Rocket Went Crazy...

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

uncle_vanya

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
0
I listened to a little voice in my head and allowed a J420R to be used in my Funnel Roc'. The rocket was/is a skirt fin design using an automotive funnel as the only fin. The design is a modification from a design I found on EMRR.

The rocket simulates as stable in a couple of different programs - it's over 5' long with the nose. I used a modified Big Daddy nose with a ton of weight and foam the nose weighed about 1.5 LBS! In any case, it seemed stable and had flown on a couple of different motors in the H range. That's when I got cocky...

I was not originally planning to try for L2 yesterday - but the wind appeared to have died down and the conditions just looked good. Our field is a bit tricky to recovery single deployment from higher than 2500' so I was pushing things - but the 5 lb rocket was very draggy and I figured it would be ok in that respect.

The rocket took off beautifully. There was no room for a rail button system due to the funnel but I had conformal lugs sized for a 1/2 rod. No rod whip was observed - the rocket seemed to be headed for a great flight. A beautiful bright red flame was shooting out of the rocket which was aesthetically pleasing given the white and red rocket. Seemed to be ok...

About 100 or so feet in the air the rocket turned 90 degrees - now it was a cruise missile. It was still under power - and still flying straight after that quick left hand turn. The rocket made a beeline for the treeline - which was of course the narrow dimension of our field.

People with better eyes that I have said that they saw it pop the 'chute just beyond the trees - in another field - so I might recover it. The impending thunderstorm made this into a race against the weather and time as it was also getting late in the day and the light was likely to fade quickly.

To make a long story a bit shorter - I found the rocket. I first spotted the 'chute (one of PlasticPaul's - sorry about that loss) hanging in a tree. The nose cone was attached but the rocket was nowhere in sight. The Tree was just short of the barley field I was walking in. The barley was 2' tall - the 3" rocket body would be lost if it were in the field without a 'chute.

I scouted at the edge of the woods and noticed that it was a swamp filled with brambles and mud. Joy. The boots were back at the car. I finally spotted the rocket near the base of the tree - it was "intact" as far as I could tell. Several attempts later I finally found a route that only tore my skin a little and left me with muddy - but not soaked - shoes. I recovered the rocket - it was bent. The paper mailing tube body had dented and warped severely. From the flight pattern and the behavior of the rocket it had to have happened post burn-out.

The rocket motor (38/720) was recovered - which was my main objective.

This next statement is WRONG - I mistakenly saw something that was not there - the loop was folded under and the stray string I saw was a bit of frayed end that I forgot to cut off. I then noticed that the 1500 lb test Kevlar (flat braid) that I use in the main body to anchor back to the motor mount was severed. No burn marks, no fraying - just a fairly clean cut. The loop was intact! I just inspected it again and I feel like a fool! I also noticed that phenolic extension to the rocket (the upper 18 inches of the rocket) was chipped with two round cuts like it had hit a branch. These chipped out semi-circles were sharp.

I'm still trying to think this through. There has to be a clue as to what happened in here somewhere. We had wind gusts from time to time but at the surface they had been in a different direction than this. The rocket was under thrust during the turn and did not go wiggly or out of control at all other than the 90 degree turn - what happened? The kevlar is exceptionally strong - how did it break? It didn't - see above

Ideas?

Oh - and as far as Stability. The programs I have estimate the CP to be down close to or within the Skirt (funnel). The CG was more than 12" forward of this - approximately 20" ahead of this. The 1.5 lb nose really makes a difference.
 
BTW - for those who want to know. I have cut off the bent section and plan to rebuild the rest of it. It was only damaged at that one section. The lost length is about 8 inches - which I can compensate for on the top end of the rocket.

I may end up fiberglassing this rocket during the repair. It was never painted - the tube was white and the funnel was red so it was easy to leave unpainted and still have it look "finished". The fiberglassing may not be needed for strength during flight - but rough recovery would be easier!
 
