I'm done with Aerotech.

Onebadhawk
rocket sok
eggtimer rocketry
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Originally posted by garoq
I agree that age of the motor and storage conditions can factor in ignition reliability. But why is it that many consumers have high reliability with Copperheads as we do? Are they only purchasing new motors? No, it's mainly in the technique of using them.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point. No special techniques are required to use a regular two-wire ignitor, while a special clip, tape, or other shenanigans are required to use Copperheads. I've used them and they do work, but so do 2 wires without any fuss.

How much money do you save using the Copperhead vs. the 2 wire? Isn't that the reason behind the Copperhead? If not, what is?


tms
 
The European Aerotech distributor has lied to us the past 3 years or more about the CE marking we need (and which apparently is coming every x months or so he has kept saying with ever more weak excuses). problem is, although plenty of others would happily have resolved our situation, the European distributor wants to control it all so he can slap his own rocket tax on us all, end result, no Aerotech in the UK, and he's destroyed the UK Aerotech market largely as a result, since people have invested in a big way in other motor manufacturer's hardware.

Richard

Well said - and thanks!

Damage... (Frustrated Aerotech fan)
 
Originally posted by 2muchstuff
That's the whole point. No special techniques are required to use a regular two-wire ignitor, while a special clip, tape, or other shenanigans are required to use Copperheads. I've used them and they do work, but so do 2 wires without any fuss.

How much money do you save using the Copperhead vs. the 2 wire? Isn't that the reason behind the Copperhead? If not, what is?


tms
Click to expand...
The 2-wire ignitors are 10-20 times the cost of a Copperhead.
 
Originally posted by Damage...
The European Aerotech distributor has lied to us the past 3 years or more about the CE marking we need (and which apparently is coming every x months or so he has kept saying with ever more weak excuses). problem is, although plenty of others would happily have resolved our situation, the European distributor wants to control it all so he can slap his own rocket tax on us all, end result, no Aerotech in the UK, and he's destroyed the UK Aerotech market largely as a result, since people have invested in a big way in other motor manufacturer's hardware.

Richard

Well said - and thanks!

Damage... (Frustrated Aerotech fan)
Click to expand...
I tried to respond to your message, but your mailbox is full.
 
Originally posted by ukrocketman

I actually know more than I am letting on, since it would not look good on you if I pointed out the other things.

Richard, this thread is on copperheads, so I'll not start a CE discussion here. You may know something about the approval of Cesaroni motors, but you don't have the complete picture surrounding the AT approval.
Your claims are full of half-truths, so just a few necessary comments and then I'll stop it here in this thread.

It was suggested that you use TNO. It was suggested that you let others help a lot more, especially others who helped get Cesaroni CE marking in fairly quick time. Unfortunately, it would have meant relinquishing control for you though.
And the truth is:
I in fact did get an offer to help approve the AT Consumer motors with TNO in summer 2005. Intention was to approve the"up to "G" range only, (quote)"as the high power range allready is covered by Cesaroni".
I didn't mind this view by somebody who is the importer for Cesaroni's into Europe, but I did insist on the full range and sent out a complete list of AT motors to be approved, asking them to get a quote.
I never did get one...

Yes, and this was the case with Cesaroni and Congreve. They managed it OK though. All you do is give excuses.
I don't call a CE approval "OK" that doesn't allow sale in Germany. There is a rocketry scene also elsewhere, and the CE has to fit their needs as well. You still seem not to have understood that CE allone still is worth nothing in many countries.

Yes, and that has always been the case. It doesn't explain why CE marking could not have been obtained though does it?
Use SEARCH to find the thread where I explained why the AT approval had to be interrupted and was relaunched only in 2005.

Congreve and Cesaroni have a big range of motors too, yet they managed it.
Come on, give me a break, count propellants and motor sizes...

Many people offered to help financially. Including myself at one point. There are points in time in which some people have had considerable sums of money around and could help. You wanted to do it yourself as I recall.
I for one never saw one single offering of financial support!
For sure I didn't "want to do it myself" as well: As stated above, I did send out all the information needed to get a quote. I just never got one. I didn't inquire because at that time the BAM route did look good, things turned bad later only.

Before calling others "liar" I suggest you check your books first.

Juerg
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by terryg
I want to take an ignitor out of the bag, put it in the engine and launch my rocket.
Click to expand...

That's what I do with my copperheads in the reloads I've done. I've never sanded a grain or done anything special (other than putting tape on one side of each lead, which takes about the same time as stripping and seperating the leads on a FF igniter). I've had 3 copperheads fail over the past 4 years. When I started in MPR, I bought a pack of copperheads to use in case of failures, and that pack is still more than half full. Granted, I'm not a real high volume flyer, but I use probably 2 loads per launch with copperheads, and do that at probably 7 or 8 launches per year. So, that's roughly 16 copperhead ignitions per year. I've had three failed ignitions with copperheads over (16 * 4) 64 launches. That's a success rate of just over 95%. I'm happy with that. Especially since if you look at it, that's less than one failure per launch year for me.

YMMV, to each his own, and all that. Personally, I see no reason for the bashing of copperheads, especially if using them helps keep the cost of the loads down. If you're willing to spend extra money for FF igniters to be included in the reloads, just buy a pack of igniters separately and use them as needed so that those of us who do not have problems don't have to pay more for something that we've had good success with.

Dang - that sounded kinda harsh. Not my intent, just stating my opinion.
 
Originally posted by ukrocketman
problem is, although plenty of others would happily have resolved our situation...
Click to expand...
Fact is, while others have "offered", Juerg is the only one who came through with a real-world proposal and action.
 
YMMV, to each his own, and all that.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Single use...reloads

Black powder...composite

RTF...kits

Electronics...motor deployment

Etc.
 
I have a manufacturing background and have been through the struggles of supplying a product that requires a degree of expertise to utilize, but is designed for the general public.

Copperheads work if used properly but they aren't "sailor proof". Just the fact that they require a non-standard clip is a barrier at some club launches.

If I were in the rocket motor business, I would be all about removing any barriers that make my product less than user friendly and had any dampening effect on sales.

The response shouldn't be "you're not doing it right" even though that may be true, it should be "we didn't make it easy enough for you and we'll do better".
 
Originally posted by Rat
I have been planning on launching my first 24mm in a maiden flight of an Estes CA Thankgsgiving weekend at a club. This is my first motor larger than 18mm and my first launch at a club. I have no idea what to expect. I was planning on using an AT SU E15-4W. Honestly after reading this thread and many more about "bonus" delays in AT SU motors I'm a bit apprehensive.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me look at it from the perspective of a club prefect who has seen a couple of thousand AT flights so far.

Reliability of AT motors is better than 99% at our prefecture!

- We sometimes have late ejection, in general caused by wrong igniter installation (igniter not completely "up"). In general this is causing a "bonus" of 2-3 seconds max.
- We very rarely do see catos / blow-by's
- There have been series of motors with manufacturing errors, but this is very rare as well.

The by far biggest source of error with AT motors (composites in general) is not following the instructions to the word!

Take your time to read (not only the pics ;) ) and understand the assembly instruction. Don't hesitate to ask an experienced flyer to supervise your assembly operations!
Don't change the sequence or any single step. Sometimes it does have a reason why a certain sequence is asked for.
Also make sure you are installing the igniter all the way up the slot/core. (to avoid bonus delays)

The 24RMS is a great motor. I like the E18 a lot, very loud!

Have fun and a good flight

Juerg
 
Originally posted by mdoyle
I have a manufacturing background and have been through the struggles of supplying a product that requires a degree of expertise to utilize, but is designed for the general public.

Copperheads work if used properly but they aren't "sailor proof". Just the fact that they require a non-standard clip is a barrier at some club launches.

If I were in the rocket motor business, I would be all about removing any barriers that make my product less than user friendly and had any dampening effect on sales.

The response shouldn't be "you're not doing it right" even though that may be true, it should be "we didn't make it easy enough for you and we'll do better".
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right. That's why we sell FirstFire igniters.

Another damper on sales is cost. That's why they're offered as an option.
 
I see several responses citing age of motors as the cause for the ignitor failure. Most of the failures I have seen and experienced have nothing to do with the motor age. They have nothing to do with oxidation or whatever on the propellent. The ignitors simply do not IGNITE! Doesn't matter how old the propellent is, if there is no fire in there, it won't leave the pad. At a recent launch, I loaded up a motor, put the rocket on the pad, counted down, and nothing. No "pssssst", no click, no smoke. Check the continuity and it's fine. Check the battery, it's fine. OK, bad ignitor so I pulled out another from the cardboard sleeve. Same result.....Continuity but no fire. Followed the suggested guidelines about scraping the edges with a blade, still nothing. Loaded up ANOTHER igniter from the sleeve and still nothing. Not wanting to leave a reload sitting in the case until a future launch, I searched around for a subsitute ignitor without luck, so I broke open another reload package and stole one from that sleeve. 3...2...1.....smoke and fire! Well, that's nice, but do you see where I'm going? I've gone through 4 ignitors with one motor burnt....On down the line, I am going to be short on these. I've seen reference to the low production cost for these copperheads.......Maybe it would be a decent deal to include one extra in each package, like Estes does. That gives the users the chance to stockpile an extra one every once in a while.

How 'bout it AT?
 
Originally posted by Swampworks
Loaded up ANOTHER igniter from the sleeve and still nothing. Not wanting to leave a reload sitting in the case until a future launch, I searched around for a subsitute ignitor without luck, so I broke open another reload package and stole one from that sleeve. 3...2...1.....smoke and fire! Well, that's nice, but do you see where I'm going? I've gone through 4 ignitors with one motor burnt...........Maybe it would be a decent deal to include one extra in each package, like Estes does. That gives the users the chance to stockpile an extra one every once in a while.

How 'bout it AT?
Click to expand...

I'll be more than happy to second that motion,

since at a recent launch I had the same experience and used up
all three crapperheads from a brand new pack of E28's with not the first puff of smoke, pulled one from an old E18 pack and it
sparked right off the bat. All with the same prepping so its obvious that AT had a bad batch slip thru the QC lately...
 
Copperhead failure modes (as I recall)

- Broken copper plating -> Attention: you may have continuity (zero ohms!) due to micro-shorts. Scrape them (as described above) and you will have a "no continuity" igniter.
(the head of the igniter is bent to hold more pyrogen. If not all bends are covered you sometimes may observe cracks on top of bents. Obviously the copper gets stretched to hard while bending since Aerotech introduced the thicker insulation)

- Micro-Shorts: Light microshorts wont matter with a good launch system, they will burn and the igniter will light. But they prevent you from detecting broken plating. Heavy shorting may cause the igniter to split without the head being lit.

- Igniter is thrown out because it was not well attached -> make sure you have a good vent hole / use my method to hold it in (shown above)

- Igniter does fire but doesn't light the motor -> wet / old propellant?

As somebody said before: They work if used properly. The may need some "fiddling" but they are cheap.
And don't forget where they do come from: I would never stick a wire-type igniter up a tiny nozzle. Anything below a "G" gets a Copperhead, as far as I am concerned. Thick igniters may block the nozzle upon ignition and cause a cato.

The design is smart but somewhat sensitive to manufacturing parameters.

Juerg
 
Originally posted by garoq
I agree that age of the motor and storage conditions can factor in ignition reliability. But why is it that many consumers have high reliability with Copperheads as we do? Are they only purchasing new motors? No, it's mainly in the technique of using them.
Click to expand...

So, a over a decade of using Aerotech motors I have been using copperheads wrong? I have done every tip mentioned here.. bending tip for better contact with propellant, moving it back a bit so it does not go pass the propellant (with motors where I know there is a delay spacer) (don't think that was mentioned, but still a good tip), etc 12Vt relay launch systems, oviously no shorts in the copperheads.

Been around to launches in four different states from NH all the way down in NC. Most people set the copperheads aside and go with something else. I give away many of my igniters at launches to people who have misfires.

I don't think I have been using them wrong. If they are so difficult to use that a few people can know how to use them right, isn;t it time to design a better igniter? Don't throw away the copperhead idea, cause I understand it cheaper to make, but there are ways to improve the pyrogen :). Matter of fact, if you pm me, I can give you an idea that would work, and with materials you aready have :).
 
Originally posted by garoq
The 2-wire ignitors are 10-20 times the cost of a Copperhead.
Click to expand...

Let's go with the most conservative route......A 2-wire ignitor being 10 times the cost of a copperhead. Even at the price of the First Fires at the suggested retail of 10 bucks per 3, that's $3.33 per ignitor. Little quick application of primitive math skills and I get that the copperhead would run about 35 cents based on retail prices. Nobody around here is naive enough to equate retail with production cost, so you can get decent idea what an extra copperhead per motor package would run.
 
Originally posted by Swampworks
Let's go with the most conservative route......A 2-wire ignitor being 10 times the cost of a copperhead. Even at the price of the First Fires at the suggested retail of 10 bucks per 3, that's $3.33 per ignitor. Little quick application of primitive math skills and I get that the copperhead would run about 35 cents based on retail prices. Nobody around here is naive enough to equate retail with production cost, so you can get decent idea what an extra copperhead per motor package would run.
Click to expand...
DOT rules prevent us from adding extra hazmat to packages without re-classification, unless there is some tolerance built-in (not extra igniters unfortunately).
 
Hey Pyrogen Dudes!
I read thru all these posts and have not been moved from my wonder of just what is the affection for copperheads!
I have used copperheads with less than satisfactory results since my 1st experience in mid power. I was tutered by highly experienced veterans in all the ways to coax a copperhead into lighting. I would prefer something simpler and a little more reliable than messing around with special clips, masking tape, lighters, fingernails, breath-holding, finger-crossing, expletive-deletions, etc...
It was embarassing enough to have to walk back out to the model pads after all the other rockets went up on the 1st attempt.
But when I found myself walking WAY out to the HP pads a 2nd or 3rd time, I went looking for the On Site Vendor to hook up with some First Fire Ignitors.
(First Fire Juniors fit the smaller grain slots.)
Let's get back to the 2-aligator-clip simplicity of Estes!
I would prefer to open an AT motor reload kit containing an ignitor that is as reliable as the motor!
...so, really, how much more does it cost?
Dr Don
 
Originally posted by garoq
The 2-wire ignitors are 10-20 times the cost of a Copperhead.
Click to expand...

And it takes 10 copperheads to light a motor. :D Just kidding. Our club uses big alligator clips with teeth, so we have problems. I need to get another interlock clip I guess.
 
At our SLRA Elsberry launch Saturday, I coached a 'newcomer to mid power' on loading an Aerotech 'F' motor in his shiny new Initiator for its maiden flight. I showed him the '2 tape method' using our smooth aligator clip connectors. I told him to go ahead and give it a try and I would give him another wire ignitor after the copperhead failed.....
...5...4...3...2...1...................1................1......and it lit!
Great flight! And as usual, with that little yellow chute, he had a nice long walk! (I had just flown my Magnum on a J350 with the huge black stock chute and the Initiator landed as far away as the Magnum!)


...ok... the point is ...it worked...the 1st try...
Dr Don
 
Don did one of the best jobs i have seen so far of promoting the hobby and Areotech. One the members at the launch did have two single use motors blow out their nozzles though. And to stay on topic the copperhead are not that bad, as a member of the US internats team i was using bear nichrome to cook off bp motors in Kazakhstan with less than a 50% success rate. The moral is be happy you have pyrogen ignitors and think of the European FAI filers who don't because the euro motors don't come with them.
 
You folks need to check you system with a just a copperhead to see how well it ignites. My electrical system not only ignites the head of a copperhead, but I also get a great deal of flame on the sides from the heating and ignition of the glue that holds the copper laminate together. Which delaminates the copper and rmoves any shorts which would keep the head from igniting.
 
Originally posted by n3tjm
.. bending tip for better contact with propellant, moving it back a bit so it does not go pass the propellant (with motors where I know there is a delay spacer) (don't think that was mentioned, but still a good tip).
Click to expand...



I'm pretty sure on those loads that have the spacer that your supposed to cover the inside end of the grain with a piece of masking tape to prevent the igniter from going past the end of the grain.

At least that's the way I've built mine for the past 13 years.:rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by dave carver
I'm pretty sure on those loads that have the spacer that your supposed to cover the inside end of the grain with a piece of masking tape to prevent the igniter from going past the end of the grain.

At least that's the way I've built mine for the past 13 years.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes and No.... For most reloads, there is from 1/8" to a little over half an inch between the top of the propellant to the delay grain (depending on motor type and delay length). With reloads, you can add tape to so you don't have to pull back. However, the newer disposables are using the RMS+ delay kits, so there is the same gap you have to account for. Also, with the reloads, if there is a misfire, the tape will be gone. However, with loads like the F40, you can usually fell when the igniter goes beyond the propellant.
 
Originally posted by ukrocketman
We've got a similar situation in the UK only worse.
Click to expand...

Richard, not only in the UK! Ask rocketeers in Germany or other European countries about the situation, there is no difference. And I doubt is is only related with the CE approval (which may be difficult to obtain but, as you said, Cesaroni was able to get it too): AeroTech engines are also hard to buy in Switzerland, where there is no CE mark at all. I visited some shops in Switzerland over the last 1-2 years and they all said Spacetech has simply problems to deliver. So despite what Juerg Thuering says, they may be other reasons.

Aerotech in the US haven't been a problem though, in our situation, the European Aerotech distributor has lied to us the past 3 years or more about the CE marking we need (and which apparently is coming every x months or so he has kept saying with ever more weak excuses).
Click to expand...
Only 3 years? I remember I heared the first rumors about AT CE approval "comming soon" from Switzerland around 2000/2001 :D

problem is, although plenty of others would happily have resolved our situation, the European distributor wants to control it all so he can slap his own rocket tax on us all, end result, no Aerotech in the UK, and he's destroyed the UK Aerotech market largely as a result, since people have invested in a big way in other motor manufacturer's hardware.
Click to expand...
Well said: the European distributor wants to control it all - not only the HPR vendor market, but the European organizations as well. Guess who is also head of the Switzerland Tripoli organization... :rolleyes:
 
I know this thread has morphed into soemthing other than it's original subject but I wanted to share my experience this last Saturday. I purchased the two SU motors with the idea that I should be able to get one of the Copperheads to light. Well to my delight both ignitors worked perfectly and I got to fly both motors. It was a good day!:D


Originally posted by Rat
I have been planning on launching my first 24mm in a maiden flight of an Estes CA Thankgsgiving weekend at a club. This is my first motor larger than 18mm and my first launch at a club. I have no idea what to expect. I was planning on using an AT SU E15-4W. Honestly after reading this thread and many more about "bonus" delays in AT SU motors I'm a bit apprehensive. I really don't want to prang a new rocket because of motor choice. Sure I'd like a 24mm RMS casing but it's just not economically feasable at this point for me. Am I better off just using Estes D12's?

:confused:
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

pyrobob
Help Locating a Fellow Rocketeer from Argonia Airfest/LDRS out of Kansas City (I think)
Replies
5
Views
286
pyrobob
pyrobob
K
Opinions wanted: Aerotech FirstFire Ignitors ...
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Rocketclar
Rocketclar
terryg
Stickershock23 temporarily closed
Replies
11
Views
901
cwbullet
cwbullet
n3tjm
Launch with Brother
Replies
0
Views
337
n3tjm
n3tjm
ksaves2
Back in the day
Replies
8
Views
518
tsmmiller
tsmmiller

Latest posts

Back
Top