Traveling Rocket thread

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Wally Ferrer

SRE
TRF Lifetime Supporter
TRF Supporter
Joined
Apr 20, 2019
Messages
1,477
Reaction score
2,137
Location
Manassas, VA
And the tragic Wanderer launch was just supposed to be its own practice run.
If I had been on the field at the time, would certainly have helped search for it- but enough remorse, who is building Wanderer 2.0? This means I need to get in a flight 2.0 with it once everyone else does...
 

teepot

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
1,749
Reaction score
1,297
Location
Pahrump, Nevada
If you want one scratch built I can do it. I have the time. I have on hand 2.6" BMS heavy tubes, 3" BMs tube and 3" LOC tubes. I don't have any fiberglass and have never worked with it. If you guys will tell me what you want I will try to do it. I have some ideas in mind already.
 

rdrown

Retired
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Messages
149
Reaction score
143
Location
Wichita, KS
I checked and confirmed, I DO have a original Mach1 Spektor. IF the group wants to use MikeyDSlagle's original build post's and final Sim file to rebuild, I can send it to someone for building.
I have built 3 fiberglass rockets so far and am retired with plenty of time. I would be available for the build if needed.
 

jqavins

Gone beardless since then
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
6,173
Reaction score
3,153
Location
Howard, NY
The fins of the original build are ( :( were) too big. Considerably smaller fins would move the CP just about as far aft as it will go, so somewhere around a third to a half the area of those fins was having a bigger effect on the CG, and hurting the static margin, which was low. And the added weight was hurting the rod exit speed, which was also low without a high thrust motor.

So whatever is rebuilt, please make the fins a bunch smaller.
 

rdrown

Retired
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Messages
149
Reaction score
143
Location
Wichita, KS
The fins of the original build are ( :( were) too big. Considerably smaller fins would move the CP just about as far aft as it will go, so somewhere around a third to a half the area of those fins was having a bigger effect on the CG, and hurting the static margin, which was low. And the added weight was hurting the rod exit speed, which was also low without a high thrust motor.

So whatever is rebuilt, please make the fins a bunch smaller.
I beg to differ. If you make the fins smaller, the cp moves forward. I simed this on Rocksim and if you make the fins larger, the cp moves aft, (to a point). Also the cg would follow due to the added weight on the rear.
 

bobbyg23

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2020
Messages
824
Reaction score
804
The fins of the original build are ( :( were) too big. Considerably smaller fins would move the CP just about as far aft as it will go, so somewhere around a third to a half the area of those fins was having a bigger effect on the CG, and hurting the static margin, which was low. And the added weight was hurting the rod exit speed, which was also low without a high thrust motor.

So whatever is rebuilt, please make the fins a bunch smaller.
Original was great. Fins were just fine.
 

Tractionengines

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
259
Reaction score
152
Location
Northeast Ohio
^^^^^ What he said, it flew fine for us. I would NOT make the fins smaller. On the D22 it was at about 70ft/sec at 4' coming off the rail. I would not change the design.
Flying with a beeper, that would be a GREAT idea.
 

MikeyDSlagle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
2,541
Reaction score
511
The fins of the original build are ( :( were) too big. Considerably smaller fins would move the CP just about as far aft as it will go, so somewhere around a third to a half the area of those fins was having a bigger effect on the CG, and hurting the static margin, which was low. And the added weight was hurting the rod exit speed, which was also low without a high thrust motor.

So whatever is rebuilt, please make the fins a bunch smaller.
I put MANY hours into the sims for the original Wanderer.
Dozens of different styles of fins.
Different lengths of airframe.
Different nose weights.
On and on ad nauseam
The planning process was literally months while pieces were gathered and designs drafted, you even participated in running/tweaking sims.
I cut several different fin sets from acceptable shapes to see how it would really look. The most practical was used.

Smaller fins move the CP forward, albeit along with the CG. We could have gone with narrow fins and increased the span to push the CP back while bringing CG forward, but it would have been more difficult to pack and they would have been more susceptible to damage.

