Has anyone else noticed a change to the way CTI is producing 54mm motors?

daveyfire said:

It's ultimately the flyer's responsibility to understand and verify the form, fit, and function of your vehicle's components, CTI's advice or no.

Click to expand...

No question, but in this case, per specifications, my own personal experience, and apparently the experience of everyone else that has committed here, the component "(my) vehicle" required was an ematch, for which I have dozen or more spares, not an igninter. If I had known I was going to need and igniter for the very first time I would have bought several spares. Worse is that CTI can't even confirm that they made a change after the fact.

Imagine you go to your grocery store and get a sandwich from the deli, the same kind of sandwich you've been getting for months. In the past, it has always had mustard on it when they give it to you. However, this time, they gave you a mustard packet as well. Do you: A. Call the store manager to see whether the sandwich has mustard on it, then throw the mustard packet away when he says it should, and then ask a bunch of people why the sandwich tastes weird, or do you B. Open the sandwich yourself and check.

I do sympathize with you, this seems like the kind of change CTI should have communicated. On the other hand, I think it should be common sense to check for a pellet if a CTI load suddenly comes with a dipped igniter instead of a normal ematch, especially if you try it with an ematch and it doesn't go.

Maxwelljets said:

I do sympathize with you, this seems like the kind of change CTI should have communicated. On the other hand, I think it should be common sense to check for a pellet if a CTI load suddenly comes with a dipped igniter instead of a normal ematch, especially if you try it with an ematch and it doesn't go.

Click to expand...

Sure, but not for me I have never purchased or flown a reload that required an igniter only ematch, which again is why I asked my vendor.

BTW... I just got off the phone with Sandi she is awesome, so attentive, wish she had better internal support ... she says she was told there has been NO CHANGE. So officially, at least for the time being, it was a mistake in production. Makes me wonder (based on Jim's list) if it was a mislabeled Vmax, I don't think so, I'l take a second look at the flight profile.

Just a couple of quick comments, at the risk of beating a dead horse.

We flew 3 or 4 CTI J430 motors over the last 6 months while supervising student projects. I did notice that none had printed instructions inside the tube. Especially since these were “mentoring” projects, we pointed out the online availability of instructions, and that no matter how simple or familiar the motor, that it’s important to check. That said, those instructions depict an e-match motor starter. I suppose we didn’t give that discrepancy much additional thought.

I believe that all of the motors had the fragile, folded, dipped igniters, rather than e-matches, and one of them didn’t light. We shrugged it off, and grabbed a “Big ‘un,” which worked perfectly, and we didn’t give it another thought.

Different approach, I suppose.

Mark

markjos said:

Just a couple of quick comments, at the risk of beating a dead horse.

We flew 3 or 4 CTI J430 motors over the last 6 months while supervising student projects. I did notice that none had printed instructions inside the tube. Especially since these were “mentoring” projects, we pointed out the online availability of instructions, and that no matter how simple or familiar the motor, that it’s important to check. That said, those instructions depict an e-match motor starter. I suppose we didn’t give that discrepancy much additional thought.

I believe that all of the motors had the fragile, folded, dipped igniters, rather than e-matches, and one of them didn’t light. We shrugged it off, and grabbed a “Big ‘un,” which worked perfectly, and we didn’t give it another thought.

Different approach, I suppose.

Mark

Click to expand...

The lack of instructions and the discrepancy of the instructions should both be reported both to CTI customer service and on the MESS report system. I’ll send a note to my CAR contacts.

Steve Shannon said:

The lack of instructions and the discrepancy of the instructions should both be reported both to CTI customer service and on the MESS report system. I’ll send a note to my CAR contacts.

Click to expand...

Steve, Sandi knows, we discussed it at length, also spoke about the discrepancy on the 75s with the igniter pictured vs what they are shipping.

jahall4 said:

Steve, Sandi knows, we discussed it at length, also spoke about the discrepancy on the 75s with the igniter pictured vs what they are shipping.

Click to expand...

I understand that you reported it, but everyone who gets these should report them.
I have reported this to CAR, the organization that certified the motor.

Steve Shannon said:

I understand that you reported it, but u]everyone[/u] who gets these should report them.
I have reported this to CAR, the organization that certified the motor.

Click to expand...

Certainly, I was commenting on the discrepancy not the absence of the instructions, sorry. Everyone who encounters missing/incorrect instructions and/or production mistakes needs to report them. This type of problem and some of the responses on this thread can only server to alinate flyers. No good can come from trivializing and disparaging a flyers experience with specific products, especially those that are not well documented.

Some experienced flyers don’t even bother with instructions (for the record I still do for Aerotech motors because sometimes I’ve assumed I knew what I was doing and it has bitten me), and that’s probably especially true of CTI, but beginners don’t have that base of knowledge.

It's always easier to see in hindsight, but "big projects" and assumptions that turn out not to be true seem to happen with some frequency. Like getting out to a pad and finding out that the rail buttons are the wrong size. Or the ladder isn't tall enough, or there isn't a ladder, because the height of the pad base wasn't accounted for. For me, as the amount of time/effort/expense goes up, the amount of assumptions I make go down. Sure, there's some situations that are hard to plan for, but things like rail buttons, ignition methods, batteries, etc. are pretty easy to remedy in advance.

Mike

rokit said:

It's always easier to see in hindsight, but "big projects" and assumptions that turn out not to be true seem to happen with some frequency. Like getting out to a pad and finding out that the rail buttons are the wrong size. Or the ladder isn't tall enough, or there isn't a ladder, because the height of the pad base wasn't accounted for. For me, as the amount of time/effort/expense goes up, the amount of assumptions I make go down. Sure, there's some situations that are hard to plan for, but things like rail buttons, ignition methods, batteries, etc. are pretty easy to remedy in advance.

Mike

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree Mike and developing and using a checklist can save a little grief too.

Steve Shannon said:

... developing and using a checklist can save a little grief too.

Click to expand...

Absolutely and that's why this experience is so frustrating. Despite my best efforts including an extensive checklist with contingencies (383 lines), the rocket sat on the pad.

So I’ve looked over the Pro54 instructions https://www.pro38.com/pdfs/Pro54_instructions.pdf and when they discuss the device used for ignition they are pretty generic, leaving it open which the motor includes. The instructions indicates that if it’s an electric match it’ll have a shroud, but other than that there’s no representation that it will be one or the other. So I don’t see a problem with that that any of the organizations can get worked up over.
Missing instructions is another matter. I would suggest opening factory packages and checking for instructions when you receive them (all brands). If none are included please report it to the vendor, the manufacturer, and in a MESS report. If you’re at all unsure you should not use the motor. If you bought it from an on-field vendor you may want to talk to them and possibly even return it. Do not send them back unless you’re a hazmat shipper.

Steve, this is great advice. I can not count the number of CATOs I have counted from people who failed to read the instructions. Magnify that by those that did not come with them and it would be Huge. I usually download the PDF before the launch on my iPad, but prefer to hold them in my hand.

Steve Shannon said:

So I’ve looked over the Pro54 instructions https://www.pro38.com/pdfs/Pro54_instructions.pdf and when they discuss the device used for ignition they are pretty generic, leaving it open which the motor includes. The instructions indicates that if it’s an electric match it’ll have a shroud, but other than that there’s no representation that it will be one or the other. So I don’t see a problem with that that any of the organizations can get worked up over.

Click to expand...

Not really the case Steve, multiple pictures showing and ematch (none showing an igniter like in the 75s), multiple reference discussing an ematch including a reference in the disposal instructions explaining the head of the match needs to be up against the pellet which of course would not be there. In red no less "...install igniter in forward grain in contact with the igniter pellet..." Another reference reads: "Carefully uncoil the igniter (electric match) leads." Specifically calling out the fact that the igniter for the motor is an ematch. There is no reference to the igninter being a pyrogen dipped ematch in the instructions for the 54s, not even one in the 75s. It shows a real igniter pictured earlier in this thread.

cwbullet said:

Steve, this is great advice. I can not count the number of CATOs I have counted from people who failed to read the instructions. Magnify that by those that did not come with them and it would be Huge. I usually download the PDF before the launch on my iPad, but prefer to hold them in my hand.

Click to expand...

I'm really anal about instructions being part of my checklist either referencing them or copying them into my own checklist, in some cases even including pictures. Now that I know CTI can make this type of production mistake I'll add a conditional branch in the checklist for each case. It's unfortunate that the manf has made it more complicated, but as others have posted it is what it is.

jahall4 said:

Not really the case Steve, multiple pictures showing and ematch (none showing an igniter like in the 75s), multiple reference discussing an ematch including a reference in the disposal instructions explaining the head of the match needs to be up against the pellet which of course would not be there. In red no less "...install igniter in forward grain in contact with the igniter pellet..." Another reference reads: "Carefully uncoil the igniter (electric match) leads." Specifically calling out the fact that the igniter for the motor is an ematch. There is no reference to the igninter being a pyrogen dipped ematch in the instructions for the 54s, not even one in the 75s. It shows a real igniter pictured earlier in this thread.

Click to expand...

The version that I linked specifically says “igniter” in the illustration and in the portion that discusses inserting the igniter for flight says: “Insert the igniter head into the nozzle and push until it stops against the top of the motor core.”
No mention of a pellet exists in the usage instructions, only in the disposal instructions.
The usage of the phrasing “igniter (electric match)” simply means that it could be either.
The disposal instructions would seem to be a mistake, a carryover from a previous revision. The instructions I linked are current as of September 2010. It’s important to understand that disposal instructions, although required by NFPA 1125, should not be used to prepare the motor for flight. They are completely different sections for a reason. Don’t count on them for additional information regarding usage.

Regarding CTI’s instructions, I’ve just received word that CTI does not always include printed instructions; instead they include two QR codes on the labels. One is for the most current instruction sheet for that specific motor.

Steve Shannon said:

The usage of the phrasing “igniter (electric match)” simply means that it could be either.

Click to expand...

I categorically disagree, If that was the case it would say "(or electric match)" AND they would either picture both an igniter and a dipped ematch or neither, NOT picture an ematch ONLY (which they do twice). And, they wouldn't have instructions about sliding the match head shroud back. Whether I'm right, or you are, it creates ambiguity (particularly for someone that has only used matches), that can be easily avoided by CTI by simply updating the instructions.

BTW... without the "OR" (or possibly even with it) using parentheses in the manner you are describing would be violate accepted usage:

"Put something in parentheses if it's a comment, an afterthought, or additional information that is possibly interesting but not essential to the subject."
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/parenthesis

Using a different type of igninter would be "essential" information because it changes what is described and is pictured in instructions.

Steve Shannon said:

Regarding CTI’s instructions, I’ve just received word that CTI does not always include printed instructions; instead they include two QR codes on the labels. One is for the most current instruction sheet for that specific motor.

Click to expand...

This is not a big deal to me personally, but the argument that a QR code is equivalent to a hardcopy is simply fallacious, because there is no guarantee that a flyer at the launch site could use the code to obtain what should have been included as hardcopy.

I read through the first 1-1/2 pages of this thread, and still really couldn't figure out what the OP is getting at. The J-244 I opened this weekend had a newish looking cardboard liner that I didn't recall from previous 54mm J-244 reloads, but that could be my senility keeping me from recalling correctly...

I did, however, have a 54mm CTI reloard failure this past weekend with a motor date-coded November 23, 2018. What scares me is that I have another just like it with the same date code that I'm now afraid to fly as I don't want to destroy another reload casing...

In short, the liner of a CTI J-244-WT burnt completely through in two places, one near the rear of the motor, one near the front of the motor, but both well inside the O-ring boundaries of the reload. There was also some sort of failure of the nozzle area that I can't even properly describe: there is now what appears to be the beginning of a separation of the actual nozzle from the nozzle housing if that makes sense. See the attached PDF full of photos and notes for more.

Last but not least, I can't get any link I've found for MESS reporting to work.............. :-\

SammyD,
I’m sorry about the MESS system. Just yesterday our IT guy tried to get the new system registered with DNS. He ran into a hiccup. Hopefully it’ll work soon.

