Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 59 of 59
  1. #31
    Join Date
    6th September 2009
    Posts
    1,466
    Quote Originally Posted by Handeman View Post
    So you're not really doing dual deployment. You're using JLCR with electronic apogee charges instead of motor eject.
    Huh? Any two events counts as dual deployment in my book. Using 4 electronics to accomplish that is, well, kinda nuts.


  2. #32
    Join Date
    30th January 2016
    Location
    US > OK > NE
    Posts
    2,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Handeman View Post
    If i use the wrong definitions or distinctions I'm really sorry.

    Why don't you publish what is 1.0, 2.0 or whatever variations you feel are needed so we don't get confused and use the wrong ones in the future.
    I got bit by the they-can't-see-me-waggling-my-eyebrows-and-smiling-impishly text problem :-D

    JLCR's have two discrete events, that makes them DD in my books, same as prairie cutters or tinder descenders.

    I have only heard of a few flights with three events, none with four or more.


  3. #33
    Join Date
    17th December 2013
    Location
    Slagle, La
    Posts
    1,070
    Airstart
    Stage separation/booster chute deploy
    Apogee/drogue for sustainer
    Main for sustainer

    4 events

    Or are you talking four deployment events?

    Adept Rocketry claims to have coined Dual Deployment and the term is a trademark of Adept Rocketry. Says so right there on their site. And they use dual event altimeters to achieve dual deployment. So to be true DD you would have to use a dual event altimeter. Right?

    But wouldn't "dual" deploy mean two things deploying, ie two chutes?

    So using a dual event altimeter with two chutes is DD 1.0, because it is the original.
    Then came drogueless I would guess: DD 2.0, or is that DD 0.5 since you only have one chute? So using a JLCR would be DD 0.75? What about using the JLCR with a drogue?

    In single break birds I use an altimeter for apogee then a JLCR for main. Sounds like dual deploy but I am only deploying one thing. Hmmm. I am gonna be like I am in Congress and just sit here on this fence.
    Last edited by MikeyDSlagle; 19th June 2017 at 09:49 PM.
    Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
    TRA #16513
    Level 1: Danger Close ---AT H123W to 1240'--- 29 OCT 2016

  4. #34
    Join Date
    5th December 2013
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    6,239
    To me, the strictest sense of "dual deployment" means deploying two chutes at two different times. So JLCR and cable-cutters aren't really dual deployment. But, since they accomplish the same thing, i.e., delaying the opening of the main parachute, they could slide in under a looser definition.
    John S. ---- NAR #96911 ---- TRA #15253 ---- MDRA #067 ---- BARC #028
    L1, 3/15/14: Aerotech Sumo, CTI H133BS
    L2, 6/21/14: Giant Leap Vertical Assault, CTI J240RL
    L3, 3/12/16: MAC Performance Radial Flyer, CTI M1101WH
    Altitude: 13,028', L3 flight; Speed: Mach ???, L3 flight

  5. #35
    Join Date
    6th September 2009
    Posts
    1,466
    Man, the Rocketry Elite are out in force in this thread! So, drogueless doesn't count as DD, either?

    Any 2 events that create 2 different descent rates (ballistic does not qualify!) is dual deploy.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    5th December 2013
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
    Man, the Rocketry Elite are out in force in this thread! So, drogueless doesn't count as DD, either?

    Any 2 events that create 2 different descent rates (ballistic does not qualify!) is dual deploy.
    Not looking for a fight, and I don't personally care what anybody calls it. But in the strictest sense, "deployment" indicates that something was "deployed," which literally means "to be put into use. In a drogueless, nothing is being put into use.

    Whoever it was above who distinguished between dual "deployment" and dual "event" was right, in the strictest sense. Any event is an occurrence of something, like an apogee separation, regardless of whether or not there is a drogue associated with it. But in a "deployment," something has to come out.

    But like I said, I don't really care. It's like "further" and "farther." I know the difference, but I'm not going to pick on those who don't.
    John S. ---- NAR #96911 ---- TRA #15253 ---- MDRA #067 ---- BARC #028
    L1, 3/15/14: Aerotech Sumo, CTI H133BS
    L2, 6/21/14: Giant Leap Vertical Assault, CTI J240RL
    L3, 3/12/16: MAC Performance Radial Flyer, CTI M1101WH
    Altitude: 13,028', L3 flight; Speed: Mach ???, L3 flight

  7. #37
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,457
    Just to twist this thread a different direction......

    "It's not preached as loudly as it should be. The apogee event is the most important part of dual deployment."

    Agree -- then why do we allow L3's with "errant" apogee events to pass.
    An L3 should be required to get it right.

    Just sayin.......
    Fred Azinger

  8. #38
    Join Date
    15th July 2015
    Location
    Tidewater area of Virginia
    Posts
    1,378
    IBTL
    ATCS(AW) Tom Keith, USN, ret. _____NAR 99781 L1_____MDRA 212
    SEVRA, NAR 621http://www.sevra.org/ Tripoli East North Carolina (Bayboro), TRA #65, http://ncrockets.org/, MDRA http://www.mdrocketry.org/
    LVL 1 24 October 2015, Leviathan, CTI H133, 2469 ft, Bayboro
    LVL 2 Soon, Super DX3, AT J420 Redline, est 3500 ft, Bayboro or MDRA

  9. #39
    Join Date
    6th September 2009
    Posts
    1,466
    Shock cords are deployed.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    5th December 2013
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Buckeye View Post
    Shock cords are deployed.
    True. And some dog barf, perhaps. Ejection gasses, too. But you know what I mean.
    John S. ---- NAR #96911 ---- TRA #15253 ---- MDRA #067 ---- BARC #028
    L1, 3/15/14: Aerotech Sumo, CTI H133BS
    L2, 6/21/14: Giant Leap Vertical Assault, CTI J240RL
    L3, 3/12/16: MAC Performance Radial Flyer, CTI M1101WH
    Altitude: 13,028', L3 flight; Speed: Mach ???, L3 flight

  11. #41
    Join Date
    6th September 2009
    Posts
    1,466
    Quote Originally Posted by FredA View Post
    Just to twist this thread a different direction......

    "It's not preached as loudly as it should be. The apogee event is the most important part of dual deployment."

    Agree -- then why do we allow L3's with "errant" apogee events to pass.
    An L3 should be required to get it right.

    Just sayin.......
    Ooh, yeah. This L3 cert topic has derailed many threads in the past! But, I agree with you. A successful mission is more important than bulletproof construction when it comes to certification.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    15th July 2015
    Location
    Tidewater area of Virginia
    Posts
    1,378
    Hey, we've forgotten the ever popular "Duel Deploy", where the deployment events fight each other. Where does that rank on the scale?
    ATCS(AW) Tom Keith, USN, ret. _____NAR 99781 L1_____MDRA 212
    SEVRA, NAR 621http://www.sevra.org/ Tripoli East North Carolina (Bayboro), TRA #65, http://ncrockets.org/, MDRA http://www.mdrocketry.org/
    LVL 1 24 October 2015, Leviathan, CTI H133, 2469 ft, Bayboro
    LVL 2 Soon, Super DX3, AT J420 Redline, est 3500 ft, Bayboro or MDRA

  13. #43
    Join Date
    30th January 2016
    Location
    US > OK > NE
    Posts
    2,823
    If someone had an airframe that bent at 45 °from the nose for the first event, thus radically increasing the drag; then split the aft into chopper blades 1,000 ft up....

    This would be a no-deployment recovery?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    14th March 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Banzai88 View Post
    Hey, we've forgotten the ever popular "Duel Deploy", where the deployment events fight each other. Where does that rank on the scale?
    I prefer the term Burr-Hamilton deploy.
    Zeus-cat
    NAR# 92125 L1
    Total Impulse for 2017: 1,493.8 N/s Flights: 56
    2017: 1/2A:0, A:6, B:11, C:2, D:12, E:4, F:1, G: I have NEVER launched a G motor, H:1, I:1

  15. #45
    Join Date
    6th September 2009
    Posts
    1,466
    My favorite, Hillbilly Dual Deploy.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Location
    Butte, MT
    Posts
    1,732

    Dual Deployment Quandary

    Quote Originally Posted by FredA View Post
    Just to twist this thread a different direction......

    "It's not preached as loudly as it should be. The apogee event is the most important part of dual deployment."

    Agree -- then why do we allow L3's with "errant" apogee events to pass.
    An L3 should be required to get it right.

    Just sayin.......
    I don't know, but that's a question better asked in the TAP forum on the Tripoli website.
    Steve Shannon
    L3CC, TAP, Director, Tripoli Rocketry Association

  17. #47
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Savannnah, Ga
    Posts
    7,463
    Quote Originally Posted by FredA View Post
    Just to twist this thread a different direction......

    "It's not preached as loudly as it should be. The apogee event is the most important part of dual deployment."

    Agree -- then why do we allow L3's with "errant" apogee events to pass.
    An L3 should be required to get it right.

    Just sayin.......

    On this we both agree.

    Having said that, [I am a TAP] I must follow the rule of law....just like in the guberment.
    We may not like/agree with it, but our job is enforcement, if it changes back, then we can also.
    Last edited by blackjack2564; 20th June 2017 at 05:30 PM.
    Jim Hendricksen
    L-3 Tripoli 9693
    [ICBM, Orangeburg,SC R.I.P.] - QCRS ,Princeton ILL - MDRA , Price Maryland - Woosh, Bong Wisconsin- ROCC, Charlotte NC , ICBM Camden SC
    "Made" member of Chicago & Carolina Rocket Mafia
    Rocketry...........an exact science.......but not exactly !!!

  18. #48
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,457
    "On this we both agree.

    Having said that, [I am a TAP] I must follow the rule of law....just like in the guberment.
    We may not like/agree with it, but our job is enforcement, if it changes back, then we can also. "


    That's why I bailed on TAP-ship. Wasn't putting my name on the dotted line for what I believe in my heart is a failure.
    I'd post on the "TRA TAP FORUM" but that is a closed forum for TAP's only.
    That's why I chose to hit on Steve's comment since he's the man..........
    Fred Azinger

  19. #49
    Join Date
    23rd March 2011
    Location
    Germantown, Ohio
    Posts
    325
    Fred & Jim: I agree with both of you. If you look at the last sentence on the TRA L3 page: Any other legitimate reason the TAP member deems merits non-certification. I tell all the TRA L3 candidates that their rocket MUST follow the designed flight plan or they will fail. If they pop the main at apogee, they will drift outside of our waiver cylinder. Unless they have a VERY low flight. No issues so far......
    Gary Dickinson - Prefect
    Tripoli Mid Ohio #31
    TRA #5520 - L3 - TAP

  20. #50
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,457
    "I tell all the TRA L3 candidates that their rocket MUST follow the designed flight plan or they will fail."

    I tried that under the umbrella of TAP discretion. Was told that was unfair and I need to stop immediately....so I did.

    Let it go - don't want the "IBTL" trolls to be right.
    Fred Azinger

  21. #51
    Join Date
    23rd March 2011
    Location
    Germantown, Ohio
    Posts
    325
    Yup. Sigh......
    Gary Dickinson - Prefect
    Tripoli Mid Ohio #31
    TRA #5520 - L3 - TAP

  22. #52
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Location
    So Cal (ROC, TRASD, SCRA)
    Posts
    2,366
    Quote Originally Posted by FredA View Post
    "I tell all the TRA L3 candidates that their rocket MUST follow the designed flight plan or they will fail."

    I tried that under the umbrella of TAP discretion. Was told that was unfair and I need to stop immediately....so I did.

    Let it go - don't want the "IBTL" trolls to be right.
    Not trolling, but doesn't it seem reasonable that if you're going for your L3, which is supposed to be the pinnacle of achievement in hobby rocketry, that you should be able to model your flight accurately and have that flight execute your model with all events occurring nominally within a reasonable tolerance? That being said, I've never heard of a TAP asking to see the data from the flight computer before he'd sign off...

  23. #53
    Join Date
    17th December 2013
    Location
    Slagle, La
    Posts
    1,070
    Looks like the thread is derailed a bit anyway so...
    I am nowhere near L3 but I would think on a L3 cert flight you should get it right. You say it pops a droque at apogee and it pops main, that should absolutely be a failure. If you say you will pop the main at apogee then fine. Altitude...well I fail to hit altitude on most of my sims, something is always off, I wouldn't want to have to hit a target altitude. Unless they check altimeters...but there are some dual deployment devices that do not record altitude.
    Event wise, recovery wise, you should be able to follow a flight plan. But I am only a low L1.
    Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
    TRA #16513
    Level 1: Danger Close ---AT H123W to 1240'--- 29 OCT 2016

  24. #54
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Location
    Butte, MT
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by FredA View Post
    "On this we both agree.

    Having said that, [I am a TAP] I must follow the rule of law....just like in the guberment.
    We may not like/agree with it, but our job is enforcement, if it changes back, then we can also. "


    That's why I bailed on TAP-ship. Wasn't putting my name on the dotted line for what I believe in my heart is a failure.
    I'd post on the "TRA TAP FORUM" but that is a closed forum for TAP's only.
    That's why I chose to hit on Steve's comment since he's the man..........
    Fred,
    I'd be happy to discuss it in email or on the members forum on the Tripoli website. I just don't want to hijack this thread. I'm bad at that as it is.
    Steve Shannon
    L3CC, TAP, Director, Tripoli Rocketry Association

  25. #55
    Join Date
    23rd November 2013
    Posts
    2,085
    Ok, this has raised a question for me, just seeking opinions of those who have weighed in here already.

    I am preparing to go for my L3, about a year from now, frankly waiting on a suitable kit to go on sale.

    So you know I am building firm a kit, thoughts on this.

    I also plan to use redundant altimeters. Let's say my fly appears to go perfectly from the ground but on inspection it is apparent one of my altimeters failed.................


    Ok, my kit built rocket appears to fly perfectly, but on inspection one altimeter filed to work properly..........in your opinions, did I pass?

    And please make suggestions for a kit.............

  26. #56
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Location
    Butte, MT
    Posts
    1,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowpuller View Post
    Ok, this has raised a question for me, just seeking opinions of those who have weighed in here already.

    I am preparing to go for my L3, about a year from now, frankly waiting on a suitable kit to go on sale.

    So you know I am building firm a kit, thoughts on this.

    I also plan to use redundant altimeters. Let's say my fly appears to go perfectly from the ground but on inspection it is apparent one of my altimeters failed.................


    Ok, my kit built rocket appears to fly perfectly, but on inspection one altimeter filed to work properly..........in your opinions, did I pass?

    And please make suggestions for a kit.............
    I won't make a suggestion for a kit; there are many out there.

    An important thing is to discuss with your TAPs what conditions would result in failure. When you're ready, ask your TAPs this question.
    If I were your TAP and you asked me here is what I would say: The reason redundant electronics are required is in case one of them fails. The whole idea is so that people learn and perfect techniques that result in safe flights. So, yes, if one altimeter fails during flight but the other works correctly, I would sign off on your flight.
    However, it's also a test of your knowledge and judgment. If I discovered that you wired your altimeter incorrectly, or heard one beep, got excited and forgot to turn on the second, I would really have to think about it.



    Steve Shannon
    Steve Shannon
    L3CC, TAP, Director, Tripoli Rocketry Association

  27. #57
    Join Date
    11th April 2017
    Location
    Brisbane Australia
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by Bat-mite View Post

    But like I said, I don't really care. It's like "further" and "farther." I know the difference, but I'm not going to pick on those who don't.

    Today I learned the difference between "further" and "farther"...

    ;^)
    Reasonably new to rocketry and hailing from the land down under.. I speak metric... I know not of these feet and inches you speak of...

    QRS: #193
    AMRS: #148

  28. #58
    Join Date
    18th January 2009
    Location
    Savannnah, Ga
    Posts
    7,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowpuller View Post

    Ok, my kit built rocket appears to fly perfectly, but on inspection one altimeter filed to work properly..........in your opinions, did I pass?

    And please make suggestions for a kit.............

    Yes you pass if not YOUR fault......as mentioned, reason for dual avionics.

    L-3 your rocket should "fit the field' you are flying on.
    I think you fly with me at Camden?? If so a 4in and most 5's will bust the waiver 10,000.

    And you know, unless absolute perfect conditions prevail, you don't want to go near that.

    6 inch and above would be entry point , unless you plan to attempt somewhere else.
    If your gonna fly where there is a higher waiver & GOOD recovery area 15,000 or more, now you open door to 4 inch kits.
    6in on a small M will hit 5-8000 depending on weight & drag. [3-6fins?]
    What say you?
    Then we can recommend some things.
    Jim Hendricksen
    L-3 Tripoli 9693
    [ICBM, Orangeburg,SC R.I.P.] - QCRS ,Princeton ILL - MDRA , Price Maryland - Woosh, Bong Wisconsin- ROCC, Charlotte NC , ICBM Camden SC
    "Made" member of Chicago & Carolina Rocket Mafia
    Rocketry...........an exact science.......but not exactly !!!

  29. #59
    Join Date
    23rd March 2011
    Location
    Germantown, Ohio
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Lowpuller View Post
    Ok, this has raised a question for me, just seeking opinions of those who have weighed in here already.

    I am preparing to go for my L3, about a year from now, frankly waiting on a suitable kit to go on sale.

    So you know I am building firm a kit, thoughts on this.

    I also plan to use redundant altimeters. Let's say my fly appears to go perfectly from the ground but on inspection it is apparent one of my altimeters failed.................


    Ok, my kit built rocket appears to fly perfectly, but on inspection one altimeter filed to work properly..........in your opinions, did I pass?

    And please make suggestions for a kit.............
    Yes, I would pass you. Crazy Jim' suggestions based on field size are spot on too.

    Gary Dickinson - Prefect
    Tripoli Mid Ohio #31
    TRA #5520 - L3 - TAP

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 5th January 2017, 04:48 AM
  2. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 5th March 2015, 12:52 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1st July 2013, 06:48 PM
  4. small quandary
    By Mike Howie in forum The Watering Hole
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 8th September 2010, 02:39 AM
  5. Dual Deployment
    By AlexM in forum High Power Rocketry (HPR)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 28th June 2004, 11:31 PM

Posting Permissions

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