If you read the TRA cert rules, they require electronics but not dual deploy:From popping the main at apogee
Believe it or not, this is now ruled as a pass for an L3....
For some flights, perhaps well planned ones, dumping the chute at apogee might be ideal?L3 cert was so watered down that dumping the chute at apogee is a pass.
can't do oddrocks for Tripoli L3. no specific requirement for NAR..
If you read the TRA cert rules, they require electronics but not dual deploy:
"Level 3 certification flights shall include at least two completely separate electronic devices, with independent power sources, wire harnesses, and ignition devices for the primary and back-up means of recovery system deployment."
But it says nothing about requiring deploying the main at apogee.
I read through the NAR requirements and they mention both a drogue and main chute which seems to imply using dual deploy. I'm not sure where you got that info but it doesn't seem to mesh with what's on the websites.
Tony
I agree that if you are planning on DD and then pop the main at the top that should be a fail on a cert flight.But it says nothing about requiring deploying the main at apogee.
Talking DD flight that dumps the main early.
The "return in safe manner" takes over and you pass as long as you stay in the waiver, etc.
Stupid rule change IMHO....if you planned DD and failed to get DD, you are not demonstrating competence.
If you DIDN'T plan DD because of your flight profile, that is entirely different.
Starting off reading the thread, I was thinking that scratch is significantly harder because you have to figure out the shape of the fins and do more planning on stability. By the end, I've realized that the important thing is that you can do the engineering and fabrication. It's probably just as much work to check and modify a "standard" OR/Rocksim file as it is to build it. As long as the flyer can demonstrate doing the sims and checking the flight will work properly, the goal is satisfied. Other than cutting the fins and centering rings, the rest of the fabrication is the same. I had my friend with a laser cut those parts, so it didn't even require much effort from me.
Redundant dual deploy isn't super difficult. With a couple of altimeters and their manual(s), you can make that happen pretty easily, especially if you have a copy of Canepa or read TRF. Making an av-bay that's elegant is another matter entirely! Our group of high school rocketeers did the first part of this last year, with no prior controlled ejection experience. They definitely failed the second test, although this year should be better.
I went scratch for L1 and kit for attempted L2. No plans for L3, but I also wasn't going to do L2, so...
I thought a hobby was about having fun doing something you like.
I thought a hobby was about having fun doing something you like.
We don't need no stinkin badges.... :wink:
Keep in mind... The basis for the current L3 rules were written before OpenRocket and Rocksim existed and before the modern incarnation of altimeters. Achieving L3 without those tools used to require quite a bit more brain-sim work. These modern advancements have made it far simpler to achieve L3 while also making the entire hobby safer AND more accessible to the less-than-mathematically-inclined. IMHO, that's a good thing.
What I'm getting from this thread is that there's a sub-current of rocketeers who lament the days where things took a bit more brainpower because the tech wasn't around to do so much for you.
I get that. I don't think it's a bad thing though...
I've been thinking about this idea and have done some work putting together a kind of "badge" proposal. Something where members could earn badges or patches for demonstrating competency/skill in certain areas of rocketry. Something like a "Staging badge" might require a written test/written explanation of staging formulas followed by a successful flight and recovery of a staged rocket using at least two L1 motors or larger... Just as an example. Obviously the badge wouldn't be required to fly staged rockets, it would just be a kind of award/recognition for advancing your rocketry skill set. This might also solve some of the problem of the L3-and-out problem... Where people earn their L3 then feel there's nothing left to achieve and quietly drift out of the hobby. Have an assortment of badges to earn and, boom, motivation to try new things...
Would also help people identify others who are actually credible when talking about certain rocketry topics...
Just a few thoughts.
I think most have agreed that there is nothing wrong with using a kit for your L3. Being a scratch builder by and of itself doesn't prove you capable of flying L3 profiles.
I do find the dismissal attitude and lack of respect for the skills required to scratch build somewhat irratating though. Cutting & beveling or framing & laying up a matched set of fins isn't all that easy, rolling a quality tube, cutting clean, striaght, symetrical fin slots, or laying up a nose cone aren't either, especially those that just use hand tools and don't have fully equipped machine shops. We have some guys in our club that design and build their own electronics and altimeters from scratch. I respect that and let them know that I admire and appreciate their skills, I don't tell them that all altimeters are the same, they are just a bunch of electronic parts and a board, and big deal you can solder. Learn to appreciate all the different aspects of our great hobby without making light of what others may be doing that differs from your opinion.
I think Fred was referring to the main coming out at apogee when it was planned to come out at the altitude programmed in the altimeter. There has been quite a discussion on this over the years in TRA. There are definitely two different camps but TRA has said that early deployment is not cause for failure in itself. However, unplanned apogee deployment often causes a level 3 rocket to land outside the "cone" of the waiver which can be cause for a fail.
Certainly a planned main at apogee that is electronically deployed as Tony describes would not be a problem since it is an "as planned" event.
Fred can chime in here if he thinks I am off base. Well, he beat me to it by one minute.
Landing outside the waiver is always a fail.
Safely landing inside the waiver regardless of planned flight profile is a pass....
You should be REQUIRED to successfully fly your planned profile as the minimum demonstration of competence....IMHO.
On one hand, puking the main sounds like something that should fail. But if the flight is successful and safe still, I see it as being a flight profile that was designed to be safe enough to handle anomalies, and passable. Of course, there's the issue of why the chute puked and that's not a good thing.
But failing a safe apogee puke, would be like failing all L1's that have a delay go long....or pop early, but come back otherwise undamaged.
As I see the rules standing, it's have a safe flight and be able to refly it..... not "have a perfect flight with no mistakes"
Now...thats how it stands....should it change? I dunno. given the amount of total unsafe failures I see out there by certified fliers...maybe we should focus on tightening up recovery training.
I LOLed at the use of "puke." Haven't heard that one in my twenty years of High Power.
I'm with NateLowrie, there are so many goals you can go after and skills that you can obtain that making any arbitrary non safety-related requirements for a L3 really doesn't add anything. (Although it WOULD be nice if they added a requirement that you had to build your own electronics... ) What's the difference between buying a kit or scratch building something using essentially the same components as a kit? Not much... either way you're gonna have to do an OR/RocSim analysis to make sure it's gonna be stable and keep you within your waiver (which is getting to be an increasingly more difficult L3 requirement). Most kits capable of L3 performance are basically just the FG components, the hardware and recovery bits aren't included, so a L3 actually IS a test of your design skills.
Enter your email address to join: