Efficiency of aerodynamic cones

[JoCRaM]

Here you go, a test that demonstrates how much stability a nose cone gives you:

http://www.scratchpad.eclipse.co.uk/ksp/clips/cone_stability.mp4

Cones increase your weight, increase and increase your drag, but they also increase your stability so they're a bit like tail-fins (but not as good - apart from not losing them when you drop the bottom stage).

The test is, of course, artificial - however the prograde stability means that you are less likely to lose control when manouvering

[p1t1o]

The effect is much more pronounced on tall, heavy rockets with a CoM more towards the bottom.

You wouldn't expect to see much of a difference by just sticking it onto an SRB as they are already quite stable - stabilising a stable object just make it...behave the same.

I'm looking forward your set of experiments.

Test rocket is a simple rocket, with a draggy nose to exaggerate the effect consisting of 3 88-88 antannae and 3 Gemini parachutes (similar characteristics to stock chutes) and a strut for the nosecone.

FAR - the stabilising effect was clear, and predictable in the VAB as well. The ability of the nosecone to move the CoL rearwards to a position of greater stability is shown: Taller rockets or those where the CoM is more to the rear are then more likely to benefit from a nosecone.

Stock Aero - FAR makes you forget how rudimentary the aerodynamic model was - no noticeable effect, CoL never left the floor of the VAB, rocket was stable at all times with about 45 degrees of AoA tolerance before loss of control, with or without nosecone.

Javascript is disabled. View full album