The Interceptor: This rocket kit is the new release of the Estes Interceptor. It flies on 18mm B and C motors. This kit was modified with an ejection-gas baffle and Kevlar shock cord mount, and an Iris Altimeter Payload Section. After 6 months, it's finally ready. Construction went well, but painting using bargain-price Home Depot paint resulted in "orange peel" finish, which had to be sanded off - TWICE, and re-applied. The paint then reacted with the primer (SAME BRAND!!) and crinkled and cracked the finish. Re-sanded again and then used the expensive but acceptable Testors paint for $5 per 3 oz can. Clear-coat, decals, then 3 more clear-coats and finally it's done. With the generous glue, extra paint and the added electronics bay, she weighs in at 164.5 grams (5.6 oz.) and is 3.2" longer than stock. I'll plan to use the shorter ejection motors than recommended, just in case it's a little too heavy. Typically for me, this model only passed a string-stability test after I added 17 grams of nose-weight on the base of the nosecone. (Am I doing them wrong??) We'll see how well she flies, but she sure is a pretty gal!
We DID see how she flies, and it wasn't pretty. This model is grossly overweight. The baffle (10 grams?), payload section (19 grams), and the heavy nose-weight (17 grams) makes this too much for even a C6-3 motor. I'm going to send this up on a D10 just to see how well she can fly. Then I'm going to have to take out that nose-weight and see if it's stable enough for flight, I expect it to fly better that way. If it does not and it is destroyed, at least I'll have that one good D-flight to remember.
With the Apogee (Aerotek) D10 motor, this model has flown This rocket has flown higher than the St. Louis Gateway Arch, the Singer building in NY, NY, and the Chicago Temple Building.
I won't want to fly this on a regular basis using the $10 apogee motors though, so instead I hatched a plan to add two small A10-3T boosters on the back, for a total impulse with a C6 motor of 26. The parts for the "solid-rocket-boosters" were obtained from two Estes 220 Swift rockets. I'm waiting to see how well it will fly without the nose-weight before proceeding with this plan. It would be my first cluster rocket project.
| Flight Date: | 2011-11-06 |
| Rocket Name: | Interceptor |
| Kit Name: | Estes - Interceptor {Kit} (1250) [2008-2011,2019-] |
| Flyer's Name: | Rich DeAngelis |
| Motors: | C6-3 |
| Launch Site: | Penn Manor School Lancaster PA |
| Actual Altitude: | 200.00 Feet |
I was (emphasis on past-tense) proud of this rocket when I brought it out to the flight line. It was lookin' sharp! It took off kind of slow, weather-cocked a lot in the strong breeze to 90 degrees or so, and seemed to have a late delay. It was a long 3 seconds at maybe 200 feet. It appeared to come down OK and was not damaged at all, except that I found ALL 6 shroud lines ripped from the parachute plastic. Need to go nylon on this model. Shortly thereafter, Scott B.'s Interceptor flew well in the wind on the same C6-3 motor. On top of all that, the altimeter data came out totally in error. It read 6 feet, 39mph, said it only burned for 1 second (a C6 burns for 1.86 seconds). It did say the peak acceleration was 3.2 G's and averaged only 1.7 Gs - that may have been correct. The rest of the data was missing, but I do know the whole mess was over in 10 seconds. This was the first of 4 out of 7 flights with bad altimeter data, I suspect the thing was pre-triggered in the breeze while sitting on the launch pad.
UPDATE: After corresponding with Jolly Logic (maker of Altimeter 2), it turns out that the model '2 is not triggered by pressure like the '1 is. It senses acceleration - and I'm sure I knocked the rocket around some and triggered it before launch - that explains the bad data I've been getting. Stay tuned for some valid data on upcomming flights!
| Stage | Motor(s) |
|---|---|
| 1 | Estes C6-3 |
Sponsored Ads
 |
 |