Help Support RocketryForum by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 39
  1. #1
    Join Date
    30th April 2012
    Location
    St. Louis, MO.
    Posts
    676

    Madcow Adventurer 2.2"

    Did anyone score the Adventurer?

    Looking forward to this build. It may become minimum diameter since it has TTW... I will probably try the TTW minimum diameter method.

    We'll see how well the thin wall tube holds up!

    -Mike

    Mike Walsh
    NAR L3 - 07/27/2013

  2. #2
    Join Date
    7th July 2006
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,075
    Got one. And that is exactly what I was thinking too.

    Mike
    NAR #86177
    TRA #16435
    L1 with Loc Precision H76 Vulcanite on H73J (2,109') 7/23/06
    L2 with Binder Design Velociraptor on K695R (6,171' @ 716mph) 9/20/15
    L3 with Polecat Aerospace 10" Nike Smoke on M2500T (6,468' @ 556mph) 11/26/16 (RIP 5/26/17 :cry:)

    Current Projects:
    Waive Goodbye (design around 18k waiver)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    29th May 2015
    Posts
    133
    Get one and also order the vinyl set,

  4. #4
    Join Date
    30th April 2012
    Location
    St. Louis, MO.
    Posts
    676
    .....aaaand they're sold out.
    Mike Walsh
    NAR L3 - 07/27/2013

  5. #5
    Join Date
    24th October 2012
    Location
    Goodyear, AZ
    Posts
    419
    Ordered one and then after reading this thread went back and ordered the decal
    My Wizard grew up to be a Starburst!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    6th September 2009
    Posts
    1,761
    Quote Originally Posted by mrwalsh85 View Post

    I will probably try the TTW minimum diameter method.
    Please elaborate. Link?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    6th September 2009
    Posts
    1,761
    Quote Originally Posted by mrwalsh85 View Post
    I will probably try the TTW minimum diameter method.
    Bumping my question.

    Is this the method where you trim down the fin tabs, wrap a motor case with wax paper, insert into body tube, tack on the fins, then remove said wrapped motor case? Do the fins seem as solid as a surface mount MD build?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    30th April 2012
    Location
    St. Louis, MO.
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
    Bumping my question.

    Is this the method where you trim down the fin tabs, wrap a motor case with wax paper, insert into body tube, tack on the fins, then remove said wrapped motor case? Do the fins seem as solid as a surface mount MD build?
    https://forum.ausrocketry.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4758

    this is the build/method I am referring to.
    Mike Walsh
    NAR L3 - 07/27/2013

  9. #9
    Join Date
    6th September 2009
    Posts
    1,761
    My kit arrived. Looks good, mostly, but I gotta say I am a little disappointed in some of the workmanship:

    • The kit was not packaged in a bag. All the parts or group of parts were just loose in the shipping box. This kit seemed small enough to bag up, but I can understand the packaging shortcut given the sale price.
    • One part was missing. MC notified and they will send a replacement.
    • The fins tabs are about 3/16" too long and protrude above the BT. I wonder if these fins were cut for thickwall body tubes by mistake. This can be sanded and/or covered in the epoxy fillet, but still.
    • Each bulkhead and centering ring have noticeably different thicknesses. I thought maybe this was by design, but the instructions gave no indication.

    These are not show stoppers, of course, and the build will continue. The sloppiness is unusual for MC, and the miscues seem avoidable. This is my 2nd FG purchase. Maybe this is typical of the tolerances?

    OK, flame on. "Stop whining and suck it up, Buckeye. You got a screaming deal on a cool FG kit." "Every kit requires some sanding to fit, so don't get all butt hurt." And so on........

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mc3.png 
Views:	98 
Size:	396.0 KB 
ID:	334854Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mc2.png 
Views:	93 
Size:	373.1 KB 
ID:	334855Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mc1.jpg 
Views:	130 
Size:	92.4 KB 
ID:	334856

  10. #10
    Join Date
    31st May 2017
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    209
    Excited to see this kit. I like the size for potent lvl 1 motors.
    TRA #17256
    Tripoli Houston
    L1 - 7/8/17

  11. #11
    Join Date
    30th April 2012
    Location
    St. Louis, MO.
    Posts
    676
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
    My kit arrived. Looks good, mostly, but I gotta say I am a little disappointed in some of the workmanship:[*]One part was missing. MC notified and they will send a replacement.
    Av Bay Body Tube Spacer?
    Mike Walsh
    NAR L3 - 07/27/2013

  12. #12
    Join Date
    6th September 2009
    Posts
    1,761
    Quote Originally Posted by mrwalsh85 View Post
    Av Bay Body Tube Spacer?
    Yep. AKA "switch band."

    I could cut one off the BT myself, but looks like the BT was already cut from 33" to 32" and the 1" band went missing.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Savannnah, Ga
    Posts
    7,917
    I've had several fin tabs a bit long over the years, no worries, fillet will cover them .
    Jim Hendricksen
    L-3 Tripoli 9693
    [ICBM, Orangeburg,SC R.I.P.] - QCRS ,Princeton ILL - MDRA , Price Maryland - Woosh, Bong Wisconsin- ROCC, Charlotte NC , ICBM Camden SC
    "Made" member of Chicago & Carolina Rocket Mafia
    Rocketry...........an exact science.......but not exactly !!!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
    These are not show stoppers, of course, and the build will continue. The sloppiness is unusual for MC, and the miscues seem avoidable. This is my 2nd FG purchase. Maybe this is typical of the tolerances?

    OK, flame on. "Stop whining and suck it up, Buckeye. You got a screaming deal on a cool FG kit." "Every kit requires some sanding to fit, so don't get all butt hurt." And so on........
    i believe the phrase is “classic Curtis”
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  15. #15
    Join Date
    6th September 2009
    Posts
    1,761
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
    i believe the phrase is “classic Curtis”
    Hmm, I see. This kit does show up on the legacy RW page, not a Madcow original.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    17th January 2011
    Location
    Spring Green WI
    Posts
    2,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
    Hmm, I see. This kit does show up on the legacy RW page, not a Madcow original.
    Mad Cow has had plans all along to bring back more kits from the old RW line up. From what I hear there are more to come.
    TRA 2225
    TWA
    QCRS
    WOOSH

  17. #17
    Join Date
    14th September 2014
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    360
    I got one a couple weeks back... Minimum diameter you say. Yep, the CTI case slips right in there. Hummmmmm. Maybe I could setup for minimum diameter and then use adapters to launch 38mm when I felt like it. I have wanted to learn about the Aero Pac minimum diameter parts. I guess here's my chance. Early Rocksim models shows it is still overstable with a CTI 4gr 54 loaded... Trouble is I'll have to find sites with a 14K'+ waiver for THAT config. This will be a good trainer for my Mac Performance Rain Maker CF minimum diameter build later. OK, convinced.
    Randy Kennedy

    L1 - Scott's Special 1 (Vlad the Impaler), CTI I345, fall 2014 (R.I.P. Apr 2015)
    L2 - Mad Dog DD (Aftershock), CTI J449, spring 2015
    L3 - 8" Fiberglass DX3 XL (Crowd Pleaser), CTI M1890, June 3 2017 (it's baaaack!)

  18. #18
    Join Date
    6th September 2009
    Posts
    1,761
    Quote Originally Posted by jrkennnedy2 View Post
    Minimum diameter you say.
    I say no. The fins are too thin and the structure has been compromised with the fin slots. Maybe if you fiberglass you can get away with it, but I don't plan on doing that. This will just be a sturdy, through the wall, sport flyer replacement to my cardboard 2.2" rocket. I am sure somebody will chime in and say they successfully converted this kit to minimum diameter, but I am cautious.

    This is why true minimum diameter kits (Wildman Blackhawk) come with beefy fins for solid surface mounting and no extra reinforcement needed.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    14th September 2014
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    360
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
    I say no. The fins are too thin and the structure has been compromised with the fin slots. Maybe if you fiberglass you can get away with it, but I don't plan on doing that. This will just be a sturdy, through the wall, sport flyer replacement to my cardboard 2.2" rocket. I am sure somebody will chime in and say they successfully converted this kit to minimum diameter, but I am cautious.

    This is why true minimum diameter kits (Wildman Blackhawk) come with beefy fins for solid surface mounting and no extra reinforcement needed.
    I think you might be right. Certainly won't be running any VMAX loads. Maybe a Pro54 1211J140-P, longburn might not rip the fins right off? It will be interesting for sure!
    Randy Kennedy

    L1 - Scott's Special 1 (Vlad the Impaler), CTI I345, fall 2014 (R.I.P. Apr 2015)
    L2 - Mad Dog DD (Aftershock), CTI J449, spring 2015
    L3 - 8" Fiberglass DX3 XL (Crowd Pleaser), CTI M1890, June 3 2017 (it's baaaack!)

  20. #20
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Location
    Butte, MT
    Posts
    2,553
    The Kestrel kit of a few years ago was a “true minimum diameter kit” that had a slotted body tube and flew just fine on motors up to and including long 54mm L motors. Tip to tip reinforcement was advised. Tony (TFish38) on YouTube put together a terrific video showing the tip to tip video for that rocket.
    As far as long burn vs VMax, I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that passing through the subsonic to supersonic transition more slowly would be damaging than getting through it quickly. Worst would be to stay at that speed where fin vibration is maintained.


    Steve Shannon
    Steve Shannon
    L3CC, TAP, Director, Tripoli Rocketry Association

  21. #21
    Join Date
    3rd December 2017
    Posts
    4

    Madcow Adventurer 2.2"

    My kit arrived
    No bag, no instructions. The fins don't fit into the slots. MC recommended I sand the slots. With the amount of material that needs to be removed to make the fins fit, I would need a router and a jig to keep things straight. I'm not set up for that.
    I also ordered three other kits from MC: small FG V2, cardboard Jayhawk, and the Nike Apache. The fins for the V2 are tight but the fit will be easily adjusted with minor sanding. I'm waiting to receive the Apache to see if those fins fit. I may send back the tubes to get the slots cut to the right width. It is way less effort when the fins fit into the pre-slotted tubes.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    1st July 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    2,957
    Quote Originally Posted by glider View Post
    My kit arrived
    No bag, no instructions. The fins don't fit into the slots. MC recommended I sand the slots. With the amount of material that needs to be removed to make the fins fit, I would need a router and a jig to keep things straight. I'm not set up for that.
    I also ordered three other kits from MC: small FG V2, cardboard Jayhawk, and the Nike Apache. The fins for the V2 are tight but the fit will be easily adjusted with minor sanding. I'm waiting to receive the Apache to see if those fins fit. I may send back the tubes to get the slots cut to the right width. It is way less effort when the fins fit into the pre-slotted tubes.
    I had this issue with many FG kits (different manufacturers). I use a needle file to fit into the slot and slowly widen it. If off by a 1/16" it takes a while, but otherwise easier than I expected. Overall the tolerances have gotten better since the first years.

    All BF/BS FG kits I received with the exception of minis from MadCow were not bagged. Pretty much OEM kits. Not ideal, but worth the discount (at least to me) when you buy a bunch of stuff.
    Kevin Wuchevich
    Tripoli Pittsburgh
    TRA 12238

  23. #23
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Location
    Butte, MT
    Posts
    2,553
    Quote Originally Posted by glider View Post
    My kit arrived
    No bag, no instructions. The fins don't fit into the slots. MC recommended I sand the slots. With the amount of material that needs to be removed to make the fins fit, I would need a router and a jig to keep things straight. I'm not set up for that.
    I also ordered three other kits from MC: small FG V2, cardboard Jayhawk, and the Nike Apache. The fins for the V2 are tight but the fit will be easily adjusted with minor sanding. I'm waiting to receive the Apache to see if those fins fit. I may send back the tubes to get the slots cut to the right width. It is way less effort when the fins fit into the pre-slotted tubes.
    When this happens, and it’s really not unusual, I just draw file one side of the slot. By draw filing I mean you slip the file into the slot, hold it perpendicular to the body tube, and slide it lengthwise along the edge you’re opening up. Only work on one side, and the same side on all slots in order to maintain the same angles between fins.


    Steve Shannon
    Steve Shannon
    L3CC, TAP, Director, Tripoli Rocketry Association

  24. #24
    Join Date
    6th September 2009
    Posts
    1,761
    Quote Originally Posted by glider View Post
    My kit arrived
    No bag, no instructions. The fins don't fit into the slots. MC recommended I sand the slots. With the amount of material that needs to be removed to make the fins fit, I would need a router and a jig to keep things straight. I'm not set up for that..
    Ouch. My fin slots were not that bad. I just needed some minor sanding/filing.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,345
    I usually sand the fin tabs fairly aggressively before test fitting them. I number each slot and fit, and work until they just fit with a light tap of a mallet
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  26. #26
    Join Date
    6th September 2009
    Posts
    1,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Shannon View Post
    The Kestrel kit of a few years ago was a “true minimum diameter kit” that had a slotted body tube and flew just fine on motors up to and including long 54mm L motors. Tip to tip reinforcement was advised. Tony (TFish38) on YouTube put together a terrific video showing the tip to tip video for that rocket.
    As far as long burn vs VMax, I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that passing through the subsonic to supersonic transition more slowly would be damaging than getting through it quickly. Worst would be to stay at that speed where fin vibration is maintained.


    Steve Shannon
    Interesting. I wonder at what point a fin slot is preferred over no fin slot for MD?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    17th January 2011
    Location
    Spring Green WI
    Posts
    2,792
    2-3 passes per slot with a Dermal will all you will need fro fins to fit perfect.
    TRA 2225
    TWA
    QCRS
    WOOSH

  28. #28
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Savannnah, Ga
    Posts
    7,917
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
    Interesting. I wonder at what point a fin slot is preferred over no fin slot for MD?
    Based on my experience, 75mm & up, you do NOT want a slot.
    Airframe structural integrity more important.
    54mm & below [with the exception of extreme motors like the Loki M or 38mm L] not that significant.
    I don't want any slots in any size.
    I am also guilty of modifying slotted kits to minimum, but either replace fins with carbon plate [same thickness as stock or thicker stock G-10]

    More importantly I don't want thin wall tubing in 75mm & larger!
    So far smaller rockets have held up with thin wall.
    Column bending becomes the airframe issue.

    When designing a minimum diameter, usually built around largest motor being flown.
    I would suspect those doing this would be knowledgeable enough to know proper parameters.
    Issues abound when less experienced jump on the band wagon, and try modifying kits slotted for MM and going Minimum with thin fins, not up to stresses involved.

    ''Can you say...deconstruct before motor burnout"
    Simply replacing fins, with proper fin stock usually alleviates problem or tip-tip to strengthen.

    As usual when it comes to Xtreme projects, there is no simple one answer fits all.
    Simulations are your best friend! [before building LOL]
    Jim Hendricksen
    L-3 Tripoli 9693
    [ICBM, Orangeburg,SC R.I.P.] - QCRS ,Princeton ILL - MDRA , Price Maryland - Woosh, Bong Wisconsin- ROCC, Charlotte NC , ICBM Camden SC
    "Made" member of Chicago & Carolina Rocket Mafia
    Rocketry...........an exact science.......but not exactly !!!

  29. #29
    Join Date
    6th September 2009
    Posts
    1,761
    I am using this kit to experiment with some new techniques (for me). First up is fin beveling via mechanical means. These fins are thin enough that beveling hardly seems necessary, but I did it anyway. I made a John Coker-style jig to fit my cheap disc sander. The bevel is a modest 10 degrees. One must be careful, as your fingers are very near the moving parts (I sanded my finger tip - ouch!).

    The bevels are just OK, not great. Feeding the fins through the jig was a little herky-jerky while I re-positioned my fingers as I went. I had to touch up the bevels with a Dremel.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20171230_175154.jpg 
Views:	108 
Size:	120.4 KB 
ID:	335206Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20171230_175058.jpg 
Views:	94 
Size:	106.0 KB 
ID:	335207

  30. #30
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Toney, Alabama
    Posts
    3,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
    Hmm, I see. This kit does show up on the legacy RW page, not a Madcow original.
    The original Adventurer3 from Rocketry Warehouse was 3" with a 54mm. I have one in my build pile. Picked it up on one of the Hump Day Happy Hour specials for $149.99 if memory serves.

    Original "Hump Day Happy Hour" thread: http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthr...ght=adventurer

    The Rocket was originally designed by the wife of the Rocketry Warehouse owner, just before her passing...

    I am looking forward to following along with your build, as it may give me inspiration to get mine going.

    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster, and if you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    TRA# 08705 L3

    www.dragonworksrocketry.com

    DragonWorks Rocketry YouTube Channel

Similar Threads

  1. Madcow "Level-2" Build, 4" Fiberglass Airframe w/54mm Motor
    By kevinkal in forum High Power Rocketry (HPR)
    Replies: 231
    Last Post: 27th November 2017, 06:54 PM
  2. MC/RW Adventurer 3
    By DeltaFuturistics in forum High Power Rocketry (HPR)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 16th May 2017, 07:12 PM
  3. MadCow DX3 8" Level 3 Build. "OverKill"
    By Mustang67 in forum High Power Rocketry (HPR)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 18th December 2016, 10:49 PM
  4. [For Sale] Madcow 4" Fiberglass V2 and 4" Madcow Phoenix
    By Rocket-Top in forum Yard Sale / Wanted
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 23rd February 2016, 08:25 PM
  5. Rocketry Warehouse's Adventurer 3 Nose Cone
    By majordude in forum High Power Rocketry (HPR)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 22nd December 2015, 06:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •