"Finless" Rocket Design - Ram Air Intake Stabilization?

Discussion in 'Oddrocs' started by KenECoyote, Jan 18, 2016.

Help Support The Rocketry Forum by donating:

  1. Jan 19, 2016 #31

    neil_w

    neil_w

    neil_w

    When in doubt, add more rocket TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    6,271
    Likes Received:
    846
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    Or equivalent.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Jan 19, 2016 #32

    CrazyOB

    CrazyOB

    CrazyOB

    Lifetime Supporter TRF Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    1
    What was that movie? 'Life is like a box of chocolates' or maybe we should just call you Astronaut Farmer?

    I would follow the original kit idea "Make a rocket of any size you want" and make as much of this interchangeable as possible. Such sacrilege... you sliced the fin can all apart, you barbarian! :shock:

    You guys are churning out posts like no tomorrow, I have to catch up with it all.

    Yes, there will be some back pressure or air resistance because of the blocked tube. I would think the placement of the shroud in relation to the nose tip is critical. The bow shock from the tip will divert air away from or into the shroud. Ken, I think you need to look at the nose cone shape (ogive, VK, etc) and determine where the bow shock would be. If you can place the shroud so the bow shock is inside the shroud you will get more airflow out of your slots. I'll look around and see if I can find some aerodynamics sites for you.

    Too bad you don't have access to a wind tunnel, and no, don't attempt to build one. I know the wheels are already spinning trying to figure out how to make one! It is harder than it looks, we built one in school (Aviation High School) and it was an epic fail the first time one of the test samples let loose. :facepalm:
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2016
  3. Jan 19, 2016 #33

    CrazyOB

    CrazyOB

    CrazyOB

    Lifetime Supporter TRF Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    1
    Glen, we both said the same thing to Ken. The area of the inlet has to be equal to the area of the slots +/- a couple of percent. Great minds think alike. Bob
     
  4. Jan 19, 2016 #34

    CrazyOB

    CrazyOB

    CrazyOB

    Lifetime Supporter TRF Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    1
    better than Forward Air Rearward Throughput) [​IMG]: Sorry I would have left it as FART just for parochial giggles. Have you thought about rail buttons so you can put this WAY out on the HPR pads? At least for the first few Christmas Tree launches.
     
  5. Jan 19, 2016 #35

    rstaff3

    rstaff3

    rstaff3

    Oddroc-eteer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    7
    Well, the 10:1 is the magical ratio where base drag is s'posed to help. Looked longer to me and I forgot if that was mentioned earlier.
     
  6. Jan 19, 2016 #36

    rstaff3

    rstaff3

    rstaff3

    Oddroc-eteer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    7
    Yay, I hope that works out!
     
  7. Jan 19, 2016 #37

    rstaff3

    rstaff3

    rstaff3

    Oddroc-eteer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    7
    I made an earlier comment about the flow rate in/out business. I guess it's not so much that I don't believe that generally but I still think there will be a limit on how much air actually goes in. It won't flow unimpeded IMO.
     
  8. Jan 19, 2016 #38

    neil_w

    neil_w

    neil_w

    When in doubt, add more rocket TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    6,271
    Likes Received:
    846
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    Sure looks like weather will not be permitting this Saturday. :eyepop:
     
  9. Jan 19, 2016 #39

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    15
    LOL - I double-dog dare you!

    Honestly though, looking at my first iteration, I don't think there is much to worry about. It's close in resemblence to the original rocket and only the fin can area is different. Even if it was a solid tube on the back end, it should fly upwards. :)
     
  10. Jan 19, 2016 #40

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    15
    Are you nuts? ;)

    "Plasticide"

    As noted earlier, I don't think that some back pressure is necessarily a bad thing, but it will take a bunch of testing to see.

    You have an interesting point about the bow shock; however that is present in most rockets and even in the original rocket I'm using as a testbed; however it doesn't make the fins ineffective. In addition, I think the farther away the nose cone is from the shroud, the less there is of this (I think). However in the 2 of 2 example, the bow shock may actually help to send a higher pressure wave into the shroud (I think). :)

    Wind tunnel...hmmm....maybe I can make one using a leaf blower, Sonotube and plexiglas...add a delay grain for smoke... NAH! Swing test is much easier.:wink:
     
  11. Jan 19, 2016 #41

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    15
    I can bring one of the long rods out to the HP pads and sink it into the ground. Geez...what fraidy cats. Do what I do and get in shape with running so you can dodge oncoming test rockets! :wink:
     
  12. Jan 19, 2016 #42

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    15
    Yes! I do recall that from the Apogee newsletter. I think the point I'm trying to say is that a wider nose cone should provide more stability than a narrow one, so if the front of the rocket is wide/draggy, then it has some additional stability (much like the flat plate effect or saucer rockets with wide frontal areas). I'm not saying this is a noticeable effect, but clearly it's present and as the front gets wider in comparison to the length, the CP moves rearward (I think :)).

    We'll see...winds are howling like mad today and there's a snow storm on the way...not ideal conditions for a rocket launch. :(

    Yes, agreed. This design will always have some air impeded since it redirects the flow of the oncoming air. This may also aid stability by moving the CP back; however there is the complexity of multiple factors involved here. A short shroud with wide outlets on a long rocket should make the rear act similar to a cone base; however a very wide and short shroud with small outlets on a short rocket should make it act more like a squat rocket or even saucer at the extreme. #mindsimblown
     
  13. Jan 19, 2016 #43

    neil_w

    neil_w

    neil_w

    When in doubt, add more rocket TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    6,271
    Likes Received:
    846
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    I agree, I think. It'll get more interesting as you start making it shorter.
     
  14. Jan 19, 2016 #44

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    15
    What? 5-8" of snow and 21mph winds and you guys quit? I thought you guys were Radical Rocketeers! :wink:

    I actually heard that forecast last night; however for me as a weather watcher, I take long range forecasts as being 50/50 propositions...meaning it's a flip of a coin. I rely more on the forecast a day or two before to be more accurate/closer.
     
  15. Jan 19, 2016 #45

    neil_w

    neil_w

    neil_w

    When in doubt, add more rocket TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    6,271
    Likes Received:
    846
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    In that case I would like to update my protective gear:
    [​IMG]

    See, I am a Radical Rocketeer of the first order! (or First Order)
     
  16. Jan 19, 2016 #46

    rstaff3

    rstaff3

    rstaff3

    Oddroc-eteer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    7
    Love it. Every post, included quoted responses, should have tags supported. What is this, the 2000's?
     
  17. Jan 19, 2016 #47

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    15
    LOL! I don't know...ST armor hasn't been proven to provide any real protection. :wink:
     
  18. Jan 19, 2016 #48

    rstaff3

    rstaff3

    rstaff3

    Oddroc-eteer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    7
    Wasn't there a whole thread about that? :)
     
  19. Jan 19, 2016 #49

    GlenP

    GlenP

    GlenP

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,596
    Likes Received:
    143
    in the interests of launch safety, you might consider adding a base disc or cone at the bottom of the rocket of greater diameter than the shroud to ensure a stable flight. Then test it with progressively smaller ones to see if the air fins are becoming effective. You could tell if it starts to get squirrelly as you decrease the size of the disc or cone. Then, hopefully it would be stable with the device removed. Just an idea. or just put on some regular fins, and cut them down smaller after each successful flight.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2016
  20. Jan 19, 2016 #50

    Daddyisabar

    Daddyisabar

    Daddyisabar

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    4,279
    Likes Received:
    51
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Littleton Colorado
  21. Jan 19, 2016 #51

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    15
    No worries...all appropriate safety precautions will be taken!
    [​IMG]
     
  22. Jan 19, 2016 #52

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    15
    For a split sec I was like :facepalm: someone else thought of this last month?!? Then I saw the fins and realized that this is for GDS (or GAS as it is listed). Gas Dynamic Stabilization is a different thing than what I'm attempting here and uses the exhaust gases to form a base cone for some stability (in fact, in that example I don't quite understand the goal since there are fins present). I may later use GDS to augment stabilization during the boost phase, but for now I want to test the RAIS design on it's own.

    *Edit: Re-reading the thread (which is quite amusing), it is more gas induction rather than necessarily GDS; however why it is done isn't clearly stated. By the design I would assume that it is to get more boost and maybe for the different sound.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2016
  23. Jan 19, 2016 #53

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    15
    LOL!
     
  24. Jan 19, 2016 #54

    rstaff3

    rstaff3

    rstaff3

    Oddroc-eteer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    7
    I bet the ducting in the 'Augie' rockets mostly just allows the motor to be recessed forward and thus help CG.
     
  25. Jan 19, 2016 #55

    T34zac

    T34zac

    T34zac

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2014
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    So I honestly see this design working quite well. Even without the slots at the bottom of tube, although at that point it would probably act more like a wind sail. Anyway I'll just be watching this neat design. And I apologize if this has been answered, I just skimmed, when are you flying it?
     
  26. Jan 19, 2016 #56

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    15
    That is possible; however if you're adding an additional shroud extending out the back, the weight of the shroud is also bringing the CG back which kind of kills some of that benefit and it also adds a lot of drag.

    FWIW - I just did a search and saw someone post on YORF that the Augie design is for "thrust augmentation" and another person on Rocket Reviews said the ducted design was another method for staging rockets (http://www.rocketryforum.com/showth...Induction-Stabilization&p=1541410#post1541410). :confused:
     
  27. Jan 19, 2016 #57

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    15
    Thanks for the vote of confidence! I'd like to fly it this weekend; however the weather may not cooperate. Even if I get it launched successfully, there are still a lot of variables in design involved so if I succeed, I'll be testing different versions successively (and hopefully). We should know by Spring! :)
     
  28. Jan 20, 2016 #58

    rstaff3

    rstaff3

    rstaff3

    Oddroc-eteer

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    11,716
    Likes Received:
    7
    The goal may have been thrust augmentation but I don't believe this can be realized on modrocs. This has been discussed numerous time but nobody ever convinced me. I added a thrust augmentation tube to my most recent GDS Saturn V. I saw where the Jetex motor's augmentation tubes were proven to work via actual measurements. However, someone quickly pointed out the error of my ways. It flew with the tube but the thrust was reduced instead of being augmented, And it was toast afterwards as a bonus.
     
  29. Jan 20, 2016 #59

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    KenECoyote

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    Messages:
    2,579
    Likes Received:
    15
    Yeah, I'm with you...I just don't see it. Also making it more complex and adding weight and drag seems counterproductive to that. I would think that allowing more air to flow to the sides of the burning motor would augment the exhaust, which sounds more like minimum diameter or possibly a tailcone. From what I can tell, GDS is more inefficient since some of the thrust is used to pull the air in from the sides (I think ;)).
     
  30. Jan 20, 2016 #60

    CrazyOB

    CrazyOB

    CrazyOB

    Lifetime Supporter TRF Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2015
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ken,
    I spent some time yesterday and today re-reading some aerodynamics papers, blah, blah, blah. Anyway, what I had originally meant about nose cone shape and relation to entrance of tube is called the compressability of dynamic airflow. An hour later, yada yada,
    So I think your safe with whatever you do regarding nose cone shape, tube size, etc. There has to be some mathematical correlation between outer tube size and exhaust port size/shape. What that relationship is is what you are attempting to determine by experiment. https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/shortr.html is one of the NASA homepages I stumbled across. Flip through the rocket aerodynamics page, do not let the first few pages fool you because it then turns into this https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/wcora.html :y:. And if you really want your socks blown off hunt down their section on rocket nozzle design or isenotropic airflow, which cover supersonic airflow through a tube.

    Back in the day, or when I was a boy, or other notable quotes from older gentlemen, this was a whole semester in school!
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2016

Share This Page