L2 cert approach

[Rocketjunkie]

When I joined Tripoli, you 'confirmed'. Fly an H motor then you could buy **any** motor. Confirmed in March 1989. 18 months later at Black Rock in July, 1990. (O1500 Vulcan custom).

Later, when the multi level certs were started (1995), we were grandfathered in as L1. Next J flight called it L2 and flew a 12" rocket on a M1939 for L3 at LDRS XV.

 

[kidrobo]

I went redundant dual deploy with motor backup on both my L1 and L2 (same rocket). I figured if it was worth doing it was worth overdoing. It might've been a bit unnecessary for my first foray into HPR, but the electronics aspect was a lot of fun.

 

[Lord Rory Gin]

I'm curious to see what people did or plan to do for a HPR level 2 certification (J-L motors). The L2 cert can be seen as just a way to prove experience flying larger motors than L1 or it can be a prep for more complex flight profiles using electronics as well. Feel free to vote for what you did as well as what you would do if you had it to do again.

I ordered a 38mm CTI J290W for my extended (DD) Apogee Zephyr. Not sure if I will go with Hybrid: motor ejection + second event (JLCR or similar) or complete DD yet.

 

[kswing]

I did DD with motor backup on both my L1 and L2 using the same rocket. It worked out fine for me, but, if I did it again I'd probably go with a simpler setup at least for the L1.

 

[cwbullet]

I went low and slow, and all three of my certs. My level 2 was simple motor ejection and flew about 2000-3000 feet. My level 3 had electronics and redundant DD to about 5-6K.

 

[John Kemker]

Like Mr. Binford, my first certification was "fly an H, then fly anything you want afterwards." Very shortly after that, the three-level certification process came about and I had to take a test and fly a J in order to certify level 2. Flew a LOC Bruiser on a J460 using motor ejection.

Next go 'round, dual deployment using an Eggtimer Apogee and a JLCR in a FiberMax.

 

[Sandy H.]

L1 (H97) motor deploy on a scratch built rocket to around 2000ft.

Built and flew a few more L1 rockets, adding DD from a few different manufacturers, but only one in each rocket (i.e. not redundant). I usually flew with motor deploy as backup, but after a forward closure failure (likely something I did, most likely wrong o-ring installed and early ejection charge), I started using plugged forward closures more often than not if using electronics. I'm on the fence about this and may go back to motor backup.

I built a new rocket for L2 (Minnie Magg with extension) and flew conventional DD on a J350.

For me, this was a pretty good path. I doubt I'll ever attempt L3 and I pretty much always had good performance from just one altimeter, so I may continue to just fly one altimeter if I fly big rockets moving forward.

Sandy.

 

[RPMyers]

I'm curious to see what people did or plan to do for a HPR level 2 certification (J-L motors). The L2 cert can be seen as just a way to prove experience flying larger motors than L1 or it can be a prep for more complex flight profiles using electronics as well. Feel free to vote for what you did as well as what you would do if you had it to do again.

I did my L1 with an Apogee Zephyr on a Loki H100. For My L2 I am planning on an Apogee Katana with electronic Dual Deploy. Finishing the rocket now. Still deciding what electronics to use. $$$ is a bit of an issue. lol

 

[JackC]

I did my L1 on a slightly modified Aerotech HV Arcas with motor ejection of an H165R.

About a year later, I did my L2 on a fairly heavy and large fin Hawk Mountain Jumanji with a CTI J330 38mm motor. Maybe reached 1500 to 2000 on motor ejection. Super easy recovery.

I prefer the KISS method for certification. There are no bonus or style points for using dual deployment for certifications.

 

[T-Rex]

L1 was a 4" cardboard Madcow Little Jon, motor deploy on a H238T.
L2 is planned to be a Warlock kit bash on a J425 DMS motor eject with a JLCR. May fore go the CR since it only sims to 1700ft. Will depend on conditions on launch day.

 

[TheTank]

Full redundant DD. No reason not to as I had a bunch of DD flights with L1 motors under my belt. A lot of guys say “keep it simple”… but dual deploy is simple. Charge test, test fly with a smaller motor before the cert, and send it.

 

[les]

My option wasn't listed, or basically was a variation of one listed
For my L2, I used DD with motor ejection for backup.
I felt that gave me DD experience, but in case I did something wrong, I had the motor eject to ensure the rocket got down safely.

 

[C.O.B.H.C.]

I did my L2 with fully electronic with redundant altimeters. The altimeters were a Perfect Flite MAWD and a Perfect Flite HiAlts45K. I also used these same altimeters on my L3 cert flight.

 

[Tim51]

My main concern regarding the current L2 cert requirements is that, as we all know, 54mm L motors, 75mm and 98mm K and L motors do not have motor ejection. So potentially, you could have a flier who's never done DD who certifies flying ME with a J motor and at that point becomes qualified to fly a range of more powerful motors without proof they can safely recover them.
I don't think that electronic deployment should be mandatory for the L2 cert flight itself - whether a flier chooses to use DD should depend on the field and conditions on the day, but I do think a flier should be known to be competent in using electronic recovery in advance of being able to purchase plugged motors. So clubs should have the right to require a L2 candidate has demonstrable knowledge of electronic recovery whether they've used it at L1 or with MPR or whatever.

 

[Sandy H.]

It is a bit strange to me, but absolutely allowed by the rules, that some people want to push their limits in multiple ways on any particular launch - certification or not. I absolutely understand and agree on a person pushing themselves to become educated and to learn techniques, but pushing their ability on a launch seems off to me.

For my first L2 attempt, I failed (in my opinion) due to a non-intended flight profile, as my shear pins were too small and I pulled the main at (or near) apogee. I intended a drogue for much of the flight and my main at 500-ish feet and that didn't happen and the rocket landed in a creek, but was re-flyable after drying out (and was successfully re-flown after drying out with the only change being bigger shear pins).

I feel like my DD flight was not as simple as possible, but was a valid plan even though it was a little more complex than absolutely required. I flew a good number of DD flights on MPR and L1 scale and was comfortable with the electronics side. I made the error of not making my shear pins slightly larger when the nosecone weight went up a good amount. It ground tested fine (duh - no inertia on the static ground test), but on the flight the drogue inflating was enough for the nosecone to shear its pins.

I absolutely asked others for advice while learning to fly electronics and would continue to do so today if I was flying a larger motor or different combination than I had comfort doing. Once I learned the risks, I would try to address them and then ask for more advice. I would fly whatever it was with confidence.

Of the 7 or 8 billion people on the planet, I'm the 'best' at absolutely nothing - someone else always has something to add. I'm a somewhat competent person at a number of things, but I'm not so smug as to think that I can't learn from others. I strive to be the best, but accept that will only make me better than I am today. Someone else can get the trophy for being the best. I want to at least be in the running for the trophy for 'most improved.'

Sandy.

 

[Hobie1dog]

Of the 7 or 8 billion people on the planet, I'm the 'best' at absolutely nothing - someone else always has something to add. I'm a somewhat competent person at a number of things, but I'm not so smug as to think that I can't learn from others. I strive to be the best, but accept that will only make me better than I am today. Someone else can get the trophy for being the best. I want to at least be in the running for the trophy for 'most improved"

the old saying," We are all ignorant, Only on different subjects." applies to me especially.

 

[MClark]

Did my L2 the day after the new three level system was announced at the LDRS meeting.
Flew a LOC Caliber ISP on a J125 that ejected at about two seconds.
So I bought a PML Patriot, assembled in 45 minutes modified to take a 98mm. Motor was a K125.
I have only done one DD.

 

[JackC]

My option wasn't listed, or basically was a variation of one listed
For my L2, I used DD with motor ejection for backup.
I felt that gave me DD experience, but in case I did something wrong, I had the motor eject to ensure the rocket got down safely.

I didn’t certify with any DD but I practiced it after my L1 with a PML Sudden Rush I still fly to this day (she’s 18 years old now). Flew her on I motors while I learned how DD works. Like you, I used the motor ejection as a back up to the altimeter. It worked like a charm.

 

[anbhtblr]

Learn as much as you can as fast as you can. Did my L1 DD and haven't looked back.

 

[teepot]

I did my L1 on a 3" scratch build. H195 to 1800'. I lost it in the sky going up. Everybody else did not. All I heard was, come on chute, And the the ah's as the chute came out. Apparently close to the ground. I heard, dual deploy with out electronics. It landed and took of across the dry lake bed. Chased it a few hundred yards. A couple of the fins had the paint removed and the tips were a little more rounded than when it went up. But I passed. I haven't been in a hurry to get my L2. I'll wait until I can do dual deploy correctly and consistently good results. But for the L2 I'll keep it simple. Big heavy rocket. Apogee for deployment with motor back up. Chute at apogee. I'll be flying a J435. I'll keep it lower than 3000" even if I have to put bricks in it.

 

[JohnCoker]

Thanks all for the responses. I see there are quite a few people who voted for dual-deploy, which surprised me.

 

[MetricRocketeer]

I think we should push for a more complicated build for level 2. The way it sits now there's no real difference in building a level 1 or level 2 rocket. The only new display of skills is the test, which I really think should be for level 1. I don't hold this opinion very strongly, but I do not think we should allow the same rocket to be used for level 1 and 2, the level 2 rocket should show some increase in build difficulty and DD fits that nicely. I think a shorter version of the level 3 cert doc should be required for level 2. No need for a tap/l3cc sign off. Just enough to show you've simmed it correctly, have a launch check list, ect to be verified before launch.

Hi TRF colleagues,

I respectfully disagree with @Kallahan11's opinion on this.

In my opinion, the system that @Kallahan11 proposes would impose undue challenges for rocketeers to enter the arena of high-power rocketry. I believe that the written test for L2, along with using a higher-impulse motor than that used for L1, poses a sufficient degree of difficulty for achieving L2.

Stanley

 

[ndzied1]

I did DD with redundant altimeters and motor eject as a backup. Failed the first time because the bird got lost in a cornfield and couldn't be examined after. Farmer found it before it got eaten by the combine (and he got a reward). Flight data on the Raven 3 was still good.

2nd time I was successful with the same setup but with a tracker.

 

[JackC]

Hi TRF colleagues,

I respectfully disagree with @Kallahan11's opinion on this.

In my opinion, the system that @Kallahan11 proposes would impose undue challenges for rocketeers to enter the arena of high-power rocketry. I believe that the written test for L2, along with using a higher-impulse motor than that used for L1, poses a sufficient degree of difficulty for achieving L2.

Stanley

I agree with Stanley. Also, the other approach does not take into account the f conditions of the launch site. Even dual deployment runs the risk of drifting outside the bounds of a small launch site, so low and slow builds may be the appropriate rocket for that situation. The certification attempt should not take away the flyers consideration of the launch site environment.

 

[Kallahan11]

I agree with Stanley. Also, the other approach does not take into account the f conditions of the launch site. Even dual deployment runs the risk of drifting outside the bounds of a small launch site, so low and slow builds may be the appropriate rocket for that situation. The certification attempt should not take away the flyers consideration of the launch site environment.

Hi TRF colleagues,

I respectfully disagree with @Kallahan11's opinion on this.

In my opinion, the system that @Kallahan11 proposes would impose undue challenges for rocketeers to enter the arena of high-power rocketry. I believe that the written test for L2, along with using a higher-impulse motor than that used for L1, poses a sufficient degree of difficulty for achieving L2.

Stanley

Perhaps I should have said electronic deployment, I don't think DD is always necessary, but as Tim51 stated above you can cert level 2 without showing you can safely recover 75 and 98mm motors which are only plugged motors.

My reason for moving the written test to level 1 is simple, is there anything on the Level 2 test that shouldn't be required knowledge for every high power rocketeer? The test is far easier than the amateur radio's technician, and doesn't cost 15 bucks. HAM radio is a lot bigger than high power rocketry, they have no problem with difficult written tests for their equivalent certifications. I really don't think its a high barrier to entry. With the test moved to level 1, with no changes to the build requirements no new skills are needed to cert level 2, Heck the guy who owns Balsa Machining Services certed level 2 with a cardboard and plywood rocket assembled with wood glue on a J510. I think every level should require a demonstration of more skills. Also if all you do is build a simple motor eject rocket for level 2, the jump in skills and knowledge to do the level 3 cert is huge.

 

[JackC]

Perhaps I should have said electronic deployment, I don't think DD is always necessary, but as Tim51 stated above you can cert level 2 without showing you can safely recover 75 and 98mm motors which are only plugged motors.

My reason for moving the written test to level 1 is simple, is there anything on the Level 2 test that shouldn't be required knowledge for every high power rocketeer? The test is far easier than the amateur radio's technician, and doesn't cost 15 bucks. HAM radio is a lot bigger than high power rocketry, they have no problem with difficult written tests for their equivalent certifications. I really don't think its a high barrier to entry. With the test moved to level 1, with no changes to the build requirements no new skills are needed to cert level 2, Heck the guy who owns Balsa Machining Services certed level 2 with a cardboard and plywood rocket assembled with wood glue on a J510. I think every level should require a demonstration of more skills. Also if all you do is build a simple motor eject rocket for level 2, the jump in skills and knowledge to do the level 3 cert is huge.

I understand your reasoning but I think the powers that be wanted to make entry into high power fairly easy with a fairly low entry cost. That way, if someone was curious, tried it out but decided the hobby was not for him/her, they could walk away without a huge sunk cost. However, if they liked it but are happy flying G and baby H motors on a continual basis or they want to take their time moving to the next level, that was fine, too. Yet, when they want to advance to fly J - L motors, generally we’re talking about fairly big and heavy rockets with 100 to 300 pounds of thrust, rockets that can be dangerous, particularly in the hands of a novice. Thus, the reason for the test to prove that the flyer has studied the rules and learns the basics of safe flight to allow the flyer to use these far more powerful motors.

 

[Kallahan11]

I understand your reasoning but I think the powers that be wanted to make entry into high power fairly easy with a fairly low entry cost. That way, if someone was curious, tried it out but decided the hobby was not for him/her, they could walk away without a huge sunk cost. However, if they liked it but are happy flying G and baby H motors on a continual basis or they want to take their time moving to the next level, that was fine, too. Yet, when they want to advance to fly J - L motors, generally we’re talking about fairly big and heavy rockets with 100 to 300 pounds of thrust, rockets that can be dangerous, particularly in the hands of a novice. Thus, the reason for the test to prove that the flyer has studied the rules and learns the basics of safe flight to allow the flyer to use these far more powerful motors.

That's the main reason why I'm not really that invested in this, The current way is fine, I think it could be better but it's not that big of a deal. That said I don't agree that making level 1 do the test will drive people away. I don't think that test is hard and there is no cost to take it or get study materials for it. As far as the extra costs associated with electronic deployment, DD altimeters can be had for 50 bucks and J motors are 100+ and a rocket kit for level 2 motors is 150+ I don't think a 20% increase in cost will stop people from getting level 2.

 

[kramer714]

Motor deploy - on the same rocket I used for my level 1. Scratch built (starting with cloth and resin) 4" carbon fiber rocket.

 

[Sandy H.]

Thanks all for the responses. I see there are quite a few people who voted for dual-deploy, which surprised me.

Looks like you're out West. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the respondents who said DD were located on the East Coast. I bet people out West consider a tracker more important than DD, but on the East Coast, plenty of people fly without trackers, as they can clearly see which tree the rocket is hanging in. . .

Just a thought. Cool poll and fun thread to read.

Sandy.

 

[waltr]

Reread the question the OP asks for the poll.

He asks what YOU would do not what HE/SHE or someone else should do.
I selected DD and qualified that with my experience of using DD in a number of rockets and many flights.