Estes Dragon Ship 7 #1345, Part 3, Engine Mount

The lower notched ring is slid down from the top until it rests on the top of the spacer tube. The retainer ring was glued on top of that.
The original kit didn't have an engine block. I added one, slid down from the top. A glue fillet was added from the top with a long rounded end dowel.
The top centering ring was glued 1/16" from the top.



The instructions have you start gluing the motor tubes at the right side of the engine hook.

With nine tubes total, that leaves one tube centered directly opposite the engine hook. I was concerned if I didn't start in the right place, the tubes may not end up with even spacing on either side of the engine hook.

The seams on the BT-3s were filled with CWF and a shot of filler/primer before gluing onto the mount. It would be impossible to fill the seams after assembly.

I started the first tube directly opposite the engine hook.
With the back end tube ends even, the ends of the small tubes didn't rest against the centering ring. It's probably okay, they will be glued on securely enough. The mount will be recessed inside the main BT-60 tube so the slight open gap against the ring won't be seen.

The other tubes were glued on side by side.
Notice the pencil marks on the back edge of the BT-3 tubes. Each tube was set on dry, pencil marks were made where the contact points and glue line will be.

Those pencil marks were extended down the tubes. A controlled line of glue was applied. It doesn't take much glue as I didn't was excess glue bubbles to show between the tubes.

Estes Dragon Ship 7 #1345, Part 2, Engine Mount

Lots of parts! This is just the engine mount -

Standard 2 3/4" engine hook, engine block,
6 3/4" long BT-20D engine tube
Two 20/60 centering rings
Short BT-20AE spacer tube 1 1/2" long
Nine (count 'em nine) BT-3XW motor tubes at 1 1/2" long.

The spacer tube enlarges the outside diameter of the engine tube so the nine BT-3 motor tubes will be better spaced around it.
It is a split BT-20 tube. Here it is being cut using an aluminum angle for support and a straight line.

It wraps around the end of the 6 3/4" long motor tube. The split cut centers around the engine hook.

I traced around the split tube to give a glue area outline.

Glue was applied inside the pencil line and smoothed out with a finger.

The split tube is wrapped with the tube ends even.
A rubber band was wrapped to apply pressure while it dried.

The tube was notched for an engine hook right above the spacer tube split.

A small notch was cut into the lower centering ring for the engine hook allowance.

First Quest Jets Report, Part 2

The comments continue on the forums. It looks like some have come to the same conclusions I did when this post was written two days ago. 
So what happened? Here's guess on my part.

Quest tubes are Metric. MPC tubes (now Quest parts) were 15mm, 20mm, 35mm and so on. 
If you are new to Model Rocketry - 
The Quest 20mm engine mount tubes are larger diameter than the Estes BT-20 body tube.
Quest kits (and the OOP MPC kits) sometimes provides a yellow "insulator" spacer tube that glues inside their 20mm engine mount to bring it closer to the inside diameter of a BT-20.

Maybe Quest/Aerotech was designing and testing their Q-Jets in the 20mm engine mounts?

Here's a picture of a BT-20 with an Estes B6-4 engine inserted. It's a good slip fit.
Below is a Quest Viper with the MPC/Quest 20mm engine mount tube with the same Estes B6-4. This engine mount didn't come with a thin yellow insulator tube. The fit is very loose with too much open area around the engine. The older German and Chinese Quest labeled engines always require masking tape wraps, especially the even smaller diameter 18mm? German engines.
I doubt Quest wanted their engines to be used only in Quest rockets and engine mounts.  

Take a close look at the fit of a Chinese Quest engine. 
It won't fit in a Estes BT-20! You have to peel off the label to reduce the outside diameter for a slip fit.



In an Email, Gary S. added:

     "I think you hit the nail right on the head. The E2X rocket that the engine fit was an OOP Quest Seeker that I picked up on EBay a couple of weeks ago for a song. I just noticed another problem with the QJets: it fits some engine hooks but not others. The untabbed hooks clear the hex front end, but the tabbed hooks do not. Apparently they have a longer front "catch". Big problem, as many kits include the tabbed hooks. Left a post for Fred (shreadvector) at YORF to let him know."

Regarding the engine hooks, Quest engine hooks are narrower than the Estes hooks.

Estes Dragon Ship 7 #1345, Part 1, Canopy Patterns

I didn't include an "all parts picture" on this build. It was assembled over time when I was waiting for parts to arrive.
A clone kit is available through a vendor but I thought I could put it together for less money.
Many of the basic parts were in my spare parts drawer.

I found the instructions at JimZs.
Towards the bottom are some fin tracings and a rough scan of the rectangular canopy.

The fin scan seemed to be the correct size, so I added a 1" reference to my re-draw. I could have ordered some laser cut fins from ERockets, but what fun is that?





The canopy looks to be 2 3/4" long at the sides. There is a dorsal fin  that extends about 3/4 the way up from the back. (Sure I'm making guesses, but it'll be close.)




The vertical alignment lines (added while in Corel Draw) showed how "out of true" the scan was.

This is the before -
The scan seemed distorted, the flap and tabs weren't symetrical.



Here's the re-draw. After the canopy was assembled I had to adjust the curvature of the front and back outlines to better fit the curve of the body tube.

Here's the fin and canopy patterns.

If you'd like a copy, Patreon members can email me at:
oddlrockets@bellsouth.net
and request the Dragon Ship 7 PDF

Note: These patterns are for individual use only, for making a single clone.
These are not to be used for commercial use or kit production.

First Quest Q-Jets Reports, Part 1

On YORF, Bernard Cawley test fitted the first run of Quest Q-Jets in BT-20 based engine mounts:

     "Well, my order of Q-jets from buyrocketmotors.com arrived today (while I was out supporting a launch for a group of homeschoolers).
     First impressions: nice package. Nice that there are a few big squares of Quest-style (float parade tissue) wadding in the package. BUT - they don’t go in my models - at least most of them. They are too large in diameter.
     If I peel off the label, then clean the label residue off the case with Goo Gone then I can get them in more models but even then they are snug. So the first few models I wanted to try them in - models that I’ve flown many times and with an altimeter aboard - in particular a certain Alpha III (25 flights) and a circa 2008 bulk-kit Alpha (63 flights) - I won’t be able to try them in at all. Depending on how much the upper end of the motor hook projects, one may or may not get the hex-shaped ejection charge container past the hook, even with the label off the motor.
     Models with ST-7 motor tubes (I grabbed my current flyer Semroc Mini Aero Dart) fare better, but even there they are snug with the labels on. And once you try to put one in a model it doesn’t want to go in, the label starts to peel at the top and it just gets worse. It’s like friction-fitting a motor with cheap masking tape that starts to peel and wrinkle if you get it even slightly too tight and really makes it worse (something I got some more experience with today, since the homeschool group built Vikings).
     They were apparently delayed because the first batch of labels was “too thick”. Even without labels they are about 0.015 larger in diameter than recent production Estes 18mm motors. It’s just enough to be frustrating.
     Here’s hoping they turn out to be worth the fuss in use. I will try to put a couple in the air tomorrow - maybe in that Mini Aero Dart. I’d toss together another Alpha III and make a few subtle modifications - but my wife and I are off to our grandson’s orchestra performance now and I’m likely not going to be able to do so tonight.
     So much for drop in replacements in the Estes education market....."

Fred Shector commented:
     "I provided detailed feedback directly to Gary. He said future batches will be .005 smaller diameter .
     I also had very strong ejection charges in the A3-4 motors flown. He says they will look at reducing the amount of ejection charge. Good idea since they will be used in small models.
Also, don't use too much tape for the initiator or it will stay attached. A clever fix is already developed which will eliminate tape."

Bernard Cawley followed:
     "Good!
     I took my Harbor Freight digital calipers to the four motors I've liberated from the packages - A3-4 and B4-6, now one with a label, one without in each. With a label they are running around 0.712 inch OD at the widest point (they are NOT smoothly cylindrical like, say, an Aerotech D-10). Since the nominal ID of BT-20 is 0.710 inch, that's obviously an issue. ST-7 is 0.715 inch ID, which explains why it does work there, albeit snugly. With the labels off I get ODs of 0.707 - 0.708 which does work in a clean BT-20 motor tube or a plastic fin can with a threaded retainer (say, Solaris).
     I will put the now label-less A3-4 in the Viking I put together yesterday before the homeschool launch today. It's modified with a small payload section and I flew it today on its one flight with a MicroPeak aboard (on an Estes A8-5 with a 1997 date code) and have that one data point. I will have a short opportunity to fly on a big field tomorrow and I wanted to try some of these out. I think I'll open up a B4-4 pack and put one of those in the aforementioned Semroc Mini Aero Dart. I have a recent data point (FireFly) with that model as it flew on a Chinese Quest B6-4 on Monday at the same field when I was out flying with my son and grandson.
     On the tape....how about the old fashioned little ball of wadding instead?
     Added: I just took a B4-4 out and put the calipers on it before even attempting to put it in a model (and therefore damaging the label). It's 0.716 inch at its widest at the ejection charge end and 0.714 inch at its widest at the nozzle end....and the two spots are not one above the other on the motor.
     If Gary can get them down by .005 inch AND make them smoothly cylindrical that will solve this. Not knowing how their tooling works I hope this doesn't mean all new tools. If it does, they should go for .01 inch off and get them down to the same diameter as an Estes motor....
     Just to be clear - I really want the Q-Jets to succeed. I think that's why, at the moment, I'm so disappointed I can't just pop them into models I've been flying a good deal lately and check out how they work."

My thoughts tomorrow . . . 

Estes Dragon Ship 7, #1345, Background

This model build was a request. It's been a while, I get around to them sooner or later!

There's not much background information on this rocket. I had left the hobby in the late 1970s, on the road as an entertainer since 1978. These two were introduced in 1980 and featured on the catalog cover. Both kits were in production for only two years.
These were labeled as "The Good Guy" and The Bad Guy". I remember thinking the Dragon Ship 7 looked like a bulldog. At first I didn't like the design, it grew on me over the years. Both designs were remind you of Buck Rogers, especially the trailing fins and engine tubes on the Excalibur.

After checking the Semroc Classics page I saw Keith Niskern did the design. Mr. Niskern worked for Centuri and did the development of their Saturn V kit.
CLICK HERE to go to the Semroc Classics page.
If you are not familiar with the Classics page, on the left side are blue boxes with small illustrations of rocket parts. Click on it and another page will list the kit parts.

Odd'l Rockets F-104 Instructions Omission

I got an email from Gary S. asking for a measurement in the F-104 Starfighter instructions. On the first run of the kit instructions were missing a measurement.
In Step 20, the back end of the intake nose cone half is glued 5 5/16" from the back end of the main air frame tube. Step 20 is shown above.
I've sold quite a few of these kits and haven't heard from anybody about the omission. Sorry for any confusion! If your build is a little off, it shouldn't matter. I've seen F-104s fly at club launches with no stability problems.