QUEST MLAS Very Disappointed!

[stickershock23]

Well I got it all painted and ready to fly. I added some nose weight to keep my CG where it needs to be (see here for rocsim data )

Folded parachutes up. added wadding. went to put the nose cone on as I pushed it down one fin collapsed. broke it against the grain about 1/4" down...

Again I hate to b#$ch but if putting in the chute does this, whats it going to do when it lands on a hard surface?

 

[rstaff3]

BTW, the CG shown is approximately (balanced and eyballed) the from my as-built Q-MLAS. Not necessarily where it needs to be. I hope to fly it tomorrow and will report back. How far different was yours?

 

[stickershock23]

BTW, the CG shown is approximately (balanced and eyballed) the from my as-built Q-MLAS. Not necessarily where it needs to be. I hope to fly it tomorrow and will report back. How far different was yours?

I put a single use "D" motor in mine ( weighed .995 OZ.) and it was way off. so I added two 3/8" nuts inside my nose cone (bored a hole in it) epoxied it in. and my CG came up pretty close to where you have it. I then did a swing test (with the composite "D" in it. it swung perfect. after that I added 2 larger nylon chutes, one 18" and one 22" it move the CG almost nothing, did a second swing test. it swung good again.

I should have weighed in prior to all of that. but I didn't right now LOADED ready to fly with the "D" motor in it and my upgraded chutes.
it weighs 6.640 OZ.

I feel its safe to fly on any motor that fits the mount now.

 

[rstaff3]

Ok, I get it now. I missed that you adjusted for the 'D'. I decided to keep my first on stock...at least for the first flight. I usually use lead for nose weight, but once you have that bolt anyway, that's a good way to go.

 

[stickershock23]

Ok, I get it now. I missed that you adjusted for the 'D'. I decided to keep my first on stock...at least for the first flight. I usually use lead for nose weight, but once you have that bolt anyway, that's a good way to go.

By the way I am using an 18mm "D" so no motor mount mod's just the biggest (read heaviest) motor I could find.

I was given a big box of stainless steel (316) nuts about 15 years ago. 1/4 5/16 and 3/8 I have used them for everything I can think of, after all these years I still have a bunch left. but I can actually get my hand to the bottom of the box now.

I have used them for every rocket build that uses threaded rod. etc. that box has been worth $100's I don't know what I will do once its empty! LOL

I hope to fly mine next weekend. I think it is to heavy for the "B" motor now. I hope the "C" will lift it.

 

[MarkII]

Well I got it all painted and ready to fly. I added some nose weight to keep my CG where it needs to be (see here for rocsim data )

Folded parachutes up. added wadding. went to put the nose cone on as I pushed it down one fin collapsed. broke it against the grain about 1/4" down...

Again I hate to b#$ch but if putting in the chute does this, whats it going to do when it lands on a hard surface?

Presumably it won't touch down as hard as the force you used to push the nose cone on while the rocket was sitting on its fins. (BTW, I never do that, not even with rockets that have TTW plywood fins.)

BTW, there is a old proverb that goes, "A bad craftsman blames his tools."

MarkII

 

[shrox]

Honestly, most of the complaints mentioned in this thread have little to do with the kit, rather how it was assembled and then handled during prep. Certainly there could have been some bad fin stock, do understand that telling us directly would have been nice, and we would have given you immediate answers and advice.

We want our customers to be happy with our products, and have fun building them.

When you receive your new MLAS, call first if you have any doubts or questions.

 

[stickershock23]

Presumably it won't touch down as hard as the force you used to push the nose cone on while the rocket was sitting on its fins. (BTW, I never do that, not even with rockets that have TTW plywood fins.)

BTW, there is a old proverb that goes, "A bad craftsman blames his tools."

MarkII

I can accept that, (me bad craftsman) and Shrox, you may be right, but even though I am not the greatest "Builder" I have never run into these problems.

I really don't build that many low power rockets, that may have some to do with it too, I am used to things being STRONG and able to handle some abuse.

YEs I was Harsh at first and I apologized for that a couple times. having it in a thread, brought in MANY great pieces of advice. it also may have made people aware of how they should build theirs. basically learn from my mistakes! and do better than I did.

hopefully quest learned a little too. Again I am sorry I jumped down hard. to bad we cant just erase what was said sometimes. But I can go back and say I was wrong.

All in All it looks good from launch pad distance, we will see how it flies.

 

[markschnell]

I have followed this thread and I have a few observations:

1. Stickershock was probably too strong in his opening post. He acknowledged that more than once in following posts. Although, it is possible to go back in and not only add additional statements to your posts, you can erase whole lines if you want to. I'm assuming he added to his initial comments in the opener rather erasing the "don't waste you money" thing since people had commented on that specifically.

2. Some you guys have been a little too harsh and defensive. He shared his frustrations but he also shared quite a few things that were good about the kit. If I can find the money to buy this kit, and I hope I can, I'll make sure to be extra careful with it. This thread hasn't made me not want to buy it, only to take my time.

3. A few of you have done everything short of calling him a poor craftsman. I think that was a little harsh.

Just my :2:

 

[MarkII]

I use the proverb that I quoted as a mantra that I repeat to myself whenever I get frustrated with a build (which happens more frequently than I would like). I use it to remind myself to stop, take a deep breath and review what I have been doing. When I hear myself starting to curse the material or the kit, I remind myself to take a look at what's going on at the other end of the hobby knife. That almost always leads to pinpointing the problem. I offered the quote as a tip to Mark from one builder to another, from someone who has been there a few too many times himself, and I apologize if it was taken any other way.

MarkII

 

[rstaff3]

Well I flew it...twice.

The first was on a QB6-4, prepped as directed. It went up about 20', arced over, and lawndarted. The wind was probably 7-8 mph and the flight was perpendicular to the wind. Other than mud on the nose, there wasn't any damage - nose wasn't dented, the thin body was fine, and all 8 fins stayed on.

On flight 2, I jury-rigged the nose weight and stuffed in an Estes C6-5. It flew nicely with some weather cocking. I really should have recorded the actual CG of this configuration since the weight was lost at ejection. I'll have to recreate it and try to add the same amount permanently. One of the 2 nose cone chutes tangled but one is all that's needed.

 

[stickershock23]

I have followed this thread and I have a few observations:

1. Stickershock was probably too strong in his opening post. He acknowledged that more than once in following posts. Although, it is possible to go back in and not only add additional statements to your posts, you can erase whole lines if you want to. I'm assuming he added to his initial comments in the opener rather erasing the "don't waste you money" thing since people had commented on that specifically.

2. Some you guys have been a little too harsh and defensive. He shared his frustrations but he also shared quite a few things that were good about the kit. If I can find the money to buy this kit, and I hope I can, I'll make sure to be extra careful with it. This thread hasn't made me not want to buy it, only to take my time.

3. A few of you have done everything short of calling him a poor craftsman. I think that was a little harsh.

Just my :2:

Great stuff! I hope this thread has helped you out so yours turns out better than mine. although with the input I actually am fairly satisfied.

Don't worry about the Poor craftsman thing. I did not take offense to it. nobody said that and left it there, they all gave good input. I learned from it, thats what counts!

I left my original posts as they were so anyone coming in late would see the entire thread as it was too. If I changed it, it may have caused confusion.
Looks like We will be flying next weekend, I will see how it goes and report back.

 

[foose4string]

Well I flew it...twice.

The first was on a QB6-4, prepped as directed. It went up about 20', arced over, and lawndarted. The wind was probably 7-8 mph and the flight was perpendicular to the wind. Other than mud on the nose, there wasn't any damage - nose wasn't dented, the thin body was fine, and all 8 fins stayed on.

On flight 2, I jury-rigged the nose weight and stuffed in a C6-5. It flew nicely with some weather cocking. I really should have recorded the actual CG of this configuration since the weight was lost at ejection. I'll have to recreate it and try to add the same amount permanently. One of the 2 nose cone chutes tangled but one is all that's needed.

I saw the second flight on the C6-5. It flew nicely. Dick explained to me later that some nose extra nose weight had been added. There was a decent breeze yesterday, I concur with the 7-8 mph range(maybe gusts of 10 at times).

I saw the rocket and didn't see any evidence that it was overbuilt, but it sounds like the B motor was underpowered given the wind conditions. Although, the fact it perpendicular to the wind might indicate it was still marginally stable or underpowered, and the wind was just incidental.

Nice job on the build, Dick. It looked pretty cool going up, and from my vantage point about a 80 yards away, it was unmistakably the MLAS. I just happened to glance over during the flight and missed the announcement, but I knew exactly what it was! I like the way the chutes were rigged as well. I don't know if this was your idea for the rigging or not, but the capsule was tethered to one of the chutes and the "booster" had a chute was well. They were rigged such that, there was a 2-3 feet of line between the capsule chute and the main chute, and it gave the illusion that the capsule was recovering separately. Between the two chutes(which I assume are provided), the MLAS had plenty of drag to slow it down for a gentle recovery...even with the extra weight that was added. I didn't see any signs of damage to the rocket after it was recovered.


Other than the touchy CG and the challenges of finishing the foam cone, I think this will be a fun kit.

 

[rstaff3]

Thanks foose. You are right in that the nose comes down with chutes rigged to the noseweight (lag bolt) in the tip of the nose. Twas s'posed to have 2 but one tangled.

You reminded me. I also added a foot of thin elastic to each chute on the cone to act a separate risers so they weren't attached to a common point. These would have been close to or maybe even in front of the CG so they shouldn't have affected stability. I didn't over build but did add a drip of 5-min epoxy to the kevlar around the motor mount. This wouldn't obviously add much weight and the rocket was stable on the B6. I'm wondering if the cruddy launch rods added some drag or the wind was a bit much.

I think this kit is too cool even if some tweaking is required for flying in various imperfect conditions.

 

[shreadvector]

Please be extremely careful to specily what you mean by "C6-5".

There are Estes C6-5 motors which have a higher sustaining thrust than either the German or Chinese Quest C6-5 motors. The Chinese Quest C6-5 motor appears to have a higher intial thrust and then it drops down for the "super" long (and low) sustaining thrust.

Compare all thrust curves on the NAR website. And use a long launch rod. Shall i assume this was designed to use the standard Quest Pad and standard Quest launch rod?

I look forward to seeing one of these fly with an Estes and then a Quest German B6-2. Hopefully soon (12/5/09?).
https://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Quest/B6~2.pdf

https://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Estes/C6.pdf
https://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Quest/C6~35.pdf
https://www.nar.org/SandT/pdf/Quest/C6_cn.pdf

By the way, those older data sheets from the 1990's could very well be American made Quest motors, so the German motors could have quite different peak and sustaining thrust. The Chinese version is pretty darned accurate.

 

[rstaff3]

Thanks shread, you are so right and I picked the Estes C6 for just that reason. In my first post I added the 'Q' to the B6 and meant to add an 'E" in front of the C6. I'll edit that post.

 

[cls]

OK - mine glued together without any issues, now I gotta find that can of white acrylic (foam-safe) spray paint.

only issue on my construction is the dummy that glued the MMT together (me) didn't look carefully enough at the instructions, so I glued the solid ring on the bottom, and the vented ring on the top. duh.

if the vented ring was cut out to save weight, and I got them backwards, then I should add some nose weight. from the comments, and the look of the design, I should add some nose weight regardless. and prepare to rock on the mighty EC6-5.