Estes vs. Quest motors - any opinions?

[dfos]

I used my first quest motors today. A6-4. One seemed to work fine. The other seemed to give weaker thrust than it should have -- although you never know what might have been the problem. The quest motors also seem to have slight variations in size -- some fit tighter into the tube than others.

Estes motors have always worked great and have always seemed to me to fit in the tubes without any more or less "tightness."

However, this was just my first experience. Anyone else have any experiences with quest vs. estes? Anyone like quest better? I do happen to like their igniters better.

 

[Donaldsrockets]

To me the Estes motors are more powerful than the Quest motors but one thing I really like about the Quest motors is the tracking smoke they produce.

It's a lot more dense and brownish in color and makes the rocket real easy to track.

They also seem to burn longer too. I love the Quest C6-0 in 18mm oddrocs.

I've never had a Quest motor fit tight. In fact, them seem to fit rather loosely in the motor tubes compared to Estes motors.

 

[Gillard]

I find the Quest motors to be slimmer than Estes.
the Estes C6-3 is more powerful than a Quest C6-3; for a rocket that just performs on an Estes C6-3, the quest motor will usually give a bad flight.
Quest motors burn hotter, the spent casing is alot hotter than Estes.
Quest motors have a much more smokey ejection charge.

also, quest motors vary depending where they were made.

having said that, I have found Quest motors are cheaper (in the UK anyway)
and their tracking smoke is better.

i don't prefer one brand over the other.

i'm sure someone will post a link to the thust curves etc for quest and estes, so you can see the difference.

 

[dfos]

Yes, it felt a little hotter. As for the A6-4, one of them seemed to have more punch and noise and the other seemed weaker. It is also very interesting to hear that two C6's can give such different results. I know there is a range of total impulse, but I figured two motors with the same thrust would basically give very similar flights.

 

[BEC]

Quest motors have thinner casings - that's why they are hotter on the outside after a flight. Compare a couple of spent motors and see.

I don't care too much for the A6-4 - it comes up to thrust slowly and then tails right back off again (see the time-thrust curves on the NAR site) so it only works well in really light rockets.

The Quest B6-4 seems to be as good or better than the Estes in most everything in which I've tried it.

The Quest Cs have a big initial thrust spike but the sustaining thrust is lower (and longer burning) than an Estes C. Great for low drag rockets on which they will give amazing flights. Not so good for heavier or draggier ones that work better on Estes motors.

All the Quest motors are louder than their Estes counterparts and as others have noted, smokier. This extends to the ejection charges, too....

So...they all have their applications, but the As and Cs have different "best" applications than their Estes counterparts (or near counterparts).

One other tidbit: Quest delays seem to generally be closer to the stated values than most Estes motors. This can be good or bad, again depending on the application.

Look at the certification data, which includes time-thrust curves, here: https://www.nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml . This will tell you a good deal about where which motor is best suited.

As for fit....I have a batch of Quest B6-4s that seem to have a bulge in the case right at the top of the propellant. Sometimes I have to peel the label off to get 'em to fit a particular rocket. But others I have found looser than Estes motors.

One more thing: all of these comments apply to Chinese-made Quest motors. I've not had very many of the prior German-made ones so can't say as much about them.

 

[powderburner]

The Quest motors have performed just as well as the Estes for me. They do seem to be a little more smoky. I can't say that I have noticed them being hotter. I have heard some folks say that they think the Quest delay charge runs for a more accurate time than the Estes.

The only "problem" I have had with Quest motors is that some of them had paper labels wrapped too loosely on the exterior, and this interfered with getting the motors into the MMT. I don't like having to mess around with peeling off paper labels (not that it takes all that long, it's just that I shouldn't have to do it at all) and also, peeling the paper wrap kinda gets into the edges of the NAR rules against "modifying" motors.

I don't know that I would believe anyone's stories about "weak" motors until I saw enough test stand data to convince me of a real difference in performance.

 

[RoyAtl]

I used my first quest motors today. A6-4. One seemed to work fine. The other seemed to give weaker thrust than it should have -- although you never know what might have been the problem. The quest motors also seem to have slight variations in size -- some fit tighter into the tube than others.

Estes motors have always worked great and have always seemed to me to fit in the tubes without any more or less "tightness."

However, this was just my first experience. Anyone else have any experiences with quest vs. estes? Anyone like quest better? I do happen to like their igniters better.

If you know how to read and interpret thrust-time curves, you should head over to https://www.nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml . You'll find links to the official NAR testing curves for each of the various motors.

Some caveats. For the most part, Estes motors are the same year after year after year. Some variation, as allowed by NFPA and as required by varying material batches. Quest motors, however, have been made over the years by three or four different companies using vastly different equipment in four countries (USA/Mexico, Germany, and China). Most Quest motors you'll find these days are made in China, and have reddish nozzles. They tend to be lower thrust with longer durations, than the German-made motors they replaced. The German made motors have grayish, almost galvanized-steel looking nozzles, and the older American/Mexican motors have whitish nozzles.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Quest motors are made in China. Like dad says, you get what you pay for. You
play with crap, you get it on you hands. Iam obviously nothing but an Estes guy.

I know a lot of you wont like this post, but o well.

 

[Gillard]

Quest motors are made in China. Like dad says, you get what you pay for. You
play with crap, you get it on you hands. Iam obviously nothing but an Estes guy.

I no a lot of you wont like this post, but o well.

And where do Estes get their kits made?:eyeroll:

 

[billspad]

If you know how to read and interpret thrust-time curves, you should head over to https://www.nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml . You'll find links to the official NAR testing curves for each of the various motors.

There's a pretty good explanation of what the numbers mean here.

 

[Rocket_Man]

And where do Estes get their kits made?:eyeroll:

LOL, yes you are right and that is an issue for some of us old Estes fans.


Its early in the morning to start this so Iam just going to say
spend the extra dollar and keep your engine money in the USA.

PLUS with the HL 40% off coupon I dont think you can touch that cost for Estes engines.

 

[Rocket_Man]

You know everyone here knows Iam not the most scientific guy on the board. I really dont know much about thrust curves or avg newtons of thrust provided throughout the burn cycle and to be honest it doesnt matter to me. I am very happy to just have 3 different rockets I plug E9 engines into and let them fly.

SO having said that;

The reason I stick up for Estes so much is just imagine how many kids have launched Estes rockets throughout their 50+ year history. I think it would be a shame to take that experience away from the kids of tomorrow. Yea you may not think much of that Estes Alpha starter set that you buy at HL with your 40% off coupon but some kid out there is thrilled to get it. I know I would have as opposed to having build everything I had from scratch.

And you can bet that Estes is at the forefront of protecting your right to launch model rockets against the Govt, I feel every Estes engine pack I buy is
in a small way going to protect my right to purchase and fly them.

 

[Micromeister]

I use both depending on what I'm flying and what I want the model to do. Quests motors tend to be a little longer burn with slightly lower thrust. As many have said the thicker denser tracking smoke is nice, I'm not that thrilled with the residue they leave

As both Royatl and billspad have mentioned having and using the NS&T thurst curves are an important tool.

we can download and/or print out these curves to have with you on the field. Knowing what to expect from your motors is as important as the projected altitude they might reach.

 

[accooper]

I have never used any Quest motors, BUT a lot of the guys I fly with have used them. As launch director and rocket chaser, I can say the smoke is better. The A6 is for very light rockets, and the B and C engines seem to burn a little longer.

I have seen 2 cluster rockets that flew great on Estes C6-3's didn't on Quest's C6-3.

BUT on the other hand, the slightly longer burn on the Quest B6 help in timed events.

Andrew

 

[jef955]

I used my first, and last Quest motor at a pubic launch at GSFC yesterday. It was a B6-4 that exploded and blew the rocket off the pad and a chunk of propellant flew about 30-40 feet through the air. I'm just glad no one was hit. No more Quest for me.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Maybe that was a Black Cat B6-4 you used?

 

[Joe V]

Myself & another guy in my club have had similar experiences with the Quest C6-5. Thrust is just very low and inconsistent. I wrecked an Estes Patriarch, and an Alpha 3 using the Quest C6-5. These are both very light rockets and should have shot up high in the sky, but both landsharked. I repaired the Alpha 3 with lots of tape and put another C6-5 in it, can't not use it!, and it launched fine.

 

[hcmbanjo]

Quest motors have thinner casings - that's why they are hotter on the outside after a flight. Compare a couple of spent motors and see.
I don't care too much for the A6-4 - it comes up to thrust slowly and then tails right back off again (see the time-thrust curves on the NAR site) so it only works well in really light rockets.
The Quest B6-4 seems to be as good or better than the Estes in most everything in which I've tried it.
The Quest Cs have a big initial thrust spike but the sustaining thrust is lower (and longer burning) than an Estes C. Great for low drag rockets on which they will give amazing flights. Not so good for heavier or draggier ones that work better on Estes motors.
All the Quest motors are louder than their Estes counterparts and as others have noted, smokier. This extends to the ejection charges, too....
As for fit....I have a batch of Quest B6-4s that seem to have a bulge in the case right at the top of the propellant. Sometimes I have to peel the label off to get 'em to fit a particular rocket. But others I have found looser than Estes motors.
One more thing: all of these comments apply to Chinese-made Quest motors. I've not had very many of the prior German-made ones so can't say as much about them.

Mr. Cawley,
You've hit the nail on the head on every point!

I was a big fan of the Chinese made A6-4 for my small field launches. In a normally stable rocket, a Quest A6-4 will sometimes fly off at an angle!
This seems to happen in half the A6-4 flights recently.
They are loud off the pad with more of a smoke trail.

I've gone through a 25 pack of the German made B6-4s. They were very sooty, check out the picture below.
The Chinese made Quest engines can leave a some black residue around the trailing edges of the fins and inside the body tube from the ejection charge.

Their current B6s seem to be on par with the Estes B6 engines.
The second picture shows the residue around the nose end of a Nike Smoke with a Chinese made B6-4. Almost all of it came off with a damp paper towel.
The Estes engines seem to burn cleaner.

I won't use a Quest C6 in anything other than a low-drag, smaller diameter model. No odd-rocs on a Quest C6-3!!!!

 

[Boosterdude]

The reasons I don't like Quest motors are already listed here. Almost every time I have to peel the labels off to get the motors to fit. The fit and the lower power are the biggest issues with me. I also don't like the increased residue they leave behind.

Never had any issues with Estes, and they are made in the USA.

 

[BEC]

Thanks, Chris.

There is one unique Quest motor that - in the RIGHT rocket - gives amazing flights. That's the new D5-6. It's an odd size and it's not inexpensive (for a BP motor) but with a burn of nearly 5 seconds it just goes and goes and goes and goes. Inevitably bystanders go "Wow!".

And there are the tiny MicroMaxx motors which are also unique and have no Estes (or any other) counterpart.

All that said, by and large I fly Estes for almost all my black-powder-powered flights. But I'm also curious and like to try things out and test them. Sometimes I reach a different conclusion than that I would reach just by reading posts in forums .

 

[RoyAtl]

If you know the differences in thrust time curves, you can use the differences to advantage in certain rockets.

Case in point. I have an old Estes Saturn 1B that I fixed up using parts from a Semroc Saturn 1B kit. It is a few ounces heavier than a stock Estes or Semroc kit, due to some extra heavy detailing.

It flies great on Estes C6-5 motors, ejecting just before getting to peak altitude, but I wanted to see how it did on Quest C6 motors.

The higher peak thrust of the Quest motors assured me the rocket should get off the pad ok. The longer lower sustaining thrust was a concern though, so I decided to use the 3 second delay version.

The flight was excellent, jumping off the pad then slowly chugging up to peak altitude where the rocket was horizontal as the ejection charges went off.

Total flight time for both flights was nearly the same. The longer burn of the Quest motors offset the shorter delay.

I honestly prefer the Quest flight due to the slow flight and the arcing over at peak altitude, but either brand works well. I might try a flight with two Estes C6-5's and two Quest C6-3's.

Note that I don't know how they will perform in a stock-built 4 motor Semroc Saturn 1B.

 

[luke strawwalker]

Yes, it felt a little hotter. As for the A6-4, one of them seemed to have more punch and noise and the other seemed weaker. It is also very interesting to hear that two C6's can give such different results. I know there is a range of total impulse, but I figured two motors with the same thrust would basically give very similar flights.

Not necessarily-- it depends on the thrust-time curve...

Equal amounts of identical propellant should give identical amounts of TOTAL IMPULSE, BUT, changing the DURATION of the burn will give radically different performance parameters--

Say you have two motors burning identical propellant loads, and both producing say 20 newton/seconds of total impulse (total impulse is basically force (thrust in newtons) times duration (seconds of burn time)-- it's a bit more complicated than that because burn force (thrust) varies due to motor grain design (propellant dimple/core shape/depth) and propellant characteristics (how fast it burns, specific impulse of the propellant, etc). Say one of the motors burns all the propellant in 1 second and the other motor has a duration of 2 seconds... the motor with a 1 second duration will produce TWICE the thrust of the 2 second duration motor, but for only HALF THE TIME. BOTH have "identical" total impulses, but they will produce DRAMATICALLY different flights in the same rocket... The 1 second duration motor will lift off VERY fast and just be a blur-- it will build up speed VERY quickly (and drag along with it, since drag squares with the increasing speed) which might cause the rocket to shred if it's poorly constructed). This will cause it to probably reach a lower altitude as well, as more of the energy from the motor is wasted as air drag. The 2 second duration motor will produce a much more gradual liftoff, building speed more slowly but building it up over a longer period of time, and experience much less gee force and drag than the faster burning motor... it should coast longer and farther, therefore usually will get to a higher altitude...

Now say you take the same two motors and put them in a heavier rocket-- say a payloader... the 1 second duration motor will "kick it in the pants" and get it up and moving more quickly, gaining flying speed much more quickly and coming off the launch rod straight and stable-- the additional weight will slow the flight down, so it won't just 'disappear' off the pad like the 1 second motor did with the lightweight streamlined rocket... the 2 second duration motor, with its lower thrust over a longer time period, will lift off SLOWLY and the rocket will sort of 'lumber' into the air... it won't be moving very fast when it leaves the launch rod, and might be prone to rod tip-off and if the breeze is blowing fairly good, will be VERY susceptible to severe weathercocking-- it'll be flying at a much greater angle into the wind, so will not get anywhere near as high, since it's flying much more uprange due to the weathercocking-- in short, the heavy rocket with the long-burn motor will probably not perform very well and may crash, even though it has IDENTICAL total impulse!

