New Quest Motor

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Initiator001

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,399
Reaction score
1,100
The Quest Q-Jet E35 motor will soon be available.

This is a 24mm x 95mm motor (Same as an Estes E12) but the E35 is a FULL 40 N-sec total impulse. This is the only current single-use 'E' motor that is full impulse. The AeroTech E20 and E30 motors have had a decrease in performance due to material and production changes.

Sold in a two-pack with -5, -8 & -11 second delays utilizing White Lightning propellant.

I will have to fly some of these next Saturday. :cool:

Quest Q-Jet E35 Motors 10-08-22.jpg
 
Eventually I'll shove four into the 4x24x95mm Big Daddy I built....gotta see how the four E26 attempt will go first. Got quite a few other rockets this motor should be quite nice in, excited to try them.
 
Shame they can't make these without the lousy clay nozzles that seem to be so problematic.
 
Shame they can't make these without the lousy clay nozzles that seem to be so problematic.
I know they can be problematic but the clay nozzle is likely a main reason that Q-Jets are inexpensive.

Phenolic nozzles must be molded under heat and pressure, in expensive molds, then glued into place; the latter takes time, effort, and epoxy. With clay, it's dumped in and pressed and it's ready to go.
 
All the recently manufactured motors I've used have been fine.
Same here. I bought some new Quest motors, plus got a bunch of "original production run" ones replaced (thanks AT and Karl).
So far (knock on wood) there have been zero issues with new ones. The early ones I had at least 1-in-3 with issues.

The only thing I see is some "sputtering" on the E26 as it comes up to pressure. So I make sure I have "extra rod/rail length" so speed gets up.
 
I know they can be problematic but the clay nozzle is likely a main reason that Q-Jets are inexpensive.

Phenolic nozzles must be molded under heat and pressure, in expensive molds, then glued into place; the latter takes time, effort, and epoxy. With clay, it's dumped in and pressed and it's ready to go.
I cannot see buying any more Q-jets due to the large numbers of CATOs, etc. I ended up throwing about 40 motors away because I didn't trust them anymore. When one sees an 1 in 3 chance of a given flight blowing up, its time to move on to something else.

I'd rather pay a little more for an motor that is less CATO-prone. :)
 
I cannot see buying any more Q-jets due to the large numbers of CATOs, etc. I ended up throwing about 40 motors away because I didn't trust them anymore. When one sees an 1 in 3 chance of a given flight blowing up, its time to move on to something else.

I'd rather pay a little more for an motor that is less CATO-prone. :)

Agreed. It's less than $6 per motor to upgrade to an Aerotek SU 24mm. If your rocket is worth more than $6 to you, it seems logical to upgrade.

24 MM Quest vs Aerotek.png
 
I know they can be problematic but the clay nozzle is likely a main reason that Q-Jets are inexpensive.

Phenolic nozzles must be molded under heat and pressure, in expensive molds, then glued into place; the latter takes time, effort, and epoxy. With clay, it's dumped in and pressed and it's ready to go.
I’m guessing the clay nozzle is why these motors are put in the Quest Q-Jet line instead of Enerjet or AeroTech proper?
 
ANY NEW PRODUCT, has issues that aren't seen on prototype or initial small volume runs. Things come up when it changes to full production.

In this case the issue of the clay degrading over time, with exposure to humid air.

It was not an issue when motors were made taken to select places and flown. Once Q-jets were fully released (especially the white lightning variety with higher thrust), they then sat in a warehouse, shipped to distributors, sat in a warehouse, shipped to customers, sit in the range box, then finally flown. Much different path to flight than prototypes.

I applaud Aerotech for a quick review of the unexpected issues. They changed nozzle material, added desiccant to the packaging, added notification stickers, designed the Q-Pic holder, etc.

As I said, that 1in3 failure was early production. With the new production motors, I have had ZERO failures, since the changes noted above. Thank you Aerotech for continuing to innovate for the small end of product range.

Mike
 
I cannot see buying any more Q-jets due to the large numbers of CATOs, etc. I ended up throwing about 40 motors away because I didn't trust them anymore. When one sees an 1 in 3 chance of a given flight blowing up, its time to move on to something else.

I'd rather pay a little more for an motor that is less CATO-prone. :)
Beginning a year ago I stopped flying BP propellant motors and now only fly composite motors (Quest, AeroTech) in all my model rockets.

I am looking forward to the future release of the Enerjet E24 motors.
 
ANY NEW PRODUCT, has issues that aren't seen on prototype or initial small volume runs. Things come up when it changes to full production.

In this case the issue of the clay degrading over time, with exposure to humid air.

It was not an issue when motors were made taken to select places and flown. Once Q-jets were fully released (especially the white lightning variety with higher thrust), they then sat in a warehouse, shipped to distributors, sat in a warehouse, shipped to customers, sit in the range box, then finally flown. Much different path to flight than prototypes.

I applaud Aerotech for a quick review of the unexpected issues. They changed nozzle material, added desiccant to the packaging, added notification stickers, designed the Q-Pic holder, etc.

As I said, that 1in3 failure was early production. With the new production motors, I have had ZERO failures, since the changes noted above. Thank you Aerotech for continuing to innovate for the small end of product range.

Mike
Thanks, Mike. We are continually looking for ways to increase reliability and improve production rates. Several aspects of the Q-Jet design have been new ground for us, and we have learned an awful lot in the process. We appreciate your patience and understanding.
 
I’m guessing the clay nozzle is why these motors are put in the Quest Q-Jet line instead of Enerjet or AeroTech proper?
The original reason was to lower the cost of 18mm motors so that they would be competitive with black powder motors for use in the Quest kit and starter set line.
 
The original reason was to lower the cost of 18mm motors so that they would be competitive with black powder motors for use in the Quest kit and starter set line.
For that they are good. I like to use the 18mm D16 series in my Mercury Redstone and Venus Probe. Even though I'm lucky to get an 800' field, these rockets fly much nicer with the Q-Jet D16-4 than a black powder C6-3. 3 N-s makes a big difference!
 
For that they are good. I like to use the 18mm D16 series in my Mercury Redstone and Venus Probe. Even though I'm lucky to get an 800' field, these rockets fly much nicer with the Q-Jet D16-4 than a black powder C6-3. 3 N-s makes a big difference!
It’s the thrust too, I expect. Too bad we don’t have anything like the old B14s anymore.
 
As I said, that 1in3 failure was early production. With the new production motors, I have had ZERO failures, since the changes noted above. Thank you Aerotech for continuing to innovate for the small end of product range.

Mike
The C12 motor series was certified in May 2018 (according to Thrustcurve). Would you consider motors made in Feb 2019 to be "early production"? How about November 2019 (another guys MESS report)? What about a motor made in May '22 (another guy's MESS report)? All similar malfunctions...

At some point, the motors have got to be not "early production", right? At some point they've got to take ownership of the problem. They were good about replacing a 12-motor box of bad C12-6s (9 of 12 defective as it turned out as I recall). But I bet they wouldn't replace suspected bad motors just because. I got tired of repairing damaged rockets because the motors kept CATO'ing.

Q-Jets are great, when they work right, but oftentimes they didn't. I love their improved performance over Estes BP motors. I would love to try the new Q-Jets again, but after suffering not only a 30% failure rate and several damaged/destroyed rockets, plus the financial loss of throwing away over $200 of motors because I didn't trust them anymore, I just can't bring myself to do it. Have fun rolling the dice, sir. :(
 
The C12 motor series was certified in May 2018 (according to Thrustcurve). Would you consider motors made in Feb 2019 to be "early production"? How about November 2019 (another guys MESS report)? What about a motor made in May '22 (another guy's MESS report)? All similar malfunctions...

At some point, the motors have got to be not "early production", right? At some point they've got to take ownership of the problem. They were good about replacing a 12-motor box of bad C12-6s (9 of 12 defective as it turned out as I recall). But I bet they wouldn't replace suspected bad motors just because. I got tired of repairing damaged rockets because the motors kept CATO'ing.

Q-Jets are great, when they work right, but oftentimes they didn't. I love their improved performance over Estes BP motors. I would love to try the new Q-Jets again, but after suffering not only a 30% failure rate and several damaged/destroyed rockets, plus the financial loss of throwing away over $200 of motors because I didn't trust them anymore, I just can't bring myself to do it. Have fun rolling the dice, sir. :(
Are you absolutely certain you’re looking at date of manufacture and not just date of use? They can sit in the supply chain for quite a while.
 
Are you absolutely certain you’re looking at date of manufacture and not just date of use? They can sit in the supply chain for quite a while.

I looked at the lot dates stamped on the motors (and reported lot#s on the ones from the MESS website).
 
[Long post.]

@Bill S I feel your pain and anxiety, I really do. I still loose more rockets to trees than anything else... Just to give my personal details here are my notes. (I didn't use any Quest Motors prior to the C18/D20 ones.)

The C18 and D20 motors were released Nov. 13, 2020. Stock went onto the Quest Store on Nov. 20, 2020 (day I ordered) Delivered in Dec. 2020. We flew a couple over the winter, and spring.) The first nozzle issue I had was a D20-6 in July 2021 (7 months in MY Range Box) That started a string of issues which I fought with through Sept, 2021, trying various things. During this time I stopped flying them in my "good rockets".

Then, information came out (somewhere on one of the fourms ) that AT changed the Formulation of the Nozzles in 8/21. Any lot Numbers prior to that were at higher risk depending on storage conditions, as the original clay was subject to moisture absorption, and could get "soft".

I waited and ordered some new "A" thru "E" Q-Jet motors in 18mn & 24mm in July 2022. Storing them in a container with a seal and a bunch of small desiccant packs.

All Q-Jets I have flown with lot date after 8/2021 have had nominal flights. ( The E26 does seem to come up to pressure slower than the others, but I chalk that up to design... Published thrust curves show it to some extent. I just use a longer rod/rail to be sure velocity gets up to be stable.)

So of your list from the MESS reports; only the one with date of May 22 is after the changes.

The factory addition of a desiccant pack, the change from heatshrink starter retainer to Q-Pic, and added labels about storage recommendations, all happened between 8/2021, an now.

I hope this helps you with the timeline and your comfort level. It's ultimately up to you, and as they say YMMV.

Mike
 
Back
Top