darkwing

I too am interested in this topic. Has anyone flown the H3 and Driftair? What are your thoughts on both? I've not yet had the opportunity to try either or both. People I have spoken to have flown one or the other but not both. Much of what I have heard is positive for both wings. They both appeal to different styles of flying from what I understand. I'd like to stick with Dudek. I'm looking for "more" than the Nucxx....something more efficient, faster and also stable on XC but that can be thrown around for fun. Not into acro but I enjoy the odd tight turn, spiral and wing over. I like the Nucxx but I'm looking for more spice and it seems that the path forward splits with these two wings. Any feedback and opinion would be great, thanks.

Parawookie, have you checked the pop off pressure in your carb? Might be a bit low if it's using 5-6 l/h. Should be around 14 - 18 psi I think.

I've been down a similar track and I'll share what I have read up on so far. I have found a bit of a gap between intermediate and competition wings. The Ozone Spyder 2 seems to be a popular choice as well as the Scirocco 2. I've heard that the Gin Falcon is very fast and handles well. The Ozone Freeride, from my understanding, is similar to the Viper but toned down to be more accessible to non competitive pilots. It's still a very performance orientated wing and is not for low airtime pilots. I thing that the Gin Carve is up in this spot too. I was interested in the Niviuk Kougar 3 as this is the class of wing where I think the market is lacking a bit......that was until I saw Tucker's video of the wing collapsing on speedbar...... Dudek has the Report'air and the Nucleon xx. The Report'air is a more stable platform whilst the Nuc xx is more agile and can be a bit bumpy in turbulence. I fly a Nuc xx 24 and I enjoy it but I've been looking for a little bit more. It doesn't seem to be a very popular wing as I cannot find too many people who have a lot to say about it and I don't know why. The Hadron xx gets a lot of mention (as well as the Warp) but the gap in experience level to fly this wing (from intermediate to competition) seems very big. Some say the Nuc xx is not very efficient but it seems to do pretty well and I can tell you from first hand experience that it's solid in turbulence....even though it feels the bumps because of the higher wingloading as a result of the shark nose profile. I have read reviews where people have said it's busier and more agile than a lot of the intermediate wings I have mentioned here. I don't think its as agile as the Freeride and Carve and I don't know about the Kougar 3. I've rambled on a bit but I hope you can get some value out of what I have written. I'm not dissing any of theses wings (for those battle-hardened keyboard warriors looking to strike:-)) and I look forward to reading what others have to say.

The wheels were pretty cheap so I hope they hold out. I have made provision in the frame so that if they don't work out, I can always upgrade. The wheels cost me $9 each (Au$)...the same lightweight wheels found on "Strider" kiddies type bikes when they are learning to keep their balance before riding an actual bicycle.

Great seeing these trikes being built successfully. I have almost completed mine too. I have used different wheels so as to make it even lighter. It's about 80% completed so far. I'll post some pics when I'm done.

Great, usable review - thank you. I had the opportunity to fly the Skymax with Moster engine and I was REALLY impressed with it.. The balance that it has in flight because of that adjustable cross bar really works. I also liked the titanium radial spars rather than the carbon ones and it makes the frame very rigid and strong. I believe that the star frame is only 700g heavier than the expedition frame with carbon spars. Initially, I was put off by the soft tank and the "flimsy" look of the cage but it really is very strong. Also, for me, the difference in weight was hardly noticeable and could have even been down to amount of fuel left in the respective tanks. I flew an Air conception just before that as I wanted to see how they both handled. Whilst I like the AC (a lot), for me, I found the handling and balance of the Skymax more preferable. I also liked the rigidity of the Skymax frame when I did a forward launch...way more rigid than the AC frame. Now just to decide upon an engine.....EOS 150 or Vittorazi Moster.....

Thanks Simon. Well, it's good to hear that there have been some success stories. Without going into too much detail, I have heard of someone with the EOS 100 where the warranty was left to the dealer - not the manufacturer. In 2.5 years and 20 hours of flying time, the engine had been fully built - twice. If it is all true, it's a bit of a sad tale......

Does anyone have any more news on this engine? I have heard some horror stories about the EOS 100 and the manufacturer's response so I am a bit dubious of the 150....in spite of the numbers looking good. Weight, fuel consumption and reliability are key factors for me. I know that the Moster has been around for a bit and they have ironed out pretty much most of their issues but I believe it can be a bit thirsty - even when used "gently". Any input will be appreciated...thanks.

A mate of mine showed me this battery he bought from the USA. These batteries are one fifth of the weight of regular battery and last for very much longer. The downside is the price as I believe they are VERY expensive. The name of the batteries suggests a helpful start and I believe the guy is very helpful. Try http://www.antigravitybatteries.com .

Thanks for the offer Paul but I'm a bit far away (South Africa). I don't like the low cage designs because of the danger it could pose whilst ground skimming (which I do a lot of). Gary, I take it the Cisco you refer to is the Snap 100 which is 17hp. The Thor is 20,5hp and gives 64kg thrust with a 130cm propeller. The ROS125 is 22hp (they say 29hp but that would put it more powerful than a Simonini???) and gives 64kg thrust with a 125cm propeller. I've never tested the Thor or the ROS. I have felt the power of the Snap100 with a 3 blade ground adjustable propeller and it was pretty cheeky!!! Damn strong for such a little motor. I currently have a Simonini but I am too used to a clutched motor and I don't like the idea of electric start....for me anyway. Didn't know you had a crash Gary. Hope you are okay to fly!! Thanks for your replies guys.

I'm not sure what this all means in terms of English law as I am an overseas member. Does this affect me / other overseas members in any way?

Hi Simon Bit of a late answer here. I aquired a Fly Castelluccio last week at a REALLY good price from someone emigrating. It wouldn't have been my first choice but I couldn't let the opportunity slide. I too had the idea of fitting the 16ltr tank but alas, it won't fit. I have spoken to the dealer here in South Africa (Fly Products and Fly Castelluccio) and he confirmed this. Not believing him, I asked my mate to bring his spare tank to the field so I could try it and it's true - it won't fit. Perhaps the PXP 12.5 litre might with some mods or the Miniplane Top 80. They look like the same tank. Cheers David

AAh! So the real test would come in when it gets rough because it won't be auto pitch stable and the Velvet would require more pilot input? Edit: I asked the Macpara dealer about the reflex on the Velvet. The centre third is reflexed but the tips are not which would explain why there is no need for tip steering and perhaps why it needs to be tested with trims both in and out. Still when I have flown it in turbulence, it has felt rock solid and "feels" more solid than another reflexed wing I have flown. 'nuf said - just my experience. I don't want to hijack this thread. I was just curious.

Has anyone compared this wing to the Macpara Velvet? I'm curious as to how the Fusion handles by comparison. Having not flown the Fusion, reading these reports sounds like a description of the Velvet - the difference being that the Velvet is semi-reflexed and not as fast at top speed. Looking at the test reports, I notice that it was only tested with closed trimmers - in "paraglider" mode and not with open trimmers. Anyone know why? Surely the open trimmers test report would be the one that matters most if flying with a motor?

Does anyone know much about the PXP paramotor range? They seem like tidy paramotors and the new THOR has loads of power by the looks of things - dare I say as much as the ROS125 IMHO. I have looked on the internet for reviews but there seems to be very little. One thing I don't like is that the cage appears to hang quite a bit lower than the bottom of the seatboard whilst in flight. The PAP's and others don't seem to hang that low. Any ideas?

Thanks for the reply Stuart. So you reckon there is very little difference between the thrust of the ROS 125 and the R 120? I am __VERY__ wary of the ROS since it seems most people I have spoken to who own the engine have had problems - more than most. The new PA125, I believe is made in the H&E factory for PAP but it's not the same engine as the R120 and has about 2hp less. My MZ100 is __VERY__reliable but I am at the top of it's weight range and need a bit more "kick" so I can enjoy the benefits of my Velvet 26 wing. Thanks again for your input.

This follow up post is a bit late but I would like to know from those of you who have H&E 120's if you have ever compared them to the PAP 125. I believe the PAP has a bit more power than the H&E but not much more. I also believe that the new PA125 powering the PAPs are made by H&E but push out 2hp more than the R120. The H&E is a LOT more affordable than the PAP but is the quality as good?. I am looking to upgrade from my high hang point machine to a low hang point but worry that these machines I am interested in may not be powerful enough for me. I currently fly the Paratoys MZ 100 but find it a bit underpowered for me if I fly from sites at 2200ft asl. I don't want to go to belt drive as I prefer a clutch so would rather not go the Simonini route. I am quite interested in the Polini THOR as well and it seems to pack quite a punch with the 130cm prop - same thrust figure claimed by the ROS 125 with 125cm propeller. I weigh 82kg by the way. Any suggestions from those who have already compared?

You're right! It is the same one by the looks of things...

There is someone in the USA who has a version of independently swinging under arm bars for high hang point machines. See here http://www.usppa.org/Resources/HomeImpr ... ements.htm and scroll down to weight shift for a .pdf drawing. For the video, see here for part 1 and here for part 2 where he elaborates on some of the explanation missing from part 1.I have toyed with a couple of idea to modify the existing PAP/ H&E system that does away with the shackles all together. I can't get used to the idea of my life hanging by 2 x 6mm stainless steel bolts through an straight aluminium arm - no soft bushing of sorts. The backup straps appear quite thin too. Just my concerns...

Any of you guys in the UK lost a paramotor you were expecting for Christmas? This ought to set the cat amongst the pigeons. Check out this ad from South Africa. An "unwanted Christmas gift" including the wing all for R9000 (around GBP750). That's really suspect!!! The reserve container is still in its plastic wrapping and the paramotor has never been used. It is brand new - you can tell it had the decompression button in the side of the barrel. http://capetown.gumtree.co.za/c-Stuff-for-Sale-sports-bicycles-fitness-NEW-PARAMOTOR-PARAGLIDER-SETUP-W0QQAdIdZ186182360 Cheers

Thanks for all the response. It appears that it is more a preference than anything else - am I correct in assuming so? No-one has mentioned anything about the safety aspect though. Would you believe one system to be safer than the other? i.e shackle pin breaks during a spiral dive - would it not make the situation worse? Or during turbulence, would one offer more safety/input for correction over the other? If I don't post again, have a great Christmas!!!

Hi I would like to read from people that have moved from high attachment point motors to low attachment points or low attachment points to high. Have you found the sensation unnerving/unsafe? Has the trade off between stability and maneouverability been worth the switch (high to low or low to high)? Would low hang points (PAP/H&E/PXP style) be more unsafe than high hang points, in the event of shackle pin failure, in spite of the back up strap on the harness? There seem to have been a few fatalities where this could have been the cause... I have only ever flown high attachment point machines hence the reason for the questions. I would love to try low attachment points but there is no one in my area who has such a machine. I am looking at either getting a Simonini powered machine (Fly Gold 115) with high attachment points or a PAP ROS 125 and at my weight (83kg), these motors should be fine. I like the idea of a clutch, the stainless frame and forced cooling but the attachment points on the PAP worry me a bit. Any comments?

Cage has been expanded to accommodate a 130cm prop. Currently has a 120cm prop and a spare 125cm prop. Speed bar and reserve strop added. Paramotor is in South Africa. Nice to have to fly when you are here for the 2010 world cup!!! Will suit lighter pilot up to around 75kg. GBP 2000 onco