Gliding Parachute Systems

[MikeT]

Please share your knowledge with Apogee. Apparently they are having problems with this "simple" set up.

LOL. It's really not that hard and from what I'v seen thay have a handle on it. Time will tell. I think your making a mountain out of a molehill.

Mike

 

[kuririn]

LOL. It's really not that hard and from what I'v seen thay have a handle on it.

LOL, take a look at the unboxing video. They do not. They are asking customers for input to fix their problems. For example the length of the shroud control lines. So by all means please buy one and use your expertise to help Apogee solve their problems. After they are solved I might consider getting one.

 

[Blast it Tom!]

Short answer, the future looks grim for model aviation.

Oh, glory. I am often amazed at the ability of a small number of incompetent/disrespectful/vandalous jerks to ruin so much that was so carefully put together by people trying to make things enjoyable and safe for all.

 

[MikeT]

LOL, take a look at the unboxing video. They do not. They are asking customers for input to fix their problems. For example the length of the shroud control lines. So by all means please buy one and use your expertise to help Apogee solve their problems. After they are solved I might consider getting one.

What they are saying in a nice way is if your a clueless maybe you should pass on this. Again your overreacting. Apparently this isn't for you.

Mike

 

[kuririn]

What they are saying is if your a clueless maybe you should pass on this. Again your overreacting. Apparently this isn't for you.

Mike

Try looking at the video before telling us what they are saying.
Direct quote from TVM: "This is so new and so novel that we are depending on your feedback to provide information to others".
"Don't call us and ask how to do this or how to do that. We don't know".
So since you are a self proclaimed expert and this product is so simple, please forward your solutions to Apogee so that we can all enjoy a perfected product.
Talk about clueless (your words).

 

[MikeT]

I watched both videos and stand by what I said. I'm no expert but certainly smart enough to figure it out. This obviously isn't for you so why not just pass rather than bashing something your clueless on.....Or better yet contact Apogee and straighten them out...................

 

[kuririn]

. I'm no expert but certainly smart enough to figure it out.

Please let Apogee know, cuz they haven't got it figured out yet.

why not just pass rather than bashing something

For the third time, I'm not bashing the product, but how it is being brought to market with bugs and technical problems. Hell, I haven't even got the product yet. Neither have you. So how can you comment on how well the product works and how "straightforward" the system is?

 

[MikeT]

LOL. Like I said call Apogee and straighten them out.
Have a great time bashing the next new item that hits the market. I'd ignore you but it's way to much fun reading your dribble.

Mike

 

[kuririn]

Great that you're done listening to my nonsense.
Hope you're a man of your word.
And for the record, two of my favorite rocket kits are made by Apogee.
LOL.

 

[Titan II]

So do I. I'm not knocking the product, just the way it's being brought to market before the acknowledged bugs have been worked out. But hey, go ahead and purchase one and let us know how it is. Don't forget to give Apogee feedback as well. Then after you and other generous folks like you have worked things out, if ever, then I might get one myself.

I think it was an excellent way to bring it to market. They were 100% up front (transparent) regarding the experimental nature. Anyone that gets it knows what they are getting.

Expensive? It is 150 to 155. The chute release is 140 and has its own issues.

Regarding a good transmitter for it costing a couple hundred bucks. A transmitter and receiver that would be perfectly fine for this system would be about 120 - 140 new.

Charging beta users is not at all uncommon.

 

[kuririn]

I think it was an excellent way to bring it to market. They were 100% up front (transparent) regarding the experimental nature. Anyone that gets it knows what they are getting.

Expensive? It is 150 to 155. The chute release is 140 and has its own issues.

Regarding a good transmitter for it costing a couple hundred bucks. A transmitter and receiver that would be perfectly fine for this system would be about 120 - 140 new.

Charging beta users is not at all uncommon.

Thanks for your opinion. Please give us a thorough review after your evaluation.

 

[cerving]

I was a little disappointed that it was just the chute... I was hoping for an entire recovery system. I suppose it wouldn't be all that difficult to put an R/C system on the chute so you could direct it... assuming that you could see the rocket after apogee, which is not the case in the majority of my flights. I'll hold out for the GPS-interfaced autonomous recovery system.

 

[ep29030]

I disagree with the way Apogee is bringing this to market. TVM labels this as "experimental" so the customer should expect bugs and technical difficulties. He also says in his unboxing video that customers should report their experiences and what works and doesn't work. In other words he wants the paying customers to be beta testers. He also says that if you have any technical questions regarding the RC hardware don't ask them, they know only as much as you do.
IMHO this is just bass ackwards. If you're selling something for big bucks it should have the bugs worked out first. Beta testers should not have to pay for the privilege of troubleshooting YOUR product. If anything it should be the other way around. On top of it all he says that the chute patterns did not print to their quality standards. And yet he is including them in the kits. Labelling something as "experimental" does not absolve a manufacturer of producing a high quality WORKING and tested product.
No thanks, I don't want to be a guinea pig.

This sounds like my experience with about every analytical instrument we put in our lab the last 20 years. And most vendor software, too.

 

[H_Rocket]

I would that if this was part of a dual deploy system and deployed below 400’ you should be safe from FAA constraints. Of course getting the thing fully deployed at that low an altitude might be challenging.

 

[H_Rocket]

I was a little disappointed that it was just the chute... I was hoping for an entire recovery system. I suppose it wouldn't be all that difficult to put an R/C system on the chute so you could direct it... assuming that you could see the rocket after apogee, which is not the case in the majority of my flights. I'll hold out for the GPS-interfaced autonomous recovery system.

He does offer a complete package including the servo, NiMH battery, and hardware along with the parachute. I’m not surprised he does not offer the receiver as there is a wide variety of RC protocols.

 

[Planecrazy]

Hi all,

For better or worse I am now an owner of a 32" gliding parachute. It is to be installed in a NCR Lance Delta, both of which arrived yesterday.

Reading the instructions reveals nothing too onerous and seems straight forward. I'm thinking I will assemble as instructions at this point but I am wondering if using 2 servos mixed on my transmitter giving control of pitch as well as yaw might be useful for flaring for landing.

Sorry but you will have to wait for my report as I now have chores to do.

 

[jazzviper1]

This discussion is moot. In accordance with FAA regulations, it is illegal to operate any radio controlled or GPS controlled air vehicle over 400 feet AGL without being a licensed pilot.

 

[Yohan H]

This discussion is moot. In accordance with FAA regulations, it is illegal to operate any radio controlled or GPS controlled air vehicle over 400 feet AGL without being a licensed pilot.

Dear @jazzviper1, while I get your initial idea, please consider the two following points and the reasoning bellow.

• Not everyone in the world lives under the FAA regulations
• This rule might never be enforced for the specific case of model rocket parachutes.

For the second point, here is my reasoning :

• This rule was (nicely, thanks FAA designed to avoid collisions between the DJI drone your [insert relation] just received for Christmas and general aviation.
• You are currently allowed to launch a model rocket to a given apogee altitude, and recover it with a conventional parachute.
• If you are allowed to do so that means that it is considered safe from any collision with general aviation.
• No additional risks of collision with general aviation are added by the steerable parachute.
• Risk of landing on an unwanted area (road, power line..) is probably reduced.

I do see one point to take care of though. It might be very tempting to bring the rocket back to your friends feet to show off. This is where I think most accidents could happen. But it's not covered by the said regulation.

Merry Christmas,
Yohan

 

[Blast it Tom!]

Merry Christmas to you, Yohan! Hopefully reason will prevail in our regulatory environment! As you note, this adds to safety and reliability.

 

[Handeman]

Why not add allow flying of parachutes/non-powered recovery vehicles above 400 ft. as part of the COA for Class 2 rockets?

That wouldn't help the Class 1 only sites, but they could also apply for a COA for just the parachutes/non-powered recovery vehicles above 400 ft. for their sites too.

 

[jazzviper1]

Dear @jazzviper1, while I get your initial idea, please consider the two following points and the reasoning bellow.

• Not everyone in the world lives under the FAA regulations
• This rule might never be enforced for the specific case of model rocket parachutes.

For the second point, here is my reasoning :

• This rule was (nicely, thanks FAA designed to avoid collisions between the DJI drone your [insert relation] just received for Christmas and general aviation.
• You are currently allowed to launch a model rocket to a given apogee altitude, and recover it with a conventional parachute.
• If you are allowed to do so that means that it is considered safe from any collision with general aviation.
• No additional risks of collision with general aviation are added by the steerable parachute.
• Risk of landing on an unwanted area (road, power line..) is probably reduced.

I do see one point to take care of though. It might be very tempting to bring the rocket back to your friends feet to show off. This is where I think most accidents could happen. But it's not covered by the said regulation.

Merry Christmas,
Yohan

The rule will be enforced, especially once the transponder rule goes into effect. They will know when the rule is broken and by whom. The AMA currently has no plans to fight this like the rocket community did with the ATF.

The rule was not really made to prevent collisions (that is just the public excuse). There is no wiggle room in FAA regulations, the fact that it causes no additional risks doesn't matter to the FAA. Just look some of the messed-up rulings they have made in the past (several YouTube videos and written reports).

 

[user 35280]

Is there a gps guided version in the works also?

 

[jazzviper1]

Why not add allow flying of parachutes/non-powered recovery vehicles above 400 ft. as part of the COA for Class 2 rockets?

That wouldn't help the Class 1 only sites, but they could also apply for a COA for just the parachutes/non-powered recovery vehicles above 400 ft. for their sites too.

That is not how the rules work. They don't generally make exceptions.

 

[jazzviper1]

Is there a gps guided version in the works also?

GPS is included in the ban.

 

[Blast it Tom!]

GPS is included in the ban.

How would they detect a self-contained, self-guided system such as Yohan has designed? It's only a receiver and doesn't broadcast anything.

 

[jazzviper1]

How would they detect a self-contained, self-guided system such as Yohan has designed? It's only a receiver and doesn't broadcast anything.

They can't except by radar. However, someone can also report activity including photos or video. It is understood that future R/C receivers will include transponders that will report to ATC.

 

[Ronz Rocketz]

The 400' exception refers to recreational drones and drones are defined as small unmanned aircraft systems. Forgive me but I wouldn't consider an R/C glider recovery system to be considered an "aircraft". It can be piloted sure, but it can't be flown upwards unless you hit an unlucky thermal at which point you would just glide it out of the thermal so it can continue it's descent.

Also, I have trouble believing that Tim would go through all this effort without his lawyers going through the regs first.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-107#107.51

 

[MikeT]

The rule will be enforced, especially once the transponder rule goes into effect. They will know when the rule is broken and by whom. The AMA currently has no plans to fight this like the rocket community did with the ATF.

The rule was not really made to prevent collisions (that is just the public excuse). There is no wiggle room in FAA regulations, the fact that it causes no additional risks doesn't matter to the FAA. Just look some of the messed-up rulings they have made in the past (several YouTube videos and written reports).

Not if your flying at a site that is granted a FRIA exemption .

 

[David Schwantz]

Not saying anything about TVM product. But RC is not that hard. A couple tricks when flying at yourself, if the right wing drops, push the stick in that direction to correct. You can also stand with the antenna pointing in the direction of flight, looking over your shoulder. Now the controls are never backwards. Also you can get a cheap TX and RX like Frysky for almost nothing. I have a couple of the RXs, and they have worked well.

 

[Blast it Tom!]

They can't except by radar. However, someone can also report activity including photos or video. It is understood that future R/C receivers will include transponders that will report to ATC.

I've run across a few of those Guardians Of All That Is Right and True in other situations. You just wonder who peed in their coffee? Do they suck lemons to get that bitter?

Obviously I'm not talking about you, or deliberately flaunting important safety regulations, and I thank you for pointing out an issue. If there us something that needs addressed as technology advances, we'll address it one way or another. I'm just talking about people that go out of their way to enforce a wooden literalism when it's none of their business, and they will accept no other remedy than your immediate compliance to their interpretation of the way it should be.