Re: Ellis I69 motors (was: re: NCR Bomarc)

Oct 29, 2004 6 Replies



>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >> AlMax wrote:
>> >> > >> Kevin, can you ask if they were using large headed ignitors ?
>> >> Some have been using ematches diped as well, bad for C slots, those >> >> ematch
>> >> heads. >>
>> >>
>> >> I recently attempted to launch with an Ellis I69, using the quickburst >> >> igniter
>> >> supplied by Ellis. The motor catoed on ignition. He says he is now >> >> telling
>> >> people to insert the igniter only halfway, and that he is no longer >> >> warrantees
>> >> that motor.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >That is clear basis for decertification.
>>
>> For one reported CATO?
>
> Dozens were reported.
>
> The manufacturer themselves withdrew its warranty! Known consumer hazard? >
> The manufacturer changed its igniter placement suggestion from both
> certified position and common practice. It's a bad idea to keep it > certified.

At LDRS 21 in Amarillo (2002) I flew a cluster that had 3 I69's with some sort of 54mm in the center.


When I purchased the motors on site from Rob Ellis he told me to put the igniters only halfway up the core. Rob even looked at my igniters to verify they were appropriate for the motors.


All 3 I69's catoed. One blew the entire nozzle off the motor. The second blew the nozzle and half of one side of the casing. The third completely blew, leaving not much more than the upper closure.


When I returned with the motor remains and damaged rocket Rob told me that I "must have done something wrong." No warranty was offered, even upon request. No cato history or warranty disclaimer was given at time of purchase.


Later everyone said that motor was well known for it's catos


Dave

I didn't even raise that issue before, because of possible claims of bias. But with this first hand report it becomes fair. That is a violation of U.S. warranty law, is a clear case of a warranty claim, and the fact he did it "in person" is also a clear demonstration of personal ethics.

Watch out. Caveat Emptor.

Jerry

P.S. wanna bet that as a result of this rmr thread you are suddenly offered a replacement??

2.2 YEARS later?

:)

That's the vendor you have been holding out as an example of TRA allowing others to certify. AND they are the ones who also did the errortech J350 debacle.

Jerry

No it isn't. In fact I don't think I've mentioned any specific vendor. Seems like a good time to mention Loki & Sky Ripper. Did you know that Sky Ripper uses AT's propellant certification?

Then my point is still made.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required