Benefits of kits

[NOLA_BAR]

Right now I seem to favor mid-power for my scratch builds. I see this as a kinda “hole” in the kit world. Upscales of some of the classic kits by Estes/Centuri. I know eRockets is working on an upscale Orbital Transport, and these are the kind of kits that I would like to see available. Even an upscale of something like the QCC Explorer for G motors.

 

[Ted Cochran]

Some or all of these have been mentioned in various ways and apply to me:

—If it’s scale, especially if it is complex, I often don’t have the skills, patience, tools, etc. to do the subject justice. I might add details to a scale model, but I often start with a kit. (Saturn V, Titan IIIe, etc)

—If it is a classic kit, I’d love to build at least one from a kit. Mars Lander, for example, or Big Bertha, or Astron anything.

—If it is something I’ve never done before, I usually start learning with a kit. Canted motors? Deuces Wild. Nonsymmetrical? Acme Spitfire. BP staging? Comanche 3. Fiberglassing a body? LOC or PML. HPR staging? Quantum Leap.

 

[BruceS]

For me it comes down to design. If I like the looks or features then kit (eg: Fliskits Decaffeinator). If I come up with a design, my Pirate Spaceship for one, then scratch build.

 

[Cape Byron]

I buy kits for gliders, 'cause I can't design gliders that glide (yet).

 

[stantonjtroy]

In general I scratch build, HOWEVER; I have been building kits for my grandson because he sees them in the catalog, thinks they're cool and wants one. In this instance it's all in one bag, it's cheap (relatively speaking) and makes for a quick & easy build. I scratch for OOP or never in production.

 

[GlenP]

I will buy this kit. Why? You even need to ask? You just got the same email I did and are buying one too! It is out of this world fun!

https://estesrockets.com/product/007296-destination-mars-longship
The theme, the plastic details, the decals (solar panels AND caution tape details!) engine retainer and nozzle, the nose cone, is it retro 2001 Space Oddyssey? is it neuvo Mars Mission? Fins? check! Ring fin? check! just another 3FNC? heck no!

The nose cone! Say no more. Looks like the depressed robot Marvin the paranoid android with a brain the size of a planet (the remake one voiced by Snape) he will take you to Mars, but he won't enjoy it. Life, don't talk to me about life, I am too busy building this rocket!

 

[JohnCoker]

Thanks to all those who voted in the poll. The results aren't too surprising, but it's still nice to have it spelled out so clearly.

 

[jqavins]

Kit building is much more relaxing than scratch building.

More and more I think Neil and I might secretly be the same person.

I couldn't participate in the poll because my main reason for choosing kits is not listed: learning novel and unique building techniques.

I am mainly a scratch builder, but I like kits as a way to start into the next level. I started with a LOV IV kit to get into High Power, and I think a nice fiberglass kit would be a good way to certify level III.

Absolutely that too. When I got back into the hobby, after having done virtually nothing before, I started with simple kits and worked up. Now I'm looking at starting with electronic deployment, so I'll use a kit airframe, fins, nose cone etc. so I can concentrate on what's new, and bought a sled kit as well.

Scratch build can be expensive when I realize there’s one piece missing and I have to buy a pack which means I have to build more scratch to use up the extra parts except for the one piece I’m missing. It’s a vicious cycle.

Vicious? That sounds like a virtuous cycle to me!

I want to do more scratch building. I like designing, I like building, and I like flying. But I'm not so interesting an fabricating parts, which blocks me from some of the scratch building I'd like to do. One can design around commerially available parts, which contains the designs, makes the deign process take longer, and requires shopping multiple vendors and paying multiple vendors' shipping charges to gather them all up. If I had a 3D printer, a laser cutter, and a lathe in my own shop I'd probably do more. And then there are the really cool "must have" kits; shortly after I decided to stop buying kits I saw Estes Solar Flare in a catalog and had to have it. Woody's Workshop was selling off his build pile to raise funds for a hard time at home, so I had to buy one. Etc.

 

[Flyfalcons]

I voted a few options that centered around the theme of convenience. If a kit exists for what I'm looking for, then that will undoubtedly be the most convenient way for me to have that rocket. If there is no kit available for what I want, then I'll either scratch build, or preferrably modify an existing kit. Sometime I don't even know what I want until I see a particular kit offered.

 

[Bruiser]

I like to scratch build but I'll buy a kit to use it parts instead of buying everything separately because it costs less. Even when I build the kit, it's never built exactly according to the instructions

-Bob

 

[K'Tesh]

I do a mix of both... And a LOT of cloning of OOP kits. I look at the instructions generally as recommendations when it comes to larger diameter kits. Most of my mods deal with motor mounts, ttw fins, and baffles. I wish more of them came that way.

 

[jqavins]

It just hit me, John, that you posted this thread in a subforum where it will mostly be seen by scratch builders. You get an interesting perspective this way, but quite a different one than you'd get in a different subforum with more kit builders and fewer scratch builders. Or a mix of perspectives if you put it in the Watering Hole.

 

[Daddyisabar]

I like kits from Trusted manufacturers. That way I know they have an idiot factor built in to protect everyone. Also a club requirement for launching on dry grass days. RSO ok as long as kit not on BLACKLIST. NO DANGEROUS SCRATCHERS!

 

[jqavins]

What about tried and true scratchers? I can see no launches that check both the scratch built and first flight boxes on dry grass days, but your scratcher with multiple flights under its motor retainer ought to be fine, oughtn't it?

 

[SDramstad]

I like kits from Trusted manufacturers. That way I know they have an idiot factor built in to protect everyone. Also a club requirement for launching on dry grass days. RSO ok as long as kit not on BLACKLIST. NO DANGEROUS SCRATCHERS!

That is messed up in so many ways I dont know where to start......

 

[Daddyisabar]

What about tried and true scratchers? I can see no launches that check both the scratch built and first flight boxes on dry grass days, but your scratcher with multiple flights under its motor retainer ought to be fine, oughtn't it?

Maybe a single motor 3-4FNC that has a proven flight record an doesn't look funny. Unfortunately, none of mine can meet that standard.

 

[Daddyisabar]

That is messed up in so many ways I dont know where to start......

Only kits from proven and trusted kit manufactures. Not including the Estes Cosmos Mariner, Spaceship One E or Hi Flier with a C. No clusters or staged either. Unproven or dubious manufactures such as Noris are blacklisted. Yes, it's a hard knocks life. But it looks like that launch site is kaput anyway.

 

[JohnCoker]

It just hit me, John, that you posted this thread in a subforum where it will mostly be seen by scratch builders.

Yeah, I thought about that. I didn't see a directly-applicable forum so I just defaulted to this one. I read these forums using the "New Posts" link, so I pretty much see everything.

 

[JohnCoker]

Now that the poll is closed, I'll share my reasons for posting. I was considering trying a "build-along" kit where I provided instructions but no parts. Given the results of the poll, that does't seem like a good idea as I would only be supplying the design and instructions and the main benefit of kits is the ready-to-use parts.

 

[neil_w]

A while ago I (somewhat) similarly posted a poll about the desirability of plan packs, which are at least in the same ballpark of what you're describing: https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/poll-lpr-plan-packs-yea-or-nay.158121/. You might find some of the discussion there interesting as well.

 

[jqavins]

My comment about which subforum to post in was meant academically, that different results from different areas could be interesting. In light of your revealed purpose, I'd say maybe a different subforum might really be more useful.

You asked a bunch of scratch builders why they now and then use a kit. The results may or may not be more favorable if you ask a bunch of kit builders why they don't do (much) scratch building. Of course there is lots of overlap between groups, so it could easily make no real difference. But you never know.

So if you want to try it, I'd suggest the LPR, MPR, or HPR subforum, depending on what designs you're considering.

 

[Daddyisabar]

I don't think even the TLP plan packs were that popular. Most Kit builders want precide instructions, convenience and super high quality parts. That is why they despise kits like TLP and Noris.

 

[afadeev]

Yeah, I thought about that. I didn't see a directly-applicable forum so I just defaulted to this one. I read these forums using the "New Posts" link, so I pretty much see everything.

Same here.
I didn't even notice in what forum this was posted.

Most Kit builders want precise instructions, convenience and super high quality parts.

I think a highly under-appreciate element to quality kits are quality parts.
For example, I'm building a second-hand acquired Roachworks kit right now, and every part of it is of remarkably high quality. The tubes have hardly any spiral marks, the long fins are straight and true with zero warping, the nylon chute is very well made. Every bit in the kit is of higher quality than any parts I had acquired to date from various retailers. Not to mention the custom one-off balsa transitions, nose, and tail cones, all build to (Nike Hercules) scale.
I have no idea where Gord sourced his parts, but he must have done his homework since just about all of them are better than what I have in my stash. That took time.
I appreciate would gladly reward someone for doing THAT high level of homework on part selection, historical research and custom balsa turning. Alas, Gord no longer makes or sells new kits.

*sigh*
a

 

[Flyfalcons]

Only kits from proven and trusted kit manufactures. Not including the Estes Cosmos Mariner, Spaceship One E or Hi Flier with a C. No clusters or staged either. Unproven or dubious manufactures such as Noris are blacklisted. Yes, it's a hard knocks life. But it looks like that launch site is kaput anyway.

What?!?! Not even since Estes fixed the issue with clay nose weight? My Hi-Flier only flies on C motors and has never, ever gone unstable.

 

[KilroySmith]

learning novel and unique building techniques.

This hit the spot with me. These days, I really enjoy the challenge of scratch building, although it sometimes gets frustrating because there are a lot of techniques that I don't know and end up re-inventing, sometimes badly. I suppose if I were a more social creature, and had time to hang around and travel to launches more, I'd slowly learn by osmosis, but when I want to build a Falcon Heavy with fall-away boosters, I'd love to be able to start today and not wait a few years until I've seen them, talked about them, and handled them at a launch.

launch..that is the exciting part.

This is interesting, because I'm more interested in the build than the launch. I have a number of rockets that I've launched once to prove that the design and build were good, I get a good shot of satisfaction from that, then the rocket will probably never launch again.

As far as the poll, unless the rocket has really unique parts I'm capable of fabricating most anything using a saw, a drill press, and a file. I want an OR file to verify stability, engines, performance on a scratch build, which isn't really necessary for a kit I guess (unless I want to modify it). I'm not so worried about how it looks - I figure I can cut and put things together well enough to at least show a family resemblance to the model which is good enough for me. For example, I bought a Binder Designs Terrordactyl ( https://www.binderdesign.com/store/page2.html ) for my wife. Its basic construction is just 3FNC, but those fins are just so cool - I could redesign it in OR easily and build it, but the fins wouldn't look quite the same. If stickers are an important element of the rocket's "look", then a kit is important in order to get them - the aforementioned Terrordactyl wouldn't be the same without the stickers on the side.

In my ideal world, I'd buy a unique design that comes as an OR file - that solves a lot of the drudgery, even if I have to modify it (I don't have that parachute, but I do have this one, for example). I'd be able to get a minimal kit from someone like Balsa Machining that has all the right size standard tubes, couplers, bulkheads, nosecones (and perhaps fin stock that I might need to cut to size/shape) but which isn't necessarily a complete kit containing the customized bits. If there are complex unique bits to the rocket, perhaps an .STL file to 3D print them (using my printer, or an online vendor) or a source of someone who's willing to build and sell them if they can't be printed.
And that's enough to make me happy.

 

[Daddyisabar]

What?!?! Not even since Estes fixed the issue with clay nose weight? My Hi-Flier only flies on C motors and has never, ever gone unstable.

Once blacklisted it is extremely hard to get off. Who knows if it is not one of the old kits without nose weight. All Spaceship One 18mm , Quest X15, and Estes Bullpups will still get the sink eye to this day. You may seek RSO forgiveness, but he will never forget. Yes, the scout who comes up with a poorly built hi flier with a C motor hanging way out the back is out of luck. Kits need large idiot factors built in and supplemental nose weight being added later on can be seen as merely a crutch or band aid for bad design.

 

[afadeev]

Who knows if it is not one of the old kits without nose weight. All Spaceship One 18mm , Quest X15, and Estes Bullpups will still get the sink eye to this day. You may seek RSO forgiveness, but he will never forget. Yes, the scout who comes up with a poorly built hi flier with a C motor hanging way out the back is out of luck. Kits need large idiot factors built in and supplemental nose weight being added later on can be seen as merely a crutch or band aid for bad design.

Just for anyone who is new to rocketry and might be reading this - the above "rules" are NOT part of any national NAR or TRA standards.
Any systematic discrimination against, or "sink eye" towards kits with nose-ballasts, make little sense. Many historical, scale, and high-power rocketry kits employ nose ballast to great effect.

If the above "rules" and attitudes are really in effect at any given club (no references provided), I would have serious doubts about said organization's standards, behaviors, and practices.

a

 

[Flyfalcons]

Once blacklisted it is extremely hard to get off. Who knows if it is not one of the old kits without nose weight. All Spaceship One 18mm , Quest X15, and Estes Bullpups will still get the sink eye to this day. You may seek RSO forgiveness, but he will never forget. Yes, the scout who comes up with a poorly built hi flier with a C motor hanging way out the back is out of luck. Kits need large idiot factors built in and supplemental nose weight being added later on can be seen as merely a crutch or band aid for bad design.

Wow, I'm glad I don't fly with a group that feels that added nose weight to a rocket somehow makes that rocket deficient and unworthy of flight. This type of regulation above and beyond what our national organizations endorse has no place in the hobby.

 

[rharshberger]

Wow, I'm glad I don't fly with a group that feels that added nose weight to a rocket somehow makes that rocket deficient and unworthy of flight. This type of regulation above and beyond what our national organizations endorse has no place in the hobby.

Me too.....

 

[jqavins]

I want an OR file...

OR can open .rkt (RockSim) files. As of Version 9 (I haven't upgraded yet) RockSim can't open .ork (OR) files. Therefore, a .rkt file would be superior for inclusion.

Just for anyone who is new to rocketry and might be reading this - the above "rules" are NOT part of any national NAR or TRA standards.
Any systematic discrimination against, or "sink eye" towards kits with nose-ballasts, make little sense. Many historical, scale, and high-power rocketry kits employ nose ballast to great effect.

I don't think the meaning was that anything which relies on nose weight is blacklisted. The meaning, if I read it right, is that if a vendor has a kit with a history of stability problems that ends up on the club's blacklist, and then the vendor fixes that problem by throwing nose weight at it, then it stays on the blacklist because this is seen as a half-assed fix. Which I agree is excessively restrictive; if the same kit had had the nose weight in the first place it would never have been blacklisted. And if there's doubt about the kit's vintage, the RSO can take the nose of, hold it in his/her palm, and know. Still, not as bad as a blanket ban on anything that uses nose weight.

If the above "rules" and attitudes are really in effect at any given club (no references provided), I would have serious doubts about said organization's standards, behaviors, and practices.

Caution is good, and maybe they have their reasons for going to such extremes. If I were checking rockets for launch on a field of very dry grass, for instance, I'd be super cautions about any perceived chance of a rocket crashing while the engine is burning. I'm inclined to think the above is overcautious all the same, but who am I to say?