*RANT* Sparkies!

pnobile said:

Lol, do you straddle the rail/rod when you put your rocket on??? You also can't just narrow it down to the person who flew a sparkie on the pad before you unless you know that pad was completely cleaned off before you used it.....fly, don't cry!

Click to expand...

+1 the rails get dirty no matter what is flies off them unless titanium does something to the propellant that I'm not aware of, I could see it maybe pit the rail but any dirtier, I don't get it?


TA

markkoelsch said:

I am not a sparky fan. I admit it, and I am not afraid to say it. You could offer me a free one and I would turn you down. Period and end of story.
Mark Koelsch
Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum

Click to expand...

That's cool Mark, everyone has their niche of what they like to fly in their rockets....

But...If anyone offers you a *free* Sparky and, you really see a need too turn it down.

I can be found. If Preston is there though...it might get ugly.

Mine!:rant: No MINE!:rant: Let go of my leg!:rant: Hey! Handcuffs aren't allowed on the field!:rant: #@$%!

It's all good...

COrocket said:

The difference is that CATO's are an inherent risk with launching all rockets. The only way to eliminate that risk is to cancel the launch or more specifically not fly that rocket at all.
The fire risk of a sparky motor is only inherent when launching sparky powered rockets. You can eliminate that component of overall risk by using a different type of motor.

So it is apparent that there is always going to be some element of risk when launching rockets, whether its motor malfunction, flight path, recovery failure etc... It is up to the club/landowner/local authorities (if applicable) to determine what level of risk they are willing to accept before any given launch. Regulating sparkies is one of many ways to reduce the overall risk of the launching activities. This of course is assuming you buy into the idea that properly functioning sparkies are more prone to starting fires than properly functioning "other" motors. I've seen sparkies start fires at our local sod farm, which were minor and extinguished promptly by range personnel.

I've seen all three cases happen. The difference in risk between CATO's and sparkies are the difference between #2 and #3.
1. - Clubs will allow for any type of motor to be flown. There is no significant fire hazard, regardless of which motor is used.
2. - Clubs have banned sparkies but other flights are allowed to continue. Launching sparkies presents a significant fire hazard, however other motors do not.
3. - Clubs have canceled launches completely due to fire risk. Launching any type of rocket presents a significant fire hazard.

The reason so many clubs are so conservative with sparky motors and conducting launches in drought conditions is because if someone was to start a forest/grassland/wild fire with a rocket, to the point where local/state/federal resources had to get involved with the firefighting efforts, it could put the entire hobby at risk.

Click to expand...

This is the premise that I reject, its nothing personal I just think we have all been whipped up into a frenzy over nothing. I think if we were all honest about this we would see its not any higher than any other fire risk we take on the field. I for one don't see the difference between the sparky or the CATO if you are willing to take the risk of a CATO then whats difference between the risk of a sparky.

In my own little world have yet to see one start a fire. Seen two CATOs start fires one was my own, but for some reason it seems every launch we have the same No sparky frenzy. Why? Because the sky is falling, and to that a say prove it!

:2:


TA

Aksrockets said:

The majority of the year UROC can fly sparkies. October will definitely be a go if it rained there as much as it did here these past 2 days. I don't blame them for putting that rule up at the sept. launch, but I'm definitely cheering for you for sneaking that little G sparky load in there.

Alex

Click to expand...

The problem I had with it was all the rain we had and the talk of how wet and green the sparse vegetation was, that they went on about and then "oh no sparkies." ???? It didn't make sense! Then I was told that it was because the the BLM was there? No one knew they were going to show, and they didn't get there till late in the day. It wasn't like they showed first thing and then they decided to ban them.

Our prez is doing a good job I don't blame him really It seems to be problem stemming from a few in our club mostly a previous prez. Never the less I should have listen to him better , it was my bad. I wasn't the only one that launched one I saw a Metal Storm go up and the BLM guys thought it was awesome.


TA

Next spring launch, I will post photos. You will see the proof. We have had only one fire since i took over as prefect that was caused by a non-sparky and 3 from sparkys. Although this is not proof, consider that sparkys are only 15-20% of the motors flown. As a prefect, I reserve the right to ban them for the day or provide a shoe and weed eater to those who wish to fly them.

The other motor was a VMAX that spit a grain.

Heck, we have had many CATOS that have failed to cause a fire.

thobin said:

I maintain if its to dry to fly a sparky then its to dry to fly.





I reject that it is as common as people claim. I would like some proof from the "I saw a sparky cause a fire!" crowd instead of all the hear say and exaggeration of this apparent epidemic of sparky fires. If it is as bad as people claim then they should be banned.

That's fine if you don't like them its not what this is about, not all motors float my boat, but your would your dislike of them put your account of how many fires you have had to stomp in question?


TA

Click to expand...

Ok, then, how about this: I love sparkies, but I have seen them start many fires and I have been out to help put those fires out many times. At the last Red Glare there were many small fires started by sparkies and no fires started by other motors. Launch officers chose not to ban them but they were strongly discouraged, and mainly I viewed their use as inconsiderate under the conditions as it caused everyone to have to wait at a time when the queues were quite long.

I do not understand your categorical rejection of the idea that sparkies are more prone to fire starting than other motors. Most motors are putting out hot, but nevertheless spent, products of combustion. A sparky motor is sending out a shower of actively combusting particles. If you have some evidence that goes against my entire life experience of dealing with campfires, fireplace fires, barbecue grills, etc. and that tells me that sparks are more likely to start a fire on dry grass than hot smoke, by all means enlighten us. Stating over and over again that they are no different in the face of both evidence and common sense to the contrary won't make it so.

There are times and conditions where sparkies are appropriate and times when they are not. Conditions that are marginally unsafe for a shower of sparks are not necessarily unsafe for other motors. Period.



Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum

The next question you're going to have to ask is, with a significantly increased incidence of CATO's, should research motors be banned as a fire risk? The answer to which, I hope, is also no.

Ok, I'll weigh in with my perspective (for what it's worth):

I love sparky motors - they're way cool to fly. I also think that they should absolutely be banned in some conditions.

Most of the time I fly, it's either on dry lake beds, huge open spaces with no vegetation to speak of, and salt flats. It would be extremely hard to start a fire in these places if you tried. Banning sparkies in these places would be ridiculous and pointless. I fly sparkies in these places all the time, and it's entirely appropriate.

This July I flew at Northern Colorado Rocketry's site at the Pawnee Grass Lands - awesome/beautiful place. Miles and miles of gently rolling terrain/prairie covered in low vegetation and grasses. It was high summer and pretty dry. They had a "no sparkies" rule, and I'm glad they did. If they HAD allowed sparkies I would have been kinda outraged and likely would have spoken up - I certainly would not have flown any just because they said it was ok to do so. Flying sparkies in that place at that time would be asinine. Banning sparkies here made perfect sense.

There's a time and place for things, even if we don't like it sometimes.

Another aspect is that the "no sparkies" bans are often the call of the club itself. For WHATEVER reason they chose to make that call - avoiding liability, being good stewards, wanting to appease the landowners, they simply don't like sparkies, etc. - it's really their call since they did all the hard work to make the launches happen, not to mention absorbing the cost. I need to respect that.

Yes, there's always a fire risk at launches - from CATOs, motors getting spit out, ballistic landings under power, etc. In fact at that NCR launch this July one rocket spun out off the rail, came down under thrust and started a small fire. EVERYONE responded immediately with extinguishers and such and made sure the fire was put out quickly and completely. This was great, and an excellent example of a club being prepared and responsible. EVERY club should do the same. But to me there is a difference between being prepared IF an accident happens that starts a fire, and just thinking "yeah, WHEN the fire starts we'll just put it out" (which is a likely scenario with flying sparkies in some conditions).

Again:
Do I love sparky motors and want to fly them? - Yep.
Do I think sparky bans are sometimes a good thing? - Yep, as well.

s6

jmattingly13 said:

The next question you're going to have to ask is, with a significantly increased incidence of CATO's, should research motors be banned as a fire risk? The answer to which, I hope, is also no.

Click to expand...

Now this gets my goat. I'm not in GA, up here in the Midwest, research motors generally CATO LESS THAN COMMERCIAL motors. Case in point, this past weekend at Da Bong. Research launch. Number of Research CATOs: 0. Number of commercial CATOs: 1+. Small batch analysis, I know; and yes I'm partial. But truly, if Research motors are cato'ing more than commercials, you're doing something wrong (or hanging with the wrong group:wink

On the sparky subject; like anything else in High Power Rocketry, they should be handled with care. There are times when flying sparkies are inappropriate. There are plenty of other times when flying them is just fine. I flew one sparky this past weekend, it started a very small fire that was easily put out. Nevertheless, they do have the potential to cause fires....use caution, discretion, and care when flying them!

-Eric-

I live in Texas - a few years ago one of the best sites and best waivers in the U.S. (Wayside) was taken from all of us courtesy of a K sparky motor that started a grass fire. I'm an altitude junky, so trashed nozzles and crappy impulse doesn't do much for me, but that part is to each his own. Losing the site is a different story.

DizWolf said:

Burning metal has a tendency to start a lot of things on fire... Also you can tell it's the same flight from the rod's shadows.

Like it or not, they're a large fire hazard for no reason but effect. I like 'em. we launch 'em. But unless everyone is willing to deal with the risks, you can't get mad at them for not wanting to do it. Offer to show up early and clear a pad 'extra carefully' and man an extinguisher during the flights, see what they say.

Click to expand...

Exactly... But this isn't what the sparky fanboys want to hear... anybody saying something they don't like is just trying to pee on their parade... Oh well...

Yes, they HAVE started fires. They got a north Texas club kicked off the land they'd been flying on for DECADES due to a fire started by a sparky, which they allowed to be flown despite a strict "NO sparky" motor rule on the flying field, but because it was a bunch of dumb kids that had driven a couple hundred miles to fly with them to get their qualification flight in for the "Student Launch Initiative" NASA competition (sort of a TARC-like thing NASA does for good PR). The kids had let things slip to the last minute, and had missed the opportunities to get their qualification flight in closer to home, and it was their last opportunity before the deadline, which is why they drove several hundred miles (IIRC) to the north Texas field... and they ALSO had IGNORED their advisor's assertions telling them NOT to buy sparky motors for their flights, but being "dumb kids" OF COURSE they had to go with what *they* thought was cool and impressive, not with what was PROPER to get the job done in the most straightforward way. They show up to launch their qualification flight and start whining when they're told "no sparkies" and nobody has a substitute non-sparky load for their casing and motor designation, so rather than "disappoint the children" and sticking to the field rules, the RSO allowed them to fly the sparky in contravention of their own field rules and common sense. A fire broke out from sparks landing in the grass around the pad and burned off a good part of the pasture that they were flying from, and came VERY close to burning under the fence into a large field of DRY STANDING READY TO BE HARVESTED WHEAT (which burns like gasoline) and could have potentially burned off SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS of grain in that field. Afterward the neighbors raised enough h3ll with the landowners that they simply refused to allow the club to fly from their land anymore, and RIGHTLY SO. If the club officials CANNOT BE TRUSTED to follow the rules that have been laid down between the landowner and the club, then THEY DON'T NEED TO BE ALLOWED TO FLY THERE, PERIOD. As a landowner, I allow clubs to fly from my property, BUT, I have a STRICT NO HPR and ABSOLUTELY NO SPARKY MOTORS rule. If either of those rules are broken, forget it... they're out of here... I'm not sticking my neck out for a lawsuit so some "I'll do whatever I like and you can't stop me" A-holes can get their jollies... ANYBODY ever breaks the "no sparkies" and "no HPR" rule around here, and the ENTIRE CLUB will be banned from our farms, PERIOD... I trust the club leadership to comply with the AGREEMENTS and LIMITATIONS we've laid down... if they're UNWORTHY of that trust, if they BREAK that trust, then they're gone. I think a lot of landowners will have a very similar attitude... The rules EXIST FOR A REASON... and if someone isn't intelligent enough or MATURE enough to accept that and work within the system, then they need to be GONE... Do something else, go somewhere else. I must say though that I've seen this same sort of a$$-clown mentality demonstrated more than a few times, and almost always it's been from the HPR folks at a LPR/MPR club launch or at a HPR launch... just reinforces the reasons for my "no HPR on *my* land" rule...

If you can't live with those kinds of rules, then by all means, go buy a couple hundred acres and fly whatever you want... and get your @ss sued off when you burn down the neighbors place doing @ss-clown stunts. Til then, follow the rules, or ruin it for everybody...

BLM might not "know or care what you're doing" but believe me, you cause a fire, they'll figure it out REAL QUICK, and you'll find yourself out of a field... AND DESERVEDLY SO!

IMHO, these "effects motors" are just fireworks in rocketry disguise... colored flames and stuff is borderline IMHO-- the "ooh-ahh" effect is their only purpose; at least they "cause no more harm" in terms of risk than any other model rocket motor (except for green flame motors, which have particularly toxic exhaust byproducts). Sparkies on the other hand are simply fireworks in the guise of rocketry motors. They contribute NOTHING to the flight performance and exist ONLY for the "oooh-ahh" effect, and they can cause a LOT of HARM if used improperly, in the wrong conditions, or in contravention of the standing rules and regulations governing their use... not that seems to matter to the folks that so dearly love them.

This hobby was built upon the concept of "self-policing" of behaviors and following the rules agreed upon by the national organizations, the hobbyists within them, and the regulatory and public safety organizations charged with overseeing such things. Of course given the "instant gratification" nature of our society, it's plain to see that such a paradigm is breaking down, because people no longer honor their agreements when it's inconvenient or "interferes with their fun"... "rules are for other people" is the attitude that prevails today. Need I remind you, if you can fly a HPR motor, including SPARKIES, you are by necessity a member of one of the national organizations, and you AGREED upon joining said organization to COMPLY WITH THE STIPULATIONS of the NATIONAL MODEL ROCKET SAFETY CODE or HIGH POWER ROCKETRY SAFETY CODE, which spells out the REQUIREMENTS (ie NOT SUGGESTIONS) for setbacks, cleared areas, etc. pertaining to flights using sparky motors... I submit that ANYBODY who refuses to adhere to those requirements should be EJECTED from said national organization and their certifications REVOKED.

Yeah, it's THAT SERIOUS!

What do you do with your sparky motors?? That's your tough luck... fly according to the rules, or DON'T FLY AT ALL...

End rant...

Later! OL JR

thobin said:

I didn't think I was implying that I was defecting any responsibility or common sense!? I just don't see the difference in risk between the potential CATO and the potential fire risk of a sparky. Instead of quitting the club I choose to create discussion and educate, or at least make the rule makers explain themselves. I don't accept their premise or reasoning, every bit of rocketry is a fire hazard.

How long did we have to put up with the ATF rules before we made them explain it or prove it?

How many CATOs start a fire? I bet its much higher than a sparkies do and I would hazard a guess that tons more sparkies fly than CATOs happen.


TA

Click to expand...

YOU have to prove it's safe to get THEIR approval...

NOBODY has to prove to YOU that it's unsafe so you don't throw a tantrum...

Later! OL JR

This is a tender subject, because if your sparkies are causing fires, then you aren't following the minimum ground clearance rules. So no one wants to admit that they are having fires. But I have been to a launch where sparkies were causing fires, and the LCO was asking people to either not use them, or be prepared with firefighting equipment nearby. So most people who used them immediately ran out with a bucket of water or an extinguisher as soon as the sparks had stopped falling. There was a lot of dry grass on the ground under the launch pads.

Talk to the good folks from POTROCS, Tripoli Amarillo TX, about sparky motors.

Better yet, DON’T!! They really, really don’t like to be reminded about their little mishap.

Aksrockets said:

[video=youtube;nMr3yntQbG8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMr3yntQbG8&list=UUZHQd8FdnPL3VB6hVSZ6MFw[/video]

Mother of Sparky catos....


The majority of the year UROC can fly sparkies. October will definitely be a go if it rained there as much as it did here these past 2 days. I don't blame them for putting that rule up at the sept. launch, but I'm definitely cheering for you for sneaking that little G sparky load in there.

Alex

Click to expand...

Wow! Deserts have their uses.... And that's the first 1440p HD video I've seen on YouTube. Never seen one more than 1080p before.

I live in Florida, more specifically South Florida. It has not stopped raining in months. At our launch this weekend we had a sparky start a fire. We launch at a park on a grass field and the sparky lit a clump of cut grass near the pad. It had poured just a few hours before the launch and we still had a small fire. The key is to follow the Boy Scout Motto; "Be Prepared." Follow your safety rules and have an extinguisher close by. In the case of this small burn, it took a few stomps of a foot and some dirt to put it out. What started the fire though wasn't the sparks. It was generally believed that the plastic from the nozzle cover blew to that spot and started the burn.

What I'm hearing (and seeing) a lot in this thread is folks NOT having anywhere near the required "non-combustible" cleared space around their launch pads. Regularly. Whether or not sparkies are flying. What the h*#@ is up with that?

The guidelines are pretty clear on this, and we all should know these rules AND abide by them. C'mon folks, we can do better than this.

s6

RocketGeekInFL said:

What started the fire though wasn't the sparks. It was generally believed that the plastic from the nozzle cover blew to that spot and started the burn.

Click to expand...

That's bizarre. So any motor could have started that fire in what must have been at least damp grass.

I had a fire once in Utah with a little estes C6-5. I wasn't part of the club at the time and was out with family members. Anyway I had launched this rocket multiple times with no problems but for some reason the last launch of the day the rocket snagged on the rod or the engine didn't function properly because the rocket flew perfectly horizontal as soon as it left the pad. It's flight path went directly into some dry grass a couple hundred yards away and within seconds the grass was engulfed in flames . We had followed all of the NAR safety precautions but for what ever reason this time it wasn't enough. Thankfully with some help and lots of bottled water we were able to get it out but it could have been much worse.

We only allow sparkies here in the New England area (to my knowledge) at the Annual MMMSC Winter Solstice launch in Berwick, ME. It's a sod farm that is either snow covered or frozen at that point in the year. No one has yet succeeded to set the snow on fire. There is fire risk with even non-titanium infused motors on the grass fields that we fly on, so the sparky ban is common sense for us to keep in good standing with the locals. Now, if I had a dry lake bed and it was July...

Winston said:

That's bizarre. So any motor could have started that fire in what must have been at least damp grass.

Click to expand...

Yeah pretty much. Now one thing about Florida is grass doesn't stay damp for long, hence the brutal humidity. Though on this day that clump of dead cut grass was still damp. It was more of a smoking smouldering fire than flames shooting and what not. Only explanation was either the plastic from the nozzle cover or a piece of propellent flew out. It was a perfect flight and the motor performed flawlessly, so I am thinking the plastic is to blame. A spark did not start damp dead grass on fire though. This was definitely something that maintained heat for at least 15-20 seconds. We didn't even notice the problem till after the rocket was safely on the ground and we turned back to the pads for the next launch.

ECayemberg said:

Now this gets my goat. I'm not in GA, up here in the Midwest, research motors generally CATO LESS THAN COMMERCIAL motors. Case in point, this past weekend at Da Bong. Research launch. Number of Research CATOs: 0. Number of commercial CATOs: 1+. Small batch analysis, I know; and yes I'm partial. But truly, if Research motors are cato'ing more than commercials, you're doing something wrong (or hanging with the wrong group:wink

On the sparky subject; like anything else in High Power Rocketry, they should be handled with care. There are times when flying sparkies are inappropriate. There are plenty of other times when flying them is just fine. I flew one sparky this past weekend, it started a very small fire that was easily put out. Nevertheless, they do have the potential to cause fires....use caution, discretion, and care when flying them!

-Eric-

Click to expand...

As it is, we don't see too many CATO's the folks we fly with at PMW (Alabama) are pretty good, but there's also a bunch of them that fly research, so law of large numbers I guess. A handful of the research motors are big ones, too, so more room for boom. That said, I think I've only seen one or two fires at those launches. One was from a sparky...that CATO'd.

Now, here's a thought...

How about at each launch, there is an extra, small fee to launch sparkies. The money that is collected then goes toward buying nomex blankets to cover the ground around the launch pads. I know, expensive, but after a few years, maybe you have enough to cover the area.

Luke do you think the land owners gave a crap what started the fire? Would the end result been any different if it had been a CATO that started the fire?

So far the replies have been, Fires started by sparkies 78 fires started by CATOs 2.

We know you hate HPR so forgive me if I find your take on this a little one sided.

I begrudge no land owner the right to restrict any type of use on their land.

Sounds to me like you all need to review your ground clearance rules.


TA

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Rocketry Forum mobile app

I should start by saying that I love watching sparky motors launch, and have not been back into high power rocketry long enough to speak to how often they start fires. That being said, I think what is missed in the "a cato can start a fire too, and it's just as bad" argument is that when evaluating the cost of risk you have to multiply the percent chance an event happening with the average cost of damage should the event occur. If in fact sparkies are much more likely to cause a fire, and the fire will cause the same amount of damage the cost of risk of a sparky is higher. This is what clubs or land owners will weigh against the value that the sparky motors bring to the launch in enjoyment and fun.

thobin said:

Luke do you think the land owners gave a crap what started the fire? Would the end result been any different if it had been a CATO that started the fire?

So far the replies have been, Fires started by sparkies 78 fires started by CATOs 2.

We know you hate HPR so forgive me if I find your take on this a little one sided.

I begrudge no land owner the right to restrict any type of use on there land.

Sounds to me like you all need to review your ground clearance rules.


TA

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Rocketry Forum mobile app

Click to expand...

Yeah I'd say so since they were booted out of a field they'd been flying in for years... While it's quite likely that they had SOME incidental fire on the field at some point in their history, the fact that the club leadership broke trust with the landowners and violated THEIR OWN RULES to allow a sparky motor, just to help out this group of "dumb kids" (who, incidentally, had ALREADY BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO BUY SPARKY MOTORS FOR THEIR FLIGHTS, but foolishly chose to disregard this advice) cost them their flying field.

While the fire COULD have been caused by a cato or crash under thrust and subsequent ejection on the ground, the fact is, IT WASN'T. The DIRECT CAUSE was a sparky motor was flown that WAS NOT supposed to be. That is a fact. You can dance around that fact all you want to, but the outcome was the same.

The difference is in INTENT. Flying a sparky motor is a CHOICE, PERIOD. It is a choice that basically gives the bird to your landowner and club people who are saying "don't do it, it's not safe" because YOU made the choice that you think it's "SOOoooo COOL" and that is the most important thing on your mind... Just like it was a CHOICE to break their own rules and allow those kids to fly a sparky motor when the conditions weren't right, JUST BECAUSE (insert favorite reason here). It demonstrated EXTREMELY POOR JUDGMENT and it cost them their field.

One can make the argument that it was unsafe to be flying ANYTHING, and if the fire had been caused by anything else, that FACT would certainly have had a bearing on the situation. BUT, the FACT was, the fire WAS started by a SPARKY motor flown in DIRECT CONTRAVENTION of the rules and good judgment.

That's why I reserve the final call on launches on our property during drought conditions. Nobody is saying that flying ANY rocket motor is without risk, because quite obviously it is not... and as you pointed out in your original rant, there ARE times when burn bans or other "official" pronouncements do not gibe with the actual conditions on the ground. I've told our club folks I don't have a problem flying in an "official" burn ban, IF the conditions warrant it (rainfall/greening sufficient to minimize fire risk, high humidity, low winds, moist conditions, etc.) Also I can and will call a halt if the conditions are unsafe IMHO, due to lots of dry standing grass or weeds ("fuel load" for wildfires), hot, dry, high winds, persistant dry weather leading to exceedingly dry conditions, whether or not an "official" burn ban has been issued, lifted, etc. I can tell you for a fact that I've seen conditions tinderbox dry while the surrounding areas are green and lush, even wet, due to the fickle nature of rainfall patterns, and vice versa-- I've seen conditions green and lush on our fields and dry in large swaths of surrounding territory... so it MUST be a local, on-site call as to safe or unsafe IMHO... I WILL agree with you there completely...

I don't "hate" HPR... I just have seen a large enough amount of exceedingly poor judgment exercised by practitioners of it to give me a VERY long moment of pause and decide that its not worth the potential risks, and not to host it on our property. These sorts of threads really reinforce that belief due to the attitudes demonstrated, like yours...

Best of luck. OL JR

matthewdlaudato said:

We only allow sparkies here in the New England area (to my knowledge) at the Annual MMMSC Winter Solstice launch in Berwick, ME. It's a sod farm that is either snow covered or frozen at that point in the year. No one has yet succeeded to set the snow on fire. There is fire risk with even non-titanium infused motors on the grass fields that we fly on, so the sparky ban is common sense for us to keep in good standing with the locals. Now, if I had a dry lake bed and it was July...

Click to expand...

Last I knew you were permitted to launch Sparky motors at the CRMRC launch in St. Albans VT. Not sure if the rules changed since they were able to restart on the field. I am suspecting not....

luke strawwalker said:

That's why I reserve the final call on launches on our property during drought conditions. Nobody is saying that flying ANY rocket motor is without risk, because quite obviously it is not..

Click to expand...

Every month, before calling the FAA, I first make a call to our landowner to get a read on how he feels about the fire risk.

He's never asked us to cancel a launch, but I've cancelled them based purely on how he reacts when I ask him what the conditions are.

The land belongs to him, not us, and we have an obligation to show courtesy in when and how we use it.

-Kevin

wfcook said:

A sparky motor is sending out a shower of actively combusting particles.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that sparky motors put out a shower of hot glowing metal pieces that aren't combusting at all? It seems to me that's why they're apt to start fires; they're super hot and impossible to prevent from hitting the ground using a blast deflector. The metal pieces don't "burn out" on their way to the ground; they have to cool off, and from videos, that appears to happen only after they hit the ground for the first several feet of flight. By design, it seems, sparky motors function such that a blast deflector only prevents the burning propellant exhaust from hitting the ground, but not the hot metal bits.

For the record, although I'm not a high power flier, my first group launch where high power rockets were flown was in 1991 (or maybe '92) at a Vikings launch near Richmond. There was an unannounced sparky-type motor flown on a large, dry field, and we all had to run out with extinguishers and stomp it out with our shoes. I was 14 at the time, and IIRC, there were several "old school" NAR members there, like Bob Biedron (who drove me), Terry Lee (who missed a flame and almost caught his pants on fire), and Doug Pratt (not sure if it was that launch or another that I saw Doug). Ah, the memories...

thobin said:

I maintain if its to dry to fly a sparky then its to dry to fly.





I reject that it is as common as people claim. I would like some proof from the "I saw a sparky cause a fire!" crowd instead of all the hear say and exaggeration of this apparent epidemic of sparky fires. If it is as bad as people claim then they should be banned.

That's fine if you don't like them its not what this is about, not all motors float my boat, but your would your dislike of them put your account of how many fires you have had to stomp in question?


TA

Click to expand...

I would say 5 times is about the number of times I helped stomp out a sparky fire. It could be 4 or 6, but that is an accurate range.

I think the noise is cool, and they look cool. If you are flying in the desert go for it. If you are flying off of a grass field or something similar I question your thinking. I choose to not fly them. I am not a fan of the potential for grass fires. You can question me further, but I think having flaming chunks of metal coming into contact with potentially flammable materials is not a great idea. Call me crazy if you want. I will fly other motors that do not shoot out flaming metal chunks by design.


Mark Koelsch
Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum