ADVANCE Sigma 8 25

ADVANCE SIGMA 8

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.

https://picasaweb.google.com/110040226962521480605/ADVANCESigma8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljMdNcmQr7E

Another video will be posted shortly.

GIN TRIBE

GIN TRIBE

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

M4-O8-Peak2-Venus3-GtoM&S-AD-Pure-Mantra S/M -Venus2

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


Cheers,
Ziad.

AD Gliders PURE S/M

AD Gliders PURE :

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 .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzmkIPoYfjM

----------

Mantra 4 MS @ 93 all up

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 :-)