Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Weather-Cocked > Current Kit Talk
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


View Poll Results: Which motor do we need most ?
B14-x (18mm) 36 32.73%
D30-x (24mm) 15 13.64%
D8-x (18mm like the old Cox D's, not some 20mm oddball diameter) 14 12.73%
A8-0 (18mm) 21 19.09%
1/2A3-0T (13mm) 11 10.00%
C5-x (18mm) 13 11.82%
Voters: 110. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #151  
Old 03-31-2015, 10:36 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 5,871
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpJet
This is not a correct statement. The C6 motor will out sale the C5 motor by at least a 20 to 1 margin since everyone knows what a C6 motor is and non of the current packaging lists a C5 motor. Even if all the packaging is updated to include a C5 motor the C6 would way out sale the C5.

By the way if NO tooling exists for the original model I will upscale it a bit to take a D12\E12 motor since I believe everyone would enjoy a larger version of it anyway.

John Boren

P.S. Just because I work on something doesn't mean it will make it to market. I hope it does but some times in won't


Then "eliminate the competition" and drop the C6... switch entirely to the C5...

Most people who are buying model rocket motors just think "get the biggest one that will fit" anyway... only the "real hobbyists" truly understand the gist of the motor designations and what they mean, let alone have the ability to interpret how the various motor choices affect the flight of the rocket or how to make the proper motor choice for conditions...

OL JR
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 03-31-2015, 11:01 PM
AstronMike AstronMike is offline
Craftsman
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 207
Exclamation I'm not so sure about that......

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpoehlein
I disagree - the C6-3 would be much better suited to launching boost gliders that the C5-3 would. In fact, if a C version of the B4 could be developed, so much the better. I like the B4 a lot, and wish the B4-6 was still produced - I think that for competition, it would be better for altitude events than the B6-6 is.


I used to fly a TON of C5's when available, and mainly in larger sport gliders (not necessarily convie types). In those heavier draggier birds, the C5 did well indeed. If you're flying a convie type, then it should do fine on a C5, as the high initial kick will help it off the rod faster and the lower sustainer thrust doesn't let it build up too much speed.

Interesting to see the C5 fanboys here, and if Estes produces enough heavier 18mm rockets, then maybe the C5 as well as the associated B8 return.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 04-01-2015, 09:09 AM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,532
Default

Releasing a B8-0 is a good idea technically. Not so sure about marketing.

Having a B4-6 variant of the C motor would be an interesting market test and perhaps should be released with no 0 or 2 delay at all. The B4-6 was a major go-to motor for our entire rocket club of 500 members and certainly is justified to be re-released. 4,6

The C5 was a Centuri thing for the fantasy series die cut kits they released. Centuri was not offering 24mm motors at the time which would have been better motors for those rockets.

All of the above except a C4-4,6 would use existing tooling. Perhaps it would use B4 tooling and be produceable.

One advantage of the current system is reduced confusion and reduced retail SKU's. Those are significant positives for the sorts of consumers Fred runs into all the time. People clueless as to WHY you would want lower or higher thrust or delays. Just plugging in what the package says. And not having too many surpurfluous choices allowing a wrong choice out of ignorance. Even GH complains about not being able to get all wanted motors locally now.

If the catalog reintroduced the why of average thrust selection and delay selection then some of these choices might not only be welcome, but successful among a market that is 60% newbies.

Jerry
__________________
Exemptions not regulations. Please support DOT treating slow burning solids as not subject to HMR. 2015 NAR President declines!
U.S. Rockets instaship. http://bit.ly/1aca7mA Please buy some rockets.
The O administration believed in tax, spend, borrow, fine, mandate, monologue. D voters will soon be very happy with the election outcome!
Model rocketry is as safe as safe can be defined in human existence. Bow and pray: GH Stine, Orville, Vern, Lee, Lonnie, Carl, etc. No, really.

Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 04-01-2015 at 10:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 04-01-2015, 09:31 AM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,532
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpJet
It had a C5 motors as first flight and C6 as an additional motor. I wish the C5 was available when I designed the Asteroid Hunter. It's flight profile would have benefited from it greatly.
John Boren
Centuri offered the C5-3 (single SKU) because they didn't have a D. Estes has several SKU's each of a C11, a D12, an E9, and an E12, so 24mm should obviously be the new standard. Designing a kit around a single SKU motor is a sure way to doom the kit to the ash heap of history. Alternatively just make it slightly smaller and include at least both B's and C's. Bigger is better of course, even if only slightly.

Just Jerry

P.S. Make individual nose cones available to distributors in bulk. Particularly the BT-60 cone that is 3:1 ogive, the one for the Mean Machine 4:1 parabolic, and the BT-101 nose cone for the Red Max 4:1 parabolic, which would also make an awesome Goblin or Citation Patriot.
__________________
Exemptions not regulations. Please support DOT treating slow burning solids as not subject to HMR. 2015 NAR President declines!
U.S. Rockets instaship. http://bit.ly/1aca7mA Please buy some rockets.
The O administration believed in tax, spend, borrow, fine, mandate, monologue. D voters will soon be very happy with the election outcome!
Model rocketry is as safe as safe can be defined in human existence. Bow and pray: GH Stine, Orville, Vern, Lee, Lonnie, Carl, etc. No, really.

Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 04-01-2015 at 10:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 10-21-2018, 12:57 PM
ghrocketman's Avatar
ghrocketman ghrocketman is offline
President, MAYHEM AGITATORS, Inc.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 9,016
Default

Now that Estes has someone at the helm that is listening, maybe we should rehash this thread.
__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and NEVER touch the brake !!!
No Harm=NO Foul advocate

If you are NOT FLYING LOW in the left lane, you need to GET THE #$&@ OUT of it !

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL
, if you have to ask, you probably aren't
!
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 10-21-2018, 02:07 PM
BEC's Avatar
BEC BEC is online now
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Auburn, Washington
Posts: 2,396
Default

Perhaps. The poll might need to be redone seeing as the A8-0 was re-released and in light of the just-starting-to-be-really-available Q-Jet C12s and D16s. (I really liked what I saw with the first C12 I flew and am going to order more.)
__________________
Bernard Cawley
NAR 89040 L1 - Life Member
SAM 0061
AMA 42160
KG7AIE
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 10-23-2018, 05:11 PM
burkefj's Avatar
burkefj burkefj is offline
Craftsman
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 301
Default

For me, None of the above, there isn't a bp motor exists or existed that does anything better for what I fly than a composite.
__________________
RC Rocket glider kits
www.dynasoarrocketry.com
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 10-24-2018, 07:59 AM
ghrocketman's Avatar
ghrocketman ghrocketman is offline
President, MAYHEM AGITATORS, Inc.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 9,016
Default

I prefer composites for anything E and above, but many do not.
I'm hoping the new leadership at Estes listens and gives us back the C5 and B14 or B8.
__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and NEVER touch the brake !!!
No Harm=NO Foul advocate

If you are NOT FLYING LOW in the left lane, you need to GET THE #$&@ OUT of it !

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL
, if you have to ask, you probably aren't
!
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 10-25-2018, 11:16 PM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 5,729
Default

I agree, particularly regarding "the why of average thrust selection and delay selection." Because the current generation of model rocketeers does consist mostly of neophytes, the Estes catalogs should be printed (on paper as well as online) with the "how and why" supplement pages that were included in the older Estes (and Centuri, and other companies') catalogs. Little updating of these would be necessary (and in many cases, no updating would be needed). For example:

The illustrated "Model Rocket Engines and Specs" section in the Centuri catalogs (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/no...a/79cen042.html ) showed, in comparative (non-mathematical) graphical form, the consequences of using the wrong total impulse and delay. Their "Flight Manual" (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/no...a/79cen044.html ) included a brief but complete explanation (including thrust-time graphs) of the motor specifications and how they are properly selected, and it also covered model rocket construction, decor scheme application, recovery systems, staging, clustering of motors, etc., and:

The late 1960s Estes catalogs contained a similar "Model Rocket Manual" (it was their 'Yellow Pages,' see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/no...a/69est048.html ), which was updated and, in the 1994 catalog, was included under the title of "Model Rocketry Technical Manual" (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/94est32.html ). Also:

Quest Aerospace printed (and may still offer in their bulk-packaged kits, although a cursory look through their website didn't show it--but they offer more items than are listed on their website) a brief, illustrated pamphlet-type brochure called the "Astra Mini Manual of Model Rocketry," which served (or serves) the same purpose, being a primer on model rocketry. In the case of the Centuri and Estes informational supplements, Estes could, at least to start with (especially since Centuri owns Estes, on paper), simply include links to these scanned online documents on their website. The Ninfinger Productions Model Rocketry website (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/rockets.html ) also contains scans of two useful Cox model rocketry academic publications, which Estes--which bought Cox--could also provide links to on their website (all of these publications would also be of historical interest, as well as being informative and useful).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Irvine
Releasing a B8-0 is a good idea technically. Not so sure about marketing.

Having a B4-6 variant of the C motor would be an interesting market test and perhaps should be released with no 0 or 2 delay at all. The B4-6 was a major go-to motor for our entire rocket club of 500 members and certainly is justified to be re-released. 4,6

The C5 was a Centuri thing for the fantasy series die cut kits they released. Centuri was not offering 24mm motors at the time which would have been better motors for those rockets.

All of the above except a C4-4,6 would use existing tooling. Perhaps it would use B4 tooling and be produceable.

One advantage of the current system is reduced confusion and reduced retail SKU's. Those are significant positives for the sorts of consumers Fred runs into all the time. People clueless as to WHY you would want lower or higher thrust or delays. Just plugging in what the package says. And not having too many surpurfluous choices allowing a wrong choice out of ignorance. Even GH complains about not being able to get all wanted motors locally now.

If the catalog reintroduced the why of average thrust selection and delay selection then some of these choices might not only be welcome, but successful among a market that is 60% newbies.

Jerry
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 10-26-2018, 07:33 AM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,532
Default

Pages of discussion over various C labeling and marketing issues brings me right back to the higher thrust D in the E case. Higher price point. No need to put the recommended motors on the kit packaging when it is in the motor package. Simple. Also higher price point for faster breakeven.

Just Jerry

2 stage 24mm (mounts removed)

http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/tandemgoodness.htm
http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/mr2b.htm

A 2 pack of D12 is $12.
https://www.estesrockets.com/rockets/engines/c11-and-d

A D30/40 could easily be $13-14. for a 2 pack. Bigger number higher value per shred vector.

D30-0,3,6,9. A10 format tooling. How about a 13mm B case with A10/11-3,6,9 and a B3/4-3,5,7. FULL A, B, D.

2 stage mini-A or B with conversion mounts:
http://v-serv.com/usr/kits/record_breaker.htm
__________________
Exemptions not regulations. Please support DOT treating slow burning solids as not subject to HMR. 2015 NAR President declines!
U.S. Rockets instaship. http://bit.ly/1aca7mA Please buy some rockets.
The O administration believed in tax, spend, borrow, fine, mandate, monologue. D voters will soon be very happy with the election outcome!
Model rocketry is as safe as safe can be defined in human existence. Bow and pray: GH Stine, Orville, Vern, Lee, Lonnie, Carl, etc. No, really.

Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 10-27-2018 at 08:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:03 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe 1998-2019