|
The people of Revolution Paramotors
were originally the U.S. importers for the Czech-made Walkerjet. When
they had a falling out with Walkerjet regarding engine choice and other
issues, they set out on their own, endeavoring to improve on the design
while using familiar, proven engines. They kept the same basic geometry
while enhancing safety features. 2007-07-05 Update: I flew a
Walkerjet with their new motor and changes to the motor, namely a very
large head for improved cooling, have probably solved their earlier
problems. Hopefully I'll have a review of the new Walkerjet machine up
soon. To my knowledge, there is currently no U.S. Importer officially
although several pilots have started "importing" them directly,
essentially for their own use.
The most obvious difference is the unique cage shape which is intended to
increase prop clearance in the important areas without making it too tall
for easy transport. Even with the differences, Walkerjet pilots will
feel right at home.
The unit tested had a 3-blade 44" inch carbon fiber prop. It
probably weighed about 75 pounds with the amount of fuel on board.
I was 140 pounds, 5' 9" tall and did the test on a Spice 22 wing.
Conditions were: 1100' elevation, 75°F and light winds.
Harness & Suspension: Low hook-in, fixed bar.
Starting (7): Electric start nearly always makes it brainless, a
trade of weight and complexity for convenience and easy in-air restarting.
Make sure the master
is on and push the button. The motor had just flown so it was warm. As
with all Simoninis, the battery recharges in flight. Pull starting is also
well placed using the frame handle opening. Have both pull and electric is
handy if the battery dies.
The machine has a wide base which resists tipping forward.
Ground Handling & Kiting (4): Standing and walking around were
fairly comfortable. The main harness is used for ground handling straps
since the primary hook-in points are on the frame. Cinch up the harness
straps for walking around, launching and landing but then loosen them in
flight. If they're loose on the ground it will be very uncomfortable and
tend to pull you over backwards. A forward lean of about 20° to
25° kept me upright without exertion.
Ingress is easy and traditional. You sit on the seat which is elevated
by about 10" making it comfortable to strap in. Standing up was easy
by leaning forward onto a knee then standing up.
Kiting took more effort because the hook-in points are held forward of
the pilot which means that lift from the wing tries to tilt you back—typical
for this suspension style. You'll not want to stand around kiting for long
with it on your back.
Launch (5): The reverse launch was standard with no difficulties
noted. I did not try a forward inflation but there is nothing to catch on
so the lines should slide up easily.
Running is very easy as it was well balanced. I
did hit my legs the cage bottom but it was
not a factor in launching. Getting into the seat was easy, I had to
push down on the seat, reaching around the reserve, but tightening the leg
straps would have allowed me to get in the seat without letting go of the
one brake.
Climbout (6): Once established in climb it is quite stable for a
low hook-in model. That's because the pivot point is enough higher than
the CG to prevent much fore-aft movement. There's plenty of thrust
although it twisted noticeably at full power.
Flight (5): Flying the machine very comfortable—this is
where you'll enjoy the leaned back posture. After getting in the seat I
loosened the harness straps to prevent them from touching my shoulders.
There is plenty of room in the seat, even for larger pilots, but it feels
slightly busier with the structure at your sides. You'll notice it when
first trying to take pictures but it's easy enough to work around.
This unit, like all Walkerjets, is less "busy" in flight, a stability
derived from it's higher hook-in points.
Weight Shift (3): This is not the machine for weight shift.
With significant effort I could get about 3" which came from actually
shifting my weight in the seat. Hip motion works a little but sliding to
one side or the other does more. The same higher-CG that gives it
stability reduces weight shift authority.
Torque (3): I did two flights. The first one had me hanging
back too far and the torque was excessive. Moving the hook-in to it's most
rearward setting helped but the torque was still significant, about 25-30°, common for machines that lean back a lot.
Thrust (7): Having a shorter prop means there is a trade-off in
thrust. I'd estimate it to be about 145 pounds of thrust.
Throttle response was good throughout. Endurance (6): The
fuel tank arrangement is handy for increasing endurance since another
tank can be fitted easily. Fuel consumption is probably about
1.1 gph but with 4 gallons of fuel that's well over 3 hours on an average
beginner wing.Vibration (5):
I didn't notice anything excessive beyond a low idle.
Sound (4): The smaller prop means more noise. Sound level was
slightly more than average at cruise and noticeably louder than average in climb.
Safety (8): This is where the machine shines. Mostly in
protecting the pilot from the prop--a proven risk. The cage is one of very few
units that would keep an open human hand away from the prop at full
power from anywhere on the net. Plus, the throttle has a safety
lever in the handle that requires a hand to be in the grip before
activating the throttle. It's not foolproof but it's a great start.
The highly rounded bottom will reduce the likelihood of catching anything
while ground skimming.
One area where pilots must be especially attentive is hooking the
carabiner loop into a mounting point. If it's just wrapped around the bar
but not through a mounting point then it will become instantly
uncontrollable after launch as the pilot/machine tilts way back. A pilot
flying his own machine won't have an issue since there's no reason to change
it once he's satisfied with the hang angle.
There is sufficient structure below the pilot to give some protection
in a vertical type crash and prop clearance from the gas tank is very
good. Construction (6): The unit seems very well built with no
obvious weak points.
The cage is wonderfully designed with prop clearance where it's
needed. That's not referring to the flat top style but rather the lack
of rake. The radial arms don't angle back too much which keeps the
forward hoop and netting farther from the prop. Cage lines are kevlar
for rigidity.
The harness is made with a reserve mount in mind, concealing the
D-rings for a finished appearance.
Reparability (4): Damage resistance is high but it will
probably take an aluminum welder to repair bent pieces or they must be
ordered from the dealer/distributor.
Transport (5): Partial disassembly seems like it would be very convenient. Unstrap
the top two cage pieces and put in the car. Unstrap all for to reduce
it to just the frame. The forward bar assembly can be quickly removed to
reduce fore-aft distance.
Shipping will require a strong normally sized box since the frame
(vertical part) does not break down.
Overall: For pilots wanting low hook-in points with limited
weight shift this is a good choice, especially given some of the tangible
safety features, namely the prop/hand protection. For more information,
visit www.rpmppg.com. |
