So back to the subject, I started reading Barrowman's thesis today and he's right. We don't fly our rockets sideways!
I can still do multiplication, division, and of course the square/cube roots are do-able but a little more arcane. Trig isn't too bad either... but all those log-log scales and what-not, criminee, I can't remember if I ever DID know how to use them!"any discussion on TRF involving calculations will devolve into reminiscing about our slide rules!" - that does it, I can't resist:
My first engineering-career boss had a beautiful high-end slide rule mounted on an oak plaque on the wall over the door in his office. It had a brass plate that wryly alluded to its being obsolete, "Sliderulus Obsoletus" or something like that. I thought it was a quaint nod to the "old days" by an engineer who graduated in the 50's. One day, I came into his office unannounced and surprised him using it at his desk! I was stunned; I assumed it was permanently bolted to the plaque, but in fact it merely rested there, and was easily taken off if you reached up for it. He smiled sheepishly and said "Okay, you got me, yes, I do indeed occasionally use my old slide rule to crunch a few numbers, just for fun." Then he challenged me to use it for his next calculation. I was taught to use a slide rule in junior high school (about 1969 or so), so with some fumbling I was able to produce a credible result. Today, in 2021? Forget it, too much water under the bridge, I'd have no idea how to do it. But that's okay, time rolls on . . . .
Bob Schultz
Pretty cool! I'll bet Wernher would like it as well!
Holy smokes, you put motors in those pods? YOW!4 C6-0 and an F15-6. Bat outta hell, 1200-1400
I know that I've posted this recently, but every time I build an Estes V2 it comes out looking like this...View attachment 473374
Holy smokes, you put motors in those pods? YOW!
I don't have enough field for that kind of altitude, but I'll bet that's something to see!
How did it fly?
Well, friend, you're a little younger than me... but yes, the price certainly WAS a factor as calculators came on the scene. I learned them in high school and in 1973, when I started college, only a few calculators were on the hips of engineering students. The rest of us had our "swords" dangling from our belts! Usually a "fancy" HP calculator was thought of as a sign that you're well-to-do, but I can imagine a kid working an after-school job to save up for his, especially if he came from a hardscrabble background (as I did).I used slide rules in grade school in the 1970s... I think I was the only kid to do so. For me, they were basically a "poor man's calculator" at the time, since I could not afford a calculator.
Later on, calculators dropped significantly in price -- but by then I had a job with an ever growing income. No longer a kid.
Well, friend, you're a little younger than me... but yes, the price certainly WAS a factor as calculators came on the scene. I learned them in high school and in 1973, when I started college, only a few calculators were on the hips of engineering students. The rest of us had our "swords" dangling from our belts! Usually a "fancy" HP calculator was thought of as a sign that you're well-to-do, but I can imagine a kid working an after-school job to save up for his, especially if he came from a hardscrabble background (as I did).
Welcome aboard!
Is the string long enough to do a reliable string test? I think I remember the old Estes technical manual saying you need a good, long string. “A good long string.” How is that for scientific precision? ;-)All the more reason to crack the books on the real stability criteria! Yeah, my spreadsheet is basically a motorized cardboard test. But that's the first time I've heard that the string test puts it rearward. Are you saying the fact that it "passed" the string test is not necessarily proof that it will not become a skywriter?
Or as my boss used to say, "How many zeros behind the decimal point there, sport?"“A good long string.”
So the string has to be just about dead on the CG for the test to work?Or as my boss used to say, "How many zeros behind the decimal point there, sport?"
Yes, I had it out about 10' from me and going fast enough to hear wind (I know, I know - how many zeros after THAT????). I could not get it to fly backwards no matter how I tried, it would just flip back to nose first. Tried varying the string position a little fore and aft of the balance point - not too far, it's surprisingly sensitive - and it goes nose into the wind almost immediately. Barrowman says the actual CP is aft of the lateral centroid of the projected area. I'm reading up on it now, fascinating stuff!
I’d like the rock sim file! Thanks!These fly very well. Slow rotation probably due to the fins and pods not being perfect. This was the Mk. 3. The 1st one I had painted up all retro sci-fi, but it was a learning curve. I have a rock sim file on it if anyone is interested...
Well, that's the idea, that you are supported at the CG and you are checking how the moment of the total of the aerodynamic forces acts because the string has only the slightest (i.e negligible) resistance to being twisted, so essentially simulating free flight conditions. If you move off the CG the rocket quickly starts to hang nose up or nose down, but even in those conditions I couldn't get it to fly backwards.So the string has to be just about dead on the CG for the test to work?
In defense of slide rules (and log tables and trig tables), learning math the old fashioned way (and learning it by doing model rocketry) shows you the relationships between different values that a calculator doesn’t show you. Those relationships are more important to the understanding of the math than the precise value you arrive at. If a kid takes a tangent of an angle and the calculator spits out a number, what has he/she really learned? If a kid measures the angle of a model rocket at apogee (using a protractor, a drinking straw, a piece of string, and an eraser) and then looks up the tangent in a trig table, he/she intuitively sees that there is a relationship between the size of the angle and the ratio of the length of the base line and the length of the opposite side of the triangle. You can scan the tangent table and see the ratio change as the angle changes.Me as well. I started college in 1973. Should've graduated in 1977, but managed to put it off until 1987... The boss I mentioned above gave us all 6" plastic ones as well. He said, "In case the power goes out!"
I thing that any discussion on TRF involving calculations will devolve into reminiscing about our slide rules!
I went to Brooklyn Technical HS. In fall 1975, the first weeks of Electrical Eng course was learning the slide rule. In Spring Semester (1976) the school allowed calculators. Learning the slide rule did make you understand the math better, since you could not afford a mistake in your equations...after all that "sliding": around.I used slide rules in grade school in the 1970s... I think I was the only kid to do so. For me, they were basically a "poor man's calculator" at the time, since I could not afford a calculator.
Later on, calculators dropped significantly in price -- but by then I had a job with an ever growing income. No longer a kid.
I’d like the rock sim file! Thanks!
Thanks, great minds think alike! You are correct about the fins. I think a higher intial thrust core burner is the way to go. And I'm an idiot - the 24 in D24 is average thrust, not max. So it's a fast burner, very quick to come up to power, but it's only 18mm and the mount is 24. I know Estes makes an adaper, but will an Aerotech RMS 18/20 case fit in it? the whole thing will probably weigh considerably less than a black powder (Estes) D12 or certainly a black powder E12, so that'd help too.I suspect speed off the rail. The fins are pretty small and don't stick out far from the body, so they'll have a reduced control authority until it gets more up to speed. Two ways to check that:
#1: Fly on a higher-thrust composite (D15, the D Q-Jet) to see if getting off the rail a little faster does the job
#2: Take a look at an OR sim to see what the stability is like right as it comes off the rail. Compare and contrast to your son's Power Patrol right off of the rail. If the V2 stability is very low right off the rail, that might point to an answer.
Do tell! I haven't seen any other V2's fly, but I wonder if the "V2 wiggle" you've seen has to do with some sort of transition or transient in the flow as it speeds up. To be sure, there is no way you're going to get pure axisymmetry in the flow, so if a transition occurs slightly more quickly on one side it would affect drag and the rocket would turn toward the higher drag side... just until the transient passes, then it goes away. And the boattail provides an area where flow naturally would tend to separate. All mine did was pretty much a gravity turn.I usually fly my V2's on harder hitting motors in whatever motor diameter they are. I have V2's in 13mm, 18mm, 24mm, 29mm, 38mm, and 54mm motor sizes currently (I think I have 8 of them built, plus 3 or 4 more unbuilt, and looking to buy the Loc 5.38" and 7.5" kits eventually).
With the harder hitting motors they fly straighter but still do the "V2 wiggle."
Enter your email address to join: