pros and cons list for Pro38 and Aerotech engines.

Nobody is ENFORCING the CRAP in 1122/1125/1127, that's how.

Jerry

No.I am saying it is problematic to offer a national brand of the same construction, packaging and marketing to 49 states in the current environment TRA and NAR have authored and installed by their choice and efforts. That is direclty counter to their stated missions.

In theory they are supposed to promote rocketry access and adoption, but substantially curtail it as they ARE doing right now.

But I am also realistic and understand you cannot understand what I just said so I will let those who can understand and can relate it to recent posts by "my groupies" discussing NFPA rules and NAR/TRA cert rules and consumer access limitations that make no sense at all.

The original idea of consumer certification was not to restrict access. It was to show you can successfully not shred a rocket with an H/I/J and that you are no longer using known bad "Estes" materials and techniques on those H/I/J flights.

It has morphed into an access permit with a lot of requirements to get and a lot of legalese to make it enforceable under law in many and increasing number of states.

It has had the effect of forcing the HPR market down to the approximately 1500 screaming whiners too zealot to be scared away by TRA illegally demanding LEUP's and promising and failing to deliver magazines year after year. In other words ONLY really stupid people.

The "regular guy" has been shunned worse than Jerry Irvine at a TRA Cert meeting.

Jerry

you might consider acquiring them so you can prepare to offer comments

NFPA 1125: Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors, 2001 Ed. $28.75 $25.88 (w/members discount)

select the top result link at

Revision Cycle Information Proposal Closing Date: n/a Report on Proposals Mailing Date: 7/29/2005 Comment Closing Date: 10/7/2005 Report on Comments Mailing Date: 3/31/2006 Revised Edition Date: 2006

NFPA 1127, Code for High Power Rocketry, 2002 Ed. $24.50 $22.05 (w/members discount)

select the top result link at

Revision Cycle Information Proposal Closing Date: n/a Report on Proposals Mailing Date: 7/23/2004 Comment Closing Date: 10/1/2004 Report on Comments Mailing Date: 4/1/2005 Revised Edition Date: 2007

NFPA 1122 - Code for Model Rocketry $24.50 $22.05 (w/members discount)

select the top result link at

Revision Cycle Information Proposal Closing Date: n/a Report on Proposals Mailing Date: n/a Comment Closing Date: 10/5/2001 Report on Comments Mailing Date: n/a Revised Edition Date: 2007

All prices are valid through June 30, 2004

- iz

The same site as the spongey J350 grains. Wherever in TX Ellis is.

There used to be, back when USR OEMed AT motors.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

I have read it as its been posted.

Wrong. If Ellis made motors of a new type, and shipped them to Jerry, TRA ould not certify them as USR motors. If Ellis certified them as his motors, TRA would allow them, but only with Ellis's name on them. Put a USR name on them and they aren't certified.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

OK, I'll bite. Where does it say that?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

who you callin' a groupie? I ain't no stinkin" groupie..... shockie B(

So do tell how this applied (or should have been applied) to the AeroTech @ Ellis Mtn. episode?

I say "should have..." only due to the "rules" as written, which you just quoted, which are NOT equally applied to all. Do not take my statement to mean that I believe testing should be mandated in such a fashion... I do not.

~ Duane Phillips.

"Motors are the life blood of the hobby!"

Because the rule states that all motors must be submitted by the manufacturer. No excpetions. And because an almost exact copy of that scenario was handled very differently by TRA/NAR when DPT approached them with papers, motors, money.

Use it with comfort and let the wannabe lawyers here have their discussions in peace.

TRA lets Aerotech do anything they want and they want Dr. Rocket cases to be used.

Jerry

There is NO problem with using Dr. Rocket cases. Dr. Rocket cases are licensed by Aerotech. Aerotech has approved the use of their reloads in Dr. Rocket hardware. TRA does not prohibit the use of Aerotech reloads in Dr. Rocket hardware, and I have never heard of anyone being prohibited by NAR from using Dr. Rocket hardware.

But what if you were actually Aerojet, and it didn't really exist?

(quite possibly only Jerry will understand this)

steve

Makes sense to me.

At what level reload does the break even analysis come into play.

With out doing a price/motor matrix it seems (Using a Magnum catalog) that the 1G reload costs about double the Aerotech G64 reload. Somewhere around a mid level I than the prices seem to cross.

I like the details of CTI system as shown in the Magnum catalog. It makes the motor more like a SU. But then the Aerotech motor assembly was stated by many in the field as a way of really getting into the hobby. Cycles of interest swing back and forth.

Of course, even if a motor is cheaper, it does you no good if availability is a problem.

Ken

I know.

I would add that ease of use is a factor, as some may be intimtidated by the relatively complex AT assembly, as well as concerns about damage to their rockets if they didn't execute that assembly correctly

there is less inherent risk in a CTI Pro38

- iz

From what I can tell reading thier site is that they only make 38mm and 54mm tubes. Are they planning on make anything in the 29mm range? Tom B. "Born To Fish - Forced To Work!!!"

If you're asking about CTI, they make motors in 38mm, 54mm, 75mm, 98mm and

150mm. They have no plans to make motors smaller than 38mm, due to liability concerns.