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.
Reply to
Loading thread data ...
These also have less propellant and smaller casings and even different thrust curves. Buyer be aware!
Tom Ha
formatting link
formatting link

Reply to
Tom Ha
Non-compliant (club rules) favoritism to particular manufacturers but not others of course.
See above. It CLEARLY triggers several requirements for recertification.
See above.
Calvinball lives at NAR just like TRA.
Of course. What other possible explanation is there?
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.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
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.
Reply to
Leonard Fehskens
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.
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)
Reply to
John DeMar
But at least other brands of uncertified motors are banned while this one is allowed everywhere including mass-market stores and association national launches!
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
and have people test it if it isn't NAR/TRA/CAR safety
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!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
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.
Reply to
John DeMar
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
(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
(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
(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
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)
and have people test it if it isn't NAR/TRA/CAR safety > > or contest certified..... > > 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! > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA!
formatting link
Reply to
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.
You people keep telling me uncertified motors are evil too :)
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
kaplow (Bob Kaplow) wrote in news:
You vs. everybody else. Aft is the fiery end, forward is the pointy end.
Reply to
Leonard Fehskens
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)
Reply to
"shockwaveriderz" wrote in news:
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.
Reply to
Leonard Fehskens
kurt; ahh yeah thats a good example... shockie B)
them when they interfere with what I want to do, cause
Reply to
well I just had a rather civil argument with a friend who takes the opposite view from mine, which would be the NAR's and S&T's and Aerotech;s POV, and all I can say, NFPA 1125 has enough holes to drive a TRUCK through.....
evidently all Gary had to do was NOTIFY NAR S&T that his "new" modified F20 was "outside" of the original manufacturer tolerances ( ie the new cas>
Reply to
NAR has no control of the NFPA committee.
You should really check and see who is on the NFPA committee before you get carried away like this.
formatting link
NAR and TRA each have ONE member out of 29 that I see in the report on NFPA 1122.
BATFE has a representative as well.
NAR and TRA by no means control this process.
> AND NONE of the above or any of the response have been addressed yt > by either the Head of S&T, noe Gary R. of Aerotech, nor the NAR > Prez.......its a consprcary of silence hoping this thread will die > fast on the vine so they don't have to explain how non-certed motors > were allowed to be shipped to , and used by NAR members at a NAR > national event..... > > where you at Bunny? Jack Kane? Jim Cook? Gary Rosenfield? Joe Burger? > are you all comparing notes on what story to put out? > > > > shockie B) >
Reply to
David Schultz

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.