Um..... I like to have THREE pressure ports....i.e. just in case. Here's how (and why):
It seems that this flight qualified as a "just in case" scenario. I generally make each hole .67-1.0 the size of the specified size of the single hole specification, all of them the same actual size, and space them equally around the circumference of the body. The idea being that while one hole can/may be "blocked" to incoming air pressure, blocking two of the three holes should not happen. I am guessing the hole located near the camera shroud was the problem. Best regards; Bob Finch P.S.... I am big fan of backup electronics but I almost never actually use more than one altimeter for deployment. Good electronic bay modelling along with good electronics seems to negate the need for me. On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Keith Packard <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris Attebery <[email protected]> writes: > >> I've attached a rendering of the altimeter bay and camera shroud. In >> hindsight I should have sealed the camera in a separate bay from the >> altimeters. I would probably stretch the rocket a bit more to get some >> separation between the electronic and the camera shroud. I need to look >> into getting a second accelerometer based altimeter for backup too. > > Hrm. Thinking about this some more, is it possible that the rocket went > sideways? It's really hard to make an ebay airtight enough so that a > plugged static port would read a steady, and even increasing pressure > while the rocket was still going up. If there was some major structure > failure near motor burn out, I would have expected to see more noise in > the acceleration data though, so it would have had to be a fairly gentle > failure mode. > > -- > -keith > > _______________________________________________ > altusmetrum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gag.com/mailman/listinfo/altusmetrum > _______________________________________________ altusmetrum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gag.com/mailman/listinfo/altusmetrum
