> but I actually find the U2 easier to fly and land than my Eagle.
> Not sure I'm ready to try putting the U2 into Daniel's LZ yet, either.
I think I'm missing something here. These statements seem to contradict each other. I wouldn't call a U2 easier in any respects than an Eagle. I would however call a Sport 2 easier. Or is it that you would not land an Eagle at Daniel's either?
No critisim intended... merley confused.
Jim
Glider performance versus pilot ability...
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Man, all sorts of opinions flying! 
Seems to me like there is simply a wide range of pilot skill levels, which can have an impact on pilots' perceptions of how a given glider flies. If someone flies an Eagle into the trees (not referring to you Hugh!), they're more likely to say the Eagle is a hard glider to fly...conversely, if someone nails every landing on their U2, they're more likely to say it's an easy-to-fly glider. If someone often finds themselves in widespread, booming lift, they're more likely to say glider "x" is a sweet-thermaling glider.
The longer I fly, the more convinced I am that many of us non-comp pilots (certainly including myself) don't bank tightly enough (or fly slow enough) when coring tight thermals. So we fall out of them. This can make a HUGE difference in flights---regardless of the glider.
I also believe that many non-comp pilots have less-than-awesome upper body strength (shoulders, biceps, triceps, neck, etc.) and/or fly with too much tension. This can make a HUGE difference in flights. Many non-comp pilots (myself included) aren't anywhere near proficient at mentally mapping small thermals and understanding triggers.
I guess the point I've been making all along is that there are MANYways to make a dramatic improvement in one's flying---in all conditions---other than moving up to a higher-performance wing. I think people in general (myself included) are too quick to seek mechanical means of improvement...instead of internal means.
Scott
Seems to me like there is simply a wide range of pilot skill levels, which can have an impact on pilots' perceptions of how a given glider flies. If someone flies an Eagle into the trees (not referring to you Hugh!), they're more likely to say the Eagle is a hard glider to fly...conversely, if someone nails every landing on their U2, they're more likely to say it's an easy-to-fly glider. If someone often finds themselves in widespread, booming lift, they're more likely to say glider "x" is a sweet-thermaling glider. The longer I fly, the more convinced I am that many of us non-comp pilots (certainly including myself) don't bank tightly enough (or fly slow enough) when coring tight thermals. So we fall out of them. This can make a HUGE difference in flights---regardless of the glider.
I also believe that many non-comp pilots have less-than-awesome upper body strength (shoulders, biceps, triceps, neck, etc.) and/or fly with too much tension. This can make a HUGE difference in flights. Many non-comp pilots (myself included) aren't anywhere near proficient at mentally mapping small thermals and understanding triggers.
I guess the point I've been making all along is that there are MANYways to make a dramatic improvement in one's flying---in all conditions---other than moving up to a higher-performance wing. I think people in general (myself included) are too quick to seek mechanical means of improvement...instead of internal means.
Scott
I wouldn't be so quick to have everything figured out.
Do people over attribute glider performance/handling to the conditions they fly in? For the most part yes. Does this change the reality of the gliders? Not a chance. Does this invalidate their oppinion? No. Listen to the oppinion, consider the source and weigh it accordingly. Perception is not reality.
I feel the need to squash this one before it gets out of hand... An Eagle is in NO WAY easier to fly than a U2. I've seen too many people figure this one out the hard way. Please approach higher level gliders with caution. Should you fail to do so, you may be smitten.
In general, do pilots not bank hard enough? It depends.
Do they fly slow enough? I think they fly too slow.
I'd say it more like this... pilots have trouble finding and staying in cores. They don't bank up steeply enough when it is appropriate to do so because they know it's riskier. Should they fail in their efforts, they loose more than they gain (perhaps losing the position of the thermal). So it's safer to fly around the core and play the averages game... at least they don't lose the thermal all together.
Yeah, it's a mouthfull. It's not a nice brushoff soundbite.
I think you rehash what you hear from others and call it your own. Someone's been feeding you this stuff and you've been eating it up. You speak from a position of experience and authority when you have neither.
When someone calls you out, you call it inciting lively discussion. I call it a lack of social skills and a display of ignorance.
Nowhere in your discussion have you even mentioned the primary reason pilots seek higher performance gliders... they're buying a glider that they hope will last them for the next 5-10 years. They know in that time that their skills will improve. So what they're really looking for is a glider they fly reasonably well on now and will be able to master through its life. It's a big decision monitarily and from a safety standpoint.
Jim
Do people over attribute glider performance/handling to the conditions they fly in? For the most part yes. Does this change the reality of the gliders? Not a chance. Does this invalidate their oppinion? No. Listen to the oppinion, consider the source and weigh it accordingly. Perception is not reality.
I feel the need to squash this one before it gets out of hand... An Eagle is in NO WAY easier to fly than a U2. I've seen too many people figure this one out the hard way. Please approach higher level gliders with caution. Should you fail to do so, you may be smitten.
In general, do pilots not bank hard enough? It depends.
Do they fly slow enough? I think they fly too slow.
I'd say it more like this... pilots have trouble finding and staying in cores. They don't bank up steeply enough when it is appropriate to do so because they know it's riskier. Should they fail in their efforts, they loose more than they gain (perhaps losing the position of the thermal). So it's safer to fly around the core and play the averages game... at least they don't lose the thermal all together.
Yeah, it's a mouthfull. It's not a nice brushoff soundbite.
I think you rehash what you hear from others and call it your own. Someone's been feeding you this stuff and you've been eating it up. You speak from a position of experience and authority when you have neither.
When someone calls you out, you call it inciting lively discussion. I call it a lack of social skills and a display of ignorance.
Nowhere in your discussion have you even mentioned the primary reason pilots seek higher performance gliders... they're buying a glider that they hope will last them for the next 5-10 years. They know in that time that their skills will improve. So what they're really looking for is a glider they fly reasonably well on now and will be able to master through its life. It's a big decision monitarily and from a safety standpoint.
Jim
Glider performance versus pilot ability...
Flare behavior in the U2 seems more predictable than the Eagle, but
there is still a flatter final glide compared to lower performance
wings. Daniel's is sort of tight - need to find a way to practice
restricted field landings first (Woodstock is so familiar and sloped
that it doesn't count). - Hugh
On 5 Jul 2005, at 23:29, jimrooney wrote:
> > but I actually find the U2 easier to fly and land than my Eagle.
> > Not sure I'm ready to try putting the U2 into Daniel's LZ yet,
> either.
>
> I think I'm missing something here. These statements seem to
> contradict each other. I wouldn't call a U2 easier in any respects
> than an Eagle. I would however call a Sport 2 easier. Or is it that
> you would not land an Eagle at Daniel's either?
>
> No critisim intended... merley confused.
> Jim
>
>
>
>
there is still a flatter final glide compared to lower performance
wings. Daniel's is sort of tight - need to find a way to practice
restricted field landings first (Woodstock is so familiar and sloped
that it doesn't count). - Hugh
On 5 Jul 2005, at 23:29, jimrooney wrote:
> > but I actually find the U2 easier to fly and land than my Eagle.
> > Not sure I'm ready to try putting the U2 into Daniel's LZ yet,
> either.
>
> I think I'm missing something here. These statements seem to
> contradict each other. I wouldn't call a U2 easier in any respects
> than an Eagle. I would however call a Sport 2 easier. Or is it that
> you would not land an Eagle at Daniel's either?
>
> No critisim intended... merley confused.
> Jim
>
>
>
>
Glider performance versus pilot ability...
