Estes E12 now available

Wildman Rocketry
shop deals on amazon
the rocketry show
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It's not quack science, it's the vernacular of a select population of people. Science has nothing to with it other than the science of linguistics.

Your pdf is an opinion piece that places heavy emphasis on the idea that rockets do not take-off. What is the meaning of take-off? From the dictionary, 1. the act of rising in flight. Used of an aircraft or a rocket. From the thesaurus, take-off is a synonym for liftoff, blast-off, rocket ignition, departure, rising, accension etc.

Yes CATO is a contrived bacronym but many of the best acronyms are, especially in the field of amateur rocketry, we love our acronyms.

Like it or not CATO as an acronym has entered the American lexicon, it is fact, to rail against it is illogical. One thing is certain, from one KIA to another, continuing to get in peoples faces over the use of CATO will get you nominated for an AHOYA.
 
Last edited:
So, lets all embrace ignorance and promote the use of the term "burnout" when we are talking about a "misfire".

After all, it was good enough for Han Solo.
 
To try to get this back on track...I am sorry to hear that there are some that have had problems with the new E12's. I have three that I haven't had a chance to fly yet.
If you have or do have a problem (not going to use the "c" word) with any motor, contact the manufacturer with the information , fill out an NAR MESS form at nar.org. (MESS stands for Malfunctioning Engine Statistical Servey and I was the first NAR Chair for it back in 1971 or so. It was a way to alert of possible motor problems in design or batch. Do not fly MPC B3-5m Mini-jets dated 26 Jul 73....),
but most of all, please post the motor type and any batch information or manufacture date for the rest of us so that we can be aware that we might have some of the same motors. Might save an embarrassing launch failure in front of landowners or officials you are trying to impress.
See the other thread currently posting on NAR S&T motor testing.

Chas
 
JPVegh said:
It's not quack science, it's the vernacular of a select population of people. Science has nothing to with it other than the science of linguistics.

Your pdf is an opinion piece that places heavy emphasis on the idea that rockets do not take-off. What is the meaning of take-off? From the dictionary, 1. the act of rising in flight. Used of an aircraft or a rocket. From the thesaurus, take-off is a synonym for liftoff, blast-off, rocket ignition, departure, rising, accension etc.

Yes CATO is a contrived bacronym but many of the best acronyms are, especially in the field of amateur rocketry, we love our acronyms.

Like it or not CATO as an acronym has entered the American lexicon, it is fact, to rail against it is illogical. One thing is certain, from one KIA to another, continuing to get in peoples faces over the use of CATO will get you nominated for an AHOYA.
Click to expand...

And there has been precedent in the aviation industry for the same kind of transitions of terms and acronyms.

A prime example...FOD.

The original term was used in military safety circles for Foreign Object Damage. It was a concise term...perfect for things like jet engines sucking up a bird.

However, it started to be used as slang to describe the actual material or object that caused the damage..."That bolt is a piece of FOD". The term started to be explained as Foreign Object Debris so that any sentence using FOD would make sense. Even though that wasn't its original incarnation.

However, the slang became so widespread, that even agencies like the FAA and ICAO have embraced the new definition as the standard. "FOD Damage" is now considered a correct term. Although for shorthand, most people just say the mechanism was 'fodded'.

So, even in an industry considered to be just as rigorous in terminology, there is room for flexibility of terms.

And just to talk about the E12s, I don't think you will see them at HL until corporate makes it so...I get the feeling that local HLs don't have a bunch of flexibility as to what they stock on the shelves.

FC
 
Actually, the USAF has been trying to get people to call the objects "FO" and we went through that quite a bit in the last couple of years when something is found and there is a big stand-down with re-education sessions.

It does make the term "FOD walk" turn into "FO walk".

Of course, George Carlin got the FAA to change the incredibly stupid term "near miss" into "near collision". He was still using it in his act when I saw him a year or two after the official FAA terminology change.

NASA seems to understand the difference between FO and FOD. But they do not need to create comic-book style training guides like some DoD branches do.

https://lms.larc.nasa.gov/admin/public_docs/LPR_5310-1.pdf




FastCargo said:
And there has been precedent in the aviation industry for the same kind of transitions of terms and acronyms.

A prime example...FOD.

The original term was used in military safety circles for Foreign Object Damage. It was a concise term...perfect for things like jet engines sucking up a bird.

However, it started to be used as slang to describe the actual material or object that caused the damage..."That bolt is a piece of FOD". The term started to be explained as Foreign Object Debris so that any sentence using FOD would make sense. Even though that wasn't its original incarnation.

However, the slang became so widespread, that even agencies like the FAA and ICAO have embraced the new definition as the standard. "FOD Damage" is now considered a correct term. Although for shorthand, most people just say the mechanism was 'fodded'.

So, even in an industry considered to be just as rigorous in terminology, there is room for flexibility of terms.

And just to talk about the E12s, I don't think you will see them at HL until corporate makes it so...I get the feeling that local HLs don't have a bunch of flexibility as to what they stock on the shelves.

FC
Click to expand...
 
'Near miss' is not incredibly stupid, it's closer than a 'far miss' would be. I guess it originated from shortening "Near, but missed" or something.
 
cerving said:
I thought the F100 was AP...? I remember hearing that their main issue was the paper-composite casing blowing through, but it was a long long time ago so I may very well be wrong.

As it was argued in the BATF hearings, BP burns by deflagration and AP simply burns fast, once you heat them up and get them pressurized. That's why they can be a pain to ignites sometimes, I have never gotten a First-Fire igniter to work with the Aerotech E20 single-use engines. An F100 would be an HP engine nowadays, since it's over 80 Ns.
Click to expand...

F100 was a BP motor. About the biggest motor you can probably reliably make using BP and have any level of reliability. BP motor designs don't scale well. The larger the motor, the more apt it is to go "boom" or have bad things happen.

Later! OL JR :)
 
Take a deep breath, scoot back from the table, no one will harm you.
 
Never trust anybody who wants to take your greenbacks away and make you carry around a roll of stupid dollar coins instead... no matter HOW MANY PEOPLE HATE THE D@MN THINGS!!!!

Later! OL JR :)

PS> LOL:) hehehehe. Lighten up people, GEESH!!!! :)
 
shreadvector said:
Actually, the USAF has been trying to get people to call the objects "FO" and we went through that quite a bit in the last couple of years when something is found and there is a big stand-down with re-education sessions.

It does make the term "FOD walk" turn into "FO walk".

Of course, George Carlin got the FAA to change the incredibly stupid term "near miss" into "near collision". He was still using it in his act when I saw him a year or two after the official FAA terminology change.

NASA seems to understand the difference between FO and FOD. But they do not need to create comic-book style training guides like some DoD branches do.

https://lms.larc.nasa.gov/admin/public_docs/LPR_5310-1.pdf
Click to expand...

But in practice, among the jet jocks and knuckle busters, very few use the term FO. Most use the term FOD. Considering those are the people most directly responsible and affected, I would lean toward their use of the term.

We'll have to agree to disagree...and I won't stray from the original topic in this thread again. Please feel free
to have the last word. :)


FC
 
We need to go to a silver based coin and gold for the other bills. It may only have a drop of gold in a $5 but at least it is gold. The paper is worthless.
 
luke strawwalker said:
F100 was a BP motor. About the biggest motor you can probably reliably make using BP and have any level of reliability. BP motor designs don't scale well. The larger the motor, the more apt it is to go "boom" or have bad things happen.

Later! OL JR :)
Click to expand...

Wow, I learn new things every day! Maybe they should have called it a "M80" cuz that's about what it was!
 
luke strawwalker said:
F100 was a BP motor. About the biggest motor you can probably reliably make using BP and have any level of reliability. BP motor designs don't scale well. The larger the motor, the more apt it is to go "boom" or have bad things happen.

Later! OL JR :)
Click to expand...

Upon further reflection, I was thinking of the ENERJET F100, not the FSI F100. The Enerjet F100 WAS an AP motor with a paper/composite casing. I had a Centuri catalog introducing them around 1971 or so, sadly it got tossed with so much other stuff years ago.
 
Enerjet by Centuri never had a composite motor as you describe. They had the E24, F52 and F67. AP composite in a filament wound fiberglass epoxy casing with graphite nozzle and graphite delay housing epoxied into the casing.

Centuri Mini-Max had large black powder motors in cardboard casings with ceramic nozzles. There were many designations over many years. F97 was one of those in 1971.

https://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/catalogs/centuri71d/71dcen88.html

cerving said:
Upon further reflection, I was thinking of the ENERJET F100, not the FSI F100. The Enerjet F100 WAS an AP motor with a paper/composite casing. I had a Centuri catalog introducing them around 1971 or so, sadly it got tossed with so much other stuff years ago.
Click to expand...
 
One more attempt to get this thread back on E12's. I searched Thrustcurve and looked at the file that was posted here but couldn't find any reference to the max liftoff weight for the E12. My Rip-Roar is overweight after many repairs and a D12 will no longer lift it at a safe speed. Just hoping that the E12 would do the job. Need to find out before I rebuild the booster MMT to accommodate an E12-0.
 
If not using the manufacturer's recommended maximum liftoff weight (in the Estes catalog which is printed as well as PDF online), then weigh the rocket with motors and run a simulation to determine if the rocket will leave the launch rod or rail that you intend to use at a safe speed (and will continue to stay in the air during the sustaining phase).

Sometimes you need a 6 foot long 1/4" diameter steel launch rod.

Sometimes even that is not enough....

Wayco said:
One more attempt to get this thread back on E12's. I searched Thrustcurve and looked at the file that was posted here but couldn't find any reference to the max liftoff weight for the E12. My Rip-Roar is overweight after many repairs and a D12 will no longer lift it at a safe speed. Just hoping that the E12 would do the job. Need to find out before I rebuild the booster MMT to accommodate an E12-0.
Click to expand...
 
For those who did not read my posting in the other forum:
https://forums.rocketshoppe.com/showthread.php?t=11293&page=2&pp=10

cerving said:
Well, I just had my first engine cato in 40 years of on-and-off flying... the first E12-6 I tried. It was in a Vagabond modified to carry electronics, about 250g, that had flown at least 10 times. Lifted a little slow off the pad, and blew up at about 20', blowing out both ends of the engine and leaving the casing intact. Fortunately the payload was fine. Reported it to Estes and NAR...

I can see this engine getting a bad rep real fast based on some reports that I have heard about them blowing up at some of the large SoCal gatherings. As for me, I'm sticking to Aerotech RMS...
Click to expand...
 
It appears that the E12 has no more liftoff thrust than the D12. It just sustains longer. You might want to look into composite motors to get more thrust: CTI makes an E75.
 
Wayco said:
One more attempt to get this thread back on E12's. I searched Thrustcurve and looked at the file that was posted here but couldn't find any reference to the max liftoff weight for the E12. My Rip-Roar is overweight after many repairs and a D12 will no longer lift it at a safe speed. Just hoping that the E12 would do the job. Need to find out before I rebuild the booster MMT to accommodate an E12-0.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the E12 isnt really more powerful than the D12, Its like the B6 and C6.... They are almost the same but the C6 and E12 has a longer burns....
 
D12: 29.73 N peak thrust. Nozzle uses a white plug.

E12: 33.29 N peak thrust. Nozzle is smaller than D12 and uses a yellow plug (just like the 1/2A6, A8 and B4 motors).

Remember, just because motors use the same plug, does not mean the depth of the centerbore is the same.
 
shreadvector said:
If not using the manufacturer's recommended maximum liftoff weight (in the Estes catalog which is printed as well as PDF online), then weigh the rocket with motors and run a simulation to determine if the rocket will leave the launch rod or rail that you intend to use at a safe speed (and will continue to stay in the air during the sustaining phase).

Sometimes you need a 6 foot long 1/4" diameter steel launch rod.

Sometimes even that is not enough....
Click to expand...

Thanks Fred, I found the latest motor chart in the 2012 Estes catalog. It lists the max liftoff weight for the E12-0 at 16 oz., slightly more than the D12-0 at 14 oz. The motor weighs about a half an ounce more, so it might work on my Rip-Roar with an E12-6/E12-0 combination. I already fly this rocket on a 6 ft. launch rod, but it's still wobbly when it leaves. I usually use Thrustcurve for my sims, since Open Rocket won't work on this computer and I haven't spent the big bucks to buy Rocsim. Unfortunately, Thrust curve hasn't added the Estes E12 motors yet.....

Oh and CarVac, can't use composites, they won't stage without electronics. I'm also building a 2x24mm cluster booster for this rocket, but I'm a little concerned about gap staging an offset booster motor to a centered sustainer.....

Thanks to everyone for their "ON TOPIC" replies. :smile:
 
The solution to that problem is to make the booster have 3 inline motors, which also mitigates the liftoff thrust issue.
 
4 x Estes E motors = over 125 grams propellant weight = High Power Rocket = Waiver needed from FAA.

2 motors in the booster can work with a gap as long as there is a vent hole. Motors do not need to be aligned between stages, but all the booster motors need to ignite.

CarVac said:
The solution to that problem is to make the booster have 3 inline motors, which also mitigates the liftoff thrust issue.
Click to expand...
 
shreadvector said:
4 x Estes E motors = over 125 grams propellant weight = High Power Rocket = Waiver needed from FAA.

2 motors in the booster can work with a gap as long as there is a vent hole. Motors do not need to be aligned between stages, but all the booster motors need to ignite.
Click to expand...

All the engines dont have to be Es though. You could have 2 D12s or C11s and a E12-0 in the booster and an E in the second stage.
 

Similar threads

Daddyisabar
Old dude now grumpy with continued D12 3 CATOS: ESTES, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.
Replies
17
Views
2K
cwbullet
cwbullet
jhill9693
Sold Estes rocket motor overstock
Replies
5
Views
739
jhill9693
jhill9693
Initiator001
Another new QUest motor
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
Bill S
B
manixFan
Sold 75mm green anodized snap ring cases – 19-5/8" and 30-7/8" (3500Ns & 6000Ns) New Old Stock
Replies
6
Views
725
CaptHaywire
CaptHaywire
D
For Sale Estes #0891 Prime Number Explorer
Replies
1
Views
249
DWolman
D

Latest posts

Back
Top