no outside fillets - thoughts please

Oct 07, 2003 14 Replies

I have a few rockets I built and have flown with no outside fillets.



A classic example is my 1991 I-roc. The inside uses dowels epoxied to each side of the fin.



In that example, the fins are not even glued to the motor mount, as I can take the rocket totally apart. The rear thurst ring butts up agaist the fins to stop forward motion and a bolt across the motor tube/forward centering ring inside the parachute compartment holds the mount together.



On the outside, the fin joint to body tube is gap sealed and then I put Mylar on the fins and body tube outside joint to simulate steal angle irons on real rockets holding fins on.



My question. Aside from the freaked RSOs who will think that the rocket is not "Built", has anyone got something wrong with this method ?



I really like it , and plan to use it only on a KLM sized rocket with only epoxy , 'glass and dowels on the inside for reinforcement. On this larger rocket, the phenolic fins will be glued to the motor tube, so I won't be able to take it apart.



Let the thoughts begin, and thanks in advance.



Art Upton


If the RSO's who disagree with your method are "freaks", would you really listen to any advice anyways?

He said they were "freaked" not they were "freaks."

Um, NO - go back and read what he wrote, not what you read....

Nope, it otter work just fine. And if the RSO freaks, just explain your construction method to him/her the same way you just did here.

David, they are not freaks, they , just like me , get a "take back" or "second look" , "double take" when they see a large rocket with no outside fillets. We generally have called that "freaking out" or "to freek" in everyday conversation when taken to the extream.

Please, your advice anyways.

art

Wrong-O he said, "freaked RSOs" using freaked as an adjective to describe the state of the RSOs.

Do you mean like:

formatting link
it's big brother that inspired it:
formatting link
fins are not glued in at all.

Joel. phx

Got to

formatting link
and click on "Fin Materials" Make something like this:
formatting link
can test it as in the picture above, or like this:
formatting link
Send me an email and I'll test your idea. Then, you can take real data to the RSO so he wont freak.

-- Drake "Doc" Damerau

formatting link
NEPRA President NAR Section 614 NAR 79986 L3
formatting link
Remove "My Shorts" to reply

formatting link
or it's big brother that inspired it:

Nice, and very insteresting. Yes, like that idea, but I was thinking of still gluing them in on this model.

art

Correct, but freaked RSO's , describing their state do not mean they are freaks, a noun of some kind ?

Art

Well now that we got that out of the way... :-)

My advice is that for higher power motors (higher speeds, higher vibation, etc) you need to keep the fin from being able to move from side to side. The best way is to fix it in place at two points: the motor mount and the body tube. I think your strong internal fillets are fine for the body tube joint. I think both internal and external fillets are only needed in the most stressful of situations. You mention that the joint to the motor mount will be glued. I would fillet that as well if possible.

-- David

Or let him wiggle the fin and realize that there is something behind it.

With TTW/TTM fins the only real purpose of an external fillet is aerodynamic anyway.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

In theory there are two contact points. The root and the body for a mechanical strut.

The side panels is as good or better if the fin can be retained. Pull forces on fins are high.

Jerry

Test THAT!

You are going to pay an aerodynamic penalty for this, in interference drag, but on a high-power rocket it shouldn't be nearly as bad as on a modroc.

Scott Orr

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required