Building the 1350 Interceptor

[Rocket Doctor]

I'm starting a new thread here dealing with the 1350 Interceptor only, we were getting off track with the A ? for the Rocket Doctor thread.

So, if you have purchased, plan to purchase or have already built the 1350, please post your comments here.

We can all come up with ideas on building, finishing and slying this rocket.

I have mentioned this before, the shock cord is much too short by at least 11 inches, be aware of this.

[barone]

Thanks RD...this is a good idea.

Just wanted to put my 2 cents worth concerning the wing braces. I can understand why they were added since those areas are the weakest points on the wings. The braces do tend to distract from the original Interceptor. I don't know if I mentioned this before or someone else has, but I think I'm going to use a card stock laminate on the wings. Two reasons...

1. Added strength to the joint without using the braces.
2. There's a whole lot of balsa there. The card stock won't need to be filled.

As for the shock cord. I think we've all got use to replacing whatever comes in the Estes kits. RD is right. We need to complain to Estes so they know we aren't happy. Then, go ahead and replace it with whatever you want to use. Let's not forget that the original function of the shock cord was to keep everything together. Butcher string works just as well as long as it's long enough not to break from the force of ejection. Personnally, I use the elastic and I use a minimum of two times the body length. Keep in mind, some damage we blame on short shock cords could just as easily be early deployments and the momentum of the rocket continues and hits the nose cone.

Okay....maybe 5 cents worth of letters and a penny worth of thought... :o

[Rocket Doctor]

Don

Thanks for the input, this is what we need, comparing notes, and, making suggestions.

RD

[sandman]

I'll have to just watch and listen.

Although I just got two big Interceptors in...I'm kinda busy right now. :o

[ghrocketman]

I totally agree that the shock cords in Estes kits are TOTALLY inadequate.
I personally use a 3x BT length rule for these and almost ALWAYS use a kevlar leader attached to the forward portion of the engine mount or ejection baffle with the shock cord tied to that. Where the kevlar crosses the forward opening of the body tube, I use an anti-zippering device.

I would have liked Estes to use NON-braced basswood or plywood for the fins instead of the braced balsa. If they want it to handle mid-power levels they should use mid-power materials. Estes is the only company that is hell-bent on only reccommending only THEIR engines for THEIR kits, yet they offer something constucted of components that will not fly decently on an Estes D or E-anything but are fine for an Aerotech RMS 24 F39T. At 10.5+ ounces this thing will not fly decently on an E9-ANYTHING w/o an 8ft launch rod. A D12 will work, but I suspect the flight will be dismally low, just like the old Maxi-Brutes on a D12-3.

[Rocket Doctor]

It was probably the cost factor, a strip of balsa is cheaper than a whole fin of basewood.
They don't think about individual kits costs, it's the whole production run, and, for a kit with a suggested reatil of $49.99, you want your money's forth.

I brought up about the shock cord, mainly, if I spent 50 bucks on the basic kit, then the finishing supplie, built the kit and had is destroyed because of a shcok cord, I certainly woundn't be happy.

So, we gather our thought here, and, they will be passed along once again, I hope that they have their listening ears on, as Judge Judy would say.......

Keep the comments and update coming.

[ghrocketman]

I can understand that sort of strategy for $8.49 beginner kits at Wal Mart, but NOT for kits built by REAL model builders that have been doing it for years.
When a kit has a retail of around $50.00, I do NOT expect it to have ANY inferior materials.
They wisely decided to include a Nylon Chute which must have cost MUCH more than a plastic chute. Supplying the kit with a PROPER length of shock cord should be considered a quality MINIMUM, as I think should be the basswood fins.
Small things like this will continue to cause me to be ticked off at Estes.
They have really went downhill since the early 90's, and while I see that they are trying to make a comeback, little things like this are BIG glitches in this as I see it.

[Phred]

I am still not convinced that these braces are necessary. I have several models with large, surface mounted balsa fins and have not had any problems.

Rocket Dr: Are you aware of any test failures, or other issues during development that caused these braces to be added?

I am not trying to be argumentative, but I am just trying to get to the root of why there are part of the design.

Phred

[CPMcGraw]

...Just wanted to put my 2 cents worth concerning the wing braces. I can understand why they were added since those areas are the weakest points on the wings...

Could someone re-post the existing photos of the prototype 1350 here to refresh our memories about these braces?

If these braces are positioned like "wing fences" on 50's and 60's era supersonic fighters, then we're talking about chord-wise braces instead of span-wise, right?

Has anyone thought about using some very thin carbon-fibre strips in place of the cardstock, or even the balsa? Some of this material is very thin in comparison, but would provide far more reinforcement, and when primed over would nearly disappear from view.

[barone]

I am still not convinced that these braces are necessary. I have several models with large, surface mounted balsa fins and have not had any problems.

Rocket Dr: Are you aware of any test failures, or other issues during development that caused these braces to be added?

I am not trying to be argumentative, but I am just trying to get to the root of why there are part of the design.

Phred
Phred,

I think maybe they were thinking that the added weight of the pods at the end of the wings might be the problem. That's just my thought about what they were thinking. But, who really knows what they were thinking. What were they thinking? :eek:

[DaveR]

Maybe I'm missing some sort of "purest" element here but couldn't you just cut your own basswood fins using the provided balsa ones as a template?
I get the point about the materials should be quality "out-of-the-bag" but they're not; so why not build it to suit you? Personally, I prefer basswood over balsa anyway, especailly when building an "exotic".......but that's just me. :rolleyes:

[tbzep]

With Doc's measurements, the closest body tube I've found to match the OD of the Estes tube are the 34" length tube couplers for ST-20 at BMS. Unfortunately, if the numbers are correct, the couplers are even thicker than the Estes heavy body tube. I'm going to take a close look at the tubes that come with the kit and see if I can peel them from the inside to make them lighter. If anybody comes up with a good thin walled 1.99-2.0" OD tube, post up!

As for the braces, I don't see them as being necessary. The glue joint holding the halves together will strengthen the balsa and you can soak the leading and trailing edges with CA to stiffen things even more That will make them more ding resistant as a side benefit. There will be some torque when the pods hit the ground first, but I think a hard impact at an angle would break the 1/8" fin material even with a small strip of bracing. I'm still tempted to go with 3/16" balsa to keep the wings more scale with the original and to make them stronger anyway. I'll have a better idea when I finally get hold of a 1350.

Another option to strengthen the wings while keeping the 1/8" balsa and not using the brace is to use hardwood strips around the perimeter. Trim an 1/8" off the balsa, frame it with 1/8" thick hardwood squares, and glue it all together. You get the added perimeter frame strength plus strength from the glue joints. If you airfoil the wings, use wider strips so that you still have some hardwood after it's sanded. Once it's filled and finished, nobody will ever know.

Barone is using cardstock lamination. Another option would be to use a single layer of 1/16" balsa to laminate keeping the grain at an angle to the original. Once again, the glue will add a ton of strength and the thickness of the wing will be closer to scale with the 1250.

Want to make it super strong for composite motors? Laminate with 1/64" plywood! Almost as strong as regular plywood and less weight than "light ply" (which is pretty weak IMHO).

For now, my mods list will probably include:

**Peeled body tubes
regular BT-50 motor tube
regular homemade centering rings
3/16" balsa fins (or laminated....still haven't decided)
dowel rods for the pitot tubes for the classic look
modified nosecone to fit the peeled tubes

**I doubt I can save much weight by peeling the tube because I'll have to add material to the tube coupler, nose cone shoulder, and afterburner. It might not be worth the effort. However, as heavy as Doc's unpainted prototype is, every tenth of an ounce may be necessary to get safe flights on Estes motors.

I'm about out of ideas to lighten the model without looking at it in person. Some of you present and former NAR competitors need to start sharing your weight loss techniques. :)

[tbzep]

Maybe I'm missing some sort of "purest" element here but couldn't you just cut your own basswood fins using the provided balsa ones as a template?
I get the point about the materials should be quality "out-of-the-bag" but they're not; so why not build it to suit you? Personally, I prefer basswood over balsa anyway, especailly when building an "exotic".......but that's just me. :rolleyes:

I've never thought basswood or light ply gave enough added strength to justify the weight when I was doing R/C stuff (the only time I've fooled with either). Laminated balsa isn't as brittle and might flex enough not to break in some situations where basswood would. However, copied basswood would likely work ok. How much extra weight it would add compared to the strengthened balsa might be a question considering this thing is borderline too heavy for Estes motors already.

[barone]

As for the weight......

I've got a total of 11.375 oz for the parts only. Does not include glue, paint or decals. The balsa sheets were weighed as a single piece, that is, I didn't punch out the patterns and weigh them seperately. If you figure the patterns make up about 90% of the weight, then the parts weigh in at 11.127 oz. The plastic centering rings weigh in at .21 oz. They feel pretty light. I tried to fly my Mercury Atlas (weighs 7.77 oz according to the kit specifications) on the recommended D12-3 and it barely cleared the pad, got to about 25' and came down on it's side. I ended up flying it with Aerotech E15s. The maximum recommended liftoff weight for the D12 is about 14oz. The E9 (recommended for the Interceptor) has a lower initial thrust than the D12 and lower average thrust...it just burns longer. Now, the way I see it, if the D12 barely got my Atlas in the air at half the rated max weight, I don't see how I'm going to get any performance from the E9. I wonder if Estes actually flew this or do they expect them to be hangar queens? I'm going to set mine up to fly 24mm Aerotech Es and Fs. By the way...I like the thought of using the 1/64" ply for the laminate.....

[foose4string]

I picked one up today but haven't opened it. I've had it in my mind to use sticker paper on both sides(if they will fit on a standard sheet) and seal edges with CA, rather than cardstock. The braces really don't bug me all that much, but laminating will kill two birds, as Don pointed out. The sticker paper should be plenty strong and weigh a little less than regular cardstock. I'm kind of skeptical, like Fred, about needing the reinforcement at all, but they obviously added them for a reason, and the balsa IS rather thin for this. I doubt an Estes motor has enough thrust to sheer those fins(just guessing here), it's the recovery trials that I worry about.

[Rocket Doctor]

From what I understand, the prototypes have been flown many times, and, this is why they added the fin stiffeners.

They came down and sheared off fins.

Here is an idea, if you are looking for a differnt body tube, why not get together, decide upon the size that you want, and place a special order. It would only be worth the while to have a larger order, than the minimum.

You could contqct Euclid about tubes.

Euclid Spiral Paper Tube Corp.
339 Mill St - P.O. Box 458
Apple Creek OH 44606

phone 330-698-4711

Gloria Edmonson - Quotes

gedmonson@euclidspiral.com

[barone]

OKay....I'm replacing the kit motor tube with a foil lined BT50 from BMS. Original tube weighed .69 oz...the replacement tube weighs .65 oz. Okay...I'm .04 oz lighter already.... :D

[barone]

Well, since I've decided not to trust the E9 and fly 24mm Fs, I've found they vary in lengths. So, I won't be using the supplied motor block or motor hook and opt for friction fit.

Weight savings is .09 oz. (this may not exist since I now have to account for the masking tape to friction fit)

Total weight savings so far is .13 oz :eek:

[tbzep]

Well, since I've decided not to trust the E9 and fly 24mm Fs, I've found they vary in lengths. So, I won't be using the supplied motor block or motor hook and opt for friction fit.

Weight savings is .09 oz. (this may not exist since I now have to account for the masking tape to friction fit)

Total weight savings so far is .13 oz :eek:

Attaboy, Don! Keep whittling. ;)

[barone]

Okay guys. I don't know about you but I've got some short, stubby fingers. The nose cone shoulder is a little over 2" long. My finger is barely long enough to mount the shock cord. Something for you guys to think about as you build..... :o

[Ltvscout]

Okay guys. I don't know about you but I've got some short, stubby fingers. The nose cone shoulder is a little over 2" long. My finger is barely long enough to mount the shock cord. Something for you guys to think about as you build..... :o
Maybe use something like chopsticks to get it down there. You can then smooth it out by rubbing it down with one of the sticks.

[tbzep]

Okay guys. I don't know about you but I've got some short, stubby fingers. The nose cone shoulder is a little over 2" long. My finger is barely long enough to mount the shock cord. Something for you guys to think about as you build..... :o

I use something to burnish or roll over it if it's one that I can't easily reach. I still use the old Estes style mount on all of my clones and scratchbuilts. However, you might go the way of technology and convert to the Quest/Semroc/Fliskits/??? method and use kevlar on the motor mount. That will give your stubby fingers a reprieve. ;)

[barone]

Actually, I'm going to go a little more unorthodoxed route with my shock cord. It won't be attached to the rocket. I'm going to run Kevlar down through the body tube/motor tube and tie a loop around the nozzle end of the motor and tape in place. At the forward end of the kevlar, I'll attach a 1/4 inch thick elastic shock cord. The Kevlar will help act as a motor block, motor retainer and shock cord mount.

[foose4string]

I use something to burnish or roll over it if it's one that I can't easily reach. I still use the old Estes style mount on all of my clones and scratchbuilts. However, you might go the way of technology and convert to the Quest/Semroc/Fliskits/??? method and use kevlar on the motor mount. That will give your stubby fingers a reprieve. ;)

I do that with all of mine anyhow, clone,scratch, or whatever. The tri-fold was never even a consideration for me. Not that it doesn't work, it's just I prefer the Kevlar. However, I try to keep the kevlar away from the very top of the motor. It's tough stuff, but everything has it's limits. I always try to run the Kevlar to the outside of the motor mount centering rings, cutting or sanding a small groove in the top ring, to allow the Kevlar to pass through. This keeps it along the edge of the main BT, instead of running right next to top of the motor tube(which most instructions have you do). This keeps it out of the direct line of fire and helps prolong the life of the Kevlar.

[Rocket Doctor]

Maybe use something like chopsticks to get it down there. You can then smooth it out by rubbing it down with one of the sticks.


Weren't the chop sticks included and suggested under step 1 column A, and no substitutions.

Don't forget the rice paper for covering the fins for strength.

[Gus]

Some observations from constructing the kit.

First, the parts are top notch. Very high quality balsa, just like in the 1250 Interceptor kit. Laser cutting is outstanding, pieces fit together perfectly with only a rub or two of sandpaper to remove the laser cutting notches.

Body tubes and motor mount tubes are stronger (and heavier) than usual Estes tubes, hence my comment in the other thread about this kit suggesting a change at Estes.

Fin slots on the lower body tube are outstanding. Fins are perfectly aligned and fit perfectly against the motor mount, no sanding necessary. Unbelievably precisely designed parts.

Motor mount design is VERY clever, with stuffer tube extending to top of coupler between body tubes. I would be hesitant to consider friction fitting motors in this kit since the aft end of the motor mount sits inside the plastic tail cone. It would be very hard to get your fingers, or a pair of pliers, between the end of the motor and the tail cone to get the motor out. While it would be very simple to replace the 24mm tube with a 29 mm one, I'm not sure what you would do for positive motor retention unless you left the motor mount tube end aft of the tail cone, which would look funky.

I decided to build my motor mount as designed, but I adapted it very slightly for a kevlar shock cord. I drilled one small hole in the forward motor mount to allow me to pass a piece of kevlar through. I tied the kevlar around the motor mount/stuffer tube. Very simple replacement for the bungee style shock cord included.

Plastic nosecone and fin pods are beautiful. But the fin supports will definitely be needed. The fin pods are VERY heavy, being made of thick plastic. Unlike the Interceptor of old, the pods are all (thick) plastic and have a hole in the side for mounting to a tab on the end of the fin, so they will not snap off if torqued.

These pods are so big and heavy I have little doubt that landing at an angle on one would torque the wing enough to break it. The supports look like they will keep that from happening. I doubt laminating the wings with paper will solve that problem since they would do little to alleviate that kind of torque stress. Replacing the wings with heavier materials would solve the problem but would add too much tail weight. So the supports are a fairly light weight solution to the problem.

As for the supports themselves, they are a labor intensive part of the build. The instructions say to bevel the front edges and round the sides. But if you look at Roguepink's photos, or the kit cover, the supports are way more oval (requiring a lot more sanding) than the instructions suggest. I am concerned that if they are not made oval, the wing decals will look odd.

Not hard to make them oval, but labor intensive due to the high quality (hard) balsa supplied. There are 8 of these supports to be fashioned since they go on both wings and tail surfaces. I'm taking my time with them trying to make sure they look good.

I am less convinced of the structural need for supports on the tail surfaces but I am including them because that's the way the 1350 is "supposed" to look.

Overall, I'm very impressed with the quality of the kit. I just built a 1250 and I expect this will look just as nice. If the E9 is not enough for it to fly safely, a 24mm Aerotech reload will work fine. I have no desire to set any altitude records with this one.

[wickball]

Good report, Gus, I'm starting to feel a little better about doing this build myself.
What type of glue are you going to use for the pods to wing tips?

wick

[PaulK]

So I looked at a 1350 at the LHS today, and the listed weight is 13.5 oz. Did I read that right? Add in the weight of an E9-4, and that gives a thrust-to-weight ratio of just about exactly 2:1. This will certainly be a dead calm weather only flyer on that motor. This is a nice looking kit, that no doubt is in my future, but I'd be mighty leery of that E9, and would probably want to use an E18. Sheesh, estes lists the max recommended liftoff weight of an E9 at 15 oz, that seems mighty optimistic...

[Rocket Doctor]

Good report, Gus, I'm starting to feel a little better about doing this build myself.
What type of glue are you going to use for the pods to wing tips?

wick


When I was building the prototype, I used a plastic cement that was compatable with wood(balsa) and plastic.

This seemed to be the right stuff, if you research it, you can find such a glue, I cna't give you the exact name because I have such a large variety of glues besides more main one yellow carpenter's glue.

As with all Estes kits that suggest "tube type plastic cement" that should not be used, plaastic cement is for "welding" two plastic pieces together, not paper/balsa to plastic.

Like I mentioned above, theere are many glues out there that you can use with plastic and wood/balsa.

And, the mian build of the 1350 was done with yellow carpenter's glue with no problem.

As it has been mentioned, I also think that epoxy is overkill, and, that was added after I had submitted the instructions outline.

[ScaleNut]

I am thinking bridle recovery for this one

[foose4string]

When I was building the prototype, I used a plastic cement that was compatable with wood(balsa) and plastic.

This seemed to be the right stuff, if you research it, you can find such a glue, I cna't give you the exact name because I have such a large variety of glues besides more main one yellow carpenter's glue.

As with all Estes kits that suggest "tube type plastic cement" that should not be used, plaastic cement is for "welding" two plastic pieces together, not paper/balsa to plastic.

Like I mentioned above, theere are many glues out there that you can use with plastic and wood/balsa.

And, the mian build of the 1350 was done with yellow carpenter's glue with no problem.

As it has been mentioned, I also think that epoxy is overkill, and, that was added after I had submitted the instructions outline.

I really don't think epoxy is overkill. I think problem with epoxy is, many people use way more than what is required(actually, I think this is true of all types of glues). It doesn't take much epoxy. However, I think some plastic safe CA will work fine if you don't like messing with epoxy, but even that may be "overkill". I wicked plain 'ol thin CA on the 1250 pod joints without any harsh effects to the plastic and they are on there rock solid. Of course, you want to test a small spot first to be sure.

[Rocket Doctor]

Ike I had mentioned, there is glue that you can use on both plastic and wood/papaer that isn't CA or Epoxy, that is user friendly.

If you hunt around enough, you can find a variety of glues to do the job.
I can assure you, the glue that I used will take a beating, mine, fell a couple of time and hit a concrete floor with any damage.........oops

[MKP]

Testors makes this stuff, it's called Glue for Metal and Wood Models. Comes in a green tube as opposed to Testors usual orange tube glue for normal styrene. I've found it works great, if you use it right and follow the directions, which is basically the double glue method. I've just used it on my SR-71 Blackbird for the engine nozzles and intakes. I've also used it on my Scissorwing Transport for the wing hinge. It also works fine with plastic to plastic.

[Rocket Doctor]

I just wnt through all of my glues, and found it, it's called BOND 527 Multi Purpose Cement, you can find it while doing a web search.

This glues practically everything and dries clear, and, it's not that expensie.

Only draw back, it has a very strong smell, I would strongly suggest, if you use this, use it in a well ventilated area.

[ghrocketman]

I'm going to set up my 1350 to fly exclusively on Aerotech RMS 24 E and F loads.
This is what they should have reccommended anyway...Estes needs to get off their high-horse when it comes to engine selection reccs. especially when they do not manufacture the proper engine for the offered kit.
No way will I fly this thing with the dismally low-thrust BP Estes E9.
Flying a 13+oz. rocket on this engine is nothing more than an accident waiting to happen unless you fly off a 6'+ rod or rail in ZERO wind.
I suspect flying this with an E9 in zero wind would be about as exciting as flying a Mars Lander on a B4-2.

What Estes needs to do to the E9 is to take a page out of the old design manual for the B14.
After the wet propellant is pressed into the case, they need to drill a port in the core propellant to make it say an E24; then you would have a REAL useful BP engine for a moderate price.

[barone]

Well, you can always try to chad a D12 to the E9....wait a second....now it weighs even more... ;)

[Rocket Doctor]

Speaking of motors, unless it's an Estes branded product, they don't ant to discuss it, and, I don't see any high power motors on the horizon anytime soon.

As far as a B14 designed motor, I requested that B14's be brought back, and, I was told NO because of the added operation of drilling the core into it. I was told that it was too dangerous, and, that personell weren't going to be put ask risk doing this.

Who knows, that might change, I can't see why they can't set up an automatic machinging process, wehre personell are far enough away, but, I guess the added operation would add to the cost of the motors.

Anyway, just keep reporting you thoughts and building techniques here, and, we can come to some kind of conclusion.

[ghrocketman]

RD,
Automation...exactly my thoughts on the drilling BP engine ports.
In this day and age, there would be no reason for say "Cleatus" to be standing in front of a drill press drilling engine ports with that potential risk factor.
The only additional danger should be to the machinery.
Most BARs/REAL rocket builders would not object to addtional cost of engines if we could get back the B14, C5, and any BP load-lifting (read this to be at least a D20 or E24) D or E.
Additional cost would be accepted at say a 10-15% premium by most, but NOT if they price them ignorantly like what I keep seeing as proposed 2-pak pricing for the still-vaporware coming-soon-for-three-years Quest Composite 18mm SU D.

Estes has their heads in the sand if they think only "Estes" engines should be used in their products. GET REAL !

[moonzero2]

Is there the possibility of making it a cluster with 2 E9's?

[barone]

Is there the possibility of making it a cluster with 2 E9's?
No, not unless you leave the tail cone off and open up the lower tube some.

[LeeR]

Could someone re-post the existing photos of the prototype 1350 here to refresh our memories about these braces?



Here you go ...

I looked for the original thread, but could not find it.

If I were to eliminate the braces (and I may), I'd just fiberglass the fins. I did this on a 5X Mosquito -- I wanted to use balsa so I could easily make them nice and rounded on the edges, to look realistically upscaled from the original. I also glasses the fin-tube joint, since I used surface mount fins. This Skeeter is tough as nails.

[CPMcGraw]

Thanks, Lee!

As for the braces, maybe the finish and detailing are just so good on this model that I'm looking right at them and not recognizing them. Are we talking about those slight bulges on each wing panel, just inboard of the pods? That's the only visual indication I see of a "brace", and the only thing that looks different from the original K-50 (other than some additional details in the molded pieces).

I don't see those as being a distraction, just some added detail that works out better in a larger scale. Dress them up with a recessed grille on the leading edges, add some exhaust vent decals near the trailing edge, and call them equipment fairings...:D

[Leo]

...

I looked for the original thread, but could not find it.

...


Thread... (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showthread.php?t=1791&page=5&pp=10)

[tbzep]

That's considerably less conspicuous than on the naked prototype. It looks like it should belong on the wings. I can't see enough detail on the rudders, but I imagine it won't look as good on them.

[Rocket Doctor]

Thread... (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showthread.php?t=1791&page=5&pp=10)


Leo Can you find the thread for the photos that you posted of the "bare" prototpe of the 1350, so, that everyone can see the fin stiffeners.
Thanks

RD

[Leo]

Leo Can you find the thread for the photos that you posted of the "bare" prototpe of the 1350, so, that everyone can see the fin stiffeners.
Thanks

RD

Sure can.

Look here (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showthread.php?t=2214) :)

[Gus]

Thanks Leo.

Rocket Doctor's prototype pictures show the wing and tail braces attached without any prior finishing. The instructions for the kit suggest beveling the front edge of the braces and rounding the sides prior to attaching them to the wings and tail surfaces. As I mentioned earlier, Roguepink's pictures show a more oval shape.

Photo 1: Pre and post sanded braces from fore and aft angles

Photo 2: Sanded brace in place on wing. You can see how nicely the ovaled form blends in.

Photo 3: My 1250 (Reissue) hanging out with some friends. :)

[Rocket Doctor]

Sure can.

Look here (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showthread.php?t=2214) :)


Thank you Leo, das ist sehr gut !!!!

[Rocket Doctor]

Thanks Leo.

Rocket Doctor's prototype pictures show the wing and tail braces attached without any prior finishing. The instructions for the kit suggest beveling the front edge of the braces and rounding the sides prior to attaching them to the wings and tail surfaces. As I mentioned earlier, Roguepink's pictures show a more oval shape.

Photo 1: Pre and post sanded braces from fore and aft angles

Photo 2: Sanded brace in place on wing. You can see how nicely the ovaled form blends in.

Photo 3: My 1250 (Reissue) hanging out with some friends. :)

Gus

I din't do any finishing at all on the prototyp[e, I was under the gun to get the layout for the instructions done, not to finish it off.

