turbofireball
Model Rocket Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 119
T52H-34 | 1.210x1.140x.035x34 29mm Motor Mount size | $5.00 |
Ok, who's going to get one and do electronic staging with a H13ST in the sustainer?
I have no desire to go as high as this is supposed to go on a pair of F15s, but probably not a bad rocket to fly on all kinds of motors in one or two stage configs...
Unless I'm misreading - it's a minimum diameter 29mm 3FNC - why would there be any significant weight/drag?The H13 would be wasted with that long airframe made of heavy-wall MMT. Too much weight, too much drag.
Paired with the ~E57 (iirc, and not official designation) as a booster that Estes has been messing with (I have seen the fired case and nozzle, it is/was in development last year) and a BP E or F in the sustainer and the name is very appropriate. The current booster motors from Estes usually make me very nervous when brought to the RSO table for preflight checks, especially E to E and F to F combos.Interesting. MD 29mm. 1.21 inch OD matches BMS 29mm MMT size:
T52H-34 1.210x1.140x.035x34 29mm Motor Mount size $5.00
The problem is, you can easily exceed that altitude with an AT 29/40-120 case single stage and reloads that you can have shipped to your house without hazmat. If I was going there, I'd build a much shorter rocket with a much shorter nose cone, because the Mach 0.6 or 0.7 that it's going to get to really wants an upscaled PNC-20B, not a needle. Even at the oblique angle in the image on the promo piece, it shows a fineness ratio of 6.8 when pulled into AutoCAD and just comparing the diameter and apparent length. An actual side view will probably be more like 8. That's just silly, and not best for performance.
But maybe this indicates they are actually getting 29mm motor production spooled up again.
Looks like it would be a nice flier on a single F15 or even a E20.
Paired with the ~E57 (iirc, and not official designation) as a booster that Estes has been messing with (I have seen the fired case and nozzle, it is/was in development last year) and a BP E or F in the sustainer and the name is very appropriate. The current booster motors from Estes usually make me very nervous when brought to the RSO table for preflight checks, especially E to E and F to F combos.
My guess is that we will also see a release of the new booster motor this year to go along with this kit at some point.
Unless I'm misreading - it's a minimum diameter 29mm 3FNC - why would there be any significant weight/drag?
Its possible using some old school quickmatch, or similar, the trick will be setting the whole thing up and getting the RSO to sign off on it.Hrmmm..... So long! That's what you say to this kit when you actually send it to 3600 feet.... But here's my question. Common internet wisdom says you can't stage AP (composite) motors. But can you use it for the first stage?? In other words, could I use a NON-Black Powder motor for Stage 1, and have its ejection charge light a Black Powder motor on the second stage?? Has anyone done this successfully? Because if so, it seems possible to get this bird well past the projected altitude. I realize that there's a delay in the first stage before it lights the second. But let's assume the rocket continues to go UP during the delay.
Your user name is aptly done a F15 to F15 is most likely a bad idea, each F15 weighs 3.6 ozs so two of them is near 7.2ozs, leaving 13.8ozs for recovery and the rocket itself, leaving little room/payload for tracking or deployment if the delay is not long enough.Will be interested to see actual dimensions of the parts as shipped, but I'm inclined to think like @SolarYellow that the Apogee parts will be lighter and smaller OD.
Interesting to see a 29mm announcement when the 29mm motors have mostly been out of stock at Estes for months, and especially a two-stage given the F15-0 has been out of stock nearly everywhere for a long, long time. A friend and I have been planning to go halves on HAZMAT and build F15-0 to F15-N rockets if those booster motors ever come back into stock, preferably at AC Supply. I think we first talked about that back in July or so. Hasn't happened yet.
It seems to be exactly what Estes are offering in the ad above, yet with heavier parts than I would use.Your user name is aptly done a F15 to F15 is most likely a bad idea, each F15 weighs 3.6 ozs so two of them is near 7.2ozs, leaving 13.8ozs for recovery and the rocket itself, leaving little room/payload for tracking or deployment if the delay is not long enough.
I’m sure John Boren has flown this thing many times F15 to F15. I’m not going to guess how many sustainers were recovered, though. I expect it’s 29mm motor tube stock the full length and has a nice light blow-molded nose cone, and likely also the payload section base. Put an Eggfinder Mini in the payload section (and a MicroPeak or FS Mini or such for data) and give it a go.Your user name is aptly done a F15 to F15 is most likely a bad idea, each F15 weighs 3.6 ozs so two of them is near 7.2ozs, leaving 13.8ozs for recovery and the rocket itself, leaving little room/payload for tracking or deployment if the delay is not long enough.
That is what Estes told me when I inquired back in October. At that time, they had hoped to have 29mm motors back in stock by "mid-December or sooner."side note: I saw in another thread here something about some sort of supply issue with the casings for the 29mm BP motors — so maybe that’s why they’re nowhere to be found right now.
Well….considering the long flow time between a design and prototype test flights of a new kit, the gathering of parts (including sending tubes to China) the making of new blow molds for this model, the production of the kits there then putting them in a container to send back to the US (and I think there are pre-production test kits made and sent to the US in there as well) I’m sure that they didn’t want to stop the process of getting the So Long in the pipeline while solving the 29mm motor casing problem In parallel.That is what Estes told me when I inquired back in October. At that time, they had hoped to have 29mm motors back in stock by "mid-December or sooner."
Edit to add: I have enough projects to keep me occupied that I'm not actually inconvenienced in any way by the 29mm shortage (and I'm certainly not disgruntled by it), I just find it interesting they seem to be moving forward with the "So Long."
For those that are eagle-eyed, this was the kit sneak-previewed in one of the Estes NARCON presentations earlier this year.
The name sounds Chinese.Did Estes name it "So Long" because they never saw it again, or because that's how much time it takes to recover one of these?
If they’re using the thicker walled 29mm engine tube stock this should be sturdier than BT-55 tube - though they could’ve gone the BT-55 lined with C-55 coupler tube, something that would be rather different than any prior Estes kits but probably heavier than T-52H MMT tube. Going with T-52H should mean a really low “parts count” - no centering rings, no motor tube, no motor retainer needed on the sustainer - just the body tubes, stage coupler, 29mm motor blocks, fin stock, nose cone, bulkhead/nose block, streamers - no extra fat so to speakEstes could've saved some money and simplified things by making this with BT-55 tubes/Nose cones (33mm) instead of adding 29mm stuff into the mix. It still would've been the highest altitude Estes ever built, wouldn't it? The Commanche was 3 stage and only did a claimed 2600 feet. Don't get me wrong, this is the coolest thing Estes has done in a while.
Excellent points, I'm a big fan of "no extra Fat". My Min diameter F-15-8 is about as Fat Free as you can get, I didn't even add nose weight. 3 Flights and recoveries soo far, and some said it couldn't possibly fly.If they’re using the thicker walled 29mm engine tube stock this should be sturdier than BT-55 tube - though they could’ve gone the BT-55 lined with C-55 coupler tube, something that would be rather different than any prior Estes kits but probably heavier than T-52H MMT tube. Going with T-52H should mean a really low “parts count” - no centering rings, no motor tube, no motor retainer needed on the sustainer - just the body tubes, stage coupler, 29mm motor blocks, fin stock, nose cone, bulkhead/nose block, streamers - no extra fat so to speak
Agreed, and it probably wouldn't have decreased the altitude by much. I did a quick-n-dirty OR design of a two-stage F15 to F15. Minimum diameter gave an altitude of 3980 feet. Scaling up to BT-55 made it 3880 feet. However, minimum diameter means fewer parts and lower cost, e.g., no separate motor mount tubes, adapter rings, etc.Estes could've saved some money and simplified things by making this with BT-55 tubes/Nose cones (33mm) instead of adding 29mm stuff into the mix. It still would've been the highest altitude Estes ever built, wouldn't it? The Commanche was 3 stage and only did a claimed 2600 feet. Don't get me wrong, this is the coolest thing Estes has done in a while.
Enter your email address to join: