New Aerotech F20 Econo's - Kudo's

Correct and note qho got this impression . . .

^^^^^^^^^

Everybody is glad errortech is making the motors.

The "nitpicking" is pointing out the many and varied hypocracies of the CERTIFICATION AUTHORITIES themselves.

Jerry

Oh, they do that too and you know it.

welcome back from Nevada.......I thought it was strangely quite in here....... and will you ever stop being an apologist for: TRA/NAR/S&T/AeroTech....

shockie B)

Tripoli members cannot even stop launching into clouds due to launch fever and that is a federal violation supreme.

This other stuff is internal rules details no real authority cares about.

Jerry

Yes but NAR and TRA both refuse treaties with them unless they add an exclusion clause like CAR has. Calvinball matters.

Jerry

Certainly!

Of course, you may want to word your question more precisely.....

-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

-- ""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.

exclusion clause/ what/where is that?

Folks we have been through this before: The NAR/TRA are bound by NFPA 1125 such that the only way you can get a model rocket or high power rocket engine certified by either of these organizations is:

1. IT has to be previously classified as a Division 1.3 or 1.4 EXPLOSIVE...... OR
2. classified as a Division 4.1 FLAMMABLE SOLID

IT HAS to be one of the TWO....

The only way the NAR/TRA (and I assume also the CAR) would accept a new model rocket or high power rocket engine for cert is if falls into one of the above 2 categories......

Chapter 8 Testing and Certification

8.1 Certification of Model Rocket Motors, Motor-Reloading

Kits, and Components.

8.1.1 A prerequisite for certification of a model rocket motor

or motor-reloading kit shall be its prior classification by the

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), or competent authority,

as a Division 1.3 or 1.4 explosive, or a written acknowledgment

from DOT, or one of its approved testing agencies,

that the model rocket motor or motor-reloading kit is a flammable

solid.

No, since you have evidently elected yourself as arbiter of all things that deal with rocketry regulation as well as chief fiction writer for ?101 catastrophic uses for model rockets?, I am taking exception with some of your conclusions. That is all. Nothing personal.

manner recommended by the manufacturer. I will not

my interpretation.....

Isn?t that an individual?s interpretation? But it?s your interpretation so that is ok? I thought you didn?t want individual interpretation involved?

its motor ingredients to function.....

What is the difference between putting a set amount of pyrogen on a wire vs. the same amount of pyrogen on the motor wall? Someone give me a sensible answer and I might just shut up.

adding pyrogen is not right

You are joking, right? What about firestars, ignitorman, etc.?

you state that its OK to paint the walls of the motor

therefore makes it safer. That doesn't make it right

gun shop and purchase a couple lbs of BP for use as

guns.......Using BP for ejection charges sure does make my

Except your example is a violation of federal law whereas mine breaks ?rules for toy rockets?.

And what about those tall trees?

Thanks!

LOL! Naw, I just find it baffling sometimes how differently two people can react to the same news.

I would point out I have that (several examples of each) and STILL I am refused :)

So the rule alone is not the issue.

I predict this great advise consistent with rules will be ignored by all parties: consumers, manufacturers, certification associations and competent authorities.

The latter is probably a blessing due to the numerous felonies.

Jerry

He thinks the rules are guidelines to be ignored whwnever they are inconvenient and you think (silly boy) the rules are (gag) actual rules.

Well they are not. Until or unless they need to be used as a lever to get rid of an undesireable and post facto rulings and rule changes can be used as neede dto perfect that goal.

Situational ethics.

Kurt is the leader of the pack tied with Kelly, Embry, Bundick, Gassaway, Rosenfield, Rogers and many at TRA and NAR.

The old saying, "rules are rules" in no way is binding on them to mean "rules matter".

What the situational ethicist likes far better is Calvinball matters.

Jerry

Technically, I w For low power flights the safety code says,

"2. Motors. I will use only certified, commercially-made model rocket motors, and will not tamper with these motors or use them for any purposes except those recommended by the manufacturer.

1. Ignition System. I will launch my rockets with an electrical launch system and electrical motor igniters. My launch system will have a safety interlock in series with the launch switch, and will use a launch switch that returns to the "off" position when released."

Nope, nothing in the Model Rocket Safety Code against using different igniters, just make sure they are "electrical motor igniters."

Now, how about the HPR Safety Code,

"4. Motors. I will use only commercially-made, NAR-certified rocket motors in the manner recommended by the manufacturer. I will not alter the rocket motor, its parts, or its ingredients in any way."

Welllllll, here's where the "manner recommended by the manufacturer" wording comes into play. If the manufacturer _explicitly_ states only his igniters are to be used, case closed. For the 29mm AT spake thus:

"4-2. Fig.-14: Insert the coated end of the COPPERHEAD? or other igniter through the nozzle throat until it stops against the delay element or forward seal ring." At website

I note the "or other igniter" in that instruction statement.

Now let's try _real_ HPR stuff. 98mm

"3-1. Fig.-15: Insert the coated end of the Firestar? or other igniter through the nozzle throat until it stops against the smoke charge element." AT website

Again, the "or other igniter."

Estes and Pro38 refer to an "igniter" without specifying by name or company. from instruction sheets

I'm not a lawyer but I feel OK using a different igniter.

Ray, sleep easy tonight, for tomorrow we launch!!!

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

Aerotech does specifically recommend third party igniters for this very reason.

But they stopped recommending modifying delays and ejections and they never suggested painting grains with pyrogen and they would be a fool to do so.

But is also says "...igniter through the nozzle..." excluding pyrogen coatings on the grains.

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!

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

Thanks for the clarification.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

like buttholes,everybody has one, so what does it

says really doesn't have the force of law.....

way and I'll intrepret those same rules for myself in

our own minds.....

Where is the fun in that? It?s in my evil nature to get you all riled up. Then you go and act all nice.

Takes the fun out of everything.