Skytap w/ vittorazi 185 - 59.2lbs Flattop w/ vittorazi 185 - 57.4lbs Flattop w/ minari 200 - 58.4lbs Parajet mavrick w/ vittorazi 185 ~55.9lbs Every paramotor was weighed in the exact configuration they are flown in with the exception of fuel. All of them had used fuel tanks which can be upwards of a pound heavier than a new one as the plastic will absorb fuel. Additionally both the skytap and flattop, had fuel in the lines and carb which does add a little weight.
Awesome that's exactly what I expected. Putting the same type of harness on mine will be a pound or two.below flattop but that's a great weight for what people assume it is. Same with Skytap. Deceptively light. I've seen as low as 53 on a parajet but that's a minor savings for the strength penalty, then you consider how they carry/feel for the main deciding factor for comfort. Thanks for posting.
@@airforceparamotors3104 Your welcome. I did weigh a flattop that was about a year old. The newer ones will be maybe .2 pounds lighter, in a few months the minari powered flattop will see another 1.25+ pound weight reduction, and all new flattops might see a additional 1-2 pound real world weight reduction in the near future. That 58.4 pound flattop 200r could soon be a real world 54.95 pounds.
@@rickardjonsson4526 no, reserves are never factored in since most fly without and different weight people will require different size reserves (different types as well) which all weight differently. A flyable weight for a paramotor is everything required to fly minus fuel and wing (frame, fuel system with throttle, engine, harness, carribbeaners and all connection straps). Everything else is an option
Skytap - 59.2 pounds Flattop - 58.4 pounds Both had used but completely empty fuel tanks, throttle, the "stock" carabiners, harness and all. Both units were in their complete flying setup with the singe exception of fuel. The FlatTop did have the heavier and more power minari 200 and the Skytap had the lighter vittorazi 185, so the flattop frame is 2 pounds lighter. Used fuel tanks do weigh more than new ones as the plastic actually absorbs some of the gas. They also had used engines and fuel in the fuel lines. All this will increase the weight of both units by a little over 1 pound more than brand new weight.
I've been looking at new paramotors I currently have a miniplane version with a fiberglass loop. I did a power forward and got on the throttle to soon while still holding my lines and my hand was pulled back and torqued the flexible frame and hit the prop, I was lucky as the injury was minor. Having a sturdy cage is a great safety feature. I'm really liking your design.
Glad the injury was minor. I originally designed this for myself with safety as priority (I am a fan of all my body parts). An overlooked feature is powered forward launches. Here in AZ we have many nil wind days. Some hate those conditions but I prefer. I just pull about 1/2 throttle before inflating and the wing jumps into place. I tried to incorporate almost every safety concern into this design that I ever read about and TRIED and design a zero potential failure rate under any normal conditions and peoples reality to not have a proper maintenance program and make mistakes.. Accidentally hitting a bit of throttle should not have the possibility of loosing body parts. We have motors on our back almost up to 1/2 the power some small certified airplanes use and a huge prop with intense energy potential. These need to be serious designs. Of course there will be a few pound difference on a strong unit vs a flimsy design. However, if designed correctly the weight gain for a satisfactory safety margin is only a few pounds but you gain so much more than you sacrifice. Your cage should be something more than just preventing your brakes from going into the propeller. The cage should be there to protect the propeller against bumps, abrupt throttle application and falls (we all botch takeoff and landings) oherwise what is it really there for ?... If you're going to have one make it strong enough to protect you and your wallet.
Website Airforceparamotors.com Can't always post prices on RUclips because the channel stays open for a long time and prices sometimes change due to materials
Actually, I never thought of that. Thank you for the question. Looks like I have an accessory to fabricate in the future. Right now the 2 side pouches and under seat pocket carry quite a bit. Great idea and thank you.
Sorry I took your question in the wrong direction earlier. Before long I do plan on making a proprietary lightweight receiver hitch mount that will also incorporate a 5gal fuel can bracket and pole mount for windsock.
Directional airflow guide vanes are used on just about every type of impeller inlets from turbines to your air conditioner fans. Airflow guide vanes is a standard aerodynamic principle that has been around for decades. Scout did not come up with this concept rather than test and adopt to their paramotor. I started without them and came up with my own solution based on my experience in aviation with turbine engines. My concept was based on lift generation not a mechanical spinning force of air hitting the cage paddles like most. I also wanted to simply smooth some of the airflow over the tubing into the heart of the propeller and see if there was an efficiency improvement. I'll be sure to let Boeing know they are a cheap copy of the Scout using guided inlets for aerodynamic improvement. Should no other plane ever have a V'tail just because the Beechcraft Bonanza used one. I apologize if I offended you by trying to create a strong, safe and affordable paramotor. Another name for cheap. Cost effective solution .
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Skytap w/ vittorazi 185 - 59.2lbs
Flattop w/ vittorazi 185 - 57.4lbs
Flattop w/ minari 200 - 58.4lbs
Parajet mavrick w/ vittorazi 185 ~55.9lbs
Every paramotor was weighed in the exact configuration they are flown in with the exception of fuel. All of them had used fuel tanks which can be upwards of a pound heavier than a new one as the plastic will absorb fuel. Additionally both the skytap and flattop, had fuel in the lines and carb which does add a little weight.
Awesome that's exactly what I expected. Putting the same type of harness on mine will be a pound or two.below flattop but that's a great weight for what people assume it is. Same with Skytap. Deceptively light. I've seen as low as 53 on a parajet but that's a minor savings for the strength penalty, then you consider how they carry/feel for the main deciding factor for comfort.
Thanks for posting.
@@airforceparamotors3104 Your welcome. I did weigh a flattop that was about a year old. The newer ones will be maybe .2 pounds lighter, in a few months the minari powered flattop will see another 1.25+ pound weight reduction, and all new flattops might see a additional 1-2 pound real world weight reduction in the near future. That 58.4 pound flattop 200r could soon be a real world 54.95 pounds.
Is that with reserves or not?
@@rickardjonsson4526 no, reserves are never factored in since most fly without and different weight people will require different size reserves (different types as well) which all weight differently. A flyable weight for a paramotor is everything required to fly minus fuel and wing (frame, fuel system with throttle, engine, harness, carribbeaners and all connection straps). Everything else is an option
@@airforceparamotors3104 yeah exactly, the question was ment for Austin. Exact config for flying is often a side reserve
Tomorrow I'm going to weigh a FlatTop, Skytap Angel, and Parajet Maverick. It will be interesting to see the true weights.
Skytap - 59.2 pounds
Flattop - 58.4 pounds
Both had used but completely empty fuel tanks, throttle, the "stock" carabiners, harness and all. Both units were in their complete flying setup with the singe exception of fuel. The FlatTop did have the heavier and more power minari 200 and the Skytap had the lighter vittorazi 185, so the flattop frame is 2 pounds lighter. Used fuel tanks do weigh more than new ones as the plastic actually absorbs some of the gas. They also had used engines and fuel in the fuel lines. All this will increase the weight of both units by a little over 1 pound more than brand new weight.
Wonder what the diameter of the frame is? Does Minari make an Atom 80 size motor? Thanks for posting
I've been looking at new paramotors I currently have a miniplane version with a fiberglass loop. I did a power forward and got on the throttle to soon while still holding my lines and my hand was pulled back and torqued the flexible frame and hit the prop, I was lucky as the injury was minor. Having a sturdy cage is a great safety feature. I'm really liking your design.
Glad the injury was minor. I originally designed this for myself with safety as priority (I am a fan of all my body parts). An overlooked feature is powered forward launches. Here in AZ we have many nil wind days. Some hate those conditions but I prefer. I just pull about 1/2 throttle before inflating and the wing jumps into place. I tried to incorporate almost every safety concern into this design that I ever read about and TRIED and design a zero potential failure rate under any normal conditions and peoples reality to not have a proper maintenance program and make mistakes.. Accidentally hitting a bit of throttle should not have the possibility of loosing body parts. We have motors on our back almost up to 1/2 the power some small certified airplanes use and a huge prop with intense energy potential. These need to be serious designs.
Of course there will be a few pound difference on a strong unit vs a flimsy design. However, if designed correctly the weight gain for a satisfactory safety margin is only a few pounds but you gain so much more than you sacrifice.
Your cage should be something more than just preventing your brakes from going into the propeller. The cage should be there to protect the propeller against bumps, abrupt throttle application and falls (we all botch takeoff and landings) oherwise what is it really there for ?... If you're going to have one make it strong enough to protect you and your wallet.
I would buy one of these...if l new the prices...
Website Airforceparamotors.com
Can't always post prices on RUclips because the channel stays open for a long time and prices sometimes change due to materials
Do you sell a cargo carrier designed for it?
Actually, I never thought of that. Thank you for the question. Looks like I have an accessory to fabricate in the future. Right now the 2 side pouches and under seat pocket carry quite a bit. Great idea and thank you.
@@airforceparamotors3104 I think he meant a hitch carrier to put the motor on.
@@dogofwisdom7945 Oops, your right. Thanks for catching that. I was recently contemplating cargo pods and had tha on my mind. (Re replying)
Sorry I took your question in the wrong direction earlier. Before long I do plan on making a proprietary lightweight receiver hitch mount that will also incorporate a 5gal fuel can bracket and pole mount for windsock.
Pekna blbosť!Len lacna napodobenina Scout paramotors😝
Directional airflow guide vanes are used on just about every type of impeller inlets from turbines to your air conditioner fans. Airflow guide vanes is a standard aerodynamic principle that has been around for decades. Scout did not come up with this concept rather than test and adopt to their paramotor. I started without them and came up with my own solution based on my experience in aviation with turbine engines. My concept was based on lift generation not a mechanical spinning force of air hitting the cage paddles like most. I also wanted to simply smooth some of the airflow over the tubing into the heart of the propeller and see if there was an efficiency improvement. I'll be sure to let Boeing know they are a cheap copy of the Scout using guided inlets for aerodynamic improvement. Should no other plane ever have a V'tail just because the Beechcraft Bonanza used one. I apologize if I offended you by trying to create a strong, safe and affordable paramotor.
Another name for cheap.
Cost effective solution .