AeroTech MPR kit recommendations? (and instructions?)

[4regt4]

Been building nearly everything from Estes kits, and I'd like try some alternatives. So I've been looking at AeroTech.

Requirements/desires: As I usually fly in a park, it needs to work well on "E" or maybe even "D" motors. But certainly usable with "F" or even "G" if I find a big enough field. I'd like to try their plastic Fin-Lok mount, and metal motor retainers. (Seems a few of them don't have these.) Probably 29mm mounts, with adapter for 24mm. As this will be a sort of transitional model for me, I'd like to keep it simple as well. Motor ejection, etc.

The Arreaux or Tomahawk have caught my eye, but I'm wide open to other suggestions. Or perhaps a Cheetah.

I hate to make this a two topic thread, but this is related: I have *always* looked up the assembly instructions before buying anything in the past. I've rejected quite a few Estes kits after reading the instructions because of materials or construction techniques I didn't like. But I can't find the instructions for any of the AeroTech models.

Thoughts?

Hans.

 

[jmasterj]

The smaller/lighter the better if you want to fly it on a D. Cheetah or Mustang would be good. Tomahawk is just a little longer, I don't remember about the Arreaux. My Cheetah is at the AT listed weight of 13oz with paint and everything. I've simmed a Q-Jet D22, but the smallest motor I've actually flown it on is an AT E18 reload. It loves small Fs to 1300-1500ft, lots of reload and SU options with the right delays and without hazmat shipping.

 

[Hobie1dog]

Cheetah is my choice.

 

[4regt4]

Thanks.

An alternative to smaller/lighter is bigger/heavier. What I mean by that is a bigger rocket on an "E" could give similar results to smaller on a "D". Meaning I can still fly it in a park. I have an Estes Executioner that doesn't go real high on an E12-4 BP. The Estes Top Shot performs similarly on a D12-5.

So going back to AeroTech and thinking this through, it looks like a 1.9" dia on "D" or a 2.6" on "E" would work. Which are the options available. But the 2.6" may give me fewer options going forward if I wanted to supersize and go for altitude if the opportunity arose.

Hmmmm...

Hans.

 

[jmasterj]

True. The safety code specifies a bigger field for E-G, though, regardless of expected altitude. You can keep big/heavy class one rockets below 1000+ feet on Gs without too much trouble.

 

[ShadowSpire48]

An Arreaux will fly fine on an E. I have one and it's a fairly small kit (1.9") and I've flown it on E23-5's before. I think it hits around 700ft. No Aerotech kit will fly on an Estes motor though. Building it is stupid easy. CA to glue all the plastic bits in, don't bother using the mesh crap that comes in the kit, just use wadding like a normal rocket, when you screw the little eyebolts in, use epoxy and then use epoxy to glue the motor mount in. CA will work to glue the fins in. I'd recommend getting decals from Mark @ Stickershock for whichever kit you go with because Aerotech's decals are utter crap.

 

[4regt4]

An Arreaux will fly fine on an E. I have one and it's a fairly small kit (1.9") and I've flown it on E23-5's before. I think it hits around 700ft. No Aerotech kit will fly on an Estes motor though. Building it is stupid easy. CA to glue all the plastic bits in, don't bother using the mesh crap that comes in the kit, just use wadding like a normal rocket, when you screw the little eyebolts in, use epoxy and then use epoxy to glue the motor mount in. CA will work to glue the fins in. I'd recommend getting decals from Mark @ Stickershock for whichever kit you go with because Aerotech's decals are utter crap.

Wish I could view the instructions.....

Hans.

 

[tsmith1315]

And if you can get to a big field, the Arreaux goes a long way on a full G-motor. Close to 3k', just a tiny dot in the sky. Great fun!

I'll see if I still have instructions to scan...

edit: Yep, I do have them from 2012. I'll scan & post later tonight...

 

[tsmith1315]

Wish I could view the instructions.....

Hans.

 

[waltr]

I seems to have all the Aerotech rocsim/OpenRocket files.
Here is the Arreaux:
1000' E28-7
1825' F52-9
2226' G53-9

 

[4regt4]

That... is.... very appreciated.

If for no other reason than the various manufacturers tend to have similar assembly. So that's likely a template for their other kits. I just wish the others would do like Estes and post them online.

I'll study it in detail later.

Hans.

 

[4regt4]

I seems to have all the Aerotech rocsim/OpenRocket files.
Here is the Arreaux:
1000' E28-7
1825' F52-9
2226' G53-9

Wow. I'll load up the OR file tomorrow. You guys are fantastic.

Hans.

 

[jmasterj]

That... is.... very appreciated.

If for no other reason than the various manufacturers tend to have similar assembly. So that's likely a template for their other kits. I just wish the others would do like Estes and post them online.

I'll study it in detail later.

Hans.

They all build the same except the Sumo, which dispenses with the mesh and uses a piston instead.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Been building nearly everything from Estes kits, and I'd like try some alternatives. So I've been looking at AeroTech.

