L1000 CATO Sunday at Potter

Not sure who's this was, but an L1000 had a sub-optimal flight...

Interesting. I don't see any signs of an ejection charge going off. So what separated the sections? Would that be a missing O-ring, unsealed forward closure?

Great shots!

When I had a K740 Cato it blew apart the front part of the case - that unseals things pretty quickly...

Yea, I saw the case but didn't get a photo. looks like it let go and spit some grains out and such.

Great sequence of shots; how was the launch otherwise? I was really hoping to attend but it was not in the cards.

good weekend for most. little windy and some crops up. I kept it low

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?127589-URRG-launch-weekend-July-25-26

I know they has some issues with those and actually did a recall.
I flew one of the "new" versions at LDRS with no issue

I would be curious as the lot number on the motor

Someone said they verified the lot number, but I can't verify that.

Was this one of the new replacement motors that were put out in the last 4 weeks or so. L1000s from last summer need to be replaced.

crossfire said:

Was this one of the new replacement motors that were put out in the last 4 weeks or so. L1000s from last summer need to be replaced.

Click to expand...

DizWolf said:

Someone said they verified the lot number, but I can't verify that.

Click to expand...

I'll try to find out exactly who it was and If they did indeed verify it.

David
If you can get lot numbers get a hold of Carl at AT he will help out. He did right by me. I myself had a CTI J250 Skid have a major burn through liner and case of rear end of the motor on Sunday. WM did me right with it all. But I never had this problem with a CTI 54 reload. Booster is junk.

Gary

One of our members talked to them and said this:

"Don't know thier names but did talk to them, they said that the load was a new one and they had heard about the problems and called and talked to Aerotech before they bought the load. They were told that the issue was fixed. I asked them how they had the igniter located and he said all the way to the top. I told him thay I heard that it was reccommended to run the igniter all the way up and back it out about 1/3 of the way, he didn't know about that trick. I had heard that those long single use motors had a better chance of lighting using that trick because when the igniter was right at the top it sometimes over pressurize before lighting the whole motor. This was something I had heard from Ken Allen when they first came out and most were catoing because of the igniter placement."


So maybe the igniter....

David
I think a rep. from AT has a post here on TRF. May be move this post over to him. So now I have 4 of the L-reloads that may go boom.

I've wanted an L1000 since they came out, Nervous now but I wanna track down exactly what happened and what lot it was.

AT treated me very getting me the new motors. The problem was with the case strength. So I would guess they up date with new case material. I never heard about the placement of the motor lighter.

It's not the igniter placement.

patelldp said:

It's not the igniter placement.

Click to expand...

Yea, wish I looked closer at the case.

The cato happened at the nozzle end right? That is what went wrong with the recalled motors.

Nice slide show. It's 2015. Any HD video?

CORZERO said:

Nice slide show. It's 2015. Any HD video?

Click to expand...

I've got a canon 7D and could shoot video.... I prefer stills.

Bummer. Nice stills though. Thanks.

Just saw the post now, it was mine! Thanks for capturing that Dave and bringing back fond memories LOL!
Anyway, the motor was one of AT "new" batch and I was told the issues had been fixed. The case ruptured and send the grains etc. up and out. I used a series of adaptors B/C that rocket is a Comp. 5 with a 98mm MM. I adapted it down to 54! Therefore their was an air gap in the MM B/T the motor and MM wall. I think this allowed pressure to escape up and out rather than destroying the entire rocket.
I was in contact with AT the next day and I had a new motor in 3 weeks. Not to bad and I did did not mind much B/C the rocket was not lost.
I plan to fly it this weekend on a CTI L-1410. The new L-1000 will go up in My comp 3!
See you there.

JPL said:

Anyway, the motor was one of AT "new" batch and I was told the issues had been fixed.

Click to expand...

If the motor you had a problem with was one of the "new" batch, how do you know that the replacement will not do exactly the same thing? I have one of the replacements (having had one of the "original" motors go boom), and I kind of wonder whether I should fly it.

Jim

I am feeling the same way. I have 2 replacement motors which I received about 6 weeks ago. Maybe I should have took the L reloads instead. So do I now have 4 L1000s that may go boom? AT needs to make a comment on this.

L1000 and more importantly the story behind shipping units known to be questionable is probably the number one reason I am flying Cesaroni these days. Of course I cannot verify the story, but I have heard it at several different unrelated launch sites.

I like replacement motors but there is no such thing as a replacement rocket.

JPL said:

Just saw the post now, it was mine! Thanks for capturing that Dave and bringing back fond memories LOL!
.....
I was in contact with AT the next day and I had a new motor in 3 weeks. Not to bad and I did did not mind much B/C the rocket was not lost.
I plan to fly it this weekend on a CTI L-1410. The new L-1000 will go up in My comp 3!
See you there.

Click to expand...

LOL, happy to preserve the memory. Good to hear they replaced it.

watermelonman said:

I like replacement motors but there is no such thing as a replacement rocket.

Click to expand...

Maybe we should just all build blow-out holes in all our motor mounts.... like burst discs on pressure tanks.

watermelonman said:

L1000 and more importantly the story behind shipping units known to be questionable is probably the number one reason I am flying Cesaroni these days. Of course I cannot verify the story, but I have heard it at several different unrelated launch sites.

I like replacement motors but there is no such thing as a replacement rocket.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely false. They did not ship known bad units. When I asked Karl about the motors, they said they could not replicate the issue in house.

tbonerocketeer said:

This is absolutely false. They did not ship known bad units. When I asked Karl about the motors, they said they could not replicate the issue in house.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear it. Stories certainly do get warped from person to person, like a game of telephone. My buddy loved the way my M1350 went together so much that he is about to buy some L1000s for BALLS, and I hope they fly great. I am still hesitant to put the L1000 in my own rockets, but am giving the M1350 a shot. I sure hope it goes well!

I love Aerotech overall but the issues of the last year had me questioning loyalty.

watermelonman said:

L1000 and more importantly the story behind shipping units known to be questionable is probably the number one reason I am flying Cesaroni these days. Of course I cannot verify the story, but I have heard it at several different unrelated launch sites.

I like replacement motors but there is no such thing as a replacement rocket.

Click to expand...

Yes, because shipping faulty motors is the key to success!