Old Motor Testing, Part II

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Ted Cochran

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
537
Reaction score
221
You may recall that the NAR has a program whereby fliers wishing to fly old motors that are no longer certified can do so, as long as the certain conditions are met (I'll list them in glorious detail at the end of this.)

The program has gone well. 124 motors have been flown, representing 9 manufacturers and 44 different motor types. The failure rate has been about 7%, counting all possible failure modes. More details to come soon.

As of the BoT meeting just concluded, the program has been extended, and we've made participation somewhat easier.

In particular, you can apply to test any number of motors, and you can apply any time. I'll need a week or so (two, if I happen to be on business travel) to check the motor list you send and get you written authorization.

The NAR Board of Trustees intends for this activity to be productive (i.e., to provide valid data on the question of the safety of old motors), but there is no reason why it can not also be fun. We're hoping that Sections will be interested in supporting this activity and will find ways to increase the data collected.

To get involved, you need to send me

• The name and NAR number of the person responsible for conducting the test and reporting on the results,

• The date and place of the test (include a brief description of the field, e.g., "school football field," "25 square miles of desert"),

• An itemized list of motors to be tested (In addition, any data that the proposer can provide on the certification history of the motors proposed for testing will be greatly appreciated!), and

• A statement of agreement to comply with the conditions listed below, and any other conditions that may be attached to the authorization (e.g., safe distances, restrictions on the list of motors to be tested).

Note that only model rocket motors that have not been decertified for safety reasons are eligible for this program.

Under the NAR Safety Code, you may NOT fly decertified motors unless you comply with these rules.

Please help us get some great data, and not mess up what could be the beginning of broader ability to fly. Let's all continue to make sport rocketry safe, educational, and fun!


-------------------------------------

The fine print:


1) Testing will be restricted to those clubs and NAR members, on insured
sites, and at specific times and places, who agree to comply with these conditions.

2) Motors shall have been decertified only due to being out of
production and shall not have been decertified for safety reasons

3) Minimum distances shall be at least doubled, depending on the
characteristics of the vehicle under test. Tests shall not be
conducted when elevated fire hazard conditions are present, and
appropriate firefighting equipment shall be available.

4) All test flights will be conducted with spectators alerted and aware.

5) All test flights shall use a single motor. The sole exception to
this restriction is that black powder booster motors may be staged to
an appropriate, currently certified black powder sustainer motor. No
clustered motors shall be used.

6) The following data shall be provided to the Chair of the
Safety Committee (that would be me :) )no later than seven days
following the event, for each motor tested, regardless of outcome:

a) Motor designation
b) Date of manufacture and/or motor coding
c) Any available information on storage (e.g., "it's been in my cool,
dry basement for 10 years.")
d) Flight outcome, including timed delay. If the outcome was a failure
motor, details of the failure AND A MESS REPORT shall be submitted.

7) In the event two motors from the same date and of the same type
CATO, no further testing of motors of that date and type shall be
conducted.

Again, motor tests shall not be conducted without specific written authorization, because motors tested under this policy shall be considered to be certified
for the date and location specified in the authorization.


Regards,

Ted Cochran
Chair, NAR Safety Committee
 
So any chance of this being extended to F101's anytime soon?

I still have those ones lying around...
 
Ted;

Can the requests and data reports be submitted via email, or must they be submitted in writing via snailmail? If the former, what is the email address to submit the requests and data to?

Greg
 
Originally posted by cjl
So any chance of this being extended to F101's anytime soon?

I still have those ones lying around...

Aerotech F101 or Rocket Flight F101?

I believe the RF F101 is allowed, depending on lot numbers. One was flown last year at a CMASS launch, and like the FSI F100, I believe the 101 is a pet name, not the average thrust.

Anyone have any motor data on this? If memory serves me correctly, I think they were actually F50's.
 
Other way around... when they were first released, RocketFlite touted them as "F50SS" motors. Judging by the burn time, they were WAY faster than that. They reclassified them as F104SS after a few years... coincidentally around the time a bad batch was produced. Many people attributed the failures to the new name's proximity to the (in?)famous FSI F100 motor... except the F104 had way cooler (and fire-starting-er) spark-throwing pinwheel CATOs, rather than the F100's "big cloud of smoke".

The old batches worked great, and they were pretty sexy motors. Too bad RF stopped making them.
 
Hi Ted:
How do we tell if the motor was decertified for safety or for other reasons?
Thanks,
Will
 
Do they define a "model rocket motor" as a G and below, with a certain average thrust limit, or is it related to our friendly ATF's 62.5g limit?

My dad found our old stache of black powder motors, including some silver streaks (whee!).

thanks,
Rick
 
Originally posted by n3tjm
Aerotech F101 or Rocket Flight F101?

I believe the RF F101 is allowed, depending on lot numbers. One was flown last year at a CMASS launch, and like the FSI F100, I believe the 101 is a pet name, not the average thrust.

Anyone have any motor data on this? If memory serves me correctly, I think they were actually F50's.

Aerotech 24mm F101T. I have about 5 of them in various delays that I'd love to fly...
 
Originally posted by cjl
So any chance of this being extended to [Aerotech] F101's anytime soon?

Not yet. We're taking baby steps, and we're starting with model rocket motors. F101s have more than 80 Newtons average thrust, so they're HPR motors. (I know, I have one too, and if we get to fly those, I have a RocketVision kit to put it in!)

Originally posted by gpoehlein
Can the requests and data reports be submitted via email, or must they be submitted in writing via snailmail? If the former, what is the email address to submit the requests and data to?

Please, please, I beg of you, submit the request with the list of motors to be tested AND the results of those tests electronically. I will mail the written authorization to back up the email I send, but that's just a formality.

Originally posted by Rick Lindsey
Do they define a "model rocket motor" as a G and below, with a certain average thrust limit, or is it related to our friendly ATF's 62.5g limit?

Fred Schecter got this one right: If it has more than 160 Ns of total impulse, more than 80 N of average thrust, and/or more than 62.5g of propellant mass, it's not a model rocket motor. Also see below.

Originally posted by daveyfire
.... when they were first released, RocketFlite touted them as "F50SS" motors. ...They reclassified them as F104SS after a few years

We're being very cautious. If a motor is labeled as a high power motor, you can't fly it under this program. So, a F104SS won't fly. An F50SS can (and one was indeed flown sucessfully in an earlier test). Ideally, we would have great data on all of the motors from the early years, but we (or at least I) don't.

Originally posted by WillMarchant
How do we tell if the motor was decertified for safety or for other reasons?

Only a handful have been decertified for safety reasons, and I have a list (I'll dredge it up and publish it Real Soon Now). If I'm not sure, I'll draw upon the vast expertise of S&T. It would be a lot of work for them to test all of these; we thought it would be more fun for you folks to fly them instead. Let's have fun, but stay safe in the process.

Cheers,

--tc
 
Some Data:

MFR       Motor     pass  fail
Aerotech     B6-2T     0     1
Aerotech     B6-4T     1     
Aerotech     D21-10    1     
Aerotech     E11-3     1     
Aerotech     E25-4T    2     1
Aerotech     F55-8     1     
Apogee     1/4A3-2T    3     
Apogee      A2-0     2     
Apogee      A3-6T     3     
AVI        D6.1-0    0     1
AVI        E11.8-0   1     
Centuri      1/2A4-5M  1     
Centuri      A4-4M     1     1
Centuri      B14-5     1     
Centuri      B4-3M     2     
Centuri      B4-6      1     
Estes        1/2A6-0S   7     
Estes        1/2A6-4S   3     
Estes        A10-0T    23    1
Estes        A3-0T     15     
Estes        A3-6T     2     
Estes        A5-2      1     
Estes        A5-4S     0     1
Estes        A8-0      2    1
Estes        A8-3      1     
Estes        B14-0     1     
Estes        B14-5     1     
Estes        B4-4      3     
Estes        B4-6      1     
Estes        B6-0      2     
Estes        B6-4      3     
Estes        B8-5      4     
Estes        C4-4      1     
Estes        C5-3      8     
Estes        C6-5      4     
Estes        D13-5     2     
Estes        E11-3     2     
FSI         E60-6     0     1
FSI         F7-6      0     1
MPC        A3-0M     1     
MRC         C6-3     2     
NCR         F62-4     3     
NC          F62-6     1     
Rocketflite F50-9SS  1
 
Originally posted by Ted Cochran
Some Data:

Sorry, I'm confused about this... Are these flights in the "old motor" test series? If so, why are the Estes B6 motors in the list? They're still on the NAR certified list.
 
If the F50 SS was relabeled F 104 then how was that allowed to fly , given your
reasoning?


JD



Originally posted by Ted Cochran
Some Data:

Rocketflite F50-9SS  1
 
I prefer email so that is great. But what email address should we send the requests and reports to - I've got a bunch of A10-0T motors just begging to be fired! ;)

Greg
 
Originally posted by Ted Cochran
Not yet. We're taking baby steps, and we're starting with model rocket motors. F101s have more than 80 Newtons average thrust, so they're HPR motors. (I know, I have one too, and if we get to fly those, I have a RocketVision kit to put it in!)


Fred Schecter got this one right: If it has more than 160 Ns of total impulse, more than 80 N of average thrust, and/or more than 62.5g of propellant mass, it's not a model rocket motor. Also see below.



We're being very cautious. If a motor is labeled as a high power motor, you can't fly it under this program. So, a F104SS won't fly. An F50SS can (and one was indeed flown sucessfully in an earlier test). Ideally, we would have great data on all of the motors from the early years, but we (or at least I) don't.

So two questions - is the actual motor data or the labeling the issue? The F100 (per this thread) is really an E48. I imagine a lot of mislabeling has happened particularly during the early years.

Second question - Where's the best place to find the list of motors that were decertified due to safety?
 
Originally posted by JDcluster
If the F50 SS was relabeled F 104 then how was that allowed to fly , given your
reasoning?

Realize that all of the early cert data is pretty tenuous. As I understand it, the early F50s tested more or less as labeled.

TMT originally tested it as an F58.

I haven't found great data on the F104, other than it was certified. I haven't seen conclusive evidence that it is even the same motor as the F50.

I do not want this fun little program to be ruined by the injection of all of the past history of who certified what and how well, who was decertified and why, why doesn't NAR require better labeling, etc etc. Realize the data from before about 1993, especially for small manufacturers, is pretty flakey, too.

So I'll try to be clear: If it is clearly a modroc motor, I'll let you fly it. If it isn't, I won't. If you have one of those iffy motors, and you can provide good justification for allowing it, I will. Note I'll look more favorably on independent test data (S&T or maybe TMT data), not manufacturer's data, forum threads, etc.

As we get some more data, we may relax a little bit. This is an experiment I'd rather not see ruined :).

99% of the motors submitted to date have been obvious yes decisions; A couple I've had to look up more info on. I'd prefer not to spend hours in the library doing a lot of preemptive R&D for cases that may not even show up, if that's OK with everyone.

Oh, and those Estes A & B motors that were certified could of course be allowed to fly under the present policy. Since they were old (really old), I kept them in the list. Data are good.

Send proposals and private questions to [email protected].

Cheers,

--tc
 
Ted, I still have a number of the Composite Dynamics Pro-Jet
24 mm motors; are they "eligible" for the motor testing program
too? Anyway, I'll be submitting a list of more OOP motors I'm
willing to launch....
 
Ted:
I have to ask, How can you only be reporting 124 motors on you data list when Narhams has tested and reported 101 motors alone as of april 2007? I'm looking at the lists of our 3 test launches and confirm the motor totals 40(09-16-06, 40 (12-16-06 and 21(04-21-07) and that these test results were sent in and confirmed recieved.
I hear from other clubs that they also have sent in lists, are you asking us to believe that across the country only 23 other old motors have been flown?.....sorry, I just can't swallow that. What's the deal?

One of the things I'm looking forward to is the day the NAR board completely drops this rediculous decertification for Sport flying only, of perfectly good BP motors just because that are not Currently being produced. I see that Micro Maxx-1 motor are on the list for this misdeed december of this year. What a colossal waste.
These and many of the already decertified motors, as you've no doubt seen now by the data, most all older bp motor as no more of a hazzard then currently produced bp motors.
When can we expect the board to move on this issue?


As for more motor data, Narham members still have loads of Old motors but I was under them impression you were getting good particatation across the country? If needed please let me know, and we'll schedule a few more test dates during our yearly planning coming up in a couple months.
John McCoy
 
As for more motor data, Narham members still have loads of Old motors but I was under them impression you were getting good particatation across the country? If needed please let me know, and we'll schedule a few more test dates during our yearly planning coming up in a couple months.
John McCoy

Why not schedule them anyway? I keep rolling over the CMASS list to the next launch. I think the small amount of required paperwork is worth it to let our members keep using the motors.
 
Why not schedule them anyway? I keep rolling over the CMASS list to the next launch. I think the small amount of required paperwork is worth it to let our members keep using the motors.
This works out great.

All my old motors are on the CMASS list so when I go to a launch and if I feel like launching a couple of 13mm 2 stagers or want to use an A5-2 in my spaceplane, I can without having to wait for a specific "old motor" testing launch.

And if wind conditions aren't right, I don't feel any pressure to launch the B14's or D13's just because it's a "testing" day.
 
Why not schedule them anyway? I keep rolling over the CMASS list to the next launch. I think the small amount of required paperwork is worth it to let our members keep using the motors.

I've love to have an open OOP schedule, but I was under the impression we had to have a list of the OOP motors to be flown "approved" BEFORE the limited permission could be given for their use.
This poses a small problem; Either one lies about the motors to be flown in advance or TED has to grant on OPEN permission to fly OOP motors limited to BP motors NOT safety decertified. We're (Narhams) just trying to follow the rules:)
If Narhams and TED can workout the permission paperwork, I'd be willing to oversee OOP testing at every Narhams monthly Sport launch, and report the result back to Ted within a week.
We might not get 40 or more motors a month but I'd be willing to bet we'ed get a dozen or so?
 
Ted:
I have to ask, How can you only be reporting 124 motors on you data list when Narhams has tested and reported 101 motors alone as of april 2007?

the data you see there is from last March. I have five or so launches since then; I haven't published that data, but it is in the spreadsheet and it is consistent with what's published so far.

One of the things I'm looking forward to is the day the NAR board completely drops this rediculous decertification for Sport flying only, of perfectly good BP motors just because that are not Currently being produced. I see that Micro Maxx-1 motor are on the list for this misdeed december of this year. What a colossal waste. ....
John McCoy

Thank you for helping me collect data that will help decide the issue in a quantitative way.

Participation has not been overwhelmingly high--about 10 launches and data on about 200 motors so far.

More is good!

--tc
 
I've love to have an open OOP schedule, but I was under the impression we had to have a list of the OOP motors to be flown "approved" BEFORE the limited permission could be given for their use.

--Get a list of the motors your club has available for testing.

--Say that you'll fly them, conditions permitting, and assuming appropriate rockets are available, at one or more launches at your regular (insured) field. List the dates of those launches.

--fly rockets

--Send data.

--tc
 
--Get a list of the motors your club has available for testing.

--Say that you'll fly them, conditions permitting, and assuming appropriate rockets are available, at one or more launches at your regular (insured) field. List the dates of those launches.

--fly rockets

--Send data.

--tc
I believe this is what Bill did at CMASS. He solicited the membership to give him a list of all the old motors that we wished to fly.

Just because a motor was on the list didn't mean we "had" to fly it, just that we "could". But if wasn't on the list we couldn't fly it.

So I gave him a list of every old motor I have and I have been flying a couple of them at each of the launches.
 
Sounds like a plan Ted;)
I'll get with the other member and generate a master list. then get permission to hold OOP testing open during our monthly Sport launches from the club. Once that's secured I or Jim Filler will send in the list.
 
Back
Top