Official CTI Statement on Motor Production

I notice that this thread is over a year old and there is no news in that time apparently. Is there another thread that should be combined with this one to continue the status? I've committed a good deal (but not all) of my propulsion to CTI resources. Should I be shifting my hardware to other companies?

There have been no additional "official" statements from CTI. Nevertheless, it never hurts to have other other hardware.

Echoing Tim above, expanding into other motor brands is never a bad idea because of the greater variety available. (That being said, most of my hardware is cesaroni also)

As far as I've been able to tell, the selection today is much better than it was in the late '16 through '17 timeframe. They're getting their stuff there gradually.

Seems like a lot more reloads are available now. Hardware price is going up. No official announcement. Would to hear how Jeroen is doing.

Has there been any update on this? I'm having a hard time finding. 38mm hardware and reloads seems like a lot of places are out or have very limited stock.

Nope, That was the last bulletin.

From my own experience, the latent stock of motors has gotten better slowly over 2018 (with the exception of Vmax being discontinued)

Try Wildman or CSrocketry

Chris has all 38mm cases in stock.
https://www.csrocketry.com/rocket-motors/cesaroni/hardware/pro-38.html

I had no problems purchasing and receiving all of my 38 reloads and 54 hardware and reloads with the exception of one 54 White Thunder reload.

"full production"!

as long as you are not flying vmax and M3700s, uhg. Is any of that coming back? seems sheisty to bump all the prices right after production is coming back up to snuff, and a year after originally announced

glad i bought other hardware.

HVArcas said:

"full production"!

as long as you are not flying vmax and M3700s, uhg. Is any of that coming back? seems sheisty to bump all the prices right after production is coming back up to snuff, and a year after originally announced

glad i bought other hardware.

Click to expand...

Vmax is gone, and they have no plans to return it at this time. The M3700 is available if you want but I need a commitment for 30 of them. It requires some tooling that is only used for it so there is no rush due to lack of demand

tbonerocketeer said:

Vmax is gone, and they have no plans to return it at this time. The M3700 is available if you want but I need a commitment for 30 of them. It requires some tooling that is only used for it so there is no rush due to lack of demand

Click to expand...

Awesome, thanks for the real talk (no idea why Cesaroni is not more forward about it)

So does this mean my L3150VM is a collectors item now??? Set it on the shelf with my NCR F62 Darkstars, my AT G55, and my Ellis Mtn F37?

Dont forget the AT G8 and J99.
Everyone's prices have gone up due to AP going up and the general cost of doing business.

Vmax is somewhat....volatile when processing. That could factor into why they moved away from it

VMax might be a collectors item. You need dual deploy to fly it (I think).

cwbullet said:

VMax might be a collectors item. You need dual deploy to fly it (I think).

Click to expand...

Yup, 2 grain 98mm...

jd2cylman said:

Yup, 2 grain 98mm...

Click to expand...

But aren’t all Warp 9 and VMAX required to have electronic deployment now?

cwbullet said:

But aren’t all Warp 9 and VMAX required to have electronic deployment now?

Click to expand...

yup

jd2cylman said:

yup

Click to expand...

Thanks. I was 99% sure.

Nytrunner said:

Vmax is somewhat....volatile when processing. That could factor into why they moved away from it

Click to expand...

It's probably more the case that the entire line was given a special restriction requiring electronic deployment as there were "reported" deployment failures. Apparently the propellant burn out would, in some cases, extinguish the delay element. CTI was supposedly told this would stay in place until they could resolve that problem. Of course those of us with the smaller VMAX motors were boned by this decision as they were often used in rockets completely unsuitable for electronic deployment.


CTI apparently felt that determining the root cause and correcting it would cost more than the lost revenue from just ending the line.

H_Rocket said:

Of course those of us with the smaller VMAX motors were boned by this decision as they were often used in rockets completely unsuitable for electronic deployment.

Click to expand...

You can always throw them into a saucer or a spool that doesn't require chute deployment. One CMASS flyer has a hex-saucer that uses 24mm motors. He starts with a C11-0 then a D12-0 to show the increase in altitude. Then he throws an E75 VMax into it; when it launches, all eyes are looking way up above the pad but the saucer is just barely above the smoke at about half the altitude of the C11. A good demonstration that more power doesn't guarantee more height.

H_Rocket said:

It's probably more the case that the entire line was given a special restriction requiring electronic deployment as there were "reported" deployment failures. Apparently the propellant burn out would, in some cases, extinguish the delay element. CTI was supposedly told this would stay in place until they could resolve that problem. Of course those of us with the smaller VMAX motors were boned by this decision as they were often used in rockets completely unsuitable for electronic deployment.


CTI apparently felt that determining the root cause and correcting it would cost more than the lost revenue from just ending the line.

Click to expand...

V-max is similar in performance to Warp-9 which is always loaded in a plugged case. The potential delay snuff issues make sense.
That cost-benefit analysis could be a factor, but I also guess the fire and processing hazards contributed as well.

Until someone can confirm one way or the other, all we can do is speculate

Both NAR and Tripoli witnessed the problems with Vmax. Then, NAR and Tripoli jointly imposed the requirement for electronic deployment after receiving complaints from flyers following a drag race in which a very high percentage of Vmax motors snuffed their delays and landed ballistically.

https://www.tripoli.org/CTI-VMAX-motor-flight-restrictions


As I recall, Warp 9 motors never were certified with delays. I could be wrong but I thought Aerotech warned about relying on delays when they released the Warp 9 motors for bowling ball competitions.

H_Rocket said:

It's probably more the case that the entire line was given a special restriction requiring electronic deployment as there were "reported" deployment failures. Apparently the propellant burn out would, in some cases, extinguish the delay element. CTI was supposedly told this would stay in place until they could resolve that problem. Of course those of us with the smaller VMAX motors were boned by this decision as they were often used in rockets completely unsuitable for electronic deployment.


CTI apparently felt that determining the root cause and correcting it would cost more than the lost revenue from just ending the line.

Click to expand...

The bigger (75mm+) Vmax motors never had delays. In 54mm, the plugged closure is a standard part because it is required for some reloads (L motors, Yellow Mellow). CTI could have kept producing a part of its Vmax portfolio without any extra effort or at least not more than some certification firings. So a complete stop of production would not be "necessary" from a development costs perspective. Maybe there is more to it than just delay problems.

Reinhard

Steve Shannon said:

Both NAR and Tripoli witnessed the problems with Vmax. Then, NAR and Tripoli jointly imposed the requirement for electronic deployment after receiving complaints from flyers following a drag race in which a very high percentage of Vmax motors snuffed their delays and landed ballistically.

https://www.tripoli.org/CTI-VMAX-motor-flight-restrictions


As I recall, Warp 9 motors never were certified with delays. I could be wrong but I thought Aerotech warned about relying on delays when they released the Warp 9 motors for bowling ball competitions.

Click to expand...

You are correct - Warp 9 never had a delay function. I am not fond of the fact that this decision was based on a drag race (which over the years have been slowly going the way of the Dodo). I was just peeved as (like the switch decision) was sprung on the flying community with no advance warning and did not seemingly have any test data to back it up. TMT/S&T could have easily done some testing here before stranding people. I used mine up in BP clustered rockets depending on the BP motor to handle the deployment (Viper IV with 2 D12 and two E75).

Nytrunner said:

V-max is similar in performance to Warp-9 which is always loaded in a plugged case. The potential delay snuff issues make sense.
That cost-benefit analysis could be a factor, but I also guess the fire and processing hazards contributed as well.

Until someone can confirm one way or the other, all we can do is speculate

Click to expand...

nah, vmax is like super thunder - which i have heard karl call "warp 8"

warp 9 is another whole level. check the J1799, kicks harder than a K2045/K2050

H_Rocket said:

I was just peeved as (like the switch decision) was sprung on the flying community with no advance warning and did not seemingly have any test data to back it up. TMT/S&T could have easily done some testing here before stranding people. .

Click to expand...

Switch discussion aside, it's my understanding that the decision was made after reports of multiple failures of Vmax delays snuffing out (I've seen this happen personally). A quick search of motorcato.org shows 6-7 delay/ejection related failures on vmax motors. Is that statistically significant? I dunno.

I wish the vmax would come back, but I'm guessing that'll never happen.

I also witnessed a failed L1 attempt when the poor fellow used a Vmax motor with motor deploy. When we disassembled the motor, the delay grain looked almost perfect for reuse. Now, maybe the lighter wasn't placed up high enough to force the delay grain to start burning with the reload, but you would think all the fire inside the case would do something...

H_Rocket said:

You are correct - Warp 9 never had a delay function. I am not fond of the fact that this decision was based on a drag race (which over the years have been slowly going the way of the Dodo). I was just peeved as (like the switch decision) was sprung on the flying community with no advance warning and did not seemingly have any test data to back it up. TMT/S&T could have easily done some testing here before stranding people. I used mine up in BP clustered rockets depending on the BP motor to handle the deployment (Viper IV with 2 D12 and two E75).

Click to expand...

Not just the drag race, but multiple reported delay failures. When 3 out of 11 Vmax delays snuff in a drag race, that’s not enough for you?
It seems you’re more upset they didn’t consult you before making the decision.


https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/vmax-psa.134332/

HVArcas said:

nah, vmax is like super thunder - which i have heard karl call "warp 8"

warp 9 is another whole level. check the J1799, kicks harder than a K2045/K2050

Click to expand...

No , the J1799 does not kick harder then the K2050. It has similar peak thrust , but no where near the total thrust or average thrust.