1. Home
  2. Model rockets forum
  3. [F-FT] Estes E Space Ship One flight

[F-FT] Estes E Space Ship One flight

Well, the good news is that the E-sized Estes Space Ship One actually flies well, IF you use the recommended engines ().

I flew a 'naked' one today at Lucerne on an E9-6 (didn't have time to paint, because I want to 'test' some paints first), and it flew pretty well. Initial flight off the pad was arrow-straight, but about halfway through thrust it did some barrel-rolls (while still flying straight), and ejection was about one second longer than optimum (an E9-5 would be perfect). Since they recommend E9-4 and E9-6 for this model, I guess you get your choice of WHERE you want the incorrect ejection to occur.

For those who haven't seen it, the model is mostly styrofoam, which has an interesting impact on recovery. There are 4 'pats' of clay in the nose, so the nose (which is already quite large) is also heavy, and the parachute essentially acts on the nose cone -- the body of the rocket (the foam part) is actually descending slower than the parachute/nosecone portion (it's being 'dragged' down by the nose cone). Thus, the rocket body is almost acting like an additional recovery element. This had the additional advantage of causing the body to land almost horizontally, so there was absolutely no damage from impact with the Lucerne lakebed.

At this point, I decide to be ambitious, and tried an F21-6.

In a word, DON'T.

The rocket took off fine, but it shredded after about 100 feet. The two 'booms' broke off (not at the glue points, but foam breakage), and the rocket fell to the ground. It may/may not be repairable, but an additional problem is that the nose cone KEPT GOING. That's right, when the wings shredded, the nose cone (with all the extra weight in it) kept going, AND...

it separated right where the back of the nose cone is glued to the 'base plate' of the cone. Now, bear in mind, I've had previous bad experience with the plastic Estes is using these days, so I had used the Testor's orange tube glue quite liberally to glue it together, then after it dried, I went around the seam with Testor's liquid cement to give an even better glue bond. Obviously, this still wasn't enough. To top it all off, nobody saw the nose cone keep going, and the rocket was within

10 degrees of vertical when it shredded. The nose cone top apparently came in ballistic and landed about 1000 feet away (that's right, a one with three zeros after it).

So, at this point, I'm debating whether to attempt the repair, or simply use the remnants as a paint test bed....

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White
Loading thread data ...

Just three foam pieces? Or are You missing some little bits to the wind?

If it were Me, I'd attempt the repair, because even if the repair fails, You can still use it for a paint test bed. :) What kind of glue was used?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Believe it or not, just the three pieces (well, four if you count the separated nose cone... ). The two booms each broke off at their major stress points, the smaller little winglets stayed attached to either the main body or the wing. No pieces missing.

The problem is that the initial assembly somewhat alleviates the stress at this point by kind of laying two pieces of foam in parallel, kind of like plywood, for a stronger joint. The break will put just glue at the major stress point. A possible solution would be to put some small rods or straws in place to help strengthen it.

Glue used was white silicone glue, worked quite well.

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

I'll assume that, not including the "winglets", that the damage has a fairly small cross sectional area. I don't think silicone would work for this repair, mainly because in small cross sectional situations, it's flexibility under stress would allow excessive deformation, resulting in delamination from the mating surfaces. With that being said, I'm not sure what I would use. You can't use anything with MEK or other solvents, because Your foam will do a miracle disappearing act right before Your eyes. The finished product should be fairly stiff, maybe some type of construction glue, like the paneling adhesives that come in caulk tubes. Better still would be to find a "safe" epoxy, something the won't melt the foam. I was thinking toothpicks might work, but then, I can't see the damage. Actually glue them into the foam to allow the stress to be spread across the lengths of "re bar". Are the contours of the damaged area such that You could laminate a "skin" patch overlapping the damaged areas?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Definitely don't use Testors Glue or cement on the new Estes plastics.

I've used Ambroid Pro-Weld, and Zap CA for Plastics on the same material with good results.

Roy nar12605

Reply to
Roy Green

I've hat good success using hot glue. I'd embed toothpicks in the halves for extra strength (like rebar) lay down a generous amount of hot glue and then stick them together.

Reply to
Reece Talley

Now your tempting me to use an Ellis E12

Reply to
ArtU

So the rocket can explode?

I'm 5 for 6 with them exploding. Most common mode is at the end of the propellant burn. BLAM!

I e-mailed them. Not a peep.

Earlier e-mails were responded to, but once I had a problem to report I get silence. Not a good way to run a business.

Any full 40 N-s E would be bad since it will build up airspeed greater than the lower total impulse (and lower average thrust) Estes E9.

Airspeed = flutter = destruction.

Reply to
shreadvector

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.