Quantcast
Estes Majestic


Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Estes Majestic

  1. #1
    Join Date
    7th March 2012
    Location
    Discovery Bay, CA
    Posts
    154

    Estes Majestic

    Just picked up the Estes Majestic at local HS for my kids and I to build. Kit looks nice enough, and the chrome fins are very nice. We will be flying this on F motors. I typically don't build plastic fin rockets so have a question on best glue/epoxy to use on the plastic and plastic to paper bond.

    The tube is paper with through the tube fin slots, fins are plastic double walled, and there are 2 plastic MM centering rings designed to also retain the through tube fin slots. I have a few different epoxies used for FG builds but I am not confident they will adhere very well to this plastic. Wood glue isn't going to cut it when applied to plastic but will work great on the paper to paper. I am thinking Testers plastic model glue might be the way to go. This plastic is very much like model car plastic and Testers (Red) does a great job fusing this kind of plastic together. There is also a plastic motor retainer that works just like an aluminum Aero Pack with a threaded male section that glues to the MM and a female threaded ring that screws on for motor retention. Here I would typically use JB Weld but again I don't think it will bond very well to the plastic. Testers may be the best option here as well. Anyways I'd like to here what has been successful for you folks.
    NAR # 94188 L2
    KJ6VRF

  2. #2
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,228
    I used 5 minute epoxy for the Majestic and have used that for all those Estes retainers. Seems to work just fine. http://rocketdungeon.blogspot.com/20...uild-post.html
    Dick Stafford
    The Original Rocket Dungeon
    Volunteer compiler of product news for ROCKETS Magazine

  3. #3
    I used Testors plastic cement for an Estes Metalizer, including for gluing the fin can to the paper body tube, and it seemed to work well.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    19th February 2009
    Location
    Auburn, WA USA
    Posts
    1,200
    My Majestic was done entirely with NHP 12 minute epoxy. I have also used that (or the 30 minute BSI epoxy) for the Estes retainers on the Leviathan, Ventris, Mega Der Red Max and a mount for my Semroc SLS Aero Dart. Rough the inside of the threaded ring up with coarse sandpaper as the instructions say.

    The Leviathan and Mega DRM have both happily flown on CTI three-grain reloads and the Ventris on 2-grains. The Majestic has flown so far only on the new Estes F15-6s. The motor mount with the Estes retainer in the Aero Dart has done one-grain CTI motors (I have another interchangeable mount for the 29mm black powder motors and one for 24mm for that model).
    Bernard Cawley
    NAR 89040 L1
    AMA 42160
    KG7AIE

  5. #5
    Join Date
    2nd August 2013
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    9
    I put my Majestic together with 30 minute epoxy. I roughed up the fin tabs with sandpaper. I haven't flown it yet, but it seems to be pretty sturdy. I'm going to fly it on F15-6s when I get the chance to fly it. I have used JB Weld on Estes motor retainers on other rockets, but I went ahead and used the 30 minute epoxy for this one.
    B.A.R.
    NAR #96351
    DARS #308
    HPR Level 1

  6. #6
    Join Date
    7th March 2012
    Location
    Discovery Bay, CA
    Posts
    154
    How about the Estes plastic motor retainer? Does the plastic hold up to the nozzle blast? I have a 29mm Aero Pack retainer I could put on but if the plastic hold up ok I'll save the Aero Pack for a higher performance rocket. I plan to use CTI motors and casings.
    NAR # 94188 L2
    KJ6VRF

  7. #7
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    3,613
    Plastic holds up fine. There is no "nozzle blast" as the exhaust from the motor nozzle goes down and does not 'hit' the plastic ring (unless you foolishly rest the aft end of the rocket directly on or too close to the deflector on the pad).

    I saw a Majestic built with JB Weld and it was strong. It flew on the F15-6 and then with the booster with an F15-0 and an F15-8. perfect flights. There was zero wind and the rocket went straight up to absurd altitude and did not drift far.

    THEN he put an Aerotech F78 (Mojave Green) motor in it. Since the kit instructions say that you can use composite motors and Estes sells the uber-powerful G80 (136 N-s), you would think a G78 wouold be fine with it's 110 N-s.


    http://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Aerotech/G78G.pdf

    http://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Aerotech/G80-20071207.pdf

    It took off and got to a few hundred feet and then it shredded. upon recovery, two fo the three fins were attached and the third fin root was still attached. The fin broke off from flutter. The fin halves (which are glued together at the factory) were still glued to each other and the break was *not* on any glue line (neither factory glue nor builder glue). It would seem that this model may just be too lightweight for the more powerful motors. Let's see if anyone else tries a composite G motor before we draw any conclusions as it could be bit of bad plastic on one fin. After all, the other two fins did not break off at all and when the model shredded the aerodynamic loads awould be pretty high as the model flipped sideways when the fin tore off.

    Also, the ejection charge seemed to blow the shock cord out of its mount. i do not think it ripped off when the fin departed and the model went sideways.

    I'm sure the model will be fine using an F26 motor.

    Also, the builder of the model told me that the instructons for the rocket and the booster do not warn the consumer to *NOT* attempt to use a composite motor in the upper stage when using the booster.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    19th May 2011
    Location
    Pueblo West, CO
    Posts
    373
    I would love to see an image of the failed fin. I've flown this model on a G-80 without issue but that's not to say this couldn't happen since apparently it did. Was there glue present inside the long spar section running down the center of the fin?



    Also, the builder of the model told me that the instructons for the rocket and the booster do not warn the consumer to *NOT* attempt to use a composite motor in the upper stage when using the booster.
    I deleted my first response so I'll just say this instead. If Estes had to list everything you should NOT do on the packaging and instructions for every product it sales there wouldn't be room for the Actual Instructions. People need to use some common sense.



    John Boren

  9. #9
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,228
    Interesting results on that composite G flight. Had you not been so specific I would have guessed that the two-part, pre-assembled fins separated. They seem so stiff that I wouldn't have guessed that they would flutter enough to break at the root. There was a time I would have stuffed the biggest motor possible into mine but I am liking long walks through fields less than I used to. I'll still be interested in hearing other reports. [and it appears another report came in while I was typing this post]
    Dick Stafford
    The Original Rocket Dungeon
    Volunteer compiler of product news for ROCKETS Magazine

  10. #10
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Location
    So Cal (ROC, SCRA)
    Posts
    1,010
    Don't have a Majestic, but I've launched the Ascender on F32's with no problem at all. I have a G40 with its name on it, waiting for a chance to go out to Lucerne Valley with it. Assuming that works fine, I'll probably try a CTI 3G H54 or H87. I don't think you could break the fins off with a sledgehammer; the fit into the centering rings was snug, to say the least. I think the body tube would go first, it seems to be a little lighter than the Estes non-E2X MPR kits.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    3,613
    I asked him to contact you directly with images and details. From what I recall, there was glue holding the fin halves togehter (plastic broke away from glue joints from what I saw), but I understand your specific question about the center spar and if it was glued. I'll send him an e-mail and ask him to provide lots of details. It was only yesterday and he had a lot of other things to do back home (including caring for a very, very ill father in law).

    We used up a pretty good number of BP 29mm Estes motors. I am afraid that I like them way too much. I build a TARC test model from the Estes large TARC Parts assortment and it was 300 grams without the motor (I did not paint it). With F15-6 it was 416 grams. It flew VERY straight and went well beyond this year's TARC altitude goal. I then flew it with an E16-6 and it went a bit under the goal. So I flew it a thrid time with the other E16-6 and it went 2 feet higher (pretty consistant). I then used the other F15-6 for a fourth flight and added 50 grams of weight. That flight was also laser straight up and the added weight just cut the altitude by 100 feet - still well beyond the altitude goal.

    So, TARC teams that build draggy (bigger/thicker fins or a fatter body - I used the reducer for lower base drag) or heavier should have an easy time using the F15 motor for TARC this year (once it's on the list of TARC approve motors - pending wide availability like Contest Certification).

    Quote Originally Posted by JumpJet View Post
    I would love to see an image of the failed fin. I've flown this model on a G-80 without issue but that's not to say this couldn't happen since apparently it did. Was there glue present inside the long spar section running down the center of the fin?





    I deleted my first response so I'll just say this instead. If Estes had to list everything you should NOT do on the packaging and instructions for every product it sales there wouldn't be room for the Actual Instructions. People need to use some common sense.



    John Boren
    I understand the limitations of instructions and have tried to explain that to others - especially the need to make things work in 3 to 6 languages! I would simply list the suggested motor combos as you've done for other kits in the past. You know: Single Stage: <list of motors>, Two Stage: Booster: <List of booster motors>, Upper Stage: <list of upper stage motors>.
    That type of motor list was simple and worked great for beginners.

    Thanks for the cool new products!

    BTW, I will be volunteering at a STEM conference next week with a big TARC display and I will be featuring the rocket I tested with the big spent F15 casings to impress the students. I expect a lot of "Whoa, look at how BIG those are!"

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by JumpJet View Post
    I deleted my first response so I'll just say this instead. If Estes had to list everything you should NOT do on the packaging and instructions for every product it sales there wouldn't be room for the Actual Instructions. People need to use some common sense.
    I'm not so sure awareness that you can't ignite a composite motor in a sustainer with a booster ejection charge falls into the category of "common sense". I certainly didn't know it until I read it.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    3,613
    And most people do not understand that a booster motor has no 'ejection charge'.

    They have a casing, a nozzle and propellant. normal motors have additionally - above the propellant - a delay train and ejection charge with ejection charge cap on top.

    See TR-2 in The Classic Collection: http://www2.estesrockets.com/pdf/284...tion_TR-TN.pdf

    Which shows that more in depth information is very readily available on the web for those few consumers who thirst for additional info. For the average consumer who simply wants to have fun they simply need basic information (including basic info obvious to us old-timers but completely unknown to a beginner).

    Only the very old FSI core burning booster motors had a short delay and ejection charge on top - with no 'cap' they simply had a laquer layer covreing the charge. They did this because the HUGE pressure inside a core burner needed something on top to hold the pressure in.

    This is not necessary with end burning motors like the C6-0, D12-0, E12-0, E16-0 and E15-0. Even the A10-0T has transitioned to end burning by the time burn-though of the forward end occurs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich Holmes View Post
    I'm not so sure awareness that you can't ignite a composite motor in a sustainer with a booster ejection charge falls into the category of "common sense". I certainly didn't know it until I read it.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by shreadvector View Post
    And most people do not understand that a booster motor has no 'ejection charge'.
    Oh duh. I knew that. Or I knew it yesterday, and now. Just not, evidently, in between.

Posting Permissions

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