#31
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We still have 1/100 SV kits floating around if a person wants one, but I understand it's not in the catalog and people not in the online forum loops won't find them. The S1B and Skylab are both in recent photos at Estes and John has even mentioned his 3D printed prototype parts. Word has it that the Skylab SV will be out in the 3rd or 4th quarter. Seems to me things are getting better! I don't think the GT will sell much beyond the YORF/TRF crowd and it isn't hard to clone, even without 3D printing. However, it would be nice to have it kitted again. The Merc Atlas was a tough kit to get right with all the finicky silver strips. It would be pretty expensive, so I don't know if they will want to invest in another run. I only have one of them, so I'd buy another for a spare.
__________________
I love sanding. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Is anyone else confused by the missing diameters?
It’s just model length - but maybe they made that change a few years ago in the catalog and I missed it? |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
In the 2019 catalog, almost all the rockets had diameter, weight, fin material, and recommended first launch engine. All of that info doesn't seem to appear in the 2020 catalog. We will all have to go to the website to get that info.
__________________
turbofireball NAR 25162 SAM 0278 |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sorry - I misunderstood. I thought you were looking for the data for the prior C5. I want to see the official numbers for the new release, too, though the curve in the 2020 catalog will certainly be close.
__________________
Bernard Cawley NAR 89040 L1 - Life Member SAM 0061 AMA 42160 KG7AIE |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Yup he diameter gives me a good feel for the rocket. It forced me to look at the length which I don’t care about since the pic and the diameter were previously all I need. I may request the info for the new models unless they are already posted on the site. They may have dropped diameter because they can make any shape now, I do understand if that’s the case. |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Is Estes *required* to have a previously approved motor tested again? I don't know; I am asking the question myself. One would *assume* (there's that dangerous word again) that if it was good then, it should be good now. I don't know if the motor production stipulations (if there is such a set of rules per se) state whether a motor has to be retested if it was taken off line and then re-introduced later. Or...oh, wait. There is a rule about motors needing recert ever so many years though, right? If so then maybe that stipulation or rule would cover the 'new' C5. Does anyone know for sure though? Curious myself.... Earl
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr. NAR# 29523 TRA# 962 SAM# 73 Owner/Producer Point 39 Productions Rocket-Brained Since 1970 |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It certainly seems intentional, since not a single diameter is listed, as far as I could tell. A good compromise might be to include diameters for models that use conventional body tubes. Some models are hard to guess the diameter, because of the scaling used for the rocket image, and the orientation. There are a few that have the rocket pointed toward the viewer a lot, like the Athena on page 17. Tough to compare height to diameter.
__________________
Lee Reep NAR 55948 Projects: Semroc Saturn 1B, Ken Foss Designs Mini Satellite Interceptor In the Paint Shop: Nothing! Too cold! Launch-Ready: Farside-X, Maxi Honest John, Super Scamp |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sorta close. The curves show both the C5 and C6 burn times as the same, but the numbers on the opposite page show 1.60 s and 1.85 s. That's not insignificant considering how short the burn time is on small motors. Also, the total impulse numbers they publish for A's and B's are about 12-14% higher than NAR tests. They are nearly 25% off on the A8 (1.86 Ns vs 2.5 Ns).
__________________
I love sanding. |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I would think so if only because they’re required to submit batches of motors every three years for recert. Otherwise all the other requirements can be based on previous production
__________________
Roy nar12605 |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As far as I’m concerned the NAR testing data is mythical. They have never published the retest data that I am aware of, and I asked for it to do an R&D project and never got it. Who knows what Estes motors produce today? We are told black powder changes over time and you can’t fit the same impulse in the same length as 40 years ago. I use a FlightSketch and get similar altitudes with Estes as the supposed full load Qjets, so it *seems* to me that Estes are close to full impulse or Qjets are not, no way to tell without recent tests. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|