Estes 2020 Catalog Online

Discussion in 'Low Power Rocketry (LPR)' started by Scott_650, Jan 16, 2020.

Help Support The Rocketry Forum by donating:

  1. Jan 21, 2020 #61

    neil_w

    neil_w

    neil_w

    Pencil Pusher TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    1,344
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    Thrustcurve shows slightly higher total impulse for the C5 (9.1 vs. 8.8 N-s), slightly shorter burn time (1.7s vs. 1.9s), slightly higher average thrust (5.3 N vs. 4.7 N), and significantly higher max thrust (21.9 N vs. 14.1 N). Yeah, I'm too lazy to create a table.

    So basically, it's stronger than the C6 in all regards, with only slightly shorter burn (assuming the Thrustcurve data tells an accurate tale). I would probably use it instead of C6's in all my larger/heavier 18mm rockets, since I would *always* like to get more speed off the pad to reduce weathercocking.

    Does anyone know why the C5 was discontinued instead of the C6 in the first place?
     
  2. Jan 21, 2020 #62

    Ez2cDave

    Ez2cDave

    Ez2cDave

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,965
    Likes Received:
    662
    I bet it was a decision made by a "bean counter", somewhere.

    Dave F.
     
  3. Jan 21, 2020 #63

    neil_w

    neil_w

    neil_w

    Pencil Pusher TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    1,344
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    Even bean counters have reasons. Would the C5 have been more expensive to produce?
     
  4. Jan 21, 2020 #64

    mbeels

    mbeels

    mbeels

    Putting the tree in rocketry TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2019
    Messages:
    1,307
    Likes Received:
    506
    Gender:
    Male
    At first I was wondering if the C5 is to the C6 what the B4 is the B6. It is close, but not quite. In an end burning configuration, if the nozzle and BP opening were the same, the only difference would be thrust duration, but there are some other differences. The B4 and C5 start increasing thrust at similar rates, but the C5 continues to a higher peak thrust, so somehow the geometry allows for more BP exposed surface area. In each case, the higher peak thrust motor (B4 and C5) continues the tail of their burn at a lower thrust than the B6 and C6. Another situation where the lower average thrust motor has a higher peak thrust at lift off.

    But yeah, the C5 looks like a good motor:

    C6C5_compare.png
     
    dhbarr and neil_w like this.
  5. Jan 21, 2020 #65

    dhbarr

    dhbarr

    dhbarr

    Amateur Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2016
    Messages:
    5,977
    Likes Received:
    735
    We see that 5N of thrust is the end-burning cross-section, so c5 must just have a deeper port.
     
  6. Jan 21, 2020 #66

    SCooke123

    SCooke123

    SCooke123

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    5
    We need to start a new thread for the C5 engines and get this one back to talking about the 2020 catalog itself.
     
    GlenP likes this.
  7. Jan 21, 2020 #67

    shreadvector

    shreadvector

    shreadvector

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,929
    Likes Received:
    149
    year code X failed violently. Rumored cause was worn pintle resulting in sharp edge in center ore where a crack formed as they cured (dried out over time).
     
    neil_w likes this.
  8. Jan 21, 2020 #68

    Ez2cDave

    Ez2cDave

    Ez2cDave

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,965
    Likes Received:
    662
    One possibility might have been subjective, based on "image" . . .

    When you hear "C6", you think of Estes but "C5" sounds "foreign" to the ear and, unless one remembers the Centuri "Super-C's", and might be perceived as a "step down" in power ( C6 to C5 ).

    Just a theory . . .

    Dave F.
     
  9. Jan 21, 2020 #69

    Stefan2k4

    Stefan2k4

    Stefan2k4

    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    If I'm not mistaken, I believe the B8 was the same motor as the C5, just with less propellant and a shorter burn. Search for a thrust curve for the B8 and compare it. The B8 has been discontinued for a while as well.

    My guess is they were discontinued because it simply didn't make sense to have too many different motors. If you think about it, with all the different ejection delays and with boosters, it makes for a lot of different motors to have to produce and keep in stock. And if those motors wind up not being sold, that represents a loss. In the catalog they only list the C5-3. So apparently they must not have plans to make any others. In a way, I understand this for the reasons previously stated. However, If it were up to me, I'd think the best solution would be to make the C5-0 and C5-3 and drop the C6-0 and C6-3. This way you'd have C5-0. C5-3, C6-5. and C6-7. This would make sense because the higher initial thrust of the C5 makes it better as a booster and in heavier models where a short delay is also needed.
     
    NOLA_BAR and mbeels like this.
  10. Jan 22, 2020 #70

    beeblebrox

    beeblebrox

    beeblebrox

    8 C6-0, 12 D11-9, 20 D20-0, 20 E5-0, 3 Cinerocs

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    382
    Likes Received:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Chester, PA
    The problem with C5-0 is the long low thrust sustainer. not good for anything other than light weight 2 stagers. However the C5's having a short core are easier to light , so are great for clusters. The C5 is also less efficient than C6, which is why there was never a C5-5 or C5-7, no room for that much delay. (C5-7's would have been great for large clusters. (19 will fit in a 4" tube) The B8 was the replacement for the B14 which was harder to produce. The B4 motor has more propellant than a B6. But the nozzle is larger, thus lower pressure and longer burn, with same total impulse. (B4's are extremely reliable because of that little fact...)
     
    mbeels and NOLA_BAR like this.
  11. Jan 22, 2020 #71

    neil_w

    neil_w

    neil_w

    Pencil Pusher TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2015
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    1,344
    Location:
    Northern NJ
    Great info!
     
  12. Jan 22, 2020 #72

    billeblurzz

    billeblurzz

    billeblurzz

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    4
    C5's were my favorite c motor! Great for the heavy Mercury Redstone model....Sidewinder too! It was the original motor in my Deuce/Space Shuttle boost glider!
     
  13. Jan 22, 2020 #73

    billeblurzz

    billeblurzz

    billeblurzz

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    4
  14. Jan 22, 2020 #74

    billeblurzz

    billeblurzz

    billeblurzz

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    4
    I also used them in the Alien Exo-skell and that other alien rocket that looked like a black egg with folding landing legs and alien...can't think of the name.
     
  15. Jan 22, 2020 #75

    billeblurzz

    billeblurzz

    billeblurzz

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    4
    Venus Probe!....yeah I'm an old guy!
     
  16. Jan 22, 2020 #76

    Ez2cDave

    Ez2cDave

    Ez2cDave

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,965
    Likes Received:
    662
    B14 DATA.png



    B14_chart_ADJ-2.jpg
     
    mbeels likes this.
  17. Jan 22, 2020 #77

    DeepOvertone

    DeepOvertone

    DeepOvertone

    Forum Supporter TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2017
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    26
    Does anyone know for certain if Estes only uses one formula of BP for their engines? I’m not referring to delay or ejection but to the thrust propellant only.
    Coming from a pyrotechnics background, I know that not all black powders are the same. There are many factors involved that can vary the way it performs, including but not limited to, purity of oxidizer, charcoal type, ratio of constituent components, mill time, and additional additives such as binders. I have no idea if any of that changes the specific impulse of the propellant, but I know it can affect the burn rate. So does anyone know for sure? I’d be curious to know.
     
  18. Jan 22, 2020 #78

    Ez2cDave

    Ez2cDave

    Ez2cDave

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    2,965
    Likes Received:
    662
    I think that Estes uses the same BP in all of their motors. HOWEVER, the QUALITY ( ISP ) of the BP used has diminished from what it was ( in the 1970's, for example ), with the result being a decline in performance of the motors. I believe that the characteristics of the Oxidizer are the biggest issue.

    Dave F.
     
  19. Jan 22, 2020 #79

    BABAR

    BABAR

    BABAR

    Builds Rockets for NASA TRF Lifetime Supporter TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,780
    Likes Received:
    640
    I modded both the ExoSkell and the Venus Probe to fly on 24mm Ds with great results on both. Wouldn’t have trusted them on the C6s which were available when I built them (got them both on eBay a while back, maybe the C5s were still in production when the rockets were released. If I built them now, I would probably go stock 18mm with the QuestJet D, or now mmmiiiiigggghhht try a C5-3.

    I haven’t built my Outlander kit yet, I was going to mod it for the Estes 24mm D, but now I am thinking I can go stock with either a QuestJet D, maybe the Estes C5
     
  20. Jan 22, 2020 #80

    BABAR

    BABAR

    BABAR

    Builds Rockets for NASA TRF Lifetime Supporter TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,780
    Likes Received:
    640
    My ignorance is probably showing, but eyeballing the curves, looks like the area under the curve is greater for the C5 than the C6, so wouldn’t the AVERAGE thrust be GREATER (especially as the duration of thrust is SHORTER)? So how is this a C- FIVE which should have less average thrust than a C-SIX?

    Here’s the comparison data on rocketreviews.com

    https://www.rocketreviews.com/compare-estes-c5-to-estes-c6.html

    Here is C5 vs QuestJet D
    https://www.rocketreviews.com/compare-motors---estes-c5-to-quest-d16-q-jet.html
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  21. Jan 22, 2020 #81

    Nytrunner

    Nytrunner

    Nytrunner

    Master of Rivets

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Messages:
    5,640
    Likes Received:
    1,369
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Huntsville AL
    Behold the power of marketing

    (and the A8 is really more like an A3)
     
  22. Jan 22, 2020 #82

    SecondRow

    SecondRow

    SecondRow

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    Because the average thrust given in the designation of the motor does not have to equal the average thrust measured by certification testing. There was a conversation about this some months ago. I can’t find the thread. The average thrust in the designation of the motor can be off by some percentage (that I don’t recall) of what was measured at certification. I believe there’s also a minimum amount it’s allowed to be off by, as well.

    In this case, you’re right. The C6’s average thrust was measured at 4.7N and the old C5 had 5.3N.

    https://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Estes/C6.pdf
    http://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Estes/C5.pdf
     
  23. Jan 22, 2020 #83

    Arsenal78

    Arsenal78

    Arsenal78

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2018
    Messages:
    408
    Likes Received:
    80
    I like the new kits from Estes but I honest to god wish they would stop teasing with that picture of all their best kits from over the years that they don't plan on bringing back even though it would be a smart decision. Wasn't there a discussion at NARAM or something where they claimed the Space Race kits would be permanent?
     
  24. Jan 22, 2020 #84

    SecondRow

    SecondRow

    SecondRow

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    Found it! See post #19. 20% or 10 N, whichever is greater.
    https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/new-motor-certified-may-2019.152890/#post-1888056

    So I suppose you could call a C6 anything from a C1 to a C14 (the extremes seem seems a little ridiculous).
     
  25. Jan 23, 2020 #85

    BABAR

    BABAR

    BABAR

    Builds Rockets for NASA TRF Lifetime Supporter TRF Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,780
    Likes Received:
    640
    I am guessing C4 might be a bad choice due to that also being a common designation for another ignitable material!
     
    Nytrunner likes this.
  26. Jan 23, 2020 #86

    David M Schigoda

    David M Schigoda

    David M Schigoda

    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2019
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    The only cato that I have ever experienced was with a C5-3 about 25+ years ago. It completely destroyed the bottom half of my Estes "Eggspress". I recall hearing that many other people were experiencing catos with their C5-3s back then. Perhaps the frequent catos of the C5-3s contributed to it being dropped.
     
  27. Jan 23, 2020 #87

    MarcoPolo

    MarcoPolo

    MarcoPolo

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    24
  28. Jan 23, 2020 #88

    MarcoPolo

    MarcoPolo

    MarcoPolo

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2016
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    24
    I’m guessing this is a different animal?? Sorry couldn’t stop myself.
     
  29. Jan 23, 2020 #89

    shreadvector

    shreadvector

    shreadvector

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,929
    Likes Received:
    149
    Yes, year code X blew apart VIOLENTLY. Many schools and youth groups had ordered them in bulk. Results were not good.....
     
  30. Jan 23, 2020 #90

    BBowmaster

    BBowmaster

    BBowmaster

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2017
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    62
    I love how a discussion about he new catalog turned into a detailed investigation of engines (complete with graphs). We are SUCH nerds. :)
     
    BABAR and mbeels like this.

Share This Page

Group Builder