Estes Phoenix 1380 and Estes - 1951 Executioner

[nukemmcssret]

I have a scratch built the Estes Phoenix 1380, 90% completed. I am reading the instructions and do not see any requirements for nose weight. I know I am not using a stock nose cone, which may be heavier than the one I am using. So common sense says to use some nose weight. I also built the Estes - 1951 Executioner from the kit. I recieved it from the Secret Santa in July. Yeah and thanks whoever sent it. I digress. So it also has no nosecone weight. But it is substantially longer than the Phoenix. Can any one help me out. Thanks in advance. :confused2:

[tbzep]

I have a scratch built the Estes Phoenix 1380, 90% completed. I am reading the instructions and do not see any requirements for nose weight. I know I am not using a stock nose cone, which may be heavier than the one I am using. So common sense says to use some nose weight. I also built the Estes - 1951 Executioner from the kit. I recieved it from the Secret Santa in July. Yeah and thanks whoever sent it. I digress. So it also has no nosecone weight. But it is substantially longer than the Phoenix. Can any one help me out. Thanks in advance. :confused2:
I just checked the nose cone from my nearly 20 year old kit and it has no clay in the nose. I also looked at the plans and it doesn't show it either.

It flew well on D12's but met its maker the first time I tried an infamous Estes E15. Flames shot out both ends....a chunk of propellant flew through the air and landed in the back of a friend's open van about 30 feet from the pad. A very cool and fitting way for a rocket named "Phoenix" to die, if I do say so myself. The nose cone still sits patiently waiting for it to be resurrected from the flames.

[John Brohm]

The earlier releases were indeed kitted without clay, but the last release (the one with the self-adhesive decals) included four pats of the Estes clay, each pat nominally 0.25 oz for a total of one ounce for the model.

I've attached below a couple of scans from two different versions of the kit in my possession; the earlier version shows no clay included, the later version shows the four pats of clay.

Checking JimZ's site I notice that he has three versions of the instructions up on his site (they're in the combined PDF file); one of the instruction sets does show pats of clay (I don't have this version of the intructions) but fail to indicate quantity. JimZ does not seem to have the final release of instructions (that would be the second scan I provide below) which means there must have been at least four versions/releases of the kit over time.

[VonMises]

good to know

[tbzep]

As long as you don't put in a heavy E9, don't worry about the clay. From what I'm seeing in the replies, the clay didn't come into play in the kits until the E15-exploder came out.

[blackshire]

As long as you don't put in a heavy E9, don't worry about the clay. From what I'm seeing in the replies, the clay didn't come into play in the kits until the E15-exploder came out.The British model rocketeer Stuart Lodge mentioned the Estes Phoenix in one of his books, noting that it was marginally stable and sometimes veered into near-horizontal flight, especially in breezy conditions. A photograph in that book showed a Phoenix climbing away from its launch pad, and the caption said something like "An Estes Phoenix boosts straight and true--this time." He pointed out that most air-to-air missiles (Sidewinder, Falcon, Phoenix, Sparrow, AMRAAM, etc.) are actually tandem-wing (or canard), axisymmetric rocket-powered airplanes, and that scale models of them must have their CGs moved quite far forward to make them boost straight up rather than try to fly horizontally. In extreme cases, he suggested canting the fins to impart a bit of spin, in order to average out the aerodynamic forces that would tend to make the models veer into non-vertical flight.

[tbzep]

The British model rocketeer Stuart Lodge mentioned the Estes Phoenix in one of his books, noting that it was marginally stable and sometimes veered into near-horizontal flight, especially in breezy conditions. A photograph in that book showed a Phoenix climbing away from its launch pad, and the caption said something like "An Estes Phoenix boosts straight and true--this time." He pointed out that most air-to-air missiles (Sidewinder, Falcon, Phoenix, Sparrow, AMRAAM, etc.) are actually tandem-wing (or canard), axisymmetric rocket-powered airplanes, and that scale models of them must have their CGs moved quite far forward to make them boost straight up rather than try to fly horizontally. In extreme cases, he suggested canting the fins to impart a bit of spin, in order to average out the aerodynamic forces that would tend to make the models veer into non-vertical flight.
I just know that I had dozens and dozens of excellent vertical flights with mine without any nose weight until that fateful day that I put in an E15. It had a nice scale missile flight profile, but I have no idea what it was tracking. :D

BTW, it's the only E15 I ever had that didn't cato on the launch pad.

[nukemmcssret]

I just want to say, this is why I am a proud member of this forum! You can ask any question and get a lot of answers. :) . Thanks for all the good information. Now just have to figure out if I will use E motors. I did build it to accept E motors and if I wanted to use a D jut put in a spacer. I am in sort of a pickle. Last two big rockets I launched on a D crashed but not burned :chuckle: . So I am a little shy on D's. On the other hand I am hadicapped with a paralyzed leg. I can walk with a brace, but it is hard in fields, and it wears me out. Launching with D's affords a closer landing. ;) this way I can get in more launches. But tdzep says that the rocket flys good on a D motor I will fly it with that. And If I want to use an E I can add weight and remove the spacer. Maybe put an E in balance it with the motor in. And make the nose weight removable. Like the spacer for the D. Then put in the spacer and a D and balance it with that motor. Any thoughts?

[Bill]

I just want to say, this is why I am a proud member of this forum! You can ask any question and get a lot of answers. :) . Thanks for all the good information. Now just have to figure out if I will use E motors. I did build it to accept E motors and if I wanted to use a D jut put in a spacer. I am in sort of a pickle. Last two big rockets I launched on a D crashed but not burned :chuckle: . So I am a little shy on D's. On the other hand I am hadicapped with a paralyzed leg. I can walk with a brace, but it is hard in fields, and it wears me out. Launching with D's affords a closer landing. ;) this way I can get in more launches. But tdzep says that the rocket flys good on a D motor I will fly it with that. And If I want to use an E I can add weight and remove the spacer. Maybe put an E in balance it with the motor in. And make the nose weight removable. Like the spacer for the D. Then put in the spacer and a D and balance it with that motor. Any thoughts?


Do not, repeat, do not attempt to fly your Phoenix on an Estes E9 motor. Until the E12 is available, the only suitable 24 x 95 motor is the AT F35W.

Your Executioner, on the other hand, can eat E9s all day...


Bill

[blackshire]

I just know that I had dozens and dozens of excellent vertical flights with mine without any nose weight until that fateful day that I put in an E15. It had a nice scale missile flight profile, but I have no idea what it was tracking. :D

BTW, it's the only E15 I ever had that didn't cato on the launch pad.My guess (and it is only a guess, as I've never had an Estes Phoenix) is that some builders might have used epoxy (or very generous amounts of yellow glue) to cement the motor mount in place (plus possibly beefed up the rear fins with glue coatings, to make them less susceptible to landing damage), which could have made them more tail-heavy.

[tbzep]

My guess (and it is only a guess, as I've never had an Estes Phoenix) is that some builders might have used epoxy (or very generous amounts of yellow glue) to cement the motor mount in place (plus possibly beefed up the rear fins with glue coatings, to make them less susceptible to landing damage), which could have made them more tail-heavy.
I also have enough common sense not to fly a rocket with fins half way up the body tube in high winds. ;)

[blackshire]

I also have enough common sense not to fly a rocket with fins half way up the body tube in high winds. ;)I will hold a countdown for many minutes waiting for a moment of dead calm, as I don't enjoy long recovery walks as much as I used to.

[Swillie]

Many years ago I built a Phoenix when the original kits came out. Always flew fairly straight up on D12's, nice flights from what I remember.

Funny , I forgot about this, but a friend and me bought a composite 'F' motor from a hobby store one day. Thinking back I am sure it was an Aerotech single use 'F', at the time I knew nothing about them. We put it in the Phoenix and it flew alright, came back with half the fins missing and hit hard nose first. That was it's last flight , but that was a favorite of mine.