Estes has said in another thread that they will be bringing back the A10-0T, A8-0 and all the C11s (including the C11-0 and C11-7). These are supposed to be out early 2011 now.

Greg

A thought occurs to me... What about a 24mm B11? There would be no need to drill the core to get the higher impulse like you get in a C11, just have half the propellant to keep the staging low where you can see it? It definitely seems doable, but I wonder if there is a market for such a beast. I know I would buy quite a few. Just thinking out loud here.

__________________
"AND I hope they are from the planet of the "Chunk spunky Mary-Lou Retton clones". - Ironnerd

"Those who trade liberty for security have neither" - Benjamin Franklin

"Semroc is almost always the answer" - Stefanj

www.paulsavia.com

www.soundclick.com/paulsavia

A B version of the C11 would have a higher average thrust, possibly "12", but most likely not "14".

http://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Estes/C11.pdf


Of course, without the sustaining portion of the propellant in the casing, it may be hard to keep the pressure in from the peak with a booster. With a motor with a delay and ejection charge, the delay may keep in the pressure.

Here's an advertising suggestion: "WORLD'S MOST EXPENSIVE B MOTOR".

__________________
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117 (L2)
Southern California Rocket Association, NAR Section 430

Sounds close enough for me.

Maybe I won't leave quite as many balsa fin parts behind on the deflector plate.

__________________
"I'm a sandman. I've never killed anyone. I terminate runners when their time is up." Logan from "Logan's Run"

http://sandmandecals.com/

The B8-0 would be close enough for me, and could be made if it indeed used a pintel for the core.

C5-0 and C5-3 would be nice to see again too.

I'd pay a premium price for all 3, as long as it wasn't a riduculous premium.

__________________
Jeffrey Deem
NAR16741
CIA section 527

If I can't get the beloved B14 back (and NO I have not seen ANY legitimate arguement why they can't be safely produced with AUTOMATED equipment), I would much rather have a 18mm B8-0 (and the C5-0,3 back too) than any sort of heavy-for-impulse 24mm B12 or 13 whatever.
I have NO interest in a 24mm B motor that they would be trying to charge double for 15 cents worth of x-tra cardboard.
I however would NOT have any problem paying a say 10-15% premium (but NOT some ignorant 30%+ premium) over common street B & Cprices to get something in the range of a B14, B8, or C5 back. I would probably buy more B8, B14, and C5 motors than any other type. I'd REALLY like to see a C5-5 if they could jam it in the case to the brim.

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, TURMOIL, FIASCOS, and HAVOC !

Ya know...the "standard size" paradigm is very limiting as regards creativity and innovation. I don't know why they are stuck on 70mm long cases (for 18mm motors), or on paper cases for that matter.

AVI used longer cases. (Yes, they had burn thru issues, but we're talking about adding 2 secs of delay to a C, not stuffing a long burn D into it.) Why not have an 80mm series? Another good example is the Apogee micro motors. They had different length cases for the B, A and ½A motors. (Can't recall if the ¼A's were different or not...)

And why be limited to paper? As I understand it, going to a higher tech case is the key to making reliable, high thrust E and F impulse BP motors.

Give me a few days in the production area, and I'd have all sorts of exotic motors to play with

Seriously, I understand there has to be a critical mass before committing to a new motor type. You need minimal production runs to justify setting up the line. But one type of innovation is figuring out how to reduce the critical mass requirements that enable a new product rather than merely developing the new product.

It shouldn't be that hard to come up with a C5-5 (or C5-7). Maybe short fill them: ¾C's .

Doug

.

__________________
YORF member #11

The 70mm motor hooks used by just about everyone limits the motor choices to 70mm. It's that simple, at least to me. No reason to go to a longer case when so few modelers would be able to use this case easily in their current models. These motors would become 'orphan motors,' much like the rarely used (but necessary) orphan drugs out there with limited availability but absolutely needed drug therapy applications. Perhaps a better term used before is 'boutique motors.' Maybe this was a contributing factor to AVI's motors not 'taking off' saleswise.
Costs associated with these would be higher necessarily.
I'm afraid too many choices might turn off a new rocketeer with limited funds.
While one can wax nostalgically about these lost motors, I think they are gone for good.
Allen

I think that's the key. Anything other than 70mm can present major stumbling blocks to noobs and novices, which comprise much of the market. But, addressing the die hards, such as us YORF denizens, these variations shouldn't be too problematic. Yes, there will be some challenges in retro-fitting, but not deal breakers, I would think.

That's where we need a paradigm shift. I've gone to using hooks with no forward tang (& no forward motor block) in most of my builds. Three wraps of ¼" masking tape makes a perfectly reliable aft thrust ring and lets me use any length motors.

Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but, IMO, we need to think outside of this box more often.

Furthermore, I've seen cases where folks flew a rocket with the extra long motor hanging out the back Most kits are over stable enough to handle this. I've done it once or twice myself

Doug

.

__________________
YORF member #11

Yes, I've stuck the E's in the shorter D motor mount with no problems. Awfully ugly, though!
But that's exactly what a kid would do when faced with, "I'm out of D's...wonder what would happen if I did THIS?"
Haven't we all been there!!
But, that's part of the fun, eh?
Allen