Ye Olde Rocket Forum

SEL

05-10-2008, 11:00 PM

Hey, Sean!

I built my Orbit with an 8" lower tube and a 9" upper tube. My Nova has a 6" lower and an 8" upper. My Orbit is 22.5" tall, while my Nova is 18.25" tall. The Orbit's fins have a 1.5" rearward sweep, while the Nova's fins, of course, have no sweep.

Mark

Mark

Is the Orbit an actual kit or a clone? If it's a clone, did you get measurment s from a kit? If so, was it an older kit (MRK) or a newer kit (0000)? The reason I ask (other than being rather anal) is that my older Nova kit's tubes match the lengths you used, but my newer kit has a 6" lower tube and a 9" upper tube. Typical for FSI, I guess....

Thanks,

S.

Mark II

05-11-2008, 06:32 PM

Mark

Is the Orbit an actual kit or a clone? If it's a clone, did you get measurment s from a kit? If so, was it an older kit (MRK) or a newer kit (0000)? The reason I ask (other than being rather anal) is that my older Nova kit's tubes match the lengths you used, but my newer kit has a 6" lower tube and a 9" upper tube. Typical for FSI, I guess....

Thanks,

S.
This may be the reason why my Nova's tubes match yours :D :

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=19292&postcount=129

I also posted somewhere (can't find it now) a parts list for my Orbit clone, and, as I recall, no one saw a problem with my tube measurements. For the Nova and the Orbit, I made educated guesses about the tube lengths by looking at FSI catalogs from the same period to see what lengths of tubing they were selling in the components section. I then adjusted the lengths to get my overall rocket length to agree with FSI's stated length, and to insure that the lengths were in whole numbers. (I couldn't see any reason why FSI would design kits with fractional length tubes, unless they were needed for scale kits.) In the 1977 catalog (http://www.ninfinger.org/%7Esven/rockets/nostalgia/77fsi34.html), for instance, FSI lists HRT-808 (equivalent to ST-8F) at 8" long, and HRT-1009 (equivalent to ST-11) at 9" long. By the time of the 1990 catalog (http://www.ninfinger.org/%7Esven/rockets/catalogs/fsi90/90fsi26.html), though, they were just listing single lengths of their tubes - either 18" or 22", depending on the size.

FSI changed the length of the Orbit twice during the lifetime of the kit. In the 1970 catalog, the Orbit was listed as being 480mm (18.9") long. One year later, in 1971, it was listed as being 20" long. By the time of the 1977 catalog, FSI was trumpeting the fact that they had increased the Orbit's length to 22", which is the length it remained at until the company closed. The same is true of the Nova; it went from being 16.73" in the 1967 catalog, to 17.5" in the 1970 catalog, and finally to 18" in the 1971 catalog, and it remained at that length in all subsequent catalogs.

I would guess that FSI was more exacting in their kit component sizes in the early days and up to around 1990 or so, but then slipped with their QC in the last couple of years, after Lonnie Reese died and the company was just trying to hang on.

If anyone on this forum would authoritatively know the correct tube lengths for the FSI Orbit and Nova, it would be Don Fent ("barone"). Hello, Don, are you out there?

Mark

barone

05-11-2008, 09:27 PM

This may be the reason why my Nova's tubes match yours :D :

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=19292&postcount=129

I also posted somewhere (can't find it now) a parts list for my Orbit clone, and, as I recall, no one saw a problem with my tube measurements. For the Nova and the Orbit, I made educated guesses about the tube lengths by looking at FSI catalogs from the same period to see what lengths of tubing they were selling in the components section. I then adjusted the lengths to get my overall rocket length to agree with FSI's stated length, and to insure that the lengths were in whole numbers. (I couldn't see any reason why FSI would design kits with fractional length tubes, unless they were needed for scale kits.) In the 1977 catalog (http://www.ninfinger.org/%7Esven/rockets/nostalgia/77fsi34.html), for instance, FSI lists HRT-808 (equivalent to ST-8F) at 8" long, and HRT-1009 (equivalent to ST-11) at 9" long. By the time of the 1990 catalog (http://www.ninfinger.org/%7Esven/rockets/catalogs/fsi90/90fsi26.html), though, they were just listing single lengths of their tubes - either 18" or 22", depending on the size.

