The Quest Striker AGM is a simulated military missile. My particular rocket was modified with a 3.5" payload that stretches it to over 30 inches long, and painted to an entirely different red-white-blue scheme featuring some gold trim lines. Another modification was started by the shipping company. The body tube was damaged in the center, so I wrapped it with a heavy paper shroud and then strengthened the body with eight basswood strakes that looks more like it was meant to be a design feature instead of a patch-job. To hide it in plain sight the strakes were painted gold. It looks like it was painted more for an air show and not like an AGM missile. I think with this model I have finally learned that models of this size and weight (30” and about 5 oz.) should have a 24mm mount. The 18mm motors that are affordable are just not powerful enough for satisfying altitudes. I can get about 300 feet on a C6-3 motor though, so it's high enough. This should be strong enough to fly with a composite D10 motor. This rocket has flown higher than the Washington National Cathedral and the US Capitol in Washington, DC.
| Flight Date: | 2012-09-01 |
| Rocket Name: | Striker AGM Iris |
| Kit Name: | Quest - Striker AGM {Kit} |
| Flyer's Name: | Rich DeAngelis |
| Motors: | C6-3 |
| Expected Altitude: | 300.00 Feet |
| Wind Speed: | 10.00 mph |
| Launch Site: | Fort Indiantown Gap, PA |
| Actual Altitude: | 254.00 Feet |
I have plenty of other rockets that need test flights, but this was different. Having just purchased my first Quest motors, I wanted to see how they stack up with Estes, which I have used almost exclusively. I gave Quest the home-field advantage by choosing a Quest kit to fly it in.
I was surprised to find that this Quest motor did not fit into a Quest motor tube! The paper wrap made it tight and trying to force it in only bunched the paper up more for an even tighter fit. I had to rip off all of the paper wrap to get it to fit into the Striker. This difficulty was confirmed by another more experienced Quest user.
While packing the parachute, I saw the knot on the Kevlar-to-shock cord and considered cutting away the excess to prevent it from catching the parachute, but then thought it unnecessary, even though I recommended exactly that in a recent review I wrote.
Eventually I got it on the launcher and fired it up. This motor burned for two seconds, about the same as Estes. Interesting though, it produced about twice the acceleration at 10.9 Gs than a typical Estes C6. The average acceleration for the entire burn was a lot less, and less than Estes at 1.2 Gs. The rocket reached a top speed of 53 mph, which was 18 mph less than the average Estes C6. It then coasted up to 242 feet and there the ejection fired late at 3.8 seconds. It continued up for another 12 feet and stopped at 254 feet at apogee.
The parachute was pulled out of the rocket but never did open up. It was tangled in a mess of Kevlar and elastic cord, and a shroud line was caught in the very knot I earlier decided not to fix with a simple snip of the scissors. Without a parachute it fell at 16 mph, landing hard in the grass after a 15.6 second flight, about 250 feet upwind. It landed sideways and tried to break off two fins. The fins remained attached, but the glue fillet joints showed obvious cracks. These two fins will need to be removed completely and re-glued. A lot more trouble than a snip of the scissors.
Overall the big difference I see here is that the Quest motors peak out much more, but then burns slower and weaker then Estes. As a result it did not go as fast or as high as an Estes C6. Further comparison tests are needed to prove or deny this claim.
| Stage | Motor(s) |
|---|---|
| 1 | Quest C6-3 |
Sponsored Ads
 |
 |