Boost: Boost started off with a little less kick than it wanted to see, so it arched over just a little bit. It almost looks like it hangs there in mid air for a split-second, and then takes off.

Recovery: The 80" main gave it a very nice, slow descent, and it was never out of sight.

I have always loved the Phoenix Missile. In a flight simulation video game that I had as a kid, I was able to fly my favorite plane (Grumman F-14 Tomcat) and use the Phoenix missile to shoot down enemy tarets from far away. One of my favorite missions was a launch from an Aircraft Carrier, to intercept three enemy targets entering my patrolled airspace. If you didn't intercept them, then you got into a dogfight, and if you lost, then, well... you sucked. But once I discovered the Phoenix missile (the game allowed you to arm your own plane with whatever you thought you could fit) I was able to pull off of the carrier, get up to about 3000 feet, sweep the wings, and by that time, the enemies were showing up within range of my missiles. Fire three missiles, and wait for the boom. Once all three were confirmed dead, you could land back on the carrier, and collect your medal.

I know, that's not how it really happens, but video games are fantacy anyway. Leave me alone.

Later in Middle School, when I was introduced to model rocketry, one of my favorite available kits was the Estes Phoenix (of which I have since owned two). It was large, and bulky, and generally scale looking. Have you noticed, I kinda like scale stuff? Well, when I got into LPR a couple years ago, I didn't know (rather, remember) anything about MPR, let alone HPR, so when I discovered the joys of motors available above the letter "E" I took a couple months, and made some drawings for prospective projects to get me there. Obviously, my first HPR rocket was 'Certs', now affectionately known as 'Pato', and I intend this to be my second HPR rocket. I very much dislike kits, because I enjoy the challenge of designing, and scratch-building nearly as much as I do actually flying stuff. I know, I'm nuts, aren't I?

So, in looking for resources to accurately portray my Phoenix, I understood that the Estes version was, well... 'Estefied'. What does this mean? Well, it's not derogatory, it's just that Estes rockets lack that scale flare that something scratchbuilt can attain. Things are simplified, and exaggerated where it suits, etc. It's just not perfect scale. And of course it isn't, and shouldn't be. Estes kits are great, and inexpensive, and I have owned many of them in my time (look at my fleet!) but for scale appearance, they just lack. I managed to come across Jim Ball's Scale Library of Missile Data, and found in it, a full scale drawing (in AutoCAD) of the AIM-54A Phoenix, which is what I used for nearly all of my dimensions. The good thing is, that because it has only one body diameter, there is no guesswork to it. Simply scale it until it matches an available body tube O.D., and go to work!

I originally chose 4" because I wanted to put a cluster of 38mm motors in it, and because it wasn't going to be huge, and akward to transport and store. We all know that most of our rockets spend most of their lives either in storage or transportation rather than flight (such a shame that is) so to me, that is an issue. Where I live, space is a premium, so I don't have a lot of room for stuff to be just lying around. The maximum segment length also needs to be less than 40" long due to my transportation restrictions. I decided to go with a cluster, because the power-to weight ratio could be very high, giving very good results as far as altitude, and velocity, which I prefer over 'low and slow' but also to keep the motor casing lengths to a minimum, because this rocket is not very long in relation to it's diameter, and if it's all motor, then recovery becomes complicated.

For the fins on this rocket, I wanted to make sure that they were not only strong enough to withstand flight pressures, but also to withstand landing pressures. On both of my Estes Phoenix rockets, the maiden flight's landing popped a fin off, or broke it entirely. My 3E Phoenix still has one fin that is missing a chunk, simply because I know that even though I replace it, it's still going to have the same problem as it did before. Through the wall fins was then, of course, a must. This proved difficult to design with the 3 motor cluster, but is pretty much cake with the 54mm mount. One design aspect of 'Pato' that I kind of like the result from is the way I mounted the fins with TTW. In this instance, the effect and result are going to be more pronounced, and should reduce my typical error of mounting fins crooked, and not perpendicular to their neighbors. As far as fin material, Idecided to use the same construction as Pato's Revenge due to it's low weight, and high strength, and because I would be processing these two rockets simultaneously, I can make both fin sets at the same time.

The nose cone for this rocket should be interesting to construct as well. I have turned several nose cones on my Dad's wood lathe, but one process I have not tried, that I have been looking forward to, is making a 2-part female mold, and laying up in each half, and then bringing them together, and laminating the two pieces together. This yields excellent results if you do it right, and I would like to get the practice, as I like to pick up and try all kinds of different processes any chance I get.

I really want electronics on this rocket, so that I can not only track it's performance, but also use the electronics for dual deploy, or fly it on motors that have no motor ejection. While I thought the Perfectflite would be a good match because of it's size, there isn't anywhere on this rocket that is three calibers from anything, so that dramatically restricts my options for using a barometric altimeter. Prior to building this rocket, I managed to completely re-design it using Solidworks, and since I had just gotten the ARTS, I couldn't think of a better altimeter to use in it. I finally decided to place the electronics bay, since the apogee channel is driven by acceleration, rather than barometric pressure, between the motor mount tube, and the airframe, generally centered within the fwd fins. Another instance where Solidworks proved to be priceless. After modeling the ARTS, I modeled the space available, and began 'fiddling' with it. What I ended up doing, I think, is pretty cool. The ARTS mounts to the _bottom_ of a sled, which holds the battery, the switch, and a connector. Attach all of the inputs and outputs to the ARTS, and then bolt it up, and it then sits inside of the bay, and slides along two carbon rods, into a connector, which runs the wires inside the parachute chamber, sealing off the electronics from ejection gasses. The lid for this bay is just the section of airframe that was cut out to make the hole. To that, I mounted a couple of carbon rods, springs, and ribs to keep everything in line. This was a bit of a challenge to design, much less build, but I think it is pretty robust. The springs extend two carbon rods that slide like a piston on the upper two rods, and there is an access hole available to be able to remove things. The sled that the ARTS is attached to has little 'ears' on it that are designed to match the lid, and keep the sled from popping out under acceleration. The design sounds like a lot of work, and admittedly, somewhat fragile, but not only have I had several people miss the altimeter bay completely when looking over the finished product, but I am also impressed by how stout it actually came out.

No top of the cool carbon fiber molded nose cone, I REALLY wanted to use an adjustable nose weight system for this rocket, because I know for a fact, that the general design of the Phoenix is perfectly stable for flying, but not without some sort of steerable airfoil surface, as it was designed to have in real life. Even the Estes version is modified in two ways to increase stability: You are required to add nose weight, and the motor mount is nowhere near the aft end of the airframe. My slimline retainer is designed to be right _at_ the aft end of the airframe, with the ring installed so that on landing, it will not receive any impact (really, when do rockets land straight down?) but the motor will be as far back as possible, to maximize the available recovery room. So, to that end, I want to be able to put in only as much weight as is needed, but still be able to accommodate larger motors when it comes to that. The adjustability comes in being able to add or subtract individual weight segments as needed. These weights are attached to a piece of allthread, that has on the end of it, a piece of Oak turned to mimmick the thrust ring on a 54mm motor. This weight assembly fits into a tube mounted in the nose cone, and a slimline retainer is used to keep it in place. A Eye-nut connects to the recovery train to keep the strain off of the carbon nose cone. I have a backup attach point, in case at any time, I want to use a motor that is long enough to extend into the nose cone, I can still hang the nose cone on the recovery harness.

Fisrt things first: Because of the time involved in it, I took on making nose cones first. I turned a plug out of Poplar, sanding sealed it, and then gloss coated it with Minwax Polyurethane spray, which I was disappointed with, so I will have to look for another option in that realm. A 'parting board' was made, and I used clay to seal the gaps between the plug and the parting board. Wax the crap out of it, and then spray (or brush) on PVA release. I used Gel Coat, though I would suggest a darker color to be able to see any imperfections in it easily later on down the road. After the gel coat cures a bit, add some woven reinforcements. I used 6oz fiberglass. However, I would very strongly suggest that you cut and place your reinforcements, at least on the first layer, to get as close to the nooks and crannies on your mold as possible. One problem that I had, is that I used one piece of cloth to cover the whole plug, and then I began covering that with fiberglass mat. So, the gel coat was largely un-supported in many areas, which made it very easy to chip or break. Had I used several overlapping pieces of reinforcement, these corners and steps would not only be much more defined, but significantly stronger. Once you get the woven stuff in there, start piling on the mat glass. I did use polyester resin for this part of the process, but I have heard that you can use plain epoxy, but make sure that all of your materials are compatible, ie: the glue that holds fiberglass mat together does not dissolve in epoxy; Epoxy will not stick well to polyester gel coats, etc.

After I got one side of the mold all bulked up with fiberglass mat, I removed the parting board, waxed everything again (yes, including the new mold surface where the parting board was) and sprayed again with PVA. If I did it again, I would have actually used something on the parting line to key the molds together to prevent mis-alignment. Do this at your own risk, and use your imagination, but after it was cured, I drilled bolt holes in the flanges that make up the parting line, and I broke the mold apart. The PVA worked fabulously, and everything came out with very little effort. I cleaned up the molds the best I could, and found that several areas of the mold were covered by the polyurethane clear coat that I gave to the plug, which was fairly disappointing. After removing these areas, and cleaning them up, I also found that these areas had a bit of a 'raisined' texture to them, which I would presume had something to do with extra moisture between the plug and the gel coat. This is possibly a result of not having a uniform application of PVA, which isn't surprising, because it is somewhat difficult to get the PVA applied lightly and evenly without it running, and pooling in large clumps in the 'low' areas of the part you are working on.

Once the molds are all cleaned up, and waxed,

One of the first things I do when determining a scale to build is to figure out what materials I have available to me, tubes that I can buy, fin material that I can easily find, etc. Not many scale projects just have one limiting factor. The Phoenix missile is a very simple shape, with only one tubing size. This way, I can make it any size that I see fit, and everything else will scale down nicely to whatever tubing size I choose. Trust me, it's not always this easy. But I like a good challenge.

From www.fas.org:

The AIM-54 Phoenix Long-range air-to-air missile, carried in clusters of up to six missiles on the F-14 Tomcat. The Phoenix missile is the Navy's only long-range air-to-air missile. It is an airborne weapons control system with multiple-target handling capabilities, used to kill multiple air targets with conventional warheads. The weapon system consists of an AIM-54 guided missile, interface system, and a launch aircraft with an AN/AWG-9 weapon control system. The AIM-54 is a radar-guided, air-to-air, long-range missile consisting of a guidance, armament, propulsion, and control section, interconnecting cables, wings and fins. The total weapon system has the capability to launch as many as six AIM-54 missiles simultaneously from the F-14 aircraft against an equal number of targets in all weather and heavy jamming environments.

The AIM-54 Phoenix Missile was developed in the 1970s as the principle long-range, air-to-air, defense armament of the F-14 Aircraft. The AIM-54 Phoenix Missile is a fielded weapon currently in Phase III, the Production, Fielding/Deployment, and Operational Support Phase of the Weapon System Acquisition Process.

The three versions of the AIM-54 Phoenix Missile currently being used are the AIM-54A, AIM-54C, and the AIM-54 ECCM/Sealed. The AIM-54 is a radar-guided, air-to-air, long-range missile consisting of a guidance, armament, propulsion, and control section, interconnecting cables, wings and fins. The AIM-54A was the original version to become operational. The improved Phoenix, the AIM-54C, can better counter projected threats from tactical aircraft and cruise missiles. The AIM-54C (sealed) missile is the most recent version and contains improved electronic counter-countermeasure capabilities and does not require coolant conditioning during captive flight. The AIM-54C and AIM-54C (sealed) contains built-in self test and additional missile on-aircraft test capability. The AIM-54C missile has also been designed for greater reliability, longer serviceable in-service time, and a 15 percent reduction in parts.

Initial Operating Capability was attained in 1974 for the AIM-54A, 1986 for the AIM-54C, and 1988 for the AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed. The AIM-54C and AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed are replacing the AIM-54A. As AIM-54A inventories are depleted they will not be replenished. The AIM-54A Technical Evaluation (TECHEVAL) was completed in November 1973. Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL) was completed in November 1974. The AIM-54C TECHEVAL began in May 1982 and was completed in November 1982. The OPEVAL began in March 1983 and was completed in August 1983. AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed Missile TECHEVAL was completed in June 1985, and OPEVAL was completed in July 1988.

The AIM-54 Phoenix Missile, used exclusively on the F-14A/B/D Aircraft, is a radar guided, air-to-air missile consisting of a guidance section, armament section, propulsion section, control section, interconnecting surface cables, wings, and fins. The missile is designed for ejection launch using the LAU-93 or LAU-132 launchers. Semi-active and active homing radar and hydraulically operated fins direct and stabilize the missile on course to the target. Propulsion is provided by a solid propellant rocket motor, and lethality by a high explosive warhead. Performance modifications to the AIM-54A were incorporated during and after production. The Reject Image Device (RID), High Altitude Performance (HAP), and Extended Active Gate (EAG) were incorporated during production. The MK 11 MOD 3 Electronics Assembly (EA) modification was installed by retrofit after production. The AIM-54C and AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed Missile have a Built In Self Test (BIST) feature. BIST may be selected in conjunction with Missile On Aircraft Test (MOAT). The AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed Missile provides two major improvements over the AIM-54C. ECCM provides enhanced electronic protection and sealing the missile eliminates the requirement for aircraft supplied liquid thermal conditioning fluid during captive flight.

• Guidance Section The AIM-54A RID modification offers improved capabilities against low altitude targets over water. The EAG modification improves capabilities against certain Electronic Counter Measure (ECM) threats. The AIM-54C Guidance Section has a new Solid-State Receiver-Transmitter Unit (SSRTU), Digital Electronics Unit (DEU), and Inertial Sensor Assembly (ISA) as well as a modified guidance section wiring harness. Design improvements reduce inherent oscillator drift, provide range discrimination, and improve reliability. In the AIM-54 ECCM/Sealed Missile the DEU front receiver has been modified and an improved version of the program memory has been added to enhance ECCM capabilities. Heaters have been added, operating temperatures of selected subassemblies have been extended, and circuit temperature compensation has been added for sealed operation. The SSRTU has been modified to improve ECCM performance, selected subassemblies have been improved to increase operating temperature ranges, circuit temperature compensation has been added for sealed operation, and the ISA has been modified to include a heater for sealed operation.

• Armament Section The AIM-54A's MK 11 MOD 3 EA modification upgrades the Targeting Detecting Device (TDD) to improve warhead lethality against short targets. The AIM-54C has a new TDD, the DSU-28, utilizing the MK 82 MOD 0 warhead. The MK 82 MOD 0 warhead is used with the DSU-28 on AIM-54C All-Up-Round (AUR), serial number 83001 through 83054. A new warhead, WDU-29/B was incorporated in the FY83 production of the AIM-54C AUR starting with serial number 83055. The new warhead offers a 20-25 percent increase in effectiveness. The AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed Missile uses the same armament section as the AIM-54C.

• Propulsion Section. The AIM-54A, AIM-54C, and AIM-54C ECCM/Sealed Missile use the MK 47 MOD 1 rocket motor assembly.

• Control Section The AIM-54A's HAP modification improves capabilities against very high and fast targets. The AIM-54C Electronic Servo Control Amplifier (ESCA) replaces the autopilot unit in the AIM-54A control section. In the AIM-54 ECCM/Sealed Missile the Electrical Conversion Unit (ECU) has been completely redesigned for sealed operations. The new design requires no heater for temperature regulation.

The AIM-54 Phoenix Missile maintenance concept is based on an overall objective to assure All-Up-Rounds are available to fulfill commitments of operational activities and provide the means to restore unserviceable missiles to serviceable condition with minimal downtime. Maintenance requirements are allocated to the organizational, intermediate, and depot levels of maintenance.