Loki 76-6000 with hubcap

[Maxwelljets]

Is using the Loki 76-6000 casing with the CTI hubcap adapter a certified combination? A few friends and I are thinking about splitting the cost of a casing so we can all get L3 certs. Some of us would prefer to fly Loki, others want CTI. So if possible, being able to certify on a CTI reload in a Loki casing would be the ideal solution. When I searched for the answer, I kept getting conflicting results.

 

[GRIFFIN]

Yes, what you are trying to do will work.

 

[eggplant]

Is is certified for use at a NAR launch, though? This combination appeals to me as well but I don't want to invest in Loki hardware if I am limited to one brand of reloads at non-research launches.

 

[dhbarr]

Yes, what you are trying to do will work.

I think OP & friends want to know if the TAP/L3CC will allow for a cert flight.

 

[jimzcatz]

It is "legally" allowed by both Tripoli and NAR at any Commercial or Research launch. That means that you can do a L3 cert. If your TAPS or L3cc's say otherwise, they are misinformed. What is good for a Tripoli research launch only, is using an Aerotech load in snap ring hardware. Aerotech KBA loads don't count of course.

 

[dhbarr]

Huh, I had thought that the AMWPro75 hubcap was only AMW, but it's also Gorilla, Kosdon, & Loki as long as the specs match aka "AMW case family"?

 

[jimzcatz]

I guess that depends on your interpretation of the rule. Hardware is identical.

 

[Steve Shannon]

I agree with Jim. Here's the official list of cross certified hardware from NAR:
https://www.nar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CasingCrossCert.pdf


Steve Shannon

 

[jimzcatz]

IIRC, the Hubcap was certified for any CTI load in any snap ring hardware, but I could be wrong.

 

[Dave A]

Any CTI 75mm reload is certified in a snap ring case with hub cap provided you use no more than 2 spacers.
The above interpretation leaves the door open to use "most any" commercial snap ring case.
However, if you want to burn a Loki reload, you're supposed to use the corresponding fwd and nozzle hardware, regardless of brand of case.
Aerotech 75mm reloads are cross compatible, both ways, with full CTI hardware system.
You should present theses facts also below to your TAP before you plan a certification flight.

https://www.gorillarocketmotors.com/compatibility.html

If you can get your 2 TAPs to agree then you stand a better chance of approving your combo.

PS: As far as availibility goes and price, it's hard to beat the 4,5 and 6 grain Aerotech reloads. Once you get certified, the AT M1850 in the LOKI 8000n case and hubcap works flawless. Got a lot of compliments on that flight. It is considered a research combo.

 

[MClark]

I have never seen or heard of the "Hubcap". It must be an east coast thing.
It amazes me the trouble people will go to to use mismatched parts.

M

 

[Dave A]

I have never seen or heard of the "Hubcap". It must be an east coast thing.
It amazes me the trouble people will go to to use mismatched parts.

M

It is an adjustable forward closure specifically designed for an AMW case and certified to use with only CTI reloads in said case.
It was nick-named hub cap for it's obvious use and you tighten the "lug nuts" in rotation until the closure is firmly in place.

The only mismatch use is when you are using research loads or loads from another brand.
Therefore, with just a snap ring case and closures, I can burn any 75mm Loki, Kosdon, AMW, Gorilla reload (which require a graphite nozzle) AND the CTI & Aerotech reloads (nozzle is part of the reload)

 

[jimzcatz]

I have never seen or heard of the "Hubcap". It must be an east coast thing.
It amazes me the trouble people will go to to use mismatched parts.

M

Mismatched parts? Might want to do a little research before you comment. The Hubcap " AMW/CTI adapter was designed by CTI so flyers who already had all the 75mm snap ring hardware can use Pro75 loads without having to purchase new hardware. They didn't have to do that, they did us who use the adapter a huge favor. They have since stopped producing them. Good thing I have 3. I really do wish they would bring them back. Something else alot of people don't realize, CTI has certified loads for 54 and 75mm snap ring hardware marketed under THE ProX line. They have made incredible options for the flyers.

 

[MClark]

Mismatched parts? Might want to do a little research before you comment. The Hubcap " AMW/CTI adapter was designed by CTI so flyers who already had all the 75mm snap ring hardware can use Pro75 loads without having to purchase new hardware. They didn't have to do that, they did us who use the adapter a huge favor. They have since stopped producing them. Good thing I have 3. I really do wish they would bring them back. Something else alot of people don't realize, CTI has certified loads for 54 and 75mm snap ring hardware marketed under THE ProX line. They have made incredible options for the flyers.

Your description is of using miss matched parts. The reloads don't fit the hardware so this contraption was created.
And I did research what it was before commenting.

 

[Dave A]

They're not mismatched, ALL 75mm reloads are identical in diameter as so are ALL the case I.D.s. The hubcap WAS designed to allow cross-over combinations. Now we have 4 times as many motor combinations in the 75mm line without having to make our own research motors. I call that right-matching.

 

[MClark]

Everyone is untitled to an opinion.
I don't buy Ford parts for my GMC, have to use adapters and tell myself how great it is.
All the cross certified motors were done after I left TMT, I thought, and still think, it is a terrible idea.

M

 

[GRIFFIN]

"Hardware" is just a tube. If someone is able to stretch his dollar by using a hubcap, so be it. I use them....and I just think it's neat. I have all the other hardware also. I just like the idea of the cap.

I'll never understand how worked up people get over a "tube"

 

[Dave A]

Yeah, more certified motors is bad for the sport, LOL

 

[Maxwelljets]

...have to use adapters and tell myself how great it is.

CTI 5G casing & closures: $360
CTI Hubcap adapter set: $50
That seems pretty great to me! I personally really like the idea of a universal hardware set that's able to take any brand of reload.

All the cross certified motors were done after I left TMT, I thought, and still think, it is a terrible idea.

Is there a reason you think it's a terrible idea? Preferably a reason that could be backed up by statistics? I'm definitely still able to be persuaded, but not without some sort of logic or data.

 

[MClark]

When first proposed there was no plan for warranty issues. If there was a failure who is responsible, the reload manufacturer? The hardware manufacturer? Will CTI buy you a new Aerotech case or will it be a CTI case your handed? Or visa versa?
Does the reload manufacture know the design specs, tolerances and limits of the other company's hardware or are they just assuming the data?
I admit there have been few failures due to cross certification but at the time it was proposed there were no good answers.
Even with that I still feel using random components that happen to mostly fit is wrong. I came from a place where rocket motors had to be made as close to perfect as possible and I will never use a motor where the parts came from non cooperative manufacturers.

M

 

[Maxwelljets]

Thanks, you made a really good point about the warranties.

use a motor where the parts came from non cooperative manufacturers.

In this case, Loki and AMW have a cooperative cross-load agreement (though only with the casing tubes, not the closures. However, for the hubcap, that's irrelevant.) Since the hubcap was designed specifically to fit the diameter of AMW hardware, and AMW and Loki have cooperative cross-load for 75mm, this hubcap should be considered cooperative.

 

[GRIFFIN]

Seems to me the warranty has nothing to do with anyone. It the manufacturer. I have been told by CTI, if there is a failure, replacements would be one of their cases. Don't know first hand. Haven't had a failure but sounds like its something that they have thought of and have a plan.

 

[Loki Research]

Is using the Loki 76-6000 casing with the CTI hubcap adapter a certified combination?

As far as I am concerned, yes it would be certified, but it's probably not my call. As someone else pointed out, CTI 75mm loads are certified for use with AMW cases with the hubcap. AMW cases are cross compatible with Gorilla and Loki 75/76mm hardware. (same stuff, different nomenclature on both the OD and Ns) So if CTI is certified in AMW 75mm hardware, and AMW cases are compatable with Loki Research and Gorilla, then by logic, CTI should also be certified in all four manufactures cases.

Certification for the flier should IMO be more about the abilities, skill set and knowledge of the flier and not about if one manf agreement to "approve" someone to certify their reload in another manfs hardware or vise versa or who's going to warranty what. If a flier can make a successful flight with a rocket built from scratch parts, and flown on a motor built from 3 manfs parts, I'd say that they have proven their ability, skill set and knowledge to safely fly at that level. That is what it's all about anyway. Right? Warranty has never had a bearing on someones ability to certify.

It makes me think, what if you had to fly "certified rockets" for L1, L2 & L3. You can't fly that LOC nose cone in that PML tube. It could fail because they weren't specifically designed for each other. I completely get and appreciate Mark's point here, but they can still be made to work together quite well as Dave has pointed out. It reminds me of a friend that put a 5.0 Ford in a Mazda RX7. Saying I thought that was stupid would be an understatement, but he made it work.

 

[MClark]

Seems to me the warranty has nothing to do with anyone. It the manufacturer. I have been told by CTI, if there is a failure, replacements would be one of their cases. Don't know first hand. Haven't had a failure but sounds like its something that they have thought of and have a plan.

If I had a failure with X reload in a Y case and X replaced my case with one of theirs and not what I had originally I would be pissed. If I wanted an X case I would have bought it in the first place.

M

 

[GRIFFIN]

If I had a failure with X reload in a Y case and X replaced my case with one of theirs and not what I had originally I would be pissed. If I wanted an X case I would have bought it in the first place.

M

I think you've make it pretty clear here that the hub cap is not for you. Can we move on?

 

[Dave A]

I probably stirred the pot by introducing a multitude of combinations.
Part of my "cross combatibilty theorem " is based on, IMHO, a lack of reloads for 75mm unless you want to invest in multiple brands of hardware. Yes, CTI has a lot of reloads but availability has been poor as of late.
I invested in all snap ring hardware when Paul of AMW and Frank of Kosdon were still with us. But now have CTI, AT, LOKI as the bigger manufacturers.
CTI designed their 75mm reloads nearly identical to AT. That is why they were easily certified in AT hardware. Now AT has followed suit with theirs.
CTIs "hubcap" or 75mm adapter system is a very well-designed system.
If the CTI and AT reloads are identical in dimensions and the CTI reloads are certified in snap ring hdw therefore the AT reload works in the snap ring case, as long as you use the seal disc, adjustable fwd and corresponding nozzle holder with both o-rings.
As long you have a well-engineered plan and an excellent building technique, the hardware will not fail. Once in a while you'll get a reload that fails. No hardware will stop that.

 

[dhbarr]

FWIW, these appear to be back in stock at AMWPROX
https://cart.amwprox.com/index.php?...uemart_product_id=33&virtuemart_category_id=7

 

[jimzcatz]

Read the fine print. Says requires noozle carrier and forward closure,which both were included in the original CTI offering. Stll nice that they are available.

 

[Dave A]

I probably stirred the pot by introducing a multitude of combinations.
Part of my "cross combatibilty theorem " is based on, IMHO, a lack of reloads for 75mm unless you want to invest in multiple brands of hardware. Yes, CTI has a lot of reloads but availability has been poor as of late.
I invested in all snap ring hardware when Paul of AMW and Frank of Kosdon were still with us. But now have CTI, AT, LOKI as the bigger manufacturers.
CTI designed their 75mm reloads nearly identical to AT. That is why they were easily certified in AT hardware. Now AT has followed suit with theirs.
CTIs "hubcap" or 75mm adapter system is a very well-designed system.
If the CTI and AT reloads are identical in dimensions and the CTI reloads are certified in snap ring hdw therefore the AT reload works in the snap ring case, as long as you use the seal disc, adjustable fwd and corresponding nozzle holder with both o-rings.
As long you have a well-engineered plan and an excellent building technique, the hardware will not fail. Once in a while you'll get a reload that fails. No hardware will stop that.

The only reason for the hub cap was so CTI loads could be used in "their" partner's AMW cases. (They work in Like and Kosdon cases, too, but are not certified)
Allowing more flyers to save money using their Snap ring cases, I'd say that was a great idea on CTI's part. The snap-ring reloads, for instance, that fit in the 75-7600n case do so with no hubcap. (I sometimes use an extra nozzle washer to fill the case entirely).
The reasons for the development of the "hubcap" :
1) Since the graphite nozzle takes up more space in the case than the CTI nozzle is why its needed.
That way you are not having to have custom spacers but then it is still not compressed.
2) The CTI reload is slightly compressed in the CTI case (just like with AT loads).
The hub cap serves that function to simulate that assembly.

The hub cap has made another safe option for flyers, saving money on hardware lets me buy more reloads.

 

[Steve Shannon]

The only reason for the hub cap was so CTI loads could be used in "their" partner's AMW cases. (They work in Like and Kosdon cases, too, but are not certified)
Allowing more flyers to save money using their Snap ring cases, I'd say that was a great idea on CTI's part. The snap-ring reloads, for instance, that fit in the 75-7600n case do so with no hubcap. (I sometimes use an extra nozzle washer to fill the case entirely).
The reasons for the development of the "hubcap" :
1) Since the graphite nozzle takes up more space in the case than the CTI nozzle is why its needed.
That way you are not having to have custom spacers but then it is still not compressed.
2) The CTI reload is slightly compressed in the CTI case (just like with AT loads).
The hub cap serves that function to simulate that assembly.

The hub cap has made another safe option for flyers, saving money on hardware lets me buy more reloads.

I disagree about the statement that thy are not certified in Loki cases. Several years ago the certification organizations recognized cross compatibility between Loki, AMW, and Gorilla cases (depending on the closures). Thus, something that is certified for use in an AMW case may also be certified in other brands of snap ring cases. Here’s the matrix:
https://www.nar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CasingCrossCert.pdf