Make sense?? This is kind of a simplified explanation-- it's a bit more complex than this, but it's important to understand the effects of thrust duration (burn time of the motor) versus the thrust force in newtons, and where that fits with total impulse of the motor (its letter class). Changes in the motor design (core burners versus end burners, depth and size of the core "dimple", nozzle size, motor operating pressure, propellant grain length/diameter ratio, propellant chemical formulation and specific impulse, etc) all play significant roles in the shape of the thrust-time curve and can radically change the performance of the motor compared to a different motor in the same impulse class (motor letter classification). Additionally, just because a motor is a "B" or a "C" or a "D" DOES NOT mean that it will have identical total impulse with a different motor by another manufacturer in the same impulse class-- the impulse classes are a RANGE and some motors are usually at the high end of the range (usually called a "full B,C,D,etc" motor) while others are just somewhere in the middle or even at the low end of that range, which will make them perform more like the next smaller letter-size motor or seem much 'weaker' compared to "full size" motors in the same letter class-- for instance, the Estes D-12, IIRC (going from memory so forgive if I'm misremembering) only has 17 newton/seconds out of a maximum of 20 for the D size range-- so the Estes D motor is not a "full D" motor and would look rather "wimpy" next to a BP motor with a full 20 N-S of total impulse... (when you throw in the lower propellant weight due to greater ISP, and therefore lower motor weight of an APCP 20 N-S "D" motor the effect is even MORE pronounced!) But say you stick a D12 into a big heavy rocket and fly it-- it scoots off the pad, really gets up there, and deploys its chute... then stick an E9 (which theoretically has up to TWICE the total impulse of a "D" motor!) into the same rocket-- it will take off very SLOWLY and wallow around in the sky, arc over, and may well hit the ground before deploying its chute... all because of the lower initial thrust force at liftoff, despite the longer burn time of the E9 and the fact that the E9 has higher total impulse! Stick a Quest D5 motor in the rocket-- again, slow liftoff and a lumbering, wallowing flight, and probably a prang before the chute comes out...

Hope this helps! OL JR

 

[luke strawwalker]

One thing I'll add is, the first two rockets I flew on Quest motors I ended up with no deploys-- the Quest motors seem to have weaker/smaller ejection charges (compared to Estes motors new or old) and therefore using the "same amount" (subjective) of wadding/dogbarf as I would for an Estes motor flight, ended up with the nose cone loose but the chute not out of the tube... when I cut the wadding back to about 2/3 what I'd normally use, I got a good chute deployment.

The thinner casings are NOT a good thing-- one of our club guys flew the longer burning Quest C6 in an Estes Metalizer-- with the "twist lock" plastic ring motor mount-- When he got the rocket back, the aft motor mount plastic ring was partially melted and 'welded' to the spent motor casing-- and the motor casing had turned the white paper label a dark chocolate brown from the heat and was VERY hot! We let the motor casing cool down (and the plastic motor mount ring with it, then I carefully separated the two with a sharp rap from a heavy object. I then sliced the spent motor casing open and found that it was very close to being burned through... that's what allowed enough heat through the casing wall to carmelize the paper label on the outside of the motor and melt the plastic motor mount lock ring...

I have a mess of Quest motors but I'm not going to fly them in anything but "low value" sport rockets... stuff that, if it gets damaged, I won't cry about too much... I'll fly the 'high value' high craftsmanship rockets on Estes motors...

Just my experience! Later! OL JR

 

[boomtube]

I love the Quest A6-4s in small low drag lightweight rockets.

That extra second in the delay is the difference between my Semroc “Skyhook” or Quest “Novia” popping their streamer/chute at apogee as opposed to deploying while still climbing.

Ever have a rocket run into its own chute or streamer?

I recently launched a Quest “Astra” using the Quest D5 motor. The rocket has to be built to accommodate the 20mm extended motor tube. But the parts to accomplish this are readily available from Quest.

Lost the rocket at altitude and it took a while before we saw the streamer descending far, far away.

I need to modify this rocket so as to carry my Altimeter One.

The distance you must walk to recover your rocket is inversely proportional to the comfort of your shoes and directly proportional to the ruggedness of the terrine.

 

[JPVegh]

I love Quest MicroMaxx motors! They have redefined rocketry for me, enabling me to fly in my backyard and challenging my skills with tiny builds. To me, these motors are pure genious and I thank Quest for them. If these little motors go away I will be heart broken.

