The good old days.

[Art Upton]

Considering the number of people into this Hobby, I can't believe how many options are available. Most don't even know this Hobby even exists and most have no place to launch even if they are interested. Sure I wished they made a D--6 or D-8. BP motor but the D-12 is fine and affordable so I make it work.

What would you use that for? In BP it needs to be at least 22mm, like the few Quest D5s I have left. From that it's a RC boost glider motor if that, as it really can't lift its own weight much, just like the FSI F7 was in a sub min rocket would go into the wind once the boost part of the thrust curve went away.

That is why AP motors came out to get D motors into 18mm.

 

[SolarYellow]

Don't forget Quest kits.

Personally, I have no problem with the range of motors available to me. The list of rockets I want to build that can be powered by motors that are readily available still expands exponentially faster than any possibility of time to build them.

I'd like longer delays in the 18mm Quest motors and 24/40 reloads. I wish there was a place that offered standard AeroTech pricing (i.e., not Apogee) for the E6 and F10 motors. I wish CTI was offering better availability and service. I wish AT hardware didn't cost so much. I wish sanding rockets well didn't take me so long. Can't really think of any other wishes to throw at this hobby.

Affordable laser cutters, CNC routers, 3D printers of both goo and string, and all the electronics that are available make these the good old days.

 

[Art Upton]

I don't mind buying the occasional RTF rocket, in particular if I'm flying somewhere that has a lot of trees or other "issues". It's more of a "meh" to lose a cheap RTF than something I've spent a lot of time on.

Hans.

I have a shelf of the Estes pre-build rockets I got at the "Lobby" when they were 50% off. They are great to put in a larger Quest motor or even a C6 and not worry about them getting into the woods to the east of the small field I could fly them in local.

 

[PDawg]

What would you use that for? In BP it needs to be at least 22mm, like the few Quest D5s I have left. From that it's a RC boost glider motor if that, as it really can't lift its own weight much, just like the FSI F7 was in a sub min rocket would go into the wind once the boost part of the thrust curve went away.

Smaller , lighter weight BT-50 and BT-55 Rockets that fly great on a C-6. I like longer thrust times, but I realize it would be a low demand so I can make do with what's already in production.

 

[Art Upton]

agreed

Some competitive domestic 10mm BP motors would be nice.
Missing historical motors such as:
the Original Centuri C5-0
13mm B motors (MPC)
18mm Cox D8
Most of the AVI Gold Series motors
FSI 21mm D20 and E5 (the contest certified D) motors
And of course more mundane motors that might out perform Estes on price and reliability.

I still have a few 10mm B to B motors and the kits that Ed put to get to fly the 10mm Bs to a mile high. ED also wrote why they would not ever come back so ask him about it.

The 18mm Cox D8 never made it into any stores for sale, I wanted one in early 70s, never made it to get to buy unless you where one of the elite rocket folks to get early ones.

I had most of the AVI gold motors [d-e-f] , glad to have AP motors now instead.

FSI motors were over rated, Still To this day I do not Understand how S&T allowed the F100 to be sold as that when it was proven it was an E50. Anyway the FSI E60 motor [likly an E24] got me a Mercury Dual Egg Altitude Record at 14 years of age in a regional in 1975.

On the FSI D18, it was causing scale models to fall from the sky as it was really about a D5 . E5 again like the F7 needed a Sub Min rocket to fly it in. I did ..

I did make and fly the FSI F100 to D20 Mach buster in the early 80s; that was fun

 

[Art Upton]

Smaller , lighter weight BT-50 and BT-55 Rockets that fly great on a C-6. I like longer thrust times, but I realize it would be a low demand so I can make do with what's already in production.

The extra weight of the Quest D5 22mm motors and the 22mm FSI D-low-number something motor could not lift a BT50 rocket much after the spike of the thrust curve stopped, then they went straight "Into The Wind" just like the F7s

Quest even recommended them for Boost Gliders

 

[astronwolf]

Not burned out yet, just bored with Estes.

Seemed like you were maybe burning out, but I understand now.

Estes has some good products. I'd say that the quality and variety of their products is as good or better than they've ever been. And some of the rockets are just, Wow. For instance, when I first saw the Antar kit I thought it was some dumb rocket with plastic crap and all - I'd never buy that kit. But I was wrong. It is 110% a challenging, and sharp-looking, builders kit. And the box art is a real hoot! Check it out.

 

[skaffgeorge2]

916

Seemed like you were maybe burning out, but I understand now.