FSI changed the length of the Orbit twice during the lifetime of the kit. In the 1970 catalog, the Orbit was listed as being 480mm (18.9") long. One year later, in 1971, it was listed as being 20" long. By the time of the 1977 catalog, FSI was trumpeting the fact that they had increased the Orbit's length to 22", which is the length it remained at until the company closed. The same is true of the Nova; it went from being 16.73" in the 1967 catalog, to 17.5" in the 1970 catalog, and finally to 18" in the 1971 catalog, and it remained at that length in all subsequent catalogs.

I would guess that FSI was more exacting in their kit component sizes in the early days and up to around 1990 or so, but then slipped with their QC in the last couple of years, after Lonnie Reese died and the company was just trying to hang on.

If anyone on this forum would authoritatively know the correct tube lengths for the FSI Orbit and Nova, it would be Don Fent ("barone"). Hello, Don, are you out there?

Mark
FSI Orbit (1006) - Upper tube 4". Lower tube 9" Can't speak for the earlier MRK-6 Orbit.
Can't remember who got the Nova kits......

SEL

05-11-2008, 11:05 PM

FSI Orbit (1006) - Upper tube 4". Lower tube 9" Can't speak for the earlier MRK-6 Orbit.
Can't remember who got the Nova kits......

WOW!! That's a huge change from the older version. Looking at the 1970 catalogue (see attached) the only difference seems to be in the ~1.5" drop in the Orbit fins. I'm ignoring the 2mm difference in the stated length of the nose cones, as they should be identical (or at
least as identical as FSI could make them :rolleyes: ). If anyone has an older MRK kit to measure , I'd appreciate it. I'm going to go ahead and build the older Orbit using what I have.

Thanks Don and Mark.

S.

Mark II

05-12-2008, 03:10 AM

FSI Orbit (1006) - Upper tube 4". Lower tube 9" Can't speak for the earlier MRK-6 Orbit.
Can't remember who got the Nova kits......
Wow, Don. That upper tube length is significantly shorter than any version that I have seen.

Here is one take on the Orbit design:

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=6045&postcount=1

Here's another:

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=17265&postcount=63

Here is a post with links to some built Orbits. Steve says that there are two versions of the Orbit in those photos. I can only pick out one, but maybe someone else can point to the other:

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=6075&postcount=9

Last year I made a Rocksim file of my version of the Orbit. For some reason now I cannot locate the file, but I have attached the 3D image to this post.

Mark

barone

05-12-2008, 07:20 AM

Wow, Don. That upper tube length is significantly shorter than any version that I have seen.

Here is one take on the Orbit design:

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=6045&postcount=1

Here's another:

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=17265&postcount=63

Here is a post with links to some built Orbits. Steve says that there are two versions of the Orbit in those photos. I can only pick out one, but maybe someone else can point to the other:

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=6075&postcount=9

Last year I made a Rocksim file of my version of the Orbit. For some reason now I cannot locate the file, but I have attached the 3D image to this post.

Mark
Straight out of the bag measurements. But we all know that FSI had some quality control issues. Without the fins (BTs, nosecone and transition), the length is about 17". There isn't enough swept to the fins to get you to the stated 22" length.

ghrocketman

05-12-2008, 08:36 AM

SOME quality control issues at FSI ?????
Naaaaaahhhhhh......

I actually don't think they ever even heard of the CONCEPT of quality control at FSI, let alone paid any attention to it !

stefanj

05-12-2008, 02:07 PM

Fred Shecter once got a E5-6 which had a ejection charge cap that had part of the recipe for Harvey Wallbanger cake.

ghrocketman

05-12-2008, 02:14 PM

Sounds like typical FSI "whatever we have on hand will do" baloney.

