Jump to content

Niviuk’s Explanation For Not Having EN Ratings On Their PPG Wings


Recommended Posts

I really like the look of Niviuk wings and the Link 2 will be high up on my list of gliders to consider once I have completed my training. Niviuk PPG wings are not EN rated for the reasons Niviuk give below. I just wondered what experienced pilots made of this explanation. Is it true that complying with the EN rating system compromises design potential? And if it is, can that potential be realised safely without an EN rating?

Currently the EN standard is used to certify free-flying wings. This means that manufacturers have to submit their gliders for the certification tests WITHOUT the engine and therefore the results are not based on the weight or load that the wing will be subjected to in real flight.

For this reason, paramotor wings certified in accordance with the EN standard are ONLY tested within a certain weight-range and in the vast majority of cases this certified load is lower than the most common loads in actual flight.

For example, a paramotor wing (size 24) can bear a load up to 120 kg. Under the EN standard, this would be certified for a weight-range of 65 - 85 kg. For this reason, any pilot flying this wing with a higher wing loading, for example 105 kg, would not be complying with the EN certification.

In conclusion, if the paramotor wing is flown outside the EN certified weight-range, it is equal to flying it WITHOUT certification and therefore neither the flight test nor structural test can be seen as valid. After an in-depth analysis of this issue we have concluded that the EN certified weight-ranges are not representative of paramotor wings because they can create confusion and misinformation. Therefore, we have decided to use the DGAC certification as our main reference.

We could also undergo the EN certification process, but designing a paramotor wing solely to obtain the certification within a certain weight-range would prevent us from optimising the type, capabilities and performance of the wing.

Edited by Strange Days
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its the same with all ppg wings. none..well hardly any.. are certified for this reason. it's kinda rubbish, but unless the system changes its the way it is.

The other big issue is that any riser systems have to be set to full slow for certification, and with ppg wings that's pointless as we just don't fly like that - especially with modern reflex wings - where we are almost always on fast trim. So for similar reasons dudek, etc don't bother certifying now. There's nothing to stop a decent certification scheme for paramotor wings - testing slow speed, fast speed, etc - and not expecting to try and do stupid crap like big ears a wing on full fast reflex, but it's been 20 years of reflex and it's yet to happen so I doubt it ever will - we are just small potatoes compared to the number of PG wings sold basically. And as a group we are not demanding it.

So your best bests are go for a trusted paramotor wing manufacturer, and if going reflex, one who has been doing it a long time. You just need to trust them to categorize their own wings unfortunately. Arguably some are better than others at that. But the reason I've stuck with Dudek for 14 years is that reason - I want a company that's business is paramotor wings, not a company who's main business is PG and does PPG on the side. Just my 2c. Maybe controversial - I know Ozone seem to be doing ok now for example, but only 10 years ago or so their first attempts at reflex ppg wings were not good.. and it always feels like a sideline to them. Not sure if Niviuk is the same or not, but with no independent certification standard trust in the manufacturer is absolutely paramount imho. I'm not going to dish dirt - but there are some out there who play fast and loose with manuals and marketing bullshit, so ask around, read reviews, and make your decision based on something other than marketing p1sh on websites is my 2c.

 

And just to be clear, DGAC is not a certification - it's like an EU 'CE' stamp pretty much. i.e. 'this thing exists and is made by XYZ' - it's meaningless. BHPA has this to say about it.

https://www.bhpa.co.uk/pdf/BHPA_Certification_Factsheet.pdf

 

Edited by powerlord
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know of any Paramotor wing that is certified for powered flight, but that doesn't mean they are not safe, 

Ozone say on all of their wings ' because the gliders are shipped with trimmers on the risers they do not conform to EN standards.

It is in the manufacturers best interest to make the gliders as safe as possible and the Link is rock solid.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...