Estes C5-3 motors available

[neil_w]

Here's a quick comparison of a 3.5 oz 4FNC, BT55-size, using the new files off Thrustcurve:

Note that the C12 gives considerably higher apogee, but the progressive burn gives no better speed off the rod than the C6. The new C5 gives the lowest apogee, but significantly faster speed off the rod. That is what I want it for most.

 

[BEC]

That certainly looks consistent with the cert data....I just got a few of the new ones from Estes today. With some luck I'll get out to fly them in a heavy model or two (1/200 Saturn V and/or MAV) and instrument them (FS Mini or FireFly) and see how they do alongside Estes C6 and Q-Jet C12.

 

[BEC]

For a good laugh check the document properties which claim it was created in 1938.

While the properties on the older one say it was created in December of 2000. Amusing indeed.

 

[BABAR]

Look again. The form is dated 2014. The testing date is December 15, 2019. These are not the same data as the older C5. I'm kicking myself for not saving the 1995 data while it was accessible on the NAR web site. I thought I had, but apparently not....

Added: saved by the Wayback Machine! Attached is the older C5 cert data for comparison. I'll leave the comparison graph-building to someone else for now.

I slouch corrected

 

[sl98]

C5-3 in stock this morning at AC Supply (along with the Door Knob).

 

[Antares JS]

C5-3 in stock this morning at AC Supply (along with the Door Knob).

Woo-hoo! Appreciate the news. I was waiting for a discounter to have both the Doorknob and the C5's.

 

[sl98]

I suspect the Door Knob and C5-3 will sellout at AC Supply as quick as toilet paper sells out during a pandemic.

 

[OC-Patrick]

Now available from AC Supply!

 

[DMC12]

So today I went out to the lakebed and launched a ton of rockets...zero wind. I launched three of the new C5-3 engines. The rockets were Mars Lander, 1/200 Scale Saturn V, and an RTF Star Wars Y Wing Fighter. All great flights. Great C5 boosts like the old days. I think the delays are a little long tho. Closer to 5 seconds on the Mars Lander and the other two seems like 4 second delays. All from the same pack. Anyone else have any experience with the new ones yet?

 

[dpower]

<snip> Anyone else have any experience with the new ones yet?

I’ll be flying some this weekend.

 

[BEC]

That certainly looks consistent with the cert data....I just got a few of the new ones from Estes today. With some luck I'll get out to fly them in a heavy model or two (1/200 Saturn V and/or MAV) and instrument them (FS Mini or FireFly) and see how they do alongside Estes C6 and Q-Jet C12.

I just realized I posted my first uses of the new C5-3s on YORF but not here. So here's what I posted there:

I flew three of the new C5-3s on the 14th. Two in a 1/200th Saturn V and one in a MAV. Both of these models are marginal off the rod on the C6-3 and go really well on Q-jet C12-4s.

All three boosts were very authoritative and with quite a visible flame from the exhaust. Altimeters aboard showed the 1/200 Saturn V actually didn't go quite as high as it does on a C6-3 (when the winds are low for a straight flight) but the MAV did about 70 feet better on the C5-3.

Both models go considerably higher on the C12-4 than they do on C6-3s.

So for heavier models that are marginal on the C6-3, it looks like the C5-3 is indeed "mission accomplished" but for C impulse competitions, the Q-Jet C12 is the hot ticket by a large margin (and even for lighter models).

After getting a comment about the altitudes, I added this:

Yeah, I was a little surprised at that myself, but at the same time, the MAV is heavy but not all that draggy (especially relative to the 1/200 Saturn V), so I would guess the momentum increase overcame the increased drag [of the higher speeds]. As others have noted, and the cert data shows, the delays are a bit over 3s (a bit unusual for Estes motors).

I will be flying more of these motors (I have six more and will be ordering a larger quantity from AC Supply soon so will be doing some more flying...and I almost always fly an altimeter aboard a model, regardless of what it is.

And then this:

The 1/200 Saturn V is a ~200 foot flight on either C6-3 or C5-3. On a Q-Jet C12-4 it's ~350 and on a Q-Jet D16-4 it's ~425.

The MAV goes a little higher on all of these, and the C5-3 (in the one flight I did) took it about halfway between where a C6-3 and a C12-4 does. I only have five flights total on the model (vs. 20 on the Saturn V) so not enough data yet for real trends.

I hope to go flying on Sunday so may put one or two more of my currently remaining six in something lighter/less draggy to see how it works there. The trick then will be not having the delay be too short, though it is, unlike most Estes delays, a little longer than the rating as I noted above.

 

[dpower]

Last weekend, I flew 2 new C5-3s in my 1:100 SV, along with 2 C6s and a D12-3. Really good kick off the pad. Almost 100 Newtons peak thrust!

 

[BEC]

I flew an original Fat Boy on a new C5-3 yesterday. As with the earlier incarnation of the C5-3 (save for the one that CATO’d and rekitted the model), the C5-3 is perfectly matched to that short, fat model.

 

[Theory]

View attachment IMG_3053.MOV







finally got to fly one of these.
The rocket is our BT55 upscale Wizard. Weight was 3.5oz w/o motor

 

[Joshua F Thomas]

https://nar.org/SandT/pdf/Estes/C5.pdf

Thrust average: 3.91 N.

C5.

What.

 

[o1d_dude]

Ordered three packs last night from Estes for my LiL Thor.

All up weight projected to be 3.5-4 oz w/o motor per vendor.

 

[Nytrunner]

Thrust average: 3.91 N.

C5.

What.

Thrust average 4.7 N

C6

What.

 

[neil_w]

Don’t even mention the A8....

Motor naming is apparently an inexact science. Only the thrust curve tells the true story.

 

[heada]

The name can be +/- so much or +/- 10% (20%, I don't remember) it's all in NFPA rules for it. None of the older BP motors match name vs tested average. You have to look at the curve, not the name.

 

[Ronz Rocketz]

I figure the name is more historical rather than science based.

C5 work great for the specialized rockets.

 

[Joshua F Thomas]

Don’t even mention the A8....

Motor naming is apparently an inexact science. Only the thrust curve tells the true story.

I know, but you think they'd at least *try* to round to the nearest number....

 

[BABAR]

I figure the name is more historical rather than science based.

C5 work great for the specialized rockets.

Looks like a great day! Those were some nice looking rockets, and looks like all recovered well. I haven’t launched for a bit, so thanks for letting me live vicariously through your video,

Good editing on the video.

Hope your onboard camera works next time, you can tape it closer to the nose, the more forward you can get it, the more the mass adds to stability.

 

[Ronz Rocketz]

Hope your onboard camera works next time, you can tape it closer to the nose, the more forward you can get it, the more the mass adds to stability.

But it’s not centered so I figure it would be better at the CG. Not sure...

I think what happened is that I put the SQ11 buttons on the outside and the tape pushed down on the buttons. It worked the next time with the camera sideways. I think I’ll try gluing some toothpicks to protect the buttons. I’m currently building an XL version of the Bull Pup to replace the one that went on an adventure.



The hurricane missed us on the south shore and wanted to go launch rockets but the City closed down all the parks. Can always try tomorrow.

 

[Scott_650]

I just realized I posted my first uses of the new C5-3s on YORF but not here. So here's what I posted there:

I flew three of the new C5-3s on the 14th. Two in a 1/200th Saturn V and one in a MAV. Both of these models are marginal off the rod on the C6-3 and go really well on Q-jet C12-4s.

All three boosts were very authoritative and with quite a visible flame from the exhaust. Altimeters aboard showed the 1/200 Saturn V actually didn't go quite as high as it does on a C6-3 (when the winds are low for a straight flight) but the MAV did about 70 feet better on the C5-3.

Both models go considerably higher on the C12-4 than they do on C6-3s.

So for heavier models that are marginal on the C6-3, it looks like the C5-3 is indeed "mission accomplished" but for C impulse competitions, the Q-Jet C12 is the hot ticket by a large margin (and even for lighter models).

After getting a comment about the altitudes, I added this:

Yeah, I was a little surprised at that myself, but at the same time, the MAV is heavy but not all that draggy (especially relative to the 1/200 Saturn V), so I would guess the momentum increase overcame the increased drag [of the higher speeds]. As others have noted, and the cert data shows, the delays are a bit over 3s (a bit unusual for Estes motors).

I will be flying more of these motors (I have six more and will be ordering a larger quantity from AC Supply soon so will be doing some more flying...and I almost always fly an altimeter aboard a model, regardless of what it is.

And then this:

The 1/200 Saturn V is a ~200 foot flight on either C6-3 or C5-3. On a Q-Jet C12-4 it's ~350 and on a Q-Jet D16-4 it's ~425.

The MAV goes a little higher on all of these, and the C5-3 (in the one flight I did) took it about halfway between where a C6-3 and a C12-4 does. I only have five flights total on the model (vs. 20 on the Saturn V) so not enough data yet for real trends.

I hope to go flying on Sunday so may put one or two more of my currently remaining six in something lighter/less draggy to see how it works there. The trick then will be not having the delay be too short, though it is, unlike most Estes delays, a little longer than the rating as I noted above.

Thanks for the update - I missed this on YORF - definitely adding some C5s to my next motor order. Guess I’ll give my RTF SV one more try before it becomes a permanent “rocket garden” member - Saturday’s flight on a QJet D12 was yet another heart stopping adventure in low-altitude skywriting. I’m about 50/50 on both BP and QJet motors with that squirrely rocket though I think this last erratic flight was caused by a crumbly nozzle blowing out rather than an improperly seated motor and/or loose fin unit. My MAV on a QJet C12 was sadly sacrificed to the bean field gods...

 

[Scott_650]

I figure the name is more historical rather than science based.

C5 work great for the specialized rockets.

Great video - very nice flights on your LB SST and Interceptor, just what I’ve been hoping the C5 would do with those rockets. And thanks for the pinwheel idea - can’t believe I’ve never thought of something so simple to keep track of wind conditions - brilliant!

 

[jrap330]

I figure the name is more historical rather than science based.

C5 work great for the specialized rockets.

After these flights can you provide a comment on the C5-3 vs C6's engines.

 

[5x7]

Saturday’s flight on a QJet D12 was yet another heart stopping adventure in low-altitude skywriting. I’m about 50/50 on both BP and QJet motors with that squirrely rocket though I think this last erratic flight was caused by a crumbly nozzle blowing out

Can you post a pic of the Q-jet Nozzle, was it a D16?

 

[Scott_650]

Can you post a pic of the Q-jet Nozzle, was it a D16?

I think I can - tomorrow is trash day so the bag of used motors is still in the shop trash can. I can post pix of the unused motors with crumbling nozzles for sure...probably take a few minutes or so...

Yes, D16 - not 12 as I posted earlier, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Scott_650]

Can you post a pic of the Q-jet Nozzle, was it a D16?

Here’s pix of the motor that sent my Saturn all over sky along with the serial number and pix of an unused C12 with the deteriorating nozzle.

 

[5x7]

Here’s pix of the motor that sent my Saturn all over sky along with the serial number and pix of an unused C12 with the deteriorating nozzle.View attachment 426069View attachment 426070View attachment 426071View attachment 426072

I would ask for replacements for at least the C