An E5-6 ay ?
Dontcha mean a 3/4D5-6 ? :p

The FSI "barely a D" E5-x is the only supposed E that makes the Estes E9-x look like a hi-thrust E.

barone

05-12-2008, 05:37 PM

Chas Russell

05-12-2008, 06:41 PM

Mark II

05-12-2008, 07:39 PM

Yep...I think this was definately a quality control issue. The kit has three BTs. A 9" 1.13 (27mm), a 4" .903 (21mm) and a 9" 18mm. I think the 4" tube is suppose to be the motor mount (FSI had 21 and 27mm motors) and the 18 mm BT was suppose to be .903 BT. That would give an overall length of 18" for the BTs, plus 1" for the transition, plus 3" for the NC, plus 1 3/8" for the fin sweep. Overall length of 23 3/8" which is dead on for an FSI kit that is 22" long. ;) Of course, if you want to really believe the kit is 22" long, I would opt for the upper BT to be.....give me a sec to figure it out....9 minus 1 3/8 inches.......some one check my math.....7 5/8". :rolleyes:
Hmmm. I was almost ready to speculate that perhaps FSI had tweaked the Orbit's design yet again :eek: , but there is no documentation of that, and it doesn't make sense anyway. So... the lower (larger diameter) BT is an inch too long? Well then, the builder would just have to cut it to length. ;) Hey, it would not have been the first model rocket kit to feature that requirement, nor the last. :p Or maybe you just got the extended version of the Orbit (more length for the same price! :D ).

BTW, looking at the dimensions of the 1970 catalog (earliest version) Orbit, the upper tube of that version is 8" long, and after some calculating and guess-timating, I came up with a length of 6" for the lower tube. The version shown in the 1971 catalog would work out to be the stated 20" long if the lower tube was lengthened to 7" (2.67" nose cone + 8" upper tube + 1" transition + 7" lower tube + 1.33" fin sweep = 20.0"). :)

Well, anyway, does your version have a 1000 number or an MRK number? If you or anyone has or had any of the earlier (MRK) kits, was the quality better for them? From what I have heard about the events of the final 2 or 3 years of FSI, I am not surprised that the quality of the product was rather sketchy. What I am wondering is whether these kind of issues were always there, or whether they were a later development. I am going to take a wild guess here, but I suspect that the unbuilt kits that hit the market these days or that are in private collections mostly date from the final few years of the company, because they were picked up in closeouts or liquidations. And that maybe these kits have the poorest quality components, which is what everyone is reporting. But the company did design and produce some great rockets over the years (and that's why I am so fascinated with them), so it stands to reason that someone in the company, and probably many people in the company, actually knew what they were doing, at least at some point in their history.

(That doesn't apply to the motors, though. I hear that the motors always had problems, but perhaps it was not as well recognized back then that you just could not create motors with such large black powder slugs without seeing problems. I recall reading somewhere that the current Estes E9 motor has about as much black powder as you can pack into a mass-produced motor and have it be reasonably reliable. The FSI E and F motors contained much more BP than the Estes E9, which is why they had such a high failure rate.)

Mark

SEL

05-12-2008, 09:58 PM

BTW, looking at the dimensions of the 1970 catalog (earliest version) Orbit, the upper tube of that version is 8" long, and after some calculating and guess-timating, I came up with a length of 6" for the lower tube. The version shown in the 1971 catalog would work out to be the stated 20" long if the lower tube was lengthened to 7" (2.67" nose cone + 8" upper tube + 1" transition + 7" lower tube + 1.33" fin sweep = 20.0"). :)

Mark
That's what I came up with and that's what I'm going with. Whatever the actual kit measurments were from batch to batch, it seems like that's what FSI intended.

Besides, what's a 1/2 " or 3" here 'n there - it's only rockets ;)

S.

SEL

05-12-2008, 10:03 PM

Motor-wise, I always had good luck w/ FSI. Only 1 F100 cato, and I probably stuck the igniter too far up inside the core for that one. Lost my Viking III on a E5 that cruise-missiled off into the sunset, but other than those two they were a lot of fun.

S.

Hmmm. I was almost ready to speculate that perhaps FSI had tweaked the Orbit's design yet again :eek: , but there is no documentation of that, and it doesn't make sense anyway. So... the lower (larger diameter) BT is an inch too long? Well then, the builder would just have to cut it to length. ;) Hey, it would not have been the first model rocket kit to feature that requirement, nor the last. :p Or maybe you just got the extended version of the Orbit (more length for the same price! :D ).

