C11-0 Does It Still Exist?

Onebadhawk
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
the model rocket show
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
C

Commanche3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
Is this motor still sold? I see it suggested for new and old multi stage rocket's built by Estes and other rocket companies. I have looked on the Estes website but it doesn't show there either. So does anybody know the truth?
 
It was discontinued a while ago but some stores may still sell them.
 
I picked up the last couple packs at my LHS a few weeks ago - destined for the CC Express... The LHS still has C11-5 and C11-7.
 
I was digging thru the stash that Ken Allen (Performance Hobbies) and I saw some of those.
 
I never had luck with the C11-0 in a booster stage.

My first CC Express lawn darted twice because both times the C11-0 failed to ignite the upper stage.

Fortunately, Estes replaced the kit and advised me to use the D12-0 in the booster stage and it worked perfectly.:D

There is a huge gap between the top of the C11 motor propellant and the second stage motor nozzle and I think that caused unreliable staging.

I wouldn't recommend them for staging apps unless you're flying from a small launch site.
 
There is a huge gap between the top of the C11 motor propellant and the second stage motor nozzle and I think that caused unreliable staging.

The gap problem may also explain why the A8-0 was discontinued. I have heard rumors that Quest will be picking up production of C11-0's, along with other motors Estes has recently discontinued, but so far I have not seen anything new from Quest.
 
The C11-0 and C11-7 have been discontinued by Estes. The Estes C11-3 and C11-5 are still in production. All are still currently certified by NAR because they still can be found in retail, however as they become unavailable eventually the C11-0 and C11-7 will first loose their NAR contest certification and then their NAR general use certification.

NAR S&T finally obtained direct access to our part of the NAR website and all engine information is being updated. This long overdue and massive process will be completed by the end of the month, and will be updated on a monthly basis. The NAR/TMT/CAR combined motor list and the NAR certified engine datasheets containing .eng files can be obtained at https://www.nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml

Bob
 
bobkrech said:
The C11-0 and C11-7 have been discontinued by Estes. The Estes C11-3 and C11-5 are still in production. All are still currently certified by NAR because they still can be found in retail, however as they become unavailable eventually the C11-0 and C11-7 will first loose their NAR contest certification and then their NAR general use certification.

NAR S&T finally obtained direct access to our part of the NAR website and all engine information is being updated. This long overdue and massive process will be completed by the end of the month, and will be updated on a monthly basis. The NAR/TMT/CAR combined motor list and the NAR certified engine datasheets containing .eng files can be obtained at https://www.nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml

Bob
Click to expand...

Thank you and the others doing this. I already reported one error in the combined list (My report is cut & pasted here for reference):

Aerotech F21 single use motor is missing from the online combined list. This is the 24mm x 95mm motor the same size as the Estes E9 motor. It is not in current production, but it should still be sport flying certified.

July/August 2007 Sport Rocketry printed list says sport use expires 12/31/2009.

January/February 2008 Sport Rocketry printed list says sport use expires 8/31/2008.

So, what is going on and how many other motors have jumped much closer to or beyond decertification?
 
Fred

NAR S&T appreciate your pointing out errors in the listing and we are in the processing of correcting them and making the on-line database the official reference.

Most of the hardcore webpage updating work has been done by S&T member Ed Pattison-Gordon and reviewed by Bill Spadafora, John Lyngdal, John Kane and myself. The problem with database management is that there are many different file formats required by the various programs used to post and publish the data, and during the data translation and conversion processes, the information can get scrambled. Ed and Bill have been working hard over the past 6 months to sort through the various inteface requirements and have written a validated master data conversion/output program to automatically generate this information for all media formats directly from the master database. In the past this was performed manually and transcription errors occurred. S&T is in the process of reviewing the old output files and correcting the errors when found. It has been a massive undertaking, and is finally nearing conclusion.

Bob
 
Donaldsrockets said:
I never had luck with the C11-0 in a booster stage.

My first CC Express lawn darted twice because both times the C11-0 failed to ignite the upper stage.

Fortunately, Estes replaced the kit and advised me to use the D12-0 in the booster stage and it worked perfectly.:D

There is a huge gap between the top of the C11 motor propellant and the second stage motor nozzle and I think that caused unreliable staging.

I wouldn't recommend them for staging apps unless you're flying from a small launch site.
Click to expand...

I've launched my CC express about 6 times with the C11-0 and haven't had a failure. But I did add a coupler to join the stages. Maybe that provides a few extra milliseconds after the tape has burned through. Sadly I only have 3 C11-0s left.
 
I never had a problem staging C11's either. One was a modified Apache 2 clone where the tape was the only thing holding the stages together.

Joe W
 
As with all muilti-stage rockets, the current generation of Estes Designers/executives do not understand what it takes to reliably stage black powder motors:

1) Giant target is good. Upper stage motors with a LARGE nozzle opening and a LARGE exposed surface of black powder are easier to ignite. D12 is good. C11 is not so good. B4 or A8 is good. B6 or C6 is not so good.

2) Taped together with old fashioned cellophane tape (not magic tape) is best. If you cannot tape together, then provide good vent holes to allow cold air out and provide time for flaming bits to finally find their way up the upper nozzle and finally ignite the propellant of the upper motor.

The Comanche 3 is a problem rocket. The first stage D12-0 sits right up against the send stage nozzle, so the first stage tends to blow off before the second stage can ignite. Adding vent hols is tricky, since there is no gap to vent. I add vent holes anyway and make the coupler fairly snug (and make sure the D12-0 is extremely snug). Then you can tape the 2nd and 3rd stage motors with cellophane tape and most of the time even a C6 or B6 upper stage will ignite.
 
I don't think it was an issue of failed staging, as much as it was probably an issue with the lifting power of these motors. Not alot of "bang for the buck" as far as booster motors go. Some staged models that would do well with a D12 booster might become kinda frightening on a C11 booster.
 
Loopy said:
I don't think it was an issue of failed staging, as much as it was probably an issue with the lifting power of these motors. Not alot of "bang for the buck" as far as booster motors go. Some staged models that would do well with a D12 booster might become kinda frightening on a C11 booster.
Click to expand...

The offical word from Estes was that they had too many reports of C-C Express rockets failing to stage and crashing. Too much cold air in the large space on top of the propellant of the C11-0 and too small a nozzle in the C11-5 or C11-7 in the upper stage. Even with taping together, folks had failures. I personally think the average American consumer with the failures did one of the following:

a) Used "magic" tape instead of cellophane tape.

or

b) Used no tape at all.
 
shreadvector said:
The offical word from Estes was that they had too many reports of C-C Express rockets failing to stage and crashing. Too much cold air in the large space on top of the propellant of the C11-0 and too small a nozzle in the C11-5 or C11-7 in the upper stage. Even with taping together, folks had failures. I personally think the average American consumer with the failures did one of the following:

a) Used "magic" tape instead of cellophane tape.

or

b) Used no tape at all.
Click to expand...

Could you clarify "Magic" tape for me? Is it a brand?

I flew my CC Express several times as a single stage but held off on trying 2 stages because of the small field I had available. I finally located some C11-0s and decided to give the staged version a try. The sustainer failed to ignite and the lawn dart collision destoyed the rocket completely. (It found the one piece of limestone around). I remember taping the motors together but am sure I used masking tape. It never occured to me to use cellophane. If I try again, I'll use some but still don't know what Magic tape is.

Thanks,
 
JAL3 said:
Could you clarify "Magic" tape for me? Is it a brand?

I flew my CC Express several times as a single stage but held off on trying 2 stages because of the small field I had available. I finally located some C11-0s and decided to give the staged version a try. The sustainer failed to ignite and the lawn dart collision destoyed the rocket completely. (It found the one piece of limestone around). I remember taping the motors together but am sure I used masking tape. It never occured to me to use cellophane. If I try again, I'll use some but still don't know what Magic tape is.

Thanks,
Click to expand...

Masking tape would have taken a long time to melt/burn at the butt joint if the upper stage had ignited. It might have held onto the booster motor a bit too long (again, only if the upper stage had ignited), or burned away on one side and held a bit on the other and had a dangling booster for a split second or more.

"Magic Tape" is the 3M brand name for the translucent Mylar tape that does not destroy documents as it ages. It looks frosted but turns pretty clear when applied to an object. You can write on it with a ballpoint or other pen. It melts WAY fast and is not so good for taping together multi stage motors. You can use it, but it requires several wraps to hold the proper amount of time.

"Cellophane Tape" is common cheap tape. The kind that destroys documents with age as it turns a horrible yellow as it ages and the adhesive dries and cracks. it is great for short lived items like seaing gift wrap or multi-staging. You cannot write on it with a ballpoint pen. It is cheap, cheap, cheap. It actually holds staged motors together a tennsy weensie bit longer and even if you use two complete wraps it melts away at exactly the correct time: after upper stage ignition actually occurs. The tape and adhesive are strong enough that if the upper stage fails to ignite (because they are a tiny nozzled Estes B6 or C6 or C11 motor) the tape will remain intact and hold the motors and rocket together as they lawn dart. Big nozzles in the upper stage are the answer.

Did I mention that Quest motors have larger exposed propellant faces and with the MASSIVE extra smoke are PERFECT upper stage motors? :D
 
 
shreadvector said:
Masking tape would have taken a long time to melt/burn at the butt joint if the upper stage had ignited. It might have held onto the booster motor a bit too long (again, only if the upper stage had ignited), or burned away on one side and held a bit on the other and had a dangling booster for a split second or more.

"Magic Tape" is the 3M brand name for the translucent Mylar tape that does not destroy documents as it ages. It looks frosted but turns pretty clear when applied to an object. You can write on it with a ballpoint or other pen. It melts WAY fast and is not so good for taping together multi stage motors. You can use it, but it requires several wraps to hold the proper amount of time.

"Cellophane Tape" is common cheap tape. The kind that destroys documents with age as it turns a horrible yellow as it ages and the adhesive dries and cracks. it is great for short lived items like seaing gift wrap or multi-staging. You cannot write on it with a ballpoint pen. It is cheap, cheap, cheap. It actually holds staged motors together a tennsy weensie bit longer and even if you use two complete wraps it melts away at exactly the correct time: after upper stage ignition actually occurs. The tape and adhesive are strong enough that if the upper stage fails to ignite (because they are a tiny nozzled Estes B6 or C6 or C11 motor) the tape will remain intact and hold the motors and rocket together as they lawn dart. Big nozzles in the upper stage are the answer.

Did I mention that Quest motors have larger exposed propellant faces and with the MASSIVE extra smoke are PERFECT upper stage motors? :D
Click to expand...

Got it. It looks like taking out the regular old "Scotch Tape" is the thing to do. That helps.

I don't use Quest motors all that often but I have wondered if it is just my imagination that they are smokier. I guess they are.

Thanks
 
I don't use Quest motors all that often but I have wondered if it is just my imagination that they are smokier. I guess they are

In fact, I fired a Quest A6-4 for the first time two days ago in my Sprint clone and I found that it produces more smoke than an Estes A8.

I personally think the average American consumer with the failures did one of the following:

a) Used "magic" tape instead of cellophane tape.

or

b) Used no tape at all.

That may be so but I can confirm several top stage ignition failures even when taping the casings together "the right way." I experienced that on Sunday when my Beta clone lawndarted-the A10-0T (my last ever) failed to ignite the upper A3-4T despite an airtight cellophane seal. The Handbook of Model Rocketry claims a 99% success rate with this method but I've experienced more like 90% success.
 
JoeLaunchman said:
I don't use Quest motors all that often but I have wondered if it is just my imagination that they are smokier. I guess they are

In fact, I fired a Quest A6-4 for the first time two days ago in my Sprint clone and I found that it produces more smoke than an Estes A8.

I personally think the average American consumer with the failures did one of the following:

a) Used "magic" tape instead of cellophane tape.

or

b) Used no tape at all.

That may be so but I can confirm several top stage ignition failures even when taping the casings together "the right way." I experienced that on Sunday when my Beta clone lawndarted-the A10-0T (my last ever) failed to ignite the upper A3-4T despite an airtight cellophane seal. The Handbook of Model Rocketry claims a 99% success rate with this method but I've experienced more like 90% success.
Click to expand...


Mini motors (other than the A10) have even tinier nozzles than the B6/C6 motors. They OFTEN fail to stage. This became ultra bad during the years of the white powdery "Poopy Clay" which coated all surfaces and insulated the propellant from regular igniters as well as booster motor flaming bits.

Cleaning the exposed propellant face with a non-sparking tool like a toothpick or the straightened end of a paper clip can help.

By the way, the Handbook percentages were calculated (or guessed at) during the era of LARGE nozzled upper stage motors. There used to be B4-6 motors, B14-7 motors. Not any more. I suspect the average success rate is much lower now that Estes no longer makes a reliably safe upper stage motor. How irresponsible of them!
 
The C11/E9 nozzles aren't exactly tiny though. They probably expose more propellant than a B4/A8, don't they? Maybe I need to go take a look at some motors.
 
MarkH said:
The C11/E9 nozzles aren't exactly tiny though. They probably expose more propellant than a B4/A8, don't they? Maybe I need to go take a look at some motors.
Click to expand...


Yes, you are correct. Which is why either proper taping or lots of ventilation should greatly increase ignition reliability. I have staged the E9 and C11 in the upper stage and not had any failures. I have not used many of the C11-0 motors. They have more empty space/cold air inside them.

Mini motors are way too tiny for reliable ignition. It is greater than 50% when done properly.....
 
shreadvector said:
Thank you and the others doing this. I already reported one error in the combined list (My report is cut & pasted here for reference):
Click to expand...

If you waited until we had an answer for you I wouldn't have to cut and paste my reply in two different forums. Here it is:

Here's the story on the F21. Tripoli certified the motor in 2001 or 2002 (https://www.tripoli.org/tmt/new_motors/AT F21W jun 05.pdf) with an expiration of 6/30/05. The motor went out of production in 11/05 and it was never recertified so you'd think that it was no longer certified. But evidently that's not the way it works. Since Aerotech never told TMT that the motor was OOP they never issued a notice with a decertification date. They plan to do that soon. Until that happens they consider it certified so it's going back on the Combined Motor List.
 

Similar threads

V
Alternative to B14-0?
Replies
11
Views
1K
SolarYellow
SolarYellow
Maelstrom
For Sale Rockets & Parts For Sale
Replies
11
Views
2K
Maelstrom
Maelstrom
ljwilley
Apogee Nike Hercules Plan Build Thread
Replies
17
Views
634
RocketMan3D
R
Rocketclar
Suggestions for Student Builds
Replies
2
Views
284
GlenP
GlenP
caheaton
Tonight's crop of launches...
Replies
14
Views
908
techrat
techrat

Latest posts

Back
Top