Q-Modeling WAC CORPORAL Question?

[billeblurzz]

Has anyone built the Q-Modeling WAC COPORAL? I have just started mine and the dimensions for laying out the motor mount do not jive with the illustrations! I have glued the motor mount rings on the motor tube as per the illustrated dimensions. But this will result in about 3/4" of the motor tube sticking out past the end of the body tube! The illustrations show the motor tube FLUSH with the end of the body tube! I wonder which is right! It would certainly LOOK better FLUSH with the end of the body tube, but I guess I am already committed to the dimensioned drawing! Anybody know what gives???

 

[Fore Check]

Astronboy did a little write up on this rocket in the Kit Reviews back around Christmas:

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=5544&highlight=q+modeling+wac

His only mention in the thread of the motor mount is that he simply put it together.

You might try sending him a PM or email.

 

[lamart72]

If you look at the instructions very carefully, you will see that the 1 7/16 measurement is for the second ring from the bottom. If you have this ring as the last one, then you will have the tube extending out the back. Read #4 and 5 again and you will see this. Hope this helps.

Lamar

 

[astronboy]

Yes, I built this Lil puppy exactly as the instructions read. I am not real happy about the extending motor myself. Yes, it sur does hang out there.

Fred

 

[billeblurzz]

Thanks Lamart, I SEE it now! Yea, I messed up! I will have to put the WAC CORPORAL aside till I can get some NEW parts...motor tube, hex rings, hook, and motor block....about $4.50. Maybe I'll wait till the HAWKEYE comes out ....or have you seen....can we all hope for...a MEGA-ANDROMEDA??? I think I discovered WHY on my MEGA-VEGA the motor hook extends SO far past the body tube!!! I just believe the instructions are WRONG showing the hook measurments beginning from the FRONT of the motor tube....if they started from the rear, it would be closer to being right! I would suggest anyone building the MEGA-VEGA to look CLOSELY at this point! I may just CUT my VEGA hook off and go to FRICTION FIT. Looks better anyway! ANYWAY, I have ANOTHER question for you most helpful guys. In starting the MEGA NIKE-X, the q-modelers show cutting a 1/2" by 1/8" slot for the insertion of the motor hook so the hook can RETRACT when not in use so the model will stand up without a stand. A thrust block is used in standard fashion with the hook to keep motor in place under thrust. This seems like a good idea maybe never done before, but I just wonder if this slot will let a good bit of EJECTION GASSES out into the body tube with NO PLACE to go since the large CENTERING RINGS would seal the cavity around the motor tube! ANYBODY got any thoughts on this....ANYBODY UNDERSTAND what I am talking about???

 

[lamart72]

I have been talking to Tom Quinn at QModeling and I know that he would want to hear about any feedback that you may have whether it's good or bad. He is a great guy and wants to do whatever is necessary to improve thier kits. Send him an email and tell him I sent you. [email protected]

 

[Peter Alway]

actually downloaded the instructions for this kit (Chris Timm thought they were worth a look). WHat I find unny is that there seems to be a great deal of emphasis on sanding the beveled airfoil into the fins.

You see, the real Wac Corporal didn't have a flat plate fin with beveled edges. It had a biconvex airfoil that tapered to a thin plate at the tips. But Vern Estes (or his kit designer) interpreted the machining marks on a bare metal fin in a famous photo to be bevelled edges.

THe Q-modeling kit propogates the error. In other words, this kit is an accurate scale-up of the Estes kit, rather than an accurate scale-down of the Wac Corporal.

This sort of thing happens a lot, as kits copy other scale kits, each adding its own errors or compromises to the previous kits, until the only think a model has in common with the prototype is the name.

I'll take people's word for it that the Q Modeling Wac Corporal is an excellent sport model, but never assume a scale kit is accurate without checking against information on the real prototype. Even my kits have compromises and approximations. I don't know of any glaring errors, but I'm sure those are creeping in, too.

 

[qMaxx]

Peter, while we're on the subject of fin cross-sections, I have a question.

In your drawing of the Aeolus, looking at the end view of the booster fins, you have the root edge drawn as a diamond airfoil, and the tip having a straight airfoil. From the bottom elevation, it shows a straight taper from root to tip. The only way I can reconcile the tapers/bevels on the fins is that each side is made up of three triangular sections - an equilateral with a point at the center of the root edge, and the other 2 points at the upper and lower tip edge corners, and the other 2 tri's squaring off the rest of the fin.

Is this more or less correct, or am I misreading your drawings?

Maybe the entire fin from root to tip is a diamond?

