Diameter: | 2.25 inches |
Length: | 24.00 inches |
Manufacturer: | U.S. Rockets |
Skill Level: | 1 |
Style: | Sport |
Brief:
Very basic mid-powered rocket. Easy to build and it flies very well.
Construction:
Normal paper body tube and motor mount. Balsa nose cone (when was the last time
you saw that in a mid power kit). The centering rings are very cheap, poor
quality and splintery. The fins are also cheap plywood and one was slightly
warped. There was no provision for motor retention. Elastic shock cord was
pretty much par for the mid-power course. The parachute was paper, and fairly
high quality. The launch lug is a 1/4" mylar lug (like Estes, just
fatter). The 29 mm to 24 mm adapter is one of the better ones out there and
I've standardized on this design. It works wonderfully and is light weight, as
long as you use some form of mechanical retention.
The rocket is meant to have surface mounted fins and for such a light rocket, I saw no reason to change that. A good epoxy joint is more than strong enough for this light rocket. I added a #6 blind T-nut and a screen door clip to hold the motor in place. Good epoxy joints on the motor mount makes is plenty sturdy enough. I added a length of light, tubular Kevlar® (available from Pratt Hobbies) to the forward centering ring for the recovery system attach point. I fiber-glassed the body in a single wrap of 2 oz fiberglass cloth and I applied the same to the fins. This gives a very strong surface and makes the rocket last longer. I expect this rocket to get a lot of flights. The fins were attached with a thick bead of 5 minute epoxy. Then I filleted the sides of the fins with the same epoxy. I attached the launch lug with 5 minute epoxy as well. I threw out the elastic shock cord and substituted a good 10' of braided nylon cord. This is attached to the tubular Kevlar® and gets it out of the way of the ejection charge. I added a Nomex® shield so I don't have to use wadding (I hate wadding in bigger rockets).
Finishing:
After sanding the fiberglass surfaces, I applied 2 coats of sandable, scratch
filling primer. This was followed by two coats of flat white Krylon. I received
a new airbrush for Christmas and since I had some of this obnoxious Tamiya pink
paint left over, I used that. I didn't have quite enough to really finish the
job. The paint scheme is a work in progress.
Construction Rating: 2 out of 5
Flight:
When you look at it, it's the very image of a basic rocket. Nice lines
actually. It flies very well too. So far all the boosts in calm weather have
been very straight. Wind does cause some weather cocking, but not too much. The
rocket is of a very standard shape, so most altitude prediction software will
be accurate with this design.
Recovery:
I'm using a 3' long piece of tubular Kevlar® attached to the forward centering
ring. This is then attached to about 10' of braided nylon. The parachute is
attached via snap swivel in a loop at the shock cord end. The nose cone is
attached to a loop about 3' down from the parachute. The Nomex® shield is
attached where the Kevlar® meets the nylon. I need to get a bigger shield. I'll
probably get one form Rocket Rage. I liked the looks of their stuff at
ROCStock. Right now I'm using a smallish Pratt shield and I get a hole in the
chute every other flight. Descent on an 18" chute is very fast, but
doesn't seem to damage the rocket and minimizes the drift.
Flight Rating: 3 out of 5
Summary:
PROs: It's easy, cheap and pretty much a normal beater rocket. I'm expecting
this to be my sounding rocket that I fly to check launch conditions. PROs: It's
nice shape and has good lines. It flies really well on E and F motor and really
moves out on Gs, so it's cheap to fly. CONs: The entire stock recovery system
needs replacing. CONs: Typical balsa nose cone problems. You'll forever be
repairing nose cone dings. No big deal for those who know about balsa nose
cones, but it might be a problem for plastic nose cone folks.
Overall Rating: 3 out of 5
MANUFACTURER's OPINION:
"7/00 - I noted the comments made by Mr. Urbanek regarding motor retention
not being considered in the USR All Weather kit. I find this comment to be simply
not true. In fact motor retention is one of the central BENEFITS of all USR kits as
outlined in AIR-3 included in all cluster kits and AIR-1 included in all kits. I
cannot speak for "upgrades" since I [didn't] designed them, but the kit was built
incorrectly according to the wonderful rocsim drawing the reviewer provided. I
believe a review should at least include a discussion of the stock design even if
the builder replaces the recovery system so hailed by other reviewers." (J.I.)
AUTHOR's RESPONSE:
"7/00 - AIR-1 discusses the wisdom of avoiding thrust rings in the motor tube and
the use of tape thrust rings (hardly new ideas). In fact, AIR-1 (figure 4)
extols the virtue of the Irvin's Motor Installation Method which has the
advantages of "...unlimited motor length as well as secure ejection
retention". This method uses a motor hook. No motor hook, however, was
included in the kit. I had to ADD something to the kit to effect ejection
retention. As the kit was, even the parts needed to implement AIR-1 were
absent. Hardly a benefit.
It was not built incorrectly. Perhaps this writer is not aware that US
Rockets has changed the All-Weather design so that it is now sold with a 29
mm motor mount.
Here are the changes I made. All of them were to make the basic kit more
durable:
1: Added 1 layer of 2 oz fiberglass to body and fins. In retrospect, 1/2
oz fiberglass would have been better and lighter, but I used what I had on
hand.
2: Added single T-Nut, screw and hook for motor retention
3: Anchored e feet of tubular Kevlar® to forward centering ring.
4: Tied 10 feet of braided nylon to the Kevlar®.
5: Replaced 18" paper parachute with 18" nylon parachute
6: Added a Nomex® shield.
7: Didn't cut the cut the launch lug in half.
Modification added 112g, or about 4 oz to the predicted weight. I don't
think that a painted All-Weather would ever weigh a mere 4.8 oz though.
The stock recovery system was a simple, unimaginative upscale of an Estes
recovery system. A length of elastic was to be attached to the body tube
wall by means of a folded paper anchor. The parachute was a cheap paper
chute (yes paper). To my mind, this parachute was going to be hard to
protect adequately, and if it did ignite, might pose a fire hazard.
Far from being 'hailed', US Rockets, without exception, has the worst
recovery systems in the business. The All-Weather's recovery system was
the cheapest one can get away with. The 'recovery system' that I received
with my high power Mega-Roc was an insult. They actually thought that I
should try to recover a 4" diameter x 84" long rocket with four 24"
parachutes. And what parachutes! They barely qualified for that name.
They were 4 octagons of very thin, very porous fabric, not hemmed, not
finished, but cut out with pinking shears. There were eight holes poked
through the edge of the unfinished fabric and each suspension line was tied
to the canopy by means of a single knot. Utterly appalling.
So don't talk to me about US Rockets recovery systems. They were the very
worse features of otherwise passable kits." (D.U.)
Sponsored Ads