ANOTHER CATO...

[billdz]

My biggest fear in this is that if I get a replacement, it'll be another G78BS

"gee..thanks CTI.. you're the best!"

I believe you can request a different motor of comparable value.

 

[Charles_McG]

The [email protected] address bounces.

 

[Ez2cDave]

The [email protected] address bounces.

Charles,

I'm sorry about that . . .

I just saw this "little nugget" on the https://pro38.com/contact.php webpage.

QUOTE:

"Please note that warranty claims must be placed through your dealer and not through this contact form.

Additionally, Warranty claims can ONLY be processed by your dealer if you keep the original packaging that your reload came in; the packaging contains the date code. Our warranty is one year from the date of manufacture. "

END QUOTE:

Dave F.

 

[tbonerocketeer]

Charles,

I'm sorry about that . . .

I just saw this "little nugget" on the https://pro38.com/contact.php webpage.

QUOTE:

"Please note that warranty claims must be placed through your dealer and not through this contact form.

Additionally, Warranty claims can ONLY be processed by your dealer if you keep the original packaging that your reload came in; the packaging contains the date code. Our warranty is one year from the date of manufacture. "

END QUOTE:

Dave F.

Well as a dealer, I have received motors older than one year from the manufacturer so its usually from purchase.

 

[Banzai88]

........ Our warranty is one year from the date of manufacture. "

Well as a dealer, I have received motors older than one year from the manufacturer so its usually from purchase.

Chris, I'm fairly certain most of us have bought motors that are over a year old, so I guess that puts the vendor on the hook as to wether or not they're going to go ahead with the warranty claim?

How does the warranty process with CTI work from the vendor's end?

 

[tbonerocketeer]

Chris, I'm fairly certain most of us have bought motors that are over a year old, so I guess that puts the vendor on the hook as to wether or not they're going to go ahead with the warranty claim?

How does the warranty process with CTI work from the vendor's end?

It used to be replacement on the next order.....haven't seen many actually be replaced in the last couple years though....

 

[djs]

It used to be replacement on the next order

Not sure if you are free to discuss- but has CTI ever refused to warranty something? Either because of the old date code, or the user did something bad (like stick 3 ignitors in it or something like that)

 

[tbonerocketeer]

Not sure if you are free to discuss- but has CTI ever refused to warranty something? Either because of the old date code, or the user did something bad (like stick 3 ignitors in it or something like that)

I have heard yes, but only on bigger motors. Anything 54mm down has almost nothing the user can be at fault for.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Not sure if you are free to discuss- but has CTI ever refused to warranty something? Either because of the old date code, or the user did something bad (like stick 3 ignitors in it or something like that)

How about if you didn't keep the original packaging and don't have the date code ?

Dave F.

 

[heada]

How about if you didn't keep the original packaging and don't have the date code ?

Dave F.

Original packaging is required for warranty claim.

 

[dshmel]

H410 Cato

 

[DavidMcCann]

Andrew,
That’s silly. A certification flight should be just another flight, but with more impulse. The value of a “shakedown flight” is that it allows you to test your checklist, practice your preparation, and double check yourself, in a less stressful situation and with a rocket that flies to less altitude, before your cert flight. Many people feel perfectly comfortable skipping a shakedown flight because they are experienced, but flying one introduces no more risk than any other flight.

Skipping a shakedown flight presents zero risk.
lets assign a value of risk at 1 for any flight.

Shakedown plus cert flight- risk value of 2
cert flight alone- risk value of 1.


People seem to think they need to break in a rocket like an engine or something. thats silly. If the risk of every flight is the same, there is no benefit to a test flight.

 

[CoyoteNumber2]

People seem to think they need to break in a rocket like an engine or something. thats silly. If the risk of every flight is the same, there is no benefit to a test flight.

Exactly. I never could understand the rationale behind "shakedown" flights. Either your rocket works or it doesn't. I can't figure out how whether it's a cert flight or a "shakedown" flight changes the outcome.

 

[DavidMcCann]

Exactly. I never could understand the rationale behind "shakedown" flights. Either your rocket works or it doesn't. I can't figure out how whether it's a cert flight or a "shakedown" flight changes the outcome.

I see it as a risk to the rocket that may leave you unable to attempt the cert flight. The risk is high, and the benefits are very very low. And each benefit, I think there are ways to avoid from the onset. There is no punishment for failing a cert flight...so I don't get it.

Some possible benefits to a shakedown flight, and how I'd avoid needing them-

Having too large of a chute blow at apogee, OK... thats a benefit at a lower altitude and may not be lost.
Solution- pick the right chute using available weight guides.

Getting used to flying electronics/checklists for inexperienced fliers
solution- I'd recommend gaining experience in a rocket you don't intend to cert on, but I can see benefit to this. But thats not really a "shakedown flight" of the rocket, that's gaining experience you should have before attempting a cert, and in theory before building a cert rocket.

risks-
rocket damage, loss, CATO, fins snapping off, higher likelihood of using a sub-optimal motor (not enough oomph).

So, I just don't see any benefit to having a practice of doing shakedowns.... just put it in and let it rip.

 

[Charles_McG]

Maybe it's not about the rocket. Maybe it's confidence building for the flier.

 

[boatgeek]

For me, a shakedown saved my ability to fly the cert. I flew the shakedown on a FAR 101 field and discovered my shock cord attachment wasn't up to snuff. Fortunately, I found the nose cone a mile or so away and the fin can fell nicely into soft dirt with no damage. A month later after fixing problems, I was able to pass the cert at a waivered site. I would likely have had to wait a few more months to try to cert again if I hadn't done the shakedown.

rocket damage, loss, CATO, fins snapping off, higher likelihood of using a sub-optimal motor (not enough oomph).

A CATO is the only thing on the list that is a major risk outside the flyer's control. Those are relatively rare, especially with single use motors. If a person is flying a cert flight, they should be confident in all of those things.

 

[DavidMcCann]

A CATO is the only thing on the list that is a major risk outside the flyer's control. Those are relatively rare, especially with single use motors. If a person is flying a cert flight, they should be confident in all of those things.

Kind of my point. if you can mitigate those risks that are under your control, just fly the cert.

 

[dshmel]

Well as a dealer, I have received motors older than one year from the manufacturer so its usually from purchase.

AT is also one year from purchase, 5 years from manufacture. I am screwed since I have many years worth of inventory. Last season I only burned 29 motors (D24 to K1000). At this rate I don't need to ever purchase another motor. Shhhhh. Don't tell my wife that though.

 

[dr wogz]

For the shakedown vs. no shakedown flight:

From what I've seen, a lot of / a fair number of cert flights are on new rockets that have never flown before. "I built it for my LX" Or, very rarely are they ones that have flown numerous times & with different motors & configurations, and will fly right. From what I've seen here [TRF], and at fields, are people who show up with a newly built & painted bird with an H or J and paperwork. So, their cert flight is also a 'heads up' flight..

 

[djs]

re: shakedown flights... It's not a bad idea to verify the openrocket calculations on altitude and delay with a smaller motor. Also, I've seen several L1 flights where the end result is "I didn't think it would go that high!". At least a large G motor would've given them a clue as to what the rocket would do.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Skipping a shakedown flight presents zero risk.
lets assign a value of risk at 1 for any flight.

Shakedown plus cert flight- risk value of 2
cert flight alone- risk value of 1.


People seem to think they need to break in a rocket like an engine or something. thats silly. If the risk of every flight is the same, there is no benefit to a test flight.

I disagree with the premise that the risk of every flight is the same. But I think it depends on what you and I each mean by “risk”.
My concept includes not only the probability of failure, but also what is at risk of loss, financially and with respect to safety. A flight on a larger motor represents a greater financial risk because it includes a more expensive case and reload. It represents a greater risk with respect to safety because a rocket with one impulse class higher motor can double the radius of an off-course flight. In reality it could be even more. A person might do a shakedown on a small (1%) H and then after verifying that everything works, fly it on a full J, which could have nearly 8 times the impulse.
By no means am I suggesting a requirement to fly a shakedown flight, but shakedown flights are a way to test a new airframe under less stressful circumstances.

 

[DavidMcCann]

The trouble I see is there is a greater or at least even probability that a smaller motor will cause issues by being too small. And a shakedown flight gives very limited info that’s useful to a larger flight. I just don’t see a justification of the risk of that flight vs the very very limited benefits.

Edit: I guess I should say in limited cases it makes sense, but I see an attitude out there that “I need to shakedown every rocket to see if it works before a big flight”. And I disagree with that as a blanket statement. Unless there’s a specific worry, the behavior of the rocket on say, an H144 isn’t going to tell you much of how it’s going to fly on a K1127

 

[Charles_McG]

If the probability of a successful flight stays constant, then the probability of a string of successful flights necessarily goes down with the number of flights.

So if a flier and their prep process and rocket are all in order for the first flight, then not flying the end goal flight profile can only increase the chance of not getting to that end goal flight.

To extend that argument ad absurdum, I will now immediately start my L3 build, retire all relevant risks by research, mentoring review and ground testing, fly the biggest rocket I ever will -once- and exit the hobby, ultimate goal reached.

My L1 and L2 flights were not the first flight of either rocket. I like to have multiple flights to gain data and experience because I don't believe I've plateaued my rocketry knowledge or practical experience. So the probability of a successful flight isn't a constant for me. I -hope- it's going down with time. A recent CATO and shred of my first composite two stage sustainer aside [different flights].

I'll return to the earlier statement - maybe test flights aren't about the rocket.

 

[Banzai88]

I like to have multiple flights to gain data and experience because I don't believe I've plateaued my rocketry knowledge or practical experience. I think, admittedly or not, that describes most of us......even the cowboys that've 'been there, done that'

So the probability of a successful flight isn't a constant for me. I -hope- it's going down with time. That statement almost perfectly describes nearly everyone I've ever met on a rocket field that didn't have cranial-rectal inversion.

I'll return to the earlier statement - maybe test flights aren't about the rocket. I know a lot of the ones that I've done and witnessed weren't nearly as much about the rocket as they were the flyer

 

[DavidMcCann]

Perhaps I have not been clear.

I simply feel that flying a lower power flight prior to a higher level flight is not going to “proof” a rocket against failure, and is not going to provide significant insight or increase the odds of a successful higher power flight.

It does not at all mean I don’t think a flier needs actual experience to fly at a higher level. I’m saying the idea that a rocket needs a break in flight is unsupported.

 

[billdz]

I recall that for Tripoli L3, a test flight on a K or L was required.

 

[Titan II]

I recall that for Tripoli L3, a test flight on a K or L was required.

Absolutely not.

 

[Steve Shannon]

I recall that for Tripoli L3, a test flight on a K or L was required.

Not that I recall. At one time I think it was allowed in lieu of a data package.

 

[billdz]

Not that I recall. At one time I think it was allowed in lieu of a data package.

You are right, I just rechecked the forms, maybe I'm just imaging it. Or maybe it was just recommended by my TAPs.

 

[pondman]

I have seen several flyers do a "test flight" on an L motor, jut to be sure everything functioned as designed. No guarantees here, but if it boosts thee confidence level then go for it. Have one coming up this week end as a precursory to L3, providing the weather holds.