Over the years I have flown motors from many manufacturers, by far the overwhelming majority have been from Estes. For consistancy and reliability I think Estes still makes the best black powder motors in the world. Of course I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the E15 fiasco... but I have forgiven if not forgotten. LOL

 

[accooper]

I'm still waiting for you to reach 8 miles on micro maxx motors!

Andrew

 

[tlcforever]

My husband ordered Quest C6-? motors. We used two of the three in the pack. The first rocket went crazy just as it cleared the launch rod. When it finally hit the ground the plastic motor mount had partially melted and there was a fair size scorch mark on the body tube between fins. This rocket belonged to a child, we gave him the C for a little extra boost for the last launch. He had flown it 8 times that day on B motors with no problems. The second rocket (a seeker) flew fine but had a scorch mark from the ejection charge up high where the tube separates.

With this happening I think we will stick with Estes.

 

[MarkII]

No odd-rocs on a Quest C6-3!!!!

My Art Applewhite 6" original saucer ("Smiley") launched straight and flew fine on a Chinese-made Quest C6-3. I want to try a Turbo Delta on one!

I have used Quest MicroMaxx motors, German-made C6-3s, Chinese-made C6-3s and Chinese-made D5s. MicroMaxx are in a class and category all their own. The older German-made C6-3s seemed to be more powerful overall than the newer Chinese versions; they also didn't burn for as long, but they did have a fairly long burn. I haven't noticed a big difference in the amount of soot they produce vs. Estes motors, but that might be due more to the types of rockets that I have flown them in.

A Quest D5-4 couldn't keep my AAW 24mm Delta Saucer in the air; it came back down while still under thrust. A short time later at the same launch in April 2010, I launched my FSI Orbit on a Quest D5-6. I should be crossing the orbit of Mars any time now.

My 6" AAW Original Saucer had a slow and long but still relatively low flight on a Chinese-made Quest C6-3.* On a German-made Quest C6-3, my Delta Saucer had an outrageous flight!

Quest motor casings are indeed noticeably thinner than equivalent Estes motors, but I have never had any problems with them, and I have never had a cato with any Quest motor. The classic German-made motors that Quest sold for many years were notorious for their quite loose fit in standard 18mm mounts. They were often described, half-seriously, as 17mm or 17.5mm diameter motors. The Chinese made motors that Quest began selling a couple of years ago, sans label, have a fit that is much more similar to that of Estes motors. With the label, it is hit or miss. Much of that seems to be due to the sometimes haphazard application of the white paper label on them. The loose portions add thickness to the motor in places and sometimes make it very difficult or impossible to insert the motor without peeling at least some of it off. I don't see how peeling off part or all of the white paper label violates the Safety Code though. It doesn't affect the functioning of the motor in any way nor does it render it any less safe to use. When the motor is used for sport launching, the designation and identity of the motor needs to be only known by the person who pushes the button, and in most cases that will be the flyers themselves. (Contests are a different story, though.)

*German-made Quest (classic Quest) motors: label with colorful, intricate design on blue background; new Chinese-made Quest motors: plain block-style lettering in black on a white label. White label may sometimes appear to be less than completely glued on, with small gaps under it in places.

 

[MarkII]

Regarding the issue of domestic (United States) production versus overseas production of motors sold in the American market:

Yes, Estes motors are currently the only black powder motors made in the USA that are sold in the USA. Estes motors are indeed high quality and are remarkably, even astoundingly, consistent in performance. That is no mean feat. Estes has benefited greatly from the early start that it had in the industry. The regulatory climate that existed in the USA in 1959 was very different than the one that existed in 1992, when Quest Aerospace was founded. Getting a license to even sell black powder model rocket motors in the US now is a very daunting process, and obtaining a permit to produce them here is a task of Herculean proportions. I'm sure that it was not too different in 1992, either. A Penrose-scale motor-making facility would probably never make it all the way to licensing now. You can imagine what a brand new company like Quest that was intent on producing BP motors to compete with Estes must have been up against. Was there any real alternative to off-shoring the motor production? I don't know, but I suspect that if Quest had stubbornly insisted in 1992 that it simply had to develop its own motor-making facility completely within the United States, it would still be waiting for its license. Also, when you consider the relative economic impact of Estes' domestic motor production vs. Quest's contracting for production overseas, keep in mind the relative sizes of Estes' motor business vs. Quest's. 'Nuff said. Quest Aerospace is an American company. By the time its motors arrive on these shores, the factory in China has already been paid. So every dollar spent on Quest motors after that point stays right here. Don't tear yourself all up over buying Quest motors because they were made in the PRC. When you buy Quest motors at a hobby shore or online, the actual dollars that you spend aren't going anywhere near the bank account of a Chinese corporation.

 

[luke strawwalker]

Regarding the issue of domestic (United States) production versus overseas production of motors sold in the American market:

Yes, Estes motors are currently the only black powder motors made in the USA that are sold in the USA. Estes motors are indeed high quality and are remarkably, even astoundingly, consistent in performance. That is no mean feat. Estes has benefited greatly from the early start that it had in the industry. The regulatory climate that existed in the USA in 1959 was very different than the one that existed in 1992, when Quest Aerospace was founded. Getting a license to even sell black powder model rocket motors in the US now is a very daunting process, and obtaining a permit to produce them here is a task of Herculean proportions. I'm sure that it was not too different in 1992, either. A Penrose-scale motor-making facility would probably never make it all the way to licensing now. You can imagine what a brand new company like Quest that was intent on producing BP motors to compete with Estes must have been up against. Was there any real alternative to off-shoring the motor production? I don't know, but I suspect that if Quest had stubbornly insisted in 1992 that it simply had to develop its own motor-making facility completely within the United States, it would still be waiting for its license. Also, when you consider the relative economic impact of Estes' domestic motor production vs. Quest's contracting for production overseas, keep in mind the relative sizes of Estes' motor business vs. Quest's. 'Nuff said. Quest Aerospace is an American company. By the time its motors arrive on these shores, the factory in China has already been paid. So every dollar spent on Quest motors after that point stays right here. Don't tear yourself all up over buying Quest motors because they were made in the PRC. When you buy Quest motors at a hobby shore or online, the actual dollars that you spend aren't going anywhere near the bank account of a Chinese corporation.

Quest motors USED to be made in the US until a fire destroyed part of the facility and killed a worker (IIRC). The motor factory used to be just on this side of the border in Arizona, and the Quest rocket factory was just on the other side. I remember reading an article in American Spacemodeling or Sport Rocketry (about the time it changed names) about this, with an interview with Bill Stine and tour of the plants.

I think it's more about tooling and liability issues than inability to license. I don't know how things turned out AFTER the fire, but there was probably some litigation involved and DOUBTLESSLY a deep investigation. The fact that a worker was killed (IIRC) really 'ups the ante'.

I'd bet that the fact that the motors are coming from PRC or Germany is more of a liability issue than a licensing one... that and possibly the fact that expensive tooling and machinery was possibly lost in the fire and would be difficult and expensive to replace?? If you BUY the motors from another manufacturer, you're buying a bulk product WHOLESALE-- you don't have to worry about fires at the factory, licensing issues, or liability in case of a loss of life or damages at the factory. You're also using the subcontractor's tooling and machinery, and it's up to them to repair and replace said machinery as it wears out or if it's damaged or lost.

Remember Aerotech suffered a bad fire once too, and lost their entire facility (IIRC) and then relocated and took over a year to get back up to speed again... so the motor business is intrinsically 'dangerous' regardless of propellant formulation...

I think the fact that Quest gets their motors from overseas suppliers is more of a subcontractor/labor/liability/exchange rate reasons than being unable to build/license/operate a motor factory in the US. A US factory would likely be cost-prohibitive or uncompetitive with bulk buys of foriegn made motors (much like the RD-180 LOL)

Later! OL JR