The Effect of Angle of Inclination of Drag Inducing Fins on the Maximum Altitude

of the Flight of a Model Rocket

Taif Rahman and Thomas Szczesniak

Macomb Mathematics Science Technology Center

AP Physics

Section 12C

Mrs. Dewey, Mr. McMillan, Mr. Supal

6 December 2017
The Effect of Angle of Inclination of Drag Inducing Fins on the Maximum Altitude

of the Flight of a Model Rocket

Research was conducted on the relationship between the angle at which drag-

inducing fins were extended to from the base tube of the model rocket and the maximum

altitude reached in the flight of a model rocket for the purpose of insight pertaining to the

general nature of physical air brakes and how they affect flight of a projectile. Such

knowledge is pertinent to model rocketry and may be applied to aerodynamics and

control of projectile motion. Experimentation followed construction of: a model rocket,

an air pressure based launch device, and drag-inducing rectangular fins at angles of 0°,

30°, 60°, and 90° and launching of the model rocket ten times with each type of fins

attached and an altimeter inside the rocket to collect the maximum altitude of each flight.

Data analysis resulted in a rather strong, indirect linear relation between degree of the

attached fins and the maximum altitude, though a smaller magnitude of change between

the maximum altitude of the 60° and 90° trials, which suggests that a more complex

model with curvature at higher values of the independent variable are more applicable

than a linear model. The maximum average altitude of the trials was 86.2 feet, which was

of the 0° trials. The minimum average altitude of the trials was 60.2 feet, which was of

the 90° trials. It was concluded that an increase in the angle of elevation of the drag-

inducing fins did result in a linear decrease in maximum altitude of a model rocket’s

flight. This conclusion should be noted to apply to specifically the scope of the research,

as other works and science suggests a sinusoidal model to be the proper model for the

relationship between the angle of inclination of drag inducing fins and the maximum

altitude of a model rocket’s flight.

 Table of Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1

Review of Literature ........................................................................................................................4

Problem Statement ...........................................................................................................................9

Experimental Design ......................................................................................................................10

Data and Observations ...................................................................................................................12

Data Analysis and Interpretation ...................................................................................................18

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................24

Appendix A: Building Launch Device ..........................................................................................29

Appendix B: Constructing Model Rocket......................................................................................30

Appendix C: Angled Fin Designs ..................................................................................................32

Appendix D: Randomization .........................................................................................................35

Appendix E: Altimeter Data Collection .........................................................................................36

Appendix F: Senior Research Professional Contact ......................................................................37

Works Cited ...................................................................................................................................38

 Rahman-Szczesniak 1

Introduction

Research was conducted on the relationship between the angle of inclination of drag-

inducing fins attached to a model rocket and the maximum altitude reached in the flight

of a model rocket for the purpose of insight pertaining to the general nature of physical

air brakes and how they affect flight of a projectile. Such knowledge is pertinent to model

rocketry and may be applied to aerodynamics and control of projectile motion.

Experimentation followed construction of: a model rocket, an air pressure based launch

device, and drag-inducing rectangular fins at angles of 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° and

launching of the model rocket ten times with each type of fins attached and an altimeter

inside the rocket to collect the maximum altitude of each flight. Data analysis resulted in

a strong, indirect linear relation between angle of inclination of the attached fins and the

maximum altitude, though a smaller magnitude of change between the maximum altitude

of the 60° and 90° trials, suggests a more complex model with curvature to account for

the nonlinearity between the 60° and 90° trials to be more fitting. The average maximum

altitude values for each angle measurement ranged from 60.2 feet at 90° to 86.2 feet at

0°. It was concluded that an increase in the angle of inclination of the drag-inducing fins

did not result in a linear decrease in maximum altitude of a model rocket’s flight. This

conclusion was reached after developing a sinusoidal model to fit the data after further

research pertinent to the effect of angle of inclination on drag force and the sinusoidal

model was found to more properly account for curvature of the data.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 2

Figure 1. 60° Fin in SolidWorks

Figure 1, above, is one of the fin designs within the research. This particular fin

design is a “60°” design. As the design is aligned in the above figure, the design would

slip overtop the nose cone, slide down the base tube, and sit in its fitting. The angle

measure of 60° is from the lower base of the circular portion of the design.

The purpose of this experiment was to learn more of the nature of the relationship

between the angle of the drag-inducing fins and the maximum altitude that the model

rocket achieved. The angle of the fins was measured in respect to the vertical, from the

bottom of the rocket. The independent variable was the angle of the fins, at angles of 0°,

30°, 60°, and 90°. The dependent variable was the maximum altitude of the rocket,

measured in feet. A model rocket was constructed and launched with cardboard

stabilizing fins and detachable 3-D printed fins for induced drag. An altimeter was placed

within the payload compartment of the model rocket to collect each flight’s maximum

altitude. To launch multiple trials of each angled fin without having to use several model

rocket engines, an air pressurized device was used to provide the force to launch the

rocket. The chamber of the launch device was filled by an air compressor, and a pressure

gauge measured the amount of pressure to ensure consistency. A solenoid valve on the
 Rahman-Szczesniak 3

launch device was opened to release the pressurized air. Upon landing, the altimeter was

removed from the payload compartment and the data of the flight’s maximum altitude

was extracted from the altimeter. Regression analysis was used to determine the

relationship of the angle at which the drag-inducing fins protruded and the maximum

altitude of a model rocket’s flight with comparison of different regression models and

analysis of what each model means statistically and scientifically.

With information about how the angle of the fins relates to the maximum altitude

of a model rocket’s flight, a stopping mechanism which deploys fins at different angles

dynamically can be designed to minimize the error between the desired height and actual

height that is achieved. This is known as an air brake deployment system. The model

evaluated for the relationship could be incorporated into a program which will use the

height reported from the altimeter to dynamically deploy the fins at different angles. Such

a method of control in model rocketry can be applied to all forms of projectile motion and

conclusions drawn pertaining to the angle of the fins can be applied to aerodynamics,

such as the angle of wings and fins along an airplane or whatever the future may bring.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 4

Review of Literature

The areas of scientific interest of a model rocket in the case of the task at hand are

comprised of three key components: design of the rocket, means of propelling the rocket,

and the forces at work on a rocket which affect its flight. Publications by scientists and

otherwise credible authors and researchers were studied and the contents of such

publications were made note of so as to aid the central objective: to determine the

relationship between the angle of the drag inducing fins and the maximum altitude

achieved by the rocket.

Figure 2. Model Rocket Diagram

Figure 2, above, depicts a model rocket and a majority of its individual

components. The nose cone allows air to smoothly flow around the rocket, and the body

tube is the airframe of the model rocket. The fins of the model rocket provide stability for

the rocket as it is going up, and the rocket engine is at the bottom, propelling the rocket

upwards and held in place by an engine block (Beach). Many of the components of the

diagram were not used in the experiment. The rocket did not include an engine but did

include a different means of propulsion, and did not include a parachute or its

commodities, instead, simply landing on a soft nose cone with a safely secured payload to

avoid damage of the altimeter within the payload compartment. The model rocket used in
 Rahman-Szczesniak 5

the experiment included the body tube, payload compartment, the stabilization fins, and

the nose cone. However, the stabilization fins depicted in the diagram are trapezoidal,

whereas, a different shape of stabilization fins were used.

Figure 3. Elliptical Fin

In theory, the ideal shape of a model rocket’s stabilization fin is an elliptical shape

protruding from the body-tube, illustrated above in Figure 3. An elliptical fin produces

very little induced drag compared to other common shapes, induced drag being the drag

force produced as a result of factors external to the flight, such as a lift force from the air

on the fin causing a drag force on the fin (Milligan). These stabilization fins are not to be

confused with the drag inducing angled fins that were attached to slow the rocket’s

upward momentum. These fins lie near the bottom of the model rocket, parallel to the

direction of motion, whereas drag inducing fins are perpendicular to the direction of

motion.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 6

𝐹𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔 = 𝐶𝑑 × 0.5(ρ × 𝑣 2 ) × A

The force of drag (𝐹𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔 ) is equal to the drag coefficient (𝐶𝑑 ) multiplied

by 0.5 times the product of the density of the fluid the object is traveling through, ρ, the

square of the velocity of the object, v, and the reference, or area of the drag-inducing

portion of the object, A (Halls). For the rocket used in the experiment, the value of ρ and

𝑣 2 can be considered constant since the initial velocity was controlled, and the density of

air is also constant. The reference area of the fins were designed to be the same, also

rendering that variable constant. The coefficient of drag is the variable being changed

with the angle.

The flight of a rocket relates to a plethora of scientific phenomena. While the

rocket is at rest on the ground before liftoff, Newton’s First Law of Motion dictates that

the force of gravity and the normal force of the ground on the rocket keep the rocket in

position as a balanced force (Dunbar). As combustion occurs within the engine of the

rocket, Newton’s Third Law of motion is applied as gas released by the engine creates a

propelling force of thrust. The thrust force and the rocket push away from each other,

resulting in the rocket propelling upward (Waters).

Fy = T - FG - FD

The sum of the forces in the y-direction (Fy) is equal to thrust (T) minus the force

of gravity (FG) minus drag force (FD). The force of an accelerating rocket can also be

expressed by Newton’s Second Law of Motion (“Rocket Science”).

F = ma

The force of the rocket as it propels upwards (F) is equal to its mass (m)

multiplied by its acceleration (a).

 Rahman-Szczesniak 7

Figure 4. Phases of a Model Rocket’s Flight

Figure 4, above, depicts the several key stages over the course of a model rocket’s

flight. A model rocket begins with a force that propels it upwards. Commonly, a launch

rod is also used to guide the rocket as it ascends. The rocket continues to coast upwards

once the propelling force is no longer being applied. When the rocket reaches its

maximum altitude, it reaches its apogee, and then proceeds to descend back to the ground

due to gravity (Milligan).

𝐹
𝑃=
𝐴

𝐹=𝑃 × A

The equation above gives the formula for pressure of gaseous air. The pressure, P,

is equal to the Force, F, divided by the Area it is affecting, A (Nave). Since the area being

affected, which was the inside of the rocket’s body tube, remained constant, and pressure

increased as the air was compressed with the compressor, the force being applied to the
 Rahman-Szczesniak 8

rocket also increased with pressure. This concept was used to pressurize air in order to

provide a force that would propel the rocket upwards.

It should be noted that the rocket used in the experiment did not include a thrust

force to propel the rocket upwards. In place of thrust, the force of pressurized air was

released to propel the rocket upwards in its place to avoid the expenditure of an

obscenely large quantity of expensive rocket engines. With this method, the rocket can be

reused without having to replace any of its parts between trials, and trials can be done

quickly and efficiently.

 Rahman-Szczesniak 9

Problem Statement

Problem:

To determine a relationship between the angle at which drag-inducing fins are

attached at from a model rocket’s base tube and the maximum altitude of a model

rocket’s flight.

Hypothesis:

The maximum altitude of a model rocket’s flight will be indirectly and linearly

related to the angle at which drag-inducing fins are at from the base tube of the model

rocket.

Data Measured:

An altimeter within the payload compartment of the rocket reported the greatest

altitude that the rocket achieved. The independent variable of experimentation was the

angle at which drag-inducing fins are at from the base tube of the model rocket (0°, 30°,

60°, 90°). The response of the experimentation was the maximum altitude of a flight of

the model rocket, measured in feet. Regression analysis was undergone to determine a

model which best fit the data.

 Rahman-Szczesniak 10

Experimental Design

Materials:

PerfectFlite Pnut altimeter

Jumper shunt
TI-nSpire calculator
110 PSI Air compressor
30°, 60°, and 90° Angled fins
Model rocket
200 PSI Digital tire pressure gauge
2” Rain Bird Electronic valve
Launch device

Procedure:

Preparations

1. Build launch device (Appendix A).

2. Construct the model rocket (Appendix B).

3. 3-D print detachable angled fins to induce drag (Appendix C).

4. Use the TI-nSpire to randomize trials (Appendix D).

Model Rocket Launches

5. Start the altimeter by placing the jumper shunt across the altimeter’s power pins.
Securely duct tape the altimeter to the inside of the model rocket within the
payload compartment. Put the nose cone onto the altimeter, and make sure the
altimeter finishes the series of beeps which indicate previous flight data and that
the altimeter is beeping at a steady rate.

6. Mount the rocket upon the launch device and attach the designated angled fin.

7. Turn on the air compressor and fill the chamber of the launch device with air until
the digital pressure gauge reads 50 PSI. Twist the cap of the electronic valve to
release the air and launch the rocket.

8. Upon landing, remove the nose cone of the rocket and listen to the beeps of the
altimeter for the maximum altitude reading and record (Appendix E.

9. Repeat steps 5-8 for all remaining trials.

 Rahman-Szczesniak 11

Diagram:

Figure 5. Rocket Launch Trial Materials

Figure 5, above, shows the materials used for the experiment. The air compressor

filled the lower chamber of the launch module, pressurizing it with air that was released

when the valve was opened. The rocket was mounted upon the top of the launch module,

and the release of the pressurized air provided the force to launch the rocket without the

cost of repetitively using model rocket engines. An altimeter within the payload

compartment of the rocket collected altitude data, and the angled fins attached induced a

drag force to slow down the rocket. The nose cone was compressible and removable,

allowing easy access to the payload compartment and keeping the payload compartment,

along with the rocket, safe as the rocket landed on its nose cone.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 12

Data and Observations

Figure 6. Experimental Materials

Figure 6, above, shows the experimental trial in progress. The air compressor was

used to pressurize the lower chamber of the launch device, where the pressure gauge

measured pressure at intervals of 0.5 PSI. At 50 PSI, the solenoid was opened and the air

was released, propelling the rocket upwards. An altimeter within the payload of the

rocket measured the height of the rocket, and the cardboard fins attached to the bottom of

the body tube stabilized the flight of the rocket. The angled fins were slipped over the

rocket, near the top but beneath the small holes of the payload compartment.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 13

Table 1
Zero Degree Fin Trials
Trial # Altitude (ft)
1 88
2 87
7 88
9 84
11 86
18 84
25 85
27 89
37 86
40 85
x̄ 86.2
s 1.75

Table 1, above, shows the maximum altitudes achieved for the rocket launches

with no fins. This group, unlike the other angled fin groups, had no additional mass upon

it, since no fins were attached. The maximum altitude was 89 feet and the minimum was

84 feet with a mean of 86.2 feet and standard deviation of 1.75 feet.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 14

Table 2
Thirty Degree Fin Trials
Trial # Altitude (ft)
6 77
10 79
15 75
20 74
22 75
26 80
31 76
32 79
35 78
39 75
x̄ 76.8
s 2.1

Table 2 shows the maximum altitude achieved by the rocket launches that had the

angled fins thirty degrees from the vertical. The maximum altitude was 80 feet and the

minimum was 74 feet with a mean of 76.8 feet and the largest standard deviation among

all groups, being 2.1 feet.

 Rahman-Szczesniak 15

Table 3
Sixty Degree Fin Trials
Trial # Altitude (ft)
3 69
5 66
13 67
16 65
21 64
23 65
24 67
28 69
36 66
38 66
x̄ 66.4
s 1.65

Table 3 depicts the maximum height achieved by the rockets that had fins

attached to them at sixty degrees from the vertical. Due to the angle being less extreme

during the 3-D printing of the fins, the fins were not as smooth as the others and had a

slightly rougher texture. The maximum altitude was 69 feet and the minimum was 64 feet

with a mean of 66.4 feet and standard deviation of 1.65 feet.

 Rahman-Szczesniak 16

Table 4
Ninety Degree Fin Trials
Trial # Altitude (ft)
4 58
8 60
12 63
14 61
17 58
19 60
29 61
30 63
33 58
34 60
x̄ 60.2
s 1.87

Table 4, above, shows the maximum altitude reached by the rocket launches with

ninety degree fins. The maximum altitude was 63 feet and the minimum was 58 feet with

a mean of 60.2 feet and standard deviation of 1.87 feet.

 Rahman-Szczesniak 17

Table 5
Experimental Observations
Trial # Observations

1 Adjusted tape location for holding up fins to beneath holes

5 Nose cone tilted, noticeably off center

Added tape around base of nose cone to remedy cracked body
14
tube

23 Taped down handle to take input for digital pressure gauge

One cardboard fin was bent due to landing upon completion of

24
the previous trial

29 Readjusted position of launch device

33 Brief and light rainfall
35 Noticeable roll during flight of rocket

37 Small sized chunks of the nose cone were ripped off

Table 5, above, shows observations recorded during the experiment. Since each

trial was extremely similar to one another, only noteworthy differences between trials

that may have affected the data were recorded as observations.

 Rahman-Szczesniak 18

Data Analysis and Interpretation

In experimentation, the standard criteria were met: control, randomization, and

replication. The control of the experiment was the altitude reached when there were no

fins attached to the rocket, which could be said to have fins at a degree of zero. The order

in which the trials were conducted were randomized with respect to which degree the

attached fins were at, and randomization was performed using NSpire software.

Replication occurred as each trial was conducted with care to making their conduction

very alike.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 19

Figure 7. Box Plots of Data

Figure 7, above, shows the data graphed in box plots. The x-axis is maximum

altitude reached by the model rocket. In each set of data, the median and mean are very

similar. The box plots varied slightly in spread and shape, with the lowest interquartile

range (IQR) being of the 60° data set, and the highest IQR being of the 30° data set.

There was no overlap between any of the data, indicating that each group produced data

unique to that degree of fin. Furthermore, the averages were very close to the medians,

indicating that the data is rather normal.

 Rahman-Szczesniak 20

Figure 8. Normal Probability Plots

Figure 8, above, is each data set plotted with a corresponding equation of linear

regression, used to gauge normality. The plots, in order of left-to-right, are the 0° fins,

30° fins, 60° fins, and 90° fins. All plots are rather normal, with the least normal being

that of the 90° data set.

In statistical analysis of the data, the objective was to determine whether or not

the relationship between angle of inclination of drag-inducing fins on an object and the

maximum altitude of the flight of the object is indirect and linear. Regression analysis

was used to test the original hypothesis that an indirect linear relationship was most

appropriate for relating maximum altitude to angle of inclination of the drag-inducing

fins.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 21

Figure 9. Graphed Regression of Data

Figure 9, above, is the average maximum altitude of each of the four angle

protrusions of the fins. A model of linear regression was applied to the data and matched

the domain of the data well, with an r² value of 0.990087. An r² value of 1.0 means the

data was accounted for by the model perfectly. The regression model shows a clear

negative trend for the maximum altitude achieved as the angle of the fins increase from

0° to 90°. As stated in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4, the mean maximum altitudes of the 0°, 30°,

60°, and 90° fin trials are 86.2 feet, 76.8 feet, 66.4 feet, and 60.2 feet, respectively.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 22

y= -0.294667x+85.66

Figure 10. Regression Equation

Figure 10, above, is a linear regression model that was determined to best fit the

data. The regression model can be used to predict an output, a maximum altitude, based

on the input, degree of the fins, within the domain of the experiment: 0° to 90°.

While an r² value of 0.990087 was achieved by the linear model of regression, it

was still not the most agreeable model for relating the max altitude to the angle of

inclination of the fins. This was decided by the decrease in the magnitude of change in

the maximum altitude between the 60° and 90° trials compared to the rest: between 0°

and 30° there was an average max altitude difference of 9.4; between 30° and 60° an

average max altitude difference of 10.4; between 60° and 90° an average max altitude

difference of 6.2. The linear model of regression accounted for the nonlinearity of the

average 90° value by changing the slope of the linear model to reduce the error of the

actual 90° value from the predicted value of the model, therefore reducing visibility of

error of the nonlinearity of the average 90° value. Such a curvature of the data prompted,

for the sake of concluding the research, a model which could account for the curvature

from 60° to 90° was henceforth created and compared to the linear model. A sinusoidal

model was chosen to be used, based off of external science to be discussed in the

Conclusion of the research, and as it deals directly with angles and has curvature to its

graph.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 23

Figure 11. Graphed Sinusoidal Equation of Data

Figure 11, above, is a sinusoidal equation made using the four average maximum

altitudes across the domain of 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°. The graph properly accounts for the

curvature in the data, unlike the linear model. The residual plot beneath the graph shows

0° and 90° being perfectly accounted for, 60° having a residual as small as -0.3, and the

largest residual being -2.9 at 30°.

f(x) =13cos(2x) + 73.2

Figure 12. Sinusoidal Equation

Figure 12, above, is a sinusoidal equation created to fit the data. Altitude was

calculated by dividing half of the quantity of the minimum altitude subtracted from the

maximum altitude. The period was calculated to be 2x, or 2θ, as one half of a cosine

period is shown on the domain, which is one quarter of the cosine period. The midline

was calculated to be 73.2 by finding the imaginary median maximum altitude at 45°.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 24

Conclusion

The experiment was conducted to find a relationship between the maximum

height achieved by a rocket and the angle of the attached means of induced drag, done so

in the form of rectangular fins. A model rocket was constructed with cardboard fins at its

bottom to help stabilize the flight and rectangular fins were attached near the top of the

base tube to induce drag. An air pressure based launch device provided impulse to launch

the rocket. The original hypothesis was that the maximum altitude of a flight would be

related to the angle between the means of induced drag and the base tube in an inversely

linear manner, and this hypothesis was accepted.

The r² value of linear regression was 0.990087, confirming a strong indirect linear

trend in the maximum altitude of flight as the angle between the drag-inducing fins and

the base tube increased. The ideal r² value of a regression model is 1.0, meaning the

model accounts for the data perfectly. The r² value being so close to 1.0 is indicative that

the model is reliably strong. This r² was calculated assuming the data was linear and

therefore did not account for other possible models of the data, or the fact that the data

was not linear. The explicitly noted decrease in the magnitude of change between the 60°

and 90° trials prompted investigation of the residuals of the 60° and 90° trials, which

showed that the data should not be modeled linearly, as a form of curve would much

better fit it, which is why despite there being a linear model that fits the data within the

scope of the research, it will be expanded upon scientifically of why the conclusion of the

research does not completely align with other works and known science.

From an angle of 0 to 90 degrees, the maximum altitude decreases from 86.2 to

60.2 feet. The maximum altitude achieved by the model rocket decreasing as the angle
 Rahman-Szczesniak 25

between the rectangular fins and the base tube increased is due to drag. Drag is a force

which acts on the model rocket in opposite direction of the rocket’s motion. In observing

the maximum altitude reached in a trial, the effect of the drag induced by the certain

angled-fin on the flight of the rocket was being observed.

𝐹𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔 = 𝐶𝑑 × 0.5(ρ × 𝑣 2 ) × A

The force of drag (𝐹𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔 ) is equal to the drag coefficient (𝐶𝑑 ) multiplied by 0.5

times the product of the density of the fluid the object is traveling through, ρ, the square

of the velocity of the object, v, and the reference, or area of the drag-inducing portion of

the object, A (Halls).

The drag coefficient is a number which models, or accounts for, the flow

conditions, inclination, and shape of an object in motion (Halls). The drag coefficient is

typically calculated through experimentation, though can be relatively quantified based

on certain shapes of drag-inducing objects and their inclination, or angle of the drag-

inducing object against the airflow. The attached drag-inducing fins of the experiment

were in the shape of thin rectangles, which is alike to the shape of a thin kite, a shape

which has a generally quantified drag coefficient.

𝐶𝑑 = 1.28 × sin(θ)

The drag coefficient of a kite 𝐶𝑑 is equal to 1.28 times the sine of the angle at

which the kite is inclined at against the flow of air or a wind, θ (Halls).

The drag coefficient of the attached rectangular fins of the experiment is not

calculated identically to that of a thin kite. However, with the shapes being so similar and

the purpose of the research being only to determine a general relation between angle of

inclination of the drag-inducing objects and the maximum altitude of a flight, the drag
 Rahman-Szczesniak 26

coefficient calculation of a kite can be reasonably used for that of a rectangle. Maximum

altitude is indirectly related to the drag force of an object, as while drag force increases,

there is more resistance to an object’s motion, therefore reducing the distance it travels.

As drag force is directly related to the drag coefficient of an object (see Figure 1), it can

commutatively be stated that the maximum altitude of an object with drag-inducing kites

(or, as stated prior, roughly drag-inducing rectangular fins) is indirectly related to the

drag coefficient of 1.28sin(θ). While maximum altitude of a flight is indirectly related to

the force of the drag which acts against the motion of flight:

𝐹𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔 = 𝐶𝑑 × 0.5(ρ ×𝑣 2 ) × A

𝐶𝑑 = 1.28 × sin(θ)

𝐹𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑔 = 1.28 × sin(θ) × 0.5(ρ × 𝑣 2 ) × A

Shown above are the former equations combined, expressing the commutativity

of maximum altitude affected by the drag coefficient. The force of drag is directly related

to the sine of the angle of inclination scaled by 1.28. As max altitude is indirectly related

to drag force, it is indirectly related to the sine of the angle of inclination scaled by 1.28.

While other factors are present in the calculation of a drag coefficient, they can be

assumed as being constant across all θ values as: the density of the fluid the object of

flight is traveling through is not changing as it only travels through air, the initial velocity

of the flight is not changing as each flight is launched based off of the same air pressure,

and the reference area is not changing as the drag-inducing fins retain the same shape and

area across all angles of inclinations. Thus, the maximum altitude of the model rocket’s

flight, indirectly related to the force of drag which is directly related to a sinusoidal

multiplier of the angle of inclination, can be concluded to have an indirect sinusoidal

 Rahman-Szczesniak 27

relation to the angle at which drag-inducing fins are extended from the base tube of the

model rocket.

Another form of science in the field for comparison is that of angle of attack.

Angle of attack is the angle between the chord of an airfoil and the direction of airflow.

Airfoils are curved wings designed to create lift for airplanes, which can be equated to the

angled fins of the model rocket, and, “...the greater the angle of attack, the greater the

induced drag” (“Aerodynamics and the Theory of Flight”). As the angle of rocket’s fins

increased, the drag force also increased resulting in a lower maximum altitude achieved.

The results of the experiment do agree with this scientific statement and can be

reasonably stated to agree with the scientific statements on the coefficient of drag of a

kite, and relatively a rectangle, being equal to the scaled sine of the angle of inclination.

In experimentation, there were aspects of inconsistency which likely affected data

collection. In releasing the air from the pressurized section of the launch device in order

to launch the model rocket, a researcher twisted a valve approximately 90°. While the

researcher attempted to replicate the speed at which the valve was turned, there was

inevitable inconsistency. If the valve were twisted at a speed significantly lower than a

typical trial, the air from the pressurized section of the launch device would be released

less immediately than a typical trial, resulting in less of an impulse for the flight, which

would yield a lower altitude than the trial should. The conduction of the trials took place

over several hours, during which atmospheric conditions of temperature and wind force

were sure to change, which could have impacted the data over the span of trial

conduction, though no trend was noticed to suggest this was an issue. Over the course of

the forty trials, the model rocket suffered minimal damage and was repaired as necessary.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 28

The nose cone slightly tore itself and the top of the model rocket base tube which it was

attached to. Lightweight electrical tape was used to ensure these tears were not worsened

or impactful, though the rocket’s shape being altered even slightly could have affected

the rocket’s aerodynamicity, and therefore its trajectory as it reacted to air resistance.

A pivotal point of further research to allow for more thorough analysis and

conclusions on the relationship between the angle of the attached rectangular fins, the

means of induced drag as a force, and the maximum altitude achieved by a rocket's flight

would be to test more angles. This would allow for more accurately determining which

type of regression model to use to model the relationship. The difference between results

of the 60° and 90° trials being much lower than the difference between other sets of

consecutive trial groups may call for a different form of regression model to account for a

curve at the end of the graph of the independent vs dependent variables, though without

more tested angles, this cannot be concluded with certainty. Furthermore, different fin

shapes can be tested at various angles to find a shape that maximizes the force of drag.

The rectangular fins were attached to the model rocket prior to launch and would offer

resistance to the initial impulse, a critical point of the flight as the impulse provides all of

the force for the flight. Ideally, and a possible area of further research, the fins would be

deployed after the launch to allow analysis of the effect of the fins on the maximum

altitude during only the projectile phase of the model rocket’s flight. While conclusions

can be drawn from this research, the collected data and analysis of it calls for further

research to allow more scientific conclusions to be drawn.

 Rahman-Szczesniak 29

Appendix A: Building Launch Device

Materials:

(2) 2” x 2” PVC threaded x socket coupling (2) 5” x 2” PVC caps

5” x 48” PVC tubing 2” x 3” PVC socket coupling
2” x 22” PVC tubing 5” x 7” PVC tee coupling
2” x 3” PVC socket coupling PVC glue primer
200 PSI Digital tire pressure gauge PVC glue
Teflon Tape Nozzle

Procedure:

Constructing Launch Module

1. Cut a 3” diameter hole into the top of the 5” x 48” PVC tubing. Slip the 5”
diameter PVC tee coupling to the center, making sure the protrusion along the top
aligns with the hole to release air. Apply PVC primer on each end of the coupling,
and then apply PVC glue to attach the two pieces.

2. Apply PVC glue primer and PVC glue to the 5” x 2” PVC socket coupling and
glue it onto the tee socket. Apply glue primer and glue to another 5” x 2” PVC
socket coupling and glue it onto the former one.

3. Apply PVC glue primer and PVC glue to a 2” x 2” threaded x socket coupling and
glue it onto the previous socket coupling.

4. Screw on the electronic valve into the socket coupling. Screw another 2” x 2”
threaded x socket coupling into the top end of the valve. Make sure the electronic
valve is facing the correct direction so air releases upwards.

5. Apply PVC glue primer and PVC glue to the 2” x 3” PVC socket coupling and
glue it to the former coupling. Repeat for the 5” x 22” PVC tubing.

6. Apply PVC glue primer and glue to both 5” x 2” PVC caps and glue them onto
the ends of 5” x 48” PVC tubing.

7. Cut two threaded ⅜” holes into the right PVC cap. Screw the 200 PSI digital
pressure gauge into one hole, and screw the nozzle into the other. Put Teflon tape
around the thread of both the nozzle and the pressure gauge to secure them in
place.

8. Duct tape the handle of the pressure gauge down to read pressure constantly as it
changes. Secure the launch device on a wooden board to keep the launch module
upright.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 30

Appendix B: Constructing Model Rocket

Materials:

2” diameter cardboard tubing

2” x 0.5” circular wood
23.5” x 26” x ⅛” cardboard
Fin template
1 pair of scissors
Duct tape
Electrical tape
Foam football
Protractor
Hot glue gun
Sharpie

Procedure:

Constructing Model Rocket

1. Hot glue the circular wooden piece on the top and the bottom 7” down from the
the designated top end of the model rocket for the payload compartment.

2. Cut the foam football so the cross-sectional area is 2.5” in diameter for a
removable nose cone for the rocket.

3. Choose an arbitrary point along the circumference of the bottom of the cardboard
tubing. Use the protractor to mark 120° around the circumference in both
directions and mark all three locations with the Sharpie marker.

Adding Stabilization Fins

4. Trace a fin onto the cardboard using the template and the Sharpie marker. Cut out
the template, and repeat this twice more for three individual cardboard fins.

5. Hot glue the cardboard fins vertically along the length of the body tube at each of
the markers that are separated 120° apart, making sure that the curved ends of the
fins are pointing downwards. Add duct tape along the edges of the fins to secure
the stabilization fins in place.

Air Pressure Sample Holes

6. At 90° angles along the model rocket body tube, poke holes approximately 25
mm in diameter for the air pressure to be sampled by the altimeter.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 31

7. Add 2 layers of electrical tape beneath the holes to mount the angled fins upon.
Make sure that when the angled fins are placed upon the electrical tape, the fins
do not cover the holes for the air pressure sampling.

