Weight (on the bathroom scales) of pilots who fly a T2C144 - Hang Gliding Org - Worlds largest Hang Gliding community, discover Hang Gliding

Search

  • Sorry...You must register to activate searching









Post new topic   Reply to topic    Hang Gliding Org Forum Index -> Hang gliding general->Weight (on the bathroom scales) of pilots who fly a T2C144
BURY this topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Odakyu-sen
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 273
Location: Auckland

PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:44 pm    Post subject: Weight (on the bathroom scales) of pilots who fly a T2C144 Reply with quote #1   
Just what is says on the can.

The official Wills Wing site quotes an optimal body weight range of 150-180 lbs (68-82 kg).

What about in the real world? If you fly a T2C144, what is your weight on the bathroom scales (in lbs or kg)?

I weigh 79 kg (174 lb) and am wondering whether a Moyes RX4 would be better for me. (Handling and ease of landing are more important to me that outright glide speed.)
Send private message  Rate this post
NMERider
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 11309

PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #2   
168#
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/glidela
Send private message Blog  Rate this post
Felix
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 617
Location: Edmonton, AB Canada

PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #3   
It really depends on design of the glider...and you.
I personally found the Litespeed S4 to be too much wing for me at 180 lbs. My hook-in weight is about 215 lbs give or take a few. Then add the vario and its mount, camera and its mount...I now fly the Aeros Combat C 12.7 (136.7 sq.feet) and the thing carries weight so well I feel light on it...doesn't make sense but t's true. Very different glider design. Should I ever choose another wing (highly doubt it), the WW the T2C 144 would be my choice (only flew one once but it felt great), and for the Litespeed the 3.5 would be it, the 4 being just too big. But then again, this is me Smile I like immediate response, ease of control and light, easy handling.

_________________
Felix.
Send private message  Rate this post
Jason
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 9148
Location: Stapleton, Colorado

PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #4   
162
Send private message  Rate this post
piano_man
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 06 Sep 2012
Posts: 403
Location: Georgia

PostPosted: Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #5   
Hey Odakyu-sen,

I weigh same as you (170-175) and fly an RS 3.5 I suppose it depends on what type of air you fly in; among other factors. If it's very active air you will have more control and be better off IMO on the RX 3.5 Of course you can opt to get the RX4 and then use some ballast to increase your wing loading when flying in active air and fly without ballast in smooth glass off air. After researching this topic I came up with the goal to have a wing loading that was close to 1.9 lbs / sq ft - with my hook-in weight that puts me there on an RS 3.5

Here are some links that may help you.

http://ozreport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22471&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=dustin+wing+loading&start=20

http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?p=226157

http://www.shga.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4356&sid=70d2a0ce1c7095efcc9501c6e90cec54
Send private message  Rate this post
Wagner24314
1 thumbs up
1 thumbs up


Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 2127
Location: Yankton SD

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #6   
i fly a Airborne C4 13.5 =144 squarefeet
im 215lbs walking out the door clip in at 235to 240 flys just fine.

_________________
"Cocky Bastard". Never land on your face it hurts

H4 AT, PL,FL,RLF, TUR, X-C
Sport 2 brothers wing, LaMouette Topless 1 flys awsome and Airborne C4 13.5
Send private message  Rate this post
Odakyu-sen
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 273
Location: Auckland

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #7   
Thanks, guys. As expected, quite a wide weight range of pilots in the real world.
Send private message  Rate this post
AIRTHUG
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 6586
Location: Ellenville, NY

PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #8   
160 when I'm lean, 175 when I visit my friends Ben and Jerry a lot.

But this thread topic is kinda funny (to me at least)- because I read it as "here is what the designer, factory test pilots and certification pilots, say is the ideal range. But I'd like to know how many people out there don't listen to this recommendation, or even think they know better?"

Pilot weight on any given glider can effect a myriad of flight characteristics- and so it is always a bit of a balance and compromises deal to find the sweetest blend. There's some level of personal taste and how highly you value each effected flight characteristic... but more so that recommended weight will give the best blend of traits in accordance with the design objectives of that glider.

And don't forget safety/usability. Some people might fly heavily loaded... at or near sea level. That's not the same thing as landing at that wing loading on a hot summer day in Colorado. And some pilot's skills are so refined they can, repeatedly & successfully, land in that scenario. But they're the exception- and the recommendation from the manufacturer will take into consideration the minimum pilot rating for the glider model, and the gambit of varying conditions it could get used in.

So basically- manufacturers are, IMHO, far smarter and more considerate of all the different factors, than nearly everyone that 'uses' the products.

_________________
Shut up and fly.
Send private message  Rating: Bad stuff
Odakyu-sen
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 273
Location: Auckland

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote #9   
AIRTHUG wrote:
"here is what the designer, factory test pilots and certification pilots, say is the ideal range. But I'd like to know how many people out there don't listen to this recommendation, or even think they know better?"



If I were the ideal weight, I wouldn't be asking the question in the first place. My issue is that I am close to the upper "ideal weight" for the RX3.5 and to the lower "ideal weight" for the RX4. (And we don't really have high-altitude launches in Australia/New Zealand like parts of the US.)

So, what do you do? Be a little heavy on a small glider, or be a little light on a bigger glider? (As I mentioned, I want handling and ease of landing over straight-line glide.)

The question was an attempt at a little pilot research (if you pardon the pun) to see what people are doing in the real world.
Send private message  Rate this post
mrcc
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 19 Jul 2010
Posts: 851
Location: Auckland

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #10   
Higher wing loading is preferable than lower wing loading for better handling.
_________________
WW U2-160
Enables one to get high.
Send private message  Rate this post
RobertKesselring
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 25 Dec 2014
Posts: 413
Location: West Virginia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #11   
What do you fly now? Do you plan to keep it?

I'm a little light on my current glider. If I bought a 2'nd wing, I'd get something that I'm a little heavy on so that I'd have 1 for the light days when minimum sink is more important and 1 for the stronger days when more responsive handling is more important.

_________________
Do something today to inspire a new pilot for tomorrow!
Send private message  Rate this post
Odakyu-sen
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 273
Location: Auckland

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #12   
RobertKesselring wrote:
What do you fly now? Do you plan to keep it?

.


I have an old Moyes Litespeed4 (year 2000). The sale is ragged out and is starting to require work. The glider would still be good as a coastal jalopy, but I intend to sell it (as I am short of space).

Wills Wing's T2 is appealing. I have heard good things about the Dacron sail, and also good things about the Technora sail (with the carbon stringers) (which is supposed to have a very good flare window.

I don't know if I need the bling of a T2C.
Send private message  Rate this post
NMERider
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 07 Apr 2008
Posts: 11309

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #13   
Odakyu-sen wrote:
RobertKesselring wrote:
What do you fly now? Do you plan to keep it?

.


I have an old Moyes Litespeed4 (year 2000). The sale is ragged out and is starting to require work. The glider would still be good as a coastal jalopy, but I intend to sell it (as I am short of space).

Wills Wing's T2 is appealing. I have heard good things about the Dacron sail, and also good things about the Technora sail (with the carbon stringers) (which is supposed to have a very good flare window.

I don't know if I need the bling of a T2C.

Dacron is great for the bottom surface but nasty for the top. Use Technora on top. Please!!!
Yes it does have a decent flare window. Don't use my landings as an example. I am a klutz. Embarassed Rolling Eyes Laughing

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/glidela
Send private message Blog  Rate this post
Odakyu-sen
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 273
Location: Auckland

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #14   
NMERider wrote:
Odakyu-sen wrote:
RobertKesselring wrote:
What do you fly now? Do you plan to keep it?

.


I have an old Moyes Litespeed4 (year 2000). The sale is ragged out and is starting to require work. The glider would still be good as a coastal jalopy, but I intend to sell it (as I am short of space).

Wills Wing's T2 is appealing. I have heard good things about the Dacron sail, and also good things about the Technora sail (with the carbon stringers) (which is supposed to have a very good flare window.

I don't know if I need the bling of a T2C.

Dacron is great for the bottom surface but nasty for the top. Use Technora on top. Please!!!
Yes it does have a decent flare window. Don't use my landings as an example. I am a klutz. Embarassed Rolling Eyes Laughing


That's an interesting comment. Maybe I should open a new thread about it!
Send private message  Rate this post
waltspoint
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Posts: 220

PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #15   
I weigh 205, hook in around 230 on a big T2. It seems like a perfect loading. My hunch is being a tad heavy on a high-performance glider gives you a better all-around package than being light. You'll obviously get better handling. Although you'll be landing a bit faster, you'll have more control authority with the smaller glider. JMHO.

In the old days, I felt that I was too heavy for the 145 class gliders once I got above 175. Due to poor climb/sink compared to my buddies. But with modern topless designs, loading higher doesn't seem to have as much penalty. If I still weighed under 180, I would get the 144 T2C for sure.

My T2 (recently sold, actually) was an aluminum/Dacron model. It had great handling. I haven't flown a T2C with Technora yet (it's due to arrive in a week or two), but I am told to expect even better handling. The Technora sail is a few pounds lighter than the Dacron sail, and actually the carbon airframe is supposed to be a bit lighter too. So in principle if you spend the extra money, you can be a bit fatter and get the same wing loading with a T2C compared to a T2. It probably doesn't make much difference in real life except for ground handling, but just a thought.

BTW, I fly mostly coastal.


Last edited by waltspoint on Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Send private message  Rating: 3 thumbs up
Angelo
2 thumbs up
2 thumbs up


Joined: 24 Mar 2008
Posts: 84
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote #16   
I'm up to 182, in my socks and skivvies. Last time i flew it, i was around 178. Yes, handling is easy with that wing loading, but landing that beast was a nightmare, i think i had one good landing in it last year. I recently bought a 160 U2 for coastal flying and travel, but it lands so easy, it may become my main glider. If i dont lose some weight, i may sell the 144 T2c or move up to a 154.
Send private message  Rate this post
TjW
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 657
Location: Mira Loma

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote #17   
If you're in between sizes, I think I'd use the godamnit criterion:
If most of your godamnits are when trying to get the glider to turn, go with the smaller glider.
If they're when you're trying to flare, go with the bigger one.
Send private message  Rate this post
Wonder Boy
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 2154
Location: Spokane WA

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote #18   
Along what Ryan mentioned:

From WW- out of the T2C manual-
Same applies to to other manufacturers as well.

The recommended hook in pilot weight range for the T2 is:
T2 and T2C 154: 185 - 285 lbs.
T2 and T2C 144: 160 - 235 lbs.
T2C 136: 150 - 210 lbs.
Be advised that pilots with hook in weights of less than 20 lbs above minimum will find the T2 more
demanding of pilot skill to fly, and that pilots hooking in within 20 lbs of the maximum will experience
some relative degradation of optimum sink rate performance due to their higher wing loading, as well as
increased difficulty in foot-landing the glider in very light winds or at high density altitudes.

_________________
Mike

Everyone who lives dies, yet not everyone who dies, has lived.
We take these risks not to escape life, but to prevent life escaping us.



https://sites.google.com/site/colcenteroflift/
Send private message  Rate this post
Wonder Boy
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Posts: 2154
Location: Spokane WA

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Weight (on the bathroom scales) of pilots who fly a T2C1 Reply with quote #19   
Odakyu-sen wrote:
Just what is says on the can.

The official Wills Wing site quotes an optimal body weight range of 150-180 lbs (68-82 kg).

What about in the real world? If you fly a T2C144, what is your weight on the bathroom scales (in lbs or kg)?

I weigh 79 kg (174 lb) and am wondering whether a Moyes RX4 would be better for me. (Handling and ease of landing are more important to me that outright glide speed.)


What is your hook in weight? Thats what needs to be answered.
Some have a heavy harness, some light. Some pack a lot of stuff with them, some dont.

_________________
Mike

Everyone who lives dies, yet not everyone who dies, has lived.
We take these risks not to escape life, but to prevent life escaping us.



https://sites.google.com/site/colcenteroflift/
Send private message  Rate this post
Odakyu-sen
3 thumbs up
3 thumbs up


Joined: 31 Jul 2010
Posts: 273
Location: Auckland

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 3:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Weight (on the bathroom scales) of pilots who fly a T2C1 Reply with quote #20   
Wonder Boy wrote:


What is your hook in weight? Thats what needs to be answered.
Some have a heavy harness, some light. Some pack a lot of stuff with them, some dont.


I recon my hook-in weight is around 204 lbs. This would put me in the T2/TC144 range.
Send private message  Rate this post
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Hang Gliding Org Forum Index -> Hang gliding general
 
All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2


 
Jump to:  


(c) HangGliding.org All rights reserved. Based on PhpBB