Bah! Humbug! - I think it was Lauren who posted last year about
"cheaters" - the remarkable difference that equipment makes. If a
bolt sticks, go get a bigger wrench (you can apply more torque and
still have control so you don't twist the head off). I will
acknowledge that U2 landing behavior is "different", not necessarily
"easier" than the Eagle - but it's pretty damn benign. More
performance doesn't necessarily mean more dangerous or harder. (There
is more physical effort required to turn the U2, especially with lots
of VG pulled in.) - Hugh
On 6 Jul 2005, at 06:22, Scott wrote:
> Man, all sorts of opinions flying! <icon_smile.gif> Seems to me like
> there is simply a wide range of pilot skill levels, which can have an
> impact on pilots' perceptions of how a given glider flies. If someone
> flies an Eagle into the trees (not referring to you Hugh!), they're
> more likely to say the Eagle is a hard glider to fly...conversely, if
> someone nails every landing on their U2, they're more likely to say
> it's an easy-to-fly glider. If someone often finds themselves in
> widespread, booming lift, they're more likely to say glider "x" is a
> sweet-thermaling glider. <icon_smile.gif>
>
> The longer I fly, the more convinced I am that many of us non-comp
> pilots (certainly including myself) don't bank tightly enough (or fly
> slow enough) when coring tight thermals. So we fall out of them. This
> can make a HUGE difference in flights---regardless of the glider.
>
> I also believe that many non-comp pilots have less-than-awesome upper
> body strength (shoulders, biceps, triceps, neck, etc.) and/or fly with
> too much tension. This can make a HUGE difference in flights. Many
> non-comp pilots (myself included) aren't anywhere near proficient at
> mentally mapping small thermals and understanding triggers.
>
> I guess the point I've been making all along is that there are
> MANYways to make a dramatic improvement in one's flying---in all
> conditions---other than moving up to a higher-performance wing. I
> think people in general (myself included) are too quick to seek
> mechanical means of improvement...instead of internal means.
> <icon_smile.gif>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
"cheaters" - the remarkable difference that equipment makes. If a
bolt sticks, go get a bigger wrench (you can apply more torque and
still have control so you don't twist the head off). I will
acknowledge that U2 landing behavior is "different", not necessarily
"easier" than the Eagle - but it's pretty damn benign. More
performance doesn't necessarily mean more dangerous or harder. (There
is more physical effort required to turn the U2, especially with lots
of VG pulled in.) - Hugh
On 6 Jul 2005, at 06:22, Scott wrote:
> Man, all sorts of opinions flying! <icon_smile.gif> Seems to me like
> there is simply a wide range of pilot skill levels, which can have an
> impact on pilots' perceptions of how a given glider flies. If someone
> flies an Eagle into the trees (not referring to you Hugh!), they're
> more likely to say the Eagle is a hard glider to fly...conversely, if
> someone nails every landing on their U2, they're more likely to say
> it's an easy-to-fly glider. If someone often finds themselves in
> widespread, booming lift, they're more likely to say glider "x" is a
> sweet-thermaling glider. <icon_smile.gif>
>
> The longer I fly, the more convinced I am that many of us non-comp
> pilots (certainly including myself) don't bank tightly enough (or fly
> slow enough) when coring tight thermals. So we fall out of them. This
> can make a HUGE difference in flights---regardless of the glider.
>
> I also believe that many non-comp pilots have less-than-awesome upper
> body strength (shoulders, biceps, triceps, neck, etc.) and/or fly with
> too much tension. This can make a HUGE difference in flights. Many
> non-comp pilots (myself included) aren't anywhere near proficient at
> mentally mapping small thermals and understanding triggers.
>
> I guess the point I've been making all along is that there are
> MANYways to make a dramatic improvement in one's flying---in all
> conditions---other than moving up to a higher-performance wing. I
> think people in general (myself included) are too quick to seek
> mechanical means of improvement...instead of internal means.
> <icon_smile.gif>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
Glider performance versus pilot ability...
"Easier to fly" depends on who is saying that. What their experience with
other gliders is. Conditions, and where they fly.
One thing you can say is that different gliders have different
characteristics. Remember, flying is takeoff, in-flight, and landing. The
in-flight part is easy, it is the takeoff and landing that we need to be
concerned about.
If a U2 is truly easier to fly, why don't we sell Hang 1s a U2 rather than
the difficult to fly Falcon?
What do we mean by easier? Usually with a higher performing glider there is
less bar pressure. Less pressure = less muscle use and less fatiguing, but
it only means 'easier' if you are capable of handling the different inputs.
If you fly a falcon, then fast means stuffing the bar and using a lot of
muscle. If you stuff the bar on a U2 and keep stuffing until you feel the
bar pressure increase, then you will have the bar at your knees and be going
VERY FAST. If you figure that out quickly, you should be OK, but both in
the mountains and towing, you only have a second before something could go
seriously wrong.
