Reloadable Rocket Motors - any suggestions?

Cesaroni is probably the best choice right now. The casings are appreciably cheaper than Aerotech, though the reloads themselves are more expensive. More importantly, because there's a lot less assembly in a Cesaroni reload you end up with a more reliable motor.

I say this from the perspective of somebody who learned all this shortly after buying a bunch of Aerotech hardware... my L1 flight was on Cesaroni (a member of the local club donates motors to people for certification flights), and I've also launched Aerotech in that rocket.

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:25:08 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer puked:

A quick check shows they're appreciably more expensive. Have you had a bad experience loading an Aerotech motor?

-- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

I've had ejection failures; also, while not a scientific survey, I've seen more closure failures of Aerotech motors at launches than of Cesaroni. In fairness, that may well because there are a lot more Aerotech motors at most launches! I went ahead and got an Aerotech electronic front closure in hopes of more reliable ejection; in its one test to date it worked flawlessly.

Hmmm, just to check.... at Apogee, a Cesaroni 3 grain case is $24.83, and a G54 reload is $22.76 (note: backordered...). An Aerotech (Rouse-tech, really) 29/100 case is $80.87, and a G54 reload is $16.48. So, yes, if you launch enough the Aerotech will work out cheaper. And, like I said, I saw how much easier the Cesaronis are to work with after I'd laid in a stock of Aerotech hardware, so even though I'm recommending people go with Cesaroni my preference isn't strong enough to throw out my investment and switch!

One comment is that regardless of whose hardware you decide on, don't buy it from Red Arrow Hobbies. I'm still waiting for them to acknowledge my order of some reloads in early July, for a launch in mid July (I mean "acknowledge" as in getting an email from them saying "we received your order" or a response to my emails since then asking about my order status). Well, no, as a matter of fact I quit waiting for them weeks ago, and have a dispute filed with paypal, asking for my money back.

Update: just got an email from paypal saying I got a refund.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:28:30 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer puked:

That's something to chew on. At first glance I was drawn to the

29/40-120 by Aerotech because of the broad range of loads. Considering your experience I'll consider the Cesaroni.

Thinking of the investment involved with the case, I don't see myself buying more than one in the near future, and the idea of diddling around with loads in the field seems like a pain it the butt. The easier the better.

-- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

But then the only similarity between those two motors is average thrust.

The CTI G54 is 159 N-s and is (until code changes are final) a high power rocket motor requiring user certification in spite of what the Apogee page says. Both the NAR and CAR list it as 159 N-s.

The Aerotech G54 is 85 N-s and is a model rocket motor.

Another difference is that the Aerotech motor is USPS shippable while the CTI isn't. So add a HAZMAT fee to the cost of mail order.

I happen to prefer the Aerotech products although that might be due to my acquiring a set of hardware long before CTI got into the market.

Thanks for the clarifications -- I didn't look carefully enough at the specs and stopped at the G rating and 54 N-sec thrust. So part of the reason it is so much more expensive is that there is a lot more motor there!

But even the CTI G57 which is a pretty close match to the Aerotech G54 is more expensive at $20.69.