Diagram:

Figure 1. Stabilization Fin Template

Figure 1, above, shows the fin template that was used to cut out the cardboard

stabilization fins used for the rocket. The curved shape was found to regulate the

trajectory of the rocket, minimizing the yaw and pitch forces as the rocket projects

upwards. These fins did not, however, regulate the force of roll, and the rocket spun as it

traveled up. The fin template was printed out and traced onto the cardboard to cut out

cardboard shaped curved fins.

 Rahman-Szczesniak 32

Appendix C: Angled Fin Designs

Figure 1. 30° Angled Fin Drawing

Figure 1 shows a drawing of the 30° angled fin part that was 3-D printed after

being designed in SolidWorks. Due to physical limitations of the 3-D printer, the surface

area of the fins overlapped into the ring to put around the rocket itself, resulting in excess

parts of the fin being truncated, inciting a small disparity in the surface area between this

angled fin and the others. All measurements of all drawings are in inches.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 33

Figure 2. 60° Angled Fin Drawing

Figure 2 shows a drawing of the 60° angled fin part that was 3-D printed after

being designed in SolidWorks. Once again, physical limitations of the 3-D printer

prevented the surface area of these fins from matching the other fins, and a truncation of

excess surface area that overlapped into the interior of the ring was truncated. This angled

fin was printed at a less steeper angle than the others, making it difficult for the 3-D

printer to print it as smooth as the other angled fins.

 Rahman-Szczesniak 34

Figure 3. 90° Angled Fin Drawing

Figure 3 shows a drawing of the 90° angled fin part that was 3-D printed after

being designed in SolidWorks. This angled fin was the most convenient to print out,

being flat and easy to form on the 3-D printer base. Of all the angled fins, the 90° angled

fin was the most smoothly printed and had the greatest fin surface area because parts of

the fin were not truncated.

 Rahman-Szczesniak 35

Appendix D: Randomization

Procedure:

Randomization

1. Create a list in Column A named “data” with ten entries of “0”, ten entries
of “30”, ten entries of “60”, and ten entries of “90”.

2. Create a list in Column B named “angle” for the angled fins that will
be used, and in the equation bar enter =randsamp(‘data, 40, 1) to randomize trials.

3. Conduct trials in the randomized order generated by the calculator.

 Rahman-Szczesniak 36

Appendix E: Altimeter Data Collection

Figure 1. Altimeter Data Reporting

Figure 1, above, shows instructions pertaining to the numerical reporting from the

Pnut User’s Manual. The series of beeps from the altimeter represented each digit, where

leading zeros are suppressed and any zeros within or following the number are

represented by ten consecutive beeps. A brief pause between each series of beeps

indicates each digit.

Rahman-Szczesniak 37
 Rahman-Szczesniak 38

Works Cited

“Aerodynamics and the Theory of Flight.” Langley Flying School, Langley, 2017,

www.langleyflyingschool.com/Pages/CPGS+4+Aerodynamics+and+Theory+of+

Flight+Part+1.html.

Beach, Thomas. “Parts of a Model Rocket.” Model Rocket Parts, University of

New Mexico, 28 Sept. 2013,

www.unm.edu/~tbeach/IT145/week05/parts.html#engine.

Dunbar, Brian. “How Rockets Work.” NASA, NASA, 26 Mar. 2012,

www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/How_Rockets_

Work.html.

Halls, Nancy. “The Drag Equation.” NASA, NASA, 5 May 2015,

www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html.

Halls, Nancy. “Kite Inclination Effects.” NASA, NASA, 5 May 2015,

www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/kiteincl.html.

Milligan, Tim Van. “Phases of a Rocket's Flight.” Apogee Components, Apogee

Components, Inc, www.apogeerockets.com/Tech/Phases-of-a-Rockets-Flight.

Milligan, Tim Van. “What Is the Best Fin Shape for a Model Rocket.” Peak of Flight

Newsletter, Apogee Rockets, 2 May 2017,

www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter442.pdf.

Nave, Rod. “Pressure.” HyperPhysics, Georgia State University, 2017,

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/press.html.

“Pnut User's Manual.” Perfect Flite, Apogee Rockets, 3 Feb. 2017,

www.perfectflite.com/Download.html.
 Rahman-Szczesniak 39

Roberts, Rodney. Rodney Roberts Tertiary Website, X10 Free Web Host,

rrroberts.x10host.com/images/EllSwpt.gif.

“Rocket Science.” NASA, NASA, 2 July 2014,

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/diypodcast/rocket-science-index-

diy.html.

Waters, Jamie. “Rocket Flight Path.” Scholar Commons, Undergraduate Journal of

Mathematical Modeling, 2014, scholarcommons.usf.edu/ujmm/vol6/iss1/2/.