Estes has some good products. I'd say that the quality and variety of their products is as good or better than they've ever been. And some of the rockets are just, Wow. For instance, when I first saw the Antar kit I thought it was some dumb rocket with plastic crap and all - I'd never buy that kit. But I was wrong. It is 110% a challenging, and sharp-looking, builders kit. And the box art is a real hoot! Check it out.

The Antar is not really my cup of tea

Seemed like you were maybe burning out, but I understand now.

Estes has some good products. I'd say that the quality and variety of their products is as good or better than they've ever been. And some of the rockets are just, Wow. For instance, when I first saw the Antar kit I thought it was some dumb rocket with plastic crap and all - I'd never buy that kit. But I was wrong. It is 110% a challenging, and sharp-looking, builders kit. And the box art is a real hoot! Check it out.

The Antar is not really my cup of tea, but the Star Orbiter and Cherokee E are nice. Also the Doorknob, possibly the Comanche3.My focus is mainly on old out of production kits.I've managed to find several nice ones,I have two FSI Vikings,got both of them for really great prices.Just started an Estes Teros, really great looking kit. Should be ready by the middle of next month.In the hunt for an original Estes USS Andromeda.

 

[PDawg]

I believe you, but some of my D-12 powered rockets fly soo fast and straight they don't need that punch off the pad., those same rockets fly great on a b or c 6 motor. A D -12 is not that much heavier than a C-6. Apogee sells an E-6, I'd imagine a D-6 would weigh less than that. I'm into min diameter high flying stuff. My E-12-8 min Diameters have ranged from 9 to 20 inches long and are fun once in a while, every one flew straight. I even get them back half the time. . An Estes D-6 would have no problems lifting my MD rockets off the pad, and would be like a long burning C-6. I doubt they would sell enough however.

 

[SolarYellow]

I believe you, but some of my D-12 powered rockets fly soo fast and straight they don't need that punch off the pad., those same rockets fly great on a b or c 6 motor. A D -12 is not that much heavier than a C-6. Apogee sells an E-6, I'd imagine a D-6 would weigh less than that. I'm into min diameter high flying stuff. My E-12-8 min Diameters have ranged from 9 to 20 inches long and are fun once in a while, every one flew straight. I even get them back half the time. . An Estes D-6 would have no problems lifting my MD rockets off the pad, and would be like a long burning C-6. I doubt they would sell enough however.

Be bold. Fly some E9-8s.

I have a bulk pack of Alphas. Will be building a few MD.

 

[Vonskii]

One aspect I haven't seen mentioned here is archives and clone kits. I would say ~95% of Estes OOP kits have been completely and professionally archived on JimZ Spacemodeling website. The Centuri kit collection is a little less complete, but most of the popular/familiar kits have all the info needed to build. Instructions, fin templates, parts list, decal scans, it's there for any rocket you'd wish to make. My favorite is looking through the old Estes Designer of the Month rocket plans, I love seeing the creative things people were coming up with in the 70's and replicating them myself. Ninfinger also has most of the old catalogs archived as well on his website, for Centuri, Estes, and other smaller companies. If you ever feel nostalgic and want the feeling of leafing through a vintage catalog, print it off and reminisce

Fast forward a bit, and you had companies like Sunward Aerospace designing flying pyramids, flying Umbrellas, and fighter plane styled rockets in the mid 2000's. A lot of other smaller companies came and went like Edmounds Aerospace, with most of their plans being archived on JimZ website. Also during this time were independent designers popping up on the rocketry forum, utilizing programs like OpenRocket for new exotic designs. Shrox was REALLY pushing the boundaries on what a rocket is... his builds included ping pong balls, CDs, asymmetry, disjointed body tubes, anything you can think of. I feel like this has carried on into guys like Neil W; I look at his designs and just drool sometimes!

Finally we are in the current day, where all of this info is readily available, parts aren't too hard to get, and the possibilities seem endless from my perspective. While the past may have been simpler (look through the Estes catalog for a cool rocket, buy said rocket), I'm not sure if that's exactly better. I think there has been a lot of development in the field of model rocketry, and we are at a point where there aren't many limitations. Anything from the past can be brought back (except for some niche things like B14-0 motors), and new things are created and shared everyday. That's just my 2 cents as a guy born after the 90's.

 

[Alan15578]

I still have a few 10mm B to B motors and the kits that Ed put to get to fly the 10mm Bs to a mile high. ED also wrote why they would not ever come back so ask him about it.

The US FAI competitors need something like that. For NAR competition, I thought they were too expensive, to high performing, and took the sport to place we should not go. I never bought any, not even for my motor collection.

The 18mm Cox D8 never made it into any stores for sale, I wanted one in early 70s, never made it to get to buy unless you where one of the elite rocket folks to get early ones.

I bought all of my Cox D8s from brick and mortar stores, OTOH I have yet to see the newish Estes C5-3, A3-2t, A3-6t motors in stores. YMMV.

I had most of the AVI gold motors [d-e-f] , glad to have AP motors now instead.

FSI motors were over rated, Still To this day I do not Understand how S&T allowed the F100 to be sold as that when it was proven it was an E50. Anyway the FSI E60 motor [likly an E24] got me a Mercury Dual Egg Altitude Record at 14 years of age in a regional in 1975.

Wait, I though you wre defending and preferring AP motors. The whole idea of Mercury Dual Eggloft was that you could experience the fun of flying an AP motor (Centuri Enerjet E24) at contest in a city park. I know I did. I'm half of the old Dual Eggloft team. Still, my teammate preferred to fly with with the AVI E11. I did set a B/G record with an F100 at NARAM-14, but that is drifting off topic.

On the FSI D18, it was causing scale models to fall from the sky as it was really about a D5 . E5 again like the F7 needed a Sub Min rocket to fly it in. I did ..

I did make and fly the FSI F100 to D20 Mach buster in the early 80s; that was fun

Those FSI D18s performed nominally to their certified specs. My favorite E5 rocket was the Big Birtha, and it flew great with the FSI E5. I also much enjoyed my Centuri UFO powered by the E5. I did build a min diameter D20/E5 two stage fire and forget model to fly a planetarium launch, but it was not flown due to wind. You were conned; You will never break Mach 1 with the FSI Mach Buster.

 

[RokitFlyr]

What I miss is (are?) the instructions. They "instructed" the building process and gave info on techniques. Today's version ( Estes anyway) are barely more than Hieroglyphics in my opinion.

 

[neil_w]

What I miss is the instructions. They "instructed" the building process and gave info on techniques. Today's version ( Estes anyway) are barely more than Hieroglyphics in my opinion.

I actually agree with this. While the diagrams are generally quite good, the current Estes instructions still requires a good bit of careful effort to interpret correctly. I also am not crazy about the giant fold-out sheets, would prefer something that comes out more orderly in PDF form (right now finding the correct page sequence is an adventure). Presumably this is all for the purpose of supporting other languages, but I am not a fan.

The more straightforward checklist-style instructions I've gotten (e.g.) from Newway and Odd'l are much better, but would require quite a bit more effort to translate, if they were to be sold in non-English speaking markets.

 

[SolarYellow]

I actually agree with this. While the diagrams are generally quite good, the current Estes instructions still requires a good bit of careful effort to interpret correctly.

They're fine if you already know how to build a rocket.

 

[BABAR]

I miss not being able to find a vacant lot on the edge of town and just being able to fly low power rockets.

due to a lot of work on the parts of NAR, Tripoli, Estes and many other companies, and many great people on this forum, Model Rocketry is one of the safest hobbies out there, particularly outdoor STEM type. Nothing at all against soccer, little league, skateboard parks, but guarantee all of them have far more injuries including hospitalizations although likely few deaths compared to rocketry. To my limited knowledge, aside from power line recovery stupidity, rocketry only has one death and that was an unfortunate freak accident.

i am disappointing that local city and country governments aren’t encouraging rocketry by providing more places to fly. I am guessing that a number of cities have enough experienced rocketeers to provide at least monthly if not weekly supervised flights. I can’t even get the local parks services to return a phone call.

 

[4regt4]

They're fine if you already know how to build a rocket.

Some people don't.

I was watching, and occasionally helping, someone who had never built a rocket before assemble a simple kit. An Estes Sky Writer. I had to step in a few times to explain what was going on.

Hans.

 

[neil_w]

They're fine if you already know how to build a rocket.

Pretty sure I know how to build a rocket. The pictorial instructions still take more effort to follow and give more opportunities for mistakes. IMHO.

 

[SolarYellow]

Some people don't.

I was watching, and occasionally helping, someone who had never built a rocket before assemble a simple kit. An Estes Sky Writer. I had to step in a few times to explain what was going on.

Hans.

That was kind of my point.

 

[James Duffy]

The US FAI competitors need something like that.

Actually, they don't.

Sure 10mm motors are cool, but note that the recent World Championships held here in the US were contested using only Estes and Aerotech motors. Will that carry over to the next Championships? The jury is still out on that, but the competitors seemed to appreciate the simplicity of using the same motors that were available to every other competitor.

 

[4regt4]

That was kind of my point.

