11-27-2008, 08:57 PM
|
|
Just another BAR!
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 131
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CPMcGraw
You'll fit right in, Bill. We have a room and a jacket waiting for you... 
The only issues I see immediately are, as noted, the single pylon, and the use of 2 E9s for power. Estes Es are notoriously weak, with less power than a D12 for getting off the pad. I would think a composite E (SU or RL) would be a better choice.
....
Watch your acceleration numbers in RS. This column in the simulation doesn't get a lot of attention usually; in the case of your RT ship, though, you want to minimize this number somewhat. Watch the recommended launch guide length. If it goes over 48", you'll need a tower. You might also think about adjusting the power up or down to achieve flight V at or below 40" of guide. Too high an acceleration number could tear that ring right off the pylon by the time it gets off the end of the rod. |
Craig,
Thanks for the welcome and feedback on my Chronos design.
Yeah, pylon strength is a concern. My experience has been limited to black powder engines, but I agree designs of this size / weight are probably more suitable for composites.
I posted some specifics about the single pylon design in a response to Jim. I did try to strengthen the fin mounts. I hadn't considered sheer force.
I'm going to work a "down-scale" C-engine version like you suggested. I can use it as a boiler plate to work out the single pylon design before moving onto mid-power.
Thanks for the feedback on acceleration / velocity numbers. Exactly the type of feedback I was looking for. Is there a general rule of them for acceleration and velocity numbers off the rod?
Thanks,
... Bill
|