Back to Wing Articles / Articles sur les Ailes.
|
1. Main 2.
Conclusion 3.
Daily Notes |
by Jérôme Daoust. Revised 2009/3/24 |
This section is a summary of my experience, some of which are further described in the Daily Notes (more pictures there too).
Special thanks to:
§
Super Fly (Nova
§ Hannes Papesh (the wing's designer), for answering questions.
· Total airtime: 79.2 hours, as of 2007/5/29.
· Model flown: Size M (Specifications), it has a 90-112 kg weight range. My total flying weight is 228.6 lb (103.8 kg) (63% into the weight range) where 54.4 lb (24.7 kg) for equipment. My body weight: 79.1 kg (174.2 lb).
· See Daily Notes for flying conditions and more detailed notes.
· The harness used is a Sup'Air / Profeel XC 2, and a chest strap set at minimum length (maximum relaxation, sufficient feedback and weight shift to my taste).
o Wing, cinch bag for the wing, rucksack, baseball cap, T-shirt, stickers (1 large, 1 small), speedbar, windsock, small Nova fabric label.
o Only 2 lines per riser, and a 3 risers system!
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/10: The exceptional strength of the Liros PPSL lines enabled us to reduce the main lines to 2 for every row. In combination with the 3 riser buildup, you will find 8 lines on every side (2A, 2B, 2C, stabilo and a brake line).
o The M size has a total line length of only 286 m (Tattoo M had 387 m) and 40% of that is unsheathed 0.6mm Dyneema lines.
o Upper cascades lines (connected to the wing) are thin DC60. But the brake lines remain sheathed all the way to the wing.
o Total frontal area:
§ Philipp Medicus, 2006/11/13 (source): I calculated the frontal line area (of all A-Lines) of the Ra and compared it to the Tattoo, both size M. The area of all A-lines is 0.033m² on the Ra and 0.046m² for the Tattoo. So there is a difference of about 37%.
o I wish the ends of the brake lines (at the toggles) were better sealed, to prevent the core to stick out from the sheathing (which seemed heat sealed in itself). Easy to fix with a drop of flexible glue.
o 3 riser system: No D's. But it has 4 suspension points at the wing along the chord, since the C lines split near the wing, both in the span and chord directions. Picture.
· Accelerator system.
o I measured the distance from the riser's accelerator line Brummel hook (inside the hole where it would be pulled) to the place where the carabiner would bull the riser inside the loop, and the distance is similar to the Tattoo, about 21 cm. I did this because I wanted to know if I could keep my current speedbar adjustment which only has little slack when flying at Trim.
· Transport bag (Rucksack).
o Too small:
§ Its maximum circumference (girth) is about 180 cm. It needs at least another 10 cm (+15 cm ideally) so I can fit the wing and my Sup'Air / Profeel XC2 harness. So I will keep using an old one I had modified (picture).
§ I am told there will be a new version available sometime in 2007.
· Brake toggles.
o There have been re-designed and there is a swivel on the brake line, to avoid twisting it over time. Picture.
o To avoid having the loose brake line flail in the wind, I bundled it on 2007/1/28: Picture.
· Wing.
o "Ra" name: It is based on the Egyptian sun-god (Wikipedia info).
o Serial number: 35136, Sun, RA-M. Picture of the label.
o Concept:
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/10: It is based on the performance knowledge of the Tycoon, combined with some safety from the Mamboo and the radical line reducing therapy of the Rookie. And some new ideas, of course.
§ There are "dirt holes". Picture.
o The top surface is using 45g E85A NCV fabric, which is new compared to the Tattoo.
o The trailing is new compared to the Tattoo, Very simple and clean: Picture.
o Specifications compared to the Tattoo M:
§ Ra has significantly higher laid-flat aspect ratio: 5.55à6.0 .
§ Ra is 0.5 kg (about 1 lb) lighter.
§ Ra is 36 cm (14") closer to the pilot.
§ Ra has more arch (similar projected aspect ratio, but higher when laid flat). Discussion on ParaglidingForum: How and why does the arc of a wing affect its performance?
§ Ra has less projected surface (23.59à23.18 m2).
o Choosing a size:
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/12: The Ra is very good in minimum sink so I'm expecting good performance with quite high wing loading. Walter Holzmüller (factory test pilot and professional competition pilot) was very pleased with the Ra M and 95 kg (23% into the weight range).
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/15: The Ra feels good when lightly loaded. So you can easily fly the M with 95kg in normal conditions. But on the other hand 95kg are a perfect weight for the S. So you have to choose. The smaller sizes have better handling anyway. So they're easier been flown with low wing loading. So it is rather a problem flying the L with 100 than the S with 80. Please also keep in mind, that we changed the basic handling of the Ra compared to our other wings: weight shifting is not necessary anymore to get it around: You can do much more with the brakes. It rolls less in turbulences. Finally being easier flown with less weight.
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/17: Final recommendations can only be given after the sizes are finished, but to give a rough forecast, I would say:
|
Size |
Legal range |
Range in soft conditions |
… in strong conditions |
|
XS |
65-90 |
65-85 |
65-90 |
|
S |
80-100 |
85-95 |
90-100 |
|
M |
90-112 |
95-105 |
100-112 |
|
L |
100-130 |
105-130 |
112-130 |
o Color pattern:
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/12/19: As long as we have no stock of RAs we're offering free custom color combinations.
· Behavior.
o Easy: Fast inflation (filling of air), good sink rate and glide make this wing easy to get off the ground. It is hard to imagine being easier to untangle the reduced amount of lines. The high aspect ratio may require a little more launch area width, which could be an issue if you have a very small launch area. Because the brake lines are sheathed all the way up to the wing, it seems that the unsheathed upper cascade lines will have almost no contact with the ground during launches.
· Kiting.
o
On the day I got it, I went to a flat park and
kited in turbulent conditions (high winds above and park was somewhat
sheltered). The wing behaved normally.
Pictures: Inflation
+ Large
brake inputs + Overhead in a
park. Walking
towards launch edge at Torrey Pines,
2007/1/26.
· Special techniques
o I am unsure if it is possible to use the Mitsos launch method or not, since this wing has no D risers, but maybe the C risers will do as well since act on where C and D lines would attach on the wing. A non-issue for me, as I never relied on this technique. If one still needs to perform maximum wind launches on launches too small to run back under the wing, there are other options like the Cobra launch or partial asymmetric inflations.
· Top landing.
o When trying to top land in lift, you will have to work against this wing's sink rate and energy retention during S-turns.
o After top landing, with feet on the ground and in the non-horizontal breeze, I found that full brake extension was needed to bring the wing down from its overhead position (difficult to stall the wing).
· Flare.
o Landing and flaring is a non-issue.
o Mushing (downgraded sink rate and glide prior to stalling): Difficult to get any mushing without full extension of the brakes, as the sink rate does not degrade significantly with large brake travel. This reminds me of the Gin/Oasis which also did not offer significant mushing capability. You decide, if mushing is good or bad, necessary or not.
o Soboba, 2007/2/18. Available here.
o Manufacturer info:
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/10: The safety level finally was surprisingly high. Our first target was to build a rather high level class 2 wing, but finally the Ra is safer and easier to fly than the Tattoo. The DHV pilots were very pleased after the flying tests. We managed to find a very effective profile combination, which enables late but soft collapsing combined with good and fast recovery without any tendency of too impulsive reopening and cascades. The internal structure and sail tension made it possible, that although the high aspect ratio, the wing is rigid and form stable.
§ Nova/Ra web page: we achieved significant progress in the wing's reaction to collapses and other extreme maneuvers: The RA collapses late, but still softly. The reopening occurs quickly, but without impulsiveness. Overall the RA became even safer, than the Tattoo.
o Why I test fully accelerated collapses: Because they are likely to happen in XC flights (full speedbar transitions). Better to know what is likely to be experienced later, and note the behavior when you expect the collapse. The goal of this testing is to prove to myself twice that the wing behaves as desired (see criterions below). In the event of undesired behavior, I do not keep re-testing as it then become a statistical study which I am not paid to take risks for, so the burden shifts to the general pilot population and I wait for a consensus to emerge. I do not test Stalls or Spins because they are unlikely to happen and are normally only pilot-induced. Related discussions:
§ ParaglidingForum: Limit yourself to 1/2 speedbar?
§ ParaglidingForum: How can you become comfortable going at full speedbar?
o My criterions for accelerated collapse (frontal + asymmetric) recovery acceptance (independent from DHV or EN):
§ Recovery should be near automatic (minimal pilot input required).
§ The wing's center must remain above the pilot (not dive below him).
§ The goal is for an experienced pilot to feel comfortable with recovery from this type of event.
o Fully accelerated asymmetric. Accelerator pulley contact visually confirmed and held for about 5 seconds. The right A riser was pulled down from riser quick-links to chest to produce a collapse greater than 50% of the leading edge. Speed bar released immediately following the collapse and 1/8 to 1/4 braking applied on left side (as I normally do in those events). Verification of no broken lines after the maneuver.
§ 1st time. Wing dives plunges less than 45º and turned no more than ¼ turn. General reaction speed was slow-moderate: No jerky wing reaction. Soft re-opening. Great behavior, feels like a low-end DHV 2, almost a 1-2. Confidence inspiring.
§ 2nd time. Same behavior as the 1st time, providing confirmation.
o Fully accelerated full frontal. Accelerator pulley contact visually confirmed and held for about 5 seconds. Both A risers pulled down from riser quick-links to chest. Wing shoots back and is left to return overhead before deciding if pilot input is needed. Verification of no broken lines after the maneuver.
§ 1st time. No pilot input required after the wing returns overhead. Insignificant surge after the wing returns overhead, and not sign of a parachutal phase. General sensation of softness in the reaction and re-opening. Fantastic behavior, confirming the DHV 1-2 rating on this maneuver.
§ 2nd time. Same behavior as the 1st time, providing confirmation.
o Trim-speed asymmetric.
§ Provided no counter brake input and let the wing turn and dive. Normal and mild behavior.
§ Provided counter brake and was able to turn wing in opposite direction of the collapse. Good for those who may over-react to a collapse, or to avoid terrain.
§ When performing these collapses in calm air (coastal soaring), the closed side was slow to re-open by itself, so I pumped it out. I suspect that when getting a collapse in turbulent air, the wing may be more likely to re-open by itself.
· Stability.
o Rate of collapse:
§ Frontal collapse: Comparable to the average collapse resistance of wings on the market. See notes 2007/3/24+25 flights in Daily Notes.
§ Asymmetric collapse: Comparable to the average collapse resistance of wings on the market. See notes 2007/3/24+25 flights in Daily Notes.
o Stability in active air (thermic conditions):
§ Pitch. Same dampening level as its predecessor, the Tattoo which I saw as one of the less dampened (nervous, twitchy…) wing in this class. A moderate to high level of active piloting is needed. Pilots adapt after 20 hours or so of thermalling. For previous Tattoo pilots, no adaptation needed.
§ Roll. This wing reminds me of a Swing/Arcus (# 1), a beginner wing. When asymmetric lift is encountered (side of a thermal) the wing provides about 20% of the feel of the Tattoo on this axis. You do not get ejected from thermals as easily, so you need less brake input to enter the thermal. The high roll dampening facilitates the pilot's concentration on thermalling.
§ Yaw. More movement in yaw than the Tattoo. But this can be dues to the rough air I experienced so far and the fact that this wing has more aspect ratio. Not a real issue.
§ Overall: Pilots used to flying high energy retention DHV 2 wings will feel at ease. But pilots moving up from a dampened DHV 1-2 (or some 2's) wing will need to adapt their active piloting skills. 20 hours in thermic conditions will transform your input to become automatic. Then you switch to enjoying the energy retention and maneuvering efficiency of the wing.
o General:
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/1: The size M was tested by DHV test pilots were Beni Stocker and Christian Amon. Christian who also knows the Tattoo said, the new one left a more balanced impression (not so nervous, better roll compensation). The overall impression was a better safety level as the Tattoo.
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/15: It rolls less in turbulences (Than the Tattoo).
§ Nova/Ra web page: We also were able to avoid too much feedback through the risers in strong thermal conditions, to avoid the feeling of being "pushed out" of a thermal. We succeeded in constructing a very collapse-resistant wing. Above all, the wing's center collapses very late, from which the security is significantly raised in practical flying. In addition, the airfoils used distinguish themselves by allowing soft collapses and re-openings.
§ I agree with the above: Soft/relaxing collapse recovery, less induced roll, good collapse resistance.
· Thermalling.
o Turn response to brake input. A good response allows staying in sharp-edged lift that wants to push you out its side. A bad response may force a pilot to explore the limit of brake pull prior to inducing a spin.
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/1: My personal impression: What you immediately feel is the performance and that it penetrates good like on rails, very good reaction on brakes, easy to turn narrow and flat (important in weak thermals). The brake pressure is light, small travel needed to let it turn. In combination with the balanced roll behavior (flat / steep turning) the best we had reached so far.
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/10: The handling characteristics slightly changed compared to our former wings: A major goal was to improve the comfort in turbulent conditions and strong thermals. The Ra can be flown with a narrower carabiner distance: Weight shift is an option, but no must. The wing is carving perfectly through every air: Very precise and easy to control. The brakes give very exact feedback: the Ra turns with a very small input.
§ Nova/Ra web page: It reacts immediately on small brake input: Very sensitive without being nervous.
§ My experience: In itself the turn response to brake input is good because the wing can change direction rapidly with small-moderate inputs, yet provide a progressive feel. But now take into account that you do not need to compensate much for induced roll from asymmetric lift of thermal edges (see section above on roll stability) and most of that turn input is used for actually turning towards/into the thermal. With most other wings half of your input is lost to defy thermal expulsion. Very good.
§
Tension in the brake line felt average (Less
than Tattoo, more than Aspen 2) and brake amplitudes average (Greater than
Tattoo, Less than
o Efficiency.
§ It felt very good to me, both in light lift and managing 5 m/s lift with sharp edges.
§
Hannes Papesh, 2007/1/21: The wing turns very
flat at the beginning and has a later transition to steep turns.
Myself: I confirm the above statement. This is obvious when initiating a spiral
dive. Easy to exploit weak lift thanks to the flat turn control in the
beginning of the brake pull amplitude.
· Performance (straight-line).
o Overall:
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/10/31: It is an outstanding wing in our range so far. It's more than just closing the gap to the "New hot DHV 2-3 machines": It seems that they are ready for the trash bin.
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/3: The Tycoon was our reference during development. We only compared the first proto against our reference Mamboo once, but the difference was so big, that further comparisons were senseless (too hard to measure). The gap between Tycoon and the Ra… Which gap? If any, it's very small.
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/11: In contrast to the Tattoo, where we wanted to focus on handling, the Ra is a wing following our tradition (Artax, Aeron, Mamboo) to offer the maximum performance possible in that class (high aspect ratio, thin top lines). But we're very happy that the handling got even better.
§ Nova/Ra web page: The main reason for the outstanding performance of the RA is the reduced drag from the lines. The Ra "M" has only 286m of line consumption, which means more than a hundred meters less than a Tattoo of the same size. This advantage is further increased by the thin upper cascade lines with a diameter of 0.6 mm. The very efficient line geometry leads to a performance gain of about 0.5 L/D. Of course there is also some performance advantage added by the new high aspect ratio wing. Our performance comparisons showed that the computer simulations were right: The Ra is flying in the performance league of the Tycoon. By the way: When flying accelerated, the advantage of the reduced line drag is even bigger than at trim speed.
§ From the above statement (0.5 better L/D from the lines + more from higher AR), I'm thinking 0.6 better L/D than the Tattoo, which matches the difference between the Tattoo and Tycoon according to Thermik magazine measurements. This reinforces the idea that the Ra would have the same performance as the Tycoon, which is a top performer in the DHV 2-3 class. I flew next to a Tycoon while under a Tattoo C, and noticed that the Tycoon had an unfair advantage, so the gain from the Tattoo to the Ra should be equally noticeable.
§ Hannes Papesh, 2007/1/30: Compared to the Tycoon, this is the computer forecast: 0.1 less L/D in hands off, difference getting smaller when accelerating. Practical tests show that tendency.
§ Emotional… On Saturday January 20, 2007, while most pilots were enjoying the up and down cycles over launch, I used the altitude gains to go explore, pushing ½ speedbar into the wind and felt delighted to cover much ground while thermal hunting in other locations. One pilot (Joe De Briyn) said he was impressed with the speed/glide as I transitioned away to another location.
o Glide comparison:
§ Mamboo. During the XC flight of 2007/1/20, I flew on glides with Mark Kranz. Mark is at the maximum weight range of his Nova/Mamboo, and in the past we have often glided together and observed a similar trim-speed glides to my previous Tattoo (also confirmed by Thermik magazine measurements). This time Mark said: There is an obvious advantage to the Ra and after 2 glides I broke contact to follow. Mark observed that I would arrive higher at the next thermal location, top out sooner and leave before he toped-out himself.
§ Summit 3, in smooth coastal air. With similar loading within the weigh ranges, the Ra has a higher trim speed, maybe 2 km/h faster. Other pilot had to push speedbar to match Ra trim speed.
§ Omega 6, in smooth coastal air. Same trim speed. Ra has equal or slightly better sink rate but was I in a better part of the lift band? Not sure where that pilot was within his wing's weight range, but either heavy or light, it made the Ra look good.
§ Tattoo C. Flying next to the new owner of my previous wing on 2007/3/25, he has the same body weight as me. At trim we had similar sink rates but I had a clear horizontal speed advantage. When I was at ½ speedbar, he had to be at full speedbar to match the horizontal speed. When I went full speedbar, he quickly dropped back.
o Accelerated:
§ Question: Can a 3 riser system provide an accelerated profile which is good as a 4 riser system? Answer: Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/29: A 3 riser, 4 suspension (A,B,C,D) configuration needs some attention to work properly. The geometry of the C/D fork and the position of these suspension points, together with the form stability of the airfoil, is the issue. Finally, we have the experience that the 3 riser wings are even better to accelerate than those with 4 risers.
§ Accelerator line travel (to achieve pulley contact) seems shorter than for the Tattoo. I say this because while conserving the same speedbar line length I have more slack at Trim, and more reserve leg extension to achieve pulley contact. That's good to avoid Brummel hook contact at the harness' first accelerator line grommet.
§ My impression of using ½ speedbar is that of an impressive glide, probably better than the Tattoo. Needs confirmation with side-by-side flying.
o Airspeed, corrected to sea level, with 50% into weight range, at 15º C (59º F) and 101.3 kPa. See Daily Notes for details.
§ Trim: 38 km/h. Comparisons: I measured + corrected the Tattoo at 37 km/h, the Aspen 2 also at 37 km/h.
§ Max: 55 km/h. Comparisons: I measured + corrected the Tattoo at 51 km/h, the Aspen 2 at 56 km/h.
Ø Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/12: The Ra M adds about 15-17 km/h when accelerated, a little more than the Tattoo.
Ø Agreement with the above line, as I get a 17 km/h boost from the accelerator.
o Sink rate.
§ Hannes Papesh, 2006/11/12: The Ra is very good in minimum sink.
§ At the 42 hour mark on this wing, I feel that minimum sink rate is slightly better than average. Just a general impression, no measurements.
§ I get a sense of flatness in the polar curve where the minimum sink rate can be found (figure). I can definitely feel some improvement when pulling some brake from trim, but then can start pulling significantly more brake without an obvious improvement in the sink rate before the wing will eventually enter its "mushing" phase. So I get the feeling there is little value to pull a lot of brake to get a better sink rate beyond the obvious improvement of the initial small amount of brake pull. Beyond that amount of brake pull, it seems to mainly become a decision based on what speed you want to fly (instead of further optimizing sink rate). I'm not saying it is a good or bad thing, just something different that most other wings I had in the past, where there seemed to be a more obvious best sink rate brake position.
o Energy retention.
§ Top landing just got more difficult as more energy seems kept during S-turns. A few mild wing-overs felt good.
· Special turning technique.
o Sharp input.
§ To simulate a rapid course change (thermalling core offset or pilot avoidance). I did one attempt, and achieved a rapid turn from straight flight without inducing a spin.
o Weight-shifting.
§ Based on smooth air testing of 2007/2/26… I keep my chest strap short on my harness, but can still vertically offset the risers by about 15 cm. When I applied brake input to induce a slow turn and with opposite weight shift, I was able to keep the wing flying almost straight. When adding weight shift to the side of the slow turn, it seemed to double the effect of light braking alone. My conclusion: Moderate weight shift is about equivalent to a slow turn brake input. Just like any other wing I had in the past (many brands). I use weight shifting to steer the RA when on the speed bar, and that works too, inducing a very slow turn, but enough to correct my trajectory.
o Pulling the outermost line on rear riser.
§ Based on smooth air testing of 2007/2/26… I induced turns by pulling on the outmost C line only. A technique used by those who want to correct trajectory while minimizing glide degradation. On the Ra, with its lower C lines, dividing higher up into C and D attachment points on the wing, it did seem as the turn reaction was less than on a wing where you can directly control an outer D line. But a turn is still possible with a light pull on the outer C line of the Ra.
· Maneuver. By the way, I am not into aerobatics, so ask others who are, about maneuvers not mentioned below.
o Spiral dive:
§ Significant inside brake input is needed to get the leading edge to start pointing at the ground. But after the proper input, achieving a good descent rate is a non-issue. On 2007/3/31, I did a spiral dive of 13.5 m/s (2660 fpm): Easy entry and exit using inner brake alone.
o Wing over:
§ I just did two minor wing-over series, just to get a feel for the energy retention which felt high.
o Big ears:
§ Pulling the one of two line on the A riser produced big ears.
· Rating the highlights. The color in first 2 rows reflect the combined result of the 2 first columns (Importance X Rating):
|
Importance 0 = Don't care 10 = Very important |
Rating0
= Bad 5
Neutral 10 Excellent |
Criterion |
Extra Comments. |
|
10 |
10/10 |
Exemplary recovery from full speedbar asymmetric collapses. True DHV 1-2 recovery from full speedbar frontals where no input was needed (insignificant surge after the wing returns overhead, and not sign of a parachutal phase). With about 20 real collapses in rough air at the 33 hour mark, soft recoveries are the norm. |
|
|
9 |
10/10 |
High L/D at trim and accelerated. |
It feels very good (trim or ½ accelerated). |
|
8 |
7/10 |
Efficient at thermalling. |
Roll dampening helps not fighting thermal ejection. Average sink rate (an overall impression, no measurement) and OK (but not great) brake input response. Overall: It does well in thermalling but I feel as if I have to work a little harder to match the best climbers. |
|
8 |
7/10 |
Low sink rate. |
Sink rate feels slightly better than average. |
|
7 |
9/10 |
High trim speed. |
Faster than most wings. You have to fly around other pilots at coastal sites. |
|
7 |
9/10 |
High max speed. |
This is a fast wing. Only 1 km/h shy of the fastest DHV 2
wing I tested in the past ( |
|
7 |
5/10 |
Collapse resistance |
Same collapse rate than other pilots in the same rough air. |
|
7 |
4/10 |
Active piloting level |
This wing requires more active piloting than most in its class, but it is the same level as its predecessor (Tattoo) so this will only be new to you if you were flying a dampened wing before. You automatic adjust after about 20 hours of thermic flying (I felt right at home after owning a Tattoo). |
|
6 |
10/10 |
Construction quality. |
Examination of the wing, lines and risers, gave a sense of quality materials and good assembly. No sign of damage after 4 induced accelerated collapses, or at the 33 hour mark. |
|
5 |
6/10 |
Pleasure of crisp handling. |
While during thermalling, the dampened roll behavior provide an advantage to staying in thermals with minimal brake input, in calm air I felt more brake travel was need than for the Tattoo to achieve a given directional change. Still good, just not as crisp as the Tattoo. |
|
4 |
9/10 |
Launching + Landing |
Launching is easy and landings are uneventful. I wish it would be easier to stall the wing after landing on a breezy slope. |
|
2 |
9/10 |
Arm fatigue |
My arms do not get tired after long flights on this wing. Decent response to brake input and moderate brake tension. |
|
0 |
2/10 |
Rucksack can easily contain all equipment. |
Good: Separate compartment for the helmet. Neutral: New design expected in 2007, but this would not justify waiting to purchase the wing. Bad: Significant compression required to fit wing + Sup'Air Profeel XC2 into main compartment. I get around the issue by spending 30 $US to get the bag enlarged at an alteration shop. Bottom line: I do not choose a wing based on the rucksack given with it. Same reasoning for any other giveaway (wing pouch, speedbar, windsock…) |
· Pictures in the Daily Notes.
·
Final
word.
You get the feeling this wing is the next step in evolution: Minimized amount
of lines, high arc. Trim and maximum speeds are faster than most. Efficient at
thermalling because you do not fight thermal ejection (roll stable). It
requires more active piloting than the average of its class, but you are
rewarded with good energy retention. Impression of a great glide at trim speed
and accelerated. Very relaxing recovery behavior from fully accelerated
asymmetric and frontal collapses, it puts your mind at rest to use the full
speed range.
Daily
Notes (Top of Page)
Does not mention all my flight, just whatever is worth reporting.
2006/10/8
· Discussion on ParaglidingForum.
2007/1/19
· Received the test wing. Size M, "Black Sun" color scheme. Serial # 35136. Kited in a park.
· Pictures:
o By Joe:
§ Kiting in shifty/gusty air: Inflation + Large brake inputs + Overhead.
o By myself:
§ Risers. Notice the swivel on the brake line.
§ Label on the wing tip.
§ Trailing edge. Clean and simple.
2007/1/20
· Weigh-in: My total flying weight is 228.6 lb (103.8 kg) (63% into the weight range) where 54.4 lb (24.7 kg) for equipment (including 2 under pants, 2 sweat shirts and jacket for cold weather). My body weight: 79.1 kg (174.2 lb).
·
2.5 hours of thermalling at Marshall,
· Flight data:
o Crestline
to
o Marshall XC to the Seven Oaks Dam: Google Earth KMZ, Leonardo web page.
· Video:
o By Mark Kranz:
§ Launching at Crestline in 20 km/h wind (format: MPEG-4 H.264). What you see is not smog; it is clouds forming at launch from the rising air at near freezing temperature on that morning at this higher launch used to do the collapse testing. Notice the vocal acknowledgement from the bird of prey at the end (not a special effect).
· Pictures:
o By Joe De Briyn:
o By myself:
§ At cloudbase.
§ Pilot's view of the left riser. Can it be any simpler?
· Airspeed measured, at 1220 m (4000'), 6ºC (43ºF), 102.0 kPa:
o Trim: Varied from 36 to 46 km/h, most often showing 41 km/h. Corrected for 15 ºC, 101.3 kPa, sea level and 50% loading: 38.3 km/h. For reference, I obtained 36.9 km/h with the Tattoo (regular lines).
o Max: Varied from 56 to 62 km/h, most often showing 59 km/h. Corrected for 15 ºC, 101.3 kPa, sea level and 50% loading: 55.1 km/h. For reference, I obtained 50.8 km/h with the Tattoo (regular lines).
2007/1/26
·
1.7 hours of ridge soaring at Torrey Pines,
· Comparisons with other wings:
o Summit 3. With similar loading within the weigh ranges, the Ra has a higher trim speed, maybe 2 km/h faster. Other pilot had to push speedbar to match Ra trim speed.
o Omega 6. Same trim speed. Ra has equal or slightly better sink rate but was I in a better part of the lift band? Not sure where that pilot was within his wing's weight range, but either heavy or light, it made the Ra look good.
· Pictures:
o By wife:
§ Walking towards launch edge.
o By Bob Barry:
§ Side view.
§ Top view.
o By myself:
§ Dirt hole in tip trailing edge.
2007/1/27
·
2.9 hours of thermalling at Marshall,
· Flight data:
o Flight 1: Leonardo web page.
o Flight 2: Leonardo web page.
o Flight 3: Leonardo web page.
· Pictures:
o By Joe De Briyn:
2007/1/28
· I cleaned-up the loose brake lines: Picture.
2007/2/3
·
0.9 hours of ridge soaring at Torrey Pines,
· Compared trim speed with person who bought my previous Tattoo C, and can confirm a small trim speed advantage.
· Induce two 50% collapses at trim speed (just for fun). Benign recovery.
· Tried stalling the wing on one of the top landings while skimming the ground, only got it after holding brakes at full extension.
· Did lots of kiting. The wing behaves well and is easy to keep overhead.
2007/2/10
·
2.0 hours of ridge soaring at Torrey Pines,
· Compared glide at trim speed with person who bought my previous Tattoo C. He says there is an obvious advantage to the Ra. I agree.
· Did two 50% asymmetric collapses at trim:
o Provided no counter brake input and let the wing turn and dive. Normal and mild behavior.
o Provided counter brake and was able to turn wing in opposite direction of the collapse. Good for those who may over-react to a collapse, or to avoid terrain.
o When performing these collapses in calm air (coastal soaring), the closed side was slow to re-open by itself, so I pumped it out. I suspect that when getting a collapse in turbulent air, the wing may be more likely to re-open by itself.
--- Only out-of-the-ordinary findings reported
beyond this point ---
2007/2/18
·
2.5 hours of thermalling and ridge soaring at Soboba,
· First flight was in strong wind (26+ km/h) with mixed-in thermals: Rough air at times during 1st flight. Got a 70% collapse at trim speed: Easy recovery.
· Flight data:
o Flight 1: Leonardo web page.
o Flight 2: Leonardo web page.
· Pictures:
o By Joe DeBriyn:
§ Arc difference between RA and UP/Summit 3.
§ Soaring.
· Video: Shot by Joe DeBriyn, edited by myself: Available here.
2007/2/26
·
6.5 hours of ridge soaring at Torrey Pines,
· Weight-shifting: I keep my chest strap short on my harness, but can still vertically offset the risers by about 15 cm. When I applied brake input to induce a slow turn and with opposite weight shift, I was able to keep the wing flying almost straight. When adding weight shift to the side of the slow turn, it seemed to double the effect of light braking alone. My conclusion: Moderate weight shift is about equivalent to a slow turn brake input. Just like any other wing I had in the past (many brands). I use weight shifting to steer the RA when on the speed bar, and that works too, inducing a very slow turn, but enough to correct my trajectory.
· I also induced turns by pulling on the outmost C line only. A technique (pulling outermost rear riser line) used by those who want to correct trajectory while minimizing glide degradation. On the RA, with its lower C lines, dividing higher up into C and D attachment points on the wing, it did seem as the turn reaction was less than on a wing where you can directly control an outer D line. But a turn is still possible with a light pull on the outer C line of the RA.
· Flight data:
o Flight 1: Leonardo web page.
2007/3/17
·
2.75 hours of thermalling at Marshall,
· Flight data:
o Local flying: Leonardo web page.
o Marshall XC to the Seven Oaks Dam: Leonardo web page.
2007/3/24+25
·
Over 6 hours, and some of it in the roughest air
I care to fly in at Kagel and Marshall,
· My feeling of flying the RA in very rough air (to the point of asking myself why I'm still flying instead of landing)... You need lots of active piloting (obvious) and the rate of collapse is about the same as any other silly pilot venturing into the same air. Collapse recovery is surprisingly mellow.
· Flight data:
o Single flight at Kagel on Saturday.
o The middle of 3 flights at Marshall on Sunday.
·
Video of launching at
2007/3/31
·
3.6 hours of thermalling at Marshall,
· I ended the first flight with a spiral dive of 13.5 m/s (2660 fpm) as recorded by the Competino Vario+GPS. Leonardo flight summary indicates 10.5 m/s (2070 fpm) using bigger sampling intervals. Easy entry and exit using inner brake alone.
· Flight data:
o Flight 1: Leonardo web page.
o Flight 2: Leonardo web page.
|
If you
enjoyed reading this review, please make a donation
to encourage me to write future reviews. |
