Cosmic Explorer and Centurion

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the Estes Cosmic Explorer and Semroc/Centuri Centurion look, like, the same. I'm probably wrong, and I haven't checked my sources. Anyway, I was just centurious, I mean curious.(Bad Joke)

Very similar but the Estes version is thinner. I have a Centurion and a guy in my club brought a Cosmic Explorer and we compared them.

It seemed like Estes was going for the "Centurion" look while using whatever they had too much of laying about.

Check out this thread: https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?t=20247

Mr. Lee is right!

The Original Centuri Centurion is ST-16 (1.64" diameter) and 25.7" tall.
Semroc has a true re-issue. It includes a baffle and comes down on two 12" parachutes.
The new version Estes Cosmic Explorer is BT-55 based (1.325" diameter) and 24" tall. It has no baffle and a single 18" parachute.

While Centuri could call it the Centurion, I don't think Estes wanted to call it the Estes-urion.
The name decal on the Cosmic Explorer looks like it was punched out with a Dymo Labelmaker.

The Semroc Centurion is a great demo bird, much like the Big Bertha. I fly mine quite often is a smaller field with B6-4s.

hcmbanjo said:

Mr. Lee is right!



While Centuri could call it the Centurion, I don't think Estes wanted to call it the Estes-urion.

Click to expand...

I never made that connection. I was think solely in terms of the Roman commanding a century.

I really don't see why Estes didn't keep the name. Estes = Centuri these days for legal purposes. It would ahve been nice if they had come up with a reissue.

On second thought, Semroc does that about as well as can be done and there is no way that Big E could compete with experience like that.:wink:

And now for the irony: the Centurion, first released in 1971, in turn appeared to have taken design cues and overall concept from the Estes Big Bertha, introduced in 1965.

After 53 years, it's hard to find anything that is truly new in model rocketry.

JAL3 said:

I never made that connection. I was think solely in terms of the Roman commanding a century.

I really don't see why Estes didn't keep the name. Estes = Centuri these days for legal purposes. It would ahve been nice if they had come up with a reissue.

On second thought, Semroc does that about as well as can be done and there is no way that Big E could compete with experience like that.:wink:

Click to expand...

If Estes wanted to produce the Centurion, there would not be anything to impede them. Estes and Centuri merged 30 years ago, and Estes can produce any Centuri design whenever it wishes. It currently carries a few re-released Centuri models in its catalog. As you already mentioned, Cosmic Explorer ≭ Centurion. That does not appear to be what Estes was going for in this design. A better correlate of the Cosmic Explorer is the #1368 Comet from the 1980s.

MarkII said:

If Estes wanted to produce the Centurion, there would not be anything to impede them. Estes and Centuri merged 30 years ago, and Estes can produce any Centuri design whenever it wishes. It currently carries a few re-released Centuri models in its catalog. As you already mentioned, Cosmic Explorer ≭ Centurion. That does not appear to be what Estes was going for in this design. A better correlate of the Cosmic Explorer is the #1368 Comet from the 1980s.

Click to expand...

Who knows why Estes didn't make a more exact ST-16 based Centurion, they own the name and designs.
Out of curiosity, I looked up the Comet #1368 on oldrocketplans.com.
The fin shape is almost identical to the Centurion (Cosmic Explorer) except the Centurion has that little rounded extension at the rear root edge.

I've always liked the Centurion. It's just a good looking rocket that flies well and consistantly. I agree with MarkII that the concept was almost certainly gotten from the Big Bertha (big, low and slow), but the fins and nose are different enough that I can't see anything borrowed. I'm painting a 'Bertha now and have been flying a Centurion—except for their general size—they don't look alike. Whereas the Cosmic Explorer and Centurion most certainly do. They're similar enough that this question keeps popping up.

My Semroc Centurion was an early effort. It was my first experience with a baffle. I remember completing it and thinking that it was one of my few early attempts that looked good (from a distance anyway). I had done the paint very carefully and it seemed to pay off.

After several flights early on, it languished for a while. I took it out at a club launch and was setting it up. A guy from the club who does beautiful work exclaimed, "What happened to those fins!?".

I looked and they were pretty embarassing. They were not very well aligned. I mumbled that it was one of my earliest attempts and he said, "nuff said".

I got better at putting on fins but my Centurion always performed well in spite of my flaws.

