Showing posts with label paint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label paint. Show all posts

Thursday, June 14, 2018

Magical Weight-Reducing Balsa Filler (???)



I recently wrote about a test of various balsa grain fillers and sealers and the weight they add.

The clear winner of that test was the Brodak butyrate dope sanding sealer, which added 0.3 grams of mass to a piece of 3 inch by 3 inch balsa, sealed on both sides. In other words, the sanding sealer added only 0.033 grams per square inch or 0.005 grams per square centimeter of fin area. That's pretty light!

Well, it's one thing to test out something in the abstract - on square pieces of balsa. I was curious how much I would add to an actual rocket I was building.

I'm trying to finish all the rockets I started last year before starting anything new. It's been tough! I've got so much on the build pile, and I'm itching to build everything. But experience has taught me that I should limit myself to one or two projects at a time, focus entirely on them, and I will actually be more productive - and enjoy building much more.

I started to build the Estes Hi Flier XL. Sometimes, when I start a kit, I'll cut some spare fins, and practice shaping them into airfoil or streamlined shapes, so I feel confident when I move on to the kit fins. Sometimes, if those fins turn out well, I go ahead and make a clone of the whole rocket - if I have the parts, which I often do. Usually, the clone ends up finished long before the original kit.

This is what happened with the Hi Flier XL. I built a clone, added a payload section, since it's long enough to require two body tubes, and painted it like my original little Hi Flier. It looks great, but it feels a little heavy, and doesn't fly as high as I'd thought it would.


I filled the fins on the clone with Elmer's Carpenter's Wood Filler. I also think my paint job was a bit heavy. And there's the payload section which included a 1/4 inch thick basswood bulkhead, screw eye, and a small dab of epoxy.

So, now that I'm building the kit, I'm weighing it at each stage, just to see where the mass is coming from.

On the kit, I filled the grain with Brodak sanding sealer. I weighed all three fins together, and they were 33.1 grams.


Then I used two coats of sealer, followed by a good sanding. Then I did a third coat and sanding, and a final fourth coat.

Then I weighed the fins. They came in at 34.1 grams before I sanded off the final coat of sealer.


So, with no sanding, the whole set gained 1 gram - and these are large fins! That was really encouraging.

I sanded rigorously, until the fins were glass smooth, then wiped off all sanding dust, and weighed the fins again.


33 grams even.

What?? The fins lost a tenth of a gram after sealing and sanding! Is this possible? Did the sealer allow me to sand off a bit of extra weight while maintaining a smooth finish? Is my scale acting up?

Instead of adding a tiny amount of weight, my fins lost weight! At the very least, they didn't gain weight.

I have a history of owning things that don't work very well - cars, appliances, etc. So when I see a result like this I tend to be skeptical that I got the right answer. I tend to think there's something up with my equipment or with the way I'm using it.

So, maybe the fins lost weight after filling. Maybe not. I guess this means I'll have to weigh future builds carefully to be sure.

Why am I so obsessed with what my rockets weigh, and where the mass comes from? Two reasons. First, I think readers of the blog will find it interesting, and I hope some will find it useful. The second is that when I started out, my rockets were all lighter! As my paint jobs have gotten prettier, my rockets have gained weight, and their altitude has probably suffered.

My Big Bertha - not smooth and shiny, but very lightweight!


I used to paint very light coats, moving the spray can quickly, until I got full color coverage. Doing this, though, I rarely got a nice, shiny gloss coat on a rocket. To do that, I needed to paint a little heavier, so that the atomized droplets of paint could run together to form a nice shiny shell of paint. It's a tricky thing to get - you don't want to go so heavy with the paint that it runs and sags!

My Estes Goblin. It looks nice, but that shiny coat of paint is on the heavy side.

I've got the wet coat pretty well down, but the rockets have gotten heavier. I want to see if I can have pretty rockets that also don't weigh a ton. So I need to be rigorous with my testing. Maybe I can save weight another way. Or maybe I need to change my painting method.

In any case, it does fit with the original mission of this blog - I learn about this stuff, then I share it with you - and any other Rocket N00bs out there can benefit.

Follow me on Twitter.

Like my Facebook page for blog updates and extra stuff.

Have a question you'd like to see addressed on this blog? Email me at iamtherocketn00b@gmail.com.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

The Weight of Paint - Part 4 - Painting Lighter


Click here for Part 1

In the last few posts, we've been looking at a simple model rocket I recently built - the Estes Monarch. When I began building it, I had a rather simple question - how much weight am I adding when I paint? So I weighed it after I built it, and then weighed it again after I painted it, and was really surprised to find that I'd increased its mass from 57.4 grams to 75.8 grams - an increase of over 32%. Nearly a quarter of the rocket's final weight was just the paint job!

This led me to examine a number of questions. How would the extra weight impact the altitude the rocket could be expected to reach? Would a smooth paint job, despite being heavy, actually be an advantage over no paint job, because it would reduce aerodynamic drag enough to make up for the added mass?

We ran some simulations in parts 2 and 3, and found that, in some cases, as with a D12 motor, yes, it might. But in other cases, the added weight was too much, and the heavier Monarch would never catch up to the lighter, unpainted Monarch, despite being smoother. On an Estes C6-5 motor, for example, light and unfinished beat heavy but smooth. Since the Estes Monarch is only meant to fly on C motors or smaller, this is significant, because it suggests that if I wanted the rocket to perform better (rather than merely be pretty), I would be better off not painting it at all.

But smooth paint can reduce drag, while a rough surface texture increases drag, which impedes altitude. There had to be a sweet spot - a trade off point where light weight and smooth texture are in balance to help the rocket be the best flyer it can be - while looking great.

This led me to my final questions, which we'll examine in this post: 1) How much lighter would the painted rocket need to be to match the unpainted one in altitude? 2) How could I have added less weight while still painting? And if we're talking about both beauty and drag reduction, 3) how do you get a nice, smooth paint job?

Although I didn't build or paint the Monarch with maximum performance in mind, the answer to my simple question about the weight of paint led me to ask all these other questions. That's one of the things I love about rocketry - it gives you so many things to think about.


Let's start by looking at Question #3 - getting a smooth paint job.

Getting a Smooth Paint Job

If we want the rocket to look its best and we want to reduce drag, we need the paint to be nice and smooth. So, how do we do that?

I'm not an expert, and I'm not going to go too deep into this question in this post. But I've gotten pretty good at painting. Most of my rockets today look much better than the ones I built when I first started two years ago. Only two of my rockets have a paint job I'd be willing to call "perfect," because they look just the way I wanted them to. Smooth and shiny, with no flaws or bumps stuck in the surface of the paint. Those two rockets are the Estes Goblin and my clone of the Estes Astron Sprint XL.


Most model rocketeers use canned spray paint - what we commonly refer to as rattle cans - to decorate their rockets. Getting a good painted surface requires patience, practice, and a little bit of luck.

The surface of the rocket must be prepared with a good quality sandable primer. I usually use Rust-Oleum Filler Primer, because not only is it easy to sand smooth, but it's a high-build primer, meaning it can fill in little flaws, such as small patches of exposed wood grain on fins, or spiral grooves in the body tube, or minor flaws in the nose cone.


Once the primer has fully dried, the rocket needs to be carefully sanded until it's nice and smooth. Look at it in bright light to make sure you're done. Sometimes you'll find a rough patch you missed by holding the rocket up to the light. Sometimes you'll need a second coat of primer, and a second round of sanding.

Once you feel you've sanded the rocket well enough, remove any primer dust from the rocket. A clean cloth with a little bit of rubbing alcohol can remove the dust, or you can use a tack cloth. This is a bit of cheese cloth with a sticky resin in it which is used to remove dust before you paint.

Some people don't use tack cloth, because it can leave a sticky residue on the surface. The key with tack cloth is to go lightly. If you press it onto the rocket's surface, you may leave some residue. But, truthfully, I've gotten fine paint jobs even when I've accidentally left a bit of residue on a rocket.

Once the dust has been removed, you're ready to paint. Most people spray paint outdoors. Spray paint produces harmful fumes which must be avoided, so proper ventilation is a must. And spray paint is messy, so outdoors is the place for most people.

Some people use a spray painting booth for indoors. A spray paint booth controls the flow of air, so you don't have to worry about whether it's too windy to paint outside. But a booth takes up space, needs to have very good ventilation, needs to be sealed properly so you don't get paint on the floor and walls, and you need to wear a respirator to protect your lungs - and your brain.


Assuming you'll be painting outdoors, you'll want to paint on a day with little to no wind. You want to make sure it's not too humid - the instructions on the paint can will tell you what the maximum relative humidity should be before you paint. You will need to shake the paint can for a minimum of 60 seconds after you hear the rattle ball moving around (sometimes the ball is stuck in the paint at the bottom of the can, and you'll have to shake it free before you start your 60-second shake).

Then, test the spray. Give a few blasts of paint into the air to make sure the paint is flowing freely from the can, with no chunks of pigment coming out. This will also allow you to see which direction the wind is blowing. Even on a "windless" day, there will be air currents.

You'll want to paint with the wind at your back, so the paint goes toward the rocket, not off to one side or back at you. The key is to do a couple of light coats, allowing a few minutes between each coat for the paint to dry slightly. Check the paint can for exact drying time between coats.

Don't expect or try to get every bit of the rocket painted on the first coat or two. You will probably still see some of the underlying primer through the first couple of coats.

After the light coats have dried several minutes, it's time for a final, heavier wet coat. The wet coat is the one that takes the most practice, because it's the easiest one to do wrong. You want to move the can a little bit slower and get a little more paint onto the rocket, and it should go on in a slick, wet layer. Move too slowly or get the paint on too heavy, and a drip or run will form. There's nothing you can do about that, except to allow the paint to dry fully for a day or two, then wet sand the drip off, and possibly repaint.

But when you get a good wet coat, the droplets of paint hit the rocket before they've had a chance to dry at all. They flow together, forming a nice, shiny surface which, when dry, should have a smooth, glossy finish to it.

The Estes Pro Series II Nike Smoke, nice and glossy after a few light coats and a heavier wet coat

One of the things that can mess up a nice gloss finish is overspray. Overspray is made of the droplets of paint that don't land directly on the thing you're painting. They float around in the air for a little bit, then settle out and sink to the ground. Some overspray will float around for a second or two, then end up on the rocket itself. In that short time, the droplets have already begun to dry slightly. Unlike the wet coat, the semi-dry droplets of overspray won't flow together with the rest of the paint, and will form tiny little bumps.

That's part of the luck part of the equation I mentioned above. A little change in the wind can blow overpray back onto the rocket. Or a bug can (and often will) decide to land on the wet paint. Or the paint is flowing smoothly from the can, when suddenly a clump will fly out the nozzle, leaving chunks on the rocket. This last one is why you should always shake your paint can thoroughly, and why you should do a few test bursts of paint into the air before you begin painting.

Often, a little overspray isn't terribly noticeable, unless you look at the rocket in strong light. But sometimes it is more noticeable.

Spay paint comes out of the can in a narrow cone shape. Sometimes you'll get a good wet coat on most of the rocket, but a bit of atomized paint on the edges of the cone of spray will land on part of the rocket - say, the fins - and there won't be enough droplets there for the paint to flow together into a smooth surface.

Image from HowStuffWorks.com
You'll see tiny bumps, or more likely, a patch which isn't as shiny or mirror-smooth Often, the bumps are small enough that if you let the rocket dry for a few minutes, you can hit that part of the rocket with another wet coat and everything will smooth out.

Other times, those bumps are too prominent, and adding another wet coat will simply be adding more weight, without making the rocket any smoother.

How Much Less Should My Painted Monarch Weigh?

Now that we've discussed painting technique, let's look back at our Monarch simulation.

What I want to find out is how much lighter the smoother, painted rocket should be, so that it doesn't lose altitude when compared with the rougher but lighter, unpainted rocket. If I'm trying to get the most from my model, it doesn't make much sense to paint the rocket for drag reduction, if the added weight is too much. Since the model was meant to fly on C6-5 motors, and the unpainted rocket simmed at just over 650 feet, I want to make sure the painted model can at least match that - and perhaps surpass it.

I start by opening up both simulation files side by side. As I mentioned in Part 3, you may get a slight difference in altitude each time you run a simulation, and this time, as you can see, the unpainted Monarch has an estimated altitude of 655 feet on the C motor.


Let's see if we can match that in the other sim.

The Monarch went from 57.4 grams before paint to 75.8 grams after - an 18.4 gram increase. How do I know how much weight to shave off in paint to match the altitude of the unpainted rocket?

To find out the maximum weight the Monarch can be before it starts losing out to the unfinished rocket, I'll click on "Sustainer," and override the mass, shaving off a gram at a time. Again, altitude predictions in a rocket simulator such as OpenRocket are approximate, and you may even find you get a slightly different prediction each time you open the same simulation, but this will at least give us an idea of a target weight to shoot for.


Once I get to around 65.8 grams, I'm getting close to matching altitudes on both rockets, so I start reducing the mass by 0.1 gram at a time.


At 65.6 grams, the altitudes are the same - both simming to altitudes 655 feet, give or take a few feet depending on the variables OpenRocket is calculating for. That means, if I paint the rocket to a "regular" finish, as I've done, I can afford 8.2 grams of paint before I start losing altitude. But that's less than half the paint I've applied! What's a rocketeer to do?

Well, remember, our rocket has what we're calling "Regular paint," with a smoother than unpainted, but not perfect, surface texture, which in OpenRocket has an average surface roughness height of 60 microns.

It's actually pretty good. These pictures are zoomed in pretty tight, and while they show the imperfections, the rocket is not as bumpy as the photos imply.

But it could be better. If we'd gotten a nice, smooth paint job on our first try, that would decrease drag further. Changing the surface texture in our simulation to "Smooth paint" with an average surface roughness of 20 microns, then adding weight back to the rocket gram by gram, we find that we can match the unpainted rocket's altitude at 72.1 grams.

When we change the texture to "Smooth paint," the altitude of the 65.6 gram rocket zips up to 692 feet.

At 72.1 grams, the smooth rocket flies as high as the unpainted rocket.
This means we only have to reduce the rocket's weight by 3.7 grams - we can afford 14.7 grams of paint weight - much more easily achievable.

If we take it even further and polish the rocket, we can get it even smoother. Polishing involves wet sanding the paint (which we'll go into in further detail below), then using a car polish or rubbing compound to get the rocket nice and smooth.

Setting the painted Monarch's simulated surface texture to "Polished paint," with a surface roughness height of only 2 microns, we find that we only have to shave off 2.2 grams - we match the rougher rocket's altitude at 73.6 Grams.

The Monarch with a polished surface goes to 644 feet at 72.1 grams.

At 73.6 grams, the altitude of the polished rocket matches that of the lightweight, unpainted rocket.

That's nearly the weight we currently have. Any extra weight savings will mean that we can actually fly higher with the painted rocket than the unpainted one. At this point, the paint hasn't degraded the performance of the rocket - it has enhanced it.

The key, then, to getting the most out of a model rocket is to make it light and make it smooth. That means painting, but painting light. I added 18.4 grams to my Monarch when I painted it. How could I have kept off some of that weight?

How Can I Add Less Weight While Painting?

It's important to remember that this is just one rocket. Results will vary! Though I added 18.4 grams to this Monarch when I painted, I could build the rocket again, paint it exactly the same way, and the end weight would probably be different. It's nearly impossible to control exactly how much mass you add when using spray paint cans. You press down the button, paint comes out, you point it at the rocket, and some of the paint goes onto the rocket. There's no gauge for measuring the mass of the paint as it comes out the nozzle, and no way of precisely controlling how much paint lands on the rocket.

But you can paint lighter, if you want to.

First, let's look at primer. I wasn't expecting to talk about this subject in such depth, so I neglected to weigh the rocket after primer but before paint. Still, primer certainly adds some mass.

Primer is less dense than the enamel paint I used on this rocket, and some of it gets sanded off. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that the primer makes up only 20 percent of the added weight on the Monarch. That's close to 3.7 grams. It could be more, but to err on the conservative side, let's assume that the primer doesn't add much. Most of the weight savings will have to be in paint. Still, we could shave off a couple grams on the primer.

When I prime a rocket, I give it a good, heavy coat, and then I sand it until the surface of the primer is nice and smooth. But I leave a layer of primer on the whole rocket.

But you can remove more of it if you like. Let's look at a photo from Chris Michielssen's Model Rocket Building blog.

Body tubes from two Estes Solar Warriors, being constructed on Chris Michielssen's Model Rocket Building blog, here.

This is a photo from a typical build of Chris'. The larger picture is after primer, but before sanding. The inset is after sanding - most of the primer has been sanded off, leaving only a thin layer in the low spots on the rocket. This has the advantage of taking most of the weight of the primer off. If I'd done this on my Monarch, I'd guess there would be no more than 1 gram of added mass after primer.

So, that's one way I could have saved a couple grams of weight - sanding off most of the primer.

But usually, when I sand, the rocket still looks like the before picture above.. Sanding is best done with a light hand, though it can be tempting to apply pressure to the sandpaper to make the job faster. When I sand through most of the primer, I sometimes oversand, into the paper tube in a few spots, raising fibers, which can result in a fuzzy rocket rather than a smooth finish. It can be hard to see those fuzzies when the primer is gone. So, I usually try to leave a thin layer of primer in place.

That means I have to save weight in another area.

Here's where I reveal a secret about this build. I certainly put too much paint on this rocket.

As I stated above, I usually do two light coats, followed by a final wet coat. And, as I mentioned, sometimes a slight imperfection in texture can sometimes be hidden by a second wet coat in that spot.

Well, the bumps you see in the pictures here happened during my wet coat.



I'm not sure why they're there. It could have been temperature, or perhaps humidity (though I try to never paint unless the humidity is nice and low). It could be I held the paint can a little too far from the rocket, resulting in the droplets of paint drying slightly before hitting the surface I was painting. It could have been that I moved the paint can a little too quickly, so that the droplets weren't close enough together to flow into one smooth surface properly.

It can be hard to tell. If you get a problem in your paint job, you can take a picture of it and post it to an online forum, asking "What did I do wrong here?" and someone might give you the reason why, or you might get multiple conflicting answers. There are some very knowledgeable people out there on the subject of painting, but unless someone was in the room with you when you painted, it can be tough for them to judge what happened. Still, you'll get a few suggestions on how to avoid a certain paint mishap in the future.

In any case, I decided to try doing another wet coat.

This was a bad idea. I considered letting the paint dry completely after the first wet coat, then wet sanding the texture smooth, and if need be, re-painting to touch up any lost color. But I didn't feel like doing that with this rocket. I was trying to get it finished in time to fly the following weekend.

So, I did the second heavy coat and allowed it to dry. The bumps were still there, and at that point I decided to live with them. I did the second color on the nose cone, fins, and lower body tube, again with two light coats and a wet coat.

* * *

So, anyway, if you guess that the primer was - let's keep it conservative and call it 1.5 grams - then the paint was 16.9 grams. Let's say that the two light coats were 4 grams total, the wet coats were 5 grams each, and the second color, not covering the whole rocket - made up the remaining 2.9 grams.

I know I'm guessing here, but you can see how I might easily save enough weight to make the rocket perform better.

By sanding off more primer, deciding to be happy with one wet coat - and perhaps sanding and polishing out the imperfections - I could easily have saved 5 or 6 grams, and maybe more.

Removing surface imperfections on a painted surface is often done with wet sanding. Wet sanding, as the name implies, is the process of sanding a surface smooth, using water as a lubricant.

Instead of standard, tan-colored sandpaper, wet sanding requires the use of wet/dry sandpaper. It's often dark gray in color, and it's water-resistant, so it won't disintegrate when wet.



Like standard sandpaper, it comes in different grits, numbering higher and higher the finer it gets. To wet sand paint, you start with a fine grit - at least 600 grit - dampen the paper, lightly sand, and then move to a higher grit paper. To get a nice smooth finish, you may lightly wet sand with paper up to 1600, even 2000 grit.

Wet sanding helps to get a really smooth finish by lubricating the sandpaper, and by rinsing away any sanding dust, which could clog the sandpaper and scratch the painted surface.

Paint should protect the paper body tube from water damage, but you must still be careful. The rocket is still vulnerable at certain points, particularly the ends of the body tube. When wet sanding a paper rocket, you dampen the paper in some water, sand lightly, and rinse the paper from time to time. Shake off excess water before re-sanding, and occasionally wipe away any excess water pooling on the rocket as you sand. Water can run around the unpainted ends of the paper tube and soak into the paper fibers, causing the tube to swell, basically ruining your work, so keep the moisture on the rocket to a minimum.

The risk of damage can also be reduced if, while building the rocket, you ran a ring of CA or cyanoacrylate (hobby grade super glue) around the insides of the ends of the body tube. The CA soaks into the paper fibers, stiffening them up and preventing them from soaking up moisture if you accidentally get the end of the rocket wet.

Thin or medium CA (cyanoacrylate - hobby grade super glue) can protect paper fibers from
water damage, if you end up wet sanding the paint. It also strengthens the end of the tube.

With a smoother finish and lighter rocket, how would the painted Monarch perform against the unpainted one?

Let's say we only saved 6 grams of weight. I'll change the mass to reflect that, from 75.8 to 69.8 grams. And I'll adjust the simulated finish to "Smooth paint" - let's say I got the surface smooth enough, but wasn't terribly fussy about it.

Let's run some simulations and see how the rocket performs.

First, let's look back at the results for the unpainted, rough Monarch.


And now for the 6-gram-lighter, painted version.


The painted rocket is now flying higher than the unpainted one - quite significantly on the D12 motor, but even on the C6 for which the Monarch was designed.

Could we go even lighter? Sure! Different kinds of paint - enamels (such as used here), lacquers, and acrylics, surely have different weights when dry. Even different brands of paint with a similar base (such as two different brands of enamel) may have different dry masses.

For the Monarch, I used Rust-Oleum Painter's Touch 2X Ultra Cover Gloss enamel paints. For my prettiest rocket, the Astron Sprint XL, I used Krylon Color Master gloss enamel paint. Krylon used to be the go-to paint for many rocketeers, but when they changed formulas a number of years ago, some people didn't like it, and switched brands. I've used it on a few rockets, and while some cans do seem to have problems, when it comes out correctly, it's beautiful - and very, very smooth.

