C6-0 make a C6-P

It *MAY* work. The burnout is pretty violent, and can rupture even epoxy plugs! As the Internats folks discovered when they tried this.

It definitely violates the NAR and TRA safety codes, and the laws of any NFPA 1122 state.

I've tried non permanent (i.e. legal) methods of converting booster motors to plugged motors. The results were unsuccessful unless your goal was to make the worlds most powerful cork Pop-gun!

Why does your boost glider need a plugged motor? Every BG and RG I can recall needs an ejection motor to do something to transition from boost to glide, with the exception of RC models.

Bob:

I think I'm going to have to disagree with you or at least take issue with the violation of NAR/TRA Safety Codes and /or NFPA 1122.

1st of all, a C6-x motor is a model rocket motor covered only by NFPA 1122 (and 1125 if you happen to be manufacturer) and since NFPA 1127 is the TRA Safety Code that ONLY applies to HPR NOT Model Rocket motors, the TRA Safety Code does not apply here.

The only NFPA 1122 code that may be applicable is:

4.19.2 No person shall dismantle, reload, or alter a single-use model rocket motor.

The "operative word here is "alter". Does adding a permannet modification to an motor with an epoxy plug constitute an alteration? Probbaly, but what if the person instead, uses a hardwood dowel type of plug?

Chapter 5 Prohibited Activities

5.1 Prohibited Activities. The following activities shall be prohibited by this code:

(4) Tampering with any model rocket motor or motor reloading kit or component in any manner or to any degree that is contrary to the purpose for which the model rocket motor, motor reloading kit, or component is designed and intended to be used

Does adding an epoxy plug to a C6-0 motor constitute "tampering" Is it contrary to the purpose that a C6-0 is designed and how it is inteneded to be used? Possibly. For an interpretation of "tampering" you would have to approach your local or state Fire Marshall and ask them. DO you really want to do this?

SO we are left with the NAR Safety Code. The NAR Safety Code ONLY applies to those individuals that happen to be 1. NAR members 2. Doing NAR model rocketry on NAR Model rocket time.

anyway the operative NARSC part is 2. Motors. I will use only certified, commercially-made model rocket motors, and will not tamper with these motors or use them for any purposes except those recommended by the manufacturer.

Again I guess it depends on what the word "tamper" means . Unfortunately NFPA 1122 does not define alter nor tamper. For enforcement of the NFPA 1122 code, is the responsibility of your local or state Fire Marshall authority. I suppose you could approach them and ask them if adding an epoxy plug is an alteration, or you could ask the NAR if adding an epoxy plug is tampering.

But this leads to my infamous question about whether or not there is any real "self-regualtion" (which implies self-policing or self-enforcement) in model rocktry .My question is this: if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to see or hear it fall, did it really fall? If you add an epoxy plug to a c6-0 motor on your own time , and tell no one, did it really happen?

My point being this: ONLY your local or state fire marshall person can interpret and enforce NFPA1122. Most Fire Marshall's don' even realize that NFPA 1122 exists in their states, much less, know what it says or have any idea on the interpretation of it. SO the interpretation is left to YOU, the individual. SO the regulation, policing and enforcement is left up to YOU, the individual, hence Self-regulation.. I mean think about it: lets say you mod a C6-0 by adding an epoxy plug. What is the maximum possible penalty for this violation? See, thats why NFPA codes as far as model and HPR are concerned are meaningless: There is no penalty , hence there is no enforcement.

shockie B)

shockie B)

That was an awful lot of typing when you should simply contact the manufacturer to find out if what you intend to do is considered altering or a use that is not intended.

That is why "tandem" motors are not legal. They were asked and they said "NO". They had reasons which included the burnthrough of the casing wall. For modified boosters, they may be concerned with average Americans not being able to safely install a plug on their own.

You are not a lawyer and you are not a manufacturer. Please do not offer pseudo legal advice to others when you should simply advise them to contact the manufacturer. Or you can just ignore me.

fred;

Exactly my point: my psuedo-legal advise/interprtation is as valid or invalid as anybody elses psuedo-legal advice/interpretation on RMR.

