Thread: Pop-pod idea
View Single Post
  #2  
Old 03-10-2020, 06:35 PM
GuyNoir's Avatar
GuyNoir GuyNoir is offline
NAR # 19250 - Life Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Woodstock, IL
Posts: 493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dholvrsn
Yesterday and today I was wondering why pop-pods weren't built this way? Use a little more mass ahead of the coupler to kick the xerclod back a little more to unhook things. I'm guessing that this was tried back in the day and was more likely to Red Baron. Plus getting that streamer to unfurl from the forward tube.


So I've built pop-pods this way.

I added two small fins to the tube carrying the engine so that if the shock cord broke, the result would still be NAR legal (since tumble recovery pods require two fins per the Pink Book).

These pods results in VERY positive separation between pod and glider, but:
  • 1. The force of the ejection can bash the glider, depending on how the pod separates from the glider.
  • 2. The cord can break, hence the need for two fins.
  • 3. The shock cord can get burned, increasing the chance for separation.

All of those things can be mitigated, but in the cases where separation occurs, you'll need to be prepared to explain to the RSO what happened and why your model shouldn't be DQ'ed.

My $0.02. YMMV.
__________________
A dark night in a city that knows how to keep its secrets. But high above the quiet streets on the 12th floor of the Acme Building, one man is still trying to find the answers to life's persistent questions. Guy Noir, Private Eye.

Fox Valley Rocketeers: http://www.foxvalleyrocketeers.org
Reply With Quote