> I haven't flown any F39-12s, but based on the 6s & 9s I've flown and seen, I
> would say the NAR numbers are correct. My clubs experience has been the
> stated Aerotech numbers for the F39s are about three seconds short. YMMV
Not that I am suggesting it in this case, but for example, (ducking from
Gary) If one were to submit mess forms on these motors then one might
expect the motors are decertified or resubmitted, right? Under current
What I suggest is on such motors where the production is done and sold,
a web page be formed that expresses all ofthe problems and workarounds
consumers had to use.
This way IF someone chooses NOT to return a clearly defective product,
they can cope. I propose AT again suggest consumer delay modification
> Christopher Brian Deem NAR 12308 TRA 2256 Level II
> > OK, I got me some 1/2 priced F39-12's from Valueland's closeout sale. But
> > befuddled by the double markings. Which delay is closer to the truth?
> The -12 or
> > the parenthetically included NAR certification delay of 9 seconds?
> > At the time of the NAR cert test, I'm sure the -9 was correct, but did
> > ever get around to adjusting the delay to be the indicated 12? Or is it
> > of a difference in when the test equipment determines motor burnout and
> > counting the delay? Which number should I assume?
> > Three seconds delta is enough for a zipper or shred, so your good advice
> will be
> > a big help.
> > TIA.
> > Doug
> > See my Sunday-go-to-meeting-hat at
> > http://home.flash.net/~samily/DougsRockets/ConeHead4.html
> > --
> > samily at flash dot net
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish.