Tornado 280 paramotor engine from Air Conception

[The80s]

This is a pic from a couple of months ago but I think it's interesting how the 280 could look with that red cylinder head. I like it. (Though I think it would be better if they let each person choose what color they specifically wanted)

 

[The80s]

Laurent Fourgeaud Netting update will come in 2018. 15 liters tank now fit also with titanium frame.

You will be able to climb at lot. But you will probably not be able to keep flying full power if you are flying single without trike. Full power climbing rate with this engine is too high and can be dangerous.

 

 

 

[Casper]

 

[The80s]

 

[The80s]

Contrary to what Laurent said, it looks like both Tucker and Woody held full power just fine. 

[jock]

pity they dont sell just the engine,they would sell loads,

[custom-vince]

On 22/01/2018 at 17:52, jock said:

pity they dont sell just the engine,they would sell loads,

theres a reason for that. With the Nitro they can only produce so many engines in a certain time frame, those engines are all sold as quick as they make them, it will be the same with Tornado. Better to sell complete paramotors than supply the competition with best engine. A sound business strategy allows for refining the complete product, frame, harness, props, tanks etc.

[The80s]

Man, September was supposed to be the release date and now we're into February with still no word. I think the last thing Laurent said was that it would be a few more weeks, but that was three weeks ago. I know they're still ironing out the kinks and making sure everything is as perfect as possible, but the wait is killer! If nothing else I wish they would provide weekly updates, regardless of how minimal. 

As is, barring some unforeseen issue, failure, or terrible reviews, I'll have one of these before the summer is over. 

[Casper]

One cracked crankcase on the nitro 200 around ~30 hours. Not good, sometimes repairable with a skilled welder, sometimes not. Would be interesting to know if the other cracked crankcases had the crack in the same area or not. Most of all an unpleasant feeling that you can't trust your engine, something every pilot should be used to anyway

"Sorry to see you down at all, heh. The new parts have fixed this weakness   we're always learning!" 
"Cracked crank case actually. It happens, this is number 6 or 7 our of just over a thousand. More on this in our 2.5 year anniversary of the Nitro video coming soon"
- Eric Farewell

 

Edit: Maybe wrong thread, should fit better in the nitro thread, but it also shows why testing is important to avoid this as much as possible.

Even with extensive testing it's a long way from the testing they do on smaller aircraft engines like the ones Rotax make. If you waited for the new Rotax 915iS when they first announced it, you had to wait like three years or something.
And even they have found cracked crankcases on their popular and well tested 912 engine, so nothing is bullet proof.

We still see huge leaps, and just a few iterative improvements in two stroke design, so I don't think we can avoid problems like this completely. But AC and it's dealers are apparently doing a great job anyway.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Casper

[bootstrap]

Does anyone have an impression of the fuel consumption of the Tornado 280 engine?

It would be great to have two pilots fly 100km or so, both in AC paramotors but one with Nitro200 and other with Tornado280 engines [and maybe another in a Scout]?

I'm not really concerned about the case of lots of full throttle in acro, just the following two cases:

#1:  long distance at modest power (reasonable speed and same speed on both).

#2:  climb to some very high altitude at full or near-full throttle (then turn off engine, glide back to landing and measure fuel consumed).

My guess is, fuel consumption won't be much different for cross-country (at same speeds), but might be for fast climbs to high altitude (or many climbs to modest altitude).

Nonetheless, I'd like to know, because long distance is a goal for me (as is very high altitude).  How many extra fuel bladders will I need with the Tornado280?  Hahaha. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by bootstrap

[Casper]

 ~2,5-4 liter/hour like all the other engines. Depending on all the factors like, pilot, wing and flying style.

 

[cas_whitmore]

19 hours ago, Casper said:

One cracked crankcase on the nitro 200 around ~30 hours. Not good, sometimes repairable with a skilled welder, sometimes not. Would be interesting to know if the other cracked crankcases had the crack in the same area or not. Most of all an unpleasant feeling that you can't trust your engine, something every pilot should be used to anyway

"Sorry to see you down at all, heh. The new parts have fixed this weakness   we're always learning!" 
"Cracked crank case actually. It happens, this is number 6 or 7 our of just over a thousand. More on this in our 2.5 year anniversary of the Nitro video coming soon"
- Eric Farewell

 

Edit: Maybe wrong thread, should fit better in the nitro thread, but it also shows why testing is important to avoid this as much as possible.

Even with extensive testing it's a long way from the testing they do on smaller aircraft engines like the ones Rotax make. If you waited for the new Rotax 915iS when they first announced it, you had to wait like three years or something.
And even they have found cracked crankcases on their popular and well tested 912 engine, so nothing is bullet proof.

We still see huge leaps, and just a few iterative improvements in two stroke design, so I don't think we can avoid problems like this completely. But AC and it's dealers are apparently doing a great job anyway.

It looks like this motor has had its crank case split apart before the fracture happened ' looking at the amount of silicon at the joints . 

Is it possible if it had been apart ' the builder tightened the bolts out of sequence twisting it in all directions ,.  Maybe .

cas . 

[custom-vince]

Eric Dufour pushing the climb limits. Scary to watch, but he knows what he’s doing. 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by custom-vince

[cas_whitmore]

Looked like he's enjoying himself Vince ' ??

[AndyB]

If motors keep getting more powerful, then there will be a need for wings with shorter lines!

[Casper]

Looks promising! but looks like he hit an angle where he doesn't have enough air speed to continue. Past the Vx speed. and that is very good, because we have enough for Vx and Vy, so we can use the full potential of the normal sized wings when we want maximum climb speed. And the faster wings you fly where you can fly Vy, the faster you climb. That's why the record for fastest climbs are done with wings like the viper 3 and Thor 250, not sure how optimized the record is, but Mark Morgan knows since he have it.

[AndyB]

3 hours ago, Casper said:

 looks like he hit an angle where he doesn't have enough air speed to continue. 

That's why I suggested there may be a need for wing with shorter lines...thus allowing the full motor thrust to used without creating too high a climb angle.

[Casper]

Not sure what to say, claim is that this is m/s. Can't be, right? Yes, I've seen the power stall, so it would not surprise me anymore. Shows an average clearly above 6 m/s, and that would mean 10 min to 3K if it could hold 5 m/s average. ~80kg pilot, HadronXX 20m.

wow...

Edit: was in ft/s

Edited March 16, 2018 by Casper
to correct what was in the video, so no false statement is out there misleading people.

[AndySV1K]

I used to have legs like that when I did a lot of cycling.

 

Andy.

[custom-vince]

Power to weight. its 20kg machine not 33kg machine. Its the equivalent of the pilot loosing 13kg body mass. 97kg pilot flys like 85kg pilot. So that 80kg pilot is like a 67kg pilot flying a thor250 33kg paramotor. Sort of... its an example.

To climb fast is not always steep. Its going to be fun climbing on full speed bar.

 

[Mark Morgan]

On 14/02/2018 at 19:08, Casper said:

Looks promising! but looks like he hit an angle where he doesn't have enough air speed to continue. Past the Vx speed. and that is very good, because we have enough for Vx and Vy, so we can use the full potential of the normal sized wings when we want maximum climb speed. And the faster wings you fly where you can fly Vy, the faster you climb. That's why the record for fastest climbs are done with wings like the viper 3 and Thor 250, not sure how optimized the record is, but Mark Morgan knows since he have it.

What do you mean by how optimised the record is? As far as i know it's been ratified and unbroken...

[Mark Morgan]

On 12/03/2018 at 22:06, Casper said:

Not sure what to say, claim is that this is m/s. Can't be, right? Yes, I've seen the power stall, so it would not surprise me anymore. Shows an average clearly above 6 m/s, and that would mean 10 min to 3K if it could hold 5 m/s average. ~80kg pilot, HadronXX 20m.

wow...

What was that video? 6 mps climb or 1181fpm is good...

[Mark Morgan]

On 13/03/2018 at 12:28, custom-vince said:

Power to weight. its 20kg machine not 33kg machine. Its the equivalent of the pilot loosing 13kg body mass. 97kg pilot flys like 85kg pilot. So that 80kg pilot is like a 67kg pilot flying a thor250 33kg paramotor. Sort of... its an example.

To climb fast is not always steep. Its going to be fun climbing on full speed bar.

 

I very much doubt the 280 has anywhere near the power of the Thor250, Having seen a US test where it was only slightly more powerful than the Moster... 

[Casper]

What I meant about how optimized your record is, is more of a question if you believe that your climb rate could be higher with say a smaller and faster Viper 3, would you still hit the angle for the best climb rate with your total weight and the power the Thor 250 have?

If we talk aeronautics, and sorry about getting complicated, it's hard to understand for any pilot.
For a time record to a fixed distance say 3000m,  we should fly best Rate of Climb (RoC) or Vy-speed.
Simplified that angle will be at a certain air speed for a certain altitude. This speed and angle will be where we have maximum excess power.

Maybe best explained here: http://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/performance/vx-vy/

So when we want the maximum climb rate possible for the paramotor we use, we also want the fastest most efficient wing where we can hit the optimal angle with least drag. A small reflex wing with a high top speed isn't the most efficient wing for L/D ratio, but it is a trade-off since we can't run more than a certain speed on the ground, but we increase it a lot while we are flying. In theory a trike would be able to climb faster thanks to that since it could fly a more efficient wing with higher wing loading and still take off with the built up ground speed.

And that was why I typed " not sure how optimized the record is" since there are so many parameters to the perfect climb, I can only speculate about what you did to break the record, and what it would take to break it again or to set a 10min climb to 3000m.
Everything that reduce drag helps, the ability to fly smaller wings but still climb efficient at a higher airspeed helps. And to know the airspeed or expected climb rate for certain altitudes on the way up. Vy-speed drops at altitude, and airspeed is hard to monitor without pitot tube, but if we could estimate the climb rate and adjust the engine thrust accordingly while we climb to the goal, we might be able to do it even faster. And the more attempts that are made, the higher the chance that someone finds the perfect formula.

If you had data on everything, I'm sure it would be possible for even better record times. But then again, this is just a hobby and not some military project where we have scientists that calculate everything for us. I'm glad you took the record, it's a good benchmark when airplane pilots ask how fast a paramotor can climb. It's proven that we climb faster than many small airplanes, even if we don't have the high airspeed. Your record have the average climb rate of a Cessna 172R on sea level, but the Cessna have a cruise speed of 122 kn.

Oh, and the video showed a vario showing digits between 6 and 9, there was a claim that it was m/s, I still doubt it. 80kg pilot and a hadronXX 20. And since the video is down now I doubt it even more. But Laurent Fourgeaud from Air Conception showed a bit of interest to break your record with the Tornado  Time will tell if it works or not. The thrust test where it was just a bit more powerful than the moster 185 is also suspicious. Like everything we know about the engine so far, we have no official data.

Bleh, wrote a bit more than I intended, hope anyone of you understands what I try to explain.

[simonhunny]

14 hours ago, Mark Morgan said:

I very much doubt the 280 has anywhere near the power of the Thor250, Having seen a US test where it was only slightly more powerful than the Moster... 

ha ha, careful Mark, you will upset the fanboys....