EV, I like this one best, but without the canards. I like the similar shapes of the two cones (other than the cockpit).

My only concern is torque steer off the pad. With that much spacing between the motor tubes, if there's any difference in thrust profile between the motors (eg, one lights 0.2 seconds after the other) or if one doesn't light at all, you may end up with a cartwheeling pile o' trash. I'm wondering if you might oughta take an inch or so out of the inboard wing section and bring the booms closer together.

It probably won't look as good, but it will likely be more flight worthy. My two cents.

Doug

.

__________________
YORF member #11

I think it looks better without the canards.

BTW, how will recovery work? One chute? Two chutes? Is one nose cone fixed?

__________________
Never trust an atom. They make up everything.

4 out of 3 people struggle with math.

Chemically, alcohol IS a solution.

NAR# 94042
SAM# 0078

WOW! Wouldn't it be cool if one cone deployed, and the other tube had a rear deployment? The bird would come down horizontal, and if one ejection fails, it would still be saved.

Now my wheels are turning!

__________________
"AND I hope they are from the planet of the "Chunk spunky Mary-Lou Retton clones". - Ironnerd

"Those who trade liberty for security have neither" - Benjamin Franklin

"Semroc is almost always the answer" - Stefanj

www.paulsavia.com

www.soundclick.com/paulsavia

Yeah! If you haven't already glued the engine mounts in place, one of the mounts could rear-deploy, tethered to the rocket, but with a parachute attached to the mount.

OR

You could INTENTIONALLY have a delay between engine firings and have a "controlled" cartwheel event and call it a GLAVE! (from "Krull".) Liam Neeson was the Cyclops--I guess he needed the money.

__________________
Never trust an atom. They make up everything.

4 out of 3 people struggle with math.

Chemically, alcohol IS a solution.

NAR# 94042
SAM# 0078

Oh, wait. Liam Neeson WASN'T the cylops, but he was still in the movie---he needed the money.

__________________
Never trust an atom. They make up everything.

4 out of 3 people struggle with math.

Chemically, alcohol IS a solution.

NAR# 94042
SAM# 0078

My thought process behind this one was to use up all of the extra A8-3 engines I have in my range box. I usually hit Michael's with a 40% coupon for an Estes Flight Pack, and most of my flying is done on B and C motors. Thus, the excess A's.

With that specific motor in mind, my plan was to have only one 'chute on the non-cockpit side, and have the cockpit side just blow the nose with a shock cord and no chute.

Thanks for the other suggestions on noses, but this thing really came together as a SPEV (Spare Parts Elimination Vehicle). The only balsa I fully cut was the center span. Everything else either came from another kit or was scrap. I kinda want to stay with the noses I've shown.

I'm definitely leaning towards the longer Screaming Eagle cockpit cone, as I've still got a bunch of 'em...

Later,
EV

Heck, if you were closer, I'd trade you some C's for those A's.

Got a BUNCH of C6 engines from Wal-Mart on clearance a while back, $1.00 a pack. I'd readily trade some of them for A8 packs.

__________________
NAR # 115523
Once upon a better day... SAM #0076
My site: http://rocketry.gonnerman.org

To be clear, FWIW, my thinking was to keep the nose with the canards, but cut the canards off. Not sure the impact, whether there'd be holes to fill (not desirable) or whether they can be easily snipped off, sanded and painted.

Doug

.

__________________
YORF member #11

EV: I like the one version with the Alpha and the Screaming Eagle NCs. I also noticed that you did not glued the fins on top of the guide lines, centered on the root of the fins. You used the lines as a guide and placed the fins at the edge of the root. This way one ensures that the fin is really straight. Great idea!

BTW this design is cool. One building and flight thread I will be following. Keeps us posted.

- r_r

__________________
_____________________

- Raúl
NAR #88644
SAM #230
EAC
CAT
_____________________

I think it may prove advantageous to span the gap near the forward end of the BT. I know that the joining section is cross grain and should have all the strength in the world, and that motors are pretty reliable in terms of thrust and burn time, but being a belt and suspenders kind of guy I worry about the moment of two powered rockets with a single span between them. That and the possibility of differential in the drag of two different types of nose cone.

Just a thought.

__________________
Gravity is a harsh mistress
SAM 002
NAR 91005
"The complexity of living is eminently favored to the simplicity of not."