SRBell
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2011
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 7
On the other hand, I'm inclined to go with Loc's CP recommendation here. The V2 is a challenging form factor to accurately model with our limited simulation programs (small fins, boattail, fins ON boattail, etc...). Unless you have a CFD tool or other method of accurately determining the CP, I'd trust the guys that made it.
When it comes to CG, I 100% agree with banzai above. your design choices could significantly impact where the CG ends up for your as-built rocket.
Do you think LOC is running quality wind tunnel tests or CFD? I don't. Maybe they iteratively moved the CG in flight tests until the rocket went unstable? I doubt that, too. LOC is probably using the same consumer grade CP tools like the rest of us.
Do you have RockSim set to Barrowman or RockSim method? That may be the answer right there.
What is that fix? Working on a Nano Magg and having some doubts/issues with openrockets stability calculation. I have not been able to find any info about this.Double check your sim and make sure that you have the form factor as accurate as you can based on actual dimensional measurements of YOUR rocket....and trust that.
Same with the 'actual, all up ready to fly weight' minus motor casing.
Same with 'actual measured GC'.
All of these should be things that you check and override in the program, if necessary, for YOUR individual rocket.
What you measure and input will almost always be more accurate for YOUR physical object than anything else.
The only exception I can think of would be short/stubbys less than 10:1 Length: Diameter, but there's a simple fix to figuring a more accurate CP for that, too.
What is that fix? Working on a Nano Magg and having some doubts/issues with openrockets stability calculation. I have not been able to find any info about this.
Enter your email address to join: