Estes Majestic PS II E2X Kit

[Initiator001]

I have assembled an Estes Majestic kit.

This is the second Estes PS II E2X kit I have finished.

It was easier to assemble than my previous PS II E2X model (Ascender) due to the fact that the fins halves are already glued together.

I assembled the model with CA and 30 minute epoxy adhesives. My only alteration to the kit was the addition of a Semroc ejection baffle (EB-20). I had to sand down the rings a little to get the baffle to fit in the body tube.

I look forward to flying it soon. :)

[BEC]

Glad to know that an EB-20 can be made to fit these. Need to retrofit my Majestic, or if not that put one in an Ascender when I get that one.

[frognbuff]

Have you flown a Majestic yet? I'm wondering why E15-6 is recommended but E15-8 is not. The Majestic is very light, and I'm surprised the extra two seconds of delay make such a difference. Then again, I haven't flown an E15 or F15 yet.

[snaquin]

I have assembled an Estes Majestic kit.

This is the second Estes PS II E2X kit I have finished.

It was easier to assemble than my previous PS II E2X model (Ascender) due to the fact that the fins halves are already glued together.

I assembled the model with CA and 30 minute epoxy adhesives. My only alteration to the kit was the addition of a Semroc ejection baffle (EB-20). I had to sand down the rings a little to get the baffle to fit in the body tube.

I look forward to flying it soon. :)

I hope you have better luck with your first flight with your Estes Majestic than I did today. Yesterday, I also assembled mine with the recommended CA and 30 minute epoxy used sparingly following all the assembly instructions. I used the recommended first flight engine, F15-6 and the PSII wadding, starter and plug.

I flew in calm conditions with rod close to vertical. The smile in the picture was short lived. Shortly after it came off the rod it went unstable and cartwheeled through the air for a pretty good distance landing between my vehicle and the vehicle parked next to me and was damaged when it thumped on the ground and ejected it chute near the spectators standing nearby.

I'll be contacting Estes soon to request a different PSII kit. I'm really not comfortable repairing mine and flying it again.

Perhaps yours will fly better since you have the added weight up front with the Semroc baffle on yours. I ran it through OpenRocket last night and it didn't show stable without added nose weight but I ignored that thinking it was a data entry problem on my end and it should be stable since I assembled the Majestic per the instructions without any modifications.

:(

.

[JumpJet]

I ran it through OpenRocket last night and it didn't show stable without added nose weight


Can you please post your Open Rocket File for this model. I did a RockSim on it and it showed it to be plenty stable even with a heavy G80 motor in it.

John Boren
Estes R&D

[BEC]

My Majestic has two flights on it - both F15-6s and both quite nice. My fins are on backward but the difference is very slight. It's otherwise dead stock.

Both flights were nice and straight with a gorgeous long, straight boost. It carried an Estes Altimeter on the second flight (which would've helped stability) but didn't on the first.

My notes say the ejection was a touch late on the first flight so I'd think an 8 second delay would be too much.

Oh - before you ask: 1307 feet.

Second afterthought: for what it's worth it was flown from a six foot long 1/4 inch rod.

[Initiator001]

Glad to know that an EB-20 can be made to fit these. Need to retrofit my Majestic, or if not that put one in an Ascender when I get that one.

You will need to 'notch' the baffle rings in order to get it to slide past the shock cord mount.

[Initiator001]

Sorry to hear about your Majestic 'flight', Steve.

I'll be flying mine next Sunday. I will post pictures. ;)

BTW, nice hat. :D

[snaquin]

My Majestic has two flights on it - both F15-6s and both quite nice. My fins are on backward but the difference is very slight. It's otherwise dead stock.

Both flights were nice and straight with a gorgeous long, straight boost. It carried an Estes Altimeter on the second flight (which would've helped stability) but didn't on the first.

My notes say the ejection was a touch late on the first flight so I'd think an 8 second delay would be too much.

Oh - before you ask: 1307 feet.

Second afterthought: for what it's worth it was flown from a six foot long 1/4 inch rod.

My Ascender flew one flight with the F15-6 just before I flew the Majestic and I couldn't agree more, quite nice! I flew four of the F15-6 engines with 6 and 8 second delay, and one with zero delay yesterday. These new engines are great. The Ascender / F15-6 combo is just perfect and rocket was recovered just a short distance from the pad since we had minimal winds.

Thanks, you always post your altimeter flight data (and you knew I would ask).

:)

.

[snaquin]

Sorry to hear about your Majestic 'flight', Steve.

I'll be flying mine next Sunday. I will post pictures. ;)

BTW, nice hat. :D

It's become my standard launch hat. I forgot to stick my NAR and Tripoli pins in it before I left the house though.

I have several hats I could reach for on launch day but I always seem to grab the EnerJet hat!

Also good to know about the EB-20. I figured that was the one you used from one of your other posts. I need to pick up a few from Semroc.

:D

.

[snaquin]

Can you please post your Open Rocket File for this model. I did a RockSim on it and it showed it to be plenty stable even with a heavy G80 motor in it.

John Boren
Estes R&D

John,

Well it turns out it was a data entry problem on my end with the OpenRocket file. I copied the Ascender file as a basis of design for creating the new Majestic file and along with it copied a mass overide that didn't belong in the Majestic design file. The corrected file is posted below for you. I weighed my built model (mass with no motors) and I come in at exactly 8.6 oz. The package weight shows 9.6 oz so I'm a full ounce below that.

I measured the CG of my built model and it falls right at the center of the letter E where I have my decal placed. That puts the CG @ 21.9" so I entered override center of gravity: 21.9 in, and override mass: 8.6 oz

With the F15-6 motor loaded I get stability: 1.72 cal

RockSim does a better job of modeling the nose cone as you can use a conical length of 7.5" with an exposed base length of 3.5" where OpenRocket I had to just use an 11.0" ogive shape. That barely makes any change on the design performance.

I can't figure out the reason for the unstable flight because same as you I determined the model does indeed indicate the model has good stability.

:confused:

.

[snaquin]

Have you flown a Majestic yet? I'm wondering why E15-6 is recommended but E15-8 is not. The Majestic is very light, and I'm surprised the extra two seconds of delay make such a difference. Then again, I haven't flown an E15 or F15 yet.

Bearing in mind that OpenRocket is just an estimation and that I also have just the one flight on my Majestic with the F15 engine and not the E16, refer to the first image in my last post for a possible answer.

The 6 sec delay shows 8.38 ft/s velocity at deployment which is very good. With all the same conditions the 8 sec delays shows 40.1 ft/s velocity at deployment so according to this estimation, the extra two seconds of delay do make a difference.

.

[frognbuff]

Bearing in mind that OpenRocket is just an estimation and that I also have just the one flight on my Majestic with the F15 engine and not the E16, refer to the first image in my last post for a possible answer.

The 6 sec delay shows 8.38 ft/s velocity at deployment which is very good. With all the same conditions the 8 sec delays shows 40.1 ft/s velocity at deployment so according to this estimation, the extra two seconds of delay do make a difference.

.
Cool - thanks!

[snaquin]

Out of the five F15 engines I burned yesterday only the F15-6 engine that was used for the Majestic fight had more nozzle erosion and more soot on the nozzle end, also leaving a small ring of soot around the end of the case. These two engines came from the same package.

The engine on the left was used on the Ascender flight. The engine on the right was used on the Majestic flight. This motor was also the only one that I used that had to be forced out from the front side with a rod. The other motors could be shaken out or pulled out easily from the engine mount tube.

Did not appear to have any thrust vectoring in the photos.

Not sure if any of this helps .... I'm just making a post flight observance.

.

[Initiator001]

Also good to know about the EB-20. I figured that was the one you used from one of your other posts. I need to pick up a few from Semroc.

:D

.

To prevent any backpressure issues with the EB-20 Semroc baffles I punch extra holes in the baffles.

I haven't notice any burning/soot on the parachutes.

[Royatl]

Out of the five F15 engines I burned yesterday only the F15-6 engine that was used for the Majestic fight had more nozzle erosion and more soot on the nozzle end, also leaving a small ring of soot around the end of the case. These two engines came from the same package.

Did not appear to have any thrust vectoring in the photos.

.


The soot on the nozzle end probably came from the rocket flipping around.

Is there any way you can get the camera to focus on the nozzles, not the label?

It may only take a brief, severe thrust vector to knock the thing to the point where the fins stall out and it slows to a speed that the fins can't recover. It sounds odd that the empty motor was tight in the rocket.

[JumpJet]

The Majestic I have here made from a kit weighs more then what's stated on the box. Attached is my RockSim file for it. I get quite different results that the Open Rocket file posted. I used the RockSim Calculation Method instead of the Barrowmen, since I was told it was more accurate.

I did not include launch lugs on this design but I can't see that making much difference. I choose materials for each component to represent as close as possible the actual weights of the parts.

With engine unloaded and loaded the CG is right where it is stated on the RockSim file. The Mass of my rocket is correct as well.

Can someone explain why we have such different results.

By the way the copy of Open Rocket I have on my machine would not open the Open Rocket file posted in this thread.


John Boren

[Shreadvector]

Was there a motor block or thrust ring installed? Just curious if the motor could have moved forward under thrust and the result would be a "Krushnic Effect" with lower thrust - and possibly vectored if the aft motor retaining ring started to melt.

I have seen several of these rockets flown with the F15-6 motor and they all were extremely stable.

I have seen them flown off the 6 foot long steel rods that our club uses as well as individual pads using the Estes rod which is a bit shorter.

I hope you have better luck with your first flight with your Estes Majestic than I did today. Yesterday, I also assembled mine with the recommended CA and 30 minute epoxy used sparingly following all the assembly instructions. I used the recommended first flight engine, F15-6 and the PSII wadding, starter and plug.

I flew in calm conditions with rod close to vertical. The smile in the picture was short lived. Shortly after it came off the rod it went unstable and cartwheeled through the air for a pretty good distance landing between my vehicle and the vehicle parked next to me and was damaged when it thumped on the ground and ejected it chute near the spectators standing nearby.

I'll be contacting Estes soon to request a different PSII kit. I'm really not comfortable repairing mine and flying it again.

Perhaps yours will fly better since you have the added weight up front with the Semroc baffle on yours. I ran it through OpenRocket last night and it didn't show stable without added nose weight but I ignored that thinking it was a data entry problem on my end and it should be stable since I assembled the Majestic per the instructions without any modifications.

:(

.

[Rex R]

@jumpjet
looks like you should update your open rocket, they changed the design file format (to a zip based one) with the 13.05 release.
Rex

[Initiator001]

Was there a motor block or thrust ring installed? Just curious if the motor could have moved forward under thrust and the result would be a "Krushnic Effect" with lower thrust - and possibly vectored if the aft motor retaining ring started to melt.



The Estes PS II E2X kits include an orange spacer ring for use in the motor mount tube when using the E16/F15 motors. The kits are set up to handle the Estes (re-labeled AeroTech) G40 and G80 motors which have longer cases than the E16/F15 motors.

[Shreadvector]

The Estes PS II E2X kits include an orange spacer ring for use in the motor mount tube when using the E16/F15 motors. The kits are set up to handle the Estes (re-labeled AeroTech) G40 and G80 motors which have longer cases than the E16/F15 motors.

Yup, I know that. That is why I was thinking that the motor might have moved up into the tube a bit. Especially after seeing the semi-roasted aft end of the motor. It experienced some unusual hot flow on the aft end of the casing and that could have occurred when the motor slid up into the tube a bit and there was Krushnic Effect inside the aft motor retainer.

After ejection, the motor could have then slid backwards.

Only the flyer can tell us if the motor was correctly restrained to prevent forward movement.

That is why I keep a supply of spacers at the check-in table of ouor club launches. Folks come up without their 24mm C/D to E spacers all the time and I expect to see the same for the new 29mm motors. Luckily most of the time they know what they are and they have them back at their prep area. But, some of the time they have no idea what the spacer is, or where they left it.

[snaquin]

Only the flyer can tell us if the motor was correctly restrained to prevent forward movement.


The orange ring was used and is still stuck up in the engine tube. Excuse the poor photos please. I can retake them tomorrow if I can ever get home while it is still daylight ...

First photo shows the spent motor retained. There is no crud or soot obvious on the outside of the retainer. It does have a strange pattern at the nozzle opening unlike the other four that have mostly a rounder erosion with much less black color in the actual nozzle area. I would have never noticed this had I not saved all the casings and compared later. I only question this now because it looks different from the other fired nozzles.

Photo two you can see a ring of crud around the inside of the retainer cap. No melting or signs of stress on the cap itself.

Photo three the crud only goes as far inside as the inside exposed plastic part of the screw insert where it seats against the cardboard engine tube, not onto the cardboard engine tube itself.

Photo four are the five F engines I flew. Left to right the F15-6 from the Majestic flight, the F15-6 from the Ascender flight, the center engine is from the upper stage F15-8 from my USR Sonic 160 flight, next the F15-8 from an ARG SR1720 flight, and far right is the F15-0 also fromt he Sonic 160 flight. The only other motor that shows a lot of post flight crud is the upper stage motor and that is understandable.

Photo five you can see on the F15-6 motor from the Majestic flight when the motor was removed by pushing it out with a rod where at the launch the engine was pushed past the part of the retainer causing the marks on the case. Also the other four motors can still be easily inserted into the engine mount and removed by a quick shake to drop in your hand. The Majestic F15-6 motor is swollen on the nozzle end and if reinserted, must again be pushed out from the front side with a rod. It can not be removed otherwise.

:)
.

[snaquin]

The soot on the nozzle end probably came from the rocket flipping around.

Is there any way you can get the camera to focus on the nozzles, not the label?

It may only take a brief, severe thrust vector to knock the thing to the point where the fins stall out and it slows to a speed that the fins can't recover. It sounds odd that the empty motor was tight in the rocket.

Let me know what you think of the pictures I just posted in reply to Fred. I can try to get a better pic tomorrow that's the best I could do in the garage tonight.

.

[snaquin]

The Majestic I have here made from a kit weighs more then what's stated on the box. Attached is my RockSim file for it. I get quite different results that the Open Rocket file posted. I used the RockSim Calculation Method instead of the Barrowmen, since I was told it was more accurate.

I did not include launch lugs on this design but I can't see that making much difference. I choose materials for each component to represent as close as possible the actual weights of the parts.

With engine unloaded and loaded the CG is right where it is stated on the RockSim file. The Mass of my rocket is correct as well.

Can someone explain why we have such different results.

By the way the copy of Open Rocket I have on my machine would not open the Open Rocket file posted in this thread.


John Boren

Thanks John.

I'll check out the RockSim file and try to compare as well. I am using the latest version of OpenRocket V13.09.1

.

[Royatl]

Let me know what you think of the pictures I just posted in reply to Fred. I can try to get a better pic tomorrow that's the best I could do in the garage tonight.

.

Ok, the imbalance on the crud I saw probably just came from the rotating rocket during the delay. Oh well. Thanks for the extra pics.

[Shreadvector]

OK, just to make sure we are using the same terminology:

"Erosion" is the wearing away of material. With soil, you get erosion from water washing away the soil or from wind blowing away dry topsoil. With a clay nozzle, you would get erosion if the motor exhaust removed material while it was firing.

At the resolution posted, I cannot see erosion in the photos. I do see "delay crud", which is the slag-like material produced when the delay burns. It often is deposited onto the nozzle throat and exit cone and outer/aft surface and looks like molten lava when the motor is firing (you would need to do a static test to see this). The "lava" cools and hardens to form the "delay crud" crust. Old FSI motors really had a lot of delay crud and it would form 'crudsicles' sometimes.

"Delay crud" would not occur until after thrusting, so it cannot cause any thrust vectoring. Only erosion during propellant burn (the thrust phase) can cause vectoring.

Have you taken a very detailed close up photo of the motor from that bad flight directly next to a clean unfired motor nozzle and also next to a fired motor from a good flight? Obviously you cannot post such a high resolution photo because of file size. You can also do measurements by seeing what diameter objects will fit or pass through the nozzle throat. Ditto for the exit cone aft end. Drill bits might be good to use for size guages.

The orange ring was used and is still stuck up in the engine tube. Excuse the poor photos please. I can retake them tomorrow if I can ever get home while it is still daylight ...

First photo shows the spent motor retained. There is no crud or soot obvious on the outside of the retainer. It does have a strange pattern at the nozzle opening unlike the other four that have mostly a rounder erosion with much less black color in the actual nozzle area. I would have never noticed this had I not saved all the casings and compared later. I only question this now because it looks different from the other fired nozzles.

Photo two you can see a ring of crud around the inside of the retainer cap. No melting or signs of stress on the cap itself.

Photo three the crud only goes as far inside as the inside exposed plastic part of the screw insert where it seats against the cardboard engine tube, not onto the cardboard engine tube itself.

Photo four are the five F engines I flew. Left to right the F15-6 from the Majestic flight, the F15-6 from the Ascender flight, the center engine is from the upper stage F15-8 from my USR Sonic 160 flight, next the F15-8 from an ARG SR1720 flight, and far right is the F15-0 also fromt he Sonic 160 flight. The only other motor that shows a lot of post flight crud is the upper stage motor and that is understandable.

Photo five you can see on the F15-6 motor from the Majestic flight when the motor was removed by pushing it out with a rod where at the launch the engine was pushed past the part of the retainer causing the marks on the case. Also the other four motors can still be easily inserted into the engine mount and removed by a quick shake to drop in your hand. The Majestic F15-6 motor is swollen on the nozzle end and if reinserted, must again be pushed out from the front side with a rod. It can not be removed otherwise.

:)
.

[snaquin]

OK, just to make sure we are using the same terminology:

"Erosion" is the wearing away of material. With soil, you get erosion from water washing away the soil or from wind blowing away dry topsoil. With a clay nozzle, you would get erosion if the motor exhaust removed material while it was firing.

At the resolution posted, I cannot see erosion in the photos. I do see "delay crud", which is the slag-like material produced when the delay burns. It often is deposited onto the nozzle throat and exit cone and outer/aft surface and looks like molten lava when the motor is firing (you would need to do a static test to see this). The "lava" cools and hardens to form the "delay crud" crust. Old FSI motors really had a lot of delay crud and it would form 'crudsicles' sometimes.

"Delay crud" would not occur until after thrusting, so it cannot cause any thrust vectoring. Only erosion during propellant burn (the thrust phase) can cause vectoring.

Have you taken a very detailed close up photo of the motor from that bad flight directly next to a clean unfired motor nozzle and also next to a fired motor from a good flight? Obviously you cannot post such a high resolution photo because of file size. You can also do measurements by seeing what diameter objects will fit or pass through the nozzle throat. Ditto for the exit cone aft end. Drill bits might be good to use for size guages.

The nozzle on the motor in question is visually larger in diameter post firing than the nozzle on the other F motor that I also flew Saturday from the same package. Although the photos do not reference this well I can assure you it is not just delay crud in question. When viewing the end directly the opening also appears, at least to me to be more angular and eroded.

I will not pass anything through the nozzle throat until I am sure that Estes doesn't want the spent motor back for fear of knocking possible brittle clay material out of the nozzle should they want to inspect it.

