Saturn V/1B general reinforcing techniques...

Saturn V/1B general reinforcing techniques...

Post by Jerry O'Sulliva » Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:00:00



Hi all,

I'm about to start working on the 1st of 2 Sat V's and a Saturn 1B (got that
on ebay -always liked this rocket).

I plan to fly these on 24mm E and 29mm F and G engines (Sat V) and E's on
the 1B.

Short of replacing the various centering rings with scratch made plywood
substitutes, what's a lightweight, easy way to reinforce the cardstock? A
fiberglass sandwich? Some other method?

How 'bout the Sat V body tubes - a double wrap of 2oz glass just for general
hardiness? For those of you who've flown this many times, is that overkill?
The tube seems pretty thin by itself.....

Any thoughts on the escape tower? Hear it breaks off easily.....

Any other thoughts on just general strengthening?

Thanks,

Jerry O

 
 
 

Saturn V/1B general reinforcing techniques...

Post by Compute » Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:00:00


Hi Jerry,  I haven't recieved my Sat V's yet but I do have some
experience with using E, F and G motors in light model rockets.  I built
a 36" long BT 80 rocket with 3 fins and a nose cone.  The CR's are made
of cardboard.  It flies fine on E11, E18, F39 and even an F72 once.
When I get mine and examine the parts I'll compare it's strength to my
other rockets and beef it accordingly.  I'll post more then.

Good luck, all this Sat V talk is fun,
Steve Bloom
Seattle Area Saturneer

Quote:

> Hi all,

> I'm about to start working on the 1st of 2 Sat V's and a Saturn 1B (got that
> on ebay -always liked this rocket).

> I plan to fly these on 24mm E and 29mm F and G engines (Sat V) and E's on
> the 1B.

> Short of replacing the various centering rings with scratch made plywood
> substitutes, what's a lightweight, easy way to reinforce the cardstock? A
> fiberglass sandwich? Some other method?

> How 'bout the Sat V body tubes - a double wrap of 2oz glass just for general
> hardiness? For those of you who've flown this many times, is that overkill?
> The tube seems pretty thin by itself.....

> Any thoughts on the escape tower? Hear it breaks off easily.....

> Any other thoughts on just general strengthening?

> Thanks,

> Jerry O


 
 
 

Saturn V/1B general reinforcing techniques...

Post by Sandy559 » Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:00:00


Hi,
 It seems like the who idea to fly these on any
bigger than E motors is over kill.  Both should
fly great on E15-4 with no modification to the kits.
Steve
TRA & NAR L2
 
 
 

Saturn V/1B general reinforcing techniques...

Post by SirWmOsl » Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:00:00


I had read somewhere on a long ago Sat V thread that the core motor tube will
get burned and damaged over time and several flights. I can imagine this will
be maginified with using E15's. What is the best way to reinforce the mmtube so
it holds up a little longer. A soak w/ CA? Epoxy ? (although epoxy = weight) A
wrap with masking tape? Soak with titebond?
Art
NAR# 34201
TRA # 6821 L1
 
 
 

Saturn V/1B general reinforcing techniques...

Post by Bob Kapl » Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

> I had read somewhere on a long ago Sat V thread that the core motor tube will
> get burned and damaged over time and several flights. I can imagine this will
> be maginified with using E15's. What is the best way to reinforce the mmtube so
> it holds up a little longer. A soak w/ CA? Epoxy ? (although epoxy = weight) A
> wrap with masking tape? Soak with titebond?

How about replacing it with the more substantial 29mm MMT, or at least a LOC
MMT instead of wimpy BT-50.

        Bob Kaplow      NAR # 18L       TRA # "Ctrl-Alt-Del"

Kaplow Klips:   http://members.aol.com/myhprcato/KaplowKlips.html
NIRA:           http://www.nira.chicago.il.us  NAR:    http://www.nar.org

 
 
 

Saturn V/1B general reinforcing techniques...

Post by Ted Cochr » Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:00:00



Quote:

>Hi all,

>I'm about to start working on the 1st of 2 Sat V's and a Saturn 1B (got that
>on ebay -always liked this rocket).

>I plan to fly these on 24mm E and 29mm F and G engines (Sat V) and E's on
>the 1B.

>Short of replacing the various centering rings with scratch made plywood
>substitutes, what's a lightweight, easy way to reinforce the cardstock? A
>fiberglass sandwich? Some other method?

>How 'bout the Sat V body tubes - a double wrap of 2oz glass just for general
>hardiness? For those of you who've flown this many times, is that overkill?
>The tube seems pretty thin by itself.....

....

Most of these methods will be overkill I think.

I have flown a stock Silver Comet (yellow glue only, fins covered with
tiles of aluminum foil tape) on an F32, and a moderately strengthened
Broadsword multiple times on E15s.

You can go Dejanewsing to look for a "Broadsword Hints and Ideas thread"
about two years ago where there were tons of ideas, but the gist of what I
did is:

--Add a centering ring,
--Balsa spokes glued to stock centering rings,
--four thin 1/8" sq stringers between spokes; align them to run under fins, and
--rivet glue fins to stringers.

Looking at the S-V fins, I'd make a balsa core for them if I was going to
fly on Fs and Gs; Es should be fine.

You'll need more noseweight, and as Cato has pointed out you may need
stringers to bear this load (This wasn't an issue with Broadsword or
Silver Comet since they are shorter and lighter).

I do think I'll reinforce the MMT above the thrust ring to help with the
hotter ejections, but probably only with a single layer of 1 oz glass.

As for the escape tower, I'm going to make mine detachable and use a
"disposable" toothpick version for flights.

Finally, I'm in the middle of building an AQM-37A ("Jayhawk") kit now, and
I'm thinking about stiffening the tapered interstages as a result of that
experience.

FWIW,

--tc

My opinions only.

 
 
 

Saturn V/1B general reinforcing techniques...

Post by nojun » Thu, 24 Dec 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

> How about replacing it with the more substantial 29mm MMT, or at least a LOC
> MMT instead of wimpy BT-50.

I'm thinking that this model may be a good candidate for the Apogee F10.
Somewhat slow liftoff like the D12 that's recommended for it, followed
by thrust...thrust...thrust!

I'll have to run some sims after I get it built and balanced out, to see
what can really be done with it.  I do plan on beefing it up a little
and using a 29mm mount...since you can always adapt *down* <g>.

--
Mike
NAR #70953 - Sr/Insured/Level-1 ~ SeaNAR - The Seattle NAR Section #568
NO Junk Email, please! Real email to: amphoto [at] blarg [dot] net.
<WARNING: Do not look into laser beam with remaining eye!>

 
 
 

Saturn V/1B general reinforcing techniques...

Post by John H. Cato, Jr » Fri, 25 Dec 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

> You'll need more noseweight, and as Cato has pointed out you may need
> stringers to bear this load (This wasn't an issue with Broadsword or
> Silver Comet since they are shorter and lighter).

What generally happens is that additional nose-weight (or, for that
matter, even the *stock* weight capsule) will be driven down into the SM
body tube by the acceleration due to launch (with the more powerful
motor -- and I mean E15 here).  This is the reason for the 'table' (i.e.
1.5" o.d. x 1.2"+- i.d. x 1/32" plywood 'ring' glued inside the SM body
tube -- supported by 4 or 6 1/16" balsa 'stringers' down thru the entire
length of the SM body tube.)  The Apollo capsule rests directly on this
(and, thereby, NOT *directly* on the SM body tube - held off, oh, maybe
1/32" or 1/64" from 'firm set' on the body tube).  Of course, it is
*real* easy for the capsule to then be 'ejected' by the deceleration of
normal recovery ejection forces and demands, thereby, some kind of
restrainer strap or some such to HOLD it in place.  What I did was epoxy
a 1/4" or 3/8" birch dowel into the center of the Apollo capsule
(packing clay and lead shot around it - in epoxy) and then a small***
eye screws into this (holding the capsule bottom 'cap' in place all the
while).  This***eye is then the 'catchment' for a piece of .060"
piano wire (hook in end thru eye) that is then anchored back into the
base of the SM body tube (i.e. aft end).  I threaded the piano wire
(0-80??  something) and had a 'cross piece' that this end of the piano
wire held against - tightened down with that 0-80 nut and washer.  The
vehicle could go thru some pretty wild gyrations and that Apollo capsule
was going NOwhere <g>.  Other methods of anchorage are equally workable
-- but be not fooled, if that capsule (resting on a 'table') isn't
secured, you WILL lose it at ejection.

Likewise -- these same forces that can jamb the capsule into the SM body
can do similar damage with the conical (paper) transitions (SM to S-IVB
and S-IVB to S-II).  This is where the additional (and larger) stringers
carry the load -- holding each successive part about that same 1/32" OFF
of 'dead bottom' (bearing).

In effect, ALL the loading of each UPPER part is carried by these
stringers to each successive lower part -- all the way back to the main
centering rings (which I kind of 'beefed' the most forward and most aft
ones).

It sounds complicated, but it doesn't add 10 or 20 grams of weight to
the model -- and is really rather simple to implement.

-- john.

 
 
 

Saturn V/1B general reinforcing techniques...

Post by John H. Cato, Jr » Fri, 25 Dec 1998 04:00:00


Quote:

> I'm thinking that this model may be a good candidate for the Apogee
> F10. Somewhat slow liftoff like the D12 that's recommended for it,
> followed by thrust...thrust...thrust!

I flew the AeroTech F10 twice in my (17 year old) Centuri Sat. V back
around the turn of the decade (i.e. '89).

The second time was the last -- as the motor burned out about 10 feet
above the ground (heading downward).  It wasn't pretty.  Earl even has
it on videotape.

It's good I had a spare Centuri version (still not built, however) -- at
least I can say I still have a 'Centuri Saturn' -- just not two any
more. :(

Never again.

You may 'luck out' (I did the first time -- rather nice flight -- arcing
over, tho -- but not bad -- burned out about 1000 feet up -- going
horizontal (kind of like a real Saturn, I guess -- calling burnout EOI
(Earth Orbit Insertion)).

However, 8 seconds of burn time is a  R E A L  long time when things
aren't going right -- and they most definitely can take a turn for the
worst.  Once that happens, it's good-bye Saturn.  If it goes (nearly)
straight up, it'll do fine.  Any pitchover coming off the rod and you
will cry.  Promise.

:)

-- john.

 
 
 

Saturn V/1B general reinforcing techniques...

Post by Bob Kapl » Fri, 25 Dec 1998 04:00:00



Quote:

>> How about replacing it with the more substantial 29mm MMT, or at least a LOC
>> MMT instead of wimpy BT-50.

> I'm thinking that this model may be a good candidate for the Apogee F10.
> Somewhat slow liftoff like the D12 that's recommended for it, followed
> by thrust...thrust...thrust!

A long time ago... Aerotech made an E10 motor which was great for the S-V
and other such large light models. It was used by many at NARAM-30 when
Giant Scale was flown for the first time, including many extes S-V kits.
Someone may have even used an E6, but I certainly wouldn't recommend that.
But if the E10 worked, the F10 should work too, as long as there is NO wind.

Those worried that the stock delays on the AT motors might be longer than
needed might try one of the AT reloads with the much shorter than claimed
delays. IIRC, the E28-4 is NAR certified as an E28-2.

        Bob Kaplow      NAR # 18L       TRA # "Ctrl-Alt-Del"

Kaplow Klips:   http://members.aol.com/myhprcato/KaplowKlips.html
NIRA:           http://www.nira.chicago.il.us  NAR:    http://www.nar.org