Interested in hang gliding? Currently learning to hang glide? Post your questions here.
This forum is open to unregistered users

Moderators: sg, mods

User avatar
By KeLe
#384934
Hi all,
This is my first post on this forum, so first of all I am saying big thanks for accepting me and for all the useful info one can find here.
I am a H3 pilot, having about 35 hours of airtime and 130 flights. I fly a Vector from Thalhoffer, which is a 80% ds intermediate wing, w/o VG. I am planning to make a step to the next level this year, maybe by the end of the season.

I recently bought a U2, so this would be my first option for next wing. I also have a XC with very low airtime in my hangar.
My question is addressed mainly to those pilots, who have flown both of these two wings, but any input and advise is welcome.

What are your thoughts: would be a good idea to fly first the XC and only later the U2? Flying first the XC would help me making steps to be able to fly the U2, or not? I have found a lot of great comparisons between U2 and Sport 2, but no one between U2 and XC. I know XC is an older glider, but this is my situation.

Thanks in advance for you answers.
Sorry for my weak English.
User avatar
By Mavi Gogun
#384936
KeLe,

The XC is an Advance rated hang glider. The U2 is an Intermediate rated hang glider. Since the best glide and sink rate are better on the U2, you might imagine it would be more difficult to land in a small field- but it's handling is vastly easier and more predictable than the XC, making for a much safer glider.

There's no contest- were I to direct a friend who had never flown before to escape a zombie horde or erupting volcano with one of these kites, I would recommend the U2 without a moment of hesitation.

Make your first flights in calm, unchallenging conditions at a site with an easy launch and an LZ that doesn't require turns. 35 hours isn't much to be stepping up to a U2- proceed with an abundance of caution.
User avatar
By Paul H
#384937
The U2 is a far superior wing. I've owned both and put many hours on them, the U2 out does the XC in every way.
User avatar
By TjW
#384938
U2 -- wider flare window, better performance, what's not to like?

You will need to make sure that you plan your landings a little more than with a lower performance wing. It's easy enough to land, but it would also be easy to overshoot if you set up identically to the lower performance glider you're used to.
User avatar
By KeLe
#384940
Thanks for your answers.
I had no idea about difference in handling and predictability between these two gliders. Now it is clear for me. It seems to be a good example of development of wings over years. A new intermediate wing performs better in every way then an old advanced one.

I am going to fly the Vector this season accumulating airtime and working more on my landing approach technique. And I will change to U2, step by step in proper conditions.
User avatar
By Karl_A
#384941
Good wings get flown to death, accumulating airtime until their sails are wasted by UV and their frames are creaking.

I have seen pristine, like new, XCs given away.

Fly the U2. Don't bother with the XC.
User avatar
By DAVE 858
#384942
I went from a Freedom 190 to a U2 160 & the amount of places I can get to relatively quickly with the U2 is astounding compared to the Freedom. I don't know much about the XC. Is it still being manufactured? I was under the impression it was an older design. Keep in mind the U2 recently underwent a change in the sail cut, not sure when this took effect & I cannot speak for of the performance difference between the older sail vs newer sail design.
User avatar
By remmoore
#384943
As a former XC pilot, I'm in complete agreement with going for the U2. While an improvement over it's predecessors, the XC would be considered a handful compared to the U2 - with no performance advantage. Once you're nicely dialed into the U2, I guess you could try out the XC, but you will definitely be disappointed with the handling of this earlier WW ship.

RM
User avatar
By miraclepieco
#384950
Welcome to this forum KeLe, and to hang gliding. Your English seems fine and we English-speakers appreciate your effort to communicate in our language.

The XC wasn't even considered a very good wing in its heyday. I owned one and hated it - wouldn't stay in thermals to save its life. I had a 5+ hour XC where I thermaled upright the entire flight because it was the only way I could force it to core the lift. The end finally came when I squandered a once-in-a-liifetime flying trip by sinking out because that damn glider spit me out of thermals repeatedly until I finally found myself on the ground. Giving away pristine XC's - yeah, I can relate. Better yet would be running over it with a truck. I've never flown a U2 but everyone loves them. And there's no way they could be as bad as an XC.
User avatar
By mario
#384955
Welcome KeLe,
I think that the U2 is the obvious choice, but there are a few things to think about before flying it. Make sure that it is checked out and flown by a trustworthy pilot first. If it is not new, there have been changes for some parts that you can find out about on the Wills Wing site, or just write them and tell them the serial # etc.
Make sure you are the right hook in weight for it also.
Have fun working your way up to the U2 and have a blast with it when you are ready!
By highhuber
#384957
KeLe I don't know what kind of shape your in, how old you are or what kind of an athlete you are, but I have looked at the Vectors on the internet and I would lay odds the U2 160 handles better, launches better, and lands better, then the Vector.

I'd get a few flights on the Vector to knock the rust of your technique and then give the U2 a flight on a nice flying day with gentle conditions.

You might be surprised to find it's a better glider in every way. No need to wait the whole summer to get on it. Just remember to let the Vg off when you land and give yourself more field to land on because of its superior glide.
User avatar
By Paul H
#384958
The XC was a good glider for its time.. They didn't do well when you wanted to really slow them down when you were working really light stuff. They were much more difficult to turn at the slowest end of their envelope. Other than that they flew fine, thermalled quite well, and were pretty easy to land. They were advanced rated wings and if a pilot was at the lower end of the recommended weight range it did take a lot more effort to turn them.
But that was then. The current generation of gliders does everything better while being easier to fly.
User avatar
By fkovacs
#384963
Welcome to the forum.
I've only flown the U2 but liked it very much. You can't go wrong with the U2.
Please try it in calm conditions and big unobstructed landing fields as others suggested.
Read the manual (online on WW page) regarding recommended VG settings.

BTW, you have great videos on youtube. Keep producing them also with the U2.
User avatar
By klh
#384984
All the advice above is pretty spot-on.

The XC was WW's top of the line racing glider back in the day. It came after the RamAir and before the Fusion (WW first topless). They flew well but demanded advanced skills.

The U2 handles much better than the XC and gets almost the same performance as a T2 up to about 40 MPH. The U2 is an _advanced_ intermediate glider; the Sport 2 is truly intermediate in that it's the next logical step up from single surface gliders (and skills). Instructors I know typically recommend at least 75-100 hours airtime before moving up to double surface wings.

If you fly a U2 with novice skills then at first you won't get much of the performance it can deliver and you might stop having fun and start disliking landing. Get through that period and things will work out. If you fly an XC with novice skills you'll probably be a former pilot before too long ;)
User avatar
By selbaer
#384992
Get the U2. Newer technology.
The XC will fly forever if you're not in a hurry but harder to tow and smaller flare window.
User avatar
By Wagner24314
#384993
get a U2