Gauging interest: Rocket Vision Like Rockets.

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

cwbullet

Obsessed with Rocketry
Staff member
Administrator
Global Mod
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
38,522
Reaction score
16,209
Location
Glennville, GA
I am building a set of rockets based on the Rocket Vision rockets from years ago. I am converting the build to include 3d printed parts. Any interest is the build and build threads?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The answer is "yes" by default.

I'm not familiar with the Rocket Vision rockets. Can you give pointers (or pictures) to the ones you're thinking of?
 
I am building a set of rockets based on the Rocket Vision rockets form years ago. I am converting the build to include 3d printed parts. Any interest is the build and build threads?

Yes.
(the enthusiasm behind the "yes" is positively correlated to the weirdness of the design, and the quantity of frivolously shaped fins).

Can you post a few sample pictures of the designs on which you are working?

a
 
Last edited:
I am working on the parts. My first test flight was nto exactly stable on the Machbuster. I think I have too light of a nose cone. I will test it in June and post the files. Here are some images from a google search. It has a 24mm motor mount.

rp_impulse_machbuster.gifrp_impulse_machbuster02.jpg
 
I am working on the parts. My first test flight was nto exactly stable on the Machbuster. I think I have too light of a nose cone. I will test it in June and post the files. Here are some images from a google search. It has a 24mm motor mount.

Interesting - looks like a mini-LOC-Nuke:
BigNuke3E-Cut-1.jpg


Are you printing both the nose cone and the fin-box?
Any motor retention contraptions?
A tail-cone?

If it works, any plans to sell the parts?
 
Interesting - looks like a mini-LOC-Nuke:
BigNuke3E-Cut-1.jpg


Are you printing both the nose cone and the fin-box?
Any motor retention contraptions?
A tail-cone?

If it works, any plans to sell the parts?

Anything is possible. It is near minimum diameter so probably no retention or tail cone. Tape used in the original. I already have a fin can and nose cone. I also have rail and rod guides.
 
Interesting - looks like a mini-LOC-Nuke:
BigNuke3E-Cut-1.jpg


Are you printing both the nose cone and the fin-box?
Any motor retention contraptions?
A tail-cone?

If it works, any plans to sell the parts?

You know, the more I look at this, the more I realize quite a few rockets look similar.
 
I still have a Rocketvision 6-Pack in the bag I need to build some day. For those unfamaliar with Rocketvision:

https://www.rocketreviews.com/rocket-vision-6664.html
They made 'rugged rockets' that used phenolic airframes and G-10 fins, which was unusual for small rockets back then. They also made a very nice launch pad called the Quad-Pod. I have/had one that had the aluminum legs which did not do well under the thrust of an M motor. (They were later sold with steel legs.) But the head is very rugged so I attached it to a more robust set of legs.

The thing about that fin shape is it is "almost" impossible to get it to flutter if made with any reasonable material. So it's used for a lot of high performance rockets. The normal clipped delta doesn't need to be as wide since it can have a longer root to increase area without it being nearly as wide, but does need a bit more care in material selection and construction. At least that's what I've come to believe after some research: the farther away you move from a rectangular shape, the less likely the fin is to flutter.


Tony
 
Last edited:
I still have a Rocketvision 6-Pack in the bag I need to build some day. For those unfamaliar with Rocketvision:

https://www.rocketreviews.com/rocket-vision-6664.html
They made 'rugged rockets' that used phenolic airframes and G-10 fins, which was unusual for small rockets back then. They also made a very nice launch pad called the Quad-Pod. I have/had one that had the aluminum legs with did not do well under the thrust of an M motor. But the head is very rugged so I attached it to a more robust set of legs.


Tony

I too have a Quad-Pod. It has served me well for years. I have not gone over G power on mine tho... Launched mostly at home with it.
Mine is the early version though where the legs were more vertical. Later, they changed the design some to flatten and widen the stance of the legs. I'd like to re-engineer mine to this style, but it doesn't get used much anymore...
 
I have a quad pod and would love to have them remade. I am not sure who could make the parts,
 
I am building a set of rockets based on the Rocket Vision rockets form years ago. I am converting the build to include 3d printed parts. Any interest is the build and build threads?

Chuck, I just came across this thread, how did your efforts come out. I have three Rocket Vision rockets, the Chariot, Mach Buster, and the Spitfire. I also have created Rocksim files for all three. I will attach them here just in case you could use them.
 

Attachments

  • Chariot_24mm.rkt
    59.5 KB · Views: 10
  • Machbuster_24mm.rkt
    63.6 KB · Views: 8
  • Spitfire.rkt
    48.7 KB · Views: 8
Was doing some poking around looking for RocketVision and came across this post. I chuckled because a few years back, I witnessed a Quad pot be flattened by a CTI L motor. Good stuff.
 
I had the original aluminum legged Quad pad, it did not like an M motor:

Crushing-the-pad.GIF

Not a great resolution GIF, but you can clearly see the light drop by a foot, and if you watch the legs, you can see them flatten out. I was going to put a 4x4 block of wood under the center to support it, but was told 'it will be fine'. I ended up mounting the top portion of the quad pod on a much sturdier platform. It's a great everyday pad. The other is regards a Rocket Vision 6 pack:

Six-pack.jpg

I mentioned it in another post and then later was contacted by a user here on TRF who wanted to buy it. But because it was after they changed the packaging to 'Rugged Rockets' rather the original Rocket Vision, he replied: "Thanks for messaging me, but I was only interested in the original, not a knock-off." So, apparently, not everyone is familiar with the history of the company, in spite of assuming they are a collector. For those who aren't familiar, it started as "Seattle Rocket Works, Rocket Vision, Impulse Aerospace, Rugged Rockets, and eventually got sold to Lawn Dart Rocketry."


Tony
 
Last edited:
I had the original aluminum legged Quad pad, it did not like an M motor:

View attachment 505396

Not a great resolution GIF, but you can clearly see the light drop by a foot, and if you watch the legs, you can see them flatten out. I was going to put a 4x4 block of wood under the center to support it, but was told 'it will be fine'. I ended up mounting the top portion of the quad pod on a much sturdier platform. It's a great everyday pad. The other is regards a Rocket Vision 6 pack:

View attachment 505398

I mentioned it in another post and then later was contacted by a user here on TRF who wanted to buy it. But because it was after they changed the packaging to 'Rugged Rockets' rather the original Rocket Vision, he replied: "Thanks for messaging me, but I was only interested in the original, not a knock-off." So, apparently, not everyone is familiar with the history of the company, in spite of assuming they are a collector. For those who aren't familiar, it started as "Seattle Rocket Works, Rocket Vision, Impulse Aerospace, Rugged Rockets, and eventually got sold to Lawn Dart Rocketry."
I am interested in that if you'd still like to move it. Been looking for a fair while.
 
I am working on the parts. My first test flight was nto exactly stable on the Machbuster. I think I have too light of a nose cone. I will test it in June and post the files. Here are some images from a google search. It has a 24mm motor mount.

View attachment 418466View attachment 418467
The kit came with plasticine to put in the nose for extra weight. I've still got the kit. Unbuilt but well unboxed. Came with Kevlar cord and a ripstop chute. Fibreglass fins, phenolic bodytube.
If that's the same one......
Norm
 
I am working on similar designs that include 3d printed parts.
 
I had the original aluminum legged Quad pad, it did not like an M motor:

View attachment 505396

Not a great resolution GIF, but you can clearly see the light drop by a foot, and if you watch the legs, you can see them flatten out. I was going to put a 4x4 block of wood under the center to support it, but was told 'it will be fine'. I ended up mounting the top portion of the quad pod on a much sturdier platform. It's a great everyday pad. The other is regards a Rocket Vision 6 pack:

View attachment 505398

I mentioned it in another post and then later was contacted by a user here on TRF who wanted to buy it. But because it was after they changed the packaging to 'Rugged Rockets' rather the original Rocket Vision, he replied: "Thanks for messaging me, but I was only interested in the original, not a knock-off." So, apparently, not everyone is familiar with the history of the company, in spite of assuming they are a collector. For those who aren't familiar, it started as "Seattle Rocket Works, Rocket Vision, Impulse Aerospace, Rugged Rockets, and eventually got sold to Lawn Dart Rocketry."


Tony
The issue is the bad bit of design that everyone has copied. Namely having the deflector plate attached to the component you are using to guide the rocket.
Does anyone use a separate deflector?

Great pics. Captures the moment of Newtons third law perfectly. Was the stand totalled or did it spring back?
 
The issue is the bad bit of design that everyone has copied. Namely having the deflector plate attached to the component you are using to guide the rocket.
Does anyone use a separate deflector?

Great pics. Captures the moment of Newtons third law perfectly. Was the stand totalled or did it spring back?

Best ever photo I have seen was Mike Fishers rocket beating the heck out of one of OROC's pads at Brothers OR.
 
The issue is the bad bit of design that everyone has copied. Namely having the deflector plate attached to the component you are using to guide the rocket.
Does anyone use a separate deflector?

Great pics. Captures the moment of Newtons third law perfectly. Was the stand totalled or did it spring back?
Thanks. The legs were pretty badly bent afterwards and would no longer close. But I had a good base to transplant it to. Just for grins, here’s almost the same thing but with an O motor. Same issue as before, blast deflector was anchored to the pad and transferred the force to the support structure. A weld broke on the leg under the plate. In both cases use of guy wires prevented things from getting out of hand.


Tony

515C5C6C-A628-4045-931D-64834EC4ED10.gif
 
I really like pads that sit flat on the ground. They are better designed to take the force of the launch.
 
Generally the blast deflector plate is at 45deg on the side the rocket is loaded. The rocket normally faces the flight line. The force from the blast of the exhaust will point the guidance of the rocket TOWARD the flight line. Effectively if the plate is 45deg 50% becomes down force and 50% horizontal loading at the point of attachment of the deflector plate. Seems pretty obvious this is a bad idea.
Separating the deflector plate forces from the guidance rail would seem to be a solution. How about something like a kevlar blanket on the ground as an idea.
 
Back
Top