Landing is similar. A falcon can land in a very short space, and flaring is
pretty easy. A U2 has much better energy retention, and unless you know how
to deal with that, (avoid slipping turns, avoid coming in too high, etc.)
you will find it easier to crash.
There are different classifications of gliders for a reason. Most pilots
should progress slowly up the chain. That doesn't mean you have to get a
new glider every year. It depends on how often you fly, the conditions,
your expectations. I've seen pilots take too big of a step up in glider,
and scare themselves out of the sport -- they weren't ready for the upgrade.
I've seen people stay on entry or intermediate gliders for years because
they are just fun to fly.
FYI: I flew the U2 and the T2 at Ridgely and have decided that for my
current level of flying and enjoyment, I am going with the U2. The T2 was
just a little too much for me at this time. I've been flying for 14 years
now, and this is only my 4th glider. 3 gliders for 14 years is almost 5
years apiece. Slow for some, fast for others.
When you do decide to test fly a new glider, fly it in calm conditions with
big landing fields. Tow parks are great for this, tell the tow operator
this is your first flight on this glider and to do big gentle turns (or for
truck towing, go straight!). When you are free flying, test the glider out.
Do a slow progression stall; fly fast; do some turns; with VG and without.
Get a feel for how it performs. When you come in for a landing, give
yourself a LOT of space. Make big wide turns, and set yourself up for a
very long final. So what if you have to walk a ways - I bet you fly further
on final than you thought!
-Mike Balk
other gliders is. Conditions, and where they fly.
One thing you can say is that different gliders have different
characteristics. Remember, flying is takeoff, in-flight, and landing. The
in-flight part is easy, it is the takeoff and landing that we need to be
concerned about.
If a U2 is truly easier to fly, why don't we sell Hang 1s a U2 rather than
the difficult to fly Falcon?
What do we mean by easier? Usually with a higher performing glider there is
less bar pressure. Less pressure = less muscle use and less fatiguing, but
it only means 'easier' if you are capable of handling the different inputs.
If you fly a falcon, then fast means stuffing the bar and using a lot of
muscle. If you stuff the bar on a U2 and keep stuffing until you feel the
bar pressure increase, then you will have the bar at your knees and be going
VERY FAST. If you figure that out quickly, you should be OK, but both in
the mountains and towing, you only have a second before something could go
seriously wrong.
Landing is similar. A falcon can land in a very short space, and flaring is
pretty easy. A U2 has much better energy retention, and unless you know how
to deal with that, (avoid slipping turns, avoid coming in too high, etc.)
you will find it easier to crash.
There are different classifications of gliders for a reason. Most pilots
should progress slowly up the chain. That doesn't mean you have to get a
new glider every year. It depends on how often you fly, the conditions,
your expectations. I've seen pilots take too big of a step up in glider,
and scare themselves out of the sport -- they weren't ready for the upgrade.
I've seen people stay on entry or intermediate gliders for years because
they are just fun to fly.
FYI: I flew the U2 and the T2 at Ridgely and have decided that for my
current level of flying and enjoyment, I am going with the U2. The T2 was
just a little too much for me at this time. I've been flying for 14 years
now, and this is only my 4th glider. 3 gliders for 14 years is almost 5
years apiece. Slow for some, fast for others.
When you do decide to test fly a new glider, fly it in calm conditions with
big landing fields. Tow parks are great for this, tell the tow operator
this is your first flight on this glider and to do big gentle turns (or for
truck towing, go straight!). When you are free flying, test the glider out.
Do a slow progression stall; fly fast; do some turns; with VG and without.
Get a feel for how it performs. When you come in for a landing, give
yourself a LOT of space. Make big wide turns, and set yourself up for a
very long final. So what if you have to walk a ways - I bet you fly further
on final than you thought!
-Mike Balk
Glider performance versus pilot ability...
?
Staying in a core is easy, finding it is where people miss out.? They wallow around in the crappy turbulence on the edge of something and think they are just falling in and out of a core that actually isn’t there.