They gave me no clue as to what the "strips" were for, then, I had to figure it out.

I basically wanted to build it to see how everything went together. The photos are there to show you the 1`350 RAW, in the prototype, instruction planning stages.

[Gus]

Rocket Doctor,

Very interesting background, which I appreciate.

I wasn't being critical of your build, just trying to point out the difference between your photos, what the kit instructions now suggest, Roguepink's pictures, and what you have to do to make the kit look like his.

We are up to post 50 on this "Building the 1350 Interceptor" thread and so far only you and I have related any experience actually building one.

There has been a lot of speculation about possible problems with the kit and what people are going to do if they ever build one, rants about Estes in general, but virtually no information about building the actual 1350 kit.

Despite all the speculation, I have yet to see any evidence that the kit won't fly to the ~450 feet Estes suggest it will do on an E9-4.

I think it's a great kit. A beautifully designed, sturdy, upscale of a beautiful model with high quality parts and (overly) thorough instructions, at a very reasonable price. As far as I'm concerned, it's one of the coolest things Estes has produced in years.

[Rocket Doctor]

Gus

The point that I was trying to make was, mine is the rough version, just being built to help in the instructions outline, I had no finishing materials (decals or paint scheme),

The version that you see from Rougepink is a finished version, what is missing, is the inbetween version, that, I hope that everyone who gets one fills in the information here and we can come to a conclusion.

At least Estes went one step further and brough out a "MaxI" Interceptor, the flight details will have to be reported,

I think that that information is not ready, because, the kits are just now coming out, everyone is trying to determine if they will build it stock, and if so, how well it will fly.
If your going to fork out anywhere between $30 - $50 bucks, I guess you want it to be correct, I know I would.
Actually, the fin stiffeners were added after the initial prototype builds and flights, because, as I was told, it had a hard landing and broke fins.

Using an E9 might be OK or it might be marginal, only after flight test will we all know.
I am looking forward for finishing photos as well as flight photos and flight reports.

In my opinion, I think that it is a little tail heavy, like the Renegade.

So, Thanks for your input, and I will be looking forward to your launch report.

RD

[Rocket Doctor]

Gus and Don

We all can learn from our experiences, especially on this one. We can build it stock, modify and anything inbetween, at least we have a kit to do that with.

As with all kits, there could be improvements made, everyone has their own opinion, which is good.

So, as more and more of these 1350's come to life, we can all share our own building experiences, and, hopefullly, we can come to the same conclusions.

Once again, I hope that everyone who manages to get thier hands on a kit enjoys the build, stock or souped up, the choice is yours.

Good luck to everyone with their builds, and, eventually, more and more will show up for sale, they do trickle in from China.........

[CPMcGraw]

...The point that I was trying to make was, mine is the rough version, just being built to help in the instructions outline, I had no finishing materials (decals or paint scheme)...

This old balsa hack appreciates those "in the raw" images, RD. It cleared up my confusion (well, related to this issue, anyway...:D ). RoguePink's treatment of the 1350 showed nicely how those (otherwise visually-intrusive) braces could be hidden in plain sight.

Thanks!

[Rocket Doctor]

Your Welcome....

[tbzep]

Rocket Doctor,

Very interesting background, which I appreciate.

I wasn't being critical of your build, just trying to point out the difference between your photos, what the kit instructions now suggest, Roguepink's pictures, and what you have to do to make the kit look like his.

We are up to post 50 on this "Building the 1350 Interceptor" thread and so far only you and I have related any experience actually building one.

There has been a lot of speculation about possible problems with the kit and what people are going to do if they ever build one, rants about Estes in general, but virtually no information about building the actual 1350 kit.

Despite all the speculation, I have yet to see any evidence that the kit won't fly to the ~450 feet Estes suggest it will do on an E9-4.

I think it's a great kit. A beautifully designed, sturdy, upscale of a beautiful model with high quality parts and (overly) thorough instructions, at a very reasonable price. As far as I'm concerned, it's one of the coolest things Estes has produced in years.

As much as it costs, and as much time and effort I want to spend to make it look good, I want to flesh out all the details before building one. Throwing ideas back and forth with all the experienced modelers here is a good way to figure out what I want to do and what I don't want. After looking at RoguePink's model, I don't mind the wing braces at all so I'm back to straddling the fence on what I'm going to do with the wings. :rolleyes:

As far as Estes' prediction, I recently finished an Outlander. That alone should be enough to doubt their motor recommendations for other kits. :p

[barone]

Well, it appears that Gus is the only one brave enough to post any pictures at all of the 1350 build. No, I'm not going to count the prototype pictures...it's not even fair that they got posted to this thread.....someones attempt to either make us look bad or make us strive to improve our building techniques....ok the benifit of the doubt.... ;)

Anyway, Gus has shown his build with the wing braces. Below is my attempt at using the card stock overlay. Unfortunately, a single 8X11 sheet of card stock isn't going to get complete balsa coverage so I'm going to have to trim in another piece. But, I will say this, it has certainly strengthened the joint between the wing and the forward whatchamacallit thingy. :D (okay, maybe it's a wing strike or something more scientific than whatchamacallit thingy)

Note that I didn't laminate the thru the wall tabs. I did laminate one side of the balsa that goes into the wing pod. When I was making the template for the overlay, I noticed that the wing pod had a much better fit with the overlay going inside the pod. Laminating both sides of the wing pod tab creates too tight a fit. Anyway, that's as far as I've gotten on this build so far (besides installing the foil lined motor tube without the motor hook or block to give me more versatility with motor selection).

Someone had mentioned earlier (maybe Gus) that friction fitting the motors is going to be tough because of the tail cone. It definately will be. To make it easier, for me at least, I'm not glueing the tail cone in. I'm still working on the details of this so bear with me. I'm planning on modifying (I know a lot of folks really don't want to mes up a stock kit) the tail cone with a twist lock into the body tube. My initial thought is to use a small flathead screw (something like they use in mounting a hard drive in the computer) through the body tube that the tail cone will slide onto and then twist the cone to lock in place. Yeah, I know it sounds complicated and I might just end up putting some masking tape around the outside of the motor tube to hold it on.... :rolleyes:

[barone]

Just to try to illustrate what I was talking about in my previous post about modifying the tail cone....

In the image below, you can see there is a gap between the outside of the tail cone and the inside. What I'm thinking about doing is cutting an 'L' shaped slot in the portion that goes into the body tube (second picture). The screw (mounted to the body tube) would slide into the slot. Turning the cone would lock it to the body tube so it couldn't just fall off when the rocket is launched.

For those of yoou watching your weight...(yeah...Thanksgiving coming)..rocket weight that is....I've added the weight of the screw but I've offset that with the loss of some plastic....no net gain ;)

[tbzep]

Just to try to illustrate what I was talking about in my previous post about modifying the tail cone....

In the image below, you can see there is a gap between the outside of the tail cone and the inside. What I'm thinking about doing is cutting an 'L' shaped slot in the portion that goes into the body tube (second picture). The screw (mounted to the body tube) would slide into the slot. Turning the cone would lock it to the body tube so it couldn't just fall off when the rocket is launched.

Don, could you just glue in a small hunk of something on the inside instead of putting a screw all the way through the body tube? It won't take much to hold it in there. For that matter, it looks like there's enough shoulder that you could friction fit it on the BT like friction fitting a motor.

[barone]

Don, could you just glue in a small hunk of something on the inside instead of putting a screw all the way through the body tube? It won't take much to hold it in there. For that matter, it looks like there's enough shoulder that you could friction fit it on the BT like friction fitting a motor.
Oh yeah...that's even better! A little masking tape around the shoulder of the cone. Thanks. Okay....net gain....the weight of a wrap or two of masking tape.... :o I just gotta remember the KISS.....(keep it simple silly)

[Intruder]

Anyway, Gus has shown his build with the wing braces. Below is my attempt at using the card stock overlay. Unfortunately, a single 8X11 sheet of card stock isn't going to get complete balsa coverage so I'm going to have to trim in another piece. But, I will say this, it has certainly strengthened the joint between the wing and the forward whatchamacallit thingy. :D (okay, maybe it's a wing strike or something more scientific than whatchamacallit thingy)



I am sure the laminations add plenty of strength to those wings. Plus you don't have to worry about filling the fin grain. Two birds with one stone. :eek: :D

[barone]

You won't beleive the strength it adds. There are three glue joints under the lamination. One where the two halfs of the wings are glued together, one where you glue the two halfs of the strykes together and then another where the strykes are glued to the wings. I was afraid to pick the thing up....I can hold the entire piece by the foward end of the stryke and there is no flex!

[barone]

Okay, per Estes, the whachamacallit thingy is called.....ready for this really scientific term......you'll like mine better......

Estes calls it a dorsal fin. How boring. :D

[tbzep]

Okay, per Estes, the whachamacallit thingy is called.....ready for this really scientific term......you'll like mine better......

Estes calls it a dorsal fin. How boring. :D

Not to mention, dorsal means on its back. :eek:

The old K-50 plan exploded diagram and instructions show the strake in front of the wing and the rudder as "fairings".

[barone]

Some of you may know, others may not, but I took offense at something that Gus had said when no offense was intended. I've since gone and deleted my comments. In all fairness, I also owe him a public apology since those comments may have been viewed either here in the forum or via e-mail for those of you who subscribe for them.

Gus, my deepest apologies. I hope in the future I conduct my affairs in the true gentlemanly way that you have. Thank you also for reminding me there are better ways to handle misunderstandings than airing them in public.

[CPMcGraw]

...I'm planning on modifying (I know a lot of folks really don't want to mes up a stock kit) the tail cone with a twist lock into the body tube. My initial thought is to use a small flathead screw (something like they use in mounting a hard drive in the computer) through the body tube that the tail cone will slide onto and then twist the cone to lock in place...

I don't know how light it would be in comparison, but have you thought about a small (2-56?) nylon screw for this task? It might also be more gentle on the plastic tailcone than a metal screw.

[barone]

Thanks for the input Craig. I think I'm going to use Tb's suggestion and just friction fit. I think if I go ahead and paint the shoulder of the tail cone, it might provide just enough friction that I won't have to worry about it.

[Rocket Doctor]

Okay, per Estes, the whachamacallit thingy is called.....ready for this really scientific term......you'll like mine better......

Estes calls it a dorsal fin. How boring. :D

That name was added once again by the former marketing manager, I set the instruction up as close as possible to the original 1250 Instructions and carried it a step further to the 1350.

Many things were changed on a lot of things after the demise of the Estes Forum on April 21st, and, I am still trying to make changes out there, and sent a very lengthy email to Barry.........

[Rocket Doctor]

Well, it appears that Gus is the only one brave enough to post any pictures at all of the 1350 build. No, I'm not going to count the prototype pictures...it's not even fair that they got posted to this thread.....someones attempt to either make us look bad or make us strive to improve our building techniques....ok the benifit of the doubt.... ;)

Anyway, Gus has shown his build with the wing braces. Below is my attempt at using the card stock overlay. Unfortunately, a single 8X11 sheet of card stock isn't going to get complete balsa coverage so I'm going to have to trim in another piece. But, I will say this, it has certainly strengthened the joint between the wing and the forward whatchamacallit thingy. :D (okay, maybe it's a wing strike or something more scientific than whatchamacallit thingy)

Note that I didn't laminate the thru the wall tabs. I did laminate one side of the balsa that goes into the wing pod. When I was making the template for the overlay, I noticed that the wing pod had a much better fit with the overlay going inside the pod. Laminating both sides of the wing pod tab creates too tight a fit. Anyway, that's as far as I've gotten on this build so far (besides installing the foil lined motor tube without the motor hook or block to give me more versatility with motor selection).

Someone had mentioned earlier (maybe Gus) that friction fitting the motors is going to be tough because of the tail cone. It definately will be. To make it easier, for me at least, I'm not glueing the tail cone in. I'm still working on the details of this so bear with me. I'm planning on modifying (I know a lot of folks really don't want to mes up a stock kit) the tail cone with a twist lock into the body tube. My initial thought is to use a small flathead screw (something like they use in mounting a hard drive in the computer) through the body tube that the tail cone will slide onto and then twist the cone to lock in place. Yeah, I know it sounds complicated and I might just end up putting some masking tape around the outside of the motor tube to hold it on.... :rolleyes:

Don

The first photos of the 1350 were posted by Rougepink, completed.
At a request,to show size comparison and the raw build of the 1350, my pictures were posted, to give clarity.
And, as I pointed out,
these were "raw" build photos, part of the instruction layout process.
Whenever I outline instructions, I do an actual build, to see if there are any potential problems along the way, over the years, I have found flaws and had them corrected before full scale production too place.

I didn't even have decals or a paint scheme to finish this one off , and I still don't and probably won't unfortunately.

Rougepinks photos and my photos were to show everyone how the build would look, before and after.

Like I mentioned before, we all have great ideas on this one, and sharing these ideas are beneficial to all.

Wouldn't it be a boring world if we all built our rockets the same, it would look like clone after clone after clone.

