BGD Cure 2

CURE 2 

Disclaimer:
It seems that I’m also BGD villain…  ;-)
I couldn’t get a hold of one as our dealer received again, (a note) No Cure 2 for Ziad!    
Cooldown guys !!  :-)  It’s the 21st century! And my last 2 BGD’s were purchased from abroad! …   
Gliders sent only to a “controlled” environment is an underestimation of the good pilots out there in the world, especially with the presence of a large social media network. 
I really regret BGD approach!
I wouldn’t want the dealer to have any problems, so I waited until the demo was finally sold to a friend (Northern Eagles Club) flying in the north part of Lebanon. I visited him, and he was so kind as to lend me his new toy.      
I really hope that BGD will have more faith in the future!

BGD Cure 2 M (75-95)    (The edge) 

BGD is a new company, created by the world champion, Bruce Goldsmith, that works with beautiful designs, cheerful colors, and with passionate young people working as a team.
The Cure 2 M launches easily in nil wind without any hardpoint. If the pull is heavy, the Cure 2 surges forward rapidly but can be swiftly stopped by the brakes. In a strong breeze, the pilot must anticipate and stop the surge. A good C pilot won’t have any problem. 

The Cure 2 in size M (75-95) feels slightly big to fly it at mid-weight but quite manageable in weak conditions. In strong air, I found it best at 94, 95 all up. The trim speed is fast for the C category. A bit faster by one km than the Q-light S, the Fusion S, and 2 km/h over the Delta 3, Alpina 3. 
 Flying with an X-rated 6 harness, the Cure 2  has a nice feel in the air!  Like the Cure 1, the Cure 2 is an agile glider, with slightly longer brake inputs than the Cure 1.  

 The brake travel is quite moderate and smooth, not short and not too long. After 10 cm of slack, 30-35 cm is needed to steer the glider in any thermal. The Cure 2 reacts smoothly, and accurately, to the pilot's controls. It has a linear response throughout the brake range. It feels similar to the Mantra 7 in terms of brake feel, and time response, with a slightly more agile turn.

In thermals, the Cure 2 can be steered tightly into the core. The turning radius is clean and the Cure 2 stays on its path during the climb. It feels like sniffing the thermal and it gave me a nice feel while coring. It doesn’t get out of the turn inside a thermal, and while pulling more or less brake, the Cure 2 reacts well, to position it inside the lift. 

In weak conditions, the Cure 2 seems to cope well with the best C’s of the moment despite its high trim speed. (You can see my C companion updated for the Cure 2 if you need to see the smaller details).  A little adaptation is needed to keep the Cure 2 from diving into a turn in weak conditions. A little brake pull is needed and the Cure 2 will climb effortlessly.  I can confirm that the Cure 2 floats well. 

The information is sent smoothly by the risers, not the brakes. The Cure 2 has a tamer feel is weak conditions, much like the M7 is that matter. The pilot must pay attention to the glider movements in order to feel those small 0.2 m/s lifts. But the Cure 2 can grab those tiny lifts with a good pilot underneath. In strong thermals, the Cure 2 moves a bit in yaw visually, but that doesn’t affect the pilot at all. I couldn’t feel the movements that were shown upward. It filters nicely the useless movements. When entering the strong lift, there’s a slight pitch back, when hitting the thermal, and slightly before entering, and then all you can hear is a screaming vario! The Cure 2 climbs really well and fast without too much control. 
In turbulent and strong air, it needs an active good C pilot, just because the moderate brake pressure is less sharp than the Cure 1, the Delta 3, or Alpina 3 for example.
Flying the Cure 2 in moderate air doesn’t feel like a block over the pilot's head, I felt it is a smooth and comfortable glider as it works by itself.  As the conditions liven up, the Cure 2 needs slightly more control power to keep it leveled or slightly more adaptation for the light and slightly moderate brake travel.  I felt the shooting forward is more pronounced than a Delta 3, Alpina 3, Fusion, Lynx, for example…But nothing difficult for a good C pilot. It’s easier to fly than the Trango X-race. 


The glide part is here…
Gliding next to the top C’s of the moment, I was really surprised by the abilities of the Cure 2! I have tried many times, next to the newest and best C’s of the moment, even next to the Mantra 7 ! just to be sure, but to my surprise, the Cure 2 arrived higher than most C’s I have as a reference! 
We all were very impressed by that glide, at trim, at first bar, and even at top speed. It seems that BGD has a new developer, as I have read on their website, with a new software tool for the R&D. I think the glide part is so obvious that any of you out there will notice it next to any C glider, or maybe this Cure 2 that I flew is magical!  :-) 
The glide next to the Mantra 7 was so close for the 7 km run and was repeated again and again, and sometimes facing a sea breeze…The difference is only around 10-15 meters less for the Cure 2 ! The M7 is more stable when hitting turbulence and stays on the path without loosing in movements. But that’s a very good D! 

The speed bar has a moderate pressure and while using it, the Cure 2 can be controlled quite efficiently by the C risers in moderate air. The C controls have more pressure than the Fusion or the M7 which has a light feel. The pressure on the Cure 2, C controls is on the moderate side.
Using the bar, the Cure 2 cruises efficiently in headwind conditions, and I could feel the speed and glide efficiency!  

Big ears also surprised me by their efficiency! With a half pull on the speed bar, I could reach easily -4,5 m/s!  The ears don’t open by themselves, and sometimes it’s nice to get your hands off the outer A’s and still getting a -3m/s sink. A slight bar on the brakes and they reopen. 

The top speed is around 16-17km/h over the actually fast trim speed.

Conclusion:
Despite BGD's poor judgment toward my tests, facts will remain solid facts IMHO.  It’s pretty simple to switch off that ‘free to read page’ as fast as possible. No one will get hurt! :-)  
I’ll say again: When the 6.75 AR Cure 1 and Lynx were released, they were really pleasurable to fly, and I personally liked them, but there was some lower aspect ratio, C gliders that could have an edge over them in gliding power. BGD latest Punk, is also an adorable glider to fly, fast, climbs really well, but not on the edge of gliding performance in the high B category.    Who cares? I don’t.   But these are facts! that manufacturer must apprehend with a deep breath to cool down. 
How could it be possible for every manufacturer to have “all” his creations better than the competition in “everything”?  
That’s why underestimating the pilot's abilities and comprehension should be a thing of the past in 2020. 
I believe that choosing a glider only for its glide angle is wrong. I personally choose gliders that have a swift, sharp and better authority on the brakes.  The more pleasure I get is the way I personally choose. That’s me. Every person has his own demands and that’s the beauty of it. My friend adores the M7, and speak about it every moment. The other chose the Lynx and hammer his comments in my ear every second!  :-) 

Now with the 6.4 AR Cure 2, the leap over the first version is truly remarkable, as the BGD R&D team, has reached a new level in the C category having the edge in gliding power! Congratulations! 
 The gliding performance of the Cure 2 is second to none! The handling and the way to steer the Cure 2 is good for the C category and gives enough pleasure. I would have wished for shorter and more direct brake control. But that’s me..I’m too picky…Many will love it. The climb is weak is also quite good.
I’m sure that the Cure 2 will deliver some epic XC flying with the right skills for that category. I already updated my C comparison for the little details. 
In creating the Cure 2, BGD has outdone themselves. I really don’t know how they pulled it off, but that’s a solid fact and it’s already available for every pilot to experience it. 

UPDATE: 

I found out later that flying the Cure 2 at top weight will be more efficient in the overall homogeneity and more authority in turbulent air, while still being good in weak. If you fly the Cure 2 at mid-weight the authority of the pilot will be diminished. Better to stay on the very top!   

FLOW Fusion Light S

FLOW Fusion Light S 

I already test flew the normal version of the Fusion in S and M size. Here’s the Fusion light version ion S size flown at 92 all up. There are loops on the C’s for that serial version, like the normal Fusion. 

Pulling on the A’s the Fusion light S comes up nicely above the pilot's head, with no effort at all. No hardpoint. In a strong breeze, a dab on the brakes to control it overhead. A really easy to inflate C glider. 

There’s a very neutral pitch feel under the Fusion light S in thermals. It enters the rising air very smoothly. The roll movements are very balanced. Quite comfortable without being too dampened. A slightly more feel than the Delta 4, but surely very comfortable to fly. I can say it felt smoother also. In the same air, where the Delta 4 could be sharper, the Fusion Light is slightly smoother with a good informative feel. 

The brake pressure is on the medium side(I’m trying to get a small scale to see how much tension (kg) on the brakes after a certain 360 turn, and it will be a new column included in the comparison tables hopefully soon).  

The Fusion Light S at 92 seems to have a relatively short, precise, and very good agility in the C category. It is a bit different than the normal version, with shorter brake inputs and more agility.  Coring thermals with the Fusion Light gave me some really nice moments, as it seems fluid inside thermals, with very good authority on the brakes to place the Fusion Light exactly where I wanted inside the core. The climb rate seems on top of that category, in weak thermals or in strong ones. The Fusion Light float ability is present and delivers smoothly its free performance for the C category pilot.

The overall movements in the air are very balanced and smooth enough to enjoy any thermal anywhere…In strong air, the Fusion Light needs control, but nothing more than a regular C pilot is required to have.  For example sometimes in moderate air, it feels as comfortable as the Delta 4 and probably smoother! The 6.3 AR Fusion Light is much easier to handle than the 6.4 AR Cure 2 for example and even easier to fly than the comfortable Artik 5. 

The glide at trim and accelerated seems also like the normal version which is also very good for the C category. The speed system has a relatively light pressure, and the new B pulley system is more manageable to control on the C’s with lighter pressure.  

 At bar, applying pressure on the wooden C risers bar will control most of the turbulence encountered, while having a cup of tea! …It is an easy, smooth, and enjoyable glider to fly for the C category. 

The top speed with pulleys overlapping is around +13 km/h over trim, with a very usable bar in turbulence. Ears are efficient and stable!  They reopened with a little pilot input. 360s are well balanced. Landing on tight spots is easy as the Fusion Light can be slowed quite well before the stall. Of course, the stall point is to be discovered in a safe environment. 

Induced asymmetric behaves like a school glider! 

I think after some 50 hours on the Fusion and releasing the C loops will have a big impact on the total efficiency of that glider. Just because the enhancement comes into wind transitions, as the Fusion with C released will surf much better the air and skip better the sinking air. Not because of the very little increased trim speed, but probably because of the ability to surf through better. The climb rate in the weak will still be very good and on top of that category. 

Conclusion: 

Flying the Fusion Light is a really cool,  rewarding experience. The handling is superb, the climb rate is among the best gliders in the C category. The glide capability is among the top 3 contenders. especially when the C loops are released.  Test flying it could lead to a long term relationship…  :-)

SOL LT 2 , S size / 75-95 / EN-C

 

Disclaimer:

Related to my earlier tests: Many pilots already know very well how I do the tests, but I need to continue my explanations for some. When comparing gliders in a weak lift with the same load for both, I feel sometimes that glider X climbs slightly less than the one next to it, which is always “my reference glider” for that matter.  That does not mean that glider X doesn’t climb well, or the pilot would sink and land!  It is just that my reference glider is still a better climber or a better floater…And the pilot on glider X if he flies alone, or if he flies next to less or better-skilled friends will never notice it.

Not all gliders are created equal.    :D 

Now with the SOL LT2, it is completely another story …

SOL  LT2  EN-C (2 liner)

SOL is a very old Brazilian paragliding company. Here’s the link to see their multiple and vast catalog of products. https://www.solparagliders.com.br/ 

In 1991, they designed their first paraglider the Magic fun. Here’s a link to their history: https://www.solparagliders.com.br/linha-do-tempo

I have flown many SOL gliders in the past, Ellus, Eclipse, Torck, Synergy, Lotus one… I know the feel under a SOL glider! They have lots of features, but one thing in common is being good in weak lifts.

Despite that SOL was introduced 2 years ago, the LT1 that I didn’t unfortunately fly, and which was the first 2 liner intended for the C category public, But wasn’t possible due to EN-C rules. So SOL got a CCC certification. 

Now the C certification has changed, allowing the use of collapse lines and other features, and manufacturers are able to insert a 2-line concept into that box.  

And hoping to be able to test all those 2 liners…

In this test, I will try to give you the differences between the VOLT 4, and the LT2.

 

SOL used different materials on the LT 2 from the outside bag to the concertina bag and for sure another cloth for the glider. 

The cloth used on top and bottom is called:  WTX 40 gr/m² SI+PU / WTX 29 gr/m² SI+PU.

The lines used are VECTRAN 0,6 - 0,9 - 1,0 - 1,2 - 1,4 - 2,2  /  TECHNORA 2,1. 

Even the risers are different, as they used a more supple fabric: Polyester Venus 15 mm. 1.600 kg

Plastic rods are inserted from the leading edge to the trailing edge with a separation in the middle for folding it may be. 

The glider is slightly heavier than a normal Delta 4 with perhaps +700 grams more. 

Launching:

I flew the LT2  S size 75-95 at 94 all up, and later at 90 all up which was also ok, and still well-pressurized. But I think around 92-93 could be the optimum weight in overall conditions.

Pulling on the A’s in nil wind has a heavy pull as the fabric is slightly heavier, but the LT 2 comes up evenly, without any hard point, and inflates really well, and with 2 steps I found myself airborne.

In 15 km/h wind on take-offs, the LT2 rises moderately, and no steps are needed to take off! It's immediate. 

The LT2 brake pressure goes from moderate to slightly hard. After the 12 cm gap, 10 cm can control the LT2 in turns and showed me calm agility with linear response and nice flat turns,

with moderate pressure.  Afterward, the brakes are slightly harder but the agility is more present and can core the narrowest of thermals!  So overall, I think the LT2 has acceptable agility which is super efficient through the air.  (I will elaborate on that later in this test)  

The LT 2 pitch behavior is very smooth and super efficient in weak and strong thermals. The glider pulls you gently upward and goes through that airmass and goes forward smoothly! It is super efficient for the climb!  

Flying in very weak conditions next to my reference glider, showed me, an even more, impressive and super-efficient climb rate on the LT2!  When the thermals are even less than 0.5 m/s, the LT 2 floats like no other wing! It reminds me of the Zeno 1 ability to stay in the lift!  

That I can confirm. That glider will help a lot in light lift. The LT2 felt solid and yet climbs with a neutral pitch and the whole glider is slipping through the airmass. The feel of a 2-liner under it is very different from the 3-liner feel which doesn’t give you that one-piece solid structure getting through the airmass…That’s the best way I could describe it.  

I have flown next to higher-rated 2-liners, D-gliders, and also near my reference in the 3-liner C class. For example, the LT2 similarly loaded as an Alpina 4 same size and load, have one, or two km more trim speed. The LT2 showed me a faster trim speed and the Alpina 4 needed to push the speed bar 1/4 to stay at the same speed.  The glide in calm air favors slightly the LT2, but when surfing the airmass on a glide and getting the lift lines, my friend and I were convinced that the LT2 is a 2-liner from a different class. 

The glide efficiency in those XC and racing conditions favors the LT2! On the first speed bar, the LT2 showed us an even a much better glide angle! This is the reference now for the first 2 liners and all the C class 3 liners by a little margin. I think it comes now super close to the Mantra 7 in overall efficiency …

Stepping on the second speed bar (moderate foot pressure) with pulleys overlapping, and with a very taught leading edge, I saw for the first time on a C, +18 km/h over trim, which gave me 58-59 km/h km/h on my GPS in calm air!  At that speed, the LT2 loses a bit of its glide angle.  I think at 50-53 km/h, the glide angle stays superb. 

In moderate turbulent air and while being 50 % on the speed bar, the B controls can efficiently control the pitch with moderate to slightly hard pressure on the wooden handles.  

The LT2 doesn’t have a high roll movement, probably slightly more than the VOLT 4, but in strong air, the LT2 needs more pilot control as the overall movements are a bit more present than the ones on the VOLT4 and even a bit more than the Trango X-Race.  It has a character of its own. Solid, firm, and fairly comfortable, but requires respect for the C category pilot. It is not a toy, like my reference and excellent Alpina 4 for example. If I want to position it accurately,  in terms of pilot control, the LT2 sits between the 3-liners C class and the 3-liners D class. 

Ears with outer A’s are stable, but you need to pull hard as the tips hold some pressure. They fold nicely, and they reopen only on pilot intervention. 360s are quite nice and loose easily altitude without being too centrifugal. Landing the LT2 requires a little of ‘finesse’ in a very small spot as it really floats!  But you can slow it smoothly and accurately with the brakes.

Conclusion: 

In my humble opinion, I think SOL created their best C glider to date! Not only that, the LT2 until now has an ‘edge’ on all certified C-class gliders out there. There will be a new crop of 2 liners coming in, and I really hope to see what they will offer. 

For now, I received the SOL LT2, and it is a real 2 liner C glider with a solid structure, impressive climb rate, good agility, incredible top speed, fairly comfortable for the keen C pilot, and for sure holds the crown for the best gliding C machine until today 10 December 2022, as I’m writing the review.  

Pilots have different tastes and requirements, and I hope you get yourselves a demo LT2 in order to see if that creation meets your skills, and expectations, or wins your heart! 

Happy and safe landings everyone :-)  

PS: I’ll try to offer you the maximum feedback on my renewed and updated C comparison for the 3 liners and including all new C 2 liners. 

NOVA Sector S

NOVA Sector S 

After 10 years, NOVA finally released their new C replacement. A flat aspect ratio of 6.0, unsheathed lines all over and  a 3 line configuration setting. 

The factor 2 is made with light fabric and the S size weights around 4 kg.

Launching the light cloth Sector is easy in all conditions. Those light gliders can launch even without touching the A's ! 

I flew the Sector S at 95, 96 all up. This load enabled the Sector to be quite taught and efficient in all conditions.

IMHO, Its better to put the exact pressure in a car wheel in order to take corners at high speed. Any less pressure in those wheel won’t give you optimum efficiency. It’s the same with gliders they will perform much better (when they reached their optimum shape design) by loading them precisely. I think 95 is a good balance under the Sector S size. 

Of course the Sector S can be flown at mid-weight, but will loose it’s inside pressure flying it in turbulent air, as all other gliders do in it’s category.  

The brakes have medium pressure  until 15 cm of pull then they are slightly heavier. The Sector S at my loads need 2 (two) centimeter of pull, to turn it !  The Sector is an agile glider that doesn’t dive in turns even when lowering the brakes while circling. It tries sometimes to get out of the turn if the brakes are released, and some weight shift would be also quite beneficial in tight small cores.  

I flew next to a Delta 3 MS and Alpina 3 S in order to know the overall performance of the Sector S. In weak thermals, ( less than 0.5 m/s) the Delta 3 MS and the Sector S are very close in climbing ability. 

You can look at the C comparison as it has been updated with the latest C wings for small details if you wish…

(http://ziadbassil.blogspot.com/2018/03/en-c-comparison-update-alpina-3.html

In well built thermals, I mean over 2 m/s, the Sector jumps upward like a powerful but well mannered horse ! It really climbs very fast ! I think it has one of the best climbing ability in those thermals like a high end C ! It doesn’t pitch back, it does very slightly pull you into the thermal with power ! I personally like that behavior ! Some pilots would like the calm surge behavior of the Alpina 3, some would like the ones on the sigma 10 or the slightly sharper one on the Sector S. 

In turbulent thermals, i found that the Sector behave like a small energetic kid. The risers are more nervous than the S10 in translating the airmass. Don’t understand me wrong, the Sector quality of telling you what’s going around is quite nice for sensible pilots. The informations of the air are transmitted mainly by the risers. I was finding the Delta 3 to be quite tame to my personal taste in feel under the glider. Some pilots over-heree loved the Delta 3 soft feel ! It’s about taste…The Sector is more informative. 

NOVA did mention that the Sector S is between the Mentor 5 and the Triton 2. I think it’s quite accurate, but i have to add, with a slight shift toward the Triton 2 S in feel underneath the Sector 2 which i think shares its DNA.  If you think that the Mentor 5 is quite lazy to your taste, you will find an interesting feel with some tasteful but quite manageable spices under the Sector 2. 

This has been said, i have to add also that the Sector 2 remains in the middle of the C class in terms of piloting level. It’s an easy C for a pilot who already has two full seasons on a hot B. 

Gliding properties:

For an aspect ratio of 6, the Sector S glide angle angle is similar to the Delta 3 MS at trim and especially at full bar, with 1 km/h faster on the Sector S if both gliders are similarly loaded. Trim speed is similar. 

Gliding in turbulent air, is as efficient on the Delta 3 as it is on the Sector S !  

The Sector S ridge racing and gliding in thermo-dynamics is quite efficient ! 

Big ears have moderate stability and reopen without pilot input on the S at 96 all up. 

Conclusion: The trailing edge look quite weird and wavy…but it could be a design for efficiency… The Sector S is an informative wing that shows you what the air is doing, but middle C glider in terms of piloting level. 

The strong point is the climb in good thermals, that showed me an impressive search toward the lift. A very good glide angle for the C category, at trim and especially at full bar, fast enough, handles well. 

A strong contender in the C category for sport class competitions, and interesting XC potential for sure !

This is only my opinion. Make your own !

SKYMAN CrossAlps 2 - 24

 

Skyman Cross 2 Alps 24 

Skyman released their 2021 light EN-C. The CrossAlps 2.  I have here the site 24 and I flew it at 93 all up.

The workmanship on that glider looks very neat.  The light cloth seems the same used on the first version. There are some stainless steel small anchors in the leading edge to prevent the glider is sliding on snowy take-offs. 

The construction looks perfect. The risers are minimalistic, colorful, and properly sewed. (see pic) 

There are 2 A’s, 2 B’s, and 2 C’s! 

Launching the CrossAlps is super easy, even in nil wind. It comes up smoothly and evenly. 

Flying the size 24 at 93 felt very good in overall conditions.  The Cross Alps despite its aspect ratio has a nice authority on the brakes! In this test, I will compare it with the Alpina 4 and mainly the Savage because of the same aspect ratio of 6.5. And will talk also about the difference between the first version and the new one. 

I found out that the CrossAlps can be steered narrower in thermals with a higher authority on the brakes than the Savage.  The A4 felt slightly more maneuverable than the CrossAlps, but it has an aspect ratio of 6.0.

The brakes travel felt shorter than the Savage similarly loaded, and similar to the Delta 4 MS in travel lengths. 

The CrossAlps is a maneuverable glider. My C comparison is updated for the little details if needed. 

In turbulence, the CrossAlps seems also more comfortable to fly than the Savage, and very close to the very comfortable A4 MS. Overall the CrossAlps seems very forgiving and quite manageable for its aspect ratio. The pitch movements are nearly absent, and the roll is very manageable and I could say quite tame for the C category. 

Climb rate> Flying the CrossAlps next to The Artik 6 which has an excellent climb rate, showed me that the CrossAlps is matching the best C’s, even in very weak thermals. I was impressed by the good efficiency of thermals. Probably even slightly better than the first version which had a very nice climb rate.  

Loading it at 95 would enhance the authority in turbulent air and with a neutral pitch, the CrossAlps will climb very well.

Gliding power> I made a few runs next to my reference Cs. The new CrossAlps 2 has I think a complete whole point or more over the 1st version at trim speed.  And close to the good ones in the C category.

 Pushing the speed bar at max, on the CrossAlps gave me around 11 km/h over trim, and could match the Savage top speed.  The pressure is moderate. The glide at trim and at top speed is also mentioned in my C comparison if pilots do want to look for smaller details. 

Big ears with the outer A’s are big, just because there’s only 2 A ’S. They are unstable and a bit difficult to maintain. 

Landing is easy and eventful with a nice flair to land it in tight places. 

Conclusion:  I think Skyman has made a much calmer CrossAlps than the first version. The authority on the brakes is also smoother, less sharp, more forgiving. The ears were better on the first version. The climb rate matches the first version, but the glide is very much improved at trim.  Overall the CrossAlps 2 is a more friendly user glider than the first version. Longer flights with probably 60% less workload than the 1st one! 

Niviuk Artik 5 - 24

Niviuk Artik 5 size 24

In the C category, Niviuk is introducing it’s Artik 5 for 2018 with an aspect ratio of 6.3.

A friend gave me his wing for testing.

The construction details are really nice, with Nitinol rods on the leading edge and a shark nose.

All lines are unsheathed with a balanced thickness that goes toward longevity and probably to avoid getting out of trim.

I flew the Artik 5 24 from 90 to 95 .

Launching the Artik 5 24 in nil wind require a steady pull. In a more stronger breeze, this characteristic enables the Artik 5 to be well controlled and launches in a gentle manner. Inner A’s are best in strong wind, All the A’s are best in Nil wind.

Flew this glider in multiple conditions, from weak to slightly strong, and sometimes turbulent with some sharp 7m/s thermals. To understand this glider better i was alternating on the same day, landing and flying the Alpina 3 MS and the Sector XS.

In turbulent air the Artik 5 gave me the impression over my head of a solid , compact, comfortable Glider. In the same turbulent conditions, the Artik 5 moves less and needs less pilot control than an Alpina 3 MS at 92 which is know for it’s very good comfort.

Explanation: The movements under the Artik 5 are at first a slight roll feel but limited and very controllable. This small roll feel is a plus for inducing the turns which i’ll comment later on… The comfort underneath the Artik 5 is really high for a 6.3 AR C glider. There’s no pitch movements whatsoever. When hitting a thermal, the Artik 5 loaded at 95 just climb vertically with a slight pull toward the core. It feels like a complete compact structure. At 90 all up and in strong air it does also behave quite ok, with a little drift and needed to be loaded for excellent results.

In moderate conditions, the Artik 5 loaded at 90 is still compact and very homogenous.

In the same air, the Sector XS at 85 gave me the most feedback and workload, then came the Alpina 3 MS at 92. The less workload was on the Artik 5 24 loaded from 92 to 95.

The Artik four had two lines per side, and some pilots commented after two seasons that it was a bit difficult to master in turbulent air sometimes. The Artik 5 with 3 lines per side and of course a new design has completely erased that problem. The A5 is the other side of the coin compared to the Artik 4 with a much tougher structure that stays coherent in turbulent air.

In strong air, i would have preferred a slight feel of what’s the air is doing, to that structure, in order to assist and be present without any surprises. I had some minor tip collapses that i didn’t feel them coming.

Handling maneuverability and climb rate :
The Artik four could be turned really tight in moderate conditions, but as soon as the air is a bit tricky it would be reluctant to turn sometimes. The Artik 5 turning ability is toward an efficient flat turn for XC use rather than a playful freestyle wing.
Explanation:
In moderate to soft conditions:
At first the brake response is short, precise, direct, and fairly agile toward an efficient flat circle. After flying next to my reference C gliders in that matter, This handling feature on the A5 showed me in weak thermals an astonishing climbing ability for the Artik 5. Each time i encountered a soft thermal, the Artik 5 would float upward much better. After many attempts, I’m convinced to put it right on top of the Category in terms of efficient climb rate in weak.
In strong cores:
In strong thermals, i found out that flying the Artik 5 24 at max weight would be more beneficial in entering without delay those cores. But again at max load the Artik 5 climbs peacefully like a beast !
And the result for overall climbing is also right on top of the C category. The handling and the way to turn the Artik 5 24 at 95 "in turbulent cores" needs some body and brake implication as the A5 tends to flattens at mid turn, inside a thermal. That slight roll ability on the A5 is good for leaning into the turn and applying more brake to stay in the core. On the same day, the Alpina 3 MS at 92 and the Sector XS at 85 would stay easily inside the core with minimum input.
In those conditions it’s slightly less agile than the Alpina 3 and the Sector. In strong but turbulent choppy air, it need more implication to stay inside the core. In homogenous thermals, its quite agile and cores easily.
The brake pressure is moderate to slightly hard after 20 cm of travel. The Peak 4 has nearly half the pressure on the brakes.
The Artik 5 can be steered with 5 to 10 cm of travel in soft air and 30-40 cm in strong air.
In that day, the less brake pressure was on the Sector XS, then on the Alpina 3 with a more playful character in thermals.

Gliding power:
I have made some glides with my new reference C glider, the latest Alpina 3 MS. If both gliders are similarly loaded, they have the same speed at trim and at top speed.
The glide angle at trim and at top speed of the Artik 5 24 that was made in real air, and repeated many times showed me that Niviuk has succeeded also to place the Artik 5 at the top of that category in terms of glide angle. The difference after many kilometers with the Alpina 3 MS is insignificant and practically the same, with a slight edge of float-ability for the Artik 5 in the rising air we encountered.
I found out also that it’s best to load the A5 at max weight in order to dig efficiently in strong air and thermals like an Alpina 3 MS loaded at 91.
My comment toward the top speed will be that i was pushing hard with my feet to engage the second bar. The first bar has moderate pressure on the feet with my X-rated 6 harness and the second bar is hard to push.
The less pressure that day was on the Sector XS which was really low, and then the Alpina 3 MS.

Controlling the Artik 5 using the C risers has an average efficiency. The pressure on the C’s are a bit light at trim and slightly more on bar. 

Ears are stable and a good way to loose altitude. Induced asymmetric and frontal are easy to control. The asymmetric collapse are very easy to maintain, to counter steer, and open vert fast.
Ears open with a slight pilot input.
Top landing is easy for pilots in that category with slow flying characteristics.

Conclusion: Apart from the nice construction and details, the Artik 5 size 24 at 92 impressed me with it’s outstanding performance package and especially it’s high comfort in turbulence for the C class.

The Artik 5 could be flown at mid weight easily, but to be very efficient on strong days, i think that loading it at top will be more beneficial to slide through the airmass without any loss in weak conditions. In fact low saves will be common on the Artik 5. A very interesting glider to test fly in the C category. 

C comparison updated: https://public.tableau.com/profile/ziad.bassil#!/vizhome/C(shrinked URL)rComparison/CGliderComparison 

UPDATE :
The Artik 5 in the test was one of the first released ones. After a few weeks ,Niviuk sent some lines to change this first batch ! 
There was 2 cm less in some C lines, and some brake adjustments.
I had the chance to re-test fly this last version. 
The trim speed is slightly slower on this re-trim configuration and the Artik 5 pitches slightly back upon entering thermals. It's still very efficient in climb and glide on top of the C category !
The handling is slightly better and smoother !
Everything else is still the same. Still hard on the second bar. 
I have liked the first version for it's biting and jumping into thermals, and it's fast trim speed ! 
When it's windy the first version was perfect ! in getting through the airmass.
The modified and final released version is still on top of the C category. The Artik is very well pressurized, very solid, very taught which leads to a comfortable glider in the air. 
But the management is strong air needs a good high end C pilot. 


This is only my opinion. Make your own !

Skywalk Cayenne 6 XS

SKYWALK Cayenne 6 XS 

One of my favorite gliders was the Cayenne 5 XS! It was an awesome glider! A spicy but balanced feel for a C, precise handling, and very efficient in weak conditions! Simply a delight! I kept that glider for a long time enjoying it. It had a special feel and I’m sure the Cayenne 5 pilots know well what I’m talking about.

Now Skywalk introduced for 2020 another newer version. The Cayenne6. 

I have one in XS size ready for take-off.

The risers are very well made.  A system for steering with the C risers. A new cloth material (TX light ) Skywalk says that it is a unique combination of polyurethane and silicone coating that makes the fabric extremely resistant to the aging process.

In this test, I will compare the C6 mainly to the C5 and will state the differences. I did fly it against the latest C’s and my C comparison is already updated. 

Take off at 95 all up on the XS is really easy, even in no wind. It inflates rapidly. 

First thermal, and first turn….The cayenne 6 turning abilities are very far from the excellent Cayenne 5.  The Cayenne 6 has a slightly longer brake travel, but without a prompt answer for the glider to core rapidly. So I opened my X rated 6 chest strap to +50.  Inside a turn, I had to lean well and brake in order to get that tighter radius! especially in small bubbles. 

 It was difficult to turn it sometimes really narrow, even with a wide chest strap.

After several turbulent and non-turbulent cores, I can affirm that the C6 is not as agile as the C5 was. In fact, it is not as agile as many C’s I have tested, especially in turbulent thermals. When conditions are homogenous, the turn is ok.

 That’s surely a Skywalk decision to deliver the glider with exactly that kind of agility.  Perhaps many pilots would favor it. It is a matter of personal preference. 

The climb rate in weak is good but I didn’t feel it as good as the C5. However, the climb in strong air seems slightly better.  

 The difference between the C5 XS and the C6 XS in weak thermals is that those excellent spicy movements that were on the C5 are completely erased on the C6.  Onboard the old C5, I was able to feel every bit of lift and the leading edge would bite them efficiently, and that was coupled with superb handling. On the C6 the pitch movements are nearly absent, and the information about the air is highly diminished.  

In strong air the C6 could be considered as moderately comfortable for a C, with some sideways movements sometimes, but not really annoying. 

Please note that it is important to know that comfort for a good pilot is always related to a good handling glider. I mean if there’s a dynamic glider but highly controllable on the brakes and with very good brake authority! Then this glider would be considered as comfortable enough for any stated category considering the level of the pilot, as it can be placed exactly where the pilot wishes. 

But if that glider won’t deliver a swift brake authority, then it is up to the conditions to place that glider in turbulent air and the pilot must work harder on his weight shift and insist on the brake controls to place and kept it above his head, or to put it in tight cores… Unfortunately,  the C6 lacks that direct handling that was available in the old C5.

Saying that the C6 remains more comfortable to fly in strong air than many “high” C’s. 

The gliding facing the valley breeze is very good for the category. The glide angle is much better than the Cayenne 5. It seems to surf the air more efficiently. In that matter, I felt that the Cayenne 6 could be inserted in the top 5, gliding C machines. It seems that the C6 has a nice ability to surf the airmass efficiently and move forward while gaining height in lifts. 

The C6 is slightly faster than the already fast Cure 2 at trim speed, but the Cure 2 has 1-2 km/h plus top speed.  The top speed on the Cayenne 6 is easy to reach with a moderate to light pressure.  

The C steering on the C6 is probably one of the best that I found on the C’s that resembles the Delta 4 one. The controls are smooth and the pitch control is highly efficient for a 3 liner! Good point here.

The ears are stable and efficient. They reopen slowly without pilot intervention. 

Conclusion: 

After the Tequila 5, here is another glider that follows the same pattern. The Cayenne 6 feels mellower in the way it informs the pilot, have less sharp handling and agility than the Cayenne 5, but with an overall increase in gliding performance over the C5 at trim and at full bar. The latest Skywalk gliders seem to share different concepts.  My personal wish is hoping that Skywalk won’t lose the excellent feel and feedback of the Chili 4 when they need to replace it. 

Everyone has his own preference.  That is why, test flying the Cayenne 6 is the best way a future buyer could do, in order to get a more personal idea. 

This is only my opinion. Make your own !