MicroMaxx staging

[jj94]

Ok, I very well know that this is outside of the NAR's safety code.

 

[Gillard]

tried and failed, but if anyone knows a way i'd be glad to hear, a two stage MMX rocket, that top stage will be ripping.

 

[Micromeister]

Yes:
Many times over the past 8+ years. As a matter of fact I've spoken with Bill Stine directly about this method of converting standard MMX motors into booster motors on at least two occasions. He concures completely, as far as encouraging it as a great way to Stage micro motors/models.

At Naram-50 we were talking about staging again and I mentioned it'd sure be nice if He and/or Quest would issued a tip sheet on converting standard to booster motors using this safe and easy method. If this happened, it would no longer be considered altering the motor and Should be allowed at any NAR sanctioned launch.
He the said "Oh man John I sure wish you'd reminded me about the a month ago..... we could have had the last 50k or so, MMX-II finished without the delay or ejection charge...No problem". Well crap! I said and we went on talking about several other staging issues, this sort of side tracked me from getting back to weither or not Quest would issue such a the tip sheet...DOH!!

But back to your question.. with it I've gone from the rather disappointing 30-35% upperstage ignition rate to about 95% success. I've still had a couple fail to ignite but they were taped together method rather then Gap staged or even semi gap staged which i've found over the years is a more reliable method then the taped together method.

Why don't you send Bill an e-mail asking about issuing a booster conversion fact sheet? maybe if enough OTHER micromaxxers make the request he'll follow thur with either the memo or producing a booster motor
Hope this helps.

 

[jj94]

Yes, it did help a lot. I was hoping you'd pop in here. I made a crude rocket a while back, basically using two small basswood spars as fins and a asswood spar as the 'body tube'. I glued a motor to the top, for better stability and then put in some stages. Two motors for the booster stage, and one of those two igniting the second stage. The second stage lit the sustainer. I succeeded on my second or third try, and man did it get some altitude. I think I'll try out some real MMX staged rockets now. I've found that it takes at least two motors to lift a second stage and a sustainer. Three motors if it isn't a rocket made out of thin basswood.

 

[Micromeister]

Josh:
Try using 1/64" 3ply liteply instead of Basswood for the fins.
I've found the lighter you build the booster stages the better.
Only Cluster, staged micro configuration I've flown is a 3 motor in-line booster to a single motor upper stage. from 4 or 5 test flights, I've yet to get one of these sustainers back with these three motor booster.. Woohoowe! they do get up there in a BIG HURRY! The better 2/3rds and I have heard the faint pop at ejection..... but even with red tracking powder just haven't seen a thing

 

[jj94]

The only reason why I used scrap basswood was because it's cheap and I knew I wouldn't get it back. I just wanted to see if the motor configuration would work (and just for the fun of it).

 

[tbzep]

Yes:
Many times over the past 8+ years. As a matter of fact I've spoken with Bill Stine directly about this method of converting standard MMX motors into booster motors on at least two occasions. He concures completely, as far as encouraging it as a great way to Stage micro motors/models.

At Naram-50 we were talking about staging again and I mentioned it'd sure be nice if He and/or Quest would issued a tip sheet on converting standard to booster motors using this safe and easy method. If this happened, it would no longer be considered altering the motor and Should be allowed at any NAR sanctioned launch.
He the said "Oh man John I sure wish you'd reminded me about the a month ago..... we could have had the last 50k or so, MMX-II finished without the delay or ejection charge...No problem". Well crap! I said and we went on talking about several other staging issues, this sort of side tracked me from getting back to weither or not Quest would issue such a the tip sheet...DOH!!

But back to your question.. with it I've gone from the rather disappointing 30-35% upperstage ignition rate to about 95% success. I've still had a couple fail to ignite but they were taped together method rather then Gap staged or even semi gap staged which i've found over the years is a more reliable method then the taped together method.

Why don't you send Bill an e-mail asking about issuing a booster conversion fact sheet? maybe if enough OTHER micromaxxers make the request he'll follow thur with either the memo or producing a booster motor
Hope this helps.

Wow. You darn near bit my head off for doing the same thing with Estes motors and now you are promoting breaking NAR safety code because Bill Stine said so. That wouldn't stand up in court. Regardless of the safety issue, it's against the rules.

