วีดีโอ

Hi, There is a need to distinguish between the real difference in passive safety and the pilot's subjective perception. If we were to look at real safety, the C2 is very close to the CH2, the only difference is that you have a larger range of control elements, so after all, in the extreme opening of the trims, the angle of attack is still a hair smaller than with the CH2 when the trims are fully open. In the same setup mode, even the C2 will actually be safer thanks to the technologies. But it is perceived differently by the pilot subjectively, the CH2 after all irons the air better, the C2 conveys to the pilot a greater feeling of the movement of the air, which the pilot can perceive more like a livelier wing and more of a feeling that something is happening with the air. But that doesn't mean that there is anything more dangerous than there is with CH2 overhead. Is this enough? C2 will also be a hair faster at starts and landings, which the fence must be able to handle technically. I would need more information (such as hours flown with CH2, overall experience and so on..) in order to advise on sizing. If the pilot has flown the Ch2 for 100+ hours, I would go from a size 25 to a size 24 for the C2. Is this answer enough?

​@@vaclavvinklarek7102 yes enough, thank you very much  

Motor už není mladík, unavový zlom šroubu hlavy a následně vyfouklé tesnění. Bohužel jsem cca 70h zpět nechtěů čekat na nový válec, když prokluzoval jeden ze šroubů a nechal tam dát vložku. A nebylo to dobré rozhidnutí, nevydrželo to. Tim se přetížily zbylé 3 a jeden se tlakem a tepelnou unavou za svých 400h zlomil. Vzorová únavová zlomenina. Dva zbylé už hlavu neudrží na místě.

@@vaclavvinklarek7102 zazrak ze ho netrefila vrtule teda. Mě se stalo podbne šroub z hlavy a díra jak ve vrtuli tak i díra v rámu

Thank you. I agree 100% with the your described observations from take offs. In general, with DUDEK wings, you have to really hit it, then it shoots up very quickly. If one were to be too "gentle" with it, one may not run all the way up to the flight position (especially in no wind) and the wing may eventually stall. DUDEK = strong initial impulse. On the other hand, all the new wings from MAC PARA, as well as the OZONE wings, prefer a gradually increasing thrust when lifting from the ground overhead. For a change, they don't like a strong impulse at all. And even as you write, specific wings have their own needs.

Thanks for trust. Personally, I don't like remotely recommending a glider when I don't know the pilot and can't see how he flies. MAC PAR Charger 2 is a recreational category, i.e. the same category as Ozone Roadster 3 and Spyder 3. (Spyder 3 is a lightweight version of Roadster 3). Ozone Speedster 3 and Sirocco 3 belong to the same sports category as MAC PARA Coorado 2. In general, a wing from a lower category has weaker flight performance, but higher passive safety. Passive safety = leaves more pilot error. I think that if a pilot's priority is safety and at the same time flies up to 40 hours a year, he should buy a wing from the category of recreational wings. An annual flight of up to 40 hours is too little for a pilot to have anchored the key habits needed for safe flying on more powerful wings. Unfortunately, it is a trend to buy the most powerful wing and I consider it a mistake. The fact is that even with a high-performance wing today, the average piot can take off and land without problems, because those wings are simply user-friendly. But even a friendly performance wing requires the pilot to know what he is doing in extreme situations. Otherwise, the material will be demolished or the pilot will be injured. And it's only a matter of time before the pilot gets into some dangerous situation. If I had to choose in the recreational category, I would currently choose the MAC PARA Charger 2, because the Roadster 3 has been on sale for quite long time and I personally expect its successor in the second half of 2024 (it's already on the way). The Charger 2 is still a relatively new wing. It is also necessary to take into account that if you have flown the Speedster 1 or 2 and not the latest 3, the performance of these wings is more like the Charger 2. The newer wings of all manufacturers move up in performance, even if they have the same name as the predecessor. I would reach for the Speedster 3 or the Colorado 2 if you fly more than 30 hours a year. It must be said that both Ozone and MAC PARA wings are wings with good passive safety. Specific models have their pluses and minuses. I feel like the Colorado 2 has better placed controls than the Speedster 3 (the little handle is nicely low) and I also fly with the top hang and the Colorado 2 swings less from side to side on it. But every piot will tell you a different opinion about it. So I don't know if I helped :-)

@@vaclavvinklarek7102 HMM WHEN I FIRST STARTED FLYING I HAD A MACPARA EDEN 3...AT THE TIME I DIDNT KNOW THE GOOD OR THE BAD. but as time passed by I knew the Eden 3 was special. hence why I am looking at Mac Para Wings. I have over 2,000 air hours. over 13 years flying. I fly now a Viper 3 and a Viper 4. I fly the Dudek drifter. I am thing of the Colorada 2 wing. I am getting older .and chilling far more. a wing that is easy to take off. a wing that's easy to land. and a wing that can do some acro? am I asking too much......

​@@vaclavvinklarek7102 Many thanks! I tend more to the class Colorado2/Speedster3, one reason is the better fuel efficiency because i want to fly the light and silent Atom80 and i like longer flights. I hope with a modern and not to small reflex wing this should work with 75-80kg pilot and open trimmers (i didn' try it yet with the Speedster 26 (gen1), maybe this wing needs to much power, i'll know in a few month). Do you think Colorado2 is here compareable with Speedster3 / Nucleon 4 regarding efficiency with open trimmers? Maybe the Dudek Solo could be an alternative, it seems to be between Roadster and Speedster and in the test from Paramotor magazine they wrote it's very efficient, a light pilote achieved fully accelerated 61km/h with a Top80 and 50% power. It's a bit slow with only trimmers, but maybe ok when it's efficient enough to use the accelerator at least partly on top with the small motor.

My opinion is that two parameters affect the required engine power. Total weight and flight speed. The concrete wing will not greatly affect the consumption and the required performance. That is why, for example, many pilots claim that they had far better hourly consumption with a wing with a classic profile than with a reflex profile. But they don't notice that the base speed has jumped from 38km/h to 45km/h. So, even with a very weak engine, it is possible to take off with a high-performance glider like the Ozon Viper or the Mac Para Samurai, but if I start to accelerate significantly (open the trim and activate the speed), I suddenly have a problem flying straight. But it is because the speed will shift from 46km/h to 70km/h. Therefore, the total weight also plays a role, if I load the same size glider on the lower limit or on the upper limit, they have different flight speeds. I tested the Colorado 2 - 26 as a 100kg pilot, an 80kg pilot will measure 2-4km/h less speed in all modes with the same wing size (26) in all flight modes, but will need less engine power than I I had, precisely because it flies slower. Personally, I don't think there is a difference in power needs between the Colorado 2, Nucleno 4 or Speedster 3 gliders at the same size and speed. If you feel more power somewhere, it means that this glider is flying faster at that moment. I don't have the exact measurements for these gliders.

Thanks. Can you please put this in MAC PARA so they notice it? :-) I don't sell wings personally, I'm just a user. I have a good relationship with the people at MAC MARA, but it's enough for me that they lend me wings and provide great service. But I buy my own wings, like everyone else.

@@vaclavvinklarek7102 I'll do my best! I know the US Distributor of MacPara and will make sure he sees the video.

Colorado 1 and Colorado 2 behave differently in live air. Colorado 1 acts like a solid plate and after exceeding a certain level it jerks as a whole, Colorado 2 "ripples" and bends, you can see how the wings tips move back and forth. The Colorado 2 transfers movement to the seat more and earlier, you can feel how it moves more under the butt, depending on the level of liveliness. Colorado 1 twitched as a whole, it just ripples here. That's what I mean by liveliness. For Charger 1 pilots, however, I see the biggest change being the steering length. The Charger 1 has a very long steering paths (you have to pull your hand down a long way). With the Colorado 2, you need a significantly smaller range of motion. That's why I'm convinced that with the Charger 25 size, I'd try the Colorado 2-26 first.

yes, I flew with the Colorado 2 :-) I will publish a detailed test by the end of August. Please be patient for a few days.

@@vaclavvinklarek7102 I look forward to it.

Colorado 2: th-cam.com/video/8or5OEop8ws/w-d-xo.html

I already have the Colorado 2 in size 26 on loan for a test. I would like to have the test done by the end of March, but it depends on the weather.

@@vaclavvinklarek7102 great! I'll be waiting for it

Olešnice, kopec Kopaniny nad sjezdovkou.

Pokud vím, tento je finálně vyrobený přímo v dílně WalkerJetu v Mnihochově Hradišti. Takže obrátit se na WalkerJet a pana Procházku. Jen upozorňuji, že je na motoru WalkerJet zapalování, tedy mohlo dojít i k úpravě předstihu (to nevím, zda a jak se měnil). Pokud tomu tak je, nový výfuk by pak bez upraveného zapalování nepomohl.

Hi, Roadster 3 (and Spyder 3 = light version of Roadster), are a lower class of gliders than Speedster or Colorado. The Roadster class at MAC PARA corresponds to the Charger. Here, the Roadster 3 would get a slightly better rating from me than the old Charger 1 and the Charger 2 a hair better than the Roadster 3. The Speedster 3 (and Sirocco 3 = light version of the Speedster) correspond to the Colorado. In the overall rating, the Speedster 3 probably has a slight lead, but again I flew the Colorado 2 prototype actually, which goes on sale in the spring of 2023, and it is noticeably better. If you have a paramotor with higher hang points, you will encounter two differences: MAC seems to me that it flies better straight and does not tend to sway sideways and small tips steering handles are lower and easier to hand. It's a bit like they didn't count on Ozone with higher hang points. But I believe that every pilot will give you a different assessment, it depends on the type of flying and personal preferences. So the best way is to try and than buy 😊

Za sebe mohu říct, že testováná 200HF dosahovala přibližně deklarovaného výkonu a to subjektivní porovnáním s WalkerJet 240. Šlo zejména o maximální stoupavost, která se dala změřit a byla podle očekávání. Prvním krokem by mělo být na Tvé krosně změření maximálních otáček, kterých s konkrétní vrtulí dosahuje. Polini jsou spíše vysokootáčkové motory, 200HF má maximum 8.100 otáček, tedy s vrtulí bys měl být na maximu těsně pod (třeba 7.900 - 8.000), pokud jsou otáčky výrazně nižší, motor nedosahuje maxima výkonu, nebo naopak přestřelují, pak je vrtule "lehká" a neumožňuje přenos na potřebný tah. U maxima otáček třeba 7.200 už to bude znát, také to může znamenat, že něco na motoru není OK.

Ano, používám. Létám i v mrazu a to bez vyhřívaných rukavic nejde. Osobně používám tyto: Charly POLARHEAT, battery heated gloves. Důležité je, aby nešlo jen o vyhřívanou rukavici, ale i tepelně izolující a nejlépe i z folii typu Gore-tex proti profouknutí.

Moc dekuji za radu. Koupil sem si ty latkove a co nejtensi at mam cit pri drzeni plynu a ridicek. Ruce mam zmrzle uz pri startu.🤣

Thank you. I plan to compare MAC with DUDEK and OZONE for the year 2022. Gradually I would like to compare different classes of PPG wings.

Thank you.

I hope you enjoy your Charger 2 very much and will be satisfied. It's a very good PPG glider.