AeroTech Open Thread

ATGM said:

As for the L1000, we have no reports as of right now.

Click to expand...

I'm kicking myself for not getting a photo of the motor. Here's the photo's. Not sure what lot it was from. Other fliers talked to them and said that they called to verify the lot number was new, but I can't verify that. The igniter was installed at the top of the motor, as I believe the instructions say, so I don't think that was the issue.

You can see the casing come out the top of the booster in the full size photos, then bounce over to the right.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/31757945@N05/sets/72157656573995721

Since hardware seems to be an issue, what about getting with Cesaroni and cross certifying certain large diameter reloads?

I would like to say that I've been launching AT motors for only about a year, but I've been very pleased with them and I've had no issues thus far. I've got a G138 that I plan on using the next launch I go to, which makes me a little nervous, but I'm lighting it anyway.

I had a chance to meet ATGM at NARAM 57 (which many of you will also as he intends to attend many launches) and it was a real pleasure to do so. He walked the flight line talking rockets to folks and getting feedback from all. When he gave a J240 single use demo motor to a friend of mine he took photos of the launch and walked with him to recover the rocket in the desert heat (a fair distance away). Every one I talked to was impressed after meeting him. He has a lot of things on his plate but I think we are going to see some neat stuff in the future.

terryg said:

I had a chance to meet ATGM at NARAM 57 (which many of you will also as he intends to attend many launches) and it was a real pleasure to do so. He walked the flight line talking rockets to folks and getting feedback from all. When he gave a J240 single use demo motor to a friend of mine he took photos of the launch and walked with him to recover the rocket in the desert heat (a fair distance away). Every one I talked to was impressed after meeting him. He has a lot of things on his plate but I think we are going to see some neat stuff in the future.

Click to expand...

I haven't had a chance to meet Charlie in person just yet, but he's no doubt a consummate professional and his conduct described above is a reflection of that. Many good things to come with Charlie and team ushering things through.

Charlie
I was looking at the latest Sport Rocketry Magazine and seen the pre built AT kits. Where are they listed for purchase? Or how does one purchase one?
Thanks
Gary

I'm late to the discussion, and I'm sure this has been brought up before. No, I did not read much of the thread. But since it's open and I have an opinion, here it is, civil. I personally have had fantastic success with AT motors for 5 years. I have a huge collection of hardware from 18mm through 38mm. I've flown D through J and everything has worked. That's pretty impressive. I was a loyal customer and AT supporter when the discussions came up over who was better.

So I was unhappy to say the least, and later just pissed off when I had to replace a lost motor. I ordered a 38/720, which is very popular and so I thought, available. Months went by and there was no hardware. I began to inquire and got one excuse, then another, and another. After more than 7 months 'some' parts were available....but not all....but they were working hard on it! By now the flying season was well under way and did what I should have done in the first place; I bought a Rouse Tech case at a launch so I could use the reloads I already had, and I cancelled the order for AeroTech and bought a Loki. (aside: Now all of a sudden I had not only hardware, but a manufacturer that gave straight answers to questions and went out of his way to be helpful.)

While all this is going on AT is pushing hard to 'simplify' what already worked, by pushing the RMS_EZ and the DMS line. Always new DMS motors coming out, and EZ becoming the standard for 38mm, but they cannot or will not get common hardware into the hands of customers they already had. The quest to be simple caused them (in my opinion) to turn their backs on loyal customers. They had a great product that was affordable and reliable, as long as you already had the hardware, probably from R-T or Dr. Rocket.

While I was waiting for my hardware I was assured the plan wasn't to have DMS replace the RMS line, yet hardware seems to be a major issue still, and DMS is growing. My opinion is that DMS is the planned future. They are so fixated on 'simple' that 'proven' has taken a back seat, at best.

I still have tons of AT reloads and I will use them up if I have the hardware, but I won't ever buy any new Aerotech sizes. For me the future is with another brand and I am excited at the prospects. I think if AeroTech wants to be open and work at solving issues and pleasing customers they may want to think about the customer base they already had in addition to those they want to win over from CTI. And in my opinion pre-built (RTF) rockets proves the fixation on oversimplification.

Now that I'm more heavily invested in 29mm motors, I'd love to see a change to the 29/40-120 reloads in the F impulse range. Any way you can develop new loads that have a multi piece grain, and don't require hazmat shipping? All the E's and almost all the G's for that case are non-hazmat, just odd that you've got that hazmat fee on the middle range motors for the case.

-Hans

Any news of the F34R , F33FJ and the G71R for us Hobbyline RMS Enthusiasts ?

Kenny

We asked about the G71R and it's being redesigned as a bates grain (instead of C slot) to correct the issues with delay timing that it had.

Value Rockets.com shows the pre built kits. Prices in Sport Rocketry are little higher. Not sure if one can even order one from Value?

crossfire said:

Value Rockets.com shows the pre built kits. Prices in Sport Rocketry are little higher. Not sure if one can even order one from Value?

Click to expand...

The sumo looks awesome.

I have no problem if some flyers who want to buy a pre built kit. Maybe some one has a health problem and just can't do a build. Its not a large market but it might help someone get out doors and have some fun.

HHaase said:

Now that I'm more heavily invested in 29mm motors, I'd love to see a change to the 29/40-120 reloads in the F impulse range. Any way you can develop new loads that have a multi piece grain, and don't require hazmat shipping? All the E's and almost all the G's for that case are non-hazmat, just odd that you've got that hazmat fee on the middle range motors for the case.

-Hans

Click to expand...

I agree completely. Thanks for mentioning this.

I'd be willing to glue the grains together on F loads if that's what it takes to make them non hazmat.

It would just be like when the G64 was split into two grains for hazmat reasons, the grains are taped together during assembly. The thrust profile changes a bit due to the increased burning surface.

What about changing the grain length or the core to compensate for the thrust profile? Or both?

Or alternatively, just split the grains, recert them, and let us as the buyer deal with the change in burn time and thrust profile? I say if we want non hazmat F motors, we deal with what it takes to keep it cost effective for AT.

Asking for non hazmat F motors is not unreasonable. Asking for non hazmat F motors with identical numbers very well might be.

A fair number of the F-sized SU motors are non-hazmat, so it seems odd that none of the RMS versions are. It's pretty much the opposite of the G-range.

I think it would be easy to cut the F22J, F40W and F52T grains in half and then have the end user epoxy them back together. I wouldn't mind doing that. These are all very nice motors and it's too bad they require HAZMAT to ship.

Donaldsrockets said:

I think it would be easy to cut the F22J, F40W and F52T grains in half and then have the end user epoxy them back together. I wouldn't mind doing that. These are all very nice motors and it's too bad they require HAZMAT to ship.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind either, but taping them like the G64 may make it more user friendly to those who wonder what epoxy is.

I love the F40 as it's a great performing MPR motor (as is the G64) and wouldn't mind a new motor based on it that was cut for HAZMAT, even if the designation changed to an F38 or F42.

Greg

EXPjawa said:

A fair number of the F-sized SU motors are non-hazmat, so it seems odd that none of the RMS versions are. It's pretty much the opposite of the G-range.

Click to expand...

The non HAZMAT F motor shave 30 grams or less propellant specifically to make them under the limit, but that means they are not Full F motors, so they are often in the Econojet family. Range of Total-Impulse is a bit over 40 N-s to 55ish N-s.

Yes, I agree that the full 80 N-s F reloads should be bifurcated (ditto for LMS versions).

Donaldsrockets said:

I think it would be easy to cut the F22J, F40W and F52T grains in half and then have the end user epoxy them back together. I wouldn't mind doing that. These are all very nice motors and it's too bad they require HAZMAT to ship.

Click to expand...

The F22J, F40W and F52T are reloads for the 29/40-120 cases.

• The F40W reload could be approximated with (2) COTS E16W reload grains so that would be a near zero cost conversion possibility.
• The F52T reload could be approximated with (2) COTS E23T reload grains so that would be a near zero cost conversion possibility.
• The F22J is unique so a COTS 2 grain solution is not possibl

Bob

So I heard today that Aerotech is working on a 38mm kit. Any truth to this and if so, does this also mean AT is going to have a 38mm retainer? I also heard AT or rather RCS is going to be manufacturing Quest motors in the states. If this too is true, can you confirm this and will that also mean that Q2G2's will also be made in the good ol U-S of A?

If all of the above is true, a few additional questions; What kit will be 38mm? Will there be more than one 38mm kit? What is the ETA for release? What is the ETA on Quest motors?

Thanks!!

bobkrech said:

The F22J, F40W and F52T are reloads for the 29/40-120 cases.

• The F40W reload could be approximated with (2) COTS E16W reload grains so that would be a near zero cost conversion possibility.
• The F52T reload could be approximated with (2) COTS E23T reload grains so that would be a near zero cost conversion possibility.
• The F22J is unique so a COTS 2 grain solution is not possibl

Bob

Click to expand...

Yep

I knew these are 29/40-120 reloads. Flown several of each in the past. The F22J is awesome in a lightweight rocket.

IIRC, Aerotech mentioned they tested a 2 grain F40W and they said the shorter C-slot grains had a long tail off that could possibly affect the delay timing.

I have no problem at all if they have to change the thrust profiles of F motors to make them non-hazmat. I currently don't buy them due to the hazmat, but I sure would buy them if they were non-hazmat. It's really a prime market, with the surge in PSII popularity.

Donaldsrockets said:

Yep

I knew these are 29/40-120 reloads. Flown several of each in the past. The F22J is awesome in a lightweight rocket.

IIRC, Aerotech mentioned they tested a 2 grain F40W and they said the shorter C-slot grains had a long tail off that could possibly affect the delay timing.

Click to expand...

Bates grain reloads are much simpler to cut in half because you don't have to worry about bore alignment.

In the reloads we are discussing, the C-slot is the only way that hot gases can escapes to the nozzle and a misalignment will change the internal ballistics of the propellant, so a potential misalignment of the 2 C-slots is likely to be the reason for the long tail. If the liner doesn't fit too tightly, one could use a piece of tape to hold the 2 C-slots in alignment, however I'll guess that since some folks who use model rocket reloads may not have the experience/knowledge that you really need to use the tape to maintain C-slot alignment so they would be reluctant to recommend it.

Bob

bobkrech said:

Bates grain reloads are much simpler to cut in half because you don't have to worry about bore alignment.

In the reloads we are discussing, the C-slot is the only way that hot gases can escapes to the nozzle and a misalignment will change the internal ballistics of the propellant, so a potential misalignment of the 2 C-slots is likely to be the reason for the long tail. If the liner doesn't fit too tightly, one could use a piece of tape to hold the 2 C-slots in alignment, however I'll guess that since some folks who use model rocket reloads may not have the experience/knowledge that you really need to use the tape to maintain C-slot alignment so they would be reluctant to recommend it.

Bob

Click to expand...

All of the G-size 29 40-120 reloads already instruct the user to align the grains and tape together with a short piece of clear tape, so that shouldn't be a reason to not do it for F size. Of course, splitting a shorter F grain is going to put a larger portion of the burning surface on the grain ends than is the case for the G loads.

Deleted - Duplicated the thought of Oberon.

Oberon said:

All of the G-size 29 40-120 reloads already instruct the user to align the grains and tape together with a short piece of clear tape, so that shouldn't be a reason to not do it for F size. Of course, splitting a shorter F grain is going to put a larger portion of the burning surface on the grain ends than is the case for the G loads.

Click to expand...

which is why you'd have to glue it to keep the same profile. Tape won't do anything to help that.

Personally, even if it's a completely different set of profiles, I just really want some F motors for the 29/40-120 case with a total impulse of 60 or more that don't require hazmat shipping.

HHaase said:

Personally, even if it's a completely different set of profiles, I just really want some F motors for the 29/40-120 case with a total impulse of 60 or more that don't require hazmat shipping.

Click to expand...

+1 What he said!