Great job documenting the failures. I agree; that’s an odd nozzle problem. Of course with so many other failures in the motor it’s difficult to say whether that contributed or not.

SammyD said:

Last but not least, I can't get any link I've found for MESS reporting to work.............. :-\

Click to expand...

It's not just you. Motorcato.org is down for me as well. (See Steve Shannon's post above about that) That being said, your particular failure is completely different than what happened to the guy in this thread.

As for what happened in this thread, in short, there are 2 separate types of pyrotechnic initiators: ematches, and igniters. Ematches have only a tiny bit of "pyrogen" (high temp pyrotechnic mix, used to light much larger things) and are insufficient to start large rocket motors by themselves. Igniters are similar, but have much more pyrogen, so they can start rocket motors by themselves. In the past, CTI has used black powder pellets in the top grain of the motor to allow their motors to be ignited by ematches. The ematch lights the pellet at the top, and the pellet then lights the motor. OP received a reload that did not have a pellet, and came with a larger dipped igniter. OP attempted to light the motor with an ematch instead of an igniter, and was confused why it wouldn't light.

As for the liner you have, that does look different than every CTI 54mm liner I've ever seen. Vmax reloads had a similar looking liner, but those liners had a plastic outer coating over a paper/cardboard looking liner. All other liners have been black convolute wound grade X phenolic.

As for the hole in the nozzle, does it go all the way through the material and come out on the other side, and if not, how deep does it go?

Maxwelljets said:

As for the liner you have, that does look different than every CTI 54mm liner I've ever seen. Vmax reloads had a similar looking liner, but those liners had a plastic outer coating over a paper/cardboard looking liner. All other liners have been black convolute wound grade X phenolic.

As for the hole in the nozzle, does it go all the way through the material and come out on the other side, and if not, how deep does it go?

Click to expand...

I thought the liner looked strange when I opened the reload too, but didn't give it much thought as the J-244 has always been a rock-solid motor for me. Yes, I agree that most of the liners have always looked different than the paper liner that this J-244 was wrapped in, but again, I didn't give it much thought.

As for the hole at the nozzle, after your question, I probed it with a sharp tool, and I don't think it goes all the way through, but then I can't follow it beyond it's 3/16" depth - yes, it's that deep! Looking from the inside of the nozzle, there are some strange looking "gouges" that run in the direction of the exiting thrust, but nothing that appears to go all the way through, nor does the burn near the O-ring appear to go all the way through to the outer hole, but I haven't removed that O-ring yet.

This was a very puzzling flight, motor-wise, for me. I had a HUGE failure of a CTI K-570 about this time last year that cut the 4" Patriot I was flying in half. This was that Patriot's first repaired flight on this J-244, and I nearly killed the rocket again................... with another CTI 54mm reload issue... I just don't get it.

Sam

SammyD said:

I read through the first 1-1/2 pages of this thread, and still really couldn't figure out what the OP is getting at. The J-244 I opened this weekend had a newish looking cardboard liner that I didn't recall from previous 54mm J-244 reloads, but that could be my senility keeping me from recalling correctly...

I did, however, have a 54mm CTI reloard failure this past weekend with a motor date-coded November 23, 2018. What scares me is that I have another just like it with the same date code that I'm now afraid to fly as I don't want to destroy another reload casing...

In short, the liner of a CTI J-244-WT burnt completely through in two places, one near the rear of the motor, one near the front of the motor, but both well inside the O-ring boundaries of the reload. There was also some sort of failure of the nozzle area that I can't even properly describe: there is now what appears to be the beginning of a separation of the actual nozzle from the nozzle housing if that makes sense. See the attached PDF full of photos and notes for more.

Last but not least, I can't get any link I've found for MESS reporting to work.............. :-\

Click to expand...

Sammy, you may have needed to read a little farther... Very recently CTI shipped some J430s w/o igniter pellets and instead used a dipped ematch. This was a change. The official word from CTI is that it was mistake, but I wonder if that is really the case since CTI has documented a problem with the formulation of pellets in their 38s. Now, there is nothing wrong with using a actual igniter except when the vendor or flyer is not advised of the change and the shipped "igniter" has been destroyed in it packaging.

