UKRA amendment to certification flight rules.

Last year's loser - Art Applewhite. 8-)

That's the drogue :)

perhaps we need to work on Beagle-II style bounce-down technology (TM). That would be fun to watch

Or possibly even PoGo stick recovery

You know what was meant, but it can be fun dreaming

As I recall, Beagle-II used impactor technology :-(

However it was designed to use a parachute to slow down then deploy air bags to bounce on. MER also used retro rockets to stop or nearly stop before bouncing; I don't know if Beagle-II had retro rockets.

Glen Overby

Buying a saucer kit of the shelf and using it to cert with shows only that you can build a kit, not that you have any understanding of any method of recovery espicailly if it relies on its own drag and dosn't deploy any form of recovery.

-> Who in TRA sent you that email??

I emailed tripoli back inFeb directly and the response came from William Davidson.

Damian Burrin UKRA 1159 Level 2 RSO EARS 1115

No personally and i can't and don't speak for UKRA Council. I think that is exactly the point.

Recovery methods should be deployed in cert flights.

Whether that be, chutes. streamers, wings of a boost glider, bladers for a helicopter or some form of retro- rocket antigraviti system ahouldn't matter. It's the deployment.

Cert filghts should not be done using tumble recovery in my opinion.

Though i have been known to use fragmentation recovery but never on purpose ;-)

Damian

Ah, now that would be a cool project, much like the hyper velocity re-entry tests. boost it up, flip it over and light up a large decent motor.... Certainly show engineering know how if you got it back in one piece :-)

I quite like the idea if the Mars lander bouncing ball design as well.....

Stephen.

An "HPR" kit.

Sorry?? Don't understand?

Did i make a typo? have we moved on to Anglo/American grammar now?

Damian

No disrespect, but bull$hit. I know Bill and I find it hard to believe he would make such a definitive statement. I'll call him within the next few days and get back to you.

Fred Wallace TRA TAP

Damian no you haven't. Your mind probably works within this space time continuum. Or maybe it is you just do not understand the "Jerry" point of view. If the latter is the case count your blessings.

Why would i lie, i've nothing to gain. Assuming the email address on your post is real i've forwarded acopy of the mail i got. If not it'll bounce. Contact off list if you want and i'll forward you a copy directly.

Damian

I apologize Damian, not my intent to question your integrity. However, conversations I have had with Bill on this subject lead me to believe that we evaluate each OD Rocket project, on it's merit before rendering a yes or no.

BTW, I sent you an off list email, ( I think I was able to put together a good email address)..(:-)

Regards Fred

Damian Burr>

It's great that you guys have eliminated rocket kits from cert projects. I've always felt cert by step by step instructions a bit of a sham. Does each level have to produce some sort of design document?

More importantly, how do you keep people from buying and following a kit's instructions, but cutting the fins different or shortening the body tube a bit?

I realize that you're just a troll, but for others who might be reading this, it's interesting how you twist the terms of a 'saucer kit... (which) dosn't (sic) deply any form of recovery' into being any rocket kits, and add in that design documents must be produced.

David Erbas-White

"Buying a saucer kit of the shelf and using it to cert with shows only that you can build a kit".

Certing is simply the assembly, flight and recovery of a rocket. It proves only that one can follow instructions use glue, and light a motor.

If the clubs want to pull the kits, pull the kits. But nobody should pretend that certing is anything more than following step by step instructions aka "building a kit".

by the way, there wouldn't be the need for 'flame free threads' if there weren't for those flaming,...

That is not what has been said. UKRA's announcement was that parachutes are the method of recovery to be used.

My personal issue is not with kits, kits are fine and dandy it's kits like saucers for example that don't have any method of reecovery other that tumble that i think shouldn't be used.

I have seen some excellent kits and unusual methods of recovery being used over the years, I'm working on a HPR rocket with helicopter recovery myself and have no issue with these being used to cert with. The key thing i personally think is that the recovery method should be deployed. (in my opinion)

Yep. Eliminate the juvenile responses of a few, and they would indeed be unecessary.

Unfortunately, those whose behavior requires flame-free threads also cannot be bothered to honor them.

...and they wonder why they get kicked off of forums?

-Kevin

I have also been working on a HPR heli design - the concept appeals to my slightly anarchistic side /Tim