LOC EZI-65 vs PML Ariel

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

billdz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
94
Trying to choose between these 2 for my Level 1 certification flight. Both are 58" but the Ariel is heavier (51 oz. vs 35 oz.), not sure why. The Ariel costs about $30 more but includes the Kwik-Switch motor mount (54-38-29mm), with the LOC, each adapter is $7 extra. The Ariel has fiberglass fins, the LOC fins are balsa wood. Both look nice and appear to be easy to build.

Any thoughts on which is better?
 

dhbarr

Amateur Professional
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
7,273
Reaction score
1,705
Ariel is heavier due to the FG fins. Ariel is costlier due to the fancy mount. LOC fins are likely plywood, less finish to do on the Ariel.

If you keep the finish weight down on the LOC, you can potentially fly it as a Class 1 Model Rocket on $10 reloads.
 

markkoelsch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,364
Reaction score
149
PML has pistons for chute deployment. Personally, I do not like pistons.

That said, either rocket would serve you well.

Might I suggest a couple other options. First for about $30 more you could get a Wildman Punisher. A lot of folks here really like them. The other option might be a Wildman Junior. Both are fiberglass, and will take more abuse than the Loc or PML.
 

billdz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
94
Thanks for the replies. What is the problem with piston deployment? The Punisher looks nice, does it work with 29 and 38mm motors as well as 54? I did not see any mention of adapters.
 

rharshberger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,895
Reaction score
1,860
Location
Pasco, WA
AFAIK Loc does not use Balsa for any of their fins, its all 1/8" or 1/4" plywood, airframe is heavy duty cardboard, best bang for the buck IMO unless you are wanting to do some fairly extreme motors. Personally I am not much of a fan of PML Quantum tube, as for their pistons they do work, but many people install them upside down which can cause some issues with them occasionally, when combined with QT they can be a bit finicky in cold or hot weather (can't remember which at the current moment).
 

billdz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
94
I'm not finding much info about the Punisher, except on the Wildman site. I did see this rather negative review: " I was a bit surprised at the low quality finish of the parts. Tube ends were unevenly cut, the centering rings had the wrong I.D. and O.D. and the surface of the nose cone was strangely mottled." https://www.jcrocket.com/punisher.shtml
Anyone else have a comment about the Punisher, and does it have adapters so that 29, 38, and 54mm motors are usable?
 

rharshberger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
9,895
Reaction score
1,860
Location
Pasco, WA
I'm not finding much info about the Punisher, except on the Wildman site. I did see this rather negative review: " I was a bit surprised at the low quality finish of the parts. Tube ends were unevenly cut, the centering rings had the wrong I.D. and O.D. and the surface of the nose cone was strangely mottled." https://www.jcrocket.com/punisher.shtml
Anyone else have a comment about the Punisher, and does it have adapters so that 29, 38, and 54mm motors are usable?
Any Aeropack motor retainer has a motor adapter available for it from 98mm on down, as for the Punisher many here have bought and flown them with few issues.
 

Zeus-cat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
4,643
Reaction score
859
Last week a guy in my club launched an EZI-65 on an I-65. 8+ second burn baby. Awesome flight.
 

Buckeye

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
2,712
Reaction score
528
If you are new to "bigger" rockets, then go with LOC. The cardboard and wood construction will be familiar to you. Get the simple $7 adapters. They work fine. Wildman rockets are cool, but use different materials, and have no instructions, if that is important to you.

Madcow cardboard rockets are similar to LOC. They have fiberglass, also.

Don't you love these responses? You ask about Brand A vs. Brand B, yet everybody chimes in with their favorite Brand C, D, E, and F! :wink:
 

billdz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
94
Thanks, I'm very happy to be hearing about other options, the LOC and the Ariel were just the 2 mentioned to me at today's club launch. And someone just mentioned the LOC Expediter, which is on sale. How does that compare to the EZI-65?
 

markkoelsch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,364
Reaction score
149
Thanks for the replies. What is the problem with piston deployment? The Punisher looks nice, does it work with 29 and 38mm motors as well as 54? I did not see any mention of adapters.
I have seen several pistons jam. I also do not like not being able to get behind the piston.

As to a Punisher- buy an Aeropack 54mm retainer and the adapters- the best out there.
 

Todderbert

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
111
Reaction score
0
Hello Bill,

I have had lots of help here on the forums to guide my Level One purchase. I am going with a Binder Excel 4" Dual Deploy kit in 54mm. My plan is to adapt down to a 38mm for my Level I flight using motor deployment with the JL chute release instead of the Electronics bay. Then use the same rocket for my Level II flight with the ebay for dual deploy and possibly a 54mm motor. I was looking into the LOC and Madcow Kits, don't think you can go wrong there either. Good Luck!
 

billdz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
94
That Excel looks very nice, good luck with your test.

As mentioned in my other thread, today I purchased an H135 motor for my cert flight, it was the only H motor available from the only vendor. Just modeled it with Open Rocket and it may be too powerful for a cert flight, it will take the Ariel or the EZI-65 over 1700 feet. Maybe I should add some weight or electronics so it won't go so high and I'll have a better chance of not losing or damaging the rocket?
 

Zeus-cat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
4,643
Reaction score
859
I built the LOC Iris/Isis years ago and she still flies like a champ. The heavy cardboard tubing and plywood parts hold up well. With the rocket being made of cardboard and plywood fins it makes you feel like you are working with a seriously upgraded Estes kit as opposed to fiberglass which is a whole new ball game. If you don't have someone to mentor you on the build I would recommend a cardboard and plywood kit like LOC sells.
 

mikec

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
2,524
Reaction score
392
I'm not finding much info about the Punisher, except on the Wildman site.
The Punisher is an awesome kit, but I wouldn't recommend it for a first rocket.

Personally I recommend people use a Madcow 4" cardboard kit for Level 1, though there are a lot of options.
 

noffie79

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
1,340
Reaction score
13
Thanks, I'm very happy to be hearing about other options, the LOC and the Ariel were just the 2 mentioned to me at today's club launch. And someone just mentioned the LOC Expediter, which is on sale. How does that compare to the EZI-65?
The Expediter is a great rocket. Would be good for a L1. I'm currently building one. I've had one before. Love it. I'm not really familiar with the EZI-65, so I don't know how they compare. But there are a lot of choices, and with many of them, you can't go wrong.
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
6,759
Reaction score
3,665
Location
Butte, Montana
Trying to choose between these 2 for my Level 1 certification flight. Both are 58" but the Ariel is heavier (51 oz. vs 35 oz.), not sure why. The Ariel costs about $30 more but includes the Kwik-Switch motor mount (54-38-29mm), with the LOC, each adapter is $7 extra. The Ariel has fiberglass fins, the LOC fins are balsa wood. Both look nice and appear to be easy to build.

Any thoughts on which is better?
I like PML kits. They have some of the best instructions out there and a person can learn a lot by following them. The Kwik Switch works okay, but limits your choice of motor length. That may not affect you for a,couple of years, but in my case I ended up hammering it off the forward end of the motor mount tube so I could fly a K550 in it.
I like the PML piston system ; I'm in the minority. It has its quirks but they are easily learned.
LOC makes good rockets also. I don't think you could go wrong with either.


Steve Shannon
 

cbrarick

Wildman CT
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
2,622
Reaction score
337
Before you do anything, get and read "modern high powered rocketry2" you will learn a lot about how to stitch together a rocket.

My son's first flight for his TRA mentoring program was on a punisher.... built when he was 11 1/2. Granted he's grown up with rockets, has read the book several times. Dad just acted as a safety observer for the build. He made some gruesome fillets, but they work!
 

chris m

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 24, 2013
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
5
I have a EZI 65 and love it did a I 65 drag race . Wish I glassed it and put a 6 grain 54 in it
 

ThirstyBarbarian

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
8,671
Reaction score
1,316
Do you want a rocket exclusively for high-power rocketry to use at HPR club launches? Or do you want a rocket you could also fly on G motors on your own, or at LPR launches?

There are a lot of rockets that straddle the line between MPR and HPR and can make for more flying opportunities if you don't have frequent access to HPR launches. My most flown rocket is my Aerotech G-Force. That rocket is designed for use with Aerotech Single-Use G motors but it flies great on H motors as well. I take it to every launch --- fly it on H motors at the HPR launches, and fly it on G motors at LPR launches, where it is usually the largest rocket on the field. Other rockets like this include the Estes Mega Der Red Max and LOC IV, and maybe the EZI-65 (but that might be getting heavy for some G motors).

I would second the the opinion of others that a nice cardboard and wood rocket in 4" diameter is a great choice as a first HPR rocket for a cert flight. It is like building a very big low-power rocket, just with larger and upgraded materials, like plywood centering rings and fins, metal eye bolts for anchoring your recovery harness, metal quick links for attaching recovery system, nylon or Kevlar recovery harness, metal or plastic screw-on motor retainers, rail buttons or guides. And you do get to try some new HPR building techniques, like through-the-wall fin mounting and internal fillets. It's a great way to learn some new things without changing too much. You can stick with mostly wood glue, or try some epoxy if you want.

You mentioned that some of your sims show one of the rockets you are looking at going too high for your comfort, and you asked about maybe adding weight or using electronics. Usually you don't want to get into adding weight to reduce altitude. It's one thing to build a little heavy with extra glue, big fillets, or other reinforcements and upgrades, if you are not concerned about making the rocket go as high as possible. But it's not usually a great idea to intentionally weight the rocket to reduce altitude. For one thing, it slows the speed of the rocket off the rail, so that limits the number of motors you can use. If you are concerned about altitude, it's probably better to go with a fatter rocket than a heavier one. That's why a 4" diameter rocket is a good choice --- the added drag of the 4" airframe will keep the flight low. Plus, if you've never had a 4" rocket, you will be amazed at how easy it makes things. You can actually fit your arm inside a 4" tube, so you can reach down inside the rocket during construction and for certain maintenance things, like removing and replacing the recovery harness.

You can also use electronics on high-altitude flights. You don't use them to limit the altitude of the flight. You use them to deploy the main chute at a lower altitude and reduce the recovery area. You won't have to walk as far or search as much to get the rocket back. To keep things super simple, I'd recommend the Jolly Logic Chute Release. That device is the easiest to use. You could fly your rocket to 1700 feet and have the motor eject the nose cone and recovery system at that altitude, that will slow the rocket down, but the chute will remain bundled up. The rocket will fall to 500 feet, or whatever altitude you pick, and then the Chute Release will release the chute. That keeps the walking and searching to a minimum.
 

Nytrunner

Pop lugs, not drugs
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
7,943
Reaction score
3,625
Location
Huntsville AL
Ditto for the Chute release. Its a little more expensive than a deployment altimeter, but you don't have to mess with wiring, batteries, or blackpowder/CO2. You're paying more for the convenience, but dozens of fliers will argue that that convenience is worth every $.

Also 4" rockets are good ideas too. I picked my Patriot (vv) from Apogee's list of "Level 1 certification rockets" (try shopping around for better pricing tho)
 

tomsteve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
910
Reaction score
275
I have seen several pistons jam. I also do not like not being able to get behind the piston.
back in the late 90's i went to a club launch in february. planned on launching a pml amraam4 that was quantum tube body and piston ejection on an I300.
beings how it was quite cold outside-about 25 degrees- i prepped in the cab of my truck.
at the rso table, rso asked me if i was using the piston. said i might want to check the fit. pulled out the chute and harness and i couldnt pull the piston out. prepping in tbe warm cab of my truck, then taking the rocket out in tbe cold, the body tube contracted around the piston.
after a day sittin in my warm house, the piston worked ok again.
i have heard it mentioned that in temps in the 40's kr so that it can be cold enough that wind chill on the rocket in flight can cause quantum tube to contract enough to jam the pston.
 

LOC

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
TRF Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2016
Messages
186
Reaction score
84
Obviously I'm going to be biasd!!! lol But seriously, if you're headed to level one. Keep it simple, build to your strengths and get the certification! THEN, the world opens up for you to play in many different ways. Get certified and go explore!!!! Good Luck!!!!
 

ThirstyBarbarian

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 11, 2013
Messages
8,671
Reaction score
1,316
Obviously I'm going to be biasd!!! lol But seriously, if you're headed to level one. Keep it simple, build to your strengths and get the certification! THEN, the world opens up for you to play in many different ways. Get certified and go explore!!!! Good Luck!!!!
Good advice! (But what would YOU know about it? :wink:)

I totally agree that L1 does not need to be a huge production, and you should play to your strengths. The main thing is it should be fun. Build a rocket you want to fly and think will be fun to build and own. I like easy-to-build cardboard and wood rockets that can be put together with wood glue. There are lots of great L1 and even L2 candidates in that category.
 

markkoelsch

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,364
Reaction score
149
Obviously I'm going to be biasd!!! lol But seriously, if you're headed to level one. Keep it simple, build to your strengths and get the certification! THEN, the world opens up for you to play in many different ways. Get certified and go explore!!!! Good Luck!!!!
I cannot argue against any of that. L1 should not have to be complicated at all.

I say this as someone who certified L1 on a Loc IV on an H220...20 years ago.
 

billdz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
94
Thanks much for all the replies. I opted to buy an LOC Expediter, it was on sale at Hobbylinc, and I liked the look of it, and it doesn't look hard to build. It models to peak a couple of hundred feet lower than the EZI-65 or the Ariel.

Interesting that several people suggested dual deployment. Yesterday I went to my first club launch. Saw about 30 flights, 4 of which were fails, all 4 fails the result of a dual deployment problem. The ejection charge failed to go off on one of the rockets, no chute deployment at all, and this rocket, a pretty big one with a G motor, hit the ground hard and was smashed to bits. On 2 others, the drogue somehow got tangled up with the main chute and neither opened, both rockets landed hard and sustained major damage. Not sure what happened with the fourth, just saw it on the ground in pieces.
 

MikeyDSlagle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
2,483
Reaction score
455
Well said LOC and Thirsty.

< deleted, seems you already bought a rocket before I posted > LOL

Have fun and good luck.

Mikey D
 
Last edited:

Handeman

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
7,847
Reaction score
411
Location
Stafford, VA
Thanks much for all the replies. I opted to buy an LOC Expediter, it was on sale at Hobbylinc, and I liked the look of it, and it doesn't look hard to build. It models to peak a couple of hundred feet lower than the EZI-65 or the Ariel.

Interesting that several people suggested dual deployment. Yesterday I went to my first club launch. Saw about 30 flights, 4 of which were fails, all 4 fails the result of a dual deployment problem. The ejection charge failed to go off on one of the rockets, no chute deployment at all, and this rocket, a pretty big one with a G motor, hit the ground hard and was smashed to bits. On 2 others, the drogue somehow got tangled up with the main chute and neither opened, both rockets landed hard and sustained major damage. Not sure what happened with the fourth, just saw it on the ground in pieces.
DD can be an issue, but once you learn it, you will probably not go back to motor ejection. You also have to remember that most of the DD problems are not the electronics. They are recovery system design issues, chute packing/folding, shock cord length, etc. Things that you can mess up using motor ejection just as well. Personally, I think most DD issues are because fliers only consider the apogee ejection and main ejection, they don't consider the longest part of the flight which is the fall from apogee to main deploy. They just leave that part to chance and many times their design makes issues with that worse.

BTW If it wasn't for the JLCR coming out, I would have replaced all my motor ejection models with DD. Then again I seldom fly below H motors.

Since you went to your first club launch this month, I would not recommend DD for your L1. I did use DD on my L1, but I had been launching L1 capable MPR at club launches for 4 years and picked up a lot of info from other fliers over that time. I scratch built my L1 as DD when I was ready and certed with an I motor. It turns out that is the only DD rocket I don't have any longer, it lawndarted about 4 years later but that was because of operator error, not the DD setup.

When you get to the point you want your next HPR, don't shy away from DD. I have one rocket that's made 40 DD flights. Not all were perfect, but the rocket has held up for 8 years. You can have reliable and dependable DD rockets.

Good Luck with the cert.
 
Top