Rocket powered R/C (Estes Astro Blaster)
Dennis Lou
Anyone have any experience with the Estes Astro Blaster?
I was thinking about getting either this one or the Sig Ninja.
The Astro Blaster sounds really intriguing because it is a canard and
can fly rocket boost, slope, or you can use a dummy rocket motor and
plug in a .049. This would work out great for me since I can fly it on
the slope when I'm at school (Torrey Pines site), fly it under power
at a schoolyard when I'm home for the holidays, and fly it rocket boost
when I want to show off to my friends.
My concerns are that
1> I don't know how well it will fly on the slope. For that matter, I don't
know how well it will fly period. (I already read the Dec `92 MAN review,
but they never mentioned anything about slope performance or much about glide
characteristics)
2> The elevator/aileron canard configuration prevents stall maneuvers (i.e.
snap rolls and tumbles)
3> the .049 pusher configuration means you can't use a clunk tank (the
clunk will be facing the wrong way) and the QRC/Texaco/Black Widow
engines won't go inverted which, combined with #2, means you can't do many
good stunts under power.
Anyone have any comments on this plane or how to solve #3?
--
Dennis Lou || "But Yossarian, what if everyone thought that way?"
dl...@ucsd.edu || "Then I'd be crazy to think any other way!"
[backbone]!ucsd!dlou |+====================================================
dl...@ucsd.BITNET |Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak went to my high school.
--
Dennis Lou || "But Yossarian, what if everyone thought that way?"
dl...@ucsd.edu || "Then I'd be crazy to think any other way!"
[backbone]!ucsd!dlou |+====================================================
dl...@ucsd.BITNET |Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak went to my high school.
Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way
is it just airplanes that shoot rockets?
L.
Iskandar Taib
>I thought rocket power was expressly forbidden for R/C work by the AMA. Or
>is it just airplanes that shoot rockets?
Its planes that shoot rockets that are forbidden.
I think the stipulation is a five pound weight limit and "G" total impulse
for an airplane that uses rocket motors as its primary means of propulsion.
I was thinking that this would not include, say, huge scale C-130s with
JATO packs, since the C-130 uses its engines for primary propulsion.
It would, I think, be interesting to add R/C Rocket Glider and Boost Glider
as R/C and Free Flight events.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NT...@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !
bl...@inland.com
> In article <LARRY.93J...@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> la...@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>
>>I thought rocket power was expressly forbidden for R/C work by the AMA. Or
>>is it just airplanes that shoot rockets?
>
> Its planes that shoot rockets that are forbidden.
>
> I think the stipulation is a five pound weight limit and "G" total impulse
> for an airplane that uses rocket motors as its primary means of propulsion.
> I was thinking that this would not include, say, huge scale C-130s with
> JATO packs, since the C-130 uses its engines for primary propulsion.
>
> It would, I think, be interesting to add R/C Rocket Glider and Boost Glider
> as R/C and Free Flight events.
A friend of mine, Dr John Kallend, designed an interesting rocket
powered R/C aerobatic glider. He's got it rigged up with a 2nd
stage booster that he ignites with servo and on board glow.
The plane will be the subject of a construction article
soon in RCM. If there's any interest, I can get more information
on the rules of AMA as applied to rockets.
Mike Welch
|>
|>
|> Anyone have any experience with the Estes Astro Blaster?
Yes, I built one scratch from a friend's plans.
|>
|> I was thinking about getting either this one or the Sig Ninja.
|>
|> The Astro Blaster sounds really intriguing because it is a canard and
|> can fly rocket boost, slope, or you can use a dummy rocket motor and
|> plug in a .049. This would work out great for me since I can fly it on
|> the slope when I'm at school (Torrey Pines site), fly it under power
|> at a schoolyard when I'm home for the holidays, and fly it rocket boost
|> when I want to show off to my friends.
I built mine without the rocket motor. My firend had a "blast" with his
under rocket power. (Sorry for the pun.)
|>
|> My concerns are that
|> 1> I don't know how well it will fly on the slope. For that matter, I don't
|> know how well it will fly period. (I already read the Dec `92 MAN review,
|> but they never mentioned anything about slope performance or much about glide
|> characteristics)
I thought I could improve the glide by changing the airfoil to an Epler 374.
I was wrong. The canard seemed to be too small. I changed the incidence in
order to increase the lift. This resulted in very poor glide. I was
generally disappointed in the glide. Even at Torrey Pines. I could keep it
up. It would roll nice. but..
|>
|> 2> The elevator/aileron canard configuration prevents stall maneuvers (i.e.
|> snap rolls and tumbles)
|>
I could barely do a loop. Too much pitch stability.
The fuse was big and boxy. Too much drag to retain energy.
|> 3> the .049 pusher configuration means you can't use a clunk tank (the
|> clunk will be facing the wrong way) and the QRC/Texaco/Black Widow
|> engines won't go inverted which, combined with #2, means you can't do many
|> good stunts under power.
The glide was alot worse inverted. Too much drag from the canard.
I still might add an .049. That should make up for the poor glide.
|>
|> Anyone have any comments on this plane or how to solve #3?
|>
|> --
|> Dennis Lou || "But Yossarian, what if everyone thought that way?"
|> dl...@ucsd.edu || "Then I'd be crazy to think any other way!"
|> [backbone]!ucsd!dlou |+====================================================
|> dl...@ucsd.BITNET |Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak went to my high school.
Thanks,
Mike
******************************************************************************
Mike Welch * "Gun laws go against Darwin's Theory.
SDRC * Let stupid people kill each other."
2000 Eastman Drive *
Milford, Ohio 45150 * "Governments should not mandate the
Tel: (513) 576-2514 * use of safety belts. Let Natural
Email: Mike....@sdrc.com * Selection work." - me
******************************************************************************
David Svoboda
|
|
|Anyone have any experience with the Estes Astro Blaster?
Well, no, but I wanted to clear up some things about .049's.
|3> the .049 pusher configuration means you can't use a clunk tank (the
|clunk will be facing the wrong way)
Okay, here's what you do. Use a normal tank with a balloon inside.
The idea is to have the balloon fill the interior of the tank without
inflating. The balloon is held in place by the tank cork. Then
instead of clunk and vent lines, you use a straight tube going to the
lower back of the tank, with notches cut through it (and smoothed so
as to not cut the rubber). You just cut a small hole in the outside
of the tank for a vent. When you fill the tank, first suck the air
out from inside the balloon, then fill away. It really works.
|and the QRC/Texaco/Black Widow
|engines won't go inverted which,
I've never had a QRC or Texaco, but I assure you that a Black Widow
has an inverted fuel system.
You can also buy tank mounts for TD 049s that handle inverted flight.
That will give you more power than a Black Widow.
Dave Svoboda, Palatine, IL
Iskandar Taib
>In article <42...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> dl...@ece.ucsd.edu writes:
>|
>|
>|Anyone have any experience with the Estes Astro Blaster?
>
>Well, no, but I wanted to clear up some things about .049's.
>
>|3> the .049 pusher configuration means you can't use a clunk tank (the
>|clunk will be facing the wrong way)
>
>Okay, here's what you do. Use a normal tank with a balloon inside.
>The idea is to have the balloon fill the interior of the tank without
>inflating. The balloon is held in place by the tank cork. Then
>instead of clunk and vent lines, you use a straight tube going to the
>lower back of the tank, with notches cut through it (and smoothed so
>as to not cut the rubber). You just cut a small hole in the outside
>of the tank for a vent. When you fill the tank, first suck the air
>out from inside the balloon, then fill away. It really works.
This is a variant on what Doc Passen calls the "Limpy Bladder" that was
popular for a while in Slow Combat. I used them because I couldn't afford
$10 chicken hopper tanks. They worked really well too. Haven't tried it
with an .049 though.
>|and the QRC/Texaco/Black Widow
>|engines won't go inverted which,
>I've never had a QRC or Texaco, but I assure you that a Black Widow
>has an inverted fuel system.
Sort of. Out of the box its set up for control-line, with the fuel pick-
up shoved over to the right side of the tank. It will therefore fly in-
verted but the engine will only use half the tank. For other uses one
usually opens up the tank and puts the end of the tubing at the bottom
of the tank.
>You can also buy tank mounts for TD 049s that handle inverted flight.
>That will give you more power than a Black Widow.
Or do what I did.. use a bladder tank on a Tee Dee! I got ridiculous
altitudes using a Tee Dee on a HOB Two Tee with about an ounce and a
half of fuel in a bladder tank in the fuselage bay under the wing.
For a pusher though you will either need a pusher prop or a left hand
crankshaft (I think Kustom Kraftsmanship carries them). The reed valve
engines turn either way with ease.. quite a pain sometimes when start-
ing! 9-)
What about the Queen Bee .074? I've heard it wasn't designed to have more
power than a Tee Dee .049, just better adapted to throttling. You use the
same 6x3 prop.
Dennis Lou
In article <1993Jan5.0...@rtsg.mot.com>, svo...@rtsg.mot.com (David Svoboda) writes:
|> In article <42...@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> dl...@ece.ucsd.edu writes:
|> |3> the .049 pusher configuration means you can't use a clunk tank (the
|> |clunk will be facing the wrong way)
|>
|> Okay, here's what you do. Use a normal tank with a balloon inside.
|>
|> |engines won't go inverted which,
|>
|> I've never had a QRC or Texaco, but I assure you that a Black Widow
|> has an inverted fuel system.
Well, you can invert the cylinder and you can invert the needle valve. The
Black Widow I had didn't have a clunk inside the tank.
|> You can also buy tank mounts for TD 049s that handle inverted flight.
|> That will give you more power than a Black Widow.
Interesting solutions and I already used then for another canard pusher
I never flew, but the point of the Astro Blaster is to have a .049
attached to a dummy rocket engine so you can fly either rocket boost
or .049 depending on how much money you've got. For that, you'd pretty
much need a tank mounted engine and tank mounted engines can't handle
both inverted flight and a pusher configuration.
Michael A. McEvilley
came across reviews of the Estes Astro Blaster and also the Phoenix, which
is some other companies (Aero-Tech???) rocket glider. The Phoenix is a glider with conventional design (i.e., horizontal stab, rudder) and I think the price for a complete system (included launcher, etc) was $189.
If you are interested I will get the specific references for you.
Michael
Iskandar Taib
Well, the Phoenix is quite a bit bigger and sophisticated. It uses a
sheeted, glassed foam wing and has ailerons. The AstroBlaster flies
on Estes "D" (and a proposed "E") motors but the Phoenix uses a re-
loadable composite "F" or "G" motor. The F reload runs for 4 seconds,
the G for 8 - very long in terms of rocket motors.
You get quite a bit more airplane with this one.
Problem is that Aerotech is supposedly having problems shipping re-
loads at this point in time due to DOT regulations. You might have
to fly them with expendables.
kevin.w.mckiou
>
>
>Well, the Phoenix is quite a bit bigger and sophisticated.
I have a Phoenix and have >300 flights on it. It is indeed a
very well designed airplane. It has a speed range of ~20-160 mph.
It will thermal and handles very nicely at low speed. Mine shows
no tendency to tip stall and will fly "nose-high" when I want it
to really slow down. When it does stall it does so gently and
predictably. Though I am no aerobatic expert, it will do
any maneuver you can do without an engine. All the reviews I have
read say the handling is outstanding - and I agree.
>The AstroBlaster flies
>on Estes "D" (and a proposed "E") motors but the Phoenix uses a re-
>loadable composite "F" or "G" motor. The F reload runs for 4 seconds,
>the G for 8 - very long in terms of rocket motors.
It is interesting that you can buy the F reloads for the Phoenix for
the same or even a little less than the D disposable for the AB. And
it goes *a lot* higher. I've flown the AB and tracked flights on both
rocket gliders (RGs) A light AB will get about 250 ft on a D for a
flight of ~45 sec. A Phoenix will get about 400-500 ft on a F for a
flight of ~3 min in dead air. A Phoenix with a G reload will get ~1000
ft on launch for a flight of 6-8 min. The Phoenix can be thermalled
*up*. The AB can be thermaled, but only for a reduced descent rate.
It won't climb in a thermal.
>
>You get quite a bit more airplane with this one.
>
The Phoenix is a *lot* more airplane.
>Problem is that Aerotech is supposedly having problems shipping re-
>loads at this point in time due to DOT regulations. You might have
>to fly them with expendables.
>
You can do that, or, do what I do. Fly the Phoenix off a high-start.
I get ~300 ft with a standard high-start. Flys like a champ. Rock
steady going up.
The other excellent option is to fly the Phoenix on a slope. I wish
there were a good slope near me. It will scream in a dive!
If you want the *ultimate* knee-knocking thrill buy an AeroTech F25
disposable motor and fly your Phoenix. It will accellerate from
0 to ~160mph in about 2.5 sec. Has about a 2 foot white flame. You
won't be able to wipe the grin off your face for a couple of hours.
BTW, if you do this, be sure the Phoenix is trimmed to boost without
input from the pilot. No glitches allowed!! Also, make sure you build
it per the plans.
One final note, AeroTech is coming out with some disposable motors
specifically designed for the P while waiting for the DOT thing to
get resolved.
Have fun! It's addictive.
Kevin
Iskandar Taib
>If you want the *ultimate* knee-knocking thrill buy an AeroTech F25
>disposable motor and fly your Phoenix. It will accellerate from
>0 to ~160mph in about 2.5 sec. Has about a 2 foot white flame. You
>won't be able to wipe the grin off your face for a couple of hours.
Just curious.. what do expendables in this class go for? I guess I might
break down and write Aerotech for their catalog...
I really do hope someone brings something like this to Muncie next time
they have an AMA Fun Fly (hint hint).
KEV...@haven.adp.wisc.edu
Does anyone know if this is true?
- kev -
kevin.w.mckiou
>
>Just curious.. what do expendables in this class go for? I guess I might
>break down and write Aerotech for their catalog...
The local hobby store has F25s for about $8.50 which I think is about
retail. I think you can do a bit better than that. If you are interested
in a Phoenix try calling
Walt Meeks (owner)
Rocketman Hobbies
8839 N Knoxville
Peoria, IL 61615
(309) 691-3103
He seems to have about the best prices around on rocket stuff and, the
last time I ordered something from him, he gave me an extra 10% disc
for being a NAR member. Plus, he charges no shipping.
I don't know what kind of price he would have on the Phoenix. It retails
for $189, but it seems like discounters are selling it for ~$139. This
includes the reloadable motor casing which retails for ~$50. I believe
that there is a version of the Phoenix which is also available without
the reloadable motor casing, but don't know if Walt will know about it
yet.
If you want to call AeroTech for a catalog or more info on the
Phoenix their number is (800) 752-8018. If you want more detailed
info send me e-mail.
>
>I really do hope someone brings something like this to Muncie next time
>they have an AMA Fun Fly (hint hint).
>
I should be there in August for the Spacemodeling Team flyoffs. I'll
bring it with.
Kevin
kevin.w.mckiou
The motors to which I refered (F and G impulse) are classified as *model*
rocket motors.
They are generally available in most all states. There are exceptions where
the state fire marshall has some concern (Calif recently) or where (I think)
there are laws limiting the total impulse (Mass.).
I am unaware of any limitation
in Wis on use of *model* rocket motors. I think the Consumer Product Safety
Comm recently came down with a ruling that G impulse motors must only be
sold to people 18 yrs of age or older.
Above G impulse you can still obtain the motors by joining the National
Assoc of Rocketry or Tripoli and passing some certification tests. These
orgs will then notify manufacturers of your successful certification and
you will be able to purchase motors by "mail" or in person at certain
events.
Hope that helps. *Much* more information can be had (if you're interested)
by posting a question to rec.models.rockets.
Kevin
R. M. Jungclas
No special license is needed in 48 states PROVIDED that launch in accordance
with the NAR safety code. I think that two remaining states are California
and either Massachusetts or New Jersey.
Until the FAA approves the NAR requested change of FAR 101 regulation, a
FAA waiver is required for each launch of rocket with total impulse of "G"
or ANY rocket with a liftoff weight greater 1 pound!
R. Michael Jungclas UUCP: att!ihlpb!rjungcla
AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville, IL. Internet: rjun...@ihlpb.att.com
Iskandar Taib
>>I really do hope someone brings something like this to Muncie next time
>>they have an AMA Fun Fly (hint hint).
>I should be there in August for the Spacemodeling Team flyoffs. I'll
>bring it with.
Better and better! I'll put the Team Trials on my calendar! Has the date
been set as yet?
kevin.w.mckiou
>>I should be there in August for the Spacemodeling Team flyoffs. I'll
>>bring it with.
>
>Better and better! I'll put the Team Trials on my calendar! Has the date
>been set as yet?
>
Not yet. There is also supposed to be a seminar-like session and
a competition in Muncie this spring for those interested in FAI
Spacemodeling competition. I think the idea is to introduce FAI
Spacemodeling events to people unfamiliar with it and provide tips/hints/
plans for building and flying models. As far as I know, no date has
been set for this event either.
When I hear something definite, I'll post it. In the meantime, you can
certainly call headquarters and see if they know anything, yet.
Kevin