Man...I loved the M7. Put over 200 hours on it, and had personal bests in XC and racing. It prepared me perfectly for the Zeno which I am flying now and I would say it is my favorite wing I have ever flown, and has an amazing amount of performance for how stable and safe it feels... which you tend to appreciate if you fly in ballistic conditions like I do in the American West.
Dear flybubble team thanks for the review. I tested the ML size at around 97kg for me for my first flight ob a D, it felt a bit "restricked" I thoight thats it? I also found groundhandling and inflating quite simple for a wing with an AR of 6.5. But i liked the capability that it had no prefered turn. Tight or wider but super flat both was very easy to establish. Speed and C-control is also great. And for a D class glider I always felt very safe. Induced colapses were easy to sort out, stalls were also not too different than what I am used to feeling the stallpoint is very clear. Next I tried the Skywalk Xalps 4 and I got what I initially expexted from the M7.
Agree....I get 3 flights on it in Porterville...and .... am looking up because no feedback from the glider..it's weird but sensationnal I have to say 😀...time to time .... I love it..then decided to buy it...from Gin Explorer to M7 ...let see,
this joy factor is a key component of satisfaction flying a wing... I am currently flying a gto2 and I think that is good to have information on a glider even if it means get busy piloting lol... could you do a comparison between gto2 and the m7?
Okay I'll try, just quickly for you :-) I've flown the Gin GTO 2 a good amount e.g. first bit.ly/2XxFVqn and later bit.ly/2Vtasmv so know it pretty well. For me the GTO 2 has more joy factor, more feeling, more energy, more feedback, but is more active and more demanding to fly. As I wrote in my review, the M7 feels very dampened for a D wing, more like a C wing. The M7 is well suited to someone who wants to step up from a mid C to a D wing, but doesn't want it to be too demanding. Read my M7 written review for more detail bit.ly/2NduMFa
1:33 I commented on this before and I asked many people but nobody has the answer. Why do the manufacturers of the "amateur-class" (i don't know that else to call it) pods make them _exactly_ backwards, so they are actually _introducing_ drag rather than battling it? What I mean is that they invariably have the very seemingly aerodynamic shape _in front_ (covers the legs) but a short and almost nonexistent _back,_ just a stub. As is well-known, from the relevant theory and from wind tunnel experiments, in order to reduce the drag exactly the _opposite_ shape must be used: a stubby blob in the _front_ (so FAPP nothing for the legs) and a long gradual tapering off in the _back._ Note that high-tech racing pods are precisely like that. Also, obviously, all wings, including paraglider wings: dull edge faces forward, the long gradually tapering off edge backward. Reversing that position can almost _double_ the amount of drag. So why are the "amateur" pods done that way? A mystery inside a riddle wrapped in a pod.
Forgot to add: another thing is that pods also invariably position that strange leg covering _horizontally forward_ while the relative wind blows a bit from below (arctan(glide ratio) degrees to be exact) which means the cover introduces a drag that way _as well._ If it absolutely _must_ be there, it should at least point a bit _down,_ not horizontal. So many questions...
@@JanPBtest I think that the designers are of course very well aware of these factors, and much more besides. Knowing many of them, I know they are. My short answer to your "mystery inside a riddle wrapped in a pod" - very good, like it :) - is that everything is a compromise. Everyone comes up with their own best balance. Each has their own ideas. That's why all kit is not the same. For standard, non-competition pods (and all equipment) the top priority is generally enjoyment and general ease of use, less on pure performance. For competition gear it's the other way around - performance first, generally at the sacrifice of other important factors e.g. ease of use, weight, price etc. Each piece of equipment must to tailored to the target pilot group. In the end the market decides who gets the balance right!
Wow, you didn't have much positive things to say about it..... However I do I love it, both in weak thermals and in punchy strong air, A very solid leading edge with good pressure throughout the wing. I'm flying the M7 L at max weight (115kg) I find it to be precise and the handling feels direct. My first thermal under the M7 was averaging 6.3mps and peaking at 8.3mps , I was glad I had a wing that did what it was told. (talk about not getting the time to ease in to it lol) I have stepped up from the Advance Sigma10 so maybe that is influencing my opinion. I am very impressed on speed bar in choppy crap air, very efficient and feels stable. Love it :D th-cam.com/video/0f8tlq03pXo/w-d-xo.html
"you didn't have much positive things to say about it"- I think the review was very positive if you watch it as someone that is looking around for his first EN-D wing ;).
Agreed, we also feel that Ozone's Mantra M6 was a much nicer wing to fly than the M7, which we think mostly won't be fondly remembered by pilots. Actually we thought the M6 was a classic Mid D XC wing; many owners loved them. 🪂 Thinking back on the Mantra series, the M5 didn't happen; perhaps because Niviuk's Low D 2.5 liner Peak 3 outclassed it (even though the handling was a bit dull, unusual for Niviuk - perhaps a reaction to the sporty Mid D Peak 2, much loved by pilots at the time). We didn't much like the LM5 - too snaky, not very nice to fly - which we think was probably mainly released because Ozone managed to nab Chrigel for the X-alps that year (after which he chose to go back to Advance). 🪂 We didn't like the M4 at all; many owners didn't like them, many were soon sold on. 🪂 Actually we weren't all that keen on the Advance Omega Xalps 2 either, but that's another story... 🪂 It just goes to show that no manufacturer brings out the best wing in every category all of the time. And of course the best wing for one pilot could be the worst with for another. 🤓
Man...I loved the M7. Put over 200 hours on it, and had personal bests in XC and racing. It prepared me perfectly for the Zeno which I am flying now and I would say it is my favorite wing I have ever flown, and has an amazing amount of performance for how stable and safe it feels... which you tend to appreciate if you fly in ballistic conditions like I do in the American West.
Love how calm and poetic these reviews are. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the review,this wing colour is so beautiful 😍😍😍😍
thanks for sharing this one and te bonanza2 are in my sight for new wings...
Great video. I love my 2014 Alpina 2 very much. I'm very light. Like a butterfly.
Great review, thank you :-)
Thank you! 👍🏻
I'm looking to replace my beloved old Omega 8, and the M7 sounds a good choice for me. Thanks for the review.
Best review you've ever done!
Always Pleasurable
Nice review! This is, however, above my pay grade/security clearance!
Dear flybubble team thanks for the review. I tested the ML size at around 97kg for me for my first flight ob a D, it felt a bit "restricked" I thoight thats it? I also found groundhandling and inflating quite simple for a wing with an AR of 6.5.
But i liked the capability that it had no prefered turn. Tight or wider but super flat both was very easy to establish. Speed and C-control is also great. And for a D class glider I always felt very safe. Induced colapses were easy to sort out, stalls were also not too different than what I am used to feeling the stallpoint is very clear.
Next I tried the Skywalk Xalps 4 and I got what I initially expexted from the M7.
Agree....I get 3 flights on it in Porterville...and .... am looking up because no feedback from the glider..it's weird but sensationnal I have to say 😀...time to time .... I love it..then decided to buy it...from Gin Explorer to M7 ...let see,
this joy factor is a key component of satisfaction flying a wing... I am currently flying a gto2 and I think that is good to have information on a glider even if it means get busy piloting lol... could you do a comparison between gto2 and the m7?
Okay I'll try, just quickly for you :-) I've flown the Gin GTO 2 a good amount e.g. first bit.ly/2XxFVqn and later bit.ly/2Vtasmv so know it pretty well. For me the GTO 2 has more joy factor, more feeling, more energy, more feedback, but is more active and more demanding to fly. As I wrote in my review, the M7 feels very dampened for a D wing, more like a C wing. The M7 is well suited to someone who wants to step up from a mid C to a D wing, but doesn't want it to be too demanding. Read my M7 written review for more detail bit.ly/2NduMFa
1:33 I commented on this before and I asked many people but nobody has the answer. Why do the manufacturers of the "amateur-class" (i don't know that else to call it) pods make them _exactly_ backwards, so they are actually _introducing_ drag rather than battling it? What I mean is that they invariably have the very seemingly aerodynamic shape _in front_ (covers the legs) but a short and almost nonexistent _back,_ just a stub. As is well-known, from the relevant theory and from wind tunnel experiments, in order to reduce the drag exactly the _opposite_ shape must be used: a stubby blob in the _front_ (so FAPP nothing for the legs) and a long gradual tapering off in the _back._ Note that high-tech racing pods are precisely like that. Also, obviously, all wings, including paraglider wings: dull edge faces forward, the long gradually tapering off edge backward. Reversing that position can almost _double_ the amount of drag. So why are the "amateur" pods done that way? A mystery inside a riddle wrapped in a pod.
Forgot to add: another thing is that pods also invariably position that strange leg covering _horizontally forward_ while the relative wind blows a bit from below (arctan(glide ratio) degrees to be exact) which means the cover introduces a drag that way _as well._ If it absolutely _must_ be there, it should at least point a bit _down,_ not horizontal. So many questions...
@@JanPBtest I think that the designers are of course very well aware of these factors, and much more besides. Knowing many of them, I know they are. My short answer to your "mystery inside a riddle wrapped in a pod" - very good, like it :) - is that everything is a compromise. Everyone comes up with their own best balance. Each has their own ideas. That's why all kit is not the same. For standard, non-competition pods (and all equipment) the top priority is generally enjoyment and general ease of use, less on pure performance. For competition gear it's the other way around - performance first, generally at the sacrifice of other important factors e.g. ease of use, weight, price etc. Each piece of equipment must to tailored to the target pilot group. In the end the market decides who gets the balance right!
Gotta give us a reason to upgrade, aye?
HMM, THE BOND BETWEEN WING AND PILOT....... INTO ONE
Wow, you didn't have much positive things to say about it..... However I do I love it, both in weak thermals and in punchy strong air, A very solid leading edge with good pressure throughout the wing. I'm flying the M7 L at max weight (115kg) I find it to be precise and the handling feels direct. My first thermal under the M7 was averaging 6.3mps and peaking at 8.3mps , I was glad I had a wing that did what it was told. (talk about not getting the time to ease in to it lol) I have stepped up from the Advance Sigma10 so maybe that is influencing my opinion. I am very impressed on speed bar in choppy crap air, very efficient and feels stable. Love it :D th-cam.com/video/0f8tlq03pXo/w-d-xo.html
"you didn't have much positive things to say about it"- I think the review was very positive if you watch it as someone that is looking around for his first EN-D wing ;).
@@flajflaj Ok no worries, if you got a positive feel from it thats cool, but I reckon it had a very drear tone and mostly a negative review.
I'm back a year later. I bet if you actually flew it in alot of lift you would of gave it a lot higher review.
M6 to me its better, that feling in brakes
Agreed, we also feel that Ozone's Mantra M6 was a much nicer wing to fly than the M7, which we think mostly won't be fondly remembered by pilots. Actually we thought the M6 was a classic Mid D XC wing; many owners loved them. 🪂 Thinking back on the Mantra series, the M5 didn't happen; perhaps because Niviuk's Low D 2.5 liner Peak 3 outclassed it (even though the handling was a bit dull, unusual for Niviuk - perhaps a reaction to the sporty Mid D Peak 2, much loved by pilots at the time). We didn't much like the LM5 - too snaky, not very nice to fly - which we think was probably mainly released because Ozone managed to nab Chrigel for the X-alps that year (after which he chose to go back to Advance). 🪂 We didn't like the M4 at all; many owners didn't like them, many were soon sold on. 🪂 Actually we weren't all that keen on the Advance Omega Xalps 2 either, but that's another story... 🪂 It just goes to show that no manufacturer brings out the best wing in every category all of the time. And of course the best wing for one pilot could be the worst with for another. 🤓
Therma
These reviews are utterly worthless. Thanks though.