Ye Olde Rocket Forum - View Single Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by CenturiGuy

No, I don't. Bill kept me posted on his "betatest" build.

And besides the point that my cashflow was low when it came out, whenever I looked at it, I thought, "That's a cool design, but those body tubes look longer than I think they should." (Nothing against Rokitflite, it's just that my aesthetic sensibilities are different than his.

That's like when I looked at the Estes Hi-Flier and thought, "*That* body tube is too short!")

As long as the Odyssey is, I'm sure you could remove a few inches of body tube and still have a great-looking and great-flying rocket. I'll agree that it is pretty darned long and thin. Even so, the forward section of BT-50 is barely big enough for the 18" plastic parachute to fit. Is the BT-20 the part of the body that looks too long to you? I've flown mine 3 times (I think. I *know* it's flown at least twice.), and that big parachute brings it down nice and soft, so even with the long section of BT-20, there's no damage at all on landing.

I'm pretty sure Scott/Rokitflite still has some kits available, btw.

I know what you mean about different aesthetic sensibilities. Two years ago, I thought the Fat Boy was really ugly, too short and too fat, and I wouldn't even consider buying one. Now, I've had one for over a year and am looking for another one or two of them. And I think I've decided that most designs based on BT-50 or smaller tubes are too small. Like, the Holverson Designs Wicked Winnie kit (BT-60 tube, I think) that I bought at NARCON seems exactly the right size to me. Of course, I say that, but I also bought several kits with smaller tubes, like the Semroc Laser-X, so who knows?

(Sorry, I've had a lot of coffee this morning and seem to be typing just to see myself talk.)