Original Estes K-44 Birdie
 

I want to share some photos from an Ebay auction that just closed. Perhaps one of the very rarest Estes kits, the original issue K44 Birdie. Gerry Fortin's site doesn't even have a photo of one, and lists no sales. I've never seen one come up for sale either.

There were four versions of this kit. It began as an Estes Design of the Month in October 1968. The design was very simple, a shuttlecock, a short piece of BT-20, an engine block, a short launch lug, and a centering ring. For stability reasons it was meant to fly only on shorty motors.

Shortly after the publication of the plan, Estes began to offer it as a kit, the original K-44. The "instructions" were simply a reprint of the DOM plan (below). The ebay sale was for one of those original first year kits. The K-44 Birdie was offered that way for a year, then changed to the "Astron Birdie," in a double oval header design, with more normal instructions.

In 1972 the kit changed again, to the TK-44, using 13 mm motors. Gerry Fortin gives a nice description of the kits here. And as Fortin points out, even those kits are extremely rare.

Subsequently the TK-44 became part of the Mini-Brute line.

I hope this adds a bit to the history of this very early oddroc. I was really surprised to see one show up on ebay and didn't want to miss the chance to capture and share the photos.

Steve

I didn’t see the listing, how much did it go for? I see clones listed for $6.95, which seems really expensive, even before the $8.00 shipping!

I think I’d just go buy a shuttlecock at a sporting goods store, and use some of the parts I have on hand.

It went for way less than I would have thought, $129.50. I was figuring $400+ considering what the later models sold for. Really, really rare kit.

There is another picture of one from the Almond collection:

http://vintageestesrockets.com/k-kit-registry/index.htm

Thanks so much for the link! Really good pictures.

I'm not surprised at that price; the TK-44 Birdie was around for a shorter time.

Wow, I guess I’m just getting too old to get interested in collecting for the sake of collecting.I’m trying to build out my inventory of kits, and should really sell off those I know I’ll never build. I’ll likely donate a bunch of stuff to our club to use to raise some funds.

2. Maybe the biggest reason not to collect more — we are trying to seriously downsize. We need to find a place with minimal yard, a lot less square footage, and a monster basement for my wood shop. And new, so there is no remodeling required. That kind of narrows the options a bit. I think it means buying a lot, or land, and doing a custom build.

I ordered and received my Birdie from the 1969 Estes catalog (page 128) and still have that model. Most recent launch using the 13 mm engines (with streamer taped to the engine to allow fit in the 18 mm engine body tube).

On a trip to Indonesia several years back, came across some real shuttlecocks - made from honest to goodness feathers (badminton is a big game there).
So I brought a couple home with the idea of making a birdie clone but it's still on the to-do list.

Steve, great post as always. The Birdie is one of those kits that is interesting but easy to clone. The birdie that Estes used was different than most with its white nose and swirling ribs. I've made a few with whatever birdies I could find. I really wanted one like the Estes Birdie. So, I've spent the last several years searching for ones like Estes used. Not desperately but, occasionally looking. For many years. So it's weird that you post this in the same time frame that I found a canister of the Estes style Birdies. It's the little things.

Over the years I cloned the K44 and TK44 several times.
One time I just epoxied an A8-3 in a shuttlecock.

Do you mind sharing the manufacturer and model of this birdie?

I have two originals, one I converted to 13mm, and just this year, in time for Naram60, I built an upscale 24mm powered one. There is a lot of wear on the originals, I used to carry one in my launch box, and it was the first rocket launched, to check wind conditions.

Scott, I’ll post info on the birdies after Christmas when I get a little time.

LOL, why am I am not the least bit surprised that Rick would have figured this out? Having both wandered independently so long on the incredibly-less-traveled crayon sharpener nose cone path, now we both end up on the even-lesser-traveled original Estes shuttlecock path. Rick, my hat is off to you! I can't wait to hear what you've found out about these.

Steve

Rsl
 

I think this is what you're looking for.............

How old is that can? There were no ZIP codes on either of the two addresses printed on it. I'm thinking early 60's.

Doug


.

The RSL Birdies had small plastic posts inside the nose
that a engine tube could slide in around and friction fit.

I was told Estes stopped production on the Birdie because
they couldn't get the RSL shuttlecocks anymore.

I think zip codes started in 1964, so earlier than that. The spin vane plastic shuttles came in two versions............one that had a color stripe, and another (I believe earlier) that had a plain red/brown head with no stripe. BTW, just to confuse the issue further, on a page near the rear of the 1969 Estes catalog, there is a piece of Estes artwork that clearly illustrates a Birdie with straight vanes. I have to say I've never actually seen one with straight vanes, so this may have been an error on Estes' part. But who knows?


Joe

Interesting. I posted photos of the RSL shuttlecock cans above at 9:01 EST this morning. At 9:08 EST someone nailed two cans on eBay. Had to be someone here...........

https://www.ebay.com/itm/2-Vintage-...5.m43663.l10137

Ditto here, except that I no longer have the model. That was the only "rocket" that I could fly in my yard, with shorty motors.

This is the Birdie kit I would like to find for a realistic price.
Much rarer than the K44.

I flew one. Once. Found the shuttlecock in the back yard and just happened to have the tube laying around. I didn't bother with anything fancy like centering rings, just glued the tube right to the back of the nose. It flew fine, but the ejection charge was a little robust for an unsupported tube and it never flew again. Now I'm getting the urge...... :rolleyes:

You look a lot younger and skinnier than I remember. :D

I was young, but never that skinny. ;)

Shorty motor Birdies and Mini Motor Birdies are easy to clone yourself. I buy 6 packs of shuttlecocks at the flea market for a buck.

I ended up with a bunch of plugged 13mm motors in an Ebay lot and that was a good way to use them up. I do like the way an ejection charge sends them flying though.

Real RSL shuttlecocks available here.

Indeed--you can even make your own 18 mm, Series III "Shorty" motors, with 1/2A6-2 motors (and 1/2A6-4s and/or 1/2A6-0s, if you can find any) and a saw... For making a batch of them, I'd get a length of a hardwood 2 x 4 and drill a row of appropriately-deep (and wide) holes in it, then slide the 2.75" motors down into the holes--nozzles-down, of course--and saw off the empty upper 1" of their motor cases. Also:

Having built and flown a few Estes Birdie clones (powered by 13 mm motors), I can vouch for their "fun factor." They flew fine even in windy conditions (they didn't weathercock too much; sorry, I couldn't resist :-) [but it's true]). Even using the cheapest, junkiest, can-packed shuttlecocks, they weren't troubled even by asphalt surfaces (at the Old Tamiami Airport runway in Miami--now used by model airplane fliers--at Tamiami Park, site of the Dade County Youth Fair and Florida International University), bouncing up to thirty feet back into the air after landing on their rubber nose tips.

If the ancient Greeks and Romans had had cameras, they too would likely have had "stand-in servants" (even if they were their own younger and more photogenic children, or their neighbors or their children). :-)

Someone could make a pretty penny 3D printing, in a softer plastic (or otherwise replicating, perhaps using one of the softer, more flexible polyurethane casting resins in RTV [Room Temperature-Vulcanizing] rubber molds [the platinum-cure ones are better and longer-lasting than the tin-cure molds]) those RSL shuttlecocks, because:

[1] They are long out of production, and so will eventually become unavailable;
[2] They're the authentic Estes-used ones, and;
[3] Their spiraled ribs did give them some stability-increasing spin, as the seller on eBay wrote (this feature isn't necessary, but it adds to their authenticity as *THE* "official" Estes Birdie shuttlecock.

A crazy thought just occurred to me: Looking up RSL (see: https://www.rslshuttles.com/ ) and their products, I found that they are still in business, and have been in operation at least since the 1930s (new *and* "classic design re-issue" shuttlecocks, and rackets, are widely available). Here's my idea:

If we, and/or Estes, approached RSL and pitched to them a suggestion that they (perhaps in a limited batch each year) re-issue their All-American shuttlecock, it would be a great--and likely unique--opportunity for *both* companies to cross-promote their products. (Estes need not re-issue the Birdie kit, although they could; if desired, they could buy quantities of the re-issued RSL All-American shuttlecocks and offer them for sale [with the 13 mm version Birdie instructions] as "short kits," rather like their 3D printed rockets set where the builder prints his or her own plastic parts at home--they could also offer Birdie kits [or all of the parts, bagged, with photocopied instructions for the 13 mm motor version] as "bonus kits," included with direct online or mail orders.) Many model rocketeers also play badminton (my parents, brothers, sisters, and I did, even before [in their cases] Estes' Birdie kit appeared), and I'm sure that many badminton players also fly model rockets, including in competition as well as just for fun sport flying. For example:

My mate Stuart Lodge (in the English meaning of that term), a British model rocketeer (space modeler, in British parlance) who almost single-handedly got model rocketry legalized in the UK (the Explosives Act of 1875 stood in the way...), was--and still is--an avid Field Hockey player, who was initially attracted by model rocketry's competition possibilities. In the decades (!) since then, he has been a competition flyer--and a contest judge--at space modeling competitions and tournaments all over the world, in just about every--if not in every--competition category! Over those years, he also discovered, and has contributed to, the other aspects of the hobby (sport launches, odd rockets, whimsical rockets, etc.), and:

Now, imagine the possibilities that both RSL and Estes could avail themselves of (such as: "Our shuttlecocks are, thanks to Estes Industries, the fastest, highest-flying birdies on Earth!"), and ("Since 1968, RSL's spin-stabilized shuttlecocks have boosted the highest and straightest for Estes model rocketeers" [like the Astron Cobra and other models, the Birdie was a "Model Rocket News" plan before it became a kit; I wonder--was the kit ever called the "Astron Birdie?"]).

Your posting just inspired something: It would be possible to clone the original (18 mm diameter, 1.75" long, Series III "Shorty" motor powered) Birdie, and fly it on 13 mm motors without modifying the original-design airframe at all (ditto for the Semroc eRockets.biz "Retro-Repro" Centuri Lil' Herc [see: http://www.erockets.biz/semroc-flyi...hercules-kv-14/ ], the original version of which also used [Centuri's] "Shorty" 18 mm motors). Here's how:

Rather like how Estes have their red plastic, lengthwise-split two-piece motor adapter sleeves (for using 13 mm motors in 18 mm motor mounts [and minimum-diameter 18 mm motor rockets, 18 mm motors in 24 mm tubes, etc.), the "ex-Shorty 18 mm motor" kits (now modified to accommodate 13 mm motors) could use their original "Shorty 18 mm motor" mounts, with a *tri-sector*-split 13 mm motor mount, and:

Especially in motor-ejecting, "Shorty" motor models such as the original Birdie (and the original Centuri Lil' Hercules: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/ca...i65/65cen6.html ), a 13 mm motor mount (of the same "envelope dimensions"--the diameter and length--of an 18 mm [0.69"] diameter x 44.45 mm [1.75"] long "Shorty" motor), with centering discs (or centering rings) glued to the ends of its BT-5 tube, could be built. Also:

It could be arranged in different ways. It could be left in one piece (and it could have either a 13 mm motor clip [with a thrust ring glued in ahead of it, for greater durability], or it could utilize just a thrust ring, with the 13 mm motor being friction-fitted into the BT-5 tube using masking tape [which is best applied at an angle down the slightly narrower front end of the motor, as it permits gradual tightening, easier removal after flight, and avoids "buggering up" the rear edge of the motor mount tube]). This one-piece, 13 mm motor-to-18 mm "Shorty" motor adapter mount could descend, after ejecting itself out of the rocket, under a streamer (either directly affixed to the BT-5 tube, or affixed to it via a short length of cotton or Kevlar line). *OR*...

A more challenging--(like the "second version" [or second paint scheme, requiring more colors and/or more complicated masking] that many Centuri kits included provision and instructions for), but fascinating to build, prep, and watch descend after ejecting itself--version of this motor adapter mount could be built thus:

The motor adapter mount could be built just as described above, but it wouldn't need a 13 mm motor clip, just *two* thrust rings (one ahead of the motor as before, and one directly ^behind^ it [as is often the case with the first stages of minimum-diameter, multi-stage model rockets]). How is the 13 mm motor installed (and removed), then? Easily...by inserting and removing it -sideways-. After the motor adapter mount is built (leaving out the two thrust rings until the last step), it is cut lengthwise into three equal, 120-degree sectors (as viewed from either the front or rear of the mount). If necessary (to maintain the strength and stiffness of each sector-piece), one wrap of thin paper, such as computer printer paper, could be glued around the outside of the BT-5 tube, then allowed to dry before the mount is cut into three sectors. Then:

The three now-separate sectors could be "tied" together, by affixing short--maybe 3" - 4" or so (short enough to easily fit, when folded, between the BT-5 tube and the inner wall of the rocket's BT-20 [or ST-7] motor mount [or body] tube)--lengths of plastic streamer material between them. (Metallized, perhaps color-tinted [red, gold, blue, green, purple, silver, etc.] mylar streamer material would be particularly eye-catching, in the air and on the ground, and some gauges of it are thinner--and fold up more compactly--than the Day-Glo Orange plastic flagging tape that is frequently used as streamer material.) If desired, the streamer material could be affixed between the adapter mount sectors via short lengths of cotton carpet thread or thin Kevlar line (the thicker, sometimes color-dyed Kevlar *thread* [Apogee Rockets has it in Burgundy color] is strong, heat-resistant, easy to tie, and rolls or folds up very compactly)--and in addition:

Only two lengths of streamer material--at a minimum--would be needed to "tie" together the three motor adapter mount sectors (with one sector in the middle, and the other two at either end of the "daisy chain," with the two lengths of streamer material in between the three sectors. But if a slower descent rate was desired (less than, or the same as--or nearly so--that of the rocket itself, say [the Birdie falls pretty fast, but some Lil' Hercs actually enter a fast, flat glide, or drift relatively slowly down while tumbling, depending on how they're built and ballasted, and on the winds on a given day]), one or two extra, "outboard" lengths of streamer material (particularly the thinner-gauge, metallized mylar type, which folds up more compactly) could be attached to the "outer" adapter mount sectors. Now for the last assembly step:

The two BT-5 size thrust rings would be glued into the front and rear ends of one of the motor adapter mount's BT-5 tubing sectors (they ^could^ be glued into two different sectors, but that would complicate the 13 mm motor's installation and its retention in flight [in order to be "NAR-kosher/halal" for NAR-sanctioned contests and sport launches, ^nothing^ can fall free, unsupported by a parachute or streamer, unless it is gliding instead of falling]). Any of the three streamer-"tied" motor adapter mount sectors could hold the motor, which would fit (without "play," but not tightly) between its fore-and-aft thrust rings (selecting a sector at one end of the sectors-and-streamer material "daisy chain" would, I conjecture, cause more flapping, and generate more drag [and thus a slower descent] than would selecting the middle sector to hold the motor), and:

Before launch, the 13 mm motor would simply be slipped into the thrust rings-equipped sector, before its igniter (and igniter plug, if used; otherwise, the old-fashioned tamped-in wadding ball [and/or masking tape "patch," pressed into the nozzle to hold the igniter in place]) was installed, protruding forward into the motor's nozzle, through the opening in the rear thrust ring. To ensure that the motor casing wouldn't fall free after ejection:

A short length of thread--Kevlar thread, if desired--could be wrapped once around the middle of the motor (and around its sector's portion of the BT-5 tube), then tied (with the knot--an easily-untied granny knot, or a shoe lace "bow-tie" knot, would do--on top of the BT-5 tubing sector, so that it wouldn't interfere with the fit of the motor). A single, full or partial wrap of cellophane tape (or masking tape), applied in the same way as the thread, would work just as well, or even better, without interfering with the 13 mm motor's fit in the assembled motor adapter mount. And then:

With the motor tied (or taped) in place in the thrust rings-equipped sector (and with its igniter installed), the other two motor mount sectors would be assembled around the motor, the streamer material pieces (and their interconnecting cotton carpet thread or Kevlar thread lines, if utilized) would be folded up to fit between the (assembled) tri-sectored BT-5 tube and the rocket's inner tubing wall, and the whole assembly would be slid into the rear of the rocket, just as an 18 mm Series III "Shorty" motor would be. The subsequent normal pre-launch and launch checklist steps (the version for tumble-recovery model rockets; Estes--and possibly also Centuri--printed "generic" checklist variants for all of the main types of recovery system [featherweight, tumble, streamer, parachute, helicopter, and glide recovery]) would be followed from this point onward, and:

The models--either of these, the original-design Birdie or Lil' Hercules--would lift off and climb just as they did/would have under the power of 18 mm Series III "Shorty" motors. At ejection, the motor adapter mount would--like a "Shorty" motor--jettison itself rearward, and the now-lightened rocket would arc over and begin falling (the Birdie), or would start tumbling--or would perhaps enter a fast, shallow glide--moving almost horizontally, but hopefully circling as well (the Lil' Hercules). The motor adapter mount, meanwhile, would separate into its three sectors, all held together by the lengths of streamer material (and perhaps also lengths of cotton or Kevlar thread), and begin a relatively slow, fluttering descent (either faster than, slower than, or at about the same velocity as the separately-descending rocket, depending on several voluntarily-chosen--and random--factors).