MPC Re-Issued Titan IIIc and Vostok

[Earl]

I recall a conversation about efforts to re-issue these two MPC kits from about 1970, but this is the first evidence of them I've seen on the open market.

Don't know if the re-issues offer static or flight build options like the originals, but if only static now, flight converting probably should not be too difficult.

A listing for each from an eBay supplier....


http://www.ebay.com/itm/MPC-Titan-Rocket-790-06-/201040415358?pt=Model_Kit_US&hash=item2ecef14a7e


http://www.ebay.com/itm/MPC-Vostok-Rocket-792-06-/400666910951?pt=Model_Kit_US&hash=item5d499be0e7


Price is $27 each.


Earl

[stefanj]

Fred posted a note that they were static models only.

This isn't surprising. They would have to find exact-fit parts -- liner tube, motor mount, etc. -- for the flying model rocket bits.

[hcmbanjo]

I'm building an original MPC Vostok right now, with all the flying parts.
A 9" long 20 mm tube slides into the central plastic halves.
The back end got a engine hook and a brown "liner" tube to bring down the inside diameter for a better engine fit.
There's a 16" found elastic shock cord glued to the outside of the 20mm tube with a Stine Shock Lock.
A large 20" mylar parachute that'll never fold small enough to fit in the main body.
The round lead weight is .16 oz.


I'm curious if the new re-issue includes the larger fins.
They were used on the flying version

[Shreadvector]

They never provided a POUND of lead weight for this model.

I'm building an original MPC Vostok right now, with all the flying parts.
central plastic halves.
The back end got a engine hook and a brown "liner" tube to bring down the inside diameter for a better engine fit.
There's a short shock cord glued to the outside of the 20mm tube.
A large 20" mylar parachute that'll never fold small enough to fit in the main body.
The round lead weight is 16 oz.


I'm curious if the new re-issue includes the larger fins.
They were used on the flying version

[hcmbanjo]

Decimal point placed - correction made.
The lead weight weighs .16 oz.

Thanks Fred, they didn't provide a pound of weight,
The finished model will be heavy though.

[Chas Russell]

I have one of each of the original kits in the attic. Robbed them of the t-20 tubes back in the day when we were flying the one ounce lead weight for payload. Fit the t-20, but too big for the Bt-20.

Chas
p.s. maybe I need to replace the tubes and "rebuild" the kit.

[the mole]

Just got my new MPC Vostok. On the instruction there is a note: Due to the vinage nature of this kit, some additional parts may not be utilized. What this means is the platic parts for making it a flying model is there. all paper parts are not. The large fins are there.

Here is a pic of what's in the kit.

[Shreadvector]

Add some standard Quest tubes and an Aerotech D10-3 motor and you will be flying. These kits were originally designed to use the never released MPC C9-3 motor. I suspect this was a B14 type motor with more propellant so it had a huge peak thrust followed by low sustaining thrust. Similar to the C5 or A10 motors, but a higher peak than the C5. They probably proved impossible to manufacture or maybe the finanacial problems had reared their head at that time.

[hcmbanjo]

Just got my new MPC Vostok. On the instruction there is a note: Due to the vinage nature of this kit, some additional parts may not be utilized. What this means is the platic parts for making it a flying model is there. all paper parts are not. The large fins are there.
Here is a pic of what's in the kit.

It's all there -
The large fins, both large and small "shock cord anchors" and the second less detailed nozzle plate.
The launch lugs are still molded into the upper transition and nozzle plate.

Needed for flight conversion -
9" long 20mm tube (BT-20 could work if built up at the top and bottom)
2 3/4" long "engine compartment" tube
Engine hook
Exterior shock cord mount
Shock Cord
Parachute (20" Mylar chute came with the kit)
.16 oz. nose weight

[the mole]

Here the instruction for the flying version.

http://www.oldrocketplans.com/mpc/mpc3-0700/mpc3-0700.pdf

[ghrocketman]

I might just have to pick up one of these 'flying brick' Titan IIIC's for flying on the Aerotech D10/13/21/24 engines.

[Brent]

Order placed through Hobbylinc for a Vostok and a Titan. They have them each listed twice, priced at 28.68 at 20% off and at 25.19 at 28% off. I used the add to cart for the 25.19 listing.

[mikeyd]

Thanks for the post on the parts, glad to see the Fins are included for the flight ready version. I wonder if the clear fins are still included on the Titan III version. Just orderd the vostok off of Ebay for 27.68 shipped.

[grog]

Tower Hobbies also has the kits for $26.99. Also, I used coupon code 01A13 when I ordered for free shipping. I am not sure how long that coupon is valid.

[the mole]

Here are the best deal I have found on the new MPC Vostok and Titan IIIc.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MPC-792-RUSSIAN-Vostok-Rocket-1-100-Model-Kit-Sputnik-1-satellite-payload-FS/371007031392?_trksid=p2045573.c100033.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.RVI%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20261%26meid%3D5042077471124876328%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D9059%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D390772333059

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MPC-Titan-Rocket-1-100-First-release-in-35-years-790-Model-Kit-FACTORY-SEALED/400667501428?_trksid=p2045573.c100033.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.RVI%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20261%26meid%3D5042155058809989829%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D9059%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D161167408468

[mikeyd]

Ok I got my Vostok out, and started gluing things together, so I could test fit the T20 tube. Found out the T20 needs to be about 8in long, this will still allow the motor mount tube to stick out about 1/4 in. But in looking at this, the top part of the main body tube is almost T25, or bt50 size, rather than use the T20 stuffer tube, I think I will line mine with a thin coat of epoxy to help protect and seal all seams of the plastic, and sand out the T20 stop with my dremel, so I can have more usable space for recovery equipment.

