Finally... 8yr Old Project Being Finished

This is two ways of spelling Mach (as in Mach Number) Not sure about the 24, you could just do it in Arabic numerals.

Originally posted by JRThro
And by extension, you never realized that it was Scott in the picture, eh?

Click to expand...

It IS?! Where?

Originally posted by rokitflite
Hey Bill,
I never did the Mach-10 kit. My friend Jerry made one that darn near flew away. I made three copies with his dimensions and NONE of them flew right. That is why I made the RC one... So I could FORCE it to fly right! The launch is now set for tomorrow... I'll try to post some pictures!

Click to expand...

Mine flew great, and it was always a HUGE hit with the kids who gathered at all of our small field launches back then. The only reason I finally had to retire it was all of the accumulated damage. A lot came from that first flight when it exploded, but it had some hard gravel landings over the next few years. The end came when one of those killer Estes ejection charges blew the motor tube to pieces. I've got parts cut out for a new one, but it's a low priority build at the moment. Been there, done that, you know.

Originally posted by skippy-2
This is two ways of spelling Mach (as in Mach Number) Not sure about the 24, you could just do it in Arabic numerals.

Click to expand...

Hmmph... Those look cooler than what I've seen... I may use one of those spellings... Thanks!

Originally posted by skippy-2
This is two ways of spelling Mach (as in Mach Number) Not sure about the 24, you could just do it in Arabic numerals.

Click to expand...

I thought that ìàøèíà meant machine or car.

I ended up using ìàõ-24 since most of the references I found just say MACH, and this article on Ernst Mach had it used that way.

https://psi.webzone.ru/st/139600.htm

kj

ps it looks like TRF didn't like me pasting in cyrillic.

here's a jpg

kj

Originally posted by rokitflite
And finally one for Micromeister...

Click to expand...

Way KEWL Scott:
Can't beat them mosquito's....OH! and the Mega Mock-10 is very nice also

Originally posted by Fishhead
It IS?! Where?

Click to expand...

Hmmm.... No winking or smiling emoticons to indicate irony or sarcasm or humor... I wonder what he *really* meant?

Originally posted by skippy-2
This is two ways of spelling Mach (as in Mach Number) Not sure about the 24, you could just do it in Arabic numerals.

Click to expand...

Yep, they use Arabic numerals with the Cyrillic alphabet.

Originally posted by zog43editor
here's a jpg

kj

Click to expand...

Of course, everyone who sees it won't realize it's in Cyrillic letters and will think it says "Max-24".

Well,
My test flight was more of a pain in the butt than anything else. The E15 refused to light until the third igniter. The model went up fine, but the E15-4 ended up being an E15-10. I was able to keep the nose up with the heavy pod in the front, but it lost so much altitude it was not much of a flight. I am going to reconfigure it for an E9 with less nose weight... More to follow.

Ah yes, the popular E15-4. I lost a Maxi-V2 and severely damaged my Saturn V on two of these motors which were more like -9's.

I have had good luck with RMS motors, but I would sooner kiss a Haitian prostitute with open cold sores, than fly another Aerotech SU motor.

Yeah Scott had much more success than I did on my test flight. I'll have to go back down to the car for the camera to get the photos.

My project had been lingereing a while (maybe 3-4 years, no where near 8) and I brought it out to fly with Scott.

I had gotten an earlier solid version of this kit somewhere:
https://www.hobby-lobby.com/f16.htm

My version was a solid chunk of foam with only a tube hollowed out just big enoug to accept a BT-70. I added a 24mm internal power pod, and set it up for 2 ch tailerons.

1st flight on a D12- things sorta worked but I did a bad piloting job and looped it. It hit softly, and damaged the nose. Some tape fixed that.

2nd flight on a D12 and I had things under better control, but it seemed a little slow and under powered. Landed safely with no damage.

3rd flight on an E9. Not good. It got off the pad and started heading up but seemed to lose control authority. Bounced along the ground under thrust back towards me, and I had to jump. Totalled the rocket and singed my pants a bit.

Very glad I decided to test fly this one out by ourselves.

kj

Originally posted by zog43editor
I thought that ìàøèíà meant machine or car.

I ended up using ìàõ-24 since most of the references I found just say MACH, and this article on Ernst Mach had it used that way.

https://psi.webzone.ru/st/139600.htm

kj

ps it looks like TRF didn't like me pasting in cyrillic.

Click to expand...

My Russian is only conversational, rather than having any ability to write.

I go here and do the old cut and paste. Seems to work well, I often get told how good my French and German is, but I speak no German and only a smidge of French!

https://dictionary.reference.com/translate/text.html

BUMMER!!! that F-16 was looking cool. Scott's Mach is also a cool looking bird. I wished I was there but I could not take a long lunch break today. Well, give it another try.

Originally posted by zog43editor
Yeah Scott had much more success than I did on my test flight. I'll have to go back down to the car for the camera to get the photos.

My project had been lingereing a while (maybe 3-4 years, no where near 8) and I brought it out to fly with Scott.

I had gotten an earlier solid version of this kit somewhere:
https://www.hobby-lobby.com/f16.htm

My version was a solid chunk of foam with only a tube hollowed out just big enoug to accept a BT-70. I added a 24mm internal power pod, and set it up for 2 ch tailerons.

1st flight on a D12- things sorta worked but I did a bad piloting job and looped it. It hit softly, and damaged the nose. Some tape fixed that.

2nd flight on a D12 and I had things under better control, but it seemed a little slow and under powered. Landed safely with no damage.

3rd flight on an E9. Not good. It got off the pad and started heading up but seemed to lose control authority. Bounced along the ground under thrust back towards me, and I had to jump. Totalled the rocket and singed my pants a bit.

Very glad I decided to test fly this one out by ourselves.

kj

Click to expand...

Kevin is a good friend and I feel terrible for laughing as hard as I did.

While at work I managed to gut the old motor mount from the Mach-10. I think I am going to convert it to a full length pop pod. That way it will keep the nose cone on and loose the excess tail weight I had.

dude, in ur first pic is that an Eagle Talon? Early 90's 1st Gen. Talon. Niceeeeee. lol. Nice design man, very original. And yes, i like the talon.

Ha, yeah... That's my OTHER money pit Actually it's a 97 second gen.

Here she is without the frumpy looking guy in rocket launching clothing...

Allright...
I got the pod done and the Maxi Mach is ready for E9 testing... The Estes catalog lists the maximum lift weight at 15 oz for the E9-4... This weighs 14 oz. It will be a slow launch, but I am hoping to have some control authority over the vehicle by the time it leaves the rod... If not to go up straight then to have a nice, level flight across the field!

Make sure you get someone to video this, I would love to see it fly, best of both worlds, RC and Rockets!!!

Scott: when is this flight supposed to happen? Where?

Originally posted by rosko_racer
Scott: when is this flight supposed to happen? Where?

Click to expand...

I have no clue... I hope soon cause I am anxious to make some decals for it if it does not crash!

Did you ever manage to get a flight off with the pop pod configuration? I guess it's getting close to a 10 year project now. :lol:

Dr Wogz said:

https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/2833/luftwaffe/fighter/ba349/ba349.html

for a little more 'ooh' factor, as it is extremely rarely modeled

Click to expand...

There was an article in Sport Rocketry(Jan-Feb 2007) about the Das Modell kit of the BA-349 Natter.

rokitflite said:

Allright...
I got the pod done and the Maxi Mach is ready for E9 testing... The Estes catalog lists the maximum lift weight at 15 oz for the E9-4... This weighs 14 oz. It will be a slow launch, but I am hoping to have some control authority over the vehicle by the time it leaves the rod... If not to go up straight then to have a nice, level flight across the field!

Click to expand...

Hmm...

Estes' alleged maximum lift weight of 15oz for the E9-4 is, shall we say, optimistic.

14oz is about 0.4kg. The average thrust/weight ratio is therefore 9/(0.4*9.8) = 2.3. I'd say that this will be a very slow launch!

Actually it has been sitting pitifully on top of the entertainment center for over a year now... I focused more on the RC Fake Wulf that will do well on BP Ds and Es. If it ever flies again it will be on a *shudder* composite E or F, but I will most likely make a scaled down version of it... Maybe a 3" tube.

No doubt the FW design has more "hang time" potential....more glide after the ride.... The Mach10 design is ok, but nothing compared to the FW. I still want to see the RC Fake Wulf take to the air! Please oh please oh please??!??!

I will put notes on the thread I started about the Big Wulf...