On top of that I did not suggest doing it, I only reported that it could be done. You are, in effect, suggesting people break the NAR safety code. Stine may have ok'd it so the "intended use" part can slide, but the codes still say not to alter a motor.

 

[Micromeister]

Wow. You darn near bit my head off for doing the same thing with Estes motors and now you are promoting breaking NAR safety code because Bill Stine said so. That wouldn't stand up in court. Regardless of the safety issue, it's against the rules.

On top of that I did not suggest doing it, I only reported that it could be done. You are, in effect, suggesting people break the NAR safety code. Stine may have ok'd it so the "intended use" part can slide, but the codes still say not to alter a motor.

Well; see there.
I believe JJ opened the thread with a statement that this is outside the safety code rules.
Theres one Heck of a difference between what were talking about here and what you were advocating in that long since deleted (thank the lord) thread. I for one am profoundly Glad that one wasn't saved.
The method put forth in that post was as dangerous as anything I've heard anyone doing aside trying to light motors with a match.

Are we Breaking the Safety code by removing the cap and loss powder ejection charge from micro motors? OF Corse we are, Sure. Is it anywhere near the down right dangerous method suggested in that early post.. IN NO WAY.

I wasn't biting your head off simply because of the process YOU WERE suggesting, rather because you used NO forthought what-so-ever about who would be reading and potentally using the method.

Bring it up that way again and I'll come down with both feet.....again.

I don't care a rats little rosy rear end if what JJ and I are talking about here will hold up in court. Your no lawyer, so your opinion on the subject has 0 weight. There is NO double standard....We're talking about the difference between a manufacturers suggested altered use of a product and an end users unthinking remarks about altering a product on an open forum. Two Wildly different things.

Try not advocating dumb, dangerous things and I'll never "bit your head off", Do so; at your own peril.
Come on tbzap, think before you type. If your looking for an argument...do it in a PM.

 

[tbzep]

1. I NEVER ADVOCATED any method of altering motors. I said it could be done, and nothing more. However, you have just explained it clearly and advocated doing it.

2. Your method is exactly the same. You have, in effect, showed the rest of the TRF family how to make boosters out of ALL regular BP motors.

3. You need to get a grip and practice what you preach. Either stick with the safety code, or keep your mouth shut when somebody else decides to violate it.

4. You've also jumped people for violating the NAR safety code in the "intended use", which had nothing to do with dangerous activities, nor with altering motors. You're advocating breaking a couple of codes here, Stine's nod or not.

5. I'm sure you are glad those threads are gone. I would have linked those threads to this post showing that I didn't ADVOCATE anything, and that you are actually ADVOCATING the exact same process for the 1/8A motors as was being discussed on the A8-3 motors. I'd also link several other posts where you jumped people for breaking NAR codes even though safety wasn't an issue, just like you've advocated breaking them here, RATIONALIZING that "it's safe so it's ok".

6. I predicted you'd respond this way. However, I don't blame you. You were caught with your pants down. Now you've got to cover yourself with your pompous rhetoric and "put me in my place" for daring to call you on the very things you have berated myself and others for.

7. I like the PM thing. That's what I suggested to you back on the old TRF, but you seemed to enjoy talking down to me and others. Nice touch.

 

[rmpitzer]

I don't care a rats little rosy rear end if what JJ and I are talking about here will hold up in court. Your no lawyer, so your opinion on the subject has 0 weight. There is NO double standard....We're talking about the difference between a manufacturers suggested altered use of a product and an end users unthinking remarks about altering a product on an open forum. Two Wildly different things.

Wow, this doesn't sound very "10 year old friendly".

 

[Micromeister]

3rd post and already looking for trouble. don't know why your trying to be such a jurk but hey thats on you...
I need not rationalize anything, your the one ranting.

Safety first Always my man: I don't advocate anything that hasn't been discussed in detail with the product manufacture and tested before posting. Oh...I speed sometimes also.
I've learned not to argue with a fool. So we'll just leave my pompous rhetoric at that.

 

[AKPilot]

Wow, this doesn't sound very "10 year old friendly".

I'm in agreement. Am not sure why it got so heated, but we'll take a look into it rationally.