Ich zitiere hier ein tolles Posting von Tom Payne aus dem internationalen Forum. Es hat dort sehr viel positives Karma geerntet, weil es wohl vielen Piloten aus der Seele spricht. Leider durfte ich diesen Hammerflügel nie fliegen; ich habe den von Tom weiter unten beschriebenen Weg zum Zweileiner über den R10.2 gewählt. Und jetzt fehlt einfach ein wenig die Motivation, den besten Flügel der Welt noch zu kaufen, da man ihn ja auf seinem ureigenen Terrain - den Wettkämpfen - nicht mehr fliegen darf. Das Posting ist für mich eine Art Mahnmal, was "politische" Entscheidungen nach sich ziehen. Es macht mich traurig, nicht so sehr wegen mir, aber den besten Streckenpiloten der Welt gegenüber ist es einfach eine unerträgliche Bevormundung. Das Posting soll hier auch deshalb stehen, weil gerade in diesem Forum so viele Leute den Stab über den Zweileinern gebrochen haben, die selbst noch nie einen solchen (oder überhaupt einen Wettkampfflügel) pilotiert haben...
Wem es zu viel Text ist, der sollte wenigstens die letzten beiden Abschnitte lesen.
Wem es zu viel Text ist, der sollte wenigstens die letzten beiden Abschnitte lesen.
The R11: In memoriam
A year and a half ago, I wrote an 20-hour review of the R10.2 and twelve months later I followed it up with a review of the R10.2, one year on. At the time
I wrote:
One year on, I have no doubt that the Ozone Mantra R10.2 is the best paraglider that I have ever flown. It has stunning performance, is beautifully made, incredibly collapse resistant in the hands of an experienced pilot, and gorgeously beautiful in the air. It is undoubtedly both the first of a new generation and an all-time classic. It is a real privilege to fly one.
Much has changed in the political world since I wrote those words, and the R11 was all but killed a few months after its birth. What was it like? With the R11, did Ozone deliver more of the same R10.2 or something different?
The wing is famous for its shark nose profile. This has been dismissed as a gimmick, and even Ozone aren't using it in their most recent glider, although they said that they wanted too. Whatever the manufacturer claims, what matters is how a glider feels, performs and behaves in the air. So what was the R11 like?
The deficiencies of the R10.2 were evident, but entirely acceptable to the competition and big XC pilots for whom the wing was designed. Difficult launch? Yes, but you only launch once per day, be that as the first thermals are rising of the east-facing cliffs, or as the window opens in a big competition. Requires constant active piloting? Yes, but this becomes mostly automatic with sufficient time in the air. Unwillingness to turn tightly sometimes? This is a glider designed for carving grand lines through the sky. The R10.2 pilots happily accepted these weaknesses for what the wing offered: raw performance, unleashed.
So how did the R11 compare? Personally, I was skeptical. The R10.2 had already redefined what a paraglider could do, and I didn't believe that Ozone could do much better. I feared that the R11 would only be a marginal improvement: enough to oblige serious competition pilots to buy a new wing, but not good enough an improvement that the pilots would really feel that they were getting their money's worth.
I was wrong.
With the R11, Ozone produced a glider that was simultaneously better than its predecessor in all respects, and yet, perversely, only suitable for a much smaller group of pilots.
Launch? On the R11 it's easy. It behaves well, and the well known "snatch" of the R10.2 is gone. It launches well in all conditions.
Reluctance to turn? No longer. The initial brake input on the R11 feels less connected - softer - than on the "raw" R10.2, but you adapt quickly. The R11 carves beautifully through the sky and goes exactly where you want it to. It climbs exceptionally well.
Low speed? Maybe it's something about all that plastic in the nose. The R10.2 was already incredibly stall-resistant at low speeds, and the R11 keeps this. You can apply surprising large amounts of brake and the wing just keeps waddling along. It's not part of the polar curve that you use very often, but it's impressive nonetheless.
High speed? Here we find the first of the the two points that make the R11 a completely different - and better - wing than the R10.2. We've all heard rumours of incredible final glide speeds, that Ozone "could make the R11 could go faster, but they limited it", and extra pulleys and riser modifications for skilled (or brave, or stupid) pilots who wanted to explore the limits. What is clearly true is that the R11 is several kilometres per hour - maybe ten, maybe more - faster than the R10.2. And it's remarkably manageable. Trim speed performance difference may be marginal, but when you want to get on with the serious business of eating kilometres, six every ten minutes, the R11 completely surpasses the R10.2.
Constant active flying? You might have noticed that I used the words "remarkably manageable" while describing the high speed performance in the paragraph above. In fact, this applies to the R11 at all speeds. Whereas with the R10.2 you were working actively all the time to keep the wing in the right place, the R11 seems to require much less. Alarm bells should be ringing right now. The brakes might initially feel disconnected but in reality the wing is doing most of the work for you. This frees you, the pilot, to focus more on decision making and as such the R11 is a wonderful XC wing.
So what's changed? The difference is that, while the R10.2 demanded constant active flying and so ensured that the pilot was always giving the wing his full attention, the R11 is so good that you focus your attention elsewhere. It inspires incredible confidence, so when you finally hit some air big enough to collapse the wing, well, you've hit some very big air indeed. I've taken this wing into some horribly turbulent places and only ever had one collapse (I was low, and it put me in the trees). On a lesser wing, I'm sure that I would have been less confident and would have turned around much earlier. Mea culpa.
Now that you can buy two 2-liners for sixpence and still have change for the bus ride home, what should you buy? Well, don't buy an R11. It's a better wing than the R10.2 but it won't make you a better pilot. If you're looking for your first 2-liner then get an R10.2 or its deformed brother, the EnZo. They're harder to fly, but they will allow you to learn the skills needed to fly an R11. Paradoxically, you won't learn how to fly an R11 by flying an R11.
There's a strange melancholy amongst the top XC pilots here. We all fly 2-liners, we accept the inherent compromises, and we revel in the stunning opportunities that these stunning gliders present in terms of exploring what is possible on a paraglider. Now that these gliders are no longer being made, we are painfully aware that we have only until our current gliders wear out to really push our personal, national and world record distances, routes and speeds. There are several pilots who are looking to be the first to fly a 300km out-and-return or triangle. We've all been getting closer, we all know that it is possible, and we've all analysed the open/serial performance differences and know that it will be a very long time before it is possible to break any world records on a certified glider. We have a fleeting opportunity before the door closes. It feels like trying to catch the last rays of sunshine before the sun sets.
The R11. I remember chatting on the phone to Russ Ogden after I'd flown the R11 for a while. I started comparing it to the R10.2 and Russ interrupted me, saying "It's better, isn't it?". "Yes", I replied, "it is." The R10.2 will rightly take its place in history as the paraglider that redefined paragliding, and - up to then - it was the best paraglider that I had ever flown. I haven't flown all of them, but I believe that the R11 was the best paraglider ever made.
A year and a half ago, I wrote an 20-hour review of the R10.2 and twelve months later I followed it up with a review of the R10.2, one year on. At the time
I wrote:
One year on, I have no doubt that the Ozone Mantra R10.2 is the best paraglider that I have ever flown. It has stunning performance, is beautifully made, incredibly collapse resistant in the hands of an experienced pilot, and gorgeously beautiful in the air. It is undoubtedly both the first of a new generation and an all-time classic. It is a real privilege to fly one.
Much has changed in the political world since I wrote those words, and the R11 was all but killed a few months after its birth. What was it like? With the R11, did Ozone deliver more of the same R10.2 or something different?
The wing is famous for its shark nose profile. This has been dismissed as a gimmick, and even Ozone aren't using it in their most recent glider, although they said that they wanted too. Whatever the manufacturer claims, what matters is how a glider feels, performs and behaves in the air. So what was the R11 like?
The deficiencies of the R10.2 were evident, but entirely acceptable to the competition and big XC pilots for whom the wing was designed. Difficult launch? Yes, but you only launch once per day, be that as the first thermals are rising of the east-facing cliffs, or as the window opens in a big competition. Requires constant active piloting? Yes, but this becomes mostly automatic with sufficient time in the air. Unwillingness to turn tightly sometimes? This is a glider designed for carving grand lines through the sky. The R10.2 pilots happily accepted these weaknesses for what the wing offered: raw performance, unleashed.