BTW, looking at the dimensions of the 1970 catalog (earliest version) Orbit, the upper tube of that version is 8" long, and after some calculating and guess-timating, I came up with a length of 6" for the lower tube. The version shown in the 1971 catalog would work out to be the stated 20" long if the lower tube was lengthened to 7" (2.67" nose cone + 8" upper tube + 1" transition + 7" lower tube + 1.33" fin sweep = 20.0"). :)

Well, anyway, does your version have a 1000 number or an MRK number? If you or anyone has or had any of the earlier (MRK) kits, was the quality better for them? From what I have heard about the events of the final 2 or 3 years of FSI, I am not surprised that the quality of the product was rather sketchy. What I am wondering is whether these kind of issues were always there, or whether they were a later development. I am going to take a wild guess here, but I suspect that the unbuilt kits that hit the market these days or that are in private collections mostly date from the final few years of the company, because they were picked up in closeouts or liquidations. And that maybe these kits have the poorest quality components, which is what everyone is reporting. But the company did design and produce some great rockets over the years (and that's why I am so fascinated with them), so it stands to reason that someone in the company, and probably many people in the company, actually knew what they were doing, at least at some point in their history.

(That doesn't apply to the motors, though. I hear that the motors always had problems, but perhaps it was not as well recognized back then that you just could not create motors with such large black powder slugs without seeing problems. I recall reading somewhere that the current Estes E9 motor has about as much black powder as you can pack into a mass-produced motor and have it be reasonably reliable. The FSI E and F motors contained much more BP than the Estes E9, which is why they had such a high failure rate.)

Mark

Mark II

05-13-2008, 01:36 AM

That's what I came up with and that's what I'm going with. Whatever the actual kit measurments were from batch to batch, it seems like that's what FSI intended.
So, which one are you building - the '70 or the '71 version?

This discussion has inspired me to build either one or both of them myself, to go along with my '77+ version, now that we have figured out the dimensions. Once I have gone through building all 31 FSI models, I'll have all of the various design iterations to tackle. This could keep me busy for years! :D

Besides, what's a 1/2 " or 3" here 'n there - it's only rockets ;)

S.
That might be the "best," the funniest, the most frustrating, or perhaps even the coolest thing about FSI's kits (depending upon your sense of humor) - even if everyone buys the same kit, they each get a different model! :D :p :D

Mark

Mark II

05-13-2008, 01:54 AM

Motor-wise, I always had good luck w/ FSI. Only 1 F100 cato, and I probably stuck the igniter too far up inside the core for that one. Lost my Viking III on a E5 that cruise-missiled off into the sunset, but other than those two they were a lot of fun.

S.
Well, then maybe my impression that they were CATO-prone is not really accurate. I am rather sorry that I never got to use any of those motors. Perhaps someday someone will try to revive the concept of black powder E's and F's in both "load-lifter" and long-burn cruiser varieties. (We do have various AP motors with those characteristics now, though.)

Mark

Mark II

05-13-2008, 02:50 AM

I purchased two Nova kits from Don. One is the original kit packaging like the one I bought in the late '60s. Lower tube is 6" and the upper tube is 8". The "newer" style kit (which I will build after NARAM) also has a 6" lower tube, but a 9" upper tube. I still have the nose cone and adapter from my original Nova and three of the same FSI fins.
Sick Sigma of quality control <g>.

Chas
The vital statistics on your #1003 Nova match those of SEL's newer Nova, so maybe there actually was a legitimate design change? It's a little hard for me to read the kit description on the scans of the last few FSI catalogs on Ninfinger, but I thought that all of the catalogs from 1971 through 1993 gave the length of the Nova as 18". (In the clone I built, I tried to match the version shown in the 1971 catalog.)

And now, after looking at the pictures of the Nova from year to year in the catalogs, it does look to me like the version shown in the 1990 and later catalogs is indeed a little longer.

Mark

SEL

05-13-2008, 02:50 PM

So, which one are you building - the '70 or the '71 version?

