custom-vince

flight times are I expect as questionable and electric cars. Take a decent electric car 250 miles at cruise is easily dropped to 150 or less with your foot down. Renault Twizzy on factory settings 30 miles, unleash its full power and you'll get 5 miles. 40 mins flight time on the biggest battery. Interesting but missing a few vital facts. How big a wing was the tiny 55kg pilot using (I'm just speculating) Lets say at a constant 30kg thrust it gives 40 mins autonomy to be fair. 70kg thrust or I have heard 90kg is possible. Either way a few mins at 70 or 90kg will reduce the rest of the flight from 40 mins to 20 mins or less. This is the real issue with electric, I have a leccy bike. To be effective you either need to be constantly mindful of your power inputs or need double the battery capacity you expect. Battery capacity is our current drawback till future improvements. Then I have a problem, 18kg paramotor with fuel for 3 hours is 25kg. Why then would I want to fly a 30kg machine for 40 mins. My 18kg machine with fuel for 45mins is still under 20kg. I can refuel and go again. Electric PPG, I hope so, one day, not yet though.

I would have thought the Spyder is one of the better choices. Trims in, non reflex paraglider made of lighter fabric. Trims out, its reflex. Which can be handy even when paragliding on a windy launch. I found it easier to launch a bigger reflex wing with trims out than a 17m speed wing which felt like a bucket of wind due to the very fat leading edge. Also got to question yourself which you do more of and accept that and lean towards a wing which favours that side of the sport. I would happily paramotor with a paragliding wing but reality is I fly ppg 90% of the time, (99% this year), so I will just paraglide trims in on what ever I have. A wing is a wing after all, they will all do both and more.

also to note your head is a good signal blocker. If you have your sena on the left and your fellow pilot is on your right.

I use high octane, super unleaded 98-99 depending where bought. Then I leave it in the shed to rott and mix in 2.5% oil. I assume all this reduces the octane yet further. So best to start as high as possible.

its to off set the weight of the pilot. Side shift. example. on the S arm of my belt drive machine. the top of the S that attaches to the wing is leaning right and the end of the S that connects to my harness is 1" to the left. Both arms are like this effectively sitting me 1" to the left to counter the right twist created by the anti/counter clockwise belt driven prop.

I wouldn't believe what you read. Need to get some scales and check the weight for yourself. Its going to be light, but not quite that light. Comparing with AC nitro (currently 18.4kg), the skymax is 1.5kg more in chassis design. Then the engines are 1kg more for factory or over 2.4kg more for classic. 22.3kg total possibly a bit more? Original AC moster was 22.6kg but then exhaust upgrades pushed it to 23kg. As an example. T-rex (titanium frame) moster factory edition 12.5kg. complete paramotor is just over 24kg. On the Skymax the alloy chassis does not look very resistant to a skid. I like aspects of the design. I picked it up at coupe care last year, had a chat & a good look. I like the machined alloy pieces but at the same time its many nuts and bolts to fall out. The sheet alloy in other machines tends to break after some hours, this design might be ok as the stress from harness is put thought the centre bar within the frame, yet engine vibration will be through the alloy sheet matrix.I think the skymax is more suited to an eos engine. less power, less vibration, less stress and lighter or electric. for most people this is splitting hairs and they don't see the point in saving kg. Ask an owner of a light weight machine and they will say the opposite. For some it has transformed there flying and enjoyment of the sport. Once owned a 19kg machine, never want to fly anything heavier again. I used to fly Air Conception 130 at 17.9kg that machine is now 17.3kg.. I'm on a nitro now instead which still feels good at 19kg. I have a page of comparison spec and weight.. a work in progress. http://www.custom-air.co.uk/Custom_Air_Paramotors/Custom_Air_Conception_Model_Comparison.html

for most it is acceptable but coming from 19kg Nitro paramotors, all I want to do is make it lighter

The design is very clever and simple. The main black bar behind the shoulders is all the structure. The spars and weight shift attach to this and its a beefy bit of alloy. This lends me to thinking the upright channel could be replaced with pre-fabricated carbon box tube, split to make 2 channels. the stainless front a rear plate which covers the fuel tank replaced with prefab carbon or carbon foam laminate. £20 a sheet. The walking spars carbon tube £20 each. The structure remains yet the weight is reduced. I may still do that if time allows or with increased motivation. With the internal fuel tank, its a bonus for fitting in a suit case.

Yes, I don't buy the weight claims. More pictures here > https://flic.kr/s/aHskxvsotv I just weighed it. Complete chassis as my pictures with fuel tank, weight shift attached, walking spars, netting, hoop, covers etc. everything but the harness and engine. 9.9kg the apco harness 2.5kg I have a spare ultimate engine which is 10.5kg add on 800grams of prop with bolts. that would make 11.3kg 9.9+2.5+11.3 = 23.7kg ready to fly with an ultimate 130 engine. top80 would be a little more, eos a little less. polini add 2kg ish. Its typical for companies to tell you the weight without a harness or taking the harness weight from the brochure. The way the harness hooks into the alloy weight shift is easy but was not likely to slip out, it took some wiggling to remove it. No back up straps as standard, but something easily added. The walking poles do not slip, but in a fall I guess an impact could move them. I would say thats a good thing as would save a breakage. While I have a 130 engine to put in, it is belt drive and the miniplane style hoop chassis I think suits a clutch engine better for safer forward launching. If you were interested, this chassis is available at half price or less. Its sitting here not being used. With suggested carbon parts I think a kg or more could be taken off at minimal cost.

the spars are adapted telescopic walking poles made from aluminium. Could upgrade to graphite carbon poles. The main hoop is miniplane style bendy fibre, The military spec fuel tank bladder is very tough and durable and sandwiched between the back plate and engine plate. The green alloy engine plate is pre-drilled for a choice of engines or drill your own mounts. The green alloy weight shift arms have a very simple system to hook up the harness, no D shackle required. It weighs about the same as a zenith chassis although it is future upgradeable, as in the stainless tank panels could be replaced with carbon sheet, as said the walking poles replaced with carbon saving some weight. The poles being telescopic help it fold down to tiny suitcase dimensions. Great paramotor for travelling. A bit basic in construction but very effective, great for DIY'er to be self sufficient. Thumb activated throttle is again basic but very effective. A neat design solution for holding brakes while using a throttle. Adjustable apco slt harness.

I will take some photos when I get a chance.

in some cases you are over simplifying it, but it is possible to simplify it further, ignoring gear ratios, reduction drives, prop pitch etc, that already been calculated by the manufacturer and they aim to supply the most effected solution they have. So ignoring all that we are down to engine size and thrust. 80-100cc giving 50kg vs a 180-200cc giving 75kg thrust. Lets say you need 40kg thrust for level flight. that put the smaller engine at 80% of its max power where as the bigger engine is only using 53% of its max power or range of power. At max thrust the smaller engine burns 4lph. the bigger engine producing more power burns 6lph at max thrust. at equal thrust they burn similar amounts of fuel. the small engine will typically rev to 10000rpm sometimes more. the larger engine 8000 as an example. So at 40kg thrust / 80% power the little engine is 8000rpm the bigger engine at 40kg thrust / 53% power is only 4200rpm If one were 100cc at 8000rpm and the other 200cc at 4000rpm the fuel burn is going to be pretty similar. Now for power, given a set pilot weight and wing size, he does not need more power to go faster, it will help him climb faster. If that pilot decides to fly a smaller wing, then he will be able to fly faster and still be able to climb well. If he put the smaller wing with the smaller engine, it would hamper his climb out and his level flight could then be 95% of max power, not a good way to treat your engine. Bigger engine will seem more noisy and is often more noisy at max rpm than the smaller engine, but then it is also producing more power. Put both engines at 40kg thrust and the larger engine will probably be the quieter engine. Cooler running and less stressed. Things are never a constant and many top80 owners find it the most economical engine they have ever owned. but then are they winning eco comps still? I think mini2 and thor200 have beaten it, both are 200cc engines. I guess it shows the pilots tuning skills, throttle control skill, piloting, wing choice, trim setting.. all has a part to play.

I has a bladder tank. can be removed and swapped or removed and cleaned, rolled up and posted back. I not sure if the bladder would be an advantage or disadvantage for that purpose. Possible advantage as you have other options, you could wear it under a jacket. Tell the flight crew its a hot water bottle as it looks a bit like that.

best ask the owners of 19kg jobs. They will tell you the truth of their ownership experience.

Yes it is, or should I say was. Air Conception are a paramotor manufacturer more than an engine manufacturer. They make a great engine. They also want to keep it to them selves. I mentioned in another post, engine along does not make for a super light paramotor. It is a combination of parts. 2 years warranty is easy to maintain when fitted correctly to a purpose built chassis. Problems arise when mis handled and fitted to other chassis, with aftermarket props etc.

I have a leg cover and an airbag for my PPG harness. Woody Valley leg cover fits Supair evo PPG harness. and APCO airbag fits supair harness also. I have not used them combined. should be possible though, just a lot of clutter on launch.

The synergy 5 will fit pretty much any engine. Its a bit fussy to assemble but that comes along with breaking down so small for travelling, it also adds a little weight so not as light as the air conceptions. The nitro has been available separately but I think that option has recently been removed. Full quality control is better when sold as a whole machine, also to do with keeping up with demand. There is not spare engines to sell separately. I can always ask on availability if one is wanted separately. Some guys have wanted the Nitro engine just to save weight.. That doesn't add up. Engine only would just save a couple of kg. Its the complete package that makes a lighter paramotor. I have been asked for a chassis to fit a mini2, that does not really work either.

I looked at taking a GIN yeti, the previous wide shoulder version and adding extra loops to fit paramotor. Yes it is possible. Comfort, don't know, didn't get that far along. Air Conception released a lighter harness, so I didn't bother to continue with the project. Im now thinking of going the other way. I do more PPG and free flying, so to me it makes more sense to add traps to make ppg harness ready for free flying.

I have a Synergy 5 chassis in stock. Can fit in a medium suitcase, ideal for travelling.

I have a number for Rougham. pm me, I will look it up.

I sound like a broken record. Fuel primer? Do you have a squeezy bulb, if it feel hard to squash then the little internal 1 way valves could be sticking. They are open when idle to mid throttle but under full throttle they get sucked up and close, causing a dip in power through starvation. Seems obvious but very hard to find when your trouble shooting an engine. Eliminate or replace the bulb, its a cheap and simple way to tick it off the possible causes.

I have posted this before, but it helps with comparing some specs and thrusts, quoted or actual. I think there is little to choose between them. I am a fan of the Nitro so I now have an unbiased view between moster and thor190. I would say thor190 is quieter. Reliability? hmm.. difficult as the 190 has had its problems, maybe all sorted maybe still ongoing, depends who you ask. I'm not up to date on that. Generally the moster is very reliable, although theres a good 50/50 chance you will need an exhaust at sometime in its life, but the engine is unlikely to let you down. The moster needs an exhaust service part every 20 hours, which is a tad annoying. Vittorazi are better at responding to warranty or when buying spares. In the UK there is a choice of dealers with parts available. I think parts are generally cheaper to buy for the moster. Thor has its plus points also, I have a bit more experience with moster to comment. Not saying one way or the other If it were me, id buy a nitro but I'm bias.

There has been a working clutch model for sometime. Lots and lots of testing. When you offer a 2 year warranty, things have to be right. I can't remember the weight, it was light as still a belt drive, advanced design to reduce slip. No point in quoting weight or talking to much about specifics till the final production version.

Hi Lee, Ask a Rougham Airfield, I hear some paramotor guys fly from there. Possibly costs £10 or something. It was a while ago, so can't remember for sure, worth enquiring as that alone should hook you up with some fellow pilots. I have flown from old felixstowe before, that was nice. Theres a few pilots around ipswich area, I have seen someone launching Thetford way but I was driving and didn't stop. Norfolk coast, just have a trip out when the condition are good 12-15mph northerly, you will meet loads of coastal floaters.