So how did the R11 compare? Personally, I was skeptical. The R10.2 had already redefined what a paraglider could do, and I didn't believe that Ozone could do much better. I feared that the R11 would only be a marginal improvement: enough to oblige serious competition pilots to buy a new wing, but not good enough an improvement that the pilots would really feel that they were getting their money's worth.
I was wrong.
With the R11, Ozone produced a glider that was simultaneously better than its predecessor in all respects, and yet, perversely, only suitable for a much smaller group of pilots.
Launch? On the R11 it's easy. It behaves well, and the well known "snatch" of the R10.2 is gone. It launches well in all conditions.
Reluctance to turn? No longer. The initial brake input on the R11 feels less connected - softer - than on the "raw" R10.2, but you adapt quickly. The R11 carves beautifully through the sky and goes exactly where you want it to. It climbs exceptionally well.
Low speed? Maybe it's something about all that plastic in the nose. The R10.2 was already incredibly stall-resistant at low speeds, and the R11 keeps this. You can apply surprising large amounts of brake and the wing just keeps waddling along. It's not part of the polar curve that you use very often, but it's impressive nonetheless.
High speed? Here we find the first of the the two points that make the R11 a completely different - and better - wing than the R10.2. We've all heard rumours of incredible final glide speeds, that Ozone "could make the R11 could go faster, but they limited it", and extra pulleys and riser modifications for skilled (or brave, or stupid) pilots who wanted to explore the limits. What is clearly true is that the R11 is several kilometres per hour - maybe ten, maybe more - faster than the R10.2. And it's remarkably manageable. Trim speed performance difference may be marginal, but when you want to get on with the serious business of eating kilometres, six every ten minutes, the R11 completely surpasses the R10.2.
Constant active flying? You might have noticed that I used the words "remarkably manageable" while describing the high speed performance in the paragraph above. In fact, this applies to the R11 at all speeds. Whereas with the R10.2 you were working actively all the time to keep the wing in the right place, the R11 seems to require much less. Alarm bells should be ringing right now. The brakes might initially feel disconnected but in reality the wing is doing most of the work for you. This frees you, the pilot, to focus more on decision making and as such the R11 is a wonderful XC wing.
So what's changed? The difference is that, while the R10.2 demanded constant active flying and so ensured that the pilot was always giving the wing his full attention, the R11 is so good that you focus your attention elsewhere. It inspires incredible confidence, so when you finally hit some air big enough to collapse the wing, well, you've hit some very big air indeed. I've taken this wing into some horribly turbulent places and only ever had one collapse (I was low, and it put me in the trees). On a lesser wing, I'm sure that I would have been less confident and would have turned around much earlier. Mea culpa.
Now that you can buy two 2-liners for sixpence and still have change for the bus ride home, what should you buy? Well, don't buy an R11. It's a better wing than the R10.2 but it won't make you a better pilot. If you're looking for your first 2-liner then get an R10.2 or its deformed brother, the EnZo. They're harder to fly, but they will allow you to learn the skills needed to fly an R11. Paradoxically, you won't learn how to fly an R11 by flying an R11.
There's a strange melancholy amongst the top XC pilots here. We all fly 2-liners, we accept the inherent compromises, and we revel in the stunning opportunities that these stunning gliders present in terms of exploring what is possible on a paraglider. Now that these gliders are no longer being made, we are painfully aware that we have only until our current gliders wear out to really push our personal, national and world record distances, routes and speeds. There are several pilots who are looking to be the first to fly a 300km out-and-return or triangle. We've all been getting closer, we all know that it is possible, and we've all analysed the open/serial performance differences and know that it will be a very long time before it is possible to break any world records on a certified glider. We have a fleeting opportunity before the door closes. It feels like trying to catch the last rays of sunshine before the sun sets.
The R11. I remember chatting on the phone to Russ Ogden after I'd flown the R11 for a while. I started comparing it to the R10.2 and Russ interrupted me, saying "It's better, isn't it?". "Yes", I replied, "it is." The R10.2 will rightly take its place in history as the paraglider that redefined paragliding, and - up to then - it was the best paraglider that I had ever flown. I haven't flown all of them, but I believe that the R11 was the best paraglider ever made.
.
. Für die NULL Stunden unter dem R11 habe ich ja auch meine guten Gründe angeführt 
.
.
Kommentar