Phil_P

Well weight versus charge density, you are going to have to go a long way in order to beat a LIon battery. The strobe would probably run on 3 cells but four might be better. A good source for cells is defunct laptop batteries, usually when one of these goes dead it's only one or two cells that dies and the rest are fine. Charging can be problematic as these are rather sensitive to overcharge which can result in quite spectacular fires. I've got round this by using a charger designed for radio modellers. It can charge just about anything from a standard 12V supply (and that includes packs with a higher final voltage than 12V due to the switch mode PSU incorporated). Charging outdoors is a seriously sensible option. Again, you probably wouldn't want to land on these cells, as again, physical damage can start a fire. I wonder how many of us with laptops realise what a potential firebomb we have resting near our groin! If you don't mind the weight issue, then use a Hawker Odyssey battery to run all you electrics, including electric start if you have it. They have fantastic cranking current, tolerate deep discharge, perform well when cold and can be recharged VERY fast. You can also mount them anyway up except inverted, and as they are absorbed gas mat technology, there is no free liquid to leak even if you did manage to bust one (they have metal clad versions that would make this almost impossible).

As per the title. SWMBO has been asking what I want for my birthday, so I've asked for a SPOT. Just need to know who I order from for the club price.

The limitation is only one imposed by your training organisation. Paramotors can enter any airspace that allows VFR flight, but may need a clearance.

Could you not make, or have made, an adapter that would allow you to fit props with different fixings. A bit like I had to do in order to fit the GSC prop to my Adventure (different PCD's and bolt patterns). You surely would be able to find a prop that would 'make do'? I wonder how quickly some of the suppliers in Thailand could get a prop to you.

The best kind are the pin-lock type, as there is no gate movement to allow stress fracturing. Charly make both pin locks and the quick out type that are good if you need to release under load. Francis, your statement about testing a carabiner by seeing if it will release when under load is not nescessarily good advice. All it does is indicate that the 'biner has flexed to the point where all gate play has been taken up. If you had a very strong 'biner that had sufficient strength to keep flex within the stress limits but not take up all the play in the gate, then by your check, would fail un-necessarily. Also, a 'biner could pass your test whilst still flexing beyond it's stress limit. For this reason, I don't think the test of opening under load is a particularly useful. (Unless you are thinking from a safety point of view, where the ability to open a carabiner in flight might be seen as a bad idea). Seems like I'm always trying to contradict you at the moment Francis, and it's not intentional. I think we both just have strong ideas. Creating a debate is almost as important as being right, so I don't mind being shown to be wrong All the best

GSC systems said there would be next to no difference between the two on my Solo driven Adventure.

I'm thinking of fitting a pair of trolley type wheels semi-permanently to the bottom of my frame. That way, in the event of a forced 'out-landing' wheeling it as far as a road might be possible. I suppose I could spring load them for that perfect four point landing (think about it).

Electronic fuel injection

I've seen a couple of motors with these or similar fitted. Great improvement in visibility. The current draw is fairly low, so just a NimH battery pack for a radio controlled car should give you a fair run time. I'm working on a couple of el-cheapo solutions/alternatives. One is a pair of smaller strobes, marketed on a well known auction site for car use. I've machined solid clear bar into domes to cover the lights and they work quite well. I just need to find a neat mounting solution for both the lights and the control box. The second solution is a pair of red LED strobes (20 LED's per unit) from the same source. I've seen these mounted as rearward facing lights and they are VERY good, especially given the low cost and the low current consumption. The pair I have can be configured in three different flash patterns, with alternate tripple flashes being particularly effective. Phil

I love being in the air! The thrill of being above the ground and in control of where I go is just unbeatable. So few people are ever able to experience that luxury, I just consider myself blessed. It's similar with scuba diving, going where others can't or won't. I love planning, I love the minuteae of each detail and being pleased as stuff I've planned drops into place. I do get a little frustrated when plans go awry, hence pulling my hair out for six months before my first flight. I love route planning for this reason, without a GPS, knowing that a lake or a road or something is going to come into view just as I planned it. That's not to say I'll not use a GPS, because another side of me is a complete gadget freak. If it runs on batteries or petrol, I want it The transponder issue for me is a great combination of gadgetry and a problem waiting to be solved. It's not about legislation and the powers that be, and it never will be. I'd love to do things that no-one has done before, maybe not fantastic exploits, but to be able to say 'I was the first to do that' hence my desire to fly from Scotland to Ireland. I think I'm a frustrated (super)hero, who just longs for a bit of adventure. I'm solution orientated, so on an expedition you'd find me making do and mending, solving problems by getting my hands dirty. That's why paramotors are great, there is nothing (in terms of tinkering) that I'm not allowed to do. OOOOoooops, sorry [/ramble]

Well there are probably more Solo 210 engines in service than any other single other paramotor motor. Solid and pretty reliable, if perhaps a little underpowered with reference to their capacity than some modern offerings. They benefit from an oversized head and a tuned exhaust which can boost output a little. The tuned exhaust also mutes the exhaust note, almost like a four stroke in tone. The Adventure units are nice, and quite ergonomic. much more 'organic' in shape than most others with a fibre-glass monocoque forming the main structure, rather than tubular metalwork. Whether you like that or not is down to personal taste, but it does have the advantage of keeping the fuel tank very well protected from the prop. The cage, being a very lightweight aluminium structure is a known weak point, and you can expect to bend it quite badly if a heavy landing includes contact between the frame and ground. I'm investigating having someone manufacture a complete stainless replacement for mine. There is a known weakness on the early models redrive support which was rectified on later ones by changing out some simple pillar mounts with an 'H' support that combines both the rearmost redrive supports in one piece. The protective netting is quite large in it's spacing, thus increasing the risk of a brake handle going into the prop. This is easily rectified with some heavy fishing line woven on the diagonal to the original squares. The deluxe harness has plenty of space either for padding or camping gear if you fancy a bit of Vol-biv. When combined with a Swing Arcus in XL, my F3 managed to get my 113kg into the air exactly one week ago for the very first time.

Why is that Francis given that for example a 6mm maillon may be rated at 450kg, but a good quality 'biner at maybe 20KN (2000kg give or take). It can't be because of shock loading, because mountaineers/rock climbers use 'biners exclusively, or at least I've never heard of them using maillons. Maillons are much less convenient and prone to incomplete closure (a bit of muck on the threads can leave you thinking you've done it up fully). With a front mounted reserve, having to carry a spanner to connect your case can hardly be practical. Also, looking at numbers, after seven seconds of free fall (not unreasonable before throwing a reserve) you have accelerated to 5g, so a 120kg total load of pilot and gear would now have an apparent weight of 600kg. It's normal to apply a multiplier of two as a safety factor, so we should have a system rated to a minimum of 1200kg at it's weakest link. Obviously a pair of 6mm maillons doesn't meet this. Even 8mm maillon's rated to 700kg each come a little close.

I'm quite happy with the routing on my Adventure. The bridles are retained within velcro sleeves that will burst as loaded. They run neatly down the side and out to the lap position which is the designed location for the reserve. Strikes me this would be dead easy to duplicate on a diy basis, and failing the velcro, how about some lightweight zip ties that would break open? A couple of things trouble me (slightly). 1) the attachment of my bridles to the top of my harness are done with loops of webbing. They can't be changed out for carabiners because the loops are sewn in such a way that they can't be removed. I have read up a lot on the subject, and webbing on webbing attachments are seen as sub-optimal, although probably not a problem in a single deployment. After all, it's how the manufacturer have set it up (perhaps they've never had someone take one back to complain that it failed?). I have considered cutting off these bridles and fitting replacements routed the same but attached with carabiners. Or perhaps something to go between the interfacing layers of webbing. Thoughts anyone? 2) How do YOU attach the bridles to your reserve package? Maillon's or carabiners. It has been suggested to me that Maillon's are better, but the carabiners that I have on my set up currently have a higher ultimate load limit than appropriately sized maillon's, and of course won't experience the cyclic stresses that seem to have resulted in some crab failures. My thoughts are that crabs attach much easier and are self locking so are less likely to be mis-fitted during pre-flight. Again, I'm interested in thoughts, positive and negative.

As you say, intent looks to be a sound defence, as when ground handling and getting blown into the air, there would have been no purpose of flight intended. So if you fall off a cliff, you can't claim it as your first solo

If you solder a length of (for example) push bike brake cable outer onto the top of your mixture control, then put a knob of some sort on the other end, that'll work. An exhaust temp sensor, or better yet an air/fuel mixture meter would help you get the best out of it Mixture screws seem to be put in the least accessible spot when you have the engine running. It makes setting up a pain in the bum! Would something with the power of say, a leaf blower, provide any measure of forced induction?

Remember that maximum speed does not necessarily correspond to maximum glide distance.

Mmmmmmm, nitrous

Certainly one of the true prophets. You should also look up the law regarding the flying of kites in the vicinity of airports (oh yes, they exist), as they may actually be pertinent when it comes to ground handling.

That's my goal (well, the other direction) next summer.

Isn't it Madrid to the Canaries? If it is, I think it covers all your questions.

Thank you all for the input thus far. This thread could be of greater value to more people than I had anticipated. Cheers.

The F3 is a high hang point unit Francis, with rigid low bars. The way the harness then transfers the load directly down to the bars, I have wondered if it behaves a little like a low hang point system. I think I understand what you are describing Francis, and it makes sense. As you say, it will avoid the pull that puts stress on the shoulder joint. Can anyone tell me why ANYONE teaches arms out to the sides then? Because it's so darned uncomfortable and difficult for ANY human body to exert a strong pull with the levers extended like that! Even someone without my inherent weakness is putting themselves at risk of dislocation if a gust suddenly takes the wing back.

Thanks for that Francis. The lines 'shouldn't' contact the prop ever, but as they run round the cage during a launch, they presumably are pretty close to the prop, and I was under the impression that the 'arms sideways' stance was an attempt to reduce the likelihood of an interface of the two (happy to learn otherwise). My motor is an Adventure F3 with a GSC adjustable prop. In order to fit the prop, I have had to fit a spacer moving the prop rearwards by the best part of an inch, which means that the prop disc isn't fully enclosed by the cage. I don't know if this is an issue.

A few weeks ago, I had an aborted launch which resulted in a subluxed (partially dislocated) right shoulder. I know for certain that's what it was from previous medical experience, and experience of full dislocations of both shoulders in the past. On Friday of last week, I had a couple of failed launches, and during the second one, just the action of a forward launch caused a much less extreme sublux that popped back almost instantly. My third attempt of the day saw me airborne for the first time (wooohoo), but prior to the launch I had jury rigged a shoulder brace from a webbing belt. This proved remarkable effective but did leave me with a seriously bruised upper arm. Over the weekend, I have done some work on an old scuba wetsuit, and I think I've made a fairly effective device to help relieve the pressure, and support the shoulder joint. I will probably suplement this with wide sticky tape. Currently, I'm thinking that in a forward launch situation, I can improve the situation by extending my arms forward rather than out to the sides which is the posture that creates the risk of dislocation. Obviously this will extend the period that the lines are in contact with the cage, and thus at risk from catching in the prop. Other than that risk though, I can't see any other issues with this proposed technique. Other than converting to a permanent reverse launch, does anyone have any thoughts on my problem? Please don't say 'stop flying till it's better'. I know from experience that I almost certainly have an ongoing problem, and whilst rest might provide a short term solution to the pain, I will continue to have a weakness in this area (I also can't bear the thought of NOT flying for a period, having just broken my duck). With this in mind, I need to work round the problem, so advice is sought.

As I mentioned in another thread, the ICOM website still states that the A6/A24 still have no type approval for airborne use. This was reinforced by the ICOM UK MD who told me in as many words that ICOM had no intention of seeking type approval for airborne use on current or future sets unless the agency responsible change the requirements, which were made more stringent in the not too distant past. ICOM currently do not see the expenditure required as economically viable given the small market involved. http://www.icomuk.co.uk/categoryRender. ... &cCID=6771 I suspect that the 'E' suffix may represent Euro spec units as opposed to the US spec ones that include the NOAH weather channels. Unless ICOM were making changes to the specification in order to meet type approval, then I would expect all sets of a particular type to be granted 'grandfather rights' to approval, and an additional suffix would not be required. The ONLY difference between the A6 and the A24 is the VOR function on the A24