Estes Starliner - originally designed to look military?

[kenobi65]

I'm working on a build of the old Estes Starliner -- it's part of my program to re-create the fleet I had during my first fling with model rocketry in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I bought an original kit on eBay a few years ago, and have finally gotten around to building it.

For those of you unfamiliar with it, it was a mini-motor rocket offered by Estes for just a couple of years in the early 1980s:
http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/81est024.html

The decals (and the catalog copy) depict it as a futuristic commercial space plane. And, it never struck me as anything else, until I finished the build this week, and primed it with gray primer (see the attached pictures). In unadorned gray paint, with that twin tail and the swept wings, it struck me that it looks a lot like a fighter plane (vaguely reminiscent, in some ways, of an F-14 or F-18).

Does anyone here know anything about the history behind this design? Was it originally designed to be more of a pseudo-military model? Maybe a futuristic fighter design?

[MHambright]

Hi!

I am the original designer of the "Starliner". I created the design in 1975 or 1976 and I gave it the name "Aerie", which roughly means "eagle's nest". I submitted the design to Estes' Design of the Month competition, which each month a winner was awarded a $50 mechandise certificate (fifty bucks went a LOT farther back then). Several months after submitting the design, I was informed that I had won that particular month's competition. Somewhere around here, I should still have my orignal drawings... SOMEWHERE!

Years later, I discovered that Estes had decided to produce a kit based on my design and renamed the design "Starliner". They also changed a few design features in that the original design called for the "engine nacelles" to completely enclose the lower body tube (Estes' design change leaves the ventral surface of the lower body tube exposed), the "engine intakes are slightly different and they chose to eliminate the two small ventral fins that I had included in the original design. I had also built a much larger scaled up version which flew very well on a "C" series engine.

To answer your question... the original vision for the design was as a high altitude research vehicle (hence, the less than menacing name!) with possible military applications as a high speed, high altitude interceptor.

It pleases me to know that my design is still worthy of interest to model rocketeers and I hope that everyone who uses my design enjoys building and flying it as much as I did.

[Bob H]

Thanks for the history of the Starliner. I built a clone several years back and it is a nice looking model and fine flyer.

[JStarStar]

Hi!

I am the original designer of the "Starliner". I created the design in 1975 or 1976 and I gave it the name "Aerie", which roughly means "eagle's nest". I submitted the design to Estes' Design of the Month competition, which each month a winner was awarded a $50 mechandise certificate (fifty bucks went a LOT farther back then). Several months after submitting the design, I was informed that I had won that particular month's competition. Somewhere around here, I should still have my orignal drawings... SOMEWHERE!

Years later, I discovered that Estes had decided to produce a kit based on my design and renamed the design "Starliner". They also changed a few design features in that the original design called for the "engine nacelles" to completely enclose the lower body tube (Estes' design change leaves the ventral surface of the lower body tube exposed), the "engine intakes are slightly different and they chose to eliminate the two small ventral fins that I had included in the original design. I had also built a much larger scaled up version which flew very well on a "C" series engine.

To answer your question... the original vision for the design was as a high altitude research vehicle (hence, the less than menacing name!) with possible military applications as a high speed, high altitude interceptor.

It pleases me to know that my design is still worthy of interest to model rocketeers and I hope that everyone who uses my design enjoys building and flying it as much as I did.

Wow, what fun!!

You have probably noticed both here and at 'other rocket forums' that there seems to be a hard core group of a couple thousand Born Again Rocketeers who were big time into the hobby during the glory days of about 1965-1975 or so and are back in it now.

I remember during grade school and junior high (for me up until about 1972) a good number of my friends all flew rockets, including a few who were really into it (considerably more than me, in fact). I continued flying rockets off and on for a few years but by the time I graduated high school in 1976 most of my rocket stuff was packed away in the basement.

So here we are 40+ years later; as far as I know I am the only one out of maybe a dozen kids in my junior high class who used to fly rockets who has flown in, I dunno, the last 30 years; I wonder whether those other 9-10 guys ever even think about them any more. For the couple thousand of us hardcore BARs, there are probably tens or hundreds of thousands who have never come back.

But a story like yours is awesome because you left something in the hobby in the early 1970s that turned out to be enduring -- a rocket design that people are still building and flying here in 2014 and having fun doing it.

[A Fish Named Wallyum]

Hi!

I am the original designer of the "Starliner". I created the design in 1975 or 1976 and I gave it the name "Aerie", which roughly means "eagle's nest". I submitted the design to Estes' Design of the Month competition, which each month a winner was awarded a $50 mechandise certificate (fifty bucks went a LOT farther back then). Several months after submitting the design, I was informed that I had won that particular month's competition. Somewhere around here, I should still have my orignal drawings... SOMEWHERE!

Years later, I discovered that Estes had decided to produce a kit based on my design and renamed the design "Starliner". They also changed a few design features in that the original design called for the "engine nacelles" to completely enclose the lower body tube (Estes' design change leaves the ventral surface of the lower body tube exposed), the "engine intakes are slightly different and they chose to eliminate the two small ventral fins that I had included in the original design. I had also built a much larger scaled up version which flew very well on a "C" series engine.

To answer your question... the original vision for the design was as a high altitude research vehicle (hence, the less than menacing name!) with possible military applications as a high speed, high altitude interceptor.

It pleases me to know that my design is still worthy of interest to model rocketeers and I hope that everyone who uses my design enjoys building and flying it as much as I did.

Excellent! I think you might only be the second DOM winner to grace our forums. The guy who designed the Top Secret was active over on TRF for a while. I've told the story before, but not to you, so I'll tell it again. I had a DOM entry in 1978 or so, but could never get past the design phase. Mine all came together around a sticker set that I found somewhere in the neighborhood. It was a chrome and black sticker that said MAIN BREAKER. I had no idea what that meant, but I thought it sounded great as a rocket name. :rolleyes: The killer is, 35 years later I can't for the life of me remember what the design of that rocket was. :(

[dlazarus6660]

This is a good subject, I like it.

One question.

Why was it necessary to cut the BT when it should not be necessary?
The angle of both wings should not touch the BT at all with the BT removed, in fact I would think you would want the BT in place to have more area to glue to?
Am I over thinking this matter?

[Bob H]

Why was it necessary to cut the BT when it should not be necessary?
The angle of both wings should not touch the BT at all with the BT removed, in fact I would think you would want the BT in place to have more area to glue to?
Am I over thinking this matter?The body tube was cut so that the wing and body flowed together without any step. The wings sit tight against the cut portion of the body tube. If it ever warms up and thaws out, I can show it to you at the next launch.

[dlazarus6660]

The body tube was cut so that the wing and body flowed together without any step. The wings sit tight against the cut portion of the body tube. If it ever warms up and thaws out, I can show it to you at the next launch.

Thanks Bob but I think you showed me that rocket, I just forgot until...now...no...now.
Now I have to clone one to add to the rest of my fighter fleet. I'll make it look like a fighter.