Bravo Estes

http://www.estesrockets.com/images/instruction_spaceshipone.pdf
The SS1 instructions are online and I just noticed they now include the 4 butter pats of clay (original had 2 butter pats).
This must mean that they are still making the kits and the new version has all the needed clay and clear instructions.
Anyone bought the new version yet?
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117 http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQsassZshreadvector

  Quoted Text Here  
I saw one last weekend. I told the owner to add yet more clay.
He was very proud to be an SS1 owner.
  Quoted Text Here  

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
And this was based on what?
Did you actually see some fly that had already had more clay added? Is this a necessary modification? If so, did you contact Estes (as Fred did the first time through) to let them know about the stability problems?
David Erbas-White

  Quoted Text Here  
2 was bad. 4 is the "upgrade". 6 makes the rocket "more stable".
I happen to like "dynamically stable" rockets.
  Quoted Text Here  
No.
No.
No.
This is one of those kits smart collectors will hoard. ESPECIALLY the now "old" Version 1.0.
Jerry

I saw on fly this past Sunday that had the two pats. It did a nice big bellyflop from about 20 feet, but it looked good on the pad before the flight. I've got one ready to go and I guarantee that I'll overdo it on the clay, just based on what I saw on Sunday.

  Quoted Text Here  
I've seen several flights go just as you described. I'd think doubling the weight from 2 to 4 pats would be more than sufficient to correct the problem. I have not built or flown one myself but when I started doing my own designs from scratch, I learned early on that a marginally stable rocket can fly perfectly stable on an A but go totally crazy on a C and that's what it sounds like to me. It's marginal on minimum power and not stable with more thrust.
Randy http://vernarockets.com /

  Quoted Text Here  
More power in a fixed volume means more weight. Tail weight. Did it stabilize in mid-flight too?
Jerry

More thurst does not make it unstable.
More weight in the aft end from the heavier C motor will move the center of gravity aft. The C.G. needs to be in front of the cneter of pressure for stable flight.
You can either add nose weight or add tail fins (or make the rocket longer).
For the Estes SS1, 4 butter pats of clay is perfect for safe and stable flight using a C motor.
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117 http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQsassZshreadvector

  Quoted Text Here  
Correct. I didn't say what I meant to say very well.
What I should have said was going from an A engine to a C, in an effort to get the most thrust possible, you could have a stable A flight but a crazy C flight, because you would automatically add more weight. In a short stubby rocket that's usually a problem without some mods. And the extra thrust of a C engine would make the unstable flight even worse.
And yes, we've probably all seen rockets that fish tailed off the rod but stabilized and had decent flights as the bp was exhausted. A little scary at first but turned out ok.
Randy http://vernarockets.com /

  Quoted Text Here  
No, but the results of quenching said thurst might........

  Quoted Text Here  
One was flown at the NIRA launch this weekend, but I didn't see the flight. Don't know if it was old or new.
I bought a couple at the last HL 40% off sale, but haven't opened one to see if it's 2 or 4 pats.
How many pats did the real SSO have?
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered -- Lyndon Johnson, former President of the U.S.

Two.
John
writes:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
Ohhhhh! A horder!
Randy http://vernarockets.com /

  Quoted Text Here  
I represent, uh, I mean I resent that remark! :-)
John

Bravo? If Estes had tested their product a bit better, then there would not have been a stability problem in the first place. Seems simple to me.

  Quoted Text Here  
not
Probably but I'm glad they are at least trying to raise the bar a little lately with the new line of X prise kits.
You'd think with all the companies out there now that are trying to compete with Estes, some of them would come up with at least the base line of the NASA, Russian and European rockets. Titan, Redstone, Atlas, Gemini & Saturn, Sputnik, Vostok, Proton, Soyuz, Diamant, Ariane.
Anyone here ever seen the G-I-E Super Booster? Find it on the internet and give it a look. THAT would be some kind of awesome kit!
Randy http://vernarockets.com /

snipped-for-privacy@charter.net wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
There are already more than a few companies catering to that market. (A market, which includes *me*, "big time"). I don't really consider it a matter of "competing" with Estes...as Estes seems totally uninterested in scale/historical kits. They seem to be concentrating on the pre-fab, plasticized, no-building-skills-required, non-historical market...directed towards today's pre-fab, plasticized, no-building-skills-having-nor-desiring, non-historically-interested kids.
:o)

  Quoted Text Here  
There a few small companies trying to take up some of the slack but is there a single entity making a complete line of NASA kits? I know there are a few making a kit here or there, but not a full line.
I don't understand why any company making Estes type kits doesn't have a standing base line of NASA and Russian rockets. Maybe 5 or so of each, then offer the other level 1-3 kits.
Having owned a small company for over 20 years, I know the logistics problems a small company has. Still, in time it could be done. It's not because the competition is too stiff or there isn't a market.
Randy http://vernarockets.com /

Time. I have so many ideas but so little time. I am working on solutions to cutting the time per kit so that I can ship quicker and develop some of the many kits I'm working on.
mike
  Quoted Text Here  
there
few
then

snipped-for-privacy@charter.net wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
It is mostly due to the "must have it NOW" mindset our culture/society is in now. That is why Estes has gone so overboard on RTF kits. Making a nice historical scale model takes more time than most kids want to spend nowadays. That is why scale modeling is now almost exclusively an adult hobby. Sad...and frustrating...but the "hobby shop" market is a small blip on the radar to many companies. They look at the K-Mart/Target/Walmart numbers.
  Quoted Text Here