Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Model Rocket Motors

Expand Messages
  • Dan
    Thanks Jack! I was fairly certain that was the case. I raised the issue a few weeks back on this forum and a number of knowledgeable folks pointed out the
    Message 1 of 19 , May 29, 2012
      Thanks Jack! I was fairly certain that was the case. I raised the issue a few weeks back on this forum and a number of knowledgeable folks pointed out the current status.

      But, I'm glad for the confirmation since I just bought 3 of them.

      Regards, Dan


      --- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, John Kane <kane@...> wrote:
      >
      > Contest flyers,
      >
      > I just want to make something clear. The Cesaroni G54 is contest
      > certified. There have been some discussions about whether the 62.5
      > or 125 gram propellant rule is in place. NFPA 1125 has peen
      > effective since the summer of 2011 and contains the propellant limit
      > of 125 Grams. The old NFPA 1122 is still in effect until mid June
      > and it contains the 62.5 gram limit. But the 62.5 gram limit is only
      > on line 3.3.5.2.2 "
      >
      > 3.3.5.2.2 "Model Rocket Motor". A rocket motor that has a total
      > impulse of no greater than 160 N sec (36lb sec), an average thrust of
      > no greater than 80 N (18 lbf), and a propellant weight of no greater
      > than 62.5 g (2.2 oz), and that otherwise meets the other requirements
      > set forth in NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and
      > High Power Rocket Motors
      >
      > But line 3.3.5.2.2 (as well as all of chapter 3) is not a
      > requirement, it is a definition.
      >
      > What is a requirement is any thing in Chapter 4 "Requirements for
      > Model Rocket Construction, Operation, and Motor Storage".
      >
      > Item 4.1.9 "Model Rocket Motor Requirements".
      > 4.19.1 Only Commercially Manufactured, certified model rocket motors
      > or motor reloading kits or components as specified in NFPA 1125, Code
      > for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motor,
      > shall be used.
      >
      > And since NFPA 1122 requirements point to NFPA 1125 which contain the
      > 125 gram propellant weight limit, the Cesaroni G54 is a contest
      > certified model rocket motor.
      >
      >
      > I hope this helps. Any questions?
      >
      > Jack Kane
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • David W. Schultz
      ... And as everyone knows, definitions in no way define anything. -- David W. Schultz http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz Who? What? Where? When?
      Message 2 of 19 , May 31, 2012
        On 05/29/2012 11:45 AM, John Kane wrote:
        > Contest flyers,
        >
        > I just want to make something clear. The Cesaroni G54 is contest
        > certified. There have been some discussions about whether the 62.5
        > or 125 gram propellant rule is in place. NFPA 1125 has peen
        > effective since the summer of 2011 and contains the propellant limit
        > of 125 Grams. The old NFPA 1122 is still in effect until mid June
        > and it contains the 62.5 gram limit. But the 62.5 gram limit is only
        > on line 3.3.5.2.2 "
        >
        > 3.3.5.2.2 "Model Rocket Motor". A rocket motor that has a total
        > impulse of no greater than 160 N sec (36lb sec), an average thrust of
        > no greater than 80 N (18 lbf), and a propellant weight of no greater
        > than 62.5 g (2.2 oz), and that otherwise meets the other requirements
        > set forth in NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and
        > High Power Rocket Motors
        >
        > But line 3.3.5.2.2 (as well as all of chapter 3) is not a
        > requirement, it is a definition.
        >

        And as everyone knows, definitions in no way define anything.



        --
        David W. Schultz
        http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz
        "Who? What? Where? When? Aahhhg!" - Duck Dodgers
      • John Kane
        ... That could be true. Definitions can help you get lost. Just look in the Dictionary for the word cow . Then I ask is a cow male or female , can a cow
        Message 3 of 19 , Jun 2, 2012
          At 8:27 PM -0500 5/31/12, David W. Schultz wrote:
          >On 05/29/2012 11:45 AM, John Kane wrote:
          >> Contest flyers,
          >>
          >> I just want to make something clear. The Cesaroni G54 is contest
          >> certified. There have been some discussions about whether the 62.5
          >> or 125 gram propellant rule is in place. NFPA 1125 has peen
          >> effective since the summer of 2011 and contains the propellant limit
          >> of 125 Grams. The old NFPA 1122 is still in effect until mid June
          >> and it contains the 62.5 gram limit. But the 62.5 gram limit is only
          >> on line 3.3.5.2.2 "
          >>
          >> 3.3.5.2.2 "Model Rocket Motor". A rocket motor that has a total
          >> impulse of no greater than 160 N sec (36lb sec), an average thrust of
          >> no greater than 80 N (18 lbf), and a propellant weight of no greater
          >> than 62.5 g (2.2 oz), and that otherwise meets the other requirements
          >> set forth in NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and
          >> High Power Rocket Motors
          >>
          >> But line 3.3.5.2.2 (as well as all of chapter 3) is not a
          >> requirement, it is a definition.
          >>
          >
          >And as everyone knows, definitions in no way define anything.
          >
          >
          >
          >--
          >David W. Schultz
          >http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz
          >"Who? What? Where? When? Aahhhg!" - Duck Dodgers


          That could be true. Definitions can help you get
          lost. Just look in the Dictionary for the word
          "cow". Then I ask "is a cow male or female",
          "can a cow have five legs?"

          Then look up "rocket". There are two different
          definitions and one of them would never fly.

          But a requirement, as long as you for fill it you
          should be set. And the NFPA 1122 requirement for
          motors is to follow NFPA 1125.


          "cow"
          1. an adult female grass-eating quadruped,
          raised as a farm animal for the milk it produces
          or for breeding.
          2. a male or female, whether adult or not,
          belonging to any breed of domestic cattle


          rock·et
          1. a fast-growing plant with pale yellow
          flowers, typically growing on waste ground.
          Genus: Sisymbrium
          2. See dame's violet
          3. See sea rocket

          rock·et
          1. a device or vehicle designed for space
          travel, propelled by a device that carries both
          fuel and oxidizer and produces thrust by
          expelling expanding hot gases (rocket engine)
          3. a weapon consisting of an explosive,
          nuclear, or other warhead that is propelled by a
          rocket engine
          4. a firework, flare, or similar device
          containing combustible propellants. Rockets are
          usually cylindrical in shape with a lightable
          fuse at the bottom.
          Also called sky rocket

          John Kane

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • David W. Schultz
          There is a definition of model rocket motor in NFPA 1122 which is clear, specific, and applies throughout the document. Wherever model rocket motor appears
          Message 4 of 19 , Jun 2, 2012
            There is a definition of "model rocket motor" in NFPA 1122 which is
            clear, specific, and applies throughout the document. Wherever "model
            rocket motor" appears substitute the definition. That is what it is for.
            So the section on model rocket motor requirements is about requirements
            for rocket motors with under 160N-s total impulse, 80N average thrust,
            62.5 grams propellant mass, and meet the other requirements in NFPA 1125.

            Since you claim that the definitions of model and high power rocket
            motors in NFPA 1122 and 1127 are useless, then I think I will propose
            removing them during the next revision cycle. Or adding a disclaimer
            stating that they in no way limit what falls within the meaning of those
            terms.

            Don't worry as I will give NAR S&T full credit for the idea.

            --
            David W. Schultz
            http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz
            "Who? What? Where? When? Aahhhg!" - Duck Dodgers
          • John Kane
            ... Dave, This is the definition from the old 1122 and you have it wrong. It is not under It is no more than . Other wise motors like the Aerotech F16RC,
            Message 5 of 19 , Jun 3, 2012
              At 10:29 PM -0500 6/2/12, David W. Schultz wrote:
              >
              >
              >There is a definition of "model rocket motor" in NFPA 1122 which is
              >clear, specific, and applies throughout the document. Wherever "model
              >rocket motor" appears substitute the definition. That is what it is for.
              >So the section on model rocket motor requirements is about requirements
              >for rocket motors with under 160N-s total impulse, 80N average thrust,
              >62.5 grams propellant mass, and meet the other requirements in NFPA 1125.

              Dave,
              This is the definition from the old 1122 and you have it wrong. It
              is not "under" It is "no more than". Other wise motors like the
              Aerotech F16RC, Cesaroni G46, Cesaroni G69 and Aerotech G80T; could
              not be model rocket motors. They all have 62.5 grams of propellant.


              >Since you claim that the definitions of model and high power rocket
              >motors in NFPA 1122 and 1127 are useless, then I think I will propose
              >removing them during the next revision cycle. Or adding a disclaimer
              >stating that they in no way limit what falls within the meaning of those
              >terms.

              I did not claim that the definitions are useless; I claimed that the
              requirements are more important than the definitions. I also told
              you that S&T follows NFPA 1125 that uses the 125 gram limit and has
              been in place since the summer of 2011. If S&T did not follow 1125
              we would be in trouble with the NAR Board and the NFPA. I have to
              follow 1125 you do not. If you wish to not use the CTI G54 as a
              model rocket motor that is up to you.

