Intercptor E

[Mach1]

Well, for Christmas, I got myself a Semroc Sat1B and an Estes Interceptor E!! :D

The Interceptor E arrived today from AC Supply. I have to say the shipping was fast, but I'm a little disappointed. AC Supply rammed the kit in a box that was too small for it and crunched face card in the process. Luckily, the kit itself is undamaged but if I had planned on collecting it instead of building it, I'd be miffed! :mad:

I have not opened it yet, but it seems awful heavy just from picking up the bag. I noticed the thicker tubes, (which I like) but what makes them (Estes) think this thing can fly safely on a D12 - much less an E9??

My Estes Executioner flew great on E-16's and G-64's with no other mods except the 29MM tube. I stupidly tried it on a D12 once and it pranged hard. No more Executioner for me! I could see the same thing happening to this rocket.

For this rocket, I'm for sure going to swap out the 24MM tube for a 29 and fly it exclusively on AT motors. Am I way off base here? What's everyone else doing with their 1350 kits?

[tbzep]

I'm sure you know that Aerotech makes 24mm E's and F's both single use and reloadable. You could build it stock and fly it on them. I've always liked the E15-4W for rockets that were a little too much for a D12-3. I haven't seen the 1350's motor mount yet, so a stronger motor block might be needed, but otherwise it could be flown stock on these motors. The 24mm's should be a little cheaper, and a model that physically small will go out of sight on a 29mm full F.

[barone]

Well, for Christmas, I got myself a Semroc Sat1B and an Estes Interceptor E!! :D

The Interceptor E arrived today from AC Supply. I have to say the shipping was fast, but I'm a little disappointed. AC Supply rammed the kit in a box that was too small for it and crunched face card in the process. Luckily, the kit itself is undamaged but if I had planned on collecting it instead of building it, I'd be miffed! :mad:

I have not opened it yet, but it seems awful heavy just from picking up the bag. I noticed the thicker tubes, (which I like) but what makes them (Estes) think this thing can fly safely on a D12 - much less an E9??

My Estes Executioner flew great on E-16's and G-64's with no other mods except the 29MM tube. I stupidly tried it on a D12 once and it pranged hard. No more Executioner for me! I could see the same thing happening to this rocket.

For this rocket, I'm for sure going to swap out the 24MM tube for a 29 and fly it exclusively on AT motors. Am I way off base here? What's everyone else doing with their 1350 kits?
Joe,

We've actually got another thread somewhere discussing this very issue. Someone (Charlene?) said she flew it on an E with no problem (the E9-4 is the only recommended motor)

[Mach1]

I'm sure you know that Aerotech makes 24mm E's and F's both single use and reloadable. You could build it stock and fly it on them. I've always liked the E15-4W for rockets that were a little too much for a D12-3. I haven't seen the 1350's motor mount yet, so a stronger motor block might be needed, but otherwise it could be flown stock on these motors. The 24mm's should be a little cheaper, and a model that physically small will go out of sight on a 29mm full F.

The reason I'd switch it to 29MM is because I prefer to use the 29/40-120 hobby case. There are a lot of loads for that case, from E-16 on up. Loads for this case are fairly easy to get at our launches, and they are more cost effective then SU motors.

I suppose I'll have to check fit with the tail cone and make sure that the 29MM will work OK before I go ahead with it.

[barone]

The reason I'd switch it to 29MM is because I prefer to use the 29/40-120 hobby case. There are a lot of loads for that case, from E-16 on up. Loads for this case are fairly easy to get at our launches, and they are more cost effective then SU motors.

I suppose I'll have to check fit with the tail cone and make sure that the 29MM will work OK before I go ahead with it.
Joe,

The tail cone will work with 29mm but you'll have to enlarge the opening that slips over the motor tube.

[jay]

just got my 1350 in the mail today! the kit is absolutely beautiful! the parts look and feel very high-grade. i've been following the rocket doc's building thread on the 1350 and everyone seems to think that this ship won't fly on estes e motors, they all seem to be planning on going with 29mm composite motors. i'm a black powder motor kind of guy and totally inexperienced with high power composite motors..................so i've got an idea for a lightwieght airframe to replace the stock kit tubes. i'll start working on the prototype in a few hours and post pictures to see what you guys think. thank you estes for bringing back the fabulous interceptor........upscaled!!!

