The new Genie 3 light harness has arrived finally. I ordered the M and the L size. I’m 1.81 cm, and 75 kg.I tried the M size at first.
The construction and details on this harness are amazing. I like the nice whole grey color! It changes a bit from the common black. The cloth used seems sturdy, and very well made. It does share the same construction finish with the latest Race 4!
There's a pocket lower than the seat board that I could fit a 3 L ballast. The back compartment could fit a +10 Liter stuff and has a tie on the top. I didn’t touch any adjustments! All was fitting fine. There is a left small pocket for the relief tube. Underneath the cockpit lies a sharp cutter for an emergency. The cockpit itself is well fixed and has a high edge for preventing the sun to flare on the instruments.
I didn’t see anything unusual to mention. It seems very well done.
In the air, I could easily fit my self in the pod.
The chest strap is similar to the Race 4 and is very easy to adjust in the air.
Harnesses and tests are very difficult as we all have different height even with close weight, we don’t always share the same physical geometry. Longer or shorter legs, longer upper body…etc… That’s is why trying for yourself a harness is very important. The test can give you 50% or what to expect in body comfort and around 90 % in terms of roll comfort, and weight shift.
The Genie light 3 has a seat board.I personally found that the factory pod adjustments fit me exactly without any change. The back comfort of this harness offers good support and my legs were ‘naturally’ supported laying in the pod without any pressure at all.
I adjusted the chest strap to around 46, 47 cm between carabiners, as I was lately test flying the Delta 4 MS which was earlier flown all the way with my X-rated 6 harness.
Today, I took the Genie light 3 with some ballast to achieve 92 all up, and flew the same Delta 4 MS. To my surprise, the harness geometry of the Genie 3 light offered me an incredible turn inside the lift that I didn’t experience it earlier on the X-rated 6 I’m used to flying! The Delta 4 seems to turn even better and with more flying pleasure!In the past, I flew several models, and I was very pleased with an old flight design sitting harness for its nice authority on the weight shift! Another good sitting harness that I regularly use for fun flying and soaring in an independence freestyle harness that offers also a very good roll.
It that matter, I found that the Genie 3 light offers in fact a stable roll, but with a good balance for weight shift. The only harness that had this feature to my experience, was the GIN race 2! That was some harness! Every glider I test flew back then, with that harness changed from moderate agility to good agility!I think the GIN Genie light 3 shares that amazing ABS geometry.
I spent all my flight enjoying every moment on that beautiful weight shifting harness.
The differences that occurred between the Genie light 2 and 3 are Practically everything…But the most important for me are: Better sitting back comfort, legs are naturally supported, more aerodynamic, nicer weight shift, fewer roll movements for the Genie light 3!
I flew all the peak range from the first edition which had an amazing climb rate, the second was fast for its time, the 3rd no comment…The 4th was easy joyful accessible and a good performance package.
Here is the 5th version with 7 AR and D certification.
The launching of the Peak 5 at 97 all up is really easy for that aspect ratio. It has a moderate rise even in nil wind. And the pilot can easily be controlled overhead.
With my usual X-rated 6 harness, at 97 all up, the Peak 5 has a fast trim! Faster than any D available today with around +1 to +1.5 km/h faster forward speed. Pushing the bar will allow the Peak 5 to reach around the 60 km/h mark with ease.
I have flown that glider in weak, moderate, and turbulent conditions. At trim speed controlling the Peak 5 with B risers in turbulence needs some time to adapt as they seem light and not ‘connective’ as the other 2 liners I have tested.
The B’s are lighter than the Zeolite, OXA3, Zeno, Leopard, Zeolite, Meru.
I’m not an engineer but I can feel that there is some force or pressure moving out to the front of the Peak 5 at trim, and the more I pushed the bar, the more this pressure or force is moving forward, and the less the B lines are in tension.
The B’s control seems to have that light but spring feels, that spread horizontally.
I took my time when I had the chance to fly it, to understand that control. I’m still in the process.
I also felt a bit less pressure toward the tips.
At full bar, the B controls become even more light. The B’s at full bar are a bit floating. I could catch some glider movements, but it seems that the peak 5 energy and pressure keeps the glider well tensioned, and only in big turbulence, I couldn’t manage to feel anything on the B’s. Probably it’s just me, but it does surely have a much different approach than those 2 liners I already tested. But I think that a regularly flying pilot on the Peak 5 will eventually adapt and understand these controls.
The Zeolite for instance moves more in turbulent air. It dances all the time. But the brake authority puts the pilot most of the time in control as if there is some connection between the pilot reactions and the glider. I still didn’t find that connection with the Peak 5 yet…
The brakes were a bit long for my taste. So I shortened them by 5 cm. At full bar, there was still around 10 cm of a free gap. So there was no tension at all on the trailing edge when speed flying.
The turning ability of the Peak 5 in moderate air, is nice. It resembles the Meru in that matter. Direct, agile for a 7 aspect ratio.
In turbulent and strong air, the Peak 5 controls and authority will be slightly diminished, due to that extra power and “dominant feel” on the leading edge. The Peak 5 dynamics within the structure and internal movements are more pronounced than the Zeno, Leopard, Meru, or Oxa3. The Zeno felt more mellow, The Leopard and OXA3 felt more solid and compact, the Meru felt easier to understand. The Peak 5 needs time for adaptation, and will probably be much more user friendly. The Peak 5 I tested is a brand new one that my friend flew it a couple of hours. So maybe the lines could be more in place after +30 hours…I’m trying to cover all the missing links.
Now for the performance part, I found that the Peak 5 has one of the best glides on all available D’s. The fast trim speed and the efficient leading edge when gliding through the airmass delivers enormous gliding power. I think this is the first D glider I have flown to have that much gliding efficiency!
The climb rate in weak thermals is good, but climbing in strong thermals is really good…The ability to shoot up is really fast! It looks like there was a volcanic explosion underneath, and the debris is going up fast toward you! Really good in surges.
I asked my friend who usually flies 2 liners since they had appeared, IP6, Peak 4, Zeno, Boom 11, XcTracer his opinion, and here are his comments:
Hi Ziad,
Here are my personal feelings after flying the Peak5 22 at 96.5kgs.
I’ve been flying mostly 2 liners since the IP6 ... Peak4, Zeno, Boom11, and Xcracer.
Take off is a non-event for this type of wing, goes up in one piece, good pressure, and very smooth.
I loved the handling, very linear, light, and pure Niviuk feel.
Performance is just crazy, felt at the same level as my Boom11, with an obviously lower top speed. Needs to be tested to be believed.
Trim speed is noticeably higher than other wings, but I was surprised it still has a great feeling working disorganized and wind chopped lift down low.
This wing climbs like nothing else, it bites into thermals and literally jumps up (sometimes jumps up crazy hard
, But it always translates in lots of altitude gain.)
I had 2 tip collapses in the first 30 minutes but they totally disappeared for the next few hours in the air, even though the air got rougher... wing is very pressurized and solid, no other events but those 2 tip collapses.
Two things I did not like but would adapt to in a few hours:
B’s tension was light at trim speed and got lighter and lighter as I pushed the speed bar... something to get used to.
Not much info through the brakes, which some people like.
Crazy good high performance 2 liner but, in my opinion, needs a seasoned 2 liner pilot.
Cheers,
“Thank you, dear friend, for your honest opinion”
Back in my writings, wingovers are super high! Ears are stable and efficient!
Conclusion:
I’m posting here my personal feel… I think the Peak 5 needs more pilot level than the Peak 4. When flying in turbulent air, I wished for a more connection between pilot and glider ( in terms of adjusting the feedback that comes with the glider in turbulent air).
There’s also the light B controls that I really wished a bit more feel and connection at bar…
Beside that…Its a really super machine! Super glide! , an excellent climb! quite fast and efficient! … If anyone wishes to win races on a D, the Peak 5 is the golden key, but for the emphatic and wholehearted!
I need to share with you a bit my thoughts about the new models.
When new gliders come out in the B or C category, lots of pilots focus only on the latest models. Sometimes those models are good, but that doesn’t mean that last year's model is to be forgotten!
Or out of the equation.
This is a very important detail, that many pilots think that if I have this new and latest model, I will do better flights!
IMHO, that’s totally wrong, and to think that way, and follow the latest glider only, just by thinking that is an evolution for personal better flying is a big mistake many pilots do.Of course, a better pilot will always evolve with a better model, but that is only achievable when that pilot has extensively flown his model with nearly everyday use.
Sometimes 2 years older models could suit your flying preferences better!One day, I had a discussion with a big manufacturer that said to me that after two years cycle, pilots don’t buy our models anymore, despite that some models are still very competitive and complete.
Technology, research, and development are not limited by time, in a two-year cycle for example…Sometimes, it takes a year, and many times a good evolution takes 3-4 and even more…I think if we do need advanced technology, maybe we should reconsider our way of thinking about not pushing the R&D departments for a limited 2-year release. But that’s just my personal humble thoughts…
There’ s also an issue when a new glider comes out. For example, let’s take the latest Rook 3 as a B and the latest Delta 4 as a C.They both are new and happens to be very good gliders.
But that doesn’t mean that the other B’s from other manufacturers need to be forgotten now! For example in the B category, Rush5, Swift 5, Mentor 6, Iota2, even the Chili 4 from 2 years ago, are still at the top of the chart, and either glider can get any good B pilots for an epic XC day!
The small differences that I found are not that important and won’t have an impact on a good B pilot.
In the C category, the Delta 4 is a good C, but we don’t have to forget the latest Flow Fusion having a hybrid construction, with very good gliding performance, and still very comfortable in that category. There are also the 2-year-old Queen 2 and the Q-light, that delivers impressive performances, the Trango X-race, etc...and lots of other C’s that can deliver the needed requirements, and flying them is definitely not an excuse for not doing long XC’s. On the contrary, when a pilot is with a symbiosis with his glider, big opportunities will appear!
Many good pilots have made more than 200 Km on an A glider 10 years ago!Imagine the potential you have in today's gliders.
it is possible to go XC on any model if the right combination of the day's conditions and the well being of the pilot is a 100% match and that’s the most important IMHO.
The original Zeolite was used in the latest X-Alps. Ozone released a little sturdier version, but still quite light as it weighs 3.5 kilos, the Zeolite GT.
The Zeolite GT is a 2 liner, with a little wooden handle on the B’s.
Launching the Zeolite GT at 93 all up, in nil wind is very intuitive. The glider inflates well, and fast. I think it reacts like any C glider in terms of launching. In strong air, the brake authority is present to stop the surge.
The brake pressure is on the moderate side. Firm brake pressure, linear handling, and very good authority for a 6.7 AR glider with very few lines! Turning in thermals is quite nice on the Zeolite GT. A very good authority on the brakes that enables its pilot to have a direct response and feel. The turning behavior is surprisingly nicer than the M7 for example, in homogenous conditions. In turbulent conditions, the authority is still present but the Zeolite movements are quite pronounced, and the work on the brakes is to keep it overhead and turn later… The Zeolite never collapsed on me, not even a tiny tip! I felt it is well pressurized!
The Zeolite GT is like a beautiful very happy Brazilian lady, dancing the Samba all the time! And sometimes in turbulent and strong air, I was a bit concerned, why is she so happy and I’m not ;-)Seriously, it’s a very nice machine, but talks too much!
I have to add that those movements are due to that special internal light structure. The heavier Zeno doesn’t talk as much in turbulent air.
The climb rate of the MS at 93 versus the Climb rate of the M7 MS at 93 is on the Zeolite GT side! It climbs really well!Sometimes in headwind conditions, it seems to slow a bit before entering the thermals. So I found that better not to touch the brakes in that matter!and to leave it fly into that airmass. Or accelerate a bit.Just because a very slight pull on the brakes, gets the Zeolite a bit slower.
Doing some glides with the M7 MS showed me that the glide at trim in moving air is on the Zeolite side as it floats a bit more. Pushing the first bar is also competitive, but at the second bar, I think it stays like the M7.I felt that the full speed of the Zeolite is similar to the full speed of the M7 with the same loadings.I can place the Zeolite between the M7 and Zeno in terms of performance.
The pressure on the bar is moderate. The most amazing feature of the Zeolite is the B handles.At trim or at bar, the B handles works beautifully on that 2 liner! I could steer the glider in all conditions with the efficient B handles. They stop some serious surges while on bar. If I can describe the feeling, I could say that those handles look like driving a Kart!
Ears must be pulled from high up. They are hard to pull, but when they fold, they are stable. They reopen with pilot controls.
And here’s the new EN-C from Ozone.I had two Delta 4 for testing. An ML that I flew at 101, with lots of ballast, and two pizzas, the MS size at 92 all up with just one ‘croissant’;-).
Launching the ML and MS at their respective weights is pretty direct. Probably it rises slightly less than the D3, but nothing worth mentioning. Little lazy, no surge, a relatively moderate to launch C.
Usually, I fly smaller sizes, and when I fly the bigger ones or the Medium ones, I feel that they are too dampened compared to their little sisters…In-flight on the ML size, on a strong and turbulent day, my flying buddies were all over the place with hands going down and up, and wings getting tossed around, and I thought I was just sitting alone among that chaos, sipping a cup of tea!Really…the Delta 4 in ML size at 101- 102 is super comfy to my taste! Not boring at all but solid, smooth, and super homogenous.
The gliders that were around, were the Cure 2 M (75-95), the Flow Fusion M (85-105), and later the LM7, MS (75-95), and some other B’s. They seem to be doing some sports workout!
Anyway, the brake authority on that ML size at my loads are super nice! I was amazed that this ML size would turn quite nicely! Used to feel that bigger sizes feel like bigger ships to turn, but no, that Delta 4 ML has a very nice coordinated and smooth turn, with very good agility. The climb rate is really impressive on the ML!After many times, I felt that I had an edge over all the mentioned gliders in the air!In weak, and especially in sudden thermals. The D4 shoots upward quickly.
Doing some glides with the Cure 2 M, at trim, showed me after many attempts that theD4 ML has an edge at trim and a large edge at full bar!Gliding next to the Fusion Mshowed that the Fusion had a slightly faster trim speed, but when matching the Fusion trim speed, again, I felt that I had an edge at trim, and a large one at full bar!
So it was preferable to see that ML size with the LM7 MS.My friend flying the MS is a good pilot, and we glided over 10 KM, three times, with him pushing the bar all the time. On the Delta 4 ML, I could always be on his wingtip, with a slight edge for the Delta 4 ML in lifts!
It was very impressive to see that easy to flyD4 ML (6) aspect ratio, EN-C,at full bar has nearly or similar glide angle as the LM7 size MS!Many climbs and glides were made with the same results. I know the LM7 was a size smaller than the D4 ML. It was only to give an idea about the overall performance.
Ears are stable a bit if you don’t pull much. They lock if you pull them once slightly. Just like the Mantra 7 ones. Not really super-efficient, but ok.
Three days later, I received the Delta 4 MS size (75-95).
Launching the Delta 4 MS, at 93 all up in very dry and turbulent air, showed me that there is a large difference in roll feedback with the bigger size. I couldn’t get a cup of tea, but able to talk on the phone 😊 . The roll movements are more present than the ML size, the pitch movement is still very stable.
My friend on his Cure 2 M commented that the air was super rowdy and barely acceptable. The D4 MS was quite manageable with a high degree of comfort.The structure is very homogenous and solid, especially(if it is well loaded! ) 93 all up was ok.
The handling and brake authority are much better to my liking now. The Delta 4 MS at 93 is an agile glider.I could place it in that turbulent air exactly where I wanted after getting hammered with some instant powerful thermals that lasts two seconds…Getting through and inside those nasty narrow lifts was possible on the D4 MS.
Now comparing with the same sizes as the D4 MS ( 75-95).
Climbing next to my friend on his Cure 2 M (75-95), with the same loadings as mine now, showed me that in strong air and powerful thermals, the D4 climbs upward again, quite rapidly! At the end of that day, when thermals were very weak, they both could float next to each other, and it was super difficult to tell if either climbs better or float better. Anyway, my C comparison will be updated for those tiny details if needed.
Doing some long glides next to the same Cure 2 M, (they have the same trim speed), showed me now that the D4 MS size has a slight edge in glide at trim and the difference is smaller than I got on the ML size.
For instance, the difference at trim after a 5 km run is only around 5 m difference for the Delta 4 MS, but when we applied full bar, the difference became bigger for the Delta 4.
The D4, MS has a good edge and an impressive glide angle at full speed.Now at full speed for both, and overlapping the pulleys on the D4, I was getting slightly faster top speed. Probably around +1 km/h…
Comparing the M7 size MS to the Delta 4 size MS is really interesting. The gap is super small! Like perhaps the edge for the M7 is found when low facing the sea breeze and getting those tricky thermals, the M7 will have a slight edge in surfing through the airmass. Saying that the Delta 4 in that particular difficult place with shine flawlessly among C’s. It cuts through like the M7 but slightly slower and tamer. It will take its time to dig through calmly. Ozone has strongly narrowed the gap between the Rush5, Delta 4, Mantra7!
Racing the Delta 4 at full speed in turbulent air, and steering with the C risers is quite efficient, as I was able to clear most of the pitch and roll by the smooth and easy to steer C risers.Like I said, with that easiness in flight, and performance at speed, the Delta 4 will give the pilots a clear edge in sports competitions. The C riser controls have a moderate pressure and linear response, with very good authority on the profile.
Ears' behavior is similar to the ML size. If you pull a lot, they will try to re-open,A little pull will get them stuck and stable, with a moderate decent rate. Wing overs are a delight! Get quickly upside down!
Conclusion:
I was super lucky after the corona lockdown to test fly some amazing gliders.
I also have to add that the Delta 4 MS has a more subtle feel, and a little bit more communicative than the Delta 3 MS in showing and sensing a little bit more the airmass. That characteristic is enhanced over the D3 and it’s a good move from the R&D department.
For the C category, what impresses me the most is when a manufacturer works on a moderate aspect ratio glider, like 6.05 for the Delta 4 and achieves an impressively complete package of feel-able passive safety, high comfort in turbulence, superb agility, with a pleasurable feel,top-end gliding performance and fast enough for the C category!
I’ll keep those new gliders coming through to see what could be more possible, and will keep one Delta 4 MS size as the new C reference.
Comparing the same sizes:Mantra 7 MSVSDelta 4 MS, will give a tiny edge for overall performance to the M7, but I think Mantra 7 pilots must watch out carefully, Delta 4 pilots on full bar !! ;-)
UPDATE:Hi,
I made a small mistake earlier concerning the Delta 4 ears. When pulling the separate A riser dedicated for ears, the pulling is moderate and the ears are small, a slight more pull will get the Delta 4 MS and ML to try to reopen, but…What I didn’t figure out in the first place, is that the issue to get efficiency for stable is ears is to pull more A-lines! So reaching out high, and pulling a little bit more lines will get the ears to fold in and stays stable. Sometimes if you let go quickly the line it will open with a bang. So pulling more line in will get stable ears and a good option for the descent. And in this configuration, when releasing the ears, they will open progressively. The last 8 cells from each side, should be open by pilot input. And I also tried 2 lines per side. Pulling those 2 lines will get very big ears and pushing the bar, resulted at minus 4-5 m/s, with steady ears! Care must be taken when opening them. It’s better NOT to apply brakes heavily from both sides for opening that configuration. Best to apply little brake on each side separately, in order to get a bigger open area. So my mistake earlier because my lack of information…sorry A video showing them will be published soon. Cheers, Ziad
The Ikuma is Niviuk high-end B glider. I have flown in the past the first edition(Ikuma1) and in 2020 here is the new Ikuma 2 size 24 (75-95).
The material used on this Ikuma and the finish details are really nice! I could feel lots of new changes, from the risers to pulleys, brake attachment points. Overall the Ikuma 2 looks very clean in construction and very well made.
Launching the Ikuma 2 at 92 all up with an X-rated 6 harness is super easy. Not any hardpoint and just a slight pull. It can’t get easier.
In the air, the brake authority is really nice. The brake travel is moderate to short, with very good agility in turns. The Ikuma 2 is a playful glider and can core thermals very narrow. The Ikuma 2 responds well to pilot inputs, even in turbulence, which can be well placed inside the core.
The brake pressure is on the moderate side. Long flights can be made without getting tired.
Getting to fly next to some hot B’s, the climb rate of the Ikuma 2 seems also good. In homogenous conditions and steady thermals, the Ikuma 2 24 climbs well. When the conditions get a bit tricky, turbulent, and facing the valley breeze, a slight pitch back is noticed, and that could slightly delay the entry. When it’s strong and homogenous, it climbs perfectly.
Doing some long glides at trim and accelerated showed me that the Ikuma 2 glides very well, next to top high B’s. I’ll update my B comparison if more details are needed.
Conclusion: A good and accessible high-B, very well made. The Ikuma 2 holds the overall performance of today’s top 5, high-B,’s and with good agility and comfort.
I have flown in the past Triple Seven high-B gliders, the Rook1, and the Rook2. In 2020, here is 777 latest high B glider the Rook 3 with an aspect ratio of 5.6 flat and 4.1 projected which is pretty conservative and well-targeted for a High B in 2020.
The openings of the Rook 3 are pretty small, with a shark noose and resembles the Queen 2 ones. The cloth used is “Dominico N20 DMF” with PPSL Liros and Edelrid A-8000-U. The risers use a new BC system enabling the pilot to control the pitch in accelerated flight without touching the brakes. The back positioning intake, the look, and the finish are superb. The glider looks like a tuned sports performance 4X4 race car.
Launching the Rook 3 MS at 93 all up with an X-rated 6 harness, need a long and steady pull. It’s a bit slow to rise in weak wind but it’s going up without a hard point. In Strong windy take off, I found it to be quite gentle in the rise, without overshooting.
The Rook 3 MS was tested and flew along next to a Rush5 MS, Eden 7 S, Ikuma 2-24.
In the air, the Rook 3 has a moderate to light brake pressure with a very good “performance-oriented “ agility. I mean that it doesn’t dive in turns but could core every bubble swiftly and very efficiently. The authority on the brakes with that “performance-oriented “turn is very nice! I’m ‘in love ‘ without B brake authority!
The Rook 3 can be described as having a precise brake input and quite linear, which leads to an efficient adjustment inside the core! 10 to 15 cm of moderate to light pressure will let you turn the glider in any core! A delight! Its not fair to compare it to the best D, 3 liners of the moment…But it happened to be next to me in the air… The climb rate next to an M7 MS (EN-D) in facing the valley breeze and digging through that airmass showed me that the Rook 3 is a really special kind of high B’s! I could match or sometimes be quite efficient in climbing mode against the wind. You will be surprised! Of course, the edge will always go to the D glider…(In very long glides…against the wind )
I have tried many times with other high B’s and it seems that the Rook 3 was surfing the airmass and floating upward each time there’s a tiny lift. In weak thermals, the Rook 3 seems very floaty. I was able to float in a tiny lift, waiting for a stronger thermal.
In turbulent air, I was very surprised to find that the Rook 3 is much easier to fly than its predecessor. The Rook 3 is a comfortable high B with a very solid structure. Under it i didn’t feel any awkward movements, or any yaw movement whatsoever. On the contrary, it seems very homogenous and well balanced. I think that after long flights under the Rook3, one should expect to land with much energy left! And with a happy feel about the handling.
Gliding next to several high B’s especially in moving air, showed me how magical the Rook 3 is. Every light lift is converted to height. It was difficult to come close to that glide under the current high B’s! Imagine a B glider that surfs the air going up with every tiny lift! No pitch back nor surging forward. Just an efficient glide through the airmass. Of course, sometimes in strong lifts, it pitches slightly back but gets quickly balanced in moving upward without a surge.
The C risers control is smooth and efficient. They control the pitch, if any…just because the Rook 3 stays on its path in turbulent air… The speed bar enabled me to get 16 km/h over trim on the Rook 3 size MS at 95 all up.
You are not reading a fairy tale!! Grab a demo and see by yourselves
Ears are stable but sometimes they shake. If you pull them moderately once, they will stay stable. Pulling more lines will get them shaky and reopen.
Conclusion: The Rook 3 MS I have here, was purchased from 777. It is one of the first serial B’s. I know…you will say that this is another fancy writing…and this guy drank a bottle of vodka right before… Honestly, the Rook 3 is the best and most performant, pleasurable to fly, high-end EN- B glider I have ever tested. Period! Again, if you are in doubt, do the impossible to get yourself a demo, (load it near the top), just to tease me with your reactions! Don’t fly it at the bottom of the weight range, and comment !! pleeeease ! Triple Seven has done a superb job on that Rook3. Comfortable, fast, agile, pleasurable in steering, loads of free and usable performance. Forget the Queen2…(They are going to kill me … Ehhhh, Unless you want more speed and spicy feel. All the above was very clear for me to state that IMHO, the Rook 3 is the next level High-B. Happy flights!
MM, Valery Chapuis, Simon Campiche, Kari Eisenhut, Silas Bosco, Christian Proschek
1- What can the R&D team comment about the internal structures of current paragliders? Are we still far from a more solid and cohesive structure in order to produce a 6 AR or lower glider with 2 line design?
The engineering of two-line gliders does not require excessive solid structures. Much more important is the right balance between sufficient stiffness for a clean surface on the one hand and enough flexibility to absorb the energy of possible turbulence on the other hand; this is the goal to strive for. Actually, this logic applies to every paraglider design, but we will have to find quite innovative airfoil shapes to satisfy the requirements made at a low aspect ratio wing with merely two suspension line rows (or groups of line rows). Certainly, it would be imaginable to realize a very stiff wing that only needs two rows of suspension lines. For instance, one could think of reinforcing the ribs with loads of plastic or Nitinol wires. Or very stiff but foldable materials for the ribs could be used. Such an engineered glider would probably fly very well. But the problem is that, as soon as it comes to extreme situations the glider still has to have the ability to absorb the energy of turbulence in order to ensure safe and comfortable operation.
Probably in the next couple of years, the manufacturers will accomplish to create new low aspect ratio designs that satisfy the criteria stated above. First, we'll see such design in the C class and someday even B gliders won’t be special having just two rows of suspension lines.
2- I think every pilot in the world question ADVANCE ’Winglets”. Could those winglets be removed in the future? as there’s a lot of wingtip designs with swept wings that have good aerodynamic efficiency, and they do also reduce the vortex effect. Or ADVANCE will insist on keeping them for the future?
Nobody can imagine an ADVANCE wing without its winglets! Only ADVANCE is using winglets in the paragliding construction, but winglets are well known in general aviation for reducing the vortex. We made very serious aerodynamical research and we are sure that the benefit is higher than the drag they generate. Some years ago we analyzed the effect of winglets carefully by CFD methods, and the result was that they reduce the drag by about 2.8 % depending also on the model. This corresponds to a glide ratio improvement of about 1.5 %.
3- Before releasing a new glider in a B, C, or D category, does ADVANCE R&D try to get another good glider from a different brand with similar certification in order to fly it, feel the difference and see if their new product will have a difference regarding comfort, agility, climbing abilities, or gliding at speed? Of course in moving air?
Of course, it is of immense importance to know what our competitors are creating. To see where are their strengths and which behaviors clearly would need improvements. Not knowing which other good or bad gliders are around would bring the risk of running into a tunnel and very likely overestimating the quality of our own gliders compared to the totality of paraglider designs.
4- What about light materials? It seems that the light materials are becoming more durable, and it's now being used by many manufacturers in their regular everyday glider use. Does the light material help in faster recovery after a collapse? What is the benefit of light materials besides reduced weight?
Light material’s durability, in fact, is much better than its reputation. This is the reason why even the “heavy” versions of gliders are being designed more and more with light materials. Mostly the interior design is the first way to go for when optimizing the weight of gliders. The weight of used materials clearly has an impact on the behavior of gliders in extreme situations. However, we would be careful stating that light materials generally improve behavior in extreme situations. As light materials are often softer than the heavier materials the stability is clearly affected. There are cases where this can have positive effects but there are also cases where the resulting behavior is influenced in a bad way. Collapses can recover faster but do not always in each and every design. Also, we have to mention, that fast re-openings of collapses are not always good. So we often try to slow down the re-opening process by just a bit. In terms of safety, it is more important that the glider flies straight and doesn’t stall accidentally after a collapse than re-opens as fast as possible. Gliders with lower weight canopies have a lower moment of inertia. This means that their resistance against angular accelerations about every axis in space is also lower. This can make the glider stop earlier when shooting forwards after a collapse because it needs less force to stop the unwanted movement.
5- I’m an old fashion pilot…So excuse me if I personally find that hammock harnesses despite their superb back and support comfort, do not offer the best precise weight shift in strong and turbulent air. Will ADVANCE consider a harness that can be used both ways to please everyone? but with a seat board that can be placed “above the seating straps “, not just sliding it over the protection, which doesn’t really change much.
A hammock harness is a possible choice for a pilot, not an obligation. Some like it, some don’t. At ADVANCE we know what the benefits are and we love flying with hammock harnesses, like thousands of pilots all over the world flying our Impress and Lightness models. It’s reducing the weight and the volume of the harness, it eliminates the problem of a too large or too narrow seat-board. But more important than this, it gives the pilot a precise feeling coming from the wing, but not exaggerated like it can be with a seat-board. The feeling is something personal and we cannot tell “this is good or this is bad for you“. With the new IMPRESS 4 the pilot can decide to fly with or without seat-board, depending on the wing and the mood of the day. In the end it is the pilot’s choice.
6- What can you say about the future Sigma11 ? in terms of brake authority in turbulent air versus the Sigma10. In rough air, some pilots commented that longer brake pull was needed on the S 10. And I have received emails about bigger sizes of the S 10 that I didn’t fly that was not that agile!
Comparatively the upcoming SIGMA11 benefits from direct and progressive handling and we are very satisfied with it. The canopy is more compact but also more reactive to steering inputs. This results in excellent controllability, not only in turbulent air but in every situation from ground handling over long-distance flights to the top landing. The pilots for which the SIGMA11 is intended are the same as those for the SIGMA10, there is no change about this: it's for an experienced pilot, no doubt.
7- Can you please also comment about the “usable” performance of the S 11 protos in moving air + speed, if you have already measured for an S 10 similar size.
We are proud of being able to say that the performance of the SIGMA11 is even higher than that of the SIGMA10. We massively improved the feeling whilst flying in turbulent air. The canopy feedback is softer and the pitch is very stable. This results in a very high usable performance.
8 - It is super difficult to improve a successful model with the same aspect ratio and a 2 years' time. Any future Iota 3 on the draw boards? Does the same aspect ratio imply? Any comments?
Yes, you are right it is a very hard and difficult challenge to improve a well-appreciated wing. But between a new model and its predecessor, there are 2 or 3 years and we could learn a lot making protos and research for the other models of our range. The IOTA 3 project start is in the near future. We can tell you more about that at the beginning of the 2021 flying season, just be patient!
9- When to expect the first Impress 4 harnesses? And could you please comment a bit about the latest and final version?
The production of the IMPRESS4 started and we may deliver from June, but you know that the actual world health situation makes everything more complicated. It is a competition and XC harness with an extremely high level of comfort and equipment, and a very low weight starting at about 6 kg. Another very special point of the IMPRESS4 is that it can be used with or without a seat-board. It will come as a complete set with a rucksack, a carbon plate, a windshield and 2 pod-handles for the reserves. More information soon on our homepage.
10- Can ADVANCE elaborate on the future design and what pilots must wait for? A new 3 liner D for example ? or a daily use 2 liners?
We have with the OXA3 such a simple and easy two-liner that we are of the opinion that there is no need for three-liners in the D-class at the moment.
Thank you very much for your time in answering those questions! Looking forward! :-)
