Sander Pool wrote:
> First off, thanks for the reporting on the recent KISS flights. Mixed
> success but hey, you guys went out there and flew a home made experimental
> rocket. Achievement in itself.
We've flown before (this was the third flight trip this year) but it's
always good to fly your vehicle. 8-)
> When I read that the fins failed I paid closer attention to the fin design
> as far as I could see it in 'before' pictures. This made me wonder why such
> a conventional, low speed fin was chosen. I'm no rocket specialist but I do
> believe in the old school philosophy "if it looks fast it will go fast". If
> I was to build a rocket that was going to go close to Mach 1 I would have a
> fin that is much more swept backwards. Why was a relatively straight fin
> chosen? Does this have low speed advantages? Perhaps fins that are more
> swept really are not more resistant to high speed flight for the same
> surface area compared to straighter fins?
I think one of the design factors wast low-speed stability off the
rail. Unlike HPR solid engines, the liquid engines don't have the high
accelleration from ignition and so need more fin stabilization when
they first leave the rail.
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis KF6SPF (408) 396-9037 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
