New Aerotech F20 Econo's - Kudo's

I just wanted to commend Aerotech on their new F20 Econojets!! Bob Kaplow had some at NARAM, and was handing them out for everyone to try. All I can say, is, Aerotech, thank you. The older ones I had, wouldn't fit my Tiny Pterodactyl with out removing the label. The new one I tried, actually had to have tape wrapped around it for an air tight fit!! The new ejection well also looked much better than the old paper cap. Absolutely no fears of the ejection powder leaking out. One other thing I noticed, which might be related to the age of the motors, is the propellant seemed to have a cleaner, steadier burn, both in appearance and sound. The smoke trail was even cleaner. If you look at NARAM day 3 on Naramlive, the yellow and red Initiator is mine, flying on an older F20, leaving a dark, dense, smoke trail. The Tiny Pterodactyl, is also mine, and left a lighter smoke trail, and had much more visible flame. The film shots I got of both flights, were comparable to Chris' digital, showing the same results. David NAR#79313

These also have less propellant and smaller casings and even different thrust curves. Buyer be aware!
Tom Ha
  Quoted Text Here  
Kaplow
I can
  Quoted Text Here  
Tiny
actually had
  Quoted Text Here  
ejection well
  Quoted Text Here  
of the
  Quoted Text Here  
be
was
red
smoke
trail,
flights, were
  Quoted Text Here  
see
for
NARAM.
wouldn't
F
money
http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.nar.org
http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

  Quoted Text Here  
Non-compliant (club rules) favoritism to particular manufacturers but not others of course.
  Quoted Text Here  
See above. It CLEARLY triggers several requirements for recertification.
  Quoted Text Here  
See above.
  Quoted Text Here  
Absolutely.
Calvinball lives at NAR just like TRA.
  Quoted Text Here  
Of course. What other possible explanation is there?
  Quoted Text Here  
I guess mine is predictable, but then given the rules as they are today, it was also completely consistent with them. Unlike the actions of NAR and AeroTech.
Hence errortech.
Maybe it is time for error-NationalAssociationofRocketry.
  Quoted Text Here  

Excuse me for not paying attention, but is this F20 a reload or an SU motor? 29mm? If a reload, what casing? I couldn't find anything about it on the AT site. Why would I want this F20 if I can get an F21?
Dumb as a liberal len.

Leonard Fehskens wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Econojets have always been single use. 29mm, 60n-sec F. Probably less since it's a new motor design with an old designator that should be required to be recertified. Since certification has proven to be nearly irrelevant, I guess it really doesn't matter. Consumers will ultimately decide if it's a safe and reliable motor, which it appears to be so far.
  Quoted Text Here  
Where can I get a job like yours where I can post to RMR all day and get paid?
-John (soon to be too busy to read RMR again)

  Quoted Text Here  
But at least other brands of uncertified motors are banned while this one is allowed everywhere including mass-market stores and association national launches!
  Quoted Text Here  

Bob Kaplow wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Bob, I just saw a post to a club NG that said that 1 out of every 4 F20's catoed at NARAM during F Dual Eggloft. Is that right?
Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

  Quoted Text Here  
I recall seeing exactly THREE catos. I don't know how many were F20s or how many F20 or other composite motors were flown, but I think it's safe to say it was a LOT more than 12...
    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
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

Yes, Mark, sometimes it was that bad. While I was timming , and Bob was LCO,
sometimes 1-4 or better 1-6 f20-4 blew up with blown nossles, flare up the top mode, or just boom mode.
These it seems were NOT the new F20s, but the avalible f20s at the time.
Art
writes:
  Quoted Text Here  

art upton wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Thanks for the clarification.
Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

On 15 Aug 2003 20:02:43 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@unverified.com (art upton) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
They didn't count it a CATO, but I had a flight fail after an (old) F20's ejection charge largely leaked out before flight (not being experienced with the things, I didn't realize the little bit of powder I saw come out was most of the charge.
Scott Orr

  Quoted Text Here  
Gary cleared things with S&T. Over a year ago as I understand it. And I checked with S&T before flying the motors or handing them out. The changes don't affect the flight characteristics of the motor. They improve reliability and ease of use.
    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
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html

Bob Kaplow wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
And how did S&T know this? I'm sure Gary told them so. Of course, Aerotech did a lot of in-house testing and is motivated by their desire to have a good product with good feedback from the initial public use. But this is a new motor and S&T should not make an exception no matter who the manufacturer is. Otherwise, anything else they test and publish is irrelevant, IMO.
-John

  Quoted Text Here  
My point for years and I have been CONSISTENTLY criticized for it.

  Quoted Text Here  
These ARE the same people that allowed RECORING of motors to stop them from blowing up because they had a shortage of properly made motors/propellant. So UNCERTIFIED configurations were flown at many launches.
OF COURSE.
You people keep telling me uncertified motors are evil too :)
Jerry

Gary cleared "things" with NAR S&T....? ahh well according to NFPA 1122/25 a model rocket engine cannot be flown unless it is first certed....and if this F20 wasn't certed, how can S&T even consider allowing it to be flown ?
DOes the NAR as the Authority Having Jurisdiction, have the authority and power to waive parts of NFPA 1122/25 as they see fit too? 8.1.3 Model rocket motors, motor-reloading kits, and components
offered for sale, exposed for sale, sold, used, or made
available to the public shall be examined and tested to determine
whether they comply with the standards and requirements
detailed in 8.1.7.
8.1.4* The examination and testing shall be carried out by the
authority having jurisdiction or a recognized testing organization
acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.
8.1.5 A model rocket motor, motor-reloading kit, or component
that complies with the standards and requirements in
8.1.7 shall be permitted to be certified as acceptable for sale
and use.
8.1.6 Any changes exceeding manufacturing tolerances
made to the physical design or chemical composition of a
model rocket motor, motor-reloading kit, or component(s) by
a manufacturer after certification testing shall be reported to
the authority having jurisdiction, a recognized testing organization,
or both, prior to sale or shipment.
8.1.7 Before granting such certification, samples of a motor
or reloadable motor system shall be examined as follows:
(1) Static testing, conducted at or corrected to sea level and
20�C � 5�C (68�F � 9�F), of a minimum of 10 samples to
determine that total impulse, average thrust, and delay
time comply with the following requirements:
(a) Standard deviation of the total impulse data shall be
no greater than 6.7 percent of the mean measured
value.
(b) No time delay shall be measured to have a variation
greater than 1 second or 20 percent (whichever is
greater, but not to exceed 3 seconds) from the labeled
value.
(c) Average thrust shall be within 20 percent (or 1 N,
whichever is greater) of the average thrust that is
computed by dividing the mean total impulse measured
during propellant burn time by the mean propellant
burn time.
(2) For metal-casing reloadable motors, rupture testing of
1 sample to ensure that the casing complies with the burst
pressure and longitudinal failure mode requirements of
7.4.4
(3) Thermal testing to ensure that the casing temperature
during and after static firing complies with 7.4.1
(4) Heat sensitivity testing to ensure that the motor or motorreloading
kit complies with 7.1.2
(5) Examination of the packaging, marking, and instructions
to verify compliance with all provisions of 7.12 through
7.14
From NPFA 1122:
4.19 Model Rocket Motor Requirements.
4.19.1 Only commercially manufactured, certified model rocket
motors or motor reloading kits or components as specified in NFPA
1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket
Motors, shall be used.
5.1 Prohibited Activities. The following activities shall be prohibited
by this code:
(6) Making, operating, launching, flying, testing, activating,
discharging, or other experimentation with model rocket motors,
motor reloading kits, or motor components that have not been
certified in accordance with NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of
Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors
shockie B)
writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
safety

bullpuppy: I suppose a valid argument could be made that the NAR/TRA has no authority where NFPA 1122/25/27 have been adopted.......
For example in the PDRK (peoples democratic republic of kalifornia) its my understanding that none of the above have been adopted.......therefore an argument could be advanced that the NAR/TRA has no authority over rocketry in that state........or any other state that doesn't not adopt nfpa 1122/25/27....
And I really wouldn't have a major problem with that argument..... I suppose JI could sue the NAR/TRA on the grounds that the NAR/TRA is in restraint of trade........
Also I think Utah has also not adopted the NFPA codes......SO theoretically, Aerotech could make a case that they do not have to follow the rules and regulations per manufacturing in NFPA 1125....... Now JI could also make this argument as he reside in PDRK where they also do not adopt these codes........hmmmmm
My questions and the point I am trying to make is that the NAR/TRA utilizes the NFPA 1122/25/27 codes to EXERT there authority over model and high power rocketry....... IT IS the basis of their authority over rocketry activities.....THEY DO NOT have the option to pick and choose when they will utilize these codes to EXERT their authority or lack thereof..........
so are we at the point where manufacturers, end-users, etc can pick and choose which rules and regulations they decide themselves they want to follow? Could it be that the BATFE noticed this situational adherence to the rules and this is what grabbed their notice to our hobby?
Lets take a quick poll....everybody raise your hand if you admit to the following:
1. I have mailed/shipped motors thru the US mails......... 2. I have purchased BP stating I do antique firearms when I really don't 3. I adhere to the MR/HPR Safety codes when they benefit me and I don't use them when they interfere with what I want to do, cause I obviously know better.... 4. I have launched LMR/HPR without FAA notifications..... 5. I have launched 205 gerbils,white mice,hamsters,etc and they are all buried in your backyard......
etc etc etc
shockie B)
writes:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
NAR/TRA have no "authority" over rocketry in any state. They are organizations whose membership agrees to abide by specific codes of conduct in exchange for the benefits of membership. The state legislatures and Federal government have "authority" over rocketry to the extent such activities are covered by their legislation. Such legislation may exempt practitioners who abide by such codes of conduct from general prohibitions.
len.

  Quoted Text Here  
Anytime a thread supports what I have been saying for YEARS they are silent.
Jerry
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
ESPECIALLY THE NAR PRESIDENT.
Jerry