why are hybrid rocket motors regulated by NFPA?

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:


Ray is pretty much correct. The only thing NAR/TRA/CAR flyer certification really does is to allow you to fly at NAR/TRA/CAR sanctioned launches. It has nothing to do with the ATFE or a LEUP.
There is nothing that precludes anyone who is not a NAR/TRA/CAR member from finding a launch site, buying insurance, obtaining a LEUP & buying motors, and flying high power rockets.
DSC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We've had the discussion before about states that have adopted NFPA codes as state law. Where I live NFPA 1127 has the force of law. That means you have to have a NAR or TRA certification to fly high power. Unless you are flying for the government or a University...
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: ...

--
Will Marchant, NAR 13356, Tripoli 10125 L3
snipped-for-privacy@amsat.org http://www.spaceflightsoftware.com/will /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hello gents...
Currently the largest total impulse G motor available is a hybrid.... 95% G motor.. WCH
Getting back to why hybrids are regulated these motors are not toys.. I would never sell one to someone under the age of 18, hell its hard enough getting adults to use the things correct..
Hybrid motors if they fail make a solid motor failure pail in comparison.. The NFPA requirements currently are stupid and do increase the risk of possible shrapnel, if you ask me requiring the pressures of a mono tube to match that of a DOT tank is if anything only increasing a danger factor for the end user. I personally believe that the max pressure a monotube motor should ever see with out bursting is 1500Psi the twice safe working pressure of nitrous. The safe distances were increased for model hybrid motors to 100 feet..
As far as hybrids being a PITA that's an individual choice, for instance I think you could be a brain donor and still fly a Pro 38 motors.. I enjoy the hybrid challenge
Cheer's Scott..
wrote:

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

So it could easily be certified as a MR motor with a reduced fuel load. However, given the different nature of hybrid vs. solids, I'd like to see the limits increased for hybrid MR motors to 4 Oz. of propellant, or to at least 160 N-s with a propellant load under 4 Oz.

The regulations were written at a time when only large HPR hybrids were seriously considered.

I'd argue that even solid MR motors are not toys. OK, hybrid motors are a bit moor sophisticated. There is nothing wrong with a little rocket science in the sport. I was not advocating the sale of hybrid motors to rocket scientists under the age of 18. The question is, would you sell a small hybrid rocket motor to a 50 year old aerospace engineer without HPR user certification?

So what else is new. ;) I think the original NFPA hybrid motor regs were essentially authored by the NAR, or NAR/TRA, with little regard for small hybrid motors.

I agree. Solids are much easier and higher performing than sport rocket hybrid motors. No terrorist would use a hybrid motor. However, a sport rocketeer might want to try the challenge, or just fly larger motors without LEUP storage.
Alan

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

The Contrail Hybrids are far from low performers. An I-500. A K-888. A M-2281.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:23:55 -0500, Alex Mericas

I'm not familiar with the Contrail Hybrid motors. My general perception is that the sport rocket APCP motors outperform the Nitrous based hybrid sport rocket motors. I'm not trying to dis the hybrid motors. They have an acceptable level of performance. However, I'd challenge you to beat an APCP E6 or F10 in an altitude competition with a hybrid motor. I'd challenge you to break the model rocket vertical speed record of M1.42 using an APCP AT F80 with a hybrid motor, all of the same delivered total impulse of course. I agree that comparisons should be made between actual motors, rather than generalizations, but there not always suitable motors in both categories to make the comparisons. In general the APCP motors deliver higher ISP, and higher propellant mass fraction (E.g. lower motor empty weight enabling more payload to be lofted.) So far, hybrid motors have not delivered the high peak thrust or thrust tailoring of many APCP motors. It is also true that LOX based hybrid motors can have higher ISP than APCP motors...
The advantages of hybrid motors are acceptable levels of performance without requiring LEUP storage or hazmat shipping, and lower flight cost for those rocketeers who make frequent flights without losing or damaging the hybrid motor.
Alan
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.