ROL NEWS--Sky Ripper Motors Certified

Loading thread data ...
The opposite is true. Most people PREFER to pay more for instant gratification.
But TRA decertifies SU motors and NAR S&T refuses to say if motors can be submitted sans ATF permits.
Hence no go.
Even WITH shipping approvals.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
I'm not sure what the issue with SU is. Entry level production tooling for only a couple of medium volume calibers and sizes is $50~80K assuming you already have propellant manufacturing infrastructure, licensing and approvals. Product liability insurance is cheap. For $5 million in coverage, premiums range from as low as $50K to 130K per year depending on your options and assuming no previous claims. Even if you add a fully burdened overhead rate of $150~250 (rent/mortgage, electric, HVAC, inventory, auto, insurance, admin, taxes, etc, etc.) per hour it's a cash cow. Throw in a few grand for approval, marketing and packaging and you're set to go. I'm at a total loss why there is a shortage of SU product and manufacturers in such a huge market.
Anthony J. Cesaroni (no MBA) President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
formatting link
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto (410) 571-8292 Annapolis
Reply to
Anthony Cesaroni
Yeah, sure, that's why Ellis Mountain recently got several SU motors certified. Sure shows that the organizations don't want 'em!
Oh, you mean the "approvals" that caused you to flagrantly mislabel a shipment and be slapped with $40K in fines? Yup, sure sounds like you thought those approvals were valid!
-Kevin
Reply to
Kevin Trojanowski
Oh darn it. I forgot, R&D isn't 100% write off and money doesn't grow on trees. I should get an MBA after all.
Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
formatting link
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto (410) 571-8292 Annapolis
Reply to
Anthony Cesaroni
Jerry wrote:
Sometimes that's true, but most of the time people generally prefer the low cost of reloads over the higher cost of single-use. When reloads became available, people gradually stopped buying single-use motors. The only thing that ever slowed the change from single-use to reloads was the high initial cost of the cases.
No, they decertified YOUR motors. AT still has certified single-use motors, and now Ellis has certified single-use motors too.
So submit some and find out.
When did you get shipping approvals?
Reply to
RayDunakin
No. Almost always.
No they are COMPELLED to use them by a convoluted club and vendor structure.
I was in the room. I saw WHY.
No it didn't, but it did increase the commitment once made.
SU motors, mostly.
Not many.
Not many.
Is that a rhetorical question and bait?
No thanks.
Jerry
I was in the room.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
That would be very good. It might even make one time use of RMS chaper than an alternative (probably non existant) SU motor.
Alan
Reply to
Alan Jones
Perhaps you are addressing Jerry? I don't make motors, but if the market will not provide what consumers want, the market will force would be consumers into AR (or EX if you are a TRA member).
Alan
Reply to
Alan Jones
Readers may have misunderstood what I meant by "the nature of the beast". Rockets are small high performance vehicles that too often go whoosh and are never seen again. By their very nature they are expendable. Sometimes the motor is the most expensive component. Clustering is good for a variety of reasons, but few people have enough RMS cases to cluster. If motor manufactures decline to make suitable SU motors available, they should at least be willing to share the financial burden of lost cases as a cost of doing business.
I have no objection to the "hassle" of RMS assembly and cleaning. Indeed, this just makes flying more interactive and fun.
Now I admit that if you fly a lot of motors of the same size in relatively low performing models in wide open flying sites, RMS motor reloads can save you a lot of money. However, you are probably restricting your rocketry activity because you are hobbled by RMS, and are unwilling to risk losing RMS cases.
Alan
Reply to
Alan Jones
Hmmm.... I've used big Aerotech reloads and they were fine, but if similar SU were as readily available I'd prefer them... anything much larger than H or maybe I, my consumption tends to be in single digits per type, and buying a case just to fly a certain size motor once or twice isn't such a good investment.
(I will admit that I've got my share of use out of the 29mm hardware.)
So why do the TRA board folks like reloads better?
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
No, I was addressing you. You proposed a business model that is unique in such a niche market as rocketry. I thought you had some insight into market dynamics and supply/demand curves that existing manufacturers did not.
I would venture to guess that prices are where they are because of the supply/demand curve. If the price went much higher, demand would go down. If the market is unwilling to pay existing prices, supply is cut because profit margins are too thin.
AR/EX only looks less expensive because you are trading off YOUR time for someone else's. You don't factor in the cost of lost opportunity (what you could do with the time if you weren't making propellant). In a hobby, that's a perfectly acceptable approach to take. But for the same reason people will pay over $3 for a cup of coffee, people will pay for the convenience of aarstInpre-made propellant. Additionally, some people just don't have the capability (space, time, or knowledge). Look at the ammunition market. Why doesn't everyone reload their own rounds?
Reply to
Alex Mericas
They dislike SU centric manufacturers (Jerry-motors) more.
It may not be a religious issue so much as a political/personality one, and tooling a company for SU manufacture is a HUGE undertaking.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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.