Lakeroadster's Colonial Viper

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

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

lakeroadster

When in doubt... build hell-for-stout!
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
9,121
Reaction score
11,492
Location
Central Colorado
See Post #11
Viper BT-60 Dwg Sht 1 of 3 Rev 00.jpgViper BT-60 Dwg Sht 2 of 3 Rev 00.jpg

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Kelly Irwin posted a photo of his More Rockets Viper kit over on the Estes Facebook Page. I started pondering about a triple cluster motor configuration.

I spent some time on Open Rocket designing a BT-55 BT-60 based version with (3) 24mm motors. I didn't really scale anything at all, just went based on appearance.

This one I'd likely build using a rear eject chute via a mini spool on the center tube, Epoxy plugged booster motors in the side tubes and utilize the upper tube behind the cockpit as a payload bay for my Altimeter Two.

It would look oh so much better if the tubes were obround near the front air intakes like the photo's show below. I'm thinking this could be done by utilizing egg shaped centering rings that would hold the body tube shape? Something to do some R&D on. If that didn't work the rocket could be built like a balsa model airplane, utilizing spars that are then covered to obtain the shape as shown below in the photos.

Anyhoo... here are the preliminary Open Rocket simulations, and some screen shots of the Colonial Viper MK2 and MK3 from the internet.



2023-01-06 Open Rocket Simulation Viper MK3 - Finished.png2023-01-06 Open Rocket Simulation Viper MK3 - Unfinished.pngViper MK2  Sketch 001.jpgViper MK2 Damaged.jpgViper MK2 Galactica Set.jpgViper MK3 Galactica Set.jpg
 
Last edited:
Should be another winner! Are the outwards vented to central tube, vented to outside, or simply plugged or ejected?

i was trying to figure out why someone would want a call sign “HUSHER”, (although might be good for a stealth bomber pilot) from the photo, then googled it and realized it is a bit fuzzy on the pic and is really “Husker.”

from Wikipedia

His aviator call signis "Husker", originally bestowed on him by his copilot Coker Fasjovik. The name is an Aerilon term for farmboy or hick, but Adama was actually raised in Caprica City.
 
Should be another winner! Are the outwards vented to central tube, vented to outside, or simply plugged or ejected?

i was trying to figure out why someone would want a call sign “HUSHER”, (although might be good for a stealth bomber pilot) from the photo, then googled it and realized it is a bit fuzzy on the pic and is really “Husker.”

from Wikipedia

His aviator call signis "Husker", originally bestowed on him by his copilot Coker Fasjovik. The name is an Aerilon term for farmboy or hick, but Adama was actually raised in Caprica City.

The outers are just D12-0's with epoxy plugs. Design revised, see post #11.

I was trying to figure out why someone would want a call sign “HUSHER”, (although might be good for a stealth bomber pilot) from the photo, then googled it and realized it is a bit fuzzy on the pic and is really “Husker.”

from Wikipedia

His aviator call signis "Husker", originally bestowed on him by his copilot Coker Fasjovik. The name is an Aerilon term for farmboy or hick, but Adama was actually raised in Caprica City.

Nebraska Cornhuskers... I had no idea what rabid fans the good folks from Nebraska were until we moved to Colorado...​
1672962580246.png
 
Last edited:
After spending a few hours looking at this today in CAD this rocket shouldn't really be to hard. Basically build the triple cluster, then build the cockpit cage around that. The front fuselage is the only tricky part and I think I can make that from a block of balsa... or maybe even pine since this rocket benefits from some nose weight. This one deserves to not have a round fuselage... it looks so much better with the rectangular cross section, staying true to the series models.

I'll toss this one on the build table and dig in after I get The Mighty Saturn V built.

Viper 001.JPGViper 002.JPG
 
Last edited:
After spending a few hours looking at this today in CAD this rocket shouldn't really be to hard. Basically build the triple cluster, then build the cockpit cage around that. The front nose section is the only tricky part and I think I can make that from a block of balsa... or maybe even pine since this rocket benefits from some nose weight.

I'll toss this one on the build table and dig in after I get The Mighty Saturn V built.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy!
Yes Mr. RSO. Simple, triple motored airplane rocket.
 
So are we gonna see the Booster sister ship on this one too?

View attachment 555069
Cyclone Raider.... I always thought this one looked like a Sand Dollar.​
Could make one similar to an Art Applewhite Delta Flying Saucer....​

Just fold and CA soak cardstock for intakes. Same for canopy or sculpted balsa. Maybe a paper/cardstock model out there to get pattern.

Have you seen this guys models? Mind Blowing! Uhu02’s Papercraft

Uhu02 Papercraft Viper 001.pngUhu02 Papercraft Viper 002.jpge (1).jpg
 
Last edited:
The more I work on the design of this.. the more I want to move it up to the top of the build pile.

I revised the design to make the three motors attached to each other. The center motor is a plugged D12-0. The outers are D12-3's. When the ejection charge fires, the 3 motors eject out the back of the rocket, as a 1 piece unit. The chute is attached to the motors (and the rocket) and the motors deploy the chute. The upper half of the center motor tubes has been removed and a small tab will engage the motor casing. Cutting the tube allows the area above the tube, as well as the area ahead of the tube, to be used for stowing the parachute.

Also, the Altimeter Two fits nicely in the nose cone opening.

These are not fabrication drawings. The CAD model is just a one piece representation, a "study" to determine if this can be built.

Viper Study Dwg Sht 1 of 3 Rev 00.jpgViper Study Dwg Sht 2 of 3 Rev 00.jpgViper Study Dwg Sht 3 of 3 Rev 00.jpg

Viper 2.JPGViper 3.JPGViper Render 5.JPG
2023-01-07 Open Rocket Simulation Viper Photo Studio.png
 
Last edited:
I found these cardstock models https://jleslie48.com/bg/index.html
and tried to make a raider as a parasite/rear-eject chute recovery model. Not had a chance to launch it yet. I tried printing it on a silver metallic cardstock. My ink jet was low on ink, so the colors kind of came out funny. I made custom chute from a plastic bag and a Sharpie, inspired by the Der Red Max chute, it is rigged for a horizontal recovery to simulate a gliding descent under the chute. This would just hang on the back of a larger carrier rocket with a little tube that holds the chute.

Screenshot 2023-01-07 at 3.05.47 PM.png

Screenshot 2023-01-07 at 3.06.27 PM.png
 
I copied the decal sheet from the More Rockets Super Viper kit (that is 24mm power and it can really scoot!) and downscaled it to make this 13mm min dia cardstock model for the Viper. It also has an external shock cord for the streamer to give it a simulated gliding descent horizontal recovery.

Screenshot 2023-01-07 at 3.21.32 PM.png
 
I copied the decal sheet from the More Rockets Super Viper kit (that is 24mm power and it can really scoot!) and downscaled it to make this 13mm min dia cardstock model for the Viper. It also has an external shock cord for the streamer to give it a simulated gliding descent horizontal recovery.

View attachment 555587
Good looking birds Glen.

Do the 3 extra tubes have any obstructions in them, or are they open and act as tube fins?
 
Good looking birds Glen.

Do the 3 extra tubes have any obstructions in them, or are they open and act as tube fins?
Thank you, sir. The canopy is out in front of the top tube on a fin type support. The other tubes and the gap between the tubes are all open. With all that aft weight, the challenge for these small dia rockets is getting enough clay in the nose, and this one has a shorter truncated nose.
 
So are we gonna see the Booster sister ship on this one too?

View attachment 555069
I found these cardstock models https://jleslie48.com/bg/index.html
and tried to make a raider as a parasite/rear-eject chute recovery model. Not had a chance to launch it yet. I tried printing it on a silver metallic cardstock. My ink jet was low on ink, so the colors kind of came out funny. I made custom chute from a plastic bag and a Sharpie, inspired by the Der Red Max chute, it is rigged for a horizontal recovery to simulate a gliding descent under the chute. This would just hang on the back of a larger carrier rocket with a little tube that holds the chute.

View attachment 555584

View attachment 555585

So @BABAR ... what are you, some sort of mind reader? lol
 
Well, I think he was referring to your prior TIE and X-Wing models. Very cool idea, just wondering if you were planning on a similar dog fight configuration with this theme.
:awesome: We'll see how the Viper performs at altitude... and proceed from there.

I'm hoping to launch the Luke and Vader Dogfight rocket this spring. It passed the swing test, but I am, cautiously pessimistic.

I'm hoping not to channel my inner Starbuck after the flight... and say with conviction "Felgergarb".
 
Last edited:
Just an idea.

You have the three actual motors 3 in line, with an artificial third motor the dorsally.

What if you actually PUT the midline motor in the original position, and build a combined duct/ baffle to the laundry tube extending into and nearly to the tip of the nose? Could even be a BT-5.

If you hollow out the nose, you can extend laundry tube nearly to the tip. Options would be either a small plug in the “intake” tube (or whatever that front end of model is, kind of pointless as there is no atmosphere in space, but movie models keep putting fins on space fighters….), or just blow the whole nose off the front of the tube. In the latter case the nose cone “shoulder” would be external to the laundry tube rather than the standard internal shoulder seen on 99.99% of rockets.

You may have to go DOWN a tube size to fit it into the cone section, but that gives you lots of space for your baffle, and probably fewer folds of the chute.

Not critical, but also holds closer to the original three motor original movie prop design.

Recovery gear space is going to be tight.
 
Last edited:
I found these cardstock models https://jleslie48.com/bg/index.html
and tried to make a raider as a parasite/rear-eject chute recovery model. Not had a chance to launch it yet. I tried printing it on a silver metallic cardstock. My ink jet was low on ink, so the colors kind of came out funny. I made custom chute from a plastic bag and a Sharpie, inspired by the Der Red Max chute, it is rigged for a horizontal recovery to simulate a gliding descent under the chute. This would just hang on the back of a larger carrier rocket with a little tube that holds the chute.
View attachment 555585
that Chute is icing on the cake
 
Just an idea.

You have the three actual motors 3 in line, with an artificial third motor the dorsally.

What if you actually PUT the midline motor in the original position, and build a combined duct/ baffle to the laundry tube extending into and nearly to the tip of the nose? Could even be a BT-5.

If you hollow out the nose, you can extend laundry tube nearly to the tip. Options would be either a small plug in the “intake” tube (or whatever that front end of model is, kind of pointless as there is no atmosphere in space, but movie models keep putting fins on space fighters….), or just blow the whole nose off the front of the tube. In the latter case the nose cone “shoulder” would be external to the laundry tube rather than the standard internal shoulder seen on 99.99% of rockets.

You may have to go DOWN a tube size to fit it into the cone section, but that gives you lots of space for your baffle, and probably fewer folds of the chute.

Not critical, but also holds closer to the original three motor original movie prop design.

Recovery gear space is going to be tight.

While I appreciate the input, I don't see this ^^^ as being advantageous over the current design, other than motors being like the movie prop.

The center motor being low allows for:​
  • through-the-wall fin attachment of the vertical stabilizer,
  • all motor thrust acting through the rockets longitudinal centerline. Offset thrust means the rocket "crab walks" during the thrust phase.
No ejection charge of the center motor means less chance of burning the parachute.​
 
Just an idea.

You have the three actual motors 3 in line, with an artificial third motor the dorsally.

What if you actually PUT the midline motor in the original position, and build a combined duct/ baffle to the laundry tube extending into and nearly to the tip of the nose? Could even be a BT-5.

If you hollow out the nose, you can extend laundry tube nearly to the tip. Options would be either a small plug in the “intake” tube (or whatever that front end of model is, kind of pointless as there is no atmosphere in space, but movie models keep putting fins on space fighters….), or just blow the whole nose off the front of the tube. In the latter case the nose cone “shoulder” would be external to the laundry tube rather than the standard internal shoulder seen on 99.99% of rockets.

You may have to go DOWN a tube size to fit it into the cone section, but that gives you lots of space for your baffle, and probably fewer folds of the chute.

Not critical, but also holds closer to the original three motor original movie prop design.

Recovery gear space is going to be tight.
I had almost exactly the same thought, but expected (correctly) that he was pretty well set on the inline motors for that thrustline reason.

My idea (just for discussion) was to use the central motor for rear ejection and the outer motors ducted into a central tube for mid break ejection (or the other way around); it would come down more or less horizontal on the two chutes. And mid break would mean there could still be space in the nose for the altimeter ahead of a bulkhead.

Anyway, back to the real design...

Do you have a preliminary guestimate of the weight? At only 13.77" long it might be really light, and with three D engines it'll go like a bat out of hell. Finding it might become a problem.
 
..

Do you have a preliminary guestimate of the weight? At only 13.77" long it might be really light, and with three D engines it'll go like a bat out of hell. Finding it might become a problem.
The ultra-safe first flight would be with a D on center, adapt down to a small 13 mm A motor on the outboards. You still get three smoke trails, if midline doesn’t light it may not even make the top of the rail, even if it does won’t go high.

The outboards are minimally off center, so if central D and only one outboard lights, I doubt the asymmetric thrust would make much difference, even if all 3 are Ds.

Lake seems both extremely competent and confident with his cluster lighting skills. So if it is stable with 3Ds, he should be good to go. With this light a model as long as he has at least a C on the midline I think he can pick just about any motor combo he wants for his targeted altitude.

Matching motors (all three the same) might give best effect with three steady smoke trails.

OpenRocket question. Does it calculate the CG and/or CP. in THREE dimensions, or just position on the longitudinal axis?
 
All true, but I don't see how it's a response to my post. I'm not talking at all about lighting the cluster, but rather about "Holy Crap! That's a lot of oomph for such a small rocket."
 
Do you have a preliminary guestimate of the weight? At only 13.77" long it might be really light, and with three D engines it'll go like a bat out of hell. Finding it might become a problem.

The ultra-safe first flight would be with a D on center, adapt down to a small 13 mm A motor on the outboards. You still get three smoke trails, if midline doesn’t light it may not even make the top of the rail, even if it does won’t go high.

The outboards are minimally off center, so if central D and only one outboard lights, I doubt the asymmetric thrust would make much difference, even if all 3 are Ds.

Lake seems both extremely competent and confident with his cluster lighting skills. So if it is stable with 3Ds, he should be good to go. With this light a model as long as he has at least a C on the midline I think he can pick just about any motor combo he wants for his targeted altitude.

Matching motors (all three the same) might give best effect with three steady smoke trails.

OpenRocket question. Does it calculate the CG and/or CP. in THREE dimensions, or just position on the longitudinal axis?

Thus far... 100% cluster ignition success rate using whip ignition of E-matches with D12 motors.​

All true, but I don't see how it's a response to my post. I'm not talking at all about lighting the cluster, but rather about "Holy Crap! That's a lot of oomph for such a small rocket."

It is small rocket... but like most of my creations it's an overweight aero turd (it's an industry term). It weighs 1 pound 3 ounces. And those turbine motor pods, as well as the open nose cone are sure to make it a drag'n beast. I think I'm going to add some NACA dusts on the sides and bottom of the fuselage up near the nose to try to vent out some of the incoming air. Might also cut some slots in the side of the two side turbines.

All that initial thrust though is a good thing, especially with all that fin area. It'll want to weathercock.

If only (2) motors light, the apogee is 355 feet, a successful flight, but the pucker factor will be high if it weathercocks: as it may not have enough altitude to deploy the laundry before ground hit.

If only (1) motor lights.. off the rod speed is too low. Even if it does make a stable flight it'll lawn dart before the chute deploys.

2023-01-10 Open Rocket Simulation Viper MK2 - Finished.pngViper BT-60 1 NACA Ducts.JPG
 
Last edited:
Silly airplane oddroc abominations with obscene amounts of drag and nose weight just eat up lovely thrust! Where is the efficiency?...A hallmark of good design.

These "Star Fighters" seem to have issues when pushed through an atmosphere and when dealing with gravity.... go figure.
 
Back
Top