Lament for the C11-0

It must be assumed that Estes withdrew the C11-0 due to lack of demand.
But that doesn't stop me from being frustrated. It is a perfect booster
for mid-sized model rockets (BT-55, BT-60). It has plenty of thrust to
get things moving with authority, but it stages at a "fun" altitude, low
enough to see what's happening. It's sort of today's B14-0.
I have several rockets I use it in. Yes, they can all be flown with
D12-0's instead, but I find the combos of C11-0:C11, C11-0:D12 and
C11-0:E9 to be fantastic staging flights. Yesterday, I flew my Tuber on
a C11:E9 combo, and it was awesome.
formatting link

Maybe if there's enough demand, Estes will bring them back.
Doug
Everyone should fly something staged this week...
Reply to
Doug Sams
Loading thread data ...
snip
Doug,
Go out and pick up every one you can find. Stock up as much as possible and you'll be able to enjoy them for a while yet. I did that with A8-0's and still have about 60 or so I use for special flights.
Randy
formatting link

Reply to
<randyolb
Hi, Tad,
NO. In all likelihood yours will have the correct nosecone :)
When I lawndarted Tuber2 last fall in Windom (on its maiden flight no less), it destroyed the only thing salvaged from the original Tuber - the oft dinged nosecone. Hence I made this new one, but kinda got carried away on the lathe and ended up with a decidedly different looking nosecone. Don gave me a new one, but I didn't get it finished in time for this weekend's launch.
I'm sure you'll enjoy your Tuber. Everyone who gets one receives good fortune :)
Doug
Reply to
Doug Sams
Insert standard comment about not using no longer certified motors at NAR or TRA launches, or where prohibited by state law...
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Add new standard comment about lobbying NAR to change the rules to allow such motors to be used unless a reasonable, rational explanation is provided...
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
Yes, more than once IIRC.
Someone should bring it to the floor during the next association meeting.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
This would probably require a change to NFPA 1125 (It might not, I have never read anything about this document other than what is posted in the ROP and ROC documents.) which is currently in the middle of its 5 year revision process. I just noticed that the Report on Proposals document is now on the NFPA web site. If you want to see what was proposed, and what survived the ROP stage, go to:
formatting link
If you want to make some other change, you have to wait five years for the next revision cycle.
Bob Kaplow wrote:
Reply to
David Schultz
Listen to David Schultz.
Want a change to renewal cert rules? MUST be done at the FULL COMMITTEE level now.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Site Timeline

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.