Flytec
Wills Wing

Oz Report

topic: Steve Uzochukwu (33 articles)

Sail cloth - premature failure?

September 1, 2011, 11:13:25 MDT

Sail cloth - premature failure?

On trikes

gear|Steve Uzochukwu|ultralite

Steve Uzochukwu <<steveu3>> writes:

The microlight (ultralite) community in the UK is facing a number of premature failures of sails. Some aircraft have had their sails fail at a little as 350 hours and five years. "Failure" is determined by the annual inspections which involve a Betts test of the sail cloth and stitching.

Initial evidence indicates that the issue may be restricted to one manufacturer, who is no longer involved in the hang gliding market. However, the cause for alarm is not only that manufacturer, but who else might have used that source of sail cloth.

Here is the thread started by Gwyn, who is pushing for more work to be done and the issue to be investigated:

http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=15&m=102388

Here the BMAA (British Ultralite Association) is also concerned:

http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=15&m=103488

Here also the threat of stitching failing is raised:

http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=15&m=102475

Is this a problem that could affect hang gliding? Will the tugs we use need new sails? A sail could cost £3,000 (US$5,000) and could be a big cost for a tow group.

Of course, microlights get left rigged, but so do HG in some parts of the US.

Any comments from readers, manufacturers or any tables of manufacturers of ultralites/hang gliders and cloths used?

Correction re glider prices in France

Fri, Apr 4 2008, 9:07:15 am PDT

Glider prices in France

VAT is 19.5% not 17.5%

Steve Uzochukwu

http://www.ulteam-vol-libre.com/ulteam-ailes-Moyes-vol-libre.htm

Moyes RS - 7500 € TTC or $11,550. (I assume that this includes the VAT, $9665 without VAT at 19.5%.)

http://www.ulteam-vol-libre.com/ulteam-ailes-airborne-vol-libre.htm

Airborne C4 - 7500 € TTC or $11,550.

http://www.ulteam-vol-libre.com/ulteam-ailes-Icaro-2000-vol-libre.htm

Icaro Z9 - 7280 € TTC (This is the same price for the "basic" Z9 as on the Icaro web site, including VAT.)

http://www.ulteam-vol-libre.com/ulteam-ailes-aeros-vol-libre.htm

Aeros Combat L - 6390 € TTC ($8196 without VAT)

No word about the options if any included in these prices, but I assume that these are all for the basic model. Notice how different they are from US prices, where the Z9 is much more expensive than the gliders from Australia and the Ukraine. Combats are popular with the French national team as are Litespeeds.

The US price for the basic Aeros Combat L is $7101. The Moyes RS, $6995. The Airborne C4, $7288.

Again, tell me why the Euro is worth so much? It sure isn't in term of Moyes RS gliders. Here is it worth about $1.11, not $1.54. In terms of Aeros gliders, it is $1.33.

Steve Uzochukwu «steveu3» in addition to telling me the French VAT rate writes:

UK=Avian; France=La Mouette/Helite, Tecma; Germany=Guggenmoss, Bautek, AIR; Austria=Seedwings Europe; Italy=Icaro 2000; Ukraine=Aeros.

Discuss "Correction re glider prices in France" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Carbon Dragon needs a home

May 8, 2007, 9:52:18 pm MST

Carbon Dragon

Needs a good home

Carbon Dragon|Steve Uzochukwu

Steve Uzochukwu «steveu» writes:

Ozzie Haines «ozzie» has decided that he wants to do other things, and no longer wishes to fly his Carbon Dragon. To this end he wants to dispose of it, but in a way that will see it continue to fly with its new owner. To this end the price asked will depend on how easy it is to move on, and the needs/deserving nature of a new owner. This cost may be as little as £200 plus the cost of the parachute that the aircraft has fitted.

The glider was built over a 5 year period, approximately 2000 to 2005. It has been flown a number of times and has the relevant testing documentation. The glider is stored in a rented place, which will expire in August. The aircraft is a labour of love, and hence is going to be found a new home as such, and Ozzie is looking for a new owner for it not a salesman who is looking for a quick killing.

The Carbon Dragon is a Class 4 Hang glider (not necessarily foot launch/land) and can be flown/towed up by HG aerotow outfits in some parts of the World.

The aircraft has no trailer and has been transported on a custom made attachment to a roof rack. It is situated on the South Downs, in the UK, about 60 miles due South of London.

Interested parties should contact Ozzie at the above e-mail address. If you are somewhere else in the World, it may fit into a container, derigged, for shipping.

Discuss Carbon Dragon at the Oz Report forum   Digg This  Reddit  DelIcioUsdel.icio.us

Paraglider wing morphing

April 30, 2007, 12:54:02 pm EDT

Morphing

Little swifts do it and so do paragliders

PG|Steve Uzochukwu

http://www.bio-air-technologies.com/Bionic/approche-bio/Biomecanique.htm (French) (English)

http://www.bio-air-technologies.com/Bionic/approche-bio/Coneption.htm (French) (English)

Thanks to Steve Uzochukwu.

Discuss Morphing at the Oz Report forum

New ATOS Light

Tue, Nov 21 2006, 8:39:54 am PST

ATOS

A lighter version of the ATOS V

Aeronautic Innovation Rühle & Co GmbH|Joe Schofield|Steve Uzochukwu

www.a-i-r.de

Joe Schofield «skywings» reports

A-I-R will unveil a new Atos light at the Thermikmesse near Stuttgart in December. The new glider is a version of the classic Atos (C/V) with a lighter set of spars, for which the penalty is a VNE in rough air of 90km/h. Empty weight is said to be 28-29 kg (64 lbs.). The idea is to have flexie empty weights, and if you buy from VLD in France, a flexie price.

I wonder what a flexie price in Europe is these days. I wonder what has changed about the construction of the d-cells. If you know, tell us.

Thanks to Steve Uzochukwu.

Discuss "New ATOS Light" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Paraglider and rigid forums combined

October 12, 2006, 6:45:56 pm PDT

This is a mashup.

PG|Steve Uzochukwu

http://www.leavesleyaviation.com/forum/index.php

Thanks to Steve Uzochukwu.

The AIR ATOS VR

A.I.R. ATOS VR|Steve Uzochukwu

Sun, May 1 2005, 6:00:03 pm EDT

DHV

Steve Uzochukwu «steveu» sends me the URL for the results of the VR testing.

Better Butt Kickers

Tue, Mar 29 2005, 4:00:06 am EST

Follow the money

PG|Steve Uzochukwu

Steve Uzochukwu «steveu3» writes:

The US team is up against teams that are far better funded than they are. They are not the only ones. In the past, some teams have had longer training camps for big meets than the other people have had time off work to travel to, rain and compete in the meets.

I know it sounds like a good excuse, it is, but with better funding the results would change.

The UK has produced the only three people to win 1st at World level in HG & PG [Rob, John, Judy], but our funding is pretty basic too.

Discuss paragliding at the Oz Report forum

Portuguese Open

Mon, Jul 12 2004, 1:00:04 pm EDT

It's happening.

Steve Uzochukwu

Steve Uzochukwu «steveu» writes:

Friday we had a task, the vast majority of the pilots got away from the hill and three pilots made goal, which was at the end of a 65km course via a turnpoint. Yesterday was a rest day with an Airshow at Braganca aerodrome. John Heiney and Rafael looped their gliders repeatedly off the aerotow.

The organisation and hospitality here are top notch. At the end of the airshow yesterday there was a huge meal for everyone.

We're flying till 16th July. After a day's break the Spanish Open starts on the 18th.

We had a 103 km task to goal on Saturday. Three pilots made goal. Retrieve system working well. Results at: www.fpvl.pt/macedo2004/

Discuss the Open at the Oz Report forum

Portuguese Open

Thu, Jul 8 2004, 3:00:03 pm EDT

First the European Cup and now the Open.

Steve Uzochukwu

Steve Uzochukwu «steveu» writes:

www.fpvl.pt/macedo2004

Pilots are arriving and getting ready for the Portuguese HG Open, first day tomorrow.

A lot of hard work has gone into preparing large take off areas, both on the North West and South West of the ridge at Macedo de Cavaleiros. this morning we were up there and it looks very good.

Hard on the heels of this competition will follow the Spanish Open at the same location.

The organisation have set up a control centre with broadband access - the results pages have also been set up and should be ready to roll.

Discuss he Portuguese Open at the Oz Report forum

Paraglider fatality rate

Sun, Apr 25 2004, 1:00:05 pm EDT

It had to include hikers.

PG|Steve Uzochukwu

Check the last issue re this issue.

Steve Uzochukwu «steveu» writes:

If we look at all the countries with access to the Alps: Austria, Switzerland, Germany, France, Italy.

France has over 30,000 pilots, and Germany a similar amount. Factor in 12,000 for Switzerland and 8,000 for Austria. Roughly about 80,000 pilots?

Also add that looking at the FFVL site it appears that their figures are HG + PG. Although the forum is a paragliding one, the numbers quoted are for * flying in the Alps* not paragliding.

Looking at the FFVL numbers for last year, there were 3 HG fatalities and 6 PG. Bearing in mind the much smaller numbers of HG pilots, is HG in France much more dangerous?

I think that the number of fatalities posted was for the Alps, period.

If you look in that thread there is a link to the FFVL figures.

Discuss fatalities at the Oz Report forum

Drug testing »

Sun, Jan 25 2004, 7:00:01 pm GMT

Bogong Cup 2004|CIVL|competition|drugs|FAI|Flip Koetsier|Gordon Rigg|J.C. Brown|Marilyn Vos Savant|PG|Red Bull|Stéphane Malbos|Steve Uzochukwu|USHGA|video

Let me remind my European readers of the saying of a great American Patriot, Patrick Henry, "Give me Liberty, or Give me Death." The story of Patrick Henry is something all American school children learn.

And what I see here is that we have a great cultural and political divide. There are those Americans (and others) who believe in the value of civil liberties, on one side, and those Europeans who are willing to do about anything to continue to take their government's money on the other side.

One American paraglider pilot writes:

I ain't no druggie, despite living in the "Emerald Triangle", but I'm with you 100%. Sometimes, you just have to stand up for rationality and 'Just Say No' to the ever-increasing nosy government, and the stupidity of some regulations. If there was a drug that would enhance paragliding performance, I'd take it, OK? But as near as I can tell, there ain't - though Red Bull may come close sometimes… ;-)

An American hang glider pilot and lawyer writes:

I couldn't agree with you more on this issue. I don't have time to argue it out with every European on the CIVL list though. I think that as Americans, we tend to value our civil liberties more than those from many other countries. I guess they don't mind having to prove their innocence. I find it rather offensive to say the least.

JC Brown, former USHGA competition chairman, writes:

You and I are in complete agreement on the drug testing issue. Here's a cool little movie of The Renegades in action: http://www.gleitsegel.info/renegades%20stubai.wmv

A European hang glider pilot writes:

If you show up in such an environment, such as the one that exists in Europe today, saying "not in our sport", "we refuse to be tested" they first laugh at you (based on their experience in other sports) and then they really think that you have to hide something.

Remember that this is not my argument. My argument is not that there is no drug use, but only that there are no banned drugs that enhance hang gliding performance. That there is no pressure on pilots to use drugs in order to be competitive, and therefore there is no reason to test for drugs in competition pilots (oh, other than the government money, of course).

Steve Uzochukwu <steveu@which.net> writes:

If you want world wide support in this you will need to know how other associations are funded. If opting out of the drug testing would lose the UK association its Sports Council funding then we would not do it.

Of course, now that I know the score, I do not expect any support for my Anti-Drug Testing position outside the US hang gliding community (and Australian, and a few others without government support). I do not expect the British pilots to give up their government support.

Of course, the USHGA will never fund drug testing in any way, shape, or form. The argument I have heard in the background is Steve's argument above, that we will just do these things on paper to get the government's support, and then not fund it.

Steve writes:

The best compromise might be not to opt out of testing but simply to be unable to fund it. In the absence of any benefactor with thousands of Pounds, Euros, or Dollars lip service would be paid but nothing would be done.

Well, it's being funded by the government in Holland and other countries now. Once this is all in place in the FAI and CIVL it is a very short step to actually enforcing it, say in 2005 or 2006. Or say when the US wants to try once again to have a CIVL sanctioned worlds.

Steve also points out the great cultural differences between Europe and the US and Australia; I acknowledge those differences, and point out that this will likely mean a split up of the associations. The USHGA will in no way back this drug testing proposal.

Steve further writes:

Noel is advocating a very careful and detailed look at the issues and a wary way of proceeding.

Yes, I am quite aware of what Noel is advocating. To me this is the same as saying, well, the devil ain't such a bad guy, perhaps we should listen more carefully to just what he is offering for our souls.

I really appreciated getting the message from Flip Koetsier «f.koetsier» the team leader of the Dutch team, especially as many of his team members are here in Australia at the Bogong Cup and I have had a chance to speak with them about this issue.

Flip writes:

Reading your arguments about the out of contest testing for doping, I think that you are going too far with your attempts to convince us to drop all associations with WADA.

(No need to worry about that Flip, as I can see that it is quite hopeless. I have no illusions that I will convince anyone but perhaps a few of those without government support.)

You already mentioned the system here in Holland and it seems to me that you spoke with some of the Dutch team members in Australia. It is correct that our team members are being checked for doping since some years now and yes, it is also correct that we don't have to pay for that. In fact, we get some funds from our government and our national Olympic committee to run our team and join some big competitions and not cooperating with the out of competition testing for doping might jeopardize these funds. So for me as team leader of the Dutch team it is simple, we cooperate with the testing.

(Yet again we have the acknowledgement that this is really all about the money. It really doesn't matter which side has the sounder arguments, just who has the bigger stick. Apparently the European governments are very concerned about these crazy wild hang glider pilot doing drugs, so that they are opting to bring the hammer down.)

In fact, we have to. I hope you can understand that. And yes, we suck at the government tit and we like it.

(Well, there you have it. I wonder just exactly what kind of drugs that the government is mixing in with the milk coming out of that tit. Perhaps something to calm the nerves, and quiet any opposition. Oh, did I mention, that Flip actually works for the government?)

Stéphane Malbos «vol.passion» writes:

Drug taking is a reality, in all levels of society and sports. Hang gliding and paragliding are not free from it. Pilots in France have been officially suspended by our federation following drug test.

(I have never argued that there is no drug taking in hang gliding and paragliding. I have only argued that there are no banned performance enhancing drugs for hang gliding and paragliding and that there is no pressure to take drugs in order to be competitive. So did you suspend these guys for taking too many Red Bulls, or smoking a little dope? How noble of the FFVL.)

Sportsmen and women are supposed to be example for the society, and so exempt of any drugs (even caffeine).

(Even caffeine?! I don't know why I even try to make an argument, when those who oppose my position make it so well for me. You'll notice that many different people have different agendas when it comes to Doping. Stephane is not happy about Red Bulls and Cappuccinos. He apparently feels that hang glider pilots should not engage in proscribed behavior, like even that first cup of coffee. This is even too much for WADA.)

Drug testing is a reality in most countries. It is funded by the governments through WADA (out of competition) or directly (in France anyway). In France, in-competition drug testing is requested, organized and paid for by the government. It doesn't cost anything to the pilots or their federation (except of course the % of our income tax that funds this particular program). The federation has to be a witness at any in-competition drug testing, and that's it. I don't know how it works in other countries.

(I do. There is no government funding for this. There will be an attempt to extract it from our pockets. It ain't going to happen, folks. You can tear up your organization by following this stupid path if you want, but we aren't going to go along with it.)

My good friend Gordon Rigg, in his typical display of British humor writes:

Do you ever re-read what you have written and see how sensible you are sounding? Is there some substance effecting you emotionally in some way!?

(See how insidious this is? Make an argument against drug testing and you get labeled as a drug taker. In the US our history shows that if you support programs on the left (like European socialism) you get labeled a Communist. Same argument here. Don't want to name your fellow travelers as members of the party for reasons of principle and freedom of association, get fired from your job and sent to prison.)

We must jump through quite a few hoops and leap some hurdles to obtain meagre funding for our paragliding and hang gliding teams who represent Britain. Our association also gains financial support that benefits all the pilots not just the competition ones. The association also gains credibility as representing an official sport when negotiating with other organisations such as CAA by being part of the sporting establishment. All this would be threatened if we participated in a written "we don't care what drugs" policy (it would also be threatened if our pilots competed in an unofficial non FAI approved world champs too!)

(Again, the real argument comes to the fore. The government is telling us what to do and therefore we are going to do it. I have no argument against that.)

This is why we have no choice but to have the necessary minimal involvement in the drugs testing policies that prevail. Mostly this will hopefully remain as just the necessary paragraphs in the rule book that never have to be implemented.

(Sure, that's what we all hope for. But I have seen how FAI/CIVL works. One day its a category I rule, the next day it applies to category 2. Sure, just put it on paper and hope it goes away. I wish you all a lot of luck.)

In the meantime steer clear of those nasal sprays that contain "speed" in the USA, but not Europe, or so the Olympic folks believe!

(There are many gotcha's. Here's one from Tony Estrada:

Marilyn Vos Savant, a popular columnist for the widely read weekly Parade provides convincing statistical evidence that drug testing, even at a 99 percent accuracy level, can ultimately do no better than a coin flip in determining whether or not someone is really a drug user (Marilyn Vos Savant, "Ask Marilyn: Tests for AIDS and Drugs: How Accurate Are They? Parade, 3/28/93, p. 24).

Vos Savant goes into great depth as to why, once an individual has tested positive, the odds that he or she is actually a drug user are only 50-50. Even with the most sophisticated methods, a great margin for error exists. This is a result mainly of analytic sensitivity (the rate of positive test results in people who are actually users) and analytic specificity (the rate of negative test results in people who are actually not users). These factors are biochemical, not statistical, hence laboratory error, although a possibility, is not the primary concern.

http://www.ndsn.org/april93/parade.html

http://www.moonmac.com/ftp/Non_Disclosure.pdf (see page two))

Finally Gordon writes:

Oh and yes, there are a lot of "tits" in our government - but surely more in yours!)

None available to us Gordon. Just to members of the coalition of the willing. :-)

Daedalus as a model to emulate

Tue, Dec 16 2003, 2:00:01 pm EST

PG|Steve Uzochukwu

Steve Uzochukwu «steveu» send this URL for his three years ago article in XC Magazine and the story (reedited):

http://www.xcmag.com/Spinner/read/article.cfm?id=503

Daedalus, the forgotten hang gliding hero. Every competitor in a gliding competition of any sort has one objective above all others, to be the first into goal. In the dim distant annals of history, the first pilot to achieve this should have become a hero, yet he is hardly ever mentioned and the other guy, the one who crashed and burned, has all the festivals, aircraft and instruments named after him. I am of course, referring to the Legend of Daedalus and Icarus.

Icaro 2000 and the Coupe Icare [St. Hilaire] are two very good examples. Bruce Goldsmith, a guy who always wants to be in goal first, calls his column Icaristics, there is no Daedalus cup and no glider or instrument has ever been named after Daedalus, to the best of my knowledge. He is most definitely an exhibit in the museum of obscurity.

Daedalus the inventor and Icarus, his son, were originally imprisoned by King Minos of Crete because Daedalus helped Theseus to kill the Minotaur and escape with Minos' daughter Ariadne. Daedalus knew that he could not escape by sea or land as Minos controlled all possible routes but he could not stop them escaping by air. Daedalus made wings of string, feathers, reeds and wax to allow escape with Icarus by flying away from the prison. In many ways these are not dissimilar to the first rogallos made from bamboo and polythene.

Before they took off Daedalus cautioned Icarus not to fly too low, or the feathers would get wet and not work, and not to fly too high or the Sun would melt the wax and the wings would disintegrate. At this point the relevance of the legend takes on a real meaning for hang glider and paraglider pilots. We also have to run the gauntlets of landing in the water and drowning or hypoxia. The rest is history. Daedalus flew sensibly and got to goal safely, being the first pilot to do so and Icarus became exhilarated by flight, flew too high, the sun melted his wings and he fell into the sea and drowned. Daedalus buried Icarus on the island of Icaria, and the sea in which he drowned became known as the Icarian Sea.

Icarus entered into myth as an icon and Daedalus, despite having designed the wings, flown them to goal and buried his only son headed off into obscurity. He settled in Sicily, at the court of Cocalus.

I find this very hard to understand. People outside the sport very much subscribe to the Icarus image of free flying. Last year in France, lying in hospital with a broken leg and broken arm, all those who asked how it happened were told, and remarked: "Coupe Icare, oh merde!" They saw in me yet another person wishing to emulate his hero Icarus, bent and broken after the wings folded up.

For me though, Daedalus is the man. He designed a wing, successfully flew it to goal and mastered avoiding the hazards of flight. Surely we all want to be like that? I see interesting parallels throughout free flying, full-blown competition gliders are the wings of Icarus, the Serial Class is Daedalus. Flying in leeside thermals to win a comp is the mentality of Icarus, landing because the conditions are too strong says Daedalus. Flying too high without oxygen is definitely the closest any of us will get to imitating Icarus, staying below 12,000 ft is the way Daedalus would have gone.

Despite all this, Daedalus is not in any way celebrated or remembered by free flying. In a few weeks time I will be in St. Hilaire again, watching and photographing the Icarus Cup [Coupe Icare]. Once again we will be celebrating Icarus and his exploits in the heights. Having suffered the consequences of a serious accident, when I get back to flying. I'll definitely be looking to emulate Daedalus, especially in comps. Maybe when we all fly we ought to think of Daedalus, the first man to fly to goal.

Footnote: Daedalus was quite a dude. He designed the Labyrinth in which the Minotaur was imprisoned, and also one of the first sex aids [a cow costume] that allowed Minos' wife to mate with a bull and conceive the Minotaur. Originally banished from Athens for killing his apprentice [his sisters' son] as he feared the apprentice would surpass him, he then went to the court of King Minos in Crete. It was here that the events leading up to the Flight of Daedalus and Icarus took place.

Discuss Daedalus at the Oz Report forum

Comparative Accident Rates

Thu, Dec 11 2003, 6:00:03 pm EST

Angus Pinkerton|PG|Steve Uzochukwu|weather

Steve Uzochukwu «steveu» has sent me a copy of Angus Pinkerton's article from a few years back regarding the hang gliding and paragliding accident rates in Britain and Europe. Perhaps the British and the Europeans have a more reliable accident reporting system than we do here in the US. Angus writes:

The figures for 1997 to 1999 (we haven't compiled the 2000 figures yet) are as follows:

Injuries          HG     PG

1997   72      134
1998   40      165
1999   35      110

....which on the surface might seem to support the contention that paragliding is 'many, many times more dangerous.' However, the number of qualified pilots of each type in these years was:

Rated pilots   HG     PG

1997   1,959  4,101
1998   1,862  4,048
1999   1,734  4,136

So the injury rates per 100 members of each type were:

Injuries per 100 members   HG     PG

1997   3.68    3.27
1998   2.15    4.08
1999   2.02    2.66

...which does indicate a very slight excess of paragliding injuries.

To get a complete idea of whether one activity is really significantly more dangerous than another, we would also need to factor in the amount of flying each type of pilot does. Here I don't have reliable data, but the distinct impression is that the (relatively ageing) hang glider pilots do quite a bit less flying than the (relatively younger) paraglider pilots.

I could have used total incidents reported, or the number of fatalities, and they would have illustrated the same point. The main reason why paragliding accidents are more obvious than hang gliding ones is that there are now two and a half times as many paraglider pilots as there are hang glider pilots.

It is often implied that some inherent danger of paragliders is being ignored and swept under the carpet of 'pilot error'. This is not true, and the figures above show that, even if it was, the same effect must be being applied to hang gliding.

The truth is that most accidents in both disciplines are indeed due to errors made by the pilots. The most common of all being choosing to fly in unsuitable weather conditions. In case anyone thinks that the UK is special in this regard, here are the total fatality figures for most of Europe (i.e. UK, Germany, Austria, France, Italy and Switzerland).

Fatalities in Europe  HG     PG

1997   10      38
1998   11      22
1999   6        23

Which, as in the UK, initially seems to show paragliding as being much more dangerous than hang gliding. But, as in the UK, there are many more paraglider pilots:

Total rated pilots in Europe HG     PG

1997   19,684          67,374
1998   19,117          67,918
1999   18,266          67,664

And the equivalent fatality rates are thus:

European fatality rate per 100 qualified pilots     HG     PG

1997   0.051  0.056
1998   0.058  0.032
1999   0.033  0.034

Discuss accident rates at the Oz Report forum

Medical insurance rates

Thu, Dec 4 2003, 2:00:01 pm EST

PG|Steve Uzochukwu

Steve Uzochukwu «steveu» writes:

Yvonne «airsports» writes:

For paraglider pilots: Europe 195.35 inclusive of tax
For hang glider pilots: 116.03 ditto.

As you can see, the rate for HG pilots has stayed static in the last 3 years, the PG rate has gone up to a 68% loading. Last time I looked in detail, which was 18 months ago, it was about 20%.

(editor's note: The ratio would therefore be 1.7:1 paraglider to hang glider if we ignored fixed administrative costs. Eliminating those costs would tend to drive this ratio higher.)

Steve continues:

You can also check elsewhere and you will find that HG & PG insurance rates are the same cost.

Try:

http://www.sportscoverdirect.com/ventureguard/

They assess HG & PG as both being in Group 4 for risk, so for one year, Bronze cover, HG= 207.80 and EXACTLY the same premium for PG.

That is for Worldwide Cover.

On the other hand, Harrison Beaumont put PG in Group 5 and HG in Group 2. Generally Harrison Beaumont put all undefined aerial sports in Group 5, along with PG, parascending, parachuting and worldwide offshore yacht sailing.

(editor's note: So Steve has put Neville's original claim re the medical insurance rate differential between paragliding and hang gliding, which Neville claimed was 3:1, in doubt. Steve claims that depending on who you go to for the medical insurance it may be 1:1, 1.7:1, or perhaps more.

I am interested in using medical insurance rates as an indicator of the relative injuriousness of the two sports. They have their problems, of course, but still seem to me to be much better indicators of injuriousness than reported accident rates. Of course, if there is cross subsidization, as claimed by Neville, than they are not good indicators.)

Discuss comparative injuriousness at the Oz Report forum

More on Tom’s Sprogs

Tue, Oct 21 2003, 6:00:07 am EDT

Steve Uzochukwu

Steve Uzochukwu «steveu» writes:

Sometimes I wonder about hang glider pilots.

Topless gliders have nothing like the (potential) reflex of king posted ones with luff lines. Their sprog settings and washout are very critical.

So why, if the manufacturer has designed and set and the testing people have verified the pitch stability of a glider, is the first thing that some pilots do is to reduce the pitch stability to an unknown level? Possibly to the point where it would not have sufficient pitch stability to stay the right way up in very rowdy air? Manufacturers know pitch stability hurts glide and they tend to know where to stop in the quest for more performance.

So why does Davis need to be overly diplomatic where making a serious point about safety and risk? If you tell people bluntly that tweaks to their gliders are putting them at severe risk you are doing them a favour. Period.

Has Tom noted that Steve Moyes was of the mind: "Looks low" rather than: "If only we'd sent them all out of the factory like that!"

Discuss sprogs at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Colin Lark »

Sun, Sep 14 2003, 5:00:05 pm GMT

Colin

Steve Uzochukwu|Colin Lark

Steve Uzochukwu «steveu» writes:

There must be very few who have been in our sport any length of time who do not know of Colin and a vast number of these will have come across him. Ex competition pilot, hang glider manufacturer, microlight pilot, "any flying thing" pilot, party animal, Colin was often outspoken but always fun to be around - one of the people whose life will always be remembered by those who knew him.

Everyone will have their own memories of this exceptional character who lived life to the full and lived flying to the full. Apparently Colin even managed to go out for a last curry a few days before his death from cancer - and probably misbehaved while there!

Many will wish to send condolences to Lynn, with perhaps a mention of some memory of Colin. Her address is 52 Long Street, Dursley, Gloucester, GL11 4JB

«marc-asquith» for funeral details.

Discuss "Colin Lark" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

ATOS flaps

Sat, Sep 6 2003, 7:00:04 am GMT

ATOS|Bart Doets|Richard Nikoley|Steve Uzochukwu|Ubaldo Romano

Richard Nikoley «rn» writes:

With regard to Richard Gibbs' article and his experience with the Atos spinning and diving when the flaps were inadvertently released, I've had this happen a couple of times with no incident, other than a far longer ground effect than anticipated.

I suspect that Mr. Gibbs perhaps did not have on enough speed and that this would be his best bet for preventing an accident should this happen again.

Steve Uzochukwu «steveu» writes:

I did a conversion to the Atos last month at Aerotow.com, and they warned me about the possibility of the cord pulling out of the cleat for the flaps. I'm told this problem can be reduced in likelihood by putting the loose cord end over the base bar.

Valter Romano «tprrom» writes:

Crazy flaps. During the last three and half years I enjoyed on flying my Atos very much, but sometimes, the loved glider gets me into panic. This was caused by the unexpected releasing of the flaps' line during the final landing phase. In these situations only the pilot's skill and quickness of reflex avoided severe injuries to himself and to the glider's structure (malicious observers tell that I may thank my guardian angel, and the wheels mounted on my bar).

I don't know if the cause of the trouble is my hasty maneuver or faulty flaps control, because I use to put flaps line forward the bar after pulling it, and I substituted rope and clam cleat when minimal wear signals appeared.

Then after the last unpleasant episode I acted a simple modification to the clam cleat with the purpose to avoid accidental flaps release. It requires only a little pulley and a thin bungee. I suggest the same to those who experienced the described situation, and to those who don’t like to experience it in the future.

Brent Wright «DigitalThreads» writes:

There seems to be quite a few ATOS pilots bringing to the attention of others about situations that have happened to them and to be aware of. If I can add to that, make sure to check more than periodically where the flap cord ties into the downtube. Mine snapped one time because of rubbing against the downtube hole next to the tie off.

Bart Doets «bart.doets» writes:

When you pull the flap cord on a rigid, you feel the nose come up. The centre section produces more lift with the flaps down. When the flap cord came loose this extra lift in the front section was suddenly gone, and with Richard already pulling in, it was a logical reaction for the glider to drop the nose; but that was no tuck.

(editor’s note: I have never had a problem with my ATOS flap cord coming undone. While I sometimes have full flaps on, I often don’t, and so even if the flaps came off it would normally be no big deal. I use the flaps for glide path control, but I don’t see the point of landing with full flaps on.)

Discuss "ATOS flaps" at the Oz Report forum   link»  

Tsunami tuck

Sat, Sep 6 2003, 7:00:03 am GMT

Bart Doets|David "Dave" Swanson|Steve Uzochukwu

Steve Uzochukwu <steveu@which.net> writes:

Dave Swanson wrote:

And if we could understand it, then maybe we could design something to reduce or prevent it from happening again.

We have designed something to prevent it happening. It's called a pitch test (DHV’s for example). But some pilots won't support it, and prefer to fly uncertified gliders instead.

Whilst I have every sympathy for the deceased and their family, and would not wish this terrible tragedy on anyone, hang glider pilots are still making the same mistakes they made over 30 years ago. Regardless of the design or competition pedigree of any glider, it should be fully tested before leaving the factory to non development pilots.

It’s the fact that Helite reminds us on the original web site it is a development glider. I've checked and it's gone now.

Bart Doets <bart.doets@hetnet.nl> writes:

I have not seen a word about whether Ermino Bricoli was flying with a tailplane or not. Seems to me this would be essential information, especially when we focus on the pitch down forces on the wing.

Is there a chance Ermino's flap cord did come loose too? Has it been checked?

Discuss DHV, HGMA, and BHPA certification at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "Tsunami tuck" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Hang gliding’s dwindling numbers

Tue, Aug 12 2003, 10:00:01 am GMT

Steve Uzochukwu

Steve Uzochukwu <steveu@which.net> writes:

You have to look partly towards the manufacturers for the dwindling numbers. How often do new models come out at the top level for competition? How often do new improved gliders come out for intermediate pilots? The majority of manufacturers have spent large amounts of time and money getting that last 0.5 of glide out of their machines for the comp pilot whilst offering the ordinary pilot some thing that hasn't improved much in ten years. Gliders are heavier, still difficult to land and hassle to rig.

Contrast this with PG where 70% of the market is now for intermediate gliders and the manufacturers concentrate on this, having realised the comp market is small and not where the big profits are. Besides, most comp pilots of any note want a deal or a free wing. Ordinary pilots pay full price and thus factory workers wages.

Recently things have started to improve with some of the technology in topless gliders coming down into high performance king posted intermediates. Manufacturers like Wills Wing have always had a choice of up to date intermediates in their range.

However things like more carbon fibre in gliders to reduce weight or decent pack down lengths to help storage are espoused by very few manufacturers. I'm still looking for an easy to fly intermediate that is a big improvement on the one I designed 11 years ago and built some 9 years ago.

Nobody has yet produced an "ordinary Joe" version of a rigid yet. Pack down to under 13ft, weighs under 32 kg, *big* flaps and unspinnable. 15 or 16:1 would be acceptable.

The manufacturers might say there is no market for same. Possibly because the time for doing this may be past and all the potential market drifted off into other branches of aviation or kite surfing.

(editor’s note: Hmmm, the Oz Report pages are filled with stories about new intermediate or king posted gliders. The WW U2 is a huge success. Easy to aerotow. Very light bar pressure, great price.

You can pack down the Aeros Discus to six or was it eight feet (can’t remember how tall that girl was). Easy to tow, fun to fly, good performance, and very inexpensive.

The Icaro Relax is a wonderful glider. So much fun to fly. A little expensive for a single surface glider. How about the WW Attack Falcon?

Of course, we can’t forget the glider that started this new trend a couple of years ago, the Moyes LiteSport. High end with a king post.

I find it hard to blame the manufacturers. I know that pilots want the top performing hang glider. I was just speaking with a pilot at the US Nationals, and I could not get this person to even think about a non topless glider. I mean they would have been much happier and done much better on a WW U2 or a small Icaro MastR.)

Discuss the solemn duty of the manufacturers to make money at OzReport.com/forum/phpBB2

Discuss "Hang gliding’s dwindling numbers" at the Oz Report forum   link»

DHV and BHPA testing

Tue, Jul 15 2003, 6:00:03 pm GMT

accident|BHPA|certification|competition|Dale Branham|DHV|HGMA|John Vernon|PG|polar|safety|site|sport|Steve Uzochukwu|tail|tumble|USHGA|Vne

Steve Uzochukwu <steveu@which.net> writes:

I have no position in the BHPA. The following is my opinion, and nothing but that. Definitive answers on the BHPA’s Certificate of Airworthiness (C of A) need to come from Mark Dale.

John Vernon:

So, we have a glider that meets the DHV pitching moment standards by at least a factor of two (re Felix's comments and pilot report about flap position for thermalling), fitted with the latest safety device, the V-tail, a pilot that reacted correctly, yet the glider still tumbled.

Steve:

C of A testing provides a benchmark and tests that in "reasonable conditions" the glider is stable. It cannot guarantee against tumbling in all conditions.

John:

Is this "deja vu" of when you tucked and tumbled and the glider met DHV standards.

Davis:

(editor's note: As I recall my ATOS-C didn't quite meet DHV standards given the way it was tuned at the factory. They found this out later when they tested another one tuned as mine was.)

Steve:

Which is why some of us still support C of A testing as a benchmark for people like me who are still ordinary pilots.

John:

Perhaps we should be directing our questions to the standards our gliders are tested to.

Steve:

Looking at BHPA records, the only case involving a C of A'ed glider in which the glider was a factor was a failure of a keel after the glider was ground looped and flown without any strip down or check. All our other major accidents where the glider has been a factor in the accident involved gliders with no C of A.

John:

For instance the BHPA CofA is based around measurements when gliders had aspect ratios about 6. Yet the rigids we fly have AR of 12. As the Cof A test is based on pitching moment coefficient one can show that the pitching moment to meet the standard with our gliders is reduced by approximately 1.414 (the square root of the AR ratio ratios) from that which used to be required unless the standard has been updated recently.

Steve:

The whole point of this is a non dimensionalised constant, so that it is in proportion to the glider size, polar moment of inertia etc. A pitching moment can be fixed, but would be very difficult to achieve for a small glider and easy for a large one. So small gliders get penalised because they have to produce the same pitching moment as a large glider. So we stick with Cm because this is the best way. The pitching moment needs to be in proportion to the size of glider and second polar moment of inertia in the relevant axis.

Also don't forget that the C of A measures pitching moment coefficient, and not damping force/coefficient which is the first derivative, which adds stability in the case of a rapid rate of change of angle of incidence with a glider which has a tail fin.

John:

In respect of the DHV, as I can't find their latest standard on the net, I have to refer to the article published in 1996 or 7 by Martin Pepper and Steve Uzochukwu which states that the pitching moment at negative angles of attack only has to be increasing with increasing negative angle. Does this mean that double the standard means double practically nothing? I am sure not, but is there a minimum value? Perhaps you have access to the data or can find out and can advise here.

Steve:

The DHV standard is available on the net. Minimum pitching moment values at zero lift angles are:

50 Nm at 40 km/h
100 Nm at 60 km/h
150 Nm at 80 km/h
200 Nm at 100 km/h

The details of the pitching moment requirements are given in "Airworthiness Specifications for HG & PG" to be found on the DHV web site.

Basically in addition to dCm/d(alpha) remaining less than zero for all angles below trim angle down to well below zero lift there are some minimum pitching moments to be satisfied. It is these forces that may be satisfied by a margin of two.

John:

The incident took place, I believe, when representatives of both the DHV and the BHPA were present at the ranch who will know the actual measured Cof A test values for this aircraft. I presume that an incident report was raised and some time we will get a statement from these organisations about it and any recommendations they come up with. I do hope it will not just be on the basis the pilot was inexperienced and should not have got into the situation and ignore the tumble part. I am sure many pilots far less qualified than this pilot fly these gliders.

Steve:

Before we go belly aching about the gliders we fly, we need to be sure that:

We are flying gliders which are certified, in the configuration they were certified in.

That we fly them in line with the instructions in the manufacturers manual, which should form part of the C of A and the procedures therein which will have been tested as part of the C of A.

Uncertified glider=hello test pilot *No room for complaint*

Davis:

I continue to be very disappointed with the DHV regarding providing information about gliders to the flying public. No test results. Now, John can't find their standards. Poor show.)

Steve:

Untrue. N'importe quoi. Did they look?

http://www.dhv.de/deutsch/testberichte/index_download.html

Then select:

Bauvorschriften Englisch / Construction Regulations

Links direct to the pdf do not work IME.

DHV test results for ATOS:

http://www.dhv.de/DHVonlineDB/source/technictestreport1.php?lang=EN&templatesetid=-1&fieldvalue=3586

http://www.dhv.de/DHVonlineDB/source/technictestreport1.php?lang=EN&templatesetid=-1&fieldvalue=3921

(editor’s note: I have looked for the technical reports on the DHV site. I will look at these specific URL to see if there is something I have missed. But, what I have seen previously every time I’ve looked for them is very skimpy to say the least. I can’t find any charts or real results in German or English. Just a series of answers to a few questions saying that the thing passed the test.)

Steve:

I have to say that HG pilots seem to have a much less well developed knowledge of testing and certification than PG pilots, which is why they tend to buy all sorts of stuff (and straight off the prototyping drawing board, doing some of the testing for the manufacturer), and why more than 30 years after the start of the sport there are still pitching moment issues with uncertified gliders.

Lastly, I have to state that in any dealings with the DHV in connection with promoting technical understanding of their work *as opposed to political bashing* they have gone out of their way to help with technical information, despite the language barrier. Show me the USHGMA Certification in German? In the words of Chris Rock: "It ain't there!"

The DHV provide a superb resource in English, their second language. Needless to say I'm not holding my breath for *any* of the English speaking Associations (BHPA, USHGA) or the French speaking (FFVL) to do the same in German. Please consider this second language element when bashing away at someone else.

(editor’s note: Please separate my and John’s concerns. I know very little about the DHV beyond its web site. All I’m saying is that as a regular hang glider pilot I can’t find useful information about test results and glider configurations on their web site. Simple as that.)

Very high aspect ratio gliders (HG & sailplanes, ultralight or regular) always have issues with slow flight especially in turns. Respect this corner of their flight envelope.

Later John writes::

It is my belief that it is incumbent on our certification authorities, in the light of these continuing incidents, to thoroughly review the standards that are the basis of the c of a and let us, the pilots, know about their deliberations and recommendations before we find out the hard way that that we should have taken action.

Steve responds:

Martin Jursa did some investigation into this when rigids first came along, looking at pitching moment coefficients and tumbling issues. The DHV were satisfied as far as I know they have revised other things several times since then, but no major changes have been made to the C of A as far as pitching moments go.

When I was involved with Airworthiness for the BHPA I had two tumbling accidents - one was an uncertified glider and the other was beyond Vne. There has been a fair amount of discussion amongst the three certifying bodies for HG in the last 10 years. The pitching moment requirements for the BHPA and HGMA are very similar, based on Cm not going below certain values, concentrating on high pitching moment coefficients at low speeds. The DHV standard places slightly more emphasis on high pitching moments at high speeds.

As it stands the hardest bit to pass in either BHPA or HGMA still seems to be very high pitching moment coefficients required at low speeds and low angles of attack, like when the pilot is going weightless. It is John Vernon's belief that the DHV test is "the most stringent", but in fact, how stringent is dependent on glider size. I don't believe this is the case. Most tumbles happen at low speeds, in mixing air. As I have said, the minimum torque requirement does not have the same effect on a small glider as a large one.

On a different tack - majority of tumbles happen in comps where conditions, adjustments to gliders and risks taken are somewhat extreme compared to ordinary flying. Also looking at this competition crowd the majority of gliders are not certified.

Looks like a good cocktail for a few tumbles.

Discuss "DHV and BHPA testing" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Tails

Sun, Jul 13 2003, 6:00:02 pm GMT

BHPA|DHV|John Vernon|safety|Steve Uzochukwu|tail|tuck|tumble

John Vernon <johnv@emvertec.demon.co.uk> writes:

So, we have a glider that meets the DHV pitching moment standards by at least a factor of two (re Felix's comments and pilot report about flap position for thermalling), fitted with the latest safety device, the V-tail, a pilot that reacted correctly, yet the glider still tumbled.

Is this "deja vu" of when you tucked and tumbled and the glider met DHV standards.

(editor’s note: As I recall my ATOS-C didn’t quite meet DHV standards given the way it was tuned at the factory. They found this out later when they tested another one tuned as mine was.)

Perhaps we should be directing our questions to the standards our gliders are tested to.

For instance the BHPA CofA is based around measurements when gliders had aspect ratios about 6. Yet the rigids we fly have AR of 12. As the Cof A test is based on pitching moment coefficient one can show that the pitching moment to meet the standard with our gliders is reduced by approximately 1.414 (the square root of the AR ratio ratios) from that which used to be required unless the standard has been updated recently.

In respect of the DHV, as I can't find their latest standard on the net, I have to refer to the article published in 1996 or 7 by Martin Pepper and Steve Uzochukwu which states that the pitching moment at negative angles of attack only has to be increasing with increasing negative angle. Does this mean that double the standard means double practically nothing? I am sure not, but is there a minimum value? Perhaps you have access to the data or can find out and can advise here.

(editor’s note: I think Steve can respond here.)

The incident took place, I believe, when representatives of both the DHV and the BHPA were present at the ranch who will know the actual measured Cof A test values for this aircraft. I presume that an incident report was raised and some time we will get a statement from these organisations about it and any recommendations they come up with. I do hope it will not just be on the basis the pilot was inexperienced and should not have got into the situation and ignore the tumble part. I am sure many pilots far less qualified than this pilot fly these gliders.

(editor’s note: The pilot inexperience issue is directed toward only one consideration, the pilot’s air speed while thermaling. He was flying too slow because he was inexperienced – or more experienced flying flex wings where this is possible. Felix has stated repeatedly that you are not supposed to fly the ATOS at minimum sink speed in anything but the gentlest air.

I didn’t speak to David’s qualifications in general, just to the issue of whether he really understood that he shouldn’t have flown so slow on the ATOS. Apparently, for some reason, he wasn’t aware of this. It could happen to anyone who didn’t understand the importance of flying faster on the ATOS.

I agree that there is indeed another issue, the issue of whether the ATOS with a tail is comparable to flex wing hang gliders in its resistance to tucking and tumbling. I sure hope so. It’s my life after all.

Flex wings tuck and tumble under certain circumstances also. Does the ATOS with a tail tuck and tumble under the same circumstances, or under circumstances that are more benign? Is the answer flying the ATOS faster or changing the ATOS configuration?

I continue to be very disappointed with the DHV regarding providing information about gliders to the flying public. No test results. Now, John can’t find their standards. Poor show.)

By the way thanks for giving us a medium where we can air these views, cheque in the post as soon as I can find a pen.

Discuss "Tails" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Power Steering for hang gliders

Sun, Apr 6 2003, 6:00:03 pm EDT

cost|Icaro 2000|landing|power|Steve Uzochukwu|technique|Xavier Verges

Steve Uzochukwu <steveu@which.net> sends this notice:

Flex wing hang gliders have usually been a compromise. That compromise has been made between a low performance glider with a loose, billowy sail with easy handling and simple landing but lower performance and a high performance blade wing with a tight sail, which glides very well but requires strong arms in the air and excellent technique to land.

Xavier Verges at UL team has been working on a system that would make the tighter, higher performance glider easier to turn. At the moment it is available for retrofit to some of the Icaro range of gliders but retrofits to other makes are available after an initial assessment of the glider in question.

Two versions of the system were on demo at St. Hilaire. One type on a kingpostless glider, one on a kingposted type. On the more costly type for kingpostless gliders, a small device sits on top of the keel, like an upside down French connection, but aligned in the roll axis. Two wires run up from the hang point via the bell cranks on the device to wires which then lift the sprog on the side the pilot wishes to turn towards. The sprog is lifting the sail a bit like a very small spoiler or an aileron. This causes a turn.

The idea is similar on the lower cost version, used on gliders with a kingpost and luff lines. The hang point wires in this instance operate cams which then pull on wires which go to the tip sticks or washout rods. These are then raised and then aerodynamic control augments the weight shift element.

Several advantages are claimed for the system. The speed of response of the glider may be increased without having to slacken the sail and the glider is easier to fly with the VB on. Some gliders have large amounts of anhedral to improve their handling and with this power steering addition the amount of anhedral may be reduced, making the glider more stable to fly and not requiring constant control inputs. As a result of all this the gliders handling is improved generally.

Xavier says there is a very good chance his system will be fitted to the next model of Laminar from Icaro 2000 for whom he has done a lot of consulting work, including working on the Lumina before Icaro went into partnership with A.I.R. with the ATOS.

More information from:

UL Team 69 rue de Ebavous, 38660 La Terrasse France. E-Mail: <xavier.verges@wanadoo.fr>

Discuss "Power Steering for hang gliders" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Intermediate gliders

Tue, Mar 25 2003, 9:00:06 pm GMT

Aeros Discus|Icaro 2000 MastR|Moyes Litesport|picture|Steve Uzochukwu|Wills Wing U2

Steve Uzochukwu <steveu2@which.net> asks:

Very good reviewing the intermediate and high end king posted gliders. There's not much of this nowadays, especially not with the comparisons you have made. To improve on the accuracy of perceived agility, would it be possible for you to quote clip in weight and let us know whereabouts you were in the weight range? Particularly for the Icaro 2000 MastR series, we would have a better picture if we knew if you were bottom or maybe even below the weight range lower limit.

I clip in at about 190 - 195 pounds (88 kg)

Icaro 2000 MastR: http://www.Icaro2000.com/Products/Hang%20gliders/MastR/MastR.htm

U.m Laminar 12 R Laminar 13 R Laminar 14 R
Sail Area sq m sq ft 12.5 134.55 13.2 142.08 14.4 155
Weight (Packing Bag Not Included) kg lb 29 64 30 66 32.5 72
Clip-In Pilot Weight (Min / Max) kg lb 50/85 110/187 60/90 132/198 70/110 154/243

Aeros Discus: http://www.justfly.com/gliders/discusdata.htm

Sail area: 148 sq. ft, Pilot weight: 150-215, glider weight: 65 lbs.

Wills Wing U2: http://www.willswing.com/prod2.asp?theClass=hg&theModel=U2

Moyes Litesport: http://www.moyes.com.au/ProductDetail.asp?ProductID=50

Discuss "Intermediate gliders" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Electric VG – been there, done that »

Wed, Feb 12 2003, 9:00:00 pm GMT

Anatoly Cohn|Avron Tal|Carlos Rizo|electric VG|George Stebbins|Ramy Yanetz|Steve Uzochukwu

Carlos Rizo <carlosrizo@hotmail.com> writes:

The idea behind electric variable geometries is not new. Back in the early nineties, APCO Aviation equipped (as an option) their Santana hang gliders with an electric geometry. (http://deltaclub82.free.fr/bible/afficher_aile.php?id_aile=170, www.hanggliding.plus.com/siteguides/lanzarote/)

Unfortunately APCO does no longer produce hang gliders and any information in regards to the electric VG is available in their website (they are world leaders in paragliding equipment). A quick call to troubled Israel would provide some additional insights. (Tel: +972 4 627 3727).

Ramy Yanetz <RamyYanetz@aol.com> writes:

An identical system was a standard option on the Santana Hang Glider produced by Apco Aviation from Israel during the late 80's and early 90's. I flew with one for 3 years, worked like charm. I believe it was invented by one of your readers, Avron Tal from Israel.

Avron <Avron@galor.com> writes:

Actually Anatoly Cahn, the owner of APCO, invented it. He saw me working with power screw driver and thought that it was strong enough for the job.

Just saw the picture. It's almost the same actuator we where using in APCO. Looks like the keel is going to be badly scratched with the bolt. The problem is that the actuator tends to swivel (it has an Archimedes bolt inside along it), and the bolt shown in the picture is probably there to prevent the strings from swiveling and entangling.

I was using a cheap square gel cell of 12V. It was lasting for many, many flights. It was also good to connect your radio into the cell after landing to get full 5W for hours.

Another problem was that pilot hate not knowing where the "EVG" (APCO called it electrical VG) is positioned.

We had a prototype of base bar mounted finger switch + diode scale showing the current position of the VG.

This module took into account the drift of the results that the actuator is sending about its position and did it by resetting the unit when full travel to one end.

George Stebbins <gstebbins@lahd.lacity.org> writes:

At my local flying site a few years ago, we had a pilot with (I believe) an Israeli glider that had an electric VG. He loved it, but if I remember right, it frequently jammed, ran out of power, or something. I think that the motor was on the basetube, where he could get to it in flight.

Steve Uzochukwu <steveu@which.net> writes:

Configured so in the event of the battery going flat whilst the VG was on it would unwind to slack, for safety.

Discuss "Electric VG – been there, done that" at the Oz Report forum   link»

The BHPA

Wed, Aug 28 2002, 9:00:02 am GMT

BHPA|Steve Uzochukwu

Mark Dale <mark-dale@bhpa.co.uk> writes:

Nowadays we test to 6 times the max pilot weight. We certify to 4 times the max pilot weight. For composites we have a list of other criteria to ensure adequate quality control (which is the big factor with these materials).

(editor’s note: Earlier (OzReport.com/Ozv6n168.htm) I quoted Steve Uzochukwu thinking that the weight of the glider was also included in the BHPA calculation. Steve asked me to check with Mark. Turns out it isn’t. Again this makes it difficult to compare g loads across glider types.)

Mark also writes:

The guide to which gliders we have certified is that they carry a 'BHPA Approved' sticker.

We used to publish the list of glider types that we have certified, but this seemed to produce confusion as manufacturer's made 'special versions' with the same model name and pilots assumed (wrongly) that because the glider type was on the list, the 'special version' was certified.

We do publish this list from time to time in Skywings, but with clear warnings that it only tells you that if you have the glider type listed then you may have a certified glider. But the sticker is the manufacturer's oath that you do have a certified example.

We do not publish the results of testing other than when certification is completed. I.e. we do not tell the world that manufacturer 'x's' latest prototype has failed the pitch test for the third time of trying. Because this is confidential information about development work.

Of course it is the case that most new types fail certification testing. Generally because of divergent or zero pitch stability. After much adjusting, redesigning and tinkering most can be made safe. This may take two or three test sessions. Never fly uncertified hang gliders!

Discuss "The BHPA" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Hang glider strength

Sat, Aug 24 2002, 11:00:04 am GMT

BHPA|Steve Uzochukwu

Steve Uzochukwu <steveu@which.net> writes:

The Top Secret has been given a BHPA Certificate of Authenticity after truck & other testing. This may have been where the figures for the Top Secret loads came from.

Does the BHPA include ½ or part of the weight of the flying parts of the glider or not in calculating the weight to be born?

The maximum load is 6 times pilot weight, but the measurement includes the weight of the glider. So the total load will be (6 x pilot weight) + glider weight.

What safety factor does it use for the design load for a composite wing -1. 5 or 1.725 or other?

1. 5

I assume 6/3 are the design load. Correct?

No, design are 4/2 with safety factor 1.5.

This means that the design load for any hang glider rigid or flex wing is only required to be 2 g’s negative and 4 g’s positive. In my previous chart I did not include the weight of the wings. The same safety factor is used for composite wings as aluminum and Dacron.

Discuss "Hang glider strength" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Angle of Attack

Fri, Mar 15 2002, 12:00:03 pm GMT

Angelo Crapanzano|BHPA|Steve Uzochukwu

Steve Uzochukwu <steveu@which.net> writes:

C of A testing uses zero lift angle.

This is IIRC some where between AOA of-4 to -10°.

If the higher negative value is correct then you can se where Angus gets 15° from.

Classic aerofoils get best L/D at about 4°. With HG washout this need to be a bit higher so the *whole wing* averages 4°.

A while ago I wrote a comparison of all the HG airworthiness standards. It was published in Cross Country magazine un-edited but was edited for Skywings. At the time the BHPA was having a bit of a disagreement with the local Moyes importer.

http://www.davisstraub.com/Glide/airworthiness.htm

Angelo Crapanzano <angelo@metamorfosi.com> writes:

Davis, just a small clarification on AoA definitions: generally speaking the Angle of Attack is the angle between the aerodynamic profile (or wing) and the flight path (or relative airspeed, which is the same) We could choose any arbitrary line (like the keel in case of a wing or the cord of the profile i.e. the line from leading edge to trailing edge ) and we would get a "geometric" angle of attack. Of course this is practically useless to compare the behaviour of different profiles or gliders (just imagine the differences in keel angle between a glider with high keel pocket and one without).

That's why in aerodynamic it's generally used the "aerodynamic" angle of attack i.e. the angle measured from the zero lift airflow direction (to the profile or wing) and the actual flight path. There could be quite a difference because our kind of profiles achieve zero lift at negative geometric angle of attack (I suppose around minus 2-3° but it's just a guess) while modern hang gliders get zero lift probably around 5° measured to the keel (another guess)

Anyway your simple question was: at which angles of attack are we flying? Together with the University of Turin, some years ago, we made a study on a kingposted Laminar 14 and found out that with an hook in weigh of 89.6 kg: stalls around 35° at 8.5 m/s best glide is around 20° at 10.5 m/s minimum sink is around 23° 9.8 m/s due to the system used we could not check max speed but, in my opinion, it's likely around 10° (these are "geometric" angles of attack measured to the keel)

Discuss "Angle of Attack" at the Oz Report forum   link»

News from Free Flight 2001 at Garmish

Wed, Apr 4 2001, 3:00:00 pm EDT

Steve Uzochukwu

Steve Uzochukwu, http://homepages.which.net/~steveu/index.htm. «steveu» writes:

AIR showed its Atos with winglets and wires with fairings on them. This was an engineering demo and not yet for production.

Atos's new "A" frame comes with front wires eliminated.

All the slack in the control wires is also eliminated! Felix asked me not to reveal the mechanism for removing the slack, but as an engineer, I really liked the solution, which was so simple!

New from Flight Design: the Axxess. It features removable tips, which reduces breakdown length. "A" frame with new Wills down tubes and "old" curved corners.

The plus version has retractable flaps and very short front and back wires, which are positioned at 60% up from the bottom of the uprights.

Axxess uses Jurgen Lutz's patented one pull system to deploy ribs.

(editor's note: I understand that a Colorado pilot has an ATOS with rear struts and no front wires. Did it himself, along with a few other modifications, which I'll photograph next week. I hope to be able to also get pictures of the latest updates on the new ATOS next week when it gets here.)

Glider Riders

Thu, Feb 24 2000, 1:15:05 pm EST

Gordon Rigg|Mike Stephens|Patrick Laverty|record|Steve Uzochukwu

Gordon Rigg|Mike Stephens|Patrick Laverty|record|Steve Uzochukwu

Many of you wrote in to help George out with his question about front racks that have suction cups on the hood (bonnet).

Steve Uzochukwu, «steveu», writes first:

www.skysystems.co.uk or «skyinfo» or ringing +44 1273 556695 or faxing +441273 566330

Grant Abercromby, «grant.abercromby», writes:

I saw your request for where to buy racks (they're called "Glider Riders" here in the UK) in the Oz Report. I don't know if/where you can buy them in the US, but you can find them on-line at the SkySystems Web site: http://www.skysystems.co.uk - Click on "on-line shopping" then "accessories". They cost £62 (about $100).

They do work. I'm just back from a fortnight's flying in Lanzarote where we carried three gliders on top of a GM Corsa (a tiny car) without problems.

Gordon Rigg,«Rigg», writes:

These things come from Britain (Pound land not Euroland!). Invented and distributed by Patrick Laverty, one time UK XC record holder (135 miles on a Magic3). These were an improvement on an idea that originated in Holand where there was a pilot who used a sink plunger (A rubber sucker like thing for unblocking sinks - as in theat old "you've played this game before joke!) stuck to the bonnet (hood) of his car.

They are still manufactured and distributed by Partrick Laverty somewhere in Wales. Distributer Simon Murphy (email above) has stock right now!

Simon Murphy, «FirebirdUK», writes:

Thanks for the plug, Gordon!

I do have some, it is true. RRP is £67.50 including 17.5 % UK VATax.

They are excellent items, but there is one problem - they are a total pain to pack and send. I've never sent any outside the UK, but I would expect it would be rather expensive!

Mike Stephens, «michael.stephens», writes:

I read your request in the Oz Report. These supports are called Glider Riders and are manufactured for fishermen and the like in Wales. The only dealer I know of is Len Hull in the UK who can be contacted at: «Len-Hull».

They are great for using on company/rental cars or vehicles where you don't want to drill into the fenders.

USHGA communication – who cares? »

Mon, Jan 10 2000, 5:00:01 am GMT

Dennis Pagen|Steve Uzochukwu|USHGA BOD

If you take a look at the next few articles, you'll find long reports from Dennis Pagen on what he was going to do at the CIVL executive committee meeting, and then what happened at that meeting. If you are interested, you'll find the details there.

Steve Uzochukwu, <steveu@which.net>, (not a USHGA member, by the way) asks:

How interested are any USHGA members in CIVL? A very small number. It's a very insular country. One of the things Dennis has worked hard on is IPPI. Yet within the States even when it has been explained the following year it has to be explained again. CIVL if anything suffers the NIH syndrome. (Not invented here).

While I'm sure that Steve is correct here, let's think about this point for a minute. First, it is my job to help get people interested in some of these issues. One of the things that the Oz Report is supposed to do is highlight, pick out, certain interesting or crucial items for my readers' attention. This saves the reader from having to go through lots of long, boring reports, just to find the interesting stuff (hey, you can look at the reports also).

Second, the USHGA pays at least $6,000/year to the NAA, which is the US arm of the FAI, so that we can participate in CIVL. What do we get for this money? Our top competition pilots earn a world ranking (about 600 hang glider pilots in the world are ranked). Our top competition pilots can fly in the Worlds. We can sanction our meets for world pilot ranking points to attract top foreign competition pilots. US Pilots who want to set World records are allowed to do so.

That's it. Not much benefit to the average USHGA member is the package of benefits there (well, maybe there is in a trickle down sort of way). Maybe USHGA members would be interested in the budgeting priorities of the USHGA?

Third, CIVL has a lot of say in glider design, manufacturing, and safety through what it allows and how it classifies gliders. The recent discussion about glider standard at CIVL category one meets (see the next Oz Report), will effect every one. The four classifications of glider types were decided by CIVL, not the USHGA.

Fourth, the scoring system used at our US competition is being determined by CIVL's actions.

Fifth, the USHGA BOD competition committee and the CIVL executive committee are tightly intertwined. It would be of interest to know just what the USHGA is asking of its representative, and how CIVL is responding to USHGA positions.

Marc Whisman, <marcw@sprintmail.com>, writes in the Hang Gliding Digest:

Isn't it funny, how some of the very situations that we complained about when the waiver was being forced on the membership, are now some of the same issues that a very vocal waiver supporter (Davis) is raising? <g>

I really appreciate Marc, because he is one of the few people who seem to have a since of history. I've gotten such grief from USHGA BOD members who seem to have never been aware that I cared on a long fight in support of the waiver and the USHGA on the digest.

What Marc doesn't mention here, is that I never spoke in favor of the way the waiver was implemented by the BOD. I just basically conceded this point, as Marc and I really had no argument there.

Marc is arguing, I believe, that the USHGA BOD is evil. I'm arguing that whether or not they are that bad, at least I would like to hear from them. <g>

Discuss "USHGA communication – who cares?" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Top Secret – secret no more »

Mon, Oct 4 1999, 6:00:02 pm EDT

Steve Uzochukwu

Steve Uzochukwu

Steve Uzochukwu («steveu») writes:

Gerard Thevenot tells me that the Top Secret goes into production at the end of October, but that all production slots are full until the end of January.

Discuss "Top Secret – secret no more" at the Oz Report forum   link»

Free Flight

Mon, Apr 19 1999, 4:00:02 am GMT

A.I.R.|Exxtacy|Felix Ruehle|Flight Design Ghostbuster|Icaro 2000|Jos Guggenmos|Steve Uzochukwu|Tip Rogers

Steve Uzochukwu, <steveu@which.net>, sent in the following reports from the big European hang gliding and paragliding show over the weekend:

The Flight Design Ghostbuster was launched to a large fanfare on Saturday. Its different from the Exxtacy in a number of ways. Span is 13m, aspect ratio is 13.4 with the flaps retracted into the sail , making this a variable wing area glider. Planned in only one size, DHV exoected in two weeks, delivery starts ⅕.

Josef Guggenmos had an E7 there in Team Mean Green colours, the glider belongs to JZ. This glider is fundamentally different from both the ATOS and Ghostbuster.

It would have been a slightly disappointing Garmisch this year but for the rigid wings. Three new Class 2 wings were seen for the very first time by a lot of people. Exxtacy designer Felix Ruehle has left Flight Design and set up his own firm, A.I.R. Their new wing is called the Atos. Sails are made by Icaro 2000.

The Atos claims an aspect ratio of 12 and a weight of 33.5 kg. (editor's note – we weighed it today – 73 pounds, more on this later) Control is by spoilers mounted near wingtip, close to the trailing edge. Flaps control glide angle for landing, controlled by a cord and cleat on the base bar similar to a VB. The Atos has just beaten its two other rivals to a DHV Certificate for Airworthiness.

Felix's former firm, Flight Design have not been idle whilst all this was happening. They've designed a successor to the Exxtacy, which they launched with a big fanfare (and simultaneous 'Net broadcast) on the Saturday evening. The new glider is called the Ghostbuster, and weighs in at 35 kg. Sporting a large number of improvements over the Exxtacy, the Ghostbuster actually has a variable wing area, achieved by the flaps retracting into the main wing for high-speed gliding.

Aspect ratio is a maximum 13.4, which corresponds to a minimum surface area of 12.6 sq. m. Spoilers are sited similarly to the Exxtacy, but are both asymmetrically sized and hinged for more refined handling. Two cords can be seen on the base bar, one to retract/extend the flaps and another to control their angle when they're extended.

The Ghostbuster has ditched the Exxtacy constant chord for a variable chord across the wingspan. The chord is largest at the tip, which by moving the distribution of wing area outboard allows the washout (twist) in the wing to be reduced, increasing performance. The wingtip is fibreglass, which is flexible enough to bend and reduce the risk of tip damage.

The Ghostbuster will be made in only one size, with a take off weight from 90-160 kg. This gives pilot hook in weights of 55-125 kg. DHV certification is hoped for in the next two weeks, with first deliveries to customers in May.

Bullet designer Josef Guggenmos has produced the E7, a rigid different in many ways to the other two. He's used much smaller flaps than either the Ghostbuster or the Atos. The E7 spoilers are also very close to the tip, but placed on the highest point of the aerofoil, and much smaller than the Ghostbuster or Atos equivalent.

The structural part of the keel on the E7 is all carbon fibre, and does not protrude from the nose of the glider. The usual rearward aluminium keel extension to park the glider on fits into the carbon fibre main body inside the sail. Tip tensioners and all ribs come with a facility for fine adjustment.

The leading edges of the E7 have a very pronounced taper, which has allowed Guggenmos to cut down the weight of the glider but means he has to produce separate moulds for left and right leading edges. The E7 is also the only one of these three rigids to have a vertical tail fin. The E7 seen at the show is JZs, and is in the Green Team colours.

Discuss "Free Flight" at the Oz Report forum   link»