nirmal

Out of curiosity; are you a plastic surgeon?

I think 'official recognition' (BHPA registration) is crucial if we want to be taken seriously. I don't think either the North Wales club or the BHPA would be happy if we wanted to be seperate in the event of them welcoming us with open arms. I have only just sent off this email to the secretary of the NWHGPC: Dear Sir, I would like to enquire whether you accept paramotor pilots as members of the NWHGPC currently, or have plans to do so any time soon. There are a significant number of BHPA registered and certified paramotor pilots in Cheshire and North Wales including myself who are keen to fly in a club environment with similar support, development and social opportunities which paraglider and hang glider pilots enjoy. We would very much prefer joining fellow foot flyers in a common club rather than starting up a separate organization, if you will accept us as members. We do realise that we will need to keep away from hill soaring sites and sensitive areas, but it wouldn't be too difficult to get paramotor sites and local rules organised. If you accept us, you will find us actively contributing towards the success of the club. Thank you. If they are happy to have us, it might be easier to sign up and get things organised through the club. If they wont have us, we could go to the BHPA and ask to be a registered club in our own right.

Hi Flyingdoc, I am in the process of negotiating the use of an old airfield for paramotoring. The initial reaction from the owner's son has been very favorable, but I will have to see if owners reaction is the same when I actually start flying from there. The only downside is that it won't be available for use in the weekends because of regular car-boot sales but any time mid week including mornings and evenings should be okay. I will broach the subject of groups turning up if things go well. I have been doing most of my flying in the south so far because both my instructor and flying buddy live in Abergavenny. We fly cross country and our instructor retrieves us. We are trying to hone our navigational skills enough to pass the pilot rating. Work patterns and weather conspire to keep me from flying as often as I would like to. I have met Meds once. He is a really nice guy. I am looking forward to meeting you, Hammertime and ArcusFlyer. I think we should all band together and form a Cheshire and North Wales paramotoring club and register it with the BHPA. It would be easier negotiating with land owners as an official recognised body rather than as individuals. We could try to get fields in various places across the whole geographical area and perhaps get a couple of people to go for club coach training etc so that new pilots would get support outside school. I'll send an email off to the North Wales and Cheshire hang and paragliding culb and ask them if they already have or are happy to have a paramotoring section. If they will not have us, perhaps we should all join together and do something about it. I'll post up what they reply. If everyone thinks that this is doable, please chip in with ideas on how best to proceed. Hope to see you sometime soon. Cheers Nirmal.

I have noticed that a few manufacturers are bringing out props with winglets on their tips. I heard that the French team introduced them in the world championships and the whole market has been gaga ever since. Has anyone tried them out yet? Are they the dog's danglies? I understand the science behind winglets on commercial aircraft, but how does that translate to propellers? Does the winglet increase the swept area of the prop without increasing the diameter or is it all a marketing ploy?

Bloody hell! It sounds like there is a prop strike epidemic going on , never mind the swine flu. On a more positive note, it is perhaps a chance for someone to try out one of those fancy new props with winglets on them. If anyone has the low down on them, would you be able to post on the winglet thread which I am posting right after this.

Cable ties are your friend.

You will have to take the engine off the paramotor frame, drill out the rivets on the back plate and take it off. Take off the flywheel. There is a line on the the side of the flywheel. Adjust the crankshaft so that it is 0.045 to 0.050 inches below top dead center. Re-fit the flywheel so that the line (or lines) are aligned with the wedge shaped edge of the ignition coil and tighten. Your ignition timing should be correct now. There are a few posts and pictures on the Yahoo top80 group if I remember correctly. Hope this helps. Cheers Nirmal

I heard from my instructor who does trips to to Morocco twice a year, that paramotoring is currently banned by the government there. Apparently someone started a drug smuggling racket using paramotors.

It is hard to tell how much of the torque reduction is due to the contra-rotating prop and how much is due to the off mid line attachment of the wing onto the swing arms. In flight, torque reaction is hardly noticeable. On the ground, if you open the throttle wide, you can feel a slight rotation of the motor on your back. Nothing overpowering, but still noticeable.

For that kind of money and a bit of basic research, you can't go wrong. At the risk of being slightly controversial, I would suggest you stick to well known brands. They must be doing something right to establish good reputations. There might be some lesser known gems out there, but the uncertainty is not worth the risk. Most of the top brands make good quality products and offer good after sales support. Make sure you get a good instructor to train you. You could save your self a fortune in prop replacements and repair damage.

I think it is more of an issue when you fly a very slow wing for example a large free flying DHV1 wing with your all up weight, motor and kit included being on the lower limit for free flying. A powerful motor on full throttle would be sufficient to stall the wing. Considering the fact that there are a large number of people out there who teach themselves and buy kit without considering all the implications, it is a point worth remembering. The reason I mentioned the Macro is that I know someone who had exactly that problem on one. The Ros was mentioned because it falls in broadly the same thrust category. Obviously it is not a big issue for experienced pilots or good instructors training someone at least half sensible. There is an interesting video on the paragliding forum. http://www.paraglidingforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=10035

I am not fully convinced by the high hang point argument. I haven't flown any motors with high hang points but seeing friends I've flown with struggle more than me despite having much better ground handling skills, I am not very keen on trying one. I guess everything is a trade off. What you gain in feedback about flying conditions with low hang points, you lose in pitch stability and vice versa. I am not sure about being dumped out of the seat in the event of a collapse. Paraglider pilots don't seem to slide out of their harnesses mid air with collapses. You would probably slide out on impact. If the cage is large enough, lifting the legs up on impact would ensure that the initial energy of impact goes through the cage and not through the pilot. It's not perfect, but is a reasonable tradeoff as far as I am concerned.

Geoffw, I live in Chester. There are very few clubs around at present. The best way I've found to meet fellow pilots is through these forums. My motor has less than 25 hours on it. I bought it with less than 8 hours on it. A friend of mine has a Top80 with more than 200 hours on it still going strong. PAP's are expensive, but they are among the very best available, and you certainly get your money's worth. There is also the reassurance that you are flying a machine that hundreds of people have been using safely for years, which you won't get with some small brands. I would eventually like to upgrade to a PAP Ros125. They are rare as hens teeth secondhand. No one ever seems to want to sell them on. You wouldn't loose much if you bought a Top80 to learn and gain experience on and then upgraded later. PAP's hold their value very well and they are snapped up as soon as they are advertised. In fact I am pretty certain of making a profit on mine as long as I don't damage it. If you are learning on a more powerful motor like a Ros125 or a Parajet Macro, you will have to be very careful with the amount of power you turn on while taking off. They are capable of producing enough thrust to stall some wings and cause a serious or even fatal crash. You will get enough altitude to make for a high energy impact, but not enough for your wing to recover. I know someone who found this out the hard way recently.

Why are Ballistic parachutes illegal in the UK? Is a pneumatic system like the parachutter system http://www.parachutter.com/index.php?op ... 2&Itemid=2 classified as a ballistic parachute? I would have thought that a reserve mounted on top of the rotor assembly like a radar pod on an Apache helicopter, together with the airbag they are planning to mount underneath would probably make it safer than any rotary aircraft in a catastrophic event. The likely-hood of such an event occurring is entirely another issue. I get your point about it not being able to autorotate but if I was given the option of choosing between an autorotating landing and an appropriate sized reserve plus airbag, I'd take my chances with the reserve and airbag. As long as two stroke engines are not too highly stressed in an attempt to extract power, they are very reliable. Most paramotors and a large number of microlights use 2 stroke engines, and engine failures are very few and far between. Most 2 stroke engine failures are due to inadequate lubrication and its consequences. If the engine is reasonably well designed, under-stressed and well maintained it should be reliable. I am not aware of any micro turboshaft engines available at present that can be used for machines in this weight range. I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly) that turbine engines would spin so fast that blades would fail unless special metals and sophisticated electronics were used. The reliability of micro turboshaft engines for critical applications especially where a human pilot is on the machine, would have to be conclusively proven before they replace 2 strokes. I am sure microturbines would be much more expensive than a 2 stroke engines too. I don't have a clue as to whether they are more fuel efficient or not. I think that the Japanese being naturally cautious people are playing it safe as far as the demos and test flights go. An fatal accident at this stage would probably put an end to the entire project (if it is still alive). If they get a French or Russian test pilot on one of those things, we would see some crazy stuff .

One of these might tempt me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgn1Psq0V24&feature=related http://www2.gen-corp.jp/GENH-4_en/index.htm My apologies if most forum members have already seen these, but surely it's worth seeing once again. It's a shame I don't have $35,000 spare change lying around. Would one of these be considered a FLPA if they managed to bring the weight down to 60kg?

