Guest Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 A VERY good idea. The PMC certification for paramotor thrust. Ideally with a number of data, i.e static and dynamic thrust (use another paramotor up-stream to generate the "airspeed(s)" - effectively a wind tunnel?) and wide pilot/narrow pilot (airflow obstruction). I suspect motors that have high static thrust (for the sake of a good "selling" number) might benefit from re-propping after dynamic thrust tests? Problems that I foresee = manufacturers will be disadvantaged if a particular example of their motor is tested and assumptions are made that it is representative of that make. Offer iit as a service to PMC members to find out about their own motor and to manufacturers to verify their claims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norman Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Yes, we talked of something similar for wings earlier, a 'Which' of paramotor units and wings.... hmmm The manufacturers would hate it because... they all do. But why not, cars, white goods, motorcycles and just about every computer gadget know to man are tested and benchmarked so that the CUSTOMER knows almost exactly what he/she is getting when they part with their cash. It might moderate the claims being made and encourage manufacturers to produce accurate manuals that make it easy for you to understand your motor and wing. Quite a task for a completely independent someone.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Lets do it... We can make a thrust tester with ease. And use the same unit for every motor tested. SW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outkast Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Independant is easy....The person should change for the testing of each unit. SW would not an independent observer suffice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 All, I have removed the start of this thread. I have been away for a few days and only just fully read it. Please keep things nice on this forum. We don't do negative stuff pleeeeeaasssssss keep it a happy place!!! SW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I have just had a message from someone who tested a Bailey 175 4 stroke on Jim Carolan's thrust tester and assures me it does put out 60kg of thrust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_b Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Well well well? Ive just come home to try out the thrust tester that I made earlier this week only to find it raining here so put it in the garage. As soon as I have the time I will test it and if its reading as it should I will bring it down next time and you can all stop arguing over who has the most thrust. Pete b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_P Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Pete, can you give a bit of information on your design for thrust tester? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I have a Micro, a Compact and a Macro I recon thats got to be well over 100 kg of thrust SW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 i have to ask why the fuss over thrust is it i understand the 10 lt tanks were is thrust and weight come in to it? i am sorry i do try keep up but a lot is beyond me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I have a Micro, a Compact and a Macro I recon thats got to be well over 100 kg of thrust SW Three parajets = 1 KOBRA ROCO then? I agree with the author of the last post, why has my initial posting that generated some healthy debate been deleted? Malc is entitled to his opinion surely, and of course that is all it was, I started the thread and he didn't offend me at all, I valued his thoughts. Felius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 I removed it becasue I did not like its content. I don't like negative comments / threads more so when names are named. It's that simple so it's gone. Sorry if a few of you dont like it but it has been and will be the way this forum stays. SW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_b Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 Pete, can you give a bit of information on your design for thrust tester? Works on the triangle, push on the top corner with the 90 degree corner pivoted at the bottom and you get the same force pushing down on the third corner. Initially I will try a bathroom scales and see how they perform. Will try to put some pics up after the weekend (if I remember). Pete b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 i have to ask why the fuss over thrust is it i understand the 10 lt tanks were is thrust and weight come in to it? i am sorry i do try keep up but a lot is beyond me i did ask this earlier ya all rumblin over ya issues ya might have missed it have a breath and let me know the answer to what i am askin please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 LOL Sorry.... The 10L tank issue is regarding the UK Law with respect to the defenition of a Foot Launched Powered Powerglider. The Thrust conversation is another conversation, so I will delete the messages up to the start of the thrust conversation to avoid any further confusion. Sorry..... SW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 ah ok its like watchin question time on here lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 LOL I dont know... I go away for 4 days and look what happens LOL SW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helimed01 Posted September 12, 2008 Share Posted September 12, 2008 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 Unfortunately the level of competition in such a small market has led to manufacturer exageration. In other words the weight, fuel consumption, thrust figures of all motors I have had experience of do not match stated figures. Some have outragiously exagerated claims. In other words 'total bollocks'. At one of the big meetings we should set up a test station, ie thrust tester, scales, also set a fuel v's distance task and have several of each type of un-modified motor tested and publish the results. The results should include size / weight of pilot and wing type. The results should not involve excited individuals who sell the bloody products and should be published by someone like me who flies a lot for the sake of flying and has no interest in promoting or selling any product. People can make up their own minds from the un-biase results. When you are a fat bastard like me and want to fly a long way these things matter. Flew today and was chasing a friend driving his tractor with a trailer full of hay bales, he was smiling like a bag of chips. I was going to 'touch and go' the top of the bales but got it a bit wrong and sunk out and had to land behind in the sinking air in the wake of the trailer. I wonder what the thrust of my poor old H&E is now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer_Dave Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 I said earlier I might pop out and weigh the flat-Top. It was done on tested apparatus and the result was a shade under 30 kg. (no fuel, no reserve, but all complete apart from those) Props vary in weight by 200 grammes or so on the 3 sets I;ve compared. Whitters. Loved your story about the traler of bales. Got some stacked here if you'd like to play! Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Just an update for those that have previously asked for stats re the Kobra Rocco & Dudek Plasma combination. Average ground speed is 30mph (130KG loading on Plasma 28 ) Average fuel (Litres per hour) 2 never neen more than 3 with multiple climb outs & powered touch and goes. Range per tank - don't know get bum ache after 3 hours so land ! Crusie RPM trim out 4200rpm with tendancy to climb. Full speed bar 5200rpm = 40mph (+\-3mph) KOBRA: Probs with Kobra so far: faulty ignition module (new module sent on receipt of notice of fault).* Blocked fuel fillter in carb (Walbro WB37). Inline filter replaced. *After 20 running hours. PLASMA: Need to be confident at nil wind take offs and landings. Doesn't like side wind take offs. Other than than that pretty benign in normal flying conditions. Very responsive and economical. Summary: A combination using the Simonini power plant with the acclaimed Plasma wing from Dudek. Probably the fastest and most economical set up I have seen or flown with no major vices. The quietest set up I have heard more comparable to a four stroke. Would I recoomend one? When the £ is stronger, definately, would I swap them? Not for the world. Felius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farmer_Dave Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I haven't quite got as low as 3 litres / hour yet Simon, but hope to soon. Our differences are clearly pilot weight and engine tuning and I believe yours is a 2 blade, rather nice prop. I would love a fly soon. My slightly higher tuned engine is probably not the cause so much as the fact that my wing loading is far higher. All up weight 150 kg and wing is 26 m2. Easy launch but bit fast across the ground in nil wind. Got a rev counter here somewhere. I'll use it to find the cruising revs soon. 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.