NAR Guidelines

[AfterBurners]

I'm building a 4x24 (4) "E" rocket and I notice the guidelines on the NAR website

Size: My model rocket will not weigh more than 1,500 grams (53 ounces) at liftoff and will not contain more than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of propellant or 320 N-sec (71.9 pound-seconds) of total impulse.

It looks like (4) "E" are just over the 4.4 coming in @ 4.8 but it looks like I can safely fly it on (4) D12's for a total weight of 3.52

Just wanted to check my numbers before launching this bad boy

 

[georgegassaway]

Those are not "guidelines".

They are the Safety Code, which is also part of many state regulations and the NFPA codes.

If it's over those weights, then it's a "High Power" rocket. And as a HPR rocket, then the flier needs to be HPR certified, and flown at a launch in accordance with the HPR Safety Code.

Now what you could do to keep it under the max propellant mass for a Model Rocket is this:

Swap two of the E9's for D12's (on opposing sides, to keep the cluster thrust balanced). Take off on a cluster of the two E9's and two D12's. That would give you a little bit more liftoff thrust (D12 has a bit higher thrust level), then at 1.65 seconds the two D12's would burn out and the two E9's would keep thrusting for another 1.45 seconds.

Actually, if it would be OK for two of them to be plugged, use D11-P's, for 2 more N-sec.

- George Gassaway

 

[aerostadt]

You can also join a local club and go to a club launch. Some clubs have monthly launches that already have the FAA waiver for weight limits ,etc. In addition there can be can someone in the club that can help you get certified.

 

[harsas]

Those are not "guidelines".

They are the Safety Code, which is also part of many state regulations and the NFPA codes.

- George Gassaway

Yup, guidelines....
:wink:

 

[Fred22]

I

Yup, guidelines....
:wink:

I'm thinking more like rules :
Cheers
Fred

 

[AfterBurners]

Four D12's would be fine, I don't want to mix and match motors

 

[luke strawwalker]

Yup, guidelines....
:wink:

I agree... capricious rules for rules sake make little sense...

I've seen a LOT of stupid stuff go on that, simply because there's NOT a specific rule about it, folks are perfectly content to do and in fact get HIGHLY agitated if you contradict their thinking or "try to rain on their parade", despite the obviousness of your argument...

Oh well... it's what I've come to expect...

Bigger fish to fry...

Later! OL JR

 

[Fred22]

I agree... capricious rules for rules sake make little sense...

I've seen a LOT of stupid stuff go on that, simply because there's NOT a specific rule about it, folks are perfectly content to do and in fact get HIGHLY agitated if you contradict their thinking or "try to rain on their parade", despite the obviousness of your argument...

Oh well... it's what I've come to expect...

Bigger fish to fry...

Later! OL JR

Luke I'm trying to understand your point but I don't believe you are calling the NAR code into question?
Cheers
Fred

 

[luke strawwalker]

Luke I'm trying to understand your point but I don't believe you are calling the NAR code into question?
Cheers
Fred

Not particularly though perhaps some clarity and agreement between the different definitions of what is and isn't a "class 1 rocket", "HPR", "level one" etc is in order...

I've never thought that the different definitions and regulations made much sense... and seem to depend entirely on who's doing the defining...

I've been flamed before for pointing out that every single ground-accident I've personally observed or read about could have been avoided by the use of grounding shunts or safeties that open the circuit until the rocket is on the pad and ready for liftoff... apparently safety and good sense go right out the window because "there's no rules that say I have to do that, so you're just trying to start trouble, put a kink in my fun, etc..." This usually from the SAME type of people who'll scream to high heaven if you launch a rocket with 0.4 ounces too much propellant and is therefore classified "HPR"... Usually from the same sort of people who think it's a good idea to use shear pins on a dual-deploy HPR flying off a site surrounded by neighborhoods with a 2500 foot waiver... and then wonder when it goes wrong and crashes offsite into a neighborhood and does property damage what the big deal is... I find it even MORE amusing that the "solution" turns out to be implementing a bunch of kneejerk reaction rules that do little to enhance safety beyond "looking responsible" while not addressing the fundamental problem-- the site's unsuitability for large, complex rockets of that power level, especially when it was pointed out that the rules mirror those already in place after a previous incident of similar magnitude that WERE NOT BEING FOLLOWED ANYWAY WHEN THE SECOND INCIDENT OCCURED...

If you want to call not thinking the NAR codes sacrosanct in every respect where things don't make sense "calling them into question" so be it I suppose... Don't get me wrong, I'm not against rules, I'm just against rules that DON'T MAKE SENSE or are "rules for rule's sake"... "looking good without BEING good"...

Clear enough?? Not looking for a flame war or big discussion, just trying to clarify my point. I have the last word on stuff flying off my property here when the clubs are flying... sometimes I turn a 'blind eye' to things that aren't exactly per the 'rule book' so long as it's SAFE, and yeah, sometimes I pull the reins in on something that's "perfectly legal" under the rule book if I don't consider it safe... and if folks don't like that, they can always go somewhere else... I just don't want or need the types of situations I've mentioned previously around here... I want things safe without being a "negative Nellie"... LOL

Yall have a good one! OL JR

 

[powderburner]

I think he has some valid points about inconsistent "safety" rules, and people not following through with appropriate safety features. No, I am not a fan of making everything idiot-proof (they always seem able to come up with better idiots) but I agree we could do a better job in a lot of areas.

 

[Fred22]

Not particularly though perhaps some clarity and agreement between the different definitions of what is and isn't a "class 1 rocket", "HPR", "level one" etc is in order...

I've never thought that the different definitions and regulations made much sense... and seem to depend entirely on who's doing the defining...

I've been flamed before for pointing out that every single ground-accident I've personally observed or read about could have been avoided by the use of grounding shunts or safeties that open the circuit until the rocket is on the pad and ready for liftoff... apparently safety and good sense go right out the window because "there's no rules that say I have to do that, so you're just trying to start trouble, put a kink in my fun, etc..." This usually from the SAME type of people who'll scream to high heaven if you launch a rocket with 0.4 ounces too much propellant and is therefore classified "HPR"... Usually from the same sort of people who think it's a good idea to use shear pins on a dual-deploy HPR flying off a site surrounded by neighborhoods with a 2500 foot waiver... and then wonder when it goes wrong and crashes offsite into a neighborhood and does property damage what the big deal is... I find it even MORE amusing that the "solution" turns out to be implementing a bunch of kneejerk reaction rules that do little to enhance safety beyond "looking responsible" while not addressing the fundamental problem-- the site's unsuitability for large, complex rockets of that power level, especially when it was pointed out that the rules mirror those already in place after a previous incident of similar magnitude that WERE NOT BEING FOLLOWED ANYWAY WHEN THE SECOND INCIDENT OCCURED...

If you want to call not thinking the NAR codes sacrosanct in every respect where things don't make sense "calling them into question" so be it I suppose... Don't get me wrong, I'm not against rules, I'm just against rules that DON'T MAKE SENSE or are "rules for rule's sake"... "looking good without BEING good"...

Clear enough?? Not looking for a flame war or big discussion, just trying to clarify my point. I have the last word on stuff flying off my property here when the clubs are flying... sometimes I turn a 'blind eye' to things that aren't exactly per the 'rule book' so long as it's SAFE, and yeah, sometimes I pull the reins in on something that's "perfectly legal" under the rule book if I don't consider it safe... and if folks don't like that, they can always go somewhere else... I just don't want or need the types of situations I've mentioned previously around here... I want things safe without being a "negative Nellie"... LOL

Yall have a good one! OL JR

There is also always room for improvement I suppose but the NAR code if followed with a dash of common sense is a good way to operate. In as regards to folks lacking common sense I dunno how you can avoid that.
Cheers
Fred

 

[BlueCollar Rocketeer]

I'm building a 4x24 (4) "E" rocket and I notice the guidelines on the NAR website

Size: My model rocket will not weigh more than 1,500 grams (53 ounces) at liftoff and will not contain more than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of propellant or 320 N-sec (71.9 pound-seconds) of total impulse.

It looks like (4) "E" are just over the 4.4 coming in @ 4.8 but it looks like I can safely fly it on (4) D12's for a total weight of 3.52

Just wanted to check my numbers before launching this bad boy

I think you probably got more than you bargained for with this topic. Good luck with your flight and show a pic.

 

[bobkrech]

Yup, guidelines....
:wink:

I agree... capricious rules for rules sake make little sense...

I've seen a LOT of stupid stuff go on that, simply because there's NOT a specific rule about it, folks are perfectly content to do and in fact get HIGHLY agitated if you contradict their thinking or "try to rain on their parade", despite the obviousness of your argument...

Oh well... it's what I've come to expect...

Bigger fish to fry...

Later! OL JR

Gentlemen

It is a bit more than a NAR (or TRA) guideline, the 125 gram propellant limit for Class 1 model rocket operations is a federal regulation imposed by the FAA under
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space, PART 101—MOORED BALLOONS, KITES, AMATEUR ROCKETS AND UNMANNED FREE BALLOONS

A rocket weighing not more than 1500 grams and containing not more than 125 grams of propellant is a Class 1 rocket and does not require a FAA waiver.

A rocket weighing more than 1500 grams and/or containing more than 125 grams of propellant is at least a Class 2 rocket which requires a FAA waiver.

Class 1 rockets are model rockets under FAR 101 and is covered under the NAR safety codes for model rocket which is based on NFPA 1122.

Class 2 and 3 rockets are high power rockets under FAR 101 and are covered by the high power safety codes of both NAR and TRA which are based on NFPA 1127.

Both NAR and TRA require high power certification to launch a Class 2 rocket at NAR and TRA sanctioned launches, and both organizations' high power safety codes require compliance with federal regulations and NFPA 1127.

Bob

 

[luke strawwalker]

. No, I am not a fan of making everything idiot-proof (they always seem able to come up with better idiots).

I love it!!! +1 Later! OL JR

 

[AfterBurners]

I think you probably got more than you bargained for with this topic. Good luck with your flight and show a pic.

Yep I sure did. It's all good. I worked on the rocket last night. Should be ready for primer tonight or tomorrow. Color is going to be Gloss Black, Silver and Neon Pink. I need some kind of cool looking pattern...might do the Van Halen thing again or points? Not sure yet? It's for my GF also pink up a neon pink chute for the flight. I'll fly it on 4 D12's I want to get it back. 4 E9 would send it to about 2800 feet and with a 24" chute that would be a long walk.

 

[luke strawwalker]

Gentlemen

It is a bit more than a NAR (or TRA) guideline, the 125 gram propellant limit for Class 1 model rocket operations is a federal regulation imposed by the FAA under
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space, PART 101—MOORED BALLOONS, KITES, AMATEUR ROCKETS AND UNMANNED FREE BALLOONS

A rocket weighing not more than 1500 grams and containing not more than 125 grams of propellant is a Class 1 rocket and does not require a FAA waiver.

A rocket weighing more than 1500 grams and/or containing more than 125 grams of propellant is at least a Class 2 rocket which requires a FAA waiver.

Class 1 rockets are model rockets under FAR 101 and is covered under the NAR safety codes for model rocket which is based on NFPA 1122.

Class 2 and 3 rockets are high power rockets under FAR 101 and are covered by the high power safety codes of both NAR and TRA which are based on NFPA 1127.

Both NAR and TRA require high power certification to launch a Class 2 rocket at NAR and TRA sanctioned launches, and both organizations' high power safety codes require compliance with federal regulations and NFPA 1127.

Bob

Quick... call NASA and SpaceX... they've been launching without a HPR cert from the appropriate orgs...

I get it, I really do... but we're kidding ourselves if we don't think it happens... HPR wouldn't have never gotten started if all those guys hadn't been launching HPR "illegally" in the 70's and 80's...

The whole thing seems rather disingenuous to me, that's all I'm saying...

Do I think any village idiot should be able to go and fly an "M" motor (or even an "H" motor for that matter) any old time and place they feel like it?? No, but then again, from what I've seen, I question the competency of about half the folks toting around a cert card that says they can anyway... "perfectly legally" (which seems to be the only criterion that matters... "have you paid your NAR/TRA dues so you're carrying a current HPR cert?")

Meh... I told myself I wouldn't get drawn into this... but here I am soaked in gasoline with the torches and pitchfork crowd gathering 'round... Oh well... can't change what I've seen and how I feel and think about it...

Later! OL JR

 

[AfterBurners]

Not particularly though perhaps some clarity and agreement between the different definitions of what is and isn't a "class 1 rocket", "HPR", "level one" etc is in order...

I've never thought that the different definitions and regulations made much sense... and seem to depend entirely on who's doing the defining...

I've been flamed before for pointing out that every single ground-accident I've personally observed or read about could have been avoided by the use of grounding shunts or safeties that open the circuit until the rocket is on the pad and ready for liftoff... apparently safety and good sense go right out the window because "there's no rules that say I have to do that, so you're just trying to start trouble, put a kink in my fun, etc..." This usually from the SAME type of people who'll scream to high heaven if you launch a rocket with 0.4 ounces too much propellant and is therefore classified "HPR"... Usually from the same sort of people who think it's a good idea to use shear pins on a dual-deploy HPR flying off a site surrounded by neighborhoods with a 2500 foot waiver... and then wonder when it goes wrong and crashes offsite into a neighborhood and does property damage what the big deal is... I find it even MORE amusing that the "solution" turns out to be implementing a bunch of kneejerk reaction rules that do little to enhance safety beyond "looking responsible" while not addressing the fundamental problem-- the site's unsuitability for large, complex rockets of that power level, especially when it was pointed out that the rules mirror those already in place after a previous incident of similar magnitude that WERE NOT BEING FOLLOWED ANYWAY WHEN THE SECOND INCIDENT OCCURED...

If you want to call not thinking the NAR codes sacrosanct in every respect where things don't make sense "calling them into question" so be it I suppose... Don't get me wrong, I'm not against rules, I'm just against rules that DON'T MAKE SENSE or are "rules for rule's sake"... "looking good without BEING good"...

Clear enough?? Not looking for a flame war or big discussion, just trying to clarify my point. I have the last word on stuff flying off my property here when the clubs are flying... sometimes I turn a 'blind eye' to things that aren't exactly per the 'rule book' so long as it's SAFE, and yeah, sometimes I pull the reins in on something that's "perfectly legal" under the rule book if I don't consider it safe... and if folks don't like that, they can always go somewhere else... I just don't want or need the types of situations I've mentioned previously around here... I want things safe without being a "negative Nellie"... LOL

Yall have a good one! OL JR

I have to agree with you JR on the 0.4 oz will it really make much difference? The rockets mass is half is what is suggested for HPR... the propellent is over by 0.4 oz. I would love to launch it on the (4) E's, but obviously can't because of this.

 

[AfterBurners]

Quick... call NASA and SpaceX... they've been launching without a HPR cert from the appropriate orgs...

I get it, I really do... but we're kidding ourselves if we don't think it happens... HPR wouldn't have never gotten started if all those guys hadn't been launching HPR "illegally" in the 70's and 80's...

The whole thing seems rather disingenuous to me, that's all I'm saying...

Do I think any village idiot should be able to go and fly an "M" motor (or even an "H" motor for that matter) any old time and place they feel like it?? No, but then again, from what I've seen, I question the competency of about half the folks toting around a cert card that says they can anyway... "perfectly legally" (which seems to be the only criterion that matters... "have you paid your NAR/TRA dues so you're carrying a current HPR cert?")

Meh... I told myself I wouldn't get drawn into this... but here I am soaked in gasoline with the torches and pitchfork crowd gathering 'round... Oh well... can't change what I've seen and how I feel and think about it...

Later! OL JR

I'm not Level 1 certified yet, but just because you have a card does it actually give you that right? I thought you can only launch HPR's at a club event where they have the clearance for it?

 

[luke strawwalker]

Yep I sure did. It's all good. I worked on the rocket last night. Should be ready for primer tonight or tomorrow. Color is going to be Gloss Black, Silver and Neon Pink. I need some kind of cool looking pattern...might do the Van Halen thing again or points? Not sure yet? It's for my GF also pink up a neon pink chute for the flight. I'll fly it on 4 D12's I want to get it back. 4 E9 would send it to about 2800 feet and with a 24" chute that would be a long walk.

Sounds like a neat project...

Actually the 2 D12/2 E9 in opposing crossed pairs sounds like the best way to do this for max altitude and still be "legal"... the E9 isn't known for its high 'off the pad' abilities for large/heavy rockets (like clusters). The D12 would probably get your cluster up and moving faster, leading to a more vertical ascent than you'd get with all E9's straight off the pad... four D12's will really kick it in the pants and get it upstairs pretty quick (which is probably too much of a good thing, because as speed doubles drag quadruples (drag squares with velocity). Having a pair of D12's to give it a little extra punch off the pad, while still having a pair of the longer burning E9's (which gives the rocket more time to accelerate under powered flight, thus achieving a higher altitude) would probably be the best of both worlds...

Of course, like you said, once you get it up out of sight or nearly so, recovery becomes a big challenge, so a lot of it depends on your field and flying conditions anyway... the higher the wind and smaller the site, really the more constrained you are in altitude and still have a reasonable recovery distance and probability of seeing it and finding it on the ground after it lands...

Besides, clusters of E's gets REAL expensive really quick... and D's aren't that much cheaper actually... depending on where you're getting them and what you're paying, just the motors for a single flight will run in the $20-30 range (just off the cuff). One could get a lot better altitude and a lot more impulse from one single use composite F or G motor that's safely within the safety code "legal" guidelines for the same if not less money... if sheer altitude and speed were the main goals (but then it wouldn't be a big old fashioned smoky 24mm BP cluster, would it?? )

Good luck and post pics! OL JR

 

[mkadams001]

Straight from the NAR website....The NAR Safety Codes are made up of about a dozen simple, common-sense rules and guidelines..."

I like George's suggestion of D's and E's combo, that would be a nice flight if everything lights.

 

[luke strawwalker]

I'm not Level 1 certified yet, but just because you have a card does it actually give you that right? I thought you can only launch HPR's at a club event where they have the clearance for it?

Correct... HPR requires the FAA waiver and all that rigamarole... (at least the last I heard). I get it... that wasn't my point...

Later! OL JR

 

[AfterBurners]

Sounds like a neat project...

Actually the 2 D12/2 E9 in opposing crossed pairs sounds like the best way to do this for max altitude and still be "legal"... the E9 isn't known for its high 'off the pad' abilities for large/heavy rockets (like clusters). The D12 would probably get your cluster up and moving faster, leading to a more vertical ascent than you'd get with all E9's straight off the pad... four D12's will really kick it in the pants and get it upstairs pretty quick (which is probably too much of a good thing, because as speed doubles drag quadruples (drag squares with velocity). Having a pair of D12's to give it a little extra punch off the pad, while still having a pair of the longer burning E9's (which gives the rocket more time to accelerate under powered flight, thus achieving a higher altitude) would probably be the best of both worlds...

Of course, like you said, once you get it up out of sight or nearly so, recovery becomes a big challenge, so a lot of it depends on your field and flying conditions anyway... the higher the wind and smaller the site, really the more constrained you are in altitude and still have a reasonable recovery distance and probability of seeing it and finding it on the ground after it lands...

Besides, clusters of E's gets REAL expensive really quick... and D's aren't that much cheaper actually... depending on where you're getting them and what you're paying, just the motors for a single flight will run in the $20-30 range (just off the cuff). One could get a lot better altitude and a lot more impulse from one single use composite F or G motor that's safely within the safety code "legal" guidelines for the same if not less money... if sheer altitude and speed were the main goals (but then it wouldn't be a big old fashioned smoky 24mm BP cluster, would it?? )

Good luck and post pics! OL JR

You are right on all counts of what you stated above. I just wanted to build a cluster. I had one before that was a 3x24 and it crashed and burned. Chute failure so I had some extra rings and BT's laying around so I made the decision to build a 4x24 to replace it. The only other clusters I have are a 2x18 BT-60 and a 3x18 BT-60. My future builds will be single 24 and 29mm rockets and yes I agree you can get more performance from a composite for less money in most cases. Just nice to have that variety in the fleet to chose from. It does look cool when all the engines light that's for sure.

 

[luke strawwalker]

You are right on all counts of what you stated above. I just wanted to build a cluster. I had one before that was a 3x24 and it crashed and burned. Chute failure so I had some extra rings and BT's laying around so I made the decision to build a 4x24 to replace it. The only other clusters I have are a 2x18 BT-60 and a 3x18 BT-60. My future builds will be single 24 and 29mm rockets and yes I agree you can get more performance from a composite for less money in most cases. Just nice to have that variety in the fleet to chose from. It does look cool when all the engines light that's for sure.

Cool... OL JR

 

[DAllen]

Cool... OL JR

Luke,

You have to be the most negative and bitter person toward HPR I have ever encountered anywhere - and that's saying a lot.

To the original poster...fly with a club if you can. I bet there are other people that would like to see that flight - I know I would. BP clusters are fun.

 

[AfterBurners]

Yeah I just renewed my NAR membership for the $62. I need to spend more time on their website. There's a lot of cool events going on? I wonder if I take the rocket to one of the events and supply the motors if someone else can launch that is Level 1? Not sure if they will let me do it? Not sure what the rules are on that??

 

[Bazookadale]

Do I want to throw this into the mix? You could fly it on 4 composite E15s - but OMG don't use copperheads!

 

[AfterBurners]

Do I want to throw this into the mix? You could fly it on 4 composite E15s - but OMG don't use copperheads!

LOL does tease me

 

[luke strawwalker]

Luke,

You have to be the most negative and bitter person toward HPR I have ever encountered anywhere - and that's saying a lot.

To the original poster...fly with a club if you can. I bet there are other people that would like to see that flight - I know I would. BP clusters are fun.

Not bitter, just seen enough not to want it anywhere near anything *I* have responsibility or liability for... that's all... and THAT's saying a lot... I've seen most of it firsthand... if that makes me "negative", oh well... I haven't been a farmer all my life and still have ten fingers and ten toes by being careless and reckless like some of the things I've seen WRT HPR...

YMMV... as for me, I've seen what I've seen, and that's my conclusions... Folks are free to have a different opinion, but not on MY property!
Later! OL JR

 

[RadManCF]

There is also always room for improvement I suppose but the NAR code if followed with a dash of common sense is a good way to operate. In as regards to folks lacking common sense I dunno how you can avoid that.
Cheers
Fred

I hink its worth comparing the NAR safety code to the Tripoli safety code. Tripoli's is much more detailed. NAR's is rather vague, and seems to assume that everyone launches on thier own. IMO, there should be a safety code for range operations. With regards to the armin/disarming of ejection charges, it is interesting to note that the L3 cert procedures require this, but the high power safety code does not. This should be a requirement, IMO. Overall, I would say that the NAR codes underestimate the importance of what happens on the ground.
I'd be curious to see RRS's safety code, also, to see how they deal with safety.

 

[Nerull]

Not bitter, just seen enough not to want it anywhere near anything *I* have responsibility or liability for... that's all... and THAT's saying a lot... I've seen most of it firsthand... if that makes me "negative", oh well... I haven't been a farmer all my life and still have ten fingers and ten toes by being careless and reckless like some of the things I've seen WRT HPR...

YMMV... as for me, I've seen what I've seen, and that's my conclusions... Folks are free to have a different opinion, but not on MY property!
Later! OL JR

You seem to have gotten there by being angry and vicious and attacking everyone around you at every opportunity. I'm not sure why anyone - LPR or HPR - would want to come to your property?