Kev C
Staying in a core is easy, finding it is where people miss out.? They wallow around in the crappy turbulence on the edge of something and think they are just falling in and out of a core that actually isn’t there.
Kev C
Glider performance versus pilot ability...
Most importantly do fast roll rate turns and turns at different bar
positions and bank angles to closely monitor how much the glider speeds up
for a each variable. Without that programmed in you are flying blind on
approach.
Kev C
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Balk [mailto:mike@talismanenterprises.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 4:43 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: RE: Glider performance versus pilot ability...
"Easier to fly" depends on who is saying that. What their experience with
other gliders is. Conditions, and where they fly.
One thing you can say is that different gliders have different
characteristics. Remember, flying is takeoff, in-flight, and landing. The
in-flight part is easy, it is the takeoff and landing that we need to be
concerned about.
If a U2 is truly easier to fly, why don't we sell Hang 1s a U2 rather than
the difficult to fly Falcon?
What do we mean by easier? Usually with a higher performing glider there is
less bar pressure. Less pressure = less muscle use and less fatiguing, but
it only means 'easier' if you are capable of handling the different inputs.
If you fly a falcon, then fast means stuffing the bar and using a lot of
muscle. If you stuff the bar on a U2 and keep stuffing until you feel the
bar pressure increase, then you will have the bar at your knees and be going
VERY FAST. If you figure that out quickly, you should be OK, but both in
the mountains and towing, you only have a second before something could go
seriously wrong.
Landing is similar. A falcon can land in a very short space, and flaring is
pretty easy. A U2 has much better energy retention, and unless you know how
to deal with that, (avoid slipping turns, avoid coming in too high, etc.)
you will find it easier to crash.
There are different classifications of gliders for a reason. Most pilots
should progress slowly up the chain. That doesn't mean you have to get a
new glider every year. It depends on how often you fly, the conditions,
your expectations. I've seen pilots take too big of a step up in glider,
and scare themselves out of the sport -- they weren't ready for the upgrade.
I've seen people stay on entry or intermediate gliders for years because
they are just fun to fly.
FYI: I flew the U2 and the T2 at Ridgely and have decided that for my
current level of flying and enjoyment, I am going with the U2. The T2 was
just a little too much for me at this time. I've been flying for 14 years
now, and this is only my 4th glider. 3 gliders for 14 years is almost 5
years apiece. Slow for some, fast for others.
When you do decide to test fly a new glider, fly it in calm conditions with
big landing fields. Tow parks are great for this, tell the tow operator
this is your first flight on this glider and to do big gentle turns (or for
truck towing, go straight!). When you are free flying, test the glider out.
Do a slow progression stall; fly fast; do some turns; with VG and without.
Get a feel for how it performs. When you come in for a landing, give
yourself a LOT of space. Make big wide turns, and set yourself up for a
very long final. So what if you have to walk a ways - I bet you fly further
on final than you thought!
-Mike Balk
positions and bank angles to closely monitor how much the glider speeds up
for a each variable. Without that programmed in you are flying blind on
approach.
Kev C
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Balk [mailto:mike@talismanenterprises.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 4:43 PM
To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: RE: Glider performance versus pilot ability...
"Easier to fly" depends on who is saying that. What their experience with
other gliders is. Conditions, and where they fly.
One thing you can say is that different gliders have different
characteristics. Remember, flying is takeoff, in-flight, and landing. The
in-flight part is easy, it is the takeoff and landing that we need to be
concerned about.
If a U2 is truly easier to fly, why don't we sell Hang 1s a U2 rather than
the difficult to fly Falcon?
What do we mean by easier? Usually with a higher performing glider there is
less bar pressure. Less pressure = less muscle use and less fatiguing, but
it only means 'easier' if you are capable of handling the different inputs.
If you fly a falcon, then fast means stuffing the bar and using a lot of
muscle. If you stuff the bar on a U2 and keep stuffing until you feel the
bar pressure increase, then you will have the bar at your knees and be going
VERY FAST. If you figure that out quickly, you should be OK, but both in
the mountains and towing, you only have a second before something could go
seriously wrong.
Landing is similar. A falcon can land in a very short space, and flaring is
pretty easy. A U2 has much better energy retention, and unless you know how
to deal with that, (avoid slipping turns, avoid coming in too high, etc.)
you will find it easier to crash.
There are different classifications of gliders for a reason. Most pilots
should progress slowly up the chain. That doesn't mean you have to get a
new glider every year. It depends on how often you fly, the conditions,
your expectations. I've seen pilots take too big of a step up in glider,
and scare themselves out of the sport -- they weren't ready for the upgrade.
I've seen people stay on entry or intermediate gliders for years because
they are just fun to fly.
FYI: I flew the U2 and the T2 at Ridgely and have decided that for my
current level of flying and enjoyment, I am going with the U2. The T2 was
just a little too much for me at this time. I've been flying for 14 years
now, and this is only my 4th glider. 3 gliders for 14 years is almost 5
years apiece. Slow for some, fast for others.
When you do decide to test fly a new glider, fly it in calm conditions with
big landing fields. Tow parks are great for this, tell the tow operator
this is your first flight on this glider and to do big gentle turns (or for
truck towing, go straight!). When you are free flying, test the glider out.
Do a slow progression stall; fly fast; do some turns; with VG and without.
Get a feel for how it performs. When you come in for a landing, give
yourself a LOT of space. Make big wide turns, and set yourself up for a
very long final. So what if you have to walk a ways - I bet you fly further
on final than you thought!
-Mike Balk
Glider performance versus pilot ability...
"There are different classifications of gliders" - I see DHV ratings
for paragliders. Is there a similar system for HG? - Hugh
On 6 Jul 2005, at 10:43, Mike Balk wrote:
>
> "Easier to fly" depends on who is saying that. What their experience
> with
> other gliders is. Conditions, and where they fly.
>
> One thing you can say is that different gliders have different
> characteristics. Remember, flying is takeoff, in-flight, and landing.
> The
> in-flight part is easy, it is the takeoff and landing that we need to
> be
> concerned about.
>
> If a U2 is truly easier to fly, why don't we sell Hang 1s a U2 rather
> than
> the difficult to fly Falcon?
>
> What do we mean by easier? Usually with a higher performing glider
> there is
> less bar pressure. Less pressure = less muscle use and less
> fatiguing, but
> it only means 'easier' if you are capable of handling the different
> inputs.
> If you fly a falcon, then fast means stuffing the bar and using a lot
> of
> muscle. If you stuff the bar on a U2 and keep stuffing until you feel
> the
> bar pressure increase, then you will have the bar at your knees and be
> going
> VERY FAST. If you figure that out quickly, you should be OK, but both
> in
> the mountains and towing, you only have a second before something
> could go
> seriously wrong.
>
> Landing is similar. A falcon can land in a very short space, and
> flaring is
> pretty easy. A U2 has much better energy retention, and unless you
> know how
> to deal with that, (avoid slipping turns, avoid coming in too high,
> etc.)
> you will find it easier to crash.
>
> There are different classifications of gliders for a reason. Most
> pilots
> should progress slowly up the chain. That doesn't mean you have to
> get a
> new glider every year. It depends on how often you fly, the
> conditions,
> your expectations. I've seen pilots take too big of a step up in
> glider,
> and scare themselves out of the sport -- they weren't ready for the
> upgrade.
> I've seen people stay on entry or intermediate gliders for years
> because
> they are just fun to fly.
>
> FYI: I flew the U2 and the T2 at Ridgely and have decided that for my
> current level of flying and enjoyment, I am going with the U2. The T2
> was
> just a little too much for me at this time. I've been flying for 14
> years
> now, and this is only my 4th glider. 3 gliders for 14 years is almost
> 5
> years apiece. Slow for some, fast for others.
>
> When you do decide to test fly a new glider, fly it in calm conditions
> with
> big landing fields. Tow parks are great for this, tell the tow
> operator
> this is your first flight on this glider and to do big gentle turns
> (or for
> truck towing, go straight!). When you are free flying, test the
> glider out.
> Do a slow progression stall; fly fast; do some turns; with VG and
> without.
> Get a feel for how it performs. When you come in for a landing, give
> yourself a LOT of space. Make big wide turns, and set yourself up for
> a
> very long final. So what if you have to walk a ways - I bet you fly
> further
> on final than you thought!
>
> -Mike Balk
>
>
>
>
>
for paragliders. Is there a similar system for HG? - Hugh
On 6 Jul 2005, at 10:43, Mike Balk wrote:
>
> "Easier to fly" depends on who is saying that. What their experience
> with
> other gliders is. Conditions, and where they fly.
>
> One thing you can say is that different gliders have different
> characteristics. Remember, flying is takeoff, in-flight, and landing.
> The
> in-flight part is easy, it is the takeoff and landing that we need to
> be
> concerned about.
>
> If a U2 is truly easier to fly, why don't we sell Hang 1s a U2 rather
> than
> the difficult to fly Falcon?
>
> What do we mean by easier? Usually with a higher performing glider
> there is
> less bar pressure. Less pressure = less muscle use and less
> fatiguing, but
> it only means 'easier' if you are capable of handling the different
> inputs.
> If you fly a falcon, then fast means stuffing the bar and using a lot
> of
> muscle. If you stuff the bar on a U2 and keep stuffing until you feel
> the
> bar pressure increase, then you will have the bar at your knees and be
> going
> VERY FAST. If you figure that out quickly, you should be OK, but both
> in
> the mountains and towing, you only have a second before something
> could go
> seriously wrong.
>
> Landing is similar. A falcon can land in a very short space, and
> flaring is
> pretty easy. A U2 has much better energy retention, and unless you
> know how
> to deal with that, (avoid slipping turns, avoid coming in too high,
> etc.)
> you will find it easier to crash.
>
> There are different classifications of gliders for a reason. Most
> pilots
> should progress slowly up the chain. That doesn't mean you have to
> get a
> new glider every year. It depends on how often you fly, the
> conditions,
> your expectations. I've seen pilots take too big of a step up in
> glider,
> and scare themselves out of the sport -- they weren't ready for the
> upgrade.
> I've seen people stay on entry or intermediate gliders for years
> because
> they are just fun to fly.
>
> FYI: I flew the U2 and the T2 at Ridgely and have decided that for my
> current level of flying and enjoyment, I am going with the U2. The T2
> was
> just a little too much for me at this time. I've been flying for 14
> years
> now, and this is only my 4th glider. 3 gliders for 14 years is almost
> 5
> years apiece. Slow for some, fast for others.
>
> When you do decide to test fly a new glider, fly it in calm conditions
> with
> big landing fields. Tow parks are great for this, tell the tow
> operator
> this is your first flight on this glider and to do big gentle turns
> (or for
> truck towing, go straight!). When you are free flying, test the
> glider out.
> Do a slow progression stall; fly fast; do some turns; with VG and
> without.
> Get a feel for how it performs. When you come in for a landing, give
> yourself a LOT of space. Make big wide turns, and set yourself up for
> a
> very long final. So what if you have to walk a ways - I bet you fly
> further
> on final than you thought!
>
> -Mike Balk
>
>
>
>
>
Glider perfomance
There is usually a sticker on the keel of most hang gliders stating the recommended pilot rating for flying the glider. This info is also available through the manufacturer or their web page.
The DHV and various other ratings for paragliders are two part ratings. One part relates to the glider's performance (speed, glide) and the other part relates to the handling characteristics: ease of control, recovery characteristics.
It would be nice if their were equivalent hang glider ratings, especially because their are about a thousand times more models of paragliders as their are hang gliders.
Maybe this is something USHGA could spend money on! Safety initiatives would be nice too... helmet testing, etc.
Matthew
The DHV and various other ratings for paragliders are two part ratings. One part relates to the glider's performance (speed, glide) and the other part relates to the handling characteristics: ease of control, recovery characteristics.
It would be nice if their were equivalent hang glider ratings, especially because their are about a thousand times more models of paragliders as their are hang gliders.
Maybe this is something USHGA could spend money on! Safety initiatives would be nice too... helmet testing, etc.
Matthew