Blackburn Mark

That's the ticket... I think once a person gains a bit of skill in active flying, flight becomes quite uncomfortable "before" what most of us might call "dangerous conditions" so there is a natural buffer against flying yourself into serious trouble. The bottleneck in this is you don't know until you take off what you are in for unless you fly with someone experienced or you gain some skill in reading the weather. If the wind is strong, watch out for rotor... if its an active day (thermic // fluffy cauliflower clouds) wait until late afternoon. Sooner or later, you will dip your toe into more active conditions and they are likely to make you land for a smoke long before they evolve into anything dangerous.... but that a wild guess

12 years since you last enquired! Life can really get in the way... I think most of us toy with the idea for years and years until we finally pull the trigger and get our feet off the ground. Then we are dooooomed to a life of praying for calm dry weather whilst staring out of a rain soaked window Cant help you with the training but fingers crossed that you escape the earth... There is nothing like it!

We rarely ever need to delve any deeper than rudimentary diagnostics // swapping spares, cleaning, poking with a stick Assuming you solved your chainsaw issue, you are armed with a set of symptoms and solution to at least one issue... The larger the collection of those you have, the less you will spend on throwing random spares at the problem (which is an option, just not very elegant) OR.... You come to a place like this and hope you snag someone who has had the same problem, at worst you will end up with a list like Andy did... some good, some misguided. I have enough spares to pretty much rebuild mine from the crank up twice over.... Good flying days are rare and parts are very cheap for my motor (not a two stoke though)... Unlikely to be grounded over a £5 part and a two week wait!

I thought it made for a good example of how to cover the bulk of your mechanical concerns, if you have anything more specific, don't be shy.

I have done, and still do a good share of pouring over google maps for places like just that. My current Scottish one is Sandwood bay (Cape Wrath)... I can dream

That's a cool spot! 15 mile open water crossing..... On a still day with zero wind gradient (almost unheard of), assuming you had a 6:1 glide you would need to be at 6600ft+ to glide to either shore from the centre of the crossing... I am 90% sure I could do it and 99.9% sure I wouldn't attempt it, even at 12000ft If i knew the ferry captain and he agreed to keep tabs as i followed and pluck me out if it all went tits... THEN I might but I am sure I would still feel pretty exposed at 7.5 miles from shore. My biggest water crossing was only 1 mile at 4500ft with a tail wind (free flight ).... Could have crossed it twice but it still made my skin crawl.

That is extremely "sudden"! A video might have had someone catch that it was unrelated to any type of combustion issue. Ill have to ponder this... I cant rule out resonance in my head, it can snap a shaft clean of when it takes hold, its very sudden and very "grippy" (usually accompanied with a high frequency squeal or buzz... if you heard anything like that?) I would expect the steel to be much more cooked if heat was causing enough of a weld/bond and i would have thought a heat related increase in grip would be less abrupt..... But... hypothesis... they are ten a penny

When I say "geeks" I mean those who are good with diagnostics. Balancing probabilities with ease of testing and eliminating. The term "experts" in inverted commas is poisoning the well a tad (are we playing at being adversaries Andy?) EG: That's "diagnostics" for you Without hearing that "sudden" drop, that would indeed smack of fuel starvation... low pump pressure/leak/air..... "sudden" pretty much rules out air filter, timing, jet blockage. In hindsight, as it was doing the opposite of what a belt slip would do, I'm guessing a resonant clutch pad bounce increased the torque transfer which in turn smoothed the resonance dropping the torque transfer... round and round it goes. I shall tentatively add that to my list of probable causes in my quest to become a "geek"

I'm not sure why anyone would measure prop RPM... The motor RPM would have shown it was a belt or clutch slipping but easy to overlook if you don't have a tachometer on your machine. So it was a lack of thrust that rang an alarm and you assumed it was down on engine RPM (or the prop sounded low on RPM and you assumed the motor was down on RPM?) I'm guessing it will be the first thing you suggest when the next person reports a loss in thrust Geeks, bad info in = bad info out

Lol... I'm assuming you hadn't differentiated between prop RPM and crank RPM or the geeks would have known it was somewhere between the output and prop

I don't remember you asking that.... Two stroke, I might have skipped it, not my specialty. So, what was it?

Its not like chemistry, full of abstractions... Applying a bit of willing and pressure to the conundrum and bingo. Even if that includes taking endless shit, making brews and supplying biscuits to the person who's arm you have twisted to help you. Then it would have to be more a "discipline" than an escape I don't think that is true. If you are a sociable type (crap with mechanicals) you will have the social skills to tap the loner geeks (crap social skills) and COLLABERATE.... just don't take the piss, geeks are awkward, not stupid Are you new to the internet? Its where all the geeks hang out and learn shit Not really but in my world I will only help someone I can take the piss out of, endlessly! Not only is it the cornerstone to good quality friendships, its a reasonable payment method and a good teaching tool I am going to guess "no"... Those who wish to fly find a way forward and those who don't wish to fly find an excuse... Pretty sure its that simple

There are many things to keep tabs on so you MUST be disciplined and drill yourself on the various considerations. A "trap" is easily overlooked and might cost you a propeller or worse. IF you tune your ground handling to perfection, 100% muscle memory, then add the motor (not running) until you are 100% at home with that, then have it running (allowing a blip or two of the throttle to help push you forward in a taxi)..... That is a lot of work and time to get to this point, you are now one squeeze away from a launch.... You launch, climb and discover the field you launched from looks WAY too small to land in AND you are extremely close to "brain mush" because its your first flight and the feeling of your wing in the air is brand new to you... "is this right?... am I going to die?... is it better to crash into this tree than attempt to turn?".... Its pretty tough on your own.... Doable but tough... An instructor would say something like "Okay Skipper, everything looks great, climb to 500ft, catch your breath, relax, do some circuits and have fun, ill call you when its time for a landing"... You might not be what we would call "calm" but you will be calm enough to think He can take 80% of the stress of flight out of your first flights leaving you to turn left, turn right, add or remove power and acclimatize EDIT: Ignore the above, I wasn't sure if you were going 100% rogue.... 50% rogue is a splendid choice

I'm not sure Simon is going that far... Flotation, if set up well will help prevent a quick/sudden drowning... If you are more than a few hundred meters offshore in cold open water, I still wouldn't fancy my chances against a slightly slower drowning. Treat the water like larva Its a safe introduction into active flying, you cannot do too much ground handling... Not sure how much of that skill you will have access to when your feet first leave the floor and your mind caves in on itself in the utter bewilderment of flight. I have seen folks slam into the ground for the lack of a tiny bit more processing power. Ground handling and launching are hard, flying in calm conditions is very very easy in comparison but you would be surprised at how quickly the brain can turn to mush when presented with alarming new things (even when those things are in reality, quite benign) It is a classic error to release power the moment you leave the ground, the glider dives, you swing under the glider and contact the ground before your logic catches up and hits the power again or flares hard... smashing all you lovely gear... and maybe an ankle or two. That's a classic example of the subliminal mind taking charge and saying "Don't like, Stop". These traps quickly disappear with familiarity. Its the reason why having a good instructor/training is the optimal option. Having said that, I am also one of those who took things into my own hands so I am not unsympathetic.

In my twenty plus years of flight, I can only remember one time where I seriously began prepping for a reserve toss because of how turbulent the air was.... Very unlikely to ever need one but i do like to fly with one. Water, 100% margin for error! This will probably come naturally once it dawns on you just how easily landing in water will end your game for good. If I lived on Sky, I and most others would cross the bodies of water (how could you not ).... But would do so without exiting the ability to land (or even crash) on SOLID GROUND. Your engine off glide ratio of 6:1 could easily drop to 1:1 in a head wind and raise too 10:1+ if you turn around for the tail wind.... lots to think about before you start leapfrogging over to Applecross

Edit: I misread your request.... you are after a wing choice not a raw material.... sorry

I have had a hard time in the past finding "rubberized" polyester which makes me think that Apco and early Ozone wings may have used Nylon ripstop instead of polyester because the nylon-silicone materials are common. (maybe polyester and silicone don't bond well?... I have however seen old Ozone wings delaminate eventually) Nylon is stronger than polyester but degrades quicker in UV but the combination is reasonably common. https://www.profabrics.co.uk/products/silicone-coated-ripstop?variant=5940865667

Scotland forever! Don't try to understand it, just enjoy it.... its the same as Scottish rain, you either learn to laugh or drown

Stu is a Scott which means his trolling skills probably go all the way up to 11.... Especially when dealing with the English. Bob-N-Weave Steve

PS: An "over-pitched" prop usually gives better cruse efficiency at the expense of static thrust. Saying "over-pitched" might be a bit misleading.... We ought to be saying "higher-pitched".... I was using the term in reference to paramotors and standard fixed pitch for a given model. Bush pilots often attempt to compromise between static thrust (short takeoff runs) and cruise efficiency (flight range)

Then an adjustable pitch prop "might" cover all your bases.... It seems a bit brutal but it would be a whole lot better than knocking a piston skirt off with piston slap

I think you misunderstand... A matching "pitch" prop would transfer the motors maximum power into thrust no matter what the diameter... or it would allow the motor to over-rev. If you could afford an adjustable pitch propeller, you could "over-pitch" it which would be very similar to over-running the re-drive with the same CHT concerns.

The problem there would be, it would output the same thrust minus any inefficiencies of a smaller higher pitched propeller. OR You motor would over-rev the mismatched prop with very little back-pressure (possible piston slap...?)

If I understand you correctly, I would have thought the easiest/cheapest way to "nerf" maximum thrust (without using throttle or tuning) would be to "over-run" the re-drive with an oversized pinion pulley (assuming there is the space for one)... The propeller-drag-curve would meet the motor-power-curve below the motors max output of 7500rpm Overdo it and you might have CHT problems.

https://electricmotorglider.com/2015/05/15/propeller-design-for-the-polini-250/ Apologies, the prop was made in-house (Rainbow Aviation)... its a 122cm propeller mounted on a Polini Thor 250 (lot of power) The small radius can be attained but at the expense of efficiency