Estes 18mm motor mount - what were they thinking?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

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

Other uses, see Beating a dead horse (disambiguation).

Flogging a dead horse (alternatively beating a dead horse in some parts of the Anglophone world) is an idiom that means a particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed or otherwise resolved, and any attempt to continue it is futile; or that to continue in any endeavour (physical, mental, etc.) is a waste of time as the outcome is already decided.

Give it a rest.

2005033755-149x149-0-0_Dead_Horse_Cassetteboy.jpg
 
First off, I disagree that it should be given a rest. Yes, Mike said the weak parts are getting replaced. Excellent. But it stands as an important reminder to everyone that we should be giving feedback to the manufacturers. Do you think Mike from Estes comes here for his mental health? No, he comes here for feedback on the products his company sells. And if everyone just holds the line and says "everything's good here", we are going to continue to get parts that fail, or instructions that don't make sense, or decals that are printed backward, etc. If you continually have a part fail on multiple kits and you don't say anything, then you are just as much a part of the problem.

Secondly, this is a public forum, obviously people have something to say about the issue so let them say it. If you are done with the thread, stop reading it. There is no reason to make a rude post like that just because you feel this thread is done.
 
Regarding not reporting issues, how the heck are they supposed to know something isn't working if people don't mention it to them? I'm not saying to report every single case, but I'm sure something like the leader of a class sending a SINGLE EMAIL mentioning that SEVERAL failures have happened with the same part would cause Mike to look into it, especially with 2 or 3 similar comments from other customers.
Generally, I agree. On the other hand, the thought in my mind with some failures is that they would surely have been caught in normal product testing. And I concluded that either insufficient testing had been done, or that the bad results were deemed tolerable.

My example is the Gnome. I've been to group (eg, Scout) launches before where there were dozens of these flown, and we had failure rates on the order of 40-50%. The typical failure was the nosecone separating at ejection allowing the airframe to come back down sans recovery device while the nosecone came down under the streamer.

There appeared to be three factors in these failures:

1) Too short elastic shock cords, which were only about 8" long as I recall.
2) Poorly implemented shock cord anchors. This rocket uses a plastic anchor which mounts thru the airframe wall and, as I recall, a knot in the cord is supposed to keep the cord from sliding thru the anchor. But unfortunately they frequently allowed the cord to separate from the airframe.
3) Nuclear ejection charges. The 13mm T motors have a reputation for overly energetic ejections, and these were no exception. They routinely blow the nosecones off with a very loud report.

I'm not sure what the vendor's test plans are for models rockets and motors, but my expectation is that even the most rudimentary testing of the Gnomes should have shown that these things are not very reliable.

In short, the vendor should already be aware of this rocket's characteristics without someone else telling them.

Doug

.
 
Generally, I agree. On the other hand, the thought in my mind with some failures is that they would surely have been caught in normal product testing. And I concluded that either insufficient testing had been done, or that the bad results were deemed tolerable.
Yes, but either way, the company won't see the need to change if nobody is complaining. Worse still, they will figure their idea of "tolerable" must have been correct if nobody bothers to tell them otherwise.
 
First off, I disagree that it should be given a rest. Yes, Mike said the weak parts are getting replaced. Excellent. But it stands as an important reminder to everyone that we should be giving feedback to the manufacturers. Do you think Mike from Estes comes here for his mental health? No, he comes here for feedback on the products his company sells. And if everyone just holds the line and says "everything's good here", we are going to continue to get parts that fail, or instructions that don't make sense, or decals that are printed backward, etc. If you continually have a part fail on multiple kits and you don't say anything, then you are just as much a part of the problem.

Secondly, this is a public forum, obviously people have something to say about the issue so let them say it. If you are done with the thread, stop reading it. There is no reason to make a rude post like that just because you feel this thread is done.


:cry: You big meanie...
 
Just wrap the blue tubes with a couple of layers of masking tape aft of the rear centering ring after you glue the rings on them and you're all set. You'll really never see that tape once it goes in the airframe...

As for shock cords, I'd really like to see Estes start to include the yellow kevlar shock thread and enough of it to tie around the motor retention block. It only takes the thin, kite-string sized stuff. As a matter of course, I add this to the rockets when I build them and then leave it long enough to tie shock cord to that beyond the end of the airframe so it can easily be replaced if need be. I toss the rubber cord and use the round Dritz branded stuff they sell in the fabric stores for clothing. I'd pay more for the kits just for that.
 
Last edited:
Gluing isn't an issue. These blue tubes glue better than many other tubes that I know of. I can see the advantage for the E2X kits with all the plastic parts you glue on with tube Testors. All my Beta Mosquito"s with plastic cones I have to reglue after a night in a cold garage for example, the balsa cones are fine. Standard body tubes don't contract like the plastic parts do.
 
...well, I've tried to stay out of this discussion, but I can see that it requires some explanation...so here goes;
1. First of all, these were used in a number of kits because of excess inventory.

2. Long before this thread started...actually about 2 years ago, we began replacing the blue tube in most of our newer kits with the white motor tube, even though there is a substantial inventory remaining of the blue tubes.

3. We are going to continue to use the blue motor tubes in the RTF and E2X rockets until the blue tube inventory is exhausted.

Mike



Do you think Mike from Estes comes here for his mental health?.


No I do not think Mike (be69ar) answed you for his mental health.

I think he posted to explain the current and future status of the blue tube so people would stop flogging a dead horse.*

* (see post #91)
 
Last edited:
Flogging the dead horse, as I like the blue tubes as is with some reinforcment here and there vs. the glassine body tube that I have to sand down to get the glue to stick. The blue tubes are less work and end up just as strong in the end. That is all I am saying on this one.

There was something I read about a heavy walled black tube that Estes used on some kits for motor tubes.
 
What I started to use instead of blue painters tape is the true duct tape that is actually very thin and light metal foil. Not is it only strong but it is heat resistant. It used on heating vents and vent pipe wraps. It’s very light weight, strong and very sticky.
 
What I started to use instead of blue painters tape is the true duct tape that is actually very thin and light metal foil. Not is it only strong but it is heat resistant. It used on heating vents and vent pipe wraps. It’s very light weight, strong and very sticky.
1) 11 year old thread
2) Painter's tape should never be used anywhere it can't be easily replaced, especially on a motor mount. Fortunately, no one in this thread was recommending that; the discussion was about some blue tubes that thankfully I have never encountered.

Foil duct tape works fine. I usually opt for black electrical tape; easier to use and I can stretch it tight.
 
I have an Quest quad runner and I seen a pic posted in here but can’t find it on how the mm tubes are burnt and deformed at the top from ejection charge. I’m trying to figure how to to prevent this. Unfortunately the Estes kits in which I have around 250 I’m worried about the cheep mm tubes holding up.
 
I think this is still valid especially for those of us that build vintage kits. I recently picked up a Phoenix Bird that has the blue motor tube.

Mine will be with replaced with a piece of BT50H as I plan to leave out the motor hook and friction fit. BTW, never friction fit with a blue motor tube. You will rip the entire tube out of the rocket removing the motor. Ask me how I know :(
 
When you buy a kit you shouldn't have to do ANYTHING to make it work well. Estes kits are very expensive for being made in China. Somehow Custom Rockets and LOC can make their kits in the USA for the same or less money, and they are much smaller companies. The MSRP for some estes kits is obscene.
 
When you buy a kit you shouldn't have to do ANYTHING to make it work well.
You have a good chance of being disappointed in many a kit from many a vendor then (and not just rocket kits). That said, in my experience Estes kits, built per instructions generally work pretty well as as intended and supplied. Even ones with the wimpy blue motor tube work fine for awhile.

I recently went through an exercise where I opened a number of kits of the same model from different releases spanning from before the color-coded parts (that the blue tube is part of) through just a couple of years ago. A couple of interesting things showed up in that. First of all, not all blue tubes are those horrible soft, thin ones. It was more like every other kit that had them had thin tubes. These kits were from the late 1990s to early 2000s. Second, the nice strong white motor tubes have been in Estes kits now for over a decade….since just about the time this thread what’s started.

Estes kits are very expensive for being made in China.

They are packaged in China. Some parts are made in China. Body tubes, in particular, are sourced in the US and sent there.
Somehow Custom Rockets and LOC can make their kits in the USA for the same or less money, and they are much smaller companies. The MSRP for some estes kits is obscene.
For some Estes kits, I absolutely agree….especially those that have been in production for a long time. I’m looking at you, 1225 Alpha!

And I do wonder how Custom manages to do it.
 
Admittedly Custom Rocket Company doesn't have as many kits as Estes and nothing super big or fancy, but their selection for small to medium size rockets is very good. I'm into launching rockets, not building fancy display models to put on a shelf so they are my favorite company.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top