Jump to content

powerlord

Members
  • Content Count

    200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

powerlord last won the day on January 25

powerlord had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

64 Excellent

1 Follower

About powerlord

  • Rank
    Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. powerlord

    IMG_20200106_090125.jpg

    I've got one of those 3dconnexion jobs - great for solidworks/cad use!
  2. this is the kinda thing I was talking about on the other thread. I twice had exactly this happen on my top 80 - twice I had to land out as I couldn't get enough power out the engine to stay level. twice, I stripped the carb down, took it off, checked the petals, yada yada, carb kit, new gasket, stuck it all back together and it started working again so I was none the wiser. Like here, I got 100 different reasons for what the cause was. If you've not already - that'd be what I'd do. chances are it is some little tiny thing - a small gap in the gasket, a slightly loose petal, a tiny bit of crap in the carb. Rather than spend ages trying to get the root cause, just take 2-3 hours to strip it all down, replace gasket, do carb kit, torque everything up right and I bet it goes away. These feckers fully implement chaos theory - looking for a specific cause it like looking for tits on a bull.
  3. Wonder if that's one of the reasons more motors are being fitted with simple blow/breather pipes - less to go wrong ? why you'd put silicone anywhere near petrol is certainly a mystery - it just dissolves as you say. assuming yer carb's a walbro type it'll have a mesh at least to stop most of the crap, but I imagine you've already had that to bits and cleaned it/carb kitted it. I agree about the carbs though - YES folk will go on about how simple 2 strokes are, etc - and when they work, they seem rock solid - till they don't and it seems like all you need to do is look the the carb funny and the bloody thing never seems to be able to be set up right again.. ๐Ÿ˜ซ๐Ÿ˜ซ I've lost count of the number of times I've had some weird issue with a paramotor 2 stroke, took it all apart, found nothing wrong, put it all back together and again.. and it works.. does yer head in. I swear somehow it is conscious and just wanted the attention. ๐Ÿ˜–
  4. Its the same with all ppg wings. none..well hardly any.. are certified for this reason. it's kinda rubbish, but unless the system changes its the way it is. The other big issue is that any riser systems have to be set to full slow for certification, and with ppg wings that's pointless as we just don't fly like that - especially with modern reflex wings - where we are almost always on fast trim. So for similar reasons dudek, etc don't bother certifying now. There's nothing to stop a decent certification scheme for paramotor wings - testing slow speed, fast speed, etc - and not expecting to try and do stupid crap like big ears a wing on full fast reflex, but it's been 20 years of reflex and it's yet to happen so I doubt it ever will - we are just small potatoes compared to the number of PG wings sold basically. And as a group we are not demanding it. So your best bests are go for a trusted paramotor wing manufacturer, and if going reflex, one who has been doing it a long time. You just need to trust them to categorize their own wings unfortunately. Arguably some are better than others at that. But the reason I've stuck with Dudek for 14 years is that reason - I want a company that's business is paramotor wings, not a company who's main business is PG and does PPG on the side. Just my 2c. Maybe controversial - I know Ozone seem to be doing ok now for example, but only 10 years ago or so their first attempts at reflex ppg wings were not good.. and it always feels like a sideline to them. Not sure if Niviuk is the same or not, but with no independent certification standard trust in the manufacturer is absolutely paramount imho. I'm not going to dish dirt - but there are some out there who play fast and loose with manuals and marketing bullshit, so ask around, read reviews, and make your decision based on something other than marketing p1sh on websites is my 2c. And just to be clear, DGAC is not a certification - it's like an EU 'CE' stamp pretty much. i.e. 'this thing exists and is made by XYZ' - it's meaningless. BHPA has this to say about it. https://www.bhpa.co.uk/pdf/BHPA_Certification_Factsheet.pdf
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KpMtE59uLY probably won't be flying again till June or so depending on how long it take to get knee back to fitness after ACL in about 4 weeks. Was a decent flight - but wish I'd taken a Kwells motion sickness tablet before flight. I usually do if I think it'll be bumpy - but really though it would be like a babys bum that day - but last hour was rough and spent it with a face like i was chewing a wasp trying to keep from puking up as got chucked about. on plus side, never felt anything but safe under reportair.
  6. but 11 vs 45 can only be interpreted if we know how may PPG vs PGers there are. Anecdotally I do agree PGing is more dangerous (i.e. more chance of injury), but if we are looking just at fatalities and Strange Days figures are correct, it's the number of fliers thats important. For example if there are 4x as many PGers than PPGers, then the fatality rate is equal per year (ignoring flight frequency). Also you need to bear in mind that BHPAs reports seem to cover most of europe for PG whereas there's only one PPG fatality registered in there for europe - really would need the EHPU figures ? BHPA seem to cover europe IF the fatality was a BHPA member only ? There's a fair few variables there and it's possible to easily come out with the answer you want. But if we keep it simple and go with BHPA figures, without number of PGers vs PPGers we can't make sense of the 11 vs 45. And of course, in PPG there's a lot of pilots that are not members of BHPA - and either members of alternatives or have no affiliations. I think it'd be useful to know this sort of stuff, but just not sure the data is readily available to actually make sense of it. If you look at say, motorcycle fatalities - I'd imagine it's based on % motorcycles vs cars on roads, and fatalities per vehicle, and UK figures would be UK only. So - a like for like would be % PPG pilots flying in UK vs % PG pilots flying in UK (thought I think even that would be skewed since UK PGers regularly flight abroad whereas UK PPG pilots do not) but it would at least be a UK based fair compare ? ๐Ÿ˜• Looking at https://www.bhpa.co.uk/documents/safety/formal_investigations/ I make that 24 PG vs 11 PPG in UK since 2002. So - I don't know numbers, but if there are more than 2.2x the number of PG fliers in UK, PPG has more fatalities in UK per 100 people per year.
  7. active is the key - and frankly I've no idea. But I'd punt for something like 500 or so active ppg pilots in the UK or thereabouts (active = fly every month say). PG wise many will fly abroad, etc too - but it's probably order of magnitude higher ? 2-5000 ? fatality rate wise though we seem to average out to about 1 a year or so. Whereas PG can go years without one (though they arguably have more non fatal accidents). stu
  8. yup. I agree completely. I suppose same goes for most other sports. most of the risk is from the extremists. there's always the unexpected outliers of course - but it's a fair statement I think to say most of the deaths in UK have been around the stuff you've mentioned (worldwide I'd include drowning). Maybe it's just me, but even though I bumble around the sky like a Sunday driver, I kinda like the hard ass reputation of doing one of the most dangerous sports on earth.. so don't analyze it too deeply ๐Ÿ˜‰
  9. er.. happy new year. might not be the most pleasant thing to think about, but good article here or mortality rates vs base of commercial flying. they also have a sort of ' same as if yer age X' thing. paramotoring not there - only paragliding, but based on finger in the air death rate in UK I'd put us at somewhere around just over double paragliding over the past 10 years or so. or to put it another way - we are all like 110 year old in terms of probability of death within the next 1000 hours* so a bit above sky diving would be my guess.. so only about 5th most dangerous sport- so it's nice to know there's a career path.. though I reckon I might be too old to make it to Formula 1.** maybe makes u think - or at least internally justify when you do stupid sh1t :-0 https://chessintheair.com/the-risk-of-dying-doing-what-we-love/ * per hour though.. so unless you do 1000 hours a year of flying I reckon you are safe. **possibly skip the mountain climbing mince altogether tbh and go straight to BASE ๐Ÿ˜
  10. aye its looking good. I'm gonna have to get my FOURTH ACL knee reconstruction mid february (heavy landing at Ben Nevis in the rain back last summer) - so will be my last chance for a flight for 4-6 months I reckon before I'm fully 'bionic' again.. so might have to brave the fecking cold to be honest...maybe take a day off to get a few flights in. some of my nicest flights have been in winter (well in snow tbh.. so sign of that in suffolk), but it is a PITA wrapping up, keeping lipos down yer pants to keep em warm to start up.. more lipos for the heated gloves, yada yada.. still - one has to give it a punt. stu
  11. ha. well yes, that was the Christmas present
  12. had it for years - just first excuse to use it - and my green man invisible suit
  13. Got a new flying suit for Christmas... Happy New year. stu
ร—
ร—
  • Create New...