Pro38 Bulletin - Forward Closure Failures

crossfire said:

So after CTI has been making the Pro38 motors for years what changed? Just the epoxy used in the forward closure? Makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Gary, not the epoxy- the plastic resin the closure is made out of. One box with an additional lubricant was accidentally sent and used. Made the plastic surface slicker than normal.

Ok that makes sense. I am lucky my 38mm stock is very low and they are older reloads. Maybe its time for me to give a snap ring 38mm motor a try.

Ravenex said:

To be clear, the lubricant was added to the plastic resin, not the epoxy resin. The lubricated surface prevented the epoxy from sealing the delay to the closure.

Click to expand...

Oh, yes, the plastic resin.

Does anyone know if these will be a HAZMAT ship if we have to get them from an online/mail order vendor?

wefly2 said:

I have 16

Click to expand...

Clarence
- I feel your pain! Right now I don't have 16 disposable rockets w/38 holes in the back end. As a famous astronaut once said "Oh, Crap!"....

Banzai88 said:

Does anyone know if these will be a HAZMAT ship if we have to get them from an online/mail order vendor?

Click to expand...

As a vendor, I'm inclined to say legally yes, as Cti doesn't have us mail approvals for any of their reloads, so the parts wouldn't qualify even though they are under the weight rules.

38mm delay grains are under 30g so they should be able to ship non-HAZMAT.

Rocketjunkie said:

38mm delay grains are under 30g so they should be able to ship non-HAZMAT.

Click to expand...

Except you have to get Usps approvals as a manufacture to do so.

I am still puzzled as to how I am supposed to tell which vendor I got which reload from. Heck, I have one or two think I got from Chris over a year ago. I might see him in the next few years.

H_Rocket said:

I am still puzzled as to how I am supposed to tell which vendor I got which reload from. Heck, I have one or two think I got from Chris over a year ago. I might see him in the next few years.

Click to expand...

Just pick one, and they should replace all of them. I will once I get them.

Somewhere, Tony Alcocer is salivating at the idea of several hundred pristine Pro38 forward closures!

tbonerocketeer said:

Just pick one, and they should replace all of them. I will once I get them.

Click to expand...

That's pretty cool of you. I have only one bad closure. Happens that it came from an order that I placed with you. If the closures happen to REQUIRE hazmat, I'll wait until I place a big enough motor order that requires hazmat so that no one is out $$.

Hopefully CTI will be pushing out closures, since they know best who got what and when.

Banzai88 said:

That's pretty cool of you. I have only one bad closure. Happens that it came from an order that I placed with you. If the closures happen to REQUIRE hazmat, I'll wait until I place a big enough motor order that requires hazmat so that no one is out $$.

Hopefully CTI will be pushing out closures, since they know best who got what and when.

Click to expand...

I do the same for warranties. In the end, I like to see happy flyers.

Is it just the BP that would push it towards HazMat, or is the delay grain itself also an issue? I don't use motor eject with any of the rockets I'd be flying my Pro38's on (2 of them require the Aero Pack MC38 in place of the BP anyway), so it would be great if there could be a replacement option with no BP provided that solved the HazMat issue.

woferry said:

Is it just the BP that would push it towards HazMat, or is the delay grain itself also an issue? I don't use motor eject with any of the rockets I'd be flying my Pro38's on (2 of them require the Aero Pack MC38 in place of the BP anyway), so it would be great if there could be a replacement option with no BP provided that solved the HazMat issue.

Click to expand...

It's both. The delay is also a hazmat item as it is a propellant.

tbonerocketeer said:

It's both. The delay is also a hazmat item as it is a propellant.

Click to expand...

I don't know why CTI hasn't handled this, but they could get this stuff shippable USPS ground.https://www.nar.org/pdf/shipping_rocket_motors.pdf

DavidMcCann said:

I don't know why CTI hasn't handled this, but they could get this stuff shippable USPS ground.https://www.nar.org/pdf/shipping_rocket_motors.pdf

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. In this instance that would truly be the best way to handle this mess. For that matter they could pay for FedEx shipping of replacement closures to their dealers. Their warranty service agreement whereby dealers pay for shipping of replacement parts may be appropriate for the occasional Cato, but this is a larger scale problem that was arguably caused by a materials QA failure at Cesaroni.

patelldp said:

Somewhere, Tony Alcocer is salivating at the idea of several hundred pristine Pro38 forward closures!

Click to expand...

Funny..I was thinking that. But I do so few CTI 38mm Research motors, that I'm good with what I have.

Tony

Think a forward closure from an I540 would work on a I345. I had planned to launch the I345 soon buts its in the questionable date range. How interchangeable are CTI forward closures if you stay with 38mm motors?

Forgive me if this is a newb-ish thought, but this is only my second year as a BAR, and my first rodeo with a bulletin/recall.

There was something bothering me about this bulletin, but it's taken me this long to putmy finger on it: NOWHERE in the bulletin does it state that they've requested that any of the of the vendors to mark the affected lots for quick identification, nor have they requested that the stock not be sold until/unless replacement closures can be issued with them AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE.

Maybe it’s just me, but that just doesn’t sit right with me.

Maybe there’s another letter out there that went straight to the vendors?

I’m putting together a motor order now, and wondering if I ought to fly AT this summer for 38mm loads. So far, I have only 2 motors in the identified range, with only 1 bad closure, but I’m not sure that I want to risk spending money on motors I potentially can’t fly.

It would be nice to see a vendor response about their stock (“Reviewed and quarantined”,“I’m not sending any bad ones out”, “None on the shelf”, etc.)

Banzai88 said:

Forgive me if this is a newb-ish thought, but this is only my second year as a BAR, and my first rodeo with a bulletin/recall.

There was something bothering me about this bulletin, but it's taken me this long to putmy finger on it: NOWHERE in the bulletin does it state that they've requested that any of the of the vendors to mark the affected lots for quick identification, nor have they requested that the stock not be sold until/unless replacement closures can be issued with them AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE.

Maybe it’s just me, but that just doesn’t sit right with me.

Maybe there’s another letter out there that went straight to the vendors?

I’m putting together a motor order now, and wondering if I ought to fly AT this summer for 38mm loads. So far, I have only 2 motors in the identified range, with only 1 bad closure, but I’m not sure that I want to risk spending money on motors I potentially can’t fly.

It would be nice to see a vendor response about their stock (“Reviewed and quarantined”,“I’m not sending any bad ones out”, “None on the shelf”, etc.)

Click to expand...

I will not sell anymore 38's unless I tell you about the problem and you are willing to take the risk.
There is no way to mark effected reloads unless you are getting new stock in and I don't think anybody is right now at least not in any real quantity .
How did you identify your bad motors ?if you received any motors from us since December of last year you have suspect loads.

WILDMANRS said:

How did you identify your bad motors ?if you received any motors from us since December of last year you have suspect loads.

Click to expand...

Tim- I have an I470WT that I got from you about 2 months ago that I was going to fly in a few weeks. According to the date code on the package, it was made in June 2015, which I think puts me in the clear. I'm not sure when you got this in, but I think checking the date codes would at least narrow down which ones are suspect.

djs said:

...According to the date code on the package, it was made in June 2015, which I think puts me in the clear.

Click to expand...

Those date codes do not "put you in the clear". They indicate the propellant casting date, which is not necessarily associated with this forward closure issue. This fact comes directly from CTI.

wighty44 said:

Those date codes do not "put you in the clear". They indicate the propellant casting date, which is not necessarily associated with this forward closure issue. This fact comes directly from CTI.

Click to expand...

good to know- thanks for the info!

Like many Pro38 users, I struggle (based on the CTI bulletin) to tell the good from the bad closures. Just recently I was sent side-by-side (Good-Bad) set of comparison photos that could be useful, but I want to get CTI's opinion on them before posting them because I would not want to lead people in a wrong direction

I think it is not possible to determine the bad delays by optical inspection, I have a Pro38 from 2009 with a delay element which looks exactyl like the bad one in the Bulletin.

thomas said:

... I have a Pro38 from 2009 with a delay element which looks exactly like the bad one in the Bulletin.

Click to expand...

Do you have a bulletin that shows pictures? If so can you post it, or a link to it?

The one I saw from CTI did not have any pictures. Instead it attempted to describe how one might determine a good vs. bad closure.

See post #1

thomas said:

I think it is not possible to determine the bad delays by optical inspection, I have a Pro38 from 2009 with a delay element which looks exactyl like the bad one in the Bulletin.

Click to expand...

I think you're right. I did the same with a 2013-dated motor... you really can't tell the difference, so I don't know if the only questionable motor that I have on hand (dated Jan 2016) is good or not. I got it from Tim, which is a good thing because I know he's going to be one of the first vendors to get the new closures from CTI, but the big question is "when"...

cerving said:

I think you're right. I did the same with a 2013-dated motor... you really can't tell the difference, so I don't know if the only questionable motor that I have on hand (dated Jan 2016) is good or not. I got it from Tim, which is a good thing because I know he's going to be one of the first vendors to get the new closures from CTI, but the big question is "when"...

Click to expand...

....and how much it's going to cost those of us who have mail ordered to get replacement closures.