PDA

View Full Version : New Estes E-12 Motors!


Gus
10-29-2011, 11:20 PM
The following motor has been certified by NAR Standards & Testing for general use as a Model Rocket Motor effective September 29, 2011.


*************************************
Estes:

E12-0,4,6,8
24mm x 95mm
27.24 Newton-seconds Total Impulse
33.29 Newtons Peak Thrust
11.17 Newtons Average Thrust

Propellant mass: 35.9 grams

A Fish Named Wallyum
10-29-2011, 11:58 PM
Excellent news! :cool: Some of you thrust curve gurus chime in on this.

Doug Sams
10-30-2011, 12:04 AM
Excellent news! :cool: Some of you thrust curve gurus chime in on this.Yes, indeed, this is great news! WFK!

I just compared it to the E9. Same length case. E12 has 2.5s burn time vs 3s for E9. Both have sustainer portion of curve at ~10N. Both are ~36g of propellant (ie, no mailing).

The key diff is that the E12 has a 33N initial thrust spike vs 20N for the E9. So the E12 is very much like a longer burning D12 with a similar initial kick.

I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on some of these! This is really exciting news.

Doug

stefanj
10-30-2011, 12:13 AM
I was kind of hoping for something like a D24 or E20, but this is still great news.

I assume that the E12 uses the same nozzle as the D12, so that means the same igniter plug. This makes it an "economical" choice for a new BP motor.

I recall that one of the reasons Estes didn't release the core-burning D was that it would have required new igniter.

Hmmm, this means that if I ever build a "Bigger Beth X-2" there will be more choices for the booster.

Mark II
10-30-2011, 12:24 AM
That'll go nice in my Megatron! :D

Gus
10-30-2011, 12:38 AM
Most interesting thing is that the increased peak thrust actually allows for an E booster motor.

Although E9-0s were listed in some places I don't believe they were ever produced (just E9-Ps).

So E12-0 to E9-8 ought to make for some interesting flights. :)

Think we'll see an Estes EE-Express? :eek:

gpoehlein
10-30-2011, 12:40 AM
Very exciting news! And completely out of the blue as well. I really like that fact that it has a booster version as well - That will make it fun and really useful. For those who are more up on the regs than I am, do three of these remain legal to fly without level one cert, or is there enough propellant that three of them push over the threshold? If they are under the line, these babies will really rock in my 3x24mm Tube Daddy!

Greg

Gardei
10-30-2011, 01:24 AM
Why would a core burning D need a new igniter? I use standard estes igniters to ignite ex core burning bp motors. Just need to get the head touching the bp just beyond the nozzle. The method of installing the igniter would be different.

I do agree these E12's look awesome. Can't wait top get my hands on some.

Gus
10-30-2011, 01:29 AM
Just ran a quick Rocksim of an Estes CC-Express with the booster lengthened to 107 mm (95 mm motor + 8 mm aft engine block). Loaded the sim with an imaginary E9-0 to E9-8. Mass is the same as it would be with an E12 to E9 combination, and the revised version ("EE-Express") is still stable. :)

Rocksim predicts 947 meters (3,107 feet). I imagine an E12 to E9 altitude would be slightly lower, but not much. Very impressive.

The CC-Express sustainer is also stable with an E motor in a 3 fin version. Rocksim of a 3 fin sustainer and 3 fin booster (same fins as used on the CC-Express) is also still stable with an E to E combination. Rocksim predicts 1004 meters (3,294 feet).

Very cool.

Bill
10-30-2011, 01:38 AM
Great news indeed. This is what the E9 should have been to start with.

Now that it is done, I hope that Estes will continue to make E9s so that we have that choice.

Saturn Vs and 1Bs should now be built with 95mm long motor mounts.


Bill

Bill
10-30-2011, 01:44 AM
Very exciting news! And completely out of the blue as well. I really like that fact that it has a booster version as well - That will make it fun and really useful. For those who are more up on the regs than I am, do three of these remain legal to fly without level one cert, or is there enough propellant that three of them push over the threshold? If they are under the line, these babies will really rock in my 3x24mm Tube Daddy!



The E12 has very close to the same propellant mass as the E9, so three of them is still Level 0.


Bill

Bill
10-30-2011, 01:45 AM
Most interesting thing is that the increased peak thrust actually allows for an E booster motor.

Although E9-0s were listed in some places I don't believe they were ever produced (just E9-Ps).

So E12-0 to E9-8 ought to make for some interesting flights. :)

Think we'll see an Estes EE-Express? :eek:


Maybe the EE-Excess?


Bill

bernomatic
10-30-2011, 02:15 AM
Now I know why I've been procrastinating on my Renegade -D build. I've been putting it off and putting it off saying next week I'll get started. Now I won't have to gut her to retrofit for these as a booster engine. :)

Jerry Irvine
10-30-2011, 09:41 AM
This is a welcome release. The thrust is a bit higher but overall this is still a "soft" motor. The three cluster propellant mass is 107.7g which is well under either the older 113g limit or the newer 125g limit. Its 35.9g propellant mass is over the mailability limit. I would like to see Estes and NAR petitition the USPS to increase the mailability limit to 125g based on decades of hassle free mailing including times when they did allow such mailings. It would bring the USPS in line with FAA, another federal entity. Treaty changes to allow mailing to/from the USA and G20 countries would be helpful as well.

I look forward to a high thrust D with the new Estes igniters.

I urge users to give Estes feedback on reliability under different storage and launch site environments as soon as possible. You might recall, if you are old like me, the Mighty D started life as a D13 and was downrated to a D12 after field failures. The E9 started life as an E15 and was similarly downrated. This E12 seems like a middle ground compromise between these two designs.

Jerry

Jerry Irvine
10-30-2011, 12:04 PM
Estes E12
Pmass 35.9g
Imass 59.9g
0.93" x 3.75"

JEND
s-N-lb
0-2-0.449
0.1-10-2.248
0.25-32-7.194
0.28-33-7.419
0.35-15-3.372
0.45-13-2.923
0.9-10-2.248
2.37-10-2.248
2.43-0-0

TOTAL IMPULSE POUND-SECONDS = 6.290105
TOTAL IMPULSE NEWTON-SECONDS = 27.978387
AVERAGE THRUST NEWTONS = 11.51374
AVERAGE THRUST POUNDS = 2.588521
SPECIFIC IMPULSE (LB-SEC/LB) = 79.370963

Attached are some Malewicki charts (pdf) for the motor in common rocket sizes and weights.

Jerry

Green Dragon
10-30-2011, 01:17 PM
Very exciting news! And completely out of the blue as well. I really like that fact that it has a booster version as well - That will make it fun and really useful. For those who are more up on the regs than I am, do three of these remain legal to fly without level one cert, or is there enough propellant that three of them push over the threshold? If they are under the line, these babies will really rock in my 3x24mm Tube Daddy!

Greg

You need no Level anything cert to cluster E motors.

Level 1 cert in only required for flying H-I motors. ( or up to cluster of 1280 N-sec ).

three 30Nsec E's is 90 Nsec and no certification is required..

unsure on the waiver issues, however, is the new no-notification 'large model rocket' propellant weight limit 125 grams or 113 ?

~ AL

fly em high :)

CPMcGraw
10-30-2011, 01:24 PM
Has anyone tried to create an engine file for RockSim yet for this new motor?

ADDENDUM: Someone try this one out and see if I came close enough...

CPMcGraw
10-30-2011, 02:18 PM
First simulation, using the Interceptor-E file, shows the following:

Altitude -- 490'
Deployment V -- 4 FPS
Rod length -- 60" (took 56") This is the killer :(

Using the new graph, as Jerry indicated, the engine is "soft". It appears great, once the model is airborne, but getting off the ground it doesn't have a lot of "oomph" when used in a design that weighs in over 13 oz loaded.


I also tried it out in the SEMROC SLS Laser-X...

Altitude -- 554'
Deployment V -- 4 FPS
Rod length -- 60" (took 49") :(

This is a 12.5 oz design loaded, and shows great flight numbers, but lousy take-off numbers.


Another test, this time the DynaStar FireFox-SHX...

Altitude -- 643'
Deployment V -- 15 FPS
Rod Length -- 60" (took 47") :(

This is the lightest of the three, at 11.32 oz loaded. Still weak on the take-off...


Haven't simulated a Cherokee-D yet, but I expect better lift-off numbers. This engine should not be viewed as a serious BOOST engine for heavier designs; rather as a higher-performance "D" for light designs (3FNC and 4FNC variety).

tbzep
10-30-2011, 02:28 PM
First simulation, using the Interceptor-E file, shows the following:

Altitude -- 490'
Deployment V -- 4 FPS
Rod length -- 60" (took 56") This is the killer :(

Kody and I flew our Interceptor-E on a D12-3 from a Mantis pad. The launch rod is 57" long and about a foot of that is completely wasted by the the blast deflector and the way the rod mounts in the pad. Bottom line is that a 4 foot rod is long enough with both the D12 and E12 as long as you fly on a calm day. I wouldn't attempt it in a breeze, even with 60" of usable rod. There's just too much fin/wing area to mess with the flight.

tbzep
10-30-2011, 02:30 PM
Everybody but me gripes about low altitudes of the Saturn V on a D12-3. That's the E12 simulation you need to report. :cool:

mwtoelle
10-30-2011, 03:45 PM
(snip)
Haven't simulated a Cherokee-D yet, but I expect better lift-off numbers. This engine should not be viewed as a serious BOOST engine for heavier designs; rather as a higher-performance "D" for light designs (3FNC and 4FNC variety).
Early or late production on the Cherokee-D? A late production semi-clone that I built back in 1994 drifted out of sight after a successful flight on an Estes E15-8. However, an Estes E motor of any description will require some nose weight. I am surprised that you did not simulate the old Estes Omega with an E12-0/E12-8 combo. If you really want to fly heavy models on black powder motors, I think that you would need a core or semi-core burning motor.

Jerry Irvine
10-30-2011, 06:53 PM
Using the new graph, as Jerry indicated, the engine is "soft". It appears great, once the model is airborne, but getting off the ground it doesn't have a lot of "oomph" when used in a design that weighs in over 13 oz loaded.

I also tried it out in the SEMROC SLS Laser-X...

Altitude -- 554'
Deployment V -- 4 FPS
Rod length -- 60" (took 49") :(

This is a 12.5 oz design loaded, and shows great flight numbers, but lousy take-off numbers.
I have strongly suggested Estes upgrade to 1/4" x 48" rods (USR standard) and forsake 3/16" going forward. The AT by E motors need a stiffer rod and the Estes E motors need a longer rod due to low take-off speeds. These E motors should be considered to have a max liftoff weight of a pound or less, and better if between 1/2 and 3/4 pound. I would say the MLOW of a D12 is 30-50% higher than an E12.

Counter-intuitive but true.

Jerry

CPMcGraw
10-30-2011, 09:14 PM
First simulations with a Cherokee DD... :D

Simulation 1: E12-0/E12-8......2709'......Dv 16 FPS......60" x 1/4" (45" required)

Simulation 2: D12-0/E12-8......2225'......Dv 8 FPS.......60" x 1/4" (47" required)

Simulation 3: E12-0/D12-7......2126'......Dv 31 FPS......60" x 1/4" (43" required)

I figured a lighter design would work better, and these first runs tend to confirm it. It was a pleasant surprise to see a D12-0 doing as well as it did as the booster, and to see a 500' difference in altitude between it and the E12-0. One item to note with these simulations, all three include a 3 oz allowance for a BoosterVision camera and 9V battery.

CPMcGraw
10-30-2011, 10:17 PM
Using a standard Cherokee, I ran simulations with both 18" and 16.4" tubes:

Short-body: E12-6, 2018', Dv 29 FPS, requires 0.375 oz of ballast at base of NC, has a margin of 1.43. 28" of rod.

Long-body: E12-6, 1987', Dv 25 FPS, requires 0.25 oz of ballast at base of NC, has a margin of 1.45. 29" of rod.

The E12 requires ballast on both versions. The margin was below 1.0 for both without it.

CaninoBD
10-31-2011, 12:10 AM
You need no Level anything cert to cluster E motors.

Level 1 cert in only required for flying H-I motors. ( or up to cluster of 1280 N-sec ).

three 30Nsec E's is 90 Nsec and no certification is required..

unsure on the waiver issues, however, is the new no-notification 'large model rocket' propellant weight limit 125 grams or 113 ?

~ AL

fly em high :)

Not entirely correct.

Your forgetting the NAR safety code rule 7 Size. My model rocket will not weigh more than 1,500 grams (53 ounces) at liftoff and will not contain more than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of propellant or 320 N-sec (71.9 pound-seconds) of total impulse.

3 E9 are 35.8 * 3 = 107.4 grams OK
4 E9 are 35.8 * 4 = 143.2 grams NOT OK - HP and you need a L1

luke strawwalker
10-31-2011, 01:13 AM
Yes, indeed, this is great news! WFK!

I just compared it to the E9. Same length case. E12 has 2.5s burn time vs 3s for E9. Both have sustainer portion of curve at ~10N. Both are ~36g of propellant (ie, no mailing).

The key diff is that the E12 has a 33N initial thrust spike vs 20N for the E9. So the E12 is very much like a longer burning D12 with a similar initial kick.

I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on some of these! This is really exciting news.

Doug

I don't quite follow this...

The D12 burn duration is 2.7 seconds, is it not?? The E9 is 3 seconds, correct?? So the E12 is now 2.5 seconds, with the same peak thrust as a D12?? How is this a higher performing motor (IOW an "E" motor) if it has the same DURATION as a D12 and the same peak and average thrust as D12?? I get it that it's a LOW END "E" motor, so it's not going to be double the duration of a D12 at the D12's average and peak thrust levels to be a "full E", or that it has DOUBLE the peak and average thrust for the same duration as a D12, (or some combination thereof) but I don't follow how this is an "E" motor if it has the same burn characteristics as a D12... and the D12 at 17N/s isn't a FULL "D" motor either...

I must be missing something... Last I heard though, thrust times duration = total impulse (motor letter class) :confused: later! OL JR :)

Royatl
10-31-2011, 01:36 AM
I don't quite follow this...

The D12 burn duration is 2.7 seconds, is it not??

....snip....

I must be missing something... Last I heard though, thrust times duration = total impulse (motor letter class) :confused: later! OL JR :)

Yep, you're missing something. The D12 is 1.6 seconds. The E12 burns 50% longer.

GregGleason
10-31-2011, 07:27 AM
The thrust curve is similar to the D12, except it burns for another second.

Remove the ".txt" from the file "Estes.E12.eng.txt" and you will have a working .eng file.

Greg


; NAR Date Tested ...: 2011-09-25
; Total Impulse .....: 27.24 n-s (s 0.35)
; Peak Thrust .......: 33.29 n (s 3.49)
; Burn Time .........: 27.24 n-s (s 0.35)
; Average Thrust ....: 11.17 n
; Exported using ThrustCurveTool, www.ThrustGear.com
; Exported by .......: Greg Gleason
; Export Date .......: 2011-10-30

E12 24 95 0-4-6-8 0.0359 0.0588 ES
0.017 2.222
0.064 6.519
0.103 11.556
0.163 19.704
0.202 25.481
0.245 31.259
0.284 32.889
0.296 30.667
0.309 27.407
0.331 20.889
0.352 15.407
0.387 13.333
0.464 11.852
0.657 10.667
0.842 10.37
0.889 9.778
1.125 10.074
1.297 9.481
1.323 10.37
1.336 9.481
1.74 9.333
2.04 9.185
2.143 9.185
2.174 10.222
2.199 9.481
2.332 9.63
2.371 9.926
2.397 6.222
2.431 2.222
2.44 0.0

STRMan
10-31-2011, 08:03 AM
So E12-0 to E9-8 ought to make for some interesting flights. :)


My first thought! I actually have an upscale Centuri Stiletto that I made to launch from a D12-0 to an E9-8. Rocksim put it up at around 2900 feet. I have to make another booster now to hold the E12-0 booster. Looks like I will finally have my first rocket capable of breaking 3000 feet!

It will be interesting to see if the sustainer will gain more altitude with an E9-8 or an E12-8.

Doug Sams
10-31-2011, 10:33 AM
So E12-0 to E9-8 ought to make for some interesting flights. :) I have a rocket that's perfect for this. I used a Big Betty to build a sort of upscale ApogeeII, and, the way I set it up, the booster can handle the longer motor, so I should be able to test this combo...without putting it in orbit :)

BTW, I wasn't clairvoyant - I didn't anticipate the advent of a longer booster motor. I only made the booster longer, as I recall, to keep it closer to scale. But it oughta work perfectly with the E12-0.

Doug

.

Doug Sams
10-31-2011, 10:43 AM
Think we'll see an Estes EE-Express? :eek:

Just ran a quick Rocksim of an Estes CC-Express with the booster lengthened to 107 mm (95 mm motor + 8 mm aft engine block). Loaded the sim with an imaginary E9-0 to E9-8. Mass is the same as it would be with an E12 to E9 combination, and the revised version ("EE-Express") is still stable. :)

Rocksim predicts 947 meters (3,107 feet). I think you need to fly that one. But take some young eyes with you. Lots of them :)

Seriously, I fully expect Estes to roll out 2 new stagers to use that motor. An uprated EE Express would be perfect.

In my mind, the BT-55 gives it just the right mix of high performance while still being recoverable (versus a minimum diameter bird, for example).

Anyway, if I'm Estes, for stagers for these new motors, I'm thinking EE Express, Omega-E and maybe a BT-55 upscale Delta Star. Plus, for single stage birds, a Cherokee-E would be awesome :) (I need to build one of those anyway. In my naivete all those years ago when I cloned mine, I put a motor block in it and thus don't fly it on any motors longer than 70mm.)

Doug

.

ghrocketman
10-31-2011, 10:43 AM
This is the best news to come out of Estes in a LONG time. Would have rather had like an E20 to E24 also, but this is a START.
Does anyone know if they will be keeping the E9 in the line too or is this a replacement ?

Doug Sams
10-31-2011, 10:47 AM
Does anyone know if they will be keeping the E9 in the line too or is this a replacement ?The retailers will likely make that decision for them. If they're unwilling to add the extra peg hooks, I could see them putting the E12's on the shelves in place of the E9's. But that's only speculation. We'll see how it actually plays out.

Doug

.

Shreadvector
10-31-2011, 11:04 AM
Me want Omega-E !!!!!!!!

CPMcGraw
10-31-2011, 12:33 PM
... for single stage birds, a Cherokee-E would be awesome :) ...

I just worked up a BT-60 size version with really nice flight numbers (sweet, low Dv numbers - below 7 FPS) on the E12-6. It's not half bad on the D12-5, either, just high on the Dv.

It will be posted in the BARCLONE area...

Jerry Irvine
10-31-2011, 12:45 PM
Here is a 2 stage run E12-E12 in a stock minimum diameter rocket from U.S. Rockets.

Tandem Goodness (http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/tandemgoodness.htm)

Summary:

Lengths: 32/28"
CDr's: 0.65/0.45 cd
Stage 1 mass: 140+60+60 = 0.574#
Stage 2 mass: 120+60 = 0.397#
BOA+0.20s 448 ft
BOV+0.20s 269 fps

SUMMARY TABLE: E12-E12
LIFT-OFF WEIGHT -LBS = 0.3975
MAX ALTITUDE -FT = 4101.2
MAX ALTITUDE -MILES = 0.7817
MAX MACH NUMBER = 0.5842
MAX VELOCITY -FT/SEC = 605.11
MAX VELOCITY -MPH = 412.58
BURNOUT VELOCITY -FT/SEC= 598.27
BURNOUT ALTITUDE -FT = 1594.89
MAX ACCELERATION -G'S = 17.14
COAST TIME -SEC = 11.05

4101 feet with no piston launcher on the booster stage.

Attached is the detailed rtf file.

Tech Jerry

stefanj
10-31-2011, 12:55 PM
Bill has a very interesting point.

The E12 would be a "more generally useful" motor than the E9. Less chance of it being put in the "wrong" rocket.

It couldn't hurt to buy a few extra packs of E9s . . .

Hmmm, could an upscaled Comanche be called the "EEE! Express?"

Shreadvector
10-31-2011, 01:41 PM
Bill has a very interesting point.

The E12 would be a "more generally useful" motor than the E9. Less chance of it being put in the "wrong" rocket.

It couldn't hurt to buy a few extra packs of E9s . . .

Hmmm, could an upscaled Comanche be called the "EEE! Express?"

Comanch-E 3

Joe Wooten
10-31-2011, 02:12 PM
Comanch-E 3


Comanch-E BYE-BYE

Green Dragon
10-31-2011, 02:28 PM
Comanch-E BYE-BYE

NO need to upscale, just stretch the booster lengths.

Seriously, though, would a stack of 3 x E12 ( or E12 / E12 / E9 ) boost fast enough ? don;t have a rocksim file here to try to play with, but might be alil slow off the pad due to the extra weight ?
When we used to fly the 5 stage rack rockets, ( 5 x D12's ) . a DE12 was not a good boost motor, but a D20 to 4 x D12's worked nice. got it moving.

As for Commanche 3 - lost mine on D12-0 to old Aerotech E10-0 ( direct staged ),direct staged to a D12-7 ... tipped off some and bye bye birdie......

~ AL

Doug Sams
10-31-2011, 02:39 PM
Seriously, though, would a stack of 3 x E12 ( or E12 / E12 / E9 ) boost fast enough ? No. I've played around (in Rocksim) with a D12-D12-D12 combo, and you're asking for horizontal sustainer flights :) That is, it crawls off the rod. So, with the three heavier motors and otherwise pretty much the same thrust spikes and sustainer levels, an E12-E12-E12 flight will surely be even more treacherous.

I'd say, for the E12, that two stages will work well, but that 3-stagers will be pretty tricky. You'll either need a 10-foot rod or some outboard motors to get the booster moving with authority off the rod.

In fact, given the extra mass (versus a D12-D12 two-stage flight) fliers will need to pay extra attention for two-stage E12-E12 flights. The two E12 motors add about 30 g more weight total to the rocket, at the aft end (versus D12-D12). So both the stablity and the rod speed must be considered.

(But I'm looking forward to fliying some of those :))

Doug

.

Ltvscout
10-31-2011, 03:04 PM
No. I've played around (in Rocksim) with a D12-D12-D12 combo, and you're asking for horizontal sustainer flights :) That is, it crawls off the rod. So, with the three heavier motors and otherwise pretty much the same thrust spikes and sustainer levels, an E12-E12-E12 flight will surely be even more treacherous.
Sounds like just the right flight profile that GH would like. :chuckle:

Doug Sams
10-31-2011, 03:04 PM
By the way, in addition to Greg's thrust curve comparison earlier, here's one I did showing all the current Estes 24mm motors. The E12 has just a tad more spike than the D12. One very interesting thing is how all 5 of them converge very closely to about 9-10N on the sustainer portions of the curves. Doug .

http://www.doug79.com/motors/C11-D-E-comp2.gif

.

luke strawwalker
10-31-2011, 03:24 PM
Yep, you're missing something. The D12 is 1.6 seconds. The E12 burns 50% longer.

Ah, ok... makes sense then...

See what happens when you post too late at night! LOL:)

Later! OL JR :)

luke strawwalker
10-31-2011, 03:30 PM
The thrust curve is similar to the D12, except it burns for another second.

Remove the ".txt" from the file "Estes.E12.eng.txt" and you will have a working .eng file.

Greg



How do you save this to Rocksim?? What folder do you put it in??

I have RockSim 8 by the way...

Later! OL JR :)

ghrocketman
10-31-2011, 03:44 PM
Now Scott, c'mon now....
I only like horizontal flights of MY rockets when INTENTIONAL, such as simulating a scale Sidewinder or Sparrow flight.
Watching someone ELSES creation go berzerk and powr-prang or crash, I do find funny as long as nobody gets hurt.

Jerry Irvine
10-31-2011, 04:05 PM
If you limited the launch lugs to the booster stage with a 1/4" x 40-60" rod, piston boosted the vehicle, or maybe used a 6 foot tower launcher as a preference, you could get a reasonable 3 stage flight in low wind.

Even the two stage variant could use a short delay E12-4 booster motor with good success which would considerably increase the maximum altitude from the E12-0 to E12-8 variant. I would strongly suggest piston launching and tower launching it in no wind.

If your stage tube is shorter than the motor, just treat it as a fin can.

Jerry

U.S. Rockets MR 2B kit (http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/mr2b.htm)

U.S. Rockets 3 Stage Direct kit (http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/3stagedirect.htm)

U.S. Rockets Piston Launcher kits (http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/pistonlaunchedmicroc.htm)

Modify a USR Dual 18mm Rear Eject to 24mm! (http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/2-18mmRE.htm)

7 cluster 24mm USR Slipper kit . . . (http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/slipper.htm)

Attached is an rtf file for Slipper with 7x24mm Estes E12-6 motors, 930 feet.

GregGleason
10-31-2011, 04:08 PM
How do you save this to Rocksim?? What folder do you put it in??

I have RockSim 8 by the way...

Later! OL JR :)

Well JR, I'm not a RockSim user, so you'll need to get some input from others on how to upload it into RockSim. I figure it's not too hard to do, though.

Greg

CPMcGraw
10-31-2011, 05:05 PM
How do you save this to Rocksim?? What folder do you put it in??

I have RockSim 8 by the way...

Later! OL JR :)

You have to use the EngEdit program that comes with RockSim to append the contents of the new engine file into the existing Estes file.

Open EngEdit, File|Open the "Estes.rse" file first, then File|Append the new E12 file into it. You can then File|Save or File|SaveAs back as Estes.rse. RockSim uses the RSE files for simulations.

ADDENDUM: If you convert the ENG file to a stand-alone RSE file, you can also File|Reload Engine Data within RockSim to add the new file to the list, if you don't want to make the new engine a permanent entry in the master file...

luke strawwalker
10-31-2011, 07:23 PM
You have to use the EngEdit program that comes with RockSim to append the contents of the new engine file into the existing Estes file.

Open EngEdit, File|Open the "Estes.rse" file first, then File|Append the new E12 file into it. You can then File|Save or File|SaveAs back as Estes.rse. RockSim uses the RSE files for simulations.

ADDENDUM: If you convert the ENG file to a stand-alone RSE file, you can also File|Reload Engine Data within RockSim to add the new file to the list, if you don't want to make the new engine a permanent entry in the master file...

Ok I still don't get it... Geez I hate computers...

I can get into engine edit and add the "E12" to the list, but I don't know how to put the thrust-time curve in there or anything... I thought you just uploaded the file to the **** thing somehow... didn't know you had to friggin plot the thing out point by point...

Sometimes RS is more trouble than it's worth I think...

Later! OL JR :)

CPMcGraw
10-31-2011, 09:26 PM
Ok I still don't get it... Geez I hate computers...

I can get into engine edit and add the "E12" to the list, but I don't know how to put the thrust-time curve in there or anything... I thought you just uploaded the file to the **** thing somehow... didn't know you had to friggin plot the thing out point by point...

Sometimes RS is more trouble than it's worth I think...

Later! OL JR :)

If you don't already have the RSE or ENG file, then yes, you plot by hand. That's what I did with the file I posted, using the raw data posted earlier. Go grab my ZIP file and unzip it. It's an RSE file, so it should merge right in.

Do it this way:

DOWNLOAD The ZIP file in this message. (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=132721&postcount=17)
UNZIP the file somewhere.
OPEN EngEdit.
LOAD the "Estes.rse" file. You should see the existing Estes engines in the left pane.
APPEND the new E12 file. You should see it automatically appear at the bottom of that list.
SAVE the file. This will save the "Estes.rse" file back over itself.
CLOSE EngEdit.
OPEN RockSim. The E12 should now be available.

luke strawwalker
10-31-2011, 09:51 PM
If you don't already have the RSE or ENG file, then yes, you plot by hand. That's what I did with the file I posted, using the raw data posted earlier. Go grab my ZIP file and unzip it. It's an RSE file, so it should merge right in.

Do it this way:

DOWNLOAD The ZIP file in this message. (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=132721&postcount=17)
UNZIP the file somewhere.
OPEN EngEdit.
LOAD the "Estes.rse" file. You should see the existing Estes engines in the left pane.
APPEND the new E12 file. You should see it automatically appear at the bottom of that list.
SAVE the file. This will save the "Estes.rse" file back over itself.
CLOSE EngEdit.
OPEN RockSim. The E12 should now be available.


Thanks Craig... that worked...

How I don't know... but it worked. I brought up Rocksim and loaded the E12 into a Pershing 1... actually showed a lower altitude on the sim than the E9... go figure...

Thanks again! Later! OL JR :)

shockwaveriderz
10-31-2011, 11:53 PM
By the way, in addition to Greg's thrust curve comparison earlier, here's one I did showing all the current Estes 24mm motors. The E12 has just a tad more spike than the D12. One very interesting thing is how all 5 of them converge very closely to about 9-10N on the sustainer portions of the curves. Doug .

http://www.doug79.com/motors/C11-D-E-comp2.gif

.


I love it when you do that.......:-)


Terry Dean

Eagle3
11-01-2011, 08:02 AM
That's going to be a fun motor. Thanks Estes.

UPscaler
11-01-2011, 09:08 AM
E12, E12, E9 commanche 3?


Kiss it goodbye, but in a spectacular way!





Braden

evo666
11-14-2011, 06:16 AM
I am excited for this news and can't wait to get my hands on some.

Swampworks
11-14-2011, 03:03 PM
Alright, trying to follow this thread during a conference call......Was the topic "when?" ever mentioned?

ghrocketman
11-14-2011, 03:35 PM
The "when" better be sooner than the Quest Thunderjet "F's" that were "coming soon" FOUR YEARS ago.

stefanj
11-14-2011, 03:35 PM
Early next year? There's still a lot of state and federal paperwork to shuffle about.

That will give me time to finish a writing project and have a model ready for their roll-out!

Royatl
11-14-2011, 04:05 PM
Estes says 'not until 2012' on their Facebook page. Note that it doesn't say which quarter.

RWmarlow
04-30-2012, 01:39 PM
The E12 is now on the estes website

tquigg
04-30-2012, 02:55 PM
$54.00 + hazmat?!?!?!?!!

ghrocketman
04-30-2012, 03:12 PM
What a BARRRRRRRGAIN !

Shreadvector
04-30-2012, 04:03 PM
$54.00 + hazmat?!?!?!?!!

No. $54 includes hazmat, so saying $54 + hazmat is absolutely incorrect.

Just like the E9 motors and the hazmat shipping for the F and G motors.

Prices per motor or motor pack drop WAY down as you buy more of them and spread the one hazmat fee over the entire order.

This has been discussed and explained over and over and over and over again.

stefanj
04-30-2012, 04:21 PM
With the maximum discount, E12 motors and shipping are $23.99/ pack, which is awfully high.

I intend to buy a fair number of these motors, so I guess I'll have to find a dealer.

Raygun
04-30-2012, 04:30 PM
reloads...
Edit: dont get me wrong, more options the better and richer we are for it.I would commit to buying them on the way to the launch site as a precautionary backups, that's for sure! I wont ever be their regular target consumer on a consistent basis for midpower. Too much fun to be had elsewhere peak impulse-wise for the money.

carbons4
04-30-2012, 04:32 PM
If Hobby Lobby carries E9's and Estes/Aerotech F's, I bet they will carry E12's sooner or later.

Jerry Irvine
04-30-2012, 04:36 PM
so I guess I'll have to find a dealer.Nothing would make Estes happier.

carbons4
04-30-2012, 04:37 PM
Every time I hear it, that Hazmat fee sounds like racketeering. Yea I know what it is supossedly for...................................

Jerry Irvine
04-30-2012, 06:59 PM
Every time I hear it, that Hazmat fee sounds like racketeering. Yea I know what it is supossedly for...................................You know, I have been railing against the over classification of slow burning solids for decades now. In have mostly been vilified for it, but the science is firm and the recent rulings and orders only confirm what I have always said.

This has a several pronged solution:

1. Enforce the existing ATF order, now that we have it.
2. Enforce the order against other federal regulators who have been ignoring the physics of propellant
3. Enforce the regulations themselves AS WRITTEN and use civil objection, administrative filing, court order enforcement and media to blast back against "over enforcement" and "enforcement fraud".
4. Actually contact your representatives with smart commentary and have it backed up by massive petitions by far less involved folks who simply support scientific freedom.
5. Legislation to change the basis on which regulation is reviewed to any of three actual legal standards.

Just Jerry

carbons4
05-01-2012, 08:19 AM
Of course I always believed in Charles Darwin......................

ghrocketman
05-01-2012, 09:56 AM
Hazmat shipping is nothing but a scam by the shippers that is allowed via DOT. Total load o' crapola.

One can ship an unlimited number of quarts of Glow Fuel, but the minute is is shipped in gallon containers it somehow also becomes hazmat. A compound/substance is either a hazardous material or it is not. I would like to see ALL rocket propellant, fireworks, and glow fuel reclassified so it can ship in ANY quantity without hazmat...then again, I think shippers should be allowed to ship ANYTHING via ANY method they see fit as long as not mixed with passengers.

carbons4
05-01-2012, 11:09 AM
When the DOT started this crap in 78, they went out in the desert and built a bonfire that represented everything you would find in a hobby shop. Balsa wood, spray paint and glue were the pyros friend. several of the rocket motors did not even ignite. Some one with a title and lack of common sense usually ruins it for everyone.

ghrocketman
05-01-2012, 01:22 PM
That's the same reason why DDT was banned in 1972. The IDIOT head of the EPA (Ruckelhaus) chose to ignore his entire panel of EPA-funded scientists and banned it anyway due to BOGUS environmental politics. One idiotic person in charge that has no business making decisions. Feel the same way about ANYONE within the DEA or FDA regulating ANY medical doctors for ANYTHING if they are not physicians...no stinkin business.

luke strawwalker
05-01-2012, 03:24 PM
Hazmat shipping is nothing but a scam by the shippers that is allowed via DOT. Total load o' crapola.

One can ship an unlimited number of quarts of Glow Fuel, but the minute is is shipped in gallon containers it somehow also becomes hazmat. A compound/substance is either a hazardous material or it is not. I would like to see ALL rocket propellant, fireworks, and glow fuel reclassified so it can ship in ANY quantity without hazmat...then again, I think shippers should be allowed to ship ANYTHING via ANY method they see fit as long as not mixed with passengers.

Meh... it's a racket, like so many other things... when you look at most of the transport regs period they're a load of crap... no wonder the truckers get SO PO'd at the way things are...

I agree that regs limiting the placement of oxidizers and potential fuels or corrosives need regulations on where and how they can be placed in a shipment, and that we need placarding and MSDS sheets and manifests sufficient to protect first responders and other users of the transportation system, but MOST of the transport regs are rubbish, only existing to make a buck...

I had to laugh watching "Swamp Loggers" because the cops sit and WAIT on them to pull out on the road, and then stop them for a DOT inspection and write them a fistful of tickets over minor violations that don't amount to a hill of beans... stupid stuff like not having a big enough banner on the back of their escort pickup and stuff like that... idiotic... it's ONLY for making money off folks trying to make a living...

Meanwhile, I was driving a *gov't* operated (well, local school district, which as a taxing entity is the same as a government institution IMHO-- if it collects taxes, it's gov't in my book) was sending us out EVERY DAY with busloads of kids on slick tires, bad brakes, half the lights on the bus not working, faulty equipment, air brake leaks, etc... stuff that could actually KILL a bunch of kids or other people on the road... BUT, since it's a GOV'T vehicle, that's okay... the DPS and DOT turns a blind eye... the gov't doesn't regulate on ITSELF... (as was told to a driver I knew who turned the school in for a several hundred gallon diesel spill on campus that would have rendered any PRIVATE operation a Superfund site and cost them millions to clean up... :rolleyes: )

Enviro regs are THE biggest load of crap moneymaking racket there is...

Later! OL JR :)

ghrocketman
05-01-2012, 04:13 PM
Agreed...the gov't HATES and DISALLOWS the same regs to be applied to themselves. The majority of them are nothing but useless cash grabs. I have NO use for about 90% of all gubmint entities and would rather have a free-for-all compared to the gross over-regulation and degradation personal freedom we have now...as far as corporations go, most of those crooked entities should be regulated with a stranglehold...I blame a LOT of the income disparity on corporations allowed to run roughshod over the average working joe along with all the job exportation.

pantherjon
05-02-2012, 08:05 AM
Deeep breath..Patience..The E12's should be available from Hobbylinc any day now. Should be the same price they have for the E9's which is $15.99/3 pack...;)

ghrocketman
05-02-2012, 09:51 AM
Just wish hobbylinc still 'forgot' to charge for hazz-mutt shipping like they used to...

carbons4
05-02-2012, 02:51 PM
I have never used Hobbylink before. How much hazmat fee do they hit you for aerotech relloads?

Joe Wooten
05-02-2012, 03:30 PM
Meh... it's a racket, like so many other things... when you look at most of the transport regs period they're a load of crap... no wonder the truckers get SO PO'd at the way things are...

I agree that regs limiting the placement of oxidizers and potential fuels or corrosives need regulations on where and how they can be placed in a shipment, and that we need placarding and MSDS sheets and manifests sufficient to protect first responders and other users of the transportation system, but MOST of the transport regs are rubbish, only existing to make a buck...

I had to laugh watching "Swamp Loggers" because the cops sit and WAIT on them to pull out on the road, and then stop them for a DOT inspection and write them a fistful of tickets over minor violations that don't amount to a hill of beans... stupid stuff like not having a big enough banner on the back of their escort pickup and stuff like that... idiotic... it's ONLY for making money off folks trying to make a living...

Meanwhile, I was driving a *gov't* operated (well, local school district, which as a taxing entity is the same as a government institution IMHO-- if it collects taxes, it's gov't in my book) was sending us out EVERY DAY with busloads of kids on slick tires, bad brakes, half the lights on the bus not working, faulty equipment, air brake leaks, etc... stuff that could actually KILL a bunch of kids or other people on the road... BUT, since it's a GOV'T vehicle, that's okay... the DPS and DOT turns a blind eye... the gov't doesn't regulate on ITSELF... (as was told to a driver I knew who turned the school in for a several hundred gallon diesel spill on campus that would have rendered any PRIVATE operation a Superfund site and cost them millions to clean up... :rolleyes: )

Enviro regs are THE biggest load of crap moneymaking racket there is...

Later! OL JR :)

Fruit growers I know in Michigan tell me the cops do the same thing there during harvest season.

Swillie
05-02-2012, 04:02 PM
I have never used Hobbylink before. How much hazmat fee do they hit you for aerotech relloads?
I never have used reloads, but just ordered 6 aerotech SU's and a rocket kit and engine mount pack. Shipping was $7 . I sent an inquiry about the E12's, will see what they say.

chadrog
05-02-2012, 04:06 PM
I have never used Hobbylink before. How much hazmat fee do they hit you for aerotech relloads?
Hobbylinc.com doesn't sell any Aerotech loads that require special haz handling.

Jerry Irvine
05-02-2012, 04:48 PM
Hobbylinc.com doesn't sell any Aerotech loads that require special haz handling.Because of the difficulty to even qualify to ship them I expect 95%+ of dealers to take this position. This is the insidious and improper cost of "over-classifying" slow burning solids as explosives which they clearly are not. They are certainly NOT a "mass fire hazard" in quantities shipped in typical small packages to consumers and dealers, ie. under 65 pounds gross per box. Probably not even in rail car quantities and there has never been such a thing ever.

DOT employs red herrings to entangle a wide range of folks inside their jurisdiction/inspection/fine/monologue court system. It really is a "insert critical word here".

Jerry

chadrog
05-02-2012, 04:51 PM
Because of the difficulty to even qualify to ship them I expect 95%+ of dealers to take this position. This is the insidious and improper cost of "over-classifying" slow burning solids as explosives which they clearly are not. They are certainly NOT a "mass fire hazard" in quantities shipped in typical small packages to consumers and dealers, ie. under 65 pounds gross per box. Probably not even in rail car quantities and there has never been such a thing ever.

DOT employs red herrings to entangle a wide range of folks inside their jurisdiction/inspection/fine/monologue court system. It really is a "insert critical word here".

Jerry
And (as told to me by a rep from there) they don't want to deal with having to varify certification for high power loads.

Jerry Irvine
05-02-2012, 06:45 PM
And (as told to me by a rep from there) they don't want to deal with having to varify certification for high power loads.I believe you.

There has already been a formal ruling of consumer motors not being subject to their jurisdiction nobody seems willing to trust or utilize simply because existing practice is the bad way. Nobody on either the user, manufacturer or even regulator sides seem willing to take yes for an answer due to total marriage to the status quo.

Jerry

luke strawwalker
05-02-2012, 08:31 PM
Agreed...the gov't HATES and DISALLOWS the same regs to be applied to themselves. The majority of them are nothing but useless cash grabs. I have NO use for about 90% of all gubmint entities and would rather have a free-for-all compared to the gross over-regulation and degradation personal freedom we have now...as far as corporations go, most of those crooked entities should be regulated with a stranglehold...I blame a LOT of the income disparity on corporations allowed to run roughshod over the average working joe along with all the job exportation.

Yeah, that's the thing about all these regs... SUPPOSEDLY they're there to make us all safe... but have you noticed that no matter how much regulation they do, we really aren't all that safe anyway... there's still a LOT of stupid stuff that happens, accidents and incidents caused by glossing over safety concerns or the regs, greasing palms of regulators to "look the other way", or selective enforcement depending on who or what is actually impacted by the regs?? Like I said... when I was hauling 26,000 lbs of grain sorghum on my old 66 Chevy 2.5 ton truck, EVERY TIRE had to be in good shape, EVERY LIGHT had to work properly, down to the last jot and tittle, despite the fact I only drove the truck about a month out of the year, didn't drive it at night, and rarely exceeded 30 mph when loaded on the one-way trip to the elevator 23 miles away... and coming back empty the truck couldn't exceed 55 mph floorboarded, period... I doubt it'd do over 55 if you dropped it off a cliff! Yet when I was driving a schoolbus, I had to REFUSE to drive a bus with bad, slick tires before they'd fix it... same with faulty brakes and stuff... and most people didn't want to risk losing their job to refuse to drive it (I'm sure it's a big part of why I was canned... Oh well...)

Pipelines are supposed to be highly regulated and very safe, yet we hear of pipeline explosions often enough... remember the one in California here while back that roasted a neighborhood alive?? Same thing with railroads and trucking and just about any other job you can think of... When I worked for United Gas Pipeline, my boss sent me over to the main compressor building (about the size of the football field) and unlocked it and took me inside, and we went down the stairs to the basement, under the engines, where all the plumbing for the compressor engines cooling and fuel systems and oil systems and the huge inlet pipes from the pipeline came in to each individual engine (there were 4, about the size of a ship engine) which had three compressor units sticking out their sides running off the crankshafts... we could only go halfway down the stairs because the entire basement was flooded about 4 feet deep. He pointed out a window and told me to get a Pacer pump and stick the hose in the window, and then fire it up and pump the basement out into the ditch... He also warned me that if I saw any "unfamiliar vehicles" come onto the property, shut down the pump IMMEDIATELY and haul it back around the back of the barn... because it was ILLEGAL to pump the basement water into the ditch, since it was probably contaminated with oil or coolant from the engines, since the pipes leaked here and there... Evidently, they were supposed to pump ALL this water into a 90 foot deep storage silo we had onsite and have that pumped out by vacuum trucks that would haul the water away to pump into storage wells elsewhere, at a whopping price of course... and the basement the size of a football field with water 4 feet deep is a H3LL of a lot of water, and the storage silo wouldn't hold it all... and the trucking would cost a fortune... SO, I spent the better part of a day pumping a couple million gallons of water out of the plant basement into the county ditch running through the property... and nobody was the wiser... :)

Heck, my old man was telling me about water from the nuke plant... contaminated water (radioactive) that the vacuum trucks would come pick up... he followed one out of the plant one day coming home; it left about ten minutes before he did, and he said the driver pulled over on the side of the road a couple miles from the plant, opened the drain valve on the trailer, and then pulled out on the road in front of him driving back toward town some 15-20 miles away... By the time he got to town, the tanker was empty, and he could hit the freeway and boogey all the way back to the trucking place with an empty tank, ready to go pick up another load somewhere... :rolleyes:

I know they were doing all these DOT spot inspections on trucks coming into the ship channel in Houston to unload and slapping them with a bunch of fines and putting them out of service... thing is, under our glorious NAFTA, we've got junk Mexican trucks (most of which were worn out or junked out US trucks sold at auctions dirt cheap when they were too old and unsafe to keep on the road anymore) coming across from Mexico and driving anywhere they want in pretty much any condition and nobody blinks an eye...

Later! OL JR :)

luke strawwalker
05-02-2012, 08:33 PM
Fruit growers I know in Michigan tell me the cops do the same thing there during harvest season.

Oh yeah... I was reading where the DUST COPS are all over farmers in Arizona... if you're raising too much dust doing fieldwork or baling hay or whatever, they'll come out and fine you and shut you down... and Lord help you if you pull out on the road and track dust or worse yet mud or dirt onto the pavement... they'll issue fines for several thousand bucks for doing that! It's crazy...

Later! OL JR :)

Raygun
05-02-2012, 09:26 PM
Hobbylinc.com doesn't sell any Aerotech loads that require special haz handling.

Correct. I just ordered some. Its important not lose site of basic questions being asked here, the best prices to get reloads or any loads for that matter should be a sticky to be updated periodically in this forum. As for Hobbylinc you gotta always check to see what they have available as they don't carry everything AT, and do run out for the season, but I for one am glad they do carry a decent cross section. Don't be late to get your stock.

Blushingmule
05-03-2012, 03:59 PM
DUST COPS?

That takes the cake!

I'll never forget Daniel Patrick Moynihan years ago proposing taxing ammo ~ 500% or some such.
Why does someone want power over another?

Answer: "We know better than you"

Bob

chadrog
05-03-2012, 04:05 PM
The all holy dollar, that's why. Who wants to work for them? I sure don't, but I have little choice.

Swillie
05-03-2012, 04:10 PM
Hobbylinc responded regarding the Estes E12's. They do plan to have all 4 of the new sizes available, but don't expect to have them for another 4 weeks or so. I am planning to start my Saturn V build soon and will be putting in the longer engine hook for the E12-4.

Jerry Irvine
05-03-2012, 04:11 PM
There has already been a formal ruling of consumer motors not being subject to their jurisdiction nobody seems willing to trust or utilize.

Swillie
05-05-2012, 11:55 PM
Hobbylinc has the E12's up on the website now so I preordered 2 packs of E12-4 and an E12-6. My Hyperbat upscale has an E engine mount in the booster and sustainer. I was thinking a D12-0 to E12-6 would be a great combo for Halloween this year so I ordered an orange streamer as well in the hopes of ever seeing it again. Depending on how that goes an E12-0 to E12-8 would probably be outta sight. There really is little room for me to tuck a streamer in the booster but I may have to try. It came down with no damage on a C11-0 but I fear It may not survive the fall with how high the E12-0 would put it.

Jerry Irvine
05-06-2012, 02:12 AM
There has already been a formal ruling of consumer motors not being subject to their jurisdiction nobody seems willing to trust or utilize.This oft repeated post is, and has always been, ignored by NAR leadership.

When they finally filed a lawsuit against CFR 55.141(a)(8), they won. Listen now, no lawsuit needed . . .

Existing DOT rulings. :|

Swillie
06-04-2012, 05:23 PM
Well the E12's have finally landed at my door today!! Just in time for my Saturn V I just finished with the longer E engine hook in. But I think I need to test these motors on a lesser rocket first before I throw one in the Saturn.

stefanj
06-04-2012, 06:18 PM
I started chopping tubes and laying out fin patterns for an upscaled "Lil' Beth X-2" which will use an E12-0 in the booster stage. And potentially an E12-8 or E9-8 for the sustainer, for "We'll Meet Again, Don't Know Where, Don't Know When" flights.

I'm actually making part bundles for three of the model. If it works I'll sell the bundles as kits.

Jerry Irvine
06-04-2012, 08:15 PM
E12-0 in the booster stage. And potentially an E12-8 or E9-8 for the sustainer, for "We'll Meet Again, Don't Know Where, Don't Know When" flights.http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/tandemgoodness.htm

Swillie
06-04-2012, 08:35 PM
I started chopping tubes and laying out fin patterns for an upscaled "Lil' Beth X-2" which will use an E12-0 in the booster stage. And potentially an E12-8 or E9-8 for the sustainer, for "We'll Meet Again, Don't Know Where, Don't Know When" flights.

I'm actually making part bundles for three of the model. If it works I'll sell the bundles as kits.

just checked out that kit, cool cool, I am interested in one of those kits if you make 'em. Are you thinking to keep the look of that kit but single engine booster, or will the booster be a cluster?? I have never built a cluster engine kit before, maybe this could be my first.

I had to laugh when I saw your post, my Hyper Bat upscale I made last year is built with 'E' mounts and I was just thinking today that an E12-0 to E12-8 would be awesome, but that I would never see it again. Maybe the booster would stay close, but it might fall too hard to survive. I flew it once on C11's, worked perfect but the booster only had maybe a 50 foot drop.

Jerry Irvine
06-04-2012, 09:53 PM
I have never built a cluster engine kit beforehttp://v-serv.com/usr/kits/aero-roc3.htm

http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/interroc.htm

http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/piston_stager.htm

stefanj
06-04-2012, 11:43 PM
W/o detracting from Jerry's recommendations, you might start with a 3 x 18mm kit, like the Ranger or the Semroc equivalent.

Yes, I'm planning on a parallel cluster in the booster. The outboards could be everything from C11 to E12 . . . but I'm going to have to run everything through Rocsim.

If things work out, I could see putting different-delay motors in the booster stage. Say, a C11-3 on one side and a C11-5 on the other. Drogue for the first ejection, bigger parachute on the other side.

Rocketcrab
06-05-2012, 05:25 PM
Well the E12's have finally landed at my door today!! Just in time for my Saturn V I just finished with the longer E engine hook in. But I think I need to test these motors on a lesser rocket first before I throw one in the Saturn.

Very smart move! After all that work on "The Kit That Never Ends", I'd hate to see you doink it on a motor of unproven performance! :eek: [hint - I've been there - it's not pretty.]

Shreadvector
06-05-2012, 05:44 PM
Very smart move! After all that work on "The Kit That Never Ends", I'd hate to see you doink it on a motor of unproven performance! :eek: [hint - I've been there - it's not pretty.]

We flew a few packs of E12-4 and E12-6 motors a week ago Sunday. Most worked great, but 2 did fail and I handed the owners a M.E.S.S. form and told them to report the problem to Estes and the NAR.

Failure mode was nozzle blown out and blow through, but it was not the usual "Roman Candle" where the entire propellant grain flies up and through the rocket. The propellant grain seemed to stay attached to the casing but the flame tunneld up one side of the propellant/casing interface. This created a much longer burning failure than a simple blow through. it sent a flame up the rocket for a second or so until all of the propellant and delay was consumed.

My guess was that there was inadequate glue on the first wrap of the inside of the cardboard casing that allowed a tunnel to burn up the inside very rapidly. if it had been a simple temperature cycle propellant to casing disbond, the entire grain would have blown upward like a Roman Candle *OR*, if the delay bond was very strong, it would have stayed intact and had such a huge internal propellant burning surface area that it would have split the casing (like the E15 motors did).

If anyone has a failure, PLEASE report it to the NAR and Estes with complete motor and manufacturing code.

Swillie
06-05-2012, 05:55 PM
We flew a few packs of D12-4 and D12-6 motors a week ago Sunday. Most worked great, but 2 did fail and I handed the owners a M.E.S.S. form and told them to report the problem to Estes and the NAR.

Did you mean to say E12-4 and E12-6 ??

Great, now I am really looking forward to cookin up my first Saturn-kebob. Probably 30 hours of work in that kit, easy. Well a D12-3 exploded on the pad many years ago destroying my estes Wasp, but that has been the only failure I have experienced. I'll just white nuckle it. I was debating a D12-3 for the first flight, but with my luck..... no pain no gain I am putting the E12 in there.

A Fish Named Wallyum
06-05-2012, 07:13 PM
I was debating a D12-3 for the first flight, but with my luck..... no pain no gain I am putting the E12 in there.
YES!!! :cool: You know what they say. "God hates a coward." ;)

Jerry Irvine
06-05-2012, 07:24 PM
A piston launched D12 is likely a much lower risk flight even if the E12 works perfectly.

What is it with paper tube companies? Can't they make decent high spec rocket parts? ;)

Jerry

carbons4
06-07-2012, 09:13 AM
They used to be able to..............

UCBadger
06-07-2012, 10:55 AM
Although I am not using any highpower stuff (yet) that requires special shipping, this discussion makes me appreciate that I can just drive down the road and buy single use or reload kits locally :cool: -- discounted even! (as well as getting me to to one of the largest curling clubs east of the Mississippi :chuckle: )

carbons4
06-07-2012, 11:09 AM
Man, I wish somebody sold reloads here locally. You are away from the hobby for a few years and...BAM! This hazmat stuff is &^#%^#@^&(%$!@#^!!!!! I guess I am spoiled from not being able to go to work and get motors or even make something I wanted. Man, I want the good ol days back. Just having a couple of the GOOD hobby stores back we used to have would make a BIG difference.

evo666
06-07-2012, 10:16 PM
I just ordered $100 worth of motors. Hopefully rocksim is right for the rockets its going in.

jbuscaglia
06-08-2012, 12:08 AM
Although I am not using any highpower stuff (yet) that requires special shipping, this discussion makes me appreciate that I can just drive down the road and buy single use or reload kits locally :cool: -- discounted even! (as well as getting me to to one of the largest curling clubs east of the Mississippi :chuckle: )

Wow. Another curling rocketeer. I thought I was the only one outside Canada.

luke strawwalker
06-08-2012, 01:52 AM
We flew a few packs of E12-4 and E12-6 motors a week ago Sunday. Most worked great, but 2 did fail and I handed the owners a M.E.S.S. form and told them to report the problem to Estes and the NAR.

Failure mode was nozzle blown out and blow through, but it was not the usual "Roman Candle" where the entire propellant grain flies up and through the rocket. The propellant grain seemed to stay attached to the casing but the flame tunneld up one side of the propellant/casing interface. This created a much longer burning failure than a simple blow through. it sent a flame up the rocket for a second or so until all of the propellant and delay was consumed.

My guess was that there was inadequate glue on the first wrap of the inside of the cardboard casing that allowed a tunnel to burn up the inside very rapidly. if it had been a simple temperature cycle propellant to casing disbond, the entire grain would have blown upward like a Roman Candle *OR*, if the delay bond was very strong, it would have stayed intact and had such a huge internal propellant burning surface area that it would have split the casing (like the E15 motors did).

If anyone has a failure, PLEASE report it to the NAR and Estes with complete motor and manufacturing code.

Is the nozzle the same as the D12 or the E9?? I know I've seen several of the E9's spit nozzles... they make a nice if annoying "PING!" when they bounce off the blast deflector... :p :rolleyes:

Later! OL JR :)

Swillie
06-08-2012, 09:14 AM
Is the nozzle the same as the D12 or the E9?? I know I've seen several of the E9's spit nozzles... they make a nice if annoying "PING!" when they bounce off the blast deflector... :p :rolleyes:

Later! OL JR :)

Heres a pic of them side by side..... looks like the E12-4 has a smaller nozzle than the other two which are nearly the same...

Shreadvector
06-08-2012, 09:16 AM
Is the nozzle the same as the D12 or the E9?? I know I've seen several of the E9's spit nozzles... they make a nice if annoying "PING!" when they bounce off the blast deflector... :p :rolleyes:

Later! OL JR :)

D12 has largest nozzle and uses a white plug. D11 uses a white plug too, but has a slightly different core depth.

E9 has a nozzle that uses a black plug. C11 uses a black plug but has a slightly different core depth.

E12 has a nozzle that uses the yellow plug - same one used for 1/2A6, A8 and B4 motors. The depth of the core is deeper for the E12 than the A8, but I did not measure the length of the nozzle, so who knows if actual propellant centebore is the same depth. Of course, the propellant grain diameter is different, so the E12 will produce a much larger peak thrust from the larger dome of burning propellant than the A8.

E9 and C11 and D12 motors did that "ping" thing years ago and they only spit the nozzle. The propellant stayed in the motor and stayed bonded to the casing so it just burned from one end to the other with no nozzle. The E12 blows the nozzle and burns a tunnel up one side of the propellant. The propellant stays in the casing, but it flames out the top and bottom so it can roast the inside of the rocket.

The majority worked fine. And the flew great. Will fly a bunch more on June 23. All seem to be from the same big production run(s).

Swillie
06-08-2012, 10:28 AM
D12 has largest nozzle and uses a white plug.

E9 has smallest nozle and uses a black plug.

E12 has medium nozzle and uses the yellow plug - same one used for 1/2A6, A8 and B4 motors. The depth of the core is deeper for the E12 than the A8, but I did not measure the length of the nozzle, so who knows if actual propellant centebore is the same depth. Of course, the propellant grain diameter is different, so the E12 will produce a much larger peak thrust from the larger dome of burning propellant than the A8.

E9 and C11 and D12 motors did that "ping" thing years ago and they only spit the nozzle. The propellant stayed in the motor and stayed bonded to the casing so it just burned from one end to the other with no nozzle. The E12 blows the nozzle and burns a tunnel up one side of the propellant. The propellant stays in the casing, but it flames out the top and bottom so it can roast the inside of the rocket.

The majority worked fine. And the flew great. Will fly a bunch more on June 23. All seem to be from the same big production run(s).

The nozzles on my E12's are much smaller than the E9's......

Shreadvector
06-08-2012, 10:30 AM
The nozzles on my E12's are much smaller than the E9's......

Yes, i was in a rush and used vague terms like "medium" which mean nothing.

All that matters is the color of the plug (standard Yellow for E12) or an actual measurement, which I did not make and which would mean nothing to most people since they do not know the dimensions of motor nozzles.


I'll go edit my post a bit.

Shreadvector
06-08-2012, 10:34 AM
The old E15 motors had really small nozzles

RWmarlow
06-08-2012, 11:42 AM
last Estes E15 I saw had NO nozzles after failing :rolleyes:

ghrocketman
06-08-2012, 12:35 PM
I have a bunch of old E15-P's.
I generally burn one a year around July 4th.
NONE have ever catoed now that they have aged.
Bought a boatload of them from a hobby shop that was closing down like 10+ years ago.

UCBadger
06-08-2012, 12:53 PM
As you can see from my signature, I was away from the hobby for a bit........ :p
When did we go from bending nichrome wire into a sharp "U", sticking it in the nozzle and then shoving some recovering wadding between the leads holding the wire in place to having color coded, engine specific, plastic plugs? :confused:

mwtoelle
06-08-2012, 12:57 PM
The old E15 motors had really small nozzles
IIRC, The Estes E15's nozzle was about the same size as the Estes C6 nozzle. Also, the casing of the E15 was thinner than the other Estes 24mm motors.

carbons4
06-08-2012, 12:59 PM
You and me both. I still prefer thermalite, however my stockpile is starting to dwindle.

mwtoelle
06-08-2012, 01:01 PM
As you can see from my signature, I was away from the hobby for a bit........ :p
When did we go from bending nichrome wire into a sharp "U", sticking it in the nozzle and then shoving some recovering wadding between the leads holding the wire in place to having color coded, engine specific, plastic plugs? :confused:
The current igniters (Solar Igniters) first appeared in motors when Estes started packaging in carded packs in about 1978. The color coded plugs first appeared in 1992.

Royatl
06-08-2012, 01:10 PM
As you can see from my signature, I was away from the hobby for a bit........ :p
When did we go from bending nichrome wire into a sharp "U", sticking it in the nozzle and then shoving some recovering wadding between the leads holding the wire in place to having color coded, engine specific, plastic plugs? :confused:

The plugs were introduced late 1991, IIRC. They were featured in the 1992 catalog. Mike Dorffler and Ron McClaren of Estes have two patents related to them, issued in 1995 and 1996.

For some reason, I remember Mike Hellmund, who worked for Estes at the time, showing me prototypes of the plugs at NARCON-91 in Huntsville, but that memory is a bit hazy. Could've been later in the year at NARAM.

Scott6060842
06-08-2012, 01:13 PM
As you can see from my signature, I was away from the hobby for a bit........ :p
When did we go from bending nichrome wire into a sharp "U", sticking it in the nozzle and then shoving some recovering wadding between the leads holding the wire in place to having color coded, engine specific, plastic plugs? :confused:

I hate plastic plugs and throw them all away.

One of the best tips I ever got from this site was to use poster tack instead of plastic plugs (a user named Jamjammer?)...Works GREAT. Just insert igniter then shove a small piece right into the nozzle.

carbons4
06-08-2012, 01:18 PM
How about just going back to black powder mortar firing your bird ??????

dyaugo
06-08-2012, 05:33 PM
Yes, indeed, this is great news! WFK!

I just compared it to the E9. Same length case. E12 has 2.5s burn time vs 3s for E9. Both have sustainer portion of curve at ~10N. Both are ~36g of propellant (ie, no mailing).

The key diff is that the E12 has a 33N initial thrust spike vs 20N for the E9. So the E12 is very much like a longer burning D12 with a similar initial kick.

I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on some of these! This is really exciting news.

Doug


I like that they come in boosters. I'm thinking about building a two stage cluster and the E12-0's will work great!

dyaugo
06-08-2012, 05:41 PM
Just ran a quick Rocksim of an Estes CC-Express with the booster lengthened to 107 mm (95 mm motor + 8 mm aft engine block). Loaded the sim with an imaginary E9-0 to E9-8. Mass is the same as it would be with an E12 to E9 combination, and the revised version ("EE-Express") is still stable. :)

Rocksim predicts 947 meters (3,107 feet). I imagine an E12 to E9 altitude would be slightly lower, but not much. Very impressive.

The CC-Express sustainer is also stable with an E motor in a 3 fin version. Rocksim of a 3 fin sustainer and 3 fin booster (same fins as used on the CC-Express) is also still stable with an E to E combination. Rocksim predicts 1004 meters (3,294 feet).

Very cool.

How about an upscale CC Express in cluster formation? 3x24 to 3x24

dyaugo
06-08-2012, 05:42 PM
I just went out and bought a couple packs out the ESTES Black Powder motors. I bought one pack of the E9-4's and one pack of the E12-4's. I was up in the air as what delay to get on the E12's since I don't have the information in ROCKSIM so I went with the same delay as the other pack of motors since those worked well when I sim'ed them in ROCKSIM.

I just completed my Big Daddy and 2.6 diameter scratch build. I'm looking forward to launching in the next week or two. I also ordered a couple new neon Topflight chutes (Yellow and Pink)

Has anyone used the E12's and how close is the delay to the E9's?

Jerry Irvine
06-08-2012, 10:11 PM
If I had to guess from using E9's but not E12's 2 seconds less for the E9.

Jerry

GuyNoir
06-08-2012, 10:35 PM
For me, plugs work great.

JumpJet
06-08-2012, 11:37 PM
I've flown bunches of E12 motors including useing them in two stage models. If you would normally say use an E9-4, use a E12-4 on down the line for all the delays for E9 versus E12 motor use.

The only difference you will notice between the two motors is your model is going to leave the pad a little faster and most likely fly a little straighter because the model has gotten up to speed quicker.




John Boren

luke strawwalker
06-09-2012, 03:13 AM
I like the plugs fine... sure beats the heck out of ripping off bits of masking tape and pressing it against the ignitor and nozzle with your thumb, or rolling spitballs to hold the ignitor in with bits of recovery wadding and wedging them in the nozzle with a pen...

later! OL JR :)

Rocketcrab
06-09-2012, 09:40 AM
For me, plugs work great.

Me too. I don't know anyone who has had a problem with them.

Jerry Irvine
06-09-2012, 09:49 AM
The magic of plugs isn't what one guy thinks of them as compared to the alternatives. The magic is you can show a group of 100 scouts how they are used, having never seen one before and "it just makes sense". It makes it so 80% of the scouts just use them reliably from then on and the other 20% get support from peers or leaders to reinforce the idea and near as I can tell nobody can't use them at all.

Reliability. Easy training for use. One less thing to sort.

Plugs are probably a technology that resulted in an overall increase in motor usage rates.

Jerry

stefanj
06-09-2012, 01:48 PM
I think plugs are the bee's knees.

Only problem comes when someone uses the wrong color.

I have the chart taped to the top of my little igniter storage box . . . which has plenty of extra plugs for giving away.

* * *
i'm going to place a big order of E9, D12, and C11 soon. I've actually started to make a dent in my motor stores. Just love having regular launches.

I probably wont' get to actually use an E9 until September, at the Sheridan OROC launch. I plan on building two BT-55 "EE Express" models, as well as the Lil' Beth X-2 upscale.

dyaugo
06-09-2012, 02:12 PM
I've flown bunches of E12 motors including useing them in two stage models. If you would normally say use an E9-4, use a E12-4 on down the line for all the delays for E9 versus E12 motor use.

The only difference you will notice between the two motors is your model is going to leave the pad a little faster and most likely fly a little straighter because the model has gotten up to speed quicker.




John Boren

Thanks John

That's exactly what I did. Guess I assume right. I'm looking forward to trying them out. :)

Earl
06-09-2012, 02:45 PM
The magic of plugs isn't what one guy thinks of them as compared to the alternatives. The magic is you can show a group of 100 scouts how they are used, having never seen one before and "it just makes sense". It makes it so 80% of the scouts just use them reliably from then on and the other 20% get support from peers or leaders to reinforce the idea and near as I can tell nobody can't use them at all.

Reliability. Easy training for use. One less thing to sort.

Plugs are probably a technology that resulted in an overall increase in motor usage rates.

Jerry

I think your explaination is spot on. I've wondered at times what the frustation level was with newbies in the hobby way back when a simple nichrome wire loop was 'state of the art' for motor ignition. I suspect there was probably more than one new rocketeer who dropped the hobby at their first attempt because they had a heck of a time getting reliable motor ignition.

In this instance, experenced old-timers don't necessarily need the extra simplicity of some of these ignition systems, but bringing in newcomers and KEEPING them in, these plugs have probably helped a fair amount.

Since the latter 70s I just started 'tamping' mine with a small wad of crepe wadding, once I got tired of the circular paper tape disc in the Centuri Sure Shots pulling loose just by the minor weight of the ignitor leads, especially in warmer weather when the tape disc adhesive would get a bit warm. Tamping them in solved that problem, and many times one could pick up the entire rocket by the ignitor leads and not have the ignitor come loose.

Earl

luke strawwalker
06-09-2012, 07:00 PM
I think plugs are the bee's knees.

Only problem comes when someone uses the wrong color.

I have the chart taped to the top of my little igniter storage box . . . which has plenty of extra plugs for giving away.

* * *
i'm going to place a big order of E9, D12, and C11 soon. I've actually started to make a dent in my motor stores. Just love having regular launches.

I probably wont' get to actually use an E9 until September, at the Sheridan OROC launch. I plan on building two BT-55 "EE Express" models, as well as the Lil' Beth X-2 upscale.

Yeah, I did that too... cut the section out of one of the LONG instruction insert sheets that come in a pack of motors-- there's a little chart describing the plug colors and their matching motor sizes about halfway down on back IIRC... quick work with scissors and a couple strips of scotch tape and presto instant chart-- right inside the lid above the section in the motor box where I store the plugs... works great.

What's nice about plugs is, after a launch, when I go for a walk down to the south pasture where they set up, I can get a lifetime supply just picking them up off the ground-- they lie scattered about in a roughly 3 foot circle around where the club pad sat...

Later! OL JR :)

gpoehlein
06-09-2012, 07:37 PM
I, too, taped a copy of the plug color code to the lid of my motor box (Stanley flat case - each compartment is large enough to hold about 12 standard or 16 mini motors :D )

I'm looking forward to trying these - just broke down and ordered a couple packs of each from Hobbylinc - about the best price of anyone and they take Paypal. Should be fun - I also ordered an Aerotech 29/40-120 case and a G76G reload for the Leviathan (or my tube fin cert rocket if I get it finished soon enough to fly on that one!) My wallet is smoking, but I'm a happy rocketeer! :p

Greg

Shreadvector
06-11-2012, 09:35 AM
There are new instruction sheets now that there are E12 motors, so you'll need to cut out the plug guide from one of those to replace your existing plug guide.

Jerry Irvine
06-11-2012, 04:29 PM
but bringing in newcomers and KEEPING them in, these plugs have probably helped a fair amount.

Since the latter 70s I just started 'tamping' mine with a small wad of crepe wadding, Video games and pervasive media have literally numbed the minds of kids to the degree they don't "do" much any more. I actually went outside to play as a kid. All day long, and that wasn't long enough for me most days.

Then there is the issue of schools. Don't even get me started.

Johnthan's family might have been "freed", but my friends kids and grandkids have been "enslaved". Net negative on scale and consequences to be sure.

We all work 70%+ of our lives for our government masters and overseers and the overseeing is becoming far more pervasive and automated every day. And now RPVs have been deployed in our cities as well. . . . . . . .

This is not fiction. It is real life.

Jerry

ghrocketman
06-11-2012, 04:35 PM
Most public schools nowadays produce nothing but dumbed-down, mamby-pamby, dont-stand-up-for-yourself against the bully, left-whing leaning drones and RATS.
I blame a LOT of that on the forced spending on what is labeled as "special" which really should be labeled as "inferior never likely to contribute to society" when that money should be spent toward the MOST talented/intelligent ones that are MOST likely to have a positive impact on society as a whole, not a drain.

dyaugo
06-11-2012, 04:36 PM
Video games and pervasive media have literally numbed the minds of kids to the degree they don't "do" much any more. I actually went outside to play as a kid. All day long, and that wasn't long enough for me most days.

Then there is the issue of schools. Don't even get me started.

Jerry

I remember as a teenager we would ride our BMX bikes down to an abandon field with shovels and picks and build a course with jumps and obstacles. We would be there all day racing our bikes. Other days we would play "Over the line" all day from morning to until the sun set (Baseball Game) and if we were lucky we would spend all day at Disneyland when it was $6.50 to get in. Open til close. The days we spent active at night we would catch a movie or miniature golf. Yes kids today have no clue how to have fun...

Jerry Irvine
06-11-2012, 05:11 PM
Anyway, the point is if people did more real things they would use a bunch more E12 motors. When I used to do air shows and football halftime show rocket launches, the one thing I noticed is people of all ages and persuasions love rockets.

Access to it will generate demand.

Jerry

carbons4
06-11-2012, 05:15 PM
I blame it on the parents and PC political correctness. The parents for not being responsible. We HAD to be creative if we wanted anything. Had to figure out how to make something out of nothing. The parents of the me/greed generation. I don't want to deal with the kids. Throw some money at them so I do not have to deal. Get a electronic baby sitter. Lets reward bad and sub standard behavior.

carbons4
06-11-2012, 05:18 PM
Anyone heard any more on release of Estes Pro series Nike Smoke?

luke strawwalker
06-12-2012, 02:08 AM
Video games and pervasive media have literally numbed the minds of kids to the degree they don't "do" much any more. I actually went outside to play as a kid. All day long, and that wasn't long enough for me most days.

Then there is the issue of schools. Don't even get me started.

Johnthan's family might have been "freed", but my friends kids and grandkids have been "enslaved". Net negative on scale and consequences to be sure.

We all work 70%+ of our lives for our government masters and overseers and the overseeing is becoming far more pervasive and automated every day. And now RPVs have been deployed in our cities as well. . . . . . . .

This is not fiction. It is real life.

Jerry

I LOVE that new commercial they're running on TV now about the kids that don't get as much activity as their parents did when they were kids (cut to fat preteen boy looking at several rakes on the wall in the garage, then standing in the middle of the yard with a leaf blower, with about a 6 foot diameter circle cleared around him in ankle-deep leaves covering the yard). Why, it's been shown that reduced levels of activity in kids lead to thinner bones and more health problems, problems which continue with them into adulthood... Medical studies show that when kids are young is the best time to build strong bones and healthy active lifestyles and habits that pay big dividends later in life and reduce health problems later on (as the camera does a closeup of a small dog being walked on his lease, panning back to reveal that the dog is in fact walking on a treadmill, his leash being held by the fat kid, stretched out on the couch laying there watching cartoons... ) Kids need to be encouraged to go outside and engage in physical activity for at least two hours every day, to promote higher activity levels that build stronger bones and increase health (showing the fat kid playing video games and slurping the last of a can of soda, then idly grabbing his cell phone and fumbling with it while continuing to play video games... pan back to hear the phone ringing down the hall, and the Grandmother hobbling down the hall on a walker to answer it... when she gets to the phone and picks it up, "Hello?" she says... The fat kid says "Hey Grandma, how about another grape soda over here??" To which the grandmother looks exasperatedly at the phone, turns to the camera with a pained look, and shakes her head...) So encourage your kids to get more activity...

I just laugh my butt off every time this commercial comes on TV... it is EXACTLY like my nephew... he's just finished fourth grade... he's a fat boy, 9 years old, does nothing but play on my parent's computer all day and all night, play video games, and eat... does NO physical activity whatsoever... (well, he DID play with my daughter at the playground today for about 30 minutes-- first time in a LONG time!) and his Nanny (my mother) enables him in this by caving in to his every whim... It's like this commercial is lifted STRAIGHT FROM HIS LIFE.... and he and his brother are THE biggest panty-waists I've ever seen in my life... TOTAL wimps and can't do ANYTHING (except eat and play video games). Their Mom and Dad (my sister) are schoolteachers and in their own little world when they're not at work... and the kids are just left to their own devices... they never do anything together unless it's school related... for the first time in their lives, they tried to take the kids camping over Spring Break... didn't go anyplace pretty, just to a live-oak swamp State Park about 40 miles north of here... the kids were SO freaked out that my oldest nephew peed his sleeping bag THREE TIMES and the little one, same age as my daughter (3 weeks younger than she actually) was just about as freaked... it was a complete disaster... so bad in fact that after the second night, they just dropped the older boy off at my parent's house so he could 'be indoors' and play on the computer... :rolleyes:

My daughter whines while I make her chase cows, open gates, or help me fix cars, trucks, or farm stuff... but she feeds her own chickens and cleans up her own messes, and she READS BOOKS instead of playing on the computer and gameboy all the time... she's also in swim, softball, and gymnastics, as well as girl scouts and 4H... the boys are in NOTHING and have no interest in anything... Keira just went to a NASA day camp last week on "Astronaut training 2"... The boys are only interested in getting to go to Schlitterbahn and maybe SplashWay water parks this summer...

Kids today... Lord help us...

Later! OL JR :)

UCBadger
06-14-2012, 06:50 PM
The boys are only interested in getting to go to Schlitterbahn and maybe SplashWay water parks this summer...



Heck, I think I want to go to Schlitterbahn...... :D .. (http://www.schlitterbahn.com/nb/attractions) .

gpoehlein
06-15-2012, 12:06 AM
Woohoo - got my motor order today from Hobbylinc. Just in time for our contest this weekend - gonna try the E12s in my Maxi Alpha and in my Big Daddy! The Tube Daddy is in the shop for repairs (the tube fins have taken a few too many hints and need reinforcing) I need to put the motor retainer on my Quest High Q and try it on an E12 as well. Plus, I might just burn that G76G as well (but probably not - May be a bit too breezy Saturday to risk a high flight at the farm.

Greg

BEC
06-15-2012, 04:03 AM
I have six E12-6s from a recent Hobbylinc order. I expect to try one or two in my Vagabond on Saturday over in the Tri-Cities. Looking forward to it.

My Pro-Series Ventris should also fly again on Estes/Aerotech F50s and/or a two-grain G CTI reload (in a 3-grain case). I already know it goes well on either.

dwmzmm
06-17-2012, 04:16 PM
Great news indeed. This is what the E9 should have been to start with.

Now that it is done, I hope that Estes will continue to make E9s so that we have that choice.

Saturn Vs and 1Bs should now be built with 95mm long motor mounts.


Bill


I can easily use the E12 as the core engine for my K-36 Estes Saturn - V, along with four 18 mm outboards (C6's, perhaps the long burning Quest motors).

Jerry Irvine
06-17-2012, 10:56 PM
I can easily use the E12 as the core engine for my K-36 Estes Saturn - V, along with four 18 mm outboards (C6's, perhaps the long burning Quest motors).Take boost photos from underneath!

http://v-serv.com/usr/motors/images/29-120-F.machdiamonds.jpg

dwmzmm
06-17-2012, 11:23 PM
Take boost photos from underneath!

http://v-serv.com/usr/motors/images/29-120-F.machdiamonds.jpg


Nice!! I know that will work!

BEC
06-18-2012, 01:41 AM
I have six E12-6s from a recent Hobbylinc order. I expect to try one or two in my Vagabond on Saturday over in the Tri-Cities. Looking forward to it.

My Pro-Series Ventris should also fly again on Estes/Aerotech F50s and/or a two-grain G CTI reload (in a 3-grain case). I already know it goes well on either.

Flew the Vagabond once on Saturday on an E12-6. Rather more urgent boost than with an E9 with a 30% or so higher top speed (as reported by an AltimeterTwo aboard). Peak altitude in the same general ballpark (1150 feet or so). Nice.

The Ventris also flew on an F50 and a CTI G88 Smoky Sam. Both were lovely flights.

derekmc
06-18-2012, 02:14 AM
Flew the Vagabond once on Saturday on an E12-6. Rather more urgent boost than with an E9 with a 30% or so higher top speed (as reported by an AltimeterTwo aboard). Peak altitude in the same general ballpark (1150 feet or so). Nice.

The Ventris also flew on an F50 and a CTI G88 Smoky Sam. Both were lovely flights.

Yes they were! Lovely indeed! Especially the G88. That rocket was moving :D

Swillie
06-24-2012, 11:09 PM
Flew our Maxi Alpha 3 on a E12-6 today, great initial boost! This motor should get my Saturn V up there nicely based on how it performed today.

Posted a vid of the flight up on my youtube page.

UCBadger
07-05-2012, 11:02 PM
Anybody used an E-12 in a SatV? How would one change the build (mine is not started yet...)to be able to use one?

tbzep
07-05-2012, 11:06 PM
Anybody used an E-12 in a SatV? How would one change the build (mine is not started yet...)to be able to use one?

The simple way for a previously built rocket would be to mark the Saturn's CG with a D12-3 inserted and recovery system installed, ready to fly. Then insert the E12 and let it hang out the back of the motor mount a little. Tape it so it won't eject itself. Now add nose weight until it balances in the same place.

Since you haven't started your build, you could just put the thrust ring deeper and sub in the longer motor hook. Stick a spacer in and prep to fly with the D12-3. Mark the CG, and then insert the E12 and add weight like I previously mentioned.

I personally won't be using them in a Saturn until they've been on the market a while and I can get a feel for their reliability. There's already been a few reports of failures.

UCBadger
07-05-2012, 11:26 PM
The simple way for a previously built rocket would be to mark the Saturn's CG with a D12-3 inserted and recovery system installed, ready to fly. Then insert the E12 and let it hang out the back of the motor mount a little. Tape it so it won't eject itself. Now add nose weight until it balances in the same place.

Since you haven't started your build, you could just put the thrust ring deeper and sub in the longer motor hook. Stick a spacer in and prep to fly with the D12-3. Mark the CG, and then insert the E12 and add weight like I previously mentioned.

I personally won't be using them in a Saturn until they've been on the market a while and I can get a feel for their reliability. There's already been a few reports of failures.
Ok, the nose weight issue is what I was wondering about. If I understand you right, you are saying that after construction using a longer engine mount, one should check where the CG (balance point, right?) is when a D12-3 is at rear end of the engine hook, and then add nose weight to make get to the same CG when a E12 is on board, correct?

Thanks!

tbzep
07-06-2012, 04:46 PM
Ok, the nose weight issue is what I was wondering about. If I understand you right, you are saying that after construction using a longer engine mount, one should check where the CG (balance point, right?) is when a D12-3 is at rear end of the engine hook, and then add nose weight to make get to the same CG when a E12 is on board, correct?

Thanks!
Yes. It's designed to be stable with a D12-3. Prep it properly with a D12-3 and find the balance point. Then add nose weight to balance in the same spot with the E12. If you plan to fly on D12's too, you will probably want to make the extra weight removable.

Jerry Irvine
07-06-2012, 05:49 PM
Unless the motor is hanging out the back the extra mass is near the CG. A 24mm G would make the rocket MORE STABLE.

JumpJet
07-06-2012, 09:52 PM
Anybody used an E-12 in a SatV? How would one change the build (mine is not started yet...)to be able to use one?


This is how I tested one of the first E12 motors two years ago. I installed it in a stock motor mount of the latestes release of the Saturn V. Wraped a couple layers of tape around it and the engine hook so it would not eject out and flew it. I didn't add any nose weight to the model. It flew higher and straighter then it could ever do on a D12 motor.

Apart from changing the standard engine hook to the longer E engine hook and moving the engine block further into the motor mount, I don't believe any additional nose weight will be needed, but a little clay up front wouldn't hurt either.

John Boren

UCBadger
07-08-2012, 01:27 AM
This is how I tested one of the first E12 motors two years ago. I installed it in a stock motor mount of the latestes release of the Saturn V. Wraped a couple layers of tape around it and the engine hook so it would not eject out and flew it. I didn't add any nose weight to the model. It flew higher and straighter then it could ever do on a D12 motor.

Apart from changing the standard engine hook to the longer E engine hook and moving the engine block further into the motor mount, I don't believe any additional nose weight will be needed, but a little clay up front wouldn't hurt either.

John BorenThank you, Mr Boren. I appreciate the information!

Curtis

Jerry Irvine
07-08-2012, 10:07 AM
This is how I tested one of the first E12 motors two years ago. I installed it in a stock motor mount of the latestes release of the Saturn V. Wraped a couple layers of tape around it and the engine hook so it would not eject out and flew it. I didn't add any nose weight to the model. It flew higher and straighter then it could ever do on a D12 motor.That's really great and important news. How has it performed in a range of wind conditions? How much wind is okay?

I used to fly a LOT of SVs, and I had a 2 cluster mount and a three cluster mount that itself was inserted into the motor mount tube and extended out the rear. I always used the Centuri clear plastic fin add-ons and a tower free nose cone on flight.

Jerry

JumpJet
07-08-2012, 11:24 AM
How has it performed in a range of wind conditions? How much wind is okay?



I'll let all of you guys out there to do the testing on the Saturn V in countless wind conditions and report back to us.

I don't have that much time since I'm busy designing the next rocket kit that I hope people will buy.


John Boren