Ellis Mountain G35

I've got a few Ellis Mountain SU G35's and after reading a few things online (including one or two posts on usenet) I'm getting a little bit concerned about using them.
Does anyone have any experience with these motors?
Thanks

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
  Quoted Text Here  

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

  Quoted Text Here  
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

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Poor jerry.

  Quoted Text Here  
Go to church Brian. Your mother misses you.

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Do you know what I miss?
I miss My money. When are you going to pay Me My money?

NaCl wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
online
concerned
I've only flown one so far, no problems. I've seen other folks fly them without problems.

  Quoted Text Here  
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

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
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

  Quoted Text Here  
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.
http://www.v-serv.com/usr/images/CSFM2.jpg
Also Pyro Op #3 is a "user" permit, specific to CSFM HP motors ONLY. Pyro Op #2 and #1 are supervisory permits.
  Quoted Text Here  
That dividing line in CA is 160ns.
  Quoted Text Here  
I have asked that before to a response of silence.
  Quoted Text Here  
CA alone does.
Jerry
  Quoted Text Here  

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
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

  Quoted Text Here  
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.
  Quoted Text Here  
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!!!
  Quoted Text Here  
But ONLY between the lines. In a "Non-Enforcement Zone"-tm.
Jerry
  Quoted Text Here  

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
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?

  Quoted Text Here  
Bullshit.

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Not bullshit, 100% true.

Dave Grayvis wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
"Big fine" also hosted many motor shipments without required DOT permits.. http://rspa-atty.dot.gov/appeals/Irvine-app.pdf .

  Quoted Text Here  
If you really believe it, post your real name associated with the claim. Heck do it offline by mail.
Jerry

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
jerry, It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact.

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
waivers.
claim.
I'm curious... why is it so important to you that he post his name, since you already know who he is?
e