I'll go w/ the '70 version.

This discussion has inspired me to build either one or both of them myself, to go along with my '77+ version, now that we have figured out the dimensions. Once I have gone through building all 31 FSI models, I'll have all of the various design iterations to tackle. This could keep me busy for years! :D

That might be the "best," the funniest, the most frustrating, or perhaps even the coolest thing about FSI's kits (depending upon your sense of humor) - even if everyone buys the same kit, they each get a different model! :D :p :D

Mark

Exactly! You just have to laugh. I think I may have posted this pic before, but taa close look at the "identical" nose cones on the side pods of the Excaliber :D :D

Mark II

05-13-2008, 05:52 PM

I'll go w/ the '70 version.
An excellent vintage, Monsieur. Would you care to inspect the cork? :D

Exactly! You just have to laugh. I think I may have posted this pic before, but taa close look at the "identical" nose cones on the side pods of the Excaliber :D :D
ROTFLMAO!!! :D :D :D

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=19293&postcount=130
http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=19294&postcount=131
http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=19306&postcount=132

Mark

stefanj

05-13-2008, 10:16 PM

SEL

05-13-2008, 11:22 PM

I think you have to differentiate between FSI in its prime and the later years -- particularly after 1990.

Varying measurements or not, the early stuff was just fine. The later stuff was pretty embarrassing.

I still miss FSI.

Pretty much my feeling as well. They were the company I always wanted to do really well, always had high expectations for, and always was a little let down when I opened the kits,
but I never gave up on them and after a while accepted them for what they were. It took a little more work to clean up the parts, but the end result was a distinct 'FSI' design.
Yeah, the motors weren't exactly the impulse they were advertised, but *damn* the E60's and F100's were a rush!! And the D20/D18 staged combo was a nice alternative to staged D12's. I think I'm going to cry..... :( :(

S.

SEL

05-13-2008, 11:30 PM

An excellent vintage, Monsieur. Would you care to inspect the cork? :D

ROTFLMAO!!! :D :D :D

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=19293&postcount=130
http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=19294&postcount=131
http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showpost.php?p=19306&postcount=132

Mark

Ahhhh, yes.... funny how these threads have a habit of popping up every year or so.
The good news is my Sprint has its final top coat of silver w/black trim . Just need to find some lettering for the "Sprint" name and maybe the #7 on the fins. Voyager and Nova
should get their coats of paint this weekend. I also have to build the Estes 'Death Star' with my grandaughter.

S.

Mark II

05-14-2008, 12:08 AM

Ahhhh, yes.... funny how these threads have a habit of popping up every year or so.
The good news is my Sprint has its final top coat of silver w/black trim . Just need to find some lettering for the "Sprint" name and maybe the #7 on the fins.

Phred can definitely help you there. http://towrowrow.tripod.com/excelsiorrocketry/id29.html

Voyager and Nova
should get their coats of paint this weekend.
I finally got started on painting mine this week, a year after I built them. Notice that I said that I got started on them (along with 7 others, and that's just the beginning); there's no telling when I will actually finish this round of painting.

I also have to build the Estes 'Death Star' with my grandaughter.

S.
Just one of your duties as a grandpa, you lucky dog! :) :D

Mark

Mark II

05-14-2008, 12:14 AM

Pretty much my feeling as well. They were the company I always wanted to do really well, always had high expectations for, and always was a little let down when I opened the kits,
but I never gave up on them and after a while accepted them for what they were. It took a little more work to clean up the parts, but the end result was a distinct 'FSI' design.
Yeah, the motors weren't exactly the impulse they were advertised, but *damn* the E60's and F100's were a rush!! And the D20/D18 staged combo was a nice alternative to staged D12's. I think I'm going to cry..... :( :(

S.
A great company that left this world before its time. (And worse than that, before I found out about them! :( )

Mark

barone

05-14-2008, 07:00 AM

Pretty much my feeling as well. They were the company I always wanted to do really well, always had high expectations for, and always was a little let down when I opened the kits,
but I never gave up on them and after a while accepted them for what they were. It took a little more work to clean up the parts, but the end result was a distinct 'FSI' design.
Yeah, the motors weren't exactly the impulse they were advertised, but *damn* the E60's and F100's were a rush!! And the D20/D18 staged combo was a nice alternative to staged D12's. I think I'm going to cry..... :( :(

S.
I loved flying the Dart using the F100 booster..........just awesome! Took a rrrrreeeeeaaaaallllllyyyyyyy long time to come down. Of course, it may have been the extra streamers I added for visibility :D

tbzep

05-14-2008, 07:14 AM

I loved flying the Dart using the F100 booster..........just awesome! Took a rrrrreeeeeaaaaallllllyyyyyyy long time to come down. Of course, it may have been the extra streamers I added for visibility :D

Kinda like your 100 foot chute on a Broadsword....on a windy day....on an F motor? :D

BTW, do bison patties squish between your toes like cow patties do? :p

snaquin

05-14-2008, 09:59 AM

I think you have to differentiate between FSI in its prime and the later years -- particularly after 1990.

Varying measurements or not, the early stuff was just fine. The later stuff was pretty embarrassing.

I still miss FSI.

Without a doubt the FSI kits I purchased in the 70's from the local hobby store were very good and I didn't experience any quality control issues. The earlier motors were not CATO prone either, I had no problems with them. FSI wasn't fast moving product at the hobby store here that sold them. I got some real old stock for some of my first kits, including my Orbit. I used to save all my instructions in those days and some of the first kits I bought there did not have the Colorado address scratched through with the newer Raytown, MO address written in like after Lonnie had the company so I know these were early kits. I sold off most of those instruction sets over the years and I could kick myself for not saving them since I took the time to dimension most of them so I could build later versions from parts .....

Pretty much my feeling as well. They were the company I always wanted to do really well, always had high expectations for, and always was a little let down when I opened the kits,
but I never gave up on them and after a while accepted them for what they were. It took a little more work to clean up the parts, but the end result was a distinct 'FSI' design.
Yeah, the motors weren't exactly the impulse they were advertised, but *damn* the E60's and F100's were a rush!! And the D20/D18 staged combo was a nice alternative to staged D12's. I think I'm going to cry..... :( :(

S.

I have a pack of E60-0 and E60-8 that I purchased a while back from another forum member. I absolutely loved staging the F100's and D20/D18's you mention. I have a near min dia. rocket scratchbuilt I'm working on to use my E60-0 and E60-8's in.

Love the Megatron in the image you posted earlier ..... what a cool rocket! That was a kit I remember ordering thru the mail order just a year or two before FSI went out of business. That rocket always flew really well for me on their D motors and I liked the D20-0 booster in that model because it kicked it off the pad a little quicker than the D18-0. My buddy still has two of my FSI steel launch pads, the one for 3/16" and the one for 1/4" rods. Man those were the days .....

I know I posed this link before but I do have a few shots of some old FSI kits in my online photo album. Most of my FSI images are in the first two photo albums:

Photo Album #1 (http://stevenaquin.myphotoalbum.com/view_album.php?set_albumName=album01)

Photo Album #2 (http://stevenaquin.myphotoalbum.com/view_album.php?set_albumName=album02)

I for one sure do miss FSI. They were a unique and interesting rocket kit & motor manufacturer. I wish I had more of their motors on hand .....

.

Rocketflyer

05-14-2008, 11:22 AM

Without a doubt the FSI kits I purchased in the 70's from the local hobby store were very good [snip]

I know I posed this link before but I do have a few shots of some old FSI kits in my online photo album. Most of my FSI images are in the first two photo albums:

Photo Album #1 (http://stevenaquin.myphotoalbum.com/view_album.php?set_albumName=album01)

Photo Album #2 (http://stevenaquin.myphotoalbum.com/view_album.php?set_albumName=album02)

I for one sure do miss FSI. They were a unique and interesting rocket kit & motor manufacturer. I wish I had more of their motors on hand .....

.

I agree, Steve. They were good. I bought 6 kits from Don, one of them being the Hercules, which will be converted to fly on the 29mm F's.

Thanks for those photos.

Yep, miss the early FSI motors. Miss the Vulcan motors too. That H115 was way cool!!

Jack

barone

05-14-2008, 07:42 PM

Mark II

05-14-2008, 09:20 PM

I used to have a LOT of catos with the F7s. Then I found out (after I joined a club and got around other, more experienced modelers,) that using a plug to hold the igniter in was a no-no with the FSI motors. They built up the internal pressure too quickly and would pop the casing before it would blow a plug from the nozzle (before the plastic Estes plugs....just use a wad of wadding and a pencil to push it in.) After switching to just taping the ignited across the end of the motor, I never experienced another cato with the FSI motors.
Yes, I had read somewhere that in many cases, problems with FSI's F motors were due to incorrectly installing the igniter. And yet other writers insisted that in such large BP motors, the grains were very brittle and were naturally prone to developing cracks during normal shipping, handling and temperature cycling, and that these cracks in the grain were what led to the CATOs. Experiences and opinions obviously vary. Someday I'd like to test them to find out for myself. ;)

Mark

Mark II

05-14-2008, 09:24 PM

[...]
I know I posed this link before but I do have a few shots of some old FSI kits in my online photo album. Most of my FSI images are in the first two photo albums:

Photo Album #1 (http://stevenaquin.myphotoalbum.com/view_album.php?set_albumName=album01)

Photo Album #2 (http://stevenaquin.myphotoalbum.com/view_album.php?set_albumName=album02)

I for one sure do miss FSI. They were a unique and interesting rocket kit & motor manufacturer. I wish I had more of their motors on hand .....

.
I absolutely love your photos! I did notice that your Voyager separated just above the fincan during recovery deployment (and that you used a streamer!). Was that mid-body separation point your own modification?

Mark

snaquin

05-15-2008, 12:36 AM

I absolutely love your photos! I did notice that your Voyager separated just above the fincan during recovery deployment (and that you used a streamer!). Was that mid-body separation point your own modification?

Mark

Mark,

Thanks for the kind words about the old FSI photographs I scanned, I knew you would appreciate them. The Voyager, Mach-1 Dart and Penetrator photos in that album were all shot from the same location and and those rockets were flown from an asphalt parking lot of the local K-Mart store not far from the high school that I attended. Those were shot my junior year and I flew with two other friends that day.

Yes it was a modification to the stock kit. What I used to do was pick up a kit at the hobby store and when I brought it home I would write the catalog part #'s on the instructions sheet and tubing lengths so I could build others from parts. I would also trace the fin pattern and paper clip it to the instructions sheet and file it when done. Rocketry on a budget but I could reuse my parachutes and cut my own fins for future builds without having to shell out more bucks every time I lost or destroyed a kit.

I realized early on that chasing after that little payload section that came down on a separate chute was a real problem. Sometimes I would chase down the payload section and neglect where the rocket came down at. I used FSI parts to build the one shown in the picture with a balsa bulkhead at the midpoint to create the payload section. That one in particular used an extremely long crepe paper party streamer for recovery. That worked fine in the spillway when I was landing on sod, but as you can tell from the image the asphalt was much less kind on the recovery of that one and I had to cut off some of the damaged tube and repair it with a tube coupler. I knew it would be damaged but figured better to get it back damaged with a streamer than not at all with a parachute. It was recovered just beyond the light poles in that image in the direction of the water tower.

There are two Orbits in the closet photos if you look close. One is a fluor. pink color and the other is located behind and between the Mars Lander and the Maverick. It is painted orange with a single chrome label by the transition. Both these were later 70's models after the kit showed new and longer in the catalog. The first one I had was painted silver and is not shown in the photos. I gave it to my brother for his first rocket and in comparison it was a couple of inches shorter than the 22" spec mentioned in the 77 catalog. All my Orbits were MRK-VI kits ..... that's not one of the kits I purchased much later when I was buying FSI thru the mail order.

I also found two images I still need to move to my photo albums of a Mach-1 Dart I built from all SEMROC parts to try out Phred's new decals. Mach-1 Dart was my all time favorite FSI kit. I loved building and flying those.

:)