Mark Morgan Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 4 minutes ago, simonhunny said: ha ha, careful Mark, you will upset the fanboys.... Hahaha, thats there problem.. i always go on real world figures and fact rather than hype and hearsay.. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Morgan Posted March 15, 2018 Share Posted March 15, 2018 Casper, I won't go into how i did the record as it took allot of Practical testing with different size wings and equipment and i would like this record to hold for many years to come. I know i can improve on this record and i have my eye on and think 10minutes to 3000m is possible with my equipment. I have a few theories to improve the times and possible Hight altitude records as the GPS climb curve showed max altitude of around 25/27,000ft in standard config. if i add my (therory) i think 27,000+ and less than 10 minutes to 3000m is possible. As i am not that much of a tech geek we did practical testing rather than a load of theory and calculations as there is far to many parameter that would change every test. We have used multiple wings from 26m-20m Viper 3 and Slalom 16m.. using a small wing maybe faster low down but will suffer more higher up I will look forward to some more thrust tests of the 280 to see what it is actually Pushing out in the real world. I know static thrust is not the be all and end all and power to weight is also key for Max climbing... BUT.... Looking at the video of eric there not even close to a 'good' or 'record' breaking climb rate... plus he was using the swing making it look more than it actually is, 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custom-vince Posted March 16, 2018 Author Share Posted March 16, 2018 12 minutes 50-2200 meters test. Plus Track log https://paramotors.xcontest.org/world/en/flights/detail:Lemur/14.3.2018/11:55 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 (edited) So, it's ft/s showing, what I expected but when people claim things I get unsure , 2150m/(12*60)=2,99m/s. With a climb speed like that it would take him 17 minutes to get the 3000 m, just as a reference. Freeride, what size? what trim. Not record pushing, so will not try to compare, just good to see that it didn't melt down from overheating The engine have potential for sure, I wonder if it will beat the Black bull. Mark: Glad to hear you have plans, and thanks for the info you are sharing, it's enough to get a good picture of the work you put into it. Lots of people out there that talk a lot and claim things, but a FAI record is what really counts. Edited March 16, 2018 by Casper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custom-vince Posted March 20, 2018 Author Share Posted March 20, 2018 The Tornado has not been designed for record breaking attempts or up mosts per thrust. Like the Nitro it has been designed for the wider audience, accessible power, user friendly, owner friendly if you like. Aimed at light weight and reliable with more than enough power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Morgan Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 (edited) Thanks for sorting out that video vince... looks like i have nothing to worry about there... Looking at his Vario it looks like the Averidge is set way to low from 4-900fpm even if you said 600fpm ave climb thats pretty poor if you go by there 'Claimed' BHP and all the Power to weight ratio BS thats it got more than a 250 machine that has been spouted around the FB groups.. Accessible power 280cc putting out around the same as a moster looking at his climb rate... my moster was 600fpm and my hornet was 650fpm average figures What was the song by Public enemy?? ......... Don't believe the HYPE... I guess everyone is looking for something different in there machines... but people should base there purchases on what they want... lightness, fuel economy and weight ... There is not much difference in weight between a 250 for 2 hours and a 280 tornado... My guess would be the 280 wont do more than 2 hours or 75-80km making for pretty short XC's Don't forget about Price to.. our 250's retail at £6250 whats the Tornado £6500 a very basic engine compared to the 250 so why more money? Edited March 20, 2018 by Mark Morgan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Hi, Is Air Conception likely to discontinue the Nitro 200 now that the Tornado 280 is available, as they did with the Ultimate 130, not all that long after the Nitro 200 was introduced? Justin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Morgan Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 On 16/03/2018 at 09:33, Casper said: Mark: Glad to hear you have plans, and thanks for the info you are sharing, it's enough to get a good picture of the work you put into it. Lots of people out there that talk a lot and claim things, but a FAI record is what really counts. Thanks Casper... The hardest part of breaking a record is the Paperwork the other part is just flying... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 On 15/03/2018 at 09:44, Mark Morgan said: Casper, I won't go into how i did the record as it took allot of Practical testing with different size wings and equipment and i would like this record to hold for many years to come. I know i can improve on this record and i have my eye on and think 10minutes to 3000m is possible with my equipment. I have a few theories to improve the times and possible Hight altitude records as the GPS climb curve showed max altitude of around 25/27,000ft in standard config. if i add my (therory) i think 27,000+ and less than 10 minutes to 3000m is possible. As i am not that much of a tech geek we did practical testing rather than a load of theory and calculations as there is far to many parameter that would change every test. We have used multiple wings from 26m-20m Viper 3 and Slalom 16m.. using a small wing maybe faster low down but will suffer more higher up I will look forward to some more thrust tests of the 280 to see what it is actually Pushing out in the real world. I know static thrust is not the be all and end all and power to weight is also key for Max climbing... BUT.... Looking at the video of eric there not even close to a 'good' or 'record' breaking climb rate... plus he was using the swing making it look more than it actually is, I have only flown one wing, but my thoughts re speed of climb... 1. Slower air-speed is best, to reduce drag to a minimum and hence more engine thrust goes to the climb. 2. The above leads to using a very large wing, lightly loaded....the balance being not going too large so as to increase drag! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Morgan Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 On 20/03/2018 at 16:29, AndyB said: I have only flown one wing, but my thoughts re speed of climb... 1. Slower air-speed is best, to reduce drag to a minimum and hence more engine thrust goes to the climb. 2. The above leads to using a very large wing, lightly loaded....the balance being not going too large so as to increase drag! you would think so Andy but your wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custom-vince Posted March 22, 2018 Author Share Posted March 22, 2018 On 20/03/2018 at 14:46, Mark Morgan said: Thanks for sorting out that video vince... looks like i have nothing to worry about there... Looking at his Vario it looks like the Averidge is set way to low from 4-900fpm even if you said 600fpm ave climb thats pretty poor if you go by there 'Claimed' BHP and all the Power to weight ratio BS thats it got more than a 250 machine that has been spouted around the FB groups.. Accessible power 280cc putting out around the same as a moster looking at his climb rate... my moster was 600fpm and my hornet was 650fpm average figures What was the song by Public enemy?? ......... Don't believe the HYPE... I guess everyone is looking for something different in there machines... but people should base there purchases on what they want... lightness, fuel economy and weight ... There is not much difference in weight between a 250 for 2 hours and a 280 tornado... My guess would be the 280 wont do more than 2 hours or 75-80km making for pretty short XC's Don't forget about Price to.. our 250's retail at £6250 whats the Tornado £6500 a very basic engine compared to the 250 so why more money? There is lots of BS on facebook. I dont believe the manufacturer itself has put out any power or thrust figures as yet, all hear say and chinese whispers. As for the actual price, I dont know that yet either, just a guide. Why more expensive? Its an engine specifically engineered for paramotoring. Not an engine which still has scooter mounting holes etc.. I would before even trying the tornado expect the thor250 water-cooled engine at 22.8kg (dry) to have more thrust than an 11.4kg 280cc air-cooled engine. (Thor250 electric start is 24.6kg). Different products aimed at different pilots, I typically dont compare these two engine due to the weight differences. I would compare to blackbull, simo evo and bullmax. The design brief is about lighter weight, reliability & power delivery more than all out total thrust. I do still expect to see some good thrust figures. Air Conceptions lighter weight harness made by supair, based on EVO is more expensive than standard harness, lot of specifically made parts not mass produced makes some items more expensive yet lighter in weight. All said it will still be a 280cc paramotor complete and ready to fly at 20kg, In that it will weigh less than a just Polini Thor250 engine alone. If you want a water cooled power house and dont mind the weight, the thor 250 seems a good engine. The Nitro will continue the Tornado is not replacing it, it has more power than most pilots need. The nitro replaced the 130cc as it is suitable for a wider audience, flying lower in the rpm range it is easier for a lighter pilot to fly the nitro than the 130cc as there is less of a power band, almost non existent on the nitro, you have to really look for it to find it. The 130cc is a great little engine, it was designed to kick out some power for its size, it will tandem and larger pilots are happy with it, if you are sub 65kg, you can find your self below the power band where the engine 4 strokes. The nitro doesn't have this. The 130cc happily hits 10,000rpm where as the nitro will give a more thrust but at 7400rpm which is nicer to fly, better for reliability and cooling etc. A lot of pilots are seeing max temps on the nitro as 205c, thats significantly lower than other engines I have flown. My moster would hit 260-280 which is why I made cooling shrouds. It run fine like that but does cause extra wear. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The80s Posted March 22, 2018 Share Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) On 3/20/2018 at 07:46, Mark Morgan said: .My guess would be the 280 wont do more than 2 hours or 75-80km making for pretty short XC's I hope you're wrong about that. I'd like to see this thing be able to stay up longer than that for XC's. I'd be mightily disappointed if all I could get was ~50 miles per trip, especially when flying conservatively and with conditions that favor fuel economy. I understand sometimes the weather and other factors can really kill economy, but on a good day, I'd definitely like to see more than 75-80km. How about 75-80 miles. Maybe 100 miles would be possible with the fat tank (15.5L)? I would certainly hope so anyway. 5L per hour would be slightly over 3 hours. Do you really think this thing would burn at or more than 5L per hour? That'd be wild if we could get 3/4L per hour out of it. Edited March 22, 2018 by The80s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huggy98 Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 On 02/02/2018 at 03:13, cas_whitmore said: 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 . The Gasket to the carb looks damaged, like it hasn't been put back correctly. this could have been the cause of the crack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted March 23, 2018 Share Posted March 23, 2018 Thanks to the answers Vince. I was just curious about the Nitro for future thought. I completed my power conversion at the end of last summer, now all set up for this season with an Ozone Spyder & Miniplane Top 80. I’ve kept the Nitro in mind as a good motor to evolve from the Miniplane for when I consider a faster wing & a better climb rate. The Nitro seems the natural progression considering weight & power. Looking forward to clocking up some hours this season. Justin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Morgan Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 On 22/03/2018 at 13:21, The80s said: I hope you're wrong about that. I'd like to see this thing be able to stay up longer than that for XC's. I'd be mightily disappointed if all I could get was ~50 miles per trip, especially when flying conservatively and with conditions that favor fuel economy. I understand sometimes the weather and other factors can really kill economy, but on a good day, I'd definitely like to see more than 75-80km. How about 75-80 miles. Maybe 100 miles would be possible with the fat tank (15.5L)? I would certainly hope so anyway. 5L per hour would be slightly over 3 hours. Do you really think this thing would burn at or more than 5L per hour? That'd be wild if we could get 3/4L per hour out of it. most 200 owners i have spoken with are around 5lph on slow trims flying standard/intermediate XC style wings... much higher trims out.. Fuel burn is cubed by the RPM remember... Vince @80-85kg claims 3lph on a 19m Free ride but thats still to be proven So i would say bigger CC = more fuel burn but bigger CC also = more power = lower RPM's for same trim setting so who knows... I think all pilots who are interested in XC should do a weighed fuel burn test in slow and fast trims so they know there exact fuel burn, add that to your ave speeds you will get an accurate km per Litre figure then everyone would get a real world database of pilots all up weights, motors, wings etc ending the BS Not an AC owner but i know a guy who was told he would get 3lph out of his machine but can not get under 5! to say he was unhappy was an understatement, i had to bite my tongue and not say told you so!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Morgan Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 On 22/03/2018 at 13:21, The80s said: Maybe 100 miles would be possible with the fat tank (15.5L)? I would certainly hope so anyway. 5L per hour would be slightly over 3 hours. Do you really think this thing would burn at or more than 5L per hour? That'd be wild if we could get 3/4L per hour out of it. 15.5 litres i could easily see just over 6 hours.. 6.2 to be exact and 235km @ slow trim speed... More if i fiddle with jetting... you would need 31litres or 23.25kg of fuel on the 200-280 for the same time @5lph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 My Nitro does 4.5 l/hr on slow trim. Roadster 2, and 28 m. Carrying 92 kg of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casper Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 Hehe, somehow the Black Bull with a lightweight frame sounds so much more appealing now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The80s Posted March 26, 2018 Share Posted March 26, 2018 On 3/25/2018 at 05:22, Mark Morgan said: most 200 owners i have spoken with are around 5lph on slow trims flying standard/intermediate XC style wings... much higher trims out.. Fuel burn is cubed by the RPM remember... Vince @80-85kg claims 3lph on a 19m Free ride but thats still to be proven So i would say bigger CC = more fuel burn but bigger CC also = more power = lower RPM's for same trim setting so who knows... I think all pilots who are interested in XC should do a weighed fuel burn test in slow and fast trims so they know there exact fuel burn, add that to your ave speeds you will get an accurate km per Litre figure then everyone would get a real world database of pilots all up weights, motors, wings etc ending the BS Not an AC owner but i know a guy who was told he would get 3lph out of his machine but can not get under 5! to say he was unhappy was an understatement, i had to bite my tongue and not say told you so!! I wonder how the XL with the 1.5cm prop will affect things? Supposedly the Nitro XL gets noticeably better fuel economy than the regular Nitro. I hope that carries over to the Tornado XL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Morgan Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 On 25/03/2018 at 14:40, AndyB said: My Nitro does 4.5 l/hr on slow trim. Roadster 2, and 28 m. Carrying 92 kg of me. is that with fuel weighed in until run out and timed or just i put 5 litres in and have X left in the tank? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 2 hours ago, Mark Morgan said: is that with fuel weighed in until run out and timed or just i put 5 litres in and have X left in the tank? I measured fuel usage every flight for a while, all with trims in. I put 6 litres in and looked what's left etc. Sometime I can get 4.25 l/hr but usually closer to 4.5. I now fly using a timer so I know how much fuel I have got left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Morgan Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 1 hour ago, AndyB said: I measured fuel usage every flight for a while, all with trims in. I put 6 litres in and looked what's left etc. Sometime I can get 4.25 l/hr but usually closer to 4.5. I now fly using a timer so I know how much fuel I have got left. try weighing the fuel in you will be surprised how much difference there can be from just 'Looking' at whats left.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted March 27, 2018 Share Posted March 27, 2018 There is a good scale on the side of the tank. Since I put it in the same flat place at home, it will be accurate. I am very confident it uses between 4.25 and 4.5 l/hr on slow trim. This will be higher than other people because a) I'm big and b) I have a big wing (more drag). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Morgan Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 tank markings are not accurate enough to measure fuel consumption Accurately. weight the fuel and put it in your tank or even better Try a fuel burn test and report back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyB Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 I disagree. The tank markings with half ticks are very accurate so long as you put the machine in the same place on the same concrete floor every time. Then it is VERY accurate. The inaccuracies you talk about come from uneven ground! In my garage the machine has to be in the same place, facing the same way...as my garage floor has a very slight fall on it!!! I can predict within 1/4 litre what my fuel will be when I land.....so long as I fly trims in. If I use some trims out then obviously will use more. I have never measured trims out fuel as I don't fly a whole flight like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.