Re: Taking Ejection Charges out of motors

We've been able to chad "cluster stage" 10.5" apart using G. Harry's system. Check it out, particularly the second half of the report.

No it is not up to the RSO; subjective or otherwise. Both TRA and NAR safety codes forbid modification of motors. How long you been in the hobby??

Fred

What constitutes modification?

And where does it say or indicate that?

So, you are saying that when staging C motors in D Altitude competition, separating the motors by 12 inches will increase altitude and reliability, over the Estes direct taped motor method? And is with the ejection charge removed? Or are you just suggesting that R&D should not be done because GHS wrote something in the late 70"s?

Alan

NOT!

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

NAR Safety codes:

1. 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. 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.

I couldn't find the TRA safety code on their web site any where!

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

altitude

I forgot the words "up to" 12 inches. Venting works well even if the motors are almost touching

Everyone I have ever known to use delayed staging let the ejection charge in (per the safety code) I can't imagine how it could work without an ejection charge though I have never tried

No such words were typed

Dale Greene

Tripoli does not recognize (affirmatively bans) the Kosdon NAR certified (joint list) motors, why would they recognize the NAR safety code?

They have calvinball rules in so manny places, ways, and times, my statement that RSO has the final say is the only reliable statement.

Jerry

So since the issue is removing the clay cap partially to expose the BP ejection for gap or delay staging, all you have to do is rummage through a dozen packs of motors and find 3-4 motors where that happened in shipping and you are good. Right?

Jerry

I can overcome ANY Pink Book lawyer :)

Somebody call the cops.

What about adding a little 4 F, as suggested by several people when I was looking for an aid to staging to a small diameter nozzle? I added a small amount of crushed bp to the top of a C6-0 and it worked. No problems with catos or exhaust damage.

We didn't do it at a sanctioned club launch, we did it privately.

1. Would adding a little bp or 4 F disqualify us from insurance coverage at a sanctioned launch?
2. Would a club be technically in the wrong allowing me to fly that way, as long as I report it to the RSO and it's announced as a heads up?
3. Does adding same, technically make it an altered motor? We didn't do anything to the assembly, just added a few fine grains of powder.

Obviously, I can do what I want privately. I ask because I am absolutely paranoid about NOT causing problems for any club, in any way.

Randy

Using Netscape I could not find the link either. If you are using Explorer, click on Documents, then Policies, and then "HPR Safety Code". I guess the site is not designed for Netscape, as when opened in NS, the site presents a totally different format. In any case the link to the page is below. Although I looked at both Nar and TRA Safety codes, it appears I cut and pasted from the TRA page. Both say the same, if in different words. I guess it will give Jerry something to quibble over.. (:-)

If you could only do that with DOT.. (;-) Oh, that's right, you tried that approach.

Fred

Are you really that stupid????

Nope, A 1974 NAR model racketeer showed removing the cap of a b.8.2 motor for delayed staging.

another 1974 racketeer (spelling) showed expoxing motors together and stuff.

So, they still had those same rules back then, must have ment different things back then, hummmmmm ????

I posted both of those last year when this same arguement came up, dang...

That's using booster motors. We are talking about using ejection charges to ignite the upper stages. Different somehow.

As you can see there is a certain "faction" of folks who are not mere literalists, but "err on the side of caution". There is another "faction" that looks at reality in the field and realizes folks do this all the time, often at NAR launches.

YMMV.

Jerry

Good point.

My kid wants me to release tandem motor kits BTW. Would I be the ultimate heretic?

Jerry

If you manufactured certified motors and recomended tandemming them, that would be OK.

Alan