Next round of Estes releases

[Bryan B]

The instructions download page on the Estes site has some new additions

Centuri (http://www.estesrockets.com/media/instructions/003232_CENTURI.pdf)
Black Star Voyager (http://www.estesrockets.com/media/instructions/007222_BLACK_STAR_VOYAGER.pdf)
Rogue Voyager (http://www.estesrockets.com/media/instructions/007223_ROGUE_VOYAGER.pdf)
Astron Sprint XL (http://www.estesrockets.com/media/instructions/007224_ASTRON_SPRINT_XL.pdf)
Mega Der Red Max(PS II) (http://www.estesrockets.com/media/instructions/009705_MEGA_DER_RED_MAX.pdf)

The Centuri seems to have the PNC-50BB with nozzle so Black Brant III clones should be easier. It's also weird seeing 'Centuri' and 'Estes' on the same rocket. The Black star voyager will have to go in the 'Build soon' pile once it comes out.

[Initiator001]

FYI, the Astron Sprint XL is based on a BT-60 body tube.

New shape molded plastic nose cone and tail cone. Nice. :D

[BEC]

I was wondering about that - thanks. Looks like the big DRM and the Sprint will wind up in my build pile.

[Leo]

The Astron Sprint XL is dedicated to Mike Dorffler.

Very nice touch.

[Jerry Irvine]

They have to keep the Centuri name in use for trademark purposes. Although trademarks for companies and product names are different categories.

Hmmm. A Sprint without the "modeling skill" of a paper shroud. I noted the instructions do not have a spec panel like the face card, and the parts sizes require a SKU number converter, so unless you have one of those other data points it is not possible to determine the rocket diameter from the instructions.

On the other hand this is a much lower risk of bad build Sprint with blow molded parts. Made in China. Tubes too?

Jerry

[vigilante]

That BSV and the RV are very cool. When do they release these? Next year?

[g0ldnd0g]

Definitely, Black Star Voyager.

[Les]

WOW! Can't wait

I hope Estes understands all the damage they are doing to my wallet, but I like the new stuff.

Keep it up!

[LW Bercini]

Black Star Voyager and Mega Max will be mine! MWAHAHA!

[AcroRay]

Black Star Voyager is really something! Reminds me a bit of the Black Hole Space Probe. Nice work, Estes.

[ghrocketman]

There is NO Rouge Voyager kit. There however is a RoGUe Voyager.

[dcastle]

Great looking kits....but those instructions are just awful. I'm building the Skydart II right now...not too tough of a build at all but the instructions are terrible, some pictures with little text. It would be nice if Estes would still show standard parts numbers as well, most of us think in terms like BT-50 and such, not "part X".

[Jerry Irvine]

Back in the day Estes published a comprehensive part number, part name, part kind list. It was a spectacular reference document. These days it could be created by a spreadsheet and published in pdf dispensing with the whole printing cost issue.

I think the main problem is they no longer encourage parts orders. BUT they could work with a micro-vendor to have a stock of all the oddball parts for them.

Is the Sprint XL 24mm motor?

Jerry

[BEC]

Is the Sprint XL 24mm motor?

Jerry

Based on the proportions of the motor tube to body tube shown (and knowing, now, that it's BT-60, thanks to Bob's post) and noting that the parts list includes one of those D to E engine spacers, I'd have to say yes :D.

[Bryan B]

There is NO Rouge Voyager kit.

If you painted it red you would.

[Blushingmule]

I already have a Mega Der Red Max ;)

Won it at the NARAM auction; was so busy trying to certify on friday that I forgot to
fly it. It came with a G40-4 to boot!

Bob

[Initiator001]

I already have a Mega Der Red Max ;)

Won it at the NARAM auction; was so busy trying to certify on friday that I forgot to
fly it. It came with a G40-4 to boot!

Bob

Bob,

Have you flown it yet? ;)

I would have liked to get that model at the NARAM auction but I had no way to get it home and even if I did I couldn't fly it at a model rocket launch (California has a maximum weight/mass for model rockets of 500 grams. :( )

Take pictures when you fly it!

[Jerry Irvine]

I'm gonna get a Sprint XL (or three) and fly it with a 24mm D50, E100, and F200 and see if it can handle it. I think it will.

Jerry

[ghrocketman]

You people in CA need to get those out-of-control law makers under control.
That state needs more laws like bill Gates needs more net worth.
The only new laws that should be legal in CA are ones overturning the old ones that intrude on personal individual freedoms toward some mamby-pamby collective good.

[JumpJet]

Just wanted to confirm that this is a BT-60 size model with a 24mm motor mount. This model flies really high on E9 and E12 motors and plenty high on D12 motors. It also has a new size chute since an 18" chute was to large and a 12" chute was too small.


John Boren

[Shreadvector]

It is not a new law. The folks who wrote that law did so many decades ago when all model Rockets were illegal, so back then it was a great improvement.

The CA SFM was supposed to propose new legisalation to modernize this old weight limit and the prohibition on metal casings and handling components (which makes RMS and LMS HPR). They verbally said they would not enforce the old law and they would support a change. Time went by and they never made the change and several folks passed through that office.

In 2010 an enforcement issue involving Frank Kosdon forced their hand and they said they were legally obligated to abide by the law as written.

Efforts are underway to get it changed. It will take a while.

The CA SFM is not opposed to the change. it is simply a long and tedious process (if handled normally).

You people in CA need to get those out-of-control law makers under control.
That state needs more laws like bill Gates needs more net worth.
The only new laws that should be legal in CA are ones overturning the old ones that intrude on personal individual freedoms toward some mamby-pamby collective good.

[g0ldnd0g]

Exactly what I thought AcroRay!

[Blushingmule]

Bob,

Have you flown it yet? ;)

I would have liked to get that model at the NARAM auction but I had no way to get it home and even if I did I couldn't fly it at a model rocket launch (California has a maximum weight/mass for model rockets of 500 grams. :( )

Take pictures when you fly it!

Bob,

Not yet, we're still looking for a local field here in Nacogdoches...maybe in the Dallas area
with DARS where John Dyer flies...will definitely take pics.

Bob

[Jerry Irvine]

In 2010 an enforcement issue involving Frank Kosdon forced their hand and they said they were legally obligated to abide by the law as written.I'm just glad you said it not me.

CSFM has given lipservice to changing regs for 30 years that I know but when the rubber hits the road they don't want to. They like having compliance and enforcement be "verbal". Once you realize this is intentional and you ask permission (verbally) and "run what you brung", they are fine with it in practice.

I used to post about this on rmr. I called it "substantial compliance", a term they referred to at CSFM (now CA OSFM).

I pioneered and grew HPR (1974) before either TRA or NAR got on the bandwagon (1985) in this environment and they were fine with it.

I later learned the FEDGOV regulation also works about the same way on everything imaginable.

Jerry

http://v-serv.com/usr/images/CSFM2.jpg

[Shreadvector]

They have changed "regs", it is the "law" they have not changed and which they gave lipservice to changing.

They know they need to clean things up since they not only have outdated laws, but the regs currently refer to old editions of NFPA code (which is fine, you just need to get the old version to be able to read the correct portions referenced by the regulations).

If I ever get any real facts that I can report on progress or ongoing efforts to get the changes made, I will report what I can. If I cannot report, then I will not report.


I'm just glad you said it not me.

CSFM has given lipservice to changing regs for 30 years that I know but when the rubber hits the road they don't want to. They like having compliance and enforcement be "verbal". Once you realize this is intentional and you ask permission (verbally) and "run what you brung", they are fine with it in practice.

I used to post about this on rmr. I called it "substantial compliance", a term they referred to at CSFM (now CA OSFM).

I pioneered and grew HPR (1974) before either TRA or NAR got on the bandwagon (1985) in this environment and they were fine with it.

I later learned the FEDGOV regulation also works about the same way on everything imaginable.

Jerry

http://v-serv.com/usr/images/CSFM2.jpg

[ghrocketman]

The law/regs should not exist. Not only should model rocketry up to the US FEDERAL definition be legal in CA, it should be TOTALLY UNREGULATED as well.

[Jerry Irvine]

If I ever get any real facts that I can report on progress or ongoing efforts to get the changes made, I will report what I can. If I cannot report, then I will not report.I will listen for crickets.

If you (by that I mean the reader of this message attached with NAR or major vendor heirarchy) need help authoring model code and lobbying for its adoption, let me know. My group mainly focuses on Amateur and FX stuff, but has standing to bring OSFM recognized credibility to the effort.

My stated goal is to allow Wal-Mart or hobby store class rockets to be operated at any park or school or vacant site that meets the site standards set forth by NAR. I suggest site dimension 1/4 the expected altitude, to accommodate big dumb rockets, and a non-combustible zone around the pad. If that means NAR needs to clarify that for CA in particular, so be it, but making reference to NAR rather than whatever else is likely to be the most authoritative, up to date, and safety minded.

Besides you don't have to know the secret access method and pay a fee for NAR standards.

http://v-serv.com/usr/safetycodes.htm

I have always felt this is something the vendors should do in cooperation with licensees in the state, as an ad hoc, industry rep group.

It helps the need is clear and present, and there has been a federal change to accommodate.

Jerry

[RWmarlow]

On the ESTES site the "Short Round" and "Mini Fat Boy" are up

[stefanj]

On the ESTES site the "Short Round" and "Mini Fat Boy" are up
I couldn't find those.

Odd. A search for "short round" resulted in the Estes Jetliner appearing.

[LW Bercini]

I couldn't find those.

Odd. A search for "short round" resulted in the Estes Jetliner appearing.

Short Round is #1401
Mini Fat Boy is #2442

[Bluegrass Rocket]

They are referring to the instructions in .pdf form that are up on the Estes website. Use this link to get to the instructions.
http://www.estesrockets.com/customer-service/instructions
You can then search by kit number.

[blackshire]

Just wanted to confirm that this is a BT-60 size model with a 24mm motor mount. This model flies really high on E9 and E12 motors and plenty high on D12 motors. It also has a new size chute since an 18" chute was to large and a 12" chute was too small.


John BorenI'm just curious...what size is this new 'chute, and is it hexagonal or octagonal? I like more "increments" of 'chute sizes, as there are always models that fall (no pun intended) between being too heavy for one 'chute size and too light for the next-largest 'chute.

[Jerry Irvine]

I noticed Estes does not suggest "reefing" chutes in its instructions. That said I agree there is a need for a chute between 12 and 18 inch. I use 16" a lot for kits.

Jerry

[blackshire]

I noticed Estes does not suggest "reefing" chutes in its instructions. That said I agree there is a need for a chute between 12 and 18 inch. I use 16" a lot for kits.

JerryI concur, and with today's plastic 'chutes, reefing them is even easier (and easier to un-do if desired). A length of shroud line or other thin string (un-waxed dental floss will do) can be passed into and out of the punched holes in the 'chute canopy's corners (where the shroud lines are tied), then tied into a loop. Before being tied, the loop can be "cinched down" like a drawstring to restrict the 'chute canopy's opened size by the desired amount.

[JumpJet]

I'm just curious...what size is this new 'chute


Looks just like all the rest of our plastic chutes and is 15" in size.



John Boren

[Jerry Irvine]

Looks just like all the rest of our plastic chutes and is 15" in size.
John BorenData

Dia Area
in sqin
08 50.26
12 113.09
15 176.71
18 254.46
24 452.38
32 804.22
36 1017.85
48 1809.50

You can reef a chute with a fold of masking tape on the shrouds.

Tech Jerry

[blackshire]

Looks just like all the rest of our plastic chutes and is 15" in size.



John BorenGood--I like the "new-old" checkerboard canopy design; thank you for letting us know!

[johnnwwa]

John

When can we expect to see these new kits in stock?

Pocketbook needs an advance notice ... er the wife I mean. :)

[JumpJet]

All I can tell you is some of the kits are for 2012 release and some are most likely for first quarter 2013. When you see the kit listed in our Coming Soon section on the Estes web site the kit is most likely around six weeks away from being available.


John Boren

[Quasar]

You people in CA need to get those out-of-control law makers under control.
That state needs more laws like bill Gates needs more net worth.
The only new laws that should be legal in CA are ones overturning the old ones that intrude on personal individual freedoms toward some mamby-pamby collective good.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Shreadvector]

It is not a new law. The folks who wrote that law did so many decades ago when all model Rockets were illegal, so back then it was a great improvement.

The CA SFM was supposed to propose new legisalation to modernize this old weight limit and the prohibition on metal casings and handling components (which makes RMS and LMS HPR). They verbally said they would not enforce the old law and they would support a change. Time went by and they never made the change and several folks passed through that office.

In 2010 an enforcement issue involving Frank Kosdon forced their hand and they said they were legally obligated to abide by the law as written.

Efforts are underway to get it changed. It will take a while.

The CA SFM is not opposed to the change. it is simply a long and tedious process (if handled normally).


I couldn't have said it better myself.

[JumpJet]

There are a few new things on the website that were posted today.


http://www.estesrockets.com/coming-soon/



John Boren

[stefanj]

The display stands are a good idea. Do they come assembled?

Of the rockets, the Centuri looks pretty good, and the Black Star Voyager is of course the coolest release of the year.

[Randy]

There are a few new things on the website that were posted today.


http://www.estesrockets.com/coming-soon/



John Boren


John,

Just wanted to say thanks for being here and posting on YORF. It's great to have someone on the inside that makes contact wih the end users. Several of the smaller companies have reps here too and I'm glad to see Estes doesn't have the "We're too big to do that" attitude.

Randy
www.vernarockets.com

[JumpJet]

The display stands are a good idea. Do they come assembled?

No they are in three pieces, 3-legs and 1-Center part. The legs simply slide into the Center part just like a standard Estes launch pad. The legs can also be easily removed as well.


John Boren

[bernomatic]

The display stands are a good idea. Do they come assembled?

Of the rockets, the Centuri looks pretty good, and the Black Star Voyager is of course the coolest release of the year.

I was going to say seems a bit steep at $7.49 but then noticed the small print (for once being a good thing) stating...

"3 to a pack. What a great value!"

[naoto]

I was going to say seems a bit steep at $7.49 but then noticed the small print (for once being a good thing) stating...

"3 to a pack. What a great value!"
Indeed. Perhaps not as nifty-looking as the old Cetnuri Rocket Rack
link to page on ninfinger site (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=centuri+rocket+rack&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ninfinger.org%2Frockets%2Fcatalogs%2Fcenturi77%2F77cat30.html&ei=Svx2UPLhDaOBiwLxloCQBg&usg=AFQjCNHWLsdjVrzCRUHgd3WAWR6I142z3g)
Did a quick check... at 1977 value of $1.25 adjusted for inflation ( using this (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/) ) I get a value of $4.57 in 2011.
Semroc offering ($8.50) : http://www.semroc.com/Store/scripts/prodList.asp?idCategory=106

BTW... How many of you have "repurposed" the spindles from blank CD/DVD packs as "quick-and-dirty" model rocket display stands?

[BEC]

Those stands are nice....

And yes I have "repurposed" the spindles from blank CD/DVD packages as stands, too.

I see AC Supply has the Mega Der Red Max in stock. So they're "out there". Gotta get me one shortly.

[Jerry Irvine]

I like the "Centuri" since it reminds me of great times past. I am curious how current market tastes will adopt it. I appreciate it uses standard engines.

Does Estes ever discuss even relative sales figures, if not absolute ones since Estes is private?

Jerry

[hcmbanjo]

No they are in three pieces, 3-legs and 1-Center part. The legs simply slide into the Center part just like a standard Estes launch pad. The legs can also be easily removed as well.
John Boren

I like how the stands look like the older, yellow Porta Pad launcher.

[Scott6060842]

I like how the stands look like the older, yellow Porta Pad launcher.

Me too. It looks like a stable design. If so I'll buy alot of these.

[Scott6060842]

[QUOTE=naoto]Indeed. Perhaps not as nifty-looking as the old Cetnuri Rocket Rack


The rocket rack is cool, but the footprint is kind of big. Plus I'd rather be building rockets than rocket racks. :)

[scigs30]

I cannot wait to buy a few, they look great.

[naoto]

Indeed. Perhaps not as nifty-looking as the old Cetnuri Rocket Rack


The rocket rack is cool, but the footprint is kind of big. Plus I'd rather be building rockets than rocket racks. :)
But then... with rockets like Andromeda (http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/76est026.html) you will appreciate the extra stability from the large "footprint" ;)

Of course the nifty feature of the old "Rocket Rack" was that you could build it so that the rocket is either vertical or at an angle (thus the one long leg). The latter form works nicely with kits like the Orbital Transport (as well as many of the "Super Kit" series from Centuri with which the Rocket Rack was included). Of course, one doesn't have to accept stands "as is"... You could always "dress it up" them up so they look more the part of launch pad of sorts -- so you add stuff like erecting mechanisms (e.g. pivot, hydraulic pistons to raise the rocket, etc.), locking clamps (e.g. like you see on some launch pad to anchor the rocket until just before launch), etc. Speaking of which... if you go as far as to add trucks to your display (to carry fuel and liquid oxygen), would you also add trucks to carry bagels ('cause if you got lox, you gotta have some bagels...) ?

[Earl]

[QUOTE=naoto]Indeed. Perhaps not as nifty-looking as the old Cetnuri Rocket Rack


The rocket rack is cool, but the footprint is kind of big. Plus I'd rather be building rockets than rocket racks. :)


I can say the Semroc version of the old Centuri rocket rack goes together VERY nicely, especially using the nice, clean laser cut fiber boards. PLUS, the front leg of their version is not quite as long as the Centuri version.

All-in-all it is a nice display stand, but these new ones from Estes look pretty good too.

Earl

[blackshire]

-SNIP-
You could always "dress it up" them up so they look more the part of launch pad of sorts -- so you add stuff like erecting mechanisms (e.g. pivot, hydraulic pistons to raise the rocket, etc.), locking clamps (e.g. like you see on some launch pad to anchor the rocket until just before launch), etc. Speaking of which... if you go as far as to add trucks to your display (to carry fuel and liquid oxygen), would you also add trucks to carry bagels ('cause if you got lox, you gotta have some bagels...) ?Surprisingly, there really *was* a bagel fuel for use with lox in rockets (specifically, the Juno I, which put Explorer 1 into orbit, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagel_fuel ). :-)

[dgrayson]

This is not exactly new- has anyone built this one? What did you think were the positives and negatives? Tks

[VonMises]

interesting

[JumpJet]

I'd like to get hold of the Max Nose Cone. Then I could build the rest of the rocket with quality parts


Sorry but the nose cone is of the same quality as the rest of the parts in the kit so it most likely wont work for you needs. :D

John Boren

[ghrocketman]

BAGEL sounds like a perfectly suitable name for a rocket propellant. The one that invents a propellant should defacto be granted the right to name it and ALL others including the U.S. Army should be MANDATED to accept the name, not pulling some BS name like "Hidyne" out of their a$$es.

[Raygun]

I really like the fin build up strategy of the Mega Max fins. I wish mid and high power sport would see more value in this approach as an alternative choice to solid slab construction. I'm not of fan of pitching a brick in the air- too much of a waste of impulse. I think some folks slowly are picking up on this aspect of the power range. I like what Giant Leap is doing with regards aerospace materials and methods.
John, nice work on that fin detail!

[Right Wing Wacko]

I've noticed that Hobbylinc's status on the Mega Max has changed from Out of Stock to "Ships within 24 Hours".

However my order still says waiting for backordered stock to arrive :(

[Jerry Irvine]

I'd like to get hold of the Max Nose Cone. Then I could build the rest of the rocket with quality parts.The Estes parts are of high quality. They are also of specific strength to limit power waste due to excessive mass.

If one were to make a high end HPR style Der Red Max, even a 50% increase in tube thickness would about do it. Currently 050 wall so 070 would be nice. maybe Estes could offer a heavy wall variant of the tube or a third party could do that and buy the stock kit and exchange the tubes out and add proper motor mounts.

Pay twice. Why pay less for Estes IP?

Jerry

[BEC]

I really like the fin build up strategy of the Mega Max fins.
But have plenty of books to hand when you glue them up. :)
I wish mid and high power sport would see more value in this approach as an alternative choice to solid slab construction. I'm not of fan of pitching a brick in the air- too much of a waste of impulse. I think some folks slowly are picking up on this aspect of the power range. I like what Giant Leap is doing with regards aerospace materials and methods.
John, nice work on that fin detail!

<rant>I've been a BAR for what - about four years or so now? - after a more than 30 year hiatus. I'd also been an active aeromodeler the entire time (and I also work for an aerospace company). When I first saw "high power construction techniques" in Sport Rocketry I was, to be gentle about it, very dismayed. It looks to me like people are trying to fly pieces of furniture than proper flying machines. That article on crash-proofing an Estes rocket just about made me ill. I seems obvious to me that people who build to survive a crash rather than learning how to fly/recover properly are people I want to be far, far away from when I'm flying. I also don't see the point of lobbing something to 500 feet on an H when I can put a model up that high on a B easily and if I try I can get there with an A. Designing something to fly rather than to crash always leads to better performance and for things that might just come falling out of the sky rather less risk for people and things on the ground.

I know high performance isn't always the point of a particular design but still there are better answers than adding more steel, more plywood, more epoxy and more carbon.</rant>

The four inch Mega Der Red Max tubing appears to be .050 wall. I'll be getting back to working on mine (got it from AC Supply) after I rake some wet leaves.....:(

[Jerry Irvine]

When I first saw "high power construction techniques" in Sport Rocketry I was, to be gentle about it, very dismayed. It looks to me like people are trying to fly pieces of furniture than proper flying machines. That article on crash-proofing an Estes rocket just about made me ill. I seems obvious to me that people who build to survive a crash rather than learning how to fly/recover properly are people I want to be far, far away from when I'm flying.

The four inch Mega Der Red Max tubing appears to be .050 wall.Exactly. I have been flying 050 wall 4 inch rockets for DECADES on up to full K motors with low thrust like 54mm K125 and K250 and lower power moderate thrust motors like J125 and J250 (each letter class full power).

http://v-serv.com/usr/54mm.htm

They were TRA certified for many years and from 1982-1992 were the most popular style used, including flights at LDRS 2 and beyond.

It is more common to loose a fin than to crush a tube from flight speeds and recovery is now so easy with dual deploy it's silly not to use an oversize chute.

Jerry

[Raygun]

But have plenty of books to hand when you glue them up. :)


Heck, I would monokote those fins instead! ;)

[BEC]

If you did they'd look pretty thin on that big rocket. Not saying it wouldn't work, though :).

[ghrocketman]

When intended power is to be Composite "E" or above, AS A RULE, I use the "Build Strong Like OX/tank" philosophy. I don't wan't hangar-rash or flight damage. Don't care about the weight penalty trade-off. I just use a bigger motor. 'NUF SAID !