Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Rockets / December 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Alpha Hybrids

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Rich - 15 Dec 2006 11:40 GMT
Can anyone tell me about the current status of the Alpha Hybrids ? I
have tried their website a few times but can't seem to open some
sections . I do know that they have a pre-filled tank very much
like the ole AT hybrids and that they will have an I , J , and a K .

              Richard Willey

               Tripoli Cherryfield Maine
Phil Stein - 15 Dec 2006 15:07 GMT
>Can anyone tell me about the current status of the Alpha Hybrids

Have you tried Alpha Hybrids - same owners as Contrail.
Matt - 15 Dec 2006 15:58 GMT
>> Can anyone tell me about the current status of the Alpha Hybrids
>
> Have you tried Alpha Hybrids - same owners as Contrail.

I believe you are thinking of Trojan Hybrids, Phil.

Edward from Alpha posted some stuff on TRF recently.

http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?s=7c2cde9a33d6acd591caa6735c2ecc01&t
hreadid=31537

Chuck Rudy - 16 Dec 2006 17:39 GMT
>>> Can anyone tell me about the current status of the Alpha Hybrids
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?s=7c2cde9a33d6acd591caa6735c2ecc01&t
hreadid=31537
 

It appears he's just waiting (agonizingly so) for a test session from a
certain motor testing group.........and waiting.......and waiting.

Chuck
Contrail Rockets - 16 Dec 2006 21:00 GMT
According to that certain motor testing group, he still has yet to
resubmit his motors for certification...  The ball is in his court it
sounds?!
Tom

> >>> Can anyone tell me about the current status of the Alpha Hybrids
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Chuck
Doug Sams - 16 Dec 2006 21:08 GMT
> According to that certain motor testing group, he still has yet to
> resubmit his motors for certification...  The ball is in his court it
> sounds?!
> Tom

What's their excuse for the Sky Ripper 54's?

</rhetoric>

Doug
Phil Stein - 17 Dec 2006 01:31 GMT
>> According to that certain motor testing group, he still has yet to
>> resubmit his motors for certification...  The ball is in his court it
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Doug

That motor testing group said the same about those.  - I'm not taking
any sides here - just passing on that was said.

Phil
jsdemar - 17 Dec 2006 19:09 GMT
TMT is slowly becoming the next "Bruce Kelly" problem for TRA.

 The difference is that the membership could see the direct affect of
not
getting a magazine.  Bruce could blame lack of submissions, problems
with the printing house, "lost in the mail", and whining ungrateful
members.
TMT can only blame the motor manufacturers, albeit in a selective
manner.
The full story is a disservice to the TRA membership.

 -John D.

> >> According to that certain motor testing group, he still has yet to
> >> resubmit his motors for certification...  The ball is in his court it
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Phil
Chuck Rudy - 18 Dec 2006 00:07 GMT
>     TMT is slowly becoming the next "Bruce Kelly" problem for TRA.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>   -John D.

John

You hit the nail on the head. "the sun's in my eyes, my gloves too big,
my shoelaces were untied"  Oh and BTW I moved, didn't I tell you?

Simply amazing.

It's time to nip it in the bud.

Chuck
Phil Stein - 18 Dec 2006 13:51 GMT
>>     TMT is slowly becoming the next "Bruce Kelly" problem for TRA.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>Chuck

Chuck,

Do you have specific information?  If so, let's try to get this fixed.

Phil
Phil Stein - 18 Dec 2006 13:49 GMT
If this is the case, I'd like to see specific information made public
so that we can attempt to have the problem corrected before it gets to
the Bruce Kelly stage.

I have noticed that there are a few manufacturers that never seem to
have a problem having their motors tested.

Phil

>    TMT is slowly becoming the next "Bruce Kelly" problem for TRA.
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>>
>> Phil
Darrell D. Mobley - 18 Dec 2006 16:07 GMT
> If this is the case, I'd like to see specific information made public
> so that we can attempt to have the problem corrected before it gets to
> the Bruce Kelly stage.

According to Edward, he changed the way the tanks were filled and
attached to the forward closure, and requested that TMT return his
hardware, desiring to have the new and current configuration tested.  It
took TMT 5-1/2 months to get the hardware back to him.  In the interim,
Edward gave up and submitted the hardware to NAR S&T.  The initial
testing at NAR S&T was performed on 12/16.

> I have noticed that there are a few manufacturers that never seem to
> have a problem having their motors tested.

This has been an ongoing complaint for some time.

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Contrail Rockets - 19 Dec 2006 02:53 GMT
It sure sounds to me like it was more of a "problem" rather than a "I
changed my mind after submitting them to TMT".

Tom

> > If this is the case, I'd like to see specific information made public
> > so that we can attempt to have the problem corrected before it gets to
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> http://www.rocketryplanet.com
edwardcw@gmail.com - 19 Dec 2006 03:48 GMT
Tom,

Wow, wanting to slander my motors? Can you back this up, this
'problem'.  I'll lay it out.  Before the tank was permanently connected
to the motor and only allowed one tank to be prefilled for flight.  I
changed the connectors between the tank and forward closure to let
users fill more than one tank at a time at home.  This was a design
change that happened after I sent them to TMT after I found a couple of
new parts.

Now, I don't peruse RMR often, mainly because of the lowlife scum like
Tom that likes to cause trouble.

I'd be happy to hear what you think the problem was Tom.

Edward

> It sure sounds to me like it was more of a "problem" rather than a "I
> changed my mind after submitting them to TMT".
>
> Tom
Darrell D. Mobley - 19 Dec 2006 05:41 GMT
> I'll lay it out.  Before the tank was permanently connected
> to the motor and only allowed one tank to be prefilled for flight.  I
> changed the connectors between the tank and forward closure to let
> users fill more than one tank at a time at home.  This was a design
> change that happened after I sent them to TMT after I found a couple of
> new parts.

Wow, with "problems" like that, I can't wait until you start adding
"features"!

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Contrail Rockets - 19 Dec 2006 06:41 GMT
Ed,
How on earth am I slandering your motors?
What I said was "It sounded more like a "problem" with the motors as
reported by Paul Holmes on the TRA Forum.  I would not consider
shipping constraints, delays, or issues what so ever to be considered
or called a "problem" when asked why both SRS and Alpha Hybrids had
been delayed...  Todd has mentioned in public forums that there was in
fact a "problem" which if I remember correctly some plastic flashing on
the grains which he has since taken care of.

Last time I talked to him he even had some good news on the status of
his motors.

Now you say that your "problem" was the motors not being shipped back
to you, and I simply asked why it was labeled a problem.  Couldn't
words such as Delay, Holdup or postponement have been used rather than
problem.  I live with a English Major so don't shoot me for asking the
question.

I have no way of backing up any problems and have no way of knowing
what problems your motors have.  I have never seen your motors in
person, only the pictures you have posted online.
Tom

> Tom,
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> >
> > Tom
J - 19 Dec 2006 12:43 GMT
How about explaining to the masses how your motors get certed right away and
others wait for months on end?

Whats wrong with this picture??

> Ed,
> How on earth am I slandering your motors?
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
>> >
>> > Tom
Scott Harrison - 25 Dec 2006 06:28 GMT
It's not what ya know it's who ya blow!!!

right Tom???

Also try having some tack as far as keeping your yip shut about anything you
hear about other manufactures test results! Haven't you freakin figured it
out yet! .. If TMT is telling you anything about of manufactures test
results, alleged problems thats very poor taste on there part.

" I don't have time to look it up" more BS on your part, man your a freakin
idiot..

Go away you annoying puke!

> How about explaining to the masses how your motors get certed right away
> and others wait for months on end?
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>>> >
>>> > Tom
Chuck Rudy - 19 Dec 2006 21:08 GMT
> Ed,
 Todd has mentioned in public forums that there was in
> fact a "problem" which if I remember correctly some plastic flashing on
> the grains which he has since taken care of.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> , only the pictures you have posted online.
> Tom

Todd won't say in public what the real 'issue' was.  Holmes half
admitted it, but then shut his piehole.  Todd should examine avenues
regarding loss of revenue due to the bungling.

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 19 Dec 2006 21:54 GMT
> Ed,
 Todd has mentioned in public forums that there was in
> fact a "problem" which if I remember correctly some plastic flashing on
> the grains which he has since taken care of.

> Tom

Interesting.

Chuck
jsdemar - 19 Dec 2006 23:18 GMT
> ...  Todd has mentioned in public forums that there was in
> fact a "problem" which if I remember correctly some plastic flashing on
> the grains which he has since taken care of.

  Can you show me a message in a public forum that has that
information?

  -John D.
Contrail Rockets - 20 Dec 2006 02:50 GMT
I don't have the time to look it up.
Tom

> > ...  Todd has mentioned in public forums that there was in
> > fact a "problem" which if I remember correctly some plastic flashing on
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>    -John D.
jsdemar - 20 Dec 2006 05:21 GMT
> I don't have the time to look it up.

  But you have time to visit all the rocketry forums and make
unsubstantiated statements in an attempt to discredit your competitors?

  Wouldn't you be more credible if you first "looked it up", then made
the statement with a link to the source of your information about a
"problem"?

  If your goal was to improve your sales by involving yourself in
these public discussions, I believe I'm not alone in suggesting this
has backfired and you have failed.

 -John D.
Matt - 20 Dec 2006 06:04 GMT
>> I don't have the time to look it up.

psst! It's in your other desk.

>    But you have time to visit all the rocketry forums and make
> unsubstantiated statements in an attempt to discredit your competitors?
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>    If your goal was to improve your sales by involving yourself in
> these public discussions,

> I believe I'm not alone in suggesting this
> has backfired and you have failed.

Speaking for myself, you aren't, and he has.

>   -John D.

Matt
Contrail Rockets - 20 Dec 2006 07:57 GMT
> > I don't have the time to look it up.

I guess the sarcasim wasn't evident in my post...  ;)

>    But you have time to visit all the rocketry forums and make
> unsubstantiated statements in an attempt to discredit your competitors?

How am I doing so?  I am only speaking the truth.  If Edward wants to
BS Everyone about the delay and blame it on others that is perfectly
fine with me.  I am anxiously awaiting the release of his products for
multiple reasons.

>    Wouldn't you be more credible if you first "looked it up", then made
> the statement with a link to the source of your information about a
> "problem"?

I think in this situation I will keep hush hush for now.  Take the time
to look it up for yourself if you are that interisted.  As others will
attest, showing your cards before the hand is over does not win the
game.  The information is out there...

>    If your goal was to improve your sales by involving yourself in
> these public discussions, I believe I'm not alone in suggesting this
> has backfired and you have failed.

Sales the past 6 months have been up significantly from the past year.
Anyways, what competition are you refering to?  Ed's uncertified
motors?  The 2 which he is looking to release?  We are in a completly
different market.
He is out there for the low thrust, prefilled flyers.
We are here for the variable thrust, filled at the pad flyers.
He is here for the flyers looking for I and J Impulse motors.
We have motors ranging from G to O
He is here for Flyers who may or may not care for any other effects.
We make a variety of fuel blends, with more on the way.

Everyone has there own opinion though.  
Tom
jsdemar - 20 Dec 2006 15:38 GMT
> I think in this situation I will keep hush hush for now.  Take the time
> to look it up for yourself if you are that interisted.  As others will
> attest, showing your cards before the hand is over does not win the
> game.  The information is out there...

  More veiled references to create more FUD.

> Anyways, what competition are you refering to?  Ed's uncertified
> motors?  The 2 which he is looking to release?  We are in a completly
> different market.

 But, then why the statement above talking about "showing your cards"
and "winning the game"?  Sounds like you are referring to a potential
competitor.  If not, then why stir up trouble?

  -John D.
Phil Stein - 20 Dec 2006 15:59 GMT
Reminds me of the big drama and mystery behind Tom's creation of that
other brand of hybrids he created.  I was so impressed by how he
handled that that I've conviently forgotten the name of that company.

Tom, hope you're not becoming a drama queen.  We've done fine without
one since certain people have disappeared from sight.

Phil

>> I think in this situation I will keep hush hush for now.  Take the time
>> to look it up for yourself if you are that interisted.  As others will
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>   -John D.
Tweak - 20 Dec 2006 18:40 GMT
> Reminds me of the big drama and mystery behind Tom's creation of that
> other brand of hybrids he created.  I was so impressed by how he
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Phil

This thread is a pain in the rear.

Signature

Tweak

Phil Stein - 20 Dec 2006 18:50 GMT
>> Reminds me of the big drama and mystery behind Tom's creation of that
>> other brand of hybrids he created.  I was so impressed by how he
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>This thread is a pain in the rear.

At lease it doesn't involve Min and his buddies.

Phil
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 02:22 GMT
>>I think in this situation I will keep hush hush for now.  Take the time
>>to look it up for yourself if you are that interisted.  As others will
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>    -John D.

Dishonesty knows no bounds......Edward is not as large as
Cesaroni......dishonesty has no balls.

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 02:27 GMT
>>I think in this situation I will keep hush hush for now.  Take the time
>>to look it up for yourself if you are that interisted.  As others will
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>    -John D.

Laziness comes to mind......why are they hated so much?  They must just
buy a mirror, put it in the house and look.

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 02:30 GMT
>>I think in this situation I will keep hush hush for now.  Take the time
>>to look it up for yourself if you are that interisted.  As others will
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>    -John D.

Laziness comes to mind......why are they despised so much?  They must
just buy a mirror, put it in the house/mobile home/tent and look.  It's
obvious John......how have  your efforts for help to the tmt gone?  It
should be clear, there are reasons for what is happening.

Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 21:29 GMT
>>I think in this situation I will keep hush hush for now.  Take the time
>>to look it up for yourself if you are that interisted.  As others will
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>    -John D.

Laziness comes to mind......dishonesty of stealing someone else's
work......why are they despised so much?

It's obvious John......how have  your efforts for help to the tmt gone?
 It should be clear, there are reasons for what is happening.

Edward is in a different market?  Would you be surprised if contrail got
a sneak preview out in the sandpile?  That inpropriety appearance makes
for more suspision....well that and some loose lips.

Chuck
Contrail Rockets - 30 Dec 2006 23:51 GMT
> Laziness comes to mind......dishonesty of stealing someone else's
> work......why are they despised so much?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Chuck

Are you claiming that I have seen Edwards product?  The only time I
have seen his product is in the pictures he has posted online.  Never
see one fire other than the video he has posted online.

You have a conspiracy theory for everything.
Chuck Rudy - 30 Dec 2006 23:57 GMT
>>Laziness comes to mind......dishonesty of stealing someone else's
>>work......why are they despised so much?
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> You have a conspiracy theory for everything.

Sorry, don't trust you.

Chuck
edwardcw@gmail.com - 21 Dec 2006 02:50 GMT
> How am I doing so?  I am only speaking the truth.  If Edward wants to
> BS Everyone about the delay and blame it on others that is perfectly
> fine with me.  I am anxiously awaiting the release of his products for
> multiple reasons.

Tom,

Just to let you know that the tanks probably can't be used with your
Trojan Hybrids.  If people take apart the tank/valve connection the
warranty is void on my products - it's not that I'm being mean but I'm
just trying to make sure that it doesn't get put together wrong and
then have issues that weren't originally there.  Sorry if that rains on
your parade.

Edward
Glen Overby - 19 Dec 2006 18:00 GMT
edwardcw@gmail wrote:
>Now, I don't peruse RMR often, mainly because of the lowlife scum like
>Tom that likes to cause trouble.

I get the message.  I promise not to buy a motor from you.

Glen "lowlife scum"
Matt - 20 Dec 2006 06:36 GMT
> edwardcw@gmail wrote:
>> Now, I don't peruse RMR often, mainly because of the lowlife scum like
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Glen "lowlife scum"

When I read Edward's post I thought of JI. If you identified with the
statement, well, if the shoe fits..
Phil Stein - 20 Dec 2006 14:23 GMT
Edward,

That sounds like a great improvement.

Thanks for clarifying that.  As the manufacturer of a product, I think
it is in you best interest to monitor all forums - even if you
consider them to be full of scum.

Phil

>Tom,
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>>
>> Tom
Darrell D. Mobley - 19 Dec 2006 05:34 GMT
> It sure sounds to me like it was more of a "problem" rather than a "I
> changed my mind after submitting them to TMT".

So Tom, does experiencing a "problem" justify it taking 5.5 months to
return the man's hardware to him?  If everyone had Contrail's
turn-around time with TMT, we'd all be axle-deep to a ferris wheel in
certified motors by now.

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Phil Stein - 20 Dec 2006 14:28 GMT
Darrell,

As Edward's post shows, it is way better to get the facts first hand
before jumping to conclusions.  I know that there has been some
appearances and accusations of partiality, but I think if we have
first hand facts, the solution (if needed) will reveal itself.

Phil

>> It sure sounds to me like it was more of a "problem" rather than a "I
>> changed my mind after submitting them to TMT".
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>turn-around time with TMT, we'd all be axle-deep to a ferris wheel in
>certified motors by now.
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 23 Dec 2006 05:08 GMT
I think I'll weigh in on this thread.

First of all, thanks to the guys who've jumped in to defend me/Sky
Ripper.  While they don't officially talk for me, I appreciate their
loyal friendship and their willingness to help a friend.  Thanks guys.

In regards to my 54mm certification, I will take the blame where I can,
but to be sure the fault of the delay isn't entirely or even mostly or
half mine. Below I will outline the story to the very best of my
memory.

Let me start out my story by saying that I find Paul Holmes a
completely fair, honest, and likable fellow.   It has been my pleasure
to work with Paul for the complete duration of our certification
efforts. Being that I am a guy who has a job much like Paul's in terms
of travel, I understand how hard it is to live up to commitments while
being away from home all week.   Paul has only so much time per week
that he can commit to testing, and every moment he spends testing, is a
moment he spends away from home - a place where his presence in rare to
begin with.   I think we all owe him some thanks for the job he has
done in the past.  Thank you, Paul - motor testing is a thankless job,
the hours stink, and the pay is... well..... You know. ;)

Now, on to my 54mm story.

Woody took primary control of the motor hardware manufacturing for the
54mm product, and he completed the first run of components for delivery
to TMT in mid March, 2006.  I can't remember the exact date, but I do
remember that he was scrambling to leave for a meeting in LA when he
was getting the shipment together, and that meeting was in March.

Slightly after that or at about the exact same time, I had completed
the injection mold for the 54mm fuel grains.  The injection mold was
for sure the most expensive and time consuming part of the 54mm
project, so when it was complete, I got some sample parts made, did a
few preliminary tests, and sent reload kits to Paul.  Apparently, my
'prelim' tests were not enough.

I had done all the development of the 54mm product using machined ABS
grains, in *mostly* the same configuration as I would later be molding.
However, due to a normal manufacturing flaw that occurs in most
injection molded parts, a pin hole in the grain could be opened up
under some operating conditions.   Despite the earlier tests, I only
found this pin hole a day before Paul did his first official test.  I
sent him an email asking him to hold off the tests until I could
replace his defective grains, but unfortunately Paul didn't get the
message until after he did his first testing, and experienced the pin
hole issue for himself.  I got the message about the failed test on
Easter day, 2006.

I repaired the issue with the mold by the following weekend,
manufactured new grains, and sent them to Paul.  Paul received the
updated reload kits before the end of April, for tests he had
scheduled.  Note that this was the last time that an 'issue' with our
motors held up a testing; The end of April, 2006.

Paul tested a few more times, but noted that his numbers had come up
quite different than the numbers we had sent him.   To us, this wasn't
odd - all of the 29 and 38mm motors we had sent to TMT for testing had
been about 20% off in total impulse from our tests.  We had always
assumed that this was due to the fact that in our testing climate, N20
temps of 60 degrees is common, and in Paul's climate, N20 temperatures
of 90+ degrees are common.
It's easy to understand just on the basis of N20 density alone why the
numbers would be that far off.   TMT has no testing manual, let alone
any criteria for nominal hybrid testing temperature - something that I
believe is infinitely important when it comes to testing hybrids.

Paul and I talked on the telephone in May (from memory), and he
explained that it would be a good idea to get CAR involved in testing.
The temperatures in Arizona were too hot for him to be able to test the
motors at a nominal temperature, and that lower temps would be easily
attained in Canada.   He shipped hardware and some reloads to CAR after
they confirmed that they would be willing to help with the
certification efforts.   Unfortunately, because the reloads were going
to Canada, our approved and tested pyrotechnic ignition components
could not make the trip.   I wrote specific instructions to the CAR
people on what was required for the preheater.

I got confirmation that CAR had received product from Paul in June, and
they quickly performed the first test within a week of receiving the
shipment.   They had, confusingly at first, gotten results that were
very close to what Paul had tested.  When I inquired about the
specifics of the test, I had learned that they had heated the N20 up to
850psi in a bath of warm water, in order to more closely match the
results Paul was getting in the desert.  Of course, this was an
indication that there was some kind of miscommunication as to what the
CAR tests were being performed to prove.   I then wrote an email to the
CAR testing chairman, asking that the next test be performed at 700psi.
They agreed that this would be their course of action.

Early in July, I got a reply from CAR stating that they had experienced
a catastrophic disassembly failure of our hardware during a test. I was
shocked to hear this news.  As I began an email review of the cato, I
discovered that the instructions I had given for preheater
construction/implementation were not followed.  It was clear that this
was the cause of the cato, and it was no fault of the motor design.
CAR agreed with my assessment of the failure point, and agreed to do
some more testing with correct preheaters, provided I could supply them
with another complete motor and 2 or more reload kits, which I did.   I
boxed up my personal 54mm hardware and two new reloads without pyro
elements as soon as I possibly could, and sent them up to Canada.   I
received communication from CAR that the box containing the motor was
received, but that no testing could be completed until the testing
agent had returned from a 3 week long trip he was to be taking.  As it
turns out, this was the last I had heard from CAR.  No further testing
has been done, and I've not had hardware returned to me.

After about six weeks, I contacted Paul and asked him if he had any
information regarding the CAR tests, and he replied that he had assumed
that I was dealing directly with CAR when it came to the tests they
were doing.   I then told Paul that I hadn't heard from them since the
acknowledgment of the shipment, and he sent an email to CAR requesting
return of unused testing materials.  He then told me that TMT would be
in a position to resume testing again when the temperatures cooled a
bit more in the desert.

In October, I got an email from Paul telling me that he had one last
chance to test before he moved to Texas to start a new position with
his company.  From what I recall, the email from Paul came in on a
Wednesday, requesting new reloads for testing one week from the
upcoming Saturday.   Since the 54mm reloads aren't a 'production'
product, and I had assumed that I had already supplied enough reloads
to TMT and CAR to perform the tests, I didn't have enough extra 54mm
grains in my possession to fill his request.

So scrambling, I scheduled a production run of the 54mm grain mold as
early as I could on Sunday, and had a box ready for shipment on Monday
morning - an amazing feat considering the cost and availability of
injection molding machines - particularly on the weekends.  Using our
standard shipping scheme, this would enable enough time to get the box
to Paul for his tests.

Now, in retrospect, I do remember the email that came in during the
middle of summer telling all manufacturers of Paul's change of
address.  However, since I don't have access to my outlook on the
weekends, and I had already assumed that I had sent everything to Paul
that I would need to send, I didn't act at all on his email when it was
received.  This was a poor decision, I'll admit.   But, it must be
understood that when I was filling Paul's request for more reloads, I
was in absolute scramble mode, and the last thing I thought about was
weather or not the only address I had ever used in correspondence with
Paul was still valid - The fact that he had sent the change of address
email had totally slipped my mind.

On Wednesday of that week, after the Monday shipment had been made, I
got an email from Paul asking "Say - did you remember to send the
reloads to my new address?"...Which of course, I did not.  It seems
Paul understood enough to think it reasonable that I might have shipped
to the wrong address to comment on it.  The reloads arrived mid way
through the following week, several days after the testing session.

I have since received communication from Paul that there might be a new
testing location near his new home in Texas that might be perfect for
TMT, and that tests might be able to be performed in early 07.

That is the story, to the best of my honest recollection.
I did not tell this story to trash Paul, because I believe Paul has
done a job to the absolute best of his abilities, and again - I thank
him for doing a completely thankless job.

However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
acceptable for a testing agency who a manufacturer is REQUIRED to
utilize before selling their product, their sanity must be questioned.

The system is broken.  It may be on its way to being fixed but for now,
it is broken, and it being broke has darn near cost Woody and I
everything we've ever worked for in Sky Ripper Systems.

Every penny we have made is now invested in a 54mm product that has sit
on the shelf for 8 months at least, waiting for a resolution outside of
our control.  We are, at this point, bankrupt.  There is no money in
the account for us to pay for the manufacture of even 29 and 38mm
hardware.

Both Woody and I are hoping that the new link Paul has in Texas will
lead to a fair and consistent testing schedule, so that no one else has
to face the loss of their business due to the inability of getting
their products tested.

Thanks for reading.

I hope you all have a rewarding and joyous holiday season!

Todd Moore
Sky Ripper Systems.

> TMT is slowly becoming the next "Bruce Kelly" problem for TRA.
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> >
> > Phil
Chuck Rudy - 27 Dec 2006 03:55 GMT
> I think I'll weigh in on this thread.

> Todd Moore
> Sky Ripper Systems.

Thanks for the clarity.....yes it's broken, what you've endured is
assinine, hopefully they know how to make ice in Texas and 'burn bans'
don't become a recurring excuse.  If so a new site has to be used for
hybrids, or professional testing must be paid for.  Your honesty is to
be commended, we've had our fill of bluster and blowhards in this 'deny
everything' society.

Thanks man!

Chuck
Phil Stein - 27 Dec 2006 13:19 GMT
>> I think I'll weigh in on this thread.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Chuck

I also appreciate Todd's honesty in admitting that TMT is not the
entire cause of the problem.  It seems liek there is enough blame to
go around but I don't thinkn it is necessary to pass the blame.
Everyone has the common interest of having the system work as best it
can.  

If professional testing is done, the manufacturers will pay for it and
pass it on to the users.  That will price some manufacturers out of
the market - especially the smaller ones.  

Phil
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 27 Dec 2006 15:24 GMT
> I also appreciate Todd's honesty in admitting that TMT is not the
> entire cause of the problem.  It seems liek there is enough blame to
> go around but I don't thinkn it is necessary to pass the blame.
> Everyone has the common interest of having the system work as best it
> can.

Let me say that I believe that TMT takes, in an overwhelming way, the
largest share of the blame for the delay.

If that did not come through in my message, then I wasn't clear enough.

TMT had no problems certifying dozens of other motors during the same
time frame when mine weren't being certified.

I have hopes that the new arrangement that Paul is working out will fix
the problems that I have had, and make sure things like this don't
happen in the future.

Todd Moore
Hyphlight - 28 Dec 2006 02:35 GMT
<snip>
> However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
> acceptable for a testing agency who a manufacturer is REQUIRED to
> utilize before selling their product, their sanity must be questioned.

How much does it cost to certify a single motor with the TRA?
Contrail Rockets - 28 Dec 2006 03:54 GMT
> <snip>
> > However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
> > acceptable for a testing agency who a manufacturer is REQUIRED to
> > utilize before selling their product, their sanity must be questioned.
>
> How much does it cost to certify a single motor with the TRA?

It Varies by Size.  I would have to double check but I know it is 25
Dollars and 30 Dollars.

I can't remember what the 25 Dollars is for and what the 30 Dollars is
for, but I think 30 is for smaller motors (up to M) and 30 dollars is
for M and Above.

Not to much if you ask me.  The Manufacture provides TMT with Hardware,
Reloads and if there are any added expenses they cover those (Nitrous
for Example).  

Tom
Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 03:56 GMT
>><snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Tom

How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?

Chuck
Darrell D. Mobley - 28 Dec 2006 04:04 GMT
> How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?

Depends on how much your business was worth before it went under.

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 13:50 GMT
>> How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?
>
> Depends on how much your business was worth before it went under.

....and that is the entire point of all this buffoonery.  ;-)  Thank you
Darrell.

Chuck
Phil Stein - 28 Dec 2006 15:14 GMT
>> How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?
>
>Depends on how much your business was worth before it went under.

I guess Tom has shown that there is wisdom in how he handles this.

Phil
Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 16:00 GMT
>>>How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Phil

You mistake geography for wisdom.....some of us are not so easily
fooled.  ;-)

Chuck
Phil Stein - 28 Dec 2006 22:27 GMT
>>>>How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>Chuck

I understand Tom doesn't live exactly next door to Paul.  

IMO what's a few miles - its not like I have to drive it.  8-)

Phil
Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 23:18 GMT
>>>>>How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Phil

Let me see, I go to mapquest dot com and put phoenix az in one box and
Lake Havasu City az in another box and press the button and it comes out
as about the same for you going to MDRA.

You're making my head hurt.  This is simple stuff man.

Chuck
Phil Stein - 29 Dec 2006 01:23 GMT
fOn Thu, 28 Dec 2006 23:18:56 GMT, Chuck Rudy
<voodoodigitalnospamat@verizonnospamdot.net> wrote:

>>>>>>How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
>Chuck

Chuck - The winks and smilys mean not to take it seriously.  Just
checked.  SOuthwest will take you from Detroit to Pheonix and back for
$77 each way - $154 total - I guess there are taxes but it doesn't
seem like a lot if there is much stake.  Plus, who wants to drive when
they can fly?

Phil
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 01:57 GMT
>>>I understand Tom doesn't live exactly next door to Paul.  
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Phil

I didn't get a smiley, I got a guy in sunglasses which means I'm in the
dark......take off the glasses and I'm there.

Chuck
Darrell D. Mobley - 29 Dec 2006 02:28 GMT
> Chuck - The winks and smilys mean not to take it seriously.  Just
> checked.  SOuthwest will take you from Detroit to Pheonix and back for
> $77 each way - $154 total - I guess there are taxes but it doesn't
> seem like a lot if there is much stake.  Plus, who wants to drive when
> they can fly?

You forgot about having to haul your own test stand along... 8-)

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 29 Dec 2006 10:59 GMT
> Chuck - The winks and smilys mean not to take it seriously.  Just
> checked.  SOuthwest will take you from Detroit to Pheonix and back for
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Phil

So, this is the new model for motor testing that we should adopt?

Manufacturers assemble, test, and certifiy their own motors while the
AHJ looks on?

I'm all for it - it's just that this was not how I was told the game
was played.

Detroit is still about 3 hours from where I am, BTW.
Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 16:42 GMT
>>>How much does it cost NOT to get it certed after months?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Phil

Never mistake geography for wisdom......

Chuck
Darrell D. Mobley - 28 Dec 2006 20:50 GMT
> I guess Tom has shown that there is wisdom in how he handles this.

Maybe I am dense, Phil, but explain this "wisdom" that you mention?  Do
you mean to say there is "wisdom" in proximity?  Or "wisdom" in having
your own test equipment?

What I see more often, Phil, is a lot of double-speak.  Is there
"wisdom" in double-speak?

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Phil Stein - 28 Dec 2006 23:02 GMT
>> I guess Tom has shown that there is wisdom in how he handles this.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>What I see more often, Phil, is a lot of double-speak.  Is there
>"wisdom" in double-speak?

It isn't double speak -think about it Darrell.  What does Tom do?  He
drags the stuff to TMT along with everything that is needed.  I know
that proximity is an issue for some people but dragging the stuff to
them gets it done.

Also, from what I understand, TMT's measuring equipement is used.  It
is Contrail's test stand that is used.

Is that plain enough for you or am I still double speaking?

Phil
Hyphlight - 29 Dec 2006 02:04 GMT
>>> I guess Tom has shown that there is wisdom in how he handles this.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> that proximity is an issue for some people but dragging the stuff to
> them gets it done.

Yes.  Or, a TRA person goes to the manufacture and witnesses a test.

> Also, from what I understand, TMT's measuring equipement is used.  It
> is Contrail's test stand that is used.

One test session (possibly ratt?)  in the past used a rack mounted to the
back of a pickup truck.  The TRA loadcell was installed and checked for
operation.  Motor was loaded and fired and data recorded on the TRA laptop.
Someone please explain the difference a loadcell makes once calibrated?  It
was interesting to see the looong M motor burn though the thick deflector.

If the manufacturer has a calibration procedure, and that test is witnessed
by a certification body, it is no different than sending the motor somewhere
that has the same equipment.  I take that back, it is less expensive.

> Is that plain enough for you or am I still double speaking?
>
> Phil
Phil Stein - 29 Dec 2006 13:16 GMT
>One test session (possibly ratt?)  in the past used a rack mounted to the
>back of a pickup truck.  The TRA loadcell was installed and checked for
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>by a certification body, it is no different than sending the motor somewhere
>that has the same equipment.  I take that back, it is less expensive.

All load cells do the same thing.  By "Someone please explain the
difference a loadcell makes once calibrated? "  are you asking about
why it would matter if you used TRA's load cell or a manufacturers
load cell, I think using TRA's keeps things consistent and prevents
someone from 'enhancing' their test results.

Phil
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 15:23 GMT
>>One test session (possibly ratt?)  in the past used a rack mounted to the
>>back of a pickup truck.  The TRA loadcell was installed and checked for
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Phil

Phil

I think the lead brick comes into play here.....and you were at that
symposium......just don't ask the name of the book.  ;-)

Chuck
Darrell D. Mobley - 29 Dec 2006 02:22 GMT
> It isn't double speak -think about it Darrell.  What does Tom do?  

I wasn't referring to you double-speaking, I was referring to Tom.  Tom
always has an answer unless you ask him a specific question, like about
the "fairy dust".  Or the data is always in his "other desk."

> He drags the stuff to TMT along with everything that is needed.  I know
> that proximity is an issue for some people but dragging the stuff to
> them gets it done.

Then it would appear on the surface that this kind of behavior resembles
favoritism.  That should not be the procedure of an independent testing
source.

> Also, from what I understand, TMT's measuring equipement is used.  It
> is Contrail's test stand that is used.

That might be great for Tom, but what about people who don't have that
"advantage?"  Perhaps Paul's moving will eliminate the people who say
that Tom has an unfair advantage now?

> Is that plain enough for you or am I still double speaking?

You never were.  8-)

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Hyphlight - 28 Dec 2006 04:56 GMT
>> <snip>
>> > However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Reloads and if there are any added expenses they cover those (Nitrous
> for Example).

What?  You are kidding?  Paul spent more than that in gas driving out to the
range.

I was expecting at least $100/hr, several grand per motor and wasn't going
to be surprised at $5,000.

Thanks for the insight.

> Tom
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 28 Dec 2006 10:20 GMT
> What?  You are kidding?  Paul spent more than that in gas driving out to the
> range.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> > Tom

And what manufacturer would be able to pay that cost?   It sure would
cut the competition down, that's for sure! ;)

I'm all for paying more in testing fees, and actually making TMT a
for-hire part time paid position.  100 dollars per motor type, maybe a
premium for hybrids, would be a fair amount, I think.   It wouldn't be
rare to be able to do 4 motor types in a day.

But, what do I know?   I'm just a guy who thought it would be cool to
sell some hybrid motors ;)
Hyphlight - 29 Dec 2006 04:37 GMT
Just wondering, but at only $25 to cert, is not enough demand to justify a
microhybrid cert?

>> <snip>
>> > However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Tom
skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 28 Dec 2006 10:12 GMT
> <snip>
> > However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
> > acceptable for a testing agency who a manufacturer is REQUIRED to
> > utilize before selling their product, their sanity must be questioned.
>
> How much does it cost to certify a single motor with the TRA?

I don't set the pricing, I just follow it.

However, I'll let you know that I don't think Paul cares too much about
the motor testing fees, as I've yet to receive a bill for the 29mm
motors he tested back two years ago, despite asking for one at least 2
times.  Again, Paul is busy, and the total bill was only ~100 bucks+ 25
dollars (guessing?) for N20.

I'd be all for a 100+ dollar per motor testing fee, if it meant that
the testing would be taken care of commiserate in value with such a
fee.

Todd Moore
Phil Stein - 28 Dec 2006 15:20 GMT
>> <snip>
>> > However, if anyone can read the above and suggest that this is
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>Todd Moore

Assuming everone charges a similar amount, you can always send samples
you NAR, TRA and CAR and ask the guys who haven't tested for your
stuff after the first org has tested for the stuff back.  It might
take a while but with the dollars people have said are at stake, it
may be worth it.

Phil
Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 16:07 GMT
> Assuming everone charges a similar amount, you can always send samples
> you NAR, TRA and CAR and ask the guys who haven't tested for your
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Phil

CAR? They were in the story too.  Now why would they try to simulate
desert heat?  How would they know the temps to simulate?  Very odd, eh?

"Paul and I talked on the telephone in May (from memory), and he
explained that it would be a good idea to get CAR involved in testing.
The temperatures in Arizona were too hot for him to be able to test the
motors at a nominal temperature, and that lower temps would be easily
attained in Canada.   He shipped hardware and some reloads to CAR after
they confirmed that they would be willing to help with the
certification efforts.   Unfortunately, because the reloads were going
to Canada, our approved and tested pyrotechnic ignition components
could not make the trip.   I wrote specific instructions to the CAR
people on what was required for the preheater.

I got confirmation that CAR had received product from Paul in June, and
they quickly performed the first test within a week of receiving the
shipment.   They had, confusingly at first, gotten results that were
very close to what Paul had tested.  When I inquired about the
specifics of the test, I had learned that they had heated the N20 up to
850psi in a bath of warm water, in order to more closely match the
results Paul was getting in the desert.  Of course, this was an
indication that there was some kind of miscommunication as to what the
CAR tests were being performed to prove.   I then wrote an email to the
CAR testing chairman, asking that the next test be performed at 700psi.
 They agreed that this would be their course of action.

Early in July, I got a reply from CAR stating that they had experienced
a catastrophic disassembly failure of our hardware during a test. I was
shocked to hear this news.  As I began an email review of the cato, I
discovered that the instructions I had given for preheater
construction/implementation were not followed.  It was clear that this
was the cause of the cato, and it was no fault of the motor design.
CAR agreed with my assessment of the failure point, and agreed to do
some more testing with correct preheaters, provided I could supply them
with another complete motor and 2 or more reload kits, which I did.   I
boxed up my personal 54mm hardware and two new reloads without pyro
elements as soon as I possibly could, and sent them up to Canada.   I
received communication from CAR that the box containing the motor was
received, but that no testing could be completed until the testing
agent had returned from a 3 week long trip he was to be taking.  As it
turns out, this was the last I had heard from CAR.  No further testing
has been done, and I've not had hardware returned to me.

After about six weeks, I contacted Paul and asked him if he had any
information regarding the CAR tests, and he replied that he had assumed
that I was dealing directly with CAR when it came to the tests they
were doing.   I then told Paul that I hadn't heard from them since the
acknowledgment of the shipment, and he sent an email to CAR requesting
return of unused testing materials.  He then told me that TMT would be
in a position to resume testing again when the temperatures cooled a
bit more in the desert."

.....so that leaves NAE, but IIRC it takes a lot of red tape to demo
motors at NAR launches....something which TRA allows with much less
paperwork.

Chuck
Phil Stein - 28 Dec 2006 22:34 GMT
I also find it odd.  I guess the similar results tell us that CAR's
and TMT's equipement measures roughly the same numbers.  I guess there
wasa communication problem somewhere along the way.  

One interesting thing I noticed (unless I missed or misintrepreted
something) is that CAR and TMT both made measurments that were within
the operating specs on SR's instructions on their web page.  So I
don't know why it should be a big deal.  I think that anything within
the manufacturer's specs should be fine for testing.

Phil

>> Assuming everone charges a similar amount, you can always send samples
>> you NAR, TRA and CAR and ask the guys who haven't tested for your
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
>
>Chuck
Chuck Rudy - 28 Dec 2006 22:47 GMT
> I also find it odd.  I guess the similar results tell us that CAR's
> and TMT's equipement measures roughly the same numbers.  I guess there
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Phil

CAR obviously didn't know, someone had to tell them.  Who might that
have been?

When you get nitrous too hot, you can test it all you want at the same
temp and you'll get the same numbers.  Hybrids should be tested at
65-70-75 degree increment for test curves.....not off the chart.  Some
hybrids have a 5 degree window, otherwise they are lethargic dogs.
Testing over 10-15 degrees would allow for bad injector/fuel design to
show up.

Consistency is the key......the same temps for all  hybrids so those who
fly know what to expect at different temps/pressures.  I try to isolate
on temps, while others like to look at their guage.....to each his own.

Chuck
Phil Stein - 29 Dec 2006 00:35 GMT
>> I also find it odd.  I guess the similar results tell us that CAR's
>> and TMT's equipement measures roughly the same numbers.  I guess there
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
>Chuck

Understand.  For CAR to have elevated the temp for testing, either
they made a wrong ASSumption or there was some miscommunication.
Either way, a manual as Todd suggested would probably take care of the
problem.  

I previously mentioned the instruction manual.  It says "Never fill or
fire Sky Ripper Systems hybrid rocket motors when the nitrous
oxide pressure is higher than 900psi, or less than 550psi."  There is
no reference to nox temperature which is what has been discussed in
this thread.  I think the instruction manual should discuss it.  I
also think that if a specific temperature or pressure of the nox is
required to achieve a particular thrust profile, it should be
discussed.  I doubt that I am the only one that may be thick to the
issues.  IMO if I am a test guy, I test within the parameters in the
documentation.  Some guys might at both high and low limits or some
might test at anything with the published limits.  If I were doing it,
I would want to test at the high and low to see if it falls within the
allowable deviation which I think is 20%.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.  It seems there are some opportunities
for improving consistency.  Darrell if this seems like double talk let
me know and I'll try to translate it for you. ;-)

Phil
Darrell D. Mobley - 29 Dec 2006 02:27 GMT
> If I were doing it, I would want to test at the high and low to see
> if it falls within the allowable deviation which I think is 20%.

> Darrell if this seems like double talk let me know and I'll try to
> translate it for you. ;-)

Well, as you can see, you *were* talking about a high end AND a low end...

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

skyrippersystems@gmail.com - 29 Dec 2006 10:52 GMT
> Understand.  For CAR to have elevated the temp for testing, either
> they made a wrong ASSumption or there was some miscommunication.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Phil

Here is the big secret with hybrids, Phil.

You'll never be able to attain a deviation of only 20% over the 'safe'
range of operation.  It just can't happen.

I put the 550/900 range in my manual as a safety point only, as in
these are the ranges I believe it safe to operate the motor.   This
doesn't mean this is optimal, it just means it is safe.

There is a huge difference in density between the pressure ranges I
list.   Much more than 20%.   I hate to admit it, but this *almost*
makes certifiying hybrids completely silly.

The SRS 38mm I motor can be anything from a big H to a big I, depending
on N20 density in this range.  If you really want a kick a.s flight,
take the I motor, fill it with super cold (550psi) N20, and watch it
go.  You'll lose some average impulse due to lack of vapor pressure,
but you'll have a great deal more total impulse.

The only way to have consistant hybrid testing and launch time
accuracy, is to specify a very small window for testing, and product
usage - as in "This is ONLY a certified motor when launched with a N20
pressure of 750psi, +/-25psi."  Without this criteria, hybrid
certification should be about safety - not numbers.  The numbers are
almost totally irrellevant.

Here is a snippet of a post I made to a message board back in the
summer regarding the density issue...

"I tend to run my tests with N20 from 600 to 650 PSI, while it's not
uncommon for TMT to run tests, due to the extreme heat of where the
tests take place, from 800 to 900 PSI. This range makes a huge
difference in nitrous density.

At 60 degrees, N20 pressure is ~675psi, and density of the N20 is ~.028
lb/in^3 At 90 degrees, N20 pressure is ~975psi, and density of the N20
is ~.019lb/in^3"
Phil Stein - 29 Dec 2006 13:32 GMT
>> Understand.  For CAR to have elevated the temp for testing, either
>> they made a wrong ASSumption or there was some miscommunication.
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>lb/in^3 At 90 degrees, N20 pressure is ~975psi, and density of the N20
>is ~.019lb/in^3"

That should be documented in your instructions.  The safety part
includes preventing a land shark so I think thrust curves run at
different pressures would be very helpful.

Thanks for the info - hopefully, many of us are getting less thick.

Phil
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 15:54 GMT
>>Here is the big secret with hybrids, Phil.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>>list.   Much more than 20%.   I hate to admit it, but this *almost*
>>makes certifiying hybrids completely silly.

> Thanks for the info - hopefully, many of us are getting less thick.
>
> Phil

http://www.skyrippersystems.com/tips/HybridTips.html
Darrell D. Mobley - 29 Dec 2006 16:50 GMT
> http://www.skyrippersystems.com/tips/HybridTips.html

Chuck, lots of good information on the documents section there.

Question for Todd's or other similar systems:  The creation of the vent
hole seems to be intriguing.  A user is drilling a hole at a seemingly
precise location in the airframe, and if long enough, through a motor
mount tube as well for the insertion of a piece of 1/8" plastic vent
tubing.  Has this proved easier in theory than in application to
accomplish reliably?

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Kevin OClassen - 29 Dec 2006 18:20 GMT
> Question for Todd's or other similar systems:  The creation of the vent
> hole seems to be intriguing.  A user is drilling a hole at a seemingly
> precise location in the airframe, and if long enough, through a motor
> mount tube as well for the insertion of a piece of 1/8" plastic vent
> tubing.  Has this proved easier in theory than in application to
> accomplish reliably?

I found it pretty easy. I use a jig that holds the rocket horizontally, and
clamps it down so that it can't rotate. A drill press and a slightly
oversize bit finish the job. Wouldn't work on a really large rocket, but for
what I've built so far it's been fine. For multiple holes (different length
motors) I'll clamp a fence to the table of the drill press to make sure the
holes are all on the same line, at the apex of the airframe.

Now, the tricky part is getting the 1/8" tube into the vent hole on the
motor. I've found that taking the burr off the end of the tube with a piece
of fine sandpaper makes the job a lot easier.

Kevin
Darrell D. Mobley - 29 Dec 2006 19:14 GMT
> Now, the tricky part is getting the 1/8" tube into the vent hole on the
> motor. I've found that taking the burr off the end of the tube with a piece
> of fine sandpaper makes the job a lot easier.

I imagined that to be a tricky part.  Sounded to me like trying to have
sex using a limp noodle.  Or trying to push rope.

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Hyphlight - 30 Dec 2006 16:05 GMT
>> Now, the tricky part is getting the 1/8" tube into the vent hole on the
>> motor. I've found that taking the burr off the end of the tube with a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I imagined that to be a tricky part.  Sounded to me like trying to have
> sex using a limp noodle.  Or trying to push rope.

Hypertek motors have a fitting the tube slides over.  There you simply slide
the tube onto an allen wrench.  Then put the end of the allen into/against
the fitting.  Then you just push the tube down the allen and it slides
over/onto the fitting.
Kevin Trojanowski - 29 Dec 2006 18:58 GMT
> Question for Todd's or other similar systems:  The creation of the vent
> hole seems to be intriguing.  A user is drilling a hole at a seemingly
> precise location in the airframe, and if long enough, through a motor
> mount tube as well for the insertion of a piece of 1/8" plastic vent
> tubing.  Has this proved easier in theory than in application to
> accomplish reliably?

It's actually not too bad. Oversizing the hole a bit makes your life easier.

The other option is to build with a motor mount one size up from the
hybrid diameter and build an adapter that runs the vent down the side
and out the bottom.

-Kevin
Darrell D. Mobley - 29 Dec 2006 19:16 GMT
> The other option is to build with a motor mount one size up from the
> hybrid diameter and build an adapter that runs the vent down the side
> and out the bottom.

Ahhh, the innovation of rocket scientists never ceases to amaze me.
This is a very good idea!

Signature

Rocketry Planet — hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
largest collection of web links anywhere!

http://www.rocketryplanet.com

Alex Mericas - 29 Dec 2006 21:10 GMT
> Question for Todd's or other similar systems:  The creation of the vent
> hole seems to be intriguing.  A user is drilling a hole at a seemingly
> precise location in the airframe, and if long enough, through a motor
> mount tube as well for the insertion of a piece of 1/8" plastic vent
> tubing.  Has this proved easier in theory than in application to
> accomplish reliably?

Hasn't been a problem for me. I have done this on 3" and 4" rockets.  I
oversize the hole a bit so the alignment doesn't have to be precise.
Then it's just a mater of rotating the motor until the vent appears in
the hole.  I've done this for Hypertek and RATTworks motors.  RATTworks
have a threaded vent hole that make inserting a vent tube very easy.
Hypertek has a barbed vent that is fairly easy to hit.
Doug Sams - 29 Dec 2006 21:43 GMT
> Question for Todd's or other similar systems:  The creation of the vent
> hole seems to be intriguing.  A user is drilling a hole at a seemingly
> precise location in the airframe, and if long enough, through a motor
> mount tube as well for the insertion of a piece of 1/8" plastic vent
> tubing.  Has this proved easier in theory than in application to
> accomplish reliably?

If you're retro-fitting, it can certainly be a challenge.  But for
purpose-built rockets, it just requires planning.  In my upscale
Avenger, built for the SRS 38's, before installing it, I drilled the MMT
for all three motor lengths.  The airframe was also drilled prior to
installing the MMT.  I used ~1/4" holes in the MMT and ~1/2" holes in
the airframe.  As Alex mentioned, the oversize holes make lining things
up easier - both during construction and during preflight.

Adding a flashlight to your range box helps seeing into the hole to line
up the vent.  With its radially drilled vent hole, the SRS 38 is fairly
easy to get the tube into - IF the rocket has been constructed with this
in mind.  Once the motor is rotated to line up the hole, the vent tube
is rigid enough to make it fairly easy to poke it in and hit the small
hole.  Once in, threads in the vent hole grip the tube sufficiently well
to hold it in place during filling and venting.

The Contrails use an axial vent which requires the user, prior to
installing the motor, to thread the vent tube into the vent hole and out
the MMT aft.  Once the tube is mated to the motor, the motor is
installed while feeding the vent tube back thru the rocket.  While it's
hardly a carrier landing, it's a bit of a pain, and the 90 degree bend
in the vent tube is susceptible to kinking which can prevent a proper fill.

No disrespect to Contrail, but witnessing all this made made me really
appreciate the radial vent of the SRS motors.

Doug

Kentucky  28
Clemson   20
Go 'Cats!
Alex Mericas - 30 Dec 2006 00:58 GMT
I keep a AA Maglite and a Fiber Optic Wand in my range bag.  Really
helps line things up.

West Coast Hybrids also vent coaxially.  I love the motor but not the
vent configuration.  It probably wouldn't be too hard to add a 90 degree
fitting to the vent fitting.

> Adding a flashlight to your range box helps seeing into the hole to line
> up the vent.  With its radially drilled vent hole, the SRS 38 is fairly
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> No disrespect to Contrail, but witnessing all this made made me really
> appreciate the radial vent of the SRS motors.
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 15:58 GMT
> That should be documented in your instructions.  The safety part
> includes preventing a land shark so I think thrust curves run at
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Phil

http://www.skyrippersystems.com/documents/index.html

Click on any of the three

Manuals

    Sky Ripper Systems 54mm Instruction manual

    Sky Ripper Systems 38mm Instruction manual

    Sky Ripper Systems 29mm Instruciton manual
Kevin OClassen - 29 Dec 2006 16:27 GMT
On 29-Dec-2006, Chuck Rudy <voodoodigitalnospamat@verizonnospamdot.net>
wrote:

> http://www.skyrippersystems.com/documents/index.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>      Sky Ripper Systems 29mm Instruciton manual

What's not well documented in any of the manufacturer's literature I have is
the relationship between N20 density, temperature, and motor performance. I
had a conversation with Todd back in the early part of the summer, and he
recommended flying with a maximum N2O pressure of 750psi. I've tried it and
am completely sold - even though it cost me a rocket that performed FAR
better than simulations suggested it would. I've since flown with pressures
as low as 650psi in both Skyripper and Contrail motors with complete success
and great performance. When I acquire the 54mm Skyrippers, it'll be 750psi
or less.

Kevin
Chuck Rudy - 29 Dec 2006 17:32 GMT
> On 29-Dec-2006, Chuck Rudy <voodoodigitalnospamat@verizonnospamdot.net>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Kevin

I  prefer 62-65 degrees, the pressure and density will always be the
same at that temp.......more liquid, more consistency.....at least with
SRS motors.  Then if the tank is chilled (on purpose) more liquid may be
able to be squeezed in, so a single 75 degree test doesn't give perfect
numbers.  And numbers at 90 degrees are near useless.

Chuck
Phil Stein - 29 Dec 2006 17:11 GMT
>> That should be documented in your instructions.  The safety part
>> includes preventing a land shark so I think thrust curves run at
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>     Sky Ripper Systems 29mm Instruciton manual

I've read the 54mm one since that's what we're discussing.  This
http://www.skyrippersystems.com/tips/HybridTips.html seems to be more
relevent to the issues we're discussing and I think the GSE section
should be included as part of the instructions.

Phil