I didn't either until I saw it. Someone explained it to me when we'd just seen it happen, and I instantly understood, but I'd not thought of it before that.Oh yikes I didn’t even think of that, I’ve never had a motor chuff.
I didn't either until I saw it. Someone explained it to me when we'd just seen it happen, and I instantly understood, but I'd not thought of it before that.Oh yikes I didn’t even think of that, I’ve never had a motor chuff.
I’m using a fireproof cloth to protect my chute, so that won’t be an issue. However, I decided not to use motor eject for the fear of two charges popping at the same time if the motor chuffs, or premature separation from chuffing.If you run 2 complete altimeter systems, I wouldn't complicate it more with motor eject. On some small rockets I have, I've used a single altimeter for DD, but I did use motor eject as a backup to the drogue. Ran the sims and set the motor eject longer as I didn't want the charges going off at the same time. Also, if you do that, you'll need to protect the chute from both ends...the charge forward at the ebay and from the aft motor eject.
Makes sense, altimeters very rarely fail on their own.
Check this out: It is a 25-year old H128 that I flew for my level 1 cert last June:Oh yikes I didn’t even think of that, I’ve never had a motor chuff. I’m debating whether or not to use motor eject now. I think it should be fine though because I will drill it to apogee+a few seconds, so if it does chuff it’ll eject at apogee or a few seconds before. However, two e matches should be more than plenty to deploy my drogue. Currently I’m leaning towards no motor ejection.
He is stating that you are not improving the reliability of the system, the additional altimeter adds zero improvement. Instead what is happening is that a secondary altimeter is placed into the system to overcome user failure, ie failure to ground test charges to ensure solid separation and deployment for example. What you are doing is increasing the overall cost of the system to get nothing in return for reliability. The secondary altimeter is simply a crutch to overcome lack of preventative maintenance and inspection for any operational and or maintenance induced damage or system degrade between sorties.So basically, you are saying that the fact that there is a spare system is what makes it safer, not the fact there is another altimeter. Makes sense, altimeters very rarely fail on their own.
Enter your email address to join: