|
||
|
Quote:
I am pretty sure atleast Sebastian Feigl likes to fly the Experience Pro instead of the Xplorer in medium to high winds. I am pretty sure the Xplorer 3800 that I have is too big for the high winds. And that the normal size would be a better choice. |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
The F3J 3 model rule is interesting. Say your base model is 2x Perfect/Aspire. Should the third model be little smaller for the moments of high winds or an ultimate 4m floater for early morning/evening rounds... Or just fly 3 similar models, with maybe little different laminations?
How does Explorer fall into these categories? Is it a floater or the allround plane? |
|
|
|
||
|
The National Thermal champs have just finished in Australia, at Jeriderie. One report I read, said that, ' a number of Xplorers blew up on the winch lines, most of which were full carbon versions'
Some people are now nick naming them 'xploders' From what I have seen these are an exceptionally good aircraft, lets just hope that was a bad batch Quote:
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
Quote:
I would say its a floater that needs some attention in high winds to get it to punch through and range. In that one area other models appear to be easier to fly. I went out Friday in moderate to high winds and compared my shadow to the X in the ability to penetrate and while I could get close to the same range and performance the pilot load on the X in higher wind was higher than the shadow. I don’t have an Xpro yet so I can’t compare. More to your question, I like the concept of using the same model with different layups because this allows for a huge range of alternative part configurations. There is no provision against using Wing a) with Fuse B) and stabs from plane C) so in short if you use all the same airframe you can approximate more than 3 planes while this becomes difficult if you are mixing airframes. This becomes extremely important if something were to happen to your planes in transit or perhaps you damage one plane in your throw out round. If you are well prepared you can have a huge assortment of alternative models setup from various parts of the main A,B and C models. Of course if you are good and nothing happens to your planes in transit, you have no midairs and your towers don't break anything then having three different planes with unique flight qualities is also interesting.... its a gamble. I just tend to plan for the worst and hope for the best. However considering the topic of pennetration I am torn as to which plane would be the best pack up choice. |
|
|
||
|
|
|
I kind of agree with you. But if all 3 planes are the same, then you cannot have that ultimate floater... Neither you can have the plane for extreme winds.
For the reasons you listed, I will propably fly 3x Aspire in Poland F3J EC. For me Aspire is not really a floater, it is an allround plane. I know can fly Aspire efficiently in 8m/s and survive in 10m/s. I do not really want to know what it is like in 12m/s... When wind pics above 8m/s, I would in fact like to fly a smaller plane. Orca or even Crossfire, although the small size is bad for visibility. Smaller planes a re not only more robust, they are also more easy to lanuch and land - and even more so if it is turbulent. Now, Explorer has the same 80dm2 wing as Aspire... Does anyone have the courage to choose 3x Explorer? Or take the Fiegl way of flying Experience Pro in strong winds? |
|
|
|
||
|
Quote:
I was looking for an Aspire when I was in Turkey. I could not pry one out of anyones hands and at the time they were not really available in the US/CAN I am considering a second airframe for high winds. I understand LJ is bringing the Aspires in now but im not sure just yet .... I would like to see how our team selects go before I make any decisions on another plane. I am also leaning heavily towards another NAN model. NAN was really generous to a lot of teams during the 2008 WC. |
|
|
||
|
|
|
You can take lets say 2x normal Xplorer and one 3,8m. Then you should have models for most conditions F3J. I dont think the standard Xplorer have any problems in fairly high winds.
You all seem to forget that the Xplorer comes in 4 sizes.... And it is mostly interchangable parts. This is why you also see the Perfect ET. Same model as the standard Perfec. Just bigger tips. |
|
|
|
||
|
Quote:
I remember when the Shadow first arrived some said its only for low wind but I flew mine in all conditions just with different lay ups. Doesn't matter much what model you have you just hope your high enough to get back. There probably is not much difference in the sink rates of all the top models at the moment, a lot depends on the pilot. Also take into account that the a lot of pilots have not had their Xplorers that long and it can take a season to get the best from them. |
|
|
||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Over here whe I mostly fly, typical wind is quite variable. At this time of year, say, 4m/s average with 9m/s tops. And this with strong thermal and and sink. Quote:
Can you fly "Exploder" with assymtrical wing tips? |
||
|
Last edited by Tuomo; Jun 15, 2009 at 10:42 AM.
|
||
|
|
|
Guys,
I had a chance to go out today with both my 3.5 Xplorer and my Orca wth 3.63 tips on in fairly breezy conditions. We were flying in a steady 10 mph with gusts around 20 mph. We were flying off a short Hi-start basically for working on 2 minute drill and landings. Like a dummy, I left the ballast at home in my other flight box so my comparisons are soley based on flying both planes dry. The conditions had thermals cycling through fairly quickly and I quickly figured out the Orca was the better overall plane for these conditions sans the ballast. The Xplorer required much more down elevator and/or reflex in order to come back against the winds and really labored making it back if trying to push through the sink in front of the thermals. The Orca required no reflex and just a little down to scoot right on back up wind. The Orca seemed to handle the turbulence better and seemed to also climb better and was easier to keep in the thermal as it raced down wind. My brother was flying with me and he commented on several occasions about how much more comfortable the Orca looked in the gusty condtiions. I am pretty sure I will choose the Orca whenever the wind is up and keep the Xplorer handy for the calmer conditions. I hope to get out a couple of more times this week to fly both in similar conditions but next time I will not leave the ballast at home. I wish I had a way to accurately weigh the two planes but I know the Orca is at least slightly heavier than the Xplorer but not much. See Ya, Pat |
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to know the wing loading of each. Beside thinner airfoils and A/R, wing loading is what will make a difference in penetration. Given that most planforms and airfoils similiar, i would venture to guess wing loading is the difference maker.
If both are same loading, then it becomes a no brainer |
|
|
|
|
|
Tuan,
The following information is taken from each plane's general websites. Xplorer: Area = 75.83 dm2, Weight = 1950 G Orca: Area = 72.28 dm2, Weight = 1960 G I would guess both of my planes are slightly heavier than the projected weights but I am guessing the differences would be similar. The Orca definately has a little heavier wing loading unballasted. It also has a faster airfoil, that responds very well to camber. Also, the Xplorer airfoil when set neutral is slightly cambered similar to the airfoil used on the Zenith. I will try to get actual weights of my two planes to see how they compare to the projected weights. See Ya, Pat |
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | |||||
Category | Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Discussion | RADINA 2 by NAN models | Pinci | DLG Hand Launch Gliders & F3K | 38 | Feb 11, 2009 01:58 AM |
Question | Speed 1.5 /Nan Models. Alex Mini 1.5 setup question | Broncomech | Slope Soaring | 20 | Jul 23, 2008 09:47 PM |
Discussion | Nan Models Shadow ( sorry for the mistake ) | Chipwillis | Thermal Soaring | 56 | Apr 19, 2007 04:44 PM |