I am in the "finishing" phase of my Semroc Centurion and I had to do a double take when I saw the Estes Cosmic Explorer. It is a pleasing design and I am looking forward to getting mine in the air.

hcmbanjo said:

Who knows why Estes didn't make a more exact ST-16 based Centurion, they own the name and designs.
Out of curiosity, I looked up the Comet #1368 on oldrocketplans.com.
The fin shape is almost identical to the Centurion (Cosmic Explorer) except the Centurion has that little rounded extension at the rear root edge.

Click to expand...

Right. The Cosmic Explorer is not a new version of the Centurion. It has the wrong tube size and wrong nose cone for that. It is essentially a new version of the Comet. The Comet itself was derived from the upper stage of the #1278 Vigilante.

Estes #1368 Comet:................Diameter: 1.325".............. Nose cone: PNC-55AO.....Length: 24.25"
Estes #2421 Cosmic Explorer:......Diameter: 1.325".............. Nose cone: PNC-55AO.....Length: 24"

..................

MarkII said:

Right. The Cosmic Explorer is not a new version of the Centurion. It has the wrong tube size and wrong nose cone for that. It is essentially a new version of the Comet. The Comet itself was derived from the upper stage of the #1278 Vigilante.

Estes #1368 Comet:................Diameter: 1.325".............. Nose cone: PNC-55AO.....Length: 24.25"
Estes #2421 Cosmic Explorer:......Diameter: 1.325".............. Nose cone: PNC-55AO.....Length: 24"

..................

Click to expand...

Points well taken but when you look at the livery, it SCREAMS "Centurion".

JAL3 said:

Points well taken but when you look at the livery, it SCREAMS "Centurion".

Click to expand...

When I was a little kid I dressed up for Halloween one year as a hobo. Despite my clothes, my painted-on beard and my general outward appearance, people could still tell that I was just the strange kid from the crazy family down the street, even though they pretended otherwise as I stood on their doorsteps, trying to extort candy from them.

But here's the thing, the fins on the Comet look slightly off. What I'm thinking is that the fins are the same style shape, but slightly different sizes. But I'm probably wrong, since I didn't use any research, I just looked at the pictures.

Socknic said:

But here's the thing, the fins on the Comet look slightly off. What I'm thinking is that the fins are the same style shape, but slightly different sizes. But I'm probably wrong, since I didn't use any research, I just looked at the pictures.

Click to expand...

Well, here is a fin template for the Comet. I haven't seen a Cosmic Explorer yet, so I can't directly compare them, but in the photo they certainly look the same as these. With all of the other dimensions and specifications being identical, what are the odds that the fins would be just a smidgen different? Would they be less than the odds of the CE being a weird-scaled Centurion? The similarity to the Centurion seems to be based largely, if not entirely on the paint pattern of the CE on the Estes web site. There are major differences between the CE and the Centurion, and only trivial, barely perceptible, are-they-or-aren't-they, types of differences (that may not even really exist) between it and the Comet, yet the objection is that the Cosmic Explorer/Comet equivalence is the one that is more far-fetched?

One of these is not like the others...

Estes #1368 Comet:................Diameter: 1.325".............. Nose cone: PNC-55AO (5" long).....Overall Length: 24.25"
Estes #2421 Cosmic Explorer:......Diameter: 1.325".............. Nose cone: PNC-55AO (5" long).....Overall Length: 24"
Centuru #5061 Centurion:..........Diameter: 1.64"............... Nose cone: PNC-160 (2.5" long)....Overall Length: 24"

In a similar vein...

Are these two fin patterns basically the same? If so, would you expect the two kits that there were from to be very similar to each other?

I haven't compared exact fin patterns for the CE and Centurion, but the CE does have those subtle "curls" at the base of the fin root, which I have only seen on a Centurion. Same fins (from casual observation), same paint, same length. Looks like a Centurion. Comet is out of production. If they were trying to recreate a Comet why didn't they just do it? Same question for the Centurion.

I think the answer is in JAL3's post #2 and someone at Estes liked the Centurion's paint scheme; clean, easy and it's looked good since Centuri first used it and it's easily recognized. I can't explain the curled fin root, but it's probably not coincidence.

Bottom line: It's not a Centurion—it just resembles one. It's not a Comet—'cause they didn't even try. It's the son of "C" names (Comet=Cosmic? Centurion=Explorer? Nah, nah, fun with words, I'm stretching it here). It'd be easy to build the CE as a Comet, it's a nice 4fnc design—just file the curls off and give it a Comet paint job.

foamy said:

I haven't compared exact fin patterns for the CE and Centurion, but the CE does have those subtle "curls" at the base of the fin root, which I have only seen on a Centurion. Same fins (from casual observation), same paint, same length. Looks like a Centurion. Comet is out of production. If they were trying to recreate a Comet why didn't they just do it? Same question for the Centurion.

