Thin Saturn V

[Fred22]

Does anybody have a classic kit to compare to see if the tubes are indeed thinner on the new sat v? To me I try to hit a midrange with construction techniques but keep the CAR/NAR safety code in mind when I build. To me risk is commensurate with gain. This is a hobby. If I overbuild a rocket heavily it will survive rough landings and flight stresses better but does this increase in performance come with a much greater risk of injuring spectators or damaging property? Whenever I launch a rocket children spring out of the woodwork and I dont want to put them at unnessary levels of risk so I can avoid replacing or repairing a kit. Just my thoughts as I lost my omnipotence hat a long time ago
Cheers
fred

 

[TheAviator]

Have you EVER heard ANYONE at a NASCAR race at the end say, "Man, he sure ran a safe race and has the safest car !" NO, because virtually NOBODY cares and wants to see ACTION and SPEED.

I'm fairly certain that the drivers and NASCAR care. Also, as has been mentioned about building rockets lightly, NASCAR cars are not designed to run into a wall full speed and keep going, as you say your rockets should be able to. Both the front and rear clip are designed to disintegrate upon hitting something and take the energy out of the collision, just like Micro was saying about our rockets. (Seeing a pattern here?) The only part of a stock car that is "bulletproof," if you will, is the driver compartment, for obvious reasons.

Also, I'm pretty sure people would care about safety if a car flew up into the stands and killed 20 people. Oh wait, that's why they have safety equipment between the track and stands that can catch and stop a car flipping over at 100MPH.

Finally, I would venture a guess and say my stock Estes Saturn V would go a lot faster and higher on an F39 than your fiberglassed, epoxied, resin cast 100th scale Saturn V would go on a G80.

As for the durability, the Alway brothers brought an ORIGINAL Saturn V to NARAM-52 that was so old, the paint was about the same color as my polyurethane coated birch desk. It was still in pristine flying shape. Sure it may take a bit more thought and planning, but from both a safety (crumple on ballistic impact) and engineering/cost (same size, cheaper motor, same performance) standpoint, lighter is better.

 

[RoyAtl]

Does anybody have a classic kit to compare to see if the tubes are indeed thinner on the new sat v?
Cheers
fred

I've got tubes from an original K-36, and (other than the white vs. brown finish) they match the tube from the 30th anniversary #2157 Saturn. I seriously doubt the new #2157 would be different.

 

[wickball]

Words of wisdom, Fred.

wick

 

[Fred22]

I've got tubes from an original K-36, and (other than the white vs. brown finish) they match the tube from the 30th anniversary #2157 Saturn. I seriously doubt the new #2157 would be different.

Now i guess I'll just have to buy the new one to be sure lol. Thanks for the info Royal
Cheers
Fred

 

[dcastle]

Seeing as my 30th anniv Saturn is standing in my den waiting to be painted after being built 7 or 8 years ago..I suppose i oughta get one of the new ones. Part of my delay was that I was making various modifications to it to be more scale such as removing some of the extra ullage motors, etc in the wrap. I also used some two part foam in the fin fairings and one of them needs to be redone.

Did they correct the wraps to be scale to the Apollo 11 Saturn or are they still the old ones?

 

[Commonwealth.Net]

We offer several Saturn V UPGRADES
see https://www.cdimodelrocketry.com/products.php?cat=Commonwealth Displays

 

[dpower]

Another option for motor mount upgrades in the Estes Saturn V is this interchangeable mount from TMRK:

https://tmrk.rocketshoppe.com/parts.htm

 

[mkadams001]

Our model are NOT intended to be "hardend" that is why the hobby has existed so long without all the hassles imposed by those insisting on making everything HUGE and heavy in recent years. Our models are to be made to absorb impact energy not transfer it to whatever it hits. If one can't design and build models to land without damage I suggest they need to find a hobby more fitting the heavy handed, prehaps Bowling, Shot putting or hammer throwing?

It's actually pretty easy to build lots of Upscale and large clusted models staying under the 3.3lb mark and more importantly the 125g propellant mark without ever having to resort to AP motors.

While it's true we have the right to build anyway we wish (to a point), the better question is.. Should we build that way?... the resounding answer is NO. Overbuilding does nothing for our models except make them more of a potential hazard to others. Like many things our hobby needs to return to the Kismif era... Keep it simple, make it FUN where we could concentrate on getting the most our of our motors without looking over our shoulders for some Government agency. Huge, expensive rockets exclude most if not all the younger folks, not really teaching much along the way..but sure makes unwanted headaches for the rest of us. Any darn fool can make a these huge things shot-put into the air...just add bigger motors. It takes a bit more skill to keep it super light and still achive good altitude.

I don't think that overbuilding is the evil that you proclaim. While in many cases it is unnecessary, as it seems that some do it just because they can, it in no way casts a shadow over the hobby. I personally build to be strong enough for the rocket's intended motors. But you seem to be trying to mix two classes of rocketry, one for the kiddies and the other for those of use who prefer to fly larger, heaver rockets that should be built strong for the flight and landing. Naturally, kids cannot afford these rockets or the cost per flight usually starting around $10 per flight. Therefore, their learning curve is most likely to be similar to most of us by starting small and after a few years begin building the more expensive and advanced kits that will require the bigger motors and perhaps some composite materials.

I had to look up the kismif acronym because I have never heard of it before, mine has always been keep it simple stupid (kiss) (i am avoiding using caps because i am not yelling) but in todays uber-sensitive crowd, stupid is way to harsh of a word to use and may cause damage to my self esteem. Anyway, I do like to pull out my estes alpha, and a couple of goonies and enjoy the simplicity of a great flight on a c6-5.

I do agree with your last sentence that is does take more skill to keep it light and get the altitude you want. I am actually working on a rocket that is meeting that requirement. It is mid powered but a rocket of this size normally requires high power, it is a good challenge.

 

[Trident]

I've got tubes from an original K-36, and (other than the white vs. brown finish) they match the tube from the 30th anniversary #2157 Saturn. I seriously doubt the new #2157 would be different.

It would make no sense for Estes to change the tubes. Either the couplers would have to change, or all the wraps, since either the inner diameter or outer diameter would change.