What aspects of a model rocket kit are you looking for...

[BRS Hobbies]

This is a good era for model rocketry as far as kit selection goes. With so many model rocket kits on the market, what is it about a particular model rocket kit that leads you to add it to your must have list?

Best regards,
Brian

[Indiana]

I look for the following:

Unique design (not 3FNC)
Quality parts. Plastic nose cone / laser cut wood.
Robust, well thought out recovery system attachment. No folder paper and 12" of cheap elastic.
Water slide decals, not stickers.
Motor hooks versus friction fit.

[MKP]

I have to agree with Indiana. Unique design, but not goofy, I like "futuristic scale" and true scale. And rockets with different types of recovery besides the usual parachute or streamer grab my attention. Quality is important, of course.

BTW, glad top see you here, BRS Hobbies is my source for reloads.

[timmwood]

I really don't mind the three fins ad a nose cone designs. I prefer the D-powered rockets with at least a 1.65-inch body tube diameter and 20-plus inches in length. Thus, I go for Semroc SLS, although I think I've bought all of those that I want for now and am exploring other vendors.
I like good, classic designs. I don't go for the futuristic stuff. That may put me in the minority.
timmwood

[Les]

I agree with Indiana - I will not buy another 3FNC unless I'm working with a youth group or possibly a scale kit.

I look for unique, fantasy, sci-fi, odd-roc type of kits.
Price and quality are very important too. Decals help make a kit as well.
As for recovery attachment or mount, I can always change that if I really need to.

[Pem Tech]

I will second, third or forth that emotion...
Anything other than 3FNC.
My personal tastes run toward Sci-Fi, scale and military but an eye-catching sport rocket would be very welcome. Give me something unusual, something striking, something that looks like it shouldn't fly at all. Nose cone material doesn't matter and laser cutting is not that important to me either. However, quality counts for quite a bit, I expect strong, well made tubing, good quality balsa (or applicable fin material), CR's that are at least close to fitting the body tube and a KEVLAR shockcord.

[mycrofte]

I would have to say about the same myself. I started back up with the military missiles and have turned to glider recovery lately. Most of the odd-ball stuff doesn't interest me either.

[BEC]

I'm looking for two things:

First, in oppostion to many of the others, I'm looking for a simple (but not TOO simple) introductory model to use with students. 3 (or 4) FNC is OK for this. Requirements and objectives are:

- Balsa fins (and preferably nose cone), though pre cut (laser) is OK
- Larger than BT-20/ST-7 tube diameter (so that one has to build a motor mount assembly)
- Rugged, streamer recovery (small fields)
- Either TTW fins (ala Quest Astra) or some clever fin alignment scheme like on the FlisKits Triskelion would be a plus.
- Modern recovery mounting (long enough shock cord and probably a Kevlar line to the engine mount rather than a trifold paper mount) would also be desirable.
- Related to that, maybe even a baffle system so as to obviate the need for wadding would be really cool. I've yet to try this myself but I really like the concept.
- An optional short payload section to accommodate the Winged Shadow/Quest How High SP altimeter would also be a plus.

I'd really want a couple of these for myself too, especially if all this list was met (though I have less need for the fin alignment help - I hope :) ).

So far the closest thing I've found is the Custom Fiesta, but it's only part way there. Most streamer recovery simple models are minimum diameter, which means occasional stuck streamers but also really good (not so small field) performance.

Second, for my own interest I'm in the unique and interesting design camp. Being freshly "born again" I'm still just trying to see what's all out there. But a cool looking science fiction-y "retro" look or "could be scale" would strongly tempt me to push the "add to cart" button, as would a more robust implementation of the old Astron Gyroc recovery concept (my BMS clone shredded a fin off just outboard of the fin-to-body joint on the second flight).

[CPMcGraw]

Common agreement -- balsa nose cones and fins; engine hooks instead of friction-fit; the modern method of recovery mounting using Kevlar and elastic instead of a tri-fold and rubber strip; waterslide decals instead of "peel-n-cuss" stickers.

For types of designs, I'll take almost anything that builds well. I prefer designs that emphasize airframe tweaking for balance instead of requiring ballast mass. Good classic construction methods, improved where practical. I don't like using plastic as a substitute for building something structural, although using plastic for "fiddly detail bits" is quite acceptable.

I like models where someone has paid attention to the flight envelope, and not to just "how good it looks". A sharp-looking model that shreds the parachute because the designer failed to notice that it tosses the laundry at 30-40 FPS is not going to make my list of favorite flying rockets. Likewise, a model that boosts with a noticeable instability because the static margin was below the magic 1.00 caliber isn't going to get my stamp of approval, either.

[Mark II]

I have to admit that there are not that many kits out there that I don't like. What makes me hit the "BUY" button, though, has everything to do with what my personal priorities are at the moment. My preferences might be a little quirky, though, because they closely reflect my personal history with the hobby. I got into model rocketry in the mid-1960's, and I absolutely adored all of the kits I saw in the Estes Industries catalogs from 1967-69. Limited financial resources kept me from owning very many of them though (I only had 5). Since 2004, when I resumed my rocketry "obsession," I have been interested in getting those kits (through reproductions or cloning), because I still adore them, along with great kits from that era produced by companies that I did not know about (e.g., Centuri Engineering, FSI, RDC, SAI, etc.). Another priority is to build great designs from the 33 years that I did not participate in the hobby, because what may seem like "old hat" and old designs to many people are all still "new" to me. So kits that either recreate these classic designs or carry on the same design themes appeal to me. I really like kits of rockets that are either scaled replicas of real sounding rockets and space launch vehicles, or ones that take their design cues from them. I like kits of rockets that look like rockets. I especially like designs that are simple, clean and elegant, and with design elements that make sense. I don't care for rocket kits that are just cookie-cutter generic designs that have been encrusted with a lot of "frou-frou" in order to make them look "different."

This does not mean that I do not like sci-fi or futuristic designs - in fact, I really do like them. I find the futuristic designs of PemTech, FlisKits, Red River and Sirius to be particularly appealing. I am also a big fan of the designs of James Pierson, David Hash, Craig McGraw and Jay Goemmer. :D

I also care very much about the quality of the parts that are included in the kits, too. Kits that feature high quality, substantial tubes, fins made with wood (or with wood internals, in the case of built-up fins), nose cones and transitions that are made from balsa whenever possible (I realize that some complex or highly detailed shapes have to be made from cast, blow-molded or vacuformed plastic, and that's OK), kits that have components like centering rings and motor mounts that are well-designed and made from quality materials and with recovery components that are sensibly sized and durable are kits that rank high on my list.

I also agree with Craig; it is also important that the kit flies well and recovers well. ;) Finally, a couple of recent interests of mine are mid-power rockets and unique, interesting and unusual glider designs. I am looking more and more for rockets in these last two categories. By the same token, though, I am always a sucker for any new and interesting designs in the micro end of the scale, too. :chuckle:

MarkII

[James Pierson]

Over the past few years I have "learned as I go' from people here on the forum and ill fated test flights :cool: . That is called learning the hard way :D . I have complied a list of likes and don't like as far as designing/purchasing a kit.

Do like:
Laser cut fins
Balsa Nose Cones
Plastic Nose Cones
Arrow straight flights
Kevlar Shock Cord a must
Engine hooks as a convienence
Good looking unique design
Ability to stand rough landings
Easy loading of recovery device
Parachutes, Parachutes, Parachutes

Don't Like:
Special launch equip. not provided in kit!
Broken fins at landing
Unstable flights/ Duck and Cover
loading chutes in a ST-7/BT-20
Streamers :mad:
Burnt shock Cords
free falling engines at ejection
Hand cutting multiple fin
3-4 FNC
Motor/Engine CATO's on the pad

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

[Tau Zero]

I especially like designs that are simple, clean and elegant, and with design elements that make sense. I don't care for rocket kits that are just cookie-cutter generic designs that have been encrusted with a lot of "frou-frou" in order to make them look "different."3- and 4NC with single tube diameters and "tricked out" paint jobs don't really do it for me. I'm leaning more toward designs that require motor mounts (non-minimum diameter) as well.

I have to confess that my gradually failing middle age vision is the main reason I haven't bought any "teeny tiny" 6mm-powered kits. (The parts need to be big enough for me to *see!* :o )


This does not mean that I do not like sci-fi or futuristic designs - in fact, I really do like them. I find the futuristic designs of PemTech, FlisKits, Red River and Sirius to be particularly appealing. I am also a big fan of the designs of James Pierson, David Hash, Craig McGraw and Jay Goemmer. :DWoohoo! I came in in last place on Mark's list! ;) :D :chuckle:

(You *may* have noticed that I also lean very strongly toward sci-fi designs. :eek: ;) )

Cheers,

[rokitflite]

I don't DISLIKE 3-4 FNC models as long as they are attractive ones... Don't just throw the name on the side in some boring font. Make the design "flow" and let the decals help to make the model interesting. Once again I will cite the Estes Citation Patriot, Red Max, Goblin and Cherokee-D as excellent examples of this.

Also, make the instructions good (or better GREAT) and the parts fit. I hate getting a model that I have to sand down centering rings or nose cone shoulders.

[LeeR]

[...]
Also, make the instructions good (or better GREAT) and the parts fit. I hate getting a model that I have to sand down centering rings or nose cone shoulders.

Is it just me, or are a lot of parts ill-fitting these days? I'll not point fingers, but just say these parts come from multiple sources. I have a number of balsa cones that just do not fit well. They are extremely tight on the shoulder, and have required sanding. Maybe due to them being turned in the "lowlands", and getting sent to me in Mile-High Colorado -- perhaps they are puffing up from the change in altitude. :)

I have also had to peel a layer or more from most of he couplers I've received. This to me is a little more troubling, since it is a real pain to peel up the right amount.

[rokitflite]

Is it just me, or are a lot of parts ill-fitting these days? I'll not point fingers, but just say these parts come from multiple sources. I have a number of balsa cones that just do not fit well. They are extremely tight on the shoulder, and have required sanding. Maybe due to them being turned in the "lowlands", and getting sent to me in Mile-High Colorado -- perhaps they are puffing up from the change in altitude. :)

I have also had to peel a layer or more from most of he couplers I've received. This to me is a little more troubling, since it is a real pain to peel up the right amount.


I think I have become WAY less tolerant of that sort of thing as I've gotten older. To me, if I have to modify too many kit parts to get them to fit right, or add material to improve or strengthen the model, I feel as though I might as well just scratch build it. The occasional tight fitting balsa cone is OK and somewhat understandable given the circumstances you mentioned, but there is no excuse for poor fitting laser cut parts. I can deal with peeling a layer off of a spiral wound cardboard centering ring, but off of a coupler? Thats annoying :mad: .

[o1d_dude]

I don't DISLIKE 3-4 FNC models as long as they are attractive ones... Don't just throw the name on the side in some boring font. Make the design "flow" and let the decals help to make the model interesting. Once again I will cite the Estes Citation Patriot, Red Max, Goblin and Cherokee-D as excellent examples of this.

Also, make the instructions good (or better GREAT) and the parts fit. I hate getting a model that I have to sand down centering rings or nose cone shoulders.
Rokitflite pretty much nailed it for me but I will add that these ARE the style I prefer as I'm not a fan of scale or sci-fi. I'd also prefer not to have to replace stock parts with aftermarket (motor mounts, recovery systems, etc) to bring the rocket up to snuff.

As others have said, geezer-eye friendly parts, laser cut, motor clip, good decals, and ships sized to be recovered as opposed to fly n forget.

Fella in my neck of the woods (QUASARONE Rockets) sells kits that fill my bill in those regards. I've also liked Quest, Semroc, and Starlight offerings.

Buying Estes these days means I'll probably have to buy a motor tube to replace the crushed one in the bag and update the recovery system (shock cord, chute/streamer) to more modern practices. Occasionaly, I replace the motor mount and centering rigns as well. In retrospect, I'm just buying the decals, fins, and nose cone! Whoa!

[snaquin]

what is it about a particular model rocket kit that leads you to add it to your must have list?

Best regards,
Brian

All the features of the SEMROC SLS kit line. To quote the Semroc instructions in this class of kits:

What is SLS™?
SLS™ is short for Semroc Large-Scale Rocketry. Based on the original Centuri Large Scale Line us-ing larger, thicker-walled body tubes, Semroc is introducing several models in the Mid-Power range. Most of the models will fly on 24mm and 29mm engines in the C through G (and small H) impulse levels. Featured in the family are laser-cut bass-wood fins, Nylon chutes, and laser-slotted tubes allowing much more robust construction designed to last for years of flying.

Additional features not mentioned above but included in some of the larger SLS kits like the ARCAS:

Ejection baffle
Long tough elastic cord

The majority of my scratch built rockets are also constructed using Semroc SLS grade parts and methods, whenever possible.

It's all about quality parts & durability of the final product .....

:)

.

[Mark II]

...
Woohoo! I came in in last place on Mark's list! ;) :D :chuckle: ...

Cheers,
And you're darned lucky to be there, too! :p

But all kidding aside, you are NOT in LAST place. In case you hadn't noticed, I grouped you with some pretty elite company there. I would not have done that if you didn't belong up there. :D

As for parts fitting and matching, I get my rocket components primarily from Semroc and FlisKits, and in the case of both companies, the fit is always perfect. (I feel so spoiled.) The components that I have ordered from BRS Hobbies have always been very high quality, too. From what I hear, the same is true of the parts from BMS, too, but I haven't purchased very many parts from Bill yet. (The two lengths of BMS coupler stock that I bought are excellent, but that is all I have so far.) Actually I have not encountered any component fit problems yet during any of my scratch-building projects, but I do get my rocket parts from first-class suppliers.

MarkII

[Pem Tech]

This does not mean that I do not like sci-fi or futuristic designs - in fact, I really do like them. I find the futuristic designs of PemTech, FlisKits, Red River and Sirius to be particularly appealing. I am also a big fan of the designs of James Pierson, David Hash, Craig McGraw and Jay Goemmer. :D

MarkII

Wow.............
We made the list! And the top part of the list!
:eek:
WOOT

Mark, I'll have your check cut and out to you tomorrow...
;)

But seriously, thank you...
It is an honor to be grouped with such well established and reputable companies.

[Mark II]

Layne, your kit designs are simply out of this world, and everywhere I read that their quality is absolutely first-class all the way. I'm actually starting to get an income again, so at some point, expect an order from me.

MarkII

[Bob Thomas]

Ditto to construction quality and secure packaging. Paint and Decals can differentiate an otherwise unremarkable 3-4FNC like the A20 Demon or Bertha, Centurion or Thunder series to name a few. The better the decals, usually the more successful. Centuri Nomad was way cooler looking than the similar Estes Tartar. Even an odd fin shape floats my boat. Overall, if someone readily can mis-identify it - it probably won't make my fleet. I do lean toward Sci-Fi unless it is too delicate and military scale.

[BEC]

. Requirements and objectives are:

- Balsa fins (and preferably nose cone), though pre cut (laser) is OK
- Larger than BT-20/ST-7 tube diameter (so that one has to build a motor mount assembly)
- Rugged, streamer recovery (small fields)
- Either TTW fins (ala Quest Astra) or some clever fin alignment scheme like on the FlisKits Triskelion would be a plus.
- Modern recovery mounting (long enough shock cord and probably a Kevlar line to the engine mount rather than a trifold paper mount) would also be desirable.
- Related to that, maybe even a baffle system so as to obviate the need for wadding would be really cool. I've yet to try this myself but I really like the concept.
- An optional short payload section to accommodate the Winged Shadow/Quest How High SP altimeter would also be a plus.

I'd really want a couple of these for myself too, especially if all this list was met (though I have less need for the fin alignment help - I hope :) ).

So far the closest thing I've found is the Custom Fiesta, but it's only part way there. Most streamer recovery simple models are minimum diameter, which means occasional stuck streamers but also really good (not so small field) performance.


I have come across a couple more that meet most of these requirements. One is the FlisKits WhatchaMacallit. It's BT-20-sized, but uses 13mm engines, so still needs a motor mount assembled. It also has a rather clever, self-jigging fin arrangement.

The other is the Semroc Boid. The latter is large enough in diameter (ST-8) to fit the altimeter in an added short payload section. I'm also intrigued by the implied variations from Boid to Boid as mentioned in the instructions - so not everyone in the class would have exactly the same rocket. There's some charm in that as well.

Anyone know of any others? Perhaps I should put this query in another thread?

[Mark II]

I have come across a couple more that meet most of these requirements. One is the FlisKits WhatchaMacallit. It's BT-20-sized, but uses 13mm engines, so still needs a motor mount assembled. It also has a rather clever, self-jigging fin arrangement.

The other is the Semroc Boid. The latter is large enough in diameter (ST-8) to fit the altimeter in an added short payload section. I'm also intrigued by the implied variations from Boid to Boid as mentioned in the instructions - so not everyone in the class would have exactly the same rocket. There's some charm in that as well.

Anyone know of any others? Perhaps I should put this query in another thread? The Semroc SLS Series would fit all of your listed requirements. The fins are basswood, though, not balsa. The SLS kits are roughly 175% upscales of well known designs. They are large format (but not huge) designs, and the kits are pure, uncompromised quality through and through. Most can be flown on 24mm black powder engines or 24mm and 29mm composite engines; the SLS Sky Hook and SLS Javelin, upscaled like all of the others in the series, are still small enough to be able to be flown on 18mm engines if you so desire. OTOH, the SLS Arcas and SLS Brighton can handle high power H and I engines with no problem. These kits produce beautiful and yet very rugged models, and they have received nothing but glowing reviews on EMRR.

MarkII

[BEC]

Gee, that's an interesting suggestion. I have been thinking smaller, not bigger. Interesting suggestion indeed. Clearly one of these should be my intro to "mid power" whether or not it becomes a student rocket.

[Mark II]

Gee, that's an interesting suggestion. I have been thinking smaller, not bigger. Interesting suggestion indeed. Clearly one of these should be my intro to "mid power" whether or not it becomes a student rocket.
I didn't realize that you were talking about a set of kits for a classroom. The SLS kits are certainly much more than what you would want in that case.

MarkII

[jflis]

I have come across a couple more that meet most of these requirements. One is the FlisKits WhatchaMacallit. It's BT-20-sized, but uses 13mm engines, so still needs a motor mount assembled. It also has a rather clever, self-jigging fin arrangement.

The other is the Semroc Boid. The latter is large enough in diameter (ST-8) to fit the altimeter in an added short payload section. I'm also intrigued by the implied variations from Boid to Boid as mentioned in the instructions - so not everyone in the class would have exactly the same rocket. There's some charm in that as well.

Anyone know of any others? Perhaps I should put this query in another thread?


In addition to the FlisKits Whatchamacallit, there is the Thing-a-ma-Jig (BT-50 based, parachute recovery, 18mm) that uses the same type of Jig-Tech fin design. We also have a micro rocket that uses that fin idea called the doo-Hickey.

jim

[BEC]

In addition to the FlisKits Whatchamacallit, there is the Thing-a-ma-Jig (BT-50 based, parachute recovery, 18mm) that uses the same type of Jig-Tech fin design. We also have a micro rocket that uses that fin idea called the doo-Hickey.

jim

Yeah, Jim, I know.....:) I just got the dooHickey from you as well as the WhatchaMacallit. I may get the WhatchaMacallit into the air tomorrow. I'm going to do a simple finish and the first coat of sealer is drying right now.

Bernard Cawley ("BEC" is simply my initials - it has nothing to do with battery eliminator circuits as the folks on RC Groups sometimes think)