Jump to content

Parajet or Bailey


spider
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I'm having difficulty trying to decide what paramotor to go for, with a short list of two, being the Parajet or a Bailey 4 stroke (175 / 1.1 prop). Having attempted to gather info from the net, I'm no wiser, as they both seem to have there merits.

The main problem I’ve got is that I never heard the Bailey running and as overall noise is one of my main deciding factors, I’m at a bit of a loss ! The brochures say the Bailey is 60db at 100m with the Parajet being 70db at 30metres, which would seem somewhat of a difference to me.

Apart from just getting advice of ‘go to Bailey’ or ‘try and find someone with one and have a listen’, I wondered if anyone had an opinion on the noise levels and relevant other benefits of both.

Hopefully, this topic won’t start a ‘slag a paramotor off’ forum series, Obviously, everyone have their own preferences, I’m just looking for advice in buying the best paramotor for myself.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re: noise attenuation with distance

try http://www.engineeringpage.com/calculators/noise/distance_dB(A).html

I did, using your figures, and it calculates the noise at source to be 108Db in both cases so no help in deciding on that score!

They are both the same noise level.

What may be different is the frequency of the noise, I think higher frequencies travel further so, if the parajet is higher frequency but attenuates less with distance it might be noisier further away than the Bailey? Might explain the choice of 30m for PJ and 100m for the Bailey?

Also which parajet? cos subjectively the Macro is a deeper note than the volution so seems noisier nearer but quieter further away.

(Never heard a Bailey).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking of changing to a Bailey solely for the reason that I have a project in mind that requires the 4+ hours endurance that is theoretically possible from the legal maximum fuel load of 10 litres. I have no other reason to consider change and if anything I am not looking forward to increased weight and less thrust. I feel that perhaps a Bailey makes an ideal second paramotor once you know which direction you want to go in but I would start off with a conventional 2 stroke. Having said that, I'm sure there are many people that have flown one from scratch and been just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I know I am a little swayed towards the Parajet but.....

But my main reason for becoming a Parajet dealer was becasue of the after sales service! It is second to none!

Bailey on the other hand..... (from what I have READ) are not quite as on the ball shall we say.

EDIT ON 02-01-08

"Bailey on the other hand..... (from what I have READ) are not quite as on the ball shall we say. "

I have to say, the things I read were forum based and not proof of anything to be fair.

I bit of a sorry from me. :oops:

SW :D

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having brought the 175 Bailey this time last year ( one of the first 175 engines), i can say it has performed excellently all year in a variety of flying conditions.

The Bailey unit is quite heavy, but you tend to carry less fuel than on a 2 stroke equivalant for the same flying time.

As a motor for the begginer i feel the weight ground handling is the biggest problem you will have to overcome, if you launch first or second time you will have no problem but after that you will need to sit down and recover.

As for reliabilty i have had no problems at all, it has never let me down starting, and apart from oil changes thats all i have had to do.

The bigger Parajet macro has a lot more thrust for taking off with, but the Bailey always gets me off the ground 80 kls in nill wind.

As for noise, the Bailey has a sound of its own and is certainly not noisey, bearing in mind you only ever need max half revs in steady flight anyway.

Hope this helps but i am a little biased

Simon Payne :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ian

I have the 1.3 mtr prop version with 175 electric start.

I fly with a Dudek Plasma or Reaction depending on mood.

Into wind expect 2.5 ltrs hour use with nill wind cruise at 2 ltrs hour.

Use of speed bar can have dramatic increase in consumption, as with all motors.

As for spares/ parts i cannot say as it has never needed any

Simon P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking at fuel flow with a reflex wing (Dudek) on full fast trim (without speedbar as 4+ hours of pushing speedbar would be too tiring) so I guess 2 litres an hour really is achievable. Fantastic, thanks for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Simon,

A slight change of interest with this thread - I too, fly a Bailey but it is a Snap engine using around 4 litres per hour with a 27 Reaction (I am 80kg).

2-2,5 litres would be an incentive for me to change motors. What do you weigh and what size are your wings? Does the 175 have plenty of thrust to sustain level flight on speed bar with the Plasma?

John Coutts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon,

A slight change of interest with this thread - I too, fly a Bailey but it is a Snap engine using around 4 litres per hour with a 27 Reaction (I am 80kg).

2-2,5 litres would be an incentive for me to change motors. What do you weigh and what size are your wings? Does the 175 have plenty of thrust to sustain level flight on speed bar with the Plasma?

John Coutts

Hi John

I fly a re action 29 and a plasma 28. I am 80kg

The 175 does have the thrust but other factors like if flying downwind, sink,etc can effect how much throttle is used.

Flying the plasma on full bar is something i dont do often, as the fuel consumption on full throttle does suffer.

Flying on full trim is what most of the flying i do anyway on the plasma, just using bar when needing that extra bit of speed.

The plasma is just a nicer wing to thermal. :)

Hope this helps :D

Simon P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My BD is quite thirsty at 5-6 litres an hour although I don't mind too much as the thrust is phenomenal once I got it sorted (a whole story in itself). I gather the Parajet Macro is supposed to be quite economic in the cruise as it can be throttled back so much. Can someone please give me a realistic (not sales pitch) fuel burn for a Synth on fast trim (no speedbar) with a Macro? I really like many aspects of the Bailey but I have some concerns and I really want to know what the opposition can do before I come to any conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you the exact number on Tuesday (no pitch, as always I have to say!)

I will be flying a 29 synth on speedbar, with a Macro then if flyable.

Or...

come and have a fly yourself :D:D (and don't pitch to yourself ) :lol:

Point is.... Macro 69kg of thrust (with Pulse prop) not sure on Bailey to be fair but I know that it is a good lump less. The Macro also has an 18L tank (for use overseas of course)

SW :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi John

I fly a re action 29 and a plasma 28. I am 80kg

The 175 does have the thrust but other factors like if flying downwind, sink,etc can effect how much throttle is used.

Flying the plasma on full bar is something i dont do often, as the fuel consumption on full throttle does suffer.

Flying on full trim is what most of the flying i do anyway on the plasma, just using bar when needing that extra bit of speed.

The plasma is just a nicer wing to thermal. :)

Hope this helps :D

Simon P

Thanks for the reply Simon. It gives me a few more factors to mull over.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon (W), I am specifically after the fuel burn for flight on fast trim but without using speedbar please. The problem is that I need a certain duration and there is a specific reason why I cannot push the 10 litre fuel capacity. Many thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simon (W), I am specifically after the fuel burn for flight on fast trim but without using speedbar please. The problem is that I need a certain duration and there is a specific reason why I cannot push the 10 litre fuel capacity. Many thanks.

Ian

You would be welcome to come over to Cambridge and test fly a Bailey 175, we have also just squeezed a bit more fuel economy out of it with a revised reduction ratio (as tested at the worlds in China)

Regards

Paul Bailey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Paul. I am looking at trying to establish some new world records with the Royal Aero Club racing and rallying association however I need a certain endurance while strictly remaining inside the ANO definition of a foot launch paramotor. I will email you with the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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...