L2 Sugestions - Small field..

BTW, where's Chris Taylor? Didn't he try to cert L1 on a saucer a few years back?
IIRC, didn't he wind test it by attaching it to his Jeep and "driving fast"
to simulate liftoff stress?
(This was pre Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes and what you are talking about was Grrrrrrrrrrr as opposed to pre Grrrrrrr. It was a big CF rocket glider.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'd have to go back in google land, but I do think that Chris tried a saucer before Grrr1 (Maybe the year Naram was close to his location in PA). Without the timeframe, It would be hard to find...

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

Chris originated the post Something Wicked cool comes this way! You can ask him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

Not to my knowledge. Just 4 attempts with Gggrrrrrrrrrrr.
Here's a photo of my "L1" Happy meal on its third flight, on an H73...
http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/PHOTOS/SUPERSIZEHAPPYMEALH2.JPG
To scale the photo, it's 18" across and about 8" high. Details about the specifics of the size in person only.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
We have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in it a terrible resolve. -- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, WWII.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
-----snip-----

the
Boy Howdy !
I'm currently building a 5.5x Estes Streak for my Level-1 certification attempt at a NEFAR launch in July (hurricanes permitting) and have already determined to take it down with me when I go to observe their launches in May and June firstly as a pile of un-assembled components and secondly mostly assembled and almost-ready-for-paint and beg any high-power flyer in sight to take a look and let me know what he thinks.
John<==it's just silly to think I've thought of everything
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Welcome to Tripoli.

Why would you think that?
TRA TMT chairs have promulgated and published FALSE information on motor certs without being removed or even censured or even "asked to improve".
TRA BOD has actively ENCOURAGED the bad behavior of HPR magazine both with its "owner" on the board and off the board. Nobody was removed.
HPR magazine itself is a long saga of fraud and misappropriation of funds and Bruce Kelly has not been removed. In fact he was awarded a lifetime membership in Tripoli!
ironically those same folks deserving removal forthwith have removed OTHERS for truly arbitrary and minimal reasons.

TRA says one cannot certify a motor unless you offer an ATF permit that the regs, the agency and a judge all agree is NOT required.
No different.

--
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
wrote:

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

jerry, specifically, what "arbitrary and minimal reasons" are you referring to?
Specifically.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are no "officials" involved in ANR certification. Any 2 certified adults can form the team for any other person.
I would expect the issues would come from being nit-picked to death. You wouldn't believe the Spanish Inquisition I got the first time I brought my *D* powered Happy Meal to a TRA launch with everyone questioning its safety. While ignoring unsafe big rockets with K motors...
The critical comment that has popped up in this thread is that your certification team should be someone you work with starting BEFORE you buy / design the rocket, up through construction, and ending up at the launch. Over and over, I'm asked to come in at the last step. More often than not the flier has chosen an inappropriate rocket and/or motor for their cert flight. But at that point all you can do is say yes or no. L3 (in both NAR and TRA) requires a formal mentoring process. While it's not written into the rules, it should be no different for L1 or L2.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, except to encourage attendance in Christian churches; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except to require prayer in schools; or abridging the freedom of speech, except for those questioning the Bush administration; or of the press, except that not owned by Rupert Murdoch; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, except those protesting pre-emptive wars; and to petition the government for a redress of grievance, except those we don't like." -former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Kaplow wrote:

I wouldn't go that far, Bob. I simply think that for certification process one should go as 'normal' as possible. For example, before I purchased a L1 or L2 rocket, I asked for what folks on rmr thought would be good to use. I received a bunch of useful suggestions and comments, including someone posting a complete list of what folks had certified on.
I think the problem arises where someone is trying to 'push the envelope' with a certification attempt (i.e., doing staging or clustering for a level 1 certification). It would be the equivalent of demonstrating a bootleg turn for your first drivers test -- you might be successful, but the odds of something going wrong go WAAAY up, and the 'inspector' is not going to appreciate the 'cowboy' aspect of what should be a 'normal' process.
I considered using a saucer for my L1, but frankly, I would view that as 'cheating'. Not in the sense of it strictly violating the rules, but the intent of the rules. Having done the level 1 and 2 (and bear in mind that I've been doing rocketry on and off since the sixties), things ARE a bit different for these bigger rockets, in terms of recovery deployment. Using a saucer doesn't really show the NAR or TRA that you know how to deploy (safely) a 'nominal' recovery system.
I'll go a bit farther (and perhaps slit my own throat <G>) and say that at this point I almost believe there ought to be a level 2.5 -- this is where you demonstrate the use of a plugged motor and electronic deployment. Please note that I'm not REALLY suggesting this, but I think that the step from Level 1 to Level 2 isn't as big as the step from Level 0 to Level 1 -- unless one were to factor in the electronics. This will be my own personal 'next big step', as up to this point I've been using motor ejection for deployment.
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Erbas-White wrote:

I don't know that a special certification level is needed. By the time you get to L3 you need it and will probably start using it on the way there.
I started using electronics while L1. That experience made my L2 certification go smoothly and was a big help on my L3. I prefer to fly with electronics now because I think they are less stressful and more reliable than motor ejection. This weekend I lost a 4" Loc V2 because of a bonus delay on an AT G80. The PRO38 system is better because it allows you to vary the delay to the particular rocket, but electronics are still my preferred way to go when possible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

David,
I agree with your basic thrust here (as to demonstrating competence). But just because the rules are loose doens't mean that there should be "secret, unwritten" additional rules that apply.
The right answer is to make the rules reflect what everyone wants.
--
...The Bit Eimer NAR 84054 L1
"My goal in life is to be the kind of person my cat thinks he is"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bit eimer wrote:

I don't disagree with you on this, other than:
1) NAR is a volunteer based organization. Time spent on things that are (or once were) thought to be 'common sense' require volunteer effort, detracting from other things that may need to get done.
2) It may well be that the ORIGINAL INTENT was to leave this somewhat open, and to allow the certification team members to decide. Frankly, this ultimately becomes a liability issue. If I were to certify someone as competent with Level 2 based on a saucer certification, and then later on that individual showed blatant and gross negligence in deploying a parachute recovery system that resulted in death or injury, I could (and should) expect that I'm going to be held somewhat responsible if that ever came to court. NAR doesn't cover this in their rules, nor should it. But, for me, if I'm going to certify someone to a certain level I'm going to make very sure that I can defend my actions should it ever be necessary.
3) Often these 'corner cases' aren't evident when the original rules are/were written. On a purely speculative basis, for example, what if it turns out that there is some reason that the new 'sort of' RMS motors aren't suitable for certification attempts? Should the rules be re-written every time something new comes out on the market? If it turns out that a certain manufacturer of an altimeter has a problem, should the rules be re-written to say not to use that brand of altimeter? All of these are things that rely on the 'common sense' of those on the certification team. For example, most state's constitutions were written back when there was a 'common sense' definition of marriage, so there was no need to define it as one man marrying one woman. These days, folks are running around trying to use that supposed 'oversight' or 'loophole' to completely change the definition of marriage.
4) One often runs into problems when trying to re-write the rules. I'm running into that right now (in a different venue). I'm on a high school site council (as a parent representative), and we are currently re-writing the bylaws to update some of the 'cases' we've run into. A sentence (IMHO, a fairly important sentence) was deleted, purely accidentally, during the update process. When I asked why it was deleted, it was definitely found to be accidental, but half the people in the room wanted to just accept the bylaws anyway, to simply get it done and over with. I've run into this in the past, as well -- there was a fellow I knew who spent many months fine-tuning the bylaws of an organization that I was part of, and I couldn't quite understand what a tedious process it was. Having lived through a lot of infighting in the organization since that time, and a bunch of folks trying to find these 'corner cases' and 'loopholes', I'm very glad that he DID spend so much time at it.
5) Using a saucer for level 2 certification does not, IMHO, demonstrate proper competence for using that level of motors. The argument that what if one only plans on flying saucers doesn't quite hold water -- first of all, one can't design a certification program that will handle only corner cases (especially since the numbers who would fall in that category is probably slim to none), and second of all part of the certification process (IMHO) is the proper selection of delay, which is moot with a saucer. Again, this comes back to the common sense and liability issues. The common sense part is that if someone has demonstrated competence with deploying a parachute, I will be able to assume they can properly 'deploy' a saucer recovery system (since there is nothing to deploy <G>). However, proving you can 'deploy' a saucer does NOT, even remotely, demonstrate competence in deploying a parachute system in a level 2 rocket. Here are some of the things that are skipped: proper shock cord selection? proper shock cord installation? proper delay selection? proper delay installation? proper parachute size? proper wadding/piston use? proper slip fit on nose cone or payload section?
I've been involved in a lot of different organizations for a long time, and I've seen all sorts of problems with 'rules'. At this point in life, I think that these types of rules should be a lot like the Constitution -- establish the framework, and only modify the framework when absolutely necessary. Allowing the certification team members to have the final say seems to be 'reasonable'. If you really want to push the envelope in a certification flight, and violate the 'spirit' of the rules, then look for two members willing to be on your certification team who share the same sentiments. Frankly, if you can't find two folks willing to be on your certification team because of how/what you've selected as your certification rocket, then you really OUGHT to rethink your plans.
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This should be in the FAQ.
--
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

Even that is a personal choice.
--
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
Jerry Irvine wrote:

No, Jerry, it isn't -- at least not the way you're stating it.
The intent of the certification process is fairly clear. In addition to all that I've already posted on the subject, it's to demonstrate that we can properly self-regulate.
If someone is so bull-headed as to want to go 'around' the intent of the process, then they certainly can make that 'personal choice', but that will require them to find certification team members who want to make that choice with them. If they can do so, more power to them -- if it truly becomes a problem for the organization, the organization will be DRIVEN to change the rules -- and you'll end up with a MORE regulated hobby because of folks who 'insist' on creating loopholes.
For example, one could 'choose' to list HPR reload kits as 'model aircraft parts', but one would need to make sure they were willing to take the possible consequences -- since common sense indicates that is not the 'intent' of the DOT shipping regulations.
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Properly is debatable.

Agreed.
Hey!
Or (radical thought) less rules so fewer conflicts are even possible.
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
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD says...

Here goes "boo hoo" Bob with another TRA sob story.
Where'd those corks go?
--
Tweak

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

But Tweak, there are sooo many with actual merit.
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

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.