This was the second flight using a Quest C6-3 instead of my usual Estes C6-3. The last flight was rather poor in comparison to Estes, but this time the performance was remarkably better, showing that the Quest motor can compete with Estes.

The Quest motor lit well and the peak acceleration off the pad was better than the Estes average reaching 9.3 Gs. The average acceleration was extremely low though, at only 0.9 Gs (above the terrestrial 1.0 Gs).  It was a very, very long burn time of 2.6 seconds, and the audible roar was much more impressive than any Estes motor, as it compared more with the sound of a composite motor.  In spite of the long burn time, it only reached a top speed of 58 mph, rather slow, but it then coasted for 2.4 seconds more, still travelling upwards at only a slight angle, reaching a second highest apogee of 297 feet (the record was 303 feet, while the average for Estes motors was 272 feet).

The delay grain burned a little long - 3.4 seconds, giving the Striker enough time to turn over and fall only 7 feet in the final full second before ejection. The Quest parachute opened well at 290 feet, and the rocket descended at 9 mph - a little slower than any previous flight. It landed nearby in the grass 26.6 seconds later. Inspection showed a fin cracked and almost completely separated at the root, even though it was a slow descent and a soft landing in grass. I suspect that the fin repair from the previous flight with no parachute was not repaired very well.

In summary my opinion of Quest motors has improved based on this flight performance, but I still find it strange that I have to remove the label to get it to fit in a Quest rocket. Even then it was very tight. I also have doubts about the consistency of Quest motors, given the wide performance difference between my first two motors. A third test flight should tell me a lot more.