Monday, November 7, 2011
Fizzie powered toys rocked!
I consider one of these to be my second flying rocket after the Korny-7 but my first real thrust powered rocket. A recent web search yielded several similar rockets of this type and most look close enough to my recollection so as to make no never mind. They operated as water rockets powered by water and a fizzie type tablet. Pour in the water with the provided funnel/measuring cup, drop in the pellet[s] and quickly insert the nozzle plug. Then turn the rocket upright and insert the plug assembly in the pad base which is attached to the ground with a large nail, back-away and pull the release string. No recovery system, thus the rubber nose tip.
Vinegar and baking soda would probably fly just as well but the fact that the fizzie is in pellet form allows time for insertion of the nozzle plug where a quick dissolving powder would not. I don't recall what became of this rocket but I know I put it on the 2nd story apartment roof at least once.
About the same time, or not long after, there were a couple other fizzie powered toys, a squirt pistol and a submarine. The sub definetely used more than one pellet and would drive forward, dive, then resurface. I wanted that sub. I did have the gun one summer. Both were also red plastic.
These were toys that, like pump-up water-rocs were an idea that were ahead of the materials technology of the day. Polystyrene doesn't hold up well enough. Polycarbonate [Lexan], PET and similar plastics have allowed the reintroduction of such products
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Descent position [almost]
The Wig-Wag is yet another monocopter with an adjustable pitch wing. Like the two Campitch MC's the wing automatically adjusts from ascent pitch to descending autorotative pitch.
The Wig-Wag employs a weighted arm mounted to the hub and a wire loop mounted to the underside of the wing leading edge which goes around the weightbar. Before ignition, the weightbar dangles down holding the wing down with it. As rpm increases centrifigal force swings the weightbar outward, thus upward, until it's horizontal, pulling the wing up to ascent angle. After motor burn out, as rpm decreases, the weightbar sags downward again, bringing the wing down into autorotation mode. Unlike the Campitch MC's, this pitch control system is more responsive in flight and doubtless more tunable on the ground since it's controlled by the mass [and length] of the weightbar alone rather than the interaction of wing weight and spring strength. This actually works like the weight ball governor on old steam engines [and some early petrol engines], particularly stationary units. So like them, at peak performance, the Wig-wag monocopter is literally running ball[s]-out.
While the Campitch MC's would've been difficult to design without serious drafting, preferably CAD, the Wig-Wag was cobbed together a part at a time with no drafting of any sort. It aint perfect, but it's a good first attempt and entirely functional from first flight on.
The wing and hub are used parts resurrected from the remains of the CP-1. This makes for a wing that is too small and heavy but it does turn in fair flights on C motors. The weightbar is made from an RC pushrod clevis and a piece of 2-56 all-thread with a lead fishing weight nutted on. My biggest conceptual stumbling block was coming up with a suitable weightbar pivot mount on the hub. Installation of an upright piece of G10 fiberglass was easy enough with my bandsaw followed by grinding access for the flybar with a moto-tool. What was actually more difficult was bending a suitable wire loop for the wing and then mounting it in the best spot. I bent two loops and then punched three pairs of holes in the wing before I was reasonably satisfied. I was glad to be utilizing used parts as I had no concern for cosmetic issues.
So far the Wig-Wag has made three flights. First on a C6, then on a D5, followed by a D12. While the two Estes motors were fine, the Quest D5 suffered a case burnthrough. While this is no big surprise anytime you spin one, that recycled undersized wing makes matters worse. This led to replacement of the motor mount tube.
After puzzling for quite a while over a name, I settled on Wig-Wag due to the resemblance between the weightbar and a wig-wag railroad crossing signal.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
First Stage; Slant range puts the booster a long way from the launch site and variable target orbits increase possible descent points over a large arc, typically well out over the Atlantic. The sheer height of the Falcon 9 booster makes me want to install much larger landing legs [and more of them]. This is why all flyback booster designs thusfar have wings, wheeled landing gear and sometimes jet engines.
