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…  :-)

OZONE Alpina 4 ML

Hi,

The Alpina 4 ML at 103 all up.
The difference between the Delta 4 ML already tested is:
-A smoother feel under the Alpina 4 ML.
-The turning behavior seems more subtle with very good agility. The brake has moderate pressure with a linear feel.
-The speed system seems to get harder to push at the second bar.
-The take-off is much...much better! Now there's no hard point on the ML.
-Ears are the same.
-Performance is the same.
-Speed is the same.
-A little better comfort in turbulence as the Alpina 4 feels more coherent and homogenous, or it is the light fabric that delivers that smooth feel.
The light fabric resembles the LM6 ones and feels lighter than the one used on the A3.
Overall...I'm impressed by that 6 aspect ratio top-end performance C glider!

Hi,
Flew it today at 98 all up on the ML (85-105) in good conditions on a +100 k run on little endless triangles ...(restricted airspace).
Surprisingly, the A4 ML at that load was entering effortlessly the airmass and moving forward. The structure was really homogenous at that load. Effortless flying and very precise handling! Still fast at trim. In headwind glides or climbing in a headwind, it was doing very nicely. But for sure, when loading it at 103 the efficiency of entering the airmass would be faster and even more efficient with even more shooting upward!
But at 98 it was really good! which is surprising for that size. And....it is very...very....comfortable !!!

Awaiting the MS and S size!
More to come soon...
Cheers,
Ziad

MACPARA Magus (2020)

MACPARA Magus  (2020)

And here it is…A beautiful looking 7.05 aspect ratio, glider with 2 liner technology and an EN-D certification.

I flew the size 22 (88-99) at  97 all up with my Xrated 6 harness. 

The Magus construction seems super neat. A mix of Skytex light and heavier materials were used. 

A mix of Edelrid Aramid/Kevlar lines was used on this construction.

Launching the Magus in nil wind is a bit difficult to get it overhead. The glider must be laid down in a proper way and better to be centered when pulling the lines. Even in 20 km/h, the raise is slow but manageable for the intended pilots in that category. The Magus doesn’t snake around at all. It comes at a whole, but a little practice and patience are needed to launch it in narrow areas as we have here. 

At my takeoff weight, the Magus seems to have a fast trim speed that matches the Peak5 one with the same size and load. My first contact with the brakes gave me an early smile for that nice given authority.  I can describe the brakes to have a short, precise, and linear feel through the range for the 2 liner category. It resembles the Zeolite brake authority which puts the Magus among the best ones in the 2 liner brake authority.

I could get a short turn radius on the Magus in small bubbles, and still, be very efficient.  The pressure on the brakes are on the moderate side and won’t be tiring after some hours.  The feel of a firm precise pull is present. In very weak thermals, I sensed that I must concentrate to be efficient, but the overall efficiency of that glider enabled me to stay afloat. 

In a more homogenous thermal, the Magus climbs like a rocket. It matches the Peak 5 climb.  

I flew the Magus in different conditions. In turbulent air, It is more comfortable than the Peak 5 and slightly less than the Zeno. It is somehow similar to the Leopard in dampening behavior. 

I could confirm that I was really more than satisfied with the incredible performance the Magus had to offer!  In one particular flight, I was gliding in a very well known place for my routine flying, and gliding through difficult air, the Magus ability to float and move forward is superb…It glides really well upwind, and I experienced a very efficient upward sliding through the air! 

My god, how I miss the 2 liner efficiency! And that Magus revived my senses even more!  Flying the Zeno, OXA3, Leopard, Peak 5, is also rewarding for performance, but I must add that flying the Magus is like having your best meal with the exact spices you wished for!  At least that’s my personal feel…

Gliding next to the top 2 liner D’s at trim speed, showed me that the Magus is definitely among the best ones at the very top. 

At full bar, the gliding performance place it among the top 3 

The B handles have moderate and precise pressure. I like that! Finally, I can feel and control that Magus at bar. 

In some turbulent air, I felt that the Magus have a strong and homogenous structure, but only the tips were slightly collapsing without any consequences. I think more hours on it could clear those small cell deflations. 

Landing in tight spots can be achieved with that Magus, just because I could slow it quite well, before stalling. It is for sure a delicate matter. 

Ears with A’s are small. I need to pull them long enough to be stable. And while pushing the bar, they have around 2.0 m/s descent rate.  

The top speed is around 19  km/h over trim.  

Conclusion:  Just a small piece of information, that you probably know between 3 liners and 2 liners… Flying one of the best 3 liners of today example (M7) …etc…and flying the 2 liners Magus, is like driving your regular car then switching to your every day MAC Ferrari!  

The difference between ‘efficient feel and performance’ is breathtaking!  When test flying other categories in nice days….Imagine how I’ll miss that Ferrari feel!  :-) 

The new Magus has everything a 2 liner pilot could dream. Nice handling, a very efficient gliding machine, that shows you proudly how well it glides through the airmass. A relatively comfortable and solid companion for XC. 

Saying all that, it is still a 2 liner that needs all the respect and the pilot knowhow to fly it with peace. 

Tuning, and fine tuning...

Dear friends and fellow pilots, 

After some years of test flying many gliders from practically all categories, I felt that I needed to share with you some important issues. 

At first, I like to point out that the tests that I do could be called "macro testing' As many of you know that these tests are made in very specific sites, that allow us to see the tiniest difference in performance between gliders. those sites offer sometimes humid conditions and heavy air with a sea breeze. And sometimes experiencing an easterly stable layer that makes an A glider difficult to handle. Those conditions could be found anywhere near the sea, like Greoliere or Gourdon in summer …etc….It’s like runners competing in the mud. The most complete athlete will prevail. When flying in different places where all those effects are not present it would be more difficult to see the difference. 

But over the years, I experienced lots of other things that I need to share with you. 

I always fly the gliders at their optimum weight load. (how do I know the optimum weight?)   Easy: When that glider will surf effortlessly at a certain load the ‘difficult ‘ airmass while being still good in weak thermals. The balance is the optimum weight. 

Usually, ninety percent of gliders like to be loaded to fly properly, but some like the Maestro and Allegro like to be flown slightly above mid-weight while staying good in moving forward.  

As many pilots are looking for performance, 90% of manufacturers are going extreme in using the line width, that offers safe usability within the certification protocols, and offers the minimalistic drag for optimum performance. 

Those lines have accurate and defined measurements, and sometimes much less than one cm of length could make a difference. Tuning them properly in order to insert that glider into a certain box (A, B, C, D, or CCC) 

I saw on many occasions that the lines on the newly released B, C, and D gliders move after 'sometimes' 30 hours! Even on some B’s! 

So, depending on the glider.  That's very common on 2 liners as many of you already know. 

In most cases, after 50, to 60 hours 90 % of the B, C, or D gliders have a different 'feel a different 'trim speed and in most cases, a better climb rate'. Probably the glider becomes slower and sometimes climbs better, but wind transitions also will be different and sometimes are penalized. 

I also knew that a slight tolerance of a few millimeters is permitted within the certification.  

Now, that means that tests about performance could change slightly! 

Today's gliders are very sophisticated pieces of machinery. 

And little adjustments could alter ‘slightly’ the feel and performance.  (It doesn’t matter for many! ) I know, but I must write it as it is. 

Another important issue is that when a brand new glider is released, after certification, and after some 360s and some flying hours, the lines are well placed, and that glider could offer the exact gliding properties that the company intend to deliver and a very specific dynamic behavior through the airmass.

Sometimes, I get another glider for the same brand and the same size and I find loops on the B's or on the C's! It happened to me with the Q-Light S. The first one had incredible flying properties, and the second felt slightly less. The second had a loop on the B's. After asking the manufacturer about them, they said that this configuration is more comfortable for the pilot. They were right. But the flying quality was lesser. I released the B loops, and I regained that beautiful feel. The same happened on the Mantra 7 MS. When releasing the B loops, (about +0.8cm ) the glider became more dynamic and better feel through the airmass. But it was slightly more handful to fly, and also the Q-Light S. 

The Fusion M size didn’t have a loop on the C’s. It had superb flying qualities.  The Fusion S,  I purchased for my tests, had loops on the C's when it arrived. After my test, I concluded that it was comfortable but still needed that extra surfing into the wind. 

 After 60 hours, the dealer got an email from Flow to release the C loops on his Fusion S, Light ( specially made for him).

 The feel of surf and climb in those 'macro testing' facilities were much better! The Fusion S seemed to breathe more the air and the overall performance in moving air matched the best C's of today!  

The first Delta 4 MS I had was incredibly good! It was one of the first demos that was already flown a bit at Ozone, and it flies superbly well!  The B risers were matching the A and C risers. 

The second one,  B risers were 0.2 cm lower than the A risers. The overall feel if lightly loaded (87 all up for the MS)  was a slow glider in those difficult conditions, but still sharing the top of the C category. Loading in at 94 all up, it regained that surfing upward.

The same risers configuration is on the M7. In time, or after 30…40 hours, the loop on the B link on the Delta 4 can be released. (Ozone already posted something like that on the forum, but better to ask when to release them)  That feel of a slightly liver glider will be available.

The Leopard S,  that was tested earlier, had loops on the B's. Releasing those loops on a new serial model would have altered my test! Just because it was super efficient to dig through the air, a bit more alive, and gave me more feel even in weak thermals. But those loops must be kept at least until the glider needs tuning after some hours or so...probably. (info from Gin) 

The Maestro 21 received a flawless review, but the size 19 was so different...and the xalps 19 was even more awkward in feel! 

I needed to share that important information with you, just to tell you that even reading very transparent tests, the result is an 80 % max performance accuracy, and could change!!!  And concerning the handling, “if properly loaded”, an accuracy of  95 % on handling and brake authority. 

I think now you must be lost! :-)  But that is the real thing… 

All those changes that could occur will sometimes get you around +/- 10 % increase or decrease in performance and glider feel and behavior. 

And again, it is probably not important at all.  But I thought it must be said.

When I choose a glider to fly for fun, all that matters for my personal taste is a performance glider that transmits “accurately the airmass and reacts swiftly to any brake input regardless of the conditions.” 

To conclude, a glider that makes me smile after landing is the one I always choose to fly in my day off    ;-). 

Happy flights, 

Ziad 

PS: Please do not alter your glider before getting a professional opinion and a yearly check is advisable.  

ADVANCE Impress 4 M

ADVANCE Impress 4

As usual, I’m always impatient to test fly an ADVANCE harness. Simply because of that extraordinary quality of construction and exquisite finish that was made in their latest designs, and the Impress 4 is the ‘Chef-d'oeuvre’ example of what ADVANCE is offering.

For my 1.81 and 73 kg, the Impress 4 M suits perfectly my body shape, and felt well surrounded, and I can comment that I found it slightly bigger than the Genie light M, which I found myself at its max size potential. The Impress4 size M is similar to the Genie race4 M size, the Forza M, The Exoceat M, the Supair Delight 3 M.  

It seems that the Impress 4 was fabricated on a very detailed and precise worksheet.  I can speak for every detail as it seemed to be released upon a very serious study for its use. For example, the dashboard is large, very well in place, and could contain at least 3 instruments, with neat and proper holes for the wires that come from the power banks underneath which could be inserted in their respective pockets. Those details could be available in the new harnesses, but it seems that ADVANCE made them more efficient. The water release system (a large pocket at the left) is perfect as it is wide enough for inserting the urinating tube while flying if it got loose after running on take off.  Lots and lots of small but efficient features. Two rescue containers, one anti G etc…you can find all those in the manual. 

Now I like to talk about the back comfort. Sitting in the Impress 4 M with the seat-board feels around 90 % as sitting in the Impress 3 in terms of back comfort ! which is very high for a seat board harness, and probably the only most comfortable seat harness for the back and hip till date. The legs are naturally supported, and the feel is like sitting in your favorite couch in front of the TV! So relaxing to sit in. Getting in and out is as easy as it gets. 

All the adjustments are very easy to access in the air, as I could easily adjust them to my liking. 

Now about the roll movement on the Impress 4. Having flown the Impress 2 and impress 2 plus and also the Impress 3, I could describe what you will feel inside the Impress4. 

In roll feel and weight shift control, with the ability of counter-steering rough corners, the Impress 4 sits between the Impress 2 plus and the impress 3, with a slight move toward the Impress 2+ on the seat feel, having also some slight spongy feel of the Impress3. That’s the best way I could describe it to you. 

So, it’s easy, and I could feel the seat board, but not as ‘edgy’ or ‘ authority to (lock your thigh on a seat board) as the Impress 2+, Genie light 3, X-rated6, Genie race 4, for example, but good enough! 

I have to add that even if you pull the front strap adjustment that lifts your knees, the feel remains slightly less. And also your legs would not be naturally supported anymore. So it's best to sit comfortably, with legs supported, and acclimatize yourself with the Impress 4 feel. 

    

Saying that the Impress 4 could be the best harness to date to offer that extra mix of feelings. Lots of pilots would love to get a harness with less edge or ‘direct, straight’ lift from the seat board edge, and some would prefer that edge. It is always a matter of personal taste. Many pilots on the Impress3 would be very happy on the Impress4 as it seems to offer ‘best of both worlds’ seat and seatless harness feel even with at the seat board in! 

Having flown the harness without a seaboard, I personally would stick to the seat board as it's my personal preference. 

One thing I have to say is that when I fly my X rated 6 after some hours, and after landing, my body parts (feet, hips, etc) feel and stress a bit the movements that were present in that flight. On the Impress 4 with some rough air, my body was still comfortable enough after landing.

Conclusion: The Impress4 looks like an improved, very well made harness, and a much more detailed and neat version of my X-rated 6 with much better comfort for the back. The feedback that comes from the glider has slightly less authority to counter-steer than the X rated6, but probably well enough to be satisfied.  I only wished that the magnet that prevents the pod from opening while weight-shifting, would be slightly bigger. The ballast under the seat is small. That’s it.   

ADVANCE produced a very comfortable, very well made, impressive-looking harness with the smallest thinkable details.

Supair SAVAGE EN-C

 

SUPAIR Savage EN-C

The Savage is Supair EN-C light glider, with an aspect ratio of 6.5. Thin risers, and very well reduced and unsheathed lines all over. It's a beautiful looking glider with that mix of white with red and blue stripes! 

The take-off at 94 is super smooth. Very easy to inflate, and the glider does not overshoot. 

The brake has a moderate to short travel and also with moderate agility. The brake pressure is on the moderate side. 

The Savage seems more agile than the Cayenne 6similarly loaded and less agile than the Taska, or Cure 2 M for example for the same load.  But I felt that I could carve easily every small thermal with some application.  

In rough air with 94 all up, I felt that the Savage is comfortable to fly glider regarding the Aspect ratio! It filters unnecessary movements, and the internal structure seems coherent at least in the moderate mid-day conditions that I flew in. 

It seems to give the same comfortable feel as the Cayenne 6. 

I did some extensive gliding and climbing on the Savage. 

Flying next to my friend on his Cure 2 M at 93 all up, I could say that the Cure 2 has a slightly faster trim speeded, but matching that trim speed on the Savage impressed me with top-end gliding performance!  For several kilometers, I saw that the Savage is indeed a superb gliding machine and that perhaps…it could have a slight edge in gliding power…The surprise came later when we both applied bar. The top speed of the Savage is only 11 km over trim at my load.  With the Cure 2 M matching that speed for a few km, the Savage showed me an even better glide, that could easily match the M7 glide at that speed. 

Re-starting, again and again, those full bar glides on the Savage, made me super sure about its efficiency. Bravo ’SUPAIR’ !!   :-)

I did also fly the Savage at 90 all up, and it seems slower to enter the thermals and in gliding headwind, it seems a bit delayed to surf through. So reloading it again at 94-95, it regains that forward digging. 

We also did lots of climbing or float ability tests next to a Cure 2 M loaded at 93 and Savage at 94 all up. Another good surprise here is that I was able to feel that float ability next to my friend Cure 2, to confirm later that the Savage is super efficient in weak thermals. 

One point is that coring very narrow cores take a bit of practice as the maneuverability is not as the most agile C’s, but good enough to stay up in the air.

Big ears are stable and easy to get in. They reopened with a slight brake input. 

Conclusion: 

In creating the Savage, Supair has entered the golden circle of the best C’s of the moment. 

Supair has created a high performance, comfortable enough to fly, light EN-C machine. The glide and climb couldn’t be placed but on top of that category!  

Please load that marvel at top and test fly it, if your search is toward the light EN-C. 

DaVinci Tango EN-C

 

DaVinci Tango

 let’s dance…

DaVinci is a South Korean manufacturer with a complete set of gliders from the A to CCC category.

The Tango is their new EN-C glider and my first DaVinci glider!

After receiving emails from pilots worldwide, I contacted DaVinci and I was able to purchase the Tango in S size (70-95). 

https://flydavinci.com/products/paragliders/tango/ 

To tell you the truth, I was a bit concerned at first about the new company, and I had silly thoughts in my rusty mind about what to expect…

Now the glider is in front of me and it is time to fly.  The construction looks really good. The Tango has 3 lines A, B, C, and a little fork on the C’s. It is not a hybrid like the Fusion for example. I thought also that it could be similar to the Flow Fusion. But it isn’t in any way. It is a 3 liner. Let’s proceed…

The glider is a mixture of Dominico on the upper surface leading edge,  which holds a shark nose, and Porcher 32 g behind, with also Porcher on the bottom surface. The lines are from Edelrid. Aramid lines are used all over the glider.  All the lines are unsheathed, but also they seem carefully chosen as they are not as thin as the competition, nor they are thick.  They seem to have a good balance for durability, and performance.

And I don’t think they will move quickly in time.

I flew the Tango at different loads, 89, 92, and later at 94 all up. The inflation of the Tango is as easy as a B glider. It rises quickly without any surge and the take-off is immediate even in nil wind.  Looking up I saw a super clean leading edge and construction! I was really amazed by the details and the sewing process. They were no crisp seen on this super finish leading edge. 

First turn and first satisfaction, at least from my part concerning handling. The brake could be described as short, linear, precise, delivering very good agility. The Tango can be steered very flat, and also could squeeze every lift very tight! That’s my cherry on the cake! The leading edge felt smooth in turbulence and I didn’t feel any pitch movements. The Tango enters smoothly even in rough air, with a slight pitch in turbulent air, but climbs really well upwind, and it seems that the internal structure is very homogenous. 

It felt easy to fly for a 6.3 AR, C glider. A bit like the Delta 4 for accessibility!  To make it more accurate, it seems very close to the Artik 5 I had, in terms of overall feel and handling.   

Doing some glides next to the Cure 2 M loaded at 93 showed me very close gliding properties! I can also confirm that the Tango trim speed is high matching the Cure 2 M.  At full bar, the Tango is really fast! Matching the loaded Cure 2 M.  What impressed me the most, is that at high speed the leading edge remained clean and untouched without any weakness or crisp on the materials. It seems that their new SN+ (Smart nose plus technology) is working well!  The SN+, is some kind of valve or tape on the leading edge, preventing the air from going out quickly while retaining the pressure in the nose. 

Honestly, I was really surprised about those performances!  To place the Tango in gliding efficiency, it would be inserted on the top 5 of the C category! 

The best is yet to come…The climbing properties of the Tango next to the C’s that were present seem really rewarding especially in weak lift. The Tango is indeed a floater. I could feel a very high efficiency at 92 all up in very weak thermals.  I can confirm that it climbs as good as the Cure 2 for example. 

I like to point out more accurately, that surfing into the wind had better results when I loaded the Tango at 95 all up. I felt that when loaded it could move a bit better through the airmass in the presence of a headwind. If flown at 90 all up it felt very slow in entering that airmass. So it likes to be loaded when you need to go through. At max load, the climbing efficiency was still excellent.

Ears are stable, efficient, and reopens without pilot input. 

Conclusion: My first encounter with DaVinci gliders seems well rewarded! The Tango is fast at trim and accelerated and likes to be loaded, with a very good package of climb and glide.

It is well comfortable for a 6.3 AR EN-C glider. Induced asymmetric with one A riser pulled, are soft, and super easy to stay on track with a fast reopening. The speed bar has moderate pressure and usable all the way.  

 My C comparison will be updated for little details.  

One thing is sure!  If you are looking for an EN-C, don’t miss to test fly the Tango!  

Beirut explosion

Beirut explosion…
Thank you from the heart for all your lovely emails, beautiful message, and warm support!
My family and I are doing well. We are staying in the north part of Lebanon, 35 km from the explosion and even, the buildings trembled feeling like an earthquake. Unfortunately, many Lebanese citizens and some close friends that were 15 km away, suffered deeply that atrocity.
Living in Lebanon has never been that easy. After 50 years of wars and corruption, the people are suffering today more than ever! The Lebanese people are well known for their strength in rebuilding again and again. And we will never surrender!
We always wanted to have a state without corruption, with fair Justice, and a peaceful normal life for once! …At least for our children.
Thank you very much for all your kind messages.  Stay safe and may happiness surround your families.

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 !