Quantcast

Aerotech Mustang Review......

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Saturn652

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
It's not Scottish....IT"S CRAPPPPP!!!!!

The nose cone is made out of the same plastic that toys for THREE YEAR OLDS are made out of......
Had good luck with adhesion with Duplicolor "Self Etching" primer........
but really ARE YOU KIDDING AEROTECH????
You list this at $79.99?????

The fins have a built in "fillet"....no radius on the root edge....which MORE THAN NEGATES the pre "airfoiled" fin edges....how the heck are you supposed to fill the HUGE GAPS with that CLUSTER-F.......?????
The fins SHOULD NOT HAVE a built in "fillet"!
Who is the Genius behind THAT crap design????

Now to the "Fin-Loks".....
Nice idea but....CRAPPP!!!
Their theory of more strength is MORE THAN NEGATED by the limited (by design) glueable area around the Fin-Lok rings....
not to mention that the poor sloppy fit of the fins into the fin ring does ZERO ZILCH NADA NOTHING for fin alignment.......
The "Fin-Lok" rings should be a ONE PIECE UNIT!!

I started this build as prescribed in the instructions using "Medium CA" and quickly noticed that it aint worth CRAPPPP.....
so I made a few work-arounds to use epoxy....
I shouldn't have to do that with a model that lists for $80.00

I got mine for just under $50.00 and I Feel RIPPED OFF...
I bought all three of Etses' BIGGEST ROCKETS plus a smaller rocket and all together including shipping costed me $83.00...
WTF Aerotech???? ARE YOU KIDDING???? $80.00 list?????

BUT WAIT...THERES MORE!!!...
You get a "free" aluminum motor retainer....WOW!!!!
You can get one for anywhere from $11.00 to $30.00 (are you kidding??? $30.00????) each...but....
It weighs in at 1 ounce.....
OR you can use an Estes plastic motor retainer which you can get 2 of for $8.00 and it only weighs
a half an ounce.......

the math don't add up in any way shape or form.......
Get rid of that cheap plastic that you use for the nosecone.
Get rid of that false "fillet" on the fins and
make the fin-lock one piece!!!!!

Then it might be worth $35.00

As it is, the Aerotech Mustang kit is not worth a penny more than $20.00....PERIOD!!!!

BUYER BEWARE!!!!
 

crossfire

Lifetime Supporter
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
4,540
Reaction score
538
I have built a number of AT kits over the years. I had a Mustang with 25 flights on it E-G motors. The only problem I had with it was the shock cord burned through a few times. I replaced it with Kevlar. I would still have it but a lake at Bong has it now. Unless AT really changed them I liked the kits.
 
Last edited:

MikeT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
149
Reaction score
80
I can't understand what kinda problems you encountered. I've built 3 AT kits, Initiator , Arreaux and the Strongarm. Everyone went together as advertised and fly great. Just finishing up a Mad Cow DX3 Super Payloader for my Level 1 and that going together well also. Things sure have changed since I was a kid building Estes kits 50 years ago.

Mike
 

Lowpuller

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
2,230
Reaction score
12
Sorry, but I disagree with your post. I have an AT Mustang and love it. I have flown mine many many times and she keeps working as designed.

I like the differences in materials and design by the different manufacturers, it is what has grown our sport.

I flew nothing but Estes rockets for years and I have to admit I still build and fly them they are great. However even their materials and approach can differ by model. For example I recently built a D Region Tomahawk which has lots of plastic parts.......again this challenged my thinking and approach.

But back to Aerotech, I think their models rock. I enjoy building and flying them and they also make outstanding motors.

I have a G Force that I built Dual Deploy, it is probably my favorite rocket to date.

Sorry you had a bad experience but I believe the AT rockets are fairly priced and fly great.

ImageUploadedByRocketry Forum1472995423.712110.jpg
 

noffie79

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
1,340
Reaction score
13
I've never bought nor built an Aerotech kit. But I checked this out after reading your review, I might just give one a try. Thanks! I'm sorry you had trouble with yours, maybe it was a fluke?
 

dhbarr

Amateur Professional
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
6,993
Reaction score
1,445
+? , AT Mustang was my first build. Did a dry fit and lightly sanded here/there, went together easy.

Yes, they're a bit pricey. But I'd challenge anyone to build a highly-similar model from raw parts for less.
 

tightwad

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2011
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
27
Boy, did someone get out of the wrong side of the bed? My Mustang survived a pad cato and still is flying. Aerotech rockets are tough. Instead of slamming Aerotech, go fly your Mustang and enjoy it strengths.
 

Mr Rocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
472
Reaction score
24
While I have not built the Mustang, I built the Arreaux (which is basically a Mustang with a payload section) 3 years ago when I got back into rocketry. It is one of my favorite rockets to fly, and I do at almost every launch.

The nose cone is of equal quality to other Estes, Madcow and LOC rockets that I have

The fin-locks are more than strong enough to do their job.

Mine was the older style motor mount with the spring clip, but they upgraded it to the screw on type without raising the price of the rocket. Why are you complaining about something that they upgraded at no cost?

Also, if you are really upset about the "Fin-ders" integrated fillet. Just put a little Elmers wood filler in there, sand it down, and Wha-lah! great fillets.

I'm not saying it is a perfectly designed and engineered rocket, or that I would not change anything. However, it is a great rocket if you give it a chance. Definitely some different build techniques for those breaking out of Estes class rockets. Definitely not deserving of the label "Crappppp"
 

sodmeister

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
6,963
Reaction score
13
Ouch !

Hope this guy does not decide to purchase a Launch Pad kit.....that review would be a real stinger !! LOL

At any rate ,I cannot really agree with the OPs opinions ,except maybe the use of CA for major parts building.I`ve built pretty much all the AT kits and never ever had a problem with the fins ,fin lock system.

I even used to use the shock elastic and never had a problem with is busting or burning (but I soon did do my own thing with regards to this and the motor retention)

As far as the plastic used for the nosecone, it is well up to the job in all respects and will handle some pretty major impacts without damage or shattering.

The Mustang was one of my favorites to fly at our small field and had a good many flights on it.The kit was very versatile ,accepting many different motor configurations ,from small and low to big and high.

I lost my Mustang several years ago to a faulty AT/SU motor ,causing a CATO 30 feet off the pad......a sad end to a great little rocket.

Oh well ,to each their own.

Paul T
 

markjos

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
317
Reaction score
53
To each their own, indeed. Too bad that the OP doesn't like the Aerotech construction, but that's okay. Plenty of other options. I don't think we can count the number of folks who have been successfully introduced to mid-power and then high-power rocketry via this and similar kits for so many years: Initiator, Mustang, Mirage, and others that use the Fin-Lok and baffle. It's just one way - not *the* way. It's true that these methods don't lead to more conventional hpr construction methods, but it gets lots of folks flying who may not otherwise do so.

Mark
 
Last edited:

sodmeister

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
6,963
Reaction score
13
To each their own, indeed. Too bad that the OP doesn't like the Aerotech construction, but that's okay. Plenty of other options. I don't think we can count the number of folks who have been successfully introduced to mid-power and then high-power rocketry via this and similar kits for so many years: Initiator, Mustang, Mirage, and others that use the Fin-Lok and baffle. It's just one way - not *the* way. It's true that these methods don't lead to more conventional hpr construction methods, but it gets lots of folks flying who may not otherwise so so.

Mark
You are exactly correct ,in that Aerotech kits got me into mid power and then into the world of high power.The first time I went into the local hobby shop after becoming a BAR with a few Estes kits under my belt ,I spied those big rocket boxes labelled "Aerotech Mid Power Rockets"........

I never looked back !

Paul T
 

fyrwrxz

latest photo
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,580
Reaction score
55
I have built all the At rockets early on and you have to keep in mind these are NOT Mach 3 screamers to 60k! Gary was impressed at LDRS with a scratch/bash using cut down Mirage fins done up to imitate a stretched/upscale Wild Child. I hear there is some QC issues with the molds lately, but my 20+ year old fleet keeps on trucking. i killed my first Mirage with too much motor and dog barf- It had 97 flights on it! You can actually build one of the Mustangs in about an hour on the playa if you had to. Sorry the Op had a bad experience. but give it a chance. Rail buttons, kevlar and screw on motor retainers w/out blocks bring them into current build practices. As far as Scottish goes, I resemble that remark! Straight smoke and good chutes, Saturn!
 

Pepe Le Pew

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 17, 2013
Messages
127
Reaction score
13
I thought you had to use a parachute to get the rocket back....The nosecones are perfectly adequate, as are the fins, for the purpose they serve. As far as the fillets, there are myriad ways of making them, take a look at the pics, you'll see what I mean. Aerotech makes great machines!

20160403_135939.jpg


IMG_2781.jpg
 

Onebadhawk

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,119
Reaction score
409
I like Aerotech kits very much. ..
I had an Aerotech Arcas that I flew for years,, more flights then you could count. ...
I thought their fin loc system was pretty slick....
I also don't think their prices are out of line at all. ....

Teddy
 

rcktnut

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2009
Messages
1,659
Reaction score
225
Location
Sheboygan WI
I started out with 9 Aerotech MP kits when I became a bar. I have the Mustang as well as 8 others, only MP kits my local Hobbytown carried at the time. Very nice kits. Look at OP's other posts, I would recommend to him maybe taking up a different hobby, seeing that this one seems to frustrate him more than being pleasurable.
 

Kruegon

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2014
Messages
1,885
Reaction score
4
Before I say anything else, let it be known, I have not built an AT kit. That being said,:

I have built too many Estes kits to count. I've also built four PSII kits. Two MadCow kits. In the middle of a PML and a Binder salvage rebuilds. And add to the several scratch builds.

Has anyone ever really built any kit that didn't have at least some minor work required on it? Be it straightening a fin, working the fin edges, cleaning up nose cone seams? Every kit has something that requires extra work to get to the standard we want. How are AT kits any different? Did I miss something? Or is this rant beyond uncalled for?
 

Rex R

LV2
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
144
I have only built the warthog. I found a few parts that were a might bit snug, however I don't know if that was typical as the kit had been in the Wildman's trailer for some time. I did replace the stock chute with one that is , larger/cut from ripstop nylon/ not raveling. last I heard the plastic nose/fins were made from 'High Impact Polystyrene' which does present some challenges for painting, but krylon fusion works pretty well.
Rex
 

watermelonman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
2,597
Reaction score
8
It's not Scottish....IT"S CRAPPPPP!!!!!

The nose cone is made out of the same plastic that toys for THREE YEAR OLDS are made out of......
Had good luck with adhesion with Duplicolor "Self Etching" primer........
but really ARE YOU KIDDING AEROTECH????
You list this at $79.99?????

The fins have a built in "fillet"....no radius on the root edge....which MORE THAN NEGATES the pre "airfoiled" fin edges....how the heck are you supposed to fill the HUGE GAPS with that CLUSTER-F.......?????
The fins SHOULD NOT HAVE a built in "fillet"!
Who is the Genius behind THAT crap design????

Now to the "Fin-Loks".....
Nice idea but....CRAPPP!!!
Their theory of more strength is MORE THAN NEGATED by the limited (by design) glueable area around the Fin-Lok rings....
not to mention that the poor sloppy fit of the fins into the fin ring does ZERO ZILCH NADA NOTHING for fin alignment.......
The "Fin-Lok" rings should be a ONE PIECE UNIT!!

I started this build as prescribed in the instructions using "Medium CA" and quickly noticed that it aint worth CRAPPPP.....
so I made a few work-arounds to use epoxy....
I shouldn't have to do that with a model that lists for $80.00

I got mine for just under $50.00 and I Feel RIPPED OFF...
I bought all three of Etses' BIGGEST ROCKETS plus a smaller rocket and all together including shipping costed me $83.00...
WTF Aerotech???? ARE YOU KIDDING???? $80.00 list?????

BUT WAIT...THERES MORE!!!...
You get a "free" aluminum motor retainer....WOW!!!!
You can get one for anywhere from $11.00 to $30.00 (are you kidding??? $30.00????) each...but....
It weighs in at 1 ounce.....
OR you can use an Estes plastic motor retainer which you can get 2 of for $8.00 and it only weighs
a half an ounce.......

the math don't add up in any way shape or form.......
Get rid of that cheap plastic that you use for the nosecone.
Get rid of that false "fillet" on the fins and
make the fin-lock one piece!!!!!

Then it might be worth $35.00

As it is, the Aerotech Mustang kit is not worth a penny more than $20.00....PERIOD!!!!

BUYER BEWARE!!!!
Aerotech is kind of the incompatible, proprietary lock in vendor of rocketry. More so with kits but even a little bit with motors too. Think of the copperhead ignitors and the years of refusal to acknowledge Cesaroni case compatibility.

That said, if you build their kits according to their instructions and fly them on recommended motors, or even up into L1 motors, they work extremely well. At least now that copperheads are gone.
 

AlfaBrewer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
866
Reaction score
8
I have the Mustang and think it's pretty good. Built it stock, except for the cooling mesh - I use a nomex pad instead. Many flights and no issues.

I also have an Initiator that I lawn darted. Repaired it and it's been a great flyer since. The fin-lok it much stronger than the OP thinks. I managed to break a fin on the Initiator (basically straight across from the end of the BT), with no damage at all to the fin-lok system. Some Plastruct adhesive and sytrene sheeting, and it's like it never happened.

OP needs to get over himself.
 

Onebadhawk

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
6,119
Reaction score
409
I don't think the original poster has been around at all...

Teddy
 

Banzai88

Lvl 1,Wallet....Destroyed
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 15, 2015
Messages
2,561
Reaction score
726
Last logged in 4 September.
 

TopRamen

SA-5
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
9,957
Reaction score
84
To each their own, indeed. Too bad that the OP doesn't like the Aerotech construction, but that's okay. Plenty of other options. I don't think we can count the number of folks who have been successfully introduced to mid-power and then high-power rocketry via this and similar kits for so many years: Initiator, Mustang, Mirage, and others that use the Fin-Lok and baffle. It's just one way - not *the* way. It's true that these methods don't lead to more conventional hpr construction methods, but it gets lots of folks flying who may not otherwise do so.

Mark
My first MPR rocket was a scratch built that I made to fly on Aerotech G motors I found at the local hobby shop back in 99-01'ish.
The guy did'nt have any kits, and my scratch built flew great 4 times til' I treed it.
I was really bummed, and when I told the hobby guy he said he could get kits to fly on the Aerotech motors, so I ordered the G-Force, and really liked it compared to scratch building at the time. it flew great til' I treed it eventually too, but I was quite happy with everything about it at the time.
I could find fault in a lot of things, especially "Kits", but unless something strikes me as potentially dangerous/unsafe, I generally don't go and "Call them out", since there are likely a lot of younger or inexperienced rocketeers on here that may have one, or be about to build one, and I don't want to make anyone feel discouraged or like something they are proud of is crap just because it is not in line with my techniques or style.

I feel like a total jerk when I call something out and then someone is like "Hey, but that's how I did it and I thought it was good" or something like that.

I can agree a little bit about the "Suggested Retail" price of the AT Kits being a bit high for what they are, but they do go on sale from most places from time to time, and I've seen the G-Force for as little as $63.99 on sale on Amazon and from one of the most popular Hobby something or other places I see linked to all the time.

Anyhow, yeah, to each their own I guess.
 
Top