Biggest thing I've put in it is an I204.
The only reason is that people are overly cautious, though the conspiracy theorist might argue that some folks might want to protect the business of selling expensive DD altimeters, sleds, black power, charge wells, etc. Probably hogwash. But still, as far as I'm concerned - and likely a lot of people that are happy with this product, there is nothing really to limit the use of the product withing practical limits. IMHO, this makes "old fashioned" DD obsolete in the mid-sized L1-L2 rocket category, and makes all sorts of existing rockets effectively DD capable that never could've been before. I just bought a MAC Performance Scorpion, and specifically stuck with the less-expensive single-deploy version because there's no compelling reason to buy the DD version...
I do agree the CR does open up using different (ie. shorter) rockets for a staged deployment.
The problem is not the chute release, it is how people use it.
They use it together with motor ejection and think they have now the safety of normal DD, which they do not have because they have no backup for the drouge event.
If you use a backup electronic and two chute releases for redundancy you are fine.
The problem is not the chute release, it is how people use it.
They use it together with motor ejection and think they have now the safety of normal DD, which they do not have because they have no backup for the drouge event.
If you use a backup electronic and two chute releases for redundancy you are fine.
Two chute releases? How do you figure this would work? If one doesn't release, the chute will still be wrapped in a rubber band.
Use two Chute Releases and two short rubber bands to make one loop around the parachute. First CR attached to first rubber band attached to second CR attached to second rubber band attached to first CR.
I would be interested to know what John Beans thinks about this configuration. I'm thinking about doing this for the upscale Onyx that I'm building which will fly on 54mm L2 motors. It will have redundancy for the apogee deployment (both nosecone altimeter and motor ejection) but I would also like to have redundancy for the chute release.
And that's exactly why we need it for our project.
I'd argue anything that makes it easier to launch larger and higher quicker is good for the hobby as it becomes more accessible to more rocketeers.
I would like to see the JLCR with at least the function of the ALT1
Adding recording functionality to Chute Release seems feasible.
Adding recording functionality to Chute Release seems feasible.
Yeah, but they'll ultimately lose them without a tracker. Plus if a long enough motor delay isn't available, it would negate the ability to use that motor. I have a rocket with a nosecone GPS tracker that fits an I motor with ease but
the simulations show that even the longest delay available is too short. That said, plenty of H motors available that are usable and I agree the CR opens up a lot more doors. Saying it shouldn't be used in HPR is just some lawyerly
covering of one's derriere. Kurt
Enter your email address to join: