Jump to content

Solo 210 vs. Raket 120


svenfly2
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello all, new to paramotoring and was wondering if anyone here could share their thoughts on these 2 motors. I am interested in purchasing a new motor and found that these 2 are reasonably priced and seem ok. I am a beginner, 78kg and would be flying mostly over flat terrain launching from near sea level each time. I sure could use any suggestions, thanks very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all, new to paramotoring and was wondering if anyone here could share their thoughts on these 2 motors. I am interested in purchasing a new motor and found that these 2 are reasonably priced and seem ok. I am a beginner, 78kg and would be flying mostly over flat terrain launching from near sea level each time. I sure could use any suggestions, thanks very much.

Hi Sven, I can't give you any comparison info, but I can give you a bit of info on the Solo.

I've just completed about my first 50 hours on a Solo engined Adventure F3 Plus. The 'Plus' bit was the tuned exhaust and larger head to get a few more revs and a little extra power.

The Solo has probably been used in more paramotors than any other single engine. It is based around an agricultural pumping engine, and as such is designed to run for long periods with refuelling being the only maintenance. Compared to modern offerings, the Solo's 210 cc's are probably lacking in power, but under an X-Large swing arcus, mine got me into the air on my first flight with an all up weight nearing the 160 kg (yes, kg) mark. Performance at this weight could never be described as sparkling. The engine tolerated conditions that I suspect might have seized lesser models, one particular flight I landed to find the carb hanging loose, so it must have been extremely lean.

Problems that I have encountered have been centred around the ancillaries rather than the motor itself, with ignition and carb being particularly singled out for criticism.

Making sure all fuel unions are air tight to prevent the ingress of air and hence a lean mixture is absolutely essential.

I always found my electric start only model to be easy to start (when the ignition wasn't playing up), but I understand that manual start versions can be a bit of a pig, a problem largely overcome if fitted with the high energy ignition system. There is a small hole in the cylinder that benefits from being cleaned out every so often as it is part of the decompression system, however, I never needed to do so, and I think the use of good quality two stroke oil in the right ratio helps a lot there.

Spares are quite easy to come by, but I'd never say that they were cheap. In many instances, the least expensive option is to buy parts from the USA. When a new barrel is priced from 'Adventure' at nearly 500 euro, that is simply daylight robbery.

All in all, a good basic engine with enough power for your needs, but now coming up a bit short in the power stakes compared to modern kit.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, can not compare with the 210 but...

I had a Rad and flew it for around 200 hours. It needed a belt and a carb service kit before I sold it to a mate who has done about 20 hours so far.

No other maintinance on the engine was required. If needed, spares can by ordered from Oxford (UK)

A little low on power but you are quite a light guy in PPG terms.

SW :D

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...