Quantcast

Nike Smoke details needed

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

sodmeister

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
6,932
Reaction score
9
I`m building a 4" Polecat Nike Smoke ,but can`t seem to find much in the way of details ie: pics of the launch shoes /lugs , the 3 ? oval shaped cover plates near the nosecone base and any other things on the body (hatches etc.)
I want to do some detail work on the kit (I`m a detail nut) but can`t find decent photos or drawings.

Thankyou for any help


Paul
 

sodmeister

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
6,932
Reaction score
9
Oh Brian , many many thanks....those do indeed help.The nose cone covers are perfect and so are the launch shoes.

I have Rockets of the World ,but it was not much help.

Thanks

Sincerely

Paul
 

MarkII

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
8,212
Reaction score
9
I have been looking for a good resource, too. The photos at Buzz's Web Gallery are a gold mine! :) I had practically all of the relevant dimensions, but it was the "look" of things that I really needed.

Mark K.
 
Last edited:

sodmeister

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
6,932
Reaction score
9
I have been looking for a good resource, too. The photos at Buzz's Web Gallery are a gold mine! :) I had practically all of the relevant dimensions, but it was the "look" of things that I really needed.

Mark K.
I know what you mean Mark ,the rocket just seems "naked" without those details ,and let`s face it ,the Nike Smoke is a plain Jane looking craft if it were not for the conical nosecone.This thing just screams "DETAIL ME"

That`s what i like about TLP kits ,they are a detailers dream.

Paul
 

powderburner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
7,356
Reaction score
4
This is a copy of G. Harry Stine's Nike Smoke drawing, has lots of scale info.

nikesmoke.pdf

.
Has anyone else noticed that some of the dimensions don't seem to work out right? Unless I did my math incorrectly, the NC angle is not an exact 10 degrees (as dimensioned on the drawing), and the truncated forward tip of the conic is not 2.0 inches (as dimensioned), for a couple examples.

Surely I am not the only one who has ground through these detailed dimensions? Did I do it wrong?
 

MarkII

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
8,212
Reaction score
9
Has anyone else noticed that some of the dimensions don't seem to work out right? Unless I did my math incorrectly, the NC angle is not an exact 10 degrees (as dimensioned on the drawing), and the truncated forward tip of the conic is not 2.0 inches (as dimensioned), for a couple examples.

Surely I am not the only one who has ground through these detailed dimensions? Did I do it wrong?
I'm not so sure that the drawing is correctly to scale - I suspect the the aspect ratio might have been tweaked to fit the graphic onto the page that accompanied GHS's Astroscale article in MR. IOW, it might have been compressed longitudinally. I made a scale drawing of the nose cone a couple of years ago using the dimensions that were called out in the Astroscale drawing for reference, and also calculated the missing dims. It seemed to all work out as I recall, but the nose cone in my drawing looked like it was longer and thinner than the Astroscale drawing's nose cone.

Mark K.
 
Last edited:

powderburner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
7,356
Reaction score
4
What I meant was, using the provided dimensions, the Nike-Smoke drawing appears to have some self-contradictory data.

I don't ever like to use "drawings" or graphical data, precisely because of the distortions that can be introduced by lenses, photo prints, Xerox copies, and the like. Add to that the almost certain errors caused by selecting and laying out a centerline, a contour line, and placing and reading a protractor, and you can start getting really sloppy.

The theoretical conic (to the projected tip) does not appear to be 10.0 degrees. Maybe it is unfair to read "10 degrees" (per the drawing) as 10.0, but I would hope that if the actual angle is 10.4 (for example) that they would have used a correspondingly accurate dimension on the drawing and that they would not have rounded off the number.

I will dig out my notes in the next day or two and try to re-construct the specifics of my suspected errors.
 

rocketguy101

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,430
Reaction score
47
Has anyone else noticed that some of the dimensions don't seem to work out right? Unless I did my math incorrectly, the NC angle is not an exact 10 degrees (as dimensioned on the drawing), and the truncated forward tip of the conic is not 2.0 inches (as dimensioned), for a couple examples.

Surely I am not the only one who has ground through these detailed dimensions? Did I do it wrong?
I had a recent thread on this very thing regarding the fin dimensions
http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?t=8174
 

InFlight

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
457
Reaction score
0
What I meant was, using the provided dimensions, the Nike-Smoke drawing appears to have some self-contradictory data.

I don't ever like to use "drawings" or graphical data, precisely because of the distortions that can be introduced by lenses, photo prints, Xerox copies, and the like. Add to that the almost certain errors caused by selecting and laying out a centerline, a contour line, and placing and reading a protractor, and you can start getting really sloppy.

The theoretical conic (to the projected tip) does not appear to be 10.0 degrees. Maybe it is unfair to read "10 degrees" (per the drawing) as 10.0, but I would hope that if the actual angle is 10.4 (for example) that they would have used a correspondingly accurate dimension on the drawing and that they would not have rounded off the number.

I will dig out my notes in the next day or two and try to re-construct the specifics of my suspected errors.
Your math may be correct, I never actually checked the dimensions around the nose cone on the GHS drawing. I actually used Peter Alway's Nike Smoke drawings to develop my kit.

pics of the launch shoes /lugs , the 3 ? oval shaped cover plates near the nosecone base and any other things on the body (hatches etc.)
I provided the PDF for the cover plates and other detailing. That is what he asked for. Sometimes you have to use more than one source to get what you need.

When in doubt, use Peter's drawings.
:cheers:

.
 

rocketguy101

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,430
Reaction score
47
What I meant was, using the provided dimensions, the Nike-Smoke drawing appears to have some self-contradictory data.

I don't ever like to use "drawings" or graphical data, precisely because of the distortions that can be introduced by lenses, photo prints, Xerox copies, and the like. Add to that the almost certain errors caused by selecting and laying out a centerline, a contour line, and placing and reading a protractor, and you can start getting really sloppy.

The theoretical conic (to the projected tip) does not appear to be 10.0 degrees. Maybe it is unfair to read "10 degrees" (per the drawing) as 10.0, but I would hope that if the actual angle is 10.4 (for example) that they would have used a correspondingly accurate dimension on the drawing and that they would not have rounded off the number.

I will dig out my notes in the next day or two and try to re-construct the specifics of my suspected errors.
I just drew this thing w/ SolidWorks and come up w/ 10.03 degrees using the dims from ROTW. Using Stine's original MRm drawing, I get 10.08 degrees. That is pretty doggone close to 10 degrees. Stine shows the dia at STA 99.75 is 17.60, while Peter shows 17.50, the lengths agree.

I do see a little discrepency on the nose tip detail. Stine states the tip nozzle is 1" STD pipe. The OD of commercial 1" pipe is 1.315". According to SolidWorks the remaining diameter of the cone is 1.5", not 2". I have attached a dwg showing my work. Note I am only showing the conic part, and dimensioned to the theoretical sharp point at STA 0.0.

HTH

View attachment Nike Smoke Nose.PDF
 

TheAviator

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
830
Reaction score
16
I just drew this thing w/ SolidWorks and come up w/ 10.03 degrees using the dims from ROTW. Using Stine's original MRm drawing, I get 10.08 degrees. That is pretty doggone close to 10 degrees. Stine shows the dia at STA 99.75 is 17.60, while Peter shows 17.50, the lengths agree.

I do see a little discrepency on the nose tip detail. Stine states the tip nozzle is 1" STD pipe. The OD of commercial 1" pipe is 1.315". According to SolidWorks the remaining diameter of the cone is 1.5", not 2". I have attached a dwg showing my work. Note I am only showing the conic part, and dimensioned to the theoretical sharp point at STA 0.0.

HTH
What's the discrepancy with the nose tip? From what I understand there was a little bit of a difference between the OD of the nose tip and the OD of the pipe. That's how it's shown on all of the drawings/pictures I've seen.
 

rocketguy101

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,430
Reaction score
47
What's the discrepancy with the nose tip? From what I understand there was a little bit of a difference between the OD of the nose tip and the OD of the pipe. That's how it's shown on all of the drawings/pictures I've seen.
If you force the diameter of the nose to 2.00 at STA 8.50, and maintain the 17.60 dia at STA 99.75, the cone angle becomes 9.55 deg. The theoretical sharp pt is then at 105.3 from STA 99.75.

AltNikeCone_2inTip.jpg
 

stickershock23

Never Fly Naked
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,877
Reaction score
236
So what is the proper lettering for the Nike Smoke ?

Paul
it is hard to say 100% but the ones on my website are replicas of one of the few pictures I have found of the lettering of a true nike smoke up close.

If anyone has any better pictures I would love to see them and to update what I offer. like had been stated here Nike smoke details are pretty tough to find.
 

GregGleason

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
4,634
Reaction score
3
I just drew this thing w/ SolidWorks and come up w/ 10.03 degrees using the dims from ROTW. Using Stine's original MRm drawing, I get 10.08 degrees. That is pretty doggone close to 10 degrees. Stine shows the dia at STA 99.75 is 17.60, while Peter shows 17.50, the lengths agree.

I do see a little discrepency on the nose tip detail. Stine states the tip nozzle is 1" STD pipe. The OD of commercial 1" pipe is 1.315". According to SolidWorks the remaining diameter of the cone is 1.5", not 2". I have attached a dwg showing my work. Note I am only showing the conic part, and dimensioned to the theoretical sharp point at STA 0.0.

HTH
I concur with the conclusion of the conical dimensions. It is more likely from an engineering/construction standpoint that the orthographic linear dimensions would be the accurate ones, rather than the angular ones. So, from a practical standpoint it is a 10 degree nose cone.

I also found a discrepancy in the Stine drawing. If you look at the top drawing (whole rocket), the nose cone dimension (101.830") and TiCl4 tank division (25.0") have their shared extension line references the aft end of the NS's major diameter band. In the NOSE BASE DETAIL, the reference is to the fore of the NS's major diameter band. They both can't be correct.

Greg
 

rocketguy101

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,430
Reaction score
47
I concur with the conclusion of the conical dimensions. It is more likely from an engineering/construction standpoint that the orthographic linear dimensions would be the accurate ones, rather than the angular ones. So, from a practical standpoint it is a 10 degree nose cone.

I also found a discrepancy in the Stine drawing. If you look at the top drawing (whole rocket), the nose cone dimension (101.830") and TiCl4 tank division (25.0") have their shared extension line references the aft end of the NS's major diameter band. In the NOSE BASE DETAIL, the reference is to the fore of the NS's major diameter band. They both can't be correct.

Greg
This thing is a mystery for sure. I found a dwg of the M5 Nike motor on the yahoo scaleroc site (it is also available here -- thanks Josh!) and even more things get puzzling. I guess alot of it is due to roundoff, but it would sure be nice to be able to get some factory drawings to scale myself. I checked the NASM -- their NS drawing by G. Harry is an 11x17 version of the drawing already posted (and in Oct 69 MRm).
 

powderburner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
7,356
Reaction score
4
Using Stine's original MRm drawing, I get 10.08 degrees.

According to SolidWorks the remaining diameter of the cone is 1.5", not 2".
Those are the numbers I got too.

If this drawing was merely an illustration in something like a children's book, or an advertising brochure, I would not be concerned about the discrepencies. Heck, if this drawing (and the seemingly mis-labeled dimensions) was in a management summary volume, it wouldn't surprise me. I could understand 10.1 degrees rounded off to 10. I would not try to read 10.0 degrees out of a labeled dimension that says only "10"

But this is an engineering-style drawing created specifically to document scale geometry. Comparing to the number of significant digits in other dimensions, if the nose conic angle is given as 10 degrees, it may not be correct to stretch this to 10.0 (which has a different mathematical meaning) but it sure is tempting to make that assumption. And an angle of 10.1 (or 10.08) degrees is not the same as 10 degrees.

The 2 inch nose diameter is a pretty clear example of a screw-up. As rocketguy101 already pointed out, this sure does appear to need to be changed to 1.5 inches (1.4995?), or else a whole bunch of the rest of the geometry is screwed up.

I really hate finding these sorts of things in "official" data because it makes me suspect whether ANY of the rest of the dimensions are correct. I have found other self-contradictory scale data on other rockets and even on the X-15....this does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

Can anyone authoritatively resolve these Nike-Smoke numbers?
 

MarkII

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
8,212
Reaction score
9
I also found a discrepancy in the Stine drawing. If you look at the top drawing (whole rocket), the nose cone dimension (101.830") and TiCl4 tank division (25.0") have their shared extension line references the aft end of the NS's major diameter band. In the NOSE BASE DETAIL, the reference is to the fore of the NS's major diameter band. They both can't be correct.

Greg
It looks like the dimension line may have been moved over in the top drawing so that it wouldn't overlap the arrows that indicate the diameter. I interpreted the top drawing to be more schematic and the detail drawing to be more precise. If the MRm drawing is a reduction of an 11" x 17" original, then one can assume that some detail has been lost, and that certain features of the graphic may have been redrawn to make them stand out after the reduction. I'm not sure that the magazine was printed with a high enough resolution to show every line in such a drawing; after reducing the drawing to page size, it is possible or even probable that many lines became too fine to print well. Therefore some lines may have needed to be redrawn post-reduction so that they would show up clearly in the printing. In the example you mention, it seems unlikely to me that the placement of the aft dimension mark for the cone's OA length and the dimension marks for its diameter in the top drawing would have been so close as to nearly overlap in the original. Picture what the top drawing in the original would look like if the aft dimension mark was in the same place as it is shown in the detail drawing. Can you see how, following the reduction of the drawing to page size, there would have been a confusing "collision" of lines there, especially at the magazine page's resolution? Also imagine what normal 11x17 blueprint lines would look like following a reduction to 8.5x11. Many would either disappear or be extremely fine and difficult to print at the resolution of the magazine. It is easy to imagine that to make them clearer on the page, they would have needed to be redrawn, and lines that appeared too close together in the reduction may have needed to be moved further apart to add clarity. It would be nice to be able to check the original in order to see how well the graphic shown in the magazine matched the original drawing that it was based on. Such a comparison might help to resolve some of the puzzling discrepancies and contradictions that have been found in the magazine's graphic.

Mark K.
 
Top