Help Support RocketryForum by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 60
  1. #1
    Join Date
    25th July 2017
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    16

    L2 Failure, CTI Pro38 J357 CATO

    ďExperience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted. And experience is often the most valuable thing you have to offer.Ē -Randy Pausch


    This morning I attempted a L2 certification flight at the Pawnee National Grasslands, which ended with a CTI Pro 38 J357 Blue Streak motor CATO due to rear closure failure (motor date code I believe was November 2016?). The on site motor vendor Moto Joe was awesome and replaced the motor and kept the original packaging.

    Upon examination of the on board 808 video footage, it is clear the 5 grain case separates from the threaded rear closure while still under boost, pushing out the single deploy main chute on its way to freedom. Because this was a cert flight I had kept things simple (single deploy) so the payload section was empty with only the 11/32Ē Kevlar harness connecting the nosecone to ebay.

    At this point the motor impacts the ebay/payload section with enough force to shear my switch band from the coupler, plow 3 plastic rivets through almost 1Ē of cardboard air frame, and shear the 3 #2-56 nylon shear screws joining the nose cone to the payload tube. Apparently due to the sudden pressure drop, the 5 burning fuel grains promptly self-extinguished, of which 2 partially burned grains were later recovered, one on the range, one still stuck in the liner. These will be a bittersweet consolation prize at next week's elk hunting camp fire.

    I had previously assembled exactly (and only) one Pro 38 motor, an I345 3 grain for my L1 cert last month which had a picture perfect flight.

    I assembled this J357 motor under quiet and controlled circumstances in my kitchen. I have a BSME and routinely specify and personally machine threading for a living. I assembled the rear closure until it was snug and just a hair more. Snug, hand tight, but most certainly not over tight. A gap of less than 1/16Ē was clearly visible between the rear closure and case. The threads were not cross threaded. I never removed the nozzle from the liner, though I did pop the foreward closure to drill the delay.

    It appears to me the seal between the rear closure O-ring and liner failed. The O-ring is visibly eroded, there is a hole in the liner in this area, and there are burn marks on the case. Itís then surmisable that the plastic rear closure threads heated, softened, and failed.

    Remarkably, my DX3ís booster section is essentially undamaged. The nosecone shoulder zippered from high speed deployment, but can be repaired with some PE plastic welding. The payload section is banged up but I think I can repair it well enough for another single deploy flight since the entire NC/payload section won't need to separate. The 60" spherachute gore seam stitching show signs of stress from high speed deployment, but I think it's good enough to use again.

    I would like to learn anything I can from this experience and welcome any and all opinions and constructive advice. I have submitted a MESS report and assume the vendor will report to CTI.

    The motor case fell from a couple hundred feet up. It looks OK at first glance but the there is a tiny flat spot now on the threaded end, it's now a bit out of round. I tried threading in a spent I345 closure and it threads in fine, but this is now one more thing to wonder about...

    The replacement J357 motor is from 2014, and apparently before the Pro38 forward closure issues. It's tempting to thread this motor into the case with epoxy on the threads and then toss the whole thing... I've had great luck with Pro29s, but 50% success with the 38s has me wondering about trying AT in this size.

    Sad ground and on-board video here, pictures below:

    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	0781c4f9-85dc-45b1-a4ed-8e18a07fcb64-o.jpg 
Views:	122 
Size:	239.8 KB 
ID:	329782   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	preflight_happiness.jpg 
Views:	117 
Size:	184.8 KB 
ID:	329783   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mach_diamonds.jpg 
Views:	101 
Size:	116.8 KB 
ID:	329784   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DSC02068 - Copy.jpg 
Views:	96 
Size:	52.3 KB 
ID:	329785   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	vlcsnap-2017-10-08-15h04m26s079.jpg 
Views:	103 
Size:	131.3 KB 
ID:	329786  

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	yardsale_3grains_leaving_booster.jpg 
Views:	105 
Size:	278.1 KB 
ID:	329787   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	eroded_Oring.jpg 
Views:	129 
Size:	66.8 KB 
ID:	329788   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	melted_liner.jpg 
Views:	113 
Size:	262.6 KB 
ID:	329789   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_2409.jpg 
Views:	112 
Size:	121.5 KB 
ID:	329790  
    TRA 17281
    NAR 104429
    L1: 9/16/17, 4" Blue Angels Super DX3 - I345 to 1,733' ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggnm6cXzij8 )
    L2: 12/2/17, 4" Blue Angels Super DX3 - J350 to 3,284' ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiTEJRBfsdI )
    Alt/Speed: 12/2/17, 54mm MAC Scorpion XL - J357 to 7,884' at 637 mph

  2. #2
    Join Date
    21st December 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    454
    Did you check the seal before you put it together? Would recommend that check out the motor before use. Consider greasing the oring while your at it.

    QRS: 124
    AMRS: 32 L2
    Highest Altitude: 10,849 feet
    Largest Motor: CTI 1115J530 IM
    Current Projects:
    Purple Parrot, X Wing


  3. #3
    Join Date
    20th January 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    794
    Sorry to see that. While I have not flown that motor, I have flown several Pro-38 motors. I've also seen MANY Pro-38 motors flown and I have never seen that failure. Your assembly of the motor mirrors mine. I have never greased anything except a very light grease of the inside of the case. That is only to facilitate easy removal of the post flight waste. There is no mention of grease of any kind in the Pro-38 instructions. Even though the motor was dated as 2014, I would contact your vendor. Also, please fill out a MESS report. I hope you are able to get satisfaction from your motor vendor. I also hope you get to use CTI motors again. I use both CTI and Aerotech. You'll get the cert. next time. It's a drag to lose it when it wasn't your fault.
    Len Bryan
    CAR-ACF S620 L3, NAR 98782 L2, Tripoli 10220 L2

  4. #4
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,055
    threading plastic into metal is just a bad design. seen it many times, some day multiple times in a day. There's a reason they moved to a metal closure when they made the 29's. No idea why they didn't fix the 38's back then too.

    Loki and AT make nice 38's.
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  5. #5
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Location
    Butte, MT
    Posts
    2,112

    L2 Failure, CTI Pro38 J357 CATO

    Joe is a terrific guy and a very upstanding vendor. Iím not at all surprised that he took care of you.
    Iíve flow or seen flown hundreds of Pro38 motors. I have seen this happen once or twice. Itís a fluke and you should not worry about it happening again. I would continue following CTIís instructions without adding any additional steps.
    Last edited by Steve Shannon; 10th October 2017 at 03:48 AM.
    Steve Shannon
    L3CC, TAP, Director, Tripoli Rocketry Association

  6. #6
    Join Date
    17th January 2011
    Location
    Spring Green WI
    Posts
    2,667
    Quote Originally Posted by gfunk View Post
    “Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted. And experience is often the most valuable thing you have to offer.” -Randy Pausch


    This morning I attempted a L2 certification flight at the Pawnee National Grasslands, which ended with a CTI Pro 38 J357 Blue Streak motor CATO due to rear closure failure (motor date code I believe was November 2016?). The on site motor vendor Moto Joe was awesome and replaced the motor and kept the original packaging.

    Upon examination of the on board 808 video footage, it is clear the 5 grain case separates from the threaded rear closure while still under boost, pushing out the single deploy main chute on its way to freedom. Because this was a cert flight I had kept things simple (single deploy) so the payload section was empty with only the 11/32” Kevlar harness connecting the nosecone to ebay.

    At this point the motor impacts the ebay/payload section with enough force to shear my switch band from the coupler, plow 3 plastic rivets through almost 1” of cardboard air frame, and shear the 3 #2-56 nylon shear screws joining the nose cone to the payload tube. Apparently due to the sudden pressure drop, the 5 burning fuel grains promptly self-extinguished, of which 2 partially burned grains were later recovered, one on the range, one still stuck in the liner. These will be a bittersweet consolation prize at next week's elk hunting camp fire.

    I had previously assembled exactly (and only) one Pro 38 motor, an I345 3 grain for my L1 cert last month which had a picture perfect flight.

    I assembled this J357 motor under quiet and controlled circumstances in my kitchen. I have a BSME and routinely specify and personally machine threading for a living. I assembled the rear closure until it was snug and just a hair more. Snug, hand tight, but most certainly not over tight. A gap of less than 1/16” was clearly visible between the rear closure and case. The threads were not cross threaded. I never removed the nozzle from the liner, though I did pop the foreward closure to drill the delay.

    It appears to me the seal between the rear closure O-ring and liner failed. The O-ring is visibly eroded, there is a hole in the liner in this area, and there are burn marks on the case. It’s then surmisable that the plastic rear closure threads heated, softened, and failed.

    Remarkably, my DX3’s booster section is essentially undamaged. The nosecone shoulder zippered from high speed deployment, but can be repaired with some PE plastic welding. The payload section is banged up but I think I can repair it well enough for another single deploy flight since the entire NC/payload section won't need to separate. The 60" spherachute gore seam stitching show signs of stress from high speed deployment, but I think it's good enough to use again.

    I would like to learn anything I can from this experience and welcome any and all opinions and constructive advice. I have submitted a MESS report and assume the vendor will report to CTI.

    The motor case fell from a couple hundred feet up. It looks OK at first glance but the there is a tiny flat spot now on the threaded end, it's now a bit out of round. I tried threading in a spent I345 closure and it threads in fine, but this is now one more thing to wonder about...

    The replacement J357 motor is from 2014, and apparently before the Pro38 forward closure issues. It's tempting to thread this motor into the case with epoxy on the threads and then toss the whole thing... I've had great luck with Pro29s, but 50% success with the 38s has me wondering about trying AT in this size.

    Sad ground and on-board video here, pictures below:
    Sure looks like the o ring failed. Do you think maybe the o-ring was pinched or cut? Did you remove nozzle from liner before installing into the case? Somewhere some how o ring failed and caused the burn through. CTI is a very good product and this could happen with any motor brand. I would get a new case and try again.
    TRA 2225
    TWA
    QCRS
    WOOSH

  7. #7
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,055
    I'd get a new case too. and it'd be black or blue
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  8. #8
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Location
    So Cal (ROC, TRASD, SCRA)
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
    threading plastic into metal is just a bad design. seen it many times, some day multiple times in a day. There's a reason they moved to a metal closure when they made the 29's. No idea why they didn't fix the 38's back then too.
    +1 on this. I wish CTI would redo the 38's with a metal rear closure, but then they'd have to recertify all their loads, too. I have at least one reallly nice 38 6G load that I can't fly because the stupid plastic nozzle got cross threaded... it's easy to do, and I always lubricate the case and the threads.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,055
    Quote Originally Posted by cerving View Post
    +1 on this. I wish CTI would redo the 38's with a metal rear closure, but then they'd have to recertify all their loads, too. I have at least one reallly nice 38 6G load that I can't fly because the stupid plastic nozzle got cross threaded... it's easy to do, and I always lubricate the case and the threads.
    the number of cases and loads they've had to warranty out has to be more than what'd take to recertify
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  10. #10
    Join Date
    17th January 2011
    Location
    Spring Green WI
    Posts
    2,667
    Quote Originally Posted by cerving View Post
    +1 on this. I wish CTI would redo the 38's with a metal rear closure, but then they'd have to recertify all their loads, too. I have at least one reallly nice 38 6G load that I can't fly because the stupid plastic nozzle got cross threaded... it's easy to do, and I always lubricate the case and the threads.
    I am sure you can get a new nozzle from CTI or one of its dealers. I know guys who have reused the once fired CTI nozzles.
    Last edited by crossfire; 10th October 2017 at 09:20 PM.
    TRA 2225
    TWA
    QCRS
    WOOSH

  11. #11
    Join Date
    23rd July 2011
    Location
    Butte, MT
    Posts
    2,112
    Quote Originally Posted by cerving View Post
    +1 on this. I wish CTI would redo the 38's with a metal rear closure, but then they'd have to recertify all their loads, too. I have at least one reallly nice 38 6G load that I can't fly because the stupid plastic nozzle got cross threaded... it's easy to do, and I always lubricate the case and the threads.
    I canít speak for CARís MCC, but I donít think they would have to recert all of their loads. As long as they could show that the replacement nozzles and aluminum aft closures were functionally equivalents to the existing plastic aft closure and nozzle assembly, it should not be much different than certifying any kind of hardware change.
    Also, you should be able to request a replacement aft closure for your cross-threaded one. Ask any one of the larger CTI dealers to help you.


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

  12. #12
    Join Date
    29th November 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    1,191
    George - bummer about the failure. I was out on the Pawnee Saturday but heard Sunday was better. I certified many moons ago on the H125 and then J285 combination.

    Joe will definitely take care of you. I had a similar failure on a 3 grain about a decade ago. Rear closure came out, and ruined the case. I've seen hundreds of CTI motors flown and very few failures.

    As others have suggested, file a MESS report.

    As for switching to another brand, they all have their pros and cons. Typically it comes down to what is available at your local launches. I personally like the CTI motors for their ease of assembly. The 38mm motors take no tools.

    See you out on the range!

    Edward

  13. #13
    Join Date
    25th July 2017
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    16
    Thanks, all!

    Yep, I submitted a MESS report.

    No, I didn't inspect the failed rear O-ring before flight... I never removed the nozzle/rear closure from the liner.

    CATO damage repairs are going well, glad I have a plastic welder for the nosecone shoulder zipper! Hoping to try this all again at the November NCR launch if conditions allow.
    TRA 17281
    NAR 104429
    L1: 9/16/17, 4" Blue Angels Super DX3 - I345 to 1,733' ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggnm6cXzij8 )
    L2: 12/2/17, 4" Blue Angels Super DX3 - J350 to 3,284' ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiTEJRBfsdI )
    Alt/Speed: 12/2/17, 54mm MAC Scorpion XL - J357 to 7,884' at 637 mph

  14. #14
    Join Date
    23rd January 2009
    Location
    Longmont, CO
    Posts
    889
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
    threading plastic into metal is just a bad design. seen it many times, some day multiple times in a day. There's a reason they moved to a metal closure when they made the 29's. No idea why they didn't fix the 38's back then too.

    Loki and AT make nice 38's.
    The Pro38 is the way it is because they're already manufacturing this for another application (likely military). Do you think the military would allow them to do this if it wasn't extensively tested and proven? Not a bad design. Engineering isn't about overkill. It's about meeting requirements with minimum cost (time, materials, labor).
    -Ken

  15. #15
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Location
    So Cal (ROC, TRASD, SCRA)
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by new2hpr View Post
    The Pro38 is the way it is because they're already manufacturing this for another application (likely military). Do you think the military would allow them to do this if it wasn't extensively tested and proven? Not a bad design. Engineering isn't about overkill. It's about meeting requirements with minimum cost (time, materials, labor).
    -Ken
    I'd be willing to bet that the military wasn't reusing the casings, either... they probably treated it as a on-time use motor. Given their likely use, they probably didn't expect to get it back in one piece.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    29th November 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by cerving View Post
    I'd be willing to bet that the military wasn't reusing the casings, either... they probably treated it as a on-time use motor. Given their likely use, they probably didn't expect to get it back in one piece.
    The 6061 aluminum casings aren't the weak part of the system. We all use similar casings multiple times. From the pictures shown, it looks like the o-rings was chopped/nicked and didn't seal, that let hot gas escape, heated the thermoplastic nozzle assembly and then the threads failed and the nozzle assembly let loose.

    Edward

  17. #17
    Join Date
    15th October 2016
    Location
    Huntsville AL
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally Posted by gfunk View Post
    Thanks, all!

    Yep, I submitted a MESS report.

    No, I didn't inspect the failed rear O-ring before flight... I never removed the nozzle/rear closure from the liner.

    CATO damage repairs are going well, glad I have a plastic welder for the nosecone shoulder zipper! Hoping to try this all again at the November NCR launch if conditions allow.
    Don't risk it.

    You should send all your Pro-38 loads to HARA for "Proper Disposal". Better safe than sorry
    "I'm at least 70% confident about whatever I say (90% of the time)"- college me

    NAR 101195
    Level 1: Big SAM, 9/10/16

  18. #18
    Join Date
    17th January 2011
    Location
    Spring Green WI
    Posts
    2,667
    Quote Originally Posted by cerving View Post
    I'd be willing to bet that the military wasn't reusing the casings, either... they probably treated it as a on-time use motor. Given their likely use, they probably didn't expect to get it back in one piece.
    Years ago we sold a very large number of chutes to the Navy for training purpose. The were using AT 29mm reloadable motors. The Navy would fire the rockets off the ship deck and the guys would practice tracking it all the way down into the water. The whole rocket, chute, and motor were not recovered.
    TRA 2225
    TWA
    QCRS
    WOOSH

  19. #19
    Join Date
    15th October 2016
    Location
    Huntsville AL
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally Posted by crossfire View Post
    Years ago we sold a very large number of chutes to the Navy for training purpose. The were using AT 29mm reloadable motors. The Navy would fire the rockets off the ship deck and the guys would practice tracking it all the way down into the water. The whole rocket, chute, and motor were not recovered.
    Holy cow. Somewhere there's a patch of ocean with bunch of corroded 29mm cases in it.......

  20. #20
    Join Date
    9th April 2011
    Location
    Plano, TX
    Posts
    2,552
    Sorry to hear about your woes. I started out with CTI 29mm motors and enjoyed them. When I "upgraded" to the 38's I always wondered why the design seemed less robust than the smaller 29's. While I have not seen your particular failure before, I have seem plenty CTI aft closure failures. I stopped flying them the day I cross threaded one on and I am about as careful and deliberate as they come. It's a shame too because I genially liked certain loads in certain formulas, just not worth the risk. I also had one load where the little paper seal holing the ejection charge was peeled back and emptied. I ended up pouring more powder in and taping a new seal but I had the stuff on hand, would have sucked if I didn't. I now fly with cases that require me to build the motor from start to finish so I know it was put together as good as I could and not rely on some guy I will never meet.
    Jarrett Dorough

    Most people are average

  21. #21
    Join Date
    17th June 2011
    Location
    The fertile fields of Malta, IL
    Posts
    3,181
    One thing I do with CTI 38mm loads when assembling them is to make sure the entire load is in the case fully before staring to thread the aft closure/nozzle on by pushing the casing in with a spacer. Then lube the o-ring on the nozzle and push it in place. That way you're only trying to push in the nozzle and not the entire reload. Especially on the looong ones...
    Adrian Butler
    jd2cylman@mchsi (dot) com
    NAR 73787 L3
    Tripoli 13524 L3
    QCRS, Princeton, IL
    Chicago Rocket Mafia "The Mechanic"

    Buckle up back there, we're going into "Hyperactive!"

  22. #22
    Join Date
    20th January 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    794
    Quote Originally Posted by Nytrunner View Post
    Holy cow. Somewhere there's a patch of ocean with bunch of corroded 29mm cases in it.......
    Oh, not only those. There are Pro 150 casings all over the Persian Gulf. (and likely elsewhere) That's what takes a some cruise missiles off ships that deploy them.
    Len Bryan
    CAR-ACF S620 L3, NAR 98782 L2, Tripoli 10220 L2

  23. #23
    Join Date
    21st December 2013
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by grouch View Post
    I now fly with cases that require me to build the motor from start to finish so I know it was put together as good as I could and not rely on some guy I will never meet.
    If you fly CTI 38 then this is what you do. Take it apart and inspect it, that way you aren't relying on some guy you never met.
    QRS: 124
    AMRS: 32 L2
    Highest Altitude: 10,849 feet
    Largest Motor: CTI 1115J530 IM
    Current Projects:
    Purple Parrot, X Wing


  24. #24
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,055
    Quote Originally Posted by new2hpr View Post
    The Pro38 is the way it is because they're already manufacturing this for another application (likely military). Do you think the military would allow them to do this if it wasn't extensively tested and proven? Not a bad design. Engineering isn't about overkill. It's about meeting requirements with minimum cost (time, materials, labor).
    -Ken
    I find it hilarious when people say something is "military grade" or the "military uses it" like thats some kind of proof it's a good idea. Haven't spent much time working for the gov't, have you?
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  25. #25
    Join Date
    15th October 2016
    Location
    Huntsville AL
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Len B View Post
    Oh, not only those. There are Pro 150 casings all over the Persian Gulf. (and likely elsewhere) That's what takes a some cruise missiles off ships that deploy them.
    Really? Which type of cruise missiles? I believe Tomahawk boosters are substantially larger than 6"

  26. #26
    Join Date
    18th January 2016
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by Nytrunner View Post
    Really? Which type of cruise missiles? I believe Tomahawk boosters are substantially larger than 6"
    These bad boys? They look like 20" in diameter.

    Mark
    NAR#: 100890 / TRA#: 16580
    L1 - Binder Design Excel Plus 38 - CTI I242 2,540'
    L2 - Binder Design Excel Plus 38 - CTI J330 3,672'
    L3 - Scratch built 8" PAC-3 MSE Patriot - Loki M1969 (ETA MMWP 16)

  27. #27
    Join Date
    18th January 2016
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    875
    Found a design document. They're 20.9" in diameter for the propellant.
    And 22.03" overall diameter.

    http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~gut...inalReport.pdf
    Mark
    NAR#: 100890 / TRA#: 16580
    L1 - Binder Design Excel Plus 38 - CTI I242 2,540'
    L2 - Binder Design Excel Plus 38 - CTI J330 3,672'
    L3 - Scratch built 8" PAC-3 MSE Patriot - Loki M1969 (ETA MMWP 16)

  28. #28
    Join Date
    15th October 2016
    Location
    Huntsville AL
    Posts
    1,689
    Quote Originally Posted by mccordmw View Post
    Found a design document. They're 20.9" in diameter for the propellant.
    And 22.03" overall diameter.

    http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~gut...inalReport.pdf
    Pro559 SU anyone? ~T57,800?

    That report says its a Master's program design project. Interesting.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    15th May 2016
    Posts
    2,055
    Pretty sure he meant UAV, not cruise missile. In theory though, I think those got reused.
    David McCann
    Dave's Rockets | My Flights
    URRG |URRF 4| Level 2 | TRA# 14210

  30. #30
    Join Date
    19th January 2009
    Location
    Stafford VA
    Posts
    6,973
    Didn't Myth Busters have an episode where they used Tomahawk booster rocket motors to test stopping a run away trailer. If I remember right, it was a huge failure.

    It might have been the Rocket Battles(?) that used a pair of Tomahawk booster to launch Mini Coopers up a ramp and tried to drop them on a target. That didn't work so well either.

    Handeman

    TRA #09903 L3 3/29/2015

    "If you don't use your head, you have to use your feet!" my Dad

    Tripoli Central Virginia #25 - BattlePark.org

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 8th June 2015, 05:54 PM
  2. Pro38 Cato Pic
    By n3tjm in forum High Power Rocketry (HPR)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 22nd September 2008, 12:12 AM
  3. Awesome CATO picture from CATO-120!!
    By mr_fixit in forum Mid Power Rocketry (MPR)
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 18th December 2006, 08:37 PM
  4. Pro38 Q
    By Ryan S. in forum Propulsion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 3rd November 2003, 03:52 AM
  5. Pro38 News - CATO explanation
    By KenParker in forum Vendor Display
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 15th August 2002, 02:12 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
  •