New Falcon-9 model

[BEC]

On a lark I popped onto the SpaceX web site a little while ago to see if there was a new Falcon V1.1 kit....and it looks as if there is: http://shop.spacex.com/featured/falcon-9-and-dragon-flying-model-rocket-kit.html

Not a lot of detail on that page except from looking at the magnified view of the box. At 32 inches tall and D/E powered this appears to be a larger scale model than the prior Falcon-9/Dragon model.

I ordered a couple - one to stash and one to build. We'll see what it's like.....

[Royatl]

On a lark I popped onto the SpaceX web site a little while ago to see if there was a new Falcon V1.1 kit....and it looks as if there is: http://shop.spacex.com/featured/falcon-9-and-dragon-flying-model-rocket-kit.html

Not a lot of detail on that page except from looking at the magnified view of the box. At 32 inches tall and D/E powered this appears to be a larger scale model than the prior Falcon-9/Dragon model.

I ordered a couple - one to stash and one to build. We'll see what it's like.....

I ordered mine over a week ago. For some reason mine didn't get shipped and I had to complain, so they're "overnighting" it to me (overnight meaning Monday delivery). But others I've told about it ordered and have shipping confirmations in hand (or on computer, as it were).

[astronot]

Yes. I can't wait to get mine. Thanks for pointing me to it Roy. I ordered mine a couple of days ago. I should have mine by Tuesday. I really like the way the first kit flies. It's very much like a Big Bertha off the pad. I will be curious as to how this one flies as well. The first kit was very well made and easy to put together. I'll be expecting more of the same with this kit.

David

[jeffyjeep]

Thanks for posting this! I just ordered (2) also.

[BEC]

Got the "it's shipped" email from SpaceX today.....

[astronot]

I got mine in on Tuesday. It's ready for the launch pad on Wednesday. A very easy kit to build. I don't have a whole lot of faith in the way the engine mount is held into place, but we'll see. I hope it holds together for many launches but I have my doubts. Other than that, construction and materials are very solid.

David

[Shreadvector]

Is there a launch lug standoff?

What size rod is it sized for?

Do they recommend a rod length, or is the short default Estes rod length the unspoken minimum?

[astronot]

No specified rod length.

It flies on 24mm BP motors, D12-5 and E9-6 being the recommended motors.

3/16 rod and the launch lugs and stand offs are incorporated into the plastic transition and the engine mount and fin can at the bottom.

David

Is there a launch lug standoff?

What size rod is it sized for?

Do they recommend a rod length, or is the short default Estes rod length the unspoken minimum?

[Shreadvector]

No specified rod length.

It flies on 24mm BP motors, D12-5 and E9-6 being the recommended motors.

3/16 rod and the launch lugs and stand offs are incorporated into the plastic transition and the engine mount and fin can at the bottom.

David

If that plastic transition is part of the payload fairing, then that upper lug will leave the rod pretty fast.

Hopefully the low thrust and higher weight of the E9 do not present a problem. Looking forward to info on actual liftoff weight with an E9-6 loaded. Since they did not recommend a D12-3 and E9-4, i will (at this point in time) assume the weight is not too high and it will move up the rod pretty fast.

Maybe someone will bring one to our launch on June 21.......

[Bill]

I don't have a whole lot of faith in the way the engine mount is held into place, but we'll see. I hope it holds together for many launches but I have my doubts.


Does it appear easy to fix by builder redesign or does it essentially have to be that way to hold the fins in place?


Bill

[Bill]

It flies on 24mm BP motors, D12-5 and E9-6 being the recommended motors.


Disappointing that they do not recommend the E12-6.

E12 forgetitis is a fairly common ailment, even in Penrose.

I have flown two E12 motors so far - love, love, love them.


Bill

[astronot]

The centering ring is essential to keeping the fins in place. I guess using epoxy as glue for the fins, centering ring installation, and engine mount makes for a pretty solid assembly. The holes in the perimeter of the centering ring grab the top tabs of the fins internally.

The fins are pretty flexible, so I can only guess it's pretty resilient. I'm not sure how heat from the motors will affect the plastic and cardboard assembly over time.

A work around didn't really jump out at me while building it, but this was the first time I saw a fin can assembled in this manner. It was only after I finished assembling the kit that I began to have concerns. They may be unfounded. Time will tell.

I love the material the this kit is made from. Very solid parts.

David

Does it appear easy to fix by builder redesign or does it essentially have to be that way to hold the fins in place?


Bill

[astronot]

I know how you feel. I love that motor as well. Especially in my Estes 1/20th scale V-2 and my Estes Rubicon.

David

Disappointing that they do not recommend the E12-6.

E12 forgetitis is a fairly common ailment, even in Penrose.

I have flown two E12 motors so far - love, love, love them.


Bill

[mojo1986]

I get an 'Out of Stock' message.

[jeffyjeep]

I got mine in on Tuesday. It's ready for the launch pad on Wednesday. A very easy kit to build. I don't have a whole lot of faith in the way the engine mount is held into place, but we'll see. I hope it holds together for many launches but I have my doubts. Other than that, construction and materials are very solid.

