Are "Econo" Jets the best bang for the buck?

[techrat]

I've been wondering about the "EconoJet" branding of some Aerotech made motors. I realize the name has come from legacy roots, I think these were made originally by Quest and then Aerotech bought them, and the name has been left as tradition. However, a quick look at Thurstcurve reveals that an EconoJet F23 has about 50 Newtons on initial thrust and the closest match to it that I could find that's NOT Econojet was an Aerotech F25 that has about 58 Newtons. HOWEVER, the Econojets are $40 for a 2-pack, while the Aerotech was $30 for a single motor, making the Econojets $10 cheaper per flight with only an 8 Newton difference, which makes the Econojet seem like a bargain.

Does anybody else have an data or even some advice regarding cheap/good motors in the Mid-Power arena? I'm currently doing "Park Flying" on 24 and 29mm motors, generally sticking to E-G, but looking to get the best bang for the buck.

 

[mbeels]

If you're launching enough to justify a motor case, the reloads for the Aerotech 24/40 are economical. At least they were a year or two ago when I was looking for the most economical way to fly Es and baby Fs.

The F67 and G74 (barely a G, and HAZMAT) are also quite good, in terms of Ns / $.

 

[loopy]

Best bang for your buck are the hobbyline cases. 29/40-120 and 24/40. Yeah, the cases are kinda pricey to start, but they pay for themselves rather quickly.

 

[mikec]

I do this calculation every couple of years. The last time I did it in 2021, the cheapest motor on a dollar/newton-second basis was the 29/40-120 G64, then the 24/40 F24, then the F35 for the 24/60 case. That may have moved around somewhat with the most recent price change.

The Quest D22 is punchy enough to fly many of the rockets I used to fly on E20s though it's substantially less impulse.

 

[techrat]

For 29mm, I will definitely be moving to the RMS 29/40-120 for 2023 as after a year, I can justify the case price amortized over a dozen or so flights. Just waiting for the Black Friday sale so I can find the case for a decent discount. So that'll be better bang for the buck certainly. Dunno if I can do that for 24mm however..... Besides, I currently have 6-months worth of Estes motors via a craigslist deal. Considering I paid about 1/2 retail for those, that's currently bang for the buck regardless.

 

[RocketTree]

The most recent increase in motor prices got me thinking about how to get the most for my dollar. The lowest cost-per-newton motors I have found are as follows:

E - Aerotech E28T, E18W 24/40 reload

F - Aerotech F24W, F39T 24/40 reload

G - CTI G54, G118, G125 29mm 3 Grain reloads
or Aerotech G64, G76 29/40-120 reloads

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I think the EconoJet/EconoMax/EnerJet single-use motors by Aerotech that are sold in 2-packs are a relatively good deal. I fly a lot of them at low-power launches.

Supposedly Aerotech is going through some kind of rebranding process, and all those sub-brands I mentioned above are going to be consolidated under one label: EnerJet.

Branding is not a strength of Aerotech, and they seem to like to throw in a few exceptions to their rules to undercut their branding concepts. So, the “Econo“ in the original names was originally meant to suggest a good deal, and one of the reasons for that is that they were made to have a maximum propellant weight that was under the hazmat limit, so you didn’t have to pay for hazmat shipping.

That’s what makes a motor like the F23 a much better deal than an F25 if you have to order them and have them shipped — the base price for the F23 is less, plus you don’t pay hazmat like you do with an F25. Of course, Aerotech just could not help themselves and released the G74, which DOES require hazmat, undercutting the logic of the Econo branding, so maybe that’s why they are rebranding and removing “Econo” from the name. Who knows?

These motors are great if you want to put up a lot of rockets in a row and not break the bank. It‘s true you can eventually break even and save money if you buy hardware and go to reloads, but you are probably still going to want some single-use motors, because it takes time to build a motor. I’d rather spend my time at the field flying than building motors.

The one complaint I have with the Econo motors is that they have started packaging these motors with crappy igniters. I hate ignition failures at club launches, because it takes so much time to get through all the other rockets and back to my rocket for the recycle. It costs me a flight for the day, and that pisses me off. So often I will just buy upgraded igniters, which are not cheap. That cuts into the value of the savings on the motors, but sometimes time is more valuable than money. If you are just doing your own park flying, it’s not as much of an issue as it is when flying with a club.

My favorite of these kinds of motors is the F20 — nice, powerful initial thrust to get things moving, and then a few seconds of sustaining thrust, plus plenty of flame, white smoke, and roar. The F67 and G74 are similar, but faster. In 24mm, the E20 is more like the F20, and the F44 is more like the F67. I like all of those. I also like the F23 when I want black smoke and the F27 when I want red. Personally, I’m not a big fan of the blue thunder type propellant options in the F42 and the E30 (I think).

