Ziad: 1- Why are you aiming to release the Phantom 2? And what level of pilots it’s targeted for? Philipp: There are many happy Phantom pilots, who like the performance and the handling behavior of the glider. That's why we never really considered making the Phantom a "one-time thing".
The development isn't finished, but the target group is identical to the Phantom
We think, that that's what made it so successful: It's easy to fly.
2- Can you describe the intended performance in active air toward the upper classes?
It has to be competitive against current EN-C gliders. (Except top speed, probably)
3- Are you intending to release a D glider in the next 6 months? or earlier?
No.
4- I have flown the Mentor 6 normal cloth and the light version in the same size. I felt more connected via the light cloth. It seems different and more enjoyable…
How can that difference in feel?
I think the lighter cloth can affect the feeling in three ways:
1.) The reduced mass itself: The mass reduction is not more than around 10%, because you have to add the air mass inside the glider. But that should be enough to be noticeable in terms of less (mass-)damping.
2.) The light cloth will not only differ in weight but also in stiffness. That will unavoidably result in a certain change in the flying characteristics.
3.) A third effect is subjective: You can hear certain deformations better on many lightweight materials, than on many heavier cloths. So even if two wings do exactly the same, you will get a very different (acoustic) feedback from the two gliders.
5- And new tandem coming soon? and will it aim more for performance as the new releases?
Yes - we are working on a new tandem wing. It's going to be rather light, with good XC-potential. It won't be a direct successor of the Bion2 therefore.
We haven't started working on the Bion3 yet.
6-Will NOVA invest more in harnesses in the future?
Yes - certainly!
7- I always wondered about NOVA forethought in the release of a 2 liner or entering competitions? Any comments?
We are working with 2-liner prototypes for a while now. From today's perspective, we won't release a CCC 2-liner.
CURE 2 Disclaimer: It seems that I’m also BGD villain… ;-) I couldn’t get a hold of one as our dealer received again, (a note) No Cure 2 for Ziad! Cooldown guys !! :-) It’s the 21st century! And my last 2 BGD’s were purchased from abroad! … Gliders sent only to a “controlled” environment is an underestimation of the good pilots out there in the world, especially with the presence of a large social media network. I really regret BGD approach! I wouldn’t want the dealer to have any problems, so I waited until the demo was finally sold to a friend (Northern Eagles Club) flying in the north part of Lebanon. I visited him, and he was so kind as to lend me his new toy. I really hope that BGD will have more faith in the future!
BGD Cure 2 M (75-95) (The edge) BGD is a new company, created by the world champion, Bruce Goldsmith, that works with beautiful designs, cheerful colors, and with passionate young people working as a team. The Cure 2 M launches easily in nil wind without any hardpoint. If the pull is heavy, the Cure 2 surges forward rapidly but can be swiftly stopped by the brakes. In a strong breeze, the pilot must anticipate and stop the surge. A good C pilot won’t have any problem. The Cure 2 in size M (75-95) feels slightly big to fly it at mid-weight but quite manageable in weak conditions. In strong air, I found it best at 94, 95 all up. The trim speed is fast for the C category. A bit faster by one km than the Q-light S, the Fusion S, and 2 km/h over the Delta 3, Alpina 3. Flying with an X-rated 6 harness, the Cure 2 has a nice feel in the air! Like the Cure 1, the Cure 2 is an agile glider, with slightly longer brake inputs than the Cure 1.
The brake travel is quite moderate and smooth, not short and not too long. After 10 cm of slack, 30-35 cm is needed to steer the glider in any thermal. The Cure 2 reacts smoothly, and accurately, to the pilot's controls. It has a linear response throughout the brake range. It feels similar to the Mantra 7 in terms of brake feel, and time response, with a slightly more agile turn. In thermals, the Cure 2 can be steered tightly into the core. The turning radius is clean and the Cure 2 stays on its path during the climb. It feels like sniffing the thermal and it gave me a nice feel while coring. It doesn’t get out of the turn inside a thermal, and while pulling more or less brake, the Cure 2 reacts well, to position it inside the lift. In weak conditions, the Cure 2 seems to cope well with the best C’s of the moment despite its high trim speed. (You can see my C companion updated for the Cure 2 if you need to see the smaller details). A little adaptation is needed to keep the Cure 2 from diving into a turn in weak conditions. A little brake pull is needed and the Cure 2 will climb effortlessly. I can confirm that the Cure 2 floats well.
The information is sent smoothly by the risers, not the brakes. The Cure 2 has a tamer feel is weak conditions, much like the M7 is that matter. The pilot must pay attention to the glider movements in order to feel those small 0.2 m/s lifts. But the Cure 2 can grab those tiny lifts with a good pilot underneath. In strong thermals, the Cure 2 moves a bit in yaw visually, but that doesn’t affect the pilot at all. I couldn’t feel the movements that were shown upward. It filters nicely the useless movements. When entering the strong lift, there’s a slight pitch back, when hitting the thermal, and slightly before entering, and then all you can hear is a screaming vario! The Cure 2 climbs really well and fast without too much control. In turbulent and strong air, it needs an active good C pilot, just because the moderate brake pressure is less sharp than the Cure 1, the Delta 3, or Alpina 3 for example. Flying the Cure 2 in moderate air doesn’t feel like a block over the pilot's head, I felt it is a smooth and comfortable glider as it works by itself. As the conditions liven up, the Cure 2 needs slightly more control power to keep it leveled or slightly more adaptation for the light and slightly moderate brake travel. I felt the shooting forward is more pronounced than a Delta 3, Alpina 3, Fusion, Lynx, for example…But nothing difficult for a good C pilot. It’s easier to fly than the Trango X-race. The glide part is here… Gliding next to the top C’s of the moment, I was really surprised by the abilities of the Cure 2! I have tried many times, next to the newest and best C’s of the moment, even next to the Mantra 7 ! just to be sure, but to my surprise, the Cure 2 arrived higher than most C’s I have as a reference! We all were very impressed by that glide, at trim, at first bar, and even at top speed. It seems that BGD has a new developer, as I have read on their website, with a new software tool for the R&D. I think the glide part is so obvious that any of you out there will notice it next to any C glider, or maybe this Cure 2 that I flew is magical! :-) The glide next to the Mantra 7 was so close for the 7 km run and was repeated again and again, and sometimes facing a sea breeze…The difference is only around 10-15 meters less for the Cure 2 ! The M7 is more stable when hitting turbulence and stays on the path without loosing in movements. But that’s a very good D! The speed bar has a moderate pressure and while using it, the Cure 2 can be controlled quite efficiently by the C risers in moderate air. The C controls have more pressure than the Fusion or the M7 which has a light feel. The pressure on the Cure 2, C controls is on the moderate side. Using the bar, the Cure 2 cruises efficiently in headwind conditions, and I could feel the speed and glide efficiency! Big ears also surprised me by their efficiency! With a half pull on the speed bar, I could reach easily -4,5 m/s! The ears don’t open by themselves, and sometimes it’s nice to get your hands off the outer A’s and still getting a -3m/s sink. A slight bar on the brakes and they reopen. The top speed is around 16-17km/h over the actually fast trim speed.
Conclusion: Despite BGD's poor judgment toward my tests, facts will remain solid facts IMHO. It’s pretty simple to switch off that ‘free to read page’ as fast as possible. No one will get hurt! :-) I’ll say again: When the 6.75 AR Cure 1 and Lynx were released, they were really pleasurable to fly, and I personally liked them, but there was some lower aspect ratio, C gliders that could have an edge over them in gliding power. BGD latest Punk, is also an adorable glider to fly, fast, climbs really well, but not on the edge of gliding performance in the high B category. Who cares? I don’t. But these are facts! that manufacturer must apprehend with a deep breath to cool down. How could it be possible for every manufacturer to have “all” his creations better than the competition in “everything”? That’s why underestimating the pilot's abilities and comprehension should be a thing of the past in 2020. I believe that choosing a glider only for its glide angle is wrong. I personally choose gliders that have a swift, sharp and better authority on the brakes. The more pleasure I get is the way I personally choose. That’s me. Every person has his own demands and that’s the beauty of it. My friend adores the M7, and speak about it every moment. The other chose the Lynx and hammer his comments in my ear every second! :-) Now with the 6.4 AR Cure 2, the leap over the first version is truly remarkable, as the BGD R&D team, has reached a new level in the C category having the edge in gliding power! Congratulations! The gliding performance of the Cure 2 is second to none! The handling and the way to steer the Cure 2 is good for the C category and gives enough pleasure. I would have wished for shorter and more direct brake control. But that’s me..I’m too picky…Many will love it. The climb is weak is also quite good. I’m sure that the Cure 2 will deliver some epic XC flying with the right skills for that category. I already updated my C comparison for the little details. In creating the Cure 2, BGD has outdone themselves. I really don’t know how they pulled it off, but that’s a solid fact and it’s already available for every pilot to experience it. UPDATE:
I found out later that flying the Cure 2 at top weight will be more efficient in the overall homogeneity and more authority in turbulent air, while still being good in weak. If you fly the Cure 2 at mid-weight the authority of the pilot will be diminished. Better to stay on the very top!
I asked OZONE R&D, Mr. Luc Armant, a few questions concerning some interesting future designs.
Please find below his kind answers.
Ziad: 1- Will the new Delta 4 be certified this spring?
LUC ARMANT: Delta4. We aim to certify it this spring. However, we only release a glider once we are fully happy with it, so we can never be sure of the date. Remember that it's evolving research work, weather conditions, humans, politics. So there is a lot of uncertainty in the equation. The only thing sure is that an Ozone paraglider model is only released once it's superior to the previous model.
Z: 2- Will it have a moderate aspect ratio? Like its predecessor?
LUC A: Delta4, moderate aspect ratio. Yes. I believe it's still possible to have the best performing glider in the C category while maintaining relatively low aspect ratio, which helps for safety and manageability.
Z: 3- Will the use of the collapse line be used in the new C class? And on the D4?
LUC A: Collapse lines. There is an amendment to the current norm that needs to go through a formal vote. If I understood correctly and if it's accepted, it will only be in an application for certification around June 2020.
Z: 4- Can you please comment on the strong points of Zeno 2 you are focusing on? Will it have sharper Handling?
LUC A: Zeno2. of course nice and sharp handling is important. Zeno1 does not have bad handling, but it is very sensitive to trimming, so the pilot needs to trim his Zeno1 regularly to make sure it's at his best. I personally love the Zeno handling when the trimming is set to slightly positive (per group, from 1 to 3 around 4-10-5mm)
Z: 5- Will the Zeno 2 get the same sizes as the Delta Rush series? Example 75-95…etc. Or will it follow the Zeno 1 pattern? 70-90…85-100…etc.
LUC A: For the moment, I'm making research prototypes in the same ML size than the Zeno1, for comparison sake, but we can adjust the size once we're happy with the final result. We'll see.
Z: IMHO, and personal feel, I think seat board harnesses got lost over time, and there’s a big gap in pilot feel that was lost with them.
Seatless harnesses have great back support but lack precision versus the seat harness ones.
6- Will Ozone invest in a 3 kg, or 5 kg state board harness series with a back fairing?
LUC A: light seat board harness with back fairing. That's the Forza2 project. work on progress.
Z: 7- What’s your personal philosophy toward the future of 2 liner gliders? Will the internal structure evolve in such a way, that even lower aspect ratio gliders could have fewer attachment points and still be very solid and homogenous in rough air? Is my thinking far a bit? From your perspective?
LUC A: 2 liner gliders future. I think that there are many things possible in the future. It's been only 10 years of developments by only a few companies until now. But I think interest and developments will grow up for this sort of design.
Z: 8- As the products, being lighter, (harness and glider), Even a 70 kilos pilot will find himself on an XS or S glider…. With 80 or 85 all up weight. Will art be possible for a manufacturer to produce special sizes with special line diameters for this class in order to maintain the gap of performance with the bigger sizes? Or will it be too costly?
LUC A: Yes, it's possible for a manufacturer to produce a special size with a smaller line diameter on smaller sizes. To do so, it's basically costing the manufacturer a complete load test certification (one or two prototypes wasted + certification cost), so it's a question of how much the manufacturer expects to sell off one particular size and how much it may increase the performance.
However, please note that even after adapting line diameter to match at best the lighter weight, most of the gap performance will still be there. Several scale effect phenomena are responsible for that. I see so many small pilots unhappy about that, but unaware of the real reasons that it's always good to remind the physics behind.
a- line strength is related to line section, while line drag is related to line diameter. So when you multiply a line diameter by 2, the strength is multiplied by 4, while the drag is only multiplied by 2. That's an advantage for bigger sizes.
b- stitching size, and stitching surface imperfection size are constant. The smaller the size, the bigger the relative drag.
c- Reynolds number. also, a scale effect that affects flight performance down for smaller sizes, especially for the thick profiles used in paragliders.
d- pilot+harness drag (a very big part of the total drag). Pilot+harness drag does not increase as much as the weight when you increase the pilot's weight. Another scale effect that can be simplified as Pilot+harness being a sphere. When you increase the diameter of a sphere by 2, its volume, mass or weight increase by 8, while it's frontal area and drag only increase by 4.
Flow is the new Australian brand. The XC racer is their EN-D 2 liner glider, and they released a beautiful new CCC, the Spectra.
The Fusion is their new EN-C glider.
My friend, lend me his M size ( 80-103 ) to test fly it. At first glance, I opened the package and saw a minimalistic line distribution, with a sliding B riser, and C control steering. That amount of very few lines means ‘performance’….Let's see…
I ballasted up to 99 all up on the M, with my X-rated 6 harness.
Launching the Fusion with its 6.3 aspect ratio is a piece of cake. Steady pull, and no surge forward, after a small brake input.
Launching is immediate. I had already shortened the brake lines by 5 cm. That way only 7 cm of the gap remained when the brakes are released.
Full bar is achieved without any tension on the brakes.
The Fusion was flown next to an Advance X-Alps 2 M, Mantra7 MS, Delta3 ML, Q-light S, in order to understand how it performs in the same conditions.
The brakes have light pressure on the first 10 cm, then slightly harder when pulled beyond 35 cm. The agility is on the average side but ok. In mild conditions, the Fusion can be turned quite tight inside the thermals. The precision of the brakes are good in mellow conditions and slightly less in turbulent cores.
In stronger and turbulent air, I would have wished for more precise control, and slightly better pilot authority on the brakes, in order to put it exactly where I wanted. But as you know, I’m a bit sensitive toward brake authority when test-flying a new glider.
My friend ‘Amer’ who is a Rush 5 pilot, flew the Fusion and commented that it was one of the best handling gliders regarding sensitivity.
And my other friend ‘Sayed’ who is a Cayenne 5 M pilot, commented that it was mellow to his taste and was missing some little spices.
So different opinions for different tastes...regarding the brake authority.
I found it slightly less agile than the Delta 3 MS, and the Q-Light S, but turns flatter! and has this new ‘search, grab and hold’ feature to never let go of a thermal!
I was also very surprised about the mellow feel under this 6.3 aspect ratio glider! It’s really a very dampened C glider. Probably one of the most pitch stable and overall stable glider in the C category! In average conditions, and high B pilot would find it very easy to fly, as my friends ‘Amer’ and ‘Sayed’ both commented, that its a faster and more performant ‘Rush 5’ with practically the same comfort under it in moderate conditions…
Of course, in stronger air, it needs an active pilot control as the authority on the brakes diminish a little.
But IMHO, any good high B pilot will be welcomed under this C machine.
Now the interesting part is the performance in climb and glide. Flying next to those gliders mentioned above, I can confirm a good climb rate for the Fusion M. To be even more precise, i think in smooth weak conditions it floats nicely. Not the best one in its category but a very good one. The strong point in the Fusion climb rate is when there’s an influence of little wind or valley breeze. Even in weak thermals, the Fusion surfs the air and grab that thermal. The more valley breeze, the more efficient the Fusion is for a C glider. When the climb is well built, the Fusion climbs very nicely. There’s not any pitch movement in moderate conditions, to the point of wondering how the hell it is searching for that lift and climbing!
After trying some good glides with reference gliders in the C and D category, I was very impressed by the glide angle of the Fusion!
Not only the Fusion is trimmed fast but it surfs the air without any pitch behavior to deteriorate that glide. On the contrary, it searches smoothly and calmly with a positive vario the lift in the airmass. To describe it best, it looks like sitting comfortably in a (TGV)!
Flow has created its best glider so far concerning glide efficiency. The Fusion scores the best glide angle in the C category at trim speed and could match some recent D gliders, except the M7, and close to the best C’s at full bar!
I’m waiting for the S size, which could be hopefully more agile. Let's wait and see…
The top speed is around 12-13 km/h over trim, with pulleys overlapping.
The C controls have a slightly moderate to hard pressure, but efficient to keep the glider in control in overall conditions.
ears are stable, slightly efficient and reopen with a little pilot input.
Conclusion:
I don’t know how they did it…But I think Flow has forged the Fusion with aboriginal magic!
An excellent glide angle for that C glider, and a high level of comfort.
Flow Fusion S (70-92)
After flying the M size, I flew the S size from 88 till 92 to find that the optimum weight for the S size was around the top weight. At 90 the Fusion still climbs well, even in weak conditions.
At 92 it surfs well the air and the glide headwind in amazing for the C class! The authority on the rakes for the S size at top weight is better than the M size at 100, as I found it slightly more agile. To place it accurately in terms of feel, the brake travel and the precision of the turn are slightly less than a Sector, Cayenne 5, or Queen 2 for example, but still very satisfying. The Fusion transmits the glider movements by the risers, not by the brakes.
In turbulent and jumpy conditions, you need a long pull to control it overhead, but the overall movements are soft. The leading edge has a strong tendency to avoid frontals. When trying to shot forward the leading edge intentionally, the Fusion leading-edge resist to collapse, and frontals are well delayed. The brake travel is long before the stall, with brakes under the seat, the Fusion also resist well before stalling.
Big ears are stable on the S size and reopen with pilot input.
Conclusion: Flying it at 90-92, I found it well balanced without being flown heavy. It seems that you can float nicely even flying it on top. Like its bigger sister, the S size is not trimmed differently. It is a true balanced S size C glider, with lots of performance, and especially good passive safety for the category, and gives a relaxed feel under it. It is more agile than the M. As I described the high level of comfort under it, I have to point out that the Fusion S is an agile glider, with a medium brake-travel.
The X-Alps light material is super easy to launch. The handling and the way to turn the X-Alps 19 is super agile.
The glide angle seems on top of the B category for sure. The climb without a wind or breeze component resembles the normal version which is very good also. (I’ll update my B comparison for small details)
The C steering has a moderate efficiency and it’s a bit hard to pull but doable.The top speed is also high for the category and fully usable.
In windy days, or facing a strong valley breeze, the Maestro gave me a hard time surfing forward this difficult airmass, the X-Alps 19 pitch back, roll, move in all directions, and I needed to push the bar a bit in order to dig into those difficult thermals.
The best way I found, is to push the bar a bit and use the brakes inside the thermals. It's weird, but it's better!The Maestro at 40 % of the bar is more efficient than at trim in entering the cores and keeping in them! That’s funny…but that’s exactly how I felt.
In other conditions where the thermals are steady, and no wind is present, the X-alps 19 enters and cores nicely.
There’s a big difference in flying quality between size 19 and 21. For my personal taste, the normal 21 is an excellent and efficient tool. I wish I had the X-alps 21 to test…
Conclusion: The Maestro X-alps 19, is a performant light glider for experienced B+ pilots.
Chrigel Maurer won the 2019 X-alps an OXA 3 size 23! So, already the OXA 3 23, showed an exceptional potential in the hands of one of the best paragliding pilot in the world.
Nothing can be really added over here,
In this test, I will only share the differences in feel and behavior in flight for the size 22, regarding the Zeno S and the Leopard.
Launching the OXA 3 22 at 85 all up is super easy and it resembles the 3 liners in that matter.In windy take-offs controlling it by the brakes is a must to keep it from overshooting which is normal for that level of gliders.
I flew the OXA 3 22 with three harnesses. Skyman X-alps 2019, Delight3, and Ozium 2. The roll movements in turbulent air are slightly over the Leopard and the Zeno but the structure is very compact and resembles the Zeno and Leopard. The OXA 3 21 gives more information about the air but in a solid structure.On my first flight, in some really turbulent and strong air, after 10 minutes from take-off, I had a complete loss of pressure while holding a slight pressure on the brakes. As soon as I looked up to see that frontal, it was already reopened.
Perhaps the lines were still new and needed to get in place…I flew it for the next three days that were also turbulent and tricky, and all went very well without a simple flutter on the tips.
Overall it seems well sorted with good overall compact feel.
The OXA 3 21 moves as a block. The pressure on the brakes have a medium pressure and in turbulent punchy conditions, the small dynamic glider needs a constant control to keep it leveled. The movements in the same air for the Leopard are slightly tamer (Landing and swapping gliders, on the same harness). But I can confirm that the OXA 3 is easy to fly for a light 2 liner as it moves in one block. I think because of the authority on the brakes that enables the pilot to put it accurately and precisely in moving air.
The handling and authority on the brakes are way better than the Zeno S and slightly sharper than the Leopard S.
The climb rate next to the Leopard is ok, and perhaps I felt that the Leopard is slightly floatier.The glide however of the OXA 3 22 is the best I could find on a D, especially at full bar!
Conclusion: A light 2 liner. Compact, agile, dynamic, but still easy for a 2 liner with good authority on the brakes, and with a superb glide angle, is how I can describe best the OXA 3 22.
