2X Mars Lander Upscale
 

Greetings fellow rocketeers;
This is a Tango Papa Decals Kit. I built the 1.6X 2 years ago and got my level 1 cert with it.
I sanded the bulkheads down some to lighten it, but basically followed the kit.
It weighs 2lb 10oz with an H97 Aerotech motor installed. Just over 2 lb unloaded.
Basically this is the same kit upsized even more. It is not exact scale, the main tube is 7.5" not 7.87" Tom makes a very complete kit, but be warned, it takes a lot of work, it is a Craftsman's kit, not a skill level 3 or even 4.
He even includes a small bottle of fabric paint to trace the body panel lines with prior to painting. I used it on the 1.6X and I must say it makes a nice replacement for embossing.
All the screw eyes and motor retention hardware is included. I like his motor retention.
He includes a good long shock cord and kevlar cord for securing it. Like most hi-power kits, no "Chute in the kit. He does however, offer the recommended chutes separately, and if you order them they arrive in the kit. I used the dual chutes in the 1.6 and I highly recommend them. Be warned tho, they FILL the chute tube on the 1.6X, pack carefully or they won't fit. Actually, if I used a shorter motor they would fit fine but I like the slower lift-off of the H97. I'd use a lower thrust motor if it would fit (38mm H73). Actually my 1.6X will fly well on a G75. Watch the weight and yours will too. Be prepared to drill delays. Always.
I have a rocksim file of this kit if anyone wants it. Tell me which version you want, 1.6X or 2X.
Shortening the shoulder of the Nose cone is one way to make the chutes fit better, as it's max scale (or longer) and tom Adds a 1/4" 5-ply plywood ring to the aft end anyway.
I should mention ALL the wood in this kit is laser cut. The 1.6X was perfect. The 2X all the rings are poorly cut, they are oval and the start and end of the cut don't even match in diameter. I will say tom has this done somewhere, he doesn't cut them himself. But the quality control could be better.
Also, it is a heavy design. I am taking some strong measures to lighten it.
First, the wood dowels in the original that brace the bottom of the leg are 1/4" solid aluminum shafting (with the angle cut on the end already!). So are the mounting shafts on the other side of the hinge.
I replaced all these with hollow 1/4" carbon fiber arrow shafting. MUCH lighter and just as strong. I took nearly a pound out of the aft end here. Combined with the following mods, it's over a pound lighter in the aft end of the rocket. Thus I won't be adding all the LEAD in the nose he calls for.
Second, the legs in the original are balsa, the upscale uses 1/4" hardwood. I used it.
Third, the 3 engine mount to parachute tube rings and the Aft Bulkhead are all 1/4" aircraft plywood. I Drilled 4 1.25" holes in the bulkhead and sanded it to .2" thick to lower weight.
He also ADDS another 1/4" bulkhead near the front of the Main tube. This allows the Aft bulkhead to be removeable to maintain the legs, hinges and rubber bands on the legs.
I thinned this bulkhead to .170" to reduce weight. I like low impulse motors better anyway. No grenade launches for this bird. If this becomes an issue I will reinforce with more carbon fiber arrow shaft. Stronger and lighter.
For the Landing feet he uses a mix, balsa, Basswood and motor tube cut into rings make a good clone upsize of the feet without too much weight.
Moving forward the mid section (Ascent module) has 4, yes 4 1/8" basswood 3-ply rings in it, top and bottom ones are 'chute tube to OD, 2 in between are narrower.
The Control module has just 1 1/8" basswood 3-ply ring at the very aft end, 'Chute tube to OD.
The launch lug is sized for 1/4" launch rod and is mounted the same as the original.
The shrouds are on heavy cardstock and are printed , not embossed.
These could be improved as some of the lines are not correct. He took the time to hand draw these in the original layout tho. Also the lines are fairly thick, thinner lines would be better at least on the outlines.
Pictures will follow once I find my camera's uplink cable.
Pics of the 1.6X are on my website: http://www.metrocast.net/~catpurk/Roket1pg.html .html

Yes it is a very nice kit . I built the 2x version about2-3 years ago. Very detailed kit. To bad my AMW I- 315 skid did not eject. If you need some oddball parts or the whole pile of trash let me know.

Pieces Parts
 

I'll definitely keep ya in mind, I gotta go look at the other kit <ya, I got two of em>
If all the rings are out of round as I expect I'll get with you about it.

I did'nt have a problem with the centering rings . I most likely had an older kit.

For manually or rotary cut rings, I can understand this - in fact, one vendor routinely sells rings with off center holes - but for laser parts, it surprises me. There shouldn't be any forces coming into play that cause things to move and be off the mark. I wonder if it was a mechanical issue or a software issue with the cutter.

Basswood ply? Are you sure it wasn't birch or A/C ply? I've never heard of basswood ply (but it sounds like a neat idea).

Doug

.

wow, very nice rocket you have there.

Basswood, birchwood
 

Hmmm, Ya got a point there, I really don't know the difference.
It's definitely not "normal" plywood, very fine grain and darker.
None of the spliced in spots you see in other ply's. Less weight too.

The 1/4" Ply is Aircraft ply from the look of it. Good quality and no bad spots.

I'm kinda new to the Hi Power thing, on & off a couple years now, but only built the 1 Mars Lander and working the second one.
I have another Hi Power kit and my brother has quite a few.

One thing I've noticed, Hi Power Rockets seem to be built Very heavy to me.
Strong is good but Heavy is bad in my book.

You're preaching to the choir :)

You'll find lots of folks, including devoted HPR fliiers, who agree with you. Too many rockets are way over-built. The builders missed the point about frangibility. I've seen rockets that looked like they could survive a ballistic fall from 10,000 feet. They need to be tough enough to survive the motor burn and a hard ejection, and falling out of the back seat of the car :) But catos and 500mph chute deployments aren't supposed to be harmless - nobody wants them - but if we build everything to survive them, we'll be building concrete rockets :)

</soapbox>

That said, Tom built the upscale Landers to be more durable, so I understand some of his beef-ups. But I also know he couldn't mill everything down nor spec in ultra-high-tech, high dollar components such as carbon fiber rings. So I'm sure there's some weight you can cut out of the 2x ML, and I applaud you for making the effort!

Doug

.

Good Point Doug
 

I agree Tom can't possibly sell a Carbon Fiber based Rocket kit.
However, 1/4" solid aluminum rods to reinforce the legs? On Legs that are double thickness hardwood vs balsa already? I think it's a bit much. A hardwood dowel would surely suffice.
Then again, I'm one of the guys that spends an hour packing the dual chutes and rolls up the shock cord into a disk that lays flat under the chutes, ect.
I am a perfectionist and I know it. I can point out dozens of flaws in the Mars Lander everyone says is so beautiful...
My lander always lands on it's feet and has only been pulled over from that stance once in it's life. And I knew the wind was excessive, but I didn't want to waste the motor since it was late in the last day at Geneseo and the next Hi Power launch is a ways off for me. The wind came up after the motor was built, while I was packing the chutes.

Another point, twin chute recovery is MUCH smoother, no spinning death spirals to snap off fins / legs when they slide into the ground with high horizontal speed.

Now, on the Overbuilt thing, I wonder if a lot of it doesn't come from the types of motors I see coming out. I call em "Grenade Launch" motors.
<RANT>
First example that comes to mind : H999. What the hell is that about??? 250 lbs of thrust. WHY? If your rocket is over 5 lbs it shouldn't be eating an H. Nobody needs a 50G liftoff !!! Another : I1299. 292 lbs of thrust. WHY? 5G takeoff rule of thumb means ya can lift a 58 lb rocket... With an I motor???
BIG Heavy Rocket on a small field? Don't fly it !!! Take it to a Big Field if ya gotta fly something that heavy.
And now I heard a rumor that Aerotech is gonna discontinue the Blackjack line of propellant.
The only ones I Use.....
</RANT>
Sorry, I get wound up... But If ya gotta build for that kind of Accel, I'd say the airframe needs to be tough. We need to send word to the motor makers to stop making grenades and make long burn motors. Double the liner thickness and make me an end burner.
Or make the liner out of something more flame resistant. Whatever it takes.

Ya see I like slow lift off's, Gimme a H73 any day over a 148 or 242 for my 2.25lb Mars Lander. (It was supposed to weigh 3.5Lb's, I put it on a diet) But the best I can get it a H97 thats really too long for the bird. I always end up with 1/4" of Nose Cone shoulder showing.
I tried using less dog barf once and got a badly singed shock cord for my result.

anyhow, My wife says stop writing a book ;-)

Happy Rocketry !

umm. nobody flies those kind of motors because they Need that thrust, or flies them in heavy small-field rockets..

the only true use for the H999 or I129 is in small fiberglass airframes at bat-out-of-hell speeds....
Mach 4 can be fun ! :)

this is, afterall, SPORT rocketry, not 'rocket science' ....

:)

~ AL