Here's the latest theories I have to the problem with this (and soon we may find the DBRM to be included with this). Originally posted on FB as a reply to this comment.
I posted this:
Another Estes Big Daddy (2162) Lawndart Questions Thread...
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threa...U6t3ZkBj5FZGqy7TfwKIUNDEVpdNe6HkLFHXoSOcFBGKI
Some question that aren't in the thread, but I'd like to get the OFFICIAL (read: from ESTES) answers to... What is the definition of "Too Loose"? What is the definition of "Too Tight"? I have my own ideas*... But what are the real answers?
*My ideas:
Too Loose? Does the rocket slip back, or fall apart when picked up by the nosecone? Yes? It's too loose.
Too Tight? Can you not get the nosecone on the rocket w/o damaging the rocket? Can you not "eject" the nosecone by blowing a puff of air from the engine tube into the rocket? Yes? It's too tight.
A good fit would have the nosecone stay attached to the body tube without slipping, yet a puff of air blown into the rocket should get it to separate cleanly.
To which I got this message:
Enquiring FB poster said:
How will a slightly loose nosecone cause a problem?
To which I replied:
It's kind of like a cannon or a musket. If the cannonball or musket bullet isn't well sealed, the charge will not be able to fire it (or fire it as far as it should). You'll get more of "FFFFffffffttt" than a "BOOM!!!"
We've seen videos showing the ejection coming out of the side of the nosecone, just before the rocket arched over and lawndarted. There's another photo showing another BD just before it impacted the ground with the white of its shoulder exposed above the body tube.
As I see it, there are three parts to this problem...
The shape of the nosecone, the weight of the rocket, and experience.
The problems with this nosecone's shape are twofold. Due to its design or manufacture, it is too loose for the 3" OD body tube it is shipped with. I suspect the reason for the looseness is that perhaps Estes was going to ship it at some time with a heavier walled body tube, or anticipated people would use it with other available 3" tubes that are thicker walled than theirs in scratch building. The other problem is that "ramp" that creates the attachment point. If the attachment point was done with a smaller slope, there wouldn't be a "ramp", and thus no way for the ejection to be vented if the rocket drag separates a bit in the coast phase. Which leads us to the second part of this problem... Weight.
The BD is a very lightweight rocket for its diameter. It has large, kinda thick balsa fins. As such, it's also draggy. If the nosecone's fit is loose, then the body tube can separate some from the nosecone opening up that "ramp", turning it into a vent. Which leads to a bad event. Imagine throwing a small rock with a crushed up ball of paper (that is the same diameter) very lightly stuck to it. Then throw them together. The aerodynamic forces will make the paper try to pull away from the rock(et?). Do that again with a rock and a piece of wood instead of the paper. You won't get the same reaction the since the mass difference between the parts is less. Other rockets that use this nosecone are heavier, and so, they are less prone to drag separation.
Then there's the experience issue. There are a lot of veteran BD owners that say that there is nothing wrong with it built "stock". I suspect that what is not being accounted for by them is their experience. They know what a loose nosecone is, and how to fix it with masking tape, as it is shown in the instructions. Thus their "stock" build has a snug nosecone that won't have a problem with drag separation. I believe that less experienced builders *MISS* that instruction when building their rockets, and not knowing that their nosecone is too loose, send it up, only to see it fall out of the sky. I've seen photos of lawndarted BDs show one or more kids staring at the rocket sticking out of the ground. I wonder how many of those kids were the builders? How much experience do they have? Did they add tape to the nosecone as per the instructions?
photo: Dave Lang