FAQFAQ SuchenSuchen MitgliederlisteMitgliederliste BenutzergruppenBenutzergruppen  RegistrierenRegistrieren  ProfilProfil Einloggen, um private Nachrichten zu lesenP.M. LoginLogin
Apollo LES 4"
Gehe zu Seite Zurück  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Weiter
 
Neues Thema eröffnen   Neue Antwort erstellen    EURocketry Foren-Übersicht -> Scale Modellbau
Vorheriges Thema anzeigen :: Nächstes Thema anzeigen  

Autor Nachricht
g_boxwood



Anmeldungsdatum: 08.06.2006
Beiträge: 172

BeitragVerfasst am: Sa 16 Mai 2009, 10:35    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

... and smoothed out with a belt sander (80 and 120 grit)!



You got it: the absorber thing on flying objects isn't a big deal at all!

The BPC tip inside the airframe is useless...



... and it was removed:



At this point the booster skirt can be glued in place to lead to the (almost) completed booster section:


_________________
Giacomo 'g_boxwood' Bosso
TRA#9986 L2
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Autor Nachricht
g_boxwood



Anmeldungsdatum: 08.06.2006
Beiträge: 172

BeitragVerfasst am: Sa 16 Mai 2009, 10:36    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

The last hassle deals with both the booster section and the capsule: we need to route the launch rods inside the capsule via some pretty long launch lugs (aluminum tubing).

I transferred the rod openings both to the capsule tip and heatshield:





It is better to glue the lugs to the heatshield first: join the booster section to the capsule, slide the lugs in place with the rods inside and turn everything upside-down:



I used blobs of epoxy to secure the lugs as the openings I drilled were larger:



It is really important to work with the entire assembly together and the rods in place to grant for the alignment between each length of the lug!

_________________
Giacomo 'g_boxwood' Bosso
TRA#9986 L2
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Autor Nachricht
g_boxwood



Anmeldungsdatum: 08.06.2006
Beiträge: 172

BeitragVerfasst am: Sa 16 Mai 2009, 10:36    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Now, the lug-tubes won't stay where they belongs until you glue their top ends as well: use plenty of epoxy again...



... but mask the exposed area...



... so it won't stick to the BPC! Why? because you need to re-assemble everything together and let it cure upside-down with the rod inserted!



Now it is a simple matter of tirmming and sanding the lug-tubes flush with the skin:


_________________
Giacomo 'g_boxwood' Bosso
TRA#9986 L2
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Autor Nachricht
g_boxwood



Anmeldungsdatum: 08.06.2006
Beiträge: 172

BeitragVerfasst am: Sa 16 Mai 2009, 10:36    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Views of the capsule during these finishing days:







The other sections are being dressed up as well:


_________________
Giacomo 'g_boxwood' Bosso
TRA#9986 L2
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Autor Nachricht
g_boxwood



Anmeldungsdatum: 08.06.2006
Beiträge: 172

BeitragVerfasst am: Sa 16 Mai 2009, 10:37    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

As I'm pretty close to completing the first phase of the program... ehm... project I end up this update with 2 pictures I tailor-made for the topic:

"The anatomy of the vehicle"







The simplified flight-profile of the first mission


_________________
Giacomo 'g_boxwood' Bosso
TRA#9986 L2
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Autor Nachricht
Louis



Anmeldungsdatum: 19.02.2007
Beiträge: 765
Wohnort: Zeven

BeitragVerfasst am: Mo 18 Mai 2009, 10:28    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Very impressive work! I look forward to see it on ALRS.

Louis

_________________
Always keep the pointy side up!
TRA #11409 L3 TAP
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen MSN Messenger
Autor Nachricht
Juerg
Site Admin


Anmeldungsdatum: 27.02.2005
Beiträge: 4545
Wohnort: Oberengstringen

BeitragVerfasst am: Mo 18 Mai 2009, 13:29    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Me too!

Cheers

Juerg

_________________
http://www.SpacetecRocketry.com
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden E-Mail senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen MSN Messenger
Autor Nachricht
g_boxwood



Anmeldungsdatum: 08.06.2006
Beiträge: 172

BeitragVerfasst am: Do 21 Mai 2009, 15:19    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

CM Recovery System

I worked hard onto the finsh and I sprayed a huge amount of white paint... Now, while the paint dries for at least a week I'm working onto the final designing challenge of the project: the capsule recovery system (for the next generation of flying capsules).

This is going to be a tough task as I'll show you. I started with a classic Apollo recovery picture: it helped me scale both the canopy diameter and the distance between the canopies and the CM attachment point.

It turned out that:

. the diameter of each chute is 122" = 310 cm

. the distance is 615 cm



The following pictures models 3 120" fruity chutes (16 gores) at the scale distance from the CM: not bad if we consider that each 120" is rated for a 50 pounds load while the CM weights 4 to 6 pounds!!!

Please stop laughing!

Second and alternate design involves 3 60" fruity again (12 gores) at the same scale distance from the CM:



There's little I can do with it. I read the Apogee Newsletter # 187 dealing with parachute clusters in the hope of getting some knowledge and find some sort of inspiration.

I hope you don't mind if I sum things up a bit:

Parachute clusters

1. all the chutes in the cluster must be identical (obvious but worth saying)

2. not all the identical chutes inflate at the same time:

. the first one inflating "bear the worst of the opening shock" and blanks out the other chutes

. there's no way to know whichever chute will inflate first (so they all need to be strong enough to inflate first)

3. inflated chutes "fly tipped over at some angle of attack instead of flying directly over a payload like a single chute does"

. they do interfere with each other leading to a certain degree of drag loss (God only knows how much) plus they're less efficient at such high angle of attack

. angles are higher as the payload weight gets lower

4. some geometrical features need to be checked to make sure the systme will perform fine.

Let's get into details.

4. some geometrical features need to be checked

The Effective Rigging Length (ERL) is "the distance between the payload attachment point and the skirts of the chutes in the cluster when the recovery system is stretched out flat".

The ERL is a minimum value and it helps reducing "the amount of interference between the chutes in a cluster".

ERL = square.root(n)*D

where n is the number of chutes in the cluster and D is their inflated diameter. Quite simple, let's check it using the project as an example:



Let's consider the 120" 3 chutes cluster configuration:

ERL_120 = 1.73*(120*2.54) = 528 cm = ERL_120 , the yellow line.

Those 528 cm do include the projected shroud line length (red line) equals to 315 cm: the required shock cord length to get the minimal ERL is then given by

528 - 315 = 213 cm (blue line)

The more shock cord you add the better behaviour you get in terms of
Forebody Wake Effect (FWE): "basically the air flowing past the payload (forebody) produces a wake which can interfere with the chutes, dropping their drag by as much as 25%".

Now

. the ERL accounts for chute-to-chute interference and consequent drag loss

. the FWE accounts for payload-to-chute cluster interference and drag loss

It seems to me that FWE is more critical for the 60" canopy config than it is for the 120" version: the bigger canopy catches more air than that the CM actually shields!

IOW, the smaller the canopies the bigger the CM will be (with respect to the canopies themsleves), the more the shadowing effect, the longer the lines to avoid FWE.

That is automatically achieved by leaving the same CM to canopy distance (which is a scale length) regardless of canopy diameter!

Moreover, I think that some kind of math law should be needed to compute the required anti-FWE length in terms of the parameter payload dia-to-chute dia ratio: the lower the ratio the higher the length, that would make sense!

i.e.

CM is 24", each canopy is 60" thus param = 60/24 = 2.5 == more critical

CM is 24", each canopy is 120" thus param = 120/24 = 5 == less critical

_________________
Giacomo 'g_boxwood' Bosso
TRA#9986 L2


Zuletzt bearbeitet von g_boxwood am Do 21 Mai 2009, 18:44, insgesamt 2-mal bearbeitet
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Autor Nachricht
g_boxwood



Anmeldungsdatum: 08.06.2006
Beiträge: 172

BeitragVerfasst am: Do 21 Mai 2009, 15:34    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Now let me introduce the CM internals!





That's a 4" airframe tubing housing

. the recovery electronics

. the tower release device

. the black powder can that fires the tip and the pilot chute

Around the 4" tube I designed 3 main compartment sectors that offers the largest volume available for the chutes themselves.

2. not all the identical chutes inflate at the same time

Let's try to figure out what could happen:

1. the CM releases from the tower and reaches the apogee, the BP charge fires and eject the tip and the pilot:



2. the pilot inflates and starts to pull the mains out of the CM:

. each main is bagged inside its own deployment bag

. the mains deploy one after the other instead of all at the same time: this way the system favours what usually happens instead of fighting it!



3. all the bags out of the CM, chute #1 out of its bag and starting to inflate:



4. all chutes inflated, CM tip and bags hanging from the pilot on their path to the ground:


_________________
Giacomo 'g_boxwood' Bosso
TRA#9986 L2
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Autor Nachricht
g_boxwood



Anmeldungsdatum: 08.06.2006
Beiträge: 172

BeitragVerfasst am: Do 21 Mai 2009, 18:43    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

3. inflated chutes "fly tipped over at some angle of attack [...]"

. angles are higher as the payload weight gets lower


This is what may give the impression that larger-than-required chutes could be employed. As the payload weight decreases the chutes automatically tip over to a greater angle of attack thus reducing their Cd: this leads toward a new equilibrium in the ultimate attempt to allow the entire system to... descent!!!



Is it feasible? We can expect that the system would fail if the chute dia grows beyond a certain point: the new equilibrium state may be found by the system itself in a 'different' configuration in the form of

. non inflated chutes whose drag is enough to recover the payload for a given (low) weight

. collapsed chute(s)

. tangled system

What to do?

My original idea was to artificially lower the chutes' Cd by

. enlarging the spill hole (again, beyond certain boundaries)

. replace rip-stop nylon with meshed material that filters the air rather than catching it

but still, packing the 120" low-Cd chutes could pose some problems.

At the time being I'll see what's the biggest standard chute that can be packed in the sector, then I'll model it and see if it simply lloks fine: mods will then be considered to lower the Cd even more and flight testing will determine if the less-efficient-behaviour helps with the rest...

Stay tuned!

_________________
Giacomo 'g_boxwood' Bosso
TRA#9986 L2
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Autor Nachricht
g_boxwood



Anmeldungsdatum: 08.06.2006
Beiträge: 172

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr 22 Mai 2009, 8:57    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

g_boxwood hat folgendes geschrieben:


. replace rip-stop nylon with meshed material that filters the air rather than catching it


Here it is what I mean:



that's a base jumping pilot chute, they replace the shroud lines with meshed fabric to avoid tangling: now, that meshed fabric could be used for the canopy and I think it would decrease the Cd dramatically.

_________________
Giacomo 'g_boxwood' Bosso
TRA#9986 L2
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Autor Nachricht
Juerg
Site Admin


Anmeldungsdatum: 27.02.2005
Beiträge: 4545
Wohnort: Oberengstringen

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr 22 Mai 2009, 18:09    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Oh, wow, that project is getting better an better!! Shocked
_________________
http://www.SpacetecRocketry.com
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden E-Mail senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen MSN Messenger
Autor Nachricht
MikeHB



Anmeldungsdatum: 16.07.2005
Beiträge: 157
Wohnort: Bremen

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr 22 Mai 2009, 22:34    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Every time I read this postings, my mouth is getting more and more open! Amazing! Whats next, a Little Joe in the same scale?
I hope that somebody will do a video on this flight!

Keep on walking, Giacomo!

Ciao,
Michael

_________________
Sagt Abraham zu Bebraham: Kann ich mal Dein Cebra ham?
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen MSN Messenger
Autor Nachricht
g_boxwood



Anmeldungsdatum: 08.06.2006
Beiträge: 172

BeitragVerfasst am: Mi 27 Mai 2009, 16:47    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Mike, thank you!

I'm working hard on it and I already got the 4 CTI I170 reloads... flight test #1 is getting closer and panic arises...

Everytime I test fit the vehicle together I tell myself "Maybe this time I'm asking too much!". I wonder if I'm right.

Enough with me being anxious.

_________________
Giacomo 'g_boxwood' Bosso
TRA#9986 L2
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Autor Nachricht
Felix



Anmeldungsdatum: 13.04.2005
Beiträge: 168
Wohnort: Leimen

BeitragVerfasst am: Mi 27 Mai 2009, 19:18    Titel: Antworten mit Zitat

Really astonishing work Giacomo!
You´re a great inspiration to go back to the hobby room and actually build some new rockets =)
Thanks for sharing the build and all the great ideas with us.

I wish you the best for the first flight!

best regards,
Felix

_________________
Sky´s not the Limit!
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden MSN Messenger
Beiträge der letzten Zeit anzeigen:   
Neues Thema eröffnen   Neue Antwort erstellen    EURocketry Foren-Übersicht -> Scale Modellbau Alle Zeiten sind GMT + 2 Stunden
Gehe zu Seite Zurück  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Weiter
Seite 6 von 8
Gehe zu:  
Du kannst keine Beiträge in dieses Forum schreiben.
Du kannst auf Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht antworten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht bearbeiten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht löschen.
Du kannst an Umfragen in diesem Forum nicht mitmachen.
Du kannst Dateien in diesem Forum nicht posten
Du kannst Dateien in diesem Forum herunterladen

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
mtechnik