Is it really a model rocket if you don't launch it?

[KenECoyote]

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

No sir. It's more like a Waffle House!

 

[Azamiryou]

If you want to split hairs with terminology, maybe don't allow it to be called a "model" unless it's a model of something.

 

[Art Upton]

May I present "Cheap Thrills".... Sorry about the mess, it's a busy room.

You have a model 4 TRS-80 in there

 

[Art Upton]

Auxiliary deployment charge that separates the tower so it comes down by itself, tethered to the nose cone, rather than as the first thing on the nose cone to hit the ground.

I was shown in the Redstone in the early 70s you were to put a fishing clip on the top of the tower to the chute was suspended from it so the capsule would hit the ground on it's base.

 

[Art Upton]

I'd have to say I agree... Been thinking about adding a tower to this, but it's rear eject, and it's heavy.

View attachment 615578​

If it was a Gemini Capsule they use Ejection Seats, not escape towers. Just a two Seat version of the Mercury

 

[John Taylor]

(My rant lol)

Ok, I've been trying to research a couple of complex rockets for upcoming builds and I keep coming upon build threads that look AMAZING, but then die after the rocket is completed. Huh?

I even saw two TRFers in an old post saying that they were too afraid to fly the rockets and may never do so.

To me, it's not a "model rocket" if you don't launch it... I'd consider it a "rocket model". I'd love to see how others feel... maybe I'm nitpicking.

I've built many detailed model kits in the past, which I only planned on storing for display, but that allowed me to build them in great detail without worrying about possible damage.

Maybe part of my reason for ranting is because build threads like that feel like movies without an ending.
(Now watch me unintentionally do the same! )

---

It's just a model of a rocket unless it flies at least once. Then it is a rocket.
I fly everything at least once. So far my 1972 original Honest John on a H128
And my original Estes Sidewinder from the 70's on an Estes D12.
Both flights went great.
I may or not fly them again.

 

[KenECoyote]

interestingly enough, Mike Dorffler, who I never met but I believe was a designer for Estes and maybe Centuri, wrote an article On building the “show models” for Estes. IIRC, he said the models were meant for display only and used basswood Instead of balsa and took lots of other “alternative” techniques that made them beautiful and durable but specifically NOT flyable.

first and foremost, whoever builds a rocket it’s THEIRS, and i neither have nor want a say in whether they fly it or not.

that said, although not specified, for rocketry, for model plane, maybe less so for cars and boats, it seems like there SHOULD be two categories, “flyable” and “not flyable.” With the exception of the Estes Phantom, (may be others of which I am blissfully unaware), Flyable rockets are by definition designed to be flown by the consumers, the building usually implies some trade-offs to make it purty and still flyable. If you weren’t going to fly it, find a kit That ISN’T made to be flyable. so yeah, I think any flyable rocket kit should be built to be flown once, just to prove that the builder followed the engineering as well as cosmetic aspects of the build. Give it a least a little bit of sulphur fragrance in the display case.

but in this case, my opinion (even to myself) doesn’t count for beans. Let people do what they want. We each have far bigger fish to fry than worrying about what someone else does Or does not do with his or her personal rocket.

Although I don’t compete, I do like the NAR rule that all rockets in competitions, even the beauty comps, need to survive at least one flight.

still, don’t name your rocket Suicide King.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/open-body-missile-build-for-my-level-2.24733/page-3see post 64 and 88

whimper whimper

Looking at that post, there was a link to the video...

 

[ljwilley]

Never launch something you can’t afford to lose. However Fortune favors the Brave!

If it's that expensive/valuable, you are right I would not fly it.

 

[bjphoenix]

If it's that expensive/valuable, you are right I would not fly it.

I typically don't put much money into any of my LPR builds, but I do put a lot of time into them so in that regards they are valuable to me.

 

[Steven]

There are the real Saturn V rockets on display among others and were never flown. These are still not labeled as 'models.'

 

[KenECoyote]

There are the real Saturn V rockets on display among others and were never flown. These are still not labeled as 'models.'

I don't want to stir up any bad feelings since I love both rockets and models, but I do find a good debate to be interesting.

I would argue that those Saturn V rockets on display were built not for display, but to be actual rockets intended to be launched (whether or not they ended up doing so). I doubt they were built with the intention of just being displayed in a museum.

 

[Steven]

The SA500D was a test rocket not meant for flight. Some of the argument seems to focus on whether or not a (rocket or whatever else) is a model based upon it's use. A drone can be either. There was a test B-17 drone that was unmanned which essentially was remote controlled like a model. I still don't know where the line is drawn between the real thing and a model.

 

[ljwilley]

If you have built a rocket with the intention to fly, but never got to it, I will still consider it a model rocket. If you have built a rocket with only the intention to be a display model, I would not consider it a model rocket, it is a rocket model.