It great that we all have are own building techniques, and creativity and it has been show here over and over again.
RD

[barone]

RD...I was being facitious (note the winking icon)...the pics are appreciated and helpful.

[Rocket Doctor]

Don

Have a very Happy Thanksgiving.....

RD

[barone]

Don

Have a very Happy Thanksgiving.....

RD
Thanks RD...you too. :) And the best thing.....I get a four day weekend!

[LeeR]

As far as Estes' prediction, I recently finished an Outlander. That alone should be enough to doubt their motor recommendations for other kits. :p

I am in the midst of building the Outlander. I am converting to 24mm, and you can get a BT-50 thru the nozzle, with some careful grinding. :)

Since I've had a few of the Outlanders since they came out, I thought I'd build one now, and hold off until Christmas break to start the Interceptor. Problem is, I cannot decide which size to build, but I've got a couple of both. I am more inclined now to build the 1350 first, because of all this talk going on. :p

[Rocket Doctor]

I would suggest building the 1250, smaller version to become familiar with the build, and, then go to the 1350, by that time, we should have more posts about builds so that you can decide how you would like to build yours.

Remeber, there both Interceptor, but both have their own quirks....

[pantherjon]

With this thread I got curious and opened one of the 3 1350's I have..The 'whatchamacallit-thingy' to stiffen the wings is called just a 'wing support'..the forward 'strake' on the wings is what they call the 'dorsal' fin..

I have also noticed in the few instances that epoxy has been recommended to smooth the excess and fillets with your finger!:eek: I wouldn't recommend that, unless your wearing latex gloves..

I just finished up on the 1250, just needs the decals- all 300 of 'em! :p

[barone]

I have also noticed in the few instances that epoxy has been recommended to smooth the excess and fillets with your finger!:eek: I wouldn't recommend that, unless your wearing latex gloves..
I smooth epoxy with my fingers all the time. The key is to dip your finger in alcohol first, then smooth the fillet, then wipe your finger off on a paper towel and start again. I've found Jack Daniels works best ;)

[Rocket Doctor]

It has been kicked around here about using epoxy at all, I built the intruction prototype using yellow carpenters glue for the balsa/paper attatchments, and I used BOND 527 glue to attatch the plastic part to the wings.

Like I mentioned before, the epoxy was added later, and, I don't think that mine would "fall apart" when flown. We kicked this around, and, a major decision was to limit such glues if at all posssible.

Let's get some feedback on the type of glue used on everyones build and come to a conclusion.

[barone]

To be fair, Estes actually has a disclaimer about the epoxy in the instructions....I'll quote here...

"NOTE ON GLUE: We show the use of epoxy in the construction of this kit because it is a strong adhesive. Epoxy is a 2 part adhesive and needs to be mixed to use. You can use your favorite adhesive(s) to construct this kit, but use only high strength adhesive(s) in area where epoxy is being shown."

This is at the bottom of page 1 in the block where they talk about what supplies you are going to need.

As a side, I used epoxy to mount the rings to my motor tube and the motor tube to the body tube. I plan on using epoxy to mount the pods and antenae. Mounting the wings and fins I plan to use Titebond II.

[CharlaineC]

Ok so I guess I will chime in abit. First of all I really like the 1350 kit it is far better then I inspected. I have flown mine on estes e moters and found no major issues. The first flight I used my 4' maxi rod and found it to be to short for my taste. She cleared the rod and arched more then I like so I switched over to my 6' maxi rod and she flew fine. I honestly admit that I would rather have a baffle in her then wadding and am still trying to decide how to do it. I do agree that the shock cord is shorter then I like but I use a 2' snape swival lead off the chute to the nose cone this adds the extra area I like. For complaints I would have to say that she really needs better decale placement photos. I hade a hell of a time decaling mine. But I beleave she came out ok. The next complaint is the whole epoxy issue I know their is the disclamer but it really confused the wadding out of me. I used heavy duty wood glue and epoxy. I have found that one of the inner glue joints of the main ttw fin's have already broken loose from flights and this was a epoxy joint. I am going to have to use a suringe to insert thin ca to re adhair it properly. I also would have liked to find information to read about the real ship. All in all as the first mid powered rocket I have built and I love her. As for her waight issue per the instructions. Mine came out just shy of 15 ounces when fully loaded. As for painting her I recomend that you use gloss white epoxy paint.

[Rocket Doctor]

The whole ppurpose of this thread is to compile building, finishing and launching input.

The shock cord is only 30 inches long, the main body tube is 27 inches, figure that one out, way too shor, the shock cord should be at least 41 inches long.

As far as the epoxy goes, that was an add on, after I formatted the original instructions, I used good old yellow Titebond caprenter's glue, and, I assure you, it's not coming apart.
The debate is on about using the E9's to power this kit, the jury is out.

So, as more and more 1350's are built, finished and flown, we can come to a conclusion on what is good and what is not so good about this kit.

[barone]

Ok so I guess I will chime in abit. First of all I really like the 1350 kit it is far better then I inspected. I have flown mine on estes e moters and found no major issues. The first flight I used my 4' maxi rod and found it to be to short. she cleared the rod and arched more then I like. switched over to my 6' maxi rod and she flew fine. I honestly admit that I would rather have a baffle in her then wadding and am still trying to decide how to do it. I do agree that the shock cord is shorter then I like but I use a 2' snape swival lead off the chute to the nose cone this adds the extra area I like. for complaints I would have to say that she really needs better decale placement photos. I hade a hell of a time decaling mine. But I beleave she came out ok. the next complaint is the whole epoxy issue I know their is the disclamer but it really confused the wadding out of me. . I used used heave duty wood glue and epoxy. I have found that one of the inner glue joints of the main fin's ttw have already broken loose from flights and this was a epoxy site. I am going to have to use a suringe to insert thin ca to readhait it properly. I also would have liked to find information to read about the real ship. All in all as the first mid powered rocket I have built I love her. ok so what you need 6' rod don't we all have them already. As for her waight issue Mine came out just shy when loaded. As for painting her I recomend that you use gloss white epoxy paint.
Okay...so you flew it on the E9-4? How high did it get?
Four foot rod not long enough with an E9 and had to go to six foot.
Did you use epoxy originally for the broke glue joint or was that a place where you used wood glue?
Weight....you said just shy when loaded...just shy of what? Empty weight?
Got any pictures?
Inquiring minds want to know.
By the way, this isn't scaled from an actual rocket. The 1350 is just an upscale of the 1250.

[CharlaineC]

I can not honestly tell you how high it got because I really am not good with finding out the altitude.

like i said with the first flight I didn't like the way she arched but that is me. everything looks worse off if its not a off just like and arrow. and i perfer the 6' rod anyway.

the joint that is broken inside yes I used epoxy 30 min epoxy for the joint. and for all the main stress points. then wood glue on the outer body tube potions. other then that she well constructed.

as for what I ment of just shy when loaded. just shy of a pound after being made flight ready. a little over 15 ounces after dog barf, motor and chute.

Hope this helps.

[sandman]

I sure wish I had time to build mine. I got the 1250 finished and half the decals on but then I got too busy to finish even that!

[Rocket Doctor]

Here are the dimension on the body tubes on the 1350, remember, there is a tolerance, I'm not sure exactly what it is.

ID 1.94

OD 2.00

wall 0.030

Anyone who has had problems with decals and need replacements, they won't be available through customer service for at least 8 to 10 weeks.

customer service 1-800-525-7561 Christine X 216 (Don't call until this time period has elapsed)

[Beaker]

I built an Interceptor E this week -- here are a few photos.

Other than the laughably short shock cord, the parts were very nice. I'm not sure why the wing+strakes must be assembled from four sections (I assume Estes can't cut large enough pieces). I used carpenters glue and double glue joints to assemble all the wood parts and to glue on and fillet the fins. I only used epoxy in the motor mount and to attach the wing pods and rudder antennas (the amount of epoxy Estes was recommending seemd as if it would make the model quite heavy).

I was worried that the fin reinforcement strips would make it hard to apply the decals if I only rounded the sides, so I shaped them with a lot more curvature than that (most of that work was hand carved, then sanded). I attached the reinforcing strips to the wings and rudders before shaping the ends of the strips so that they blended into the overall shape of the fins better.

I not sure what Estes intended the paint pattern shown on the packaging and instructions to represent. It is reminiscant of the paint pattern from the Movie version of the U.S.S. Enterprise, where the individual panels of the ship had slightly different shades of white... but if these are supposed to represent individual panels on something the scale of an Interceptor, the panels would only be a few inches wide. Maybe some weird new stealth concept? But too weird for me in any case, so I went with traditional Interceptor solid white.

By far the most difficult part of the construction for me was applying the decals. It took me several hours longer than I expected because the decals were very thin and stretchy and had a tendency to curl under at the edges. With the large size of many of the decals, it was very difficult to get them perfectly into place before parts of the decal started to grab and stretch, even when using liberal amounts of water to keep things wet. But they certainly do adhere nicely to the contours of the reinforcing ribs on the fins. The positions of the launch lugs specified in the instructions do not match the positions shown in the decal placement diagram.

Total weight is 13.85 ounces (no clear coat yet). I expect to fly it on an AeroTech E15 (the E9 just doesn't strike me as having sufficient thrust for a wide safety margin on liftoff).

--Tom

[Initiator001]

I built an Interceptor E this week -- here are a few photos.

Tom

Looks great, Tom!

Do you still have that 4" diameter scratch-built version you made 13-14 years ago?

Bob

[barone]

I built an Interceptor E this week -- here are a few photos.


Looks great.....man I've got way to many irons in the fire.... :(

[Beaker]

Do you still have that 4" diameter scratch-built version you made 13-14 years ago?

This one? Why, yes, I do! It sits in a place of honor in the corner of my computer room.

--Tom

[Beaker]

This one? Why, yes, I do! It sits in a place of honor in the corner of my computer room.

Hmmm... picture didn't post. I'll try again.

[CPMcGraw]

Mobile, Alabama has at least one 1350 in town, and I have held it in my trembling hands! We also have at least two 1250's in town, and today I finally became the owner of one.

The Hobbytown USA here finally got these in stock, and I spotted them immediately. I only wish I had a coupon for this shop as I did for Hobby Lobby, which had the other 1250. At least now you know where I got mine from... :D

Examining the packages, I am impressed. Estes deserves some back-patting for the way they look all sealed up, not just for the product itself. I just wish one day Estes could finally join the "Kevlar Community" and get away from those old rubber strips. A 48" or even a 60" length of KT attached to the motor mount would be a much better attachment method.

[Ltvscout]

I built an Interceptor E this week -- here are a few photos.
Great looking build, Tom. Thanks for posting the pics!

[tbzep]

That's a super looking "E" you have there! That 4" upscale looks great too.

I really appreciate the higher res photos so I can see detail of some of the changes compared to the vintage kit.

[LeeR]

Hmmm... picture didn't post. I'll try again.

Tom,

Awesome large Interceptor -- I do remember seeing pictures of it many years back. I also recall meeting you at Narcon 92 in Colorado - -I have that same t-shirt from the event. That was a memorable event for me -- it was on my 40th birthday. Ouch, I really feel old now...

I also recall a rocket of yours -- the Initiator 1-B -- half Aerotech Initiator, and half Saturn 1-B. Now if you still have that,you really need to post a picture of it!

Funny about the comments on the panels looking like something off the Enterprise. My thoughts exactly. They looked cool at first glimpse, but way to small in scale. And they don't really go with the decal-intense finish. The panels might look better, IMHO, with a more minimalistic finish, almost like a camouflage treatment.

[Intruder]

Nice Interceptors Beaker. :cool:

I wonder why they changed the U.S. Air Force decals from FC-803 to DE-307?

[Beaker]

I also recall a rocket of yours -- the Initiator 1-B -- half Aerotech Initiator, and half Saturn 1-B. Now if you still have that,you really need to post a picture of it!

Here's the Initiator 1B (or "Uprated Initiator"). I've always loved real-world rockets with corrugations, so when Estes came out with their 1/100 Saturn 1B in 1992, I ordered several extra sets of the Saturn 1B's vacuformed wraps to have fun with. Those were the days when it was still easy to order kit parts from Estes, of course.

And since I had a couple Initiators laying around waiting to be built.....

[Beaker]

I wonder why they changed the U.S. Air Force decals from FC-803 to DE-307?

I'm not surprised that they would change the number. It is a different aircraft, after all, so it should have a different tail number. What I think is odd is that they DIDN'T change the number on the tail. The original Interceptor had a tail number (86803), the end of which matched the number on the fuselage (FC-803). The Interceptor E still has 86803 on the tail, but the number on the fuselage is now different.

When I built my 4-inch Interceptor, I used a tail number of 23741 (my NAR number) and had the fuselage labeled FC-3741 to match. Some people asked me why I had changed the numbers. Well, it was AN Interceptor, not THE Interceptor. And I needed somewhere to put my NAR number on the model :D

--Tom

[Initiator001]

Here's the Initiator 1B (or "Uprated Initiator"). I've always loved real-world rockets with corrugations, so when Estes came out with their 1/100 Saturn 1B in 1992, I ordered several extra sets of the Saturn 1B's vacuformed wraps to have fun with. Those were the days when it was still easy to order kit parts from Estes, of course.

And since I had a couple Initiators laying around waiting to be built.....

Tom,

I remember seeing your Initiator 1B fly many years, ago. It is definately one of the more 'unique' Initiators that I have seen. ;)

Scott Pearce and I flew a D-Region Initiator once. It consisted of a Initiator with the upper section of our giant sport scale D-Region Tomahawk model. :rolleyes:

Bob

[Intruder]

Originally posted by Beaker
Well, it was AN Interceptor, not THE Interceptor.

Well put.

[Gus]

Had a chance to work a bit more on my 1350.

I finished up the wing braces and applied them to the wings and tail.

The instructions suggest beveling the fore and aft ends of the braces, and rounding the sides of the braces.

As mentioned earlier, I made the sides oval like Roguepink's, instead of the just slightly rounded as the instructions suggest, and I like the way they turned out. Very aerodynamic looking and they add a bit of texture to the wings, which I like. It took me 10 to 15 minutes to sand each brace to the oval shape, so be prepared to spend a bit of time on this step.

I beveled the front edge of each brace but left the back flat, thinking this would help in positioning them. In rounding the edges of the wings I found it so easy to sand the front and back ends of the braces that I suggest not wasting the time to bevel them before placing them on the wings. If left unbeveled they easier to correctly position on the wings. A sanding block with 220 grit paper nicely rounded the fore and aft wing and tail edges, including the braces, with very little effort.

I don't think anyone has mentioned how they attached the braces to the wings. I used white glue and spring clamps to hold them in place until dry.

Another hint, for rounding the edges of the strakes I clamped the entire fin to a piece of metal. The strakes are so long I was worried about how easy it would be to accidentally snap off the end while sanding. Clamping them with light spring clamps to a piece of aluminum angle iron worked great.

[barone]

Great ideas there Gus. I was worried about how to sand the edges of the wings/strakes too (haven't done it yet). Like your idea :)

[Beaker]

I flew my Interceptor E today on an AeroTech E15-4. It took off smartly and did some interesting roll maneuvers on boost (as rockets with asymmetrical fins are wont to do), but the flight was very nice and high. Ejection timing was good and the chute deployed well. One of the rudder fins got a little ding on its trailing edge upon landing, but there was no other damage (my fins were attached with carpenters glue).

Here are some photos.

--Tom

[Rocket Doctor]

Tom

Great photos!
You did a wonderful job and the flight looked great as well.
I noticed that you increased the short (30") shock cord significatly, how long is it?
Ken

[Leo]

Finally some E Interceptor flights.

Very nice :)

[Rocket Doctor]

Leo

Have Interceptors shown up in Deutschland yet?
ken

[Leo]

Not really, atleast as far as I can make out.

My standard kit is still sitting somewhere in the States. Hope to have in my hands soon some day.

[Beaker]

I noticed that you increased the short (30") shock cord significatly, how long is it?

I added extra elastic to make it about three times its original length.

I would recommend strengthening the training edges of the rudder fins with thin CA during construction, otherwise the tapered balsa there is susceptible to damage on landing.

--Tom

[Initiator001]

Tom,

Great looking Interceptor E and pictures of same! :)

The E15 makes a nice flame for the model.

Bob

[Gus]

Finally got my Interceptor E ready for decals.

I think Beaker understated the difficulty of working with these decals. They are truly the worst I've ever used. I thought they'd be similar to the ones on the 1250 Interceptor, or the Red Max, but they were much thinner.

I began with the smaller decals on the cockpit and found it impossible to apply the windows and maintain the rivet details on the window edges because they'd curl under as I tried to slide them off the backing. Because of how close these decals fit to each other they have to be trimmed all the way to the graphic edge to avoid overlapping. But with the curling under random edge details were lost, making the edges look moth eaten.

I have a lot of experience with decals and usually find it one of my favorite parts of building. But this was extremely frustrating. I spent nearly an hour trying to apply the three cockpit window decals and it was the first time I ever remember having to wipe decals off a model because they looked so bad. I spent too much time getting a really nice paint finish on this project to have it ruined by bad looking decals.

I am going to have to get another set from Estes and begin by pre-coating the decal sheets with Clear spray paint and hope that that will stiffen them enough to be usable. I sometimes use decal film but there are 3 large sheets of decals for this model so I'm going to act like the decals were printed on my inkjet, and pre spray them with clear.

I also want to point out how bad the decal placement graphic is in the instructions. Many of the decals just show up as faint dots or squiggles in the graphic, making it really difficlut to figure out where the smaller ones go.

Overall, the decals on this kit look beautiful on the decal sheets, but are a real disappointment to try to use. :(

[Rocket Doctor]

I would suggest contacting Estes customer service, or, send a letter to their marketing manager over this issue.

It seems that all of their waterslide decals are very thin, besides the problem of the Red Max lacking the white.

Once again, they don't listen, I had supplied to them a sheet of original Red Max decals to go by and even after that, they had the decal problem.

As far as the decal placement goes, or lack of, that was done by the R & D dept, and, I had done the outline for the instructions, but, the former marketing mgr decided to change thngs (he is no longer there)

Call customer service 1-800-525-7561 , X 216
Write to
Mr Mike Fritz, Marketing Manager
Estes-Cox Corp
1295 H street
Penrose CO 81240

I would suggest to anyone, if you have a problem, let them know, you may think that it is a minor thing, but, let them know.

[Intruder]

I also want to point out how bad the decal placement graphic is in the instructions. Many of the decals just show up as faint dots or squiggles in the graphic, making it really difficlut to figure out where the smaller ones go.

I had the same problem with my 1250 Interceptor. Luckily, I had Dad's (tbzep) original Interceptor to look at. :D

Oh, and did Estes try to get cute with us and put the "recommended engines" on the decal that is just in front of the rudders (the one with the panels and the yellow half band) on the Interceptor E like like they did on the 1250?

[pantherjon]

I have been rather bad in not posting my 1350 build..I built it about a month ago..I didn't run into any major 'issues' and made a couple of mods along the way..

Here are the parts laid out on my 'portable' work bench:
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E001.jpg
First mod was in ditching the way too short shock cord..It is of nice material, just too short..Went with one about twice the length..

Next mod was building and putting in a baffle in the long motor/stuffer tube :)
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E002.jpg

I then cut a notch in the forward centering ring..
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E003.jpg

I glued the shock cord to the coupler section below the centering ring and passed it thru the notch
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E004.jpg

And here the tubes are glued together..The motor mount is mounted and the tail cap glued on..
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E005.jpg

Now the sub fins get glued into position..At least I got them on correctly the first time on my 1350, unlike my 1250 which I initially glued them on 'backwards'!:p
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E007.jpg

[pantherjon]

Next up were the main fins/wings..I was really impressed with the quality of the balsa used in this kit..I ditched the 'stiffener' pieces for the wings/upper fins as I didn't feel they were necessary and in later pictures I don't think their absence detracts from the look of the rocket.Hopefully this decision won't bite me when I fly it..lol...Anyways here the main fins get attached..and you can see the upper fins prepped..
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E008.jpg

Next came the upper fins..I went ahead and glued the antenna on prior to attaching the upper fins..The slots were pretty tight and didn't want to possibly break them attaching the antenna after gluing the upper fins on..
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E009.jpg

And then a dry fit with the wing pods and nose cone..
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E011.jpg

And here it is with it's little brother my 1250 :)
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E010.jpg

[pantherjon]

Next step..Painting..Here it is in primer! There were a few places where I needed to do some filling and sanding..On a couple of the fin pieces joints and the BT seam..Overall picture after some sanding..
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E012.jpg

A fill detail picture..this joint was particularly ugly and needed to be filled..Used Elmers wood filler..
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E013.jpg

Next up is the main color! I chose to be different and paint my 1350 silver as I already had a LOT of white rockets..lol..I hope the back drop doesn't make you dizzy :o
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E017.jpg
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E018.jpg
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E019.jpg

Next comes the decals!

[Gus]

Jon,

Really nice photo essay. I like the idea of using a baffle, I should have done that.

One thing I did differently is I left the tailcone and fin pods off until after everything else was built and painted so I could paint those pieces separately. Much easier than trying to mask them off once they are on the rocket.

[pantherjon]

Decals! All 365 of them! Well, maybe not that many, but there were a BUNCH! With the experience of putting all the decals on my 1250 I knew before hand on what to expect, and wasn't shocked when I started..Took about 3 hours to get them all on..Really didn't have much difficulty other then the ones that went into some of the 'confined spaces' such as between the sub and upper fins and the big decal directly in front of the upper fins..Only had one decal badly fold under itself(the one where Estes put the 'recommended' motor)..I did salvage it but it is kind of ugly..

First a close up of the ugly
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E024.jpg

Now a couple of overall pictures of the finished product(with a 'less busy' back drop!):
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E025.jpg
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E026.jpg
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Interceptor%20E/Interceptor-E027.jpg

I also worked together a RockSim file..I did a 'mass override' to match my rockets stats in relation to it's weight(it is a tad porky) and CG location..

I hope you have enjoyed my 'slam fest' posting of my 1350 build! I enjoyed the build! Now I need to find the time to go fly it!..lol..

[pantherjon]

Jon,

Really nice photo essay. I like the idea of using a baffle, I should have done that.

One thing I did differently is I left the tailcone and fin pods off until after everything else was built and painted so I could paint those pieces separately. Much easier than trying to mask them off once they are on the rocket.

Thanks Gus!

I too left the wing pods off and painted them separately prior to attaching them..The tail I just used Testors brush on gloss black and went over the little bit of silver over spray I had down there..

And just for the heck of it, here is a 'Family Portrait'..L to R 1350, 1250 and Quest Intruder
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/Intruder/Intruder005.jpg

[Daniel Runyon]

That looks super sharp Jon! When I saw the very first pic of the orange pods I didn't think that was going to look too hot, but once the decals were on it all made sense and looks truly outstanding... I dig your scheme better than the factory suggestion!

[Rocket Doctor]

Great job......excellent, I kinda like the silver better than the white, really sharp.

[Eagle3]

That silver rawks!

[K.M.Knox]

Gotta say it looks super. The silver is really sharp...

[Intruder]

Agreed. Your Interceptor E looks pretty spiffy. Oh, and your Intruder looks good, too. :D

[sandman]

Yes, I think I'll go with the silver maybe a silver grey, not as shiney.

BTW, with so many of these about to start the flying season maybe we should start changing the ID numbers on the tails.

They can't all be the same number.

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Yes, I think I'll go with the silver maybe a silver grey, not as shiney.

BTW, with so many of these about to start the flying season maybe we should start changing the ID numbers on the tails.

They can't all be the same number.

Dibs on "666". :D

[pantherjon]

Dibs on "666". :D

You got it Bill! :p

[Gus]

Received an email from Estes saying they are going to send me a replacement set of decals. :)

Unfortunately they are out of them so delivery won't be for some time. :(

I did use decal coat on the nosecone decals I had already cut out and it did seem to help.

[Gus]

Update on the decal situation.

While I wait for the replacement decals, I decided to go ahead and put the decals on the body.

I managed to place the 4 tail decals with great difficulty. They were so thin that rather than sliding on the tail as a unit, they tended to stretch when gently pulled by one edge or another. The stiffener in the middle of each tail made positioning the decals without stretching them even more difficult. Each of the 4 decals took roughly 10 - 15 minutes to place but looked nice when done.

The tail decals convinced me the rest of the decals would need some kind of coating before they were applied.

I decided to use brush-on decal film and painted all the decals on the sheets, as well as the nosecone ones I had already cut out.

When I tried to apply the nosecone decals I found them virtually worthless, since the decal film had penetrated around the edges of the paper and made the decals impossible to remove from their backing. I gave up on trying to place the nosecone decals until I get a new set.

I did manage to finish the body decals. Pre-coating them made them MUCH easier to work with, and even the now stiffer decals conformed nicely to the wing stiffeners. But pre-coating the decals created a new problem in that many of the decal edges curled upward as they dried. That meant another whole process of going around the edges of most of the decals with micro-sol decal set after the decals dried. This added another hour and a half to the process.