David
My kit is on it's way. How is the pre-printed wrap on this kit? It was rather wrinkled and lumpy on the last Spacex kit.

I would much rather lay the wrap myself since I know I can get it perfect.

[astronot]

The wrap looked very good. I saw one small wrinkle but no show stopper. There are some reference marks on the wrap that need to be in the correct position that you will reference when building the kit. It's probably a good thing it's preinstalled for most builders.

David

[hcmbanjo]

I did get a later second run of the Space X Falcon 9 with the wrap installed.
The BT-60 body tube is very thick and rough.
All the body tube seams and tube roughness showed through the thin wrap.
The installed wrap was actually on crooked, the seam graphics and alignment marks we off by 1/16".

Here's the blog post on the Space X tubes:
http://modelrocketbuilding.blogspot.mx/2013/02/new-space-x-falcon-9-body-tube-wrap.html

There are some very well engineered features on the model -
the body wrap is not one of them.

[Royatl]

I had a first run Falcon 9 kit, and had no problem installing the wrap smoothly and straight. The tube on that run was a fairly standard white glassine covered tube.

By contrast, the tube on the new V1.1 kit is heavier and cheaper, just slightly better than mailing tube quality, judging simply from the roughness on the inside, and a manufacturing defect which shows as a "bunching" along one of the seams (not to mention the tube coupler, which appears to be made from the same material). The wraps are smooth enough, but is misaligned on my model just as hcmbanjo described. Enough to be noticable only on close inspection. (Additional comment after seeing hcmbanjo's blog post on the tubes: My kit was nowhere near that bad! The interesting thing is that, on my kit, the horizontal lines were all faded out at the seam, so you couldn't see the obvious misalignment. I wonder if this was a Just-In-Time fix mid-run?)

The payload fairing tube is a higher quality tube, though just a tad larger than the plastic parts were made for. Or possibly the plastic parts ended up smaller than the specs, since they are very loose (I'd estimate almost 1/2 millimeter off on the body side, and only a little tighter on the payload side)

Still, given that it's not supposed to have all the external details, it looks like a good model, and they at least attempted to model the landing legs (with foam stickers), though it looks like a last minute addition.

The engine mount construction doesn't bother me at all, considering it is done with epoxy, though I think the instructions should have advised roughening up the plastic surfaces where the epoxy is applied.

[jeffyjeep]

Yes. The first run of the F9 kit was far better than the second. I now recall that on the second run the BT was VERY thick. So thick in fact that I had to sand the inside of it a large amount to even get the PNC to fit tightly.

[BEC]

My kits came today as promised. I opened the one with the slightly dented box and found it very much as Royatl describes. The other one will get stashed along with the first-run Falcon 9 kit I have.

I went and grabbed my V1 flyer (from the second, thick tube/pre-applied wrap run) to compare. My guess at the beginning of the thread that the new one is a different scale was apparently incorrect. They appear to be the same diameter.

That whole rear shroud/motor mount assembly is very interesting. I think I'd use something slower-setting than 5 minute epoxy to build it....and am thinking of alternatives as well (my favorite plastic-to-paper adhesive is Pacer Formula 560). I'm also wondering how to actually get a payload in that big payload section rather than the parachute....but maybe I should just leave well enough alone and fly an AltimeterOne/Two or Estes Altimeter in there..

I'll weigh it later but it may well be just glorious on E9s (as well as E12s).

One other major difference - there's no pretense of removing the fins for display as with the first Falcon 9 models. A bit about not flying it without them is clearly a copy/paste from the first instructions.

Also there's just one larger 'chute. That's a good idea. I fly my V1 on only one 'chute. No way I'm going to chase that Dragon to the next county.

Again it's pretty clear that at least some parts are from the same supplier as used for modelrockets.us kits (chute, motor hook).

[Brent]

Was the tube that goes between the transition and the nose cone wrapped in the kit? Mine was not . No biggie though , just prime and paint.

[astronot]

Mine was not wrapped. I painted it gloss white.

Was the tube that goes between the transition and the nose cone wrapped in the kit? Mine was not . No biggie though , just prime and paint.

[Royatl]

Without recovery system, the rocket is 6 ounces.

The payload tube is just slightly larger than heavy walled BT-70. The nose cone and transition fit perfectly on a normal BT-70.

The plastic transition fits rather loosely in BT-60. The smaller shoulder is 1.58" diameter. The OD of the main body averages 1.71"


based on average --> optimistic Cd,

looks like it will do 700-1000' on E9-4

420-580 on D12-3

170-200 on C11-3

[Royatl]

Flew my new Falcon 9 yesterday on a D12-5.

Excellent flight, straight, no roll, ejection shortly before apogee. Did not use the kit-supplied chute due to one of the shroudline knots coming undone. Instead used an 18" Estes chute. Hit the wet Georgia clay slightly fast but no damage.

Our club "bans" Estes wadding in favor of club-supplied dog barf due to aesthetics, but I used one square over the cross brace and then poured a little dog barf over that.

[jeffyjeep]

Thanks for that post. I was wondering if there was enough room between the cross brace and the laundry for sufficient wadding. Now I know.