PDA

View Full Version : A ? for the Rocket Doctor


caheaton
10-10-2007, 02:14 PM
I remember reading (I think it was in this forum) about some of the kits you had in the pipeline at Estes that were cancelled. (I especially liked the shooting star). Have you ever considered taking those (or any of your other ideas) to Quest or a similar vendor to see if they were interested? (Or are the designs still considered Estes' property). Just curious....
Craig

Rocket Doctor
10-10-2007, 08:05 PM
I remember reading (I think it was in this forum) about some of the kits you had in the pipeline at Estes that were cancelled. (I especially liked the shooting star). Have you ever considered taking those (or any of your other ideas) to Quest or a similar vendor to see if they were interested? (Or are the designs still considered Estes' property). Just curious....
Craig



No, they are mine. I had my prototypes returned, half of which were damaged.
Right now, Estes has at least 12 - 15 of my prototypes in the "rocket graveyard" where prototypes are put for later consideration.

I have a lot more prototypes at home as well, that were shot down and returned.
I have launched several at the June and Sept GSSS launches here in NJ.

One potential designs were the Skunk familt that I called Lil Stinkers, I had a mini, standard and D powered version, they looked like skunks, even down to the tails.

Some might think, not more of this type of rocket like the Pop Fly, Porta Pot Shot and the others, but at the Sept launch, I had many great comments on my larger skunk.

I have all types of prototypes, if a compant wants tp produce my designs, get in touch with me, if they weren't already produced by Estes under an agreement between the two parties, they are mine.

Maybe sometime I will post some photos.

caheaton
10-11-2007, 10:40 AM
I would be interested in seeing the photos (as I'm sure other forum readers would be too :) ...I admit I'm not a huge fan of novelty rockets myself, but they have their place and there are a couple I do like. The Pop Fly seems like a good way to get my nephew involved with rockets and the Porta Pot Shot is on my list as a present for the office Christmas party.

The skunk rockets sound interesting...maybe you could tweak the design and make them into squirrels and then approac Don at Squirrel Works? The Shooting Star is the one I would really like to see fly...it looks like it would be an excellent night flyer.

Craig

Ltvscout
10-11-2007, 06:24 PM
Maybe sometime I will post some photos.
Ken,

Send them to either Leo or me and we'll get 'em online for you.

Rocket Doctor
11-01-2007, 12:43 PM
I will be taking photos of some of my designs, unfortunately, I still have about 13 in Colorado yet.

I would usually make two of each, one to keep and one to submit.

I have the original 36 D Squared ( Double D's and the Pencil Rocket)

I'll try to get atleast a couple posted soon.

The Shooting Star would be a great dusk/night flyer.

Rocket Doctor
11-03-2007, 06:11 PM
I have snet some photos to Scott to download on the forum, I will have to retake the photos of the Shooting Star though.
Keep watching here for some photos in the very near future.

Ltvscout
11-04-2007, 04:13 PM
Here is the first set of pics of the rockets Rocket Doctor designed.

Ltvscout
11-04-2007, 04:15 PM
Here is the second set of pics of the rockets Rocket Doctor designed.

Rocket Doctor
11-04-2007, 06:14 PM
Thanks Scott, I will have to post the names of the rockets........

Ltvscout
11-04-2007, 09:06 PM
Thanks Scott, I will have to post the names of the rockets........
Write up blurbs in email for each of those two posts with the pics. Send the blurbs to me and I'll insert them directly into those posts with the pics so things don't get confusing. ;)

Ltvscout
11-08-2007, 09:59 AM
Here's another Rocket Doctor design. This is what he says of this one:

"This is the original prototype for the 36 D Squared, quite different from the current version, check out the nose cone and fins. Also, my original name was "Double D's.""

jadebox
11-08-2007, 10:04 AM
http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7536

I hate to point out that this could have been an interesting companion to the 36D Squared. : :)

-- Roger

Doug Sams
11-08-2007, 11:05 AM
http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7536

I hate to point out that this could have been an interesting companion to the 36D Squared. : :) I know it's supposed to be a skunk, but I too thought it looked phallic the first time I saw it :)

Doug

Rocket Doctor
11-08-2007, 12:35 PM
Now, now, if you only knew the history of the Double D's, it's very interesting to say the lwast, and the name 36 D Squared wasn't mine........but, from a higher authority.

And YES, that was a skunk !!!!!!!

Ltvscout
11-08-2007, 12:36 PM
I know it's supposed to be a skunk, but I too thought it looked phallic the first time I saw it :)
So did Kurt. ;)

Rocket Doctor
11-08-2007, 03:37 PM
Do you remember the cluster bomb rocket, do you remember what the nose cone looks like?
I adapted a rocket and used some flesh color paint, you fill in the blanks

kurtschachner
11-08-2007, 07:50 PM
So did Kurt. ;)

Just thinking of you, buddy :eek:

Gus
11-09-2007, 02:08 AM
Rocket Doctor,

Would you give us the history of how the Double D's made it to production.

When did you submit it?

How did it morph into its production version?

What is the process by which a design gets chosen for production?

Were you involved along the way?



I'm also really curious about how the Skywriter came to be, and would love to see a photo of your prototype. (That was a brilliant design; simple, elegant, incredibly attractive to kids).

Rocket Doctor
11-09-2007, 05:00 AM
Gus
I will get my Skywriter prototype and take a photo and have it posted. I wanted to come out with a pencil rocket, as I called it, and I looked around for materials to make such a rocket.

There was a pencil rocket in a MRN many years ago, and, I was Accused of using that desing, but, they are clearly different.

I figured that the pencile (Skywriter) would be great for school children, so, I made up a prototype and submitted it. As soon as it was passed around to those who would make the decision, I was told immediately that it was going to be made into a kit.

Many thousands of Skywriters have been sold and it is very popular. I was to a launch at GSSS and a couple of kids had the Skywriter, I mentioned to them, that was my design. It nice to see your creation produced and being sold and flown.
Usually, I will come up with an idea,just give me a bunch of parts, and a rocket is created. I have created many prototypes, right now Estes has around 13 potential rockets in the "rocket graveyard" an area where prototypes are placed if they didn't make the cut. But, out of those, seveeral of those should have made it all the way through. I also have about 20 prototypes with me that were sent back. The photos is just a small example of the prototypes.

Some of my prototypes were damaged in shipping and need to be fixed. I have flown them with great success. And, as I had mentioned previously, four of my designs were supposed to have been produced this year.

I will "fill" you in on the history of the "Double D's" and how it's name was changed to 36 D Squared. One thing I can say now is, that Estes wanted a cluster rocket, they only had one from the X-Prize series (Thunderstar) and wanted more, than I was told that Estes was no longer interested in clustered rockets.

So, look for the photo of the Skywriter (pencil rocket) to be posted over the next couple of days

Eagle3
11-09-2007, 09:29 AM
So did Kurt. ;)

*raises hand*

To be honest, I've seen more blatant examples on the launch range. :rolleyes:

Rocket Doctor
11-10-2007, 12:01 PM
I have sent Scott a photo of the original prototypes for the Estes Skywriter.

Ltvscout
11-10-2007, 12:05 PM
Here is Ken's pencil rocket.

"This is a photo of two origninal prototypes for the Estes Skywriter, the one on the left has the original nose cone design, the one on the right is the final nose cone.
I just called them the "pencil rocket.""

Gus
11-10-2007, 02:41 PM
Ken,

Very cool. Thanks for finding the picture.

I'm fascinated that the prototype has the same fins, foil wrap, eraser color, and 2 part yellow body tube of the eventual production model. Did you make the foil and eraser wraps yourself?

Any idea what considerations went into making the fin unit white instead of clear? A BT-50 clear fin unit would come in really handy for a number of scale projects.

I do have to admit that I really like the modified PC50-BB that they came up with for the nosecone. Any idea who did the graphics work and how they actually make it? A nosecone with pre-printed graphic is really unusual.

Rocket Doctor
11-10-2007, 04:02 PM
I searched around for "foil" material and found a company on the internet for someone, I asked for samples of different colors and materials. I choose the material that best suited the color of the eraser and gold furrel. It just so happens that Estes was able to recreate what I had found.

The reason why the fin unit isn't clear, and it was originally discussed, is that the engine mount, which is blue, could be seen through the clear fin unit distracting from the overall looks.

At first when it was discussed, I was all in favor of it, but, then, I realized that the engine mount would protrude through the center and it didn't look good.

I used a basic nose cone and tried to make it look like the end of a pencil, but, those in marketing and R&D came up with the pointed nose cone, which is molded to color, and then, it is colored in a second process.

I must admit, the nose cone as it is now looks much better than my original, but, I think it is much too pointed.

That is what prototypes are all about, you get a general idea for a rocket, the color, the name, and you pass the idea around, and everyone puts their 2 cents in, then the final design is approved.

Like I had mentioned previously, when they saw this for the first time, it got an immediate GO, and then the required steps were taken to put it into production.

It a hit with the kids in school and has gotten great reviews.

I will tell about the 36 D Square soon, it's interesting......

Rocket Doctor
11-10-2007, 04:06 PM
One more consideration regarding clear fin units, for the very same reason, the motor mount tube will go through the center of the fin unit, so, it would distract from any rocket that you would build, there is no getting around that.

If a fin unit made of clear material could be attatched to the outside, say, of a scale model, that would work as long as the engines are part of the rocket, protruding engines that shouldn't be there will distract from the overall decor of the kit.

Many considerations that you need to keep in mind while designing rockets.

Gus
11-10-2007, 06:17 PM
Ken,

Very interesting about the motor mount being visible through the clear fin unit. I never thought of that. You're absolutely right though, that it wouldn't look right.

Dave from Red Arrow once made the comment to be about the Skywriter that he'd had lots of requests for it in a school bulk pack, which he'd communicated to Estes, but they'd never made it available. I agree with him, seems like a natural.

The Skywriter Launchable was also a great idea. I can't believe they discontinued it.



I thought you'd appreciate the following Skywriter photos.

The first is five Skywriters included in the lineup I launch for Science Day at my daughter's school. It is always a big hit and I use it to demonstrate the classic "4FNC with a parachute" style of rocket.

Second picture is Vern at NARAM 49 signing the Skywriter my daughter built. :D

Final picture is of my daughter's E-Super Roc which she entered at NARAM 49. It was a minimum diameter BT-50 design. She chose a Skywriter cone for the nosecone and, inspired by your creation, painted the rest of the rocket to match. She chose to paint the ferrule green and turned the entire fin section into the pink eraser. I tried to convince her that since the event was Super Roc altitude she should leave it unpainted to save weight. She argued that the smoother finish would help. Apparently she was right. :p

Initiator001
11-10-2007, 09:03 PM
Second picture is Vern at NARAM 49 signing the Skywriter my daughter built. :D



Hey, Steve, what's the deal?

You have Vern signing a rocket he didn't even design. Yet, when the designer of the Initiator is present on the NARAM-49 field for seven days you can't find the time to have him sign THAT model. ;) :D

Bob

Gus
11-10-2007, 11:30 PM
Hey, Steve, what's the deal?

You have Vern signing a rocket he didn't even design. Yet, when the designer of the Initiator is present on the NARAM-49 field for seven days you can't find the time to have him sign THAT model. ;) :D

Bob
LOL,

Bob, I simply couldn't afford the "honararium" that Initiator guy requested for his signature. ;)

Vern was free!

I've been really good about saving up, though, and maybe at NARAM 50 I'll finally get my Initiator signed, hopefully over a nice dinner (consider that an invitation).

As for having Vern sign something he didn't design, it was the only Estes rocket Emma had with her. If Ken is going to be at NARAM 50 we'll bring it back so he can sign it too. Emma saw the prototype picture and thought it was just too cool that that was "the real first original one before they made it into a kit."

When I explained that the Skywriter inventor was also the inventor of the Baby Bertha she built (and turned into one of Excelsior's "Love Bugs") she thought Ken must be a pretty great designer to have designed two of the rockets in her collection! I happen to agree. :)

Rocket Doctor
11-11-2007, 05:09 AM
Gus

They were really great photos and I wish your daughter all the luck in the world on her rocketry projects.

I had requested that Estes put both the Skywriter and Baby Beertha in bulk packs, both of these rockets have been used in many school settings, if you look at reviews of these two kits, they have high marks.

The Skywriter is a quick build for school setings and the Baby Bertha is the next step kit inwhich as you know, more building techniques are needed. Also the fact, that the Baby Bertha has been converted to many other rockets as well.

The Baby Bertha is in the top 5 selling rockets at Estes, and the Skywriter isn't that far behind.

I am planning on being at NARAM 50, and I would love to have the opportunity to meet you and your daughter and sign her rockets, bring the Baby Bertha and Skywriter.

Also still available are the Converter and 36 D Squared.

Best wishes,
Ken

tbzep
11-11-2007, 09:22 AM
The Baby Bertha is in the top 5 selling rockets at Estes, and the Skywriter isn't that far behind.


There is a really good reason for the Baby Bertha's success, outside of being a neat little rocket. PRICE. It's $5.50 or less online. You can't buy bulk packs of anything other than minimum diameter throw away Vikings and Gnomes for less than that. Bulk pack kits are overpriced for their intended purpose....to get kids into rocketry.

Rocket Doctor
11-11-2007, 10:33 AM
But just imagine if it ended up in a bulk pack, the price should even be lower, the biggest cost of the kit is the packaging, when you eliminate that, the price goes down.

Why the price of other bulk packs are so high is only a guess. When both the Baby Beertha and Skywriter came out, the prices were unheard of.

At least the kids had the opportunity to build a rocket for a resonable price.

In my opinion, the whole educational line of Estes could be revamped and changed a bit, I had made suggestions, but, nothing every came from that.

barone
11-11-2007, 12:16 PM
For being one of the best selling kits, I guess Estes wants to make more money. The price has gone up here...$6.49 to 7.99. Guess it's still cheap for what you get :D

tbzep
11-11-2007, 01:11 PM
Yes, it's still a bargain compared to other kits. Compare that $8 cost to an Alpha, which is smaller and should cost less, but it costs about $3 more. Now go look at the MSRP of all the BT-50 sized bulk pack kits and you will see that the MSRP of the nice fat Baby Bertha is still right in there with the cost of any of the BT-50 size bulk pack kits. Estes (and all other manufacturers) need to sell their bulk pack kits at or very near cost in order to make it possible to get more kids involved with rocketry. I can buy 12 individual Baby Bertha kits from AC Supply and be within a few bucks of the Alpha, which is the biggest balsa finned bulk pack kit available from Estes. If packaging is the big cost factor, the Baby Bertha really proves that bulk pack kits are way over priced.

Rocket Doctor
11-11-2007, 01:48 PM
The problem with putting the Baby Bertha and Skywriter in bulk packs is RESISTANCE from within.

I was told that another "hot kit" was being planned and was going to go into a bulk pack with a student manual, has it happened yet.......NO !!!

Even with the great reviews, and school and club leaders asking for both of these kits to be placed into bulk pack, they simply won't do it.

A lot of great ideas they won't do for whatever reason.
Maybe the fact that the Red Max and the two Interceptor are doing so well, maybe they will listen.

Hopefully, what was planned will eventually go out, only time will tell.
And like I mentioned previously, I was shocked at the retail price of both the Baby Bertha and the Skywriter, at least your getting your moneys worth with these two.

Rocket Doctor
11-11-2007, 01:51 PM
For being one of the best selling kits, I guess Estes wants to make more money. The price has gone up here...$6.49 to 7.99. Guess it's still cheap for what you get :D

Since the price of oil has gone up, I would assume that the price of plastic has gone up as well.

Also, it's hard to get balsa in China, or to even send it to China, probably another reason.

Let's face it, the prices automatically go up every year, just like anything else, but, still a great value though.

Initiator001
11-11-2007, 03:41 PM
Let's face it, the prices automatically go up every year, just like anything else, but, still a great value though.

You nailed it, RD.

In the 1970 Estes catalog, a Big Bertha kit listed for $3.00. Today, the 2007 Estes catalog lists the Big Bertha for $18.99.

As I recall, Estes has some sort of formula it uses each year to raise the price on products. I think it's like 7% a year.

In thirty years, a Baby Bertha may sell for $20. :eek:

As Lee Piester once told me, the biggest mistake he made while running Centuri was not raising the prices often enough. Consumers may not like it but it's often necessary for a company to stay in business.

Bob

Rocket Doctor
11-11-2007, 03:54 PM
I can remember going back 43 years ago, a buck went along way, you could buy a kit for 75 cents, and you could buy individual motors for 25 cents.

Just look at the price of motors now, does it really cost that much to make???

Unfortunately, inflation has got us all, but, with the price of production in China, I really don't think that a raise in the prices are needed. Remember, years ago, kits were made in Penrose, then it was moved to Mexico, and now China.

body tubes have to be sent to China from Ohio, and then sent back as a packaged kit, doesn't go figure, but, the quality of tubing in China basically stinks, too bad, if kits are going to be made in China, Eluclid couldn't have a manufacturing facility in China. On the other hand, lets just leave it alone, better quality control having tubes made here.

I guess there is too many middle men involved in the process, why should a 25 cent tube eventually cost $5 to purchase, and why does it cost $10 for a launch rod, when you can get piano wire for $2 ??

Basically it boils down to expenses, plant facility, manufacturing cost (motors), wages, insurance, holidays, shipping costs, packaging, phones, computers, lights and the list goes on and on.

barone
11-11-2007, 04:45 PM
I can remember going back 43 years ago, a buck went along way, you could buy a kit for 75 cents, and you could buy individual motors for 25 cents.

Just look at the price of motors now, does it really cost that much to make???

Unfortunately, inflation has got us all, but, with the price of production in China, I really don't think that a raise in the prices are needed. Remember, years ago, kits were made in Penrose, then it was moved to Mexico, and now China.

body tubes have to be sent to China from Ohio, and then sent back as a packaged kit, doesn't go figure, but, the quality of tubing in China basically stinks, too bad, if kits are going to be made in China, Eluclid couldn't have a manufacturing facility in China. On the other hand, lets just leave it alone, better quality control having tubes made here.

I guess there is too many middle men involved in the process, why should a 25 cent tube eventually cost $5 to purchase, and why does it cost $10 for a launch rod, when you can get piano wire for $2 ??

Basically it boils down to expenses, plant facility, manufacturing cost (motors), wages, insurance, holidays, shipping costs, packaging, phones, computers, lights and the list goes on and on.
Well.....everone needs to tack on to the cost.....for example...I work in construction. A contractor is building a road for us. He does everything except asphalt...which he subcontracts out. He charges us $53 a ton for the asphalt. Well, we have another contract with the asphalt contractor and we get the asphalt for $34 a ton. So, the General contractor has marked up the asphalt nearly $20 a ton (assuming he get's it for the same cost as we do). What's in his mark-up? How much more does it cost to track the asphalt and bill it? Two thirds the cost of the asphalt? That makes it all profit for them. Just like the governments tax on gas.....it doesn't cost them anything to produce and distribute but they make more of a profit on a gallon of gas than the gas companies do......and Hillary want's a windfall profit tax on them.....how about giving us some of the governments profits.....Oh sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a political statement. :rolleyes:

gpoehlein
11-11-2007, 05:21 PM
Let's face it, the prices automatically go up every year, just like anything else, but, still a great value though.

Well, Estes' prices haven't ALWAYS gone up every year - I have a catalog from 1973 which has a center pull-out section that proudly proclaims: "Attention Lower Prices"

And what I wouldn't give to have prices that cheap today. Some examples:

TK-1 Mosquito kit reduced from $.59 to $.49
K-25 Alpha reduced from $1.75 to $1.50
K-50 Interceptor reduced from $5.95 to $5.25
1/4A3-2T motors reduced from 4 for $1.20 to 4 for $99
A8-3 motors reduced from 3 for $1.20 to 3 for $1.00
"Mighty D Engines" (quote from catalog ;) ) 3 D12-3 motors reduced from $2.50 to $2.25

Of course, what I wouldn't give for a time warp for some of the motors in that catalog:
1/2A3-0T, A3-6T, 1/2A6-0, 1/2A6-4, A5-4, B14-5, and so on. <sigh> I love perusing the old catalogs! :rolleyes:

Greg

Rocket Doctor
11-11-2007, 06:27 PM
Those were the good old day weren't they.

And, I think that I have many of those motors that you mentioned.

How about the price of milk, bread, gas etc. If we could only turn back time, but, in the same breathe, wages would be much lower as well, you just can't win.

Phred
11-12-2007, 08:57 AM
Well, considering the dicounts on motors that are available from Wal-mart, Hobby Lobby, and Michael's, motors can be purchsed at just over a dollar per motor. I know that these are the most common motors, but hey, that is dirt cheap.

Ph

Rocket Doctor
11-12-2007, 10:55 AM
at my local WM, a package of motors cost $4.97 per three, that comes out to $1.67 per motor.

That's great if you can find the motors that you need, in the case of WM, expect to find A10-3T's, maybe, if your lucky, a package of A8-3's, absolutely NO B's, then, all the C's you want.

The price break down in the catalog for these motors are :

A10-3T $7.69 4 per = $1.92 per motor WM $4.97 = $1.24 savings $ .73 per

A8-3 $7.69 3 per = $2.56 per motor WM $4.97 = $1.66 savings $ .90 per

C6-3
C6-5
C6-7 $8.99 3 per = $3.00 per motor WM $4.97 = $1.66 savings$1.34 per motor

ghrocketman
11-12-2007, 12:28 PM
At Michael's with the 50% off coupon you can get the Blast off flight pack for $25.00+tax.
That works out to just over $1 per engine...when you throw in the extra igniters and wadding it is actually below $1/engine.
The only problem with the flight pak is that the amount of wadding included is only enough for about 8 flights on a BT55 or BT60 based rocket, which comprises about 75% of my low-power fleet.

dwmzmm
11-12-2007, 01:07 PM
Checked at two of our nearby Wal-Marts and found this: One has equal supply of A8-3's,
C6-3's, and C6-5's on the shelf, and only one Launchable (Gauchito). The other Wal-Mart
has a few A8-3's and C6-3's and two Launchables on the shelf (Star Dart/Sizzler Combo &
the Heatseeker). Both places also had A10-3T's.

Phred
11-12-2007, 01:50 PM
My local WMs are still stocking for the holidays. They have C6-5s and 7s. No starter kits, and a mere handfull of Launchables.

My local Michael's stores on the other hand, have a pretty good selection of engines, including BOFPs. TH 40% off coupon comes in handy here: $7.49 - 40% = $4.49. Divided by three this is is $1.50 per motor. Of course, the BOFP is about $1.00 per.

Ph

ghrocketman
11-12-2007, 02:20 PM
I always use the Michael's 50% coupons for BOFPs and whenever they have the 40% coupons I use those for D12-5's, D12-3's, and C11-3's.
The Michael's in my area also accept JoAnn Craft coupons, so I often pick up two BOFPs for $50 total.
I wish they carried D12-0's, D12-7's, E9-anythings, C6-0's, and B6-6's but they don't.
I usually buy my E9's, D12-0's and C6-0s at Hobby Lobby with their 40-50% off coupons.
Unfortunately I end up paying full retail at hobby shops for D12-7's and B6-6's as they are the only place I can find them.
It really ticks me off that I usually end up paying more for B6-6 engines than I do for D12-5's !
Now if someone would start making the B14's and C5's again I would not squawk about $7.50/pak.
I'd really like to see the old Cox 18mm "baby-D" BP D8-0 and D8-3 make a come back.

dwmzmm
11-12-2007, 11:09 PM
I always use the Michael's 50% coupons for BOFPs and whenever they have the 40% coupons I use those for D12-5's, D12-3's, and C11-3's.
The Michael's in my area also accept JoAnn Craft coupons, so I often pick up two BOFPs for $50 total.
I wish they carried D12-0's, D12-7's, E9-anythings, C6-0's, and B6-6's but they don't.
I usually buy my E9's, D12-0's and C6-0s at Hobby Lobby with their 40-50% off coupons.
Unfortunately I end up paying full retail at hobby shops for D12-7's and B6-6's as they are the only place I can find them.
It really ticks me off that I usually end up paying more for B6-6 engines than I do for D12-5's !
Now if someone would start making the B14's and C5's again I would not squawk about $7.50/pak.
I'd really like to see the old Cox 18mm "baby-D" BP D8-0 and D8-3 make a come back.


I did talk to the Estes representative at the Maker Faire last month in Austin about the
B14's and C5's. Was given a hint that something was in the works along that line, but I
won't believe it until I see it.....

Rocket Doctor
11-13-2007, 05:00 AM
Dave

I don't know who was hinting about motors, but, I had brought that subject up many times when the Estes Forum was running, all the requested motors was requested. I was told that "they" were going to bring back certain motors.

I requested that Estes package the B6-0's in three packs, now, they are available in educatoeer packs only.

I asked for the C5-3's to return as well. As far as the B14's go, I was told in an email from Barry that they would not produce the B14's because it required a secondary operation to drill the core into the motor, and, it was a dangerous operation, and that he would'nt subject his employees to a dangerous situation.

I was also suprises when it was noted that prototypes were being shown as well as new products were being discussed.

When I was doing the Forum, I wanted to reveal the new products, especially the Red Max, and was told flat out "NO", I said that it would be in the best interest of the company, but, go shot down.

If Estes has had a change of heart, it might be because they are listening more than six month after the demise of the Estes Forum.

I'm going to contact management at Estes to find out what is going on.

dwmzmm
11-13-2007, 05:35 AM
That's why it's difficult to be specific on a number of these matters; I use to be in restaurant
management (23 years) and had to be the same way when things were "going down" regarding new products, procedures, personnel changes, etc. Heck, I was caught by surprise, too, when we were involved in mergers/downsizings and I got the pink slip when I
least expected it.

I can say that I did see some prototypes of new stuff coming up that I was impressed with.
The rocket designed for night launches looks really cool, and some of the scale/sport scale
models that came up sounds really great. If these were suppose to have a lid on them, why
did they appear at a large function such as the Maker's Faire?!

Rocket Doctor
11-13-2007, 08:56 AM
Speaking about night flyers, my "Shhooting Star" rocket was supposed to be a day/night flyer, with the led "stars" in the rocket, two, it would give you the effect of "shooting stars" coming down. But, like I mentioned, when the Forum was taken down, so why my four designs.

And, like I mentioned previously, it is highly unusual for Estes to reveal anthing until the very last moment.

In the case of the Red Max, I wanted to reveal it on the Forum, but, was told NO, then, when the catalog came out, there it was with a couple other new kits that were not supposed to be included in the new 2007 catalog, when I brought that up I was told, "thats OK"? I was told NO, and all of a sudden it's OK ????

Was it John Boren from R&D that you spoke to?

dwmzmm
11-13-2007, 06:21 PM
I do have several pictures where that night flying rocket can be seen; look at the silvery
tall rocket in front of the Launchables Starter Set on the table (the blue colored packaging).
As I said, a few of these models were on open display, so apparently there's no real "secret"
that these models (prototypes) exist. Whether or not it'll be on the market, that remains
to be seen.....

The way this rocket works, you push a button somewhere on the rocket just before launch,
and the entire body tube simply lights up in multicolor, dazzling illumination that should be
easily visible for a long way....

CPMcGraw
11-13-2007, 07:45 PM
I do have several pictures where that night flying rocket can be seen; look at the silvery
tall rocket in front of the Launchables Starter Set on the table (the blue colored packaging).
As I said, a few of these models were on open display, so apparently there's no real "secret"
that these models (prototypes) exist. Whether or not it'll be on the market, that remains
to be seen.....

The way this rocket works, you push a button somewhere on the rocket just before launch,
and the entire body tube simply lights up in multicolor, dazzling illumination that should be
easily visible for a long way....

Dave,

Looking at these shots it gives me the impression they're pulling out all of their classic lineup from as far back as the 70's (at least; look at their USS Enterprise and Klingon Battlecruiser at the end of that table!). I can't imagine Estes putting together that elaborate a display, with rockets that haven't seen the light of a catalog page in 20+ years, and having to field all of the inevitable questions from Old Farts like us, without having some intention of releasing them at some point in the future.

With as much emphasis as Estes placed on RTF and ARF rockets over the last few years, nearly killing off what we would call "classic models", what possibly caused them to have this "change of heart" with obviously construction-mandatory kits? This is a complete (or nearly complete) turn-around in business philosophy for them. Especially if they're hinting at some of the motors we've been barking about coming back.

Side note -- on the news a few days ago I heard about a "casting call" from Paramount looking for folks willing to "shave their eyebrows" and become a member of the ST crew. Maybe a new movie or series is on the horizon? Maybe Estes has picked up the rights to these kits again?

Rocket Doctor
11-13-2007, 08:07 PM
Maybe the turn around was the direct result from the comments and suggestions from the Estes Forum.

It was discussed over and over again, with, resistance what the customers wanted. So, if these are the result of all those comments, then, the short lived Forum was worth it.

As far as the illuminated rocket goes, the only such rocket was one that was painted with "glow in the dark" paint.

I guess you can call it on the same line as my "shooting star" rocket, except, the "stars" would be seperate from the rocket.

Bring backs for motors are another issue, like I mentioned previously, the B14 was certainly not coming back.

Were any of these rockets Shrocks rockets?

Hopefully, Estes has listened, without the benefit of the Forum, but, I would have to say, that the Forum had some effect on their decisions.

As I stated many times over and over again "Good thing are on the horizon......just be patient".

Dave, how about an indepth report on what went on in Austin.

dwmzmm
11-13-2007, 08:46 PM
Rocket Doctor & all, I'll get something written up (along with a few pics) in a little while;
I'm just as busy as you guys are (work, children's homework, building models for our next
NAR Regional meet, and getting ready to host a Regional meet along with a sport/test
launch at our new launch site we've acquired recently at an 87 acre property -- will be flying
my Estes K-36 Saturn - V on it's first launch [build report can be found in the Projects section] as a five engine cluster).

One thing I can say about the lively discussions I had with the Estes folks at the Maker's
Faire is that I came away feeling very "fired up" about what should be in store in the near
future from Estes. Rocket Doctor, I personally don't think your efforts in the Estes Forum
will go in vain. I was not able to chat as much as I'd like to, as we had lots of work to do to
assist in the build/flights of the many Generic EX2 models that day. We could have used
about four more tables to handle the number of kids/adults waiting to construct their models. Things got so hectic that I couldn't even get a break before it was time for me and
my son to leave. Only to find out that I left my car's headlights on and my new battery was
stone dead!! After some anxious moments to find some help to get jump started, we got
my car up and running and headed straight home to Houston.....

Rocket Doctor
11-13-2007, 08:58 PM
WE will all be looking forward to your report on the event......Thanks Dave

Gus
11-13-2007, 11:05 PM
Bring backs for motors are another issue, like I mentioned previously, the B14 was certainly not coming back.

I don't know what Estes motor plans are, but I just started building a 1350 Interceptor and there is NO way this rocket was designed for Estes current motor lineup. The only recomended motor listed is an E9-4.

But this rocket has a thick walled body tube, thick walled motor tube, through the wall fins with reinforcements way beyond anything necessary for E-powered flights, and recommended adhesives of 5 and 15 minute epoxy. Anybody remember any other non-NCR Estes kits which require epoxy? None of that makes much sense if this was designed for an E9.

Rocket Doctor
11-14-2007, 05:38 AM
Gus

Maybe the reason for the thick body tube and beefed up engine mount is for "survival",another reason why they put fin siffeners on the fins.

As you know, this is a heavy rocket, and, inordeer for it to survive repeated launches, you need this beefed up airframe, just a guess.

There have been other larger Estes kits with beefed up engine mounts, quite different from the flimsy blue engine mount tubes in most othere kits.

Newer kits have a heavy, usually white, engien mount tube. The reason for the blue tube was for color coding parts, like the rings are green. And, the flimsy blue tubes aren't even glassine coated, which would have helped.

A lot of things that were a no, no during the Forum days, have changed???? Can't figure it all out yet, but, I'm going to check it out.

Getting back to the 1350, as you know, the fins and side pieces come in sections, these sections need support, not only with slots in the tube, but, with fin stiffeners as well.

I guess that the size of the kit dictates using epoxy, it was not originally called for, but, was added later.

Also, check the length of the shock cord, it's only 30 inches long, should be linger, at least 40 or more.

tbzep
11-14-2007, 07:27 AM
It doesn't need to be heavy. A standard body tube and motor mount are plenty strong for a model like that, even with Aerotech motors. I once again point to the FSI kits using standard tubes. They have handled hard kicking motors with ease for decades.

Yes, the 1350 probably does need TTW fins, and probably the bracing since thin balsa is used. That shouldn't add much weight because it's only a few square inches of balsa. The weak points of the rocket are the fin pods and the pitot tubes. If the pods are done like the 1250 re-release, they shouldn't come off, but could damage the fins if the rocket lands hard regardless of what body tube is used. Epoxy is overkill if used anywhere other than attaching the pods. My wood glue joints always hold. If anything breaks it's the balsa or paper tubing around the glue joints. IMHO, a very strong rocket could have been designed at about 2/3 the weight. That would put it well within safe flying limits of both the D12-3 and E9-4 and it still would be strong enough for Aerotech E15's. Even 24mm F's would work if the centering rings are more substantial than the classic stamped cardboard.

