Back to Wing Articles / Articles sur les Ailes.
Nova / Tattoo C
|
1. Summary |
by Jérôme Daoust. Revised 2009/3/24 |
Summary (Top of Page)
This section is a summary of my experience, some of which are further described in the Daily Notes (more pictures there too).
I will only report here the changes over my review of the regular Tattoo.
· Total airtime: 35 hours, as of 2006/2/25.
· Model flown, Medium, has a 90 to 110 kg weight range. My total flying weight is 225.0 lb (102.2 kg) (61% into the weight range) where 51.2 lb (23.2 kg) for equipment.
· See Daily Notes for flying conditions and more detailed notes.
· The harness used is a Sup'Air / Profeel XC 2, and a chest strap set at minimum length (maximum relaxation, sufficient feedback and weight shift to my taste).
o Hannes Papesh, 2005/6/10: The new C-version of the TATTOO has a hybrid line rigging: a mixture from UV coated Technora lines and thin, covered PPSL lines.
o Hybrid line set: the center/lower two A and B lines are sheathed (like regular lines). They were most like judged most loaded and be most resistant to mechanical abuse.
o They are silky, slippery to the touch. But maybe all unsheathed lines feel just as slippery.
o
I remember Hannes Papesh saying a test wing in
o Hannes Papesh, 2005: The UV is no issue, the mechanical aberration (damage) is, so don't step on the lines when on hard and sharp ground.
o Looking at a Zoom Race, it had upper unsheathed lines with a heavier "waxy" and colored coating compared to its lower unsheathed lines (those are similar to all the Tattoo C's unsheathed lines).
· Accelerator system.
o On my previous wing (regular Tattoo); I had reported a QA (Quality Assurance) issue with uneven lengths for the accelerator lines (attached to riser, not the speed bar). These ones seem to be even, and as short as possible (Brummel hooks resting on the top pulleys), so that is solved here.
· Transport bag.
o For the Sup'Air / Profeel XC2 , the bag is not big enough, so I had mine previously modified by widening the central zippered panel. Picture.
· Brake toggles.
o The bottom padded base of the toggles has a doubled inner webbing to allow sandwiching a material that makes a semi-rigid base, but its ends seems are melt-sealed and its edge corners feels rough on bare hands. A minor issue, as fingers can be shuffled on the base.
· Wing Tips.
o For some reason (color scheme?) the tips are more obviously square. Picture. There also seems to be an anti-billowing mechanism in the last tip cell.
· On 2005/9/3, I did many inflations in light/switchy wind (5-10 km/h) and the wing behaved well. Picture.
· Line care.
o The unsheathed lines grab more twigs on launch and more prone to tangles. Lines wrap more easily over brake toggles and harness buckles during storage or temporary bundling of the gear.
o Possible explanation: Without sheathing, the lines are more flexible and can better grab any debris, and also thread more into other lines to create tangles (loose knots). Also the lighter weight of the unsheathed lines may explain why the are more likely to wrap over other equipment during storage or bundling of the wing between flights.
o So far, all tangles were easy to undo (no tight knot). On average, paying special attention to lines, adds about 45 seconds when preparing to launch. Also, once untangled after being in storage, one can kite his wing with multiples launches with little risk or new tangles.
o Rate of tangles:
§ 2005/9/4: During a 20 minute kiting session on grass (about 24 inflations), after initial untangling I got one tangle which undid itself during the next partial inflation
§ 2005/9/10: 3 launches over hard soil (no grass) and no tangles.
§ 2006/2/25: In the 35 hour airtime so far, line tangles on launch can be considered a very minor issue.
· Kiting.
o It seems the wing can be lowered further from vertical (what you do to move downwind with your wing) and it has less risk of locking out into a spin, and be easier to bring back up with a simple pull increase. Possible explanation: Reduced weight and drag of lines.
· Collapse recovery.
o DHV Test Report - NOVA Tattoo C - M.
o Asymmetric collapse: I induced two 50-60% collapses by sharply pulling down a full A riser and let the wing recover on its own. Recovery happened with a 90 º course change in one case, 180 º in the other.
o Got many unintended collapses (I fly in rough thermic air). Recovery was uneventful in all cases. Got one accelerated asymmetric: Benign recovery.
· Stability.
o Rate of collapse:
§ Frontal collapse: 3 in first 13 hours airtime.
§ Asymmetric collapse: 5 in first 13 hours airtime.
o In general, this wing seems to collapse a little more than others, but not much more. Maybe the extra energy retention is what causes me to zoom through thermals faster.
