Should you kit an L3 cert?

the rocketry show
Advertise with us
Onebadhawk
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Binder Design said:
It's also about skill. If it was all about safety, they would allow Max Q Aerospace fin cans that have been proven to mach 5. But they take basically no skill to assemble.
Click to expand...

But............ If a skilled candidate machines their own fincan, it would be allowed for an L3 attempt. In that case, it would behoove the candidate to approach whoever is responsible for the certification process, Taps or whatever
and show them their "tools" setup so they know the candidate is truly the builder and didn't just buy it from you!:wink::facepalm:
Kurt
 
ksaves2 said:
But............ If a skilled candidate machines their own fincan, it would be allowed for an L3 attempt. In that case, it would behoove the candidate to approach whoever is responsible for the certification process, Taps or whatever
and show them their "tools" setup so they know the candidate is truly the builder and didn't just buy it from you!:wink::facepalm:
Kurt
Click to expand...

That is true for any fin can, composite or metal. It must be fabricated by the L3 candidate. Where "fabricated" means not just putting some screws in it.
 
Man, what was with the piling onto Fred? As far as I can tell he is a great guy, highly respected, and he clearly labelled his opinions as such.
 
watermelonman said:
Man, what was with the piling onto Fred? As far as I can tell he is a great guy, highly respected, and he clearly labelled his opinions as such.
Click to expand...

Personally, I gave my opinion of his opinion. I don't see why people can't handle that.... If you put an opinion out there, be ready for people to disagree with it.
 
I've already placed what I thought was required of a level three build. Which was to fabricate your own parts. In light of this thread, i'm not going to do that. To be honest I don't feel bad for not doing it either. Not because others aren't but because I think the requirement doesn't expect a person to get a college education to build a level three rocket.
Doesn't mean i'm going to buy a kit though either. For me, i'm going to buy a level two kit and for level three i'll go the route of designing my own in open rocket or rock sim and buy lengths of FG tube to cut to length. Basically i'll buy parts for my own design to build my own rocket.
The certification is in fact to show competency in safe flight for the rocket built.
That being said in my opinion I also think that getting all three certifications in one year doesn't allow for a whole lot of learning. For me, I intend on flying a lot L1/L2 motors with different rocket parameters and field conditions so I know, I, myself, am confident in safe flight of several types of flight environments before a level three attempt. I plan to conduct dual deploy prior to a level three and get a Ham radio license far in advance of level three.

In my new found opinion I feel like rocketry really isn't a race and having safe fun is what it is about. Beyond all of that why get a level three just to say I have it when in all honesty a level three takes, from what I understand A TON more prep time to fly one rocket and a lot more money put into one rocket that could easily be placed into several rockets and have just as much if not more fun doing it.

My new found opinion.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely right. A big rocket takes multiple people to get it on the pad, is way more expensive to own and operate, and way too expensive to fly frequently (for most people). But there is a thrill in it that is not as satisfying as with smaller rockets, IMO. Anyway, I am Level 3, but I mostly fly G thru J impulse.
 
It is considered that using a prefabricated metal fincan made by someone else for an L3 project at least in TRA, doesn't demonstrate sufficient skill of the builder. Some folks can't make the investment in tools, bandsaw, scroll saw, large sanders or
not have the facilities for same. I do not, nor do the ruling authorities consider pre-cut parts as a significant shortcut as the builder still has to construct the major assemblies, choose the appropriate adhesives/hardware, fiberglass or not to fiberglass? etc.
Cutting out a part really doesn't demonstrate the skill that's needed to put it together and make a viable rocket that can deal with the aerodynamic stresses expected. Hence kits are allowed. Many projects are really not kits in a main sense (Wildman excluded) as they are simply a collection of parts that one has to figure out on their own how to put together to make a viable project. I said WM excluded and there are probably others as there are instructions that are available for recommended
construction steps. In fact build a few rockets using instructions and it will provide a basis of skills one can apply to any project. Nothing wrong with kits.

Kurt
 
20161014_220424.jpg
DavidMcCann said:
That's the Idea.

But in a less inflammatory way- A kit is a collection of parts, and I've never really seen two kits built the same. You're really just talking about cutting them out yourself or not.... unless you're talking about rolling your own tubes, which just....no.
Click to expand...

It isn't that bad.:)
 
My thoughts as someone new to organized sport rocketry:

The L3 process for either Tripoli or NAR requires documentation by the builder and then observation by experienced L3 members of the organization.
I think they're able to ascertain that a builder is knowledgeable and careful in his design whether its scratch-built or a kit. If the builder is irresponsible or incapable, they'll be able to figure it out even if they're using the simplest L3 capable kit. Forethought, planning, and technical problem solving are still needed (and flying sense).
 
I'm getting into this a little late, but my experience is a little unique. It took me 3 tries to get my L3. My first two attempts were with a scratch-built upscale Estes Der V-3. First failure was an M2250 CATO. The rocket repair wasn't too hard, so I rebuilt it and tried again. Second failure the main got tangled in the chute bag and never deployed. This time the damage was so extensive it wasn't worth the effort to rebuild. I waited a year and decided to go the kit route for 3 reasons... 1. It was a lot less expensive. 2. I wanted to go fiberglass so I could fly something more resilient, and scratch-building a FG rocket was going to be real expensive. 3. The third try was going to be focused on simplicity, and time savings. Get the thing up. Get it down. Get certified.

All that being said, the most important aspect of an L3 effort is to be able to build and fly a rocket that can handle the stresses of M+ power. Whether it is a kit or a scratch-build, there are things you must do for an L3 Certification that makes the build that much more complex. In my case I had to fabricate a weight to ensure I would not bust a waiver. Plus you still have to build an AV Bay, develop a recovery system, etc. At the end of the day, the kit didn't take away that much time apart from sanding fins.

The third flight I was very confident...not because I had built a kit but because I knew I built the rocket well, with parts and electronics with which I was very familiar. So if I ever get into a situation where I am a CC I will treat scratch-builds and kits equally.

This video shows my progress from mid power to L3, and includes the failures along the way.

[YOUTUBE]3FAkiWLSRqg[/YOUTUBE]
 
EeebeeE said:
I'm getting into this a little late, but my experience is a little unique. It took me 3 tries to get my L3. My first two attempts were with a scratch-built upscale Estes Der V-3. First failure was an M2250 CATO. The rocket repair wasn't too hard, so I rebuilt it and tried again. Second failure the main got tangled in the chute bag and never deployed. This time the damage was so extensive it wasn't worth the effort to rebuild. I waited a year and decided to go the kit route for 3 reasons... 1. It was a lot less expensive. 2. I wanted to go fiberglass so I could fly something more resilient, and scratch-building a FG rocket was going to be real expensive. 3. The third try was going to be focused on simplicity, and time savings. Get the thing up. Get it down. Get certified.

All that being said, the most important aspect of an L3 effort is to be able to build and fly a rocket that can handle the stresses of M+ power. Whether it is a kit or a scratch-build, there are things you must do for an L3 Certification that makes the build that much more complex. In my case I had to fabricate a weight to ensure I would not bust a waiver. Plus you still have to build an AV Bay, develop a recovery system, etc. At the end of the day, the kit didn't take away that much time apart from sanding fins.

The third flight I was very confident...not because I had built a kit but because I knew I built the rocket well, with parts and electronics with which I was very familiar. So if I ever get into a situation where I am a CC I will treat scratch-builds and kits equally.

This video shows my progress from mid power to L3, and includes the failures along the way.

[YOUTUBE]3FAkiWLSRqg[/YOUTUBE]
Click to expand...

That is a fantastic video!
What were you using for a camera and editing?
 
EeebeeE said:
I'm getting into this a little late, but my experience is a little unique. It took me 3 tries to get my L3. My first two attempts were with a scratch-built upscale Estes Der V-3. First failure was an M2250 CATO. The rocket repair wasn't too hard, so I rebuilt it and tried again. Second failure the main got tangled in the chute bag and never deployed. This time the damage was so extensive it wasn't worth the effort to rebuild. I waited a year and decided to go the kit route for 3 reasons... 1. It was a lot less expensive. 2. I wanted to go fiberglass so I could fly something more resilient, and scratch-building a FG rocket was going to be real expensive. 3. The third try was going to be focused on simplicity, and time savings. Get the thing up. Get it down. Get certified.

All that being said, the most important aspect of an L3 effort is to be able to build and fly a rocket that can handle the stresses of M+ power. Whether it is a kit or a scratch-build, there are things you must do for an L3 Certification that makes the build that much more complex. In my case I had to fabricate a weight to ensure I would not bust a waiver. Plus you still have to build an AV Bay, develop a recovery system, etc. At the end of the day, the kit didn't take away that much time apart from sanding fins.

The third flight I was very confident...not because I had built a kit but because I knew I built the rocket well, with parts and electronics with which I was very familiar. So if I ever get into a situation where I am a CC I will treat scratch-builds and kits equally.

This video shows my progress from mid power to L3, and includes the failures along the way.

[YOUTUBE]3FAkiWLSRqg[/YOUTUBE]
Click to expand...

Wow! Fantastic documentary (docudrama?) footage! I wish I had done something similar. Sorry about the failures but you probably learned more than those who go 1-2-3 without such experience. That successful L3 flight was BEAUTIFUL!

To the point of the thread, my philosophy is simple: Follow the rules under the direction of your TAPs or L3CCs and I'm a happy camper. If you have strong opinions about the requirements for a given level, petition your particular organization, gain support and lobby the change. I wouldn't be opposed to increased standards but that is easy to say from this side of the certification window.
 

Similar threads

Chokedflow
Hello, intro & L3 composite on N5800
Replies
5
Views
716
Chokedflow
Chokedflow
MNTrailBoss
TVC Prime Time
Replies
13
Views
510
Rschub
Rschub
Velocity Aerospace
Genesis II scratch build
Replies
27
Views
1K
kjhambrick
K
loopy
LOC VII for L3?
Replies
17
Views
2K
RocketmanAleks
RocketmanAleks
conneryc
6" or larger Little John
Replies
14
Views
1K
dbpeirce
dbpeirce

Latest posts

Back
Top