Interesting high lights of the NAR BoD Meeting and ...



And hence FAR more cool, yet fully safety code compliant and, incidentally, proven safe in practice.
:)

You got your wish already.
The annual HPR launch is called "Large and Dangerous Rocketships". BTW it was founded by Chris Pearson. I flew the first rocket at LDRS-1. A USR Hi-Test 2420 (Ace Parts of course) with an Estes D12.
And despite many suggestions to change the name have been thwarted by comments from people like you. I am beginning to believe the "keep the name" advocates.

Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Snip for brevity's sake

Hi,
Saw a cool and what I thought was a loose motor at a launch just this last May. A fellow made a rocket out of one of those triangular shipping box tube like things you get at the US Post Office. Had three fins at the apicies of the triangular shape and a triangular nosecone. The fellow said he had 12 successful launches but was going to use the largest motor he's tried, a K. Well it launched and disintegrated into a puff of cardboard smoke in a second! All's I saw was confetti coming down. Turned out that the model consisted of a core with a body tube, motor and recovery system. What happened was the outer body wasn't strong enough to withstand the aerodynamic forces generated by the K motor and it vaporized. The inner "rocket" continued straight up and I couldn't see it due to the falling cardboard. The parachute did deploy and the "rocket recovered normally. Some folks did see it continue on up to apogee sans fins. It gave the impression of a flight failure but it did complete safely. He did get the guts of the model back along with the pricey reusable motor casing. What I saw coming down was a parachute with a plain body tube hanging from it.:)
Kurt Savegnago
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
flying weather wrote:

Please provide a cite for this.

No farther than a K motor would fly when it breaks off any other rocket due to a cato, shred, etc.
e
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"per the nfpa".
nfpa 1127 (98), pg 1127-6, 1-3 Definitions. Rocket nfpa 1122 (97), pg 1122-5, 1-3 Definitions. Rocket "...without use of aerodynamic lifting forces acting against gravity,.."
The motor has to do the push against gravity or it's not 'rocket'. The other 'rocket' ramifications I don't think are as important because those can be pointed away from the crowd.

at
Are those typically >20 degrees from vertical when they launch or pointing straight at the crowd? Were you at the plasterblaster when that kids 10" V2 spit the motor out the nose? That could have been in the crowd just as easily as down range. Probably depended on where the seam was and how the nose split. That rocket motor was pointing straight up when it let loose.
I like the things too, but if that motor comes out as it's rotated towards the crowd and goes straight, what's the safety distance?
And are they covered by either club's insurance?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
flying weather wrote:

Which tells me there should be no notification to the FAA since it is not determined to be rockets, much like not notifying the FAA for a static test.
An M motor monocopter might not even need a FAR 101 by those rules.....but I'm guessing extended safe distance rules will still be utilized in a common sense way.
Chuck
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
flying weather wrote:

Which tells me there should be no notification to the FAA since it is not determined to be rockets, much like not notifying the FAA for a static test.
An M motor monocopter might not even need a FAR 101 by those rules.....but I'm guessing extended safe distance rules will still be utilized in a common sense way.
Chuck
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:46:17 GMT, Chuck Rudy

Watch out Chuck. You're starting to sound like Jerry. 8-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
flying weather wrote:

Since they are not defined as 'rockets' they do not fall under normal FAA regs. They do not fall under normal nfpa regs. They do not fall under normal 'safe distances'. They are as regulated as static tests, which is why common sense and extended safe distances seem to be the norm.
By definition an M motored monocopter *may* not need FAR 101 notification much less any kind of waiver. After all RC monocopters obviously need no FAA notification and they have the potential to fly longer and higher than rocket powered monos.
Monocopters follow a path with the wind, so they can be pointed into the direction of travel they will eventually and naturally follow by throwing the launch pad out of level, sort of like throwing a rocket out of plumb. To say they can not be pointed away from the crowd is incorrect, however the crowd must also be downwind. It's all quite predictable with any kind of breeze, and without a breeze they just sort of hover above the launch pad.
Chuck
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chuck Rudy wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

norm.
Ok, they're not covered by the clubs rules and regs, so do the organization's insurance cover them or not?

would. After all RC monocopters

My example of the M motor was simply that because that's what I've seen happen. If the K flew out/off of the monochopter, how far would it go.

Not that the monocopter is pointing a direction, the 'rocket motor' is point at the crowd at some point in the monocopter's rotation. That doesn't happen with a rocket flight. X degrees of vertical. Take a rock, tie a string and swing it over your head. Now let go. Where could the motor go if it lets go.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
flying weather wrote:

For some reason this was answered several posts ago and you reask the question. Youre analogy to a rock is wrong and it was answered. You are now wasting my time.
Why am I feeding a troll?
I'm Done Here.
Chuck
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In that post your very first assumption was the tumble, which I can see a motor not going very far in a fast or random tumble. The rotation velocity you described is the rock flying example and not a ballistic trajectory of a 'slow tumble' motor. I agree it probably won't go far from that. The M failure traveled quite a distance without 'tumbling end for end'. I now see Ray's other comment. Most failures I've seen to date generally involve the lower portion of the airframe breaking off and spinning out of control. We'll just have to see if nar has recommendation other than standard safety code.
Someone mentioned at today's launch there were plans in Sport Rocketry a while back?

Thank you for the name calling and failure to answer the insurance issue. I'll take it as an "I don't know".
Does anyone know if tra covers them? Bunny can address nar, but we also have tra fliers.

Sorry for ""wasting your time"", Bye.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hi FW,
People fly Helicopter kites, and box kites, and contest kites at NAR launches.
do the clubs insurance cover them if that 5 foot box kite comes down right no top of my truck ?
what about a duel harness contest kite breaking my head open ?
what about, what about..
heck I might be able to get a top ten list going of what is flown at NAR launches besides rockets going here, any takers ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

issue.
I am intrigued and a bit dumbfounded that it had not occurred to me, nor had I even heard of one. Do you have any links to designs or photos of these rocket motor launched kites?

I don't know and would suggest, to avoid 'wasting anyone's time', you email NAR directly and ask. The HQ email is on the main NAR page and Bunny was able to respond the same day.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
flying weather wrote:

Bad analogy -- a thrown rock is stable, a motor under thrust is not.
P
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
flying weather wrote:

Well then, that pretty much eliminates all rocket gliders, doesn't it?

Doesn't matter, a loose motor is going to go wherever it pleases regardless of where it was aimed to begin with.

Yes, I was there.

Proving my point.

A loose motor won't go straight for very long. It can't, because it's not aerodynamically stable.

I doubt there is any specific wording in the insurance that would limit coverage to only 3FNC type of rockets. If you know of any such wording, post a cite.
If you don't like monocopters, don't fly any. If you think they're too dangerous, don't attend launches where monocopters might be flown.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hardly. Rocket gliders are lifted vertically by the thrust of their motors, just like other rockets. They do not "glide" to altitude like a Jetex powered plane would. None of the stock Jetex motors thrust is greater than its weight.
Even the Tazmanian Devil is lifted by its thrust. The spinning induced by the blades slow it's climb, rather than produce its climb.

Well, there IS a difference when the motor starts out pointing vertically, rather than horizontally. Not is a monocopter motor initially pointed towards the plane of the crowd, but it's initial velocity is in that direction instead of vertical.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

Not all, some are boosted at near 45 degrees to verticle. you've seen them ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't have my copies of NFPA 1122 / 1127 in front of me, but I believe the definition of a model / HPR rocket includes "... not by generating lift from aerodynamic surfaces". Monocopters don't fly on rocket thrust, they are lifted by the aerodynamic surface spinning around.
As such, the don't fit the definition of a model rocket.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.