That cage and chassis looks nice, but it looks way too strong to act like a crumple zone in the event of a bad landing. All the energy will be transmitted straight through to the pilot. The balance between getting a cage strong enough to take minor knocks but capable of absorbing energy in a crash is a difficult one. I don't think there is any on the market close to being an ideal balance. Personally, I'll stick to light weight steel tube frames of the PAP and H&E type till something better comes in. They crumple very well, they are large in size, and they are very light. Unfortunately, they don't take minor knocks very well and they are more cumbersome than compact models. I've seen and heard from people who have crashed badly on these types of cages and walked away unscathed or with very minor injuries with the cage and chassis being a complete write off. I also know of more people with this type of frame needing minor repairs (pulling out bends) to the frame than more substantial ones. Building a cage out of carbon fibre will not save much weight compared to light weight steel or metal frames. It is possible to lift a PAP style frame with nothing on it with a just couple of fingers. The few grams saved will probably be less significant than weight gains from something like a carbon fibre exhaust. Carbon fibre will not crumple and progressively absorb energy like metal. The springiness will allow energy to be transmitted to the pilot or it will shatter after absorbing a fixed amount of energy. IMO if you were building a CF framed paramotor, to allow for maximal passive safety at least the lower third of the cage will have be made of deformable metal. You then end up with the problem of mating two dissimilar materials in machine prone to severe vibration. Also, things like weightshift arms and backplates would still have to be made of metal or have some metal within the CF, as they are either highly stressed or prone to cracking from vibration. Ultimately, it is a case of too much pain for very little gain not to mention costs. CF frames are not a new. Kobra had a prototype last year. http://www.kobrappg.com/web/index.php?o ... view&id=23 It looks really neat in those pictures, but I wouldn't want to have a hard landing in one of them for both health and financial reasons.

Hi Geoffw, I'll get the ball rolling; perhaps others will chip in with the pros and cons of their motors. I bought a second hand PAP Top80. It is by no means the best out there, but is not in anyway inferior to the others on the market. I bought it for the following reasons (not necessarily in this order). 1. PAP is one of the leading manufacturers worldwide. 2. Spares are readily available in England. 3. It is easy and cheap to work on and maintain (2 stroke, non electric start, very simple and rugged design of all parts; hardly ever breaks down). 4. It is one of the lightest motors available. 5. Fuel economy is among the best for 2 strokes. 6. It has a centifugal clutch, so it is easy to handle the motor with the engine on. Personally I find it safer if the prop doesn't spin unless the throttle is opened. 7. Low hangpoints and weight shift system. 8. The cage is made of deformable stainless steel, and it makes a very good energy absorbing crumple zone in the event of a bad landing. In more rugged cages, the energy is transmitted through the cage to the pilot. 9. Low noise, vibration and torque reaction. 10. The quality of workmanship and finish is top notch. 11. It is a motor that has been around for some time now, and there have been very few issues, serious problems or catastrophic failures of either the engine or the chassis. 12. It is not overpowered for a new pilot. Too much power for an inexperienced pilot can be dangerous. The main downside to the Top80 is that it is underpowered for heavier pilots. It is flyable for pilots upto 90kg with a suitably sized non reflex wing, but for optimum performance with a reflex wing, the pilot would probably have weigh 70kg or less. I am 83kg, and I fly a non reflex wing. It is quite sufficient for my needs currently, but I will probably upgrade to a slightly more powerful motor a few years down the line. Hope this helps.

Nice flight and nice video too.

Working wednesday to friday. Perhaps the weekend if the weather remains good.

The forecast looks good providing visibility remains good (fog coming in from the Irish sea later in the day). If any of you guys are planning on flying, I'd love to join. Cheers. Nirmal

Hi Meds, Can I join you if you are flying tomorrow? Nirmal.

PAP F200. PAP products are well thought out, well executed and well tested designs. They sell all the kit for the needed for tandems. There is no need to try to adapt stuff for the job. You hardly hear of PAP owners complaining about their kit.

I am about 15kg over the recommended weight limit on my Airwave Wave medium. I've flown my instructors large Wave and compared to that, the overloaded medium was significantly faster, turned quicker, had a higher sink rate, needed a slightly longer takeoff and had a slightly higher landing speed. The overloaded wing felt much better to fly than the one within the correct weight range. I believe fuel consumption will be a bit higer. The safety rating classification is no longer true for that wing when flown outside the manufacturers recommendations. Having said that, passive safety for paramotor wings probably depends more on resistance to collapse (which will be better with overloaded wings) than recovery from a collapse, which might be not as the manufacturer or testers predict the wing will behave normally. As long as you don't perform extreme aerobatics, the structural integrity of the wing is not in doubt even if you significantly overload the wing.

I live in Chester, Arcusflyer. I've done most of my flying in Abergavenny, where my instructor is based. I went there on friday to get some of my pilot tasks signed off. It was quite a good day's flying. I flew in stronger conditions than I have ever done before and was able to thermal upto 2500 feet with the engine idling. I managed to complete about two thirds of the required tasks. Another two good days will probably get me the pilot rating but I am still fairly new in terms of overall experience. I got away with a bad emergency landing on a slope when I had an accidental engine cut out. The dent to the cage during an aborted takeoff at the end of the day was the only fly in the ointment. Thanks for the info Meds. I was dreading the thought of having to do it myself.

I stupidly attempted one last flight in the evening when I was completely exhausted and ended up getting dragged. My paramotor's (PAP top80) cage suffered a slight dent to the outer ring. It is purely a cosmetic problem, with prop clearance being perfectly adequate, but it irks me just looking at it. Does anyone know someone in the region with experience / expertise in straightening out bent cages?