 

[Peter Alway]

Originally posted by qMaxx
Maybe the entire fin from root to tip is a diamond?

OK, I looked at my drawing, thinking I must have had a nasty cold when I drew that because the only alcohol I drink is Nyquil! And my source drawings aren't much better. Except they do show a horizontal line running the span of the fin, indicating a break (crease) between two rectangular panels on each side of the fin. The best I can figure is that the fins have a progressively tapering diamond cross-section, meaning that the skin panels have to be warped.

 

[qMaxx]

Well...THAT'S going to be a bear to sand

 

[fehskens]

Peter Alway writes:

>THe Q-modeling kit propogates the error. In other words, this kit is an accurate scale-up of the Estes kit, rather than an accurate scale-down of the Wac Corporal.

Almost but not quite. The nose cone has the wrong aspect ratio. It's too "pointy". The nose cone in the original Estes kit is the BNC-20R, about 3.74:1 aspect ratio. The QModeling nose is more like 5:1. I don't have the scale data for the actual WAC Corporal handy, but IIRC it's somewhere between these two.

I take it the picture Peter is referring to is the one at:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4401/ch2.htm

or the color version at:

https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/rtv-g-1.html

In the B&W version, the effect Peter mentions is very obvious.

 

[billeblurzz]

Thanks for the interesting information! So I guess the fins on this ASP WAC CORPORAL are wrong too! The fins on the TINY TIM booster are correct....should be the same on the sustainer also! Since I am now working on the NIKE-X, does anybody know if the "X" means roman numeral "10" or just "X"! I have wondered about that! And is the Estes NIKE-X their version of the anti-missile missile SPARTAN??? I have also a picture taken of a missile from the HUNTSVILLE ROCKET PARK of a SPARTAN look-alike that they list as a NIKE-ZEUS!!! In a book I have written by Gen. Medaris from 1960 (and autographed by him) there are pictures of Medaris holding a "NIKE-ZEUS" and a launch photo of a "NIKE-ZEUS" that do not look like the "NIKE-ZEUS" in the HUNTSVILLE ROCKET PARK!!! The "NIKE-ZEUS" in the book looks like an updated NIKE-HERCULES with one LARGE tube for the booster instead of four. The sustainer also has extra wings on the long fins on the sustainer!!! The book is COUNTDOWN FOR DECISION. I could take pictures if anyone is interested.

 

[Steward]

Mr. Blurzz....

Now I'm completely confused...!!!

Which one is this?
I believe it's the one that you were talking about... at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville...

Either way...it will be my next large project...
Cool rocket...!!!

 

[qMaxx]

Actually, the Nike-X is a "missile" only in the minds of those people who designed the model rocket. It's what is referred to as a "scale-like" model, meaning it has some characteristics of a real rocket or missile, but never existed as a real missile or rocket.

I read something once that I think Peter wrote about the term "scale-like"...he said something like "this is a model of what a real rocket would look like if it was real."

Steward, your picture is of a Nike-Hercules.

Blurrzzz(sp?)...the pic you describe in that book is the Nike-Zeus...I'm guessing either the missile at the rocket park is mislabelled, or you are misremembering it.

 

[sandman]

Guys,

Go here.

https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-49.html

Scroll down and look at the Nike Zeus A

Now the Nike Zeus B!

Scroll down some more...that looks like what everybody has been calling the Nike-X

sandman

 

[billeblurzz]

Sandman, thanks for the link! I think I was straight on my inquires. Now is it NIKE-"X"....or NIKE-"10"??? Steward, here are my shots from the HUNTSVILLE ROCKET GARDEN. The left one is the NIKE-HERCULES....the right one is what I would have called SPARTAN, but is labeled NIKE-ZEUS!!

 

[billeblurzz]

This is the picture of the NIKE-ZEUS from the book COUNTDOWN FOR DECISION:

 

[sandman]

OK...the one on the right is the XLIM-49A

The "X" is for experimental or "Ex" not the roman numeral for 10. It is also called the Nike-Zeus "B" so both answers are correct.

It was actually an anti missle missle. It did work a few times and even intercepted a satelite.

sandman

 

[billeblurzz]

Picture of Gen. Medaris holding a NIKE-ZEUS and Von Braun standing in front of missiles...NIKE-AJAX,NIKE-HERCULES, and others!

 

[billeblurzz]

Finally, Here is the Q-Modeling Nike-X with just applied fins with 5min epoxy to be followed by smooth filliting with 30min epoxy. The small thrusters near the nose have not been applied yet. Also posing with Thrust-Aero little brother. Should be nice chunky-big rocket!!! Kinda wish it was a cluster!!!