I just viewed an initial review of the SP 140 by Tucker Gott and he had a negative view of 3D parts both from an esthetic & reliability standpoint. Esthetics aside, I know nothing about 3D printing and would love to hear from others who have experience with printing 3D parts. I have had PPG frames with broken welds and other issues so wondering if the reliability of 3D parts has more to do with the different materials that can be used as well as the manufacturing process rather than the technology itself. He also thought that quick release prop hubs were not reliable (and should not be used)??? Thanks for any feedback.
Just watched the video. I would like to hear more about the quick release prop hub, why he ore others think is not safe. Iāve only heard good things about it and besides every time I land I find it as thight as I put it. Maybe the stattement goes for gas and those vibrations, not so much for electric?
1 Like
Iāve only used the quick release from day one and itās never been loose at all. My guess is that Tucker is used to gas motors that have a lot of vibration and perhaps those can loosen up due to the vibrations, but with electric even as he said thereās almost no vibrations.
3 Likes
Hello Louis,
3D printed parts are fine, light. There are different types of plastic that can be used to make them.
Dig into my channel and look for SP videosš Overall, no problem. They are cheap to replace.
Quick release: works great. No problem.
Been flying the SP Batch-1 since it first came out on the market a bunch of years go. Still works as a charm today.
The frame is fine and does not cost a gazillion dollars if busted or parts needed to be replaced. Passive protection is not the best line of defense,ā¦ the pilot technical level is. Thinking about crashing is not the way to look at flying. Be properly professionally trained is the way to go.
The average weekend warrior is what the SP is targeting. No stunts under fast small wings but rather slow easy going larger gliders is the way to go for the majority of the people.
The average flight duration for all pilots including ICE users is 20 to 40 minutes before they land. Relax, chat with friends and go at it again if they feel like it. I have two 1/2 batteries and most of the time only use one before driving back home with a smile.
No need to blast the motor for long duration. Climb, find your cruising speed at lower RPM and enjoy the scenery.
It is pretty quiet compared to an ICE motor and no idling of course. Practically no vibrations, and the flying using the CHILL mode is enough for most SP pilots - it will deliver about 70 to 80% of full power.
Very few moving parts - zero maintenance, etcā¦
I will be curious to see what he has to say about the flight characteristics
3 Likes
I have only ever flown my SP140 with the quick-release prop. I never had a problem, and I pretty much put it on and take it off every time I go to the field. I have around 100 hours using it, but yeah, it might be more of a thing with gas motors, just more vibrations, obviously. Also, Iāve never seen a video of it flying off or anything, so I would like to see what he is referring to.
@loums As for the 3D printed parts, there can be a big difference between different types of 3D printing. For example, on the SP140 V2, the hoop connectors are SLS nylon, and the bottom leg parts are FDM PETG. So, the SLS parts are functionally very strong and are really no different than a plastic injection-molded part. So, I think for the hand controller that is currently FDM printed, it could be SLS printed, and that would make the quality seem better. Also, a lot of the time, itās better to have heavier parts, so it seems of higher quality and also to not see the layer lines.
The thing is, Tucker might not really value the ability to 3D print his own parts like some others do. So, it might not matter much to him for the cost-saving and the open-source side of things. Obviously, we could do a fully welded/CNC frame, and thatās what we did for the V1 frame, as there werenāt any 3D printed parts with it, other than the hand controller. But we chose to have the leg parts 3D printed, as that is typically the section of the frame people will wreck in a bad landing, whether itās printed or not, and also it allows for an easily swappable netting system, where that would be difficult to do with just welding.
5 Likes
Thank you everyone for the repliesā¦this is one of a number of things I appreciate about Open PPGā¦thereās a community of flyers who will answer questions to the inexperienced and less educated on all things electric and 3D. Appreciate it!
1 Like
Tucker Gott!
A kid that raised with a silver spoon in his mouth and now everything is given to him for review because of his Sub base. His word is not Gospel! Not saying he is not a nice guy, never met him. But he is not the only PPGāer out there ā take everything with a grain of salt. If I was still flying PPG it would most likely be an SP140 or at least have one in the stable.
Cheers
4 Likes
I use 3D printing all of the time for parts on my paramotor (few examples: Moment Spar Fin by jcslinger - Thingiverse, Skyflar Strobe Mount for Moment by jcslinger - Thingiverse, and Skyflar Strobe Controller Mount for Moment by jcslinger - Thingiverse). I understand that many have differing opinions, but I donāt think Tucker is wrong in his opinion of 3D printed parts used in āstructuralā components.
I value the ability to be able to create a replacement part in a pinch, and I value the ability to rapidly prototype ideas. I believe that a mature product should swap out āmostā 3D printed parts with more durable manufactured parts once the rapid prototyping phase has concluded.
3D printed parts are especially vulnerable to impact shock, vibration, and temperature. Although pilot experience and electric powerplants can minimize these factors, youāre only one dropped part or bad landing away from needing to fire up the printer. More durable materials can absorb mistakes better.
Just last week, I was showing off my new ācableā variation torque fin to my wife, and I accidentally dropped my spar that had the fin attached as well as my strobe mount. The strobe mount broke catastrophically and I had to fire up the printer for a couple hours before I had a usable strobe light again. Thankfully, the fin did not break, as that is a 9 hour print!
Not everyone has a 3D printer.
3 Likes