turbofireball
Model Rocket Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 91
- Reaction score
- 119
New Aerotech catalog shows Enerjet Nike Ram
- Thread starter turbofireball
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Scott_650
Well-Known Member
I’m really hoping it comes with waterslide decals, though of all the self-adhesive “sticker” decals I’ve used Quest’s worked fairly well - my Mean Green still looks good many years and launches since it was built.
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
This has a 29mm MMT and plastic fin can?
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2018
- Messages
- 1,566
- Reaction score
- 1,887
Will definitely be adding one (or two) of these to the fleet
The Enerjet 1340 used a plastic fin can. That was later used in other Estes Kits including the Eliminator. Nose cone shape was different however. I have several of the Eliminator to fly.
They took low average impulse 29mm motors, but a high impulse G125 shredded the fins on my tests. H50 and I69 long burn Ellis motors worked Ok in a few tests in 2004 / 2005 .
I have not heard this has plastic fin can on the Nike Ram, Where did you hear that @mh9162013 ?
I'll be buying one for display at least. I still have a 1972 Enerjet Catalog in my Catacombs.
If I recall correctly, the Enerjet Nike Smoke was an "Almost Ready To Fly" [ARF] rocket in an impressive display box that allowed you to see the finished frame of the rocket thru the hard cellophane Front Package window.
I wanted to buy one at the time, our Hobby Shop [Hobby Stop West] did have Enerjet motors that I did buy two of, but never got the Nike Smoke Kit in.
They took low average impulse 29mm motors, but a high impulse G125 shredded the fins on my tests. H50 and I69 long burn Ellis motors worked Ok in a few tests in 2004 / 2005 .
I have not heard this has plastic fin can on the Nike Ram, Where did you hear that @mh9162013 ?
I'll be buying one for display at least. I still have a 1972 Enerjet Catalog in my Catacombs.
If I recall correctly, the Enerjet Nike Smoke was an "Almost Ready To Fly" [ARF] rocket in an impressive display box that allowed you to see the finished frame of the rocket thru the hard cellophane Front Package window.
I wanted to buy one at the time, our Hobby Shop [Hobby Stop West] did have Enerjet motors that I did buy two of, but never got the Nike Smoke Kit in.
Last edited:
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
I haven't heard anything and was just curious (and hoping there's no plastic fin can).
To the best of my knowledge, the Enerjet Nike Ram , unlike the 1340 was plywood or basswood fins. Keep in mind my 1972 catalog is buried in my Catacombs so no way I can verify tonight.
Scott_650
Well-Known Member
Balsa fins according to the copy of the catalog at the Ninfinger site.
Attachments
Interesting that the recommended motors in the new catalog are the same as the old ones, plus newer AeroTech types. I think those recommended delay times > or = 10 seconds would make it arc over a bit though.
Scott_650
Well-Known Member
Couple things to consider is if you’re flying the Nike Ram with a payload or not and that streamers tend to be a bit more forgiving than parachutes when it comes to longer delays. Regardless, I’d be leery of using a 10 second delay without some good sim data first.
I’ve flown my similar - uses the same nose cone and diameter tube - Quest Mean Green on some longer delay motors and it’s worked well. It has been modded with extra nose weight, no engine block and a screw on retainer. But I still wouldn’t choose a 10 second delay, even with a streamer, without some successful sim data.
I’d consider sim data helpful but I feel like I’d want to try the 7-second version first, just in case…
Agreed. I have a rocket built with Quest 35mm parts and a 29mm motor mount, so not too different from the Nike Ram. I just ran the OpenRocket sims of my rocket for both F67C and F67W motors, and in both cases the ideal delay worked out to be 7 seconds, not 14 and 9 seconds respectively as in the ad. Of course I don't know the target weight of the Nike Ram, but it's hard to see how it could make such a large difference. (My rocket is 135g empty. Was lighter before I crashed it and had to replace part of the body.)
By any chance did you get a deployment speed for the F67-14C or anything else way off-optimum?
21.6 m/s for the F67-14. Maybe not the absolute end of the world with a streamer, but getting risky. I'd definitely pick a shorter delay.
Initiator001
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 3,400
- Reaction score
- 1,112
I built and flew prototypes of the new Enerjet Nike Ram with E24-10C, F52-12C and F67-14C motors.
You cannot believe how high the model will fly. One cannot see such a small model at over 3000 feet.
The streamer system held up fine (I could not locate a F52 flight after it landed so I cannot say it worked every time).
I recon' the model is still going up when the ejection charge goes off.
Initiator001
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 3,400
- Reaction score
- 1,112
The Mean Green and Nike Ram models are different diameters.
The Mean Green is nearly two inches in diameter while the Nike Ram is under one-and-a-half inches in diameter.
I don't trust computer simulations. Build/fly/build more/fly more.
Scott_650
Well-Known Member
Ouch. Can’t believe I misremembered my own rocket! Tough getting old(er) my friends.
I’m on the fence about the Nike Ram. It has some nice lines, some interesting capabilities and some real nostalgia appeal. But, outside of using 29mm motors, it isn’t all that different than one of my favorite flyers -my ASP Sky Ferry. My 1.33” diameter Sky Ferry.
Not to say that the Emperor isn't wearing clothes but isn't this a scaled down Enerjet Hi-Q ?
That’s really impressive.I built and flew prototypes of the new Enerjet Nike Ram with E24-10C, F52-12C and F67-14C motors.
You cannot believe how high the model will fly. One cannot see such a small model at over 3000 feet.
The streamer system held up fine (I could not locate a F52 flight after it landed so I cannot say it worked every time).
I recon' the model is still going up when the ejection charge goes off.
Scott_650
Well-Known Member
Not exactly, it’s less wrong to call the Quest Hi-Q a scaled up version of the Enerjet Nike Ram.
I’ll leave it to much more knowledgeable folks with more firsthand experience to recount the histories of Enerjet, Centuri, Quest, Entertek, Aerotech, North Coast, etc…I was either flying Estes and Centuri rockets in my folks yard or completely out of rocketry when those companies were forming, reforming, rebranding, etc…
Initiator001
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 3,400
- Reaction score
- 1,112
The new Nike Ram kit is a 'slight' upscale of the original Nike Ram kit produced by Enerjet, a division of Centuri Engineering, from 1972 to 1976.
The Quest (now Enerjet) High-Q model was designed by Scott Branche nearly 15 years ago. It was originally to be a two-stage kit.
Attachments
The styling is similar but there are some clear differences in fin and nose geometry, among other things I’m not clearly identifying now.
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
Definitely! I expect it to at least be come packaged in a box of some sort.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2022
- Messages
- 3,269
- Reaction score
- 2,968
We knew back in the spring that the NC would be different. I believe it's the standard Quest 35mm NC. I'm not yet sure the apparent asymmetry of the fins in the catalog photo is real and not just some neuro-optical weirdness due to the angle of the rocket in the photo and maybe some lens distortion. Will have to get kits out in the wild to know. I can't think of any reason to change from the original geometry, scaled up to match the BT.
All the info needed to clone an original from BT-56 is out there. It would be weird if this was significantly different other than the NC (cost) and technological upgrades (motor retainer, baffle, etc.).
I meant that the Nike Ram looks different from the Hi-Q in these ways but thanks for the information.
George Rachor
Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 1
Any recient updae when this kit will be avalable?
Similar threads
