PMC Question
 

I picked up this "Apollo 27" model at a LHS and thought it might be interesting to try to convert it to actual flying status. Has anyone seen this one? Any ideas where to start? I thought I'd weigh all of the parts and try to simulate it in RockSim.

I was thinking of making it 24mm since it should be fairly heavy with the outrigger engines and all that plastic. I'm not sure if the outrigger pods are big enough for engines (maybe minis) but I'll have to check.

Pointers are welcome. I'm still on vacation right now so I won't be able to start working on it until a week or two into December at the earliest.

I have certainly seen it at my LHS on the self and I seen a picture of one in FineScale Modeler magazine but you are the first one that I am aware of to try to convert one into a flying model. The main thing to over come is to install a recovery system.

There were a few flying at Naram this year. Go to www.naramlive.com and you can see pictures.

You certainly can try using rocksim, but most folks will do cardboard cutouts to figure stability for pmc models.

kj

Looking at the standings it looks as if three were entered, one at least attempted flight. That must be this one: http://www.naramlive.com/naramlive-...%20IMG_3057.JPG

No, they all attempted a flight. They all got 0 flight points, but from the standings at NARAMLive, it looks like the one with the score at least got qualified- even with a 0 point score? Looks hinky.

kj

Remember, the "C" in PMC stands for CRASHER.
The vast majority that I have ever seen use "post-flight" Broom-n'-Trash Bag recovery due to the overwhelming chance of POWR-PRANGG due to instability or vastly underpowering them.
Very Entertaining to watch as a by-stander, but normally a TOTAL WASTE of model building time.

Here are a couple of shots of one at NARAM:


Bill

Your opinion.... actually using some rocket science and getting a PMC to fly correctly is quite a challenge. By just adding more power to PMC's is not rocket science it is non-science. See Tim Allen... grunt.... more power !



YMMV

my.02

It's a challenge alright...a mostly futile one from the many I have seen since 1977.
Most fall into the following categories:
1) Powr-Pranger
2) Sky-Writer
3) Cruise Missile/Land Shark

MAYBE 10% of the attempts I have seen are even close to an acceptable flight profile.
Most of those have been Plastic Models of actual rockets/capsules such as the Revell Gemini capsule conversion, Revell/Airfix Saturn conversions, etc.
Most all the fighter-jet conversions are dismal failures.

Anvil-Lofting is a safer and more predictable activity.

Very well spoken by the guy who now only speaks (too much) and builds nothing. You go boy!!!

Uhhh....
Builds nothing huh ?
What is this based upon ?
Due to the fact that I do not feel a need to post pics of my every build ?

I stand by my statement....show me one PMC that flies remotely decently and I will show you 9 that crash.

I would like to know the actual NAR stats at NARAMs that have had PMC as an event showing the actual percentage that fly in an expected vertical manner.
They seem to allow that sort of randomness as acceptable but if you file a Scale flight plan X-21 rocket (three stage, first stage fires vertically up, second and third stages fire vertically back toward earth deliberately ramming the ground) the RSO will disallow it due to 'safety' even though the profile of flight is 100% scale, which makes the ruling 100% pure BUNK.

You must hang with the wrong crowd. We had PMC at a contest earlier in the year and the success rate is 90% or better.

http://www.dars.org/newsletters/Shr...20Issue%203.pdf

and

http://www.dars.org/newsletters/Shr...0Issue%204B.pdf


Bill

Really ? From my observation all you do is criticize everyone's posts on the forums. I have never seen you post a picture or tell about a flight you've made or build you've done on anything. I myself have made several jet type flights that were IMHO very good flight profiles, and have seen many more. Your 100% scale flight profile is never going to be acceptable on a NAR contest range because the safety code is first and foremost i.e. flights are within 30 degrees of vertical. This is not a hard concept to understand or follow. So your logic is flawed. Try being positive once in a while instead of being so negative. I for one would guess I am not alone being tired of hearing all of your whining comments.

I find that people on these forums that only go by their handle and not post their name are hiding something. It's easy to be a bad ass when no one knows who you are.

Ha! Star Trek fans Google "Balok" images :D :D :D

ghrocketman
 

ghrocketman ,

I have a PMC Monogram F-16, 1/72 scale. It flies prefectly straight on C6-3 motors. I flew it last Sunday, light wind 5-6 MPH, it arced a little, no more than a regular rocket would(3FNC)

Video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1QL...=1&feature=plcp