              Dave, in an earlier email you indicated that you knew that 1122 was
              going to officially change about June 15. You seem to putting a lot
              of energy into something that is going to change in about two weeks.
              Or do you not want it to change and stay at the 62.5 limit. You want
              to propose removing the definitions from the next 1122 or adding a
              disclaimer to null and void the definitions, why?

              Do you know what the changes are in the new 1122? If you did I would
              be surprised that you would make these suggestions

              >Don't worry as I will give NAR S&T full credit for the idea.
              >
              >--
              >David W. Schultz


              May be I am wrong, but this does not sound like a friendly
              suggestion. I don't think that you can give credit like that;
              everyone will know where it is coming from. When it gets to the
              Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics I will see it and know it comes
              from you. With the 1122 cycle just ending, it will take three years
              to get your change into the code. Good luck.


              John Kane


              PS.


              On NFPA 1122, in case other people on this forum did not know.

              The Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics in February of 2011 voted to
              change the definitions in 1122. The vote was 29 to 0. On or about
              June 14 the NFPA will meet and vote on these (and other) changes and
              they will most likely pass.

              Here are the changes:

              Old 1122
              3.3.5.2.1 High Power Rocket Motor
              A rocket motor that has more than 160N-sec (36 lb-sec) but no more
              than 40,960 N-sec (9208 lb-sec) of total impulse, or that produces an
              average thrust of greater than 80 N (18 lbf), or that contains
              greater than 62.5g (2.2 oz) of propellant.

              New 1122
              3.3.5.2.1 High Power Rocket Motor
              A rocket motor that has no more than 40,960 N-sec (9208 lb-sec) of
              total impulse, and does not otherwise meet all of the requirements
              for a model rocket set forth in NFPA 1125, Code for Manufacture of
              Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors.


              Old 1122
              3.3.5.2.2 Model Rocket Motor
              A rocket motor that has a total impulse of no greater than 160 N-sec
              (36 lb-sec), an average thrust of no greater than 80 N (18 lb), and a
              propellant weight of no greater than 62.5 g (2.2 oz), and that
              otherwise meets the other requirement set forth in NFPA 1125, Code
              for Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors.

              New 1122
              3.3.5.2.2 Model Rocket Motor
              A solid propellant rocket motor that has a total impulse of no
              greater than 160 N-sec (36 lb-sec), an average thrust of no greater
              than 80 N (18 lb), and that otherwise meets the other requirements
              set forth in NFPA 1125, Code for Manufacture of Model Rocket and High
              Power Rocket Motors.

              John


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Stephen Flynn
              Question.   Why do we even have 62.5 and 125 gram limits?  Who made up these limits?  Were these limits created at a time when people were affraid of using
              Message 6 of 19 , Jun 5, 2012
                Question.   Why do we even have 62.5 and 125 gram limits?  Who made up these limits?  Were these limits created at a time when people were affraid of using higher power motors?   Was the limit perhaps created by G Harry Stine and his intransigence to change?    I am looking for a history lesson here so I / we can understand the way the world works.
                 
                Could these limits be outdated for contest and commercial use?
                 
                I was an observer and participant in the contraversies that came about in the 1970's when the technology started to appear for G motors and above.   The motors were were, at first, banned and now accepted so I consider that my questions are not too off the wall.  
                 
                Stephen E Flynn


                ________________________________
                From: John Kane <kane@...>
                To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sunday, June 3, 2012 10:51 PM
                Subject: Re: [contestRoc] Model Rocket Motors


                 
                At 10:29 PM -0500 6/2/12, David W. Schultz wrote:
                >
                >
                >There is a definition of "model rocket motor" in NFPA 1122 which is
                >clear, specific, and applies throughout the document. Wherever "model
                >rocket motor" appears substitute the definition. That is what it is for.
                >So the section on model rocket motor requirements is about requirements
                >for rocket motors with under 160N-s total impulse, 80N average thrust,
                >62.5 grams propellant mass, and meet the other requirements in NFPA 1125.

                Dave,
                This is the definition from the old 1122 and you have it wrong. It
                is not "under" It is "no more than". Other wise motors like the
                Aerotech F16RC, Cesaroni G46, Cesaroni G69 and Aerotech G80T; could
                not be model rocket motors. They all have 62.5 grams of propellant.

                >Since you claim that the definitions of model and high power rocket
                >motors in NFPA 1122 and 1127 are useless, then I think I will propose
                >removing them during the next revision cycle. Or adding a disclaimer
                >stating that they in no way limit what falls within the meaning of those
                >terms.

                I did not claim that the definitions are useless; I claimed that the
                requirements are more important than the definitions. I also told
                you that S&T follows NFPA 1125 that uses the 125 gram limit and has
                been in place since the summer of 2011. If S&T did not follow 1125
                we would be in trouble with the NAR Board and the NFPA. I have to
                follow 1125 you do not. If you wish to not use the CTI G54 as a
                model rocket motor that is up to you.

                Dave, in an earlier email you indicated that you knew that 1122 was
                going to officially change about June 15. You seem to putting a lot
                of energy into something that is going to change in about two weeks.
                Or do you not want it to change and stay at the 62.5 limit. You want
                to propose removing the definitions from the next 1122 or adding a
                disclaimer to null and void the definitions, why?

                Do you know what the changes are in the new 1122? If you did I would
                be surprised that you would make these suggestions

                >Don't worry as I will give NAR S&T full credit for the idea.
                >
                >--
                >David W. Schultz

                May be I am wrong, but this does not sound like a friendly
                suggestion. I don't think that you can give credit like that;
                everyone will know where it is coming from. When it gets to the
                Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics I will see it and know it comes
                from you. With the 1122 cycle just ending, it will take three years
                to get your change into the code. Good luck.

                John Kane

                PS.

                On NFPA 1122, in case other people on this forum did not know.

                The Technical Committee on Pyrotechnics in February of 2011 voted to
                change the definitions in 1122. The vote was 29 to 0. On or about
                June 14 the NFPA will meet and vote on these (and other) changes and
                they will most likely pass.

                Here are the changes:

                Old 1122
                3.3.5.2.1 High Power Rocket Motor
                A rocket motor that has more than 160N-sec (36 lb-sec) but no more
                than 40,960 N-sec (9208 lb-sec) of total impulse, or that produces an
                average thrust of greater than 80 N (18 lbf), or that contains
                greater than 62.5g (2.2 oz) of propellant.

                New 1122
                3.3.5.2.1 High Power Rocket Motor
                A rocket motor that has no more than 40,960 N-sec (9208 lb-sec) of
                total impulse, and does not otherwise meet all of the requirements
                for a model rocket set forth in NFPA 1125, Code for Manufacture of
                Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors.

                Old 1122
                3.3.5.2.2 Model Rocket Motor
                A rocket motor that has a total impulse of no greater than 160 N-sec
                (36 lb-sec), an average thrust of no greater than 80 N (18 lb), and a
                propellant weight of no greater than 62.5 g (2.2 oz), and that
                otherwise meets the other requirement set forth in NFPA 1125, Code
                for Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors.

                New 1122
                3.3.5.2.2 Model Rocket Motor
                A solid propellant rocket motor that has a total impulse of no
                greater than 160 N-sec (36 lb-sec), an average thrust of no greater
                than 80 N (18 lb), and that otherwise meets the other requirements
                set forth in NFPA 1125, Code for Manufacture of Model Rocket and High
                Power Rocket Motors.

                John

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Peter Johansson
                ... Rocket motors with less than 62.5 grams of propellant are exempt from many BATFE regulations. Rockets with more than 125 grams propellant (total) require
                Message 7 of 19 , Jun 5, 2012
                  On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...> wrote:

                  > Question.   Why do we even have 62.5 and 125 gram limits?  Who made up these limits?

                  Rocket motors with less than 62.5 grams of propellant are exempt from
                  many BATFE regulations.

                  Rockets with more than 125 grams propellant (total) require an FAA
                  wavier to launch.

                  -p.
                • Stephen Flynn
                  You have to look passed what the regulations involve and ask who created them and why.  What is so magic about 62.5 grams and 125 grams that made those limits
                  Message 8 of 19 , Jun 6, 2012
                    You have to look passed what the regulations involve and ask who created them and why.  What is so magic about 62.5 grams and 125 grams that made those limits at the time the rules were created?  Was this just a judgement based on the available motors and modeler's skills at the time they were created?  Are these mass limits out dated?   Can't F motors and G motors be as dangerous in the wrong hands as H motors?   Aren't those who use motors near the 125 gram limit, G and H motors as skilled as those who fly I motors?  I am basically saying that perhaps these limits should be raised in the future and seek to understand why they were created in the first place.
                     
                    The 1970's were not pretty with those in the old guard standing in the way of progress.  I was a junior member and heard of some of the efforts against G motor use amongst other efforts to resist creative growth in the hobby and wonder how the current regulations were created with respect to those days.  I still think there is an unnecessary resistance to creativity, for instance, the regulations on Super Roc motor placement.


                    ________________________________
                    From: Peter Johansson <rockets4kids@...>
                    To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 1:47 PM
                    Subject: Re: [contestRoc] Model Rocket Motors


                     
                    On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...> wrote:

                    > Question.   Why do we even have 62.5 and 125 gram limits?  Who made up these limits?

                    Rocket motors with less than 62.5 grams of propellant are exempt from
                    many BATFE regulations.

                    Rockets with more than 125 grams propellant (total) require an FAA
                    wavier to launch.

                    -p.



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Steve Foster
                    From: Stephen Flynn To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 11:34 AM Subject: Re:
                    Message 9 of 19 , Jun 6, 2012
                      From: Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...>
                      To: "contestRoc@yahoogroups.com" <contestRoc@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 11:34 AM
                      Subject: Re: [contestRoc] Model Rocket Motors


                       
                      snip...  I still think there is an unnecessary resistance to creativity, for instance, the regulations on Super Roc motor placement.



                      I don't think most people really care where to place the motor in SuperRoc, the problem is trying to create a set of rules so we don't end up with models that just drag behind a long rigid piece of string (or many other possible absurd variations) and call it a "SuperRoc".   Without enough structure in the rules you end up too much creativity and "Special NARAM rules".  Come up with a set of rules for SuperRoc where you can place the motor wherever you want that doesn't also create to loopholes that need to be closed and you'll still lose the "creativity" in the process.

                      Steve

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Dan
                      Re: Superoc motor placement. As my friend Dr. John Vigianno used to say, Every rule in the Pink Book is there for a reason . This specific rule was in
                      Message 10 of 19 , Jun 6, 2012
                        Re: Superoc motor placement.

                        As my friend Dr. John Vigianno used to say, "Every rule in the Pink Book is there for a reason". This specific rule was in response to the way some people, most notably Canadian rocketeers at the old CANAM meets in the 70s, flew the event. Taping an engine to the top of a 2 meter long strip of balsa like a bottle rocket kinda defeats the purpose of the event.

                        --- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > You have to look passed what the regulations involve and ask who created them and why.  What is so magic about 62.5 grams and 125 grams that made those limits at the time the rules were created?  Was this just a judgement based on the available motors and modeler's skills at the time they were created?  Are these mass limits out dated?   Can't F motors and G motors be as dangerous in the wrong hands as H motors?   Aren't those who use motors near the 125 gram limit, G and H motors as skilled as those who fly I motors?  I am basically saying that perhaps these limits should be raised in the future and seek to understand why they were created in the first place.
                        >  
                        > The 1970's were not pretty with those in the old guard standing in the way of progress.  I was a junior member and heard of some of the efforts against G motor use amongst other efforts to resist creative growth in the hobby and wonder how the current regulations were created with respect to those days.  I still think there is an unnecessary resistance to creativity, for instance, the regulations on Super Roc motor placement.
                        >
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > From: Peter Johansson <rockets4kids@...>
                        > To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 1:47 PM
                        > Subject: Re: [contestRoc] Model Rocket Motors
                        >
                        >
                        >  
                        > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > > Question.   Why do we even have 62.5 and 125 gram limits?  Who made up these limits?
                        >
                        > Rocket motors with less than 62.5 grams of propellant are exempt from
                        > many BATFE regulations.
                        >
                        > Rockets with more than 125 grams propellant (total) require an FAA
                        > wavier to launch.
                        >
                        > -p.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • Stephen Flynn
                        I always sought to justify why I should suggest that my club fly any Super Roc event in the first place.   The rules for using body tubes vs aeroshafts
                        Message 11 of 19 , Jun 7, 2012
                          I always sought to justify why I should suggest that my club fly any Super Roc event in the first place.   The rules for using body tubes vs aeroshafts should not be used to justify motor placement.  Since rules were already in place to enforce the idea that a body tube must be used, it appears that motor placement is a separate issue and enforces a limited perspective on the event.  The challenge of using a long tube and launching a large rocket is there in the event for E motors and above but the restrictions just limit the incentive to fly this event for lower power.  The restriction on motor placement is like saying that Rocket Gliders should always have the motor in the front.  It reduces the incentive to bother with the event at all. 
                           
                          Steve F


                          ________________________________
                          From: Dan <dan@...>
                          To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 9:57 PM
                          Subject: [contestRoc] Re: Model Rocket Motors


                           
                          Re: Superoc motor placement.

                          As my friend Dr. John Vigianno used to say, "Every rule in the Pink Book is there for a reason". This specific rule was in response to the way some people, most notably Canadian rocketeers at the old CANAM meets in the 70s, flew the event. Taping an engine to the top of a 2 meter long strip of balsa like a bottle rocket kinda defeats the purpose of the event.

                          --- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > You have to look passed what the regulations involve and ask who created them and why.  What is so magic about 62.5 grams and 125 grams that made those limits at the time the rules were created?  Was this just a judgement based on the available motors and modeler's skills at the time they were created?  Are these mass limits out dated?   Can't F motors and G motors be as dangerous in the wrong hands as H motors?   Aren't those who use motors near the 125 gram limit, G and H motors as skilled as those who fly I motors?  I am basically saying that perhaps these limits should be raised in the future and seek to understand why they were created in the first place.
                          >  
                          > The 1970's were not pretty with those in the old guard standing in the way of progress.  I was a junior member and heard of some of the efforts against G motor use amongst other efforts to resist creative growth in the hobby and wonder how the current regulations were created with respect to those days.  I still think there is an unnecessary resistance to creativity, for instance, the regulations on Super Roc motor placement.
                          >
                          >
                          > ________________________________
                          > From: Peter Johansson <rockets4kids@...>
                          > To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
                          > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 1:47 PM
                          > Subject: Re: [contestRoc] Model Rocket Motors
                          >
                          >
                          >  
                          > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > > Question.   Why do we even have 62.5 and 125 gram limits?  Who made up these limits?
                          >
                          > Rocket motors with less than 62.5 grams of propellant are exempt from
                          > many BATFE regulations.
                          >
                          > Rockets with more than 125 grams propellant (total) require an FAA
                          > wavier to launch.
                          >
                          > -p.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Bob Kaplow
                          Since the Stupidroc rules first came out in the late 70s, there have been at least a dozen major changes to the event, and continuing controversy and arguments
                          Message 12 of 19 , Jun 7, 2012
                            Since the Stupidroc rules first came out in the late 70s, there have been at least a dozen major changes to the event, and continuing controversy and arguments regarding the rules. We still don't have a workable set of rules.

                            To me, it says that the event isn't worth keeping on life support any longer.

                            --- On Thu, 6/7/12, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...> wrote:

                            From: Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...>
                            Subject: Re: [contestRoc] Re: Model Rocket Motors
                            To: "contestRoc@yahoogroups.com" <contestRoc@yahoogroups.com>
                            Date: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 11:19 AM
















                             









                            I always sought to justify why I should suggest that my club fly any Super Roc event in the first place.   The rules for using body tubes vs aeroshafts should not be used to justify motor placement.  Since rules were already in place to enforce the idea that a body tube must be used, it appears that motor placement is a separate issue and enforces a limited perspective on the event.  The challenge of using a long tube and launching a large rocket is there in the event for E motors and above but the restrictions just limit the incentive to fly this event for lower power.  The restriction on motor placement is like saying that Rocket Gliders should always have the motor in the front.  It reduces the incentive to bother with the event at all. 

                             

                            Steve F



                            ________________________________

                            From: Dan <dan@...>

                            To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com

                            Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 9:57 PM

                            Subject: [contestRoc] Re: Model Rocket Motors



                             

                            Re: Superoc motor placement.



                            As my friend Dr. John Vigianno used to say, "Every rule in the Pink Book is there for a reason". This specific rule was in response to the way some people, most notably Canadian rocketeers at the old CANAM meets in the 70s, flew the event. Taping an engine to the top of a 2 meter long strip of balsa like a bottle rocket kinda defeats the purpose of the event.



                            --- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...> wrote:

                            >

                            > You have to look passed what the regulations involve and ask who created them and why.  What is so magic about 62.5 grams and 125 grams that made those limits at the time the rules were created?  Was this just a judgement based on the available motors and modeler's skills at the time they were created?  Are these mass limits out dated?   Can't F motors and G motors be as dangerous in the wrong hands as H motors?   Aren't those who use motors near the 125 gram limit, G and H motors as skilled as those who fly I motors?  I am basically saying that perhaps these limits should be raised in the future and seek to understand why they were created in the first place.

                            >  

                            > The 1970's were not pretty with those in the old guard standing in the way of progress.  I was a junior member and heard of some of the efforts against G motor use amongst other efforts to resist creative growth in the hobby and wonder how the current regulations were created with respect to those days.  I still think there is an unnecessary resistance to creativity, for instance, the regulations on Super Roc motor placement.

                            >

                            >

                            > ________________________________

                            > From: Peter Johansson <rockets4kids@...>

                            > To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com

                            > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 1:47 PM

                            > Subject: Re: [contestRoc] Model Rocket Motors

                            >

                            >

                            >  

                            > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...> wrote:

                            >

                            > > Question.   Why do we even have 62.5 and 125 gram limits?  Who made up these limits?

                            >

                            > Rocket motors with less than 62.5 grams of propellant are exempt from

                            > many BATFE regulations.

                            >

                            > Rockets with more than 125 grams propellant (total) require an FAA

                            > wavier to launch.

                            >

                            > -p.

                            >

                            >

                            >

                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                            >



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



























                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • John Buckley
                            Although I would argue for keeping 1/4A SRD. Basically its 1/4A PD with a longer tube and more points! :-O ... [Non-text portions of this message have been
                            Message 13 of 19 , Jun 7, 2012
                              Although I would argue for keeping 1/4A SRD.

                              Basically its 1/4A PD with a longer tube and more points! :-O




                              On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Bob Kaplow <bobkaplow@...> wrote:

                              > Since the Stupidroc rules first came out in the late 70s, there have been
                              > at least a dozen major changes to the event, and continuing controversy and
                              > arguments regarding the rules. We still don't have a workable set of rules.
                              >
                              > To me, it says that the event isn't worth keeping on life support any
                              > longer.
                              >
                              > --- On Thu, 6/7/12, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > From: Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...>
                              > Subject: Re: [contestRoc] Re: Model Rocket Motors
                              > To: "contestRoc@yahoogroups.com" <contestRoc@yahoogroups.com>
                              > Date: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 11:19 AM
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > I always sought to justify why I should suggest that my club fly any
                              > Super Roc event in the first place. The rules for using body tubes vs
                              > aeroshafts should not be used to justify motor placement. Since rules were
                              > already in place to enforce the idea that a body tube must be used, it
                              > appears that motor placement is a separate issue and enforces a limited
                              > perspective on the event. The challenge of using a long tube and launching
                              > a large rocket is there in the event for E motors and above but the
                              > restrictions just limit the incentive to fly this event for lower power.
                              > The restriction on motor placement is like saying that Rocket Gliders
                              > should always have the motor in the front. It reduces the incentive to
                              > bother with the event at all.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Steve F
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ________________________________
                              >
                              > From: Dan <dan@...>
                              >
                              > To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              > Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 9:57 PM
                              >
                              > Subject: [contestRoc] Re: Model Rocket Motors
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Re: Superoc motor placement.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > As my friend Dr. John Vigianno used to say, "Every rule in the Pink Book
                              > is there for a reason". This specific rule was in response to the way some
                              > people, most notably Canadian rocketeers at the old CANAM meets in the 70s,
                              > flew the event. Taping an engine to the top of a 2 meter long strip of
                              > balsa like a bottle rocket kinda defeats the purpose of the event.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...>
                              > wrote:
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > You have to look passed what the regulations involve and ask who created
                              > them and why. What is so magic about 62.5 grams and 125 grams that made
                              > those limits at the time the rules were created? Was this just a
                              > judgement based on the available motors and modeler's skills at the time
                              > they were created? Are these mass limits out dated?  Can't F motors
                              > and G motors be as dangerous in the wrong hands as H motors?  Aren't
                              > those who use motors near the 125 gram limit, G and H motors as skilled as
                              > those who fly I motors? I am basically saying that perhaps these limits
                              > should be raised in the future and seek to understand why they were
                              > created in the first place.
                              >
                              > > Â
                              >
                              > > The 1970's were not pretty with those in the old guard standing in the
                              > way of progress. I was a junior member and heard of some of the efforts
                              > against G motor use amongst other efforts to resist creative growth in the
                              > hobby and wonder how the current regulations were created with respect to
                              > those days. I still think there is an unnecessary resistance to
                              > creativity, for instance, the regulations on Super Roc motor placement.
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > ________________________________
                              >
                              > > From: Peter Johansson <rockets4kids@...>
                              >
                              > > To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              > > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 1:47 PM
                              >
                              > > Subject: Re: [contestRoc] Model Rocket Motors
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > Â
                              >
                              > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...>
                              > wrote:
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > > Question.  Why do we even have 62.5 and 125 gram limits? Who made
                              > up these limits?
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > Rocket motors with less than 62.5 grams of propellant are exempt from
                              >
                              > > many BATFE regulations.
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > Rockets with more than 125 grams propellant (total) require an FAA
                              >
                              > > wavier to launch.
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > -p.
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              > >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >


                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Dan
                              I hear where you re coming from, but I think there are challenges for any motor class above A engines when you have to push the model rather than pull it. The
                              Message 14 of 19 , Jun 7, 2012
                                I hear where you're coming from, but I think there are challenges for any motor class above A engines when you have to push the model rather than pull it.

                                The biggest reason I was a fan in the past is that for a long time it was the only altitude event that didn't need a return besides regular altitude but it was a lot easier to track.

                                A or B SRA are great events to teach new people how to track and even C through F SRA ware a lot easier to track than the straight altitude events. As a tracker, I really like that. At most meets my sections fly/flew, we could get closure of 1% or less on SRA flights. We didn't do nearly as well with straight altitude events. The only other event we did as well with was A Payload.

                                Now that tracking is on the way out, I admit that Superoc is somewhat less appealing to me. But it still has a high entertainment value and is a lot more interesting for the spectator and casual contestant than straight altitude.

                                Dan


                                --- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > I always sought to justify why I should suggest that my club fly any Super Roc event in the first place.   The rules for using body tubes vs aeroshafts should not be used to justify motor placement.  Since rules were already in place to enforce the idea that a body tube must be used, it appears that motor placement is a separate issue and enforces a limited perspective on the event.  The challenge of using a long tube and launching a large rocket is there in the event for E motors and above but the restrictions just limit the incentive to fly this event for lower power.  The restriction on motor placement is like saying that Rocket Gliders should always have the motor in the front.  It reduces the incentive to bother with the event at all. 
                                >  
                                > Steve F
                                >
                                >
                                > ________________________________
                                > From: Dan <dan@...>
                                > To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
                                > Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 9:57 PM
                                > Subject: [contestRoc] Re: Model Rocket Motors
                                >
                                >
                                >  
                                > Re: Superoc motor placement.
                                >
                                > As my friend Dr. John Vigianno used to say, "Every rule in the Pink Book is there for a reason". This specific rule was in response to the way some people, most notably Canadian rocketeers at the old CANAM meets in the 70s, flew the event. Taping an engine to the top of a 2 meter long strip of balsa like a bottle rocket kinda defeats the purpose of the event.
                                >
                                > --- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > You have to look passed what the regulations involve and ask who created them and why.  What is so magic about 62.5 grams and 125 grams that made those limits at the time the rules were created?  Was this just a judgement based on the available motors and modeler's skills at the time they were created?  Are these mass limits out dated?   Can't F motors and G motors be as dangerous in the wrong hands as H motors?   Aren't those who use motors near the 125 gram limit, G and H motors as skilled as those who fly I motors?  I am basically saying that perhaps these limits should be raised in the future and seek to understand why they were created in the first place.
                                > >  
                                > > The 1970's were not pretty with those in the old guard standing in the way of progress.  I was a junior member and heard of some of the efforts against G motor use amongst other efforts to resist creative growth in the hobby and wonder how the current regulations were created with respect to those days.  I still think there is an unnecessary resistance to creativity, for instance, the regulations on Super Roc motor placement.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > ________________________________
                                > > From: Peter Johansson <rockets4kids@>
                                > > To: contestRoc@yahoogroups.com
                                > > Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 1:47 PM
                                > > Subject: Re: [contestRoc] Model Rocket Motors
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >  
                                > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Stephen Flynn <stephene23648@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > > Question.   Why do we even have 62.5 and 125 gram limits?  Who made up these limits?
                                > >
                                > > Rocket motors with less than 62.5 grams of propellant are exempt from
                                > > many BATFE regulations.
                                > >
                                > > Rockets with more than 125 grams propellant (total) require an FAA
                                > > wavier to launch.
                                > >
                                > > -p.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                > >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              • rdwoebke
                                ... Wow.
                                Message 15 of 19 , Jun 11, 2012
                                  --- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, "Dan" <dan@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Now that tracking is on the way out,

                                  Wow.
                                • James Duffy
                                  ... This should be entertaining! Could everyone please hold off on their responses for a few moments while I go get some popcorn? Anarchy now, James
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Jun 11, 2012
                                    On Jun 11, 2012, at 10:00 AM, rdwoebke wrote:

                                    > --- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, "Dan" <dan@...> wrote:

                                    >> Now that tracking is on the way out,
                                    >
                                    > Wow.


                                    This should be entertaining! Could everyone please hold off on their responses for a few moments while I go get some popcorn?

                                    Anarchy now,
                                    James
                                    _______________
                                    James Duffy
                                    jduffy@...
                                  • Wolf
                                    ... I know we (MTMA) haven t talked about getting rid of our trackers yet, but recent conversation has tended to be more like, what altimeter events can we
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Jun 20, 2012
                                      --- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, "rdwoebke" <rdwoebke@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > --- In contestRoc@yahoogroups.com, "Dan" <dan@> wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > Now that tracking is on the way out,
                                      >
                                      > Wow.

                                      I know we (MTMA) haven't talked about getting rid of our trackers yet, but recent conversation has tended to be more like, "what altimeter events can we fly on our field," instead of, "we need to remeasure and mark our baseline."

                                      -W
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.