Der Red Max

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

scottluther1369

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2004
Messages
110
Reaction score
0
Well I thought I could build this one on my own but I have a few part questions. I downloaded the extes parts info guide (thank you) but it doesn't list the fin thikness of the BFM2 OR the marking guide TA603.
Can someone let me know the thinkness of the fins for der Red Max?
Thank you!
--Scott (the newbie)
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by Micromeister
My original kit used 3/32" balsa.


That's interesting. I've got an old Citation kit and a regular one. Both have 1/8" fins. Maybe Estes put the wrong size balsa stock in the die cutters one day.
 
Personally, I would recommend using the 1/8" material. The fins on the DMR are quite large and a bit of extra stiffness isn't a bad idea. Laminating with copy paper is an even better way to get some more strength.
 
Originally posted by tbzep
That's interesting. I've got an old Citation kit and a regular one. Both have 1/8" fins. Maybe Estes put the wrong size balsa stock in the die cutters one day.

I have 4 more #651 Kits Der Red Max kits in the Bag bought in 1983, all have 3/32" finstock. Can't say if they are odd or correct as the instructions don't identify the fin material other then BFM2?

As for the fins being large and needing extra strength; That my friends is just plain wrong. The model pictured above has over 40 flights. Her finished w/ chute Ewt is 65.7g (2.317oz). Using the Stock 18" chute this model has yet to suffer even minor fin damage, including being plucked from a rocket eating tree or two over its flying life. I never even questioned the fin thickness as they were Die Cut. Added Tracing or typing paper to the fins isn't a bad idea but unnecessary.
Overbuilders beware... This is a very lightweight model, adding to it only makes it heavier making it more likely to suffer fin damage on landing...Your building in your own self forefilling prophesy. Building Light IS sometimes better then Overbuilding strong.
 
Originally posted by Micromeister
I have 4 more #651 Kits Der Red Max kits in the Bag bought in 1983, all have 3/32" finstock. Can't say if they are odd or correct as the instructions don't identify the fin material other then BFM2?

I don't know what the deal is. I just remeasured my old Citation Red Max, and they are definately 1/8" thick. Same goes for my newer non-Citation kit, but I don't know its age. I had one other kit that drifted away never to be seen again. I'm fairly sure it was 1/8" also.

Maybe Estes made a run of 3/32 fin stock for the kit in 82 or 83. :confused:
 
Tis a mystery isn't it:D
I guess the bottom line for Scott is: She flys well on 3/32 and 1/8" balsa fins, make the choice that make you happy, after all your building a clone:D
 
Originally posted by Micromeister

As for the fins being large and needing extra strength; That my friends is just plain wrong. The model pictured above has over 40 flights. Her finished w/ chute Ewt is 65.7g (2.317oz). Using the Stock 18" chute this model has yet to suffer even minor fin damage, including being plucked from a rocket eating tree or two over its flying life. I never even questioned the fin thickness as they were Die Cut. Added Tracing or typing paper to the fins isn't a bad idea but unnecessary.
Overbuilders beware... This is a very lightweight model, adding to it only makes it heavier making it more likely to suffer fin damage on landing...Your building in your own self forefilling prophesy. Building Light IS sometimes better then Overbuilding strong.

Well, if I had the luxury of using an 18" chute with this model, I'd agree, but I don't. A small field (typical for me) sometimes requires a smaller chute - here in Colorado, flying in windy conditions is normal. Also, hard packed landing areas are also common, as drought conditions are more typical than not. All this adds up to needing a smaller chute and stronger fins.

I don't unecessarily overbuild and value lightweight engineering as much as the next guy. Through decades of LPR flying, I've got lot's of empirical evidence of what is overbuilding and what is building for proper durability and performance given a certain set of flying conditions.
 
Originally posted by Micromeister
Tis a mystery isn't it:D
I guess the bottom line for Scott is: She flys well on 3/32 and 1/8" balsa fins, make the choice that make you happy, after all your building a clone:D


True...

Scott, just build the clone based on whatever fin stock you have on hand. You can always use this thread as proof of accuracy for either size. :D

BTW, I measured some old diecrushed finstock from an old Estes kit that was supposed to be 1/8", and it was between 3/32" and 7/64" thick.

Both the Red Max and Big Red Max fin patterns on JimZ's site show 1/8" fin stock. I'm betting that Estes made a production run with the wrong fin stock and chose to put it into the kits instead of trashing the balsa. You might talk somebody into paying you double for true "collecter's items". ;)
 
You can always use this thread as proof of accuracy for either size.

NOBODY is going to notice that the fins are the wrong or right thickness!

If you run ito someone that WANTS you to prove to him that you used the correct thickness of fin on a clone...walk away from this person...

He obviously has not taken his medication this morning and is probably quite dangerous!:eek:

Keep smiling and try not to upset him!
 
LOL! You're right Sandman... :)

...but there's almost always somebody in a crowd that loves to tell you that you are wrong, or that their whatchamacallet is better, or their thingamabob is better because it cost more/less, etc.

As far as my mentioning proof, it was ment as a joke because of these folks we mentioned. :D
 
As far as my mentioning proof, it was ment as a joke because of these folks we mentioned.

Now see, that's the difference between you and me...I'd do it wrong just to upset this guy!:D
 
Originally posted by limd21
Well, if I had the luxury of using an 18" chute with this model, I'd agree, but I don't. A small field (typical for me) sometimes requires a smaller chute - here in Colorado, flying in windy conditions is normal. Also, hard packed landing areas are also common, as drought conditions are more typical than not. All this adds up to needing a smaller chute and stronger fins.

