There's No Place Better - EMRR! EMRR Rocks!
the basic, real and invariable nature of a thing!


Guests On

REV 2.4 - Tue Aug 17 08:34:46 2010

Estes Industries
Trident II
  All   More Like This   Previous   Next

SPECS: 30.5" x .975" - 2.8 oz
ROCKSIM FILE: MISSING - please submit here
SpaceCAD FILE: MISSING - please submit here
REC'D MOTORS: B4-4, C6-3, C6-5

(Contributed - by David Fergus)

Rocket PicBrief:
Exotic re-issue of the original Estes Trident, but with only two BT-20 ejection gas porting tubes instead of three BT-5 porting tubes.

Kit comes with:

  • (7) balsa nose cones
  • (4) balsa fins
  • original rubber shock cord and screw eye
  • BT-50 engine pod and parachute bay
  • BT-20 ejection gas porting tubes
  • 18mm engine mount
  • excellent decal set; all of excellent quality.

Rocket PicI found this kit at a hobby shop that tries hard to pay attention and take advantage of Estes sales to vendors of OOP kits, presumably that are sitting on their shelf. Instructions were easy to follow. The key to making this a better model than the original Trident is to make sure the ejection gas can freely flow from the engine pod to the parachute pod. Estes did this by using BT-20 instead of BT-5 tubes. Another feature is to provide cardstock frames that are glued around each porting slot on the tubes and then glued to each other. The reason my original Trident failed when I was a lad was probably glue closing off one or more of these ports enough so that the ejection gas blew off one of my ejection tubes with the rocket coming down in pieces with no parachute; which was pretty discouraging to a 12-year old. Anyway, the rocket is solid and has healthier gas flow paths than my original Trident had.

The instructions called for a gloss pearl gray. It took a lot of coats to get enough paint in the crevices between the tubes. Decals are water transfer which look good on top of pearl gray.

Construction Rating: 5 out of 5

The recommended motors were B and C. I used B4-4, C6-5, and C6-3; with C6-3 being the best flight. I still used wadding, but enough should be used to make sure that acceleration doesn't jam down under the ejection ports in the parachute bay and remove itself from effectiveness. The rocket flew nice and straight all three times.

I had not used the rubber shockcord but had replaces with a longer elastic cord. An 18 inch chute was a little much and a 12 inch chute not quite enough for this rocket.

Flight Rating: 5 out of 5

PRO: good ejection as porting to ensure a long lasting multiple flight rocket.
CON: none

Overall Rating: 5 out of 5

[Submit your Opinion]

"" (x.x.)

[Enter Rocket Specific Tip]

"" (x.x.)

[Enter Flight Log]
Date Name Motor Ejection/
Wind Notes
01-13-2008 Jon Chrisman Est SU C6-3 Apogee - Perfect 0-5 mph winds - Was first flight of the day..Rocket had spent the night in my vehicle thru 40ish temperatures.Chute didn't open and nosed into paved road.Will be repaired
08-14-1999 David Fergus Est SU B4-4 Apogee - NC Down Calm - good flight, a little too much delay
08-14-1999 David Fergus Est SU C6-5 Apogee - NC Down Calm - a better flight, still a little too much delay
11-20-1999 David Fergus Est SU C6-3 Apogee - Perfect 0-5 mph winds - best flight so far
02-10-2008 Phil Hewitt Est SU C6-3 Just Before 0-5 mph winds - Could have done with a longer delay but it was a first flight and I was nervous about losing it. The 18 inch parachute made for a long leisurely descent. (Midland Rocketry - UK - Feb 08)
05-11-2008 Phil Hewitt Est SU C5-3 Just Before 5-10 mph winds - Flight Number 2, draws interest on the flight line, looks good on the pad and performs flawlessly (Midland Rocketry - UK - May 08)
05-11-2008 Phil Hewitt Est SU C5-3 Just Before 5-10 mph winds - Flight Number 3, perfect again although a bit of a walk this time (Midland Rocketry - UK - May 08)

Please Help Make Us Better!   

•  Copyright © 2019  •   EMRR   •   Legal/Privacy   •   Disclaimer   •