Missile Hit ?

Thanks Ray, I should have gone there first thing. Don't know why I didn't think of Snopes.com.

Sigh.

Scott McCrate

Reply to
Scott McCrate
Loading thread data ...

Yep, that's what I discovered. Damn big planes too. I was working from memory of the video images and 767s look like direct scale-ups of 737s while the 757 is a really different looking (and sounding) aircraft. Working at the airport (started here a year after 9/11), I've gotten pretty good at identifying them.

Scott McCrate

Reply to
Scott McCrate

No problem, like I said it was "polite slapdown" ;0). I can handle a reality adjustment from time to time, just not a snide remark like the nastygram I got from a lurker. I got nasty back with him which was stupid because I'm sure that I'm standing in the puddle of a pissing contest. Now let's play "Name That Troll!" Well actually don't. It's not worth it.

Scott McCrate

Reply to
Scott McCrate

Are you *sure* about that? In most cases that I have seen, models built with standard parts end up coming out *below* optimal mass for altitude attempts, especially when built to be minimum diameter using commercially available composite motors.

What do your sims say?

- Rick "Curious" Dickinson

Reply to
Rick Dickinson

standard parts end up coming out *below* optimal mass for altitude attempts, especially when built to be minimum diameter using commercially available composite motors.

Lacking anything else to go by at this time but the sims, I have to take them as "true". In this particular case the sims say 8000' while the record is 18000'. That's quite a gap. I'll know abit more once I get in some more flight tests under better conditions than the last couple launches have offered. I got the higher of the two flights one day from the smaller motor, due to the wind arcing over the rocket. It's an imperfect world :-\

Chuck

Reply to
Zathras of the Great Machine

standard parts end up coming out *below* optimal mass for altitude attempts, especially when built to be minimum diameter using commercially available composite motors.

Maybe I wasn't real clear. What I really wanted to know is what the sims said was the optimal mass of your rocket. If you're using Rocksim, it has a feature to figure that out for you. If you're using some other sim program, you can do it yourself, it's just not automatic.

Simply add mass to your rocket design, in small increments, and re-run your sims to see what altitudes they predict. For a given rocket motor and airframe dimensions, there will be *some* total mass that gives a maximum altitude. Adding mass beyond that point reduces altitude, as does reducing it below that point.

For most "altitude attempt" rockets I've seen simulated, the optimum mass was *above* the stock built mass. Try it with yours and see what happens.

- Rick "Try reducing it, too, just to see" Dickinson

Reply to
Rick Dickinson

This should be in the FAQ.

Basics.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

| get a sick feeling every time.

I used to have a clear shot from where I live of the ES building and the WTC.

Reply to
Gene Costanza

was the optimal mass of your rocket. If you're using Rocksim, it has a feature to figure that out for you. If you're using some other sim program, you can do it yourself, it's just not automatic.

Or I didn't get the intent of your words. I've been using a demo version of SpaceCAD, but I'm not happy with some of it's results. Specifically the CG's and CP's for the rocket in question came out nothing like the reality even when I meticulously put in every gram where it was (and now suspect the same killed another rocket on it's maiden flight). Tried the demo for Rocksim too, seemed darned clunky in comparison. Got the real full now, just haven't installed it. I want to see what the reality is with a few flights so I can double check against that. As I said, this bird is the test bed for ones to come later. If it can actually do what I'd built it for, great! If not, I'm still gonna have fun.

sims to see what altitudes they predict. For a given rocket motor and airframe dimensions, there will be *some* total mass that gives a maximum altitude. Adding mass beyond that point reduces altitude, as does reducing it below that point.

I've done that but the program doesn't seem to want to change it's results, least not enough to be significant. We'll see what Rocksim says when the time comes. Personally, right now, I just want to get in the air with something, I'm going into withdrawl.

*above* the stock built mass. Try it with yours and see what happens.

If what you say is likely then I'll be one happy fellow. I was expecting to need to get into composite construction and such to have a reasonable shot to do it. If I can avoid that, for now, that's fine by me.

Maybe I need to upload the beastie after all.............

Chuck

Reply to
Zathras of the Great Machine

Really, Arnold... You need to quit snorting that stuff. It's starting to give you brain damage, and getting you too keyed up. Try to relax. Would your "diplomatic" wife approve of such language? And these "world leaders" to which you refer... Would that include Manuel Noriega?

Last time I heard anything like that, it came from the mouth of a guy being arrested for being under the influence of methamphetamine...

Seriously though... If I heard you going off like that on the street, I'd check you for being under the influence...

RY

Reply to
RowdyYates

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.