For someone who called up ITAR regs in another post, you seem awfully helpful to a guy who'se made this is their 1st post.. (no one seems to know this guy, nor know where they're from..)You need to find the exact drag coefficient for the exact fin at Mach five. Which is harder than making a rocket go Mach five. Then you compute forces with fluid mechanics. Then this gets into University of Queensland classes on hypersonic flow because you’ve theoretically superpassed my “trivial” mechanical engingeering advanced fluids supersonic flow knowledge. Then you need masters in mechanical or aeronautical engineering to understand CFD. Go find a hypersonic flow expert. I’ve met one Dr. Sreenivas at UTC for computational fluids work he does to Mach 25, he has twenty years experience.
If you are asking these questions you will struggle to hit Mach 5. If just curious. The theory is hard. The practical aspect is even harder. Very few people know hypersonic flow patterns well. I can make a hypersonic airfoil shape. I can’t find a drag coefficient at Mach 5, not smart enough. You start talking of national resources to just wind tunnel something once hypersonic. Private companies have to enter a test matrix with the United States Air Force with a facility like Tullahoma for example which has hypersonic wind tunnels. You’ve exceeded UTSI Mach 4 wind tunnel at this point for real world data.
Forget moveable canards. It’s hard enough with a solid fixed fin. Moving that canard takes a solid background in linkage design. Thermodynamically you’ll want a metal with a higher melt temp than the air temp at Mach 5.
You sir are a steely eyed Speed Racer fanatic..You know, the pigeon-shaped robot that came out of the back of the Mach 5 when he pushed button G, and could deliver a message back to Pops at home. They didn't have GPS in 1967, and that thing seemed to have an inexhaustible power supply.
Was Pops Racer somehow attached to the forerunner of gps? Affectionately called the pops positioning system one pps.You know, the pigeon-shaped robot that came out of the back of the Mach 5 when he pushed button G, and could deliver a message back to Pops at home. They didn't have GPS in 1967, and that thing seemed to have an inexhaustible power supply.
Thinking 3 stage rocket, still have to get certified for this level, what do you think about clipped delta fins- carbon fiber/ styreneFor that matter, the canards will only be effective in dense air, I suspect that by the time you hit Mach 5, your project will be in pretty thin air. If you are thinking about a 2 stage rocket, you may want to consider having the canards on the booster or interstage coupler. I suspect that is Jim Jarvis' logic. Check out his thread here.
Look for Jim Jarvis’ other thread on here titled “So maybe I’ll try a three stager.” He has been working in this stuff for years. I assume you are at a University, which means you likely have a bigger budget than most of us, but what you are proposing to do has a very steep learning curve.Thinking 3 stage rocket, still have to get certified for this level, what do you think about clipped delta fins- carbon fiber/ styrene
Onboard guidance that is NOT useable for targeting *IS* allowed for our hobby models (indeed part of the "upper end of the hobby"). Usually used for making models fly vertically or near-vertically.Although I am sure there a few people on this forum that could answer your question, this forum is for upper end hobby participation only, and not guided missle applications..
Nope, LOTS of hypersonic vehicles use aerodynamic control surfaces for guidance. INCLUDING the X-15, which had no vectored thrust and whose RCS thrusters were useless in the atmosphere. The X-15 used elevators for pitch (which also rotated differentially for roll control), and the top half of the upper vertical tail moved for rudder control. The Sprint ABM flew over Mach-10, and used small aerodynamic control fins.Assuming that this is a legit question...I’d start with reading the Wikipedia article on the X-15, a hypersonic vehicle. Things that go hypersonic don’t use fins for guidance...
D12 did not exist until 1971. Replacing the Cato-prone D13 that came out in 1970. ENERJET composite engines (sold by Centuri) came out about 1971 and were capable of making a model rocket fly Mach-1 if designed/built properly (claiming it and proving it were totally different things).Back in the 60's, when D12's ruled, the same could have been said about a Mach 1 model rocket.
That’s why I solved it with math in a theory. It’s a very rough theory. The NASA method is slightly more accurate but a pain in the arse. They would have compressible gas dynamics textbook spacecraft capsule problems heating up at Mach 23 on re-enter phase. Without knowing OP’s fin or nosecone angles is impossible to include oblique shock effects.At this velocity the heat is a very real issue. I think you are likely looking at metal fins.
Carbon carbon. Some really advanced alloy maybe. Do they make ceramics that are strong enough to take the forces involved?That’s why I solved it with math in a theory. It’s a very rough theory. The NASA method is slightly more accurate but a pain in the arse. They would have compressible gas dynamics textbook spacecraft capsule problems heating up at Mach 23 on re-enter phase. Without knowing OP’s fin or nosecone angles is impossible to include oblique shock effects.
His styrene material selection is poor for a 2,758.73 degree Fahrenheit environment as it boils at 293 degrees Fahrenheit.