· Thermalling.
o Hannes Papesh, 2005/6/10: It's even more dynamic in turns.
o Agility. Defined as the ability to ease to stay in sharp-edged lift that wants to push you out its side. Low agility may force a pilot to explore the limit of brake pull prior to inducing a spin. My scale of 0 to 10 :
§ 0 for an Apco/Presta M at the bottom of its weight range.
§ 4 for a Nova/Artax.
§ 5 for a Nova/Aeron
§ 6 for a Nova/Mamboo.
§ 9 for an Advance/Omega 4 or Nova/Tattoo.
I rate this wing as a 10. Redefining my previous scale, which had the Omega 4 and regular Tattoo as 10's.
· Performance (straight-line).
o Hannes Papesh, 2005/6/10: It has noticeably better performance than the normal lined version (+0.2-0.3 l/d).
o Ulrich Prinz, 2005/6/2: A comment from Mario Eder (Nova Test Pilot) from last weekend… In their tests, the performance of the Tattoo C was between the Radon and the new Tycoon Proto. He expects the Tattoo C to be one of Nova's best performing wings ever, while still having a very good safety margin and even better handling than the standard Tattoo. I personally expect it to steal the show off other wings in this range. Ulrich's logbook.
o Airspeed, corrected to sea level, with 50% into weight range, at 15º C (59º F). See Daily Notes for details.
§ Trim: 37.3 km/h. About 0.5 km/h faster than regular Tattoo. To confirm the increased airspeed, I used a friend flying an Aeron who had the same trim speed as me when I had a Tattoo. There was an obvious advantage for the Tattoo C this time. My guess is that in 15 seconds, I gained about 15 m, which would translate to a 3.6 km/h advantage (seems excessive).
§ Max: 52.7 km/h. About 2.0 km/h faster than regular Tattoo.
o Energy retention. There seems to be an extra dive and height recovery following a sharp turn (more dynamic behavior). If the Tattoo had 10 points for being more dynamic than the regular Tattoo, I would give the Tattoo C an 11 (only slightly more dynamic).
o Glide at trim speed.
§ VS Aeron. Similar glide, Tattoo C is faster. See Daily Notes for details, 2005/9/4.
§ VS Zoom Race. Same glide, Tattoo C is faster. See Daily Notes for details, 2005/9/10. Thermik Magazine thinks a regular Tattoo outperforms the Zoom Race.
§ VS Mamboo. Equal or slightly better glide for the Tattoo C, Tattoo C is faster. See Daily Notes for details, 2005/9/10.
o Glide at ½ speedbar.
§ VS Zoom Race. Similar glide. See Daily Notes for details, 2005/9/10.
o Glide at full speedbar.
§ VS Mamboo. Tattoo C has a significant advantage in speed for a similar sink rate. See Daily Notes for details, 2005/9/10.
· Capturing the essence of the Tattoo C: A top-level DHV 2 wing for glide and speed, but with open-class handling.
· Compared to the regular Tattoo:
o Better. Faster.
o Slightly Better. Best L/D: Seems slightly better than Tattoo. To be confirmed with more in-flight comparisons.
o Same/Unsure. Similar rate of collapse, same easy recoveries.
o Slightly Worse. Line care. More care not to step on the lines over hard ground (they are hard to see). The lines grab more twigs on launch, and tangles more easily. But overall, not a significant concern.
· Contenders (by order of personal interest):
o Apco / Lambada. Available but no performance reports. Short ridge soaring flight felt good. I would like to fly it in thermals.
o Gradient
/
o Gin Gliders / Zoom Race. Seemed to perform equally during a glide comparison. See Daily Notes for details, 2005/9/10.
o Advance / Sigma 6. Performs equal to regular Tattoo according to Thermik magazine.
o Gin Gliders / Zoom. Based on the my comparison flight with a Zoom Race, I'm thinking the normal version should perform similar to the normal Tattoo.
o Nova / Tattoo. Thermik magazine rated it a top performer and served me well for 78 hours. My interest is placed below some others because I would feel silly to buy again the same wing I just owned (try to justify that to the wife).
o Skywalk
/
o Firebird / Eagle. Medium size available. Performance?
o Airwave / Mustang. Performs less (0.2 L/D) than regular Tattoo according to Thermik magazine.
o Ozone / Instinct. Soon available, available in regular/unsheathed lines. Performance?
o Icaro / Ice 2 XC. Available but no performance reports.
o Pro-Design / Thema. Performance?
· Pictures in the Daily Notes.
Daily
Notes (Top of Page)
Does not mention all my flight, just whatever is worth reporting.
2005/9/3
· Received Medium Tattoo C.
· Pictures:
o Kiting in light, switchy wind (5-10 km/h).
2005/9/4
·
One hour at Torrey Pines (100% ridge
soaring), then another hour at
· Measured my TFW (total flying weight): 225.0 lb (102.2 kg) (61% into the weight range), where 51.2 lb (23.2 kg) for equipment.
· Airspeed measurements.
o Direct observations [at 100 m MSL, 61% into the weight range, at 25º C (77º F)]:
§ Trim: 38.5 km/h
§ Max: 54.5 km/h
o Corrected [at sea level, with 50% into weight range, at 15º C (59º F) ]:
§ Trim: 37.3 km/h. In comparison, I had 36.9 km/h for the regular Tattoo.
§ Max: 52.7 km/h. In comparison, I had 50.8 km/h for the regular Tattoo.
o Corrected [at 1000 m (3281'), with 50% into weight range, at 15º C (59º F) ]:
§ Trim: 39.5 km/h.
§ Max: 55.9 km/h.
o Corrected [at 2000 m (6562'), with 50% into weight range, at 15º C (59º F) ]:
§ Trim: 41.8 km/h.
§ Max: 59.2 km/h.
· Performance (straight-line). Comparison with a Aeron (similar loading)
o Glide at trim speed. A short transition near a friend with an Aeron seems to give a slight advantage to this wing. This needs to be confirmed with more comparisons. From my experience, the regular Tattoo had identical glide to the Aeron. Since the Tattoo C has a trim speed advantage, I will need to match the trim speed of other wings and then compare the elevation change when flying alongside another wing.
· Pictures:
o From Bob Barry:
§ Horse Canyon. Initiating a turn.
2005/9/10
· 4 hours at Marshall (90% thermalling). One 22 km XC, and some late afternoon thermalling.
· Stability.
o During the XC flight, all pilots reported rough air, most got collapses. I got these collapses:
§ Frontal collapse: 3 of them. Benign recovery.
§ Asymmetric collapse: 2 of them. One of them was a 30% while on ½ acceleration which resulted in almost no course deviation. Benign recovery.
o No collapses during the more normal late-afternoon thermalling, although I saw other pilots get collapses.
· Performance (straight-line). Comparison with a Zoom Race (Loaded 100% into its weight range)
o Glide at trim speed. Same airspeed observed (no need for one of us to slow down to match the other's speed). Same glide with neither sinking faster than the other. Correcting for the higher loading of the other wing, the Tattoo C is faster.
o Glide at ½ speedbar. I matched the airspeed of the other pilot and also did the course corrections. I observed over a period of about 30 seconds that I dropped about 5 m more, but I think some of it can be attributed to my speed adjustments and course corrections (and extra speedbar inputs to compensate for the brake inputs). We should repeat where I am the one flying constant speed and give no course corrections. Also the higher loading of the Zoom R into its weight range created a need to accelerate more on the Tattoo C. I believe the glide would be similar for equally loaded wings.
· Performance (straight-line). Comparison with a Mamboo (Loaded 100% into its weight range)
o Glide at trim speed. Same airspeed (despite other pilots heavier loading), so Tattoo C is faster for similar loadings. Similar glide, maybe slightly better for the Tattoo C.
o Glide at full speedbar. I had a significant advantage in speed (despite the higher loading on the Mamboo) while sink rates were similar.
2005/9/24
· 3 hours at Marshall (90% thermalling).
· Stability.
o Rough air in the early part of the day. I got these collapses:
§ Asymmetric collapse: 2 of them. One 40% and a 20%. Benign recovery. Other pilots also getting collapses.
o No collapses during the more normal late-afternoon thermalling.
2005/10/1
· 2+ hours at Marshall (Made goal on a 28 km competition route, and winning with my teammate): Results, Flight details.
· Stability.
o Rough air when close to terrain. I got this collapse:
§ Asymmetric collapse: One 75% at a thermal's edge. Benign recovery. Other pilots also getting collapses, one pilot made a reserve deployment (analysis).
2005/10/8
· 2 hours at Otay Mesa. 80% thermalling. 600m gains over launch.
· Stability.
o No significant collapses: Got two small wingtip deflations, same as others.
2005/10/29
· 2 hours at Marshall.
· Broke an upper brake line at the first inflation of the day, did a temporary repair (simple knot shortening the line by 3 cm, which had no noticeable effect in flight), and ordered new line that evening.
o Update,
2005/11/4: Received yesterday the replacement line made by Alan Bradley of
Nova
· Had a knot in my lines on launch.
· Stability.
o Good. Despite the rough air, only one wing tip collapse.
|
If you enjoyed
reading this review, please make a donation to encourage
me to write future reviews. |
