ROL NEWS--AeroTech Announces Certification of Three New Reload Kits

Loading thread data ...
Direct revenue: membership
"Indirect revenue(gag)" HPR magazine.
What else matters but their money?
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
I'd never use a motor for R&D or sport use if I did not have reliable motor test data available, such as with the NAR S&T motor certification data sheets.
I have no problem with Contest Certified motors tested by TRA, as long as NAR S&T examines the actual motor test data and certifies that it meets the NAR's contest motor standards, but then I think NAR S&T should do that with ALL TRA tested motors. I also think the NAR should be able to delist a TRA tested motor when conditions warrant that, even if TRA does not pull their certification. It is an issue of consumer safety and insurance liability.
Alan
Reply to
Alan Jones
It would be up to NAR S&T to decide if the TRA stand is sensitive enough, and properly calibrated, and properly used. Obviously, NAR S&T has been satisfied in that regard for many years.
Alan, Trust but Verify.
Reply to
Alan Jones
I'll bet ya 10 bucks (plus the cost of the samples) that motors randomly taken from stock and tested by NAR do NOT agree with TRA data!!
And fraud.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
No their deal is a treaty. We have a treaty with China despite all the crap they do to USA we all know about.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
No.
on rmr people deny the existence of FAA waivers I repeatedly posted and referred to.
Even if the data were not commercial in confidence there would be no benefit whatsoever to posting it to rmr.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
inline....
Does CAR/TRA do this with NAR certs? It's called "cross certification", so that three different groups don't need to do the same test! Does NAR "contest" certs go beyond normal cert testing? (Uh, no)
I know for a fact that TMT and S&T work together well! If there was a problem, it would be worked out long before it made it to RMR!
Please replace NAR with TRA and TRA with NAR, and you have EXACTLY what happen with Kosdon Motor a few years back... TRA decerted all of Frank's motors, even those certed by S&T, and with a bit of arm twisting NAR decerted Kosdon motors certed by TMT, but would NOT decert Kosdons that S&T had certified. Seems this was a case where NAR made the wrong call on "consumer safety and insurance liability"...
Reply to
AZ Woody
We know for a fact this particular statement is false.
What was the basis for the decert? Lack of unneeded ATF permits????
Hmmm???
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Jerry spewed:
Prove it.
IIRC, Kosdon has an LEMP. What he lacked was the DOT shipping approvals -- and apparently he was unwilling to go the $40k route and label them "model aircraft parts".
Reply to
RayDunakin
Jerry replied:
If you're not willing to back up your claim, don't expect anyone to believe it.
Reply to
RayDunakin
The subject before you morphed it into a personal attaxk was if ANYONE had experience testing a wide range of motor powers. You do not even deny I have experience testing a wide range of motor powers do you?
Hmmm?
Here are photos of some S motors (on the boosters) I designed:
formatting link
Here is a test stand with a 50 pound (25N-2500N) load cell installed (also accepts a 10 pound, 100 pound, 250 pound cell)
formatting link
Here is a test stand which has an "R" motor firing in it, and the same stand has had an "S" fired in it.
The larger firing had a 20,000 lb load cell to measure the approximately 13,000 lbs of thrust.
formatting link
I of course invite you to post your own photos of your work. I would really enjoy that.
Jerry
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Yoda
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
TMT listed as certified motors that were never tested and data was never published. NAR knew this to be a fact and listed those motors as certified anyway per the treaty. The evidence of this claim being fact has been well hashed out in past rmr posts.
If you do not accept the prior evidence as sufficient proof, I cannot overcome your "deniability".
You are wrong. The precise opposite is true.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Jerry responded:
Let's pretend for the moment that this allegation is true. If so, you have failed to prove Woody's statement false, since this allegation would show that TMT and S&T do work well together.
No, the unsubstantiated allegation has been "well hashed out" here, but no hard evidence.
Reply to
RayDunakin
No personal attack, just a request for verification of a claim.
I have no idea what experience you have with testing motors.
Nice looking rockets, but this pic doesn't really tell me anything about the motors.
Cool test stand. Is it yours?
Nice flame! The file seems to be damaged though -- there's about an inch or so missing off the bottom of the photo.
I haven't gotten into motor making yet. Maybe someday.
Reply to
RayDunakin
Frankly, I'd be more interested in the 1/16A! I didn't know you could make a practical motor that small... and the instrumentation to get a thrust curve would be a system of unusual delicacy.
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
Can you think of a specific example of circumstances when NAR would expose itself to "insurance liability" by not refusing to cross-list a TRA-certified motor? It would seem pretty far-fetched (IMHO) to allege that a given accident had occurred because a motor was allowed to be flown at NAR as well as at TRA launches...
-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.