ROL NEWS--RCS 98mm Casting Tube Available

RCS 98mm Casting Tube Available
April 6, 2005
Web posted at: 1:34 PM EDT
Cedar City, UT (ROL Newswire) -- A new casting tube, RCS part no.
03184L, has been added to the RCS order form. This tube is 3.370" O.D. X
3.270" I.D. X 48" long, and is intended for use with phenolic liner part
no. 03040L in 98mm motors. Previously, this casting tube diameter was
only available from RCS in 6" lengths for BATES-style segmented grains.
The longer tube will allow for propellant casting in star, finocyl,
moonburning and other extended-length grain geometries.
The tube is in stock and is available immediately. A new order form
dated 4-7-05 may be downloaded from the "Products" and "Contact" pages
of the RCS website at
formatting link

Source: RCS Rocket Motor Components (RCS), Inc.
Reply to
ROL News
Loading thread data ...
In article, Phil Stein at wrote on 4/7/05 4:04 PM:
That will be covered in a separate press release.
Reply to
Gary C. Rosenfield
If you have a press release about the guage of your bags or clamshells it will get a lot of attention, especially at ROL and rmr :)
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Think you can combine the thickness of the packaging press release along with the one for the bar code? That would make it easier to keep up with my reading. 8-)
Reply to
Phil Stein
Actually, if you ever looked into the cost of having a UPC issued by the governing body that does so, one could understand quickly why Sunward Aerospace would send out a press release. Whilst designing some packaging for a vocal member of this forum, (who has cracked wise on this very issue, I might add) one of the points mentioned was to leave a spot for the UPC code. Curious about what that might entail, I found the place to get this information and found that if said person would be selling, say, 1000 units of each model kit, he would need to pay about $800 per year per UPC for each individual model. Example: 10 different kits in his line is $8000... sell packaged parts, say 5 sizes of tubes, and 6 different sizes of centering rings would be another $8800. You're looking at over $16,000 for the right to be carried an any major store in the country. That's a major chunk o'change.
Reply to
Alan Tuskes
Man, that's insane! It ought to be just a small one-time charge.
Reply to
It ought to be model aircraft parts if you have the government issued papers to show exclusion from Class 1.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
You seem to be quite defensive about this. Please understand however, that a press release about adding UPC codes was simply noise to most folks - kind of like changing the thickness of the plastic bag used to package the kit!
This may have taken work and funds on your part, and you were glad it was complete, but to the general consumer, means nothing! To me, when I buy something, do I care if there's a barcode that can be scanned, or the clerk has got to read the price off a sticker! It's one second one way, and 1.5 seconds the other!
If you think that the UPC press release was important, I'm sorry, but you best get a better grasp on what your customers think is important!
You're best marketing right now would probably be to just sit back and chuckle when the whole press release is mentioned!
Reply to
AZ Woody
There are about 50 other things about making a viable product that are just as necessary, unheralded, and expensive - or MORE so.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Boy, yer just not reading my entire post! Please read and see if you can wrap your brain around these words....
1 - I didn't post the initial news release on ROL about putting UPC's on packaging, nor was I getting UPC's for my own line of kits.
2 - I was designing packaging for somebody else on this forum.
3 - This other person said "leave room on end flap for UPC.
4 - Looked into what is involved in getting UPC for said packaging on my own, out of curiosity.
5 - Was shocked and stunned at outlay of money involved.
6 - Have gained appreciation for, and could understand why, Sunward would feel that this is newsworthy, as most small manufacturers would find this to be a considerable outlay of money to be seen as a "legitimate" company.
That's all. Nothing more. A comment.
Reply to
Alan Tuskes
To a retailer, the UPC code IS important. (And to a kit maker, a retailer is a very important customer.)
Reply to
Doug Sams
You're forgetting the other side of the operation. Any non coded product has to be stickered when it's placed on the skelf, or perhaps unpacked, stickered, and repacked when recieved in the warehouse. But someone has to look up th eprice in the price book, and print the stickets before this can happen. Then it might have to be restickered if the price changes or goes on sale. Maybe more than once. And if some stickers are accidentally mis-printed you give away an item for less than it cost you, or rip off your customers. Or if an item shows up at the register without a sticker, the world comes to a stop for 5 minutes while someone goes to the shelf to find another to see what the price is. Or has to find the manager to get the price book out of the save to look up the price. Then there is the possibility for the cashier to mis-read or mis-key the price. And with bar codes, you know EXACTLY what you sold, when you sold it, for inventory tracking and reorder purposes. So the cost of not having a bar code on the product is a LOT higher than the extra second it takes at the register. But that's all YOU see.
Many (most) stores these days simply won't sell packaged products that aren't bar coded. TRU implemented this policy back in the 80s. I'm still surprised that an operation the size of Hobby Lobby tags all their product, and manually enters prices instead of scanning them. I can't think of a single other national or regional store that hasn't implemented scanning. Even most of the independent stores, from hobby shops on up, scan rather than keying in prices.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow

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.