Full size? Cool! Can I get strapped in on top of that candle?

__________________
Scott D. Hansen
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe - Your One Stop BAR Shoppe!
Ye Olde Rocket Plans - OOP Rocket Plans From 38 Companies!
Ye Olde Rocket Forum
WOOSH NAR Section #558

The ninth tank was a Jupiter tank hidden inside the eight external tanks. It was 105 inches in diameter.

The Saturn 1B was the original SPEV.

__________________
Carl McLawhorn
NAR#4717 L2
semroc.com

yeppers, reading "Stages to Saturn" right now, and when they described where the components were coming from inspired me to build this to the same scale as my Centuri Sat V. Once I have my .7 tubes, I may build a 1/100 semi scale MR for chuckles.

Seeing a 1/70 Sat 1B next to a 1/100 Sat V doesn't hit you the same way -- wish I could afford Apogee's 1/70th Sat V

__________________
David Stribling
NAR 18402 SR
But it is rocket science!
Get yer Barrowmans here

That IMHO is THE book on the Saturn V. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Greg

I have been out of town for a couple weeks, on vacation. I now have my tubes from Totally Tubular!!

I have been kicking around how to mount the fuel tubes. Attached are some sketches. Putting the tubes on a .935 radius (scale dimension) the largest ID to fit inside the tubes is 1.17" The closest tube I can find is a Quest T30 which is 1.18" OD. I am thinking now of using a BT-50, make it full length and fly on a single 24mm motor.

I am attaching a drawing which has some part dimensions, which is currently, a hybrid of the core using the Quest tube and the BT-50. You will note there is a gap between the engine tubes and the stuffer--the Centuri kit has a cardboard bulkhead there, to adapt the two engine cluster to the stuffer tube.

Using the original Centuri instructions, I find some of the part lengths aren't to scale--or since I can't find the templates mentioned in the instructions, I may have incorrectly interpreted some of the part placement. I decided to make all the lengths to scale, so I am moving away from being a Centuri clone.

I still have a question about the aft tube length. George Gassaway's drawing shows the top to be at STA 192.6. I can't find this documented on the Saturn 1B drawings I have (NARTS packet and Scott Lowther's APR site). Scaling the pixels on these drawings, I get the top at 193.75. George, is your dimension an actual STA, or did you scale it?

Attached Thumbnails

     

Attached Files

SaturnIB_KS10.PDF (170.8 KB, 149 views)

__________________
David Stribling
NAR 18402 SR
But it is rocket science!
Get yer Barrowmans here

Our ST-11 is 1.17" OD.

__________________
Carl McLawhorn
NAR#4717 L2
semroc.com

Thanks Carl! I gotta update my spreadsheet database!! :blush:

__________________
David Stribling
NAR 18402 SR
But it is rocket science!
Get yer Barrowmans here

It is from an actual STA. But it has been 15 years since I did the research and drew up the data, so I do not recall where it is from (and given the time plus a move last summer, I do not know where of that old research data is. I know where some is but those are binders of manuals whereas I think that STA number likely came from a drawing).

If it was an “extrapolated” dimension (such as measuring a drawing), it should have had a “Tilde” character preceding it, like this: ~ STA-xx.xx, or would have been labeled as approximate.

That STA 192.6 is also in Alway’s Rockets of the World. I did not get it from him, but that’s one confirmation source I can provide right now.

If you wanted some “real fun” correcting a kit, there is the 1/70 Estes/Semroc IB. This is 37.0” tall. Should be 37.53. But it gets more interesting, as it is visibly obvious. That very aft ring section, between STA 192.6 and STA 54, is very visibly longer/taller than it ought to be. I have figured it may have been a consequence of making the fins larger to be plenty stable with a cluster, which in turn may have caused the aft ring to be taller so the model could still stand on that ring tube and not stand on the tips of the enlarged fins. Another likely consequence is that all the first stage tank tubes are shorter, by whatever amount the aft ring is longer (and then there is also that missing .53" to be accounted for somewhere in the entire length of the 37.0" model). I do not fault Semroc for that, as they were making a faithful clone of the Estes kit.

If you really want your mind blown, consider how plastic model companies had their models done (and some may still do for new models). A large 2X (or maybe 4X) model sculpted, by eye, with photos as reference. A sort of necessarily evil for making models of planes and cars. But when they also did rockets, some of them stuck with the “by eye” method, instead of using rocket drawings to help them. Which is how some Saturn-V models got the Service Module and Apollo CM too small. I cannot recall for sure if it was Airfix, or Monogram who had that problem with their 1/144 kits, or possibly both. Also that silly error was carried over into the movie “Apollo-13”, because the people who made the computer models, used one of those inaccurate PLASTIC KITS to derive the sizes and shapes, instead of real Saturn drawings. They even compounded that mistake by using the inaccurate Saturn-V paint pattern from the model kit box art.

- George Gassaway

Thanks! I have too many dwgs I completely overlooked ROTW, and its sitting here on my desk corner!!!! DOH!

Ah, the joys of scale modeling. I remember the Revell Sat V had some big goofs, and the paint pattern on the S1C was wrong.

I ordered some ST-11 tubing, and will proceed. Thanks Carl and George!

__________________
David Stribling
NAR 18402 SR
But it is rocket science!
Get yer Barrowmans here

I've had several copies of both of these Saturn V kits, and what you'd see today will blow your mind even further.

Both kits were virtually identical to begin with, like sin twisters...

Airfix was guilty of having the very long SM and a too-small CM. Almost 1/2" too long in real terms. It could have qualified as a 1/144th scale LJII if you had fins available. IIRC, the Airfix model of the CSM stack originally came from their S-1/S-1B kit, which was itself designed around one of the early boilerplate rounds. Monogram was closer on the SM, not completely correct, but was also guilty of having a too-small CM. Airfix also had the detailing around the joint lines thick, with the corrugations on the bottom skirt not removed to accept the conduit tips on the booster.

Now, Monogram has in the last 20 years (since the demise of Airfix) either acquired the Airfix toolings and combined them with their original toolings, or they have copied the Airfix errors into their latest toolings. It's the summation of all the wosrt errors of both kits rolled into one.

Very sad, indeed...

__________________
Craig McGraw

BARCLONE Rocketry -- http://barclone.rocketshoppe.com
BARCLONE Blogsite -- http://barclone.wordpress.com
BARCLONE Forum -- BARCLONE Forum

BARs helping BARs

SAM 0044
AMA 352635