The new "improved?" Estes E

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

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

Fishhead

Huge Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
4,023
Reaction score
831
Has anyone had any experiences with these yet? During the NARAM 43 sports launch, a guy came up to my brother in law and gave him a pre-production pack to fly his Phoenix on. It flew well, but knowing the problems that they had the last time, I just wondered if anyone had heard anything on these.
 
I have no idea my hobby lobbie dont carrie them buggers yet
 
Man, this is almost freaky. I just posted a reply to someone that referenced the old Estes E engines. And then I read your post about the "New improved Estes E engines."

Are they longer than the D engines, just like the older ones were? Are they black powder? Or did they go to some form of AP?

And another thing...... your brother has a Phoenix? One of the original AeroTech Rocket Glider Phoenixs? Cool.
 
Yes, they were longer than the D's. I wish I would have written down the engine code. All of the labels were turned around in the package, giving it a blank look.
BTW, it was my brother in law, Tony, and it was a Phoenix missle. My brother's interest in rocketry began and ended in 1977 when he and another friends little brother found it was more fun to stomp grasshoppers than fly rockets. They thought it was funny because some of the grasshoppers were riding on the backs of others.:D (Geez, get a room.) Anyway, Dave is into bigger, louder toys. He just bought a fully restored 1969 Dodge Charger.
 
Tony's Phoenix flew on an E9-6. He said it was underpowered, but the Phoenix is a pretty good size rocket. Maybe it will do well with more traditional D engine kits.
 
I have never had a suscesfull launch with a D in a phenox missile cause when I launched it it got up of the lauch rod turnd scorched the hair on the back of my haed as i dunked the made a compleat S in the sky till it strightend out and went to about 500 feet.
 
according to the estes web site, the E9-4, E9-6 and E9-8 come out next month, september.
they are the same size as the older E15s just lower avg thrust,
they arent gonna be like aerotech E's the estes ones will only have about 25-30 newton/seconds of power, like a C more than a D.

but they should be around 8 bucks for a 2 pack like last time, so thats not too bad
 
Tony's weathercocked at the 100' mark and went horizontal. I think he's had several adventurous flights with it, now that I think about it. Design flaw?
 
The family was going out to eat tonight, and my son and I went in one vehicle while my wife and daughter went in a different vehicle so that they could go shopping after dinner. Since my son and I got out of the house well ahead of the women (what a shocker....), and there just happens to be a hobby shop in the strip mall next to the restaurant we were going to, we decided to stop at the hobby shop for a few minutes to kill some time there to give the women a chance to catch up (how thoughtful of us...).

Welllll..... wouldn't you know it.... this hobby shop had just gotten in a very small shipment of the new Estes E engines. They had one three-pack each of E9-4, E9-6, and E9-8. I relieved them of the E9-4 and E9-6 packs.

Externally, they look just like the old Estes E15's looked: same length, same diameter. For those of you not familiar with the old E's, they are a 24mm engine, but they are one inch longer (3.75 inches vs 2.75 inches) than the D12s. The price for the engines was 14.99 + tax per three-pack, which makes them a little over $5 per engine.

My local group is tentatively planning a low-power launch next Saturday 10/6. If conditions allow it, I will try the new engines in my vintage Estes Broadsword and maybe even try one in a LongShot as a single stage (yes, the upper stage of the LongShot was an 18mm motor mount per the kit instructions.... but I am notoriously bad about following instructions.... besides, it was just *begging* to be converted to a 24mm motor mount). Both rockets have been around long enough that they have the 3.75 inch 24mm motor mount.

If we ever get to fly at Whitakers again (which as of yesterday is looking like a possibility again) I might try the LongShot in a
D12-0 to an E9-8 two stage configuration. I think that would be cool.

As soon as I try these new E's at a launch I'll do a follow-up report here.
 
My friend Jim flew an estes E9 motor in his stock-built Launch Pad Bull Puppy (the small one), and it was real doggy. About 1 sec. into the burn, the rocket leaned over to about 45 degrees and thrusted downrange. The same rocket flies straigt as an arrow on a D12. My opinion of the E9 is not-so-good....
 
I have heard a lot of that but have still to fly one of them.
 
They would probably fly well in a 4-5oz kit...the Launch Pad BullPuppy kit is probably around 10 oz and too heavy for the motor...hence the poor performance. Remember, even though it's an "E" it is still a low average impulse of 9...no where close to a D12...just a long burn time.

Carl
 
Originally posted by CTulanko
They would probably fly well in a 4-5oz kit...the Launch Pad BullPuppy kit is probably around 10 oz and too heavy for the motor...hence the poor performance. Remember, even though it's an "E" it is still a low average impulse of 9...no where close to a D12...just a long burn time.

Carl

Carl... Someone should tell Estes that... :) They market the new V2 (at 12.5 Oz.) for the E9 motor. If it flew the 2.6" bull puppy (less than 10oz. btw... Maybe 8) doggy on a windless day, what is it going to do with that 4" V2? How about in a slight breeze?
 
Todd,

Sounds to me like they have a big problem and you are right on about the advertising. I think Estes needs to revamp views on the E9.

If you do the math, you can see there is not enough thrust; you want around a 5 to 1 thrust ratio for most launches and is works out like this:

9ns / 4.45 = 2.02 lbs of thrust for the E9

2.02 / 5 = .404 lbs, which is is 6.46 ounces, so...

for a launch with enough velocity to get it off the pad safely, the E9 motor will work well for models up to 6 1/2 ounces or so with the given 5 to 1 thrust ratio. Note that you need to INCLUDE the weight of the motor in the final 6.5 oz figure.

I see nothing but heartache and disater when trying to launch a 12-14 oz V2 on an E9.

Hope this was helpful,

Carl
 
A little more on this topic:

From a "Wind Caused Instability" report on Apogee's Website:

"High thrust/short burn time motors are preferred in windy conditions.

Divide the average thrust of a typical Aerotech motor (in Newtons) by 3.42 to get a rough estimate of the initial thrust in pounds. In windy conditions, divide by 30, or divide by 100 and then multiply by 3 for a rough, usually conservative estimate of maximum rocket gross weight for a thrust/weight ratio of about 10 or 11 to 1 at launch. (Based on initial thrust 1.3 times average thrust.) Just remember that not all Aerotech motors are typical. It's always more accurate to look at the thrust curve.

On a calm day, you can divide the average thrust by 20, which gives the launch weight for a thrust/weight ratio around 5.85:1. As always, the rocket's liftoff weight should never exceed the maximum liftoff weight specified for the particular motor by its manufacturer."

BUT, consider this:

"The average initial thrust is usually not the same as the average thrust (which is averaged over the entire burn time of the motor). The difference is most pronounced with thrust profiles like those of the Estes A10 and C5, the Aerotech/Apogee F10, and the Aerotech K125W. With thrust profiles like these, the average initial thrust is several times higher than the average thrust, to give the rocket good acceleration off the launcher.

There are some motors with initial thrust lower than their average thrust, such as the Aerotech K185W, the Rocketflite Silver Streaks, and the Plasmajet I102.

Most Aerotech rocket motors have an initial thrust somewhere between 1.1 and 2.0 times their average thrust."

SO, what I am I trying to say. Well, I have yet to see the thrust curve on the E9, however, if it is a high initial thrust curve like the Apogee E6 or F12 then you might get away with a little heavier rocket than the ol' 5:1 method.

- Nick
 
Bull Puppy is a less naturally stable rocket than the V2. Any problems in flight (a gust of wind at the wrong time or some launch rod whip) will be magnified.

At the same time, the Estes V2 should not be flown on an E9 unless there is NO wind. I wouldn't even fly it on a D12 if the wind was even a little breezy. For breezy conditions, the E30 or a D21-4 would be best.

Finally, If you do use Aerotech motors in your Estes V2, remember that there is still delay material burning in your short delay aerotech motor after the ejection charge goes off. This will usually burn forward into the rocket and after just a few flights will weaken or burn through the motor mount tube just ahead of the motor, and will ruin your rocket. before installing the motor, put a layer of manilla folder, or a heavy paper , or a slit scrap of BT50 around the inside of the tube in just ahead of the motor, and remember to take it out after the flight. Heck, it might be good to do that even with an Estes motor. It will make your rocket last longer.
 
I bought 3 my self and was amazed at the jump of price from D's (for 3 of them $11.40) i dont know if there that much at a hobby store because i purchased them at a launch but i flew one on my initator and it went pretty well didnt like the delay but yeah
 
You got a pretty good deal if you paid $11.40 for a 3-pack. At my local hobby shop they are $14.95 for a 3-pack.
 
I have flown three E9-6's. I got them at NARAM.

Estes Pheonix - Wind cocked

LOC Aura - Great flight (little wind)

Light weight scratch built thing (3 fins and a nose cone) - good

I think to get these things to work is have a simple stable design.

I will buy more. Hope to find a Silver Comet and modify it to be flown on the E9s.

PS That spell check is sorta cool.
 
I'll have to join the crowd suggesting not flying the 4"V2 on an E9-4. I flew mine today in basically windless conditions & it arched over considerably. It was coming straight down when the ejection charge blew. It missed some power lines but landed on asphalt, damaging the tip of one fin.

It flew quite well on an AT E15-4, but zippered just a bit. I'm thinking, maybe the E9-4 might work in an AT Cheetah. I get good flights on a D12-5 with the Cheetah.
 
I was just WAITING for someone to post!! You brought up a 2-year old thread lol. I have never used an E9, it was recommended to me that I use it on a Blue Ninja.
 
well, I just LOVE the E9 in my 3-engine cluster Richter Recker! It's the cats-meow!

Now i'm hoping to try them in my 24mm Deuce's Wild! upscale at the next CMASS launch!

jim
 
The E9 should work well in the Blue Ninja. I would think a 6 second delay would work, since the rocket weighs less than 6 ounces.
 
I've used them in an Estes Executioner with a bit of an arching flight.

However in the Estes Big Daddy it seems almost perfect, very nice flights with E9-4's...
 
I got desperate to fly something bigger than a "D" modroc while waiting for the corn fields to get harvested here. So I decided to try my Arreaux on an E9. What a pleasant surprise!

I wouldn't try it in any kind of wind, but so far I've gotten two great flights out of it on an E9-6 and E9-4. The 4-sec delay was perfect, deployed right after apogee. It was a slow, impressive flight to around 300 feet. Straight up, no weathercocking - which was a real surprise. And it was built with 15min. epoxy so it's not exactly a light model. I imagine the fact that it's a skinny, overstable design helped. There's no way I'd risk my Saturn V on this motor even though it should come out weighing about the same.
 
Back
Top