Sneak Peak: Jolly Logic's Easy Dual Deployment

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Don't forget the vent hole for the device to work correctly.

I don't think one needs a large vent hole in the airframe. If you do, the ejection charge might not get the stuff ejected. The unit has plenty of time to get a pressure inputs when ejected out of the airframe. You use too big a hole, and more powder would have to be added. The pressure transient from the higher charge might be an issue with the baro chip.
I'd only use a small pressure relief hole in the airframe like I have in any rocket of this size. Kurt Savegnago
 
...I'd only use a small pressure relief hole in the airframe like I have in any rocket of this size. Kurt Savegnago
Agreed. My vent holes are there for my Altimeter2 - sized and placed accordingly. Once the motor ejection charge does its job, the release mechanism will be exposed to atmospheric pressure and function as designed at the release set point.
 
I don't think one needs a large vent hole in the airframe. If you do, the ejection charge might not get the stuff ejected. The unit has plenty of time to get a pressure inputs when ejected out of the airframe. You use too big a hole, and more powder would have to be added. The pressure transient from the higher charge might be an issue with the baro chip.
I'd only use a small pressure relief hole in the airframe like I have in any rocket of this size. Kurt Savegnago

Kurt, what made you write all that as a response to my important fact of only saying a vent hole is necessary for the device to work properly!?
I know my English isn't the best but you got me stumped here....
 
Kurt, what made you write all that as a response to my important fact of only saying a vent hole is necessary for the device to work properly!?
I know my English isn't the best but you got me stumped here....

A vent/static hole might not be that necessary for a low intensity (ie. subsonic) launch . I have heard of some installations with a baro/acclerometer deployment device where the hardware is enclosed without a static pressure port open to the air and the accelerometer side of the device takes care of the apogee deployment (for better or worse). Once that event has occurred, a static port is uncovered for pressure measurements and eventual main chute deployment. Static port size and a pressure relief hole are two different animals.

I am not so certain a small vent hole would be that accurate for altitude measurement due to lag and looks like the video shows the device worked nicely...... I don't know if he used a vent hole or not for the video. I'd wait for the
instructions once finalized. Best regards, Kurt Savegnago
 
I don't think it will need a hole.
It measures pressure before you put it in the rocket.
Pops out at apogee by ejection charge, be it by motor or a separate charge.
Detects pressure as it falls to deploy at designated altitude, based on air pressure from when it was set before being put in the rocket.
That is my understanding anyways. John may want to clarify that.
 
This is really cool. I'm looking forward to getting one.

On an aside; can you tell us where you got the release pin? It is perfect for a hatch idea that I've had on my quad copter for a while. I had something like this on luggage once but you don't see them very often.

Thanks,

Wes
 
On an aside; can you tell us where you got the release pin? It is perfect for a hatch idea that I've had on my quad copter for a while. I had something like this on luggage once but you don't see them very often.

The metal parts ate custom designs I created in AutoCAD.
The servo is the only stock component, but even it has custom wiring and a custom push cam I designed.
 
The metal parts ate custom designs I created in AutoCAD.
The servo is the only stock component, but even it has custom wiring and a custom push cam I designed.

Ok cool. I wrongly assumed that custom fabrication would push the price up too much. It's amazing what we can economically fabricate in low numbers these days. I may hit you up for any 'spares' you may have down the road. :)
 
Ok cool. I wrongly assumed that custom fabrication would push the price up too much. It's amazing what we can economically fabricate in low numbers these days. I may hit you up for any 'spares' you may have down the road. :)

The whole design => manufacturing process has dramatically evolved over the last 20 years due to computing and the internet.
When custom parts arrive from subcontractors, it's still sort of like magic, because until then it was just a spinning 3D model I created in AutoCAD.
I know in advance that it's *supposed* to fit, but I still am amazed when it does.
And there's still a very noticeable sense of disorientation at being in the factory and suddenly noticing something that someone's working on that's mine.

I will of course keep spares, and may provide an extra "pin" and bands with each unit.
 
The whole design => manufacturing process has dramatically evolved over the last 20 years due to computing and the internet.
When custom parts arrive from subcontractors, it's still sort of like magic, because until then it was just a spinning 3D model I created in AutoCAD.
I know in advance that it's *supposed* to fit, but I still am amazed when it does.
And there's still a very noticeable sense of disorientation at being in the factory and suddenly noticing something that someone's working on that's mine.

I will of course keep spares, and may provide an extra "pin" and bands with each unit.

I wish I had a maker community in my town so I could fiddle and prototype... I can use my school district's tools, but am restricted to when school is open, which happens to be when I'm working...
 
I had the chance to do some flying with a prototype Chute Release this past weekend, and put it into the air 10 times in three different models. Two of them were BT-60 (1.60 inch/40.6mm ID) based models (Estes Vagabond and Big Bertha – both with plastic ‘chutes) and one has a 1.75 inch/44.5mm inside diameter body (Semroc SLS Aero Dart – nylon ‘chute).

The user interface for the Chute Release is super simple, just as described on the Jolly Logic site here. To actually pack the parachutes with the release I basically just folded it as I would have normally, then laid the device on the middle of it, and pulled the rubber band around the other side, plugging the release fitting into its receiving socket on the left side of the CR. I did need to fold the ‘chute a bit more tightly so that the package could slide into (and later out of) the model easily enough. The last step is to turn the device on before putting the package into the rocket. Don’t forget this step!

See attached pictures for some examples.

Each of the ten flights also carried an AltimeterThree so I would have altitude vs. time data from each flight to go along with what I could see from the ground. Between the three models I flew the CR to between about 300 feet (Big Bertha on a C6-5 carrying both devices) and 1100 feet (SLS Aero Dart on Estes F15-6s). On all but one flight I had the release set at 200 feet. One of the four Aero Dart flights was set to release at 300 feet. The AltimeterThree graph from that Aero Dart flight, on an Estes F15-6, is attached as well. The knee in the time/altitude curve is very evident.

On every flight, the chute/CR package was ejected as it should be. On eight of them, the ‘chute was released as programmed, with the AltimeterThree data showing the ‘chute as opening fully around 50 feet below the set altitude. Beautiful (and fun to watch). This was clearly shown in the data from the AltimeterThree aboard. I had one non-release – on my second attempt to use the CR - which is why I emphasized TURN IT ON above.

The other flight in which the CR didn’t do its thing was a spectacular Estes E9-6 CATO in which the propellant/delay grain blew out the front of the rocket (and what was left of the motor blew out the back) shortly after liftoff. The A3 on that flight (safely in the payload section) showed an apogee of 48 feet. The ‘chute was melted and separated from the CR and the CR itself was blackened a bit, but that’s all from the CATO. That was the fourth flight of the 10, so you can see that the CR was unfazed by being briefly flame broiled, though it’s not as pretty as it was.

I did get it to false trigger on the ground once. After the I-forgot-to-turn-it-on flight I did a little field repair to the top of the Vagabond’s body tube with some thin CA, and the payload section fit got kind of snug as a result. I put it on and pulled it off a couple of times trying to get the fit to loosen a bit. In the process of doing that I heard the CR release inside the model, so clearly I managed to fake it out this way. At that point I added a small vent hole to the body of the model to avoid that in the future. I put one in the Aero Dart as well – the Big Bertha already had static ports for use with altimeters tied to the nose cone.

By the way, after the 10 flights the battery in the Chute release was still indicating fully charged. The time stamps on the AltimeterThree files show that I did those flights over the course of a little over two and a half hours.

The possibilities that this gadget opens up for models from about 1.6 inches in diameter on up are really intriguing. One that I’m personally excited about is fulfilling my goal to fly a mile high on a fairly small model (no level 2 cert needed). I am not too eager to get into all that one has to in order to do dual deployment (getting black powder, LEUP, etc., etc.) and I was wondering about how I was going to have a reasonable chance of getting the model back (even if I get my EggFinder built and installed). Now I have the answer. For another half-ounce I have a simple, reliable way to deploy the main at 500 feet or 300 feet. I might have to take the drag hit for a larger diameter (rather than being able to go minimum diameter on 29mm motors) but that will be a worthwhile trade I think.

Another is being able to fly higher on our regular club field and still stay reliably ON the field. Based on these first 10 flights, I think we could comfortably fly to 1.5 to two times as high as we normally would allow, depending on winds of the day. Plus the whole cool factor of having the effect of dual deployment that’s this simple to do and fun to watch in action is pretty exciting.

IMG_3730.jpg

IMG_3723.jpg

IMG_3711.jpg

IMG_3710.jpg

IMG_3697.jpg

IMG_3693.jpg

AeroDartFlight18.jpg

IMG_3692.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the testing and full report!
I'm like you, I'm not interested in everything that goes into doing a BP dual deploy.
I do have a lot of respect for the dual deploy MPR and HPR guys.
This seems like a simpler and brilliant solution.

By the way - Nice parachute in the last Big Bertha picture!
 
Thanks for that report Bernard, great photos too ! This little widget looks like a big winner.
 
Awesome report! Glad you had a chance to thoroughly test it out and I'm glad it went so well. Can't wait for this to come to market!
 
Thanks Bernard, great report. I'm really looking forward to this device!
 
Thanks, everyone, for the positive thoughts on my little missive. It IS a neat little device and I am very much looking forward to flying it more.

Chris, that's a JonRocket 'chute in the BB.
 
I think most of us see the chute release being very popular on motor ejection rockets that typically go 1000 to 2000 ft. Do you think this will be something that can replace DD on 10+ lb rockets with chutes of 6 ft diameter and larger? I'm just curious what you think the limits for this device will be. Could this be the end of DD?
 
Well..... that's not a sandbox I've ever played in so I'm not sure. It would certainly be simple enough to extend the size of the bundle the thing can wrap up by using a bigger rubber band than the #57 that comes with it. I would think that there would a trade off between the size of the band and the tension the release mechanism is comfortable with.

As you can see in the pictures there are quite a few choices of release altitude between 100 and 1000 feet. One could, I expect, even use two of them for "triple deploy". Lots of possibilities.

As I noted above, one of the things I hope to do with one next year is fly to a mile, and I'd likely set the release at 300-500 feet for that flight.
 
I think most of us see the chute release being very popular on motor ejection rockets that typically go 1000 to 2000 ft. Do you think this will be something that can replace DD on 10+ lb rockets with chutes of 6 ft diameter and larger? I'm just curious what you think the limits for this device will be. Could this be the end of DD?

No, it's not the end of dual deploy. For one thing, with just Chute Release you still need motor eject. The biggest motor eject motor is a K, I believe.

I don't think there's intrinsically a size limit, though there may be a configuration issue if for some reason a bag is required. Chute Release is not built to take a load like a Tender Descender would handle. It's built to hold a parachute closed in a slipstream. What's the size limit for that? We'll have to experiment.

I plan to fly a 5' parachute in November with a K. That should be no problem. For the first flight, I'll probably set it for 500 feet, and see how it deploys. Depending on how long it takes to slow to descent speed, I'll drop it down from there.

My prediction is that one day we'll have electronic ejection as well. At that point, you'll just expect your motor to get you up there, then sensors and electronics will be in charge of bringing it down safely. Like dual deploy, no more ejection timing estimates.
 
No, it's not the end of dual deploy. For one thing, with just Chute Release you still need motor eject. The biggest motor eject motor is a K, I believe.

I don't think there's intrinsically a size limit, though there may be a configuration issue if for some reason a bag is required. Chute Release is not built to take a load like a Tender Descender would handle. It's built to hold a parachute closed in a slipstream. What's the size limit for that? We'll have to experiment.

I plan to fly a 5' parachute in November with a K. That should be no problem. For the first flight, I'll probably set it for 500 feet, and see how it deploys. Depending on how long it takes to slow to descent speed, I'll drop it down from there.

My prediction is that one day we'll have electronic ejection as well. At that point, you'll just expect your motor to get you up there, then sensors and electronics will be in charge of bringing it down safely. Like dual deploy, no more ejection timing estimates.

Aerotech has the 54mm L1000-18A DMS motor which has a delay, other than L2 motors I'm not sure if there are any L3 motors that have delays. The Chute release might work for those who want a Triple Deployment, using motor eject at apogee drogue less or , the Chute Release on a drogue at 1000' altitude, and the main chute as normal.
 
Last edited:
This is still dual deploy. Two (dual) deployment things happen - 1. Chute gets ejected, 2. Chute gets released

The Jolly Logic Cute Release could put a serious dent in finicky burrito cutters, though.

I doubt that in its current rendition. A long drop from altitude could work a large chute free out in the slipstream. Remember, it's an elastic band that is holding the chute reefed. The parachute lines could work themselves free and the elastic might not be able to keep the chute reefed. A cutter one can cinch the ziptie down very tightly and securely. As mentioned above, a planned test on a K project would be enlightening.

I think for LPR, MPR and smaller HPR projects it's a very workable device as planned. I foresee issues on larger rockets if the device isn't scaled up or the restraining band isn't appropriate for larger parachutes. The failure mode would be to look for chute openings at higher than planned altitudes because the chute works itself free from the restraint.

That said, for the demonstrated flights I think it's a great tool and want a couple myself. Kurt Savegnago
 
Back
Top