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

Yeah but that doesn't make the candidates "running mates". That term is usually reserved for vice-presidential candidates who are not elected separately from the presidential candidate with whom they are affiliated.

DUH really?

The one on the video is from an Indy launch this summer. They were very strict on distance guidelines. I've actually never seen a large monocopter at a TRA launch....however common sense would have to be employed and I would believe the monocopter itself would require the safe distance regardless of the motor.
I doubt NFPA has a section in it for monocopters since there are so few and they are so varied, it's difficult to come up with a "one rule fits all". In theory as it now stands motor rules would dictate distance, but it would often be a foolish decision to only use motor distances for normal rockets.
Chuck

I've seen them at NAR, TRA & indy. They get a 'generous' saftey clearence ie more than normal.

Man, are you off your drugs?
There are always going to be situations where compromises need to be made to ENHANCE safety. In this case, it was probably felt that holding the rocket and pad up straight until just before launch was more important than the holder's distance from the pad.
I have some problems with this as well. But it is well accepted practice nowadays. I assume there are two aspects: 1) one cannot assume that large rockets weigh X amount, don't have sharp surfaces, are coming in at X speed. 2) On smaller rockets you have the potential for tripping and collisions while you are watching the rocket you think you are about to catch. I've seen kids chase a rocket and fall off an embankment, twist their ankle, or stomp or fall on the rocket that had landed just out of reach.
... that THING Comparing this to the Columbia disaster is just way over-the-top

The biggest reason for not having kids chase and catch your rocket is that thye are likely to damage the rocket. Especially when there is a herd of kid all chasing the rocket.

Yeah I know that's pretty obvious but Bob seemed to need the clarification.

Ah, but that's the rub. Monocopters are not rockets per the nfpa. Does the tra insurance cover launching of these vehicles at sanctioned launches?
And how far will a K fly when it breaks off or through the motor mount at that angle?

Heh,
Actually if you are refering to me, I didn't need the clarification ... I just wanted to get a discussion going about why NAR is such a "fickle dinosaur" ... saying they are for rocketry, but to slow/committed to put their money where their mouths are. Face it, with a tad over 3000 members, NAR really has very little clout beyond this newsgroup or the local NAR baseball field launch.
I mean come on, NAMBLA has more economic and political power (thanks to the ACLU) than does NAR ... and NAMBLA would LOVE to go and fly rockets with your young son ... sick but true!
If NAR trully wants its "glory days" back, they are going to have to adopt a rocketry doctrine similar to TRA. As long as NAR sits back and protects BP manufacture's interests, as long as NAR elects the same old "good 'ole boys" leadership, as long a NAR fails to give its membership what it wants, it will continue to lose members and viability. I'm sorry, people are not very interested in balsa and paper anymore. Yes yes, you the reader will orgasm for a BT-50, BT-50 engine mount, BNC-50, and a B6-4 ... MOST other people outside this group ... DON'T.
The average citizen doesn't care about rockets like you do. This is somethiong that the NAR leadership FAILS miserably to see. Most people are interested in the more MODERN aspects of rocketry ... just look at WHERE the money is!
Lets see, Toys R Us isn't carrying rockets anymore, maybe a few RTF sets on the self, but not like the 60s and 70s ... but HPR sure has a HUGE following! Millions of dollars of AP motors and reloads, ALONE! Seems to be that the launches getting the most coverage and attention are the K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, ... variety. I mean yes, you have to start an 8 yr old with a low power setup, but within a few years, the B4-2 and the C6-5 give way to the F-52 and the G-80 ...
Most people are not going to pursue rocketry because they have IQs over 150. Most people are not going to pursue orcketry because they have a chemical engineering degree or they can do differential equations like adding 2+2. The VAST majority of people who involve themselves in rocketry do it because of the fun; the smoke, the flash, and noise. NAR CLEARLY fails to see this, and THIS is why they lost over 300 members this year, and will lose ANOTHER 300+ more next year. They SIMPLY DON'T GET IT.
Not everyone is a little nerd with a Phd, or votes veggan. Not everyone was there for NARAM 4, 6, 12, or 16 ... there are people new to rocketry TODAY that look at an Estes Alpha III then look at a LOC Bruiser and choose, guess what, the BRUISER ... DON'T you NAR people even get it? Guess not ... Bunny get ready to ship out 300 fewer magazines next year ... and the year after that and the year after that ... until you call can meet anually for your "pat on the back" circle jerk while the rest of the world moves forward.
And the beat goes on ... NAR you are a DINOSAUR ready for extinction!
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Since the ejected motor would have no fins and would tumble rather than be projected it's probably a fairly easy equation based on the speed on the inside circle (the wing tip would move around the faster outside circumference) which is located from the Cg, the Cg is very close to the motor tube .....figuring rpm and knowing the inside circumference you could calculate the speed of the motor tube.
The impressive part of the monocopter is the speed of the wing tip, the speed of the motor because of it's smaller track on the inside circle is not so impressive. And as such would not fly very far.
Chuck

message I watched an M motor fly out the nose (split it at the seamline) of a level 3 cert attempt and fly an nice arc towards several guys on the run. I don't recall that it tumbled at all, but it happened pretty darn quick.
I don't recall how long after launch it left the rocket, but my concern would be at some point in it's rotation, it's pointing towards the crowd.

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

No Art, I was referring to Bob K. He's the one who said he met somebody's potential "running mate" in a TRA election, where there are no running mates.
I think the NAR has come a long, long way from where it was back when they were kicking people out for flying G motors at private launches. There are still some of those "dinosaurs" in the NAR, but you can find individual idiots in any org.
In what way do you think the NAR needs to improve? What, specifically, do you think they should be committing their money to?

An arc IS a tumble. It just happens to have a large radius.
Doesn't matter whether it's in a monocopter or a boring, 3FNC rocket -- a loose motor can still head towards the crowd. I've seen loose motors thrash around all over the place. The one thing they don't do for very long is travel in the direction they were originally pointed towards prior to breaking loose from the airframe.

"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.
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?

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

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

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

After all RC monocopters