Ozone LM 6

Ozone L M 6 SM

Among the gliders in the D class, the Mantra 6 remains till date a very competitive, efficient and reliable XC machine.
Launching the Light version is slightly easier due to the light fabrics. It shows a very steady pull in light winds.
The difference between the normal M6 and the LM6 SM, flying them at 95 all up are:
I found that the brake pressure is slightly heavier on the LM6 over the normal version with a slightly improved turning ability for the LM6.
The slight back pitch movement on the M6 seems to dissipate on the LM6 where I could sense neutral pitch behavior and I think that contributed slightly to a better into wind performance.
In turbulence the roll movements are slightly more pronounced on the LM6 by a very small amount.
The LM6 seems very solid and manageable in strong conditions like the M6. The speed bar pressure is very similar and usable efficiently in moving air with a taught and solid glider.
Conclusion: Flying the LM6, feels having a very slight edge over the normal M6 in moving air performance. The LM6 overall performance is quite close to the best recent D’s, and any pilot flying it won’t have any disadvantage in performance, with a light glider to carry along.

GIN Sprint 3 M

GIN Sprint 3  M

Test flying wings is the most difficult thing to do…Not only by flying them…But by typing the letters…

Test:

GIN, for all of us flying pilots, is one of the top leaders in paragliding industry. With the state of the art Boomerang 10, what should we expect when he releases a 2016 B+ glider? knowing that there are lots of very good new B+ gliders…

Please answer…

 a normal B+ with average performance and handling ? 

or a contender for the top places in speed, efficiency and glide?

Lets see…

After the amazing Carrera + , GIN has introduced the Sprint 3 to the market with a moderate aspect ratio but targeted as a B+ which logically has to compete with what the current B+ gliders of today has to offer.

Here’s what i found flying the Sprint 3 M from 98, 101, till 103 all up .

Launching the Sprint 3 is an easy task, especially with the light cloth. It climbs steadily and solid.

Flying he Sprint 3 M at 101 feels fine in moderate conditions. I sensed that 103 and above could be its best aspect for XC flying in strong conditions.

At 101 the Sprint 3 M has a moderate to slightly more pressure after 40 cm of brake travel. 

The glider can be steered with 25 cm after the 10 cm slack. I cannot say that the Sprint 3 M is a super agile glider, that you can swiftly adjust in turbulent conditions, but “fair enough” with an efficient turning radius in weak stuff ! 

It is “slightly” less agile than, the normal Atlas S, Mentor4 S, Iota 26, Apollo M, Kibo S…i was testing at the same time.

Not to say it’s not agile…It has a moderate agility to be precise.

 The Carrera plus S and M has a slightly more dynamic turn with a narrow radius and a slightly lighter brake feel toward the end.

In average thermals, the Sprint 3 M has an average to good climb rate that could place it “close enough” to the good ones…

The Sprint 3 M can be steered with precision and little input with average agility in moderate thermals. In strong cores, applying little more brake input, do get the Sprint 3 in a good turn with a good climbing ability if loaded beyond 100 to get that compact feel !

The comfort is high under the Sprint 3 M, which is very good for the category ! Slightly more comfortable than the M4 and Iota . It is for sure much easier to fly than Carrera plus, and not really more difficult to handle over the Atlas…which could be a very good step for a pilot looking to upgrade.

Gliding with my reference glider the Mentor 4 S showed a very good glide angle at trim for the Sprint 3 which place it better than Rush 4, Summit XC3, Apollo… placing it close enough… to the Eden 6, but not as good as the Mentor 4, Iota one which still is a reference in glide and efficiency.

What surprised me is the limited speed travel (very short) . The Sprint 3 M at 101 has only a 7-8 km/h speed over trim ! Taken at 700m ASL.

Big ears are easy and stable .They reopen fast. Induced asymmetric collapses are a non event, and quite easy to counter steer. Induced frontal collapses reopen quickly after less than 2 sec. 

Conclusion:

The Carrera plus has already marked the paragliding world of today .Of course it was targeted for the C pilot but it’s incredible climbing efficiency and gliding power at trim and especially at 45 km/h did out-perform or at least match top current C’s but also with a B rating… That’s an “achievement of usable performance”

What about the Sprint 3 M ? Many will like the comfortable feel, and the glide. It is logical and certain that a good pilot can achieve great XC flights on the Sprint 3 M…No doubt about that !

Sometimes being the benchmark really hurts …If the Mentor 5 of tomorrow or the Chili 4 that will come won’t offer more efficiency or at least more fun or ease to fly…than their predecessors then they will be totally unacceptable.

In this case the Sprint 3 is much better than the Sprint evo by a very large margin…not to compare…

But i would have dreamed for a super B+ especially coming from GIN that i’m certain, that just a little more time on it, would have been largely beneficial… 

What i was hoping for the Sprint 3 M was:

-At least a top gliding machine, but i’ll say ok. It’s good enough !  

-A more fun handling, with nimble brake response…remember the Sprint evo ! A delight  !!! 

-Little bit more top speed ! Above 50 km/h please…

-A more efficient ‘feel’ for the B+ 

This test is my personal opinion. Please try, test and fly the Sprint 3 , because it remains close to the 5 leaders in the B + gliders in comfort, efficiency, and climb.  

GIN is working on a new machine in a different category as far as i know…Lets hope it would out-dream us by the accessibility/performance/efficiency ratio …And i hope that the R&D will take their full time as, IMHO, the Carrera + still holds the “title” for comfort/efficiency/performance/rating !

SKY Apollo

Sky Appolo.
It's becoming obvious to the eye, that SKY Paragliders quality of construction   is beyond any doubt, one of the best in the paragliding industry !
Their new B+ is the Appolo with a 3 line configuration and a shark nose profile. 

Launching the relatively light Apollo  ( around 4.5 kg) is quite easy and simple. Any B+ pilot surely knows how to keep and control a glider overhead.
At 92 all up on the M size 75-95, I found the best balance for XC use.
The trim speed is quite fast as the M4 if similarly loaded.
The brakes pressure is medium to light with very linear and swift response. If you flew the Atis 4, you will experience the same fun handling as SKY delivers to their pilots.
The Apollo is an agile glider that draws a smile on a keen pilots face !
Delivering pure flying pleasure for sensible souls :-)
Flying the Apollo in rough thermals need some active piloting as the roll movements are present exactly like the Atis 4 ones or slightly more pronounced. 

I could close my eyes and will know a SKY glider just by the handling and glider feedback. 

The climb rate however is a bigger step over the Atis 4 and also comparing it to the best B+ ones in 2016...The Apollo climbs indeed very well ! At a good weight load the nose cuts though and climb efficiently !
The pitch movements are relatively dampened on the Apollo.
Gliding at trim showed me also a very nice glider angle!  Honestly I was surprised to see the Apollo glide performance, as it glided near the best B+ reference gliders ! 

I won't say it's the best but just close enough to make its pilot super content and happy.
The speed over trim is around 13 km/h taken at 1000ASL .
Ears are easy to induce they are stable, usable, and easy to reopen.
Induced collapses, holding the A riser won't make the Apollo turn more than 30 degrees and an opposite turn to the kept collapse is very easy to make.
Wing overs are a delight and joy to produce.
Overall it's a very well balanced glider with very late stall behaviour letting the pilot use the low speed characteristics, landing on a dime.
I liked the glider turning behavior and my only wish for this B+ was a slightly less roll movement in turbulent conditions to let the pilot in question, slightly more comfort time. In the positive side the Apollo EN  test flights are incredibly successful with A's  all over, and by its thermal feedback, it will surely train you to the next level. 

With it's impeccable construction, beautiful handling pleasure, great performance potential, it would be wise to consider a test flight in order to feel this experience...Afterward its a matter of taste :-) 

Harness comparison (Update)

 Harness comparison ( Update)

Harness comparisons:
Impress 3 M – Genie Race 2- Genie Light – WV GTO-WV X-Rated 6 L— Lightness 2 — Ozone Forza — Ozone Exocet — Genie Lite 2 —Genie Race 3 — Ozone Ozium — Gin X-Alps


Most comfortable seated harness. As 1 being most comfortable “ONLY for the seating position”.

1-Impress 3 / Forza / Lightness 2
2-Genie Race 2 / Ozium / Exoceat
3-X-Rated 6 / Genie Race 3 / Genie lite 2 / Gin X-Alps
4-Genie Light – Impress 2 +
5-WV GTO (being fairly comfortable also)

Most comfortable in roll (In roll stability ). As 1 being most comfortable.

1-Ozone Exocet
2-Genie Light 1 /  WV GTO / Forza /  GIn X-Alps
3-Impress 2 +  / X-Rated 6 L / Genie Race 3 / Genie lite 2
4-Genie Race 2 / Ozium / Lightness 2
5-Impress 3

Harnesses with legs supported naturally (Very comfy) from the current ones.

——  Exocet / Forza / Impress 3 /  Lightness 2  
 
Weight of the harnesses
Impress 3 M   ± 5 kg
Genie Race 2  ±10 kg
Genie Light 1   ± 5 kg
WV X-Rated 6 L   ±7kg
WV GTO  ± 5 kg
Lightness 2    ± 3 kg
Ozone Forza   ± 5 kg
Ozone Exocet  ± 9 kg
Genie Lite 2    ± 4.5 kg
Genie Race 3  ± 7.5 kg
Ozone Ozium  ± 3 kg
Gin X-Alps   ± 2 kg

Conclusion:
The WV GTO and the Genie Light are intended for the recreational pilot that wants a light pod. They are easy and a pleasure to fly .
The Impress 3 is the most comfortable seated harness, but has a bit more roll than the others and would need some time to adapt under it …
The Genie Race is a harness oriented for competitions or for pilots looking for refined sensations. It has more roll than the Impress 2 + but its roll is limited to a certain angle and then it stops allowing its pilot to re-adjust under the glider. The pilot will not feel disoriented, but some flights are required to adapt to this excellent harness. The only bad side is its high weight. Beside that it is an excellent harness with every detail a pilot would think of…A full professionally made, complete harness. I liked it very much.

With the arrival of the X-Rated 6,Woody Valley has created a comfortable harness, easy to access, smooth accelerator pulleys, Two rescues pockets, anti-G pocket. I felt that this harness is the most complete with all the small details in the best finish a harness can have !

It is really not as heavy as the Genie Race. The X-Rated 6, weights around 7.3  kg with a big back protection included.
A very beautiful product with a very clean finish .
The Forza has a comfortable seating position with a moderate roll movement in turbulence.
The Genie lite 2 has a very good construction finish.
The Gin X-Alps is very comfortable for a very light harness with less roll than the lightness 2 and with a compact and coherent feel with the used glider !

Harnesses are very difficult to test fly as each pilot have different structure …But IMHO, for my height of 1.81 m and 75 kg.

Happy flights,
Ziad

GIN Genie 2 light

.

Mac Para Eden 6

Mac Para Eden 6 .26  (The magical flying carpet)

There are many gliders popping out each week/month in every category. It’s very rare to find a flaw in today’s gliders. As a reviewer I always search for those tiny flaws if occurred… But it’s becoming more and more difficult! 
Companies are doing their best to give us the best possible and magical flying carpets J

Here’s one…
After test flying Mac Para EN-D, The Icon, here is the Eden 6 in size 26 for a test flight.
I flew the Eden 26 from 93 to 98 all up.
Take off is quite straightforward for a B, despite the high aspect ratio of 5.9, the Eden 6 inflates as a block and very easy without any delays or even shooting forward.
I had some nice flying conditions for three days and I was lucky to fly next to High end B’s all that time in order to feel and see the differences.

What does it feel in the air?

The Eden 6 is a very different glider from the 5th version.
The Eden 6 is tuned for performance flying with an efficient flat turning radius and a nose that searches for thermals rather than bumping into them.
The brake pressure is moderate with a linear response and the Eden 6 could be steered around 35 cm of travel.

The Eden 6 is a fairly agile wing trimmed toward an efficient turn rather than a diving turn.
To be more precise, I think the Eden 6 agility is well balanced between a gentle fun side, and an efficient XC use.

The Eden 6 26 could be flown easily at 90 but I found out that flying it at +75 % of its weight range is optimal (95-96)
Climbing ability:
The Eden 6 has similar climbing capability in weak lifts as the Eden 5, which was very good. In stronger lifts the Eden 6 dig through those thermals more efficiently for a better climb.
Gliding power:
Flying the Eden 6 26 in the company of the Swing Nyos M, the Mentor 4 S and the Rook 2 M showed me after many attempts a superb glide angle for the Eden 6 putting it right on top next to the best one in this category!
The gliding at top speed is fully usable and also very competitive like you would expect from the best B’s out there!
The Eden 6 26 at 96 all up has a fast trim speed .The speed bar pressure is moderate and the gain in speed is ±15 km/h.
What are the benefits and differences (Eden 6 over the Eden 5?)?

-Eden 6 needs slightly more active piloting
-Glide at trim and at top speed is well improved!
-Efficiency in head wind glides
-Speed
The Eden 6 is as comfortable to fly as the Rush 4.
Big ears are stable and easy. They reopen smoothly by themselves.

Spiraling down is efficient but the pilot must get out hyper smoothly…to prevent a tuck on surges.

Conclusion:
The Eden 6 is a new breed of Mac Para gliders. There’s something different in the making.
The glide angle is the best you can get .The climb rate is very good! The handling is pleasurable. The Eden 6 is fast!
For sure, it’s a small step over the Eden 5 in piloting but ok for an experienced B pilot looking inside the high B category!
There’s indeed something new over here…

 

SWING Nyos M

SWING Nyos

After test flying the Nexus from Swing, here’s the new EN-B Nyos in M size for a test flight.
The NYOS has a mix of sheathed and unsheathed lines with an average width comparing to other B’s . The construction is neat and its what you would expect from a 2016 glider, to the last detail.
The NYOS with it’s 5.8 aspect ratio is in my opinion the best looking B glider to date. It doesn’t really look like a B glider and my friends frequently asked me if it’s a new C glider.
I flew the Nyos M (80-102) from 92 to 98 all up.
Launching the Nyos is quite easy and smooth with no hard point or even any surge.
At both loadings the NYOS M has a relatively medium to short brake travel with a firm pressure rather than a light one. All that with a fairly nice agility resembling the Nexus way to turn into thermals. The NYOS is tuned for XC use rather than a freestyle use. But the agility is moderate to good !
In the same days flying it, i was top landing and switching to other B gliders (Eden 6, Mentor 4) in order to feel better what glider can offer the most in the conditions of each day, not to mention my flying friends who were also helping on those gliders.
After some flying days i can firmly confirm that the NYOS is a very comfortable glider, that offers sweet and relaxed flights like sitting on a VIP luxury seat and people all over are taking care that you are not being disturbed ! Smile
Well that’s exactly how i can describe the feeling under it !
The climb rate in very weak conditions (0.5 m/s) is not the strongest point of the NYOS, but i felt its just a slight step over the NEXUS in that matter. It hovers a bit and the very comfy leading edge is like a Buddhist monk in a meditation process…Nothing will bother him, without the slightest bite in those very weak lifts.
As soon as the thermals are well homogeneous (+1m/s), the NYOS will climb like any other B around and even if the lift gets punchy , it might get upward quicker !
Gliding power !
After test flying the NYOS, i really don’t know what to believe anymore …Its seems to me, like we are swimming in the marketing river of today's hype and tech stories…
Shark nose…No shark nose…Thin lines all over…Thin Dyneema lines…or no…pure 3 liner or no…I’m really puzzled !
After many glide attempt with the company of the well known Mentor 4, my friends eyebrows are mine were exceeding our foreheads!
Considering that the NYOS doesn’t have a Cleopatra nose, and it’s lines are thicker than the M4 ones, with 3.5 line attachment to the under-surface, and it looks quite robust in construction …Believe me, I have seen a lot of B’s… !
The NYOS is faster at trim speed than the M4 S by 1 km/h , similarly loaded, or even if lightly less loaded (+0.5 km/h ) !
The glide at trim is very similar, the glide at 52 is quite similar…the top speed of the NYOS is 2 km faster…
It looks like the NYOS strengths in glide is the pitch movement ‘self’ control on glides…Cannot say it’s a floater, but a real weapon in compensating the movements in turbulent air, and staying focus on the way ahead!
The speed bar has a moderate pressure, and stepping on it gave me the feeling like when i close the door behind me after coming from a loud party. I like that silence ! Smooth ride in a limousine !
Big ears are easy to induce, they are stable with or without bar and quite efficient.They don’t open by themselves but with a small dab on the brakes they reopen very fast.

Conclusion:
Reviews will always be reviews…There will always be positive and negative points on each new glider, no matter what…It depend mainly on the reviewer personal opinion and taste. It’s up to you the pilot to feel if those written words apply to your skills and flying sites.
If the NYOS would be slightly more efficient in weak conditions…Hmmm
For sure the NYOS is and will be SWING biggest success to date, The NYOS is ‘THE’ glider for flying in the strong Alps with a big XC potential for the good level of the B class pilots.
What made me smile:
Glide angle at trim and accelerated
Smooth ride in turbulence
Smooth ride at bar
Speed at trim and accelerated
Easy to fly for a 5.8 ar glider
Beautiful looking glider

What made me Grrrr  ;-)  :
- The climb in very weak thermals (-0.5 m/s)

NOVA Ion 4 S ( The tough )

NOVA Ion 4 S

I have flown all the Ion series from the first one to this new 4th version.
Take off on this low aspect ratio B is quite easy and spontaneous.
During the Ion 4 S test flights, i had the Buzz Z5 in SM size also for testing.
For three days, i was top landing, changing glider, again and again, with the company of friends to compare them also in the air.

I flew the Ion 4 S from 90 to 99 all up, to notice that the Ion 4 S can be flown easily at mid weight without loosing its energy. In rough conditions 95 all up could be well enough…For racing upwind, 99 is fast and very efficient !

The Ion 4 S from 92 to 99 has a medium brake travel, and the pressure on the brakes can be described as slightly medium to hard, but agile and precise, and it’s a small step in agility over the Ion 3 S.
The Buzz Z5 brake travel is similar in precision and response but slightly lighter.

The Ion 4 S can be turned very flat with little brake input coupled with weight shift. Stationary turns and coring small bubbles are a delight. Hard pull on the brakes and the Ion 4 will logically dive showing an agile behavior.

Climbing in weak thermals next to an Ion 3 at 95 all up showed a similar climb rate, but once the thermals gets a bit strong and punchy, then the Ion 4 S will show a clear advantage over the Ion 3. In company of a Buzz Z5 SM, in windy conditions showed that in weak thermals they are also similar in climb , but again as soon as the thermals gets punchier the Ion 4 S shoots upward, like a spring, even loaded at top !
I felt it has a tendency to cut through better the airmass and climb without bumping even more efficiently than any new low aspect ratio, B glider i have tested.

The comfort in the air reminded me of the tough Ion 1 which leads me to say that the feeling under the Ion 4 S can be best described as “indestructible" !

The Ion 4 S doesn’t have a pitch back in thermals nor a front one. It climbs peacefully, with a positive vario giving this impression of flying a performance paraglider.
  The roll movements are just present to show the thermals, rather than to shake its pilot.The overall comfort feel is present.

Doing some glides with the Ion 4 S showed an increase in glide angle over the Ion 3, and a significant one when using the bar.
The trim speed of the Ion 4 S (80-100) loaded at 95 is around 0.5 km faster than a Buzz Z 5 SM (75-95) loaded at 90.
The glide angle at 45 km/h is impressively on the Ion 4 side.
The Ion 4 has indeed a very good glide angle especially accelerated !
I was impressed by the amount of performance / accessibility ratio it delivers.

The top speed is around 52 km/h at 1000 ASL.
The leading edge stays solid and the speed is fully usable.
Ears are easy to induce with a fast opening.

The speed bar risers were installed on my Ion 4 S. They are a nice feature that pulls the C’s and B’s evenly without deforming the profile.
Using them in full speed mode is efficient enough but hard to pull.The Mentor 4 S ones are lighter in pressure.

Conclusion:
Tough, fast, comfortable, superb performance for a low aspect ratio glider, good agility and climb.That’s the Ion 4.

It seems that NOVA fine tuned the Ion 4 for a flatter polar and toward a performance use for XC purposes.

The race for performance will never end, but creating a low aspect ratio, easy to use, B glider that has the edge in overall performance especially accelerated, with an indestructible feel in turbulence is what makes paragliding even more magical.

Questions for designers...

Hannes Papesh Interview 5 March 2016 .

Z- What’s your opinion about :  "Softer leading edge do collapse often but they also recover faster and smoother, harder leading edge with a smaller AoA are very resistant but the collapses are more aggressive".
Do you agree? or no...and why?

Hannes: We're dealing with that issue since mid of the 90’s. During the X-act development we were trying to find an airfoil which is collapse resistant and in the case, collapsing very soft and unspectacular.
As "to collapse" is a fundamental issue of the safety concept of a paraglider, this scenario should be very well predictable.
During the very intensive discussion about folding lines (see attachment) I've been arguing with the "dynamic history" of a collapse: the airfoil should deform, loose air and fold in the middle, to create a soft collapse. In this procedure the static weak points are important. They are given by the suspension points and the airfoil shape (and some internals maybe). When you mount folding lines on new suspensions (where there is no load during normal flight), you're faking new static weak points.
So we should spend some engineering and development effort to find an airfoil / solution that can do both: to be collapse resistant AND collapse soft and recover easy.
-Not just make "a quick cheat".
-Some in the scene are specialists for that, as we all know!


Z-Do you believe for instance that in order to see the real thing, the exact collapse in each individual glider regardless of their construction is to remove the test pilot ability to 'pull' the A's...

Hannes: Pulling the A's is good.
Sometimes it's not possible without mounting some separate lines (in case of an A/B fork).
Important is, that you pull on a suspension point, which is highly loaded during normal flight.
Experience shows, that the static weak points in real flight are between the suspension points: there the airfoil kinks in the case of a collapse deformation.
The simulated collapses should show the same deformation behavior as the real flight collapse.
Putting force on the airfoil further in front does enlarge the "deformation arm": resulting in softer collapses.

Z-Another idea could be to send a paramotor or some machine to create heavy turbulence that passes exactly 10 m in front of the test pilot over a lake...That way it will be clear on the videos how much the glider endure the collapse and how it will react.
-Do you think that this could be an evolution for future test houses ? Can you comment on that please ?

Hannes: It is not easy to create the standard rotor.
And will be quite hard to do: but that kind of testing could offer some more real life results.

The general problem is the exclusion of cheating actions.
We all have had airfoils which were flying fine and collapsed late. But they showed a very nasty and hard collapse behavior.
But you need really some "cheating creativity" to get the idea to mount folding lines far in front to get softer collapses.
With that technique you can get every airfoil look nice.
Because of that possibility and the very bad experiences of cheating by one manufacturer, the WG6 working group decided to limit those folding lines (invented by the same manufacturer) to the D class.


My philosophy (specially in the low classes) is to have a wide "green area". No special "best case scenarios / techniques" are needed. The wing should behave fine however the collapse is produced.

10

10

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-7hV1Po8ObvRUttcF85dlFLaVU/view?usp=sharing

Luc Armant answer to the question:

Z-What's your opinion about :  "Softer leading edge do collapse often but they also recover faster and smoother, harder leading edge with a smaller AoA are very resistant but the collapses are more aggressive".
Do you agree? or no...and why?

Luc:   I disagree. I don’t see that at equal speed airspeed or AoA. from equal speed, fragile profile can easily have much worse recovery than more solid one. There is no strong rule here. Add to that the fact that collapsing is always more dangerous than not collapsing. In Ozone, we are searching for the best “real safety” design. We want gliders that we assess will be the safest to fly for pilots making cross country. We don’t want to compromise that.


Z- What's the benefit that a Delta 2 pilot will get flying the Delta 3 in order to disregard the certification at accelerated mode?

Luc: Best benefit for a Delta2 pilot, should be slightly higher speed and more performance at speed. We will not make anything special to try to convince pilot about recovery and EN rating, apart from a notice trying to explain things. Like usual, we will release our product and the pilot will make their choice. But again, we know that if we release it EN D we would for sure lose sell because many pilots still think that EN rating is their best way of knowing which wing to buy regardless of what the manufacturer is even recommending.


Z- The Delta 2 and Alpina 2 are still in personal view 'legends' in the C category. Many new C's that came after were more difficult to handle in rough air, except the Carrera plus. Was this only related to the back positioning A's on the leading edge ?

Luc: Of course not even though it’s an important one. There are a lot of other parameters. Too much parameters !  We believe that Aspect Ratio is one of the strongest one .


Z : Now seeing that the Carrera plus has similar performance or very close to the Alpina 2, Delta 2,
that GIN aimed for a B certification as a marketing strategy that could lead to larger sales.With the D3 going in the D category, OZONE is going on the exact opposite way in marketing strategy. Which leads to the question:
With the D3 certified as an EN-D, how will Ozone convince the Rush 4 pilots to move on the D3 ?

 Luc: That would not be marketing strategy. We know we would lose significant sell because of that. But that’s the way it is. Good products are our priority.

Ozone Buzz Z5

Ozone Buzz Z 5  SM

The Buzz Z5 is the new Ozone glider for the low B segment pilots.
It features a mild shark nose, 3.5 line configuration and a very moderate to low aspect ratio.

Launching the Buzz Z5 is quite simple for that category with no hang back, just stop the glider in strong wind to keep it from slightly overshooting. Nothing out of the ordinary.

I flew the Buzz Z5 from 88 all to 93 for the SM (75-95) size.

In both configuration the Buzz Z5 has a precise, direct, brake control . It seems that any high-end pilot will be more than satisfied test flying the Buzz Z5 as it delivers that performance touch in the brakes…especially for a low B !
I was happy test flying it, for it’s refined brake feeling and thinking that only the Rush 4 or the Delta 2 were a pleasure to fly won’t be fair for the Buzz Z5…
I was impressed by the way that every small pull on the brakes can make it turn on my commands, despite it's forgiving long brake travel !
So pulling 30 cm can steer the glider on almost all thermals…pulling more like 50-60 cm doesn’t really make the Buzz Z5 spin or else..It just respond with a clam nature without being dynamic !
Beyond 45 cm the pressure on the brakes becomes moderate to slightly heavy. 
What surprised me the most on the Buzz Z5 was it’s ability to search or to sniff a thermal !
It doesn’t have the tendency to stop or hang back, rather than to slide through the air mass and entering the thermals calmly and smoothly!
For sure this characteristic is not very common on low B gliders, and the Buzz Z5 was keeping me satisfied enough “for a low B” during this test.

Flying next to the Rush 4 and some high end B gliders, i can confirm an excellent ability to climb in weak or strong thermals !
Doing some glides at trim with the Rush 4 to have an idea, was also very rewarding and really competitive. I was really surprised … Pushing on the first bar, the glide was still very good ! It showed me that the performance at around 44 km/h is very usable and really good !

Trim speed is around 39 km/h and the full speed is around 49 km/h.

Big ears are very easy to induce, and very stable even with bar.They are efficient and the reopening is very smooth.

Conclusion: It seems that the manufacturers are trying hard to create low B gliders with enough performance to keep the low air time pilots surf the air endlessly with the option of going XC when they are ready.
The Buzz Z5 moves slightly more in the air than the Buzz Z4, but with a full  enhancement package of performance feel, and gliding performance.
The Buzz Z5 has it all. A comfortable, agile, high passive safety, low aspect ratio B glider with an interesting option for going XC.

I have UPDATED the B comparison (Please see further down) 
http://ziadbassil.blogspot.com/2015/12/b-comparison-update-inserting-ikuma.html 

Mac Para ICON

Mac Para Icon 24

The last Mac Para EN-D glider I test flew in February 2011 was the Magus XC2. I still remember a comfortable glider, with very good climb rate at the time, inside the D category.

After five years, Mac Para launched the ICON, with 7 aspect ratio, and with a clean 3 line configuration.
The Icon has a strong shark nose, and full unsheathed lines.

I flew the Icon 24 from 93 till 98 all up.
Launching the Icon 24 is very easy and smooth. The glider inflates as a block without any structure movement. In 5 km/h  wind, a gentle and steady pull will place it quickly overhead. In strong wind, the pilot must control the surge, which is really easy for the D cat.

Flew the Icon in different conditions, from smooth thermals to turbulent ones, and surprisingly, the Icon strongly remind me of the feeling I got when I flew the Elan !
Of course the Icon needs more active piloting, but this ‘shock absorbent’ feel is present !

The Icon 24 has a similar comfort of the Mantra 6 but with a slightly softer feel in turbulent bumps!
Actually I found it best to fly the Icon 24 near the top weight for a more compact feel and enhanced homogeneity.

The trim speed is around 39 km/h and the top speed is at 57 km/h taken at 1000 ASL fully usable!

Applying bar, from the first half, to top speed, the Icon has a very good glide angle and an efficient usable speed range.

The handles on the C have lots of pressure and slightly harder to pull than the M6, even at full speed, but usable to dump some surges if the pilot is used to that method.

The glide angle at trim and especially accelerated is competitive in the middle of this very competitive D category.

The strong point of the Icon, is the float ability and the climb rate especially in weak conditions.
A good pilot can stay endlessly in weak cores waiting for a stronger lift !
The Icon doesn't dive in turns. The brake pressure is moderate, with 25 cm to steer the glider and nice agility in smooth cores. It gives the D pilot an efficient flat turn, with smoothness and efficiency.

The Icon 24 has moderate to good agility in disorganized thermals, slowing the turning ability a bit, and giving the impression of a solid homogenous glider.

Entering the moderate thermals the Icon 24 slows a bit and enters smoothly with a positive vario without any excess in pitching.
Strong thermals and bumps needs a loaded Icon, with some bumping and back pitch presence, but fairly small and quite manageable.

Big ears are stable and stays tucked, in smooth air. In turbulence they have tendency to reopen. The structure stays solid, with no wobbling or shaking. They are efficient and applying bar during ears give a better sink rate.

Conclusion: Any pilot who flew the Elan for Mac para, will find that same pillow feel under the Icon, with of course more pilot control.
The performance over the Elan is obvious, logical and well targeted. The Icon will inspire confidence to any D pilot, and has enough overall performance to keep him well satisfied.
It seems again that the “fly in peace” motto, of Mac Para is not just some marketing words, rather than a true commitment towards the pilots in our small, but magical flying community.    :-)


Update: After later attempts on glide with an M6 SM, I think the Icon 24 has the edge in head wind efficiency with a slightly faster trim speed.

Air Design VOLT 2 SM

Air Design VOLT 2 SM

After test flying the Volt 1 and the Rise 2 from AD, here’s the Volt 2 in SM size .

The Volt 2 has lots of features, a shark nose profile, all unsheathed lines, vortex holes, adjustable brake handle, there’s 2 lines per side, and on each line level there are(2A, 2B, 2C) . The C lines are split into a fork for a C and D attachment on the glider.
The construction is very neat, and it looked very tough to the last detail.

Launching the Volt 2 is as easy as any moderate aspect ratio C glider, with no tendency to overshoot and an immediate take off.

The Volt 2 SM at 92 all up, has a moderate brake pressure, coupled with a direct, precise steering power. The Volt 2 has a superior agility over the Rise 2 and the Volt 1and can be described as fairly agile. Coring thermals are really pleasant as precise turns can be adjusted with each pulled centimeter.
I believe the Volt 2 is the first improvement in Air Design gliders, that goes in the right way concerning agility and pleasurable feel.

The second feel-able improvement flying the VOLT 2 is the climb rate !
Well, I can tell you, that team Air Design outdone themselves this time with a glider that can climb in weak conditions very efficiently, putting it next to best climbing ones in the C category !

Stephan Stiegler's gliders for the B and C class have a reputation of being comfortable to fly. And flying the Volt 2 in moderate conditions felt quite comfortable, resembling the Elan, Sigma 9, and other moderate aspect ratio C glider.

The trim speed is around 39 km/h at my loading and the top speed in the first part of the 50’s .
The glide ratio is good and on par with those C gliders mentioned above.

Big ears are efficient , stable, and a good way to get down. They open smoothly .

The Speed bar has a moderate pressure and the speed is fully usable in moderate turbulence.
The handles on the C to control the pitch in accelerated flight is very efficient. In fact AD has the most efficient C steering capability among many gliders i have tested. If you have flown a Rise 2 you will know what i mean, and the Volt 2 C steering is as efficient and usable !

Conclusion:
I always favor climb capability over glide capability.
It is always better to arrive "comfortably" 10 m lower and still flying, rather than 10 m higher and not being able to catch that low save.

For me the VOLT 2 SM will be an Air Design success by the amount of coring pleasure, comfort, and climb capabilities.
It gave me a feeling of a tough, well built, reliable C glider any good pilot coming to the C category would be satisfied flying it !

 

Triple Seven KING ! S & M

Triple Seven KING 

Triple Seven KING

Triple Seven gliders was founded by two PWC flying brothers, that used to work with several manufacturers and their reputation at the time was the fast flying ability and the competition at the highest level.

Triple Seven was born and their first products in the B and C category were the Rook 1 and the amazing Queen which still has the best glide at full speed for a C glider !
Then came the Rook 2 which sits on the top places with the best performers in the B category with a very good accessibility.
The gliders made by the Valic brothers, seems to inherit a high performance aim with a relatively comfortable handling each in their respective category.

Now the King EN-D is here…
The King has a strong shark nose with a 3 line layout. The lower lines are small but sheathed, the mid and upper ones are thin and unsheathed, and the extremities + the brake line geometry are very thin micro lines.
I have the S size (75-95) which i flew from 90 all up till 95, and the M size (90-110) flown at 107.5 all up.
My recent D gliders for this comparison are: The Mantra 6 SM and ML, the Peak 4 21 and 23 , the Avax XC 5 26, the IP 6 23 .

Launching the King S and M in, 5 km/h to + 15 km/h , needs a steady pull to accompany the glider. It’s a slightly slower than an M6 to reach overhead, but it’s surely very easy for a D glider as it goes up in one compact piece !

Flying the King S with the same X-Rated 6 harness i used for all the mentioned gliders, showed me at 93 all up, a moderate to agile glider and could be similar to the Mantra 6 SM agility flown at the same weight also.
The brake travel is short to moderate, resembling also the M6 SM brake travel .
The differences in thermal entry is that the King S pitches slightly back a little before entering.
The King M flown at 108 doesn’t have that pronounced pitch back movement and gives a neutral one instead.
The King could be described as a comfortable D glider when flown in moderate turbulence.
Flying the glider is some nasty ‘winter’ turbulent air, the King needs more active piloting than a Mantra 6 MS and slightly less piloting than a Peak 4 21 i was test flying at the same time.
The glider movements in some lee side thermals are sharp with always a marked back pitch on the S rather than a forward pitch. The M size showed me a more neutral pitch.
Of course sometimes it pulls you to the thermals, but in the relatively “moderate” turbulence conditions i flew it in, (only the summer conditions will give a better idea) , i found it easy to control the forward pitch, and in some macaroni stuff, i wished for a more neutral pitch on the S size.

The climb rate performance for both the S and the M size in very weak thermals (0.3m/s) is moderate to good resembling the Peak 4 one.
Once the thermals are steady and homogenous the very good maneuverability of the King doesn’t loose any weak thermal, and the flat turning ability, helps immensely to stay in the core. It has much better climb than the Queen in small conditions even loaded.
In those very weak conditions the M6 could still have a slight insignificant edge in float-ability…But i’m being too picky…as you already know

Now comes the glide part.
Doing some glides with the M6, Peak 4, IP 6, showed me for several times a superiority in gliding power for the King S and for sure the M size !
For instance the M6, MS (80-95) at 93 compared to the King M (90-110) flown at 108, gave the King a full + 2 km/h trim speed and for sure an impressive glide angle, like from another dimension ! It looked like chasing a full CCC competition glider !
Flying the King S (75-95) at 93 all up next to a Peak 4 23 (85-105), gave me the same big visual advantage in glide for the King S and as we both used the speed bar, the differences became larger to my favor !
The top speed of the Peak 4 23 is still around +3 km/h more similarly loaded versus the King S size.
I found it that especially around 45- 47 km/h the king glide angle is remarkably better !
I was never expecting a clear visual glide difference ! Usually there’s a small glide difference between newly tested gliders.But not this time !
The King does have indeed an amazing glide…or should i say:
The glide angle is worthy of a King !
The IP 6 23, still has also more top speed (+ 6 km/h) , over the King S, followed by the M6 (+ 2 km/h) .
I measured the King S top speed at 1000 ASL with 93 all up around 56 km/h with overlapping pulleys.
The glide at that speed is very nice, but i felt that the best glide is around ± 46 km/h for the S size which many XC pilots use frequently.
I found that racing at that speed through moderate turbulent air is quite usable as i was able to keep my feet on the pedal.

Big ears are easy to induce with a stable behavior and efficient descent rate at -3m/s with full bar.
They open smoothly !

Conclusion:
The King is the new reference in gliding power in the D category .
It seems that Triple Seven has built a powerful, fairly accessible, agile, gliding machine for “experienced” D pilots.
Upgrading from the Queen is logical if it was already flown easily for two seasons in strong conditions.
I’m sure that any C or D pilot test flying the King, will be shocked by this superb gliding Albatros  

UPDATE: After flying over 30 hours on the S size from 90 to 94 all up, i realized a change in trim speed .After email exchange with 777, it was obvious that the A's are slightly stretching by 0.5 cm and maybe the B's slightly...
I found the best way to re-trim this S size is by releasing the two (inner) C loops .The outside C loop stays . (confirmed by 777). Bearing in mind that the S size has no loops on the A's and B's .
You will be impressed that by releasing this loop (0.7 cm) on the inner C loops you will have a completely different glider ! In this configuration, the S size is more dynamic but still very compact, faster trim speed +1km/h , direct and beautiful handling...! Still solid and usable on full bar !
The M and L size are trimmed differently...There are simple loops 0.7 cm and cowboy loops 1 cm .Please contact your 777 dealer before any change.

BGD Cure

BGD Cure

The Cure is the new BGD glider for the C category.
It has 6.75 aspect ratio and it’s a pure 3 liner, with digressive unsheathed lines all over.

Launching the Cure is remarkably easy for the high aspect ratio! Kiting the glider on the ground gives the impression of an easy wing.

In the air:
Flying the Cure M at 90-92 all up feels quite adequate in overall conditions with a very good control even in choppy conditions.
It can be flown easily from 85 till 95 and still retains a good maneuverability at low weight and good climb even at top weight.

The brake travel is relatively short and direct, enabling a quick and sharp turn similar in reaction and strength to a Delta 2 SM or Alpina 2 SM which is really nice! Coring the thermals with the Cure is pure pleasure! Rough, smooth, turbulent, cores can be surgically cured with this beautiful handling machine.
The strong point of the 6.75 aspect ratio Cure, is its coherent feel through turbulent air.
The roll and pitch movements feel smoother than the ones on the Cayenne 5.
I looked up many times to see if I’m really on the Cure not on the Delta 2 SM, as it felt comfortable enough in the C category.
I noticed also a very taught leading edge at trim and cruising around 50 km /h, as I was able to leave my foot on the bar in moderate turbulence giving the impression of a solid glider.

This new construction seems very successful as it gives a very coherent and homogenous feel. No wobbling and snaking around whatsoever in the normal flying envelope…

The climb in weak conditions is really good. The Cure at 90 all up is an efficient glider to get you some low saves.
Punchier thermals will get the Cure to slightly pitch back but with a fast climb. It has the efficiency of a Delta 2 SM in the very weak stuff which i think is impressive.
Doing some long glides with an Alpina 2 SM similarly loaded showed a very close glide at trim, half bar, and at top speed, with a slight edge for the Cure in lift areas.
The trim speed of the Alpina 2 SM is (+ 0.25 km) over the Cure.
The top speed of the Cure is (+ 0.5 km/h) over the A2.
Gliding at full speed in a relatively moving air, showed that sudden surges are more efficient on the Cure.

The speed bar is smooth and also similar to the Delta 2 pressure, and the full speed is around 55 km/h taken at 1000m ASL.

Big ears are stable, with a descent rate of -3m/s with bar.

Upgrading from the Base is not really a big step rather than a logical evolution for those who already mastered the Base in different conditions with ease.

Conclusion:
Name: CURE.
Ingredients:
Beautiful elongated shape glider, top performance in the category, cohesive structure, comfortable to fly, pleasurable handling, C certification, impressive choice of colors, Smile guaranteed.

Video soon...
Cheers,
Ziad.

PS: Merry Christmas  :-)

XC Tracer

XC tracer.

I flew with this small light black device a few times and the sound was very imminent in climb and very precise. Since my friend Rony is more into electronics than i am, i gave him this small device to test fly and he came back with this:


I have been flying with an XC-Tracer besides my Flymaster vario for a while now so I am getting a pretty good feel about it.

At first I thought of using the XC-Tracer for my hike and fly needs since it is small, idiot proof and logs tracks. It serves that purpose perfectly but I then started keeping it on my regular cockpit as a backup logger for real flights.

What I found out:

° XC-Tracer vario is extremely accurate and has practically no delay.

° The ability to fine tune the sound of the vario is simple enough for the great range of options available.

° Changing the volume in flight is straightforward.

° The saved tracks are easily accessible through GPSDump, and they are correct when compared to the Flymaster logged tracks.

° Linking XC-Tracker to my Samsung Note 4 and XCsoar through Bluetooth works perfectly.

° I dropped the XC-Tracer a few times and I also leave it on my cockpit when packing my harness tight but never had any issues, so it is solid enough for me to keep.
https://www.xctracer.com/en/the-xc-tracer/?oid=1854&lang=en

Gradient XC 5 26

Gradient Avax XC 5 26
The last tested Gradient glider was an Aspen 5 26 in the EN-C category.
Here’s the Avax XC 5 26 EN-D with an aspect ratio of 7.0 flown at 93 all up with an X-Rated 6 harness.
Launching the XC5 is simple and quick.The light cloth helps with a rapid inflation and the glider comes up perfectly.
My flights were made sometimes in turbulent air, with quite punchy lifts. Despite all that i felt that the XC 5 is comfortable enough for a D and could be similar to the M6, which is more comfortable than a Trango XC 3.
The brake travel is short, light and the authority on the brakes is really good! The Avax XC 5 doesn’t have the yaw movements seen on the Aspen 5.
I also felt that the overall handling on this 7 aspect ratio glider is much better than the Aspen 5 !
It can core thermals with ease and pleasure !
Entering strong lift the XC 5 pitch back a bit and brakes are needed to stop the surge afterward.
The roll movements are dampened enough on this glider.
The strongest point of the XC5 26 is the authority on the brakes and the overall turning capability inside the thermals. If i considered the Peak 4 to have a very nice brake response, i think the XC5 has a little step over, just because every centimeter results in a change of the trajectory. And there’s no yaw movements as felt on the Aspen 5.
Saying that i believe that the XC5 is also one of the best handling D gliders “in homogenous conditions”.
I flew the XC5 in some turbulent conditions with my X-rated 6 harness, and the glider was still very dampened in roll movements . However when entering strong thermals the back pitch ability of the XC5 increased and it was sometimes bumping the airmass.
The XC5 climbs quickly in well built thermals, however i found it a bit difficult to climb in very weak conditions, where the Aspen 5 could catch those tiny bits of lift…
The Avax XC5 is best flown slightly above mid weight in weak thermals.
As for the glide angle efficiency, I did lots of different glides comparisons with different gliders, and i could place the Avax XC5 26 in the first part of the D category.
The top speed at 800 ASL and 92 all up on the size 26 was around 55km/h which is quite close to the Aspen 5.
Big ears are very easy, stable and efficient.

NIviuk Ikuma 25

 Notes before the test : This test reflects ‘ONLY’ my personal opinion and feel about the glider in question.
If you are a pilot looking forward to find some frequent positive tests and the usual nice comments, please be aware that my blog or page, doesn’t have this option…
My tests reveals the real side of the gliders in my own eyes and flying background, in describing how i see and feel them without the useless chit-chat and make up…
In order to be polite, clear, fair, and true to myself and to others, i cannot smile after every test, and write you stories of joy, peace and sing songs…Wings are so different and test flying them is very difficult but also a very beautiful task !
Sometimes, things do happen, and i confront them with my original nature.



Niviuk IKUMA 25

History: I have flown nearly all Niviuk gliders in the past and ‘in my personal opinion’ there were some that marked the paragliding world at the time like the impressive climb of the Peak 1, and the overall efficiency of the Artik 2.
Some gliders were a bit disappointing, like the Peak 3.
Then came along many other gliders, and some which were also successful, like the Hook 2 and 3, and Artik 3 and 4.
The Peak 4 was the latest one tested last week from my part, and i was really impressed by the amount of performance and comfort ratio. The climb in the very weak was a bit less than expected, but overall, the Peak 4 is a very nice and beautiful glider to fly for my personal taste.

In late 2015, the Ikuma from Niviuk was created in this new B plus category to compete with the current B plus gliders like the Iota from Advance ,the Mentor 4 from Nova and the Rook 2 from 777 etc…
So it’s only fair to compare the Ikuma to those gliders in the high B category.
The Ikuma has a slightly moderate aspect ratio of 5.7 flat.
I received this brand new Ikuma 25 from a special friend who sent it over, only for my tests and which i’m very grateful ! It was still new and factory packed. I unboxed it. It doesn’t have any flaws with very nice construction details, and flies perfectly straight and balanced.



TEST:
The IKUMA has unsheathed lines from top to bottom, with only 2 lines on the A’s, 2 on the B’s and 3 on the C’s …

Launching the IKUMA 25 at 94.7 kg on my scale is straight forward and easy.
Once in the air, the brake pressure is moderate with some 15 cm to 35 cm of travel to get the glider into a nice turning radius. The first centimetres are also precise, linear and the IKUMA could be described as fairly agile.

Flying it in turbulent thermals felt very easy. The pitch is very dampened and upon entering thermals, the IKUMA doesn’t pitch forward at all, neither stays neutral, but slightly stop with a slight pitch back upon entering.
In strong thermals it needs time to enter at that load and the climb is a bit delayed.
Thermals biting is more efficient on the M4 S, Rook 2, or even the Iota 26 side at the same load where the Ikuma bounce a bit before entering.

This slightly pitch back behaviour of the Ikuma 25 at my load feels insensible in very weak conditions, without biting through, whether i let the brakes or with little brake or even with the rear risers, i was finding a bit difficult to have a competitive climb with the B wings around. The Rush 4, Iota, Mentor 4, were floating slightly better.
The airmass information didn’t also pass clearly from the risers either, but i had a nice turning ability inside a homogeneous core with the Ikuma confirming that it’s a fairly agile glider!

In turbulence the Ikuma ,Iota, Mentor 4, Rook 2 needs the same level of control to keep them overhead with a touch of comfort toward the Iota and Ikuma.

Doing some long glides wing tip to wing tip with a Mentor 4 S with similar load of 94.7 kg showed a slightly faster trim speed for the Mentor 4 S and slightly better glide angle and float-ability for the Mentor 4 S.
At full bar the Mentor 4 S has + 2km/h more speed and showed after consecutive times a more competitive glide angle also for the M4. Of course this couldn’t be the most important feature for a glider, but good to know.

The speed bar has relatively a moderate pressure and at full bar the leading edge is still solid and the top speed of 53 km/h at 800 ASL is usable. (load 94.7 on the 25 )

Big ears are stable, usable, with fairly good descent rate, and they reopen smoothly without a fuss.

Conclusion:
The B plus segment holds some very impressive wings as seen on my previous tests and videos.
The Ikuma will take many of you into far places no doubt, but i need to place it for you accurately inside this category.
 After exchanging gliders with my friends with same results, and sharing their thoughts, I concluded that the Ikuma is a relatively comfortable B glider, with moderate performance in this segment and a nice authority on the brakes.

For me the overall efficiency in climb and glide, of the Ikuma 25 with 5.7 aspect ratio glider, that was intended to compete in this segment, didn’t impress me or fulfilled my needs into this fierce battle for the 2015, B category, performance toys.

Please consider that the amount of criticism for a certain product is balanced by the same amount of respect, admiration and expectations especially for a brand among the leaders in gliders industry.

Finally, and most importantly, it’s you, the pilot who will decide what’s best for your needs !
I’m just here typing my own letters…

NIviuk Peak 4 23

Niviuk Peak 4 23

The replacement of the less fortunate peak 3 for the easy D segment is finally available.
My friend got himself a peak 4 23 and we flew together on good days and i have flown this wing at 98 all up for the 85-105 Peak 4 23.
Here’s my impressions versus the Mantra MS, The Avax XC 5 26, the Icepeak 6 23, the Peak 3, The Triton 2 S, UP tango XC3…Etc…

I’ll try to be as clear as possible concerning this wing in describing what a pilot will expect flying it among regular D gliders or high aspect ratio C’s.

Launching the P4 23 is easier than the IP6, a little more difficult than the M6, XC5, Trango XC3. But all in all its easy for the regular D pilots. It doesn’t have the pitch forward behavior of the IP 6 , but surely a D pilot would find it quite manageable, even in light or in strong breeze.

Turning ability:
I guess that’s one the most important glider character for my personal taste.
Immediately after take off, first turn and first smile…The P4 has light to moderate brake pressure, and reacts after the first 15cm of slack with a super wonderful agility ! This high aspect ratio glider can be turned very tight at a very small radius without the dive !! Only 15 cm after the slack are needed to steer the glider gracefully !The feeling and authority on the brakes ,even in turbulent cores are impressive! I never flew a glider with 7 aspect ratio that can be turned like a 5.5 aspect ratio one !
The P4 is more agile in turns than the M6, Triton 2, Trango XC3, and relatively similar to the XC5.

Climb rate:
We flew this glider in some very weak to strong windy conditions and sometimes we flew in moderate to slightly turbulent lee side conditions enabling us to get a more global idea about the P4.
In very weak conditions (less than 0.5 m/s) where lots of pilots would not give a chance to stay in the air, the IP 6 23 at 98 all up would float nicely and communicates those tiny lifts to the pilot showing him the way to turn. In those weak conditions the P4 23 at 98 all up doesn’t give those informations to the pilot and after many attempts where the IP 6 could exploit those light lifts and gain some altitude, the P4 hovers at the same altitude.
Once the lift gets above 0.7 m/s the P4 will gracefully climb and could easily match the IP 6 23 climb rate. In strong thermals i think the P4 will have a slight advantage over the IP 6, due to it’s superb brake authority to place it precisely into the core !

This is surely very picky from my part, I cannot say that the P4 is a floater, but in order to be precise I’ll give you an idea, of similar wings like the P4 with same efficiency in those conditions .Ex: The Gin Gto 2 S at 93 or the Avax XC 5 26 at 92 .
The M6 MS at 95 all up is slightly more efficient in the very weak, as the Artik 4 25 at 90 al up.
The P4 23 at 98 will out climb the M6 MS and the surely A4, in windier and more difficult conditions showing the P4 ability to surf the air efficiently without back pitching, and climbing away.

Glide and speed.
After several glides at trim ,half bar, and full speed, the P4 23 at 98 all up, showed me exactly a similar glide ratio as a freshly line checked IP6 23 at 98 all up. It is slightly possible that the IP 6 23 has some insignificant points in full speed glide…But this is may be that in turbulent air the IP6 23 felt more stiff and solid on bar .On the P4 23 at full bar the leading edge is solid , but not as the iP 6 one. The B risers are slightly harder and more pressure are needed to feel the glider in the air. But i really liked those black rubber grips !

Comparing the P4 23 at 98 all up and the M6 MS at 95 all up, the trim speed is the same but the full speed is slightly on the P4 side, and the overall gliding performance is also slightly on the P4 side.

I have tried to induce big ears by the split risers, however i pulled my arms very far to pull in the lines .At first it looks like i’m pulling the stabs…Because the ears has lots of pressure.They fold in finally after pulling approx ±1m of lines, and pushing on the bar, but i don’t think they are very effective. I’ll try later the B’s…and report back..Releasing the ears opens very fast and quick and no line was stuck in the tips like the M6 use to do.

Comfort and usability:
I’ll be more specific in comparing gliders with similar aspect ratio..It’s better than talking only about the certification label.
I found that the Peak 4 23 is relatively a comfortable glider for an aspect ratio of 7, and it’s similar to the M6 comfortable behavior.
I felt a neutral pitch behavior in the same conditions where the M6 would pitch back in entering thermals. It has also the same comfort found on the Avax XC 5 and may be less work under it than the Trango XC 3 SM where the Peak 4 felt more block solid and coherent in it’s structure.

360’s and wing overs are a delight. It’s really an agile glider !
I will try also the Peak 21 in a week and will post my comments. And of course any updates about both will also be written.

Conclusion:
Beautiful handling, and brake authority, Top gliding performance in the D category, with comfort and accessibility.
Missed that IP6 weak thermal ability, but i’m sure that the Peak 4 will surely win many hearts as it’s impossible to be indifferent having this agility ;-)