With the exception of the one flaw seen here, which I was able to polish out, the Krylon
paint went onto the Astron Sprint XL perfectly, making a beautiful nose cone.
Although I didn't weigh the rocket, it also seemed light. I use Rust-Oleum 2X for most of my builds, and having done so, I can just say that it seems a little heavy. But here, I don't have any data - this is the first time I've attempted to weigh the paint job on a rocket.

Still, there's another possibility: using an airbrush.

I can't tell you much about using an airbrush just yet, as I don't have one. It's on my shopping list, and when I feel comfortable enough about it, I'll discuss using the airbrush on the blog. An airbrush is a bit of an investment - you need not only the airbrush itself, but a compressor and one or two other items for maintenance. And I imagine there's a bit of a learning curve.

But, at a recent launch, I had a conversation with Jim Flis, owner of Fliskits, and we got on the subject of airbrushes. I asked his advice. The advantages of an airbrush are that there's very little wasted paint, and little overspray. Also, depending on what paint you use, there's little smell, and dangerous paint fumes are less of a worry. You can paint inside. You don't have to worry about gnats landing in your wet paint and marring the finish.

And I said to him, "Sounds like it's really lightweight."

"Oh, yes," he said. "If I were doing competition rocketry, I'd use an airbrush."

That sounded pretty good to me.

Let's do one final simulation, based totally on a hypothetical situation and a guess on my part. Let's imagine we've built the Monarch, used our standard primer - which we'll say adds two grams to the rocket - and painted extremely light, either with an airbrush or some kind of miraculous rattle can of spray paint - and that we've managed to add only 2 grams of paint.

Our Monarch is perfectly built, glass smooth, and weighs only 61.4 grams. How high might it go?


Now, we've gained some serious altitude, flying over 70 feet higher than the unpainted rocket on the C6-5 motor and 188 feet higher on the D12-5.

Scaling Up and Down

You can see that smooth and light are the keys to maximizing the performance of your model rocket. This particularly makes a difference for small, low power rockets. When you get into mid power and high power rockets, and larger vehicles, the effects I'm describing here aren't likely to scale exactly, for a couple of reasons.

The first is that when something increases in size, the ratio of surface area to volume decreases. So, if you had two versions of the same model, one 14 inches tall and the other 4 feet tall, you may apply the same amount of paint per square inch to each rocket, but the surface area you're painting on the larger one will be less compared to its overall size.

Also, while it's easy to add a half ounce of weight to a small, 7 ounce model rocket, you're not very likely to add 5 pounds of paint to a 70-pound Level 3 high power rocket!

Building small rockets has some real challenges, and keeping things comparatively light is one of them.

I wasn't expecting to go this deep into things when I asked myself this question on the weight of paint, but it's certainly been interesting to think about.

Follow me on Twitter.

Like my Facebook page for blog updates and extra stuff.

Have a question you'd like to see addressed on this blog? Email me at iamtherocketn00b@gmail.com.


Sunday, November 27, 2016

The Weight of Paint - Part 3 - Surface Texture: Drag Reduction Vs. Added Mass


Click here for Part 1.

So far, we've established that painting a model rocket can add significant weight. We've also established that added weight can have a negative impact on the altitude we can expect from a given model. Comparing simulated flights between our heavier, painted Estes Monarch with the lighter, unpainted Monarch showed this difference.

Then, in Part 2, we took a detour to discuss aerodynamic drag - the resistance our rockets encounter from the surrounding air. By comparing flight simulations of our smaller, 3-finned Estes Monarch with the larger, 4-finned Big Bertha, we saw that, even though a lighter rocket will usually fly higher than a heavier one, drag is significant enough a force to change that; the larger, draggier Big Bertha simply cannot catch up to our finished, painted Monarch, even if we change the weight of the Bertha so that it matches that of the 25% lighter, unpainted Monarch we've been looking at.


What about two rockets of the same design - exactly the same size and shape - but one is heavier and one is lighter? One is painted, and the other isn't?

All things being equal, a lighter model rocket will usually fly higher than a heavier one. We saw that in our flight simulations from Part 1 of this series. The exception to this is if the rocket is far too light - below the optimal mass for its size and shape. A featherweight rocket may not have enough inertia to overcome the drag holding it back. Remember our comparison of throwing a bowling ball, a baseball, and a foam rubber ball up into the air.

But since most model rockets are probably heavier than they need to be even before building, you probably won't encounter that problem*.

But when you paint a rocket, all things are no longer equal.

* * *

When you use OpenRocket to design a rocket or build a simulation of an existing design, you start with the nose cone, and add parts one by one. All parts will have default settings - such as weight and center of gravity - depending on what they're made of and how thick they are.

The default setting of each part for surface texture is "Regular paint," and is followed by the number 60 and the symbol μm.

This represents the average roughness height of the surface, and is measured in micrometres, or microns. A micron is 0.001 millimeter - very tiny. Here's a photo of a carbon fiber filament - only six microns in diameter, compared to a human hair, about 50 μm in diameter.


So, in OpenRocket, if you change nothing about the surface texture, the assumption is that the rocket is painted, and that the tiny bumps in the paint job are, on average, 60 μm high.

Rough surface texture creates more turbulent airflow over the rocket, which in turn increases drag. Another thing increases drag dramatically - the velocity of flight. It might make sense that drag goes up as speed goes up. If you stick your hand out a car window while traveling at 20 miles per hour, the force on your hand is very light, while at 60 miles per hour, the wind pushes hard on your hand.

But here's the thing: while drag from  laminar flow increases proportionally with airspeed, drag from turbulent flow increases as a square of the increase in velocity. That means if you double the speed of the rocket, drag goes up four times. If you triple the rocket's speed, drag increases nine times. You can see the need to decrease the amount of turbulence the rocket experiences. That's what a smooth paint job can do - decrease turbulent airflow.

We've seen how a heavy paint job adds weight, and how added weight reduces altitude. But to see how the surface texture of paint affects drag, we need to factor that into our simulation.

Returning to the unpainted Monarch simulation, I click on the nose cone and select "Unfinished," then click the box that says "Set for all."


Now all components of the simulated rocket - the nose cone, body, fins, and even launch lug - have a simulated surface texture with an average height of 150 μm.

Here, we should note something. A lot of things in OpenRocket are approximations, and this is a good example. Obviously, all unfinished materials don't have the same texture. An unfinished plastic nose cone is smoother than a balsa cone, with its exposed wood grain, and a set of raw balsa fins are rougher than an unpainted paper body tube with a slick coating. But I think this is good enough to illustrate the principle we're talking about here.

Also, the altitudes are approximate. You might find you get a different result each time you run a simulation. We'll go into why another time.

How do I know how good my paint job is? I don't have a means of measuring the surface roughness in microns. But I know that my paint job isn't polished, and the paint didn't go on as smoothly this time as I've managed in the past. There's a bit of visible texture.

Here are a few closeups.

There are little bumps. But, they're smooth bumps, and I've seen and done far worse. So, I'm calling this "Regular paint." It's a guess, but, I think, a fair one.

Our original simulations from Part 1 showed the lighter Monarch beating the altitude of the heavier Monarch by a significant margin: 89 feet higher on an Estes C6-5 motor, and 42 feet higher on a D12-5.

The lighter Monarch results

The heavier Monarch results
The fact that the margin narrows with the D12-5 can be attributed to the fact we discussed before, that drag increases exponentially with velocity. On the D12, the both rockets fly nearly 100 miles per hour faster than on the C6. The lighter rocket still wins, but the drag force is significant enough to narrow the gap.

Now that we've got both the mass and the surface texture adjusted for the Monarch before paint, let's run a new flight simulation. Remember, the unpainted rocket weighs 57.4 grams, and the smoother, painted rocket weighs 75.8 grams - over 32% heavier.

Here are the results of the new flight simulation:


With a rougher, unfinished surface texture, the unpainted Monarch has lost some altitude. It still beats the heavier Monarch on a C6-5 motor - this time by 53 feet. But on the D12-5 motor, the smoother, painted rocket now wins by 27 feet!

Why is this? Again, look at the maximum velocity of the models. On a D12 motor, the rocket flies 94 miles per hour faster than on a C6-5 motor. The increased drag at higher speeds works to stop the rocket short of the heavier Monarch's peak altitude.

What if we got a better paint job on the Monarch?  What if our paint job was good enough we felt comfortable calling it "Smooth paint," with an average surface roughness of only 20 microns?


Now how high does the rocket fly?


By decreasing turbulent airflow even further with a smooth paint job, we increase our altitude even further, nearly catching up with a C6 motor, and breaking 1,100 feet with the D.

What if we carefully polish the finish on the paint job, and get it nearly perfect, with a mirror-smooth finish of only 2 microns in average height?



Now we've increased our altitude on this rocket even more.

But we still haven't caught up to the lighter rocket flying on a C6-5 motor. That paint job is just a little too heavy.

Let's look at the flip side to all this. What if we could paint the rocket nice and smooth, and the paint weighed absolutely nothing? Let's take our "unpainted" Monarch, give it an imaginary paint job with no added mass, and polish it smooth. What kind of altitude could we expect from a lighter but smoother rocket?


Now we've gained some serious altitude. By keeping the rocket light and making it as smooth as we can, we're giving the rocket the advantage in overcoming both gravity and aerodynamic drag. We've taken this little sport rocket and pushed it to perform its best.

Of course, paint doesn't weigh nothing. We're always going to add some mass. But we can try to minimize that. The Monarch isn't a high-performance model, with its goofy, oversized, 1/8-inch-thick fins, but that doesn't mean we can't make the most of it.

OK, here's one more scenario...

What if we painted the rocket with real paint - and, as happened in the case of my rocket, the paint went on a bit heavy - but instead of a nice, smooth paint job, we got something less than desirable? Sometimes, a paint can will have chunks of pigment settled in it, and you'll end up with a paint job that's really spiky and rough.

The paint came out of this can like it was Silly String.

Rough paint - neither pretty nor aerodynamically advantageous

When my friend Chad moved across the country, he gave me his rockets. I picked one up, and it actually hurt - the texture was like little needles. The surface was as if it were covered in tiny claws  for grasping at the air as the rocket flew.

What if that were the case with our painted Monarch? Let's select a "Rough" finish, with an average height of 500 microns.


Let's check our altitude now...


Here we see how paint can be a hindrance, if done badly. Not only will the rocket not look nice, it won't fly as high.

So, if you want to get the most performance from a model rocket, the key is to build light, and make the surface smooth.

* * *

I build most of my rockets to look nice. I take a few steps in the hopes that they'll perform a little better, but I don't always try to maximize their altitude. That's certainly true of the Monarch.

This all started with a simple question in my mind: How much weight am I adding by painting the rocket? But now that I see the results of our simulations, something's bugging me.

The painted Monarch can't match the unpainted one on a C motor - only on a D - even by reducing the drag and making the paint as smooth as possible. But the Monarch was never meant to fly on D motors. The only reason mine can is that I set the kit motor mount aside and upgraded to a larger mount. What if I want to paint the rocket, but I also want it to fly as high as it can?

The key is to paint lighter and maybe smoother. How much lighter? And can it be done? And how can it be done? I've promised to answer these questions the last two posts. Next time, we'll actually look into it.

Click here for Part 4.

*There are some exceptions to this. Model rocket have been made from things like Styrofoam, pool noodles, and even Mylar balloons. These rockets are so light they don't coast very much after motor burnout. Such model rockets are some of the few which would probably benefit from a little added weight. But, then, such rockets are meant to fly to relatively low altitudes, even on higher thrust motors.

Follow me on Twitter.

Like my Facebook page for blog updates and extra stuff.

Have a question you'd like to see addressed on this blog? Email me at iamtherocketn00b@gmail.com.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

The Weight of Paint - Part 2 - So Why Paint?


Click here for Part 1.

In the last post, we saw how much weight paint can add to a model rocket, and how that weight might affect the rocket's flight. The Estes Monarch I recently built has a total weight of 75.8 grams - 25% of which is just paint and primer. And an OpenRocket simulation of flights of both the painted and unpainted rockets showed a significant loss of altitude in the heavier, painted version.

So, this begs the question: Why paint rockets at all? There are two good reasons.

Appearance and Variety

It may seem obvious - the main reason we paint rockets to make them look nice. As Chris Michielssen rightly pointed out in the comments section of the last post, not every rocketeer is concerned with maximizing altitude. A small loss in altitude is worth it to get a nice-looking rocket.

Some people actually prefer a rocket with a slower liftoff and lower apogee. They enjoy the spectacle of a dramatic launch, and want to see the whole flight. A high-flying rocket can be hard to spot when it's at altitude, and for some people, that's not as fun. A larger, lower-flying rocket is often referred to as low and slow. The Estes Big Bertha is one of these.


Some people do "fly naked," as it's called - they enjoy building and flying rockets, but skip the step of painting. As a result, they're able to finish rockets more quickly, and their rockets are certainly lighter as a result.

Others will build the rocket and wait to paint until they've flown the rocket once. The rocket must "earn its paint." They want to see how well it flies and how little damage it will accrue before taking pains to give the rocket a nice finish. I have a hard time doing this, though. If the rocket gets some minor damage in flight, I know I'll have a hard time giving it the finish I like, and I want the rocket to look great - at least once.

For me, building a rocket is part science project, part art project. I do want the rocket to perform well - as well as it can for its design. But I also want it to be pretty. A model rocket or high power rocket is a beautiful, sculptural object. Since it spends more time on a shelf at home than it does flying, I want it to make the place look nice. It adds an unexpected decorative element to my home.

And since I am on a mission to spark an interest in rocketry in people who may never have even heard of the hobby, I like having something to show off. If someone comes over for dinner, or to watch a movie, I can say, "Hey, come here. I want to show you something cool." I open the door to my Rocket Room, and they see this:


...a fleet of beautiful, colorfully-painted rockets. This always inspires questions and gives me a chance to talk about the work I've done on them. A shelf full of unpainted rockets might not have the same effect.

Most of the kits you buy are sport models - not competition rockets - so you can only expect to get so much altitude from them. The Monarch I've chosen to focus these blog posts on is certainly not designed to be a high flier. But even if you're building an Estes kit, perhaps you want to see how much performance you can get from it, even if it's not really a "performance rocket."

Based on the information from the previous post, you might then think that it would be better to save wait and not paint the rocket. But this brings us to our second benefit of painting a model rocket: drag reduction.

Let's take a brief detour and discuss aerodynamic drag.

What Is Drag?


Try this little experiment. Take a sheet of paper, and crumple it loosely into a ball, like this.


Now, sit on the floor, and see how high you can throw it upwards. Try to hit the ceiling.

I certainly couldn't. But now take the ball and wad it much tighter, like this.


Try throwing it now. This time, I hit the ceiling, no problem. The paper weighs the same, so the effect of gravity on it is the same. But the first time, it was difficult to throw. In fact, if the paper had weighed even less, it would have been even harder to throw. The difference between the two throws is the air - a force known as drag.

Drag is an aerodynamic force acting opposite the direction of a moving object. It's also sometimes called air resistance or wind resistance. As a rocket flies upward at high speed, the surrounding air exerts a force to slow it down. It may not seem like it should have much of an effect, but the drag force can be quite significant on a model rocket.
There are several types of drag working against a rocket as it flies.

Pressure drag, also called form drag, is the result of high air pressure at the forward or front end, and low pressure on the aft or back end. A rocket speeding through the air will compress the molecules of air in front of it, causing an area of high pressure on the nose cone, the leading edges of the fins, the leading edge of the launch lug, etc. When the rocket passes through the air, behind the rocket - and on the trailing edges of the fins, launch lug, etc., is a partial void or vacuum - an area of low pressure. Once the rocket has passed a region of the air, the air flow separates from the rocket, and the molecules rush to fill in the empty space behind it, causing turbulence and drag. Pressure drag has to do largely with the shape of the rocket - the shape of the nose cone, whether the fins are left square or streamlined by the rocketeer - as well as the size of the rocket. A fatter rocket will have more pressure drag than a skinny one, because the wider diameter means that there's more area of high pressure at the front and low pressure at the aft.

Pressure or form drag - from Learn To Fly

What stopped our loose paper ball from hitting the ceiling in our experiment was, largely, pressure drag.

Induced drag is caused by the fins, and it is due to the lift force. Lift, on model rocket fins, works to correct the rocket in flight and keep it stable. If something causes the rocket to waver or wobble in flight, the fins will experience high pressure on one side and low pressure on the other. That's lift, and the pressure will cause the rocket to rotate back around its Center of Gravity (CG) and straighten in out again. Lift acts perpendicular to the rocket's fins, and it's necessary to keep the rocket stable. But with lift comes drag - at a 90 degree angle to the lift force. Again, high pressure on the leading side of the fin and low pressure on the trailing side of the fin, while it corrects the rocket's trajectory, also causes increased drag.

Lift and drag - in this case, on an airplane wing. Image from The Recreational Aircraft Association of New Zealand wiki.

Skin friction drag has to do with the air flowing over the entire surface of the rocket. Smooth airflow - known as laminar flow - creates less air friction than rough or turbulent flow. The layer of air right next to the rocket is called the boundary layer, and the viscosity of the air plays a large role here. A laminar boundary layer is nice and smooth, whereas a turbulent boundary layer is full of swirls and eddies. In laminar flow, the layers of air slide easily over one another.

An example of laminar flow on a Mercedes Benz in a wind tunnel
Not so in turbulent airflow. The layers swirl and mix together chaotically.

Flow will always go from laminar to turbulent.

The plume from a candle going from laminar to turbulent flow. From Wikimedia Commons.
This is especially true at higher velocities. The faster the rocket flies, the more turbulent airflow the rocket will experience. The Handbook of Model Rocketry describes an experiment to illustrate this. Turn on your kitchen faucet. If you turn the water on only a little, it comes out in a smooth stream. If you increase the flow of water, the flow is smooth for a bit, but by the time it hits the basin of the sink, it has changed from laminar to turbulent flow. And if you turn the water on full blast, nearly the whole stream will be turbulent.

Skin friction drag can be pretty significant, and if you want to fly higher, you want to reduce the amount of turbulent airflow over the body of the rocket. The boundary layer will always transition from smooth to turbulent somewhere along the rocket, but the trick is to try to make the effects of turbulent flow less dramatic.

* * *

You've probably had the experience of riding in a car with your hand out the window. If you face your palm flat into the wind, it will push hard on your hand. But if you flatten your palm out and hold it parallel to the ground, like an airplane, there's much less wind resistance on your hand.

If you then tilt your hand slightly upward, the air will push your hand up toward the top of the car. Tilt your hand downward, and your hand goes down. As a kid, I used to let my hand move up and down in waves like that while riding in the passenger's seat of the car.

From 1000 Awesome Things

The strong force you feel on your hand with your palm open to the wind - that's pressure or form drag. It lessens dramatically when you point your hand directly into the wind like an airplane. The force moving your hand up and down as you tip it up or down, making waves - that's lift! ("Lift" doesn't mean upwards, by the way. Even when your hand is tilted downwards and the air pushes your hand toward the ground, that's still the lift force.) While your hand is moving up or down, you feel increased air pressure pushing your hand backwards - that's induced drag.

And the feeling of the wind on the hairs on the back of your hand - that's friction drag.

* * *

So, when we launch a rocket, we're not just fighting gravity to achieve altitude. We're also fighting drag. A lighter model rocket will tend to fly higher than a heavier one, because most models are probably heavier than they need to be to achieve the highest altitude possible for their profile, on the motors with which they'll fly. But mass alone isn't the only determining factor in altitude.

Let's look at an example of a rocket which weighs the same as our painted Monarch - the Estes Big Bertha.


The Monarch's fins are reminiscent of the Bertha. But the Bertha is larger - over an inch taller, larger in diameter, and with four fins instead of three. The Bertha's fins are also slightly larger.



My Big Bertha weighs almost exactly the same as my Monarch. It may be a gram or two heavier, but they're pretty close. But I didn't paint my Bertha as heavily as I did the Monarch. If I created a simulation of both rockets, identical in weight, how would they differ in performance?

Let's do a comparison. Like I did with the Monarch, I'll simulate flights with both the Estes C6-5 and D12-5 motors.

First, let's review the flight simulations of the heavier, painted Monarch.


599 feet on a C6-5, and 1054 feet on a D12-5.

Here are the results of the Big Bertha simulation flights.


Despite the fact that both rockets are of the same mass, the Bertha can't match the altitude of the Monarch. The reason is drag.

With a larger diameter and four fins instead of three, the Bertha has more pressure drag. And with the increased surface area, due to the rocket being over an inch longer, plus the larger diameter, the fourth fin, and the fact that the fins are larger than those on the Monarch, the Bertha experiences more skin friction drag.

What if we make the Bertha "unpainted," and as light as the unpainted Monarch?


Here are the results of the simulations on the "unpainted" Bertha.


Even weighing 25% less, the unpainted Bertha flies a bit higher, but simply has too much drag to compete with our sleeker but heavier Monarch. In this example, the Bertha is our loosely crumpled ball of paper, and the Monarch is our tightly crumpled ball.

What Does All This Mean For Our Rocket?

In the previous post, we ran simulations of our lighter, unpainted rocket, and our heavier, painted one. The painted Monarch was over 32% heavier than the unpainted one, and the simulations showed a dramatic decrease in performance for the painted rocket - nearly 100 feet on a C6-5 motor.

We've already run a simulation on the painted and unpainted rockets, so we already know which will perform better, right? Pressure drag depends on the size and shape of the rocket, and skin friction drag increases with exposed surface area, so isn't lighter just better?

Well, when I built the simulation, there was one important aspect I left out: surface texture. Paint can make a rocket smoother, and a smoother rocket will have less skin friction drag.

How will this difference affect the performance between the two rockets? And, can you paint a rocket while still keeping it lightweight? We'll examine these questions in our next post.

Click here for Part 3.

Follow me on Twitter.

Like my Facebook page for blog updates and extra stuff.

Have a question you'd like to see addressed on this blog? Email me at iamtherocketn00b@gmail.com.