Jump to content

Comparison of wings


Recommended Posts

Hello all, is there a list of all paramotor wings that tell the differences between each with prices? I'm fairly new at this sport and am needing to know which is the best wing to get. I don't want the least beginner wing, so I'm leaning toward an intermidiate wing. I have kited about 10-12 hours with a training wing. Everyone wants to sell their wing, which is always the best. Please be honest and give me what you know. Thanks, Norm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what mass manufacturers test their gliders at for the 8g rating?

I know it depends on glider size, but that's standardized right?


103kg-130kg rated glider is tested at (in this example 99kg naked pilot mass) 8Gs and passes.

What mass was it tested at?

In this case the possible range difference is over 215kg.

I will assume until someone corrects me that the same mass (per size variation) is used to calculate polar, min/trim/max speeds and glide ratio.

I just can't believe I'm only thinking to ask this question now....



Say they use naked weight @ 99kg

and I motor up to 150kg not too far over the 130 range for the wing.

Now my G rating is dropped to 5.28 instead of 8.

Not saying I'm going there soon, but I am feeling rather ignorant all of a sudden.

I invite enlightenment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget the G rating of the wing, if you are paramotoring then all this force is being transmitted through two tiny arms of your machine, check the manufacturers rating of your motor, for example H&E say that their stainless steel arms will resist torsion up to 7Gs - but I have seen enough bent arms at the AAIB to put me off pulling any sort of high energy manouvre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never paid too much attention to G ratings before because of the reasons that Pete and Dan have mentioned already, but i suppose it would make sense to understand.

If a paraglider has been load tested to EN standards by Air Turquois, the load testing report is can be seen at:

http://www.para-test.com/index.php?opti ... &Itemid=37

For example look at the Apco Fun for Two

You can see the loadings test for each glider that has been tested in a graph, from these graphs it seems that they just load 8 times the certified max weight of the glider for a few seconds and see if anything breaks, they also do a shock test, I don't know how they decide on the loading of the shock test as this seems to vary between 600 and 1200daN

Not all the listed tested paragliders have load testing information, is this because they are not all load tested? Is this not part of the standard EN test? maybe it is optional I don't know? or maybe it there somewhere but I can't find it.

So in answer to your question, If a glider has been tested to 8G but you are flying above the weight at which the glider is certified, then the glider has not been tested to 8G at the weight you are flying at. You can work out the lower G rating if you know how much over the certified weight you are.

Paul D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Guys, but I think you missed my point.

A pilot on another forum has suggested that for each weight range the upper weight is used for 8G certification testing.

He didn't offer an official link, so I take his suggestion as an opinion, still seeking the documented truth.

Dismissing the G rating ignores the question altogether which is one of safety after all. I do appreciate your lack of concern, but suggesting someone else cease pursuing knowledge is always bad advice when it means they might fly safer. Valid point though on motor rating as a variable.

So, to clarify, what I'm hoping to learn is what mass (for each weight range) is used to certify 8Gs.

*If* the upper range is used (which does make perfect sense - do it once) then great, but if so then what is used for the polar/glide ratio/min sink?

Dismiss the need for that information at your own peril as it should affect how you fly your wing.

I've seen tree landings as a result of confusion between best glide and min sink.

Staying in the air longer is no help over trees, or when you need to get back to shore.

If your Glide ratio will be less than published because you're over the tested weight, don't you want to know?

I couldn't find my wing at the site Paul posted, so just picked one I was familiar with.

It looks like the wing was tested at both the bottom and upper weight range with results for both tests.

No hint of what is used for polar calcs or glide.

I recall seeing a table in the works for the fusion here somewhere, and was interested in the variation from published results.

This is what I'm trying to understand here as it will lead to a better understanding of the characteristics of a wing as tested AND how I might need to adjust my flying to match those published numbers.

I know it's not all math, you don't need to know a lot of this stuff to fly safely, life goes on, etc.

I wanna know because it will make me a better pilot.

BTW Norm - sorry to hijack your thread.

Paul's on the money with para2000.org but it's a tool you need to know how to use - and by that I mean try some wings.

Some folks might not want you to risk parablending their nice wing, but may well offer it for some groundhandling.

Best thing tho do is be out there with some experienced pilots, borrow or chat them up about a wing.

If at all possible I recommend try before you buy to get what you need.

This is a great resource for the discussion about them all though.

This forum host polls?

Maybe wings could get listed and some parameters rated to 5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.para2000.org/wings/paramania ... peeds.html

Hopefully this will fill in as it gets reviewed.

Anyone seen a manual yet?

BTW I've answered my own question regarding what weight is used to calculate glide ratio when I did the forehead slap and read the wing loading published with every para2000.org wing. Simply multiply wing loading by area (size chosen) and you have test mass for glide. Criteria remain unknown - ie. they may average the high and low tested mass to come to the results they do, and they are probably biased one way to favor high numbers. It's all about wing loading after all.

This must have been too obvious for someone to offer as an answer?

I'd feel stupid if I wasn't enlightened.

Enjoy the holidays folks.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

From Revo non delivery thread.

"Thanks - that is what I thought. The difference between 29m Revo 2 and 34m Nucleon is about 500-600RPM at similar trim settings, which makes a small but significant difference in fuel economy and noise. Landing speed is faster on the Nucleon but with a longer glide.

Despite the hype I don't think either of these '3 size solution' gliders are ideal at my top end weight, and there is always going to be a compromise of glide ratio by removing over 5 square metres of wing.

Reckon I would have no problem matching the top speed of the Force if I flew the 29m Nucleon (2 sizes down from my 'correct' size)."


Economy is a function of the revs cubed. 500rpm has quite a big effect on consumption. A 10% increase in revs, equates to a 33% increase in fuel consumption.

Glide on our relatively low speed aircraft is completely unaffected (realistically) by wing size/weight for the same manufacturers wing (if 'zoomed' in design from one size to another (Apco's are not 'zoom' designed, but cells are added for the larger sizes)).

Sink rate increases directly in proportion to speed. Sink rate increases for smaller wings, as does speed (sq root of weight changes). Sink rate is all that engine thrust needs to overcome in order to stay in level flight.

Sink rate varies for trim and speed bar settings, it would be virtually impossible to directly compare different manufacturers' wings at 'apparent' same trim settings, same weight. same wing size.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Richard - just a few thoughts on your 'clarification' above.

A 10% increase in revs equates to about 10% increase in fuel consumption (not 33%) - around the 5000rpm range which was roughly neutral trim, level flight. Of course at higher rpm it ncreases more dramatically as most 2 strokes chuck out unburned fuel at max revs. Simonini's figures show that here: http://www.simonini-flying.com/mini2plus_eng.htm

Sink rate is only proportional to airspeed over a small trim range - going slower (or faster on bar) like you say increases sink rate dramatically.

My comparison between the 2 wings was just on minimum and full fast trim, no bar or brake input or actual speed measurements. I was roughly in the middle of the manufacuters recommended weight range on both wings.

It just appears to me that wings like the Revo2 and Force are simply using smaller sized wings to achieve their fast top speeds, which inevitably causes sink rate to suffer - whereas the Nucleon has the best of both worlds (speed, handling and sink rate). Of course it does suffer from being a bigger & heavier wing to launch, so there is always a compromise to be made.

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.

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.


  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Create New...