Data logged SP140 flight

Does any one know if a voltage,current/time data set exists for a typical flight on an SP140? I’d like to be researching battery system options for the unit and it would be helpful to have some real power/time course data.


For a easy one hour long flight it will use about 46 continuous amps. Full throttle with the 175lb thrust option will pull about 260 amps. Depending on your flight style, wing, weight, and terrain, I would plan on pulling between 50 to 150 continuous amps.

As for the stock 4kw open ppg battery, the rated voltages is 88.8v with 100.8v nominal and a cutoff likely between 66v and 72v. It is a 24s11p configuration and I am almost certain it has 21700 molicel P42A cells.

Only taking cells into account, this should be 38 pounds(66g/ cell x 264), give 385 continuous amps(35+ a/cell x 11parallel), and cost an average Joe ~$1400 USD(~$4.75/ cell x 264 + tax and shipping). If you take into account the rest of the battery, it will likely be limited to 300a, it will most likely weigh over 42 pounds, and cost well north of $1500.

Thanks for the detail Bob. Any thoughts on a typical climb current with a reference to climb rate knowing that it will vary a bit with weights and wing?

I would imagine that around 225 amps at 88.8 volts(equivalent to 24hp assuming 90% motor efficiency) should provide a fairly comparable climb to a full throttle vittorazi at sea level, but it’s just speculation.

a little hint. when people talk about 175 lbs trust. if a pilot who weighs 80 kg with an EN-B wing and 28 m2 would give 175 lbs trust, the wing would immediately go into full stall. there are very few pilots in the world who really fly 175 lbs on their backs. if only with fullreflex or competition wing under 18 m2.


That sounds like a potentially dangerous situation. Im that guy with a big safe EN-B wing. I hope it will indeed be easy to set a power/thrust limit on the SP140.

A few things. In flight thrust won’t be 175 pounds, that’s just static. Next 175 pounds static thrust can only be made with a full battery pack, halfway into your flight the thrust will likely be under 165 pounds which is on par with a vittorazi moster which I have personally seen a 15 year old handle with ease, and finally Open PPG offers two props, only the 3 blade gets that much thrust so you could just go with the 2 blade.

My grandfather, an auto mechanic, used to tell me to ease up on the gas. At 17 that wasn’t easy. At 57 it is. :grin::wink:

a tip. like I did years ago, mount a static test bench on a mast for a forklift. on a large free parking area with a length of one hundred meters. or on the runway at the airport. if the wind comes laminar constantly with 33 -35 km / h and compare the values if there is no wind. you will be amazed :slight_smile:

Still looking for more current-power over time of flight on SP140 or other similar units. Ideally it would be a datalogged flight showing current used along the flight. Thanks!

Hi… I’ve been monitoring my power use for several years on my homebuilt single prop unit. The wing makes a HUGE difference. I was flying an older EN B wing from Skywalk and was using 1.3Ah/minute, on a 14S 40 Ah battery.

With a new Mentor 6, small (26m flat), I can use as little as 0.9 Ah/minute.

And remember, your useable capacity in a Li ion battery is 80% of the rated capacity… if you want your battery to last that is…

I am using a Rotex 15 kW motor that I limit RPM to 2400 through the MGM controller, which gives me 11.5 kW for takeoff. I’m an 80 kg pilot and the power is more than sufficient. The ability to limit RPM or input current is highly useful I’ve found, as well as good telemetry. I’ve used the Cockpit V2 to wireless monitor voltage, power, rpm and temps.

with the Mentor 6, I climb nicely at 5 kW power input and cruise at 2-3 kW. My 4 year old 40 ah battery still gives me 35 minutes flight time on this wing.

A mate who flies the newest E-glider does even better: achieving something like 0.6 ah/minute. He is flying a 36 Ah battery at 15S (2 kWh) and can easily accomplish an hours flight time with the Mentor 6 in the right conditions.

The result is that flight times can increase greatly if you are into the art of paragliding, and not just mowing the sky…


I understand that at the very beginning of the throttling process, the angle of attack will increase due to the pendulum effect, but certainly, the wing will start to follow the new ram air and the angle will decrease. Remember that the pendulum is fighting with the pilot weight at this time. Based on my experience, flying an old mini2 engine (28Hp) with a 150 helyx prop and using a GTR with the trims closed, I think that the stall window is ample enough to handle that power. But yes, you need to be easy on the throttle and brakes. Actually, for me, the problem comes when reducing power, it is very likely to eat your wing if you release the power abruptly.

my values are based on a foot launch pilot with 80 kg and 28 m2 EN-B wing and a continuous thrust of 175 lbs.

This is great detail here. Thank you for putting this down. The influence of the wing is something that I have been trying to figure out how to characterize relative to power consumption on climb and cruise. I am assuming rates of climb will be variable and prone to personal preference and weight sensitivities but cruise should be more singular based on the variables of wing and weight (and the system which has all of those variables). Anyhow thank you for bringing the data points to the discussion.

The majority of the weekend PPG pilot does not need that much thrust. In the early days we used low thrust motors and large wings and we flew just the same if we are talking leisurely cruises.
In this video, I was using a 27m2 wing equivalent of today’s upper EN-B, my weight was 155lbs and my Boxer engines was delivering 70lbs of thrust (not 170lbs). I had a friend who weighed 185lbs and was using the same machine. It worked every time. Having monster power plants and small gliders is a relatively new thing which is not necessarily beneficial

1 Like

Hey Phil
Loved the video of the DK Beat!
Also noticed the guy starting his motor with a wrap up pull cord and a mouth throttle!
And The PARAMOTOR FX… All caps for emphasis!!!
Do you remember the weight on them?
80-90 lbs?
I remember walking into a farm implement dealer back in the 90’s, they sold lawn mowers, chainsaws etc.
And in the showroom was a complete DK Daichi Koshu flying display.
The Beat
The Whisper
Whisper GT
Whisper GTO
“The Sky Trike”
There were several of these dealerships set up on the eastern seaboard.
If any of you want to know more I encourage you to do some research, DK was way ahead of its time!

I brought DK to the US. and was their US. Distributor for a short while. I flew their whole line of products. The “beat” weighed only 45lbs an was the lightest worldwide. I put around 400 hours on mine. Too bad the company closed the PPG branch. Those machines were the best at the time.
Parajet actually bought the leftover part and build their own machines. If you look at the early Parajet models, they were 99% like the DK Whisper😄
I also flew the one with the pull cord ad mouth throttle quit a bit. It was the Pagojet! You could drop the whole unit in flight because it was held in place by two quick release on the harness’s shoulder straps.
Pago in flight with one of my students below me following the Long Island north shore. People had never seen a PPG before and were all thinking “What the?..”.
Better photo - sorry for the french text

Here’s is one of my early students with a Pagojet - we were goofing around all the time with this thing

I missed the DK “beat” even though it was a gas machine. It was reliable as a Swiss clock. Here’s another video about it and the GT


1 Like

You only average 3.8 kilowatts and your friend with the “newest E-Glider” averages 2.16 kilowatts…

You and your friend are ahead of every available Eppg’s, you guys are even better than Thomas Brandstetter> Single MAD motor

If you are not in a paragliding pod harness and over 80 kg Pilot weight, then Eppg’s are between 4.2 and 4.8 kilowatts (That could be the numbers for the OpenPPG SP140 even I was reading theoretical numbers like 3.5 kw average and the OpenPPG x4 uses 6.2 kilowatts.

maybe it fits the topic: motor and esc manufacturers are always interested in people outside of their company who can provide practical values. assemble everything yourself and have a high level of security understanding. this solution in development is a very cost-effective form for the manufacturer with extremely high benefits. an own employee would cost 10 times or more. he would also have to “work” with the eppg on the weekend if the weather is right, I mean by that. an external pilot flies automatically because it is his hobby no matter what time or day of the week. how he can reconcile it with his own main job. so that it makes sense, data must be logged that make statements. Likewise, static thrust tests, propeller efficiency diagrams and thermal tests of the entire system with simulated overloading. some engine manufacturers would also accept simple forms of the data such as. to show the telemetry in flight with a helmet cam and also the vario. it is easier to use a cam and then to display the values ​​in the video with dashware. children who can operate a pc can do that today. why almost no one wants to show real values ​​in the eppg area is always a mystery. motor and esc manufacturers are a bit sad that there are tinkerers interested in every scenne hobby, but not in eppg. In e-foil, e-bike, e motorbike it has been standard for years that if you say something, it also shows it in videos including data values. or show it at events. magazine or blog people are interested in good news in a sport. Unfortunately, in the last few years there have been companies at eppg who advertise “we have a 15 kw system with a 1 hour flight time” or “we have the lightest and best eppg”. since then pg and ppg pilots don’t believe anything anymore because they know that they are mostly lied to by such companies.

1 Like