Harness advice needed

[mchevalier]

I need a new harness.? I'm still flying with an old BlackHawk that I bought from John Middleton in 1987.? Velcro is almost shot, zippers broken, liner poking out, God knows what it looks like inside.? It's time for a new one.? Harnesses seem harder to buy and try than gliders.?? I need one that's fairly streamlined, not to heavy, parachute preferably in front and one that's easy to go upright.? I've been looking at Aeros and Rotor.? Aeros can be ordered online, giving them a bunch of measurements.? Does anybody fly with an Aeros harness???? What brands to avoid? ? ?? MC

[Paul Tjaden]

Hi Michael,
?
I fly with an Aeros Viper. It's pretty much a full race harness and I'm certain you can only get it with the chute on the side. I believe the Aeros Myth is the same. I really enjoy flying my Viper and it is VERY comfortable. The butt lever pitch adjustment works great and it's nice to be able to get more heads up while thermalling to give my neck a break and then drop back down for glide so easily. It does not get as upright for landings as my old Tracer and I went through some landing issues when I first flew it. I'd probably still land better if I were in my Tracer. I don't think any of the harnesses with a single main riser will get nearly as upright as most intermediate type harnesses.
?
Hope this helps some.
?
Paul
?
p.s. Quality of my Aeros seems good.

[heaviek]

?
Mike, I have owned ?2 Aeros Harnesses and flown a few Rotors as well.? A Viper 1 and Viper 2.? The mylar doesn’t hold up as well to wear as the fabric but all of the vipers have replaceable skins.? I flew the piss out of both of mine so it is hard to quantify the wear.? The zipper is replaceable with the skin in the viper 2 and without it in the 1.? The design of the viper is very similar to the Rotor.? Same pitch mechanism.? Very easy to use and with proper practice landing them is a piece of cake.? Head up and down is very slick.? The fabric on the Rotor lays very clean but the profile isn’t as drawn out as the viper.? Down the road, the new Rotor S is more drawn out like a Matrix.? The disadvantage of a drawn out tail is more bulk when foot launching.
?
Ditch the front mounted parachute.? Topless gliders fly so much better if you drop down those extra few inches.? If chest protection is an issue it wouldn’t be hard to make a chest protection plate and foam to go between the harness layers (on the viper at least).? It would be a much more effective way to surpass the marginal benefit of a parachute for padding.
?
On every slick harness I have flown good fit was the number one priority.? They are more fit specific then the old style 15 string hangers.? The hip measurement is important to get you located properly in relation to the butt adjustment level.? It’s a tricky balance with fit and weather.? When a comp harness is fit tight no wind gets in and it doesn’t take bulky layers to stay warm.? If a comp harness fits loose, it doesn’t perform near its potential.? The adjustment levers don’t work well, air gets in, pilot sags on landing, etc.?
?
Fit is everything.? Get with someone who really knows what they are doing on the measurements and jump in some harnesses of similar sized pilots.? Don’t fudge the numbers larger for space and measure with compact layers, less then you usually fly in.
?
If you want more specifics, grab me offlist.
?
Kev C

From: Mike Chevalier [mailto:mchevalier@bresnan.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:34 AM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Harness advice needed

?
I need a new harness.? I'm still flying with an old BlackHawk that I bought from John Middleton in 1987.? Velcro is almost shot, zippers broken, liner poking out, God knows what it looks like inside.? It's time for a new one.? Harnesses seem harder to buy and try than gliders.?? I need one that's fairly streamlined, not to heavy, parachute preferably in front and one that's easy to go upright.? I've been looking at Aeros and Rotor.? Aeros can be ordered online, giving them a bunch of measurements.? Does anybody fly with an Aeros harness???? What brands to avoid? ? ?? MC

[Scott]

For what it's worth, I love my Wills Wing Z5, custom-fit for me. It might be a non-aerodynamic, drag-inducing pig of a harness...but it works well and is very comfortable. I get the impression serious pilots don't use these...am I wrong?

Scott

[heaviek]

You are correct .? Easier to land but not as comfortable or aerodynamic.? Unless they parachute is side mounted they also sacrifice glider control.
?
Kev C
?

From: Scott [mailto:sw@shadepine.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 2:37 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Harness advice needed

?
For what it's worth, I love my Wills Wing Z5, custom-fit for me. It might be a non-aerodynamic, drag-inducing pig of a harness...but it works well and is very comfortable. I get the impression serious pilots don't use these...am I wrong?

Scott

[Scott]

Wow---the Z5's not as comfortable as other harnesses? I'm sold! 'Cause it seems plenty comfortable to me. (Something to look forward to...)

So does the chest-mount chute sacrifice control 'cause you hang higher?

Scott

[Scott]

Okay, just re-read your post Kevin, and answered my question.

Scott

[brianvh]

Should we be getting "serious pilots" mixed up with "comp pilots"?
I think unless you follow Kevin's breast plate suggestion (does anyone
actually do this?) you're asking for serious trouble if you don't have the
chute over your vital organs. Read the accident reports - an astonishing
number of pilots state that they felt their chest mounted chute saved
their lives.

Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149

On Wed, 18 May 2005, Kevin wrote:

> You are correct .=A0 Easier to land but not as comfortable or aerodynam=
ic.=A0 Unless they parachute is side mounted they also sacrifice glider con=
trol.
> =A0

[huddlec]

My harness has a front-mounted parachute, but it's lower than on the other front-mounted harnesses I've had.? The pull for the parachute is on the side instead of the top of the chute container. There is a also a line that allows me to lower my head compared to my feet. The combination allows me to have be lower?for handling and still the comfort of knowing the parachute will provide extra padding.
Christy

Vant-Hull - Brian <brianvh@umd5.umd.edu> wrote:

Should we be getting "serious pilots" mixed up with "comp pilots"?
I think unless you follow Kevin's breast plate suggestion (does anyone
actually do this?) you're asking for serious trouble if you don't have the
chute over your vital organs. Read the accident reports - an astonishing
number of pilots state that they felt their chest mounted chute saved
their lives.

Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149

On Wed, 18 May 2005, Kevin wrote:

> You are correct .=A0 Easier to land but not as comfortable or aerodynam=
ic.=A0 Unless they parachute is side mounted they also sacrifice glider con=
trol.
> =A0

Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour

[mcelrah]

I have no experience with other new harnesses, but am happy with my
Wills Wings Z5. Enough storage, zipper system works reliably. - Hugh

On 18 May 2005, at 01:34, Mike Chevalier wrote:

> I need a new harness.? I'm still flying with an old BlackHawk that I
> bought from John Middleton in 1987.? Velcro is almost shot, zippers
> broken, liner poking out, God knows what it looks like inside.? It's
> time for a new one.? Harnesses seem harder to buy and try than
> gliders.?? I need one that's fairly streamlined, not to heavy,
> parachute preferably in front and one that's easy to go upright.? I've
> been looking at Aeros and Rotor.? Aeros can be ordered online, giving
> them a bunch of measurements.? Does anybody fly with an Aeros
> harness???? What brands to avoid? ? ?? MC
>
>
>
>

[mcelrah]

Yeah, but I was attracted to the idea that being lower to the base tube
would give better geometry/leverage for control in strong conditions.
U2 handles like a truck with lots of VG for fast winds and I've gotten
sore in the upper body from manhandling it - or is this from poor
technique and I should be speeding up more in the turns? - Hugh

On 18 May 2005, at 15:56, Vant-Hull - Brian wrote:

>
>
> Should we be getting "serious pilots" mixed up with "comp pilots"?
> I think unless you follow Kevin's breast plate suggestion (does anyone
> actually do this?) you're asking for serious trouble if you don't have
> the
> chute over your vital organs. Read the accident reports - an
> astonishing
> number of pilots state that they felt their chest mounted chute saved
> their lives.
>
> Brian Vant-Hull
> 301-646-1149
>
> On Wed, 18 May 2005, Kevin wrote:
>
>> You are correct .=A0 Easier to land but not as comfortable or
>> aerodynam=
> ic.=A0 Unless they parachute is side mounted they also sacrifice
> glider con=
> trol.
>> =A0
>
>

[Matthew]

Hugh,

I've only flown the U2 a few times. But I found that it had almost no bar pressure and was super easy to turn and locked into turns with ease-- the exact opposite of many truck-like gliders I've flown. If you're getting a workout with the U2, then it's time to hit the weights and be a man :)

Matthew

[heaviek]

Weights shouldn't be necessary except to help enhance shoulder stability or
rehab old injuries. Better sensitivity to the glider helps the pilot
correct for turbulence before it can throw the wing out of whack. Turn
corrections are either early and light, or late and heavy

Kev C

-----Original Message-----
From: mcelrah@verizon.net [mailto:mcelrah@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 11:18 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Re: Harness advice needed


Yeah, but I was attracted to the idea that being lower to the base tube
would give better geometry/leverage for control in strong conditions.
U2 handles like a truck with lots of VG for fast winds and I've gotten
sore in the upper body from manhandling it - or is this from poor
technique and I should be speeding up more in the turns? - Hugh

On 18 May 2005, at 15:56, Vant-Hull - Brian wrote:

>
>
> Should we be getting "serious pilots" mixed up with "comp pilots"?
> I think unless you follow Kevin's breast plate suggestion (does anyone
> actually do this?) you're asking for serious trouble if you don't have
> the
> chute over your vital organs. Read the accident reports - an
> astonishing
> number of pilots state that they felt their chest mounted chute saved
> their lives.
>
> Brian Vant-Hull
> 301-646-1149
>
> On Wed, 18 May 2005, Kevin wrote:
>
>> You are correct .=A0 Easier to land but not as comfortable or
>> aerodynam=
> ic.=A0 Unless they parachute is side mounted they also sacrifice
> glider con=
> trol.
>> =A0
>
>

[Danny Brotto]

It is my impression that flying with the VG pulled tight will actually deteriorate overall performance. On a pure glide standpoint and from my experience, tightening the VG will result in improvements up to a point beyond which I feel a results in glide degradation. This may be due in part to the extra effort required to maintain (or an inability to maintain) optimized roll/yaw control with tight VG and the pilot's inability to effect subtle best possible control.

I fly with my VG set for thermaling conditions geared for comfort in bank angle. On a "fluffy" day, I'll use ~1/3 VG for flatter turns. On day with tighter thermals, I'll use a bit more VG to help me effect and hold tighter banks. I rarely fly with more than about 1/2 VG (although if I were on a long final not intending to thermal along the way, I might pull 3/4 VG.)

Hugh, you mention being sore on stronger days w/ the VG on. May I suggest loosening up that VG and just flying the glider in a spot where it is comfortable? I don't think you'll notice any major degrading in overall performance.

Danny Brotto

[mcelrah]

That statement was based on a couple of rowdy Woodstock days where I
(along with others) was having to hold in large corrections for
uncommanded turns of 90-180 degrees. Also needed 80% VG to keep up
with wind speed. The doctrine is not to use just weight shift, need to
put in some yaw input to get a coordinated turn. Based on Kevin's
remark about getting more control by hanging lower, it occurs to me
that putting in that yaw input would be easier if I had a straighter
shot at the control bar. I do my pushups every day, thank you. - Hugh

On 18 May 2005, at 23:52, Matthew wrote:

> Hugh,
>
> I've only flown the U2 a few times. But I found that it had almost no
> bar pressure and was super easy to turn and locked into turns with
> ease-- the exact opposite of many truck-like gliders I've flown. If
> you're getting a workout with the U2, then it's time to hit the
> weights and be a man
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
>

[mcelrah]

Thanks for a straight answer, Danny. - Hugh

On 19 May 2005, at 07:08, Danny Brotto wrote:

> It is my impression that flying with the VG pulled tight will actually
> deteriorate overall performance.
>

[XCanytime]

Hanging lower doesn't give you more control.? Hanging higher gives you quicker pitch response.? You don't have to move as far fore and aft to create the same pitch input when you hang higher versus hanging lower and applying the same pitch input by moving further fore and aft.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bacil

[heaviek]

Bacil, the statement that hanging lower doesn’t give you more control goes against the design strategies of every flex wing manufacture.? ?It is incorrect.? Hanging lower increased the roll force a pilot can place on the glider.?
?
Pitch response time is virtually a non issue when compared to roll rates.
?
Kev C
?

From: XCanytime@aol.com [mailto:XCanytime@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:09 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Re: Harness advice needed

?
Hanging lower doesn't give you more control.? Hanging higher gives you quicker pitch response.? You don't have to move as far fore and aft to create the same pitch input when you hang higher versus hanging lower and applying the same pitch input by moving further fore and aft.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bacil

[mcelrah]

OK. But pitch doesn't seem to be an issue; it's having to hold in a
strong yaw to match a roll input. I dunno, maybe I'm trying to turn
too flat. This is a good discussion, though... - Hugh

On 19 May 2005, at 22:09, XCanytime@aol.com wrote:

> Hanging lower doesn't give you more control.? Hanging higher gives you
> quicker pitch response.? You don't have to move as far fore and aft to
> create the same pitch input when you hang higher versus hanging lower
> and applying the same pitch input by moving further fore and aft.
>
> ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bacil
>
>
>
>

[Danny Brotto]

Bacil

Hanging lower in a weight shift aircraft it absolutely does allow you to effect more control.

Consider that you (the pilot) act as a mass at the end of a 3-D lever arm (the hang system.) The glider is at the other end. Moving further away from the fulcrum gives you more mechanical advantage albeit it you do need to move your weight over a greater distance to effect that advantage. Point is that being closer to the base tube also gives you the ability to move that greater distance.

Think about it this way. Lets say that you were hanging right on the base tube. You would be able to move the base tube over a very wide range of motion. Now extrapolate hanging a few inches higher to hanging so you can just barely reach the bar? you?ll be able to move the bar very little; physiologically you would have no ability move the lever i.e. to control the glider.

Consider a seesaw where the glider is a mass on one end of the fulcrum and you are on the other. The further away from the fulcrum you move (longer hang strap), the more effect your body mass has on moving the glider mass at the other end.

I believe that the higher performance Icaro gliders (and possibly other manufactures) build their base tubes with a curve in them. When I first saw these base tubes I thought there was something wrong with them; then I thought about it a bit. With a straight across base tube (or speed bar) as a pilot moves laterally, he rises up in the corners. With a curved base tube, the pilot is always the same distance from the base tube. In effect he is lower when centered.

A hang glider is a floppy control surface at the end of a 3-dimensional lever. The pilot is at the other end of the lever. By moving his body around, a pilot redirects airflow of that control surface at the other end.


Danny Brotto

[stevek]

While I agree that the lower you are the more leverage you have, I think this argument ignores body mechanics. If you hold up a bar 6 inches from your body side to side movement is easy. Hold it 3 inches or less from your body and it becomes very difficult because you can't employ your shoulders or your arms are bent too much -- not sure how to describe it . This is also dependent on how far out the bar is. If it is way out in front of you it is not as much of a problem. But bring it down to chest level and it gets really hard. In any case, I find that too close to the bar is very difficult (especially high siding) and that my shoulder muscles give out. This can't be just me. Well, maybe it can.

[heaviek]

I struggled with this exact problem for some time myself (in regards to getting REALLY low).?? The body actually has more leverage the closer you are to the bar but that leverage is quickly offset by unknown muscle patterns. ??It’s the same logic in regards to hang height.? Imparting a force through the hands will be greater the shorter the “lever arm” is.? Try it on a door frame.? Stand arm distance away and push your palm into the wall.? Now more to within a few inches and see how much more force you can apply through your palm.??
?
We get used to balancing a glider by firing nerve signals to certain muscles groups. ?Muscle memory as some call it.? The brain learns a set of muscle reactions to sensory inputs from all sources, including nerves in the muscles themselves. ?When we try to change those muscle groups by hanging differently the brain struggles to establish new patterns. ??Invariably it holds onto the old ones, you counteract by doing pushups on the bar, and struggle all the more.? However, once you learn to balance a hang glider with new biomechanical reactions, using new muscle groups and increased leverage…life gets much easier.? Obviously individual biomechanics, joint mobility, strength, balance, and countless other factors make this a truly unique equation.? My point is, hang lower, get more roll control, get closer to the bar, get more weight shift authority.
?
If you use a chest mounted chute, plus a fist, I would think that would add up to more like 12 inches and can easily approach 2 feet..? Dropping 4-6 below that makes a difference and is still pretty comfortable.
?
Kev C
?

From: stevek [mailto:steven_kinsley@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 9:32 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Harness advice needed

?
While I agree that the lower you are the more leverage you have, I think this argument ignores body mechanics. If you hold up a bar 6 inches from your body side to side movement is easy. Hold it 3 inches or less from your body and it becomes very difficult because you can't employ your shoulders or your arms are bent too much -- not sure how to describe it . This is also dependent on how far out the bar is. If it is way out in front of you it is not as much of a problem. But bring it down to chest level and it gets really hard. In any case, I find that too close to the bar is very difficult (especially high siding) and that my shoulder muscles give out. This can't be just me. Well, maybe it can.

[Paul Tjaden]

????I am also purchasing a new harness; and think I have decided on the Rotor. But I have 3 questions. Kevin mentioned that you could build a chest plate for protection if you bought a harness with a side-mounted parachute (as the Rotor does) and felt you needed it. While I don't have to use my parachute that way very often anymore (as a pillow to land on!) I am of course concerned with being as safe as possible.
????So here are the questions. (1) Is having this additional protection a good idea, or is it really not necessary? (2) If it is indeed a good idea, how the heck would I go about making a plate, and does anyone have experience with this? (3) I assume this "chest plate", should I make one, would affect the fit of my harness -- and these harnesses are designed to be snug. It would be best to order my harness quickly, since there is often a wait for receiving them. Should I allow additional room for this plate? Advice, please. Thanks,
Lauren
PS. Sorry this is on Paul's email; the CHGPA site won't let me on this morning

[mcelrah]

And should the shape of the chest plate be modified for those of us who
have undergone breast augmentation surgery (oops, but I suppose you all
noticed already...) - Hugh

On 21 May 2005, at 08:08, Tjadenhors@aol.com wrote:

> ????I am also purchasing a new harness; and think I have decided on
> the Rotor. But I have 3 questions. Kevin mentioned that you could
> build a chest plate for protection if you bought a harness with a
> side-mounted parachute (as the Rotor does) and felt you needed it.
> While I don't have to use my parachute that way very often anymore (as
> a pillow to land on!) I am of course concerned with being as safe as
> possible.
> ????So here are the questions. (1) Is having this additional
> protection a good idea, or is it really not necessary? (2) If it is
> indeed a good idea, how the heck would I go about making a plate, and
> does anyone have experience with this? (3) I assume this "chest
> plate", should I make one, would affect the fit of my harness -- and
> these harnesses are designed to be snug. It would be best to order my
> harness quickly, since there is often a wait for receiving them.
> Should I allow additional room for this plate? Advice, please. Thanks,
> Lauren
> PS. Sorry this is on Paul's email; the CHGPA site won't let me on
> this morning
>
>
>
>

[Danny Brotto]

An insight to the added handling advantage to hanging lower from Paris Williams. He'll be @ Ridgley next week. Might make for discussion fodder:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paris Williams <parisflies> writes:

When I was working at Altair, we had the similar dilemma when designing the small Saturn. The problem is that small pilots obviously need smaller control frames to comfortably ground handle their glider, but if you hang them any higher (with a smaller frame), they lose a surprising amount of roll authority with only a short increase in hang height (the glider becomes much stiffer), and of course, small pilots need all the roll authority they can get.

So, after a lot of head scratching, I came up with the idea of simply shortening the basetube (considerably), so that hang height remains the same (or even slightly lower unless you shorten the downtubes just slightly), but the control frame is much narrower.

When we tried it, the benefits were even better than I had hoped for. Since the control from is now narrower, the whole frame sits quite a bit higher on the pilot's shoulders (now the part of the frame that matches the pilot's shoulders is considerably lower); and so the basetube is much higher off the ground. Also, with the frame being narrower, the pilot's leverage during ground handling and launch is much better.

Another major benefit that resulted was a much easier flare for landing--the narrower grip on flare gives you much more elbow bend to begin the flare with and so much more reach with which to get a good, solid flare. The only thing to consider is not making the basetube so narrow that the pilot's hips aren't hitting the tail wires during strong roll inputs in flight, but we found that there's still lots of room to work with here. We were definitely pleased with the results on the small Saturn.

The idea's so simple, I'm surprised more manufacturers don't incorporate it--just chop the basetube and adjust the wires, what could be simpler? Am I missing something here? This geometry can also be used just when you want to lower your hang height a bit to get some more roll (and pitch) authority out of a glider without compromising launch and ground handling.

Possible problems to consider when lowering hang height are the increase of drag when hanging lower (important for comp pilots and serious XC pilots) and a possibility that stall characteristics might sharpen and pitch recovery worsen (though this didn't seem to be an issue on the Saturn). I wouldn't advise that a pilot do this change to their own glider, however, without discussing it with the manufacturer, in case they think the problems I mentioned above or some other problems may exist with their particular glider.

Hoag, Grant <GHoag> writes about short control frames:

Ten years ago I ending up in the hospital for four days due to reducing the control frames. Because I am short, the control bar was hitting my ankles on the take off run. I shortened the down tubes by a few inches. As a result, I had less roll control in my diver. A few flights later I was ridge soaring when a gust turned me towards the hill. I was locked out, and crashed. Short people beware! Don't weaken your roll authority!

http://www.ozreport.com/6.254#4