How might this apply to what you have observed… I have flown several CTI 1 and 2 grain 54mm over the past 3 years. Only the last one did not use a pellet. I have observed one burn through on a J430 (a 2 grain motor) using an igniter pellet. Fortunately it was very small and did not damage the case anything close to what is shown in your pictures.

So given that the J244 is a longer burning 2g motor did CTI ship a motor with an igniter pellet and ematch OR a pyrogen dipped ematch?

Maxwelljets said:

OP attempted to light the motor with an ematch instead of an igniter, and was confused why it wouldn't light.

Click to expand...

Well not really... I had no choice but to attempt to use an ematch because the one that came with the motor had been shattered in its package. My vendor being unaware of the change told me to use a replacement ematch. It was I that realized what CTI had done and checked for the pellet. If I was "confused" so was CTI and the Vendor. Important to note that I have never had to light a motor requiring anything but an ematch, including 2 prior J430s, so no reason for me to have any backup igniters in my field supplies, just ematches.

jahll4,

I've been down that path before. In my case, this particular motor was shipped with a pellet in the top grain and an e-match, at least I assume so since the date code is the exact same day as the other J-244 that I just opened to take these photos. I do recall (since I only flew twice with the same rocket that day with one CTI and one Aerotech motor) that the CTI used the coiled e-match, just like the one shown in these photos here.

Looking at these photos, one can clearly see the change in liner material that CTI used on this motor, and you might be able to see where the nozzle appears to be a separate, maybe pressed fit and glued, part that is inserted into the nozzle housing that contains the rear O-ring. In my mind, that sort of construction would be a weak point. Looking at 4 photos around the circumference where the nozzle goes in, there is a wider gap on side versus the other (alignment issues?). Again, looks like a weak point to me...

In any case, this combination destroyed my 3G CTI case - the spacer survived the flight...

Sam

SammyD said:

I thought the liner looked strange when I opened the reload too, but didn't give it much thought as the J-244 has always been a rock-solid motor for me. Yes, I agree that most of the liners have always looked different than the paper liner that this J-244 was wrapped in, but again, I didn't give it much thought.

As for the hole at the nozzle, after your question, I probed it with a sharp tool, and I don't think it goes all the way through, but then I can't follow it beyond it's 3/16" depth - yes, it's that deep! Looking from the inside of the nozzle, there are some strange looking "gouges" that run in the direction of the exiting thrust, but nothing that appears to go all the way through, nor does the burn near the O-ring appear to go all the way through to the outer hole, but I haven't removed that O-ring yet.

This was a very puzzling flight, motor-wise, for me. I had a HUGE failure of a CTI K-570 about this time last year that cut the 4" Patriot I was flying in half. This was that Patriot's first repaired flight on this J-244, and I nearly killed the rocket again................... with another CTI 54mm reload issue... I just don't get it.

Sam

Click to expand...

That is really strange, and it really sucks that happened to you. Have you contacted your vendor yet for a warranty? It's probably worth having your vendor contact CTI about this to see what the deal is with the liner. That style of liner is the same as what they used for Vmax reloads, but the J244 burns for way too long for that type of liner to be effective.

Maxwelljets said:

That is really strange, and it really sucks that happened to you. Have you contacted your vendor yet for a warranty? It's probably worth having your vendor contact CTI about this to see what the deal is with the liner. That style of liner is the same as what they used for Vmax reloads, but the J244 burns for way too long for that type of liner to be effective.

Click to expand...

I don't really have a vendor where I am. I'll just buy another 3G and put the other in the "warranty" pile for when I get to someone that does REGULAR business with CTI and handle it then. On the other side of the coin, CTI knows about it. They got a lengthy email from me this morning with the PDF file that you saw above. The J-244 burns for about 3 seconds as I recall, maybe 3.5; but you're right: paper won't last that long.

I suppose I'm not going to fly that other J-244 any time soon or at all............... :-(

You can try the Jim Jarvis fix

30 minute epoxy (or 5 min on the field) around the liner/forward closure interface. I've used that on Red Lightning 54's with the brown liner and had no issues.

Although it looks like you'd need to do it on the aft closure too