PDA

View Full Version : Items Needed in a Deluxe Starter Set


CPMcGraw
01-13-2007, 12:02 AM
This thread is meant to focus on the contents of a Deluxe model rocketry starter set, covering topics such as "What kit do we want to see?" and "What type of launch pad should it have?", as well as "What do we want the printed material to include?"

To this point, we have an opinion that as a premium item, such a set would contain a copy of The Handbook, to enlighten the newbie about what model rocketry is, how they can gain more enjoyment from the hobby, and the degree to which they can get involved in the science of the hobby.

It has been suggested that a more robust tripod-style launch pad be included, instead of the low-to-the-ground plastic designs that currently get stuffed into the present-generation of starter sets.

A better, more-reliable launch controller would be in order. To what degree do we need to re-engineer this simple yet important piece of equipment?

What other items should a starter set contain? This is what we need to know. The floor is now open for comment.

CQBArms
01-13-2007, 07:27 PM
I would suggest a CD version of instructions, with maybe some flash animations of how rockets work etc. Today's kids (and lots of us old folks) are very computer centric.

Check these out, used for airguns but some of the same sort of "style" that I think would be interesting on the CD.
http://www.arld1.com/


The launch controller, make it "ultimately safe" and "cool looking". I'm a huge fan of the retro series and maybe a launch controller that looks retro but yet James Bondish would be "cool.


I think if it's a deluxe kit, then yeah a tripod would be great. Make is something useful, that can accept a variety of rods rods and MAYBE a rail at some point.

I would personally love to see an retro launch tower and rocket at some point.

snaquin
01-13-2007, 09:16 PM
This thread is meant to focus on the contents of a Deluxe model rocketry starter set, covering topics such as "What kit do we want to see?" and "What type of launch pad should it have?", as well as "What do we want the printed material to include?"

To this point, we have an opinion that as a premium item, such a set would contain a copy of The Handbook, to enlighten the newbie about what model rocketry is, how they can gain more enjoyment from the hobby, and the degree to which they can get involved in the science of the hobby.

Maybe as a premium item, include The Handbook. In the standard starter set at least a coupon to on online retailer to direct the new rocketeer and let him/her know it exists. It took me a while after I first got started to realize The Handbook was even available to check out of the library. Presently the only two hobby stores in the New Orleans area that have reopened since Hurricane Katrina don't even handle books on rocketry and the local news stand doesn't handle Sport Rocketry. I like the idea Craig Swinson had about putting a CD in the box and I'd like to add a few more suggestions for that. Add links to EMRR on the CD as well as all the Semroc RockSim files and the demo version of RockSim. Put a big label on the box that says free demo version of RockSim design software included with your purchase. Also include an application for the NAR or a link to the NAR website. I think the CD is a great idea.

It has been suggested that a more robust tripod-style launch pad be included, instead of the low-to-the-ground plastic designs that currently get stuffed into the present-generation of starter sets.

A better, more-reliable launch controller would be in order. To what degree do we need to re-engineer this simple yet important piece of equipment?

What other items should a starter set contain? This is what we need to know. The floor is now open for comment.

Personally, I like the "design" of the Pratt Hobbies GO BOX.

http://www.pratthobbies.com/proddetail.asp?prod=GO%2D12

Later in the hobby I upgraded my standard Estes launch controllers for the FSI "professional firing panel".

http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/rockets/catalogs/fsi79/79fsi16.html

It was the same design with the exception that it didn't have a safety key. I never liked that about it and it really doesn't meet safety code without a removable key. It was however a very robust system and I had it for over twenty years and passed it down to a buddy starting in the hobby and he is still using it today. Great system.

I also owned two of the FSI steel pads (also passed down to a friend that is still using them). No larger than the Estes pads but made to last. Perhaps as Craig mentioned have it adaptable to used a larger rod or single rail section. Have a larger hole in the pad to begin with and toss an adapter in the box for 1/8", 3/16" and have the rail have a 1/4" post on the bottom to adapt it directly into the pad.

What do you guys think?

(Saints 27, Philadelphia 24 - Final) :D

.

chanstevens
01-13-2007, 10:22 PM
For launch system, assuming we're sticking with low-mid power, you can't beat something like the Estes Command Controller, but with a couple gell cells or rechargables.

A good pad strikes me as something that would cost more than fols would pay for until they've had a few bad pads to appreciate the value. Stuff like easy to set up camera tripods or music stands, modified to accomodate a variety of rod sizes. I bought a nice one 6 years ago for about $80, all stainless steel, packs small and sets up fast, but no way could I see something like that in a starter set.

The CD (or DVD) is a great idea. There's so much out there on the web that you could add value without much cost.

snaquin
01-13-2007, 10:43 PM
Thoughts on three launch pads that gave me very good service .....

I don't remember what ever became of my wooden pad. I also don't remember the flight that obviously toasted one of the legs :rolleyes:

The FSI pad I mentioned is still launching rockets three decades after I purchased it. The center part that accepted the rod was welded to three small flat steel supports and the supports and legs had holes drilled in them to accommodate three wing nuts to allow adjustment. You could leave two wing nuts tight and leave one only hand tight to allow tilting the pad. A very simple but durable design and it broke down into small pieces for transport. That's not the original blast deflector in the photo. The original hooked onto two of the legs but burned through after a while.

I flew many model rockets off the steel pad and it supported all of my model rockets and mid power rockets through G motors.

It wasn't until high power that I needed something larger than the FSI pad and used a camera tripod for HPR. A small converted camera tripod would work well with model rocketry and I do like the way the legs of the camera tripod collapse for storage.

.

CQBArms
01-13-2007, 11:41 PM
That middle pad looks like a good one. Break it down, store it in the box.

Another thing to consider, what about some "tools" like a fin marking guide, maybe a fin jig fixture as discussed in another thread.

I know it's a long shot but maybe include some stuff that is always listed as "you will also need". Glue, batteries, maybe some paints.

Now I understand some of the issues with shelf life etc, but it could be a cross marketing promotion with Testors, Zap, Energizer etc.

At a local hobby shop they have a beginner kit that's an Estes kit with all the "extras" in a bigger range box for like $49.

rocket_james
01-14-2007, 12:22 PM
I like the idea Craig Swinson had about putting a CD in the box and I'd like to add a few more suggestions for that. Add links to EMRR on the CD as well as all the Semroc RockSim files and the demo version of RockSim. Put a big label on the box that says free demo version of RockSim design software included with your purchase. Also include an application for the NAR or a link to the NAR website. I think the CD is a great idea.
Ditto!

Perhaps as Craig mentioned have it adaptable to used a larger rod or single rail section. Have a larger hole in the pad to begin with and toss an adapter in the box for 1/8", 3/16" and have the rail have a 1/4" post on the bottom to adapt it directly into the pad.

What do you guys think?
I'm all for steel. Plastic is just not durable enough. I always liked rails. These could be set up to handle the launch lugs. The old Estes rails could. I didn't like the internal joiners, external joiners are better. A standard base for the varying sizes of rails should be included in the design to fit into a standard launch pad. A "wing bolt" (don't remember the name of the bolts that have a "wing" on them) could be used to press against the rail to keep it tight in the pad. The rail holder could swivel in the base and be Y-shaped with a stop to allow a maximum 30 degrees from vertical either direction, with a wing bolt keeping the swivel base tight and also allow for horizontal let down when not in launch position - to allow kids to load on their rockets. The pad could have a collapsible center rod (think tent legs here) that allows adjustment to a desired height. This would insert into the base and then the rail base would insert into this.

Basically, the launch pad has a basic steel (or something much more sturdy than the plastic stuff) core that everything attaches too. The rails could be aluminum to save on weight. Legs could be PVC with holes in one end that snapped onto the base (think tent legs again, here) and holes on the other end to allow staking to the ground. The collapsible center rod could be heavy grade aluminum (some of those tent poles are ridiculous). If I could draw, I'd include an example! :(

Chan mentioned the Command Control Launcher. I'm all for something like that. I'm not in favor of carrying 12-volt car batteries around.
James

snaquin
01-14-2007, 03:50 PM
If The Handbook is included as a premium item in the Deluxe model rocket starter set, it won't take long to read enough of the book to figure out that rockets with a special purpose like the ability to fly payloads are a pretty cool idea ......

Just throwing some ideas out here but how about include two or maybe three rockets like the Centuri Arsenal Rocketry Outfit in the Semroc Deluxe set? Centuri had a basic beginners kit (Javelin), a payload kit (Payloader II) and a two stage kit (Arcon-Hi). I'm not saying a Deluxe set *must* have three rockets, but what about two?

The two I have in mind for suggestion would of course have to be Semroc original kits. One large kit (Semroc Vega) and one payload kit (Semroc Lune R-1). A first flight with a B6-4 in the Vega only puts it to about 300'. A first flight with a A8-3 in the Lune R-1 to about 200'. You can include A, B and C motors in the set since with both rockets you could fly the full range.

Another thought. Make a special self adhesive foil printed wrap for payload section of the Lune R-1 to make it special, different from the standard kit sold by Semroc. Something similar to the wrap on the Estes A-20 Demon. The wrap could have a cool Semroc logo and design printed on the foil. A special edition rocket that is only available in the Deluxe model rocket starter set. Just like when Estes offered the Viper as the exclusive rocket for EAC members. Perhaps even design a program similar to the EAC and these two rockets in the Deluxe starter set are the first two designs to progress you through the program onto staged or clustered models.

.

CPMcGraw
01-14-2007, 04:03 PM
If The Handbook is included as a premium item in the Deluxe model rocket starter set, it won't take long to read enough of the book to figure out that rockets with a special purpose like the ability to fly payloads are a pretty cool idea ......

The other printed literature needs to have direct references to the Handbook showing the solutions or answers to several "often-asked" questions, and have illustrations using the parts of the set to show how those "problems" are solved in a real-world environment...

Just throwing some ideas out here but how about include two or maybe three rockets like the Centuri Arsenal Rocketry Outfit in the Semroc Deluxe set? Centuri had a basic beginners kit (Javelin), a payload kit (Payloader II) and a two stage kit (Arcon-Hi). I'm not saying a Deluxe set *must* have three rockets, but what about two?

Simplification of this idea -- include the plans and parts list, but let the buyer decide if he/she wants to build it. Just make sure all the required parts needed are included in the set...

Another thought. Make a special self adhesive foil printed wrap for payload section of the Lune R-1 to make it special, different from the standard kit sold by Semroc. Something similar to the wrap on the Estes A-20 Demon. The wrap could have a cool Semroc logo and design printed on the foil. A special edition rocket that is only available in the Deluxe model rocket starter set. Just like when Estes offered the Viper as the exclusive rocket for EAC members. Perhaps even design a program similar to the EAC and these two rockets in the Deluxe starter set are the first two designs to progress you through the program onto staged or clustered models.

You can get that special printable self-adhesive foil through Papilio, BTW...

RenegadeIV
01-21-2007, 06:42 PM
Have you give any thought on the initial cost for the deluxe starter kit? Being labeled a starter kit, I think that you would want to keep it affordable to most newcomers entering into model rocketry. This may limit how fancy of a launch pad and ignition system you could include.

Launch Pad - I think it should be at least 18"-24" off the ground to make it easier to attach the wires to the igniters. It should also have legs that either fold up or that could be disassembled quickly. It should also have the ability to tilt the 30 degrees. It would be nice to have the ability to tilt the rod horizontally for loading rockets. Maybe include a tube with end caps on it to hold a couple of different rods in when they are not in use.

Ignition system - This would depend greatly on whether you plan on using materials that are available stock or if you are planning on making your own custom controller. If going custom, then you would have to see what the available budget is for tooling. If you keep it simple and square, you could probable have a pretty cheap mold made to produce the parts. Would be cool to have one with a key switch along with some toggle switches, buttons and lights (and make it look like something NASA would use.)

Carl@Semroc
01-21-2007, 09:44 PM
We really hate to send first-time customers to Wal-Mart to by an Estes starter set. I understand that Estes sells them to Wal-Mart for $8.05. It is impossible for a US company to compete with that.

So.. we will have to compete with quality and durability. The launch pad and controller are the most expensive parts to build. We still do not have a good solution.

CPMcGraw
01-21-2007, 10:17 PM
We really hate to send first-time customers to Wal-Mart to by an Estes starter set. I understand that Estes sells them to Wal-Mart for $8.05. It is impossible for a US company to compete with that.

So.. we will have to compete with quality and durability. The launch pad and controller are the most expensive parts to build. We still do not have a good solution.

I know I suggested a cheap tripod, but this is one area where tooling for plastic may be absolutely necessary. Does anyone think a milled wood launch pad could have the appeal today that it had back in the late 60s?

RenegadeIV
01-22-2007, 06:26 AM
There could be a way to limit the amount of plastic components needed by making a plastic hub that would have 3-4 aluminum tube legs that could snap into it. Could put small plastic or rubber caps on the end of the aluminum tubes that rest on the ground. This might give it a look of durability and toughness over the cheap plastic Estes version.

CPMcGraw
01-22-2007, 11:33 AM
There could be a way to limit the amount of plastic components needed by making a plastic hub that would have 3-4 aluminum tube legs that could snap into it. Could put small plastic or rubber caps on the end of the aluminum tubes that rest on the ground. This might give it a look of durability and toughness over the cheap plastic Estes version.

If the legs were 40" long, you could also use them to store launch rods in. Only thought I have about this is Quest has or had a similar design. I don't have one myself, so I don't know how well they were made.

RenegadeIV
01-22-2007, 11:59 AM
If the legs were 40" long, you could also use them to store launch rods in. Only thought I have about this is Quest has or had a similar design. I don't have one myself, so I don't know how well they were made.

You could also put 2 - 24" legs together with a coupler to store the launch rods in. The coupler could also be used as a spacer on the top of the launch pad to hold the blast deflector up off the launch pad.

CPMcGraw
01-22-2007, 12:26 PM
You could also put 2 - 24" legs together with a coupler to store the launch rods in. The coupler could also be used as a spacer on the top of the launch pad to hold the blast deflector up off the launch pad.

Good thought. Also, make the legs 25", and you can store a one-piece 48" rod for larger/heavier models.

If we used two sets of these (making a 4-leg pad), and had a solid center section of about 18", you could attach two launch rod holders -- one at each end. Have the blast deflectors similar to the old curved type, and have the exhaust vectored outward.

barone
01-22-2007, 03:44 PM
If the legs were 40" long, you could also use them to store launch rods in. Only thought I have about this is Quest has or had a similar design. I don't have one myself, so I don't know how well they were made.

My mother found a Quest starter set at a yard sell and, knowing my interest (as opposed to fervor) of rockets, bought it for me ($1, including an Estes ARTF, motors and glue). I'd never seen a Quest pad until then. It's similar to using 3/4" or 1" PVC. Three legs slide into the rod holder section that accepts the three legs at 90 degree angles (like inside corner of a box). A hole is centered perpendicular (okay, straight up) with the intersection of the legs for the launch rod. I've never used it (preferring my camera tripod launcher). The legs are about 12" long. But, now that I think about it, someone could use the inside corner of a box for a launch pad (as long as you have a GOOD blast deflector ("fire loves paper") :rolleyes:

snaquin
01-22-2007, 06:54 PM
My mother found a Quest starter set at a yard sell and, knowing my interest (as opposed to fervor) of rockets, bought it for me ($1, including an Estes ARTF, motors and glue). I'd never seen a Quest pad until then. It's similar to using 3/4" or 1" PVC. Three legs slide into the rod holder section that accepts the three legs at 90 degree angles (like inside corner of a box). A hole is centered perpendicular (okay, straight up) with the intersection of the legs for the launch rod. I've never used it (preferring my camera tripod launcher). The legs are about 12" long. But, now that I think about it, someone could use the inside corner of a box for a launch pad (as long as you have a GOOD blast deflector ("fire loves paper") :rolleyes:

Pads with PVC legs are pretty strong too. I've seen a few of those I think from Impulse Aerospace before they made the Quad-Pods with aluminum legs. Those were nice pads.

I agree. I still think a camera tripod is an inexpensive solution. All you would need is a block drilled for the rod sizes and the 1/4-20 screw that would normally screw into the bottom of the camera would screw into the bottom of the block. With a two way or three way pan head it's already made to be adjustable and the legs collapse into themselves for storage and lock when out. A quick search turned up this one from Slik for $20 and it will hold up to 3.3 lbs.

http://tinyurl.com/yrd7ww

.

RenegadeIV
01-23-2007, 12:05 PM
Here is a simple launch pad concept that would require a minimum amount of tooling cost. You could make a mold for 1/2 of the top piece and put two of them together to form the top. Add some hardware as shown and you have made it adjustable enough so that you could use 1/8", 3/16" and 1/4" rods in it. If you use wing nuts, everything could be assembled pretty easily in the field. The pictures below show 4 ā€“ 5/8 diameter aluminum tubes being used as legs. They can come off and be put together with a coupler to form your rod holder, as long as you put some caps on the bottom ends. These tubes would only need to be cut to length and have 1 hole drilled in one end so that it can be attached to the pad base. Iā€™d be happy to continue on with this concept with you if you are interested. (I could also get some budgetary tooling and molding cost if interested.)

CPMcGraw
01-23-2007, 12:44 PM
Here is a simple launch pad concept that would require a minimum amount of tooling cost. You could make a mold for 1/2 of the top piece and put two of them together to form the top.

Another way to manufacture this would be to cast a very simple shape with no details, then remove the excess with a CNC mill. It needs a tilt plate...

...The pictures below show 4 ā€“ 5/8 diameter aluminum tubes being used as legs. They can come off and be put together with a coupler to form your rod holder, as long as you put some caps on the bottom ends. These tubes would only need to be cut to length and have 1 hole drilled in one end so that it can be attached to the pad base....

Using aluminum, I'd include an insert at the attachment end to increase the wall thickness. These are obviously going to be a thin-wall tube for keeping the carry-weight down; that will be the first area to receive damage from over-tightening of the bolts.

I might also suggest using larger-diameter tubing, say 1" diameter, especially if these are two-piece legs. Small-diameter legs will have some flexibility without adaquate bracing, and that's something we need to prevent.

You know, what you've designed here has a close resemblence to the decent stage of the Apollo LM. Perhaps if you could add the same (or similar) bracing to the legs to prevent wobble, and instead of simple plastic (or aluminum) end caps for the legs, make them a little larger and give them the appearance of those landing pads...

So, maybe that would require two castings -- one for the base and one for the foot...

RenegadeIV
01-23-2007, 01:18 PM
I forgot about the tilt. I'll have to think about that a bit.


Using aluminum, I'd include an insert at the attachment end to increase the wall thickness. These are obviously going to be a thin-wall tube for keeping the carry-weight down; that will be the first area to receive damage from over-tightening of the bolts.

end caps for the legs, make them a little larger and give them the appearance of those landing pads...

Could add the tube wall inserts and the landing pads for the legs to the mold that makes the main pad section and make all the parts together in one shot. This would save some of the production cost.

I'll work on adding the 1" tubes and a tilt mechanism.

CPMcGraw
01-23-2007, 01:33 PM
...Could add the tube wall inserts and the landing pads for the legs to the mold that makes the main pad section and make all the parts together in one shot. This would save some of the production cost...

If you add the tube reinforcement to the base itself, you've just eliminated any chance of it having a folding capability. It would simplify manufacturing, but it conversely complicates the user's duty load. It means the user has to fully assemble and disassembly the unit each time.

ADDENDUM: Oops, I read your post wrong. Sorry. You were only talking about using one casting to get all of the parts from, not making the attachment pieces permenantly attached to the base.

ADDENDUM 2: Cast one base half, two leg attachments, and two feet as a single aluminum pour. Anyone got their Dave Gingery books handy?

RenegadeIV
01-23-2007, 01:58 PM
ADDENDUM 2: Cast one base half, two leg attachments, and two feet as a single aluminum pour. Anyone got their Dave Gingery books handy?

That is what I was thinking of for my initial concept, but it depends on how creative we can get to incorporate the tilt feature.

If you were to injection mold it, everything would be able to be cut into a set of aluminum mold inserts with a CNC machine except for the cross holes. You could then take these inserts and have them added to a used mold base. The cross holes for the bolts would have to be drilled after the parts were molded. This would keep the tooling cost down on the mold.

What if you were able to loosen up two of the leg attachement bolts and be able to extend two of the legs out a little further, then tighten them back up? This would be a simple way to be able to adjust the rod angle. You should be able to keep the unit stable if you add the inserts in the top of the leg tubes so that you could tighten it down some.

CPMcGraw
01-23-2007, 06:59 PM
That is what I was thinking of for my initial concept, but it depends on how creative we can get to incorporate the tilt feature.

If you were to injection mold it, everything would be able to be cut into a set of aluminum mold inserts with a CNC machine except for the cross holes. You could then take these inserts and have them added to a used mold base. The cross holes for the bolts would have to be drilled after the parts were molded. This would keep the tooling cost down on the mold.

What if you were able to loosen up two of the leg attachement bolts and be able to extend two of the legs out a little further, then tighten them back up? This would be a simple way to be able to adjust the rod angle. You should be able to keep the unit stable if you add the inserts in the top of the leg tubes so that you could tighten it down some.

For CNC milling, the piece has to be moved at least once during the process to finish the drilling. This could be done by hand, or by the CNC machine itself if the casting is mounted on an automated base. Now, if we made the base as a single piece, you could eliminate this step. You would also eliminate any loosening of the pieces when setting it up or moving it around. Casting and milling a single piece would be no different in the way it's drilled out.

For a tilt-pan movement, take a look at DirecTV dish mounts. A single vertical post for rotation with some sort of lock-down mechanism takes care of the pan function; a simple horizontal pivot at the bottom with a threaded rod and knob about 3" above the pivot to set the tilt.

Of course, you could start out with a slab of aluminum and just mill it out. The feet and attachment inserts could be milled from (drum roll please...) BAR stock (rimshot...)... :D

CPMcGraw
01-26-2007, 12:00 AM
The best-looking LC was the old Solar Controller. What I would like to see is a simple hand unit of similar shape and proportion, but without the battery compartment. I think a separate, small 12v rechargeable gel cell would be a better choice. It has the kick to fire the igniter quickly, and the depth of amps needed for clusters.

Eagle3
01-26-2007, 07:31 AM
The best-looking LC was the old Solar Controller. What I would like to see is a simple hand unit of similar shape and proportion, but without the battery compartment. I think a separate, small 12v rechargeable gel cell would be a better choice. It has the kick to fire the igniter quickly, and the depth of amps needed for clusters.

Totally agree with the Solar LC being the coolest (of the internal battery controllers). I've collected a few and would love to make a digital conversion of one from the plans in an old issue of AMSPAM.

For external power source LC's I really loved the Centuri Lectra Lines when I was a kid, but they were never in the hobby shops. I've got a bid on one now on ebay praying I don't get sniped. :rolleyes:

Ltvscout
01-26-2007, 08:02 AM
For external power source LC's I really loved the Centuri Lectra Lines when I was a kid, but they were never in the hobby shops. I've got a bid on one now on ebay praying I don't get sniped. :rolleyes:
Yes, the Lectra Line controller was cool. I still have my original from around '69 along with the LIA-77 launch pad I got to go with it. About six or seven years ago I bought the Centuri "Professional" controller (all metal box) from Matt Steele. That's slick as well.

The other design I thought was neat was the old MPC controller. Kind of reminded me of the old slot car controller grips.

ghrocketman
01-26-2007, 10:48 AM
Hmm....I dunno 'bout that Lectra-Line controller on ebay.
I just may HAVE to "snipe" that one..... :D

CPMcGraw
01-26-2007, 12:21 PM
The other design I thought was neat was the old MPC controller. Kind of reminded me of the old slot car controller grips.

Isn't that what Quest is using today? Or something like it?

Ltvscout
01-26-2007, 04:34 PM
Isn't that what Quest is using today? Or something like it?
I dunno. Never looked at the Quest equipment.

Eagle3
01-26-2007, 04:54 PM
Similar idea, but different molds.

RenegadeIV
02-02-2007, 12:29 PM
Here is an updated version of the Launch pad I had posted before.

1.) This one allows you to angle the front two legs enough to give you up to the 30 degree tilt on the rod. It also allows for multiple rod arrangements.

2.) The legs would have bolts and wing nuts on them to tighten them in place. The tops of the aluminum tubing would have the spacer plugs to keep the tops of the tubes from squeezing up.

3.) The Aluminum tubing is increased to 1" diameter.

4.) The main body of the pad would again be based on have two symmetrical parts that would be put together with a couple of bolts and wing nuts. When you tighten the wing nuts up, it locks the rods into place.

Edited below (added #5 and 2 additional pictures)
5.) Added the Lander style bases on the aluminum tubes.

CPMcGraw
02-02-2007, 06:37 PM
Here is an updated version of the Launch pad I had posted before.

Nice. I like the additional width, and the ability to support three rods at the same time. The two-piece approach now makes more sense, trapping the rods between the halves.

BTW -- What software are you using for your drawings? If you mentioned it before, I didn't pay attention...:o

RenegadeIV
02-02-2007, 11:20 PM
BTW -- What software are you using for your drawings? If you mentioned it before, I didn't pay attention...:o

I usually use SolidWorks for the 3D CAD designs. Makes it easy to make changes and update things.

Thanks for the feedback. The design still needs some tweaking, but the concept is pretty close.

CPMcGraw
07-31-2008, 01:00 PM
As you can see by the post date of the previous message, it's been a while since we last looked at this idea. It's probably been as long since we had any messages about "Designer's Specials"...

Have we come to any firm thoughts about what kind of "basic parts package(s)" might be viable for first-time builders, or even for someone wanting to refill their parts bins?