Jump to content

My new motor... Now Thrust testing.


Guest leoibb
 Share

Recommended Posts

Surely if an insurance company were to refuse to pay due to an oversize fuel tank they would have to prove the incident was a result of the oversize tank??

I know that if you don't have road tax or MOT etc the company may not pay a motor claim incident but is paramotoring the same?

Whatever size your tank is, mark it with 1 litre intervals up to 10 ltr's with a permanent marker pen up to the top indicating max 10 ltrs. Will anyone bother to measure it after an incident? yeahh I know,!!! thats not the answere.

The answer is surely to get rid of the motor if an incident occurs. I know paramotorists who have gone abroad to fly have briefed the group to make the motor dissapear in the event of an accident to ensure repatriation etc due to having paragliding not paramotoring insurance.

No! The answer is for a body, or group to challange this 10 ltr rule and bring it in line with the rest of europe. We the Brits are dissadvantaged by this pointless restriction.

Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Malc, but you made some quite unpleasant accusations against Clive. I have spent quite a lot of time discussing the matter face to face with him and I believe your accusations to be unfounded. I'm sorry if I became terse, but those who are rounding on Clive have been happily sticking their heads in the sand, akin to keeping your fingers crossed as birth control, and now matters are out in the open they are blaming HIM for a situation that in no way can be laid at his door.

There is a perfect parallel to this situation in general aviation (light aircraft/PPL) that I raised in another place.

Let us say I decide to take myself and three mates down to Newbury races in a PA28 Warrior. With all on board and with full tanks, I am markedly overweight with regard to the aircraft's placarded maximum. Now, insurance has been taken out on the aircraft, and as long as it's flown within it's placarded limits then all is well, but in this instance, as I'm overweight, I clip some trees on takeoff and pancake it down in a field, collapsing the nosewheel, bending the prop and shock loading the engine. The insurance loss adjusters and AAIB turn up, find out I'm overweight so refuse to pay and throw the book at me.

Now both the CAA and the insurers KNOW that situations like this arise, but they are never going to wait at airports and weigh aircraft before or after flights. They instead rely on the integrity of pilots to operate within the limits, and crucify those who go beyond the limits and have accidents as a result.

The situation with paramotors and fuel tanks is just the same. They won't bother asking, when you take out insurance, about your tank, because they assume that you know the rules and will comply with them. Just the same as they won't check out the minimum stall speed or any of the other limits that allow us to meet FLPG limits. But if you have a crunch, that loss adjuster sent out by the insurers may well notice that the markings on your tank go up to 15, and bells might start to ring. At that point, don't expect a payout, and if you've just killed a half million pound racehorse, then say goodbye to every penny you have. They wouldn't have to prove that the oversize tank contributed to the accident, because in using the tank you are in breach of the ANO, and the insurance specifies that you will only be covered whilst complying with the law, thus breaching insurance conditions.

If you bought a UK paramotor in ignorance with an oversize tank, then blame lies (in my opinion) with a) yourself for not knowing the appropriate rules, and b) also with the vendor for unscrupulously selling a vehicle that doesn't meet the requirements of the UK ANO.

I did a LOT of research before buying a motor, and I made darned sure that the one I bought met the requirements of the ANO. If I had not done so, I can't see how it would be Clive's fault that I was uninsured.

If the matter coming to light meant I might avoid a costly c**k up, I'm darned sure I'd rather find out and stand a chance of doing something about it before the bailiffs emptied my house.

To the poster who asked about insurance costs; my OnRisk policy cost me £65 for third party and another for £65 for damage/loss whilst NOT flying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wellin my opinion insurance dont want to pay it aint in there interest to be paying people they only pay when they have to and any little thing to get out of paying they will use so if i was insured then i would for sure make sure i am telling them the whole truth and what ever the limits on tanks are keep with in them because otherwise they refuse on them grounds , this is insurance in general they aintr in it to give money away there in the game to take it and will only ever pay out if things are right and what has been told to them. anyway i am new really to flying and would i get insurance or do i need some qualification in the training process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I'm peed off for an entirely different reason! I paid much more for my insurance with Onrisk that what's quoted above!

Phil your points make perfect sense and I bow to that, you'll never convince me however that all this was brought up for the greater good of the sport and everyone in it. Nobody will ever know whether the insurance company would have used this loophole in the event of a claim before this was brought to the public so we could all argue on for months about it.

Let's leave it at that, I will be calling up the insurance company though to see where I stand with them, chance of having any sort of incident with this bloody weather would be a fine thing though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were you Malcs, I'd just sort out a reduced size tank and leave it at that. If you ask an insurer the situation, they can only give one possible answer. The matter of whether it was fitted from new I don't think will ever raise it's head.

As for cost, I suspect my insurance was a little lower than standard as I have 100+ hours as a PPL.

By the way, I have seen the Kobra, and they are very nice machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating thread.

I believe it is the manufactures moral obligation when he inserts a product into a market to point out whether or not his machine is 'street legal' in that market. He might also define where his product is in variance and provide options so that appropriate steps can be taken to comply by the purchaser.

The argument doesn't seem to me to be about weight, it is about wording within the ANO and the interpretation that will be placed on that wording by a loss adjuster.

Another one of those 'little corners' that arises when the machines we are dealing with do not undergo any form of certification process and operate within the confines of either a Permit to Fly or Certificate of Airworthiness. One of the little weaknesses of an unregulated sport that we need to deal with.

Sadly, within aviation circles it generally takes accidents to introduce change, after a string of them you can expect just that. This happened with microlights at the dawn of their introduction in the UK and I believe we in paramotoring have come close to it in the recent past with the in-flight structural failure.

As for insurance, I have just been auto-renewed by Onrisk at a premium of £84 for a further 12 months. All I need to do is pay the premium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the following would still cover a Parajet Macro under On-Risk insurance.

Lets say I have a standard Macro (18 litre fuel tank), which will not be covered if I have a claim. If I go back to the manufacturer and ask them to fit a 10 litre tank, would this be OK?

You might say that it was re-fitted by the manufactuer and should be OK, or the claims adjuster may still insist that it was not supplied as standard and you would still not be covered?

This kind of area needs to be looked at as many Macro pilots may want to stay within the ANO and be insured?

Mikey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if the following would still cover a Parajet Macro under On-Risk insurance.

Lets say I have a standard Macro (18 litre fuel tank), which will not be covered if I have a claim. If I go back to the manufacturer and ask them to fit a 10 litre tank, would this be OK?

You might say that it was re-fitted by the manufactuer and should be OK, or the claims adjuster may still insist that it was not supplied as standard and you would still not be covered?

This kind of area needs to be looked at as many Macro pilots may want to stay within the ANO and be insured?

Mikey

Thats an interesting point, would the insurance company claim that replacing the tank with a smaller one count as an aftermarket modification? in wich case they may well increase your premium.

speaking of modifications, how many people have told their insurance company when they fitted an aftermarket exhaust or say a K&N filter?

would the above be seen as modifications and therefore make your policy invalid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between making a modification and having an oversize tank is really very marked. The oversize tank means that you are in breach of the ANO and therefore are flying illegally regardless of insurance, whereas modifications generally don't result in this situation. I have read my policy quite carefully and I haven't come across anything that suggests modifications are either not permitted or have to be notified.

It would probably be sensible to tell an insurer everything if you want to be on the safe side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly have Kobra done to make the standard Simo engine 4 KG lighter on their site they mention anti vibration mountings, the reduction drive and a Li-Po battery, this all sounds good, but have they actually made any modification to the engine itself to reduce weight?

I noted that the PAP 200 simo unit is claimed to be 28-5kg too. Might be taking some scales to the fly-ins in future. Mine already has a 460 gramme Li-ion battery and an aluminium frame with NO inflight charging and it's 29-5 kgs I'm told. Might weigh it later if I can be arsed to remove the reserve and the fuel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might be able to clear this one up. I made some enquiries into motor weights a few months back when I was looking for improved fuel economy (wanted to go a long way on 10 Litres :wink: ) and got the same variety of weights for the same engine types. It turns out that some manufacturers state the basic weight of the motor alone while others state the basic motor plus any or all of the following items: carb, reduction drive, gearbox, exhaust header, entire exhaust system, electric starter, batteries, etc, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They ALL weigh more than stated.

When I was building mine I worked the weight out to be 29 kilos.

All put together dry weight (no fuel 33 kilos).

Pete

That's very interesting Pete as that's exactly what my Bailey 175 4 stroke tips the scales at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They ALL weigh more than stated.

When I was building mine I worked the weight out to be 29 kilos.

All put together dry weight (no fuel 33 kilos).

Pete

That's very interesting Pete as that's exactly what my Bailey 175 4 stroke tips the scales at.

Yea I know ,weighed one before.

Bailey feels lighter to walk with.

Simo has more power.

simo currently 3-3.5 liters per hour (fast trim Reaction 27,20 kilos over weight.

Bailey per hour?????????????

Pete b :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bailey feels lighter to walk with. Simo has more power.

Simo currently 3-3.5 liters per hour (fast trim Reaction 27,20 kilos over weight.

Bailey per hour?????????????

The Bailey feels light because the SupAir harness has additional straps that carry the load very close to your back when on the ground and it works a treat. Farmer Dave and Francis were very surprised when they tried mine on.

The Simo is superb for power output and that is where the Bailey is not so good when flown by lard arses like me. Where I gain though is that in the middle of the weight range on my Synth 34 (remember the wing that everyone claims is so horrendously fuel hungry!) I get 2 litres per hour on neutral trims and 2.5 litres per hour on fast trim! Bearing in mind that on neutral trim I am exactly the same speed as Andrew Shepherd on fast trim on his Action GT I can fly for 5 hours on a legal 10 litre fuel load with a motor weight (including fuel) of 40 kg. Baileys need to be flown on long flights for them to make sense. If you only ever fly for one hour at a time then other machines are probably more suited. I like my Bailey very much but imo it is not really a first paramotor for someone starting out. If I was going to change it for anything else (which I'm not) the only things I would consider would be the Simonini engined Fresh Breeze Sportix or the Kobra Rocco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to one major paramotor manufacturer, all manufacturers lie about their products weights. Either that or they simply make it very difficult to compare apples and oranges. BT and the rest do just the same, it is called the commercial world. If one feels they need to be economical with the truth, they are all forced to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get 2 litres per hour on neutral trims and 2.5 litres per hour on fast trim! Bearing in mind that on neutral trim I am exactly the same speed as Andrew Shepherd on fast trim on his Action GT I can fly for 5 hours on a legal 10 litre fuel load with a motor weight (including fuel) of 40 kg. Baileys need to be flown on long flights for them to make sense.

Hi.

I like the sound of 5 hour endurance. However I weigh over 100kg. I fly a H&E 120 which has the same thrust as the parajet volution (compact); How would you compare thrust of the Bailey 175 1.3m prop Vs Parajet or H&E.

Interestingly we were testing lots a motors in France a couple of years ago using Jim Carlyon's home made thrust tester. The Volution produced 46kg, My H&E 47kg, the Simo's produced over 60kg thrust. Are the Baileys reported thrust figures of 60kg on the 1.3m prop as optimistic as all the others. 60kg would be great for me.

What do you think the actual Bailey thrust figures are.

Regards

Whitters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Whitters. 60kg of thrust for the Bailey sounds very optimistic to me. Mine is the larger 1.3m prop and the climb performance is satisfactory but not startling bearing in mind I am 95kg. I believe the quoted power is the same as the H&E120 but how that compares to actual thrust I couldn't say. I have also flown mine without a headset or ear plugs and the noise levels are fine. The nicest thing is that it is so much less frantic than a 2 stroke. The power delivery is creamy smooth making it very easy to make small throttle changes. There has been a lot of chat in the past about lack of support from the manufacturer however I have found this to be completely inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that between us we could come up with an independant 'Test Centre'

One of the tasks could be agreeing on a method of measuring outright thrust for any and all motors so we can start to dispel some of the BS from the manufacturers.

The same goes for wings

It doesn't have to be hi-tech, just consistent and trustworthy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...