Estes Requests Feedback - Bring Back The oldies

Hardly. It was paper, stapled, and printed in IIRC black and brown. May have had some other colors too, I'd have to go look.

The kits included were:

K-1 Kit Scout .70 K-2 Kit Mark 1.25 K-3 Kit Space Plane 1.80 K-4 Kit Streak .70 K-5 Kit Apogee II 2.00 K-6 Kit Ranger 3.00 K-7 Kit Phantom 1.75 K-8 Kit Sky Hook 1.35 K-9 Kit Spaceman .75 K-10 Kit Cobra 3.00 K-11 Kit Wac Corporal 1.50 K-12 Kit Farside 2.75 K-12X Kit Farside-X 3.75 K-13 Kit Falcon 1.00

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

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!

(Gary wrote:)

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.

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

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

I doubt that the Cineroc will ever be viable..

Frankly, I only come here every few months to see what's new. I doubt that I will become a true BAR, largely because there isn't a rocketry club within 50 miles of me. However, if one DID start, I would love to build another Gyroc, or finally build that Interceptor (I bought the kit, never built it, when I was finally ready, I found it, and all my old rocketry stuff, had been lost when my parents cleaned their basement.

By the way, it IS my real name.

wrote in news:cape69$s2g$ snipped-for-privacy@news.lsil.com:

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.

I'll second that one. Neutrodyne

Rocket" debate

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

Thanks a lot for the offer, Bob.

I posted a reply to Fred with more info on the situation.

My question in that post was whether particular airspace use (approach patterns) could allow restrictions outside of FAR 101.1 exemptions.

May I have a couple days to gather more info before I take you up on your offer? There is an Air Force Base involved and I have NO idea how regs and rules apply to them, either.

If you stick to model rockets, you don't need a waiver. And if you stick to the one pound limit you don't even need to talk to the FAA. We flew a NARAM and several HPR launchs UNDER the O'Hare class B airspace. And got waivers form the FAA!

Not sure where you are, but let me know if there is anything I can do to help you clear things up with the FAA. I've got a couple local contacts here htat have helped others elsewhere cut red tape. And we've got an FAA employee and a former employee among our NIRA membership.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

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:

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,

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

This reminded me of a deal in the 70's, in Germany, a airport allowed airplanes to take off on a newly build runway, and they went right over this guys home, he didn't like it, so he built a small canaplut(sp?) and he placed it in his backyard, as a plane took off, he'd sling a dumpling at it with the device, the ammo never left his yard not ever got near the plane, but the pilots got very un-nevered about someone throwing stuff at them.

The airport ended up buying his home for a very good amount.

What errors?

Thanks for the feedback. I've fixed the page.

- Rick "Responsive" Dickinson

Mr. Pay it forward, I hope it comes around for you. :)

Thanks. I had assumed that TRACON understood what I was asking in regards to the specific issue of "model rockets" as the person I spoke with was certainly aware of HPR and local waivered sites. I should have realized he would have probably been aware ONLY of required waivers. I will contact them again, provide the explicit exemption:

14CFR101.1(a)(3)(ii), and ask for concurence in writing this time. I'll then provide the City with their response, if positive. If not, I'll be back for more advice.

Thanks to everyone who responded and offered help. I was ready to accept their initial determination. Glad I made a random comment and you guys keyed on it. I'll post the status of the effort as it evolves.

The key here is that YOU DON"T NEED THEIR PERMISSION (OR CONCURENCE) IN WRITING! You don't even have to talk to them.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Here's a sample of what I FAX out to my FAA contacts for NIRA launches each year.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!