L3, Really?

As a newly accomplished L2 back in April, people often tease me or joke with me with the same kind of lines we L2 rocketeers have all heard: "When you getting your L3?"

One L3 in the local area stands by the notion that one must have 20-30 L2, DD flights before attempting an L3.

Let's see, I am a BAR, flying again in only the past three years. I have a grand total of 4 successful, DD, L2 flights (all K's) with two different rockets. Two with a Loc Big Nuke and one with my scratch built Hydra upscale.

Now the hypothetical question for you L3 flyers or anyone else with an opinion about it: what is perhaps the recommended yet unspoken or unwritten criteria for experience prior to an L3 attempt?

If you are going to state your opinion, how about telling us your cert level and your experiences as well please! thanks, gary7

I think the color of your credit card is the main criteria. If it's gold or platinum then you are good to go.

-- Roger
L2
Gray Credit Card

I'll give an opinion, but keep in mind, my opinion is worth less than 2 cents as it is really engaging with an L3CC or TAP and having a discussion with that person that will help you judge whether you are ready or not -- plus, their opinion does matter.

So, my general feeling is that with the proliferation of large, nearly bullet-proof, fiberglass kits there are many that are getting their L3's in a cookie-cutter fashion with little understanding of all the subtle aspects of high power rocketry. I think our hobby would be much better off taking a step backward and forcing L3 attempts to be built substantially from scratch with all the calculations and homework involved with such a "ground up" build. Enough for the preamble... With respect to you in particular, Gary... I have known you for the 3 years you mention in your post. I have seen that you do/have done your homework and do so on both the large and small things. You have built substantially scratch scale projects and have exercised a wide range of build techniques. All the flights I have seen in person, or after the fact have been successful. I would say in many ways you are more experienced than some that I have seen with more actual years in the hobby, but who instead approach it in a cursory manner.

dixontj93060 said:

I'll give an opinion, but keep in mind, my opinion is worth less than 2 cents as it is really engaging with an L3CC or TAP and having a discussion with that person that will help you judge whether you are ready or not -- plus, their opinion does matter.

So, my general feeling is that with the proliferation of large, nearly bullet-proof, fiberglass kits there are many that are getting their L3's in a cookie-cutter fashion with little understanding of all the subtle aspects of high power rocketry. I think our hobby would be much better off taking a step backward and forcing L3 attempts to be built substantially from scratch with all the calculations and homework involved with such a "ground up" build. Enough for the preamble... With respect to you in particular, Gary... I have known you for the 3 years you mention in your post. I have seen that you do/have done your homework and do so on both the large and small things. You have built substantially scratch scale projects and have exercised a wide range of build techniques. All the flights I have seen in person, or after the fact have been successful. I would say in many ways you are more experienced than some that I have seen with more actual years in the hobby, but who instead approach it in a cursory manner.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on that one. I want to get my level 3 and the only way I can feel like I accomplished something is to do it from scratch.
I have already spent hours on planning, design & consulting with people on my project. This has been challenging & satisfying and
I have a long way to go to get there.

When to go for Level 3 is a personal choice. People who immediately ask you when you're going for the next level don't get it.

In my experience, people who quickly advance through levels also tend to quickly drop out -- they've gotten their merit badges, they're done, they sell everything off, and move on.

You should never feel pressured to go for another level, and you should never do it because someone told you that you should. You should do it when you want to, and when you feel you're ready to do so.

That said, if the only way you know how to do it is by building a kit, then in my mind, you're not ready. Does that mean you can't build a kit? No. But you should have the knowledge to do it, without a kit.

-Kevin

All I see by this penis measuring is that the rocket-making companies have done a brilliant thing by making rockets so alpha-numeric based.

I have so far been able to avoid climbing the boat ladder, and hopefully I'll avoid the rocket one, too.

Petamocto said:

All I see by this penis measuring is that the rocket-making companies have done a brilliant thing by making rockets so alpha-numeric based.

I have so far been able to avoid climbing the boat ladder, and hopefully I'll avoid the rocket one, too.

Click to expand...

When I first got back into rocketry about 15 years ago, I saw the larger rockets and thought they were interesting, but didn't think I'd ever build and fly one.

A few years later I got my Level 1 certification. I figured I'd fly some H and I motor rockets, but I was sure I'd ever want to go any larger.

A few aftrer that I got my Level 2 certification. Now, I fly J and K motor rockets - and I just ordered a new motor set and my first L motor reloads.

But, I don't think I'll ever desire to fly an M motor rocket .....



As a serious reply to Gary's original post ...

When you first start flying dual-deployment rockets, you are a little nervous about it. Setting up and altimeter and creating ejection charges is more hands-on than just picking the motor with the right delay. But, quickly you start feeling comfortable with electronic deployment. It's the same with the other elements of flying a larger rocket. I think you'll know when you're ready to move up to Level 3 because you will feel comfortable with what you're doing now.

And, although my first reply was a joke, there was some seriousness to it. Building and flying Level 3 rockets can be much more expensive. So, that's a real consideration. I don't think I'd want to earn my Level 3 certification then not be able to afford to continuing flying Level 3 rockets.

-- Roger

:eyeroll: Not only did you avoid the boat ladder, you missed the boat all together!

Petamocto said:

All I see by this penis measuring is that the rocket-making companies have done a brilliant thing by making rockets so alpha-numeric based.

I have so far been able to avoid climbing the boat ladder, and hopefully I'll avoid the rocket one, too.

Click to expand...

I have been holding off on getting an L3 because I have little that I cannot do with my L2. I don't see a great benefit since I don't fly the rockets that would require an L3. Occasionally I get silly and start thinking I ought to go ahead and L3 - but the truth is with the size rockets I like to build an fly M+ motors just don't have a role in my flights.

As for Scratch vs. Kit - the real question I would have for a builder if I were the L3CC or TAP is this: What do you regularly fly? What do you want to fly in the future? If the person going for L3 is mainly a kit builder and they fly very little else and don't have plans to change that - I would not even consider giving them a gentle ribbing about the use of a Kit. If they tend to scratch build and plan to fly more scratch birds than anything else then I would ask them to question their motivation for going for an L3 cert with a kit. I would also ask them to please provide detailed analysis of the airworthiness of the rocket and get them to commit to how they planned to validate the airworthiness. (Test Launch on an L, careful simulations, use existing flight data and compare CG/CP to existing builds, etc.)

Ultimately it seems to me the successful L3CC/TAP is doing a lot of education as well as acting as a gatekeeper - they are there to help the flier realize their goals and learn something along the way if needed.

jadebox said:

When I first got back into rocketry about 15 years ago, I saw the larger rockets and thought they were interesting, but didn't think I'd ever build and fly one.

A few years later I got my Level 1 certification. I figured I'd fly some H and I motor rockets, but I was sure I'd ever want to go any larger.

A few aftrer that I got my Level 2 certification. Now, I fly J and K motor rockets - and I just ordered a new motor set and my first L motor reloads.

But, I don't think I'll ever desire to fly an M motor rocket .....



As a serious reply to Gary's original post ...

When you first start flying dual-deployment rockets, you are a little nervous about it. Setting up and altimeter and creating ejection charges is more hands-on than just picking the motor with the right delay. But, quickly you start feeling comfortable with electronic deployment. It's the same with the other elements of flying a larger rocket. I think you'll know when you're ready to move up to Level 3 because you will feel comfortable with what you're doing now.

And, although my first reply was a joke, there was some seriousness to it. Building and flying Level 3 rockets can be much more expensive. So, that's a real consideration. I don't think I'd want to earn my Level 3 certification then not be able to afford to continuing flying Level 3 rockets.

-- Roger

Click to expand...

Pretty much this!

I got back into the hobby after seeing some rockets on the wall at the local hobby shop. I decided I would rebuild all the rockets I totally screwed up as an 10 year old. I have not yet reached that goal. I never thought I would delve into High Power, as it was just too expensive.

A couple thousand dollars later, I'm about ready to take my L2 test and flight. I don't see any need for L3 at this point... but one never knows.

Being someone that used a kit for their L3, I don't agree with the "using a kit is a slam dunk" mentality (obviously).

I don't believe that anyone off the street can pick up a kit and build a flight worthy L3 rocket successfully. I mean, theoretically you could get your L1 on an H128W in a LOC IV, get your L2 with a J350W in an IROC, and then fly each 25 times without electronics. L3 requires electronics, knowledge for wiring them, setting them, etc.

Additionally, building a kit that flies at those speeds still requires healthy building techniques. So, I am kind of against the purists. TAP's and L3CC's tend to discourage knuckleheads from getting L3's, or at least turn a knucklehead into a gear head of sorts.

You just ask yourself... Do I want this? if yes then go for it! It's your hobby not anyone else's...

I have my L2 and have many flights under may belt with DD. As said earlier, I have many options to try higher and faster flights. I have a bunch of things I can still explore. I have acually stepped back and built some odd rocs which changes your whole look at designs. I think just buying a kit and loading an M motor is to easy. On the other hand, if I had the money, I would probably do it. I would rather understand EVERYTHING before I went any further.

dixontj93060 said:

So, my general feeling is that with the proliferation of large, nearly bullet-proof, fiberglass kits there are many that are getting their L3's in a cookie-cutter fashion with little understanding of all the subtle aspects of high power rocketry. I think our hobby would be much better off taking a step backward and forcing L3 attempts to be built substantially from scratch with all the calculations and homework involved with such a "ground up" build.....

Click to expand...

This!!!

The hobby has morphed into this thing that is dictated by ego, peer pressure, and/or how much you can afford. It is sad.

As a TAP member, I try to know who I am working with. Sometimes this is more practical than others. My advice is always the same no matter who asks. What is the rush? There is so much to do in the hobby, why is there a hurry to get to L3? In my opinion the people that are in such a hurry don't truely enjoy rocketry, they are simply in it for another accomplishment. To Kevin's point, these people are gone before you know it. I wouldn't hesitate to tell a person they aren't ready but just as quickly another TAP would be fine with it. Such is the way of the system as it is structured.

A certain quantity of flights or motor sizes is far less important than the actual experience and knowledge someone has. Still prefer people fly and get comfortable before moving on to the next level.

I got into HPR a couple years ago but have been flying low power for almost 40 years. Scratch-building isn't that difficult as long as you have design software. I did take my time getting my L1, and them my L2. They came about a year apart, and I went through a couple expensive rockets in the process. I felt that both for L1 and L2 I should push the envelope instead of be safe about it. My L1 was done with an H180 in a LOC Canadian Arrow. My L2 was doen with a J270 in a LOC Nuke Pro Maxx. That attempt hit 8,500' and skirted mach 1. It landed more than a mile away.

I am amassing the $$ needed to do my L3 project although I am not certain I will do it next year or the year after. I would love for my L3 cert flight to hit 2 miles, and the design I have could very well do that.

The reason why I want to do it and push the envelope at the same time is because I want to use the cert process to learn at the same time. I see the rigors of the process (test at L2 and documentation for L3) as a way to force myself to gain the knowledge to eventually be able to put something up 100,000+ feet.

I won't be flying big rockets that often though because of the expense involved. However gaining the knowledge of dealing with the stresses an L3 rocket can undergo can still be used on smaller high-altitude rockets. I have a design right now for a 2-stage 54mm min. diameter L2 rocket (about 5,000 total NS) that could reach nearly 70,000'. But I don't know enough about the stresses it will need to survive. Hopefully my L3 project will give me some of that knowledge.

That's why I want my L3.

dixontj93060 said:

I'll give an opinion, but keep in mind, my opinion is worth less than 2 cents as it is really engaging with an L3CC or TAP and having a discussion with that person that will help you judge whether you are ready or not -- plus, their opinion does matter.

So, my general feeling is that with the proliferation of large, nearly bullet-proof, fiberglass kits there are many that are getting their L3's in a cookie-cutter fashion with little understanding of all the subtle aspects of high power rocketry. I think our hobby would be much better off taking a step backward and forcing L3 attempts to be built substantially from scratch with all the calculations and homework involved with such a "ground up" build. Enough for the preamble... With respect to you in particular, Gary... I have known you for the 3 years you mention in your post. I have seen that you do/have done your homework and do so on both the large and small things. You have built substantially scratch scale projects and have exercised a wide range of build techniques. All the flights I have seen in person, or after the fact have been successful. I would say in many ways you are more experienced than some that I have seen with more actual years in the hobby, but who instead approach it in a cursory manner.

Click to expand...

I can certainly understand this sentiment. This is the winter of my L3 project build.

Please don't think less of me because I chose a kit. The kit was almost half the cost of buying materials for a scratch build with a similar planform.



All the best, James

Fdog said:

Please don't think less of me because I chose a kit.

Click to expand...

Remember, my opinion does not matter... The whole certification system for L3 would have to change to make any difference.

Fdog said:

Please don't think less of me because I chose a kit. The kit was almost half the cost of buying materials for a scratch build with a similar planform.

Click to expand...

The reality is a lot of people choose a kit because [is]it is often cheaper[/i]. Plus, it can save the hassle of sourcing parts.

Something else to consider -- there are people who truly enjoy designing new rockets. That's what floats their boat. There are people who'd love to always have someone else build the rocket, and they fly it to death -- building is a chore. Then there are those who don't mind building, but don't really relish designing from scratch, or they're just not good at it.

Just because someone doesn't enjoy the design aspect, or isn't good at it, doesn't mean they're not a good builder.

Certification is a demonstration of basic abilities to build and fly. Nowhere in there is there anything about designing.

-Kevin

dixontj93060 said:

So, my general feeling is that with the proliferation of large, nearly bullet-proof, fiberglass kits there are many that are getting their L3's in a cookie-cutter fashion with little understanding of all the subtle aspects of high power rocketry..

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. The fiberglass kits are really easy to build. I'm pretty sure I could build and finish a large, Level 3 compatible, kit in an afternoon if I cared to do so. But, the larger fiberglass kits I've bought were pretty much just a collection of components with not much more than a single drawing as instructions. So, they do require some knowlege to build and fly.

Building and flying a rocket from one of the fiberglass kits wouldn't demonstrate the ability to build a rocket from cardboard tubes that would survive flying on an M motor, but I think it's up to the L3CC or TAP to decide if the flier is ready to move to Level 3 and that the proposed project demonstrates that the flyer is ready.

-- Roger

troj said:

The reality is a lot of people choose a kit because it is often cheaper].

Click to expand...

That's true. I've bought two fiberglass kits over the years just for parts. The kits were less expensive than buying the specific individual parts that I needed and I had parts left over I could use later.

-- Roger

troj said:

Nowhere in there is there anything about designing.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that... On the Tripoli page for Level 3 certification "design" is used 10 times--behind only TAP and "Level 3" as the most used word/phrase. So there must be some aspect of design involved.

dixontj93060 said:

I don't know about that... On the Tripoli page for Level 3 certification "design" is used 10 times--behind only TAP and "Level 3" as the most used word/phrase. So there must be some aspect of design involved.

Click to expand...

Yep, the word is there, but its usage is such that it's aimed more at the TAP. The closest to anything about the flier is this

TRA members designing or preparing to fly M, N and O level 3 project must present details of their design to 2 TAP members of their choice.

Click to expand...

The rest of the references are in the "Tap Pre-Flight Review Checklist"

Now, that said, a qualified candidate should have the ability to look at a kit, and determine if it's truly Level-3 capable, and if not, what changes are required.

-Kevin

jadebox said:

I understand what you're saying. The fiberglass kits are really easy to build. I'm pretty sure I could build and finish a large, Level 3 compatible, kit in an afternoon if I cared to do so. But, the larger fiberglass kits I've bought were pretty much just a collection of components with not much more than a single drawing as instructions. So, they do require some knowlege to build and fly.

Building and flying a rocket from one of the fiberglass kits wouldn't demonstrate the ability to build a rocket from cardboard tubes that would survive flying on an M motor, but I think it's up to the L3CC or TAP to decide if the flier is ready to move to Level 3 and that the proposed project demonstrates that the flyer is ready.

-- Roger

Click to expand...

I think you could build the rocket that fast also, but my last L3 capable Av bay took about 20 hours to complete. I wonder if that is typical.

IMHO there really shouldn't be any unwritten rules, save that the intent that the flier understand how to assemble and prepare complex (colloquial, not cluster/staged) flight hardware. I hope to start my L3 right after I fly my L2. Just because.

Having defended flight hardware I've designed, and hardware I didn't design, to the shuttle safety panel in Houston, Tx, when I was as young as 24 or 25, I expect the L3 process to be straight forward. I will look for a L3CC/TAP with a keen eye for safety, a respect for sound engineering, and a lack of hidden agenda. I don't expect to have to "shop" for one, but I will if necessary.

Fdog said:

I can certainly understand this sentiment. This is the winter of my L3 project build.

Please don't think less of me because I chose a kit. The kit was almost half the cost of buying materials for a scratch build with a similar planform.



All the best, James

Click to expand...

James,

I guess I look at Level 3 certification flights a bit different than some of you.

I was told once a long time ago, "The up part is easy, it's the down part that's the killer!"

Building a kit certainly helps in the "up" part. Most kits in the size range to be flown on an "M" motor are over engineered and designed to be able to easily handle the thrust of a typical "M" motor.

So. . . you launch your rocket, it stays together, and coasts towards apogee.

From this point on, is really where you earn your L3.

It starts with a thorough understanding of modern rocketry electronics, their idiosyncrasies, and how to effectively and reliably install and operate them. There is a reason for the dual altimeter requirement for the L3 certification process. It is, quite simply, to give the best odds that the rocket will recover safely. I've heard of L3 applicants talk about their "primary" and their "backup" system. I tend to remind them that really they should be thought of as both primary. It should only take one electronic devise to safely recover a rocket. Designing a less capable backup system seems unwise if the "primary" system fails.

Looking past the electronics, the recovery SYSTEM needs to be designed and tested to, again, reliably recover the rocket. The weight of most L3 rockets can easily exceed twice the weight of a L2 rocket. Stuff that "works" in an L2 flight might be insufficient for a L3 flight. Ground testing deployment system is not just a good idea but a requirement if a flyer comes to me.

Spend a lot of your time and energy designing and building a complete recovery system and your chances of successfully certifying go way up.

BTW, this is how we all should be approaching each and every one of our flights, Low Power to the upper reaches of High Power. The hobby's goal should be a safe recovery every flight.

Bob Brown
L3

BBrown said:

James,

I guess I look at Level 3 certification flights a bit different than some of you.

I was told once a long time ago, "The up part is easy, it's the down part that's the killer!"

Building a kit certainly helps in the "up" part. Most kits in the size range to be flown on an "M" motor are over engineered and designed to be able to easily handle the thrust of a typical "M" motor.

So. . . you launch your rocket, it stays together, and coasts towards apogee.

From this point on, is really where you earn your L3.



Bob Brown
L3

Click to expand...

Agreed 100%

The down part is where one earns his/her wings!:grin:

blackjack2564 said:

Agreed 100%

The down part is where one earns his/her wings!:grin:

Click to expand...

Yep! Took me 3 times to get it right!:roll: Who woulda thought a quick link would unhook itself?Helps having the barrel nut tightened closed!LOL

5x7 said:

I think you could build the rocket that fast also, but my last L3 capable Av bay took about 20 hours to complete. I wonder if that is typical.

Click to expand...

That's part of what I was trying to say (but, I didn't say very well). The "design" consists of much more than just the parts in the kit. I know there are some exceptions, but most of the large fiberglass kits come with just the basic components and not much in the way of instructions. There's still a lot of designing and building to do beyond the kit.

-- Roger

jadebox said:

Most of the large fiberglass kits come with just the basic components and not much in the way of instructions. There's still a lot of designing and building to do beyond the kit.

-- Roger

Click to expand...

The booster part of any of the larger kits may be built easily and quickly, but the av-bay isn't going to assemble itself either. The two larger fiberglass kits that I have purchased from Wildman did not come with anything for the avbay, except the coupler and bulkheads. The av-bay slide, wiring, altimeters, layout, and retention design all had to be designed and constructed by the builder of the kit, in this case me. I learned a lot from my first kit, a Competitor 3, it was not laid out well or ergonomically. My next kit was significantly better, much more conveniently laid out and easier to access (it also helps that it has an extra inch of room). One could argue that the most difficult part of constructing a rocket is not the booster section, but the av-bay and recovery design, which both kits and scratch-built lack.

BBrown said:

James,

I guess I look at Level 3 certification flights a bit different than some of you.

I was told once a long time ago, "The up part is easy, it's the down part that's the killer!"

Building a kit certainly helps in the "up" part. Most kits in the size range to be flown on an "M" motor are over engineered and designed to be able to easily handle the thrust of a typical "M" motor.

So. . . you launch your rocket, it stays together, and coasts towards apogee.

From this point on, is really where you earn your L3.

It starts with a thorough understanding of modern rocketry electronics, their idiosyncrasies, and how to effectively and reliably install and operate them. There is a reason for the dual altimeter requirement for the L3 certification process. It is, quite simply, to give the best odds that the rocket will recover safely. I've heard of L3 applicants talk about their "primary" and their "backup" system. I tend to remind them that really they should be thought of as both primary. It should only take one electronic devise to safely recover a rocket. Designing a less capable backup system seems unwise if the "primary" system fails.

Click to expand...

Bob - Primary and Backup have been poorly articulated by some perhaps but that is a rational design pattern.

As an example. Let's say I fly with an ARTS for my primary and an Adept DDC for my backup. My backup is there to ensure that the events fire - perhaps they even have different sized charges as insurance against ground testing not being quite the same as the flight conditions.

Do I get my really cool recorded data? No.
Do I get even a peak altitude if the ARTS fails utterly? No.
Do I get a safe flight? Yes.

On the other hand - If I am designing a staged bird with dual electronics for staging and for deployment - I need to ensure that whatever safety features are on the primary system are on the secondary system as well. OR forgo the redundant staging electronics and live with the chance they don't fire - but have a plan for safe recovery that is redundant.

Lastly even with fully redundant and equivalent systems setup I would never refer to them as Primary and Primary - because I would have alternate charges (and if possible a delay on the apogee charge and different altitudes on the main charge) and so I would effectively have the same capability but deployed for a completely different purpose.

I think we are on the same page but for some reason you seem to object to Primary and Backup as terms - unless I misunderstand your position.