Are there any Pershing 1A's for HPR ?

[Raygun]

I'm looking to maybe do a Pershing 1A based on 4"' LOC, but I just wanted to make sure there isn't a kit already out there that is able to handle H motors. I tried looking around at some of the major manufacturers, but I dont see one? Does anyone know for certain?

[DGLand]

The only kits that I know of are the old Estes and TLP kits. They were both close to 4 inch diameter, but they are both OOP. (Although, the way Estes has been responding to customers like us lately, I'd say there is a good chance they might re-release it in the near future.)

The Estes kit was for low power, had thin-walled body tube and typical low-power-type (lightweight) construction. If you wanted to use mid or high-power motors they would probably tear that kit apart.

The TLP kit was a hair smaller but was made from more sturdy body tube. IIRC it was designed specifically for mid-power motors so it would automatically be several steps closer to your needs, if you could find one of these old kits. Bad thing about the TLP kit is availability and "collector" prices.

You could do just as well to design your own kit. There are lots of airframe tubes to choose from, and guys like Sandman (he posts both here and on TRF) could spin a nice nose cone for you. If you need help scaling the part sizes I am sure you could get it here.

[Bill]

The only kits that I know of are the old Estes and TLP kits. They were both close to 4 inch diameter, but they are both OOP. (Although, the way Estes has been responding to customers like us lately, I'd say there is a good chance they might re-release it in the near future.)



The Estes kit is based on the BT-101. The TLP kit is slightly smaller, based on a BT-100. The TLP kit is still available, though not easy to find. But these two are far from HPR.

Alien Enterprises sold a fiberglass cone and resin fins, the same size as the Estes kit?

I seem to recall Performance Rocketry had one for HPR, but do not know anything about it.


Bill

[sandman]

I'm looking to maybe do a Pershing 1A based on 4"' LOC, but I just wanted to make sure there isn't a kit already out there that is able to handle H motors. I tried looking around at some of the major manufacturers, but I dont see one? Does anyone know for certain?

I have made basswood nose cones to fit the PML 4" tube.

This thread on TRF may help.

http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?t=17271

OH, yea, I make the decals for it too. :D

Contact me and we can work something out.

[Raygun]

Thanks everyone, it was awful kind to lend a hand on the matter. I found the same as everyone has indicated; there is no definitive model currently as a kit--which is perfectly fine by me. Once I get through my L-1 cert this season i plan to tackle this project in the fall, probably. Summer is a busy time for work and play ( launch!). But it seems like a good winter build project. Gordon your definitely in the loop on this one, thanks on the build thread!
Kevin A. Cespedes

[MarkB.]

And although I know that JumpJet disagrees with me, a Pershing II is waaay cooler than a IA. Plus that way you don't have to explain that "No, its not an Estes kit."

And a II is easier to paint-- Helicopter Green (FS79092) with black US ARMY: badda-bing, done.

I'm just sayin' . . . .

[ghrocketman]

Gotta agree with MarkB here.
The Pershing II is WAY cooler looking than the 1A !

[Raygun]

Gotta agree with MarkB here.
The Pershing II is WAY cooler looking than the 1A !

Its true that the Pershing ll looks cool with a rocket-like look, no question about it. Maybe that's why I like the 1A, and its atypical profile --though you can still see that they are both related.

[sandman]

Thanks everyone, it was awful kind to lend a hand on the matter. I found the same as everyone has indicated; there is no definitive model currently as a kit--which is perfectly fine by me. Once I get through my L-1 cert this season i plan to tackle this project in the fall, probably. Summer is a busy time for work and play ( launch!). But it seems like a good winter build project. Gordon your definitely in the loop on this one, thanks on the build thread!
Kevin A. Cespedes

I actualloy started building the Pershing 1a nose cone for myself to start my own personal Pershing 1a.

Alas, the fates were against me. :(

Someone saw it, offered me a price I couldn't refuse.

I will make myself another...someday. :rolleyes:

[Cohetero-negro]

Me thinks its time for a Pershing Poll! :)

J

[sandman]

Just for comparison...

I like the looks of the 1a better.

[Raygun]

Just for comparison...

I like the looks of the 1a better.


That's an unfair comparison based on these images alone ! :D
That 1a image is iconic, reminiscent of cold war propaganda images of that age --almost pop art. It is powerful, in comparison with the P2 image on the right. Try another one ( P 2 ) with more context in the background ;) . I love the drawings side by side that's more keenly objective, and great drawings overall! Thanks Gordon! Ill definitely be chatting more later about a maxi brute scale H-power version. I'm going to RockSim a design ( or is that design and sim?) and see maybe where we get from there.

[sandman]

Is this one any better?

I do like the test round colors better than the operational ones.

