fanman

I have flown both and there's no difference from the flying perspective. The Miniplane harness (which I believe is actually made by Woody Valley, a well respected PG harness manufacturer) is slightly lighter but the pockets are not as useful as the SupAir. The SupAir also has shoulder reserve attachment points which the original doesn't have (unless things have changed recently). Early original harnesses were supplied with a seat board that was slightly too long however Michel remedied most and I think the issue is resolved in new ones.

I have a Solar Wings Typhoon on an Ultrasports Tripacer trike with a superb Robin 330. It has a total of something like 60 hours since new. It is a registered SSDR machine and I last flew it 10 days ago. It is in great condition and has an excellent trailer with wing rack. I am thinking of selling it as I need to concentrate more on the Doodlebug and my 2 seat flexwing.

It's real name is a 'velocity stack'. It can play a big part in the intake flow to the carb.

My Doodlebug is a Mk1 which has the bar Jock describes. The Mk2 doesn't have that bar unless the owner asks Flylight to retrofit it like my mate did.

I converted an original Paramania Revolution to ALC last year (amongst various mods I made to the wing). It worked but the line plan didn't really suit it. Wasn't nearly as effective as on the Synth or the Nucleon. I also converted a Synth to ALC when the Nucleon first came out and about a year before it became standard on the Synth. I connected the top of my system one cascade lower than Dudek so my ALC operated twice as much brake making it really effective.

Care to support that with some stats? PAP and Miniplane are both proven through competition. I'm not saying EC Extreme aren't a good brand, just that you might want to see how things pan out before declaring the game won. Third machine now for you isn't it and I seem to remember they were all the greatest thing since sliced bread when they arrived!

They do... it's 110cc... and called Thor.

I think Simons got a very valid point as flying in close proximity to other craft should take place with assurance that both parties are happy to do so. A quick verification call to the organisers could save someone from incurring wrath!

Actually the Miniplane takes bum landings in its stride unlike a PAP which tends to bend halfway up the 2 chassis uprights! However the machine is so light that Miniplane pilots tend to leave the falling over to those that like fighting the extra weight. Power launches... do you need them when the machine is not much heavier than a heavy PG harness? As it happens the Venezuela expedition sponsored by HP used XL Miniplanes with Synthesis 34's. They used the stick kicking frame supports which slightly stiffen the cage and were power launching these big wings at hot and high take off sites every time. The downside is the assembly/disassembly so ideally it is best to keep the machine rigged. Once again the benefit here is that it is sooo light you don't even need a towbar and a Bakrak as it can be carried on a very cheap Halfords bike carrier attached to your boot lid. Beware of opinions from people that have never owned one!

I am not Paul Mahony.

Alan, the harness is Aerolight, not Aerochute. I flew the FB Simo I originally converted to this system again recently and had forgotten just how much more useable it makes the whole set up. FB modified engines are lovely to fly with so converting one of the many FB J bar machines to a better spec by use of the Aerolight harness means you can get a fab machine for not much money. This is particularly true for the heavy guys who are after cheap reliable power in the form of the Simo.

So should an (innocent) inaccuracy go unchallenged such that it is then believed by the smaller fish in the pond to be true?

You didn't imply anything... you stated "he made all the right choices apart from throttling up" ie you stated he made a wrong choice. I was trying to point out that it wasn't a wrong choice but a choice he made not knowing what the imminent future would bring. As an aside, climb thrust reductions are often strictly enforced and monitored by noise monitoring equipment at major airports worldwide so adherance to SOP's to satisfy established noise abatement procedures can be timing critical. Deviation is ok if it can be justified but that takes prior knowledge!

...but he didn't know the birds were there so without that info the timing of his climb thrust reduction was defined by his company's/Airbus standard operating procedure. My query was because you implied he had a choice to make when in fact he had no info to permit him from deciding to depart from SOP.

Didn't see the documentary... can you expand on this?

I have done a lot of flights with a 125cm propped Top80 and my Gin Bobcat. No big deal.

Andy Morrant. Talks the hind legs off a donkey and is completely blind to any product other than Fresh Breeze. Take the tandem flight but be aware of other opinions.

Search Google for anti-vibration mounts. Vittorazi website has a downloadable manual for the easy100 which will give you the tension required in the belt.

Is that the same for a pre-2001 UK issued issued PPL(A)? Edit to add... A bit of research shows UK CAA issued PPL (A) and (D) are indeed exempt from 'differences training'. They also revalidate on the old 5 hours in 13 months rule without flight with instructor requirement unless the holder chooses to transfer to the newer revalidation requirements. Glad you bought this up Gary as 10 years ago I transferred another UK CAA issued license I hold for a JAR equivalent. I decided to fly 3 axis microlights again last year so revalidated the SEP part on that JAR license and did 'microlight differences training' to make that legit. When I changed the address on my license recently they gave me a UK CAA PPL (A) again as well as my JAR license without me asking which was decent of them as that means I too am now in the same position as you. It also means that legally I am not required to complete differences training to convert to flexwing, however common sense applies.

Not as long as he has an endorsement for powered parachutes. Otherwise the license is not valid to fly with a trike buggy.

I used to own one of those (I have had many paramotors over the years). It is a great machine that is very powerful for its weight. There are two things I would mention though... firstly I think you will find that the engine is actually an RDM100 and not a Vittorazi Fly Evo 100. This is actually an early version of the Ros100 and has both electric and pull start. The 100 puts out nearly the same thrust as the 125 however due to less boring out is more durable. Secondly, Backbone machines are very light and transportable. Consequently they are relatively fragile and IMO unsuitable for taking the knocks a beginner will put them through. Thierry Simonnet is very good for supporting the unit but a relatively small tumble might cost you a lot in new cage parts.

A friend of mine is selling a Synthesis 29 and a Miniplane. Let me know if you want his details.

80kg, Top 80 with 125cm prop pushes my Nucleon 29 along just fine but also propels me on my 16 square meter speedwing whenever I ask it to.

Did you buy your wing new? They come as standard set up for high hang points so if you are flying a more common low or mid point machine and haven't changed the brake lines then you will run out of travel.

Well done on getting a nice looking rig together. My only slight concern is the choice of a Synth Cabrio. IMO that wing is better suited to trike usage rather than footlaunch. I notice that the brakes were absolutely buried to get the combo off the ground. Have you tried another (preferably non-reflex) tandem wing for comparison? I suspect you might find it a lot easier. The Apco Play 4 2 is generally considered to be one of the easiest for motoring. I have an Orca 41 and love it.