Encourage Estes to make a C5-0 Booster Motor!

[DirkTheDaring]

Hi Rocketeers!

I just started a petition on Change.org to show Estes that there is a market for a C5-0 booster engine. There have been numerous discussions about this, and it appears that it's technically very feasible but we have to demonstrate that there is a market for it.

Hence the petition! If enough people sign it, perhaps Estes will get the word and start making this engine.

You can read more and sign the petition here:

https://chng.it/qPmDggPWLG

Thanks!
ken

 

[Paul Howard]

Hi, I'm "In"!!! I signed the petition from the link you provided and I think(?) it went through OK.

Great idea, Thanks for initiating the process!! -PTH

 

[lakeroadster]

Buy a C5-3 and knock the delay out of it? Yeah, I know, That's Verbotten!

 

[PDawg]

There's no point in making a C6-3 or C6-0 anymore. I don't stage but I can't see any benefit of a C6 instead of a C5 booster. The C5-3 is one of my favorite motors for larger 18mm rockets.

 

[SolarYellow]

I wish the thrust profile was more like the C11. I'm just thinking of the A10, where @BEC has reported he can actually watch his two-stager slow down during the low-thrust phase of the booster. In a rocket where people would be motivated to run a C5-0, I could see that being a problem. The C11 gives its big push and then hands it off to the next stage, rather than hanging around not doing much for a long time like the A10-T and C5.

ETA: In light of my comments above, I can't think of a scenario where I'd really see an advantage to a C5-0 over a C6-0 but where I wouldn't also just build it with a 24mm MMT and use a C11. I think if you're really limited to a BT-20 MMT, the rocket should be light and clean enough to be fine with a C6. If you really need a C5 instead of a C6, it should be no trouble at all to use a 24mm MMT. Just need to plan ahead and not restrict yourself to building rockets the way Estes tells you to.

 

[lakeroadster]

There's no point in making a C6-3 or C6-0 anymore. I don't stage but I can't see any benefit of a C6 instead of a C5 booster. The C5-3 is one of my favorite motors for larger 18mm rockets.

C6-0 is probably the most used 18mm booster motor.​

​

If you're building heavy 18mm birds, the C6-3 is a great motor.​

 

[neil_w]

I wish the thrust profile was more like the C11. I'm just thinking of the A10, where @BEC has reported he can actually watch his two-stager slow down during the low-thrust phase of the booster. In a rocket where people would be motivated to run a C5-0, I could see that being a problem. The C11 gives its big push and then hands it off to the next stage, rather than hanging around not doing much for a long time like the A10-T and C5.

I signed, but also really agree with the above.

 

[Antares JS]

There's no point in making a C6-3 or C6-0 anymore. I don't stage but I can't see any benefit of a C6 instead of a C5 booster. The C5-3 is one of my favorite motors for larger 18mm rockets.

Saucers want more mellow motors so the C6-0 is good for them, and having the more mellow C6-3 is also a nice option when the rocket is not that heavy.

I just flew a Fliskits UFFO on a C6-0 and I don't know about its ability to hold up to a C5's stronger boost.

That said, yes, I will finally fly my MIRV if I get a C5-0.

 

[BEC]

I wish the thrust profile was more like the C11. I'm just thinking of the A10, where @BEC has reported he can actually watch his two-stager slow down during the low-thrust phase of the booster. In a rocket where people would be motivated to run a C5-0, I could see that being a problem. The C11 gives its big push and then hands it off to the next stage, rather than hanging around not doing much for a long time like the A10-T and C5.

ETA: In light of my comments above, I can't think of a scenario where I'd really see an advantage to a C5-0 over a C6-0 but where I wouldn't also just build it with a 24mm MMT and use a C11. I think if you're really limited to a BT-20 MMT, the rocket should be light and clean enough to be fine with a C6. If you really need a C5 instead of a C6, it should be no trouble at all to use a 24mm MMT. Just need to plan ahead and not restrict yourself to building rockets the way Estes tells you to.

I have been thinking the same thing, since the Boosted Bertha is the first place I thought I'd want a C5-0 if it existed. On the one hand, the noticeably stronger kick off the pad of the C5 vs the C6 (it's real and I have the data to show it) would help that model, but the long, low thrust tail — just like the A10 — might lead to the the model slowing down or at least not accelerating once it's going until it staged, just like I see with the Checkmate, especially when I manage to grab a particularly wimpy A10-0T.

Of course, as you say, the solution is C11-0/D12-0 but that's rocket surgery for an existing model with an 18mm mount in the booster.

The C6-3 is OK for heavy birds, but the C5-3 is noticeably better for models that are heavy such as the much-discussed 1/200 RTF Saturn V. From flights of mine is where I have some of the data I mentioned just above. Of course for that model the real solution is a C12-4FJ....

 

[SolarYellow]

Yup. Maybe even a C18. The 18mm Black Jack motors have a whole different thrust curve than BP motors.

 

[n3tjm]

Ive always fantisized in my pencil sketches a 18mm C20. That would make a cool booster motor .

