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

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 04:29:45 GMT, "Roy Green"


Yes. In fact, it's, (looking closely), "It's green."
Alan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:> The question remains, is the newly Re-released AT D21T measurably

More correctly,
"is the newly Released RCS D21T measurably different than the AT D21 previously certified?"
Gary - ship it off to S&T or TMT for testing! Why is this an odd concept for a motor vendor? Or is there a reason you don't want to re-test it? (it's been OOP for 4 years and made in a new facility, after all!)
It's simple.. Gary has already sent the motor to vendors and has cash in hand....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article DVZEe.34$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net, AZ Woody at snipped-for-privacy@here.not.email wrote on 7/24/05 10:29 PM:

The D21s are not yet in production, so they could not have been sent to vendors. Also, I doubt that we have any "cash in hand" for D21s.
The D21s that will be manufactured will be IDENTICAL in design and process to the ones that were last made in Las Vegas. The D21s will be retested in accordance with the NAR's own recertification schedule, as are all AeroTech motors and reloads that are NAR certified.
If you don't like the way the NAR performs its recertifications, I suggest you take it up with them. Recertification is a NAR policy that is subject to schedule and implementation at the sole discretion of the NAR, and is not an NFPA or other legal requirement.
Just who is "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

AeroTech
Uh, Dancing Gary, didn't you yourself, claim that the reason for the Ellis J350 problem was a differnece in the environment (humidity), and how that was differnt from Vegas to Utah too? Seems you mentioned the "monsoon season"! Face it dancing Gary.. There has been a change~

to
an
I must have really hit a sore spot here, Dancing Gary! The recert is 3 years, and for a motor OOP for 4, made in a different facility, by a different company, using what may be a different case, seems to require the question:
So why the heck are you announcing the D21 if you don't know that it will pass the cert? You yourself said it must first pass the S&T/TMT requirements (in your post), and being OOP for almost 4 years, seems to retrigger a recert.
Dance, Gary, Dance....
I't not an issue of taking it up with S&T or TMT - it's a vendor that is anouncing the release of a new motor WITHOUT the buy in of S&T or TMT!
Dance Gary, Dance.. This is a JI tactic.....
Spend the $50 and get them certified before announcing them!
(and Gary steps on his own foot again during dance practice!)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The reason for the dancing is a conflict of two entities each making "rulings" favorable to Gary and contrary to the rules and past practice.
While it is true any NFPA-1125 testing firm has considerable lattitude in manufacturing changes so long as they are notified of them, so they can request additional testing if needed, there are other factors at work here.
The testing firms ("TF") have typically in the past considered a "major change" such things as:
- A change in raw materials molded vs tubular cases, fiberglass vs phenolic, unglassined red tubes vs glassined white vs plastic for delays). - Change in ownership - Change in location - Change in mechanical design - Change in propellant (ie AT E6) - Change in performance - Change in grain geometry (ie cores to C-slots)
and ruled disfavorably to other manufacturers regularly.
Several of the above examples have also been ruled in favor of Aerotech with no new testing.
The problem being the inconsistent treatment of differing suppliers and the resulting "monopoly" of Aerotech motors on the market in several power ranges and motor styles, even during a 3 year major shortage!!!
Then you have the J350 issue which simply highlighted the extremety of the pro-Aerotech bias.
Here there was a CLEAR example of a batch problem affecting "all" motors of a particular type. EXACTLY what the rules state SHOULD be decertified. And were they?
Nope.
They were given an emergency rush field modification order (no such rule or jurisdiction exists and it conflicts with the existing rules).
CONSUMERS and DEALERS were asked to field core out existing grains (voiding the EX numbers, the certifications, violating a wide variety of regs and rules).
Why?
Because it was LDRS and so many people were counting on the J350 to certify. Too bad so sad dude. They are defective and besides once cored the darn thing is no longer even a J!
The real problem at its root is one series of treatment for errortech and yet another widely variable set of standards for everybody else.
One more example. CTI submitted motors for TRA cert with infinitely variable delays (with a METERED TOOL). They refused and forced CTI to make a tool mod thus delaying the product to market by many months (major financial impact) during the motor AT fire related shortage (benefiting Aerotech since it gave them time to get back online).
THEN Aerotech wanted to allow infinitely variable delays. It was approved almost immediately.
Of course.
Jerry
Have you read the TRIPOLI rules for motor RECERTIFICATIONS? ALL that is needed is money and motors. I would like to recertify all previously certified USR motors forthwith.
GFL. USR is not errortech.

--
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:

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

Cites please. Where is the specific, verifiable proof for each of these claims?

Meaning you and your illegal motors.

If anyone is being given preferential treatment, that should be remedied. Throwing out the rules so Jerry can cert his illegal motors is not the solution.

By that time, CTI had already had an infinitely variable delay certified for their Pro54 stuff, so it was a moot point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In Canada!!
--
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
Jerry Irvine wrote:

They are available here too due to the reciprocal agreement. The way I see it, since CAR has already approved motors using infinitely variable delays, there's no longer any point in TRA refusing to accept the same thing.
h
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

On this point we agree 100%.
They already delayed CTI to market by several months to "help Aerotech", so the deed is done and serves no further purpose.
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
In article snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, Jerry Irvine at snipped-for-privacy@gte.net wrote in part on 7/26/05 10:43 PM:

That statement is totally unsubstantiated and utterly false.
It's like saying that the "several months" it took to get the LUR motors certified was to "help CTI, AMW and Ellis".
Gary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The differences may elude you, but they do not elude me.
Besides, it is a done deal now, right?
:)
--
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
In article snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, Jerry Irvine at snipped-for-privacy@gte.net wrote on 7/27/05 11:50 AM:

There are no "differences" to elude anyone.
Gary
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

It's about time. Let's see how long your new-found rationality lasts....

Oops, there it goes, out the window already.
TMT does not "delay" anyone to "help" another manufacturer.
n
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nobody at TMT ever refused to accept adjustable delays at any time; however, the original concept for the Pro38 delay system was "infinite" adjustment (vernier scale) like the 54's. That was shut down by the TMT of that time period as being too much of a paradigm shift. Instead they asked if we could provide finite stops, so we agreed to do so, which required some expensive retooling and some time. When the Pro38's were certified, 3 samples of each delay time were required to be provided, so while the tool is quite convenient for the end user, it sure didn't save us anything with regards to certification requirements.
When the 54's were being developed, two things had happened; (1) there was a track record of Pro38 adjustable delay usage and thereby an increased "comfort factor", and (2) TMT had changed helm and appeared to be more comfortable with new or newer concepts. With the 54 system we had to test three at full delay, three at minimum delay, plus intermediate spot checks. And it is true that the first Pro54 certified was the J210 and it was done as a joint CAR/NAR certification session with Jack Kane in attendance, with NAR issuing the certification document. The requirements for delay testing were hashed out on the spot [as per above]. The rest of the 54's were certified by CAR using the same requirements. TMT was happy with the procedures.
However, had we known we could simply "endorse" the adjustment of our delays we could have saved a lot of trouble during certification over the last few years. But apparently providing a tool with preset stops/vernier scale plus instructions for use, and testing the system thoroughly prior to certification is not enough in comparison. ;-)
Mike D CTI
wrote:

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

Excuse.
At the PEAK in the AeroTech shortage. Notably with an uncertain future at the time.

Showing you "tried to cooperate".

PROOF.
The prior 15+ year track record with USR, AT and others was somehow insufficient?

TMT newbies have not "drank the Kool-Aid yet".

There is no NFPA reg for that! :)

<snipped text>

--
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
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Jerry, take off the blinders of hate. The Pro38 motors were available for nearly a year prior to the Aerotech fire. In fact they received their CSFM approvals in January of 2001 (something your motors never had). The AT fire happened in October 2001.
A
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
They were in fact first released at LDRS19 in Orangeburg, SC, June 2000. The first customer was Jeff Taylor. I was actually the first to cert on one, finally getting my L1 on a G60 in a converted AT Astrobee D kit ;-) . It was announced as an "irony flight". Nice kit actually.
.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Actually Jack Kane of NAR participated in the certification session and data review, signing off on it as well.
Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace http://www.cesaronitech.com / (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota (410) 571-8292 Annapolis
wrote:

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

What makes you think it wouldn't pass the cert??

Huh? Since when does a manufacturer have to wait for S&T's blessing before making an announcement? Sure, they must pass the cert before they can be sold, but an announcement is not a sale.
Also, if you believe any vendor is trying to get away with selling motors that haven't been properly certified, then you SHOULD take it up with the certifying authority. It's their jurisdiction.
d
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.