On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 4:40:08 PM UTC-8, Casey Cox wrote:
I can see this glider in my future.

I see some design differences than other gliders.
1) The trailer looks to be well designed and galvanized frame. Longer lasting and saves the time and expense of painting.
2) The wing tips are not removable. Saves time rigging, expense, and weight, but wonder if its harder or if one has to be a little more careful pulling out of trailer.
3) The gear is more forward of gear doors, where most gear is almost center of gear doors. Don't know but wondering if all gliders gear hinge the same direction (forward or rearward). I think I have seen one other glider with gear forward of the doors.
4) Looks like the wings would have to be disassembled or at least pulled out some to get the batteries out. Rigging every day would not be a problem and I guess as long as they can be charged while in the wing would not be a problem. Wonder how long the batteries are and if that is the case of removing the wing completely to get the batteries out. Not sure I would want to charge the batteries while still in the wings. I've recently had a battery catch fire overnight.
5) Wonder why all the effort to have 2 cockpits. Resale may be hurt if someone has the slim and potential buyer did not like the tight fit. Wonder if the weight is the same and L/D any better on slim.
6) I like the standard BRS. I guess it is located in the pylon compartment and would exit via the pylon doors.

Cant wait to see more of it.


The glider has potential. It seems to be a smaller version of the Diana (similar wing and fuselage shapes). But it does not have the eccentricities of the Diana (no side stick, and no spars sticking out the side of the fuselage).

There does seem to be a disconnect between the advertised range/climb and the advertised weight of the batteries. Also, a more powerful optional motor seems to serve no purpose unless it either is turning the prop faster or is turning a larger prop. Otherwise, the extra power will not used.

Removable batteries in the fuselage would be a lot more convenient than having them in the wings. A leak of the water ballast could short the batteries, but at least you would have the ballistic chute if the wings catch on fire.