Thrust vectoring with air ?

[kevin ward]

What would happen if air is injected, in lieu of h20 ?

H20 improves thrust on a side, ok.

Will air retard thrust on that side it's injected at ?

 

[kevin ward]

I neglected to mention that the additional 1% black powdered aluminum (at low psi tests) leaves slag deposits everywhere.... Ie, unburnt fuel. I believe passive induction of air through always open vents, superheated or not, pressurized or not, will improve thrust, and they, passively, capable of allowing thrust, on a side, only by increased air pressure, resulting from a pitching or yawing rocket.

 

[kevin ward]

*then

 

[kevin ward]

Capable of increasing*

Autocorrect love\hate relationship.

Hated atm

 

[shockie]

I think that using a modern flight computer combined with ram air guidance would work:

http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/ModelRocketry/Model_Rocketry_v02n05_02-70.pdf
http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/ModelRocketry/Model_Rocketry_v02n06_03-70.pdf
By the great Forrest Mims.

Instead of just having a single ram air nose cone, you could say, have 3 attached to the rocket as ram air control pods.

 

[lakeroadster]

Or maybe use a CO2 cartridge (like are used for air rifles) with some micro valves...

I was looking the other day to see if anybody made small helium cartridges... thinking a rocket could be made to inflate a balloon at recovery to slow decent... I found some, but they were out of stock.

 

[kevin ward]

On the next rocket once I've proven my theory I had planned on active controls. But you're losing sight of the fact that some of my oxidizer can be scooped up as the rocket goes up there by reducing the amount of propellant weight.

Not to mention complexity and carrying additional high pressure gases and superheating them.

I'm trying at the moment to get a hold of el Chang who used radio controlled canards to vector, and have him collaborate creating a controllable ram Air valve system with his knowledge of algorithms and PC control

 

[kevin ward]

L shang

 

[kevin ward]

And again this is truly passive stabilization, only. (Due to getting into a lot of trouble trying to post discussion re motor development)

I'm discussing at the moment. No fins needed. No nosecone weight needed (maybe a little) no moving parts needed.

Reducing overall weight, drag, difficulty level, using existing sugar motors

 

[kevin ward]

I think that using a modern flight computer combined with ram air guidance would work:

http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/ModelRocketry/Model_Rocketry_v02n05_02-70.pdf
http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/ModelRocketry/Model_Rocketry_v02n06_03-70.pdf
By the great Forrest Mims.

Instead of just having a single ram air nose cone, you could say, have 3 attached to the rocket as ram air control pods.

 

[kevin ward]

I actually steered away from having the scoops in the nose cone but instead right at the ass end of the rocket where turbulence is pulled back in

 

[kevin ward]

I actually steered away from having the scoops in the nose cone but instead right at the ass end of the rocket where turbulence is pulled back in

Control pods ? 3, attached ???

 

[kevin ward]

Finally downloaded one of your links (couldn't, in here)

Ram air as suggested in that way, definitely increases drag.

I get it, but that doesn't solve other rocket problem equations

 

[kevin ward]

What would happen if air is injected, in lieu of h20 ?

H20 improves thrust on a side, ok.

Will air retard thrust on that side it's injected at ?

If using r candy, with metals, that remain unburnt (as in low air to form mixture) unless... Induction of air, (oxidizer) is used to not just improve carried fuel\oxidizer, but also, vectoring, as in fluidic thrust vectoring.

Truly passive (but easily r\c or gyro controlled. no fins equals less drag. No H20 to carry equals less rocket mass. Less nosecone weights. Less build and control difficulty.........

 

[shockie]

Control pods ? 3, attached ???

Yeah, instead of a single nose cone with 4sm air on top of
Rocket, create 3 at 120 degrees around the circumference of the body tube.

 

[kevin ward]

Thereby reducing drag further... I get that. My father suggested 8, as minimum to "accurately control"

He also says 21 thrusters are the minimum for navigating space... 1 will actually do, if on a dual 360 gimbal. (Matt Damon in "the Martian" doing "iron man"

Anyways...

Again, I am if you're referring to the 1969 ram air nosecone and passive air flow out the side of the rocket... That's not at all what I'm thinking of....

Same as fluidic thrust vectoring, using superheated gasses instead, to create a "wedge" of gas inside the double choke chamber, to alter flow of main motor exhaust gas thrust.

If still on same page as each other.... 3 injectors inside double choke nozzle chamber.. I especially like that as the air will improve a rich fuel\air mixture, always, and still capable of directional vectoring, as needed, and reducing drag further, from 4 intake.

This will only work if there's always additional metals that'll benefit from more air. Otherwise... 4 is a must to place the corresponding injector\intakes on opposite sides.

Or using sensors on opposite sides... Getting ple-comp-cated)

Lol

 

[kevin ward]

*otherwise...

Adding air won't improve or decrease thrust, only change is direction. And on a rocket pitching pos direction, air pressure is increased on that side, and extra air on that sides injector (both kept directly inline) will alter gas thrust, positively, to the already overpowered side... Furthering the bad direction.

 

[StreuB1]

My brain hurts.....

 

[kevin ward]

I'm not a rocket scientist... My apologies 4 (confusing?) U.

 

[kevin ward]

I've worked out, that a rich fuel mixture, i.e., unburnt metals leaving slag, will achieve best ratio as additional air is scooped in and injected into exhaust plume.

All 4 injectors, always open.

Even (if) the rocket pitches\yaws, pressure builds on that side, inducing even more air through it's corresponding injector, (on opposite side of injector) it'll cause no additional increase in thrust performance, but, was in fluidic thrust vectoring, it'll "push" the flow of exhaust gasses towards opposite side, resulting in correction of errant pitch\yaw.

My deliberation now, is whether or not there's still "extra meals" at that point...

Tough problem 2 solve.

As the speed increases, and air pressure drops, I figure approximately static effect on fuel\oxidizer ratio... Approx. Only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades... definitely not here.

I am trying, here on Earth, but that, isn't even close to actual conditions.

Ahh, just came 2 me...

Motor grains with increasing (or decreasing) amounts of extra metals to account 4 the changes.