I agreed 100 percent on oddrocs, great featvto launch but not interesting and that cone ugly.I have a hard time getting excited about any sort of oddroc. ...I legitimately don't know why. Example: at QCRC last weekend, someone flew a traffic barrel on an M2400. Flew straight as an arrow. I'm sure engineering that thing so it flew well was crazy hard, and as an engineer I appreciate everything that went into it. As a rocketeer, I'm doubly impressed that they made it fly well. But I don't get excited about it, and I honestly have no idea why. I wish I COULD get excited by those to be honest.
My favorites are large rockets that are low/slow type things, and anything long burn.
Here's the traffic barrel pulled from FB, my congrats to them who flew it. Crazy impressive.
View attachment 453544
And now we know how these strange, port-a-potty launching creatures are created. Fascinating.For me it's become any basic 3FNC or 4FNC Estes rocket. It wasn't always that way.
It started with the Estes Gnome. Back before I joined a club, I had my own Gnome. It was small and sleek and shiny silver and could go reasonably high on a fractional A motor.
Then I started helping at our club launches. Boy Scout troops showed up en masse with Gnomes. We'd help launch several dozen a day. It doesn't take too long for the same rocket flying the same profile to get monotonous. Then "monotonous" feeling grew to include any basic rocket. Whoosh pop. Whoosh pop. Whoosh pop. Rinse. Repeat.
It got to be that ANYTHING different was a welcome sight. I grew to love the ACME Spitfire, Interceptors, Estes Shuttle, Apogee Mean Machine, clusters, The Dude, scale Apollo or Mercury, gliders... Even the Estes rockets with the helicopter recovery nosecones are different enough to get my attention.
I love Oddrocs. Pyramids, spools, saucers all are interesting to me because their motor roars and spits fire all close to the ground. And when the thrust stops they slam on the air brakes. Another club officer refers to these as a waste of a motor, but he's wrong and I let him know he is. We haven't argued hard enough to warrant flipping over the launch table. Yet.
Oh, I didn't notice it was Imposter Mach Seven. Sure. Bout is scheduled for one fall. No holds barred (except face strikes, choke holds, half and full nelsons, and figure 4 leglocks). Loser becomes LilBabyMach and builds the other's favorite kit.Will the winner get full rights to the mach 7 (seven) name? ;-)
In the same vein, I put the V2 in the list. Probably not a favorite among Londoners, either.I'm sure I'm going to catch some hate for this too, but I've never understood the appeal of the Der Red Maxes. The shape/design is fine, but the decals. Didn't that side lose both wars?
More generally, anything made out of household garbage is not a rocket.I won't say I hate them, but I don't see the appeal of pyramids, spools, Happy Meal boxes, etc. I guess I just like rockets that look like...rockets.
Don't forget eye gouges and head butts. "Professional" wrestlers used to always do that when I was a kid.Oh, I didn't notice it was Imposter Mach Seven. Sure. Bout is scheduled for one fall. No holds barred (except face strikes, choke holds, half and full nelsons, and figure 4 leglocks). Loser becomes LilBabyMach and builds the other's favorite kit.
A student on our TARC team (who perfectly fits the "Awful things, why I'm going to hell, things I find funny Venn diagram on the LOL thread) had a small V2 that he flew at a large club launch under the name "To Winston from Werner." I died a little inside.In the same vein, I put the V2 in the list. Probably not a favorite among Londoners, either.
Hmm, Looking at the join dates I'm going to say I'm not the imposter Mach7.Oh, I didn't notice it was Imposter Mach Seven. Sure. Bout is scheduled for one fall. No holds barred (except face strikes, choke holds, half and full nelsons, and figure 4 leglocks). Loser becomes LilBabyMach and builds the other's favorite kit.
Hadn't ever seen that one before. Oh my. I would just say that whoever designed that one... well, had a very differently tuned aesthetic sense than my own.For my money there's no ulglier rocket than the OOP Starlight Seiron3. Everything is just off to my eye, from the proportions to the transition to the blunt nosecone with the, um, unfortunate paint scheme.
With apologies to Douglas Adams, it is of a size and proportion which more or less exactly failed to please the eye.
Thread case in point. The Seiron has cool exposed motor tubes, a torpedo-ish blunt nose, and the transition evokes staging ballistic missiles. I dont think it looks badHadn't ever seen that one before. Oh my. I would just say that whoever designed that one... well, had a very differently tuned aesthetic sense than my own.
This is an interesting question.Similar but less dramatic, Estes recently has a lot of nifty sci-fi rockets, but comparing them to the nifty sci-fi rockets from their 1980 catalog, the old ones seem way cooler. It it just nostalgia coloring my viewpoint or did those old designs really work better design-wise than the new ones?
Right! I like a lot of the design elements. I like non-standard nose cones, transitions, and clustered exposed motor mounts. Somehow it just comes together all wrong.That Seiron...
I agree with the sense that it's just "off" somehow. Lots of good design ideas, lots of style features that I usually find appealing, just everythings kind of the wrong size. Maybe someone who knows more about art design can explain why it doesn't work, because there's definitely something going on there...