After the excellent Sigma 10, which is as i said a complete C glider with 6.1 aspect ratio, here’s the Omega X-alps 2 in size 23 test flight.
Harness: X-rated 6 (my usual harness)Total weight of 95 on the OXA 2 size 23 (80-97)
Launching is easy for an aspect ratio of 7. Homogenous and steady rise, in 15 km/h with no overshooting if the pilot slightly control it by the brakes.
The days conditions were a bit shaky, and i must say that the X-Alps 2 is a relatively easy to control glider. Could be slightly more demanding to fly than an LM6 size SM loaded at 94 and less demanding than the Skywalk X-Alps 3 size XS at 96 all up.
The Omega X-alps 2 slows a bit before entering the thermals even hands up. It only pitches back slightly on strong thermals.But even when it slows down before entering, it slips through the thermal quite slowly. In the same air the Skywalk X-alps 3 surges forward with faster reactions.
The handling and the way to steer the Omega X-alps 2 could be described as fairly agile. The OXA2 responds to pilots commands quite nicely, and it’s the feature that can give it’s pilot the authority in strong air staying in the core and being more controllable.
In weak lift under 0.5 m/s ,both the Skywalk and the OXA 2 have similar climb. Between the three gliders, the LM6 seems floatier in very weak lifts.
It doesn’t mean that the OXA 2 and X-alps 3 doesn’t climb…like many could misinterpret, and it’s not a question of better pilot also like some will comment later…It’s just that at the same weight loads, and same pilot skills, the LM6 hover slightly more in those very weak lifts, giving a slight floaty edge to reconnect to a slightly steadier thermal.
It’s just the same case with the Delta 3 and Sigma10 in weak lift at the same loadings and pilot skills. The S10 will have that super slight ‘floatable edge’ hovering a bit for a better window to a slightly stronger thermal. But that’s too precise to hang on to…
The OXA2, climb very well in steady +1 m/s and over…thermals, and in fact the OXA 2 and the X-alps 3 will have the edge over the LM6 in quick climbs and surges.
Gliding at trim speed, the OXA 2 has a slight faster trim than the LM6 but with a slight better glide angle especially gliding through a head wind. At bar, they seems similar.
The C handles are a nice option to control the glider in turbulent air, and they are quite efficient in some moderate cases.
The Arcus is Swing 2017/2018 EN-B model with RAST system.
I was excited when I heard about that new technology and wanted to fly a glider with RAST, just to see how it feels. Here it is.
I flew the Arcus RS size S at 92 all up. First day, conditions were really good !With 1500 m gain above take off I could go anywhere, and stay as long as I wanted test flying the Arcus. And that’s what I did. In fact, I flew on the Arcus nice triangles that were previously done on higher rayed wings. Of course the conditions were exceptional, but I must say that I was feeling at first amused underneath the Arcus, because it was nicely and smoothly delivering !If i knew that before, i would have brought the cheese and wine ;-)
Take off in 10 km/h wind is really easy…I mean I could inflate the glider without touching the brakes. The Arcus inflates smoothly and it’s very controllable without any surges whatsoever.
Take off is immediate. After some thermal flying I was impressed by the amount of comfort the Arcus delivers ! I mean it’s really comfortable ! No pitch behavior, no useless movements, just the necessary super polite feedback coming from above. The glider feels very homogenous, and compact.
Now my favorite part (handling) was already fulfilled from the first turn with a large smile on my face! The Arcus brake pressure is moderate, Not too short, not too long, with no pressure points. It has a linear response with agile characteristics that enables the pilot to put the Arcus exactly and precisely into the thermal. This authority should be welcomed in higher rated B gliders… I was super happy in the air placing it inside any core.
Gliding the Arcus feels like on rails through bumps. The glide efficiency is really nice and could be placed easily with the best (mid) B gliders in the category.I think the climb rate is also very efficient for a low to mid B glider.
I don’t know if RAST gave this nice homogenous feel, and also that quick brake response and of course that easiness in flight…But there’s surely something new that was felt over here in overall stability.
I tried to make large asymmetric collapses, but the Arcus RS behaved like an A glider…No change in course, no issue in collapsing…Its like there’s no collapse.Big ears are doable and very stable, efficient with and without bar. They reopen smoothly and evenly by themselves.
I can put the Arcus in ease of use like the Epsilon 8 for example, and possibly easier…
The speed system has around 10 km/h over trim. Wing overs builds really well, and could be quite impressive !
Conclusion: Flying different gliders every day in the B,C, D category, I was happy test flying the Arcus RS. The overall handling, and the ability to steer the glider with very good precision into the core is really nice.
The overall comfort under the Arcus is high. In fact, I think, if this glider is flown in strong days, it will deliver a big comfort rate for the pilot.
PS: Please consider that other sizes and different load could lead to a different feel. Please fly your gliders at +70 % of their weight ranges if possible.
Dustoftheuniverse: What was the most challenging part in finishing the Queen 2?
Aljaz & Urban: For sure we spent a lot of time on it with some prototypes, not a lot because we analyse each proto a lot which helps us and its good, especially at the end when we stuck with the certification on one maneuver which was a stable spiral.And we learned quite a lot of things about this, and the behavior of the mechanics of flight, and we saw that there was a big influence coming from the harness also, but it was a hard summer :-) But now we are happy with the resultant for sure the performance and the potential of the wing, and i think it will bring the C category a bit higher.
DOTU: Did you manage to keep the same biting and feel through the air?
A&U: All our projects are finished when we are happy.It’s not important if its summer or winter, or even the year after, so we don’t focus on time rather than the result we are aiming for. As for the Queen , we are very satisfied with the last proto.
DOTU: When the Queen 2 will be released?
A&U: The SM size passed the tests on the top (99 kg) and the bottom weight, and we are waiting for load test, and we are also preparing production, and we are working now on the other sizes.
DOTU: Is the top speed limited by the certification?
A&U: We were only focusing on the spiral, and the top speed were nice and ok.
DOTU: What would be the optimum weight of the Queen 2?
A&U: 75 % is superb for the MS , and surely it depends on the other sizes and models. But as a basic knowledge its 75%.
DOTU: Does 777 have other new releases for 2018?
A&U: The first glider is the Queen 2, which is coming at first and in 2018 the light version of the Knight which is called K-Light which is also certified and finished, but launching it in 2018, and also some other little projects. And for sure the Queen 2 light which would be released immediately after finishing the normal Queen 2 sizes and actually will be named (Q-Light)
Rook 2 and King stays in production, and we are working on a single skin, and very promising, and this wing flies really nice !
DOTU: Any comments on Q-light construction ? lines, cloth..?
A&U: Lighter construction, and reinforcement inside the glider, risers, soft links.
DOTU: Any last word regarding the Queen 2 ?
A&U : As we said, we think that the Queen 2 will bring one step forward in real air performance regarding the C class, and getting near the D class of today’s 3 liner wings. Also with the speed.
We compared the glide with the King, and we think it’s a step further…especially in climb with a very competitive glide…
PHI Interview (Hannes Papesh)
DOTU: Dear Hannes, Do you consider PHI gliders a performance oriented company?
Hannes Papesh: Since many years, since the beginning i was always ‘performance oriented’ in my young designs, i think performances had always a big importance and i was always trying to build very reduced designs, i mean getting out anything that isn’t necessary.Very clear and straight forward designs to reach the goals.And we are also classical maneuver testers with our team, who are hard classical test pilots. And they were doing great attention to the hard maneuver testing, and may be that’s the reason maybe i never had safety problems with my designs.
Our handling may be slightly bad in the first days but the gliders were very well performing, but we learned, and with the Synphonia we also tried in different line lengths and reducing line lengths. We have now an elegant, agile glider and feels elegant in flight.
DOTU: What are the lines used on the Synphonia?
HP: There are quite conservative. So we have all the top and middle lines are uncovered 8000, and on the bottom there are 2 lines per side, with PPSL lines like the Rookie, Syntaxx…Ion 1 and 2.
DTOU: What about the structure inside the glide?
HP: At first it’s quite light, so the 22 has 4,5 kg and it’s using the 32 grammes cloth from Porcher all over which is quite expensive but this is one aspect of safety, so we didn’t want to reach the safety level of trimming it slow or doing some compromise, in performance and handling. We did a great work on the internal structure and we reduced the usage of the sticks (red nylon fibers)
and we were very lucky with the choice of the factory which is aerodynamics in Srilanka, because they have very nice kind sewing, as they can do very smooth seams, and the finish is really good.
And this is obviously one of the keys for performance gain.
DOTU: Will you make B + gliders soon?
HP: You know that my specialty is the high B gliders. With the Synphonia, i made a high performance A glider, now i’ll surely focus on this special class that i like. I have been unbeaten for 10 years, on the high B gliders, but i had no chance to compete for 5 years as i have been working with Advance, and i couldn’t do what i wanted to do, the Iota was not my wing, but now i have the chance to do what i wanted to built. But this time i’ll take my time to do a very special ’special’ B+ wing !But i cannot promise when it will be available…may be in spring, may be next year, in Autumn.
When we are sure that the Synphonia will be a wave…
DOTU: What about high aspect ratio for a B+ ? Are you for that?
HP: We have to be careful with the B class…Finally we have to tell was a mistake to limit the open class competition with a serial class guide…looking back we have etc say it was a mistake because we didn’t think it was possible to certify competition wing in the D class the whole D class destabilized then the C class destabilized, and it’s now slowly happening that the B class is destabilising because it got too wide…We have really safe and class matching wings and we have gliders that were a C gliders before, and now inside the B, so i think we have to be careful and not pushing too much, it was also an argument how to know it’s a low level or a high level, and sometimes you find a low level glider that is not a low level glider…the difference is huge. So with our B we have to be careful. We already have the first prototypes, and it’s too early to tell. We will make attention to the handling especially and we will take our time developing it.
DOTU: Are u considering 5 sizes?
HP: Yes sure…Our Synphonia has 5 sizes now.
DOTU: What about the optimal weight for PHI gliders?
HP: The PHI gliders can be flown at mid and low sometimes on the range. It depends on the wind, turbulence, but i have illustrated the weight ranges in the website in colors, so the deep green is the optimal weight for overall usage.
Remarks: I asked Hannes about the complex inner construction of the Phantom with it’s 99 cells, as when testing i felt it has that same feedback feel from the inner structure to the pilot like the Sigma 10 i have tested lately and commented that elasticity and coherence in turbulent thermals. Hannes answered that their inner structure is the same ! Advance and Nova are using his software which both gliders have this trumpet fingers designs. They are very light and the importance to use the materials where it is the most efficient. (Lots of technical details… :-) ) Nova named it ‘needle eye’ construction.
Well i think that this software is surely producing fine gliders…And for sure the R&D teams, and pilots behind that software are exploring it very professionally.
My last flight on a Skywalk D glider was on the Poison X-alps size S (70-90). The New Xalps 3 is the wing that have won the 2017 X-alps with Christian Maurer, and third place with Paul Guschlbauer. This new version was especially made for the X-alps with very light cloth and Dyneema risers. It’s the Hike and fly Skywalk latest competition wing. Taking off in light wind is easy on this 7 aspect ratio glider. I have the LM 6 in size MS (80-95) in order to compare the differences in behaviours and feeling under those gliders. With same loadings, (92 all up), the Xalps is +2 km/h faster at trim speed. At full bar it’s also 3 km/h faster. In turbulent and strong conditions, the Xalps 3 needs active piloting much like the Poison X-alps in size XS i had earlier. I found out that the Poison Xalps XS handling was slightly sharper, and i was more connected to the glider by the brakes. This may be because of the smaller size.
In light thermals (-0.2m/s) i found out that the LM6 has slightly more float ability , and can stay longer in those tiny lifts. In stronger thermals, and difficult conditions, the Xalps 3 is much more efficient. Adding a wind factor, the Xalps 3 moves forward efficiently. It has slightly more efficient performance than the Poison Xalps.
Now things were getting more serious when i activated half bar on the Xalps 3. It is fast and efficient wing for racing ! The LM6 is also a very nice glider, but racing near the Xalps 3 is a difficult task for the LM6. The Alps 3 keeps going forward in a fast glide efficiency.
I turbulent air, the overall comfort under the LM6 is quite high compared to the Xalps 3. In the same turbulent air, i needed more energy to control the Xalps 3.
In turbulent air, pushing the bar on the Xalps 3 is lighter than the LM6, but need more active piloting also. The C risers are very efficient, and can control the pitch movements quite fast. In fact at first bar the Xalps stiffens in pitch surging…but some slight roll movements are present depending on the conditions…
Ears with outer A’s have moderate stability. On bar they flap a bit. Ears with outer B’s is doable, stable.
Conclusion: A light competition race eficient wing for sure. Needs active piloting. The Dyneema risers are very small and the attachment points to the carabiners are 0.5 cm in width surely for weight reduction ! The brake handles are also very thin (0.4 cm) and better use with glove for comfortable hours in the air. This riser configuration is extreme, for the ultimate hike and fly competition pilot. Racing in windy and strong conditions is the Xalps 3 strong point. X-alps athletes has already flown that glider multiple hours and i hope they can comment much better on it's overall behavior. This is just a small idea for pilots who don't have the chance to test fly one.
