t_andrews

Bad landing? Steel bars on what machine? WJ which is where I first heard the term "comfort bars" are AL. This begs photos, or, failing that some more detail?

The "pipe hole seal" demo, has him redrilling a hole in stock pipe, then on the repair. Stuff looks harder then the original, and if it pools as well as it looks like it does, it'd be handy to have in the repair kit. Field repairs made easy.

We were all shaking the rust off a little bit. First flight of the season for more than one. I was turning the wrong way on launch, Ron on a borrowed motor with some oscillation, all things that happen when you're looking for the groove again. Ron did make a concerted effort to leap *over* Mark's wing, and did in fact only hook one line with his foot for one step thereafter. Looks bad and I expected full parablending, but he got away with it and no damage as a result. One of those situations where it's easy to say "I would have aborted". Watch Mark's feet move for Ron as he passes over Mark's wing My flights were short, but I finally got under the Fusion to get a taste of that roll rate. Entire flight at take off trim but measured 40kph on GPS average. Sweet.

Already over, but we got some flying in. The season has begun in Atlantic Canada. Embedding squashes the screen size and doesn't allow HD res, so: Or watch it small here:

Indeed, I had to unsub from the list to escape it and it's fallout. I was never subbed when Dell was not banned, but suspect Bob is begging for the same treatment. It is a shame someone with all the experience I read he has couldn't present himself with a little humility so he gets heard rather than drive readers away by pretending he has stopped selling anything in the same sentence as a sales pitch. Sort of erodes the respect one who has spent all the time he has in the sport might be offered. Same effect as a bunch of exclamation marks at the end of every sentence.

Read somewhere that the death of a wing is more due to the dirt it carries around internally then the UV that degrades the fabric. It doesn't need to touch the ground to pick up fibre shredding dust either. Anyone who has ever had to rinse (with water alone) their wing can attest to the dirt that lives inside the seams, stitching and surface of their wing. Many claim a rinse renews the crispyness although that may be subjective, like a washed car runs better. Doing it properly makes a lot of longevity sense. Keith's article has been around for awhile and I've been planning on trying it with an old groundhandler just to see what it does for the look of it. I would be hesitant to add ANY detergent however PH neutral to a Multi $k wing. The beach has got to be a close second to snow for scraping coatings off. If you don't clean the crap out of it, well, walk around with sand in your shoes... I would suggest that a warm freshwater hose is better for a wing then wet, raspy grass blades too and that the less your wing contacts ANYTHING but air the better. That is one inflation per flight, fly it to another area (overhead or levitated wall) if moving it prior to flight - no ground dragging (imagine the $ you scrape off), let it down easy with A's instead of the brake, trailing edge crash crinkle. Easier said I agree, but a worthy goal that builds skills too. Pressure washer Leo - ouch. Slurry blasted her you did.

Fusion manual: http://www.flyparamania.com/index.php?o ... 49〈=fr Thank you Serge for the email.

There is room in this world for everyone even if many of them don't seem to want to get along with the rest. A nice step back post there Phil, and well rounded it was. If I may, perhaps a little levity wrapped up in why clarity is so important: In the end it's rather funny, but right up until then, the reporters goal and intent was not positive at all in the interest of?? Some similarities? You be the judge.

There's nothing wrong with looking for a tandem wing - I've got my eyes open for one, but as you've found, most of the second hand stuff is old technology and demands the sweetest of conditions to enjoy the flight. I'm looking more to get the wing loading down per Ed's post then to carry another. I can't speak to what being a tandem pilots means as I'm not rated and not sure I'd prefer boating slowly around with ballast just to keep the screams muted. What I can say is that when I did go for a tandem I assumed that my pilot had his chops up and I was not taking a risk in the least allowing him to pilot both of us. My only tandem was at the beginning at my free flight training, and unless you're signing up another pilot to go for a tour, your passenger will likely be of the same frame of mind. That is, have no idea what they are getting into, signing up for, going to see or how it will change they way they see the sky. So, aside from a signed waiver of responsibility in the event of unforeseen conditions causing a hard or otherwise negative landing, you need to have some sort of syllabus in place to train your passengers (especially for foot launch). Quite often that simply means "When I say go, run as hard as you can into the wind!". Testing is built in to ensure they zig when they should and don't depend on you to pick them up and carry them for the launch phase. Same applies when you have to land and they fail to stand (how many have seen that one). Note these are just things I remember and not a hint of all the things that are important. I respect your self safe discipline, the extent to which you've gone is a rarity - the hundred hours is suggested simply because that amount of time is usually sufficient to expose even the slowest learner to most of the situations they might encounter as well as automate the responses. I want my tandem pilot thinking about staying aloft and where and when we'll land rather then regular flying bits. If he can't do that, then my questions may well distract enough to get us both into trouble. Not a thing wrong with talking about it either, right up to when you do it and then after! One sure way to hook folks into the sport. Hundreds of hours of groundhandling goes a very long way to replacing a hundred in the air. Anyone who disagrees has not done the hundreds on the ground. So few see the huge value in that even when it's boring you teach yourself something (maybe especially when it's boring). You will not be the first or the last to fly tandem just because you can, and all that ground time may well place your acquired skills ahead of many others who do. In the end it's your call as to whether you're capable. It is your passenger's decision to join you. All the rest of us can do is rant and go on about what you should know, which is probably the end goal of this thread eh?

hehe You know it was a rough launch when you have to circle and ask those on the ground if everything's "all good?". He might had cleared it had he managed his energy a little better, he was deep in the brakes long before he needed to pop over the fence and tentative on the throttle. He's lucky he didn't frontal after the fence induced surge. Quite a show. BTW Dave your post has a trailing youtube wrapper or it would have shown up. If you edit and paste that right after the vid link it should work.

I saw this and was "Muh? Electrostatic?? wtf?". So, of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_loudspeaker I went and got learned. I had visions of a tesla coil amp: Starts jammin on the tesela coil around 5:30 Thanks for widening my sound reproduction future.

I think there's some context missing here folks. If one was motivated beyond the need for a simple flight fix, by something let's say monetary in reward, that might challenge local laws but be quite reasonable in Germany (guessing, no idea). Perhaps it may even serve as a visual reason why it is not legal for so many countries to obtain compensation for the view their sport offers them. I'm not rambling really, I just ran the url through the babel filter: http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_ur ... =Translate It is my humble assumption that this pilot had a job to do and wanted to get paid. So it could also be viewed from a client's perspective as having hired the right guy given his determination. I see no other reasonable motivation for a flight after dragging a turtle for that distance. Also, nice prop clearance if this wasn't edited like it seems to be.

Hehehe "So sorry Joe" ...about the investigation that will follow this...

Hahaha Well done! I've posted this to my local free flight club as I'm certain they'll get a laugh. Thanks for sharing that one.

This is another case of manufacturers catching up to demand, where demand is the sparse and infrequent (relatively speaking to free flight global percentages) requests for something that will allow those descent rates to be reasonable when carrying 1/3 to 1/2 of one's body weight in metal and composites. I'm only blurting here because I've been shopping for sometime and smacked facelong into this over and over. Despite these good folks ignoring at least five email of varied mix of english and babelfish german, they still hold my favorite and preferred, albeit eventual , reserve. Par example: http://vonblon.com/dt/papillon.htm lists Sinkrate: nur 3,1m/s bei 100 kg The reserve is rated for 140kg but the sinkrate @ 140kg?? Excellent question / gute Frage. Their biplace/tandem version simply says: Sinkrate: ca. 3,5 m/s bei 180 kg My pick as I'm 150kg all up and if I float down slower then 3.5m/s then that just gives me more time to pick my LZ. A comparable and more mainstream supplier, the apco guided mayday rogallo steerable (not to be confused with the real designer a la vonblon just *looks and flys* the same): rated from 60-130 kg descent rate - 2.8 m/s (90kg) But @ 130kg.....? ref: News url Again - no hint of how to do a PLF with a four foot cage and mass of a paramotor to deal with... I've mixed a little rant in here to voice my displeasure with the as yet unrecognized masses that are us whom wear metal whilst we fly. Misplaced? Probably. It means we generally must shoot for the tandem versions to cover 1) all up mass at a reasonable descent rate which 2) takes our limited landing gear into consideration. I should note that while a paramotor adds energy to a crash, it is likely to suck up a great deal more then it adds as so many folks here can attest. I don't really understand the apex reserve mentality with proven steerables out there, but a reserve is a personal choice.

aha! So THAT's how my links got tweaked... What if you really don't want to embed them, but someone assumes so and does it for you Should we leave you a note? or somesuch? Thanks for taking such good care of us Simon

Be careful about assumptions here. Reserves are not unlike main gliders except that sometimes the numbers aren't based on top weight range for the same descent rates. A regular glider's descent rate is generally calculated in the middle of the weight range for that size glider. The same is not always true for a reserve. Sometimes using the top of a weight range, sometimes the middle. That is, although they may offer a max descent @ 5.4, that could be for the middle of the weight range(97.5kg), even though it's certified to 120. So you could get one thinking you'll be a bit faster descent then 5.4 and be dropping much like a stone. Here's the mayday manual: http://www.apcoaviation.com/support/man ... mayday.pdf Makes no mention of which mass is 5.4, so I would assume it's for the middle until manufacturer tells you otherwise. (97.5kg) Do ask them. Make sure they answer to your satisfaction. Not saying it's misleading, just that others assumptions may mislead when they assume they're fact. Ask Apco or you'll never be sure. Please tell us. I understand your goal as I'm on the same path to find a reserve I can cross use for free flight (with a really slow descent rate). If your reserve is portable as a front mount or other swappable setup, then flying it beats flying nothing. Even 10m/s down is better then terminal velocity

