1/72nd scale V2

madcow rocketry
SilicdyneTRF
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

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

ThreeJsDad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
659
Reaction score
256
Location
Greensboro, NC
I just finished up this one. It isn't a perfect scale model but it was still a lot of work for such a small rocket.

Photo on 2010-08-03 at 01.29.jpg
 
I am not familiar with this one, so please forgive all the questns

Is (was) this a kit? Manufacturer? Vendor?
Paper model? Vacuform?
13mm motor power? MMX?

The paint job in your picture looks pretty good. Any chance of a few more pix, maybe a little closer up?
 
PB, questions are cool. It was intended to be a scale paper model. I converted it to flight and it is set up with a MMX MMT. I printed it at 50%, put it together with some modes and then clear coated it. Lessgravity has it on his web sight and if you do a search for paper V2 it will come up. The original plans are for a 1/32nd scale so mine is actually a 1/64th scale version. It can be printed in either black and white or camo.

Paul
 
Last edited:
Paul:
While a very nice looking model, well done on the paper construction....It's still a paper rocket:( How well does it fly at that size? I have a few cardstock models in the fleet...but they don't see much daylight because they have to be protected in a special box to keep em from being crushed, bend or otherwise mashed by inquiring little hands....
For the life of me I can't see spending that much time building these easily smashed cardstock models. I've tried, I really have... I just don't get it about these cardstock models. I'm guessing it's gotta be the ease of getting printed cardstock over stocking tubes and balsa/basswood parts???

If your gonna spend that much time on a model why not spend a smaller portion turning the Basswood Nose and tail cones for a T4 .448" True Scale V2that well hold up and look better a lot longer then printed cardstock?
On a MMX-II is all but out of sight (over 100-120feet). Ya really need the streamer for recovery seeing it coming down.

Greg, Chris, someone explain this Cardstock-mania to me Please;)

MM 314a-sm_Eiffel Tower (90dpi)_06-01-06.jpg

MM 332a-sm_Micro Midnight Express on pad_05-26-07.jpg

MM 336a-sm_MM Alpha (BT-5 paper wrap)_09-01-07.jpg
 
Last edited:
Micromeister said:
Paul:
While a very nice looking model, well done on the paper construction....It's still a paper rocket:( How well does it fly at that size? I have a few cardstock models in the fleet...but they don't see much daylight because they have to be protected in a special box to keep em from being crushed, bend or otherwise mashed by inquiring little hands....
For the life of me I can't see spending that much time building these easily smashed cardstock models. I've tried, I really have... I just don't get it about these cardstock models. I'm guessing it's gotta be the ease of getting printed cardstock over stocking tubes and balsa/basswood parts???
Click to expand...

Printing a model from your printer can be very rewarding. Turning a flat sheet of paper into a working model is a special accomplishment. Paul and myself also do HPR which can be expensive. I like the idea of a cheap alternative for our MMX and some standard models. I still purchase kits and scratch build but really like the alternative.
I coat my paper MMX paper models in CA (Hodge Podge also works). They are very resilient and can withstand as much as a normal model. I launched the other day into very wet grass without worrying about anything. I have many paper models that have lasted as long as any other model I have. I had 50+ flights on a Midnight Express.
 
I have to go with Wayne on this one. I sprayed this one with a clear glaze and it is really quite robust. I do indeed have a lathe and could even make a molded composite MMX V2 but this was quite satisfying. It was actually much more challenging than many other methods of construction and that was some of the appeal.

As Wayne and others can attest I am a VERY good scratch builder but in this case the whole idea of turning some flat card stock that I ran through my printer into a very accurate scale model was very enjoyable.

I have three kids and they range in ages from 8-13 and they know very well how to handle Dad's small models. This V2 may actually be more robust than some of my other MMX rockets.

Just my humble opinion as the guy who built it.

Paul
 
"I'm guessing it's gotta be the ease of getting printed cardstock over stocking tubes and balsa/basswood parts??? "

You hit it right on the head Micro.
You can print off a model in minutes, have it built in less than a day and end up with a great looking rocket for a few cents. And if it gets stepped on or lost you aren't out a $2 BT, a $4 NC, balsa etc...

Also, as Paul and Wayne said, it is very satisfying to turn sheets of paper into flying machines.

*ghostly voice*
Join us Micro..
Join us...
*/ghostly voice*
 
Micromeister said:
For the life of me I can't see spending that much time building these easily smashed cardstock models. I've tried, I really have... I just don't get it
QUOTE]


"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" Quote from the Great and Powerful OZ
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Pem Tech said:
"I'm guessing it's gotta be the ease of getting printed cardstock over stocking tubes and balsa/basswood parts??? "

You hit it right on the head Micro.
You can print off a model in minutes, have it built in less than a day and end up with a great looking rocket for a few cents. And if it gets stepped on or lost you aren't out a $2 BT, a $4 NC, balsa etc...

Also, as Paul and Wayne said, it is very satisfying to turn sheets of paper into flying machines.

*ghostly voice*
Join us Micro..
Join us...
*/ghostly voice*
Click to expand...

I hear ya Pem!
I do use a good bit of Cardstock...just not for the whole model LOL!! Guess I like keeping them smaller for better flights. plus I've never been satisfied with the finished look even after magic markering the piece edges. Again it's one of those individual things.