Second stage, This might actually be a bit easier than the first stage. Because the 2nd stage is itself orbital [or nearly so], one can pick the reentry point and bring it down where desired. A reentry heat shield adds a lot of weight though. At least 2 motor restarts are needed, but restarts are not that uncommon here. Need a lot of spare fuel for both the deorbit and the landing. Second stage motor nozzles are typically optimized for high altitude/vacuum operations and will be inefficient back at sea level.
I believe it was NRL that was ground testing a booster 20 or so years ago that was low-pressure [no turbo pumps] and had a variable expansion thrust bell, kinda like the "turkey feathers" on a fighter jet engine nozzle. This allowed inflight expansion ratio optimization for any altitude.
Capsule and boosters are shown returning on thrust alone. Even with thrust for landing, parachute systems would still be more economical and probably lighter for slowing and stabilizing the vehicles in an upright position instead of relying on attitude thrusters and the mains alone. Parachutes would also add some safety in case of motor failure, or at least reduce the splat.
"We'll see if this works," Musk said. "But it's going to be certainly an exciting journey. And if it does work, it'll be pretty huge. If you look at the cost of a Falcon 9 ... it's about $50 (million) to $60 million. But the cost of the fuel and oxygen and so forth is only about $200,000. So obviously, if we can reuse the rocket, say, a thousand times, then that would make the capital cost of the rocket for launch only about $50,000. ... It would allow about a hundred-fold reduction in launch costs."
Was Mr Musk reading that off a script???
Nobody's gonna get 1000 uses out of any booster, even if there is that large a backlog of flight contracts. Divide flight contracts by; payload production rates, vehicle refurbishment rate, available ground support, optimal launch windows... I'm sorry but I would've scoffed at 100 flights per booster. How about 10 flights each on a 5-10 booster fleet. By then; if the economics are sound, you'll be building a few replacements and/or an improved new fleet anyway.
Note that Elon says a 1000 fold reduction in booster cost relates to only a 100 fold reduction in overall launch costs. That sounds reasonable as other costs go up drastically. Additional flight systems complication, booster retransport, refurbishment, range comm/nav systems, additional facilities...manpower, manpower, manpower.
I have great respect for SpaceX and what they have accomplished. In fact I'd like to work for them, and I can't say that about most of the aerospace industry or NASA itself.
My friend Steve recently replaced my PC tower with a much newer one. Not precisely cutting edge as it was assembled from hand-me-down components, but it's a lot more advanced than my old one which I had for over 11 years.
There's a helluva lot of work to do yet, software and tools to transfer or download, and gigs of folders to transfer. Wherever practical, I'm downloading fresh copies or newer versions of software and tools just to be sure they're clean and up to date. Normally I cringe and start to break out in hives every time I'm faced with "Updated" or "Improved" software. Most of the time it has compatability issues or unresolved glitches, or will no longer do what I needed it to do beforehand [Quicktime comes to mind on that score]. Naturally, I totally object to automated updates and block them always. The learning curve is pretty steep, principally changing from Win 98 to XP, and Bobcad 17 to 21.xx. After using dialup all those years, having a hi-speed internet connection sure is nice too.
Steve is a computer professional and I cannot recommend him enough. You can reach him through the following link; pcmaverick.org
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Today I was trying out a new restaraunt, ordered myself some coffee and two tacos; bacon, egg & cheese and chorizo, egg & cheese. When the order was ready the manager brought it out because my server was busy elsewhere. The tacos were large but they looked a bit thin, I peaked under the flaps and there was plenty of cheese but nothing else! No eggs, no porky bits. Without some grilling time, these weren't exactly quesadillas yet either. The manager was all apologetic but I had to laugh out loud, disturb the whole place loud. That was funny!
The Wheel of Cheese Turns Full Circle.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
It should've read June, not January.
The reason why is smart software that is dumber than I would've thought.
Instead of using the date when it was actually posted, the software used the date from when the post was first created and saved as a draft, this despite extensive editing and additions the day I actually posted it. While the draft date might be useful information to me in a nagging sort of way, it is totally useless to the reader.
There are a couple other drafts scattered in my Edit Posts section, and if I decide to use them eventually, I'll now have to remember to paste them into a new post rather than risk them posting with the wrong date, or worse, being inserted amidst older posts outright. I would consider that to be an example of revisionist history, albeit minor and unintended. Rereading my old posts, I've run across quite a bit of stuff that could use reediting, but most are of the typesetting or spelling variety plus a few phrases that could've been done better. Just not worth the effort. If I found some gross errors, that might be a different story
People can rip pages from books, but that leaves evidence of the fact. People can burn books, but there are always more books. Be wary of the web, because computer editing and manipulation are very hard, or impossible to detect, especially text. Anyone can post to, or reedit a Wiki entry.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
At a typical modroc launch, any monocopter pads get set up nearby other pads in order to share launch control wires. I already posted about the [extremely] close call I had on the Pitchwing-2 first flight. This time it was another new monocopter called the Wig-Wag.
Right after takeoff the Wig-Wag drifted downwind slightly and the wingtip collide with an 1/8" stainless steel launch rod. The rod was mounted in the same launch rack that the Campitch-2 didn't hit. The launch rod was ruint [Texan for ruined, but with more finality], totally FUBAR! The only part of the rod that was still straight was the 1" section clamped in the pad base. One might expect the rod to be bent away from the direction of impact, or bent sharply toward DOI at the point of impact. Nope, neither. After the sharp 20-25deg bend away from DOI at the base the remaining rod length was bent in a continuous arc like a bow. quite strange really. I'm an old hand at straightening bent metal but this was scrap!
I owed Art Applewhite a new launch rod. Luckily I had some spares at home.
The monocopter wing was fiberglassed balsa and suffered only a 1/2" deep notch in the leading edge, and the MC went on to complete a nominal flight. That's right, it kept on flying.
Repairs were relatively easy. I sawed out and replaced a square of balsa, filled the gaps with Cya and micro balloons, then sanded the fill to shape and reinforced the area with a fiberglass patch. Since the wing is already a veteran of many flights on the Pitch Wing 1, I didn't even bother to touchup the paint.
I'm glad this first flight was only on a C6, if it'd been a D12, damage might've been much worse.
Pics by John Lee
These are pics of the Campitch 2's 1st flight. Just a test hop if you will. I would've posted these pics before if I'd known they existed. They were uploaded out of flight sequence at Flickr, so I didn't find them till the other night.
When I designed the CP-2, I meant it to be an 'E' powered monocopter and I succeeded well. A 'D' motor barely gets it into the air as the photos illustrate. Only about five feet up, woo-hoo!
I hate "reinventing the wheel" [Unless it can become a perverted mockery of science!], and I see no point in rewriting the flight description when I can copy & paste from one of my own previous blogposts.
>>>>>The first flight back in August  had us rolling on the ground, and we weren't even on fire! I launched the CP-2 on an Estes D12-3, it took off from a 2x4 pad low on the ground and ascended to no more than 3ft [more like 5ft] as it travelled 5-6ft upwind, then curved left going just over a modroc launch rack passing through a gap in the launch rods with scant centimeters to spare, then it drifted back downwind to land right next to it's takeoff point. It looked a lot like an olympic highjumper in action.<<<<<
Lucky thing, one of the launch rods was missing that day. [And that leads to another story.]
I haven't posted lately because I had to move. With major assistance from my brother, I started moving early Thanksgiving week. It took us nearly 2 weeks, after which there was a lot of settling in and rearrangement of storage, closely followed by more holidays.
While I have my own PC up and running, it currently has no online connection. I have to borrow time on other computers.