I'd like to try their plastic Fin-Lok mount, and metal motor retainers.

Hans.

Hans,

When you are attaching the push-in, Fin-Lok plastic fins, be SURE to have a motor or a motor casing in the motor mount. WHY ? Sometimes those fins can be difficult to get to "snap" into place. If you have to push very hard, the motor mount tube can collapse, unless it is supported, internally. I learned this the hard way !

Dave F.

 

[Initiator001]

A friend and I recently flew our Arreaux and Mustang kits on Quest Q-Jet E26-4W motors.

The Arreaux had a mass of 13.85 oz w/o motor.
The Mustang had a mass of 12.2 oz w/o motor.

Both models had nice straight boosts and ejected the recovery system at apogee.

The models reached only 300-400 feet altitude.

Nice flights.

 

[Initiator001]

An Arreaux will fly fine on an E. I have one and it's a fairly small kit (1.9") and I've flown it on E23-5's before. I think it hits around 700ft. No Aerotech kit will fly on an Estes motor though. Building it is stupid easy. CA to glue all the plastic bits in, don't bother using the mesh crap that comes in the kit, just use wadding like a normal rocket, when you screw the little eyebolts in, use epoxy and then use epoxy to glue the motor mount in. CA will work to glue the fins in. I'd recommend getting decals from Mark @ Stickershock for whichever kit you go with because Aerotech's decals are utter crap.

AeroTech kits build fast and strong if you follow the directions.

The cooling mesh is a nice feature which eliminates the need for wadding. It also gives peace-of-mind as you don't have to worry if you remembered to put the recovery wadding in the rocket. I have used this method in other company's rocket kits and scratch-built models.

The kit provided decals work fine. No need to spend 50% of the kit cost to get after-market decals.

 

[JackC]

I like the Mustang. It looks a little prettier than other smaller Aerotech rockets.

Another important tip is during construction, have a motor or a reloadable motor case in the motor mount tube before you try and snap the fins into the fin lock system. Doing so will keep the tube and the fin lock system supported to avoid pushing too hard and snapping the bottom plastic fin root.

 

[loopy]

That... is.... very appreciated.

If for no other reason than the various manufacturers tend to have similar assembly. So that's likely a template for their other kits. I just wish the others would do like Estes and post them online.

I'll study it in detail later.

Hans.

Similar assembly, but AT is a bit different with their mesh/baffle and the fin locks. Other than that, it's pretty much the same concepts. When I started in mid power, I went with an Aerotech Initiator, and I fell in love. Did a couple more AT kits, then tried a few LOC/Precision.
AT Arreaux or Mustang would be great small field/small motor flyers. If you plan on staying in the hobby and flying more and more mid power stuff, I'd STRONGLY suggest looking into investing in the 24/40 RMS hobby line case.
Also, these come with a 1/4" launch lug, so you'll need a launch pad that can handle that rod. Also, a longer lead wire for the bigger motors, and a stronger launch controller for composite motors.

 

[samb]

Been building nearly everything from Estes kits, and I'd like try some alternatives. So I've been looking at AeroTech.

Requirements/desires: As I usually fly in a park, it needs to work well on "E" or maybe even "D" motors. But certainly usable with "F" or even "G" if I find a big enough field. I'd like to try their plastic Fin-Lok mount, and metal motor retainers. (Seems a few of them don't have these.) Probably 29mm mounts, with adapter for 24mm. As this will be a sort of transitional model for me, I'd like to keep it simple as well. Motor ejection, etc.

The Arreaux or Tomahawk have caught my eye, but I'm wide open to other suggestions. Or perhaps a Cheetah.

I hate to make this a two topic thread, but this is related: I have *always* looked up the assembly instructions before buying anything in the past. I've rejected quite a few Estes kits after reading the instructions because of materials or construction techniques I didn't like. But I can't find the instructions for any of the AeroTech models.

Thoughts?

Hans.

Aerotech does not include kit instructions on their website. If you google "aerotech model rocket kit instructions" you may find some old things on possibly sketchy websites. Make sure you have updated virus protection before trying one of those. That said all Aerotech kits build in a similar fashion. The Fin-Lok system and use of CA as the primary adhesive makes them Almost Ready to Fly. I'll add my vote for the Mustang to meet your requirement for D and E impulse.

 

[jmasterj]

AT Arreaux or Mustang would be great small field/small motor flyers. If you plan on staying in the hobby and flying more and more mid power stuff, I'd STRONGLY suggest looking into investing in the 24/40 RMS hobby line case.
Also, these come with a 1/4" launch lug, so you'll need a launch pad that can handle that rod. Also, a longer lead wire for the bigger motors, and a stronger launch controller for composite motors.

Totally agree on the 24/40 case. The white lightning loads are my favorites; they're crowd pleasers at LPR launches with the noise.

The current versions of the AT kits come with plastic rail lugs as well as the boxy 1/4" launch lugs.

 

[loopy]

Totally agree on the 24/40 case. The white lightning loads are my favorites; they're crowd pleasers at LPR launches with the noise.

The current versions of the AT kits come with plastic rail lugs as well as the boxy 1/4" launch lugs.

Shows how long ago I built my last AT kit...lol...But yeah - point remains that OP needs to make sure they have the right launch pad.

And there's nothing quite like an E18 in a Big Daddy...

 

[jmasterj]

I was just trying to figure out what I could fly an F12-5 in, and the answer is a big daddy!

 

[loopy]

I was just trying to figure out what I could fly an F12-5 in, and the answer is a big daddy!

Yup!

 

[4regt4]

Finally got around to reading the instructions. Thanks again for that. I'm definitely going to order an AT kit, now I've narrowed it down to 3 choices.

Question: On other projects (not rockets) I've had CA come apart in time. How well does it hold up on these kits? (hate to start another glue argument...) Actually, I've had epoxy, CA, and plastic cement joints fail on the fins of my Estes Top Shot. Last fin re-attachment was with a bit of plastic cement, then when dry overlaid that with thick CA. We'll see how it hold up to the next landing. The CA "fogged" the plastic nearly 1/2" from the glue joint, though.

Hans.

 

[samb]

Finally got around to reading the instructions. Thanks again for that. I'm definitely going to order an AT kit, now I've narrowed it down to 3 choices.

Question: On other projects (not rockets) I've had CA come apart in time. How well does it hold up on these kits? (hate to start another glue argument...) Actually, I've had epoxy, CA, and plastic cement joints fail on the fins of my Estes Top Shot. Last fin re-attachment was with a bit of plastic cement, then when dry overlaid that with thick CA. We'll see how it hold up to the next landing. The CA "fogged" the plastic nearly 1/2" from the glue joint, though.

Hans.

My Aerotech Barracuda was a regular flier for years before meeting that 1in10,000 chance rock in the field. The plastic broke at the root rather than the joint failing. The Fin-Lok system would probably hold without any adhesive but build as directed and enjoy.

 

[ShadowSpire48]

AeroTech kits build fast and strong if you follow the directions.

The cooling mesh is a nice feature which eliminates the need for wadding. It also gives peace-of-mind as you don't have to worry if you remembered to put the recovery wadding in the rocket. I have used this method in other company's rocket kits and scratch-built models.

The kit provided decals work fine. No need to spend 50% of the kit cost to get after-market decals.

Well perhaps I got faulty decals because mine are peeling off and the Astrobee fin shoes came off too. The cooling mesh is nice HOWEVER it has a big flaw which is aimed at Aerotech and that is the red ejection caps that come with the reloads. Those plastic bits easily clog that mesh up.

 

[Initiator001]

Well perhaps I got faulty decals because mine are peeling off and the Astrobee fin shoes came off too. The cooling mesh is nice HOWEVER it has a big flaw which is aimed at Aerotech and that is the red ejection caps that come with the reloads. Those plastic bits easily clog that mesh up.

Sorry to hear you had problems with the decals. I have built the Astrobee D kit and the decals seemed to stick just fine.

After flying an AeroTech kit I remove the motor and shake the rocket until the ejection cap falls out.

 

[waltr]

I have read a number of complaints about the mesh ejection charge baffle.
Some fliers just remove the mesh and protect the chute with wadding or a blanket.
Others say the mesh needs to be removed and cleaned to ensure it is not clogged with ejection caps or soot.

Probably is a good idea to remove and clean after every flight to ensure the ejection works on the next flight.

 

[Initiator001]

I have read a number of complaints about the mesh ejection charge baffle.
Some fliers just remove the mesh and protect the chute with wadding or a blanket.
Others say the mesh needs to be removed and cleaned to ensure it is not clogged with ejection caps or soot.

Probably is a good idea to remove and clean after every flight to ensure the ejection works on the next flight.

It is unnecessary to ever remove the baffle mesh for cleaning.

I built an Arreaux kit back in 2002. After 50 flights I was curious so I took the cooling mesh out.
It was sooty and black but otherwise fine.
I put the mesh back in the rocket and have flown it another 15-20 times since then.
No issues.

Just remember to shake out the ejection caps and/or paper ejection cap remains and the model is good to go.

 

[user 35280]

You may enjoy the Quest/Aerotech Advanced Rocketry Kits like these,
https://www.siriusrocketry.biz/ishop/quest-big-dog-advanced-rocketry-kit-1100.htmlhttps://www.siriusrocketry.biz/ishop/quest-high-q-advanced-rocketry-kit-1101.htmlhttps://www.siriusrocketry.biz/ishop/quest-mean-green-advanced-rocketry-kit-1102.htmlhttps://www.siriusrocketry.biz/ishop/quest-lil-grunt-advanced-rocketry-kit-1099.htmlhttps://www.siriusrocketry.biz/ishop/quest-minotaur-advanced-rocketry-kit-1097.htmlhttps://www.siriusrocketry.biz/ishop/quest-quad-runner-advanced-rocketry-kit-1098.html