The Arcus is Swing 2017/2018 EN-B model with RAST system.
I was excited when I heard about that new technology and wanted to fly a glider with RAST, just to see how it feels. Here it is.
I flew the Arcus RS size S at 92 all up. First day, conditions were really good !With 1500 m gain above take off I could go anywhere, and stay as long as I wanted test flying the Arcus. And that’s what I did. In fact, I flew on the Arcus nice triangles that were previously done on higher rayed wings. Of course the conditions were exceptional, but I must say that I was feeling at first amused underneath the Arcus, because it was nicely and smoothly delivering !If i knew that before, i would have brought the cheese and wine ;-)
Take off in 10 km/h wind is really easy…I mean I could inflate the glider without touching the brakes. The Arcus inflates smoothly and it’s very controllable without any surges whatsoever.
Take off is immediate. After some thermal flying I was impressed by the amount of comfort the Arcus delivers ! I mean it’s really comfortable ! No pitch behavior, no useless movements, just the necessary super polite feedback coming from above. The glider feels very homogenous, and compact.
Now my favorite part (handling) was already fulfilled from the first turn with a large smile on my face! The Arcus brake pressure is moderate, Not too short, not too long, with no pressure points. It has a linear response with agile characteristics that enables the pilot to put the Arcus exactly and precisely into the thermal. This authority should be welcomed in higher rated B gliders… I was super happy in the air placing it inside any core.
Gliding the Arcus feels like on rails through bumps. The glide efficiency is really nice and could be placed easily with the best (mid) B gliders in the category.I think the climb rate is also very efficient for a low to mid B glider.
I don’t know if RAST gave this nice homogenous feel, and also that quick brake response and of course that easiness in flight…But there’s surely something new that was felt over here in overall stability.
I tried to make large asymmetric collapses, but the Arcus RS behaved like an A glider…No change in course, no issue in collapsing…Its like there’s no collapse.Big ears are doable and very stable, efficient with and without bar. They reopen smoothly and evenly by themselves.
I can put the Arcus in ease of use like the Epsilon 8 for example, and possibly easier…
The speed system has around 10 km/h over trim. Wing overs builds really well, and could be quite impressive !
Conclusion: Flying different gliders every day in the B,C, D category, I was happy test flying the Arcus RS. The overall handling, and the ability to steer the glider with very good precision into the core is really nice.
The overall comfort under the Arcus is high. In fact, I think, if this glider is flown in strong days, it will deliver a big comfort rate for the pilot.
PS: Please consider that other sizes and different load could lead to a different feel. Please fly your gliders at +70 % of their weight ranges if possible.
Dustoftheuniverse: What was the most challenging part in finishing the Queen 2?
Aljaz & Urban: For sure we spent a lot of time on it with some prototypes, not a lot because we analyse each proto a lot which helps us and its good, especially at the end when we stuck with the certification on one maneuver which was a stable spiral.And we learned quite a lot of things about this, and the behavior of the mechanics of flight, and we saw that there was a big influence coming from the harness also, but it was a hard summer :-) But now we are happy with the resultant for sure the performance and the potential of the wing, and i think it will bring the C category a bit higher.
DOTU: Did you manage to keep the same biting and feel through the air?
A&U: All our projects are finished when we are happy.It’s not important if its summer or winter, or even the year after, so we don’t focus on time rather than the result we are aiming for. As for the Queen , we are very satisfied with the last proto.
DOTU: When the Queen 2 will be released?
A&U: The SM size passed the tests on the top (99 kg) and the bottom weight, and we are waiting for load test, and we are also preparing production, and we are working now on the other sizes.
DOTU: Is the top speed limited by the certification?
A&U: We were only focusing on the spiral, and the top speed were nice and ok.
DOTU: What would be the optimum weight of the Queen 2?
A&U: 75 % is superb for the MS , and surely it depends on the other sizes and models. But as a basic knowledge its 75%.
DOTU: Does 777 have other new releases for 2018?
A&U: The first glider is the Queen 2, which is coming at first and in 2018 the light version of the Knight which is called K-Light which is also certified and finished, but launching it in 2018, and also some other little projects. And for sure the Queen 2 light which would be released immediately after finishing the normal Queen 2 sizes and actually will be named (Q-Light)
Rook 2 and King stays in production, and we are working on a single skin, and very promising, and this wing flies really nice !
DOTU: Any comments on Q-light construction ? lines, cloth..?
A&U: Lighter construction, and reinforcement inside the glider, risers, soft links.
DOTU: Any last word regarding the Queen 2 ?
A&U : As we said, we think that the Queen 2 will bring one step forward in real air performance regarding the C class, and getting near the D class of today’s 3 liner wings. Also with the speed.
We compared the glide with the King, and we think it’s a step further…especially in climb with a very competitive glide…
PHI Interview (Hannes Papesh)
DOTU: Dear Hannes, Do you consider PHI gliders a performance oriented company?
Hannes Papesh: Since many years, since the beginning i was always ‘performance oriented’ in my young designs, i think performances had always a big importance and i was always trying to build very reduced designs, i mean getting out anything that isn’t necessary.Very clear and straight forward designs to reach the goals.And we are also classical maneuver testers with our team, who are hard classical test pilots. And they were doing great attention to the hard maneuver testing, and may be that’s the reason maybe i never had safety problems with my designs.
