Flytec
Wills Wing

Oz Report

topic: carbon fiber

140 articles, page:  1 

Fixing Carbon Fiber Base Tubes »

Tue, Nov 15 2022, 1:33:10 am GMT

Haven't heard if Wills Wing is selling them any more

carbon fiber|Gregg "Kim" Ludwig|Wills Wing|Wills Wing T3

I had a crack in my Wills Wing T3 carbon base tube so I had Gregg Ludwig take it in to The Frame Doctor for me as he lives right near by and was hauling it back to Florida for me from Casa Grande, Arizona and the Santa Cruz Flats Race.

https://www.facebook.com/FrameDoctor911/

Joey Robison is the Frame Doctor:

This is my base tube:

Click the picture above to see the much higher resolution version.

Discuss "Fixing Carbon Fiber Base Tubes" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Batten Carbon Fiber Reinforcement

Tue, Jun 11 2019, 7:10:46 am MDT

DIY - after market

battens|Battens|carbon fiber|Carbon Fiber|Ian Duncan|Steven "Steve" Pearson

Carbon reinforcement for the battens of any hang glider, both 10 mm and 12 mm. The reinforcement guarantees better performance, strengthens the battens with only a few extra grams. For information: «darkblade55» cell.+39 3488230794 (whatsapp).

Ian Duncan writes and Steve Pearson agrees:

The big problem with this is that the carbon sock is all off axis fibers and therefore does very little work for weight added. You would be far better adding well bonded unidirectional fibers. If you are going to use 'sock' then using a far larger diameter sock compared to the diameter of the batten and stretching it lengthways would be preferable as this would pull the fibers closer towards the 0 axis of the batten.

Carbon fiber tips for U2 and Sport 3

February 28, 2018, 10:47:08 EST

Carbon fiber tips for U2 and Sport 3

They are in development

carbon fiber|David Aldrich|Facebook|Wills Wing Sport 3|Wills Wing U2

David Aldrich writes:

Yesterday, I just finished getting the tips figured out on a U2. We still need to flight test it though. I have enough sample material to make a few more sets. They are Carbon Fiber too.

They will be available on the S3 and U2. Probably not on the S2 as they require additional Velcro to be sewn onto the sail.

The existing U2's will also require some additional Velcro to be sewn on the sail now that I think of it. We can do it here at the factory without removing the sail from the frame, but we would need the glider. A good excuse to come fly with us at Crestline this summer!

Discuss "Carbon fiber tips for U2 and Sport 3" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Breaking the carbon cross bar

Tue, Oct 13 2015, 8:35:00 am MDT

Three views

carbon fiber|video

Igor Snisarenk writes:

https://youtu.be/yD8nTyiV0Sg

Young pilot Igor Snisarenko breaking cross bar of his Aeros Combat 2 while trying to make series of loops. Video made from three different cameras. Flight made in the Caucuses mountains.

Igor's comments in the end of the movie are (translated from Russian): "After long practicing of making wingovers and loops, the excessive speed and the wing overload affected the strength of the carbon crossbar. Cross bar collapsed when the glider was on the way to the second maneuver of the series.

It took five sec and 80-120 meters of altitude for the reserve chute to open. Very useful positive experience. This won't stop me from continuing making aerobatics.

Meanwhile Igor announced aerobatics courses where he is teaching aerobatics.

Discuss "Breaking the carbon cross bar" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

ATOS tips

A round up of a few useful ATOS tips from the Oz Report.

Mon, Aug 30 2004, 6:00:03 am GMT

A.I.R. ATOS VX|carbon fiber|tip wands

1. A little bit of shoe goo on the tips.

2. Double the wrap on the bungees on the spoilerons.

3. Place 3" by 4" sail cloth patches on the top of the sail when it is brand new (or later) at the junctions of the first two ribs and the horizontal seam. Perhaps in other areas near this area also. This is to prevent damage to the sail cloth when the ATOS is folded and carried. I have tried for years to get AIR to address this sail damage problems. Perhaps they can't figure out how to do it.

4. Put green and red dots on the appropriate ribs on the ATOS VX - the ones that come undone.

5. To more easily place the carbon fiber shells on the tips, fold back the sail cloth three or four inches to expose the carbon fiber. Put the shells inside the sail and align with the black mark on the Velcro at the tip end of the aluminum tubes. Make sure that the shells are over the d-cells. Then you can just install the tip wands and pull tight.

AIR ATOS - VX (part 1) »

Thu, May 6 2004, 1:00:00 pm EDT

My impressions of the new glider from AIR.

A.I.R. ATOS|Belinda Boulter|carbon fiber|Felix Ruehle

http://www.a-i-r.de/pages-d/f_a_01.htm

Well, first of all I am, of course, very happy to be flying on and winning the latest competition with the AIR ATOS VX. Given my dismal showing at the Flytec Championship (people were approaching Belinda to ask if there was something wrong with me), it is a true testament to the superior performance of the VX that I was able to win the South Florida Championships.

The AIR ATOS - VX with its curved up tips is a very beautiful glider to see in the air. You could always spot Alex during the Flytec Championship, high over your head.

The VX, while in prototype, came in two versions - single and tandem. The tandem version, which is now the standard version, is heavier and beefed up to handle two people hanging from the carbon fiber keel. Alex brought the standard (tandem) version to fly by himself at the Flytec Championship and that is the one that I have now.

The VX is listed at 93 pounds (42 kg), the V is listed at 82 pounds (37 kg), and the C is listed at 73 pounds (33.5 kg). I have weighed my C and it is 73 pounds, I haven't weighed the VX yet. I didn't find the VX to be particularly heavy. I was able to carry it around pretty much like I did my C.

These weights do make one wonder what changes they made between the C and the V. The differences are not obvious, so I assume it is in the carbon fiber lay-up. Maybe they are just counting different things (bag or not?).

I asked Felix Ruehle about this. He wrote:

The new control system where the spoiler cable is attached inside, has 3 extra steel pulleys. The brake away safety parts at the down tubes add some weight. The sail is reinforced at the trailing edge and tip in comparison to the first ATOS. The Spoiler and Flap are painted white. The first spoiler were little lighter.

Still, these changes don't seem to be enough to make such a large difference in weight between the C and the V. The weight for the V includes the tail, which the weight for the C did not.

The tips of the VX are formed with a long aluminum tube and a thin carbon fiber shell that creates the leading edge. This is essentially just an extension of the tips found on the standard ATOS (or C or V) model with the outboard tube tilted upward a bit.

There is an additional rib that is jammed in placed (not connected) to the leading edge) tube to continue the airfoil profile further out to the 46 feet wing span (vs. 42 feet for the standard model). I assume that the tips are canted up to relief any force on them while the glider is on the ground.

Felix writes when I ask him about this:

The main reason is to have enough clearance at take off. Wings with higher aspect ratio tend to tighten turns. With the additional dihedral of the outer wing the glider fly stable in turns.

The glider takes a little bit longer to put together than the standard version, basically because of the additional requirement of putting in the longer carbon fiber leading edge shell and the additional rib. Otherwise it is the same as the V.

My VX came with a carbon fiber keel (the part in the sail), and without a whack tube. There will be a foam core to replace the tube. The carbon fiber keel is standard. The d-cells and the ribs have been beefy up on the VX. Otherwise the hardware was very familiar.

The stinger on the VX is longer than that found on the standard model, and this means that the tail is further back. I assume that this adds to the stability of the glider in pitch as there is now a longer lever arm from the center of lift to the tail.

I flew both my C and the VX with the longer stinger and perceived a difference in how the gliders reacted to pitch movement with more apparent dampening. This appeared to give the glider a steadier feel.

The VX is not yet certified but AIR has run the pitch tests at the DHV for it and it has passed those tests. You can read more about it at the AIR web site (see the URL above). I suggest looking at the German version of the AIR web site, as the English version is not up to date.

AIR ATOS VX

Thu, Apr 29 2004, 2:00:01 am EDT

The light air machine.

carbon fiber|Manfred Ruhmer|Oleg Bondarchuk

There were a few questions on the rigid wing list:

1) How does the glider compare flying side by side with a "C" model. Does it accelerate as easily or is it a slower flying model (due to the larger wingspan)?

When I flew it it was slower flying, but I think I will move my hang strap a little more forward, just to have more pulling power when I enter the thermals. I could easily fly it at over 50 mph, but I didn't try pulling into sixty mph as there was a lot of bumps from the thermals on final glide.

It accelerates quickly if you let off on the flap rope and go to full race mode thereby. If the bar pressure gets a little light for your taste, pull on a little bit of flap.

I flew it without any ballast at all as I'm tired of carrying ballast after two years of doing so. I think that it would benefit from ballast.

2) What about the turn rate? Does the additional span interfere with the responsiveness of the glider?

Yes, it is slower to turn and "feels" like a bigger glider. It has an additional spoileron on each side to help the glider be a bit more responsive.

I enjoyed the turn rates and it felt great in the thermals. Oleg complained that I was flying too flat, but he wasn't out climbing me.

3) How are the angled tips put together (do they actually come off or are they a one piece mold on the leading edges)? Pictures would be nice here if anyone has any of the glider being put together/torn apart!

Tubes coming out of the d-cells. Long reinforced carbon fiber pieces to form the leading edge. It is pretty easy to put the glider together. Not that much more difficult than a regular ATOS. Fits in the same bag.

There is a new glider bag, much lighter and a little bigger to go on easier.

4) What about the hook-in weight that Alex was using (how much ballast did he carry and what was his hook-in weight)? Was it necessary for him to disperse the ballast before landing?

Alex is light and carried only four kilograms of ballast. He doesn't like ballast. It was not disposable ballast. I have landed many times with twenty two pounds of ballast without the slightest issue.

Am I correct in reading that conditions during this championship were "mellower", thus giving the VX an advantage because of larger sail area? Did anyone get a chance to fly side by side with it on the stronger days where pilots could fly more aggressively and if so, can they provide us with a performance comparison?

I didn't feel that the conditions were at all mellow. But this is Florida flying and it isn't the mountains or Texas for that matter. No 2000 fpm thermals. There were rough edges, but not extremely rough.

So far Alex has not said whether he will fly the VX in the mountains at the Worlds in Greifenburg. He feels that it may be too rough for it there, where you don't care so much about a fantastic sink rate (100 fpm). He wouldn't want to fly with ballast and may feel that he needs to if he flew it there.

That said, Manfred Trimmel flew a lighter weight version of the VX (not made for tandems and without the extra carbon fiber in the d-cells) at Bassano and won the first day.

The VX is the perfect glider for Florida and Zapata. I also think that it will do well in Big Spring, perhaps with some ballast. I will be flying a V or a C at the Worlds.

The VX was designed to be a tandem glider or for pilots who hook in over 220 pounds. There is the version with tandem reinforced d-cells and I have a carbon fiber keel on this one.

On my first flight I felt that the glider was much steadier than my sports car like ATOS - C. While I can't say exactly what steadier means, it made me feel more secure.

I get nervous putting at ATOS up on a tip unless the lift is really strong and tight, so I tend to fly the thing pretty flat in thermals. I don't know exactly what it is that bothers me, but is feels like the inside wing is dipping down.

It seemed that I was flying slower in thermals in the VX than in my C. Maybe just because my hang point was further back than it should have been.

I was climbing and gliding with Oleg, Brett and Kurt on the first day, and really didn't have any rigids around to compare much with. Maybe I'll get more chances later.

 Discuss the VX at the Oz Report forum

Aeros Combat L »

Wed, Apr 14 2004, 3:00:02 pm EDT

I like it, and it should land great too.

carbon fiber|Julian Harman

Julian Harman «Julian.Harman» writes:

Took delivery of the first combat L 14m in the UK. Have to say very impressed so far, only managed 1.5 hrs yesterday on it but initial indications are promising, very promising. Build quality, in my opinion is up with the best. On the hill, pilots commented on this, especially the fittings.

In the sky, the glider flies very neutrally, noting quirky at all. Turn co-ordination is beautiful, a bit like the older Airwave gliders where the bar is out a little, the glider turns totally neutrally on shallow bank, with very slight high siding on tighter, which tunes out with a smooth VG action.

Sink rate - gets to the top when you want to (even me) and glide, well had no real instruments but it seems to be amazing. On full VG could turn it over 30 mph, and also flying slower.

Landing - well my mistake I flew to near a dry stone wall and had to land cross wind, rusty but the glider even with me on my belly did not 'pile in' as it flies very slowly.

I have to say that it appears Aeros have built a great glider, for the comp and more advanced intermediate. I felt right at home on it. No aerotowing yet but the full speed range, from stall to flat out showed no yawing, no turns, and very easy to keep in a straight line, even on the speed bar. So hopefully should be the same on tow. I'll find out soon.

The only build part I did not like was the carbon fiber battens, these are actually carbon fiber and aluminum, crimped onto the carbon fiber. I asked Aeros why they did this, as it look a little crude. They said it's the best way to build for light weight, simple and also the aluminum is needed for aerofoil flexing as the VG is pulled on. Carbon fiber not suitable for this. The crimping does not show in the aerofoil - at all. Sail - no ripples flat out with full VG.

Considering this glider is some £2,000 less than the same spec Litespeed here, it's a great value comp machine. I still think landing it needs a flare at the right point, the window may be smaller than say a Talon, but I have not been able to really test landings without a dry stone wall in my way!

Discuss the Combat L at the Oz Report forum

Some foreign gliders are still inexpensive

Fri, Mar 26 2004, 3:00:02 pm EST

The Aeros gliders still come in as the least expensive.

carbon fiber

G. W. Meadows «gw» writes:

I've noticed in the last few issues of the Oz Report that you have been comparing the costs of gliders (the Icaro at $9100) and the Litespeed (price not mentioned). You had suggested that folks take a look at one of your sponsors (Wills Wing). According to the Wills Wing website (www.willswing.com), their fully blown Talon (in the customer's choice of colors) retails for $6343 - a noticeably better price than the ones mentioned.

I would like to also mention the Aeros gliders. A Combat L - in customers choice of colors with all the same options as the Talon retails for $6095 (5% less). In addition, the Combat offers a couple of options not available on the Talon including carbon fiber ribs for lighter weight and a greater performance envelope as well as a non-gel coated crossbar for further weight reduction.

The Combat L uses basically all the same materials as the comparison gliders - practically all major parts (frame and sail) of the gliders comes from Europe - many of the materials from the exact same suppliers. We even buy our upright stock from Wills Wing.

We at U.S. Aeros are very proud of the fact that we have been able to keep our prices still the lowest in the industry since the day we hit the market in 1996. Even with the tremendous rise of the Euro in relation to the Dollar over the last 18 months (a near 50% gain), we have still been able to keep the Aeros products a tremendous value.

The Talon (just like all the European and Australian gliders) are excellent products and I'm not saying that we're better by any means. But a conversation about glider pricing just isn't complete without bringing up the Aeros line.

The cost calculations:

Baseline glider:

1. All Mylar body (we are talking top performing gliders here)
2. Super streamlined control frame with carbon ergonomic basetube
3. Leading edge inserts
4. Custom Colors/split panel

Combat L any size 13,14,15m
$6095
(source: www.justfly.com)
$5995 includes 1,2,4
$100 for #3

Talon
$6343.76
http://willswing.com/prod2.asp?theClass=hg&theModel=talon#options
$5875 includes # 2 kinda (not sure about carbon basetube - but don't think it's included)
1. $150
2.
3. $168.76
4. $150.00

Litespeed S 4.5
$7432.50 (http://www.moyesamerica.com/forms/pricebook.pdf)
$6295 includes none of 1-4
1. $192.50
2. $650.00
3. $195
4. $100

Flying flex wings in Oz

Wed, Feb 11 2004, 12:00:01 pm EST

I flew the Airborne Climax 14 and the Moyes Litespeed 4.5 with carbon fiber outboard leading edges and their new "shadow" Mylar sail cloth. I decided to fly flex wing gliders in Australia because I felt that I should highlight the two major hang glider manufacturers in Australia during their competition season. I traded ads space for use of their gliders during the competitions.

carbon fiber|Ian Duncan

I thought that it was crazy to bring (at great expense) a rigid wing to and then back from Australia when there were such quality manufacturers in Australia already. Moyes and Airborne are world class hang glider producers and it has always been great working with both of them.

While I've been asked which glider I thought was the best performer, I really have no way to know that answer. The performance of each of the gliders was overwhelmed by my "performance" and the conditions of each of the days on which they were flown.

I did feel that both gliders were a little "big" for me, with the Climax a little "bigger" than the Litespeed 4.5. I would have liked a smaller control frame in both gliders to make launching a bit easier, but you need that big control frame for weight shifting. I wanted the control bar higher off the ground.

I'd love to try smaller versions of both gliders, and perhaps I will have a chance this spring in Florida. I bet I get a chance to try out the Aeros Combat L also.

I really loved how easy it was to put in the tip wands on both of the gliders. The Litespeed was very slightly easier. I did use the kick stand on the Litespeed to lift the trailing edge of the sail up making it easier to put in the battens. Sure, it is still a problem because it is unstable and the glider can fall over in a little bit of wind, but it was awfully convenient.

I liked the use of more carbon fiber parts in the Litespeed, but I assume that the cost really goes up. These are optional, but I bet Ian Duncan wants you to purchase them.

Speaking of costs, the Australian dollar is around $0.75 to the US dollar, up from $0.55 a year ago. This means that Airborne and Moyes can purchase 7075 aluminum more cheaply, but the cost of an Australian glider may be going up.

Because I had the wrong battens for the Climax at the Bogong Cup, I didn't have the opportunity that I wanted to get to fly the Climax 14 again. This would have given me a better idea of the performance differences if any.

I did like the fact that Moyes numbered their battens so that it was just that much easier to pick up the right battens when assembling the glider. A simple thing, but just that much more user friendly.

I never did get use to the Litespeed VG line and how much I line I had to pull on to get to even 3/4 VG. I never really got that much on. Unfortunately I didn't get to check the Climax VG after I flew the Litespeed as I didn't check the pulley on setup on the first day of the Bogong Cup and the VG line stuck.

The VG setting appears to be very important. I found that I was knocked sideways and slid downwards a few times when I entered into thermals with the VG at a little over half on the Litespeed. I didn't notice this on the Climax, but that could have just been the circumstances.

It was a bit unnerving to be knocked around so much when the VG was on, but as soon as I got it off I was able to handle the thermals. The discussion that I heard about this issue during the meet was to go with the turn and try not to fight it. My natural reaction was to try to climb the higher downtube and roll back into the thermal with the VG still on. Hard to do.

I'd love to hear more from other flex wing pilots about this issue and how you deal with it.

I'll have more to say about flex wing performance in the Australia competitions and some reflections on lessons learned (hopefully) in the competitions in later Oz Report issues.

Discuss flex wings at the Oz Report forum

Tip Wands »

Sat, Jan 24 2004, 1:00:04 pm EST

carbon fiber|Ian Duncan|Tom Lanning

Tom Lanning «tom.lanning» writes:

In Oz Report v8 #14 a pilot wrote in "You'll probably hear from Tom Lanning, though. Same thing happened to him as you except I think his broken wand went through his sail."

I did have two tip wands break on a new Litespeed 4 last spring. One tip wand broke cleanly a few inches outside the wand socket on the leading edge and punched a small hole in the sail on the leading edge. The second wand broke while I was flying.

Unlike your incident, the glider developed a progressively worse right turn until I was hanging on the down tube just to maintain level flight and was seriously thinking about throwing my parachute. Luckily it was a breezy day in Florida and I was over large pasture fields. I thought that if I could just keep the glider into the wind on final, I could fly it into the ground without much speed.

I managed to pull off a respectable 3 step landing even as the glider wound around to the right. Unlike yours, this tip wand unwound in the center with a spiral splintering that reached about 1/3 of the way to either end. I would not say the wand became "unwrapped", but the pattern was similar. Both of my tip wands were fiberglass.

I know of at least two other Litespeed fiberglass wands that broke on the ground while the glider was just sitting unattended. One of the pilots even flew the glider and landed complaining of a "new subtle turn" in his glider!

I ended up flying another Litespeed 4 last summer and fall and had no problems with the tip wands and they are still relatively straight.

(editor's note: It was great to hear from Ian Duncan about the carbon fiber tip wands that he now produces for Moyes and how straight they are. I found mine to be perfectly straight after flying with them. This is really a big improvement and Moyes and Ian are to be congratulated for coming up with this method. I didn't notice any problems with the Climax tip wands and I will check from over the coming week.)

Discuss tip wands at the Oz Report forum

Aeros Combat »

Wed, Jan 21 2004, 12:00:02 pm EST

calendar|carbon fiber|Kevin Carter|Oleg Bondarchuk

G. W. Meadows «gw» writes:

I noted in your comparisons of the Litespeed and Climax (both fine gliders) that you mentioned the Combat and how light it is. This may confuse some of your readers (and for good reason), so I figured now is as good a time as any to announce our new glider.

The Combat L is Aeros' latest glider for the flex wing racing market. The "L" is for Light. The glider is the lightest topless wing that we've ever produced and this reduction in weight has made a glider that has tremendously light (while still being predictable) handling.

Our 13 meter size wing (approx 145 square feet) weighs in at only 73 pounds in the "full race" mode. So how did we reduce the weight so much? By going to a 7075 aluminum airframe and carbon fiber ribs.

The 7075 tubing allows us to shave a few pounds off the wing and the carbon ribs reduce the weight by almost another 2 pounds. This glider is officially available now and can be purchased in 3 sizes.

Our website is being updated now with the information about the Combat L and we hope to have it live by the end of this week. www.flyaeros.com

Currently, Oleg, Bo and Kevin Carter are flying the Combat L in Australia. Oleg and Bo are on the production models and Kevin is flying the 'pre-production' Combat L.

Speaking of Kevin, I would like to welcome him to Team Aeros. I recruited Kevin in October after catching the eye of one of our talent scouts. A tri-athlete, Kevin is familiar with training and competing. He considers the Australia competitions as good training ground for his upcoming North American competition season. He's only been flying hang gliders for a year - and we're very happy to have him on our team.

I'm happy that you're able to get rides on those fine gliders there in Australia. It greatly reduces the strain of traveling to compete in another country, when you don't have the logistical hassles of transporting a glider. Having two major flex wing manufacturers there sure is handy. With this in mind, we'd like to let you know that if you were to decide to attend the Ukrainian Nationals this spring - not to worry - we'll have a brand new Combat L waiting for you. Just as 'home field' has it's advantages in Australia, I'm sure that the Ukrainian Nationals will have Aeros gliders in at least nine of the top ten places. Keep up the good work.

(editor's note: I haven't separately weighed the gliders, so I really don't know the differences in weight between them. Oleg, Kevin, Bo and I are sort of a team here, getting picked up together, and talking on the radio (Oleg doesn't turn on the radio), so I've just been picking up gliders and I noticed that Oleg's seemed lighter than the Climax or the Litespeed. I have no idea if that is true, and I mentioned to readers that they might want to check the respective manufacturer's web site for specifications.

Like G.W. says, it is a great thing to be able to fly gliders in the country that you are going to. I worked out a trade with Airborne and Moyes to rent their gliders in trade for ad space in the Oz Report. As the reader donation/subscriptions and Oz Report ad space is my only income these days, I don't give it away cheaply.

I may take up the offer to fly in the Ukrainian Nationals. We'll look at the calendar. If I can do it before the Worlds in Austria, it might work out. You'll then be seeing some new ads in the Oz Report from Aeros.

Moyes Lightspeed tip wands

Sat, Jan 17 2004, 12:00:04 pm EST

Angelo Crapanzano|carbon fiber|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Kraig Coomber|Mike Barber|Tom Lanning

A pilot writes:

I had ridiculous problems with my tip wands when I got my Litespeed. Thanks to Mike Barber or I'd have bagged the whole thing. Some kind of manufacturing issue with the fiberglass. That ostensibly is ancient history. You'll probably hear from Tom Lanning, though. Same thing happened to him as you except I think his broken wand went through his sail.

I had Angelo Crapanzano, Kraig Coomber, and Jonny look at the tip wand. They agreed that it had broken in a most unusually location - about mid way. It appears as though there was a manufacturing defect and that the sail tension smashed in the wand.

Kraig states that they have never broken a carbon fiber Litespeed tip wand and they have never broken the earlier fiberglass version of the tip wands, except at the junction where the tip wand goes into the leading edge.

The tip wands on the Litespeed have vastly improved over time, and mine was apparently the first of this carbon fiber variety to break. I noticed that the wands remain turn and don't bend after use. Carbon fiber it used to reduce weight at the tip and make the glider more responsive.

I wish manufacturers would be more forth coming about their improvements so that we could know about them and see how things chance over time. Of course, that would require admitting, at least implicitly, that what they did earlier was not all that good.

Kraig gave me his tip wands - although he apparently didn't want me to know that - and I had no problem flying the Moyes Litespeed S 4.5 on the second day. In fact I loved flying it. Jeez, did it even remind me of the Wills Wing U2? Well, not on tow, but maybe in the air.)

Human Powered Flight

Wed, Jan 7 2004, 5:00:03 pm GMT

Bill Brooke|carbon fiber|John Rankin|Peter Gray

Peter Gray <peter@graynet.net> writes:

Funny, isn't it, how the same ideas crop up over and over (Bill Brooke's pedal-powered harness, Jan 3 photo).

John Rankin writes: "My conclusion was that the harness could extend your glide by a few points but the work involved, the exposure to the elements and the fragility of the prop really ruled it out as something I would want to use commonly." I don't know whether Brooke really expected to get a climb, or even level flight, out of his machine, but he could have determined in advance that it wouldn't do either, without building a prototype.

The minimum rate of energy loss (i.e., power required) with a medium-to-light male pilot on a flex wing (let's say, 250 pounds sinking at 200 feet/minute) is 833 foot-pounds/second, or just over 1.5 horsepower (a rigid wing might require slightly less). A really fit bicycle racer can put out about 0.5 HP for short bursts, but for most people, ¼ HP for any length of time is very strenuous.

That means that in the ideal case, a person could only hope to flatten his or her glide by about one sixth, and one twelfth would be more realistic. Of course, this doesn't count efficiency losses in the propeller and drive train, or the weight and drag penalty from the apparatus.

When thinking about human-powered flight, it's useful to remember the Gossamer Albatross and related craft. Those are always single-purpose, unstable, low-maneuverability, extremely fragile airplanes. Even they are only practically capable of level flight for more than a few minutes, and only with highly athletic pilot/engines, and only deep in ground effect.

Even with their best materials and technology, humans don't have a high enough power to weight ratio for self-propelled flight. Eventually we might have materials that will make it possible, but that will require a much bigger advance than from wood to carbon fiber, or from cotton to Dacron. I've worked on human-powered aircraft, but I'm not holding my breath for any practical applications.

Discuss "Human Powered Flight" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Climax in Bright

Tue, Dec 23 2003, 11:00:00 am EST

carbon fiber|PG

carbon fiber|Oliver Barthelmes|PG

carbon fiber|Oliver Barthelmes|PG

Two days before Christmas and after days of rain the sun came out and the winds quieted down as the center of the high pressure moved over the Alpine Shire. It was time to get the Airborne C2 out and take it up Mystic launch for my first flex wing foot launch in over a year.

I had traded Oz Report ad space for the opportunity to fly the Airborne Climax and the Moyes Litespeed while I was here in Australia. I was still unsure whether this was a good idea, given that my recent hours on flex wing gliders was pretty limited. I was wondering if I could get the feeling for them in time for the Hay Open.

The paragliders started appearing around noon over Bright, but I went up to launch (the road is greatly improved) around 2:30 and found the only other hangie around, Oli Barthelmes having set up his Litespeed. There were plenty of "local" paraglider pilots around, but it took foreigners to uphold the hang gliding end of things.

When I opened up the glider bag on the carpeting at the Mystic launch I was a bit taken aback to find this beautiful blue and white Mylar glider with a carbon fiber base tube. Jeez, would I be able to live up to the glider?

The control frame is so big compared to the ATOS that it's hard to get use to. Still with the long hang strap I had to significantly shorten my adjustable strap on my Center of Gravity Carbon Fiber harness.

On launch I was missing my much shorter ATOS control frame. To be comfortable with the height of the control bar above the ground, I had to lift the Climax so that the down tube no longer fit snuggly on my shoulders. No wonder small women pilots have trouble with the standard sized control frames on flex wing gliders.

There was a light wind straight in on launch so the launch itself was uneventful and fortunately there was a big soft thermal right out in front that got me over the top as I made my first turn. Given that I would take a while to get my body to remember how to turn a flex wing glider without constant reminders, this was quite fortunate. It would have been quite difficult to scratch on the hill side in a high performance topless glider.

I kept having to remember to lead with my feet (something you just don't worry about in a rigid wing as you aren't really doing weight shift when flying the ATOS), and coordinating my arm movements with my feet placements. Given my inexperience the glider was much slower to initiate a turn than my ATOS. Also, I wasn't use to pulling in and pushing out to coordinate the turn.

Still, I was climbing up through the apparently less experienced paraglider pilots and getting a feel for the thermals. With the 6 mph west wind up above we drifted back toward the normal lz.

I had noticed before that a flex wing glider feels less twitchy and has a more stable feeling in the air than the ATOS. And while I felt and was less in control of this glider than my ATOS, I didn't worry much about that as long as I was not too close to the paragliders.

If I encountered a thermal with one wing only I found that I would be quickly kicked out of it and had to come around to get into it. I assume that I'll figure out how to control the glider quickly enough to be able to turn directly into the thermal and climb with it. I had no problem doing with when flying the ATOS.

I climbed up a few times over launch then finally headed over to the Porpunka (not on line at the moment so I can't check the spelling) airport and found that while the wind up above was out of the west it was north on the ground. I wanted a nice long straight approach as even after an hour and a half in the air I still wasn't totally comfortable with my command of the glider. Fortunately the Climax almost lands itself (as I remember from when I flew in at the Gulgong Classic last year).

I've got a little over a week to get ready for the first competition in Hay. It looks to me like I'll be able to make the transition.

Discuss the Airborne Climax at the Oz Report forum

Instrument pod⁣s for Garmin 76 and varios »

Thu, Oct 30 2003, 12:00:05 pm GMT

pods

carbon fiber|instrument pod|Nick Purcell

Nick Purcell «npurcell» writes:

A lot of pilots are now flying with the new GPS from Garmin, the 76S GPS has heaps of features that can really help your flying when you’re out on course. I have developed a new instrument pod (cockpit) that holds the GPS and vario in a light weight, very strong and streamlined pod. The pods are made out of Fiberglas and I make a carbon fiber version as well.

The pods when finished weigh 350 grams or 12 ounces, they are a hollow construction with an aluminum fitting for the bracket to be screwed into, the air speed probe is recessed, making less drag and protecting it from being snapped off. They can be painter in any colour you choose. I now have my web page up and running, you can see the pods at http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~npurcell/ or email me for more information.

Discuss "Instrument pod⁣s for Garmin 76 and varios" at the Oz Report forum   link»

From flex to rigid

Tue, Sep 23 2003, 4:00:03 am EDT

carbon fiber

Today I had a pilot write to me about his recent experiences with a Flight Design Exxtacy. He wrote:

We were towing yesterday and a pilot with an Exxtacy offered me a flight on it and kept offering until I accepted. I fly a WW Talon. It was awesome, flying so easy I felt I could fly it all day and not get tired. It also landed so easy in dead calm air. I was then told by a few pilots that an Atos blows away an Exxtacy. Anyway I now think I might want to pursue rigids and welcome any advice, etc.

I provided the pilot with some links to more information.

Personally, I enjoy flying both rigid and flex wing gliders, but it is abundantly clear that the addition of aerodynamic surfaces substantially reduces the effort required to fly a hang glider. Aerodynamic surfaces also allow the designer to put dihedral into the winds, thereby substantially improving the stability of the glider which is especially helpful during towing and long glides. Towing is much easier with a glider with dihedral.

High performance flex wings have to have anhedral in their wings in order to somewhat overcome their “stiffness” in the initiation of a turn.

It is unfortunately the case that flex wing designs are artificially inhibited by the glider classifications from adopting aerodynamic control surfaces. If they were to adopt this “innovation” it would require that they compete (in competitions) against the more expensive carbon fiber rigid wings. They might have an advantage in the marketplace though.

The use of aerodynamic surfaces would also allow the flex wing designer to make those rigid flex wings even stiffer than they are now. They can also pull out all the variable geometry mechanism that they use to overcome this “stiffness” problem. Whether a flap for slowing down and decreasing the length of the landing would be worth the cost is unclear to me. Just use a drogue chute (or get your harness open and your legs out).

You’d have to figure out how to pack the spoilers in a thinner package. Perhaps they could be easily detachable and lay across the width of the rolled up glider. They can also be quite thin as Felix has shown with his aluminum spoilers on the AIR ATOS-C.

Discuss rigid vs. flex at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Aeros Combat 2 – the unique aspects thereof »

Thu, Aug 28 2003, 5:00:03 pm EDT

Aeros Combat 2|carbon fiber|Paris Williams

Aeros Combat|Aeros Combat 2|carbon fiber|Paris Williams

Aeros Combat|Aeros Combat 2|carbon fiber|Paris Williams

G. W. Meadows «gw» writes:

The Combat 2 is a glider that utilizes fully all the technology available to us currently. Aeros uses tests performed in a full scale wind tunnel to maximize the performance of this wing. Of course, performance is one thing handling is a totally different beast. If you can't precisely control that performance, then it's no good to you in competition. The competition results of the Combat 2 speak toward the performance of this wing. It's the most winning glider in U.S. meets for this year!!

Through 'multi-stage' flex control along the leading edge, Aeros has been able to make a glider that is stiff enough to hold the loads of high speed while flexing where necessary to create incredible handling. Paris Williams (current U.S. National Champion) was so impressed by this handling that he joined the Aeros team just three days after his first flight on the current production Combat 2. This same multi-stage flex control is part of the reason that the Combat 2 has the great landing characteristics that weren't present in our Stealth series.

The Combat 2 (as well as all the Aeros flex wings - including the Aeros trike wings) utilizes 2024 T-6 aircraft quality aluminum for its leading edge member. This alloy gives the desired flex characteristic and has the welcomed side effect of not breaking explosively in the event of a very bad landing/crash. For anyone who has ever broken a 7075 leading edge and had it explode through the sail of their glider, they know all too well the extra costs of this type of mishap. Of course, no one ever expects to break a leading edge when they are buying a hang glider, but reality is that accidents do happen.

Another great money saver is the 3 piece leading edge construction of the Combat 2. Seldom does anyone damage 2 sections of a 3 piece leading edge in one mishap. Why buy 12 ft of leading edge replacement when you only need 7 ft? Because of the 3 piece leading edge design and the 2 piece keel, all parts of the Combat 2 (except the carbon crossbar) can be shipped via UPS. This also is a great money saver!! Parts cost a fortune to ship by truck, not to mention the fact that truck can’t deliver to you overnight across the country. This convenient part replacement is not by chance. The Aeros gliders are well thought out down to the cost of replacing parts.

The Combat 2 features the 'microdrag' control frame. It has the same downtube airfoil designed and optimized by WW and the Aeros control frame features the most comfortable carbon basetube in the business. Many pilots of our competitor's gliders have purchased this carbon fiber basetube from us to install on their gliders because of its extreme comfort and streamlined efficiency.

Probably the most unique feature of the Combat 2 is the fact that the same glider the top guys fly is the same glider that the customer gets. This is not that case across the board on all the comp wings currently flying. We are very proud of this fact.

When you put it all together, we feel that we have the highest performance for the dollar. We also feel that anyone who does a little research will have to agree.

Discuss Combat 2 at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

US glider pricing

Thu, Aug 21 2003, 4:00:02 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Lookout Mountain|Rich Burton|Wills Wing

Aeros Combat|carbon fiber|Lookout Mountain|Rich Burton|Wills Wing

Aeros Combat|carbon fiber|Lookout Mountain|Rich Burton|Wills Wing

It is always difficult to get a real idea of the cost of a particular glider in a particular configuration and then be able to compare prices across manufacturers because each of the manufacturers does it their own way. My price listing from two days ago was meant to include most (but not necessarily all) of the options that would be used in a competition glider. Some I didn’t included because not every manufacturer offered them, or I couldn’t find a listing for what each manufacturer included in their competition package.

Some had Mylar sails, some didn’t. All had aero control frames, some with carbon fiber base tubes and downtubes, some with aluminum. I didn’t include carbon fiber inserts for the leading edges, nor carbon fiber outboard leading edges for the Moyes Litespeed S, as other manufacturers don’t include these ($495).

You can look on the same web sites I did (links included in the article) to find out as much as I know (and maybe more), about pricing.

Rich Burton «indasky» writes:

Suggested retail for an MR with the Mylar sail and the MR frame would be $7812.86 in the US.

The Euro price for the same glider is 7275 euros. Even at the current exchange of 112.00 which is much better then it has been for many months, the 7275 euros is over $8000.00, and that doesn't take shipping into account.

Sales in the US have been slow, but there are a few pilots out there that have put the quality of the product above the cost.

Jon at Lookout Mountain «fly» writes:

The standard retail price for a Climax 2 is $5495. That's a Mylar sail with standard frame.

As I recall the standard control frame is aluminum with aero base tube. So it looks like we have two gliders at the higher end in the US – the Icaro200 Laminar MR, and the Moyes Litespeed S, and three gliders at the lower end, cost wise – The Wills Wing Talon, the Airborne Climax, and the Aeros Combat 2.

Price is a function of supply and demand. If a manufacturer can increase the demand for his product by perhaps making it look rally good in competitions, than the price can go up. The glider manufacturers who have comparable performing gliders that aren’t being flown by a lot of the world’s best hang glider pilots might be experiencing less demand, and therefore must price their gliders so as to encourage what demand there is. It’s a cruel world.

Discuss topless gliders at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Tsunami »

Sun, May 11 2003, 9:00:06 pm GMT

Alessandro "Alex" Ploner|Alex Ploner|carbon fiber|competition|control frame|Flytec Championships 2003|landing

Was it the cool, sharp control frame of the Tsunami that gave it that little bit extra on the high speed glide? Compare the AIR ATOS-C control frame with the Tsunami and you might come away thinking that that might be the ticket.

The AIR ATOS–C down tubes and base tube are quite a bit thicker than what you’ll find on the Moyes Zoom frame, the new Icaro 2000 MR control frame, or the special carbon fiber frame on the Tsunami. Felix adds turbulators to the front edge of the control frame to keep the air stream attached. This is to offset the thickness of the airfoil section.

Why the thicker section – so you don’t get cut up so bad when you make a mistake on landing. Notice that a few folks have had this problem of late. Felix is thinking about the average ATOS-C pilot, not just the one or two top competition pilots.

Is the trade off worth it? Well, Christian and then Alex Ploner won the Flytec Championship and the Wallaby Open respectively.

Discuss "Tsunami" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Tighten them nuts – Moyes Litespeed 4 with Zoom frame

Fri, May 2 2003, 12:00:07 pm EDT

carbon fiber|competition|control frame|John Dullahan|Moyes Litespeed|nylon|site

John Dullahan <johndullahan@comcast.net> writes:

About 14 months ago I bought a year-old Litespeed 4 with about 100 hours from an active competition pilot. Since then, I put about 30 hours on the glider and have been very happy with its performance and handling. It came with a competition control frame (special downtubes and carbon fiber fared basetube).

Last Sunday, while assembling the glider at the Pulpit, a site near McConnellsburg, PA, the right downtube fell off the point of attachment to the keel. The very small nut on the bolt securing the downtube to the U-shaped housing (attached to the heart bold) had come off completely, allowing the bolt to fall out and the downtube to become detached from the keel. The nut securing the bolt on the other downtube was loose as well, but was still on the bolt.

I found the loose bolt and reattached the nut. (On the right downtube, a very thin screwdriver must be used to get past the VG cord and reach the deeply-recessed bolt. The bolt is tightened into the nut, which will not turn as it secured in a small area). The left side also needs a thin screwdriver however it's easier to reach due to the absence of the VG cord. Even when fully tightened, the bolts do not extend beyond the nylon locknuts (the bolt ends are level with the nylon; showing no threads at all).

Since these bolts are critical points and probably loosened over an extended period, I would have detected them had I been conducting complete and through pre-flight checks as called for in the Litespeed manual. Therefore my own negligence led to the unsettling sight of a downtube falling from the glider during assembly. The nuts, however, are very small and may be overlooked by pilots using similar control frames on Litespeed 4s (I don't know if the Litespeed 5 competition control frames have similar bolts).

If tightening them does not result in about three threads showing beyond the nylon, I strongly recommend removing them and using Locktite to add an additional measure of security, then inspecting them carefully during preflight checks.

Discuss preflights at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "Tighten them nuts – Moyes Litespeed 4 with Zoom frame" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Mark’s antenna

Sat, Mar 22 2003, 6:00:06 pm GMT

antenna|carbon fiber|Mark Poustinchian|radio

Mark Poustinchian <mpousti2000@earthlink.net> has come up with an antenna that he claims is superior to my little dipole. I haven’t had a chance to make a long range test yet. He takes a hot rod and replaces the telescoping antenna with a glider wire.

He’s put a SWR meter between the radio and the antenna and tested the signal strength as he moves the carbon fiber flaps up and down. The dipole antenna in the hang strap is adversely affected by the flaps. This antenna which hangs down from your pod, is not affected.

The base of the antenna is screwed into a BNC female adapter and that is connected to a 6’ coaxial cable that runs to your radio. I’m hoping that Mark will put up a web page with his instructions on how to make the antenna.

If you let it dangle behind you, it should make about a 45° angle with the ground.

Discuss "Mark’s antenna" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Will fly for subscriptions »

Sun, Mar 2 2003, 4:00:00 pm EST

calendar|carbon fiber|David Hempy|Dennis Cavagnaro|Flytec 4030|PG|Quest Air|record|Richard Heckman|Tove Heaney|USHGA|Wallaby Ranch|weather|World Record Encampment

Oz Report reader who have helped out on Sunday: Wayne Ripley.

So how am I doing asking pilots to volunteer to pay for their subscription to the Oz Report? Well, pretty good. I’ve received money or pledges from 165 pilots. The total pledged, sent electronically or handed to me so far is $2385. I’m stoked.

The total number of regular Oz Report readers is about 2,400. About 3,000 were reading during the peak of the Australian competitions. 165/2,400 = 6.9% of the Oz report readers are voluntarily supporting the Oz Report. This is actually a pretty high number. I just bet that public radio stations would be very happy to get 7% of their regular listeners to support the radio station.

Now Oz Report readers have been very generous, and given much more than the asked for $10 donation/subscription. Many pilots who’ve given extra money have done so with the thought that “Hey, Davis, isn’t it about time? I’ve been reading the Oz Report for years now, and here is three year’s worth of subscriptions,” so I can’t expect such generosity when I ask for renewals next year. None the less, just assuming that the money was coming in $10 donations from 238 pilots, then that is 10% of the Oz Report readers supporting the Oz Report. Very cool.

You can see how to send in $10 for a yearly subscription to the Oz Report below.

OzReport.com/Records.htm

The Oz Report is going to keep track of hang gliding (and a few paragliding) records. Not just the World Records, like the ones set at the World Record Encampment, but also national, regional, and state records.

Also, single surface and kingposted records. And women’s records.

We probably won’t have all the possible records, but enough to encourage hang glider pilots to go for it.

If we haven’t got a record up that should be there (and I’m sure we’ve missed plenty) you might want to make fun of us by sending in the record. Thanks.

The east coast flex wing record is 218 miles. Set last summer in Leland, Illinois (see above). The furthest a flex wing glider pilot has gone in Florida is 203 miles. What about trying to set the new east coast record on a flex wing glider?

Yesterday, Bo was testing his Aeros target with carbon fiber down tubes. He’s going for the single surface record, and he’s not alone. I’m trying and I’m not alone. It’s the $1,000 and the focus of going for the $1,000. It’s also the fact that you only have to fly 100 miles.

But, who’s going to try to break the east coast flex wing record? Who’s going to try to fly 250 miles in a flex wing hang glider on the east coast?

Let’s look at the prize situation:

$1000 – fly a single surface hang glider 100 miles from Wallaby Ranch.

$1,001 – fly a single surface hang glider 100 miles from Quest Air.

Flytec 4030Race ($900) – fly any hang glider 250 miles from Quest Air (must fly with Flytec vario)

$2,000 - fly any hang glider 300 miles from Wallaby Ranch

$2,001 - fly any hang glider 300 miles from Quest Air (reduced to $1,001 if flown on non Flytec vario)

Do we need a little more encouragement in the 250 mile range? For flex wing hang gliders?

Meet organizers do not provide enough pre selected waypoints for competitions. We have gone over to GPS contests during the last few years, but meet organizers haven’t yet caught onto the fact that they’ve got to get a whole bunch of waypoints in their waypoint list that can be downloaded at the start of the contest.

The only waypoints that really need to be associated with ground features are landing/goal areas, and these should be especially designated waypoints (using a symbol). Waypoints can be associated with ground features, and it is pilot friendly to do so, but they don’t need to be super accurate. As long as they are close, the pilots can use what they see while flying to match what their GPS is telling them.

Also, it would be great if the goal waypoints had six character names, the last three of which were the goal altitude in hundreds of feet. For example, GLF015, would be a goal field with an altitude of 1,500 feet. This would be a big convenience to pilots flying with Brauninger IQ/Comp varios.

The meet directors should put out waypoint lists with a couple of hundred waypoints. In this way the task committee won’t be choosing new waypoints at the last minute, the pilots won’t have to enter the new waypoints at the last minute (perhaps in a format they hate), and the meet organizers won’t be miscalculating where the goal fields are and sending pilots to goals in the middle of nowhere.

Tove had well over a hundred waypoints at the Australian Open and this is a very good start and the best showing so far. The problem was that she had almost all of them within too short a distance of the tow paddock. She needed another hundred spread out for the big days, so that we didn’t have to do so many zig zags.

 

Tove directing the Australian Open

As you get away from the tow field the waypoints can be further apart, less dense, than near the tow field, so you don’t need necessarily as many. Getting a couple of hundred waypoints and a good map that prints them out for the task committee really helps making decisions.

If the meet organizers do this in advance then it really cuts down on the work that pilots have to do at the last minute, makes for better decision making on the part of the task committee, and much reduces the panic that pilots as they are pressed for time right after the task is called.

How is this best done?

Meet organizers can use MapSource from Garmin or SeeYou to create a large list of waypoints just by pointing and clicking on the built in maps. They can read their current list of waypoints with G7ToWin, and convert them to PCX files for importation in MapSource or CUP files to be read by SeeYou. They can change the symbols in these programs to mark goals. Let’s use symbols to designate goals, and not special names (except for last three digits).

They can then add to their waypoints lists using the maps in these two programs (available around the world). When they are done they can download directly from MapSource into GPSes. Or, the can download with G7toWin.

I’m sure the other programs will also allow for the easy creation of waypoint files from built in maps or easily available maps (although Street Atlas doesn’t version 8). Goal coordinates can in some cases be taken from maps, but in most cases it is best to take coordinates from actual visits to the goal sites, if possible.

I really strongly urge meet organizers to see it as an important part of their meet organizing efforts to come up with a couple of hundred turnpoints and enough goals to help make their meets run more smoothly and with a higher degree of validity.

You’ll find a couple of web sites for keeping track of the Florida weather: www.davisstraub.com/Glide/wallabyweather.htm and www.davisstraub.com/Glide/questerairweather.htm

There is a bunch of overlap between these two sites. Get ready for your next trip south or see what is going on before you get here for the upcoming competition season.

David Hempy «dhempy» writes:

Don't overlook the Garmin eTrex series. Despite that they are some of the least expensive GPS units available ($99 at Amazon for the base model), they really pack a punch. They offer a 12 channel parallel receiver, 20 hours life on 2 AA's, 1500 track points on the base model and 2000-3000 on the other models, serial port, etc. Different eTrex models have other features, including map databases, barometric altimeter, etc. We allowed a variety of GPS at the 2002 US National Microlight Championships, and the eTrex were the most successful in every measure. I have personally found them to track better and more reliably than other (low-end consumer) GPS units I've flown with.

For more details, click on the "Comparison Chart" link on this page: http://www.garmin.com/products/etrex/

http://www.garmin.com/products/comparison.jsp?products=010-00190-00&products=010-00212-00&products=010-00256-00&products=010-00225-00&products=010-00243-00&products=010-00190-40&banner=/graphics/outdoorPIC.jpg

(editor’s note: Well, not quite. The problem is that the cheap models don’t allow you to set the tracklog record time interval, but only have automatic mode. Fine if you are going straight like on an ultralight that doesn’t matter, but if you are making a bunch of turns, the GPS uses up all its track log points before the flight is over.

David writes:

Here is a log of a flight I made this month with the tracklog increment set to "auto" on the yellow (cheapest model) eTrex. (I also have the green "Venture" model, but I actually prefer the human interface of the yellow one)

http://www.davidandjanine.com/ul/straub

In the two detail images, you'll notice the trackpoints are spaced every about every ten seconds (about 200 m) flying straight and level. Then, during a 1 minute 360, the interval drops to around 3 seconds a pop (50 m or so). After powering up the GPS, and leaving it on the hood of the car before the flight, it took one trackpoint in 16 minutes. The two points were 3.02 m apart. That would have consumed about 1000 trackpoints at a 1 second interval, or 200 trackpoints at a 5 second interval.

In the "whole_log" map, you can make out the trackpoints joining the alternating red and green segments of the track. (Sorry for the quality...I compressed the images pretty tight.) The 360 in the detail is at center of the semicircular course. (Ever try to fly a 15km-radius circle? Not easy!)

You'll see in the "detail_data" file that it took 569 trackpoints for a 97 km trip. That's about 1/3 of the little eTrex's capacity, and 1/6 of some models' 3000 trackpoint capacity.

You can see more about this flight, including the .loc file that has the raw data, here: http://www.davidandjanine.com/ul/tasks/2002-02-01/

I just checked, and I had them reversed. You cannot set the tracklog interval on the yellow unit. You can on the green Venture model. (I was mistaken when I called it the Vista...It is the Venture).

As for the distance interval, the minimum setting is 0.01 units, where the units are miles or kilometers, depending on how you've got the default display set up. So, if you're enlightened enough to use the metric system, you can set it to a 10 meter increment. I have not tested it in this configuration.

We generally will make three turns on a triangle course (Well, six or seven including the pattern.) so Auto is pretty ideal. I didn't consider that you guys spend much of your time thermalling. I can see know why Auto works so well for us, and not so well for you.

Perhaps the Venture would be a better fit then. With 2048 track points, and the ability to set the interval to any number of seconds, you could get 5.5 hours out of a 10 second interval. I think I paid $169 at WalMart in December 2001 for it. (MSRP $194) (http://www.gpsnow.com/gmetvt.htm)

I also notice the top-of-the-line Vista (MSRP $375) has glide ratio and glide ratio required to make goal functions. I don't know too much about that, but it sounds like it might be right up your alley.

Richard Heckman «hekdic» writes:

I've been on glucosamine 1500 mg /chondroitin 1200 mg for about 4 years and my orthopod says that the Hopkins guru that just invented the latest knee prothesis has been on it for about that long and if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for his patients. Long term studies are still under way but short term European studies look good.

I had the last two fingers of each hand going numb back in 1990. I started isometric exercises to strengthen my neck and stopped sleeping on a pillow and substituted a 4" roll of foam under the back of my neck. 4" foam is about the right height when you roll over and it seems to cradle my neck just about right. It took about 6 weeks but my numbness went away. Since then, I've had an occasional feeling of numbness if I've been in some weird position but that's it.

It might be interesting to find out if there is a larger number of HG pilots with neck problems than the general public. Prone flying might be making us more susceptible.

Dennis Cavagnaro «dcavagnaro» writes to Jayne, executive director of the USHGA:

I would like to respond to your letter and explain why the first issue of the real combine magazine has unleashed such a strong protest.

You are right that there was a positive higher numbered second vote after the first one was determined to not be representative. The fist vote didn't have the benefit of your public relations campaign, all the USHGA resources and a very comprehensive "sample magazine to influence it. It was a plainly ask question and a small group responded negatively.

You have a agenda that I thinks stretches the authority of being the organizations executive director. It appears you see it as your role to shape the perception of Hang Gliding and Paragliding and in doing that a single voice would be helpful. Having a single magazine and not allowing the two different sports some autonomy will help you meet those agenda's needs.

We have gone from a situation where each sport, hang gliding and paragliding, had their own publication, their own photographs and their own set of feature articles (February issue in Hang Gliding alone had six) to a magazine that is less the 25% bigger with larger type and only 4 features to cover both sports. We have gone from a staff of 2-3 producing two magazines to a staff of 4 hired professionals producing fewer results.

The latest issue is nothing like your public relations "sample" that was distributed before the second vote. You promised and displayed double the magazine and double the content with that sample. In reality you only doubled the staff.

I wonder how the paraglider pilots feel about one featured article and I note we hang gliding pilots haven't experience a one-sided Paragliding issue yet with paragliders only on the cover. I wonder what our reaction will be then.

I ask that you consider either another vote now that everyone is paying attention or a non-magazine membership with a reduced cost ($15-$20) so we can go an support our publication of choice.

That would be a much fairer way of settling this and dealing with all of your constituents.

(editor’s note: I am waiting for one comment from a specific paraglider pilot, then I’ll leave this to the hang gliding mailing list for further discussion (or you can go to the new Oz Report hang gliding discussion group, see below).

I would love to see a membership choice, such as a check box:

[  ] Send me HG/PG Magazine

[ ] Send the $15 to the Oz Report.

Yah, that seems like a good vote.)

Cheaters!

Wed, Jan 15 2003, 6:00:05 pm EST

carbon fiber|Florida|Kari Castle|Mark Poustinchian|Mike Degtoff|Wills Wing|Worlds

Mark Poustinchian «mpousti2000» writes:

When my very old ATOS was upgraded to ATOS B last spring in Florida, I noticed that it started to glide much better with the new thin spoilers and carbon fiber tips. I still had the front wires however the glider was doing fine. I was flying with one of the comp pilots who is a fine pilot and had just picked up his new ATOS-C and flying it. I saw him the next day and he said that he had complained to Felix the night before that my old ATOS was out climbing and out gliding his new ATOS-C. To be honest, I was very surprised myself when I noticed the same thing.

I had another opportunity to fly with another ATOS C pilot in Big Spring comp in Texas. This other pilot on the first day of the comp had the low drag salad bowl helmet, super low drag carbon fiber harness, super micro drag Wills Wing control frame and a nice ATOS C. Remember that day Davis? It was you.

(editor’s note: What I remember about the 2002 US Open was hanging on to my ATOS-C for dear life and cursing that fact that I had ever given away my tail.)

We were climbing in a thermal with Kari Castle and when we topped out the thermal about 6000’ agl, all of us went on a long glide. I was at top and you were very close and maybe about 50’ below. I was flying my old ATOS with standard down tubes, an old and big harness with lots of drag, my big and fat base bar with the built in glove compartment which was holding my instruments and my lunch box at the same time. We had a long glide very close to each other and at the end about 5 miles away I was about ½ mile in front and a few hundred feet above. I was shocked and amazed at what my glider was doing. I realized that I wasn’t imagining things and my old ATOS was out gliding the ATOS C gliders. I was flying very fast and every day that I made goal, I had the fastest time.

(editor’s note: OzReport.com/Ozv6n151.htm. Here is my statement at the time: “Without the V-tail, I am a nervous wreck for the first hour in the air. The ATOS is jumping all other the place (as far as I’m concerned), and I’m just happy to have the football receiver gloves. I try to relax.

“It is great to be competing and racing with Kari and Mark as we lead the 2 PM group to the first turnpoint. The sink is big and the lift is 700 fpm in small cores. The cu’s are every where, but only half or so work.”)

I always took a later start time and tried to catch everyone and pass them. Some days I would take the last clock which was ½ hour after the first start time and it was fun to pass pilots on the way. I had some opportunity to glide with Mike Degtoff who was flying the Stalker and liked to take the first start time. For some reason, on a few days that we both made goal I was catching up to him somewhere on the second leg and after that I couldn’t shake him off. We flew together for a while until our instruments were showing that we got goal made and we go on glide from many miles away. At high speeds he was leaving me behind and I didn’t like it at all.

On the last day, again I was able to catch Mike and Rich Barton whom had taken the first start time. We were together by the second turn point and I started to do the pulling again. It was very interesting to fly with them that day. We were in the last powerful thermal which I had found and going up very fast. We were about 12 miles from goal. Mike left first and I immediately followed trying to keep up and tried to at least beat Rich to goal. Rich was a few hundred feet below us and was flying the Stratos that Christian from Italy flew in Chelan and had won the Worlds Championship with. After a short while Mike was able to pull away from me and I was trying hard to get to goal next. I was flying fast with lots of bar pressure and was having a bumpy ride.

After a few minutes, I saw Rich a little higher than me to my left and passing me at a very high speed. “What the $%@#, how is he going so fast? I asked myself. Here I was getting beat by the rough air and dealing with it and here is this guy passing me like I am glued to the ground. I knew right away that the glider that he was flying was a beefed up and modified glider. There was no way that I could keep up, go that fast and have that kind of glide. Here I was beating the ATOS C gliders and here was this ATOS’s twin glider going so much better. If you want to beat me and feel good about it beat me fair and square, not on a beefed up glider that is gliding so much better than mine. I finished with the fastest time at goal, however, I was the third pilot in that day. I was happy that after a late start, I was able to catch these super duper gliders on the way to goal, however I was not happy when they were beating me to goal on the last glide. I am just thinking what the results would have been like if I was flying these faster gliders.

(editor’s note: What does Mark mean by beefed up here? What would make the Stratos go faster? How was it modified? I don’t think Rich had any ballast.)

Anyway, I hope you see what I am trying to say here. The ATOS C that you and lots of my friends are flying, aren’t the same as the ATOS C gliders that Alex or Tony are flying. They have put more safety features into ATOS C to make them safer. However they have sacrificed a little performance to achieve this. These pilots flying these modified gliders are top pilots, but give me a break here. If you want to beat me, I like to see if you like to exchange gliders with me first and then try to beat me.

I am guessing that these gliders have extra carbon fiber on the leading edges for super stiffness at high speeds, lower twist, lower sweep and maybe even lower dihedral. All of these can and will improve gliders performance in a big way. You maybe able to lower the sweep on your glider, however lowering you twist and dihedral are factory jobs.

All that said, here is what the problem is. It seems as we want to have the cake and eat it too. On one side we cry for safer gliders and ask the manufacturers to make them safer and at the same time on the other side, we are trying to beat the super duper modified gliders. I bet if you are willing to sacrifice your safety and be willing to fly these supper gliders which maybe a little unstable in the air, they may make you one too. Is that what you want? I wish there was a way to control all this in a comp and all the gliders from the same manufacture were the same.

My message to these pilots who beat everyone on these hot ships is; “you are not as good as you think you are and you know it, if you were, then you fly the same glider that others are flying, then you would get much more respect from me and others. Stop cheating your way to the top.

Rack pads for ATOS

Wed, Jan 15 2003, 6:00:03 pm EST

carbon fiber

If you want to keep your ATOS free of damage from your racks, then you’ll need a set of carbon fiber rack pads such as these:

 

You can get them from AIR (www.a-i-r.de) or your local ATOS dealer. These are the latest version that are a bit smaller than the previous ones. I don’t have a price on them yet.

Kari, try carbon fiber

Fri, Dec 27 2002, 11:00:03 am EST

carbon fiber|Kari Castle|Mark Clark

Mark Clark «mclark» writes:

Has Kari ever flown in a Carbon CG?

Unless you are suggesting that harness manufacturers design a back frame in the shape of an Hour Glass, I think that Jay will tell you that comfort is more a matter of the frame support than the cut of your harness cloth.

The Carbon CG does not have cloth pulling off a small frame. It is the cloth pulling from this small frame that produces the added pressures on parts of our body more than cutting the cloth to fit a woman's or man's figure. (Jay made the CG 1000 & CG 2000 for 13 years. Both are precursors to the Rotor and the like.)

Unlike cloth harness with a 27 inch (approximate) back support frame, the Carbon CG acts like one big +65 inch full body frame supporting you from your shoulders to your ten toes. This has eliminated most of the uncomfortable pressure points. For an added bonus, your chest floats on an adjustable air cushion.

Discuss "Kari, try carbon fiber" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Vacuum bag it

Mon, Nov 4 2002, 2:00:03 pm EST

carbon fiber

Want to build a fiberglass, carbon fiber, Kevlar, or carbon fiber/Kevlar part (or perhaps a helmet)? You can set yourself with an inexpensive vacuum bagging system with an old refrigerator pump, a garbage sack, and a little tape.

Here in Australia you can go to your friendly neighborhood refrigerator/appliance store and get some help with an old pump from a worn out frig. Try that in 90% of the US. Market efficiencies and the desire for the big bucks have driven such business out of business there.

Anyway, you can use carnauba wax (car wax) to cover the inside of the mold so that you can pull the part off the mold. There is a great fiberglass shop down the street here in Ballina, with everything that you need (well it has fiberglass and not carbon fiber or Kevlar).

Don’t let the pump overheat. The bag should have some small holes in it which may form naturally as it tightens around the mold. If the pump gets too hot, just turn it off.

You can learn more about the technology by looking at RC model builders’ web sites.

Discuss "Vacuum bag it" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

New Aeros Harness

Thu, Oct 31 2002, 2:00:06 pm EST

calendar|carbon fiber|Florida|Quest Air|Wallaby Ranch|Worlds

www.justfly.com

G. W. Meadows «gw» writes:

Aeros announces the release of its newest racing harness for hang gliding – the Viper. Being one of the world’s largest suppliers of hang gliding harnesses, Aeros had fallen behind in the past couple of years with new innovations.

In 1997, Aeros introduced the first production ‘internal parachute’ hang gliding harness to the worldwide market. The “Racer” was quickly emulated by nearly all harness makers and many of the features of that harness are still in use in today’s cutting edge harnesses offered by the most successful harness makers in the world.

Adding to Aeros current offerings of harnesses (the Myth, Racer, Extreme and Cross Country), the Viper is without a doubt the lowest drag harness made to date by the Aeros harness factory. This was not without much research and many trial versions. The Aeros design team was able to utilize the Antonov wind tunnel for in-depth study and application of various harness drag reduction ideas. The result is a complete makeover of the Aeros racing harness design. The VIP employs several new features for Aeros harnesses and one particular new feature for the harness market.

Carbon Back frame: This is Aeros’ first harness utilizing a torso-contoured carbon fiber back frame. This 33cm wide, gently curving back support system allows the harness to fit as close as possible to the pilot while still allowing ‘non-binding’ support. Pilots who have tried this back frame system have raved about its comfort. Depending on the pilot’s height, the back frame will be between 80cm -105cm long.

Variable Pitch System: After much R&D on the best system for varying the pitch angle of the harness, Aeros has decided to go with the ‘shoulder line’ system, while utilizing an internal activation of the effective line length. Aeros evaluated many of the other pitch systems on the market and found drawbacks with many – including the tendency of the pitch system to slip or fail to deactivate when necessary.

Employing a brand new (and highly reliable) plate and lever system, know as the PPS (the Positive Pitch System) – more reliable than those used in previous models, the Viper pilot is able to easily adjust the pitch of the harness with his/her butt – without taking their hands of the basetube.

Matrix Outer Skin: The Viper has a Matrix cloth outer skin for drag reduction. This cloth proved in the wind tunnel to be the most ‘slippery’ available to the consumer market. Now for the newest feature on the harness market- with the Viper, the customer will be able to replace the entire outer matrix cloth covering at anytime with a new one. Utilizing a clever system of Velcro attachment, this Viper will be able to ‘shed its skin’ and take on a new one. The customer is basically able to create a new harness for a fraction of the cost.

Dual Parachutes: The customer has the option (included in the price) of choosing dual chute containers (one on each side of the harness) or a single parachute container with a 4 pocket container on the opposite side.

Storage: The Viper allows for a surprising amount of storage for such a sleek racing harness. It has storage in the tail section, as well as a wide storage section next to the back plate. An additional internal pocket for pads and such rounds out the storage offerings for the Viper.

Parachute Bridle Attachment Options: The Viper Pilot will have the option of internal bridle attachment (at the shoulders) or the traditional carabineer attachment. The harness comes standard with both methods in place.

As you can see, Aeros has completely ‘reworked’ its harness design and has come up with a winner. See your local Aeros dealer or contact Aeros for more information.

Discuss "New Aeros Harness" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Triathlon athlete at almost 80 years of age – Bill Bell »

Thu, Oct 10 2002, 2:00:02 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Triathlon athlete at almost 80 years of age

When I get to Cathedral City in the fall I’m on tap to provide computer support services to all my father in law’s friends. One of them called me up with a plaintive wail that nothing was working, and he couldn’t get on line anymore.

Turns out that he had the Bugbear virus even though he had Norton Anti-Virus installed. It was just the case that he didn’t know that he should be live updating it regularly and that he didn’t have any compunction about not holding back on clicking attachments. Funny part was that this disabled his e-mail (if Norton Anti-Virus was still installed) so I wondered how the Bugbear virus would replicate itself through Outlook Express. Of course, Bugbear also disables Norton Anti-Virus, although it doesn’t uninstall it.

Bill is an interesting character and devotes a large part of his time and effort to being a competitive tri-athlete. He enters enough triathlons each year to be able to qualify in his age group (75 – 79) for the Ironman in Hawaii. He is about to head for Hawaii in a few days. This is like getting to the worlds in hang gliding (and not from some little punk country, either).

http://www.insidetri.com/news/fea/173.0.html

http://vnews.ironmanlive.com

When he comes back he will be running a special triathlon which will be celebrating his 80 birthday. Apparently a lot of folks from around the world are coming to Palm Desert for the meet. 80 laps of the pool, etc.

I was standing around in his garage with him and his four bicycles one of which he was working on getting it ready for the Ironman. He had to glue on some tires. The bicycles were carbon fiber affairs, much different than anything I had seen in any bike shops.

Last year Bill had to stop during the bicycling part of the Ironman race as his heart was racing too quickly. He knew before hand that this might be a problem, but due to technical problems with hospital equipment he was unable to have the minor surgery that would correct this problem in time for the Ironman last year. He has since had the surgery and how the heart runs a little too slow for him.

Bill shows that with the right spirit and good health, you can compete at the highest level in the most strenuous of sports. Of course, the triathlon is a much more strenuous sport than cross country hang gliding, but I would love to be beating those hot new young pilots across the finish line 25 years from now in the Australian Open and the Flytec Championship.

http://vnews.ironmanlive.com/vnews//1022100850/?keywords=Bill:Bell
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Bill+Bell%22+Ironman

Small carbon fiber repairs

Wed, Oct 9 2002, 2:00:03 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Ian Duncan

Ian Duncan «compositecreations» (who builds the carbon fiber cross tubes/spar for the Moyes Lightspeed) writes:

I would suggest that an overlap of 1 1/4" (32mm) is more appropriate when using carbon and epoxy. This means 30mm past the damage area in all directions.

I believe it is best to instruct novices in the correct procedure as one day they may attempt to repair a structural part of the wing and only remember what they read in the Oz Report in the past. A 1/2" overlap is by no means sufficient in a high load area!

(editor’s note: The last article was in reference is very very small repair areas. Larger ones would benefit from Ian’s advise here.)

Small carbon fiber repairs

Tue, Oct 8 2002, 10:00:03 am EDT

carbon fiber|Steve Daleo

Steve Daleo «daleoenterprises» writes:

It's important to keep all the fibers in the skin aligned and unbroken to maintain the full integrity of the wing and the only way to do that is to patch the small holes with some carbon cloth and resin. It doesn't have to be a messy involved process.

Simply prepare the area to be patched by sanding a small circular area about a half inch outside the crack (I'm assuming these are tiny rock dings). Then, lay a piece of carbon cloth on a heavy piece of clear plastic and impregnate it with resin.

Cut out a circle of the appropriate size and the plastic will keep the edges from unraveling. If you want to make it really easy, go to the hardware store and buy an arch punch the right size for patches and just punch them out like cookies.

Put a little resin on the prepared skin, flop the patch on with the plastic still intact (be sure you line up weave of the cloth with the fibers of the skin). Use a knife to carefully pull the plastic off of the surface of the patch. Then, use some clear Mylar packing tape and just pull it tightly over the patched area. The epoxy will not stick to the tape.

When it's dry, just pull off the tape. No sanding, no mess and a perfectly smooth surface.

If the patch is bigger, simply lay a piece of Mylar over the patched area, put some foam on top for pressure and tape it down tight. There's no reason you should ever have to sand a properly done repair.

If this seems like too much work, take the glider to your local dealer for an inspection and touch up. I strongly suggest getting any patches you have done using some other method repaired correctly.

V-tails, and more »

Fri, Sep 20 2002, 1:00:00 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Florida|Pat Denevan|Ron Gleason|Russ Locke|V-tails

carbon fiber|Florida|John "Ole" Olson|Pat Denevan|Ron Gleason|Russ Locke|V-tails

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|carbon fiber|Florida|Pat Denevan|Ron Gleason|Russ Locke|V-tails

carbon fiber|Florida|Pat Denevan|Ron Gleason|Russ Locke|V-tails

Felix Rühle «felix» writes:

The tails have passed the DHV car, load and flight test and they are now available.

This is great news. I’m not sure of all the tests that the tails had to pass, but last time I heard about this, I thought it was with the glider and tail together. True?

I wonder if DHV or AIR will publish the pitching moment and pitch damping curves. It sure would be great. I wondered earlier if DHV tests for pitch damping. Do they?

It sure would be great to know a lot more about these tests and what they mean to pilots. Does it mean that the ATOS is much safer to fly with a V-tail? That is it much more resistant to tucks and tumbles?

Felix writes:

In your last report, a pilot mentioned bar movement at high speed with his standard harness, but not with the mosquito harness. Flying into a thermal usually causes a pitch up moment and the bar wants to move forward. The pilot usually pulls in when the bar is already starting to move back to the neutral position.

Had a discussion about this with Pat Denevan (ATOS dealer) and Ron Gleason (ATOS pilot) today. Pat states that you can just put your palm in front of the bar and pull in with no fingers around the bar, just a straight hand. Then watch the bar go back away from your hand toward your chest a few inches. The ATOS pitch movements happen without pilot input and according to Pat are most evident in stable conditions or flying at Funston, where there aren’t thermals, so that you can see the bar move without confusing that with movement due to thermals.

We felt that pilot weight might play a big part in this issue (or a pilot plus a mosquito). Felix is a big guy, so he has never had to feel what an ATOS feels like when you weigh a lot less. Ron has never felt these pitch movement issues. He’s pretty big also. Other pilots have never felt them. Russ Locke, for example.

This doesn’t prove that weight changes the pitch characteristics of the ATOS, and we don’t have an explanation about why this would be the case, but it is a tantalizing hypothesis.

I know that I didn’t mind the ATOS in Floridawhen I was racing with 22 extra pounds in the competition, but I attributed that to my focus on competition. I had ballast in Big Spring, Texas, and was often unhappy and scared, but the air there was quite a bit bigger than Florida.

I did not feel good (experienced lots of pitch movements) in Floridawhen I was flying around after the competition without ballast, and before the competition without ballast in a Stalker 2.

Of course, the V-tail in Chelan made the glider feel just a whole lot better.

Felix writes:

The best way to handle turbulence (small turbulence at high speed) is to press the elbows to the harness and hold the bar close to the harness. This is not possible when the hang strap is too short.

This is an extremely interesting point and the first time I have heard this. I did shorten my hang strap in order to allow me to get more head down in pulled in position. I would like more clarification of this point, that is, how close to the bar should we be on an ATOS-C when the bar is at our chin, our neck, and our chest?

I shortened the hang strap this spring from where it was at when I was in Australiain January (new Carbon Fiber CG harness). I will lengthen it (the strap on a Carbon Fiber CG is adjustable) when I get back to Australia.

I really hope that Felix writes back about this and gives his best guidance around this issue.

Felix writes:

I fly with the Mosquito too and feel no difference, but a big difference with different hang strap length.

I wonder just how big a difference this makes in how the pitch movements feel.

Felix writes:

Additionally the motor at the harness tail moves your CG back. The bar with the Mosquito is usually about 15cm back (the glider stalls with the bar 15cm more back!). This causes an other arm position at high speed too.

This is pretty confusing and I couldn’t figure out how to edit it. I thought that the bar would be further forward not back. Maybe Felix can help me out here.

Felix writes:

My experience is that there is no influence to the stall behavior from slightly bent tips. The glider of the pilot who experienced this is currently being checked at our distributor in GB, Steve Ellkins, and will be test flown also.

SparrowHawk »

Wed, Sep 4 2002, 12:00:01 pm EDT

carbon fiber|David Glover|Gary Osoba|Greg Cole|PG|sailplane

carbon fiber|David Glover|Gary Osoba|Greg Cole|John "Ole" Olson|PG|sailplane

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|carbon fiber|David Glover|Gary Osoba|Greg Cole|PG|sailplane

carbon fiber|David Glover|Gary Osoba|Greg Cole|PG|sailplane

www.windward-performance.com

Check out the previous articles on the SparrowHawk (OzReport.com/Ozv6n176.htm, OzReport.com/Ozv6n40.htm, and OzReport.com/Ozv6n33.htm ).

According to Greg Cole, the chief designer of the SparrowHawk, it was designed to be an affordable glider with reasonable performance, somewhat along the lines of the PW-5, but with better performance.

Greg wanted good performance at high speeds so that the glider could get around the course in a hurry. He wanted a low inertia glider that had quick response. According to Gary Osoba who probably has the most hours on it, it is as good as or slightly better than his Woodstock, in roll rate, about 2.2 second to go from 45 to 45 degrees (at 1.4 times the stall speed). Garyhas tuned his Woodstockfor the fastest roll rate possible to allow him to take advantage of microlift.

The SparrowHawk is designed to be easy to handle at low speeds. For safety, the cockpit is large and comfortable with more than adequate ventilation. Plenty of room for water and food to keep the pilot alert.

With its light weight the glider should have relatively slow speeds when approaching the ground, thereby cutting down on the forces that would be encountered from miscellaneous impacts. The cockpit is designed as a crumple zone that absorbs the shock of impacts.

The pilot is protected by the structure around the pilot just in front of the wheel. If the wheel is smacked in, it absorbs the impact behind the pilot.

According to Greg, the SparrowHawk is easy to repair and can be repaired by any composite technician found at sailplane ports. The manufacturer provides epoxy and carbon fiber for repairs.

All the control cables are made from an aramid, Technora, rope that is used in sailing for all the rigging on America’s Cup sailboats. The Technora ((http://www.teijin-aramid.com/ENG/tech_frame.htm) is housed in a Dacron sheath.

Greg has had considerable experience working in airplane manufacturing with the certification process and one of his goals was to build a plane that did not have to be certified (which considerably reduces the costs) and could therefore use technologies that are not certifiable. For example, 1/8” steel wires are required for cables in airplanes, and he wanted to use stronger and lighter Technora. You’ll also find Technora used in paragliders (http://www.nova-wings.com).

To build an affordable glider it is important to think about every part of the glider. The lighter the glider, the greater chance to cut the costs. For example, the light flexible canopy costs $300. Compare this with the cost of other sailplane canopies - $1,500 and up.

The span loading (that is loading per foot of span of the glider) is 9.7 to 11.5 lbs/ft, about that seen on 15 meter sailplanes.

I don’t have a sufficient understanding of the wing construction. I do understand that first the carbon fiber spar is constructed. There are two additional longitudinal shear webs that along with the spar form the torsional boxes that accept the torsional loads on the wing. The trailing edge does not have to have additional connections between the upper and lower surfaces due to the rear shear web.

Apparently the spar itself can handle all the torsional loads, and the additional shear webs form redundant torsional boxes that can handle the load if the spar becomes unattached to the wing surfaces.

The Yellow SparrowHawk.

Why is this SparrowHawk painted yellow? Because it can be.

Ever wonder why sailplanes are painted white? To keep the fiberglass from softening up. The SparrowHawk is cured at 270 degrees. You can have it painted any color you want.

The paint is two part polyurethane paint – automobile paint. You can have it repainted down at Earl Scheib’s. You can go to the paint store and they can make you up some paint spray cans with your favorite color.

David Glover lifting the fuselage

Because it is light, it is easy to move around. Seemed to me like it would be possible to strap the whole thing on your roof rack. It is easy to setup because it is so light.

The SparrowHawk is a sports car. It is built stiff out of carbon fiber. Expect a rough ride in turbulence. Expect to be able to feel everything in light lift. Expect to feel connected to the air.

Greg’s claim was that this was a sailplane for the 21st century. This is a big claim and a lot of it has to do with his use of advanced carbon fiber techniques that apparently haven’t been picked up by the Germans and their spin offs. Perhaps we are ahead of the Europeans in this area after all.

Apparently the SparrowHawk is the first production sailplane built in the USin twenty years.

Prepreg and tailplanes

Mon, Sep 2 2002, 6:00:04 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Greg Cole|John Vernon|sailplane

carbon fiber|Greg Cole|John "Ole" Olson|John Vernon|sailplane

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|carbon fiber|Greg Cole|John Vernon|sailplane

carbon fiber|Greg Cole|John Vernon|sailplane

john vernon«johnv» writes:

Through the development of the tailplane unit I became increasingly convinced about the use of prepregs, and my tailplanes are made from these materials to achieve the desired strength at a very light weight. TheUK is well positioned in this field through, amongst other things, the concentration of racing car constructors here, which has lead to many developments in this area. One of the drawbacks of the material is that it must be transported and stored at -18 degrees C. So it is normally packed in dry ice for transport and kept in freezers until required for use.

I think one of the reasons for not apparently using this material in current class five gliders, is that some of the components are often made in the old communist block countries ofEastern Europe to take advantage of the skills available there at low wage rates, which favours the more labour intensive wet lay up techniques. However I understand that the techniques used, emulate, to a certain extent, the production of a "pre-preg", albeit carried out by hand and therefore without the full advantages (high fibre volume etc) of a machine impregnated cloth, and using resins which by necessity employ extra constituents (as you suggested) which are avoided by the pre-preg process.

I have just completed a website about my tailplane products which gives a brief description of construction materials etc. It’s at www.slipstreamcomposites.com.

(editor’s note: The Pacific Northwest has always been a hotbed of composite work because of Boeing. For example, the first composite water skis came out of Redmond. Boeing continues to press forward with composites, especially on their newly proposed aircraft. Weight/operating cost is the issue.

The carbon fiber material used by Boeing and produced by Toray appears to be far advanced over what is available elsewhere, although Airbus should have access to something similar. Greg Cole is the first designer/manufacturer to incorporate this type of advanced pre-preg carbon fiber (although not exactly what Boeing specifies, which is a trade secret) in sailplanes. The particular pre-preg carbon fiber used by Greg is now used in other aircraft.)

The SparrowHawk

Sun, Sep 1 2002, 9:00:03 pm GMT

carbon fiber|Greg Cole|NASA|SparrowHawk|William "Gary" Osoba jr.

I have spoken extensively with Greg Cole of Windward-Performance (http://www.windward-performance.com) the maker of the SparrowHawk. I was most interested in the construction of this 155 pound glider. I wanted to know how they could make such a light glider, but expect it to test out at destruction to + and – 9 g’s. The plane has not yet been tested to destruction.

The SparrowHawk is built using pre-preg carbon fiber cloth that is built to a specification that came out of work at NASA. Each batch of the cloth is tested and certified by the manufacturer to meet this specification.

Very high quality pre-preg carbon fiber cloth reduces significantly the variability normally found in carbon fiber construction, especially in wet lay-up construction. Large pieces can be constructed at room temperature with multiple carbon fiber pieces and then bagged and heated in an oven to create one consistently strong piece. The SparrowHawk parts are cured at 270°Fahrenheit.

The pre-preg cloth is provided by Toray in Tacoma, Washington(http://www.torayusa.com). This company also provides pre-preg carbon fiber cloth for Boeing (http://www.torayusa.com/tca/products/prepreg.htm). Toray is the first Boeing composite prepreg material supplier for primary structure to be allowed to be allowed to inspect and certify the quality of the material going to Boeing.

Toray uses a 10 million dollar machine for the hot melt film process that bonds the resin to the carbon fiber cloth. This allows for the high level of consistency.

The carbon fiber cloth is made from fibers that have a strength of 700,000 psi, twice that of normal carbon fiber.

The SparrowHawk is the first aircraft to use this specific cloth, but now it is used in Adam A500 (http://www.adamaircraft.com) and the Liberty XLS airplanes.

Greg uses Divinycel HT50 foam cores. HT stands for high temperature. This is the foam core used with pre-preg carbon fiber and high temperatures (http://www.diabgroup.com/DIAB/
DIABHome.nsf/StartUS/$first?OpenDocument
).

All the components of the SparrowHawk have been load tested and have all passed their design loads. The wings have not yet been tested to failure, but this is planed for the first production model, the one that Gary Osoba flew for three world records.

All the tools/components used to construct the SparrowHawk are built out of steel and carbon fiber with 350° epoxy resin. The models are eight layers of carbon fiber and two middle layers of fiberglass. The coefficient of expansion of the molds is the same as that of the parts.

Greg says that the SparrowHawk was designed to be simple to fly and have a crispy response to the air conditions encountered while flying. The carbon fiber construction allows for a stiff air frame which lets the pilot feel the air. You might notice that its 36 foot wing span is about equal to that of a flex wing hang glider.

Greg previously was the Chief of R&D at Lancair Company where he worked on the certification of the Columbia300 and Legacy 2000 wings.

Discuss "The SparrowHawk" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Checking the ATOS-C control frame after whacking

Sun, Aug 18 2002, 2:00:01 pm EDT

carbon fiber

On the last day of the US Open I had the misfortune of dropping out of the sky a little too quickly in the last ten feet. Fortunately the ATOS-C (and Stratos) control frame and especially the weaklinks in the downtubes absorbed almost all the shock of landing in a nice soft plowed field.

The weaklinks took most of the shock. The rest of the shock was absorbed by the pip pins in the corner brackets and by the right corner of the control frame, in particular the epoxy within the control frame. The pip pins are hollow and they are designed to absorb the shock of the control frame contacting the ground by bending, just like the stainless steel weaklinks in the middle of the down tubes. After a particular hard landing you’ll need to replace these pins.

The idea is to absorb as much shock as possible so that the keel stays intact and the carbon fiber control frame also stays intact. The epoxy in the control frame took the rest of the shock and cracked around the edges at the connection between the base tube and down tube. Here’s a shot of the right end of the base tube and one of end of the right down tube.

You can see that the two outside layers of fiberglass have been separated from the interior epoxy and that there are chucks of epoxy missing from the now rounded off corners of the end of the base tube.

You can see that the epoxy has been cracked and the outside layers of fiberglass separated from the epoxy at the end of the downtube. The cracks don’t go very deep, and are really just cracks in the corners.

The ATOS -C control frame is constructed of carbon fiber roving layed up and then surrounded with black epoxy resin. If is very difficult to actually see the roving that is the structural portion of the control frame as except for some white threads it is the same color as the epoxy.

The outer layer of fiberglass, which is what you see when you look at the control frame, is just for UV protection, to look good, and to indicate any cracks in the interior. The roving inside is doing all the work.

I’m told that there are 11 layers of roving that make for a strong structure. The roving is wound around the holes where the pip pins go. When checking for damage you need to check around the holes to see if the roving (and not just the epoxy around it) has cracked.

The load from hitting the right corner of the control frame into the ground was distributed finally to the square edges of the right hinge. These edges are just epoxy and they cracked. The interior roving did not show any cracks. Felix states that he has yet to see any cracks in any of the roving on any ATOSes that have suffered similar fates.

When I checked the ends of my base tube and downtube I found that the epoxy had been damaged but there was no damage to the roving. The pin in the right hinge was bent, but a new pin would continue to hold together the base bar and down tube.

Felix suggested that I round off the base tube as follows:

This would make it easier to connect the down tube and base bar. But it would also add a bit of play to the control frame allowing the downtube to bow out a bit. I don’t know if I want that, but at the moment I have gone along with him on this suggestion.

I removed the broken epoxy and sanded off the surface as well as removing the cracked optical outer layer of fiberglass. I found some voids in the epoxy and filled them up. I also put some finely woven carbon fiber on the outside as UV protection.

Obviously, if the roving is cracked them you’ll have to get a new base bar or downtube. So far no one has had to do that. It is easy to check to see if you have cracked the roving and easy to repair the epoxy if that is the only problem.

Carbon fiber repairs

Thu, Aug 15 2002, 6:00:03 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Felix Ruehle|Scott Rutledge

Quite a while back we published on-line the carbon fiber repair manual originally put together by Scott Rutledge with pictures that he took of Flight Design’s Felix Ruehle (then) and Joseph Stellbauer’s work. The workshop happened in Ellensburg, Washingtonand we all had a great time.

There is a new version of the carbon fiber repair manual up at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RigidWing/files/
Carbon%20Fiber%20Repair/FD_GB_Repairs.doc
.

I‘m sure that you can also find it at www.flightdesign.com.

Flipping for dollars

Wed, Aug 14 2002, 6:00:01 pm EDT

carbon fiber|record|sailplane

Hang gliders get flipped over in the air a lot more often than we really would like. Hang gliders are tailless aircraft and it is a lot easier to get them upside down than it is to get an airplane upside down.

Think about all the tucks and tumbles that I’ve reported over the last year of both rigid and flex wings. Think about the fact that I don’t know about a lot of the ones that did get upside down.

Sure tucking or tumbling is a relatively rare event for a hang glider, but it is almost unheard of for sailplanes. I doubt that a sailplane would go inverted in any of the conditions that caused the hang gliders that I have reported on to go inverted.

What this means to me is that sailplanes are just a lot more stable than hang gliders. Maybe this is obvious, and it is once you say it, but it is something we as hang glider pilots ignore. We fly craft that can go over a lot easier than the craft that sailplane pilots fly.

Now this fact has a consequence. It means that we are aware of the fact that we can go upside down. Sailplane pilots only have to worry about this in the rotors of mountain wave. Sure they might go try this at Minden, but hang glider pilots are launching in the lee of the Sierras right up the road from Minden, for god’s sake.

Hang gliders seem to be a lot weaker than sailplanes. The DHV strength standards appear to be less than the requirements for sailplanes. Hang gliders are bending or breaking when they tuck or tumble.

Now it is possible to break sailplanes but it is quite a bit more difficult than it is to break a hang glider. This fact has some consequences also. Hang glider pilots with this knowledge feel that there is a lot better chance that their hang glider will break, especially if it tucks or tumbles, than if they were flying a sailplane. Sailplane pilots don’t really have to worry about breaking their craft unless they put it into a spiral dive or get caught in the rotor of a very strong mountain wave.

Now most sailplanes can be spun a lot easier than flex wings or even rigid wing hang gliders. A big problem with sailplanes is that the pilot can get careless and come into an approach too slow or make a quick turn with too high an attitude and get too high of an angle of attack and spin the sailplane into the ground before it has a chance to recover.

Hang glider pilots can break their leading edges by hitting them with their bodies. The leading edges may break even without the pilot hitting the leading edges, but the point is the pilot is freely hanging in a hang glider. The pilot is tossed around when the hang glider tucks or tumbles. The pilot is likely to be thrown into the wing.

Smacking the leading edges with a pilot in a tuck or tumbles is a natural part of the hang glider tuck or tumble, but hang gliders aren’t built to withstand this impact. Pilots of sailplanes aren’t being thrown into their wings when the sailplane gets vertical. Sailplane pilots aren’t breaking their wings by smacking into them.

Hang glider manufacturers seem to want to blame the pilots for breaking their wings by hitting them as though somehow it is the pilot’s fault and the manufacturer shouldn’t or couldn’t build wings that should be ready to take the impact of pilot’s bodies swinging into them. It seems to me that the pilot hitting the wings is just a natural part of the tuck or tumble and we would all like the wings to be able to take this impact if the pilot isn’t in a fuselage or a cage.

In tumbles, where the glider rotates very quickly to the upside down position, say within 2/10th of a second and where the glider wasn’t going fast to begin with and didn’t have a chance to pick up speed, it appears as though there can be minimal damage to the hang glider. The pilot often lands on the keel and doesn’t hit the leading edges. This is the strongest part of the glider.

The pilot’s body doesn’t pick up speed, and the glider just rotates about him. The pilot lands in the apex, and the control frame absorbs the shock. The pilot hits the sail and not the aluminum or carbon fiber leading edges. The pilot is able to get the glider righted or it rights itself and can continue to be flown.

The leading edges on rigid wings appear to break rather easily in the tuck or tumbles situation, surely when the pilot’s body impacts them, and perhaps under other loads as well. The reason incident with Guenther Tschuring in Chelan may have been a case where Guenther impacted the leading edge without realizing it because, again, things happen so fast that your mind just can’t record all the details.

Gilbert tumbled his ATOS and recovered. Jon Woodruff did the same to his Airborne Climax. They both rotated very quickly and landed in their apexes. Other flex wing pilots broke their gliders in tucks and tumbles that didn’t happen quite so nicely.

Rigid wing without tails definitely have a problem with low pitch dampening. This means that they can go over very quickly and easier than flex wings which have higher values of pitch dampening.

I haven’t heard any stories of Swifts going upside down. So far the claim is that they never have, but then there aren’t that many of them either so the opportunities to go over have been quite a bit fewer. They have gone vertical but not over. Maybe in this way they are more like sailplanes (they hate it when I refer to them as sailplanes, but maybe they shouldn’t).

The pilot is fixed (pretty much) in the cage in a Swift so he isn’t going to cause a problem with the CG going back and he isn’t likely to be thrown into the leading edges. These are two big reasons to think that a pilot has a much better chance of surviving a tussle with an invisible dragon in a Swift than in a rigid wing or a flex wing hang glider.

Basically what this means is that the parachute is the basic means of dealing with the weaknesses of the hang glider. There is air that we fly in that will get us inverted and will lead to events that often break the hang glider. If we fly long enough we will be in that air and we will need to throw our chutes.

At least we don’t have to crawl out of the canopy, get away from the airplane and then throw our chutes. Of course, if we do this close to the ground in either craft all bets are off.

More than a salad bowl

Sat, Jul 27 2002, 5:00:03 pm EDT

carbon fiber|George Longshore|Manfred Ruhmer|Niki Longshore

George Longshore «longshore2» writes:

I took the stock soft lining out of my salad bowl with string and replaced it with a polystyrene helmet liner from a Boeri Skiing helmet. I also layed up 2 layers of Kevlar and 2 layers of s-glass inside the shell of the salad bowl so that if I do hit something hard it will not turn into a pile of carbon fiber dust. (carbon fiber has the lowest impact modulus of all the composite materials.)

I do like the aero shape of the salad bowl but was worried that it wouldn't take much, if any abuse. I'm sure that Manfred does not worry about a bad landing now and then, but my landing history proves that I need to worry about things that the world champion does not.

The mods to the salad bowl turn it into a real helmet with real impact resistance and head protection with out adding too much weight, a few ounces at most. Why will Icaro not offer this version as the stock version? It could then be certified and even more pilots would buy them. The soft lining that comes stock is a joke and I would not want to trip and fall while walking with the protection that it offers.

How strong and flexible are rigid wing hang gliders?

Sat, Jul 27 2002, 5:00:00 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Felix Ruehle|Manfred Ruhmer|Ron Gleason|sailplane

carbon fiber|Felix Ruehle|John "Ole" Olson|Manfred Ruhmer|Ron Gleason|sailplane

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|carbon fiber|Felix Ruehle|Manfred Ruhmer|Ron Gleason|sailplane

carbon fiber|Felix Ruehle|Manfred Ruhmer|Ron Gleason|sailplane

There has been some discussion on the rigid wing list lately about the strength of rigid wing hang gliders. I decided to ask all the rigid wing hang glider manufacturers just how strong their gliders were. I sent out a version of the following message to AIR «info», Icaro «staff», Flight Design «flightdesign», Joseph Guggenmos «Drachenbau.JGuggenmos», La Mouette «lamouette», and Aeros «aerosint»:

After Guenther's broken wing in Chelan there is renewed interest and concern regarding the strength and flexibility of the ATOS (and other rigid wing) d-cells. I have previously forwarded to you some of those concerns.

ATOS pilots and others would like to have the assurance that their wings are as strong as they need to be to fly in any of the conditions that we would reasonably expect to encounter in competition and cross country flying. While I'm sure that the answers that we are looking for can involve long and detailed study and explanation, perhaps we can start off with a few basics.

First, the published rating for the Swift Light is Maximum load +6/-4 g, tested +8,7/-6 g. While it is unclear whether this is design load or ultimate load, perhaps you can provide us with the rating for the ATOS-C.

Second, do you use a 50% safety factor to differentiate between design load and ultimate load?

Third, do you design the ATOS to meet JAR 22 specifications?

Fourth, describe the construction of the ATOS spar and d-cell particularly with respect the sparcaps and how the spar is made to operate like an I-beam, if this is in fact the case.

Fifth, there appear to be at least two versions of the ATOS, single and dual place. How much stronger is the dual version and how much stronger would a version be that added about 5 kilos of optimally placed carbon and resin to the single place version?

So far I have received answers from three manufacturers, AIR, Icaro, and La Mouette. I got the following from Felix Ruehle at AIR:

I really appreciate that you are working on this because I think many people are concerned. Still it's not clear to me why Günther’s ATOS broke and there are a few different possibilities. Yesterday, I heard that Günther’s transport box had been damaged with a fork lift when the glider was shipped to Chelan. I expect to get the parts including box back within the next days for further investigations.

The Stratos is tested to a load of about +8900N (ultimate load) and about -4600N, on the DHV test rig. Considering the lower span of the Atos, this is equal to a load of approximately 9200N. According to the DHV requirement, the ultimate load must be higher than hook in weight of the pilot + half the weight of the glider multiplied with 6. This is equal (approximately) to a 6g load positive. Negative, the multiplication factor is 3. The Atos is certified to a maximum take off weight of 150kg.

To clarify what Felix wrote I asked him:

Okay, just to be clear the ultimate load (the load to which the ATOS is tested) for the ATOS is: +6g/-3g?

The design load of the ATOS is +6g/-3g?

It would appear that the Swift Light is static load tested (not on the rig) to 8.7g and -6g. Has the ATOS been static load tested? Results?

Felix wrote:

It's better to compare the maximum load where the glider was tested and how it was tested. For example, the whole glider on a test vehicle or only the spar. If you take Günther’s weight and the maximum tested load, you will get about 10g (don't know exactly how much ballast he had). If you have the total loads it's easier to compare the gliders. Then the pilots have an idea to how many g’s this corresponds to.

The JAR 22 specification is +4g and -2g with an additional safety factors of 1. 5 and 1.15 (for composite materials). The ATOS-C almost meets these requirements. The JAR 22 requires testing at 54 °C and the wing has to hold the load for 3seconds. The Atos is designed for these loads, but it is not tested at 54° C because the DHV test is on a car outside. The resins used in the ATOS are the ones used in sailplanes as well. The Atos spar's are tempered at higher temperature than sail planes in order to resist higher temperature.

I asked:

The JAR 22 specifications would be 6g/-3g before the consideration of composite materials, and 6.9g/-3.45g for composite materials. The ATOS meets the JAR 22 specification if we don't consider the additional factor for carbon fiber?

Felix wrote:

The Atos is certified up to a total take off weight off 150 kg. According to my calculation this is equal to about 7.2 g (tested load) and meets the JAR 22 in this case. With a hook in weight of 100 kg it is about 8g and with a hook in of 80 kg it is 9.7g. The g loads are calculated and not tested in flight. It's better to compare the ultimate strength. Because there are different ways to do the calculation, I would suggest comparing ultimate loads.

Upper and lower main bolt fix the wing. These bolts are fixed with carbon fibers which are wound around the bolt. These fibers (spar caps) are located at the very top and lower side of the spar and are tapered out to the wing tip. Between the spar caps is the spar wall, which takes shear and compression loads. The U-spar is fixed with a skin (C section of the wing) in order to get a D cross section which takes the torsion loads. Spar wall and skin are manufactured with a foam sandwich in order to avoid buckling.

The Atos is designed with approximately the same keel and a similar lay up to the Exxtacy. The inner spar is additionally reinforced. While the Exxtacy will usually fail (at load test) at the spar connection (the nose rings), the Atos spar will fail between rib 1 and 2.

We worked on a tandem version and produced prototypes with higher strength, but there is currently no tested tandem version on the market. Since May of this year the Atos has an additional glass layer at the spar wall which works as a damage indicator but with only a minor influence on strength.

When I asked Icaro about the Stratos, Saskia wrote:

The Stratos has the same structure and parts as the Atos, except for small details. Also for the future we will continue the cooperation with AIR for all the new developments (and we pay a royalty for every Stratos we sell). I am convinced that Felix is a very good engineer and with the trio Felix, Christian and Manfred we will make exceptional and safe wings.

I think that you asked the same questions to Felix, so you can use his reply for both rigid wings.

My response to Saskia was:

I thought that perhaps that Icaro might have specified a slightly different version of the ATOS d-cells. Felix made the unfortunate statement here in Chelan to Ron Gleason, theUSteam leader and ATOS pilot, that, "AIR could make up anything you like in a d-cell." He also said that Alex's ATOS-C was stiffer than other ATOSes with more carbon fiber to keep the leading edges from bending at higher speeds and thereby keeping the trailing edge tighter. I thought perhaps Icaro might have such a version on their Stratos.

Gerard Thevenot wrote:

Adding extra kilograms to a wing already designed, tested and certified might be dangerous, concentrating stress on some points and stiffening the wing thus not absorbing any more the turbulences and shocks.

Actually on my next design I would like to taper my leading edges even more to have a better stress repartition (+ saving weight and handling).

The TOPSECRET has been tested to 840 KG positive and 420 negative without failure. But, again, I would rather fly a rubber glider tested at 2 g's, but unable to reach them, than an undeformable glider tested at 10 G's.

Ultimate load: Carbon has very different mechanical characteristics from metals. It practically does not permanently deform before 97 % of its failure limit.

I am not familiar with JAR22 as I think it is related to standard aviation and our hang gliding landing gear would never pass the specifications.

As far as I have been able to see, our leading edges are quite different from other manufacturers.We are using a main spare for vertical flexion and the front skin for horizontal flexion and torsion.

I have asked Gerard some additional questions and will publish those answers when I get them.

I will have additional articles on this issue and hopefully other responses from manufacturers.

ATOS – transport damage? »

Sun, Jul 21 2002, 5:00:04 pm EDT

Alessandro "Alex" Ploner|ATOS|carbon fiber|Davis Straub|dust devil|Johann Posch|Richard Christen|Tryg Hoff|video|Werner Schnitzler|Wills Wing

Alessandro "Alex" Ploner|ATOS|carbon fiber|Davis Straub|dust devil|Johann Posch|Richard Christen|Tryg Hoff|video|Werner Schnitzler|Wills Wing|World Record Encampment

Alessandro "Alex" Ploner|ATOS|carbon fiber|Davis Straub|dust devil|Johann Posch|Richard Christen|Tryg Hoff|video|Werner Schnitzler|Wills Wing|World Record Encampment

Alessandro "Alex" Ploner|ATOS|carbon fiber|Davis Straub|dust devil|Johann Posch|Richard Christen|Tryg Hoff|video|Werner Schnitzler|Wills Wing

I had an opportunity to speak at some length (although not for long enough) with Guenther Tschurnig after the closing ceremonies on Sunday about his incident (you remember, his wing got torn off in a dust devil). Guenther felt that there was the possibility of damage to his d-cells from the car racks experienced while going up the butte.

Four of the Austrian team’s ATOSes were hauled up the butte on top of Johann Posch’s VW van. The ATOSes were stacked two deep. (We were never allow rigid wing gliders to be stacked on our vehicles.) The racks on Johann’s van are round, thin, and poorly padded. (The racks on my truck are 3 inches wide, flat and well padded.)

The road up the butte was well maintained for a dirt/gravel road, but still it could be a bit rough. Guenther had been here for three weeks including the Chelan Cross Country Classic.

The spot on where the wing broke corresponds to where the wing was sitting on the rack. It wasn’t clear from my conversation whether there were any signs of rack damage on the wing, although I tried to get this question answered numerous times.

One problem with this theory is that the damage on the wind would have been on the top surface (although also possibly in the spar). The wing would seem to have torn from the bottom surface if it was under a positive load.

Felix is taking Guenther’s ATOS back to Germany and will perform a series of tests on it and on the other d-cell that wasn’t damaged in flight to see if it breaks in the same spot under a high load. He will write up a report. I hope to be able to publish it.

Four pilots who’ve broken ATOSes in the air: (Tryg Hoff, Davis Straub, Guenther Tschurnig, and Richard Christen.)

Tryg isn’t flying hang gliders yet. Richard bought Alex’ Ploner’s beefed up ATOS-C on Sunday, after flying on Saturday the one Alex flew in Texasduring the WRE. I’m flying a tandem version of the ATOS-C. I think that Guenther will get another ATOS-C in Austria.

Werner Schnitzler «w.fly» provides a very much speeded up version of a discussion that I had with Richard Christen about tucking and tumbling:

http://werner.kicks-ass.net/ThereIWas.wmv, Windows Media Player Video Clip, 2.8 MB

Of course, the rack damage theory can be viewed as a very convenient theory. It lets Felix and AIR off the hook. It lets the rest of us ATOS-C pilots off the hook (at least until one of us tucks or tumbles again). At the moment it is only a theory with a very small amount of circumstantial evidence.

On the other hand, if the ATOS d-cells are indeed designed and manufactured to sustain a 10 g load, then it does explain why such a strong wing could fail under a load that was most likely under 10 g’s (so we think). Another possibility is that there was a failure of the manufacturing process.

One fact does give us pause. Wills Wing load tests every carbon fiber spar that they get from the subcontractor before they install it in one of their Talons. I have heard that only one has failed so far during this static load test.

ATOS spars (and perhaps the spars from any or all of the other rigid wing manufacturers) are not static load tested after they are delivered from the subcontractors. Therefore there is not test at AIR (or at Icaro?) that verifies that the d-cells have met the manufacturing requirements.

Worlds – Natalie in first (Kari 11 minutes behind) »

Tue, Jul 16 2002, 5:00:00 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Hansjoerg Truttmann|Johann Posch|Manfred Ruhmer|Steve Elkin|Steve Elkins|Worlds

carbon fiber|Hansjoerg Truttmann|Johann Posch|Manfred Ruhmer|Oleg Bondarchuk|Steve Elkin|Steve Elkins|Worlds

carbon fiber|Hansjoerg Truttmann|Johann Posch|Manfred Ruhmer|Oleg Bondarchuk|Steve Elkin|Steve Elkins|Worlds

http://www.elltel.net/peterandlinda/2002%20Worlds/Worlds%20Main.htm

The web site will be delayed due to the fact that the team leaders are not as up to date as the pilots who are getting on line to see the scores. Until “hard copy” is delivered to the team leaders (anyone remember what “hard copy” is?), at the 8 AMteam leader meeting, there won’t be any new results up on the web site.

Jeez!

The forecast for today was the same as yesterday, 700 fpm to 9,000’. Blue. Light west winds 5 to 10 mph. A fire broke out this morning (I first saw the smoke at 7 amafter getting up and looking at the sky a 6:30 am– so you know it was just starting) on a hill side up the lake a ways on the north side. Smoke would cover the lake until later in the day when the winds picked up and blew it to the north.

After we all got to goal yesterday, Danny (and Scott?) called a women’s task that was the Class 5 task yesterday (Farmer, Sims, and back). The class 2 and 5 pilots were directed to go to a turnpoint near Dry Falls (near Coulee City), north along the length of Banks Lake to almost Coulee dam), then back to Sims Corner and back to the airport in Chelan. This is 160 kilometer task.

When I hear what Danny has called, I ask Kari (Christian didn’t attend the Task Rubber Stamp, don’t have any power any way, only advisory, better to be seen and not heard committee today) to ask for Leahy instead of up near Coulee. This is rejected with a snide comment that Davismust have proposed it. I’m just trying to get a few pilots into goal.

Going over 100 miles and trying to get pilots make to goal by 7:30 with start times of 2 to 3 pm is a stretch. Possible, but difficult. The lift closes down around 7 PM, so the last half hour doesn’t do you much good unless you’ve just made it to the rim and all you have to do is dive in to goal.

The thermals are great at the butte, well the one thermal was. It took many of us to almost 9,000’ and was pretty darn smooth. I’ve got my extra clothes on today so I’m styling at the top of the lift. I’m also flying with a salad bowl and a string as a substitute for a reasonable helmet. Looks like head fairings may be required if you want to move up in the rankings.

Getting so high at the butte makes for an easy flight to the flats and once there we climb out in a gaggle to over 10,000’. Now we are just waiting for the start clock. We can’t wait until 3 PM, because we would never make it back to goal in time.

A few pilots leave at 2 PM, and many go at 2:15. It is a long glide at high speeds to JamesonLakebefore we find the first thermal, a dusty. I’m flying with Hansjoerg, but the thermal is packed. It is so nice to have so many friends along for the ride.

We clock the winds at 15 to 20 mph out of the south. So much for a light day. It looks like it will be difficult to negotiate some of the legs of this task.

The women also send out the top gaggle at 2:15for their shorter task. They’ve also seen that the winds are high and it will be a struggle getting to Farmer. After that it will get better.

Southeast of Jameson we are just pushing out in light lift and heading into a strong head wind trying to make some distance. Finally we catch up with the 2 PMpilots who are in a good thermal and climb out just under them.

The 2 PM pilots and a few of the higher 2:15 pilots head out toward the turnpoint near Dry Falls, while the lower pilots drift back further and continue to climb well. At 8,500’ I take off to follow the lead pilots to the turnpoint with Hansjoerg just behind me.

The lead guys are heading too far to the south and getting drilled. I head southeast right at the turnpoint and get a good line. 5 kilometers out the lead guys are way down and circling in light lift. I’m heading for the turnpoint high and watching three Swifts coming back from the turnpoint to the northwest to join the former lead gaggle in the weak lift.

I dive into the turnpoint, somewhat low and immediately head due north along the course line. I’ve been here before and found the lift. I find it again. Hansjoerg comes back to join me and with one other pilot we get away from 20 pilots who are now way behind and drift downwind toward the turnpoint near the dam.

With a tail wind and good altitude (over 7,000’) we head downwind just finding small bits and pieces of lift. We are in the lead and flying with each other as we work our way to the north east turnpoint. We are going to need to find a really good thermal at some point so that we can be high at the turnpoint in order to be able to come back into the headwind.

Just before we get to the second turnpoint I finally find the thermal we need and we climb out to over 9,000’ as we drift to the northwest in the southeast wind. Now it looks like we will have plenty of pilots out in front of us coming to the turnpoint and marking lift as we head back toward Sims.

There is another fire to the south that is filling the air with smoke near BanksLake. We are just to the west of it and the sun is in the west so the ground is not shaded below us. It looks like maybe a bit later it will be, perhaps cutting off pilots behind us.

We push and push against the head wind finding weak lift, and lots of spotty lift, but patience wins the day and we make it to Sims, where we hope to turn the corner and race to goal. Wouldn’t you know it the wind is now coming from the southwest, so we’ve got a head wind to goal.

The day is getting late. The goal will close soon so we need to press forward. Johann Posch and Steve Elkins join us in the lead gaggle just before Sims as we drive west and get pushed to the north. We find strong lift and we need it to keep going.

We’re northwest of Mansfieldand it is 6:30 PM. I’m mistakenly thinking that the goal closes at 7 PM, like the other days, not 7:30 PM, for this long day. I’m climbing in my own thermal just upwind of Johann and Steve at 250 fpm, while Hansjoerg is circling just off the deck below us. I make a mistake leaving my good enough thermal to join Johann downwind. Bad idea as I don’t find the lift and have to go work something weaker. They join me.

I’m thinking that I have to press ahead as we won’t get to goal in time. I need to find a strong one that gets me up and over the rim only a few short miles away. I make the mistake of leaving my friends behind and will land near the power lines just before McNeelCanyon,

Johann, Steve and Hansjoerg will be the only Class 5 pilots to make it into goal. Manfred and Robin will be the only Class 2 pilots into goal.

Natalie will fly with Kari and the top women pilots and make goal 11 minutes before Kari. Claire and Francoise Mocellin will come in 20 minutes behind Kari and Corrina will be there 6 minutes later. Five women make goal.

Flew with Oleg yesterday. He was doing fine. The previous problem was the loose carbon fiber control frame wires (unlike the standard model) allowed for a wire or rope to come off a pulley and get jammed in the spiral death mode.

Oleg repaired the damage (couldn’t see any on the glider) and was flying in the meet.

It looks like the USwomen are in first place after four days. Don’t know about class 5 or 2. The results won’t be posted until tomorrow.

Doug Pohl says try this URL for Chelan pictures: http://65.187.85.53/whgc2002.htm

Chelan – Kari is first to goal again »

Mon, Jul 15 2002, 5:00:00 pm EDT

Akiko Suzuki|Alessandro "Alex" Ploner|carbon fiber|Chelan|Christian Ciech|Douglas Pohl|dust devil|Felix Ruehle|Gene Matthews|Hansjoerg Truttmann|Icaro 2000|photo|Worlds 2002

http://www.elltel.net/peterandlinda/2002%20Worlds/Worlds%20Main.htm

I guess the meet organizers want to get a few folks into goal. It was looking bad that Kari was the only women to make goal so far. The women got the little task of Withrow, Mansfield and back to the airport.

The rigid wing pilots were sent to Farmer, Sims Corner and back. The Swift pilots had an additional turnpoint near DryFalls. At least 58 pilots made goal today out of 82 pilots. Now people can worry about how fast they flew.

Today was a very good Chelan flying day. Absolutely blue. Lift predicted to be 600 fpm, and actually we got up to 900 fpm to 9,000’ which seemed to be right also. 50 degrees at 9,000’ which is a little cool if you have on what you wore in Florida. Winds out of the west predicted to be between 5 and 10 mph, which again was about right.

It was a bit scratchy at launch for some people. Kari was down on the last ridge before the soccer field. She just had to contrite on getting up. Lots of pilots were near or just below launch for a few minutes before they slowly worked their way over the butte and into the good lift. We go to 7,500’ before heading out to the flats where we could see some fields filled with dust devils.

The women were launching between the rocks, and the rigids were heading off Green Monster. I’ve never seen Green Monster so peaceful, with it coming straight in at about 5 mph. Beautiful and fun to launch in.

We gaggle up north of power lines on the flats and just stay at 8,600’ waiting for the later start clocks. Almost every one launched early because they weren’t sure that everything would remain copasetic on the butte. Now we had time to kill in the cold air. The start window opens at 2 and stops at 3 PM.

A few pilots head out at 2 and 2:15. I and some others take the 2:30, and others wait for later clocks. The idea is to fly fast using the dust devils and make sure that they don’t catch you. Hard to do.

The great Chelan air has returned, with little effect from the high pressure. The thermals at indeed 6 to 700 fpm and you can climb right up to the 8,000’ inversion before it slows down. As the day wears on it gets better and better with smoother and more plentiful lift, and warmer air.

This is a race, not a contest to see how far you can fly into the wind. The idea is only climb in the strong stuff. A lot of pilots show up at the Sims Corner turnpoint, so I’m in a mood to race as hard as possible back to the airport.

We’ve got to make it to the rim and then dive fast down to the airport to get down to 1,500’ over the airport or the goal keepers will have difficulty getting your goal crossing time. (More on this later.)

Of course with all the pilots diving into the airport we’re hoping that not too much general aviation traffic comes in. There is some, but we work our way around it.

I think Johnny Carr flew after they patched up his Swift Lite. I saw a lot of carbon fiber curing in the sun on top. There are two Swift factory reps here working with the pilots. Felix Ruehle is also here helping out all the competitors flying AIR ATOSes. It is so nice to have factory support on the butte.

I don’t have any real results yet today as I have no idea when pilots started. Francoise Mocellin was in after Kari. Then Natalia Khamlova from Russia, Gudrun Maier, and Francoise Dieuzeide.

Japanese pilot at the parade

Results after two days:

1

CASTLE , Kari

Icaro Laminar MRX

USA

1243

2

VASSORT, Claire

Moyes Litespeed

USA

1009

3

DIEUZEIDE, Francoise

Moyes Litespeed 137

FRA

917

4

BAEUMER, Sybille

Aeros Combat

DEU

915

5

BRAMS, Rosi

Moyes Litespeed 4

DEU

909

6

MOCELLIN, Francoise

Airborne Climax

FRA

896

7

OKADA, Akiko

La Mouette Topless

JPN

884

8

PERMENTER, Raean

La Mouette Topless

USA

860

8

FUKUDA, Ka

Icaro 2000 Laminar ST

JPN

860

10

SCHOENSTEINER, Monika

Moyes Litespeed

DEU

844

USWomen are in first

US Class 2 team is in first

US Class 5 team would be in first except for an action that is currently under protest. Otherwise we are in second. All team results are up on the web at the URL above.

1

PLONER, Alessaandro

A-I-R ATOS B

ITA

1761

2

CIECH, Christian

Icaro Stratos

ITA

1614

3

CHAUMET, David

La Mouette Top Secret

FRA

1584

4

RIS, Jurg

A-I-R ATOS C

CHE

1583

5

FIECHTER, Markus

A-I-R ATOS.

CHE

1531

6

STRAUB, Davis

A-I-R ATOS C

USA

1470

7

TRUTTMANN, Hansjoerg

A-I-R ATOS C

CHE

1411

8

BIESEL, Heiner

A-I-R ATOS

USA

1394

9

LEISER, Rene

A-I-R ATOS C

CHE

1387

10

COOK, Steve

La Mouette Top Secret

GBR

1375

Douglas Pohl «dpohl» sends in this URL for Worlds pictures:

http://65.187.85.53/aviation/dir_hg/dir_chelan/20020714_
World_Cham pionships/800x600/index.htm

Gene Matthews «skydog63» writes:

People watching at the combined Women's and Men's FAI World Championships in Chelan Washington,USA

http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/skydogb/lst?.dir=/WORLD+
MEET+PEOPLE&.src=ph&.order=&.view=t&.done=http%3a//
photos.yahoo.com/bc/skydogb/lst%3f%26.dir=/WORLD
%2bMEET%2bPEOPLE%26.src=ph%26.view=t

Airblade ⁢ATOS »

Sat, Jun 29 2002, 5:00:06 pm GMT

ATOS|carbon fiber|Manfred Ruhmer|Steve Pearson|Valerio Canestrelli|Wills Wing

valerio canestrelli «airblade» writes:

The Airblade Full Carbon control bar for my small Atos features:

- Full carbon fiber and Hi temp. epoxy, hand layered in the molds (that I built too);
- 2 mm. short arrangement, front-rear wires;
- " World Carbon Team " Airfoil, under license from Wills Wing (scaled down to 68 mm. X 16.5 mm. instead of 76 mm. x 19 mm.);
- 2 mm. flap rope, inside the basetube ;
- Airblade finish !

Unfortunately the work required to build this frame is too much, so it is not for sale !

I would like to thank Wills Wing (i.e. Steve Pearson) for the airfoil and all the support that he gave me!

The front and rear wires are fixed to the upper half of the downtubes, like Manfred did (before the new FAI rules). We don’t have this limitation on the cantilevered wings

Discuss "Airblade ⁢ATOS" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Broken carbon base tubes

Mon, Jun 3 2002, 5:00:07 am EDT

carbon fiber|Kent Robinson|Rob Kells

carbon fiber|cart|Kent Robinson|Rob Kells

Kent Robinson «kentrobinson» writes:

I recently broke my carbon basetube just sitting on the tow rig. It was mounted on a typical platform tow rig but it could have easily been an aerotow cart. Basically, the bar cracked and bent on the right side 3-4" in where it was sitting on the wood. I was being as careful as I could and had even put some foam between the basetube and the wood.

After talking with Wills they advised me that several others had broken while being transported to launch on some type of cart. Evidently the bars are not designed for the focused type of pressure that you encounter on a mount of this type.

Rob Kells advised that the only truly appropriate support would be a board or mount that spans the entire basetube. Rob also advised that the aluminum streamlined basetube is essentially unbreakable and is most appropriate for mounts of this type.

Discuss "Broken carbon base tubes" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Oh, oh, spin in!

Sun, Jun 2 2002, 4:00:02 am EDT

carbon fiber|Ghostbuster|Robert Lowe

Robert Lowe «SKYOUT1» writes:

You will recall my report that Jay Gianforte had fallen out of a tree, and busted himself up, and that hang gliding was pretty much as safe as hanging a rope in a tree.

BOFF SOCK ZOWIE

Now I’ve proved it! I have just gotten out of the hospital with the same broken bones, i.e., pelvis, leg, arm, ribs, fingers, toes, jaw after spinning my tightly-tuned GhostBuster into rocks from around 200 ft.

As the spring winds instantly dropped from 20 to zero in the middle of a slow left turn, I spun 3 revolutions, then stared straight at the rocks I was heading towards, nailed it straight down to try to regain airspeed, and lacking another 50 – 100 feet ate it big time into the rocky hill.

The only possible reason for survival at all was the Carbon CG harness, as no one there thought there was any possibility I would be found alive. The harness suffered only a couple of small holes near one leg, some scratches, and is still flyable. The GhostBuster has one wing intact, and another in little pieces.

A pilot overhead said he thought he had heard lightning strike, but it was me going in on the right wing. I will be eternally grateful for the protection this high tech and unusual harness provided. What a strange coincidence after what just happened to Jay, and my sarcastic statements that followed. Aren't you gad you have one too!!!!

Rob is very convinced that the Carbon CG harness was very important to his survival:

I really am glad the harness protected me so much, far more than i ever imagined. My guts would have been sprayed about.

(editor’s note: It would appear from Jay’s description that he has mainly one wing of his GhostBuster to thank for absorbing some of the force of his handing. Breaking a carbon fiber wing into small pieces requires a lot of force and certainly could absorb the majority of the shock of hitting the hill side.

Flying a rigid wing hang glider with a high angle of attack (required to fly it slow in these circumstances) next to the hillside is a prescription for disaster and death. Rigid wing hang gliders stall and spin easier than flex wing hang gliders. Keeping the angle of attack low by pulling in is a continual requirement for flying these gliders.

Rob is a very experienced GhostBuster pilot and it is quite upsetting to receive this story. I have little interest in scratching low and slow in my ATOS on any hill side. Thank goodness for the kinds of conditions I normally fly in.)

118.1 mile East coast triangle

Thu, May 2 2002, 3:00:01 am EDT

carbon fiber|Felix Ruehle|Ghostbuster|Mark Poustinchian|Quest Air|record|Ron Gleason

Mark Poustinchian «mpousti2000» writes:

Yesterday Ron Gleason and I decided to set a 120-mile triangle task and try to set a new East Coast record from Quest Air. The first turn point was to the NW over the big Dunnellon airport. The second turn point was NE of lake Weir overOcala national forest and then back to Quest Air. It started out like mission impossible on the first leg. We could hardly stay above 2000’.

I towed first and was a couple miles away from Ron. With the massive sink between the thermals and lack of altitude, I needed some help to spot thermals, however Ron got low and I had to keep going or sink out in sink pockets. We survived, however Ron got further behind and I decided to get going alone while the going got better.

About 10 miles from Dunnellon the conditions improved and we were able to get over 4000’ agl. By the time I was to the first turn point Ron was low about 5 miles behind and very low. He had several low saves from 500’ agl. The clouds were getting big and I was afraid that we may not be able to finish the task due to thunder storms.

I was getting over 5000’ agl on the second leg and started to let go of the breaks and flew much faster. The second turn point was difficult due to lack of landing zones. So I made sure to get high enough to make it before heading south to Quest Air. By the time I was over the second turn point I had the anticipated conversion zone all the way to back to Quest Air.

Big clouds were lined up and they actually started to look a little scary. I worked a thermal very close to the last turn point over Ocala National Forest and after that I made a total of 10 turns while I glided 40 miles back to Quest Air. I counted the turns on my track log. The last leg was very fast because I was having trouble with too much altitude. I had to get around some big clouds so that I could see where I was going. Too much lift and big dark clouds made me stuff the bar more and more on my ATOS with the beautiful new sail, new spoiler system and new carbon fiber tips.

By the time I was about 10 miles away from Quest Air over 5000’ agl, Ron was getting close to landing and landed by Lady Lake about 25 to 30 miles away from Quest Air. He watched the thunder storms develop and got a good dose of rain. I got over Quest Air about 3500’ and landed before the rain after 4 hours and 45 minutes of flying.

I lost my recorded points from the start on my eMap GPS. Unfortunately I can’t set the time for recording on this GPS and it is only good for the last few hours of a flight. However, the only part that I lost was ½ of the first leg.

My ATOS flies so much better now and I absolutely love the performance, speed and it’s sweet light handling. I did a little X-C flight with another great X-C pilot (a possible USA World Team member) on the new ACCESS+ and now I am convinced that the ATOS is the glider that I want to fly.

When this pilot and I were flying GhostBusters, I didn’t have a chance on glide when I was gliding with him. This was due to his built in ballast, but now with me on the ATOS and him on the ACCESS+, it is a different ball game. I want to thank Felix Ruehle and Christoph from AIR for putting the new sail on my glider and doing the upgrades.

Now, the new records are well within reach. I don’t do the comps because I hate gaggle flying and I want to be on my own and love the low saves and crossing the big blue holes and going far with my ATOS. I am also working on a great hang gliding screen saver for AIR and it will be ready for free down load soon.

Stalker 2 »

Fri, Apr 5 2002, 6:00:02 pm EST

carbon fiber|Ghostbuster

www.justfly.com

As long as I was flying the second version of the Falcon, I thought that I would also check out the Aeros Stalker 2. This is quite an upgrade of the Stalker with the addition of large highly canted winglets to significantly increase the Stalker’s span, and a very refined all carbon fiber control frame.

I had only a short opportunity to fly the Aeros Stalker 2 this evening after flying the Falcon 2 to check out the air. I didn’t just want to jump on the Stalker 2 (my first rigid wing flight since Australia) without knowing what the air was up too. Once I found that the winds weren’t too string and the thermals had died down, I was ready to try the Stalker 2.

Previously when I flew the Stalker I had a lot of trouble controlling it. With lots of hours on flex wings recently I figured that that would be less of a problem with time. I remembered that it towed well, and yes this time it towed as straight as one could ask for in the light conditions (well there were bumps at tree level because the wind was still blowing).

The Stalker 2 towed better than I had remembered was the case with the Stalker, and as good as the ATOS, Ghostbuster or Exxtacy. It was easy to go one handed. Also, of course, it was quite a bit quicker than the Falcon 2 with a lot less bar pressure. Overall towing with it was a pleasure.

I find the smallest bit of lift at 2,000’ over the Ranch and started circling. I was going pretty fast and wondered if I had a too far forward hang point position. I wanted to slow down, but took my time doing that as I didn’t know anything about the Stalker’s stall characteristics.

Lots of folks were watching and were impressed that I could stay up so well. Steve Arndt was still around flying in his Magic Dragon and came in under me, although I was just hanging out in zero lift. I was able to stay over him for a good while, something not possible in the 170 Falcon 2.

I was really enjoying the flight, barely moving the bar to get it to turn. I was able to be in charge of the glider right away unlike the last two times I had flown a Stalker, and that impressed me. I made sure that I made only very small movements.

The Stalker 2 is much easer to turn than other rigid wings, and very close to if not easier than the Falcon. Easier than the LightSport. There is a bit of adverse yaw, but once I noticed it I just realized that I had to wait a bit and the glider would turn in the correct direction.

You would think that the wing tips would slow down the roll rate, and maybe they do, but not so that it would be a problem. I didn’t get the Stalker 2 up on the wing tip, that will come later as I get more comfortable with it and get a chance to wring it out a bit.

I was concerned about the landing, as I had only been landing LightSports, Falcons, and Superfloaters lately. I wondered if I would be coming in a lot faster (and not have any wheels). I sure didn’t want to wreck that nice control frame that seemed designed for speed but not for impact.

I pulled the flaps on close to full to allow me to fly slow close to the ground. There seems to be a lot of resistance to pulling down the flaps, but I could do it. I will have to look at that more and see if I haven’t done something wrong in the setup. The flaps are relatively small so I didn’t expect much in ground speed reduction from them.

I pulled the control bar in to get good speed, but not over speed as I wasn’t sure that I would PIO the glider. I brought it right down to the deck with my feet dragging as I slowly let out the bar. The glider kept flying and slowing down and I wasn’t sure just when it would get too slow and go over instead of allowing me to flare.

Finally I decided to flare and bang, the wing just stopped in its tracks with out much of an effort on my part. I did a regular flare and it stopped right them. People on the ground were impressed as I did a no stepper in light winds.

Everyone was impressed and excited about this new version of the Stalker. Lots of folks around here want to fly it, so I’ll be able to garner lots of impressions. I’ll report as fully as I can.

I’ll have an opportunity to fly this glider during the next few days at least, so that I can give a fuller report. Of course, what every one is really interested in is its performance compared with the current leader – the ATOS. I hope to be able to report on that soon.

New Rotor harness

Mon, Mar 18 2002, 2:00:04 pm EST

carbon fiber|Larry Jorgensen|Paris Williams|Rhett Radford|Wallaby Ranch

Carlos Bessa from Wallaby Ranch just came back from the Nationals in Brazilwere he did very well and with a new harness from Nene Rotor. Carlos, after hearing about my tuck and fast descent rate, decided to fly with two parachutes. BTW, Paris Williams, who has had to throw his chute, also flies with two parachutes. Last time I checked, so did Larry Jorgensen, who also has thrown his chute. Do I detect a pattern here?

None-the-less, Carlos looks like a pregnant guppy with two chutes, but they conform very nicely when he tucks his elbows. His harness has white Mylar on the top and a new black material on the sides:

You’ll notice how smooth it is. Like the Moyes Matrix there are pockets in the inside of the sides that allow you to place you bags in there to contour the harness behind the parachutes.

Most of these side mounted harnesses have covered pockets on the side opposite the parachute. Carlos has his radio up inside in a pocket near his shoulder.

The back plate has been changed to widen out near the shoulders and the ends of the back plate curve down to go around the shoulders. You’ll notice in the details shot that a zipper is used to close off the parachute pocket, similar to that used on the Moyes Matrix.

All the buckles are inside and the bottom buckle uses the Tenax system. The top buckle is padded on the inside.

Carlos was also using a specially designed speed bar shown here (just sitting on top of the regular base bar.)

Apparently a number of pilots in Brazilhave attempted to copy this design, but failed because they used only carbon fiber and not carbon and chrome moly steel. Rhett Radford designed and built this speed bar to allow Carlos to old the bar at his chest while racing into goal while other pilots had to hold the bar at their waists. The angles of the bar give him substantial side to side leverage.

Keeping Rigid Wings Cool & Strong

Tue, Mar 12 2002, 12:00:07 pm EST

carbon fiber|Davis Straub|Florida|George Ferris|Ian Duncan|Jaime Ruiz|record|Wallaby Ranch

Jaime Ruiz «jaimeruiz111» writes:

Ian Duncan from Moyes wrote (OzReport.com/Ozv6n30.htm) that the hot Florida sun would bring rigid wing’s carbon fiber structures to over 160°F, even under the cover of your white sail. This temperature would weaken the epoxy in the carbon fiber corner tapes that the aeronautical designer Felix Ruhle recommended and I used to strengthen my Atos (OzReport.com/Ozv6n28.htm), Ian claims, rendering them useless. Given Ian’s ominous assertions, I decided to do some minimal research into epoxy Tg, and a quick and cheap, but effective test of temperature differentials inside the sails in the Florida sun.

Epoxy Tg

Tg, or the “glass transition temperature,” is the temperature (actually a temperature “range”) at which the cured epoxy will begin to significantly compromise its physical properties of consistency, hardness, shear strength, tension strength, compression strength, flexural strength, etc. Epoxies cured at room temperature have a maximum Tg of 60-65oC regardless of their hardener ratios, or up to 90oC with a post-cure at 60oC heat for 2 hours. To get an epoxy to develop a Tg over 90oC it needs to be cured for hours in a specially built high-heat oven. However, you can post-cure your resin structure with heat lamps under a tarp, or even expose just the black carbon tape to the hot sun for two hours the day after. This will increase the Tg when cured, and make the resin structure stronger.

Aircraft Spruce (877-477-7823) sells E-Z Poxy 83 or 84 with these characteristics. Epo-Tek (1-800-227-2201, www.epotek.com) makes and sells an epoxy (#301-2, $40/16 oz) for structural parts with a Tg of 194°F, a 3-1 resin-to-hardener ratio and an 8 hr pot life. This #301-2 epoxy cures in 2-3 days at room temperature. If you look hard and ask the right questions, you’ll find other good ones too.

Is unfortunate that Ian Duncan did not share with us the epoxy name that Moyes uses, its physical characteristics, Tg cure temperature or technique, cost, or distributor’s name. Ian also forgot to mention that the curing of epoxy carbon fiber parts with a professionally heated oven is a technique only available to manufacturers due to its high cost. Manufacturers have the clams to buy expensive ovens and cure many parts simultaneously, bringing their curing cost-per-unit down. The high cost to buy an oven or make a single cure is totally prohibitive at this time for individual rigid wing owners. My simple room temperature resin cure imitated the home brewed “manufacturing conditions” that individual rigid-wing owners would use to strengthen their D-spars, should they choose to do so. That was the practical reason for using a room temperature cure on my carbon fiber corner tapes.

Sun Heat Experiment:

I got three round 6” diameter outside-thermometers from Wal Mart ($3 each), set up my Atos, and taped one thermometer to each wing D-spar, inside the sail, between the 4th and 5th ribs. (Note the spoiler wire in front of the thermometer.) The third thermometer I kept for outside temperature readings in the shade under a wing. I left the left wing with the standard sail for comparison purposes (and because I was also tuning the spoiler cord, replacing a fish cam, etc.). But I covered the right wing sail top with Energy Shield 200, a heat reflective, silver laminated fabric, manufactured and sold by Bruin Plastics (1-800-5566-7764). (I bought ES back in October of 2001, when I still had Davis Straub’s older Atos, realizing the need to protect the black carbon fiber of my Atos from high temperatures when out in the sun.)

Energy Shield

ES is a waterproof, highly reflective, silver laminated thermal barrier, 10 oz/sqyd fabric used for airplane windshield covers to reflect radiated heat out and keep the instruments cooler inside the cockpit; for pizza bags to reflect heat in and keep the pizzas hot for delivery (next time you order a pizza for delivery that’s the material in the bag), and for many other thermal barrier uses. It is made by BRUIN PLASTICS (1-800-556-7764) who also sells directly to the public. (If asked, some pilots may want to state that their purpose is to cover an airplane windshield, since I have been told that Bruin might be reluctant to sell to hang glider owners for liability reasons.)

With the Energy Shield cover I protect my Atos from the sun and rain when left in the open for several days at Wallaby Ranch or elsewhere. This stuff reflects light and heat so much that you literally cannot look at it straight when out in the sun. Looking at ES is almost like looking at the sun reflecting on a mirror, forcing you to squint and look elsewhere presto. I bought 25 yd (54” wide) for $175, cut about 14 yd for both wings, and in half-hour made two wing top covers with nothing but sticky-back Velcro from Home Depot, scissors, and a measuring tape. (You can cover two Atos with 25 yd. But a full roll has 100 yd and they wouldn’t sell me less than 25 yd.) Since the Velcro snaps on and off very fast, these wing covers are very easy to use and convenient. I left the bottom of the wings open so that the air would move under the wing instead of accumulating hot air inside, heating the carbon fiber not only by radiation but also by convection. (I used 7 more yd of ES and some Velcro tapes to make a cocoon or sock for my Atos in its wooden cradle when transporting it on my car roof.)

Data Results:

On March 8th, after having the Atos out in the Florida sun for two hours, these were the recorded temperatures at3 pm in the afternoon Florida sun:

Shaded Outside Air Temperature82°F
Inside Atos Wing93°F
Inside Atos Wing W/energy Shield87°F
Temperature Differential5°F

(Unfortunately the testing conditions were not perfect since it is March, the air temperature is relatively cool, and not July-August, the peak of theFlorida heat. But, like most instances in life, you do the best you can with what you have.) As you see, the Energy Shield cut the heat above the air temperature on the standard wing to about half. One can reasonably infer that this temperature differential will grow as the outside temperature increases in the summer, but that remains to be tested again in a hot summer day. A temperature differential of up to 25oF cooler (under the Energy Shield) in the summer months is realistic. Testing again in the hotter more vertical sun of the summer would give us data closer to the worst heat conditions, but the conclusions should remain the same.

Conclusions:

1) Energy Shield, a silver laminated reflective heat barrier, is very effective in keeping the carbon fiber protected from the sun’s rays, and is particularly useful when you leave your rigid wing out during the hot summer days in areas likeAustralia,Florida, the Owens’s Valley, and Zapata, Texas.

2) Using such thermal barrier while standing under the sun, and taking it off just prior to takeoff, will keep your carbon fiber D-spar as cool as possible. (Try not to place your rigid on a heat reflective surface such as asphalt or concrete because you will also increase the heat below the wing due to reflected radiation. When possible, grass is best.) Using this thermal barrier virtually guarantees that the structural integrity of your D-spar—and, in my case, the epoxy and carbon fiber corner tapes—will remain relatively cool, strong and effective, regardless of the sun’s heat rays above.

3) You may find other competitive reflective laminates such as Bruce Custom Covers, but they are very expensive and don’t sell the material by itself, only the end product. At Wallaby Ranch, George Ferris has built Atos covers and sells them, although I don’t know the properties of the material. (I don’t sell wing covers.)

If you fly a rigid wing, please consider using a tree shade if available, and a highly reflective laminated thermal barrier to cover your wings always, especially in the summer months.

Ian further stated that “Strengthen the spars along their length only and you apply more load at the center junction. Something may still give as you have increased the stiffness and therefore the shock loading.” If the corner tapes shift the loads from the weaker to the stronger structural sections of the glider, then we have certainly succeeded. I am not, nor do I claim to be, an aeronautical engineer or designer, but Felix Ruhle is and very successful at it. Felix’ reinforcing corner tapes have not only a vertical component to strengthen the D-spar against up-down (pos-neg Gs) loads, but also a horizontal component at 90° to the vertical section of the spar. This horizontal component increases the resistance against the drag as well as torsion forces. Therefore, contrary to what some have said, Felix tapes strengthen the D-spar in all four dimensions.

All gliders have a breaking point, no matter how much overly-designed. “Something may still give…” is always true. That statement confuses, and doesn’t add any value. However, the carbon fiber corner tapes that Felix Ruhle recommended to strengthen my Atos-c (OzReport.com/Ozv6n28.htm) does significantly raise the G loads—negative, positive, drag, or torsion—needed to break the D-spars at their proven and most vulnerable breaking points… with a minimum added weight. This is a structural fact of significant safety value given freely only for your evaluation and well being, without any competing, self-serving, commercial purpose or conflict of interest on my part. Could such post-manufacturing room temperature epoxy cure and carbon fiber strengthening of the D-spars be improved and made cheaper, faster, lighter, stronger, less susceptible to summer heat and generally speaking better through improved design and more sophisticated manufacturing techniques? Yes, of course.

Aeronautical designers face a challenging balancing act—the most strength for the least weight, or the most bang for their buck, if you will. They also want to constantly improve their original designs as more and better data surfaces with the hundreds of rigid wings flying out there. Designers are inventors at heart. Constant improvement with newer and better prototypes is the name of their game. Look at A-I-R web site and you will see the “constant improvement” or Kaizen philosophy that Felix built into its corporate mission. I am sure that the rigid wings sold three years from now will be stronger, faster, safer, and better than today’s. We, as pilots, can add value to the process and accelerate its improvement rate by giving valuable data, ideas, and feedback to the designers. But… are we not to take improvement steps today because tomorrow will (always) bring us a better hindsight, or someone else will eventually do it better? Oh, come on!! Fear not but fear itself.

Discuss "Keeping Rigid Wings Cool & Strong" at the Oz Report forum   link»   »

Sparrowhawk »

Tue, Feb 19 2002, 4:00:00 pm EST

carbon fiber|Greg Cole|sailplane

carbon fiber|Greg Cole|John "Ole" Olson|sailplane

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|carbon fiber|Greg Cole|sailplane

carbon fiber|Greg Cole|John "Ole" Olson|sailplane

I sent a few questions to Greg Cole, principal in the company manufacturing the SparrowHawk, «cole» who writes:

The SparrowHawk uses HT grade Divinycell foam. In my opinion this is the best foam available. Please note that this is an aerospace grade of foam and has a very high temperature operational limit and toughness that exceeds all other foams.

The carbon fiber fabric used is special, but is not unique to the SparrowHawk. I have been aware of this fabric for many years through its development cycle. It offers many performance advantages over more conventional fabric. It is true that the SparrowHawk is the first aircraft to fly using this material. Again, this is a high quality aerospace grade material.

We have quoted conservative minimum sink numbers and definitely expect to better them. We have already demonstrated better performance.

By the way we have been to 120 KTS, 9300 FT, and have flights of over 3-hrs duration in the winter. The SparrowHawk climbs and runs very, very well.

The SparrowHawk is very strong. The first aircraft has been tested to limit load before flight testing, and these limit loads exceed those of most sailplanes. Our limits are +5.5 and -4.0 g's with a rough air and maneuvering speed limit of 80 kts. The SparrowHawk is the only light sailplane that I would take into conditions were strong rotors may be encountered.

We have 45 to 45 deg roll response times of 2.7 seconds. This exceeds the roll response of any sailplane I have heard about. Coupled with the high load limits and high-speed capability the SparrowHawk will be as good or better than even the most current generation of modern sailplanes of any size.

You also mention the BRS. This is an option in the SparrowHawk.

http://www.windward-performance.com

Carbon fiber work

Wed, Feb 13 2002, 12:00:04 am GMT

carbon fiber|Ian Duncan|Jamie Shelden

There was significant response to Jamie Ruiz’s article on beefing up the ATOS. Many pilots with extensive carbon fiber experience had lots to say about Jaime’s methods. I’m afraid that there wasn’t any mutually agreed upon resolution. You can find some of the correspondence on the rigid wing list, which often serves as an adjunct to the Oz Report.

Ian Duncan <compositecreations@bigpond.com> who makes the Moyes Litespeed carbon fiber spars and who has lots of concerns about the curing temperature of composites and how hot these spars get in the hot Australian sun writes:

Just thought I'd point out that Jaime's repair as stated by himself was carried out with a 2:1 epoxy mix… with a Tg of say… 60°C. On a hot day in Florida, given some temperature inertia in the Atos spars, these additions would be all but useless straight after takeoff until the resin cooled. Then repeat the cycle over and over again and before long its always useless. I have sent Jaime an e-mail but thought it prudent to point this out to you in case you thought to follow his instructions… on how not to do a repair.

The Tg is the temperature at which the cured epoxy will resoften. All cured epoxies soften eventually at some temperature. The cure 2:1 systems soften at around 60°C. Black carbonfibre can get up over 100°C in the sun. Even under the cover of your sail the spars can get up around 80°C. At this temp. all your additions are in a soft resin matrix and doing nothing. Think about the consequences of the cycling of softening and hardening and what it will do to your beautiful job especially if there is any movement of the original Atos spar whilst your repairs are soft. Ask your resin supplier what the Tg of your cured resin is!

When we first built carbon spars for Moyes CSX they were quite large diameter and therefore quite stiff. We thought this was great until you think of a pilot tumbling around under a glider or being slammed into the keel in a tuck… Karate Kid with a whole body weight as a fist.

The Litespeed has been subsequently built with spars that flex to smooth out the impact loads. A combination of strength and flex. The Litespeed spars will bend 4 feet before failure.

Apply this theory to an Atos wing with such a deep chord and such a thin laminate and it is not so surprising that the spars will fail under the shock loads of a tumble/tuck. Strengthen the spars along their length only and you apply more load at the centre junction. Something may still give as you have increased the stiffness and therefore the shock loading.

Discuss "Carbon fiber work" at the Oz Report forum   link»

500 probes (Luft Balloons?)

Wed, Feb 13 2002, 12:00:03 am GMT

Exxtacy|Ghostbuster|Millennium|Steven "Steve" Pearson

Steve Pearson mentions that it takes about 500 gliders to be produced, sold and out there flying until we really have any idea of how they will do with respect to tucking, etc. Well, let’s take a very preliminary stab at seeing how things are going.

Topless flex wings:

> 500 units

spins: seem to be as difficult to spin as previous flex wings

tucks/tumbles: a small number of tucks, less than advanced king posted hang gliders, at least one death.

Millenniums:

50 units

spins : very easy to spin, almost all have spun, some into the ground with injuries and one death

tucks/tumbles: no tucks or tumbles know to me.

Swifts:

Small number of units

spins: a small number of spins into the ground with injuries

tucks/tumbles: no known to me.

E7/Esc:

< 50

spins: easy to spin, although less so than the Millennium

tucks/tumbles: no known to me

Exxtacy:

400-500 units

spins: difficult to spin because of the forward placement of the control bar although has been done intentionally (similar to flex wings), very violent spin when entered.

Tucks/tumbles: no known to me.

Ghostbuster:

< 100

spins: a few. Easy to spin if hang point put way at the back and heavy pilot. New wires place control bar forward like Exxtacy to prevent spins.

Tucks/tumbles: a few with the leading edges destroyed in tuck and tumbles

ATOS/ATOS-C

400-500

spins: spins when pilot places hang point at the back of the range and flies slowly, otherwise difficult to spin. A few pilots have spun into the ground, a couple of deaths

tucks/tumbles: a few with the leading edges destroyed.

Top Secret

< 50

Spins: spins easily, at least one into the ground with one death

Tucks/tumbles: none known to me.

Any corrections or updates to this very preliminary chart are appreciated.

Discuss "500 probes (Luft Balloons?)" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Tuck issues

Wed, Feb 13 2002, 12:00:02 am GMT

Gary Valle|Mike Meier|Steve Elkins|Steven "Steve" Pearson|Tom Price|USHGA BOD

I had an opportunity to speak with Steve Pearson the designer at Wills Wing at the recent USHGA BOD meeting. I've had a number of opportunities to speak with Steve over the last few years and I always find my time well spent and I come away enlightened about a particular issue.

Steve pointed out that a great deal of relatively sophisticated analysis of hang glider and flying wing stability was done as much as 25 or more years ago, and that this analysis is applicable to any current concerns about tucking or tumbling, and should serve as a starting point in any attempt to develop theories about our current problems in this area. In particular we should review articles by Gary Valle, Tom Price, Hewitt Phillips, R.T.Jones who have contributed immensely to our understanding of this phenomenon.

Steve said that in the past Mike Meier had conducted a survey of hang glider tucks and tumbles in an effort to determine if there were common design or test result factors that could explain them and help hang glider designers overcome the problems. Within the class of high performance gliders, the data did not seem to indicate any correlation between design factors or test results and tumble frequency, and thus didn't provide much guidance to designers.

Recently it seems that a change may have occurred. Second generation and later topless flex wings seem, in recent years, to have a better record with respect to tucks and tumbles than the previous generations of advanced king posted hang gliders. It's difficult to quantify this, because in the history of the sport there have been periods of time when tumbles have been more or less frequent, without any obvious changes in design.

Steve wasn't confident that he had a good explanation for the apparent recent improvement in the record of topless gliders. On the other hand, he thought that the improved safety record might be related to a maintenance issue with king posted gliders and reflex lines.

Both Wills Wing and Bautec had earlier found that when the trailing edges of the sails shrink as they do over time, the reflex lines get loose and don't provide for reflex for dive recovery. When they tested older HP gliders their pitch stability was terrible.

There is both a report and a service bulletin posted on the Wills Wing web site http://www.willswing.com/launch.asp?theCategory=support&link=frmSupportPage.asp 'Reflex Bridle Adjustment and Maintaining Pitch Stability' It might be the case that the topless glider is more likely to stay within its design specifications because the reflex provided by the sprogs doesn't change as the sail shrinks. The same design factor is inherent in the design of rigid wing hang gliders.

One king posted glider for which Wills Wing has no record of any tucks or tumbles is the WW Falcon. Pilots generally think of this class of low aspect ratio glider as not being subject to tumbling, however, in the mid seventies tumbling was a serious problem on a wide range of gliders with very similar aspect ratios. What is interesting, however, is that the Falcon has relatively weak stability on the test vehicle at high speeds in comparison to either a topless flex wing or, presumably, a rigid wing (though it has similar, and perhaps better stability at low speeds).

Based on the safety record of the Falcon, Steve thinks that it's probably reasonable to conclude that other factors like pitch damping and stall behavior may be as important as pitching moment to overall glider stability. He said that vehicle and flight tests of a tail attached to a flex wing glider at Wills Wing indicated that it did not necessarily represent an easy way to improve the pitch stability of a flex wing without incurring other compromises. He felt that these test results would not necessarily be applicable to rigid wing hang gliders with their higher aspect ratios and consequentially lower downwash near the root.

He felt that tails that were attached right to the keel would be less effective, as they would be in the downwash, compared to tails that were T-tails and raised up above the keel and further away from the downwash. Steve said that the increased pitching damping contribution from the tail may be equally as important as the increased stability coefficients, i.e. slowing the rate of rotation.

He also stated that theory and speculation are not adequate to predict with confidence the statistical incidence of pitch-overs and tucks of a given model. (For example, compare the safety record of the Exxtacy to the Atos). He also pointed out that it is known that many flex wing gliders are considerably stronger than they need to be at a minimum to pass HGMA and DHV certification and that the carbon fiber cross tubes/spars on topless flex wing gliders appear to be much more durable and damage resistant than the carbon fiber d-cells that are found on rigid wings. (BTW, WW static tests each of their carbon fiber spars. 1 in 100 fails with no obvious flaw.)

Rigid wings, both because they are more rigid and because they are capable of accelerating very quickly to very high speeds, may offer a reduced structural margin in extreme circumstances. Steve pointed out the HGMA uses a 150° load test (basically you attach the glider to the truck with its back into the wind and tail down 30° and run it up to 32 mph). The DHV doesn't use this test.

The test is designed to simulate the loading that would be experienced after 180° of pitch down rotation during a tumble, which has been the more common issue of concern, at least with the HGMA, over the last 25 years. (The test does not simulate the loading in a tuck, which typically happens at a much higher speed). Since none of the rigid wings certified so far have been certified to he HGMA standards, it's not clear how they would perform in this test.

Finally, he stated that it is likely that any hang glider would be destroyed in an accelerated, high speed tuck, one like mine. He felt that at very high speed, the wings could fail without significant negative loading from torsion and drag loads alone. He felt that it was unlikely that my glider actually experienced a significant negative load during the event, because I had reported that the glider apparently failed before I hit the keel.

Without the mass of the pilot "attached" to the center of the glider, any positive or negative aerodynamic loads would be expected to be distributed over the structure relatively evenly, in such a way that it is unlikely there would be a high enough load to cause a failure.

Steve Pearson wasn’t the only one who was thinking about tucks. Steve Elkins writes:

In my 12 years of being involved with the pitch testing of hang gliders, neither I nor anyone else involved in UK pitch testing has ever seen, or heard, of a hang glider with suspect pitch stability (i.e. one that has tumbled or otherwise given rise to stability concerns) that has subsequently passed the pitch test.

Of course, given Felix’s tests at DHV of the ATOS-C, it looks like this is a first for Steve. He also writes:

However if you are flying a glider with a C of A that is within spec, there's no evidence that you need to rush out and fit a tailplane.

Seems like a lot of things are up in the air.

Another writer sends this in:

I have no axe to grind about tailplanes, but have always been aware that as we fly gliders with higher aspect ratio, hence narrower chord for a given area, we must be more prone to tucking and tumbling (I am an engineer, but not a hang glider or sailplane designer or anything like it, so its slightly more than just a gut feel)) and we put our trust in the designers of our aircraft and the test procedures for making sure that they are safe.

To be a bit more technical, again Martin Jursa, "The essential parameter determining the tumbling ability is the ratio between mean chord/Center of Gravity depth, the smaller this ratio …the easier the glider will go upside down.” It’s obvious from this that for a given wing area a glider with an aspect ratio of 12 to 1 will have about a 20% disadvantage over one with a 7.6 to 1 for the same Center of Gravity distance.

Moving on to the C of G issue, we need to explain what needs to happen when the glider's AoA suddenly becomes negative. The gist of it is that the addition of the pilots weight moves the gliders C of G downwards, this improves the stability of the glider from the test rig certification values at positive angles of attack, but worsens it at negative angles of attack particularly in the -5 to -10 ° area.

The more forward the pilot can move his weight under these conditions the smaller the adverse effect becomes until, if sufficiently far forward,the glider won't tuck or tumble. Hence the importance of being able to hold onto the bar and getting into the safety position. On stable gliders it is only necessary to pull in a little to achieve this, on more marginal machines pull in more!, but to do this you must keep hold of the bar and so on.

What I can see coming out as a result of your incident and the statement by AIR that the glider was within "DHV as tested specification", which is what I construe them publishing the inspectors report is meant to imply, is that the testing criteria used by our sport to regulate the safety of our gliders is suspect. It may be adequate for tailless gliders of a certain configuration (what are the limits) but those that fall outside this probably require extra study.

Bjørnar Ryeng <bjornar@intime.no> writes:

Also gliders (sailplanes) can definitely go inverted in strong turbulent air. I was almost inverted in an old K8 when I was relatively new to the gliding and going for some waves in strong headwind (ehh… Relatively strong - I was flying a K8). The glider recovered through a "half loop" from some 20° past vertical. If it had continued I would have pushed carefully and rolled it back from inverted instead. Except from a lot of sand and shit in my eyes and hair I was fine.

Discuss "Tuck issues" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Icaro 2000⁣’s new ATOS-X »

Mon, Feb 11 2002, 8:00:03 pm EST

carbon fiber|Icaro 2000|Wills Wing

You can find out more about the rigid wing offered by Icaro at http://www.Icaro2000.com/Products/Rigid%20Wings/Icaro/Rigid%20Icaro.htm.

After a review of the new pictures of the new version of the ATOS from Icaro it is clear that it is the ATOS-C without Felix's new control frame but with the Wills Wing ATOS control frame instead.

I love both control frames after having flown extensively with both of them.The WW will control frame will be less costly for the pilot and allow for quick replacement of the down tubes.

The AIR control frame has stainless steel tubes that act as weaklinks in the carbon fiber downtubes.Pilots will instead of replacing downtubes will replace these weaklinks when they have poor landings.The AIR control frame is extremely strong (having survived quite a bad landing and for the most part survived the destruction of the ATOS in the air), but it is not as standard nor are it's parts as easily replaceable as the WW control frame.

I think that the AIR control frame should provide a very slightly better glide than the WW Control Frame.My results with the ATOS-C indicate that it provides the extra performance that I desired but now much was due to the AIR control frame over the WW control frame is unclear.

Discuss "Icaro 2000⁣’s new ATOS-X" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Scatter in the drop test data

Sat, Feb 2 2002, 6:00:06 pm GMT

Angelo Crapanzano|parachute|Rob Kells

I had an opportunity to speak with Rob Kells about parachutes at the recent USHGA BOD meeting. Rob admitted to the fact that Wills Wing hasn’t done a good job getting out useful information to pilots to help them pick a parachute of an appropriate size. One problem he mentioned was that there was a wide scatter in the drop test data, the results of tests that determine the rate of fall under various loads.

He has decided that it would be a good idea to publish all the data so that pilots can see just how wide a variation there is in manufacturer’s tests when they report how well their parachutes due.

What should pilots be interested in? For one thing, they will want to know just how fast they will be coming down (given their weight and a portion of the glider’s weight) and how that value relates to their chance to suffer from injury. Of course, if you’re going down under canopy in 500 fpm sink, it’s going to hurt a bit more.

Angelo Crapanzano has presented some strong arguments for his position of chute size and I look forward to hearing more from Rob.

Discuss "Scatter in the drop test data" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Twisting your life away

Mon, Jan 28 2002, 5:00:04 pm EST

carbon fiber

While lots of exciting incidents occurred during the Bogong Cup, some of the most exciting were incidents that didn't occur because some folks were sharp eyed enough to spot a problem that was about to happen. Twice different folks spotted side wires that had almost all their strands broken.

The first non-incident occurred on launch at Mt. Buffalo. It's quite a spectacular launch and a long ways down if your wings fold up. Paul the launch marshal noticed that the strands next to the nico at the bottom of a side wire were frayed. Turned out that sixteen of the 19 wires on a 1 by 19 2-mm side wire were broken at the nico.

This was on a pristine looking Moyes CSX. These wires are now in common use and Moyes uses standard methods and fittings, so it is not a reflection on Moyes in particular that it was a glider than they had manufactured.

1x19 wire is more commonly used today than previously. A 2mm 1x19 wire should be able to hold 450 kilograms. A 2mm 7x7 should be able to hold 400 kg. A 7x7 2.5-mm wire should be able to hold 900 kg.

On topless gliders the cross bars without the side wires are supposed to be able to handle 3 g's. The typical force on the side wires would be about 140 pounds. The 3 remaining strands of wire would just about hold that amount of force.

The next non-incident occurred on the last day of the Bogong Cup when a pilot noticed one strand of a side wire was frayed. When the plastic coating was cut back from the nico it was found that a total of fifteen of the wires were broke. That left four wires and the carbon fiber spar to hold the positive load on this Moyes Litespeed.

The glider was one year old and had about 120 hours on it.

In both cases the wire was 2 mm 1x19 stainless steel wire. In both cases the wires were broken at the nico. At least in one case it was not possible to fully inspect the damage without removing a plastic coating.

Perhaps 1x19 wires should be inspected frequently. Perhaps they are less flexible than we think.

Mark wants to know

Mon, Jan 21 2002, 1:00:03 am EST

carbon fiber|Rohan Taylor

carbon fiber|Oleg Bondarchuk|Rohan Taylor

carbon fiber|Oleg Bondarchuk|Rohan Taylor

Mark Mullholland «MarkMulhol» (can't keep a good man down) writes in in response to my comments about the Australian Nationals.

Can you enlighten us about the drag configuration of each top pilot?

My Response:

What I really need here are some pictures. I know that many of you want more of them, and I'm always remiss in not taking more and publishing more of them.

The top flex wing pilots are flying in very streamlined harnesses and with airfoil control frames and thin wires. The new Moyes harness looks great, as does the new Aeros harness than Oleg is doing so well in. Gerolf continues with his M2 Cigar harness.

I'm flying in my Center of Gravity Carbon Fiber harness, which I love (because it is so comfortable) and find is very streamlined. Rohan is flying a very visible purple Skorpion harness from Dynamic Flight.

Again, I wish I had taken more pictures. Many pilots got to try on different harnesses (one breaking Conrad's zipper) during the days that we didn't fly in Hay. Paris is flying the MR Tenax with two parachutes (looks like he's about to have twins coming out the sides).

All the top pilots have to fly with the least drag producing harnesses and control frames. Round base tubes, wheels, old harnesses (like Bo's), thicker wires, kludgy hang straps, etc., mean that you won't be in the running for the top spot. Differences in drag are a big part of the differences in performance between pilots.

Mark writes:

I believe that the gliders are very similar, and that better performance is achieved by reducing drag. Hence harness type, and instrument drag are a HUGE portion of the potential L/D performance of a flex wing. Please let your readers know what the top pilots are using.

My Response:

The flex wing gliders are very similar (say more similar to each other than they are to the rigid wings or to the Swift Lite). Top pilots spend significant efforts on drag reduction. All top pilots use faired instrument pods.

Mark writes:

What configuration was the Swift in? How much fairing did it have?

My Response:

The Swift Lite was fully faired for both meets.

Mark writes:

Why did you win, if the Swift "obviously has better performance"?

My Response:

Much more experience. I just have a lot more experience than Bruno in flying in the Australian competitions.

Launching earlier. I think Bruno may have been obligated to launch last or near last given his configuration. Maybe he didn't want to get in the way of flex wing in line. I didn't quite understand the situation for him or his reasons.

Starting late is not that bad of an idea especially if you have overwhelming performance superiority as you can much more easily take advantage of the slower pilots out in front of you marking the thermals. On days one and four Bruno was able to start late and use the pilots in front of him to have very fast times.

My earlier start on day one made up for my slower times, so that I was not too far behind him after the first day. On the second day with our out and return task with a strong cross wind, Bruno started only 15 minutes behind the main gaggle. I was able to fly a little bit faster than him and given my earlier start time and arrival, get back into the lead.

On day three Bruno had a good time, much faster than me, but not an outstanding time. He started 45 minutes after me and 15 minutes after the main gaggle. His late start cost him departure and arrival points.

On day four, Bruno started a half hour after me with the main gaggle but flew very fast. He came in just three minutes after I crossed goal. His time was 17 minutes less than anyone else. He was now only thirty points behind me and in a very good position to win the Australian Nationals overall.

On the final day, Bruno started with the main gaggle at 2 PM. This is the first day that I got to see more than a glimpse of him flying in the air, in fact he flew right below me by a few feet at one point.

One the flight out (downwind) to the first and second turnpoints Bruno appeared to fly pretty much by himself. I got to see him low and flying fast searching all around for thermals. He appeared to cover about four times the distance that any of the rest of us covered getting to Booligal.

On the way back Bruno hooked up with the main leading gaggle about half way back to the third turnpoint at One Tree. He was back up with the rest of us now and not getting too far away. I got low soon after this point but I saw him reasonably high a few kilometers in front of the gaggle heading for the third turnpoint.

After making the third turnpoint I head a little cross wind toward goal and when I got down to 1,500' 30 kilometers from goal I spied Bruno in what now from my perspective looked like a "space ship." He was way up there, way over my head, and slowly climbing presumably in the same lift that I had found.

He continued to stay in this thermal for a long time. We were both way out in front of the flex wing gaggle, both alone, far apart in height.

I got up high at this point when Oleg caught up with me and showed me a strong core just a little ways behind me. Bruno, from his very high perch, continued on toward goal. I thought at that point that the contest was over and that he would be gliding into goal from 8,000' thirty kilometers out.

As Oleg and I pressed forward after getting high, we saw Bruno on the deck (600') at twenty kilometers out. He was in a struggle just to stay up. He had lost an incredible amount of height in just 10 kilometers.

I was now far over his head and he was preoccupied with survival. I felt that I now had a chance to win the meet overall.

I took my time forging ahead and finding lift to stay high enough to make goal. On that day I beat him by 33 minutes getting more departure, speed and arrival points.

Bruno's strong performance advantage both worked in his favor and against him. When it got him out on his own he sometimes struggled as on the last day. It only took one bad sink street to keep him in second place.

AIR ATOS rack pads

Fri, Dec 21 2001, 7:00:05 am GMT

AIR ATOS|carbon fiber

Felix included some carbon fiber backed neoprene foam pads with his ATOS which he sent to me to use in Australia. These pads look like curved harness backplates, about 18 inches long and as wide as the ATOS is when packed up.

Since any dents that we might get in the carbon fiber on an ATOS would most likely come from transporting it on the rack, these devices should be particularly effective in protecting the ATOS.

Discuss "AIR ATOS rack pads" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

The sweetest ATOS yet

Fri, Dec 21 2001, 2:00:03 am EST

carbon fiber

Aeros Combat|carbon fiber

Aeros Combat|carbon fiber

Felix sent me a new ATOS –C to fly here in Australia and maybe it is the wonderful air that I always experience here at Stanwell Park, but it sure felt great and flew fast with little to no effort.. You can't tell if it is the conditions or the glider, but either it was the sweetest conditions I've ever had here or this glider is something special. Lots of times I've been beat up pretty good racing down the escarpment, but not this time.

I got to race with Bo (in an Aeros Combat 2) and Paris (in an Icaro Laminar MRx) pulling in and going as fast as they wanted to go. Often I was pulling away from them and climbing on them. What made it different to me was the ATOS-C felt comfortable at higher speeds.

I noticed that the sail wasn't as tight as would normally have expected. Perhaps it was the fact that it was cold in Germany when Felix test flew it (but I though Dacron shrinks in the warm air – but then moisture has the opposite effects).

It was easy to pull in and go fast. How fast, well I didn't have any instruments with me. This ease of going fast indicated to me reduced drag. The carbon fiber control frame without the nose wires appears to be responsible for the reduced drag.

Felix has also made so other changes to the sail. First, the tips have been extended to cover up the tip levers and all the associated strings. This cleans up the tip completely.

Second, there is a shear rib on the eighth rib. It is on the outside of the rib, so the fish cam has been reversed and you swing the rib into place from the inside..

Third, there appears to be some additional material on the outside panels at the trailing edge. Perhaps the trailing edge has a slightly different shape.

I thought from comments from other pilots that I might find in difficult to get use to the ATOS-C in the air. It seemed to handle easily and very similar to the ATOS. I was most pleased.

Wills Wing's new aluminum faired base tube

Thu, Nov 15 2001, 4:00:01 pm EST

carbon fiber|Ken Howells|Steve Pearson|Wills Wing

This week, Ken Howells at Wills Wing (www.willswing.com) sent out an announcement of their new faired aluminum base tube that fits right in with their cool hardware and their Slipstream downtubes. Haven't seen something like this before I wanted to get some feeling from Steve Pearson if WW knew how well this base tube compared with their existing carbon fiber base tube. And, just how much reduction in drag we could expect. Here's what Steve had to stay.

 

 

Steve Pearson «Steve» writes:

Outside of the handgrip area, the carbon basetube has the same section and trip as the carbon downtubes that we tested in Stuttgart. As you may remember, those results showed less than 10-20% of the drag of a round tube (depending on Reynolds number and angle of attack). The handgrip area is thinner that a Finsterwalder type tube but it's untripped. I'm guessing that the total drag in the grip area is 70% of a round section. 24 inches of the 54 over all length are in the grip area. [(24 * .7) + (.2 * 30)]/54 = .42, so I'd say that the drag has to be less than 50% of a round tube.

Our wind tunnel tests showed that an untripped Slipstream carbon tube had very high drag values until high speeds (45 mph). The Freeman tube is a thicker, higher drag section than the Slipstream and is untripped. Interestingly (but consistent with analytical results) the Slipstream untripped tubes have slightly lower drag at high speeds (60 mph) than the tripped section. Speed gliders could sand off the trips for marginally better performance, however at speeds less than 45 they'd be taking a BIG performance hit.

We don't have wind tunnel results for the aluminum speedbar. It's a modified Slipstream (with trip) section with the rear edge truncated in a large radius for a nice grip. I think it's more comfortable than the carbon grip. Rob and I had a chance for a 3-mile performance comparison the other day--he was flying a non-Mylar Talon 160 with the aluminum straight base tube and I was on a Mylar Talon 140 with a standard carbon basetube. We grouped up with him 30 ft above and behind. It wasn't until 2 miles into the glide and I'd picked up the speed to 45 that he moved off to the side. Just considering the glider difference, I'd expected to see him fall away sooner so the aluminum basetube can't be hurting too much.

The aluminum basetube is completely interchangeable with the carbon basetube. Of course the corner brackets are completely different because they have to blend from the 3in cord Slipstream to the 1.9in cord basetube. If you continue to fly with the WW Atos bar, I could make an interchangeable aluminum basetube for you by adapting a set of the GB fittings that were originally designed for a straight Bautec tube.

GB d-cell mods

Tue, Nov 13 2001, 12:00:01 pm EST

Belinda Boulter|carbon fiber|Ghostbuster|Ken Strong|Larry Jorgensen|Tryg Hoff

Steve Daleo «stevedaleo» writes:

I agree with your comment about not being able to separate the glider / pilot combination. We’ve been disappointed that no one has really flown a comp with a GB that’s been really optimized/streamlined as some of the ATOS’ have been. I think that has really biased the results.

As you’ve said before, the little things really matter at that level. My personal experience says that the differences are pretty slight. The D cell mod has made a very noticeable performance difference in the GB, mostly at higher speed.

The WW control frame is also a huge improvement. I had the opportunity to fly my unmodified demo side by side with Mark’s modified glider, which I had just completed. We were at Funston on a solid day and at 50 or so, wing tip to wing tip, I went from 100 feet above him to 50 ft below him in about 100 yards. I’d love to do the GB/ATOS comparison. If Quest doesn’t have a modified GB that’s really been done right (vacuum bagged) that makes a difference as well.

I spoke with Larry Jorgensen this weekend as Belinda and I visited with him and Tina. Larry spoke about how much his Ghostbuster was changed by the addition of a 4 inch wide strip of carbon fiber all the way down the leading edge of each d-cell. This keeps the d-cells from bending back at higher speeds and keeps the trailing edge taut when racing between thermals.

This modification has been incorporated in the newer Ghostbusters and Axxess.

He also mentioned that eyewitnesses to Tryg Hoff's ATOS tuck noted that the aluminum tubes at the tips failed during the tuck and therefore didn't provide any force that might have allowed the ATOS to come out of the tuck. Once the ATOS was on its back Tryg fell into the keel and broke the d-cells.

He also mentioned how strong the nose pins, rings and carbon fiber threads are on the ATOS and the IXBO (and by assumption on the Ghostbuster). He noted that they were still completely intact on Tryg's ATOS as well as on Ken Strong's IXBO after their respective accidents. Ken went in nose first from 500 feet.

Pilots speak out

Wed, Oct 10 2001, 2:00:04 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Davis Straub|Dennis Yeomans|Nick Kennedy|record|sailplane|USHGA

carbon fiber|Davis Straub|Dennis Yeomans|John "Ole" Olson|Nick Kennedy|record|sailplane|USHGA

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|carbon fiber|Davis Straub|Dennis Yeomans|Nick Kennedy|record|sailplane|USHGA

carbon fiber|Davis Straub|Dennis Yeomans|John "Ole" Olson|Nick Kennedy|record|sailplane|Tracy Tillman|USHGA

Andrew Ainslie«andrew.ainslie»writes:

Thought I'd tell you why I went the other way, from sailplanes back to hang gliders. I feel that location can have a lot to do with which of the two sports makes more sense. I started hang gliding again after moving to Los Angeles because a) it's a LONG trip to my favorite sailplane operation (Caracole Soaring), b) the soaring season for sailplanes is pretty short, with a fairly tough transition for the last 60 miles coming home from the Owens to Caracole on many days, c) LA offers ridge sites, convergence sites, dependable Kagel and the Owens.

But another interesting aspect has cropped up. Because of a tragic accident earlier this year where a friend of mine died following a spin on approach in my glider (look up my old N number, N 55 VW at www.ntsb.org for details), I decided to take a break from sailplanes. I love them, and usually fly one or two nationals and a regionals every year, but this accident made me reconsider, and move back to a more social form of flying.

And boy, is hang gliding good for that! I flew the Owens on 3 weekends, and all 3 were thoroughly memorable. Waking up in a campground next to Mt. Whitney, having breakfast with a bunch of eager pilots, and the trepidation as we try to pick an optimal take-off time all make this a really fun, social type of flying. Contests can be brutal, tiring and unfriendly sometimes - not because the people are unfriendly, but because flying them is just so much work that time isn't left over for socializing much.

No doubt hang gliding contests are also tiring and less social, and no doubt sailplane camps can also be pleasurable and relaxing. But somehow the awe of the new has left sailplanes for me, and right now I get a whole lot more pleasure flying my hang glider 100 miles than my sailplane 380 - and I did both of those out of Lone Pine on Memorial weekend this year. The 100 miler was by far the more exhilarating flight.

I suppose it's all about variety and change. A change in either direction can be a lot of fun. Unfortunately not a lot of sailplane pilots can be convinced that running off a hill and using your feet as landing gear is all that fun, but I'm loving it! And I encourage hang glider pilots who are feeling a little burned out to give sailplanes a bash - it'll rekindle all the early magic that got you excited about flying in the first place. Whether it's the amazement of setting out on a flat 35:1 glide at 70 mph for the first time, or watching the vario peg at 1800 ft up in a ratty thermal in a hang glider that a sailplane could never core, they both have new discoveries for the jaundiced pilot.

J. Dennis Yeomans, DDS «jdyeomans» writes

Glad to see you are enjoying getting into gliders. Thanks for sharing it with us.

I've been flying gliders as long as I've been flying hang gliders, 25years, although not nearly as frequently. To me, soaring represents man's true quest for flight. We have all become addicted to the sensation of flying in constant harmony with the vagaries of the atmosphere, akin to surfing on a wave, instead of punching a hole through the "bumpy" sky behind a propeller.

Since the essence of soaring is response to the air, we hang glider pilots are fortunate to fly the most responsive soaring aircraft of all, and there-in lies our special pleasure. Coming from where you are, I predict that you will begin to enjoy the 103 more when solo. You will enjoy the 102 even more, as the smaller aircraft gives us the response we have become accustomed to. I have been interested for years in the very light, hybrid, soaring aircraft.

Have you checked out the Sparrowhawk at www.windward-performance.com? A full-on carbon fiber sailplane at 155 lbs! Very special prices on first runs.

 

My biggest problem is no place to fly out here. I am considering keeping something at Dillingham, Oahu, or in CA.

By the way, if you get a chance to stop over on Hawaii, Greg Pierson has gliders to fly, and he has Forberger's atol rig. You can get some great thermal and ridge flying at Dillingham in a 103, then put on your harness and get in a few hours of HG. He tows along the runway.

Be sure to fly the Super-Floater next time at Wallaby. It's about the most fun aircraft I have ever flown.

Geoff Loyns «geoffloyns», former record holding hang glider pilot and sailplane pilot here writes:

I agree with every point Nick Kennedy made about why ex hang glider pilots like me went to sailplanes. I still have 2 H.G. one a Laminar, which cost way over $5,500 and is now just taking up space. My sailplane, Discus cost $44,000 in June 1999 and is still worth much the same, it is fully insured even when being transported in its trailer.

One point Nick missed from his list of reasons to go to sailplanes is no driver required, this year I've had 63 flights flown every time I went to the airport, 210 hours. 40 xc's totaling 8,228 nautical miles and only failed to get home twice. Both times landing at Rossachi strip 20 miles E.S.E. of Minden and aero towed back. Cost about $60 both times taking off within half-hour of landing.

The comfort, convenience, challenge and adrenalin buzz of flying sailplanes is way better for me.

Tracy Tillman «Cloud9SA» writes:

Hang glider (and ultralight) manufacturing companies should take notice of the trend going on, as indicated by some of the recent comments you have received and posted from hang glider pilots now flying sailplanes. As the pilot population ages, hang gliding has become less convenient and more difficult for many of those pilots. The market for hang gliders has become smaller. Yet, companies are missing a potentially larger market. To survive, they may need to innovate to expand their customer base.

It seems that there is a need for a 3-axis joystick controlled ultralight sailplane, that has a flexible hang glider-type collapsible wing (i.e., Talon, Litespeed), with a seat and tail, that can be fully collapsed and safely transported on top of a car, without a trailer or box-like a flex wing hang glider.

Collapsible/flexible hang glider wings could probably have greater performance if they were configured for aerodynamic, rather than weight shift control. Also, the problem with many current ultralight sailplane designs is that they are a pain to disassemble and transport, for XC flights, as least relative to hang gliders.

Not only would this type of flex wing ultralight sailplane be attractive to some current hang glider pilots, but probably to some ultralight, sailplane, and private pilots as well.

ATOS for sale

Sat, Oct 6 2001, 9:00:01 pm GMT

ATOS|carbon fiber|record|Rhett Radford|Wills Wing

I'm getting an ATOS shipped to me directly in Australia for the competitions there, so mine is for sale. I can sell it now or next spring. If you want a very cool ATOS (especially with the Wills Wing control frame) and the heavier duty sail clothe. Contact me at «davis». With the WW control frame: $8,500. Without $8,000.

This is the ATOS that set the world record in Zapata – 407 miles. I got it new in the middle of April at Wallaby. It has the reinforced keel and one repair to the leading edge, done by the master of carbon fiber – Rhett Radford. The sail is in quite good shape.

The ATOS is in Minden, NV. I can deliver in California. Other spots across the southern part of the US in February. Or I can ship at the end of October.

Discuss "ATOS for sale" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Simplifying the complex

Sun, Aug 26 2001, 6:00:00 am EDT

carbon fiber|Florida|Jim Lee|Mark Poustinchian|Wills Wing

carbon fiber|Florida|Jim Lee|John "Ole" Olson|Mark Poustinchian|Wills Wing

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|carbon fiber|Florida|Jim Lee|Mark Poustinchian|Wills Wing

carbon fiber|Florida|Jim Lee|John "Ole" Olson|Mark Poustinchian|Wills Wing

I've received a number of requests to reflect back on the Nationals and provide a critique of the flying that I saw there. Gerolf gave a little talk before the meet got going and as it confirmed once again a number of things that I've learned, spending so much time on the competition circuit, I am encouraged to provide my reflections.

You'll notice that the top two pilots in Class I are factory supported. If you are going to win, you've got to come with the best equipment. While this seems obvious, it means that ninety percent of the pilots who show up are there for fun, only. Pretty darn good equipment doesn't cut it, if your interest is winning.

The Triumph of the Insignificant – once you've got the best that you can purchase, you've got to make it the best by tweaking it in every way possible. Gerolf flies the same glider that Moyes sells, but then he has a whole list of things that he does to it to very very slightly improve its performance. He said that all the top pilots contact him to go through this list and he will go through it with them, but that he is getting tired of doing this for everyone who buys a new Litespeed. Still, contact him if you purchase a Moyes Litespeed.

You need a tight fitting (let me again stress that it has to be fitted for racing) streamlined harness. Come with anything else and you might as well paint a big red L on your forehead. Want a parachute on your chest? Stay home so you won't have to hear the laughs.

For years Jim Lee has been dominant with his carbon fiber harness. This is no longer the case. It has a much bigger cross sectional area than the newer cloth racing harnesses.

BTW, a couple of pilots at Hearne were complaining of significant pain in their arms and shoulders while flying. You have to adjust your harness and hang strap so that you don't experience any pain. If you are experiencing pain, don't be a man and live with it, fix the damn thing. I am completely pain free with my Carbon CG harness, and I wouldn't be able to fly over ten hours if that weren't the case. Just how good are you going to be at decision making if you are flying in pain?

Aerodynamically clean control frames have taken over completely. The Wills Wing and the new Moyes control frames are the ticket. It sure makes a difference on the ATOS and likely comes very close to the new ATOS control frame that eliminates the front wires. In fact, you could use the new ATOS version of the Wills Wing control frame with the no front wires set up.

If you're going to race in racing conditions like we've had for the last two years in Hearne, and in Florida, then you've got to bring ballast. Either be a big boy, or bulk up with lead weights (bags of pellets used for scuba diving). I carry a mere 22 pounds and others carry more. The topless and the rigid wing gliders won't wash out with the additional weight. All the top finishers in Class I (the only class where there is sufficient competition so that all this really matters) were flying with ballast.

The strategic advantage that one gets from having slightly superior performance relative to the other competitors is enormous. You can see everyone below you, can glide to where they are, and can watch them take different routes and evaluate which is better. Your mental state is much improved when you don't have to overcome performance inferiorities through superior skills or better decision making.

A hang gliding competition in Hearne is a race. You won't find the strongest conditions in terms of lift, but you will find a cloud filled sky that indicates where to find the next filling station. You'll also notice that the day dies early, around 6 PM. Get caught out on the course late, and you won't make it home.

You can't hang around in relatively weak lift. You've got to leave the lift when it slows down. Now on some days it just kept getting stronger the higher you got, so you want to stay with lift that is doing this, but unless you are in a world of hurt, leave lift when it slows down.

Time after time I got ahead of the pilots that I was momentarily with by just leaving the lift I was in and going to the next thermal. Repeatedly this would put me in the lead, and alone, but it just didn't matter as the clouds were out there showing me the way.

Launch early. It is easy to stay up in the air at Hearne and the lift is so mellow that there is no reason not to be in the air right away and out of the heat. Now you've got a strategic advantage because you are up over your competition or at least close to them at cloud base. You can see if they are going to leave early or where they are finding lift. The race has begun an hour before the start times begin.

Unless conditions are deteriorating or it looks like you will be on the course as the day ends, take the last start gate. The early bird points just aren't worth any additional risk you may encounter. If it is a long task, like the day we did the 105-mile triangle, then the earlier the better. Lots of other pilots will be going with you.

If you are out in front, look around and see if there is help when you need it. Mark Poustinchian was leading the gaggle of rigids and flexies when we go on a 15-mile glide. He's in a very vulnerable position, as he has no one to help him as we go through the blue.

I'm off to his left getting closer and closer (ballast and the WW control frame). Robin is also off to his left but passing both of us high. Mark just doesn't look up and look around. He never sees me even though he takes a couple of turns in lift that doesn’t work out. If he had just looked back every now and then he would have had a chance to see me at 1,300' when I hit a spot of lift and he kept gliding only to land a few minutes later.

No matter what it looks like, if conditions get weak you've got to slow down. I sure wish I could learn this lesson. On the last day the conditions on the second leg are much much weaker then anything we encountered on the first leg, or at any time during the meet. Only a few pilots will make goal because of this because they don't slow down and take whatever they can.

There are plenty of clouds on the second leg, but they aren't working. There are high clouds shading the ground and most of the clouds are just the remnants of clouds that were working before the high clouds came over. We were racing so fast on the first leg that it is hard to slow down for the second leg.

On the last day I was watching Bruce as the only guy who could challenge me for third place (oh the joy) behind the space ships. He wanted to get off early and get the first start time. I could see that the day had a chance of deteriorating with high clouds. I could see how anxious he was and that he was definitely going to get going early.

I got up with him above the field and then watched as he headed out to the start circle far in advance of the first start time. This was smart for him because he needed to take a big chance if he was going to beat me. I felt that it wasn't smart of me, as I had beaten him the last two times by starting later and I didn't need the additional risk.

This proved to be the case as four rigid wing gliders that took the last start time were able to catch Bruce at the turnpoint 18 miles out in spite of his half-hour lead. Unfortunately that fast time encourages me to race on the second leg, while Bruce is used to the difficulty of the first leg and is more cautious.

Superior equipment and therefore superior performance, makes for superior skills and superior decision making. The differences in performance are exceeding small, but they make all the difference. It’s not about out flying 90 percent of the field, it's out flying the top one percent.

ATOS with Wills Wing control frame

Thu, Aug 9 2001, 4:00:00 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Wills Wing

Ok, I just put it on and I previously had a control frame with WW slipstream (aluminum) down tubes, but I must say that I'm very happy right now. It looks so cool that I'm sure I will be going even faster. J

First off, the control frame comes with new and thinner (5/32" or 2 mm) front and back wires (and nose plate catch) – the standard thickness used on WW competition gliders. The ATOS comes with two wires that are continuous front to back. The WW control frame comes with four wires. There is a junction at the bottom of the down tubes. I really like the thinner wires – like I had before on my previous ATOS.

You use your existing side wires and connect them into standard small u-shaped brackets on the WW bottom joints. You just take off your old frame and wires and put the new WW control frame on. You can check your spoilerons to make sure that they are operating as you desire. If not, you can adjust the ropes inside the wings that control the amount of movement in the side wires.

Wills never optimized their carbon fiber base tube. The hand grip area is a bit too wide for my taste (I love my Aeros base tube), but I'm willing to make that small sacrifice. I will have to lay up some micro skids for it later (and be careful until then).

Cracks on my ATOS

Mon, Aug 6 2001, 6:00:04 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Davis Straub|Rhett Radford|USHGA

carbon fiber|Davis Straub|John "Ole" Olson|Rhett Radford|USHGA

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|carbon fiber|Davis Straub|Rhett Radford|USHGA

carbon fiber|Davis Straub|John "Ole" Olson|Rhett Radford|USHGA

Upon landing on July 25th, I heard a cracking noise on my right wing. I thought I might have cracked a rib. The right wing touched the ground slightly. Not enough to turn the glider or cause any noticeable problem, other than the cracking sound. I landed into a slight breeze on my feet with a slightly early flare.

I didn't notice any cracks in the ribs and it wasn't until the next day that I noticed that there was a crack in the upper surface of the d-cell. It was a long crack than went all the way back to the d-spar. It wrinkled the sail, or I wouldn't have seen it.

When I took off the sail it was clear that the d-cell had been compressed either from the bottom at the tip by contact with the ground, or from the top pushing down at about 6 feet in from the tip.

The compression break ran to the back of the d-cell and then delaminated the d-spar. When we sanded off the carbon fiber you could see that the spar foam and the foam in the d-cell were also cracked.

It is hard to believe that the slight pressure on the d-cell on landing would have caused such a crack. In fact it is unnerving if this was indeed the case. The forces were so light that it is troubling to think they were enough to cause a major structural failure.

I'm wondering if leaving the glider set up may have caused this problem at an earlier time. Perhaps the glider rocking in the wind got compressed a few too many times. This seems like the most likely cause.

Rhett Radford was able to very quickly repair all the damage. He put four layers of carbon fiber cloth on each side of the d-spar (2", 4", 6", and 8" wide), an addition to replacing the tow material (which we created from the woven cloth). He cut a 3" hole out of the top surface of the d-cell to get into work on the d-spar, then repaired the hole. The leading edge and bottom surface of the d-cell were still intact.

He was able to fashion two layers in the interior, lay up micro balloons to replace the foam, and then put three feathered layers on the outside after we sanded down the micro balloons to create a bit of a cavity. The repair looks great.

  Proud Supporter of:

 

 

To unsubscribe or subscribe

You are in charge of your subscription to the Oz Report. If you wish to unsubscribe or subscribe, click: http://pop3.olsusa.com/guest/RemoteListSummary/ozreport

To view the Oz Report on the web go to https://OzReport.com/.

Davis Straub
co-author of Windows Me Secrets
"I gotta tell you; you took a total moron and turned me into a guru! I couldn't have done it without your books!"
davis@davisstraub.com
http://www.davisstraub.com/secrets

Rotor harness report

Mon, Aug 6 2001, 6:00:01 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Gary Osoba|Manfred Ruhmer|US Nationals|Wallaby Ranch

carbon fiber|Gary Osoba|Manfred Ruhmer|US Nationals|Wallaby Ranch|World Record Encampment

carbon fiber|Gary Osoba|Manfred Ruhmer|US Nationals|Wallaby Ranch|World Record Encampment

I finally got a chance to check out the new Rotor harness that Carlos Bessa at Wallaby Ranch, the US distributor, sent to me while I was in Zapata. I didn't want to switch harnesses in the middle of the WRE, but now that we are preparing for the US Nationals here in Hearne, I thought that I would give it a try. I really appreciate Carlos's good work getting me this harness.

I wanted to see how the harness sized as a 2.5 instead of a 4 would fit – like a suit or like a bag? I wanted to get at the reason why my triceps hurt when I flew the previous Rotor.

I set up everything in the Rotor and tried it out hanging in the open hangar here at Hearne first thing this morning. First off this harness fits much better than the previous one. It fits so much better I've got to wonder how it turned out that I got the last one that was so big. I'll publish a picture soon and you can compare.

Not only did it fit better, but all the adjustments were now right, right off the bat. The kick butt lever was perfect. The length was perfect and I could leave in the extra foam. The zipper was much easier to zip and even a bit easier to zip all the way. The shoulder straps were the right length. The front head adjustment rope seemed perfect. It sure makes a big difference when you get the right size harness.

Even though this one fits much better, there is still plenty (or is it too much) room around the back and shoulders and just barely enough room at the hips. The back plate is a tight fist above my back even with too camel backs inside. This seems like too much extra space for a racing harness.

My advice is to go to great lengths to make sure that your harness is sized for you. Make sure that the dealer knows that you want a harness that fits specific measurements and that you don't want the extra room. You want a harness that actually fits your body and not some standard body.

Manfred, Gerolf, and Betinho make very sure that their harnesses fit them exactly right. They are there with the person building the harness. This is what you need to get a harness that really works for you. I mean really works for you. It has to be custom built to be perfect.

The Carbon Fiber CG does have the advantage here on the fit. There is no zipper on the upper half. You can adjust the fit just by adjusting the straps. I had Conrad check me in both harnesses and the Carbon CG presented a much smaller frontal area, as I was able to get it much tighter.

I took the Rotor up for a 2-hour flight today around a 50-mile triangular course. It isn't a seven-hour work out, but I did get to check my triceps. It was clear quite quickly that my triceps were going to hurt if I flew for seven hours. That they were feeling a lot different than they felt when I was flying my Carbon CG.

It wasn't a problem for a two-hour flight. No great pain or anything, but it was clear that there was a significant difference between the two harnesses when it came to tricep pain.

After I landed I spoke with another pilot who also flies a Rotor harness. He experienced the same pain. He also said that he has spoken with other Rotor pilots who have the same problem. Uh, oh. I thought I was the only one.

OK, what's the deal? I assumed that it had to be hang strap length and/or head down angle (which also effects your distance for the base tube as well as your angle with respect to the base tube). I was assuming that the rotor was closer to the base tube (even though its hang strap was shorter than the Carbon CG's).

I hung in both harnesses from a rope and measured my distance from my chest to the ground while hanging horizontal. The Rotor was 1 ¾" closer to the ground. In addition, at the standard setting for the length of the rope that sets your adjustment for your head down position, I could get quite a bit more head down with the Rotor. This meant that I was often closer to the bar then would have normally been the case with the Carbon CG harness.

I think this explains why I (and apparently others) are experiencing distress in our triceps.

If the Carbon CG uses the standard DHV distance for the hang strap and body of the harness, than the Rotor is a bit too long. Looks like Rotor pilots should shorten their hang straps.

What this doesn't explain is why I didn't report this as a Rotor harness problem before and why I never heard from other pilots that this might be related to the harness hang strap length. I think the fact that pilots would tend to minimize physical discomfort and just see it as their personal problem or an aspect of the sport explains this. Tricep pain would definitely tend to be seen as a personal issue, when it fact it appears to be general.

Lots of different pains are associated with hanging head down and flying prone in the most aerodynamic position possible. Shoulder, neck and back pains have been reported. Nerve compression around the elbow with consequent tingling in the hands after a few days is another complaint. Hanging closer to the bar accentuates these issues.

Gary Osoba remarked to me the other day that Manfred seems to fly in a less head down position relative to other pilots. Also, measurements that I made a few years back indicated to me that head down was less aerodynamic than about horizontal. Pain for no gain?

Finally, one last minor point. The Rotor doesn't have a pocket for camel backs that keeps them from sliding down toward your bum. I carry two and I just pull on the nozzles to pull the bags back up to the top.

Most of these issues are true of cloth harnesses in general and not that specific to the Rotor. In all cases you should be very careful about getting the hang length correct. The new Rotor with the side mounted parachute is more oval shaped with the long axis in the horizontal and the bulk behind the pilot's arms. Compared to what most pilots fly, these harnesses are a vast aerodynamic improvement. I'm really only comparing the top 1% of harnesses against each other for the ultimate refinements (which are all that count in competitive hang gliding).

Update:

Flew with the Rotor harness again today. I did two legs of a 170 kilometer FAI triangle. Three hours of flying.

I reduced the head down angle from about 20 degrees to 15 degrees by shortening the rope going to the shoulders. I also shortened the hang strap on the ATOS by twisting it once. The pain in my triceps was significantly reduced if not eliminated.

2001 Flytec World Record Encampment »

Tue, Jul 24 2001, 6:00:00 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Florida|Flytec World Record Encampment 2001|record

carbon fiber|Florida|Flytec World Record Encampment 2001|record|World Record Encampment

carbon fiber|Florida|Flytec World Record Encampment 2001|record|World Record Encampment

East winds today. Kari made an attempt at an out and return. Clouds formed starting early afternoon, but got real good. Lots of moisture coming in with strong east winds throughout the state today. Lots of moisture here tonight with some OD.

Could be a good one tomorrow. Moderate winds, plenty of moisture down by Zapata, some up by San Angelo, less at Midland. Stronger winds on Thursday. Forty percent chance of rain here tomorrow, but drier in central Texas, where we hope to be by afternoon.

Gary stated on Saturday night that Wednesday looked like the day. This pattern lasts through the weekend.

I should mention that I've been flying with my Carbon Fiber CG harness, and it has been very comfortable. I flew the Rotor a bunch in Florida for the long flights and found that my triceps got sore after seven hours in the air. I can't imagine it was the harness design, most likely the angle and length of hang strap.

I have a new Rotor harness that fits tighter, but I won't get a chance to try it out until before Hearne. I'm loving the Carbon Fiber CG, and it is working out very well for me, as always, so it is hard to go back and forth between these two fine harnesses.

2001 Worlds – taking a hat »

Wed, Jun 27 2001, 6:00:00 pm EDT

Alessandro "Alex" Ploner|Andreas Olsson|Attila Bertok|carbon fiber|Chris Muller|Christian Ciech|Corinna Schwiegershausen|Gerolf Heinrichs|Ghostbuster|Gordon Rigg|Johann Posch|John Borton|Jon "Jonny" Durand jnr|Josef "Zwecki" Zweckmayr|Luiz Niemeyer|Manfred Ruhmer|Oleg Bondarchuk|PG|Rohan Holtkamp|Rohan Taylor|Vicki Cain|Worlds 2001

See latest reports at http://www.theleague.force9.co.uk/worlds/worlds.htm Apparently the best conditions so far, but due to airspace considerations, a short task was called. 70 pilots at goal. John Borton says that Paris may have won the day.

Vicki Cain «vix001» writes:

Yesterday was cooler and less stable, clear blue skies. We heard early that it would be an open distance day and headed up the mountain early, but a task was called 120.6-km dogleg to Villanueva del Trabuco with the turnpoint at Estepsa. Steve was off first again at 3pm in the ordered launch, but no one pushed today! He took off at 3.30 pm, Gerolf made a push after Steve so the lane moved quickly. Once there are about 50 pilots in the air Juaki blows a siren to hold the launches on all 3 lanes until the congestion eases. Gerolf gets off, but the launch order is stopped just before Attila and Manfred. They wait about, I guess 10 minutes, but it's too long for Manfred, he's getting impatient. Then the siren goes off again and they are away.

We head down the hill and hear when we get to HQ that there was a mid air between a rigid wing and hang glider, following is a note from this mornings briefing. Accident: Yesterday there was an unfortunate mid air collision. We must again stress the importance of flying like you drive-watch out for the other guy! The two pilots who were involved in the accident were the Russian, Natalia Petrova, who suffered minor injuries and the American, Mark Mullholland, whose injuries were more serious. He had to be evacuated by helicopter and taken to a hospital in Seville. Although he is in ICU, his condition is stable and he is conscious. We thank the German doctor and Corinna Schwiegershausen for all their help.

Each pilot who was unable to launch due to the accident will receive the number of points which is an average of their scores for all the previous tasks. There are 16 pilots.

We head out on course and intend to go to goal. Molly and I in one car and Bill and Bobby in the other. We are on the Australian radio channel and hear that Phil is down so Bill leaves to pick him up. Shortly after I get a call from Brett for pick up. We all bought Spanish mobile phones from the HQ at about A$130 each, they are really handy for retrieve. We find Brett at about 8. 30 in a big open field between an olive grove and a sunflower field.

Neither car make goal to see them come in but we hear it was exciting. Luiz Niemeyer wins the day with a time of 2:38:53, Manfred is 14 seconds behind Luiz and Gerolf 4 seconds behind Manfred. It was cross tail to the turnpoint and tailwind to goal. 21 pilots make goal (sorry I don't have any Class 2 results )

Pilots to make goal: Luiz, Manfred, Gerolf, Nene, Zwecky, Attila, Reisinger, Oleg, Rohan, Gordon Rigg, Tommy, Ron Richardson, Romero Castrillon, Oliver Kalin, Paris, Bob Baier, Jean-Francois Gerard, Steve Moyes, Andreas Olsson, Richard Walbec, Jon Durand Jr.

Brett gets a call from Chris Muller who is at Granada for the Paragliding World's. They have a day off because of the strong wind and we meet up with them in Antequerra for dinner. Home by 1 am.

We find out this morning that Jonny is penalised 10 % of his score for aerobatic maneuvers over launch. He's not a happy chappy. Jonny has been playing games with the launch marshal that stands out in front. As he takes off he grabs the launch marshal's hat!!!

I just realised that from my report it looks like that Jonny was penalised for playing with the launch marshal, that was not the case. Another pilot in addition to Jon did a low pass out it front of launch, they were both penalised for that reason.

 

Photo of Manfred, Markus (Gerolf's cousin and driver), Gerolf and Richard

Class I after five tasks:

1 RUHMER, Manfred Icaro - Laminar MRX 14 AUT 3632
2 HEINRICHS, Gerolf Moyes - Litespeed 4 AUT 3479
3 HOLTKAMP, Rohan Airborne - Climax 13 AUS 3254
4 REISINGER, Robert Icaro - Laminar MRX 14 AUT 3254
5 BAIER, Bob Moyes - Litespeed 4 DEU 3033
6 BONDARCHUCK, Oleg Aeros - Combat UKR 2975
7 NIEMEYER, Luiz Icaro - Laminar ST14 BRA 2924
8 MOYES, Steve Moyes - Litespeed 5 AUS 2834
9 SCHMITZ, Betinho Moyes - Litespeed 4 BRA 2761
10 BERTOK, Attila Moyes - Litespeed 5 HUN 2750

Class I teams:

Austria, Brazil, Australia, France, Germany, Great Britain, Switzerland, USA, Spain, Ukraine

Class II after five tasks:

1 PLONER, Alessaandro Air - Atos - C ITA
2 CIECH, Cristian Air - Atos - C ITA 3820
3 TRIMMEL, Manfred Air - Atos - C AUT 3383
4 BUSSINGER, Diego Air - Atos - C CHE 3232
5 ITAGAKI, Naoki Air - Atos JPN 3228

Johann Posch was second on the fifth task. Diego Bussinger is doing much better in Spain on his ATOS than he did in Florida on his Ghostbuster. I wonder what "AIR ATOS C" stands for. Maybe the ATOSes with carbon fiber control frames? Two of the Italians state that their gliders as "AIR/Icaro ATOS." The Aeriane - Swift Prototype continues to do poorly.

Class II teams:

Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Japan, Germany, France, USA, Spain, Great Britain

Team scoring now seems to be fixed. Previously only two pilots were being reported in scoring Class II.

WAG Hang Gliding web site: (http://www.wag2001.org/Hang%20Gliding/Main%20Frame.htm):

You can find results (if and when) at:

http://resultados.wag2001.org/hg_c1.asp
http://resultados.wag2001.org/hg_c2.asp

or

http://www.algodonales.org/hgwag2001/resultadosing.htm
http://www.algodonales.org/hgwag2001/resultados.htm (Spanish)

Refurbished Carbon Fiber CG

Fri, Jun 8 2001, 5:50:04 pm EDT

carbon fiber|USHGA

Got my Carbon CG harness back from Jay Gianforte «cgravity» at Center of Gravity. I had sent it in to be refurbished and Jay did a great job! It looks beautiful.

Jay is just a perfectionist and much better at carbon fiber than I am, although that isn't saying that much. He wanted to replace the tail with a new one, but I wanted more layers on top of my repairs. He put some additional straps on it to keep the hinge from catching my rear wires. We'll be testing those out.

I'll now have a chance to compare the Carbon CG with the Rotor. I gave the Rotor harness back to Carlos Bessa, but I'll get a new thinner one to try out very soon. The testing never stops here. Pictures to follow.

Rotor harness »

Mon, May 21 2001, 3:00:02 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Wallaby Ranch

By now I've had plenty of time and flights to evaluate the Rotor harness. Yesterday I spent seven hours in it, so I know it pretty well. And, thanks to Carlos Bessa the US distributor here at the Wallaby Ranch, I've learned a lot about it.

First let me say that if you have the money it is time that you move up to a next generation harness, such as the Rotor. These harnesses are so much better than previous harnesses in so many ways, that you'll be happy that you did.

I love the Mylar finish on this harness. These new Mylars are much tougher and long lasting and this is the strongest material you can buy for your harness.

I love that fact that it is built to be super clean. Almost everything is encased in it's Mylar shell. A fish would appreciate this harness.

The quality of craftsmanship is very high. Nene sews the Mylar ones himself (although I'm sure that he well train other to do it). Everything about the harness speaks to quality.

I found that the butt lever worked great and that it was easy to set your dangle angle for thermaling or for speed. Your feet could relax against the nice soft foam at the bottom of the harness (at least it you went barefoot).

The harness was almost completely comfortable. After a seven hour flight my legs and hips felt perfectly fine. Nothing ever cramped and I didn't feel squeezed in. The one problem I had was with the upper buckle which while padded still bothered my ribs. Some pilots pull the pad out all together and don't notice this interior buckle. The previous versions of the harness had a much thicker and bigger pad. I spoke with Carlos and he gave me a big pad to try.

Some pilots have voiced complains about the parachute placement. They want a parachute on their chest for padding purposes. Rotor encourages pilots to add padding to their chests and they will provide them with a chest plate (like the back plate) that will stop sharp objects from penetrating your chest. My Carbon CG had a chest pad and carbon fiber.

The parachute is placed behind your butt, and is only reachable by your right (or left) hand. If they just made the handle about four inches longer it would be possible to get the parachute with both hands.

I had trouble getting the zipper to work for me at first, zipping all the way up. Now it is no problem. I even took out the foam block at the bottom that was supposed to help me stretch the harness to help zip it up.

Speaking of zipping. I thought it would be great to have a harness that I could unzip and easily reach in so that I could adjust myself for an in flight leak. It is a bit of a stretch with the chest piece on my Carbon CG.

I found out that the legs straps are a bit in the way of this maneuver. The bottom buckle is in the wrong spot. Carlos tells me that there is a fix coming for this, but that didn't help yesterday.

My main difficulty with the harness has been that it is way too big for me. They seemed to think that I was 225 pounds and 6 foot 2. I got a number 4 harness. I tried on Carlos's number 2 and it fit great around the chest. It fit like a suit instead of like a sleeping bag.

Now most of you fly in sleeping bags. I was interested in flying in a suit, but I didn't quite get that across. Nene and Carlos thought I needed lots of room for bags, etc for cross country. Well, I don't. I want a racing harness with a snug fit and the least cross sectional area possible.

The only reason I looked seriously at the Rotor was because I felt that the Carbon CG may lack something in the clean outside surface area. I sure didn't want to regress to flying in a bag.

I got to try Carlos's harness just for a short time, but it sure looks like the ticket. Too short for me, but great in the chest. Maybe I'll get to try out a 2.5.

I would really suggest checking out this harness if you are looking to get something other than your old bag.

Story of the double record flight

Tue, May 15 2001, 3:00:01 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Felix Ruehle|Florida|Mike Barber|Peter Radman|record|Steve Pearson|Wallaby Ranch

On Wednesday everything changed in Florida. For over a month we had had wind out of the east. After the Florida competitions The wind blew hard out of the east for two weeks and we didn't have any flying. Then a week ago Thursday, the winds finally calmed down and we were once again able to get into the air.

Still the air wasn't all that pleasant. Many pilots noted that it was "choppy" or "rolly." While the winds were light and there was moderate to good lift, its texture didn't feel quite right.

On Wednesday of this week the winds started finally coming out of the west and the texture of the air changed dramatically. For me the air now felt like the air that I had come to Florida for. No longer was I continually jarred about. It was smooth and a compete joy to fly in.

The Thursday two pm winds are forecasted to be out of the west, but the blue on the eastern half of the state shows that they will be less than 5 mph, due to the east coast on shore flow.

The area of convergence and light winds increases later in Thursday afternoon and moves further west over Wallaby Ranch.

The thermals weren't necessarily big and fat, in fact there were plenty of edges to them and you could get tossed around a bit. But no longer was there this continual hammering of your glider. Flying had once again become an enjoyable activity and not an ordeal to master.

Wednesday started out blue and there weren't any cu's forming until around 1:30 PM. The forecast called for west winds lightening up in the middle of the day near the Florida ridge due to the on-shore flow from the east coast. There was a strong lapse rate according to the FSL sounding for Kissimmee with a high cloud base at over 6,000'. That is where the cu's started popping.

Still the cu's took a long time to get going and it wasn't until 2:30 PM that we started launching. A very late day for Florida. The winds had been then lightened up significantly and we were getting a convergence zone over the middle of the state.

I flew with just an audio vario not even thinking about how good this day would turn out to be. Mike Barber, who had a student at his World Team Academy, would register 1700 fpm on his Tangent averager.

By 4 PM there were cumulus clouds every where and doing the 40 miles box to the north and west of the Ranch was as easy as pie. What was hard was getting down at the Ranch after the flight.

Soon after I figured out that I had just missed a world record day thanks to Mike. I hadn't thought about setting triangle records in Florida, but I just missed my big chance to really set a couple of new records and raise the bar way up high.

The forecast showed a similar day on Thursday, but with less lift predicted. Now that it was too late to take advantage of the best conditions, I was ready with my Colibri data logger and a two-task flight plan. Using the Seeyou flight planning and analysis software I was quickly able to create two FAI tasks for the right length just by right clicking on the task map and adding a couple of new turnpoints. I could then download the combined tasks into the Colibri to declare the task.

The FSL sounding prediction for Thursday 2 PM for Kissimmee shows a high cloud base, west winds and a moderate lapse rate.

Thursday started off with early morning fog that quickly burned off. It was nice to see that fog as it indicated light winds. Still, later in the morning there was a good breeze from the west.

Like Wednesday we waited and waited for the cu's to start forming. Not until around 1:30 did they begin to show up in the distance. It would be a while before they appeared over head.

It was not until 2:50 that I finally decided to launch as the clouds were now forming next to the Ranch. Twenty minutes later I was at 6,000', in nice warm air (no gloves), climbing at between 400 and 500 fpm. I headed straight for the start gate at Wallaby and took it at 3:16 PM at 5,700'. I knew that I didn't want to be too high, as I needed to get back to the Ranch at 4,100' or higher.

The Thursday 4 PM satellite image shows that there are small cumulus clouds over Florida, but not cu nimbs. 

I then headed northwest to the turnpoint only about 5 miles away at the headwaters of Withlacoochee River. I got lift right on the way that got me back to 6,000'. I didn't have to turn again until half way to the second turnpoint.

It took two thermals to get high coming into the second turnpoint at Dean Still Road and Old Grade Road (a former Wallaby Open start gate). I continued toward the Ranch after rounding the second turnpoint and got down to 3,100 two miles from goal. I only had to take the thermal that was there are marked by a cu to 4,900' to make it with enough altitude to get to the goal high enough to qualify the flight. The flight takes me all of 33 minutes.

I thought that I might try to gain a little altitude before I went off on my second task, but when I went back to get the lift it wasn't there. I decided just to head toward the first turnpoint using the finish point of my last task as the start point of this second task.

I had started a bit low 4594' and wasted a bit of time going in the wrong direction and now I was flying through light lift and getting down to 2,500'. I was trying to get under a good cloud and in some stronger lift. The cu's didn't have any vertical development to them, and the lift was only moderate.

By continually pushing out in front and not bothering with the lighter stuff, I was finally able to locate some 500-fpm lift that soon turned into 700 fpm. This would be the best lift of my flight and I would get the highest on this task in this thermal, 6,800'.

There were plenty of clouds on my way to the turnpoint at the intersection of 33 and 474, 9 miles to the northwest of the Ranch. I was able to climb back up to 6,400' just before the turnpoint.

Heading south to the next turnpoint southwest of the intersection of Dean Still and highway 33, I had to run a bit to the west to get under some clouds and I was down under 2,000'. I had to work 300 to 400 fpm to get back some of my lost altitude before I could slip over to the turnpoint to my southeast and get under a better cloud with lift over 600 fpm. I climb to 6,500' and it looks like I can glide back the 9 miles to the Ranch and make it will enough altitude to be within the 2% parameter.

I run back to the Ranch at 50 mph and get there with more than enough height having hit plenty of lift on the way. I complete the 50-kilometer FAI triangle task in under an hour and 15 minutes.

I go out again for a third time to see if I can break my new 25km-triangle record. At 5:30 I climb out 4 miles northwest of the Ranch to 7,500', the highest I've been in Florida this year, and race back to the Wallaby Ranch start gate to take it at 6,000'.

I find the next thermal half way to the second turn point, but the cu's are getting pretty sparse this late in the day, and although I climb back to 6,000' I'm not able to find enough lift to get me back to 4,500' as I go to goal.

The air was completely enjoyable and if setting records were always this much fun, there would be a lot more record setting going on.

Of course, I realize that these are very minor world records, and I probably wouldn't have even thought about breaking them, but I saw that Tomas was not too ashamed to do so this last summer in Wilcannia. I would have loved to have beaten Tomas's records, but it looks like I picked the wrong day. For these short flight, it appears to me that picking the day is the main pilot skill that is tested.

Of course, like during my world record distance flight, I used my wheels and my round Icaro base tube. I could have easily switched to my carbon fiber aerodynamic base tube with the micro skids, but didn't.

Thanks to Felix Ruehle for a fine ATOS glider. Thanks to Saskia, Gianni and Peter Radman for getting it to me. Thanks to Nene Rotor and Carlos Bessa for getting me a a slick Rotor harness (is a bit too big around for me though). Thanks to Steve Pearson for the WW Slipsteam down tubes, George Ferris for the Tyvek glider covers, and Heiner Beisel for the Heads Up.

Getting a new harness

Sun, May 13 2001, 3:00:03 pm EDT

carbon fiber|David Glover|Davis Straub|Manfred Ruhmer|Paul Voight|photo|Quest Air|USHGA|Wallaby Ranch

carbon fiber|David Glover|Davis Straub|John "Ole" Olson|Manfred Ruhmer|Paul Voight|photo|Quest Air|USHGA|Wallaby Ranch

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|carbon fiber|David Glover|Davis Straub|Manfred Ruhmer|Paul Voight|photo|Quest Air|USHGA|Wallaby Ranch

carbon fiber|David Glover|Davis Straub|John "Ole" Olson|Manfred Ruhmer|Paul Voight|photo|Quest Air|USHGA|Wallaby Ranch

I'm going to tell you (if you keep reading) the whole story of getting a new harness. I do this because it shows both how one's feelings change, and how one should approach a review. Not too long ago a pilot here at Wallaby Ranch tried a brand new expensive harness that he had just purchased. He tried it once and said that was it he was going to sell it and never fly with it again.

You just can't get comfortable with a harness on the first flight. It takes a lot of flights before you know whether this is the harness for you or not.

Nene Rotor and Carlos Bessa have given me a Rotor harness to try out. Carlos wanted to give it to me straight out, but I insisted that it stay Nene's harness and if I liked it I would make an arrangement to purchase it from him.

I don't know if Carlos really knew what he was getting into. Reviewing a harness is a difficult task and I repeatedly deflected Carlos' original offer. Finally, my misgivings about whether I had the slickest harness in the air or not got the better of me and I decided that I would give the Rotor a try.

Right now my Carbon Fiber CG is back with Jay getting a refurbish, so I've got an opportunity to give this Rotor a through work out.

I've reviewed a number of items (varios in particular) in the Oz Report and it turns out that they all have their warts. I just find it difficult to gush about a particular item. I find myself reporting and maybe even highlighting the problems. I guess if I don't get a hold of your particular product you are probably in better shape. Even the ATOS got a long list of items that could have been improved.

I thought that the Rotor looked like a very slick harness. My second biggest concern regarding a harness is to find one that creates the least drag. My biggest concern is to fly one that is comfortable. Of course, these goals are often directly in conflict.

I ordered a Rotor with the Mylar exterior. This is the roughest cloth and apparently the slickest. A white Mylar Rotor harness is what Betinho flies with. Betinho flies fast. Of course, Manfred flies with a Tenax and Gerolf flies with an M2, and these harnesses look very good also. They weren't offering to let me fly one though. Guess they knew better.

Today I flew with the Rotor for the first time. I'd hung in a few Rotors from a tree branch and they felt just fine, but of course, this wasn't the same.

It's clear after two flights that I'm going to have to get Carlos to help me make a few adjustments because I landed because I was hurting. I didn't realize what the problem was on the first flight, but it became clear on the second.

Taking off on the first flight felt very weird. It just wasn't the same feeling as I had in my Carbon CG. I didn't feel comfortable at all on tow. My body and head were in a different relationship to my glider. There were different pressures on my body and it made me nervous.

My left shoulder started to hurt after a few minutes. It thought that it was just my neck sending referenced pain to my shoulder, but I found out in the second flight that in fact the harness was causing the pain. I'm going to have to adjust the shoulder straps tomorrow. They felt fine when I hung in it under the tree, but I didn't hang long enough.

The leg straps were too tight also. They when I put them on when the harness was hanging from a tree branch, but when I tried to buckle them with the harness hooked to my glider, it was clear that I needed to loosen them, although they felt fine in the air.

The zipper on the harness is right up under my chin and it is hard to start because I can't see it. I can use help getting the zipper started.

The tow straps at the top of the chest can be hidden when you are not towing or after you get off tow. You actually peel away a bit of the harness covering and tuck the loops back in. If you have a piece of Spectra and a barrel release you can likewise hide them in these areas. I found that I was able to open these flaps up one handed while circling up in a thermal, and coil up the spectra line under the flaps. Very nice.

The Rotor uses a lever strategically placed above your right buttocks to release and clamp a flat line that holds you head up or releases you for head down. I still haven't been able to get the butt kicker to work. I need to work on that with Carlos.

In there air, there is quite a bit of work to do with the zippers. You have to push down the upper zipper to meet the lower zipper. You have to push and pull quite a bit to get them to meet and to close off the harness. Not too bad, just different. I've never been all that pleased with any zipper arrangement I've used on a harness.

It has been my experience that all cloth harnesses bind me around the hips and some on the legs. Maybe it's just me, but I have heard that this is generally true. The rotor did bind my hips and legs, but not any worse than any other cloth harness. I only had two hour flights and it was my shoulder that was the problem, so I didn't get a good feel for how my legs and hips would do after five or ten hours.

So how slick is the Rotor harness? Well, of course it looks very slick, but then I have no way to answer the real question. How much extra performance does it give me?

I'll write more about this harness as I try it out.

I'm back with a report on the adjustments by Carlos and on the third flight. To reduce pressure on the shoulders Carlos removed the extra pad at the bottom of the harness. This seemed to do the trick as in the air there was room between my shoulders and the shoulder pads.

We lengthened the leg straps and that completely solved that problem.

Carlos bent the stainless steel lever so that it stuck further out. Maybe my butt is just not big enough, but I needed this extra leverage to get it to work.

Carlos mentioned something that was a bit disconcerting. He had made measurements and I told him that I wanted a harness that was tight for competition purposes. He mentioned that they made the harness so that there was enough room for my glider bags. I had told him that I didn't carry any glider bags with me.

That conversation and the fact that the butt lever had to be bent, made me start thinking that maybe they didn't make this harness nearly as tight as I wanted them to. It can be expanded, but it can't be made any tighter.

If you look at the pictures manufacturers send you (or to me) of harnesses, you'll notice how snug they are around the pilot's body, especially the upper body. When I saw pilots trying on the Rotors harnesses here at Wallaby Ranch, I notice how unsung the harnesses were. They sat 3 or 4 inches above the pilot's back and looked terrible.

The neoprene shoulder covers do cover the gap behind your head, put there is not gap shown in the pictures. Now part of the problem is that pilots are trying on harnesses that aren't the right size for them. And they aren't wearing all the clothes that they normally wear in flight. I made sure that when Carlos measured me, I was wearing everything I normally wear.

So I'm going to have to have a picture taken and we'll see just how snug this thing fits. At the moment it feels bad that they sized this harness based on a false premise. They thought because I fly cross country I wanted to have space for my bags. I was interested in this harness because I wanted the least draggy harness available. The one with the least cross sectional area.

Of course, you say, but doesn't this conflict with your desire for no binding on the hips and legs? Yes, but there is binding on the hips and legs, so I didn't get that solved. And, the cross sectional area I'm talking about here is around the chest.

In addition to a photograph, I'm going to have to take a long flight. Hopefully soon.

Well, now it is Monday and I've had a two to two and half hour flight in the Rotor (out and back from Wallaby To Quest Air - site of the wonderfully organized Flytec Championship, I might add), and I've got a better feel for the Rotor.

First, I had Carlos Bessa takes some photos of me in the harness. He was the tug pilot who was about to tow me up, and as no one else was a round at that time, I had him take the shots.

I wanted him to get a straight side shot up close, but couldn’t get him to do it. I wonder if he knew that it showed that the harness wasn't as snug as I’d like: You'll notice in the first shot how much space there is above my back.

 

 

Also, you'll notice that the harness is a little long for me, I have trouble getting the zipper pulled tight. Carlos took out the foam in the bottom of the harness to relieve pressure on my shoulders, so now the harness is a bit too long. Looks like we'll have to work on that.

I thoroughly enjoyed my flight in it today. My legs and hips were comfortable. No real binding, along it was snug (although it doesn't look that way from the outside if you look at the photo of the harness and concentrate on the rear portion). Of course, I don't know how I would feel after a really long flight, but after a typical competition flight, I didn't have any problems.

The harness seems so comfortable, that I'm thinking that it will be quite comfortable after a long flight. There is plenty of padding on my shins, and around my hips. I seemed to be able to twist around without a problem.

The butt lever worked just exactly the way it is supposed to. I could put myself at any angle and it would stay there. I really enjoyed that feature.

My bare feet were comfortable in the nice soft foam at the rear of the harness. No cramps in my feet from straining on a stirrup.

It was hard to zip up and I never did get it all the way up (or down).

I really love the pockets. My radio fits in one and all the cords are completely out of the way and don't interfere with my use of the radio. The pockets are a bit high up on your back, so for me it is difficult to reach inside and adjust the volume or squelch (try this at home).

Landing in fresh cow flop yesterday I discovered one big advantage of the Mylar cloth. It comes out completely clean.

Hopefully I'll get a very long flight in the Rotor soon and I'll report then how it went.

 Coup d' etat

My last article on the coup at the USHGA elicited some responses from other USHGA BOD members:

Mark Ferguson (Ball Varios) «mark» writes:

For your information, whoever wrote this should get all their facts straight before anonymously flapping their trap.

I will stand against anything (or anyone) I see in the wrong and stand for what I believe to be in the right. I don't give a damn about staying in office, I only care about doing what is right for USHGA. There is no standing in the background as there have been no votes to decide any issues, except the hiring of Jayne, since the current EC was elected. And, if it weren't for my efforts, Jayne would not have been hired.

And further Mark writes:

The straight scoop on why WE (the EC) asked David to resign for the following reasons:

1) to avoid any conflict of interest
2) to avoid any perceived conflict of interest
3) any decisions involving the office would entail David's abstention
4) David's effectiveness as President has been greatly reduced as he has avoided any conflict of interest (actual or perceived) so we needed to replace him with a member that could be effective with no avoidance of conflict.

There was no coup to remove David from office. The decision to ask David to resign was from Russ, Bill AND myself for the reasons above. This was not a RUSS decision. Russ has not been calling the shots, the EC has with Russ as the official spokesman (Secretary) for communicating to the rest of the BOD.

There seem to be several disgruntled BOD members that do not like the old school of things. Guess what! They voted for the old school! (I personally think JZ will do a great job as president.)

(editor's note: I did get confirmation from yet another USHGA BOD member that the characterization of Mark in the previously published article was correct and that Russ indeed had been running things at the executive committee. I wasn't there, so I have no idea.)

Paul Voight «flyhigh» writes:

Just read with interest the excerpts you posted on certain people's takes on the events leading up to and culminating in Dave Glovers decision to resign, and the subsequent replacement of him by J.Z.

I don't have the time or desire to straighten everyone out on this topic, but I will quickly give you the straight poop as I see it. Everything that transpired was above board.

Communication was fairly good.(a lot coming from Dave himself). The E.C. didn't (and need not) send out daily diatribe as events occurred (personally, I'm glad about that).

I don't know anyone who is not happy with Jayne. Most everyone is happy with Dave's performance while in office, and with his decision to resign.

The "conflict of interest" thing would have come up in any corporation in similar circumstances. Dave has some strong supporters who are reading way too much controversy into things.

Obviously there has been some juicy controversy during Dave's term, and the different factions involved have strong opinions (mostly concerning competition issues). Dave came into office with intentions of doing the things he believed needed to be done (rocking the boat) and the result was a very "colorful" two years of debate/dialogue. Is anyone really surprised or mystified by this?

The excerpts you posted read like a good conspiracy novel, but that's not really how things are. There are different factions with somewhat opposing views, and a couple of "emotionally charged" characters in the mix and a lot going on with the organization and office.

To paraphrase Dave, "These are exciting times which present excellent challenges and opportunities for the U.S.H.G.A."

Competitive comparisons

Mon, Apr 30 2001, 2:00:02 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Dave Sharp|Florida|Ghostbuster|Hansjoerg Truttmann|Jim Lee|Jim Yocom|Johann Posch|Manfred Ruhmer|Mark "Gibbo" Gibson|Mark Gibson|Mike Barber|Paris Williams|Wills Wing

carbon fiber|Dave Sharp|Florida|Ghostbuster|Hansjoerg Truttmann|Jim Lee|Jim Yocom|Johann Posch|John "Ole" Olson|Manfred Ruhmer|Mark "Gibbo" Gibson|Mark Gibson|Mike Barber|Paris Williams|Wills Wing

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|carbon fiber|Dave Sharp|Florida|Ghostbuster|Hansjoerg Truttmann|Jim Lee|Jim Yocom|Johann Posch|Manfred Ruhmer|Mark "Gibbo" Gibson|Mark Gibson|Mike Barber|Paris Williams|Wills Wing

carbon fiber|Dave Sharp|Florida|Ghostbuster|Hansjoerg Truttmann|Jim Lee|Jim Yocom|Johann Posch|John "Ole" Olson|Manfred Ruhmer|Mark "Gibbo" Gibson|Mark Gibson|Mike Barber|Paris Williams|Wills Wing

If we take the Swift out of the mix, I placed second and third at the Florida meets. As there were between 25 and 30 rigid wing pilots at these meets, one might think that I did reasonably well and perhaps wonder how I was able to finish ahead of many of these other pilots.

After the last round of competitions in Australia I provided a critique of all the top pilots. I got to see them everyday for almost 25 days of competition. Here in Florida, we only had ten days of competition, and on a number of days, the rigid wing pilots flew separately from the flex wing pilots. Still I will have a few things to say.

Only a couple of rigid wing hang glider pilots made an effort to reduce the drag on their hang glider. Only Hansjoerg, Dave Sharp, Johann Posch, Jim Yocom and one Ghostbuster pilot flew with reduced or eliminated wires. I was unable to get a 2mm set from Icaro and did not feel comfortable putting on my 1.5 mm set, even though I saw Manfred's 1.5 mm front and back wires. 2mm wires are required for the worlds.

Jim Yocom greatly benefited from the reduced drag of his ATOS and his performance gain from last year reflected his improved glider performance. All the other pilots mentioned (other than the Ghostbuster pilot) did well, so it seems that their attention to this detail paid off.

I replaced my standard downtubes with downtubes that had less drag. I actually kept changing to get the least draggy downtubes on by the end of the second meet. Hansjoerg and Jim Yocom also used low drag down tubes.

My Wills Wing Slip Stream downtubes were toed in at 8 degrees. They should have been toed in at 12 degrees to get the maximum reduction in drag. Hansjoerg's were toed in at 15 degrees, which is the optimal value for his control frame configuration.

Many of the rigid wing hang glider pilots flew with aerodynamically shaped carbon fiber (or steel) base tubes. Those who didn't paid for the additional drag with a lower placing on the scores. A number of pilots flew with wheels, which increased their drag.

Hansjoerg is a big guy. He flies with built in and additional ballast. This is Mark Gibson's old trick. Dave Sharp weighs 145 pounds. He flies with 65 pounds of ballast. I flew with 22 pounds of ballast, which brings me up to Hansjoerg's weight without his additional ballast.

Ballast is a big item. Your sink rate is decreased at higher speeds if you use ballast. We flew a lot at high speeds. Pilots without ballast suffered.

I pulled out the cords that pull down the flaps and replaced them with luff line. The luff line wires are much thinner and reduce drag.

I tightened the sail. Tightening the ATOS sail decreases its drag and decreases bar pressure. I kept the sail tension high throughout the meets by continuing to adjust the ribs.

I added a carbon fiber extension to the outboard leading edge of the ATOS. This is a thick piece that doesn't deform like the Mylar that comes with the ATOS. It is much thicker than the new carbon fiber extensions that will be available from Icaro to upgrade the ATOS.

Dave Sharp and I flew with carbon fiber harnesses. This has been Jim Lee's trick for years. While other pilots flew with slick looking harnesses, ours may be better. Hansjoerg had a new harness.

We can't discount experience. In general, I have a lot more experience flying the ATOS and flying it in Florida (although not this year – it is raining at the moment). Experience doesn't seem to be an issue for Hansjoerg, but it sure help Dave.

I made fewer mistakes then I did in Australia (but then I had fewer days within which to make mistakes). Still I think that the overall rate was down. I remembered that the competition was against the other pilots, and I just needed to beat them, and not the whole world. While I had no problems going out in front, I would go back if someone found lift.

So what about other pilots? I got to fly a bit with Hansjoerg. When he added the winglets his performance was equal to Dave Sharp's and mine. Hansjoerg made one error and we were able to beat him to goal by a long ways.

On the next day, Hansjoerg was smarter than Dave or I and held back one 15 minute interval. He could then use us to catch us. He used his extra performance to them beat us (remember his has the control frame).

Hansjoerg won the first day by finding a thermal that Dave and I didn't go back to get. This got him on top and soon out front. He was able to capitalize on this lead to get to goal first. On the second day, Hansjoerg starts behind us and uses pilots in front of him to get to goal quicker.

Overall, Hansjoerg started later on a couple of days when this was possible, had a higher performance glider, had additional ballast, and is a patient and smart pilot.

Manfred obviously flew well in both meets. I had the opportunity to fly with him on many occasions and got to see what he was up to. He almost always had a gaggle with him and he was almost always able to dominate the gaggle, by staying high.

He can climb well and has superior performance from his glider, a Laminar MRX 2001. He is willing to lead, but there is no desire to get out too far in front. He uses the gaggle and realizes that he is competing against pilots in the lead gaggle. As long as he is on top, even a little bit, this is enough.

On numerous occasions I would go out front either first or right with Manfred. Manfred was quite willing to leave lift if it slowed down too much. Often though, we hung back a bit when we should have left earlier as the lift slowed down.

Manfred often gets just a little bit higher and then works this advantage. Sometimes he is able to get away from the gaggle when things get tough and it breaks up.

Paris Williams did quite well relative to how well he did in Australia. He said that the other pilots just followed Manfred around and that he sometimes found a better line and followed that. The performance of his glider has improved since Australia. He can out glide Tomas and Mike Barber, which wasn't true there, but not Betinho. I wonder if ballast is an issue here. Paris is quite light and Betinho flies with considerable ballast, as do Gerolf and Manfred.

Obviously Manfred's Laminar is a superior glider. It is hard to say how close the Litespeed and the Talon are to it. Other Laminars did well also, so you know that it isn't just Manfred's special one.

Not a single flex wing had a problem flying in Florida, and at times we had some chunky air. Seems like they aren't making the flex wings unsafe in order to get the best performance. The rigid wing pilots have a long way to go to get the best performance from their gliders.

ATOSes for sale

Thu, Apr 26 2001, 3:00:02 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Dave Sharp|David Glover|Davis Straub|USHGA

David Glover «david» writes:

I am selling 3 ATOS gliders. They are currently in 1st, 2nd and 5th at the Wallaby meet (not including Brian's scores).

The special drag reduced ATOS (red) with control wires that also act as front wires and new rounded carbon fiber control frame, the ATOS (blue) that flew the first 500km hang glider flight, and a ATOS (yellow) that was brand new at the start of the Flytec meet. First serious offer will secure each glider. Interested parties contact:

David Glover, (352) 258-4840, «david»

These ATOSes are different than the ones being sold by the Swiss pilots. One is new just before the Flytec Championship. One is a prototype with the new faired/carbon fiber control frame. One is Dave Sharp's glider with a new d-cell.

ATOS – no nose wires »

Mon, Apr 23 2001, 4:00:02 pm EDT

ATOS|carbon fiber|Davis Straub|Hansjoerg Truttmann|USHGA

Felix has produced a prototype for engineering purposes that gets rid of the nose wires. Hansjoerg is flying this glider (how come the best pilots get the best gliders – don't they already have enough advantages). The side wires act as nose wires. They are moved up the carbon fiber down tubes.

Inside the d-cell there are a number of changes needed to accomplish this trick. A couple of changes in the pulleys and extra pulleys are required. I don't know how feasible this is as a retrofit.

Hansjoerg said it was really strange to fly and not see any front wires.

Class II – a bunch of tourists or right thinking guys?

Mon, Apr 16 2001, 5:00:01 pm EDT

carbon fiber|CIVL|Class 2|Ghostbuster|Jim Yocom|Johann Posch|photo|Wills Wing

carbon fiber|CIVL|Class 2|Ghostbuster|Jim Yocom|Johann Posch|John "Ole" Olson|photo|Wills Wing

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|carbon fiber|CIVL|Class 2|Ghostbuster|Jim Yocom|Johann Posch|photo|Wills Wing

carbon fiber|CIVL|Class 2|Ghostbuster|Jim Yocom|Johann Posch|John "Ole" Olson|photo|Tim Denton|Wills Wing

carbon fiber|CIVL|Class 2|Ghostbuster|Jim Yocom|Jim Yocum|Johann Posch|John "Ole" Olson|photo|Tim Denton|Wills Wing

I had an opportunity to look over almost all of the rigid wing gliders that are entered into the Flytec Championship. I wasn't impressed with what I saw.

Many had round base tubes, often supplied with fat wheels. Only two gliders came with wires thinner than stock wires. One was a Ghostbuster with thin back and front wires and extra thick side wires (this is backwards, folks). The other was Johann Posch's ATOS that had the 2 mm competition set (front and back) from AIR, which is no longer available.

I have a 1.5 mm set that I haven’t placed on the glider (yet), so I was checking first to see if I had a lot of competition with thin wires. Looks like I didn't have to worry there.

Only one (maybe one other) rigid wing had superior downtubes. Jim Yocum came with Wills Wing down tubes, struts, no front wires, and a very tine aero base tube. Jim is doing much better than he has before.

On one hand you can say it is great that all these guys are here flying standard factory tuned gliders without any "dangerous" features like wires that can't take much abuse. On the other hand, leaving the wire issue aside, I didn't see many efforts at drag reduction.

Hey, guys, we've got a competition here. Not only are we competing against each other, but also against the fully faired space ships, and the really hot pilots in Class I. They guys are doing everything they can to reduce drag. You just aren't paying attention.

I personally favor wheels or skids, but I am using micro-skids this year in order to reduce drag. I would love to see a mandate for wheels, but can't afford the drag if they are not mandated.

I'd really like to have the 2 mm/1.5 mm wires from Icaro or AIR, but will have to go with my own 1.5 mm sets if it comes to that. I'd love to see everyone flying with at least 2 mm wires as mandated by CIVL.

I'm flying with an Aeros carbon fiber base tube. It feels great and I sure hope that it is performing well. I really have no idea. I'm assuming that it does, as that's what the hot pilots are using.

I'm also flying with Trampaneau down tubes. Not quite as good as the Wills Wing Slip Streams that Jim is using, but much better than the stock downtubes that almost everyone else has.

Felix's prototype ATOS with all the latest engineering updates is here, but won't be flown until next week at the Wallaby Open. I'll get some photos then, and we'll have an idea of how much difference the latest improvements make.

Tim Denton writes:

Thanks for the pictures of Jim Yocom's Rear strutted, WW down tubed Control Frame. We've had a non-cooperating winter here in Denver, so Jim's first flight on Wednesday was encouraging, when he reported a 118-mile personal best! He said the ergonomically designed base bar felt comfortable and effective at best glide. The whole idea was to bring the pilot's elbows in and place his hands under the chin of his full-face helmet for the cleanest airflow.

The next step will be a instrument pod that also serves as a hand fairing. The mold is 80% complete.

The rear strut mounting position is conservative. One major factor is hand position on the DTs during landing and foot launches. We kept them low and out of the way, until a strength evaluation on the WW downtubes indicates that a mounting position close to the Apex is acceptable. Set-ups, Ground handling, and dropped base tubes on landings, are the main concern.

One neat item that the pics don't show, is the absence of the flap control line cleat on the base tube. There is a roller in the corner bracket that directs the line to a tapered grind in the trailing edge of the downtube. It works great! And there's no drag.

Discuss "Class II – a bunch of tourists or right thinking guys?" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Pre-Meets

Wed, Apr 11 2001, 5:00:00 pm EDT

Brett Hazlett|Carbon Dragon|carbon fiber|Chris Arai|Florida|George Ferris|Ghostbuster|Manfred Ruhmer|Martin Harri|Martin Henry|Mike Barber|photo|Quest Air|sailplane|weather

Brett Hazlett|Carbon Dragon|carbon fiber|Chris Arai|Florida|George Ferris|Ghostbuster|John "Ole" Olson|Manfred Ruhmer|Martin Harri|Martin Henry|Mike Barber|photo|Quest Air|sailplane|weather

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|Brett Hazlett|Carbon Dragon|carbon fiber|Chris Arai|Florida|George Ferris|Ghostbuster|Manfred Ruhmer|Martin Harri|Martin Henry|Mike Barber|photo|Quest Air|sailplane|weather

Brett Hazlett|Carbon Dragon|carbon fiber|Chris Arai|Florida|George Ferris|Ghostbuster|John "Ole" Olson|Manfred Ruhmer|Martin Harri|Martin Henry|Mike Barber|photo|Quest Air|sailplane|weather

Day after day of perfectly soarable weather. Cumulus clouds everywhere. Light winds. And lots of competition pilots here checking out their equipment and taking advantage of the conditions. We've been calling tasks and a whole group of pilots will fly together – just like a meet, but cheaper.

Four new Wills Wing prototypes came today. One came yesterday. Production models will be available in six weeks – they ordered the hardware (no longer cutting one offs in the factory) so, as they say, at least that part of the glider is fixed. Looks like there may sill be a few tweaks on the final design that come out of pilots' experiences here in Florida.

Gerolf is here at Wallaby. He along with Mike Barber and Brett Hazlett are fitting WW control frames to one Litespeed after another (they haven't finished making the Moyes carbon fiber control frame). Sugarman just brought in a bag of nicos for the 2 mm (or was it 1.5 mm) wires that they need to fix the control frames.

The Austrians are here and all they had to do was assemble their Laminars. Manfred has 1.5 mm front and back wires on his WW control frame, but they were all the way down to the base tube (well, close). The rest of the Austrians had 2 mm wires. Manfred says they all have to go to 2 mm for the worlds.

We hear that Jim Zeiset had his trailer roll while on the way to Florida. He apparently is still on his way (perhaps even with the trailer). The gliders, which were on the car, seem to be in good shape – and that's what counts.

Mark Mullholland is here at Wallaby with his fully canopied Millennium showing that he's no fool. After he showed up last year to compete in a "faired" but not a canopied Millennium, I wrote that only an idiot would try to compete in Class II in a non canopied Millennium. Guess he took that to heart.

Martin Harri (the Swiss pilot that I linguistically confused in with Canadian pilot Martin Henry in an earlier Oz Report) is here taking a few practice flights.

A couple of days ago we went over a hundred miles to the north at a leisurely pace. I flew for an hour after an 11:30 AM start then landed back at the Ranch and found Chris Arai who was willing to go out and play with me.

The air was rolling with tiny cu's for the first fifty miles until we got to the interchange of I 75 and the Florida turnpike, where it completely changed to solid lift under thick cu's. We flew at a very slow pace, I guess basically because the Litespeed that Chris was flying (in order to get ready to fly the WW prototype) had too much bar pressure. Still it was great to have a very skilled pilot to fly with.

Mark Poustinchan flew 172 miles that day after a late start. Bo mentioned that the clouds seemed to be better to the south than up by Quest. Actually, the clouds where better earlier, but they were better on the south side of I-4.

That day a classic convergence set up (as it was clear that it would from the Windcast). It was really well developed north west of Williston.

I hear that there is just as much activity up at Quest Air in this week before the Flytec Championships as there is here at Wallaby. The Flight Design folks are up there getting the Ghostbuster ready for the big Class II competition (which, of course, could be spoiled by Mark in his ultralight sailplane).

Speaking of sailplanes, Steve Arndt is down here flying his Carbon Dragon. He said that George Ferris was the only hang glider pilot who had been able to core up through him, and I sure wasn't able to. A whole lot of pilots were flying around in this great later evening lift with Steve.

 

 

A custom built ATOS control frame at Quest.

 

Photos by Dave Glover.

Carbon Fiber base tubes

Tue, Apr 10 2001, 4:00:02 pm EDT

carbon fiber

Valerio Canestrelli «vacanes» writes:

Speaking of carbon base tubes (not only airblade), people think that the skids can protect them against scratching. The skids only work when set-up your glider on flat terrain. If you have a lot of rocks (like at my take off place), the best way is padded protection like this in the photo (I have only one at this time). Before to take-off, I take away (due the four Velcro rings ) and put it in the undersurface sail through the zipper.

 

Bracket for Betinho's instrument pod

Thu, Mar 29 2001, 3:00:06 pm EST

Betinho Schmitz|carbon fiber|instrument pod|Wills Wing

Dan Jester «dan.jester» has made a bracket that will hold your instrument pod if it is a Betinho version of the instrument pod. The Betinho instrument pod adapter is threaded for 6 mm, pitch of 1 thread per 1 mm.

There are two bracket, one for the Wills Wing 19 mm carbon fiber down tube and one for the Wills Wing 22 mm streamline aluminum downtube. There are other adapters, one for Flytec and one for Brauniger. See earlier at https://OzReport.com/Ozv5n65.htm.

Discuss "Bracket for Betinho's instrument pod" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Dan's Flytec and Brauniger brackets

Sat, Mar 24 2001, 5:00:02 pm EST

carbon fiber

Dan Jester «dan.jester» has machined up some nice little brackets that give you a better grip for your Flytec or Brauniger vario. He has two sizes – 22 mm (WW aluminum down tubes), and 19 mm (WW carbon fiber down tubes). It has two adapters – one for Brauniger and one for Flytec. Mix and match!

 

$75/bracket. They include the Velcro straps. I have yet to try that bracket out with the Betinho instrument pod. As you can see, I haven't been flying with instruments, and I need to get a couple of metric screws to attach the pod to the bracket.

2001 Brazilian Nationals »

Wed, Mar 21 2001, 2:00:00 pm EST

Betinho Schmitz|Brazilian Nationals 2001|carbon fiber|CIVL|James Freeman|Mike Barber|Paris Williams|Richard Walbec|Wallaby Ranch|Wills Wing

The full results are at http://www.abvl.com.br, click "Campeonato Brasileiro de Asa Delta," then Results, then choose a Task or International Open for cumulative.

Day 4:

1 Carlos Roberto Niemeyer Icaro Laminar 13 MRX BRA
2 Gustavo de Araujo Saldanha Moyes Litespeed BRA
3 Nene Rotor Moyes Litespeed BRA
4 Betinho Schmitz Moyes Litespeed BRA
5 Marcio Calais da Costa Airborne Climax BRA
6 André Wolf Icaro Laminar ST 14 BRA
7 Seppi Salvenmoser Icaro Laminar 13 MRX 2001 AUT
7 Mario Alonzi Icaro Laminar 14 MRX 2001 FRA
9 Franz August Braun Atos BRA
10 Paris Williams Wills Wing Proto USA

Twenty pilots made goal including Carlos Bessa, tug pilot at Wallaby Ranch. Betinho started early and got to goal first. Pilots who started 30 minutes later had faster flights. You can see why when you look at the course in the map below.

The rigid wing pilots are being scored with the flex wing pilots, but with a 10% penalty. Of course, they are about equal in performance to Betinho. At the end of the meet Jose will take away the penalty and see what the score is like. I'm sure that he will also separate out the classes for CIVL reporting.

Cumulative:

1 Betinho Schmitz Moyes - Litespeed BRA 3605
2 Gustavo de Araujo Saldanha Moyes - Litespeed BRA 3200
3 Paris Williams Wills Wing - Proto P9 USA 3066
4 Seppi Salvenmoser Icaro - Laminar 13 MRX 2001 AUT 3062
4 Rene Leiser Atos CHE 3062
6 Nene Rotor Moyes - Litespeed BRA 3020
7 Richard Walbec Wills Wing - Proto P11 FRA 3011
8 Luis Niemeyer BRA 2962
9 Marcio Calais da Costa Airborne - Climax BRA 2860
10 Lincoln Moreira Icaro - Laminar ST 14 BRA 2852

Almost no difference between 3rd and 7th place.

We've had a few e-mails from Betinho. He has upped his performance from Australia by adding a Wills Wing control frame. Mike Barber is currently doing the same with his Moyes Litespeed. Of course Paris and Richard are flying with these Wills Wing carbon fiber control frames.

Betinho says that he is getting the best glide of all the gliders. The Wills Wing control frame is making the difference. In Australia he was doing well on a Moyes Litespeed with a stock control frame (James Freeman speed bar), but now he is doing better.

The course in task 4:

 

Brand new ATOS

Fri, Mar 16 2001, 3:00:01 pm EST

ATOS|Belinda Boulter|carbon fiber|Florida|George Ferris|Johann Posch|Peter Radman|record

After Joe bounced Belinda and I went over to the Orlando airport and picked up my new ATOS (along with Heiner Bissel's). It was so nice to see that the fork lift drivers had not driven any large holes through the plywood box.

Everyone helps unload the two ATOSes. Mark Forbes photographed

After we got it back to Wallaby, I took the sails off and George Ferris and I examined the carbon fiber for any shipping damage. The new leading edges looked great.

George put a string on the ribs and noted that the first seven are all in a line on each side. Number 8 rib goes down, and number 9 and the wing tip rise up for twist. We found that the number eight on one side was one inch lower than the number eight on the other side. We noted the discrepancy.

After putting the sail back on and doing the full setup, we measured the nose angle by measuring distance down the keel where a tight line attached to the number 9 ribs crosses the keel when the keel is horizontal. Icaro marks this spot with a label (thanks for this improvement) and calls it 2295 millimeters. They must have taken the measurement keeping the tape measure on the keel tubes. We measured it at 2285 millimeters, stretching the tape tight. The new ATOS was right at the factory setting.

This is the only factory setting that we are aware of. It sure would be nice if we knew how to measure the correct angles for the ribs. The first seven should be parallel to the keel.

After all the measurements, I got a chance to take it up in very calm evening air just before sun set. It was great to be in such air because I knew that everything I did to the glider was either me or the glider and not the conditions.

I found that the trim point was just a few inches in front of the top of my head (standard round base tube) with no flaps. With full flaps, the base tube came back to just below my forehead.

There is now a label on the keel showing pilots where to place their hang strap. The region is not very wide, not much bigger that a hang strap width. I left it at the factory location, which had the front edge of the hang strap at the front line of the designated area.

I was able to stall the ATOS by pushing out till about eight inches in front of the top of my helmet. My arms were still cocked, and I had about six or eight inches left is I had really wanted to push out more.

The glider would slowly stall, then there would be a quick increase in force on the base tube which I could feel. Then the nose would drop and the glider would recover from the stall. I tried stalling with no flaps and with full flaps and didn't notice enough difference in location or feel of the stall to tell if there was a difference. I did not attempt to spin the glider.

I tried a number of turns, with moderate banks. I stayed in the turns and tried to see if the glider would wrap up, being spirally unstable. I had experienced this in previous ATOSes in strong thermals, and as I recall, I would have to high side it a bit. After doing this for quite a while, I didn’t notice any tendency for the glider to wrap up.

George had mentioned that if one loosens the other two battens – numbers 8 and 9, that the supposed tendency to wrap up goes away. In the factory setting the number nine rib was the tightest rib and required the use of the cam helper to put it in place.

All the other cams were easy to do by hand, so the sail was not especially tight. I had remembered from earlier ATOSes, that the sail was set really tight at the factory and then expected to stretch a little.

This ATOS is supposed to have different sailcloth than is standard. Last September, when I ordered this ATOS I saw a sailcloth I liked on Johann Posch's ATOS. This is supposed to be the same sailcloth. I won't know for sure until I see Johann's next month at the Florida meets.

I pulled the bar in for speed. How fast, I'm not sure as I was flying without instruments. There was progressive bar pressure as I pulled in. There was quite a bit more bar pressure than I felt on George's ATOS, and about the same as on the stock Stalker. George has increased his nose angle to take away the bar pressure.

George and I are going to swap ATOSes tomorrow and compare and measure, and see what we think. I didn't like the idea of my bar coming back like it did on George's ATOS, but the low bar pressure is nice.

Felix will be here next month (we hear), and we'll go over all this again with him.

Iacro has done a very nice job with this new ATOS and I'm very pleased with it. George's was admiring the nice smooth areas at the tip. I'm happy to see the little improvements – the labels. I appreciate the hard work that Peter Radman at Altair did to get me the glider here at Wallaby.

I'm looking forward to lots of wonderful flights on this new ATOS, winning all the meets I enter, and setting new world records with it. Isn't it great to have exciting goals?

Arai Tangent goes streamline

Wed, Mar 14 2001, 4:00:06 pm EST

carbon fiber|Jim Lee|Mike Barber|Wills Wing

The box is ugly, but the innards are real nice. Tangent loyalists are thinking about ways to bring Chris kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Jim Lee is building three tangents into the Wills Wing carbon fiber base tubes, in time for the Wallaby Open.

Mike Barber is figuring out how to put the tangent boards into the new Flytec streamlined instrument pod.

I'll have pictures of all these new developments as soon as I can.

A very different wing from Columbia

Sat, Mar 10 2001, 1:00:03 pm EST

carbon fiber|Davis Straub|PG|USHGA

Paola & Milo «paolamil» (see photo below) have written to me and sent a three dimensional model (in AutoCAD format) of their wing (and associated trike). Here's an edited version of what they had to say about their wing:

The glider is soft handling, with an easy wing warping system. It is easy to set up and dismantle. There have been many thousands hours of enthusiast work trying to make it as simple as possible.

 

This view of the 3-D model, is very simplified (about 5-10%, of what you need to build the wings) and it only for illustration purposes to share our vision (and of little use, as engineering drawings).

After three prototypes and about 50 scaled models, in the past 15 years, we are currently working on the steady evolution of the engineering, with theoretic solutions on the drawing boards.

It is a high efficiency wing designed for free flight and ultralight flying. The principal wing, is an assembly of:

1. Two booms (like bamboo’s with an elliptical shape in its cuts) made of carbon fiber. They are strong to resist the enormous pressures and covered in a thin layer of dyneema or aramid fiber to neutralize some tension all in epoxy resin.

2. 140 profiles (very thin with a similar composition as the booms) permanently attached to a web of dyneema tendons (which void all the superficial forces) in a sandwich of a ‘paraglide cloth work' this making 70 profiles which fold up like a accordion when the internal boom is pulled out for an easy dismantling.

3. Each profile obtains 3 transversal strings (almost 400 (3*140) among the wing’s surfaces) which provides different wing deformations changing from a profile with high efficiency at high velocity to a profile with high efficiency at low velocity, which causes the easy landings (together with the Canard’s pitch control and its prompt entering into ground effect)

4. The displacement of the pilot’s weight (he is hooked in a semi-flexible joy-stick, which is rigid inside the wing and is attached to three principal tendons, above the hang point, connected to each single string of the wing’s profiles) induces a torsion of the principal wings as far as the wing’s extremities to obtain an ideal aerodynamic pitch yaw and roll control.

The Canard Wing (not shown) is similarly constructed but 5 to 7 times smaller than the main wing. It is a little bit asymmetric composed by 60 sectionals profiles and is moved slightly but entirely by the joystick giving an aerodynamic pitch control and stability with a vast tuck and tumbling control (got 7 to 14 degrees more inclination than the main wing)

The Winglets are booms are done out of similar material as the main boom (the so called ‘intelligent’ materials) but quite strongly bent. This allows a firm tension of the upper Wing surface composed by 40 sectionals profiles joining the main Wing tendons and make a good aerodynamic solution for yaw stability control and a bit of pitch stability (as the vortex spills out higher above the pilot).

Struts are an option to make to structure 5 kg lighter.

We are still persisting with some testing of an internal airflow (3%) entering the main wing by the leading edge (paraglide) spilling out close to the trailing edge to increase the extreme velocity ranges. There is a lot of testing left though with all the trials done already we are delighted.

The deficiency of the actual wings is the low efficiency of the integrated canards (which don’t let us have the necessary elliptical wing for high stability and performance).

With a nose-angle smaller than 180 degrees huge amounts of airflow spills out towards the wingtips and causes too much vortex, which establishes quite an acceptable yaw stability, but with a high drag and poor pitch-stability (too easy tucks and even tumbles) and the missing amount profiles doesn’t help anything.

 

Stalking the Stalker

Fri, Mar 2 2001, 4:00:00 pm EST

carbon fiber|David Glover|George Ferris|Ghostbuster|John Borton|Mike Degtoff|Paris Williams|photo|Quest Air|sailplane|USHGA

On Friday (March 2nd), G.W. Meadows enthusiastically invited me to drive on up to Quest Air to take a test flight on the new Aeros Stalker. G.W. had made arrangements with Aeros to have this one shipped to the US in time for the Expo and USHGA BOD meeting in Indiana in February, even though DHV testing hadn't at that time been completed. The Stalker has passed the DHV tests, although it won't receive DHV certification until all the associated paper work has been completed (including a user's manual).

Now that the testing part of the DHV certification process has been completely successfully, Aeros will begin producing the Stalker. They still have to train their work force to assemble the Stalker, so it may take a little while. Mike Degtoff, who originally purchased a Stalker a year ago, is hoping to get his just before the Flytec Championship in mid April. All of the first six that G.W. placed firm orders on have been spoken for or will be demo gliders.

I arrived at about 2 PM and the Stalker was there ready and waiting for my turn. I was very fortunate in that I got the best time of the day for my two flights, and was the only pilot who had the opportunity for a soaring flight. This gave me plenty of opportunity to test it out, although, of course, I would have enjoyed the opportunity to get a few more hours on it. I loved flying it.

You've undoubtedly already read about how nice the Stalker looks and seen earlier pictures that I've published. It looks just that good in person. The sail is tight as a drum.

It gets that way (well, it is new) because there is a continuous aluminum tube along the trailing edge that is forced back as the ribs are swung out by a cable that locks the ribs in place. The leading edge of the sail is behind the leading edge formed by the d-cell, and is held in place by a string in a slot. You can tighten the sail by adjusting the cable or by adjusting how it is wrapped around the string.

In prototypes the ribs were the kind that folded in the middle. No more. Now the ribs made of thin aluminum pieces swing from the back of the d-cell, and are pulled by a cable at the trailing edge. They each have a Delrin wheel at the trailing edge that runs along the trailing edge aluminum tube. This makes for a much tighter sail than the sail you'll happen to see on a Millennium, for example.

Greg Dinaauer's Millennium happened to be nearby, so it made for a ready comparison. Its ribs are folded and pulled from the middle. Its sail was quite a bit older, but it was clear that it wasn't pulled nearly as tight by its folding ribs (there were wrinkles everywhere).

The Stalker sail had about the same tightness as I found on George Ferris's ATOS when I checked the next day. But the ATOS trailing edge is only pulled tight at the ribs, so it is a bit sculpted in between ribs.

The trailing edge tube of the Stalker is the axis for the flaps and ailerons. The spadd (the anti-adverse yaw device) at the tip doesn't use the trailing edge tube and it extends out to the next to last panel.

The leading edges of the Stalker are not covered with a sail, but are Gel coated carbon fiber d-cells. The Gel coat makes them look very clean, and the Aeros engineers claim a performance gain over cloth covered leading edges (sort of like sail planes compared to hang gliders, I guess).

Competition pilots might think about putting rigging tape over the very thin seam at the rear of the d-cell where it meets the sailcloth. Sailplane pilots put this tape at all seams.

It is clear that Aeros has been using their long development time to build a very nice aircraft. The wires and pulleys that run the ailerons look very clean and nicely positioned. All the mechanisms are very clever and well executed.

The stinger fits into the keel and is held there by bungees. You can lift the keel up horizontal and hold it there with the stinger (although I'm not sure why you would want to do this, as you don't stuff in any battens, of course).

In addition to the round keel tube, there is boxed keel of a triangular shape, much like the Ixbo keel, the one I have admired previously. It looks like you can unbolt the boxed keel portion from the tubular keel using allen nuts (useful, if you break something). The boxed keel connects to the spar behind the d-cells, just as in other rigid wing gliders.

As soon as I got to Quest Air, G.W. Meadows, John Bolton, and David Glover were there to encourage and help me get into the air. I couldn't believe just how quickly I was hooked up and off the ground thanks, in addition, to the Quest Air staff.

These guys were full of advice, which I tried to absorb. I was told to fly in with a light touch as the Stalker engaged the ailerons with the slightest touch of the control bar. There is no slack that allows the control bar to wiggle, as you'll find on spoileron controlled gliders like the Ghostbuster, Exxtacy and ATOS.

In addition, the ailerons are a bit more progressive in their action, than spoilerons, which tend toward an either on or off control. On an ATOS, for example, you pull the bar to one side. In the first inch or so nothing happens as you've just pulled in the slack on the lines (this is done to keep the spoilerons from engaging when you just jiggle the bar inadvertently). Then the spoilerons engage.

Most likely you will pull the spoileron up quite a ways to spoil the lift and initiate the turn, so they've gone from off to almost full on. You can then back off on the spoileron.

I watched the ailerons in flight and you could watch them go up a little and the opposite side goes down a little and the turn would begin right away.

My helpers told me to have a very light touch as I would be automatically initiating turns if I jiggled the bar while on tow. I was also told to remember that the bar would be out in the position that Exxtacy pilots are familiar with. At trim the bar would be just in front of my head.

I was told that I should expect the Stalker to tow just like any other rigid wing glider. Straight as an arrow. It does have a bit of dihedral – 1.5 degrees according to G.W. (This is quite a bit less than the Ghostbuster and ATOS.)

When I got into the air, I soon found out what they meant by a light touch. I was inducing yaw oscillations just be trying to center myself over the control bar. It was flying a lot more like a flex wing, and I was over controlling it using my rigid wing "muscle memory."

The PIO was not that bad, as yaw is no big deal on tow. You can just relax completely your grip on the bar and it will go away.

A few flex wing pilots had a chance to fly the Stalker yesterday. They didn't notice any of the PIO that I and other rigid wing pilots (Mark P. and George Ferris) noted. This is strictly a problem of pilot and glider coupling.

The Stalker isn't like other rigid wings (which are all essentially the same in this regard), and it immediately reacts to the slightest pilot input. Just the pilot trying to center him or her self activates the ailerons and the glider yaws.

Off tow, I continued to experience my inability to know how to fly the glider. It was again very similar to my experiences with trying to fly a flex wing after flying my ATOS. I would continually over control it, when much lighter control inputs were required. Also, my timing was completely off.

Still, it wasn't all that bad for me, as I slowly relaxed, and let the glider fly. I didn't have the slightest notion of how to co-ordinate a turn, but I slowed the glider down to 30-mph (trim without the flaps) and was able to turn in 200-fpm lift and gain 1800'. I didn't have an opportunity to try to fly the glider with other than minimal flaps, except on landing.

I really liked the roll response. It was great just looking at the ailerons. I'm not use to being able to watch the control surfaces while I'm flying.

The spadds near the tips have been added to reduce adverse yaw. There was plenty of adverse yaw left, but I think that pilots can easily learn to co-ordinate their turns in light of the yaw. Of course, I was in no position to learn how to do this in the hour or less that I was in the air.

I did have a chance to pull in the bar and speed it up to 60 mph. It was rock steady. No yawing around at all. The bar pressure progressively increased as I pulled in going from moderate at 45 mph to strong at 60 mph. This is completely unlike George's ATOS (before I changed the tuning) which had very little bar pressure at 60 and no progressive increase as I sped up. I haven't flown George's ATOS since I changed the tuning as I flew the Stalker instead.

Mike Degtoff got three flights on it. He had never flown a rigid wing before and didn't have any of the rigid wing pilot's built in reactions. He had a completely different kind of experience on the glider than we did.

I got George to get on the glider and give it a try just before it got dark. He really liked it like I did. While I bent one of the $7 sacrificial tubes at the tips when I landed with one wing lower than another, he had a perfect landing with no flare (the preferred method).

George noted the adverse yaw, and the quick roll response. He felt that it would take him a few hours to learn how to coordinate the turns.

He really appreciated the superb fit and finish of the glider. He did want it with no bar pressure at high speeds.

Paris Williams flew it and thought it handled well. Just like a flex wing glider. He did some steeper turns and could get it to co-ordinate well.

G.W. asked us what we thought about the control bar placement. You notice right away that the control frame has a wicked rake. The rear wires are very close to the down tubes, and every pilot was told to remember about those wires when they went to go to the down tubes. Still they often hit the wires when reaching for the down tubes.

The wicked rake makes for very easy landings. No one seemed have any problem landing. G.W. said to be sure to slow the Stalker way down before flaring. On my first landing I didn't, ballooned up, but then found it very easy to recover, pull the nose down and then bring it in for an almost proper landing.

Aeros is still thinking about control bar placement. It is out there quite a ways, and few pilots will be use to the control bar in front of their heads at trim. They are thinking that they could bring it back three inches.

The reason the control bar is so far forward is to reduce the chance of pilot induced stalls from pushing out the glider and slowing it down too much. John Borton said that he was able to fly the glider straight at 16 mph, but that it stalled at 15 mph (as measured on a Hall meter four inches up from the base bar on the down tube). I didn't try to get the Stalker to fly that slow. I'm just a little nervous about spinning rigid wing gliders. I'm more than willing to push an Exxtacy all the way out, but I haven't done that on at ATOS in quite a while. Nothing happened when I did, but still.

When the Stalker was on the ground, George noticed that the nose wires were slack. It is clear that they aren't slack in flight, and this was a symptom of the keel behind the boxed keel portion bowing near the apex. All the weight of the sail is quite a bit in front of the apex and it is weighing down on the keel.

George mentioned that this would be a possible break point if the pilot had a hard landing and put the control frame on the ground first. George has previously broken the keel on his ATOS and has a very beefed up keel (the broken one) so he is especially sensitive to this issue. He recommended that Aeros beef the keel up with an insert in the middle near the apex to absorb the stress of a poor landing.

I really liked the little spadds, which are passive controlled devices. They are just controlled by the ailerons. Unlike the ailerons, they are pivoted about a quarter of the way up their width so they are also in the below the wing air stream when they are pushed up.

I think that flex wing pilots (the biggest market, after all) are really going to enjoy flying this glider, as they will have a lot less learning to do than rigid wing pilots. It is a truly beautiful and ingeniously built glider and pilots will love owning it.

I didn't have any way of making a performance comparison. Gregg flew with me on my high speed run and said that it flew at about the same glide as his unfaired Millennium at 60 mph. I'm guessing that it will have similar performance to the ATOS and Ghostbuster. It looks a little smaller, so it may be tilted toward better glide and not quite as good a climb rate. At the moment we have no way of knowing, but that was the general feeling yesterday.

The engineers at Aeros have solved in a many elegant ways all sorts of little design problems and they have advanced the art of hang gliding with this remarkable new wing. I look forward to flying against it as a worthy competitor.

It was great being at Quest and playing with a new toy. I can't think of a better occupation for a bunch of old guys like us. David Glover, the on and off again official photographer of the Oz Report took a bunch of photos, so I'll publish some as soon as he gets them to me.

I invite any comments from other pilots who've had a chance to fly the new Stalker, from G.W., and from Aeros. If I've unfairly represented any aspect of the Stalker, please set me straight.

Hanging out in Florida

Tue, Feb 27 2001, 3:00:00 pm EST

carbon fiber|Florida|George Ferris|Johann Posch|Quest Air|Wallaby Ranch

carbon fiber|Florida|George Ferris|Johann Posch|John "Ole" Olson|Quest Air|Wallaby Ranch

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|carbon fiber|Florida|George Ferris|Johann Posch|Quest Air|Wallaby Ranch

carbon fiber|Florida|George Ferris|Johann Posch|John "Ole" Olson|Quest Air|Wallaby Ranch

The last three days have been especially good here. A nice south wind on Sunday. Light winds on Monday. No winds today. Beautiful cumulus clouds as shown in the Oz Report yesterday.

With no winds an out and return task to Quest Air and back was called for all those interested in an informal little competition among the pilots gathered here at Wallaby Ranch. It's a great idea to call a task, especially a triangle or out and return task, so that we can prepare ourselves for the up coming competitions.

The map below shows a flight on Sunday and the out and return to Quest today:

 

Every time I fly I learn something new. Sunday I flew an Exxtacy for the first time in a year. I had forgotten how relatively big and boaty the Exxtacy is. Relative to the ATOS that is. There was no way I could get this thing to fly fast, given the way it was set up.

It was quite a pleasure to fly, and I felt that I was flying on pillows. Well, according to other pilots the day was especially soft. I did have to circle quite a bit in lift under 300 fpm.

Today I flew George Ferris' ATOS (mine still hasn't arrived from Italy). This is the one that George destroyed last year in New York. He had to order new leading edges.

Man, an ATOS is a lot different than an Exxtacy. I loved what a light touch George's ATOS has.

He also has a Davron carbon fiber control bar. Ooh, what a pleasure to fly with. It is thin and round right where your hands go and much more comfortable than my thicker, and completely aerodynamic carbon fiber base tube. I just loved holding onto that bar, as it fit my hands so much better. Better even than the round base tube.

George has the bar set on swivels so that the pilot can easily change the angle of the bar. You push it down for gliding. I really kept it there the whole time.

I put my hand behind the bar to measure the amount of air that is disturbed by the bar. There was quite a bit of air that is disturbed by the bar, and it appeared to me to be acting as a wing, forcing the air downward. Of course, very hard to tell much with just your hand (actually what is hard is to remember the feeling well enough so that when I fly with another base tube I will be able to compare them).

I hit a little bit of turbulence today, and I noticed that the control bar wanted to come back a bit. I don't like this feeling. Gilbert Griffith tells me it is just the glider tracking and not to worry about it. I always think that the thing is about to tuck.

I got a nice long flight with it, and got to feel the bar come back a number of times. Nothing dramatic, but I was cautious.

I had a great time playing in the air. It thermaled especially nice. It tracked great. The handling was quite light. I could speed up, but it made me nervous as there was even less bar pressure than I had when I flew Gilbert's ATOS with the new nose lever and a very wide nose angle. I took a final glide from 13 miles out and near the end got the ATOS up to over 60 mph (97 km/h). I wasn't even bringing the bar back that far, just past my chest.

There was very light bar pressure, and it seemed quite possible to put the bar to my waist and get it up to 70 mph (112 km/h), I just didn't fell comfortable doing that.

When I got back I spoke with George. He said that he did not like the feel of his ATOS. He said that he had it perfectly tuned (after he repeatedly tuning, retuning, and undoing all his tunings) before he crashed it.

With the new d-cells, he put everything back together according to the measurements that he had made after he got the tuning correct previously. His ATOS did not fly at all the same.

I told him that I thought that the nose angle was too wide, which is why I was getting the base tube to come back at me. He told me that on the contrary, the nose angle was a little bit less than stock. Wow!

I noticed that George had his hang point about an inch further forward than I normally use. This can make a big difference. Gilbert Griffith wrote to me a few days ago and said how much difference it made on his ATOS in handling and speed when he moved the hang point.

After a lot of experience flying different ATOSes, and setting them up in different configurations, I have to confess my ignorance of how best to tune an ATOS. George feels the same way. He says that he will hire himself out to tune an Exxtacy, but he just can't figure out the ATOS.

I feel that the ATOS is just very sensitive to hang point, nose angle, sail tension, flap position, and angle of the three outer ribs. There are too many sensitive variables for us poor uneducated pilots in the field to figure out.

I realize that we really aren't supposed to be tuning the ATOS, but there are circumstances that require some knowledge on our part. I am hoping that in the future Icaro and Felix could send out a technical manual/specification that would give us all the measurements and tolerances that they believe should be adhered to. That way you could check over your ATOS and at least make sure that it is within spec.

The sensitivity of the ATOS to hang point may have contributed to some of the spins that people have experienced on the ATOS. I haven't spun it (other than as indicated in previous articles) so I'm sure that I've got my hang point far enough forward to avoid the problem that comes from hanging too far back.

It would be good if ATOS pilots remembered that it is a good idea to put their hang straps an inch or inch and a half in front of the control frame apex (at least that's what it seems to me). Also, you want to be sure to fly the ATOS without pushing out all the way. Keep your speed up to about 25 mph (40 km/h) when thermaling.

Malcolm told me today that Johann Posch told him that Felix is committed to coming to the Wallaby Open. I sure hope he makes it. Maybe I can get him, or Saskia at Icaro to write down the spec's for the ATOS.

We are sure looking forward to seeing Felix, not just because we want to grill him. Felix is a lot of fun to fly with and we all have a good time when he is around. We also know that he is working on a bunch of little innovations for the ATOS and we'd love to see what he is up to (as would the competition).

Hot to trot (pure rumors)

Mon, Feb 26 2001, 3:00:00 pm EST

carbon fiber|Wills Wing|ATOS|Flight Design

There appears to be a lot of interest this year among the very top hang glider pilots in making sure that they have the very finest control frame, and the least drag due to their harness and instruments. Everyone is also tuning up their gliders to get the best performance, for example by installing leading edge carbon fiber inserts.

Everyone's wires will be of the thin variety. I heard that when Wills Wing tested their new aluminum down tube they found that it had 1/3 of the drag of an equivalent length of regular front wires. Sure makes you want to cut down on the drag due to wires.

I heard that Wills Wing is working on a modification of their control frame so that it can be used on an ATOS. Also, that Flight Design (as reported earlier) is working on a new streamlined control frame (the existing one sucks, as does the standard control frame on an ATOS – relatively speaking).

Everyone seems to be more aware than ever that they need to have the very highest performance possible if they want to compete. The smallest items are being examined as every little bit makes all the difference between winning and coming in tenth.

Discuss "Hot to trot (pure rumors)" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Less down tube drag

Wed, Feb 14 2001, 8:00:00 pm EST

carbon fiber|Steve Pearson|Wills Wing

A while back (https://OzReport.com/Ozv4n196.htm) I wrote about the new Wills Wing aluminum down tubes. Steve Pearson at Wills Wing wrote:

It's not possible to quantify the results with a single number because the drag is very sensitive to angle of attack and Reynolds number. Very generally speaking, the results verify a drag reduction of 80-90% (Slipstream is 10-20% of the drag) of a standard Finstwalder section. It also has a very wide low drag bucket.

I also gave readers the address of the paper that described the wind tunnel test results at http://www.willswing.com/articles/SlipstreamWT.asp. Finally, I was able to stop long enough to have a good Internet connection and I down loaded the paper. After going through it I had a few questions for Steve and wanted to get a clarification of what the test results meant.

How good was this new aluminum down tube? Was it really that much better? How about compared to the carbon fiber downtube? Here is what I asked Steve:

A couple of questions on your wind tunnel tests.

What is Ca?

Steve answers:

lift coefficient - cl

What is Cw?

Steve answers:

drag coefficient - cd

What is Alfa?

Steve answers:

angle of attack - aoa

On which charts can I find the coefficient of drag (Cd) from the Finesterwalder, WW standard, and new WW aluminum tube?

Steve answers:

The wakes from the Finsterwalder, WW standard, and the round tubes were too big for the tunnel and the pressure rake. The drag was estimated from the lift vs. drag curves* (and other observations) and is tabulated separately on each page.

* If you look at the 2 graphs of the '1.1 WW standard carbon tubes' (cl vs. cd, and cl vs. aoa) you can see that there is a correlation between rapid increases in the drag coefficient and a drop or erratic change in lift coefficient.

How do I tell if the new tube drag is 80 to 90% reduced from the old tube?

Steve answers:

80-90% is the best case comparison. 15m/s is ~33mph. Looking at the 'WW Standard Carbon' 15m/s curve, Cw stays at or below .04 over a wide angle of attack range ~ +/- 8 deg. The estimated drag coefficient for the Finsterwalder tubing is .28 - .35. .04/.28 = 14.3% ; .04/.35 = 11.4%. The performance advantage diminished until at 30m/s we have .033 for the carbon vs. .11 - .2 for the Finsterwalder = a 70% to 85% drag savings.

None of the best comp pilots are flying with fat Finsterwalder type sections, so the Seedwing section is a better comparison.

At 10 m/s, the Seedwings section has too big a wake for the tunnel instruments (>.08). the advantage for the WW Carbon is ~ .04/.1= 40% (60% less drag). You can also see that from the Ca vs. aoa curve. At 10 m/s the separation starts right away but by 15 m/s the Seedwings section is pretty good.

The inverted bucket shape of the cd vs. cl curve is a result of the squared of trailing edge shape. The average cd is ~ 0.7. The WW carbon is < 0.4 for the entire aoa range, so the carbon has 40% less drag.

Another interesting result is '1.4 WW carbon, no Trip'. For this test, I asked Carsten to sand off the turbulator trip. Comparing tripped and untripped carbon sections, at 10m/s the untripped section has so much drag that it doesn't even show up on the graph (Cw >.08 == more than twice the drag of the tripped section).

At 30m/s, the untripped section has less drag than the tripped section. I was interested in this test because of the unconfirmed reports that the Freeman speedbar had high coefficients.

The aluminum profile as extruded measures ~ 21.0 mm. I designed the extrusion to use a slide-in web (.028 alum sheet) that can expand the width as required for structural requirements. As you noted, the strength of the downtube is very sensitive to the finished width. The finished WW downtubes are 22.0 mm. The slight dip in the rear of the alum section is an artifact of the extrusion process. Fortunately, it seems to have reduced the drag coefficient so I'm leaving it as is.

I really need to prepare a summary of the results. I understand that it's pretty hard to interpret the results. What everyone really wants to know is 'how much better will I glide'.

Airfoil downtubes and speedbars that aren't canted the proper amount are probably completely separated. Separated airfoil sections aren't much better than round tubes. Compared to that, the difference could be 2 points or more.

Compared to a standard WW type control bar, the difference is probably more than 1 point. Compared to a good section like the Seedwings profile mated to a good streamline basetube, with all the tubes oriented properly, the difference is probably 1/2 a point. Those are just educated guesses based more on flight reports than calculations. I always take observation over calculation anyway.

I commissioned the tests because I wanted some confirmation that the finished product met the performance predicted by the airfoil design programs. Also, I wanted to know the drag behavior at higher angles of attack where the programs become less reliable. Since the in-flight angle of attach range of both the basetube and downtube sections is 20 degrees or more, it's just as important to have a wide drag bucket as a low minimum drag coefficient.

(editor's note: My competition pilots and other readers are encouraged to look over the test results and think about the "proper" canting for their speedbar and downtubes. There seem to be some very significant differences here between doing it wrong, and getting everything right.)

Glide off – ATOS vs. Laminar ST and Litespeed

Wed, Jan 31 2001, 1:00:01 am EST

carbon fiber|glide ratio|Manfred Ruhmer|Wills Wing

carbon fiber|glide ratio|Manfred Ruhmer|Oleg Bondarchuk|Wills Wing

carbon fiber|glide ratio|Manfred Ruhmer|Oleg Bondarchuk|Wills Wing

I took a look at the results of the Anger Open (is this a men's movement kind of thing, or what?), which is a glide contest in Germany. You can find the full results at http://private.addcom.de/kamml/club/ang.htm.

The goal of the contest is to see you can fly the fastest straight over a 3-kilometer course taking off from a hill 300 meters high. I'm almost ready to land at that altitude, and they are talking about flying as straight as possible.

The conditions during the day were good all day with no moving air (this is wintertime there after all). I've published the best speeds below. Toni Raumauf flew twice. The fastest time was with carbon fiber downtubes, and his other time was with a standard ATOS. I assume that Manfred was flying with his souped up Laminar ST.

Place

Speed

Pilot

Glider

Weight

km/h

Kg

1

83.1

Toni

Raumauf

Atos

140

2

79.0

Adi

Meierkord

Atos

130

3

77.4

Rüdiger

Spanner

Atos

130

3

77.4

Toni

Raumauf

Atos

140

1

74.8

Manfred

Ruhmer

Icaro Laminar

142

2

73.3

Bob

Baier

Moyes Tl Litespeed S

142

It is good to see that the ATOS is doing well in this glide competition. The speed with the carbon downtubes is especially gratifying, as it is clear that if you clean up the ATOS like the best flex wings, you get significant improvements in performance.

I had a little talk with Oleg on the way up Emu yesterday (we are both riding up with Lukas Bader). He said that he and Aeros did a number of tests regarding Mylar and Dacron sails. The Mylar sails added a point of glide to the Stealth.

You can add the .5 you get if you go from a round base tube to a aero base tube (assuming that you have a good airfoil on the aero base tube). Also the nine-fold reduction in drag that Wills Wing found in going from standard aero downtubes to their new ones. Then throw in thin wires. And, say add .25 for a super clean harness vs. one that isn't quite as clean. Add a little bit for clean corner brackets and a super clean sail, trailing edge, etc.

All the little things add up to all the difference in the world. In competition where the best is going against the best, only the little things count. Gerolf stops and takes one turn in a slower thermal. I don't, get in a better thermal 20 second earlier, and I land 3 kilometers closer to the goal than he.

Discuss "Glide off – ATOS vs. Laminar ST and Litespeed" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

ATOS performance

Wed, Jan 24 2001, 11:00:04 pm EST

carbon fiber|Davis Straub|Felix Ruehle|Florida|Hansjoerg Truttmann|Manfred Ruhmer|Rohan Taylor|USHGA

Last year in Australia I flew the same ATOS that I am flying this year. I flew it with a round base tube, standard down tubes, standard wires, bar mitts, and my carbon fiber harness. I had an identical glide ratio to Gerolf as reported last year.

This year I am flying the same ATOS with a new sail, a new nose lever, new nose cone, and new tip wands with cams. I am using my aero base tube, Sensor downtubes, no bar mitts, standard wires (I used thin ones in Florida and Texas), and my carbon fiber harness.

Gerolf has a new Moyes Litespeed with what looks to be a copy (improvement?) of Wills Wing carbon fiber control frame. He has made special tuning adjustments (and perhaps other adjustments) to his Litespeed (or so he says) including thin wires. He is very clean in his M2 Cigar harness (only one of three ever made).

I had a chance to fly within fifty feet of Gerolf for over 5 kilometers. I could not detect the slightest difference between us in glide ratio at speeds over 40 mph (the speeds we were flying at).

On the second to last day at Forbes, I did start out about 200 feet above and a bit behind Gerolf on final glide from 22 kilometers out. I took a more direct line to goal. I was willing to pull in at the beginning of the final glide and go faster than Gerolf and Betinho who was in front because I believed that I could out glide them. I felt that they would hold back a little bit in the earlier parts of the glide because they would be a bit less sure as to whether they would make it to goal, and I could use this to my advantage to get ahead of them. I was able to beat Gerolf by a minute.

Gerolf has a slightly better climb rate than I. We are usually thermaling at higher speeds in turbulent air.

Gerolf has noticeably the best climb rate (Rohan is very close, maybe the same) and the best glide ratio of any of the flex wing glider/pilots here. His superior glide and sink give him the opportunity to use his superior piloting skills (patience, strategy, experience, and desire).

Berndt tells me that he consistently out glides Gerolf in his ATOS at home in Germany. In addition, Hansjoerg has told me the same thing re Manfred. Berndt says that Felix Ruehle also out glides Gerolf. Berndt mentions that Felix carries a lot fo weight naturally and with ballast. Berndt was carrying 8 liters of water in his harness.

Berndt was not out gliding Gerolf here in Australia. Berndt was having a few tuning problems with Christof's ATOS. The bar pressure was higher than Berndt was use to. Berndt broke some ribs and didn't get them rebuilt correctly.

Berndt's harness is not as clean as Gerolf's, but he claims that he can still out glide him on his ATOS at home. I wonder what is going on here. Ballast? Differing ATOSes?

The ATOS performance here in Australia is only equal to the very best flex wing (and very clean harness and instrument pod), which is quite a bit better than the next best flex wings. I feel that it should be better than the best flex wing, but I will have to see when I get back to the US.

When I flew my ATOS in Texas at the Lone Start Championship last August, I felt, and the results showed, that it was much better than any flex wing glider at that meet. Unfortunately, the best flex wing pilots in the world were not there.

 Proud Supporter of:

 

 

To unsubscribe or subscribe

You are in charge of your subscription to the Oz Report. If you wish to unsubscribe or subscribe, click: http://olsusa.com:100/guest/RemoteListSummary/ozreport

To view the Oz Report on the web go to https://OzReport.com/.

Davis Straub
co-author of Windows Me Secrets
"I gotta tell you; you took a total moron and turned me into a guru! I couldn't have done it without your books!"
davis@davisstraub.com
http://www.davisstraub.com/secrets

Flying from trees »

Fri, Jan 12 2001, 3:00:06 pm GMT

Werner Schnitzler

Werner Schnitzler <schni@accessone.com> whose first language is not English, writes:

From the latest OZ report:

"The winds are light out of the north, and finally we get to launch from the trees instead of the lanes. All the Dragonflies are tied down to the one patch of trees near the center of the south side of the tow paddock."

Like so?

Discuss "Flying from trees" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Harness⁣ reviews »

Thu, Jan 11 2001, 10:00:03 am EST

carbon fiber|Harness|James Freeman|photo

carbon fiber|Harness|James Freeman|John "Ole" Olson|photo

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|carbon fiber|Harness|James Freeman|photo

carbon fiber|cart|Harness|James Freeman|John "Ole" Olson|photo

My carbon fiber harness cracked up today, I think launching it from the cart. I usually put my feet out on the cart's back tubes, to hold the harness (or any harness) off the rough ground here at Hay and Forbes. I learned this trick from the Dutch world team when they flew a couple of years ago at Forbes.

I hadn't been doing it here over the last few days as I wanted to push on the stirrup and stay level. I now think I should have been doing it, as I have some really big cracks in the back half of the harness. I had to fly the whole day with it only half zipped up and I couldn't figure out why.

Fortunately, I've already had two offers of harnesses to borrow. One for tomorrow and one for Forbes. I'm going to get to fly an almost new Moyes harness (is there more than one model now?) tomorrow.

James Freeman will let me fly his Dynamic Flight harness at Forbes. Hopefully, I will be able to get everything fixed next week at Forbes.

Given the fact that I can fly these two new harnesses (the Dynamic Flight one is their competition model), I will take the opportunity to review them in the Oz Report. I'll take some photos also.

Discuss "Harness⁣ reviews" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Australian Hang Gliding Nationals – the rest day

Wed, Jan 10 2001, 12:00:00 pm EST

Attila Bertok|Australian Nationals 2001|carbon fiber|Davis Straub|Gerolf Heinrichs|Gordon Rigg|Kraig Coomber|Michael "Zupy" Zupanc|Mike Barber|photo

Steve Moyes, Kraig Coomber, and a number of other folks including Gordon Rigg spent the afternoon under the gum trees here at the RV park replacing the bent pieces to Gordon's Litespeed. This evening, Mike Barber and he are working on carbon fiber repairs to his harness back plate.

I took the opportunity to get Betinho's and Ollie's computers operating on the Internet. In return I got some copies of a few of the photos that Ollie took last year at Hay. Ollie hadn't made an electronic version of his most famous photo though.

This is a classic shot of a pilot flat on the ground (he was unconscious for a few seconds). He had just come off the dolly and broken a weaklink. The glider is nose down on top of the pilot with its nose planted on the pilot's helmet. On the top of the glider it states next to a large line drawing of Albert Einstein with his tongue out: "Are you going Litespeed?" The obvious retort was, "Who's going Litespeed, now?" Ollie was strongly discouraged from ever publishing this photo, for obvious reasons.

Here is a more flattering, but not nearly as funny shot that Ollie took of John Durand, Jr. while Ollie was flying in one of the Moyes tugs. You can see the Hay tow paddock with it's mowed lanes below:

Ollie is a professional photographer and does very interesting work. You can contact him at «OliverBarthelmes».

The unofficial mixed Class I and Class II results from the sixth day are now up on the Dynamic Flight web site. You'll find lots of photos there also as Zupy goes wild with his digital camera.

Results after six days:

1

HEINRICHS, Gerolf

MOYES Litespeed 4

AUT

5202

2

BERTOK, Attila

MOYES Litespeed 5

HUN

5182

3

STRAUB, Davis

AIR Atos 145

USA

5063

4

RIGG , Gordon

MOYES Litespeed 4

GBR

4837

5

BARBER, Mike

MOYES Litespeed 4

USA

4771

Two more days of flying to go.

The full results can be found at: http://www.dynamicflight.com.au/Nationals/results.htm.

Discuss "Australian Hang Gliding Nationals – the rest day" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Tucking and tumbling – we inspect the minor damage »

Tue, Jan 9 2001, 10:00:00 am EST

carbon fiber|Gordon Rigg|Tucking and tumbling

They build these Litespeeds tough. Gordon tucks his and puts a strong upward bend in one inner sprog, a slight bend in one smaller out sprong, two slight bends in two of the lateral ribs, and a almost imperceptible bend in the keel at the cross bar junction. Also, some of the ribs are slightly bent. The carbon fiber crossbar looked perfect.

Gordon's carbon fiber backplate for his harness is cracked and split laterally down the middle, probably when he hit the control frame apex. But the downtubes are unbent. The parachute opened just before he hit the ground and Gordon landed on his feet.

The very slight keel bend probably came from the vertical landing. Steve Moyes says that they place six plastic cylinders inside the sleeved and beefy keel. They are placed at the most likely positions of the cross bar junction as it is moved by the VG line. The keel showed only the very slightest sign of bending. Looks like the plastic cylinders did their job.

Gordon Rigg was the first pilot to tumble a Litespeed. He did it by going back into a violent thermal that had already given him due warning.

So we've had two tucks in the last two weeks here in Australia. Both occurred in violent air. One an ATOS, which recovered due to pilot input sustaining no damage and one that, landed with only minor damage. It looks like tailless aircraft can go over in sufficiently strong conditions, but that they are building them tough enough to (sometimes) withstand the tuck and or tumble.

Wills Wings' Carbon Fiber Control Frame

Sun, Sep 17 2000, 1:00:03 pm EDT

carbon fiber|CIVL|Rob Kells|Steve Pearson|Wills Wing

Rob Kells, «Rob» writes:

It is our understanding that the CIVL minimum safety standards apply to category one meets only. That gives us until the next world meet to sort this out.

There seem to be three key issues with regard to the carbon control frame. Cost, structural strength and crash-worthiness.

High cost is always something to avoid when possible. However we are not banning 9000-dollar rigid wings in CIVL comps, nor 1000 dollar Varios, or 1200 dollar harnesses. The price of our carbon frame including fittings and cables is 1000 dollars retail. Experienced comp pilots like you Gordon can get one for about 750.

The strength of this bar doesn't seem to be a problem. Steve Pearson designed it to be good for a minimum of 1500 pounds, or over seven Gs for most pilots. We have load tested it on our vehicle, submitted it to the HGMA and received certification for it. There has never been an in flight failure with this control bar.

An improperly designed carbon part could present nasty sharp shards of carbon in a crash. Our bar has a woven sock on the outside so the broken end of the carbon section is no worse than that of a faired aluminum section. In fact our carbon downtube breaks easier in a crash than our aluminum section.

A number of pilots have broken this control bar on bad landings with no injuries. Many pilots fly with carbon helmets, carbon base tubes, and some with carbon harnesses. The 22mm control frame rule was written to eliminate the use of carbon fiber downtubes. Cost, structural strength and crash-worthiness as sighted above were the reasons given. To have a few outspoken individuals in the CIVL dictate the future of hang glider design is ridiculous.

Exxtacy accident

Tue, Sep 12 2000, 7:00:06 pm EDT

carbon fiber|Charlie Baughman

Charlie Baughman «OregonVulture» writes:

I notice you have no news on the Exxtacy accident at North Side of Point of MT UT. Gerry Davidson's small Exxtacy broke at about 300 feet. Tiny parachute opened just before impact. Helmet broke on impact. Helmet was old type he used to manufacture (Brain Bucket). It might not have had a liner. He has possible brain damage, 2 broken Femurs, broken eye sockets, broken knees, and other broken bones. Steve at Altair is an eyewitness. He hit trailer hitch before the ground. Glider had extensive repair work. It is said glider failed on old repair.

Just talked to Gil Kenzie, who has all the equipment from Gerry's accident. He says the helmet is in one piece, and it does have a liner.

(editor's note: This is the first accident that I've heard of where the carbon fiber glider broke at the point of repair. It would be interesting to hear about this particular glider.)

Real speed gliding

Fri, Aug 11 2000, 5:00:04 pm EDT

carbon fiber|CIVL|David Glover|John Borton|John Smith|Manfred Ruhmer

carbon fiber|CIVL|David Glover|John "Ole" Olson|John Borton|John Smith|Manfred Ruhmer

(?-i)John "Ole" Olson|carbon fiber|CIVL|David Glover|John Borton|John Smith|Manfred Ruhmer

carbon fiber|CIVL|David Glover|John "Ole" Olson|John Borton|John Smith|Manfred Ruhmer

G. W. Meadows, «gw», writes:

I've just returned from Greece and the World Speedgliding Championships. Upon doing so, and reading my email, I read David Glover's coverage of the contest and your commentary in the Oz Report. I know that Dave had some slow email connections at times and so his normally abbreviated sentences were extremely so in his reports. Because of this, some of the important "flavor" in the reporting didn't quite come through.

Also, with some of your comments, the reader can be left with a completely different feeling of what happened in Greece - especially concerning John Borton and his high-tech pod harness. I'd like to use up a few bytes of your e-zine to give your readers some "perspective".

John Borton is responsible for the current surge in Speed Gliding in the U. S. Most of the team that was in Greece were there because John pushed us to excel when we showed interest.

I have never seen anyone as intense on any type of flying as John is with speed gliding. John analyzes the course like a madman. After winning every speed gliding contest that he'd entered in the last 2 years, John set his sights on becoming World Champion. This goal was completely achievable in his and many of our minds (and if there's ever another speed gliding world championships - I'm confident that John will win it).

Over 6 months ago, John (JB) started talking to a few of his close friends about building a fully faired-in carbon fiber harness for speed gliding. His premise was that at the speeds that we are flying on these courses (averaging close to 60 mph) the drag reduction of a fully faired pod harness would show up dramatically in reduced times. His preliminary harness tests while ridge soaring at a coastal site against Reto in like gliders backed up this theory. John put over 6 months of nearly continuous work into this faired pod.

Now, let me take a moment and tell you what I mean by faired pod: Starting at the front - take a personal submarine viewing hatch (about 12-14 inches in diameter) and then build a carbon fiber "torpedo" on the back of it with a vertical stabilizer and pneumatic doors and you've got the picture.

While flying in this harness, JB looked as if he should be hanging from the wing pylon of an F16. It was awesome. JB had produced a "purpose built" speed gliding "secret weapon" that was so impressive that I can't begin to tell you the words that Manfred Ruhmer and John Smith said when they saw it for the first time. The thing is so intimidating.

JB had confided in me and a few others that the only concern he had about the usability of the harness was a "flatter slope - no wind launch condition". I think if there were a flaw in the design at all, it was that it didn't allow full "all-out" strides in running. This proved to be no problem in all of the testing where the slopes were fairly steep or the wind was blowing 3 mph or so.

Unfortunately, the first day of flying at the World Championships had us launching at the flattest slope launch of the meet (a plenty safe slope - don't get me wrong) in nil wind. Approximately 6 steps into the run, JB aborted the launch while running as fast as the pod's design would allow. The "small diameter/ two-thirds of the way up the down-tubes" front to rear wires failed upon the basetubes contact with the ground and the whole wing and JB wound up sliding a bit down the rock littered hillside. JB ended up with quite a few scrapes and cuts on his arms, legs and hands.

The worst injury of the "crash" however was a damaged shoulder. While still under the adrenaline of the crash, JB was able to borrow another glider and still fly the course in his "backup" fabric harness, but the shoulder injury would prove later to be a real mitigating factor of JB's performance in subsequent tasks.

By the time the meet was over, I'd heard a number of "what if" scenarios from a pilot or two who knows JB's potential as a speed racer. "What if he'd just brought a really clean fabric harness and raced head to head with Manfred?". "What if that harness had worked perfectly the whole contest?" Well, the "what if's" didn't happen. What did happen was that JB was willing to risk moving technology forward for a chance at a significant gain. It didn't work out for him at this particular meet. Still, without trying (and sometimes failing) we never make gains in anything.

I can tell you in hindsight that I would have LOVED to see JB go head to head with Manfred on like equipment. Manfred is one AWESOME speed glider pilot, but I personally feel that JB is better. Maybe not by a lot, but still better. JB sank half a year's work and quite a few thousands of dollars of investment into his "high-tech" dream. It just didn't work out this time.

Personally, the "all enclosed" pod doesn't interest me, BUT - I'm not a pioneer. Pioneers are people who will risk large failure at a chance for success. Otto Lillienthal, Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart - now THOSE are pioneers. I'll lump JB in with that group any day. All I can say is that if JB decides to rebuild that pod - lookout speed gliders across the world.

The entire U.S. Speed gliding Team would like to dedicate our gold medal win to JB. Thanks from the bottom of our hearts.

CIVL, are you listening, yet?

G. W. Meadows, «gw», writes into the CIVL list:

Sarah Ferguson wrote: Whilst, initially, it may seem unfair to non-European pilots, when considering the options available and providing feedback please remember that other continental regions are encouraged to bid for and hold continental championships (e.g. a Pan-American hang gliding championships was scheduled for 2000 but cancelled due to lack of support from pilots).

I would like to point out as the organizer of the Pan American hg championships that the Category 1 championships was not cancelled due to lack of support from the pilots. The Category 1 Pan Am was cancelled due to inflexibility of the CIVL. The CIVL rules state that Category one meets can only have one team per country. When this was realized by myself at the meeting in Spain (this year) I did some calculations and determined that there was no way to fill up the contest with only one team per country. Subsequently the meet was cancelled after I could not get a waiver to this rule at the Spain plenary meeting.

I then "downgraded" the meet to a Category 2 meet and have cancelled that in the last 2 weeks due to lack of pilot participation.

I feel this was a bit of a "catch 22" situation. The Latin American pilots weren't interested in the expense associated with coming for just a Category 2 meet, but myself, as an organizer could not hold a Category 1 competition (with it's associated extra "travel club" expenses) while only being allowed one team per country. At most, we would have had 6 teams competing.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out a few things about the western hemisphere's hang gliding that the European dominated CIVL hasn't been made very aware of:

Basically, most of the Americas (except the U.S. and Canada) is made up of poorer countries where vast majority of the population in general cannot afford to hang glide and the majority of those who can simply can't afford to travel to places like the U.S. and Europe. When you look at North America on the map, it is made up of 3 countries. Canada, US. and Mexico. This covers a very large area much greater than western Europe which is made of nearly 20 countries (almost all of which are "richer" countries like the U.S.). Traveling from South America to North America in the summertime is a very expensive proposition. It is not at all like traveling in an "inter-European" situation. For this reason, if the CIVL ever expects to ever have a continental championships in the Americas, they will need to be flexible on the qualifications of the championships.

In the U.S. in particular, there is another problem that I'm not so sure that most European countries experience. We get no funding from our government for hang gliding. The pilots don't get any support and the organizers of meets do not get support from the local or national governments to put on competitions. What this means is that any one in the U.S wishing to put on a competition does so solely at a risk to their own pocketbook. That, in itself is not such a problem - it's kinda the American Way, but it does seem to be a bit of a surprise when I tell many of the European organizers about this.

I just wanted to take a moment to educate a few of my fellow CIVL delegates as to the situation with continental championships in the Americas.

Those spinning Ghostbusters

Sun, Aug 6 2000, 6:00:01 am EDT

carbon fiber|Ghostbuster

carbon fiber|Donn Denman|Ghostbuster

carbon fiber|Donn Denman|Ghostbuster

Rich Drewes,«drewes»,writes:

Last Saturday I was on launch with my Exxtacy at Slide, and saw another Ghostbuster in the air go into three or four steep diving turns and then a deep dive. I remember holding my breath and thinking "He's going to pull out too sharply and blow up his wing" but thankfully he didn't. When he did finally pull out he was apparently quite close to the ground (pilots in the air near him reported his altitude at the end was about 400 AGL!).

The pilot, whom I didn't know by name (I think he introduced himself at launch, but I can't recall it) was reported to have said on the radio after the event something like "That was my first spin. I'm going in to land." But instead, he continued flying. Another pilot I interviewed who had spoken with the Ghostbuster pilot said that the Ghostbuster pilot reported that he wasn't paying too much attention when the spin started, and that he had done several revolutions before he realized what was going on and tried to correct.

Rich had an earlier opportunity to view Ghostbusters in full spin:

I was flying Slide three or four weeks ago with Donn Denman and I was in the air when Kevin Dutt's Ghostbuster spun about 1000 feet over launch. It did some turns, went into a steep dive, tumbled (I didn't see this part) and then literally exploded when the pilot fell into the wing. Observers on the ground say it was raining carbon fiber for ten minutes afterwards. Dutt deployed his chute and got down with just some scratches, thankfully.

Rich would like to see more people writing in about their spins:

I know you have been reporting on lots of spin information in your Oz Reports. As an Exxtacy pilot, I very much appreciate it. It would be great if you could get a few more perspectives on this event (particularly Kevin Dutt's) and try to build a picture of what happened. Your forum and reporting on these events could save lives.

I've asked Kevin to write in.