PatPux

If a Parajet Macro needs a 175cc 2-stroke to fly an AUW in the region of 150kg, it's difficult to see how a 110cc 4-stroke is going to be enough for a trike, unless you and the trike are built very light!

Start with Clive Mason 07729 783989 clive@marstonairfield.co.uk

No, I assumed you were talking about the real thing. Very Cool!

No, not too heavy for the equipment, after all there are tandem rigs. More relevant is how fit you are. You don't need to be super fit, but in the learning phase, when you are kiting the wing, you will spend your time in fairly strenuous exercise running with your wing. So you won't be 18stone for long. I am 57 and was 17st when I started a year ago, a bit less now, I spin and MTB , so am relatively fit and found the 5days training prior to my first flight was pretty hard work, but just pace yourself. You've got to give it a go!

I'll be there.

This is quite a well worn path viewtopic.php?t=9446

And when did Kevin Spacey stop being director of the Old Vic and start flying tree felling choppers!

Here's what Polish workmanship looks like from Dudek. Become something of an expert over the last couple of weeks, Er...hemm!

Done. Here is my response in which I précis'd the BGA Guidance and put it in my own words. It makes the point of NOT cutting and pasting, because the comments are likely to be ignored, so don't just copy mine, if you are going to respond. I'm no expert in this area, so hope this response is OK. Having read the consultation document and the evidence gathered by opposers in a bit more detail now , it does leave you asking "Who the F*** do TAG think they are?" Especially when you look at the relatively small number of their movements in comparison to everyone else. RESPONSE Patrick Puxley My address Etc Etc puxleyp@****++++++*.com 07816 ****** I am a low hours paramotor pilot aged 57 who flies from a field close to the NW boundary of the proposed Part B “Blue Area”. The proposed area covers the area to the SE in which I would fly and would significantly impact my routes in that direction. I oppose this proposal. I have read the consultation document and would make the following points The questions give no opportunity to express contrary views, simply leading you to TAGs preferred conclusion. Hence the points below The paper is grossly slanted in TAGs favour implying they are the most important and most frequent users of this space with anyone else presented as being a danger. The arguments on safety and environment are not clear, don’t seem to be supported by analysis and in the case of noise, the supporting diagrams etc are difficult to understand . TAG’s implied contention that they are the major user of this space is not supported by the evidence I have seen that has been gathered by parties likely to affected by this change. For example last year TAG’s movements in the space ( which reduced last year) represented less than 10% of the total with only half of them carrying passengers and this doesn’t include transiting traffic. This makes TAG a minor user of the space. On Safety the paper concentrates only on TAG’s needs and doesn’t explore the safety implications to others who are the majority users of the space. Although TAG say that the space will be available to all under certain criteria, experience shows that many pilots would route around the area creating dangerously congested areas at pinch points, I think this increases the level of risk to the majority. On noise TAG claims that many will be less overflown. The data indicates that although lots of people are overflown by TAG, in many cases it is only very rarely. These people who were occasionally overflown may no longer be, but many people are now going to be overflown by repeated flights. The proposals will significantly increase noise for a sizeable population.

I run mine at 2% with Motul 710 and I make sure that it's running just rich. You have just got to avoid a lean mixture and that is either too little fuel or too much air, hence the post further up that says check for air leaks.ie too much air being inducted.

Isn't the affect of upping the oil ratio, in fact to weaken the mix? Less fuel for given air intake. So it maybe more lube but it's a weaker mix. Weaker mix hotter running. Maybe not enough of its own but it's pushing it the wrong way.

Ok, just read the bit about cut and paste responses!

I can see that the extended area for changes below 4000ft now comes right up to the M4 at Reading and therefore within a couple of miles of where I will fly at home near Pangbourne, so am concerned. I have skimmed through the section B stuff and no doubt if I spend enough time could understand it in detail. What would be really useful would be for someone who understands this in detail, gives their idea of how the questions should be answered, I'd do a return immediately then. I haven't even read it enough yet to understand whether it means no flying at all in the designated area 0-4000ft. Anyone want to distill what it means into a handful of easy to understand bullet points?

Thanks. As I said I got myself sorted by a combination of repair and some luck finding an almost new set. So in the end I only missed a day or two of flyable weather. I know now from searching last time round what the options are. - standard PJ carbon 3 blade -Helix 3blade -Or various 2 blade carbon or wooden props with a two blade hub. I agree that whilst the risk remains high of damaging a prop , 2 blade wooden would seem the way to go. After all a 2 blade hub and wooden prop is probably less than a 3 blade carbon!

Membury is between you and Parajet at Mere, and therefore closer. It's just South of the Membury M4 service station on the old WW2 airfield

I know this was sometime ago, but Parajet being open is no guarantee of them actually having spares in stock that you can buy!!

Chris, I use the garmin 60csx. Not specifically for aviation but will give you all you need. This is the screen I use, but the boxes can be set to any of 30or40 parameters one of which is a vario ( visual only)

Thanks for the encouragement, guys. Just hope I don't need it again, soon.

Day 30 and 31 29/314 & 1/4/14 Flight 14 So a bit of a break from my last disastrous outing, but I have to admit to yet another broken prop last Sunday. So desperate was I to get back in the air I rushed things and committed the cardinal sin of sitting down before the wing was flying and there was that horribly expensive sound of splintering carbon meeting extruded aluminium and turf! This time I really went to town and did the netting in two quarters and another line! All completely avoidable and inexcusable. I had already identified Tuesday as a flyable day and I knew if I didn't get the thing fixed and " get straight back on the horse" I was in danger of canning the whole thing. So, luckily I had another prop, and a spare emergency line, so that was sorted before I left the field. What to do about the netting? Well you may gave seen another thread about what netting to use - no pun intended! Well a quick call to George Holmes to see if I could scam some of the 200m reel he had bought! No problem, he'd just got in so a quick detour to Yate, where best flying plumber in the West not only gave me the netting thread I needed but restrung one section while I was there. Top Man, thanks , mate. So by the end of the evening I had a machine ready to fly again and ready for Tuesday. But was I? That was a serious issue, two very expensive pranged launches and I was without doubt suffering something of crisis of confidence. So I was pretty nervous as I drove to Membury this morning, and with the fog not lifting till around midday that was a state of mind that persisted through the morning. In every sense I could not afford to fail again! I thought I would go right back to basics and get Col to take me through the launch with the radio, just like a first timer. As it happened that turned out to be no more than a comforter, because I couldnt actually hear a bloody thing! Needless to say , you have probably guessed by now , from the fact that I'm writing this rather than loading my gear into a skip and taking up needlepoint that I actually did get back in the air ! In the end it was a textbook forward launch with no drama and to put the icing on the cake I managed a two step stand up landing on my return from a 25 minute bimble around the Membury mast. Others there today were George getting back in the air after his argument with the barbed wire fence and having a nice little local flight, Chris getting airborne again, David preservering through a few fluffed launches to get his third and fourth flights in. Good to meet Mike, too, an example that you do reach a stage of "not forgetting", back to it after a year and flying like he'd never been away. So thanks for getting me sorted Col, and hopefully that'll be an end to me trying to use a paramotor as an agricultural implement rather than a flying machine.

Yep! I've got it booked off, should be at Membury if the weather stays as forecast.

Packing it in, Bob at the beginning is the way to do it . 3hr stints as frequently as possible, stops brain fatigue but stops you having to re-learn from too long a gaps. A couple more days like that and they'll have you on your first flight. I did my first lesson on a Sunday for 2hrs, took off every flyable day of the next week and got my first flight on day 5 of training, I think. Welcome to the addiction.

I suppose you could go half way to high tech and let the iphone tell you how fast your running when you don't feel any wind, even Farmers have iPhones. LOL

You've got the bug!

Which is better for us. One you must judge the wind direction and point at it for accuracy , the other will give a maximum regardless of direction ( and not give any direction data)