Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > The Golden Age of Model Rocketry > Kit Collecting
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-28-2012, 10:12 AM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,610
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cohetero-negro
Modern A8-3 (Newton-Seconds) give you about 2.5 total Newtons of output.
The older A.8-3 (Lb-Seconds) give you about .7 lbs total output ~= 3.15 N of output.

So the older A[dot]8-3 motors were about 30% more powerful than 'modern' A8-3 motors.


Allegedly. Estes has always fudged their numbers on the high side. All the numbers I posted earlier in the thread are from actual test stand data because of the optimistic numbers.
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-29-2012, 02:21 PM
Earl's Avatar
Earl Earl is offline
Apollo Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,893
Default Instruction Set Scans: Pages 2-6

Ok, here are the other instruction set page scans. Pages 7 and 8, yet to be scanned, are NASA supplied photos of a Saturn V on the pad (Apollo 4 I believe) and some photos from Apollo 9 in Earth orbit (Earth orbit tests of LM-CM combination from March, 1969).

As can be seen from the instructions though, there is no 'real' internal structure support for the S1-C and S-II stages. The S-IVB stage adapter does glue into the top of the S-II stage providing some decent rigidity on that end. The dummy motor nozzle plate does attach at the bottom (but does not 'glue in', at least according to the instructions), so that would stiffen the lower end some too.

I guess the corrugated paper wraps would add a bit more stiffness to the BT-101 tube, but probably not a great deal.

One would think in final assembled form the model would be a bit squishy if you picked up by the BT-101, but then again as a display model I don't guess the intention would have been to handle it a great deal.

I'll post the last two 'photo' pages of the instruction set in another post, probably later today. The fact that those photos include images of Apollo 9 (probably the 'latest' mission at the time) would date this to NO EARLIER than March, 1969.

Earl
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:  Estes K-36NF Instruction2.jpg
Views: 80
Size:  342.2 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  Estes K-36NF Instruction3.jpg
Views: 88
Size:  303.3 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  Estes K-36NF Instruction4.jpg
Views: 67
Size:  324.6 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  Estes K-36NF Instruction5.jpg
Views: 67
Size:  341.2 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  Estes K-36NF Instruction6.jpg
Views: 82
Size:  305.2 KB  
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr.
NAR# 29523
TRA# 962
SAM# 73
Owner/Producer
Point 39 Productions

Rocket-Brained Since 1970
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-29-2012, 02:33 PM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,610
Default

You have found a great little piece of Estes history, Earl. I doubt many still exist in the box or built. Most of them were likely purchased by kids who were not into model rocketry and didn't have the skill set to finish them well. I imagine most were thrown out either unfinished or in poorly finished condition.

Your K-36NF find is almost enough to inspire me to do some sanding on several unfinished rockets......almost.
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-29-2012, 03:30 PM
Randy's Avatar
Randy Randy is offline
Master Modeler
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 984
Default

Hey Earl,

Thanks for all the follow up. It's been very interesting. I think more than one of us is jealous of your find.

Randy
www.vernarockets.com
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-29-2012, 06:32 PM
Earl's Avatar
Earl Earl is offline
Apollo Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,893
Default

Well, I was really hoping that someone would have some further information about the kit. I'm just not a big Estes collector at all so I thought I was simply ignorant about this kit.

I sent Vern an email at both addresses I had for him (one bounced). I don't hold high hopes of hearing back from him via that route. I have his personal mailing address in my customer database and will probably eventually send him a letter with a self-addresses envelope enclosed to let him easily jot down what he might recall about the kit and drop that back in the mail to me.

Sometime in the next few days I'll photo the kit contents and post those, but there is nothing 'different' in the parts really. Actually, there is 'less' to this kit than a standard flying Saturn V.

Since I'm not a big Estes collector I'll probably not hang on to this kit, but would eventually like to know more about how many may have been produced.

Earl
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr.
NAR# 29523
TRA# 962
SAM# 73
Owner/Producer
Point 39 Productions

Rocket-Brained Since 1970
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-29-2012, 07:47 PM
Royatl's Avatar
Royatl Royatl is offline
SPEV/Orion wrangler
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 2,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbzep
Allegedly. Estes has always fudged their numbers on the high side. All the numbers I posted earlier in the thread are from actual test stand data because of the optimistic numbers.



These weren't fudged numbers (well, maybe they were, but...), the allowed ranges were different before 1968.


1/2a -.350 lbsec. (new 0.28)
a -.700 (new 0.56)
b -1.2 (new 1.12)
c -2.0 (new 2.24)
d - doubles from there


tried to format, but the editor removes extra spaces.
__________________
Roy
nar12605
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-29-2012, 08:09 PM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,610
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royatl
These weren't fudged numbers (well, maybe they were, but...), the allowed ranges were different before 1968.


I'll stick by my statement regardless of the listed total impulses. Go to the NAR motor data site and you will find that Estes catalog numbers are consistently and considerably higher than test data and have been as long as I can remember. With that in mind, the old listed lb-sec numbers would have also been inflated regardless of designation. Back in the good old days Estes made custom runs of motors for the Internats because the motors were not close to the max impulse listed in their catalogs.

I do recall that black powder was more potent decades ago, but I believe that the motors just used less volume for the same total impulse, making some of the long delay motors and deep cored motors of those days impossible to duplicate today.
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-29-2012, 08:31 PM
Earl's Avatar
Earl Earl is offline
Apollo Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,893
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royatl
These weren't fudged numbers (well, maybe they were, but...), the allowed ranges were different before 1968.


1/2a -.350 lbsec. (new 0.28)
a -.700 (new 0.56)
b -1.2 (new 1.12)
c -2.0 (new 2.24)
d - doubles from there


tried to format, but the editor removes extra spaces.


Roy-

Thanks for bringing this up. I had a Centuri engine conversion chart from back in the day that I was planning to scan and post since this first came up in this thread.

Since Estes was still supplying Centuri their engines at the time of conversion, these figures are essentially Estes engine data. Centuri didn't start manufacturing their own 18mm stuff until the summer of '70.

Don't know about fudging, but the "A" motor of pre-metric days was at least 'rated' at a decent amount more impulse than a post-metric A.


Earl
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:  Engines--English-Metric.jpg
Views: 75
Size:  334.0 KB  
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr.
NAR# 29523
TRA# 962
SAM# 73
Owner/Producer
Point 39 Productions

Rocket-Brained Since 1970
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-29-2012, 09:04 PM
tbzep's Avatar
tbzep tbzep is offline
Dazed and Confused
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 11,610
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl
Don't know about fudging, but the "A" motor of pre-metric days was at least 'rated' at a decent amount more impulse than a post-metric A.


It may very well have been a more powerful motor. I'm just stating that it wasn't as powerful as what was listed.
__________________
I love sanding.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-29-2012, 09:16 PM
Earl's Avatar
Earl Earl is offline
Apollo Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 4,893
Default K-36NF Instruction Set--Final Pages (7-8)

As mentioned several posts ago, here are the final two pages out of the instruction set for the kit. Just some NASA-supplied images of the day, a Saturn V on the L/UT (L/UT#1 so it would have to be either Apollo 4 or Apollo 8....probably the former by the looks of the SM), and the final page consists of three images from Earth orbit shots of Apollo 9 from March, 1969.


Earl
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:  Estes K-36NF Instruction7.jpg
Views: 81
Size:  340.0 KB  Click image for larger version

Name:  Estes K-36NF Instruction8.jpg
Views: 82
Size:  275.0 KB  
__________________
Earl L. Cagle, Jr.
NAR# 29523
TRA# 962
SAM# 73
Owner/Producer
Point 39 Productions

Rocket-Brained Since 1970
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 04:41 PM.


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