Graphically the cover was pretty exciting, placing the finished model over an eclipse. It showed us just enough to raise curiosity and start a page search for the cover model. That catalog page is: CLICK HERE
The original catalog number was K-50. I would think Estes wanted a showpiece kit to celebrate their fiftieth kit release. Wayne Kellner did the design.
One feature of the model was a two piece plastic nose cone, wing pods and tail cone. Estes was just starting to use plastic parts for some rocket details. The other major feature was two LARGE decal sheets. While the model was mostly white, the decals really set it off. The first issue kit price was $4.95.
The original K-50 Interceptor instructions are on JimZs: CLICK HERE
In the K-50 kit instructions notice the two piece nose cone, dowel fin antennas and wing pods with balsa nose cones.
This build will be the re-issue Interceptor, kit #1250.
While it looks like it has been discontinued, you can probably still find it from some distributors. Retail price is now $30.99. (Only six times the original kit price!)
In the 1990s, Quest came out with their own version, the Intruder.
The fin layout is about the same but it lacks the conical, canopy nose cone and plastic fin details of the Interceptor. The decals were also a disappointment, they were peel and stick. CLICK HERE to see the catalog page.
I've heard it called "the poor man's Interceptor".
I had one of these in a bag but was never interested in building it. It was sold in a kit "lot" on Ebay.
In several of my previous responses, I've mentioned the Inflation calculator ( http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl ) which is handy in getting a clearer picture when it comes to comparison of prices of the past to current prices. Using this applet, 4.95 in 1971 dollars would be equivalent to $29.24 in 2016 dollars -- not too bad. It is however disheartening to think that today you can only buy 1/6 of what you did back in 1971 for the same dollar amount.
ReplyDeleteHi Naoto,
DeleteI rarely buy kits at retail, I'm still stuck in the early 1970s, as far as rocket prices go. Thanks for the link to the inflation calculator.
One thing that is interesting (to me at least) with the two-piece nosecone is how it is split as top/bottom half rather than the typical left/right found on most injection-molded plastic model aeroplanes. Of course the two-part nosecone was required due to the particular method of fabrication (injection molding) -- later use of blow-molding technique obviated the need for two-piece nosecone. Of course, the downside to the single-piece nosecone would be that if you wanted to add a cockpit interior (after replacing the "transparent" parts of the canopy) is a bit more of a hassle to do with a single-piece nosecone compared to one that is split (either left/right or top/bottom parts).
ReplyDeleteIn the recent updated reissue, the all-plastic bits for the wingtip pods and "antenna" bits on the vertical fin parts is a welcome addition from an ease-of-build and durability standpoint, I do worry about the additional weight. Most of the time the plastic parts always seem to be heavier than their wooden equivalents. About the only time I've seen plastic being less heavy is if in the form of something like expanded polystyrene foam (often mistakenly referred to as Styrofoam) -- but then such parts could be more fragile than balsawood equivalent (on the upside they do have significantly more "give" and thus less apt to be damaged in that respect, but is *much more* susceptible to dents and dings, also finding paints that don't "eat" foam could be a challenge).
Hi Naoto,
DeleteIn the re-released kits I'm surprised how well molded plastic halves fit together. Things are much tighter with less seam alignment problems. Sometimes the fit is so good that dry fits are hard to separate for gluing!
Foam has never been a good choice for rocket nose cones. Vashon used them towards the end and they always had dings and fingernail dents in them.
A little extra weight isn't a concern, most all are sport flyers anyway. As long as there isn't too much rear weight making the rocket unstable.
Considering that in many cases we might be adding nose ballast, having an ultra-light nosecone might not be much of an advantage. On the other hand, a parasite glider made of foam (rather than vacuform plastic, or built up from paper and wood) might not be too bad of an idea. One idea that I've toyed with is making an alternate glider sit atop the for the Orbital Transport booster section (in place of the built-up delta-wing glider) -- perhaps modeled after various lifting body concepts (e.g. FDL7 or Hyper III), or perhaps something along the lines of the Orion shuttle seen in the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey"
DeleteYay!
ReplyDeleteI'll be watching this closely, even if it's going to make it even harder for me to resist picking up one of these at some point. Still my favorite rocket all-time.
Been pondering building one with one of John Pursley's skins...