The Nike Air Solo Flight, a painfully inferior imitation of the classic Air Flightposite, has us wondering what the planners at Nike were thinking.

by Professor K, posted May 13, 2001

Prior to its official public release the Nike Air Solo Flight was known as the Aintposite. It was so named because it is, visually, a dead ringer for the Nike Air Flightposite, but lacks any of Nike’s Foamposite material. In my opinion, Aintposite would have been a much better name because the Nike Air Solo Flight is the antithesis of the everything that the Flightposite embodied. When it was originally released in late 1999, the Flightposite was innovative, incredibly comfortable and, as we said in our review, “The ultimate hoops shoe for the indoor game”. The Air Solo Flight is, on the other hand, derivative, surprisingly uncomfortable, and, overall, inferior to most of the shoes in its price range.

Much of the reason for the poor overall performance of the shoe is due to Nike’s efforts to duplicate the look of the original Flightposite without the use of Foamposite material. The synthetic textile material used for the upper of the Air Solo Flight is not moldable in the same way that Foamposite is and so, to mimic the organic shape of the Flightposite, the inner of the Solo Flight is stiched extensively (the stitching is not visible on the outer of the shoe, but can be easily felt by feeling inside of the shoe).

figure 1. Visible here and in all of the photos is the Nike Air Solo Flight’s striking resemblance to the the Nike Air Flightposite. The outsole of the Air Solo Flight, as visible above, is nearly identical to that of the Flightposite.

This is rather ironic since one of the primary benefits of Foamposite material is the ability to create a one-piece, seamless upper. The problem with lots of stiches is that they introduce the potential for chafing and blistering if the stiches rub against the foot. The most problematic part of the shoe that I found in my testing was at the arch of the foot where the stiching constantly rubbed against the arch of my foot. The chafing subsided after two wearings, but nothing about the shoe makes working through those first painful wearings worthwhile.

The stiching is not the only problem I had with the upper. To duplicate the appearance of the zippered lace shroud of the original Flightposite, the Air Solo Flight has a very narrow lacing system. The shoe itself is also built on a very narrow last, I suspect, to allow the shoe’s designers to more closely mimmick the appearance of the Flightposite. This makes the Air Solo Flight a bad choice for people with wide feet, but even those with narrow feet may find it difficult to get a good, solid fit because of the narrower-than-normal lacing system. On the upside, the Air Solo Flight has a large internalized heel counter and midfoot support shank, which work together to provide a solid, stable base for take-offs, landings, and quick lateral movements.

figure 2. From a distance even the most knowledgeable shoe connoisseur would be hard pressed to tell the Air Solo Flight from the Air Flightposite.

Speaking of the base of the shoe, the midsole is hidden, as in the Flightposite. But,unlike the Flightposite, the Air Solo Flight does not have a Zoom Air unit in the forefoot. Instead, the Air Solo Flight has an encapsulated Air-sole Unit in the heel and makes use of polyurethane (PU) to provide cushioning at the forefoot. The PU does a surprisingly good job of providing firm, but forgiving cushioning at the forefoot, but I wonder how long PU alone in the forefoot will last?

The outsole of the Air Solo Flight is nearly identical to that of the Flightposite and provides good, if not excellent, traction.

figure 3. Visible here is the extremely narrow lacing system of the Air Solo Flight. The laces aren’t covered, they’re actually that close to each other.

To sum up, the Nike Air Solo Flight is more of an exercise in imitation than innovation or performance. Compromise after compromise is made to mimick the appearance of the original Nike Air Flightposite and the end result is a shoe that looks very much like the shoe it is based upon, but performs nothing like it. To be fair, the Air Solo Flight, at $85, is almost half the price of the original Flightposite, but other shoes at the same price point aren’t encumbered by the compromises that hinder the Air Solo Flight. This leaves us scratching our heads because we can’t figure out why Nike would want to create a cheap and flawed knock-off of one of their most innovative shoes. It’s akin to Mercedes Benz producing a car that looks exactly like their flagship CL600, but has the innards of a Plymouth Neon. We’d expect a shoe like this from Sketchers, but not from Nike.

So our advice is, unless you have always wanted a pair of the Flightposites, but couldn’t afford them, skip the Air Solo Flight and take a look at similiarly priced shoes such as the adidas Mad Handle, And 1 Mad Game, Nike Air Jet Flight, or Nike Air Flight Disrupter which are all superior for on-court performance.

Who’s Worn It
Doug Christie (G/F- Sacramento Kings)