Poll: Most needed return/new BP SU engines

[ghrocketman]

Which of the following engines do we need the most in the Single-Use black-powder engine lineup from ANY manufacturer ?

Maybe some manufacturer that reads these forums will LISTEN and produce something we are actually ASKING FOR.

1) B14-x (18mm)
2) D30-x (24mm)
3) D8-x (18mm like the old 13n-sec Cox D's, not an oddball 20mm)
4) A8-0 (18mm)
5) 1/2A3-0 (13mm)
6) C5-x (18mm)

[jetlag]

I want all of those. period!
Your order of preference is about right to me!

I voted 'B14,' but I was torn, because I think we need an A8-0, too, badly for the smaller fields. Same for the 1/2A3-0.
Allen

[ghrocketman]

I agree with the A8-0 and 1/2A3-0 as well; I tried to list the 6 most needed SU BP engines.
Of these, I think the only ones we have any chance of getting out of a MAJOR manufacturer are 4 thru 6, even though I think the B14 is BY FAR the most needed.

[Jerry Irvine]

I agree the B14 is needed, but a third party could buy C6's and drill them and get them certified. Estes said they will never do it. I believe them. I even offered to come drill them myself. :D

By far the most needed motor is the 24mm 20D30 because it makes possible a wide range of flights that are not possible today except by composites. It makes existing Estes kits fly better. It is the motor most likely to generate a large recurring revenue stream, which is why there even is an Estes.

Most important of all, it's mailable!

The A8-0 is the least amount of materials for the same amount of money. They should do it and let the dealers and distributors carry a bit of inventory for a slow moving SKU.

The 18mm 15-20 D 8 is the most needed and the least likely 18mm motor. The B14 they have to drill. The D8 a certain percentage of them burn through due to batch variances in the paper cases. Now if they spiked the BP with 5% KP . . . . . .

Jerry

[ghrocketman]

I believe that Estes will never make the B14 again also.
Does not mean it is right or they could not sell all they could produce.
I just don't like the garbage excuse (everybody has one and they all STINK) of "low sales volume" crapola that they gave at NARAM for reasoning.
Speak the true reason or don't comment at all, which I HIGHLY expect is some mamby-pamby safety BS reason; don't try to feed a turd-wich excuse to intelligent people.

I'm just going to have to turn B4's into pseudo B14's for my private flying area, but that still gives no booster nor a long delay motor. The nozzle on a B4 is correct, whereas the C6 has a nozzle throat diameter that is too small and results in many cato's.

[raohara]

Now if they spiked the BP with 5% KP . . . . . .
What does spiking the BP accomplish? How hard is it for a manufacturer to do it?

- Rich

[STRMan]

The engines that I would like to see that aren't on that list is the 1/2A6-0 and 1/2A6-4. These are the IDEAL small field staging engines. They are still making the 1/2A6-2, so it wouldn't be like recreating something long out of production, like a B14 or B8.

That being said, I voted for the B14. Actually, the B14-0 is the only one I really see a dire need for.

[Bill]

I voted for C5-x only because the A8-0 and A10-0T are supposedly already on the way and you did not include the B8-x which I consider the practical limit unless you are willing to drill them and get them certified.

To get the B14 effect in a single stager, a D21 works wonders...


Bill

[5x7]

E60 27mm

[harsas]

Which of the following engines do we need the most in the Single-Use black-powder engine lineup from ANY manufacturer ?

Maybe some manufacturer that reads these forums will LISTEN and produce something we are actually ASKING FOR.

1) B14-x (18mm)
2) D30-x (24mm)
3) D8-x (18mm like the old 13n-sec Cox D's, not an oddball 20mm)
4) A8-0 (18mm)
5) 1/2A3-0 (13mm)
6) C5-x (18mm)

Why is it, that there is always some namby-pamby whiner crying over some motor that is not available any longer. It seems to me that any hobbyist that has a clue would have no problem finding motors that will fly anything he has. Seems to me to be an excuse for failure.

[Jerry Irvine]

E60 27mm
You know, Lonnie and Larry basically made those on a garage workbench for decades. It would not be all that hard to duplicate the production process of FSI.

Jerry

[ghrocketman]

Thanks, Harold for your useless unsolicited comment that added nothing worthwhile.

That being said, I'd gladly welcome the B8 series back if the B14 is not possible by ANYONE.

My hope is that SOME manufacturer will step up and fulfill the need/want for an 18mm booster that is capable of getting a 3-stager over 4oz. mass up and moving vertically.

If the B8 comes back, I want it in all flavors -3,5,7,0 so it can be used in place of all existing B engines.
If B14, I'd want -3,5,7,0; I realize the -3 delay never existed in the past on the B14, but I see it as having much more value than the old -6 delay that I never understood.

For the vast majority of rockets I favor fast-burn high-thrust motors.
The ONLY thing a slow-burner such as the B4 is better at than a high-thrust motor is in very light rockets or for max altitude of an upper stage of multi-stagers.

I'd actually like ANY manufacturer to bring out some high-thrust port-burning (drilled or pressed around a pintle, I don't care) single-use black powder 18mm and 24mm motors instead of low-thrust for-impulse motors that NOBODY I'm aware of is asking for.

One of the most entertaining flights I have ever seen is taking a 2-stage rocket and placing a 1/2A6-0 or A8-0 in the booster with a B14-7 in the sustainer. Stages low and slow than zooms off like a bullet from the B14.

[Rocketflyer]

Since the B14 is not to be, I'd like to see the B8. As for the others, I'd like a D30 booster, D8 in flavors, and the C5, in a booster and delays of 3,5,7. The rest, I don't much care about them, but would fly if I was on a small school field.

[ghrocketman]

The problem with the C5 is that they claim they can't get more than a -3 delay in the existing case, which is hogwash as Cox did it with the D8-3 in the EARLY 70's !
If you can get any sort of D8-3 in a 18mmx2.75 in case, you certainly could get a C5-5.
Don't think you could get more than a C5-5 in the existing 18mm case though and that would be filled to the TOP.

[Joe Wooten]

B14-0,3,5,7
C5-0
C11-0

[Joe Wooten]

E60 27mm

That engine was a piece of crap. 2 out of every 3 catos.

[5x7]

That engine was a piece of crap. 2 out of every 3 catos.

I flew about 20 with no catos. YMMV :)

[Royatl]

The engines that I would like to see that aren't on that list is the 1/2A6-0 and 1/2A6-4. These are the IDEAL small field staging engines. They are still making the 1/2A6-2, so it wouldn't be like recreating something long out of production, like a B14 or B8.



And the 1/2A6-4 is the perfect motor for the Astron Scout (I flew two at NARAM 50 -- I didn't realize, nor did anyone else, that they were no longer certified. Perfect flights, both of them).

[ghrocketman]

Agree that the E60 was a total piece of crap.
I had an over 60% cato rate with those stinkers.
Only motor I had a higher cato rate with than the F100.
Made the F100 seem actually reliable; I had about a 40% cato rate with those things.
Apparently the motor manufacturing team of those had not heard much about QC.

[Doug Sams]

And the 1/2A6-4 is the perfect motor for the Astron Scout (I flew two at NARAM 50 -- I didn't realize, nor did anyone else, that they were no longer certified. Perfect flights, both of them).I'm surprised the delay wasn't too long. I woulda guessed a -2 was better. While the Scout is kinda simple, lacking a chute and wadding, it's still kinda heavy with the thick-walled tube and thick fins, and not very aeroslick.

That said, looking at the thrust curves of the ½A6 and ½A3, they're very close. I'd say close enough that I have a hard time justifying two motors so similar. Obviously, the cases are different. No one here at YORF would struggle with that. The marketing question is whether that would pose a major hassle for a soccer dad to deal with :)

Doug

http://www.doug79.com/motors/half-A6-vs-half-A3.gif

.

[Bazookadale]

Agree that the E60 was a total piece of crap.
I had an over 60% cato rate with those stinkers.
Only motor I had a higher cato rate with than the F100.
Made the F100 seem actually reliable; I had about a 40% cato rate with those things.
Apparently the motor manufacturing team of those had not heard much about QC.

How did you ignite them? If you lit the BASE of the core instead of the top like FSI told you , they came up to pressure a little slower and seldom catoed for me.

[ghrocketman]

Tried at the top of the core as in the directions and in the middle of the core based on the advice of several others.
Middle-core ignition seemed to help the F100 but did nothing for the E60's.
Kaboomed so often I used up my remaining 4-5 of them in the early 90's by gluing dowels to them and launching them "bottle rocket style".
At least two of those blew up in "M-80" fashion as well.
Total rubbish waste of $$$.

[Bill]

And the 1/2A6-4 is the perfect motor for the Astron Scout (I flew two at NARAM 50 -- I didn't realize, nor did anyone else, that they were no longer certified. Perfect flights, both of them).


Unfortunately too easy to do. I recall a Mirv Gryphon flying in an Imagination Celebration at a NARAM with what had to have been expired certification A10-0Ts.

<rant>
OK, my turn to yell a little bit from atop of that there soapbox.

One side says that OOP motors should not be safety certified forever. They state some liability reasoning.

The other side says that if I am allowed to fly a forty-year-old A8-3 which had been through who knows what kind of torture and waterboarding, then why should I not be allowed to fly a ten-year-old A10-0T which has been carefully stored and preserved? And if Estes comes through with their promise to resume production, then suddenly, my old motors are golden again?

What we have now is the NAR expired motor testing program which I fully believe is a head-fake. Those who want to fly their old motors are happy because they can do so with a small amount of paperwork. Those who collect old motors are happy because the supply of them is being used up, making the stashes ever more valuable.

The problem falls into the lap of those club officers who organize and run launches. Suppose that Roy's Scout had an errant flight, landing where it should not and causing damage or starting a bad fire. Insurance adjusters, upon discovering the uncertified motor, rules that the incident is not covered by the policy.

My position is and always have been that faulty motors should be decertified for safety reasons. All other motors should remain certified regardless of their manufacturing status.

Tripoli made a good move in allowing previously certified motors in their Research program. If only they can find a way for NAR-only members to participate...
</rant>


Bill

[Shreadvector]

Unfortunately too easy to do. I recall a Mirv Gryphon flying in an Imagination Celebration at a NARAM with what had to have been expired certification A10-0Ts.

<rant>
OK, my turn to yell a little bit from atop of that there soapbox.

One side says that OOP motors should not be safety certified forever. They state some liability reasoning.

The other side says that if I am allowed to fly a forty-year-old A8-3 which had been through who knows what kind of torture and waterboarding, then why should I not be allowed to fly a ten-year-old A10-0T which has been carefully stored and preserved? And if Estes comes through with their promise to resume production, then suddenly, my old motors are golden again?

What we have now is the NAR expired motor testing program which I fully believe is a head-fake. Those who want to fly their old motors are happy because they can do so with a small amount of paperwork. Those who collect old motors are happy because the supply of them is being used up, making the stashes ever more valuable.

The problem falls into the lap of those club officers who organize and run launches. Suppose that Roy's Scout had an errant flight, landing where it should not and causing damage or starting a bad fire. Insurance adjusters, upon discovering the uncertified motor, rules that the incident is not covered by the policy.

My position is and always have been that faulty motors should be decertified for safety reasons. All other motors should remain certified regardless of their manufacturing status.

Tripoli made a good move in allowing previously certified motors in their Research program. If only they can find a way for NAR-only members to participate...
</rant>


Bill

If the motors are being flown under the Old Motor Testing Program, then the NAR insurance is in effect - there is no question about that.

If you fly uncertified motors without the approval letter from the OMTP, then there is no insurance coverage.

I'll be flying some C5-3 motors at our next two launches. I've got the printed letter of approval. So far, all of them from this batch have worked. Previous batches tested were not so good - especially the FSI motors.

[Royatl]

Tried at the top of the core as in the directions and in the middle of the core based on the advice of several others.
Middle-core ignition seemed to help the F100 but did nothing for the E60's.
Kaboomed so often I used up my remaining 4-5 of them in the early 90's by gluing dowels to them and launching them "bottle rocket style".
At least two of those blew up in "M-80" fashion as well.
Total rubbish waste of $$$.


Here's the lie of the "top of the core" in their instructions:

of course, they told you to put the thermalite all the way to the top, but that just holds it in. You put the clips on at the bottom, which is where the themalite lights, and it burns up into the core as a fuse. The first place it hits in the core is at the bottom.

When I started having problems with F100's is when I started using wire-wrapped thermalite igniters, which were 1" segments of themalite at the end of a long section of wire-wrap wire. These were popular at the time for igniting composite motors, so of course they were placed all the way to the top of the core. Most of my F100's kaboom-ed after that, until someone suggested just using a Solar igniter with the paper tape section holding it in the nozzle. Worked like a charm.

I just wish there was something I could do to get any of my F7's to not blow.

[Royatl]

I'm surprised the delay wasn't too long. I woulda guessed a -2 was better. While the Scout is kinda simple, lacking a chute and wadding, it's still kinda heavy with the thick-walled tube and thick fins, and not very aeroslick.

That said, looking at the thrust curves of the ½A6 and ½A3, they're very close. I'd say close enough that I have a hard time justifying two motors so similar. Obviously, the cases are different. No one here at YORF would struggle with that. The marketing question is whether that would pose a major hassle for a soccer dad to deal with :)

Doug

.

Ejection was right at apogee on both flights, and the charge itself was softer so the motor didn't blow out of the thing. Both immediately started tumbling perfectly.

I do need to try it on an adapted 1/2A3-4t.

[ghrocketman]

Wow- you had problems with F7's ?
I don't think I ever had one of those cato, they just would not safely lift any rocket over about 5oz. Less useful than the Estes E9...any rocket that would fly safely on them would go nearly into orbit with about zero hope for recovery.

[Bill]

If the motors are being flown under the Old Motor Testing Program, then the NAR insurance is in effect - there is no question about that.

If you fly uncertified motors without the approval letter from the OMTP, then there is no insurance coverage.

I'll be flying some C5-3 motors at our next two launches. I've got the printed letter of approval. So far, all of them from this batch have worked. Previous batches tested were not so good - especially the FSI motors.


It is obvious that Roy did not have OMTP paperwork because he was not aware the motors had expired certification. The range crew at NARAM also missed it. Insurance, except for any personal liability coverage that Roy may have had, did not cover his two flights. Fortunately for all concerned, the flights were flawless.

One of the requirements for the testing program is to report back to the NAR whether the motor functioned properly. How much data do you think they have accumulated so far? I would think by now that we have plenty of indication that A10-0T and C5-3 motors are still safe to fly, but FSI motors are suspect.


Bill

[shockwaveriderz]

The old Coaster motors were designed to be ignited at the bottom versus the top, as that's how they ignited their pyrotechnic skyrockets predecessors. The skyrockets were made with a 60-30-10 of BP, i.e "slow" BP while of course the later day Coasters, and FSI core burners were made with "faster" 75-15-10... This introduced a problem during ignition that evidently the Reese's failed to understand.

[disclaimer]
I have no historical info that the Coasters or FSI engines were made with 75-15-10 BP versus any other possible formula. Estes used this formula as it produced the most energy per weight of any other combination. So my comments above are pure speculation. It's sem reasonable to me to assume that if it was goos enough for estes, it would be good enough for the other manufacturers.


Trip Barber did some ignition test on B14's and FSI motors back in the early 1970's....he re-discovered the fact that the motor thrust profile could be changed depending on where the ignite r was placed in core burner type rocket engines, i.e the top versus the bottom.

If you ignited them at the bottom, peak chamber pressure ie thrust build up much slower and much lower than if you ignited the versus the same rocket engine at the top where you got much higher initial chamber pressures and peak thrusts. These chamber pressures that were generated by igniting the motors at the top versus the bottom often resulted in shot nozzles because the chamber pressure was greater than the mechanical pressure of the nozzle paper casing interface. These higher chamber pressures also causing fracturing of the grains causing catos, and also shot grains.....

I would also take an un-educated guess that Thermalite igniters are not idea for cored motors at the top at they have such ignition force that they could also cause the grain to fracture.


Terry Dean

[shockwaveriderz]

BNow if they spiked the BP with 5% KP . . . . . .

Jerry



nevermind ahhh KP Burst composition Potassium Percholrate/Charcoal and Sulfur....

that probably would only result in an explosion...... it's called "burst" for a reason.

Terry Dean

[Doug Sams]

...and the [ejection] charge itself was softer so the motor didn't blow out of the thing. ...or blow an extra vent hole in it the rocket :D

That'd be the thing I failed to consider in comparing the two motor types - the ½A6-4 isn't known for nuclear ejection charges :)

Doug

.

[Earl]

I just wish there was something I could do to get any of my F7's to not blow.

I had a baaaad batch of experience with the F7s too back in the late 80s. Love the long burn in lighter rockets, but I was running about a 50% failure rate on 'em. 'Cato time' right at ignition. Kinda surprising on such a slow burner as that motor, but they did. At the time, I was thinking it was some case debonding issues with the propellant grain, but not sure. Most times there was not much left to 'investigate' to try to determine a failure mode.


Earl

[Jerry Irvine]

My position is and always have been that faulty motors should be decertified for safety reasons. All other motors should remain certified regardless of their manufacturing status.
Bill
Correct. Let's petition to change the rule.

I would also take an un-educated guess that Thermalite igniters are not idea for cored motors at the top at they have such ignition force that they could also cause the grain to fracture.
Incorrect. It produces more heat than gas and has no shock wave.

An ematch by comparison has a small pop from the tiny amount of high explosive used as an initiator.

nevermind ahhh KP Burst composition Potassium Percholrate/Charcoal and Sulfur....that probably would only result in an explosion...... it's called "burst" for a reason.
A formula that has a high percentage of KP to BP and is a loose powder may be a "burst". A ram packed solid grain BP motor using aqueous binder and containing only about 5% KP is a totally different universe. That would simply modify the burning rate exponent (thus the rate itself) and slightly increase the ISP.

Not all AP mixtures are the same either. APCP is AP with a hydrocarbon, but if in a powder form such as PVC powder would explode like a firecracker if confined. But APCP with its rubber encapsulation of the AP and solid grain makes the average particle size an inch or more while the powder might be 6-200 micron average. A HUGE difference, directly and greatly impacting burning rate.

However I agree with you that you, "would also take an un-educated guess ".

Tech Jerry

[blackshire]

The engines that I would like to see that aren't on that list is the 1/2A6-0 and 1/2A6-4. These are the IDEAL small field staging engines. They are still making the 1/2A6-2, so it wouldn't be like recreating something long out of production, like a B14 or B8.

That being said, I voted for the B14. Actually, the B14-0 is the only one I really see a dire need for.Heartily seconded! In addition to being a perfect small-field upper stage motor, the 1/2A6-4 would also provide enjoyable (and recoverable) flights in tumble recovery rockets such as Semroc's "Retro-Repro" Semroc Triton, Centuri Lil' Herc, and Estes (Golden) Scout. The 1/2A6-4 might also work well (although the 1/2A6-2 may be a better match) in boost-gliders such as Semroc's "Retro-Repro" AMROCS Hawk, which is very similar to the Estes Falcon.

[blackshire]

-SNIP- The ONLY thing a slow-burner such as the B4 is better at than a high-thrust motor is in very light rockets or for max altitude of an upper stage of multi-stagers. -SNIP-The B4-2 provides a gentle ride for boost-gliders such as Semroc's "Retro-Repro" AMROCS Hawk and "Retro-Repro" Centuri Swift, as well as for clones of the Estes Falcon. The B4-2 is also good for small-field flying of large, heavy models like the Estes Big Bertha and Quest Big Betty.

[ghrocketman]

Okay, I will accept the boost-glider example as a legitimate use for a B4-2, but don't buy that it is any better than the B6-2 in the Big Bertha or Big Betty. The B4-4 has ZERO legitimate purpose over a B6-4 other than for turning into "hand modified" B14-4s

[Jerry Irvine]

The motors that are not being made because a lack of sales, not because of some technical or procedural issue, such as the 1/2A6-4, could easily be brought back by a bulk purchase and shifting the inventory cost from Estes or their distributors to a boutique dealer or co-op.

One vendor recently reordered D11-P or something. It sounded to me like that minimum order stretched him to the limit, but if a co-op of folks capitalized such a venture with "investment" funds, which would be used to buy and sell a series of bulk buys, and return the investment at the end (if there is an end), that would work. Any actual profit from buying at wholesale and selling at full retail can be used to reimburse investors or increase capital or both.

Since I do not see an angel investor for such a profit delayed venture, I suggested a co-op. It works for dirt poor farmers, it ought to work for whiney, cheap, picky, grumpy rocketeers.

18mm
1/4A6-4S
1/2A6-0, 4
A8-7
B4-8
D8-0

24mm
C11-0
D30-0,3,7,11 (E case)

I designate the guy who made the bulk purchase as the leader of the co-op, since he can assign himself a portion of the profits and he has experience.

Jerry

[ghrocketman]

We are getting the C11-0 back already so that one can be taken off the list.
Not sure we will get Estes to produce/cert motors they never have in the past such as a A8-7, B4-8, D8-0, or a D30-anything seeing as they won't even produce something they actually produced in the past, the B14. We might be able to get a "Boutique" run of D11-9's as they just ran the D11-P, but I doubt they will give us delays they never produced in the past.
I'd like to get them to produce the B8 and C5 series motors that will actually lift SOME mass compared to the other 18mm offerings. I think the vast majority would GLADLY give up the B4-4 for anything in a B8 or C5 flavor.

[shockwaveriderz]

I don't think current model rocket technology would allow for a D30 or anything approaching that, witness the D13 and E15.... paper casings and the mechanical friction of clay nozzles are low pressure vessels by design, it a safety feature .....I don't think the E9 or D12 even approach 200 psi in chamber pressure at peak thrust and average maybe 75-100 in the cruise phase. Its the peak thrust ie max thrust that blows the nozzles because of high chamber pressures. Until model rocket engines can sustain chamber pressure in the 300-400 psi range we are limited to D12 and E9 for BP. Plus BP running at these chamber pressures would also result in some increase in Specific Impulse. I don't ever really see this happening. Estes can make a typical ABC engine for 25 cents in materials cost and then charge a super high margin even at discount because they are a monopoly and have no real competition.


Edit I misspoke above I originally said Total Impulse when I meant Specific Impulse so I have edited it.

Terry Dean

[gpoehlein]

Y'know - talking about smaller motors and boost gliders, I wish they'd go back to making the 1/4A3-2 and 1/4A3-4 rather than the -3 they make now. That thing is just a bit too long for a 1/4A boost glider without using a piston.

Of course, next time our club runs the 1/4A BG event, I might just try clustering two micromaxx (1/8A) motors - that short delay might be just the ticket for the event!

Greg

[Jerry Irvine]

I don't think current model rocket technology would allow for a D30 or anything approaching that, witness the D13 and E15.... paper casings and the mechanical friction of clay nozzles are low pressure vessels by design, it a safety feature .....I don't think the E9 or D12 even approach 200 psi in chamber pressure at peak thrust and average maybe 75-100 in the cruise phase. Its the peak thrust ie max thrust that blows the nozzles because of high chamber pressures. Until model rocket engines can sustain chamber pressure in the 300-400 psi range we are limited to D12 and E9 for BP. Plus BP running at these chamber pressures would also result in some increase in Total Impulse. I don't ever really see this happening. Estes can make a typical ABC engine for 25 cents in materials cost and then charge a super high margin even at discount because they are a monopoly and have no real competition.

Terry Dean

I did not become an advocate of the Estes 24mm E9 (E15) case D40 (D30 on this site) until after I saw them fly flawlessly. They are the perfect motor for the Saturn V as a drop stage, or for many 24mm kits for fast flights on windy days.

You should stop trying to make tech posts. They are not your forte.

Jerry

[shockwaveriderz]

I did not become an advocate of the Estes 24mm E9 (E15) case D40 (D30 on this site) until after I saw them fly flawlessly. They are the perfect motor for the Saturn V as a drop stage, or for many 24mm kits for fast flights on windy days.

You should stop trying to make tech posts. They are not your forte.

Jerry


seeing a handmade d30/40 at a Estes test does not make a mass merchandise/manufacturing motor. If Estes could manufacture such a beast they would have years ago. I guess you have forgotten that the E9 was the result of the E15 fiasco. Or at least that was what I was told by the person(s) who designed and tested them at Estes.

according to old posts the Estes e15 was more like an E11.

From Mike Hellmund formerly of Estes :

" When we were experimenting with the first batch of E15s, the engine guys made up a bunch of E15-0. The problem with this engine is that it had such a high chamber pressure that they would always blow the upper stage off before igniting the lower stage (in addition
to the E15 having such a small nozzle)."


"With prototype engines, like the E-15s or C10s we probably ran about 1000
test engines per delay. Frequently first prototype engines were hand made
in threes or fours. When you did production runs it was usually a minimum of 5000, mostly 15000 (enough for 5000 packs). The E's were ran in smaller quantities (about 5000
for 2500 packs). "

"The C10 was a C engine with a D nozzle. Burned for 1/4 sec with a 3/4 sec
one newton tail off. A low C but a very nice engine."

"Soemone wondered about the C10-4 listing on the old Skywinder boxes:
Just to give you a little history (This all happened around the
mid-nineties): Estes never sold the C10's ; however they produced quite a
truck load (and boy did we at Estes have fun flying 'em). They did receive
an exemption number from the DOT. I don't know if they were ever submitted
to the NAR for certification (If they were, it happened after I left Estes).
The D48 (a core burning D built around the E engine casing - a very wicked D
engine) was another magnificent sport blackpowder engine that never made it
to production or certification (but a lot were flown at Estes and a few
other "select" site)

I am fortunate to have a few each of the C10-0, C10-2, C10-4 in addition to
couple of the D48-0, D48-4, D48-6. Some of you have seen me fly these
engines (at non-NAR events, of course). The D48's were flown in a LOC Viper
4 (a four cluster) created a wonderfully loud and quick flight.
The C10-0 worked great in Tomcats although the C engine was never quite a
full C (around 8 N). The nozzle was the same as a D. The C10-2 was perfect
in the Skywinder.

It does go to prove, that when the R&D and engine guys at Estes (especially
since they do have the guru of Black powder at Estes - I am not sure he
would like to mention his name) are allowed free reign, they can make some
pretty neat stuff. "

"How about an D48? We flew these when I was at Estes. They are built into
an E15 (or E9) casing. The nozzle was about 5/16 to 3/8" in diameter and
cored. The igniter had to be modified (we stripped the paper tape away to
fit down into the nozzle. We had 0,2, and 4 second delays. Very loud and
fast. "

"The D48 and C10 engines were given to me to play with by the guy running
their engine program since the company decided not to take them into their
program (they were going to disposed of them). I only have a few and would
probably not sell them. They are fun to look at and speculate what might
have been. I have flown the D48 booster staged to a D12-7. I have
clustered 4 D48-6 in a Loc Viper 4 (as well as SUCCESSFULLY cluster 4 E15-8
at the NSL in 98). The D48 was made in the long E15 casing and had a nozzle
you could stick a 10 mm engine in. The C10's were a sweet motor (a C engine
with a d nozzle)(it's total newtons were about 8). The C10-0 was perfect in
the Tomcat because it had the high initial spike and then a 0.75 second 1-2
total newton-sec burn. The wings would kick out right at apogee (about 200
feet). "

Yeah that's right Estes once had a C10 they tested in addition to the D48 ,etc.... .






ESTES Engines (never marketed!)
1 D48-0 $9.99 (1 engine)
3 D48-3 $9.99 each "
3 D48-5 $9.99 each "
1 E15-0 $9.99 "

sold by Kevin Nolan who used to own Countdown Hobbies




"They did test some high thrust/short burn D motors. Hey Bob, was it a D48?" From a post by Jerry Irvine

Bob Kaplow responds, "D48. Looks like an E9 with a huge core. Never sold or certified, but the R&D guys played wth them out back."

All of the above is at rec.models.rockets....

EDIT

I am attaching the 1st page from an Estes patent application for their EB-75 composite propellant. The graph shows the effect of chamber pressure on Specific Impulse. It compares BP to the various formulations of Eb-75. Notice how the ISp for Bp increases somewhat when the chamber pressure increases?

also attached is a couple photo's of the D48





Terry Dean

[ghrocketman]

THOSE D48's are the EXACT kind of motors Estes SHOULD mass-produce but refuses instead of the low-thrust nonsense E9's

[Doug Sams]

THOSE D48's are the EXACT kind of motors Estes SHOULD mass-produce but refuses instead of the low-thrust nonsense E9'sI suspect there's a corporate policy against using alternate materials that would allow some of these high thrust motors to be made more reliable and hence more marketable. My guess is they need a different, more stable case material - ie, fiberglass - along with a different nozzle material, to withstand the higher chamber pressures. But they're restricted to paper and clay.

It could be such materials make these motors nonviable cost-wise, but I'd like to see a cost sheet before I buy that :)

I can't say with certainty that the reluctance is entirely stubbornness, but I do wonder if they consider the higher selling price when looking at increased costs. That is, are they trying to make a D48 for the same cost as a D12 without considering that folks will pay more? OTOH, maybe they are looking at it from the perspective that most buyers will be soccer dads who think a D is a D, and only a very few customers (us) are willing to pay the premium for a D48.

Doug

.

[Jerry Irvine]

The NCR line showed there is too much of a usage change leap for existing BCD centric customers to go "high power" all at once. They need a gentle transition.

The "Barry powder" which is really "Vulcanite-tm" seems to be targeted to the same rockets, with one step higher power and the same igniters, plugs, cases, and methods as now.

It seems to be optimized for as low as 100 psi operating pressure.

BTW KP Vulcanite does not have the same core size and shape restrictions as BP. B14 and C14 here we come!

Jerry

[Oliver]

Since the B14 is not to be, I'd like to see the B8.
I agree. The B8-5 was one of my favourites in the 80´s. Would love to see this engine back!

[Carl@Semroc]

My second choice would be the C5-3. The whole Centuri Super Kits line was designed around it.

[GregGleason]

...

EDIT

I am attaching the 1st page from an Estes patent application for their EB-75 composite propellant. The graph shows the effect of chamber pressure on Specific Impulse. It compares BP to the various formulations of Eb-75. Notice how the ISp for Bp increases somewhat when the chamber pressure increases?
...



Wow! :eek:

Somehow I missed this post so thanks for posting that information, Terry.

That is significant! Has Estes/Hobbico flagged any direction they may be taking with this propellant? Depending on what impulse the motors they made from Vulcanite, I would be very interested. :D

Greg

[Jerry Irvine]

Has Estes/Hobbico flagged any direction they may be taking with this propellant?
The patent application itself makes reference to C, D, E. Since the ISP is about double black powder and is used in the same cases, motor mounts, and rockets, with the same igniters and plug technology, we can safely say D in a C tube and E in a D tube. The process still uses the same BP delay and ejection and clay cap and nozzle best as I can tell.

Maybe we will finally see 10.0 N-s C's and C14's and such.

Jerry

[ghrocketman]

I think it's safe to say under the previous regime at Estes they were doing exactly NOTHING with that formulation seeing as the patent was from 2005. I'd like to hope for something out of the new folks, but I'm not holding my breath.
I have officially given up on those supposed new big SU BP motors from brand "Q"; those have been a never ending string of excuses just like their 18mm VAPORWARE "D" was for like four freakin years.
Actually propulsion wise for 18 to 29mm I've given up on getting anything in any sort of timely fashion (by timely meaning announcing something no more than 6 months before customers can get them without LAME-O excuses) out of anybody other than Aerotech.
They respond to customer wants for propulsion and when they say they are doing something, they do it without "lame excuses" (read this as a load of crap) ad infinitum.

[ghrocketman]

Sure wish one of the model rocket companies would actually poll the general rocket hobby public and ask what new motors are desired.
After they get the results it would be REALLY refreshing for someone to actually produce motors we are looking for instead of low-thrust baloney NOBODY is asking for.
We do NOT need low thrust D, E, or F anythings; we need HIGH thrust for impulse B, C, D, E, and F SU BP engines that cost a reasonable price. The D, E, and F cost could be a little higher than a composite reload PER n-sec but nowhere near the cost of a composite SU in order for them to sell. For the B and C I'd be willing to pay between 20-25% over the typical STREET/mail order price for B6-4's and C6-5's to get B14's and something like a C19.

[Jerry Irvine]

Firstly polls are inaccurate due to self-selection. Sales are accurate. Past experience is at least a guide to future directions and as much as we all love the B14, it never sold enough to justify looking into alternate production methods requiring essentially a reset of Mable for a couple of days. They opted to drill motors starting from a style that came off Mable with existing tooling.

The thing that is going to change all that is not polls or loud rants or even special orders. It is "Vulcanite". A propellant designed for Estes by Scott Dixon despite years of verbal abuse by the folks at Tripoli starting with its then President Chuck Rogers, going all around the country accusing him of stuff and decertifying his wonderful motors.

What comes around goes around. Scott quietly shifted down the power range but way up the sales volume range.

Great job Scott! Now let's see what the nerds at Estes can do with it. I am guessing an 18mm C8, D6 and a 24mm E20 and F15.

Not B14's but something cool.

Jerry

[ghrocketman]

An 18mm C8 and D6 would be wonderful as well as a 24mm F15.
Those would not quite be the thrust level I'm looking for, but would still be better than what currently exists, not to mention much better than the new low-thrust garbage that all SU BP manufacturers seem hell-bent on trying to convince us we need.
I however am not optomistic for Estes to use this "vulcanite" as it was patented several years ago with nothing done. The only thing we have going for us with regards to this is the absence of Barry. Now if they do produce these engines but price them like composites, NO THANKS as it would be of LOWER average thrust. I will just stick to D21's, D24's, E15's, and E30's from the valuerockets.com site !!!

[shockwaveriderz]

Aerotech could produce hi-thrust BC reloads if they wanted to. They once had some C12 I beleive. I know they had a C4 and maybe a B6.

Terry Dean

[jetlag]

My opinion here, but fumbling through a reload for a B or C engine is just waaay too much trouble. Probably why Aerotech does not do those anymore.

Allen

[ghrocketman]

I'd like to see Aerotech bring back the C12 and E27 reloads for the 18mm case.
There are not enough reloads for that 18mm case with just the two "D" loads.
I know Gary mentioned it would be easy to bring back the E27, but that was over a year ago and have not heard anything more since.

[Bazookadale]

Sure wish one of the model rocket companies would actually poll the general rocket hobby public and ask what new motors are desired.
After they get the results it would be REALLY refreshing for someone to actually produce motors we are looking for instead of low-thrust baloney NOBODY is asking for.

I wouldn't say that, there is a place for low thrust motors - I'd love to have a B14 but I'd also love the old B3 -3 (18mm) that MPC used to make - great for gliders !



We do NOT need low thrust D, E, or F anythings; we need HIGH thrust for impulse B, C, D, E, and F SU BP engines that cost a reasonable price. The D, E, and F cost could be a little higher than a composite reload PER n-sec but nowhere near the cost of a composite SU in order for them to sell. For the B and C I'd be willing to pay between 20-25% over the typical STREET/mail order price for B6-4's and C6-5's to get B14's and something like a C19.

But you wouldn't fly B14s and C19s on a regular basis - I'd LOVE to have them but they are niche motors

[CPMcGraw]

...polls are inaccurate due to self-selection. Sales are accurate...

Sales would be more accurate if you measured from the end-user purchase, and not from shipments to distributors. The years Estes sold through Wal-Mart is an example. A-C engines were being sold in large quantities to the distributor, but those sales figures were severely skewed by the way Wal-Mart controlled the flow. Estes could easily rack up sales of C engines, but consider how often we could go into a store and the only thing they had on the shelves were C's that no one needed or wanted.

Not meant to be a bone of contention, just an observation. Polls serve a niche purpose - they can identify potential blocks of customers and product lines. Sales may be a better judge [of success], but you can't sell what you don't have. You have to use some method of determining what product(s) to make.

[Jerry Irvine]

Hobby rocketry is a supply-push not a demand-pull model, for all but the most mature products.

The Wal-Mart example is filling a supply chain with a severely broken restocking model. It's a bad test. In fact one should only sell to Wal-Mart what they can stack on a pallet in an aisle and sell "as-is" and when they're gone they're gone. Starter outfits do that well. Could it be done with engines?

:eek:

Jerry

[Doug Sams]

Sales would be more accurate if you measured from the end-user purchase, and not from shipments to distributors. The years Estes sold through Wal-Mart is an example. A-C engines were being sold in large quantities to the distributor, but those sales figures were severely skewed by the way Wal-Mart controlled the flow. Estes could easily rack up sales of C engines, but consider how often we could go into a store and the only thing they had on the shelves were C's that no one needed or wanted.

Not meant to be a bone of contention, just an observation. Polls serve a niche purpose - they can identify potential blocks of customers and product lines. Sales may be a better judge [of success], but you can't sell what you don't have. You have to use some method of determining what product(s) to make.Exactly. Cell phones are a really good example, too. Most of them are sold thru the service providers. Few go directly to the consumers. The result is that the phone manufacturing specs (ie, features) are determined more by AT&T, et al, than they are by the consumers, who tend towards taking the "package" deals offered by the providers.

Doug

.

[Initiator001]

My opinion here, but fumbling through a reload for a B or C engine is just waaay too much trouble. Probably why Aerotech does not do those anymore.

Allen

The AeroTech B, C & E27 reloads were cancelled due to low sales. Distributors placed one order for them and by the time I left AT, I was still waiting for there to be any reorders of these products. :(

Bob

[CPMcGraw]

Hobby rocketry is a supply-push not a demand-pull model, for all but the most mature products.

The Wal-Mart example is filling a supply chain with a severely broken restocking model. It's a bad test. In fact one should only sell to Wal-Mart what they can stack on a pallet in an aisle and sell "as-is" and when they're gone they're gone. Starter outfits do that well. Could it be done with engines?

:eek:

Jerry

Which is the Sam's Wholesale Club model... Still Wal-Mart... :D

Maybe that's been the 'broken' aspect of model rocketry production/sales all along. The manufacturer only 'pushing' something instead of occasionally listening for the 'pull'. :)

Addendum: Maybe Estes could try the Sam's approach (large pallets in the aisles, like shrink-wrapped cartons of water) with the common 18mm engines and starter sets. That might be the way to ensure enough 'mass' in the pipeline to provide revenue for supplying hobby shops with the 'other' engines hobbyists want. If the price could be kept at a reasonable price point, rocketry customers would pick up five or six packs at a time, instead of trying to justify one or two packs.

[tfischer]

Sorry if I missed this in the prior 7 pages of thread (which I attempted to skim), but can someone explain the need for a C5 motor? What can it do that a C6 cannot?

Thanks,
-Tim

[CPMcGraw]

Sorry if I missed this in the prior 7 pages of thread (which I attempted to skim), but can someone explain the need for a C5 motor? What can it do that a C6 cannot?

Thanks,
-Tim

Very large initial spike in power to get a heavier rocket off the pad, instead of a longer-burn at a reduced spike. The Space Shuttle model flew much better on the C5.

[tfischer]

Very large initial spike in power to get a heavier rocket off the pad, instead of a longer-burn at a reduced spike. The Space Shuttle model flew much better on the C5.

Now I'm confused. I thought "6" meant a larger initial spike? Or are you saying the "5" had the lower spike with longer burn?

Thanks for the info...

-Tim

[ghrocketman]

The C5 had a MUCH higher thrust spike off the pad then a lower sustaining thrust for a longer period than the C6, thus it would lift a much heavier rocket safely. It had almost double the initial thrust of the C6 then a sustaining 2/3 thrust of the C6 for the remainder of the burn. The area under the curve is the same for the C5 and C6, the curve of the C5 is just much more useful.
There is plenty a C5-3 can do that a C6-3 can't, but nothing a C6-3 can do the C5-3 doesn't do better. There is NO functional/performance reason to have the C6-3/0 in the lineup over the C5-3/0.

Yes, I would fly the B14 and C19 REGULARLY over the typical B6-4/C6-5. I would ONLY use the B6/C6 series when I specifically wanter LOWER thrust for a glider or in clusters; for everyday single-motor rockets I prefer motors with real kick.

The 1284 Space Shuttle, K40 Mars Lander, and K36 Saturn V on a 3xC5-3 cluster flew much better on the C5-3 than the C6-3.

The initial kick of the C5-3 was like a C12 off the pad then like a C4 for the sustaining thrust.

[tfischer]

The C5 had a MUCH higher thrust spike off the pad then a lower sustaining thrust for a longer period than the C6, thus it would lift a much heavier rocket safely. It had almost double the initial thrust of the C6 then a sustaining 2/3 thrust of the C6 for the remainder of the burn. The area under the curve is the same for the C5 and C6, the curve of the C5 is just much more useful.
There is plenty a C5-3 can do that a C6-3 can't, but nothing a C6-3 can do the C5-3 doesn't do better. There is NO functional/performance reason to have the C6-3/0 in the lineup over the C5-3/0.

Yes, I would fly the B14 and C19 REGULARLY over the typical B6-4/C6-5. I would ONLY use the B6/C6 series when I specifically wanter LOWER thrust for a glider or in clusters; for everyday single-motor rockets I prefer motors with real kick.

The 1284 Space Shuttle, K40 Mars Lander, and K36 Saturn V on a 3xC5-3 cluster flew much better on the C5-3 than the C6-3.

The initial kick of the C5-3 was like a C12 off the pad then like a C4 for the sustaining thrust.

Thanks for the info. I guess I totally misunderstand what the first number after the letter means. I was under the impression that the higher the number, the higher the "kick off the pad", and that the letter indicated total impulse.

I'm still learning :)

[CPMcGraw]

Now I'm confused. I thought "6" meant a larger initial spike? Or are you saying the "5" had the lower spike with longer burn?

Thanks for the info...

-Tim

Being a 'core-burner', the C5 had a higher spike, but a very short burn. The C6, an 'end-burner', has a lower spike, but a longer burn. Don't confuse the catalog-listed 'burn times' (2.10 sec for the C5, 1.70 sec for the C6). Those times are measuring the 'tail off' as well. The C5 had a very low-thrust 'tail' (almost negligible).

Power output was 60 oz for the spike of the C5, versus only 48 oz for the spike of the C6. When you look at "power X time" the C6 has a bit more, but when you look at the instantaneous power, the C5 could lift a heavier rocket (just not as high).

[Bazookadale]

Thanks for the info. I guess I totally misunderstand what the first number after the letter means. I was under the impression that the higher the number, the higher the "kick off the pad", and that the letter indicated total impulse.

I'm still learning :)

The first number is the average thrust, which is not representative of peak thrust.
you should always check out thrust curves on the NAR site or others -

from http://www.nar.org/NARmotors.html

Average Thrust

Average thrust is a measure of how slowly or quickly the motor delivers its total energy, and is measured in Newtons. The "6" in our example motor tells us that the energy is delivered at a moderate rate (over about 1.7 seconds). A C4 would deliver weaker thrust over a longer time (about 2.5 seconds), while a C10 would deliver a strong thrust for a shorter time (about a second). Note, however that the average thrust printed on the motor may differ greatly from the actual average thrust of the motor. You should check the engine data sheets at http://www.nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml for an accurate value. Just click on the motor designation for a particular motor to get a sheet with the actual as-tested numbers for every NAR certified motor.

As a rule of thumb, the thrust duration of a motor can be approximated by dividing its total impulse by its average thrust.

Keep in mind that you cannot assume that the actual total impulse of a motor lies at the top end of its letter's power range -- an engine marked "C" might be engineered to deliver only 5.5 Newton-seconds, not 10.

[Jerry Irvine]

not to mention much better than the new low-thrust garbage that all SU BP manufacturers seem hell-bent on trying to convince us we need.
Don't yell at Mabel. She's sensitive.

Jerry

:D

[ghrocketman]

I was not yelling at Mabel-she has not really came out with anything "new" in over a decade and that was the E9 and C11, two motors I question the need for.
I was actually referencing the new low-thrust D's in two very slightly different flavors in 24mm and ODDBALL 20mm from another manufacturer.
All I'm suggesting is that if you come out with new motors:
1) Make sure the motor fills a real niche that is NOT already filled; don't be a "Me too"
2) In addition to #1, make sure the motor is something a large percentage of the hobby actually want; if it fills a niche that very few want filled, what good is it ?

High-thrust/short burn motors can be used across the widest range of rockets; Low-thrust long-burn motors are good only for the lightest of rockets to use that impulse.
For example, An E30 works well in a Saturn V and in a Cherokee D; An E9 that works in a Cherokee D is an absolute DISASTER in a Saturn V or anything in the 4" Maxi-Brute range.

Besides, all marketing idiots know that higher/bigger number sells more from a marketing standpoint; from a pure spur-of-the-moment purchase by those that have novice knowledge and price equal, A B14 should outsell a B4, a C19 should outsell a C6, and a D40 should outsell a D12.
The baloney excuse of using low sales numbers from 1974 to 1980 for the B14 holds no water now. Just based alone on how long it has been since produced, I'd venture to guess the sales numbers B14 in all flavors (0, 3, 5, 7 with no need for the USELESS -6 delay) would be very close to B4 and B6 numbers COMBINED at least for a few years.

EXCUSES are like A@$%01#S; everybody has one and they ALL STINK

[Initiator001]

Just based alone on how long it has been since produced, I'd venture to guess the sales numbers B14 in all flavors (0, 3, 5, 7 with no need for the USELESS -6 delay) would be very close to B4 and B6 numbers COMBINED at least for a few years.



In my opinion, it would take selling B14 motors for ten years to equal one year's sales of B4 or B6 motors. ;)

Bob

[ghrocketman]

Offer all three versions of the B motor, B14, B6, and B4 in a generic retail environment like Hobby Lobby or Michaels, and I'd wager a SIGNIFICANT amount that the general public would buy the B14 over the others because it "sounds bigger". Idiotic, but that's the general intelligence level of the "general public" that is easily swayed by marketing CRAP.
That alone would make it worth it for the "Big E" to produce them again.
I have not bought a B4 motor in years other than NOS B4-6's but would probably never again buy a B4-4 or B6-4 if the B14-5 came back. Ditto for the B6-0 compared to the B14-0.
Would probably buy B4-6's over the B6-6 if those came back.

Idiotic motors that are still produced:
B6-6 instead of B4-6; B4-6 results in higher altitude and is easier to ignite due to the larger diameter nozzle.

B4-2 and B4-4 along with the B6-2 and B6-4; too much redundancy here.
Keep the B4-2 as the low-thrust glider motor and the B6-4 as there is nothing the B4-4 can do that the B6-4 does not do better.
Would gladly give up the B6-2 and B4-4 to have them replaced by the B8-5 and B8-0, both of which are much more useful motors that do not have to be drilled.

C6-0/C6-3 should be replaced by C5-0/C5-3; there is NOTHING the C6-0/C6-3 do that can't be done better by the C5-0/C5-3 !

May start experimenting again with self drilled B4's to make pseudo B14s.
Worked quite well in the past; not quite the kick of a real B14, but more kick than a B8. Had a zero cato rate as well.

[luke strawwalker]

Unfortunately too easy to do. I recall a Mirv Gryphon flying in an Imagination Celebration at a NARAM with what had to have been expired certification A10-0Ts.

<rant>
OK, my turn to yell a little bit from atop of that there soapbox.

One side says that OOP motors should not be safety certified forever. They state some liability reasoning.

The other side says that if I am allowed to fly a forty-year-old A8-3 which had been through who knows what kind of torture and waterboarding, then why should I not be allowed to fly a ten-year-old A10-0T which has been carefully stored and preserved? And if Estes comes through with their promise to resume production, then suddenly, my old motors are golden again?

What we have now is the NAR expired motor testing program which I fully believe is a head-fake. Those who want to fly their old motors are happy because they can do so with a small amount of paperwork. Those who collect old motors are happy because the supply of them is being used up, making the stashes ever more valuable.

The problem falls into the lap of those club officers who organize and run launches. Suppose that Roy's Scout had an errant flight, landing where it should not and causing damage or starting a bad fire. Insurance adjusters, upon discovering the uncertified motor, rules that the incident is not covered by the policy.

My position is and always have been that faulty motors should be decertified for safety reasons. All other motors should remain certified regardless of their manufacturing status.

Tripoli made a good move in allowing previously certified motors in their Research program. If only they can find a way for NAR-only members to participate...
</rant>


Bill

TOTALLY agree with this...

Even new motors malfunction from time to time. The certification should be seperate from the manufacturing status. If a motor proves to be statistically prone to malfunction above a specific threshold, then it should be decertified. Otherwise the certifications should remain in effect regardless of manufacturing status.

The present system of decerting motors that are still capable of being flown for no reason except manufacturing status, leaves a glaring hole of liability, as pointed out.

Good post! OL JR :)

[Jerry Irvine]

TOTALLY agree with this...

The present system of decerting motors that are still capable of being flown for no reason except manufacturing status, leaves a glaring hole of liability, as pointed out.

This is a policy of NAR and can be changed by the stroke of a pen at any moment and should. Just as when they authored this bad rule and propogated it to other clubs and the NFPA process, they will have to go through all that again to kill it. Just as they should with certifications of users that expire, although that is not propogated to NFPA. It's just a stupid rule in the club they can change at anytime with no hassle at all.

Just Jerry

[luke strawwalker]

This is a policy of NAR and can be changed by the stroke of a pen at any moment and should. Just as when they authored this bad rule and propogated it to other clubs and the NFPA process, they will have to go through all that again to kill it. Just as they should with certifications of users that expire, although that is not propogated to NFPA. It's just a stupid rule in the club they can change at anytime with no hassle at all.

Just Jerry

Well, stupid rules is the point of organizations, be they governments or clubs...

The same thing is common with agricultural pesticide licenses and procedures. The entire system is MUCH more difficult than it need be. Buy a book ($), go to an all-day class ($$), take a test, pay your fifty bucks ($$$) (which is what they REALLY want to begin with-- follow the money!) and you get your five-year license. Of course then you have to accumulate 15 CEU credits by missing work to attend a menagerie of extension service programs to accumulate the needed CEU's for renewal. More $$$$. The main purpose of these classes is to justify keeping a bunch of ag-college people employed putting them on, to justify a paycheck for something that could just as easily be done with pre-recorded contents either on the internet, mailed out as hardcopy, or presented in the office at leisure instead of through organized 'speaking engagements'. Then pay another $50 for the renewal and submit proof that you've attended the requisite classes to keep the license. (Justify MORE jobs for beancounters in Austin, keeping the records and verifying the records submitted). You cannot renew until you have the CEU's. Renew within a year of losing the license and you CAN get it reinstated, IF you go scrambling around like a madman trying to get ALL 15 CEU's in short order before you're out of time. After a year, to get the license back, you have to retest like you never had one.

TOTALLY stupid way to do it. Either you KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING, OR YOU DON'T. That experience doesn't expire. The knowledge doesn't evaporate if you don't constantly attend rediculous ag-presentations. It's merely a protocol designed to force people to jump through hoops to justify employing a bunch of people that would otherwise be sacking feed in a feed plant somewhere for $6 an hour after spending $100,000 going to Texas A&M... (which can, does, and HAS happened!) It's a way for the government to strongarm farmers out of money to attend classes and renew the licenses, and justify beancounters job's in Austin.

Same justifications apply to the stupid "cert" programs for HPR... and the "expiration" of your cert if you let your membership in the organization "lapse". It's a way to strongarm folks out of the membership dues...

Let's just call it like it is instead of sugar-coating it...

Later! OL JR :)

[ghrocketman]

Agree that pesticide regs/licenses are another useless area of regulation, be it individual or agricultural property.
If it was up to me, on your property you should be able to spray WHATEVER YOU WANT, WHENEVER YOU WANT, free of need of ANY license, with no stinkin' gubmint involvement WHATSOEVER !
Many highly effective pesticides were/are demonized by leftwing HACKS that are always afraid of ANYTHING labeled a "chemical". DDT was banned by junk science that has been repeatedly refuted by genuine scientific facts. That ban alone has been responsible for countless HUMAN DEATHS due to Malaria and other maladies spread by mosquitos and other worthless insects. I myself choose to save human lives whenever possible, and I don't give a Rat's Patoot what environmental impact that supposedly has either.
Anybody care to venture a guess what gubmint agency would be the first to be shut down under an administration that I was in charge of via 1) refusal to fund via ANY budget that sends said agency one stinking dollar, and 2) by reassigning ALL personnel to other agencies that actually need more staff like the US Border Patrol to keep illegals from gaining entry upon threat of PRISON FARM hard-labor ?
Several agencies should be permanently disbanded, but that one would be the first.
What you use on YOUR property, should be YOUR bizzness ALONE, and I don't think you should have to even disclose SQUAT when/if you sell the land. As is, where is, how is, with zero warranty toward the suitability of said property for the buyers use. Caveat emptor, pal !

See tagline below my screen-name.

[kenobi65]

What you use on YOUR property, should be YOUR bizzness ALONE, and I don't think you should have to even disclose SQUAT when/if you sell the land. As is, where is, how is, with zero warranty toward the suitability of said property for the buyers use. Caveat emptor, pal !

Remind me to never consider buying property in or near Fenton, MI.

[blackshire]

If I was buying a piece of property that had once been the site of, say, a factory that made mercury-filled thermometers, I would like to know about that fact (in order to have soil and water table toxicity tests performed) before considering closing the deal.

[ghrocketman]

That's fine, but it should be up to the PURCHASER to discover that fact of mercury through their own investigation.
I don't think the seller should EVER have ANY duty to disclose that information whatsoever nor do I think the buyer should have ANY recourse if they did not diligently investigate what they are buying unless the seller told untruths to the buyer. Short of that, if they bought it and did not know what they got, TUFF ROXX !
I'm a FIRM believer of AS-IS, WHERE-IS, HOW-IS sales.

[blackshire]

That's fine, but it should be up to the PURCHASER to discover that fact of mercury through their own investigation.
I don't think the seller should EVER have ANY duty to disclose that information whatsoever nor do I think the buyer should have ANY recourse if they did not diligently investigate what they are buying unless the seller told untruths to the buyer. Short of that, if they bought it and did not know what they got, TUFF ROXX !
I'm a FIRM believer of AS-IS, WHERE-IS, HOW-IS sales.I wouldn't care to live in a society in which I would have to hire a private eye before making every real estate or vehicle purchase. The unknowing buyers of "clip cars" (re-built junkers made up from the intact front and rear halves of two wrecked cars that are welded together, sanded, and repainted to conceal the "scar") who have been killed and maimed in accidents (slower than should have been fatal) when the cars split apart at the weld seams might disagree with you. The records of these "clip jobs" were never revealed in these cars' paperwork.

Ditto for the "rolled back" odometers in used cars. If sellers aren't required by law to disclose things like these, what deterrent is there for dishonest sellers to *not* sell such unsafe or "long(er) in the tooth" vehicles to people? It might as well be like the old days when horse sellers rubbed down their old horses with lard to make them look younger than they were, or fattened up draft horses with treacle and linseed cakes to make them look more muscular.

When my parents built their house in Miami in 1949 - 1950, their lot was ~150' from the edge of a filled-in gargage dump, the existence of which the land owner was able to conceal from the individuals and developers who built the next block over atop the dump (although my father warned them). The soil on that block is now 5' - 6' below the levels of the houses there because the ground settled as the garbage decayed, and the concrete sidewalk had to be replaced with an asphalt one that conforms to the uneven contours as the land continues to settle. The eyesores of "high and dry" homes on that block are glaring examples of why seller disclosure laws are necessary.

[Bazookadale]

That's fine, but it should be up to the PURCHASER to discover that fact of mercury through their own investigation.
I don't think the seller should EVER have ANY duty to disclose that information whatsoever nor do I think the buyer should have ANY recourse if they did not diligently investigate what they are buying unless the seller told untruths to the buyer. Short of that, if they bought it and did not know what they got, TUFF ROXX !
I'm a FIRM believer of AS-IS, WHERE-IS, HOW-IS sales.

Absurd - it's just that attitude that forces the public to demand the government to step in to protect our rights to not be scammed by you!

[ghrocketman]

I don't see it as a scam AT ALL.
Notice I did NOT say I'm condoning deliberate deception; If a seller is asked a straight up question, I believe they should be duty bound to answer it truthfully to the best of their ability; I conversely do not think they should ever be duty bound to disclose ANYTHING negative they are not inquired about.
I see it as a failure of the purchaser in them not performing required due diligence to find out what they are actually buying.
I quite frankly am sick of laws designed to protect lowest common denominator idiots.
That's why we labels on toasters and hair dryers stating "do not use under water" to protect idiots with lawyers willing to represent them in courts that should not even allow the cases beyond the front door.
It is just one more part of the continual dumbing down of society and is the bane of our great country.
Anytime I make a major purchase, I thoroughly investigate what I'm buying.
If someone is dumb enough to buy a piece of land that sits atop a former toxic waste site and they do not discover or ask about the suitability of the land or fail to perform a soil analysis, THEY LOSE if the sale is completed.

What rights do you speak of that are violated you want the gubmint to step in to protect ?
The commonly now popular right to be STUPID ??? Last time I checked, the US Cnostitution never gave the "Right to Stupidity" in any place or Amendment.

[Jerry Irvine]

If I was buying a piece of property that had once been the site of, say, a factory that made mercury-filled thermometers, I would like to know about that fact (in order to have soil and water table toxicity tests performed) before considering closing the deal.
In our town Xerox had a plant that made toner cartridges. It was forced to move by constant harassment by regulators over pollution concerns, none of which were demonstrated. Xerox gave up the constant argument, shut down the plant and probably moved operations to Malaysia or something, razed the entire building, scraped 2 feet of topsoil off the entire 5 acres or so, installed groundwater sensors and treatment tanks, and let it sit for almost 20 years. An eyesore with no local employment.

That showed 'em!

They put the property up for sale this year. I wonder what disclosures they are required to make? They are expected to have a very large capital gain on the centrally located commercial lot.

Jerry

[Bazookadale]

I don't see it as a scam AT ALL.

I do see it as a scam if potentially lethal toxic agents are known to be on a property and not divulged - mercury is not the same as a damp basement, pesticides are not the same as a leaky water heater, they could injure or kill someone.


What rights do you speak of that are violated you want the gubmint to step in to protect ?
The commonly now popular right to be STUPID ??? Last time I checked, the US Cnostitution never gave the "Right to Stupidity" in any place or Amendment.

My unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Solomoriah]

I wouldn't care to live in a society in which I would have to hire a private eye before making every real estate or vehicle purchase. The unknowing buyers of "clip cars" (re-built junkers made up from the intact front and rear halves of two wrecked cars that are welded together, sanded, and repainted to conceal the "scar") who have been killed and maimed in accidents (slower than should have been fatal) when the cars split apart at the weld seams might disagree with you. The records of these "clip jobs" were never revealed in these cars' paperwork.
My last car was one of those. I knew it when I bought it... and I put about 100,000 miles on it. Probably six months before I got rid of it (electronics beginning to fade out on it), I had some exhaust work done, and the mechanic commented on how well they had welded it all together.

I was a 2000 Impala, 3.8 liter engine, went like its butt was on fire and stuck to the road like it was painted on. I loved it. But it got old and worn and I decided, given the current price of fuel, to get something that got more than 24 MPG. Thus, a 2009 Vibe now parks in my garage.

It's not how it's made (or repaired), but how WELL, that matters.

[blackshire]

My last car was one of those. I knew it when I bought it... and I put about 100,000 miles on it. Probably six months before I got rid of it (electronics beginning to fade out on it), I had some exhaust work done, and the mechanic commented on how well they had welded it all together.

I was a 2000 Impala, 3.8 liter engine, went like its butt was on fire and stuck to the road like it was painted on. I loved it. But it got old and worn and I decided, given the current price of fuel, to get something that got more than 24 MPG. Thus, a 2009 Vibe now parks in my garage.

It's not how it's made (or repaired), but how WELL, that matters.I agree. The shops that inform their buyers that the cars are "clipped" don't concern me. I imagine they even point out their well-made "clip cars" with pride as being "good as new" (structurally and aesthetically, if not in terms of mileage). The poorly-done, fragile clip cars are more likely to be sold by fly-by-night outfits that conceal the cars' histories from buyers, and those are the ones the law should come down on like a ton of bricks.

[STRMan]

Not that I'm complaining, but this is probably to most off track I've ever seen a thread go around here. We went from B14's to 3.8 liter V6's. Wow.

:chuckle:

[blackshire]

Not that I'm complaining, but this is probably to most off track I've ever seen a thread go around here. We went from B14's to 3.8 liter V6's. Wow.

:chuckle:...and somewhere, a thread on an online car forum has strayed into a discussion about model rocketry...thus, the balance of the cosmos is maintained... :-)

[STRMan]

...and somewhere, a thread on an online car forum has strayed into a discussion about model rocketry...thus, the balance of the cosmos is maintained... :-)

I am absolutely sure of that! :D

[luke strawwalker]

I don't see it as a scam AT ALL.
Notice I did NOT say I'm condoning deliberate deception; If a seller is asked a straight up question, I believe they should be duty bound to answer it truthfully to the best of their ability; I conversely do not think they should ever be duty bound to disclose ANYTHING negative they are not inquired about.
I see it as a failure of the purchaser in them not performing required due diligence to find out what they are actually buying.
I quite frankly am sick of laws designed to protect lowest common denominator idiots.
That's why we labels on toasters and hair dryers stating "do not use under water" to protect idiots with lawyers willing to represent them in courts that should not even allow the cases beyond the front door.
It is just one more part of the continual dumbing down of society and is the bane of our great country.
Anytime I make a major purchase, I thoroughly investigate what I'm buying.
If someone is dumb enough to buy a piece of land that sits atop a former toxic waste site and they do not discover or ask about the suitability of the land or fail to perform a soil analysis, THEY LOSE if the sale is completed.

What rights do you speak of that are violated you want the gubmint to step in to protect ?
The commonly now popular right to be STUPID ??? Last time I checked, the US Cnostitution never gave the "Right to Stupidity" in any place or Amendment.

This is true...

While I'm glad that we have SOME rules/regs and disclosure laws and stuff like that, the thing is, NOTHING will ABSOLUTELY protect you, and you can't protect a complete idiot hell-bent on doing anything he wants to regardless of the consequences.

If licenses were the answer, we wouldn't have drunk drivers. As I said, the GUY IN CHARGE OF THE LICENSES (well, on the county committee overseeing the licenses) was doing ABSOLUTELY STUPID DANGEROUS STUFF with his cotton poison, simply because he was TOO D#MN LAZY to do the job RIGHT! How do you fix that?? I dunno... I DO know that I've seen PERFECTLY CAPABLE and QUALIFIED farmers, mostly older gents, who had been SAFELY and ACCURATELY applying farm chemicals all their lives, denied a license because they weren't good test takers. In the meanwhile, the guy in charge of the licenses is a lazy college-educated jackhole that should know better and yet STILL dumps chemicals 30 feet from his water well... HOW STUPID IS THAT??

Same goes for disclosure laws. Sure, they're there to protect you, but a CROOK isn't going to do what he's LEGALLY supposed to do ANYWAY, so you may well STILL be stuck with the fallout from it! I know a buddy of mine up in Dixon, TN who was telling me one time about some company that came into town, got a HUGE tax abatement to relocate there, set up shop and manufactured stuff for about a decade. The tax abatement was due to end, so the company fished around for another *sucker* town willing to give them a huge tax abatement to relocate THERE and left the property they were on to the four winds... all they were out was the price of a tin barn/building to house thier manufacturing stuff in... thing is, they found HUNDREDS of 55 gallon barrels of waste chemicals from their manufacturing buried on the property, leaching into the groundwater... WHICH IS ILLEGAL, BUT SINCE WHEN DO CROOKS OBEY THE LAW??? Now the city/county is stuck with a HUGE cleanup bill, after this company getting ten years TAX FREE to operate in the county, touting all the supposed jobs they were bringing in, and how it would build the tax base of the community, and how much in tax they'd end up paying once they were established and the tax abatement ended.

Personally, I'd like to see ALL these tax abatements and incentives for businesses to relocate OUTLAWED. They serve NO PURPOSE except being a form of corporate welfare, STEALING from the surrounding taxpayers to fund some stupid business or other. Japan has it right on this count... if a business wants to locate in a certain area, they have to CONTRIBUTE to the locality by offering some kind of incentive to allow them there-- like building a new community center, or adding on to the hospital, or the schools, or whatever... None of this "screw the taxpayers so we get Company X here" BS...

They tried that in Shiner a few years back... large chicken company (there are only THREE chicken companies in the US that account for over 90% of the business) came sniffing around for a big incentive program for them to relocate to the Shiner area. They wanted a COMPLETE tax abatement for ten years, minimum, on all county and local taxes. They wanted 200 acres, valued at about 2 million, bought by the taxpayers and DONATED to the company for their chicken plant, and they wanted the gravel county road coming in about a mile from the nearest highway, to be completely paved and widened to the standards of a regular highway for their 18 wheeler traffic coming in and out.... at a cost of ANOTHER $2-4 million bucks to the local taxpayers... For this they would *generously* be bringing ~100 mostly minimum wage jobs gutting chickens and loading trucks (guess who wants those jobs?? Sure ain't the locals!) and some BS figures (liars figure, remember) about how much "stimulus" they'd be bringing in to the local economy... PURE CRAP!

Thankfully the Shiner area told them to pound sand... so they went elsewhere... Course they were planning to hook some local farmers into 'raising chickens' for them... which is a HUGE mistake. Virtually ALL chickens raised in the US are grown under contract. A farmer signs with one of the "big three" to raise chickens, and basically is just a serf to the chicken company. The chicken company provides the chicks, the feed, the schedules, the feed additives, antibiotics, and all that crap, and the farmer merely houses and feeds the birds to slaughter size. The company then comes and collects the chickens, and then pays the farmer the agreed upon amount, depending on the weight and death losses of the chickens and whatever quality grade effects they have in the contract. The farmer has to provide the chicken house and equipment, which amounts to about $100,000 per chicken house.

Thing is, it sounds GOOD when you sign the contract-- all these promises of easy money, GUARANTEED MONEY-- no market risks like with cattle and crops... so a lot of farmers fall for it. Once you make your first year, the company guy comes sniffing around with a contract after you've delivered the chickens, and starts his sales pitch telling the farmer how wonderful a job he did, and that he should EXPAND... He's a GOOD chicken farmer, and the company needs more like him-- so they can BOTH make money! SO, the farmer gets hooked into borrowing another $100,000 to put in a second chicken house. The following year, the company guy comes back wanting him to put in a THIRD chicken house... By now the farmer is in debt up to his eyeballs, and the profits are low on raising chickens, so he doesn't want to take on more debt or invest more in building more chicken houses... so then the company plays hardball--- "Well, we thought you were a PROGRESSIVE farmer, interested in SUCCEEDING and making MORE MONEY... If you're not willing to expand, we're not gonna offer you another contract-- we want to deal with farmers willing to EXPAND, not "small time" operators... " Now the farmer is trapped-- he's in debt up to his eyeballs, and his ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME (via contract) is threatening to pull out. He has no choice. AFter a few years, when the tax abatements end, the company pulls out and leaves all these farmers twisting in the wind-- empty chicken houses with NO contracts, and NO MARKET to keep buying chickens, so the barns sit empty and rot down, and the farmer is just stuck with it...

Ain't corporate America great?? :rolleyes: Never trust ANYBODY in a suit...

Later! OL JR :)

[Doug Sams]

....the thing is, NOTHING will ABSOLUTELY protect you...Exactly.

A while back, I heard a guy on the radio, a purported survivalist, discussing a condition known as YOYO - you're on your own. This guy sounded pretty normal - he wasn't talking a bunch of Waco rhetoric or speaking in tongues, and even if I don't agree with him philosophically, he was still credible. He stated that under extreme conditions - be they acts of God or a Russian nuke attack - that nobody is gonna come save you. All the feds will be underground in Colorado - or dead. You will have to save yourself, just like those poor schmucks in New Orleans a few years ago.

That's when it became apparent that, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how long the gov't support systems had been working OK under nominal demand conditions, they couldn't possibly support a sudden 10x load in needy citizens. The gov't would be overwhelmed and folks would have to provide for themselves, or die.

At that point, I couldn't help but realize that we should all strive harder to be self sufficient and less dependent on gov't. When push comes to shove, you're on your own anyway. So we might as well keep that behemoth as small as possible the rest of the time.

Doug

.

[Initiator001]

I apologize for putting this thread somewhat back on topic. ;)

The Tower Hobbies website now lists the Estes C11-0, C11-5 and C11-7 motors as in-stock and available.

Cool. :cool: I like these motors. :D

Bob

[GregGleason]

I apologize for putting this thread somewhat back on topic. ;)

The Tower Hobbies website now lists the Estes C11-0, C11-5 and C11-7 motors as in-stock and available.

Cool. :cool: I like these motors. :D

Bob

Bob, I've never used these motors. What is special about them and what rockets do they usually fly in?

Greg

[STRMan]

Bob, I've never used these motors. What is special about them and what rockets do they usually fly in?

Greg

24 mm rockets that you actually want to get back if you only have a small field to fly in.

[Doug Sams]

24 mm rockets that you actually want to get back if you only have a small field to fly in.In particular, they're the next best thing to the defunct B14 (diameter notwithstanding). For example, the first stage of a stock Comanche is perfect for a C11-0. I have some other stagers where the higher thrust (versus the C6-0) gets a heavier rocket moving up the rod with authority while the C impulse keeps it on the field.

Several classic clones are well served if built with 24mm boosters to take advantage of the C11-0. For example, the Farside-X (3-stager) and Delta (CamRoc booster) both call for the B14-0 booster motor. In cloning them, they're readily upgrade-able to 24mm 1st stages to take advantage of the C11 booster.

Doug

.

[GregGleason]

Thanks Paul and Doug. That's good info to know.

Greg

[Bob H]

I just happen to notice on the Estes website, in the Coming Soon section, that they have listed a two stage 13mm powered model.

In addition to the previously announced A10-0T return, I would like to see 1/2A3-0T boosters, 1/2A3-6T and/or A3-6T motors for the sustainers.

[Green Dragon]

When my parents built their house in Miami in 1949 - 1950, their lot was ~150' from the edge of a filled-in gargage dump, the existence of which the land owner was able to conceal from the individuals and developers who built the next block over atop the dump (although my father warned them). The soil on that block is now 5' - 6' below the levels of the houses there because the ground settled as the garbage decayed, and the concrete sidewalk had to be replaced with an asphalt one that conforms to the uneven contours as the land continues to settle. The eyesores of "high and dry" homes on that block are glaring examples of why seller disclosure laws are necessary.

I'd have been out there digging up that dump , before the new development even went in - I bet there's lots of good old glass under there .

~ AL

[Green Dragon]

THOSE D48's are the EXACT kind of motors Estes SHOULD mass-produce but refuses instead of the low-thrust nonsense E9's

Agree on the D48 :)

not so on the E9 .... as the E9 is a near match for the classic Mini Max E. and a cluster of three flies great in the 2250 clone :D

how about both ;)

~ AL

( and I agree , having doneso, that 4 cluster of old Estes E15 was a nice flight . :cool:

[Green Dragon]

Correct. Let's petition to change the rule.


Incorrect. It produces more heat than gas and has no shock wave.

An ematch by comparison has a small pop from the tiny amount of high explosive used as an initiator.

Tech Jerry

Interesting to note there, that FSIs Mach 1 system had e-match igniter, to 'bang' em on, .. hmm...

Personally, never had a higher cato rate with F100 or E60 regardless of ignitor used, including copperheads.. F7s catoed more than any, that was the one's we feared.

~ AL

[Solomoriah]

A single E9-6 works great in a modified Centurion. It's not worthless... it's just not for heavy lifting.

[nukemmcssret]

I think the D18-x that is my vote :cool:

[ghrocketman]

An E9 is not a totally worthless motor, but there is nothing a 28n-sec E9 can do that a 40n-sec E15, E18, E28, or E30 cannot do BETTER !

[Doug Sams]

An E9 is not a totally worthless motor, but there is nothing a 28n-sec E9 can do that a 40n-sec E15, E18, E28, or E30 cannot do BETTER !Oh yes there is! You can't stage any of those off a D12-0 in these rockets :D
http://www.doug79.com/bigbetty/liftoff-p.jpghttp://www.doug79.com/apogeedx/apo-liftoff2p.jpg
http://www.doug79.com/tuber/tuber-asa-pan2p.jpg

Seriously, GH, I have a bunch of 24mm powered BP stagers. The E9 is a blast in all of them (but only in the sustainer). And it works great in lots of single stagers such as the Big Bertha. No doubt it's not well suited to heavier birds that those other motors work well in, but it's still a good motor. It gets a bad rap from being used in overbuilt rockets such as the maxi V2 as well as other heavy birds. But for doing some extreme BP flying, it's a great upper stage motor.

One other thought. Think of the E9 as a good replacement for the OOP F7. Since those old FSI motors tended to be way over rated (impulse-wise) anyway, it probably wasn't much different than an E9.

I'd still like to see an E30 or E40 BP motor, especially a booster, but I'm happy with the E9, too.

Doug

.

[ghrocketman]

I stand corrected.
You can directly stage an E9 atop a D12-0, but the only way an E15/18/28/30 will stage is with electronics (unless thermalite became widely available again).

Then again, a single 40 n-sec E15/18/28/30 would probably give nearly the same altitude as a 46-n-sec total 28n-sec E9-x atop a 18n-sec D12-0 due to the reduced weight.

To each their own

[Bazookadale]

An E9 is not a totally worthless motor, but there is nothing a 28n-sec E9 can do that a 40n-sec E15, E18, E28, or E30 cannot do BETTER !


I don't know I don't think an E15 has ever sparked a thread like this http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?t=18429

[mwtoelle]

One other thought. Think of the E9 as a good replacement for the OOP F7. Since those old FSI motors tended to be way over rated (impulse-wise) anyway, it probably wasn't much different than an E9.

I'd still like to see an E30 or E40 BP motor, especially a booster, but I'm happy with the E9, too.

Doug

.
Actually, the E9 is probably a better replacement for the OOP FSI E5. The F7 had about 50 n-sec of total impulse and a 9 sec burn time. I would like to Estes produce a motor in the E9 case, but with a D12 size nozzle. I would like to think such a motor would have a bit more lifting power than the E9. Even their OOP E15 didn't have the same lifting power as the D12.

[Jerry Irvine]

(unless thermalite became widely available again).That would be a good product for a one trick pony company. It is in constant need and it need not be made the same way as before either. It could be made in rolls or could be made into sticks since the lengths used are typically 3/4" to 6".

Jerry

[gpoehlein]

An E9 is not a totally worthless motor, but there is nothing a 28n-sec E9 can do that a 40n-sec E15, E18, E28, or E30 cannot do BETTER !

I like to burn three E9s in my Tube Daddy, and I can get them at Hobby Lobby with a 40% off coupon - Certainly a lot cheaper than three of the Aerotech motors for a cluster, and with Q2G2 igniters, I almost never have to worry about a misfire. Trust me - three E9s are a LOT of fun!!! :D

Greg

[mwtoelle]

I like to burn three E9s in my Tube Daddy, and I can get them at Hobby Lobby with a 40% off coupon - Certainly a lot cheaper than three of the Aerotech motors for a cluster, and with Q2G2 igniters, I almost never have to worry about a misfire. Trust me - three E9s are a LOT of fun!!! :D

Greg

A pair of E9-8s in an old Pro Series Impulse will give it a nice ride also.

[Doug Sams]

The F7 had about 50 n-sec of total impulse and a 9 sec burn time. Did it really have that much impulse? I understand the F100 was really only about an E60 (not to be confused with the E60), so I figured the F7 might be off one letter, too.

Doug

.

[ghrocketman]

FSI rated the F7 at 55n-sec and the F100 at 50 n-sec.
On a GOOD day some tested to like 45n-sec.
Several tested BELOW 40n-sec.

FSI's "F's" were a joke.

The F100 was sometimes a barely-F70 and often an E70

The actual designated E60 was the most CATO prone motor I ever had the displeasure of flying. Over 50% cato rate out of like a dozen. Junk.

[Doug Sams]

The actual designated E60 was the most CATO prone motor I ever had the displeasure of flying. Over 50% cato rate out of like a dozen. Junk.I have one in my stash I've been planning to fly one of these days. I even cooked up a special booster for my "mule" test rocket (http://www.doug79.com/christmas-gold/).

You think, even if I insert the ignitor only half way into the E60, that it will go boom?

Doug

.

[tbzep]

I have one in my stash I've been planning to fly one of these days. I even cooked up a special booster for my "mule" test rocket (http://www.doug79.com/christmas-gold/).

You think, even if I insert the ignitor only half way into the E60, that it will go boom?

Doug

.

Try it and see. Make sure there are multiple camcorders running first. :cool:

[mwtoelle]

Did it really have that much impulse? I understand the F100 was really only about an E60 (not to be confused with the E60), so I figured the F7 might be off one letter, too.


According to S&T data from 1980 (11/80 Model Rocketeer), the F7's total impulse was 50.0 n-sec with 58.0g of propellant. The F100's on the same list only had 40.0 n-sec and 50.0g of propellant. However, the list published in the 12/94 Sport Rocketry showed the F7 specs unchanged and the F100 at 41.6 n-sec with the same propellant mass. From the 1980 S&T data, the FSI E5 (16.5 n-sec), D6 (10.0 n-sec), D4 (9.30 n-sec), and A4 (3.50 n-sec) motors did not match their letter for total impulse. One of the NFPA Codes was changed to require that the tested total impulse and motor designation letter matched sometime in the mid to late 1980's, IIRC.

[tbzep]

According to S&T data from 1980 (11/80 Model Rocketeer), the F7's total impulse was 50.0 n-sec with 58.0g of propellant. The F100's on the same list only had 40.0 n-sec and 50.0g of propellant. However, the list published in the 12/94 Sport Rocketry showed the F7 specs unchanged and the F100 at 41.6 n-sec with the same propellant mass. From the 1980 S&T data, the FSI E5 (16.5 n-sec), D6 (10.0 n-sec), D4 (9.30 n-sec), and A4 (3.50 n-sec) motors did not match their letter for total impulse. One of the NFPA Codes was changed to require that the tested total impulse and motor designation letter matched sometime in the mid to late 1980's, IIRC.

Rocketflite's large BP motors changed designations also, but I thought it was in the early 90's. I miss those Silverstreaks. :cool:

[Green Dragon]

Actually, the E9 is probably a better replacement for the OOP FSI E5. The F7 had about 50 n-sec of total impulse and a 9 sec burn time. I would like to Estes produce a motor in the E9 case, but with a D12 size nozzle. I would like to think such a motor would have a bit more lifting power than the E9. Even their OOP E15 didn't have the same lifting power as the D12.

E9 is a near match for the legendary Mini-Max E7

as shown below :

http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/69cenp86.html

great motor, then and now, send me a bunch please :)

~ AL

( old school power freak ) .

Tripoli 090 , L2

[ghrocketman]

The E60's myself and my flying buddies had back in the day made much better large firecrackers than rocket motors no matter where the igniter was placed (top, middle, bottom) in the grain core. Total junk.

[Ltvscout]

Rocketflite's large BP motors changed designations also, but I thought it was in the early 90's. I miss those Silverstreaks. :cool:
I have a few of them, including their huge H220.

I have to say that I've never witnessed a SilverStreak launched. I got back into the game as their production ended. I snagged these up off of Darrell's old RocketryOnline website auction back in the late '90's early 00's.

[stefanj]

E9 is a near match for the legendary Mini-Max E7

as shown below :

http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/69cenp86.html

great motor, then and now, send me a bunch please :)


So I'm not the only one who has noticed that! I never had the chance to fly Mini-Max motors, but the stats similarity jumped out at me when I was researching a few years back.

The E9 is in a smaller package and is probably a lot more reliable. I've flown it in some of my recreated Mini-Max era models (Explorer, Jaguar, SLS Scorpion). Pretty awesome.

[tbzep]

The E9 is in a smaller package and is probably a lot more reliable.
Don't say that if you are standing close to Bill(Wallyum). :chuckle:

[ghrocketman]

I still wish ONE motor manufacturer would listen to threads like this and bring back motors we want instead of bringing out low-thrust motors nobody has asked for.
1/2A6-4
B14-ALL DELAYS, short of that give us the semi-ported B8 in all flavors.
Replace the C6-0/3 with the C5-0/3 which has FAR more value than the C6 in those delays.
B4-6 and DITCH the B6-6
A modern version of the 18mm 2.75" Cox D8-0/3
A PORT-BURNER/semi-Port burner version of the relatively new Estes 29mm F15

[Bazookadale]

If there were money in it someone would do it.


I still wish ONE motor manufacturer would listen to threads like this and bring back motors we want instead of bringing out low-thrust motors nobody has asked for.
1/2A6-4
B14-ALL DELAYS, short of that give us the semi-ported B8 in all flavors.
Replace the C6-0/3 with the C5-0/3 which has FAR more value than the C6 in those delays.
B4-6 and DITCH the B6-6
A modern version of the 18mm 2.75" Cox D8-0/3
A PORT-BURNER/semi-Port burner version of the relatively new Estes 29mm F15

[Jerry Irvine]

BP manufacturers make low thrust motors because they are easier and more reliable to make.

The B14 had a hand drill operation. The F100 while not drilled was hand packed in 5 shots and has less reliability than Estes motors.

I continue to vote for an Estes 24mm high thrust D in the E casing. The largest motor in the lowest shipping hazard class of all the options.

Tech Jerry

[luke strawwalker]

BP manufacturers make low thrust motors because they are easier and more reliable to make.

The B14 had a hand drill operation. The F100 while not drilled was hand packed in 5 shots and has less reliability than Estes motors.

I continue to vote for an Estes 24mm high thrust D in the E casing. The largest motor in the lowest shipping hazard class of all the options.

Tech Jerry

Exactly... I wouldn't expect to ever see the true core burner black powder motors make a comeback... especially not with hand-drilled cores!

BUT, a semi-core-burner IS machine produceable (though at greater cost due to the rapid wearing of the core pintle and with somewhat lower reliability) and would be a welcome addition to the rocket motor selection availability...

Probably won't happen, but it would be nice...

Later! OL JR :)

[Earl]

Exactly... I wouldn't expect to ever see the true core burner black powder motors make a comeback... especially not with hand-drilled cores!

BUT, a semi-core-burner IS machine produceable (though at greater cost due to the rapid wearing of the core pintle and with somewhat lower reliability) and would be a welcome addition to the rocket motor selection availability...

Probably won't happen, but it would be nice...

Later! OL JR :)

Yet another reason I think why we all feel such a tremendous sense of loss at Carl's passing. Minor in the grand scheme of a 'life', but I think many of us were really looking forward to a number of motors Carl was working towards producing when he was all too suddenly and all too soon taken from us. And if his motors were anywhere near the quality of his kits, they would have been awesome.

People like Carl, Vern, Lee, and other giants of our hobby don't just pop on the scene every day. It's been more than a year and half and it is still painful to think of the loss.

Cherish every day you have.....all of us.

Earl

[ghrocketman]

+1 to what Earl just said.
I think our chances of getting high-thrust/short-burn SU BP motors BACK that there is a real use/need for unfortunately passed along with Carl.
Honestly, his passing was the most significant loss to the LPR hobby in my lifetime.
He truly was one of a kind.

God speed, Carl.

[Solomoriah]

gh, this is one of those rare times I agree with you.

:(

[Jerry Irvine]

BUT, a semi-core-burner IS machine produceable (though at greater cost due to the rapid wearing of the core pintle and with somewhat lower reliability) and would be a welcome addition to the rocket motor selection availability...
I would cheerfully buy and machine the pintle from molybdium (sp).

[luke strawwalker]

I would cheerfully buy and machine the pintle from molybdium (sp).

Molybdenum... interesting...

Sounds like you have some customers making a request... might be something for you to consider.

Good luck and I'd buy some too...

Later! OL JR :)

[ghrocketman]

Thanks, Solomoriah.

While I find the E16 and F15 29mm offerings interesting, and I have bought 10 or so paks to add to the stockpile, I think there are MANY more useful motors they could have made or brought back.
Realizing ONLY Carl at Semroc would have had the stones to bring back the B14 and a port-burning C19, the list below are motors we could use, without having a mamby-pamby yet PHONY safety concern for manufacuring:

B8 and C5 series- press the BP around a pintle for semi-port-burning.
B4-6 (lose the B6-6 that offers NOTHING over B4-6)
1/2A6-0 ( or bring back the 1/2A3-0 for use in a 18mm adapter)
Cox-style D8-3/0 in a 2.75" casing. It got one about 13n-sec when case was FULL to the brim; this was bar-none the best engine I ever used in my Mars Lander and 1284 Space Shuttle. Cox rated it at 15n-sec but that was baloney; it was 12 or 13; sorta like adding an A on top of a full-C.

A semi port-burning pintle-pressed version of the C11/D12/E9/E12 to give approximately a C20/D25/E30.

The B8, C5, B4-6, 1/2A6-0 should be very simple to bring back.

The ONE thing I miss most about Semroc/Carl and the team there is that they ALWAYS listened to their loyal followers and when they could not do something, they always would give a BELIEVABLE LEGITIMATE reason why they could not.
While Carl never got to realize his proposal to bring back several needed 18/24mm BP SU engines, given time I'm sure he would have.

[gpoehlein]

I really am not sure about the whole 1/2A-x line. At our NAR chapter, we've had poor results from the 1/2A6-2 in the last couple of years. The thrust seems to be uneven at best - one motor will pretty much work as advertised and the next will be underpowered in the exact same rocket. Most of us now use the 1/2A3-2T with an adapter (the Estes adapters work VERY well!). But I would like to see the return of both the 1/2A3-0T and the A3-0T motors, although I can live with the A10-0T to A3-4T combo (wish we had the -6, but because of newer blends of BP that can't happen now). But at least we DO have both the A8-0 and A10-0T motors back - that is definitely a plus!

[Jerry Irvine]

It used to be the audience for this thread was Estes (Tunik) and Semroc (Carl) and that German company. Now with FSI ramping up and Semroc sold to erockets and Estes owned by Hobbico (Piester in charge of division), it seems slightly more likely we will see BP motors of a higher thrust available sometime. But keep in mind they have been produced before and sampled before with them being either not released or actually removed from market.

It appears the A10 and C11 are the only current variants that approximate high thrust. One by being short and one by having a right angle thrust curve.

The second strategy seems the way to go based on what I know and simply have shorter delay options as a result, maybe 0, 2, 4, 6.

Estes has never made a 3.75" 18mm casing for a full C or mid-D or higher thrust C or low D.

Estes did however make a 3.75" 24mm casing for the E9 and E12 that would suit a D30 with a similar design to the A-10.

I wouldn't mind giving Rick Piester about 5 molybdenum pintles for his birthday. :D

He can classify them with tool steel first.

Jerry

[ghrocketman]

Unfortunately NOBODY within 120 miles of my home carries the A10-0T.
The 4 hobby shops by my work (60 miles from my home) as well as my local hobby shop, local hobby lobby, and local Michaels store dont carry them, nor do any of these shops have the E12 in any flavor.
I can get everything but those including the C11, D12, E9, E16, and F15 in all flavors.
WHY the E9 is carried but NOT the E12 makes no sense to me.
Would really like some paks of E12-0's for a REASONABLE (no hazz-mutt) price for my Omega clone. I need to build a booster for that one to use the 29mm E16-0 and F15-0.

[JumpJet]

The 4 hobby shops by my work (60 miles from my home) as well as my local hobby shop


Any Hobby Shop that already carries Estes products can order any Estes Motor for you. If they don't have it in stock, have them order it for you along with their next motor purchase. Offer to pay half up front if needed. Any Hobby Shop not willing to do this for a customer shouldn't be in business.

I've asked several time to get the C5-3 motor back. Maybe the bring back scale kit I've been asked to work on will do the trick since I don't really think our current C6-3 motors will fly it safety. Worse case, I upscale it to take a D12\E12 motor which wouldn't be a bad thing!

John Boren

[Ltvscout]

I've asked several time to get the C5-3 motor back. Maybe the bring back scale kit I've been asked to work on will do the trick since I don't really think our current C6-3 motors will fly it safety. Worse case, I upscale it to take a D12\E12 motor which wouldn't be a bad thing!

John Boren
John,

Did the original release require a high spike motor?

[Joe Wooten]

I'd by C5-0's before a C5-3. it would make 3 stage 18 mm flights much better.......

[blackshire]

Exactly... I wouldn't expect to ever see the true core burner black powder motors make a comeback... especially not with hand-drilled cores!

BUT, a semi-core-burner IS machine produceable (though at greater cost due to the rapid wearing of the core pintle and with somewhat lower reliability) and would be a welcome addition to the rocket motor selection availability...

Probably won't happen, but it would be nice...

Later! OL JR :)If Klima would license their technology for making paper-cased composite motors, a whole new world of possibilities would open up...the return of the A3-6T, reliable 13 mm "B" motors, 18 mm B8 and B14 motors, and even Cox-type D8 motors in the 18 mm X 2.75" size.

[JumpJet]

Did the original release require a high spike motor?

It had a C5 motors as first flight and C6 as an additional motor.

I wish the C5 was available when I designed the Asteroid Hunter. It's flight profile would have benefited from it greatly.


John Boren

[ghrocketman]

No-Joke, there is NOTHING the C6-3 motor does that the C5-3 does NOT DO BETTER.
High-spike thrust kick off the pad, then a low sustaining thrust for a LONGER burn.
Does NOT require a drilled core either. Just a short pintle in the press.
For that matter the B8 could be made in the same way.
If Estes does not want to have the inventory of both the C6-3 and the C5-3, DITCH the C6-3 FOREVER !

Seeing as it is highly unlikely we will ever get the B14 back from Estes or any other real port-burner,
The C5-0/3 is next on my list for needed BP SU 18mm motor.

The 1284 Space Shuttle and Mars Lander fly 100% better on the C5-3 than the C6-3.
The 1921 (Centuri clone) also flies much better on the C5-3 as well; when Estes first kitted that one they listed the ONLY motor for the kit as the C5-3, with NO mention of even using the C6-3 as being 'acceptable' !

[Ltvscout]

It had a C5 motors as first flight and C6 as an additional motor.

I wish the C5 was available when I designed the Asteroid Hunter. It's flight profile would have benefited from it greatly.


John Boren
Ok, everyone. Start pouring through those old catalogs to see what scale models had a C5 as first flight! I'd look in both Estes and Centuri catalogs. Maybe we can deduce what John is working on. ;)

[JumpJet]

No-Joke, there is NOTHING the C6-3 motor does that the C5-3 does NOT DO BETTER.


This is not a correct statement. The C6 motor will out sale the C5 motor by at least a 20 to 1 margin since everyone knows what a C6 motor is and non of the current packaging lists a C5 motor. Even if all the packaging is updated to include a C5 motor the C6 would way out sale the C5.

By the way if NO tooling exists for the original model I will upscale it a bit to take a D12\E12 motor since I believe everyone would enjoy a larger version of it anyway.

John Boren

P.S. Just because I work on something doesn't mean it will make it to market. I hope it does but some times in won't

[Shreadvector]

Two amusing marketing approaches to consider (if such a new motor would appear):

1) Make it a C7 or a C8 or a C9. Consumer *love* larger numbers and it might sell better. Proclaim on the packaging that it is a direct higher thrust replacement for the C6 motor in any Estes kit. Downside is added packaging cost for new non-standard packaging.

2) Label it as a "SUPER C6" motor. Yes, Centuri used "Super-C" but that was with the C5 designation, and consumers assume that the "5" is less than the "6". Spinal Tap math.

[blackshire]

Two amusing marketing approaches to consider (if such a new motor would appear):

1) Make it a C7 or a C8 or a C9. Consumer *love* larger numbers and it might sell better. Proclaim on the packaging that it is a direct higher thrust replacement for the C6 motor in any Estes kit. Downside is added packaging cost for new non-standard packaging.

2) Label it as a "SUPER C6" motor. Yes, Centuri used "Super-C" but that was with the C5 designation, and consumers assume that the "5" is less than the "6". Spinal Tap math.I agree. *Not* using the 5 (pounds) C5 designation would also be better for international sales, because no one else uses pounds in model rocketry (truth be told, it was a retrogressive nomenclatural move even back when the motor was introduced). Whatever its average thrust in newtons is (5 pounds X 4.45 newtons [1 pound of force = 4.45 N] would make it a C22), call it that, with "Super-C" as a secondary identifier ("Super" = "Better"/"More powerful" to folks).

[Rich Holmes]

Ok, everyone. Start pouring through those old catalogs to see what scale models had a C5 as first flight! I'd look in both Estes and Centuri catalogs. Maybe we can deduce what John is working on. ;)
Better yet, we can request John work on all of them for maximum C5 market pressure! :D

[Rich Holmes]

I agree. *Not* using the 5 (pounds) C5 designation would also be better for international sales, because no one else uses pounds in model rocketry (truth be told, it was a retrogressive nomenclatural move even back when the motor was introduced). Whatever its average thrust in newtons is (5 pounds X 4.45 newtons [1 pound of force = 4.45 N] would make it a C22), call it that, with "Super-C" as a secondary identifier ("Super" = "Better"/"More powerful" to folks).
The C5 was introduced about 1980, long after motor designations had gone metric. Its average thrust was 5.26 newtons. Peak thrust about 5 pounds, coincidentally I assume. http://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Estes/C5.pdf

Edit: I hadn't realized it was originally a Centuri engine. It was in their 1979 catalog.

[Doug Sams]

I'd by C5-0's before a C5-3. it would make 3 stage 18 mm flights much better.......Here's my 2 cents on that. As an avid stager, I think the B8-0 might be a better motor. It will lift just as much rocket, but stage sooner, without the low thrust phase of the C5's long tail (thrust curve). That is, I think it'd make for safer staging with less chance of the rocket leaning too much when the next stage lights.

That said, if we get a C7-8-9 as Shread suggested, that'd be even better. It might be a light C, well under 10Ns, but that's still OK if it can help get heavy rockets moving better off the rod.

Doug

.

[gpoehlein]

No-Joke, there is NOTHING the C6-3 motor does that the C5-3 does NOT DO BETTER.

I disagree - the C6-3 would be much better suited to launching boost gliders that the C5-3 would. In fact, if a C version of the B4 could be developed, so much the better. I like the B4 a lot, and wish the B4-6 was still produced - I think that for competition, it would be better for altitude events than the B6-6 is.

[blackshire]

The C5 was introduced about 1980, long after motor designations had gone metric. Its average thrust was 5.26 newtons. Peak thrust about 5 pounds, coincidentally I assume. http://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Estes/C5.pdfThat makes the C5 designation even more confusing, and thus worse (especially for model rocketeers outside the USA and Canada), because of the similar numbers (but not units). The first number after the letter is the motor's average thrust, in newtons. Its high thrust was specifically mentioned in the advertising literature for the "Super-C" motors, yet--which was a further source of possible confusion for buyers--the total impulse of the C5 (like all "C" motors) was/is between 5.01 and 10.00 newton-seconds. Well:

Maybe it could be designated (and named) "CV-3 *" (for the 3-second delay version, for example), with a notation on the package and in the catalog that "* CV denotes the Super-C, which has an average thrust of 5.26 newtons, but a high--5 pounds--peak thrust." The "V" would distinguish it from the regular "C" motors. Also:

I agree about the need for B4 motors (a C4 would also be very nice) for boost-gliders, because they need gentle accelerations.

[luke strawwalker]

This is not a correct statement. The C6 motor will out sale the C5 motor by at least a 20 to 1 margin since everyone knows what a C6 motor is and non of the current packaging lists a C5 motor. Even if all the packaging is updated to include a C5 motor the C6 would way out sale the C5.

By the way if NO tooling exists for the original model I will upscale it a bit to take a D12\E12 motor since I believe everyone would enjoy a larger version of it anyway.

John Boren

P.S. Just because I work on something doesn't mean it will make it to market. I hope it does but some times in won't

Then "eliminate the competition" and drop the C6... switch entirely to the C5...

Most people who are buying model rocket motors just think "get the biggest one that will fit" anyway... only the "real hobbyists" truly understand the gist of the motor designations and what they mean, let alone have the ability to interpret how the various motor choices affect the flight of the rocket or how to make the proper motor choice for conditions...

OL JR :)

[AstronMike]

I disagree - the C6-3 would be much better suited to launching boost gliders that the C5-3 would. In fact, if a C version of the B4 could be developed, so much the better. I like the B4 a lot, and wish the B4-6 was still produced - I think that for competition, it would be better for altitude events than the B6-6 is.

I used to fly a TON of C5's when available, and mainly in larger sport gliders (not necessarily convie types). In those heavier draggier birds, the C5 did well indeed. If you're flying a convie type, then it should do fine on a C5, as the high initial kick will help it off the rod faster and the lower sustainer thrust doesn't let it build up too much speed.

Interesting to see the C5 fanboys here, and if Estes produces enough heavier 18mm rockets, then maybe the C5 as well as the associated B8 return.

[Jerry Irvine]

Releasing a B8-0 is a good idea technically. Not so sure about marketing.

Having a B4-6 variant of the C motor would be an interesting market test and perhaps should be released with no 0 or 2 delay at all. The B4-6 was a major go-to motor for our entire rocket club of 500 members and certainly is justified to be re-released. 4,6

The C5 was a Centuri thing for the fantasy series die cut kits they released. Centuri was not offering 24mm motors at the time which would have been better motors for those rockets.

All of the above except a C4-4,6 would use existing tooling. Perhaps it would use B4 tooling and be produceable.

One advantage of the current system is reduced confusion and reduced retail SKU's. Those are significant positives for the sorts of consumers Fred runs into all the time. People clueless as to WHY you would want lower or higher thrust or delays. Just plugging in what the package says. And not having too many surpurfluous choices allowing a wrong choice out of ignorance. Even GH complains about not being able to get all wanted motors locally now.

If the catalog reintroduced the why of average thrust selection and delay selection then some of these choices might not only be welcome, but successful among a market that is 60% newbies.

Jerry

[Jerry Irvine]

It had a C5 motors as first flight and C6 as an additional motor. I wish the C5 was available when I designed the Asteroid Hunter. It's flight profile would have benefited from it greatly.
John BorenCenturi offered the C5-3 (single SKU) because they didn't have a D. Estes has several SKU's each of a C11, a D12, an E9, and an E12, so 24mm should obviously be the new standard. Designing a kit around a single SKU motor is a sure way to doom the kit to the ash heap of history. Alternatively just make it slightly smaller and include at least both B's and C's. Bigger is better of course, even if only slightly.

Just Jerry

P.S. Make individual nose cones available to distributors in bulk. Particularly the BT-60 cone that is 3:1 ogive, the one for the Mean Machine 4:1 parabolic, and the BT-101 nose cone for the Red Max 4:1 parabolic, which would also make an awesome Goblin or Citation Patriot.

[ghrocketman]

Now that Estes has someone at the helm that is listening, maybe we should rehash this thread.

[BEC]

Perhaps. The poll might need to be redone seeing as the A8-0 was re-released and in light of the just-starting-to-be-really-available Q-Jet C12s and D16s. (I really liked what I saw with the first C12 I flew and am going to order more.)

[burkefj]

For me, None of the above, there isn't a bp motor exists or existed that does anything better for what I fly than a composite.

[ghrocketman]

I prefer composites for anything E and above, but many do not.
I'm hoping the new leadership at Estes listens and gives us back the C5 and B14 or B8.

[blackshire]

I agree, particularly regarding "the why of average thrust selection and delay selection." Because the current generation of model rocketeers does consist mostly of neophytes, the Estes catalogs should be printed (on paper as well as online) with the "how and why" supplement pages that were included in the older Estes (and Centuri, and other companies') catalogs. Little updating of these would be necessary (and in many cases, no updating would be needed). For example:

The illustrated "Model Rocket Engines and Specs" section in the Centuri catalogs (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/79cen042.html ) showed, in comparative (non-mathematical) graphical form, the consequences of using the wrong total impulse and delay. Their "Flight Manual" (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/79cen044.html ) included a brief but complete explanation (including thrust-time graphs) of the motor specifications and how they are properly selected, and it also covered model rocket construction, decor scheme application, recovery systems, staging, clustering of motors, etc., and:

The late 1960s Estes catalogs contained a similar "Model Rocket Manual" (it was their 'Yellow Pages,' see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/69est048.html ), which was updated and, in the 1994 catalog, was included under the title of "Model Rocketry Technical Manual" (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/94est32.html ). Also:

Quest Aerospace printed (and may still offer in their bulk-packaged kits, although a cursory look through their website didn't show it--but they offer more items than are listed on their website) a brief, illustrated pamphlet-type brochure called the "Astra Mini Manual of Model Rocketry," which served (or serves) the same purpose, being a primer on model rocketry. In the case of the Centuri and Estes informational supplements, Estes could, at least to start with (especially since Centuri owns Estes, on paper), simply include links to these scanned online documents on their website. The Ninfinger Productions Model Rocketry website (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/rockets.html ) also contains scans of two useful Cox model rocketry academic publications, which Estes--which bought Cox--could also provide links to on their website (all of these publications would also be of historical interest, as well as being informative and useful).Releasing a B8-0 is a good idea technically. Not so sure about marketing.

Having a B4-6 variant of the C motor would be an interesting market test and perhaps should be released with no 0 or 2 delay at all. The B4-6 was a major go-to motor for our entire rocket club of 500 members and certainly is justified to be re-released. 4,6

The C5 was a Centuri thing for the fantasy series die cut kits they released. Centuri was not offering 24mm motors at the time which would have been better motors for those rockets.

All of the above except a C4-4,6 would use existing tooling. Perhaps it would use B4 tooling and be produceable.

One advantage of the current system is reduced confusion and reduced retail SKU's. Those are significant positives for the sorts of consumers Fred runs into all the time. People clueless as to WHY you would want lower or higher thrust or delays. Just plugging in what the package says. And not having too many surpurfluous choices allowing a wrong choice out of ignorance. Even GH complains about not being able to get all wanted motors locally now.

If the catalog reintroduced the why of average thrust selection and delay selection then some of these choices might not only be welcome, but successful among a market that is 60% newbies.

Jerry

[Jerry Irvine]

Pages of discussion over various C labeling and marketing issues brings me right back to the higher thrust D in the E case. Higher price point. No need to put the recommended motors on the kit packaging when it is in the motor package. Simple. Also higher price point for faster breakeven.

Just Jerry

2 stage 24mm (mounts removed)

http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/tandemgoodness.htm
http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/mr2b.htm

A 2 pack of D12 is $12.
https://www.estesrockets.com/rockets/engines/c11-and-d

A D30/40 could easily be $13-14. for a 2 pack. Bigger number higher value per shred vector.

D30-0,3,6,9. A10 format tooling. How about a 13mm B case with A10/11-3,6,9 and a B3/4-3,5,7. FULL A, B, D.

2 stage mini-A or B with conversion mounts:
http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/record_breaker.htm