And I disagree it as simply a matter of asking the manufacturer. The manufacturerers have no say so, its nfpa 1122 and the individual states fire marshalls that have the duty and responsibility for interpretation and enforcement for nfpa1122; the manufacturers have no such authority, just as the NAR has no such authority to interpret NFPA 11xx. As Mark Bundick told me , If I want an interpretation as to what a specific NFPA 11xx code segment means, hire an lawyer and find out for yourself. Its not the duty nor responsibility of the NAR to provide such. Which if you think about it is a suspect stance considering the fact that the NAR does sit on the NFPA PYRO-AAA committee that actuallyhelps to make the NFPA codes. You woudl think that since the NAR sits on that committee nd helsp to make the NFPA codes, they would be in the best position to interpret such, but they don't and won't. The NAR takes the psotion that its up to the individual state fire marshalls to interpret the NFPA codes: this of course leads to the posibility that the Kentucky state fire marshall may interpret a specific NFPA 1122 code segment one way, while the local Lexington,Ky fire marshall could interpret another way,while the CA state fire marshll may interpret it in a completely different way. I suppose we could end up with a minimum of

50 different interpretations, depending on where you live. I also suppose we could get hundred's of potential interpretations, as most cities have local fire marshalls.... Thats why I make the point that the NFPA codes are really irrelevant in todays world.

and why would I ignore you? when I value your input?

shockie B)

I forgot the smilie after the optional "ignore me" comment.

;)

And if you *do* contact a state fire marshal, be sure to spell "marshal" correct. they hate it when you use two l's.

;)

What is a tandem motor? I've never heard of this term used in conjunction with rocket motors before. We aren't talking about CHAD staging are we? Or the process of inserting the end of a C type sustainer into the end of a D type booster for more positive ignition? What's up Fred, I'm all ears.

It's sort of the latter. But instead of just inserting the 18mm sustainer into forward end of the 24mm booster, you GLUE it in. When the

18mm sustainer lights the 24mm combustion chamber continues to be used. This is not what the manufacturer intended, and possibly not within the design limits. So you'll probably get a much higher rate of burnthrough, nozzle loss or other CATOs.

... at least in theory. The known fact here is the manufacturer was asked and said "NO", thus tandem motor means unsupported motor modification. QED

(What you described, Reece, is legitimate use of the motors.)

reece:

back in the mid-70's and even prior to that, people would take 13mm motors and glue them into the tops of 18mm or take 18mm and glue them into the top of 24mm motors or even just glue (2) 13 or (2) 18 or (2) 24mm motors together with an outer body tube sleeve: hence "tandem" motors. In some combinations you would actually get more nt-sec in total impulse then if you used them as typical staged motors. hence they were popular for maybe 2 years for competition. In mid to late 1978, I guess Estes determined that this was NOT a manufacturers suggested or recommended use and the practice was ended..

shockie B)

I have done this for monocopters, using ~3/8" of Devcon

2-ton epoxy (the kind sold at Wal-Mart in dual syringes) for the plug. Worked perfectly.

As others have pointed out, by doing this you're violating the NAR safety code.

I've always been confused about point number 2. Mark Bundick has evidently made statements that lead one to draw this conclusion. But the NAR and Tripoli both make you sign a statement saying that all your rocketry activities will be conducted within their safety code.

The text from the NAR membership application page at

is

rocketry activities in compliance with the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code, the NAR High Power Safety Code, and the Radio Controlled Rocket Glider Safety Code.

Is the word "sport" the issue? Does that mean NAR sancti> I agree to pursue my advanced rocketry activities in conformance with the

Association's By-laws and Safety Code, and that I will be an active member of the Association to the best of my ability.

So, once again, I'm confused... Will

shockwaveriderz wrote: ...

...

You don't need to use epoxy. Fill the entire end with wadding, tamp it in pretty tight, and put a few layers of masking tape over the end. This is a legal way of doing it, as you're not permanently moding the motor. YES, it works, and I've never had it fail on one of my R/C ships by doing this. I don't think it would work for a D12 tho....

chad

I speculate (but don't know) that the NAR membership form and TRA "pledge" are simplified and/or outdated--simplified so that each is short and to the point rather than an obtuse legal document, outdated because of benign inertia.

At one point the NAR insisted that members do all non-professional rocketry activities according to the NAR safety code; to do otherwise risked ejection from the NAR. This position derived directly from the foundation of the NAR as a facilitator of a safe alternative for basement bombers. That's officially not the case anymore, based on statements I've heard the NAR president and other officers make. Shockie had it right: the NAR safety code applies to NAR sanctioned events, whether sport or competition (and whether the event participants are NAR members or not), and no further; the TRA safety codes (HP and EX) apply similarly.

NAR members can participate in EX, even though the NAR does not support EX; but not at an NAR event. The focus has turned somewhat, becoming less ideological and more practical: the safety codes are the basis for legal sanction and insurance coverage. Thus an NAR member involved in EX can't expect to use the NAR insurance in case of an accident during that involvement, and should have some other means of establishing the legality of his involvement.

To quote the esteemed Mr. Kaplow:

"In a glider 50% of your thrust is from the piston, 50% is from the motor, and 50% is from the ejection charge."

He's right. Use the ejection charge for more thrust!

Chuck W Sharc, NAR Section 613

Sharc, the section where two out of three certification flights always work just fine!

will:

The NAR pledge language was changed just a few years ago.... If you google aginst this group I'm sure you will find the pro and con for the change. As Steve pointed out, the pledge langauge for the NAR used to apply to ALL your rocketry activities: whether you was doing it on your own time or the NAR's time. The NAR pledge langauge was changed to what it now, to point out that it only applies to NAR time. Mark B. has said himself numerous times, that the NAR doesn't care what you do on your own time, but does care for insurance purposes what you do on NAR time. And rightly so. For example, if you are NOT a NAR member, and you walk unto a NAR sections field to launch model rockets , you must agree to adhere to the NAR Safety Code while flying there. On the other hand, if you are flying by yourself at your local park, the NAR Safety Code has no applicability. NAR regulations obviously should not apply to Amateur Rocketry(EX) activites, or non-NAR rocketry actvities. And yes the NAR does sanction only competition events such as NARAM, other competition events down through its contest year and also NARCON and NSL are officially sanctioned NAR events. . It does not formally or informally sanction NAR "sport" launches. Keep in mind that the NAR is an organization of approximately 4500 people nationwide: now compare this to the number of actual people that are involved in model rocketry on a yearly basis. Also Obvious is the fact that is you are not a member of the NAR, and don't have to adhere to NAR regukations, you probably will have to adhere to the NFPA

1122 codes which are in your state. Obviously if you don't know them you can't adhere to them. Thats why I have advised everybody who flies model rocketry or high power rocketry to have with them when they fly, copies of NFPA 1122 or 1127 depending on what you are doing, along with a copy of your specific state law. Ignorance of the law is no defense.

As far as the TRA is concerned, the TRA Safety Code and NFPA 1127 Code for High Power Rocketry are one and the same thing. This is not so for the NAR. The NAR has its own different HPR Safety Code that is derived from the NFPA 1127 code, but they are not identical as is the case with the TRA. I do not know what the TRA ByLaws say so I cannot comment on them.

now keep in mind that all of the above is all pseudo-legal interpretations on my part and have no basis in reality.

shcokie B)

"Will Marchant" wrote in message news:NOZ%e.7246$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

the engine in question is a C6-0 Moron.....

shockie B)

>

You guys takl about the "code" too much. Heres what you do. I have a rocket that clusters 3 D12-3's and I remove the charge for every flight. Take an exacto knife, scratch off all the gray stuff on top of the motor, under the gray stuff, you will find black stuff, this is the election charge. Get rid of the black stuff until you see more gray stuff, you now have a "code violating" plugged motor that wont CATO, I gaurantee that if you do this right, it will work.

What's your point? That a C6-0 does not have an ejection charge? Now that you think about it, don't you feel foolish?

>>

Thanks for the info. Been in rocketry since the very late 60s and never even thought of gluing the motors together. As to using epoxy in the C6-0...I've done it many times in the A10-0. It was the only way I could get motors to fly my Lil Wild Thing on for a long time. Legal...no. Does it work? So far. Do I recommend it? Hmmm, tricky question. Since I never recommend illegal activities I guess for consistency sake I won't recommend this either...wink, nod, wink, wink, nod, nudge.

I suppose an argument could be made that you are just "gluing" a glue plug to the casing:

And NO a -0 motor does not have an integral ejection charge: it does have a little more pressed BP in the motor so it will have the same total impulse characteristics as a C6- with delay and ejection charge. The additional BP in the motor is of course to prevent premature blowthru..... I don't consider that and nor do the manufacturers "ejection charge".... SO whats your point?

shockie B)

>>>