Also took another turn as LCO. If you haven't tried it, you're missing out. It's kinda like launching your rockets except you don't have to prep or recover them.
Or buy them, build them, repair them...
What did you do rocket wise today?
- Thread starter BeerorKid
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Or buy them, build them, repair them...
Got the fins on a PSII Nike Smoke and the external fillets on a PML Callisto.
lakeroadster
When in doubt... build hell-for-stout!
Nice flight, recovery and video. Hat's off to Jason!
I'm a little surprised it's not off the east coast of Cape York Peninsula, but I see there's an airport on Groote Eylandt*, so I guess it makes sense.
* You guys are making me learn a whole bunch more Australian geography that I ever thought I would.
Ouch.
I think it's funny there seem to be so few BT-70 and BT-55 kits/builds. Even if one doesn't find them optimal for anything, they just seem to be under-utilized options.
As for BT-60 D engine rockets, you could just add nose weight (or even nose and tail weight, if overstability is a concern) or drag elements.
Please explain. Both of them. How do the canards aid stabilization, and how the heck is Der Upsidedown Maxwell stable at all?Launched these two custom designs
View attachment 524451
View attachment 524452
The first one has an experimental canard stabilization system I thought up and this is the first test...flew pretty good.
The second one is a trickster and does launch the way you see it, but it was so long since I've launched it that I got the wrong delay...no biggie. fun fun.
??? (glances over at the location under your icon) Oh. Canada.
Question: why apply filler before the fist sanding? Or was this the second and third? One can get bare balsa pretty darn good by going from 220 grit (only if necessary necessary) to 320 to 400. Then apply filler and sand again. Actually, I've had very good results sometimes going right from bare balsa to Rust 2X after the 400 grit, but that's not reliable.I can mentally prepare to sand 12 fins by hand. I can even enjoy it to some extent, especially if it's balsa.
What is more difficult to deal with is realizing I used a wood filler that hardens harder than balsa, having to sand THAT, and then having to start over with a balsa filler, thereby sanding the 12 fins twice..
And you do your part to help keep things going.Also took another turn as LCO. If you haven't tried it, you're missing out. It's kinda like launching your rockets except you don't have to prep or recover them.
View attachment 524507
What did I do rocketwise? Over the weekend I fell way behind on this thread, and today I caught up.
The canard one is a prototype of a variation of pendulum weighted fin designs I started on last year (I think mostly posted to Facebook). I used a weighted pendulum to help keep the rocket going straightish up.
when the rocket tilts over, the weight falls down, seesawing the canards up...only a bit of movement is needed here. My goal is to try it without any rear fins (Upsidedown rocket design #3*!)
For the Upsidedown Max one, it's an amalgamation of some things I've been working on:
Post in thread '"Finless" Rocket Design - Ram Air Intake Stabilization?' https://www.rocketryforum.com/threa...-air-intake-stabilization.131572/post-1983459
*I actually have a second upsidedown rocket based on a Viking kit "Gnikiv" (was part of a FB bulk Viking kit challenge I posted), where I was experimenting the extremes of weighted fins...VERY interesting flight...was more of a hover...will revisit in the future. (See if this share works)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/fkK8YngfGthCfL1t8
Last edited:
Oh dear. I'm afraid you'll find the pendulum method doesn't work. I made the same conceptual error, and received the same correction. A pendulum rotates toward vertical not just because of gravity, but because gravity and the fixed pivot together create a couple. With the pivot moving in the frame of the rocket it doesn't work the way we want or intuitively expect it to; the pendulum doesn't point down.
I beg to differ!
The biggest argument against it is the g-forces of the motor thrust acting to keep the rocket on it's continued course. However deflection (even slight) can have a huge affect on the fight path over a given distance...and because I've seen it work.
(Don't beg; just stand up straight and differ. )
Keep us posted.
)Keep us posted.
This weekend I found this gem on clearance at Hobby Lobby
I think that sums things up for me!
I think that sums things up for me!
lakeroadster
When in doubt... build hell-for-stout!
Made a Range Box. Used stuff I already had out in the barn.
Last night I made something for this weekend's club launch...
"Ameri-cup!"
"Ameri-cup!"
Sooner Boomer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2011
- Messages
- 5,873
- Reaction score
- 4,823
You've got a good start. After its maiden flight to make sure nothing falls off, you should get stupid (did I say that out loud?). CHAD stage a D or two before lighting off the main motor.
With some luck, somebody will have an I motor that I can purchase then I can get my CAR Level 2 as well. Otherwise I will have to wait for another chance.
I did some more LP and MP flights today. A couple of my Black Brant's got some air time today too. A couple rockets came away with needing minor repairs - popped fins and charred rubber shock cord. What I can't figure out is why I don't have even 1 picture to record the days activities? My brother took a time out from his farm paperwork to come watch and Dad just loved to see/hear them off, even thought 1 eye is partially blind.
I came away with much redness in the face and arms as there was no clouds to temper the 26°C sunshine!
Last edited:
Ha ha, you obviously saw my mixed measurement units. Kph and feet.... Yeah we Canucks are a mixed breed with a foot in both the Imperial and Metric worlds.... At 62, I don't relate to mph anymore but yet I'm more comfortable talking in feet/yards than metres... I like that in golf too.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 7,565
- Reaction score
- 1,162
Stopped by my unfavourite auto shop and dropped $30 on 1 can of primer and some pretty nice sandpaper. I managed to hide my shock and anger at a $14 can of primer. WTF? I am refinishing a min dia thin glass alt bird to fix playa rash for a really cool Tamaya Metallic Purple another TRFer turned me on to. Granted, during the heat of summer, we build and I normally get WallyWorld stuff, but I was hot, tired and on my way home from work so I dropped in so I wouldn't have to go out again. Stupid move. Lazy has a price and I have the receipt to prove it.
I've flown enough cup rockets to know when I've had enough!
Of my dozen or so cuppies, I've only lost one (which was one of the plastic party section cups you find in the party aisle) when I sent it epically spiralling up on an E motor and it landed on someone's roof a quarter mile away.
The next time I tried an E with the #2 copy at the club (purple one below, but with hair), I almost lost it in a far plowed field.
Finding a cup in a plowed field is like a needle...)
Hey there, sorry to hear of your struggles with the kit. I've finished the Indigo (pics of it are on Rocket Reviews as well as Hobbylinc) as well as other TLP kits, so feel free to message me if you'd like any help or advice on it.If this TLP kit was the first rocket for me, I'd never build another rocket. It will darned sure be the last balsa finned rocket I'll ever build.
I finally finished it. Even putting the flourescent paint on it was frustrating as it took 11 coats to cover the primer.
So now you've understood the reason for the tough task young grasshopper!I finally finished it. Even putting the flourescent paint on it was frustrating as it took 11 coats to cover the primer.
This is the reason TLP kits were underrated/poorly rated...many purchasers didn't know the work that would be involved (or be familiar with them) and then it would become quite a frustration.
However, if you have the skills and patience, it can really highlight your abilities 100x more than an Estes Alpha can. Great work and I applaud you for not giving up.
Looks amazing to me!
Thanks. This thing is so lightweight. I now see the attraction of using very thin tubes, paper tail cones, and balsa fins. They rate it for an F motor, but I'm looking forward to see how it flies on a D as light as it is. Overall, I'm glad I bought it 10 years ago and finally built it.So now you've understood the reason for the tough task young grasshopper!
This is the reason TLP kits were underrated/poorly rated...many purchasers didn't know the work that would be involved (or be familiar with them) and then it would become quite a frustration.
However, if you have the skills and patience, it can really highlight your abilities 100x more than an Estes Alpha can. Great work and I applaud you for not giving up.
Looks amazing to me!
Actually I'd suggest something more than a D since the smaller rated motors are based on a light build (grams matter with TLP) and you've noted you had on a lot of coats of paint (btw always use white base coat for fluorescent colors).Thanks. This thing is so lightweight. I now see the attraction of using very thin tubes, paper tail cones, and balsa fins. They rate it for an F motor, but I'm looking forward to see how it flies on a D as light as it is. Overall, I'm glad I bought it 10 years ago and finally built it.
For my first Indigo flight I used a E20-4 and that seemed pretty good, however given it is a very lightweight rocket for its size I made sure there was little to no wind. I don't recall how much nose weight I added, but I may have added a bit since I was planning on F motors (if adding extra weight, always check total weight w/motor vs. the max liftoff weight of the motor you're using if it's smaller). Good luck!
Edit:. Also read up on Mylar chutes. I find what works for me best is to crumple it up a lot so it "softens" and to put in just before launching otherwise it seems to parawad more easily than plastic or fabric chutes.
Last edited:
Thanks. This thing is so lightweight. I now see the attraction of using very thin tubes, paper tail cones, and balsa fins. They rate it for an F motor, but I'm looking forward to see how it flies on a D as light as it is. Overall, I'm glad I bought it 10 years ago and finally built it.
Of course, what constitutes "pretty good" depends on many things, mainly sufficient altitude for deployment, field size, and personal preference.
Have you got the actual weight, as built (and painted)? Run yer sims, pick yer motor, and leter rip!
Actually I didn't think I needed to and I didn't have the file for it at the time years back (nor familiar enough with the programs back then to create one).
The kit itself noted to use D12 and F24, so I think E20 was a smart choice for first flight based on my build.
Looking back at my listed flight log record, I noted "Very nice flight!" and "E20-4Ws are great for this rocket!" back in 2015. YMMV
However I would agree that a sim would be best if possible to ensure a good & safe flight.
lakeroadster
When in doubt... build hell-for-stout!
Running sims on a kit lpr/mpr rocket, that's built per the instructions.... sure, it's a fun part of the hobby, but certainly not necessary. Now if you start free lancing and making changes, especially big changes, that ratchets up the importance of a sim.
I agree... usually no need to check if it is a kit built un-modded (and is not High power).
My "run yer sims" advice was meant for hobie1dog. You already know what engines you like for it.
Sims for a kit built per instructions are still useful to determine expected altitude so that you can match that to what you want for your field size and taste.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,407
- Reaction score
- 7,949
Not only altitude, but there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that manufacturer weights are ... optimistic to say the least. If you've added 10 coats of paint or heavier fillets, or any number of other things that might impact speed off the pad or stability, it's not a bad idea to check the CP/CG relationship.
This isn't particularly relevant to this kit, but Estes also appears to only recommend Estes motors, some of which are marginal thrust-to-weight for some kits. There are times when following the instructions leads users astray.
I just recently downloaded Open Rocket but have had zero success using it. I selected a body tube then selected a nose cone and it put the nose cone on the back/rh side. And everything I wanted to add always ended up on the right hand side of the airframe, So it looks like I've got to read the tutorials or find a YouTube video on how to operate the thing. I've got a long way before I ever get to putting the proper size fins on an air frame, Running a Sim is a long way off as well.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,407
- Reaction score
- 7,949
OR parts are ordered left to right in the order that they're on the list to the right. You can drag and drop parts in the hierarchy to get them into the right place. Or just start with defining the nose cone, then the body tube, then all of the subordinate parts on the body tube (fins, chutes, motor mount, etc.). If it's a kit, there may be an OR or Rocksim file already made that you can adapt.
Similar threads