Our handling may be slightly bad in the first days but the gliders were very well performing, but we learned, and with the Synphonia we also tried in different line lengths and reducing line lengths. We have now an elegant, agile glider and feels elegant in flight.
DOTU: What are the lines used on the Synphonia?
HP: There are quite conservative. So we have all the top and middle lines are uncovered 8000, and on the bottom there are 2 lines per side, with PPSL lines like the Rookie, Syntaxx…Ion 1 and 2.
DTOU: What about the structure inside the glide?
HP: At first it’s quite light, so the 22 has 4,5 kg and it’s using the 32 grammes cloth from Porcher all over which is quite expensive but this is one aspect of safety, so we didn’t want to reach the safety level of trimming it slow or doing some compromise, in performance and handling. We did a great work on the internal structure and we reduced the usage of the sticks (red nylon fibers)
and we were very lucky with the choice of the factory which is aerodynamics in Srilanka, because they have very nice kind sewing, as they can do very smooth seams, and the finish is really good.
And this is obviously one of the keys for performance gain.
DOTU: Will you make B + gliders soon?
HP: You know that my specialty is the high B gliders. With the Synphonia, i made a high performance A glider, now i’ll surely focus on this special class that i like. I have been unbeaten for 10 years, on the high B gliders, but i had no chance to compete for 5 years as i have been working with Advance, and i couldn’t do what i wanted to do, the Iota was not my wing, but now i have the chance to do what i wanted to built. But this time i’ll take my time to do a very special ’special’ B+ wing !But i cannot promise when it will be available…may be in spring, may be next year, in Autumn.
When we are sure that the Synphonia will be a wave…
DOTU: What about high aspect ratio for a B+ ? Are you for that?
HP: We have to be careful with the B class…Finally we have to tell was a mistake to limit the open class competition with a serial class guide…looking back we have etc say it was a mistake because we didn’t think it was possible to certify competition wing in the D class the whole D class destabilized then the C class destabilized, and it’s now slowly happening that the B class is destabilising because it got too wide…We have really safe and class matching wings and we have gliders that were a C gliders before, and now inside the B, so i think we have to be careful and not pushing too much, it was also an argument how to know it’s a low level or a high level, and sometimes you find a low level glider that is not a low level glider…the difference is huge. So with our B we have to be careful. We already have the first prototypes, and it’s too early to tell. We will make attention to the handling especially and we will take our time developing it.
DOTU: Are u considering 5 sizes?
HP: Yes sure…Our Synphonia has 5 sizes now.
DOTU: What about the optimal weight for PHI gliders?
HP: The PHI gliders can be flown at mid and low sometimes on the range. It depends on the wind, turbulence, but i have illustrated the weight ranges in the website in colors, so the deep green is the optimal weight for overall usage.
Remarks: I asked Hannes about the complex inner construction of the Phantom with it’s 99 cells, as when testing i felt it has that same feedback feel from the inner structure to the pilot like the Sigma 10 i have tested lately and commented that elasticity and coherence in turbulent thermals. Hannes answered that their inner structure is the same ! Advance and Nova are using his software which both gliders have this trumpet fingers designs. They are very light and the importance to use the materials where it is the most efficient. (Lots of technical details… :-) ) Nova named it ‘needle eye’ construction.
Well i think that this software is surely producing fine gliders…And for sure the R&D teams, and pilots behind that software are exploring it very professionally.
My last flight on a Skywalk D glider was on the Poison X-alps size S (70-90). The New Xalps 3 is the wing that have won the 2017 X-alps with Christian Maurer, and third place with Paul Guschlbauer. This new version was especially made for the X-alps with very light cloth and Dyneema risers. It’s the Hike and fly Skywalk latest competition wing. Taking off in light wind is easy on this 7 aspect ratio glider. I have the LM 6 in size MS (80-95) in order to compare the differences in behaviours and feeling under those gliders. With same loadings, (92 all up), the Xalps is +2 km/h faster at trim speed. At full bar it’s also 3 km/h faster. In turbulent and strong conditions, the Xalps 3 needs active piloting much like the Poison X-alps in size XS i had earlier. I found out that the Poison Xalps XS handling was slightly sharper, and i was more connected to the glider by the brakes. This may be because of the smaller size.
In light thermals (-0.2m/s) i found out that the LM6 has slightly more float ability , and can stay longer in those tiny lifts. In stronger thermals, and difficult conditions, the Xalps 3 is much more efficient. Adding a wind factor, the Xalps 3 moves forward efficiently. It has slightly more efficient performance than the Poison Xalps.
Now things were getting more serious when i activated half bar on the Xalps 3. It is fast and efficient wing for racing ! The LM6 is also a very nice glider, but racing near the Xalps 3 is a difficult task for the LM6. The Alps 3 keeps going forward in a fast glide efficiency.
I turbulent air, the overall comfort under the LM6 is quite high compared to the Xalps 3. In the same turbulent air, i needed more energy to control the Xalps 3.
In turbulent air, pushing the bar on the Xalps 3 is lighter than the LM6, but need more active piloting also. The C risers are very efficient, and can control the pitch movements quite fast. In fact at first bar the Xalps stiffens in pitch surging…but some slight roll movements are present depending on the conditions…
Ears with outer A’s have moderate stability. On bar they flap a bit. Ears with outer B’s is doable, stable.
Conclusion: A light competition race eficient wing for sure. Needs active piloting. The Dyneema risers are very small and the attachment points to the carabiners are 0.5 cm in width surely for weight reduction ! The brake handles are also very thin (0.4 cm) and better use with glove for comfortable hours in the air. This riser configuration is extreme, for the ultimate hike and fly competition pilot. Racing in windy and strong conditions is the Xalps 3 strong point. X-alps athletes has already flown that glider multiple hours and i hope they can comment much better on it's overall behavior. This is just a small idea for pilots who don't have the chance to test fly one.
I flew both the Rise 1 and 2. Here’s the Rise 3 from Air design. A high -end B with 5.95 AR and lots of design technologies from a Lightweight construction, to the Stabilo Winglets which are an interesting funny looking new feature, a Shark-Nose
and Vortex Holes on the extremities , Mini-Ribs, Race unsheathed lines but it looks not that skinny, and tough enough, Thin performance Risers with a C-Control System !
Everything is there to show that AD are aiming for performance at first…Lets see…
Launching the Rise 3 is very easy without any hang back or surge. The light material has its benefits in the launch characteristic.
I flew the glider from 85 to 92 all up, to discover that flying it near the top weight is really efficient.(90-92) on the S size.
At 90 all up, the Rise 3 S has a short, precise brake travel and could be described as fairly agile.
The pressure on the brakes are moderate for the 10-15 cm of brake travel that actually are needed to steer the glider in all thermals. After 15 cm the pressure are slightly on the heavy side.
While flying through mild turbulent air, there’s some wobbles and small yaw movements coming from the glider. I flew in the same air the Chili 4 XS size at 94 all up, to conclude finally that the Chili 4 XS move as a block compared to the Rise 3 S. After some flying hours, alternating the two gliders, the overall comfort is similar with a slight ‘shock absorbent’ feel to the rise 3 S that Air design i famous for. The chilli 4 XS has slightly more sharper reaction to strong thermal punches.
After some hours, i got used to those tiny wobbles that doesn’t amplify their energy when conditions got stronger. They are just here.
The overall piloting level is above the Rise 2 and is similar to the Chili 4 XS or the Mentor 5 XS.
Flying next to my reference B glider, the Chili 4 XS, i found out that the Rise 3 have an impressive climb rate ! After many attempts on the Rise 3 S (72-92) @ 90 with the Chili 4 XS (75-95) @ 93, i was convinced that this Rise S size climb has a slight edge ! I was really surprised about that, knowing that the Chili 4 XS is one of the most efficient climber on the B category.
At 90 all up, the Rise 3 S doesn’t have some annoying pitch behaviors, but rather an efficient nose to surf those thermals and climb, like any good high-B glider.
I noticed that every thermal is quickly converted into climb very efficiently. And the brake authority helps a lot by putting the Rise 3 S inside narrow cores, without any reluctant behavior of the leading edge to dig in. Sometimes i need to insist slightly to turn it inside the thermals, as it flattens out sometimes. It shows also the ability for a flat efficient turning behavior.
I must say that the Rise 3 S is a nice floater in the high B category ! Racing facing the Valley breeze is as efficient as on the Chili 4 XS !
At those weight load above, my friend and i made a few glide comparisons on an exceptional August day with high cloud bases!
Trim speed is similar and the glide at trim seems also identical !
At 5 km/h over trim, both glider are also inseparable in glide !
Pushing the full bar on the Rise 3 S at 90 all up, gave me a +14 km/h taken at 1300 ASL ! which is around 2-3 km/h over the Chili 4 XS.
Big ears are stable without using the speed bar, they slightly shake using the speed bar.
Conclusion:
The overall piloting level is not far from the mid aspect ratio B gliders, despite it’s 5.95 AR and i could say it’s an accessible high end B glider with a fairly good handling.
I think the lines used on the Rise 3 S, will not move that easy…They all are unsheathed, and slightly thicker than the contenders .
The Rise 3 in size S has those small wobbling movements, but they are very easy to get used to, and could be an advantage for the pilots who don’t like the ‘block feel’ above their heads.
Finally i can say that the Rise 3 has joined the circle of the top contenders in the high B category for it’s overall efficiency in climb and glide, and it’s certain that any pilot flying the Rise 3 won’t miss any performance whatsoever racing against the new 2017 Mentors and Chili’s !
It seems that Air design has worked very hard on the Rise 3! And it surely paid off !
