Straight bars for aerodynamic torque compensation

Hey everyone and developers,

ist there any option for straight gooseneck (or acro) bars?
I really don’t get why you would still go without aerodynamic torque compensation but with the old offset.

Especially on an electric paramotor i will fly a lot without motor and would have to compensate all this time…

I deleted it. I didn’t know that you are the great master! or scout advertising? haha

Sorry but this is some bullshit.
When you have ANY form of torque compensation other then aerodynamic (motor speed based) you can only set exactly one point where you have no tendency to go right or left.
You can
a) shift your risers (bars) to one side. This is like you would sit in the corner of a seat.
b) alter your risers height. By sitting level you pull on one side more.

This leads to a counter force (it’s rather a momentum) for the one produced by your Propeller.

Free flight requires no compensation at all, full throttle produces quite a lot of torque.
Most paramotors are setup to have a nice level flight, so in reality the wing will pull to one side when idling and to the other when giving full throttle.

I fly acro myself, that’s why i want to have a neutral setting. Scout does it well and i’m just concerned that one of the most forwarding pieces of ppg equipment has no aero-compensation.

Of course you can do acro with a “normal” paramotor harness, but one side will always have more energy.

My question was and still is:
a) Was aerodynamic torque comensation ever considered or will it be considered in the future.
b) Can i get straight bars so i can do my own aero-compensation.

1 Like

Fins look like they add a lot of drag for marginal benefit

A bunch of my students use them. I guess there must a general agreement on their efficiency, even if minimal - (Vittorazi Moster Plus 185) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsdMIT5lfI0

Torque completely unnoticed - direct drive - no frame - motor attached directly to the PG harness https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7vNIKE9XDQ&t=95s

Scout has their aerodynamic torque compensation very well patented. I am working with a paramotor company to test something like what scout has, but unless we can find a way around their patent, it may never see production.

https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2864197B1/en?q=Paramotor+torque&oq=Paramotor+torque

(1) Have you tried licensing it?
(2) That patent excludes ducted propellers, presumably because of https://patents.google.com/patent/US5620153A/en?q=Paramotor+torque&oq=Paramotor+torque which has now expired.

I would very much like straight bars as well for the same reasons you described, even if there was no aerodynamic compensation. I’ve got a buddy from Canada that just machined his own straight gooseneck arms for an air conception frame. Go ahead and send me a message if you’d like more details or if you’d like me to put you in contact with him. We might have to have him run a small batch for both of us. His design also mitigates the bending force on the bolt which is known to bend on AC frames with any significant G-force, although 100% of the shear force is still there.

The frame I fly has flat cage spars, and I’ve had fun designing my own 3D printed aerodynamic torque compensation to mount to those. I used to fly an Atom 80 and had the torque completely eliminated with 0 degree AoA on a Piper Cub airfoil. I switched to the Moster and had to scale my design up quite a bit and put a bit of AoA on them. There is still a bit of torque left on the Moster, but it is not much.

I love frames that allow for hacking.

I should mention that longer term I would like to use my same frame with the SP140 electric system. I was one that was interested in buying the SP140 minus the cage. The problem for my cage is that the standard SP140 prop will not fit.

Have not tried licensing it, but considering the company I am working with, I doubt that scout would want anything to do with licensing it out to us.

That is true, the patent does specifically exclude ducted propellers. The big problem is that propeller ducting would significantly increase weight and in the long run reduce safety.

I have a few alternative ideas on ways that we can modify the system to allow us to bypass the patent, but in reality the changes would improve performance, but not by much and would mostly be in place just to get past that darn patent.