Ozone Delta 4 MS & ML

OZONE Delta 4 ML and MS 

And here’s the new EN-C from Ozone.  I had two Delta 4 for testing. An ML that I flew at 101, with lots of ballast, and two pizzas, the MS size at 92 all up with just one ‘croissant’  ;-). 

Launching the ML and MS at their respective weights is pretty direct. Probably it rises slightly less than the D3, but nothing worth mentioning. Little lazy, no surge, a relatively moderate to launch C.

Usually, I fly smaller sizes, and when I fly the bigger ones or the Medium ones, I feel that they are too dampened compared to their little sisters…In-flight on the ML size, on a strong and turbulent day, my flying buddies were all over the place with hands going down and up, and wings getting tossed around, and I thought I was just sitting alone among that chaos, sipping a cup of tea!  Really…the Delta 4 in ML size at 101- 102 is super comfy to my taste! Not boring at all but solid, smooth, and super homogenous.  

The gliders that were around, were the Cure 2 M (75-95), the Flow Fusion M (85-105), and later the LM7, MS (75-95), and some other B’s. They seem to be doing some sports workout!  

Anyway, the brake authority on that ML size at my loads are super nice! I was amazed that this ML size would turn quite nicely! Used to feel that bigger sizes feel like bigger ships to turn, but no, that Delta 4 ML has a very nice coordinated and smooth turn, with very good agility. The climb rate is really impressive on the ML!  After many times, I felt that I had an edge over all the mentioned gliders in the air!  In weak, and especially in sudden thermals. The D4 shoots upward quickly. 

Doing some glides with the Cure 2 M, at trim, showed me after many attempts that theD4 ML has an edge at trim and a large edge at full bar!  Gliding next to the Fusion M  showed that the Fusion had a slightly faster trim speed, but when matching the Fusion trim speed, again, I felt that I had an edge at trim, and a large one at full bar! 

So it was preferable to see that ML size with the LM7 MS.  My friend flying the MS is a good pilot, and we glided over 10 KM, three times, with him pushing the bar all the time. On the Delta 4 ML, I could always be on his wingtip, with a slight edge for the Delta 4 ML in lifts! 

It was very impressive to see that easy to fly  D4 ML (6) aspect ratio, EN-C,  at full bar has nearly or similar glide angle as the LM7 size MS!  Many climbs and glides were made with the same results. I know the LM7 was a size smaller than the D4 ML. It was only to give an idea about the overall performance.

Ears are stable a bit if you don’t pull much. They lock if you pull them once slightly. Just like the Mantra 7 ones. Not really super-efficient, but ok.

Three days later, I received the Delta 4 MS size (75-95). 

Launching the Delta 4 MS, at 93 all up in very dry and turbulent air, showed me that there is a large difference in roll feedback with the bigger size. I couldn’t get a cup of tea, but able to talk on the phone 😊 . The roll movements are more present than the ML size, the pitch movement is still very stable. 

My friend on his Cure 2 M commented that the air was super rowdy and barely acceptable. The D4 MS was quite manageable with a high degree of comfort.  The structure is very homogenous and solid, especially  (if it is well loaded! ) 93 all up was ok.  

The handling and brake authority are much better to my liking now. The Delta 4 MS at 93 is an agile glider.  I could place it in that turbulent air exactly where I wanted after getting hammered with some instant powerful thermals that lasts two seconds…Getting through and inside those nasty narrow lifts was possible on the D4 MS.

Now comparing with the same sizes as the D4 MS ( 75-95).

Climbing next to my friend on his Cure 2 M (75-95), with the same loadings as mine now, showed me that in strong air and powerful thermals, the D4 climbs upward again, quite rapidly! At the end of that day, when thermals were very weak, they both could float next to each other, and it was super difficult to tell if either climbs better or float better. Anyway, my C comparison will be updated for those tiny details if needed. 

Doing some long glides next to the same Cure 2 M, (they have the same trim speed), showed me now that the D4 MS size has a slight edge in glide at trim and the difference is smaller than I got on the ML size.  

For instance, the difference at trim after a 5 km run is only around 5 m difference for the Delta 4 MS, but when we applied full bar, the difference became bigger for the Delta 4. 

The D4, MS has a good edge and an impressive glide angle at full speed.  Now at full speed for both, and overlapping the pulleys on the D4, I was getting slightly faster top speed. Probably around +1 km/h… 

Comparing the M7 size MS to the Delta 4 size MS is really interesting. The gap is super small! Like perhaps the edge for the M7 is found when low facing the sea breeze and getting those tricky thermals, the M7 will have a slight edge in surfing through the airmass. Saying that the Delta 4 in that particular difficult place with shine flawlessly among C’s. It cuts through like the M7 but slightly slower and tamer. It will take its time to dig through calmly. Ozone has strongly narrowed the gap between the Rush5, Delta 4, Mantra7!    

Racing the Delta 4 at full speed in turbulent air, and steering with the C risers is quite efficient, as I was able to clear most of the pitch and roll by the smooth and easy to steer C risers.  Like I said, with that easiness in flight, and performance at speed, the Delta 4 will give the pilots a clear edge in sports competitions. The C riser controls have a moderate pressure and linear response, with very good authority on the profile. 

Ears' behavior is similar to the ML size. If you pull a lot, they will try to re-open,  A little pull will get them stuck and stable, with a moderate decent rate. Wing overs are a delight! Get quickly upside down! 

Conclusion: 

I was super lucky after the corona lockdown to test fly some amazing gliders.

I also have to add that the Delta 4 MS has a more subtle feel, and a little bit more communicative than the Delta 3 MS in showing and sensing a little bit more the airmass. That characteristic is enhanced over the D3 and it’s a good move from the R&D department. 

For the C category, what impresses me the most is when a manufacturer works on a moderate aspect ratio glider, like 6.05 for the Delta 4 and achieves an impressively complete package of feel-able passive safety, high comfort in turbulence, superb agility, with a pleasurable feel,  top-end gliding performance and fast enough for the C category! 

I’ll keep those new gliders coming through to see what could be more possible, and will keep one Delta 4 MS size as the new C reference.  

Comparing the same sizes:  Mantra 7 MS  VS  Delta 4 MS, will give a tiny edge for overall performance to the M7, but I think Mantra 7 pilots must watch out carefully, Delta 4 pilots on full bar !!   ;-) 

UPDATE:Hi,

I made a small mistake earlier concerning the Delta 4 ears.
When pulling the separate A riser dedicated for ears, the pulling is moderate and the ears are small, a slight more pull will get the Delta 4 MS and ML to try to reopen, but…What I didn’t figure out in the first place, is that the issue to get efficiency for stable is ears is to pull more A-lines!
So reaching out high, and pulling a little bit more lines will get the ears to fold in and stays stable. Sometimes if you let go quickly the line it will open with a bang. So pulling more line in will get stable ears and a good option for the descent. And in this configuration, when releasing the ears, they will open progressively. The last 8 cells from each side, should be open by pilot input.
And I also tried 2 lines per side. Pulling those 2 lines will get very big ears and pushing the bar, resulted at minus 4-5 m/s, with steady ears! Care must be taken when opening them. It’s better NOT to apply brakes heavily from both sides for opening that configuration. Best to apply little brake on each side separately, in order to get a bigger open area.
So my mistake earlier because my lack of information…sorry
A video showing them will be published soon.
Cheers,
Ziad

.

SKYWALK Mint 75-95

SKYWALK Mint 75-95 

The Mint is Skywalk’s new 2-liner C-class glider with an aspect ratio of 6.4. The Mint looks very simple with nice and sturdy risers. There are no complications in the setup, just simple and clear. Skywalk uses the Dominico TX light which has a unique feel, is slippery on the touch, and less noisy when packed.

The Mint launches even in nil wind with easy rise. After 75,  it accelerates a bit as the leading edge takes charge, and the pilot must hold it with the brakes and initiate the takeoff. 

The brakes have a 10 cm gap, before there’s an action on the trailing edge, which is the normal gap for paragliders to be able to reach the top speed without braking, then only 5 cm are needed to steer that glider in moderate conditions! But the brake pressure is a bit hard comparing it to the Photon, Artik-R, and Volt. The authority on the brakes is imminent!  The turn is quickly induced by the brakes. I would say there’s no linear feel, but a direct one for sure. The pressure after the first neutral 10 cm becomes a bit hard or firm for some pilots who require that feel of solidity on the brakes. The feel is steady for the first 5 cm. The feel is direct rather than linear, but the brake authority is quite high.

Flying the Mint, I could put it in very narrow cores with imminent brake input, and there’s no way you could miss a thermal with that brake authority and glider obedience. The good thing is that there’s no pitch back at all, and also not any pitch forward. I think for moderate conditions, the Mint has a very neutral pitch behavior, but it felt quite efficient going into the valley breeze or into wind conditions. It felt that it goes forward quite nicely.  In difficult conditions when you need to get through the airmass, I think there’s a nice efficiency for the Mint to get through without bumping into it. But I think if flown at 95 all up at its max weight range, you will feel its good slipping through when you are low facing a valley breeze. You can fly it at 90 all up, but it wouldn’t be as efficient to slip through the heavy airmass as loaded at the top in those specific conditions. At max load, the mint still does climb very well even in weak. 

The first speed bar enhances even that glide into the wind, as it felt more solid, and also has better float ability. The controls on the B’s are really efficient and nice, much like the ones on the Artik-R.  The pressure is moderate, and it felt while on the bar, in turbulence when pulling on the B risers, the glider supports it well still very homogenous, and without too much loss of internal pressure. Overall a nice complete setup.

In turbulence, I think the Mint is very close to the Bonanza 3 overall comfort. +5 % more than B3. The Artik-R moves a bit more in turbulence and needs around 10 % more pilot control than the Mint. I think I gave you a good idea about its accessibility, but for sure, my (regularly updated) C comparison will give you a wider idea for pilots looking



for tiny details.  

It doesn’t have a pronounced roll feel but a moderate one.  

Climbing in weak thermals, showed me a very nice efficiency for the Mint even at 94 all up, and could be very close to the best climbing ones in the C category. The turning radius could be very tight, and to prevent the dive it is best to control the turn with the outside brake and keep the inside one locked. 

In climbing mode, it is difficult to miss a thermal. if the pilot learns well to keep it from diving into turns, by applying a balance of less brake pressure and weight shift, as much as possible to get quick but flat turns.  

Doing some glides next to a Volt 4, Artik-R, and Photon, at trim and at top speed, showed me that the overall gliding performance is very good for that category, and will update my C comparison for smaller details if needed…

The top speed of the mint is also similar to the Volt 4 top speed which is really good, and fast and still with a solid leading edge. 

Conclusion:

If you are a Cayenne 4 pilot, you will feel much better sail cohesion and much shorter brake travel under the Mint. If you are a Cayenne 5 pilot, you will get a more comfortable glider with very good agility in turns. If you have a Cayenne 6…Hurry and get the Mint, as it is a completely different glider in all aspects! It turns sharper, quicker, better overall gliding performance, and better climb in weak and strong. 

Compared to the already flown 2-liner C gliders, I found that it has a strong package for C pilots flying in strong conditions where you need a fast, agile, but comfortable glider to fly XC without getting tired under turbulence. 

GIN Bonanza 3 S (85-100)

GIN Bonanza 3  S  (85-100) 

The GIN Bonanza 3 is the 2023-25 new EN-C, 2- liner glider that replaces the Bonanza 2 which was a 3-liner with a 6.4 aspect ratio. 

The Bonanza 3 only has one A and one B. It is a pure 2-liner with a 6.3 aspect ratio and equipped with GIN’s new wave leading edge that was implemented on their CCC glider the Boomerang 12. 

GIN uses on the upper surface leading edge:  Myungjin MJ40 MF and Myungjin MJ32 MF and on the Lower surface: Porcher Skytex, 27 g/m².

The lines are a mix of:   8001 / 050 / 070 / 090 / 130 / 190 / 230 / 280 / 340  (unsheathed aramid)  

The overall construction and details are really nice with excellent workmanship. 

Launching:

The Bonanza 3 launches easily in nil wind and the rise is straightforward, without any hard point or delay. In stronger air above 20 km/h, it is also very easy to launch and quite manageable in correcting it if needed, and the take-off is very quick. 

I flew the Bonanza 3 from 94 to 97. In all those weights it will behave very taught and forgiving.  The B3 was flown in weak air to some stronger air, and finally, the feedback from my friends and I was unanimous by the easiness and high comfort of the Bonanza 3 in active air. It resembles the comfort of the Alpina 4 if any pilot had a run on it.  For a 2-liner it has similar comfort as to the Volt 4 with an even more coherent and solid structure. 

I found out the stall speed is very low as if the glider is telling you or informing you that you have a little more to hold…And in tight turns, when you apply a bit more brake impute into a turn, the Bonanza 3 informs you that you also have a margin before a spin! It is for me a new feel under that glider, and I can only say that the wave leading edge has something to do with that specific feel, never felt before on any other wing. 

The stall and spin will eventually happen, but there’s something that delays them if you listen carefully to the glider. 

 The turning behavior and brake travel feel exactly similar to the Bonanza 3 which was excellent, but without the excessive movements that were on the B3. The brake travel is short to moderate with a more forgiving length. The Bonanza 3 responds well to pilot input in all conditions, even in nasty ones, and the authority on the brakes is really high giving the pilot that extra feel of control in moving air. The brake could be described as, linear and responsive thought out the range. To give an example, it resembles the Alpina 4 brake response but with a more linear feel.  Overall it is quite agile.

The Bonanza 3 doesn’t have pitch behavior at all. no back pitch nor front. The roll also is very balanced without being dull or dynamic. That’s why it is so comfortable in thermals. In strong cores, the Bonanza 3 slows a bit before entering, slightly more than the Artik-R but climbs well when it enters. Some gliders surge through the thermals and climb going forward. The B3 is a calm glider in that matter.  Flying it at 100 could improve the faster entry in stronger air and windy days. But even at 95 all up, it climbs well in overall conditions. 

Climb rate:

One of the strongest points of the B3 is the climb in very weak thermals, as it showed me a very good float ability in those small thermals. I think it is as efficient as the LT2 in that matter, putting it among the top gliders' efficiency in weak thermals. 

It feels as if the B3 holds into the weak thermal and embraces it. 

Comfort:

Another strong point is the comfort level it offers. It could be probably that wave leading edge, that gives you a feel of a very secure and strong passive safety.

The difference over the Bonanza 2 other than the overall performance of climb and glide angle especially at speed, is the amazing comfort of that 2-liner C. 

Glide angle:

I did many glides with the Bonanza 3. glided with the Zeno 2, which I will immediately say that the Z2 is from another further level of glide efficiency. Of course, I am not comparing it to the Zeno 2! But it is just an idea to know.

I also did glide with the Artik-R same size and wing load, and also with the UP Trango-X also the same size as the B3 and the same load. The glide angle at the trim and at bar is very close to the new 2 liners like the Volt 4 for example. I will update my 2 liner C comparison for the little details. But as far so good for the overall package it offers. 

Ears:

Ears are doable with outer A’s, and also with outer B’s. In both cases, they are efficient and easy to use with a little more pressure if you use the A-lines. But with hands high and a bit more persistent, it will close well. The opening is sometimes without pilot intervention. 

Pleasure under the Bonanza 3:

The moderate brake pressure and brake structure offer very nice agility and authority on the brakes giving the pilot an enjoyable ‘cool’ experience under the B3 making it pleasurable to fly for that specific category.

Usability:

Please keep in mind that it is not a high-B glider…The Bonanza 3 is a 2-liner C model, for that specific targeted group of pilots. But it will require no more than a C pilot under it. 

For example, a Bonanza 2 pilot would find it easier to fly than his old model.  Pilots on low-rated B gliders would be better to get a season or two on their high Bs before going for the Bonanza 3 which is logical for a safe evolution. 

B steering:

The B steering on the B3 while stepping on your speed bar is a nice experience with that efficient tool to keep the glider overhead. The pressure is moderate and balanced without being hard or soft. Just what it takes to have long XCs without being tired. 

Speed:

The trim speed is close to the Artik-R. The top speed is very usable, with moderate pressure on the speed bar delivering around 12 km/h over trim at 1000 ASL with a solid leading edge. 

Conclusion:

Again, manufacturers are trying to deliver easy 2-liner C machines for newcomers to that class without being overwhelmed by excessive feedback. The Bonanza 3 follows that path with its pleasurable and comfortable feel.   An EN-C pilot would feel at home under it. 

NOTE: 

 Please remember the C class requirements:

EN-C Certified Paragliders are designed for intermediate pilots who possess good “active piloting” skills and are quite familiar with recovery techniques. The pilot must fully understand the implications of flying a glider with reduced passive safety. Pilots should possess an advanced rating or certification, and have logged HUNDREDS of flight hours in ALL conditions (especially thermic). An “SIV” or “Advanced Maneuvers” Clinic should be completed by pilots flying EN-C Paragliders.

AirDesign Volt 5 S

Airdesign

I’m not the only one who is noticing, I think...! Something is interesting at AIR-DESIGN. 

A cooler approach toward the pilots with their marketing ads and cool videos, funny and unique. They seem to cook magical recipes on their private planet.

All this shows highly creative teamwork. 

For example: They released the first certified 2 liner C category (Volt4) in Feb -2022 

They now released three new gliders B-C-D at the same time!!!  including the  Rise 4 EN-B (1st B glider with the new fashionable winglets)  and the 2nd generation of a 2-liner C glider the Volt 5! And last is the Hero 2 as a 2-liner D class. 

Indeed on a different planet! :-) 

This test is about the Volt 5. https://ad-gliders.com/project/volt-5-speedmachine/?lang=en

which is built with light Dominico double-coated 25 g/m2 fabric. The S size weighs around 3.75 kg. 

I flew the Volt 5 (80-92) from 87 to 92 all up. I think 90 is ideal in all conditions. 

Take-off is straightforward, no shooting forward. Very easy to launch. 

Flying the Volt 5 S with NK Arrow harness and later on the Advance Impress4 harness. 

From 90 to 92 all up, the Volt 5 has a neutral pitch when entering thermals. The reactions are smooth for a 2 liner C glider. The roll movements are also very well-balanced. Probably slightly more roll than the Volt 4 but still super comfy to fly.  The roll movements are less than the Photon, and the Trango X.  My C comparison is updated. The feel of structure homogeneity under it is between an Artik-R and Bonanza 3. 

The first turn in thermals showed me a very nice coordinated handling!  In strong turbulent air, it moves a bit more in itself (structure) like the Artik-R/Trango-X.  

 

The brake pressure is on the moderate to slightly firm side (more pressure than Photon) but with short travel to give you a lovely direct and linear reaction, that can quickly initiate a turn.  

Coring thermals is a pleasure under the VOLT 5 as I could readjust the turning radius efficiently inside a core to get the best out of a lift with the possibility of tight narrow turns. Lovely handling! 

When flying the Volt 5 at 87 in strong windy conditions, the handling remains nice, with direct handling, but a bit slower to react, and also the reactivity to turn the glider in those strong conditions. 

Later, I found out that at 90 all up, it would be a sharp tool for nice XC days yet very efficient even in the weakest thermals.

In very weak air, the Volt 5 has the ability to catch those tiny thermals, and with its direct handling, it would help a lot to stay in the core waiting for another thermal.

In this respect, the Volt 5 joins the best 2-liner C’s for the climb rate efficiency.

The speed bar pressure is on the moderate side. Not too light nor too heavy. While holding the speed bar, the B handles are efficient in keeping the glider on track. Top speed over trim is around +15-16 km/h

Doing some glides next to a loaded Photon MS sometimes in a headwind and in lift lines, showed us that the Volt 5 is a fierce competitor! 

In those glides, the Volt 5 showed an efficient profile while surfing the airmass. Next to the Photon, at trim speed and even at half the speed bar, it copes quite similarly to the Photon with the lift areas without losing the glide.  

We were surprised by its gliding efficiency.  The B steering has moderate pressure and it is efficient in keeping the Volt 5 angle in accelerated mode. 

Wingovers need slightly more application to build higher inversions. I think it seems to soften the turns which is a good sign of self-balance after collapse, I think…

Conclusion: 

AirDesign surprised me with the Volt 5! A truly competitive EN-C in climb and glide, while being comfortable, and smooth to fly. The handling and turning abilities deliver a pleasurable feel. 

An interesting 2-liner EN-C for test flying if you are looking inside that category. 

OZONE PHOTON ML

OZONE PHOTON ML 

Writing plain reviews, empty of small details, will not satisfy any more aware pilots out there, especially for those 2 liner C classes. That’s why, I will take time to explain every detail to the advanced pilots. It could be boring sometimes, but I really cannot write reviews as I’m doing a low B glider test… 

The new EN-C 2 liner from OZONE is already since 20 days in ML size. I am still waiting for the MS size to arrive hopefully next week. 

I have flown the ML size for some hours, from 100 all up to 104 all up, which is the maximum of ballast I wanted to carry.   

To begin with the construction, the PHOTON has exactly the same construction and details as the Zeno 2. In fact, if you see both gliders next to each other(pic attached) you cannot see the differences apart from the slightly wider shape of the Photon as its aspect ratio is 6.5 compared to 7.0 for the Zeno 2. 

The shape of the leading edge with the position openings is exactly the same as well the risers. For sure some internal structures and width or other things could differ, but the plain eyes cannot see those differences apart from the wider cord. 

Flying the Photon ML / X-Rated 6 at 100 and later at 104 all up, gave me a large idea and feel that I will share with you. 

The launching of the Photon in nil wind doesn’t need any for the C pilot. I usually don’t comment a lot about the launch of its normal, unless I see a hard point or something that requires a lot of effort in stronger air, but the Photon with its semi-light construction is easy to launch close enough to the Alpina 4. 

In strong breeze over 25 km/h, the PHOTON ML behaved quite gently for a C pilot and I didn’t find any dynamic reactions. Overall, easy to launch in all conditions.

 I had at the same time as the PHOTON testing, I had over here, the NK Artik-R, SOL LT2, GIN Bonanza 3, and UP Trango-X. (All one size smaller) 75-95—100.  This was for me a great way to give you more precise feedback especially since all were flown on the same harness but added some ballast for the Photon ML. Later I will mention the differences between the PHOTON MS and ML in handling, reactivity, and feel. Now I only have the ML. 

  One day it was windy, turbulent, and quite generous in thermals. So It was a good informative day to get a bigger idea of what to expect from the PHOTON  ML. I was flying it at 102 all up. 

First thermal the Photon ML didn’t have any pitch back or front at all. Felt like it was a calm glider in that matter and enters the lift with ease without any complicated pitch movements. 

The roll movements are also very comfortable similar like the Delta in MS size to be precise. Not really far from the Alpina 4, MS feedback If I remember correctly. Please consider that smaller sizes feedback is slightly more sensitive than larger ones.  So I think the PHOTON ML has probably 10 % more feedback than the Alpina 4 MS, which is really comfortable to fly! 

In all turbulence, the PHOTON ML felt quite tamed.

Now to give you a clearer explanation of what I felt, I will let you imagine flying an 18 sqm acro glider for a while, not smaller  ;-) and then switch to your regular C glider…Or perhaps…smoking a certain weed ;-) Everything looks slow around you. That is the slow-motion feel I got when I flew the PHOTON ML at 102 in relation to the airmass. 

It will fly OK at 100, but you will miss the point. 

Please consider that OZONE made the Photon for a purpose. And that purpose is not limited to a small local flight. It will surely perform very well…But IMHO, the PHOTON is a very well-engineered design carefully made for glide efficiency and you the pilot must ‘help’ extract those performances by loading it at 104-105 so that this special structure will show you its hidden magical efficiency to cut through and move forward like a top end 2 liner C !   You cannot perform on a race car with a semi deflated wheel!  :-)   That's the best way to describe it. 

Even in climbing mode, the Photon needs to move forward faster in the rising airmass. The climb rate of the PHOTON ML at 104 is still very good. In a weak climb, if it is flown at 100, it needs more time to get through but has no problem getting efficiently high. It’s just time and patience that are needed. 

For example, next to a Zeno 2 MS at 95, for one hour in thermals, I was always slower to dig through and the Zeno 2 was always two steps ahead higher, and in front. We tried again and again with the same results. For sure the Zeno 2 is another category, but just to tell you how it will behave at 100.  At 104 things got a lot better, I was able to ‘have’ a little more chance to keep up, especially in those long glides with lifts in between as the loaded Photon was moving forward better, especially at half or even at the full bar! And that is the strong point of that glider when you are using the speed system.  It moves forward through the lift and guts! While other gliders could get pinned or slowed. 

I also did lots of glides with all the new 2 liner C’s and saw that the ML size has a slight upper hand, in transitions, at full bar, but this gap was larger in difficult conditions, as the PHOTON ML was gliding on rails with a solid one-piece homogenous structure. I will hopefully try with a loaded Photon MS size as soon as it is available.  

The B steering has a moderate feel, very efficiently usable. While on bar, I was completely at ease and quite efficient to keep the glider stable with the B controls. I will update my C comparison for all the details after I fly the MS size.

Handling:

The PHOTON ML even at 104 could be considered as having moderate agility. The trailing edge reacts after 10 cm of gap. The brake travel is a bit long, But that glider flies at best, hands up and doing that, it could be steered with less and less brake input. So getting used to it, I could steer it with only 15 cm with weight shift after the gap without braking the outer side.  It turns flat and narrow sometimes.  

To get the first wing over you must insist on a weight shift. 

Ears with outer A’s are stable on the ML size at 102 and reopen with little pilot assistance. Ears with outer B’s are stable and reopen quickly. A good way to get down. 

Conclusion:

I will try the MS size, which I am used to flying from 90 to 95 which could be more dynamic a bit. But for now, these are my humble thoughts on the PHOTON ML.

The PHOTON ML is a very calm, easy, stable, and homogenous 2-liner C. The overall performance in glide is very good for that category. Much better than the Mantra 7especially at the speed bar and also racing upwind. That ML size was way easier to fly than my Light Mantra 7 MS, and closer to the Alpina 4 with probably around  +10 % max more pilot control. 

Will write my impressions on the MS when it will arrive.  

Ozone Delta 3 ML and MS

Ozone Delta 3 ML

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.

Will update my C comparison shortly.

Cheers,
Ziad. 

UP Summit XC 4

UP Summit XC 4 SM 

After my beloved Trango X-Race :-), here’s UP new B glider the Summit XC 4 in SM size.

I took a bit of time to write this test, but finally here it is.

The XC4 has a aspect ratio of 6.3 with an EN-B rating !

Honestly i wasn’t a fan of the XC3 SM when i test flew it…The overall performance and usability didn’t convince me at the time.

Today with the Summit XC 4 i took my time to explore it a little bit and finally managed to get a Carrera plus SM to complete my comparison.

Launching the Summit XC 4 is like any mild 6.3 aspect ratio glider. It’s easy to launch…Not like the 5.4 aspect ratio gliders…But it has a homogenous and straight launch.

Once airborne, the Summit XC 4 gave me the same brake feel as its bigger sister the X-race ! with a slight more forgiving and filtered feel. But the Summit XC4 strangely has the ‘same’ DNA ! 

With a medium brake pressure, the XC 4 has a moderate to good agility, A very nice coordinated feel, performance oriented turning radius. The movements of the air is transmitted through the brakes. Much like the X-race but slightly less feedback coming from the brake lines, and also more comfortable in turbulence than the higher aspect ratio Trango X-race.

I must say though that it does move around a bit in turbulent conditions for a high B glider.

The climb rate next to my reference glider showed me a very competitive climb rate in moderate conditions! 

In entering thermals the Summit XC4 SM at 95, have a neutral pitch behavior. 

In very weak stuff below 0.5 m/s i think my reference glider is still floatier, but with the Summit XC4 faster trim speed, it still has a moderate float ability in very weak stuff. 

The last day, i flew in some weird air, with turbulence, and really unpleasant. In those tricky conditions, the Summit XC4 showed a character and behavior of any moderate aspect ratio C glider (up to 6.5 AR). For sure it is not intended for those low B pilots coming to the higher B category. I could say rather that High B pilots with two seasons on their gliders would be welcomed on the XC4.

The Summit XC4 needs active piloting like the some higher aspect ratio B’s or some C’s. 

To be even more precise, the Summit XC4 needs slightly more active piloting than the Summit XC3. I already updated my B-comparison (see blog) to give you an idea of the overall XC4 placement inside the B category.  

Now i have tried to make some glide comparison with a Carrera plus SM (80-95) loaded at the max(95) , and i was 95 on the Summit XC4 SM ( 75-100). I was really curious to see how it will perform.

To both our surprises the XC4 came out really nice ! It is not that i wasn’t expecting it to be that good…but i wasn’t prepared to see and feel that improvement !

At first with the mentioned loads, the Summit XC4 has around 1.5 km/h more trim speed. And the glide was slightly better for the XC4…The glides were made in some difficult headwind conditions, and the Summit XC 4 surfed the air quite impressively. That does conclude that the XC4 with its B rating has now reached the top performers for the best glide/ efficiency ratio. 

The speed bar has a moderate pressure. The controls on the C risers have a moderate pressure, a bit less than the X-Race ones, and they are more usable in limiting the pitch of the glider in gliding through turbulent stuff when applying the bar. 

Ears are stable, and reopen easily.   

Conclusion:

B rating gliders goes to this delicate box…The Summit XC4 has been rated a B certification. Ok. That doesn’t mean that any “new comer” to this category will find that the 6.3 AR, Summit XC4 will suit him. 

The new comers to this category won’t be able to assimilate the benefits and the bags of performance plus the feedback the Summit XC4 has to deliver. Its like driving a two wheel bicycle for the first time. IMHO, i think this B rating should be understood as a psychological ‘peace of mind’ idea for those who already fly C gliders.  Or high B pilots having a full season in different conditions on their moderate aspect ratio glider, wants to upgrade to a higher aspect ratio glider, and don’t want to leave the B class, then the Summit XC4 is a very interesting tool to move forward on long XC’s with all the benefits a C class glider has to offer.