Estes Rubicon Build

[Starfire73]

I’ve been putting this build off for years now. For some reason (too many parts? too complicated to paint maybe?) it’s that one rocket that I keep moving out of the way when I’m looking through my “to build” bin, when I’m looking for a new rocket to start on. I’ve finally decided to pull the trigger on it.

I am going with a paint scheme which I believe is the actual rocket’s paint scheme, not the one on the Estes package header card. The Estes header card/instructions version looks more colorful and cool, but the best that I can tell, that’s not what the real thing really looked like, and it sort of looks like a nerf toy when it’s done according to the Estes instructions paint scheme.

I’m going to go with silver fins and lower body (no orange on the lower portion) and I am going with black tubes not gray. I’ll hand paint the nozzles flat black, the upper body will be white and the nose cone will be orange.

My questions are, does anyone have any other photos of the real version (assuming the photos I have actually are of the real version)? Are these photos the actual real Rubicon?

Below is what I have found online. Are these pics a mockup, the real deal, or just someone‘s scale version?

Any thoughts or comments?



Thanks!

 

[kuririn]

I don't think STC could have afforded a mock up.
I think that's the original Rubicon 1.
Built on a budget of $20,000, IIRC.
There was a video a few years back of the test flight on two motors.
Can't find it now, but there was some kind of explosion at launch and you could see some small parts flying. Then the rocket climbed up but the motors separated and the airframe fell back to earth, landing in a river the Pacific.
Anyhoo, I painted my fins silver also. Here's the gallery link:
Estes - Rubicon (#2189) Gallery | The Rocketry Forum

 

[kuririn]

OK, found the video.
The real rocket as you can see has the silver fins.

The guy says the propellant wasn't mixed to the correct specifications.
OOPS.

 

[Hobie1dog]

wow, cool news segment

 

[kuririn]

At least mine flew better than the original.
Straight flight on a D12-3.

 

[Cape Byron]

Seeing all those tubes... begging for a cluster... just... begging!

 

[nosecone]

 

[Starfire73]

Awesome info. Very interesting stuff. Thanks for the quick replies. I’m going with the original scheme.

I’m doing all the painting before assembling. Today was paint day and unfortunately all the silver (most complex and detailed) parts lifted!!! Arrgggh!!! Total curling on most of it. And this was over primer not paint. The orange nosecone, white body tube, and black body tubes all took the paint just fine; but the silver made the fins and fin can lift like crazy!

I’ll have to give it a week, sand the silver down, prime it again, give it a long week or two to cure, then spray the silver again. Maybe I’ll try a different brand of silver paint also.

 

[modeltrains]

And this was over primer not paint.

First expectation is some kind of chemical incompatibility between primer and silver.
Which makes going with a different brand of silver sound like the best option.

 

[ShadowSpire48]

What paint brand? I've had issues with Rustoleum colors orange peeling like that but oddly enough not their Black Night Metallic. If you have an airbrush, Alclad makes some nice aluminum paints, pricey but they go a long way.

 

[Starfire73]

At least mine flew better than the original.
Straight flight on a D12-3.

Nice Flight!

 

[Starfire73]

I used Rustoleum 2x flat white primer underneath Dutch Boy, Aluminum #3737 paint. The finish is pretty much ruined. It would take forever to perfectly remove all the lifting and start over. The lifting is not just on a flat surface like a fin, tube, or nosecone. It's throughout all the detailed parts, in nooks and crevasses and nozzles.

I'm going to knock down the curling/lifting parts, sand the areas I can reach, then let what's left behind cure for a week or so. I'll prime again and I'll use Rustoleum metallic aluminum paint. Or maybe I'll play it safe with some Rustoleum, gray primer+paint - it won't look as good as the metallic though. I guess this one will be a flyer instead of one of those fly it once or twice and put it on display models as I had intended.

Every rocket in my fleet has to launch at least once or twice, otherwise it's not a rocket in my opinion. But this one I was going to launch only a couple times and then I was going to put it on the shelf next to my Estes Outlander (another display rocket which has only launched a couple times).

 

[neil_w]

I used Rustoleum 2x flat white primer underneath Dutch Boy, Aluminum #3737 paint. The finish is pretty much ruined. It would take forever to perfectly remove all the lifting and start over. The lifting is not just on a flat surface like a fin, tube, or nosecone. It's throughout all the detailed parts, in nooks and crevasses and nozzles.

Hmm, I don't know anything about the Dutch Boy paint. Is that a spray?

How long did you allow the Rusto primer to dry before applying the aluminum? Not waiting long enough would be a common reason for wrinkling like that.

Finally: The Rustoleum metallics are excellent. The silver is tricky because it's hard to get even (common problem with silver paints) but in general I recommend them highly. Don't give up on metallics just because of this incident; the fact that the paint was metallic was probably not the cause.

 

[Starfire73]

Dutch boy is a Sherwin-Williams spray paint.

I only waited about 24 hours before painting over the primer. That’s never been an issue for me. With paint over paint, I always recoat within 1 hour, or wait anywhere for 48 hours to a week depending on the directiona on the can. My typical routine is if I don’t catch it in an hour, or if I have to wait to mask an area off for a different color over top - then I just set it aside for a week.

 

[neil_w]

Dutch boy is a Sherwin-Williams spray paint.

I only waited about 24 hours before painting over the primer. That’s never been an issue for me. With paint over paint, I always recoat within 1 hour, or wait anywhere for 48 hours to a week depending on the directiona on the can. My typical routine is if I don’t catch it in an hour, or if I have to wait to mask an area off for a different color over top - then I just set it aside for a week.

I would say that, most likely, the primer simply didn't cure fully in 24 hours (instructions specify 48).

 

[Starfire73]

I would say that, most likely, the primer simply didn't cure fully in 24 hours (instructions specify 48).

My can of primer says 24 hours and it’s never been an issue with normal paint, but the metallics are not normal paint I guess - I’ll give the primer under metallics a week to cure first from now on.

 

[neil_w]

It is always possible the can says different, but...


In my experience (although not in this instance, apparently) I find the primer to be a bit more forgiving than the top coats with regard to recoating. I normally give the top coats no less than 4 (often more), but I generally wouldn't hesitate to coat over the primer after 2-4 days, depending on the environmental conditions.

But obviously if you give it a week you should be extra-super-safe.*


*Even being extra-super-safe is no guarantee when it comes to rattle-can painting.

 

[Starfire73]

Very interesting. Thanks for the data sheet. I wonder why the data sheet and can are different. It looks like they’re the same product on both accounts.

 

[neil_w]

Interesting! And weird!

Maybe it changed at some point?

 

[MALBAR 70]

Looks like this one is "Painter's Touch":



And this one is "American Accents":



I have had compatibility issues mixing these two variations . I do not know what the difference in formulation is.

 

[jrains]

My son entered a Rubicon at NARAM a number of years ago. I checked with Estes and they told me that whatever data they had been chucked. Managed to track down one of the designers of the actual rocket, and he provided color substantion that managed the Estes packaging. This would have been for the manned version.

 

[Starfire73]

Looks like this one is "Painter's Touch":

View attachment 512688

And this one is "American Accents":

View attachment 512689

I have had compatibility issues mixing these two variations . I do not know what the difference in formulation is.

Well that explains it, thanks.

 

[Starfire73]

My son entered a Rubicon at NARAM a number of years ago. I checked with Estes and they told me that whatever data they had been chucked. Managed to track down one of the designers of the actual rocket, and he provided color substantion that managed the Estes packaging. This would have been for the manned version.

Very interesting. I guess it makes sense then. At least the color scheme comes from somewhere and isn’t just pulled out of a hat for marketing sake. I still like the thought of matching my Rubicon to a rocket that actually existed though, rather than one that was proposed or a concept. But that’s a personal preference, so to each his own.

 

[neil_w]

Looks like this one is "Painter's Touch":
And this one is "American Accents":
I have had compatibility issues mixing these two variations . I do not know what the difference in formulation is.

Here is what Rustoleum said when I asked them about this:

Our Painter's Touch and American Accents lines have similar chemistries and uses, however they do have different color palettes.

Honestly, if their primary objective was to make their product line as confusing as possible for poor sods like us, I don't think it would look any different than it does now.

 

[Starfire73]

Honestly, if their primary objective was to make their product line as confusing as possible for poor sods like us, I don't think it would look any different than it does now.

I hear ya’! There are almost too many options right now in the spray paint aisle. I wouldn’t mind more color choices, but they don’t need any more product lines.

 

[Cape Byron]

I checked with Estes and they told me that whatever data they had been chucked.

So, I guess a re-release is out of the question?

 

[jrains]

Very interesting. I guess it makes sense then. At least the color scheme comes from somewhere and isn’t just pulled out of a hat for marketing sake. I still like the thought of matching my Rubicon to a rocket that actually existed though, rather than one that was proposed or a concept. But that’s a personal preference, so to each his own.

I was able to get on the desktop tonight, where the Rubicon files are stashed. Here is what one of STC’s founders, Eric Meier, wrote me in 2009:

Attached is a drawing of Rubicon in six-fin configuration. Also attached is a picture from a display we did at the Seattle Museum of Flight with the rocket in three-fin configuration. Analysis showed that only three fins are required when the rocket is launched with only two loaded motors. For a launch to 100 km, all seven motors would be loaded, but we were preparing for a test launch to 20,000 ft with only two motors.

I've attached the drawing.

 

[Starfire73]

I’m curious regarding adhesives on the Rubicon build. Has anyone tried using epoxy rather than plastic cement for all the plastic to body tube joints? I’m thinking of using regular Loctite 5 minute epoxy instead of the plastic cement.

The instructions call for a lot of plastic cement and I hate using plastic cement on anything but plastic to plastic; such as a plastic nose cone base to plastic nose cone joint. Plastic cement on plastic to wood/paper/BT, only seems to last a couple years. Then it gets brittle and pops off.

 

[neil_w]

@hcmbanjo has been recommending Beacon Fabri-tac for this purpose for quite a while now. I haven't tried it, but then again I can't remember the last time I had to create a paper-to-plastic joint.

 

[DeWain]

I can't find the photos of the "real" Rubicon that I referenced when I built my Estes model, but here are a few things that I found out.

The Rubicon that was actually launched had a compartment on the top of the orange cone that housed the parachute extraction equipment. It consisted of a short and narrow silver cylinder topped with a black parabolic or elliptical nose cone. You can make this out in the photos of the launch failure. I built this top section for my rocket, but it got knocked off and lost during one of the launches.

The fins were silver, and the motor tubes were a graphite color (not pure black).

I believe that the actual rocket that was launched was not full size. That is, there is no way that it could have carried a human.

The effort was cancelled after they failed to get enough funding after the failed launch.