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

Aug 08, 2005 268 Replies

bob/art, whoever you are:

Long after HPR has become banned/outlawed or so reduced in numbers that nobody left will care, model rocketry will still be here.

I don't know that the TRA makes its membership numbers available, but I was under the impression that their membership has had some decline too over the past few years. SO its not a just a NAR problem.

The only reason for being that the TRA has is HPR: if theres no HPR, there won't be any reason for the TRA. On the other hand, if heres was no HPR, while it would significantly impact the NAR, the NAR has model rocketry to fall back on.

Also NAR membership is about 4.5K, not less than 3K, while TRA membership levels are approx 4K .

As far as "where the money is"... I would think that Estes sales alone, are probably of a magnitude more than all of HPR combined.

The NAR is not protecting " the BP interests"; the NAr protects "its interest", just as TRA protect its interests; its the BP interests that sit on the NFPA that made the NFPA 1127, lets get real, the model rockety manufacturers have no love lost for HPR; they would just as soon as it disappear as fast as it appeared. They think the NAR/TRA lawsuit is a waste of time and money and a lost cause. Why do you think Estes/Quest, arguely the 2 biggest model rocketry manufacturers, could care less about the NAR/TRA lawsuit? Because they don't have a dog in the fight, that's why. Now of course they won't tell you this publicly, but they will say it in private.

You are going have to stop drinking or smoking or whatever it is, that provides the impetus for these raving rants.

get your facts straight first then come back and spew.

shockie B)

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.

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

So if we get our magazine editor to hijack our magazine, and then rip off our members for 10 years, issue bogus motor certs, throw out members that piss off the BOT, change our bylaws behing the members backs, and elect felons and drug abusers to the board, we'll get our glory days back?

I think not.

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.

Just because te organization doesn't have "running mates" doesn't mean that

3 people can't get together and run for the board as the "Dump Kelly" slate. Which is what Frank was planning before TRA kicked him out to try and stop him from running for the BOD.

Who is this "lunarlos" jerk who refuses to identify himself?

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.

I think Quest / Bill does care about the lawsuit. And Estes SHOULD. A person who is into HPR buys and flies a whole lot more Estes / Quest motors than the typical Questes customer who is in the hobby for 2 months. Without the influence of HPR on our hobby, we'll have less kids involved.

-- Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)!

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.



Bad analogy -- a thrown rock is stable, a motor under thrust is not.

P

So get your terminology right then.

Sure Bob, keep telling yourself that. Frank remained in the election and was not elected, because most people had sense enough to see that his "give ATF/NFPA/CSFM/CPSC the finger" platform was worse than useless.

I may be wrong but I believe it's Art Applewhite.

Seriously doubt that Ray. lunarlos appears to to have a far better grasp of reality compared to Art's rantings. Not by much though :)

Ted 'sun did a *fine* job on my dome today' Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

True, but one might argue that it is a recoverable rocket motor powered aeromodel, with "average" thrust in the direction of flight.

Rocket powered cars are not model rockets either.

So, where can I find plans for a monocopter scaled for and Estes E9?

Alan

Wish I still had the link but I do know of a tricopter that was powered by 3 E9's. I do know I have a captured flight of one on dvd. However there is a problem with the E9's burning through the casing with the copters. I *think* it might have been Ed Miller's tricopter.

I'll check out the dvd this weekend to verify.

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

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.

I'd be interested in that too.

Or for that matter, an E9 Tazmanian Devil. Several attempts to get one to work have produced spectacular shreads. I had one I flew for years on FSI E5s, until they vanished, and one that never worked on F9s, but did make one good flight on an F14 when they were still around.

Watch out Chuck. You're starting to sound like Jerry. 8-)

Joseph Peklicz

635 S. Zane Hwy Martins Ferry, OH 43935-1236

has a $15 kit called the "AP8 Aplanocopter" which has two offset wings and flies on an Estes E9. Shipping is $5.50. He doesn't have a web site as far as I know. You'll have to send him a check. He has a couple of other monocopters and some foam plate flying saucers.

Ed Miller has a 24mm monocopter kit that uses Estes Ds and can be flown on AeroTech 24mm RMS Es. It was $24.95 plus $4.95 shipping for the first one. $1.00 shipping for each additional one. The address is: Edward Miller

316 E Queen St. Jonestown, PA 17038

Alan Jones wrote: ...

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required