Estes Saturn V #1969 Build - Let's share ideas and experiences...

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

BEC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
3,136
Reaction score
256
Location
Auburn, WA
Late to the thread, but when I built the previous version I used Beacon Adhesives Foam-Tac to install the wraps. It is thick enough to be able to work with it but thin enough not to distort the shape. It also sets to a good tacky hold quickly enough that you can hold it in place with your hands until you're completely happy with the positioning.

Not a spray adhesive, and much easier to get right, in my opinion.
Even though I had to go to an Ace Hardware store and paid $9 for a one ounce tube - this was a great tip! I got the wraps on a #2157 I'm building last night and it was much less painful than it would have been if I had used spray adhesive, both from an adhesive application standpoint and because for a short time you can shift the wraps slightly after applying them. Thanks!
 

James Harechmak

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2018
Messages
138
Reaction score
46
Location
Appalachia
I just found some RTV mold maker and resin while looking for something else. It's 3 years out of date but I'm gonna try making a set of fins and fairings.
 

Tyler P

Nom-nom-nom...
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
618
Reaction score
209
Even though I had to go to an Ace Hardware store and paid $9 for a one ounce tube - this was a great tip! I got the wraps on a #2157 I'm building last night and it was much less painful than it would have been if I had used spray adhesive, both from an adhesive application standpoint and because for a short time you can shift the wraps slightly after applying them. Thanks!
Glad I could help! I really like that stuff for a variety of applications, but it just made applying the wraps so easy, I had to share!
 

lcorinth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2014
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
32
I would expect that the vacuform wrap would have a slightly longer curvature in order for it to be able to fit over the paper cone. In any event it looks like you have everything in order...
Yeah, regardless of how the kit transition turns out, I think I'll use the two shrouds anyway. They nest really nicely, and I like that it's a bit sturdier, so if I have trouble getting the vacuform wrap in place, I'm less likely to squish the paper when I fiddle with it.

Finishing up the kit transition now. Will post pictures later.

Also, I dry fit the nose cone and tower together - this thing looks freaking sweet already!
 

DeltaVee

HV Arcas, AT F67
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
347
Reaction score
70
Location
Framingham, MA
Yeah, regardless of how the kit transition turns out, I think I'll use the two shrouds anyway. They nest really nicely, and I like that it's a bit sturdier, so if I have trouble getting the vacuform wrap in place, I'm less likely to squish the paper when I fiddle with it.

Finishing up the kit transition now. Will post pictures later.

Also, I dry fit the nose cone and tower together - this thing looks freaking sweet already!
I think an extra layer on the transition shroud is a pretty good idea for strength. I'm thinking scan and print on a piece of manila folder material even. That's pretty tough stuff. It might also pull the cg just a wee bit further forward as well... which can only help a bit. I will very likely double-up on the clay nose weight, just to add a bit of a margin. I'm long past the days of wanting to send something into the stratosphere... especially if it's a scale model I've busted my @$$ to build.
 

lcorinth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2014
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
32
I think an extra layer on the transition shroud is a pretty good idea for strength. I'm thinking scan and print on a piece of manila folder material even. That's pretty tough stuff. It might also pull the cg just a wee bit further forward as well... which can only help a bit. I will very likely double-up on the clay nose weight, just to add a bit of a margin. I'm long past the days of wanting to send something into the stratosphere... especially if it's a scale model I've busted my @$$ to build.
Well, I've already added weight at the back end, so I probably need to add some at the front. I skipped the hook and thrust ring, and added a screw on retainer. Then, I thought I should add some gussets (not sure that's the right term) between the CR's for strength, so I can use some more powerful motors.

IMG_20190216_162810.jpg


Now I'm wondering where the CG on this rocket should fall for a stock build with the recommended motors. Pretty sure a sim using Barrowman will only give part of the story CP-wise, since there are fairings and a launch tower with odd bits and pieces the sim doesn't necessarily know how to take into account.

I'll probably end up adding the extra nose weight.

Anybody know there the CG should end up on this bird (I'm gluing on the launch tower, if that makes a difference to your answer).
 

Tyler P

Nom-nom-nom...
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
618
Reaction score
209
Well, I've already added weight at the back end, so I probably need to add some at the front. I skipped the hook and thrust ring, and added a screw on retainer. Then, I thought I should add some gussets (not sure that's the right term) between the CR's for strength, so I can use some more powerful motors.

View attachment 375632

Now I'm wondering where the CG on this rocket should fall for a stock build with the recommended motors. Pretty sure a sim using Barrowman will only give part of the story CP-wise, since there are fairings and a launch tower with odd bits and pieces the sim doesn't necessarily know how to take into account.

I'll probably end up adding the extra nose weight.

Anybody know there the CG should end up on this bird (I'm gluing on the launch tower, if that makes a difference to your answer).
If that's just cardboard and wood glue you're using for gussets, that's really not much extra weight. The motor retainer does add a little. The launch tower is also extremely light and shouldn't affect your CG, as the plans assume you may want to launch with it on.

When I flew mine, which is the last version before this one, it was almost overstable with the amount of noseweight they suggested, and that was with an E12-4. That bit of tailweight you've added shouldn't hurt the flight at all.
 

lcorinth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2014
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
32
If that's just cardboard and wood glue you're using for gussets, that's really not much extra weight. The motor retainer does add a little. The launch tower is also extremely light and shouldn't affect your CG, as the plans assume you may want to launch with it on.

When I flew mine, which is the last version before this one, it was almost overstable with the amount of noseweight they suggested, and that was with an E12-4. That bit of tailweight you've added shouldn't hurt the flight at all.
I know it doesn't look like much weight, but after I added the gussets, it felt quite at bit heavier than before I'd put them on (there was some packing tape on the cardboard I hadn't noticed until it was glued in place). I didn't weigh it before or after, but I'd guess it was nearly twice the original weight of the mount.

The retainer actually weighs less than the hook/thrust ring/sleeve combo - 7.8 grams to 8 grams, respectively (not county the small amount of epoxy).

I'm not thinking of using the tower for ballast. I'm more thinking that I'd have trouble finding the CP on this rocket since OR can't simulate things like fairings or tower struts, so I don't really know where the CP lies on this rocket. If I did, figuring out where the CG should be would be easy. But since I'm overbuilding and planning on possibly using some longer CTI motors, I feel like it's a good idea for me to find out roughly where the balance point is on a stock built rocket.

I could always do a swing test, but this rocket is a bit big for that.

(Though I have seen it done on a larger, odder rocket)

 

lcorinth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2014
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
32
Are you guys all painting your capsule and escape tower? Since they're already white, I've considered the idea of leaving them alone. I'd do the escape rocket itself, of course, because it's a translucent bit of launch lug. But I was wondering if anybody else decided to just leave the white parts white, rather than priming and re-painting.

I always paint my plastic nose cones, even if they end up being the same color. But these parts look pretty good, and I'm not sure I should mess with them.
 

kuririn

BARGeezer
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 3, 2016
Messages
4,431
Reaction score
1,954
Location
Hawaii
On my previous Saturn V build, I gave everything a consistent white base coat. The "white" of the tower and capsule, styrene wraps, and cardboard tubes may not be the same as the "white" of your spray paint. Plus even if the color were an exact match, the reflectivity (glossiness) might not be.
 

base890

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jun 23, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
58
Location
Pennsylvania
Has anyone built the 1969 kit with a LOC 4" body tube? Do the wraps fit? I'm considering changing to 29mm motor to provide more flexibility in motor choices, adapt down to 24mm as needed and want to beef it up a bit. Also wondering about the transition to the upper stage - it seems a paper cone is a pretty weak link. Thanks for your help!
 

lcorinth

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2014
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
32
Has anyone built the 1969 kit with a LOC 4" body tube? Do the wraps fit? I'm considering changing to 29mm motor to provide more flexibility in motor choices, adapt down to 24mm as needed and want to beef it up a bit. Also wondering about the transition to the upper stage - it seems a paper cone is a pretty weak link. Thanks for your help!
The paper cone is just the base for the vacuform wrap, which is itself cosmetic, not really structural. The tube is glued into centering rings in the large coupler, and that's the structural part. I can't see the cone taking much force.
 

BEC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
3,136
Reaction score
256
Location
Auburn, WA
You can see how the model goes together by looking at the online instructions for the prior version (#2157) on the Estes site: https://estesrockets.com/wp-content/uploads/Instructions/002157_APOLLO_11_SATURN_V.pdf.

I am building a 2157 right now and substituted a 29mm motor tube from the TARC parts set that was sold a couple of years ago for about the lower half of the BT-50 motor mount/stuffer tube, along with an appropriate centering ring from Semroc. My intent is to be able to fly on 29mm BP motors as an alternative or supplement to 24mm E12s or E30s (or maybe the RMS 24/40 Es). I see no reason to beef anything up for that purpose and won’t be doing any. I do have the injection molded fins from the later release of the 2157 rather than the vacuformed ones but that is the only other part substitution I intend to make. I’ll stick enough ballast in the top to bring the CG an F15 motor to where Chris Michelsson’s 2157 build came out just to be sure of the stability margin.

I did just order a 1969 from AC Supply today....and what I do with that will depend a great deal on what happens with this 2157 that is nearly structurally complete now.
 

David Schwantz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
519
Location
MN
I am building mine with the LOC 4" tube and 29mmt. I also got the CR from LOC and made lite ply ones for the transition. I installed a full length carbon tube on the inside outer wall of the 4" airframe to be used as the launch lug. It will exit the side of the transition as to use a longer rod. I have made ply fins that will be TTW and mount to an inner ring, not the mmt.
 

ThirstyBarbarian

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
8,214
Reaction score
702
Does anyone have a final weight of their kit as built and finished? Is it more or less than the weight Estes says it will be? And did you make any modifications or use any techniques that you think affected the weight?
 

David Schwantz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
519
Location
MN
1lb 6oz. 29mmt, lite ply CRs, enlarged TTW fins , no motor, no chute, internal launch lug. The wraps were about 1/4" short. On the lower wrap I split them down the middle of each fairing and then centered them on each fin cutout with a 1/4" gap. The nozzle fairings hid them nicely. On the other body wraps I installed as normal but left extra flashing to seal the gap. I then added some plastic half round to match and blend in. If you don't look hard, you'd never see them.
 

Attachments

Alan15578

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
315
Reaction score
72
1lb 6oz. 29mmt, lite ply CRs, enlarged TTW fins , no motor, no chute, internal launch lug. The wraps were about 1/4" short. On the lower wrap I split them down the middle of each fairing and then centered them on each fin cutout with a 1/4" gap. The nozzle fairings hid them nicely. On the other body wraps I installed as normal but left extra flashing to seal the gap. I then added some plastic half round to match and blend in. If you don't look hard, you'd never see them.
I have not started my build yet. I'm a little bummed that the stock kit weight growth since the K-36 has become so great that they no longer recommend flight on a D12-3. Has anyone done an "under build" mod to reduce mass?

Alan
 

David Schwantz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
519
Location
MN
Do not worry much, I also used the LOC 3.90" tube. I thought I read some where that stock it was 11 oz.
 

mikec

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
2,378
Reaction score
313
the stock kit weight growth since the K-36 has become so great that they no longer recommend flight on a D12-3. Has anyone done an "under build" mod to reduce mass?
AFAIK the main weight growth of #1969 relative to #2157 is in the plastic third-stage transition. You could go back to the paper transition for this. That said, I never had any great desire to fly my #2157 on a D12 although it would probably work, barely.
 

rharshberger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,406
Reaction score
1,471
Location
Pasco, WA
I have not started my build yet. I'm a little bummed that the stock kit weight growth since the K-36 has become so great that they no longer recommend flight on a D12-3. Has anyone done an "under build" mod to reduce mass?

Alan
Part of the reason the D12 is no longer recommended is that a better motor is now available in the E12, the D12 was marginal and more Estes SaturnV models were lost probably due to failure of the chute to open before the model "landed"....
 

Alan15578

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
315
Reaction score
72
Part of the reason the D12 is no longer recommended is that a better motor is now available in the E12, the D12 was marginal and more Estes SaturnV models were lost probably due to failure of the chute to open before the model "landed"....
My question was if anyone was building light, rather than the more typical overbuilding. My first K-36 flew best with 3 C6-3 motors, but it also flew OK with D13-3 and D12-3 motors. It even deployed and recovered unscathed on a D12-5. My second K-36 always flew well on a D12 with four outboard B3m motors. It could also be that today's D12 is not as good as those available, say 30 years ago. I have four kits that I can build, from an original Centuri to the 1969. I'm inclined to build it for a D12 and four 13mm A motors. I have no issues or questions about kits or motors, I was just curious if anyone still builds light!

Alan
 

MikeCr

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
Has anyone had a problem with the fit of the centering rings into the main body tube or a weak spot/delamination of the tube? I just got to this point in the build and discovered this problem. Not sure if the centering rings are cut wrong or if the tube is made wrong. I sent a message to Estes about it so hopefully I'll get a reply soon.

Mike
 

Attachments

David Schwantz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
519
Location
MN
Hi Mike, I cannot help you as I used LOC tube and their CRs. Made the transition ones out of lite ply. But I do have the original tube and CRs if you need them.
 

MikeCr

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
Hi Mike, I cannot help you as I used LOC tube and their CRs. Made the transition ones out of lite ply. But I do have the original tube and CRs if you need them.
Thanks. I just got a response from Estes, parts will be available for these kits in about a week and my replacements will be on their way to me.


Mike
 

DeltaVee

HV Arcas, AT F67
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
347
Reaction score
70
Location
Framingham, MA
My question was if anyone was building light, rather than the more typical overbuilding. My first K-36 flew best with 3 C6-3 motors, but it also flew OK with D13-3 and D12-3 motors. It even deployed and recovered unscathed on a D12-5. My second K-36 always flew well on a D12 with four outboard B3m motors. It could also be that today's D12 is not as good as those available, say 30 years ago. I have four kits that I can build, from an original Centuri to the 1969. I'm inclined to build it for a D12 and four 13mm A motors. I have no issues or questions about kits or motors, I was just curious if anyone still builds light!

Alan
I never flew my original K36 using a C6-3 three-engine cluster... mainly because I had not mastered cluster ignition at the time. I did eventually convert the K36 to use two D12-5's and it flew very well for exactly three flights until one didn't light... which means I was right not to trust myself with cluster ignition! All in all, my K36 flew fine on the single D12-3, and if I had left well enough alone, it might still be flyable today (I still have the pieces but I think it's just too far gone to ever really repair). Of course when you realize that 3 C6-3's are effectively an E18, then it seems to me that the E12, E15 and E18 motors are right in the Saturn's wheelhouse for good flights.
 
Top