Back to Wing Articles / Articles sur les Ailes.
|
1. Main 2. Conclusion 3. Daily Notes |
by Jérôme Daoust. Revised 2009/3/24 |
Main (Top of Page)
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 USA) for supplying the test wing.
§ Hannes Papesh (the wing's designer), for answering questions.
· Total airtime: 48.3 hours, as of 2008/8/9.
· Selecting a size. I could have fit in the weight range for 2 sizes, and chose the Medium, preferring the improved sink rate and L/D (typical gain of 0.2 per size increase) of the larger size, understanding that I may get a few more collapses, reduced turn response to brake input, and slower airspeed. This is aligned with my goals as a recreational pilot.
|
|
Small (Specifications) |
Medium (Specifications) |
|
Weight range |
80-100 kg |
95-110 kg |
|
Equipment weight |
24.5 kg (54.0 lb). Wing weighs 0.5 kg less than M. |
25.0 kg (55.1 lb) |
|
Body weight |
74.7 kg (164.5 lb) |
74.7 kg (164.5 lb) |
|
My total flying weight |
99.2 kg (218.5 lb). |
99.7 kg (219.6 lb) |
|
% into weight range |
96% |
31% |
· 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 (picture), speedbar (picture), windsock, fabric label and warranty card. Picture.
o The upper lines are thin, unsheathed and coated Dyneema lines. Line plans: ABCD + Brake fan.
o There are 4 risers, with split A's. A and C risers support 3 lines. The B riser supports 3 lines + 1 red-colored stabilo line. The D riser support 2 lines.
· 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 pull the riser inside the loop, and the distance is similar to the Ra, 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.
o The speedbar (picture) is an improvement over the previous model. This one has connectors which allow for easy threading of the lines without requiring a knot.
· Transport bag (Rucksack). Picture.
o It has been redesigned since 2006. Now with a single central zipper (instead of 2 parallel ones) and Velcro tabs to hold down the flap over the zipper.
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. I will keep an old Nova bad I had enlarged (picture).
· Brake toggles.
o There is a swivel on the brake line, to avoid twisting it over time. Picture.
· Wing.
o Serial number: 37063, "Citro Byte" (White with a Yellow leading edge) color scheme (picture), Mentor-M.
o Cell opening have variable size: Picture. Detail of the end of the openings: Picture.
o The trailing edge is reinforced. Picture.
o There are "dirt holes". Picture.
o The wing tips are square. Picture.
o In-flight pictures: Wing in transparency + Going away (rear view) + Wing above (composite of 2 pictures).
· Behavior.
o The wing launches normally.
· Kiting.
o Easy. Pictures: Front view + Side view.
· Top landing.
o One done in thermic conditions on 2007/12/15. Normal behavior.
· Flare.
o Typical of a DHV 1-2 wing, with full brake extension to achieve a good final flare.
o Video: EN / LTF certification.
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. This area of investigation is intended for DHV 2 (or above) rated wings, as I have not found any DHV 1-2 wing in the past to offer surprises. 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 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. I did the standard pull rate and amplitude: Normal response and easy recovery.
§ 2nd time. I aggressively pulled down the A risers: Wind balled up more behind me and went further back. Normal response and recovery.
§ It should be noted that this wing has a high accelerated speed, equivalent to a high-end DHV 2, which makes its good nature even more impressive.
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. Slow reactions from the wing and easy recovery.
§ 2nd time. It corresponds to the 1st collapse in this video (MPEG-4 format, 1.58 MB). Same comments as for the 1st test, making it a consistent behavior.
§ It should be noted that this wing has a high accelerated speed, equivalent to a high-end DHV 2, which makes its good nature even more impressive.
o Trim-speed asymmetric.
§ 1st time. It corresponds to the 2nd collapse in this video (MPEG-4 format, 1.58 MB). Slow reactions from the wing and easy recovery.
§ 2nd time. Same comments as for the 1st test, making it a consistent behavior.
· Stability.
o Rate of collapse:
§ Frontal collapse: Comparable to the average collapse resistance of wings on the market. See notes in Daily Notes.
§ Asymmetric collapse: Comparable to the average collapse resistance of wings on the market. See notes in Daily Notes.
o Stability in active air (thermic conditions):
§ Manufacturer's website info: The damping in turbulences could be increased (compared to Mamboo). This immediately gives the pilot the impression of increased comfort and safety. In fact, the Mentor is less demanding to fly in turbulent air then the Mamboo. Even if the collapse behavior of the Mamboo is easy to deal with; it takes quite some effort to fly the wing actively in strong conditions. The Mentor offers significant more comfort in this matter.
§ Pitch. Moderately dampened. Pitch-up un sharp thermal entry is obvious.
§ Roll. Moderately dampened. Pilot remains sensitive to which side has the most lift.
§ Yaw. Very dampened. No yaw-induced motions observed.
§ Overall: Average with respect to active piloting skills.
· 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.
§ Manufacturer's website: Even in strong thermals, the Mentor has enough handling reserves for tight turns whenever you need them. A little more brake and some weight shift is enough for the Mentor to react with very little delay and you find yourself in an immediate high-banked turn. We were able to reduce the effect of being pushed out of strong thermals, compared to the Mamboo.
§ This wing has a better turn response to brake input than the Nova/Ra, and maybe comparable to a Nova/Tattoo. It was easy to correct the turn rate (banking) during a thermal. Very nice, and excellent knowing I was only flying this wing at 31% of its weight range.
§ Arm fatigue: Low. The wing responded enough within a brake travel range of no-brake to bringing my elbow to my body side: Rarely a need to bring hands below the shoulders.
§ Pictures: Left brake input + Banking + Coming at you.
· Performance (straight-line).
o Overall:
§ Manufacture's website: The performance advantage is clearly noticeable when flying alongside a Mamboo. Aside from the higher wing efficiency, the thinner lines are the main contributor to this performance step. We used unsheathed, coated DC60 Dyneema lines on the top cascade and also slightly thinner lines on the lower cascades.
§ Hannes Papesh, 2007/12/9: There won't be a Ra Large because the Mentor Large has almost the same performance, better handling, much better safety. The same with the XS.
o Glide comparison:
§ Thermik Magazine evaluated its glide to be the best amongst wings of its class: Comparison table.
§ Tattoo C (unsheathed lines). Flying next to the new owner of my previous wing on 2007/12/15, he had 4.5 kg (10 lb) more body weight than me. At trim we had similar sink rates but I had a clear horizontal speed advantage (he agreed). At full speedbar, we both had similar glide and speed.
o Accelerated:
§ Activation of the full accelerated speed range is smooth and easy thanks to a 3:1 travel ratio. Risers: Picture.
§ Pictures: Front view (dimples on leading edge are normal) + Side view.
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: 37 km/h. Comparisons: I measured + corrected the Ra at 38 km/h.
§ Max: 54 km/h. Comparisons: I measured + corrected the Ra at 55 km/h.
o Sink rate.
§ I seemed to match the sink rate of any other wing flying besides me when in light thermals on 2007/12/15. I maybe even had a slight advantage over the majority of wings. It felt good, maybe because of my loading of 31% into the weight range.
· Maneuver. By the way, I am not into aerobatics, so ask others who are, about maneuvers not mentioned below.
o Spiral dive:
§ An aggressive inner brake input led to a locked spiral dive with a sink rate of 18.5 m/s (3600 fpm). My fault for "insisting" too much. It was exited normally with the standard recovery technique: Locked Spiral Dive (Recovery). 2007/12/15 flight #2 summary data on my Bräuniger/Competino: Picture. Another normal (not locked-in) spiral dive was performed.
o Spin:
§ I provide a few exaggerated inner brake inputs during thermalling, to see if a spin condition was near. The wing responded well by increasing its turn response without initiating a spin.
o Wing over:
§ Easy to induce, but more braking than normal seemed necessary for the upper-side wing to prevent collapses.
o Big ears:
§ Non-accelerated. Easy to perform thanks to the split A risers. Wing was stable in this configuration: No yaw oscillation or violent wing tip flapping.
§ Fully accelerated. Wing was stable in this configuration: No significant yaw oscillation or violent wing tip flapping.
· Rating the highlights with respect to an experienced/regular pilot flying about 100 hours/year. The color in first 2 rows reflects 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 |
Typical DHV 1-2 behavior, so it's great for me as an experienced/regular pilot (any DHV 1-2 wing would probably get a 10/10 rating from me). Reassuring even when collapsing from fully accelerated speed. |
|
|
9 |
10/10 |
High L/D at trim and accelerated. |
Near best-of-class DHV 2 performance on a DHV 1-2 wing. |
|
8 |
9/10 |
Efficient at thermalling. |
I flew this wing at 31% into its weight range and felt as if I had a slight advantage over other pilots. The wing provided excellent turn response to brake input despite my low wing loading. |
|
8 |
8/10 |
Low sink rate. |
Excellent climb rate in light wide thermals. Good sink rate for ridge soaring. |
|
7 |
9/10 |
High trim speed. |
Faster than most wings. |
|
7 |
9/10 |
High max speed. |
Equivalent to a fast DHV 2 wing. |
|
7 |
6/10 |
Collapse resistance |
Average. |
|
7 |
6/10 |
Active piloting level |
Average. |
|
6 |
8/10 |
Construction quality. |
Neither flaws detected nor improvement areas. Minor issue: My wing did have non-symmetrical line length inducing a slow right turn. I wish NTT (Nova Trim Tuning) was available in the USA. |
|
5 |
9/10 |
Pleasure of crisp handling. |
The wing provided excellent turn response to brake input despite my low wing loading (31% into the weight range). |
|
4 |
9/10 |
Launching + Landing |
Easy. Maybe because I am used to DHV 2+ wings, I prefer shorter brake travel to flare or abort a launch. |
|
2 |
9/10 |
Arm fatigue |
Good turn response to brake input keeps your arms in the "power stroke", with rarely need to invert the elbow and bring hands below the shoulders. And brake line tension is average (not high). |
|
0 |
2/10 |
Rucksack can easily contain all equipment. |
If wish the circumference could gain 10-15 cm. |
· Pictures in the Daily Notes.
·
Final word.
This low aspect ratio wing surprises by its agility, speed, glide a trim and
accelerated. A good way to upset your friends with DHV 2 wings.
Daily Notes (Top of Page)
Does not mention all my flight, just whatever is worth reporting.
2006/10/17
· Discussion on ParaglidingForum.
2007/12/12
· Test wing delivered from US importer Super Fly. Serial number 37063. "Citro Byte" (White with a Yellow leading edge) color scheme (picture), Mentor-M.
· Pictures:
o Accessories.
o Cell openings: End + Variation.
o Dirt hole.
o Risers.
o Rucksack.
o Speedbar.
o Wing tip.
2007/12/15
· Weigh-in: My total flying weight is 99.7 kg (219.6 lb) (31 % into the 95-110 kg weight range) where 25.0 kg (55.1 lb) for equipment. My body weight: 74.7 kg (164.5 lb).
· 2.7 hours of thermalling at Marshall, California. Conditions varied from late-day wide and gentle thermals to mid-day narrow low-altitude punches with a recorded max climb of 7.2 m/s (1400 fpm). Flight #2 summary data on my Bräuniger/Competino: Picture.
· Flight data:
o Wind conditions at Crestline for the day (higher ridge behind Marshall).
o #1: Local thermalling and collapse testing. Info on Leonardo + Google Earth file.
o #2: A small XC. Info on Leonardo + Google Earth file. For instantaneous values of max climb and sink rate (locked spiral dive): Picture.
· Airspeed measured, at 1340 m (4400') and 13ºC (55ºF), with 102.7 kPa sea-level pressure:
o Reference: Airspeed converter.
o Trim: Varied from 36 to 42 km/h, most often showing 39 km/h. Corrected for 15 ºC, 101.3 kPa, sea level and 50% loading: 36.9 km/h. For reference, I obtained 38.3 km/h with the Ra.
o Max: Varied from 55 to 59 km/h, most often showing 57 km/h. Corrected for 15 ºC, 101.3 kPa, sea level and 50% loading: 54.0 km/h. For reference, I obtained 55.1 km/h with the Ra.
· Collapses (non-induced):
o Asymmetric: Got one 25%. Normal for the conditions (punchy low-altitude lift where I was).
o Frontal: Got 2 initiations (mini-frontals) which I caught before they progressed into a normal frontal.
· Video:
o Collapse testing (MPEG-4 format, 1.58 MB). The 1st asymmetric is from fully accelerated speed, the 2nd from trim speed.
· Picture:
o From Andy Harrah:
o From Joe De Briyn:
§ Banking.
§ Fully accelerated - Leading edge. Note: Dimples are normal.
§ Fully accelerated - Side view.
§ Going away.
o From me:
§ Flight 2 summary on Bräuniger/Competino. Displaying instantaneous max climb (7.2 m/s, 1400 fpm) and sink rate (18.5 m/s, 3600 fpm) in a locked spiral dive.
§ Wing above. Assembly of 2 pictures.
2007/12/30
· 1.8 hours of thermalling at Marshall, California. Light thermalling conditions. Able to match or better the sink rate of any other wing in the light wide thermals.
2008/1/20
· 2.9 hours of thermalling + XC from Marshall, California.
· Flight data:
o #1: Local thermalling, then a 22 km XC. Info on Leonardo + Google Earth file. Flew alongside a friend on a Nova/Ra and he felt he had no advantage (thermalling, glide). Video on YouTube of my landing (thanks to Bob Barry).
--- Only out-of-the-ordinary findings reported beyond this point ---
2008/3/23
· During 10+ long glides, I noticed that my wing had a tendency to turn right. This quantifies the observation:
· On the recommendation of Hannes Papesh, I did a symmetry line check: Risers base secured and equal, then measured the differences in length for each attachment point to the wing under 5-10 kg each. It produced these results. We agreed that the first thing to try is effectively shorten the lower C3 (outer) line by making an extra loop at the riser quick-link. This had the effect of shortening that line by 9.5 mm. Details: Riser quick-link has 3.5 mm wire diameter, and the lower C3 line has a 1.5 mm diameter. I will judge during flowing flights, if this had the desired effect.
2008/3/30
· 1.5 hours at Torrey Pines, California. Great flying conditions but I limited my airtime because still recovering from the flu (101ºF yesterday).
· Wing seemed to fly straighter than before, but will wait for more airtime and longer glides to conclude.
2008/5/3
· 4.1 hours of thermalling + XC from Marshall, California. I verified that the wing flies straight during long transitions, after doing the modification on 2008/3/23.
· Flight data:
o #1: A 22 km XC. Info on Leonardo.
o #2: Thermalling. Info on Leonardo.
Fun flights lately:
· 2008/10/17: Friday October 17, 2008 - Over the back
· 2008/10/18: Soboba, Saturday October 18, 2008 - Convergence
· 2008/10/25: Marshall - Saturday October 25, 2008
· 2008/11/22: Marshall - Saturday November 22, 2008
|
If you enjoyed reading this review, please make a donation to encourage me to write future reviews. |