[ghrocketman]

The Pershing II was featured on the Time magazine cover titled "Nuclear Poker" back in the early 80's, and was also the missile that went through the bedroom floor in the movie "Weird Science".

I have played a lot of poker in numerous casinos and card rooms but never heard of this game...hold'em, omaha, razz, pineapple, crazy pineapple, ROTTEN pineapple, stud, and even draw games....never heard of "nuCUlar" poker though....what are the rules/objective/betting limits ? Any WILD Cards (other than dealer) ? :rolleyes:

[Raygun]

Is this one any better?

I do like the test round colors better than the operational ones.


Much better pic. Its true , I am also often undecided between operational and test markings for various military scale subjects. I like the M104 patriot not in its customary test livery, but prefer the red oxide ( the jury is still out on the actual operational markings- as they are rarely published with clarity) tones.

[Raygun]

The Pershing II was featured on the Time magazine cover titled "Nuclear Poker" back in the early 80's, and was also the missile that went through the bedroom floor in the movie "Weird Science".

I have played a lot of poker in numerous casinos and card rooms but never heard of this game...hold'em, omaha, razz, pineapple, crazy pineapple, ROTTEN pineapple, stud, and even draw games....never heard of "nuCUlar" poker though....what are the rules/objective/betting limits ? Any WILD Cards (other than dealer) ? :rolleyes:



Your'e right about the magazine cover, that must have scared the pants off the former Soviets.

[Cohetero-negro]

Your'e right about the magazine cover, that must have scared the pants of the former Soviets.

Raygun,

I go with the one that carries the more powerful nuclear warhead! :)

Shall we play a game - WOPR (WHOPPER), from the movie, 'War Games'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOPR

Loved that movie of the 1980's!!!

J

[Raygun]

Raygun,

I go with the one that carries the more powerful nuclear warhead! :)

Shall we play a game - WOPR (WHOPPER), from the movie, 'War Games'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WOPR

Loved that movie of the 1980's!!!

J


Of course, I know, yes the facts speak for themselves, but perception had proven to be more compelling. I cant help but feel that all those great missiles of the Cold War( HJ, Little J, Hawk, Pershing and others) invariably were not very accurate, and many batteries (as the picture of the 1A suggests) helped more as perceived threats than any of the technical achievements.
Ultimately in the end, SDI and MX didn't have to work in order to be useful either.

[Cohetero-negro]

Of course, I know, yes the facts speak for themselves, but perception had proven to be more compelling. I cant help but feel that all those great missiles of the Cold War( HJ, Little J, Hawk, Pershing and others) invariably were not very accurate, and many batteries (as the picture of the 1A suggests) helped more as perceived threats than any of the technical achievements.
Ultimately in the end, SDI and MX didn't have to work in order to be useful either.

Raygun,

The MX had a fault/bug in the second stage guidence and was fixed for a couple years after the missiles were installed :)

As for accuracy ... well with nukes you reallky don't have to be accurate just need to get the warhead in the 'general' area and the Electormagnetic Pulse alone would have brought tanks and aircraft to a standstill.

I personally feel that nukes exploded high in the atmospher, 10 - 15 miles, make more sense than surface detonations. Why capture land that is irradiated?

Jimmy Carter cancel America's Neutron Bomb... the Chinese and Russins have it ... makes more sense IMHO.

J

[bob jablonski]

And although I know that JumpJet disagrees with me, a Pershing II is waaay cooler than a IA. Plus that way you don't have to explain that "No, its not an Estes kit."

And a II is easier to paint-- Helicopter Green (FS79092) with black US ARMY: badda-bing, done.

I'm just sayin' . . . .
The A-1's in the field in Germany were Helecopter green and black also. That is how I painted my Launch Pad Kit
Mr. Bob

[jetlag]

Jimmy Carter cancel America's Neutron Bomb... the Chinese and Russins have it ... makes more sense IMHO.

J

The problem will always be with the neutron pulse. It is great for killing people, as water stops neutrons pretty well; we are made up of mostly water. Stopping a neutron particle causes a tremendous amount of energy to be deposited wherever the slowing or stopping occurs. Hence, near instant death. This is the main reason used nuclear reactor rods are housed in a large, deep pool of water.
The neutron particle flux through steel, though, tends to render the buildings radioactive for many years, depending on the amount of nickle in the steel. Nickle is rendered to Cobalt-60 through the flux; a potent gamma emitter. The buildings become uninhabitable.
So, it really does not make much sense, as once thought, to use large scale neutron devices.
Battlefield neutron weapons, on the other hand...
Allen

[Bill]

Jimmy Carter cancel America's Neutron Bomb... the Chinese and Russins have it ... makes more sense IMHO.



That depends on whether your goal is to kill people or to break things.


Bill