Estes Porta-Pad E - An Accident Waiting To Happen

I've experienced problems with the Porta-Pad E (PPE), princeofsin1 has had them... Now I'm thinking that it's a matter of time before one of these fails and causes injury or property damage. I've tried contacting Estes, and I've not heard from them.

The problem is the layout of the design. If it was assembled as per instructions, the swivel (the part that holds the launch rod for those who don't know) is mounted over the blast plate, and the blast plate is mounted in direct contact with the plastic of the hub. This means that the swivel is directly exposed to the heat and flame of the motor at launch, and the thin plastic of the hub is in contact with the hot metal from the blast plate.

Now, I'll admit, I was using an older Porta-Pad II's swivel with my pad at the time I had damage, that was because I was launching smaller D and C powered rockets, but that shouldn't matter. I've used the launcher once with three rockets (read my initial review here). Once, the rocket was centered between two legs of the hub, and although there is a noticeable dent in the blast plate caused by the heat of a C11-3, I'm not worried about the blast plate burning through. However the next two rockets had the motor centered directly over one of the hub's legs. After launching the second one, I noticed a hot/burning plastic smell, and discovered that the hub's leg had suffered some damage (minor) from the heat. In the photo below, the heat damage is visible as a white patch by the swivel (I had painted my hub black to match the legs).



Princeofsin1's experience was much more severe. Due to a suspected nozzle blowout, his rocket stayed on the pad, and the heat and flame of the motor destroyed the swivel, and melted the legs of the hub resulting in his rocket falling over. The pad was actually on fire in the video he was making when it happened.



Blast Plate Photo:

Mangled Hub Photo:

Mangled Hub Photo:

Hub and Blast Plate:

Blast Plate w/Swivel:


My fear is that someone will be launching some day with a PPE in a stock configuration and a booster motor will cato. The motor will melt the legs of the launcher or the swivel, and the rocket will then fall over. Then while the rocket is well below 30 degrees of vertical, the sustainer will ignite sending an E or F powered unguided missile into a crowd of onlookers.

I feel there should be a recall or an alert issued on this. I have now contacted the CPSC with my concerns. How do I make Estes aware of this? (I tried contacting them, but no reply). The fix is simple, the swivel goes below the blast plate. The blast plate is then slid down the launch rod, just like the older (and safer) PPII and BigFoot launchers.

How do you contact Estes? Use the telephone.

Did you confirm that the Mean machine was supported the correct distance above the deflector as clearly stated in the instructions?

https://www.estesrockets.com/media/instructions/001295_MEAN_MACHINE.pdf


You should do all of the above before you file a claim of a dangerous product.

Will you be filing reports on all Model Rockets with point tipped nbose cones, such as the Aerotech Initiator? it is pointy, after all. Pointy things can poke people.

shreadvector said:

How do you contact Estes? Use the telephone.

Click to expand...

Through the website. What's their number?

shreadvector said:

Did you confirm that the Mean machine was supported the correct distance above the deflector as clearly stated in the instructions?

https://www.estesrockets.com/media/instructions/001295_MEAN_MACHINE.pdf

Click to expand...

I didn't launch the Mean Machine... princeofsin1 did. I'm reporting what I saw, a rocket fail to launch, fall over, and the swivel on fire, as well as the mangled remains of the launch pad. Not all rockets launched on these pads come with instructions, such as you linked to (scratchbuilds). Besides, there's nothing saying anything about minimum heights in these instructions I found: https://www.estesrockets.com/media/instructions/002238_PORTA_PAD_E.pdf

shreadvector said:

You should do all of the above before you file a claim of a dangerous product.

Will you be filing reports on all Model Rockets with point tipped nbose cones, such as the Aerotech Initiator? it is pointy, after all. Pointy things can poke people.

Click to expand...

No, I won't be reporting all rockets with point tipped nbose cones. But if something makes them inherently unstable, I would. There is a flaw with this design, and if Estes doesn't do something about it, I'm sure that sooner or later, princeofsin1's video will be joined by another with possibly worse results.

Besides, if safety warnings had been taken seriously, perhaps the American space program would have 16 live American astronauts (and 1 Israeli). Concerns should be expressed, investigated, and resolved.

Googling wouold have provided you with their phone number if you really wished to contact them before you sent in your third-hand report.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?2140-Estes-Customer-Service

I am also amazed that you posted this in so many threads on at least two different forums. How many forums did you post this in?

Have no fear, IANAL, but I do not think that your statements fall into the legal definition of Defamation, I just was amazed that you would react in this manner without persoanlly calling someone at Estes and talking to them as one human being to another. The folks at Estes are really very nice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Try calling them.

Also, most launch pads will fail and fall over if the motor is positioned right above the deflector/rod attachment and the nozzle pops out with the resulting "highway flare" burn effect. And if those rockets are 2 or 3 stagers, then your horribilization scenario will be possible for virtually all launch pads on the market.

Ever see a Mantis Dance with the biggest Aerotech Model Rocket kit and a G80 motor?

K'Tesh said:

I didn't launch the Mean Machine... princeofsin1 did. I'm reporting what I saw, a rocket fail to launch, fall over, and the swivel on fire, as well as the mangled remains of the launch pad. Not all rockets launched on these pads come with instructions, such as you linked to (scratchbuilds). Besides, there's nothing saying anything about minimum heights in these instructions I found: https://www.estesrockets.com/media/instructions/002238_PORTA_PAD_E.pdf

Click to expand...

The Mean Machine instructions do say to support the rocket 8" above the deflector. They also say to weight or stake the launcher legs to prevent it from tipping over.

I do think the PP instructions should have some warnings about supporting E motor (maybe lower) rockets and weighting or staking the legs for heavy models. I do think the Mean Machine instructions to support the model 8" off the plate could be made more prominent and add some urgency to it; I had to stare at it a while before spotting it, and it's not clear that it's a safety measure.

And I do agree that having the blast plate directly on the plastic legs is a dumb design.

Still, if you're using the PP and the Mean Machine according to Estes instructions, the scenario you worry about is taken care of. If you're using the PP for scratch builds and other non Estes rockets (and of course you will) I don't see that it's Estes's fault if the rocket causes the PP to fail.

I don't believe the Maxi-pad would be damaged in this manner even if the rocket was not placed several inches above the blast deflector. I believe the damage was due something else.

If you look at the video, the rocket is sitting on the blast deflector and never moved upward after the motor ignited. Regardless of height above the blast deflector, the rocket should have moved upward after ignition. I wonder if the person put the rocket on the pad and then put the tape on the rod, above the launch lug which would have prevented a normal lift-off. That certainly would explain the melting of the plastic pad. Another possibility is that the launch lugs were misaligned and/or filled with paint and prevented the rocket from lifting-off, or the clip leads were over the fins preventing lift-off.

In any case the rocket did not take off in an uncontrolled manner, so it failed safely. I see the event as a failure of the user to properly follow directions, and failed to check that the rocket was free to move on the rod before attempting to launch. This is hardly an issue for the CPSC.

Bob

shreadvector said:

Googling wouold have provided you with their phone number if you really wished to contact them before you sent in your third-hand report.

Click to expand...

The phone number is listed on their website exactly... where? I was just there, and I couldn't find it.

The damage to MY pad is 1st hand.

I'm sure that the people at Estes are nice. I've had some interaction with them, and it has been favorable. However the lack of response to my claim for damage, and my realization that my fear may be realized at any moment made me want to act and act fast. I'm trying to protect people, and property first. Corporations definitely fall a lot lower on the list.

bobkrech said:

In any case the rocket did not take off in an uncontrolled manner, so it failed safely.

Click to expand...

Bob, THAT rocket failed safely. Will everybody be so lucky? From other's (shreadvector) reviews of the video, it appears that the nozzle blew out, and that the rocket wasn't restricted from movement.

Rich Holmes said:

Still, if you're using the PP and the Mean Machine according to Estes instructions, the scenario you worry about is taken care of. If you're using the PP for scratch builds and other non Estes rockets (and of course you will) I don't see that it's Estes's fault if the rocket causes the PP to fail.

Click to expand...

Ok, lets run this situation.

I have an unmodified CC Express using an Estes' D12-0 and an D12-7 sustainer. The rocket is free to move up and down the launch rod, is elevated to its recommended 4" height (https://www.estesrockets.com/media/instructions/001302_CC_EXPRESS.pdf), the pad's legs are pinned down, the coundown is done, and the the button is pushed.

Now let's say that the booster's nozzle blows out. Is that piece of tape (that is what Estes is apparently endorsing to elevate rockets on the launch rod) going to hold up to several seconds of flame? I doubt it. That flame is going to be mostly directed at the pad's swivel, which could very easily be burnt through. Thus the rocket begins to tip over. From the video provided by princeofsin1, it's clear that the ejection charge fired. So, back to the CC Express, what happens next?

I stand by my claim. Having that swivel unprotected from the flame is inviting trouble. Having the blast plate directly sitting on the legs of the hub is inviting trouble. All it might take is one person getting hit by a rocket under power to put new restrictions on where and when we can launch.

The fix is simple... Attach swivel to the hub. Attach launch rod to the swivel, slide (a corrected design (something to hold it steady)) blast plate down to rest on the top of the swivel. Apply "tape" (I prefer clothes pins) to elevate rocket on the launch rod (may need to be lengthened slightly) and use as directed. The blast plate should be between any plastic part and the flame, and shouldn't be in direct contact with parts that can melt.

Bob the motor spit the nozzle and just flamed with no thrust.

bobkrech said:

I don't believe the Maxi-pad would be damaged in this manner even if the rocket was not placed several inches above the blast deflector. I believe the damage was due something else.

If you look at the video, the rocket is sitting on the blast deflector and never moved upward after the motor ignited. Regardless of height above the blast deflector, the rocket should have moved upward after ignition. I wonder if the person put the rocket on the pad and then put the tape on the rod, above the launch lug which would have prevented a normal lift-off. That certainly would explain the melting of the plastic pad. Another possibility is that the launch lugs were misaligned and/or filled with paint and prevented the rocket from lifting-off, or the clip leads were over the fins preventing lift-off.

In any case the rocket did not take off in an uncontrolled manner, so it failed safely. I see the event as a failure of the user to properly follow directions, and failed to check that the rocket was free to move on the rod before attempting to launch. This is hardly an issue for the CPSC.

Bob

Click to expand...

K'Tesh said:

Now let's say that the booster's nozzle blows out. Is that piece of tape (that is what Estes is apparently endorsing to elevate rockets on the launch rod) going to hold up to several seconds of flame? I doubt it.

Click to expand...

Again, I'd say the Mean Machine instructions regarding elevating the rocket off the plate could and should be clearer — if they were they'd make it plain that the tape doesn't hold up the motor end of the rocket, but prevents the launch lug from sliding further down. It's nowhere near the motor flame.

Rich Holmes said:

Again, I'd say the Mean Machine instructions regarding elevating the rocket off the plate could and should be clearer — if they were they'd make it plain that the tape doesn't hold up the motor end of the rocket, but prevents the launch lug from sliding further down. It's nowhere near the motor flame.

Click to expand...

By that logic then, the CC Express situation posed in post #7 has the rocket sitting on it's fins, directly on the blast plate (the booster section doesn't have a LL). Clearance between the back of the booster's motor and blast plate? About 1 inch.

I wonder how high the back end of the Extreme 12 would be (E9-0 w/E12-6)? I'll take a look when I get home to check the instructions (couldn't find them online).

K'Tesh said:

By that logic then, the CC Express situation posed in post #7 has the rocket sitting on it's fins, directly on the blast plate (the booster section doesn't have a LL). Clearance between the back of the booster's motor and blast plate? About 1 inch.

Click to expand...

