Showing posts with label FlisKits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FlisKits. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
FlisKits Tres - A Challenging Build Part 3
Click here to go to the beginning of the build.
Once I had the motor mount installed in the FlisKits Tres, it looked pretty good and felt nice and solid. But there were small gaps between the motor tubes and the main BT-60 body tube. I suspect this may be the case for most, if not all, builders of this kit.
Those will need to be filled in. Now, it's not just that I don't like the way this looks. Remember that there is only one "centering ring" in this rocket, and it's at the very base, flush with the end of the body tube. So there's not a second ring at the top of the mount to make a nice, airtight seal.
When the ejection charges on the rocket motors go off, they need to pressurize the inside of the body tube in order to blow the nose cone off - and eject the parachute. If you have large gaps like the ones in the photo above, all the ejection charge gasses may just leak out the back. This would lead to a failure to deploy the parachute. The rocket would then come in ballistic, meaning it would nose dive fast and hard into the ground. This would most likely destroy the rocket - and is potentially dangerous, should it hit something or someone.
So, we'll need to fix that. To do this, we'll use glue and make a nice fillet around each of the engine tubes where they meet the body tube.
Even if your rocket has no gaps here, it's not a bad idea to put fillets around the motor tubes. It will hide any jagged edges you've got left, and will make the whole rocket look neater.
To make the fillets, I used the same thing I use for most of my fin fillets - Titebond No-Run, No-Drip molding and trim wood glue. Ever since hearing about this stuff from Chris Michielssen's Model Rocket Building blog, I've used it to make fillets. Swapping out the wide Titebond nozzle for an Elmer's fine point nozzle is a tip I picked up from Chris.
Because it's less prone to sagging and shrinking, and because it starts to dry quickly, this stuff is ideal for filleting these gaps.
I started by running a bead of glue from near the top of the motor tube to the end of the body tube.
You don't need such a thick bead, by the way. Most of this is coming off. When my bottle gets lower, sometimes I squeeze out a bead of glue, and there are gaps in it. So I went a little heavy here to make sure I had one, unbroken line of glue.
If you try to smooth the whole fillet in one swipe, you'll end up with a mess. By the time you get to the end, you'll have so much excess glue built up on your finger that it will end up overflowing the sides of your finger. It's better to do a few swipes and clean off your fingertip with a damp sponge or cloth.
So I started about a third of the way up from the back end, and swept the excess off toward the end of the tube.
I went another third of the way up, and again swiped to the bottom.
Finally, I flipped the rocket over, and attempted to smooth the last bit over the top end of the motor tube. My hope here was that with a few fillet layers, I could actually smooth that joint over, so it would look like the motor tube was simply a part of the body tube, like the branch of a tree, rather than having a sharp ridge where the tube was obviously poking through.
You may prefer to keep a sharp separation. It's an aesthetic choice.
As you can see, there was a bit of excess. That's easily cleaned up by going over it with a clean finger.
Allow the first fillets to dry, then do the other sides, allowing each to dry.
Don't worry if the glue shrinks slightly after the first fillet, leaving a little gap. Do another couple of layers and the fillets should not only close off any air leaks in the tube, but also look nicely rounded. This will show in the paint job.
Next up, the fins. That's my favorite part of a build - it's when the rocket really starts to look like something!
Follow me on Twitter.
Like my Facebook page for blog updates and extra stuff.
Have a question you'd like to see addressed on this blog? Email me at iamtherocketn00b@gmail.com.
Saturday, April 18, 2020
Nothing Flies Like a Flis - The Model Rocket Show - Episode 2 - FlisKits
| Claude Maina's Streaming UFFO lifts off. Photo courtesy Jim Flis. |
Episode 2 of The Model Rocket Show podcast is up, and I'm pleased how it turned out.
This show was meant to come out a year and a half ago, on The Rocketry Show, but one thing and another happened, and... well, I think we finally have a good episode.
![]() |
| Curtis Heisey's upscale FlisKits Deuces Wild |
We're talking about FlisKits, and in the first half of the show we revisit the final FlisKits Anniversary Launch from September of 2018. Then we spend time talking to Ray DiPaola, one of the current owners of FlisKits.
Jim Flis, the company's founder, has already told me he liked the show, which was my hope. I love seeing Jim at launches. He's a great guy, and I know he was probably looking forward to hearing what we recorded so long ago.
![]() |
| Jim Flis holding a Saturn V prototype. Photo courtesy Curtis Heisey |
The show is on most podcast apps or on the show's website (with some show notes and photos), if you prefer to listen on the web (click here to go to the website and show notes).
Give it a listen. I hope you'll enjoy it.
Part 2 of my FlisKits Tres build is coming soon.
Follow me on Twitter.
Like my Facebook page for blog updates and extra stuff.
Have a question you'd like to see addressed on this blog? Email me at iamtherocketn00b@gmail.com.
Wednesday, April 15, 2020
FlisKits Tres - A Challenging Build
To get better at building more challenging rockets, you have to build more challenging rockets. Often, rocketeers will hold on to a model for years, thinking "I'm not up to that skill level yet," or "I need to do this one justice!"
It's understandable. Some models - scale kits, particularly - hold a special place in rocketeers' hearts. And their wallets. And they can tend to be difficult to build perfectly.
Some rocketeers look at the "skill level" on an Estes kit and think Level 3? Level 5?? Expert??? No way!
I used to try for perfection, and since I always make some mistake, there are rockets I waited ages to build, and some I figured I'd never be able to tackle. But it helps to realize that, while some advanced rockets truly are harder, there's no ajudicating body on "skill level." Even if you build an advanced rocket beyond what you've done in the past, it's unlikely you'll end up with something that's not flyable. And if you take your time, it will probably turn out better than you thought it would.
In any case, if you want to have nice looking, harder to build rockets, you have to be willing to build beyond your skill level and just try it. Challenge yourselves, newbie rocketeers, I say!
Maybe don't start with something rare, out of production, or really expensive. But other than that, just give it a shot. Instead of perfection, I now aim for pretty good - as good as I can get it - but I don't beat myself up over mistakes. And I usually have pretty good results.
* * *
Anyway... FlisKits!
The next episode of The Model Rocket Show, dropping early this Saturday, is all about FlisKits, a small indie model rocket company from New England. The episode has been a year and a half in the making. I know, this is only the second episode of the podcast, so how could it have taken over a year to make this episode???
Well, it's a long story. Just listen to the show.
Well, it's a long story. Just listen to the show.
I decided recently, since we're all stuck at home and I'm finally putting this show together, I should actually build that FlisKits Tres I bought directly from Jim Flis over four years ago.
The Tres is a large, 3-motor cluster model with canted motor tubes. If you look at the image at the top of this post, you'll see that means the motors stick out the sides a little. This makes for a wide jet of flame and smoke, and it's a fun rocket to watch fly.
But that motor mount is the main thing that's the challenge in this rocket. I thought I'd do a build on the subject.
I have no picture of just the parts laid out on the table, but the rocket is made up of one 18 inch BT-60 tube and one 18-inch BT-55 tube, balsa nose cone and transition, and balsa sheet - that means no precut fins!
Since this is a cluster rocket, there are three 18mm motor tubes (that's A/B/C sized engine tubes for you fellow Rocket N00bs).
Here they are:
Each tube has a mark 3/4 inch from the bottom. Going through that is a straight line all the way up the tube. Use a small piece of aluminum angle for that, if you have it, or just use a door jamb as you would with fin lines on any model rocket.
Engine block rings (also known as "thrust rings") are glued inside the tops, flush with the ends. So far, so easy. These are your motor tubes. No engine hooks will be necessary for this rocket.
There is a sheet of card stock in this kit you'll use for a number of parts of construction. To assemble the motor mount, there is a small shroud you must cut out from this card stock. You'll also use the custom centering ring, which is more of a round card stock plate with three little divots cut out.
You cut the shroud out with a hobby knife and straightedge. Instructions tell you to "lightly score" all the fold lines on the shroud with a hobby knife.
Be very careful not to cut the shroud at this point! I happened to have a very dull knife blade handy, so that worked. But all you are doing is making sharp fold lines in the card stock, not actually trying to cut it. If you don't have a dull blade, or are worried about using too heavy a hand with the knife, you could use a small dowel you've sharpened to a point in your pencil sharpener, or even a thumbnail.
Apply a very small amount of glue to the glue tab and glue the shroud together.
EDIT: When I first posted this, I should have mentioned that it's a good idea to test fit the custom centering ring into the bottom of the BT-60 body tube. It should just fit inside the tube, like a standard centering ring. If it's slightly too large, you can sand it before proceeding to build the motor mount.
I didn't check, and when I went to install the motor mount, the centering ring butted up against the body tube - it was almost the same diameter as the tube itself. Not a problem if this happens to you - you can still sand that ring. It's just harder, with all the engine tubes glued on. But I did it rather quickly, using an emery board. Most mistakes are fixable.
Once the glue has dried, you can put a thin bead of glue onto the bottom edges of the shroud, carefully line the corners up to the divots in the custom centering ring, and then glue the shroud to the ring.
EDIT: When I first posted this, I should have mentioned that it's a good idea to test fit the custom centering ring into the bottom of the BT-60 body tube. It should just fit inside the tube, like a standard centering ring. If it's slightly too large, you can sand it before proceeding to build the motor mount.
I didn't check, and when I went to install the motor mount, the centering ring butted up against the body tube - it was almost the same diameter as the tube itself. Not a problem if this happens to you - you can still sand that ring. It's just harder, with all the engine tubes glued on. But I did it rather quickly, using an emery board. Most mistakes are fixable.
Once the glue has dried, you can put a thin bead of glue onto the bottom edges of the shroud, carefully line the corners up to the divots in the custom centering ring, and then glue the shroud to the ring.
This might seem pretty flimsy at this point, but believe me, this will work! Once the glue has dried, you can put a thin fillet around the base of the shroud where it contacts the centering ring, for added strength.
I don't have pictures of every step in the next part of building the motor mount, so I'll try and describe it as best I can.
Run a bead of glue down one corner of the shroud, and on the edge of the same cutout in the centering ring. You want a thin layer of glue here, I think. You don't want a large glob of glue.
At this point, I'd recommend waiting 60 seconds before gluing the motor tube on. If you apply the tube immediately, and have a lot of glue, you're going to have to hold the tube in place for a long time. You might involuntarily move the tube out of alignment. You might drop it and get glue everywhere.
So, wait 60 seconds. The thin layer of glue will start to get tacky. Then you can lay the motor tube in place. Line up the 3/4 inch mark on the tube with the centering ring, and use the mark up the tube as a gluing guide for the shroud.
Hold it in place until it sticks, then set it safely aside for it to dry a bit, before proceeding with the other two tubes.
For good measure, I applied fillets between the motor tubes and the shroud and centering ring, everywhere they came into contact. The whole construction seemed pretty solid and really neat when it was complete.
That's the canted motor mount for the FlisKits Tres. As you can see, it's not that hard if you work carefully.
Wait... Installing the motor mount - that's the hard part.
But it's also not too hard. We'll hit that next time.
Click here for Part 2.
Follow me on Twitter.
Like my Facebook page for blog updates and extra stuff.
Have a question you'd like to see addressed on this blog? Email me at iamtherocketn00b@gmail.com.
Click here for Part 2.
Follow me on Twitter.
Like my Facebook page for blog updates and extra stuff.
Have a question you'd like to see addressed on this blog? Email me at iamtherocketn00b@gmail.com.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
The Weight of Paint - Part 4 - Painting Lighter
Click here for Part 1
In the last few posts, we've been looking at a simple model rocket I recently built - the Estes Monarch. When I began building it, I had a rather simple question - how much weight am I adding when I paint? So I weighed it after I built it, and then weighed it again after I painted it, and was really surprised to find that I'd increased its mass from 57.4 grams to 75.8 grams - an increase of over 32%. Nearly a quarter of the rocket's final weight was just the paint job!
This led me to examine a number of questions. How would the extra weight impact the altitude the rocket could be expected to reach? Would a smooth paint job, despite being heavy, actually be an advantage over no paint job, because it would reduce aerodynamic drag enough to make up for the added mass?
We ran some simulations in parts 2 and 3, and found that, in some cases, as with a D12 motor, yes, it might. But in other cases, the added weight was too much, and the heavier Monarch would never catch up to the lighter, unpainted Monarch, despite being smoother. On an Estes C6-5 motor, for example, light and unfinished beat heavy but smooth. Since the Estes Monarch is only meant to fly on C motors or smaller, this is significant, because it suggests that if I wanted the rocket to perform better (rather than merely be pretty), I would be better off not painting it at all.
But smooth paint can reduce drag, while a rough surface texture increases drag, which impedes altitude. There had to be a sweet spot - a trade off point where light weight and smooth texture are in balance to help the rocket be the best flyer it can be - while looking great.
This led me to my final questions, which we'll examine in this post: 1) How much lighter would the painted rocket need to be to match the unpainted one in altitude? 2) How could I have added less weight while still painting? And if we're talking about both beauty and drag reduction, 3) how do you get a nice, smooth paint job?
Although I didn't build or paint the Monarch with maximum performance in mind, the answer to my simple question about the weight of paint led me to ask all these other questions. That's one of the things I love about rocketry - it gives you so many things to think about.
Let's start by looking at Question #3 - getting a smooth paint job.
Getting a Smooth Paint Job
If we want the rocket to look its best and we want to reduce drag, we need the paint to be nice and smooth. So, how do we do that?
I'm not an expert, and I'm not going to go too deep into this question in this post. But I've gotten pretty good at painting. Most of my rockets today look much better than the ones I built when I first started two years ago. Only two of my rockets have a paint job I'd be willing to call "perfect," because they look just the way I wanted them to. Smooth and shiny, with no flaws or bumps stuck in the surface of the paint. Those two rockets are the Estes Goblin and my clone of the Estes Astron Sprint XL.
Most model rocketeers use canned spray paint - what we commonly refer to as rattle cans - to decorate their rockets. Getting a good painted surface requires patience, practice, and a little bit of luck.
The surface of the rocket must be prepared with a good quality sandable primer. I usually use Rust-Oleum Filler Primer, because not only is it easy to sand smooth, but it's a high-build primer, meaning it can fill in little flaws, such as small patches of exposed wood grain on fins, or spiral grooves in the body tube, or minor flaws in the nose cone.
Once the primer has fully dried, the rocket needs to be carefully sanded until it's nice and smooth. Look at it in bright light to make sure you're done. Sometimes you'll find a rough patch you missed by holding the rocket up to the light. Sometimes you'll need a second coat of primer, and a second round of sanding.
Once you feel you've sanded the rocket well enough, remove any primer dust from the rocket. A clean cloth with a little bit of rubbing alcohol can remove the dust, or you can use a tack cloth. This is a bit of cheese cloth with a sticky resin in it which is used to remove dust before you paint.
Some people don't use tack cloth, because it can leave a sticky residue on the surface. The key with tack cloth is to go lightly. If you press it onto the rocket's surface, you may leave some residue. But, truthfully, I've gotten fine paint jobs even when I've accidentally left a bit of residue on a rocket.
Once the dust has been removed, you're ready to paint. Most people spray paint outdoors. Spray paint produces harmful fumes which must be avoided, so proper ventilation is a must. And spray paint is messy, so outdoors is the place for most people.
Some people use a spray painting booth for indoors. A spray paint booth controls the flow of air, so you don't have to worry about whether it's too windy to paint outside. But a booth takes up space, needs to have very good ventilation, needs to be sealed properly so you don't get paint on the floor and walls, and you need to wear a respirator to protect your lungs - and your brain.
Assuming you'll be painting outdoors, you'll want to paint on a day with little to no wind. You want to make sure it's not too humid - the instructions on the paint can will tell you what the maximum relative humidity should be before you paint. You will need to shake the paint can for a minimum of 60 seconds after you hear the rattle ball moving around (sometimes the ball is stuck in the paint at the bottom of the can, and you'll have to shake it free before you start your 60-second shake).
Then, test the spray. Give a few blasts of paint into the air to make sure the paint is flowing freely from the can, with no chunks of pigment coming out. This will also allow you to see which direction the wind is blowing. Even on a "windless" day, there will be air currents.
You'll want to paint with the wind at your back, so the paint goes toward the rocket, not off to one side or back at you. The key is to do a couple of light coats, allowing a few minutes between each coat for the paint to dry slightly. Check the paint can for exact drying time between coats.
Don't expect or try to get every bit of the rocket painted on the first coat or two. You will probably still see some of the underlying primer through the first couple of coats.
After the light coats have dried several minutes, it's time for a final, heavier wet coat. The wet coat is the one that takes the most practice, because it's the easiest one to do wrong. You want to move the can a little bit slower and get a little more paint onto the rocket, and it should go on in a slick, wet layer. Move too slowly or get the paint on too heavy, and a drip or run will form. There's nothing you can do about that, except to allow the paint to dry fully for a day or two, then wet sand the drip off, and possibly repaint.
But when you get a good wet coat, the droplets of paint hit the rocket before they've had a chance to dry at all. They flow together, forming a nice, shiny surface which, when dry, should have a smooth, glossy finish to it.
One of the things that can mess up a nice gloss finish is overspray. Overspray is made of the droplets of paint that don't land directly on the thing you're painting. They float around in the air for a little bit, then settle out and sink to the ground. Some overspray will float around for a second or two, then end up on the rocket itself. In that short time, the droplets have already begun to dry slightly. Unlike the wet coat, the semi-dry droplets of overspray won't flow together with the rest of the paint, and will form tiny little bumps.
That's part of the luck part of the equation I mentioned above. A little change in the wind can blow overpray back onto the rocket. Or a bug can (and often will) decide to land on the wet paint. Or the paint is flowing smoothly from the can, when suddenly a clump will fly out the nozzle, leaving chunks on the rocket. This last one is why you should always shake your paint can thoroughly, and why you should do a few test bursts of paint into the air before you begin painting.
Often, a little overspray isn't terribly noticeable, unless you look at the rocket in strong light. But sometimes it is more noticeable.
Spay paint comes out of the can in a narrow cone shape. Sometimes you'll get a good wet coat on most of the rocket, but a bit of atomized paint on the edges of the cone of spray will land on part of the rocket - say, the fins - and there won't be enough droplets there for the paint to flow together into a smooth surface.
You'll see tiny bumps, or more likely, a patch which isn't as shiny or mirror-smooth Often, the bumps are small enough that if you let the rocket dry for a few minutes, you can hit that part of the rocket with another wet coat and everything will smooth out.
Other times, those bumps are too prominent, and adding another wet coat will simply be adding more weight, without making the rocket any smoother.
What I want to find out is how much lighter the smoother, painted rocket should be, so that it doesn't lose altitude when compared with the rougher but lighter, unpainted rocket. If I'm trying to get the most from my model, it doesn't make much sense to paint the rocket for drag reduction, if the added weight is too much. Since the model was meant to fly on C6-5 motors, and the unpainted rocket simmed at just over 650 feet, I want to make sure the painted model can at least match that - and perhaps surpass it.
I start by opening up both simulation files side by side. As I mentioned in Part 3, you may get a slight difference in altitude each time you run a simulation, and this time, as you can see, the unpainted Monarch has an estimated altitude of 655 feet on the C motor.
Let's see if we can match that in the other sim.
The Monarch went from 57.4 grams before paint to 75.8 grams after - an 18.4 gram increase. How do I know how much weight to shave off in paint to match the altitude of the unpainted rocket?
To find out the maximum weight the Monarch can be before it starts losing out to the unfinished rocket, I'll click on "Sustainer," and override the mass, shaving off a gram at a time. Again, altitude predictions in a rocket simulator such as OpenRocket are approximate, and you may even find you get a slightly different prediction each time you open the same simulation, but this will at least give us an idea of a target weight to shoot for.
Once I get to around 65.8 grams, I'm getting close to matching altitudes on both rockets, so I start reducing the mass by 0.1 gram at a time.
At 65.6 grams, the altitudes are the same - both simming to altitudes 655 feet, give or take a few feet depending on the variables OpenRocket is calculating for. That means, if I paint the rocket to a "regular" finish, as I've done, I can afford 8.2 grams of paint before I start losing altitude. But that's less than half the paint I've applied! What's a rocketeer to do?
Well, remember, our rocket has what we're calling "Regular paint," with a smoother than unpainted, but not perfect, surface texture, which in OpenRocket has an average surface roughness height of 60 microns.
It's actually pretty good. These pictures are zoomed in pretty tight, and while they show the imperfections, the rocket is not as bumpy as the photos imply.
But it could be better. If we'd gotten a nice, smooth paint job on our first try, that would decrease drag further. Changing the surface texture in our simulation to "Smooth paint" with an average surface roughness of 20 microns, then adding weight back to the rocket gram by gram, we find that we can match the unpainted rocket's altitude at 72.1 grams.
This means we only have to reduce the rocket's weight by 3.7 grams - we can afford 14.7 grams of paint weight - much more easily achievable.
If we take it even further and polish the rocket, we can get it even smoother. Polishing involves wet sanding the paint (which we'll go into in further detail below), then using a car polish or rubbing compound to get the rocket nice and smooth.
Setting the painted Monarch's simulated surface texture to "Polished paint," with a surface roughness height of only 2 microns, we find that we only have to shave off 2.2 grams - we match the rougher rocket's altitude at 73.6 Grams.
That's nearly the weight we currently have. Any extra weight savings will mean that we can actually fly higher with the painted rocket than the unpainted one. At this point, the paint hasn't degraded the performance of the rocket - it has enhanced it.
The key, then, to getting the most out of a model rocket is to make it light and make it smooth. That means painting, but painting light. I added 18.4 grams to my Monarch when I painted it. How could I have kept off some of that weight?
Once the dust has been removed, you're ready to paint. Most people spray paint outdoors. Spray paint produces harmful fumes which must be avoided, so proper ventilation is a must. And spray paint is messy, so outdoors is the place for most people.
Some people use a spray painting booth for indoors. A spray paint booth controls the flow of air, so you don't have to worry about whether it's too windy to paint outside. But a booth takes up space, needs to have very good ventilation, needs to be sealed properly so you don't get paint on the floor and walls, and you need to wear a respirator to protect your lungs - and your brain.
Assuming you'll be painting outdoors, you'll want to paint on a day with little to no wind. You want to make sure it's not too humid - the instructions on the paint can will tell you what the maximum relative humidity should be before you paint. You will need to shake the paint can for a minimum of 60 seconds after you hear the rattle ball moving around (sometimes the ball is stuck in the paint at the bottom of the can, and you'll have to shake it free before you start your 60-second shake).
Then, test the spray. Give a few blasts of paint into the air to make sure the paint is flowing freely from the can, with no chunks of pigment coming out. This will also allow you to see which direction the wind is blowing. Even on a "windless" day, there will be air currents.
You'll want to paint with the wind at your back, so the paint goes toward the rocket, not off to one side or back at you. The key is to do a couple of light coats, allowing a few minutes between each coat for the paint to dry slightly. Check the paint can for exact drying time between coats.
Don't expect or try to get every bit of the rocket painted on the first coat or two. You will probably still see some of the underlying primer through the first couple of coats.
After the light coats have dried several minutes, it's time for a final, heavier wet coat. The wet coat is the one that takes the most practice, because it's the easiest one to do wrong. You want to move the can a little bit slower and get a little more paint onto the rocket, and it should go on in a slick, wet layer. Move too slowly or get the paint on too heavy, and a drip or run will form. There's nothing you can do about that, except to allow the paint to dry fully for a day or two, then wet sand the drip off, and possibly repaint.
But when you get a good wet coat, the droplets of paint hit the rocket before they've had a chance to dry at all. They flow together, forming a nice, shiny surface which, when dry, should have a smooth, glossy finish to it.
| The Estes Pro Series II Nike Smoke, nice and glossy after a few light coats and a heavier wet coat |
One of the things that can mess up a nice gloss finish is overspray. Overspray is made of the droplets of paint that don't land directly on the thing you're painting. They float around in the air for a little bit, then settle out and sink to the ground. Some overspray will float around for a second or two, then end up on the rocket itself. In that short time, the droplets have already begun to dry slightly. Unlike the wet coat, the semi-dry droplets of overspray won't flow together with the rest of the paint, and will form tiny little bumps.
That's part of the luck part of the equation I mentioned above. A little change in the wind can blow overpray back onto the rocket. Or a bug can (and often will) decide to land on the wet paint. Or the paint is flowing smoothly from the can, when suddenly a clump will fly out the nozzle, leaving chunks on the rocket. This last one is why you should always shake your paint can thoroughly, and why you should do a few test bursts of paint into the air before you begin painting.
Often, a little overspray isn't terribly noticeable, unless you look at the rocket in strong light. But sometimes it is more noticeable.
Spay paint comes out of the can in a narrow cone shape. Sometimes you'll get a good wet coat on most of the rocket, but a bit of atomized paint on the edges of the cone of spray will land on part of the rocket - say, the fins - and there won't be enough droplets there for the paint to flow together into a smooth surface.
![]() |
| Image from HowStuffWorks.com |
Other times, those bumps are too prominent, and adding another wet coat will simply be adding more weight, without making the rocket any smoother.
How Much Less Should My Painted Monarch Weigh?
Now that we've discussed painting technique, let's look back at our Monarch simulation.
What I want to find out is how much lighter the smoother, painted rocket should be, so that it doesn't lose altitude when compared with the rougher but lighter, unpainted rocket. If I'm trying to get the most from my model, it doesn't make much sense to paint the rocket for drag reduction, if the added weight is too much. Since the model was meant to fly on C6-5 motors, and the unpainted rocket simmed at just over 650 feet, I want to make sure the painted model can at least match that - and perhaps surpass it.
I start by opening up both simulation files side by side. As I mentioned in Part 3, you may get a slight difference in altitude each time you run a simulation, and this time, as you can see, the unpainted Monarch has an estimated altitude of 655 feet on the C motor.
Let's see if we can match that in the other sim.
The Monarch went from 57.4 grams before paint to 75.8 grams after - an 18.4 gram increase. How do I know how much weight to shave off in paint to match the altitude of the unpainted rocket?
To find out the maximum weight the Monarch can be before it starts losing out to the unfinished rocket, I'll click on "Sustainer," and override the mass, shaving off a gram at a time. Again, altitude predictions in a rocket simulator such as OpenRocket are approximate, and you may even find you get a slightly different prediction each time you open the same simulation, but this will at least give us an idea of a target weight to shoot for.
Once I get to around 65.8 grams, I'm getting close to matching altitudes on both rockets, so I start reducing the mass by 0.1 gram at a time.
At 65.6 grams, the altitudes are the same - both simming to altitudes 655 feet, give or take a few feet depending on the variables OpenRocket is calculating for. That means, if I paint the rocket to a "regular" finish, as I've done, I can afford 8.2 grams of paint before I start losing altitude. But that's less than half the paint I've applied! What's a rocketeer to do?
Well, remember, our rocket has what we're calling "Regular paint," with a smoother than unpainted, but not perfect, surface texture, which in OpenRocket has an average surface roughness height of 60 microns.
It's actually pretty good. These pictures are zoomed in pretty tight, and while they show the imperfections, the rocket is not as bumpy as the photos imply.
But it could be better. If we'd gotten a nice, smooth paint job on our first try, that would decrease drag further. Changing the surface texture in our simulation to "Smooth paint" with an average surface roughness of 20 microns, then adding weight back to the rocket gram by gram, we find that we can match the unpainted rocket's altitude at 72.1 grams.
![]() |
| When we change the texture to "Smooth paint," the altitude of the 65.6 gram rocket zips up to 692 feet. |
![]() |
| At 72.1 grams, the smooth rocket flies as high as the unpainted rocket. |
If we take it even further and polish the rocket, we can get it even smoother. Polishing involves wet sanding the paint (which we'll go into in further detail below), then using a car polish or rubbing compound to get the rocket nice and smooth.
Setting the painted Monarch's simulated surface texture to "Polished paint," with a surface roughness height of only 2 microns, we find that we only have to shave off 2.2 grams - we match the rougher rocket's altitude at 73.6 Grams.
![]() |
| The Monarch with a polished surface goes to 644 feet at 72.1 grams. |
![]() |
| At 73.6 grams, the altitude of the polished rocket matches that of the lightweight, unpainted rocket. |
That's nearly the weight we currently have. Any extra weight savings will mean that we can actually fly higher with the painted rocket than the unpainted one. At this point, the paint hasn't degraded the performance of the rocket - it has enhanced it.
The key, then, to getting the most out of a model rocket is to make it light and make it smooth. That means painting, but painting light. I added 18.4 grams to my Monarch when I painted it. How could I have kept off some of that weight?
How Can I Add Less Weight While Painting?
It's important to remember that this is just one rocket. Results will vary! Though I added 18.4 grams to this Monarch when I painted, I could build the rocket again, paint it exactly the same way, and the end weight would probably be different. It's nearly impossible to control exactly how much mass you add when using spray paint cans. You press down the button, paint comes out, you point it at the rocket, and some of the paint goes onto the rocket. There's no gauge for measuring the mass of the paint as it comes out the nozzle, and no way of precisely controlling how much paint lands on the rocket.
But you can paint lighter, if you want to.
First, let's look at primer. I wasn't expecting to talk about this subject in such depth, so I neglected to weigh the rocket after primer but before paint. Still, primer certainly adds some mass.
Primer is less dense than the enamel paint I used on this rocket, and some of it gets sanded off. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that the primer makes up only 20 percent of the added weight on the Monarch. That's close to 3.7 grams. It could be more, but to err on the conservative side, let's assume that the primer doesn't add much. Most of the weight savings will have to be in paint. Still, we could shave off a couple grams on the primer.
When I prime a rocket, I give it a good, heavy coat, and then I sand it until the surface of the primer is nice and smooth. But I leave a layer of primer on the whole rocket.
But you can remove more of it if you like. Let's look at a photo from Chris Michielssen's Model Rocket Building blog.
| Body tubes from two Estes Solar Warriors, being constructed on Chris Michielssen's Model Rocket Building blog, here. |
This is a photo from a typical build of Chris'. The larger picture is after primer, but before sanding. The inset is after sanding - most of the primer has been sanded off, leaving only a thin layer in the low spots on the rocket. This has the advantage of taking most of the weight of the primer off. If I'd done this on my Monarch, I'd guess there would be no more than 1 gram of added mass after primer.
So, that's one way I could have saved a couple grams of weight - sanding off most of the primer.
But usually, when I sand, the rocket still looks like the before picture above.. Sanding is best done with a light hand, though it can be tempting to apply pressure to the sandpaper to make the job faster. When I sand through most of the primer, I sometimes oversand, into the paper tube in a few spots, raising fibers, which can result in a fuzzy rocket rather than a smooth finish. It can be hard to see those fuzzies when the primer is gone. So, I usually try to leave a thin layer of primer in place.
That means I have to save weight in another area.
Here's where I reveal a secret about this build. I certainly put too much paint on this rocket.
As I stated above, I usually do two light coats, followed by a final wet coat. And, as I mentioned, sometimes a slight imperfection in texture can sometimes be hidden by a second wet coat in that spot.
Well, the bumps you see in the pictures here happened during my wet coat.
I'm not sure why they're there. It could have been temperature, or perhaps humidity (though I try to never paint unless the humidity is nice and low). It could be I held the paint can a little too far from the rocket, resulting in the droplets of paint drying slightly before hitting the surface I was painting. It could have been that I moved the paint can a little too quickly, so that the droplets weren't close enough together to flow into one smooth surface properly.
It can be hard to tell. If you get a problem in your paint job, you can take a picture of it and post it to an online forum, asking "What did I do wrong here?" and someone might give you the reason why, or you might get multiple conflicting answers. There are some very knowledgeable people out there on the subject of painting, but unless someone was in the room with you when you painted, it can be tough for them to judge what happened. Still, you'll get a few suggestions on how to avoid a certain paint mishap in the future.
In any case, I decided to try doing another wet coat.
This was a bad idea. I considered letting the paint dry completely after the first wet coat, then wet sanding the texture smooth, and if need be, re-painting to touch up any lost color. But I didn't feel like doing that with this rocket. I was trying to get it finished in time to fly the following weekend.
So, I did the second heavy coat and allowed it to dry. The bumps were still there, and at that point I decided to live with them. I did the second color on the nose cone, fins, and lower body tube, again with two light coats and a wet coat.
* * *
So, anyway, if you guess that the primer was - let's keep it conservative and call it 1.5 grams - then the paint was 16.9 grams. Let's say that the two light coats were 4 grams total, the wet coats were 5 grams each, and the second color, not covering the whole rocket - made up the remaining 2.9 grams.
I know I'm guessing here, but you can see how I might easily save enough weight to make the rocket perform better.
By sanding off more primer, deciding to be happy with one wet coat - and perhaps sanding and polishing out the imperfections - I could easily have saved 5 or 6 grams, and maybe more.
Removing surface imperfections on a painted surface is often done with wet sanding. Wet sanding, as the name implies, is the process of sanding a surface smooth, using water as a lubricant.
Instead of standard, tan-colored sandpaper, wet sanding requires the use of wet/dry sandpaper. It's often dark gray in color, and it's water-resistant, so it won't disintegrate when wet.
Like standard sandpaper, it comes in different grits, numbering higher and higher the finer it gets. To wet sand paint, you start with a fine grit - at least 600 grit - dampen the paper, lightly sand, and then move to a higher grit paper. To get a nice smooth finish, you may lightly wet sand with paper up to 1600, even 2000 grit.
Wet sanding helps to get a really smooth finish by lubricating the sandpaper, and by rinsing away any sanding dust, which could clog the sandpaper and scratch the painted surface.
Paint should protect the paper body tube from water damage, but you must still be careful. The rocket is still vulnerable at certain points, particularly the ends of the body tube. When wet sanding a paper rocket, you dampen the paper in some water, sand lightly, and rinse the paper from time to time. Shake off excess water before re-sanding, and occasionally wipe away any excess water pooling on the rocket as you sand. Water can run around the unpainted ends of the paper tube and soak into the paper fibers, causing the tube to swell, basically ruining your work, so keep the moisture on the rocket to a minimum.
The risk of damage can also be reduced if, while building the rocket, you ran a ring of CA or cyanoacrylate (hobby grade super glue) around the insides of the ends of the body tube. The CA soaks into the paper fibers, stiffening them up and preventing them from soaking up moisture if you accidentally get the end of the rocket wet.
| Thin or medium CA (cyanoacrylate - hobby grade super glue) can protect paper fibers from water damage, if you end up wet sanding the paint. It also strengthens the end of the tube. |
With a smoother finish and lighter rocket, how would the painted Monarch perform against the unpainted one?
Let's say we only saved 6 grams of weight. I'll change the mass to reflect that, from 75.8 to 69.8 grams. And I'll adjust the simulated finish to "Smooth paint" - let's say I got the surface smooth enough, but wasn't terribly fussy about it.
Let's run some simulations and see how the rocket performs.
First, let's look back at the results for the unpainted, rough Monarch.
And now for the 6-gram-lighter, painted version.
The painted rocket is now flying higher than the unpainted one - quite significantly on the D12 motor, but even on the C6 for which the Monarch was designed.
Could we go even lighter? Sure! Different kinds of paint - enamels (such as used here), lacquers, and acrylics, surely have different weights when dry. Even different brands of paint with a similar base (such as two different brands of enamel) may have different dry masses.
For the Monarch, I used Rust-Oleum Painter's Touch 2X Ultra Cover Gloss enamel paints. For my prettiest rocket, the Astron Sprint XL, I used Krylon Color Master gloss enamel paint. Krylon used to be the go-to paint for many rocketeers, but when they changed formulas a number of years ago, some people didn't like it, and switched brands. I've used it on a few rockets, and while some cans do seem to have problems, when it comes out correctly, it's beautiful - and very, very smooth.
![]() |
| With the exception of the one flaw seen here, which I was able to polish out, the Krylon paint went onto the Astron Sprint XL perfectly, making a beautiful nose cone. |
Still, there's another possibility: using an airbrush.
I can't tell you much about using an airbrush just yet, as I don't have one. It's on my shopping list, and when I feel comfortable enough about it, I'll discuss using the airbrush on the blog. An airbrush is a bit of an investment - you need not only the airbrush itself, but a compressor and one or two other items for maintenance. And I imagine there's a bit of a learning curve.
But, at a recent launch, I had a conversation with Jim Flis, owner of Fliskits, and we got on the subject of airbrushes. I asked his advice. The advantages of an airbrush are that there's very little wasted paint, and little overspray. Also, depending on what paint you use, there's little smell, and dangerous paint fumes are less of a worry. You can paint inside. You don't have to worry about gnats landing in your wet paint and marring the finish.
And I said to him, "Sounds like it's really lightweight."
"Oh, yes," he said. "If I were doing competition rocketry, I'd use an airbrush."
That sounded pretty good to me.
Let's do one final simulation, based totally on a hypothetical situation and a guess on my part. Let's imagine we've built the Monarch, used our standard primer - which we'll say adds two grams to the rocket - and painted extremely light, either with an airbrush or some kind of miraculous rattle can of spray paint - and that we've managed to add only 2 grams of paint.
Our Monarch is perfectly built, glass smooth, and weighs only 61.4 grams. How high might it go?
Now, we've gained some serious altitude, flying over 70 feet higher than the unpainted rocket on the C6-5 motor and 188 feet higher on the D12-5.
Scaling Up and Down
You can see that smooth and light are the keys to maximizing the performance of your model rocket. This particularly makes a difference for small, low power rockets. When you get into mid power and high power rockets, and larger vehicles, the effects I'm describing here aren't likely to scale exactly, for a couple of reasons.
The first is that when something increases in size, the ratio of surface area to volume decreases. So, if you had two versions of the same model, one 14 inches tall and the other 4 feet tall, you may apply the same amount of paint per square inch to each rocket, but the surface area you're painting on the larger one will be less compared to its overall size.
Also, while it's easy to add a half ounce of weight to a small, 7 ounce model rocket, you're not very likely to add 5 pounds of paint to a 70-pound Level 3 high power rocket!
Building small rockets has some real challenges, and keeping things comparatively light is one of them.
I wasn't expecting to go this deep into things when I asked myself this question on the weight of paint, but it's certainly been interesting to think about.
Follow me on Twitter.
Like my Facebook page for blog updates and extra stuff.
Have a question you'd like to see addressed on this blog? Email me at iamtherocketn00b@gmail.com.
Tuesday, July 12, 2016
Rocket Camp - Kit Selection
Click here for the previous post.
Click here for the first post of this series.
One of the first and most important decisions you'll make when teaching a rocketry camp or unit, be it at a middle school, high school, scout troop or public library will be: What rockets will we build? There are a lot of choices available, and the answer you come up with will depend on the parameters of the class. You'll want to consider the age group of the kids you're teaching, the likely experience level they'll have, and the length of time you'll have with them.
The obvious choice for leading a group of kids in a rocketry class is an Educator's Bulk Pack. Most major model rocket manufacturers carry these. Estes and Quest Aerospace, the two biggest, have a pretty good selection of bulk packs, but there are others to consider. Apogee Components has bulk packs of different skill levels, as does FlisKits, and even Balsa Machining Services, which mainly specializes in rocket parts, has a "School Rocket."
![]() |
| The School Rocket from Balsa Machining Services. |
You'll need to decide on the skill level of kits, the type, and whether you want a variety pack with several different designs, or a bulk pack of the same kit. You should also consider the size of the field you will launch from, as well as the surface - whether it be grass, gravel, asphalt, etc.
What "Skill Level" means varies from company to company, and even rocket to rocket. There are some Skill Level 2 rockets which are very simple, and some Skill Level 1 rockets which have more parts or require cutting plastic. There's not much rhyme or reason to it, other than that once you get to Skill Level 3 and beyond, it's going to be too difficult and frustrating for first-time builders.
| The Estes Goblin - a Skill Level 2 rocket which is simple to build.It does fly very high on D motors, though, and does not come in a bulk pack. I just mention it as an example. |
But if you have more time, older kids, kids with more experience, or if you are trying to teach the kids the craft of rocketry, so that they will feel comfortable continuing on their own when they leave your camp or class, you'll probably want to choose something that takes a little longer and a bit more attention to build.
When I mention students' experience, I'm not necessarily talking about experience with model rockets. You may be working with a scout troop who have built pinewood derby cars. Maybe you're doing something with 4-H, with a group who have experience with various crafts. Perhaps you'll be going into a shop class or even incorporating rocket building into an art class, with students who are used to using paints and glues. These are all valuable, transferable skills to rocket building. Especially working with glue - your first-time builders are going to need some guidance with glue, believe me!
As for type, you'll consider whether to use simple 3-fins-and-a-nose-cone rockets, or something with a payload section, or an "odd-roc" - a rocket which doesn't look like a typical rocket. A saucer is a common kind of odd-roc.
![]() |
| Estes Blenders - a type of saucer "odd-roc." These are interesting and don't fly too high. The Blender is a more advanced build. Image from eRockets.biz. |
Before you choose, try to find the instructions. For most Estes kits, you can download the instructions and read them ahead of time. Same is true for other companies as well. That way, you can see if you'll need any special tools. You might find a so-called "Skill Level 2" rocket which you like, and which in fact is pretty simple to build. You might also find Skill Level 1 rockets you'd rather avoid.
Whether you get a variety pack or a bulk pack of all the same rocket will also depend on the factors I've mentioned above. Younger kids and inexperienced builders will need some guidance. If you simply hand them the instructions and let them have at it, they will very likely build too quickly. Some kids don't have the patience to let glue dry on certain parts, and you might end up with a class full of rockets with iffy construction. When in doubt, I'd recommend everyone have the same kit, so that you can build with them, step by step, and you can guide when it's time to set the parts down to let the glue dry while you do something else with them.
Finally, consider the size and type of field you will launch from. If you're flying on a small field, you'll either want a rocket that doesn't go too high (which is largely due to the motors you use, but will also depend on the rocket - a lightweight, thin rocket will fly much higher than a fatter or heavier rocket), or you may want to select a rocket that uses streamer recovery instead of a parachute. If you're likely to land on a hard surface, such as rocky ground or asphalt, you'll probably want to go with parachute recovery*.
Whatever kits you decide on, I highly recommend building one yourself a few days before class begins. A lot of experienced builders will modify their rockets slightly, changing out the shock cord for another material, for example. But I would suggest you build according to the instructions, as the kids will build. This will alert you if there's anything you need to be on the lookout for. Are there parts which don't fit together just right? Does it come with a two-piece nose cone which requires plastic cement? Do you have to make your own parachute, and if so, how tricky might it be for little fingers? These are the things you'll want to figure out before you get into the classroom. It's also nice to have a well-built demonstration model to show the kids on the first day. It can be hard to visualize what a pack of parts can really look like when it's assembled, and most bulk packs do not come with a face card with a nice photo of the rocket.
I went with Skill Level 1 kits, preferring balsa fins over plastic or card stock.
*In my case, I had both a small launch area and asphalt, as we launched from a parking lot. The lot would be coned off, but there were still cars parked in the vicinity, and there was the community college roof to be concerned about, not to mention a busy road not too far away. My biggest concern was that road, and though we could launch pretty far back from it, I decided I'd need to keep our altitudes to about 300-350 feet with parachute recovery.
* * *
I had suspected last year that I'd need all the kids to have the same kit. My suspicions were confirmed after the Estes Alphas I had requested did not arrive, and the first week kids each ended up with different rockets. It was great that they got to build whatever they wanted, but it meant I couldn't guide them through it. There was the issue of kids using too much glue, or trying to stuff a motor mount into the back of a rocket before the glue was dry, or the one kid who glued on his launch lug directly in line with one of his fins, so that the rocket wouldn't be able to go onto the launch rod. (We pulled that one off before the glue had totally dried and got it in the right place, but I might have missed it).
For the second week, we got a pack of the Estes Viking, because it was available at a local hobby shop.
This is a nice little rocket with card stock fins, with a wide variety of fin configurations. Kids could build with three, four, or five fins, and they could be attached in a variety of directions, so that each kid could make a slightly different rocket. (Balsa fins must be attached with the wood grain parallel to the fin leading edge, so there is only one right way to attach a balsa fin).
The Viking is what's called "minimum diameter." It's very narrow - only as wide in diameter as it needs to be to accommodate the rocket motor. Narrow rockets have less aerodynamic drag than larger-diameter rockets. That means they can fly very high - which kids love, but which cost me some money (I'll explain when we get to altitude tracking)! Fortunately, they weren't likely to drift too far. The Viking uses streamer recovery, which isn't ideal for asphalt, but with such a lightweight rocket, hopefully we'd get them all back with minimal damage to the fins and body tubes.
One drawback to the Viking is that the rocket has no motor hook on the back. The motor hook is really convenient for kids, because it snaps into place and keeps the motor from falling out the back of the rocket. The Viking requires a "friction fit," which means you must wrap masking tape around the motor until it's nice and tight - just tight enough that it won't fall out when the ejection charge fires, but not so tight you can't get the motor out and put a new one in when you're done. It's a very fine line, and one I still have a bit of trouble judging. Kids will sometimes have a motor fall out at apogee, or never be able to get the used motor out without damaging the rocket.
Also, because the rocket is minimum diameter, it has no motor mount - the body tube is the motor mount. I really wanted to show the kids as typical a model rocket as possible, with all the parts they're likely to encounter on most builds.
My solution was to put together a quick scratch build, a rocket I called Sounder II.
It had all the basic parts, but I didn't glue the motor mount into place until after the first day. When I was showing the parts of a rocket on day one, before launching, I pulled the motor mount out of Sounder II, showing the centering rings, thrust ring/engine block, motor hook, etc. I then glued it in, showing how this was done.
Sounder II also turned out to be very useful later in the week when talking about stability and rocket design. And it flew very well. It's always good to show kids a few scratch builds - scratch building was pretty standard in the early days of model rocketry, and it's a good confidence builder. A kid who understands stability and how a rocket goes together should eventually be able to learn to design and build his or her own.
On week 3, I went in a different direction - the Quest Astra.
It's a great rocket, but different than a standard Estes Skill Level 1 kit. It has through-the-wall balsa fins, so the kids won't get the fins in the wrong spot. Instead of a rubber shock cord with a paper trifold "tea bag" mount, as is used in Estes rockets, it uses Kevlar thread, tied around the motor mount and passing under the forward centering ring. Some of the kids had a little difficulty with this method. On my own Astra, I was so busy helping the kids with their rockets, I never put the launch lug on mine. I painted it without one. (This wasn't a mistake - I decided it was more important for me to show the kids how to paint than to have one more rocket I could launch with them. You can launch a rocket without a launch lug, but you need a tower or piston launcher. These are advanced launch pads more used for competition rocketry.)
* * *
This year, I went in a different direction. Hoping to avoid any purchasing mistakes, and wanting to make sure I selected a rocket which any of the more experienced kids were unlikely to have built before, I turned to Apogee Components. We built the Apogee Avion.
Apogee has a number of great bulk packs. They're not the cheapest you'll find, but they have a variety of great kits, both of their own and from Quest Aerospace. They carry simple rockets, like the Avion, which has balsa fins, and the Apprentice, with a single-piece plastic "fin can." They also have payload-carrying rockets and even a two-stage bulk pack for the truly ambitious.
Another nice thing about buying bulk packs from Apogee is that you can download a free RockSim file for each rocket they sell. This will allow you to show the design file on rocket simulation/design software, such as RockSim, which is sold by Apogee Components, or OpenRocket, which is free. With simulation software, you can get a rough estimate of how high the rocket will go with different motors, and you can also use it to demonstrate principles of model rocket stability, aerodynamics, and design.
I had thought the Avion looked like a cool little rocket for some time, so I ordered those. As I built the demo model, I discovered a few things. The nose cone came in two parts, so we'd need plastic cement. The shock cord is Kevlar, and is supposed to be anchored to the motor mount. The Kevlar shock cord is also pretty short.
| The full length of the Avion shock cord, when built according to the kit insructions |
A short Kevlar shock cord can be a problem. Because it's not elastic, Kevlar can actually damage the rocket. If the parachute ejects when the rocket is moving too fast - either due to a motor delay which is too long or too short - the force of the parachute opening can pull the shock cord back against the opening at the top of the body tube. Because it is so stiff, this can cause the shock cord to rip through the body tube, causing a long, jagged tear known as a zipper.
![]() |
| A zipper - a jagged tear down the body tube of a rocket, caused by the shock cord. Image from an Apogee Components YouTube video. |
Because I had already known about the Kevlar cord, and I knew some of my students really had trouble with the Quest Astra shock cord last year, I decided we would use some sewing elastic and make an Estes-style paper trifold "tea bag" mount.
| An Estes paper trifold shock cord mount, sometimes called a "tea bag mount" |
Some experience rocket builders don't like the trifold mount, because they sometimes "fail." In fact, it isn't usually the mount itself that fails - it's that the shock cord breaks. A properly-glued paper mount should be quite secure, because wood glue and white glue are said to form a bond that is stronger than the paper tube itself. In reality, I'm sure a well-glued shock cord mount may occasionally come out, but more often than not it's a failure of the shock cord itself.
But first rockets are usually lost or damaged long before that happens. They end up stuck in a tree, breaking because of a poorly-packed parachute, or simply flying so high on a C6-5 motor that they simply "vanish," that an elastic trifold mounted shock cord is probably sufficient. Some elastic cords last decades.
Unfortunately, when I stopped in to check everything the Friday before class began, I discovered that the sewing elastic I'd requested had been forgotten. We'd still use a paper shock cord mount, but just with the Kevlar. Mounting the shock cord near the top of the tube would at least give us a little more length on the shock cord, and if there were a zipper, it wouldn't go more than an inch or two down the tube, stopping at the paper mount.
These Apogee Avions are nice! They are really great fliers - straight up every time. I don't know what it is about them, but I really enjoyed seeing these things launch. Since they're larger than a rocket like the Viking, they don't go as high, and you can keep your eye on them the entire flight (unless you fly on a C motor - then they're capable of reaching 1300 feet - if you've got a large enough field, go for it! Even on A motors, these are exciting rockets to watch. After building a demo version and one each week with the kids, I now have four of them!
In an upcoming post, we'll talk about the building process.
Click here for the next Rocket Camp post.
Click here for the next Rocket Camp post.
Like my Facebook page for blog updates and extra stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





































