Estes 200:1 Scale Saturn V

Discussion in 'Low Power Rocketry (LPR)' started by deangelo54, May 12, 2019.

Help Support The Rocketry Forum by donating:

  1. May 12, 2019 #1

    deangelo54

    deangelo54

    deangelo54

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2015
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    8
    At the May 11th RIMRA launch someone launched an Estes 200:1 scale Estes Saturn V on a C6-3. The wind was minimal. The launch started out fine but then went horizontal causing a less than smooth landing, resulting in fin damage. I'm wondering if the kit needs some nose weight? Has anyone seen this rocket launched?
     
  2. May 12, 2019 #2

    BEC

    BEC

    BEC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,473
    Likes Received:
    39
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auburn, WA
    Adding weight isn't going to help.

    I have flown mine twice - on a C6-3 (which was old, and had about 1s delay, resulting in a stripped 'chute and broken fins). The boost was pretty straight.

    Today I flew the repaired model on a Q-Jet C12-4. It was a gorgeous straight up flight that worked just like it was supposed to. Onboard altimeter reported a 348 foot apogee. I expect I'll fly it again tomorrow on both C12-4 and D16-4 or -6.
     
  3. May 12, 2019 #3

    Bill Gibson

    Bill Gibson

    Bill Gibson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    11
    If you fly it on the D16, I would love to hear how it went......i really like the quest motors! I flew a Semroc Arcas on a C12, and it was awesome!!
     
  4. May 12, 2019 #4

    deangelo54

    deangelo54

    deangelo54

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2015
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    8
    Thanks for the replies. I just noticed that this topic already exists but your feed back is very helpful. I plan on launching my 200:1 Saturn V at the CMASS (cmass.org) July 20th "Land the Eagle" contest. The Acton, MA field is not very big so I may use the C6-3. At a larger field I can use one of the C12-4 engines that I have.
     
    Michael Garretson likes this.
  5. May 13, 2019 #5

    shreadvector

    shreadvector

    shreadvector

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,681
    Likes Received:
    43
    Try using a 4 foot long steel launch rod instead of a 3 foot or 30 inch long rod. $ foot long rods are cheap and easily found at Home Depot or Lowes. Check for straightness before buying and clean/lube with WD-40.
     
  6. May 13, 2019 #6

    BEC

    BEC

    BEC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,473
    Likes Received:
    39
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auburn, WA
    The D16-4 took it to 468 feet and the delay was a touch short. So I'd say C12-4s and D16-6s for this model. The C12-6 might also be OK.
     
  7. May 13, 2019 #7

    shreadvector

    shreadvector

    shreadvector

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,681
    Likes Received:
    43
    I prefer "a touch short" (~.5 seconds short) to "a touch too long" (~1.5 seconds past apogee - turned over, heading downward, parachute stuck inside from air pressure or ripped backwards from ejecting while pointing downward).

    I plan to test on Saturday with C6-3 and C12-4. Can't test with D16-4 until later in June when we are back on our normal larger field.
     
  8. May 13, 2019 #8

    BEC

    BEC

    BEC

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,473
    Likes Received:
    39
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Auburn, WA
    Fred,

    Then (based on exactly one flight) the D12-4 would be what you want. The C12-4 flight on Saturday looked to be a spot on apogee deployment. Both Q-Jet flights were very nicely straight. Actually the C6-3 flight I've done was straighter than I was expecting with all the comments about arcing in these threads.

    Of course there are the variations in the actual delays and at least some Q-Jets that were mismarks with respect to delays that are "in the wild" to contend with, but that's really a different discussion. :eek:
     

Share This Page