I don't unecessarily overbuild and value lightweight engineering as much as the next guy. Through decades of LPR flying, I've got lot's of empirical evidence of what is overbuilding and what is building for proper durability and performance given a certain set of flying conditions.
Since we all fly in basically the same general conditions and others of us have been flying for more than a few decades, we'll let those parts of the post go understanding that Many of us fly from very small fields. I fly in a mountain valley postage stamp size park with the valley giving a wind tunnel effect, add in trees, bolders, exposed farm land bare earth, sometimes soft freshly plowed, or hard packed clay like a brickat others. If the W--- gods aren't in our favor we may have to land on a side road, paved parking lot or even in a pond every once in a while, Flying the field is always a challange;)
An 18" chute was sited as that is the size supplied with the kit and recommended by the manufacturer. I've flown the DRM pictured on as small as a 9" chute depending on field & weather conditions.
Unless your flying in a gravel pit overbuilding this model just isn't necessary and will contrubute to fin damage problems. Empirical evidence may very well be tainted by an unconscious trend toward overbuilding, I know I have to fight the tendency all the time. As mentioned before laminating with tissue or tracing paper isn't a bad idea, copier or printer paper can work but adds additional unnecessary weight without adding strength to the laminate. In any case or combination, it's just not necessary for this model's "normal flying life" or really for most model rockets.

Fly the field: If your flying on a windy day over the salt flats, where the model may make a hard landing and/or be dragged over that sandpaper surface by the wind, some edge protection may be in order. Otherwise aside from good fillets this model needs only be assembled as designed. I'll refer back to the self- forefilling part, the more weight added in the building the more likely a lower fin tip well be damaged on landing. Not faulting anyone's buidling preferece here just trying to remind the younger builders that Overbuiding, adding excessive amounts of anything to the model will speed its demise, not necessarily extend its usable flying life.

Like sandman said Scott, I'd use the 3/32" just to tick the nay-
sayers off. Build and paint your models to what YOU want to see, Don't be limited by others or the package panel paint job;) I love my Der Camo Max's, I even have a DRM with 4 fins, a mistake but with the heck, more room for decals.. Enjoy what your building!:D:D
 
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I my opinion, the slight changes I use in this model are not overbuilding. The incremental weight gain of going from 3/32" to either (or both) 1/8" stock or paper laminations are an very small percentage of overall model weight. Stiffness is proportional to thickness cubed. This means an increase in thickness of only 26% will double part stiffness. A rough calculation using 10#/ft^3 density balsa means that the increase in total weight to going with 1/8" stock is about 1/10 of an ounce.

The durability that I'm speaking of here is not at the body-tube/root edge joint - that is almost never an issue. As you know balsa strength varies *greatly* by type and quality, so maybe therein lies some of the differences in our respective preferences.

As to empircal evidence. Though none with the DRM in particular, I can recount more than a few cases of fin breakage/chipping/splits parallel to the grain. (And yes, I do know to make the grain perpendicular to the root edge ;-) ) Note, none of these are cases where the root egde/body tube joint failed. Repairs with a paper-laminated fin resulted in greatly enhanced durability - effectively eliminating fin breakage in those models.

Anyway, I share your opinion that newer builders should first look to proper technique and avoid the tendency to overbuild. Pushing the envelope and getting some good failures to analyze is a great way to get an appreciation of what works and what doesn't. If everything is bombproof from the start, one misses the point of elegant design.
 
Originally posted by limd21
I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Stiffness is proportional to thickness cubed. This means an increase in thickness of only 26% will double part stiffness. A rough calculation using 10#/ft^3 density balsa means that the increase in total weight to going with 1/8" stock is about 1/10 of an ounce.

The durability that I'm speaking of here is not at the body-tube/root edge joint - that is almost never an issue. As you know balsa strength varies *greatly* by type and quality, so maybe therein lies some of the differences in our respective preferences.

Limd21:
Your right we'll have to agree to disagree on the stiffness aspect anyway.
Stiffness is a Great thing going UP however, the opposite is true for landing. The stiffer we build the more likely we'll suffer a fin crack in balsa regardless of density. I'd much perfer to allow the fins a little flexability to help absorb some of the landing shock.
As an extreme example lets look at the HUGE fins on the Super Big bertha, having built many of these with different fin materials and attachment methods, it seems the lighter we keep the bird the fewer fin cracks and/or fin/tube joint failures are generated in stock 1/8" C grade balsa. Lamination with tissue didn't seem to add any noticable weight while giving some additional crossgrain bond without drastically decreasing the flexabiltiy of these monster slabs of wood. Apparently tissuing is a plus. Overlay the same 1/8" C grade balsa in epoxy with or without glass or overlay with 3/64" ply, we'll pop at least one fin every flight. wrap the body between fins to create a fin/body unit, you'll snap a 1/2 to 1" tip off at least one fin on every landing. If the fins can't flex a little the landing load is transferred to the fin/tube joint directly. Jap tissuing, I've even used Christmas wrapping tissue with great success, on fins adds amazing strength to Balsa
without making them so stiff they can't flex. Another factor to be considered is the type of glue used to do the laminating. Whatever glue, not adhesive is used should also have at least some flexability in the dried film. Broken fin tips at or along the grain are a product of building to stiff not necessarilly to heavy, but one usually goes with the other so it becomes hard to decide which is causing the problem. Strength to flexibility is the balancing act we're really talking about here. Stiffness while a boon on accent is the bane on landing. Man I think we're WAY off topic. I believe I'll just say OK. Lets build some DRM's
Sorry Scott for hi jacking... back to your reqular scheduled subject.

You can lead an old water to horse but in the end it's just a mixed drink:D
 
Back
Top