Estes Sonic Igniter Pro Series II Igniters suck!

Hi all,

I got a pack of these online and have gone 0 for 4 on lighting Aerotech 24mm and 29mm single use composite motors with them.
Motors tried -
AT E20-4W (24mm)
AT F20-7W (29mm)
AT G38-7J (29mm)
AT F32-6T (24mm)

That's 4 different sized cases, 3 different propellant types, 2 different diameters and one big 'ole worthless common denominator - The Pro series Sonic II igniters! All of the above motors fired right up on the second try with copperheads, first fire juniors even a quest Q2G2 fired the F32 - AND THEY'RE NOT EVEN RATED FOR AP MOTORS OFFICIALLY!!

and before you say "well those aren't Estes motors so . . .", they're made by Aerotech. Are we to infer that the Estes version is somehow chemically different? Does this mean no crossover compatibility between motors and igniters? These igniters also LOOK weird. The amount of combustible material on them appears to be MINIMAL. It is grey in color and appears to be cast into sort of a spade shape.

Let me clear - ALL OF THE ESTES IGNITERS FIRED SUCCESSFULLY - THEY JUST FAILED TO LIGHT THE MOTOR 100% OF THE TIME!!

I will be contacting Estes directly regarding this issue and will update as more info becomes available but has anyone else had this experience??
:rant:

Pictures of any of the ignitors?

Didn't I read another thread where they were not being included with the SU motors?

-Dave

Ohhhh...here's a similar thread here:

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?30817-Estes-Sonic-Igniters&p=339772#post339772

I have an email into Estes so we'll see what they have to say. After reading some other posts about the same thing I'm starting to get the sneaking suspicion that there is some difference in the chemical make-up of the Estes motors vs. the Aerotech motors. GRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!

100% FALSE statement. Estes motors ARE Aerotech motors and are identical in every way to the same Aerotech motor with a little label applied to the outside of the casing with the Estes info on the label. They are certified as identical by the NAR.

If the igniter pyrogen does not touch the propellant face (if it is floating in air in the empty space) it will be MUICH less likely to ignite the motor. If it touching the surface of the propellant it does much better. For "T" propellant we had extremely high sucess rates with the prototype Sonic Igniters. For "W", they were not so great. Of course, "W" is often hard to ignite with Copperheads, with the key being hard contact with propellant face and picking one with lots of pyrogen.

Ok Fred,

So it wasn't a statement it was a suspicion but thanks for clarifying it anyway. Here's the real question then - WHY WOULD ESTES/AEROTECH RELEASE ANOTHER UNDEPENDABLE IGNITER? Seriously, in my club which BTW contains some very experienced and generally well meaning fellows like myself, we use the superior First Fire Jr. ignitor for almost every AP motor launched. If a motor fails to fire the first question ALWAYS ASKED IS - "ARE YOU TRYING TO USE A COPPERHEAD?" Not "WHAT IGNITER DID YOU USE." It has become sort of a sad joke with us. The point is, and I sing this loudly to the treetops so ALL (ESTES AND AEROTECH) CAN HEAR - "LOSE THE COPPERHEAD AND THE NEW ESTES SONIC IGNITERS! - THEY ARE UN-RELIABLE! THE FIRST FIRE JUNIOR IGNITERS ARE NEARLY 100% RELIABLE! WE KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THIS ALSO BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THE FIRST FIRE JUNIORS ARE!! WE DON'T CARE!! RAISE THE PRICE OF MOTORS A COUPLE BUCKS AND GIVE US AN IGNITER THAT'S WORTH A $#9%!!!!

Rant over

thanks friends.

As many have postedin the past, Copperheads can be nearly 100% reliable. Obviously they are not for some people, and that leads to a question that should be answered SCIENTIFICALLY, not EMOTIONALLY. What are the variables that contribute to igniter failure (copperhead or other)?

I have stated some of them many times. Here we go again. This is not the scientific answer, but it is useful information for anyone wishing to solve their own personal igniter problems.

* Igniter must touch surface of propellant as an igniter sitting in the airspace between propellant faces will not ignite the propellant unless the propellant is very clean and very warm.

* Copperheads should not be used with toothed alligator clips. Use the Aerotech clip or smooth jawed micro clips with the side soldered to the wire on the copper contact side and the opposite side insulated with tape.

* If using White Lightning Propellant in reloadables, lightly sand the crust off the surface of the slot to allow it to ignite properly.

* Old motors and cold motors are hard to ignite for any igniter.

* Too much electrical power can pop the top of some ingiters without heating them - preventing the pyrogen ignition.

* Improperly vented nozzle will make the igniter pop out of the motor before it can heat up and ignite the propellant.

* I'm sure I missed a few things...

rbeard2 said:

Ok Fred,

So it wasn't a statement it was a suspicion but thanks for clarifying it anyway. Here's the real question then - WHY WOULD ESTES/AEROTECH RELEASE ANOTHER UNDEPENDABLE IGNITER? Seriously, in my club which BTW contains some very experienced and generally well meaning fellows like myself, we use the superior First Fire Jr. ignitor for almost every AP motor launched. If a motor fails to fire the first question ALWAYS ASKED IS - "ARE YOU TRYING TO USE A COPPERHEAD?" Not "WHAT IGNITER DID YOU USE." It has become sort of a sad joke with us. The point is, and I sing this loudly to the treetops so ALL (ESTES AND AEROTECH) CAN HEAR - "LOSE THE COPPERHEAD AND THE NEW ESTES SONIC IGNITERS! - THEY ARE UN-RELIABLE! THE FIRST FIRE JUNIOR IGNITERS ARE NEARLY 100% RELIABLE! WE KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THIS ALSO BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THE FIRST FIRE JUNIORS ARE!! WE DON'T CARE!! RAISE THE PRICE OF MOTORS A COUPLE BUCKS AND GIVE US AN IGNITER THAT'S WORTH A $#9%!!!!

Rant over

thanks friends.

Click to expand...

Fred you are professional and accurate in your response and I am an emo-girl.

but I also stand by what I said. I want the easiest, most reliable, user friendly, no frills solution for all my igniter needs. Model rocketry companies are businesses which means we the consumer SHOULD drive the market and stimulate the development of better products. The new Sonic igniter is not a step in the right direction and the Copperhead has been eclipsed.

Don't make excuses.

Make better products.

Give the consumer what we want.

Period.

I've used several Sonics with100% success so far on Aerotech SU E15W and D10 and D21 (I forget the letters).

12 VOLT system and good wiring with clean clips. Make sure it's all the way in the engine.

So far they work for me.

Rocketry is a hobby industry and has always been a cooperative venture between the, largely, garage suppliers and fliers. There's also the problem of regulation which has, among other not so public issues, forced Estes to reduce the amount of pyrogen in solar igniters to the point where they are unrecognizable from those being sold a decade or more ago. Beyond the casual, one time flier - the bulk of Estes and Quest market concentrated in the lower thrust ranges - are hobbyists. Most of them expect to have to do a little work for their pleasure. Rocketry is not, never was and probably never will be a high volume commodity. What all hobby rocketry manufacturers learn, eventually, is the classic economic maximum price point. Some by getting it right and sustaining their business. Some who don't and disappear.

How much are you willing to spend? How easily do you want to be able to buy product? In short, rocketry isn't breakfast cereal.

rbeard2 said:

Fred you are professional and accurate in your response and I am an emo-girl.

but I also stand by what I said. I want the easiest, most reliable, user friendly, no frills solution for all my igniter needs. Model rocketry companies are businesses which means we the consumer SHOULD drive the market and stimulate the development of better products. The new Sonic igniter is not a step in the right direction and the Copperhead has been eclipsed.

Don't make excuses.

Make better products.

Give the consumer what we want.

Period.

Click to expand...

