I beg to differ. Don't see how humidity can affect a plastic motor receptacle.
There is no cardboard in this model. And I have read your quotes above. Like I said, humidity has no effect on plastic.
In that case the fit would be better rather than worse. The problem occurs when the motor is slid past the aft ring and the play in the rear ring's fit allows the front of the motor to misalign with the forward ring IF you don't pay attention and seat the motor well. Fortunately 99% of us are aware enough to ensure this is done before launch. The results speak for themselves.
I just realized I may have disclosed info to the general public that should not have been, so I edited and deleted the body of this post. As Gilda Radner would say...….
Probably.....
you are in good company.
Not judging, just trying to narrow things down - When was deployment in relation to the flight path? Was it straight when it left the rod, or did it take off at an angle? Standard length launch rod set 0 degrees from vertical? Was the rocket near the bottom of the rod for maximum guidance? Stock chute with just a few sheets of wadding? One was flown today at a local launch on a C6-3, in a 6-7mph wind, and while it arced over some, it was a relatively good flight, and deployed near apogee, perhaps just a bit past.
Yes, but in raptor's case he made sure it was fully seated. This tells me it was a power variance in the motor.
Yup - not just variances in the motor output but variances in the rocket as well are probable contributing factors to less than optimal flights. These are not precision crafted aerospace vehicles - just injection molded plastic and paper models made for Estes by the lowest cost vendors they could find that meet their standards. Not denigrating either the RTF Saturn or Estes (a peak in my workshop could show you how much I support Estes!) just pointing out that the recommended motor for this rocket can be underpowered and care should be taken when you fly it. I have four flights on mine - two less than great (1 each on a C6-3 and QJet C12-4) and two perfect flights on each of those motors. I’ll probably only fly it a couple of more times then retire it to display status. Unless I buy a second kit and do the 24mm conversion
What's worse is they are putting C6-3 motors in the box with it, as a starter kit. How many have already been sold, but won't be flown until next week (or later) by parents who have never flown a rocket before. A high visibility accident could negatively impact what we all hope as enthusiasts will excite the next generation of rocketers.
Ya thats a good point. They are suppose to be available here in the fall.
If yours flies well that’s great. Mine doesn’t like much of a breeze - a gust sends it in a very parabolic path with a relatively low ejection incident. In little to no wind it flies straight up. Some folks had problems getting the motor fully seated and the fin unit tight - my fin unit was SLIGHTLY loose (you could move it but it wasn’t all that loose) and had an extremely erratic flight on a QJet C motor. The margin for error on these is very small because they are overweight for an Estes BP C6-3 - get everything right, motor seated correctly, fin unit tight, launch rod clean and straight, low wind speed and they give you just the kind of flight you want - straight and low on a nice white smoke trail, every flight phase in view. Get something just a bit wrong and you can have a much less than optimal flight. Mine will fly a couple more times then probably be retired to display status. I might pick up a second one and install the Flight Sketch 24mm conversion kit. Reportedly it’s a much better flier on Estes 24mm “short” BP motors though mine flies nicely on QJet C12-4s - I just prefer the slower liftoff and white smoke from the Estes BP motors.
Well put.
