The response is essentially that you do not fly vmax without electronic deployment. There is no fix forthcoming.
AFAIK that is Tripoli and possibly NAR's response, not CTI's.
With the ever-increasing fees of maintaining our vibrant community (servers, software, domains, email), we need help.
We need more Supporting Members today.
Please invest back into this community to help spread our love and knowledge of multi-channel sound.
This is your chance to make a difference. Become a Supporting Member today:
Upgrade NowThe response is essentially that you do not fly vmax without electronic deployment. There is no fix forthcoming.
Why not just add an altimeter?
Cos the nose cone with the altimeter in it for that rocket just buried itself in the weeds at Bong
Joking or is he actually a Bong flyer? Remember- if you can fly rockets at Bong you can fly rockets anywhere.
I was referring to myself. I can't speak to other fliers
Vmax has been very popular with many members of my club who just want to fly it in a simple rocket with motor ejection. And they did so successfully for years -- it seems like something changed, perhaps. CTI had the only fast propellant that had a delay, and I think that brought them extra market share they wouldn't have had otherwise. Once they've recovered from the fire, perhaps they'll look into this.I do believe that this issue is going to just exist- it is the nature of very rapidly burning propellant to extinguish a delay grain
Why not just add an altimeter?
Well, that is true. Still, there has been no info from CTI since then- granted the fire occurred and as such would have made this a minor point.
I do believe that this issue is going to just exist- it is the nature of very rapidly burning propellant to extinguish a delay grain
Why not just add an altimeter?
Is this just supposition on your part, or do you have some evidence that CTI was never told?i think the issue is that CTI was never directly told about the issue.
i think the issue is that CTI was never directly told about the issue.
I was told that no-one officially approached CTI requesting that they "fix" anything. It was also suggested that there may be an easy "fix", which was to simply offset the top grain slightly, and that the impact on the performance would be negligible. This discussion was unofficial.
Yes, they were.
Jim
i think the issue is that CTI was never directly told about the issue. How this could happen to a motor type and no one picks up the phone and talks officially is just amazingly unprofessional. Oh right... they're volunteers. What craziness am I thinking.
full disclosure.... I'm a Loki fanboy who sold all his CTI gear to buy EX hardware. So... no dog in this fight, but still shocked.
I do not know if it was communicated formally or otherwise to CTI, but I can try to find out. Please understand that I have been involved with TMT for all of a couple of months so what has or has not been done before that time is difficult to ascertain.
I'm assuming that entries into motorcato get provided to the vendors, right? I never personally had this issue, but I told CZTeacherman to report it when it happened to his rocket (in post 57 ), even if there was no damage.
i think the issue is that CTI was never directly told about the issue. How this could happen to a motor type and no one picks up the phone and talks officially is just amazingly unprofessional. Oh right... they're volunteers. What craziness am I thinking.
full disclosure.... I'm a Loki fanboy who sold all his CTI gear to buy EX hardware. So... no dog in this fight, but still shocked.
Like Mark, I don't know what notifications were done on this particular issue, but other actions I've seen include a letter sent to the contact chosen by the manufacturer via email and copied to a group that includes NAR S&T, CAR MCC, and TMT. All official letters such as that are signed by the head of the respective testing organization, so for a Tripoli action it would have been the TMT chair. Because this was a joint action taken by NAR S&T and TMT, the letter to the members was signed by both organizations' representatives. The letter sent to the manufacturer was probably also signed by both sets of chairs.
I think it's pretty likely that with all the other post-fire production problems at CTI, this isn't high on their priority list to look at.I re-opened this thread hoping to see that Cesaroni came back with "Yup- we found the problem, fixed motors will be available at your local dealer soon".
My issue with an immediate cut off and notice to members before talking with CTI is that this wasn't a problem that just popped up. It was going on for awhile, and eventually it was decided enough was enough. It was a gradual decision.
Im not trying to be mean or finger pointing here. Just a critical opinion, and I think it's valid. I understand it takes a lot of work to do things like this. If a letter was sent to a contact at CTI, hey that's notice.
I was TMT for a few years. I never received a single motor failure report.
I would tell people to fill it out, even hand them the form, didn't happen.
M
Well, actually no; you made baseless allegations that didn't reflect what actually transpired.
I've checked. I'm comfortable with what I've been told was done and that's all I'm going to say on the matter.
Steve Shannon
David, just for the record here is the release put forth by Steve Lubliner, NAR S&T Chair, and former TRA TMT Chair Paul Holmes on 6-2-16. For the record, I think you are trying to be combative and negative, and are once again doing an excellent job of it.
To our members:
The National Association of Rocketry’s Standards & Testing and Tripoli Rocketry Association’s Tripoli Motor Testing Chairmen are hereby enacting temporary Safety restriction for all Cesaroni Technology, Inc. VMAX reload motors equipped with delay charges.
We have both seen a growing number of VMAX flights using delay only recovery coming in ballistic at our flying fields, due to delay snuffing. It is believed that delay snuffing is likely a result of any extremely high burn rate motor completing its burn with a significant drop in pressure and/or temperature, breaking the burn ‘chain’, extinguishing or ‘snuffing’ the delay slug.
In light of the unpredictable VMAX delay performance and the resulting significant safety issues, we will now require all VMAX motor flights flown at NAR and Tripoli launch sites to have at least one electronic system installed for primary recovery. These electronics need to be able to handle the short G period of these motors to insure “Flight in progress” triggers. The safety restriction will be lifted when the manufacturer has provided documentation to the three motor certification committee chairman which includes the root cause analysis, the corresponding design changes undertaken by the manufacture to address the issue, and implements the necessary changes.
Any questions about this restriction may be sent to your respective organization’s motor test chair
Regards,
Steve Lubliner
NAR Safety Committee Chairman
Paul Holmes
Tripoli Motor Testing Chairman
Enter your email address to join: