Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Work Bench > RockSim Asylum
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-25-2023, 11:53 AM
Winston2021's Avatar
Winston2021 Winston2021 is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 548
Default Rocksim file for Estes #9752 29mm Pro Series II Booster kit?

I'm lazy, so if anyone has one, please post.
__________________
"Walter, WHY is there an EAR in the omelet?" - Peter Bishop, Fringe, S01E16
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-06-2023, 10:23 AM
Winston2021's Avatar
Winston2021 Winston2021 is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 548
Default

Never mind on the title request.

I already built this YEARS ago and just simmed it today after creating a "good enough" (i.e., not internally detailed perfectly) Rocksim model to approximate flight performance and safety.

Estes 29mm BP motor propelled models can be sluggish off the launch pad because of the slow rise of the thrust curve, so I added pods to the booster to give a decent departure velocity off of a 48" launch rod.

To keep it an FAA Class 1 Model Rocket - no more than 125g of propellant - the booster has a central E16-0 with a C11-3 and C11-5 in the pods (although it's simmed with plugged C11s), and an F15-8 in the sustainer. The pod parachutes eject at different times to hopefully avoid tangling.

The total empty mass and CG for both the sustainer and booster were measured individually and entered manually.

I haven't launched it yet and when I eventually do it will be on a huge launch field in the middle of nowhere at a much greater distance from launch control than required by safety guidelines. The rocket will be positioned on the pad so that an ignition of only one pod will arc the rocket perpendicular to the line from the pad to launch control.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:  Estes 9707 Majestic with custom 9752 booster with pods.jpg
Views: 27
Size:  35.6 KB  
Attached Files
File Type: rkt Estes 9707 Majestic with custom 9752 booster with pods.rkt (65.5 KB, 9 views)
__________________
"Walter, WHY is there an EAR in the omelet?" - Peter Bishop, Fringe, S01E16

Last edited by Winston2021 : 04-06-2023 at 12:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-09-2023, 10:34 AM
PaulK's Avatar
PaulK PaulK is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: WI
Posts: 1,778
Default

Seems like that should be enough thrust to get it going off the pad. I can attest that an F15-0 to F15-8 in one of those is not enough speed off a 5' rod. I flew one and it staged nearly horizontally. Never saw it again, though it was entertaining.
__________________
Paul
If we weren't all crazy, we would go insane - Jimmy Buffett
NAR #87246 www.wooshrocketry.org
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-09-2023, 04:30 PM
Winston2021's Avatar
Winston2021 Winston2021 is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulK
Seems like that should be enough thrust to get it going off the pad. I can attest that an F15-0 to F15-8 in one of those is not enough speed off a 5' rod. I flew one and it staged nearly horizontally. Never saw it again, though it was entertaining.
With those pods the sim says 38 fps off of a 4 ft rod which is close enough to the rule of thumb 40 fps.

I've flown that combo with an E16-0 (different booster with no pods) to F15-8 on a 4 ft rod, but luckily it was dead calm on launch day which I'd made a requirement to launch it. Went straight up and was very impressive.
__________________
"Walter, WHY is there an EAR in the omelet?" - Peter Bishop, Fringe, S01E16
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-10-2023, 10:57 AM
SolarYellow SolarYellow is offline
Intermediate Rocketeer
 
Join Date: Feb 2023
Posts: 60
Default

I've seen anecdata (launch reports on the other forum) suggesting the Majestic may be marginally stable by itself. My hypothesis is that skinnying the fins up to make them more or less triangular gives away too much area compared to the fins on the Ascender, which AFAIK are the same as those on the booster. I bought a couple of those fin cans and some of the 2-inch tube before Estes closed it out that will be combined into single stage rockets when I get around to it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-10-2023, 11:59 AM
Winston2021's Avatar
Winston2021 Winston2021 is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarYellow
I've seen anecdata (launch reports on the other forum) suggesting the Majestic may be marginally stable by itself. My hypothesis is that skinnying the fins up to make them more or less triangular gives away too much area compared to the fins on the Ascender, which AFAIK are the same as those on the booster. I bought a couple of those fin cans and some of the 2-inch tube before Estes closed it out that will be combined into single stage rockets when I get around to it.
The Rocksim file for the Majestic (without booster) which I believe I got from:

https://www.rocketreviews.com/rocks...x-majestic.html

shows an "overstable" 2.57 stability margin with an F15-6 loaded.

Attached is an image of the issue. Rule of thumb, if I recall correctly, for safe rod departure is 40 fps. Note where that velocity is obtained in the simulation with an Estes F15. The 29mm Estes BP motors have a very slow thrust buildup.

However, the launch details indicate "Velocity at launch guide departure: 31.7952 ft/s" for a 4 foot rod. That doesn't seem to match the graphed velocity versus altitude plot.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:  Velocity vs time vs thrust.jpg
Views: 2
Size:  22.7 KB  
__________________
"Walter, WHY is there an EAR in the omelet?" - Peter Bishop, Fringe, S01E16
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-10-2023, 01:18 PM
SolarYellow SolarYellow is offline
Intermediate Rocketeer
 
Join Date: Feb 2023
Posts: 60
Default

Makes sense.

Not trying to make it a point of contention, but the number I remember seeming to be general consensus for safe departure speed is

15 m/sec
=49.2 ft/sec
=33.6 mph

I try to set up my sims to run 17 m/sec or faster off the rod.

32.8 ft/sec = 10 m/sec

Guess I'll be sticking to composites for my Estes tube 2-inch builds. And almost certainly making them shorter, lighter and a little less overstable to resist weathercocking.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-10-2023, 02:19 PM
Winston2021's Avatar
Winston2021 Winston2021 is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolarYellow
Makes sense.

Not trying to make it a point of contention, but the number I remember seeming to be general consensus for safe departure speed is

15 m/sec
=49.2 ft/sec
=33.6 mph
Yep, through a search I've found 30 mph which converts to 45 fps, not found in the NAR or Tripoli safety codes (that I have on hand, anyway), but in a few cases like this one specified for high power flights at the Johnson Space Center:

Other requirements are that a rocket achieve at least 30 mph (45 fps) off the launch guide, and stability margins must be between .75 and 5.0 Calibers

Of course, the greatest factors in the safe departure velocity are crosswinds and stability factors which is why my two stage Majestic managed to go strait up in dead calm air.
__________________
"Walter, WHY is there an EAR in the omelet?" - Peter Bishop, Fringe, S01E16
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe 1998-2023