It flew fine on a C, five Ds and an E. <200 to >1200 feet altitudes. With no modifications. Had it been marginally stable on the C or D, it would never have flown on the E. And the Flightsketch was incorporated into the design to bring stability up. It was pretty much a part of the rocket. Properly prepped and equipped, the Wanderer was plenty stable. Sims and actual flight data prove as much.

If a second rocket is built then we can loop back around the list so that all the Hosts get a chance to fly it as well, as was intended. But again, fly the field. If pretty much everything is wrong, or going wrong, don't push that button. At the very least, consult the data provided and choose a smaller motor. A lot of work went into making sure a proper sim was available to avoid elementary mistakes. And don't use the chute, or nose cone or any part of the project in another rocket.
:angiefavorite:

It looks like we have another Spektor and a volunteer to use it to build one in the image of the original. The box and packing material are already made to fit the original design. I wouldn't be against a different design altogether, lightera and fatter with more drag maybe, but it doesn't matter to me, really. This decision will be for the group to make.
 

jqavins

Gone beardless since then
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
6,173
Reaction score
3,153
Location
Howard, NY
Perhaps the "final" ORK file posted here was not so final. I also did many sims with that file. The static margin was about 0.8, which is marginal, and the rod exit speed on a D12 was also marginal. With the fins cut down by about 30 or 40 percent, both of those figures improved, because the fins are sufficiently large that a change in their area has a greater effect on CG than on CP. I have no dispute that it's performance through many launches was good. The numbers, according to the ORK file posted, could be improved by a lighter aft end.

I flew the field. The altitude was probably under a thousand feet, certainly not much more, and the rocket was in sight as a rocket shaped object - i,e, not a mere dot - the whole time. Those beans were about a quarter mile away in mild winds. I'm not trying to blame the design, or anything or anybody else for losing it; I did that. The launch was quite stable, in point of fact. Still, we have here an opportunity to improve. By lightening the fins.

Do we have a builder for the replacement confirmed for The Wanderer II? I'll send along the package of ancillary pieces and the replacement tracker.
 
Last edited:

Tractionengines

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
259
Reaction score
152
Location
Northeast Ohio
There were too many versions of the SIM file in this forum thread to know I was looking at "as-built" data.

I used the version on the Black and Silver flash drive shipped with the project. I did update it while it was here to add the "new" Quest D22 and E26 motors. Since that was what I planned to fly / flew, and give others the info.

jqavins: Can you pull that file from that flash drive and post here? (The save date would be July 8th or 9th.) Thank you.
 

MikeyDSlagle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
2,541
Reaction score
511
@jqavins
Post your ORK file where you trimmed the fins. I am genuinely interested in what you have. I wasn't trying to build a high performance sky buster but something that would stay fairly low on readily available motors. It was never meant to the most efficient design, but the most practical. It worked perfectly for it's intended purpose.

.8 CAL was perfect for that rocket. .5 is required by NAR, and I have flown short stubbies under .4 CAL, but this isn't a short stubby.

This thing went through so many iterations that I have dozens of files on my computer for this project. But, no, the "final" file had several come after. That was before the fins were trimmed. Some were posted later, the latest had a PDF accompanying it with a report with various motors, though the E26 wasn't on there. Same report and sim should have been on the thumbdrive. The report had a stability of 1.09 on the D12 with an expected altitude within 30' of the two D12 flights. The E30 was about 400' off. I would expect your flight to still have broke 1K.

But no, no decision on the replacement rocket yet. I'll get you the address to the appropriate Host once it is decided.

@Tractionengines
That's great! Exactly what the drive was there for. Thanks. And yes, post the updated sim here.
 

rdrown

Retired
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Messages
149
Reaction score
143
Location
Wichita, KS
New build thread, “The Wanderer 2.0 build thread” is posted.
 

jqavins

Gone beardless since then
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
6,173
Reaction score
3,153
Location
Howard, NY
Here are the sim files. There are .ORK and .RKT, each for two configurations. One is the .ORK that came on the thumb drive, and the other is with reduced fins. The three new files have also been added to the thumb drive.

Also, I've found all the pieces of packing material (some were misplaced) and stitched together a new Nomex pouch for the altimeter. The pouch will want a velcro closure and a kevlar lanyard, as I have neither of those materials on hand.

I will be able to get the package out to rdrown on Saturday.
 

Attachments

rdrown

Retired
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Messages
149
Reaction score
143
Location
Wichita, KS
Here are the sim files. There are .ORK and .RKT, each for two configurations. One is the .ORK that came on the thumb drive, and the other is with reduced fins. The three new files have also been added to the thumb drive.

Also, I've found all the pieces of packing material (some were misplaced) and stitched together a new Nomex pouch for the altimeter. The pouch will want a velcro closure and a kevlar lanyard, as I have neither of those materials on hand.

I will be able to get the package out to rdrown on Saturday.
Thank you Joe
 

rdrown

Retired
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Messages
149
Reaction score
143
Location
Wichita, KS
I want to make something clear. We have been calling the new rocket Wanderer 2.0. That does NOT mean that it is better that the original. Usually when you say something is 2.0 it means new and improved. I continued this name at the beginning after someone posted it during conversation and it just stuck. Believe me, the Wanderer 2.0 is as close to the same as the original, sans paint scheme, as Open rocket would indicate.

Actually in post #404, @Tractionengines recommended Wanderer 2.0. It stuck.
 

tsmith1315

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
930
Location
Doerun, GA
@MikeyDSlagle - It looks like I'm coming up on the roster. The fields are high here, it will probably be late October before I can fly (and recover). Can I move down the list a bit?
 

MikeyDSlagle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
2,541
Reaction score
511
@MikeyDSlagle - It looks like I'm coming up on the roster. The fields are high here, it will probably be late October before I can fly (and recover). Can I move down the list a bit?
Sure thing, I can move ya down until you are ready.

@Sooner Boomer not sure if I have you added to the Google Sheet, check and see if you can edit your page please sir. You aren't marked on my list but that doesn't mean anything, I missed a few who have been added. And if the Wanderer shows up at the next Host painted crimson and cream....there's gonna be trouble. 😁

Looking forward to seeing both of the flight reports.
 

Sooner Boomer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
3,815
Reaction score
1,640
Sure thing, I can move ya down until you are ready.

@Sooner Boomer not sure if I have you added to the Google Sheet, check and see if you can edit your page please sir. You aren't marked on my list but that doesn't mean anything, I missed a few who have been added. And if the Wanderer shows up at the next Host painted crimson and cream....there's gonna be trouble. 😁

Looking forward to seeing both of the flight reports.
Well, it *did* end up with a small "Oklahoma star" sticker on one fin. (see my avatar)

 

TheTank

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
261
Reaction score
248
Location
CT, USA
Got the message that it should be headed my way. Several club launches at different clubs in the next few weeks so I should be able to get it in the air right away. (Now that I said that, the hurricanes and flooding will return).
 

TheTank

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2020
Messages
261
Reaction score
248
Location
CT, USA
Last I heard he is still waiting for it. Hasn't been any traffic on the back channels from the previous host(s) about tracking info or what not either.
Correct. Nothing received so far. Once I have it, I should be able to turn it around in a day or 2 as long as the weather cooperates.
 

dhbarr

Amateur Professional
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
7,479
Reaction score
1,907
Delay fault is entirely mine. I planned to have a clear slate coming back from Airfest, but it wasn't so. I finally got my totes from Airfest into the shop and unpacked, specifically so I could pull the data and forward this beauty.

The extra mass from the Marco Polo tracker bumped me up to a D12-5. It's a good thing there were so many people around, as I couldn't get a signal either from the Flight Sketch or the Marco Polo once the unit layed down.

100mph or so to about 500ft, ballpark 1min total flight time.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Top