Estes V2 Upgrade

Robert Galejs

unread,

Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96

to

The Estes V-2 has a 4" body with plastic nose and boattail.
The fins are two-piece hollow plastic that blends smoothly onto boattail with
nice detailing (panel joints, antennas, thrust vector vanes).
It sports a 24x70 mm engine mount, cardboard centering rings and 2 plastic
parachutes.

I built this model 20 years ago but was too worried about losing or
damaging it that I never flew it until early this year. I actually didn't
fly anything for 20 years until early this year I thought my daughter would
like to see some rockets fly ;) My V-2 flew 3 times on D12-3s with fun,
slow, loud (or so I thought at the time) liftoffs. It didn't go very high
and a fin broke each time it landed. A few more flights and they'd
probably be beyond repair.

It was about this time that I found RMR, read about high power rockets
and figured my V2 would make a fun mid power conversion. I ended up
picking a 29 mm motor size so that I could get high power certified
on it but still use F and G motors till then.

Disassembly
This was the easiest part of the conversion, especially since I didn't
build it very strong in the first place. I tore out the motor mount and
centering rings. The rear ring had already come loose from the first
three launches. I cut off the fins at their base. I was hoping to pry
them off but the model cement I used initially had effectively welded
them to the body. One fin was basically OK, two had large cracks
and the fourth had the lower corner shattered. I removed the old paint
job with acetone. I worked very quickly
here since the acetone was melting the plastic a little. The old
rubberband shock cords and mounts were removed.

Fins
I CAed the cracked fins back together which worked surprisingly well
considering the small area of contact between fin pieces.
In order to reinforce the fins I decided to epoxy 1/16" plywood between
the two fin halves and extend the plywood through the boattail. The fins
are hollow so that it was easy to slide the plywood between the halves after
a fair amount of trial and error shaping. I thought
about extending them all the way through to the motor tube but decided that
would be too difficult since each fin was a little different due to the
repairs that were made. The bottom of these fins are rather wide so I
filled the bottom of fins w/ epoxy to strengthen them and reduce any possible
burning of the thrust vanes from the motor exhaust. I ended up mounting
the motor so that it extended beyond these vanes but I figured a little
extra epoxy never hurts. I cut slots in the boattail for the plywood to
fit into. I also cut slots in the plywood for crosspieces inside the
boattail which would
hold the fins securely to the boattail as the epoxy cured. I added epoxy
fillets after scratching up the plastic to achieve a better bond.

Motor mount and body
I used a 12" 29 mm motor mount tube. I added two small T-nuts in rear of
the boattail w/ hex nuts and washers. A strip of copper flashing w/ holes
for the motor nozzle and hex nuts completed the mount.

I used 1/4" plywood (left over oak from a wood working project) for the
centering rings. I laid them out using a compass and cut them using my
neighbors scroll saw. I cut the outside a little big and the inside a
little small and sanded them to fit. The bottom "ring" was actually more
square so that it could fit into the boattail. I put it about 1" from the
rear so that a 3/4" tape thrust ring could be easily fit. This ring was
epoxied in place and reinforced with 4 finish nails inserted sideways through
the boattail.

The body tube seemed pretty wimpy so I added a tube coupler to reinforce it
leaving room for the nose cone shoulder. The top centering ring went at the
bottom of the coupler and the third ring went right at the top of the
boattail. I added an eye bolt through the top ring for a shock cord
mount.

Nose cone
The shoulder was very small (about 1/2") and resulted in very wiggly nose
cone. I extended the shoulder by bolting/epoxying on the bottom 1" of a
powdered Tang mix container. This container is a near perfect fit into
the 3.9" tube coupler. I calculated the CP w/ Barrowman equations and the
CG ended up about 4" *behind* CP. Now I know why the V2s are so heavy.
I needed to add a little over 1 lb of lead to the nose. This put the
CG 4 " in front of CP w/ a G80 motor. A pound may have been a
bit much but it seemed to work out OK. I had planned on using lead shot
but the smallest amount I could find was 25 lb for $20 which seemed a
bit much. I created a mold for the nose weight by covering front 4" of
the nose cone in vaseline with quick setting cement on top. After it had
hardened, I removed the nose and let the mold cure overnight. I then
melted some lead flashing and poured it into the mold. After cutting off
the tip of the lead, I had a near perfect fit into front of nose cone.
The weight was epoxied in place after roughing up the inside.

The finished weight (w/o motor) was 42 oz. Looking at Aerotech SU motor
specs seemed to give me one choice: G80-4T.

Parachutes
The required diameter was calculated by assuming a 20 ft/s descent rate
w/ a parachute Cd of 1. My wife had leftover red nylon from a sewing
project which I cut into 30" and 24" circles. The edge was finished
with a rolled hem. I tied loops in end of 6 shroud lines (6 seemed to
work OK, maybe more would have been better) and inserted the loops into
3" of 1/2" tubular nylon which was sewn onto the parachute. The tubular
nylon was added to distribute the stress over more of the chute fabric.
I doubled over about 6' of 1/2" elastic to form the shock cords.
The bottom 7" of body tube shock cord was covered with tubular nylon for
protection from the ejection gases.

Painting
Earlier this year I had given an Aerotech Cheetah an orange w/ black spots
paint job and liked how it looked. I thought I'd continue in the wildlife
theme and go with a tiger this time. 1/4 of the V-2 was painted white and
3/4 orange so it looks like a tigers belly if the rocket is
horizontal. I added black stripes around circumference, using National
Geographic articles on tigers as a model. It looks pretty cool.

Launch
I sent off the V-2 on its maiden mid power flight at the CMASS HPR launch
10/19/96 at Amesbury, MA. It was quite windy and overcast. It was
launched off of a 1/4" rod angled slightly into wind. The Aerotech
SU G80-4T w/copperhead ignited with a slight hesitation. There was not
much weathercocking, probably due to relatively high thrust of the G80. I
wanted to use a G40 for a slower liftoff but with this models weight, the
G80 worked well and made for a nice flight up to maybe 700'. The delay
seemed pretty close to 4 sec. The nose ejected fine and parachute opened
but the body chute had not ejected for some reason. I think everyone
watching thought the chute had detached from the body. I may have packed
it too tightly. The body fell a few hundred feet and the parachute
came out! It must have been thrown out as the body tumbled, but the chute
never fully opened. It landed in grass fairly hard but had relatively
minor damage. The fillets on one fin had cracked as if that fin had hit
and bent. Looks like my reinforced fins worked out fairly well. I'll
have to work on getting both chutes to come out at once though.

Stefan Wimmer

unread,

Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96

to

Thank you for the great report, Robert!
And to all others (including me): keep 'em coming!

Frank J. Burke

unread,

Oct 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/22/96

to

All this work to salvage and upgrade a scale model, and you
paint it like a tiger....you're killin me...

Frank

In article <54irje$s...@llnews.ll.mit.edu>,
Robert Galejs <gal...@ll.mit.edu> wrote:

Interesting conversion and repair stuff deleted...

Richard Pitzeruse

unread,

Oct 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/23/96

to

Hey, thanks for the great V2 story. I just recently got all the parts I
need to build a Maxi-V2, including the plastic fins! I was planning on
using a 29mm mount as well. Thanks for the great ideas!

-Rich

--
----------------------------------------------
Richard Pitzeruse x-3711
Photo & Imaging Center mailto:rmpi...@mailbox.syr.edu
Syracuse University http://web.syr.edu/~rmpitzer
----------------------------------------------

Ted H. Apke

unread,

Oct 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/23/96

to

Robert,
You didn't mention this so I thought maybe nobody told you but
it is a good idea to pack the body 'chute on top of the nose 'chute.
This way the nose can pull both of them out.

Ted Apke

Craddock1

unread,

Oct 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/24/96

to

Frank Burke wrote:

>All this work to salvage and upgrade a scale model, and you
>paint it like a tiger....you're killin me...

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking! Man, you can paint ANY regular rocket
like a tiger. Why do that to a rare, classic scale kit? I've been
rebuilding a Maxi-Brute V-2 that I picked up here on rmr to fly with E's
and F's. It's going to be painted up as one of the first four test rounds
baby! Tiger paint? That's like that commercial where the cowboy with a
dinosaur starts laughing about the fellow with the fuchcia truck.

"I like my dinosaur. It's a good dinosaur."

Bob Craddock

Robert Galejs

unread,

Oct 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/24/96

to Craddock1

I guess I just don't understand this obsession with painting rockets
exactly as they "should" be painted. Whether this means just like
the first time the real version flew or just like it looked in the
catalog from however many years ago. These paint schemes are really
boring. Why paint a rare, classic scale kit like a tiger? Because it
looks good. Lots of people at the CMASS launch liked it too. Try it,
you may be surprised at the results.

Who knows, maybe the Germans had plans to use this kind of a paint
scheme as camoflage for the V-2 once they invaded India ;)

Maybe I'm just a contrary kind of guy but here's a few other kits that
I "defiled"...

Estes Phoenix: Instructions say paint it white with a silver tip.
Mine's bright red. The decals look good over red. Maybe I should
repaint this one with fiery looking feathers

Estes Goblin: Not a scale model but still a classic, I think. The
"proper" paint scheme was kind of boring so mine's mostly metallic
purple with the upper half of the nose bright yellow. Not too clever
but I had wanted to add the decals to this one and they disintegrated
when I put them in water :(

Aerotech Cheetah: The instructions? Paint it red. I painted it like
a real cheetah. Gives it lots more character.

Why spend the time filling the spiral grooves, sealing the fins, etc.
and then spend 2 minutes painting it. Why not make it flashy?

- Robert Galejs

Frank J. Burke

unread,

Oct 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/24/96

to

Well, It just seemed that to do all that work to salvage an older scale model, and make the
rather flimsy plastic fins reinforced, and you still have the rather wimpy body tube,
and not finish the restoration, just seemed odd, to me an admitted scale "person". It would
have been more simple and more robust to ust make a scratch model out of HPR parts in
the first place, but that's not saying that spending time on a restoration is a waste.

>
>I guess I just don't understand this obsession with painting rockets
>exactly as they "should" be painted. Whether this means just like
>the first time the real version flew or just like it looked in the
>catalog from however many years ago. These paint schemes are really
>boring. Why paint a rare, classic scale kit like a tiger? Because it
>looks good. Lots of people at the CMASS launch liked it too. Try it,
>you may be surprised at the results.
>
>Who knows, maybe the Germans had plans to use this kind of a paint
>scheme as camoflage for the V-2 once they invaded India ;)

Uh Huh.

>
>Maybe I'm just a contrary kind of guy but here's a few other kits that
>I "defiled"...
>
> Estes Phoenix: Instructions say paint it white with a silver tip.
> Mine's bright red. The decals look good over red. Maybe I should
> repaint this one with fiery looking feathers

Oh jeez.

>
> Estes Goblin: Not a scale model but still a classic, I think. The
> "proper" paint scheme was kind of boring so mine's mostly metallic
> purple with the upper half of the nose bright yellow. Not too clever
> but I had wanted to add the decals to this one and they disintegrated
> when I put them in water :(

I can live with that:)

>
> Aerotech Cheetah: The instructions? Paint it red. I painted it like
> a real cheetah. Gives it lots more character.

This I like:)

>
>Why spend the time filling the spiral grooves, sealing the fins, etc.
>and then spend 2 minutes painting it. Why not make it flashy?
>
>- Robert Galejs

Well solid red, and metalic purple, doesn't sound like it took a lot of
time and thought either, and I would say that an accurate camoflage paint
scheme on a V-2 takes a while to do. I was just being sarcastic, and if
you want some really gaudy paint jobs, check out the two V-2's in the
latest HPR on one of the guys large rocket racks. Holographic metalic
stick-ons, yeah! When I buy a scale kit, I buy it because I like the looks
of the original, and build it and paint it in the scheme I like, and bought
it because it was difficult to obtain correct scale parts to otherwise
make the model. If I want to do something original, heck I'll just scratch
build the whole thing to have not only the paint scheme I want, but the
look and feel also. Hey, how about some tiger teeth on the nose like
the flying tigers:) That would be cool.

Frank

>
>
>
>
>
>

William

unread,

Oct 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/25/96

to

I guess I just don't understand this obsession with painting rockets
exactly as they "should" be painted.

I think the point is that when you "pay extra" for an accurate scale model,
then it ought to have a scale "paint job" too. I doubt that many people
would get up-tight about painting non-scale models as they appear in the
catalogs or not (although duplicating a catalog paint scheme is a sort
of craft in itself.)

Aerotech Cheetah: The instructions? Paint it red. I painted it like
a real cheetah. Gives it lots more character.

Yeah. That sounds nice, and clever too.

Why spend the time filling the spiral grooves, sealing the fins, etc.
and then spend 2 minutes painting it. Why not make it flashy?

No, no, you're supposed to spend MONTHS painting it like a particular
launched original that you have pictures of, including layering on bits of
thickened (same color) paint in scale rivet patterns, and stuff like that.

Personally, I'm of the "paint it in 30 minutes with something technically
interesting but basically ugly" school, but I can appreciate both a
painstakingly accurate scale paintjob as much as an artistic "nouveau"
scheme...

BillW

JackW

unread,

Oct 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/25/96

to

In article <54iv7za...@puli.cisco.com> William wrote:
>Date: 25 Oct 1996 00:10:20 -0700
>From: bi...@puli.cisco.com (William )
>Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
>Subject: Re: Estes V2 Upgrade

Geez...I'm silly...I just like FLY them!
Jack Wiker

Robert Galejs

unread,

Oct 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/25/96

to William

In article <54iv7za...@puli.cisco.com>, bi...@puli.cisco.com (William ) writes:
|> I guess I just don't understand this obsession with painting rockets
|> exactly as they "should" be painted.
|>
|> I think the point is that when you "pay extra" for an accurate scale model,
|> then it ought to have a scale "paint job" too. I doubt that many people
|> would get up-tight about painting non-scale models as they appear in the
|> catalogs or not (although duplicating a catalog paint scheme is a sort
|> of craft in itself.)
|>

|> BillW

But I didn't "pay extra" for an accurate scale model. I had it sitting on
the shelf for 20 years. When I bought it, I bought it because I wanted a
big, cool looking rocket. I was not interested in the history of the V-2
or trying to make it look authentic or even that interested in painting it
carefully. Looks like I've changed my view on the last point. Maybe in
20 more years I'll want to paint it authentically...

- Robert Galejs

al...@pooh.physics.lsa.umich.edu

unread,

Oct 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/25/96

to

bur...@kodiak.ee.washington.edu (Frank J. Burke) wrote:
>Well, It just seemed that to do all that work to salvage an older scale model, a
> nd make the
> rather flimsy plastic fins reinforced, and you still have the rather wimpy body
>tube,

Actually, I am constantly astonished at how many modelers equate
lightweight with "flimsy" rather than efficient. A model built with
lightweight parts can fly on imexpensive black powder engines and
perform very well, and hold up. There are not a lot of 4"-diameter
models out there that you can say that about.

>I guess I just don't understand this obsession with painting rockets

>exactly as they "should" be painted. Whether this means just like
>the first time the real version flew or just like it looked in the
>catalog from however many years ago.

(sorry--that second quote is from Robert Galejs

The obsession with painting just like the catalog perplexes me.
I certainly don't pay attention to non-scale kit painting
instructions. Sometimes I *do* paint *in the style of* the
models in the 1960's Estes catalogs, just because it seems
cool to me .

But as for scale models, it seems to me that the whole point
of a scale model is to make it look like the original.
If it's not mainted like the original, it doesn't look
like the origina, so there's no point in scale. Sometimes
I don't really like the prototype paint scheme (for instance,
the Nike-Hercules), but I like the look. Rather than going
through the trouble of building scale, I build something that
has the cool features (four clustered tubes and big delta fins
upstairs) but just uses the parts I happen to have on hand.

I quess I'd turn the idea upside down. If you relish going your
own way in painting, why not go your own way in design? The
V-2 could be made cooler if you streched it a bit, gave it a
curved, sweeping fin pattern, and gave it a silver and red
paint scheme. Why not go all the way, just using existing rockets
as a jumping-off point. Use kits as part sources and let your
creativity run free through the whole process. If you think the
Big Bertha is ugly, swap nose cones and reshape the fins. If your
think the Saturn V needs some Orange, why not just design a
Saturn V-ish model and not waste a Saturn V kit. You'll end
up with a better looking model.

Peter Alway

Robert Galejs

unread,

Oct 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/25/96

to al...@tarle3.physics.lsa.umich.edu

Peter Alway said...

-Actually, I am constantly astonished at how many modelers equate
-lightweight with "flimsy" rather than efficient. A model built with
-lightweight parts can fly on imexpensive black powder engines and
-perform very well, and hold up. There are not a lot of 4" diameter
-models out there that you can say that about.

If my V-2 as built had actually held up I probably would not have gone
through the trouble of conversion. However, I had major fin damage on each
landing.

->I guess I just don't understand this obsession with painting rockets
->exactly as they "should" be painted. Whether this means just like
->the first time the real version flew or just like it looked in the
->catalog from however many years ago.
-(sorry--that second quote is from Robert Galejs

-I quess I'd turn the idea upside down. If you relish going your
-own way in painting, why not go your own way in design? The
-V-2 could be made cooler if you streched it a bit, gave it a
-curved, sweeping fin pattern, and gave it a silver and red
-paint scheme. Why not go all the way, just using existing rockets
-as a jumping-off point. Use kits as part sources and let your
-creativity run free through the whole process. If you think the
-Big Bertha is ugly, swap nose cones and reshape the fins. If your
-think the Saturn V needs some Orange, why not just design a
-Saturn V-ish model and not waste a Saturn V kit. You'll end
-up with a better looking model.

I didn't "waste" my V-2, I saved it. I learned a fair amount about
building higher power rockets as well. There was nothing I thought needed
changing other than the paint scheme.

I probably will design my own next time around. Maybe modifying
one of those stubby LOC models with a boattail and some cool fin pattern.
Time to look through some mail order web sites...

- Robert Galejs

Frank J. Burke

unread,

Oct 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/25/96

to

I totally agree, but you will see that he added 1 pound of nose weight to
the cone. This amount of weight in the nose and tail, with a standard tube is
a little flimsy. I would much rather have a sturdy tube, and a strong nose cone
than 1 pound of lead, to achieve the same CG. I believe also that people take the
opposite mentality of always over designing things so that you have to use bigger
motors, and therefore use stronger materials, and it is an increasing circle.
You wind up with 75# 11" v-2's that way:)

Frank

In article <54qm30$c...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>,

<al...@tarle3.physics.lsa.umich.edu> wrote:
>bur...@kodiak.ee.washington.edu (Frank J. Burke) wrote:
>>Well, It just seemed that to do all that work to salvage an older scale model, a
>> nd make the
>> rather flimsy plastic fins reinforced, and you still have the rather wimpy body
>>tube,
>

>Actually, I am constantly astonished at how many modelers equate

>lightweight with "flimsy" rather than efficient. A model built with

>lightweight parts can fly on imexpensive black powder engines and

>perform very well, and hold up. There are not a lot of 4"-diameter

Wolfram v.Kiparski

unread,

Oct 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/25/96

to

In article <54od21$e...@llnews.ll.mit.edu>, gal...@ll.mit.edu (Robert
Galejs) wrote:

> I guess I just don't understand this obsession with painting rockets

> exactly as they "should" be painted. Whether this means just like

> the first time the real version flew or just like it looked in the

> catalog from however many years ago. These paint schemes are really
> boring.

The rockets in those old catalogs are painted one way, but the
instructions for those same old rockets usually encourage the modeler to
paint it anyway they want. However, a scale kit is supposed to be scale,
I guess... ;)

> Why paint a rare, classic scale kit like a tiger? Because it
> looks good. Lots of people at the CMASS launch liked it too. Try it,
> you may be surprised at the results.

I think the "wild paint scheme" is particularly effective on easily
recognizable "war rockets."

> Who knows, maybe the Germans had plans to use this kind of a paint
> scheme as camoflage for the V-2 once they invaded India ;)

Or maybe yellow, with a black nose cone, if they made it all the way to
central Colorado. ;)

Wolf

Craddock1

unread,

Oct 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/26/96

to

> I guess I just don't understand this obsession with painting rockets
> exactly as they "should" be painted.

Hey, you can paint a rocket-rocket (e.g., a Goblin) anyway you want to.
The reason to paint a **scale** kit authentic colors is to learn something
about history. For example, the roll pattern on the Saturn V S-IC stage
was simplified to four black rectangles on the side of the fin fairings
because the original black markings made it too hot for workers inside the
interstage area and because it caused false temperature readings. Now if
you were to paint your Saturn V kit up like an Easter egg, you might miss
that. The harder I try to make a scale kit look like the real thing, the
more I learn--which is why they have a scale division within NAR and not a
modern art/gaudy rocket painting one.

Some people like Monet, and some people like Manet. Some others even
like Mayonnaise.

Bob Craddock

Balthezar

unread,

Oct 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/26/96

to

In article <54od21$e...@llnews.ll.mit.edu>, gal...@ll.mit.edu (Robert

Galejs) writes:

>I guess I just don't understand this obsession with painting rockets
>exactly as they "should" be painted.

I agree - if you want to build a 'scale model' then paint it scale,
however there's nothing wrong with painting it any darn way you please.

Bruce Kirchner