[Link].

com
4960 Northpark Dr, Colorado Springs CO 80918
Ph# 719-535-9335

Issue 617 / January 16th 2024

In This Issue:
Calculating Fin Flutter
Velocity for
Complex Fin
Shapes
(Part 1)

Also In
This Issue:
Tim's Messy
Desk

[Link]
 Issue 617 / January 16th, 2024
Calculating Fin Flutter Velocity for
Complex Fin Shapes (Part 1)
By John K. Bennett

I n Peak of Flight Issue #615, I described how to estimate

the fin flutter velocity for trapezoidal and elliptical fin
shapes. This follow-on two-part article describes how to
The area of a triangle = ½ base * height, or in this case,
3*2.5 = 7.5. The area of a trapezoid with a zero-length tip
chord reduces to the same formula:
handle triangular, multi-sided, and other more complex
fin shapes. The original article should be read for this one
to make better sense. In most of the examples shown,
we will use arbitrary units of length, without concerning As we will see below, the centroid of a triangle given
ourselves about the unit system in use. its vertices is just the average of each of the vertex
coordinates, i.e.,
When estimating flutter velocity for a complex fin design,
the fin properties that are most likely to be challenging to
calculate include Fin Area, Cx (the axial distance from the
front of the fin to the fin centroid), and possibly tip chord
length. Let’s examine how these values can be calculated Cx = (0 + 6 + 6) / 3 = 4.
for fin shapes that are not trapezoidal or elliptical.
If we use our formula for the centroid of a trapezoid with
Triangular Fins the tip chord set to zero (note that m, the sweep length,
is the x coordinate of the c vertex in the triangle shown
Although there are explicit formulae for the area and
above),
centroid of a triangle (see below), we don’t have to use
them. Since a triangle can be considered as a degenerate
form of trapezoid, the trapezoidal equations in the original
article and spreadsheet work fine for triangular fins; we we get Cx = ((0) + (0) + (6*6) + (0) + (6*6)) / (3*6) = 4,
just need to set the tip chord length to zero. This will the same answer we obtained above.
also make λ equal to zero. The trapezoidal equations
will produce correct results for triangular fins once this is This method also works when the triangle is irregular.
done. Let’s prove this to ourselves. Consider the following Consider the following (probably not very good) fin design:
triangular fin:
a (0,0) a (0,0)

b (6,0)

c (10,2.5)
b (6,0) c (6,2.5)

About this Newsletter

You can subscribe to recieve this e-zine Newsletter Staff
FREE at the Apogee Components website Writer: John K. Bennett
[Link], or by Editor: Tim Van Milligan
clicking the link here Newsletter Sign-Up Layout: Ryan Conway

2
 Issue 617 / January 16th, 2024
Calculating Fin Flutter Velocity for
Complex Fin Shapes (Part 1)
By John K. Bennett

In this case, Cx calculated using the triangle formula is

(0 + 6 + 10) / 3 = 5.33. Cx calculated using the trapezoid
a (0,0)
formula (with TC set to zero) is = ((0) + (0) + (10*6) + (0) +
(6*6)) / (3*6) = 5.33.

To summarize, for triangular fins we can calculate Vf using

the fin flutter velocity spreadsheet in the usual way. We
only need to set the tip chord length to zero. The fin sweep
length is just the x coordinate of vertex c (6 and 10 in our
two examples).

Triangular fins such as these are also easy to simulate.

RockSim and OpenRocket both provide the means to
create custom fins by entering a set of points. In this case,
we would enter the vertices a, b, and c. See Peak of Flight T1
Issue #488 (February 5, 2019)3 for an example of how to
do this in RockSim.

Other Simple Polygon-Based Fin Shapes

b (7.5,0) f (8,4)
For more complex fin shapes, we can use a method
T2
called “geometric decomposition.” This method divides
the fin into a set of geometric objects (typically triangles, c (9,1) T3
rectangles, or circles) that we know how to handle, and
then combines the results. The easiest way to employ T4
geometric decomposition is to assign (x, y) coordinates to e (10.5,4)
d (10.5,3.5)
each vertex of the fin polygon. For example, consider the
swept fin pictured to the right.

3
 Issue 617 / January 16th, 2024
Calculating Fin Flutter Velocity for
Complex Fin Shapes (Part 1)
By John K. Bennett

The fin polygon vertices are labeled a, b, c, d, e, and f.

We first determine the coordinates for each vertex
(assigning (0, 0) to the forward most vertex toward
the nosecone to simplify the calculation). The vertex Area of T4 (def) = (10.5(4-4) + 10.5(4-3.5) + 8(3.5-4))/2
coordinates come from the fin design itself. Then we = (0+5.25-4)/2 = 0.625
divide the fin polygon into a small number of triangles.4
The resulting four triangles: abf, bcf, cdf, and def, are The total fin area is therefore 15 + 2.75 + 3.5 + 0.625 =
demarked in the figure with purple lines. Let’s label these 21.875. Now that we have the area, we can calculate Cx.
triangles T1, T2, T3, and T4, respectively, as shown on To do this, we need to find the centroid of each of our
the figure. If we calculate the areas of the four triangles, triangles (recall that we only need the axial - parallel to
the area of the entire fin is just the sum of these areas. the direction of flight - dimension of the centroid), and
Let’s see how this works. From geometry, we know that then calculate their weighted average to determine the
the area of any triangle, given its three vertex coordinates fin centroid. Let’s start with the triangle centroids. Cx of
(Ax, Ay), (Bx, By), and (Cx, Cy) is: any triangle, given its coordinates, is just the average of
the x coordinates of its vertices, i.e.,

Using this formula, we can calculate the areas of each of

the four triangles are as follows: Therefore:

T1Cx = (0 + 7.5 + 8)/3 = 5.17

T2Cx = (7.5 + 9 + 8)/3 = 8.17

Area of T1 (abf) = (0(0-4) + 7.5(4-0) + 8(0-0))/2 = 15
T3Cx = (9 + 10.5 + 8)/3 = 9.17

T4Cx = (10.5 + 10.5 + 8)/3 = 9.67

Area of T2 (bcf) = (7.5(1-4) + 9(4-0) + 8(0-1))/2 = To calculate Cx of the entire fin, we calculate a weighted
(-22.5+36-8)/2 = 2.75 average by adding the products of each triangle’s Cx and
the area of that triangle, and then divide the result by the
total fin area, as follows:

Area of T3 (cdf) = (9(3.5-4) + 10.5(4-1) + 8(1-3.5))/2 =

(-4.5+31.5-20)/2 = 3.5

4
 Issue 617 / January 16th, 2024
Calculating Fin Flutter Velocity for
Complex Fin Shapes (Part 1)
By John K. Bennett

Therefore, Cx = ((5.17 * 15) + (8.17 * 2.75) + (9.17 * 3.5) + next example. If you have ever designed a part to be 3D
(9.67 * 0.625)) / 21.875 printed by joining and cutting different geometric shapes,
that is the same process we will use to obtain the area
= ((77.55) + (22.47) + (32.1) + (6.04)) / 21.875 and centroid of a complex fin.
= 6.31 This example will explore how to estimate the flutter
velocity of a “bat wing” fin with holes. For purposes of
Now we can calculate ԑ using the formula (recalling that
this example, we will ignore the question of the flight-
ԑ is a measure of distance expressed as a fraction of the
appropriateness of such a fin, and just go with “hey, they
whole root chord):
look really cool.” We will also ignore any aerodynamic
concerns other than estimation of flutter velocity.

Consider the following fin shape:

ԑ = 6.31/7.5 – 0.25 = 0.59

Armed with these values, we can now calculate Vf in the

usual way. Recall that the fin sweep length is just the x
coordinate of vertex f (8 in this case).

Entering these data into the fin flutter velocity spreadsheet

(overriding the values for Cx and Fin Area to use the
values calculated above) allows us to estimate the flutter
velocity for our polygonal fin.

Polygonal fins such as these are also easy to simulate.

As before, RockSim and OpenRocket both provide the
means to create custom fins by entering a set of points. In
this case, we would enter the vertices a, b, c, d, e, and f.
Again, see Peak of Flight Issue #488 (February 5, 2019)3
for an example of how to do this in RockSim.

Complex Fins with Conic Shapes

Geometric decomposition is a powerful tool, which Let’s see how we can analyze this fin using geometric
can be applied in either an additive (as in the previous decomposition. We start by looking closely at how the
example) or a subtractive manner, as we will see in the fin image might be constructed (this approach was, in

5
 Issue 617 / January 16th, 2024
Calculating Fin Flutter Velocity for
Complex Fin Shapes (Part 1)
By John K. Bennett

fact, the one used in Fusion 360 to design the fin depicted Calculation of Fin Area
above), as shown in the (not quite to scale) figure below.
Upon examination, we see that our bat fin image can
be constructed by taking the right half of circle A, and
subtracting the right half of circle B, as well as circles C,
D, and E, and the triangle F. This is exactly how we can
calculate the area of our fin, as follows:

The area of the right half of circle A is (πr2)/2 =

(π*3.75*3.75) / 2 = 22.1

The area of the right half of circle B is (πr2)/2 =

(π*2.5*2.5) / 2 = 9.82

The area of circle C is (πr2) = π*0.35*0.35 = .38

The area of circle D is (πr2) = π*0.3*0.3 = .28

The area of circle E is (πr2) = π*0.25*0.25 = .2

We use the formula for the area of a triangle given its

vertices to calculate the area of triangle F:

This figure shows two large circles (A enclosing B),

three small circles (C, D, and E), and triangle F. The The area of triangle F is (7.8(2.75-2.29) + 6.3(2.29-1.1) +
red dashed line bisects the two large circles. The two 6(1.1-2.75))/2 = (3.59+7.5-9.9)/2 = 0.6
dashed yellow lines represent the quarter chord and
half chord lines. We will come back to the dashed Combining these terms, the total area of the fin = 22.1 -
purple line in a bit. The coordinates show the location 9.82 - .38 - .28 - .2 - 0.6 = 10.82
of all relevant points (color has no significance other
than visibility). Triangle F is intended to represent the Calculation of Cx
“straightened out” small, curved triangle at the bottom To calculate x dimension of the fin centroid, we need
of the figure with an equivalent area triangle. This is to first calculate Cx (the x coordinate of the centroid) of
just to save us a bunch of tedious math for a very small each component for which we just found the area. For all
part of the problem. After we size triangle F, we can the circles, Cx is just the midpoint value, so:
“cut off” the blue arced segment from our fin (and from
further consideration).

6
 Issue 617 / January 16th, 2024
Calculating Fin Flutter Velocity for
Complex Fin Shapes (Part 1)
By John K. Bennett

ACx = 3.75 (recalling that ԑ is a measure of distance expressed as a

fraction of the whole root chord). ԑ = 2.56/2.5 – 0.25 = 0.77
BCx = 5
Now let’s calculate this fin’s flutter velocity. Since we
CCx = 1.5 do not need sweep length (we have already calculated
DCx = 2.53 Cx), the only fin parameter we don’t have at this point is
the tip chord length. We could use the width of the end
ECx = 3.96 of the fin arc, which is the square root of the sum of the
squares of the vertex coordinate differences:
For the triangle Cx, we average the x coordinates of its
vertices: = 0.55

However, the curved sweep of the fin to the rear

suggests a different approach would be a better choice.
As we did for elliptical fins, we will find a “pseudo” tip
chord length of a trapezoidal fin that gives the same
FCx = (7.8 + 6.3 + 6.0) / 3 = 6.7 area as the bat wing fin. We do this by setting the value
of the area of the bat wing fin equal to the area of a
Cx of the fin is therefore (note that we are subtracting
trapezoidal fin with the same root chord and semi-span
instead of adding):
length (height), and then solving for tip chord length. This
process is depicted in the figure below. Trapezoid abcd
has the same area as the bat wing, and the “pseudo” tip
chord length is dc, calculated as shown.

= ((3.75*22.1) - (5*9.82) - (1.5*.38) - (2.53*.28) - (3.96*.2)

- (6.7*.6)) / 10.82

= ((82.88) - (49.1) - (.57) - (.71) - (.79) - (4.02)) / 10.82

= 2.56

The dashed purple line on the colored figure above shows

the location of Cx. Now we can calculate ԑ using the
formula we have seen before:

TC = (((10.82 / 3.75) * 2) - 2.5) = 3.27. This is the value

we will use to calculate Vf.