[Rocket Doctor]

Post your building results under the Interceptor thread in my column.

[Mach1]

Post your building results under the Interceptor thread in my column.

Thanks, Doc. I'll be sure to do that. I got an Interceptor E and a Semroc Sat1B for Christmas. I think I'll build the Sat1B first.

[Rocket Doctor]

Thanks Joe
We all will be looking forward to your photos.
Best wishes on your building projects and have a very happy Holiday.
RD

[RocketBoy 32]

As I was building my Interceptor E the other day I noticed that the fin
marking guide is off by 1/16 of an inch. If anyone gets this kit then
watch your tube markings. If you measure the distance from the
launch lug line to the sub fin lines you'll see what I mean.

I contacted Estes about it and they took my name and number.
6 minutes later I got a return call from the designer. I told him the
problem, he measured it and in the background I heard him say "Da**it
he's right!" So they offered to send me a corrected instruction book of
all things. I don't know how many are out there with the mismarked fin guide
as the rocket was just released a few weeks ago.

Eric S.

[RocketBoy 32]

Okay, I should've been a little more clear. Before you cut the fin marking guide from
the instructions, the sub fin on the left side of the guide should be drawn 1/16 to the right of where it is. So, away from the wing. The sub fin on the right side of the guide is the proper distance from the fin. That's what I was told on the phone anyway.

Eric S.

[Rocket Doctor]

Like they say, "Haste makes waste". I'm surprised that knowone else didn't pick this up. Mant times in the transistion between R&D and visual graphics things get changed. Plus the fact that the final instruction layout was changed as well, this is no excuse.

Many years ago I found a prolem on the old Star Wars , on a die cut panel, it was off by 1/16", and it did make a difference, as, the other parts didn't fit correctly.

[pantherjon]

Fin marking guide??? On the Interceptor E? I just looked at the BT for mine and they are slotted for TTW attachment of the fins..I am confused(but thats my normal state of mind!:p)...

[Rocket Doctor]

That's correct, the tubes are slotted. Maybe you have the older version of the 1250???

[Mach1]

Are we discussing the 1250 or 1350 kit? :confused:

[Rocket Doctor]

Were all confused here, is it the old 1250, new 1250 or the 1350???

Haven't heard any complaints over any of them so far?????

[Royatl]

on the 1350, the wing and top fins are slotted; for whatever reason, the sub fins are not, and a marking guide is included for those and the launch lugs.

[tbzep]

Post #10 shows that he's talking about the 1350 Interceptor E. :confused:

[barone]

Post #10 shows that he's talking about the 1350 Interceptor E. :confused:
And post number 11 says the subfins are the ones not located correctly on the marking guide. These fins don't have slots in the body tube.

[tbzep]

Problem solved.....Next! :D

[Mach1]

And post number 11 says the subfins are the ones not located correctly on the marking guide. These fins don't have slots in the body tube.

I guess if I had actually opened my 1350 and looked, I'd know that! :)

[Rocket Doctor]

Happy New Year to all.....

[Rocket Doctor]

on the 1350, the wing and top fins are slotted; for whatever reason, the sub fins are not, and a marking guide is included for those and the launch lugs.

That's why it has a $49.99 suggested retail price tag on it!!!

[Ltvscout]

That's why it has a $49.99 suggested retail price tag on it!!!
Or, you can go to Apogee and pay MORE than retail for it!?!

http://www.apogeerockets.com/Interceptor-E.asp?newsletter199

What the Fujitsu?

[Mach1]

Or, you can go to Apogee and pay MORE than retail for it!?!

http://www.apogeerockets.com/Interceptor-E.asp?newsletter199

What the Fujitsu?

Holy Highway robbery, Batman!

[tbzep]

Or, you can go to Apogee and pay MORE than retail for it!?!

http://www.apogeerockets.com/Interceptor-E.asp?newsletter199

What the Fujitsu?

I've noticed that Apogee really loves the products they sell, regardless of the manufacturer. Everything is retail or higher. :eek: