has). I first did that back in the 80’s when I was into competition. Never had much luck with the concept, but then I learned a lot in the 20 years leading to FlisKitsBelieve it or not, they were independent. To my knowledge (which is certainly far from omniscient!) these were the first rockets that integrated the rocket FINS into the rotors. One of my passions is designs where one part serves two functions.
My build thread for Gyskelion was 2012
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threa...non-competition-helicopter.39114/#post-365709
But Jim Flis mentions the TiddlyWink at the end of post 19 in 2009
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/27-june-09-fireside-chat-jim-flis.3471/#post-35954
I never saw his model until after I built mine . I did think it was cool that I came up with the same solution as a professional.
I do think I am the first (and probably only!) person to build and fly “tubeless” rockets.
In the case of @jflis and the integrate rotor-fins , I prefer to think of it as “great minds think alike.” Then again, HE might know if fin/rotor integration had been previously used.
Enter your email address to join: