High Power Helicopter Recovery?

Discussion in 'High Power Rocketry (HPR)' started by cwbullet, Jan 3, 2013.

Help Support The Rocketry Forum by donating:

  1. Jan 3, 2013 #1

    cwbullet

    cwbullet

    cwbullet

    Obsessed with Rocketry Staff Member Administrator TRF Lifetime Supporter Global Mod

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    22,800
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Glennville, GA
    Excluding Master Blasters, has anyone seen a high power nose cone or rocket recovery by helicopter recovery? I have been thing about this off and on for years and would like to know what you all think?

    I guess you could do a balsa nose cone with carbon fiber rotors.
     
  2. Jan 3, 2013 #2

    Eric1

    Eric1

    Eric1

    BaddAzz Rocketry TRF Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    2,136
    Likes Received:
    2
    Chuck I am working a design. Hope to test it this year.
     
  3. Jan 3, 2013 #3

    cvanc

    cvanc

    cvanc

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,287
    Likes Received:
    17
    Are you intending to make it available for sale? If so I'm definitely interested.
     
  4. Jan 3, 2013 #4

    Eric1

    Eric1

    Eric1

    BaddAzz Rocketry TRF Lifetime Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    2,136
    Likes Received:
    2
    If it all works as planned. There is a lot to the deign.
     
  5. Jan 3, 2013 #5

    troj

    troj

    troj

    Wielder Of the Skillet Of Harsh Discipline, Potent Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    13,890
    Likes Received:
    120
    Dave Leininger flew one at LDRS 21 in Amarillo. K motor, if I remember correctly.

    -Kevin
     
  6. Jan 3, 2013 #6

    mjhall

    mjhall

    mjhall

    Forum Supporter TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2010
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    2
    Saw some University of Texas engineering students use one at a launch in Girvin, TX last year. Worked very well.
     
  7. Jan 3, 2013 #7

    cwbullet

    cwbullet

    cwbullet

    Obsessed with Rocketry Staff Member Administrator TRF Lifetime Supporter Global Mod

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    22,800
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Glennville, GA
    I sure hope so. I will buy one - heck maybe 2. I don't want my wife flying my build.
     
  8. Jan 4, 2013 #8

    EeebeeE

    EeebeeE

    EeebeeE

    Forum Supporter TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,411
    Likes Received:
    40
    I had thought about an upscale Estes Gyroc, flying on an H or an I, but I have to figure away to make strong but extremely lightweight fins.
     
  9. Jan 4, 2013 #9

    cwbullet

    cwbullet

    cwbullet

    Obsessed with Rocketry Staff Member Administrator TRF Lifetime Supporter Global Mod

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    22,800
    Likes Received:
    1,508
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Glennville, GA
    Rear ejection of the motor with parachute recover could remove enough weight for a safe recover by rotary.
     
  10. Jan 4, 2013 #10

    EeebeeE

    EeebeeE

    EeebeeE

    Forum Supporter TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,411
    Likes Received:
    40
    The problem is that the original gyroc had balsa fins, but when you increase the size of the fins 3-4 times and put more stress on them with high power motors, you have to switch to plywood for better structural integrity. Plywood is 3.7 times heavier per cubic inch than balsa. So when you upsize a Gyroc fin 4x and make it plywood, the fin weight increases nearly 15 times. That moves the CG way behind the CP and makes the rocket unstable. If you switch to fiberglass it is even worse even if you go half the thickness.

    In order to keep the CG in the same scaled location, you need to add weight equvalent to approx. 73% the weight of the upsized fins into the nose cone. That added nose weight makes the thing drop like a rock. I recently saw a fin design where the perimeter of the fins were plywood, but the area inside the perimeter was a lighter weight material (i.e. foam core) and that might provide a solution to the problem, but even there, you might not be able to make it high power.
     
  11. Jan 4, 2013 #11

    troj

    troj

    troj

    Wielder Of the Skillet Of Harsh Discipline, Potent Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    13,890
    Likes Received:
    120
    I would think some of the challenge would be something strong enough to handle the force from roto recovery, yet also light enough to not cause the issues you describe.

    Nomex honeycomb with a single layer of fiberglass or carbon fiber over it, sounds like it'd do the trick. It wouldn't be cheap, though!

    -Kevin
     
  12. Jan 4, 2013 #12

    CarVac

    CarVac

    CarVac

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    5,662
    Likes Received:
    3
    If you build it like a kite, and keep the speed down, you definitely would be able to upscale a helicopter recovery rocket, at least the planform if not the thickness of parts.
     
  13. Jan 4, 2013 #13

    BEAR

    BEAR

    BEAR

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2012
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have been considering an upscale Gyroc also. I have a piece of 6" blue tube that I do not have a purpose for. This would be approx. 8X. I was considering making the body out of that, with thru the wall built up fins. 54mm MMT. I would build a nose cone out of foam, glass over it, then dissolve the foam out. The fins would be built up with spruce leading and trailing with a main spar, filed in with expanding foam and covered in 1/32" aircraft plywood. Would be about 3/4" thick for the wings and about 1/2" thick for the rudders. When the ejection charge (altimeter)goes off, the motor casing and chute would eject and deploy. At about 200', the second ejection charge goes off to blow a second chute out the tail to make sure it gets down softly and slowly, at least for the maiden flight. I do not want to get it too high or it will drift in the wind and make recovery more difficult. Bring it down too fast and you could damage something. Inside the main tube should leave enough room for a 38mm tube to hold the main chute .
     
  14. Jan 4, 2013 #14

    EeebeeE

    EeebeeE

    EeebeeE

    Forum Supporter TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,411
    Likes Received:
    40
    I saw someone do a 2x upscale and was able to keep it to balsa. If you did a 3x upscale first and experimented with mid power 24mm - 29mm motors and some sort of ribbed fin design you can learn from there to see if you can take it up to high power.

    As far as motor ejection goes, since the original ejected the motor, we don't really gain any weight loss benefits if we have a motor ejection system on the upscale version. At best, we break even. And if we are to be true to the original design, motor ejection is mandatory anyway. The recovery system for the motor needs to be factored into the dynamics of the CG issue as well, since in high power, if you eject the motor you must have some sort of recovery for it, while in the original Gyroc, you didn't.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2013
  15. Jan 4, 2013 #15

    Sailorbill

    Sailorbill

    Sailorbill

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I remember his biggest complaint was he had to repair the fins every time it flew because they were still rotating when it landed. Seems the sideways force generated when the long spinning blade hit the ground was hell on hinges. :sad:
     
  16. Jan 4, 2013 #16

    legranddudu

    legranddudu

    legranddudu

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    0
  17. Jan 5, 2013 #17

    lessgravity

    lessgravity

    lessgravity

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,037
    Likes Received:
    2
  18. Jan 5, 2013 #18

    Mightyrocketman

    Mightyrocketman

    Mightyrocketman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    10
    You are right. It was an awesome flight!
     
  19. Jan 5, 2013 #19

    Mightyrocketman

    Mightyrocketman

    Mightyrocketman

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    357
    Likes Received:
    10
    You are right and it was an awesome flight.
     
  20. Jan 5, 2013 #20

    Dale Saukerson

    Dale Saukerson

    Dale Saukerson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    3x is achievable without special measures.

    Here is my 3x upscale (BT-70) from the late 80s.
    Weight minus motor is 274 grams. Length is 760mm. Diameter is 56mm
    The fins are 3/16 balsa. That is a C battery for size reference.
    It flew decent on Estes D12. Aerotech E15 gave more altitude.

    I have desired for years now to do a 4 inch airframe version.

    The motor tube slides back upon ejection charge to release the fins. The spent motor stays onboard.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  21. Jan 5, 2013 #21

    BEAR

    BEAR

    BEAR

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2012
    Messages:
    565
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is really a great looking job. I presume that it came down at a slow enough speed it did not tear things up?
     
  22. Jan 5, 2013 #22

    Dale Saukerson

    Dale Saukerson

    Dale Saukerson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes.
    I flew on a sod farm which also helped.
     
  23. Jan 5, 2013 #23

    EeebeeE

    EeebeeE

    EeebeeE

    Forum Supporter TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,411
    Likes Received:
    40
    Real nice. The challenge is when you want to go to a 4", 5", or 7.5" airframe, and you have to go through the wall with your fins, and have to use stronger material than balsa.
     
  24. Jan 6, 2013 #24

    dcbaros

    dcbaros

    dcbaros

    Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0

    One of the students here, launched on a 54mm k to about 5200 feet. Broke mach as well. We had 5 blades made out of carbon fiber/kevlar.
     
  25. Jan 6, 2013 #25

    legranddudu

    legranddudu

    legranddudu

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    0
    can you post pictures or drawings? thx.
     
  26. Jan 29, 2013 #26
  27. Feb 14, 2020 #27

    rocketaholic

    rocketaholic

    rocketaholic

    Forum Supporter TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    6
    Actually it was an upscale SkyWinder rocket on a J800 at LDRS 21 and it was a picture perfect flight. 8.3 inches tall, 17 pounds. The rotor blades were a combination of two part foam with plywood ribs, covered with rip stop nylon.
     

    Attached Files:

  28. Feb 14, 2020 #28

    rocketaholic

    rocketaholic

    rocketaholic

    Forum Supporter TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    Messages:
    135
    Likes Received:
    6
    here is a photo of the picture perfect recovery
     

    Attached Files:

    g.pitts likes this.
  29. Feb 14, 2020 #29

    John Taylor

    John Taylor

    John Taylor

    Forum Supporter TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2019
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    174
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Fort Worth TX
    You are correct. Was there and saw it. It was really cool
     
    Dwatkins likes this.
  30. Feb 15, 2020 at 1:58 AM #30

    BABAR

    BABAR

    BABAR

    Builds Rockets for NASA TRF Lifetime Supporter TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,780
    Likes Received:
    640

Share This Page

Group Builder