Activity

Congradulations !!

I lick my finger and hold it up in the wind. 8) I usally get pretty close!

I’ve seen a few bugs with Rocksim 8, but nothing major. Unfortunately, it’s those who are pushing the envelope who need more accurate simulations, and Rocksim fails them. For the rest of us who fly suboptimal birds in the range…   Read more»

Wilke still uses the free version of Rocksim 4.0 I think.You are mostly right – I paid for it (I think it was $40). Shortly after than, version 5.0 came out and they stopped supporting 4.0… I coughed up the…   Read more»

After I rebuilt my computers and lost RS 8 in the process, and after pointing out bugs that didn’t get fixed in RS 9, I gave up and I only use Open Rocket and RASAero now.

Wilke still uses the free version of Rocksim 4.0 I think.

At least with Rocksim 7.x I’ve seen that the manual optimization works far better than the automatic. Rocksim 8 (paid for) doesn’t work on any of my systems at all.

Can we go back in time?

At least with Rocksim 7.x I’ve seen that the manual optimization works far better than the automatic. Rocksim 8 (paid for) doesn’t work on any of my systems at all.

So the graph that it plots for you isn’t accurate? I use this feature all the tim but I haven’t built anything yet that I’ve flown enough to really test it’s accuracy.There have been many times where I set the…   Read more»

Hey guys,I have never used the Rocksim, I use Openrocket, it sounds like they are simiair. In Open Rocket, thats how i have been doing it also, just keep tweeking the nose weight. Open Rocket post altitude and speed, on…   Read more»

So the graph that it plots for you isn’t accurate? I use this feature all the tim but I haven’t built anything yet that I’ve flown enough to really test it’s accuracy.

Thanks, Adrian. I just changed mass and kept re-running it, too.

There’s a feature in the simulation area where you can run the mass optimizer. The problem is that it is horrible at finding the optimal mass. I have found it’s better just to adjust your nose weight and re-run it…   Read more»

David, Yes- if your airframe was 4 cm (1.57″) then you could get away with a fin of minimum “semi-span” of 5 cm (1.97″). That sounds pretty small, but I think some of the Mongoose or Mongoose clone rockets actually…   Read more»

hehe, pretty hard to forget now. I understand what your saying, but would still like to know which is the correct use of the term.So, then according to drawing our fins can have a min. height of 1.97″?

A circle circumscribed around the fins shall have a diameter no smaller than 5.51″ (14cm). See the diagram.Forget semi-span. It was not used in the contest rules.Carry on- Chad

Hi,Since my confussion I’ve done lots of reading, heres a qutoe from a NASA site and the link:”For a trapezoidal wing, we need to know the semi-span (s), which is the distance from the root to the wing tip.”http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/area.html.So..each fin…   Read more»

Chris is right. The RP diagram is wrong.This is why I made a diagram that was handed out at the annual meeting. Here it is again.https://files.me.com/chadair/01hl42

hey guys,Found this on RP, thank you Goggle.1. Root Chord2. Sweep Angle3. Sweep Length4. Tip Chord5. Body Tube Diameter6. Semi SpanLE Leading edgeTE Trailing EdgeSo, thank again for the help.

Not if what Chad said was correct. I would interpret his statement as saying that each fin must measure at least 2.75 inches from the center of the body tube, not the surface.