When GRADIENT first released
the Aspen 4 ,with minimum line configuration ,my eyes opened wide, and I was
concerned about the stability and how they could manage that. The first Aspen 1
was fast, quite alive but it had a very nice crispy handling.
Now I have in my hands the
Aspen 4 to fly. Here’s what I found:
Launching this glider in nil
wind require a gentle but steady pull for the first 80 % .The Launching is a
non-event.
Immediately after take off
the feeling of security and comfort is present .It is like you are riding
exactly in a big smooth American car.
The Aspen 4 flown at 100 all
up in turbulent conditions showed a very homogenous character. Strangely, I
could see the risers moving, but I was not feeling strongly the roll movements
without being dull at all.
It is indeed a new sensation
for me!
It is like the carabineers
are working like shock absorbents, but actually it is the internal structure of
the wind that does all the hard work.
What streaked me also is that
when conditions were shaky and turbulent inside an inversion and when I was
finding it a bit hard to turn some agile gliders inside spaghetti thermals J, the Aspen 4 was still very maneuverable and could be
placed whenever I wanted regardless of the conditions.
It is one of the strongest
points of the Aspen 4!
After some glides with some
new “C’s”, I can confirm that the Aspen 4 is among the top performers.
To talk about pure
performance is always hard, but the Aspen 4 has a very usable one.
The accelerator is soft and
very easy to pull. Second bar has an impressive glide among the best, with a
high stability and friendly user.
I flew the glider in some
weak and strong thermals, next to some “C’s” to conclude that the glider is not
reluctant to any thermal. In fact it slide comfortably in, and climb without
delay.
Big ears are “BIG” because of
only two lines on the “A’s” Using the second bar with big ears is very
efficient with decent rates over -5m/s, depending on how much lines you pull.
Conclusion:
GRADIENT have now a new
hidden weapon inside those Aspens, with this efficient internal structure.
Pilots moving from high-end
“B’s” to the “C” category will immediately feel at home under the Aspen 4.
My opinion about that glider
is very positive because it has everything without the lacks of anything. As I
stated before, performance alone cannot make a good glider.
On board of the Aspen 4 a
pilot can have a very good glide, a very competitive climb, a superb handling, a
comfortable ride, with big ears as a very efficient descent method.
It has everything to make a
pilot smile after a long XC flight.
Launching:
1- Omega 8 25@94 = Magus XC2 = Poison 3 S @ 94 =Mantra 4 ML /MS (Very easy even
in no wind)
2- GTO M & GTO Small
3- AD-Pure -Venus 2 M& S
4- Peak 2
A- Climb with a head wind (>15 km/h)
1- Mantra 4 ML @ 103 – AD-PURE M/S @ 93
2- Mantra M/S @ 93 - GTO M @ 103, Magus XC 2 25 @ 96
3- PEAK 2 24 @ 60 % of the load range
4- Omega 8 25 =POISON 3 S @ 95 = VENUS 3 M @ 104
5-. Venus 2 M @ 103
B- Climb > 2m/s without head wind
1-Mantra 4 ML @ 100= Magus XC 2 25
@ 96
2- AD-PURE M/S @ 93 = Mantra 4 M/S @ 93
3- GTO M @103
4- PEAK 2 24 & POISON 3 S
5-Venus 2 M =Omega 8 25
6- Venus 3 M
C- Climb in weak thermals (< 0.3m/s)
1-Mantra 4 ML @ 98 (lightly loaded)= Magus XC 2 25 @ 96 ( very efficient)
2- GTO M @ 103 = Peak 2 24 @ 90 lightly loaded = Venus 2 M @104 (loaded) =
3- POISON 3 S (close difference)
4- Mantra 4 ML @ 103 (loaded) ! = Mantra 4 M/S @ 93 (loaded) AD-Pure M/S @ 93
5- Venus 3 M @ 103
6- Omega 8 25 @ 94
Glide at trim:
1- Mantra 4 ML @ 100
2- AD-Pure M/S @ 93= Magus XC 2 25
@ 96
3- Mantra 4 M/S @ 93
4- GTO M
5- Peak 2 (very close to GTO M)
6- Poison 3 S @ 94 =Omega 8 25 @ 94
7- Venus 3 M @ 103
Glide at first bar:
1-Mantra 4 ML @100 = AD-Pure M/S @ 93
2-Mantra 4 M/S @ 93 = Magus XC 2
25 @ 96
3- GTO M @103
4-Peak 2 24 @102
5-Poison 3 S @ 94=Omega 8 25 @ 94 (very close)
6-Venus 3 M @ 103
Handling in still air:
1-Omega 8 25 (A delight!)
2-Poison 3 S = Magus XC 2 25 @ 96
3-Peak 2 24 (crispy and linear)=Venus 3 M
4-Mantra 4 MS @ 93
5-Mantra 4 ML @ 100 (Turns with a little delay)
6-AD-Pure M/S @ 93 (precise)
7- GTO M @ 103 (Turns with a little more delay)
They could be very close with a big difference between the O8 and the GTO M.
Handling and maneuverability in average conditions "with thermals":
1- Omega 8 25 @ 94 =Mantra 4 ML@ 100=Mantra 4 M/S @ 93= Magus XC 2 25 @ 96
2-AD-Pure M/S @ 93
3-Mantra R-10.3 S @ 98
4-EVO-X 24/ Peak 2 24/Poison 3/ Venus 3 M
5-GTO M
Now the most important is the “handling in rough air”, and I mean is that some
gliders when encountering multiple cores and punchy turbulent thermals, will
react to their own, because their inside pressure is more stronger than the
controls and the brake inputs the pilot are inducing. The pilot below will be a
passenger for a while till the glider settles in. The more time it will take,
the worse sensations you will passively feel. And that’s not good.
Some in those same conditions will be more reactive to the brake inputs, the
pilot underneath is inducing and could place them wherever he wants despite the
rough conditions. And that’s good efficient handling.
It is always much better being the pilot underneath a wing rather being a
passenger even though for a short period.
Handling in rough air:
1-Omega 8 25 @ 94 = Magus XC 2 25 @ 96
2-Poison 3 S @ 94= AD-Pure M/S @ 95
3-Peak 2 24 @ 98 =Mantra 4 ML @100 =Venus 3 M= Mantra M/S @ 95
4-GTO M @ 103
5-GTO S @ 94
Comfort: (movements under the glider in turbulent conditions)
1- Poison 3 @ 96 (Unbelievable for an EN-D !! ) = Magus XC 2 25
@ 96
2- AD-Pure M/S @ 93 (very close to Poison 3)
3-Mantra M/S @ 93= mantra 4 ML @ 103
4- Peak 2-24 9/10 (very dampened, very close)
5- GTO M & Omega 8 25 @ 94 8.8/10
6- Venus 2 M 8.5 /10
7- Venus 2 Small 8/10
8-Venus 3 M
9- GTO Small 4/10
Easiness in flight: (In average conditions, where the pilot would be able to
understand better the glider movements)
1-Poison 3= Mantra 4 ML= Mantra 4 M/S @ 95 = Magus XC 2 25
@ 96
2- Peak 2 24=AD-Pure M/S @ 95
3-GTO M
4-Omega 8 25
5-EVO-X 24
6-Venus 3 M
7-Mantra R-10.3
Stable ears in turbulent conditions !
1-Omega 8 25 = Skywalk Poison 3 =Mantra 4 ML =Mantra 4 M/S @ 95 (Stable) =
Magus XC 2 25
2- EVO-X 24 (Stable)=Venus 3 M Stable
3-GTO M (a little unstable)
4-Peak 2 24 (Not stable)
5-AD-Pure @ 95 (Not stable)
6- Mantra R-10.3 (Not stable)
Landing and maneuver approaches to top land.
1-Poison 3=Mantra 4 ML= AD-Pure M/S @ 93 = Magus XC 2 25 @ 96
2-Omega 8 25 = Venus 2 M & S=Mantra 4 M/S 2 93
3-Peak 2= Venus 3 M
4- GTO M
5- GTO S
As with all Mac Para gliders this Marvel also made by Gin
factory has an excellent finish.
The Marvel has an aspect ratio of 6.5 for the EN-C
certification, and laying it on the ground shows clearly its sporty look.
Launching the Marvel with 10 km/h wind require a light but
steady pull on the risers to get the glider above your head. So I think it
could be a plus in strong wind.
In the air:
Getting next to similar EN-C gliders gave me immediately the
feeling of an excellent climb rate, especially in weak conditions. That’s the
strong point of the Marvel.
The turns are flat with a nice handling .It isn’t the most
agile EN-C, but I think that was pretty enough to enjoy my flight.
In turbulent and nasty conditions the Marvel require active
piloting to keep it over my head. The 6.5 Aspect ratio is present. Nothing out
of the ordinary for an EN-C, but I will rate it as a high end EN-C in terms of
control.
Performance:
Gliding next to some recent C’s and some 2011 top D’s, I can
confirm that the Marvel is up there with the leaders in the recent C category,
for efficient gliding, whether it is in headwind glides or in calm air.
The designer Mr Peter Recek has a small tip to get those
Marvel pilots a better squeeze for their glide. Here it is:
We have managed nice glide increase by bending
the C straps of 2-3 cm (on Marvel and Magus XC2) when flying accelerated
25-50%. With this shortening the speed is a bit decreased but the glide
increases significantly.
I have tried that.
In calm or moderate air
the glide feels like it has improved.
In “turbulent, shaky
headwind glides”, it needs more practice to keep it leveled with the C risers,
and as Peter said it was a bit slower.
Big ears are small, not
really too efficient, and the glider felt a bit loosing “slightly” its
homogeneity with a decrease in speed. They do not open by themselves and need a
gentle long pull from each side at the time.
Conclusion:
The Marvel with its 6.5
aspect ratio feels and looks sporty like you are on an EN-D glider but with a
passive safety of the EN-C certification.
Climbs are superb, and
could be easily the best in the C category!
Its glide and surfing
character will take you whenever you want, with no excuse or any blame for the
glider.
It is the high end “C”
glider you can train on to hit safely the D class.
The MAGUS XC 2 was already available in may 2011 to order,
but I wasn’t able to get any Mac Para glider.
Now I have one to test fly.
The construction of the XC2 is superb. This glider is manufactured
in GIN factory. In fact, putting the Boom GTO and the Magus XC 2 close on the
ground, shows an identical sail finish.
There’s some Mylar on the leading edge and some plastic
reinforcements.
Launching this glider with 6.8 AR is relatively easy for
that category, and I didn’t find any thing unusual about it, but finding myself
quickly airborne even in light wind take off.
I flew the XC 2 25 (82-100) at 97 all up, in some weak and
other turbulent conditions, and here’s what I found:
The XC 2 move as a bloc above my head and it can be a bit
disconcerting at first, because of the easiness of flight!
I thought a 6.8 AR will have to be a bit more twitchy! But
it is not.
The feeling of comfort under the XC 2 reminds me of the Omega 8, which
is smooth and predictable.
It does have some roll movements without being overmanageable or annoying.Just as it should to make the most out of the conditions.
The handling is nice but not too agile like some EN-C
gliders .I think it has a very nice and coordinated handling for a 6.8 EN-D
glider.
The glider feel taught in the middle more than the
extremities, so that the pressure for inducing big ears is very light and the
ears stays in place and needs a dab on each side to get them open.
Performance:
As with every glider this is the best part that the pilots
will read with open eyes ;-)
After flying with some recent gliders in the same category,
I found the Magus XC2 to be very competitive and the 10-figure number on L/D is
manageable. The strong point of the XC 2 is its climb rate.
I can put this glider in the box of the special ones. Let me
explain:
There are some gliders who doesn’t have the best glide ratio
or the best climb rate on paper, but these gliders are always compensating for
those numbers standing by their pilots …
I mean if I am going XC with some 12 L/D glider and
encounter a low point with turbulent and difficult small thermal without the
possibility to get the most out of it, I might land.
But the XC2 is among those gliders that really do compensate
for pilot errors or thermal disorder, and stays level waiting to get up high
again.
Eventually all gliders will land but my feeling is that with
the XC2, the chances are just a bit better, especially in disorganized thermal
activity.
Gliding at 50 % of the bar travel is easy with a relatively
soft speed system, and at 100% the glide remain impressive with a pressurized
taught feel !
Among the recent EN-D’s I have tested (8) ,the Magus XC 2 is
indeed a special glider with balanced behavior !
It will be my favorite as the Omega 8 is.
Conclusion:
The Magus XC 2 is an amazing glider for EN-D pilots, or even
talented pilots coming from the EN-C category, will find a glider that can help
them achieve their goals in a smooth way.
40 long days of non-stop rain and snow finally came to an
end giving us a break for 3 sunny days.
The RISE has unsheathed lines on the upper cascades and
regular on the lower part. AD designed the RISE to have top performance in the
EN-B segment, and is intended for XC flying.
Launching:
Pulling on the A’s, the glider comes steady above my head
without a surge and I found the take off to be very easy.
In the air:
Having flown many EN-B’s before, I found that the RISE M
like to be a bit loaded at 75 % of the weight range to feel it better. I was
flying the M size at 102 all up.
I cannot describe The RISE as an agile glider but the turns
in the thermals are easy to induce with a moderate brake pressure.
The pitch back movement of the glider in entering the
thermals is dampened but does exist a bit.
I found the climb rate in weak thermals to be a bit less the
Mentor 2 but average to well.
Climb rate in strong thermals are good.
Gliding into wind with a Mentor 2 at trim and accelerated
showed a “nearly” close performance, with a much comforting ride under the RISE.
The accelerator on the RISE is smooth on my Impress 2 and I
could push it easily all the way with a very good glide angle!
The RISE could be slowed a bit better than the M 2 for a
narrow and tight landing.
Conclusion:
Air Design has created a nice high end EN-B glider which is
intended for experienced pilots who want the safety of an EN-B glider + the top
end performance in that category.
With those new performing EN-B’s long XC’s are now possible
with a good level of security and passive safety.
Construction: The glider is made like all new generation
gliders, with light cloth and plastic red bendable rods on the leading edge
like the ones used on the new NOVA wings.
Flying the M size 90-110 at 100 all up.
Launching the glider in every condition is very natural and
easy ,without any hanging back or shooting forward. As easy as it gets !
Just after take off, the glider showed a spicy but polite
roll behavior.
First thermal and turning this glider is quite nice for the
EN-A category.
Its agile handling surprised me!
It can be steered easily even at the mid weight, and climbs
are average to good. The accelerator is smooth and can be pushed easily, but
its travel is short and limited to pass the EN-A cat.
Big ears are easy and non-event.
Conclusion: I found the HONEY to be targeted for talented beginners
who wants to get nice handling and feedback, with an EN-A safety !
One of my favorite gliders at the time was the Artic 2,which I flew for a
year .I appreciated its efficiency in the air and it’s beautiful
handling. I was waiting for the Artic 3 to see what the designer has
been cooking. And finally it arrived!
The glider has no Mylar like on the Artic 2. Instead light panels with
plastic reinforcements on the edge of the cell like all the new
generation gliders.
Take off is easy, as it rises smoothly above your head.
Immediately after take off, the Artic 3 shows a high trim speed, around 40 km/h, with a certain sense of security.
After some glide tests with some modern EN-C’s I can put the Artic 3 at
the “TOP” of the EN-C gliders I have tested until this day, no question
about it, especially at first bar.
The Artic 3 is a fast glider at second bar with a very competitive glide! And it seems to have also the fastest top speed.
Precise, linear, short, medium to hard brake pressure, reacts on weight
shift and exceptionally beautiful, is what I can describe the handling
of the Artic 3.
It has the tendency to turn flat and efficient. Lowering the brakes for a
quick turn, the Artic 3 responds beautifully and when released, the
glider quickly leveled to stay flat.
Even loaded at max on the 25, the Artic 3 will help you make low saves
without loosing that weak thermal, by its ability to search forward
without excessive pitch and roll, and that quality enable the Artic 3 to
float better.
Big ears are made with the B3 lines, and they look funny, and applying the bar can achieve -3.5 m/s.
Conclusion: NIVIUK made an excellent job by creating a superb, very
performing and balanced glider in the EN-C category .I think I am going
to keep that one…
Unpacking the black and green glider on the take off is a
scene to watch.
Magnificent work is done on the canopy with
strings,ribs,cells,openings …a complicated work looking like an inside of a Swiss
watch !
A true workmanship…
I thought I was going to the moon inside the NASA space
shuttle ;-)
Regular lines are installed on the lower part and unsheathed
on top.
Taking off with no wind would imply a steady pull with no
releasing until it’s overhead, like its older brother the U-sport.
First thermal, and a medium brake pressure much like the
NOVA Factor 2, which I thought i would never find a more agile glider, because
it wouldn’t be usable! But I did.
The U-Cross has even more agility than the Factor 2 !!
Flying the U-Cross “efficiently” in thermals would require a
refined skill in touching the brakes, as it is important to keep the powerful
glider overhead for better coring!
The designer made such a superb work inside the canopy leading
to a very pressurized and powerful
glider. And this will undoubtedly ensure that you won’t get
a blow out easily if the glider stays over your head.
I could describe the U-Cross inside the EN-C Cat, where the
OZONE Delta feels like a happy long haired cool dude with his pants lower than
usual, with bent knees, hang loose mode in a “Rasta man” way ;-) !
The U-Cross feels more like an energetic 20 year old with
big muscles, just popping out the gym, nose up, with a Red Bull drink in his hand,
looking right and left in a fraction of a second and walking with his feet
nearly touching the ground, just like a spring no matter if there’s no one to
watch ;-) !
Going on a series of 360’s on the U-Cross has to be done
surely before eating ;-)
And after some steep turns, it is ok to open your mouth in a
rectangular shape and shout to your “Mamma” :-)
The Guys who love that feeling will surely exchange their
bed pillow with the U-Cross ;-)
Loaded at 95 on the S size, the climb rate in weak
conditions is average.
The performance is inside the EN-C Cat much like the UP XC2
or the GIN tribe M ,or the DELTA M, with a faster trim speed.
Meeting the EN-C certification puts the U-Cross in a short
speed travel that will enable it when fully deployed to increase at ±10 km/h,
with a fairly good glide.
My main harness for the past 2 years was the Impress 2+,
which was very comfortable for my taste. Then came the Impress 3 M .
1.81 m and 73 kg inside the M size.
The construction of the harness and details are
‘impeccable”. It is very rare to find between harnesses such a jewel in terms
of “finessing” ;-) !
The harness impresses you to the level of handling it with
respect. Swiss precision! ;-)
In the air:
In order to feel better the harness, I did make a flight in
the Impress 2 + and the Sigma 8 25 @ 93,and then landed at the take off in the
same conditions and switched to the Impress 3 M @ 90 all up.
Immediately after take I felt more roll movements than the
Imp 2+ has. May be I am a bit skinny inside the M size.
Conditions of the day were like small 3m/s bullet thermals
with 10 m “radius”. “Frequent on our sites”.
It was an exceptional day for trying to put the glider in
its path using the harness.
My flying was long adapted to a seat board, and used to have a support
point inside the Imp 2 when weight shifting, and that, wasn’t available in the
Impress 3 as it doesn’t have one.
I think that time is needed to adapt to that feeling that I
didn’t get used to it yet after 5 hours. It could be my stubborn head to adapt
…
But I felt that “it rolls a bit quicker than I could weight
shift to counter steer”.
Nothing out of the ordinary for that level of race harnesses,
but just a bit more roll than the Impress 2 +.
The strong points of this harness are its superb comfort in
the air by supporting the back and the hips + the light feel of carrying it on
the take off.
The pluses:
A comfortable feeling, with nice back and hips support.
Lighter than Impress 2 by -3 kg.
A superb product with excellence in details and
construction.
The minuses:
Has more roll in the thermals than the Impress 2. (I am
1.81m and 73 kg) May be a bit skinny inside the M that does explain the roll.
Doesn't have a "support point" when you weight
shift (no seat board edge) like the Impress 2, but it needs time to adapt to
its weight shift characteristics.
Flying inside the harness i thought I'd make a small modification for skinny people, to limit the "slack" roll i was feeling.
After receiving some e-mails of pilots that found a similar feeling in
roll movement,here's a photo of the modification that i don't recommend
to make before contacting the pros at ADVANCE to be on the safe side.
But it worked fine for me.
A small strap on each side about ± 16 cm (see pic) would suffice but i
did install the trims to see at what point it will erase the roll
excess.
I found that just a bit of pressure would be enough. No need to pull them hard. Just a slight pressure.
Launching this glider is very easy, in strong or in weak
wind.
In the air the glider has very close handling as the Mentor
2 S, very nice to steer ,and i could place it easily wherever I want inside the
core.
I felt that the factor 2 S has a tiny less trim speed than
the Mentor 2 S. When the conditions were smooth and consistent I found that the
factor 2 S at 95 has a very nice climb, a bit better than the Mentor 2 S at 95.
Flying the glider in relatively turbulent conditions, mixed
with head wind and light to medium thermal activity <2m/s, I was hoping to
get much better biting into wind versus the Mentor 2 S and that would enable
the glider to climb headwind.
In those particular not homogenous thermals and conditions, my
friend with the Mentor 2 M, loaded at 103 was able to climb away several times.
It could be that I am not yet familiarized with the new wing, but it did
happened many times that day.
When the thermals got stronger but “smoother” the Factor 2
will keep its path in the thermal and have a good climb.
On glides in smooth conditions I found a ± 0.3 L/D better
than the Mentor S.
The glides did get better “in smooth conditions” at bar.
The factor 2 S could have a very good glide at bar, but it
stays in the “top” EN-C category only.
Flying with a Mantra 4 M, in head wind glides with some
thermal activity showed a better glide for the M4 which is of course, still the
best in the EN-D category.
Big ears are relatively stable, sometimes one side will
flap.
The Factor 2 S has a very flat polar, and landing in narrow
places require a bit of training.
The pluses:
Handling (superb)
Ease of use
Glide
What I was hoping:
Better climb rate in turbulent conditions
Bigger step in efficiency in difficult conditions over the mentor 2 S, which still is
a revelation…
The glider arrived to my doorsteps and in the truck for the take off.
Having tried nearly all the Sigma’s, I was waiting for the 8th
version.
Launching in high wind is relatively easy and I didn’t found and pitch
forward. In nil wind the glider has a small tendency to stay a bit
behind.
I flew the glider in 4 different harnesses. An impress 2,an impress 3, an ADVANCE lightness, and an Sup’air Evo XC2.
First flights on the Impress 2 at 93 showed a very gentle and comforting
glider. It felt like I wasn’t on a hot EN-C glider. The pitching inside
the thermals is nearly absent, and the roll movements are a superb
balance between efficiency and superb comfort.
Describing the handling, it is definitely not playful as the Sigma
4,surely not dull as the Sigma 5, just a bit less than the Sigma 7,but I
definitely could describe it better as the most “mature” handling a
Sigma can have.I don't know if that's good or not for a Sigma.
Switching to the Lightness with 86 all up, (not adjustable chest strap
at 50cm) with punchy turbulent conditions on the lee side, I was
sometimes uncomfortable, and couldn’t get the glider to react to my
commands promptly as I was re-adjusting myself inside the harness…I
forgot how dramatically a harness can alter a glider behavior. But the
soft Sigma 8 was always above my head with no collapses, waiting for me
passively to re-adjust my seating.
Now flying it with the EVO XC2 at 90 all up, the Sigma 8 has the feeling of being a bit more stable than the impress2.
-Impress3... (to be continued)
Flying next to my friend Rony with his Delta L at 103 all up , showed a
same glide or -0.1 (smaller size) for the Sigma 8, and with a little
less trim speed of 0.5 km/h for the Sigma .
Flying in “homogenous steady >2 m/s thermals, the Sigma showed a nice
climb rate similar to the Delta. But on the weaker ones <0.5 m/s the
pitching back of the Sigma 8 forbid it to dig in those small thermals
especially when there’s a light headwind. It feels that it is moving a
bit upward but the vario wouldn’t bip.
Otherwise in calm air and weak thermals it is still efficient even loaded.
Big ears are stable. Using the accelerator feels a bit harder than the Sigma 7 but has a relatively good glide.
Conclusion: The strong point of the Sigma 8 is its friendly behavior.
Easier and much mellower than the 7, it could be easily a first EN-C
glider for moving into the category.
The pluses:
Easy to handle
Comfortable
Doable big ears
Friendly user
I would have liked (Personal):
Much more biting in the weak thermals
Prompt ,more direct and funnier handling.
UPDATE: After more hours : It seems that after extensive flying on the Sigma 8 in different conditions,i am beginning to like it even more. In turbulent conditions , smooth conditions, head wind glides , low saves, ....Big success in the category . I can confirm that it's a very strong contender having a superb balance in its "flying characteristics" as a superb package in the EN-C category.
Each time i fly this glider ,i understand more the R&D behind it.
After test flying the EVO Sprint ,the TRIBE came and I flew
it in different conditions ,to get an idea about what’s behind that concept.
It is a simple 4 liner, just like the Sprint Evo.
Launching the glider doesn’t require any special technique.
After some time spent on the DELTA, UP XC2, Sprint Evo and
the Mentor 2, I was quite relaxed flying the TRIBE. It resembles the XC2 and
the DELTA in comfort, and accessibility, but the Tribe is a bit more
maneuverable only inside tight cores. It feels like you can stop the glider
inside the thermal and turn on a dime.
Where the DELTA has a longer brake response, the XC2 and the
TRIBE is a bit shorter to feel.
It is not a super agile glider, but ok, a bit less than the
Mentor 2.You can turn the glider very flat, and can bank it easily when
lowering the brakes.
The brake travel is a bit longer than the Mentor 2, which is
more direct to input, but when the TRIBE settle in a turn the radius is even
shorter then the Mentor 2.
Flying the Mentor 2 and the Tribe in the same conditions
reveals a much more relaxed ride under the TRIBE, which is an EN-C.
When entering the thermals the TRIBE pitches back a bit,
before entering, much like the DELTA.
Big ears are stable with a bit span moving but usable easily
at full bar.
The glide is similar to the UP XC2, and the glider is slower
at trim than a Mentor 2 at the same loadings.
Using the accelerator is smooth and at first bar the glider
gain some 4 km and have a good glide. At second bar the glide deteriorate a bit
comparing to Mentor 2.
The TRIBE has an efficient climb rate, and it is nice to be
able to core those small thermals in slow motion.
Accurate landings are a delight as you can slow the glider
for small landing areas.
Conclusion: GIN made an easy glider in the EN-C category.
With its brilliant climb rate and superb handling, those looking for those
characteristics will cherish it.
EN-B pilots looking to upgrade will find in the TRIBE a soft
comfortable ride especially if they were on a hot EN-B .
https://picasaweb.google.com/Ziad.bassil/GINTRIBE
Launching:
1- Omega 8 25@94 = Poison 3 S @ 94 =Mantra 4 ML /MS (Very easy even in no wind)
2- GTO M & GTO Small
3- AD-Pure -Venus 2 M& S
4- Peak 2
A- Climb with a head wind (>15 km/h)
1- Mantra 4 ML @ 103 – AD-PURE M/S @ 93
2- Mantra M/S @ 93 - GTO M @ 103,
3- PEAK 2 24 @ 60 % of the load range
4- Omega 8 25 =POISON 3 S @ 95 = VENUS 3 M @ 104
5-. Venus 2 M @ 103
B- Climb > 2m/s without head wind
1-Mantra 4 ML @ 100
2- AD-PURE M/S @ 93 = Mantra 4 M/S @ 93
3- GTO M @103
4- PEAK 2 24 & POISON 3 S
5-Venus 2 M =Omega 8 25
6- Venus 3 M
C- Climb in weak thermals (< 0.3m/s)
1-Mantra 4 ML @ 98 (lightly loaded)
2- GTO M @ 103 = Peak 2 24 @ 90 lightly loaded = Venus 2 M @104 (loaded) =
3- POISON 3 S (close difference)
4- Mantra 4 ML @ 103 (loaded) ! = Mantra 4 M/S @ 93 (loaded) AD-Pure M/S @ 93
5- Venus 3 M @ 103
6- Omega 8 25 @ 94
Glide at trim:
1- Mantra 4 ML @ 100
2- AD-Pure M/S @ 93
3- Mantra 4 M/S @ 93
4- GTO M
5- Peak 2 (very close to GTO M)
6- Poison 3 S @ 94 =Omega 8 25 @ 94
7- Venus 3 M @ 103
Glide at first bar:
1-Mantra 4 ML @100 = AD-Pure M/S @ 93
2-Mantra 4 M/S @ 93
3- GTO M @103
4-Peak 2 24 @102
5-Poison 3 S @ 94=Omega 8 25 @ 94 (very close)
6-Venus 3 M @ 103
Handling in still air:
1-Omega 8 25 (A delight!)
2-Poison 3 S (A bit slow but linear)
3-Peak 2 24 (crispy and linear)=Venus 3 M
4-Mantra 4 MS @ 93
5-Mantra 4 ML @ 100 (Turns with a little delay)
6-AD-Pure M/S @ 93 (precise)
7- GTO M @ 103 (Turns with a little more delay)
They could be very close with a big difference between the O8 and the GTO M.
Handling and maneuverability in average conditions "with thermals":
1- Omega 8 25 @ 94 =Mantra 4 ML@ 100=Mantra 4 M/S @ 93
2-AD-Pure M/S @ 93
3-Mantra R-10.3 S @ 98
4-EVO-X 24/ Peak 2 24/Poison 3/ Venus 3 M
5-GTO M
Now the most important is the “handling in rough air”, and I mean is that some gliders when encountering multiple cores and punchy turbulent thermals, will react to their own, because their inside pressure is more stronger than the controls and the brake inputs the pilot are inducing. The pilot below will be a passenger for a while till the glider settles in. The more time it will take, the worse sensations you will passively feel. And that’s not good.
Some in those same conditions will be more reactive to the brake inputs, the pilot underneath is inducing and could place them wherever he wants despite the rough conditions. And that’s good efficient handling.
It is always much better being the pilot underneath a wing rather being a passenger even though for a short period.
Handling in rough air:
1-Omega 8 25 @ 94
2-Poison 3 S @ 94= AD-Pure M/S @ 95
3-Peak 2 24 @ 98 =Mantra 4 ML @100 =Venus 3 M= Mantra M/S @ 95
4-GTO M @ 103
5-GTO S @ 94
Comfort: (movements under the glider in turbulent conditions)
1- Poison 3 @ 96 (Unbelievable for an EN-D !! )
2- AD-Pure M/S @ 93 (very close to Poison 3)
3-Mantra M/S @ 93= mantra 4 ML @ 103
4- Peak 2-24 9/10 (very dampened, very close)
5- GTO M & Omega 8 25 @ 94 8.8/10
6- Venus 2 M 8.5 /10
7- Venus 2 Small 8/10
8-Venus 3 M
9- GTO Small 4/10
Easiness in flight: (In average conditions, where the pilot would be able to understand better the glider movements)
1-Poison 3= Mantra 4 ML= Mantra 4 M/S @ 95
2- Peak 2 24=AD-Pure M/S @ 95
3-GTO M
4-Omega 8 25
5-EVO-X 24
6-Venus 3 M
7-Mantra R-10.3
Stable ears in turbulent conditions !
1-Omega 8 25 = Skywalk Poison 3 =Mantra 4 ML =Mantra 4 M/S @ 95 (Stable)
2- EVO-X 24 (Stable)=Venus 3 M Stable
3-GTO M (a little unstable)
4-Peak 2 24 (Not stable)
5-AD-Pure @ 95 (Not stable)
6- Mantra R-10.3 (Not stable)
Landing and maneuver approaches to top land.
1-Poison 3=Mantra 4 ML= AD-Pure M/S @ 93
2-Omega 8 25 = Venus 2 M & S=Mantra 4 M/S 2 93
3-Peak 2= Venus 3 M
4- GTO M
5- GTO S
Conclusion:
Inserting the AD PURE M/S and the OZONE M4 M/S hasn’t been easy. Every day flying and exchanging those glider in the same conditions, was the only way to feel the difference. Then came the performance flights. My friend Moni flew an ADVANCE lightness with the PURE to be able to fly at 93 all up, and I flew the M4 with the impress 2 harness at 93 all up. This way with the same sizes and the same loadings, conclusions were seen much better.
Those comparison flights were made in turbulent and moving conditions that enabled us to see how the gliders cope with the current conditions.
I have to say that at the same loadings the Pure is a half km faster at trim than the M4 .
In average conditions the M4 felt like more of a floater,comparing to the PURE at the same loadings, but still the differences were negligible because it couldn't separate the gliders apart the whole flights even when the conditions got weakened.
My own feeling when flying side by side and when there’s some head wind and strong punchy thermals, I saw the Pure get that spring upward climbs edge. Like I described it before, it climbs quickly and settles above your head and feels like time has stopped, waiting for the pilot to act.
The M4 needs a bit more time to settle above the pilot head, but still climbs brilliantly and has a comfortable feeling.
That characteristic of the PURE is shown in glides at trim, and especially when we flew both of them at first bar. The M 4 M/S hold the bar better and feels softer, but the Pure when settled have an amazing headwind glide.
They both could be equal in those glides, but my friend on the PURE was always ahead cutting through …For a race to goal, the Pure is a very competitive glider, and we both agree that it’s a very serious competitor.
Some pictures at : https://picasaweb.google.com/Ziad.bassil/OZONEMantraSM4VSAIRDESIGNPureSM
Introduction: AD gliders is a new brand created by designer and world champion Stephan Stieglair with Martin Gostner ,after moving from UP, to create their own dreams and designs.
I have flew almost all Stieglair designs ,from the old series of Kantega’s ,Summit’s,Trango’s,Targa’s…The feeling under those creations are unique, as it is difficult to miss it.
Today the PURE S/M arrived and I am already airborne at 94 all up with an impress 2 +…
Launching: Pulling the A’s the glider rises slowly at first 75 % then a dab on the brake is needed to stop it above my head.
In the air: I was immediately at home under this wing, as the dampened feeling of the UP Trango 3 was there. It seems that the designer succeeded also to insert his famous "shock absorbents" inside this 6.8 aspect ratio wing ! …
Turbulence is sensed but with comfort, giving the pilot enough time to cope with the conditions. Brakes are precise, as I could immediately and under some turbulence put the glider where I want .It is not the most agile EN-D wing, but the brakes and the overall feeling of comfort allowed me to handle it much better, as it doesn’t need too much time to settle above my head in turbulent thermals.
It seems that when pulling a bit on the brakes in turbulent conditions, the glider behave like the time has stopped for a while and stands still for a second, allowing the pilot more time to think how to react under it…
The turns are flat, even with weight shift and brakes. The brake pressure is medium and it reminds me of the Trango 3 .
Inside the thermals the wing really turns toward the core !,and the agility is more pronounced enabling me to turn very tight..I liked that feeling a lot.
Big ears are unstable in turbulence, especially when the accelerator is pulled. I didn’t find them usable for even a good sink rate. Even the 360’s has to be pulled with some G’s to achieve -10 m/s .
Climb rate: At my wing loading the climbs in moderate thermals are still very good .Time is needed to evaluated more versus the competition, which I will but later ,in order to be sure after some more flights with it. But it seemed very good so far among the best.
The trim speed is high and I think around 40 km/h .As for the gliding performance I sensed that it has very good ability in head wind .I will post some videos soon with some recent EN-D wings…
Some pics: https://picasaweb.google.com/Ziad.bassil/AirDesignPURE?authkey=Gv1sRgCJnE-abf6dL-RQ
Have to mention also the excellent construction and workmanship ,with nice small details,like the adjustable soft edges brakes.
Nylon rods are inserted in the leading edge ,without the use of Mylars stiffeners,just on the last 8 cells on the sides.
It all you would expect from a super clean and modern EN-D glider .
I have an MS available now @ 93 all up ,and it seems that it resembles the ML @ 102 .It has the same feeling in the air .It is a bit floaty and efficient in weak thermals as the glider always continue to bite in the thermal (nice feeling) .The handling is the same as the ML. I was hoping for more dynamic response,but it felt exactly as the ML ,may be just a very slight increase in brake pressure and same reactions to maneuvers.
The ears are quite usable ,because you could loose some heights,and if the accelerator (also soft and smooth) is induced ,the rate efficiency is improved,with also stable ears.
360's are easy to start and i found a stable spiral and efficient descent rate without being too much centrifuged.
In "some" + 4m/s turbulent thermals,i found that it needed just a bit to settle ,just before i could steer it wherever i want inside the core.Some gliders would accept even when i lean on the harness to began to change their course .May be also the M4 would be better with a more roll responsive harness,as i have swamped the Impress2 with another old lower attachment points,and found that the handling improved a lot. (have to try)
I did shortened the brake lengths of the ML and the MS by (- 2 to 3 cm) and it was better in a coordinated turn.
The stall point is reachable "far" in the brake lengths, just below the hips, but could be heard in finesse just before it goes into a spin.
Have to be from 90 to 95 all up to benefit and extract its performance and feeling.
Landing is easy as you can slow it down a bit ,just like the O 8 25 ,may be +1 km/h in stall speed,but could be landed in a narrow place after a bit of training.
Overall i liked the MS, (personal taste) preferred a more sharp and direct brake response,but its glide ratio , easiness ,and comfort in flight ,largely filled the EN-D pilot requirements menu :-)
Most easy to fly:
1-Sprint EVO
2-Rush 3
3-Mentor 2
Climb rate in weak conditions .NO head wind (<0.2m/s)
1-Sprint EVO
2-Mentor 2 =Rush 3 if equally loaded
Climb rate in weak conditions with 15 km/h head wind and thermals (<0.2m/s)
1-Mentor 2 S (Efficiency showed)
2-Rush 3 M (have to be loaded)
3-Sprint Evo S ....
Climb rate in strong conditions:( With strong valley breeze)
The Rush 3 (loaded) and the Mentor 2 S have a good climb ,but i sensed an efficient forward thermal bite for the Mentor 2 as it can fit itself inside the core better .The Sprint evo will struggle a bit in strong valley breeze.
Climb in strong thermal (No drift) .. I wish all thermals are like that Wink
All are equal in climb with the tendency of the Sprint Evo to stay inside the stronger part of the thermal,and could have the edge in those particular conditions.
Glide in calm air :
1-All very close
Glide in turbulence and head wind (Equally loaded)
This was done after many flights (now I am more convinced)
1- Mentor 2
2- Rush 3 (Should be 90% loaded to achieve good results)
3- Sprint evo
Overall efficiency in racing upwind:
1- Mentor 2 S
2- Rush 3 M
3- Sprint Evo
Glide at second bar in turbulence and head wind:
The Rush 3 and Mentor 2 are equal if there 's a little head wind ,with a stable profile for the Rush 3 at bar. The Mentor 2 seems more efficient when the head wind is blowing.It can cut through with ease.
Conclusion:
I have spent 3 whole days taking off and landing and swapping gliders, to determine what glider is the most suitable for all conditions. It is the best way to find what glider can get through those same conditions better.
The 3 are excellent gliders, The Evo has a very nice handling, the Rush 3 has a soft feeling underneath it. Pilots looking for performance and handling in a mild way will love those two. The Rush 3 M has to be loaded to cut through head wind. The Evo has a big profile that doesn’t penetrate the strong head wind like the 2 others.
The Mentor 2 S still has the most sharp and precise handling, with “usable” performance in all conditions, no matter if you have a head wind, strong thermals, the Mentor 2 S @ 95 will cut through nicely and powerfully. It does have more roll response than the two others, and feels exactly like a high end EN-B glider, but for a good EN-C or D pilot, it is the cherry on the cake. Efficiency at its best in the EN-B cat.
