Phi Maestro 2 vs Phi Allegro
The original Phi Maestro was my first progression wing, stepping up from low B to high B. Suddenly I could feel more of what the air was doing, the glide was way better, the speed bar wasn’t a sink bar, handling was crisp and I started flying longer distances consistently. I loved the wing! Bought it as soon as I landed after the first demo flight. When the X-Alps version came out, I light-graded. Same performance and handling with even easier launching in a 3.5kg package!
A year and a half later, a tree landing meant the wing had to be sent back to the factory for repair — free accidental damage warranty in first year of ownership. I was in the market for a new wing and started demo’ing C gliders.
From all the C wings I tried, the newly released Phi Allegro suited me best. It felt familiar. Like a Maestro on steroids. Just like the jump from the low B to the high B, the jump to the C was very welcome. The most noticeable differences were glide on bar and efficiency into headwind. Over the next three years I’ve flown a few different Allegros both light and full-fat.
When the Maestro 2 was released a few months ago, there were some bold claims by the manufacturer. They were always accompanied by the designer’s comments “don’t believe us, try one for yourself”. So I was really curious about just how good the new Maestro 2 is. How would it compare to my Allegro?
In January, a demo Maestro 2 Light became available in my size courtesy of Martin Havel at Fly2Base. Just in time for XC Camp in Manilla. What better place to try an XC wing than in the legendary flying conditions of Manilla and what better time of the year than at an event with hundred other pilots where you can really compare the performance of the wing against others.
Over the next few weeks, I flew XC in all kinds of conditions including strong thermic conditions in Manilla, triangles with another Allegro and even did some DIY SIV on the Maestro 2. Later I flew the wing in Killarney with my friend Dave flying an Allegro and then we swapped wings and compared notes. It was a very thorough review of the wing.
I flew the Maestro 2 Light, Size 22 (83kg — 103kg) at 95kg with an Advance Lightness 3 pod harness.
Some flights on the Maestro 2 Light :
First XC on the Maestro 2 Light during XC Camp in Manilla. Third longest flight of the day behind a Flow XC Racer and Advance Omega XAlps.
Flying into headwind on an attempted out and back
Launching
I’ve been flying the Allegro for about three years so I’m very accustomed to it’s launch behaviour. It’s the easiest to launch wing I’ve ever tried. So easy that I think it’s caused my launch skills to degrade :) I often don’t bother building a wall. Pull it up, watch it as it levitates and inflates, turn and fly away.
The Maestro 2 launches a bit more traditionally and I had to adapt to its different launch behaviour. It is slightly heavier than the Allegro Light and during launch it feels a bit heavier and requires a slightly stronger tug. As it reaches overhead you have to catch it. A couple of inflations and I got the hang of it.
Handling
The crisp, direct handling characteristic of Phi wings was immediately obvious as soon as I made the first turn. The wing responds immediately to brake input and has slightly higher brake pressure than the Allegro. Pressure increase progressively as you approach the stall point. It’ll be difficult to stall it unintentionally.
The Maestro 2 dives more into turns whereas the Allegro turns flatter. This also means the Maestro 2 is easier to get into a thermal and keep in the core than the Allegro which requires a fair amount of weight shift. This actually makes thermalling more pleasant on the Maestro 2 than on the Allegro!
I found the Allegro a bit more roll stable than the Maestro 2 and you quickly learn to dampen it.
B+C controls
The Maestro 2 has the same ‘floating B’ risers as the Allegro. Phi calls them R07. When you pull the handles on the C riser, it also pulls the B risers a little through a pulley setup. These C controls were slightly heavier than on the Allegro but still very effective.
It’s very easy to control the pitch of the glider with just the C handles when on bar. Knowing that I could reduce the angle of attack quickly gave me confidence to stay on bar except when thermalling.
I had to lengthen the speedbar line about six inches when changing from Allegro to Maestro 2.
Performance into Headwind
I distinctly remember flying with a friend on the original Maestro into headwind a few years ago. I was flying the Allegro. As soon as we stopped thermalling and pushed bar into headwind, the Allegro pulled ahead and the Maestro dropped back and below.
The Maestro 2 is a completely different beast in this regard. I never felt at a disadvantage flying headwind on the Maestro 2 against the Allegro or other C wings. I flew a few triangles and long distances into headwind and it’s easily just as good if not better than the Allegro on bar!
Flying in Light Conditions & Feedback
Sometimes you can be at the right place but wrong time and just need to wait for the thermal to release. A more efficient wing gives you more ‘loiter’ time before you intersect with the ground. When I moved up to the Allegro from the original Maestro, this ‘loiter’ time was immediately noticeable. How does the Maestro 2 do in light conditions?
I had a VERY long scratching session on the Maestro 2 waiting for a thermal to trigger above a small hill near Manilla. I was flying with my friend Daron who was on an Allegro. We found both wings to be equally efficient in light lift and the advantage was only based on who found the stronger bit of lift sooner.
Both wings aren’t damped and chat with you about the air they’re flying through. The Maestro 2 is probably a bit more damped and comfortable than the Allegro. They’re both great at sniffing out lift and tugging you towards it.
Construction
So what gives the Maestro 2 such good performance despite its moderate 5.56 aspect ratio? I don’t pretend to be a wing designer but I’ve observed wing profiles from quite up close a few times :)
I suspect that the performance comes from a more efficient airfoil and the huge number of cells that maintain the smoothness of the airfoil across the span of the wing. In fact the Maestro 2 with 76 cells has four more cells than the Allegro with 72 cells.
I think another reason is the sophisticated internal bracing of the wing which maintains the shape of the airfoil without using long rods.
One reason I chose the Allegro from all the C wings I tried was because it has relatively short rods in the nose. This matters because I believe that wings with longer rods and rods in tips are more likely to have sticky cravates that take longer to clear. All other C wings I tested had rods that extend all the way to the trailing edge of the wing. The Maestro 2 has even shorter rods than the Allegro and there are no rods at all in the tips!
The one big difference between the Maestro 2 and the Allegro Light is how much more cohesive the Maestro 2 is compared to the Allegro Light. The Allego Light is quite ‘wiggly’. At times it feels like you’re flying two wings with each side doing it’s own thing. When you’re not used to it, it’s a bit un-nerving. But you quickly realise this is just how it is and that wiggling doesn’t actually do anything. The Maestro 2 on the other hand is super cohesive and moves as a unit and feels more ‘solid’.
Safety
All wings collapse given the right (wrong) conditions. In fact, shedding energy by collapsing is a safety feature of paragliders. Some wings are more ‘solid’ while others give you small collapses on the tips as a warning. BGD calls it progressive stability.
I’ve found the Allegro to be somewhere in the middle. There’s no nuisance tip collapses. You get collapses earlier but they tend to be softer. You can often hear the wing depressurising as the lower surface crinkles.
I’ve had a couple of asymmetric and a full frontal collapses on the Maestro 2 in the wild. I’ve also done some DIY SIV on the Maestro 2 with collapses, spirals, stalls, spins and backfly. In all cases the wing recovers without any dramas. Like with most wings in this class, it’s more important to not do the wrong thing and let the wing fly.
In my opinion, one of the biggest factors when it comes to safety is aspect ratio. There’s no getting around it — a lower aspect ratio wing is generally ‘safer’ than a high aspect wing. It’s less likely to have cravates and when it does, they’re less likely to be dynamic. The Maestro 2 has a fairly low flat aspect of 5.56.
When you do get a cravate, it is more likely to get ‘stuck’ in lines if there are rods in the wing especially at the tips. The Allegro has short rods in the tips. The Maestro 2 has none.
Conclusion
I love flying different wings and trying to notice the differences between them. In the past when I’ve flown a lower spec wing, I’d switch back to my C wing quickly because I didn’t want want to give up the performance for longer than necessary. The Maestro 2, despite being lower aspect and lower spec (high B), is so good that I never felt disadvantaged flying it and happily continued to fly it instead of my Allegro.
It’s remarkable that Phi have managed to create a high B wing that truly has the performance of a C wing. Unless you’re racing, this wing has all the performance you need for XC flying with the passive safety of a low aspect wing in the high B class.
Highly recommended to competent B pilots looking for an XC wing or to C wing pilots wanting to step down without giving up performance.
Dave’s Thoughts
Dave has also been flying a Phi Allegro for the last couple of years. He flew the Maestro 2 Light a few times and had this to say about it:
The Maestro 2 is a real work of art. Compared to other Phi wings I’ve flown, the brake pressure is harder and the wing feels more cohesive. Compared to the Allegro light, which is my current XC wing, the Maestro 2 is significantly more cohesive in both calm and rough air. It’s also less roll-stable, which is a pleasant change from the Allegro — which requires a lot of weight shift to turn and which is easily bumped out a turn when thermalling in rough air.
I really enjoy the handling of the new Maestro. It’s quite sporty, but still provides a sense of dampened safety like a B wing should. When flying with Hammed and his Allegro on a long XC, we flew side by side — just as when we’re both on Allegros. Of course, the Maestro 2 has a lower aspect ratio and is designed for a “lower” class, and we should not expect the same efficiency, especially when on bar and flying into the wind. That said, when we crossed into a different airmass at the end of our flight for about an hour we were pushing a headwind that was so strong it approached our trim speed. We progressed so tediously slowly that I’m sure I saw cows covering ground faster.
Under those conditions I found that the Maestro 2 to have surprisingly good penetration compared to other wings in it’s class. This is usually when the higher aspect ratio wings really shine, but there wasn’t much in it between the Maestro 2 and the C class Allegro.
So how can a wing with a much lower aspect ratio (5.56) achieve similar performance to a wing in the C class (with an aspect ratio of 6.03)? The aspect ratio of the Maestro 2 is even lower than many of it’s competitors in the high B class.
I attribute the cohesivity and general efficiency of the Maestro 2 to the comparatively high number of cells and to the complex internal construction. 72 cells is a huge cell count for a B class wing! In fact, it’s more than most C wings. This must surely create a smoother lifting surface.
Similarly, the internal construction of the Maestro 2 is more complex than the Maestro 1 or even the Allegro. Unlike other wings in this class that have featured complex designs and/or large cell counts (i.e. the Nova Phantom), somehow the designers of the Maestro 2 have been able to keep the overall weight down and maintain nice launch characteristics. And this wing retails for a similar price to it’s competitors, despite the more-complicated construction. Bravo Hannes!
