Help Support RocketryForum by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 68
  1. #31
    Join Date
    24th January 2009
    Location
    Littleton, Colorado
    Posts
    3,985
    Quote Originally Posted by ThirstyBarbarian View Post
    Mem'ries,
    Light the motors of my mind
    Smokey fire-spitting memories
    Of the way we were
    Posted pictures,
    Of the flights we left behind
    Flights we flew with one another
    For the way we were
    Can it be that it was all so simple then?
    When we just ordered it online?
    If we had the chance to launch all again
    Tell me, would we? Could we?
    Mem'ries, may be beautiful and yet
    What's too painful to backorder
    We simply choose to forget
    So it's the launches
    We will remember
    Whenever we remember...
    The way we were...
    The way we were...


  2. #32
    Join Date
    1st May 2011
    Location
    Utah Canyon Country
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by ThirstyBarbarian View Post
    Mem'ries,
    Light the motors of my mind
    Smokey fire-spitting memories
    Of the way we were
    Posted pictures,
    Of the flights we left behind
    Flights we flew with one another
    For the way we were
    Can it be that it was all so simple then?
    When we just ordered it online?
    If we had the chance to launch all again
    Tell me, would we? Could we?
    Mem'ries, may be beautiful and yet
    What's too painful to backorder
    We simply choose to forget
    So it's the launches
    We will remember
    Whenever we remember...
    The way we were...
    The way we were...
    wow.
    Post of the day for sure, if not week/month/year.

    s6

    - Yes, I did a search before posting. -

  3. #33
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Needville, TX and Shiner, TX
    Posts
    9,139
    Quote Originally Posted by taiwanluthiers View Post
    How do you import motors from China and have it still be NAR Certified? Can you even trust their quality and reliability? They're great at cost cutting, not so much quality. That's fine for consumer fireworks but not model rocket motors.

    I was always under the impression that all certified motors are made in the USA because I would think the regulations to import such a thing would make overseas manufacturing difficult.
    Sorry, your impression was wrong...

    Quest has been importing their motors for decades... (IIRC the fire was in the mid-late 90's that "took out" their motor production plant in Arizona, IIRC). First from Germany, then from China.

    To get NAR certification, you just have to submit the required data and statistical samples from each batch of motors for testing, and whatever fees or other process they require (if any). The only other requirement is that the motors remain "generally commercially available" to maintain the motor on the certified motors list. If the motor goes "off the market" for a long enough period of time, the certification expires and they can no longer be flown at NAR insured launches, except as part of the "expired motor program".

    I've flown both, and some folks LOVE the Quest motors... while they have basically the same NAR motor designations, their performance is markedly different. The Chinese motors have a longer burn duration, but lower thrust (so their C6 motor is actually more like a C3 than the Estes C6). This longer burn duration allows higher altitudes from lightweight, aerodynamic rockets, generally speaking, but means poorer performance from heavier, draggier rocket designs (low and slow flights that barely "stagger into the air"). Personally I'm not a huge fan of them... I bought a mess of them one time in a large order but won't be buying more of them... the motors burn EXTREMELY dirty and tend to "soot up" the rocket badly, from base plume recirculation and from delay grain gases (hibachi effect) pouring out the body tube at/after ejection. I've also had the "long burn C" motors heat up SO badly that they carmelized the white paper label glued to the outside of the motor, turning it a crispy brown, and the casing was SO soft and eroded that it was ALMOST burned through... it got SO hot it "welded" itself inside the plastic motor retainer of an Estes rocket! I also had three rockets crash in one day from the weak "flea fart" ejection charges of the Quest motors compared to their Estes counterparts (which some folks lament as being "shotgun" ejection charges). I'd rather have the laundry blown out forcefully rather than having the ejection charge barely have enough energy to dislodge the nosecone and push the parachute partway out before dissipating, leaving the rocket to streamline in...

    Anyway, no, motors DO NOT have to be made in the US to be NAR certified...

    Later! OL JR
    The X-87B Cruise Basselope- THE ultimate weapon in the arsenal of homeland defense and only $52 million per round!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    21st November 2014
    Posts
    861
    Man it sounds like that Quest C6 shouldn't have been certified to begin with. I mean if it behaves like a C3 someone could make the fatal mistake of thinking it could work in a heavier rocket, and result in dangerous condition of rocket going down under power! I'm not surprised, Chinese motors won't be consistent batch to batch and like I said, they might make decent consumer fireworks but a model rocket motor must be under a much stricter quality control. If it's a C6 it shouldn't be more than .2 newtons off... There is so much to making bp motors that a lot can go wrong, and when the objective is cost cutting.. you get the picture.

    I don't know their customer service but Estes has very good customer service. Never had an engine fail except for one staging incidents when I was 14 where the sustainer stage blew up and destroyed the rocket (I think it may have been my fault), and Estes has replaced it free of charge. Only one motor failed but they were nice enough to send a whole pack... All the Estes motors are also highly reliable. Very consistent batch to batch and it works every time. If anything happened it was always the rocket, rather than the motor's fault. I never tried Quest but assumed they should be similar in terms of quality, but maybe the few times I tried quest back then they made them in Germany (who is known for quality)

    Has a motor ever had their certification revoked because the market sample is far too different than submitted (or the designation was too far from what the manufacturer claim)?

  5. #35
    Join Date
    27th January 2009
    Posts
    32
    OK, here's an official response from Quest:

    First, NO, Q2G2 igniters are NOT gone forever and you will be able to purchase them again soon (both shorts and longs). The version that comes packed with the motors will not have any difference at all from the "originals" you guys love! But due to new pending BATF regulations, the ones sold as accessories are going to have a slightly different pyrogen on them - but you likely won't notice any difference.

    And yes, we have been out of stock on A's, and then B's and then C6-5's. New production was completed in September and was expected to arrive via ocean freight then. Some regulations on shipping HazMat materials have recently changed in China - and we had to test new shipping cartons. Unexpected after unexpected delays just keep happening, and therefore I won't announce a "solid" arrival date now. but it will be soon...

    We appreciate your patience and loyalty.

    As to quality, the Quest China motors are very bit as reliable and safe as Estes BP motors (NAR MESS reports certainly support this). They are not made in a fireworks factory and the AQL process and testing is every bit as tough as it was in our own US factory years ago. In fact they are made from military grade BP - it just has a slightly slower burn rate than the US BP does. Most folks love our slightly slower burns, especially the C's. Teachers especially like the slower burn times because the kids get a bigger thrill out of slower boost that they can see...

    The merger with AeroTech has been great, but of course there have been some "bumps". Running out of motors certainly was the biggest one...

    We hope to have some new product announcements soon that I think the rocketry community will get a big buzz out of.

    Bill Stine

  6. #36
    Join Date
    6th December 2013
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    2,200
    Quote Originally Posted by OldRocketeer"II" View Post
    OK, here's an official response from Quest:

    First, NO, Q2G2 igniters are NOT gone forever and you will be able to purchase them again soon (both shorts and longs). The version that comes packed with the motors will not have any difference at all from the "originals" you guys love! But due to new pending BATF regulations, the ones sold as accessories are going to have a slightly different pyrogen on them - but you likely won't notice any difference.

    And yes, we have been out of stock on A's, and then B's and then C6-5's. New production was completed in September and was expected to arrive via ocean freight then. Some regulations on shipping HazMat materials have recently changed in China - and we had to test new shipping cartons. Unexpected after unexpected delays just keep happening, and therefore I won't announce a "solid" arrival date now. but it will be soon...

    We appreciate your patience and loyalty.

    As to quality, the Quest China motors are very bit as reliable and safe as Estes BP motors (NAR MESS reports certainly support this). They are not made in a fireworks factory and the AQL process and testing is every bit as tough as it was in our own US factory years ago. In fact they are made from military grade BP - it just has a slightly slower burn rate than the US BP does. Most folks love our slightly slower burns, especially the C's. Teachers especially like the slower burn times because the kids get a bigger thrill out of slower boost that they can see...

    The merger with AeroTech has been great, but of course there have been some "bumps". Running out of motors certainly was the biggest one...

    We hope to have some new product announcements soon that I think the rocketry community will get a big buzz out of.

    Bill Stine
    Pretty much beat me to it.... This post sums up the Q2G2 status, among others.

    The Fastest and Most Reliable and Transparent Way to Buy High Power Rocket Motors

    Same/Next Day Shipping, Real Time Inventory, Order Confirmation, Package Tracking

    Tripoli #3135

    Confirmed OG
    Level Too

  7. #37
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Needville, TX and Shiner, TX
    Posts
    9,139
    Quote Originally Posted by taiwanluthiers View Post
    Man it sounds like that Quest C6 shouldn't have been certified to begin with. I mean if it behaves like a C3 someone could make the fatal mistake of thinking it could work in a heavier rocket, and result in dangerous condition of rocket going down under power! I'm not surprised, Chinese motors won't be consistent batch to batch and like I said, they might make decent consumer fireworks but a model rocket motor must be under a much stricter quality control. If it's a C6 it shouldn't be more than .2 newtons off... There is so much to making bp motors that a lot can go wrong, and when the objective is cost cutting.. you get the picture.

    I don't know their customer service but Estes has very good customer service. Never had an engine fail except for one staging incidents when I was 14 where the sustainer stage blew up and destroyed the rocket (I think it may have been my fault), and Estes has replaced it free of charge. Only one motor failed but they were nice enough to send a whole pack... All the Estes motors are also highly reliable. Very consistent batch to batch and it works every time. If anything happened it was always the rocket, rather than the motor's fault. I never tried Quest but assumed they should be similar in terms of quality, but maybe the few times I tried quest back then they made them in Germany (who is known for quality)

    Has a motor ever had their certification revoked because the market sample is far too different than submitted (or the designation was too far from what the manufacturer claim)?
    I'm not an expert on the NAR certification requirements, but I've had a lot of the same questions you bring up. Evidently, the manufacturer/importer seeking certification submits the motor with THEIR designation of what the motor is... IOW, if Quest says to NAR "I submit my C6 motor for certification" then it'll end up being called a C6, even if it's more like a C3 in actual performance... Basically, it makes the NAR "certified" motor designation basically meaningless... because you're not getting "the real picture" of what the motor is. You're right, basically... if you stick a Quest C6 into a heavy/draggy rocket that flies okay on an Estes C6 with a different thrust/time curve and think they'll perform the same, you're going to be sadly surprised... To REALLY get an idea of what the motor's performance and suitability is like, you really have to look at the thrust/time curve, to get actual data of the post-ignition thrust spike (determines how heavy a rocket the motor can quickly "kick" into the air and get up to an aerodynamically stable velocity) and then the average thrust, and the burn duration. Simply based on the longer burn time, for an equal amount of total impulse (total power delivered from the motor), the thrust (peak, average, or both) MUST be lower, since total impulse is basically thrust times duration (area under the graph of thrust levels over a given duration). IOW, if you have a 20 n/s total impulse motor, that motor can have say a thrust of 20 newtons for 1 second duration (20X1=20) OR you could burn the motor at a thrust of 10 newtons for 2 seconds (10X2=20). Simplified example, but you get the idea...

    Anyway, personally I'm of the opinion that NAR should determine what the final motor designation should be, not the manufacturer submitting the motor for testing... that would clear things up better. Quest submitted their motors as "C6's" because they want to be seen as 'equivalent' in performance to the Estes motors they're competing against... despite the fact that the motors perform very differently due to their thrust levels and burn durations as previously mentioned. IMHO, it's putting "marketing" ahead of giving the consumer valuable information determined by the actual testing.

    Many people have used the Quest motors and never had as severe a heating problem or case erosion problems as I've experienced... though there HAVE been more than a few people report having had similar occurrences. NAR certification DOES include an "external case temperature" measured during static certification testing, and obviously it passed, or the motors would have never been certified. Periodic statistical analysis of a certain percentage of motors imported or produced is supposed to verify that the motors continue to meet the certification and reliability requirements batch to batch-- the exact details of this would be for others to answer... It's a given that a certain amount of "faulty motors" will get through (since it's absolutely impossible to test every solid rocket motor, since they are destroyed in testing-- statistical batch sampling is the only way) but even when the Quest motors perform "as advertised", the heavy sooting and dirty burning characteristics tend to really make my rockets filthy with "motor gunk", which is why I'm not particularly thrilled with them. Estes motors create crud as well, but burn "clean" compared to Quest motors (Chinese motors, specifically, to be clear).

    SO, from a "reliability" standpoint, the Quest motors evidently meet the NAR standards for certification or they'd lose their certification... just like with Estes or anyone else. Estes motors aren't immune to a certain number of faulty motors slipping through and catoing or otherwise malfunctioning, to be sure, but in my experience, I've had FAR less issues and burned a LOT more Estes motors than I have Quest... (IOW, I've had as many or more problems with Quest motors as I have with Estes, and I've burned a LOT more Estes motors!)

    Anyway, that's been my experience...

    Later! OL JR
    The X-87B Cruise Basselope- THE ultimate weapon in the arsenal of homeland defense and only $52 million per round!

  8. #38
    Join Date
    1st May 2011
    Location
    Utah Canyon Country
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by OldRocketeer"II" View Post
    OK, here's an official response from Quest:

    First, NO, Q2G2 igniters are NOT gone forever and you will be able to purchase them again soon (both shorts and longs).

    Bill Stine
    With all due respect (I do understand the hassles the vendors/suppliers/manufacturers must deal with), I'll believe it when I see it.
    And I'll rejoice when I do.

    sr
    - Yes, I did a search before posting. -

  9. #39
    Join Date
    9th May 2009
    Posts
    1,559
    Quote Originally Posted by taiwanluthiers View Post
    Man it sounds like that Quest C6 shouldn't have been certified to begin with... If it's a C6 it shouldn't be more than .2 newtons off...
    FWIW the Estes C6 has an average thrust of 4.74 N and the Quest C6 has an average thrust of 3.45 N. Both motors have roughly the same peak thrust spike.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    5th August 2014
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    889
    Quote Originally Posted by stealth6 View Post
    I think we all need to finally and actually get over the fact that Q2G2s are gone, no more, kaput. They are simply not coming back, at least not the way they were.

    Yes, they were "just the right thing" for a lot of purposes - ejection charges, reliably lighting BP clusters, etc. But they DO NOT EXIST any more. They just don't.

    It's not like there aren't other excellent options - there are tons of cheap sources for good quality ematches that such out there. They work great. Making your own "lighters" that work BETTER than Q2G2s is actually fun and rewarding. Use them and stop wishing Quest/Aerotech will get their sh*# together and start delivering lots of old Q2G2s to your door. It ain't gonna happen.

    Yes, I've still got a (small and dwindling) stash of Q2G2s left. I'll use them sparingly and wisely, but when they are gone I've got other great options to fill their place.

    R.I.P. Q2G2s, it was great having you around, but I'm ready to move on.

    s6
    For those of us who are kind of new to this, could you post a link to a tutorial on making igniters? If I could competently make better igniters than Q2G2, I wouldn't buy BP igniters any more. And I'd like to know how it's done.
    Daniel J. Petrie - The Rocket N00b - NAR # 100015
    rocketn00b.blogspot.com
    facebook.com/rocketn00b
    YouTube: youtube.com/TheRocketN00b Twitter: @rocketn00b
    The Rocketry Show Podcast

  11. #41
    troj's Avatar
    troj is offline Wielder Of the Skillet Of Harsh Discipline, Potentate of Perilous Pans TRF_ADMIN.png
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    14,283
    Quote Originally Posted by lcorinth View Post
    For those of us who are kind of new to this, could you post a link to a tutorial on making igniters? If I could competently make better igniters than Q2G2, I wouldn't buy BP igniters any more. And I'd like to know how it's done.
    The only acceptable place to post such instructions, or links to such instructions, is in the Research area of this forum.

    -Kevin

  12. #42
    Join Date
    25th January 2009
    Location
    Glennville, GA
    Posts
    17,860
    Quote Originally Posted by lcorinth View Post
    For those of us who are kind of new to this, could you post a link to a tutorial on making igniters? If I could competently make better igniters than Q2G2, I wouldn't buy BP igniters any more. And I'd like to know how it's done.
    I can do that but it would have to be I the research section.
    -----------------------
    Chuck Haislip
    NAR/Tripoli Level 3
    Formerly a Prefect of ICBM - TRA #60

    Level 1 - LOC Minie Magg; Level 2 - PR Broken Arrow;
    Level 3 - 10 inch Nike Smoke
    2015 Ns for Year: 1315 Newtons
    My rockets usually fly naked. If they survive, they earn their paint.

    Come fly with ROSCo or ICBM in Camden SC => http://rocketrysouthcarolina.org

  13. #43
    Join Date
    9th November 2013
    Location
    Mid-Hudson Valley
    Posts
    180
    Quote Originally Posted by lcorinth View Post
    For those of us who are kind of new to this, could you post a link to a tutorial on making igniters? If I could competently make better igniters than Q2G2, I wouldn't buy BP igniters any more. And I'd like to know how it's done.
    Just do a google search, several good options which are all variations of a base concept.
    NAR #98114

  14. #44
    Join Date
    6th September 2014
    Posts
    609
    I have a couple of lightweight two stage rockets; with an Estes A8-0, Quest A6-4 they pop of the pad, stage low enough to easily find the booster while the sustainer just keeps on going and going and going.

    Meanwhile I launched a New Way Space Model’s “Mark 4” which I modified into a twin motor cluster. I used two Quest B6-4 and the rocket barely got off the pad reached maybe two hundred feet then just hung there with the motors still burning yet unable to gain any further altitude.

    It was funny to watch though not so much when it plopped to the ground before the 4 second delay was finished.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    24th January 2009
    Location
    Littleton, Colorado
    Posts
    3,985
    Quote Originally Posted by OldRocketeer"II" View Post
    OK, here's an official response from Quest:

    First, NO, Q2G2 igniters are NOT gone forever and you will be able to purchase them again soon (both shorts and longs). The version that comes packed with the motors will not have any difference at all from the "originals" you guys love! But due to new pending BATF regulations, the ones sold as accessories are going to have a slightly different pyrogen on them - but you likely won't notice any difference.

    And yes, we have been out of stock on A's, and then B's and then C6-5's. New production was completed in September and was expected to arrive via ocean freight then. Some regulations on shipping HazMat materials have recently changed in China - and we had to test new shipping cartons. Unexpected after unexpected delays just keep happening, and therefore I won't announce a "solid" arrival date now. but it will be soon...

    We appreciate your patience and loyalty.

    As to quality, the Quest China motors are very bit as reliable and safe as Estes BP motors (NAR MESS reports certainly support this). They are not made in a fireworks factory and the AQL process and testing is every bit as tough as it was in our own US factory years ago. In fact they are made from military grade BP - it just has a slightly slower burn rate than the US BP does. Most folks love our slightly slower burns, especially the C's. Teachers especially like the slower burn times because the kids get a bigger thrill out of slower boost that they can see...

    The merger with AeroTech has been great, but of course there have been some "bumps". Running out of motors certainly was the biggest one...

    We hope to have some new product announcements soon that I think the rocketry community will get a big buzz out of.

    Bill Stine

    Time to save up for Quest C motor bulk packs!


  16. #46
    Join Date
    5th August 2014
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    889
    Quote Originally Posted by cwbullet View Post
    I can do that but it would have to be I the research section.
    Well, in that case, it sounds like something that's not particularly easy or safe for a beginner to do, so I think I'll wait until I get some more experience. The one online instruction I found a while back about making your own igniters involved wire and match heads... Seemed rather unsafe and not a good method to make reliable motors, but then I didn't bother to try it.
    Last edited by lcorinth; 25th November 2014 at 07:51 PM. Reason: content
    Daniel J. Petrie - The Rocket N00b - NAR # 100015
    rocketn00b.blogspot.com
    facebook.com/rocketn00b
    YouTube: youtube.com/TheRocketN00b Twitter: @rocketn00b
    The Rocketry Show Podcast

  17. #47
    Join Date
    5th August 2014
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    889
    Quote Originally Posted by OldRocketeer"II" View Post
    OK, here's an official response from Quest:

    First, NO, Q2G2 igniters are NOT gone forever and you will be able to purchase them again soon (both shorts and longs). The version that comes packed with the motors will not have any difference at all from the "originals" you guys love! But due to new pending BATF regulations, the ones sold as accessories are going to have a slightly different pyrogen on them - but you likely won't notice any difference.

    And yes, we have been out of stock on A's, and then B's and then C6-5's. New production was completed in September and was expected to arrive via ocean freight then. Some regulations on shipping HazMat materials have recently changed in China - and we had to test new shipping cartons. Unexpected after unexpected delays just keep happening, and therefore I won't announce a "solid" arrival date now. but it will be soon...

    We appreciate your patience and loyalty.

    As to quality, the Quest China motors are very bit as reliable and safe as Estes BP motors (NAR MESS reports certainly support this). They are not made in a fireworks factory and the AQL process and testing is every bit as tough as it was in our own US factory years ago. In fact they are made from military grade BP - it just has a slightly slower burn rate than the US BP does. Most folks love our slightly slower burns, especially the C's. Teachers especially like the slower burn times because the kids get a bigger thrill out of slower boost that they can see...

    The merger with AeroTech has been great, but of course there have been some "bumps". Running out of motors certainly was the biggest one...

    We hope to have some new product announcements soon that I think the rocketry community will get a big buzz out of.

    Bill Stine
    Well, that's good to hear. I've only been doing this about four months, and I'd hate to have missed the chance to try them out.
    Daniel J. Petrie - The Rocket N00b - NAR # 100015
    rocketn00b.blogspot.com
    facebook.com/rocketn00b
    YouTube: youtube.com/TheRocketN00b Twitter: @rocketn00b
    The Rocketry Show Podcast

  18. #48
    Join Date
    21st November 2014
    Posts
    861
    Thing is, it's technically not legal either. Plus you don't really want to be doing that since things can go wrong, such as spontaneous combustion or oversensitive match heads that bursts into flame by itself! Stick with whatever your motor comes with.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    19th February 2009
    Location
    Auburn, WA USA
    Posts
    1,925
    Bill, thanks for weighing in here. Nice to get the straight skinny.

    boomtube-mk2 - no idea what happened to your Mark 4. Quest B6-4s have MORE total impulse than Estes ones and a similar initial thrust spike (look at the NAR cert data http://www.nar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/B61.pdf and http://www.nar.org/wp-content/upload.../08/B6-4CN.pdf). Are you sure they both lit?

    To that point - Trip Barber asked me at NARAM how I managed to win Bx5 cluster altitude this year and the answer is: Quest B6-4s in the pods.
    Bernard Cawley
    NAR 89040 L1
    AMA 42160
    KG7AIE

  20. #50
    Join Date
    25th February 2012
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,693
    Quote Originally Posted by cwbullet View Post
    I can do that but it would have to be I the research section.
    I have access to the research section and I would be interested in seeing this, as well. I miss my Q2G2s and I'm getting kind or tired of waiting for the new ones to hit the market...
    NAR# 94191 L1
    LUNAR# 1989
    Level 1 Cert. flight on a Pem Tech King Kraken Jan. 5, 2013
    Videos of my launches can be found here.
    Hamming it up as W7RAB

  21. #51
    Join Date
    4th July 2014
    Posts
    1,030
    I launched a cluster rocket on 3 quest C6-3's a few weeks ago, and will fly it again tomorrow. The quest motors burn for a really long time and generally make for a very cool flight. BAR still has a lot of quest motors in stock, but re-starting production would be great.
    NAR Jr. L1-2014, Tripoli TMP (L2 hopefully in early 2017)
    "If at first you don't succeed, you must be flying rockets"-Stanley Knapp

  22. #52
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Homewood, AL
    Posts
    3,589
    A key thing about the Q2G2's is that they are mass-produced with extreme reliability.

    Any home-made ignitor will suffer from reliability issues.

    Of course, a home-made ignitor that exists is better than OOP that you can never get any more of. Well to a point. Because if you are relying on VERY reliable ignition of clusters, and your homemade is not reliable enough, there is no point even flying clustered models that will inevitably crash.

    But I trust what Bill Stine said, that they will be back. And I'm glad to hear that the new pyrogen (forced by the ATF apparently same reasons the Estes Solars are white-gray now and not black pyrogen) ought to be as reliable as the old pyrogen.

    I like the current Quest C6's for some contest flying, especially for R/C Rocket Glide, in small R/C R/G's that boost scary-fast on an Estes C6. The Quest C6, more like a C3, is easier to control on boost AND puts less aerodynamic stress on the model, which can be critical for some glider wings.

    As for NAR S&T and designations of average thrust, this is an issue that goes back to at least the 1970s with engines that had average thrust designations that were significantly different than the "real" average thrust (the old FSI D18 was like an E4 with a VERY brief thrust spike and very wimpy sustainer. OK for an Alpha-ish rocket but disaster for scale rockets needing something with more power that the builders didn't have the sense to test boilerplates of first). So, this is a game that NAR S&T has allowed to occur for 50-something years.

    - George Gassaway
    Last edited by georgegassaway; 20th December 2014 at 04:59 AM.

    Contest flying, Sport flying, it's all good.....
    2016 Bike Mileage total: 1843 miles. 5 Miles a day for the year!

  23. #53
    Join Date
    27th May 2014
    Posts
    114
    Alright, this may be the best place to post as it is about. I was just browsing the Quest website and they have seem to of updated the storefront. Among the changes is of course the integration of Aerotech stuff. One thing I did notice though that was not on it's page before was them advertising Q2G2's to be compatible with Composites. Has this always been the case? Also it seems some of the value packs are back in stock.
    Member- CATO
    NAR# - 98349

  24. #54
    Join Date
    18th March 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,404
    I doubt a Q2G2 would ignite a composite. If it was augmented with pyrogen sure.
    Mark Koelsch
    Tripoli 6155 L3
    Owner of http://www.rocketryfiles.com/
    Editor of http://www.thrustcurve.org/
    Keeper of the motor files

  25. #55
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Saugus, MA
    Posts
    2,634
    Quote Originally Posted by georgegassaway View Post
    As for NAR S&T and designations of average thrust, this is an issue that goes back to at least the 1970s with engines that had average thrust designations that were significantly different than the "real" average thrust (the old FSI D18 was like an E4 with a VERY brief thrust spike and very wimpy sustainer. OK for an Alpha-ish rocket but disaster for scale rockets needing something with more power that the builders didn't have the sense to test boilerplates of first). So, this is a game that NAR S&T has allowed to occur for 50-something years.
    NFPA allowed it not S & T. There's a line in NFPA 1125 that says something like the average thrust equals the average thrust. Basically it allows a manufacturer to sell a motor as a B6, C6 or whatever even if the average thrust wasn't 6. It didn't get in there by accident. S & T wanted that changed for 20 years that I can remember but the NAR Board wasn't interested in doing that as there was no perceived safety issue. NFPA won't allow a change that grandfathers existing motors so there's little hope of it getting fixed that way. Then along came the Quest C6 (I'm not badmouthing the C6, I like them) and reports of them being used in rockets that flew fine on an Estes C6 but poorly on a Quest C6. That was all we needed and the Board voted in March 2011 to allow S & T to go beyond NFPA 1125 and require the labeled average thrust be within 10% of the value we got when we tested the engines. Everything we've certified since then has met that standard.
    Last edited by billspad; 4th January 2015 at 05:03 PM. Reason: I don't proofread

  26. #56
    Join Date
    7th February 2009
    Location
    Arlington, TX
    Posts
    1,230
    Quote Originally Posted by georgegassaway View Post
    As for NAR S&T and designations of average thrust, this is an issue that goes back to at least the 1970s with engines that had average thrust designations that were significantly different than the "real" average thrust (the old FSI D18 was like an E4 with a VERY brief thrust spike and very wimpy sustainer. OK for an Alpha-ish rocket but disaster for scale rockets needing something with more power that the builders didn't have the sense to test boilerplates of first). So, this is a game that NAR S&T has allowed to occur for 50-something years.
    NFPA 1125 requires that the labled value of average thrust be within 20% (or 10N, whichever is greater) of the measured averaged thrust. So a C3 labeled as a C13 is acceptable under NFPA 1125.

    Interestingly, that used to be "or 1N, whichever is greater" until the most recent revision. I checked the Report on Proposals and the Committee statement was:
    The current text of 8.1.7(1)(C) is a circular requirement that
    results is no enforceable requirement. Altering the requirement to those
    specified in section 8.2.7(1)(C), results in an enforceable requirement that does
    not adversely affect the current marking of any currently certified model rocket
    motor. The need for this change is based on a request by a motor manufacturer
    to mark a G class model rocket motor with an average thrust 20N less than the
    actual performance measured during certification testing.
    Strangely, the change was from 1N to 10N which would still leave this motor that was 20N off outside of the requirements. Unless the measured average thrust was greater than 100N in which case it never had a problem.

    Even worse was a committee statement from the previous cycle which stated that average thrust labeling on motors of 20N-s total impulse or less wasn't a safety issue. Too bad it is too late to submit changes for this revision cycle. Maybe next time around.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    13th April 2013
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    1,276
    A motor name like "C6" is just that; the name. The performance of motors changes over time, and in questionable situations the actual statistics should be consulted. Not only that, for convenience each motor needs a different name and multiple motors with different thrust curves could have the same average value.

    More than that, the average thrust isn't what you care about for determining whether the motor is sufficient to safely launch a rocket. It's more like you want the "initial thrust," or better yet to run a simulation which takes into account the length of the launch guide.

    We need to get away from thrust:weight ratio and to running actual simulations. This is why I built the ThrustCurve.org motor guide; it's completely practical to run mini simulations in real time for every motor. I hope to see this feature added to the full-fledged flight simulators as well, but for now at least you can narrow down your choices with ThrustCurve.org and the run full simulations if needed.
    AERO-PAC, ROC, LUNAR (TRA & NAR)
    jcrocket.com thrustcurve.org

  28. #58
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by markkoelsch View Post
    I doubt a Q2G2 would ignite a composite. If it was augmented with pyrogen sure.
    Actually a plain old Q2G2 will light 18mm and 24mm composite motors using BT propellant.
    Tried it just because I was curious.

    John

  29. #59
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by UhClem View Post
    NFPA 1125 requires that the labled value of average thrust be within 20% (or 10N, whichever is greater) of the measured averaged thrust. So a C3 labeled as a C13 is acceptable under NFPA 1125.

    Interestingly, that used to be "or 1N, whichever is greater" until the most recent revision. I checked the Report on Proposals and the Committee statement was:


    Strangely, the change was from 1N to 10N which would still leave this motor that was 20N off outside of the requirements. Unless the measured average thrust was greater than 100N in which case it never had a problem.

    Even worse was a committee statement from the previous cycle which stated that average thrust labeling on motors of 20N-s total impulse or less wasn't a safety issue. Too bad it is too late to submit changes for this revision cycle. Maybe next time around.
    The process for successfully making a revision in NFPA 1122/1125/1127 is far more difficult that one might imagine, as there are may parties and perspectives involved. Continued small steps is generally the best mode of operation. Removal of the circular requirement of 8.1.7(1)(c) for model rocket motors and applying the labeling window used for HPR motors was the first step. No, it didn't "fix" issue, but it at least it defined a bounding box for model rocket motor labeling.

    John

  30. #60
    Join Date
    20th January 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnly View Post
    Actually a plain old Q2G2 will light 18mm and 24mm composite motors using BT propellant.
    Tried it just because I was curious.

    John
    I wondered about that. I have some 18mm reloads and I hoped they would work. Thanks for doing the testing!


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •