Quantcast

Open Rocket motor tube question

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

qquake2k

Captain Low-N-Slow
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
13,573
Reaction score
35
Can someone tell me why the motor tube is hanging out so far? I have it set as a motor tube, and the motor overhang set at zero. Also, the sims seem off. It should sim a lot higher.

View attachment Viking XL.ork
 

Rex R

LV2
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
144
found it, for some reason your bt is also set as a motor mount with a motor overhang of 2"...so uncheck the main body tube is a motor mount and you'll be good to go(you should redo your motor configurations and make sure the body tube is not selected). as for altitude simulations I did look into that, yet.
Rex
 

K'Tesh

OpenRocket Chuck Norris
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
14,840
Reaction score
1,257
Rex beat me to it... However, I see the motor overhang on the inner tube as .375". You might want to adjust that too.
 

Rex R

LV2
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
144
so I tried a few tricks and got the projected altitude up to 1434'. keep in mind that this is a heavy bird, number 1 problem is you have 5 airbrakes pretending to be fins...:). 1st trick was to make the fins 10% smaller, 2nd was to reduce thickness to 0.125", this netted me 1044'(up from 834'), then rounded the edges this pushed the alt. to over 1400' (on a G64-5). for reference I include my edited version file, have fun
Rex

View attachment QViking XL_edit.ork
 

qquake2k

Captain Low-N-Slow
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
13,573
Reaction score
35
found it, for some reason your bt is also set as a motor mount with a motor overhang of 2"...so uncheck the main body tube is a motor mount and you'll be good to go(you should redo your motor configurations and make sure the body tube is not selected). as for altitude simulations I did look into that, yet.
Rex
Thanks Rex, I missed that. I downloaded the RockSim file from Rocketryreviews, and upscaled it in Open Rocket. Whoever made the file must have done it.
 

Peter Olivola

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
667
Reaction score
3
There are very few, if any, .rkt files that don't need to be massaged in OR. It's a good idea to start with a default assumption that nothing is correct, check everything, and smile when you only have to make a handful of changes.

Thanks Rex, I missed that. I downloaded the RockSim file from Rocketryreviews, and upscaled it in Open Rocket. Whoever made the file must have done it.
 

K'Tesh

OpenRocket Chuck Norris
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
14,840
Reaction score
1,257
Thanks Rex, I missed that. I downloaded the RockSim file from Rocketryreviews, and upscaled it in Open Rocket. Whoever made the file must have done it.
I'd strongly suggest that if it came from RocketryReviews that you find an image of the original fins with a ruler (or get someone who has one to do it for you) and upscale from there. RRs .rkt files are really prone to having "close enough" fin templates that when used directly end up looking odd (because they weren't really close enough).
 

Rex R

LV2
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
144
well since the Viking in its' original form is a minimum diameter bird, having the body tube as the motor mount is correct, though I am not sure about the 1/2" overhang :). one of the 'gotchas' of upscaling rockets.
Rex
 

qquake2k

Captain Low-N-Slow
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
13,573
Reaction score
35
I'd strongly suggest that if it came from RocketryReviews that you find an image of the original fins with a ruler (or get someone who has one to do it for you) and upscale from there. RRs .rkt files are really prone to having "close enough" fin templates that when used directly end up looking odd (because they weren't really close enough).
I always rework the file, since it will be an upscale. First time I've seen this, though.
 

K'Tesh

OpenRocket Chuck Norris
TRF Supporter
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
14,840
Reaction score
1,257
I always rework the file, since it will be an upscale. First time I've seen this, though.
Sometimes manufacturers post there, and rework the fins to see who's been cloning them. Then there was the whole Vigilante "fins are just wrong" situation.

Here's what I found over on RR and what I was able to work out the actual fins were using a scan from JimZ's site:




While they're both 2.75" at the root, and 2" in span, I took one look at the image on RR, and knew it wasn't right. And, I hadn't ever seen one except in catalog photographs up until that point. They totally don't look the same, and at least one person built a clone based on the RR's file. This was the beginning of me working on completely accurate sims.
 

Rex R

LV2
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
144
I measured the fin root of a still in the matrix fin and had a difference of approx. 0.01" (which is likely an error on my part), the thickness on the other hand I got 0.04", as was mentioned earlier the motor over hang is off by 0.25". I can't say whether the nose is right since I have misplaced that part.
Rex
 
Top