Adjusting Aerotech delays

They are more common than Aerotech is reporting.

Due to the sheer volume of motors, reports of failures are common.

However, it is true and not only for a single old motor report either.

Your misdirection aside.

Jerry

So for you it IS all about Jerry.

Ah, come on Bob, it HAS to be all about Jerry to satisfy Ray!

Probably just an unfortunate coincidence, especially if those are the only motors of those types that you've flown. I've flown lots of I211's and never had a problem with them. I've also flown several H123's without trouble. The H123, I211 and I284 are my favorite AT 38mm motors. Haven't yet tried the I161.

So far the only delay problem I've ever had with AT reloads was an I435-6 that ejected sometime after smashing into the ground. I got it when some of the AT reloads were being supplied with separate delay columns, so I suspect I may have been given the wrong delay.

In single-use motors, I once had a couple of H124's that ejected at burnout. On 2-3 occasions I've had some over-long delays on single-use G's, cause unknown.

Overall, I've been very pleased with the reliability of AT delays on both single-use and reloads -- and until recently, motor ejection has been my sole means of deployment. The main reason I'm using alts now is because I'm doing so much staging, and I want to be assured of deployment if the second stage fails to light.

It's a conspiracy I tell you!!!!! The sky is falling....it is, it IS!!!! Take your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty ape!!!

I'm not talking about what AT reports, I'm talking about what I've witnessed and what other flyers have witnessed. I've seen no evidence to support your claim that bonus delays are "common", and no one but you seems to be claiming it.

No, it is NOT true. You have failed to produce a shred of evidence showing that NFPA regulates the speed at which a motor comes up to pressure after it has been ignited. You can't, because there is no such reg. All you've done is quote the code regulating launch systems and igniters.

On top of that, you've also conveniently ignored the fact that any manufacturer's motor could experience a slow ignition due to age, a weak igniter, a misplaced igniter, or other factors. I've witnessed more than one occasion where your own motors have been slow coming up to pressure -- another fact you casually dismiss in your hypocritical attempt to badmouth AT.

No Jerry, it's all about the truth, something for which you seem to have a pathological disdain.

Might I humbly and respectfully suggest that such numbers infer to me that there was some kind of blow-by for the delay train?

And I'm curious if these were older delays or the newer 'plus' delays? (pure curiousity -- it would appear that if there were a 'reason' for there to be a 'new and improved' delay, maybe this explains it)

David Erbas-White

Apparently, it is for you.

jerry, you're touching yourself right now, aren't you?

Bob-

You say TMT has kept delay tests a secret. I'd like to know -

have you ever contacted the TMT Chairman and asked for the information?

If so who you asked.

What their response was.

When you attempted to get the information.

I doesn't seem right that they would refuse to provide the information. Maybe with these specifics, we can get you the information without a hassle.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Bob's anecdotal evidence with the short delays almost EXACTLY mirrors my own, and you know Bob and I agree on almost nothing.

And that tiresome crap is why Kraplow is in my killfile.

I'm not doubting your's or Bob's word on this. I just think you've experienced some kind of aberration. If those motors were having delay failures at that rate all over, we'd be seeing it happen all the time, and that's not the case.

Nope. Blowby usually results in ejection during burn. Each motor was examined in the ejection area, and nothing unusual was found.

Also, it doesn't exxplain why WL only. I'm not the only one who noticed the WL connection.

Old. 1995-2001.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Hey, Twerp! here you are agreeing with me, and in your previous post you deliberately mispell my name in an unflattering matter.

Go killfile yourself!

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

"There's nothing to apologize for. Apparently you are STILL incapable of understanding the difference between making a statement of fact, and the listing of possible scenarios."

- Ray Dunakin 5-10-05, ultimate TRA apologist

"Even IF Bruce Kelly wrongfully rejected someone's membership, he did it on his own and exceeded his authority. Bob's post provided darn few facts, but one thing he did state was that this alleged incident was done without the knowledge of the BOD."

- Ray Dunakin 5-8-05, ultimate TRA apologist

"In all truthfulness I would rather read the worst of Jerry's diatribes than the obsequious sycophantic apologies of Mr. Dunakin"

- Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Point

"In all truthfulness I would rather read the worst of Jerry's diatribes than the obsequious sycophantic apologies of Mr. Dunakin"

- Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed