ROL NEWS--AeroTech Re-releases D21T Single-Use Motors

Jerry Irvine wrote:


Felons are not allowed to play.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article AxMEe.15$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com, Dave Grayvis at snipped-for-privacy@netscape.net wrote on 7/24/05 7:17 AM:

Short memories. D21s were made with the molded cases beginning in 1993.
Gary
--
Gary Rosenfield
President, AeroTech Consumer Aerospace
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, was the current case design ever passed thru S&T or TMT for testing? Based on the S&T doc you provided, the motor was last tested by S&T 10 years ago, by a different company (AT) and made in a different state/facility, and was OOP for 4 years! RCS bought the IP of AT in a chapter 11 firesale. If USR had bought these same resources, would S&T and TMT have been as "forgiving"?
Gary.. you got to play by the rules. Send d21's to S&T and have them tested! You avoided it with the Ellis J350's and the "red delay liner", and we all know what happened!
(Gary dances, but keeps stepping on his own feet!)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AZ Woody wrote:

Let me start off by saying I believe the Ellis J350s should have been decertified -- but based on the field reports of failures, not on anything else.
IIRC, I believe there was a statement from S&T stating that they accepted the transfer of the certifications from Aerotech to RCS. Given that, the rest of your claims are hot air.
The wording of the rules allows for some changes in manufacturing process -- and it's sufficiently clear/unclear that realistically S&T will not 'jump in' unless necessary/requested (for legitimate reasons, not because someone has a bug in their tail).
If they have been using a molded case for years, minor changes in the method/design of the molding won't automatically trigger a recertification -- it really isn't in ANYONE'S interest to do that -- especially since there is no track record of consumer problems in this regard.
David Erbas-White

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article SvZEe.118988$Qo.12436@fed1read01, David Erbas-White at snipped-for-privacy@arachneering.com wrote on 7/24/05 10:03 PM:

What you said.
Who is this "AZ Woody" anyway?
Gary
--
Gary Rosenfield
President, AeroTech Consumer Aerospace
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote on 7/24/05 10:03 PM:

The guy standing less than 5' from you at the springfest where Frank was told his motors were beinging decertified. (for cause) and you were right there telling Frank that he wasn't playing by the rules!
Keep dancing Gary. You don't address the issue, But the poster!
The D21 has been OOP for 3+ years, and per the RECORDS YOU PROVIDED has not been tested in 10 years!
Dance, Gary, Dance!
Seems RCS motors get blessed by Gary and not S&T or TMT!
Spend $50 and send the new D21's in for testing! Why are you resisting this? The only reason you resist is that you know something is different, as they are at out out of the 3 year re-test!
Keep dancing Gary.. Can you do the two step?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article Mg_Ee.36$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net, AZ Woody at snipped-for-privacy@here.not.email wrote on 7/24/05 10:54 PM:

Tell you what, I'll make this a "one-step". Reveal your true identity and I will submit some motors, just for you!
Gary
--
Gary Rosenfield
President, AeroTech Consumer Aerospace
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Have him certify them in your name too :)
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I
I must have really gotten under your skin! Same kind of offer that JI made to me.. "I'll send you a kit, if you stop making me look a fool on newsgroups"
Gary, How's the dancing going?
So the D21's are not available to vendors, and S&T nor TMT bypassed their own "3 year recert" or OOP rule..
So why did you bother with your PR? Seems you wanted to sneak this under the radar!
(need I mention the Ellis J350's or the red delay liner, yet again?)
Gary - you dance so well, you should try out for either "American Idol" or the US congress!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, have you seen the doctor yet about your persistence over four hours ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

or refuses to even test a compliant motor from a previously (then currently) recognized and approved manufacturer.
Examples:
USR Hybrids USR renewal certs USR new certs about the time TRA decerted all USR motors ACS exanples Kosdon examples others.
All well discussed on rmr back in the day.

Almost never.

"C" is not a stated basis for decert. ONLY "D" is.
Once a motor is certed it is "in". The reason for this is so consumers are not left holding the bag with sudden un-pre-announced decerts. The only exception Mark Bundick has ever proffered was Prodyne motors (John Rahkonen) which were failing left and right and were decertified as a safety measure.
He does not cite the example but that MIGHT have also happened to MPC motors after a large stash of improperly sotred (or made) motors were placed on the secondary market (several pallets).

That would certainly have saved USR from decert had that philosophy or even the existing rules been followed.

That would certainly have saved USR from decert had that philosophy or even the existing rules been followed.

And there is provision for that in the rules anyway.

"There's nothing to apologize for. Apparently you are STILL incapable of understanding the difference between making a statement of fact, and the listing of possible scenarios." - Ray Dunakin 5-10-05, ultimate TRA apologist
Congrats. You have devolved into Ray Dunakin like behavior.

Live the lifestyle.
You are now a proud TRA member :)
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
scum bag irvine wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Your "conclusion" is clear.
But YOU were the one that posted a "judgement" (over and over) that you could neither read or understand, even the most obvious words, and cannot comprehend that it only applies to the names on it.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
lying, thieving, scum bag irvine wrote:

Words of a scum bag.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

When did you send them to TMT? Did you include all the required legal documents?

Not applicable, since your motors aren't legally manufactured or shippable, and thus can't be certified or recertified.

Yes, so quit rehashing it.

If manufacturers fail to get their motors recertified, or fail to meet the current requirements for certification, the consumers are not left "holding the bag". They have a three year grace period to use up old motors. Unless of course the manufacturer is a scumbag who backdates new motors, thus causing the grace period to be yanked. In that case, it is the manufacturer who has left the consumer holding the bag.

He's not talking about manufacturers who refuse to meet the cert/recert requirements.

I feel honored by that distinction, since it is a mark of intelligence and maturity to be able to accept the possibility of solutions and viewpoints other than one's own. That is something you clearly lack, and even disdain.

Which lifestyle? The one that got you a $40k DOT fine and a felony conviction for possession of a destructive device?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. I would like you to concede the point.

Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They informed me they would not be, so buying the assets was undesireable.

Gary got a "step-up" of about $2.4-3.1m in in-hand asset value as a result of the BK and fire sale.
Shrewd.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 03:15:41 GMT, "Gary C. Rosenfield"
Neglecting of course the motors first sold at NARAM 12. ;)
The question remains, is the newly Re-released AT D21T measurably different than the AT D21 previously certified?
Alan

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Are you saying the Enerjet D21's were molded and not fiberglass/graphite like the E's and F's were?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.