2003 one of the last years WJ offered the simonini RR (I think), and I understood the RR to have a 51" / 130cm three blade helix as part of what made it an RR. Now, I built mine from the parts, and my motor shipped with a 2.3:1 redrive (not by request), and a bing 84 (by request). I could fly around all day full throttle wasting fuel because the engine wouldn't spin up into the revs to use it. Nice and cool mind you... WJ RR reads very much like a FT 200 which is why I said once it looks like a natural evolution of the design. simonini 202cc 3.1:1 redrive Helix 3 blade 51" prop are the defining characteristics On My rig, this will allow 7400 rpm and cruising I can fly for 3.5ish hours (Epsilon 4 @ trim) on 14l (no fuel restrictions here) which works out to your 4lph - after that we'll need to compare wing loads and other same sames. Still, damn close and there's some playing in there (after a couple hours one gets bored). If the prop and cage are smaller, he likely has a WJ XC which was propped smaller (49" / 125cm) for smaller pilots to manage on the ground, same engine, not sure if the redrive was different or not, I didn't think so. If it was the same then the prop pitch might/should be different. I thought they used a three blade as well however. Maybe re propped due to a strike? Divide the diameter of his larger pulley by the smaller to make sure he's running a 3.1:1, it may be just his prop is the wrong pitch and he's wasting fuel above X rpm as the prop's holding the mini2 back. See @ 1:45compared to @ 5:40 (note my silencer was partially plugged here, rpm should be even higher)for an audio reference of the difference - same engine 2.31 vs 3.1 same as FT. All the thrust is in the top of the rpm range which I couldn't get to initially. The WJs used NiCad D cells in series for electrics. Great for a quick spin up to start, but not made to repeat the process many times without interim in flight charges. A reasonable trade off for weight. I'm lugging lots of lead around because I planned to draw off it for gloves and other in flight gear. 7Ah of it. It will be nice when I can swap out some lead for Lithiums and a charger, which is why this thread's so interesting. Next thing you know it will spin off to a "hybrids?" thread where someone suggests a brushless DC motor be used as a starter/generator/motor in combination with a two stroke and some Li-Pos... All about getting a charge controller right, and light. Do you know the energy storage total of your pack? Charge rate, other Specs?

The mini2 has no pull start facility. E-start or hand start, or sit watching a charger. As Dave shows, when it's warm, it doesn't take much to get it ticking over. Curious Dave, is this battery pack isolated by the starter relay from charging? I've the same motor and mine is wired to charge the lead acid as soon as engine is running. How have you isolated the battery pack? Blocking Diode? You've saved at least 5lbs over my lead acid monster battery. I couldn't see your starter wire gauge, but it looks like it certainly adds to the starter spin speed as well, which is a huge factor in cold startup. My battery (from a car jumper pack) was rated at 300amp draw on jump and still doesn't spin her over that fast. Aside from wire gauge to the starter motor, all other things should be the same between my WJ RR clone and the FT 200. Don't Lithium Polymer Batteries discharge Lithium ions?

A pretwisted rudder is how paraski went about torque cancellation: Can't find a decent rudder photo, sorry. With the added benefit that prop airflow can be redirected via handlebars/rudder for a vectored thrust turn. Easy to accommodate with the higher loading of a paraski and yes does it ever work well. Also makes crosswind landings very very easy (ok so do wheels, but they have to be pointed in the right direction). Less safe with just legs/motor/prop lest ye be twisted. Lifting a knee on to weightshift on the other hand on a paraski is only helpful if you're farting. fwiw...

Here you go: Oh, wait, sorry, you said "syth". My bad.

Short answer: No manual yet for the fusion.

Sourced originally from: http://www.whitehawkppg.com/ Which appears to have some "back taxes". Account for domain whitehawkppg.com has been suspended Hopefully not a sign of things no longer coming...

Or Stall, or spins, or stable spirals. Like Phil said, and you were thinking, you enter uncharted territory when mixing manufacturers and also risers. It might work, might even be a better combination then anyone has considered in the past and you might fly it until the sun bleaches it too much and they start flaking of age. Chances are better that something unexpected and nasty will happen. That said, I bet someone has done it. Humans are too curious not to. Fly safe, even when you take risks.