TLP, (The Launch Pad) Fans Thread

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Only have the Perseus II which I liked as a build, its large and impressive and flies very well. I think the reason they arent popular is people moan a lot about the quality and the lightweight build but I never found much to moan about with mine and found it a challenging but fun build and when completed she looks the bomb. Have a look in the LPR section and I have video of her launching.

The only minor issue was the platforms for the rear fins - I so wish TLP had inlcuded a template rather than a non-scale drawing - but then again it gave me something to do :)

I tended to overbuild mine and as a result she is a very heavy bird - thats not really a problem as I like to keep the height down a bit as my flying field has a lot of rocket eating trees.

Next up from TLP (assuming they dont have the TALOS out by then) will be either a Rapier or a Gabriel but thats some way off.

If anyone wants the artwork I used for my Perseus II hit me up in PM with your email addy and I will send it to you as a PDF.

Pics of my Perseus II attached......


I liked your Perseus Thread, it came out really sweet!

Sadly, I don't think they are ever going to release their Version of the TALOS, so I'm eventually going to build my own. I'm not going to do a Build Thread on it however. If it flies well, then I'll just do an "In Your Face" Thread for all the Stability Nazis and Canard Fin Haters, so they can cry in their Koolaid.
 
I ordered 7 or 8 from hobbylinc because they looked cool. Wasn't impressed with the kit quality.

First one (Hellfire)- tube was smashed both ends, launch lug was flat, etc. Probably smashed getting to hobbylinc else the rest kits would be bad. Tube looked hand made - lost their supplier or something. I used the nose cone and replaced all other parts - LOC tube, 29mm mount, ply rings, G10 fins, rail buttons, Kevlar harness.

Second kit (Rapier) had a better tube - Estes BT-80 like. I replaced everything but the cone too.

Didn't do any of the paper hats, paper tail cones, balsa strips, toothpicks, etc. A big issue is these need to survive the trip to and from the field. I crushed an Estes Leviathan body coming home from URRF.

Like the missile copies, just need more robustness. Extra parts dumped in my LPR box.

Edit - On the plus side, I'll have a bunch of extra parts with nothing to use them for. Might have to find them a home when I am done.
 
Last edited:
Caveventral......a lot of kits have paper cones, transitions, tails etc. when hardened with some CA they are generally robust enough to stand up to handling. I have a Fliskits thunderbird where virtually the entire back end is a load of paper shrouds and cones and have never had a problem, ditto the Fliskits Mako which took a tumble from several hundred feet after a parachute failure and even though the kit has huge amounts of paper parts it sur ived with only minor damage.

My scratch build Rheintochter flew into a tree at almost full power and although its dins were ripped away by impact an insoection with binos showed the body, which was ostly paper transitions hardenede with CA, had survived almost entirely intact.

Any kit needs fairly careful handling so! Heck even the real things do so I think its teeny bit unfair go to suggest fragility is a problem unqiue to TLP.
 
I have several scratch-built rockets whose nose cones are entirely rolled paper reinforced with CA, several more whose tail cones are rolled paper and CA, and one under construction whose nose is the exact opposite of a TLP one (paper main cone, wooden tip). Some of these rockets have taken damage during their careers but it wasn't the paper cones which suffered. Fins are more likely to be damaged than paper cones.
 
Not unique by any means. I don't transport any LPR in with a bunch of fiberglass birds. Some kits were ok - balsa was thinner than I would have liked - but comparable to Estes.

My definition of rough handling is rockets slide in the car and a 15# fiberglass rocket is smashing it. :) I was hoping for a LOC like tube and ply fins.


Caveventral......a lot of kits have paper cones, transitions, tails etc. when hardened with some CA they are generally robust enough to stand up to handling. I have a Fliskits thunderbird where virtually the entire back end is a load of paper shrouds and cones and have never had a problem, ditto the Fliskits Mako which took a tumble from several hundred feet after a parachute failure and even though the kit has huge amounts of paper parts it sur ived with only minor damage.

My scratch build Rheintochter flew into a tree at almost full power and although its dins were ripped away by impact an insoection with binos showed the body, which was ostly paper transitions hardenede with CA, had survived almost entirely intact.

Any kit needs fairly careful handling so! Heck even the real things do so I think its teeny bit unfair go to suggest fragility is a problem unqiue to TLP.
 
Not unique by any means. I don't transport any LPR in with a bunch of fiberglass birds. Some kits were ok - balsa was thinner than I would have liked - but comparable to Estes.

My definition of rough handling is rockets slide in the car and a 15# fiberglass rocket is smashing it. :) I was hoping for a LOC like tube and ply fins.