7
 Issue 617 / January 16th, 2024
Calculating Fin Flutter Velocity for
Complex Fin Shapes (Part 1)
By John K. Bennett

Now let’s assume we are designing a rocket with bat The Vf result given these inputs is 85 ft/sec (about 58
wing fins of this shape whose dimension are in inches, mph). That’s very low. If we double the balsa thickness
and that we have chosen to use balsa fins that are 1/16” (to 1/8”), Vf increases to 240 fps (163 mph). If we
in thickness. For this exercise, assume that the launch change the material to 1/16” birch aircraft plywood, Vf
altitude is 400 ft, launch temperature is 65 deg. F, and that is 138 ft/sec (94 mph). Doubling the plywood thickness
the predicted height of our rocket at maximum velocity is to 1/8” increases Vf to 392 ft/sec (267 mph). Small
1000 ft. Summarizing the inputs to the fin flutter velocity model rockets rarely exceed 250 mph, but larger and
calculator spreadsheet (overridden values shown in red): higher power rockets can approach or exceed Mach 1.

8
 Issue 617 / January 16th, 2024
Calculating Fin Flutter Velocity for
Complex Fin Shapes (Part 1)
By John K. Bennett

Therefore, in order make the best choices for best fin End Note
material and thickness, we need to know how fast our To reiterate what I said in PoF #615, these methods only estimate the
rocket is expected to fly on the largest motor we intend to fin flutter velocity. The choice of input values (altitudes, temperatures,
use. See the original article (PoF #6151) for a discussion fin dimensions, and in particular, fin material shear modulus) will have
a significant impact on the results. We will always strive to use the best
of how we might make these choices. data available, but it is important to remember that the final result is
only an estimate.
OpenRocket and RockSim both support custom fin 1 [Link]
shapes, but to my knowledge, neither simulator considers [Link]
fin holes to have aerodynamic significance (if fin holes are
2 [Link]
allowed at all). We can manually adjust fin weight in the
simulator to account for the holes, but that’s about it. Also, 3 [Link]

the aerodynamic effect of fin holes is unpredictable using Newsletter488_Large.pdf

4 Polygon triangulation for an arbitrary polygon is an interesting problem
simple analysis tools like those employed here. In general,
in computational geometry. For our purposes, all we need to know is
unusual fin shapes may have unexpected flight results. that the minimum number of triangles for an n-sided polygon is (n-2).
Novel fin designs should be flown with caution, and only And it really does not matter if we have an extra triangle or two when
when it is safe to do so. Also, it is a good idea to alert the we partition our fin. We will revisit this issue later in the article.

RSO when testing a new fin design for the first time. 5 [Link]

In this article, we calculated the centroids using first About the Author
principles, but a lot of helpful guidance can be found at
Wikipedia’s “List of Centroids”.5 John Bennett is an
engineering Professor Emeritus
at the University of Colorado
Custom fins are readily designed using tools like Fusion
Boulder, and a TRA and NAR
360, which can export either DXF (for laser cutting) or STL member in OregonRocketry.
(for 3D printing) files. A lot of guidance on this, material Using Brinley’s book as a
selection, and related subjects can be found online. guide, he built and flew many
Zn/S and KN03/sugar rockets
That concludes Part 1. In Part 2, we will show how to as a teenager. In retirement, he
analyze arbitrary fin shapes using multi-sided polygon is now rediscovering his love of
triangulation (and a bit of computer programming). amateur rocketry, this time with
better supervision.