Well, that's weird. The CC Express instructions do indeed say to put the tape 4" above the plate, and that's just about the length of the booster section. The tape's doing no good at all at that height. I'd call this a fault in the CC Express instructions.

At our club launches, incidentally, there are expended motor casings slipped over all the launch rods, which prevent just about any rocket motor from getting less than 2.75" from the plate. I've seen nozzle-spit catos, nothing too serious happens to the launch pads. Of course the plates aren't sitting on plastic legs.

By the way the CC Express instructions do clearly show the rocket sitting well above the plate. Maybe your interpretation's correct and they really are recommending using the tape to hold up the motor end... if so, then that's a bad recommendation for the reasons you mention.

I agree the Estes E pad is not very good.

Like some of the others, I had a rocket get bound up on the rod and the motor burned right through the blast deflector plate and the base underneath. In fact I turned the pad over and noticed some small flames surrounding the hole. Luckily I was easily able to blow it out but it could have caused one heck of a grass fire if the ground was dry.

Also, the swivel assembly is very weak and can not take the strain of a heavy rocket without breaking the tabs. I'm actually surprised Estes decided to keep this one around after releasing their PSII PVC launch pad even though it's considerably more expensive.

BTW K'Tesh

I was the one who wrote that review on Amazon you posted a reply to. I really appreciate what you posted as the other know-it-alls that posted previously did not believe me.

Donaldsrockets said:

BTW K'Tesh

I was the one who wrote that review on Amazon you posted a reply to. I really appreciate what you posted as the other know-it-alls that posted previously did not believe me.

Click to expand...

A picture (or .mov) is worth a thousand words.

K'Tesh said:

I wonder how high the back end of the Extreme 12 would be (E9-0 w/E12-6)? I'll take a look when I get home to check the instructions (couldn't find them online).

Click to expand...

Ok, found the Extreme 12's instructions, the lower LL is 1 inch above the bottom edge of the sustainer's body tube. The booster is 5.5" long, and the bottom edge of the retaining ring is 1/2 inch lower, if tape is intended to hold the rocket off the blast plate by its LL, the 8" instruction for the tape has the bottom edge located only 2" off of the blast plate.

The image in the instructions does show the rocket quite a bit 'higher' than what 2" would be, and using a PPII instead of a PPE. There is no mention of needing to use the PPE pad, but does say that the E engines require the E Launch controller.

I managed to get through to Mary at Estes, she is the one who talks to the CSPC. I explained to her what happened to my launcher, what happened to princeofsin1's launcher (I feel like I'm playing the Devil's Advocate), as well as my fears. She took my information, and this issue is now on their radar.

As an educator in training, I've got to protect my students, myself, and my school from harm. I enjoy being able to launch on school grounds and would hate to loose that privilege because of something that could have been prevented.

Pointed Side (Safely) Up!
Jim

BTW... Shreadvector, you were right, they are nice people, and thanks for the phone number. I was trying the Estes website, and not Googling for it.
.

Yup. That's all I was trying to say:

First look on the website. If you don't find what you are looking for, like a phone number, then Google it. If you have difficulty Googling it, then post a request for help on a forum such as this ("anyone know Estes' phone number?").

Then call them first, BEFORE sending in a report to the authorities.

Heck, you could even just discuss your concerns on the Forum and get feedback from dozens of other users of the product before you decide to file a report and then post frightening messages in multiple threads on multiple forums.

Something I found today (Feb. 5, 2014) on Apogee's website... (emphasis mine)

Frequently Asked Questions:

Q. What is the biggest rocket that this pad can handle?

A. Estes hasn't given me any specs to answer this question. But my guess is that it can handle a rocket with a weight of 2 pounds (.9 Kg). I definitely wouldn't fly the Apogee Saturn V kit on this pad, as it weighs 3 pounds at lift-off. Also, I wouldn't use a high thrust "G" size motor on this pad. The high-velocity flame hitting the big blast deflector will put a lot of stress on the legs, and they could break.​

Q. What can be done to make this pad handle higher power rockets?

A. First, you'd need to swap out the aluminum rod with one made of steel. Aluminum is good for lightweight rockets, but you'll get too much whip of the model if the wind is breezy. Second, you would need to put a block of wood under the middle of the pad to prevent it from flexing under the weight of a heavier rocket. You should also make sure the rocket is higher on the launch rod, so the flame doesn't pound the blast deflector too hard. Otherwise, it may flex and snap off the plastic legs. Most flyers use a cloths pin to hold the rocket higher up on the rod. But don't go too high, as you do need longer rods to hold the model until it reaches sufficient lift-off speed. You can check with RockSim software to determine what the minimum length you'll need for a safe launch.​

Click to expand...

I reported my concerns, and my damage to Estes... I've heard nothing back. The CPSC did send my concerns on to Estes.

Ok here's the latest on the issue...

I was surprised last week by a package from Estes. I was sent a new PPE (warranty replacement), and it had a modification to the hub. The hub now has a brace glued to the underside of it that presumably is intended to prevent the legs from being pressed down by the down blast. My concerns about the blast plate sitting on the hub, and the swivel being above the blast plate wasn't addressed in this revision.

I called and spoke to Mary, and was told that my fear about a 2 stage rocket shouldn't be a problem. In their analysis of the video, they're of the opinion that the rocket hung on the rod, and it wasn't a motor malfunction. She noted that the rocket didn't fall until after the thrust phase was completed. They believe a 2nd stage rocket would be ignited before the swivel would fail because the booster motor has no delay.

That said, I was told that they are taking steps to change the arrangement of the pad to make it more robust. The blast plate will be modified keep the plate off of the hub's legs and put the swivel under it. I understand that there will be additional plastic ribs (for additional strength to the legs) added to the hub, and the square hole in the blast plate will be changed to a smaller diameter circular hole. I don't know if conversion parts to old PPE's will be made available for current owners, but these improved pads should be out in a few months. My request for a third channel on the swivel (to accommodate the 1/8" launch rod) will not be part of the changes made.

I'm looking forward to seeing the new changes.

Thanks to the people at Estes for listening to my concerns.

Pointy Side Up!
Jim

BTW... The yellow cone (from a child's hot coco cup) seen in the OP's first image is how I've managed to stabilize my blast plate and keep it off the swivel/hub for any future use. Sure it's made from plastic, but it's easily replaceable, and with a longer launch rod, doesn't unsafely alter the pad. My plans to replace that cone are in place. A lamp nipple, some washers and a pair of nuts (per plate) should hold the existing blast plates steady.

Sorry I am but, was that an Estes motor in the video by princeofsin1? I ask because that motor was throwing flames for about 4 seconds, and I don't believe Estes makes anything with that kind of burn time.


Sent from my iPad using Rocketry Forum

My biggest concern with the PortaPad E is the aluminum wing nut they give you for the launch rod fastener. The thing bent in my fingers. I went to Home Depot and got a stainless stell wing nut to replace it.

Otherwise, I would keep in mind that Estes recommends the PortaPad E for rockets with Estes D and E BP engines. For anything bigger, they sell a Pro Series launch pad.

That being said, I have safely launched Estes Pro Series II rockets with my PortaPad E.

1) E9 motors burn for 3.09 seconds.

2) With nozzle popped out, the propellant will bunr slightly slower, plus you will see big road flare effect from the delay burning.

3) Rocket was not secured at recommended height in the instructions.

4) Did I mention that the rocket was not at a safe height above the deflector and pivot/hub?

5) by the way, the rocket was not at the correct height above the deflector and central hub.

https://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Estes/E9.pdf

https://www.estesrockets.com/media/instructions/001295_MEAN_MACHINE.pdf

And what is with all the stick rockets littering the ground?

1tree said:

Sorry I am but, was that an Estes motor in the video by princeofsin1? I ask because that motor was throwing flames for about 4 seconds, and I don't believe Estes makes anything with that kind of burn time.


Sent from my iPad using Rocketry Forum

Click to expand...