Then it would be a HIGH POWER KIT, which TLP kits clearly ARE NOT... they're not advertised as HPR kits, they're sold as MID POWER kits. MPR kits are much more like LPR kits, paper tubes and parts like transitions and nosecones, balsa fins, etc. If the kits were made of fiberglass and heavy wall tubing and stuff, they would not be capable of flying on MID POWER motors... they would need more powerful motors to boost them, by definition putting them in the HPR category...

It would also greatly increase the cost of the kit... from the $25-$45 dollar range of most TLP kits, up into the $75 and up range for even the most basic of HPR kits.

SO, it boils down to what has been said before and will undoubtedly have to be said again and again, as some people just don't seem capable of grasping the concept... If you want a HPR kit, BUY a HPR kit... TLP kits are NOT HPR kits... If you want a MPR kit, flying on smaller impulse motors, therefore requiring lighter construction materials and methods, but not costing a fortune nor requiring HPR motors or certs to fly, then TLP kits are a good choice.

Later! OL JR :)
 
The two genuine TLP haters at our club have both moved away. I miss those TLP haters, such fun bashing and defending the kits.

TLP story: By far the best floating kit is the Krypton. Mine floated like half an hour before being rescued by a fishing boat. the shock cord mount got wet enough to come apart but otherwise it was fine.
 
The two genuine TLP haters at our club have both moved away. I miss those TLP haters, such fun bashing and defending the kits.

TLP story: By far the best floating kit is the Krypton. Mine floated like half an hour before being rescued by a fishing boat. the shock cord mount got wet enough to come apart but otherwise it was fine.


"Best Floating Kit" :rofl:
 
I've got two: ALARM and 2.6" HAWK MIM-23A. The HAWK loves E30-4's. The ALARM loves sitting in the repair queue. It needs a new hat again. I was about to hunt for a hat repair thread. I need to break out my measuring stick and draw up a .rkt file for the HAWK.
 
I have one thing to say about this thread. You guys build some beautiful rockets!! Just awesome!

I need to order a couple of these kits, but I also need to build the ones I have.
 
Just curious as I am not that long in rocketry ....Why DO people seem to get on TLP and give them verbal krypotonite. TLP seem to attract a fair amount of ire from people so much so that it almost put me off buying the Perseus II (but then I thought that maybe the moaners were sissies and that a challenge wasn't a bad thing really :) ).

I didnt find Perseus II all that challenging to be honest - it was a lot of hard work but then thats what I like, there are some things left out of the instructions and its probably not a kit for the complete beginner but I would estimate that anyone with a modicum of rocket building and some reasonable DiY skills wouldnt have too much trouble - you dont need to be North American Aviation to build it. It requires no special tools or know how to assemble. Granted the Gabriel looks a lot harder (and thats why its down on my 'To Do' list).

The verbal flak seems to come over stuff like paper parts, thin tubes etc but I wouldnt say that the tubes and paper construction is any different to Fliskits and theres nothing wrong with Jims work at Fliskits and people adore them - I just cant see why TLP get hate mail.
Yes they are lightweight construction (except when overbuilt by me :) ) but they have to be to get a large rocket off the pad with only MPR motors.

I love their kits - the range is good and its great to be able to fly a thumping big rocket that looks the bomb on relatively inexpensive motors. I could afford to do HPR but I doint really have the time, the construction facilities or a field where I could fly it and reasonably expect to get it back. I dont want to drive for three hours for every launch and get into a world of 'pro' level building with exotic elements. I could afford it easily, compared to some other hobbies I have and have had its not that expensive - but I dont want to commit that level of time and cash - TLP stuff gives me the option to build something big and bold on not much resource and for that I for one am mighty thankful TLP are around.

For me TLP give the chance to have something a bit bigger (all right a lot bigger) than the average Estes kit with a bit more skill required to bujild it. Estes are great for when you start up but I find them nowehere near challenging enough to build - pretty much shake and bake which is great for the complete newbie no nothing, in fact me two years ago. But as I moved on I wanted more of a challenging build and sureley thats what a big part of the hobby is about or else we would see finished rockets for sale from vendors - simply light the fuse and retire fast type stuff.

So ..........why do TLP get so much stick - it seems very unfair and unjust to me.
 
When I first started building TLP Kits in November I too was extremely Critical of the Components and Recommended Construction Methods. My TLP ALARM I modified to include a Baffle and TTW Basswood Fins. It came in at 18oz. Without Motor. I used Rocksim and found it will fly safely from my 5' Rail on anything over an E20 Composite. My Second, the Gabriel III, I did'nt even give a Chance to the Original Kit, and only used the Body Tubes and the Nose Cone. This one was built for 29mm, and everything was Plywood and such. 22.65oz.. It will fly on F50, G40, and G80 SU Composites.
On my latest Model, the Indigo, I tried my best to stay true to the original Intent of the Kit, and came in at 13.85oz, yet still managed to get what I'de call a "Durable Enough" Rocket. This is great, because I'll start it off on a Diet of E20, and be able to hopefully push it right up to the F44 Single Use Motor. I'll likely eventually get a Reloadable 24mm Case to play with in this Bird too.
I'll build the Indigo again, but heavier, and for 29mm at a later Date in the Future.
I don't have any problem with those who want to build a TLP Kit however they want to build it, or even if they want to criticize the original Components. The fact that they are building them at all in the first place is good enough for me, and they will, as I have, learn some things in the Process.
I respect TLP for the Fact that thier Kits are based on real Missiles. I'm a Warmonger and love all things Militant, so for me, TLP is my favorite simply for bringing these Designs to the Table.
 
Last edited:
Astro-Baby, don't take the whole TLP hater thing too seriously. It is just grumpy old men with nothing better to do at a launch or on a forum than to argue the merits of what a mid power kit should be. As far as I can tell it goes back to the 90's when TLP came out and the hobby was moving to a heavier standard of construction as motors became more and more powerful. Plenty of square jawed machismo and Yankee arrogance only added fuel to the debate which lasts until today. With the advent of forums and review sites TLP kits were lambasted as dudes tried to modify them who thought they knew what they were doing. If you read some of the old reviews it is really funny. Confident know it all "rocket scientists" moving headlong into disaster, only then to rant on TLP. Many of the elaborate build threads would go silent when it came time to report on the flight, as you know those first flights can be hard on the ego. Overall it has made for a huge amount of publicity and made many TLP lovers.
 
Just curious as I am not that long in rocketry ....Why DO people seem to get on TLP and give them verbal krypotonite. TLP seem to attract a fair amount of ire from people so much so that it almost put me off buying the Perseus II (but then I thought that maybe the moaners were sissies and that a challenge wasn't a bad thing really :) ).

I didnt find Perseus II all that challenging to be honest - it was a lot of hard work but then thats what I like, there are some things left out of the instructions and its probably not a kit for the complete beginner but I would estimate that anyone with a modicum of rocket building and some reasonable DiY skills wouldnt have too much trouble - you dont need to be North American Aviation to build it. It requires no special tools or know how to assemble. Granted the Gabriel looks a lot harder (and thats why its down on my 'To Do' list).

The verbal flak seems to come over stuff like paper parts, thin tubes etc but I wouldnt say that the tubes and paper construction is any different to Fliskits and theres nothing wrong with Jims work at Fliskits and people adore them - I just cant see why TLP get hate mail.
Yes they are lightweight construction (except when overbuilt by me :) ) but they have to be to get a large rocket off the pad with only MPR motors.

I love their kits - the range is good and its great to be able to fly a thumping big rocket that looks the bomb on relatively inexpensive motors. I could afford to do HPR but I doint really have the time, the construction facilities or a field where I could fly it and reasonably expect to get it back. I dont want to drive for three hours for every launch and get into a world of 'pro' level building with exotic elements. I could afford it easily, compared to some other hobbies I have and have had its not that expensive - but I dont want to commit that level of time and cash - TLP stuff gives me the option to build something big and bold on not much resource and for that I for one am mighty thankful TLP are around.

For me TLP give the chance to have something a bit bigger (all right a lot bigger) than the average Estes kit with a bit more skill required to bujild it. Estes are great for when you start up but I find them nowehere near challenging enough to build - pretty much shake and bake which is great for the complete newbie no nothing, in fact me two years ago. But as I moved on I wanted more of a challenging build and sureley thats what a big part of the hobby is about or else we would see finished rockets for sale from vendors - simply light the fuse and retire fast type stuff.

So ..........why do TLP get so much stick - it seems very unfair and unjust to me.

For the same basic reasons I outlined earlier from what I've seen...

