Sprint III High performance BP cluster!

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

sandman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
10,563
Reaction score
11
This is the beginnings of my new project.

A three 24mm engined cluster version of the Astron Sprint.

Basic body is a BT-80 with a nose cone shape similar to the BNC-50X but a shorter 2.2:1 parabolic shape.

This is the beginnings of the tailcone...made from scraps glued together (waste not!:D )
 

Missileman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
786
Reaction score
0
Are you going to kit this?
Do I need to work more OT?
 

sandman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
10,563
Reaction score
11
Are you going to kit this?
No!

The tailcone is going to require a lot of "hand carving" to shape.

This one is for me!
 

sandman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
10,563
Reaction score
11
I got the tail cone machined so that it fits a BT-80 and 3 x 24mm motor mounts fint nice.

Now on to finishing.

This may just wind up being what looks best but here are 2 questions

Look ar the pics (drawings) I made and tell me what you guys think.

What design would be better...aerodynamically?

And what design looks better?
 

sandman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
10,563
Reaction score
11
Here is a drawing of the two models.

I kinda like #1 but that's just for looks.
 

MissileDaughter

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
165
Reaction score
0
I like #2 myself.
The base drag, IMHO, would not be significantly different on either design.
ie. #1 although the MM are more aerodynamic the transition sweep is more pronounced nullifying the advantage.
#2 the transition sweep itself would have less drag but it is offset by the exposed motor mounts.
Overall the difference between the two would be minimal so it boils down to asthetics.
I like #2.
Again this is just an opinion.
Edit: this post is by Missileman, Missiledaughter needs to learn to log off!!
 

sandman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
10,563
Reaction score
11
The motor tubes on number 2 may be sticking out more than needed. I did draw it in a hurry.

But I do believe that the pros and cons of each design cancel each other out and both would be equally aerodynamic.

Actually I was leaning toward #1
 

Gus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,737
Reaction score
123
I vote with MissleDaughter, number 2 it is. :D

But I have to admit I'm a little worried.

This push for unnecessary power (3 x 24mm), while quintessentially American, seems a bit out of character for your usual designs.

Is that cough syrup stronger than we thought? :p
 

jetra2

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Messages
2,795
Reaction score
2
I like #2 also.

LOL - great comments in this thread!

Jason
 

bsexton

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,085
Reaction score
1
I'm going to buck the trend and say I like #1 -- it is visually more appealing to me.
 

JeffS

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
141
Reaction score
0
I think I like #2. Very classy looking rocket.
 

Rick James

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
103
Reaction score
0
#2

I definitely like the longer boat tail. With the shorter one, it might as well not be there...
 

sandman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
10,563
Reaction score
11
How about one haflway between each?

With the motor tubes stickung out just about half what #2 is.
 

sandman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
10,563
Reaction score
11
Sorry...this got put on the back burner for a bit.

Been busy making kits for everybody else!

I'm going with number 3 by the way.
 

n3tjm

Papa Elf
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
7,620
Reaction score
520
Location
Penns Creek, PA
Originally posted by MissileDaughter
I like #2 myself.
The base drag, IMHO, would not be significantly different on either design.
ie. #1 although the MM are more aerodynamic the transition sweep is more pronounced nullifying the advantage.
#2 the transition sweep itself would have less drag but it is offset by the exposed motor mounts.
Overall the difference between the two would be minimal so it boils down to asthetics.
I like #2.
Again this is just an opinion.
Edit: this post is by Missileman, Missiledaughter needs to learn to log off!!
MissileDaughter, you are so smart when it comes to aerodynamics ;). I bet your dad is so proud of you ;):D
 
Top