Alpha Hybrids
|
|
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
|
|