That’s an awesome shot! So far, other than my single nozzle blowout, I’m really liking QJets under heavier rockets.Another great flight out of mine. Again on a D16-6View attachment 388984
I launched mine three times on Friday using C 6-3's for each flight and it flew fine. Today I flew it at the club launch on a Qjet C 12-4 and it went unstable, belly flopped and spit out the laundry. I'm not quite sure why it went unstable, although several others did the same thing on the same motor, and several did not. Odd.
Not to sound ignorant here but I don't see what the problem is with using the C6-3s. Went to the park today with my daughter and flew one 3 times in a 5mph wind. It went up almost perfectly straight all 3 times. The first time it came down somewhat quickly because the ejection charge slightly melted the parachute in one area so it stuck together and didn't fully open. I pulled apart the stuck pieces and the chute worked great the second and third times.
Estes has the fin unit available separately which could come in handy. I’ve been thinking that an Estes bp C11-3 would be the perfect motor for this rocket.I had heard of many issues with sluggish liftoff, if wind speed is low, then C6-3 not really a problem just that the thrust to weight ratio is a bit too low. I converted mine to 24mm and flew it with a C11-3, Flight was flawless except that those clear fin units are very flimsy and landing on hard dirt was detrimental to it's reuse, need to fix it. It landed a foot from soft grass...DOH! On the other hand, this model would be great for the gimbal system (https://bps.space/signal) With the new AeroTech G8 Motor!I had heard of many issues with sluggish liftoff, if wind speed is low, then C6-3 not really a problem just that the thrust to weight ratio is a bit low. I converted mine to 24mm and flew it with a C11-3, Flight was flawless except that those clear fin units are very flimsy and landing on hard dirt was detrimental to it's reuse, need to fix it. It landed a foot from soft grass...DOH! On the other hand, this model would be great for the gimbaled system (https://bps.space/signal) With the new AeroTech G8 Motor!
BUT! I stuck the landing! The escape tower did not break. We did a 20 Rocket Saturn V Drag Race. I was amazed at how many recovery failures... Note the one on the left...View attachment 389040
Saw some launches over the weekend. D16-4 seems like its the best option, the D10s generate a lot of heat and some people saw melting in the retainer area. C6 remains marginal but doable in low wind.
Yes, both plastic or resin or something. The D10 is Aerotech branded and is a full D, the D16 is QJet branded and is barely a D. The D10 has a much longer burn and can get very hot. Definitely risky to use it with any kind of plastic 18mm retainer.
Yep, then I have seen this be a problem before with plastics form Estes and yet another facet of the bad design. A typical cardboard motor tube design would have avoided this problem entirely.
I really don't think Estes can be held accountable if somebody acquires a pretty obscure, powerful, core burning motor and it gets too hot for a RTF model.
Yes, it’s definitely Estes’s fault if you use a motor not recommended by the company and your rocket gets damaged.
Oh, come on, you didn't even know if the D10 casing was plastic or cardboard. These aren't something you're going to find on a store shelf. They're weird obscure little motors.
No. The C6-3 is adequate, as has been demonstrated multiple times on FB posts and in this thread.
Sooooo, Grind out the forward plastic bulkhead and replace the whole motor mount assy with paper tube and centering rings... Or build the 24mm conversion... If you fly high power, surely you can figure out how to modify a plastic rocket...lol
I really don't think Estes can be held accountable if somebody acquires a pretty obscure, powerful, core burning motor and it gets too hot for a RTF model.
Estes is pretty much breaking NAR and TRIPOLI safety rules regarding thrust to weight ratios for safe flights. There’s a reason you don’t stick an underpowered motor in a too heavy kit.
It it common sense... Several Estes rockets are too heavy for the recommended motors...I crashed my Ascender with the recommended motors. F15-0 to E16-8 It barely got into the air and staged horizontally...AND they did not even honor their warranty...I don't find anything in the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code referring to 'thrust-to-weight' ratios.
You Betcha. I have the failure very well documented. Estes was kind enough to send a replacement so my plan is to produce a video illustrating how to avoid the motor insertion problem and mitigate the underpower issue (when using a C6-3) by using a longer rod. I'll probably use RockSim to demonstrate the benefit of using a longer rod. The video will include how to perform a 24mm conversion so you can use any motor that can lift it. I would have already done it but I'm in the middle of designing my L3 cert rocket. While it would have been nice to have something for the 20th of July, keep in mind we are only in the middle of the Apollo program's 50th anniversary ending in 2022. Besides Estes must have 1000s of these sitting on shelves. We saw several dozen just at the US Space and Rocket Center last week. The few we looked at had their original sealing tape cut so I'm guessing the supplemental instruction had been added to the kit just like the 2nd one we received from Estes.
Enter your email address to join: