I’m not saying you’re wrong, but this is a skill level 5 kit we’re talking about here.Or the manufacture of the kit needs to "idiot proof" their design so this stops happening.....
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but this is a skill level 5 kit we’re talking about here.Or the manufacture of the kit needs to "idiot proof" their design so this stops happening.....
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but this is a skill level 5 kit we’re talking about here.
Exactly my point . Why would they design a skill level 5 rocket that needs to be lifted 20cm off the blast deflector to fly? They could have easily enlarged the fins 10% and had the motor at the back where it belongs , not 1 caliber up inside the airframe.
Or the manufacture of the kit needs to "idiot proof" their design so this stops happening.....
This is in no way a bash at the OP
As a side note, also being in customer service, if we had a giant warning on everything deemed critical, the entire instructions would be a giant warning.
Those models definitely need bigger motors. I would also modify the display with nozzles and mount the mmt farther to the rear of the bt.
My two cents worth: The 1/100 Saturn V is WOEFULLY underpowered on single E12s or even E15s. When I built mine, I modified the motor mount to be a cluster of five D12s. I had the opportunity to essentially do a side-by-side comparison the day I launched mine with another modeler who built his stock. His wobbled and struggled to get altitude whereas mine had solid thrust and went straight up. Unfortunately, my complicated motor arrangement led to a mixup that resulted in the motor tubes being damaged and a premature deployment, but that's another issue altogether. (If you want to read the details, I made this thread about it: https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/estes-1969-saturn-v-a-cautionary-tale.156916/ )
Anyway, I'm sorry to hear your rocket suffered such damage @Darren Nolan. No matter how experienced we modelers are, there's always something we've never seen before that can destroy a rocket. I'll be honest, I knew about the problem of motors being inserted too far into a body tube causing a loss of thrust due to the exhaust gasses not being permitted to expand properly (Krushnic Effect), but I had never heard of Bernoulli Lock until this post. Here's hoping you can salvage quite a bit and rebuild. If you do decide to rebuild, may I suggest considering clustering or switching to a 29mm mount so you can get some better thrust and stability.
There is a lot of egregious abuse of Costco's return policy. I don't know how people live with themselves.Costco used to have an EXTREMELY liberal return policy. We had a friend of ours (no longer a friend) who bought a TV, used it for over 2 years, then returned it for full refund as she didn't want it. Costco didn't even blink or ask questions, just gave the refund. Not much later, they made their policy much tighter, though still reasonable and better than most.
I've never built one, but looked at the directions for the mmt. From what I see the mmt is inserted into the body tube that far to accommodate the display nozzles and would of course also allow for better CP/CG relationship. Does bringing the mmt further aft make the rocket unstable? I would think that the BT on its own without more protection would be toast after a few launches due to the Krushnic Effect.
I believe the reason the motor mount is recessed like that is so that the display nozzles will fit correctly.Or the manufacture of the kit needs to "idiot proof" their design so this stops happening.....
+1. I saw a talk show a few years ago where some kids were bragging about how they would buy an expensive outfit, wear it to a special event like a prom, then return it to the store the next day for a refund.There is a lot of egregious abuse of Costco's return policy. I don't know how people live with themselves.
Enter your email address to join: