Ellis Mountain G35

We've seen a few go up at Southern Thunder so far this weekend. No problems, other than a few lost rockets :-) Nice little motors.

David

No, but I had an Ellis Mountain SU J228-P cato this weekend. Blew the plugged forward closure clean off. :^(

There are actually MORE anecdotal reports of Ellis Mountain failures than Aerotech by RCS and Aerotech by RCS sells 20+ times as many motors as EM.

I see a trend and frankly a problem.

Jerry

concerned

I've only flown one so far, no problems. I've seen other folks fly them without problems.

No problem-S-??

Were you expecting any possibility of two or more problems on a single motor?

I have a simple question. If Ellis "model rocket motors" (160ns and below in CA) were flown and sold at NSL this month, and if Ellis ONLY purchased a HPR permit and NOT a MR permit with CSFM, were ALL those MR motors sold and discharged at NSL illegal?

Who is going to be removed from NAR over that?

When is Ellis going to be decertified for "causing consumers to be illegal".

These are real questions.

Now I know Ray is incapable of addressing a real issue, not to mention unwilling.

But there are PLENTY of NAR members here with a proven track record of being rules zealots.

Kaplow, Shecter, and Bundick pop to mind.

What say you?

Jerry

"Wrong. You don't get to decide the cert/decert rules. That's for the certifying authority to decide."

- Ray Dunakin

"Or (radical thought) less rules so fewer conflicts are even possible."

- Jerry Irvine

The rules by which individuals are certified to purchase motors and fly them should be very very clear, and consistently applied."

- Ted Cochran

"For those of you who are fans of the Calvin & Hobbes comic strip, this is Kellyball [NARball], which is like Clavinball. You make up the rules as you go along, you change the rules whenever it suits you, and you never ever let Jerry Irvine (who in this morality tale takes the place of Susie) play."

- Jim McLaughlin

"If (when?) Tripoli fails, it will be due to all of the problems that Jerry, John, Jim, myself, and others have tried to bring to the attention of the management, and now to the public. It will *NOT* be the result of our complaints any more than the Challenger explosion was the fault of an engineer who said "Don't launch it in the cold"."

- Bob Kaplow

"No man is wise enough, nor good enough to be trusted with unlimited power."

- Charles Colton

"Left to my own devices, I have a philosophy of make neat products, ship them out and bill the customer for it. They pay most of the time. When they don't I have found the word please to work better than a summons."

- Jerry Irvine

Poor jerry.

Go to church Brian. Your mother misses you.

Hmmm... if NSL had a pyro op #3 licensee on site so "high power" motors could legally be flown, then I don't think any California regulation was being broken by the flyers, one way or the other, even if the motors had been (erroneously?) CSFM-classified as "high power" instead of "model" rocket motors. (CSFM might have a beef with EM for "applying for the wrong classification" or something... but they _issued_ the classification, so evidently they were didn't mind.)

There is certainly historical precedent for inconsistency between CSFM and NAR/TRA classifications... a case the other way would, for example, be the Aerotech G125 and F101, which bore a CSFM "model rocket" logo and yet would be considered "high power" under current NAR/TRA definitions (because of the average thrust rating greater than 80 N)... so you could legally fly those in CA without a pyro op licensee, but would need "user certification" etc. to be in compliance with NAR/TRA safety codes.

BTW, what was the point of putting in the thrust limit in the NAR/TRA definition? Why _not_ say "H or bigger is HPR, G or smaller is MR" and leave it at that?

-dave w

Do you know what I miss?

I miss My money. When are you going to pay Me My money?

In CSFM parlance MR and HP are different universes.

This "feature" was insisted upon by the "Estes/Quest" lobby with Dane Boles and Mary Roberts.

Also Pyro Op #3 is a "user" permit, specific to CSFM HP motors ONLY. Pyro Op #2 and #1 are supervisory permits.

That dividing line in CA is 160ns.

I have asked that before to a response of silence.

CA alone does.

Jerry

True, according to actual wording of the regs, HPR motors are supposed to be "for use by" pyro op licensees... but it appears that a somewhat Clintonian definition of "used by" is the norm, such that a pyro 3 ends up being "supervisory" in practice: to interpret things in strict compliance with the regulations, the operator licensee is using the HPR motors for us; we're just not making him do _all_ the work themselves... the rest of us are glad to help install airframes around the motors and provide electricity for the igniters, even though he gets all the legal credit for "performing" the launch... and, between the lines, it appears that this is how CSFM actually expects things to work.

-dave w

Which pretty much ONLY in CA is a violation.

I have said the regs are broken. By that I mean they are excessively restrictive and nonsense. However until they are changed they are set to criminalize a bunch of folks at the whim of CSFM or even local authorities.

Again not in CA. It says the lisencee must operate the CSFM listed HP motors. One way around that is to not list the motor as a CSFM HP motor and only operate it at a Pyro-Op event. In that case it can be the user being overseen by the Pyro-Op and there are no specific standards or limits to over seen. So just being in charge of the site counts. Even infants can fly P motors at such an event. Perfect for students and group launches.

In the other 49 states EVERY ADULT has that authority, without any permit.

But once you buy in, you obligate yourself to a much higher standard with many harsh criminal penalties.

THAT is what applies to NSL. I am guessing that in addition to Ellis motors under 160ns being operated without a MR permit, some users actually operated HP motors without personally having a Pyro-Op 3 in their posesssion. Exactly as done at ROC launches (as I speak no less).

People in glass houses should not throw rocks. This is what NAR and TRA has been doing to folks external to their clubs for years.

Heck TRA KNOWINGLY didn't even get a BLM event permit for LDRS-2001!!!

But ONLY between the lines. In a "Non-Enforcement Zone"-tm.

Jerry

you are right jerry, "People in glass houses should not throw rocks."

you hosted many, many launches without BLM permits or FAA waivers.

By the way, do you have My money?

Think G300,

that was one reason.

But G300's (or anything over 800F80) are now mis-ctagorized as HPR. Only the CPSC rules state that this is not a "child access" item. Like R movies.

It is NARTRA/NFPA (authored by NAR and TRA) that say this MR motor accessable only to adults anyway must be misclassed as HPR.

It confuses everyone unnecessarily.

Jerry

Bullshit.

Yes it confuses, but they (there were/are lots of theys) did not want access to motors like the G300 unless you had a blessing from the force.

This way the G300, could not only not be bought by children, but could also not be purchased by adults just wanting to make a tube rocket.

To get the G300 from an HPR motor dealer, they would have to go though the jedi training that would cure them from their dark side desires to make a lars for laughs.

Not bullshit, 100% true.

"Big fine" also hosted many motor shipments without required DOT permits..