Peter Olivola said:

Rocketry is a hobby industry and has always been a cooperative venture between the, largely, garage suppliers and fliers. There's also the problem of regulation which has, among other not so public issues, forced Estes to reduce the amount of pyrogen in solar igniters to the point where they are unrecognizable from those being sold a decade or more ago. Beyond the casual, one time flier - the bulk of Estes and Quest market concentrated in the lower thrust ranges - are hobbyists. Most of them expect to have to do a little work for their pleasure. Rocketry is not, never was and probably never will be a high volume commodity. What all hobby rocketry manufacturers learn, eventually, is the classic economic maximum price point. Some by getting it right and sustaining their business. Some who don't and disappear.

How much are you willing to spend? How easily do you want to be able to buy product? In short, rocketry isn't breakfast cereal.

Click to expand...

About 50% success rate here with 24mm and 29mm. They seem too loose in the core. I bought them because of the low price, but at 50% failure rate, they're not worth it to me.

If they seem loose in the core, then they are not installed properly. The instructions may be lacking and need to emphasize this.

Aerotech emphasizes this (bending and making proper contact with propellant):
https://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/c.../Misc_Instructions/how_to_use_copperheads.pdf

I wonder how many people who have Copperhead failures do not follow the instructions for prep and installation?

YES, if the Sonic Igniter had a ton more pyrogen, it would ignite more motors even if installed floating in the air gap and not touching the propellant, but it would then be difficult to install in small throated nozzles and narrow 'hard to find' slots.

Tronman said:

About 50% success rate here with 24mm and 29mm. They seem too loose in the core. I bought them because of the low price, but at 50% failure rate, they're not worth it to me.

Click to expand...

the instructions read, "Insert igniter wire all the way into the motor. bend wire and tape to motor." the diagrams do not show any "slight bend".
rex

shreadvector said:

If they seem loose in the core, then they are not installed properly. The instructions may be lacking and need to emphasize this.

Aerotech emphasizes this (bending and making proper contact with propellant):
https://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/c.../Misc_Instructions/how_to_use_copperheads.pdf

I wonder how many people who have Copperhead failures do not follow the instructions for prep and installation?

YES, if the Sonic Igniter had a ton more pyrogen, it would ignite more motors even if installed floating in the air gap and not touching the propellant, but it would then be difficult to install in small throated nozzles and narrow 'hard to find' slots.

Click to expand...

Fred, where in your cited instructions does it say to bend to ensure proper contact with the propellant? I looked but did not see it.

I'll add my $.02...been flying Aerotech/Apogee/PML/Rocketvision/Estes single use motors since ~'94. I have the Sonic igniters, but have not burned enough to comment on their reliability. I have used less than an entire four pack thus far, but have had at least one failure to light White Lightning.

I also believe that the igniters could use a bit more pyrogen to be effective in the white motors, or other harder-to-light propellants for that matter.

Fortunately, Hobby Lobby will expose tons of people to mid-power rocketry! Unfortunately, if they purchase a motor for their new rocket, go to the field only to find it does not include an igniter, they will be disappointed and frustrated. When they return to the field after purchasing the sonic igniters supposed to reliably ignite their newly found composite motors, should they fail, they will likely become discouraged and move away from the scene! Here's to hoping Estes can find a way to increase the perceived reliability issues being discussed here.

-Eric-

https://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/c.../Misc_Instructions/how_to_use_copperheads.pdf

Read slowly. Third bullet point down.

If you skim instructions you do not read them. Reading them requires reading of each and every word on the paper (or screen). Skimming/skipping words is "bad".

https://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/c.../Misc_Instructions/how_to_use_copperheads.pdf


• Bend the coated end of the igniter at a slight angle before installation to promote contact with
the propellant surface.

ECayemberg said:

Fred, where in your cited instructions does it say to bend to ensure proper contact with the propellant? I looked but did not see it.

I'll add my $.02...been flying Aerotech/Apogee/PML/Rocketvision/Estes single use motors since ~'94. I have the Sonic igniters, but have not burned enough to comment on their reliability. I have used less than an entire four pack thus far, but have had at least one failure to light White Lightning.

I also believe that the igniters could use a bit more pyrogen to be effective in the white motors, or other harder-to-light propellants for that matter.

Fortunately, Hobby Lobby will expose tons of people to mid-power rocketry! Unfortunately, if they purchase a motor for their new rocket, go to the field only to find it does not include an igniter, they will be disappointed and frustrated. When they return to the field after purchasing the sonic igniters supposed to reliably ignite their newly found composite motors, should they fail, they will likely become discouraged and move away from the scene! Here's to hoping Estes can find a way to increase the perceived reliability issues being discussed here.

-Eric-

Click to expand...

shreadvector said:

https://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/c.../Misc_Instructions/how_to_use_copperheads.pdf

Read slowly. Third bullet point down.

If you skim instructions you do not read them. Reading them requires reading of each and every word on the paper (or screen). Skimming/skipping words is "bad".

https://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/c.../Misc_Instructions/how_to_use_copperheads.pdf


• Bend the coated end of the igniter at a slight angle before installation to promote contact with
the propellant surface.

Click to expand...

They must have updated the link you posted in the last 24 hours or so, surely it couldn't have been there yesterday:wink:

Lots of reports of ignition failures out there right now!

-Eric-

shreadvector said:

https://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/c.../Misc_Instructions/how_to_use_copperheads.pdf

Read slowly. Third bullet point down.

If you skim instructions you do not read them. Reading them requires reading of each and every word on the paper (or screen). Skimming/skipping words is "bad".

https://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/c.../Misc_Instructions/how_to_use_copperheads.pdf


• Bend the coated end of the igniter at a slight angle before installation to promote contact with
the propellant surface.

Click to expand...

Wow, thanks for that tip - I can now only wonder how much I've missed out on...:eyeroll:

chadrog said:

Wow, thanks for that tip - I can now only wonder how much I've missed out on...:eyeroll:

Click to expand...

Now that's funny!!!

shreadvector said:

• Bend the coated end of the igniter at a slight angle before installation to promote contact with the propellant surface.

Click to expand...

I love those instructions. I especially like them when I have a 24/40 load that has a slot so freaking small I can barely squeeze the pyrogen in there and the dumb reload still doesn't lite.

DAllen said:

I love those instructions. I especially like them when I have a 24/40 load that has a slot so freaking small I can barely squeeze the pyrogen in there and the dumb reload still doesn't lite.

Click to expand...

Which, by the way contradicts the instructions for the Hobby Line RMS instructions, where it states to install the copperhead prior during reload assembly. Nor does it state that one must bend the head of the copperhed (*Disclaimer* I have not read the instructions "slowly" in a long time, so I'm probably "bad"). Speaking of bad: many consider it poor practice to install igniters into motors until out at the pads. Following instructions may not always be the best option...gasp! Are we off topic?

-Eric-

Read the different Safety Codes. (at whatever speed you like, just don't skip sections)

Model Rockets can have igniters installed before on the pad.

Since some High Power Rocket igniters are very sensitive, and since an accidental ignition would be much worse, the High Power Rocket Safety Code says

Ignition System. I will launch my rockets with an electrical launch system, and with electrical motor igniters that are installed in the motor only after my rocket is at the launch pad or in a designated prepping area. My launch system will have a safety interlock that is in series with the launch switch that is not installed until my rocket is ready for launch, and will use a launch switch that returns to the "off" position when released. If my rocket has onboard ignition systems for motors or recovery devices, these will have safety interlocks that interrupt the current path until the rocket is at the launch pad.

And many High Power Rocket Motors have a central core making it simple to install the igniter. But, they can be loose in that big core, so bending the tip is the wise thing to do.

ECayemberg said:

Which, by the way contradicts the instructions for the Hobby Line RMS instructions, where it states to install the copperhead prior during reload assembly. Nor does it state that one must bend the head of the copperhed (*Disclaimer* I have not read the instructions "slowly" in a long time, so I'm probably "bad"). Speaking of bad: many consider it poor practice to install igniters into motors until out at the pads. Following instructions may not always be the best option...gasp! Are we off topic?

-Eric-

Click to expand...

ECayemberg said:

Speaking of bad: many consider it poor practice to install igniters into motors until out at the pads. Following instructions may not always be the best option...gasp! Are we off topic?

-Eric-

Click to expand...

Seems rather stupid to me... Every BP motor I carry to the pad has the ignitor already installed in it. APCP is supposed to be even "safer" than BP (except I guess for the sheer power of the larger motor) so why the argument against having the ignitor already installed?? Concerned about low-current ignitors potentially firing from static charges?? Short the ignitor by twisting the exposed ends together or in the case of Copperheads, clipping a regular microclip to it to dead short the thing until it's on the pad... remove the clip and install the regular ignitor lead(s) and you're good to go, and it would be NO more risky than hooking up the ignitor once it's in the engine at any other time...

Some of these things defy common sense...

Later! OL JR

luke strawwalker said:

Seems rather stupid to me... Every BP motor I carry to the pad has the ignitor already installed in it. APCP is supposed to be even "safer" than BP (except I guess for the sheer power of the larger motor) so why the argument against having the ignitor already installed?? Concerned about low-current ignitors potentially firing from static charges?? Short the ignitor by twisting the exposed ends together or in the case of Copperheads, clipping a regular microclip to it to dead short the thing until it's on the pad... remove the clip and install the regular ignitor lead(s) and you're good to go, and it would be NO more risky than hooking up the ignitor once it's in the engine at any other time...

Some of these things defy common sense...

Later! OL JR

Click to expand...

I'm starting to feel like a whipping post. JR, I do what you mention above all the time; I have mixed feelings on the practice; please note that I was not necessarily including myself when I stated "many consider...." above. Here are my situational mixed feelings.

A) Private launch at the local field with low-mid power motors: installing igniters in advance that have been shorted is fine. Like I mentioned; I do it all the time; yesterday included!
B) At a regional or larger launch where high power may be flown. It's tough to police and administer a range using two different (model and high power) safety codes. For consistency, err on the side of the more conservative code where differences occur. The last regional launch I attended restricted ignitor installation to the pad area. I think this is a fine practice. My day job deals a lot with rules enforcement, I have learned to hate exceptions. So, at a launch that involves high power, I am accustomed to omitting the ignitor until it gets to the pad, whether I'm flying low, mid, or high power.
C) I realize that A) and B) above is a double standard and hypocrytical. When in doubt, B) is safer; that should be common sense.

-Eric-

shreadvector said:

Read the different Safety Codes. (at whatever speed you like, just don't skip sections)

Model Rockets can have igniters installed before on the pad.

Since some High Power Rocket igniters are very sensitive, and since an accidental ignition would be much worse, the High Power Rocket Safety Code says

Ignition System. I will launch my rockets with an electrical launch system, and with electrical motor igniters that are installed in the motor only after my rocket is at the launch pad or in a designated prepping area. My launch system will have a safety interlock that is in series with the launch switch that is not installed until my rocket is ready for launch, and will use a launch switch that returns to the "off" position when released. If my rocket has onboard ignition systems for motors or recovery devices, these will have safety interlocks that interrupt the current path until the rocket is at the launch pad.

And many High Power Rocket Motors have a central core making it simple to install the igniter. But, they can be loose in that big core, so bending the tip is the wise thing to do.

Click to expand...

Fred, you win. You've been doing this a long time and I have as well; I just don't talk as much on the forums. See my other post to Luke JR for scenarios. I'm sorry I missed the line in the copperhead instructions; I thought I asked "where" nicely. Your response was a little less nice; thank you for convincing me that I'm an mentally inept and my logic is flawed.

Thanks also for giving me the tip on bending the tip of my igniter and teaching me about big cores in high power motors.

ECayemberg said:

Which, by the way contradicts the instructions for the Hobby Line RMS instructions,

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. That's the exact step I am referring to.

DAllen said:

No it doesn't. That's the exact step I am referring to.

Click to expand...

Ah, gotcha Dave. I was thinking your were trying to insert them through the nozz, then into the tight core.

Struggling to get an igniter to the top of old G55's came to mind; while the C-slots were probably swollen a bit, it was a huge chore trying to get them to the top, and lit for that matter.

-Eric-

I grabbed my first pack of Sonic igniters from Hobby Lobby and although I only used a couple, they worked fine on Aerotech/Estes G80 and F50 no problem and I didn't bend them in any direction to make contact but I like that idea.

I've always thought putting an igniter in an engine and walking around with it was taking a chance for no reason. Kind of like walking around with the end of a match just above some gasoline is probably not a good idea. I've just made the practice to put in my igniter at the pad, after I rub the ignition clips together and check for sparks...

ECayemberg said:

I'm starting to feel like a whipping post. JR, I do what you mention above all the time; I have mixed feelings on the practice; please note that I was not necessarily including myself when I stated "many consider...." above. Here are my situational mixed feelings.

A) Private launch at the local field with low-mid power motors: installing igniters in advance that have been shorted is fine. Like I mentioned; I do it all the time; yesterday included!
B) At a regional or larger launch where high power may be flown. It's tough to police and administer a range using two different (model and high power) safety codes. For consistency, err on the side of the more conservative code where differences occur. The last regional launch I attended restricted ignitor installation to the pad area. I think this is a fine practice. My day job deals a lot with rules enforcement, I have learned to hate exceptions. So, at a launch that involves high power, I am accustomed to omitting the ignitor until it gets to the pad, whether I'm flying low, mid, or high power.
C) I realize that A) and B) above is a double standard and hypocrytical. When in doubt, B) is safer; that should be common sense.

-Eric-

Click to expand...

Well, that's fine... however one wants to do it so long as it's safe...

But there's no use pretending that something is safer than it actually is... that was the point I was trying to make.

I only fly LPR/MPR and so installing the ignitor beforehand is a non-issue. IF the HPR code prohibits it, so be it... but I question the justification of it on "safety" grounds (since a shorted ignitor in the engine is probably safer than one being wiggled into a motor unshorted). I just don't see the point of the argument that says "the ignitor's not in the motor til it's on the pad so see, NOTHING can go wrong..." But, like I said, if that's the code for HPR, so be it.

BUT, if I'm putting together a reload that says "install the ignitor before assembling the motor" that's probably a good idea, and silly false-security measures like "no ignitors installed til it's on the pad" doesn't count for much IMHO...

Whatever floats yer boat (so long as it's safe!) Later! OL JR

Dseter said:

I've always thought putting an igniter in an engine and walking around with it was taking a chance for no reason. Kind of like walking around with the end of a match just above some gasoline is probably not a good idea. I've just made the practice to put in my igniter at the pad, after I rub the ignition clips together and check for sparks...

Click to expand...

Depends on the motor and igniter. It takes a lot of current to fire a Copperhead; a stray static discharge isn't going to set it off. Same is true for an Estes Solar igniter, a Quest MicroMaxx igniter or one made from a loop of 30ga nichrome. The instructions for small RMS hobbyline reloads call for the igniter to be installed during the motor assembly; you don't want to wait until you are at the pad to put your motor together. I assemble them the evening before the launch. But in the case of ultra-low current e-match igniters, like those used in many CTI reloads, sure. The leads of CTI's igniters are insulated until the time of clip hookup for safety reasons.

Has there ever been an incident of a motor (not a deployment charge, but an actual motor) being spontaneously ignited anywhere away from the pad (and away from any ignition system leads) due solely to the presence of the igniter in the motor? Have there ever been any incidents of igniters spontaneously going off while still in the packaging? (They should be just as likely to be set off when they are outside of a motor as they would be when they are installed in it.)

With all of this being said, though, I don't see anything at all wrong with doing what you describe. In the case of high power motors, it is the required procedure.