Crossloading?

Hello,
I have a question about crossloads. What 75mm AT hardware would I use for the M2245? It is a CTI 6xl grain load.

Are all CTI motors certified to be used in AT harware?

How would I tell which AT case would work for CTI reloads?

Thanks

Not 100% sure but not all reloads are certified for cross over yet and think its just up to 4 grain cases for 75 and 98\

https://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/u...571-8d9c-636fbc4b6cbc_AT Crossload Matrix.pdf

75/7680...6 grain case. CTI even includes the RMS orings.

I don't think there is an Aerotech equivalent to the CTI 6XL -- the 75/7680 is equivalent to the CTI 6G. See https://www.pro38.com/faqs.php#compatibility

Yeah, your right. thanks for the answers peeps

He said 6 grain, which is the 7680. If it's a 6xl load, you can use an Amw/kosdon 7600 or Loki 8000 with the Hubcap adapter.

The only certified non-CTI commercial case that fits the CTI 6XL reloads is the AMW 75-7600 case with The CTI hubcap system. The Loki 8000 case is too long and requires a non-standard spacer which makes it a research load.

The Gorilla 75-7600 casing tube will work with a CTI reload but it's not a combination tested by a cert organization.

They are all the same length. I have used a Loki case b4.

jimzcatz said:

He said 6 grain, which is the 7680.

Click to expand...

Umm, he said M2245 6GXL. Not sure what you're looking at.

jimzcatz said:

They are all the same length. I have used a Loki case b4.

Click to expand...

Loki case with a CTI 6XL load is not a certified combination. Which load did you use and what did you use for closures, nozzle end, forward end, washers, etc?

I don't need it to be certified. AMW nozzle Hubcap forward

jimzcatz said:

I don't need it to be certified. AMW nozzle Hubcap forward

Click to expand...

Just trying to help the original poster. He is asking about certified combinations.

mperegrinefalcon said:

Hello,
Are all CTI motors certified to be used in AT hardware?

Click to expand...

I've seen conflicting information about what crossloads are really certified. https://www.pro38.com/faqs.php has an out-of-date list of which loads are certified in AT hardware, and AT's list only shows up to 4G as Eric pointed out, even though I think 6G loads would fit in AT 75/7680. One might assume that at this point, if it fits it's certified. As we've noted, there's no AT hardware equivalent for 6GXL or 5G.

However, beware of warranty issues on crossloads. I've seen people have AT hardware be damaged with CTI loads (C-star, I'm looking at you) and naturally enough, AT doesn't cover this damage, and I presume vice versa.

mikec said:

I've seen conflicting information about what crossloads are really certified. https://www.pro38.com/faqs.php has an out-of-date list of which loads are certified in AT hardware, and AT's list only shows up to 4G....

Click to expand...

Aerotech's list is for putting Aerotech reloads into CTI casings. CTI's list is for putting CTI reloads into Aerotech casings. They're for two separate things.

Maxwelljets said:

Aerotech's list is for putting Aerotech reloads into CTI casings. CTI's list is for putting CTI reloads into Aerotech casings. They're for two separate things.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't say anything different. The question I was trying to address was whether all loads that would fit in the other brand's case were automatically certified, or only a subset. When crossloading first started, it was required that each crossload be explicitly tested, and CTI didn't test all of their propellant types in AT hardware. Eventually I think this requirement was relaxed.

mikec said:

However, beware of warranty issues on crossloads. I've seen people have AT hardware be damaged with CTI loads (C-star, I'm looking at you) and naturally enough, AT doesn't cover this damage, and I presume vice versa.

Click to expand...

I don't mean to belittle either great motor companies, but as advice to new flyers could you elaborate which specific loads or casing sizes experienced higher failures in crossload configuration? It would be nice to have enough information to not CATO or greatly reduce chance of CATO for a crossload.

AFAICT no extra risk, just no insurance if it fails.

Andrew_ASC said:

as advice to new flyers could you elaborate which specific loads or casing sizes experienced higher failures in crossload configuration?

Click to expand...

The problems I've seen have been with C-Star reloads in AT hardware and caused bubbles in the case near the forward closure. This sort of issue is why AT recommends using their seal disk with CTI reloads in AT hardware -- see https://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/news.aspx?y=2016 "CTI 75mm Reloads Used in AeroTech Hardware Advisory"

mikec said:

Yeah, I didn't say anything different. The question I was trying to address was whether all loads that would fit in the other brand's case were automatically certified, or only a subset. When crossloading first started, it was required that each crossload be explicitly tested, and CTI didn't test all of their propellant types in AT hardware. Eventually I think this requirement was relaxed.

Click to expand...

The notion that if it fits it’s certified is flat wrong. 75 mm AT loads only go through 4 grains. The matrix lists which are certified.
https://aerotech-rocketry.com/uploads/20271d63-592c-4571-8d9c-636fbc4b6cbc_AT Crossload Matrix.pdf

I have an updated AT chart showing all up to 6g M1850, fitted into Pro75-6g case.
I would use the seal disk in ANY 75mm AT or CTI reload regardless of case.

Dave A said:

I have an updated AT chart showing all up to 6g M1850, fitted into Pro75-6g case.View attachment 356653
I would use the seal disk in ANY 75mm AT or CTI reload regardless of case.

Click to expand...

For the record, neither the 5 nor 6 grain combinations are included on the official Aerotech matrix. Neither has been certified. You should make it clear that this is your interpretation and not the Aerotech chart.

Steve Shannon said:

For the record, neither the 5 nor 6 grain combinations are included on the official Aerotech matrix. Neither has been certified.

Click to expand...

Is there some TMT or NAR S&T document describing the testing that was done, if any, to certify any of the crossloads on the official AT matrix?

mikec said:

Is there some TMT or NAR S&T document describing the testing that was done, if any, to certify any of the crossloads on the official AT matrix?

Click to expand...

NAR S&T has their motor testing manual on their website which describes non-cooperative certifications. We (TRA TMT) are currently working on rewriting our manual. This is one of the things we’re trying to improve.

What may not be "certified" will nevertheless work. Might have to be at a Research event. AFAIK,CTI includes RMS orings in all of their 75 and 98mm reloads.

Steve Shannon said:

For the record, neither the 5 nor 6 grain combinations are included on the official Aerotech matrix. Neither has been certified. You should make it clear that this is your interpretation and not the Aerotech chart.

Click to expand...

It's not mine, it was from AT at some point or either a faker made it. Sorry I thought that was an official AT publication.

Will consideration be made as part of the certification process that AT recommends using their seal disk with their reloads regardless of AT or CTI hdw?
Will there be any consideration to certify the AT loads in a longer CTI case along with the Pro75 spacer?
As Jim points out the 5g and 6g setups work, too, but are considered research until further notice.

Dave A said:

It's not mine, it was from AT at some point or either a faker made it. Sorry I thought that was an official AT publication.

Will consideration be made as part of the certification process that AT recommends using their seal disk with their reloads regardless of AT or CTI hdw?
Will there be any consideration to certify the AT loads in a longer CTI case along with the Pro75 spacer?
As Jim points out the 5g and 6g setups work, too, but are considered research until further notice.

Click to expand...

Any certification requires that the motor be built according to the reload manufacturer’s instructions, so as long as Aerotech’s instructions require the seal disk, it would be required.
The reason 5 and 6 grain Crossloads haven’t been certified is because they haven’t been submitted by Aerotech. I have no doubt that will eventually happen, but it’s up to Aerotech, not the certification authorities.
The only chart I’ve found on the AT site covers only up to 4 grains. If you got it from the AT site let me know and we’ll look into it.

Just a note also about cross certifications. There are two types, cooperative and non-cooperative. In the cooperative cross certification the manufacturer of the reloads has licensed another manufacturer to make compatible hardware. The certification authorities are notified and blanket approval is almost guaranteed to follow.
In non-cooperative cross certification the reload manufacturer submits its reload to the certification authority together with a case from another manufacturer. It’s tested just as if it were submitted with the reload manufacturer’s own case. If it passes (which it certainly should as long as the manufacturer has done its own testing) then that combination is certified.
The certification authorities operate strictly for the benefit of the users, our members and the members of any organization with which we have a reciprocity agreement. We feel that greater availability of motors is something that benefits the users. Being able to use an investment in cases for another manufacturer’s reloads is a benefit. For that reason we are very receptive to cross certification.

Steve,
I do want to apologize for me posting the phony Crossload chart. I tell people all the time to verify their sources on Facebook posting blatantly obvious phony stories. That chart looked just like one AT would post. Those combinations would probably work but i now know they are not certified. I do respect the system of certification and wouldn't do anything to misinform members.

Dave A said:

Steve,
I do want to apologize for me posting the phony Crossload chart. I tell people all the time to verify their sources on Facebook posting blatantly obvious phony stories. That chart looked just like one AT would post. Those combinations would probably work but i now know they are not certified. I do respect the system of certification and wouldn't do anything to misinform members.

Click to expand...

Dave,
I’ve been bit by similar things as well. I don’t feel you owe an apology but I accept it and respect you all the more for it. It does look official, doesn’t it?

Steve Shannon said:

Dave,
I’ve been bit by similar things as well. I don’t feel you owe an apology but I accept it and respect you all the more for it. It does look official, doesn’t it?

Click to expand...

The reason it looks official is because it is (or rather, was) official. That was the original crossload matrix that Aerotech posted after the 75mm crossloads became certified but before any 98mm were certified. Unfortunately, web.archive.org doesn't have that page of their website archived during that timeframe, but if you scroll back on the official Aerotech facebook page, you can find the incorrect matrix:

Obviously, someone at Aerotech messed up a bit by posting it in this form since the reloads were never certified in the 5 and 6 grain casings. However, the chart in question was created by Aerotech.

mikec said:

I've seen conflicting information about what crossloads are really certified. https://www.pro38.com/faqs.php has an out-of-date list of which loads are certified in AT hardware,

Click to expand...

Is there an up-to-date list of CTI reloads certified in Aerotech cases??

Jim