Kevlar will snap clean when there is an early deploy or full power deploy. Will look like you cut it with a knife or scissors. Been there done that ,that is why I only use kevlar for tails in the fin can and attach TN to it. At least the TN has some give to it. You also mention an impeding storm and close treeline. There may have been a wind shear at around 100 ft due to either of these conditions, that would cause your normally stable rocket to become an instant weather vane.
 
Originally posted by blackjack2564
Kevlar will snap clean when there is an early deploy or full power deploy. Will look like you cut it with a knife or scissors. Been there done that ,that is why I only use kevlar for tails in the fin can and attach TN to it. At least the TN has some give to it. You also mention an impeding storm and close treeline. There may have been a wind shear at around 100 ft due to either of these conditions, that would cause your normally stable rocket to become an instant weather vane.

The kevlar in this case was just a short (5') section that connected to an eyebolt in the motor mount centering ring. This connected to a long 15-20' section of Tubular Nylon. BTW this was not Tubular Kevlar but Strap Kevlar - which I am aware has less give than TK - consequently I used the TN with it.

If anything was likely to give I would have expected my open (non-welded) eyebolt to give up. I have cut out the damaged body tube and inspected that section and the eye-bolt is completely undamaged. Also there is no sign of any zippering - the rocket used nosecone separation only. The only damage on the phenolic looks suspiciously like a branch - which could have happened on the way into the tree, on the way down from the tree or some other way. The two circular cuts look about the size of a pencil.

Hopefully next week I can try to recover the 'chute and nosecone and maybe then I can inspect the remaining shock cord for more clues.

Your comments about wind sheer make sense - it was so calm it seemed OK but in retrospect the turbulent weather should have made me scrub this launch - the rocket while stable - is just too easy to weathercock. I'm so used to my tube fins that I forget about this sometimes. This rocket sim's with a stability of 2.5 or so and has a large amount of drag. It's easy to see how a stray gust may have kicked it over.
 
Yes, an over stable rocket is very susceptable to weather cocking and you were flying a redline. Might have had an early deploy. I had the same thing happen to me with a Competitor 4. There was a 6ft strap kevlar 1in 4000lbs tail glued in the motor mount, with 30ft of 1500lbs rated TN attached to a 1/4 bolt on the e-bay,flying on a J-315 redline, which deployed under full power right at burn out. The Kevlar snapped clean, whereas I would have expected the TN to go first, especially since it was tied with a bowline knot which theoretically weakens the break strength by 35%. Go figure I just chalked it up to one of those ''guess we will never know things" in rocketry. See the thread about all the early deploy's with redlines.
 
Originally posted by blackjack2564
Yes, an over stable rocket is very susceptable to weather cocking and you were flying a redline. Might have had an early deploy. I had the same thing happen to me with a Competitor 4. There was a 6ft strap kevlar 1in 4000lbs tail glued in the motor mount, with 30ft of 1500lbs rated TN attached to a 1/4 bolt on the e-bay,flying on a J-315 redline, which deployed under full power right at burn out. The Kevlar snapped clean, whereas I would have expected the TN to go first, especially since it was tied with a bowline knot which theoretically weakens the break strength by 35%. Go figure I just chalked it up to one of those ''guess we will never know things" in rocketry. See the thread about all the early deploy's with redlines.

This was a larks head loop within a loop - the separation happened between the kevlar loop and the rest of the kevlar...

The rocket went into the trees very soon after the deployment - I'm not sure if it was at all related to that. I'm not sure but I think the 'chute never inflated fully and the rocket was still moving fast when it hit the tops of the trees.
 
Originally posted by uncle_vanya
Oh - and as far as Stability. The programs I have estimate the CP to be down close to or within the Skirt (funnel). The CG was more than 12" forward of this - approximately 20" ahead of this. The 1.5 lb nose really makes a difference.

Did you account for base drag in this design? If you post or PM me a RockSim file I would be happy to take a look at the other stability issues with this design. If you did not take base drag into account the Cp will be way off. Also, base drag will in effect decrease the thrust out put of the motor; I would like to see the design and know what motor you flew it on.

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055
 
How do you do cones like that on ROCKSIM. I would like to try and upscale a rocket from Hot Rod Rockets Red Hot Chile Pepper set.
 
Originally posted by teflonrocketry1
Did you account for base drag in this design? If you post or PM me a RockSim file I would be happy to take a look at the other stability issues with this design. If you did not take base drag into account the Cp will be way off. Also, base drag will in effect decrease the thrust out put of the motor; I would like to see the design and know what motor you flew it on.

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055

Will do. At work now.
 
BTW - I edited my original post. I was WRONG about the busted kevlar. When I picked up the rocket the part sticking out was the end of the sewn loop - I was tired and cranky and did not really examine it. I didn't realize that the loop portion was tucked down inside and this was the end folded over.

So it appears that after deployment the rocket shock cords parted company. Maybe a knot failed - maybe a loop failed. The tubular nylon was 1800 lb test and the kevlar was 1500 lb test so I suspect the knot.

None of this has anything to do with the actual flight of the rocket - just the condition I found it in. I suspect it deployed and then snagged in the tree while still moving fast. The shock cord then separated and the rocket fell 40-50 feet to the ground. No cuts to explain, no broken cord as far as I can tell.
 
I have a rocket that is statistically stable. Meaning it shows stable in my software. In flight it was a different story. Just before burn out the rocket would spiral. Meaning loop around in circles.

This happened on two different flights.

The problem:
Seems that the only logical explination is that even though the software says its stable it was not. This is my "best guess". I added another set of fins just ahead of the existing fins and the problem went away. Now the rocket flies very well.

Possibly you are suffering from the same thing?
 
Originally posted by QuickBurst
I have a rocket that is statistically stable. Meaning it shows stable in my software. In flight it was a different story. Just before burn out the rocket would spiral. Meaning loop around in circles.

This happened on two different flights.

The problem:
Seems that the only logical explination is that even though the software says its stable it was not. This is my "best guess". I added another set of fins just ahead of the existing fins and the problem went away. Now the rocket flies very well.

Possibly you are suffering from the same thing?

Could you post the file or the dimensions or a picture of your rocket?

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055
 
Originally posted by teflonrocketry1
Did you account for base drag in this design? If you post or PM me a RockSim file I would be happy to take a look at the other stability issues with this design. If you did not take base drag into account the Cp will be way off. Also, base drag will in effect decrease the thrust out put of the motor; I would like to see the design and know what motor you flew it on.

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055

Ignore my comments on the locations of the CP and CG - apparently I was confused when I wrote that. I've used more than one program on this and I get confused sometimes about which is which. RockSIM's predictions are what I based my flight on.

File attached... be kind :eek:
 
Now I get how to do so much on rocksim thanks to this file. I like this program a lot now.

Great looking rocket. Flies well on my sims.
 
Originally posted by Lucky 94
Now I get how to do so much on rocksim thanks to this file. I like this program a lot now.

Great looking rocket. Flies well on my sims.

Until this J420 flight it has flown remarkably well. I added the massless cone that Bruce mentions in his article and I do see that using the 1.5lb nosecone may have been a mistake. That pushes the stability up to almost 4 body diameters and as we all know over-stable is not good in windy conditions.

Bottom line - until TeflonRocketry gets back to me I assume that rocket was stable and that it was over stable.

The design isn't completely original. I stole most of it from EMRR using the Black Dragon design as the basis. The biggest difference is that the original is based on 2.6 in LOC type tubing and mine is based on 3" cardboard mailing tubes. I documented the build and thought about posting it as a modified version of this rocket but have not done so yet.

Not clear from the RockSIM is the fact that there are two funnels. One inside the larger one acting as the brace. That funnel is glued to the first using Gorilla glue (actually an Elmer's version). The funnel is slightly shorter than the tail of the main tube and "lock" rings of cardboard were used to ensure retention of this support funnel. It's VERY strong. A bit of CA and wood glue held all of the rings onto the rocket. The only epoxy used is JB Weld in the motor mount.
 
Originally posted by teflonrocketry1
Could you post the file or the dimensions or a picture of your rocket?

