Which one to choose?

[jraice]

I made a 2.56" by 6" long CF tube last night and have a compatible aerotech nose cone. Which rocksim file do you think I should make it into? Plan is to fly motors in the H-I range and maybe even a 38/720 load. All components (rings/fins/pylons) will be 1/8" birch plywood. Ok, here is the first design, a 3.9" coupler tube (2"s long) with 3 pylons... a ring fin design. Rocket is very stable and cool looking, BTW, all 4 designs have most recovery stuff in the nose.......

 

[jraice]

Here it is with a triangular (right triangle) set of 4 fins that go from the back all the way to the front. Fins have TTW tabs but only the bottom of the fin, this leaves room in the tube for the NC shoulder. Top portion of fin is surface mounted. With a solid build do you think 2 1/8" baltic birch rings could take a high thrust motor? Say an I435T or I600R? I could move up to 3/16" or even 1/4" but 1/8" would help stability.

 

[jraice]

The third rocksim file has the same fin as the 2nd but with the tip trimmed off, I call it a tweaked triangle fin...

 

[jraice]

This one is less stable (2 ounce nose weight needed) and I dont like it that much but I thought I would throw it in and see if it gets any votes.

 

[jraice]

I am leaning towards a ring fin, or the tweaked triangular fin. But I want to know what you guys thinks so vote, and post why... thanks in advance. I like the ring fin because it fits the abnormal length of the tube and makes the rocket VERY unique, also should keep it below mach 1 on its max load. Reason I also like the 3rd tweaked fin design is because the fins will run the entire length of the tube for added strength. The CF tube is a little on the thin side, may add a layer or two of glass on top. The tweaked fins will get pretty high mach speeds, maybe over 1.5, and atlitudes near a mile. We are working on a GPS tracking system and this may be a good rocket to try it out in. I may also try out tip to tip glassing on this rocket. I like how the tip off the fin is flat, unlike the 2nd design, and would be less likely to be damaged on landing. With the glass it may need nose weight but I think I could add an ounce or two in the very long AT nose cone. So what do you guys think?