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 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
Characteristics to be measured:
Apogee, lowest stability prior to apogee (>5secs before apogee), lowest stability, highest stability, max velocity,
Tests to be run:
Expected Mass and length:
expected wind, pressure, temperature
15mph wind with whatever is worse 85th percentile pressure and temperature
0mph wind with whatever is worse 85th percentile pressure and temperature
Improved surface finish with expected wind, pressure and temperature
Max Mass Condition:
expected wind, pressure, temperature
15mph wind with whatever is worse 85th percentile pressure and temperature
0mph wind with whatever is worse 85th percentile pressure and temperature
Improved surface finish with expected wind, pressure and temperature
Min Mass Condition:
expected wind, pressure, temperature
15mph wind with whatever is worse 85th percentile pressure and temperature
0mph wind with whatever is worse 85th percentile pressure and temperature
Improved surface finish with expected wind, pressure and temperature
Shape “KOTS 2.0“:
Start with the KOTS shape and increase height until stability is correct and then mess with flutter/thickness after
Shape “Tip“:
Idea is to start with a KOTS fin and moderately increase the tip chord is the hopes of finding a way to increase the flutter velocity without much increase in thickness. Likely will also require a height increase of the fin.
Shape “Tip with Sweep“:
Start with the tip concept and then add a sweep to move the fin CP effect back more in hopes that height can decrease and therefore thickness can decrease.
Analyzed without changing the weight and appeared to be the best option however upon doing a weight study 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 other shapes. However lowered stability to 2.3 roughly meaning a size increase which would reduce flutter meaning a thickness increase and even more weight. This will for sure reduce apogee down to similar levels as KOTS 2.0 design. therefore shape was determined against.
If extra time:
Shape “Playing with Fire“:
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
Looked 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 want
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 than previous and not really an advantage over other shapes.
Four Fin vs. 3 Fin Study:
Use the comp sim and set the material of the fins to carbon fiber and figure out how much it thinks those fins weighed
This value is 1.5 lbs which seems high but going with it.
Subtract that number from the section mass and make a copy of cycle 2.2 1a-c using this new number and see that it makes sense
Make a new file with four fins and dial in stability first
Then do flutter calcs and thickness back into openrocket and check stability again and iterate.