I have a Few cardstock and paper models that worked out OK like the Iris (Black & White) and a downscaled 1/96th Regulus-1 (Blue) that seem to look OK after constuction but I have tons of kids going through my micor boxes at launches all the time. If the models aren't pretty well "crush proof" they don't last long, My midnight express lasted two launch weekends (4 great flights) crushed by one of the visiting kids excited by the purple/yellow colors:( Guess if I didn't have the box stuffed with over 100 models they wouldn't be digging so deep LOL!!! I'll keep an open mind on the cardstock building but probly stick for the most part to standard construction & finishing materials.

What is it with you Brady.... some SmartA** comment just to see yourself type? If you don't have something constructive to contribute to the conversation why not go lurk somewhere else.

335a1-sm_MM Iris NASA 44.7046 Scale_09-01-07.jpg
 
Last edited:
lessgravity said:
Printing a model from your printer can be very rewarding. Turning a flat sheet of paper into a working model is a special accomplishment. I like the idea of a cheap alternative for our MMX and some standard models. I still purchase kits and scratch build but really like the alternative.
Click to expand...

Ditto to what Wayne wrote. I couldn't have said it better.

Micro - I have to be honest. When I first saw your posts of all the rocketry in miniature, I couldn't see myself doing it.
After building a few and adapting my own twists in cardstock construction, I'm enjoying smaller builds.

Now I'm doing my own downsized "classics". It's a great excuse to figure out Corel Draw and build and fly in a small schoolyard between monthly NAR section launches.
And, they don't take up any room in storage!

I've had best luck with body tube wraps using 110 lb. cardstock. If I stay in BT-20 sizes and smaller, they are plenty strong. Others use 67 lb. cardstock.
My fins are a triple ply - 110 lb, cereal box cardboard and 110 lb. cardstock. They are almost 1/16" thick and stronger than balsa.

To anyone who might dismiss cardstock models as not being worthwhile, try building Bob Harrington's Orbital Transport. I got as much a kick out of building and flying it as I did the full size version. The orbiter does glide!

I wouldn't call it "Cardstock Mania", it's yet another challenging extension of the hobby.
 
Last edited:
hcmbanjo said:
To anyone who might dismiss cardstock models as not being worthwhile, try building Bob Harrington's Orbital Transport. I got as much a kick out of building and flying it as I did the full size version. The orbiter does glide!
Click to expand...

Link to the Orbital Transport please? I'm willing to sacrifice a couple of reams of paper and quite a bit of sanity.
________
Honda Wiki history
 
Last edited:
You Bet!

https://rocketry.wordpress.com/ultimate-paper-rocket-guide/paper-rocket-partial-builds/

This is from Wayne's (Less Gravity) Rocketry Blog.
He's probably got the most comprehensive listing of carded rocket links out there.
Scroll down about half way, look at the pictures until you find the O.T. or something else you'd like. There is a lot to choose from.
Bob Harrington's Micro Bertha and Sentinal are personal favorites. Both fly well on both MMX or 13 mm engines.

Let us know how the build goes!
 
Last edited:
I can think of several features of card stock models.
  • The challenge of building something from a flat sheet of paper (along the lines of the challenges of clustering, for example)
  • Printing your paint scheme vrs masking and painting. 'nuf said :)
  • Don't have any wood to fill
  • Custom diameter body tubes are a breeze with card stock. Not so much with spiral wound unless you need about 5000 of'em

I'm sure there are more, but that's a start :) I don't do a lot of card stock models either, but I do appreciate some of the features of them. I am also amazed with the level of detail and complexity that can be arrived at with card stock. One only has to look at some of what Bob Harrington (CMASS) does with the stuff :)
 
Hi Jim, on a different note...I don't know if you remember when I was flying a 7' TOG or not but I have a couple more wild Upscales in the works. I do need to build another HPR Tog to fly side by side with my Micro Tog I got from you.

Guys, lets not forget Jim and what he is doing for us. The card stock stuff is fun but his kits for MMX are incredible !!! Wayne and I have a handful of them and they all fly great !! I need some more but I have to wait for my wife to give me my allowance....:clap::clap::clap:
 
Well Yeh paul! That's what i've been getting at.

Paper/cardstock may be fun... but standard material micro construction holds it's look and performance. All the skills learned on paper models sure help in the detailing of standard build models...making both better over the long haul.
 
I did not say one was better than the other !!!! I love my paper rockets and in reality they hold up just as well as any kit. Well maybe not my composite stuff but they are more than adequate for normal flying.

Paul
 
I got to fly this little gem tonight and man does it fly nice !!! I was very pleased, flew dead straight and to a nice height. This is sure to be one of my must launch rockets when I fly.

Paul
 

Similar threads

B
Odd Diameter Tubes
Replies
5
Views
296
ljwilley
ljwilley
D
For Sale Alway Rockets ARCAS scale model
Replies
1
Views
567
DWolman
D
Switch
Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 scale model
Replies
2
Views
503
Switch
Switch
ep29030
New Decals Mean Some MMX kit Possibilities
Replies
2
Views
145
BEC
BEC
Jeff Curtis
Loc's Marvin's Wild Ride
Replies
12
Views
576
cwbullet
cwbullet

Latest posts

Back
Top