 

[mbeels]

E - Aerotech E28T, E18W 24/60 reload

F - Aerotech F24W, F39T 24/60 reload

Good summary, minor detail those are for the 24/40 case.

 

[RocketTree]

Oops… Good catch! I updated the post.

 

[Scott_650]

Always an interesting topic! A couple of questions for techrat in particular and the group as well:

What’s the goal? Maximizing altitude, overall performance, or user satisfaction? Those can all be the same thing or each answer could be quite different and the goal desired definitely has an impact on the questions and answers.

Are you trying to fit an already built rocket to an already in-use field or are you trying to pick what to build and/or where to fly?

I’m asking because after playing around with Thrustcurve using the specs from my 24mm powered, no added extras Balsa Machining Service 3” School Rocket if this were me asking the original question for use on the solo field I have available I’d be using a lot of Aerotech Enerjet E30 SU motors - that motor puts that rocket over 500’ (I could go higher but not a whole bunch more based on my available recovery area) with plenty of speed off the rod and Q-Jet E26s for a slightly lower apogee.

If I planned on building a rocket specifically for that same solo field I’d probably go with something in the 2-2.5” diameter range just to have some more flexibility - allowing stable flights to about the same apogee on Estes BP E12s and even better flights on Q-Jet D22s.

Of course at a club launch all bets are off - though I sure wish I hadn’t used that big F motor in the Star Orbiter sacrificed to the Children of the Soybeans…

 

[Beanboy]

The new Q-jets, E35 and F41, will be cheaper than the Econojets if you are looking for E to F 24mm motors. I'm stepping down from my 29mm rockets from years ago that I used probably 30-40 F20/G35 Econojets on, not only for pricing, but ability to fly on D12s on small fields.

Others have mentioned it already, but I've never been that interested in reloadables in this size... Being able to launch multiple rockets quickly without having to clean casings at the field is a big benefit to me, since I only occasionally launch nowadays.

 

[techrat]

In answer to @Scott_650 's question: I fly monthly with a group. We have access to a large field owned by the town that lets us have monthly launches. It mostly hosts multiple soccer fields (and a baseball diamond), but is unfortunately surrounded by trees, but you need to work pretty hard to get caught in a tree. While I fly in the 500+ft range, I undersize the parachutes so the rocket comes back quicker. I'd rather have a broken fin than a completely lost rocket. And so far, no broken fins, because the grass field is fairly soft. Heck, I've had failed chute deployments with no damage to the rocket as long as it comes down sideways rather than nose first. I can probably do 1000+ without issue, but that would be pushing it. That said, my rockets tend to be on the heavy side as I overbuild them -- for example, the Big Daddy shown in my avatar is about 350grams dry (no motor), and essentially won't get far on anything less than an a BP E12-6, although I generally fly it on Quest/Aerotech composite E motors. And this can be the starting point for me to say, what's the least expensive single-use 24mm composite E that'll get this thing in the air?

 

[Scott_650]

In answer to @Scott_650 's question: I fly monthly with a group. We have access to a large field owned by the town that lets us have monthly launches. It mostly hosts multiple soccer fields (and a baseball diamond), but is unfortunately surrounded by trees, but you need to work pretty hard to get caught in a tree. While I fly in the 500+ft range, I undersize the parachutes so the rocket comes back quicker. I'd rather have a broken fin than a completely lost rocket. And so far, no broken fins, because the grass field is fairly soft. Heck, I've had failed chute deployments with no damage to the rocket as long as it comes down sideways rather than nose first. I can probably do 1000+ without issue, but that would be pushing it. That said, my rockets tend to be on the heavy side as I overbuild them -- for example, the Big Daddy shown in my avatar is about 350grams dry (no motor), and essentially won't get far on anything less than an a BP E12-6, although I generally fly it on Quest/Aerotech composite E motors. And this can be the starting point for me to say, what's the least expensive single-use 24mm composite E that'll get this thing in the air?

Thrustcurve is your friend for figuring a workable motor for a straightforward 3/4FNC rocket. As already mentioned, the announced but not yet available Q-Jet E35 and F41 motors will probably be a little over half the cost of the Aerotech E20W and E30T motors. But, again as already discussed, it doesn’t take that many flights for a reloadable case to pay for itself - the AT 24mm cases aren’t too terribly expensive and the reloads are less per flight than even the big Q-Jets could end up costing, for example an E28 reload is roughly $12 a flight from an online vendor.

 

[loopy]

Dunno if I can do that for 24mm however..... Besides, I currently have 6-months worth of Estes motors via a craigslist deal. Considering I paid about 1/2 retail for those, that's currently bang for the buck regardless.

24/40 case is around $75, and a 3 pack of E18W (one of my favorite motors) is around $30. You're getting E loads for about $10 each. YMMV, but my 24/40 case is invaluable.

 

[Sandy H.]

It can also impact how you fly, a bit. I have a bunch of RMS cases from 18/20 thru some 54/something. I often fly either BP or reload, but every now and then, I show up at a launch with zero prep and conditions make my initial plan of flying X not smart. At that point, I'll grab a single use like an EconoJet to keep prep time low. Dollar per Ns (or other metric) might be less than perfect, but sometimes time can be more critical than expected (weather coming in etc.) and spending 10-20 minutes prepping a more complex rocket than just having a little fun since you're already there does have an intangible value. Prepping some RMS varieties the night before would save money, most likely and still allow flexibility.

Sandy.

 

[AeroTech]

I think the EconoJet/EconoMax/EnerJet single-use motors by Aerotech that are sold in 2-packs are a relatively good deal. I fly a lot of them at low-power launches.

Supposedly Aerotech is going through some kind of rebranding process, and all those sub-brands I mentioned above are going to be consolidated under one label: EnerJet.

Branding is not a strength of Aerotech, and they seem to like to throw in a few exceptions to their rules to undercut their branding concepts. So, the “Econo“ in the original names was originally meant to suggest a good deal, and one of the reasons for that is that they were made to have a maximum propellant weight that was under the hazmat limit, so you didn’t have to pay for hazmat shipping.

That’s what makes a motor like the F23 a much better deal than an F25 if you have to order them and have them shipped — the base price for the F23 is less, plus you don’t pay hazmat like you do with an F25. Of course, Aerotech just could not help themselves and released the G74, which DOES require hazmat, undercutting the logic of the Econo branding, so maybe that’s why they are rebranding and removing “Econo” from the name. Who knows?

These motors are great if you want to put up a lot of rockets in a row and not break the bank. It‘s true you can eventually break even and save money if you buy hardware and go to reloads, but you are probably still going to want some single-use motors, because it takes time to build a motor. I’d rather spend my time at the field flying than building motors.

The one complaint I have with the Econo motors is that they have started packaging these motors with crappy igniters. I hate ignition failures at club launches, because it takes so much time to get through all the other rockets and back to my rocket for the recycle. It costs me a flight for the day, and that pisses me off. So often I will just buy upgraded igniters, which are not cheap. That cuts into the value of the savings on the motors, but sometimes time is more valuable than money. If you are just doing your own park flying, it’s not as much of an issue as it is when flying with a club.

My favorite of these kinds of motors is the F20 — nice, powerful initial thrust to get things moving, and then a few seconds of sustaining thrust, plus plenty of flame, white smoke, and roar. The F67 and G74 are similar, but faster. In 24mm, the E20 is more like the F20, and the F44 is more like the F67. I like all of those. I also like the F23 when I want black smoke and the F27 when I want red. Personally, I’m not a big fan of the blue thunder type propellant options in the F42 and the E30 (I think).

You will likely be happy to hear that we are in the process of simplifying the branding.

Q-Jets will remain as they are, a lower cost motor line using thermoplastic cases and low cost nozzle materials.

Enerjet will strictly be modern reproductions of the legacy motors and kits.

Everything else will be AeroTech.

Econojet and Economax are gone.

 

[bjphoenix]

Well I think black powder motors are the best bang for the buck, especially if you have a retailer like Hobby Lobby that discounts them.

There is another thread about Q-jets in which I posted this comparison: I was comparing the Q-jet E26 vs. the Aerotech E30. The E30 is about 50% more expensive but only has about 20% more total impulse. I really like the E30 in some larger rockets such as my old Estes Phoenix.

 

[Bill S]

You will likely be happy to hear that we are in the process of simplifying the branding.

Q-Jets will remain as they are, a lower cost motor line using thermoplastic cases and low cost nozzle materials.

Enerjet will strictly be modern reproductions of the legacy motors and kits.

Everything else will be AeroTech.

Econojet and Economax are gone.

Thank you! All the product lines was kind of confusing.

 

[Handeman]

...
These motors are great if you want to put up a lot of rockets in a row and not break the bank. It‘s true you can eventually break even and save money if you buy hardware and go to reloads, but you are probably still going to want some single-use motors, because it takes time to build a motor. I’d rather spend my time at the field flying than building motors.

I'm still flying a 29/40-120 I bought in 2004. If your hobby isn't just a fling, you plan on sticking with it for a few years, I believe hardware & reloads is the way to go. As for time, I've found it usually takes as long or longer to clean the case as it does to load it. I've been loading those for +15 years so I only have about a 5-10 minute turn around from cleaning to loaded. Definitely not as fast as single use, but having multiple cases helps and I don't think 5 - 10 minutes reloading a case is too much.

 

[loopy]

I'm still flying a 29/40-120 I bought in 2004. If your hobby isn't just a fling, you plan on sticking with it for a few years, I believe hardware & reloads is the way to go. As for time, I've found it usually takes as long or longer to clean the case as it does to load it. I've been loading those for +15 years so I only have about a 5-10 minute turn around from cleaning to loaded. Definitely not as fast as single use, but having multiple cases helps and I don't think 5 - 10 minutes reloading a case is too much.

Wholeheartedly agree! Especially with the money it saves.

 

[Initiator001]

You will likely be happy to hear that we are in the process of simplifying the branding.

Q-Jets will remain as they are, a lower cost motor line using thermoplastic cases and low cost nozzle materials.

Enerjet will strictly be modern reproductions of the legacy motors and kits.

Everything else will be AeroTech.

Econojet and Economax are gone.

NOOOOOOOOOO!

Say it ain't so Gary!

I have spent years/decades trying to determine the underlying organization and rationalization to the various brandings for AeroTech products.
I have whiteboards all over my room with complex mathematical formulas trying to make sense of all the naming conventions.
I have purchased time on research lab supercomputers running complex equations and Monte Carlo simulations trying to determine the basis for all these naming conventions.
And now, just as I am about to FINALLY find the answer, you just cancel ECONOJET and ECONOMAX branding thus destroying all my years of work.
The answer might as well have been "42".

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

NOOOOOOOOOO!

Say it ain't so Gary!

I have spent years/decades trying to determine the underlying organization and rationalization to the various brandings for AeroTech products.
I have whiteboards all over my room with complex mathematical formulas trying to make sense of all the naming conventions.
I have purchased time on research lab supercomputers running complex equations and Monte Carlo simulations trying to determine the basis for all these naming conventions.
And now, just as I am about to FINALLY find the answer, you just cancel ECONOJET and ECONOMAX branding thus destroying all my years of work.
The answer might as well have been "42".

Face it — you were never going to crack that riddle.

You should let it go and be glad about this decision. This may be the thing that saves you from succumbing to madness in your fruitless search.

 

[techrat]

Well, I for one, will be happy to know that "Q-jets" are now going to be "the" economical choice for composite motors for continuing to fly my "Big Daddy" until it's destroyed or lost..... and then I will build its replacement. Hrmmmm. Has anybody done a 100% upscale of a Big Daddy? That would be a 6" diameter tube. Nice.

 

[loopy]

Well, I for one, will be happy to know that "Q-jets" are now going to be "the" economical choice for composite motors for continuing to fly my "Big Daddy" until it's destroyed or lost..... and then I will build its replacement. Hrmmmm. Has anybody done a 100% upscale of a Big Daddy? That would be a 6" diameter tube. Nice.

How about 6x?

 

[DigBaddy]

Well, I for one, will be happy to know that "Q-jets" are now going to be "the" economical choice for composite motors for continuing to fly my "Big Daddy" until it's destroyed or lost..... and then I will build its replacement. Hrmmmm. Has anybody done a 100% upscale of a Big Daddy? That would be a 6" diameter tube. Nice.

Building a 5.25" one now. Close.

 

[DaHabes]

Well, I for one, will be happy to know that "Q-jets" are now going to be "the" economical choice for composite motors for continuing to fly my "Big Daddy" until it's destroyed or lost..... and then I will build its replacement. Hrmmmm. Has anybody done a 100% upscale of a Big Daddy? That would be a 6" diameter tube. Nice.

I have an upscale designed using 6" Blue Tube and a 75mm MMT. My name for it is "Who's Your Daddy". But I first have to build the "Bigger Daddy", a Big Daddy with a 38mm MMT and a "Badder Daddy", a 4" upscale with a 54mm MMT. So much to do, so little time...

 

[smstachwick]

There’s also the one-off L Padre (pretty close to the regular size but going on a Cesaroni L910).

'L Padre - A minimum diameter Big Daddy'
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/l-padre-a-minimum-diameter-big-daddy.167431/

 

[Initiator001]

Face it — you were never going to crack that riddle.

You should let it go and be glad about this decision. This may be the thing that saves you from succumbing to madness in your fruitless search.

Sigh.

I guess you are right.

What am I going to do with all this free time now...

Wait!

What about the propellant naming conventions?

Blackjack/Blackmax, White Lightning/Super White Lightning, Metalstorm/Dark Matter...

Quick! Where is my whiteboard eraser? What did I do with the phone number to Sandia National Laboratory's computer lab?

This ain't over yet!

 

[dpower]

You will likely be happy to hear that we are in the process of simplifying the branding.

Q-Jets will remain as they are, a lower cost motor line using thermoplastic cases and low cost nozzle materials.

Enerjet will strictly be modern reproductions of the legacy motors and kits.

Everything else will be AeroTech.

Econojet and Economax are gone.

Yay!