I have had two commercial pads, both from Estes. One was a red plastic box that held 4 D batteries with a reinforced hole in the top for the rod. The other is a wooden tripad of 1x pine and wing nuts. The red plastic box is long gone. The tripad I still have and use. Others I built myself.

I have examined the newer Estes pads in the field and I think that they are well designed and constructed. BUT, the first rule of any commercial design is that it must show a profit. Usually a very tiny profit so pennies count. So, use your head and think a bit on a new mechanism before you use it. e.g. Before you slide the blast deflector onto the launch rod, drop a used motor casing first to hold the plate away from the plastic. Little things mean a lot.

You have notified Estes of a potential problem. They have made an effort to repair it. (Making a change in the middle of a production run is very expensive.) You have spread the word so others are aware of the problem. You have a new pad. You have had very cheap tuition to the School of Hard Knocks.

Stop typing and fly something! I'm back to sanding.

Everything about the Porta Pad E (PPE) is a P.O.S. It was how to take existing low power parts and make a pad to launch bigger rockets at a minimum in cost and at a minimum in all other respects. At the very low end it does not have the robustness to handle the mistakes of an inexperienced Mean Machine flyer. If everything is done right you will be fine, but as the mistakes add up, especially on the Mean Machine, you will get results like above. It is easy to hang up a Mean Machine on the rod. A little wind and it acts like a sail, pinning the rocket to the rod even on a sturdy pad. On an unsecured PPE it will just blow over (a real safety feature if the button has not been pushed.) Misaligned launch lugs, paint or glue in launch lugs, slightly bent rod, lots of tape goo and gunk on rod can all add up to failure to launch. Combine that with a wimpy, low kick E9 motor, which will burn for three seconds and keeping burning for the delay, another 4 to 6 seconds, thus providing upwards of 10 seconds of pad melting horror.:y: Pop the nozzle on the E9 and nothing will fly. Over the past five years at the club I have seen at least Four Mean Machine flights hang up for the reasons above. I have seen the nubile excitement of flying the Mean Machine for the first time turn into sheer terror, then embarrassment and then anger. Four holes melted in the blast deflectors leave permanent scars as a reminder of the nastiness of a hung up Mean Machine, and those were all on a sturdy launch rack. The Mean Machine on a PPE is a higher skill level required baby; it is the School of Hard Knocks. No one is out there to say “read the crappy instructions again” or “the PPE is a P.O.S. not to be used with a Mean Machine with any defect or in less than perfect conditions;” unless, of course, you are really with it and read this Forum. WARNING-DANGER-DANGER: PPE and Mean Machine can be Dangerous to your health if any one or a combination of non published factors lead to a failure to launch.

Looks like a lot of old fart graduates from the School of Hard Knocks weighing in on this one!

The porta pad e is a p.o.s.

It is arguably less suited to flying large rockets than their astron II, which at least golds together.

This wouldn't be a problem, but they DO advertise it as being capable if launching the larger stuff...and equip it with a 1/4" rod.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum

I'd like to state for the record, I'm not trying to bash Estes.

The pad has problems (apparently more than I was aware of)... I identified the ones I saw, and offered a suggestion on how to fix them. Now they are fixing them. I'd love to see the exact plans on the improvements, but am willing to wait.

Prior to today's posts I never heard about any other malfunctions with Mean Machines, despite having bought several (for parts).

Now I have homework (and building) to do (painting will come later).

Peace
Jim

I'm not trying to bash them either. But this pad was a major disappointment.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum

I've put a few F's off mine. They kick it's butt...but it survives. F42T pushes it to the dirt...but it pops up.

mikemech said:

So, use your head and think a bit on a new mechanism before you use it. e.g. Before you slide the blast deflector onto the launch rod, drop a used motor casing first to hold the plate away from the plastic. Little things mean a lot.

Click to expand...

If you had really looked at it and thought about how it works, you would know that what you are describing will not work. The blast deflector does not slide onto the launch rod. Instead, the plastic assembly that holds the launch rod mounts into the blast plate from the top. There is no way to construct it except as designed. It's flawed.