No-Joke, there is NOTHING the C6-3 motor does that the C5-3 does NOT DO BETTER.
High-spike thrust kick off the pad, then a low sustaining thrust for a LONGER burn.
Does NOT require a drilled core either. Just a short pintle in the press.
For that matter the B8 could be made in the same way.
If Estes does not want to have the inventory of both the C6-3 and the C5-3, DITCH the C6-3 FOREVER !

Seeing as it is highly unlikely we will ever get the B14 back from Estes or any other real port-burner,
The C5-0/3 is next on my list for needed BP SU 18mm motor.

The 1284 Space Shuttle and Mars Lander fly 100% better on the C5-3 than the C6-3.
The 1921 (Centuri clone) also flies much better on the C5-3 as well; when Estes first kitted that one they listed the ONLY motor for the kit as the C5-3, with NO mention of even using the C6-3 as being 'acceptable' !

__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !
Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !

Ok, everyone. Start pouring through those old catalogs to see what scale models had a C5 as first flight! I'd look in both Estes and Centuri catalogs. Maybe we can deduce what John is working on.

__________________
Scott D. Hansen
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe - Your One Stop BAR Shoppe!
Ye Olde Rocket Plans - OOP Rocket Plans From 38 Companies!
Ye Olde Rocket Forum
WOOSH NAR Section #558

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

Two amusing marketing approaches to consider (if such a new motor would appear):

1) Make it a C7 or a C8 or a C9. Consumer *love* larger numbers and it might sell better. Proclaim on the packaging that it is a direct higher thrust replacement for the C6 motor in any Estes kit. Downside is added packaging cost for new non-standard packaging.

2) Label it as a "SUPER C6" motor. Yes, Centuri used "Super-C" but that was with the C5 designation, and consumers assume that the "5" is less than the "6". Spinal Tap math.

__________________
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117 (L2)
Southern California Rocket Association, NAR Section 430

I agree. *Not* using the 5 (pounds) C5 designation would also be better for international sales, because no one else uses pounds in model rocketry (truth be told, it was a retrogressive nomenclatural move even back when the motor was introduced). Whatever its average thrust in newtons is (5 pounds X 4.45 newtons [1 pound of force = 4.45 N] would make it a C22), call it that, with "Super-C" as a secondary identifier ("Super" = "Better"/"More powerful" to folks).

__________________
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

Better yet, we can request John work on all of them for maximum C5 market pressure!

__________________
Rich Holmes
Camillus, NY
Secretary / newsletter editor
Syracuse Rocket Club

http://richsrockets.wordpress.com

The C5 was introduced about 1980, long after motor designations had gone metric. Its average thrust was 5.26 newtons. Peak thrust about 5 pounds, coincidentally I assume. http://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Estes/C5.pdf

Edit: I hadn't realized it was originally a Centuri engine. It was in their 1979 catalog.

__________________
Rich Holmes
Camillus, NY
Secretary / newsletter editor
Syracuse Rocket Club

http://richsrockets.wordpress.com

Here's my 2 cents on that. As an avid stager, I think the B8-0 might be a better motor. It will lift just as much rocket, but stage sooner, without the low thrust phase of the C5's long tail (thrust curve). That is, I think it'd make for safer staging with less chance of the rocket leaning too much when the next stage lights.

That said, if we get a C7-8-9 as Shread suggested, that'd be even better. It might be a light C, well under 10Ns, but that's still OK if it can help get heavy rockets moving better off the rod.

Doug

.

__________________
YORF member #11

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.

__________________
Greg Poehlein

Member of Launch Crue - http://launchcrue.org/

Hint #1: Do not use magician's flash paper for recovery wadding!

Hint #2: Clean your shoes after flyin' in that cow pasture - that ain't no dirt clod on the sole!

That makes the C5 designation even more confusing, and thus worse (especially for model rocketeers outside the USA and Canada), because of the similar numbers (but not units). The first number after the letter is the motor's average thrust, in newtons. Its high thrust was specifically mentioned in the advertising literature for the "Super-C" motors, yet--which was a further source of possible confusion for buyers--the total impulse of the C5 (like all "C" motors) was/is between 5.01 and 10.00 newton-seconds. Well:

Maybe it could be designated (and named) "CV-3 *" (for the 3-second delay version, for example), with a notation on the package and in the catalog that "* CV denotes the Super-C, which has an average thrust of 5.26 newtons, but a high--5 pounds--peak thrust." The "V" would distinguish it from the regular "C" motors. Also:

I agree about the need for B4 motors (a C4 would also be very nice) for boost-gliders, because they need gentle accelerations.

__________________
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