He probably did it for the same reason I did on my L3 cert rocket, by jumpering the switch terminal it negates one switch per altimeter, and by putting the switch on the correct leg of the battery it allows the power supply to be completely cutoff from the alts ans ematches. This configuration will get most NAR L3CC's approval.
Before configuring my alt bay that way I contacted both Missleworks for the RRC3 and Cris Erving for the Quark to confirm which leg of the power supply needed to be switched to be safe.
Question (not a troll): When you mention which leg of the power supply do you mean the + or - wires? If that's the case, how would that matter? If the electrons can't flow, does it really matter which battery wire the switch is connected to? The switch terminal is in a
series with the battery anyways so whether or not one switches at the terminal block or the battery doesn't make a difference
one iota. The only "real" reason to do it at the battery (besides a not so smart reviewer) is because in a given case, it might be easier
for the builder to do it that way and they wish to proceed. The system is not "any safer" switched at the battery or at the switch block
on the deployment device.
I suspect there is still an issue with remote switches or WiFi controlled devices as far as an L3 attempt is concerned. From what I gather, one still would have to have a "hard" switch on the power leads of an L3 project no matter what?
Some smaller projects lend themselves to attaching the battery to the device like a Quantum or remote switch and buttoning up the ebay with no external switches
visible and go fly. Activate it at the pad. Even though Cerving swears this is safe (and I believe him) going without a mechanical switch on an L3 attempt is not acceptable?
Yeah, usually on L3 projects the rockets are large enough the ebays have plenty of room. I was considering using a Dominator 4 that I re-designed from the outset
to be totally switchless using magnetic switches. Since there are Quantums and remote switches available I was going to use that. If that's a no-no, I'd have to
go back to the Extreme Wildman I constructed with a switchband. The Dominator 4 has a thrust block to support the ebay and no switchband. Just a clean
seam line.
I made a long-necked 3" Wildman Rocket I extended the sustainer tube, used a 10" long coupler for an ebay and a longer upper bay to fit a larger parachute.
It flew to 10k on a Loki L1400 and it will take the long Loki case that holds the 54mm M. I flew it originally with a switch band and would have to put two
altimeters in the ebay and buy another nose cone to put a tracker in. Only problem is, it would bust all the local waivers so it's not a viable candidate for a local attempt. Would be neat but..............
The one time if flew it had a single MAWD and BeelineGPS in the ebay.
My other issues are I did video documentation of the Extreme Wildman on the major construction techniques but not so with the Dominator 4. I used the same techniques on the D4 as the EWildman and used Cotronics 4525B and 4525IP as the adhesive. On the D4 I even
used the 4525 on the fin fillets. Even if an L3 attempt was acceptable with a remote switched D4 (and I suspect it is not) would have to
count on a TAP believing me when I said I used the same constructions techniques as documented on the Extreme Wildman. Someone might say, "Just put switches on the bulkheads." Well, I got the metal lids with two tapped charge canisters. Those lids would be hard for me to drill and stick a robust switch on. I did find plastic centrifuge tube/canisters that fit the charge holders. I had to drill them out just a tad and my bit scored the inside of the aluminum canister. The scoring has the effects of threads and when I press fit the canister it, I have to cut it out to remove it. The canister/charge holders, especially the aft facing ones, can withstand the rigors of flight.
Kurt