What are your least favorite (or most hated) rocket designs?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
For my money there's no ulglier rocket than the OOP Starlight Seiron3.
Oh my. I would just say that whoever designed that one... well, had a very differently tuned aesthetic sense than my own. 😱
I agree with the sense that it's just "off" somehow.

😭😭😭😭😭

BSNW has a build thread.
Swapping the nose cone makes a world of difference.
The Starlight Seiron3 | The Rocketry Forum
0307211103[1].jpg0307211102[1].jpg

I dont think it looks bad
😁👍

BTW there is no such thing as an ugly clustered rocket.
Except maybe this one:
Fat Cat Rockets, Inc. SWARM (rocketshoppe.com)
 
Hi Rocketree and thanks for the compliment.

It's 8" in diameter and 14" tall making it the stubbiest rocket I've built. At 3lbs on the pad, 1.5lbs of that was lead in the nose for stability. That flight was on a H100.

Phil
 
Haven’t read all these yet so don’t know if it was mentioned.

wanted to love it, and when built and flown absolutely HATED the Estes MIRV. Weathercocked immediately off the rod in minimal wind and went horizontal. Found booster but lost all three sustainers (springtime launch near soybean field.)

Awesome concept, MISERABLE execution. Plastic booster/manifold (single 18 mm to three 13 mm sustainers) which cannot be modified to accept 24mm booster.

incredibly UNDERPOWERED for design. Do NOT buy this kit (they pop up on EBay) until/unless Estes releases a C5-0 booster motor (even then a “maybe”), the C6-0 simply can’t handle it.

one of those few exceptions to the general rule that Estes produces great kits.
 
Hi Teepot,

It's a giant plastic egg. I pretty much built the rocket and then used the egg as more of a shell, no pun intended. It's rear ejection to get the bomb recovery look. Here's a couple of pictures on the build.
View attachment 454098
Great minds think alike

the box fins on this one make it fly so straight you’d think it was on a rail.
 

Attachments

  • 6EC54EAC-3B1A-4E37-8AD2-7E39F1225C75.jpeg
    6EC54EAC-3B1A-4E37-8AD2-7E39F1225C75.jpeg
    156.9 KB · Views: 15
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.
View attachment 453952
Some people like pong rockets some dont. Some like sci fi kits some dont.
I have first hand knowledge of the sales numbers if this kit. Evidently thousands of rocketeers liked it.. To each there own LOL
 
I was going to post that there really isn’t a design or feature I dislike. Then your post, I flashed back helping my 6YO build his Amazon from the Tandem X starter set and realized, I really dislike the plastic prefab stuff. OK, I get it for young ones starting out....but still.

I'm back into low power after a 22ish year lapse. My 8 year old son loves the plastic prefabs. If it wasn't for him, I wouldn't have a good excuse to be back. If it wasn't for that, I would agree.

Intro post coming soon.
 
These two rocket kits have to be two of the most atrocious and ugliest designs I have seen.🤮
 

Attachments

  • b8f6a1820f5b42d60d34e28bb57f3559.image.700x700.jpg
    b8f6a1820f5b42d60d34e28bb57f3559.image.700x700.jpg
    75 KB · Views: 6
  • 6af18ca4eb671ab63b52ec72b2343db6.image.700x700.jpg
    6af18ca4eb671ab63b52ec72b2343db6.image.700x700.jpg
    52.8 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
Any number of things can move a design down my list. Chief among them:

1.) Unnecessarily difficult to assemble.
2.) Excessively fragile. (I broke the helicopter blades on my old Cosmic Cobra before I got even a single flight out of it in that configuration, I converted it to parachute recovery out of sheer determination to get it in the air somehow)
3.) Difficult to prepare for flight. By this I mean finicky stability, recovery devices that don't want to be packed, tricky motor retention systems, or just overall being stubborn and uncooperative.
4.) Unpredictable or unreliable flight characteristics that make for difficult recovery.

A rocket with one or perhaps two of these things, I'll tolerate. Any more than that and I consider it a garbage bird, good only for ramming a huge motor into it and losing it on purpose.
 
Any number of things can move a design down my list. Chief among them:

1.) Unnecessarily difficult to assemble.
2.) Excessively fragile. (I broke the helicopter blades on my old Cosmic Cobra before I got even a single flight out of it in that configuration, I converted it to parachute recovery out of sheer determination to get it in the air somehow)
3.) Difficult to prepare for flight. By this I mean finicky stability, recovery devices that don't want to be packed, tricky motor retention systems, or just overall being stubborn and uncooperative.
4.) Unpredictable or unreliable flight characteristics that make for difficult recovery.

A rocket with one or perhaps two of these things, I'll tolerate. Any more than that and I consider it a garbage bird, good only for ramming a huge motor into it and losing it on purpose.
I might have one that would have several things on your list, moving it down into the realm of extremely poor rocket design. Pushing all the hallmarks of extremely poor rocket design to the max I am going to have to come up with a really good story to get this one by the top men at the next launch.
20210727_143950.jpg
Excessively long metallic launch lug, fins up front, action figures tied on front of rocket. Cluster tractor motors mounted in styrofoam ball with silicone adhesive, no positive motor retention, total weight 200 grams below max lift off for four F15 4. Four seperate parachutes ejecting from seperate tubes. No fins or motor at the back of the rocket where they should be. Needless Asymmetric action figure drag on top of rocket. Ridiculously high CP. Will CG at Malibu Barbie's head be enough? Slightly canted motors burning above plastic coated with spray adhesive. No rail buttons. Slow lift off using thick launch rod, rails rule, rods drule. Excessively morbid theme not to taste. Action figure abuse like Sid in Toy Story.

OMG. How will such an RSO frightening machine fly?
 
I might have one that would have several things on your list, moving it down into the realm of extremely poor rocket design. Pushing all the hallmarks of extremely poor rocket design to the max I am going to have to come up with a really good story to get this one by the top men at the next launch.
View attachment 475454
Excessively long metallic launch lug, fins up front, action figures tied on front of rocket. Cluster tractor motors mounted in styrofoam ball with silicone adhesive, no positive motor retention, total weight 200 grams below max lift off for four F15 4. Four seperate parachutes ejecting from seperate tubes. No fins or motor at the back of the rocket where they should be. Needless Asymmetric action figure drag on top of rocket. Ridiculously high CP. Will CG at Malibu Barbie's head be enough? Slightly canted motors burning above plastic coated with spray adhesive. No rail buttons. Slow lift off using thick launch rod, rails rule, rods drule. Excessively morbid theme not to taste. Action figure abuse like Sid in Toy Story.

OMG. How will such an RSO frightening machine fly?
Ok first off….did you go to all the trouble of making that just to get under my skin? If so, well done.

Second, the only way you’re going to get that past the RSO is to be the RSO.
 
First is small rockets. WHY..WHY.. WHY....... Don't get me wrong. Some of the designs are wonderful. Rockets like the Orange Bullet, Wizard, Fox Fire, Laser, Maverick, Even the almighty Alpha. Why do they have to be so small. There is zero reason to build anything with a BT20 body tube unless you are purposely trying to make someone cuss. Even the BT50 is a bit small for my taste. While I own and have built hundreds of them, I always wish they were bigger.

Spools.... Just WHY? Umm. NO....

Rockets with fragile parts hanging off the rear. The Nimbus, Interceptor and Interceptor II come to mind immediately. You can't keep these things from snapping a fin or part off regardless of what you do. I rebuild my Nimbus with hobby plywood and soaked everything in thin epoxy to finally make it reliable.

Anything with a glider attached. I have never been able to get anything other than my original orbital transport glider to actually glide back. My Swing wing Tomcat was a disaster every time it flew. Same Goes for the Soaring Eagle. If I was lucky they would sort of fall at a less than ballistic pace and survive. After a dozen of tries I gave up and set what was left of those rockets on the shelf for display and eventually gave them away.

Clusters. I've flown them and just don't understand the attraction. Why spend twice, three or four times the money when one will do. With today composites, one will normally out perform a 4 motor cluster from years back. My old Impulse and Maxi Force flew a couple of times on the clusters before I decided it was a waste of money and replaced the mounts with a single 29mm. Which isn't easy on those models by the way.

This last one isn't a rocket but more a feature. Water Slide decals. The person that invented these needs to be taken out, beaten about the head and neck with a large stick for 10 to 12 hours then shot. There is no single part of this hobby that I despise more than water slide. I've been a modeler, rocket builder since I was 7 yrs old and been dealing with this stuff for 35+ years and hated each and every water slide decal I've applied.
 
First is small rockets. WHY..WHY.. WHY....... Don't get me wrong. Some of the designs are wonderful. Rockets like the Orange Bullet, Wizard, Fox Fire, Laser, Maverick, Even the almighty Alpha. Why do they have to be so small. There is zero reason to build anything with a BT20 body tube unless you are purposely trying to make someone cuss. Even the BT50 is a bit small for my taste. While I own and have built hundreds of them, I always wish they were bigger.

Spools.... Just WHY? Umm. NO....

Rockets with fragile parts hanging off the rear. The Nimbus, Interceptor and Interceptor II come to mind immediately. You can't keep these things from snapping a fin or part off regardless of what you do. I rebuild my Nimbus with hobby plywood and soaked everything in thin epoxy to finally make it reliable.

Anything with a glider attached. I have never been able to get anything other than my original orbital transport glider to actually glide back. My Swing wing Tomcat was a disaster every time it flew. Same Goes for the Soaring Eagle. If I was lucky they would sort of fall at a less than ballistic pace and survive. After a dozen of tries I gave up and set what was left of those rockets on the shelf for display and eventually gave them away.

Clusters. I've flown them and just don't understand the attraction. Why spend twice, three or four times the money when one will do. With today composites, one will normally out perform a 4 motor cluster from years back. My old Impulse and Maxi Force flew a couple of times on the clusters before I decided it was a waste of money and replaced the mounts with a single 29mm. Which isn't easy on those models by the way.

This last one isn't a rocket but more a feature. Water Slide decals. The person that invented these needs to be taken out, beaten about the head and neck with a large stick for 10 to 12 hours then shot. There is no single part of this hobby that I despise more than water slide. I've been a modeler, rocket builder since I was 7 yrs old and been dealing with this stuff for 35+ years and hated each and every water slide decal I've applied.
I’m going to have to disagree with a lot of that for a variety of reasons, the cluster thing in particular. It’s somewhat unavoidable if you’re trying your hand at parallel staging, or launching 500 spools simultaneously like they did at Plaster Blaster VI in 2007. I still have one from that launch all these years later, it’s a great way to burn 24mm motors at a small field.

But I fully agree with one thing: waterslide decals. They should either be made thicker so they don’t get crumpled up and/or ripped during application, or converted to self-stick.
 
First is small rockets. WHY..WHY.. WHY....... Don't get me wrong. Some of the designs are wonderful. Rockets like the Orange Bullet, Wizard, Fox Fire, Laser, Maverick, Even the almighty Alpha. Why do they have to be so small. There is zero reason to build anything with a BT20 body tube unless you are purposely trying to make someone cuss. Even the BT50 is a bit small for my taste. While I own and have built hundreds of them, I always wish they were bigger.
Hey, kids gotta start somewhere... 99% of the time it's with a Wizard or a half-plastic Alpha. Once they get hooked and they want something bigger that goes higher, then that's where it goes from toy to hobby.
 
Hey, kids gotta start somewhere... 99% of the time it's with a Wizard or a half-plastic Alpha. Once they get hooked and they want something bigger that goes higher, then that's where it goes from toy to hobby.


I hear you. And I do have a rather large number of Alpha rockets. At one point I ended up a two of the bulk packs from a garage sale. I've gotten really creative with some of the stuff I've built from those parts.
 
Last edited:
A wizard is a min dia 18mm.. loosely related to a min dia 29mm or 38, or even a min dia 98mm..

Spools & other odd rocks just prove Newton's laws & physics..

I personally love waterslide decals. They do take practice & finesse (and Micro-sol!) but once you have the technique, nothing beats them for smoothness & lay.. (most of the time, people tend to leave them in the water too long, and try to apply them once they start to float about. This also means most of their glue is lost too.. and apply them to "flat" pain surfaces.)
 
The thing I really like about spools is that they’re real crowd-pleasers. Cluster spools especially.
 
Clusters. I've flown them and just don't understand the attraction. Why spend twice, three or four times the money when one will do. With today composites, one will normally out perform a 4 motor cluster from years back. My old Impulse and Maxi Force flew a couple of times on the clusters before I decided it was a waste of money and replaced the mounts with a single 29mm. Which isn't easy on those models by the way.
1628024242649.png1628024265882.png
There are times when a single motor just doesn't work with the design you want.

This is a BT101 based rocket using a Fliss Kit three motor canted mount. The Nose cone was 3D printed for me by a gentelman from this forum as no "Big Bertha" style nosecone was available in such a size.
 
Back
Top