Important notice: This comparison has been made with lots of accuracy and details, but please consider that other sizes, other weight load for the same tested glider can have a different impact on the result below. Some small sizes usually have a different feel, and different data. Also the bigger sizes will give you different feel in (brake tension, brake response, brake length,) not to mention the performance gain in 95 % of the cases. For instance an important factor in 2017/18 creations, is that manufacturers are working on the internal structures ,that may have a better cohesion and efficiency in turbulent air, BUT with the exact weight load ! Those gliders will have a large weight window to be flown, BUT they are mostly efficient in a smaller one ;-) ... Example : The Zeno SM goes from 80-100. The most accurate result will be to fly it from 96 till 98. The Sigma 10 size 23 weight range (80-100) but the best result is around 96-97. Of course it flyable at 90 but you will get pushed by strong thermals ! As you will if you fly a Zeno at 90 ! The Cayenne 5 XS is best flown at 92-93 for all conditions. If flown at 89, the internal structure will be unstable in strong air. Some probably think that ± 2-3 kg won't matter...But i say it surely does ! :-) S size 2 kg will matter, M size 3kg, L size 4-5 kg... Cheers, Ziad (PS: Many pilots cares for performance...But IMHO, my best gliders are the ones that gives me that magical handling feel like an extension to my arms ... in better words "Wings" :-)
The Aspen 6 is the 2017-18 C glider from Gradient. I have flown all the Aspens, and after the 5th version which has a slight yaw movement but very good glide ratio especially on top speed, here’s the Aspen 6 test in size 24. (70-90)
The take off for a 6.4 aspect ratio C glider at 90 all up, is moderate to easy. In the air, the Aspen 6 feels like you are flying a higher rated glider. At 90 all up it feels quite good.Not really overweight…I mean it’s exactly the weight it supposed to be .88 till 90…and could be nice at 92 also.
In turbulent air the Aspen 6 needs good active piloting for a C glider. It needs slightly more pilot control than a Cayenne 5.
The brake travel is moderate and on the light side. Much lighter than the Delta 3 and Sigma 10 i had for testing. The ability to turn the Aspen 6 is not as fast as turning the S10, Delta 3 or the Cayenne 5. The Aspen 6 needs a little input and more finesse to get a similar turn. But it could be described as ‘fairly agile’
The climb rate compared to a Delta 3 MS is very good ! I think after some flying side by side and swapping gliders, (Delta 3 MS at 94 and Aspen 6 24 at 90) The Aspen 6 showed a ‘slight’ better climb !
especially in weak conditions, where i could sense a float ability for the Aspen 6.Even in strong air, the climb rate of the Aspen 6 was very nice !
Getting both gliders for some gliding lines showed me after a while that the Aspen 6 24 is really keeping up…very close ! even at 5-7 km/h over trim.
Underneath the Aspen 6 the feeling is like you have a fine tuned 7 aspect ratio glider in a 6.4 aspect ratio glider…Well that’s the feeling… In turbulent air, there’s no annoying pitch movements. But some efficient ones. The Aspen 6 likes to dance a bit in turbulent air
… But much more comfortable than a Poison 3 XS for example. Similar to an LM6 S in feel, but with longer and lighter brakes …I’m trying to place it in order to give you an idea.
Big ears are stable and reopen on pilot action.
Conclusion: The Aspen legendary swift handling is unfortunately not available anymore as it was on the Aspen 1-2-3 ...That's the plain fact. But it seems Gradient is aiming for performance efficiency as main target with fair handling.
Indeed, the Aspen 6 like the Aspen 5, showed me a very efficient C glider in that category. It requires active piloting over the easy Sigma 10 or even the Delta 3. But a good pilot could…have a slight edge for efficiency. I didn’t tried the Aspen 6- 26 (i think it must be loaded at top +105 ) and could feel differently …Hope many pilots out-there will test fly it and report back.
Here’s the new Sigma…How times go fast…I still remember my flights on the Sigma 4, 19 years ago !!!! high above ‘Cheval blanc’ in Saint Andre…Conditions were rough! was a bit lost… heavy turbulence…Great memories ;-)
But that glider turned on a dime ! It was a dhv 2-3 at the time, and was pretty dynamic in frontals, but what a dream handling it had!
Back to the future now, with the Sigma 10 in size 25 ready to take off finally. As usual, the construction, the sewings, the finishing details of the Sigma 10 is similar to a Ferrari. Don’t expect less.
Launching the 6.1 aspect ratio Sigma 10 is smooth, easy, and without surprises. The take off is immediate.
First turn and my eyebrows are already lifted! The brake travel is very responsive, accurate, precise, direct, and linear. Much better progressive feel over the S9. I flew the Sigma 10 in different conditions, from the sea spots to the higher Cedars range, and i never felt anytime that it was reluctant to turn in any kind of thermic conditions. The Sigma 10 responded to my commands whenever i wanted regardless of what conditions is around. A super obedient glider and a pleasurable one to fly. It can be placed exactly where the pilots wants.
This excellent brake authority is coupled with a very well structured glider. Whatever it is…optimized Sliced Diagonals, 3D Diamond Shaping, C-Wires…I really don’t know, but i’m very sure that the internal structure of this Sigma 10 is super solid, super coherent, and very efficient in turbulent air. I didn’t noticed any wrinkles on that surface…It seems flawless…Or i could be getting old and needs glasses ;-)
i flew the Sigma 10 ,25 from 93 to 97 and it was the optimum weight for any kind of conditions. This coherent solid feel was always present like a guardian.
I also flew next to my reference glider in the C category, the Cayenne 5 XS at 92 all up. Doing many glides in active air together showed at first a similar glide at trim speed with a very slight edge in trim speed for the S10. The difference was more visual at 40 % of the Sigma 10, red marker. At that speed, with the Cayenne 5 XS matching it also, the Sigma 10 showed me a better glide by a small margin in calm air. In active turbulent air this margin was bigger. For me it was a first. Not one C glider before yet out-glided the cayenne 5.
Full speed on the Cayenne 5 with the Sigma 10 matching that speed, they showed same glide again. Now the Sigma 10 similarly loaded has +3km/h more top speed. Pushing that speed in front of the Cayenne 5 for a while and releasing it. When the Cayenne 5 reached the Sigma 10, they were again at the same level.
The best glide for the Sigma 10, size 25 is around 40 % over trim !
Climb rate in weak condition less than 0.5 m/s were slightly on the Cayenne 5 which seems slightly a bit floatier. As the thermal are more punchy and powerful, the Sigma 10 shoots quickly upward! It’s a 6.1 AR, but it does really go up very fast reaching the top of gaggles.
I noticed that each time the conditions were more turbulent, the Sigma 10, showed more it’s potential by cutting through and moving forward like no Sigma has done before. That’s why, i can confirm swiftly that this Sigma 10 is the best Sigma ever made when it comes to true performance!
Wait…That’s not all .. :-)
The Sigma 10 delivers a high comfort in active air ! This swift handling, the solid structure, will let the C pilot control it swiftly and accurately in active air. I can say any Good B pilot could easily upgrade on the Sigma 10 after two seasons on his glider. At it’s optimum weight load, this profile doesn’t pitch back in turbulence, neither forward. It just goes trough turbulence and move forward, letting it’s pilot comfortably relaxed. It’s an efficient glider in headwind or valley breeze, especially for 6.1 AR C glider. I’ll update my C comparison soon, but be prepared to see the Sigma 10 among the most comfortable ones.
There’s one more :-)
The Sigma 10 has one of the most efficient C controls a glider can have. It doesn’t react as a 2 liner, but really close :-) .
I mean this glider is much more stable than higher rated ones, therefore, when on bar, this efficient C control, will help a lot by reducing any surge movement in active air. So stepping on the pedal is very easy and accessible.
Big ears with outer A’s move slightly but i can say they are stable enough and reopen by a small dab on the brakes or sometimes calmly by themselves. Big ears pulling the B3 and the stabile line works well also, but it’s better for this method to push the bar before pulling them. They reopen swiftly!
Conclusion: Advance has done a marvelous job on this Sigma 10! They didn’t stretch the aspect ratio, keeping it simple and authentic as it should be. They worked hard on the inner structure and other details and they succeeded to deliver accessible ‘TOP’ performance in the C category. 1- 90% Comfortable, 2- 95% agile, 3- 90% efficient and usable top performance, plus fast enough for a C !
Happiness emerges from the most simple things in life. The Sigma 10 approaches that philosophy with excellence.
The Colt 2 construction seems very well done, with all unsheathed lines from top to bottom but with a moderate width if we want to compare it to the Cayenne 5 linewidth which has slightly more minimalistic lines. The color combinations are nice and the overall built quality from the lines, risers, cloth, finish is excellent.
Taking off is fine on the S at 90 all up. The brake travel is long. Too long to my liking… the leading edge began to react after 10 cm of brake travel, but the glider needs more than +30 cm to get in into turns ,especially in turbulent cores. Its difficult to get it as fast as you imagine, and that wasn’t really expected from a manufacturer that makes very good acro wings.
In strong small cores, i got sometimes pushed away and i needed to be more persistent to hook them up.
I can say that the Colt 2 S is a comfortable glider for the mid C category. But it could be even more comfortable if the pilot had more brake control, to place it when he wants in turbulence and turbulent thermals.
Going on glides next to a Cayenne 5 XS loaded at 94 all up gave me the impression that the Colt 2 has a moderate to good glide angle. Not really similar to the Cayenne 5, but close. I can say that the climb rate and also glide are very good for the ‘mid’ C category. The trim speed of the Colt 2 at 90 all up is 0.5 km/h less than the C5 XS at 94 all up.
Conclusion: I would wish that Dudek would be able to revise the brake geometry of the Colt 2 S, to be able to give it more authority on the brakes. Other than that, the Colt 2 S is a nice moderate C glider in comfort, climb, glide, and with very good manufacturing details.
Back positioning system (Shark nose) , 5.4 aspect ratio, 3.8 AR projected. If you hold and look only at the lines and risers, you think you are on the 777 King. Unsheathed lines on top and regular on the lower part with exactly the same width! Impressive.
Triple seven messages are clear…at first sight, performance is ‘one’ important target.
The overall construction of the knight is super neat.
I flew the Knight SM at 93 all up in some turbulent air and strong conditions in our Cedars range.
Launching the Knight in nil wind is smooth and super easy. In strong wind, a dab on the brakes when the knight is above the pilot’s head will be better to control it overhead.
In the air, the Knight overall movements in pitch and roll weather in moderate or strong air, are super smooth and very well coordinated! It feels exactly like a low B in dampening feel with this exquisite little spice, which let the pilot, feels every movement of the air smoothly and very accurately!
