lol! Well, it's the details I'm after...someone posted the question on
our forum and I'm at a loss as to what to say, other than 'as slow as
I guess that is sort of valid, but not quite what I'm after ;-)
Sort of...Chuck Rudy thinks it looks pretty neat - I'm not sure how
big it is - over 50 acres of pasture and hardly any trees. Great place
to fly but our 3500ft waiver is very limiting :-(
Perth Advanced Rocket Club - Western Australia
I'm fairly new to rocketry having only recently achieved level 1 on a
scratch built, but anyone can have a view and here's mine:
The question is slightly spurios since we don't have a way a triggering
ejection at a specific speed and its better to deploy the recovery device at
high speed than not at all.
Effective design comes from designing recovery gear that is likely to
survive high speed deployment - Info Central suggest recovery gear should be
rated at 50 times the weight of the rocket.
Once the rocket has separated it will quickly slow because its areodynamics
are wrecked so allow plenty of shock cord to give time for slowing down
before the full recovery shock hits it. Elastic shock cord can cause the
rocket parts to spring back an collide so builders seem to shun it but
manufacturors still put it in their kits...
A thought I came across lately but I cant remember where, is that the parts
should be designed so that they are unstable once separated. This way even
if recovery devices prove not to be strong enough the rocket parts come in
slowly and not ballistic.
Finally I recommend you test everything, especially my advice :-)
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.