turbofireball
Model Rocket Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 119
I haven't heard anything and was just curious (and hoping there's no plastic fin can).I have not heard this has plastic fin can on the Nike Ram, Where did you hear that @mh9162013 ?
I haven't heard anything and was just curious (and hoping there's no plastic fin can).
To the best of my knowledge, the Enerjet Nike Ram , unlike the 1340 was plywood or basswood fins. Keep in mind my 1972 catalog is buried in my Catacombs so no way I can verify tonight.
Interesting that the recommended motors in the new catalog are the same as the old ones, plus newer AeroTech types. I think those recommended delay times > or = 10 seconds would make it arc over a bit though.
View attachment 613174
I’d consider sim data helpful but I feel like I’d want to try the 7-second version first, just in case…Couple things to consider is if you’re flying the Nike Ram with a payload or not and that streamers tend to be a bit more forgiving than parachutes when it comes to longer delays. Regardless, I’d be leery of using a 10 second delay without some good sim data first.
I’ve flown my similar - uses the same nose cone and diameter tube - Quest Mean Green on some longer delay motors and it’s worked well. It has been modded with extra nose weight, no engine block and a screw on retainer. But I still wouldn’t choose a 10 second delay, even with a streamer, without some successful sim data.
By any chance did you get a deployment speed for the F67-14C or anything else way off-optimum?Agreed. I have a rocket built with Quest 35mm parts and a 29mm motor mount, so not too different from the Nike Ram. I just ran the OpenRocket sims of my rocket for both F67C and F67W motors, and in both cases the ideal delay worked out to be 7 seconds, not 14 and 9 seconds respectively as in the ad. Of course I don't know the target weight of the Nike Ram, but it's hard to see how it could make such a large difference. (My rocket is 135g empty. Was lighter before I crashed it and had to replace part of the body.)
21.6 m/s for the F67-14. Maybe not the absolute end of the world with a streamer, but getting risky. I'd definitely pick a shorter delay.By any chance did you get a deployment speed for the F67-14C or anything else way off-optimum?
I built and flew prototypes of the new Enerjet Nike Ram with E24-10C, F52-12C and F67-14C motors.Interesting that the recommended motors in the new catalog are the same as the old ones, plus newer AeroTech types. I think those recommended delay times > or = 10 seconds would make it arc over a bit though.
View attachment 613174
The Mean Green and Nike Ram models are different diameters.Couple things to consider is if you’re flying the Nike Ram with a payload or not and that streamers tend to be a bit more forgiving than parachutes when it comes to longer delays. Regardless, I’d be leery of using a 10 second delay without some good sim data first.
I’ve flown my similar - uses the same nose cone and diameter tube - Quest Mean Green on some longer delay motors and it’s worked well. It has been modded with extra nose weight, no engine block and a screw on retainer. But I still wouldn’t choose a 10 second delay, even with a streamer, without some successful sim data.
The Mean Green and Nike Ram models are different diameters.
The Mean Green is nearly two inches in diameter while the Nike Ram is under one-and-a-half inches in diameter.
I don't trust computer simulations. Build/fly/build more/fly more.
Interesting that the recommended motors in the new catalog are the same as the old ones, plus newer AeroTech types. I think those recommended delay times > or = 10 seconds would make it arc over a bit though.
View attachment 613174
That’s really impressive.I built and flew prototypes of the new Enerjet Nike Ram with E24-10C, F52-12C and F67-14C motors.
You cannot believe how high the model will fly. One cannot see such a small model at over 3000 feet.
The streamer system held up fine (I could not locate a F52 flight after it landed so I cannot say it worked every time).
I recon' the model is still going up when the ejection charge goes off.
Not to say that the Emperor isn't wearing clothes but isn't this a scaled down Enerjet Hi-Q ?
The new Nike Ram kit is a 'slight' upscale of the original Nike Ram kit produced by Enerjet, a division of Centuri Engineering, from 1972 to 1976.Not to say that the Emperor isn't wearing clothes but isn't this a scaled down Enerjet Hi-Q ?
The styling is similar but there are some clear differences in fin and nose geometry, among other things I’m not clearly identifying now.The new Nike Ram kit is a 'slight' upscale of the original Nike Ram kit produced by Enerjet, a division of Centuri Engineering, from 1972 to 1976.
The Quest (now Enerjet) High-Q model was designed by Scott Branche nearly 15 years ago. It was originally to be a two-stage kit.
Definitely! I expect it to at least be come packaged in a box of some sort.Wouldn’t it be cool if it came packaged like the original?
The styling is similar but there are some clear differences in fin and nose geometry, among other things I’m not clearly identifying now.
I meant that the Nike Ram looks different from the Hi-Q in these ways but thanks for the information.We knew back in the spring that the NC would be different. I believe it's the standard Quest 35mm NC. I'm not yet sure the apparent asymmetry of the fins in the catalog photo is real and not just some neuro-optical weirdness due to the angle of the rocket in the photo and maybe some lens distortion. Will have to get kits out in the wild to know. I can't think of any reason to change from the original geometry, scaled up to match the BT.
All the info needed to clone an original from BT-56 is out there. It would be weird if this was significantly different other than the NC (cost) and technological upgrades (motor retainer, baffle, etc.).
Enter your email address to join: