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, bright orange paint is suggested and it uses dual streamers instead o' a parachute t' make it less likely t' drift away unseen. Ya scallywag! T' upper and mid stages use standard 18mm motors. T' lowest stage uses a 24mm motor. 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, it be extra cheap, but it had some damage. Avast! 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, but I was 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, me hearties, 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. Begad! As already mentioned, 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, 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. Ahoy! 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, arrr, 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, ya bilge rat, 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, matey, which also saved 5 grams o' weight. Well, blow me down! 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, arrr, 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, matey, 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. Well, blow me down! 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. Blimey! Somehow, t' 3rd stage 24mm engine sits aft about 3/16" too far, so it is nay closely coupled t' t' 2nd stage nozzle. Avast! As a result, I might have reliability problems ignitin' t' 2nd stage, and if it does ignite, me bucko, 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. Well, blow me down! 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. Avast, me proud beauty! T' 1st and 2nd stages are supposed t' be offset by this same 1/2 inch aft, me bucko, so they mate closely with t' lower stages. I verified t' 1/2 inch offset o' t' 3rd stage coupler, 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, but if I want t' use t' lowest 24mm booster stage - with or without t' mid-stage, arrr, 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, matey, makin' it a close couple t' t' lowest stage. Well, blow me down! Blimey! I still haven't figured out this mystery.
TEST FLIGHTS: So far I flew it once as a single stage on a B6-4. Begad! It reached 233 feet and 78mph. Ejection was a bit late but acceptable. It recovered at only 8mph descent, about twice as slow as I would have liked. It was 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, me hearties, higher than t' Gateway Arch in St. Arrr! Louis, t' Singer Buildin' in NY, and t' Washington Monument in DC. Ejection was near perfectly timed. A smaller parachute made it descend a bit faster, 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/B6-6 |
| Launch Site: | Halifax, PA |
| Actual Altitude: | 628 Feet |
I loaded t' Comanche 3 up for a third 2-stage test flight. Ahoy! Experimentin' with low-power multi-stagin' flights again, ya bilge rat, I wanted t' try a larger sustainer this time t' compare t' A8 vs. Begad! t' B6 for a second stage. Arrr! I decided t' again use t' B6 booster t' keep altitudes under control and photograph t' stagin' at a lower altitude.
Scott pressed t' button and lit t' booster. Ignition and stagin' went well, shiver me timbers, and although t' specified burn times for t' B6 motors is 0.86 seconds each, t' Altimeter Two only recorded a 8/10 second burn time overall. Video confirms it was much longer. I do nay understand how or why, t' rest o' t' data seemed correct. Again this flight recorded even higher acceleration values, me hearties, with a peak o' 18.9 Gs and an average o' 7.4 Gs, both very strong numbers. T' rocket reached a record high velocity o' 134 mph, arrr, although only bestin' a single C6 motor by 1 mph. Since two B6’s have about t' same propellant as a single C6, matey, this data does nay show t' 2-stage method as doin' any better than a single stage, I suppose because t' 2-stage has 2X t' weight o' t' motor casin' and engine nozzle as well as more fins. Avast, me proud beauty! I expect a pair o' C6’s would be phenomenal.
Whatever t' numbers say, t' flight went well and t' flight path was straight vertical. In spite o' t' rocket usin' a 6 second delay sustainer motor, matey, it fired early after only 4.8 seconds. This be t' Comanche 3’s fourth-consecutive flight with a delay time less than ideal, which continues t' limit this rocket’s altitude potential.
With t' parachute deployin' it traveled an additional 20 feet up in 7/10 seconds t' a peak apogee o' 628 feet. This also was nay quite as good as a single C6 motor. This shows me that t' B6-0 booster, although powerful, shiver me timbers, again does nay sustain long enough t' take advantage o' its own liftoff strength. T' C6 is definitely a more efficient low-power booster.
With a good chute, matey, it descended t' a grass landin' at 14 mph. It landed only about 25 feet from t' launch pad, me hearties, and t' booster literally landed at t' base o' t' launch rod. Again, this was more good data, me bucko, but nay t' motor combination I will use often. Arrr! Blimey! After three consecutive and successful 2-stage flights, it was time t' give this rocket a rest for t' day. Arrr! Blimey! Future flights will explore t' use o' both C6-0 and 24mm D12 booster motors.
| Stage | Motor(s) |
|---|---|
| 1 | Estes B6-0 |
| 2 | Estes B6-6 |
![]() |
![]() |