Rocket Doctor
11-14-2007, 10:10 AM
I don't know who designed the 1350, but, I only got involved in the insturctions and suggested changes be made to the shock cord.

When I built a prototype as part of the instruction process, I used carpenter's glue. The decision to use epoxy was made after I did the initial layout for the instructions. Also, the copy of the instruction that I saw in April was like a novel, way too long.

The former marketing manager, who is no longer there, was the one to have made the changes, he was basically an airplane guy, not a rocket guy.

On many of the instructions, I put my 2 cents in, sometimes my input was used, and sometimes it wasn't.

As everyone knows, the 1350 is a heavy rocket, and, I don't know of any plans to produce a high powered motors otherr than E's.

Like in the case of the two staged Renegade, I told them that the booster ws too heavy and I was concerned about it, just too many fins and pods, but, get over ruled on that one also. One can only suggest, there was a higher power that passed it along.

Anothere case is the Wacky Wiggler, the shock cord burned off, no wadding to protect it, I made suggestions, and nothing was done.

I can only hope that the end result for the 1350 is positive, especially for a kit of this size and price point.

tbzep
11-14-2007, 02:05 PM
I can only hope that the end result for the 1350 is positive, especially for a kit of this size and price point.

If I can find a standard wall tube with the same outside diameter, I will replace the heavy wall tube and the heavy motor mount. I'll lighten it any way I can in order to get it to boost well with a D12-3. I will use 3/16" balsa if it doesn't add too much weight. I used 1/4" balsa on my recent 2.6" dia. Red Max upscale and it flies great on a little C11-3 even with its solid balsa nosecone. I think I can make the 1350 strong and stable for a D12-3....anybody want to donate one for me to experiment on? :D

Rocket Doctor
11-14-2007, 02:55 PM
Are you looking for a donated body tube??

tbzep
11-14-2007, 05:40 PM
Are you looking for a donated body tube??

LOL! No, but a new 1350 would be nice. :D I was just joking about somebody donating it. (I'd need two anyway...I'd have to build one stock to see how much weight I lost with the modified version. ;) ) Whenever I do get around to ordering a 1350, I'll measure the exact diameter and see if there's a standard tube available to match the OD. If not, I might have to slit one and resize it.

Royatl
11-14-2007, 06:10 PM
I don't know what Estes motor plans are, but I just started building a 1350 Interceptor and there is NO way this rocket was designed for Estes current motor lineup. The only recomended motor listed is an E9-4.

But this rocket has a thick walled body tube, thick walled motor tube, through the wall fins with reinforcements way beyond anything necessary for E-powered flights, and recommended adhesives of 5 and 15 minute epoxy. Anybody remember any other non-NCR Estes kits which require epoxy? None of that makes much sense if this was designed for an E9.

The differentiation between 5 & 15 min epoxy aside, I don't see anything too odd about the 1350. I questioned the use of 1/8" balsa, but they did the same things for the Big Daddy, and it was originally designed for a D12 (though Matt may have had bigger motors in mind).

Phred
11-16-2007, 06:58 AM
I received a couple of Interceptor Es today. Here are my first impressions:

Like:

2" tube: good size for mid power, not too heavy, not as thin as the ST-20.
The balsa is thick enough.
Nice decals.
slotted tube.
24" nylon chute
Plastic "pods"
AWESOME nosecone.

Dislike:

I do not like the plastic centering rings. I am worried that an AP motor may cause them to melt/warp. The odd sized tube makes replacement a pain.

The fin strengtheners. I see no reason for them. A well built model should stay together, even with pieced fins.

I question the need for epoxy. I think it is overkill. I won't be using it.

The shock chord is WAY too short (as usualy for ESTES)

I am not happy about a two piece airframe, but I understand why it is needed for packaging.


So much for my whining! I do like the kit overall and will be building it, and probably buying a few more.


Rocket Doctor: Do you happen to know the actual internal dimensions of the 2" tube?
And yes, the instructions are 12 pages......

Phred

barone
11-16-2007, 07:14 AM
I received a couple of Interceptor Es today. Here are my first impressions:

Like:

2" tube: good size for mid power, not too heavy, not as thin as the ST-20.
The balsa is thick enough.
Nice decals.
slotted tube.
24" nylon chute
Plastic "pods"
AWESOME nosecone.

Dislike:

I do not like the plastic centering rings. I am worried that an AP motor may cause them to melt/warp. The odd sized tube makes replacement a pain.

The fin strengtheners. I see no reason for them. A well built model should stay together, even with pieced fins.

I question the need for epoxy. I think it is overkill. I won't be using it.

The shock chord is WAY too short (as usualy for ESTES)

I am not happy about a two piece airframe, but I understand why it is needed for packaging.


So much for my whining! I do like the kit overall and will be building it, and probably buying a few more.


Rocket Doctor: Do you happen to know the actual internal dimensions of the 2" tube?
And yes, the instructions are 12 pages......

Phred
Phred,

I saw the two piece airframe as a plus....I'm going to add bulkheads with holes to the coupler and use it as a baffle.....will also keep the parachute forward... :D

Phred
11-16-2007, 07:19 AM
Yeah, I thought about using it as a baffle as well.... but again, it is an odd sized tube, so the bulkheads would be a special order from BMS...

Phred

Rocket Doctor
11-16-2007, 07:22 AM
I will send to you the dimensions of the body tube later.

I brought up the subject of the shock cord from the get go, that black braided material is way too short, and, I was told, that they were going to use a rubber shock cord that would be longer, it should be atl least 42 inches long, not the 30 inches of the current one.

As I have mentioned before, I used yellow carpenter's glue, not epoxy, that was changed by the former marketing manager (no longer employed)

My original insturciotns utline were certainly not 12 pages long, it was made that way by the same person who put epoxy in the instructions.

The stiffeners, I think are needed, contray to your comments, the pieces actually weaken the fins.

With any plastic parts, heat is always the problem, just like the mini rockets, they melt.
Let's see what happens when the results come back from builders.

I have sent my concerns to Estes yesterday, not, only about the Intercepter, but, all issues that were brought up on the old Estes Forum.

tbzep
11-16-2007, 07:29 AM
I'm more interested in the outside diameter. Is it exactly the same as the series 20?

I'm making my list of modifications for the upcoming 1350 weight loss program.

2 series 20 tubes (maybe???)
1 bt-50 motor tube
2 non-plastic CR's
little or no epoxy
no braces (possible 3/16 balsa which would add a little weight)
still debating on dowel rods or plastic pitot tubes on rudders (more for classic look than weight)
more to come when I actually see the kit in person


Hmmm... I don't think this project is going to work if I don't hurry up and order a 1350. :rolleyes:

The original K-50/1250 had two different thicknesses of balsa. 1/8" for the main wings and dorsal fins, and 3/32? or something similarly thin for the twin rudders. Does the new 1350 use 1/8" stock for every part?

Phred
11-16-2007, 07:38 AM
No, The ST-20 ALMOST fits inside the ESTES 2" tube... not quite.

I have no problem with the thicker tube, but this model will be going on a diet to fly on E9s!

Ph

Rocket Doctor
11-16-2007, 10:09 AM
I'm more interested in the outside diameter. Is it exactly the same as the series 20?

I'm making my list of modifications for the upcoming 1350 weight loss program.

2 series 20 tubes (maybe???)
1 bt-50 motor tube
2 non-plastic CR's
little or no epoxy
no braces (possible 3/16 balsa which would add a little weight)
still debating on dowel rods or plastic pitot tubes on rudders (more for classic look than weight)
more to come when I actually see the kit in person


Hmmm... I don't think this project is going to work if I don't hurry up and order a 1350. :rolleyes:

The original K-50/1250 had two different thicknesses of balsa. 1/8" for the main wings and dorsal fins, and 3/32? or something similarly thin for the twin rudders. Does the new 1350 use 1/8" stock for every part?


All of the balsa is 1/8 "
the main body tube is a 0.030617 BODY TUBE HBT- 2000 PUNCHED 13.5 inches
The upper BODY TUBE is a 0.0,030615 HBT -2000 13.5 inches
The motor tube is 0.030 616 HBT - 1000 16.5 onches

The weight of my prototype, built with yello carpenter's glue came in at 10.6 ounces

I measured the main body tube the best that I could, the approximate dimensions are

ID 1,9525

OD 1.9985

wall thickness 0.046

The dimension on tubes cary vary from tube to tube and there is a tolerance factor involved.

As far as glueing the platic pods etc to the wing tips, I used a glue that is compatable to wood and plastic. Regular plastic cement should not be used for balsa/paper to plastic.

As suggested, the Titebond II glue is a good one.

The change was made to the instructions after the intial outline was made.

Rocket Doctor
11-16-2007, 10:16 AM
I forgot to add, the shock cord included is 30 inches long, the main body tube is 27 inches long, using the 1 1/2 rule for the shock cord length, the shock cord should be a minimum of 40.5 inches long, I would say, at least 45 inches long or longer.

For anyone building this kit, I would strongly suggest increasing the length of the shocok cord to prevent the dreaded "Estes dent" I can't see you beautiful rocket wrecked after off of your work because of a short shock cord.

Remember, a shock cord is not a sling shot, you don't want it to come flying back for any reason, Vern had mentioned to me, "It doesn't matter how long a shock cord is, as long as you can fit it into the body tube".

Good luck to everyone building the 1350, and please, report your building, painting and launching here.........photos and a report.

Royatl
11-16-2007, 01:33 PM
No, The ST-20 ALMOST fits inside the ESTES 2" tube... not quite.

I have no problem with the thicker tube, but this model will be going on a diet to fly on E9s!

Ph


You mean the other way around don't you? ST-20 should be just slightly larger than the hbt-2000.

Phred
11-16-2007, 02:01 PM
Sorry... yes.

Ugh TGIF!!

tbzep
11-16-2007, 04:16 PM
Rats. I was hoping an ST-20 would have the same OD because I already have some. :mad:

FSI's 2" tube was the same as the ST-20. Estes doesn't have anything close.

BMS has 34" lengths of ST-20 tube couplers. OD is 1.997". Things are looking lighter already. :D

tbzep
11-16-2007, 04:20 PM
Rats. Those couplers may be even thicker than the Estes heavy tube. Now I've started thinking about peeling the inside of the Estes tubes. :eek:

Rocket Doctor
11-16-2007, 04:37 PM
The measurements that I gave were from my tube on the prototype.

I will be getting the exact body tube dimensions soon, and will post them, there weren't any dimensions on the origianl bill of material.

The motor mount tube measurements are as follows

HBT - 1000
ID 0.950

OD 1.000

Wall thickness 0.025

Rocket Doctor
11-16-2007, 04:39 PM
Please post your comments on the new thread regarding the 1350 so we can keep all the info on one thread.
Thanks