CTI Goes 24!

[GregGleason]

I don't think that CTI has a presence here, but I just saw this on TRF:

http://www.pro38.com/products/pro24/pro24.php

This a HUGE development for re-loadable composite motors in the 24mm range. CTI products are known for two things: their reliability and simplicity.

Time will tell if this will pan out with these new motors.

Regardless, it is a great development and would be even better if these found their way into the LHS realm.

Greg

[Shreadvector]

I don't think that CTI has a presence here, but I just saw this on TRF:

http://www.pro38.com/products/pro24/pro24.php

This a HUGE development for re-loadable composite motors in the 24mm range. CTI products are known for two things: their reliability and simplicity.

Time will tell if this will pan out with these new motors.

Regardless, it is a great development and would be even better if these found their way into the LHS realm.

Greg

Regarding LHS realm:

1) All reloadable motors require the buyer to be 18 years or older (in the USA).

2) Has CTI ever had any of their motors CSFM "Classified" as "Model Rocket Motors" or are they all "Classified" as "High Power Rocket Motors"? Yes, I understand the difference between the two classes, but if you pay the fee only for HPR motors, you only get that classification. I've seen this before.

3) I expect to see the twin packs of Aerotech E20 motors in the LHS any time now.

[Green Dragon]

Regarding LHS realm:

1) All reloadable motors require the buyer to be 18 years or older (in the USA).

2) Has CTI ever had any of their motors CSFM "Classified" as "Model Rocket Motors" or are they all "Classified" as "High Power Rocket Motors"? Yes, I understand the difference between the two classes, but if you pay the fee only for HPR motors, you only get that classification. I've seen this before.

3) I expect to see the twin packs of Aerotech E20 motors in the LHS any time now.

hmm

1) over 18 should nto be a huge deal - there are LHS with Aerotech reloads already . and G motors.

2) is the High Power classification an issue now that APCP is unregulated ? only cpsc regs on the weight/ DOT shipping regs ?

3) that would be great, but only at a realistic price point, prices have gotten quite out of line sadly, price the twin pak around 15-17.00 and we'll talk :)

[Shreadvector]

hmm

1) over 18 should nto be a huge deal - there are LHS with Aerotech reloads already . and G motors.

2) is the High Power classification an issue now that APCP is unregulated ? only cpsc regs on the weight/ DOT shipping regs ?

3) that would be great, but only at a realistic price point, prices have gotten quite out of line sadly, price the twin pak around 15-17.00 and we'll talk :)

"CSFM" = Californis State Fire Marshal.

The CSFM regulates all pyrotechnic devices and each must be "Classified" into a specifiec category or else it is an illegal and unclassified pyrotechnic device which cannot be imported into, posessed, sold, used, etc. in California. Each specific c;lassification has it's own rules. The Model Rocket and High Power Rocket rules are pretty similar to the respective NAR Safety Codes (as featured in the NFPA codes), but they do require permits to launch and any motors not "Classified" are illegal.

Your statement aboout APCP being "not regulated" is not correct and too broad (and, yes, I saw you had a few extra words in that followed that statement, but it can still lead some readers astray). It simply is no longer defined as an explosive by one regulatory agency: BATFE. It is still regulated quite heavily, as is Black Powder, as far as other agencies are concerned for manufacturing, shipping, launching into the airspace, etc.

[Initiator001]

I echo what Fred said. ;)

I contacted CTI several months ago concerning the status of the Pro29 motors and their 'classification' status with the CSFM. A CTI rep replied that the Pro29 motors had not yet been submitted for CSFM classification but would be in the future.

I contacted CTI a month after that inquiring about CSFM classification of the Pro29 motors and this time there was no response. :(

Bob

[Shreadvector]

I echo what Fred said. ;)

I contacted CTI several months ago concerning the status of the Pro29 motors and their 'classification' status with the CSFM. A CTI rep replied that the Pro29 motors had not yet been submitted for CSFM classification but would be in the future.

I contacted CTI a month after that inquiring about CSFM classification of the Pro29 motors and this time there was no response. :(

Bob

IIRC, some of their motors that actually would fall under the Model Rocket Motor limits are actually CSFM Classfied as High Power Rocket Motors. Someone said the reason was fee related. It was a long time ago and I do not recall who said that.

Do they list regulatory documents on their website like Aerotech does to help their consumers? (Everyone should)

[Initiator001]

IIRC, some of their motors that actually would fall under the Model Rocket Motor limits are actually CSFM Classfied as High Power Rocket Motors. Someone said the reason was fee related. It was a long time ago and I do not recall who said that.

Do they list regulatory documents on their website like Aerotech does to help their consumers? (Everyone should)

I was reviewing the CTI website under Regulations and the only things mentioned about California is the rocket motors must be classified by the CSFM and that they bear the seal of the CSFM.

Bob

[Green Dragon]

I echo what Fred said. ;)

I contacted CTI several months ago concerning the status of the Pro29 motors and their 'classification' status with the CSFM. A CTI rep replied that the Pro29 motors had not yet been submitted for CSFM classification but would be in the future.


Bob

OK, question then - if it;s california, is that only a concern for CA flyers ? or is it a 'trickle down' affect, like NFPA being adopted by other states, etc ?

also, would 'model rocket' classification help with shipping ? I think no, due to propellant weight limits with USPS/ DOT etc.

If AP is no longer an explosive, it seems the next task is to get shipping relief, as it would be back to it;s old flammable solid classicifaction, doubt a non-hazardous shipping can be arranged however ( ala ORM D ) .

will be interesting to see these motors released - hope the price point is good - consistent with RMS24 and they'll be a huge hit :)
especially with us cluster freaks, due to low cost hardware.

[Shreadvector]

CA regulations do not affect other states unless there is an economic reason. Rof example, if it is cheaper to make all automobiles meet the stricter CA emissions requirements, they will do that. If not, they will make the CA vehicles meet the CA regulations and charge us more and the non-CA vehicles will not mee the CA requirements (but meet the Federal requirements) and not have the additional fees. In the past, some CA vehicles had an extra catalytic converter which added $$$ to the sticker in CA.


NFPA is a national model code and can be adopted by each state. A state cannot adopt another state's regulations.

And finally, the PA dept of agriculture may have approved that bag of pretzels, but nobody except PA cares.


OK, question then - if it;s california, is that only a concern for CA flyers ? or is it a 'trickle down' affect, like NFPA being adopted by other states, etc ?

also, would 'model rocket' classification help with shipping ? I think no, due to propellant weight limits with USPS/ DOT etc.

If AP is no longer an explosive, it seems the next task is to get shipping relief, as it would be back to it;s old flammable solid classicifaction, doubt a non-hazardous shipping can be arranged however ( ala ORM D ) .

will be interesting to see these motors released - hope the price point is good - consistent with RMS24 and they'll be a huge hit :)
especially with us cluster freaks, due to low cost hardware.

[Pem Tech]

As was riginally Posted by Jeroen_at_CTI on RP
Just a hint for now: please stop gluing motor blocks in your 24 mm rockets
;-).
Jeroen


I have been saying that since we started the bidness.
Someday, I said, you will want to fly longer motors in those kits.
But noooooooooooooo, almost everyone wants to defile their motor mount with these little buggers.

Don't say I didn't warn ya'!

:P

[GregGleason]

It's only a matter of time before we see posts like ...


Dremeled out the thrust block in my [rocket name goes here] for the new CTI 24s ...

How do you fix an an over-Dremel in my [rocket name goes here] ...

:D

Greg

[Pem Tech]

It's only a matter of time before we see posts like ...


Dremeled out the thrust block in my [rocket name goes here] for the new CTI 24s ...

How do you fix an an over-Dremel in my [rocket name goes here] ...

:D

Greg


*snerk*
:chuckle:

[Green Dragon]

And finally, the PA dept of agriculture may have approved that bag of pretzels, but nobody except PA cares.


But if I bring those pretzels to a launch in California, is that ok ?

[ghrocketman]

Leave it to COMMIEfornia to OVER regulate every stinkin' thing....

[Mark II]

Al, this must just be a California thing. Not all CTI reloads are classified as high power anywhere else -- just the overwhelming majority of them. I have purchased Pro38 1-grain G's with no problem even though I do not have HP certification. (In fact, I wasn't even an NAR member when I bought my first one.) Their Pro29 F's are certainly not classified as high power. Out of the couple hundred or so reloads that CTI makes, I believe that a whopping five or six do not require Level 1 cert or above to purchase. The good news about the Pro24's is that CTI may have finally woken up to the fact that the vast majority of rocketeers do not actually have high power certification, yet many of us would like to be able to fly our rockets on composite reloads every once in awhile. It is great that CTI is throwing us a few more bones in the form of some more reloads that are designed for the rest of us. I am truly delighted by this news and I am looking forward to seeing what they deliver.

MarkII

[luke strawwalker]

(snip)

A state cannot adopt another state's regulations.

And finally, the PA dept of agriculture may have approved that bag of pretzels, but nobody except PA cares.

That doesn't mean other states don't often craft legislation that is almost verbatim what another state has already enacted... Sad to say...

Man, every day I find another reason to be glad I'm not a political prisoner in the People's Republik of Kalifornia (sieg heil!) :D :rolleyes:

Texas is bad enough... :mad: OL JR :)

[Mark II]

"CTI Goes 24!" Or is that CTU? Where's Jack?

MarkII

[GregGleason]

"This is your last chance.

Drop the phoney Estes launch controller now and tell me where the Quest Q2G2 igniters are."

http://www.thesunblog.com/frosting/jackbauer8.jpg

:eek:

[Jerry Irvine]

If AP is no longer an explosive, it seems the next task is to get shipping relief, as it would be back to it;s old flammable solid classicifaction, doubt a non-hazardous shipping can be arranged however ( ala ORM D ) .
APCP has an ambient burning rate under 2.2mm/sec. As such it falls below even the standards for Flammable Solid and fall out of HMR entirely. DOT confirmed this in the report following the Pennsylvania test and inquiry into Aerotech about 10 years ago. I brought this to the attention of NAR President Cochran, and to date no action has been taken. This might very well be a stroke of the pen issue to eliminate APCP from Hazardous Materials Regulations entirely.

Reg Jerry

cite:

http://v-serv.com/usr/FS-holygrail.jpg
I don't have an online link to the AT-DOT investigation report
Maybe NAR will look in their archives or Gary will post a link.

[jadebox]

Al, this must just be a California thing. Not all CTI reloads are classified as high power anywhere else --

Reloadable motors, regardless of size, are classified as "high power" by the CSFM because the legal definition of "model rocket engine" in California is:


"Model rocket engine" means a commercially manufactured, non-reusable rocket propulsion device which is constructed of a nonmetallic casing and solid propellant, wherein all of the ingredients are self-contained so as not to require mixing or handling by the user and which have design and construction characteristics determined by the State Fire Marshal to provide a reasonable degree of safety to the user.

-- Roger

[Bill]

I would like to see CTI go 18 and 13!


Bill