E12 CATO - Amazing damage

[Zeus-cat]

One of my fellow TORC #703 members launched a rocket on an E12 at the club launch on 5 December. The motor was an E12 and it CATOed. The rocket was destroyed, but we had never seen anything like this before.

 

[crossfire]

Was that rocket built with X-Mass gift paper tubes? I have never seen that before.

 

[marcusSRG]

Was that rocket built with X-Mass gift paper tubes? I have never seen that before.

Exactly what I was thinking!

 

[Samuron]

That looks more like an overpressurization than a CATO.

I don't know about an E12, but on another thread the size of the ejection charge in a D12 was stated to be .85 grams.

The rocket in the picture would have an internal space of about 11 cubic inches; a .85 gram ejection charger would produce about 150 psi and around 110 pounds of force.

 

[Zeus-cat]

It was a CATO. The motor blew right after the rocket left the pad.

It wasn't my rocket so I don't know what it was made of. The owner mentioned he would file a MESS report.

 

[rharshberger]

It definitely was a CATO from your description, but from the damage we see it was also a over pressurization which is easy to include in the CATO since the ejection charge most likely fired when the motor let go. It would be interesting to know if the tubing was standard airframe materials or something like a paper towel tube or wrapping paper tube. Its kind of an odd way to see a tube fail normally, usually the spirals I have seen fail more on lawn darts than on CATO's.

 

[Samuron]

It was a CATO. The motor blew right after the rocket left the pad.

Ah; OK. That wasn't in the original post. Sorry.

 

[cerving]

Looks like the delay grain didn't hold back the pressure and it fired from both ends, and lit the ejection charge too. Very impressive... my E12 cato pretty much did the same thing, but it was a BT60-based rocket so it didn't do as much damage.

 

[Woody's Workshop]

I wonder how tight the nose cone fit?
I too, would like to know the origin of the BT.
It just doesn't look normal some how.

 

[dpower]

What was the E12 date code? Both 2011 date codes had high Cato rates. (8-18-11, 11-15-11) IIRC.

 

[10fttall]

I just can't get my head around that. It almost seems like it had to be some unique tube that was used to build the rocket. It seems like overpressure would blow a couple holes in it, but the whole thing unwound. Could the tube be wound with some adhesive that is rendered useless at a relatively low temperature?

 

[rstaff3]

The only tube I've seen look like that was indeed from wrapping paper. Right after it was used in a faux sword fight.

 

[Zeus-cat]

I talked to the guy who made the rocket. He said it was a regular body tube and not a paper towel or wrapping paper tube. It wasn't that cold out, above freezing at the time of the launch. Probably in the 40's or 50's.

 

[Woody's Workshop]

One for the record books.
Did he say what brand it was, or where he got it at?
Might be nice to know if a certain brand isn't as good as others.

 

[Pat_B]

Has anyone ever seen any value in the MESS reporting program that NAR has? The data isn't disclosed to the members who basically support the organization and I've never seen a motor recall based upon the MESS data. If anything, it seems that we're supporting a program that benefits the motor manufacturers. I'd like to see an online database of reported problems. It's interesting that many people in this forum can talk about certain motors and date codes for which they know there have been problems, yet NAR is silent on the issue.

 

[rharshberger]

Has anyone ever seen any value in the MESS reporting program that NAR has? The data isn't disclosed to the members who basically support the organization and I've never seen a motor recall based upon the MESS data. If anything, it seems that we're supporting a program that benefits the motor manufacturers. I'd like to see an online database of reported problems. It's interesting that many people in this forum can talk about certain motors and date codes for which they know there have been problems, yet NAR is silent on the issue.

The MESS reporting system, does not report to the manufacturers, it reports to NAR iirc. It may effect the certification of motors, I am not really sure. Bob Krech is part of NAR S&T iirc and can probably answer all about the MESS system.

 

[mwtoelle]

Has anyone ever seen any value in the MESS reporting program that NAR has? The data isn't disclosed to the members who basically support the organization and I've never seen a motor recall based upon the MESS data. If anything, it seems that we're supporting a program that benefits the motor manufacturers. I'd like to see an online database of reported problems. It's interesting that many people in this forum can talk about certain motors and date codes for which they know there have been problems, yet NAR is silent on the issue.

The only time I have seen any recall of problematic motors was when Estes recalled 2 production lots of their E15s back in 1994. More details here: https://www.nar.org/SandT/releases/R023.html . Even with 'bad' lots, either not enough failures get reported or number of failures is too low of a percentage of the total manufactured to warrant a recall. If CATOs are not reported, there is no data to base an alert of r recall.

 

[Pat_B]

From that notice, Estes did their own recall, then NAR pulled the certification. I've just never seen any value in the MESS system nor the expired motor program other than for 'insiders' to have access to that data.

 

[Woody's Workshop]

As a side note, the Little Joe II might be a little late being released.
I talked to my buddy yesterday at Estes.
They had a whole lot of tubes that did not meet specs and were rejected.
These tubes get put back into an open market for someone else to buy.
We might be seeing something like that in this case.
Rejected tubing by one manufacture and released for discount on the open market.
That would explain the way this rocket tube came apart.
Just speculation, but a real possibility.

 

[tab28682]

As a side note, the Little Joe II might be a little late being released.
I talked to my buddy yesterday at Estes.
They had a whole lot of tubes that did not meet specs and were rejected.
These tubes get put back into an open market for someone else to buy.
We might be seeing something like that in this case.
Rejected tubing by one manufacture and released for discount on the open market.
That would explain the way this rocket tube came apart.
Just speculation, but a real possibility.

Very interesting. I hope that the parts vendors read this and have their guards up, looking at deals that are too good to be true for airframe tubing in a very carefull manner.

Well done quality control action by Estes.

 

[James Duffy]

They had a whole lot of tubes that did not meet specs and were rejected.

Just speculation, but a real possibility.

This meshes intriguingly with a conversation I had with an Unnamed Party many years ago. As this person related, the ability to source quality tubes in Asia was damn near impossible, and it was necessary to ship US-sourced tubes to China for inclusion in kits. Fortunately, it was pretty cheap to rent containers for the return trip to Asia, as the ships and containers are almost completely empty going west.

Could it be that Estes finally found an Asian tube vendor who flaked on them?

Hmmmm,
James

 

[Initiator001]

... I've just never seen any value in the MESS system nor the expired motor program other than for 'insiders' to have access to that data.

I can't remember where I read/saw it but the MESS system receives around 120 reports of motor issues each year. That is statistically insignificant to be able to draw any conclusions about any specific motor issues. I know I have submitted a few MESS reports over the years.

The NAR expired motor program has been a great benefit to me, having a number of 'expired' motors I would like to fly. Who here has flown MPC, MRC, NCR, Canaroc, Centuri and OOP AeroTech and Estes motors at a NAR sanctioned launch (NARAMs) besides me in the past five years? I think the expired motor program is very useful.

 

[Pat_B]

What's interesting is that these forums provide better information than the MESS program despite not being statistically significant. Perhaps if the MESS program published its results then they'd get better participation. Imagine being able to go to a website where you could see a list of all the reported motor malfunctions. Sort of like any review site that's out there. But I can see why so few people contribute to the program if the motor reports are made available to them.

There have been some manufacturer recalls, or at least notices whereby the user of the motor had to do something to the motor themselves. I'm not aware that NAR ever decertified any of these motors while the problem still existed. Why not?

Yeah, I can see the benefit of being able to fly out of cert motors, but I think the program was initially created with the goal of perhaps recertifying some batches of older motors once they knew they were safe to fly. Again, if the status of old motor approvals isn't made available then why even do the program? If NAR members were able to see how many more launches of an old motorit would take to get it recertified then they'd get better participation.

 

[Woody's Workshop]

This meshes intriguingly with a conversation I had with an Unnamed Party many years ago. As this person related, the ability to source quality tubes in Asia was damn near impossible, and it was necessary to ship US-sourced tubes to China for inclusion in kits. Fortunately, it was pretty cheap to rent containers for the return trip to Asia, as the ships and containers are almost completely empty going west.

Could it be that Estes finally found an Asian tube vendor who flaked on them?

Hmmmm,
James

Nope, my buddy said they were shipped over seas and they caught the not up to specs tubes on that end.
I do not know the origin of manufacturer of said tubes. Just that a whole lot (assuming semi sized container) for the Little Joe II were involved.
Containers coming to the US are full, almost 1/2 leaving are on asap recall and go empty.
It's true, you can hitch a ride pretty cheap going "Over There".

 

[Woody's Workshop]

As a side note, the Little Joe II might be a little late being released.
I talked to my buddy yesterday at Estes.
They had a whole lot of tubes that did not meet specs and were rejected.
These tubes get put back into an open market for someone else to buy.
We might be seeing something like that in this case.
Rejected tubing by one manufacture and released for discount on the open market.
That would explain the way this rocket tube came apart.
Just speculation, but a real possibility.

THESE turned up on me today browsing around ebay.
I have to wonder if these aren't part of the rejected lot?
Not saying they are, but it's the first time I seen BT's packaged without a face card & hang tag.
They have several sizes as well Linky

 

[mikemech]

Those tubes look smooshed.

 

[jqavins]

One of my fellow TORC #703 members launched a rocket on an E12 at the club launch on 5 December. The motor was an E12 and it CATOed. The rocket was destroyed, but we had never seen anything like this before.

View attachment 277436

Cool! Er, I mean, my condolences to your friend. And cool.

From what I can see in the picture (look at the second gap from the right) it looks like the seams in the two layers were really close together; a tube wound that way would be weak with respect to this failure mode. Someone needs to think up an economical method to wind the layers in alternating directions, which should make tubes a lot more resistant to this and similar failures.