Ah, yes. I see that now....... I was seeing the comment from the other side of the fence. As Gilda Radner used to say: "Never mind."

Hans.

 

[Cape Byron]

I actually agree with this. While the diagrams are generally quite good, the current Estes instructions still requires a good bit of careful effort to interpret correctly.

For me the best instructions were @Doug Holverson ’s kits. Well written, beautifully illustrated, checklists, project ideas and more. The gold standard, IMHO.

 

[Art Upton]

I miss not being able to find a vacant lot on the edge of town and just being able to fly low power rockets.

due to a lot of work on the parts of NAR, Tripoli, Estes and many other companies, and many great people on this forum, Model Rocketry is one of the safest hobbies out there, particularly outdoor STEM type. Nothing at all against soccer, little league, skateboard parks, but guarantee all of them have far more injuries including hospitalizations although likely few deaths compared to rocketry. To my limited knowledge, aside from power line recovery stupidity, rocketry only has one death and that was an unfortunate freak accident.

i am disappointing that local city and country governments aren’t encouraging rocketry by providing more places to fly. I am guessing that a number of cities have enough experienced rocketeers to provide at least monthly if not weekly supervised flights. I can’t even get the local parks services to return a phone call.

Most all the local parks have a sign saying "no model planes , kites or rockets"; It is like it is out of a playbook?

PS: some of the new signs added Drones to the list

 

[James Duffy]

What I miss is (are?) the instructions. They "instructed" the building process and gave info on techniques. Today's version ( Estes anyway) are barely more than Hieroglyphics in my opinion.

The drawing-based instructions allow more sales into more geographies than text instructions. While some of us bemoan the passage of the traditional builder's instructions, they allow Estes to sell more products into more countries, which ideally makes the company healthier. And, as we all should recognize, a healthy Estes means a healthy hobby.

During his Quest days Bill Stine shared that instruction art, translation, and printing was one of the most expensive elements of kit production.

 

[BABAR]

.

During his Quest days Bill Stine shared that instruction art, translation, and printing was one of the most expensive elements of kit production.

I thought the most expensive part was the nose cone.

Now with price of balsa may be fins (may go back to Viking heavy card stock days. Or maybe that’s why all the plastic fin cans?)

If printing is really that much, can just go with online instructions.

I have a Fake Wulf opened unbuilt. I think it came with a CD for instructions.

 

[SolarYellow]

If printing is really that much, can just go with online instructions.

I reckon it's not the printing, it's the production. Quality artists and technical writers are able to work almost anywhere, so they can compete for higher-paying work from companies that need it.

 

[Art Upton]

The drawing-based instructions allow more sales into more geographies than text instructions. While some of us bemoan the passage of the traditional builder's instructions, they allow Estes to sell more products into more countries, which ideally makes the company healthier. And, as we all should recognize, a healthy Estes means a healthy hobby.

During his Quest days Bill Stine shared that instruction art, translation, and printing was one of the most expensive elements of kit production.

I've always been curious, how many other countries allow Estes Engines to be sold? I assume their sales of rocket kits to other countries are for static models only ?

 

[James Duffy]

I thought the most expensive part was the nose cone.

The nose cone may indeed be the most expensive single element of a modern commercially-produced model rocket kit, but I will bet you that the packaging and printed elements used in an Estes kit are more expensive than the kit elements themselves. Furthermore, it probably costs more to ship a kit to a purchaser than to produce the kit itself!

(Note that I have no proprietary access to Estes information, just experience with the BOM of other finished consumer goods.)

 

[James Duffy]

If printing is really that much, can just go with online instructions.

I should expand further on that conversation with Bill from years ago. Hiring an artist to produce the artwork for kit instructions is the big ticket item, not the printing. That expense would still remain even if the instructions were download-only.

There's also a marketing element called "perceived value." Even if downloaded/print at home directions were a serious consideration. the loss of value perceived by the customer would be greater than the cost of printing and including the instructions with the kit.

For a low-volume product like Scott's excellent Fake-Wulf kit, it's not that big a deal and a CD-ROM* is fine. For a consumer-focused company like Estes, who must meet the needs of a much wider market, skimping on instruction printing would be ill-advised. Besides, at the quantities they produce the marginal cost is very low.

(*In today's market a CD-ROM included in a kit would be a terrible idea, as vanishingly few computers are produced with optical drives today.)

 

[SolarYellow]

*Just checking the obvious current memory device option. The cheapest micro/SD cards are still about a buck a piece on Amazon. Too much to include just to communicate digital data. A simple sheet with URLs and QR codes would be better value for the buyer and seller.