Even with the micro-sol, a few of the decals refused to uncurl at the edges. As I began spraying the first coat of clear, I lightly misted the curled decals with clear, and then used the paint to tack down the edges. Final result was OK, but some of the decal edges are still visible under the clear coat. Definitely not the result I wanted, or got on the 1250 Interceptor. But I've finally abandoned the hope that this model would be among my best. I just had to make a realistic compromise between what I wanted and what was achievable without becoming hopelessly frustrated. :(

[wickball]

I now join the rest of you with a horrible decal experience. Started today, barely got a couple on the top rear, then started on the US AIR FORCE DE-307, gave up after the DE-307 and FORCE, they are so thin, you can't put them on without stretching and distorting the letters. Sent them an email through their web site, will sit back and wait now. High priced kit with the poorest quality decals I have ever seen!

wick

[Rocket Doctor]

I now join the rest of you with a horrible decal experience. Started today, barely got a couple on the top rear, then started on the US AIR FORCE DE-307, gave up after the DE-307 and FORCE, they are so thin, you can't put them on without stretching and distorting the letters. Sent them an email through their web site, will sit back and wait now. High priced kit with the poorest quality decals I have ever seen!

wick

everyone who has decal problem for any kit should send a letter to the marketing manager Mike Fritz at estes, it's the only way they will know for sure there is a problem.

[PaulK]

Update on the decal situation...Gus, good info; I expect to start my 1350 next. Do you know if the replacement decals are supposed to be any better? I wonder if I should request a replacement set before I even begin. I planned on applying decal film to all the sheets before trying them, but now... When you say that the film had penetrated the edges of the paper, are the NC decals close to the edge, or had you already cut the sheets apart? Thanks,

[Gus]

Paul,

I had already cut out the nosecone decals which is why the decal film could get around the edges.

The decal film I applied to the other decals (which had not yet been cut out) worked fine, except for the curling up at the edges on some of them.

Honestly, I haven't used decal film much in the past, so maybe the curling was due to my not getting it on evenly on all the decals. It was definitely thicker in some spots than others.

I've made a fair number of inkjet decals, which you have to coat with clear spray paint prior to using them. I'm comfortable with the technique and would have used it on the Interceptor decals but the weather here was too lousy to spray paint the day I wanted to do them.

As for the new decals, I presume they will be the same as the old.

Pic below is of the build thus far.

[jay]

Nice work so far Gus! I keep putting off building my 1350 because of the problems I keep hearing about the decals. I hope the replacements work out better. :)

[Gus]

One other note.

My Interceptor weighs 14.0 ounces with the chute, but without motor.

I'm thinking an E9-4 only with a long rod and a windless day.

Otherwise an E15.

I did check the fit of a 29mm Aeropack retainer. The external retaining ring (the part that screws on after you've put the motor in) is just a hair smaller than the internal diameter of the Interceptor's tailcone. It would be possible to modify the rings (or replace them) for a 29mm motor tube and have the tube come just short of the end of the tailcone. The Aeropack retainer would sick out just beyond the end of the tailcone and be visible, but not really that noticeable since, like the tailcone, it is black.

I honestly don't think it would look significantly worse than the protruding tail hook which it would replace.

Obviously the fins would need to be beefed up, but since the big ones are already through the wall they should hold fine.

[Rocket Doctor]

Nice work so far Gus! I keep putting off building my 1350 because of the problems I keep hearing about the decals. I hope the replacements work out better. :)

Contact Phred at Excelsior Rocketry, he is the expert on decals, he can give you a few tips
www.excelsiorrocketry.com

[wickball]

Got an email today from Sandra at Estes Customer Service that the replacement decals would ship in about 4 weeks. My E weighs in at 13.85 oz painted complete w/motor (Estes D-12), no decals.

wick

[sandman]

So can we ask Estes for new decals even if we haven't opened out kits yet?

[Rocket Doctor]

So can we ask Estes for new decals even if we haven't opened out kits yet?

YES
Go to their web site www.estesrockets.com and fill out the customer service page and ask for replacement decals for your Interceptor

[wickball]

Thanks, RocketDoctor, for all that you do to help us out here.

wick

[roguepink2]

I'm upset, though not surprised, about the decal problem. I proofed the decals myself and this problem was addressed. The manufacturer is notorious for doing this, using too thin a film on the decal paper.

Its frustrating to know how much work I personally put into the decal art and then to see it be the most troublesome part of the rocket.

Alas, I'm not there anymore.

Anyone was first-hand advice on how to get the paneled pearlescent effect? :D

[Rocket Doctor]

I'm upset, though not surprised, about the decal problem. I proofed the decals myself and this problem was addressed. The manufacturer is notorious for doing this, using too thin a film on the decal paper.

Its frustrating to know how much work I personally put into the decal art and then to see it be the most troublesome part of the rocket.

Alas, I'm not there anymore.

Anyone was first-hand advice on how to get the paneled pearlescent effect? :D

There was also a problem with the Der Red Max decals as well, they left out the white and the decals were too thin, and had to be redone.

[Gus]

I'm upset, though not surprised, about the decal problem. I proofed the decals myself and this problem was addressed. The manufacturer is notorious for doing this, using too thin a film on the decal paper.

Its frustrating to know how much work I personally put into the decal art and then to see it be the most troublesome part of the rocket.

Alas, I'm not there anymore.

Anyone was first-hand advice on how to get the paneled pearlescent effect? :D
Roguepink,

The artwork IS beautiful. The care and creativity you put into the decals is really obvious. I particularly like the detailing around the windows and the radar nose on the 1350.

Now that you are no longer with Estes perhaps you can spill the beans and tell us a bit about the genesis of the 1350, which surprised us all.

[Rocket Doctor]

Roguepink,

The artwork IS beautiful. The care and creativity you put into the decals is really obvious. I particularly like the detailing around the windows and the radar nose on the 1350.

Now that you are no longer with Estes perhaps you can spill the beans and tell us a bit about the genesis of the 1350, which surprised us all.

It was a step up from the 1250, since a few Estes "D" kits have been converted over to "D" and "E" power. Maybe, that is to sell more "E" motors?

I did the rough draft for the instructions, going along with the intructions that I did for the 1250, and, making a few changes. Having the parts, and, literally , building it from "scratch".
The final instructions were changed, to my surprise by Estes former marketing mgr.

I'm sure that Rougepink can fill you in on the details from a R & D prospective though.

[roguepink2]

Yeah, um, it seemed like a good rocket to up-scale. Why that one and not another, I don't know, but it sure was a good choice. Its a solid rocket at any scale.

A note about the wing spars -- we (they) were testing this thing up to F power motors and it was shearing the wings. We (they!) looked into laminating the wings, but the cost was the killer. Simple cross-grain spars solved the problem with minimal additional cost. The decal art was adjusted for the spars so they would not be obtrusive. Also, as has been mentioned, on my package build I blended them down to show that they would not be these horrible blobular lumps of ugliness as some people had speculated.

Not that Estes would ever rate it for F motors, but they knew that people would do it.

[Gus]

Not that Estes would ever rate it for F motors, but they knew that people would do it.
Very interesting. As I built mine it dawned on me that it was probably designed to be upgraded. But I thought that kind of thinking didn't factor into production decisions at Estes these days.

I blended them down to show that they would not be these horrible blobular lumps of ugliness as some people had speculated.

I know I'm in the minority on this issue but I really like the way they look. It does take a bit of efffort to make them look blended and nice, but they add a cool texture to the wings and tail of the upscale.

I just built a Roachwerks upscale Starship Nova. The wings were so large that I used a similar solution to strengthen them (pic below). But to make it look different from the 1350 (similar size) I used 2 narrower spars per wing. Seems like a simple mod but it made placing the decals almost impossible. Using just one, like on the 1350, would have been a much simpler idea. :rolleyes:

Anyone want first-hand advice on how to get the paneled pearlescent effect? A while back I posted the painting tips you graciously sent me. (http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showthread.php?t=2440&highlight=roguepink+interceptor) But a step by step how to would be great. So far as I've seen, you're the only one who's gone pearlescent on the 1350. I think most of us feel like we just don't have the skills necessary.

[Phred]

"Originally Posted by jay
Nice work so far Gus! I keep putting off building my 1350 because of the problems I keep hearing about the decals. I hope the replacements work out better. "

For anyone who wants to use the kit supplied decals: Coat he decals with Microscale Liquid Decal film. Hobbytown usually carries this stuff. Train shops do as well.

Here is a link with a picture:


http://tinyurl.com/55x3q9

Phred

[scooterkool]

I have completed my 1350 Interceptor ( I used card stock to reinforce the balsa). ;)


Here is the launch video: Estes Interceptor Launch Video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6267675290611505008) (the camera person was my 11 year old daughter) ;)

I used an E15-4W Aerotech Motor, the stock shock cord was used and snapped at ejection. :eek:
The main body was undamaged :D
More launch photos are
here (http://rick-gaffs-photos.phanfare.com/album/597849#imageID=39388423)
Thanks Rick!!

Thanks to the Northern Illinois Rocketry Association (http://www.nira-rocketry.org/index.html) for their range and the members' launch equipment. :D

[Leo]

Very nice pictures :)

[roguepink2]

Hey, Gus, that's some clean finishing on that fin. Nice!

When I'm not suffering under a splitting whopper headache, I'll work out some step-by-step painting directions for the 1350. These techniques are also good for the upcoming Shrox designed... Lancer? Stiletto...? Whatever the name is this month.

Besides, Def Leppard is performing on Dancing With The Stars tonight, I'm not missing that.

[wickball]

Sent in and received a reply today from Christine for an update on replacement decals, she said the replacements received were not acceptable, they are expecting another set this week, but shipping new replacements was still 3-4 weeks out.


"The last sample we received were not acceptable, and that we were receiving a new sample this week. They told me we were still 3-4 weeks out.

Thank you,

Christine"

Wick

[ga1ba2]

This has been talked about in another thread but I am wondering why no one has noticed from this thread that the instructions indicate the sub fins and the top fins line up but are quite a bit off on the fin marking guide. Also the LL is not quite centered. The fin marking guide shows the sub fins farther apart than the slots for the top fins. Would redrawing the sub fins so they line up with the top have any effect on flight performance? What about leaving them as they are and not having them line up? :confused:

[tbzep]

This has been talked about in another thread but I am wondering why no one has noticed from this thread that the instructions indicate the sub fins and the top fins line up but are quite a bit off on the fin marking guide. Also the LL is not quite centered. The fin marking guide shows the sub fins farther apart than the slots for the top fins. Would redrawing the sub fins so they line up with the top have any effect on flight performance? What about leaving them as they are and not having them line up? :confused:

It will fly just as good either way. The only problem is looking at the rocket from directly behind where you will notice them being off from each other.

[pantherjon]

Yep...I blindly built my 1350 not checking to see if the sub fins were exactly lined up..And hadn't really taken a close look from the business end til I saw this here..And my sub fins are off, but she flies great! Only flown on RMS 'E's so far..May try with an 'F' at our next club launch..:)

[sandman]

I just got a box from Estes today with a new set of Interceptor E decals!

[tonypv]

I got an e-mail from Christine today that my Interceptor E decals have been shipped. :)

[ga1ba2]

Got mine in the mail today too :)

[Rocket Doctor]

Have you tried them yet? If so, any better than the originals?

[Mikus]

I just got a box from Estes today with a new set of Interceptor E decals!

Heh, so did I. Now I'm going to have to build that baby. :eek: :D

[wickball]

Got mine today, will keep my fingers crossed.
Anyone try them yet?

wick

[ga1ba2]

Have you tried them yet? If so, any better than the originals?

Not yet but when you tilt them and look at them from an angle they appear thicker than the originals.

[Gus]

Received mine today. They do look thicker.

I really appreciate Estes taking care of this.

[wickball]

I've had a good experience with the new decals, much,much easier to work with than the the old.

wick

[snuggles]

I have recently received BOTH Interceptor and "E" decals
The replacements are top notch.
Estes is to be complimented on their customer service.
Both sets arrived in a timely fashion.
My 2 cents
Mark T

[Ikaros]

Do all Interceptor E kits at the stores have the thinner decals? Do I have to request the thicker ones from Estes if I buy this kit?

[ga1ba2]

After vacations and other family stuff I have finally started to finish up my Interceptor E. Worked about 2 hours tonight applying the decals. I did almost half of them tonight and hope to finish Tuesday. The set of replacement decals Estes sent to me are top notch have not had any problems yet. I never even tried the original set they look quite thin. I will post a pic when finished if it looks good :rolleyes:

[ga1ba2]

A new Interceptor joins the fleet. Took about4 hours to apply the decals over 3 days. It seems quite heavy I need to take it someplace and weigh it. Any sugestions if it is overweight or what engine to use?


http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj52/ga1ba2/th_P7310024-1.jpg (http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj52/ga1ba2/P7310024-1.jpg)

[Leo]

Looks good :)

[pantherjon]

A new Interceptor joins the fleet. Took about4 hours to apply the decals over 3 days. It seems quite heavy I need to take it someplace and weigh it. Any sugestions if it is overweight on what engine to use?


http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj52/ga1ba2/th_P7310024-1.jpg (http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj52/ga1ba2/P7310024-1.jpg)

Looks great!:D I have used the E11 in my Interceptor-E and really like all the black smoke it puts out! Mine weighs in at 12.2oz BTW..
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t21/Pantherjon/NSL%202008/InterceptorETakeoff_03.jpg

[ga1ba2]

A new Interceptor joins the fleet. Took about4 hours to apply the decals over 3 days. It seems quite heavy I need to take it someplace and weigh it. Any sugestions if it is overweight or what engine to use?


http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj52/ga1ba2/th_P7310024-1.jpg (http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj52/ga1ba2/P7310024-1.jpg)
My Interceptor E weighed in at 12.5 oz empty and 14.75oz with a E9-6 installed. Looks like an E9-4 with max takeoff weight of 15 oz is what I need, the E9-6 has a max t/o weight of 12oz according to Estes. Any thoughts, I would like to stay with bp engines never used composits :confused:

[Intruder]

Has anyone noticed that the wings don't run through the center of the pods on their Interceptor-E? It's kinda hard to describe so I attached a doodle (I think).

[ga1ba2]

Has anyone noticed that the wings don't run through the center of the pods on their Interceptor-E? It's kinda hard to describe so I attached a doodle (I think).
Yep, mine is slightly off center like your top diagram but only very slightly almost unnoticeable :rolleyes:

[Intruder]

Mine isn't to bad, but the way I have the gaps filled between the pod and the wing makes it stick out like a sore thumb.

[ghrocketman]

At 14.75oz loaded weight your Interceptor 1350 will not fly worth a hoot at all even in ZERO wind on an E9-ANYTHING even if you use a 6'rod.
Most likely it will crash, and if not it will become a cruise missile/land shark mostly HORIZONTAL flight as soon as it clears the rod.
The thrust of the Estes E9 can BEST be described as DISMALLY low for an E.
Don't risk such a fine model to such DUD motors.
Use an Aerotech RMS24 E18W or E28T or if single use, go for the E15W or E30T.
Your model WILL thank you for it.

Estes reccommendation of max lift weight of 15oz for the E9-4 is a BAD JOKE that is good for nothing but them selling replacements for crashed rockets.
The max should be no higher than 8oz if in any wind and 10-12oz if calm.

I NEVER use tham in ANY rocket over 8oz.

[ga1ba2]

At 14.75oz loaded weight your Interceptor 1350 will not fly worth a hoot at all even in ZERO wind on an E9-ANYTHING even if you use a 6'rod.
Most likely it will crash, and if not it will become a cruise missile/land shark mostly HORIZONTAL flight as soon as it clears the rod.
The thrust of the Estes E9 can BEST be described as DISMALLY low for an E.
Don't risk such a fine model to such DUD motors.
Use an Aerotech RMS24 E18W or E28T or if single use, go for the E15W or E30T.
Your model WILL thank you for it.

Estes reccommendation of max lift weight of 15oz for the E9-4 is a BAD JOKE that is good for nothing but them selling replacements for crashed rockets.
The max should be no higher than 8oz if in any wind and 10-12oz if calm.

I NEVER use tham in ANY rocket over 8oz.

Thanks for the info, I have never used a composit but I will for this one. I'll do it at a club launch so I can get some help. I will go with a single use motor either the E15-4W or E30-4T. Not knowing anything about them what would be the difference between the two? I am not that intereested in altitude but a nice straight flight and sucessful recovery.

[ghrocketman]

The difference between the E15-4W and the E30-4T is
1) propellant type; W=white lightning, T=Blue Thunder
2) Average Thrust; The E15 has over 50% greater avg. thrust than the E9 and the E30 has more than 3 times the average thrust of the E9.
Both are full 40n-sec E's, not the paltry 28n-sec of the Estes E9.
Think of them as an Estes E plus an Estes C in total impulse.
Either will clear the rod much faster than an E9 and will go straight.
I'd go with the E30, but I like fast-burning low-smoke propellants.
The E15 will have much more smoke during burn than the E30.

[ga1ba2]

I think I will go with the E15 ( I like smoke) :rolleyes: What would give me a higher altitude the E15 or E30? Will the supplied Estes moter hook work ok with these motors?

[MKP]

I've launched these motors with several Estes rockets, with the Estes motor hooks and never had a problem.

I would imagine the E30 would go higher with the higher average thrust.

[Bob Kaplow]

Here's my $0.02 on the Estes E9.

***** Forget the E and look at the 9. *****

Many rockets that fly great on a D12 just will not work with an E9. Some are just too heavy for the significantly lower initial thrust. Unless you have an 8' launch rail and little or no wind, instead of a 3' rod, these rockets aren't safe.

Then there are the rockets like the old Phoenix missile that are just plain unstable with the extra tail weight and the motor sticking out an inch.

My scratch built Maxi Alpha clone flies great on the E9 even with the motor sticking out the back end. Ditto for my Maxi Sprite (the subject of the Sport Rocketry plan years back, not the recent kit). And most of my silly rockets from the Happy Meal to the Triskelion (50% upscale of Gassaway's Tri-f-o) to my bicycle wheel just love these motors.

But I wouldn't put one in the Maxi V2 even though it was supposed to be redesigned for it. Ditto a Big Daddy, or something like my upscale Maxi Windy City (based onthe generic rocket with the plastic 4 fin unit). These rockets fly great on many of the Aerotech 24/40 reloads.

[D Ritchie]

A little late, but ditto on the decals story. My Interceptor-E has been sitting around naked for months, simply because after my experience with the 1250 model decals, I was in no hurry to go through that circus again.

Hapily though, I did get most of them on without incident. I'm only lacking the starboard side US AIR FORCE decal and the yellow stripe which encircles the craft. Replacements are on their way from Estes.

Funny side note: I recently built a 30 year old Alien Invader that I got off Ebay, and the 30 year old decals worked perfectly! Go figure...

[ga1ba2]

Does anyone know where the CP is on the interceptor E? I'll be using an Aerotech E15-4 Sunday and want to be sure the CG is ok. How small a parachute could I use if I don't want the 24 inch one that came with the kit 14, 16 or 18 inch ?

[pantherjon]

Does anyone know where the CP is on the interceptor E? I'll be using an Aerotech E15-4 Sunday and want to be sure the CG is ok. How small a parachute could I use if I don't want the 24 inch one that came with the kit 14, 16 or 18 inch ?

RockSim puts the CP on my Interceptor-E at 29.6"..I think 18" would be the smallest I would go as far as the chute is concerned...

[ga1ba2]

Launched the Interceptor E today. Almost perfect flight. I used an E15 -4 single use and I did go with the 24 inch chute. I was afraid it was just a little too heavy for anything smaller. The flight arched over a bit chute deployed with a loud pop and recovered about 50 feet from the launch site. It landed on someone's p/u cab. One of the main wings had a small crack which I think is because it hit the truck. The engine was missing??? Not sure why it ejected the engine. I did put a baffle at the top of the engine mount tube and because I am extra cautious I did use dog barf. Maybe the use of both caused a little more pressure to build up and ejected the engine past the engine hook. Thanks everyone for your helpful replies. Also launched a Semroc Mark, Pemberton Kraken and a repaired Flis Borealis. All were perfect flights All in all I was quite pleased :)

[moonzero2]

Launched the Interceptor E today. Almost perfect flight. I used an E15 -4 single use and I did go with the 24 inch chute. I was afraid it was just a little too heavy for anything smaller. The flight arched over a bit chute deployed with a loud pop and recovered about 50 feet from the launch site. It landed on someone's p/u cab. One of the main wings had a small crack which I think is because it hit the truck. The engine was missing??? Not sure why it ejected the engine. I did put a baffle at the top of the engine mount tube and because I am extra cautious I did use dog barf. Maybe the use of both caused a little more pressure to build up and ejected the engine past the engine hook. Thanks everyone for your helpful replies. Also launched a Semroc Mark, Pemberton Kraken and a repaired Flis Borealis. All were perfect flights All in all I was quite pleased :)
Do you know about how much altitude you achieved on the E15-4 engine?

[ga1ba2]

Do you know about how much altitude you achieved on the E15-4 engine?
My best guess is 300-350 feet

[PaulK]

Finally finished my 1350, been working on it off & on for 3 months. I built it mostly stock; the differences are, 1) Kevlar cord tied thru the forward CR & around the motor tube, the shock cord then tied to that; 2) Epoxy *only* on the pods and engine mount, wood glue for everything else; 3) Modified the fin alignment wrap, since the included one is just wrong, and puts the lower fins out of line with the dorsal fins; 4) Wiper-blade engine hook 1/4" longer to hook around the top of the motor block; 5) 1/4" launch lugs so I can use a longer rod, 6) cut off the back of the dorsal fin pointy things for better blending with the fins; 7) Used pro-weld for the pods (I tried tube cement, and they fell right apart). The wing reinforcements took a lot of sanding to blend, though after completion, I think the sides could have used a bit more feathering, as it was a bit tricky getting the decals to lay down tight. I really don't mind the look of them, it adds some nice depth to the fins.

I used Aero-gloss balsa fillercoat & sanding sealer for the first time in 30 years, man I love that stuff. Painted it with Farm & Fleet white enamel (recoat anytime!), Rustoleum fluorescent orange for the pods, and some silver Krylon highlights (the leading edges of the wings need protection from re-entry ya know). Estes sent replacement decals, and they laid down nicely; a couple were a bit thin (easily stretched), and some took quite a while to release from the paper. They were a lot thicker than the originals. I counted 59 individual decals, including those 4 tiny ones with numbers (anyone know what these are supposed to be for?). She weighs in at 12.2oz, now just needs a coat of future and some black powder.

[GIJoe]

I just got done putting an original Interceptor together and will probably start on the upscale this winter. I have been thinking about motor mounts and was thinking a duel 24mm mount would work. That way I could fly on two E9's. I have a LOC Viper IV that I swapped motor mounts with a LOC Starburst. The viper fly's great on two E9's and weighs in just over 12oz. That probably means I will have to totally construct the back end and forgo the plastic part. I will play around with the idea before I start building. Probably mock up a few motor mounts to see how it looks. Has anybody else clustered there bird yet?

[Leo]

Paul, fantastic build and finish!

[pantherjon]

Sweet lookin Interceptor-E Paul!:D

[sandman]

Paul, really nice paint job!

The silver accents really make it stand out!

[Gus]

I finally finished my 1350 Interceptor. All that remained was to apply the replacement nosecone decals that Estes sent over a year ago.

I just want to compliment Estes on the quality of the replacement decals, none of the problems of the original set, and to thank them for being so responsive when the problem occured.

Great looking rocket.

As a semi-related tangent, anybody know what Roguepink is up to these days?

[Rocket Doctor]

I will PM you with the answer

[stantonjtroy]

Built and flew mine back in the spring. I left off the braces more because they weren't on the original and this is suposed to be an upscale....And I think they're ugly. :D I went the laminated route. I used fiberglass veil bonded with CA, very light, very strong, very easy. Launched on an Aerotech F-24. Boost was incredible. Sadly it suffered an ejection failure and came in balistic. Amazingly the only real damage was the nose cone and fwd tube. I'll replace them and she's back in the air. My decals were very thin so I applied two coats of Crystal Clear to thicken them and all went fine thereafter. As for bonding I used white glue and CA and it held up fine (did I mention the lawn dart). I replaced the short rubber shock cord with 1/4" elastic about a yard long.
Good building and good flying.

[Rocketcrab]

great looking rocket!! What is "fiberglass veil bonded with CA"? :confused: Thanks!

[Intruder]

Built and flew mine back in the spring. I left off the braces more because they weren't on the original and this is suposed to be an upscale....And I think they're ugly. :D I went the laminated route. I used fiberglass veil bonded with CA, very light, very strong, very easy. Launched on an Aerotech F-24. Boost was incredible. Sadly it suffered an ejection failure and came in balistic. Amazingly the only real damage was the nose cone and fwd tube. I'll replace them and she's back in the air. My decals were very thin so I applied two coats of Crystal Clear to thicken them and all went fine thereafter. As for bonding I used white glue and CA and it held up fine (did I mention the lawn dart). I replaced the short rubber shock cord with 1/4" elastic about a yard long.
Good building and good flying.

Strange. Mine came with 1/4" black elastic. It was way to short though.

I too left the braces off and laminated the fins. I used printer paper and wood glue though. It is light enough that it will fly on a D12-3 quite well.

My decals were kinda thin, but 2 coats of microscale liquid decal film fixed that. I only messed up one decal (the big one in front of the vertical stabilizers). Luckily, I had scanned them before hand. Actually, I'm kinda glad that I messed that one up. It gave me a chance to replace the cheesy "Recommended Engines" part of the decal.

One thing that really disappointed me though was that the fin marking guide for the ventral fins were way off. Whats worse is that I glued the fins on with rivets, so when I took the fins off, I had holes in my BT that I had to fill. :mad: Oh well, at least I got it fixed.

[wilsotr]

Beautiful work, Paul. I agree with Sandman, the silver trim really sets it off!

[stantonjtroy]

Thanks. Veil is an incredibly thinglass cloth(about 1/4 oz. per yard) wetted out with CA glue(cyanoachrilate) instead of epoxy or resin.

great looking rocket!! What is "fiberglass veil bonded with CA"? :confused: Thanks!

[cbrarick]

I love my interceptor e! It's completely stock except for the kevlar shock cord and flys reliably on e30s F12s and F39s. I've got another one I'm going to replace the balsa fins with plywood and give it a 29 mm motor mount....and make it dd - vola! Interceptor G! :chuckle:

[samb]

Santa was nice enough to drop one of these off yesterday :D . I wanted to thank the folks who posted here with their tips, tricks, and thoughts on this great bring back. I wonder why some folks question the positioning of the sub fins relative to the upper fins ? As designed, based on the tube marking guide, they are not placed 180 degrees apart and I am inclined to place them as indicated. Some posters seem to feel that this was an error and adjusted them to suit their sense of symmetry. Is there a flight profile or stability related reason to change this that I may have missed ?

[samb]

The decal sheets look to be the dreaded "thin and crispy" ones. Says :

"DECAL SHEET C PN 62140 (07/07)"

Should I just go ahead and ask Estes Customer Service for a replacement ? BTW I'm guessing Santa picked this up at a local Hobby Lobby last week when the good ol' 40% off was in effect.

[stantonjtroy]

You could or, as I did with mine, you could just hit them with a coat of Krylon Crystal Clear.

The decal sheets look to be the dreaded "thin and crispy" ones. Says :

"DECAL SHEET C PN 62140 (07/07)"

Should I just go ahead and ask Estes Customer Service for a replacement ? BTW I'm guessing Santa picked this up at a local Hobby Lobby last week when the good ol' 40% off was in effect.

[samb]

You could or, as I did with mine, you could just hit them with a coat of Krylon Crystal Clear.

How'd that work out for you ? I think I'll try that as well as calling ESTES to get some replacements as backup.

[Rocket Doctor]

Estes is off until January 2nd for the holidays.

The best way is to go to their site and use the email contact, which, bye the way is being checked everyday even though they are not there until the 2nd. Christine will be glad to help you out with decals.

[stantonjtroy]

How'd that work out for you ? I think I'll try that as well as calling ESTES to get some replacements as backup.

Great, As I print many of my own decals, I use Crystal Clear an all of my decals to seal the inks. I put one decal on my "E" and quickly determined they were too thin. Two light coats about 10 min apart did the job. Just wait an hour or so before use. Longer than a day or two and they'll get brittle. The only real drawback is they will need to be cut individually.

[samb]

Great, As I print many of my own decals, I use Crystal Clear an all of my decals to seal the inks. I put one decal on my "E" and quickly determined they were too thin. Two light coats about 10 min apart did the job. Just wait an hour or so before use. Longer than a day or two and they'll get brittle. The only real drawback is they will need to be cut individually.

Very good, Thanks for that. I'll repeat what everyone else has said: What a great kit and a nice little time machine as well. Building this while playing my new copy of Abbey Road seems very appropriate.

[Intruder]

Santa was nice enough to drop one of these off yesterday :D . I wanted to thank the folks who posted here with their tips, tricks, and thoughts on this great bring back. I wonder why some folks question the positioning of the sub fins relative to the upper fins ? As designed, based on the tube marking guide, they are not placed 180 degrees apart and I am inclined to place them as indicated. Some posters seem to feel that this was an error and adjusted them to suit their sense of symmetry. Is there a flight profile or stability related reason to change this that I may have missed ?

I adjusted them because they are erroneous (and ugly). Both the original K-51 and re-released 1250 interceptor's vertical stabilizers and subl fins are 180 degrees apart. The 1350's are not. The 1350's marking guide for the sub fins is lop-sided (one sub fin is past 180 degrees from the vertical stabilizer and one is less than 180).

[samb]

I adjusted them because they are erroneous (and ugly). Both the original K-51 and re-released 1250 interceptor's vertical stabilizers and subl fins are 180 degrees apart. The 1350's are not. The 1350's marking guide for the sub fins is lop-sided (one sub fin is past 180 degrees from the vertical stabilizer and one is less than 180).

I didn't know that about the other models, thanks. After working with that marking guide I agree that the results are just plain off. The sub fins end up cock-eyed ( a favorite technical term of my uncle, the rc modeler) relative to either the upper fins or the wings. Placing them 180 degrees from the upper fins seems like a reasonable fix.

[Intruder]

At least you didn't have to learn the hard way like I did. :) I didn't notice it was a problem until I had already filleted the sub fins :eek:

[chanstevens]

Well, it appears that Gus is the only one brave enough to post any pictures at all of the 1350 build. No, I'm not going to count the prototype pictures...it's not even fair that they got posted to this thread.....someones attempt to either make us look bad or make us strive to improve our building techniques....ok the benifit of the doubt.... ;)

Anyway, Gus has shown his build with the wing braces. Below is my attempt at using the card stock overlay. Unfortunately, a single 8X11 sheet of card stock isn't going to get complete balsa coverage so I'm going to have to trim in another piece. But, I will say this, it has certainly strengthened the joint between the wing and the forward whatchamacallit thingy. :D (okay, maybe it's a wing strike or something more scientific than whatchamacallit thingy)

Note that I didn't laminate the thru the wall tabs. I did laminate one side of the balsa that goes into the wing pod. When I was making the template for the overlay, I noticed that the wing pod had a much better fit with the overlay going inside the pod. Laminating both sides of the wing pod tab creates too tight a fit. Anyway, that's as far as I've gotten on this build so far (besides installing the foil lined motor tube without the motor hook or block to give me more versatility with motor selection).

Someone had mentioned earlier (maybe Gus) that friction fitting the motors is going to be tough because of the tail cone. It definately will be. To make it easier, for me at least, I'm not glueing the tail cone in. I'm still working on the details of this so bear with me. I'm planning on modifying (I know a lot of folks really don't want to mes up a stock kit) the tail cone with a twist lock into the body tube. My initial thought is to use a small flathead screw (something like they use in mounting a hard drive in the computer) through the body tube that the tail cone will slide onto and then twist the cone to lock in place. Yeah, I know it sounds complicated and I might just end up putting some masking tape around the outside of the motor tube to hold it on.... :rolleyes:

Well, I don't know if bravery was involved but I got around to spending the time to build one, wanting to do a top notch job. Several photos are at this link (http://picasaweb.google.com/chanstevens/InterceptorE) . I wound up buggering up one decal and stupidly got the fins backwards, so put it up for sale on Ebay to get a do-over. Basic observations:

1-my balsa was tough but nasty grains, took a lot of work to fill and hide the seams. Why the heck are the lower fins 2-piece?
2-tri-fold is absurd, went with Kevlar mounted to motor mount.
3-I got first wave decals. Beautiful printing, but the fixative was applied out of alignment, so 1 of the 3 sheets was worthless. Christine was quick to replace, though made me pony up photos when I asked for replacements for (3) kits.
4-Molded cone and pods are outstanding quality. My pod slots were too long for the fin tip span, though. Same problem I had with the smaller Interceptor reissue.
5-Decals are amazing, but applying over those fin braces looks weird.
6-D12 would probably work for a low altitude/demo flight, but I think F12-5 would be a superb motor for this.

--Chan Stevens

[cbrarick]

We did a f12-5 drag race (3 way!) with my club. Unfortunately, the f12 is a little weak off the pad so we all had some weather cocking. Since then I went to f39's - no problem at all!

[zog139]

The E18-4 is a very good choice for this beastie ! The E9 only yields about half the altitude of an E18 , however the E9 is a nice motor for very calm days and provides a very slow neat liftoff. I can't empasize enough, only fly the E9-4 on very calm days and angle it straight up !

[tbzep]

The E18-4 is a very good choice for this beastie ! The E9 only yields about half the altitude of an E18 , however the E9 is a nice motor for very calm days and provides a very slow neat liftoff. I can't empasize enough, only fly the E9-4 on very calm days and angle it straight up !

I can imagine a flight on the E9. We've launched Kody's on D12-3's for nice low, slow, lumbering flights. The max thrust for the E9 is about 10N less than a D12. :eek:

[stantonjtroy]

Put mine up on an F-24 reload. WOW!! Homesick angel.

[Rocket Doctor]

Estes will be open on Monday January 4, 2010.

Those who are looking for decals for the Inteerceptor can contact estes using their web site www.estesrockets.com and following their customer service contact prompt.

[PaulK]

I can imagine a flight on the E9. We've launched Kody's on D12-3's for nice low, slow, lumbering flights. The max thrust for the E9 is about 10N less than a D12. :eek:I waited for a calm club launch day (which took 7 months!), and put mine up on an E9 and E11, using a 4', 1/4" rod, and it flew real nice both times. The E9 was a cool slow flight, so the *calm* part was key.

[dyaugo]

I actually have two of these kits, that I have been torn between building and selling. I for one do not like the balsa wings and their construction. I feel that if the balsa was tighter grain or of better quality I would consider building.

I honestly wish ESTES would have design this kit to incorporate lite ply for all the wood. I don't see it as being much as a weight difference. I'm also not too fond of the fact that it comes with plastic center rings.

As far as the kit design/looks I think it is absolutely one of the coolest kits around.

If I was to build it I would probably skin all the balsa with copy paper or card stock or perhaps replace the all the balsa with lite ply.

I haven't read through all the post here, but will after I make this post. I know it's an older thread and maybe I can find some information that might encourage me to go ahead with the build.

[Rocket Doctor]

I actually have two of these kits, that I have been torn between building and selling. I for one do not like the balsa wings and their construction. I feel that if the balsa was tighter grain or of better quality I would consider building.

I honestly wish ESTES would have design this kit to incorporate lite ply for all the wood. I don't see it as being much as a weight difference. I'm also not too fond of the fact that it comes with plastic center rings.

As far as the kit design/looks I think it is absolutely one of the coolest kits around.

If I was to build it I would probably skin all the balsa with copy paper or card stock or perhaps replace the all the balsa with lite ply.

I haven't read through all the post here, but will after I make this post. I know it's an older thread and maybe I can find some information that might encourage me to go ahead with the build.


I would keep them both, you don't know if and when Estes would stop producing them.
Any decisions on the materials etc in my opinion probably has to due to cost factors.

You thank to think of kits being produced in the thousands and not indiviual kits.

Build one and post your photos here.
Happy building.

[dyaugo]

Yeah you are probably right. I might put them aside unless I get someone to buy them for $25 each? They are nice kits, but so many things could have been done to make them even better IMO. I know they have some new MPR kits coming out with better quality materials and parts. Just wish they would have looked at the Interceptor and realized what a GREAT looking kit it really is and spend some time researching the flight characteristics with different materials. At the time it came out or even maybe a year or so ago they were selling between $40-50 and for that price one would expect a true MPR kit with materials to match. It's disappointing to have to build a kit and make all kinds of modifications just to get it to fly the way it should/or strengthen the existing parts. Now the kits sell for under $30

[Rocket Doctor]

Yeah you are probably right. I might put them aside unless I get someone to buy them for $25 each? They are nice kits, but so many things could have been done to make them even better IMO. I know they have some new MPR kits coming out with better quality materials and parts. Just wish they would have looked at the Interceptor and realized what a GREAT looking kit it really is and spend some time researching the flight characteristics with different materials. At the time it came out or even maybe a year or so ago they were selling between $40-50 and for that price one would expect a true MPR kit with materials to match. It's disappointing to have to build a kit and make all kinds of modifications just to get it to fly the way it should/or strengthen the existing parts. Now the kits sell for under $30


IMO Estes tried it's hbest to replicate the 1250 in regards to the original, the 1350 was another story. Much bigger with other aspects to consider.

I worked on the instructions for the remade 1250 and started on the 1350 (which was a challenge) when I was "let go".

Specific items were discussed, but, not everything was addressed , unfortunately.

The rest is history.

[dyaugo]

IMO Estes tried it's hbest to replicate the 1250 in regards to the original, the 1350 was another story. Much bigger with other aspects to consider.

I worked on the instructions for the remade 1250 and started on the 1350 (which was a challenge) when I was "let go".

Specific items were discussed, but, not everything was addressed , unfortunately.

The rest is history.

Doc IMO I think it's an awesome kit, but how can I say this...it just seems there are many areas that can be improved and I don't mind buying a kit and making some improvements, but the improvements on the Interceptor E is more than just a few...

It looks really really cool...something that would look great hanging from the garage ceiling after a day at the launches.

[Rocket Doctor]

Many "stock" can be improved by our tlaented members here and on other forum, which is very good. This is how I found out "issues" in other kits that i was wrting instruction for.

The more "debugging" the better IMO.

We as rocketeers think on a one on one build, companies look at it in the thousands as I have mentioned before.

Thanks for your imput, greatly appreciated.

[dyaugo]

Many "stock" can be improved by our tlaented members here and on other forum, which is very good. This is how I found out "issues" in other kits that i was wrting instruction for.

The more "debugging" the better IMO.

We as rocketeers think on a one on one build, companies look at it in the thousands as I have mentioned before.

Thanks for your imput, greatly appreciated.

I agree whether it's scratch building or rebuilding/improving existing kits we are only limited by our imaginations