[hcmbanjo]

Ok I got my Vostok out, and started gluing things together, so I could test fit the T20 tube. Found out the T20 needs to be about 8in long, this will still allow the motor mount tube to stick out about 1/4 in. But in looking at this, the top part of the main body tube is almost T25, or bt50 size, rather than use the T20 stuffer tube, I think I will line mine with a thin coat of epoxy to help protect and seal all seams of the plastic, and sand out the T20 stop with my dremel, so I can have more usable space for recovery equipment.

Hi Mikeyd,

The original central tube was an MPC 20mm tube.
A slightly larger diameter and thicker walled than a Estes BT-20.
The attached picture shows the front and rear of the model build from the instructions in the original "Fly or Display" kit.
The interior 20mm tube is 9" long. Quest sells the 20mm tubes.
That tube sticks out the back (probably to get the engine flame and heat away from the boosters and nozzle plate) by 3/4".
The interior engine mount "shim" tube extends 1/4" beyond that.
That interior engine sleeve is slid and glued in so the fit of an engine won't be loose in the 20mm tube.
The whole thing, the tube in tube hangs out the back by 1" total. (That's just the tubes out the back, not including the engine hook)

The front of the tube butts up against the interior molded ring in the adapter shoulder with the lug attached. See the inset picture on the right.

You can certainly use a BT-20 tube but you might want to make some thin centering rings or something to widen the outside diameter for a better fit.

[mikeyd]

Hi Mikeyd,

The original central tube was an MPC 20mm tube.
A slightly larger diameter and thicker walled than a Estes BT-20.

Sorry you may not have understood, I did not say BT20, I said T20 the Quest 20mm tube, which fits in the rocket and buts up against the stop, as you say, and a bt20 slides inside of it.
I was wrong on the length looks like it is 9in not 8in

What I am suggesting is use just enough of the t20, and bt20, to mount the motor mount in the base of the model, then take my dremel and take out the stop at the top, smoothing out the inside, and coat the inside with a thin coat of epoxy, leaving the "almost" 24mm size at the top of the model as a larger area for parachutes. The pictures show a 24mm motor fits in the top, while the 2nd photo shows the body, to T20 to BT20 to 18mm motor.

[hcmbanjo]

Sorry you may not have understood, I did not say BT20, I said T20 the Quest 20mm tube, which fits in the rocket and buts up against the stop, as you say, and a bt20 slides inside of it.
I was wrong on the length looks like it is 9in not 8in

What I am suggesting is use just enough of the t20, and bt20, to mount the motor mount in the base of the model, then take my dremel and take out the stop at the top, smoothing out the inside, and coat the inside with a thin coat of epoxy, leaving the "almost" 24mm size at the top of the model as a larger area for parachutes. The pictures show a 24mm motor fits in the top, while the 2nd photo shows the body, to T20 to BT20 to 18mm motor.

Sorry about that, the only vendor I knew that called them T20s is BMS.
His T20 tubes are the same as the BT-20.
If you've got the Quest style 20mm tubes you'll get the best fit.

Your plan for more room for the parachute space is a good one. The MPC kit had a 20" thin Mylar chute. How they got that in that small area is beyond me!

[Shreadvector]

Plastic model unprotected by internal body tube will melt from ejection charge and delay afterburn (which looks like a highway flare flame coming out of the top of the motor after the ejection charge has fired).

[mikeyd]

Plastic model unprotected by internal body tube will melt from ejection charge and delay afterburn (which looks like a highway flare flame coming out of the top of the motor after the ejection charge has fired).

I Might be able to survive this, as I said I would paint the inside of the rocket body with epoxy, but I could also leave about 2 in of 20mm tube above the motor mount, and put a baffle in it, not a big one, but basically two, or even three, just over half moon heavy cardstock "plugs" just opposite each other about 1/4 in apart in the 20mm tube.

[Brent]

Looks like Quest is out of the 20mm tubes. Any other sources?

[mikeyd]

Brent, looks like Balsa Machining has it, as the T20Q-34 MPC/Quest T20. Make sure not to use their standard T20 as that is the Estes bt20, per their website.

How much do you need, I have one 24in length left, and could give you some of it.

On a side note, did you receive your Vostok, and Titan? If so, and you plan on opening them, I am curious if the Titan included the plastic parts for flight conversion as well, such as the clear plastic fins.

The other thing on my Vostok, as I plan to make it a flying model only, I will probably glue in the motor mount and base plate instead of allowing it to interchange with the static base. I am also contemplating painting it all green, with no white "frost". This would mean no need for the vostok space craft inside the nose, as I would end up painting the clear plastic as well.

[Brent]

I received them yesterday. I just opened the Titan. I don't see any clear fins just looking at the parts. It looks like there may be some molded launch lugs though. Are the original Titan instructions on the net anywhere? I am on night shift so it is time for bed for me LOL. I will take another look later.

[hcmbanjo]

I received them yesterday. I just opened the Titan. I don't see any clear fins just looking at the parts. It looks like there may be some molded launch lugs though. Are the original Titan instructions on the net anywhere? I am on night shift so it is time for bed for me LOL. I will take another look later.

Ninfinger has the plans:
http://www.ninfinger.org/models/kitplans/mpc9002.pdf
There are plenty of clear sheets at hobbylinc:
http://www.hobbylinc.com/cgi-bin/s8.cgi?str_s=clear+plastic+sheet&ss=1
I don't know what glues would work with each though.

If you can, post pictures of the build.

