Glider performance versus pilot ability...

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 12:42 pm

I'll probably take some heat for this---so let me say up-front that this post is not intended as criticism of anyone in particular! I'm simply making a general observation.

Since I began hang gliding I've noticed what I perceive as some pilots rushing to move up to high-performance gliders (e.g. the U2, Talon, Litesport, etc.). I'm wondering if the choice of glider was even a small factor in any accidents which have occurred in the past couple years. In Holly's case, it was definitely a factor, and she admits it.

PLEASE don't get angry with me by "reading between the lines" and assuming I'm criticizing anyone's choice of glider. I'm not! Nor do I believe I "know better." It's just that I've been through emotional hell and back over the past few weeks with Holly (inconsequential compared to what she's been through)...and I've perceived a lack of discussion of the glider-performance-vs-pilot-ability factor in accident reports and analyses.

Note my use of the word "perceive." These comments are my perception, which may or may not coincide with reality!

The issue of "how much glider" seems to be one that is often discussed privately behind closed doors (e.g. I've heard several different people say things like "He/she shouldn't have been flying that glider...") but is rarely discussed openly in a public forum. Why is this "taboo?"

I'm NOT making any judgements about any pilots...rather, I'm just wondering "out loud" whether flying a high-performance wing really makes such a huge difference in performance that it justifies possibly getting one before a given pilot is experienced enough to fly it? (Or even getting one at all?)

I fully understand there are many factors which contribute to accidents other than glider performance. I also fully understand that everyone is different, has different skill levels, different learning rates, and some people get more airtime than others.

I just think that in all our discussions of mental, physical, and meteorological conditions...the choice of glider and the pilot's experience with that glider (right or wrong, short or long) should be considered as part of the mix of factors contributing to an accident. Because it doesn't seem that glider performance is irrelevant.

In closing, I've been taking a hard look at my motivation for wanting a higher-performance glider...and whether I really need that extra performance to enjoy the sport? And I'm asking myself, does the performance make a huge difference? Or is it possible that I'm just a little competitive, or a little jealous, or just have a "gear obsession?"

Even after buying a new Eagle (which I'm truly happy with), I still look with envy at pilots with Sport 2s and find myself a little upset that they might glide farther/faster than me. But then I remind myself that the world's best pilots could kick many of our butts in a Falcon---which is proof that I've got plenty to learn to improve my performance that doesn't involve a higher-performance wing.

Scott

rancerupp · Post by **rancerupp** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:16 pm

Scott,

Funny thing, I was just discussing this with another pilot in NC. I told him that I couldn't see myself moving up to anything past a Sport 2 for a long long time, but that's just me. I'm not the guy who rushes to the Mt. or the flight park every time there's the slightest chance of some lift, but I do get out. With that, I'm not sure my level of skill could justify a higher performance glider. Even if I decided at some point to fly in a local competition, I couldn't see myself using anything past a Sport 2.

Keep in mind this is from a guy w/o a lot of different glider experience. Main reason is that I wouldn't want to trade off any more controllability than the Sport 2 gives. I just don't think I fly enough to qualify for the skills required for a U2 or higher. I may not ever get to that point either, but that's OK with me.

Setup difficulty comes in next with weight being my last factor but that's another discussion.

Rance (34 battens and counting, Arrrrguh)

Post by **brianvh** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:22 pm

Scott -
people do discuss the performance factor in accidents, but I think
it's seen as so obvious that no-one makes a big deal of it. When people
buy a glider it usually comes with alot of counselling and the expectation
that people will work to get to know the glider. When a mistake is made
during the learning process all someone needs to say is "I misjudged my
glide" and everyone knows the background. After making such an investment
most people won't give up learning to fly it that easily. A few people
will backpaddle and move back down to a lower performance wing.

Ralph and I have flown falcons for years just because of the
comfort level. I've made forays into double surface gliders (and will do
so again now that they've been pacified somewhat), but don't think folks
are necessarily making a mistake moving up so long as they are willing to
put in the extra work. It's the extra work that worries me. I'm not sure
whether I'm cautious or lazy.

Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149

batmanh3 · Post by **batmanh3** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:38 pm

Scott -

While I agree to a point, there is also the fact that some personal goals cannot be set in a Falcon. With a safe approach to learning, a pilot can reasonably fly any glider as long as the proper learning curve is followed. The pilot must also, while setting goals, set personal restrictions and hard decks. I'm getting back into my Talon, but I plan on spending my flight time at the AT parks vice heading into the smaller mountain LZs. Kevin Carter was criticized QUITE loudly for moving up to an UltraSport. Now hes the #1 rated U.S. pilot. He put in the time, the training and had the natural talent to succeed. Most pilots do not move up to a hi-per wing without a lot of planning and thought. If you feel uncomfortable about moving up to a hi-per wing, than don't until you are mentally ready. We all progress at different rates and you should go when you are ready. Just because an incident happens, you can't always attribute it to the glider. Much like guns don't kill people, people kill people .... gliders don't crash gliders, pilots crash gliders.

Batman

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:40 pm

Good points Rance and Brian. Not having experience with more advanced gliders, I don't know if flying them is...

a) just learning how they handle differently, compensating for that, and that's it! You're good to go, regardless of how often you fly...or...

b) not only having to compensate for their different handling, but having to stay on top of them by lots of regular flying to stay current? (In other words, having to fly them more often than you might need to fly a Falcon.)

Scott

PS - It may be true Brian that glider performance is so obvious a factor that it's taken for granted...but sometimes those "obvious" issues ought to be discussed...precisely because we sometimes forget about them (because we think they're so obvious).

PPS - I don't doubt that glider purchases are carefully considered. Having said that, I also know there are differing opinions about when it's appropriate (in terms of flying hours) for someone to move up the ladder...

Lauren Tjaden · Post by **Lauren Tjaden** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:42 pm

Scott <sw@shadepine.com> wrote:

Since I began hang gliding I've noticed what I perceive as some pilots rushing to move up to high-performance gliders (e.g. the U2, Talon, Litesport, etc.). I'm wondering if the choice of glider was even a small factor in any accidents which have occurred in the past couple years.
(Lauren) Sure the glider was a huge factor in the case of my accident. I am sure that I would not have had any problem with my Sport. I am very accurate judging its glide and also am intimately familiar with how it turns and what I can do with it

(Scott) I'm NOT making any judgements about any pilots...rather, I'm just wondering "out loud" whether flying a high-performance wing really makes such a huge difference in performance that it justifies possibly getting one before a given pilot is experienced enough to fly it? (Or even getting one at all?)

(Lauren) A?king-posted glider has?little chance of competing successfully against topless gliders, particularly in tasks that involve upwind or Xwind flying. The difference in performance is enormous. I am competing, so in my case it greatly behooves me to have a faster glider. That being said, I obviously still need to be able to fly whatever glider safely, no matter how reasonable my motives are. Even if a pilot doesn't compete, higher performance expands one's playground. A pilot can make longer XC flights, or simply stay up around the field longer. But a higher performance glider is more demanding, indisputeably.
NO reason is good enough for a pilot to get a glider that is too much for them too soon. Many pilots do indeed move up before they are ready to, and further, many don't fly enough to stay current on these more demanding gliders. I can't speak for others, but in my case, trying a U2 was not unreasonable given my time both on the Sport and flying in general. Although I only got it last fall, I have over 70 hours on it. The U2 is only one step above the Sport. Many, many pilots with far less mileage than I have have flown it just fine (which really stings). ?I stay very current. I got 8 hours this week. However, though the more experience I get the better, I don't think that flying the Sport for even another 100 hours would have totally prepared me for a U2. They are different creatures. I needed to allow more room for error. I thought I was being very conservative by flying it in easier conditions on my first flights, and with a fin initially. I made a mistake. I treated?the U2?like my Sport. I did not allow enough room for these mistakes that are certain to occur whenever a pilot transitions to a harder wing (does anyone have a football field I can practice landings in???). But you bring up a good issue.
Happy flying.
Lauren

I fully understand there are many factors which contribute to accidents other than glider performance. I also fully understand that everyone is different, has different skill levels, different learning rates, and some people get more airtime than others.

I just think that in all our discussions of mental, physical, and meteorological conditions...the choice of glider and the pilot's experience with that glider (right or wrong, short or long) should be considered as part of the mix of factors contributing to an accident. Because it doesn't seem that glider performance is irrelevant.

In closing, I've been taking a hard look at my motivation for wanting a higher-performance glider...and whether I really need that extra performance to enjoy the sport? And I'm asking myself, does the performance make a huge difference? Or is it possible that I'm just a little competitive, or a little jealous, or just have a "gear obsession?"

Even after buying a new Eagle (which I'm truly happy with), I still look with envy at pilots with Sport 2s and find myself a little upset that they might glide farther/faster than me. But then I remind myself that the world's best pilots could kick many of our butts in a Falcon---which is proof that I've got plenty to learn to improve my performance that doesn't involve a higher-performance wing.

