Quantcast

How to create / simulate a ring fin in OR..?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Tim51

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
954
Reaction score
232
Location
London, United Kingdom
Hi all

Does anyone know how to construct a ring fin (i.e. a single one that circles the body tube, not clusters of tubular fins) in Open Rocket?

Cheers,
 

markkoelsch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,364
Reaction score
148
I believe this is likely a case where you need to not worry about what the picture looks like, and worry about performance in the sim.

That said, I would start thinking about using a number of fins to approximate the area of the ring fin using regular fins. Adjust weight accordingly.
 

Tim51

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
954
Reaction score
232
Location
London, United Kingdom
Thanks all - very useful pointers. I'm sort of half way there in so far as about 3 years ago my son and I built a LPR ring fin design from scratch which, following swing tests, flew very well on a single Klima D9-5 motor to (we guess) around 800 ft (see picture). We've been talking recently about building an upscale HPR version, ideally with a 4" airframe, and a slightly wider ring fin to accommodate the rail. I'm presuming I'll have to scratch build that blunt NC as well, which should be an interesting learning experience..

WP_20161212_18_22_53_Pro.jpg
 

Nytrunner

Pop lugs, not drugs
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
7,773
Reaction score
3,403
Location
Huntsville AL
I was going to chime in and point out the PoF article, but that's already been done.

If I'm planning an unconventional rocket, I'll make one model physically accurate for a parts list, and another with equivalent bodies to try and get a valid flight simulation. Unless its an Induction tube, in which case there is no equivalent bodies...
 

neil_w

Marginally Stable
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
11,117
Reaction score
3,976
Location
Northern NJ
Yeah, this. Can OR make said fins transparent?
No.

I have long wished for the ability to independently tag which components are shown visually, and which are incorporated in the simulation. That would solve a lot of these issues.

I wish the OR guys had a more active presence here.
 

Buckeye

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
2,634
Reaction score
484
I wish the OR guys had a more active presence here.
They should, considering OR webpage says this:

"The official support forum for OpenRocket is the Rocketry Electronics and Software forum at The Rocketry Forum."
 

neil_w

Marginally Stable
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
11,117
Reaction score
3,976
Location
Northern NJ
They should, considering OR webpage says this:

"The official support forum for OpenRocket is the Rocketry Electronics and Software forum at The Rocketry Forum."
You would think.... :(
 

K'Tesh

OpenRocket Chuck Norris
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
14,863
Reaction score
1,262
At this time, there are two methods of creating ring fins... using an externalized "Inner Tube", and a multiple body tube method.

For these methods, Each separate part (all fins will be considered one part) has been given a separate color for clarity.

The inner tube method will give you an accurate appearance, but the ring it generates doesn't get calculated aerodynamically.




The multiple body tube method breaks down the inner body tube into separate segments. This method also uses an externalized inner tube (in this case the red section) to simulate the body tube under the ring fin, the ring fin is a body tube itself.



The inner tube method would need a phantom body tube to "attach" fins to it (such as you find with the Ram Jet), whereas the multiple tube method wouldn't need it.

Both methods can be decorated with "decals" to give accurate appearances.

View attachment OpenRocket Inner Tube Ringfin Method.ork

View attachment OpenRocket Multiple Tube Ringfin Method.ork
 
Last edited:

Forever_Metal

JustAnotherBAR
Joined
May 21, 2016
Messages
493
Reaction score
37
Location
Madison, AL
They should, considering OR webpage says this:

"The official support forum for OpenRocket is the Rocketry Electronics and Software forum at The Rocketry Forum."
Are they actually actively working on the software or is it kinda done?

fm
 

markkoelsch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,364
Reaction score
148
At this time, there are two methods of creating ring fins... using an externalized "Inner Tube", and a multiple body tube method.

For these methods, Each separate part (all fins will be considered one part) has been given a separate color for clarity.

The inner tube method will give you an accurate appearance, but the ring it generates doesn't get calculated aerodynamically.




The multiple body tube method breaks down the inner body tube into separate segments. This method also uses an externalized inner tube (in this case the red section) to simulate the body tube under the ring fin, the ring fin is a body tube itself.



The inner tube method would need a phantom body tube to "attach" fins to it (such as you find with the Ram Jet), whereas the multiple tube method wouldn't need it.

Both methods can be decorated with "decals" to give accurate appearances.
Does either method give accurate analysis? That is what is important with a new design.
 

markkoelsch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,364
Reaction score
148
No, because inner tubes are not accounted for in the sim.
Ok, that is what I thought. So really it is only useful for making a pretty picture versus predicting anything having to do with the stability and performance of the rocket.
 

K'Tesh

OpenRocket Chuck Norris
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
14,863
Reaction score
1,262
Ok, that is what I thought. So really it is only useful for making a pretty picture versus predicting anything having to do with the stability and performance of the rocket.
While flawed, of the two methods, the multiple body tube method would likely be the more accurate version.
 

rstaff3

Oddroc-eteer
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
11,759
Reaction score
14
Ok, that is what I thought. So really it is only useful for making a pretty picture versus predicting anything having to do with the stability and performance of the rocket.
I likes my RockSim.
 

neil_w

Marginally Stable
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Messages
11,117
Reaction score
3,976
Location
Northern NJ
Ah - does RockSim allow accurate aerodynamic ring fin simulations? (I've never tried it..)
Without commenting on its accuracy, we can at least say Rocksim at least recognizes ring fins as a design component and attempts to simulate them. I'd assume that they're at least reasonably approximated.
 

Nytrunner

Pop lugs, not drugs
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
7,773
Reaction score
3,403
Location
Huntsville AL
I think Rocksim does a more refined job of locating the center of pressure. OpenRocket uses much stricter geometry definitions and gives a conservative (forward) CP position.

That being said, Rocksim wigs out going through Mach (or so I heard), and OpenRocket behaves better.

Still, the more versatile geometry allowable makes me consider getting it one day so I can perhaps characterize odd designs and extrapolate for scale-up.
 

K'Tesh

OpenRocket Chuck Norris
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
14,863
Reaction score
1,262
Last edited:

aerostadt

Lifetime Supporter
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
3,342
Reaction score
285
Location
Brigham City, UT
I could not find the RocSim files on my own computer. I am thinking that some designs got moved around or lost when I installed RocSim9 I think with a new key. I just now went back to my RM-1 thread and saved the RocSim files that are there. I am attaching the files here. The RM-1 is a stubby rocket and has that umbrella shield far forward. I ended up using a lot of nose weight. I wonder if RocSim was too conservative, however, the model has flown twice and it does fly well.

Ring fins are different...
OK, yes, I see that ring-fins are different.

View attachment RM-1 Recon Craft A-1.rkt

View attachment RM-1 Estes.rkt
 
Last edited:

markkoelsch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,364
Reaction score
148
I think Rocksim does a more refined job of locating the center of pressure. OpenRocket uses much stricter geometry definitions and gives a conservative (forward) CP position.

That being said, Rocksim wigs out going through Mach (or so I heard), and OpenRocket behaves better.

Still, the more versatile geometry allowable makes me consider getting it one day so I can perhaps characterize odd designs and extrapolate for scale-up.
Rocksim is not as bad at Mach as folks like to say. That said, I cannot comment on it above Mach 1.5 or so as I do not have data to compare- I have not flown faster, so I do not have data to judge.

Like any other sim let's start with GIGO- garbage in garbage out. Meaning that if your sim is not accurate you will get crap results.

Next, there is variation in motor performance. When motors are certified a certain number are burned. Motor files are made from a certain data set. Throw in variation and error will happen.

Next point, both Rocksim and OR are based on Barrowman. One of the basic assumptions of Barrowman is that rockets are subsonic. Anything that goes transonic or faster is technically breaking that assumption. The equations are extended, but how accurately?

Next- tweaking your sim to match launch conditions. Wind, temperature, launch angle all play large in reality. Your sim will be better if you adjust for these things.

So, consider your sim good if you typically get within 10% of predicted altitude. Consider yourself really good if you typically get within 5%.

Rocksim user since much earlier versions.
 

dhbarr

Amateur Professional
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
7,005
Reaction score
1,456
Unmodified Barrowman, not Dahlquist or Galejs? That would surprise me.
 

markkoelsch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,364
Reaction score
148
Unmodified Barrowman, not Dahlquist or Galejs? That would surprise me.
Why would that surprise you? Rocksim has straight Barrowman, and the Rocksim method, which is an extension of Barrowman. No mention of Dahlquist or Galejs. If they were involved, or their work was used don't you think it would be mentioned?

OR is still based on Barrowman too. Likely an extension, but developed by who? Verified as legitimate and accurate by who?

I strongly suggest that folks who have not done so read the Barrowman report to understand the assumptions and possible limitations. Link follows, and username and password are both guest.

https://www.rocketryfiles.com/?p=home&d=Technicalarticles/
 
Top