Why is NAR so consistently anti-innovation?
David Urbanek
is about as adventerous as a pack of old men sitting around a cracker
barrel and still playing checkers after 60 years of playing checkers.
My wife decided, two years ago, that she wanted to do her level 3 cert
with a spool rocket. It has high drag, low altitude and it's just
something she likes. She's built two smaller spools building up to
it. She downloaded and scrupulously prepared her level 3 package
according to NAR specifications.
Then, when she submitted the package, she was told that NAR has a
policy specifically disallowing pyramids and spools (I assume that
long cone shaped rockets like the N1 are out too).
What a load of crap!
Not only is this an unpublished policy (a bad idea to start with) but
it's just plain stupid. What reason can be given for such a policy?
Spool rockets, pyramid rockets and cone rockets are just as safe or
dangerous as 3FNC rockets.
Perhaps no one on the NAR L3CC is competant to judge whether a
particular spool, pyramid, UFO or cone rocket is safe. That's GOT to
be the reason.
Tell you what. Let's just get honest. If the NAR L3CC is not able to
judge any of those kinds of rockets, they aren't competant period.
How about NAR just publish the plans for the "Approved Level 3 Rocket"
and make everyone build and fly that particular rocket.
You guys are just making rules to prove you can write rules. There's
no sense, logic or reason in that policy, at all.
Bunny once told me that he thought that two organizations weren't a
good thing. Hey Mark, here's where you're wrong. One group is being
stupidly exclusionary and the other still has the ability to think.
It's important to have alternatives to despotism.
urbanek
Jerry Irvine
urb...@surfree.com (David Urbanek) wrote:
> Usually, I'm a big NAR supporter, but there are times I feel that NAR
> is about as adventerous as a pack of old men sitting around a cracker
> barrel and still playing checkers after 60 years of playing checkers.
>
> My wife decided, two years ago, that she wanted to do her level 3 cert
> with a spool rocket. It has high drag, low altitude and it's just
> something she likes. She's built two smaller spools building up to
> it. She downloaded and scrupulously prepared her level 3 package
> according to NAR specifications.
>
> Then, when she submitted the package, she was told that NAR has a
> policy specifically disallowing pyramids and spools (I assume that
> long cone shaped rockets like the N1 are out too).
Serious?
>
> What a load of crap!
>
> Not only is this an unpublished policy (a bad idea to start with) but
> it's just plain stupid. What reason can be given for such a policy?
> Spool rockets, pyramid rockets and cone rockets are just as safe or
> dangerous as 3FNC rockets.
I am afraid I have to agree with you on this one. The rediculous offset
distances and motor standards protect you from any conceivable failure
already.
>
> Perhaps no one on the NAR L3CC is competant to judge whether a
> particular spool, pyramid, UFO or cone rocket is safe. That's GOT to
> be the reason.
>
> Tell you what. Let's just get honest. If the NAR L3CC is not able to
> judge any of those kinds of rockets, they aren't competant period.
> How about NAR just publish the plans for the "Approved Level 3 Rocket"
> and make everyone build and fly that particular rocket.
:)
>
> You guys are just making rules to prove you can write rules. There's
> no sense, logic or reason in that policy, at all.
Have I ever said that before? Hello!!!
>
> Bunny once told me that he thought that two organizations weren't a
> good thing. Hey Mark, here's where you're wrong. One group is being
> stupidly exclusionary and the other still has the ability to think.
> It's important to have alternatives to despotism.
>
> urbanek
Depotism vs tyranny, gee, wich to choose? They both make way too many
rules.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01ro...@gte.net>
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.
Marty Schrader
Hmm...glad I'm not trying to achieve Level 3.
--
Marty Schrader
Up and Over...
Phil Stein
That;'s why I joined TRA this year.
If the L3CC hadn't gotten me, the timing of PRO38 situation at NY
Power would have. Being from the West, you probably won't notice
but, the timing definately showed a lack of consideration for the East
/ NY Power. I also think AT is somewhat guilty of this with their
motor allocations. All we heard was in time for LDRS.
Phil Stein
Sat, 10 Aug 2002 15:46:22 GMT, urb...@surfree.com (David Urbanek)
wrote:
tai fu
Death... (you know the one that went horozontal under M power)
--
email: rahi...@mail.utexan.edu
replace n with s to reply.
David Urbanek
>Im guessing they wont do the pyramid stuff after the Flying Pyramid of
>Death... (you know the one that went horozontal under M power)
Ghod, I hope this isn't their level of logic (or lack of said).
I've seen an upscale Fat Boy fly horizontal on M power. Why aren't
upscale fat boys forbidden.
Heck, I've seen a number of Level 3 failures that relied solely on
electronics for deployment (very dangerous to have a recovery failure,
you know). We should not allow electronic deployment.
If it fails, it must be the design, right?
sheesh. (there's no emoticon for the level of disgust I'm feeling)
urbanek
David Urbanek
>
>Ouch. And I thought I was a rabble rouser about NAR's internal workings.
>Hmm...glad I'm not trying to achieve Level 3.
Make stupid rules and you will get my ire with both barrells. There
is no reason to disallow spools and pyramids. Period.
urbanek
David Urbanek
checking this out. It would have been a whole lot worse if he hadn't
checked it out and gotten word back, so kudos to Dale for doing it
right. I'm pretty Teed off right now because of a stupid rule
preventing my wife from attempting level 3 with a spool rocket.
Imagine how angry I'd be if the flight had been successful, but made
moot by this stupid rule!
If we don't like overly restrictive and onerous regulation that has no
basis in fact when it comes from the ATF, I don't see why we have to
turn around ad make arbitrary, restrictive and onerous regulations to
place on ourselves.
urbanek
Brett Buck
>
> >On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 17:00:37 +0000 (UTC), tai fu <fds...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Im guessing they wont do the pyramid stuff after the Flying Pyramid of
> >Death... (you know the one that went horozontal under M power)
>
> Ghod, I hope this isn't their level of logic (or lack of said).
>
> I've seen an upscale Fat Boy fly horizontal on M power. Why aren't
> upscale fat boys forbidden.
>
> Heck, I've seen a number of Level 3 failures that relied solely on
> electronics for deployment (very dangerous to have a recovery failure,
> you know). We should not allow electronic deployment.
>
> If it fails, it must be the design, right?
On the other hand, your premise seems to be a little shaky. I see
nothing at all "innovative" about flying pyramids, spools, badminton
birdies, fast-food containers, etc.
I am not arguing the validity of the point of the "rule" (if indeed
it is a rule, since I've never seen it), but if it were up to me, I
would require someone to prove the stability of such items, particularly
a model made of non-frangible components and powered by enough impulse
to push my car to 100 mph.
>
> sheesh. (there's no emoticon for the level of disgust I'm feeling)
>
Gee, quote better! -
I am so angry There is no emoticon for what I feel
Rest assured that I was on the Internet within minutes, registering
my disgust
throughout the world.
Brett
John DeMar
someone in NAR admin disallow it? And who? I don't believe there is
a blanket rule against any non-standard rocket shape. If a particular
committee member feels uncomfortable about it, you can't force him/her to
agree to sign off on it! This is a volunteer organization, after all.
What exactly *is* a "spool rocket" anyway?!
If the NAR (which is all of us members) is "consistently anti-innovation",
how do we account for all the cool things I see going on now and over the
years? Jeesh! You must be pretty angry to make such accusations!
Or trolling for sympathy from the "usual suspects". ;)
-John DeMar
NAR #52094
David Urbanek
wrote:
> I see nothing at all "innovative" about flying pyramids, spools, badminton
> birdies, fast-food containers, etc.
They certainly are more innovative than 3FNC.
Let us say your design criteria for a L3 rocket was that it be safe,
inexpensive and not fly higher than 3000' AGL. How would you do this?
High drag is the best solution. A spool rocket is high drag, light
weight and proven stable. It matches this particular rocketeer's
criteria to a T. Planning and successfully executing this design
proves both the rocketeers construction competence, but also their
ability to meet a particular goal with their rocket.
Isn't that what YOU would want from a potential Level 3 rocketeer.
> I am not arguing the validity of the point of the "rule" (if indeed
>it is a rule, since I've never seen it), but if it were up to me, I
>would require someone to prove the stability of such items, particularly
>a model made of non-frangible components and powered by enough impulse
>to push my car to 100 mph.
I agree with a need for proof of stability. You're a reasonable guy,
would you accept any of the following:
1: Witnessing several spool shaped rockets fly and maintain stability.
2: Flying a scale model of the design.
3: Flying the full scale rocket on a smaller motor.
I've got video to for 1 if one had not been in attendance where such
rockets flew.
She's done the second.
The third is planned.
If NAR's L3CC required all of these steps to prove the rocket was
safe, I would think they were being reasonable and cautious.
As it stands, I think they're being stupid and frightened.
The L3CC is being very ATF-ish.
David Urbanek
>
> Who exactly are you complaining about? A certain L3CC member? Or did
>someone in NAR admin disallow it? And who? I don't believe there is
>a blanket rule against any non-standard rocket shape.
I am angry at the committee for propogating a blanket rule without
publishing the rule.
Dale Dillon, the L3CC member who was to be my wife's L3CC person,
checked this out and he told us that there was a blanket rule
prohibiting these two non-standard rocket shapes: spools and pyramids.
Dale knows what he's about, he's honest to the core and he knows what
he heard. If he tells me that's what he was told, then that that's
what he was told and there is no question about it.
> What exactly *is* a "spool rocket" anyway?!
Two rigid disks seperated by a length of body tube. It looks somewhat
like a big wire spool.
> If the NAR (which is all of us members) is "consistently anti-innovation",
> how do we account for all the cool things I see going on now and over the
> years?
Like have a level 3 committee? Because the 'other' rocketry group has
one and they were losing members.
Like allowing high power? Because the 'other' rocketry group had them
and they were losing members.
NAR is the arch-conservative group. When they get too conservative,
it takes some shaking up to get them to change. TRA is the
arch-anarchy group and when they get too anarchistic, it takes some
shaking up to get them to follow their own rules.
>You must be pretty angry to make such accusations!
I am now, and will always be, entirely opposed to rules for rules
sake. I am always angered by stupid, uninformed, illogical and
needless rules.
I think it is entirely appropriate to hold such rules (and their
makers) up for public ridicule when one encounters them.
urbanek
Brian Elfert
>If the L3CC hadn't gotten me, the timing of PRO38 situation at NY
>Power would have. Being from the West, you probably won't notice
>but, the timing definately showed a lack of consideration for the East
>/ NY Power. I also think AT is somewhat guilty of this with their
>motor allocations. All we heard was in time for LDRS.
NY Power was not a national launch for either NAR or Tripoli. NAR has NSL
and NARAM. Tripoli has LDRS. I don't think there was a chance in the
world of Aerotech having large stuff like M1315s ready by NSL.
The club holding NY Power has both NAR and Tripoli affiliations. They
choose to go with NAR for insurance. Do you really think Aerotech would
have shipped HPR motors for NY Power if they had choosen to use their
Tripoli affiliation?
LDRS was held in Texas. Bob Ellis is in Texas. Does it make sense for
Aerotech to ship across the state or across the nation?
I don't see how NAR vs Tripoli has anything to do with how Aerotech
allocates motors.
Brian Elfert
Brian Elfert
>Heck, I've seen a number of Level 3 failures that relied solely on
>electronics for deployment (very dangerous to have a recovery failure,
>you know). We should not allow electronic deployment.
There is no choice on electronic deployment. NAR and Tripoli both require
electronics for a level 3 cert.
After certification, you can do whatever you want, but what M or above
motor has motor ejection?
Brian Elfert
John DeMar
> Dale Dillon, the L3CC member who was to be my wife's L3CC person,
> checked this out and he told us that there was a blanket rule
> prohibiting these two non-standard rocket shapes: spools and pyramids.
> Dale knows what he's about, he's honest to the core and he knows what
> he heard.
Who told him it was a rule?
> > What exactly *is* a "spool rocket" anyway?!
>
> Two rigid disks seperated by a length of body tube. It looks somewhat
> like a big wire spool.
That's innovative? Better tell NASA.
How about an active system that deploys air brakes at a certain airspeed?
Now that's innovative. I think you're confusing "functionally convenient
and inefficient" with innovative.
> Like have a level 3 committee? Because the 'other' rocketry group has
> one and they were losing members.
Like instituting cert levels instead of "one size knows all" that TRA had.
> Like allowing high power? Because the 'other' rocketry group had them
> and they were losing members.
Like doing the testing and analysis necessary to define the safety code.
> NAR is the arch-conservative group. When they get too conservative,
> it takes some shaking up to get them to change. TRA is the
> arch-anarchy group and when they get too anarchistic, it takes some
> shaking up to get them to follow their own rules.
I'd side with conservative safety over "anything goes" any day.
> >You must be pretty angry to make such accusations!
>
> I am now, and will always be, entirely opposed to rules for rules
> sake. I am always angered by stupid, uninformed, illogical and
> needless rules.
Are you sure it's a rule? Have you contacted Bundick to check this
out?
> I think it is entirely appropriate to hold such rules (and their
> makers) up for public ridicule when one encounters them.
If you weren't so vague and generalizing, I'd agree. It also depends
on what you'd like as an outcome: help fix a problem or just rant in public.
-John DeMar
NAR #52094
Woody Miller
FTBOD was allowed, and his "Grandfather Clock" probably has been ok'd by
someone.. Maybe not all the LC33's like dealing with oddrocs, but atleast one
must - maybe contact some of the others.. The Lc33/TAP person doesn't need to be
the closest one based on local...
(did my L3 thru TRA, and grand fathered into NAR)
David Urbanek
like this out of his butt. He checked and was told by the other NAR
L3CC members he spoke with that this was an unwritten rule that they
were supposed to enforce.
>Have you contacted Bundick to check this out?
Why would I bother Mark Bundick with it? Is he the chairman of the
L3CC? Not last time I looked.
I'm not checking with Mark Bundick, I'm checking with someone who is
getting in touch with the current head of the L3CC. Unwritten,
unpublished rules were which were once the norm may not be now. Maybe
this unwritten rule has been rescinded. Maybe they all have and the
word just hasn't gotten down to the L3CC members.
>> I think it is entirely appropriate to hold such rules (and their
>> makers) up for public ridicule when one encounters them.
>
> If you weren't so vague and generalizing, I'd agree. It also depends
>on what you'd like as an outcome: help fix a problem or just rant in public.
Vague and generalizing? What do you want, dates and names? I can't
get much more specific than I was.
It's always the same song. I ask nicely, I follow channels and I am
too easy to ignore. After all, I'm just one guy. I get my message
out in public, though and suddenly, hey, stuff starts happening. It
is very annoying that it is necessary, but what can you do?
Oliver Arend
made things move.
Oliver
Joel Corwith
level 3. I thought the standard line was 'you live too close to someone'
when you got rejected. I could not find 'spool' mentioned on the NAR site
let alone the level 3 docs. I'm still a bit amazed that they allow 'kits'
for level three. I mean, what's the point? One of the committee persons
will be at the V2 build session tomorrow, and I'll see what he thinks. At
the very least the doc:
http://www.nar.org/hpcert/L3certreq.pdf
should say no weirdoes (rockets that is).
Unfortunately it's the V2 project that even got me thinking level three. We
get to see the motor tomorrow.
http://www.plasterblaster.com/
I'm a bit hyper about it. Hypertech that is!
Joel. phx
And remember, when you go to the dark side, to check the box "no
subscription".
"David Urbanek" <urb...@surfree.com> wrote in message
news:3d55331d...@news.surfree.com...
> Usually, I'm a big NAR supporter, but there are times I feel that NAR
> is about as adventerous as a pack of old men sitting around a cracker
> barrel and still playing checkers after 60 years of playing checkers.
>
> My wife decided, two years ago, that she wanted to do her level 3 cert
> with a spool rocket. It has high drag, low altitude and it's just
> something she likes. She's built two smaller spools building up to
> it. She downloaded and scrupulously prepared her level 3 package
> according to NAR specifications.
Um, isn't that what it's ALL about. Building small, learning techniques, up
scaling and using better build methods, testing implementation?
Woody Miller
grandfathers back to NAR, it adds to the number of us that were really unhappy
with the NAR L3 program and went to TRA. (Unpublish rules! OMG! JI and Kaplow
would cringe and spew emails about the "evil ones" - but only if it was TRA!)
I first joined TRA due to L3, got my L3 thru TRA, and really considered dropping
my NAR membership. Then, I firgured that if NAR needed to change, it was better
to be a member....
I myself found that the TRA requirements for L3 made much more sense, and I
would like to see the NAR L3CC communicate with the TAP more to gain experience...
John DeMar
> Why would I bother Mark Bundick with it? Is he the chairman of the
> L3CC? Not last time I looked.
If you're making the effort to blast the NAR with hear-say, don't you
think it would be worth at least getting the word directly from someone
of authority in the association?
> I'm not checking with Mark Bundick, I'm checking with someone who is
> getting in touch with the current head of the L3CC.
Why not just call Steve Lubliner directly before going off the handle?
His phone number is on the NAR website. Give him a couple days to get
back from Texas.
> Vague and generalizing? What do you want, dates and names? I can't
> get much more specific than I was.
After asking, you were more specific. But you still haven't given this
enough effort to get clarification before spreading NAR FUD.
I think the title of this thread you started is ample proof that you
are generalizing and exaggerating. Not the best way for anyone to take
you seriously.
-John DeMar
NAR #52094
Steve Wolfe
> is very annoying that it is necessary, but what can you do?
Dave, this is not directly aimed at you. It's more of a general thing.
This newsgroup has a lot of people that:
(A) Think they know a lot more than anyone at NAR or TRA
(B) Think that NAR and/or TRA are any of the following:
- incompetant
- unfair
- oppressive
- evil
(C) Seem to have an abundance of time on their hands, from the amount of
complaining that they do.
I've been wondering for over a year why some of those people don't use
their time, energy, and frustration to start a new rocketry organization.
IEAS has done it, and I don't believe that the experimental folks are
anywhere near as large in number as the high-power camp is (even though
they're overlapping groups).
Maybe the IEAS people are more affluent. Maybe they're more motivated.
Maybe they just like to solve their own problems, instead of sitting around
on their fat, lazy butts and complaining all day long, looking more and more
like the "Comic-Book Guy" from the Simpsons. Heaven knows that we have a
respectable number of people here that seem to fit THAT mold.
A lot of people here whine and moan about the ATF over-regulating our
hobby. If every one of them who had NOT donated to the legal fund were to
stop their whining, I have a feeling that we'd notice a significant
difference. Treat your dislikes of NAR or TRA the same way - do something
constructive about it. However, if you're the kind of person that just
seems to enjoy wallowing in hopeless negativism (and we certainly have a few
of those here!), then fine - go ahead and do it. Just keep it to yourself.
Really, folks. If things make you that unhappy, what's more likely to
make you happy once again - whining and moaning, or going out and changing
your situation?
steve
Sams Family
Hi, Brian,
Brian Elfert wrote:
> NY Power was not a national launch for either NAR or Tripoli.
Agreed, but it was still a major launch, and for those Easterners who couldn't
get to Texas...well, they wanted motors, too.
> NAR has NSL and NARAM. Tripoli has LDRS. I don't think there was a chance
> in the world of Aerotech having large stuff like M1315s ready by NSL.
By NSL, agreed. By LDRS and NYPower, yes, but the humidity problems threw a
wrench in the works.
<snip>
> LDRS was held in Texas. Bob Ellis is in Texas. Does it make sense for
> Aerotech to ship across the state or across the nation?
Again, I think it had more to do with the humidity effects on motor production
than locale, 'tho I do think he personally delivered some of the motors to
Amarillo.
> I don't see how NAR vs Tripoli has anything to do with how Aerotech
> allocates motors.
I largely agree. Now, here's my gripe: We (in Texas) figure we'd have had a lot
more HPR flyers at NARAM if HPR motors had been available. Last weekend's sport
launch had quite short lines, and very few HPR flights. And NARAM IS a national
event. It was held on a field that regularly hosts HPR meets with good sized
crowds. Word is that many sport HPR flyers opted not to attend when it was
announced that few HPR motors would be available. Lots of folks around here are
wondering why AT didn't provide more HPR motors.
Doug
--
samily at flash dot net
Paul Wake
prohibit flying scaled up flyswatters with an "M"? A couple of big
flyswatters taped together are clearly not pyramids or spools, and they
do have fins (sort of).
>This newsgroup has a lot of people that...Think they know a lot more
>than anyone at NAR...
Actually, I'd guess that Dave does not a lot more than a lot of the
people at NAR.
--
Pull MYFINGER to e-mail me
http://www.xmission.com/~wake/
Quilly Mammoth
approved, were available at NYPOWER?
--
QM
"Phil Stein" <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsuks.net> wrote in message
news:q3ealuoin07ha9csm...@4ax.com...
Quilly Mammoth
First, I asked in RMR if AT was going to support NARAM the way they did
LDRS. Vague answer. Second, Mike Marten shows up for "kiss you, I love
you" face time at the Sunday night meeting, then bolts. Third, I believe
that there was more to the lack of attendance at McGregor than just the lack
of HPR motors.
AT is clearly more interested in supporting TRA events. And that's as it
should be. _Most_ TRA members fly composite. _Most_ NRA members don't.
When I allocate sales resources...I'm in the cabinet business...do I spend
as much man time in site built or job shop markets? Or do I compete in
factory box markets. I'm in the factory box business and that's where I
spend the man hours.
--
QM
"Sams Family" <sam...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3D55C78E...@flash.net...
Quilly Mammoth
"David Urbanek" <urb...@surfree.com> wrote in message
news:3d5578b6...@news.surfree.com...
|
| NAR is the arch-conservative group. When they get too conservative,
| it takes some shaking up to get them to change. TRA is the
| arch-anarchy group and when they get too anarchistic, it takes some
| shaking up to get them to follow their own rules.
|
I have to disagree with you there, Dave. True anarchists wouldn't try to
impose their "rules" on someone else. Whether making up rules as you go, or
enforcing rules that are on the books, neither is true anarchist behavior.
The first rule of an anarchist is that you will not commit force on another.
Anarchists are anti-rule _enforcement_. To an anarchist "rules" should be
followed by mutual consent.
I think the more philosophically correct way to say it is that "TRA is
arch-liberal. and when they get too liberal, it takes some shaking up to get
them to follow their own code".
QM
QM
Sams Family
Quilly Mammoth wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> First, I asked in RMR if AT was going to support NARAM the way they did
> LDRS. Vague answer. Second, Mike Marten shows up for "kiss you, I love
> you" face time at the Sunday night meeting, then bolts.
Dangit, Quilly,
You're one of the guys I was hopin' to put a face to. You gots to introduce
yourself to me at one of these launches. BTW: My name tag says "Doug" on it :)
I saw Mike hanging out at Trailing Edge early Sunday, but I didn't get a chance
to meet him.
> Third, I believe that there was more to the lack of attendance at McGregor
> than just the lack of HPR motors.
>
> AT is clearly more interested in supporting TRA events. And that's as it
> should be. _Most_ TRA members fly composite. _Most_ NRA members don't.
I've come to appreciate that. Nevertheless, this launch was in the heart of
Texas. We usually draw a pretty good crowd for HPR launches. Given this was a
major event, I can't help but think the weekend crowd would have been much
larger if flyers knew they would be able to get HPR motors.
I'm beginning to see a self-fulfilling prophecy happen. Policy-wise, both
organizations sanction A-O motors. NAR has a BP image. TRA has an HPR image.
BP flyers avoid HPR launches because they perceive no one will be flying BP
there. As a result, no one flies BP there. Your arguemnt is that the converse
applied at the NARAM sport weekend: HPR fliers didn't show up because they
thought it would be all BP.
I suppose that does happen elsewhere, but I know lots HPR of folks didn't go the
sport weekend because they called ahead and couldn't get motors.
> When I allocate sales resources...I'm in the cabinet business...do I spend
> as much man time in site built or job shop markets? Or do I compete in
> factory box markets. I'm in the factory box business and that's where I
> spend the man hours.
No arguemnt here - go where the business is. But I guarantee that if motors had
been committed (some reasonable time) in advance, they would have been flown
that weekend.
Hope to see you at NTHP.
John Gordon
a lot
> more HPR flyers at NARAM if HPR motors had been available. Last weekend's
sport
> launch had quite short lines, and very few HPR flights. And NARAM IS a
national
> event. It was held on a field that regularly hosts HPR meets with good
sized
> crowds. Word is that many sport HPR flyers opted not to attend when it
was
> announced that few HPR motors would be available. Lots of folks around
here are
> wondering why AT didn't provide more HPR motors.
>
> Doug
Didn't the distribution of motors depend on the pre-orders that were taken
back at the start of the year?
Sams Family
John Gordon wrote:
>
> Didn't the distribution of motors depend on the pre-orders that were taken
> back at the start of the year?
John,
Lots of motors have been on order for a long time, some since before the fire.
With the tight supply, some allocation has been rightly necessary. The
complaint is that more should have been allocated for NARAM.
David Urbanek
> If you're making the effort to blast the NAR with hear-say, don't you
>think it would be worth at least getting the word directly from someone
>of authority in the association?
When it comes to level 3 certifications, the L3CC person IS someone in
authority. I got this information, initially, directly from him.
>Why not just call Steve Lubliner directly before going off the handle?
>His phone number is on the NAR website. Give him a couple days to get
>back from Texas.
That would REALLY be a mistake. Steve Lubliner is not the L3CC
chairman. David Shaefer is. He's a NARAM too. I've e-mailed him.
However, that doesn't change the fact that the individual members of
the L3CC think that spool rockets are not allowed. They were told
this by someone in authority and it's never been rescinded as far as
many of them know.
>I think the title of this thread you started is ample proof that you
>are generalizing and exaggerating. Not the best way for anyone to take
>you seriously.
I'm being taken serously. I think it's because I got your attention
and other people's attention.
This is very much like the Kosdon thing back in 2000. My polite
inquiries directly to those in authority got me ignored. My
inflamatory public blasting of the NAR and TRA leadership about this
issue got things rolling. If the polite inquiries had worked, that
would have been the end of it.
urbanek
Actionxprs
I read this thread with great interest, as I was involved with, or at least
present at, a lot of the things mentioned. I'll add my comments.
First. Dave I have to agree with you that NAR is too conservative. When I
rejoined NAR (8 or 9 years ago) they didn't even have a Level lll. The NAR club
I joined didn't do High Power, either (at the time). I joined another group
that formed a Tripoli Prefecture (Tripoli Western New York) which then,
evolved into Buffalo Rocket Society. We all, then learned high power, together.
BRS is also a NAR section, but we are definately a high power group:-). We are
starting to move into EX stuff. NAR is too conservative for that, too. I was
present when Bunny made his famous "Not on MY Watch" speech. Maybe in another 8
or 10 years.... after Tripoli has done it for awhile:-).
In my opinion NAR is, also, way too conservative in their Level lll program
(not counting you're issue). Their rules about shunting charges seems to be on
the conservative side. Tripoli doesn't require it. There are both good and bad
reasons for shunting, based on design, complexety, ect. Why not trust the TAP
guy to make a decision? Also, NAR's way of choosing TAP Members and expecially
the SPEED at which the choosing is done, seem to be WAY too conservative. Like
Lew Garrow, I volunteered to act as a NAR Level lll Tap. Also, like Lew Garrow
(although he since, has) I haven't heard a thing from NAR. No acknowledgement,
thanks for the app, nothing. It's been over 6 months! Duane Wilke (who was
recently chosen) told me he's the NAR TAP for Western Penn. and most of Ohio!
So far Lew's it for New York. He's in NYC. We're in Rochester and Buffalo. Talk
about convience! But I'm sure most NAR members don't mind traveling hundereds
of miles to to try for their Level lll:-). Enough about that. Now on to other
points.
Second. The point was made that Aerotech may not have supported NYPOWER
because it was NAR insured. I really don't think this was the case. While we
were assured by Aerotech that we would have motors for NYPOWER, no guarentee
was made we would have BIG motors. At the rate the small ones we did get, were
exploding, it's probably good we didn't! I'll tell you....it was real
appropriate that we held the launch on the 4th of July:-)! Murray Lampert Lost
FOUR rockets! He is now, the offical BRS CATO KING! Long live the King:-)! To
be fair, Pro 38's were giving Aerotech a run for their money, too.
Third. The reason NYPOWER uses NAR insurance is simply because the co-
sponsering club is a NAR only section and it's easier. For a few years, both
insurances were in effect, until the change in insurance, a few years ago. Now,
it's just simpler to use NAR's. NAR's is probably better, too.
Forth. The question was asked about how many CAR only certified motors were
available at NYPOWER. The answer is...NONE. I was personally assured by Anthony
Cesaroni, the day before NYPOWER, that NO CAR only certified motors were
available in the US. I then, made the decision, as head RSO, to fly all Pro
38's.It sure was a pain in the butt to have to deal with this issue 2 days
before the launch! As I groused then...it would have been nice for NAR to let
us know of the problem, sooner. It's not like they didn't know about NYPOWER.
Forth, about pyramids and The Flying Pyramid of Death. I was present when the
above mentioned Pyramid was flown (PRESENT.....it flew within 50 feet of my
face!!!). The reason it did what it did had NOTHING to do with stability. It
had to do with the launch. As far as I could tell, it flew off of a rod that
was just stuck in the ground. It was elevated from the ground by 4 cardboard
boxes. When the M lit, it blew one (or more) of the boxes away. The rod then
shifted, allowing the pyramid to lean sideways. When the M came up to full
preasure, the Pyramid was already sideways. When it finally started to fly, it
was VERY stable. It was just going parallel to the ground, about 30 ft in the
air:-).For the record....every Pyramid I have ever seen fly (10 to 15) has
flown very stable ( the only exception to this was one of John Ritz's that had
a "defective" motor. He flew it a couple of weeks before, on the same motor,
and it flew fine). I fail to see why the NAR would not allow Pyramids for a
Level lll attempt.
Fifth. Someone said to contact Steve Lubliner to get info. I thought Steve had
stepped down as Level lll Chairman, a number of months ago. Did I miss
something?
Sixth. Someone said that their was no inovation in using a pyramid, traffic
barrel or spool, as a rocket. In my opinion, the inovation is not in the shape,
but in getting that shape to FLY! If the shape is not inovative, IE they are
considered flyable..... why the discussion, at all? Three (or more:-) fins and
a nose cone are DESIGNED to fly. Certainly there is less inovation required in
getting something to do what it was designed to do.
Seventh. When Mark Simpson attempted his Level lll, at NYPOWER, using a
traffic barrel, there was NO issue of whether it was or wasn't allowed by NAR.
I mean, doesn't a traffic barrel look sufficently like a spool to raise the ire
of NAR? Maybe it's because it's tapered. But then, doesn't it have the same
problems as a Pyramid? Andy Schector (Mister CONSERVATIVE, Himself......and a
good friend:-) the TAP, let it fly. And it flew beautifully! The landing was a
little hard, but the flight was fine.
I think that's all the points I wanted to make ( THANK GOD!). I appoligize for
the very long post and I REALLY miss spell check! And Dave......have your wife
certify thru Tripoli. Less hassles (but I'm sure you already know that:-). And
sorry, too that you were not elected to the Board. Try again. Good luck!
Lloyd Wood
BRS Secretary
Level lll
NYPOWER RSO
Doc
>
> I'm beginning to see a self-fulfilling prophecy happen. Policy-wise, both
> organizations sanction A-O motors. NAR has a BP image. TRA has an HPR
image.
> BP flyers avoid HPR launches because they perceive no one will be flying
BP
> there. As a result, no one flies BP there. Your arguemnt is that the
converse
> applied at the NARAM sport weekend: HPR fliers didn't show up because they
> thought it would be all BP.
>
I don't see that at all at NEPRA, NAR section 614, launches. We had well
over 100 people at the last launch and expect more for the Aug 17th launch.
(shamless plug). We had everything from 1/2A to a K motor go up. I would say
about a 60% BP / 40% composit. The club members launch 90% composit. These
are normal numbers... Hell, I'll host the next NARAM launch!
--
Drake" Doc" Damerau 79986 L2
President NEPRA, NAR Section 614
www.nepra.com
HPR Strength of Materials Site:
http://rocketmaterials.org
(Remove "my shorts" to email me)
Quilly Mammoth
news:aj5jth$gis$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
|
| >
| > I'm beginning to see a self-fulfilling prophecy happen. Policy-wise,
both
| > organizations sanction A-O motors. NAR has a BP image. TRA has an HPR
| image.
| > BP flyers avoid HPR launches because they perceive no one will be flying
| BP
| > there. As a result, no one flies BP there. Your arguemnt is that the
| converse
| > applied at the NARAM sport weekend: HPR fliers didn't show up because
they
| > thought it would be all BP.
| >
|
| I don't see that at all at NEPRA, NAR section 614, launches. We had well
| over 100 people at the last launch and expect more for the Aug 17th
launch.
| (shamless plug). We had everything from 1/2A to a K motor go up. I would
say
| about a 60% BP / 40% composit. The club members launch 90% composit. These
| are normal numbers... Hell, I'll host the next NARAM launch!
|
|
| --
Hey Doc,
Shall I forward this to Bunny? Anyhow, I think there is a lot of truth in
the statement of Doug's you replied to!
A couple of points.
1. I believe that if Aerotech had announced they were going to support the
Sport Launch with motors....the way they did at LDRS....there would have
been more sport flyers, and certainly more certification flights! (The mind
boggles at how many attempts the Grrrrrrr might have made)
2. NARAM 45, wherever that may be, should create a situation where a motor
manufacturer is in attendance. The first manufacturer to commit gets a
spotlight. For example:
A dedicated spot on the front page of the NARAM 45 website that Proclaims
"Brand C will be in attendance for your Sport Flight needs". Then if Brand
A commits later, they still only get listed with the rest of the vendors.
QM
Jerry Irvine
"Quilly Mammoth" <kali...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> One question, Phil. How many motors that were CAR approved, but not NAR
> approved, were available at NYPOWER?
None. They don't sell uncertified motors at NAR launches.
However there were about a dozen motors in the catagory at issue.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01ro...@gte.net>
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.
Jerry Irvine
Brian Elfert <bel...@visi.com> wrote:
It makes sense to produce enough product to meet demand.
>
> I don't see how NAR vs Tripoli has anything to do with how Aerotech
> allocates motors.
>
> Brian Elfert
--
Jerry Irvine
urb...@surfree.com (David Urbanek) wrote:
> If we don't like overly restrictive and onerous regulation that has no
> basis in fact when it comes from the ATF, I don't see why we have to
> turn around ad make arbitrary, restrictive and onerous regulations to
> place on ourselves.
>
> urbanek
It is absolutely the story of the life of NAR and TRA. Big time!
Jerry
Jerry Irvine
wrote:
> Who exactly are you complaining about? A certain L3CC member? Or did
> someone in NAR admin disallow it? And who? I don't believe there is
> a blanket rule against any non-standard rocket shape. If a particular
> committee member feels uncomfortable about it, you can't force him/her to
> agree to sign off on it! This is a volunteer organization, after all.
>
> What exactly *is* a "spool rocket" anyway?!
>
> If the NAR (which is all of us members) is "consistently anti-innovation",
> how do we account for all the cool things I see going on now and over the
> years? Jeesh! You must be pretty angry to make such accusations!
> Or trolling for sympathy from the "usual suspects". ;)
Because those innovations happen by MEMBERS despite the bad rules from
on high, and have to find venues tolerant of their ideas (sometimes
difficult).
Jerry
The one person in the USA TRA wants to assure cannot "just fly rockets".
Jerry Irvine
urb...@surfree.com (David Urbanek) wrote:
> It's always the same song. I ask nicely, I follow channels and I am
> too easy to ignore. After all, I'm just one guy. I get my message
> out in public, though and suddenly, hey, stuff starts happening. It
> is very annoying that it is necessary, but what can you do?
Post your issues in public. It is the ONLY way to get action. However
sometimes that action (more often than not) is they make a RULE to
continue the bad practice that went on before with an interpretation or
practice.
Look at all the variations of changes to EX rules and membership
reinstatement claims used to keep "Jerry" out! It takes alot of work to
keep up with all these "whiners".
Jerry
Sams Family
Doc wrote:
>
> I don't see that at all at NEPRA, NAR section 614, launches. We had well
> over 100 people at the last launch and expect more for the Aug 17th launch.
> (shamless plug). We had everything from 1/2A to a K motor go up. I would say
> about a 60% BP / 40% composit. The club members launch 90% composit. These
> are normal numbers... Hell, I'll host the next NARAM launch!
Hi, Doc,
I'm glad to hear that. Our club (DARS) is that way, too. In fact, I couldn't
be happier about a club. Everyone is friendly and helpful, and every impulse
level is welcome. Nothing flatters me more than to hear one of the HPR regulars
say "Kewl!" when they see one of my BP concoctions fly.
I made the comment about self-fulfilling prophecy based more on what I pick up
here (on rmr) than what I see at DARS and/or Texas launches. And since I don't
see it at Texas launches, I conclude there was another reason for the lack of
HPR fliers at NARAM's sport weekend - insufficient motor allocation from the
manufacturers.
If you host the next NARAM, could you host in Oklahoma or somewhere else a
little closer to Texas :)
Jerry Irvine
"Steve Wolfe" <s...@codon.com> wrote:
> > It
> > is very annoying that it is necessary, but what can you do?
>
> Dave, this is not directly aimed at you. It's more of a general thing.
>
> This newsgroup has a lot of people that:
>
> (A) Think they know a lot more than anyone at NAR or TRA
> (B) Think that NAR and/or TRA are any of the following:
> - incompetant
> - unfair
> - oppressive
> - evil
> (C) Seem to have an abundance of time on their hands, from the amount of
> complaining that they do.
Wait. If someone brings forward an inconsistency or issue in a
PARTICULAR area and in some cases a SOLUTION, you are willing to
generally and globally brand them as "knowing alot more" or "think NAR
is incompetant", or worse yet "having an abundance of time"?
I claim the opposite is true. The people who post here are generally
overworked overpaid professionals who are advocates for rocketry and the
associations. They simply want the associations administered with some
common sense and consideration for the needs and wishes of its members,
and the public at large, outside of those associations inpacted by its
policies.
This is a reasonable thing.
In fact the value of an RMR post that is constructive and helpfully
critical could better be valued at the overtime labor rate of the
individual posting.
Jerry
>
> I've been wondering for over a year why some of those people don't use
> their time, energy, and frustration to start a new rocketry organization.
> IEAS has done it,
--
Jerry Irvine
urb...@surfree.com (David Urbanek) wrote:
> This is very much like the Kosdon thing back in 2000. My polite
> inquiries directly to those in authority got me ignored. My
> inflamatory public blasting of the NAR and TRA leadership about this
> issue got things rolling. If the polite inquiries had worked, that
> would have been the end of it.
>
> urbanek
Precisely my experiences as well.
Mark Simpson
produced is defective? I'd rather that they stop production, fix the
problem and then restart.
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
Mark Simpson
right, doesn't mean that no one can make one fly right.
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
tai fu wrote:
>
> Im guessing they wont do the pyramid stuff after the Flying Pyramid of
> Death... (you know the one that went horozontal under M power)
>
> --
> email: rahi...@mail.utexan.edu
>
> replace n with s to reply.
Doc
"Quilly Mammoth" <kali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7Ns59.34380$15.1...@www.newsranger.com...
> "Doc" <mo...@sprynet.myshorts.com> wrote in message
> news:aj5jth$gis$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> |
> |
> | over 100 people at the last launch and expect more for the Aug 17th
> launch.
would
> say
> | about a 60% BP / 40% composite. The club members launch 90% composite.
These
> | are normal numbers... Hell, I'll host the next NARAM launch!
> |
> |
> | --
>
>
> Hey Doc,
> Shall I forward this to Bunny? Anyhow, I think there is a lot of truth in
> the statement of Doug's you replied to!
Yes, I'm serious. NARAM 45, 46, 47... whatever. Obviously the land owner
would have to agree but I'm sure she would be excited. We have over 400
acres, a 13,000 ft waiver, and campgrounds and motels within 10 minutes.
(More fun than should be allowed!)
>
> A couple of points.
> 1. I believe that if Aerotech had announced they were going to support the
> Sport Launch with motors....the way they did at LDRS....there would have
> been more sport flyers, and certainly more certification flights!
I'm sure an abundance of motors would have changed the whole situation.
>
> 2. NARAM 45, wherever that may be, should create a situation where a motor
> manufacturer is in attendance. The first manufacturer to commit gets a
> spotlight. For example:
> A dedicated spot on the front page of the NARAM 45 website that Proclaims
> "Brand C will be in attendance for your Sport Flight needs". Then if
Brand
> A commits later, they still only get listed with the rest of the vendors.
>
Of course they are always welcome to BUY the spot. :-)
Doc
"Mark Simpson" <mark.s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3D56736...@comcast.net...
> I've personally seen a few very stable pyramids. Just because one wasn't
> right, doesn't mean that no one can make one fly right.
>
I bet I've seen more unstable 3FNC birds!
Jerry Irvine
Mark Simpson <mark.s...@comcast.net> wrote:
Given the basis of their claims of compliance to outsourced vendors, all
they would have to do is assign another agent to make propellant with
known proven capacity and better quality than Ellis. USR for exmple.
Jerry
Mark Simpson
Brett Buck wrote:
> On the other hand, your premise seems to be a little shaky. I see
> nothing at all "innovative" about flying pyramids, spools, badminton
> birdies, fast-food containers, etc.
Really? So the only innovation, in your mind, comes from flying 3/4FNC?
Now, THERE'S innovation for you. If we all thought like you, the space
shuttle would be a pointy rocket without the ability to be reflown.
Innovation comes from thinking outside of the box, not from comfortably
sitting in the middle of it. Pushing the envelope is how all innovation
occurs. The X-1 looked like a flying cigar with stubby wings to many
expecting to see a traditionally-designed airplane, yet it flew well
enough to break the sound barrier. A "safe" design would have had its
wings snap off at the speeds seen by the X-1.
>
> I am not arguing the validity of the point of the "rule" (if indeed
> it is a rule, since I've never seen it), but if it were up to me, I
> would require someone to prove the stability of such items, particularly
> a model made of non-frangible components and powered by enough impulse
> to push my car to 100 mph.
I've never heard of that rule and doubt it exists. I flew a traffic
barrel for a NAR L3 attempt last summer. I prepped for that flight by
building two smaller scale models of the barrel. I, then demonstrated
that my design could fly safely both by videoing the flights and
demonstrating at the launch that a 1/3rd scale version with the same
CG/CP ratio not only flew safely, but flew truer than 99% of the 3/4FNC
rockets flown. Any unknown design should be tested by scaling it down
and flying it on smaller motors. My next L3 flight will be a
grandfather clock (I sure hope that there's no rule against flying one.
<bg>). I plan on building a couple of lower powered exact duplicates of
the full-sized one in order to satisfy myself that the design is sound
and that it can be flown safely. I will work with my L3CC during the
process so that he is as comfortable as I am with the design and
expectations. I welcome his input because two heads are usually better
than one. I know that he'll force me to think about possible scenarios
that I might have missed. That's what an L3CC is for.
I read another comment in this thread that stated that if an L3CC wasn't
capable of assessing the safety of an unusual designed rocket, he was
incompetent. I strongly disagree with that statement and think that it
is counter-productive to make such a statement. The fact is that there
aren't many TAP or L3CC's that can look at an oddroc and divine its
safety. It takes experience. Some never encounter such beasts, so they
don't have the tools to make an accurate assessment. As a builderof
oddrocs, I would seek out another L3CC that did have experience with
oddrocs. It doesn't make one competent and the other incompetent. It
just means that they have differing skill sets WRT rocket design. And
any L3CC that isn't sure that he can do a competent assessment can
always defer to a fellow L3CC with the right skill set.
Bottom line. Different doesn't equal bad.
Markl Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
L.C.
Nevertheless, I agree that it is so risk averse, it could
drive you nuts sometimes. I am no longer a member,
primarily because I work for an organization of slave
drivers. (I'm even now goofing off, logged into the server,
posting when I should be working on a Sunday morning.) If
this were not the case, I might have to take a respite from
the NAR while I pursue a conscientious project that would
make me eligible for dismissal. (Happens I have no time for it.)
I think I understand better than most the reasons for the conservatism.
I just think there should be provisions and organizations for a wide range
of interests. Egg lofting an parachute duration never did anything for
me.
Neither did rocketry approached as carpentry (HPR).
Rocketry, NAR or Tripoli style, began as breaks from the mainstream.
Now it has become mired in traditionalism. Even people who think
they are pushing the envelope come up with projects involving Zn/S
or KN/sugar rockets. Are these proscribed? Yes. Do I care? No.
God help the person who wants to explore something new.
Knowing that anything new is proscribed by the standing organizations
makes me terribly aware that those organizations are to rocketry as
zoos are to natural habitat.
Again, I understand the reasons. No solution offered. Just sympathy.
-Larry Curcio
Mark Simpson
I've had conversations with my L3CC about my grandfather clock and he's
been nothing but supportive. He has even volunteered the use of his 3"
or 4" hardware and big Rocketman chute for the attempt. I've never
heard of any exclusionary unwritten rule and I doubt that he has
either....but I'll e-mail him to be sure. Maybe it's a Western Rule.
;-)
As I posted previously, I plan on lots of scale design flying in order
to get to my personal comfort zone before slapping an M motor in a 70+
pound rocket.
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
Woody Miller wrote:
>
> What I find interesting is that given what you were told, that Mark Simpson's
> FTBOD was allowed, and his "Grandfather Clock" probably has been ok'd by
> someone.. Maybe not all the LC33's like dealing with oddrocs, but atleast one
> must - maybe contact some of the others.. The Lc33/TAP person doesn't need to be
> the closest one based on local...
>
> (did my L3 thru TRA, and grand fathered into NAR)
Phil Stein
relating AT to NAR or TRA.
I believe that shipping is the same for AT no matter where it is. If
they deliver that's another story.
You have said nothing that makes me think otherwise.
Phil Stein
On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:14:06 GMT, Brian Elfert <bel...@visi.com>
wrote:
>Phil Stein <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsuks.net> writes:
>
>>If the L3CC hadn't gotten me, the timing of PRO38 situation at NY
>>Power would have. Being from the West, you probably won't notice
>>but, the timing definately showed a lack of consideration for the East
>>/ NY Power. I also think AT is somewhat guilty of this with their
>>motor allocations. All we heard was in time for LDRS.
>
>NY Power was not a national launch for either NAR or Tripoli. NAR has NSL
>and NARAM. Tripoli has LDRS. I don't think there was a chance in the
>world of Aerotech having large stuff like M1315s ready by NSL.
>
>The club holding NY Power has both NAR and Tripoli affiliations. They
>choose to go with NAR for insurance. Do you really think Aerotech would
>have shipped HPR motors for NY Power if they had choosen to use their
>Tripoli affiliation?
>
>LDRS was held in Texas. Bob Ellis is in Texas. Does it make sense for
>Aerotech to ship across the state or across the nation?
>
Phil Stein
What's up with going to Texas in the summer anyway??? Ever wonder why
people leave the south in the summer?
Phil Stein
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 10:32:17 -0400, "Doc" <mo...@sprynet.myshorts.com>
wrote:
Brett Buck
>
> Brett Buck wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, your premise seems to be a little shaky. I see
> > nothing at all "innovative" about flying pyramids, spools, badminton
> > birdies, fast-food containers, etc.
>
> Really? So the only innovation, in your mind, comes from flying 3/4FNC?
> Now, THERE'S innovation for you. If we all thought like you, the space
> shuttle would be a pointy rocket without the ability to be reflown.
Uh, you have no idea whatsoever what I think. I find it interesting
that you read my comments as "either/or" . The fact you conceive only
these two possibilities says more about you than it does about me.
The rest of this diatribe has nothing to do with what I said.
Brett
Phil Stein
AT M2500 for NY Power. A few weeks before NY Power I checked with him
& he said he wouldn't have one for me. I ordered several months in
advance. A week later is LDRS. He comes back from LDRS & has the
motor I wanted. He called & asked if I still want it..
Draw your own conclusion. I don't think all those motors were made in
1 or even 2 weeks. If it walks like a duck.....
Phil Stein
Phil Stein
at that point in time.
Phil Stein
Mark Simpson
Actionxprs wrote:
>
> Dave and All
> I read this thread with great interest, as I was involved with, or at least
> present at, a lot of the things mentioned. I'll add my comments.
> First. Dave I have to agree with you that NAR is too conservative. When I
> rejoined NAR (8 or 9 years ago) they didn't even have a Level lll. The NAR club
> I joined didn't do High Power, either (at the time). I joined another group
> that formed a Tripoli Prefecture (Tripoli Western New York) which then,
> evolved into Buffalo Rocket Society. We all, then learned high power, together.
> BRS is also a NAR section, but we are definately a high power group:-). We are
> starting to move into EX stuff. NAR is too conservative for that, too. I was
> present when Bunny made his famous "Not on MY Watch" speech. Maybe in another 8
> or 10 years.... after Tripoli has done it for awhile:-).
I was there, too. I don't know that we shared the same views at the
time, though. I think that experimental rocketry should be outside of
NAR's charter. If nothing else, it could serve to insulate the largest
rocketry organization in the world shoul a disaster occur. That doesn't
mean that I don't think experimental rocketry shouldn't be pursued.
Quite the contrary, I'd love to get into it myself.
> In my opinion NAR is, also, way too conservative in their Level lll program
> (not counting you're issue). Their rules about shunting charges seems to be on
> the conservative side. Tripoli doesn't require it. There are both good and bad
> reasons for shunting, based on design, complexety, ect. Why not trust the TAP
> guy to make a decision? Also, NAR's way of choosing TAP Members and expecially
> the SPEED at which the choosing is done, seem to be WAY too conservative. Like
> Lew Garrow, I volunteered to act as a NAR Level lll Tap. Also, like Lew Garrow
> (although he since, has) I haven't heard a thing from NAR. No acknowledgement,
> thanks for the app, nothing. It's been over 6 months! Duane Wilke (who was
> recently chosen) told me he's the NAR TAP for Western Penn. and most of Ohio!
> So far Lew's it for New York. He's in NYC. We're in Rochester and Buffalo. Talk
> about convience! But I'm sure most NAR members don't mind traveling hundereds
> of miles to to try for their Level lll:-). Enough about that. Now on to other
> points.
Agree with all points above.
> Second. The point was made that Aerotech may not have supported NYPOWER
> because it was NAR insured. I really don't think this was the case. While we
> were assured by Aerotech that we would have motors for NYPOWER, no guarentee
> was made we would have BIG motors. At the rate the small ones we did get, were
> exploding, it's probably good we didn't! I'll tell you....it was real
> appropriate that we held the launch on the 4th of July:-)! Murray Lampert Lost
> FOUR rockets! He is now, the offical BRS CATO KING! Long live the King:-)! To
> be fair, Pro 38's were giving Aerotech a run for their money, too.
Murray was the poster child for bad luck to be sure. ;-(
some deleted
> Sixth. Someone said that their was no inovation in using a pyramid, traffic
> barrel or spool, as a rocket. In my opinion, the inovation is not in the shape,
> but in getting that shape to FLY! If the shape is not inovative, IE they are
> considered flyable..... why the discussion, at all? Three (or more:-) fins and
> a nose cone are DESIGNED to fly. Certainly there is less inovation required in
> getting something to do what it was designed to do.
Anyone can make a rocket fly, but it takes real talent to make a fly
rocket. ;-)
> Seventh. When Mark Simpson attempted his Level lll, at NYPOWER, using a
> traffic barrel, there was NO issue of whether it was or wasn't allowed by NAR.
> I mean, doesn't a traffic barrel look sufficently like a spool to raise the ire
> of NAR? Maybe it's because it's tapered. But then, doesn't it have the same
> problems as a Pyramid? Andy Schector (Mister CONSERVATIVE, Himself......and a
> good friend:-) the TAP, let it fly. And it flew beautifully! The landing was a
> little hard, but the flight was fine.
Spools are easy. They have lots of base drag to improve stability. ;-)
As for the comment about Andy, you're right. He was tough. He also gave
me the key to building a lightweight, yet strong ring fin that I will
employ in future designs as well as in the FTBOD and sent me his brand
new G-Wiz LC400 to use in my barrel when I told him that I only had a
MAD and barometric altimeter for primaries to go along with my MW WRC2
secondary. Now, that was a very nice gesture.
> I think that's all the points I wanted to make ( THANK GOD!). I appoligize for
> the very long post and I REALLY miss spell check! And Dave......have your wife
> certify thru Tripoli. Less hassles (but I'm sure you already know that:-). And
> sorry, too that you were not elected to the Board. Try again. Good luck!
I'm not willing to give up on NAR L3 yet. Now that Duane Wilkie is an
L3CC that attends many of the same launches as I do in Ohio, it still
makes sense to me to go NAR. If, for some reason, I'm told that GF
Clocks can't fly as L3 attempts, I'll pay my TRA dues and say bad things
about NAR. Until then, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
YMMV.
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
BTW Lloyd, my son got the 3.73 rear installed in his 94 Z28 and he's now
running 13.6's @ 101mph. Header, cam, heads to come. Being a BADR (Born
Again Drag Racer) is a lot of fun, too.
David Urbanek
>I read another comment in this thread that stated that if an L3CC wasn't
>capable of assessing the safety of an unusual designed rocket, he was
>incompetent. I strongly disagree with that statement and think that it
>is counter-productive to make such a statement. The fact is that there
>aren't many TAP or L3CC's that can look at an oddroc and divine its
>safety. It takes experience. Some never encounter such beasts, so they
>don't have the tools to make an accurate assessment. As a builderof
>oddrocs, I would seek out another L3CC that did have experience with
>oddrocs. It doesn't make one competent and the other incompetent. It
>just means that they have differing skill sets WRT rocket design. And
>any L3CC that isn't sure that he can do a competent assessment can
>always defer to a fellow L3CC with the right skill set.
I didn't say a L3CC member was incompetant if he couldn't divine the
safety of an odd-roc just by looking at it. As you said, few people
have actually encountered these rockets.
However he/she would be incompetant if they could not figure out a way
to assure safety given that the requirements are in the L3 guidelines.
A series of scale model flights and full scale model flights (using L2
motors) should suffice.
Thus, even if a particular L3CC member hasn't seen a spool or pyramid
rocket fly before, if the applicant successfully flies scale models
and (perhaps) the full scale model with level 2 motors (as is spelled
out in the L3 guidelines) that L3CC person should be able to assess
the rockets safety given that information.
So, if the reason for banning spools and pyramids was because no one
could assess their safety (even given the above test flights) I'd have
to say that who ever made that rule was saying that he (or she)
thought the L3CC members were incompetant.
I don't think they are. Thus my statement, "I can't think of any
reason why spools and pyramids should be banned." Even if a person
has not seen a spool rocket fly before, there is a series of steps
spelled out in the L3 guidelines that would allow any competant L3CC
member completely able to assess the safety of that rocket.
There was an unwritten rule banning them. There may not be one now.
I am waiting for Dave Shaefer's answer regarding this.
Phil Stein
As I see it, three things combined to cause the unintended consequence
of confusing people on what was ok & keeping some away.
They were:
Timing - The announcement was made the day before people were
to start traveling to the launch
Misscommunication - The infomation was initially confusing and
wan't cleared up until much later
Lack of consideration fo rpeople attending NY Power - This was
scheduled a long time in advance. The NAR people making the descision
must have know a good bit prior to NY Power that this situation
existed. If they were to look at the launch schedule they publish on
their web site, it should have been noticed.
I think the hosting clubs did a great job with the info they had & I
think NAR is primarily to blame.
I don't know of anyone that tried to "slip one by" most people abide
by the rules of the host field. With all the CATOs of certified
motors that weekend, I can't help wondering if the people that didn't
have problems were using ones made by USR.
I just hope many have learned from this & do better next time.
Phil Stein
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 01:43:13 GMT, "Quilly Mammoth"
Jerry Irvine
Brett Buck <buc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Mark is famous for polar thinking, assuming facts not in evidence,
making wild extrapolations from innocent comments, and generally leaving
logic and rationality in the dust while posting, and sniping, and
trolling, to rmr.
No wonder his rockets are almost all pyramids, traffic barrels,
grandfather clocks and who knows what else.
At some point a 4FNC rocket is a GOOD thing.
Just not at some point in Mark's life.
Kurt Kesler
says...
> >On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:02:06 -0500, "Marty Schrader" <nobody...@technologist.com> wrote:
> >
> >Ouch. And I thought I was a rabble rouser about NAR's internal workings.
> >Hmm...glad I'm not trying to achieve Level 3.
>
> Make stupid rules and you will get my ire with both barrells. There
> is no reason to disallow spools and pyramids. Period.
>
> urbanek
>
It's no more stupid than the mandatory 17 switches rule.
--
Kurt Kesler
Phil Stein
I know that Mark files other more conventional stuff - I've seen it.
How about posting some stuff you've built lately.
Phil Stein
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:10:51 GMT, Jerry Irvine <01ro...@gte.net>
wrote:
shockwaveriderz
solved.....
Kevin Trojanowski
> generally leaving
> logic and rationality in the dust while posting, and sniping, and
> trolling, to rmr.
pot
Steve Wolfe
> PARTICULAR area and in some cases a SOLUTION,
You missed the part where I said I've been watching this for over a year.
Knee-jerk reaction?
> you are willing to
> generally and globally brand them as "knowing alot more"
They certainly seem to think that they do.
> or "think NAR
> is incompetant",
You missed the choice of NAR and TRA, and you also missed the "any of the
following". Knee-jerk reaction?
> or worse yet "having an abundance of time"?
You, and the rest of the group, certainly seem to make a lot of time to
complain. A LOT of time, from the volume of it. It's been going on for
years, and there's no indication it will ever stop.
Something really made you that upset, Jerry? Fix it. Don't complain.
Remember that "A Man's Rules" message that was posted here not long ago?
That should have been on the list.
> In fact the value of an RMR post that is constructive and helpfully
> critical could better be valued at the overtime labor rate of the
> individual posting.
Constructive criticism is one thing. When it's a steady stream that's
gone on for this many years, either there's a problem that "constructive
criticism" isn't going to fix, or the participants just like to whine. If
it's the former, well.... stop whining and fix it through other actions. If
it's the latter, just stop whining.
steve
tai fu
debate about FPOD and 3FNC?? get a grip guys...
Eric Benner
news:aj4f0e$9r$1...@terabinaries.xmission.com...
> Here's my question: I like flying flyswatters. I need L3 cert. Does NAR
> prohibit flying scaled up flyswatters with an "M"? A couple of big
> flyswatters taped together are clearly not pyramids or spools, and they
> do have fins (sort of).
Flyswatters?!?!?!?!????
Serious?
Got a picture?
--
Eric Benner TRA 8975
NAR 79389
(remove "freeofspam" to reply)
Mark Simpson
way. " On the other hand, your premise seems to be a little shaky. I see
nothing at all "innovative" about flying pyramids, spools, badminton
Now, are you going to try to say that you meant something different?
Sorry, I really can't read minds. ;-)
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
Mark Simpson
Mark Simpson
people's comments and complaining about how badly you've been mistreated
10 years ago? How sad. And as far as my rocket fleet is concerned, you
have no idea how many "normal" rockets I have. Would it surprise you if
I told you that I have well over 75 "normal" rockets, far more than my
oddrocs? I flew over 20 of them in the last 7 days, too. How many have
you flown lately?
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
Andy Schecter
"David Urbanek" <urb...@surfree.com> wrote in message
news:3d55331d...@news.surfree.com...
> Usually, I'm a big NAR supporter, but there are times I feel that NAR
> is about as adventerous as a pack of old men sitting around a cracker
> barrel and still playing checkers after 60 years of playing checkers.
>
> My wife decided, two years ago, that she wanted to do her level 3 cert
> with a spool rocket. It has high drag, low altitude and it's just
> something she likes. She's built two smaller spools building up to
> it. She downloaded and scrupulously prepared her level 3 package
> according to NAR specifications.
>
> Then, when she submitted the package, she was told that NAR has a
> policy specifically disallowing pyramids and spools (I assume that
> long cone shaped rockets like the N1 are out too).
>
> What a load of crap!
>
> Not only is this an unpublished policy (a bad idea to start with) but
> it's just plain stupid. What reason can be given for such a policy?
> Spool rockets, pyramid rockets and cone rockets are just as safe or
> dangerous as 3FNC rockets.
>
> Perhaps no one on the NAR L3CC is competant to judge whether a
> particular spool, pyramid, UFO or cone rocket is safe. That's GOT to
> be the reason.
>
> Tell you what. Let's just get honest. If the NAR L3CC is not able to
> judge any of those kinds of rockets, they aren't competant period.
> How about NAR just publish the plans for the "Approved Level 3 Rocket"
> and make everyone build and fly that particular rocket.
Hi David:
1. You neglected to verify your facts before making this inflammatory post.
:-)
2. Dale Dillon (your L3CC member) is new on the committee and made an
innocent mistake. There is no L3CC policy prohibiting spools, pyramids or
anything else. Decisions on allowable designs are made by the individual
L3CC members. If an L3CC member isn't comfortable with a project for any
reason, then he is well within his rights to pass on it.
3. One L3CC member is currently lobbying to have spools and pyramids
prohibited, but so far he's in the minority and doesn't seem to be gaining
converts.
4. Perhaps your definition of "innovation" and my definition of "innovation"
are different. But since I missed it, please tell me: what's innovative
about your wife's proposal to fly a spool for her L3 cert, given the fact
that many people have flown spools at various power ranges for several years
now? What is she doing that's "innovative?"
5. Although you didn't ask, and maybe you don't really care <g>, I'll tell
you what _I_ think would be innovative...A while back there was a discussion
on RMR about spool rockets. The key question was, "how come they are
aerodynamically stable?" IMHO no one had a believable explanation. Some
people's theories were embarrassingly bad. So what I think would be really
"innovative" would be for your wife to submit a carefully researched, VALID
explanation for why spools fly. She could specify the allowable diameter
ratios of the two discs, and their allowable distance apart for stable
flight. She could develop a method for determining safe CG. She could
present a method for determining the minimum velocity off the rail for
various sizes of spools and various crosswind velocities. She could explain
why subscale modeling works, and when and why it DOESN'T work....
THAT kind of approach would be "innovative." That would have been the kind
of approach I would have been THRILLED to receive when I was an L3CC member.
Meanwhile, for you to trash the NAR so aggressively over a project that
probably isn't so innovative after all, is IMO, an ignorant negation of the
REAL innovators in the history of our hobby: the Carlisles, the Stines, the
Estes, the Rengers, the Barrowmans, the DeMars, and many others.
6. Hey Jerry, isn't this the place where you chime in about YOUR great
contributions to our hobby? :-)
7. JD, I couldn't resist. ;-)
--
-Andy S.
Former L3CC member
Flyer of a few M-oddrocs
L3CC mentor for a couple of pretty odd L3 certs :-)
Brett Buck
>
> Mark Simpson
> NAR 71503 Level II
>
> Brett Buck wrote:
> >
> > Mark Simpson wrote:
> > >
> > > Brett Buck wrote:
> > >
> > > > On the other hand, your premise seems to be a little shaky. I see
> > > > nothing at all "innovative" about flying pyramids, spools, badminton
> > > > birdies, fast-food containers, etc.
> > >
> > > Really? So the only innovation, in your mind, comes from flying 3/4FNC?
> > > Now, THERE'S innovation for you. If we all thought like you, the space
> > > shuttle would be a pointy rocket without the ability to be reflown.
> >
> > Uh, you have no idea whatsoever what I think. I find it interesting
> > that you read my comments as "either/or" . The fact you conceive only
> > these two possibilities says more about you than it does about me.
> >
> > The rest of this diatribe has nothing to do with what I said.
> >
> > Brett
>
> Look at what you wrote and tell me it could have been taken any other
> way. " On the other hand, your premise seems to be a little shaky. I see
> nothing at all "innovative" about flying pyramids, spools, badminton
> birdies, fast-food containers, etc." Those were your words exactly.
> Now, are you going to try to say that you meant something different?
> Sorry, I really can't read minds. ;-)
Yes, but you were attempting to, and that's what annoyed me about it.
The idea that it's either "flying pyramids" XOR "3fnc", or that vehicle
"morphology" is the only degree of freedom for innovation, is a function
of your own preconcieved notions, not anything to do with what I said. I
only referred to "novelty models" (particularly those that have been
done before and are by definition not too novel) as not particularly
innovative. I said absolutely nothing about what *would be*. You just
leapt to that conclusion.
People can do whatever they want, no skin off my nose, but I don't
particularly like being misrepresented, even when it's not intentional.
<< I had a bunch of "what I beleive" stuff, but I don't think it would
be appreciated. ;-)>>
Brett
btw - I fixed your top-posting. bb
Brett Buck
> 5. Although you didn't ask, and maybe you don't really care <g>, I'll tell
> you what _I_ think would be innovative...A while back there was a discussion
> on RMR about spool rockets. The key question was, "how come they are
> aerodynamically stable?" IMHO no one had a believable explanation. Some
> people's theories were embarrassingly bad.
Seems perfectly obvious qualitatively, but I don't know how to
quantify it.
Brett
Buzz McDermott
news:3d55331d...@news.surfree.com...
> Usually, I'm a big NAR supporter, but there are times I feel that NAR
> is about as adventerous as a pack of old men sitting around a cracker
> barrel and still playing checkers after 60 years of playing checkers.
>
> My wife decided, two years ago, that she wanted to do her level 3 cert
> with a spool rocket. It has high drag, low altitude and it's just
> something she likes. She's built two smaller spools building up to
> it. She downloaded and scrupulously prepared her level 3 package
> according to NAR specifications.
>
> Then, when she submitted the package, she was told that NAR has a
[stuff deleted]
> Bunny once told me that he thought that two organizations weren't a
> good thing. Hey Mark, here's where you're wrong. One group is being
> stupidly exclusionary and the other still has the ability to think.
> It's important to have alternatives to despotism.
It is now my understanding that BOTH TRA and NAR have a policy against using
pyramids and spools as L3 certification vehicles. Since the policies seem to
be the same, it would appear that it is you who are wrong here. Or, is it
your assertion that TRA is also "about as adventurous as a pack of old men
sitting around a cracker barrel and still playing checkers after 60 years of
playing checkers."?
Or....perhaps neither organization feels that such 'oddrocs' are proper cert
vehicles, for whatever their reasons. Both orgs DO allow them to be flown by
certified fliers. After talking with David Schaefer (head of NAR L3
committee) I understand the NAR position for not using them as cert
vehicles. Among other things, the general feeling seems to be that such
rockets do not fulfill the 'spirit' of the L3 cert process - that is, such
rockets do not demonstrate the skills necessary to build a rocket that
undergoes the stresses of a typical Level 3 flight. I'm not a TRA member any
more and I have no idea about their reasons.
After speaking with David, I now agree with the NAR policy.
As for 'unwritten' rules, it is my understanding that the new policy is in
the process of being 'codified' for inclusion in the L3 cert procedures.
All statements and opinions here are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for
the NAR or the L3CC.
Buzz McDermott
NAR 13559
Buzz McDermott
news:MPG.17c0581b8...@news.newsguy.com...
>
> It's no more stupid than the mandatory 17 switches rule.
>
First, there is no '17 switches' rule or anything close to that. The rule is
that you must have the ejection charges removed from the power circuit until
you set up the rocket at the pad. There is a second rule which says you
must be able to re-disable the ejection charges (i.e., remove physical
connection to power source) while still on the pad.
1) There are many ways to do this, and many of them do not involve
'switches'.
2) You do not have to have 'external' devices, either. Maybe you have
'whatever' inside a hatch on the side of the rocket. Or perhaps you slide
two sections of the rocket apart a couple of inches to expose your disarming
device(s) through a slot in the coupler. Several fliers I know use two-pin
connectors soldered onto their electric matches to connect ejection charges
to their altimeters. If you can get to the connectors while the rocket is on
the pad, and do not connect them until the rocket is on the pad and maintain
the ability to pull them back apart if needed, you have completely
fulfilled the requirements for isolating the ejection charges from the power
circuit(s).
There has NEVER been a rule requiring 'switches' at all The word 'switch' as
used in the L3 cert documentation is meant to convey that you must be able
to break and restore the circuit. It doesn't mean you have to use a part
called a 'switch' on the cover of its packaging. Never has. I know that for
a fact, since I was one of the primary authors of the originally approved
cert procedures. You must be able to break and restore the power connection
to the ejection charges, and altimeter(s), without having to yank the rocket
off the pad, to the satisfaction of your cert team advisor. Some people have
done this with as many as six connection points (primary
drogue/main/altimeter and secondary drogue/main/altimeter). Others have done
it with two plugs (one for each altimeter) and two-pin connectors on the
ejection charges.
ALL procedures (of both the NAR and TRA) should ALWAYS be open to
constructive criticism. However, going on about 'stupid' (but non-existent)
'external' or '17 switches' rules doesn't make you look very well informed
or particularly intelligent.
If my choice of the word 'switch' has been confusing and/or inappropriate, I
apologize to all I have confused. However, as I am no longer associated with
the L3CC it will be for someone else to make any alterations to the wording.
Finally, I do not speak for the NAR or the current L3CC (either its members
or its rules). I speak only for myself.
Buzz McDermott
NAR 13559
"Past member of the L3CC and the guy that made the formal proposal for
having an L3 program to the NAR board and got stuck with co-authoring the
originally approved NAR L3 cert program guidelines and used the word
'switch' to his subsequent regret."
Quilly Mammoth
it
snip
|
| Or....perhaps neither organization feels that such 'oddrocs' are proper
cert
| vehicles, for whatever their reasons. Both orgs DO allow them to be flown
by
| certified fliers. After talking with David Schaefer (head of NAR L3
| committee) I understand the NAR position for not using them as cert
| vehicles. Among other things, the general feeling seems to be that such
| rockets do not fulfill the 'spirit' of the L3 cert process - that is, such
| rockets do not demonstrate the skills necessary to build a rocket that
| undergoes the stresses of a typical Level 3 flight. I'm not a TRA member
any
| more and I have no idea about their reasons.
I believe Buzz has struck at the heart of the matter. Earlier a poster
commented that he saw far more 3FNC rockets go unstable than spools or
pyramids. Uhmmmm....I think that's the exact point.
I'm not trying to cast aspersions here, but laying out a scenario. Joe
Newbie goes to a launch and sees an "M" power flight. To him it is one of
the kewlest things he ever saw. He then goes to the nearest hobby shop that
sells rockets and buys a Sumo. Using the Sumo he certifies level one. Then
he mail orders a PML kit, builds it per instructions, studies the sample
question and certifies level two. He may have only ever flown three rockets
in his life...but he's level two...and has never scratch built a thing.
Looking around for a quick way to certify level three...cause he just
_gotta_ fly an M... he goes to the local power company and procures a line
spool. He submits a drawing of the spool and the wiring for the MAD he
bought online, and he is _shocked_ when the L3CC committee says that he hasn
't shown the ability to fly this rocket.
His objection? "Julia Urbanek did it? Why can't I! Why can't I shove an M
motor in a spool and recover it using a MAD? Others do it! I saw one at
Lucerne just last Month! You're being unfair!!!"
Now, haven't we just gone through _years_ of griping about inconsistency in
the various organizations?
QM
Jerry Irvine
"Andy Schecter" <sche...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> 6. Hey Jerry, isn't this the place where you chime in about YOUR great
> contributions to our hobby? :-)
Nope. I am no spool!
:)
Jerry Irvine
Mark Simpson <mark.s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Tell me Jerry. Do you put all of your efforts into sniping at selected
> people's comments and complaining about how badly you've been mistreated
> 10 years ago? How sad. And as far as my rocket fleet is concerned, you
> have no idea how many "normal" rockets I have. Would it surprise you if
> I told you that I have well over 75 "normal" rockets, far more than my
> oddrocs? I flew over 20 of them in the last 7 days, too. How many have
> you flown lately?
>
> Mark Simpson
> NAR 71503 Level II
>
> Jerry Irvine wrote:
> >
> > In article <3D56825A...@pacbell.net>,
> > Brett Buck <buc...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Simpson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Brett Buck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On the other hand, your premise seems to be a little shaky. I see
> > > > > nothing at all "innovative" about flying pyramids, spools, badminton
> > > > > birdies, fast-food containers, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Really? So the only innovation, in your mind, comes from flying 3/4FNC?
> > > > Now, THERE'S innovation for you. If we all thought like you, the space
> > > > shuttle would be a pointy rocket without the ability to be reflown.
> > >
Note this:
> > > Uh, you have no idea whatsoever what I think. I find it interesting
> > > that you read my comments as "either/or" . The fact you conceive only
> > > these two possibilities says more about you than it does about me.
> > >
> > > The rest of this diatribe has nothing to do with what I said.
> > >
> > > Brett
> >
Note this:
> > Mark is famous for polar thinking, assuming facts not in evidence,
> > making wild extrapolations from innocent comments, and generally leaving
> > logic and rationality in the dust while posting, and sniping, and
> > trolling, to rmr.
Go ahead and ignore this admitted snipe:
David Urbanek
>It is now my understanding that BOTH TRA and NAR have a policy against using
>pyramids and spools as L3 certification vehicles.
You understand wong. Only NAR prohibits them.
urbanek
David Urbanek
>2. Dale Dillon (your L3CC member) is new on the committee and made an
>innocent mistake. There is no L3CC policy prohibiting spools, pyramids or
>anything else. Decisions on allowable designs are made by the individual
>L3CC members. If an L3CC member isn't comfortable with a project for any
>reason, then he is well within his rights to pass on it.
Hold on a moment. It turns out that Dale, while new, got better
information than YOU have. It appears he's right on the money and you
don't know what you're talking about.
>3. One L3CC member is currently lobbying to have spools and pyramids
>prohibited, but so far he's in the minority and doesn't seem to be gaining
>converts.
Apperently, without you even knowing it, spools and pyramids have been
deemed outside the spirit of Level 3 certification. Guess your
opinion didn't count all that much after all. Did you get to have
some input? I understand that this restriction will soon be in
writing and ALL L3CC peopls will have to enforce it.
>4. Perhaps your definition of "innovation" and my definition of "innovation"
>are different. But since I missed it, please tell me: what's innovative
>about your wife's proposal to fly a spool for her L3 cert, given the fact
>that many people have flown spools at various power ranges for several years
>now? What is she doing that's "innovative?"
IF 3FNC is the ONLY way to get your level 3 certification through NAR,
I can tell you that NAR is getting populatied by people who ARE
anti-innovation.
>5.>THAT kind of approach would be "innovative." That would have been the kind
>of approach I would have been THRILLED to receive when I was an L3CC member.
But, it would not be allowed. Only 'standard' rockets. Unless,
perhaps, youre name is Mark Simpson. Then you get to do traffic
barrells and grandfather clocks.
>Meanwhile, for you to trash the NAR so aggressively over a project that
>probably isn't so innovative after all, is IMO, an ignorant negation of the
>REAL innovators in the history of our hobby: the Carlisles, the Stines, the
>Estes, the Rengers, the Barrowmans, the DeMars, and many others.
It may not be all that innovative to YOU. To the L3CC, it's just too
scary.
urbanek
D&JWatkins
David, rules are rules. Regardless of if you like them or not. We on the
committee are charged with making sure L3 certification flights do not harm
those not participating. If this affectts your wife or anyone else to bad.
Saftey comes first. So quit your whinning because you did not get your way!
As you chastise Andy it is he who is right and you who do not know what you
are talking about. Dale's first e-mail on this project was to ask for where
he could get software or computations for stability of this project. One
member responded that they had a disscussion and they were not allowed. The
rest chimed in that the disscussion had ended with it being left up to the
individual L3CC and what they were comfortable with. I for one would not do
it. I have no way to know if it was stable. What is stable with an L1120 May
not be by the time you add 2lbs. of propelant to the aft end! Others who
have seen more flown and know more of their stability may do it! So if you
take a spool to an RSO and he ask the question of where is the CP and CG of
this spool and how did you figure it what is your answer? I don't know! What
do you do when he says based on that I will not let it fly. What do you
expect your L3CC person to tell the RSO after all it is their responsability
to keep their launch safe. If you can not answer these quetions how does
your L3CC person know it is safe. I will glady take and have this
information if you have it. I would rather allow more rockets than turn
someone away. That being said manythings are in the works both way's to try
and come up with a solution the commitee feels comfortible with. It then
will become the new policy and I assume will then be printed into the rules.
Let the process work itself out for the saftey of everyone. This is what the
L3CC committee is there for.
Dennis Watkins
NAR 73276 L3CC
ps I have not made up my mind on this subject!
"David Urbanek" <urb...@surfree.com> wrote in message
news:3d573e3c...@news.surfree.com...
Mark Simpson
pull with the NAR because I certainly don't. I've been a strong critic
of NAR's cert process,inetria WRT motor approvals and L3CC practices
amongst other things. I was allowed to fly the FTBOD because I did my
homework, built and flew two scale models multiple times, including
flying a 1/3rd scale version that had its CG/CP ratio checked by my
L3CC pre-flight. My L3CC and others, such as Duane Wilkie and Ray
Halm, both L3's themselves, also helped insure a safe flight.
As for the GF Clock. The first scale version hasn't even been built
yet...but I will fly at least 2 scale versions multiple times prior to
flying the full-scale clock. If the models don't prove to be stable,
I'll either modify the design or bag it. Personally, I don't see why
it wouldn't be stable. It's just a square-looking rocket with a
nosecone that chimes and tells time. ;-)
Now, if I was in your wife's place, I'd probably be a little pissed if
I was told that I couldn't fly a particular design no-matter-what.
I've seen videos of many flying spools. To me, if you can demonstrate
that your design and building skills are sound and the rocket can fly
stably, that should be the end of the story. I like Andy's suggestion
of doing a study on spool design characteristics. I think that it
would end years of speculation and add to the hobby's knowledge base.
I don't, however, think that it should be required of her to do so in
order to fly HER spool. All that should be necessary is to
demonstrate that her spool design is stable and can fly with the motor
specified. Anything beyond that should be optional.
If NAR puts that exclusion in writing, I will join you in protest as
will many others, I'm sure. I'm sure that John Ritz and Jim Germain
wouldn't like being told that they couldn't fly pyramids.
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
urb...@surfree.com (David Urbanek) wrote in message news:<3d573e3c...@news.surfree.com>...
much deleted
Mark Simpson
either. It doesn't demonstrate the modeler's ability to build a
structure capable of withstanding the forces necessary. If I was the
L3CC, I would disallow it on the grounds that the flier didn't build
it, not that it was inherently unstable or dangerous.
Now, if a flier built a superlight carbon fiber spool and flew scale
models of it to demonstrate stability prior to his L3 attempt, I'd say
"go for it".
Mark Simpson
NAR 71503 Level II
What do you think they'd say when, one day in the not-too-distant
future, I show up at a big launch with a flying Port-a-John? ;-)
"Quilly Mammoth" <kali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<0OG59.34481$15.1...@www.newsranger.com>...
some deleted
Kurt Kesler
l3e...@swbell.net says...
> "Kurt Kesler" <nnt...@keslers.removetosend.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.17c0581b8...@news.newsguy.com...
> >
> > It's no more stupid than the mandatory 17 switches rule.
> >
> > Kurt Kesler
>
> First, there is no '17 switches' rule or anything close to that.
Hyperbole? Sarcasm? Heard of them? Jeez.
> ALL procedures (of both the NAR and TRA) should ALWAYS be open to
> constructive criticism. However, going on about 'stupid' (but non-existent)
> 'external' or '17 switches' rules doesn't make you look very well informed
> or particularly intelligent.
As the NAR L3CC has already shown they are not interested in my input, I
really do not care how I might appear to that "august body", or to
anyone else for that matter (which includes you). Feel free to call me
stupid. I, however, will refrain from calling you several choice terms
that come to mind.
> If my choice of the word 'switch' has been confusing and/or inappropriate, I
> apologize to all I have confused. However, as I am no longer associated with
> the L3CC it will be for someone else to make any alterations to the wording.
As I have nothing to do with NAR L3 procedures, and also in light of my
newly discovered stupidity, I do not care about the wording or even the
rules themselves. In the future the NAR can go about it's silliness
without fear of comment from me.
--
Kurt Kesler
Quilly Mammoth
local company called "Potty-On", and the turd tugger always fails to empty
it. Which is a bad thing in OK during the summer. We have pulled them to
the end of a development numerous times.
Think I'll measure one up today and look at building a scale model, there's
a place that refurbishes them right behind my counter top venors
shop.............
--
"qm
"Mark Simpson" <mark.s...@home.com> wrote in message
news:2ada0da.02081...@posting.google.com...
snip| Mark Simpson
John DeMar
> Thus, even if a particular L3CC member hasn't seen a spool or pyramid
> rocket fly before, if the applicant successfully flies scale models
> and (perhaps) the full scale model with level 2 motors (as is spelled
> out in the L3 guidelines) that L3CC person should be able to assess
> the rockets safety given that information.
That makes sense to me. Why didn't you say so in the first place
instead of jumping to conclusions before hearing back directly from the
NAR? Then spreading NAR FUD, including the ignorant title of this thread. ;)
BTW, one of the winning NARAM R&D reports last week was about the
stability of Spool Rockets. And one on optimizing helicopter recovery,
one on using CFD to analyze ring fin stability, and the top C-div prize
for optimizing apogee detection in barometric altimeters using Kalman
filtering. This last one is truly innovative and a significant
improvement for all high-power dual-deployment flyers.
Some people in both organization are doing great stuff. Only one of
them has a magazine to publish them in, and only one has a national
venue to present R&D.
-John DeMar
NAR #52094
John DeMar
> When it comes to level 3 certifications, the L3CC person IS someone in
> authority. I got this information, initially, directly from him.
The L3CC person is a volunteer and not a rule-making authority.
> >Why not just call Steve Lubliner directly before going off the handle?
> >His phone number is on the NAR website. Give him a couple days to get
> >back from Texas.
>
> That would REALLY be a mistake. Steve Lubliner is not the L3CC
> chairman. David Shaefer is. He's a NARAM too. I've e-mailed him.
My mistake. Hopefully you will get an answer soon.
>
> >I think the title of this thread you started is ample proof that you
> >are generalizing and exaggerating. Not the best way for anyone to take
> >you seriously.
>
> I'm being taken serously. I think it's because I got your attention
> and other people's attention.
You only got my attention through your misinformation about the NAR and
stupid generalizations. And jumping to conclusions without full feedback
from the NAR. None of these would seem to be helpful in trying to resolve
your problem.
-John
Jerry Irvine
Kurt Kesler <new...@keslers.removetosend.net> wrote:
> As I have nothing to do with NAR L3 procedures, and also in light of my
> newly discovered stupidity, I do not care about the wording or even the
> rules themselves. In the future the NAR can go about it's silliness
> without fear of comment from me.
This is the problem with this industry/hobby. We take good peple and
piss on them one at a time until the only people left are those we agree
with, those we disagree with strongly, but are too stupid to leave, or
those who are on such a power trip, no amount of whining will keep them
from spending ill-gotten consumer monies on trucks and travel.
Jerry Irvine
mark.s...@home.com (Mark Simpson) wrote:
> I don't think that a purchased spool should be allowed for a L3 cert
> either. It doesn't demonstrate the modeler's ability to build a
> structure capable of withstanding the forces necessary. If I was the
On a technical note, a spool has HIGHER forces than a 4FNC rocket due to
the high drag force (on a given motor).
Jerry
> L3CC, I would disallow it on the grounds that the flier didn't build
> it, not that it was inherently unstable or dangerous.
> Now, if a flier built a superlight carbon fiber spool and flew scale
> models of it to demonstrate stability prior to his L3 attempt, I'd say
> "go for it".
--
Jerry Irvine
"Quilly Mammoth" <kali...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hey! If there is anyone who should fly a porta-john its me. We have a
> local company called "Potty-On", and the turd tugger always fails to empty
> it. Which is a bad thing in OK during the summer. We have pulled them to
> the end of a development numerous times.
>
> Think I'll measure one up today and look at building a scale model, there's
> a place that refurbishes them right behind my counter top venors
> shop.............
There are no HPR weight limits. Fly an actual one. Less work.
Jerry
John DeMar
> rejoined NAR (8 or 9 years ago) they didn't even have a Level lll. The NAR club
> I joined didn't do High Power, either (at the time).
Which NAR club was that? MARS has been flying high-power at Geneseo since
1993. I certified under the NAR program in 1990 at a TRA launch.
Also, TRA didn't have Level III until the NAR started the program of having
levels in the first place. In TRA, you would fly at H today and an M right
after, without even taking a test. TRA adopted the levels after the NAR
started them. Most of the time, especial when considering safety,
conservative is good!
> starting to move into EX stuff. NAR is too conservative for that, too. I was
> present when Bunny made his famous "Not on MY Watch" speech. Maybe in another 8
> or 10 years.... after Tripoli has done it for awhile:-).
It will most likely be 'never'. This doesn't mean that NAR members don't
like building their own motors, and it doesn't mean they don't think other
people should. It just doesn't make sense to confuse the two extremes of the
hobby for the various AHJ's, and it doesn't make sense to make the general
membership suffer higher insurance premiums.
> So far Lew's it for New York. He's in NYC. We're in Rochester and Buffalo.
And Syracuse. This isn't perfect, but I'm sure it will get better soon.
Lloyd, did you ask the L3CC chair why they haven't responded to your
application?
> Third. The reason NYPOWER uses NAR insurance is simply because the co-
> sponsering club is a NAR only section and it's easier. For a few years, both
> insurances were in effect, until the change in insurance, a few years ago. Now,
> it's just simpler to use NAR's. NAR's is probably better, too.
Your last point is the main reason. I think if someone gave Austin the
details, I know which one he'd choose. ;) BTW, it wouldn't matter to
individual NAR members which insurance the launch has because we're covered
no matter where/when we launch.
> Fifth. Someone said to contact Steve Lubliner to get info. I thought Steve had
> stepped down as Level lll Chairman, a number of months ago. Did I miss
> something?
That was me. My mistake. Steve is still a NAR trustee and chair of the
sport services committee. If a change was made, it might have to be done
within a vote of the NAR board, so Steve would know. David Schaefer is the
new L3 chair and doing a great job, I hear. Some people forget these are
all volunteer positions!
-John DeMar
NAR #52094
John DeMar
> probably isn't so innovative after all, is IMO, an ignorant negation of the
> REAL innovators in the history of our hobby: the Carlisles, the Stines, the
> Estes, the Rengers, the Barrowmans, the DeMars, and many others.
>
That sounds like a challenge! ;-) Well, at least I *did* get a
10lb finless scale rocket to fly. :)
> So what I think would be really
> "innovative" would be for (Dave's) wife to submit a carefully researched,
> VALID explanation for why spools fly.
Someone just presented a report at NARAM last week on the subject of
"Empirical Determination of the Stability of Spool Rockets". Ernest Strother,
NAR 76992 (4th place, C Div). I wasn't there, but I'm hoping it ends up
online sometime.
-John
shrox
Shrox
------------------------------------
Phil Stein
Phil Stein
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:36:58 -0400, John DeMar <jsd...@syr.edu>
wrote:
David Urbanek
>I have kept out of this while the process has worked it's way through.
>David, rules are rules. Regardless of if you like them or not. We on the
>committee are charged with making sure L3 certification flights do not harm
>those not participating. If this affectts your wife or anyone else to bad.
>Saftey comes first. So quit your whinning because you did not get your way!
OK, I will quit my whining on one condition:
Tell me how a rocket that is proven stable and safe in test flights is
suddenly NOT safe with an M motor. If safety is your concern, you
tell me how a spool rocket, ANY spool rocket, is simply unsafe. What
about pyramid or cone shaped rockets. Are you trying to tell my they
are inherently unstable?
You go try to plug an Estes UFO into Rocksim and you will find that it
is wildly unstable. Someone forgot to tell the rocket, though.
Now, you go try to fly an Estes Mean Maching with 1 caliber or
stability (RockSim says its OK). NOW you have an unstable flight. If
you are following NAR safety code, even this unstable flight will be
reasonably safe.
>I have no way to know if it was stable. What is stable with an L1120 May
>not be by the time you add 2lbs. of propelant to the aft end!
You have got to be kidding me. You are actually asking me to belive
that you would not accept an L1120 flight as a legitimate
demonstration of stability?
>So if you take a spool to an RSO and he ask the question of where is the CP and CG of
>this spool and how did you figure it what is your answer? I don't know!
Where is the CP of any rocket. RockSim and Barrowman only properly
estimate the CP of any rocket within very strict parameters. Are you
suggesting that we limit all L3 flight to rockets that conform to
this? Do you even know when the Barroman equations don't apply?
>What do you do when he says based on that I will not let it fly.
If the RSO says he or she is not comfortable allowing the rocket to
fly, then the rocket should not fly. The RSO is taked with keeping
things safe. As a L3CC member, YOU are tasked with helping the
rocketeer be successful.
urbanek
Phil Stein
kit for an L3 cert?
I think kits are allowed aren't they?
Phil Stein
On 12 Aug 2002 05:51:41 -0700, mark.s...@home.com (Mark Simpson)
wrote:
David Urbanek
>Now, if I was in your wife's place, I'd probably be a little pissed if
>I was told that I couldn't fly a particular design no-matter-what.
That's exactly what she is being told. She's perfectly fine to fly
this rocket on every motor right up to a full L, but not allowed to
fly it as a level 3 certification. If she gets her level 3
certification using a more conventional rocket, then she is free to
fly this rocket on M motors. You tell me where the logic is in that!
urbanek
John Lyngdal
> Usually, I'm a big NAR supporter, but there are times I feel that NAR
> is about as adventerous as a pack of old men sitting around a cracker
> barrel and still playing checkers after 60 years of playing checkers.
>
> My wife decided, two years ago, that she wanted to do her level 3 cert
> with a spool rocket. It has high drag, low altitude and it's just
> something she likes. She's built two smaller spools building up to
> it. She downloaded and scrupulously prepared her level 3 package
> according to NAR specifications.
>
> Then, when she submitted the package, she was told that NAR has a
> long cone shaped rockets like the N1 are out too).
>
> What a load of crap!
>
> Not only is this an unpublished policy (a bad idea to start with) but
> it's just plain stupid. What reason can be given for such a policy?
> Spool rockets, pyramid rockets and cone rockets are just as safe or
> dangerous as 3FNC rockets.
>
> Perhaps no one on the NAR L3CC is competant to judge whether a
> particular spool, pyramid, UFO or cone rocket is safe. That's GOT to
> be the reason.
>
> Tell you what. Let's just get honest. If the NAR L3CC is not able to
> judge any of those kinds of rockets, they aren't competant period.
> How about NAR just publish the plans for the "Approved Level 3 Rocket"
> and make everyone build and fly that particular rocket.
>
> You guys are just making rules to prove you can write rules. There's
> no sense, logic or reason in that policy, at all.
>
> Bunny once told me that he thought that two organizations weren't a
> good thing. Hey Mark, here's where you're wrong. One group is being
> stupidly exclusionary and the other still has the ability to think.
> It's important to have alternatives to despotism.
>
Dave,
> You guys are just making rules to prove you can write rules. There's
> no sense, logic or reason in that policy, at all.
The number one goal is safety, not fun. That's the obvious logic and
reason you overlooked or ignored.
The discussion within the L3CC rages on as to the status of spool
rockets. The issue isn't one of style or fun, it has always focused on
the safety issue, as the FPOD lives on in the memories of the L3CC
members.
There are some spool rockets that work, just as there are others that
haven't flown so well. The same can be said for 3FNC rockets, but at
least with 3FNC airframes you have the advantage of RocSim, or other
computational programs as well as personal experience to determine if
the 3FNC airframe will have a predictable flight path.
Sometimes scaled up airframes perform better than their sub-scaled
counterparts, other times they don't. So the real issue is that of
risk mitigation.
I don't know what the final status of spool rockets will be as far as
the L3CC. I'm pretty sure however that they will be subject to
additional scrunity due to their unusual design and inability to be
aerodynamically modeled using commomly available software.
> Perhaps no one on the NAR L3CC is competant to judge whether a
> particular spool, pyramid, UFO or cone rocket is safe. That's GOT to
> be the reason.
>
> Tell you what. Let's just get honest. If the NAR L3CC is not able to
> judge any of those kinds of rockets, they aren't competant period.
> How about NAR just publish the plans for the "Approved Level 3 Rocket"
> and make everyone build and fly that particular rocket.
Tell you what Dave. Show us how to calculate the stability of a spool
rocket reliabily without the use of mathamatical approximations and
I'm sure that we'll let it fly.
Best Regards,
John Lyngdal
NAR 69264 L3
NAR L3CC
TRA 9257 L3
IEAS 007
The number one goal is safety, not fun.
The discussion within the L3CC rages on as to the status of spool
rockets. The issue isn't one of style or fun, it has always focused on
the safety issue, as the FPOD lives on in the memories of the L3CC
members.
There are some spool rockets that work, just as there are others that
haven't flown so well. The same can be said for 3FNC rockets, but at
least with 3FNC airframes you have the advantage of RocSim, or other
computational programs as well as personal experience to determine if
the 3FNC airframe will have a predictable flight path.
Sometimes scaled up airframes perform better than their sub-scaled
counterparts, other times they don't. So the real issue is that of
risk mitigation.
I don't know what the final status of spool rockets will be as far as
the L3CC. I'm pretty sure however that they will be subject to
additional scrunity due to their unusual design and inability to be
aerodynamically modeled using commomly available software.
Best Regards,
John Lyngdal
NAR 69264 L3
NAR L3CC
TRA 9257 L3
IEAS 007
jsk
There are a bunch of anomalies in the certification requirements at all
levels, primarily because those who wrote the requirements didn't
imagine scenarios much beyond a single engined, finned, ballistic
rockets.
David Urbanek
>Tell you what Dave. Show us how to calculate the stability of a spool
>rocket reliabily without the use of mathamatical approximations and
>I'm sure that we'll let it fly.
RockSim or VCP or the Barrowman equations do not show stability. They
show a likelyhood of stability. VCP will incorrectly say that an
Estes Mean Machine with only 1 caliber of stability is stable. Try it
and experience will soon tell you that RockSim is wrong.
We trust RockSim or the Barrowman because most of the time, observed
flight paths conform to their predictions. Many times, though, they
do not.
Observed flight, or tests in a wind tunnel are the only way to be sure
of rocket stability. So, if a person were to fly the full scale
rocket on a nearly M sized motor, and it performed safely, and without
damage, it should be allowed to fly on the M motor. In fact, why not
trust the judgement of the L3CC person on the job?
Tell my why this sems odd.
My wife builds a spool rocket capable of fly on big level 2 motors or
level 3 motors.
Case 1: Based on the fact that there have been many, many flights of
spool rockets, she is allowed to fly this rocket on an L1120.
Case 2: If she were to successfully fly a conventional level 3 rocket
to get her level 3 certification, she would be allowed to fly it on an
M1315.
Case 3: However, she is not allowed to fly it as her FIRST flight on
an M1315.
So, you are saying that case 1 and 2 are safe, and case 3 is not. I'm
not sure I follow the logic here.
urbanek
Gary
really bother me if NAR prohibited odd-rocs like spools and pyramids
under any circumstance. I love to see them fly, and I've built an
odd-roc or two myself.
But...
I don't see prohibiting them for an L3 CERT as anti-innovation. I see
it as a statement that NAR would prefer folks to certify first using a
more proven design. I see a certification as a kind of license to
start flexing one's innovative muscles, after showing that you can
meet the basic requirements. Much like I had to drive a car, not a
truck, for my road test at the DMV many years ago, or show mastery of
the old decompression tables, not custom deco planning software, to
get my SCUBA certification. For that matter, I would have thought it
innovative to do my L1 cert on a J350, but calmer heads prevailed.
The point made by others that spools or pyramids are as safe or safer
than 3FNC rockets is well taken. I don't have the stats to know if
that is an accurate statement or not, but if I accept that it is, I
still see reason to require certifications be done on a more
traditional design--Liability. If, God forbid, something should go
horribly wrong, a 3fnc or a FTBOD may do equal damage. The 3FNC may
well do more damage. But explaining to a jury or judge or even the
local police officer why you thought it was a good idea to make your
first-ever L3 flight with a modified porta-john (or whatever) would be
much harder.
That said, I'm confident that the flying Urbaneks would be successful
with the cert flight they propose, and I really, really hate it that
the personal liability attorneys and regulatory agencies have made me
this paranoid...
Gary
As others have said, whatever policy NAR follows must be made public,
and followed consistently.
urb...@surfree.com (David Urbanek) wrote in message news:<3d573e01...@news.surfree.com>...