Determinng Skill Levels and First Flight Motors on Various Manufacturer Kits

I am trying to determine appropriate skill levels and recommended "first flight" motor(s) on some kits I have of various former (?) manufacturers and old kits. I'm looking to obtain this information for youth members in our 4H program, which requires skill level specification and also proof of "first flight" recommended motor(s) for their selected projects. Thank you for any assistance you folks can provide. The ones I'm currently looking at are:

Semroc Kits:
1. Laser-X Space Probe (balsa nose cone & fins, BD: 1.340", L: 21.5", FS: 7.0", NW: 1.8 oz.), flies on A8-3, B6-4, C6-5
a. My thoughts: SL-2 or 3, FF B6-4
2. Hydra VII (7 motor cluster, multiple balsa nose cones and fins, multiple tubes, BD: 1.640", L: 30.5", FS: 6.9", NW: 5.2 oz), flies on C6-3 (1), C6-5 (3), C6-7 (7)
a. My thoughts: SL-3 or 4, FF C6-3
Vaughn Brothers Rocketry:
1. Extreme 24 (includes fiberglass fins, 7.5" payload section, altimeter mounting kit & 18mm motor adapter), flies on C6-5, D12-7, E15-7, G42-12
a. My thoughts: SL-??, FF: D12-7
2. Blobbo (includes fiberglass fins, plywood centering rings, TTW Fin attachments), flies on C6-3, D21-7
a. My thoughts: SL-2, FF C6-3
Rocket Vision/Rugged-Rockets:
1. MachBuster (includes fiberglass fins, phenolic tube, and requires 5-min and 20-min epoxy construction), files on Estes D12-7, AT E50-8, AT F72-10, AT G55-10 (AT = AeroTech)
This rocket was received in a donation box so an estimate cost value would be appreciated as well.
a. My thoughts: SL-4, FF D12-7, Cost $21

with Estes kits quite often the first flight motors are NOT the smallest/lowest impulse motor. the lowest impulse motors are just that, the lowest impulse that will get the rocket off the pad to a minimally safe ejection altitude...maybe. I would run what flight sims you can and reject as unsuitable any motor that doesn't get the rocket(s) over 150'.
Rex

Actually, these students are enrolled in "units," which are supposed to be equivalent to manufacturers' skill levels ... which they were 30 years ago, but no longer. Our state 4H requirements are: members must build rocket matching skill level to unit level (i.e. Unit 1 = SL-1, Unit 3 = SL-3, etc.) AND fly on the "recommended" first flight motor as listed per the manufacturer on the kit cover sheet (which rarely happens any more). I believe I can convince the state and judging officials that particular rockets which hasn't been rated by the manufacturer (SL/FF) would qualify as particular skill levels with the FF motor being "such and such," if I have written documented proof (either located online, an old catalog, or via a written statement from two or three NAR members and their NAR# validations). The kits I am inquiring about have not been selected by anyone at this time; but I would like to make them available to youth interested as I can offer them at a very good price (and they are good rockets for the kids to build, I think).
Thank you for your input!

4HRocketLeader said:

Actually, these students are enrolled in "units," which are supposed to be equivalent to manufacturers' skill levels ... which they were 30 years ago, but no longer. Our state 4H requirements are: members must build rocket matching skill level to unit level (i.e. Unit 1 = SL-1, Unit 3 = SL-3, etc.) AND fly on the "recommended" first flight motor as listed per the manufacturer on the kit cover sheet (which rarely happens any more). I believe I can convince the state and judging officials that particular rockets which hasn't been rated by the manufacturer (SL/FF) would qualify as particular skill levels with the FF motor being "such and such," if I have written documented proof (either located online, an old catalog, or via a written statement from two or three NAR members and their NAR# validations). The kits I am inquiring about have not been selected by anyone at this time; but I would like to make them available to youth interested as I can offer them at a very good price (and they are good rockets for the kids to build, I think).
Thank you for your input!

Click to expand...

Quick question-- what state is this if I may ask??

Sounds like it's time for the state committee or whomever is in charge of setting up these "units" and stuff to revisit their program structure-- it's rather antiquated for this time period and built on something that, as you said, isn't really done that way anymore.

Besides, how do you address kids that may be older, but are just coming into the program and thus are inexperienced?? Doesn't seem particularly smart to me to be sticking a kid with NO experience into a skill level three build just because that's where his age group happens to be?? Or am I missing something??

Again, having read your state's "unit guidelines" I REALLY think it's time to look at how other states are doing it and revise their structure a little to be more flexible and up to date with the way things are now...

Later and best of luck! OL JR

I would classify the Laser X as a SL 3 and the Hydra 7 is definitely a SL 4 kit. I would not fly the Hydra on a single C motor...

harsas said:

I would classify the Laser X as a SL 3 and the Hydra 7 is definitely a SL 4 kit. I would not fly the Hydra on a single C motor...

Click to expand...

I definitely wouldn't fly the Hydra VII on a single C motor either.

I did for the first flight of mine and it was almost it's last too. Went horizontal almost immediately and maxed out at maybe 100 feet, popped the chute out at about 50 feet off the ground and opened at maybe 25-30 feet. Just in time to allow for a safe landing.

Never again will I do that!!!

Since then I've flown it on 3, 4 and 5 C6 motor clusters. These worked out MUCH better.:wink:

Yep, I agree whole-heartedly, but unfortunately, I haven't been able to convince the state ... and I won't mention the state here, as that would really put me in a bad way with the hierarchy. All ages may take the lower units and younger kids may take more advance units depending on their skill level; plus, units are judged within three age levels: juniors (8-10), intermediates (11-13) and seniors (14-18), so there isn't an imbalance with regards to judging, i.e. juniors in Unit 1 are judged as a group, and intermediates are judged separately in their respective units, and so forth. It's a tough situation for those of us who really understand what is out there and what could be made available to the 4H'ers. I've been beating my head trying to get the State to recognize Team America Rocket Challenge (TARC) as an excellent 4H team program; they've allowed us to put together a team these last five years, and the kids who have/are involved have really gained a lot through the program, but to get the state to actively encourage other counties and clubs to participate in the program has been zilch! Our team has traveled to Finals in VA twice: their 1st year's placing was 56th and for a very young team that was excellent, and placing 18th last year was fantastic. They are striving to go to Finals again this year, but we graduated one member last year, so we're down to just three kids and two of them are seniors. Spouting off more, our graduated student is now pursuing a mechanical engineer major with a minor in aerospace engineering; and one of our current seniors has already been accepted into Embry-Riddle (?) in AZ to pursue aerospace engineering. Our other senior in looking into a similar program as the first graduated student and looking into language arts and administration studies. Plus, we've had another student follow us for ten years in the 4H rocketry program; he has since graduated from Embry and is now working as an engineer in rocket propulsion. So you can't say rocketry isn't important in youth studies -- it's STEM! Erg. ... Just venting some frustrations I have with the state 4H program.