Tom Lolies Explains The Science Of Wing Design and Evolution from ENC to CSC

Every new prototype that comes in and and that doesn't work the way we expect. I'm like, I don't know what I'm doing. This is this is what I feel. Even after like 8 years of doing this job, still we don't, I don't know what I'm doing. We're learning everyday and that's the interest interesting part of this work. So I'd, I'd like to play with everything and during my, when, when I was a student, I started with a project which would be like bringing more scientific methods and, and methodology and modelling into the part lighting. And thanks to to these projects, I got a job as a designer with a

BGGI stayed with BGG for seven years. And then I created my own company that is kind of a small research group. We are three working to create new modelling and simulation software for paraglining, kiting and basically flexible sales. And, and I'm working for Skywalk as a designer, but also involved with the flair for the Para kites and Flight Surfer for the kites in Yeah, that's it. Yeah, jeez, that's like a lot of things on the list, man. Seems like you're a busy man. Thank you for taking our time. I would say yes. Finally, we managed to find a time slot where we can peacefully. Check. Yeah, yeah, Now super happy to

have you on the show, man. I think it's very nice when somebody carries all of that experience in such short time and is doing so well. You know, like your products speak about your, the work that you put in. But what I'm, what I'm wondering is how does initial life look like for a designer? Like, you know, what, when you applied for BGD, like what kind of what did your computer screen look like? What were you spending your time on? Yeah, at first I think they are the basics, like getting to know the cat software. Most designers use a glider plan, which is kind of the same

cat software. So it's understanding the geometry and and then you quickly get around it. Like generating the geometer of the glider itself is easy, but then you really are overwhelmed with the amount of parameters that you can actually play with. And in fact, every time I've had the belief that this one parameter would have this one effect, that belief came back into question later on. And it's really about this like kind of a holistic approach in the design that all the parameters have interactions between each other. Like you change the arc, you need to adapt the line lens and you need to also adapt the panel

shaping. So basically it's been, it's extremely hard and to come up with like clear conclusions. So if, if I were to write now with what I know, like a notebook on like how to design a pipeline of from where I stand, I would have no idea where to start or how to do it. Because everyday it's like you, you, you're a beginner again. And, and so when you, when I started, I thought it would be a lot easier than I expected. I thought it would be a lot easier than than it turned out to be. Like how, how, how can it be? Just say no, They told the bike,

I just look the same. No inflated cells with the airfoil. Then I mean, we can play with maybe few different airfoil shapes and few different arc and, and we'll get it done. But no, it's, it's by far not that easy. And, and I think at the start I quickly got confident. I quickly got confident and overconfident and after a couple of months I realised that this will be a lot harder than I expected. Yeah, well, I'm lucky for to. Learn and I think you can spend a lifetime on doing this job and and and you'll never get bored of it because it's just endless. It's a simple system, but at the

same time extremely complicated to understand from the physics point of view. You know, like, thank you for mentioning that. But like what I understand is it's just permutation and combinations. It's like these are the parameters that make a very good glider. Now the idea is how do we put them together so that it can actually materialise in a wink when it comes off the factory with AI doing the calculations for us. And this is not something new. I think behind the scenes, of course, you know, we have GPDS interacting with normal public now that we are aware of it. But calculations as such when they're, when it comes to

figuring out the permutation, permutations and combinations have been around for quite a while. So can't we just put all of these data points together and say that, hey, this is the most ideal gliding profile? Like let's say Enzo 3 has set a benchmark. Can't another brand's designer say that this is the reference? This is what I want. Just do the needful for me. Unfortunately, no. Or maybe fortunately, because this job would be a lot less interesting, I think the AI model or any optimization model is only as good as it's training data or the model it is based on. And The thing is, we don't have quantifiable data on which we

can rely on, which we can actually rely. And that that's the most difficult part is that when even when it comes to like simple things like say handling, like how the glider handles, this is very subjective from one test palette to another. Sometimes you with a conclusion and then the Super strong day comes in and you're like, maybe not. Maybe this is not the handling I was looking out for. And maybe you think your handling is good, then you get a glider from the from one of your competitors and it's so much better or the opposite, it's so much worse that you thought the handling was OK, but in fact it

was excellent. And it's all about feeling comparing letters back-to-back. And then there is the performance measurement. But even the performance measurement on its own, it, you need to have a lot of care when you do it because you have turbulence that comes and add noise to your data. You have the measurement, the measurement devices that have also can have problems, inaccuracy. And so All in all, we don't have quantifiable data. And when we have models, we tried to do a lot of optimization with a former colleague of mine who now works at Ozone Lucca has been deep into optimization. So the idea is that let's say

you're climbing a mountain blindfolded, this is how like numerical optimization works. Then you try to like walk around and you find a slope that is going up and so you go in that direction. And this is something the approach that we've tried to do it numerically, but then we realised that the optimization most of the time was just jumping straight into the flaws of the model. Let's say you don't take into account stall in your model, which is usually the case because it's super hard to model stall. Then your optimum design will go for something that will be terrible for full stall. And always this type of sudden you need to add another

constraint and then you had so many constraints that you cannot move anymore. And and so the medical optimization taught us a lot on like, why do we do what we do? But in I'd say that it's not going to be something where you just press a button and then pull the glider comes out because you have unquantifiable outcome of the in the results, non continuous data that you're using like number of cells, not something continuous. It's just, it's quite complicated, in fact. Wow. And I, OK, correct me if I'm wrong, According to me, who's a layman when it comes to glider design, OK, all I see is the end

user photographs that you guys put on your website. For me, it's like you guys go to AutoCAD, put in some clicks, make a design including the parameters you know that you mentioned in the beginning of the show, send it to the CNC laser cutting machine where that design gets cut very precisely. It comes, then it comes to the Seamistress table who sews it together and then you attach lines and then you go out and fly a paralleliser. So for me, the whole process is broken down into 3-4 simple steps. But you have explained the background process of it. So let's say just for the perspective of everybody who's

watching this, the timeline that it takes from drawing board to racing in a comp. So I'm including all the certifications and everything. So let's say if you have like CSC is big, you know, for for our viewers, CSC is civil sports class because there is a huge demand for sports class racing category, which is seeing growing in popularity. And a lot of talk these days is going on on how not to make ENC gliders in a way that they become too hot for the general cross country pilots. So let's say you guys have to put out a CSCI hope I'm saying that correctly. Yeah, CSC class. It's a bit of a tongue twister

sometimes. CSC from day one to how many days do you need until it starts the racing? Anywhere between 12 and 18 months. That's the Yeah, but it's more like 18 than 12. So basically usually it's about 6 to 10 prototypes and each cycle for a prototype will take maybe 6 to 8 weeks and and then yes, certification pre production. So if I go through the whole process, then basically first we have like numerical prototypes. So let's say we want to improve a specific pointless, let's say performance or top speed. Then we just come up with assumptions, modify the design, simulate and then get more stop speed in the simulation, make a

prototype. So maybe the simulation work, maybe it did not. So then you make more numerical prototypes, adjusting your models and this you like kind of like moving forward prototypes after prototypes between numerical prototypes and then physical prototypes. And even in the testing, like once you've received the, the, the glider, usually we put a lot of attachment points everywhere and there is a lot we could do trimming lines, moving attachment points, changing the, the, the sale as well, like training edge lens panel, shaping the, the, the, the, the shape of the panels. Camber and arm. Basically, yeah, yeah, Also adjusting a little bit camber of the profile, changing the the the rods, the tension of the

rods. There's so many things we can do. And all these things, they interact between each other. So the test matrix becomes really big very quick. And, and so it takes a lot of time to really work around the prototype and say, OK, this one, we're done. We, we can't do anything better with this one. Sometimes you throw away your prototype in one day, but sometimes you spend two months on it before you say, OK, I give up. We cannot do anything better. OK, I really wanted to ask what happens with all the prototypes that don't make it to the market because, you know, like anybody would love to have free gliders

even though it's like this is too dangerous to fly here. Like no shit trust. Me you don't accept what the types are like quite good and and maybe just like not the handling is not nice or something like this. But some are really sketchy like in, in in mostly in the collapses. Like simulating the collapses is something that is quite difficult and and some have really nasty behaviour. So, so you guys actually destroy a sum like that is a part of the production that if it reaches a point where it becomes dangerous even on the after sale market, it's better to destroy it rather than? Yeah, we have upcycling a little bit because most of the time

these prototypes when they throw them away, there are still like new clothes, new lines and is that they're doing upcycling and make new things out of it. It's not a very profitable thing to do, but we we try to push this otherwise, yeah, in the end, when when no one wants them, they end up in the bin unfortunately. But yeah, this is the the way the Andy goes. I'm like thinking, because I was reading on New York's website once when they came out with their tandem single skin wing and they said that they had 40 prototypes made for that. Man, that's a lot of gliders anybody would do anything to get their hands on if they were

being offered for free. And a lot of gliders to to test as well, and a lot of hours for the test pilot. Yeah. OK. I really want to keep on this. But the thing that comes to a wide is because you said that a tiniest bit of change impacts the whole ecosystem. So do you sometimes this might be a bit philosophical and a bit away from our talk, but do you sometimes feel that the glider itself is a living thing? Like it's kind of like, I mean, not living as it, like it has a soul, but it's like it's moving as if it was connected like a

human pilot. So like basically when you're flying, the glider is is talking back to you in its own language and you kind of feel connected to it. The same goes for like anticipating A turbulence or you know. I think it's, it's the way we feel and can like live through the design and try to like, we use words that you would normally use probably for a person to describe it like this one is more calm or this one is exciting, though it's just ways we can find to describe the Gladys. But I think every pilot does. When you get the when you're lucky enough to fly on a lot of

different wings, then you can actually feel how different things can get from 1 design to another. And how easy or difficult is it for you guys to notice? Like for people like you who go out and understand the science behind the wing and also feel the physical feeling when you fly it. So how long do you take to notice something is off or something needs to change? It really depends I think. One thing I've realised is that no matter how good you can be, the like cognitive biases are huge. And if like you feel no different on that day because you're tired or whatever, If the

conditions have changed, your harness has changed or just if you've been flying your comp glider for like 2 weeks and then you go back to your school glider. This is the type of thing that will buy us even the best ice pilots. So I think things go well and smooth when you have always like reference. Like you fly your reference, then you switch back to to the glider you're testing and you go back and forth like this. And often you need more than one person to like get separate feedbacks and then group them together at the end to avoid the biases. This is really something I've

learned on myself is that we are biased as human beings and we all are even the best pilots in the world, and so we have to work hard not to basically destroy the whole job from because of these cognitive biases. I love the word cognitive bias. I think it it illustrates my next question very perfectly. Because I was going to. I'm still unsure if I found the right answer, but the question that when can a pilot go from a three liner E&B which is the norm of the industry to A2 liner E&C which is becoming the new norm of the industry. It's still very hard for me.

But before you answer that, Tom, keeping the cognitive ability in mind, are humans designed to control 3 liners better or two liners better? I think from in in my mind 2 liner three liner does not matter that much. I would say that I find 2 liners a bit harder to design, but once the design is finished for the end user, the objective is that they are both. They can be both intuitive and easy to fly and I don't think this would be the one parameter I would look at. I have flown 3 liners that are very sketchy and dangerous and two liners that are a lot safer.

And it also could be a bit of a paradox that even on the markets right now we have EN BS data but more stable than some ENC 2 liners. And this is also affected by the regulation and and the way we perform the collapse in the certification. OK, let's explain that a little bit more to our viewers. I want to touch upon a topic of flight mechanics before, because I think we we discussed this a little bit before that flight mechanics is more or less having four drivers which kind of make the whole ecosystem. The first one is collapse resistance. So collapse installed resistance. When it comes to checking these two points, there's a

substantial difference between E&B&E&C class and of course within C or within E&B there's a huge variation low to mid to high and similarly in C that we are seeing. Could you explain these two parameters for our viewers that how can they decode it most more responsibly than they have? So starting with a simpler 1 is the stall resistance or at least simpler what to to understand. Basically safety is about the envelope. It's like how slow can you get before you stall and how low the angle of attack can be before you collapse and or how resistant the glider will be to the reduction of angle of attack.

So this is the envelope and for the stall resistance, I think there are a lot of factors that go into this. The first one will be the pressure is like how much pressure do you get before you you actually go into the stall? And if you have the, the glider is really hard to stall. That deforms a lot, gives you a lot of pressure before you stall that it's going to be really hard to stall by accident, especially if you, let's say get a collapse or private, then it's a lot easier to stall. But if from the beginning you have that super direct and clear stall point, then it gives you

that extra safety margin. On the other side of the spectrum, it's a bit more tricky and let's say new in, in the latest development of the design lately we've started to use more and more airfoil with a pitch up tendency. And so that pitch up tendency means that let's say you take the glider and you cut all the lines off. And if your glider wants to, basically if the nose wants to pitch up and, and go towards the flight towards the sky, then that that is the pitch up tendency. But then on the other side of of the spectrum, if you have, if you let the glider fly on its own and if it immediately jumps

into a collapse, that's the pitch down tendency. And in the past, most gliders had that pitch down tendency. Just a second. So the aerofoil, let's say if this is the aerofoil in stable terms, any successful aerofoil is supposed to sink at one metre per second according to parallel design. So the pitch up tendency, you mean like how is that designed? Is that designed to make the one metre per second lower? No, no, no, it doesn't. It doesn't affect the performance significantly, not in like calm conditions. It's about reacting to turbulence. It's not about like your steady state flight. And basically the the pitch of tendency is that it behaves in a way that if the ankle of attack

reduces, then the centre of lift goes forward towards the nose or even beyond the nose. And so that puts all of the load on the A lines. And then your Air Force just wants to pitch up and go against the reduction of the Gulf attack. And the outcome is like when you fly the pitch down tendency will more be, I mean it depends a lot on the glider. Some deform will deform more, we communicate more. But basically when you fly the pitch down tendency, the if you have a down downwash gas like reduction Armageddon attack, then the profile wants to go with the collapse. And so there is a tendency to

just collapse completely and brutally and you don't really have time to react. And if you have more pitch up tendency, then basically the, the profile when the lines go slag because you're losing lift the the profile wants to go against the collapse. And So what you feel in the hardness instead of like boom, everything going, you feel that you're falling because you're losing tension. And this is, will give the pilot more time to react. And the more you have this pitch up tendency, the more you have this collapse resistance, the easier it will be for the pilot to have time to react and the more it will be for the pilot to

basically fly safely at high speed through turbulence. And this is kind of a new trend in the design that we didn't have in the past for several reasons. The first one is that basically if you have a profile that goes against the reduction of angle of attack, this is a profile that will go against the reduction of angle of attack that you're looking for when you want to accelerate. So that's a profile that goes against acceleration. And so it has been a challenge to still get good top speed with pitch up tendency, high strong pitch up tendency, especially if your range is limited like on the CCC for instance, where we

have a speed range that is limited to 14 centimetre, which limits strongly the amount of reflex or pitch up tendency that you can implement in your airfoot. Then the other factor which is the biggest limitation in practice will be the collapse. If you think about parakeets for instance, you can just go hands up, pull on the A lines and if it's a good parakeets it won't collapse. So it won't collapse, but then it won't collapse. So you cannot do EN tests. And if you manage to collapse it, you can always collapse by doing like stupid things, but then it's never going to be Ena or ENENB or even END behaviour.

So then what can you do? You need to use folding lines. So this is like a, an extra set of line that you connect to the leading edge that allows you to kind of like destroy the airfoil and collapse it anyway and study what happens if you do get a collapse. And the funding lines were authorised a few years ago on the ENC. So people interpreted this move as authorising to liners in the ENC category. And this was not my understanding of it. It's like, yes, this is 1 consequence is that we can have ENC 2 liners. But for me, the biggest consequence is that finally we

have stable Air Force in this category thanks to the folding lines. And This is why I find a bit of a paradox. Going back to the question from 5 minutes ago, that's EN BS cannot have folding lines. And so basically we have to have stronger limitation on the pitch up tendency on the E&B so that we can actually collapse with the A line and not get nasty behaviour from this. And so I have seen quite few E and CS that ended up being in my mind safer because they were certified with falling lines and stable airfoils compared to some E and BS that even with the

lower aspects or more sketchy to fly in my opinion, but easy to certify with the. I've been flying for like fairly long man, and I never knew there was so much that goes behind between the design because to be the thicker the safer, the fatter the wing is, the easier it reinflates and the less like you know it collapses. But I think out of all the important points that you have mentioned, if a user, if a listener has to go and look for overall stability of the system while making a decision, especially in transition classes. Because EMV to ENC is one of those very important classes where if you get scared like

there is a real chance that you might just say fuck it. You know, I've invested time, energy and money and I have tasted the flight and I've done small cross countries, but I don't want to risk my life for it. So when switching from transition classes, how can users evaluate the overall stability of the system which encompasses everything that you just mentioned earlier? I would go and look for the kind of green flags. I think it's quite hard as a as a pilot to have a good understanding of the stability. Then there is like the brands that you trust and the fellow designers I'm working with or

also like working hard on this problem. And this is constant discussions we're having with with some of our fellow designers. And some things that you can look at is like the tension on the back lines, for instance. It's quite a simple thing that when you go full speed, you would expect that the the if you have a 2 liner, it's a bit easier to explain, but that also works for a three liner. When you go full speed, you will see that the B lines get really light. And that's a consequence of the pitch up tendency that the the centre of lift is moving towards the nose. So basically all of the loads is

going to your A lines like hanging on the A lines and then the B lines becomes very, very light or even completely slack. That's usually a tendency of of that this type of airfoil is being used and that there is actually a strong collapse resistance implemented on on the glider. It's not a magic rule, otherwise it would be very easy, but it's one like 1 green flag between many. But I think it's also a question of like where do we want to drive the market and where we do we want to go next? I think I've, I kind of grew up as a designer with like the old

belief and the old belief was that if you increase the collapse resistance, then you will get in trouble. Then you will start to have tumbles and a lot of scary ideas that the glider that I even heard a lot of times when I'm experienced designers that the fact that the glider can collapse is good because then collapse will act as a damping or whatever. I've heard the same one growing up so far. And now after some years in this job, I kind of think that this belief was something that people had to come up with because they didn't know how to make the gliders more collapse resistant. Because now you can take a very

good collapse resistant glider, stole it, got into backfly, hands up, and it stops in front of you. So where is the tumbling? I don't see it coming. And maybe this type of collapse resistance is not something they can actually use for piloting because it's maybe not going to be fast enough. But basically, increasing collapse resistance does not mean killing the safety. And the more I'm working on this topic, the the more I'm convinced of this idea. There will always be a limitation to the collapse resistance, but because still we need to go fast, especially cross country and and even more in racing. So we need some speed range.

And I don't think we need to stop performing collapses all together because we still need to know how the glider behaves. But at the moment the whole industry is kind of focused on collapsibility because we have about 20 tests for collapses in the certification and hardly one test for collapse resistance, which is also a debated test. Not not very. It's the the only test we have collapse resistance is brake application at full speed. And it's debatable whether it actually demonstrates the collapse resistance of the glider. So we don't really have any test for collapse resistance actually. And it's not because people don't want them, it's because we

haven't really found them yet. And I really hope that this is a transition we can bring to this market that, OK, we still need to check the collapsibility, but maybe a bit less and focus more on collapse resistance. I think Luke had great words about this. He said, you know, if you're a cell plane pilot, nobody teaches you to react when you lose, lose a wing because losing a wing is so unlikely that you just don't even think about that possibility. And I'm thinking like the parlance of tomorrow maybe collapses will be so unlikely that we don't want even want to check what happens if you collapse.

It's a possibility that we will get to that point. Yeah, man, I'm excited. Can't wait to bring you back when that happens. OK, Ian as a test as it's flawed at a lot of stages, but when it came out it was more or less, I don't know if it was the need of the hour, but it made a lot of sense. So that's why I got widely adopted. Ian only tells you the recovery behaviour or collapse, the collapse behaviour. Ian does not tell you the recovery behaviour depending upon how often it collapses. So is there a certain, is there a certain understanding that a pilot can have from reading the

test reports? Because a lot of them are like, you know, ENC gliders listed on the air turquoise and 90% of the letters are E&B unless an asymmetric comes up and pushes it to the next category. So it's like you can. Spend a lot of time on that. Fancy report and get a gratification by reading and thinking that you're making a very informed choice. But when it comes to decoding the test report to the point where you want to see the amount of time it collapses? Or is there a better way of reading a test report or finding this the frequency of collapses rather than the collapse behaviour itself?

I think it's best not to use the report as a way to make a judgement on the glider that you're going to buy. The main thing is that this report will give you a lot of information on how the collapses went. But as you mentioned, they don't give you any information on how easy your glider is to collapse. And quite often when you have like pitch unstable airfores, they are easy to collapse from the A lines. And so sometimes the homologation rewards the most unstable gliders. We also have really stable gliders that go well through homologation, especially when you use folding lines. But as a general tendency, if you have a lot of A's in your

reports, especially in the collapses, it could mean two things. First, that you've done a really good job at getting this behaviour right, or that you've made the glider so easy to collapse and so unstable that just collapses happen all the time and don't do anything. But I think in real life this is not what you want. When you're flying next to the Cliff in the +6 thermal, then you don't want the glider to collapse at all. And and so using the report to basically decide on whether or not the glider is right for you, I think it's not the right way to go. I would put more faith and trust

on the manufacturer's speech than the mitigation report because I think what pilots need is category rather than certification on its own. And unless I mean, this is also why it's so debated at the moment with competition classes. But if today we, let's say designed with skywalk and E&B that is like super hot and with extremely high performance, then B pilots are just going to get scared. We have absolutely no or, or, or injured or, or worse. So we have no interest in doing this and we rather like fit right to the category of pilots. And, and the level of performance is kind of, and it's not secondary, it's important,

but it's some like one of the main parameters that we're looking at. But the first thing that we have in mind is like, is this glider right for the target? It's not easy as a manufacturer to assess well what your target is. And this is always something we can struggle with, but we do our best to feed this target. And I think this education is not a quantification of the safety of a glider. In practice, this education gives you a small window of like how the glider behaves in for some maneuvers. So it's interesting information, has the benefit of existing and, and, but it is not something

that would be designed basically counting the number of letters or a letters in your report is really not the way to have a safety grade for your glider. And actually I have wings that I would rather fly for myself or for my friends that are kind of the on the edge with the certification, let's say on the C getting a lot of CS. But then it's, they are so hard to collapse, so damped and so stable that I would rather get one collapse every thousand hour, even if it's a bit tougher then a lot of collapses that are softer. And, and this certification does not tell you, but maybe in in

your future updates it will. And this is something if one day I can come up with a test where I'm like, OK, this is a super good collapse resistant test. We can repute, reproduce it and and it would be basically certification friendly. Then I would definitely propose that to the WG 6. But for now I don't have this test unfortunately. OK, just out of curiosity, what could it look like if you had to visualise it? Like how does your dream? How do you dream about it? So the ideal dream would be basically some kind of aircraft that would fly in front of you and create a guest that would challenge the guidance with

turbulence and through standardised turbulence. That would be the ideal dream. In practice, extremely hard to do, but we could think of all the things that like creating that disturbance from large peak motion or some kind of test. If I had found the test and I would be everywhere on on your podcast, but everywhere on the Internet saying this is what we got to do. But at the moment I don't have this test. And what does WGC 6, WG 6 say about this? Like what is the behind the scene going on in base camp when it comes to discussing collapse resistance? Or the parameters will actually make a difference because this is just so.

I don't think there's, there's really a discussion about it on, on WG 6 or base camp at the moment. It's more kind of of, of the record discussions with fellow designers and even from the best designers in our field. I we don't have a good test and, and talking to the other designers. I think the way we do it is like you're on the ground in turbulence, go full speeds, trim speed and feel how the glider behaves. You're in the air, in turbulence, go full speed, let go of the brakes. Do you collapse against the reference glider? In the end, with the experience and time, you get a good idea of like how collapse resistant your

glider is, but it's clearly not something that would fit in the certification framework at the moment. I think there is the belief in some designers, most of them older generation, that increasing the collapse resistance will mean bad collapses or worse accidents. And and I can understand that I don't have solid data to back this because we don't have sensors on every pilot and to study the collapses when they happen unfortunately. But the overall feeling is that no increasing collapse resistance. I don't think it comes at the cost of safety of all. I think it increases safety. That's so interesting. I I actually wanted to say this

earlier. When it comes to not collecting data, I had Rome. Romain Bartolomi. Man, I'm really sorry if I'm butchering your name, but it's good. Yeah, yeah. Romain Bartolomi. OK thank you for the correction with the French accent. But sky mate is more or less. I don't know if it's a safety revolution but it's a safety leak simply because of the amount of data it's collecting. I don't know how the real world scenarios will work out or the success rate of the final product, but when it comes to collecting data, paragliding itself is not a very data heavy sport compared to conventional ones where the points are a lot.

So if you guys start putting sensors like they did in their harness where one of their sensors will also connected to the ring which is detecting a lot of anonymities, I don't know anything which goes wrong. So if you guys start putting sensors in your wings and then start referencing to data like that, is that one of the solutions where industry could move in time to come? And I would start even in simpler because I think we don't even have the basics yet as I wish I had on all the models I've designed or participated in, like how many collapses, how many injured, how many dead.

And this even is not really an information we can have like 100% some things come back, but it's it's not clear like even after like 4 years of a model, we have an idea, but it's not really like precisely quantified like OK, this generation of glider, like glider number N was bought. Next time that we this we can know. But like among all these customers, like how many had a problem compared to the previous generation or compared to a competitor. This is the type of information that we don't have. So before putting sensors everywhere, this is even where I would start like proper data collection for like all federations worldwide and then

getting this information back to us to drive our design. Like we, we also do things and we convinced that this will improve safety, but then did it actually improve safety in the end? This is something that we have some feedback, but it's not that precise. OK, I want to talk a little bit about the curve, the camber, the AR and of course the speed bar, length limitations. CSC will have its own, like civil sports class will have its own parameters. But currently there are different seed lighters which look a bit more arc, some have more aspect ratio different. But I don't know if the speed system because it's unregulated. It depends on the manufacturer

how long they want to put it. If a person, if a pilot, has to decode these things and these parameters, how do they look at AR speed, system length and the curve of the profile? So speed system length is 1 parameter I would rely completely because one problem with the increasing the pitch stability is one of the downsides is that basically at first a small change in like geometrical acceleration will move your centre of lift quite a lot. And so the beginning of the range is always quite efficient. But the closer you get to your top speed, you need a lot more range just to get a small displacement of your centre

uplift. And so the more you increase the speed shop tendency, the more you're going to need range. And I would say the glider, I would trust the most with your glider with a really long speed bow range and not so fast at full speed, because that means that you really had to fight against this natural tendency of the profile that wants to stop pitching down. And so would I use that as yeah, driver for safety? Maybe not. So I think the overall, the the speed range, it really depends on the design. And so this is not really significant. Then I think you can compare a flat dog glider with a bit less aspect ratio to a glider that

has a bit more respect and more arc and this. To me I think aspect ration are are correlated, that's clear, sorry. Aspect ratio and safety are correlated. But that also depends on the projected aspect. And I think the flat aspect will be order 1 and projected aspect order. What's the difference? Between what's the do you feel actual? Because flat aspect ratio to me is just a number and that's not how your wing is. It's just so projected is the only reference point. Is that correct? Not really because also projected it really depends on how you measure. And I think from different software and different brands we

have different ways of measuring projected aspect ratio. And projected aspect ratio is not even objectively defined because your glider deforms, it doesn't have the same shape if you're full speed, trim speed over with brakes. So the there is no objective definition for projected aspect ratio. Like I'm having to rewrite my fundamentals of understanding how glider industry behaved so far. Yeah, this is like brand new information which I never knew existed. But we can talk about the figure of 6.7 aspect ratio. 6.7 is more or less a sweet spot that a lot of people have come to consensus that this new CSC glider should be kept below it.

So what happens beyond 6.7? Or how does aspect ratio make a nose? So we had kind of like 2-2 sub working groups and this discussion and we had two, two different ideas. So, so we worked together, sat down with Luke from Ozone, Hugo Shabu from Air Design and also Team Rochas from Nievuk and we discussed it. And I think the outcome of our discussions was that the market is complicated enough and we would not be happy to have a split of like the C gliders for the C pilots and the C gliders for s s. And so we were thinking to have a more stringent limitation to avoid like racing Indian seas

and to basically regroup the category back into one and one glider or like one type of of glider. And so this is when we first thought about going down with the aspect ratio limitation. Instead of 6.7, we thought about 6.2 or something in that ballpark, which was contested or made other designers unhappy. And then we all suggested the limitation of 66 cells because then 66 cells give you a lot of freedom. You can have a 7 to 1 aspect ratio if you want, but that's not going to be optimal. And using 66 cells is because we think that the optimal aspect ratio for 66 will be around between 6.3 and 6.4 or 6.5.

And this to us sounded like a more reasonable limitation for this category. And the other parameter was that using a cell limitation and other flat aspect limitation means that you have the freedom if you want to put a bit more aspect but more arc as well, which in the end gives us the best behaviour and the best feel. If you limit the flat aspect ratio, then you don't want to go with too much arc because then you don't want to lose this projected span that is also giving you the low speed performance. And to US, 6.7 and aspect ratio limitation is can work, but that would mean that we cannot split

the category into where we have like the low C and high C And I think the market is already complicated enough, which is why I was against that idea. But I can understand that some brands want to do it like this, but it's not super easy because then we already have so many projects to work on. And I think pilots will get confused which EMC should I fly? And I think we had similar debates also with the B category back in, back in the day they were like low B, high B and and the same happened with the D before CC class started that there was like normal D and high performance D So which one

should you fly? It just makes things a bit more confusing. OK. And I think the only thing that we need to know is because categories have been split far and wide for past five years or something that I've seen with B starting the the tradition. But OK, let's talk a little bit about low speed of things because I've been told speed and height is your friend in flying to maintain aviation. But if you have to gauge a glider performance on low speed spin tendencies, because that is another one of those pain points that if you are tumbling super tight or in a disturbed place or in Lee side and if you're super

slow. So is there a certain way a pilot can understand low speed spin tendencies of a glider? Yeah, I think it's on the design side. We will try to our best to give you to give the pilot like a good feeling that there is something hard before you stole like some harder pressure in the brakes and that the glider deforms accordingly. So that you have a lot of information that you should let go of the brakes before things go wrong. And even if you stole, then the recovery behaviour like some if the glider starts naking or keeps flying first or like really bad things that will

eventually lead to a cascade. This is all the things that we want to avoid. But I think it's also a lot about teaching the pilot. I think learning how to, to nail the stall points or even learn like backfly parachute and stall is, is a key aspect in the, in the pilot's progression. And they are so much easier, so much easier to learn on the lower category. My recommendation, I'm not a big custom three final competition pilot. So my recommendation to pilots is always like really think before you step up because is there any really nothing more you can learn on the glider you're currently flying on the

on the category you're currently flying? I think it's nice to change gliders. We like new things, but it doesn't mean we always have to step up. And I'll say like, yeah, go change your glider. Then the company I'm working for makes more money and then that pays my salary in the end. So why not? But then we think before you step up and like, if you think of Yanas of today like this, if you're not going for more like let's say 50 KS in cross country, then you're not limited. Just today we had some Yan a prototypes where I did a lot of Aqua tricks and and I had tons of fun.

