Estes Requests Feedback - Bring Back The oldies

Hello everyone,
We in COSROCS are honored to have Dave Talbot, the Product Manager at Estes Industries, as a club member and regular attendee at our launches and meetings. At this month's business meeting, he asked for help in promulgating an email address at Estes that is monitored by their marketing group for product and program commentary, and to promote communications between rocketeers, clubs and Estes. That address is: EstesRockets (at) CenturiMS (dot) Com
Dave Talbot is also requesting feedback from us regarding our favorite kits of old, and invites everyone to use this address to vote for your favorite kit to bring back. Just send an email to this address with your re-issue vote; include the original kit's product number as well (Jim Z's web site has them - http://www.dars.org/jimz/rp00.htm as does the Rocket Shoppe - http://www.rocketshoppe.com/kit_lists.htm ). Emails and addresses received will be used for no other purpose than for this process, so real names and addresses are encouraged; this will also help to validate the messages received, and to protect against "ballot box stuffing".
Feel free to pass this information along to all rocketeers that may be interested.
Thanks!
Dave Virga NAR #77896 L1 COSROCS President http://www.cosrocs.org /
(** Remove the S P A M trap for direct replies **)

Wow! This is great news! Thanks Dave.

Done, my selections emailed to him were: Maxi Brute Pershing, Saros, Photon Disruptor, Saturn 1B, Andromeda.
I did not include my first ever kit, the Astron X-Ray, 'cause I figured it is kind of a boring kit by today's standards and nobody but me would want one. Wouldn't be the same without a balsa nosecone, anyhow.
Thanks for the info, and may the Rocket Gods bless Estes for bringing back the oldies!

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (P.K. Moore) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
POINT.

  Quoted Text Here  
Agree.
Mild agreement
  Quoted Text Here  
Agree.
Yes.
Yes with 29mm host.
  Quoted Text Here  
Jerry

Swing Wing Crusader....the coolest rocket Estes made during the 80s.

  Quoted Text Here  
I'll second that one. Neutrodyne

  Quoted Text Here  
I wouldn't mind seeing many of these come back - especially the Cobra 1500 and Pershing 1A. Always liked the Defender, too.
I would comment that it is unlikely you'll ever see the Scud-B return. Years ago, I had a conversation with Mary Roberts of Estes that went something like this:
"We only ever made one run of 20,000 Scud-B kits. The things wouldn't sell, so every time we got requests for giveaways for the next three years we sent them at least twenty of the things. We finally got rid of all of them."
The plastic nose cone lived on for a while in the DART kit; I don't know if the nose is still available or not. I cannibalized a DART to build a fun-scale Scud-B, complete with Iraqi flag (pre-Saddam tricolor version) that is starting to look like crap but that I still fly pretty often. The nose cone is in good shape so I suppose I could always build it a new body. Great fun to bring out and run in drag races with folks who have the BT-60 Patriot missile kit :-) [Although to keep things in scale, the BT-20 mini-engine Patriot is closer to the right ratio]
MJ

Huh. I'll have to look in that BAR box again, because when I opened it the first time on top was a new in package Scud missile and I thought "who the heck bought this?". I don't recall every buying it and had to look in catalogs to see if it was really available in the late 70s.
Joel. phx
  Quoted Text Here  
Years
sell,
if
like

  Quoted Text Here  
You'd think all those terrorists would ahve grabbed them up as fast as they could...
    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
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

  Quoted Text Here  
That is interesting. I hardly ever buy kits, except for some classic scale kits and novel designs, like the Dude. I did buy, build, and fly the Scud-B (with a 21mm motor mount). I'm surprised that it sold poorly. What is a normal production run for Estes kits of that era and price range?
Alan

  Quoted Text Here  
Too bad about that. The SCUD-B was one of my all time favorites. Most of the rockets I had listed were ones I had built, with some I wish I had been able to. Some were also financially out of reach for when I was a teen, and so were always on the wish list. That is probably what brings most of us back to wanting to see some of the old kits re-released. I'm sure we all spent hours going through the Estes catalog over and over deciding which rocket to get next or which ones we wished we could afford. Now that we are older, and have the financial means, the selection is somewhat less than it used to be. I do have to applaud Estes of late, however, as they seem to be making an effort, both with re-issues and some of their new rockets. I especially like the Outlander, Nemesis, and Renegade rockets, as well as the X-Prize rockets they will soon be offering. I have a couple re-issues and a couple fo new rockets on my bench now under or awaiting construction: CC Express, Echostar, Commanche 3, and Orbital transport.
More of the comments I included with my recommendations (I throw these out just to generate some general discussion here in RMR, seeing if others feel the same way):
1. Love the E2X series for getting my kids started. With a little help, even my 5 year old can build his own rocket. This is a great way to introduce younger kids to the hobby without the frustration of a rocket that would be too complicated for them, but they are still building their rocket. 2. Please discontinue the RTF series. These are toys and the kids don't get the sense of accomplishment that goes with flying something they put some time into building. I fear this may do more damage than good to the hobby. 3. Please bring back water slide decals. I know they are a little more delicate to use, but they look so much better on a rocket that the thick vinyl stick-ons (that don't always stick). I feel they also give a little more time for proper placement, which in turn makes the rocket look better in the end.
I do have a couple of Aerotech rockets (Initiator and Warthog) and fly them when I can, but I'm finding myself more interested in the Estes type kits as It is something I can do with my three boys (ages 5, 7, & 10). I've always raised my kids with the notion that there is more satisfaction with building and flying the rockets, rather than buying them pre-made, hence the comment about RTF. They all enjoy the time we get to spend together at our rocket bench building them. They also are always very proud when they launch and recover the rocket they built.
So again, kudos to Estes for the efforts they are putting forth in drawing people back to the hobby and showing an interest in what the customers are asking for.

P.K. Moore wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
My first kit, too. I remember finding rocket kits at the hobby store and there was a rocket which could launch payloads! I wanted that X-Ray sooooo bad. I started saving for it and walked to the store every day to make sure it hadn't been sold. I finally got it and I don't think I've been so careful or meticulous in building anything since.
It might be a "boring" design, but it could DO something other than simply fly. No matter that I wasn't exactly sure what to loft with it, it was the possibilities which kept me interested (and significantly reduced the local insect population). Then I got an Apogee II for my birthday and promptly put a beetle into orbit on B-14 power.
First rocket, first rocket loss. Its amazing the particular things you remember.

  Quoted Text Here  
Estes Quasar. After flying on an A and some B's we put a C motor in it and it never came down. My dad chased it with the car and never saw it drop. I remember he was sorry, but didn't really understand that that was my very first rocket. I can still see it floating away over the golf course. It would have been an EZ of today. I remember playing with it on my bed after "we" built it.
Joel. phx snifff,... sniff
  Quoted Text Here  

Joel Corwith wrote:
(Gary wrote:)
  Quoted Text Here  
Yep. I'm a little nostalgic today as a proposal I made to the City for launch permissions at a new park was finally shot down by the lack of FAA waiver consideration in the area. (No bad guys here; the area is beneath existing final approach corridors. I just didn't realize how large an area the approach corridors encompassed.)
Its these kinds of lasting memories and experiences, especially in the sciences, that I would like to encourage in kids today. But the fire regs, noise regs, insurance regs, city regs, environmental regs, state regs, FAA regs, and all the other "regs" and general FUD in place nowadays makes something as simple, innocent, and enjoyable as model rockets almost impossible for kids, or any new flyer, to participate in on their own. In metropolitan areas, at least.
No, its not all gloom and doom and I have other alternatives to pursue, but, jeez, pretty soon the lawmakers, advertisers, and lawyers will have this society doing everything in a virtual context sitting in front of a display screen of some type.
Oh well. Maybe its me. I also like 4WD, paintball, fireworks, computers that do what I tell them to, nuclear power, trains, firearms, low taxes, storm chasing, strong ethics, and minimal government. I seem to have a history of unpopular pursuits and interests.

FAA waivers are *NOT* required for "Model Rockets". The FAA has explanatory info for their folks that explains why this is so (NAR MRSC, Simply "not pushing the button" when aircraft are in the area, etc.). This was also covered in the "Large Model Rocket" debate when the "Notification" was added for that sub-set of "Model Rockets".
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117 http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=shreadvector

Fred Shecter wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Thanks for the input, Fred. Here is my story...
I understand that FAR 101.1 exempts "model rockets" from part 101 regulations. That info was communicated as precisely and as clear as I could make it to the city Parks department prior to even contacting the FAA.
Nonetheless, the City asked that I provide, or facilitate acquiring, TRACON concurrence that FAR 101.1 applied to the airspace above the park(s) in question as there had been previous denials of similar requests based upon FAA "concerns". The city's motivating factor is the presence of a local airport, an Air Force Base, and Denver International Airport within, along, or near the city limits.
I contacted Denver TRACON by phone and explained the city's request to a gentleman who was at least familiar with some HPR waivers in the area. I tried to be very precise that my request was for concurrence that model rockets were exempted by FAR 101.1. He asked for the lat/longs of the area in question, which I gave him. He said he would "run the charts" and get back to me.
He called back and said the coordinates I gave him were in the approach patterns of two DIA runways, one Air Force Base runway, that a 500' AGL restriction was in-place in those areas, and that no waiver of that altitude restriction would be considered. Interestingly, his conversation contained several references to the concerns of pilots or passengers "seeing a rocket launched" and not a single reference to aircraft physical safety issues.
I would be overjoyed to prove that FAR 101.1 applies to this situation. Perhaps you, or someone else, can help me. Before I proceed, I have a question:
Can local FAA facilities impose restrictions on model rocket activities in spite of FAR 101.1 exemptions if the airspace involved contains approach or departure paths to/from an airport?
The ad absurdum argument would involve launching from the foot of a runway if it abutted public land, so I assume there can be additional restrictions based upon airspace use that is not addressed by FAR 101.
The area in question is several miles from DIA, less from the AFB. I have no information on the flight paths of aircraft at the specific distances, i.e., how high they should be when overflying the site. Several thousand feet, I would guess. No aircraft flew over during the couple hours I was "surveying" the potential launch area.
I you have any "explanatory info" that has been provided to reticent TRACONs in the past, I would love to have it. I am not an expert on, nor even familiar, with FARs.
TIA

  Quoted Text Here  
No, they cannot, as long as your model rockets are operated in a manner that does not pose a hazard to people, property, or other aircraft. I've put together a nice, concise explanation of the situation, with code sections cited and explained in plain English.
You can read it at:
http://www.rocketlaws.org/FAA/FAA.shtml
It has links to the actual laws, and cites the specific code sections for every restriction and exemption.
Feel free to print it out and give a copy to your fire chief, along with printouts of the .pdf files of the actual law sections for his reference.
- Rick "Pay it forward" Dickinson

Rick Dickinson wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Rick,
Thanks for the nice, concise page -- but two quick errors in the first two sentences. "balloon" is misspelled in the first sentence and "Although the anyone" is incorrect to start the second sentence.
David Erbas-White

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:55:36 -0700, David Erbas-White
  Quoted Text Here  
What errors? <grin>
Thanks for the feedback. I've fixed the page.
- Rick "Responsive" Dickinson