[hcmbanjo]

Brent, looks like Balsa Machining has it, as the T20Q-34 MPC/Quest T20. Make sure not to use their standard T20 as that is the Estes bt20, per their website.

The other thing on my Vostok, as I plan to make it a flying model only, I will probably glue in the motor mount and base plate instead of allowing it to interchange with the static base. I am also contemplating painting it all green, with no white "frost". This would mean no need for the vostok space craft inside the nose, as I would end up painting the clear plastic as well.

I was surprised Quest was out of the tubing.
BMS will set you up with tubes.

I glued the Vostok capsule pieces inside the nose halves - along with the lead weight.
(I'm building the original MPC kit, not the reissue)
The lead weight weighed in at .18 oz.
You should add the equivalent clay (or whatever you prefer) weight to the nose.
If you don't glue in all the detail pieces inside the two nose halves, you should add their weight in addition to the .18 oz.
I have a feeling this one needs the nose weight.

[Earl]

I was surprised Quest was out of the tubing.
BMS will set you up with tubes.

I glued the Vostok capsule pieces inside the nose halves - along with the lead weight.
(I'm building the original MPC kit, not the reissue)
The lead weight weighed in at .18 oz.
You should add the equivalent clay (or whatever you prefer) weight to the nose.
If you don't glue in all the detail pieces inside the two nose halves, you should add their weight in addition to the .18 oz.
I have a feeling this one needs the nose weight.

How do you think a C6 would do in this bird? I have a couple of the originals that I had intended on building at least one, but not sure how a standard C6-3 will fair with one of these. I don't recall off hand what the flight-ready weight would be.

Seems Fred mentioned that the never-issued MPC C9 was supposed to have been for these two plastic kits. I never knew anyone who had one of these kits back in the day or reports of flights on other motors.

Earl

[mikeyd]

Thanks for the post of the old Titan Instructions, I have been doing searches off of Google, but did not find them, I did find pitures of the plastic fins, off of one sold on Ebay.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vtg-MPC-Titan-Rocket-Model-Kit-1-1902-1-100-Original-Box-Decals-Instructions-/370961775517

[hcmbanjo]

How do you think a C6 would do in this bird? I have a couple of the originals that I had intended on building at least one, but not sure how a standard C6-3 will fair with one of these. I don't recall off hand what the flight-ready weight would be.

Seems Fred mentioned that the never-issued MPC C9 was supposed to have been for these two plastic kits. I never knew anyone who had one of these kits back in the day or reports of flights on other motors.

Earl

The old "fly or display" Vostok had two recommended MPC engines
The C6-4 and C9-3
MPC made a C6-4. I never saw a C9-3.
I would think an Estes C6-3 would be fine for a low altitude flight.
(Don't use a Quest C6-3 in this one . . .)
Jeff Lane did a review with flight results on RocketReviews.com:
http://www.rocketreviews.com/mpc-vostoksputnik-jeff-lane.html

[ghrocketman]

Find some old Estes C5-3's, or use Aerotech 18mm D10/13/21/24's in it. The ones I remember seeing trying to fly on C6-3's back 30 years ago were out-of-control turds due to lack of reasonable thrust-to-weight. They flew about like most other PMC's; randomly, often crashing. If all I could find is C6-3's, a Titan IIIC would be grounded.

[Earl]

The old "fly or display" Vostok had two recommended MPC engines
The C6-4 and C9-3
MPC made a C6-4. I never saw a C9-3.
I would think an Estes C6-3 would be fine for a low altitude flight.
(Don't use a Quest C6-3 in this one . . .)
Jeff Lane did a review with flight results on RocketReviews.com:
http://www.rocketreviews.com/mpc-vostoksputnik-jeff-lane.html

Thanks for the pointer on Jeff's review. He reports a 300 foot flight on the Vostock with a C6 which is a fair amount more than I would have thought.

GH alludes to the Titan IIIc in his comments....seems like it would weigh in even more maybe. I've got both of the original issue kits, but have always wondered how they would perform with 18mm C's.

Sounds like from what people are saying though, it's stuffing a decent recovery system in the tube and getting it out reliably that may be the real concern.

Earl

[the mole]

Hi Earl,

Would it be possible to post the fin patterns for the Titan IIIc . I have a feeling this one is going to be a hard one to get in the air.

Thanks.
Frank.

[Bill]

Would it be possible to post the fin patterns for the Titan IIIc . I have a feeling this one is going to be a hard one to get in the air.


In the meantime, here are the pictures, before they disappear, from the auction listing which include the fins:


Bill

[Earl]

Hi Earl,

Would it be possible to post the fin patterns for the Titan IIIc . I have a feeling this one is going to be a hard one to get in the air.

Thanks.
Frank.

Frank -

Give me a day or two to pull kits out and do some scans. I think I have one IIIc opened, but not sure.


Earl

[blackshire]

How do you think a C6 would do in this bird? I have a couple of the originals that I had intended on building at least one, but not sure how a standard C6-3 will fair with one of these. I don't recall off hand what the flight-ready weight would be.

Seems Fred mentioned that the never-issued MPC C9 was supposed to have been for these two plastic kits. I never knew anyone who had one of these kits back in the day or reports of flights on other motors.

EarlIf these were flown off a piston launcher (which is admittedly a somewhat finicky and tricky launcher to use), the extra boost might enable Estes (but probably not Quest) C6-3s to get them high enough for "non-cliff-hanger" recoveries, and the models' faster initial motion would help their stability.

[blackshire]

Thanks for the pointer on Jeff's review. He reports a 300 foot flight on the Vostock with a C6 which is a fair amount more than I would have thought.

GH alludes to the Titan IIIc in his comments....seems like it would weigh in even more maybe. I've got both of the original issue kits, but have always wondered how they would perform with 18mm C's.

Sounds like from what people are saying though, it's stuffing a decent recovery system in the tube and getting it out reliably that may be the real concern.

Earl"Stream-o-chutes" might be a solution to the limited parachute space problem. A stream-o-chute is essentially a ribbon parachute made with just two strips of fabric, sheet plastic, or mylar, which cross each other in the middle at a 90 degree angle. Two plastic, fabric, or mylar streamers can be used to make one. It can also be made from just one sheet of metallized mylar, with the corners between the "arms" being radiused in order to prevent the mylar from tearing at the 90 degree corners. The "arms" (to whose free ends the shroud lines are attached, one or two lines per "arm") can be made as long as is necessary, to produce the desired amount of drag.

[Earl]

Frank -

Give me a day or two to pull kits out and do some scans. I think I have one IIIc opened, but not sure.


Earl

Found the open IIIc kit.....fins were there still in sealed packet. Will try to post scans later tonight if possible.

Earl

[the mole]

This might be of some interest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3W7TXZfbig

[Earl]

Ok, here are the fin scans from a vintage Titan IIIc kit. I was able to pull the kit out last night, but could not get around to scanning until tonight.

The root edge of the top two fins (the two that look like 'standard' type fin designs) is right on two inches long.

Plastic is decently thick....not quite an 1/8th, but thicker than a 1/16th.....maybe 3/32 or so.


Earl

[the mole]

Thanks Earl,
That was the missing pieces to te puzzle.

Was the weight for the Titan IIIc the same as what was in the Vostok?
Thanks again.
Frank.

[Earl]

Thanks Earl,
That was the missing pieces to te puzzle.

Was the weight for the Titan IIIc the same as what was in the Vostok?
Thanks again.
Frank.

Frank -

On the IIIc weight, I'm not sure. There are no indications on the kit box or instructions as to finished weight, and I don't have a vintage MPC catalog to look back at. Looked at Ninfinger to see if they had an MPC catalog that featured the IIIc, but could not find one there either.

The instructions do state that the recommended (MPC) motor for this kit is the C6-4. Don't know how that compares to the Vostok, but it may be similar. I'd weigh the finished bird first though before trusting it to a present-day C6-3.

Maybe someone else here has a vintage MPC catalog that lists a finished weight for the IIIc and the Vostok.

Earl

[the mole]

Hi Eral,
The weight I was talking about is the round disk. In the instruction sheet it is on the first page . See attachment.

[hcmbanjo]

Hi Eral,
The weight I was talking about is the round disk. In the instruction sheet it is on the first page . See attachment.

The round disk is a lead weight, in the original Vostok kit it weighs .18 oz.
I can't guarantee but I would think the lead weight in the Titan IIIC kit was the same.

[Earl]

Hi Eral,
The weight I was talking about is the round disk. In the instruction sheet it is on the first page . See attachment.

Doh! Well, obviously I misread your question. Let me see if mine has it in the box and I'll weigh it on my little digital scale and let you know. This particular kit was open when I got it several years ago and I think it is complete, but not sure on the little weight.

Will try to let you know tonight....

Earl

[Earl]

Frank-

Ok. Pulled the parts back out and the weight was in one of the sealed parts bag.

The weight in the IIIc kit comes in at .18 ounce. Was 5/8 inch in diameter, a little more than a 16/th of an inch thick or so, with a small hole in the center.

Sound like the same weight?


Earl

[Earl]

The round disk is a lead weight, in the original Vostok kit it weighs .18 oz.
I can't guarantee but I would think the lead weight in the Titan IIIC kit was the same.

Well, didn't see your post there Chris! Good news is our weight measurements turned out to be exactly the same!

Earl

[the mole]

Thanks Earl,
I was thinking they would be the same, but with you haveing the orignal kit it was a good time to find out. I have all my question ansured. After I finish building my 1/100 Saturn 1B.
(useing the wraps I am making for it.) I will start on these two rockets.

Thanks again.
Frank.

[Earl]

Thanks Earl,
I was thinking they would be the same, but with you haveing the orignal kit it was a good time to find out. I have all my question ansured. After I finish building my 1/100 Saturn 1B.
(useing the wraps I am making for it.) I will start on these two rockets.

Thanks again.
Frank.

You're welcome. Sounds like that would make a fine trio of models!


Earl

[Brent]

I was looking at the plastic parts for the Titan and it looks like a 24mm tube will work for it.

[ghrocketman]

The Titan IIIC flies about as well as a manhole cover with a C6-3. Don't do it unless you like prangs.

[blackshire]

Well, didn't see your post there Chris! Good news is our weight measurements turned out to be exactly the same!

EarlI've just bought a Titan IIIC and a Vostok off eBay (the MPC re-issues) for a model rocketeer friend of mine in England. Do you know what lengths the T25 (25 mm body tube "sleeve tubes") were in the original kits? (I will warn him about the less-than-glowing reviews of both models' flight characteristics. I'll also recommend aluminized mylar 'chutes and--if there's room--gluing a layer of Nomex felt to the inside wall of the T25 "sleeve tube" to further reduce heat transfer to the plastic rocket bodies.) Many thanks in advance for your help!

[Earl]

I've just bought a Titan IIIC and a Vostok off eBay (the MPC re-issues) for a model rocketeer friend of mine in England. Do you know what lengths the T25 (25 mm body tube "sleeve tubes") were in the original kits? (I will warn him about the less-than-glowing reviews of both models' flight characteristics. I'll also recommend aluminized mylar 'chutes and--if there's room--gluing a layer of Nomex felt to the inside wall of the T25 "sleeve tube" to further reduce heat transfer to the plastic rocket bodies.) Many thanks in advance for your help!

Ok, the Vostok tube is 9 inches long. It is a smaller diameter tube than the Titan IIIc tube. The Titan IIIc tube is 7.5 inches long and is the 24-25mm tube diameter range.

The Vostok tube diameter size, looking over the instruction set, just does 'sleeve fit' over the motor tube (with engine clip). Not sure what actual diameter in MPC tube sizes that would make it, but you can see the tube in the instruction set for the Vostok (around page 4) at the link below.

Earl

http://plans.rocketshoppe.com/mpc/mpc3-0700/mpc3-0700.pdf

[blackshire]

Ok, the Vostok tube is 9 inches long. It is a smaller diameter tube than the Titan IIIc tube. The Titan IIIc tube is 7.5 inches long and is the 24-25mm tube diameter range.

The Vostok tube diameter size, looking over the instruction set, just does 'sleeve fit' over the motor tube (with engine clip). Not sure what actual diameter in MPC tube sizes that would make it, but you can see the tube in the instruction set for the Vostok (around page 4) at the link below.

Earl

http://plans.rocketshoppe.com/mpc/mpc3-0700/mpc3-0700.pdfThank you, Earl! That would be 9" of the MPC/AVI/Quest T20 (20 mm Outside Diameter) body tube in the Vostok, and a 7.5" length of T25 (25 mm O.D.) tubing in the Titan IIIC. A 2.75" length of BT-20 would be the Vostok's motor mount tube (which would "sleeve-fit" inside the T20 tubing), while a 2.75" length of BT-20 with centering rings for T25 tubing would constitute the Titan IIIC's motor mount, with both models also using a motor clip and a BT-20 thrust ring. (Quest doesn't have T25 available as "loose" tubing right now, but a Quest Astra [or some other 'E2X-like' 25 mm diameter Quest kit] could be "raided" to provide the 25 mm sleeve tube for an MPC Titan IIIC.) Also:

The T25 tubing might still have sufficient recovery system room after one layer of Nomex felt was glued to its inside walls. If not (which would almost certainly be the case in the Vostok's 20 mm sleeve tube), multiple small mylar parachutes (6" - 8" diameter) could be packed in a vertical "train" inside each model.

[ghrocketman]

If you fly the Vostok or Titan IIIC, I suggest an 18mm SU Aerotech D10 (or even D21 if you build the mount to take it) for flight reliability. A C6 just does not have enough 'kick'. The old C5-3 did though...

[Quixote]

I've just bought a Titan IIIC and a Vostok off eBay (the MPC re-issues) for a model rocketeer friend of mine in England. Do you know what lengths the T25 (25 mm body tube "sleeve tubes") were in the original kits? (I will warn him about the less-than-glowing reviews of both models' flight characteristics. I'll also recommend aluminized mylar 'chutes and--if there's room--gluing a layer of Nomex felt to the inside wall of the T25 "sleeve tube" to further reduce heat transfer to the plastic rocket bodies.) Many thanks in advance for your help!

Jason,

I was rooting around in my garage and found my old , original 1971 issue Titan, all the plastic parts are there but no tube or model rocket conversion components, now that the T25 tube has been identified, what would you think of some of the BMS Foil lined BT52MF for use?

I also agree with the comments about use of the Aerotech D10, maybe even the D24 RMS. Also picked up a Vostok, and will convert for the D10 as well, my original flight model was destroyed back in 1974 being underpowered with a C6-3.

Garth Illerbrun
CAR S04 L3
NAR 26894 L2

[ghrocketman]

The C6-3 isn't even marginal in no wind in those heavy things with a LONG rod, let alone with ANY wind.
The old 18mm Cox D8-3 or Estes/Centuri C5-3 worked decently.

The last time I saw a MPC Titan IIIC TRY to 'fly' on a C6-3 was in the late 70's or early 80's.
It was a major POWR-PRANG that featured 'trash bag-'n-broom' recovery...looked like a typical/nominal PMC flight.

[blackshire]

Jason,

I was rooting around in my garage and found my old , original 1971 issue Titan, all the plastic parts are there but no tube or model rocket conversion components, now that the T25 tube has been identified, what would you think of some of the BMS Foil lined BT52MF for use?

I also agree with the comments about use of the Aerotech D10, maybe even the D24 RMS. Also picked up a Vostok, and will convert for the D10 as well, my original flight model was destroyed back in 1974 being underpowered with a C6-3.

Garth Illerbrun
CAR S04 L3
NAR 26894 L2Garth, I too agree with the 18 mm composite "D" motor recommendations for these heavy MPC plastic scale rockets. Also:

Never having even seen--let alone used--BT52MF, I just don't know. While foil does reflect heat, if the source of heat is "persistent" (a hot motor case, possibly with forward-ejecting, 'after-burning' remnants of delay charge during the parachute descent [as Fred Shecter mentioned in connection with using composite motors in plastic rockets such as these]), foil may not be enough to keep sufficient heat (sufficient heat to deform the plastic, that is) from 'soaking out' to the plastic rocket body. *But*:

A layer of Nomex felt lining the inside of the "sleeve tube" (or lining the plastic rocket body itself, with a slightly "cut-down-diameter" 'sleeve tube' inside that) should be enough to keep such heat from reaching the rocket's outer plastic shell, but even then, I'd test it first with, say, a cheap rocket whose outer body was made of Plastruct or Evergreen sheet styrene plastic, wrapped tightly around the kraft paper body tube (or around the Nomex felt on the outside of the body tube, depending on the chosen arrangement).

[Quixote]

Garth, I too agree with the 18 mm composite "D" motor recommendations for these heavy MPC plastic scale rockets. Also:

Never having even seen--let alone used--BT52MF, I just don't know. While foil does reflect heat, if the source of heat is "persistent" (a hot motor case, possibly with forward-ejecting, 'after-burning' remnants of delay charge during the parachute descent [as Fred Shecter mentioned in connection with using composite motors in plastic rockets such as these]), foil may not be enough to keep sufficient heat (sufficient heat to deform the plastic, that is) from 'soaking out' to the plastic rocket body. *But*:

A layer of Nomex felt lining the inside of the "sleeve tube" (or lining the plastic rocket body itself, with a slightly "cut-down-diameter" 'sleeve tube' inside that) should be enough to keep such heat from reaching the rocket's outer plastic shell, but even then, I'd test it first with, say, a cheap rocket whose outer body was made of Plastruct or Evergreen sheet styrene plastic, wrapped tightly around the kraft paper body tube (or around the Nomex felt on the outside of the body tube, depending on the chosen arrangement).

Jason,

My mistake, should have been BMS BT50HMF, the BT52 is 29mm motor tubing. Where would one find Nomex Felt or paper?? I believe that the metal foil BT50Heavy would work well in the Titan as the D10, or D21 are 18mm and require a standard centering ring motor mount. The big issue would be for the Vostok where the MPC/Quest T20 tubing had a T19 motor mount, perhaps a centered BT 20 in the Quest T 20 which will have a small air gap would suffice.

It's going to be fun to get these two plastic classics built and flying, oh to have had the Enerjet D21 back then :D

Garth

[mwtoelle]

I would sleeve the T-20 in the Vostock with a BT-20. For the T-25 in the Titan IIIC try two or three of the Quest stage couplers for tube protection. The T-25 couplers are 2" long. This should work unless you are thinking going with 24mm motors. :eek:

[Quixote]

I would sleeve the T-20 in the Vostock with a BT-20. For the T-25 in the Titan IIIC try two or three of the Quest stage couplers for tube protection. The T-25 couplers are 2" long. This should work unless you are thinking going with 24mm motors. :eek:

WOW another interesting solution, I have tons of JT50 Fish Paper stage couplers, could run them immediately ahead of a 24mm motor, sort of as a thrust ring! An Aerotech E28, or F39 would be spectacular , need to add some nose weight for sure. Have to cut some tubes and do some dry fits. Thanks for the ideas.

[blackshire]

Jason,

My mistake, should have been BMS BT50HMF, the BT52 is 29mm motor tubing. Where would one find Nomex Felt or paper?? I believe that the metal foil BT50Heavy would work well in the Titan as the D10, or D21 are 18mm and require a standard centering ring motor mount. The big issue would be for the Vostok where the MPC/Quest T20 tubing had a T19 motor mount, perhaps a centered BT 20 in the Quest T 20 which will have a small air gap would suffice.

It's going to be fun to get these two plastic classics built and flying, oh to have had the Enerjet D21 back then :D

GarthPratt Hobbies carries Nomex felt "permanent wadding"; it's tied to the shock cord. Mike Toelle's suggestion of using stage couplers (or BT-20 sleeved inside the T20 tube, in the Vostok) may work even better. The problem is most likely one of heat transfer; even if the sleeve tube is protected from being singed by BT-20 (or stage couplers) glued inside it, it might still allow enough heat to soak through to the outside to deform the plastic rocket body. Nomex (which was used for the strain isolation pad between the Space Shuttle's tiles and the orbiter's aluminum skin) has a low rate of heat transfer. Hmmm...this particular scale model problem (which could affect most if not all PMC [Plastic Model Conversion] scale model rockets) might make a good R & D contest entry for a NARAM...

[blackshire]

I would sleeve the T-20 in the Vostock with a BT-20. For the T-25 in the Titan IIIC try two or three of the Quest stage couplers for tube protection. The T-25 couplers are 2" long. This should work unless you are thinking going with 24mm motors. :eek:This whole matter got me ruminating...for nice-looking, detailed, but *heavy* plastic scale model rockets like these (most PMC scale rockets are probably also heavy for their size), clockwork or electronic recovery system deployment timers might be preferable to using delay-equipped model rocket motors. Two such timers (to ensure having a back-up) could be set for appropriate delay times, and they could be activated by lanyards that would be pulled out at launch. The parachute could be spring-ejected (or deployed by a small amount of smokeless powder in a "squib tube," fired by a timer-actuated battery and circuit), and the model could use a delay charge-less booster motor. For a bit more total impulse, the motor mount could be vented to the rear so that the burn-through of the booster motor's propellant would provide an additional "spurt" of forward thrust.

[mwtoelle]

I can't claim credit for the stage coupler idea. I first read about it in the article about the All-American Alpha in the Mar/Apr issue of American Spacemodeling. Before the rocket was sent out to the first flyer, three couplers were glued in front of the motor mount to protect the finish and the body tube from the ejection charge of the 51 flights that it eventually made. The Quest tubes are all about 0.020" (0.5mm) thick and are bit more scorch resistant than the Estes tubes of similar size (BT-52, BT-51, BT-50, BT-20, and BT-5 (0.13" wall thickness)).

[blackshire]

Frank -

On the IIIc weight, I'm not sure. There are no indications on the kit box or instructions as to finished weight, and I don't have a vintage MPC catalog to look back at. Looked at Ninfinger to see if they had an MPC catalog that featured the IIIc, but could not find one there either.

The instructions do state that the recommended (MPC) motor for this kit is the C6-4. Don't know how that compares to the Vostok, but it may be similar. I'd weigh the finished bird first though before trusting it to a present-day C6-3.

Maybe someone else here has a vintage MPC catalog that lists a finished weight for the IIIc and the Vostok.

EarlJust to confirm (although I know that by "weight," the lead disc that came in the MPC Titan IIIC kit was what was being referred to), no model weights--either "without motor" or "all-up"--are given for the MPC Titan IIIC or Vostok models in the 1974 AVI catalog (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/74avi01.html ). Earlier catalogs, especially MPC ones, might include that information, but I don't know of any that are online (which doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't any, as I've come across all kinds of unexpected documentation online over the years).

[hcmbanjo]

The lead eight included in the MPC Vostok kit weighed .18 oz.
Two are provided in the original kit, one for the Sputnik nose assembly,
the other for the Vostok capsule. The nose ends were interchangeable so only one
lead weight was used for flight.
http://modelrocketbuilding.blogspot.com/2014/03/mpc-vostok-build-part-5-vostok-capsule.html

The finished weight of my (original) MPC Vostok was 4.27 oz. without engine,
too heavy for a C6-3.
http://modelrocketbuilding.blogspot.com/2014/04/mpc-vostok-finished.html

Picture attached by Roger Smith and his drone camera.

[blackshire]

The lead eight included in the MPC Vostok kit weighed .18 oz.
Two are provided in the original kit, one for the Sputnik nose assembly,
the other for the Vostok capsule. The nose ends were interchangeable so only one
lead weight was used for flight.
http://modelrocketbuilding.blogspot.com/2014/03/mpc-vostok-build-part-5-vostok-capsule.html

The finished weight of my (original) MPC Vostok was 4.27 oz. without engine,
too heavy for a C6-3.
http://modelrocketbuilding.blogspot.com/2014/04/mpc-vostok-finished.html

Picture attached by Roger Smith and his drone camera.I just thought of another possibility (for the Round 2 MPC Titan IIIC kit--more on this below), but first:

Thank you for posting this information! That was nice of MPC; they *could* have provided only one lead weight and said in the instructions, "Choose which nose cone--Vostok or Sputnik--that you will use on the flying model." I had wondered if the MPC lead weight was the same one that Estes used (at least in that general 'era,' although a quick check showed that they were the same in the 1969 and 1976 Estes catalogs), but Estes' was slightly smaller and lighter. Also:

In Reply #45, Earl posted that he too measured the MPC lead weight's mass as being 0.18 ounce, and he also noted that it was 5/8" in diameter. The Estes one was 11/16" in diameter and weighted 0.12 ounce (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/69est110.html ). I'm not being pedantic here; it's just that these MPC kits are--at best--so heavy and "close to the margins" to begin with (at least when powered by C6 motors; as you found, your 4.27 oz. MPC Vostok was *over* the limit) that even a small difference in GLOW (Gross Lift-Off Weight) could make the difference between a "cliff-hanger" but otherwise safe-recovery flight and a "broom 'n dust pan recovery" one, especially if there's any wind at all, but:

Both the Vostok and the Titan IIIC are available on eBay, so you could keep your original-production run MPC Vostok as a "pad queen" and, if you wish, build a Round 2-production one to fly. (I can't blame you for not wanting to fly that one, as you put a lot of meticulous work into it, as your blog pictures show!) I don't think they're ^bad^ flyable kits (although protecting the outer plastic body in the parachute stowage area from heat deformation requires good liner materials)--they just need more total impulse in order to fly well.
Quest's 18 mm Klima composite motors (which I've been told they're currently putting through NAR certification testing) and Aerotech's D10 and D21 motors should give both MPC models good flights, and:

The MPC Vostok in Roger Smith's photograph looks like it either "reverted to its R-7 Semyorka ICBM nature," or was trying to imitate the Proton-M that power-pranged on July 2, 2013 (see: www.youtube.com/results?search_query=proton+m+rocket+explosion ); I hope that Vostok model's flight ended better than his drone camera's picture suggests... In addition (regarding the Titan IIIC kit):

Since the Titan IIIA (see: www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=Kv_-We3XJ9GMjwOmxr-oDw&q=Titan+IIIA&oq=Titan+IIIA&gs_l=psy-ab.13..0j0i22i30k1.1717.9303.0.14885.12.11.1.0.0.0.128.1188.4j7.11.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.12.1172...46j0i131k1j0i46k1j0i3k1j0i13k1.0.Mg_rR98pRVA ) was a Titan IIIC core vehicle *without* the two Stage 0 solid rocket motors (the Titan IIIA was a test vehicle for the Titan IIIC core; the again-transmitting LES 1 "ghost" satellite [see: www.google.com/search?ei=Ov_-WbX2DNDsjwOuib_ADw&q=les+1+satellite&oq=LES+1+sate&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l2.608771.614834.0.617039.10.10.0.0.0.0.254.1207.3j6j1.10.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.10.1207...0i131k1j0i67k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1.0.VMhtMpNRrwM ] was orbited by the third of the four Titan IIIAs, in 1965), a flying Titan IIIA model could be made from the MPC Titan IIIC kit. Now:

The main difference between the Titan IIIA and the Titan IIIC was the "A's" lack of the tapered "boat-tail" just above the two Stage 1 engines; like the Titan II ICBM and the Gemini-Titan II, the Titan IIIA's Stage 1 engines and their thrust structure was "hanging in the breeze." In the MPC kit, the core vehicle is 1.2" (30.48 mm) in diameter, which is large enough to accommodate two 13 mm (BT-5) motor mount tubes. As in the old BT-70 size Gemini-Titan II kit (see: http://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/estes/k-21.pdf ), the Titan IIIA's motor mount tubes could be angled slightly inward toward each other. I don't know what this model's weight would be, but I'm confident that two A10-3T motors would provide good performance; so might two 1/2A3-2T motors.

I hope this information will be helpful.

[jdbectec]

Quest will not be marketing the Klima motors. There were concerns with cost effectiveness and Klima's ability to meet USA demand. Instead Aerotech is developing a line of single use 18mm motors. I don't know if they will be able to be staged like the Klima motors. The Klima motors use some type of staging fuse.

[blackshire]

Quest will not be marketing the Klima motors. There were concerns with cost effectiveness and Klima's ability to meet USA demand. Instead Aerotech is developing a line of single use 18mm motors. I don't know if they will be able to be staged like the Klima motors. The Klima motors use some type of staging fuse.Thank you for clarifying that. The last news I'd read mentioned the Klima motors, and this week a friend of mine mentioned that Aerotech is now getting new composite motors certified, which I'd presumed were the Klima ones. It sounds like they might use the new low-cost SU motor production methods (which they developed for their bigger motors that they've shown in ads in Sport Rocketry) for 18 mm motors--it certainly sounds like an interesting development, as the MPC kits (and the Quest ones too, of course) would really "zing!" on composite motors.

[Astrosaint]

When I was in Germany in 2016, I had learn that Klima was having cash flow and delivery problems. It was difficult for them to deal with the issue for domestic production.

I would suspect that expansion to the US market would be a "bridge to far" for them.

[blackshire]

When I was in Germany in 2016, I had learn that Klima was having cash flow and delivery problems. It was difficult for them to deal with the issue for domestic production.

I would suspect that expansion to the US market would be a "bridge to far" for them.That's too bad, as they look like very good composite propellant motors, and their black powder motor-like cases (parallel-wound paper, with nozzles that appear to be ceramic, like those of black powder motors) may be considerably less expensive to produce and load than the plastic cases of other single-use composite motors. This is an instance where knowing a consulate or embassy employee with diplomatic pouch privileges (I know a British model rocketeer who availed himself of this to get Central and Eastern European competition rocket motors) is *very* helpful... :-)

[Astrosaint]

That's too bad, as they look like very good composite propellant motors, and their black powder motor-like cases (parallel-wound paper, with nozzles that appear to be ceramic, like those of black powder motors) may be considerably less expensive to produce and load than the plastic cases of other single-use composite motors. This is an instance where knowing a consulate or embassy employee with diplomatic pouch privileges (I know a British model rocketeer who availed himself of this to get Central and Eastern European competition rocket motors) is *very* helpful... :-)


Sadly, the diplomatic pouch and the airline captain's bag may be the big reason model rocket motor trade between nation-states never occurred commercially in the 1960s and 1970s. Both the PRC and the Argentina manufacture rocket motors but we in the US will never see those motors unless a US company like Quest imports them. This is not likely to happen in today's trade and culture climate. :(

[blackshire]

Sadly, the diplomatic pouch and the airline captain's bag may be the big reason model rocket motor trade between nation-states never occurred commercially in the 1960s and 1970s. Both the PRC and the Argentina manufacture rocket motors but we in the US will never see those motors unless a US company like Quest imports them. This is not likely to happen in today's trade and culture climate. :(I don't think that stopped it, because it doesn't occur often, and the "legally-illegally-smuggled" quantities of motors are so small. The few people who do this are almost invariably high-level FAI international space modeling contest flyers, and the motors they get (so that they can test their models' performance using them before traveling to the contest-hosting countries) are specialty contest motors which are often hand-made by "cottage industry" folks. Also:

Most of these motors would have little appeal to the majority of non-contest sport fliers (and even non-FAI level competition flyers) because of their frequently highly unusual thrust-time curve/delay time characteristics (plus their often-unusual casing dimensions), and their manufacturers would go broke if they set out to get the certifications and shipping permits (which wouldn't be worthwhile, due to the small customer base for most of these motors). In addition:

While mainland Chinese-made motors would be hard to get into the U.S. market, given their growing adversarial policies and actions (unless a model rocket company like Quest imports them, as they were doing), this problem might not apply--beyond the normal costs of getting certifications and import licensing set up--to Argentinian-made motors. (I even once had Brazilian-made 18 mm x 70 mm motors [to my surprise, two came factory-sealed in a Brazilian kit that I'd traded for with a U.S. kit, from a Brazilian model rocketeer whose article was published in the NAR's magazine in the 1990s], and their manufacturer may still be in business.) As well:

I would love to be able to buy model rocket kits, motors, and accessories made by other nations' companies, and there may be a way to get around the import barriers *legally*. Everything other than the rocket motors and igniters ("starters," if one so wills) is just paper, balsa, plastic, rubber, and wire--nothing that's any more flammable or otherwise dangerous (chemically or biologically) than the materials in countless other products that are shipped and sold around the world every day, and:

The rocket motors, I've read (it might have been Dr. Edward Jones [the Spadroon jet motor fellow] or Jerry who wrote this), can be legally imported into the U.S. far more easily as fireworks, under their different and more-lenient rules regime (they can even be shipped easily within the U.S., as I have personally experienced as a buyer). As well as rocket kits, the companies could offer motor-less "launch sets" with everything *except* motors, while the motors would be imported as fireworks. (The motors could be NAR Certified once here, or the CAR--which has reciprocity with the NAR regarding motor certification--could certify the motors [I'd be pleased as punch to use foreign-made motors with a maple leaf stamp on them!].)