15 replies to this topic

[windofchange]

The obvious - the 2.3 is 2.3 meters wing tip to wing tip, the 2.5 is 2.5 meters wing tip to wing tip. As far as which one is better, that would depend on the pilot and the style that you have. The 2.3 will be a bit more agile and have an overall lighter weight because of the smaller sail, the 2.5 will be smoother and slower and be a tad heavier. Both kites will have about the same wind range as the lighter 2.3 has a smaller sail area than the heavier 2.5 and it's larger sail area. I prefer the 2.5 but I have always been partial to larger wings over smaller ones.

Hope that helps.

[Hedgewarden]

Something to consider, does the kite come in STD and VENTED and ULTRA-LIGHT versions.

Without my SF 2.5 Vented, I would be grounded when the winds hit 20 mph and up - which is frequently. Having kites of the same design across the speed ranges provides similar flying characteristics over a wider wind range than a single kite can provide. I am still evaluating the SF 2.5 UL - it doesn't fly as well as an HQ Breeze in 6 mph winds for me yet.

This may or may not be a consideration for you.

-Howard

[windofchange]

The 2.5 comes in all three versions, the 2.3 is only available in standard and UL. That being said, I have found that the UL models on both the 2.3 and the 2.5 are what I would call "Heavy Ultralights" in that they don't really have the light wind capability as other UL's on the market. Lightest wind is around 3-4 mph for both the 2.3 and 2.5 UL. With lots of skill and a bit of work, you can get them down a little lighter in the wind but that's a lot of work for me - especially when my Widow Maker UL can fly and trick easily in 2 mph with very little work.

[MeauxJo]

I have both a Vented and UL 2.5 and they are great kites but have some extra weight in a lot of places and the stand offs crack and fall off.

Other than that I love them both and they are in my every day carry bag in the car, the only dual lines BTW.

[sky fish]

I hope I am not to late with this reply.I have the set of Foxes My kite's have not held up well. I have had way to many things break on All of them leading edge- spine standoff's. The -yo yo stopper and doohickey's fall of in no time flat .The maiden fly t of the stander was only ten minutes.I am not a total new bee any more and the landings are not that hard. I tell folks that I must have gotten my kites on a bad production day. If you have already gotten them You may what to have spare rods ready. I would go with the Prism line for durability .

[John]

I have a 2.3 UL. Have flown in about four hours now. I have about twenty hours on a STD AcrobatX.

The two kites come from the same manufacturer and you can see that general construction is very similar between them.

There are differences that I can feel even with my limited experience.

The STD AcrobatX races around the sky. The SF 2.3 UL lofts. It is a slow kite. It responds slower, it moves slower, if floats. I only began to see how that can help me while flying it today; I'm trying to learn Axels and the slower pace of the SF is helping see what the kite does when I send it commands. I'm sure that I will use the SF to learn tricks, but at this time, I'm feeling that I will probably pass it along once I can do those same tricks and moves with a quicker kite. I -need- the slow, grace of this larger, lighter kite right now... I don't know if I'll enjoy it after I pas this stage.

Today, we lost one of the AcrobatX's rubber end caps in the field. No idea where and when. The tension lines stayed fully under load from some impacted soft dirt so we (my wife was flying it today) didn't notice until we took the leading edge spars apart to take it home. I saw a short video of Lam Hoac (Sea Devil) tying his leading edge tension lines and will probably adopt that practice and forego the rubber tips as they disappear.

The AcrobatX will fly almost to the same low wind as the SF UL if I remove the upper spreader and the two 2mm carbon rods that lie parallel to the spine. I don't know if it will respond to commands without that part of the structure gone, but we can fly it more often that way. I also replaced the metal tail-weight on the AcrobatX with a short piece of wood doweling... this has helped make it a little more stable as I was finding that it was very easy to spin it around it's center when trying to bring the tips down to land or side slide.

The nose cover on the AcrobatX has seen a lot of crashing and sloppy 'cartwheel' recoveries as we both have been learning. This has caused both tips of the upper LE spars to poke through three or four times now. I sit down with needle and thread and run a few lines of stitches to create new walls for the spars to sit up against. Do the other manufacturer's use a heavier webbing up there? I'll have to replace that nose protection completely before long. The SF has the same nose treatment.

I'm not sure what the rods are in the SF, but they are very very light. And the fabric is thin and crisp.

I like seeing it in the sky. Ours is all grays with a white center. Reminds me of a seagull, a shark, a snowy owl, batman, and a killer whale all at the same time. Sometimes I think of it as Orca in my head.

I agree with Howard's (Hedgewarden) first write up.

I too have monkeyed around with the bridle settings... went from a custom mix to turbo to 3-point mode and I am still to new at this to tell the difference. It flies the same for me in all settings.

John in Montreal