Re: Taking Ejection Charges out of motors

Basically, they were struck by the technological surprise of a 4.0 Oz, (including A10-0T motor) 21 Ft. balsa stick truss structure rocket, and they reacted extremely poorly to it. They came up with a laundry list of excuses to DQ it, after the flight.
There is a rule against it now. :)
The problem was the wind that few competitors had prepared for. I saw people holding their rocket upright while it was being launched. That was bad! They called an end to that practice, in draconian fashion, but strangely, did not DQ those flights already made in violation of the safety code. Now I had planned ahead. My launch concept was to launch for a standard rod launcher, but with three threads running from the nose to three helpers (two, me and my teammate would have sufficient with the wind) who would all be standing 20 ft away from the rocket and release the threads at launch. But after the rocket holding business, they came up with the Calvinball rule saying no human interaction at all (or what ever). Had I known of the new rule in advance, It would have been trivial to make a purely mechanical release mechanism. As it happened, they would not allow holding the strings even if people were 20 or 200 Ft away from the model being launched.
Alan
Reply to
Alan Jones
Loading thread data ...
What "new information" is this you keep hinting at? Or is this like the guy who, as a joke, sent a telegram to ten friends: "fly! all is discovered!"... and nine of them suddenly left town!
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
It was the tandeming of motors that was OK in 1974, but stopped a few years later by a declaration from Estes...
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
No, they won.
I doubt it. Mine certainly didn't do so :-(
IMHO, it's STUPID to schedule events like this at NARAM, unless you have a site where skies are cloud free 360 days a year. The only NARAMs I can recall in my 30 years that might fit that are Vegas and Tucson. They flew F Streamer last time we were in Houston, and most rockets vanished. Worse, instead of stopping wathces when they vanished, they ruled that models that disappeared like that were to recieve a 30 second score. WTF does this rule come from?
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
I remember being one of your string holders. What did we do, drop them jsut before ignition, sicce we were already a sae distance away from the rocket.
Of course I thought my launch device was rather clever: my 18'x/5" stupid rock stood on the pad unassisted by any one for 20 minutes in the wind with ZERO problems. Nor did it require any one to be too close to the rocket when launched. it was just a matter of placing the launch lug near the TOP of the rocket, instead of near the BOTTOM! The 1/8x36" rod was on the top of a 20' fishing pole!
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Not quite correct. At least with reference to model rocket motors, the NAR safety code is part of NFPA 1122, and NFPA 1122 has been adopted as LAW in all states except IIRC the PRK. If you tamper with a modle rocket motor, it is no longer a model rocket motor, which probably makes it an illegal fireworks device.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Until you go to court, at which time the judge will be more upset with wasting his time on toy rockets.
"Mr. DA...he is charged with what? Cutting the clay out of the top of a toy rocket motor he bought at Walmart? My goodness! Behead the rascal at once!".
Reply to
Tweak
Yes, we had it all set to launch with the string holders, and then they would not let us launch that way. With my tripod anchored against the wind, my 3/16" sreel launch rod was defelcted so much that my launch lugs were binding. You offered some huge rings cut from ST-13(?), like your superroc body. That worked and we made a successful flight, asside from the officail DQ.
Yes, brilliant! Of course your entry could not be catilevered from the end like mine was.
Alan
Reply to
Alan Jones
Both DQs were "illegal", illegitamate, and simply wrong, but the DQs were offocial, even formaly protested to the highest level.
Alan
Reply to
Alan Jones
In retrospect, if the whole meet weren't so badly screwed up, that is EXACTLY what we should have done at NARAM-22. But alas, we stopped wiht the contest board appeals process.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
You hit the rabbit on the head!
Frankly, when Bunny became NAR prez, I had this fear that he would run the NAR the way he'd run the contest board during his 2 terms at the helm. It would be out of business by now if he had. Thankfully, ye's been MUCH better at running the NAR than he ever was at running the contest board.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
DITTO!
Under the thumb of the ATF by refusing to let vendors live the ATF exemption lifestyle, if they so choose, seems to approximate that pretty well.
Having a NFPA provision and a goal to make it state law in 50 states, whereby a user of any HPR materials MUST be a member in their club (a known micro-minority of interested users) AND passed various efforts (written test, approved expert witnessed launch) to even be able to access PRODUCT seems to approximate that pretty well.
Both policies are arbirtary. Both policies are internal club policies actively inserted into state law by affirmative action of NAR (and TRA). These policies are STRONG and EFFECTIVE, and probably difficult to reverse, **** CHOKE POINTS **** for federally exempt, fully legal consumer rocket motor products.
Care to review your opinion in light of the above facts?
Jerry
Can you hear yourself talk?
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Taken it to court? Would a court have had any grounds (tort? contract?) to claim jurisdiction? Hard to see how any provision of law intersects the scoring of a private sports contest by the officials thereof!
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker

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.