I think the answer is in JAL3's post #2 and someone at Estes liked the Centurion's paint scheme; clean, easy and it's looked good since Centuri first used it and it's easily recognized. I can't explain the curled fin root, but it's probably not coincidence.

Bottom line: It's not a Centurion—it just resembles one. It's not a Comet—'cause they didn't even try. It's the son of "C" names (Comet=Cosmic? Centurion=Explorer? Nah, nah, fun with words, I'm stretching it here). It'd be easy to build the CE as a Comet, it's a nice 4fnc design—just file the curls off and give it a Comet paint job.

Click to expand...

That was pretty much my rationale for lumping the Cosmic Explorer in the the Centurion Gallery. The idea there is to group things coming from the same "inspiration/prototype" etc. To me, the CE seems obviously not to be a Centurion but is a derivative of it.

No matter... No offense if you don't, but I think most people agree that the Centurion is the better bird anyway, you could think of it as a deluxe rocket. Also, the measurements are very obviously the same on the CE and the Comet. My earlier thoughts were not supported.

JAL3 said:

Points well taken but when you look at the livery, it SCREAMS "Centurion".

Click to expand...

And yet you'll allow separate galleries for Big Bertha & Ranger models, perhaps Optima & Shadow.
These are the same except for the paint scheme.
As apposed to models that the only thing they have in common is a somewhat similar paint scheme.
If you start to consolidate galleries merely on the fact the it reminds you of, or as you put it "screams out" another model, you might as well label the Galleries:

3FNC Gallery & 4FNC Gallery

Der Red Max said:

And yet you'll allow separate galleries for Big Bertha & Ranger models, perhaps Optima & Shadow.
These are the same except for the paint scheme.
As apposed to models that the only thing they have in common is a somewhat similar paint scheme.
If you start to consolidate galleries merely on the fact the it reminds you of, or as you put it "screams out" another model, you might as well label the Galleries:

3FNC Gallery & 4FNC Gallery

Click to expand...

I'm about a week into the long....slow process of revamping all of the galleries. Those issues will indeed be considered as will the Centurion/CE matter and others.

Thus far, I am not even through the A's and there are some technical glitches. I am reluctant to make much more progress until the tech issues are resolved since I really DON'T want to go through everything again and manually insert links.

I saw Chris' Centurion just 4 days ago. I knew what it was, by the color scheme and decals. I have a Cosmic Explorer. It ain't quite the same bird. But, if Chris had painted it like the CE, and put the Dyno Labelmaker decal on it, I might not have known the difference.

I have a Big Red Max clone. Chris has a Goblin clone. Other than the paint jobs, you really can't tell the difference. But...if we drag race, who will win? We haven't raced yet. Our rockets have the same dimensions. He ha a D mount. I have a triple C. We'll see.

Don't judge a book by it's cover, or a rocket by it's livery. So what if Estes has chosen a new name and paint job for a Centuri rocket? IT'S STILL A ROCKET!

MarkII said:

In a similar vein...

Are these two fin patterns basically the same? If so, would you expect the two kits that there were from to be very similar to each other?

Click to expand...

Well, since no one bit, I'll answer my own question. The two fins are nearly identical in shape, but the rockets that they belong to are not. The fin on the left belongs to the #1911 Estes Courier. The fin on the right belongs, of course, to the #0652 Estes Citation Patriot. Same fin, but two rather different rockets.







.....

If you remove the extra fins from the Courier and give it the Patriots paint scheme you have the same scenario. The above example is apples and oranges. I like ya Mark, we're just going to have to disagree on this one. No biggie.



Slightly thinner body, slightly different nose cone. That's all there is to differentiate between them. Same overall length, fins and paint scheme.

So as not to pollute the gallery thread:

Der Red Max said:

Thanks for the link.
I did refer to it and they all say pretty much the same thing that...

Really? Who are "they all?"

"Aside from the
body tube size,
nose cone shape,
over-all fin shape,
over-all dimensions
and
total decal design
- they are indeed "identical"."

You either didn't read the thread or you didn't pay attention.

It' seems most feel that the Comet has more in common than the Centurion does to the Cosmic Explorer.

Again, who are these "most?"

I bet if you put an unpainted CE next to a unpainted Centurion, no one would agree that they appear similar.

Similar? "No one?" I'd take that bet.

Click to expand...

I'm done with this.