We will lean on these vault topics: Dynamic pressure and Bernoulli, Angle of attack $\alpha$, Center of pressure and center of gravity, Static and dynamic stability of rockets, Fin design and normal-force slope $C_{N\alpha}$, Drag and Lift in wind axes, Reynolds and Mach scaling.
What we do: rearrange CN=N/(qS) to N=CNqS.
Why: the coefficient is the pure shape/attitude number; qS carries all the dimensions (Newtons).
N=0.18×20000×0.04=144N.
Units of CN: [Pa][m2][N]=(N/m2)(m2)N=1 — it is dimensionless. ✔
Recall Solution L1.2
What / Why:q is the kinetic energy per unit volume of oncoming air — the thing that "does the pushing" (Dynamic pressure and Bernoulli).
q=21ρV2=0.5×1.0×2502=31,250Pa.
Recall Solution L1.3
Stable. A nose-up disturbance (α>0) must produce a nose-down (negative) restoring moment. Negative slope Cmα<0 does exactly that (Static and dynamic stability of rockets). ✔
Step 1 (why): get q — it holds all the speed/density scaling.
q=0.5×1.1×1802=17,820Pa.Step 2:A=CAqS=0.42×17820×0.03=224.5N (≈ 225N). ✔
Recall Solution L2.2
Step 1 (why radians): slopes are per radian. Convert first (Angle of attack $\alpha$).
α=5∘=5×180π=0.08727rad.Step 2:CN=CNαα=2.2×0.08727=0.1920.
Step 3:N=CNqS=0.1920×17820×0.03=102.6N (≈ 103N). ✔
Recall Solution L2.3
Step 1:Cm=−CN×margin=−0.1920×1.8=−0.3456.
The minus: nose-up produces nose-down twist — restoring (Center of pressure and center of gravity).
Step 2:M=CmqSd=−0.3456×17820×0.03×0.20=−36.95Nm (≈ −37Nm). ✔
(Pull relationships apart; reason about frames and geometry.)
Recall Solution L3.1
What we use (from the parent, dividing the force relations by qS):
CD=CAcosα+CNsinα,CL=CNcosα−CAsinα.Why these signs: look at figure s01. Tilt the body up by α. The axial force A (along the body) projects onto the wind's drag direction as Acosα; part of the normal force, Nsinα, also points backward and adds to drag. For lift (perpendicular to wind), Ncosα helps but Asinαsubtracts (Drag and Lift in wind axes).
With α=8∘: cos8∘=0.99027, sin8∘=0.13917.
CD=0.40(0.99027)+0.30(0.13917)=0.3961+0.0418=0.4379.CL=0.30(0.99027)−0.40(0.13917)=0.2971−0.0557=0.2414.Interpretation:CD>CL here because CA (which dominates drag but subtracts from lift) is large. At small α the body-axis drag CA still rules the wind-frame drag. ✔
Recall Solution L3.2
What we use:Cm=−CNdxcp−xcg. Solve for the margin.
dxcp−xcg=−CNCm=−0.25−0.45=1.80.Soxcp−xcg=1.80×0.18=0.324m, giving
xcp=1.20+0.324=1.524mfrom the nose.
CP is behind CG (positive margin) → this rocket is stable. ✔
(Combine multiple ideas into one design decision.)
Recall Solution L4.1
Step 1 — radians:α=6∘=0.10472rad.
Step 2 — normal-force coeff:CN=CNαα=2.5×0.10472=0.2618.
Step 3 — moment coeff:Cm=−CN×margin=−0.2618×1.5=−0.3927.
Step 4 — dimensional moment:M=CmqSd=−0.3927×25000×0.0177×0.15=−26.06Nm.Step 5 — the slope (needed for the stability verdict, independent of α in the linear regime):
Cmα=−CNα×margin=−2.5×1.5=−3.75rad−1<0.
Negative slope → statically stable; the −26Nm twist pushes the nose back down. ✔
Recall Solution L4.2
Idea (why this works): normal forces add, and the combined CP is the normal-force-weighted average of the parts' CPs — because each part's contribution to the total moment is (its force) × (its arm).
xcp=CNα,body+CNα,finCNα,bodyxcp,body+CNα,finxcp,fin.xcp=1.2+1.81.2(0.9)+1.8(2.4)=3.01.08+4.32=3.05.40=1.80m.Static margin:dxcp−xcg=0.151.80−1.50=0.150.30=2.0(calibers).
The fins pulled the CP from 0.9m (in front of the CG — unstable!) to 1.8m (behind CG), giving a healthy 2-caliber margin (Fin design and normal-force slope $C_{N\alpha}$). ✔
(Edge cases, limits, and full transfer between models.)
Recall Solution L5.1
What neutral means:Cmα=−CNα⋅dxcp−xcg=0 requires xcg=xcp.
The combined CP is (from L4.2) xcp=1.80m. So:
xcg,neutral=1.80m.Limits: if xcg<1.80m (CG ahead of CP), margin >0 → stable. If xcg>1.80m (CG behind CP), margin <0 → Cmα>0 → divergent tumble. Right at 1.80m a disturbance neither grows nor decays. See figure s02. ✔
Recall Solution L5.2
Key idea (why this is legal): coefficients are pure numbers that depend only on shape, α, Mach, Reynolds — not on physical size. Matching Mach and Reynolds (Reynolds and Mach scaling) means the model's coefficients equal the full rocket's. So we just re-dimensionalize with full-scale q,S,d.
A=CAqS=0.38×40000×0.20=3040N.N=CNqS=0.22×40000×0.20=1760N.M=CmqSd=−0.33×40000×0.20×0.30=−792Nm.
The model's tiny forces scale up cleanly — this is the entire reason coefficients exist. ✔
Recall Solution L5.3
At α=0: cos0=1, sin0=0, and by symmetry CN(0)=0, Cm(0)=0.
CD=CA(1)+CN(0)=CA,CL=CN(1)−CA(0)=0.
So drag equals axial force and lift vanishes — the body and wind axes are aligned, exactly as the "CA is not CD" caveat predicted: they coincide only here. And Cm=0 means no twist: a symmetric rocket flying dead straight feels pure drag and nothing else. ✔
Recall One-line self-check before you close this page
Why is a coefficient more useful than the raw force in Newtons? ::: Because it strips out speed, density, and size (qS) and keeps only the shape-and-attitude number — so it transfers unchanged from a wind-tunnel model to the full rocket at matched Mach/Reynolds.