Sir Breaks-a-lot (a neil_w design)

[mbeels]

I nominate mbeels for "Glue Salesman of the Year"!

​

Step right up! Have I got a deal for you....

When is launch? Hope there's a live stream.

Planning on tomorrow (Friday), I'll try and get pictures and/or video.

Buy stock in Titebond!

I checked, they're not publicly traded: http://www.franklininternational.com/home/About_Franklin.aspx But maybe I can hit them up for a publicity stunt / marketing ploy.

 

[boatgeek]

I checked, they're not publicly traded: http://www.franklininternational.com/home/About_Franklin.aspx But maybe I can hit them up for a publicity stunt / marketing ploy.

"Hear me out, Marketing Department! I've got this thing that is designed so it keeps breaking and I want a sponsorship with your logo on-- [dial tone]"

 

[Daddyisabar]

View attachment 571710

A safety bubble is awesome but I would be afraid that Sir Breaks-A-Lot could Lance the outer skin and the motor would ignite the inner plastic padding. Thus resulting in an equivalent of the good ole Roman Tunica Malesta. Yikes!

 

[Funkworks]

A safety bubble is awesome but I would be afraid that Sir Breaks-A-Lot could Lance the outer skin and the motor would ignite the inner plastic padding. Thus resulting in an equivalent of the good ole Roman Tunica Malesta. Yikes!

Not to mention being at the right place at the right time. Wearing a bubble doesn't make running any easier.

 

[4regt4]

I wasn't expecting much, but I quite like the way that this splatter paint came out.

View attachment 571640

How did you do the splatter paint?

Hans.

 

[afadeev]

The rear-most T-fins are really a horror show... maybe this would be best with rear-eject so it can come down nose-first, and spike itself into the ground. Actually I'll be pleasantly surprised if those even survive ascent.

They are only a problem if they break, and they can only brake if they were attached firmly in the first place.
Which begs the questions - what if the rear T-fins were hinged? So that they can fold away on landing?

Those rear cut-out fins should be tremendously draggy, so losing some fin rigidity on the way up shouldn't effect overall stability...

 

[neil_w]

They are only a problem if they break, and they can only brake if they were attached firmly in the first place.
Which begs the questions - what if the rear T-fins were hinged? So that they can fold away on landing?

Could work, as long as they don't buffet and vibrate and pull the fins off that way.

But that begs *another* question: is the purpose of this rocket to survive landing, or.... well, "not"?

 

[Daddyisabar]

Bulletproof for maximum durability and pokeyness! Solid Rocsim, OpenRocket, cardboard cut out and swing test. No rassoodocksim! Fire and puncture proof safety bubble.

New name: Sir Breaks-A-Lot- NOT!

 

[mbeels]

How did you do the splatter paint?

Hans.

I let me son pick out the colors, and then I spritzed some paint from a paint can. Some cans were old with partially clogged nozzles, so those just splattered. But that kind of worked out in this case.

They are only a problem if they break, and they can only brake if they were attached firmly in the first place.
Which begs the questions - what if the rear T-fins were hinged? So that they can fold away on landing?

True, when I first saw the word hinged, I imagined them hinging like this, so gravity and air pressure held them back against the rocket, but they could pivot upwards.

But that begs *another* question: is the purpose of this rocket to survive landing, or.... well, "not"?

Actual laugh out loud, I kind of agree, it wouldn't live up to its name otherwise! I'll just find out and see what it does.

 

[BABAR]

Could work, as long as they don't buffet and vibrate and pull the fins off that way.

But that begs *another* question: is the purpose of this rocket to survive landing, or.... well, "not"?

Which begs the question of what does it mean to “survive”?

I’m still a proud Level-0, but I believe the criteria for a successful level 1 qualification is a reasonable definition.

“In general, the guideline for acceptable flight damage is that the model could be flown again without repair. It is left to the judgment of the Certification Team to differentiate between flight damage and “normal” maintenance to assure reliability (e.g., shock cord replacement to prevent future flight problems). “Zippering” of the body tube is another area of flight damage left to Certification Teams judgment for acceptability.”

Level 1 HPR Certification Procedures Level 1 Certification

HPR Certification paperwork should not be mailed or emailed to NAR Headquarters. Please do not contact NAR Headquarters regarding HPR Certification questions and issues. All HPR Certification process questions should be directed to [email protected]. The NAR was created in 1957 as an...

www.nar.org

Breaking off a true glued on fin I think would be pushing it, by that definition, even if you have spares that could easily be glued back in place. That is truly a “repair.” Breaking off a soda straw which is attached over an unbroken dowel with tape, readily removed and replaced in the field, I think (not being an RSO so my opinion is worth what you paid for it) WOULD qualify as normal maintenance.

This obviously isn’t a level 1 attempt, and kind of an “angels on the head of a pin” argument. I do think “single use” rockets are wrong (with the exception of hyper-finished rockets like @neil_w builds which reasonably could be “one good flight and then shelf queen” builds ), I think all low and mid power rockets and level 1 high power rockets SHOULD be designed such that a second same day flight IS reasonably expected. I will except level 2 and 3 not for damage but simply that the prep for each flight potentially exceeds a day.

This is all in fun, for practical purposes if the rocket is designed with frangible balsa fins which can easily be replaced in the field with superglue and flown again the same day, that is a “survivable “ rocket.

 

[boatgeek]

Which begs the question of what does it mean to “survive”?

I’m still a proud Level-0, but I believe the criteria for a successful level 1 qualification is a reasonable definition.

“In general, the guideline for acceptable flight damage is that the model could be flown again without repair. It is left to the judgment of the Certification Team to differentiate between flight damage and “normal” maintenance to assure reliability (e.g., shock cord replacement to prevent future flight problems). “Zippering” of the body tube is another area of flight damage left to Certification Teams judgment for acceptability.”

Level 1 HPR Certification Procedures Level 1 Certification

HPR Certification paperwork should not be mailed or emailed to NAR Headquarters. Please do not contact NAR Headquarters regarding HPR Certification questions and issues. All HPR Certification process questions should be directed to [email protected]. The NAR was created in 1957 as an...

www.nar.org

Breaking off a true glued on fin I think would be pushing it, by that definition, even if you have spares that could easily be glued back in place. That is truly a “repair.” Breaking off a soda straw which is attached over an unbroken dowel with tape, readily removed and replaced in the field, I think (not being an RSO so my opinion is worth what you paid for it) WOULD qualify as normal maintenance.

This obviously isn’t a level 1 attempt, and kind of an “angels on the head of a pin” argument. I do think “single use” rockets are wrong (with the exception of hyper-finished rockets like @neil_w builds which reasonably could be “one good flight and then shelf queen” builds ), I think all low and mid power rockets and level 1 high power rockets SHOULD be designed such that a second same day flight IS reasonably expected. I will except level 2 and 3 not for damage but simply that the prep for each flight potentially exceeds a day.

This is all in fun, for practical purposes if the rocket is designed with frangible balsa fins which can easily be replaced in the field with superglue and flown again the same day, that is a “survivable “ rocket.

I think there also a reasonable question of how it will fail. Losing fins on the way up would make it a failed flight, but if the fins are figurative popsicle sticks, I’m not too worried about safety. Likewise, if the fins all break off at ground contact, it’s a fail but safe. There’s lots of shades of gray in the middle.

I’m not a fan of truly disposable rockets (eg fins glued to motor case) but I’m willing to make exceptions.

 

[mbeels]

Success! At least I think so, based on the current working definition of "success". Ironically, Sir Breaks-a-lot fared the best of the rockets we flew today. It wasn't a completely successful day for the mbeels' family of rockets. But that's a different story.

Sir Breaks-a-lot flew on a C6-5 which was just about perfect, it is very light, but those fins are draggy. The up part was good, and all of the down part, excepting the part where it stops going down (and proceedeth to lay there, on the grass, in pieces). One T fin completely dissembled itself, and one angled fin detached. It looks like the glassine just pulled away from the body tube.

 

[jmasterj]

I saw it the flight! The up was perfect!

 

[mbeels]

I think all low and mid power rockets and level 1 high power rockets SHOULD be designed such that a second same day flight IS reasonably expected. I will except level 2 and 3 not for damage but simply that the prep for each flight potentially exceeds a day.

This is all in fun, for practical purposes if the rocket is designed with frangible balsa fins which can easily be replaced in the field with superglue and flown again the same day, that is a “survivable “ rocket.

Yes, I do also agree with that sentiment. I'm also not for littering a field with broken rocket parts (especially not plastic or metal). Dog barf and recovery wadding fortunately decomposes rather quickly. Your frangible rocket part idea is an interesting one, if a component is specifically designed to dissipate energy (and break) then that seems valid to me. Occasionally shock cords are Z-folded with masking tape, and as the masking tape is torn, the deployment energy is safely dissipated. It seems like an extension of that way of thinking to apply that idea to external parts (like bendy straws).

Losing fins on the way up would make it a failed flight, but if the fins are figurative popsicle sticks, I’m not too worried about safety.

Yeah, I didn't want it to lose fins on the way up and take an unexpected trajectory, that would constitute a fail to me as well (cert or not). It did feel just sturdy enough in my hand that I was fairly confident it could handle a C6 for the up part.

 

[Daddyisabar]

Patch it up with CA and make it stronger! As the old RSO would say: "You must suffer the consequences of your poor odd rocket design." The rockets gods are not fooled but maybe a bit entertained, sending some good fortune your way.

 

[Sandy H.]

Success! At least I think so, based on the current working definition of "success". Ironically, Sir Breaks-a-lot fared the best of the rockets we flew today. It wasn't a completely successful day for the mbeels' family of rockets. But that's a different story.

Sir Breaks-a-lot flew on a C6-5 which was just about perfect, it is very light, but those fins are draggy. The up part was good, and all of the down part, excepting the part where it stops going down (and proceedeth to lay there, on the grass, in pieces). One T fin completely dissembled itself, and one angled fin detached. It looks like the glassine just pulled away from the body tube.

View attachment 571973

View attachment 571974

That first picture is perfect! Good for you and your son.

Sandy.

 

[neil_w]

Pretty good, all things considered!

Agree that the first picture is perfect.

 

[jqavins]

Given the rocket's name and humorous intent, I would call this 100% mission success.

Now let's go on to overthink the construction and overanalyze the flight.

 

[BABAR]

Sir Breaks-a-lot flew on a C6-5 which was just about perfect,

View attachment 571973

View attachment 571974

I’m sorry, what part of the flight wasn’t perfect? It lived up to its name, it flew well, and you got Kodak moments (boy is THAT an outdated term) with your son. Doesn’t get any better than that. What WOULD have been imperfect was if it HADN’T had few parts break off.

looks like what you had would easily have been fixable and flyable with some medium CA glue, a new motor and some wadding.