Estes C5-3 motors available
- Thread starter OC-Patrick
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Are you using your Home made controller?
The C5 has notably more thrust than the C6. It leaves the launch rod a lot quicker when comparing the slomos. The SST suffered more weathercocking with the C6. I think the wind conditions were about the same. If it's a straight rocket with NC, BT, and fins, then the C6 is perfectly fine. If it has a large fin surface, then use the C5. That being said, I am curious how the C5 performs with the Falcon Heavy and Mercury Redstone. More engines are on the way but no lite wind days in the foreseeable future.
I tried to use the DIY controller but the speaker wire didn't have enough current to set off the motors. My son was pretending to use it in the video because he finds the Estes controller to be boring. Actually, what he really wants is a plunger style like they use for setting off dynamite. I have no idea if that would work.
Yeah..I am toying with buying the 24 mm> 18 mm adapter and flying some D level rockets on it. The Silver Comet gets up pretty high on D12 and with just me tracking it and small field C5 might be worth a shot.
Well, the C11 is there for exactly that purpose. Another good alternative (depending on rocket weight) is Questjet C12 or D16 with the 18mm adapter. All three will go quite a bit lower than the D12. With the Questjets you'd be advised to do a quick sim in OR (or use thrustcurve.org) to verify rod speed, since the progressive burn is so much different from the BP motors.
A Q-Jet D16-4 took my Silver Comet to just over 400 feet (https://flightsketch.com/flights/912/). D12-5 took it to about 520 feet on the same day (https://flightsketch.com/flights/910/). The C5-3 or Q-Jet C12-4 would be ~200 to 250 I'd guess without actually doing the flights. As Neil noted, this is a mission for a C11-3 with no adapters required.
Actually, flying mine on a C5-3 just to see how it goes would be fun to try.....
Mine is built essentially stock except I made it possible to put in E12s (moved the motor block up an inch) and used the Estes 24mm screw-on motor retainer rather than the hook. It weighed 6.12 ounces without a motor right after it was finished. It's probably just a bit heavier now with the ejection residue of several flights inside.
same...6.3..stock..maybe I was heavy on glue
That's not bad. Glue and/or paint. I tend to go fairly light on finishes....sanding sealer on balsa parts, one coat of Rusto 2x primer and in this case a top coat of Krylon metallic foil silver paint followed by a coat of Future before I handled it much and dulled the silver. No epoxy in the model.
Yeah, so long ago, don't remember how many coats of primer...maybe 2, can not what I used for Silver Paint....funny, i never would guess 6.3 oz..feels light ..I assumed 3-4 ozs. And like you, no epoxy...just wood glue and basic sander sealer from craft store
Sooo... I'm busy and couldn't read the whole thread, but did see something on page 1 about "historic designations". But late last night I decided to check these things out for a little more "oomph" on my Redstone and Venus probe. Direct from the Estes website, here are the two curves side by side:
The tech literature says both of those have a total impulse of 10 N-s. But surely that isn't accurate- clearly there is more area under the C5 curve than the C6 curve. Maybe I'm expecting too much... But yes, the C5's would definitely punch harder. Still, the allure of full "D" impulse with the Aerotech 18mm RMS reloaders is alluring... if a bit more expensive.
The tech literature says both of those have a total impulse of 10 N-s. But surely that isn't accurate- clearly there is more area under the C5 curve than the C6 curve. Maybe I'm expecting too much... But yes, the C5's would definitely punch harder. Still, the allure of full "D" impulse with the Aerotech 18mm RMS reloaders is alluring... if a bit more expensive.
Something's out of synch here. Current certification data shows the C5-3 with 7.79 N-s of total impulse and the C6s with 8.82 N-s.
https://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Estes/Estes_C5_2019.pdfhttps://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Estes/C6.pdf
That Estes C5 curve looks like the old C5-3 which had 9.1 N-s total impulse.
The new C5-3 flies much like an A10-3: Big kick off the pad and a long, low thrust tail. It does get heavier models off with much more authority, including the MAV and the much-discussed 1/200th scale RTF Saturn-V.
https://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Estes/Estes_C5_2019.pdfhttps://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Estes/C6.pdf
That Estes C5 curve looks like the old C5-3 which had 9.1 N-s total impulse.
The new C5-3 flies much like an A10-3: Big kick off the pad and a long, low thrust tail. It does get heavier models off with much more authority, including the MAV and the much-discussed 1/200th scale RTF Saturn-V.
@BEC you are correct. The curve I grabbed from Estes for the C5 motor has a thrust "tail" of 5 N, whereas the test data shows a tail of 3 N. Peaks match well, but there is a lot of impulse lost bewteen 3 and 5 N over 1.5 sec. 3 N-s, as an estimate! So instead of 10 N-s you have 7, that's quite a difference.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 5,943
- Reaction score
- 584
Yes, the new C5 is really a C4 and the C6 is really a C5! 
https://www.rocketreviews.com/compare-estes-c5-to-estes-c6.html
https://www.rocketreviews.com/compare-estes-c5-to-estes-c6.html
Joshua F Thomas
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2019
- Messages
- 664
- Reaction score
- 342
I thought some of the older designations were because of the switch from imperial to metric units, and that some of the manufacturers stuck with the older terms in order to prevent consumer confusion.
Also, Estes, please - give us the -0 version of this motor. I really want a higher-thrust motor for multi-stage 18mm birds.
Also, Estes, please - give us the -0 version of this motor. I really want a higher-thrust motor for multi-stage 18mm birds.
This confirms what I observed. The C5 gets off the launch rod faster (which helps to reduce weathercocking of large fin rockets) but overall thrust is about the same. Maybe I'll do a comparison video.Yes, the new C5 is really a C4 and the C6 is really a C5!
https://www.rocketreviews.com/compare-estes-c5-to-estes-c6.html
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 5,943
- Reaction score
- 584
That's true for the Estes A8 (which is really an A3). It was the A.8 before the switch.
Last edited:
I've flown the Low-boom SST with the C6-3 and C5-3 so made a video comparing their performance. I believe the slow motions are at the same speed. Someday when the parks are reopened (and the trade winds die down), I'll experiment more with different rockets.
I finally got a chance to try out some of the C5-3s. One in an Estes Interceptor, which has nearly always veered one way or another, even in light winds, no matter the motor used (C6-3, C6-5, D16-6). While I don't think it went as high as it usually does on say a C6-5, it went up pretty straight, so I was happy about that.
I also used an C5-3 in an Estes Photon Disruptor. 3 previous flights all veered off one way or another, and Rocksim said it needed approx 44" of rod before coming up to stable speed on an C6-5. It flew well on the C5-3, though again, seemingly not as high.
I also used an C5-3 in an Estes Photon Disruptor. 3 previous flights all veered off one way or another, and Rocksim said it needed approx 44" of rod before coming up to stable speed on an C6-5. It flew well on the C5-3, though again, seemingly not as high.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 11,617
- Reaction score
- 6,254
I’ve been hoping someone would post back to back flights with the same rocket on C6-3 vs C5-3, so thanks for this.
I have seen too many flights like your first one on the C6, where the rocket struggles to get off the pad and doesn’t seem to find a firm trajectory until it is a few feet ABOVE the rod. That first flight was sketchy.
I flew a hefty helicopter on the C5 that I had previously flown with C6s. Definitely like the punch off the pad. I am kind of wondering what rockets the C6-3 would be better than the C5-3? Heavy draggy rockets benefit from the initial better spike on the C5. You could say the C6 might be better for lighter rockets, but for those the C6-3 motor would likely have too short a delay (if it is light enough that it doesn’t need the initial spike, it’s likely going to reach a higher velocity and need a longer delay/coast phase), although the C6-5 might still be a contender.
I would say light and draggy rockets could use the C6-3, but I think you're right, the C5-3 is probably a better choice than a C6-3 in most cases.
I haven’t flown the Interceptor on C6-3/5 but thought it flew just as great on the C5-3 as the Low-boom SST.
o1d_dude
'I battle gravity'
Estes is currently showing the C5-3 not in stock.
I checked this morning.
Tempted to try the little A-Heli kit on sale for $7.49 but no motors for it in stock either.
I checked this morning.
Tempted to try the little A-Heli kit on sale for $7.49 but no motors for it in stock either.
I figured as much so bought several C5-3 packs weeks ago. Maybe I'll sell them at $20 per pack like they do on Ebay.
As with the Heli, I've tried 4 times to successfully land it. It took a lot of clay in the rebuilt nose to get it to fly straight. The problem is that it keels over at apogee, releases the blades, then lawn darts. I'm ready for attempt #5 but will wait until a <5mph wind which probably won't happen until winter.
o1d_dude
'I battle gravity'
I figured as much so bought several C5-3 packs weeks ago. Maybe I'll sell them at $20 per pack like they do on Ebay.
As with the Heli, I've tried 4 times to successfully land it. It took a lot of clay in the rebuilt nose to get it to fly straight. The problem is that it keels over at apogee, releases the blades, then lawn darts. I'm ready for attempt #5 but will wait until a <5mph wind which probably won't happen until winter.
Heli delay too long?
Good “outlaw“ flying session...can’t do that out here in California.
It was allowed back then. Now that I think about it, I wonder if an A10-0T would be enough to cut the string and release the blades without the delay?
