2 Stage Micro's

[Micromeister]

Why Do you think the MMX-II-NE motors have been certified? Why would Mr Stine take the time to repackage and produce these "ejectionless" micro motors?
Just to fly UFO's that fly just fine with the regular MMX-1 or MMX-II motors? What kind of business sense does that make?

The answer: Because many of us Micro Maxers have for some time now wanted (and worked for) a LEGAL booster motor for staging and clustering.

I simply have to stress this "event" thing understanding again.
As Bill S. has mentioned twice now; These -NE motors do have a bit of a kick at delay burn through... The same as EVERY OTHER -0 BOOSTER MOTOR at propellant burn through. All -0 motors produce "an ejection type event" that can be strong enough to be used in some designs to eject a nosecone and small streamer, kick a pod or eject the motor casing.
One of the reasons B6-0's and C6-0's eject themselves no matter how tightly friction fit into a model with closed pods. ie SR-71, Deep Space Transport or Geo-Sat HLV. I've Been Flying these model with them this way for years.
Only plugged motors produce no burn through kick.


It's been My extensive experience with these MMX-II motors (over 70 some staged flights the last 6+years): They act EXACTLY like any other booster when the cap and ejection charge has been removed. The 1/2 sec or so delay is all by unnoticed.

By the way; The ejection charge is VERY Easy to determine when it's been removed, its LOOSE powder. not ram packed as with larger BP motors.
It's also possible to measure the depth into the motor which has proven over the last 6+ years to be consistant with complete removal of the ejection charge.
The End use WE (Bill Stine & I) WERE looking for was to produce a Legal useable micro Booster motor. I don't know what or how else to explain the reasoning behind going through this entire process.
It was S&T that decided that because it still has a bit of a delay it isn't labled as a traditional -0 Booster but given the -NE lable. Once Micro flyers have had a chance to fly some of these motors it'll become apparent they are in fact booster motors and all this back and forth will end.

I'm tickled Pink -NE and the MMX-I motors are again back on the sport flying lists. I have a ton of new staged and clustered models in the works for their use.

I'm not sure why it seems all of a sudden, no matter what, or how I present anything, my thoughts no longer seem to have any creditability? I've tried hard to post only good, sound techniques and procedures, only on things I know and have first hand knowledge about, not speculation. Very strange.

 

[MarkII]

Why Do you think the MMX-II-NE motors have been certified? Why would Mr Stine take the time to repackage and produce these "ejectionless" micro motors?
Just to fly UFO's that fly just fine with the regular MMX-1 or MMX-II motors? What kind of business sense does that make?

Whether or not that quite valid use is part of Quest's marketing plan for these motors is not really a concern of mine. Of course I have no problem using them as boosters as well.

The answer: Because many of us Micro Maxers have for some time now wanted a LEGAL booster motor for staging and clustering.

The other versions aren't legal for clustering?

But the lack of a legal Micromaxx booster hasn't stopped either you or a number of other people from modifying your motors to use them in that way. As you said, you have been doing it for over 6 years and you have made over 70 staged flights, all the while violating the MRSC.

MarkII

 

[jflis]

John,

Asking questions in no way impinges on your credibility. It comes down to the following:

• NAR Insurance. If these motors are not recommended for use as a booster then the NAR insurance is void. (rule 2 of the safety code).
• NOTE: It matters not what Bill may have discussed with anyone. "Bill" isn't the "manufacturer", Quest is.
• So, for these to be sanctioned under the NAR safety code (and covered by the NAR insurance), there needs to be a statement on the Quest web site or in Quest published literature that these *are* BOOSTER motors.
• Right now the only thing I can find is that they are recommended for use in saucer type models.
• As a kit manufacturer I can not produce a kit and recommend a motor that is not recommended for such use by the manufacturer of the motor
• etc, etc, etc

In no way does this interfere with nor contradict anything that you have said. It is just asking for additional detail and some clarification.

Also, as a test engineer in a past life, I am twice shy to accept that Item B will act the same as Item A simply because they look the same and we *think* the process to make them both was the same. Especially since testing is so easy to accomplish.

Bottom line is, make and fly as many multi-stage mmx models as you care to. But please try not to come down on folks who have additional questions and/or would like to see the manufacture support the data that is being presented.

 

[billspad]

It was S&T that decided that because it still has a bit of a delay it isn't labled as a traditional -0 Booster but given the -NE lable.

Not exactly. Quest called it an -NE and we went along with it because it seemed to be a good description of the motor. It sounded like a good idea but it looks like it caused confusion rather than being descriptive.

 

[billspad]

• NAR Insurance. If these motors are not recommended for use as a booster then the NAR insurance is void. (rule 2 of the safety code).

Estes says that "plugged engines are used for R/C gliders". I've done a cluster with a couple of D12-7's and a D11-P. Did I violate the safety code?

If I use a booster engine in a single stage saucer do I violate the safety code?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time but I'm just not sure the safety code is that specific.

 

[jflis]

Estes says that "plugged engines are used for R/C gliders". I've done a cluster with a couple of D12-7's and a D11-P. Did I violate the safety code?

If I use a booster engine in a single stage saucer do I violate the safety code?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time but I'm just not sure the safety code is that specific.

Bill,

Good points. I guess it would depend on how much "gray area" the safety code has. If it has none, then yes (as foolish as that may be... )

Also, I would venture to say that if you did that and it resulted in a very large insurance claim, I would be willing to bet that the insurance company would consider it so...

Bottom line is, I was just trying to explain some of the possible reasons for the additional questions being asked by folks.

So, how 'bout them Red Sox, eh?

 

[Micromeister]

Not really Mark:

While I can't speak for others, I can say without hesitation;

* All my Micro Booster research has been done in Isolation away for the public and other property.

* NONE of my staged flights has been flown at a sanctioned NAR event.

* ALL research models and motors have been built and flown as Part of an on-going research project with the motor manufacturer. Passing on observations and flight data for their use.

Jim:
Sorry: Not a single thing wrong with your questions, my comment about credibility was a general observation of recent posts in this and other threads by others not really directed to you, nor ment as a slam on anyone really, Just wondering were it's all coming from?

Many Folks on several forums and boards have been discussings the micro Booster Issue for months. I'm wondering why NOW some seem "concerned" about how a certified motor will be used? Shouldn't those concerns be directed to the motor manufacturer? As Fred says so often: has anyone bothered to pick up the phone and talk to Quest? Other then myself of coarse because Nothing I say has any weight or credibility whatsoever.

I agree totally with Bill's reading of the Safety Code. It's simply not that specific with respect to motor type listing. I've been told several times in the past intended use of a motor, Unless specifically EXCLUDED in writing by the manufacturer, is not an issue. ie plugged motors in clusters, Upperstage motors in single stage birds, booster motors to deploy recovery systems. All perfectly OK with proper preperation and cautions.

Mark:
I understand, respect and standby the Model Rocket Safety Code. Safety First has and always will be foremost in my mind.
There are areas of research that require further work and sometimes take certain aspects outside the strict letter of the Safety Code which require additional safety precausions and precedures while in close contact with the product(s) manufacturers to advance our hobby while keeping it safe. Most are never really talked about or seen by the sport flying public.
Please stop snipping, It's getting a little old.

 

[billspad]

I guess it would depend on how much "gray area" the safety code has. If it has none, then yes (as foolish as that may be... )

From Pirates of the Carribean:

"And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."

 

[shreadvector]

Remember the wording is important. "Type and Primary use" does not mean "Only use".

When they say "SPECIAL DESIGN with no ejection charge. For use with rocket designs like a saucer that are tumble recovery." They do not say "Only for use in flying saucers".

Relax and read carefully.

 

[RangerStl]

Maybe some clarification from NAR would put everyone's concerns to rest? We know that they'll work for staging thanks to the good Mr. Meister...

If the intent at Quest was to make boosters, and the naming is confusing to some folks where NAR and the safety code is concerned, it does not seem unreasonable that the NAR could be asked to determine if there would be any complications to using the "NE" motors as boosters.

What is at stake is insurance coverage in the event of a mishap and being allowed to use these motors at their sanctioned launches. If they are not aware of the possible confusion, then they should be made aware of it since the motors are in full production.

Hopefully this could be done in such a way as to avoid panic and fear. The rocketeer can say whatever he wants, including the truth, but the final word as to whether the item and use satisfies the NAR code is the NAR. This should be brought to their attention.

N

 

[billspad]

Maybe some clarification from NAR would put everyone's concerns to rest? We know that they'll work for staging thanks to the good Mr. Meister...

If the intent at Quest was to make boosters, and the naming is confusing to some folks where NAR and the safety code is concerned, it does not seem unreasonable that the NAR could be asked to determine if there would be any complications to using the "NE" motors as boosters.

What is at stake is insurance coverage in the event of a mishap and being allowed to use these motors at their sanctioned launches. If they are not aware of the possible confusion, then they should be made aware of it since the motors are in full production.

Hopefully this could be done in such a way as to avoid panic and fear. The rocketeer can say whatever he wants, including the truth, but the final word as to whether the item and use satisfies the NAR code is the NAR. This should be brought to their attention.

N

Here's the guy to ask:

Safety Committee
Andy Eng
15522 Pleasant Valley
Houston, TX 77062

 

[garmtn]

Hi Jim Flis, Just launched mine yesterday, and was quite impressed with the straight flt of about 80.' However, didn't get nearly the rotation or "hang time." The darn thing landed in a fruit tree and snapped a blade right where rubberband goes through.
U should think about an "upgrade" of blade material to the 1/64th plywood. Glenn

 

[jflis]

Hi Jim Flis, Just launched mine yesterday, and was quite impressed with the straight flt of about 80.' However, didn't get nearly the rotation or "hang time." The darn thing landed in a fruit tree and snapped a blade right where rubberband goes through.
U should think about an "upgrade" of blade material to the 1/64th plywood. Glenn

Is this the tiddlywink you are talking about? (should be in a different thread )

Hang time on this model (as with most HD models) can be a real frustration of balance and adjustments of the blade angle and airfoiling. As for breakage, that can be a problem. I will be looking into obtaining a denser balsa for the blades.

1/64" ply is certainly a thought and I will look into it but my expectations is that it will add weight (lower boost altitudes) and will also be very hard to keep straight (more prone to warping).

Keep me posted on if you are able to get her repaired though

jim

 

[Micromeister]

Glen:
If you have the pieces: it's very repairable.
I just uploaded a couple pics of my Tiddlywink, In another thread. that my cat decided to jump on while I was test dropping it, Snapped two rotors, one in 3 places.
I was going to replace the rotors but decided to try doing a field type repair to see how it would hold up.
using yellow carpenters glue to edge glue the pieces back together and some 1/2" wide strips of onion skin tracing paper with the same glue I repaired both rotors (one broken at the same spot your was) and flew it yesterday worked just fine.

Hope this helps a bit.