NAR/TRA Joint Active Recovery Definition

Bob Kaplow wrote:


So Bob, if someone has a odd rocket, for a certification attempt, such as a saucer, developed from smaller models, that would be OK, right. I'm sure you remember Ed Miller's saucer. Ed's saucer used for his L-3 cert was partially developed, using "smaller models".
As for as I'm concerned, the new NAR rule is anal retentive in nature, with no factually developed reasons or demonstrated need. What evidence or track record of safety issues is there? I can't believe you of all people, support more restrictive rules, that restrict creativity. What is this world coming to??? (:-) If Tripoly comes up with a similar anal rule, I swear by god, I will ignore the rule and if I have the opportunity to TAP an odd rocket, that I believe worthy of consideration, and push comes to shove, the BOD can fire me from my TAP position as I will not bend.
I'm probably going to catch a lot of hell for this, but I'm a big boy..(:-)
Fred Wallace TRA TAP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
W. E. Fred Wallace wrote:

Since, from what i've heard, Ed's saucer use a parachute, it is fine.

Notice 'TRA' in the title? TRA uses this rule too.

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

You are correct it has a chute. i still believ it is anal retentive to make such a rule.

News to me and nothing has been posted to the TRA web page, TRA List or to the TRA TAP List. It's possible that I missed the notice, but not likely, beings I have been one of the most vocal against such rules. There was discussion and a proposal from the TAP Chair, but to my knowledge, no vote by the TRA BOD, and from what i hear pretty much dead on arrival..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The safety committee study showed that 75% of HPR failures are recovery related. To allow certification without demonstrating safe recovery is absurd. If you're going to be certified to a particular level, you need to demonstrate that you can not only build a rocket, but can deploy a chute and recover it.
Do they give drivers licenses to folks who can work the gas pedal but not the brake?
--
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
I would claim that the vast majority of high power flights are flown by certified 3FNC people. Yet we still have high failure rates. Why is that? Part of it must be ignorance, complacence, or sloppiness on the part of the flyer. Part of it is RSOs not finding problems before flight. I believe that those two areas are where we need to focus.
I am afraid that by getting "tunnel vision" on a perceived, but not actual, problem with saucer certification we are completely ignoring the root cause(s) of our recovery problem.
Bob Kaplow wrote: ...

...
--
Will Marchant, NAR 13356, Tripoli 10125 L3
snipped-for-privacy@amsat.org http://www.spaceflightsoftware.com/will /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I agree 100 percent. The high failure rate is with what is normally used, (parachute recovery system), and has nothing to do with being an active recovery system or not. Who says that a , so called inactive recovery system, can not be designed to work?? I bet if I tried, I could up-scale a rocket powered glider to safely recover, using high powered motors, at least through a level 2 cert; no RC just free flight. In fact I know darn well I can do it.
Fred
Will Marchant wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
W. E. Fred Wallace wrote:

Please do, I'd be curious to see it. I've never heard of a rocket glider that did not use some form of active recovery. There has to be some way of converting it from a "rocket configuration" to a "glider configuration". Whether you're releasing fin tabs, or changing the shape of the wing, popping out wings, or even just shifting a weight to change the center of gravity, it's all active recovery. It doesn't have to be R/C, it simply has to require some type of action as opposed to just letting the thing come in ballistic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I just might give it a shot. I have a partially built Starlifter, (old Carl Goldberg free-flight design). A little redesign on the tail feathers, so the they don't get burnt from the motor burn; maybe sweep the wing about 2 degrees, build the wing without the polyhedral, and change the wing tips. Yep I bet I can make it work. Might not be as slow as an original Starlifter. Several years ago I built a 52" wing span glider that flew on a plugged F-20, without changing anything at motor burnout. The spiraling assent during take off was something to watch, but at burnout, the glider simply rolled over into a fast left turning glide, landing about 600" from where it launched from. Never going to win a duration contest with such a design, but you can design and tweak it to fly, land, and recover safely.
Fred, Rockets are my hobby, vehicles that fly on the wing are my passion....
" snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote:

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

I have seen plans for RGs that do nothing to transition, but they are rather finicky. IIRC the Julie Bird 7 was such a glider. Plan was in an old Model Rocketeer.
--
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
Bob Kaplow wrote:

Fred should go for it. He can call it Grrrrrrrrrrr2 :)
Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I wonder what the recovery failure rates are for people that did not have to use a parachute to certify compared to the ones that did. My guess is that the saucer people that did L1 & L2 on saucers, won't have as good a sucess rate.
Phil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Indeed, this thread suggests that saucers are much safer than 3FNC, and hence should be encouraged! MOre to the point, saucers tend to be fail safe. How many HPR 3FNC's are fail safe? How many even have a backup chute or recovery system? You would not jump out of an airplane without both main and emergency chutes.
I don't care one way or the other about using saucers and other novelties for certification flights. Certification does not certify, prove, or demonstrate competence. The important thing is just getting the user registered and listed. The cert flight is simply jumping through hoops for appearance.

That sounds like a reasonable local policy. Still, I'd hate to see it mandated universally, and especially not for model rocket contests.
Is the HPR failure rate any higher or substantially different in any way from MR failures? Are HPR motors any less reliable than MR motors? Are reloadable motors any less reliable than SU motors? How many reloadable motor failures are due to poor user motor assembly?
Alan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alan Jones wrote:

I'd disagree. Every saucer I've seen has come down with the smoke grain still burning. With a non-plugged forward closure, this means the chance of a burning delay grain coming really close to dry grass -- bad news.
Also, in my experience, saucers aren't very wind-tolerant -- the wind tends to blow them sideways when 3FNC rockets will still go fairly straight.
Our club has had to ban saucers, except when the ground is WET. Why? Because one of our two large fires was started by a saucer, and we've since had too many come down, as they all do, with the smoke grain still burning. Too much fire risk for us.
I'm not saying saucers should be banned, but I am debating the claim that "saucers are safer".
-Kevin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kevin Trojanowski wrote:

Attack the delay problem, not the vehicle. Requiring use of a short motor delay should cure the problem, at least if using A/T single use & reloads. I doubt a flight shorter than 6 seconds, (normal A/T reloadable short delay), is probable unless the saucer is a heavy weight. Also if I remember, some of the single use A/T motor short delays are available @ 4 seconds.
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
W. E. Fred Wallace wrote:

Nothing obviously wrong with using a short delay grain for a saucer but would the said saucer flyer know enough to use a short grain?
Like it was mentioned before, it really all depends on the flyer but it also could mean that the flyer doesn't have enough experience flying rockets(3fnc example) in general.
Bottom line though, the RSO has the last word whether anything gets airborne.
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
the notorious t-e-d wrote:

If the flyer not knowing enough, educate, (atack the problem and correct it).

I just don't see the relavance of experience with 3 fin rockets applied to saucers.

Of course they do, within reason.

Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
W. E. Fred Wallace wrote:

Nothing obviously wrong with using a short delay grain for a saucer but

Exactly!
The reverence I was trying to convey was to be directed to inexperienced flyers. The ones that keep making mistakes after mistakes etc. Whether it's a saucer or 3fnc or other.

Yup, and that's why I mentioned it. I leave the 'within reason' part for others to debate :)
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Why do so many vocal people think that just because someone flies a saucer they're stupid? I've seen reference to people being afraid that someone will certify L1 and L2 on a saucer and then go out and fly a "L" motor in a 3fnc and crash it because they haven't proven they can pack a chute. That's pure bullshit and people that think like that and publicly post something so idiotic have just documented their ignorance.
Andrew

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

You didn't read my whole post did you? Just decided to snip 2/3rds the post and rally on about the top third of the post. There's your ignorance.
First off I ain't that vocal and second, unbelievable as it seems, I've seen many many many recovery failures due to the flyer NOT using the right delay. Saucer or no saucer. Like I mentioned before, it depends on the flyer.
And oh, lighten up, this is only *abusenet*.
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ted,
Don't take it so personal, your post is just the latest I've seen with the same bullshit. I see that you really don't disagree with anything I said your just upset that I seemed to pick on you. Sorry, didn't mean to and that's why your name was cut out of the post.
If there have been so many failures due to the flyer using the wrong delay then the RSO's don't know shit. Anybody doing RSO work should be able to tell if the delay is going to be in the ball park for the type of rocket and motor combination being flown. If a guy walks up to the RSO with a six pound rocket and a "H" motor in it is the RSO going to let him use the long delay? Whatever happened to the RSO asking the flyer how he determined the correct length of delay and deciding if the guy knew what he was talking about. If the RSO hasn't flown any saucers to determine if the delay is any good then why is he approving them in the first place, he should ask for help from someone that has.
I don't even fly saucers so I really don't give a rat's ass if they're legal for certification or not but I don't like the idea of people or organizations dictating to others and making an issue out of something that isn't. Saucers have been getting flown for so many years and they haven't brought the hobby crashing down yet nor will they.
Don't worry, it may be abusenet but I still love ya!
Andrew

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.