Looking for Aerobee 75 info.

[meega]

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this, but I'm not finding a lot of info on a Aerobee 75

(Aerobee Hawk) which I'd like to build a 1/10 scale(semi/sport) model of. It looked easy, but I'm

finding some of the data conflicts with the only photo I've seen of it.

I used the Photo to extrapolate the basic proportions then enlarged a printout to the scale

diameter. The problem is that I came up with a length far short of what it should be, and extending

the airframe to match the dimensions makes it look more like an Aerobee 300. The data I had

originally for the Aerobee 75 was 6m X 0.35m(235" X 13.78"), making the full scale fall about 2m

short of the 6m.

I did some further searching and found reference to an Aerobee 75-1 with dimensions of 4m X 0.35m

(157" X 13.78").....a much closer match from my drawing/photo proportions. The question now is

what's the difference between the Aerobee 75 and the Aerobee 75-1 that would account for a 6ft

difference in length? Booster??? I was under the impression the 75 was unboosted, but Encyclopedia

Astronautica does say "total" height: 6.00 meters. Nose cone...standard vs. Sparrow-style???


To my knowledge there was one failed launch at White Sands, and three successful launches from Guam

sometime later. The photo appears to have been taken at the White Sands facility - I've seen the

Aerobee launch tower & other ground structures in the background from other photos, as well as the

mobile launcher it's sitting on. In addition it seems to resemble the description of an Aerobee 90

"Sparrow/Hawk". Not completely visible in this cropped photo is a man by the black fin, and if he's

about 6' tall the rocket could 6m, but then the diameter is way off.

Am I approaching this all wrong, or missing something obvious?? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

-Paul

 

[Oldschool77]

I have no info to offer. However I opened your image, placed a piece of paper on my screen and made some tic marks of the photo. I then slid the paper down to the drawing and found that the ''Sustainer'' dia. of the photo was smaller. The ''Payload'' section was dead on. This is by no means ''scientific/accurate'' but may explain the discrepancy of your proportions. Just for kicks, re-check your drawing.

 

[meega]

Thanks for the reply. When I made the drawing I only had the photo and two basic dimensions to go on. Since part of the sustainer is hidden by the launch rail, I drew a centerline from the nose to the tail and used the top half to get an equal bottom half. The process is subject to flaws, and there is some foreshortening in the photo that can throw things off some. The problem is the given Aerobee 75 dimensions of 6m X 0.35m(235" X 13.78") do not produce an image that looks like the photo/drawing, the Aerobee 75-1 dimensions of 4m X 0.35m(157" X 13.78") does produce an image that looks like the photo/drawing, but there's no information on what accounts for this discrepancy, exactly which rocket this photo is really of 75, 75-1, 90. I guess I could just use the proportions I came up with and call it an Aerobee 75 and non would be the wiser since there seems to be only one photo associated with it. Has anyone had this problem before?

-Paul

 

[PeterAlway]

I've been returning to the Aerobee 75/Aerobee Hawk from time to time, and while I've got a little more information, I haven't had much luck synthesizing it into something that makes sense. I do have some pictures of partially assembled ones at Guam (not nice scaleable side views like what you have here), which seem to have that same configuration of the adapter and narrow payload section. Honestly I haven't even sorted out if the the "Hawk" name means that it's based on the Hawk missile motor, 14" in diameter, or if it's a solid version of the Aerobee, and thus 15" in diameter. I think that the metric diameter you quoted was converted from an english-unit source giving a 14" diameter. I'd be tempted to do a little photo interpretation based on the assumption that those are aerobee-Hi fins on the rocket. I can tell you that those are DOVAP antennas strapped to the side of the motor, and that they would be repeated symmetrically on the opposite side of the motor. I also suspect that the payload, rather than being an 8" Spaerobee, is a standard 6.5" nike-cajun payload. Again, these are just suspicions.

When I get home tonight, I can look at what I have--I know it's not enough to make me happy about an accurately dimensioned "Rockets of the World" type drawing, but I might have some clues to help you attain some sort of accuracy.

 

[PeterAlway]

OK, I was googling around, and I stumbled into a post I made 15 years ago, dated 6/9/97, on sci.space.history

Notice that I was a bit confused over whether this was a hawk missile motor or not. In fact, I started the post believing it had a booster, and I ended it believing it didn't. It's been so long that I don't know what to think of my opinions!


Post of June 9, 1997:

I returned to the IGY source and looked it over more closely, and I
realized I missed something important--this was a 2-stage rocket (a
booster does not appear in the ground photos I had seen.) and I had just
looked at booster duration.
Here are more excerpts from the IGY source:

Rocket Number: SS12.50F
Rocket type: Aerobee 75 (Hawk)
Place of firing: Guam
Date of firing: 3 November 1958
.....
Brief of Flight Objectives: To obtain temperature and wind measurements in
the equatorial upper atmosphere by means of the rocket-grenade
experiment...(the time it took for sound to reach ground stations
determined temperature)...
....
Rocket weight: 1028 lb gross
....
Payload: 97 lb

Performance
Booster 2nd stage
Burnout time (sec) 5.5 32
Burnout altitude(ft) 4400 63,000
Burnout velocity (ft/sec) 2130 2900
.....
Peak altitude (miles) 34
.....
Summary of firing

This was first Aerobee 75 since vehicle failure at white Sands in May
1958. Predicted altitude for 100 lb of 55 miles is unrealistic in light
of Aerojet-General re-evaluation following SS12.51 fired 7 Nov 1958.
Their original data on propellant separation and specific impulse
considered in error. Attained altitude of 35 miles is the best to be
expected.
....
(end of excerpts)

It might be useful to compare the Aerobee 75 to the Orion, which is in
fact a HAWK missile motor used as a sounding rocket.

Aerobee 75 Booster burnout: 5.5 sec
Orion Boost phase of dual-thrust ends: 5.2 sec

Aerobee 75 sustainer burnout: 32 sec
Orion sustainer phase burnout: 32.55 sec

Aerobee 75 launch weight, w/97 lb payload: 1028 lb
Orion launch weight, w/207 lb payload: 1128 lbs

Aerobee 75 Burnout weight: Unknown
Orion Burnout weight: 516 lbs

Aerobee 75 peak altitude: 35 miles
Orion peak altitude: 43 miles

I have a photocopy of a photograph of an Aerobee 75 on a rail launcher, in
the upright position, presumably ready to fly. There is no booster. If
there was no booster, the two stage burn durations for the Aerobee 75 must
refer to phases of a single dual-thrust motor. This implies that the
Aerobee 75 really was an early Hawk motor. The discrepancy in performance
between the Aerobee 75 and Orion could be due to the fact that the Aerobee
75 flew a year before the HAWK missile became operational. Perhaps the
Aerobee 75 flew a HAWK motor that was not yet perfected.

Peter Alway

 

[meega]

Well, if the Guam configurations are the same, that shoots down the idea of different nose cones, and the altitudes achieved aren't indicative of boosted flights. As to conversion of dimensions from English units....I thought metric was metric?? Wouldn't the dimension have been released by Aerojet or a U.S. government agency anyway?

At first look I didn't think the fins were Aerobee fins....they looked sort of large & square, but the black fin has a notch at leading edge/root junction where the conduit would be. That's another issue I have, there's only the faintest evidence of any conduit running from that notch along the top of the airframe. Whether it's just an illusion or not, it looks almost like some sort of conduit or other bulge running from the top & bottom of the transition to the nose. Is anything like that evident on your photos?

I agree on the payload section. Semroc uses a BT40 on their Aerobee 300, but it didn't really look quite right on this....I'll probably use a BT20 or 19 instead.

 

[cosmodrome]

Mybe we can look at this from another approach. The launcher looks like a standard launcher, possibly used for Nikes. If we could get the diameter of the cut outs along the launch rail we would have a very nice ruler. Just my :2:

 

[meega]

Here's the "75" on the launcher, an a Nike Cajun on the same launcher.

 

[ppavlovi]

Gunter's Space Page
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/aerobee-75.htm

Aerobee-75 (Aerobee Hawk) was a small sounding rocket using a Hawk SAM rocket motor. It was developed by Aerojet for the Army Signal Engineering Laboratory. First flight took place in 1958. Theoretically it could lift 45 kg to 120 km.

This series is technically not related to the liquid-fueled Aerobee family. The Aerobee-75 used a dual-thrust rocket motor from the Hawk anti aircraft missile development with four fins taken from the Aerobee family.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Mybe we can look at this from another approach. The launcher looks like a standard launcher, possibly used for Nikes. If we could get the diameter of the cut outs along the launch rail we would have a very nice ruler. Just my :2:

If it is a NIKE Rail, the holes are 9" in diameter . . .

DATA SOURCE:

This data came to me directly from Don Larson, in 2004. Howard Kuhn gave all of his relevant data to Don Larson, several years prior. In September, 2004, I personally met with Don, who gave me ALL of his Nike-Tomahawk data, including original German blueprints for the Payload Section of NT 18.26IA. At the same time, he transferred ownership of the Kuhn data to me, personally. I am the current owner of all of the original data and source material . . . The data pack is more than 5 inches thick !

Dave F.