And even after 15 years of flying, I'm just having a lot of fun flying in Ena and think about you before you step up. And if we think about like low speed speed tendency or low speed behaviour, there are pilots that step up to ENC to liners or even END and have never done it stalled once in in their life. And I know few of them. And so then it makes you think, do you really need to step up or should you really step up if even if you have all these kind of like holes in the progression? Not only that, one of the biggest thing that I noticed on

a personal level is that when Arctic Arcade, I used to find Niwix back then, I bought it just out of excitement and all the marketing that they throw at your face because everybody else was jumping on the bandwagon, you know, getting A2 liner ENC was the new trend. So I was like, yeah, OK, I want the flashiest new toy. Fine. It's been treating me well. I have had a chance to play around with it, but I've just realised that this year so far, not this year, but like you know, there are sometimes when I even struggle to find like 50 or let's say in the start of the

season when you're coming off a long winter break. If you are not current on your wing and you're only getting going to get very few selected opportunities to go out and put it in a disturbed air. Then I think year after year you have to know that how many hours are you flying before you are actually worthy of flying A2 liner, sea or even a hot bee or something, and not just the amount of hours that you've flown up to a certain point I would say. It's a tricky question because that depends on everybody I have. I am very lucky because as a designer, I can basically have access to any wing.

And so if I haven't flown for a long time, then I just sometimes pick a lobee back and do some manaeuvers just to get back in shape and and then a high V and then back to my C2 liner. The luxury to do this when you don't have that, it's a lot more difficult. And and I find the same like sometimes you don't fly for a long period of time, then you're not current anymore and you're afraid to do the stores that you were doing every time before. And it's a very complicated question question. I think everybody it's and the answer will be individual, but overall I think it's important

to decorrelate ego or ego and the glider you fly. I think like stepping down it's is not something that should be perceived as a failure. Then stepping up is not something that is a necessary step. Like should all pilots go from A to B to C? No, I think there are a lot of great things in life other than paragliding, sports, family, music. And so I have total respect for pilots that just do this on weekends and or just do this on on Saturday. And that's fine. And it should be fun for everybody and say for everybody. So then The thing is that pilots should have matched the equipment with the objectives

that they have in their flying and also with the amount of effort and investment that they put in the sport. Yeah. I want to mention Jin Mr. Jin, the owner of Jin Paragliders here because I saw him at APWC a few months ago in Crochetvo. I kid you not Tom man, that guy was just an inspiration to look at. That guy is still pushing full bar on a triple C glider in a gaggle full of top pilots. Either you understand as a pilot that where my limits are compared to how current I am, or you go out and become Mr. Jen where you fly every or every

possible day for the rest of your life and then you don't shit your pants pushing full bar on a triple C even at that age. Like there's there's there's no other rocket science to it. Either put in the work or or step back. So let's get out. And then for me stepping back is fine. I, I don't have any moral judgement for pilot stepping back. It's it's perfectly fine because for some people life is not just about pipelining, and I totally respect that. Yeah. But OK, while we're talking about stepping back, let's say ENC, as I was mentioning, was a transition class from three to two or whatever.

Anybody who's wanting to go from three liner to two liner, is there some substantial differences that they should be looking out for? Because for me, the biggest change was that the wind speed and next to your ear is higher. And that was like exciting, dude, fuck yeah, this is faster. This is more fun. But more than that, how can you best prepare yourself for a transition from A3 to A2? Yeah. That's an interesting question because I think sometimes in some specific cases, some 2 liners that have flown a lot easier than some 3 liners, you will step down in terms of like ease of use. But in the general case, if we're talking about going from

like a high B3 liner or glow C3 liner, stepping up to ENC 2 liner, I would say that it really depends on the glider you're flying and the amount of experience that you have. But basically, yeah, you're talking about the speed. I think I would first like go easy with the speed and go full speed only when you have enough altitude, when the conditions are a bit smoother. And then once you get to learn how the glider behaves, you get more current and also like reacting to turbulence on the beelines, letting go the speed bar, like just getting that coordination dialed in. And then this is just go easy, like step by step.

And then there would be the safety training. I think it's good to have maybe simpler things in the SIV, but then do them well enough so you can basically reproduce them at home. And I think strolling is, is a really good training test. We go over just like the ability to go outside of just normal flat flying straight and turning. One point I think is that like when you choosing your next glider, I would look at few things like first what the manufacturer has to say about it, the specs, aspect ratio would be one element that you could use in your making judgement. And then I would try it. We have all these testicles and

I think it's really good to try the gliders. So what do you do when you try a new glider to basically understand if it if it fits you? First, I think you need to fly in thermic therm conditions. Otherwise it's going to be really hard to have a precise idea. And I have attended festivals because for me they're a bit like a temperature measurement of like the market, what's happening, what pilot feel, what do they want? What are they looking for? And one interesting thing is that when you give them a more aggressive lighter. So what I mean is like less collapse resistant, more pitchy, more aggressive, they feel performance.

So one thing I can like say out loud is that you don't feel performance, you measure performance. So one thing you can say is between the best performing C on the market and the least performing C on the market in, in terms of angle, it's not going to be 1°, it's going to be half a degree glide angle. So it's if you find a human being that can glide out and find point half a degree just from feeling, then I hire him. Right now he's my test pilot. Yeah. It's impossible. It's impossible. You don't feel the performance. So I sometimes pilot get confused that like when you have

this kind of like aggressive pitch, that glider is really biting through turbulence and is more like peachy and and and requires more attention, let's say, and more work. They mistake this for phones, but no, that's not the case. This what you're what you're assessing is the pitch behaviour. On the other hand, if it feels like you cannot just let it fly on its own and it's damping the turbulence and things feel smooth and hot day feels like calm condition, then that would be a green flag. That's if you have that feeling that you can just let it fly and, and, and you don't have so much work to do, then that

probably means that this glider is right for you and. A video or snap somebody while flying a glider then you are OK. Basically it's. It's actually really good if you're like, you'd start filming your friends in thermals and just with two brakes in one hand and you're not getting any collapses, you're not getting scared, you're not having so much work to do that that probably means that this glider is right for you if you don't have to think about it. Yeah, that mean it's going well. Yeah, if you have to think about how to make the best shot so you can brag about it to your friend

and not pilot the wink, then all that you need is that level of skill and a wing which matches it. But this is also subjective. When I fly, I would be like this on IB, quite stable IB and some people would be like this on on the competition later. So it is also just subjective thing. Yeah, OK. I wanted to ask you this question that I've had and experienced in my pre personal flying. I'm flying AUP triangle X these days and I noticed the brake travel of UP the triangle is that as soon as you pull the brake down and attach it to the magnetic position it is supposed

to be where you attach it to the handle, the lines aren't slacked anymore. Like you can see the trailing edge bending a little bit, tiny bit of deformation, not a massive difference in glide or whatever. But to me, a lot of times when I was going on glides where I wanted to eat or take a piss or do something which required longer time and both my hands free, I was very comfortable putting both the brakes at their stowed away position. Because it somehow gave me a sense that OK, this glider is being held and not allowed to run free because there's a turbulence which pulls it one way.

At least there is a free break, a 5% break that is applied. Of course, full glide, especially on comp wings when you're looking for best distance, you have to go hands up. But does having a little bit of brake prevent collapses? No, it's totally the opposite I'm afraid. So there I really need to add some more background information. So basically bits of tendency. We obtain it by reducing camber, especially at the back of the airfoil. OK. Just camber, the definition of camber for people. In the way, so camber is defines the average shape of the airfoil. And so basically when you like average, the top and bottom

surface you get is like, you know, a centre line. And if you like deform the chaining edge up, then that means less camber in the back. And this is the airfoil shape definition. Yeah. The bad news and this is from the physics is that the airflow shape is extremely sensitive when it comes to pitch up or pitch down tendency. And this is when we've had cases of like lighter deforming or deformation of the rods that makes the glider way too stable that they don't speed up anymore or way too unstable that it start collapsing when you want to accelerate. So with this is true for the

design and the tension of the rods, but this is also true for the application of brakes and on some gliders, especially high level gliders. And if you just go full speed and slightly touch the brake, you get more speed, not less. Why? Because when you just start touching the brakes, you create a small deflection of your headphone, hardly visible. But even if it's not visible, there is an effect on your profile moment and your profile can be online and that is reducing your pitch up tendency. And so your profile wants to pitch down again and that increases your speed. Basically when you have just this, like the one thing I want to tell pilots with the new

designs where you have more stable airfoils, the worst thing you can have is the small amount of bike because the small amount of bike is enough to kill the pitch up tendency. So your collapse resistance but does not create enough drag to basically stop the pitch of the glider. And I would say if you Stow away the brakes and you still have slight tension in the brakes, that probably means that your brakes are too short. For structural reasons. Sometimes we use Dynamo on the brakes. Most manufacturers do. And the problem with dynamite is like it's really good. Like if it catches the rock it doesn't break easily. But it shrinks, and so brakes

shrink very quickly. And this is, I'm afraid, a cofactor in a lot of accidents that brake shrinks and pilots get used to it. And so you get used to it, Yes to it. But at some point they will shrink to a point where you cannot even go fully ends up and then which could lead into a glider that stays in a parachutal stall at the worst time. So this is something I'll always tell. I'm also teaching flight mechanics to flight structures and, and I always ask that question like you get a glider you want to verify what do you look at 1st? And they all come up with super complicated stuff.

Yeah, I got full speed and do collapse or whatever, but no, start with the brake length because often I've seen pilots that are unable to launch because the brakes get too short. And so this is something that you really need to look at for. So two ways of checking it. First is that from hands up to slight tension, you should have at least 7 centimeters. And also when you're full speed, you should have no tension on the on the bikes. And this is something you really need to look at for regularly. And I really suggest that pilots should have their gliders checked if they have any doubt. And and so this is also really

interesting question because it relates to like how should you fly these new more stable gliders? And I think these new more stable gliders, if you want to fly them and you actually use the airfoil and use the stability of the airfoil, the worst, the the first thing you want to avoid is just using a small amount of brakes. And you want to either be hands up on the back lines like if it's B riser, if you have a 2 liner, or on the C steering system if you have a three liner. And you only use, let's say a lot of bikes or a significant amount of bikes for thermalling or no brakes at all.

And then you're on the back riser or beelines. And this way when you are only touching the, the, the back riser, then you keep the integrity of the airfoil and you keep the speech of tendency and collapse resistance. And once you're on the brakes, you're not playing with the collapse resistance anymore, but you have all this drag and high lift from using brakes that is also driving you away from the collapse. And it's something that almost never happens. Like when you're tumbling the inside, this collapsing on the inside is almost will almost never happen. It's because you have a lot of brakes and a lot of the hike and a lot of.

Let's say you're gliding through a turbulent area and your tool liner, you're pushing bar like it has a lot of time with the lead gaggle. Everybody wants to control that collapse with the B line rather than a brake line. Is it possible to control every collapse with just a beeline? It's debatable. My feeling is that probably not, but then this would be a question for these competitors because I think it's actually depends on on the glider you're flying and and your skills. I'm thinking about a general layman. This is the glider, this is the leading edge. Here is the brake line and here is the second line that we are controlling.

So if there is a deflation of this place, let's say the front portion, pulling it from here versus pulling it from here are two very different physics. Which pulling according to you? I don't want to put you in a sport by any means, but which pulling here is more effective in general? It really depends on the glider because also it will depend on like when you pull on the beeline, how stiff is your profile and and how much can you get it to pitch rather than destroying it. So that's quite technical. And I think this is also part of progression. I think at first, like going back to the question, like what

do you do when you first get your NCNC to line up? And I would say if you like flying through turbulence, then at first you will just let go of the speed bar and go with a lot of brakes. Just use the drag more passive safety. And then as you get more and more confident and things are running smoothly, you can't and, and you're going along getting along well with the glider, then you can do more with the back riser. First you're only let goes football and play with the back riser. And then you can also keep the speed. But it's, it's a difficult question now because it really depends on case by case.

But I think brakes are far more efficient and to prevent collapses, because also when you're using brakes, that means you don't have speed bar. So that means you're creating a lot of lift or lift coefficient to be more precise. And basically collapses happen when your lift coefficient goes to 0. So you want to I have a lot of lifts and that means flying slow. OK, the problem with B line, I'll tell you dilemma that I feel, I don't feel the stall coming in B lines. And I'm not saying that I have stalled my glider with B line. I've been like far from it. But I have reached the point

where I had to ask another compiler. I was like, dude, I was this low and it just felt something out of the ordinary. So was I close to stalling it? And then another compiler said that yes, you can stall your bladder with beeline. So brakes talk to you very loudly and very firmly before they're going to stall, but beeline doesn't. So is this just coming down to practice and finding the answers or can a person TuneIn and press play to this show and find answers to this? So the B line stall is that's clear, that's strolling with the B lines regardless of the glider. That's a lot easier to get into the stall.

The pressure is not going to be as high as when you do it from the brakes. And also the recovery can be trickier on some gliders from strolling with the B lines. So first I would really recommend to every pilot to investigate that stall. But also I would really, I think it's really good that you keep that awareness that stoning from the B lines is a lot easier, a lot easier. It's it happens a little quicker. That's what I meant. And I think if you're at trim speed and you need to slow down a lot from the B lines because you are getting through turbulence, I would rather let

go of the B and use brakes and go with like deep amount, like big amount of brakes when you need to and then go back to the B as soon as you can. OK, this is another one of the questions that I have not been able to answer while flying myself is that let's say this is your normal position of B risers and then something starts happening so you start adjusting it accordingly. Now the airmass is active, it's going to keep on talking to you. But somehow for me, like for example, this is brakes, you know when, when you're passing through turbulence on brakes, you can go all the way up, but

at the same time staying on the pressure while going through turbulence feels a lot more secure because you feel like you are holding on to something or the glide is talking to you. Whatever your reason might be, you feel a lot more secure while you are holding on to brake while passing through the turbulence zone. Let us superimpose this into beeline scenario where this is the normal position. I bring it down and I am holding it but the air and the wing is still talking to me. When can I go back to its normal position so that the glider is back to accelerating 100 speed full? Speed, that's good.

I think it's good to maybe save questions for compilots. And this is a question I would go with maybe Ross Onoha or my colleagues at Sky work like Stefan, which will be maybe more better than me to answer that question. This is this is really a piloting question and design and I don't want to exceed my expertise, let's say. I got it man. No worries man. I just found it very very like the release point to me for B lines was very questionable. Because it's like, if this is the only way you're supposed to control the wing, then you might as well want to keep it in the a little bit higher tension than

just let it go. Because letting go just feels like it just doesn't feel safe, man. Especially when the wing is talking to you like you, you want to hold back. And I do understand your feeling. I think it's at some point when I really want to keep the glider open, then I'm on the brakes, but not a small amount of brake. It's like more a bit deeper in the brakes. And then you just give it speed, keep some speed and also get more speed will give you more margin to react and put like a greater amplitude as well. OK, I'm reaching the last part of the show, Tom, but before I

let you go, I really had a couple of questions that I forgot to ask. The first one was, does size make a difference in glider behaviour, Small, medium, large, Excel? Is that going to be something that new pilots need to consider when they're going out purchasing one? And how does material impact all of the glider behaviours like knit and all different kind of lines, a hybrid combination plus the surface and all of those things? So regarding the the size, I think a lot of pilots or even sometimes obsessed about flying at the top weight and I think in general that's a mistake. I think that came from competition flying or high forms

flying in general. But that does not apply to everybody at all. And if you fly AB or even some high B wings, it doesn't matter. You can fly at the middle of the weight range. As a matter of fact now with the designs at Skywalk, the design size is 100 and 5K and I'm a 70K pilot so I always fly at the bottom of the white range even with the two liner prototypes when I'm not carrying ballast. You're not racing. Would you do different? Racing, so I'm I'm just talking about like the general flying and so there is no big threats or danger or something you're

losing if you're not flying at the top weight. And this is something pilots sometimes get crazy about, like, but I don't have the right size for me because I cannot be at the top weight of this guy. But you don't have to be at the top point. This is something that you need to know. Sometimes flying light and slow is good because then especially when you're at the early stages of repression, flying a low B or Ena, if you're lighter on a glider, you will hardly feel the difference in speed because speed changes with the square roots of the mass. A small difference in in in mass will have hardly any effect on

your speed. So don't think that carrying 3 kilos of ballots will enable you to fly in stronger winds, that's totally untrue. But you will make things easier for you to stay up and have more gentle reaction of the glider. So yes, size does matter. I think the smaller sizes with higher wing loads, they are more aggressive and that's really a general then generally I think that I can easily say. So I would I would sometimes when especially in lower categories, pilots want to fly at the top of the weight range, but I would rather tell them to step up to the bigger size and fire at the middle. And then the second question was

the material. And, and so far, I think one big thing when you step up to higher performance gliders that we use thinner lines and, and so these lines have a lifetime that can be sometimes shorter than than than the glider lifetime. And so this is something you want to be looking at for like performance comes at a cost and and it's also the cost of maintenance that the trim is more sensitive, especially on these two liners and the lines age also a bit quicker because the safety margins are lower. So this is also something you need to think about when you step up is like, will I be

careful enough to check my glider regularly? I would also recommend pilots to start and getting some interest in in line check. I think it's something that is really good for competition pilots that I think every CCC pilots who flying ACCC wing should know how to check a glider. This is kind of like part of the package of the skills that you need to have to fly this type of wings. And so yes, the matters do change. One thing we always feel is that the lighter gliders, they have a nicer behaviour in like collapses and stalls and out of the flights envelope in general. Why is that? I think I would it's coming from

the inertia that you have less inertia. And let's say you have a spiral dive and then the surge and the surge on the light wing, it's always a lot easier to catch. It doesn't go as far forward. Usually the lighter the easier and that's clear in the behaviour. But then light wings also not for everybody. It's like where I'm at currently in in the Northern Alps in Bavaria. When you only have grassy fields, it's great. But when you fly in the South of France in the rocky terrains, then maybe light liners not what you want. Yeah, you're going to RIP off a line and every take off. Yeah, awesome.

It's they age more. Inertia. That's very interesting because to me inertia can be super helpful in straight line speeds, right? A momentum kind of sticks around, or at least in the beginning or the first part of that glide. So is inertia a good thing or a bad thing? But I guess, yeah, that's designers perspective and the market forces do respond to it. And that's why we see triple CS only in regular, not in lightweight anyways. So triple C's or lightweights already? Oh, really? They're not. They have lightweight matters, all of them. They're like 7 kilograms still, so I'm like. Yes but it's the number of cells like way too much glass and rods

so even if you wanted to do it it would be really hard to make a light ready and also all pilots of fighting to get heavier so you don't want to have a super light wing just to carry. Ballast. Yeah. That, that that's what I was wondering. But Tom, so far we have spoken a lot about gliders and I think people have had a lot of plausible takeaways. But if you notice, we haven't spoken at all about E&D class and the talk about E and A class is also being relevant to very selected few circles before it becomes available on the pre owned market. I want you to visualise with me and help me understand if this

is correct or not. Let's take a case of a pilot who is obsessed with racing, who wants to progress and is willing to put in the work. OK, I'm pretty sure there are quite a few pilots out there who are listening to this, who can relate to this because a lot of us feel it. Is it OK to go to a lobby directly after school? Go to a highby when you are happy going into turbulence and comfortable doing full stall in SAV, then go to A2 liner C and then eventually go to a triple C and skip A&D classes because that seems to be the legitimate progress in front of me now.

I, I think it's, it's, it's more reasonable to step up to D 1st and I cannot speak for myself because I haven't been through that progression myself, but knowing the designs, having a lot of discussions with customers, friends, test pilots, there is quite a step up between the D and CCC and it is quite a step up. And also the current CCCI think or more challenging in every aspect. There is more top speed, but also higher spec ratio and also harder maintenance. And like a lot of people are talking now about the the the road length game that maintenance is not just about lines any anymore.

You also have to be careful about how the roads have shrunk or elongated. And so there's even on the maintenance side, more to it, and I think there is already quite a step up in this category is going from like the ENC to line up to the ENDNNDEND to CCC. One thing also I do notice is that getting around and fully controlling AB comes a lot quicker than fully controlling AD. Like I think to learn, let's talk about full stalls, for instance, learning full stall on an ENAI think decent pilot like we can call weekend pilots can do it maybe by doing 50 stalls or 100 stalls. If you talk about the Heifelon's

pilot, like how many stalls did they have to do to actually be fully in control of their full stall on the D wing, it's going to be 3-4 times that. So I think it's the amount of work that you need is exponential as you step up in these categories. I would stick to this progression, going from like this C to liner scene towards the D, then the CC. And I think every step of the way is an interesting process. One thing I do is that with the END, you can start racing in the PwC. You have some limitations in terms of speed and performance that you will have, but you can race and you can race with the

best or with at least you are together on the take off. And it's already a great thing because there's so much to learn. And I, I do understand that when piloting his life, you just want to go full on. But I think it's nice also to test the process and enjoy the process and enjoy all these steps. And one thing that is really nice about paraglining, if you look at the best pilots in our sport, they are not 16 and they have experience and they have lived through the years. And this is a nice thing that you look at. Luke is the best is sometimes beating and some tasks, the

young, the young guns and and he's still one of the best pilot in the world. So that's the great thing about paraglining, is that it's not about how fast you can get there, but how safely you can get there. And there is time. Yeah. And the experience that comes with the safely getting there part is also a beautiful journey in itself. But the step up between C&D is also like too big, even though the two liners have come down to C Can a pilot going from a high B directly to AD just because they think like basically skipping classes? What I'm trying to answer the question here is that is skipping classes not the norm

that is supposed to be followed with all of these new technologies coming in the gliders? Or can skipping classes become a way to save money or progress faster or avoid the ground stuck in certain cases? No, I, I don't think so. I don't think scheming classes is a good step up. I think it's I'm always very impressed by the the flights some ENB pilots can do. And and so I think before you actually limited with by your glider, you need a lot of time. And if you think about like on the technical side, the D glider will have so much more energy in in manoeuvres will be so much trickier to recover from

collapses, have such a speed range that you know, you need the wisdom to actually use the speed range and use it in turbulence and in racing configurations. So I really don't believe in in skipping classes and I think stepping up should really come when you're like limited by the glider. And even they would say bored that you've you've done everything with it, like learning all the like stones and SIV stuff. Like even the spiral. If you think about spiral ENC gliders, they have the spiral stability because they are satisfied with ENC. So they have to exist in three turns. But already performing a spiral with the ENC glider, which is like has the good spiral

stability requires a lot of physically it's really hard. Then the spiral and an END, it's insane. This is not something you want to do. So like how fast do you need to react if you have an incident like a covert, for instance, to be there before your glider throws you in a spiral? And if it does end up throwing you in a spiral, like how much training will you have to survive this? It's just there were so many things to learn and so many things that can happen. That's my my advice would be that it's dangerous enough if you step go through all the categories and and every step up

in performance comes at the cost. And I think it's good to have take all the time you need to understand that cost. That is so well put. I love the way you explain it. Man. Words of wisdom there. But maybe some instructors will see differently. And, and I do work with flight instructors in France and they have a completely different progression than the average pilot. And this is something I always tell instructors that my knowledge of the market is really different from their own experience because they are instructors. Some of them have lived in their van for three years doing nothing else but flying. And the pilot that they're going

to teach, this is not what they'll do. They have families, jobs, maybe other passions, other things in life. And so things are very different for them. And so some pilots say, yeah, I'll step up from A to C, and that was fine for me. Yes. But some people can do this and survive it. And then also the other question I would ask how many times to do to get completely out of control. That's basically just like luck kept you alive maybe twice. And that that was that's one thing. And the other thing is also, I would look at it with like a statistical approach is if in

your flying, every thousand hour you get something sketchy like going out of control, bat collapse, something that you didn't see coming, then maybe this is a probability you're ready to accept. And, and this is like, OK, this is the amount of risk that I'm taking because I have one heaven that was out of my control every X amount of hours. And then this is the probability that you accept and you could step up and take a bit more risk at the beginning and then lower that risk down. I think it's really the biggest thing is to be honest to, to yourself about the risk taking, your risk taking strategy. And I know pilots that they

don't have anything else in their lives and they say, I know that I'm taking a lot of risk, but racing really highly committed cross country, this is my life and I'm willing to do that above anything else. And I understand this choice, this life choice. And they are completely transparent and not lying to themselves, which I respect. But this is not the case for me. And my risk taking strategy is a lot more conservative. And this is what I will always recommend. But then everybody's free to make their own decisions based on their own judgements. A. 100%, man. I think time and again I have resonated with this idea in my head that if somehow we come out

with a standard that you should do a minimum of these many stalls before you upgrade to the next category. I think we're going to make the whole sport a whole lot safer. Even though there will be pilot who will say that hey, we just want top to bottoms, we don't want to stall it out. But in that case you don't want to upgrade anyways if you just want to stick to a small flight envelope. But as you mentioned that a 50 to 100 for a decent control of AE and sieving and three to four times of that to a triple C, which translates to 300 or 400 stalls.

To be honest, I myself am guilty of upgrading to AE and C without performing 50 stalls. I think I had like yeah OK, I'm not going to. I don't think this is a good idea or not for it. But I upgraded to ENC without any stalls and I started. Yeah, no, this is. You're not the first thing I know of pilots that have done this. But then it's about can you fly NC to liners and without knowing how to stall, absolutely that's fine. But then should you go through this before going to DNCC? Probably yes. Makes sense. Makes sense. I think that answers the question very well.

Tom, I have one last question for you. I was talking to my friend and binary numbers, zeros and ones to AI and I told them how will the wings of future look like? Tell me, how realistic is this? Oh that, that's the one on the left. If you have triple phobia that would really trigger you. But. What phobia? That's actually a phobia that exists that like the phobia of holes. OK. Yeah, fair enough. Fair enough. This is. No, I don't have it, but yeah, this looks very strange. Yeah, I'm describing the airflow on the right. It's it's very stylish. It's basically saying that these are self healing canopies, there's a membrane on top of

them and that's how they remain flexible and breathe and repair themselves. That was a prompt behind. Generation One thing with simulation is that we always said I'm just laughing about it. Like maybe the simulation is inaccurate, but at least we're making pretty colours. But now with AI, we have to be accurate because AI can do the pretty colours. Yeah, let me work, let me show you this thing that I created. I was like, tell me A next generation bored hardness and it was like, yeah, that's not bad. I was like, look at that just. Fly into space. So you're saying that the canopies need to be more rigid?

So here is an airfoil, but I don't know what it is powered with, but it looks fancy man. Looks mad fancy, but C, yeah, CSC class. What do you say, Tom? Any comments on that? How is that coming along? What can the industry expect from the designers and when is it happening? So the idea is to have the purpose that voted at the next plenary of the CIVL. So that's, I think somewhere in beginning of the spring, there is basically now 2 proposal, one which would be like higher aspect ratio, more sales. And this one is not the one I'm advocating for because I think it will require a split of the

high C and low C, which is already existing for some brands. But I don't think it's the best choice. We are advocating instead for a 66 sales limitation, which would basically mean that the optimal aspect ratio would be somewhere around 6.36 point, 5 S in the realm of something that would be, in my mind, more adapted to the ENC pilot. And for one glider that you can step up to see on and also rise on, which I think is a more elegant solution. But then that's just different opinions. And so we have different opinions and then the vote will tell which one will be chosen. But the most beautiful part about this is that a lot of

manufacturers are participating and we will see a lot of offers on the market, unlike the Triple C. So I believe somehow keeping the competition open, we are encouraging the development or the R&D that goes behind it. And sometimes I feel that maybe Open class was doing exactly that where there were no limitations. But bringing it down pulled back on the aspect that nobody's talking about yet. A lot of people are talking about the flaws of a triple C, the outcome of banning open class. But deep down, if you look at that there, there was a lot of benefits about open class as well, which we might see in CSC now.

When it comes so for the CSCI think it's a very hard debate in the a lot harder than CC for a simple reason is that on the CCC, there is no simple way to improve performance even if you do it at the cost of safety. And you can just you cannot just put the aspect ratio to 9 because then you will guess probably increased light performance at low speed, but then at high speed you have so many lines that the efficiency won't be so good at anymore. And then with the 9 to 1 aspect ratio, maybe the safety will be so bad that it's just not usable

in practice. So it's kind of like the limitation is natural, like you'd come up with something better performing but so unsafe that they would just not go through the gates of the competition. So see there is also this natural limitation, but CSC, this limitation does not exist. If you manage to certify an Enzo in ENC, this is by some tweaking would be possible, then you would beat everybody else. So there is no natural limitation. So we have to draw the rules on which we will all compete on. And This is why it's such a hot topic at the moment is that we don't all agree on what the

rules should be. But we do need rules because otherwise the C category will be completely crazy. Do you know that death blade ring which was? Yes, that's why. Is that the ultimate solution to paragliding? Bring in death blades and let's start racing them there, no? For a simple reason, I mean the first reason is that when you increase the aspect ratio during you have more lines. So then you increase the line back and at some point there will be a trade off. And the other thing is that the performance of induced drag will evolve with the inverse of the aspect ratio. So that means going from three to five or three to six, you

have a huge difference in induced drag. But then going from 7:00 to 8-9, you're on the on the flat path of the of the curve. And so one aspect rate, one point in terms of aspect ratio comes with the benefit, lower and lower benefit performance together compared to the lower categories. Ah damn, you answered my lifelong dilemma. No, but then like this wing, it looks super sporty. It looks super thin. Was it designed to basically go faster? Because that is what it it looks like. What? What was the idea behind Death Blade Man? I have no idea. I think just fun and craziness, insanity, insanity. I'm impressed, but I love this. It's it's but no speed will not

be basically related to the spec ratio so much, but it's to try to get more performance. But I think I think it has a spec ratio of 12. So I'm quite confident at this point. You're well beyond the this trade off of aspicaratio and live drag. Imagine having a World Cup full of deathblades. That would be just a mad insane sky to war. Maybe we can make an AI photo of that and use it in the thumbnail. That would do. If it's. Tom, the thing I like to say this to a few people on my show that sometimes I run out of questions that I have drafted for them.

And the reason for that is that you're domain of knowledge in this subject is so vast that there's no way a layman like me can pull out all of that information. But then that is why we always have a tendency to bring back people who are resonating well with the audiences. So I think for now, thank you for your honest, good hearted advice. I think we have clarified a lot of really kind words. Yeah, man, it was all about creating shared value for everyone else so that we can clarify questions. When it comes to upgrading responsibly and what to expect from E&C class. I think we have hit the nail on the head so far.

All right. Thanks a lot and thanks for the nice words. Yeah man, let's stay in touch to keep up the magic with your busy schedules. Cannot wait to see your offerings. And yeah, stay tuned, stay excited. Thanks. Have a nice evening. Cheers. Bye.