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055

The rocket was designed using VCP. The forum software will not allow this file type attachment. Strange???? It allows .rkt files but does not allow .cp files. I suppose that if you do not use Rocsim you can't post designs.

Description:
3" Fiberglassed airframe.
54mm motor mount.
The motor mount has a 54mm Acme fin can attached. Then the airframe was slotted to accept the assembly. Kind of a quick and dirty scratch build.
Dual Deploy, tracker etc ....

Length (inc 12" nose cone) - 93"
Diameter - 3.00"


Fin Dimensions:
Diameter at fins - 3.00"
Reference Distance - 1.75" (distance between bottom of airframe and aft end of fins).
Root Chord - 4.75"
Tip Chord - 2.5"
Leading Edge Sweep - 1.0"
Span - 4.375"
Weight (less motor) 9.0 lbs.


VCP shows Center of pressure shows to be 16.485" above aft end. I have used VCP for every rocket I have built and have never had a problem.

The CG was field measured and shows about 1.5 caliber of stability. Just before motor burnout the rocket would cartwheel, end over end.


When I added the upper set of fins the CP moved aft about 2" and the cartwheeling stopped.
 
I'll put that through to the admins to see if we can get the .cp files allowed as attachments. Just to clarify, the extention is ".cp" and not ".vcp"?
 
Originally posted by uncle_vanya
Until this J420 flight it has flown remarkably well. I added the massless cone that Bruce mentions in his article and I do see that using the 1.5lb nosecone may have been a mistake. That pushes the stability up to almost 4 body diameters and as we all know over-stable is not good in windy conditions.

Bottom line - until TeflonRocketry gets back to me I assume that rocket was stable and that it was over stable.

The design isn't completely original. I stole most of it from EMRR using the Black Dragon design as the basis. The biggest difference is that the original is based on 2.6 in LOC type tubing and mine is based on 3" cardboard mailing tubes. I documented the build and thought about posting it as a modified version of this rocket but have not done so yet.

Not clear from the RockSIM is the fact that there are two funnels. One inside the larger one acting as the brace. That funnel is glued to the first using Gorilla glue (actually an Elmer's version). The funnel is slightly shorter than the tail of the main tube and "lock" rings of cardboard were used to ensure retention of this support funnel. It's VERY strong. A bit of CA and wood glue held all of the rings onto the rocket. The only epoxy used is JB Weld in the motor mount.

This looks like a case of fin flutter or bending. Since the funnels are flexible plastic, if one side started to bend inward at the bottom (which would push the opposite side of the funnel outwards) then the rocket would make a nice 90 degree turn. You probably should have used vertical ribs and/or a bottom centering ring to prevent this bending mode which seems to be common with conical shapes. My most memorable example of this is the Art Attack's rocket from the Junk Yard Wars TV show:

https://jyw.tacorp.net/usseries1/rocket/rocket2.html

Since the plastic is flexible the bending may not be evident in the recovered model. Do you have a video of the actual flight to look for this? Flights with lower thrust motors should not exhibit this behavior.

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055
 
Originally posted by QuickBurst
The rocket was designed using VCP. The forum software will not allow this file type attachment. Strange???? It allows .rkt files but does not allow .cp files. I suppose that if you do not use Rocsim you can't post designs.

Description:
3" Fiberglassed airframe.
54mm motor mount.
The motor mount has a 54mm Acme fin can attached. Then the airframe was slotted to accept the assembly. Kind of a quick and dirty scratch build.
Dual Deploy, tracker etc ....

Length (inc 12" nose cone) - 93"
Diameter - 3.00"


Fin Dimensions:
Diameter at fins - 3.00"
Reference Distance - 1.75" (distance between bottom of airframe and aft end of fins).
Root Chord - 4.75"
Tip Chord - 2.5"
Leading Edge Sweep - 1.0"
Span - 4.375"
Weight (less motor) 9.0 lbs.


VCP shows Center of pressure shows to be 16.485" above aft end. I have used VCP for every rocket I have built and have never had a problem.

The CG was field measured and shows about 1.5 caliber of stability. Just before motor burnout the rocket would cartwheel, end over end.


When I added the upper set of fins the CP moved aft about 2" and the cartwheeling stopped.

Only 1.5 calibers of stability won't cut it for this rocket with a length to diameter ratio of 31:1 you probably need at least 10 or more calibers of stability on this long skinny design. You should read this article by Robert Galejs: https://www.cmass.org/uploads/Robert.Galejs/sentinel39-galejs.pdf

RockSim gives a CP 13.53 inches from the aft end, for ten calibers of stability you need to have the CG around 43.5 inches from the aft end; this requires about 5.5 pounds of nose weight for a large L motor!

For those with RockSim I attached a simulation file that doesn't include my correction for long skinny designs.

I will try to post a VCP file with this correction included.

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055
 
Here is my VCP file for this long skinny design. This technique for the estimation of the CP of a long skinny rocket has yet to be published. Note the CP is 43.6 inches from the aft end using the correction I came up with for long skinny designs. This correction amounts to an extra set of three fins added to the forward end of the design.

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055
 
Originally posted by uncle_vanya
RockSIM's predictions are what I based my flight on.

File attached... be kind :eek:

I am not sure how to handle this design, it has some aspects of a short fat design that is base drag stabilized and some characteristics of a long skinny design if you ignore the funnel. I put corrections for both into RockSim and the effects seem to cancel one another. If I only use my base drag correction the CP falls below the funnel. If I only use the Long Thin correction the margin falls to 0.28 indicating an unstable flight on a J420 and 0.37 on an H128. See Attached RockSim file.

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055
 
Originally posted by teflonrocketry1
Here is my VCP file for this long skinny design. This technique for the estimation of the CP of a long skinny rocket has yet to be published. Note the CP is 43.6 inches from the aft end using the correction I came up with for long skinny designs. This correction amounts to an extra set of three fins added to the forward end of the design.

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055

Thanks, I appreciate that.

After I added more fin area above the existing fins the problem never surfaced again. The rocket flies fine now.
 
Originally posted by teflonrocketry1
I am not sure how to handle this design, it has some aspects of a short fat design that is base drag stabilized and some characteristics of a long skinny design if you ignore the funnel. I put corrections for both into RockSim and the effects seem to cancel one another. If I only use my base drag correction the CP falls below the funnel. If I only use the Long Thin correction the margin falls to 0.28 indicating an unstable flight on a J420 and 0.37 on an H128. See Attached RockSim file.

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055

LOL - If you are stumped that tells me something. I can fly this in a shorter configuration as well. At what length to diameter ratio do you start adding your "long skinny" corrections? 10:1? Many of my 3" birds are in this range. What article do you have that describes this fix?

The rocket is VERY stable on H128, H123, H180, etc. The only bad flight so far has been the J420. I have not flown this on an I yet. I was thinking about a rebuild and an I366R flight.
 
Originally posted by uncle_vanya
LOL - If you are stumped that tells me something. I can fly this in a shorter configuration as well. At what length to diameter ratio do you start adding your "long skinny" corrections? 10:1? Many of my 3" birds are in this range. What article do you have that describes this fix?

The rocket is VERY stable on H128, H123, H180, etc. The only bad flight so far has been the J420. I have not flown this on an I yet. I was thinking about a rebuild and an I366R flight.

I use the long skinny correction on rockets with a length to diameter ratio greater than 18:1. The article describing this fix has yet to be published.

Since the rocket is stable on a H128 the long skinny correction alone doesn't apply to this design since it suggests that the design will be unstable with most of the smaller (and all of the larger) motors. The base drag correction alone would suggest that the design will be stable on any motor. Putting both corrections in together probably gives the best representation of the actual aerodynamics of this rocket. I suggest that the turn you observed in flight is due to the bending or flexing of the plastic cones that are unsupported at their bottom ends. Did the rocket go unstable and do loops in the air, or did it just make a nice turn in the early part of the burn?

Bruce S. Levison, NAR #69055
 
Back
Top