Cumbersome, yes, but also kind of the point. If you go to 1:50, so 70% of what you said, that'd be about 18" and 7 feet. Doable.
If Estes wants more of my money, then...
- Thread starter BRS Hobbies
- Start date
-
- Tags
- estes
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Nytrunner
Pop lugs, not drugs
But not by estes
Bring back the Interceptor E maybe an upscale shuttle stack??
The old 1/162 scale shuttle stack was too small, and didn't fly well. I never even built one, it was so small and I knew from seeing other models fly how hard it was to try to make the orbiter glide (I rarely saw any glide). I preferred to build my own from scratch, that would fly well.
If they do another shuttle, I'd love to see a bigger one. BT-55 SRB's and 3" ET makes for a pretty nice sized model, at 1/110 scale. I did one in 1979, then a modern one in 2009 using the Guillows foam orbiter. That orbiter is not very accurate but it GLIDES nicely. I even posted a thread about the 2009 model, here: https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/1-110-scale-shuttle-model-is-a-success.8053/ It was a prototype for a kit but I never got geared up to do a kit.
Here's a photo indicating the size. It flies nicely on a D12-3, and even more nicely on an E9-4 (E12-4 probably good too). Ideal would be 1/100 to go with the Saturns, but the bigger size and mass would make it not fly as well on a D12, and would require 100% new tube sizes for the ET and SRB's.
I agree!! They need a larger shuttle stack
DEN
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2019
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 10
Vintage Estes Big Foot Launch Pad # 2208 OOP - (Open New in Box) just sold on Ebay for $134.50 USD
I really wish they would re-release it. Its over due.
I really wish they would re-release it. Its over due.
Last edited:
Arsenal78
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2018
- Messages
- 746
- Reaction score
- 227
I'm surprised they didn't bring back the Interceptor E when they brought back the small one. The Trajector uses the same nose cone as the E size so it's not like they need to make a new mold or anything.
I also did like that design. I think its better than the Cosmic Interceptor. Who knows? Maybe we should all write ESTES a letter and give them some feed-back? You never know they might do it? I mean rockery is a nitch market. Just saying
Scott_650
Well-Known Member
Per several online conversations with Estes designer John Boren and the forum at NARAM that John Langford participated in the best ways to provide Estes with feedback is through their company FB page, the Estes fan FB page, this forum, and YORF - with the company FB page being the most closely looked at.
And yes, rocketry is a niche hobby but what we diehard enthusiasts tend to forget is that we are an even smaller “niche within the niche” - Estes sells a lot of motors (their primary business) to schools, Scouts, CAP, JrROTC, 4-H, etc... And, like the car/truck manufacturers, Estes first tier customers are their distributors/retailers. If an item doesn’t sell through effectively/efficiently then retailers don’t order more from the distributors and the distributors don’t order more from Estes. We’re in the mix but we aren’t their main source for sales.
Think of us as the yeast - we’re the small ingredient that keeps things percolating and interesting. So don’t stop making the suggestions for new stuff and requests for bringing back the old stuff!
The popularity of this thread should be a good indicator to Estes that there is considerable interest in their products--clustered around a few broad categories. While it may not be as large as the school or cub-scout market for them, I imagine that they'd rather have fewer products that sold well--instead of constantly putting out new designs--most of which fizzle--and hoping for a "hit."
Always better when you can create products that have built in demand, and anticipate what inventory levels you'll need. Success isn't measured by total sales alone--things like inventory, production tooling, etc. also figure into the equation.
I do question any company that gets most of its customer feedback from FB at this point. My mother-in-law is active on FB--and she's 70. Their market is on Insta and Twitter, and specialized forums like this one.
Always better when you can create products that have built in demand, and anticipate what inventory levels you'll need. Success isn't measured by total sales alone--things like inventory, production tooling, etc. also figure into the equation.
I do question any company that gets most of its customer feedback from FB at this point. My mother-in-law is active on FB--and she's 70. Their market is on Insta and Twitter, and specialized forums like this one.
So Facebook is for old folks? If they get their customer feedback from Instagram or Twitter their going to leave out a lot of the same people who are not using Facebook either. The same goes for Tumblr and the rest. The right place to gather feedback, to distribute information, and other such activities is their own web site. Anything else is copping out and not doing the job.
KILTED COWBOY
Well-Known Member
Think it would be more cost effective to reintroduce a model than developing a new one.
R&D already done, just pull out the old blueprints, retool and produce.
But then I may not know what I am talking about.
R&D already done, just pull out the old blueprints, retool and produce.
But then I may not know what I am talking about.
Scott_650
Well-Known Member
Estes has the same hill to climb with a bring back as we do with a clone - nose cones and decals. If the mold no longer exists for the cone there’s apparently a big cost to tool up a new one. IIRC at some point a bunch of the Estes/Centuri molds disappeared (lost, stolen, thrown out, etc). Hopefully Estes continues to thrive so there will be enough capital and demand for new or renewed kits so there’s incentive to produce new and classic nose cones.
As far as decals go I’m not sure what it takes for Estes big vendors in China to redo old decals - wouldn’t think it would be that difficult to have anything screen printed on a sheet of decal paper regardless of the source...
Last edited:
Also, the old kits generally had die-cut fins, and new laser cutting files would have to be created and tested. That doesn't sound like a big deal, and is probably cheaper than recreating the old dies, but it is a different path from just "pull[ing] out the old blueprints", and probably costs more than it sounds like it should (because nearly everything does.)
Come to think of it, nobody uses blueprints anymore (I figure you meant that figuratively) and the whole rocket probably has to be redrawn with the present CAD software. Not a huge effort, but not trivial either.
Come to think of it, nobody uses blueprints anymore (I figure you meant that figuratively) and the whole rocket probably has to be redrawn with the present CAD software. Not a huge effort, but not trivial either.
shreadvector
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 9,066
- Reaction score
- 254
Scott_650
Well-Known Member
Yup - even our own government, by the letter of the law, requires licensing! Stuff we as taxpayers provided can’t be used without a fee.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 11,590
- Reaction score
- 6,211
Better the yeast than the mold!
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2013
- Messages
- 22,530
- Reaction score
- 14,925
Well, some of us are pretty moldy. Then again, some of us are not bad at molding, and there's even a few who are pretty awesome at 3D printing.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 11,590
- Reaction score
- 6,211
I knew that double entendre would come up
Nytrunner
Pop lugs, not drugs
Ding ding, Fred is getting warm
You can bet Estes would want to sell the SLS, but for now the special commemorative model that they flew for the 50th (and a HARA member got to test fly for them) is the only one that Estes has made.
Think of us as the mold. We're the small ingredient* that keeps things flavorful and interesting.
* in cheese
I wonder what the licensing terms are actually like. It's really sad if that's what prevents release of kits based on modern prototypes. Dr. Zooch had an SLS and a Falcon Heavy... did he just ignore the licensing issues?
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 11,590
- Reaction score
- 6,211
Estes had a ton of Star Wars knock offs......
Their Aluminum Falcon was a big seller!
Yes indeed, and Star Trek, and other stuff. Is there a reason why licensing of commercial rockets would be an insurmountable obstacle now? Obviously only Estes knows the true answer to this...
dr wogz
Fly caster
Lego "Star wars" kits are typically 20% more than regular Lego kits, due to the licencing..
it's only, really, been the last 10 or 15 yeas that current companies have asked for licencing fees.. Its started withe plastic models industry, whereas people like Boeing wanted a cut for the B-17 models produced..
it's only, really, been the last 10 or 15 yeas that current companies have asked for licencing fees.. Its started withe plastic models industry, whereas people like Boeing wanted a cut for the B-17 models produced..
I'm just spouting off a bit; please forgive me.
It makes perfect sense to me that movie franchise and similar stuff would come with licensing fees that may get pretty heavy; that's a solely commercial endeavor from the word "go", it's all about profiting from the images, and there's no reason that the IP owner shouldn't get his/her cut. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that when IP is created either by the government or under government contract that, at least for some kinds of IP in some instances, it is automatically considered to be in the public domain.
It seems to me that when a vehicle is designed under government contract that it's exterior shape and markings should fall in that latter group, i.e. public domain. And if legally it does not, the contractor that owns the IP, unlike a movie studio, is really not in it to make money from the images, so any licencing fee should be minimal.
"Should be", but I guess it isn't. <Grumble grumble>
It makes perfect sense to me that movie franchise and similar stuff would come with licensing fees that may get pretty heavy; that's a solely commercial endeavor from the word "go", it's all about profiting from the images, and there's no reason that the IP owner shouldn't get his/her cut. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that when IP is created either by the government or under government contract that, at least for some kinds of IP in some instances, it is automatically considered to be in the public domain.
It seems to me that when a vehicle is designed under government contract that it's exterior shape and markings should fall in that latter group, i.e. public domain. And if legally it does not, the contractor that owns the IP, unlike a movie studio, is really not in it to make money from the images, so any licencing fee should be minimal.
"Should be", but I guess it isn't. <Grumble grumble>
beeblebrox
8 C6-0, 12 D11-9, 20 D20-0, 20 E5-0, 3 Cinerocs
Bring out the D40 coreburner...I know it exists... Need an easy to cluster workhorse motor. Also Core out the F15 and come out with something similar to the old F100...I would buy them by the case.
Similar threads