The results John and I have between RockSim and OpenRocket files both show a good margin of stability on a variety of composite and black powder motors regardless of the small difference in dry weights that we reference so I don't see where it could be the fault of the rocket as far as stability is concerned or my ability to properly assemble or prepare the Majestic for flight as per the instructions. There isn't enough mass even if the parachute and shock cord was shifted all the way down to the engine mount during flight to cause instability. I can certainly produce more photographs possibly this weekend but I am willing to admit that I am not qualified to know if the motor malfunctioned in this instance or as to what these observances mean.

I really do not know what happened. Bernard had great flights using this same kit and motor configuration whereas I for some unknown reason, did not.

.

[Shreadvector]

You have provided an excellent report and response to all of our follow-up questions.

Check with the Estes gurus regarding taking measurements of the nozzle or returning it to them.

Maybe Dr No was involved?

[snaquin]

You have provided an excellent report and response to all of our follow-up questions.

Check with the Estes gurus regarding taking measurements of the nozzle or returning it to them.

Maybe Dr No was involved?

I left a voice message today and sent an email to Mary Roberts via the web form with a link reference to my post. Will see if Estes wants the spent engine back for any reason. Can't really say if it was the engine or if my first flight was just a fluke but will wait for instructions.

I used Bob Smith plastic CA and decided to repair the separated fins on the Majestic today, and reinforced the upper inside of the airframe tube where it had a crease in it so will fly again. I am thinking for it's next flight I will fit it with the PSII booster (when I get my grubby hands on one) and the payload section from my Ascender to house an altimeter.

I pray to the rocket gods for a good flight.

And if I see this guy on the flight line again I'm having him thrown off the launch site .....

;)

.

[Winston]

To prevent any backpressure issues with the EB-20 Semroc baffles I punch extra holes in the baffles.Do you mean the EB-70?

[Winston]

I'll check out the RockSim file and try to compare as well. I am using the latest version of OpenRocket V13.09.1.I've found the Openrocket file here (thanks), but not the Rocksim one mentioned. Really looking forward to one for the booster, too, in either file format.

[snaquin]

I've found the Openrocket file here (thanks), but not the Rocksim one mentioned. Really looking forward to one for the booster, too, in either file format.

See post 17 for RockSim file. Also, with OpenRocket I believe you can save in .rkt RockSim format with the latest version.

:)

.

[Winston]

See post 17 for RockSim file. Also, with OpenRocket I believe you can save in .rkt RockSim format with the latest version.

:)Thanks, don't know how I missed that post. Came back here to say "never mind" since I did a "save as" .rkt with OpenRocket and it opens fine in Rocksim 9.

Just for comparison with every else's builds, here are my 2-stage Majestic stats:

Unloaded:
Majestic 236g (8.3oz)
Booster 136g (4.8oz)

From two packs I've already opened:

F15-0 91.9g (3.24oz); NAR datasheet 94g
E16-8 82.1g (2.9oz); NAR datasheet 84.7g

Majestic/Booster stack loaded with above engines - measured CG approx. 79cm (31.1in) from nose.

F15-0/E16-8 flight went well in light breeze with two slow, minor tail-wag oscillation cycles during low acceleration booster stage burn, straight as an arrow and very fast acceleration after upper stage ignition.

[Initiator001]

Do you mean the EB-70?

Nope.

The 'EB-20' is designed for Centuri ST-20 tubing.

The Estes PS II E2X kits use a slightly smaller body tube.

[Initiator001]

I flew my Estes PS II E2X Majestic model at the SCRA Section launch in Los Angeles today, Sunday.

Motor of choice was an Estes E16-6.

Good flight and recovery. :)

[Initiator001]

More pictures.

[Winston]

Nope.

The 'EB-20' is designed for Centuri ST-20 tubing.

The Estes PS II E2X kits use a slightly smaller body tube.Ah, I was thinking BT-20. I see that the Series 20 tubing on the Semroc site has a 2.0" ID, closer to the approx. 1.85" ID of the Majestic's tubing than the BT-70 ID.

[snaquin]

The Majestic I have here made from a kit weighs more then what's stated on the box. Attached is my RockSim file for it. I get quite different results that the Open Rocket file posted. I used the RockSim Calculation Method instead of the Barrowmen, since I was told it was more accurate.

I did not include launch lugs on this design but I can't see that making much difference. I choose materials for each component to represent as close as possible the actual weights of the parts.

With engine unloaded and loaded the CG is right where it is stated on the RockSim file. The Mass of my rocket is correct as well.

Can someone explain why we have such different results.

By the way the copy of Open Rocket I have on my machine would not open the Open Rocket file posted in this thread.


John Boren

John,

Mary at Estes had attempted to return a call me last Friday afternoon but her phone call rolled straight to voice mail without ringing the phone. I was able to return the call to her today and had a pleasant conversation with Mary explaining to her same as I did here what I had experienced with my first flight.

She inquired about launch conditions, equipment used, and my rocketry experience as well as the kit build. She did specifically ask about any nozzle erosion and I explained that the engine in question did have more erosion than the other four F15's that I had fired that day. She asked me to photograph and email that to her and asked if I wanted a replacement kit and engine.

I agreed to a replacement engine as I explained to her the repairs to the fins were accomplished with BSI plastic cure ca and some binder clamps to hold secure until cured with regular ca applied inside to stiffen the inside of the cardboard airframe where it was damaged.

I felt the offer of a replacement engine was a fair resolve and Mary truly cared about solving the issue and assuring customer satisfaction. I really enjoyed chatting with her. I didn't think it was fair to take a replacement kit since the model has been repaired, looks good cosmetically and will fly again soon at our next scheduled launch on Nov. 9th.

The photos I that emailed to her tonight are attached. I finally got home with enough daylight left to use the camera in close-up mode for a better image. I photographed above the driveway so the lighter background when viewed through the engine would show a little better detail than the prior images I had posted.

:)

[snaquin]

More pictures.

Awesome pics Bob!

.

[snaquin]

Just for comparison with every else's builds, here are my 2-stage Majestic stats:

Unloaded:
Majestic 236g (8.3oz)
Booster 136g (4.8oz)


Mine weighed in at 8.6oz less the engine so only 0.3oz more than yours. I tried to use the adhesives sparingly and the fit of the parts on these models is very precise so I felt there really was no reason to overdo it and add any extra weight.

My PSII booster is due here either tomorrow or Thursday!

:)

[Initiator001]

Mine weighed in at 8.6oz less the engine so only 0.3oz more than yours. I tried to use the adhesives sparingly and the fit of the parts on these models is very precise so I felt there really was no reason to overdo it and add any extra weight.



Uh...

My Majestic has an empty weight of 9.3 ounces. :o

[Initiator001]

Awesome pics Bob!

.

Thank you, Steve.

[Shreadvector]

What I see in the photos is simply two different amounts of "delay slag" build-up in the nozzles.

I cannot see the actual nozzle throat or exit cone as they are covered with the layer of slag.

The slag has absolutely nothing to do with performance during the thrust phase and cannot possibly create any thrust vectoring. It is simply deposited byt the delay buring. The delay produces a hot slag somewhat similar to what you see produced by a highway flare. Differeing amounts of slag deposit can be a result of many factors, including the speed of the rocket during the delay phase or if the rocket was already on the ground and laying sideways during all or part of the delay burn.

Hopefully the motors will be completely forensically studied, including careful removal of the slag to see if the "Strong Like Ox" clay nozzle still maintains the original dimensions and symmetry.

John,

Mary at Estes had attempted to return a call me last Friday afternoon but her phone call rolled straight to voice mail without ringing the phone. I was able to return the call to her today and had a pleasant conversation with Mary explaining to her same as I did here what I had experienced with my first flight.

She inquired about launch conditions, equipment used, and my rocketry experience as well as the kit build. She did specifically ask about any nozzle erosion and I explained that the engine in question did have more erosion than the other four F15's that I had fired that day. She asked me to photograph and email that to her and asked if I wanted a replacement kit and engine.

I agreed to a replacement engine as I explained to her the repairs to the fins were accomplished with BSI plastic cure ca and some binder clamps to hold secure until cured with regular ca applied inside to stiffen the inside of the cardboard airframe where it was damaged.

I felt the offer of a replacement engine was a fair resolve and Mary truly cared about solving the issue and assuring customer satisfaction. I really enjoyed chatting with her. I didn't think it was fair to take a replacement kit since the model has been repaired, looks good cosmetically and will fly again soon at our next scheduled launch on Nov. 9th.

The photos I that emailed to her tonight are attached. I finally got home with enough daylight left to use the camera in close-up mode for a better image. I photographed above the driveway so the lighter background when viewed through the engine would show a little better detail than the prior images I had posted.

:)

[Shreadvector]

Uh...

My Majestic has an empty weight of 9.3 ounces. :o

Did you add a baffle, Bob?

And I would imagine it would require an insanely underweight nose cone to affect the stability of this rocket.

Maybe it's time to get everyone to weigh their nose cones (prior to painting....) and post the data?

[Winston]

Mine weighed in at 8.6oz less the engine so only 0.3oz more than yours. I tried to use the adhesives sparingly and the fit of the parts on these models is very precise so I felt there really was no reason to overdo it and add any extra weight.

My PSII booster is due here either tomorrow or Thursday!

:)With your unstable flight, did the acceleration at launch seem too low? Instead of a problem with an offset thrust vector, a motor with a significantly lower than specified thrust could have resulted in a rocket coming off the rod at a velocity too low for aerodynamic stabilization.

I'm thinking that the minor, slow tail wags (coning) during the boost phase of my F15-0/E16-8 launch might have been due to aerodynamic effects from a slight mismatch in the alignment of the booster and sustainer fins. My next launch with the same motor combo will have the fins staggered to see if that was it.

[Winston]

Maybe it's time to get everyone to weigh their nose cones (prior to painting....) and post the data?Since I already have the shock cord and chute attached to the nose cone and those would affect the weight figure, I'll post my Majestic's CG with the orange motor spacer fully forward, chute and shock cord packed and probably forward of the point that G-forces will move them at launch - 22.36" from the nosecone tip. All-up rocket weight is 236g (8.3 oz).

[Initiator001]

Did you add a baffle, Bob?



Yes, my Majestic model has a Semroc EB-20 baffle.

All my PSII E2X models have this baffle system.
Saves money on wadding. ;)

[snaquin]

With your unstable flight, did the acceleration at launch seem too low? Instead of a problem with an offset thrust vector, a motor with a significantly lower than specified thrust could have resulted in a rocket coming off the rod at a velocity too low for aerodynamic stabilization.

I'm thinking that the minor, slow tail wags (coning) during the boost phase of my F15-0/E16-8 launch might have been due to aerodynamic effects from a slight mismatch in the alignment of the booster and sustainer fins. My next launch with the same motor combo will have the fins staggered to see if that was it.

My Majestic came off the rod faster than the Ascender pretty much as I had expected being lighter. Since I repaired it I do plan to fly it again staged at our next launch in a couple of weeks. I just received my PSII Booster on Tuesday so I'll put it together tomorrow to bring to the launch and first flight will be with my Majestic. I am looking forward to it.

The F15-6 from the unstable flight that I had reported was returned to Estes today.

.

[frognbuff]

Flew my Majestic today for the first time. Used and E15 and recorded an altitude of 856' on my Estes altimeter (launching in Colorado, at an elevation of 5,030'). Best part - there was so little wind, the model landed just 60' from the pad. Can you say "thankful?"