Update 7/14 post 40 Da Bomb!- bigger box fins

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It might be too late for this idea but....

Most 1/10 scale R/C cars use flexible clear Lexan for the bodies. The Lexan bodies are painted from the inside and colors are laid on in reverse order, darkest to lightest. I think Tamiya still makes the best paints for Lexan but do not quote me on that.

Anyway, just a thought.
 
It might be too late for this idea but....

Most 1/10 scale R/C cars use flexible clear Lexan for the bodies. The Lexan bodies are painted from the inside and colors are laid on in reverse order, darkest to lightest. I think Tamiya still makes the best paints for Lexan but do not quote me on that.

Anyway, just a thought.
You are probably right. When I went on Amazon and type in Lexan Paint it got all Tamiya cans.
 
Flight Report

Stretched version stable. Unfortunately nose was a bit tight, failed to deploy chute, was kind of a slow motion lawn dart which also unfortunately bent the fuse as you might expect at the skinny “waist” between the box Fin can and the bottle (looks like just forward of the motor mount, which with the motor itself reinforced it up to that point.)

I WAS able to slide the bottle back to the fin can, covering the bent tube section, with enough rigidity to try a flight with the more cosmetic “stubby” version (fin can just behind bottle.). This did leave the initial nose sticking out the exact length the bottle was retracted. I figured if stable, I could mark the CG, cut the protruding forward body segment off, and pack the nose plug with enough weight to return CG to proven stable position.

unfortunately (a word occurring too often In this saga), it was comically unstable, the guidance system however proved excellent however both unintended and nonexistent, and the rocket landed about three feet from the RSO, which since I was alone at the park, happened to be me.

I think there is a compromise here to make this do-able. Comparing my box fins to actual bombs with box fins, real bombs often have a clipped delta strut or axle segment (the fin between the fuse and the box) extending FORWARD from the box. This makes the “bottle” segment of the rocket seem a it closer to the “box” then it actually is. So I would not have to move the bottle too far back. That, and some nose weight, should make this a good flyer.
D1AD0487-0D2A-4C81-9599-FA198C2FE6B9.png99F1EF4B-BAA7-40A8-98AB-FA22981414EB.jpeg
 
Looks like your stretch version with the extended struts and some nose weight would be good.
Looking forward to your next flight(s).
 
Thank goodness for a kinder, gentler RSO! Nose weight and power rule!
In this case I think the key is going to be fin construction and maybe power.

current version is 4x2” box “sides” with no delta on the spokes. So the spokes were 2” Fixed chord (root =tip)

terminology here, I get mixed up sometimes.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/fin-surface-nomenclature.10393/
new version is gonna be 5x3” box “sides” with 2” added delta sweep on the forward edge of the spokes. So the spoke root chord (previously 2 inches) will now be 5”. The tip chord is equal to the chord of the box =3”.

so the new system will move the base of the bottle up 3” from tip of tail . In combo with the larger surface area of the box fins (not counting the longer spokes, the box fin area goes from 2x4 times 4 up to 5x3 times 4. (So 32 square inches previously to 60 square inches on new version). Plus moving them back 2 inches from the forward edge of the box helps a little (maybe) in keeping the box fins out further away from any flow disrupting “burble” from the bottle. I think this was @jqavins concern.

A natural stress/weak point is going to be the forward edge of the fin can spoke attachments at the base of the bottle. I may just put a 24 mm motor casing internally across this, use it as an engine block . That may force me to go up from a C6-3 to a C5-3, both with 24 mm adapter. I was more than happy with the altitude I got with c6, although first flight was a C6-5 and ejection was late and didn’t deploy. The forward edge of the tube was pretty bunged up from being test fitted into the bottle.

if it flies well on C5-3, I will mark the CG And add nose weight to the nose cone (basically a 24 mm motor casing with a cardboard plate on the front) if I feel the urge to go to a D12-3.

I know the ring fin added some options for @hermanjc excellent Mandalorian. You could do something similar with a box fin for a slightly different aesthetic appearance.
 
Nice work. Again.

As for aesthetics, if you want to you may be able to take some length off the back of the box fin. I'm basing that on RS results with ringtails. I've altered the length of the ring and found that it makes surprisingly little difference. And it would move the CG up. I can't back that up with flight experience, so take it with as many salt grains s you feel are appropriate.
 
Hmm. I can't decide whether to hope it doesn't, or hope it does. I guess it would depend on whose back yard. (No, I don't mean not whom you do or don't like. I mean the person's sense of humor.)
 
Doing this with a pop bottle is a neat idea! This thread is fun to watch.

I had a similar idea but using a Pringles can. And I wanted to make mine rear ejection so the bomb fell nose first. It's limited in repeatability because I made mine with 3D printed parts (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3920822).

Bomb shaped rockets are tight!!
 
Sure hope I don’t land it in someone’s backyard.

My first scratch built was actually a small soda bottle propped up with baking soda and vinegar, and it landed in someone's tree while they weren't there.

I was wondering about that nose tip but it ended up looking pretty neat. Since it's recognizable as a recycled bottle, I would add cursive "(Not really)" beneath "HIGH EXPLOSIVE". I guess it depends on who the neighbors are.
 
Back
Top