Showing posts with label openrocket. Show all posts
Showing posts with label openrocket. Show all posts

Monday, May 11, 2020

K'Tesh! A Chat with Jim Parsons, OpenRocket Wizard - The Model Rocket Show

Jim Parsons' OpenRocket sim of the Estes Cineroc and Omega

The latest episode of The Model Rocket Show podcast is up, and I'm talking with Jim Parsons. You may know Jim by the username K'Tesh on The Rocketry Forum, and one of the things he's known for is creating accurate-looking simulation files of kits past and present, using OpenRocket - the free, open-source model rocket design and simulation software.

I've used Jim's information as reference material when trying to get decals or paint in the right places on some of my builds.

Cherokee D decal placement

I even downloaded his sim of the Estes Leviathan when preparing for my High Power Rocketry Level 1 flight, because that's the kit I used, and I knew the fins would be accurate if Jim made the file.

You can listen to the episode on most podcasting apps, or directly on the website by clicking here.

Check out K'Tesh's master list of OR files on The Rocketry Forum by clicking here.

See Jim's excellent Flickr stream by clicking here.

Download OpenRocket here.

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. 

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Stability - or - What Happened to Homer's Rocket? (Part 5) - Finding the CP: The Barrowman Equations - Introduction

Illustration from the cover of Centuri TIR-33, by James S. Barrowman

This is a continuation of a series on model rocket stability for beginners. Click here to go to the beginning of the series. Click here to go to the last post.

Each year, since 1958, the National Association of Rocketry holds an event called NARAM - the NAR's Annual Meet. This is a large competition, with fly offs for things like altitude, duration (how long a rocket can stay in the air on a parachute or streamer), scale modeling, craftsmanship, etc.

There's also a Research and Development competition, or R&D. Competitors present research projects into some aspect of model rocketry they've been examining.

Research topics can be very basic or pretty esoteric. They may be focused on a highly technical aspect of rocketry, or perhaps on the craft of rocket building. An R&D project might examine some very specific problem only of interest to competition rocketeers, - for example, the effect of a piston launch pads in altitude competitions, or new exotic building materials for boost wing gliders - while others are more general and concern issues many modelers face.

A rocketeer presents her R&D report.
Image from NAR.org

NAR R&D reports have added much to the knowledge base of model rocketeers and expanded our horizons. While some reports are of interest to only a few people, there are others which really make a large impact on the hobby.

In the next couple of posts, we're going to discuss the one research project that has probably benefited every single rocketeer since it's submission in 1966.

* * *

In the early days of model rocketry, as we've discussed in the previous posts, rocketeers ensured that their designs would be stable by using a somewhat crude but effective method using a two-dimensional cutout drawing of their designs. By balancing the cutout, the center of lateral area could be found, which was also what the center of pressure would be if the rocket were flying at an angle of attack of 90 degrees - sideways into the wind, in other words.

From The Classic Collection by Estes Industries

We also saw hints, through the pictures, that the true center of pressure during flight is in fact far aft of what the cutout method indicated.

But if the cutout method worked, why bother with a different method? It may have been crude, sure, but it worked, and the rockets resulting from its use were stable, so what's the problem? And how do we know where the true Center of Pressure is, anyway?

Well, it turns out that the engine driving the search for a new method of determining CP was competition. Specifically, NAR competition rocketry.

While a model built using the cutout method is certainly stable, it is actually quite unlikely to fly as high as it might. There are three main reasons why: weight, drag, and weathercocking. 

Weight

The cutout method shows the hypothetical center of pressure much further forward than it actually is. In our illustration, using a quickly designed model - Sounder IB - we saw that while the Center of Gravity (CG) was a ahead of the CP in our simulated design and the rocket would therefore be stable, if I'd simply used the cutout method, the CP would have seemed to be so far forward that it was ahead of the CG. If all I had to go on for finding the CP was the cutout method, I'd worry the rocket would be unstable, and I'd have to modify the design.



One way to fix this would be to shift the CG forward, until it was at least one body tube diameter (or caliber) ahead of the CP. To do this, I'd need to add some weight to the nose end of the rocket. I could do this a number of ways. If I had a plastic nose cone, I could stuff it with clay and ram it into place with a dowel rod until the rocket balanced where I wanted it to. (If you have built certain Estes kits, you may be familiar with this method). With a balsa nose cone, I might drill a hole in the shoulder of the nose cone, and fill the hole with either clay or fishing weights, and then some glue to keep everything in place.

With 15 grams of nose weight, the CG shifts forward, but the rocket pays a penalty by losing altitude -
a little over 100 feet. If this were a competition model, those extra feet could make a big difference.

The point is that in order to know my rocket would be stable, I'd have to add a significant amount of weight to the rocket - probably 10 grams or more - and with a rocket as small as Sounder IB, that would add up to a significant weight gain - and altitude loss.

Drag

Another way I might fix Sounder IB's stability problem would be to shift the CP aftward. To do this, I would need to increase the size of the fins. (I could also increase the number of fins, but as we saw with the quickie designs I drew up with the three, four, and six trapezoidal fins, the cutout method might not indicate a change in CP.)

Increasing the size of the fins would, though. I'd have to make a new drawing with larger fins, cut that out, find the new CP, and hope the CG of the finished model would be forward of that.

Increasing the fin span would shift the CP aftward, but the increased
aerodynamic drag would again cost the rocket over 100 feet in altitude.

Using larger fins creates more drag, or wind resistance (as does adding more fins). Drag can be a powerful force which tries to stop a rocket in flight. Because of that, a rocket with larger fins will not fly as high as one with smaller fins.

Weathercocking

All model rockets will tend to arc into the wind somewhat. Some do it only a little, and fly mostly straight until they get near apogee, when the rocket is slowing down, and then arcs into the wind.

Other rockets arc into the wind much more, so that flights are rarely straight up, and more often form a large bow in the sky.

From nakka-rocketry.net

This phenomenon is known as weathercocking, and is caused by the same things which make the rocket stable in the first place.

As a rocket flies upward, its angle of attack is near zero degrees. But in reality, it's never completely zero degrees. Crosswinds flowing parallel to the ground combine with the apparent wind coming directly nose-on to the rocket. If a rocket is flying 200 miles per hour upwards, and the wind is only, say 10 miles per hour from the east, you might think the wind felt by the rocket from the front would overwhelm the wind coming from the side, and the rocket would only experience wind from straight ahead. The rocket may oscillate back and forth as it stabilizes itself, but generally it's only going to feel wind coming from one direction - upwards.

In fact, a consistent, light breeze from one direction will combine with the wind from the front, and as the rocket oscillates back and forth, it will tend to curve into the wind. This happens to some degree with most rockets on most flights. However, it's more apparent on 1) really windy days, or with 2) slow-lifting rockets, or on 3) overstable rockets.

In Part 4, we mentioned that the ideal static margin of stability is 1-2 caliber. A higher caliber of stability is usually OK, but it will lead to more weathercocking. Why?

Think of a rocket as a lever. The Center of Gravity is the fulcrum. The CP is where you grab the lever to do the lifting.

If you have a short lever, it's harder to lift things with it. But a longer distance between your hand and the fulcrum means it takes less force to move the lever.

Archimedes claimed that with a long enough lever and a place to stand, he could move the Earth.

 So a rocket with a longer distance between the CG and CP means it takes a lot less force for the wind at a slight angle of attack to cause the rocket to arc over.

Going by the cutout method, you're going to build a rocket with a much longer lever than you think. You might think you have a 1.5 caliber static margin, but it may in fact be 3 or 4 caliber. You're giving the wind a much easier task of weathercocking the rocket.

And of course, a rocket which expends all its energy in going straight up is going to reach a much higher altitude than one which arcs over into the wind.

Note: While weathercocking is normal in rockets, sometimes it's bad enough that it can be a little scary. The first time I flew my Estes Big Bertha, I was unfamiliar with this concept. The Bertha has very large fins, and it was a pretty windy day. The rocket flew almost horizontally before taking a nose dive - straight at a dog park! Fortunately, the chute opened at the last minute, and the rocket drifted back to the field.

The Bertha is pretty lightweight, and I actually don't think there were any dogs at the park at the time, so it was probably not a dangerous situation - but it certainly scared me at the time! I enjoy looking back at that video now, because my reaction was pretty funny, but I've never posted it online, because in my panic, I used a lot of language.

We'll talk more about weathercocking and how to minimize it in an upcoming post.

* * *

With these limitations, it was clear we needed a better method of reliably finding the CP on a rocket design before building. For competition modelers, this was vital.
One particular section of the National Association of Rocketry - NARHAMS, of Maryland - had a lot of competitive rocketeers. They also had one huge advantage - a particular club member they could turn to to ask for help.



His name was James S. Barrowman. Not only was he a member of the National Association of Rocketry, he also happened to work for NASA, with the sounding rocket program. Perhaps he would be able to help.

We'll talk more about James Barrowman and his solution in the next post.

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.

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Stability - or - What Happened to Homer's Rocket? (Part 4) - Finding the CP: Method 1 Continued


This is a continuation of a series on model rocket stability for beginners. Click here to go go the beginning of the series. Click here to read the last post.

Last time, we discussed the earliest method of finding the Center of Pressure (CP) on a model rocket - the cutout method. This simple method ensured stable flights on every model in the early days of model rocketry. Finding the CP is a crucial problem to solve, because in order for stable rocket flight, the CP must be behind the Center of Gravity (CG).

But, of course, the cutout method had drawbacks. Rocketeers had to be reasonably skilled at drawing an accurate representation of the rocket on stiff paper or cardboard, with all the parts in correct proportion. In other words, in order for the cutout method to work the drawing had to look just like the real thing.

Since I'm not a skilled draftsman, I cheated a little. I illustrated the cutout method with a design I'd created in OpenRocket - Sounder IB - which I printed on heavy card stock, cut out, and balanced on a piece of aluminum angle.


This showed us another drawback of the cutout method - accuracy. While balancing the two-dimensional cutout of Sounder IB did find the center of area for the rocket, that point was far forward of the red CP mark on the drawing itself. In other words, OpenRocket told me that the CP was in one spot, but the cutout method indicated that the CP was a good two inches further forward. So far, in fact, that the CP as determined by the cutout method was in front of the CG, as calculated by OpenRocket.


So, while the OpenRocket design showed the rocket to be perfectly stable, the cutout method showed me a dangerously unstable rocket - one which would flip violently around if it were launched!

So, does the cutout method represent the Center of Pressure at all? Or were rocketeers merely fooling themselves? And how do we - how does OpenRocket - know where the CP actually is? Who's right, who's wrong, and why?

The answer is that they're both right - kind of.

In the cutout method, we're balancing a 2D representation of the rocket - on its side. The cutout is resting on its balance point, so as the force of gravity pulls on it, the force is equally distributed in front of and behind the aluminum angle. This force - gravity - is acting a substitute for another force - air pressure - in the real rocket. So, for the cutout method to represent reality, the air pressure would have to be hitting the rocket directly from the side. The cutout method shows you were the CP would be if the rocket were flying sideways!

In this case, that means that all the air is hitting the rocket from the side - at an angle of 90 degrees. The angle the wind is hitting a rocket is known as angle of attack.

Alpha represents the angle of attack. Image from Centuri TIR-30, by James Barrowman.


In The Handbook of Model Rocketry, a 90-degree angle of attack is described as "the worst possible flying condition." In fact, it's an imaginary flying condition, because rockets do not fly sideways. They fly pointy end first!

Under normal flying conditions, with the proper motor (providing enough thrust for the weight of the rocket), model rockets fly at or near zero degrees angle of attack. While the ambient wind tends to blow horizontally along the ground, the rocket flies fast enough upward that the effect of the wind is minimized. If the wind on launch day is, say, 8 miles per hour, and the rocket is flying upward at, say, 200 miles per hour, the rocket will barely notice the wind coming from the side.

Under those conditions, the determination of the Center of Pressure is dominated much more by the fins and nose cone than by the surface area of the body of the rocket. As the rocket wobbles during flight - totally normal for a model rocket - the angle of attack will swing back and forth between zero and a few degrees. As this happens, the fins, which stick out from the body of the rocket, use the oncoming air pressure to correct the rocket's path, causing the back end to rotate away from the wind.

The pressure on the body tube at or near zero degrees angle of attach is much lower, and has much less effect on the CP.

But if the angle of attack were to suddenly increase significantly, then the air pressure on the nose cone and body tube becomes much more significant. The effect is that, at high angle of attack, the Center of Pressure moves forward. If, due to some (imaginary) catastrophic event in flight, the rocket were to fly sideways, then the CP would move forward enough that it would be where we see it when we do the cutout method.

As angle of attack increases, the influence of the nose cone and body tube increase -
the CP moves forward! Image from Centuri TIR-30, by James Barrowman


There are only two situations I know of when a normal rocket experiences these conditions. The first is when the rocket is sitting on the launch pad, and the breeze is blowing across the field. But when the rocket is sitting still on the pad, it's not flying, so this doesn't count.

The other is a rare, pretty strange event, which I've seen twice - recovery.

Once in a while, a rocket will launch, fly to apogee, and then due either to an ejection charge failure or a nose cone which is stuck on too tight, the nose cone doesn't eject. The rocket stays intact, the parachute does not come out, and the rocket begins to fall back to Earth.

Normally, when this happens, it's pretty frightening. Because the rocket is stable, with its CG in front of its CP, it will tend to fly nose first. So a rocket which has an ejection failure usually comes in ballistic - taking a nose dive straight at the ground with increasing speed. This usually destroys the rocket.

Sometimes, very rarely, an odd thing will happen. The rocket will go up, tip over at apogee, and begin falling back down. In rare instances, the CP at 90 degrees angle of attack will be the same spot as the rocket's CG. The rocket is then neutrally stable. The forces of gravity and air pressure are both centered on the same spot. The rocket descends sideways. Since the Center of Gravity is the point of rotation, and the Center of Pressure is the balance point of the force of the air of the rocket, the whole thing is in balance - just like a balanced scale.

If she weighs the same as a duck...

Both times this happened, the rocket fell very slowly, and came to a soft landing. Both times, I was filming, but both times, I was so stunned, I missed getting the slowly descending sideways rocket in frame. But it was pretty cool - and certainly a relief not to have the rocket come in ballistic.



I should mention that you shouldn't try to replicate this, by gluing on a nose cone or something. It's a chance event when it happens, and the same rocket might not do it twice - a slight difference in Center of Gravity could change everything, and the rocket would come in ballistic. But if you do see it, it's kind of amazing.

* * *

The fact that the CP can shift forward is really important. It means that the CG and CP could be too close together for the rocket to remain stable. If the angle of attack suddenly increases, due to a gust of wind, or off-center thrust of the motor, or any number of things, having the CG too close to the CP means that under certain circumstances, the CP could move forward of the CG! If these two switch position, you now have a dangerous, unstable rocket.

This brings us to the question How far forward of the CP chould the CG be? I was going to save this for a later part of this series, but I think it makes sense to mention it here.

In general, the rule of thumb is that the CG should be at least one body tube diameter ahead of the CP. That means that if the rocket is, say, 1 inch in diameter, the CG must be at least 1 inch forward of the CP. This margin is known as caliber, and refers to the diameter of the rocket.

Sounder 1B is 0.976 inches or 24.8 millimeters in diameter. If the CG is exactly 0.976 inches or 24.8 mm ahead of the CP, we say the rocket has a stability margin (sometimes called the static margin) of 1 caliber. If the CG and CP are 1.952 inches or 49.6mm apart - twice the diameter of the body tube - the margin is 2 caliber.

As you see, Sounder 1B has a static margin of 1.63 caliber. The CG is 40 millimeters forward of the CP. Since the minimum static margin is 1 caliber stability, this is fine. The ideal, especially if you want to fly as high as you can, is a static margin between 1 and 2 caliber. More is usually OK, up to a point. Less is generally not enough for safety, except in the case of some short, stubby rockets.

For most model rockets, however, the minimum safe static margin is 1 caliber. Having a static margin of 1 caliber or more ensures that, even if the rocket encounters a high-degree angle of attack for a moment, the CP isn't likely to shift forward of the CG. The rocket should remain stable.

* * *

To be clear, the cutout method does work to make stable rockets. But it's what we could call overly conservative with its CP location. A rocket designed using the cutout method would certainly be stable and safe, but it errs so far on the safe side, that you may end up building rockets which are far heavier in the nose cone than they need to be, or with more fins or larger fins than you need. That means you may rob yourself of performance, or you may shy away from building a rocket which is perfectly safe and stable, because you worry it might not be.

A better, more accurate method of finding the Center of Pressure was called for. We'll discuss that method in the next post.

Click here for Part 5.

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.