Sprint III High performance BP cluster!

[sandman]

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! )

 

[Missileman]

Are you going to kit this?
Do I need to work more OT?

 

[sandman]

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]

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]

Here is a drawing of the two models.

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

 

[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!!

 

[sandman]

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]

I vote with MissleDaughter, number 2 it is.

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?

 

[jetra2]

I like #2 also.

LOL - great comments in this thread!

Jason

 

[bsexton]

I'm going to buck the trend and say I like #1 -- it is visually more appealing to me.

 

I vote for numero uno...

 

[JeffS]

I think I like #2. Very classy looking rocket.

 

[Rick James]

#2

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

 

[sandman]

How about one haflway between each?

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

 

[cmmeyers]

I still like number 1 best.

 

[bachsta]

i like number one but umm nuber 3 is cool too

 

[sandman]

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]

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