Sparky Motors

[GrossApproximator]

I don't a few of the motor manufacturers, but I'm no expert. What is the smallest sparky motor (or whatever the other brands call it)?

 

[ghrocketman]

The smallest sparky is probably the new 29mm single-use Aerotech Metalstorm G75M

 

[Jeroen_at_CTI]

The smallest sparky is probably the new 29mm single-use Aerotech Metalstorm G75M

The Pro29-2G G80 is smaller than the G75M. The G80 total impulse is 93Ns v.s. 120Ns for the G75M.
Jeroen

 

[DanFrank]

I have some 60NS F30FS Jerry's specials motors, but they aren't NAR Cert. so they might not count. He also made some G45FS-8 motors which worked very well. Ahh... Politics....

 

[JDcluster]

They also require Level 1 or higher certification......
You can thank the NAR & the NFPA for that one....:gavel:



JD

 

[ScrapDaddy]

I have some 60NS F30FS Jerry's specials motors, but they aren't NAR Cert. so they might not count. He also made some G45FS-8 motors which worked very well. Ahh... Politics....

Wait do you mean Jerry from US Rockets?

 

[DanFrank]

Yes.

 

[JDcluster]

Yes, the G45's were nice! Then again, US Rockets never made motors either according to Jerry's court filings......




JD

I have some 60NS F30FS Jerry's specials motors, but they aren't NAR Cert. so they might not count. He also made some G45FS-8 motors which worked very well. Ahh... Politics....

 

[MarkII]

They also require Level 1 or higher certification......
You can thank the NAR & the NFPA for that one....:gavel:



JD

I'm not so sure that NAR played any role in that revision (which, AFAIK, hasn't been officially adopted yet). The committee that developed the proposed revisions was comprised of industry reps. (including AT and CTI) and other people involved in rocketry. If NAR was indeed represented on the committee, then so was TRA. To imply that the recommendation to classify all sparky motors as HP was the result of some backroom collaboration between just NAR and the NFPA seriously distorts the facts, I think.

Mark K.

 

[RoyAtl]

I'm not so sure that NAR played any role in that revision (which, AFAIK, hasn't been officially adopted yet). The committee that developed the proposed revisions was comprised of industry reps. (including AT and CTI) and other people involved in rocketry. If NAR was indeed represented on the committee, then so was TRA. To imply that the recommendation to classify all sparky motors as HP was the result of some backroom collaboration between just NAR and the NFPA seriously distorts the facts, I think.

Mark K.

the committee has both industry and consumer org reps, so yes, the manufacturers as well as both NAR and TRA are represented.

 

[MarkII]

the committee has both industry and consumer org reps, so yes, the manufacturers as well as both NAR and TRA are represented.

Yes, that's what I thought, but I didn't want to say it definitely because I wasn't sure. So it wasn't just NAR representing the consumers; TRA was there, too.

Mark K.

 

[billspad]

One of the manufacturers wanted his sparky motors to be high power motors. In fact he's labeled all his reloads as high power motors.

 

[terryg]

The choices were no F or G class sparky motors at all or classifying them as high power so as to restrict their use to qualified (hopefully!) individuals. As a side effect, since these are now high power motors, it would make sense to allow their use for L1 certification purposes. This would also have the effect of increasing the number of certified fliers.

 

[MarkII]

The choices were no F or G class sparky motors at all or classifying them as high power so as to restrict their use to qualified (hopefully!) individuals. As a side effect, since these are now high power motors, it would make sense to allow their use for L1 certification purposes. This would also have the effect of increasing the number of certified fliers.

I just knew that there had to be an upside.

Mark K.

 

[cjl]

The choices were no F or G class sparky motors at all or classifying them as high power so as to restrict their use to qualified (hopefully!) individuals. As a side effect, since these are now high power motors, it would make sense to allow their use for L1 certification purposes. This would also have the effect of increasing the number of certified fliers.

Nope. There have been L1 motors in the <H class for some time (E.G. G104, G33, G75, etc), and you can't use them for certification flights. You need a cert to use them, but you must use at least an H motor for the certification itself.

 

[JDcluster]

Those were also because of the ATFE restrictions at the time. Now that you don't need a Explosives permit anymore to buy the G 33's, is it still considered a HP motor? I believe the G 75 tested as a very low H at one point & could be used as a Lv 1 certs for a short time?


JD

Nope. There have been L1 motors in the <H class for some time (E.G. G104, G33, G75, etc), and you can't use them for certification flights. You need a cert to use them, but you must use at least an H motor for the certification itself.

 

[n3tjm]

It is considered a HP motor currently because its over 62.5 grams of propellant. However, it should become a modroc motor when the weight limit goes up in 2011

 

[DanFrank]

It is considered a HP motor currently because its over 62.5 grams of propellant. However, it should become a modroc motor when the weight limit goes up in 2011

Hi, Can you elaborate on the new weight limits for 2011? This is news to me.
Thanks, Daniel

 

[TheAviator]

A few of the limitations were changed. Nothing that really affects the average hobbyist except that the ModRoc motor propellant weight limit was raised to 125g and all motors that produce sparks for visual effect will require high power certification to fly no matter the impulse class. This change will NOT take effect until it is voted on by the NFPA. From what I understand, it is likely to pass, and will take effect some time in 2011.

 

[shreadvector]

A few of the limitations were changed. Nothing that really affects the average hobbyist except that the ModRoc motor propellant weight limit was raised to 125g and all motors that produce sparks for visual effect will require high power certification to fly no matter the impulse class. This change will NOT take effect until it is voted on by the NFPA. From what I understand, it is likely to pass, and will take effect some time in 2011.

And in advance of that officially passing, some manufacturers (ore is that "1"), have wisely decided to use the new designation ("HP" prefix) for G sparky motors to halp the average consumer understand exactly what they are purchasing (or seeking to purchase, since they should be certified to Level 1 to buy them - perhaps this is also a tool to educate the motor reseller/retailer?).

 

[ghrocketman]

I would just as soon see ZERO regulation of sparky motors over and above the class they are in, but then again I am for total deregulation of ALL rocketry activities as a whole also other than in relation to FAA ALTITUDE LIMITS ONLY without a waiver.
I see most regulations in this hobby as LITTLE MORE than NUISANCE red-tape impediments to a hobby with a STELLAR safety record.

 

[n3tjm]

I would just as soon see ZERO regulation of sparky motors over and above the class they are in, but then again I am for total deregulation of ALL rocketry activities as a whole also other than in relation to FAA ALTITUDE LIMITS ONLY without a waiver.
I see most regulations in this hobby as LITTLE MORE than NUISANCE red-tape impediments to a hobby with a STELLAR safety record

so you want to see a kid buy a E sparky motor, take it to a park on a dry windy day, start a huge fire which spreads into a nearby housing developing, resulting in the government imposing more or total regulation of the hobby. The government is allowing nar/tra to self regulate the hobby to a degree, having to be hpr certified is the best way to limit the use of these motors to ppl who should know what they are doing. Its better than NAR and TRA not certifying any Sparky motor.

Getting a level 1 is not hard, and many cases, is cheaper than flying a rocket with a G motor (you can get an H128 for less than a disposable G motor).

This is not the first time a motor smaller than an H required a user to be level 1!

Examples: AT F101, G125

 

[cjl]

I would just as soon see ZERO regulation of sparky motors over and above the class they are in, but then again I am for total deregulation of ALL rocketry activities as a whole also other than in relation to FAA ALTITUDE LIMITS ONLY without a waiver.
I see most regulations in this hobby as LITTLE MORE than NUISANCE red-tape impediments to a hobby with a STELLAR safety record.

Sparky motors are capable of setting fires much more than regular motors, and part of the reason for the hobby's safety record is BECAUSE of the self regulation. If you consider an L1 cert as difficult, then you probably shouldn't be flying motors in the H+ impulse class anyways.

 

[shreadvector]

 

[ScrapDaddy]

This is not the first time a motor smaller than an H required a user to be level 1!

Examples: AT F101, G125

well those may be a bad example because they are simply motors with an average thrust of more than 80N.

 

[cjl]

well those may be a bad example because they are simply motors with an average thrust of more than 80N.

So? That's one of the criteria.

 

[ScrapDaddy]

So? That's one of the criteria.

I just think it's a bad example


To think of it I think those are the only examples, Man aerotech just skimmed under that radar with their G80T 62.5 grams of propellent and a 77.6N average thrust give or take 2.1N....

 

[shreadvector]

I just think it's a bad example

A bad example of WHAT?

The example is of something that is less than H total impulse, yet exceeds some definition of what is a legal Model Rocket Motor.

Any of the many defining limits can be exceeded. Only one needs to be exceeded to no longer be a Model Rocket Motor and now be a High Power Rocket Motor.

It can be total impulse.

It can be average thrust.

It can be burning particle size.

It can be propellant weight.

 

[cjl]

I just think it's a bad example


To think of it I think those are the only examples, Man aerotech just skimmed under that radar with their G80T 62.5 grams of propellent and a 77.6N average thrust give or take 2.1N....

The examples, as far as I know, are:

AT:
F101T
G125T
G75J
G33J
G104T
G339N

CTI:
F120 Vmax
G250 Vmax
G126 WT
G88 SS
G118 BS
G106 SK
G125 RL
G131 SS
G54 RL
G83 BS
G50 Imax
G60 RL
G69 SK
G78 BS
G79 BS
G115 WT
G185 Vmax

Note that several of these are only in violation of the propellant weight restriction, which may change soon. Many are in violation of the thrust as well though.

Also, as far as "just skimming under the radar" goes, that's the whole point of the G80. It was designed to specifically be the maximum possible motor without exceeding any of the limits.

 

[ScrapDaddy]

A bad example of WHAT?

The example is of something that is less than H total impulse, yet exceeds some definition of what is a legal Model Rocket Motor.

Any of the many defining limits can be exceeded. Only one needs to be exceeded to no longer be a Model Rocket Motor and now be a High Power Rocket Motor.

It can be total impulse.

It can be average thrust.

It can be burning particle size.

It can be propellant weight.

burning particle size?