Cycle 2 Baseline (clipped delta with cycle 2 masses etc)
This is the cycle 2 masses and lengthes and such with the fins from last year as a starting place
Cycle 2 sim 1 (first stab at fin size for 2.5 calibers)
This is a rough simulation Joel did to get a sense for what the flight paramters parameter's looked like before he messed with stuff a lot
Ended up just shortening the fins a hair to 6in.
Wind Design Condition Studies
Methodology:
Set fin size to get lowest stability 2.5 at wind condition
Check flutter and increase fin thickness to level where flutter FOS is greater than 1.5 using increments of increasing fin thickness by one 2x2 twill on spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bED5_mtsKTZOK_8UIh9m1AtHdDWtagWdZMeCRRHz9sw/edit#gid=1882516631
Enter new thickness in OR ignoring mass change and check stability still same.
get all numbers required and enter here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1IiWsDT2IP_I34qDOhQQSvvtqstiJyr9cIYkMXxRI6Vc/edit#gid=0
This is to help us decide what wind speed we want to design to
Cycle 2 Wind Sim 8mph
Designed fins to have min stability of 2.5 calibers at 8mph launch condition
Same as Cycle 2 sim 1 (first stab at fin size for 2.5 calibers)
Cycle 2 Wind Sim 10mph
Designed fins to have min stability of 2.5 calibers at 10mph launch condition
Cycle 2 Wind Sim 12.5mph
Designed fins to have min stability of 2.5 calibers at 12.5mph launch condition
Cycle 2 Wind Sim 15mph
Designed fins to have min stability of 2.5 calibers at 15mph launch condition
Fin Shape Testing (cycle 2.0):
Methodology: As there are too many variables to independently tweak by hand all at once and simulate the outcome of each option now that we/Joel has a basic grasp on how stable the rocket is and how different changes to the fins affect the results he will design a fin shape and then run it through a series of simulations to see if the performance of the fin is up to our desired results. If this does not result in an effective fin or Joel thinks there is performance left on the table he will repeat the process. Fin shapes are designed for 2.5 cals of stability at 9mph wind case with FOS on flutter of 1.5
...
Design to have closer to 2 cals of stability at 9mph and really work on getting the apogee up even with some risk.
Cycles 2.1 and 2.2:
After shape KOTS 2.0 was selected as the best option the propulsion team started refining the final flight engine masses which caused some changes in the mass. This resulted in running two additional sets of sims. Starting with the KOTS 2.0 shape and setting stability at 2.5 with 9mph wind and then running through 1a-d, 2a-d and 3a-d as above in cycle 2.0. The names are kinda confusing to be honest but essentially this was were the final tweaks were happening to get what we wanted.
Sensitivity studies on:
Other OR sim inputs
Not a huge effect for pressure and temp but did weather analysis and used for cycle2.0-2.2 conditions testing.
Fin shape with flutter considered
Think we should increase the fin tip chord slightly probs like 1 inch after weather thing is doneLooked at increasing the length of tip chord in order to get better flutter characteristics and there was slight benefit to it but did not end up increasing this due to drag and not hugely increased flutter qualities.
Increasing fin thickness vs area for flutter resistance
It appears that changing fin area does not affect flutter FOS nearly as much as changing fin thickness so thickness changes will be used for weather studies.
Launch rail being shorter if wantSurface roughness improvement
As the limiting factor on stability is still off rail for most of the simulations we don’t really want to lower the launch rail size but we also don’t really need it longer as we are very close to not having off rail be the worst stability. Launch tower team suggested the shortening was not a high priority so sims were not done.
Surface roughness improvemen
Ran study on file with cycle 2 masses not quite fully done and apogee went from 29413ft to 31347ft changing from regular paint (2.36mil) to smooth paint (0.787mil). No noticeable impact on stability.
More work done in cycle 2.0/2.1/2.2
Weight increase due to larger fin area on tip swept back shape
Early on the tip swept back shape seemed really good but weight increases not being analyzed meant that a drawback was concealed
Analyzed and found roughly 2.3in^2 increase in area and plate stock is 0.277lbs/in^2 for 3/16 thick meaning adding 0.637lbs in plate stock. Because of our own added material rounded up to 1.25lbs. dropped apogee for 1a case to 28557 which is significantly worse but still better than all than previous and not really an advantage over other shapes.