Just curious as I am not that long in rocketry ....Why DO people seem to get on TLP and give them verbal krypotonite. TLP seem to attract a fair amount of ire from people so much so that it almost put me off buying the Perseus II (but then I thought that maybe the moaners were sissies and that a challenge wasn't a bad thing really
).
I didnt find Perseus II all that challenging to be honest - it was a lot of hard work but then thats what I like, there are some things left out of the instructions and its probably not a kit for the complete beginner but I would estimate that anyone with a modicum of rocket building and some reasonable DiY skills wouldnt have too much trouble - you dont need to be North American Aviation to build it. It requires no special tools or know how to assemble. Granted the Gabriel looks a lot harder (and thats why its down on my 'To Do' list).
The verbal flak seems to come over stuff like paper parts, thin tubes etc but I wouldnt say that the tubes and paper construction is any different to Fliskits and theres nothing wrong with Jims work at Fliskits and people adore them - I just cant see why TLP get hate mail.
Yes they are lightweight construction (except when overbuilt by me
) but they have to be to get a large rocket off the pad with only MPR motors.
I love their kits - the range is good and its great to be able to fly a thumping big rocket that looks the bomb on relatively inexpensive motors. I could afford to do HPR but I doint really have the time, the construction facilities or a field where I could fly it and reasonably expect to get it back. I dont want to drive for three hours for every launch and get into a world of 'pro' level building with exotic elements. I could afford it easily, compared to some other hobbies I have and have had its not that expensive - but I dont want to commit that level of time and cash - TLP stuff gives me the option to build something big and bold on not much resource and for that I for one am mighty thankful TLP are around.
For me TLP give the chance to have something a bit bigger (all right a lot bigger) than the average Estes kit with a bit more skill required to bujild it. Estes are great for when you start up but I find them nowehere near challenging enough to build - pretty much shake and bake which is great for the complete newbie no nothing, in fact me two years ago. But as I moved on I wanted more of a challenging build and sureley thats what a big part of the hobby is about or else we would see finished rockets for sale from vendors - simply light the fuse and retire fast type stuff.
So ..........why do TLP get so much stick - it seems very unfair and unjust to me.
For the same basic reasons I outlined earlier from what I've seen...
Folks pick up a TLP kit because it's a cool looking big rocket (like you mentioned, "thumping big"... have to remember that one) and they're in all likelihood expecting it to be built like a big HPR kit... IOW, plywood, fiberglass, heavy wall tube, etc. Then they're disappointed because it's NOT a HPR kit, neither is it advertised to be, but a MIDPOWER kit, meaning D, E, F, and maybe G motors (not the "blink and they're gone" type super-fast takeoff type motors). TLP uses a "design mindset" that seems all but lost in the hobby nowadays. Most everybody seems of the mindset that just because most of the HPR kit manufacturers use heavy thick wall tubing, fiberglass, plywood, and other heavy construction methods (foam filled fin cans, tons of epoxy, etc) that somehow that equates to the only "correct" way to build a kit. The resulting product is usually so slathered in epoxy and fiberglass or built of such stout materials as to practically be an "anti-tank round" and folks even brag on that... "it came in ballistic from a couple thousand feet and just scratched the paint" and other such comments... Of course the fact that the thing is SO heavy that they have to use a high-impulse HPR rocket motor due to the overbuilt components never occurs to them (or the consequences to anyone/anything the thing might hit on the ground).
TLP uses the old "model rocket" method of construction... lightweight components to get the maximum performance out of the available rocket motor power (rather than the "just shove a bigger motor in it" mindset I've seen predominate in a lot of HPR folks). The reasons are twofold-- first, the kits are designed to fly on MIDPOWER motors-- not requiring certification and a HPR waivered launch to fly, etc. By definition this means limited total impulse and motor choice (in the way the impulse is delivered, IE thrust/time curve). This limits the total weight of the rocket. Second, since the designs are based on actively stabilized military missiles that are either unstable or barely stable when passively guided (as virtually all model (and HPR) rockets are) then they require considerable additional nose weight to make them stable, eating into the precious mass allotment that the chosen rocket motors can lift, leaving less mass allotment available for the airframe, recovery system, motor mount(s), fins, and other stuff (as needed). This means that the CG/CP relationship is already somewhat precarious, as is the mass, and therefore material choice and building methods are traded off against making a stable, safe to fly, relatively easy to build kit that can still fly on LIMITED motor power. This really flies in the face of some people's thought process, especially when it comes to "big" rockets...
Some folks buy the kit, see the lightweight balsa and thin paper tubes, etc, and think "what a piece of crap" and "this'll never hold up" and proceed to replace everything with plywood, thick tubing, fiberglass, epoxy, and other "HPR materials" and proceed to build it as an anti-tank round, and then whine about the 'crappy materials' TLP puts in their kits. Then they either gripe about the poor performance (or occasional instability because they didn't think through the stability issues relating to adding extra weight where it wasn't designed to have it, as the CG/CP relationship was already touchy due to the missile design) due to it being too heavy for the motor power available, or they decide they have to put a bigger motor mount in it for the extra weight and to fly on HPR... which is fine, if that's what they want to do... some folks come at it with the attitude "screw the wimpy midpower motors; I want to fly that baby on a zippy "I" or "J" motor, so I'll shove a bigger mount in it and be ready to go... then when they get the kit realize that thin lightweight balsa and thin wall tubes will never hold up to that level of power, and have to proceed to rebuild it with heavier materials into an anti-tank round... Either way, the result is usually the same... they usually gripe, whine, moan, and complain about buying a $30-40 buck MPR kit and, surprise surprise, it wasn't a HPR kit like they wanted after all...
I agree, there's little room to gripe... Fact is, TLP's are designed how "large model rocket" kits were designed BEFORE HPR was anything but an illegal maverick activity being conducted by a handful of people... back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, before HPR even came along... (or at least before it was 'sanctioned'). Back then you HAD to build light because the biggest motor you could get "legally" was the FSI F100 (IIRC) and even those were expensive and somewhat dicey (in reliability terms). The other issue is, the larger the rocket, the more likely it is to be damaged in flight or on the ground in handling, transport, or storage... simple as that. Smaller rockets have less mass, the forces acting on them in handling, transit, storage, launch, flight, and landing are commensurately smaller, and hence they usually will survive without incident (or only cosmetic or minor damage) stuff that would destroy a larger model rocket. Increasing the motor power only compounds these issues... even the older editions of the "Handbook of Model Rocketry" by G. Harry Stine commented on reaching the 'speed of balsa' at which a model rocket would shred apart from the motor power acting upon it, in the form of acceleration, atmospheric drag, fin flutter, or other dynamic forces in flight, coupled with the construction material's physical strength or design, construction methods, or limitations of adhesives or methods used... On the ground, sitting on the workbench, storage box, display shelf, or prep table, a heavier larger rocket falling over will often break something, either on itself or another rocket, where a smaller lighter one will not, just due to the sheer difference in mass...
When one goes up to HPR, the most straightforward method to strengthen the rocket to survive the motor impulse induced flight loads it to switch to thicker, heavier, stronger materials (surprise, surprise). Plywood instead of balsa, thick wall paper tubes instead of thin wall, plywood rings instead of cardstock or balsa, fiberglass to replace any/all of that, and/or extra fiberglassing or epoxy to stiffen stuff up, foam-filled fincans or motor mounts, etc... Of course all that weighs extra, which means either 1) a bigger motor is needed for desired performance, or 2) the performance will be less than it would be with "softer" (lighter) building materials and methods... It's all about choices and tradeoffs...
Personally, some of the most INSPIRING builds I've seen aren't HPR rockets at all... John Pursley (former NAR magazine editor when it was "American Spacemodeling") does some INCREDIBLY cool builds using 1/64 lite-ply for tubes and rings and depron foam and other ultra-lightweight materials to construct what would ordinarily be a fairly large HPR motor-propelled rocket, that flies strictly on non-certification requiring "model rocket motors" (what TLP would call a "Mid-Power" motor-- ie D, E, F, and G). To me, I find a rocket that's over six feet tall and over a foot in diameter that can be lifted with one hand and flies on a "G" motor to be INFINITELY more interesting than some fiberglassed epoxy-slobbered anti-tank round that's half that size but requires two guys to carry and flies on some monstrous motor, no matter how loud, smoky, whatever...
I'm like you... I *could* get into HPR, but there's nothing there that really interests me... a bigger "whoosh pop" (maybe "roar, bang") doesn't do much for me; plus I STEADFASTLY REFUSE to get "certified" for ANY *hobby* activity... got enough of that crap to do IRL, don't need it for a *leisure* activity... Don't see blowing the money or going to the trouble worthwhile either (though there are those who do; more power to them...) I can do anything I'm interested in doing in rocketry with the available power in the "model rocket" motor world anyway, and of course MID POWER, just like the TLP kits are designed for... (AS they are designed, without all the heavyweight mods). Plus, it's darn nice to be able to get a nice kit for less than $100 bucks (or darn close to it). That's why I like TLP and Dr. Zooch-- they're nice OLD SCHOOL BUILDER'S KITS and priced appropriately...
Later! OL JR