V2 Model?
William R. Morgan
Being new to the newsgroup I may be submitting an inquiry you've often
heard before....but anyway....
I'm looking for a DETAILED SCALE model of the V2, static or
otherwise. And yes I am aware of the re-release of the Revell kit, but
I'm interested in something a little larger. For that matter, how about
any good models of the V1 or the Bomark (sp?)??
From Alex's uncle (and the builder of the Bullpup) Tom Morgan from
Winnipeg, morg...@magic.mb.ca
Frank J. Burke
Try DML(dragon models limited) They have a V-2 around 15" tall or so with launch platform.
They aren't cheap at around $30. They are very thick in construction, and the fins are solid
plastic which butt glues to the tail cone. It makes a very good plastic conversion, with
a large amount of nose weight, and a 1.62" tube just fits inside for a liner, and has just
enought room for a nylon 18" chute, which is ok since the model is tough. An 18mm mount
fits perfectly, and a section of big bertha nose cone shoulder fit inside of the kit nose
section to make a perfect nose cone. It is around 7-8oz, so you can't really fly it on
C's, but I had many flights on D-21's, D-24's, and #-27's. The D-13's would be better since
the liftoffs with the other motors was rather quick, but stable.
I wish I could find a bomarc, or a V-1.
Frank
In article <Pine.A32.3.92.960807...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>,
sallen1@earthlink.net@earthlink.net
Jim Hart (Hott Rockets (909) 471-0104) sells a couple of large scale
V2's: 9", 11.5" and 16.5" diameter.
There's an ad in HPR magazine that shows the 11.5" liftoff at
Springfest '96. It went to 12,000 ft.
Larry Smith
sal...@earthlink.net@earthlink.net wrote:
> Jim Hart (Hott Rockets (909) 471-0104) sells a couple of large scale
> V2's: 9", 11.5" and 16.5" diameter.
Wonder how big an engine you'd need to loft a 100% "scale" model...
The Silent Observer
Assuming it was built with High Power materials and technigues
(fiberglass or phenolic construction, epoxy, etc.), you could probably
keep the total weight under 100 lbs -- possibly under 50. Given that,
you could loft such a model for a modest flight on an M1939, though it
would probably fly better with 2 to 4 K1100s alongside.
Transporting it, now, is likely to be a bigger problem...they used to fit
one (1) of those on a short railcar or semi-trailer to get it from place
to place...
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| It's easier to create chaos than order -- 2nd law of thermodynamics |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| sil...@ix.netcom.com http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/home.htm |
| TableTop Publications http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/ttop_pub.htm |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| All opinions expressed are my own, and should in no way be mistaken |
| for those of anyone but a rabid libertarian. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Frank J. Burke
Well, probably not likely. Jim Hart's 11" V-2 uses 1/2" ply, and with an N motor
weighed in at 120# or so. A full scale V-2 is 65" around or so, and 40' long(?)
You would have to use very light construction to use any cluster of available
motors, I don't think M's would do it even in a cluster. But if you build
one that replicated the real thing, internally, I'm sure Crisali would help
you design and build an alcohol liquid motor to fly the thing on. Oh, and you
would need a simulated 2000# warhead for the proper CG:)
Frank
In article <3218B1...@ix.netcom.com>,
wolfboy
bur...@kodiak.ee.washington.edu (Frank J. Burke) wrote:
> A full scale V-2 is 65" around or so, and 40' long(?)
>You would have to use very light construction to use any cluster of available
>motors, I don't think M's would do it even in a cluster. But if you build
>one that replicated the real thing, internally, I'm sure Crisali would help
>you design and build an alcohol liquid motor to fly the thing on. Oh, and you
>would need a simulated 2000# warhead for the proper CG:)
If you wanted to get really fancy you could do the A-9 instead of the
A-4/V-2. The A-9 was to be a modified V-2 -- the second stage of a
two-stage rocket. The scientists told the military it would be to
carry a bomb across the Atlantic. But their real intention (since
even before the war, I think) was to use it to put a man in orbit.
wb
William
Oh, and you would need a simulated 2000# warhead for the proper CG:)
So THATS why V2 models always need so much nose weight!
:-)
BillW
Jeff Vincent
The Silent Observer <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Larry Smith wrote:
>>
>> sal...@earthlink.net@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>> > Jim Hart (Hott Rockets (909) 471-0104) sells a couple of large scale
>> > V2's: 9", 11.5" and 16.5" diameter.
>>
>> Wonder how big an engine you'd need to loft a 100% "scale" model...
>Assuming it was built with High Power materials and technigues
>(fiberglass or phenolic construction, epoxy, etc.), you could probably
>keep the total weight under 100 lbs -- possibly under 50. Given that,
>you could loft such a model for a modest flight on an M1939, though it
>would probably fly better with 2 to 4 K1100s alongside.
IIRC, the Downright Ignorant rocket from a few years back was
*substantially smaller* than a V-2 and that rocket tipped the scale
at around 800 pounds, so I think you need to raise that estimate
considerably.
Jeff Vincent mailto:jvin...@wizvax.net http://www.wizvax.net/jvincent/
Pick one or more: Model Rockets (competition-NERCB) / PCs (even Atari!) /
Papyrus ICR-ICR2-NCR / Who needs a life when you have multiple non-lives?
Wolfram v.Kiparski
In article <4vdltk$d...@news.wizvax.net>, jvin...@wizvax.net (Jeff
Vincent) wrote:
> IIRC, the Downright Ignorant rocket from a few years back was
> *substantially smaller* than a V-2 and that rocket tipped the scale
> at around 800 pounds, so I think you need to raise that estimate
> considerably.
>
The V-2 is about the same height as Project 463, probably just a few feet
taller. But the booster section of Project 463 was 36 inches in
diameter. Compare that to the V-2's 65 inches. Project 463 weighed 1200
lbs., and a full scale V-2 would probably weigh more.
Wolf
The Silent Observer
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> The Silent Observer wrote:
>
> > Larry Smith wrote:
>
> > Transporting it, now, is likely to be a bigger problem...they used to fit
> > one (1) of those on a short railcar or semi-trailer to get it from place
> > to place...
>
>
> Boy, I can just imagine the looks I'd get transporting _that_
> thing to a launch! And I can just imagine explaining the
> concept of a 100% scale "model" to the local constabulary.
> "No, really, Officer, it has a parachute..."
It'd probably help a lot to show them the gaping empty motor mounts,
though... B)
Larry Smith
Darrell D. Mobley
Jeff Vincent wrote:
> IIRC, the Downright Ignorant rocket from a few years back was
> *substantially smaller* than a V-2 and that rocket tipped the scale
> at around 800 pounds, so I think you need to raise that estimate
> considerably.
It was 24 inches in diameter, and a *lot* smaller than 65" in diameter.
I don't think you could build a full scale *monokote* covered V-2 and
keep the weight to 100lbs. Maybe the guy at LDRS XV with the nice
Mercury Redstone would be up for the project? ;-)
Mike Vande Bunt
Jeff Vincent (jvin...@wizvax.net) wrote:
: IIRC, the Downright Ignorant rocket from a few years back was
: *substantially smaller* than a V-2 and that rocket tipped the scale
: at around 800 pounds, so I think you need to raise that estimate
: considerably.
IIRC, the Downright Ignorant was an amateur rocket, constructed primarily of
metal. The thread was about the possibility of using high power
construction techniques (i.e. no "significant" metal). Project 464 (also by
Sackett & co.) weighed 1200 pounds at lift off and also had some sections
that were all metal (It was also something on the order of 30' tall --
pretty close to the 40' needed for a V2). This would indicate that even if
it does end up weigning quite a bit more than 100 lbs. it could still fly.
A full-scale V2 would be quite a stunt, but that's what it would be: a
stunt. Something like Project 464 shows a lot more creativity. (Even
the full scale Wac-Corporal was a better project, since it was clearly
within the capabilities of high power. A full scale V2 is pushing the
envelope way farther than seems worthwhile.)
--
Mike Vande Bunt (N9KHZ) Mike.Va...@mixcom.com <*> TRA:4537 NAR:65174
Jerry Irvine
> The Silent Observer wrote:
>
> > Larry Smith wrote:
>
> > Transporting it, now, is likely to be a bigger problem...they used to fit
> > one (1) of those on a short railcar or semi-trailer to get it from place
> > to place...
>
> What? You don't think they'd let me take it on an airliner? =)
If it fits in a semi, FEDEX wil take it by air.
When you get the bill, sit down.
>
> Boy, I can just imagine the looks I'd get transporting _that_
> thing to a launch! And I can just imagine explaining the
> concept of a 100% scale "model" to the local constabulary.
> "No, really, Officer, it has a parachute..."
--
Jerry Irvine - jjir...@cyberg8t.com
Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing.
Frank J. Burke
Why is building a V-2 using novel constructions not worthwhile,
while an unsuccessful two stage attempt(proj 464) or the Downright
ignorant(which used 2x4's in construction) are?
Frank
In article <4vicl8$q...@homer.alpha.net>,
Larry Smith
The Silent Observer wrote:
> Larry Smith wrote:
> > Boy, I can just imagine the looks I'd get transporting _that_
> > thing to a launch! And I can just imagine explaining the
> > concept of a 100% scale "model" to the local constabulary.
> > "No, really, Officer, it has a parachute..."
> It'd probably help a lot to show them the gaping empty motor mounts,
> though... B)
To them, I'd bet it would look like a great big engine bell for a
big scarely rocket motor inside. :-(
I'd be collar-bone deep in BATF agents...
Alex E Mericas
> If it fits in a semi, FEDEX wil take it by air.
> When you get the bill, sit down.
>
True, but maybe you could use the packing material as the body of
an odd-roc (see non-round rockets)!!!!
Alex Mericas Processor Performance Mer...@btv.ibm.com
al...@pooh.physics.lsa.umich.edu
In article <321BA7...@concentric.net>, "Darrell D. Mobley" <ddmo...@concentric.net> writes:
>Jeff Vincent wrote:
>
>> IIRC, the Downright Ignorant rocket from a few years back was
>> *substantially smaller* than a V-2 and that rocket tipped the scale
>> at around 800 pounds, so I think you need to raise that estimate
>> considerably.
>
>I don't think you could build a full scale *monokote* covered V-2 and
>keep the weight to 100lbs. Maybe the guy at LDRS XV with the nice
>Mercury Redstone would be up for the project? ;-)
Hnn. Perhaps it would make more sense to build a 1:1 A-5, the immediate
predecessor to the V-2. Looks quite similar, but just 27" in diameter
and 19 feet long. Or an A-3, with longer fins and a cool tail
ring at the rear end.
Peter Alway
Frank J. Burke
There is just no way to get even near 100 pounds with this. A 40'
65" fiberglass shell is the size of a two boats! Heck, a PML fiberglass
nose cone that is 7.6" weighs 5#. And an M-1939 is around 20# alone.
The Big Kahuna that uses phenolic tube, and is only 20' long is 52 pounds
empty. You are talking probably at least 500#, considering nose weight
for stability.
Frank
In article <321D7B...@ix.netcom.com>,
The Silent Observer <sil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Now, just a minute here -- let's examine this a bit more closely. Let's
>say we use a "core" body tube of 6" phenolic or fiberglass -- we'll need
>that diameter to accept the 98mm casing that holds the M1939 reload, as
>well as a huge parachute, altimeters, miles of shock cord, etc. There's
>a thin fiberglass aeroshroud that forms the V-2's distinctive external
>shape, reinforced as needed with carbon fiber and/or wood members for
>stiffness and strength. The fins could be molded skins over a framework,
>and the nose cone hollow except for any nose weight that might be needed
>for stability.
>
>As launched, such a rocket would be mostly empty space -- and even at 40
>feet in length and 5+ feet diameter, the glass/carbon construction should
>let one keep the weight down -- perhaps not to 100 lb., but not much over
>-- and as long as the weight isn't much over 100 lbs, you wouldn't need
>any more motor than that M1939 to get a safe flight with 4 to 5 G
>liftoff. You would have to deviate from scale to the point of launching
>it off a rail; an onboard active stabilizing system would add too much
>weight, and the exhaust vanes would work much less well with the the M
>solid than they did with the alcohol/LOX engine in the original...
>
>No, I >don't< know how you'll get it to the desert to launch it, and
>you're on your own for financing...
The Silent Observer
Mike Vande Bunt wrote:
>
> Jeff Vincent (jvin...@wizvax.net) wrote:
>
> : IIRC, the Downright Ignorant rocket from a few years back was
> : *substantially smaller* than a V-2 and that rocket tipped the scale
> : at around 800 pounds, so I think you need to raise that estimate
> : considerably.
>
> metal. The thread was about the possibility of using high power
> construction techniques (i.e. no "significant" metal). Project 464 (also by
> Sackett & co.) weighed 1200 pounds at lift off and also had some sections
> that were all metal (It was also something on the order of 30' tall --
> pretty close to the 40' needed for a V2). This would indicate that even if
> it does end up weigning quite a bit more than 100 lbs. it could still fly.
>
> A full-scale V2 would be quite a stunt, but that's what it would be: a
> stunt. Something like Project 464 shows a lot more creativity. (Even
> the full scale Wac-Corporal was a better project, since it was clearly
> within the capabilities of high power. A full scale V2 is pushing the
> envelope way farther than seems worthwhile.)
Now, just a minute here -- let's examine this a bit more closely. Let's
Ed
al...@pooh.physics.lsa.umich.edu wrote:
>
> In article <321BA7...@concentric.net>, "Darrell D. Mobley" <ddmo...@concentric.net> writes:
> >
> >> IIRC, the Downright Ignorant rocket from a few years back was
> >> *substantially smaller* than a V-2 and that rocket tipped the scale
> >> at around 800 pounds, so I think you need to raise that estimate
> >> considerably.
> >
> >I don't think you could build a full scale *monokote* covered V-2 and
> >keep the weight to 100lbs. Maybe the guy at LDRS XV with the nice
> >Mercury Redstone would be up for the project? ;-)
>
> Hnn. Perhaps it would make more sense to build a 1:1 A-5, the immediate
> predecessor to the V-2. Looks quite similar, but just 27" in diameter
> and 19 feet long. Or an A-3, with longer fins and a cool tail
> ring at the rear end.
>
> Peter Alway
You guys had to go and spoil my next project, the full-scale V-2! I
guess now I will have to abandon that and go to the one after that, a
full scale Saturn, with clusters of Estes E-15s! Can't keep anything
seceret these days! Oh well, back to the drafting keyboard. ;-)
Hope you have a great weekend.
Just Ed
"Hello, would you change that order for a 6' x 45' block of
styrofoam to 80' x 300'? I need it tommorow. Thanks"
Mike Vande Bunt
Frank J. Burke (bur...@kodiak.ee.washington.edu) wrote:
: Why is building a V-2 using novel constructions not worthwhile,
: while an unsuccessful two stage attempt(proj 464) or the Downright
: ignorant(which used 2x4's in construction) are?
: Frank
I didn't say they were more worthwhile, I said that they were more creative.
If you're going to do something new and innovative, why copy an old design
to do it? It conceals your creativity inside what looks like a stunt.
Mike Vande Bunt
al...@pooh.physics.lsa.umich.edu wrote:
: Hnn. Perhaps it would make more sense to build a 1:1 A-5, the immediate
: predecessor to the V-2. Looks quite similar, but just 27" in diameter
: and 19 feet long. Or an A-3, with longer fins and a cool tail
: ring at the rear end.
: Peter Alway
Bingo!
The Silent Observer
Mike Vande Bunt wrote:
>
> Frank J. Burke (bur...@kodiak.ee.washington.edu) wrote:
> : Why is building a V-2 using novel constructions not worthwhile,
> : while an unsuccessful two stage attempt(proj 464) or the Downright
> : ignorant(which used 2x4's in construction) are?
>
> : Frank
>
> I didn't say they were more worthwhile, I said that they were more creative.
> If you're going to do something new and innovative, why copy an old design
> to do it? It conceals your creativity inside what looks like a stunt.
And it's not creative to try to build huge, ultra-light models of
historical subjects? We're talking here about a 1:1 model of a military
rocket that flew over 200 miles, weighed over four tons at liftoff, and
carried a ton of explosive payload -- and trying to keep the model light
enough to fly on a single hobby rocket motor (instead of an O or P motor
or a huge cluster like Project 464).
For my money, there's more creativity in making a huge, fluffy, light
model fly well than there is in building a rocket that weighs as much as
a military missile sans warhead and making it fly by stuffing more
motors in the tail...
Bill Nelson
The Silent Observer (sil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: For my money, there's more creativity in making a huge, fluffy, light
: model fly well than there is in building a rocket that weighs as much as
: a military missile sans warhead and making it fly by stuffing more
Exactly. Which is why I stated I was not impressed by any of the recent
altitude attempts.
Now, 50K feet on an K motor - THAT would be impressive.
Bill
Rick Taylor
The Silent Observer wrote:
>
> Mike Vande Bunt wrote:
> >
> > Frank J. Burke (bur...@kodiak.ee.washington.edu) wrote:
> > : Why is building a V-2 using novel constructions not worthwhile,
> > : while an unsuccessful two stage attempt(proj 464) or the Downright
> > : ignorant(which used 2x4's in construction) are?
> >
> > : Frank
> >
> > I didn't say they were more worthwhile, I said that they were more creative.
> > If you're going to do something new and innovative, why copy an old design
> > to do it? It conceals your creativity inside what looks like a stunt.
>
> And it's not creative to try to build huge, ultra-light models of
> historical subjects? We're talking here about a 1:1 model of a military
> rocket that flew over 200 miles, weighed over four tons at liftoff, and
> carried a ton of explosive payload -- and trying to keep the model light
> enough to fly on a single hobby rocket motor (instead of an O or P motor
> or a huge cluster like Project 464).
>
> model fly well than there is in building a rocket that weighs as much as
> a military missile sans warhead and making it fly by stuffing more
>
How about a full-scale V2 under 3.3 pounds? Wouldn't it take real creativity to
get past the 'it can't be done' point?
Just remember, man can't fly.
Just remember, it's impossible to go faster than the speed of sound.
Jeff Vincent
Ed <e...@wombat.eng.fsu.edu> wrote:
> You guys had to go and spoil my next project, the full-scale V-2! I
>guess now I will have to abandon that and go to the one after that, a
>full scale Saturn, with clusters of Estes E-15s! Can't keep anything
>seceret these days! Oh well, back to the drafting keyboard. ;-)
> Hope you have a great weekend.
>
> Just Ed
> "Hello, would you change that order for a 6' x 45' block of
>styrofoam to 80' x 300'? I need it tommorow. Thanks"
This reminds me of a cartoon in an old issue of Estes "Model Rocket
News" circa 1970 with a cover drawing by Don Martin (of MAD Magazine).
A goofy looking astronaut overseeing the loading of 999,999 C6-0's
into a Saturn rocket first stage! :)
Dean C. Pilato
>>You guys had to go and spoil my next project, the full-scale V-2! I
>>guess now I will have to abandon that and go to the one after that, a
>>full scale Saturn, with clusters of Estes E-15s! Can't keep anything
Cool! When you get it done we can use it to loft elements of my full
scale space station I am building in the back yard.
--
Dean Pilato
Email d_pi...@michsb.trw.com
========================================
Life: Vast stretches of mindless tedium
punctuated by brief interludes of panic.
David Neff
I like V2's, too! :)
I'm getting the idea you're looking for something more than a model and
less than a full fledged ballistic missile. "(You) feel the need for...,"
isn't that right?
Jim Hart might be able to put you on the right track with his Hott Rockets
scale V2 kits.
When one of his kits arrived at our house we felt it was something
special. It was a 1/7 scale V2 rocket! After talking with him about how to
put it together we knew this was going to be our first *real* rocket. The
98mm motor hardware to fly the rocket produces M -> N power! It will weigh
~50 pounds at liftoff and fly 2 -> 3 miles high. We're bringing the project
along 'slowly' to think through and enjoy every bit of the experience.
The TRA, BoD created level 3 with this in mind and there are a lot of
members of the association that feel the same way you do. You definitely
want to discuss your ideas with Jim Hart, he has bigger, better rockets
that 'fill the gap.'
Dave Neff
dave...@verinet.com