Other Requests/Ideas
 

I'm starting this thread for requests/ideas other than motors or kits.

Something that would be nice to see is a parts assortment pack like they had in the good old days. The assortment pack from Estes nowadays is a joke with leftover parts in it. There are companies like Red Arrow, BMS, Apogee and Flis offering partial parts assortments, but nothing like the complete assortments that Centuri and Estes use to offer in the late 60's.

Oh, thank you, Scott!

I've been going back to the old catalogs and just drooling longingly for some of those parts packages offered back then. What we need is a good "supply replenisher" box of usable tubes and balsa and rings and, well, STUFF that we really need...

I'm talking a complete set. Take a look at page 53 of the '69 Centuri catalog. The Experimenters Special had EVERYTHING you needed to make up to 8 rockets. Now that's an assortment!

Agreed!

OK. Which one first?

If you mean "Which style -- Centuri or Estes?", then I'd have to say Centuri style, since there's a better cross-section of sizes.

If you mean "Which quantity of material in the package?", then I'd have to agree again with Scott; we need a comprehensive selection of components to make it interesting. I don't know which would be the better way to package tubes -- make them all 18", or a selection of long and short. Nose cones and other turned items, enough to build 8-10 basic models. Same with the other components like rings, launch lugs, motor hooks, parachutes, etc...

And we can't forget the printed materials, like fin patterns and shrouds, maybe even a complete plan of some simple design to get builders started.

It might be possible to feature two or three different "price range" kits, just like Estes and Centuri did in the late 60s. One set might have enough for 2-3 models, one might be able to do 3-5 models, the third as many as 8. I think folks would pay a premium for good quality components, but what they want is consistency.

Price points? How about $25, $40, and $75? What could these boxes be filled with for those prices? Close to what I described above? Better? Spot-on?

Maybe even put together at some point a $100 Super Box, equal to 2 or 3 times the $75-size box, considering that there would be a reduction in some of the printed material as a cost savings...

Parts you say.
 

A better parts asortment would be great and a Futuristic Parts Assortment would be even better.

Also I would also like to see a Rocket Designing Kit. Not a parts assortment but a sample of all Semroc body tubes, center rings, fin material, various dowels, LL, and other parts.

*Body tube samples would be precut and about 1/2" long with several of each tube.
*Fin material sample would be of various thicknesses from 1/16" to 1/8".
I use such a Design Box myself and has really helped me figure out what tubes fit into each other in an eye appealing way. I lay several tubes on a flat surface and design via End View of the rocket design. I have come up with several design in this way including the Cargo Star Transport, Megga Dogfighter, Etc...


Parts:
I also would like a better way to attach a paper transition to a body tube. The narrow of the
transition is easy but the wider end onto an .05 CR really stinks :( . I would like to see some 1/4" thick Balsa Transition Centering Rings for some commomly used paper transitions. Half (1/8") of the ring would be used as a centering ring to center the two different BT's and the other half (1/8") would be tapered to match the slope of the paper transition. A designer could even customize the slope themself with a little sanding if an oddball transition is desired.


James Pierson
NAR# 77907

James,

Carl has demonstrated this to be possible with paper rings using the laser Krellvenator and his 0.05" paper stock. Look at the base ring on the Apollo capsule. It's a staggered cut. For a ring like you're describing, a glue-up of two rings - one tapered, one not - would work fine. If the paper stock were available in thicker sheets - up to 1/4" (or 5x the 0.05" material, for 0.25" thick) - your ring could be done the same way.

My personal preference on those is to have larger packs of single items, rather than packs of varied items. I always end up with stuff that I just use up on something just to use it up. I also prefer the larger 34" tubes, rather than 18" tubes. Getting rid of the spirals is a good thing, too! Who likes filling spirals. Can't we just get rid of them? I got a couple of boxes of 34" tubes (BT-5 thru BT-60, 12 of each per box) from a guy on eBay and the spirals are almost non-existent. That's my idea of a parts pack! Having a variety of bulk packs like that would be great. A variety pack for cones would be cool, though, especially one that included futuristic cones like the Estes Futuristic Parts Assortment.
My 2 cents.
James

Good idea Scott. There are some parts I don't mind making from scratch, tubes and cones are what is most important to me, the rest I can usually fabricate myself in a pinch. Only problem with including cones, is your stuck using what you have rather than what you really want. Tube assortments are a good place to start.

Keep in mind, this package is aimed at individuals who don't have a lathe to cut their own parts. It really is just "a starting point"; it's a way to get a few quality parts into their hands and allow them to get going on some simple projects. Once they have the package, they will be directed to the SEMROC website for additional components. Think of this package as an appetizer before dinner; it's just enough to whet the appetite, and not enough to spoil it.

Craig,

Your post helped crystalize my take on these "designer's special" type boxes. I started out as a BAR by building three kits and resurrecting three others from the attic. The Estes Designer's Special was helpful both in rehabbing the attic birds as well as letting me explore my own scratch and cloning ideas. No doubt this box was truly helpful. And I gladly paid the outrageous price at the B&M hobby store.

But once I got going, I pretty much moved beyond the Designer's Special. I could get plenty of balsa sheets from lots of stores. I picked up a stash of tubes and rings from TT and a stash of cones and rings from BMS. Cutting my own parachutes from many plastic bags was easy enough. (Glide floss makes great MR suspension lines :)

The point was that, once I got going, my bulk purchases tended to be more specialized. So I agree with you that these type things are mainly starting points. After that, it's hard for me to see much market for a "super duper gigantic deluxe designer's special". I don't see one as a starting point - it's too big - and I think most builders will be more specialized when they begin supplementing their stash beyond their first designer's special. (Plus, it's obvious that getting agreement on what goes into the super-duper box is about impossible :)

I'd say, after the basic designer's special type package with a sampling of everything, that the next best things would be ring packs, nosecone packs, body tube packs, etc. I think builders will see these as less wasteful and hehce more desirable.

Doug

That was sort of my take on it too, Doug. I do like the idea of an assortment, but if it ends up costing more than a Designers Special, then I probably won't buy it. I don't want to pay 100 or even 50 dollars for a bunch of stuff I may or may not end up using. Parachutes were a good example. I got a whole pile of plastic chutes set asside from various kits now that I have learned how to use a sewing machine. Circle cutters are a good investment, and with a little patience and a free priority mailing box, centering rings are never a problem. I love laser cut parts as much as the next guy, believe me, but if I can fabricate it myself then why pay the premium? The lathe, vacuum or resin forming, is where most people's skills fall short, not to mention the expensive tooling for the task.

In short, builder's assortment pack is a great idea. But, I would keep it simple, as to try and keep the cost down. For me, an assorted tube pack is more desireable, pack of cones, etc. But then, I may be a bit more frugal then the average Joe, I dunno.

I might agree with the idea of "packs", as long as they contain genuinely useful components and not deteriorate into what Estes calls parts packs. What they have is like the original Chicken McNuggets: "They contain parts, and parts is parts". Still, I would like to see a "Super Box", something like a store might buy to start their pegboard inventory. I wouldn't mind spending $100 for a really complete box of goodies to fill my personal bins...

Maybe a combination of both ideas would be good: A small, appetizer-type parts box with a sampling of the most-used goodies; and a large, comprehensive "Store Sales Starter" with bags of parts, like rings by the dozen, tubes in six- or 10-packs, etc.

Those annoying spirals!
 

There are times I'd like about them that long, too. I guess I got spoiled with my one-time shipment from Totally Tubular. :rolleyes: :o


Y'know, that's probably my *only* gripe with *any* Semroc product. I got some ST-5's with a *really* deep groove, which is why I took to sanding the tubes down even before hitting them with primer.

Hey Carl, is there any way you can order the ST-5's and ST-7's *without* the grooves? Or is that the best Euclid can do for the price you're paying them? Just wondering. ;) :D


Cheers, as always,

Euclid isn't the only paper tube company. A few years ago, I got a brochure from another manufacturer -- Paramount Paper, I think -- that offered explicitly a line of white-outer-layer tubes with an "invisible" seam. It was actually a raised seam instead of a depressed seam; with a spray of primer and a base sanding, any trace of the seam was supposed to disappear. The raised edges supposedly caught and held the primer and the sandpaper "did the rest".

When I contacted them about the tubes, however, they acted like Sgt. Shultz: "I know nuthink! I see nuthink!" Today, I see no mention of them having anything like these tubes...

Fin fixture/jig
 

Maybe come out with the full standing fin jig/fixture. I mentioned this on the other forum but I will mention it here as well. Semroc seems to be awesome when it comes to improving good ideas, this was an excellent idea but I think it could be done better.

Agreed, but with better control than the Estes design. I'd like to see one with sliders and holders adjusted via thumbscrews instead of simply by friction. I never got mine "polished out" enough to work smoothly; there was always one plate that "grabbed" and caused more trouble than it was worth.

Exactly...or maybe like this but a lot less "involved"

I actually was thinking of aluminum instead of plastic. You're using paper clamps, which probably work just as good; but I still like the idea of the thumbscrew adjustment, meaning I can set the pressure instead of taking all-or-nothing.

Nice looking jig!

