New Park Flyer Series!!!

eggtimer rocketry
SilicdyneTRF
Wildman Rocketry
shop deals on amazon
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
grouch said:
This is a dumb as it gets. LOC is trying to bring new products to a market and people are getting hung up on the sales pitch. I personally plan to fly my IQSY on a stead diet of G37's and don't plan to do it in a small park. New and exciting rockets guys, nothing to get upset at.
Click to expand...

Dumb to you because you know better, and you prove my point once again. Not dumb for the newbie buying a MPR for the first time and planning to fly it at the neighborhood elementary school, because LOC said it will be OK.

These are near min-diameter rockets that can accept the top end of MPR motors and fly to great heights. LOC should be very clear when marketing and to cover their butts.
 
DavidMcCann said:
Well, you'd need 100' safe distance, thats easy enough. 1500' diameter is a bit harder, but not totally impossible. For me, I park fly a magg on G76's as about my max. The 3.3 pound limit really makes it hard to fly up to the 125g propellant limit around here.
Click to expand...

It's the field diameter that gets me around here. Rockets are not allowed in most parks around here anyway, which is separate issue.

My general opinion is I'm happy to see LOC coming out with new kits. Anyone that will misuse these will not know enough, or care enough not to misuse any kit.
 
Thanks for all the comments gang!! I apologize for the controversy. And while everyone debates the "park" side of the motor mount, take a look at the recovery. A 14" Heavy rip-stop chute brings them down in a hurry, and they're solid enough to handle it. So while some worry about the "pitch" based on motor size, I encourage those to take a look at the decent rates! I just flew one on an F-50 in windy conditions and landed it within 100' of the pad. That would equal "park" size in my opinion. We like motor diversity and options for all. I'm sorry to those who don't like the "title". The main focus was intended to be a solid, durable versatile rocket kit line.
 
Flyfalcons said:
No one says you have to put a 29mm H in them. But you can, and some of them are light enough to handle 24mm black powder to a few hundred feet. That's versatility.
Click to expand...

rharshberger said:
I will disagree that the description of park flyer is misleading. If a D or E black powder motor is used the could very easily be park flyers. As soon as a F motor is inserted that is different. These rockets are an excellent entry level rocket for those new to MPR and are an excellent replacement for the now gone PSII builders kits.
Click to expand...

LOC said:
Correct!! And read on further and an MMA1 will get you your 24mm mount if you desire to make it permanent or removable. They fly great on a D-12 to 250' "ish" that to me, is a ball diamond!
Click to expand...

Flyfalcons said:
.....and literally two sentences later, in the same announcement, the 24mm motor mount option is listed.
Click to expand...

noffie79 said:
Are people seriously taking issue with the title of this thread? There's nothing misleading at all. It's a park flyer. Shove a 24 in it and fly it all day at the ball park. I can't do that with my Expediter or my Demon. Lighten up people.
Click to expand...

Q-Aero said:
A legacy, 255 feet on a D-21, 30 mph of a 60" rail , look Park Flyer to me

View attachment 319337
Click to expand...

cerving said:
We fly stuff this size at our local "park" all the time (well, at least when they let us... twice a month). If you're flying out of a baseball field, yeah, that might be an issue, but if you have a dozen acres to work with it's all good.
Click to expand...

ECayemberg said:
Do I need to post a vid of these things to prove they may be flown and recovered in small spaces? D12s and even E9s are great in these...yes with the adapter. C11 was a bit low on the oomph factor but it worked...kinda!

Larger motor punishment up next!

Like a lot of rockets...stick a motor on the low end of the spektrum in a rocket and it will fly to a more modest altitude and recover in a smaller radius. Stick in a bigger motor and you need a larger flying site.

These are heavy duty critters with a lot of versatility. In park setting, D and E engines are practical and fun. If you have more space and are looking to reach for space, utilize the 29mm mount and stick a G or H in there and enjoy the whiplash!

All about preference and the field you're working with. To me, park flyer is a great description!

Eric
Click to expand...

grouch said:
This is a dumb as it gets. LOC is trying to bring new products to a market and people are getting hung up on the sales pitch. I personally plan to fly my IQSY on a stead diet of G37's and don't plan to do it in a small park. New and exciting rockets guys, nothing to get upset at.
Click to expand...

tHoagland said:
I don't care what you call these, I think that they are great. I know there are lot of rocket kits out there and I haven't studied them all but I think these rockets fill a void that will make transitioning from LPR to MPR easier for many people.

I bought some of these to build with 4/5th graders. I'm excited that for ~$45 (with motor adapter), the students can build a "big" rocket that they can still launch in town. I plan to launch these in the school's soccer field or the local park's soccer complex with D/E motors. This will allow the kids to fly the rocket and get excited about what they just built. If they want to put an F/G in it, I'll invite them and their parents to a club launch in the fall. The added bonus is that there is enough variety in the collection that someone could play for years; all without emptying the wallet.
Click to expand...

rstaff3 said:
It's the field diameter that gets me around here. Rockets are not allowed in most parks around here anyway, which is separate issue.

My general opinion is I'm happy to see LOC coming out with new kits. Anyone that will misuse these will not know enough, or care enough not to misuse any kit.
Click to expand...

For those of you scoring at home:

Posts seemingly critical of my position but are actually proving my point: 11
Posts proving me wrong with evidence: 0 (OK, maybe 1 from LOC)
 
Last edited:
Buckeye said:
For those of you scoring at home:

Posts seemingly critical of my position but are actually proving my point: 11
Posts proving me wrong with evidence: 0 (OK, maybe 1 from LOC)
Click to expand...

Maybe none of us really care, we accept Loc's marketing at face value as arguing about it really does no good, now go fly a rocket or something and release the pent up aggression. :)
 
This tread was very interesting before the peoples who probably will never purchase one, complain about the title.
 
Q-Aero said:
This tread was very interesting before the peoples who probably will never purchase one, complain about the title.
Click to expand...

I'm going to buy one, slap an av bay on it and stick an I200W in it. so :p

I think the discussion of what a park flier is, is absolutely valid. 38/29 rockets are more of an extreme altitude design than park flier, but hey it's a versatile design that can fly on E-I..... not a bad thing I'd say.
 
My Hyperloc will be best fit with 29mm , I want it a high end F and G flyer . I plan to purchase also an EZE, but I will glue a 24mm adaptor and stick a 24mm Estes mount at the end, to make it below 1500 feet. I will use a minimum of glue just at the end of the 29mm tube, so if I want to remove the 24mm adaptor, it should not be that hard.
 
I actually have some 24mm centering rings that I'll consider putting in. With AT coming out with new 24/60 loads soon might make for a fun and cheap flier. Or keep it 29 and run it on the single grain F37. Who knows what will happen. Cool thing is I am excited about rocketry again.
 
grouch said:
I actually have some 24mm centering rings that I'll consider putting in. With AT coming out with new 24/60 loads soon might make for a fun and cheap flier. Or keep it 29 and run it on the single grain F37. Who knows what will happen. Cool thing is I am excited about rocketry again.
Click to expand...

if you plan to use a 24mm motor tube with your 24mm center rings, the fins will not reach it
 
Buckeye said:
For those of you scoring at home:

Posts seemingly critical of my position but are actually proving my point: 11
Posts proving me wrong with evidence: 0 (OK, maybe 1 from LOC)
Click to expand...

I just posted my opinion and didn't intend to specifically critical of your position. Your posts don't prove me wrong either. But then, I didn't pay that much attention.
 
Q-Aero said:
if you plan to use a 24mm motor tube with your 24mm center rings, the fins will not reach it
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised what you can do with wood and cardboard rockets. I have a Madcow Squat with a 38mm hole, I just extended the fin roots.
 
OMG I cannot believe we are wringing our hands over this. PARK is a relative term. Some are BIG some are SMALL. We are rocket scientists after all so WE ought to be able to figure out which figgin' park is the right size. Quit giving LOC a hard time. This is a great addition to the rocket kit market.

Sheez.
 
rharshberger said:
Maybe none of us really care, we accept Loc's marketing at face value as arguing about it really does no good, now go fly a rocket or something and release the pent up aggression. :)
Click to expand...

rstaff3 said:
I just posted my opinion and didn't intend to specifically critical of your position. Your posts don't prove me wrong either. But then, I didn't pay that much attention.
Click to expand...

:wink:

Well, I just weed-wacked the yard. That counts.
 
DAllen said:
OMG I cannot believe we are wringing our hands over this. PARK is a relative term.
Click to expand...

LOC said:
They Are HERE!!!! We are excited to announce the release of our new "Park Flyer" series. Coming in at 1.62" diameter and sporting a 29mm motor tube, these kits are designed for the ball field, soccer field or any other tight area.
Click to expand...


They seem to have been fairly specific on the size......
 
DavidMcCann said:
They seem to have been fairly specific on the size......
Click to expand...

Again, another relative term was used..."tight."

And as far as I'm concerned, it's ultimately up to the flier to determine if the field and conditions are appropriate for a particular flight REGARDLESS of what the manufacturer says.

DAllen said:
OMG I cannot believe we are wringing our hands over this. PARK is a relative term. Some are BIG some are SMALL. We are rocket scientists after all so WE ought to be able to figure out which figgin' park is the right size. Quit giving LOC a hard time. This is a great addition to the rocket kit market.

Sheez.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you missed the bold part the first go-around.

-Dave
 
DAllen said:
Again, another relative term was used..."tight."
Click to expand...

When two specific examples are given, and then followed with "or any other tight space" it can very clearly be assumed they're referencing a similar space. I'm not knocking these rockets, they're great and i want one. But the presentation is a bit..optimistic. Its not huge deal, but blindly defending LOC is kind of silly. Im not saying they need to cancel it or change the name... but park flying is not the primary use for a 38mm rocket with a 29mm hole.... it's a secondary, modified use.

Up to the flier to judge of course. But come on. these are screamers....not park fliers. It's like calling a 75 mongoose an L1 cert rocket. sure, you can do it... but is that what it is?
 
These should fly really nice on Estes 29mm black powder motors - that they're light enough for higher end 24mm single-use motors is even better. I currently have little interest in HPR but the relative low cost and flexibility of these is very appealing. Couple of questions though: I don't see the lengths or which versions include decals stated on the LOC website ?
 
DavidMcCann said:
When two specific examples are given, and then followed with "or any other tight space" it can very clearly be assumed they're referencing a similar space. I'm not knocking these rockets, they're great and i want one. But the presentation is a bit..optimistic. Its not huge deal, but blindly defending LOC is kind of silly. Im not saying they need to cancel it or change the name... but park flying is not the primary use for a 38mm rocket with a 29mm hole.... it's a secondary, modified use.

Up to the flier to judge of course. But come on. these are screamers....not park fliers. It's like calling a 75 mongoose an L1 cert rocket. sure, you can do it... but is that what it is?
Click to expand...

Where am I BLINDLY defending them? I'm not. I'm putting the responsibility of determining field size right where it belongs, in the hands of the flier.

Notice that this document says absolutely nothing about manufacturer claims. It's all on the flier...where it should be.
 
LOC said:
Thanks!! It's great to be back!!! Build threads required with a purchase!!! :wink:
Click to expand...

Getting ready to pull the trigger on two...which two is still open for self-debate. Could you confirm the functional lengths of the payload bays for the Sandhawk and Tomahawk? I'm hoping for 4.5" min. for my tracker!

Cheers,
Michael
 
While y'all are bantering about semantics, some of us are having a blast by actually flying these things!

Have now flown these on C,D,E,F, and H motors. Skipped G for now...next time! All the way from an 8.8Ns C (not recommended necessarily...I build light!) to 250Ns H (heck yeah!). That's an 2,840% increase in impulse...LOL. I know an "I" will be tried in the next few weeks.

My one recommendation would be to beef up the shock cord if there is intent to go to the higher end of the spectrum of flight performance. 1/4" shock cord is fine for the smaller stuff, but when dealing with the extremes of H and above, a bit more robust may be helpful.

Whatever you call 'em, they're fun!

-Eric-
 
I bought a couple of mini missiles on sale from LOC before the move west - great little LPR flyers ! Heavier duty than Estes body tubes, nice thick balsa fin stock - built both with optional payload sections. Even at the current list price on the LOC website I think they're a good value.
 
Tomahawk payload = 9" and Sandhawk payload = 11".

iqsy59 said:
Getting ready to pull the trigger on two...which two is still open for self-debate. Could you confirm the functional lengths of the payload bays for the Sandhawk and Tomahawk? I'm hoping for 4.5" min. for my tracker!

Cheers,
Michael
Click to expand...
 
I did the G-138, I think you were flipping hot dogs! :wink:

ECayemberg said:
While y'all are bantering about semantics, some of us are having a blast by actually flying these things!

Have now flown these on C,D,E,F, and H motors. Skipped G for now...next time! All the way from an 8.8Ns C (not recommended necessarily...I build light!) to 250Ns H (heck yeah!). That's an 2,840% increase in impulse...LOL. I know an "I" will be tried in the next few weeks.

My one recommendation would be to beef up the shock cord if there is intent to go to the higher end of the spectrum of flight performance. 1/4" shock cord is fine for the smaller stuff, but when dealing with the extremes of H and above, a bit more robust may be helpful.

Whatever you call 'em, they're fun!

-Eric-
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

techrat
LOC "Park Flyer" Sandhawk Motor Retention
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Art Upton
Art Upton
mike2wander
3" Exocet F/S
Replies
5
Views
2K
Orien
O
jmasterj
(Very Slow) Demon 5 Build Thread
3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
7K
jmasterj
jmasterj
Scott_650
First launch at my new site
Replies
8
Views
1K
Scott_650
Scott_650
Sheree
New Kit Release - 1:100th Scale Little Joe II
Replies
4
Views
2K
Highpowerrocketyahoo
Highpowerrocketyahoo

Latest posts

Back
Top