SCOUT propeller load test

| by | News | 0 comments

The locking mechanism on the SCOUT prop has been tested. This part is loaded with high forces due to high revolutions of the propeller.

It sustained the loading of 5000kg (yes, 5 tons or 11,000 lbs)! This is well above the forces that happen on a paramotor. We are confident that the prop is very safe to use on paramotors.

1380086_715092998502141_293037444_nThe picture above shows how the prop was attached to hydraulic machine in the lab. This test is necessary to obtain certification for use with paramotors in Czech Republic, which has one of the most strict rules in Europe. Czech certificates are accepted in Germany as well.

946718_715093581835416_1982419116_n 1512711_715094185168689_1136260938_n 1511295_715093868502054_1952041760_n 1456603_715094365168671_961794021_n

Review of the new EOS100 light-weight paramotor engine.

| by | News | 0 comments

The new engine

The EOS 100 is a brand new engine made by new start-up from Austria. Check their website for more info here: The tech specs sound very promising: as powerful as the Polini 100 while lighter than the top80, with clutch and forced cooling.

I have visited their factory in south Austria soon after they launched this engine on market. I have met Roland, the chief designer of the EOS engine and he was very nice and helpful. He obviously knows his stuff but he kept things straight: “Take the engine and test it.”

So I did.

Tech data and features

EOS100_9.8kgSingle cylinder, two stroke
100 ccm
20.5 HP at 9200 RPM
DLE diaphragm carb with choke
belt redrive 1:3.5

forced cooling
manual start

9.8 kg including the rubber mounts


 So what is the trick?

I am not a fan of getting a lot of power out a small volume engine through high RPM. There is no scientific reason for that, I only intuitively think that that must be at the expense of durability. But this is not the case of the EOS! The power to cubic volume ratio is almost same as of the TOP80 which is known for its reliability. The Polini thor 100 had the same power out of the same cubic volume as well. And the Poloni Thor 130 just grew larger while keeping parameters proportional. The EOS has pretty neat max RPM, too.

The trick is the weight. The EOS is not smaller, it is just lighter..

Quality and finish

The build quality seems legit.

Nice finish, All CNC machined. Well designed – it is obvious they did a very good job in reducing weight by milling off all unnecessary material.


Some parts look like toys. The DLE carb is much smaller than the Walbro used on Moster. The connector for fuel line looks literally funny – i guess it fits a 4 mm fuel hose. I had to adapt it for 6 mm fuel lines that are standard for paramotors. The pulse hose is sooo tiny. The rubber mounts are half the size of Moster’s. The airbox is ehm… different. The motor is just different. They have engineered everything from scratch without making shortcuts or sticking to common patterns (most engine manufacturers actually use the same Italian pistons and cylinder heads). The EOS pistons are from Japan, the cylinder head from Taiwan, different carb, different airbox, clutch…

These guys did everything to keep the weight low. Getting 20.5 HP from 100ccm is nothing special. But keeping it at 9.8 kg is. 

Yes, the engine is very light. Its not just numbers, you can really feel the difference. The SCOUT is light even with the Moster. With the EOS engine even litgher.



Reliability: Obviously, I cannot tell after first flights. Roland claimed having 35 engines operating for more than one year before market launch. Only one hole in a piston until now: a fault fuel bulb caused limited fuel supply and the motor ran lean.


First Impressions

The motor starts easily, even it was cold below freezing point. Easy pull.

Runs smooth. The engine has very low vibrations. Actually this was my concern as the unlucky shape and orientation of the exhaust makes it to come very close to the fuel tank. But the vibrations are minimal and the 2 cm gap is sufficient (could you imagine that on the Moster?). I was afraid of heat possibly damaging the fuel tank but nothing like this happened. The fuel tank remained cold.


Power and throttle response

Numbers are nice, let’s go flying. I took it to fly this morning.

I have tested the motor installed on the SCOUT paramotor with a 124 cm wooden prop that was supplied with the engine. I have flown it with my Ozone Viper 2, size 26. To match the glider’s certification i should probably fly 28, as I am 88 kg naked.

Easy start, easy take-off with about 4 m/s headwind. As measured on my vario:

  • climb-out about +1.8 m/s with trimmers down and not touching the brakes,
  • +1.2 trimmers up,
  • +0.3 trimmers up and full speedbar.

The wooden prop seems to be pretty efficient as there was not much torque. Still, I am looking forward to fly this engine with a 132 cm carbon prop. With props, bigger is better.

The manufacturer claims the motor can be run at full power for infinite time.


They have tested it at full power for 3 hours in a paint-shop heated to 45 degrees Celsius. If so, this would a perfect engine for most pilots, even for the more hungry ones. I did not do this, because the engine is still in the break-in phase and it was deadly cold this morning.

I have tested the EOS with my Slalom 21, too. As expected, the power is not enough. No miracles happen. Take-off was fine, climb rates slightly lower:

  • +1,5 m/s at trimmers down and at the first stitching
  • +0,8 m/s at the second stitching
  • -0,3 m/s at full trimmers all the way up and full speedbar (the Slalom has very long trimmers and is very fast!)

These are no bad numbers at all. But the Slalom is a fun wing and the more power is required in tight turns to get the fun-factor.

 Throttle response: I would need more flights to judge on this. On ground the throttle response was instant. In fact, it literaly kicked hard when I pushed the throttle. I forgot to test this in flight, but why should this be different up there? I have tried some low flying and responsiveness to small throttle changes seemed smooth. I will add my thoughts after more flights later.

Fuel consumption was very good: 2 litres in 40 minutes. Most of the time at full power as I was measuring climb rates. This number needs validation after more flights.


Overall Conclusion

Take it or leave it?

Yes, definitely take it.

With all the fame and glory of latest slalom competitions and glider downsizing, we still have to keep in mind that the vast majority of pilots still fly their gliders within the certified weight range. And the 20.5 HP is fair enough. The average pilot flies mostly XC cruises and this engine is just perfect of cross-country flights:

  • its the lightest engine on the market  and low weight is good when you launch with fuel filled up to the cap
  • low fuel burn keeps you airborne longer
  • low vibrations make it comfy in flight

Yes, we will be happy to offer the SCOUT with this engine installed. We will need some time to design an optimal 132 cm carbon prop to get even more of this great engine.


Should you have questions, please do not hesitate to ask: +421 907 561 083 or



Update after few more flights

(Jan.3rd 2014)

The fuel consumption was 3,3 litres per hour with Ozone Viper 2, size 26. I am 88 kg naked.

Engine start easy even at freezing temperatures.

I have to replace the spark plug, as it is not shielded and interferes with radio, PPG meter and SafeStart. Manufacturer has promised to use “R”-type spark plug in future.

The motor runs at slightly higher temperatures, but everything looks good.



Photos from

04 03 02 09 08



Different paramotor hook-in (hangpoints) systems compared and explained.

| by | Scout Innovations | 0 comments

In general, flight characteristics of a powered paraglider are very much defined by the glider used and only to a lower extent affected by the paramotor. One of the key features of paramotor that have effect of how the pilot can feel the glider behaviour and enjoy the flight is the hook-in system.

Most common hook-in systems on today’s paramotors

Basicly, there are 5 hook-in systems commonly used:

  1. high hook-in with fixed spreaders (miniplane, bulldog, many others)
  2. high hook-in with moving spreaders (Nirvana)
  3. low hook-in with fixed bars (walkerjet, flat top)
  4. low hook-in with moving bars (PAP)
  5. medium-height “goose-neck” bars (SCOUT, miniplane ABM, Parajet Zenith, Air Conception)

This article describes the most common hook-in systems, explaines the advantages and disadvangates of all of them.

Read about the brand new SCOUT hybrid hook-in system at the end of the article!!!



The basic characteristic to look at is the ability to steer the glider by shifting weight.

This is not a question of right or bad. Its a question of pilot’s preference. There is a trade-off between weight-shift ability and comfort.  Its just like with cars:

  • some drivers prefer the comfy SUVs so they do not even notice to drive on a bumpy road
  • others prefer the feel and feedback of a low positioned sports car

You cannot have both. The reason is that the interaction between pilot and the glider through the hook-in system is bidirectional. If the pilot is allowed to give inputs to the glider by shifting weight, the glider allowed to give feedback to the pilot the same way – the pilot will feel every turbulence more. Flying in turbulent air will be more bumpy, more shaky and more agile.  There is no difference in safety. There isn’t more turbulence, A pilot hooked in low will just feel more turbulence and gets stronger feedback about what the glider does.

High hook-in system with fixed spreaders allow least or almost no weight shift.

Moving bars or spreaders allow more weight shift because the pilot can press one leg down to put more weight on that riser and raise the other leg up or even put the raised leg over the other.

Lower hangpoints alow more weight-shift as the pilot can actually lean over the carabiner, thus his body mass is closer to one carabiner.

comparison of hook-in systems

Pilots who mostly fly cross-country and love to enjoy long and calm flights will probably prefer more comfort with high hook-in and fixed spreaders.

Pilots who love more agressive turns and those who like to thermal will definitely prefer the low hook-in systems with moving bars. Being able to steer the glider with weight shift comes handy when taking pictures while holding the DSLR camera with both hands.


Most pilots would like to have the sporty feeling, responsiveness and feedback from the glider. Yet the most popular hook-in system nowadays are the  medium-height gooseneck bars (miniplane ABM, parajet Zenith, SCOUT, Air Conception, Kangook, …). The reason is that low hook-in systems do have some disadvantages, and the choice is not that simple.

There are other aspects of the hook-in systems that less attention is paid to:

  • torque effect on paramotors
  • power-induced pitch behaviour
  • speed-bar induced pitch-behaviour


Torque effect on paramotors

(Please, read explanation of the torque effect here.)

This is simple. With the high hook-in the pilot’s center of mass hangs well below carabiners and it works like a pendulum. The torque effect is there with the same momentum, but it is just not that effective.

The pilots experiences the strongest torque effect on the low hook-in paramotors, because the center of mass (pilot and paramotor) is aproximately at the same level than the carabiners. There is no (or much less) pendulum weight to bring rotation back.


Power-induced pitch behaviour

Some paramotors lean forward when pilot adds full power. This inclination is called pitch. Such behaviour occurs when the thrust line of the propeller is above the carabiners.

pitch_papPower-induced pitch behaviour is most significant on low hook-in paramotors. When pilot adds throttle rapidly, the propeller pushes the pilot over the hook-in point and the pilot feels a tendency to pitch forward. Its not dangerous and does not make the pilot unstable, it is just something that the pilot has to calculate with and compensate with body movement.


Some paramotor manufacturers have eliminated this effect by lowering the thrust line, too. This way the thrust line is as low as the carabiners, or at least close to it. The thrust of the propeller transfers directly to carabiners without inducing pitch. This solution has one big disadvantage: the paramotor cage is pretty low, it is close to the ground and too close to the pilot’s ankles at take-off and landing. As the paramotor weight sits low and the cage may hit pilot’s ankles, it is unconfortable on ground. For this reason only very few manufacturers use this construction.





A compromise that still offers enough weight-shift, yet eliminates the pitch instability are the goosneck bars. These bars put the carabiners exactly into the thrust line, so that adding power does not make you swing. This invenstion came to paramotoring just recently and is increasingly popular. More and more manufacturers adopt the gooseneck bars and they seem to be most popular today.



Speed-bar induced pitch-behaviour

Some paramotors tend to lean or incline bacwards when speed-bar is pressed. Again, the high hook-in paramotors behave neutral and pitch behaviour  is most characteristic for the low hook-in systems, especially those with moving bars.

speed pap

The reason is that the rotation axis of the bars is lower than the main part of the pilot’s back. When the pilot streches the legs forward, he/she pushes against the paramotor back support (see red arrow on the picture).





Such inclination backwards is unwanted as it reduces the eficiency of the propeller and may cause twist. Inclined propeller has more thrust on one side than on the other. The consequences may be serious. The following video shows the twist due to inclined paramotor. The inclination was not cause dby pressing speedbar but due to bad harness setting, the effect is the same:

Pilots with low hook-in bars tend to avoid such backward inclination by pressing the speedbar downwards, rather than forward. They sort of stand on the speedbar.
A very good solution are the gooseneck moving bars. The axis of rotation of the gooseneck bars is exactly in the point where the pilot pushes against the back support when on speedbar. In this case, no inclination backward occurs. Congratulations again to this invention.



If the pilot’s preference is to maximize comfort, the high hook-in is the best option.

If one is looking for more agile steering and to “feel” the glider with maximum feedback, the low hook-in is the right choice. The pilot has to accept its disadvantages: power and speedbar induced pitch instability.

The gooseneck bars bring in some compromises with pretty good results.

There was no paramotor that maximizes weight-shift without the unwanted side effects UNTIL NOW.

The answer is the brand new SCOUT hybrid hook-in system. Invented by SCOUT, original technology.



Read here about SCOUT Hybrid Bars>



See the SCOUT Paramotor at this years Wings Over Winter Fly In November 4-10 (Florida, US)

| by | News | 0 comments


See the SCOUT

Team Fly Halo will be showcasing the SCOUT paramotor at this year’s Wings Over Winter paramotor fly in held in Lake wales, FL.   We will be sending our demonstration pilot Shane Denherder along with the SCOUT 185 to the event!


Test the SCOUT

The SCOUT will be available for demo flightsby qualified pilots.    If you are interested in test flying the SCOUT, please email  with your name, pilot skill level and let us know of your interest so we can setup a time for you to demo the unit.


Wings Over Winter runs from  November 4th through 10th, we’ll see you there.

1000+ km trip on SCOUT

| by | Paramotor Adventures | 0 comments

1000+ km trip on SCOUT

I have strapped a sleeping bag to the SCOUT and packed a bottle of oil. Together with my pal Roman we took off for a full bivouac PPG trip around Slovakia. We landed at petrol stations for refueling or to find some shelter for the night. What an amazing adventure.

More than 1000 kilometers to see castles and fortresses, high mountains or lakes, cities and rural vilages, sunshine or fog and rain.

This trip was made to promote PPG and it was a great success. See photogallery in major newspapers in Slovakia:[/themecolor]


Will you join in 2014?

Read Jeff Goin’s review of the SCOUT

| by | News | 0 comments


“Overall this machine meets more safety goals than any other machine I’ve tested.”


“The fact that it looks cool doesn’t hurt.”


Overall: Very nice. Experienced pilots will really appreciate the balance of comfort, power, weight, size and handling. For beginners who insist on starting with low hookins, this is a good choice given the well-managed torque compensation. It’s great to see this level of innovation.”



Read the full review here:

Demonstration of Dynamic Torque Compensation

| by | Scout Innovations | 0 comments

Before you watch this video

Be sure to read this post Paramotor Torque Effect Explained. Please be sure you clearly understand the difference between Acceleration Torque and Continuous Torque. Both have the same effect (a tendency to turn to one side), but happen in different situations and have different cause.

On the video you will see behavior of the SCOUT paramotor and the Dynamic Torque Compensation in action. The SCOUT flies differently from other paramotors.

Paramotor with static torque compensation (carabiner offset or diagonal strap) flies straight at level flight if correctly designed. There should be no tendency to turn. If, however, the pilots squeezes the throttle to full power, the torque effect becomes stronger than compensation and the paraglider starts immediately roll to one side due to Acceleration Torque. The paraglider continues to roll to the side further even when the propeller reaches maximum RPM, because Continuous Torque comes in action. The paraglider will turn to one side just as long the full power used. The paraglider will only return to straight flight when the throttle comes down to level flight.

The SCOUT behaves differently. There is no way to eliminate or compensate the Acceleration Torque. The SCOUT will therefore roll to one side just like any other paramotor. The Acceleration Torque is present immediately, but not enough airflow is generated yet as the prop is only accelerating. This lasts only for a very short time, maybe a fraction of  a second until the RPM reaches maximum. As the prop turns faster it creates much higher airflow and the power of the dynamic torque compensation will increase until full compensation. At this point the torque effect is fully compensated and the glider swings back.

In this video I was not touching the brakes and I was not flying actively. This is why the paraglider continued to swing a little but continued to fly straight even at full power.

Watch this video now.

paraglider: Axis Pluto 2, 26sqm
paramotor: SCOUT carbon paramotor with Dynamic Torque Compensation (patent pending)
engine: Vittorazi Moster 185
propeller: 132 cm, ground adjustable set to a little less than engine’s max RPM
conditions: hell was freezing, little gusty but well flyable
pilot weight: 87kg
just a very short flight, had to land before sunset.

What is this good for?

Obviously, not having any unintended roll and turns is good for precise paraglider control. SCOUT has equal ability to turn to both sides, even under full power.
This feature is useful for pilots of any skill level. Either for taking sharp turns at low-level flight or for being able to control the paraglider easily just with weight-shift while holding a camera in hands.

Do your own test.

Fly at a steady constant flight and maintain level. Choose a target point just 90 degrees to the side where torque will turn you.

Sit straight, do not touch the brakes. Now add full power and count, how many seconds it takes until the glider turns 90 degrees.


My observation is that most paramotors take 8-12 seconds for a 1/4 turn. Surprisingly  the glider size and type does not make any big difference. I have tested Pluto 2 26, Ozone Viper 2 26 and Dudek Hadron 22. Times were equal, the later two were swinging a little more.

Well with the SCOUT the time is infinite …


Paramotor Torque Effect Explained

| by | Scout Innovations | 0 comments


Paramotor Torque Effect Explained

The torque effect derives from Newton’s third law: for every action, there is equal opposite reaction.



If the engine acts with force on the propeller, the propeller will react with equivalent force. If the prop rotates to the left (5), the torque effect will rotate the paramotor to the right (6). The whole paramotor will yaw to the right, mostly with the pilot as well. One side of the paralgider is more loaded and pulled down (9). The paraglider will have the tendency to turn and is not capable of straight flight without pilot input.


This effect is surprisingly strong and without proper compensation the paraglider would be poorly controllable.


What determines the torque effect?

Common knowledge is that torque effect is determined by the weight of the propeller. Most pilots think that buying a light propeller will reduce torque effect. The truth is, this is only partially true. Well, to be honest, hardly at all. Whilst flying, the weight of the propeller has absolutely no impact on torque effect. According to Newton’s first law, the propeller remains in continuous rotation unless another force acts on it. This force is the drag. But the drag is no way dependent on propeller weight. If the propeller rotated in vacuum, there would be absolutely no energy (action) needed to keep it in rotation. Hence, there would be no reaction = no torque effect.

Luckily, the propeller rotates in air and the force of the engine acting on the propeller will lead to two reactions:

  1. Forward Thrust – part of the engine output is converted into forward thrust and pushes the paramotor
  2. part of the engine output is consumed to overcome propeller drag. The drag acts against the direction of rotation and causes the whole paramotor to rotate.

The more efficient the propeller is, the larger part of engine power is converted into forward thrust and less power is needed to overcome drag. Torque effect is stronger, when the propeller is “aerodynamically heavy”:

  • A thicker profile will generally have higher drag and therefore stronger torque effect. Wooden propellers are thicker to be strong enough, compared to carbon propellers. Wooden propellers generally have stronger torque effect and pilots often think it is because of its weight. The reason is the thickness of the profile.
  • The same propeller will have higher torque effect at higher RPM, because drag increases by the square of speed.
  • A larger propeller will have lower torque effect than a smaller one at the same flight regimes. A large propeller is more efficient and to achieve the same thrust it requires lower pitch or lower RPM. A large propeller will have lower drag and lower torque effect. This is why we have chosen a 51 inch (132 cm) propeller for the SCOUT. 

This effect is present all the time the propeller is turning. In further reading, I refer to this effect as Continuous Torque.


Why is torque effect bad for powered paragliding?

You can live with it, but it makes the flight less comfortable. You feel it during full-power take-off. The paraglider just flies into a turn and the pilot has to steer to fly straight.

You feel the torque effect the most in sharp turns while the pilot uses full power to make the turn sharper. The glider turns to one side perfectly because the torque effect does the weight-shift, but hesitates to turn tightly to the other side.


How do paramotor designers fight the torque?

You cannot eliminate the torque effect. This is physics and you cannot cheat. You can only compensate. Paramotor designers usually use two ways to compensate. Both have the same principle: the torque effect loads more to one side, so designers put more weight, of the pilot and/or paramotor to the other.

Diagonal Strap:

The diagonal strap is mostly used with high hook-in harnesses. The strap leads from the edge of the harness under pilot’s knee diagonally to the paraglider carabiner. A portion of the weight of pilot’s leg is transferred to the other side. The advantage is that the length of the strap is adjustable. So if pilots flies on fast trim and speed bar, he will need more throttle and thus experience higher torque. The pilot will shorten the diagonal strap and more weight is shifted to the other side.

It works well and it is not uncomfortable. It may limit pilot’s ability or comfort to run during take-off and many pilots choose to engage the strap only aftee take-off. The torque is not compensated during take-off in this case.

Carabiner offset:

This method is used mainly for paramotor with weight-shift swivel arms as the diagonal strap would block the arms movement. The center of weight is not exactly in the middle of the glider hang-points  Actually, the whole paramotor and pilot are moved a little to side so that one glider hang-point is loaded more than the other. During flight the whole weight becomes balanced: (1) the torque put more load on one side and (2) the asymmetric center of weight put more load to the other side. As a result, the glider flies straight, if done properly.

The moment the pilots adds full power, the torque becomes much stronger, but the carabiner offset remains the same. The glider will turn.

This is why we consider these methods of compensation to be static, i.g. they work properly only at certain level of  prop RPM.

Still, how does propeller weight affect torque?

Weight of the propeller does have effect on torque but only during propeller acceleration. Same third Newton’s law is applied but the reason is different. To accelerate the propeller, i.e. to rev it up from level flight (aprox. 1400 prop RPM) to maximum (aprox. 2800 RPM) , it is necessary to add a lot of energy for rotational mass acceleration (see Jeff Goins’ article on Paramotor Torque). The heavier the propeller is, the more power is needed for its acceleration, therefore more torque is present. I would call this effect Acceleration Torque.

However, this will pass away very quickly as it takes just a second to reach max RPM. As desired propeller RPM is reached, no more energy is is needed to accelerate and this effect will be replaced by Continuous Torque described in earlier chapter. From this moment on, the torque will not be affected by the prop weight. The symptoms are equal (the glider turns to one side), only the cause is different. The pilot will not distinguish between these two effects on a regular paramotor.

There is no way to eliminate this effect. Using a lighter propeller would reduce it, but this is no solution for avery case. We have experienced bad performance of extremely light propellers on paramotors with geared reductor. Because of lack of momentum, the gears will rattle and vibrations increase.

How did the SCOUT solve the torque issue?

SCOUT does not use any of the earlier described methods for torque compensation. We do not have any diagonal strap and the hangpoints ar perfectly centerred.

Our solution comes down to the very root of the problem: torque is an aerodynamic effect as it is caused by aerodynamic drag of the propeller. We decided to compensate it the same way, i.e. aerodynamically. SCOUT’s cage is made of  carefully designed asymmetric airfoil profiles that create lift when air flows around them. The combined lift of all these profiles generate rotational force (torque) in the opposite direction to the propeller torque effect.

Although the flight speed is defined by the paraglider and is basically constant during flight, the airflow generated by the prop is significant. As the propeller rotates faster and torque effect increases, so does the airflow through the cage and  the compensation force increases.

With increased power the torque increses and so does the compensation. This is why, we call this technology as Dynamic Torque Compensation. Read more here

Dynamic Torque Compensation is a patented technology by SCOUT.


Check this  video of a paramotor crash: according to description by the author, this accident was caused by torque effect.

Well, author’s statement is completely wrong. This is just a completely different effect and we will explain it next time.



1 10 11 12 13