Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Weather-Cocked > FreeForAll
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-07-2016, 09:32 AM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default #1467 Shuttle re-issue?

Hello All (and especially anyone at Estes who is reading this),

This is a product improvement report (with video—please see below!) and a request, which I’ve also included below. Now:

Most of us here will remember the foam Estes Space Shuttle Starter Set, EST 1467 (see: http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/95est04.html and http://www.ninfinger.org/rockets/nostalgia/95estf.html ). This boost-glider model was 14.75” long and had a 10” wing span, and it also came with nice plastic display nozzles. It flew okay (but was underpowered) on the recommended C6-3 motor, but it flew very well on the C5-3, as I and others happily experienced. The model’s only flaw was the *lack* of a stabilizer fin on its rear-ejecting motor pod, which would have ensured stability during boost (the motor pod tube could have been made about 1” longer so that a swept fin could have been glued to it, pointing in the opposite direction from the orbiter’s vertical stabilizer). Fred Shecter reported “squirrely” flights of these models at his club’s launches, where they pitched over into horizontal flight under power (one crashed and started a fire [or nearly did], if memory serves). I never experienced this when flying mine (with either C6-3 or C5-3 motors), but a fin added to a slightly-protruding motor pod tube would have prevented such hair-raising flights. Also:

I had long suspected that this model would fly even better if it were powered by the D12-3 motor. A YouTube member posted a video of his modified, D12-3 powered foam Estes Space Shuttle in flight, which confirmed my suspicion (links to this video, and to another video of a C6-3 powered foam Estes Shuttle, are included below). Before I get to them, I also wanted to mention a catapult-launched foam Space Shuttle glider that was formerly made by North Pacific (it’s now made by Guillow, see: http://www.guillow.com/spaceshuttle.aspx ). It is similar in size to the foam Estes Shuttle, but it isn’t as accurate (its wings are somewhat enlarged). George Gassaway built a nice “full stack” Space Shuttle model using the Guillow orbiter (see: http://georgesrockets.com/GRP/Scale/Shuttle2009.htm ), and he also described the Guillow orbiter’s “excursions” from scale. Here is my request:

I would like to see Estes re-issue an improved (with a fin to be affixed to a slightly rearward-protruding motor pod tube) EST 1467 foam Space Shuttle, either as part of a launch set or as an individually-sold kit (or as both). I understand that the foam molds for the Shuttle’s fuselage and tail unit (its vertical stabilizer and OMS engine pods) either can’t be found or no longer exist, but with today’s new rapid prototyping technologies (including 3D printing), re-creating them could be less difficult now. If Estes doesn’t wish to re-issue this model for any reason, I would hope that some smaller model rocket company might “step into the breach” here (it might be possible to 3D print the model out of EPP foam [in fuselage, wings, and tail unit sections, for efficient utilization of blocks of the foam—the modeler could use white glue or yellow carpenters’ glue to cement these parts together, just as the tail unit was cemented onto the original model’s fuselage]). I hope that this model appears again, because it flew very well and glided reliably; it was a wonderful and easy-to-trim boost-glider. Here are the links to the two videos of EST 1467 Estes Space Shuttle models in flight:

Estes Space Shuttle powered by a D12-3 motor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMr...s&nohtml5=False

Estes Space Shuttle powered by a C6-3 motor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4...Q&nohtml5=False

I hope this information will be helpful.
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-07-2016, 11:44 AM
AstronMike AstronMike is offline
Craftsman
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 224
Thumbs down Foam Orbiter of Death!

Blackshire,

Sorry, but I have to disagree with a few of your observations pertaining to this 'thing'. Heck, just wait till Fred Schecter gives *HIS* opinion!

Anyways....that vid you included of the C6 flight....pretty much sums up a 'best case' scenario. You can see during the 'real time' portion of that vid that the craft arcs over right at burnout, and is not very high at ejection. Not only that, but the whole 'flight' was like 9 seconds. A C5 would be better but not overly so, since this 'thing' weighed nearly 8z!

I had one, and used C5s, as they were readily available back in '94ish. Not much better than what you saw here, and since I'm used to making better gliders, shuttles even, this then got an upgraded pod for D12s. All that did was make 'horrible' into 'not really bad', but still was primarily a waste of a 24mm motor in something this small.

You mentioned the extended motor tube, protruding back from the model an extra inch or so to allow a sub-fin to offset the main crafts rudder. HORRIFICALLY BAD IDEA!!

The arcing behavior evident in this craft is NOT because of the lack of a sub-fin to counter the main rudder, it's all about the PIG-BUTT weight, coupled with the premolded-in 'elevon' angles.

Making the motor stick far out the rear would destabilize this even worse, and you cannot add more weight to counter this shift, unless you were using a 24mm motor anyways. Think about this for a second. If I needed a real cruciform symmetry on any of my gliders, then I'd bout out of luck, especially on the old HPR ones. Or, the current rehash Estes SkyDart....

For flying a gliding orbiter this size, you're likely better off making one yourself, as light as possible, and PG'ing it off a BT-55ish carrier powered by a D12 or such. Or, two orbiters, opposed on a finless tube. There was a company, about 15-20 years back, that sold a model that did exactly this. Orion or something? Was in NAR mag or maybe even Tripolis.

Final warning....please put cotton in your ears and your blinders on when Fred sees this thread!!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-07-2016, 04:15 PM
jbuscaglia jbuscaglia is online now
Rusty-eyed Missile Man
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hudson, MA
Posts: 175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AstronMike
For flying a gliding orbiter this size, you're likely better off making one yourself, as light as possible, and PG'ing it off a BT-55ish carrier powered by a D12 or such. Or, two orbiters, opposed on a finless tube. There was a company, about 15-20 years back, that sold a model that did exactly this. Orion or something? Was in NAR mag or maybe even Tripolis.


Orion Rocket Works. It used the big foam shuttle gliders. I've got an unbuilt one somewhere in my rocket room.
__________________
John Buscaglia
NAR 27366
SAM 63
CMASS Member
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-08-2016, 01:06 AM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AstronMike
Blackshire,

Sorry, but I have to disagree with a few of your observations pertaining to this 'thing'. Heck, just wait till Fred Schecter gives *HIS* opinion!

Anyways....that vid you included of the C6 flight....pretty much sums up a 'best case' scenario. You can see during the 'real time' portion of that vid that the craft arcs over right at burnout, and is not very high at ejection. Not only that, but the whole 'flight' was like 9 seconds. A C5 would be better but not overly so, since this 'thing' weighed nearly 8z!

I had one, and used C5s, as they were readily available back in '94ish. Not much better than what you saw here, and since I'm used to making better gliders, shuttles even, this then got an upgraded pod for D12s. All that did was make 'horrible' into 'not really bad', but still was primarily a waste of a 24mm motor in something this small.

You mentioned the extended motor tube, protruding back from the model an extra inch or so to allow a sub-fin to offset the main crafts rudder. HORRIFICALLY BAD IDEA!!

The arcing behavior evident in this craft is NOT because of the lack of a sub-fin to counter the main rudder, it's all about the PIG-BUTT weight, coupled with the premolded-in 'elevon' angles.

Making the motor stick far out the rear would destabilize this even worse, and you cannot add more weight to counter this shift, unless you were using a 24mm motor anyways. Think about this for a second. If I needed a real cruciform symmetry on any of my gliders, then I'd bout out of luck, especially on the old HPR ones. Or, the current rehash Estes SkyDart....

For flying a gliding orbiter this size, you're likely better off making one yourself, as light as possible, and PG'ing it off a BT-55ish carrier powered by a D12 or such. Or, two orbiters, opposed on a finless tube. There was a company, about 15-20 years back, that sold a model that did exactly this. Orion or something? Was in NAR mag or maybe even Tripolis.

Final warning....please put cotton in your ears and your blinders on when Fred sees this thread!!
AstronMike, I *like* the 'thing'; mine always flew well for me :-) If you (or anyone else) have an Estes #1467 foam Shuttle that you don't want, I'll happily give it a new home (and pay for it and its postage, too, within reason). It's fine if it's built, as long as it's flyable and not badly banged-up (having unsightly big dents, missing chunks of foam, etc.). (Likewise, my favorite horse as a teenager was an Arabian/[likely] Quarter Horse cross mare who no one else wanted to ride because she was hot-tempered and a kicker, yet she was kind to me and did everything I asked, and I didn't use or even threaten to use any force...it's strange.) Also:

I don't doubt your experiences with yours (the YouTube video shows what you described, on a C6-3 powered flight). But my foam Shuttle kit must have been charmed, somehow, because it always boosted straight and true, whether with C6-3 or C5-3 motors (it just peaked lower with C6-3s), and I flew it dozens of times, in light breezes as well as in dead-calm conditions. (It never crashed or even got damaged--I left it and many other things at my old house when I moved to this apartment building in 2007, because I was in intense pain then, and I didn't care whether I lived or died.) And:

I didn't modify my foam Shuttle in any way; I built it 100% "stock." It didn't pitch up due to the "elevon angle"; it coasted upward to a stop, then began to briefly "fall over" to the left or right about when the ejection charge fired (if there was a breeze, it would fall sideways and be horizontal or slightly nose-down when the pod ejected, which was better, as the model immediately entered a glide with the ejection-imparted velocity instead of wasting some altitude while falling to get to gliding speed). I loved its glide (it just wasn't satisfyingly long enough from the low apogee a C6-3 would give it, but with C5-3s it was fine). I never got around to trying an Aerotech D21 in it, as they were "rich for my blood," but I suspect that it would have been a great motor for the foam Shuttle. In addition:

A light nose (which means a heavy rear end) doesn't necessarily require the addition of more nose ballast, if the total fin area in each plane (for pitch and yaw) is large enough to create the proper CP/CG relationship. But the pod's motor tube need not actually protrude rearward any more in order to attach a swept-back fin to it (a fin that would be opposite the orbiter's vertical stabilizer). A short (1-1/4" - 2" or so) length of a good-size basswood strip or a half-round dowel (say, 3/8" or so wide) could be glued to the rear end of the motor pod tube, and the fin would be glued to the basswood strip or dowel. With such an installation, the swept-back fin would be at the same "station" (the same distance from the model's nose tip) as the orbiter's vertical stabilizer, on the opposite side. Plus:

If any individual foam Shuttle exhibited a pitch-up tendency during boost (which would be a sort of partial inside loop), the fin on the pod could be canted slightly (or a canted "tab" could be cut out of the fin after the first flight, then be bent upward slightly and glued in place). Either of these adjustments would make the foam Shuttle rotate slowly during ascent (this is also done with some other boost-gliders, of course), which would "average out" the pitching up tendency so that the model would ascend on a straight path.
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-08-2016, 03:52 AM
blackshire's Avatar
blackshire blackshire is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Posts: 6,507
Default

Also, I see that another YORF member, 'richardhealey,' had consistently good results with his Estes EST 1467 foam Space Shuttle (so did 'Mikus' and 'lurker01,' as they posted in the same thread), as I did with mine (see Reply #10 and others *here*: http://www.oldrocketforum.com/showt...m+Space+Shuttle )—he wrote (in response to Fred's less-than-glowing assessment of the foam Space Shuttles in Reply #9):

"Fred,

"Thanks for your reply!

"I am very surprised you say this. The reason I am hunting for an EST 1467 is that I had lots of fun with mine and it flew very well ( I admit it was the first and last rocket I have purchased). No problems with launch. For an amateur it's trajectory under power seemed great (i.e. near as **** it to absolutely vertical), the motor always ejected properly and it the shuttle’s flight to earth was always good. I flew it probably 20 - 30 times till the last flight when it struck a tree branch and damaged it’s wing, at which point I thought it was due for retirement.

"If I could think of a way of repairing the missing 1inch square piece of polystyrene I would, but I can’t think of a way that would not upset it’s balance and therefore it’s flight characteristics.

"If you can suggest an alternative model, I’d really like to hear from you. Personally I very much like the shuttle for a rocket design and the EST 1467 wasn’t exactly testing to put together (a bonus!), though something a little more challenging wouldn’t be a problem as long as it wasn’t the complexity of some of the alternatives I have seen. I don’t really want to fabricate the wholeshuttle (only for it to smash to smithereens on first launch!).

"In the meantime, I’ll keep my 1467 safely under lock and key

"Much appreciate it. Thanks, Richard"
__________________
Black Shire--Draft horse in human form, model rocketeer, occasional mystic, and writer, see:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperba...an-form/8075185
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6122050
http://www.lulu.com/product/cd/what...of-2%29/6126511
All of my book proceeds go to the Northcote Heavy Horse Centre www.northcotehorses.com.
NAR #54895 SR

Last edited by blackshire : 04-08-2016 at 05:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:33 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2024