9
 Issue 617 / January 16th, 2024

Tim's Messy Desk

By Tim Van Milligan

N ARCON 2024 is coming up later this month, and

I’ve been getting ready for it this week. I’m doing a
presentation on how to make ultra-lightweight rockets
using two-part molds. It normally takes several hours to
make a single rocket tube, so I had to do a lot of prep
work ahead of time so that I can try to condense the
presentation down to about 40 minutes long. I wanted it
to be as “live” as possible, but because there is so much
time mixing up epoxy and waiting for things to dry, I
eventually decided to make it into a video. Figure 1: A finished carbon fiber rocket.
That’s what I’ve been doing this week. It is still too long, My goals were many: I wanted the rocket tubes
so much of the video will be run at 2X speed. It is kind of to be super lightweight (under 3.7 grams), strong,
comical to watch at that speed, but I think most people will aerodynamically smooth, and have compound curves.
be able to get the gist of what I’m doing. Additionally, they had to be reusable (had to withstand
the intense heat of the ejection charge), and air tight,
For the past few years, I’ve been doing a lot of building
easy enough to assemble that my children could
of composite rockets out of carbon-fiber and epoxy. I’m
replicate it, and require no post-processing to repair.
always so amazed at how strong and lightweight carbon
And finally, I wanted the construction process to be
fiber is. It is almost 5 times as stiff as fiberglass, and
repeatable from one part to the next so that there weren't
significantly lighter if you keep the amount of epoxy to
a lot of rejects and wasted effort. Usually, when you have
a minimum. I used to make tubes from fiberglass cloth,
a long list of goals, they’ll tell you to just pick two, and
but I just can’t think of many advantages of “glass” over
compromise on the others. But I felt that if you can’t have
carbon fiber. In the end, just the ease of handling the
it all, then why bother.
carbon fiber was the final push I needed to completely
abandon fiberglass for rocketry use. If you’re going to use With so many goals, there were a lot of challenges that
composites in rocketry, just use carbon fiber. There is no I had to overcome. Things like: removing parts from
doubt in my mind about this. the mold without breaking them, achieving a consistent
surface finish, having them be strong enough to survive a
So in this NARCON presentation, I’ll be showing all my
launch, getting them to be air tight so the motor ejection
secrets that I’ve discovered over the last five years to
charge could push out a parachute from them, getting
make carbon fiber tubes in a 2-part mold. I first started
the glass smooth surface that I wanted for low drag, and
making competition-style composite airframe tubes in late
reducing the weight to a bare minimum. Each of these
fall of 2019 after getting a lot of hints from Kevin Kuzek.
problems literally took months of trial and error to figure
But I had a lot of technical obstacles to overcome.
out a solution.

10
 Issue 617 / January 16th, 2024

Tim's Messy Desk

By Tim Van Milligan

But overcoming the engineering challenges excited me. sequence of steps that, if followed, will yield the greatest
I get energy from working on multiple problems like this. results in the shortest amount of time.
So it didn’t bother me to make mistakes, as long as I was
learning. Unfortunately, I can be a slow learner. I put a lot of sweat into the process, and unfortunately
repeated a lot of the same mistakes again and again.
The biggest breakthroughs came about after I had finally
started to journal my learnings in a notebook. It wasn’t
so much the process of recording the learnings from
the failed experiments, which by itself was helpful. But
just taking the time to write with a pen and paper gave
my brain time to ponder the problems. Thinking time…
That is what was the key ingredient to success. Often,
while writing mid-sentence, an idea would come to me
for a new experiment that might solve the problem I
was working on. Those were the eureka moments that I
enjoyed the most.

About two months ago, I finally tackled the last of the

obstacles that kept me from reaching all of the goals I
wanted to achieve. It was a happy day to get that nearly
perfect tube from the mold, and I was very proud. In fact,
on the weight goal of 3.7 grams, I actually exceeded
Figure 2: A 3D printed mold with the carbon fiber laid into it. that target by a significant amount, and I’m consistently
producing tubes that weigh around 2.5 grams.
I’ve found that success for this project takes a combination However, to be honest, there was a little bit of a let-down
of solutions. Sometimes it was a chemical solution, like when I checked off that last problem because it meant
what mold release to use to get them out of the mold. that my brain didn’t have another engineering problem
Then it could be a “materials solution,” like what kind of to overcome. At this point, it is no longer a research
liner is needed to prevent the epoxy from sticking to the and development project. Now it is just a “production”
wrong place. Other times it was an “application solution,” project of making the same airframe tubes over and over
such as how do you apply the epoxy to the mold. Then again. It just doesn’t have the excitement that I get from
there are “physics solutions,” such as using capillary learning something new.
action to get the epoxy to spread to places you normally
can’t reach. Finally, there are a lot of tactical solutions Since I’m not excited about being a factory producer
that I had to come up with, which are the processes and of carbon fiber tubes for competition rockets, I need to

11
 Issue 617 / January 16th, 2024

Tim's Messy Desk

By Tim Van Milligan

Figure 3: Complex shapes can be made using 2-part molds VIDEO: Making Composite Airframe Tubes
for Model Rocketry
train other people to make them. And that is where this
NARCON presentation comes in. See also:
I’ve made a little preview teaser video that shows how Making Carbon Fiber Nosecones with a 3D Printed
the airframes are removed from the mold and trimmed to Mold - [Link]
their final size. I’ll post it on YouTube so that you can get a downloads/[Link]
feel for what is possible from this process. You’ll find it at:
[Link] How 3D Printing Allows Extreme Rocket Designs -
[Link]
Be sure to sign up for NARCON at: [Link] Newsletter554
[Link]/e/vNARCON-2024. I’m sure you’ll
enjoy it. I know I always do because I get to learn so
many new things about rocketry.

12