I've never liked the Estes Fin Alignment jig (even though they seem to be much sought after on eBay!) because, like Craig, I've found them finicky and somewhat imprecise; and being vertical, I don't like the potential for glue runs and sags. For a number of years, I've been using the tried & true matte board method. I've been picking up 8"x10" and 11"x14" matte boards at Michael's (in their framing department - you can usually get leftovers on the cheap). I've made up a family of templates (eg: BT-60/3 fin/3/32"; BT-60/4 fin/1/8"; etc, etc) that I use to hold the rocket and fins in a horizontal position (this by itself is not a new idea).

I layout the template as precisely as I can with compass and straight edge; I cut out all three (or four) fins, and then chamfer the points where the fin cutouts interface with the body tube (this allows the template to slide over the assembly without interfering with any glue alongside the fin joint). It's a method that's worked very well over the years and usually provides me with very precisely aligned, equally spaced fins. Since I like to surface my fins with tissue and dope before I glue them to the airframe, I find that the fin slots in the template have to be just a slight tad over-size so that the template will slide on without any binding.

I said all of that to say this: it would seem to me that Carl could generate an extremely accurate and comparatively inexpensive family of fin alignment templates with his laser cutter; with a bit of ingenuity, these could be setup on a horizontal bed with sliders, making the whole fin alignment process very fast and accurate; being horizontal makes it much easier to manage the glue (of whatever type one chooses to use). This setup allows the modeler to tailor his alignment jig to his liking (more or less sophistication), while keeping the whole thing inexepensive.

I'll offer up a couple of photos of my usual setup once I manage to get home to my shop.

LAUNCH Magazine # 3; SEMROC Ad on Page 20
 

Carl,

When I saw this ad, my first thought was the goodies shown on the right was a SEMROC
version of the "Designer's Special." Heck, you may want to gather up all those parts shown,
throw them in a box and sell it as such. I know I could find plenty of uses in building my own
designs! How about it?

More Parts Choices.
 

More Parts Carl, Please.

I would like to see PNC :eek: from Semroc. Yep, thats right PNC from Semroc, at least two in every size from ST-5 to ST-16. The big reason WHY, is that some of my freaky designs are only flight stable if I add alot of nose wieght and this can only be done by using the PNC's and stuff them with clay. I don't believe I can get that many WL-7 on for enough wieght.

I would also like a little design variety as well using some hollow Transitions. Some of my designs lately have used the BMS Boattail in Rocksim. This boattail is great for a more retro rocket look. The main reason WHY is that you should never attach fins to a paper transition and solid transitions can only be used above the recovery device if they are solid.

What about a Semroc tube marking guide. Well at least have a small aluminum or brass angle stock. Be for warned about your door jams gentlemen, they are not all pertectly straight :D . Wasn't Me! :D Just a little carpenter joke.

What I really need access to buy is a 3/16" x 48" Maxi-Rod for those design that just won't take to a diet well.

Thanks,

James Pierson
NAR#77907

Did not think of that! We just gathered up some "blems" that were laying around and "posed" them.

The lack of larger printed chutes and manuals have kept us from doing the "specials."

One special I always wanted was a set of all the body tube sizes in very short (2-3") lengths. I have access to that now. :D When I am building a rocket, I use a short piece of tube to fit the nose cone, then sand it, fill it, and paint it. THEN I finsih the actual body tube. This keeps all the sanding and layers of filler coat off the final tube. The short piece is then thrown away. I used to think that everyone did that.

Preview: "Tau Zero" Fin Guides
 

Yeah, he's, uh (cough) workin' on it. :rolleyes: ;) (See photo below.)


I was thinking just today that I need to go down to the tool store and pick up some Dial Calipers to determine what the tolerance should be, since the prototype guides below fit *real* (i.e., "too") snugly. :eek:

We need to cut some "triangles" to allow room for the fillets, :o so the fin guide doesn't get glued to the rocket. :mad:


Cheers,

The house I live in was built in stages, in different decades, and I think they used a rattlesnake for a chalk line...

As for the marking guide, I'd like to see one as well.



I just picked one of these up at Home Depot. You have to be careful, though, as not all of them are straight, either. Employees and customers don't always appreciate the model rocket flyer's need for a solid 48" of steel rod with NO KINKS.

Call it a Motor Tube Assortment, with "lots of additional uses"...

Good one Craig
 

:D That guy using a rattlesnake for a chalkline "isn't the sharpest tool in the shed" now is he. LOL

I going to have to use that one at work Craig, that a good one.

For fin allignment, I have printed out the Centuri fin guide, set it on the floor and aline the BT on it with fin glued but not dry, look down from about and adjust the fins as necessary. Use the Force Luke, or your carpenter eye :D .

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

I made it a habit with the BARCLONE PDF plans to draw a fin guide like the one Jay has in his photo. (In fact, I think that's one I drew up for him on that project... :D ) I have found these simple cardstock holders to be just about as accurate, although I wished my own had been a bit thicker (and stiffer) at times. Carl's 0.07" cardstock would make ideal disposable guides which could be included in every kit at a nominal premium.

We have checked into molds for nose cones. The best price I could find was $5K per nose cone! When I mentioned that to Bill Stine, he said I could get those in China for about $800. I mumbled that it did not look like we would be doing nose cones. I refuse to deal with China. I think I am too old to start trying to get along with them now.
/rant

We have done some work with resin cones using roto-casting. They work well, but are very labor-intensive. We are working on a resin cast nose cone similar to the PNC-50K, but it is not a high priority.


We have done the BTC-55Z and are working on the BTC-70HZ that are hollow balsa.

We do have a plastic angle we use with Scout groups, but it is not online. We are thinking of providing fin marking rings like Estes used to provide on some kits.

When we do launch equipment, that will be added. The SLS series really needs that.

The tolerance for 3/32" balsa is +/- .010". If the guide is cut for the .103" "thick" balsa, the slots are too wide for the .083" balsa.

OR select a tighter range just for this kit.

Thought about that after I shipped them!

Thanks for the info Carl. And I agree with Made in the USA.




Maybe what we need is a heavier washer wieght that is dishes out that will still work with an eye screw. I have developed a way of hollowing out the BNC to install clay without messing up the coulper part of the cone, but it is not for beginner rocketeer's :( .

Thanks, JP

James Pierson
NAR# 77907

Or you could make them out of plastic or basswood and include them in that deluxe kit (the fin fixture/jig/guide things).
:)

I think that Semroc has it right, MADE in the USA and balsa nose cones.
The balsa cones set up nicer, are very "fixable", I just think they are "better" overall.
I deal with Russia, China, and India on certain parts for my work. If I could get away with not doing it, I would. But not many places that can stamp out a AK-74 parts set for replacement for so cheap and on the original machines with the original technical package.

The other thing I thought about, concerning plastic items, is the time-to-market delay. In the time it takes for one plastic tooling to be created, tested, revised, tested again, put into production, shipped, and finally received in the warehouse / packaging room, that Krellvenator could have produced multiple batches of the same cone and the kits could have been on the dealer shelves. The quicker turn-around time is worth any premium a balsa cone might cost, if there actually is any.

I'm not personally in favor of an injection-molded cone at this time. We've seen some applications already on this forum -- the Tau Tau is a good example -- of where a hollow, blow-molded plastic cone might be usable; and if SEMROC did venture into plastic that is what I might suggest. But I think the balsa components give these kits a feel that plastic takes away. I'd just as soon not see plastic used right now. Estes and Quest are in that camp. Their QC is in dire need of attention, and off-shore tooling is just one issue. Let's just "not go there"...

Fin Alignment Guides
 

Oh, *so* close, Craig, but *no* cigar! :eek: :rolleyes: ;) :o

For the rest of you, this was Craig's original fin guide:

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/show...8&postcount=124


And here it is in operation:

http://forums.rocketshoppe.com/atta...tachmentid=3383


Does that translate to 6-ply? I think these are 2-ply. Right, Carl?


Cheers,

Nigglin' details
 

Yeah, well, *I* didn't think of it until I "tried them on for size" with a Tau Zero prototype. :o


I'll have to get back to you on that.


Cheers,

In the past, a lot of the parts that came with the Estes original Designer's Special (which had
stayed with me since the 1970's) also came in handy when I needed to make quick repairs/
rebuilds of my NAR contest "rated" models (especially the boost/rocket gliders and, on my
most recent "overnight" build, an 18 mm helicopter duration model -- the Gassaway styled
design). Speaking of which is why I need another "Designer's Special" as most all of the parts I had have been used up :(

I have small scraps of popular tube sizes already pre-marked for 3 and 4 fins. I socket the tube onto the body tube I need marked and use my angle stock to extend the pre-marked lines. Zip zip zip... done!

When I lay out my templates, I try to cut the slot width as precisely as possible, for just this reason. The tolerance on the balsa, plus the fact that I like to tissue the fins, means the slot width will vary slightly from project to project anyway. So making the templates out of matte board gives me something that I can sand to fit the width of the particular fins I'm using (also, the thickness of the matte board makes for a very sturdy template which makes for a better support). When the template gets too loose, I just make another one. Another reason to keep them cheap!

And as has already been pointed out, it's highly advisable to chamfer the slot points to make room for glue fillets (!).

Excellent idea! It never occurred to me to do that, but I use scrap tubing for everything else. :eek: