CTI Discussion Thread

[tfish]

My risk appetite: ZERO for this rocket.

I would either not fly the rocket or choose a different brand.

Tony

 

[Exactimator]

I've flown tons of 38mm CTI motors with no issues. Finally yesterday I had a 38mm J520 6xl skidmark fail. It made it a little over 1200 feet before it failed. The aft closure let go, sending the case up through a fiberglass Madcow Reaper. It took a chuck out of the 6xl case and blew a hole through the aluminum Aeropak 54-38 adapter. The casing with the remaining grains road flaired all the way down to the ground.

I think the rocket is salvageable. Obviously the casing is shot. The motor blasting up though the rocket pushed the top half off the booster section with enough force to also pop the nose off. The drogue was stripped off. Fortunately the Kevlar harnesses held and the main chute was undamaged, bringing everything back down safely.

The stratologger CF fired the deployment charges on the way down. I get an error code that it temporarily lost power during the flight.

 

[smstachwick]

I've flown tons of 38mm CTI motors with no issues. Finally yesterday I had a 38mm J520 6xl skidmark fail. It made it a little over 1200 feet before it failed. The aft closure let go, sending the case up through a fiberglass Madcow Reaper. It took a chuck out of the 6xl case and blew a hole through the aluminum Aeropak 54-38 adapter. The casing with the remaining grains road flaired all the way down to the ground.

I think the rocket is salvageable. Obviously the casing is shot. The motor blasting up though the rocket pushed the top half off the booster section with enough force to also pop the nose off. The drogue was stripped off. Fortunately the Kevlar harnesses held and the main chute was undamaged, bringing everything back down safely.

The stratologger CF fired the deployment charges on the way down. I get an error code that it temporarily lost power during the flight.

Man I wish I was paying attention to that! Must have been spectacular.

Sorry about your case, that sucks.

 

[jsdemar]

I've flown tons of 38mm CTI motors with no issues. Finally yesterday I had a 38mm J520 6xl skidmark fail. It made it a little over 1200 feet before it failed. The aft closure let go, sending the case up through a fiberglass Madcow Reaper. It took a chuck out of the 6xl case and blew a hole through the aluminum Aeropak 54-38 adapter. The casing with the remaining grains road flaired all the way down to the ground.

I think the rocket is salvageable. Obviously the casing is shot. The motor blasting up though the rocket pushed the top half off the booster section with enough force to also pop the nose off. The drogue was stripped off. Fortunately the Kevlar harnesses held and the main chute was undamaged, bringing everything back down safely.

The stratologger CF fired the deployment charges on the way down. I get an error code that it temporarily lost power during the flight.

Was the case used before?

 

[Exactimator]

Was the case used before?

Yes.

 

[jsdemar]

Yes.

One possibility is that the aft end of the casing was slightly larger than as manufactured, and the nozzle oring didn't seal well. The case has the type of damage seen when there's flow past an oring. Another possibility is that the aft end lost tempering from heating on previous firings; this would reduce the hoop strength and allow expansion of the ID during the last firing, causing the poor oring seal.

If the case was dimensionally correct, then there could be a tolerance problem with the nozzle assembly as manufactured.

If we had nominal good dimensions (and tolerances) for the case ID and the closure OD, these could be checked to see if they're in range before loading the motor.

If the whole hardware set is new and in tolerance, a possible fix would be to add a bead of red high-temp silicone on the surface of the closure(s) toward the inside of the case. There might not be room for a thicker oring.

If I had a few long cases and a few long reloads (from different mfgr dates), I could make measurements and come up with some conclusions and possible fixes. I'll look into the possibility of doing that. TMT could call upon the Tripoli Research Committee (me and @tfish to look at this.

 

[cerving]

Exactly!

Dip them in clear nail polish after the pyrogen dries, it keeps the pyrogen from flaking off and doesn't affect the performance.

 

[Exactimator]

One possibility is that the aft end of the casing was slightly larger than as manufactured, and the nozzle oring didn't seal well. The case has the type of damage seen when there's flow past an oring. Another possibility is that the aft end lost tempering from heating on previous firings; this would reduce the hoop strength and allow expansion of the ID during the last firing, causing the poor oring seal.

If the case was dimensionally correct, then there could be a tolerance problem with the nozzle assembly as manufactured.

If we had nominal good dimensions (and tolerances) for the case ID and the closure OD, these could be checked to see if they're in range before loading the motor.

If the whole hardware set is new and in tolerance, a possible fix would be to add a bead of red high-temp silicone on the surface of the closure(s) toward the inside of the case. There might not be room for a thicker oring.

If I had a few long cases and a few long reloads (from different mfgr dates), I could make measurements and come up with some conclusions and possible fixes. I'll look into the possibility of doing that. TMT could call upon the Tripoli Research Committee (me and @tfish to look at this.

If it helps any, the assembly of the motor felt the same as all the other 38mm CTI reloads I've successfully flown. Slid into the case with a firm push. Threads grabbed fine. I specifically noted screwing the aft closure in felt good. I checked the forward end to make sure it was all the way up.

If the case had slightly enlarged would everything have held together for a good portion of the burn? I would think it would have failed when the motor came up to pressure.

 

[scschulte]

Hello TRF community.
My name is Bob Pouliot. I have worked for Cesaroni Technologies since 2007 and am a BAR since 2000. After recently being promoted to management I've been snooping around the TRF and I'm glad to see that it's very popular and insightful. My hope is that CTI can provide an outlet for rocketeers who have questions, comments or concerns about our products.
I'm not a "Rocket Scientist" as some may think. I will leave that distinction to those who have earned it. I do have basic knowledge of how things work, and with my 20+ years of experience flying I'm sure I can be a valuable asset.
So if you have any questions, comments or concerns I'd love to hear them, or if you just want to chat feel free.

Hello Bob! This is Steve from Tripoli Netherlands and I am finishing the construction of my Terminator-5 fiberglass rocket with plans to launch this 19 Nov 2023 on a Pro54 2014 K1200-16A White Thunder 5 grain which I purchased specifically for the first launch of this rocket - it has a manufacture date of 27 July 2022. But I'm seeing on this discussion thread (page 35 onward from May 2023 to present) that there are perhaps major issues with this motor (nozzle and/or forward closure burn-through).

Can you update here on this situation and whether the motors I have (K1200 5 grain but also a 4 grain Pro54 1633 K940-18 White Thunder also with 27 July 2022 manufacture date) are OK or whether I should return these motors or what to do?

Thanks very much! Love the Cesaroni products which I've used since my Level 2 launch in October 2009!!

Stephen Monday 6 November 2023

 

[3stoogesrocketry]

Hello Bob! This is Steve from Tripoli Netherlands and I am finishing the construction of my Terminator-5 fiberglass rocket with plans to launch this 19 Nov 2023 on a Pro54 2014 K1200-16A White Thunder 5 grain which I purchased specifically for the first launch of this rocket - it has a manufacture date of 27 July 2022. But I'm seeing on this discussion thread (page 35 onward from May 2023 to present) that there are perhaps major issues with this motor (nozzle and/or forward closure burn-through).

Can you update here on this situation and whether the motors I have (K1200 5 grain but also a 4 grain Pro54 1633 K940-18 White Thunder also with 27 July 2022 manufacture date) are OK or whether I should return these motors or what to do?

Thanks very much! Love the Cesaroni products which I've used since my Level 2 launch in October 2009!!

Stephen Monday 6 November 2023

Bob is not going to come on here and say anything negative towards his brand. There is such a wide range of pro54 failures across the board on all flavors of fuel, either forward bulkhead issues or blow outs at the nozzle liner interface, I would not risk using them. There seems to be no specific batch or date codes that fail more then others from what I've seen. I also strongly believe ( its documented here) that the QC is absolutely not doing their jobs with respect to case and closure fitment. Maybe I'm wrong, but can ANYBODY show me any recalls or notices from CTI? I'm not talking about the "feild fixes" like gluing your bulkheads or dry lubing the case.

 

[scschulte]

Bob is not going to come on here and say anything negative towards his brand. There is such a wide range of pro54 failures across the board on all flavors of fuel, either forward bulkhead issues or blow outs at the nozzle liner interface, I would not risk using them. There seems to be no specific batch or date codes that fail more then others from what I've seen. I also strongly believe ( its documented here) that the QC is absolutely not doing their jobs with respect to case and closure fitment. Maybe I'm wrong, but can ANYBODY show me any recalls or notices from CTI? I'm not talking about the "feild fixes" like gluing your bulkheads or dry lubing the case.

Thanks for your reply and comments! I'm not looking for CTI to say anything negative about their products -- but any constructive comments would be welcome. I know a number of checks are in place-- and also that this is not a risk-free hobby by a long range!

You seem to indicate to stop using Pro54 motors completely -- and Tony mentioned using another "brand" (by which I believe he meant AeroTech or Loki or other…). Not that easy in Europe with CTI the primary (perhaps only) high-power rocket motor supplier.

I also wonder how many people have had successful launches with Pro54 motors of all sizes from 1 grain to 6XL?

And as my friend says: "Long motors with high thrust have always had a risk of blowouts because of too high chamber pressures." (But he also remarks that one would think CTI would have figured-this out by now…). I also believe the prepping of the motor prior to launch is critical – from O-ring lubrication to proper tightness in the motor tube etc.

At this time I'm finishing the rocket & avbay -- but a launch is ON HOLD until I come-up with a solution that has a bit less risk… (Possibly a lower-altitude flight with a J760 WT 3 grain - I've had great success with that motor on my Broken Arrow 20 lb rocket).

And I'd really like to hear from any and all who have used the CTI Pro54 4 and 5 grain motors WITH SUCCESS in the past year. (Myself I've had 8 successful launches in the past 15 months -- 3, 4 and 5 grain motors - WT and others).

Other comments much appreciated. Thanks, everyone.

Steve Monday 6 November 2023

 

[mikec]

Bob is not going to come on here and say anything negative towards his brand.

Agreed. About the only option other than anecdotes from TRF is to look for motor failures at https://www.motorcato.org/search -- I see two failures of the K1200 there, one each in 2017 and 2018. One was a case bubble, the other an aft closure failure. (Aside: motorcato would be a more useful resource if more people used it.)

Many (most?) motor failures not due to user error are from voids in grains causing overpressures. Longer motors = more grains = more chance of a void. That's going to be true independent of the problem CTI has been having with forward closures. FWIW, most of my Pro54 failures have trashed the case but not damaged the rocket or adversely affected the flight.

Let's face it, any motor can fail, if you can't tolerate a failure then just don't fly.

 

[Seatechnerd83]

After my 38mm H skidmark failure this may, CTI finally shipped my warranty casing out. (I honestly forgot about it for a while).

 

[scschulte]

Agreed. About the only option other than anecdotes from TRF is to look for motor failures at https://www.motorcato.org/search -- I see two failures of the K1200 there, one each in 2017 and 2018. One was a case bubble, the other an aft closure failure. (Aside: motorcato would be a more useful resource if more people used it.)

Many (most?) motor failures not due to user error are from voids in grains causing overpressures. Longer motors = more grains = more chance of a void. That's going to be true independent of the problem CTI has been having with forward closures. FWIW, most of my Pro54 failures have trashed the case but not damaged the rocket or adversely affected the flight.

Let's face it, any motor can fail, if you can't tolerate a failure then just don't fly.

Really appreciate this! I've been flying HP motors (however largest so far a few "K" motors) since 1991 and I've had a number of failure but never a CATO (OK so that's maybe 100+ launches, nothing statistically valid).

From Landing in a tree at Bong during LDRS-33 (great guy from Michigan climbed 40 feet up the tree to get my rocket down! That was my flight #6 with my LOC/Precision Endeavour -- it's now flow 36 times - mostly straight up!)… to forgetting to turn-on the avionics on my Frenzy once (impact about 200 mph but rebuilt the rocket in 10 days and flew it successfully). In summary - I'm probably more dangerous than the motors………! (But lots of great flights!):

So tending towards a J760 3-grain Pro54 on 19 Nov-- I will look at that motorcato website and again -- much appreciated as are all the fine comments I'm getting.

Steve

 

[scschulte]

Really appreciate this! I've been flying HP motors (however largest so far a few "K" motors) since 1991 and I've had a number of failure but never a CATO (OK so that's maybe 100+ launches, nothing statistically valid).

From Landing in a tree at Bong during LDRS-33 (great guy from Michigan climbed 40 feet up the tree to get my rocket down! That was my flight #6 with my LOC/Precision Endeavour -- it's now flow 36 times - mostly straight up!)… to forgetting to turn-on the avionics on my Frenzy once (impact about 200 mph but rebuilt the rocket in 10 days and flew it successfully). In summary - I'm probably more dangerous than the motors………! (But lots of great flights!):

So tending towards a J760 3-grain Pro54 on 19 Nov-- I will look at that motorcato website and again -- much appreciated as are all the fine comments I'm getting.

Steve

Well 4 days without anyone commenting on any successful launches with the 4 and 5 grain Pro54 motors. But I guess people have a tendency to comment when there is a problem; but not comment when things go OK. So now I'm wondering if there have been no successful launches in the past 2 years or so with a Pro54 2014 K1200-16A White Thunder 5 grain motor or if there's just no one who's had successful launches who is reading this post…

Thanks and the motorcato.org website is really fine-- but only 2 incidents with the long Pro54 motors-- and both "might" be attributed to how the motor was prepped / loaded into the motor casing etc. etc. (Not saying that was the problem, but with so few cases of problems, I don't have a lot to go on).

Steve Friday 10 November 2023

 

[rocketgeek101]

Well 4 days without anyone commenting on any successful launches with the 4 and 5 grain Pro54 motors. But I guess people have a tendency to comment when there is a problem; but not comment when things go OK. So now I'm wondering if there have been no successful launches in the past 2 years or so with a Pro54 2014 K1200-16A White Thunder 5 grain motor or if there's just no one who's had successful launches who is reading this post…

Thanks and the motorcato.org website is really fine-- but only 2 incidents with the long Pro54 motors-- and both "might" be attributed to how the motor was prepped / loaded into the motor casing etc. etc. (Not saying that was the problem, but with so few cases of problems, I don't have a lot to go on).

Steve Friday 10 November 2023

I flew a 4 grain K740 C-Star in one of my rockets successfully this past September. Manufacture date 2019. I greased the liner, but that's it. For what it's worth I've witnessed maybe 10 or so flights in the last couple years of large Pro54 motors and all but one were successful (the one that failed was a 6XL L265 Mellow). There definitely does seem to be a reliability issue with the Pro54 lineup, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as reading through this thread makes it seem. I think the odds of a successful flight are still significantly better than the odds of experiencing a failure.

 

[scschulte]

Thanks very much! I'll keep monitoring this discussion and agree-- odds of a successful flight are better than odds of a failure.

Much appreciated,

Steve Friday 10 November 2023

 

[mikec]

Well 4 days without anyone commenting on any successful launches with the 4 and 5 grain Pro54 motors. ...but only 2 incidents with the long Pro54 motors

I suspect fewer than 10% of all failures get posted on motorcato, unfortunately. I doubt TRF covers more than 10% of all flyers.

Since 2009, I've flown a grand total of nine flights on Pro54-4G motors, all successful, including one on a K940 in 2011. I haven't flown a 4G CTI motor since 2017.

I've had eight flights and four failures of Pro54-6XL motors over that period, two that just bubbled the case and two that destroyed the rockets.

Make of that what you will. You are very unlikely to get a large enough sample to be statistically significant.

 

[boatgeek]

Well 4 days without anyone commenting on any successful launches with the 4 and 5 grain Pro54 motors. But I guess people have a tendency to comment when there is a problem; but not comment when things go OK. So now I'm wondering if there have been no successful launches in the past 2 years or so with a Pro54 2014 K1200-16A White Thunder 5 grain motor or if there's just no one who's had successful launches who is reading this post…

Thanks and the motorcato.org website is really fine-- but only 2 incidents with the long Pro54 motors-- and both "might" be attributed to how the motor was prepped / loaded into the motor casing etc. etc. (Not saying that was the problem, but with so few cases of problems, I don't have a lot to go on).

Steve Friday 10 November 2023

Last Labor Day, I flew three 54mm 4G motors, two BS and one SS. One BS and the SS flew nominally. The other BS leaked gas just above the aft closure and destroyed the rocket. I believe, though I'm not 100% sure, that the two successful flights were on older motors with the tan liners. The CATO was on a newer one with a darker blue/green liner. All three had forward closures glued in with epoxy. The two BS motors had probably-not-complete greasing of the liners.

I would be more comfortable with a reload that had the light brown liner than the newer ones.

 

[BDB]

Thanks for your reply and comments! I'm not looking for CTI to say anything negative about their products -- but any constructive comments would be welcome. I know a number of checks are in place-- and also that this is not a risk-free hobby by a long range!

You seem to indicate to stop using Pro54 motors completely -- and Tony mentioned using another "brand" (by which I believe he meant AeroTech or Loki or other…). Not that easy in Europe with CTI the primary (perhaps only) high-power rocket motor supplier.

I also wonder how many people have had successful launches with Pro54 motors of all sizes from 1 grain to 6XL?

And as my friend says: "Long motors with high thrust have always had a risk of blowouts because of too high chamber pressures." (But he also remarks that one would think CTI would have figured-this out by now…). I also believe the prepping of the motor prior to launch is critical – from O-ring lubrication to proper tightness in the motor tube etc.

At this time I'm finishing the rocket & avbay -- but a launch is ON HOLD until I come-up with a solution that has a bit less risk… (Possibly a lower-altitude flight with a J760 WT 3 grain - I've had great success with that motor on my Broken Arrow 20 lb rocket).

And I'd really like to hear from any and all who have used the CTI Pro54 4 and 5 grain motors WITH SUCCESS in the past year. (Myself I've had 8 successful launches in the past 15 months -- 3, 4 and 5 grain motors - WT and others).

Other comments much appreciated. Thanks, everyone.

Steve Monday 6 November 2023

I flew a Pro54-5G K490 last weekend in a 6GXL case with two spacers. It was a beautiful flight. I followed that up with a successful Pro38-6G J400 flight using a 6GXL case with the XL spacer. The next day, I flew a Pro54-4G K530 in a 4G case. Again, no issues.

I really like the ease of assembling CTI motors and their spacer system. If you have to prep on the field, they are simply the best.

 

[Handeman]

My last flight with a Pro54 motors was a 6g 2372-K1440-17A. I found early with my 6GXL case that getting the forward closure to the top of the case is an issue. You can't put enough grease on the o-rings to get them to go to the top of the case. The case has to be well greased also.

My method is to make sure the case is clean and there is no dirt or debris in the case that could nick or damage the forward o-ring. Then I spray liquid silicon lubricant into the top, until it's running out the bottom while spinning the case to make sure it's well coated. Then I repeat while spraying in from the bottom. Then I load the motor. I've only flown 4 -5 of the Pro54 5- 6- 6XL motors, but no issues yet.

I know some say to glue the forward closure to the liner, etc. but I believe that only an o-ring failure is going to allow enough hot gases to get to the case to melt it. The minute about of high pressure gases need to complete the pressurization the thin column of air between the liner and case is so small that if that is all that gets through, it should have no effect on the case.

I don't know if there are manufacturer issues with the Pro54 long reloads, but I think doing everything you can to prevent issues cause by the inherent design requiring the forward o-ring to be pushed the full length of the motor case, would be well advised. My suggestion is to make sure the case is VERY clean and there is nothing in the case that can damage the o-ring as it's pushed over it. Also lube the entire case before installing the motor. If you are using a grease, make sure there is no debris, partials, or contaminates in the grease, or on the applicator, that could damage the o-ring on it's long journey to the top of the case.

 

[jsdemar]

My last flight with a Pro54 motors was a 6g 2372-K1440-17A. I found early with my 6GXL case that getting the forward closure to the top of the case is an issue. You can't put enough grease on the o-rings to get them to go to the top of the case. The case has to be well greased also.

My method is to make sure the case is clean and there is no dirt or debris in the case that could nick or damage the forward o-ring. Then I spray liquid silicon lubricant into the top, until it's running out the bottom while spinning the case to make sure it's well coated. Then I repeat while spraying in from the bottom. Then I load the motor. I've only flown 4 -5 of the Pro54 5- 6- 6XL motors, but no issues yet.

I know some say to glue the forward closure to the liner, etc. but I believe that only an o-ring failure is going to allow enough hot gases to get to the case to melt it. The minute about of high pressure gases need to complete the pressurization the thin column of air between the liner and case is so small that if that is all that gets through, it should have no effect on the case.

I don't know if there are manufacturer issues with the Pro54 long reloads, but I think doing everything you can to prevent issues cause by the inherent design requiring the forward o-ring to be pushed the full length of the motor case, would be well advised. My suggestion is to make sure the case is VERY clean and there is nothing in the case that can damage the o-ring as it's pushed over it. Also lube the entire case before installing the motor. If you are using a grease, make sure there is no debris, partials, or contaminates in the grease, or on the applicator, that could damage the o-ring on it's long journey to the top of the case.

This is an excellent point. A damaged oring, or one that fits poorly, causes most failures at a closure. A tiny breach may cause significant mass flow which is required for heat transfer to the casing.

Other than a nick or dirt on the oring, previous damage to the casing could cause leakage even if the oring is undamaged. Reduced hoop strength from loss of the aluminum tempering, slightly expanded ID, causing a loose oring fit.

The durometer (hardness) of the oring might also play a role. Red silicone orings are better at high temp than the black Buna orings. But there are soft and hard versions of silicone orings. The soft (50HA tend to nick easily. The harder (70HA) are the ones I prefer to use. I'm not sure what CTI uses on the 54mm, but I've seen softer ones on 75 and 98.

The main reason for greasing a liner is to provide hydraulic resistance to expansion of the liner, especially if it is loose. Minimize cracking of the liner.

Gluing the Pro54 closures to the liner might help in lieu of a "seal disk" type of design. The highest pressure within the casing is at the forward closure because that's were the gas flow is the lowest. (Bernoulli's principle.) But, it won't prevent a failure due to the oring seal.

 

[BDB]

I agree with John and Jeff. The seals between the case, o-rings, and forward closure are of utmost importance--and there are more possible failure modes when spacers are used. I always make sure the case is clean and greased before each flight. Post-flight, I remove the spent liner on the field and wipe the inside of the case.

 

[Handeman]

I agree with John and Jeff. The seals between the case, o-rings, and forward closure are of utmost importance--and there are more possible failure modes when spacers are used. I always make sure the case is clean and greased before each flight. Post-flight, I remove the spent liner on the field and wipe the inside of the case.

Do you use the case again before going home? Do you do any extra cleaning when you get home?
I usually only use a case once at the field, unless its a small 29mm or 38mm cases. The 54+ case get an extra cleaning when I get home.

I'm wondering if the folks that have failures clean cases like we do, or if they clean more or less than that.

 

[BDB]

Do you use the case again before going home? Do you do any extra cleaning when you get home?
I usually only use a case once at the field, unless its a small 29mm or 38mm cases. The 54+ case get an extra cleaning when I get home.

I'm wondering if the folks that have failures clean cases like we do, or if they clean more or less than that.

I often prep motors on the field because my life is too hectic during the week before a launch, but I don’t think I’ve ever reused a 38 or 54 mm case without a good cleaning at home. (I usually clean everything with Hoppe’s No. 9 gun cleaner.)

I have surely reused 29 mm cases on the field. They are just so easy to plug-and-play.

 

[scschulte]

Quick UpDate here: Our 19 Nov 2023 launch in The Netherlands has been cancelled so first chance for me to launch my Terminator-5 (31 lbs, 8.6 feet tall, 5" dia) will be March 2024. Might try the 4 grain Pro54 1633 K940 - I've got 4 months to think about this! Here's a photo of the rocket -- don't believe they make this kit any longer.

Steve on Tuesday 14 November 2023

 

[cbrarick]

Bob is not going to come on here and say anything negative towards his brand. There is such a wide range of pro54 failures across the board on all flavors of fuel, either forward bulkhead issues or blow outs at the nozzle liner interface, I would not risk using them. There seems to be no specific batch or date codes that fail more then others from what I've seen. I also strongly believe ( its documented here) that the QC is absolutely not doing their jobs with respect to case and closure fitment. Maybe I'm wrong, but can ANYBODY show me any recalls or notices from CTI? I'm not talking about the "feild fixes" like gluing your bulkheads or dry lubing the case.

hmm. some number of failures (unknown) divided by some unknown number of motors produced equals a failure rate

or

failure rate = n failures / n produced

which is completely unknown. Have there been failures? yes. Has other manufactures had failures? yes. Want to keep your rockets in perfect shape? Don't fly them, hang them on the wall.

This hobby will never be a zero risk hobby.

not wanting to sound pedantic, but motor failures, airframe failures, altimeter failures, failure to eject parachute, failures of parachutes to inflate properly, body tubes crashing thru parachutes, hard landing on just the wrong angle, lost in a field due to whatever the reason.

Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once said “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics”

 

[3stoogesrocketry]

Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once said “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics”

Well Statisticly CTI has shown on here that there have been both lies and damb lies. Yes other manufactures have issues too. They , I'm my opinion only, have handled the situation better. I respect your opinions as well.

 

[cbrarick]

I agree with you, they could communicate better, but i'd say that about most of the companies I deal with in "real life"

 

[scschulte]

This is great feedback from all of you. Others here in Europe and emphasizing proper motor preparation prior to launch. Clean the casing; O-ring grease; motor lubrication, fit and more. Thanks and had a fine launch on 12 Nov! (no long Pro54's this launch - limited ceiling but in March 2024………)

Steve Wednesday 15 November 2023