Model Forum / General / Rockets / April 2005

I will add that until I actually make a successful flight of my rocket, I
can talk all I like but I'm not L1 certed, 'Flier X' who used a saucer to
cert is and can fly H and I motors all they like!

Like I say though, getting over all that could go wrong (or at least cause
me hassles) will, for me make it more satisfying when I do certify
successfully. If it takes a couple of tries for whatever reason, never mind
(I really hope it doesn't, I'm trying hard to think of non-destructive
failure modes here!).

I'm sure this argument has been had out on here before, but I can see where
people who think saucers shouldn't be allowed for cert flights are coming
from. There are arguments either way, but if the flier is unknown to the
RSO, flying a saucer, IMHO, does not demonstrate the same level of
competence as flying a 'traditional' rocket (i.e. one with fins and a
parachute/streamer).  As I see it, its a bit like the difference between
taking your driving test in a manual or automatic car - if you can drive a
manual you can drive any car, with an auto-only license you've not
demonstrated competence at what is a fundamental part of driving a manaul
car.

Its not to say that the flier is (neccessarily) any less competent, but if
the RSO only has the cert flight to go on (lets say the flier has travelled
from a different part of the country, or is even making their first rocket
flight, or they've only flown saucers...all hypotheticals I know), how are
they to know if the flier can successfully pack a 'chute or determine the
stability of his/her rocket.

Flame away, just my thoughts. Saucers are cool, and they do satisfy the
requirement for a recovery as intended, but I'm not sure that flying a
saucer is a good test of competence for an HPR flier. Perhaps a saucer with
a 'chute, I don't know.

FWIW I have no issue with saucers (and their ilk) in general, I've seen some
very cool flights made with them.

*dons nomex underwear, hopes for intelligent and reasoned responses!*

Stop judging either.

The variety of methods to achieve a stated goal is the spice of life.

Now if only the goal was reduced in stature to a merit badge, 90%+ more
of the population would qualify for access.

wow. I didn't mean to start an argument, nor did I mean to imply anything
about the methods people use for certifying L1. To each their own. For me
it's all about the "quality of experience".

I could launch any number of kit rockets, with a variety of APCP motors, and
certify. For me, not exciting enough. I've built lots of kits, I've launched
tons of rockets with engine-based time delays. A bigger engine? Ok. More
epoxy. Still essentially same-o, same-o. My goal with this project is to
build and launch a L1 rocket, incorporating as many of the requirements for
a L3 bird as is appropriate. Partly because of the complexity, partly
because of the quality of technique demanded (i.e. external disarm of pyro
charges). Partly because I believe that if something is worth doing, it's
worth overdoing.

My L1 launch will be a "peak experience", and I want it to be one to
remember (hopefully in a good way, eh?) The complexity and personal
involvement will leave me progressively more "keyed -up" until the moment of
launch. If I fail, that's cool. I promise you I will have learned a great
deal that will be incorporated in the next attempt.

I'll admit to a hidden agenda of challenging the local NAR section to grow a
bit.... I am the only member shooting hybrids, for example. Only one other
member scratch-builds most of their birds. Kits are fine, APCP is fine. Just
not enough psychological "oomph" for me.

Of course, I'm warped.

Kevin OClassen
NAR 13578