lakeroadster
When in doubt... build hell-for-stout!
That would work until you ran into a guy who graduated from CU Aerospace. He would demand Ralphie!
Yeah.. Buffalo's can be a bit abrasive. Especially to Ram's... you know.. Horn Envy.
That would work until you ran into a guy who graduated from CU Aerospace. He would demand Ralphie!
I have a daughter at CU, a senior, and another daughter at CSU, a sophomore. All I know is that I am poor until they are through with grad school. Good thing oddrocs are not that expensive.Yeah.. Buffalo's can be a bit abrasive. Especially to Ram's... you know.. Horn Envy.
You don't want any lift.. that's why it has the same profile on the top and bottom. Lift would make for an unstable design, as a rocket.I think you are getting less lift from your nose than you think because it is a somewhat rounded profile. A similar thing happens when the cylindrical airframe is not a zero angle of attack in that there is very little actual "lift" from the tube and almost all the moments are caused by the NC or base/boattail where there is a change in diameter.
With non-zero AoA you will always get lift, it is just a matter of how much. Lift generated by the aft fins is what gets your normal rockets stable. Remember that the lift I mention only happens when your are not at zero angle of attack. If the rocket is flying "dead straight" there will be no lift.I don't want any lift.. that's why it has the same profile on the top and bottom. Lift would make for an unstable design, as a rocket.
Now, now now Joe. Don't be rude. Daddyisabar has proven his theory, time and time again, by not just talking the talk... but by walking the walk.
But our wizard is a guy named Vern, he wrote the book on checking stability, literally. And therein lies the reasoning behind a swing test. It's not simulated data... it's real data. And adding weird fins isn't beyond the scope or limitation of the string.
Will it go 'round it circles? Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?
View attachment 510924View attachment 510926
Re: the first rule: look no further than the F-4 Phantom II, “The Triumph of Thrust over Aerodynamics” a.k.a. “The Flying Anvil”, “Rhino”, “The Lead Sled”, et al.Who's "first rule of aerodynamics" is that with a big enough motor, anything can fly? I guess the second rule is that with enough mind altering practices and intoxicants anything is stable.
That's another point in favor of RS, and therefore another feature that OR must add.
Yes. I should have written "must add if they wish to catch up/keep up." Which is the same thing as "should add". Despite its various cons, "free" is a great big pro and is not the only pro, either. As I've stated before, if I were starting over today I wouldn't pay for RS. Sure am glad I have it though.Fixed.That's another point in favor of RS, and therefore another feature that ORmustshould add.
Indeed. That doesn't mean I can't kid about the silly talk he occasionally talks. If booze and campfires and dope and weird music make your oddrocs fly straight, more power to them (pun intentional or not, however you like it.)Now, now now Joe. Don't be rude. Daddyisabar has proven his theory, time and time again, by not just talking the talk... but by walking the walk.
Hmm, didn't know that one. (That book, that is.) Our sorcerer supreme, as far as I've always known, was a guy named Harry.But our wizard is a guy named Vern...
There is no requirement for OR to "catch up/keep up" by maintaining full feature parity with Rocksim. There are plenty of features Rocksim has that OR lacks, some more important than others; it has been that way for a long time and may well be that way forever. Despite that feature gap, OR is widely used and in no danger of being abandoned by most users.Yes. I should have written "must add if they wish to catch up/keep up." Which is the same thing as "should add".
File a PR!That's another point in favor of RS, and therefore another feature that OR must add.
Issue 1265.File a PR!
If booze and campfires and dope and weird music make your oddrocs fly straight, more power to them.
It seems I touched a nerve. My apologies. When I wrote "if they wish to catch up/keep up", the "if" is key. Of course there's not a requirement. The "if" is what turns "must", which I was incorrect in writing earlier, into "should". And I certainly never wrote, or meant, anything about users abandoning the product.There is no requirement for OR to "catch up/keep up" by maintaining full feature parity with Rocksim. There are plenty of features Rocksim has that OR lacks, some more important than others; it has been that way for a long time and may well be that way forever. Despite that feature gap, OR is widely used and in no danger of being abandoned by most users.
I'm merely saying that there is no directive to "catch up/keep up". Each potential feature is evaluated on its own.It seems I touched a nerve. My apologies. When I wrote "if they wish to catch up/keep up", the "if" is key. Of course there's not a requirement. The "if" is what turns "must", which I was incorrect in writing earlier, into "should". And I certainly never wrote, or meant, anything about users abandoning the product.
To each his own. once you decide that maximum altitude and speed are not your primary goal, symmetry is over-rated.Asymmetry SUCKS! That is why you safely fly 3-4FNC!
My inner RSO is quelled.
To each his own. once you decide that maximum altitude and speed are not your primary goal, symmetry is over-rated.
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/squirrel.69006/
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threa...ink-c-141-kevlar-failure.124493/#post-2071369
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/misfit-epsilon.124492/
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/double-mach-diamond.149662/
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/outside-the-box.56427/
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/success-mirv5-sustainer-stable-and-actually-decorated.155169/
Who knows the Odd Roc scum? Only the Shadow knows...This is an exhibition, not a competition... but if it were a competition... I declare you the winner!
Thanks for posting the links.... awesome birds, every one. I never knew that you too are Odd Roc Scum?
and proud of it!I never knew that you too are Odd Roc Scum?
never a competition, just an opportunity to share ideas and techniques and experiences, and hopefully spur each other on to safe, fun, new, and successful creations!This is an exhibition, not a competition... but if it were a competition... I declare you the winner!
Geez, man, get a room!you yourself have certainly raised the BAR (sorry, couldn’t resist) in a lot of areas, the most obvious is your incredibly detailed designs, but also in creativity, imagination, and craftsmanship. It’s fun just being on the same forum with you!
never a competition, just an opportunity to share ideas and techniques and experiences, and hopefully spur each other on to safe, fun, new, and successful creations!
you yourself have certainly raised the BAR (sorry, couldn’t resist) in a lot of areas, the most obvious is your incredibly detailed designs, but also in creativity, imagination, and craftsmanship. It’s fun just being on the same forum with you!
You’re invited too, lol.Geez, man, get a room!
Have you made an extensive study of the coin weight needed to bring the streamer down nearest the rocket? I mean, the bigger the body tube the longer the streamer. So you'd need to determine the rockets descent rate based on its weight and parachute, then weight the streamer to match it. I realize that nickels are expensive, but that just might be worth it in extreme cases.
OK, seriously, why drop it independently? Why not attach it to the shock cord on top of the parachute?
I'll take that to mean "A penny and..." but FYI a penny weighs 2.5 grams. Prior to September, 1882 they weighted 3.11 grams, but most of those have enough wear by now to weigh closer to 3 even.A 4.67 gram penny and a 12 foot streamer = slooooow decent.
Enter your email address to join: