Stability with fixed vs freely pivoting forward mounted canards

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Made some progess on both versions, just trying to concentrate more on the 2.6"er for flight testing to hopefully avoid unnecessary work on the full scale. Also managed to make it out to Bong after the rain passed, picked up some motors from Tim. Hopefully I'll find time this week to see if it'll work. 20190707_070408.jpg
 
Managed to finalize and create the nose cone/shoulder/adjustable nose weight system yesterday. Just used a piece of #10 threaded rod, coupler nut and an eye bolt (yes it will get welded before flight). The shoulder simply threads on/off for easy access to the nc base, that way I cam add or remove weigh as needed. This being a scaled down test bed,it is critical in order to emulate weights/stability margins for the true purpose of this project. My thoughts are currently, it'll fly beautifully, or not well at all. 20190708_053158.jpg 20190708_053208.jpg 20190708_053242.jpg
 
Unfortunately did not have any other photos, but I used that Idea on this scale Jayhawk I built for NARAM 18 in center valley, PA in 1976. I had seen to many Centuri Jayhawks fly in a big dangerous circle, so this was built with a dowel rod going thru the nose cone so the fins would swivel. Flight was perfectly straight!


Scan_20170227.jpg
 
Woo! Another LPR success precedent

Doesn't necessarily mean it can take Crazy high-power motors, but the concept is there
 
Wallace, keep in mind that the Bong waiver is ASL. So about 9200’ above average terrain.

Also, when they flew Ns at LDRS they put the pad at the next parking area. The one the dog people use. And had a really long wire :)
 
Thanks for the heads up. This whole area pretty much averages 750'ish ASL, so it's my go to #...
 
Watching with interest.

My gut tells me that freely pivoting fins will flutter, essentially wandering back and forth in rapid fashion searching for equal pressure on both faces of the fin. I have visions of the Bullpup (audibly) buzzing through the air and/or taking sharp, unanticipated turns. But I could definitely be wrong. :)

I know that when I've stripped servo gears on a control surface of big r/c aircraft, the surface flutters rapidly and ceases to allow control in that axis. Similar flight through the air, but different hinge points (leading edge vs. mid-chord).

Genuinely interested in the results of the sub-scale flights!!!:D
 
tells me that freely pivoting fins will flutter, essentially wandering back and forth in rapid fashion searching for equal pressure on both faces of the fin. I

Agreed.

Just have to see if they'll survive and if they'll allow a (relatively) stable flight
 
We seem to be having similar doubts:)20190709_120227.jpg That's why I just had to do this.."Should" have video sometime this week.....
 
Lens is set up to show canards as completely as is possible. Thing about the small scale that might be informative is the 2 differing pivot points. Uppers are @ 25% root chord, lowers are about 35%. Won't be there on full scale (if the small one even flies that is) since it'll have individual shafts w/bearings. Since I have yet to make (or even decide on material for) any fins, I will have options for axle placement depending on test results. Assuming that is that this sort of thing scales accurately? Any opinions?
 
Unfortunately did not have any other photos, but I used that Idea on this scale Jayhawk I built for NARAM 18 in center valley, PA in 1976. I had seen to many Centuri Jayhawks fly in a big dangerous circle, so this was built with a dowel rod going thru the nose cone so the fins would swivel. Flight was perfectly straight!


View attachment 388071
How many flights did you get out of it? Or did it only fly once? Could see that wanting to loop into the wind, probably why I never built one..Sounds promising though.
 
Have you done a trade off looking at SIMS with the canards pivoting versus non pivoting using the area ahead of the pivot point on your sim for the pivoting case and really see how much your CP changes? I'm thinking with those large rear fins and these forward canards are pretty small it's probably not a huge win in terms of complexity. The weight you're going to naturally add up front for the pivoting fins and mechanism to be strong enough for flight versus just adding dead nose weight is probably a wash. I would think this would be much more effective on something like a talos with very large forward fins. There was a thread a few years ago on a talos where somebody did just that but I don't think the person actually ever got around to flying it. you should build really two versions one with pivoting and one without and then play with your CG location and see if it really does impact things
 
Thanks, now that you've shown me that I have to build a Talos since it's just way too cool:). As far as the sims/math/homework and building I've done to date on making the forward fins pivot goes, yes, you could consider it a "waste" of time and effort. But..If you take that line of thought just one small step further, the entire concept of virtually any hobby is a "waste" of time. As far as I can determine (short of actual flight tests) having the fins pivot on the AGM-12B will only make a difference of a few percent reduction in necessary nose weight. So bottom line is, it's probably not very practical. Practicality would probably point more towards buying and building a kit. Luckily, I was not born with the "practicality" gene, I tend more to go out of my way find things to do that are not easily answered, things that interest and challenge me just for the sake of trying. Although I do prefer to succeed, having either complete success or utter failure are not all that important to me, I just enjoy the ride and hopefully learn something along the way. Btw, thanks for the link, I find it very interesting...
 
Well, I unintentionally stress tested the nose cone this morning. Dropped it about 4 feet onto concrete. One of the canards is definitely cracked yet still in one piece. It's hard to tell how bad it is since I covered them with foil tape. Was planning on flying it today but now that plan is on hold until I decide what to do. Part of me says it'll be fine since it shouldn't exceed 300fps on a G74. The other side of my brain was really hoping for a successful 1st flight so I could follow that up with a G80 @ a bit over 400fps. My original plan for the fins was gonna be 2 layers of 1/16" G10 sandwiched over the axle, but I got lazy and just used 1/8" lite ply drilled for the axle, then 1 layer of 4oz glass to hopefully hold 'em together. Should I start over? Attempt some sort of repair? Or just fly it and hope for the best? Btw, I will be launching it solo, don't want anyone around in case it decides to go astray...
 
Watching with interest.

My gut tells me that freely pivoting fins will flutter, essentially wandering back and forth in rapid fashion searching for equal pressure on both faces of the fin. I have visions of the Bullpup (audibly) buzzing through the air and/or taking sharp, unanticipated turns. But I could definitely be wrong. :)

I know that when I've stripped servo gears on a control surface of big r/c aircraft, the surface flutters rapidly and ceases to allow control in that axis. Similar flight through the air, but different hinge points (leading edge vs. mid-chord).

Genuinely interested in the results of the sub-scale flights!!!:D

Free floating canards should act like a free-wheeling rudder on a boat being towed. They should align into the relative wind (sea) with no effect on stability (other than a minimal drag factor). The farther forward the pivot point goes, the easier they pivot. (think understeer vs oversteer.)

Just like the boat, flutter should be manageable with a damping medium. Just want to avoid the frequency that diverges. Boat speed is lower than rocket (less flutter prone), water is thicker than air (more damping). Since you can't change the air density, one can add damping to the axle. Something like a shock absorber (which is really just a damper anyway), or a spring mechanism on each of the two shafts, where you can change spring constant or spring length to suit.
 
Last edited:
A spring wouldn't provide appreciable damping, just add/change the resonance frequency (and given that aerodynamics is involved along with flow changes from laminar to turbulent as the Reynolds number changes, and then later the mach transition, the resonance frequency is quite likely speed dependent). It would provide some recovery force to centering, which is NOT the same as dampening. If something is added to absorb and dissipate energy, you just have to make certain it doesn't have hysteresis or double centering will result - bad news for a rocket steering system!

Damped Driven Harmonic Oscillator Problem. It is a classic in physics.

Gerald
 
Am I correct in thinking that making the trailing edge heavier is the simplest damper? Not really an area I've given much thought to.
 
A spring wouldn't provide appreciable damping, just add/change the resonance frequency (and given that aerodynamics is involved along with flow changes from laminar to turbulent as the Reynolds number changes, and then later the mach transition, the resonance frequency is quite likely speed dependent). It would provide some recovery force to centering, which is NOT the same as dampening. If something is added to absorb and dissipate energy, you just have to make certain it doesn't have hysteresis or double centering will result - bad news for a rocket steering system!

Damped Driven Harmonic Oscillator Problem. It is a classic in physics.

Gerald

You are correct, sir - springs would not be a good damping medium. And chasing/changing the resonant frequency in a functioning rocket is literally trying to hit a moving target. I was just brainstorming possibilities, throwing out unfiltered ideas to see what would stick. Anytime resonant oscillations are mentioned, my mind wanders to the infamous Ford commercial with the pickup traveling down railroad tracks at precisely the speed where the natural frequency of its suspension (function of spring rates) matches the spacing of the railroad ties, so there was no apparent vertical motion of the cab.

 
Am I correct in thinking that making the trailing edge heavier is the simplest damper? Not really an area I've given much thought to.

I believe that a heavier trailing edge would have the same problem as springs, they would only change the resonant frequency.

A damping force would need to always act in a direction opposite the velocity, and ideally have a magnitude proportional to the velocity. (in this case, velocity is rotational velocity)

Friction would act as a (non-ideal) damper, but would inhibit the "freely pivoting" ideal for minimal impact on stability. There are complicated and somewhat conflicting design requirements here. I'm curious to see how this all turns out.
 
The part that can easily bite you in the #$% is flow hysteresis in the canard. A flat plate airfoil for instance, of non-zero thickness, has a deadband near zero angle of attack. Essentially the flat plate is stuck in its own turbulent wake which is sort of wedge-like. So the plate can be pivoted some and it has little effect until it has been pivoted enough to get near one edge of it's wake. Then it starts to be effective.

Momentum can allow a kick from one side of the dead band to carry the angle of attack over to the other, where it gets kicked back... That is one mode of driving force capable of pumping energy into a resonance.

Fully laminar foils are used when possible for the tailfeathers of airplanes to minimize the deadband. Often a cambered airfoil is used on a horizontal tail to move the deadband out of the lift coefficient range normally encountered in cruising flight. IF the deadband is present, and the design of the plane didn't dodge that region, then the plane would end up hunting around a bit in pitch. NOT ideal!

Yes, over simplified. Sorry. It's late and it would take pages.

Gerald
 
Adding weight to the trailing portion of a control surface makes it more unstable (and want to flutter more). If you want a mass balance, it has to be FORWARD of the pivot point. I mean, do you add tailweight to solve a rocket stability problem, or noseweight? *
* (not talking about gliders here)

I know it's not very practical to add noseweight to the vanes of this model. I am saying making them heavier aft of the pivot point likely exacerbates the problem.
 
So adding weight aft would be similar to the tail wagging the dog? Absolutely outstanding info. Big thanks to everyone!!
 
I'm imagining adding weight to the aft of your canards would give kind of a "rear loaded trailer" effect and not be what Wallace wants on his nosecone
 
It flew twice today, both times on AT G 74s. Fins did not come apart, 3d printed parts held up fine and it flew "relatively" straight to around 1000' or so. Got some interesting video, I'll post it as soon as I find time to clean it up.
 
Back
Top