Estes - MAV #7283 Gallery

https://estesrockets.com/product/007283-destination-mars-mav/
A little bit of plastic cement or CA glue is all you need.

For what it's worth, the pads at the base of each fin are very fragile. Two have broken from mine after a few launches. Also, take the minimum motor requirements very seriously. I put in a B (I don't remember which, sorry) and it never cleared the pad.

CalebJ said:

Also, take the minimum motor requirements very seriously. I put in a B (I don't remember which, sorry) and it never cleared the pad.

Click to expand...

That's also something I learned the hard way by crashing my Mercury-Redstone on a B when Estes made them with the plastic fins twenty years ago. I now refuse to fly Estes kits with a bunch of plastic pieces on anything less than a C, even if the instructions say a B is possible.

I'm kind of going back and forth on whether I really want this particular rocket. On one hand, it looks pretty cool. On the other hand, it's not much of a challenge.

It really is an incredibly quick and easy build, so I get that. It was a great one for us because my son was able to be directly involved in the process, which is a lot harder for him on more advanced models.

CalebJ said:

It was a great one for us because my son was able to be directly involved in the process, which is a lot harder for him on more advanced models.

Click to expand...

That makes sense. Unfortunately my daughter is only two and can't really be involved in anything at all with glue at the moment.

Here's a liftoff shot. Estes C6-3 as recommended. 262 feet per FlightSketch Mini aboard. It goes much better and almost twice as high on a Q-jet C12-4. Because almost all the extra total impulse gets consumed by more drag, the D16-4 doesn't go much higher.

I haven't broken off any landing pads flying it (from that grassy field) but I have now broken one off when the model fell in my workroom. I've glued it back on and reinforced the joint with some heat shrink tubing. We'll see if it holds up.

BEC said:

Here's a liftoff shot. Estes C6-3 as recommended. 262 feet per FlightSketch Mini aboard. It goes much better and almost twice as high on a Q-jet C12-4. Because almost all the extra total impulse gets consumed by more drag, the D16-4 doesn't go much higher.

I haven't broken off any landing pads flying it (from that grassy field) but I have now broken one off when the model fell in my workroom. I've glued it back on and reinforced the joint with some heat shrink tubing. We'll see if it holds up.

Click to expand...

My son built one of these. I had figured to break out some QJet D16s, probably the -4. So you think it went higher with a C12-4, rather than the D16-4? Interesting. I don't have any C12s, not sure its worth ordering right now though.

Wasn't so much of building for a challenge but I like to have a collection of different sizes, types, etc. of rockets when working with my cadets on model rocketry.

Bill S said:

My son built one of these. I had figured to break out some QJet D16s, probably the -4. So you think it went higher with a C12-4, rather than the D16-4? Interesting. I don't have any C12s, not sure its worth ordering right now though.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't mean that the MAV didn't go as high on a D16 as on a C12, but rather that the difference wasn't much and certainly didn't take good advantage of the additional 3 N-s of total impulse. Here are the two most-comparable flights' data:

D16-4: https://flightsketch.com/flights/804/
C12-4 earlier the same afternoon: https://flightsketch.com/flights/790/

BEC said:

No, I didn't mean that the MAV didn't go as high on a D16 as on a C12, but rather that the difference wasn't much and certainly didn't take good advantage of the additional 3 N-s of total impulse. Here are the two most-comparable flights' data:

D16-4: https://flightsketch.com/flights/804/
C12-4 earlier the same afternoon: https://flightsketch.com/flights/790/

Click to expand...

Wow. Big difference vs the claimed 250 feet on a C6-3. So I will definitely want to look at using a D16-4 or C12-4 if I can get ahold of some for a good price. Thanks.

Bill S said:

Wow. Big difference vs the claimed 250 feet on a C6-3. So I will definitely want to look at using a D16-4 or C12 if I can get ahold of some for a good price. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Yeah. As I mentioned above, I got 262 feet on a C6-3. The MAV, like the 1/200 RTF Saturn V, goes almost twice as high on a Q-Jet C12-4 over an Estes C6-3...even though the C12 only has 1 N-s higher total impulse (per certification data).

This difference in performance between an Estes C6 and a Q-jet C12 is not as dramatic, though it IS still significant, in lighter models. For example, a regular Estes Alpha goes to about 1100 (https://flightsketch.com/flights/583/) feet on an Estes C6-5 and about 1300 feet (https://flightsketch.com/flights/582/) on a Q-Jet C12-6.

(These data are all taken from FS Minis or PerfectFlite FireFlys flown aboard the models.)

Mine will probably go to work w me (someday.) - next to my Redstone. I've seen "MAV"s in the movies, and this model is reminiscent of those.

Brush on cement worked well. Thick CA for the body tube. 15 minute build!

https://user.xmission.com/~huxley/rockets/MAV/index.htm

Eureka! Now I know what to do with my partial G200 Carrier rocket (lost the payload section a while ago).
Mission Mars! rocket combo:

I got a chance to try out one of the Quest C12-4s in my son's MAV yesterday. Winds were light, 5-7mph or so. For some reason, the rocket weathercocked a little, but corkscrewed its way up. Maybe about halfway to apogee it straightened up. Never seen that with Estes C6-3 engines. Anyone else encounter such behavior?

I built mine a couple months backs. When I first saw the design I liked what I saw and hoped this would be more of a builders kit and hoped that it would be larger. Overall I like the design but would have preferred less plastic and more wood. The landing pads look very thin and I really didn't expect them to survive a landing.

Over all not a bad kit. I made a couple of changes in the fin can to use a motor tube. This prevents the plastic just ahead of the motor from becoming brittle and failing. Also helps prevent that plastic distortion you get from melting plastic from the motor by insulating the fin can. I add a motor tube to every rocket that that uses the plastic fin cans and I have never had an issue.

Don't bother flying it on anything less that a C6-3 and launch it straight up. Good low altitude flight and landed safely in tall grass with the included 18" chute. I would avoid letting this thing land on a hard surface if you want the landing pads to survive.

Might need to look at doing an upscale of this to get what I want.

I purchased this on one of the 12 days of Christmas sale in 2023, and built it in under an hour.
Nice looking rocket, but it will be a fun flyer.