Spaceship One E: Banned until first snow and the winter’s pure azure sky.

[Daddyisabar]

I needed a 4th of July rocket, something red white and blue, something so cool the kids would fall down on the ground because of its coolness. Well, I had seen a successful Spaceship One E9-4 flight several weeks back, and then the same rocket flew an E9-6 and went airplane, ejecting just off the ground nose down, stating a small fire which was quickly put out by the ever vigilant LCO and RSO. Nonetheless the park ranger shut down the launch, the dishearted crowd left for home. I had read the reviews – 1 out of 5, not worth $5, rather have foam gliders, boom breakage, and other build threads that went silent when it came to the actual flight characteristics – sound of crickets – not a good sign.

But there I was; defender of Estes, he who had survived the infamous Ready For Trash (RFT) X-15 that was summarily replaced by the RTF Spaceship One which actually flew upwards on a C6-3 with major boom flutter. One of my first BAR kits was the 18mm Spaceship One back in ‘07 where they were surprised on how well it flew – I guess I had one of the later kits with the added clay nose weight – and with over 30 flights I was indeed the Spaceship One Master. Back in the old catalog I had marked the Spaceship One E as my #1 choice, but the $69.95 retail price was a tad high. For the love of BARdom I had to try.

A $15 dollar bid on EBay and I was the proud owner of the foam wonder. Put together with care and the best silicone adhesives available. Blast that even mid blue tape took off the foam’s sheen, but the two halves were solidly glued together. Blast the die cut boom decals were cut wrong. Blast the nose cone painting template was the wrong size. Blast the rubber shock cord being a tad short. I could overcome, I will survive, yes I could build it, and I had the technology. Only stock built – no filling, no painting except red enamel trim paint recommended in the instructions. I put together the best Spaceship One E I could, skill level 3 in every sense. With the loose nose cone taped to perfection, dog barf installed, E9-4 at the ready, I was sure success was to be mine.

I had to do some fast talking to get her launched – even with the coolness factor, the backing of the large civilian crowd, and an E9-4 installed with a stunning foamy finish. I had to overcome Estes bias – to forget the Cosmos Mariner – to forget all previous flights except for the one that worked – that the real Spaceship One liked to roll - that it was the perfect Summer day – that it had been stock built – that it was the 4th of July and was truly red white and blue – go USA!

Clear sky, no aircraft ignoring their NOTAM, with the slightest of breezes, 5-4-3-2-1- and my VIP guest at the launch pressed the button. Whoosh – up to 20 feet - then a roll over into the 2-3 mph breeze and off to the races with a long burn horizontal flight. Grab the extinguisher and run, run, run! The crowd was cheering in delight in the background as club members converged on the scene. Shallow angle impact, ground ejection, no fire, broken boom, cracked nose cone with plastic base popped off, not quite a land shark. With a tear in my eye I asked “Is the Estes Spaceship One E officially banned?” The answer was yes, until the fist snow. I had to completely agree and with a heavy heart I gathered the tattered remains over the fire extinguisher in my arms – to cover up as the park ranger was sure to drive by. There is no solace from the cheering crowd or VIP who thought the flight was really cool. Just that lead ball feeling in you stomach as you hope they will let you launch again, hope they will forgive, hope that your other rockets will redeem your shattered reputation. Like that old song “I fought the law and the law won.”

Repaired the Spaceship One E now sets on the shelf of shame with curtains closed. Shock cord ripped out and never to fly again. My $15 did get me a nylon chute that can be reused but that’s about it. The first snow and the dead calm of the winter’s pure azure sky will come and go. I have been bested by the foam beast. No more, no more!

 

[Mikus]

Crud. I've got one in the build queue, at least it was cheap. :jaw:

 

[Donaldsrockets]

Sorry to hear about your mishap with the SS1 E but I can't really say I'm too surprised by it.

You know the quality is lousy when the review mentions someone shredding theirs with an AT F12J which has the least amount of thrust of any 24mm composite F motor on the market today.

This is one kit I will NEVER buy at any price. If it was offered to me free of charge, then I might accept it but I would definitely try to fiberglass the foam in an attempt to make it strong enough to withstand a mid thrust 24mm motor like the F24-4W.

Hopefully now since the buyout from Hobbico Inc, the days of Estes marketing barely flyable junk are over.

 

[Daddyisabar]

I have seen over on YORF where some dealers are dumping them for $19.99. Lord help those who paid full retail or those who attempt to fly this thing. I am going Ralf Nader on this one saying the Spaceship One E is unsafe at any speed - the Corvair of the rocket world. If I were to ever launch again - which I am not - I would have to go to the local park. There it would take about 5 minutes for the cops to show up - even though it is perfectly fine to launch there - and with this rocket I could place it down wind of the police cruiser and have a good chance of putting it in their window as they always stay to watch the launches. That would sure make the local news, just hope it really doesn’t happen with some first time rocket flier who thinks they are getting a good deal.

 

[Daddyisabar]

Sorry to hear about your mishap with the SS1 E but I can't really say I'm too surprised by it.

You know the quality is lousy when the review mentions someone shredding theirs with an AT F12J which has the least amount of thrust of any 24mm composite F motor on the market today.

This is one kit I will NEVER buy at any price. If it was offered to me free of charge, then I might accept it but I would definitely try to fiberglass the foam in an attempt to make it strong enough to withstand a mid thrust 24mm motor like the F24-4W.

Hopefully now since the buyout from Hobbico Inc, the days of Estes marketing barely flyable junk are over.

Looking at the kit I don't think any amount of fiberglass/spruce reinforcement spars or more powerful motors are going to help. These mods would take a lot of work and a real pro laumching lauching this thing from the safety of a bunker to make it work.

 

[Adrian A]

I needed a 4th of July rocket, something red white and blue...

I loved your description. I feel for ya.

 

[Bone Daddy]

Hmm with them being sold cheap, I figured I might get some good parts for other projects. So I googled and this was the first hit for Estes Spaceship 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNDBa_AKjCA

Looks like a smaller one? Hmmmm, not even good for parts is it?

Another edit.: Dang that thing is expensive not to fly well.

 

[georgegassaway]

You know the quality is lousy when the review mentions someone shredding theirs with an AT F12J which has the least amount of thrust of any 24mm composite F motor on the market today.

No, you know the REVIEWER is lousy when they use the WRONG MOTOR but then blame their bad motor choice on the kit.

Geeez. I guess that some of the BEST R/C Rocket Glider kits designed, like the OOP Cuda and Stingrays are mostly "lousy quality" because they almost surely would SHRED on an F12 instead of being boosted on an E6 as intended.

Bottom line, when someone "upgrades" a rocket with a bigger engine, and/or more thrust, and THEN the rocket shreds as a result, they have nobody to blame but themselves. A REALLY well designed rocket is strong enough for the engine(s) it was intended to be used with, but not OVERKILL strong for the sake of those who are too clueless about real rocket science to know what they are doing when they overpower rockets that way.

If I ever do get my shuttle model kit back on track, I KNOW someday someone will end up complaining to me that theirs shredded when they flew it on an E15, or an E30, but then it won't be DESIGNED to fly on an E15 or an E30. Or if they fly it on some 24mm reloadable like an E11, and it goes unstable, or partially unstable due to the extra tailweight.

So, do not EVER blame the kit maker when you use motors for it that it was not supposed to use, and then something bad happens that would not have happened on a recommended engine. When you choose to use a different engine, then it is your responsibility to know that it will be suitable for the kit. And if the kit shreds, and hits the ground before ejection because the delay was too long, that’s not the kit maker’s fault.

And yes, this includes the previously mentioned SS-1 flight on E9-6 power, a model like that should never have anything with a delay longer than a 4. I do not recall, if Estes recommended it for both the 4 and 6 second delay, then Estes made a mistake on suggesting 6 seconds. Same thing for the Mean Machine on E9 power, it weathercocks too much to use a 6 second delay, a 4 is better.

I have literally seen this play out time after time at local launches: A person flies a rocket with too long of a delay. It crashes, or comes close to crashing, due to too long of a delay. I ask why they used such a long delay, and the inexcusable answer they too often give is “I didn't have a shorter delay, I only had long delays”.

They may as well have said: “I did not have the RIGHT motor, I only had WRONG ones”. So, why fly a rocket on the WRONG motor?

And oh yeah, ever hear of D12-3's? I wonder if the "now banned" models would have flown safely on D12-3 power. Unless they were built way heavy where a D12 was not enough power, but overbuilding models to the point that they are excessively heavy is a whole other subject for another day (and I’ve mentioned it in other threads anyway like the 3 pound 4” V-2 versus the 1 pound 4” V-2).

Everyone DOES know that the E9 is not twice the N-Sec total of a D12, right? It is only 50% more (27 N-sec), and actually a little LESS thrust and weaker liftoff spike compared to a D12. So a D12 gets off to a better liftoff, and takes the model at least 2/3 as high (I say at least, since many E9 powered birds weathercock to the extent that they lose a lot of potential altitude).

Anyway, I am not saying only use the officially recommended engines. But, you HAVE to know what you are doing, to avoid risking a disaster. And very sadly, too many (including at least one reviewer) do not know what they are doing when they choose “something different” to shove up inside the rocket. And even when they find out the hard way, they refuse to acknowledge THEY made the mistake, and blame the kit instead, or blame something else. So they learned nothing.

Also, I am not suggesting the SS-1 E is a good kit. But some disasters are self-inflicted, wrong motor choice being one of the most typical.

End of lesson.

- George Gassaway

 

[Mikus]

Well said George. :clap:

 

[Daddyisabar]

And yes, this includes the previously mentioned SS-1 flight on E9-6 power, a model like that should never have anything with a delay longer than a 4. I do not recall, if Estes recommended it for both the 4 and 6 second delay, then Estes made a mistake on suggesting 6 seconds. Same thing for the Mean Machine on E9 power, it weathercocks too much to use a 6 second delay, a 4 is better.

I have literally seen this play out time after time at local launches: A person flies a rocket with too long of a delay. It crashes, or comes close to crashing, due to too long of a delay. I ask why they used such a long delay, and the inexcusable answer they too often give is “I didn't have a shorter delay, I only had long delays”.

They may as well have said: “I did not have the RIGHT motor, I only had WRONG ones”. So, why fly a rocket on the WRONG motor?

And oh yeah, ever hear of D12-3's? I wonder if the "now banned" models would have flown safely on D12-3 power. Unless they were built way heavy where a D12 was not enough power, but overbuilding models to the point that they are excessively heavy is a whole other subject for another day (and I’ve mentioned it in other threads anyway like the 3 pound 4” V-2 versus the 1 pound 4” V-2).

Everyone DOES know that the E9 is not twice the N-Sec total of a D12, right? It is only 50% more (27 N-sec), and actually a little LESS thrust and weaker liftoff spike compared to a D12. So a D12 gets off to a better liftoff, and takes the model at least 2/3 as high (I say at least, since many E9 powered birds weathercock to the extent that they lose a lot of potential altitude).


Also, I am not suggesting the SS-1 E is a good kit. But some disasters are self-inflicted, wrong motor choice being one of the most typical.

End of lesson.

- George Gassaway

The E9-6 was a recommended motor. Even built stock the kit is probably too heavy for a D12-3. Mine flew even worse on an E9-4. I don’t have the gumption to try an E-11. There is no good motor for this kit. Only in perfect conditions on an E9-4 do you have a chance for success.

 

[RangerStl]

The E9-6 was a recommended motor. Even built stock the kit is probably too heavy for a D12-3. Mine flew even worse on an E9-4. I don’t have the gumption to try an E-11. There is no good motor for this kit. Only in perfect conditions on an E9-4 do you have a chance for success.

Now, I've never flown the big SS1, but if it will go on an E9, chances are it will go on a D12 as well. You might need a D12-3, but the initial thrust of a D12 is a little greater than the E9 so it should get a good straight kick off the pad. I notice this on my Big Daddy, it accelerates a little quicker on the D12.

I'm not really a big fan of Estes E9 engines for heavy draggy rockets, and especially not first flights. I always start with a D12 to see how it accelerates off the pad THEN go to an E9 if things look stable and solid.

Shoot, I might have to go looking for one on clearance someplace now.

 

[JStarStar]

Perhaps if Estes really is changing their marketing approach somewhat to address the needs of serious modelers a bit more, they might renew efforts to develop a reliable higher-thrust E engine, i.e., an E15 (or maybe E20) that actually works.

I get the impression that over the last 20 years or so, Estes has had little interest in broadening their engine selection -- they only developed the E9 when the E15 proved unreliable -- in fact, they seem to have been steadily cutting back.

Or, they may remain content to completely cede the E market to the other motor suppliers.

 

[RangerStl]

Perhaps if Estes really is changing their marketing approach somewhat to address the needs of serious modelers a bit more, they might renew efforts to develop a reliable higher-thrust E engine, i.e., an E15 (or maybe E20) that actually works.

I get the impression that over the last 20 years or so, Estes has had little interest in broadening their engine selection -- they only developed the E9 when the E15 proved unreliable -- in fact, they seem to have been steadily cutting back.

Or, they may remain content to completely cede the E market to the other motor suppliers.

Don't know... they still have decades of name recognition to capitalize on. I don't know exactly what the practical limit on BP engine impulse is, but the E9 seems to be close given their manufacturing methods. To go bigger they might have to change something major like cases or propellant. Not being an expert in their manufacturing process I can't really comment too much.

It might be nice to see the motor selection filled out again with 13mm and 18mm "A" boosters and such. There are engines from the good ol' days that could be re-introduced.

 

[Daddyisabar]

Now, I've never flown the big SS1, but if it will go on an E9, chances are it will go on a D12 as well. You might need a D12-3, but the initial thrust of a D12 is a little greater than the E9 so it should get a good straight kick off the pad. I notice this on my Big Daddy, it accelerates a little quicker on the D12.

I'm not really a big fan of Estes E9 engines for heavy draggy rockets, and especially not first flights. I always start with a D12 to see how it accelerates off the pad THEN go to an E9 if things look stable and solid.

Shoot, I might have to go looking for one on clearance someplace now.

The D12-3 was not a recommended motor. Love that kick off the pad but will it last long enough to get this foamy horror show high enough to recover properly, my guess would be that it did not. This ain't no tough & ready Big Daddy, them booms are mighty thin. Hopefully all these monsters wil be bought up by experienced rocketeers and properly flown. Maybe a D12-3 will work but even with the recommended motors you are going to need som luck with this one.

 

[RangerStl]

Yipe. Listed 5.3 Oz weight for the Daddy and 11 Oz for the SS1. :jaw:

Hmmm. Wonder what they were thinking.

 

[ghrocketman]

I see ONE major mistake with this launch- if there is ANY doubt that the flight will NOT go off as intended (i.e. start a fire due to a horizontal "cruise missile" flight), launch SOMETHING ELSE until the "authorities" (i.e. park ranger) leave.
That assures they can't shut you down for some penny-ante little fire. Don't take the chance that the launch Five-O will KNEE-JERK-REACT like virtually ALL law enforcement officials tend to. Just avoid the possibility.

The ONLY way to get these things to fly even remotely decently is to reinforce them to be able to take the power of E15 SU and E18/F12/F24 reloads

 

[Daddyisabar]

I see ONE major mistake with this launch- if there is ANY doubt that the flight will NOT go off as intended (i.e. start a fire due to a horizontal "cruise missile" flight), launch SOMETHING ELSE until the "authorities" (i.e. park ranger) leave.
That assures they can't shut you down for some penny-ante little fire. Don't take the chance that the launch Five-O will KNEE-JERK-REACT like virtually ALL law enforcement officials tend to. Just avoid the possibility.

The ONLY way to get these things to fly even remotely decently is to reinforce them to be able to take the power of E15 SU and E18/F12/F24 reloads

You got it dude. No one is flying anything remotely unstable out West. Want to fly you Mad Cow Jay Hawk for the first time - have to show your rocksim and pass the old finger CG test. 3FNC on the strait and narrow only cause the rangers are out in force. No paper towel tube scratch builds, no newbie clusters, no Cosmos Mariners, nothing too over or under powered. Anything perceived remotely off course is likely to generate a cell phone call anyway. Where are the good old days of free wheeling and little litigation and regulation? Yes, that must be golden age of rocketry they all talk about.

 

[Donaldsrockets]

Geeez. I guess that some of the BEST R/C Rocket Glider kits designed, like the OOP Cuda and Stingrays are mostly "lousy quality" because they almost surely would SHRED on an F12 instead of being boosted on an E6 as intended.

Geeez, what's with the attitude???

It's not like I was bashing Estes for making a low quality kit but while foam might have its uses, a rocket like this is not one of them.

Another problem is like a lot of Estes' larger kits, they are heavy and according to Estes, the max recommended lift weight for the E9 is roughly 15 ounces which I think is a bit optimistic.

I learned this the hard way. Several years ago when the E9's and kits for them were first released around 2001 IIRC. I had a brand new Maxi V-2 (built exactly per the instructions, didn't go overboard on the paint) arc over and crash after going horizontal on the E9 and yes, the conditions were perfect too.

No way will I ever have this happen again!!!

So in this case, it IS best to find a suitable replacement motor from another manufacturer such as AT that can do the job without over stressing the airframe.

Now George, I don't usually bash kit manufacturers for good quality products but when they make a flawed product like this, I do along with many others I'm sure and they deserve whatever flak they get for it.

I wonder just how they think people can fly this thing safely on any of the motors they produce.

 

[Daddyisabar]

Well, after a year and a half I finally got to fly the SS1 E again at the club launch. A perfect day, clear, calm with snow on the ground. As I approached the RSO there was a crowd of new flyers and I asked if I could fly a quality Estes product. I had done a quick mod by reinforcing the booms with carbon fiber rods applied with clear packing tape. The motor was an F-12-5 I had cut down to a 3 or 4 second delay. All the damage was repaired and a bit of touch up paint had done the trick.

Time heals all wounds and after a year and a half the reinforced SS1 E was once again to fly at CRASH. While tensely waiting for my number to launch one of the crowd members asked how do you get these to fly well, I simply answered "prayer." After a heads up call the foamy horror show could commence. 5-4-3-2-1-Launch! Lots of black smoke and off she went. Straight up, a gentle roll and leveled off into the very slight breeze, a second of glide and then a nice recovery. Not a scratch and a real crowd pleaser. I asked if the stock SS1 Es are still banned and the answer was YES.

 

[Adrian A]

Well, after a year and a half I finally got to fly the SS1 E again at the club launch. A perfect day, clear, calm with snow on the ground. As I approached the RSO there was a crowd of new flyers and I asked if I could fly a quality Estes product. I had done a quick mod by reinforcing the booms with carbon fiber rods applied with clear packing tape. The motor was an F-12-5 I had cut down to a 3 or 4 second delay. All the damage was repaired and a bit of touch up paint had done the trick.

Time heals all wounds and after a year and a half the reinforced SS1 E was once again to fly at CRASH. While tensely waiting for my number to launch one of the crowd members asked how do you get these to fly well, I simply answered "prayer." After a heads up call the foamy horror show could commence. 5-4-3-2-1-Launch! Lots of black smoke and off she went. Straight up, a gentle roll and leveled off into the very slight breeze, a second of glide and then a nice recovery. Not a scratch and a real crowd pleaser. I asked if the stock SS1 Es are still banned and the answer was YES.

I was there for that. Nice flight.

 

[Daddyisabar]

This is an old thread but the story went on. Another successful F -12 flight with the styrene reinforcement rods on the boom and the Pad Fuhrer unbanned it. Then I got cocky and tried an F 24. It crashed into pieces and the kit was rebanned. I glued the pieces back together and used a nose cone from another club member who had trashed his SS1E. Then I got my hands on an E 12-4 motor. This I thought would be the motor to propel a quality Estes product back into the loving graces of our RSO. Pleading for double secret probation and with fire hazards very low I got the chance to fly the foamy horror show once again. The wind was ever so slight but I wanted to prove the mighty E12 could do the trick. All the wrongs of the past would be righted. Finally, a day in the sun for the Spaceship One E.



Even with the slight breeze it went airplane, just a bit higher though on the E12 with more kick. No crash, it ejected well above the ground going horizontal. Just a slight break on the boom. After the long walk back I looked at the Pad Fuhrer and said" Still Banned?" With a nod of Yes all my hopes and dreams of Spaceship One E glory were crushed. The foamy horror show and the Cosmos Mariner are still amongst the banned.

 

[gdjsky01]

Love the photos!! Wonderful! Are you wearing tie-dye under the jacket?
Gorgeous background. Looks 'cold' ish...

3rd photo is really nice!

:clap:
Encore! Encore!

 

[K'Tesh]

This is an old thread but the story went on. Another successful F -12 flight with the styrene reinforcement rods on the boom and the Pad Fuhrer unbanned it. Then I got cocky and tried an F 24. It crashed into pieces and the kit was rebanned. I glued the pieces back together and used a nose cone from another club member who had trashed his SS1E. Then I got my hands on an E 12-4 motor. This I thought would be the motor to propel a quality Estes product back into the loving graces of our RSO. Pleading for double secret probation and with fire hazards very low I got the chance to fly the foamy horror show once again. The wind was ever so slight but I wanted to prove the mighty E12 could do the trick. All the wrongs of the past would be righted. Finally, a day in the sun for the Spaceship One E.

View attachment 162629View attachment 162630View attachment 162631View attachment 162632View attachment 162633

Even with the slight breeze it went airplane, just a bit higher though on the E12 with more kick. No crash, it ejected well above the ground going horizontal. Just a slight break on the boom. After the long walk back I looked at the Pad Fuhrer and said" Still Banned?" With a nod of Yes all my hopes and dreams of Spaceship One E glory were crushed. The foamy horror show and the Cosmos Mariner are still amongst the banned.

Having never seen one of these before, but seeing what you've been able to come up with, I'm wondering if you could come up with your own version (including materials of your choice) that would fly better?

 

[Daddyisabar]

Love the photos!! Wonderful! Are you wearing tie-dye under the jacket?
Gorgeous background. Looks 'cold' ish...

3rd photo is really nice!

:clap:
Encore! Encore!

The tie dye is the COSROCS "Love Peace and Rockets" club tee shirt. I wear it so that if one of my weird rockets would crash the CRASH members could blame it on that other club down South. The weather at that point was a bit cold. I should have waited until later in the day, but at that point I could not count on the forecast. Maybe a bit more patience for perfect conditions later in the day would have saved the SS1E, but it was not to be.

 

[Daddyisabar]

Having never seen one of these before, but seeing what you've been able to come up with, I'm wondering if you could come up with your own version (including materials of your choice) that would fly better?

Just ditch the foam booms and with some mods this thing would be just fine. Maybe some light glass skillfully applied to the stock kit would help. I am just trying to save face with all the Estes bashers and prove the SS1E was not a complete and dismal failure. I am not doing well.

 

[NJRick]

Daddy...all you need to do is bring this baby into your shop, throw her up on the work bench and work your magic on her....dump the foam booms....put on a rocking Luftwaffe camo scheme and turn her over to the Hauptmann...

Just ditch the foam booms and with some mods this thing would be just fine. Maybe some light glass skillfully applied to the stock kit would help. I am just trying to save face with all the Estes bashers and prove the SS1E was not a complete and dismal failure. I am not doing well.

 

[Daddyisabar]

Daddy...all you need to do is bring this baby into your shop, throw her up on the work bench and work your magic on her....dump the foam booms....put on a rocking Luftwaffe camo scheme and turn her over to the Hauptmann...

Way back I did the 18mm SS1 with a Luftwaffe scheme and it looked great. I told the fellers that Burt had stolen the design just like so many had done with late WWII German projects. They did not believe me even though I had the little model rocket to prove it really looked good. That rocket was lost in the rocket eating swamp, thus dooming my fantasy Space Ship One origin story.

If the SS1 E is ever going to fly again it will have to be modified. The stock kit just can't get by the Pad Fuhrer of Commissar.

 

[matthew]

I, too, have read all the reviews, etc. Still, I can't help but want one to experiment with as has been done here. Unfortunately, the purchase price plus the $25-30 shipping cost is too much for a "not worth $5" rocket. I guess I'll just have to continue flying one vicariously. Thanks for posting; especially the pics.

 

[aerostadt]

I can see why someone might not want to remove the booms, otherwise, the model is not close to being scale and the signature profile is lost. The usual cure is to use more nose weight, but that is such a common solution, perhaps it has already been done. One can get into a viscous circle, i.e., more nose weight means bigger motor, bigger motor means more nose weight, etc.

 

[Daddyisabar]

I, too, have read all the reviews, etc. Still, I can't help but want one to experiment with as has been done here. Unfortunately, the purchase price plus the $25-30 shipping cost is too much for a "not worth $5" rocket. I guess I'll just have to continue flying one vicariously. Thanks for posting; especially the pics.

You can have fun with a bad kit like this one but be aware for the price you are not getting a satisfactory flier or a rocket that is in any way durable built stock. I have seen this kit fly seven times and only twice would I say it flew decently. A long rod, perfect conditions and an E12-4 or F12-4 motor is required. To avoid likely damage to the booms on landing they need full length reinforcement.