I didn’t feel at any time that ‘dull’ feel found usually on the low B gliders…Instead the Knight delivers a very comfortable feel no matter how rough conditions are, with this little touch of magic, that informs the pilot about what’s going on in the air in a super smooth way!
Now my favorite part.
The Knight can be steered by a small amount on the brakes. I can describe the authority on the brakes as moderate to short, linear, precise, direct, agile…And I LOVE it! For a low B the Knight has the ‘dream handling’ Thermalling with the Knight is a real pleasure…I could control the turning radius by little precise brake inputs. Tight turns or large turns without that ‘common dive’ usually found on the low B’s. The turning radius on the Knight is very efficient. Flat turns can be made to optimize the climb in weak thermals. The knight has much better agility and more brake authority than the Rook 2 for example.
Trying to stall the Knight is difficult with hands lower than the seat board and lots of pressure. It’s really difficult to reach the stalling point.
Efficiency in an important word in the paragliding world. Creating efficient gliders in their respective categories is the most difficult part. The Knight cuts through the air-mass without any pitch back, or even a pitch forward. It just cut through peacefully, efficiently, like any good B glider would do. I didn’t feel at any time that I was being pushed away or bumping into the air-mass. The Knight was delivering a smooth efficient ride through the air.
The knight climb rate is on par with the best B’s available today, even the higher rated ones!
The overall glide performance is right on top of the low B category, and could reach some higher rated B glider easily.
The Rook 2 has the edge in the top speed glide.
The difference between the Tequila 4 that I liked, and the Knight is the extra comfort and smoothness in flight the Knight delivers with very close authority on the brakes, without the dive in turns.
The speed bar is easy to use with moderate pressure. The knight SM has a long speed bar travel, and when the pulleys are overlapping, I could see a 12 km/h over trim taken at 2800 ASL.
At bar, +8 km/h over trim is usable in all conditions.
Big ears are stable and reopen by the pilot input. They are efficient in descent rate.
Induced asymmetric are easy to countersteer and reopen quickly. Full induced frontal makes a ‘rosette’ but a little dab on the brakes and it opens as fast as lightning.
Conclusion: IMHO, Triple Seven has created a ‘master piece’ for the low B category. The impressive cocktail of climb, glide, handling, comfort, ease of use, authority on the brakes, efficiency, is very rare to be found on a low B glider on the market today.
Written words on papers remain sleeping words…But I'm sure that the experience in ‘test flying’ the Knight will wake you up ;-)
The Elan 2 is Mac Para new 2017 C glider. The leading edge has a shark nose, lower lines are sheathed, and the upper galleries are unsheathed. Again it seems that with the Eden 6 , Mac Para glider construction is being enhanced and quite neat. The leading edge looks very taught and its shape looks very clean.
Launching the Elan 2 is easy for a C pilot. When pulling the A’s there’s no hanging back and no surging forward.
I flew the Elan 2 26 at 99 all up with an X-rated 6 harness. The brake travel can be described as moderate to precise in the first part. 15 to 20 cm can steer the glider easily. Inducing turns inside thermals shows a fair agility for the Elan 2 ,and could be similar to the Elan 1 26 i test flew 2,5 years ago.
I also flew the Elan 2 24 at 89 all up with a Forza harness. The 24 can be steered with only 10 cm having a moderate pressure. The handling and the way to turn the 24 is really nice. Much better than the 26 with quicker brake authority as usually seen on smaller gliders. At +15 cm and beyond, of brake travel, the Elan 2 has a slightly harder brake travel and its only used to control pitch movements.
This new construction showed me a super strong leading edge. The feeling underneath is quite tamed. The leading edge felt like a solid structure above my head. I tried many times to pull the A’s on the 26, in order to induce frontals, and it was indeed a difficult task ! They need a super hard pull to get the leading edge into a collapse.
In very weak conditions, with thermals less than 0.3 m/s this tamed feeling, erases the feel of hooking those tiny lifts. Exactly like the Delta 3 ML feeling.
In stronger thermals, the Elan 2 26 hooks nicely, a neutral pitch in smooth thermals and a slight pitch back in turbulent ones. In overall thermal flying, the Elan 2 26 seems an easy and tamed C glider. A pilot on the Elan 1, won’t need any upgrade in pilot level, if he goes to the Elan 2 26. I also think that a good pilot on an Eden 6 ,will fly the Elan 2 26 easily. That’s the first strong point of the Elan 2 26.
The Elan 2 24 is more dynamic. I think i can place it in the middle of the C category ,not for its comfort which is still superb! but for its dynamic handling and energy retention.
The way to steer the 24 can be described as precise, nimble and agile. I also felt something strange…Yet i was on top weight of the 24, i felt weak thermals better than being 98 on the 26. The leading edge breathes slightly better and floats well.
Yet again on the 24 at 88 all up, i felt that sometimes in tricky conditions, i had some difficulty in sliding through the airmass with a pitch back at times that slows the ability to surf upward.
Both gliders have some vibration through the risers in turbulent conditions. Felt more on the 24.
I still think that the Elan 2 26 and 24 are indeed very comfortable gliders, probably slightly more piloting needed than the Elan 1, with lots of performance for the middle C category with only 6.2 aspect ratio.
Now the second strong point of the Elan 2 26 and 24 is the trim and top speed !
Flying the Elan 2 26 next to a Cayenne 5 XS which is already known for its fast trim, (similarly loaded ) showed me an impressive +2 km/h trim speed for the Elan 2 26 over the C5 ! !
Many glide attempts in calm air, showed me that the trim speed is faster + 2 km/h and the top speed is also faster by + 2 to 3 km/h similarly loaded !
The Elan 2 is trimmed fast ! That’s why in those small weak thermals -0.3 m/s a pilot needs lots of concentration to feel and hook them.
The glide angle ‘in calm air’ could be ‘super’ close to the best C gliders available today. It’s in turbulent conditions and facing a valley breeze, that sometimes i felt that the leading edge is reluctant to surf efficiently the airmass in order to move forward. Nevertheless, it remains among the top 5, (C rated) gliders in glide efficiency. I’ll update my C comparison soon for little more details .
Induced asymmetric on the 26 are easy to maintain with a direct flight and reopen quickly. Big ears are stable at trim speed. With lots of bar, they slightly shake. They do not reopen by themselves. A dab on the brakes needed to reopen them quickly.
Induced asymmetric on the 24 are slightly more dynamic but easy to maintain a straight direction. Big ears are stable, both at trim and accelerated. They do not open by themselves and need pilot input.
The speed bar has a moderate pressure and the leading edge is still solid at bar.
The glide angle at full bar is also very competitive to place the Elan 2 26 and 24 among the 3 top gliders of the moderate aspect ratio 2017, C category.
pushing the bar is usable with a very solid leading edge at least at 85 % of the travel.
*The pluses : + Comfort on the 24 and 26 , + speed on the 24 and 26 , + handling on the 24.
*The average plus: Handling on the 26 (probably needs more weight to reach 102)
*What i would wished for: More leading edge efficiency in cutting through the airmass.
Conclusion: The Elan 2 26 could be one of the most easy to fly C glider. Easier and more tamed than the Delta 3 ML. It’s better to fly it at the top weight in order to diminish as best as possible the pitch back in entry. The climb rate in weak is ok which is close to the Delta 3 ML i have tested earlier. The trim speed is very good for ridge flying, and the top speed for fast transitions.
The size 26 could be a nice C glider for B pilots going into that category for the first time.
Ozone has finally released their Delta 3 certifying it as a C glider without collapse line. The glider stays as the older version with 6 aspect ratio, with all unsheathed lines .
Launching the ML at 100 all up, showed a very easy inflation without any hang back or surge.
I’ll try to show in the following test the difference between the Delta 2 ML and the new Delta 3 ML with some reference C gliders. In June I’ll receive the MS and will hopefully comment on it.
In the air, the Delta 3 ML feels more comfortable to fly than the D2 ML . The structure feels very taught and compact overhead. The handling and the way to turn the glider is also improved on the Delta 3 ML but there a little bit of less feedback through the risers. The brake travel could be described as a bit medium to hard in pressure and moderate to short in reaction. The pilot has a nice authority on the brakes with fair precision and good agility. The pressure is slightly heavier and slightly less linear if i want to compare it to the Rush 4 for example.
The Delta 3 ML was tested for four consecutive days, in turbulent choppy conditions and sometimes ‘spaghetti’ style conditions. I flew also next to the Delta 3 ML with a Cayenne 5 XS (80-95) and a Trango X-Race MS (80-100) in order to place and see the Delta 3 potential in terms of comfort, efficiency, and overall performance.
In turbulent conditions, the Delta 3 ML showed me a high degree of comfort in turbulent air. I think this glider is built to give maximum comfort for the C category pilots. I can place it easily near the Sigma 8,9 and the Elan 1 in terms of comfort feel. In strong thermals the Delta 3 needs control as a moderate C glider. The sharp surges and movements that were in the Delta 2 are now gone, and replaced with a ‘smooth’ glider that pulls into thermals in a soft way even in strong ones. Usually some reference C gliders has some pitch movements before entering rough thermals. The profile used on the Delta 3 is one of the most efficient one for its ability to ‘slide’ into the airmass quite efficiently. And that’s the strongest point on the Delta 3.
Climb rate in very weak ‘smooth’ thermals was the Delta 2 strong point. i still remember the leading edge biting through those tiny lifts especially on the MS size. The Delta 3 leading edge is tamer on those super weak thermals (+0.2 m/s) With little information through to feel that surge. I can say that an LM6 or a Delta 2 similarly loaded could be slightly floatier in those tiny thermals. The Delta 3 will hover a bit in the same position waiting for that (+0.4 m/s) to hook in and climb rapidly.
Now, in difficult and turbulent conditions climbs on the Delta 3 are clearly seen as the D3 goes upward on every bubble ! The ability to cut through rough air and climb efficiently is as i described above clearly showed on the Delta 3. The leading edge doesn’t pitch back at all, and it doesn’t have a neutral pitch either. It has a very slight smooth pull into thermals, even in rough ones with an excellent comfort underneath and a very efficient climb.
Glide in calm air and in moving air : Doing some glides ‘in calm air’ with the Delta 3 ML loaded at 105 next to a Mentor 5 S, Cayenne XS, Trango X-race gave me the following result. The Delta 3 ML has a very slight edge or the same glide angle at trim as the Cayenne 5 XS. (I don’t have a Cayenne M available). The Cayenne 5 XS loaded at 94 at 800 ASL, is now at full speed. Next to it the Delta 3 ML at 105 has a better glide angle probably (±0.3 ) in L/D at the same speed. The Delta 3 ML has more 4 cm pull to reach its top speed which showed me afterward a 16 km/h over trim. The pressure is similar to the Delta 2 and the top speed is fully usable. In turbulent air its easy to control the glider by the C risers. It’s not a Zeno in that matter, and the leading edge at full bar isn’t also as solid as the Zeno one. Back off 3 cm of travel, and surf turbulent air in a super cool mode !
Glide in moving conditions, showed me many times the Delta 3 ML ability to surfs the air efficiently and move upward. I’m totally convinced that the Delta 3 will be a strong tool to race on ridges going on long XC days. For example gliding next with a Mentor 5 showed a similar glide angle on the same line staying super close. But when the conditions are moving with lifts, the Delta 3 began to surf upward even though i was very close behind on the same line. Of course , the M5 is a B, but i’m just trying to show when those differences occurs.
The Trango X-race is much more demanding fly, and also has slightly more overall glide and climb performance. The advantage the Delta 3 has is the ability to turn quickly into strong small bubbles that the Trango X-race would need slightly more time to settle in before going on a turn. Surges are converted quicker into climb on the D3.
I just wished that the delta 3 had that subtle and linear handling found on the Trango -X-race, but the Delta 3 just turn on command. The difference between the Delta 2 M and the Delta 2 MS in handling was noticeable. So i’m waiting for the Delta 3 MS size to see what it will feel like.
Ears are stable ,but don’t open by themselves.They need a good pilot input to re-open them.
Induced asymmetric collapses are a child play ! Holding the A riser i could easily fly to the other side just by pulling 5 cm of brakes or even turning my head …When the glider is half closed, the sink doesn’t increase much…
Conclusion: In keeping the aspect ratio of 6.0, It was clear enough that Ozone wanted to offer a comfortable, easy to use, efficient XC glider. The new profile used on the Delta 3 works well in turbulent conditions. The overall gliding performance is slightly increased over the Alpina 2 but more when using the bar. The quality of efficient flying is well improved, letting the pilot concentrate on the scenery, task, and their XC routes.
UPDATE for the Delta 3 MS Ozone Delta 3 (size MS)
The Delta 2 MS was one of few gliders that I really appreciated it’s feel able brake authority, and the precision and maneuverability. I could feel every movement in the air and it was indeed a superb glider. Now I have the Delta 3 in MS size that I flew in different conditions among some rough ones in our Cedars range.
In weak conditions, I flew the Delta 3 Ms at 90 all up, and I could sense quite nicely some weak thermals, and was able to hook them up without missing much. The feel under the Delta 3 “in weak conditions” is more tamed than the Delta 2 one. I needed much more effort to feel those tiny bits of lift as the Delta 2 MS gave me more sensitivity in order to hook them up.
I felt that the Delta 2 MS and the Cayenne 5 XS still have that slight floatability in very weak conditions. (Less than 0.2 m/s)
In strong conditions the Delta 3 MS needs more active piloting than the Delta 2 MS. It’s a bit more dynamic and needs more pilot control but feels more as a solid block. For example the Delta 3 MS needs less active piloting than a Trango X-race, and more pilot control than a Sigma 10, and could be close to a Cayenne 5 to control but the 6 aspect ratio Delta 3 feels more compact with a solid homogenous structure and the pilot can control it easier.
I felt that after 2 hours in strong air, my hands felt the pressure on the brakes that were slightly on the hard side at 94 all up.
My only wish was to keep the feel on the brakes that were on the Delta 2… as I always look for a glider that becomes one with the pilot. For every pulled centimeter, the glider reacts letting the “human with feathers” underneath ☺ evolve to a true bird of the air! The Delta 3 is close…but I’m picky as you already know…and for my personal feel could be slightly better.
The Delta 3 turns very well on a dime! It’s a maneuverable glider, and every strong core can be tight cored to the max.
I felt that the strongest point of the Delta 3 MS is on difficult and windy glides, where I could feel that this structure is moving forward cutting through the air mass. Flying the Delta 3 MS feels very efficient for XC. I think the new generation C’s like the Sigma 10 and the Delta 3 has this further “step ahead” potential for a moderate aspect ratio C. They surely have the edge when it comes to gliding in turbulent air.
Pushing the bar on the Delta 3 is indeed very interesting. The glide at speed is superb and the speed is very usable in turbulent air, at least +10 km/h over trim! At full bar I could see + 17 km/h at 94 all up. Altitude 2500 m ASL. I’m sure that this machine can really collect some serious XC achievements.
The Arcus is Swing 2017/2018 EN-B model with RAST system.