Folks pick up a TLP kit because it's a cool looking big rocket (like you mentioned, "thumping big"... have to remember that one) and they're in all likelihood expecting it to be built like a big HPR kit... IOW, plywood, fiberglass, heavy wall tube, etc. Then they're disappointed because it's NOT a HPR kit, neither is it advertised to be, but a MIDPOWER kit, meaning D, E, F, and maybe G motors (not the "blink and they're gone" type super-fast takeoff type motors). TLP uses a "design mindset" that seems all but lost in the hobby nowadays. Most everybody seems of the mindset that just because most of the HPR kit manufacturers use heavy thick wall tubing, fiberglass, plywood, and other heavy construction methods (foam filled fin cans, tons of epoxy, etc) that somehow that equates to the only "correct" way to build a kit. The resulting product is usually so slathered in epoxy and fiberglass or built of such stout materials as to practically be an "anti-tank round" and folks even brag on that... "it came in ballistic from a couple thousand feet and just scratched the paint" and other such comments... Of course the fact that the thing is SO heavy that they have to use a high-impulse HPR rocket motor due to the overbuilt components never occurs to them (or the consequences to anyone/anything the thing might hit on the ground).

TLP uses the old "model rocket" method of construction... lightweight components to get the maximum performance out of the available rocket motor power (rather than the "just shove a bigger motor in it" mindset I've seen predominate in a lot of HPR folks). The reasons are twofold-- first, the kits are designed to fly on MIDPOWER motors-- not requiring certification and a HPR waivered launch to fly, etc. By definition this means limited total impulse and motor choice (in the way the impulse is delivered, IE thrust/time curve). This limits the total weight of the rocket. Second, since the designs are based on actively stabilized military missiles that are either unstable or barely stable when passively guided (as virtually all model (and HPR) rockets are) then they require considerable additional nose weight to make them stable, eating into the precious mass allotment that the chosen rocket motors can lift, leaving less mass allotment available for the airframe, recovery system, motor mount(s), fins, and other stuff (as needed). This means that the CG/CP relationship is already somewhat precarious, as is the mass, and therefore material choice and building methods are traded off against making a stable, safe to fly, relatively easy to build kit that can still fly on LIMITED motor power. This really flies in the face of some people's thought process, especially when it comes to "big" rockets...

Some folks buy the kit, see the lightweight balsa and thin paper tubes, etc, and think "what a piece of crap" and "this'll never hold up" and proceed to replace everything with plywood, thick tubing, fiberglass, epoxy, and other "HPR materials" and proceed to build it as an anti-tank round, and then whine about the 'crappy materials' TLP puts in their kits. Then they either gripe about the poor performance (or occasional instability because they didn't think through the stability issues relating to adding extra weight where it wasn't designed to have it, as the CG/CP relationship was already touchy due to the missile design) due to it being too heavy for the motor power available, or they decide they have to put a bigger motor mount in it for the extra weight and to fly on HPR... which is fine, if that's what they want to do... some folks come at it with the attitude "screw the wimpy midpower motors; I want to fly that baby on a zippy "I" or "J" motor, so I'll shove a bigger mount in it and be ready to go... then when they get the kit realize that thin lightweight balsa and thin wall tubes will never hold up to that level of power, and have to proceed to rebuild it with heavier materials into an anti-tank round... Either way, the result is usually the same... they usually gripe, whine, moan, and complain about buying a $30-40 buck MPR kit and, surprise surprise, it wasn't a HPR kit like they wanted after all...

I agree, there's little room to gripe... Fact is, TLP's are designed how "large model rocket" kits were designed BEFORE HPR was anything but an illegal maverick activity being conducted by a handful of people... back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, before HPR even came along... (or at least before it was 'sanctioned'). Back then you HAD to build light because the biggest motor you could get "legally" was the FSI F100 (IIRC) and even those were expensive and somewhat dicey (in reliability terms). The other issue is, the larger the rocket, the more likely it is to be damaged in flight or on the ground in handling, transport, or storage... simple as that. Smaller rockets have less mass, the forces acting on them in handling, transit, storage, launch, flight, and landing are commensurately smaller, and hence they usually will survive without incident (or only cosmetic or minor damage) stuff that would destroy a larger model rocket. Increasing the motor power only compounds these issues... even the older editions of the "Handbook of Model Rocketry" by G. Harry Stine commented on reaching the 'speed of balsa' at which a model rocket would shred apart from the motor power acting upon it, in the form of acceleration, atmospheric drag, fin flutter, or other dynamic forces in flight, coupled with the construction material's physical strength or design, construction methods, or limitations of adhesives or methods used... On the ground, sitting on the workbench, storage box, display shelf, or prep table, a heavier larger rocket falling over will often break something, either on itself or another rocket, where a smaller lighter one will not, just due to the sheer difference in mass...

When one goes up to HPR, the most straightforward method to strengthen the rocket to survive the motor impulse induced flight loads it to switch to thicker, heavier, stronger materials (surprise, surprise). Plywood instead of balsa, thick wall paper tubes instead of thin wall, plywood rings instead of cardstock or balsa, fiberglass to replace any/all of that, and/or extra fiberglassing or epoxy to stiffen stuff up, foam-filled fincans or motor mounts, etc... Of course all that weighs extra, which means either 1) a bigger motor is needed for desired performance, or 2) the performance will be less than it would be with "softer" (lighter) building materials and methods... It's all about choices and tradeoffs...

Personally, some of the most INSPIRING builds I've seen aren't HPR rockets at all... John Pursley (former NAR magazine editor when it was "American Spacemodeling") does some INCREDIBLY cool builds using 1/64 lite-ply for tubes and rings and depron foam and other ultra-lightweight materials to construct what would ordinarily be a fairly large HPR motor-propelled rocket, that flies strictly on non-certification requiring "model rocket motors" (what TLP would call a "Mid-Power" motor-- ie D, E, F, and G). To me, I find a rocket that's over six feet tall and over a foot in diameter that can be lifted with one hand and flies on a "G" motor to be INFINITELY more interesting than some fiberglassed epoxy-slobbered anti-tank round that's half that size but requires two guys to carry and flies on some monstrous motor, no matter how loud, smoky, whatever...

I'm like you... I *could* get into HPR, but there's nothing there that really interests me... a bigger "whoosh pop" (maybe "roar, bang") doesn't do much for me; plus I STEADFASTLY REFUSE to get "certified" for ANY *hobby* activity... got enough of that crap to do IRL, don't need it for a *leisure* activity... Don't see blowing the money or going to the trouble worthwhile either (though there are those who do; more power to them...) I can do anything I'm interested in doing in rocketry with the available power in the "model rocket" motor world anyway, and of course MID POWER, just like the TLP kits are designed for... (AS they are designed, without all the heavyweight mods). Plus, it's darn nice to be able to get a nice kit for less than $100 bucks (or darn close to it). That's why I like TLP and Dr. Zooch-- they're nice OLD SCHOOL BUILDER'S KITS and priced appropriately...

Later! OL JR :)
 
Last edited:
Paul T, "Sodmeister", documented many TLP kits here on TRF. His documentation and embellishments were terrific!


I'm really missin' Paul T. He was my inspiration to start playing with TLP Kits in the first place, and I always look to his build Threads for Inspiration.
Last I heard he is busy with "Real Life" stuff like Carpentry or some such. Hope he comes back to the Forum soon.
 
Cavecentral is the best! He sent me all the TLP stuff he was'nt using!
Now I can TLP it up!:)

 
As a Marxist I feel you should distribute those to other TLP comrades for the cause of universal socialism - plus it would take the strain of having to build them away from you and distribute the load more evenly upon your brother TLP'ers backs :)
 
As a Marxist I feel you should distribute those to other TLP comrades for the cause of universal socialism - plus it would take the strain of having to build them away from you and distribute the load more evenly upon your brother TLP'ers backs :)

Lol, we're not socialist yet but I understand your sentiment . . . the UK is a little further along the road towards socialism, so if you could help us not make some of the same mistakes. [the previous statement was said in jest] :grin:
 
Ahh, a Tan-Sam. I have had one in the build pile for years and have never built it. I will be interested to see how you detail and paint it as it seems a bit boring as it is. (then I can copy you, LOL)
 
Ahh, a Tan-Sam. I have had one in the build pile for years and have never built it. I will be interested to see how you detail and paint it as it seems a bit boring as it is. (then I can copy you, LOL)

The Tan Sam has a Dual 24mm Mount! This will be exciting. I need to order some Nose Cones for these Kits, as that was the only Component that Cavecentral used from them. He did send me one 2.6" TLP Cone, but it's being used for Scratch Build that I already had planned.
 
Ahh, a Tan-Sam. I have had one in the build pile for years and have never built it. I will be interested to see how you detail and paint it as it seems a bit boring as it is. (then I can copy you, LOL)

Dang it! You had to get me interested in starting the Tan-Sam!
It looks like a really quick and straighforward Build.
It is a dual 24mm, but the Mount makes it so that you can only use Black Powder Motors. Perhaps I could redesign the Mounts Centering Rings to accomodate Composites with their Built in Thrust Rings?

Sadly, like most TLP Kits, the Type 81 is an Obscure Missile, and Pictures of it are equally rare. Found this one though. Equally sad is that I could not find a bigger Pic', so the Details can't be seen. What does look cool is the Nose Paint.



Either way, I need to finish the Scratch Build I have going on the Bench right now, and it will be a couple Weeks before I can order some BT-80 Nose Cones.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top