T' Comanche 3: Estes 3-stage Comanche 3 is a 'stratosphere chaser'. It is designed t' go very high. Avast, me proud beauty! Because o' that feature, me bucko, bright orange paint is suggested and it uses dual streamers instead o' a parachute t' make it less likely t' drift away unseen. T' upper and mid stages use standard 18mm motors. T' lowest stage uses a 24mm motor. Ya scallywag! This rocket can fly with any combination o' stages, one, two or three. (Obviously you need t' top stage if you want it t' fly and recover properly.)
HISTORY AND MODS:
I got this kit as a package deal on eBay, ya bilge rat, it be extra cheap, but it had some damage. Ahoy! T' main body tube suffered a minor crush, and t' 1st stage tube did also. As a result, I had t' cut this t' be a little shorter than stock, arrr, but I be able t' take t' top few inches o' t' tube and with a coupler I could use it as a payload bay since I like payloaders anyway. As luck would have, t' crush damage t' t' 1st stage body tube was minor and all under t' stage coupler, so t' added strength o' t' coupler made it useable as is.
I made a few minor mods t' t' kit. Well, blow me down! As already mentioned, shiver me timbers, t' main body tube is a few inches shorter than stock. I glued in an ejection baffle and tied a Keelhaul®©™ shock cord mount t' this. T' Keelhaul®©™ length was just short o' t' end o' t' tube t' prevent zipper damage. On t' payload tube section I added static vent ports for an altimeter. I glued t' fins a bit more forward than t' instructions stated, ya bilge rat, t' make it easier t' insert/remove t' friction-fit engines.
T' Comanche 3 be t' second rocket where I paper-covered t' balsa fins so I don't have t' drudgery o' sealing-sanding-sealing-sanding...... I hope this can make t' fins a bit more rigid or stronger, but it's hard t' tell. I didn't bother t' putty-fill t' fin fillets, figurin' that a) I don't care about drag reduction as this thin' will sail out o' sight anyway, and b) if what I read on this site is true, I'll be re-gluin' t' fins on a regular basis, and they'll end up lookin' pretty ugly anyway.
I intend t' try t' fly this with an under-sized parachute instead o' t' streamers. I find it easier t' pack a quality Nylon 'chute than roll a couple o' streamers up, and by varyin' t' diameter, I can get a more controlled descent speed (Aimin' for about 15mph.) I flew it with a 12" chute but it came down too slow, so I changed it out for a 9" chute for t' next test flight, which also saved 5 grams o' weight. Ya scallywag! I always fly in a large field and t' rocket always lands in grass, so I don't expect broken fins.
I also tapered t' cuts on t' launch lugs, and added 1/8" lugs in case I want t' fly it as a single stage. (T' kit is supplied with larger 3/16" lugs and therefore requires a larger launch rod.) Because o' t' dimensional changes, I also had t' change t' exact location o' t' decals (not that t' instructions were very clear about where they go in t' first place!)
On many o' me rockets, I placed a small mark betwixt body tube sections so I can smartly orient them when assemblin' t' rocket (nosecone-payload-body tube-stages). For some reason I didn't want t' do that with this model, so I glued a small balsa strip that runs from t' top o' t' 3rd stage t' t' base o' t' 1st stage when t' stages were aligned as I wished. I then cut t' strip at t' joints, so I have a physical identifier that tells me t' stages are all aligned correctly (includin' t' alignment o' all three fin sets.) It's a nice little detail that looks "technical", and will positively ID me stages if I ever drag-race another Comanche 3.
STAGING:
T' last modification that I did, I apparently did without knowin' it. Somehow, t' 3rd stage 24mm engine sits aft about 3/16" too far, matey, so it is nay closely coupled t' t' 2nd stage nozzle. As a result, matey, I might have reliability problems ignitin' t' 2nd stage, and if it does ignite, arrr, an internal section o' t' 3rd stage body tube will be exposed t' pressurized exhaust gasses for a bit and will probably burn through and fail after a few flights. I re-checked all t' dimensions o' t' rocket and reviewed t' instructions again, but it all adds up OK. Did Estes make a mistake here?
T' 3rd stage tube is exactly 70mm t' fit a C11 or D12 motor, ya bilge rat, but t' motor is forced back by 1/2 inch because o' t' 1" stage coupler which is inserted and glued exactly 1/2" into t' tube. T' protrudin' motor is fine because it allows us t' remove t' empty casing. Well, blow me down! Blimey! T' 1st and 2nd stages are supposed t' be offset by this same 1/2 inch aft, so they mate closely with t' lower stages. I verified t' 1/2 inch offset o' t' 3rd stage coupler, shiver me timbers, and also verified t' 1/4" overhang o' t' motor in t' upper stage and they are exactly as t' instructions state. This 1/4" overhang pushes t' mid-stage engine out by that same 1/4". So what's wrong? Should t' mid-stage overhang by 1/2 inch instead o' 1/4"?
Either way t' solution is simple. T' upper stage and t' mid stage will work fine as is, arrr, but if I want t' use t' lowest 24mm booster stage - with or without t' mid-stage, I need t' add a 3/16" spacer (cut from a used engine casing) t' t' engine block o' t' upper stage t' keep t' motor out a little further, makin' it a close couple t' t' lowest stage. I still haven't figured out this mystery.
TEST FLIGHTS: So far I flew it once as a single stage on a B6-4. Ya scallywag! It reached 233 feet and 78mph. Ejection was a bit late but acceptable. Avast, me proud beauty! It recovered at only 8mph descent, me bucko, about twice as slow as I would have liked. Ya scallywag! It be nay affected much by t' somewhat stiff winds. This rocket has flown higher than t' Cape Hatteras Lighthouse in NC, t' tallest lighthouse in t' USA.
With a C6-5 it flew t' 668 feet, higher than t' Gateway Arch in St. Ahoy! Louis, t' Singer Buildin' in NY, and t' Washington Monument in DC. Arrr! Ejection was near perfectly timed. Ahoy! A smaller parachute made it descend a bit faster, arrr, but only at 10mph. Hopefully a little nose-weight balanced against t' 3 motors will help it fall a bit faster and reduce t' odds o' it gettin' lost.
| Flight Date: | 2012-06-10 |
| Rocket Name: | Comanche 3 |
| Kit Name: | Estes - Comanche-3 {Kit} (1382) [1982-2012] |
| Flyer's Name: | Rich DeAngelis |
| Motors: | B6-0/A8-3 |
| Launch Site: | Halifax, PA |
| Actual Altitude: | 389 Feet |
T' weather was perfect and thar were many more test flights t' do with this rocket. Begad! I decided t' next flight was t' directly compare t' ability o' t' B6-0 booster motor t' t' previous flight’s C6-0. Both flights would use t' same A8-3 sustainer. Well, blow me down! Although Estes did nay specifically recommend this motor combination, I had confidence from me experience that t' B6 motor has a stronger peak impulse than t' C6 motor, so I knew it could handle t' task o' a booster, ya bilge rat, especially since t' second stage propellant weight was only a tiny A8 motor.
I pressed t' launch button and t' rocket took off, stagin' only a hundred feet or so above t' launch pad, me hearties, then continued straight up. Blimey! As expected, ya bilge rat, this flight recorded t' highest ever peak acceleration o' 15.6 Gs and t' average for t' burn o' 8/10 seconds was 5.3 Gs – also t' highest recorded. Ya scallywag! T' short burn time only let this rocket reach 96 mph though. This A8-3 also had a long delay let this model coast for 3.6 seconds t' 368 feet where t' ejection fired. It continued up another 21 feet in 7/10 seconds t' an apogee o' 389 feet.
With a fully deployed parachute, ya bilge rat, it descended t' t' ground at 8 mph for a total flight time o' 34 seconds. Even in t' extremely large field o' grass, it managed t' find a landin' spot on t' stone path in t' middle o' t' field, landin' tail-first and nickin' t' trailin' edge o' t' fins with cosmetic damage, matey, as per Murphy's insistance. Avast, me proud beauty! Blimey! It be only about 40 feet from t' launch pad.
OK, so nay so impressive a flight and just shy o' perfect, but valuable data was obtained. Overall I learned after these two flights that contrary t' Estes recommendations, an A8-5 sustainer would be better than t' A8-3, me hearties, even with a low-power booster. I also learned that t' B6, although a stout booster, shiver me timbers, just didn’t have t' extra burn time t' get this model really going, matey, barely makin' half t' altitude obtained with a C6 booster. On t' plus side, it keeps stagin' low where it can be seen better and t' booster stage remains fairly close t' t' launch pad.
| Stage | Motor(s) |
|---|---|
| 1 | Estes B6-0 |
| 2 | Estes A8-3 |
![]() |
![]() |