Great Goblin at AC Supply

[ShadowSpire48]

The main goal is to introduce rocketry to kids and not to sell cheaper stuff to old guys. Here's Bill explaining why LHS are dying out and Estes developing contracts with the big stores. In a later video, he shows packages of motors being specialty priced and shipped to HL per contract. I still wonder what he told the audience with the cameras off.

If old guys are complaining about the costs, I can't imagine how hard it would be for parents to afford to get them for kids and hope the kids don't try it once and not care for it. Hell the Alpha 3, the most basic of all rockets is $24 and that's not even a starter set

 

[SolarYellow]

If old guys are complaining about the costs, I can't imagine how hard it would be for parents to afford to get them for kids and hope the kids don't try it once and not care for it. Hell the Alpha 3, the most basic of all rockets is $24 and that's not even a starter set

It's funny how the A3 starter set is only $21 at HL.

 

[tsmith1315]

I can't imagine how hard it would be for parents to afford to get them for kids and hope the kids don't try it once and not care for it. Hell the Alpha 3, the most basic of all rockets is $24 and that's not even a starter set

Considering the number of them that will pay $7.00 for a coffee and hundreds for a kid’s iPhone or iPad, I don’t think it’s a big problem.

I won’t spend more than about $5 on lunch, and that’s a rarity. But our youngest, least experienced and lowest paid staff member easily spends triple that on their lunch every day.

It’s all in the perceived worth, exactly what Estes is looking to change.

 

[BEC]

It's funny how the A3 starter set is only $21 at HL.

This one has had me scratching my head for years — that you can get an Alpha III, a pad, and a launch controller for less than the MSRP for an Alpha III kit by itself — at HL. This has been true ever since they started the yellow sticker "your price" thing and did away with the 40% off one item coupons that we all used to use on 29mm Estes motors.

It's not like there is any R&D cost left on the Alpha III — the model is essentially unchanged from the original 1971 release save the colors, that the decal is now stickers, and the motor hook changed to the one that started in the early 1990s with the finger tab. Everything else is the same.

One could make a similar argument for the pricing on Big Bertha (stable configuration for decades) and the regular 1225 Alpha, which has changed several times in details but hasn't changed what parts are in it for at least 20 years.

 

[SolarYellow]

I bought my 1225 Alphas as a bulk pack for $48 shipped and taxed from fleabay. Box was a little rough, but the parts are fine.

 

[Azamiryou]

This one has had me scratching my head for years — that you can get an Alpha III, a pad, and a launch controller for less than the MSRP for an Alpha III kit by itself

I had to laugh at the hobby shop when I was entering BAR life and needed a new launch controller.
Launch pad: $30
Launch controller: $30
Launch set with pad, controller, and rocket: $30

(In the end I decided to just keep using my original pad from the 1970s, and build my own launch controller — why pay $30 for one when you can built it yourself for $40? )

 

[Capt. Eric]

It's not like there is any R&D cost left on the Alpha III — the model is essentially unchanged from the original 1972 release save the colors, that the decal is now stickers, and the motor hook changed to the one that started in the early 1990s with the finger tab. Everything else is the same.

Getting a little off topic, but I recently got an educators' kit from 1979 that includes an Alpha with balsa nose cone, make your own chute, etc. All in pristine condition, including the letter to the teacher from Estes. Interesting to look at, but I'm afraid to build it! Like if someone was finishing antique furniture - be very careful with it!

 

[SolarYellow]

Getting a little off topic, but I recently got an educators' kit from 1979 that includes an Alpha with balsa nose cone, make your own chute, etc. All in pristine condition, including the letter to the teacher from Estes. Interesting to look at, but I'm afraid to build it! Like if someone was finishing antique furniture - be very careful with it!

Be like the people over at YORF. Keep that on the shelf and buy all the parts to clone it from eRockets or BMS.

 

[Capt. Eric]

Be like the people over at YORF. Keep that on the shelf and buy all the parts to clone it from eRockets or BMS.

I already have a new and modern (plastic) version. But I'm not really a collector of "vintage" (read "old") kits. I like to build them... eventually.
But I'm sure someone out there would buy it from me for way more than it's worth. That's not really my thing though.

 

[Ronz Rocketz]

If old guys are complaining about the costs, I can't imagine how hard it would be for parents to afford to get them for kids and hope the kids don't try it once and not care for it. Hell the Alpha 3, the most basic of all rockets is $24 and that's not even a starter set

That's why it's important to hand out samples to the kids at school, so they'll keep coming back for more when they feel the urge to launch more. Wait, that didn't sound right...

Anyways, here's us demonstrating to the grade school kids during Christmas break.

 

[BEC]

Getting a little off topic, but I recently got an educators' kit from 1979 that includes an Alpha with balsa nose cone, make your own chute, etc. All in pristine condition, including the letter to the teacher from Estes. Interesting to look at, but I'm afraid to build it! Like if someone was finishing antique furniture - be very careful with it!

Be like the people over at YORF. Keep that on the shelf and buy all the parts to clone it from eRockets or BMS.

I already have a new and modern (plastic) version. But I'm not really a collector of "vintage" (read "old") kits. I like to build them... eventually.
But I'm sure someone out there would buy it from me for way more than it's worth. That's not really my thing though.

This is thread drift, but since you two have brought out the Alpha history geek in me, I have to put in a few things:

The Alpha (originally BNC-50K balsa nose cone, and later two different blow-molded plastic ones) is not the same model as the Alpha III (plastic fin can, elliptical injection-molded nose cone with the tiny screw eye off to one side). I was going to say apples-to-oranges comparison but it's probably more like Gala vs. Cosmic Crisp apples....

Cloning the original Alpha (or actually likely the second variant, with the two AR-2050 centering rings on the motor mount, since that's what'll be in that 1979 vintage kit) is easy. The Semroc BNC-50K nose cone at eRockets is the currently-available nose cone that is closest to the original shape. You'd also need a motor hook without a finger tab (I think eRockets sells those as well, as do a couple of other vendors). The rest is all widely available parts.

Either building that Alpha or cloning it will give you a better performing (as in, flies higher on a given motor) model than one built from a current kit. The difference in weight due to the one-piece centering "ring" in particular is enough to make a difference.

I had to be amused at calling the Alpha III the "modern" version. From this distance, in early 2024, they're in their 50s. The original K-25 Alpha first appeared in a Model Rocket News in December of 1965. It has undergone a bunch of detail changes since then, but is still available today.

The Alpha III (plastic fins) first appeared in the 1971 catalog and reached the configuration sold today (orange plastic parts, black body tube, finger-tab motor hook and peel-n-stick markings rather than waterslides) 30 years ago, first appearing that way in the 1993 Estes catalog. It is, for all intents and purposes, unchanged since then — different mainly in where some of the parts are made and the kits are packaged — and the asking price.

@Capt. Eric does that 1979 Alpha have die-cut fins or does it have the SP-25 fin pattern sheet and just a 3x9 ion piece of 3/32 inch thick balsa in the kit? According to the timeline I've built, it should be just the sheet balsa and the pattern....unless it's an educator's kit that's really marked Alpha II. Then it would have die cut fins. I'm curious to know the details of yours.


We now return you to the discussion of Estes' pricing policies and the Great Goblin...

 

[Initiator001]

Those who espouse the idea that the perceived decline in rocketry participation is due to the cost of the hobby are incorrect.

Many a time I have been at my local hobby shop and watched a father spend $300-$400 to buy his son an R/C Car with all the bells and whistles.

A recent study I heard about stated that 70% of all children/youths/young adults have been or still are involved with videogames here in America.
That's not cheap. One needs a smartphone/computer/game console to participate not to mention buying games to play.

At rocket launches I have watched fathers get all excited about flying rockets while their kids have their smartphones out texting their friends.

Millennials/Generation Z folks are more interested in having experiences than material things.

"Cost' is a false boogeyman.

The NAR revamped competition based on this false premise. "Youths are not interesting in flying competition rocketry events and the reason must be because it is too expensive"!

Why did the NAR decide this was the reason? It was the easiest answer that fit their perceived narrative. We call that in retail "Picking the low hanging fruit" (i.e.: the item was something everyone is certain to buy/easy sale).

Rocketry today is still a good value. It just does not interest younger generations the way it did kids like myself back in the late 1960s/early 1970s.

Estes is attempting to sell these new generations the 'experience' of flying a rocket. Most will be 'one-and-done' but a few might take a greater interest.

 

[BEC]

The NAR revamped competition based on this false premise. "Youths are not interesting in flying competition rocketry events and the reason must be because it is too expensive"!

Why did the NAR decide this was the reason? It was the easiest answer that fit their perceived narrative. We call that in retail "Picking the low hanging fruit" (i.e.: the item was something everyone is certain to buy/easy sale).

Rocketry today is still a good value. It just does not interest younger generations the way it did kids like myself back in the late 1960s/early 1970s.

This is interesting (and is also thread drift to a certain extent). In my initial re-entry into the hobby now about 15 years ago (really, has it been that long?) I was only peripherally aware of competition. Then a couple of years in, I participated in some local attempts to get some going again. Then, I went to NARAM-56, had some fun flying against all the big names and even did well enough to win one event. Since then I've been a participant when NARAMs were close enough to drive to, with the extreme being NARAM-61 in Muncie.

I saw the NRC transition, but I never did get a real sense of the driving reasons behind it other than wishing for more young folks to come along and show us geezers how to do it, or at least give us a run for our money and keep competition alive. I don't recall any discussion about costs being a driver, but maybe I just wasn't close enough to the discussions to hear that.

I agree that compared to lots of other pastimes, rockets, especially low-power rockets, are cheap fun. So I'm a little surprised that cost, at least of the actual flying, was considered a deterrent to more participation of younger than us folks. Interesting indeed. I'm not sure what to add to that.....

As I observed at Austin last July, competing with rocketeers from all over the world is quite the experience. It certainly was quite an experience for those of us helping to run the contest. How do we convey THAT to the Gen-Z types, I wonder?

 

[astronwolf]

"Cost' is a false boogeyman.

The NAR revamped competition based on this false premise. "Youths are not interesting in flying competition rocketry events and the reason must be because it is too expensive"!

Why did the NAR decide this was the reason? It was the easiest answer that fit their perceived narrative. We call that in retail "Picking the low hanging fruit" (i.e.: the item was something everyone is certain to buy/easy sale).

Depends on what expense is considered. "Cost as a barrier to entry" was only part of the reason. The expense of buying kits and materials, motors, etc. is nothing compared to the travel and lodging expense.

My over-simplified explanation of "cost" in NAR competition: The worst thing about the old contest system was that it had been "gamed" by long-term avid competitors. The winning formula for NAR competition had been dialed in. The gaming of the system stacked the odds of doing well nationally against newcomers to the sport. The "secret" to winning was and remains no real secret. You still had to strive to make qualified flights - no DQs. People who won were very good fliers - truly excellent. But what it took to win nationally required the added step of earning top scores (i.e. points) at four regional meets. If you hosted and "controlled" four regional meets within your home base, you could make sure (make damn sure) that you did well at these meets. One could also ensure that many "participants" earned points for your section. That's why generally the same people and sections were always winning because they had "the four regional meet game" dialed in. If you had to travel to regional meets that added travel and lodging expense, which was a barrier to entry for many people. It wasn't the expense of buying kits and materials, motors, etc. Hence, competition was "broken." There is much more that I could add, but fixing the game by eliminating the four-regional-meet secret sauce to winning was what NRC was all about. IMHO, we lost more than we gained.

Sorry, but thread drift really is normal human behavior.

Rocketry today is still a good value. It just does not interest younger generations the way it did kids like myself back in the late 1960s/early 1970s.

Estes is attempting to sell these new generations the 'experience' of flying a rocket. Most will be 'one-and-done' but a few might take a greater interest.

Estes is just trying to wrangle every nickel and dime that they can get for their products. This is a good thing IMHO. I agree with what you are saying, Bob.

 

[Capt. Eric]

does that 1979 Alpha have die-cut fins or does it have the SP-25 fin pattern sheet and just a 3x9 ion piece of 3/32 inch thick balsa in the kit? According to the timeline I've built, it should be just the sheet balsa and the pattern....unless it's an educator's kit that's really marked Alpha II. Then it would have die cut fins. I'm curious to know the details of yours.

No die-cut fins, just the balsa sheet. The kit bag isn't open, but I can see the SP-25 pattern sheet. Here are a couple of pics of what's in the box (plus the box itself). I covered the address label, but it was sent to a gentleman named Ron in Lemon Grove, CA (in case he's reading this). I did not get it from him, but from someone else who was liquidating a rocket collection. It was in a box of misc parts.

 

[Initiator001]

Depends on what expense is considered. "Cost as a barrier to entry" was only part of the reason. The expense of buying kits and materials, motors, etc. is nothing compared to the travel and lodging expense.

My over-simplified explanation of "cost" in NAR competition: The worst thing about the old contest system was that it had been "gamed" by long-term avid competitors. The winning formula for NAR competition had been dialed in. The gaming of the system stacked the odds of doing well nationally against newcomers to the sport. The "secret" to winning was and remains no real secret. You still had to strive to make qualified flights - no DQs. People who won were very good fliers - truly excellent. But what it took to win nationally required the added step of earning top scores (i.e. points) at four regional meets. If you hosted and "controlled" four regional meets within your home base, you could make sure (make damn sure) that you did well at these meets. One could also ensure that many "participants" earned points for your section. That's why generally the same people and sections were always winning because they had "the four regional meet game" dialed in. If you had to travel to regional meets that added travel and lodging expense, which was a barrier to entry for many people. It wasn't the expense of buying kits and materials, motors, etc. Hence, competition was "broken." There is much more that I could add, but fixing the game by eliminating the four-regional-meet secret sauce to winning was what NRC was all about. IMHO, we lost more than we gained.

Sorry, but thread drift really is normal human behavior.



Estes is just trying to wrangle every nickel and dime that they can get for their products. This is a good thing IMHO. I agree with what you are saying, Bob.

(More thread drift)

Ah, interesting about eliminating the 'gaming' using regional meets.
That makes sense.

In my public and private conversations with various NAR officials/volunteers the creation of the NRC form of competition always came back to the cost for youngsters to compete (Motors and building supplies).

Funny, the majority of people I see involved in NRC competition are the same people that flew Pink Book competition before the NRC system came about.
Has the NRC method really increased the overall amount of NAR members (Especially youths) flying competiton?
I am still waiting for an answer.

 

[Initiator001]

Oh, before anyone thinks I've forgotten about the subject of this thread.

I purchased two Great Goblin kits during the Estes Christmas sales. I stacked a coupon to get nearly 30% off.

One will be built stock (I am on the fence concerning trimming the body tube length to make it more accurate) while the other will donate it's parts for some sort of upscale of an Estes classic four-fin model.

 

[SolarYellow]

No die-cut fins, just the balsa sheet. The kit bag isn't open, but I can see the SP-25 pattern sheet. Here are a couple of pics of what's in the box (plus the box itself). I covered the address label, but it was sent to a gentleman named Ron in Lemon Grove, CA (in case he's reading this). I did not get it from him, but from someone else who was liquidating a rocket collection. It was in a box of misc parts.
View attachment 623899

Any chance you could post a shot focused on that nose cone? Centered in the image with the longest (zoomed out) lens you have available to minimize optical distortion would be great. Try to minimize reflections on the bag interfering with the edges of the cone image. I'm reverse-engineering a variety of Estes NCs by pulling quality photos into AutoCAD to get the curves accurate. Would love to add this one to the queue.

 

[thecapotc]

I remember buying rocket at the local craft store (Ben Franklin) that I could walk to. We also bought them at Walmart. That would have been in the 90s.

I just reloaded from ACS, but I might have to buy another box of B6-4s. Hate to run out of those.

Oh man, I remember being 13 or 14 and on our family's yearly trip to Wellsboro, and in the Ben Franklin on Main Street there were Estes rockets. My favorite rocket came from Ben Franklins, the 0873 Hawkeye. I don't think here in PA Ben Franklin is even around anymore.

Coming back to the original topic, the GG and DBRM aren't on my list because they weren't really around my first time through the hobby /edit at least in the catalogs I got which were my only source of rocketry info /edit. It kind of sucks to see prices going up on the Estes stuff, but I've kind of transitioned to wanting to scratch build mostly anyway, and I can't complain about prices climbing in my fun hobby when my real job has seen prices climb like 70% since COVID and they aren't coming down. We discount the crap out of our product, but even after our dealers buy it, they tack more on to the end user.

To drift a little back to an earlier thread drift, I miss having B&M LHS near me. Growing up we had a great shop, they didn't carry any MPR or HPR but had a great selection of stick and tissue balsa models, plastic models, Estes, RC planes, etc. If this move by Estes were to help drive a return to LHS I'd love it but I don't think that's going to be the outcome.

 

[astronwolf]

In my public and private conversations with various NAR officials/volunteers the creation of the NRC form of competition always came back to the cost for youngsters to compete (Motors and building supplies).

It will always be true to say that. But it is not the whole truth. Certain people tend to use approved talking points and "circle the wagons" whenever there is a perception of potential controversy.

Funny, the majority of people I see involved in NRC competition are the same people that flew Pink Book competition before the NRC system came about.
Has the NRC method really increased the overall amount of NAR members (Especially youths) flying competiton?
I am still waiting for an answer.

The ones who enjoy this sort of activity still do. The answer to "has it increased participation?" We can look up recent scoreboard results and compare them to the pre-NRC days. The answer is already there. But rather than make you do the math, I'll just say the answer is, "no."

I used my Estes stacking discounts during the 12-days of Estes sale to acquire the beautiful Black Brant kit. And I have the Great Goblin in the mail from a vendor who had a coupon that I could use as a discount. Very nice to score 30% discounts. I know some folks paid full retail to get these kits right away. I was tempted to do that too, but I'm glad that I waited. I felt like I paid through the nose for the Doorknob and Starlight kits when they came out. I'm not always cheap.

 

[SolarYellow]

Has the NRC method really increased the overall amount of NAR members (Especially youths) flying competiton?
I am still waiting for an answer.

Personally, the NRC method has actually deterred me from getting involved in competition. It's like if you wanted to go autocrossing, but they were only running four classes this year. Next year, it would be four different classes.

Sure, under the rules, if I want to try bumping the record in any category, I can make some arrangements to do that. But as far as competing, I'm just not really interested in designing and building something that fits in the available categories most years.

I think it would be a lot more attractive to me, as a non-participant, to become a participant if I could read the whole rule book, pick out what seemed interesting to me to build, and go fly it. With the NRC system, there are several categories I'd like to play in, but if I'm the only one playing, there's not really any point. It basically squelches the vast majority of the interest that could develop in competition in general.

It seems to me like it could lead to a lot more growth if they ran all the classes and let the momentum/interest/participation develop organically as people dip their toe in the water and find out what they enjoy competing at.

 

[BEC]

No die-cut fins, just the balsa sheet. The kit bag isn't open, but I can see the SP-25 pattern sheet. Here are a couple of pics of what's in the box (plus the box itself). I covered the address label, but it was sent to a gentleman named Ron in Lemon Grove, CA (in case he's reading this). I did not get it from him, but from someone else who was liquidating a rocket collection. It was in a box of misc parts.
View attachment 623899View attachment 623900

Thanks. That's what I expected, but it's nice to have it be confirmed with your example.

As I say, easy to clone, with the most difficult-to-obtain item being a the correct nose cone. But the BNC-50K at eRockets is pretty close. Those F.R.O.G.S. packages were pretty cool.

 

[BEC]

Any chance you could post a shot focused on that nose cone? Centered in the image with the longest (zoomed out) lens you have available to minimize optical distortion would be great. Try to minimize reflections on the bag interfering with the edges of the cone image. I'm reverse-engineering a variety of Estes NCs by pulling quality photos into AutoCAD to get the curves accurate. Would love to add this one to the queue.

I have several examples of BNC-50Ks out of the package. I can get you pictures pretty easily. But you may have to remind me....i'm kind of under the weather right now.

 

[BEC]

Depends on what expense is considered. "Cost as a barrier to entry" was only part of the reason. The expense of buying kits and materials, motors, etc. is nothing compared to the travel and lodging expense.

My over-simplified explanation of "cost" in NAR competition: The worst thing about the old contest system was that it had been "gamed" by long-term avid competitors. The winning formula for NAR competition had been dialed in. The gaming of the system stacked the odds of doing well nationally against newcomers to the sport. The "secret" to winning was and remains no real secret. You still had to strive to make qualified flights - no DQs. People who won were very good fliers - truly excellent. But what it took to win nationally required the added step of earning top scores (i.e. points) at four regional meets. If you hosted and "controlled" four regional meets within your home base, you could make sure (make damn sure) that you did well at these meets. One could also ensure that many "participants" earned points for your section. That's why generally the same people and sections were always winning because they had "the four regional meet game" dialed in. If you had to travel to regional meets that added travel and lodging expense, which was a barrier to entry for many people. It wasn't the expense of buying kits and materials, motors, etc. Hence, competition was "broken." There is much more that I could add, but fixing the game by eliminating the four-regional-meet secret sauce to winning was what NRC was all about. IMHO, we lost more than we gained.

Sorry, but thread drift really is normal human behavior.



Estes is just trying to wrangle every nickel and dime that they can get for their products. This is a good thing IMHO. I agree with what you are saying, Bob.

Thanks for the additional insight. As I've noted, I was out of rockets between about 1973 and 2009 and never really saw myself as a competitor. When I got back in, the whole multiple-tiered NAR competition arrangement with meet factors and such seemed terribly arcane and confusing to me. So I like that the NRC got rid of all that. I did NARAM-56 as a bucket-list sort of thing and then found I kind of enjoyed it.

I'm not sure what I would've done if there was an active NAR competition scene in the Pacific Northwest when I returned to rocketry. But there really hasn't been but a couple of half-hearted attempts in the last 15 years. I did participate in those some.

From that standpoint I really don't think the NRC has made a difference one way or the other. It certainly hasn't improved things as they'd hoped. But there was nothing to hurt, either.

As for the cost thing....it certainly has been true for me that I spend FAR more on travel/accommodations to compete than I did on models/motors/GSE, both in this area and for NARAMs.

I think it would be a lot more attractive to me, as a non-participant, to become a participant if I could read the whole rule book, pick out what seemed interesting to me to build, and go fly it. With the NRC system, there are several categories I'd like to play in, but if I'm the only one playing, there's not really any point. It basically squelches the vast majority of the interest that could develop in competition in general.

It seems to me like it could lead to a lot more growth if they ran all the classes and let the momentum/interest/participation develop organically as people dip their toe in the water and find out what they enjoy competing at.

The thing is, the "they" are us. We have to provide the resources to run the competitions. The NRC does not PRECLUDE running other events, either locally or at NARAM. Since the NRC there have been two or three other Pink Book events run at NARAM each time. But the meets have to happen, regardless of which events are flown.

In the PNW attempts to revive competition I allude to above, there was no attempt made to run every event at any of those meets. You have to choose based on who you have and what they can do. This is especially true prior to altimeters being the main way to get altitude (vs. optical tracking) and especially judging craftsmanship events. So the emphasis was mainly on duration events because these are easy to score/run. All you need are folks who can run a stopwatch while staring at a point in the sky....

 

[Art Upton]

(More thread drift)

Ah, interesting about eliminating the 'gaming' using regional meets.
That makes sense.

In my public and private conversations with various NAR officials/volunteers the creation of the NRC form of competition always came back to the cost for youngsters to compete (Motors and building supplies).

Funny, the majority of people I see involved in NRC competition are the same people that flew Pink Book competition before the NRC system came about.
Has the NRC method really increased the overall amount of NAR members (Especially youths) flying competiton?
I am still waiting for an answer.

Since NRC, we have more JMRC club members flying the events even those that are not NAR members just for fun.

I discovered about the Regional Issues back in about 2003 when I decided to try Comp again.

 

[bad_idea]

i'm kind of under the weather right now.

Get well soon, Bernard.

 

[BEC]

Get well soon, Bernard.

Thanks!

 

[Capt. Eric]

I have several examples of BNC-50Ks out of the package. I can get you pictures pretty easily. But you may have to remind me....i'm kind of under the weather right now.

Go for it! I don't think I could get him a usable image.