DAllen

This is a really interesting device. Imagine being able to fly your single deploy parachutes without using an e-bay. However, I think there are some things to consider before buying one of these: First, this is not an altitude based system but a timer based system. Second is the cost. It is a whopping $200. I would almost rather deal with a regular altimeter system.

-DAllen

fox_racing_guy

I own and use one of these regularly, it works just as advertised and really makes the recovery hike much shorter now.

ddmobley

There is no reason, based on what I see of this system, that it couldn't be adapted to work with an altimeter. All that you would need is a couple of vent holes. But then again, that comment will probably get a response back something to the effect of, "What about the motor's ejection charge pressurizing the altimeter." I don't know.

UncleVanya

I hashed this out a lot in "the other forum" and I'm still a bit mixed on this one. While an altimeter based option seems possible - the ejection problem as you noted is a big one to solve.

Honestly the reliance on motor ejection without any backup is a pretty big concern. I would rather build a chute cannon inside a larger tube and fly a traditional altimeter at these prices. I do not doubt this is a fair price - I just am unwilling to pay it.

ddmobley

Perhaps we are just looking at the device in the wrong way. We are comparing it to dual-deployment systems and this device doesn't qualify. As a dual-deployment device, this product can't even guarantee the recovery system will deploy, since it doesn't involve ejection, only release.

That is what separates it from the AeroTech Electronic Forward Closure. The EFC replaces the motor's built-in ejection, but still involves an explosive charge, culminating in a single deployment event. This device mimics dual-deployment by containing the chute until a predetermined time before releasing it. But if the motor ejection either fails or is premature or is late, there is a problem.

I agree that the price could be a problem for this device.

UncleVanya

That's a fair way to think of it - but the competition to the device is in fact altimeter based dual deployment. I'm having a hard time seeing the specific market that this appeals to - it's not cheaper, lighter, or more accurate than dual deployment. It is very easy to use and simple to add to rockets that were not designed with dual deployment in mind. So the market seems to be non-dual deployment equipped rockets that are large enough to not mind the weight and also have enough room for the device and a drogue to fit in the existing space. In my fleet that's a short list.




I really don't get the EFC. The only flight I have seen using it was a ballistic recovery. The flier in question went through the entire test process as described and everything seemed to work - until the flight. I'm certain that many people have had successful flights - but for a non-redundant deployment system to cost this much is a bit hard for me to take.




I wish it was otherwise. The designer commented in another forum that the low volumes expected in rocketry really drive the costs up. I do not doubt that this is sold at a rational mark up that is fair. I just think the technology required is more expensive than the payoff is worth.

If the cost wasn't an issue I would advocate adding an accelerometer only style altimeter (with timer) to the design to allow for apogee detection and the use of motor backup. I would also advocate external input triggers to allow for another device like a barometric altimeter to trip the release of the main.

jimmyc-rocket

I checked out the chute tamer on the Loc site and while it is a neat device I cannot see the cost effectiveness of this. At 200 dollars for the device and 20 dollars for 12 refills it makes flying expensive. I bought a Tether @ 72 dollars and a Perfectflite MAWD @ 99 dollars and do the same thing for less. I just had to modify my nose cones to hold the Perfectflite MAWD and hook up the Tether.
This works great for some small rockets and I do not have to worry about motor ejection either as all deployment is done by the altimeter.
I do not think I'll be buying one of these.

UncleVanya

Why the MAWD and not the HA45? You could save another $20 - did the recording feature appeal to you? The HA45 also has higher current output as I understand it. This is not a criticism of your choice but a question so I can understand what drives people's choices in altimeters.




But you could use it if you wanted a redundant drogue deployment - that's sometimes good insurance.

Warren

Great discussion! I am the inventor of the Chute Tamer rocket recovery control and appreciate the comments and concerns regarding this device. The market for this device is the vast number of "single-deploy" rockets out there flying on F50 power and better. No rocket modifications are required to enjoy more reliable recovery, and as the delay time is extended, a closer to launch recovery as well.

The Chute Tamer control can be moved between rockets and can be placed into the ejection charge "zone" of the air frame. The package materials are first-rate flame retardent ABS. There are many great comments and concerns expressed in this thread. Over the course of the next week or so, I will attempt to provide more detailed information.

In the mean-time, you can check out lots of information about the Chute Tamer control on the web site: www.chutetamer.com.

Thanks - Warren

jimmyc-rocket

UncleVanya,
They did not have the HA45 when I started doing this years ago so I bought the smallest and cheapest altimeter I could find at the time. The new Mini RRC2 would be a good choice to use also. I think they sell for around 78 dollars and to second part your question If I where to buy one now I would probably buy the HA45 as a choice for this application.

As to backing up drogue deployment with the motor ejection that is not a bad Idea but I fly a lot of research motors and they do not have ejection charges. And if some one wanted to fly mini Hybrid motors they could, as they also do not have ejection charges.

Warren,
I also agree this is an innovative product, if I already was not using the set up I have I would conceder this as an option. This is also a good set up for those who do not want to go through the process for the LEUP, as pyrotechnic devices require one.
Great job keep up the good work.

DumasBro2

Fox racing guy showed me this unit. Very well built. But...this is a niche product in a niche hobby and somewhat pricey. But it does what it is designed to do. Not something that I would be interested in though.

Warren

This is an insightful comment about the Chute Tamer(tm) control. While delaying the deployment of the parachute has some of the same benefits as dual deployment, CT is not meant to replace dual deploy. In my dual deployment rockets, I reserve a separate section of air-frame for each recovery device. The idea is that to keep the parachute from opening until desired, it needs to be contained in a section of air-frame.

My typical dual deploy rocket design contains three sections: a lower section for apogee separation and drogue parachute deployment (locating the drogue in the lower section allows me to use the motor ejection as a backup in addition to redundant altimeters); a middle "ebay" section that contains the electronics and is sealed from ejection charge gases; and an upper section that contains the main parachute until deployment is desired. This design allows for the separate deployment of two parachutes and as much redundancy as I care to design in.

The Chute Tamer control is not meant to replace the value of a dual deployment setup such as this. The CT innovation is that a parachute can be ejected from the air frame without immediate deployment. A majority of mid and high power rockets rely on engine ejection as the only means to separate a rocket (destabalizing it). For these "single-deploy" rockets there is now an option to delay the deployment of the parachute. In this case, if the engine ejection charge fails, there will be no chute (CT or not). Delaying the deployment of the parachute is not the only benefit provided by CT. See www.chutetamer.com for more details.




The Chute Tamer control and the EFC have very little in common. They both utilize an electronic timer, G-switch, and heating element. The comparison ends there. The EFC is made to replace the engine's ejection charge. The EFC uses black powder as an integral part of its operation. (The EFC is not a redundant ejection charge, in addition to the engine's ejection charge.)

The Chute Tamer control is designed to work without the addition of black powder or ematches. This was important to me in today's regulatory climate. CT requires only the engine's ejection charge to provide delayed parachute deployment and other benefits.




Perhaps I misunderstand this statment, but I have to disagree. One of the significant benefits of the Chute Tamer control is that the parachute is neatly folded and bound until the timer expires. In the case that the ejection charge is early or late (when the rocket is traveling at a high velocity), then CT control prevents the parachute from immediately opening and risking a torn chute or zippered body tube. Once ejection has occured and the rocket is slowed by the tumbling action, the CT control releases the parachute into a much slower air stream. This is great for rockets that do not match up with a short, medium, or long delay.

Terminal tumbling velocity is typically around 40 to 50 feet per second. This is very slow compared to 100 or more feet per second in the event of an early or late ejection charge.




While I was extremely cost concious in the design, I was unwilling to compromise component or design quality for the lowest possible cost. This product is made here in the US by hand and thuroughly tested. When I consider the cost of time and components for two or three full dual deploy rockets, the cost of the CT control that can be easily moved between a dozen single deploy rockets seemed a reasonable trade-off.

Thank you for taking the time to understand this new porduct!

Warren
Level 2
NAR #83859
TRA #10626
Chute Tamer Innovations, LLP
www.ChuteTamer.com

ddmobley

I see what you mean about a more organized deployment with the advent of a premature or late deployment, so I agree with your explanation. Thanks for pointing that out. My original comments need to be edited to state that in the event the motor ejection fails, there is a problem. To be honest, the only time I know of motor ejection failing is if I forget to put the black powder in or the motor experiences a forward closure failure/blowby.


Thanks for taking time to share with us. Many manufacturers will submit a press release about new products or have their products reviewed, many will read the followup comments about them, but few actually participate in the followup exchange of dialog about the products, which I think is a mistake on the manufacturers part. Consumers enjoy the interaction with manufacturers, particularly in this hobby, and want to know their voice is heard. What you are doing is a good thing, and we thank you for it.

I am sure your product's price is tied in part to the electronics in it. Do you forsee a way to potentially reduce the price any by the selection of different electronics? I ask because many people see price as the number one barrier to make a purchase, and will compare your device to altimeters straight away. I ask this to try and help your product succeed in a niche marketplace where price is usually the make or break factor.

Warren

The cost of the electronics are a portion of the overall cost. Another large cost component is the flame-resistent ABS enclosure. The enclosure is as good as a molded part, but significantly cheaper in small quantities.

The selected timer is the PerfectFlite minitimer. This timer has several great features including the loud siren that sounds after the time expires to aid in locating your rocket. Most importantly, however, is that this timer puts out a strong electrical "fire" current. The current matches well with the heating element that I use to cut the monofilament line.

The Chute Tamer control was two years in design and testing. A large portion of this time was spent studying the characteristics of nichrome wire under different electrical and weather conditions. It turns out that creating a reliable heating element cutter is not easy. Anyhow, the PerfectFlite timer was the most reliable and consistent within the specifications that I was looking for. The PerfectFlite minitimer with integrated G-switch retails for $43.

The CT price is not cheap, but considering the ability to move it from rocket to rocket without modification, and the fact that the CT control improves the probability of in-tact rocket recovery (zipper protection, siren, and delay deployment), it is reasonable. My goal is not really to make money, but to bring additional safety and enjoyment to the hobby. Thus the "tag line:" Achieve, Protect, Recover.

Warren
NAR/TRA Level 2
Chute Tamer Innovations, LLP
www.chutetamer.com

William Slaughter

I'm relatively new to model rocketry, and am working my way up through mid-power, and trying to get to high-power, (if only I could get some motors ). I do not already have any dual deploy rockets, electronics, e-matches, and etc.. I do have quite a few single deploy rockets that will fly high enough on G and H motors to get into potential recovery issues, so I am quite excited about your product, and just received mine in the mail yesterday. Given the complete portability and zero rocket modification required, I look at it as equipping my entire fleet for the $200. In addition, I believe that this device will be great for hybrid rockets, where the additional length of dual deploy on top of that required for the motor can become problematic. I'm hoping to fly mine for the first time on Saturday, and will let you know how it goes.

William

Warren

William -
Thank you for the kind support. Please do let me know how your weekend flights go!

I can remember my first experimental CT flight. I put CT into a relatively small rocket with a relatively big engine. I packed both a drogue and a main chute so that my fellow fliers would see the drogue and go on about their business (the CT project was secret at the time).

As the rocket was descending under drogue, the second (main) parachute suddenly deployed (I was thrilled concept proven). One of the other fliers who was new to the club immediately came over and began asking me about how to accomplish dual deployment recovery. I had to reach quickly into the truck and pull out a real dual deploy rocket!

Since that time, I have enjoyed putting larger engines into my mid-size single deploy rockets without so much worry about field size and wind conditions. Start with shorter delays and work your way towards a longer delay as you gain experience with the delay time estimation.

I agree about motor availability issues

William Slaughter

Flew the Chute Tamer in my Aerotech Initiator on a G71R today, and it worked perfectly. I couldn't bring myself to put in the full delay indicated on the worksheet to tumble it down from 2000 ft to 1000 ft, but delayed 8 seconds (350 - 400 feet) past motor ejection. I performed a ground test which worked fine, but the nichrome wire did not "fuse" and burn through, so I put a fresh heating element in for the flight, which also survived, both on a brand new alkaline battery. Not suggesting that this was a problem, just a data point. The hardest part of the exercise was getting the monofilament line tied down snugly. I used two rubber bands around the chute to keep it from unrolling while I tied the line. This worked well, but I have to be really sure to clip them off before putting the assembly in the rocket. This is a 2.6" rocket and everthing fit easily with a 24" Spherachute. This combination didn't seem to want to fit into my 2.15" rockets, but I'll play with it some more. We had a lot of wind out at JSC today, so this provided a very realistic test.

William
Certified Level 1 (today!)

jimmyc-rocket

William,
Congratulation on the cert. 1 and welcome to high power.

Warren

Backing off on the delay time is the right thing to do until you get used to the rocket/CT combination. I keep a log of CT flights by rocket/engine/wind conditions. After a few flights, I know delay times with confidence.

I have found that the biggest inaccuracy is not the tumble velocity, but the estimated altitude. To learn this, I began flying CT in my AT Aereaux. I used the payload bay to install an altimeter. The data from several test flights confirm the tumble velocity, but the altitude can vary by a few hundred feet. In any case, using CT provides control over the parachute and a closer recovery than it otherwise would have been.



This is not a concern. I have been adjusting the guage and length of the Nichrome wire in the cutter to be reliable, but re-useable. The fact that you can get more than one use out of the cutter is great! Just be certain that you get a continuity tone from the installed cutter before launch. In the ground test, be sure that you get a "good red glow" from the cutter. Different batteries and outdoor temperature effect the cutter effectiveness.

In the coldest weather, or if the battery is not so new, the SHORTER the length of Nichrome wire in the cutter the BETTER. (While the process of making cutters is standardized, they do come out with a small range of different lengths.) The LONGER the length of Nichrome wire, the more likely it will be re-useable.



Amen. I put the monofilament line through the cutter, then place the cutter in the CT unit. Finally, I fold and roll my parachute and place it on the back of the CT unit. Wraping the line around the parachute tightly and tieing it is best done with more than two hands.

Indeed, a rubber band to hold the parachute works great. And, yes, if the rubber band is left on the parachute, it will be released from the CT unit, but it will not open! Of course, I have done this more than one time. Try folding a length of tape over the band before placing it on the parachute. This tape "flag" makes it hard to put the CT unit into the rocket body tube and calls attention to the band.



A body tube with a 2.1" inside diameter is tight. The CT unit will slide in/out, but once a parachute is bound to the backside, things get tight. This is the case with my AT Arreaux. To make it fit, I fold the chute into "pizza slices", but avoid folding the top of the chute down to the shroud lines. This results in a chute "bundle" that is much longer than the CT unit, but the bundle is thin enough to allow room.

What great observations! You have really put the Chute Tamer control to the test - Thanks.

ddmobley

Have you done any testing using a rubber band instead of nylon line? I would think it would cut just as quickly and make packing things up much quicker.

Warren

I have only considered "open loop" binding materials. The reason for this is that the "cutter" is enclosed in an RJ45 plug for safety. This requires the binding line to be threaded through the holes in the plug to come in contact with the nichrome cutter. A rubber band would have to be cut and re-tied to accomodate this design.

I have tried "security ties". These are the thin beaded ties that sometimes hold sales tags (think sunglasses). These can be inserted into the CT cutter and then wrapped around the folded parachute. Inserting the pointed end of the security tie into the one-way ring on the other end is somewhat easier than tieing fishing line. Unfortunately, the thickness of the beads can prevent a clean cut if the beaded tie is positioned so that the cutter contacts a bead versus the thin portion between the beads. I have some extra security ties if you would like to try them.

I will have to ponder a "closed loop" tie such as a rubber band...

ddmobley

I can ask dumb questions when I don't have any hands on experience.

Not knowing the heating element required a feed-through was my show of ignorance. Heh.

Warren

No experience with the Chute Tamer rocket recovery control is a problem easily solved! Just visit LOC/Precision and place your order today!

fox_racing_guy

I found the best knot to use when tying the parachute to the Chute Tamer body is a Surgeons knot followed buy a square knot. The surgeons knot will hold tight while you tie the square knot on top of it. If you do a search for a surgeons knot I'm sure you can find a much better description for one than I can give.

William Slaughter

Last weekend I tied a bowline in one end of the monofilament before installing it, pulled the line back done tight over the parachute using the bowline's loop, and then tied a taughtline hitch with a bunch of extra wraps. This worked fine.
Speaking of knots, I recently found a new (to me anyway) knot in the fishing section when I was at Gander Mountain getting some black powder - the Palomar knot. It's used to tie a slippery line to a ring or other object. I've played with it a bit tying braided kevlar line to some swivels, and it is very easy to tie and seems quite secure. Google for illustration.