Fantasy Motors
- Thread starter jqavins
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
shockie
High Plains Rocketeer
Sounds to me that everybody wants fireworks with all the colored propellant and smoke.
Personally, I like these ideas, but the NAR/TRA safety codes and especially the NFPA codes may be run up against.
I know colored propellants are legal, and so would colored delay trains, but separate add on pyrotechnic smoke delays seem to violate #8 Flight Safety, ie it's a flammable substance.
Then there's Chapter 5, Prohibited Activities of NFPA 1122 where it states that model rockets motors whose primary purpose is to produce spectacular displays of color,light,sound or any combination there of,. Is prohibited.
Why?
Because that's basically what fireworks pyrotechnic rockets do.
A Pyrotechnic skyrocket (stick rocket) basically carries a flammable explosive charge of pyrotechnic compositions.
But that same skyrocket using a Estes motor and a recovery device, it is considered a model rocket.
NFPA 1125 allows for separate delay trains or ejection charge components, so the addition of a motor component that produces colored smoke would probably be legal.
I would like to see BP motors with various pyrotechnic additives like red iron oxide, titanium sponge,etc to get differing colored or sparky exhausts.
I think ABCDEF silver sparkles would be a good seller.
Might only be sold to those 18 yr old or above, but minors would have to have a guardian or parent to purchase and supervise as we do with Jr. HPR.
But that would require Estes to add additives to their BP,extensive testing and probably new DOT classifications.
Expensive so that's not going to happen.
Personally, I like these ideas, but the NAR/TRA safety codes and especially the NFPA codes may be run up against.
I know colored propellants are legal, and so would colored delay trains, but separate add on pyrotechnic smoke delays seem to violate #8 Flight Safety, ie it's a flammable substance.
Then there's Chapter 5, Prohibited Activities of NFPA 1122 where it states that model rockets motors whose primary purpose is to produce spectacular displays of color,light,sound or any combination there of,. Is prohibited.
Why?
Because that's basically what fireworks pyrotechnic rockets do.
A Pyrotechnic skyrocket (stick rocket) basically carries a flammable explosive charge of pyrotechnic compositions.
But that same skyrocket using a Estes motor and a recovery device, it is considered a model rocket.
NFPA 1125 allows for separate delay trains or ejection charge components, so the addition of a motor component that produces colored smoke would probably be legal.
I would like to see BP motors with various pyrotechnic additives like red iron oxide, titanium sponge,etc to get differing colored or sparky exhausts.
I think ABCDEF silver sparkles would be a good seller.
Might only be sold to those 18 yr old or above, but minors would have to have a guardian or parent to purchase and supervise as we do with Jr. HPR.
But that would require Estes to add additives to their BP,extensive testing and probably new DOT classifications.
Expensive so that's not going to happen.
Well, the subject is fantasy motors, so legal impracticality is not important, but I think I can defend some of the concepts anyway, up to a point.
That's why it would have to be a certified motor with zero (or negligible) thrust. So it's a motor, not a payload.
I don't have NFPA 1122 to refer to, so I'm only going by what you wrote, "displays of color, light, sound, or any...". Note that smoke is not mentioned. Am I splitting hairs? Well, yes.
This is kinda dumb if you ask me. A model rocket motor's "primary purpose" is ALWAYS to provide thrust. With the intended effect of safely propelling the rocket through the air. ANYTHING else it does is a secondary or tertiary purpose. Even if it rubs your back, makes you a latte, reads poetry and produces sparks and 4 colored smoke. It's "primary purpose" is to produce thrust.
Andrew
But it would seem to rule out making a tube with nothing but sparkler material and calling it a motor to get around the burning payload prohibition. In effect, this could say that if it doesn't produce thrust it isn't a motor, and calling it one (even certified) doesn't make it so. My fantasy zero thrust, all tracking "motor" doesn't produce thrust, but it also doesn't produce a display of color, light, or sound. My statement about smoke not being on the list (i.e. it's not color, light, or sound) might put that into a grey area, at best. 
They're 38mm long, 8.75mm (usually listed as 8.8mm) diameter, and have an 8 sec burn time. I finally dug these out from my "collector motors" box -- here are a couple photos.
Attachments
That’s WIERD!
Initiator001
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 3,400
- Reaction score
- 1,112
The MRC FX motors were a cool idea that did not work as well as hoped.
Bill Stine came up with the idea while he was a consultant with MRC and revamping their rocket line in the late 1980s.
The smoke output shown in the merchandising literature displayed clouds of smoke.
Reality was much different.
At a Lucerne launch around 1990 I brought a MRC Concept II rocket (Flare Patriot?) and the motor mount which held a single 18mm motor and two of the FX motors. The biggest issue was trying to get the igniters to stay in the FX motors. Very small nozzles.
Using the MRC Concept II Launch Controller (It used 4 or 6 'C' batteries) it had two launch buttons. One to start the FX motors a few seconds before launch and then you push the second button to ignite the main motor.
As I did a countdown I ignited the FX motors about five seconds before the main motor. Both FX motors ignited and produced thin wisps of smoke. I let the FX motors fully burn before igniting the 18mm motor. As the FX units burned out someone called out. "That's it?"
I launched the model which had a successful flight and recovery.
Neat idea which didn't work out.
I built a 1/72 Peanut Scale M3-SII-5 model (The smallest rocket to fly a lunar mission.) for a Chicago NARAM. I had intended to fly with two FX motors in the strap-ons to get the clustering points. The judges underscored the static point to the point that it was pointless to fly it without the FX motors. As I had not actually used the FX motor before, I static static tested one on the field first. It catoed, so I never flew the model.
Were these actually produced and sold?
US Rockets:
13 mm D motor
https://web.archive.org/web/20191029075434/http://v-serv.com/usr/13mm.htm18 mm G motor
https://web.archive.org/web/20190129232810/http://v-serv.com/usr/18mm.htmWould be an exciting one and done.
US Rockets:
13 mm D motor
https://web.archive.org/web/20191029075434/http://v-serv.com/usr/13mm.htm18 mm G motor
https://web.archive.org/web/20190129232810/http://v-serv.com/usr/18mm.htmWould be an exciting one and done.
Neutronium95
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 1,080
- Reaction score
- 1,579
There are many motors that never existed if you poke around on archived copies of the US Rockets website. Up to and including 36" diameter solid motors, similar in size to the SRBs used on some orbital launch vehicles. Some of the smaller motors might have existed, but I'd be skeptical of any claims made on the website without external confirmation.
Perfect for a fantasy thread then, no?
