R/C Nobler?

In the latest Tower Hobbies catalog, there is a new kit by Top Flite, the 30th anniversary edition of the R/C Nobler. I never knew there was such a thing. Is it based on the C/L Nobler, or did they just use the name? Although somewhat similiar in overall appearance, the rudder & elevator in the illustration look significantly different than the C/L version. Just curious about this.

The RC Nobler was a really good flying bird in its day.
It was a contemporary of the Contender and the Quick Fly.
Time consuming to build and fairly rare on the field.
It was the first neutrally stable model I had the misfortune
to stuff.

GMA told me that he had no design input into the R/C version when I was enquiring about the origins of various Nobler variants.

Was the R/C version a cynical exploitation of the C/L design's reputation.

I remember when the first r/c version of the Nobler came out. The "new" version borrows the name and from looks, the wing. All else is different from the first r/c Nobler, which was a Nobler in fact only with r/c controls. We cringed when we heard what they did to the Nobler. I believe the fuselage was a bit wider to accomodate the servos, etc.

I saw the R/C Nobler in the new Tower catalog, and the errant thought crept into my mind "hey, maybe you could convert it to U-control".(!) Moments later I slapped myself upside the head and reminded myself that there are plenty of examples of new manufacture Nobler kits out there (I have two already) of quality light years ahead of old kits or, I suspect, the "R/C Nobler". Silly how the mind works.
As a non C/L sidebar, but perhaps an example of a better executed re-release of an old product: While in my local hobby store to buy some dope I noticed a new release in the Estes Model rocket section; their enourmous (for hobby model rockets) V-2 missle. Four inches in diameter and three feet long. First released about 1975, the design was dropped in the early eighties. It is special to me because in 1975 my Dad built me the V-2, and we have old super 8 movies of myself as a seven year old chasing after it flight after flight. Somehow that model survived, and sits proudly in my basement shop to this day, a veteran of 353 successful flights and finally retired from flight in 1996-a twenty year career and what has got to be some kind of record for a model rocket.
An examination of the new release showed it to be a faithful reproduction of the old model, with the improvement of being able to utilize a slightly larger engine( a good idea, the original scarcely got above 150-200'). It makes me wonder why the Estes corporation doesn't try to make a better version of the Ringmaster than they currently produce, or for that matter, bring back a better executed re-release of one of the long discontinued Sterling models they should have the tooling for....
Just a morning ramble....

Steve

Saw one at the hobby store the other day. It's a Nobler in name only of course and if the box art hadn't had the name on it it would've taken a while to guess it's parentage. The chubby fuse and RC acoutrements give it a porky look that is a far cry from the skinny sleek original. Although it's a blatant attempt to trade on the name it probably is a good solid aerobatic ship. Might as well have an RC version--with all the fine kits of the controliner around it would be silly for TopFlight to tool back up for something that would sell about a fifth of the RCer. Hooray for the CL cottage industry and all who toil there. Speaking of which has anyone heard if Mr Winship is back up and running?---Ted?

Estes is re-releasing many of their "classic' rocket kits in an effort to re-establish a market in "traditional" hobby stores. A few years ago they made a massive effort to cash in on the latest Star Wars movie by making a line of RTF (ready-to-fail) plastic rockets based on the movie, and selling them in toy stores and department stores. They took a bath on that.

I hear they are going to re-release the Orbital Transport soon. I can't wait.

As for Sterling, I don't think they care. Estes was sold by its founder, Vern Estes, some years ago, and since then has become a totally different, and much worse, company. They should change their name to Extes.

If my frail memory is correct. The RC Nobler kit was different
from the RC Nobler published plans in the magazines back then.
No real big suprise. I do believe thatthe RC Nobler kit being
rereleased is a restamp of the original kit, fidelity to the cl
original being today what it was back then. This isn't a bad thing for the RC guys and maybe it is a good thing for wireflyers. After all, if they percieve a market for a first
generation pattern ship, (god only knows why) we might see more CL kits rereleased.

> As a non C/L
>sidebar, but perhaps an example
>of a better executed re-release
>of an old product:
>While in my local hobby
>store to buy some dope
>I noticed a new release
>in the Estes Model rocket
>section; their enourmous (for hobby
>model rockets) V-2 missle.
>Four inches in diameter and
>three feet long. First
>released about 1975, the design
>was dropped in the early
>eighties. It is special
>to me because in 1975
>my Dad built me the
>V-2, and we have old
>super 8 movies of myself
>as a seven year old
>chasing after it flight after
>flight. Somehow that model
>survived, and sits proudly in
>my basement shop to this
>day, a veteran of 353
>successful flights and finally retired
>from flight in 1996-a twenty
>year career and what has
>got to be some kind
>of record for a model
>rocket.
> An examination of the
>new release showed it to
>be a faithful reproduction of
>the old model, with the
>improvement of being able to
>utilize a slightly larger engine(
>a good idea, the original
>scarcely got above 150-200').

The Maxi-Brute V2 is indeed an excellent model, and pretty much identical to the original.The only difference is the longer engine hook to utilize the new E9 motor. This IS NOT the E15 "Catomaster" in a new package! It is not prone to blowing up, at least not so far. It's a stretched "D".

Despite it being the recommended motor, the E9 doesn't have enough thrust to safely fly the model in anything but absolute dead calm. It would be spectacularly scale-like in no wind, but it will be a little too scale-like in a 5 mph wind, going mostly horizontal. All you have to do is build a 1/16 scale model of London about 700 feet upwind, and it will bomb it quite effectively.

The E9 will be great for the lighter scale models like the Terry Kosel LJII and the Mercury-Atlas and Mercury-Redstone. Forget the Saturn V, same problem as the V2.

The D12 will work, since it burns out before it has a chance to arc over too far, but is ultra-wimpy (as you mentioned). The Aerotech E15-4 is a much safer choice, as is the E18 reload and the upcoming 24mm F22 Econojet. The E28-2(4) is a safe choice, but a little brisk off the pad for maximum effect. Even the 18mm D21-4 will do a good job if you use an adapter.

I am building my second one with a 29mm motor mount, for access to 29mm reloads and the F22 Econojet, and compatibility with some of my other models.

The kit is a much better scale model than the 2.6" V2 (which is incidentally the picture on the box top, not the 4" model), and at least as good as the old Centuri ST-16 version.

I remember the old origional RC nobler. It came out in 1968 or thereabout. I was at the Nats in Olathe in 1968 and remember seeing a demonstration of the origional prototype, which was flown by I believe Ed Sweeney, the designer of that plane.
At any rate there were quite a few differences to that model over a stock Nobler. Most of you have overlooked the fact that it had a nose gear, structurally it was very different from a standard Nobler.
I never built one ,but did fly one, strange how it doesn't seem to have stayed in the memory bank.

Brett,

I noticed the new E motor didn't look too heroic in terms of total newtons. I think I was too busy with high power to see Estes first attempt with the larger motors-I know they tried it but never saw one in the field. My V-2 flew much better on the aerotech E-15. Its been awhile, but I think I picked up some flutter on the bottom outboard section of the fins when I tried E-30s in it. I don't know if Estes quality control dropped but the rocket accumulated those hundreds of flights with the old D-12-3 with zero failures. When I came beck to rocketry after college it seemed like the D-12 was Russian roulette with a much higher failure rate-as a result the last 30 flights or so before retirement were made with E-15s (after a D-12 incinerated the bottom section of my Honest John).
I've been tempted to buy the new release of the V-2, but doubtful I'd build it anytime soon. Stunt planes seem to have eaten all my building time, and the regulatory unrest with highpower caused me to retire from Tripoli a couple of years ago. My last rocket flight was with a J-700, a D-12 seems pretty anticlimactic compared to that(!)

Steve

A friend, who is a long-time CL flyer built Wild Bill's Fierce Arrow wing as an RC airplane. It flew really well.

Estes is also reintroducing some Cox products.
Beginning with the PT-19. Probably the most well
known of all Cox products. We can't wait to get
these in the shop.

Steve:

In a conversation with Windy about three weeks ago, he mentioned that he had spoken with someone who had purchased COX, or Estes or Sterling about the controline market. I'll bet that a clever hobby shop owner could get in "on the ground floor" with the new enterprize?

See Ya

>Brett,
>
> I noticed the new
>E motor didn't look too
>heroic in terms of total
>newtons. I think I
>was too busy with high
>power to see Estes first
>attempt with the larger motors-I
>know they tried it but
>never saw one in the
>field. My V-2 flew
>much better on the aerotech
>E-15. Its been awhile,
>but I think I picked
>up some flutter on the
>bottom outboard section of the
>fins when I tried E-30s
>in it. I don't
>know if Estes quality control
>dropped but the rocket accumulated
>those hundreds of flights with
>the old D-12-3 with zero
>failures. When I came
>beck to rocketry after college
>it seemed like the D-12
>was Russian roulette with a
>much higher failure rate-as a
>result the last 30 flights
>or so before retirement were
>made with E-15s (after a
>D-12 incinerated the bottom section
>of my Honest John).

One batch of Estes (bp) E15's had about a 95% cato rate. They were decertified by the NAR, and then discontinued. This echoes the first Estes D13 (Mighty "D") from the early 70's had a very similar problem, although it did manage to fly that Saturn V in the Astrodome in 1970. The later D12 was pretty good until the mid 90's, then they had a relatively high failure rate. The most common was blowing out the nozzle, then excessively weak ejection charge (that wouldn't blow the cap off) and then case split pad burndowns. I never had any CATOs of any motor, Estes, Centuri, FSI, AVI, Mini-Max, Enerjet, SSRS, or CD, until I started flying again in earnest in about 96-97. Since, I have had several, mostly delay failures. OF my approximately 50 contest flights since then, I've had 4 CATO's. The best one was the one Ted saw at Livermore, a 1/4A3-3t that blew all the propellant up into the body of the model at about 15 feet and then burned down. My little all-balsa 1/4A SD model didn't stand a chance.

The problem with the E9 isn't so much the lack of total impulse, but the low thrust. Like a Blackjack motor on a windy day.

The big problem with the Aerotech motors in models like the V2 and the Saturn V is the tendency to hibachi the inside of the motor mount/stuffer tube due to afterburn. Jim Fackerts sells some tyvek that would make a good tube liner, otherwise a BT-50 is certain to burn through in just a few flights.