Scott

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:44 pm

Good comments Chris too---I appreciate it! Again, my original post isn't to criticize, but to explore the issue and learn from it. I think the best way to learn about issues like these is to float them in a forum like this and soak up the responses---as opposed to being a "troll" and just trying to stir up trouble, which---contrary to what some might think---I'm not trying to do!

Scott

Post by **Matthew** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:59 pm

Hey Scott,

You're not perceiving anything. Pilots are always moving up to higher performance gliders when they don't really need them or don't really fly enough to warrant a high performance glider. It's just good old human nature. Certain people just have to have the newest, hottest latest thing. That said, there are equally as many people who don't move up to higher performance gliders and just as many who move up to higher perfomance gliders because their skill level, experience and goals warrant the purchase of a high performance glider. But basically, unless you plan on competing, there's no need to get a topless glider these days when you can get a U2 or Sport 2 or Discus or Litesport. This sport class of gliders will do just as well as topless gliders in every aspect except at speeds over 50mph or when trying to go upwind in a comp. And they are easier to tow, fly and land. If I hadn't recently spent 4300 bucks on vet bills, I'd be buying a U2. Its easier to fly and land than my Ultrasport and has a better glide.

I do, however, recommend that people take advantage of Fly-Ins and try out different gliders-- if they have the appropriate skill level. And even try out lower performance gliders and older gliders when you have the chance. Thus, if you are ever on vacation or dropping in at a flight park on a work trip and need to rent a glider, you won't be trying too many new things at one time. And it's just a lot of fun to fly different gliders.

Matthew

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:06 pm

Lauren said...

A king-posted glider has little chance of competing successfully against topless gliders, particularly in tasks that involve upwind or Xwind flying. The difference in performance is enormous. I am competing, so in my case it greatly behooves me to have a faster glider.

Another good point Lauren---I agree, competition is a completely different situation---you've got to be able to compete.

My post was more in the context of recreational, non-competition pilots.

Even if a pilot doesn't compete, higher performance expands one's playground. A pilot can make longer XC flights, or simply stay up around the field longer.

Is this really true? (Just friendly questioning---not mean-spirited argument! <smile>) I mean, if Pilot A on a Falcon has superior skills at finding and coring tight lift...than Pilot B, who flies a U2 but isn't very good at coring lift, will Pilot B still always fly higher/farther/longer than Pilot A? (My point simply questioning if pilot skill can make as much difference---possibly more---than the glider?)

Scott

Post by **brianvh** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:17 pm

Spaces between thermals are filled with generally lighter sink. A falcon
will never be able to make it through some of these areas like a higher
performance glider, regardless of pilot skill. An efficiently flown
falcon can still outthermal an inefficiently flown topless, but given
equally skilled pilots there's no contest (until you try to land in a
tight or unknown field).

Brian Vant-Hull
301-646-1149

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Scott wrote:

> Quote:
> Even if a pilot doesn't compete, higher performance expands one's playground. A pilot can make longer XC flights, or simply stay up around the field longer.
> (end of quote)
>
>
> Is this really true? (Just friendly questioning---not mean-spirited argument! <smile>) I mean, if Pilot A on a Falcon has superior skills at finding and coring tight lift...than Pilot B, who flies a U2 but isn't very good at coring lift, will Pilot B still always fly higher/farther/longer than Pilot A? (My point simply questioning if pilot skill can make as much difference---possibly more---than the glider?)
>
> Scott

heaviek · Post by **heaviek** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:26 pm

?
Scott, don’t let experienced pilots trick you into thinking they are simply sky gods and the wing has nothing to do with their flights

? The difference in performance can be very dramatic.?? You would be flat out amazed at what a new rigid wing or topless can do from cloudbase.? Pick a spot on the horizon and that’s where you could go.? I have glided to fields on the GPS I couldn’t even see halfway through the glide (30 miles).
?
The sink rates of the big wings is incredible as well.?? They can climb in lift barely strong enough to make your vario beep if you flew straight through it.
?
Kev Cy

From: Scott [mailto:sw@shadepine.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 8:07 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Glider performance versus pilot ability...

?
Lauren said...
Quote:
A king-posted glider has little chance of competing successfully against topless gliders, particularly in tasks that involve upwind or Xwind flying. The difference in performance is enormous. I am competing, so in my case it greatly behooves me to have a faster glider.

Another good point Lauren---I agree, competition is a completely different situation---you've got to be able to compete.

My post was more in the context of recreational, non-competition pilots.
Quote:
Even if a pilot doesn't compete, higher performance expands one's playground. A pilot can make longer XC flights, or simply stay up around the field longer.

Is this really true? (Just friendly questioning---not mean-spirited argument! <smile>) I mean, if Pilot A on a Falcon has superior skills at finding and coring tight lift...than Pilot B, who flies a U2 but isn't very good at coring lift, will Pilot B still always fly higher/farther/longer than Pilot A? (My point simply questioning if pilot skill can make as much difference---possibly more---than the glider?)

Scott

heaviek · Post by **heaviek** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:26 pm

?
I think as a community we should come up with some standard drills to do with new wings.? It seems that everyone runs into the same problems with a jump up.? Setting up the approach and not having the yaw timing down when they slip a turn.? It’s hard to slip a turn in a low perf glider.? If you try to snap a higher perf glider around you invariably slip the turns with the extra speed you just pulled on to get it to turn faster.? Now you have adverse yaw, now you have overcontrolling…and we all know where the story can go from there.
?
Kev C

From: Lauren Tjaden [mailto:giddyupandglide@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 7:43 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Re: Glider performance versus pilot ability...

?
Scott <sw
:

(Lauren) A?king-posted glider has?little chance of competing successfully against topless gliders, particularly in tasks that involve upwind or Xwind flying. The difference in performance is enormous. I am competing, so in my case it greatly behooves me to have a faster glider. That being said, I obviously still need to be able to fly whatever glider safely, no matter how reasonable my motives are. Even if a pilot doesn't compete, higher performance expands one's playground. A pilot can make longer XC flights, or simply stay up around the field longer. But a higher performance glider is more demanding, indisputeably.
NO reason is good enough for a pilot to get a glider that is too much for them too soon. Many pilots do indeed move up before they are ready to, and further, many don't fly enough to stay current on these more demanding gliders. I can't speak for others, but in my case, trying a U2 was not unreasonable given my time both on the Sport and flying in general. Although I only got it last fall, I have over 70 hours on it. The U2 is only one step above the Sport. Many, many pilots with far less mileage than I have have flown it just fine (which really stings). ?I stay very current. I got 8 hours this week. However, though the more experience I get the better, I don't think that flying the Sport for even another 100 hours would have totally prepared me for a U2. They are different creatures. I needed to allow more room for error. I thought I was being very conservative by flying it in easier conditions on my first flights, and with a fin initially. I made a mistake. I treated?the U2?like my Sport. I did not allow enough room for these mistakes that are certain to occur whenever a pilot transitions to a harder wing (does anyone have a football field I can practice landings in???). But you bring up a good issue.
Happy flying.
Lauren

I fully understand there are many factors which contribute to accidents other than glider performance. I also fully understand that everyone is different, has different skill levels, different learning rates, and some people get more airtime than others.

I just think that in all our discussions of mental, physical, and meteorological conditions...the choice of glider and the pilot's experience with that glider (right or wrong, short or long) should be considered as part of the mix of factors contributing to an accident. Because it doesn't seem that glider performance is irrelevant.

In closing, I've been taking a hard look at my motivation for wanting a higher-performance glider...and whether I really need that extra performance to enjoy the sport? And I'm asking myself, does the performance make a huge difference? Or is it possible that I'm just a little competitive, or a little jealous, or just have a "gear obsession?"

Even after buying a new Eagle (which I'm truly happy with), I still look with envy at pilots with Sport 2s and find myself a little upset that they might glide farther/faster than me. But then I remind myself that the world's best pilots could kick many of our butts in a Falcon---which is proof that I've got plenty to learn to improve my performance that doesn't involve a higher-performance wing.

Scott

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

heaviek · Post by **heaviek** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:26 pm

?
Chris, you are too kind.? Don’t forget I tried to pull off a parachute landing that worked so well in the Ultra Sport and Fusion in a fully tricked out comp glider.? I think the cows a mile away heard the pop when I neglected to buckle in a proper PLF.?? I think I watched too much He-man as a kid.? The power of grey skull was not with me that day.
?
Kev C

From: batmanh3 [mailto:batmanh3@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 7:39 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Glider performance versus pilot ability...

?
Scott -

Kevin Carter was criticized QUITE loudly for moving up to an UltraSport. Now hes the #1 rated U.S. pilot. He put in the time, the training and had the natural talent to succeed. Most pilots do not move up to a hi-per wing without a lot of planning and thought.

Christopher

heaviek · Post by **heaviek** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:26 pm

Scott you are right.? Too much glider can be a huge factor in incidents.?? Most pilots have a story connected to that factor in the equation.? Then again, all of our accidents could be connected to the fact that we chose to leave the ground.
?
Its all about reducing your margins of error.? If you reduce it with the glider, try to increase it with your choices.
?
Kev C
?

From: Scott [mailto:sw@shadepine.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 6:42 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Glider performance versus pilot ability...

?
I'll probably take some heat for this---so let me say up-front that this post is not intended as criticism of anyone in particular! I'm simply making a general observation.

Since I began hang gliding I've noticed what I perceive as some pilots rushing to move up to high-performance gliders (e.g. the U2, Talon, Litesport, etc.). I'm wondering if the choice of glider was even a small factor in any accidents which have occurred in the past couple years. In Holly's case, it was definitely a factor, and she admits it.

PLEASE don't get angry with me by "reading between the lines" and assuming I'm criticizing anyone's choice of glider. I'm not! Nor do I believe I "know better." It's just that I've been through emotional hell and back over the past few weeks with Holly (inconsequential compared to what she's been through)...and I've perceived a lack of discussion of the glider-performance-vs-pilot-ability factor in accident reports and analyses.

Note my use of the word "perceive." These comments are my perception, which may or may not coincide with reality!

The issue of "how much glider" seems to be one that is often discussed privately behind closed doors (e.g. I've heard several different people say things like "He/she shouldn't have been flying that glider...") but is rarely discussed openly in a public forum. Why is this "taboo?"

I'm NOT making any judgements about any pilots...rather, I'm just wondering "out loud" whether flying a high-performance wing really makes such a huge difference in performance that it justifies possibly getting one before a given pilot is experienced enough to fly it? (Or even getting one at all?)

I fully understand there are many factors which contribute to accidents other than glider performance. I also fully understand that everyone is different, has different skill levels, different learning rates, and some people get more airtime than others.

I just think that in all our discussions of mental, physical, and meteorological conditions...the choice of glider and the pilot's experience with that glider (right or wrong, short or long) should be considered as part of the mix of factors contributing to an accident. Because it doesn't seem that glider performance is irrelevant.

In closing, I've been taking a hard look at my motivation for wanting a higher-performance glider...and whether I really need that extra performance to enjoy the sport? And I'm asking myself, does the performance make a huge difference? Or is it possible that I'm just a little competitive, or a little jealous, or just have a "gear obsession?"

Even after buying a new Eagle (which I'm truly happy with), I still look with envy at pilots with Sport 2s and find myself a little upset that they might glide farther/faster than me. But then I remind myself that the world's best pilots could kick many of our butts in a Falcon---which is proof that I've got plenty to learn to improve my performance that doesn't involve a higher-performance wing.

Scott

MikeBalk · Post by **MikeBalk** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:14 pm

Quote:
Even if a pilot doesn't compete, higher performance expands one's playground. A pilot can make longer XC flights, or simply stay up around the field longer.

Scott:? Is this really true? (Just friendly questioning---not mean-spirited argument! <smile>) I mean, if Pilot A on a Falcon has superior skills at finding and coring tight lift...than Pilot B, who flies a U2 but isn't very good at coring lift, will Pilot B still always fly higher/farther/longer than Pilot A? (My point simply questioning if pilot skill can make as much difference---possibly more---than the glider?)

Absolutely.? Let’s say that Pilot A is Pete L. on his Falcon, and Pilot B is me on my XC.? I will always go farther than Pilot A.? Wait, I only went 25 miles, and Pete went 50 miles in his Falcon.? Come to think of it, I’ve never gone 50 miles, and Pete has gone over 100 in his Falcon.? So we can see from these examples that the Falcon is a better performing glider than my XC.
?
-Mike Balk
?
P.S. As in the example above, we see that most pilots don’t get all the performance they can from their current glider – look what can be done in a Falcon.? But if you take the same pilot on two different gliders, then the better performing glider will help the pilot.

?

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:19 pm

Thanks for the good feedback Kevin. I definitely want to fly XC someday, and maybe even compete. But I'm in no hurry...and I'd rather try to overcome handicaps (like glider performance) as much as possible by personal improvement...as opposed to mechanical improvement. I figure as long as someone like Kevin can still outfly me in a Falcon, there's no reason to move up and I still have plenty to learn.

I'm a bit hypocritical, because I jumped into an ultra-high-performance slalom racing canoe (a super-edgy boat) when I was just beginning in that sport. But...I paddled that boat every day (often twice a day) for a few years, and the worst that happened at first is that I flipped a lot. (Wouldn't want to do that in a glider.)

Scott

PS - I'd like to work more on drills where---at altitude---you pick a target to left/right of your current heading, then see how precisely you can turn and stop exactly on target...then see how fast you can do it...then see how you can do both with as little altitude loss as possible. (Might help?)

Scott · Post by **Scott** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:25 pm

MikeBalk wrote:Quote:P.S. As in the example above, we see that most pilots don?t get all the performance they can from their current glider ? look what can be done in a Falcon.? But if you take the same pilot on two different gliders, then the better performing glider will help the pilot.

Funny post Mike!

Your last point is great. Sort of reminds me of software...where the industry aids and abets our own "techno-gluttony" by helping us think we've GOT to have Office 2004 or Photoshop 8.0...when we never used more than 10% of the features of last year's version (or any year before that...).

Scott

Paul Tjaden · Post by **Paul Tjaden** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:10 pm

Seems that this subject was addressed at length today but I just got on line and thought I'd throw in my two cents.
?
Flying higher performance gliders can definitely be a factor in safety and you should always consider your motivation for wanting to fly one as well as your current skill level, experience and currency. You can be a Hang 4 with hundreds of hours but if you aren't flying on a VERY regular basis, you probably should not be flying a high performance wing.
?
Transitioning to a new and hotter wing can increase your risk but it can be safely done as long as it's well thought out. Flying in familiar places and increasing your safety margins for LZ size, wind strength, etc. can make the transition smooth.
?
Does the performance make a serious difference? Yeah, Pete L. might be able to fly 100 miles in a Falcon but he flew 335 miles in his Talon. In Florida, I watched Davis Straub try relentlessly to fly long distances in a Falcon and bomb out with 10 or 15 miles. Then he would strap on his ATOS and?fly 150 KM?triangles with no trouble. I actually beat the four time world champion into goal one day because he was flying a top flex wing but I was flying a rigid. I wouldn't have been in the same county had I been flying his wing.
?
Even if you don't plan on going XC or competing you can fly longer and higher over?your favorite?field because you can glide between thermals quicker and get there without loosing so much altitude.
?
People fly for many reasons and many are content to enjoy the pure joys of free flying on a simple and easy wing. I have always been more competitive and love to watch the miles tick off on my GPS. Different strokes you know. I may have had an extra bump or bruise (or broken arm) because of my more aggressive attitude but to me it's been worth it.
?
Paul T.
?
Or you could just get a rigid wing and have an easy flying wing that goes a LONG way!
?
BTW, I have seen the LITESPORT lumped into the category of intermediate wings a couple of times and I don't believe this is correct. Unless they have changed it lately, Moyes lists this glider as an advanced king posted glider. I believe it has the same planform as the LITESPEED with the only difference being the king post. ?Gerolf? (the designer) even won a tough national comp in Australia with it.

jimrooney · Post by **jimrooney** » Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:47 pm

Something to bear in mind...

Higher performing gliders not only require a higher skill level to fly them, they also require a higher level currency to fly them safely.

When chosing a glider, we ask at what level does one fly... the question of how often do you fly can sometimes get missed.

"How much glider" may seem taboo at times because you don't discuss negative or sensitive topics with people in public. It's not just a social niceity, it works better... people are far more receptive if they're not put in a potentially defensive posture. A good bedside manner goes a long way.

It's an easy thing to say someone shouldn't fly a more advanced glider than what they have. The thing is though that when stepping up to a higher level glider, you are by definition stretching your abilities. A common mistake that everyone I know has made (myself included) is to fly a new glider like it's your old glider. A momentary lapse (especially during a stressful event) and muscle memory kicks in.

As for how much is enough... well that's a personal question.
The guidelines I go by are something like this...

#1 How often do you fly?
A higher performance wing can only help you if you're not in a hospital.

#2 How well do you thermal?
#2b How well do you find the next thermal?

Higher performance wings gain you one thing... glide (and it comes at a cost). A paraglider in skilled hands will handily outclimb a hang glider, just as hang gliders outclimb sailplanes. You sacrifice handling and turn radius for glide. The point at which that tradeoff becomes a gain instead of a loss is a personal one. It's all relative to your thermalling skills. A good glide gains you nothing if you're plowing through sink or if you're blasting through thermals.

As for accidents, they generally seem to start with "I got in a rush". At least mine all have in one way or an other.

$.02USD
Jim

Post by **SheilaGardner** » Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:07 pm

Can someone send me the passwords for the members only area of the
chgpa site? Thanks in advance! Sheila
sheilaboyle@yourinter.net

Flying Lobster · Post by **Flying Lobster** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 8:22 am

Some of us "old-timers" actually get a kick out of going in the opposite direction. In other words, there's something very appealing to accomplishing alot with minimal means. That's why I like flying paragliders and single-surfaces alot. The shear numbers may not be as impressive, but the same challenges remain, and therefore your distances are all that more impressive.

Its interesting how often pilots are taken by surprise by flying new gliders (I'm not referring to Lauren or anyone in particular). I'm of the thought that maybe reading through the owner's manual before trying it out should be required for anyone demoing them. Wills Wing manuals, for example, are quite simple and clear about how to land their gliders and the dangers associated with things such as "slipping" turns.

Higher performing gliders like the U2, while getting easier to handle and land, are higher performing cause they simply go faster easier and more efficiently. Speed equals retained energy. Its that retained energy which I think is the biggest challenge for pilots new to higher performing gliders to come to grips with, meaning understanding how to handle it and what can go wrong under what circumstances.

marc

heaviek · Post by **heaviek** » Wed Jun 29, 2005 11:36 am

?
That’s the kind of practice I am talking about in transitioning gliders.? Ironically it is also a minimum hang 2 requirement.
?
Kev C

From: Scott [mailto:sw@shadepine.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 11:19 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Glider performance versus pilot ability...

?

PS - I'd like to work more on drills where---at altitude---you pick a target to left/right of your current heading, then see how precisely you can turn and stop exactly on target...then see how fast you can do it...then see how you can do both with as little altitude loss as possible. (Might help?)

Post by **mcelrah** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:51 pm

Sooo, is the U2 just a Talon with a kingpost? - Hugh

On 27 Jun 2005, at 22:10, Tjadenhors@aol.com wrote:

> Seems that this subject was addressed at length today but I just got
> on line and thought I'd throw in my two cents.
> ?
> Flying higher performance gliders can definitely be a factor in
> safety and you should always consider your motivation for wanting to
> fly one as well as your current skill level, experience and currency.
> You can be a Hang 4 with hundreds of hours but if you aren't flying on
> a VERY regular basis, you probably should not be flying a high
> performance wing.
> ?
> Transitioning to a new and hotter wing can increase your risk but it
> can be safely done as long as it's well thought out. Flying in
> familiar places and increasing your safety margins for LZ size, wind
> strength, etc. can make the transition smooth.
> ?
> Does the performance make a serious difference? Yeah, Pete L. might
> be able to fly 100 miles in a Falcon but he flew 335 miles in his
> Talon. In Florida, I watched Davis Straub try relentlessly to fly long
> distances in a Falcon and bomb out with 10 or 15 miles. Then he would
> strap on his ATOS and?fly 150 KM?triangles with no trouble. I actually
> beat the four time world champion into goal one day because he was
> flying a top flex wing but I was flying a rigid. I wouldn't have been
> in the same county had I been flying his wing.
> ?
> Even if you don't plan on going XC or competing you can fly longer
> and higher over?your favorite?field because you can glide between
> thermals quicker and get there without loosing so much altitude.
> ?
> People fly for many reasons and many are content to enjoy the pure
> joys of free flying on a simple and easy wing. I have always been more
> competitive and love to watch the miles tick off on my GPS. Different
> strokes you know. I may have had an extra bump or bruise (or broken
> arm) because of my more aggressive attitude but to me it's been worth
> it.
> ?
> Paul T.
> ?
> Or you could just get a rigid wing and have an easy flying wing that
> goes a LONG way!
> ?
> BTW, I have seen the LITESPORT lumped into the category of
> intermediate wings a couple of times and I don't believe this is
> correct. Unless they have changed it lately, Moyes lists this glider
> as an advanced king posted glider. I believe it has the same planform
> as the LITESPEED with the only difference being the king post.
> ?Gerolf? (the designer) even won a tough national comp in Australia
> with it.
>
>
>
>

Post by **mcelrah** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:59 pm

Reminds me of a business school case study: Howard Head made a fortune
by inventing the springy fiberglass ski (Head skis), which opened up
the sport to a much larger population of amateurs. Then he retired and
took up tennis. But he was a lousy tennis player. However, Howard did
not accept this; he blamed the racket - and went on to invent the
large-head tennis racket (first marketed under the Prince brand, since
Howard had sold the rights to "Head" to AMF). Good equipment makes
even lousy pilots perform better... - Hugh

On 27 Jun 2005, at 17:25, Scott wrote:

> MikeBalk wrote:
> Quote:P.S. As in the example above, we see that most pilots don?t get
> all the performance they can from their current glider ? look what can
> be done in a Falcon.? But if you take the same pilot on two different
> gliders, then the better performing glider will help the pilot.
>
>
> Funny post Mike! <icon_biggrin.gif> Your last point is great. Sort
> of reminds me of software...where the industry aids and abets our own
> "techno-gluttony" by helping us think we've GOT to have Office 2004 or
> Photoshop 8.0...when we never used more than 10% of the features of
> last year's version (or any year before that...).
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>

Post by **mcelrah** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:50 pm

Scott,
Ditto your caveat about "no criticism of anyone intended" - but I
actually find the U2 easier to fly and land than my Eagle. My
motivations for moving up were also "safety" oriented rather than a
desire for competitive performance: after having to carefully crawl
out in front of Daniel's in my Falcon on a windy day, I got interested
in something with a bit more performance (the Eagle). After my first
XC in the Eagle, I was starting to think of moving up, but what really
happened is I got an offer to take BOTH the Falcon and the Eagle in
trade on the U2. (I had also been advised that the Sport 2 was not
enough of a step up in performance over the Eagle.) Almost a year
later, I'm still learning this wing - just had my first aerotows
without a strap-on fin last month. Not sure I'm ready to try putting
the U2 into Daniel's LZ yet, either. But the payoff in terms of XC
has been huge - and as they say, you always pick landing fields that
are bigger than the towpark. Now that I've got the U2, this may be the
level I stick with, but the designers may have succeeded in making a
topless that's easy enough for even the likes of me to fly and land.
Sunny told me to forget about it for now, but maybe in a year I'll demo
a T2... 'Course, there are plenty of other directions to grow in: PG,
tandem - I think that's why this sport is so addictive - it's an
Everest of learning. - Hugh

On 27 Jun 2005, at 12:42, Scott wrote:

> I'll probably take some heat for this---so let me say up-front that
> this post is not intended as criticism of anyone in particular! I'm
> simply making a general observation.
>
> Since I began hang gliding I've noticed what I perceive as some
> pilots rushing to move up to high-performance gliders (e.g. the U2,
> Talon, Litesport, etc.). I'm wondering if the choice of glider was
> even a small factor in any accidents which have occurred in the past
> couple years. In Holly's case, it was definitely a factor, and she
> admits it.
>
> PLEASE don't get angry with me by "reading between the lines" and
> assuming I'm criticizing anyone's choice of glider. I'm not! Nor do I
> believe I "know better." It's just that I've been through emotional
> hell and back over the past few weeks with Holly (inconsequential
> compared to what she's been through)...and I've perceived a lack of
> discussion of the glider-performance-vs-pilot-ability factor in
> accident reports and analyses.
>
> Note my use of the word "perceive." These comments are my perception,
> which may or may not coincide with reality!
>
> The issue of "how much glider" seems to be one that is often
> discussed privately behind closed doors (e.g. I've heard several
> different people say things like "He/she shouldn't have been flying
> that glider...") but is rarely discussed openly in a public forum. Why
> is this "taboo?"
>
> I'm NOT making any judgements about any pilots...rather, I'm just
> wondering "out loud" whether flying a high-performance wing really
> makes such a huge difference in performance that it justifies possibly
> getting one before a given pilot is experienced enough to fly it? (Or
> even getting one at all?)
>
> I fully understand there are many factors which contribute to
> accidents other than glider performance. I also fully understand that
> everyone is different, has different skill levels, different learning
> rates, and some people get more airtime than others.
>
> I just think that in all our discussions of mental, physical, and
> meteorological conditions...the choice of glider and the pilot's
> experience with that glider (right or wrong, short or long) should be
> considered as part of the mix of factors contributing to an accident.
> Because it doesn't seem that glider performance is irrelevant.
>
> In closing, I've been taking a hard look at my motivation for wanting
> a higher-performance glider...and whether I really need that extra
> performance to enjoy the sport? And I'm asking myself, does the
> performance make a huge difference? Or is it possible that I'm just a
> little competitive, or a little jealous, or just have a "gear
> obsession?"
>
> Even after buying a new Eagle (which I'm truly happy with), I still
> look with envy at pilots with Sport 2s and find myself a little upset
> that they might glide farther/faster than me. But then I remind myself
> that the world's best pilots could kick many of our butts in a
> Falcon---which is proof that I've got plenty to learn to improve my
> performance that doesn't involve a higher-performance wing.
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>

chgpa.org