I was telling my brother I wished Estest Sill Made the 1/2A6-0. (As well as the 1/2A3-0, and A3-0)

 

[BEC]

Ive always fantisized in my pencil sketches a 18mm C20. That would make a cool booster motor .

I was telling my brother I wished Estest Sill Made the 1/2A6-0. (As well as the 1/2A3-0, and A3-0)

Agreed. Though I have a stash of both of those 1/2A booster types.

Of course there was the B14-0….

 

[DirkTheDaring]

There's no point in making a C6-3 or C6-0 anymore. I don't stage but I can't see any benefit of a C6 instead of a C5 booster. The C5-3 is one of my favorite motors for larger 18mm rockets.

I wish the thrust profile was more like the C11. I'm just thinking of the A10, where @BEC has reported he can actually watch his two-stager slow down during the low-thrust phase of the booster. In a rocket where people would be motivated to run a C5-0, I could see that being a problem. The C11 gives its big push and then hands it off to the next stage, rather than hanging around not doing much for a long time like the A10-T and C5.

ETA: In light of my comments above, I can't think of a scenario where I'd really see an advantage to a C5-0 over a C6-0 but where I wouldn't also just build it with a 24mm MMT and use a C11. I think if you're really limited to a BT-20 MMT, the rocket should be light and clean enough to be fine with a C6. If you really need a C5 instead of a C6, it should be no trouble at all to use a 24mm MMT. Just need to plan ahead and not restrict yourself to building rockets the way Estes tells you to.

Except that there are any number of rockets with 18mm motor mounts, that’s where the C5 fits in. I’m not advocating getting rid of the C6-0. There is room for both.

There's no point in making a C6-3 or C6-0 anymore. I don't stage but I can't see any benefit of a C6 instead of a C5 booster. The C5-3 is one of my favorite motors for larger 18mm rockets.

Buy a C5-3 and knock the delay out of it? Yeah, I know, That's Verbotten!

Lol

 

[DirkTheDaring]

I have been thinking the same thing, since the Boosted Bertha is the first place I thought I'd want a C5-0 if it existed. On the one hand, the noticeably stronger kick off the pad of the C5 vs the C6 (it's real and I have the data to show it) would help that model, but the long, low thrust tail — just like the A10 — might lead to the the model slowing down or at least not accelerating once it's going until it staged, just like I see with the Checkmate, especially when I manage to grab a particularly wimpy A10-0T.

Of course, as you say, the solution is C11-0/D12-0 but that's rocket surgery for an existing model with an 18mm mount in the booster.

The C6-3 is OK for heavy birds, but the C5-3 is noticeably better for models that are heavy such as the much-discussed 1/200 RTF Saturn V. From flights of mine is where I have some of the data I mentioned just above. Of course for that model the real solution is a C12-4FJ....

Well, I suppose they could modify the thrust curve for even stronger initial thrust and a shorter low thrust period, but I don’t want to ask too much.

Let’s just sign the petition and see how they respond!

 

[neil_w]

Well, I suppose they could modify the thrust curve for even stronger initial thrust and a shorter low thrust period, but I don’t want to ask too much.

I don't know if the initial thrust needs to be stronger... it's just that the tail of the thrust needs to be stronger and shorter duration. It would of course cease to be a C5 at that point, which is fine.

The, um, "thrust" of the request is that we want a booster motor with higher thrust than a C6, to get multi-stage models moving.

 

[SolarYellow]

Something like a C8 or C9, I guess.

 

[BEC]

Heck, the old C5s in a booster would be fine. They had both more total impulse than the current ones and a higher sustaining thrust.

 

[BABAR]

I wish the thrust profile was more like the C11. I'm just thinking of the A10, where @BEC has reported he can actually watch his two-stager slow down during the low-thrust phase of the booster. In a rocket where people would be motivated to run a C5-0, I could see that being a problem. The C11 gives its big push and then hands it off to the next stage, rather than hanging around not doing much for a long time like the A10-T and C5.

ETA: In light of my comments above, I can't think of a scenario where I'd really see an advantage to a C5-0 over a C6-0 but where I wouldn't also just build it with a 24mm MMT and use a C11. I think if you're really limited to a BT-20 MMT, the rocket should be light and clean enough to be fine with a C6. If you really need a C5 instead of a C6, it should be no trouble at all to use a 24mm MMT. Just need to plan ahead and not restrict yourself to building rockets the way Estes tells you to.

Concur that if you want more thrust and have the space for a 24mm mount, putting it in up front and having option to fly 24 mm C and D as well as adapt down to 18 mm is the way to go. This goes for just about any rocket, booster or not, in my opinion. The High Power folks seem to always recommend when you build a rocket other than minimum diameter, go up at least one size from original plan on the motor mount to keep options open.

however, for minimum diameter rockets or some other birds with specialized fin cans or motor retainers, putting in a 24 mm mount isn’t an option.

the Estes MIRV is a great example. Really cool concept and design (and making those triplet three sided nose cones couldn’t have been too cheap.). Execution unfortunately was miserable, as it was far too heavy if you did any significant finishing for a C6-0 to boost, and because of the one piece plastic manifold (one booster to three sustainers) there was no way at least that I could figure out to put in a 24mm motor.

if they ever DO make a C5-0, I think they should re-release the MIRV kit. It would be a great crowd pleaser if it could just get off the pad safely!

 

[DirkTheDaring]

Concur that if you want more thrust and have the space for a 24mm mount, putting it in up front and having option to fly 24 mm C and D as well as adapt down to 18 mm is the way to go. This goes for just about any rocket, booster or not, in my opinion. The High Power folks seem to always recommend when you build a rocket other than minimum diameter, go up at least one size from original plan on the motor mount to keep options open.

however, for minimum diameter rockets or some other birds with specialized fin cans or motor retainers, putting in a 24 mm mount isn’t an option.

the Estes MIRV is a great example. Really cool concept and design (and making those triplet three sided nose cones couldn’t have been too cheap.). Execution unfortunately was miserable, as it was far too heavy if you did any significant finishing for a C6-0 to boost, and because of the one piece plastic manifold (one booster to three sustainers) there was no way at least that I could figure out to put in a 24mm motor.

if they ever DO make a C5-0, I think they should re-release the MIRV kit. It would be a great crowd pleaser if it could just get off the pad safely!

Agreed. I just built and flew the MIRV for the first time and while it was a cool flight, it truly could use the extra boost of a C5. Hmmm, thinking now, maybe I could add a 24 mm booster under the existing boaster….

 

[BEC]

You know, I have had several MIRVs come to BEMRC launches and they've all worked reasonably well. I'll have to dig back into flight cards to see what motor was in the booster section.

 

[smstachwick]

I don't know if the initial thrust needs to be stronger... it's just that the tail of the thrust needs to be stronger and shorter duration. It would of course cease to be a C5 at that point, which is fine.

What you’re really looking for are the B8s that replaced the B14s. Same nozzle, I think the C5s were actually derived from them.

 

[neil_w]

What you’re really looking for are the B8s that replaced the B14s. Same nozzle, I think the C5s were actually derived from them.

That sounds about right, but I would still prefer it to be a C with similar thrust curve.

 

[Jim P.]

Agreed. Though I have a stash of both of those 1/2A booster types.

Of course there was the B14-0….

That B14-0 would be the real solution. If only it was safe to produce............

 

[jmasterj]

I wish the thrust profile was more like the C11. I'm just thinking of the A10, where @BEC has reported he can actually watch his two-stager slow down during the low-thrust phase of the booster. In a rocket where people would be motivated to run a C5-0, I could see that being a problem. The C11 gives its big push and then hands it off to the next stage, rather than hanging around not doing much for a long time like the A10-T and C5.

ETA: In light of my comments above, I can't think of a scenario where I'd really see an advantage to a C5-0 over a C6-0 but where I wouldn't also just build it with a 24mm MMT and use a C11. I think if you're really limited to a BT-20 MMT, the rocket should be light and clean enough to be fine with a C6. If you really need a C5 instead of a C6, it should be no trouble at all to use a 24mm MMT. Just need to plan ahead and not restrict yourself to building rockets the way Estes tells you to.

Agree with this. Not interested in a C5-0.

 

[brockrwood]

There's no point in making a C6-3 or C6-0 anymore. I don't stage but I can't see any benefit of a C6 instead of a C5 booster. The C5-3 is one of my favorite motors for larger 18mm rockets.

Better solution: Have Estes make all sorts of rocket engines, including the C5-0 AND the C6-0. More options is better!

If there is only a small market for an engine, no problem. Make it in small production runs, sell it only at estesrockets.com, and increase the price as necessary to make a profit. People who want that engine will buy it. If it becomes a hot seller, then release it to vendors.

 

[brockrwood]

That B14-0 would be the real solution. If only it was safe to produce............

Why is a B14-0 not safe to produce? Just curious.

 

[smstachwick]

Why is a B14-0 not safe to produce? Just curious.

It required a worker to drill a hole in the packed propellant slug. They were discontinued because of a fatal accident in their manufacture.

I can respect Estes for prioritizing worker safety over a product line. If they can come up with a way to do it safely, I’m all for it.

 

[brockrwood]

It required a worker to drill a hole in the packed propellant slug. They were discontinued because of a fatal accident in their manufacture.

I can respect Estes for prioritizing worker safety over a product line. If they can come up with a way to do it safely, I’m all for it.

I am so saddened to hear there was a fatality making them.

 

[rcktnut]

I want the Dark Stars back!!

 

[neil_w]

I am so saddened to hear there was a fatality making them.

Making black powder motors is a very serious business. Overall, Estes's safety record is exceptionally good considering how dangerous the work is.

I'm not sure exactly when the B14 incident occurred; I think it was when I was out of the hobby. Anyone recall the year?