SOL X-Light 2 (Harness) Size L

SOL X-Light 2 size L (Harness)

After test flying some light harnesses with and without seat board, here’s the X-light 2 from SOL with a good solid seat board. The construction seems good, and much better than previous Sol harnesses. The pod looks like the 720 gr of the Forza (to give you an idea) 

The straps on the pod will keep it firmly closed. The cockpit is bit small (Like Ozium 2 one) but is very well placed at a good visual angle, and with a secure system in the back to keep your instruments locked at one angle without moving. 

Test flying harnesses is even more difficult than test flying wings. Our body shapes differs a lot ! From long legs…to wide, larger bodies..or slimmer ones…there’s a big gap in measurements, yet only 3-4 sizes for any harness for all manufacturers, which are especially focused on pilots height. That’s why, some little adjustments ‘if possible’ are always needed to fit our bodies exactly into a certain harness for longer and more comfortable flights. 

The SOL X-light 2 in size L was perfect for my 1-81 cm and 73 kg. But i had to do lots those small but easy changes to make it super comfortable for my body shape ! 

Bear with me those uncomplicated small changes, and read the conclusion further down  :-)

The seat-board was very large ! I did of course cut the seat-board to reach 34 cm in width. It did fit nicely without putting any pressure on the lower back protection. The sitting pad on top of the seat-board is really thin and was quite stiff for a thin pilot… Adding a small padding 25cm X 30 cm of an old sport mattress (1 cm thick) underneath was optimum !  Actually i paste it on the upper part of the seat board. 

If you have a seat board with a front leaning down edge, that would be optimum. 

The original attachment points of the pod were connected in two places. From the seat board till the front lower foot rest. From the carabiners till the upper front foot rest.

I added a line from the carabiners to the lower foot rest from each side.  (Very easy to do)

After those changes and fine tuning of the actual different back adjustment straps, the conclusion was that this is the first “seat-board” harness with my feet in straight position ‘completely supported’  with no pressure on the legs!  And the pod had a clean degree of inclination into the airflow, for the best gliding position. 

If i wanted to give a rating for back comfort and considering the Impress 3, Forza with a 8/10 rating, i would give the X-light 2  a 7/10.  

The harness delivers medium roll response, similar to the Genie lite 2 and slightly less than the Lightness 2. There are adjustment on the ABS system, for tightening if the pilot wishes. On the standard adjustment it feels quite nice and agile in delivering a precise ,neat turning radius with good weight shifting capabilities. I cannot say that this is the most stable harness in roll, like the Exoceat, or even the X-rated 6, GTO, but it’s slightly more stable than the Lightness2, Impress 3 ! 

One thing: I would have wished for a more stiffer material in the back support area from the lumber till the shoulders, which could keep the harness as a little more solid piece, like the Impress 3, lightness 2, Forza.

The X-light2 back would slightly move down by a cm. even if the shoulder straps are well adjusted.

Conclusion: After my small adjustments, I liked that harness. It has a nice roll feedback, comfortable enough on the seating position, very small packing ability, weights around 4 kg, ability to place a beamer easily, and all the features with a large place for 5 kg water ballast underneath the seat, good storage area, camel back, water release system, adjustable ABS.

PHI Synphonia EN-A

PHI Synphonia 22 

PHI is the new brand of the well known and leading designer Hannes Papesh. The Synphonia is the first PHI glider to be released with an A certification. 

I purchased the size 22 which goes from 75 to 95 all up and here what i found. 

The construction of the Synphonia is very neat. The materials used are the latest in terms of technology from the cloth, lines to the sporty risers. 

The Synphonia has a relatively light cloth, with modern thin lines and simple configuration. It is quite similar to the lines used on the Mentor 5 series. 

A little pull on the A’s and the Synphonia launches gently and quite easy. No hard points. It just sits above the pits head. 

First turn showed me an agile nature for an A glider. The brake pressure are on the moderate side, and the agility at 93 is quite remarkable ! A little pull will goes into a nice turn in the thermals with very good precision for an A glider, and even if we compare it to the high B’s in terms of brake response and agility. Coring thermal feels like spinning positively, much like a kids Top ! 

Flying the Synphonia felt a bit like flying some low B gliders in terms of pilot level, but the roll movements and comfort resembles gliders in the low to mid category in terms of thermal feedback. 

Gliding with the Synphonia in super calm air, with no head wind whatsoever, showed me a very nice and interesting glide ratio. Even at bar the glider has a interesting flat polar. At full bar there’s a 7-8 km/h increase in speed over trim at max load. 

Now facing the wind and gliding in difficult conditions, at trim or at full bar, the Synphonia will behave and perform similarly to some low B gliders in terms of efficiency and gliding performance. 

Flying it against a valley breeze and hoping to slip through and dig forward efficiently like B category gliders is a bit optimistic on an A glider. The upper B category is designed to surf forward more efficiently. Beside…it’s an A certified glider and i certainly don’t want to compare it to the Mentor series…But it’s just to explain my founding as better as i can… 

But for an A it’s surely one of the top performer. 

Flying it at max weight (+95) could be more beneficial and better to get the leading edge moving more into wind… 

The climb rate in weak and strong conditions even loaded near the top is very good for that kind of glider ! The Synphonia can really climb very well, and could be among the highest gliders in a gaggle even among some high B’s. 

Conclusion: PHI gliders philosophy is well shown on the Synphonia and the message is clear and direct. The designer delivered a very nice construction with a fairly good touch of performance, especially for an A certified machine ! All that with a nice pleasurable handling and an efficient climb rate ! 

Now I’m keen to look out for Hannes specialty…the B class ! The future seems hopefully bright… 

Cheers, 

Ziad 

Ozone Alpina 3 MS

OZONE Alpina 3  MS size 

After test flying the Delta 3 in MS and ML size, here’s the Alpina 3 MS test flight, loaded from 92 to 94 all up. 

First impression, got when flying it, was as if i was flying the Delta 3 MS. I wrote that hastily, on the forum. 

But flying the Alpina 3 more and more, i saw some slight differences in handling that were felt on longer flights.

The launch ability is slightly enhanced over the D3, due to the light cloth. In the air the brake pressure are also lighter on the Alpina 3 and i could turn the glider quite precisely, with very little pressure with only 2 cm of brake distance ! 

The overall feel (feedback) under the Alpina 3 is very close to the Delta 3 with a bit more, positive comfortable feedback coming from the glider. 

After some flying hours, my hands were not tired on the Alpina 3 as they were on the Delta 3. With little less pressure, the Alpina 3 could be steered with very little effort.

The overall gliding performance in multiple conditions are exactly the same, like the Delta 3 MS. Even the climb rate in weak and strong. 

The difference between the Cayenne 5 XS and the Alpina 3 MS in entering thermals is that the C5 will have some pitch movements before entering while the Alpina 3 just enters without any movements in moderate conditions. It just slips though and climbs quickly. In very weak stuff, the pilot must focus twice more to feel the movements of the glider inside the weak lift. 

The handling and the way the glider talks to the pilot in thermal conditions, are more pronounced on the cayenne 5 while the Alpina 3 is 50 % tamer.

Applying the bar is smooth as the Delta 3 and very efficient, especially into-wind transitions ! 

Loading the MS from 92 to 94…95 seems optimum for this design.  

Ears are stable and with the bar it’s an efficient way to get down without flapping ears ! 

Wing overs could be very high…Lots of pressure inside the glider. 

Holding a 60 % asymmetric without brake counter-steering, the Alpina 3 MS turns gently toward the open side ! Which is quite nice ! 

Conclusion: The Alpina 3 MS design seem to give the pilot a comfortable feedback, with the optimum gliding performance especially at bar. All that with a very nice handling characteristics. 

Ears are stable and very efficient at bar.  The big difference between the Alpina 2 and Alpina 3 is gliding in difficult conditions and headwind where the A3 will be much more efficient especially at bar. 

True performance in active air !

In today’s C class, the Sigma 10, Queen 2, Delta 3 are really very efficient and competitive !  

The Alpina 3 offers also that exact top package with agile character.  Comfortable, easy to fly, top end gliding performance, very good climbing in thermals, good in weak conditions, agile, more precise in steering than the D3 and slightly lighter in pressure.  

The MS size suits my total flying weight of 93 with an 8 kg X-rated 6 harness and no added ballast, so I think I’ll keep it for now as the new reference in glide for the C category. 

ALPINA 3 S size.

Now i test flew the S size 65-85 at 85 all up.  The minimum weight i can get in winter…I flew the Alpina 3 S size with an Ozium 2 M.

Take off is immediate without any hard point or surge…Easy to get airborne. 

First contact on the brakes and quickly super satisfied ! …Swift, super direct, linear handling ! I could place the Alpina 3 S size perfectly inside any core. The pressure on the brakes are moderate to light, but very reactive.  The Alpina 3 S size has one of the most beautiful turning ability !! 

Flying the A3 MS size at 94, which is near the max, and flying the A3 S size at 85 which is at top also , is another experience !

The A3 S size feels more alive in active air, but still very coherent and taught.  

The handling is even more linear and very responsive in small narrow cores.  I really enjoyed the Alpina 3 S size in all thermal conditions. 

For a small glider, It does in fact has  the ability to get most of the lift especially into wind thermals, and would not bounce at any thermal whatsoever ! It just cut through very efficiently and climbs really well ! like the new generation of C gliders. 

 I think that’s a first with small gliders ! Usually they are trimmed a bit weird…to pass the certification. But that’s not the case of the Alpina 3 S size. It seems that the R& D team delivered a super nice and very competitive (into-wind) thermalling and gliding machine. 

The trim speed at max weight is less by 0.5 km/h than an Alpina 3 MS or a Delta 3 MS similarly loaded. 

The glide at trim and accelerated is really good like the MS size with slightly less  around 0.1 in L/D (Reynolds numbers). 

Ears are stable and reopen upon activating the brakes. 

Conclusion: A really powerful, very efficient, XC machine. The Alpina 3 S size will surely be appreciated for pilots who are looking for a sharp, agile, beautiful handling glider ! 

Triple Seven Queen 2 SM

Triple Seven Queen 2 SM 

Finally the long awaited Queen replacement arrived. Triple Seven offers the Queen 2 with an aspect ratio of 6.3 combined with very reduced line diameter and a very pointed shark nose. The cell openings are rather small. The attachement points on the A’s seems further back, and the certification is into the C box.

Launching the Queen 2 in size SM in nil wind need a steady input as it inflates moderately overhead. The rise is moderate and fairly ok for a C certified glider. 

I flew the Queen 2 from 96 to 99 ,to find out that the best weight is around 98-99 on the SM in moderate conditions.  The brake travel is short, linear and precise. The pressure on the brakes are moderate to ‘slightly’ hard. The glider feels connected to the pilots commands, if the load at top weight is respected. The Queen 2 SM is slightly sensible to load.  I mean it’s better to fly it from 97 minimum to 99..100, and you will notice immediately the difference with 2 kilos added. 

Thermal radius: 

The Queen 2 SM loaded can be turned very narrow turns inside the thermals. It’s like you are flying a low aspect ratio glider. In well built thermals, it’s feels like a spinning ’top’ sometimes !  This narrow thermal ability is efficient to get the most out of any thermal !

There are no banking from the glider if the brakes are applied moderately and swiftly, but a flat quick, and efficient turning radius.

 Climbing ability: 

In turbulent and punchy cores, the Queen 2 climbs really fast! The brake authority are slightly reduced in turbulent cores, but still present and very good for a 6.3 AR, C glider.  It ressembles the best ones in the C class in climbing ability even loaded at top.  This is definitely a very fast climbing machine in well built thermals. For sure, any C glider will climb also, but not as fast. 

In weak conditions, the Queen 2 SM at 99 is efficient in catching small weak thermals. Actually the Queen 2 SM size feels big, and a weight of 99 all up is doesn’t seem to be really over loaded.  In weak conditions at max load, i found it quite efficient in climb.  

Speed ,trim, and top:  

The trim speed is faster than the Delta 3 SM by approximatively one km, and also faster by 1 km at top speed if both are fully loaded.  Also, the Queen 2 SM at 99 all up has 0.5km/h  less trim speed of a Cayenne 5 S (85-105) flown at max weight, and it’s faster at top by approximatively 2 km/h than the cayenne 5 S size.  (Both fully loaded) 

Glide:  

I found that the Queen 2 in SM size has its best glide angle at trim speed, and it’s among the best C’s of the moment !  

Doing lots of glides in calm and turbulent air with some headwind glides, i found out that the Sigma 10 and the Delta 3 has that very slight edge at bar, especially at 4km/h over trim speed ! 

The Delta 3 SM has slightly lesser top speed than the Queen 2 SM but if the Queen 2 SM matches the Delta 3 SM top speed, the glide at that top speed is almost identical !   

The fast trim speed and the immediate climb rate while going forward, could give an edge to the Queen 2 in ridge gliding.  

Easiness of flight:  

For a 6.3 aspect ratio glider with those top performance, i found out the the Queen 2 is easier to handle in rough air, than the Cayenne 5 XS i have kept for reference. The feeling under the Queen 2 can be described as : solid, comfortable, homogenous, tough structure, absorbs the turbulence. It resembles the Delta 3 feel but with a little spice. It fits exactly between the Cayenne 5 XS and the Delta 3 in pilot demand. 

Saying that i also feel that the Queen 2 has quite some hidden energy in it. It feels very dynamic in wing overs that could be quickly very high. And also, in some strong thermals, the glider quiet character wakes up slightly to a sharper glider that bites the thermals going forward slightly which is quite common for any high end C glider. There are no pitch back whatsoever ! which is nice :-)  

Big ears have moderate stability, they usually flap, shake a bit sometimes, but reopen quickly. 

Conclusion: 

Today’s paragliding designs and progress seems really demanding. Manufacturers are working super hard for getting the bar slightly higher ! 

I felt that in XC mode, the new top 3, C’s can be very close.  

The Queen 2 loaded at top, is relatively a moderate C glider, that could be flown quite efficiently in XC competitions and will satisfy almost any performance and speed seeker in the C class especially for its high (overall package) of climb, glide and top speed. 

ADVANCE Iota 2 - 25

ADVANCE Iota 2 25

Here it is..The new Iota from Advance that replaces the first version.
What are the visual differences?
A very reduced line diameter with carefully mixture of unsheathed thin lines, and thin normal ones. The C’s are equipped with handles for control at high speed.

Launching the Iota 2 is straightforward with an immediate take off even loaded at top. Easy for a high B pilot.

Feeling in the air compared to the Iota 1:
The Iota 2 feels very different from the Iota 1, where the first version had a feeling of flying a playful B glider, the second version is again agile, but felt more like an oriented XC machine.
Explanation: The feedback is a balanced, calm, roll movement that used to be found on higher rated glider, but…a smooth one exactly to fit the B category. Again, i meant a roll response very comfortable for a B pilot, with the feeling that delivers nice coordinated communications for the keen pilot who was used to fly higher rated gliders. I really appreciate that feature because if i closed my eyes, even in rough air, i could sense that i am flying a high rated glider in smooth air ! So the roll feel is smooth but educational! I hope i made myself understood…which is sometimes a difficult task to describe feelings under a glider.

The brakes has a moderate length, but stil very precise in turns. The pressure is also moderate, and long flights are not tiring at all. Overall i can confirm that the Iota 2 has a very good, XC, handling feel.

Climb rate:
I flew the Iota 2 25 with the best B’s of the moment, and i saw that glider ability to climb in super weak cores like very few B glider ! It is indeed a super floater and a very good climber! It’s a complete change over the Iota 1 which was a bit difficult to climb in weak like i mentioned before. In strong air the pitch ability is nearly absent and the Iota 2 …just climb… without any weak point whatsoever.

Coping with turbulence:
Flying the Mentor 5 and the Iota 2 25, i can’t comment if one is more comfortable than the other..they are both very comfortable to fly and similar in that aspect. The Iota 2 25 seems also easier in turbulence than a Chili 4 XS for example.

Glide and speed:
Lots of pilots will read that section as if it is the most important one…But for me it’s the overall package that matters… Now really the bar is high, with amazing gliders in the B category.You probably have rated my B comparison concerning glide. The Iota 2 is no different to be with the leaders in that matter. I think above that by just a little, you will reach Sigma 10 glide performance !
The Iota 2 25, has a high trim speed, higher than a Mentor 5, Chili 4, Cumeo, if all are similarly loaded. The glide at trim speed for the Iota 2 25 seems right on top like i mentioned with the Mentor 5, Cumeo, Chili 4.

The strong point of the Iota 2 25 is the way it enters the thermals in gliding mode, and i’m just talking at trim for the moment. The Iota 2 surfs the air upward and floats forward for an efficient gliding into a moving airmass. It feels solid and just floats upward. I really liked that characteristic for a high B !
At full speed the Iota 2 25 has some 10 km/h over trim to block the pulleys. The M5, and the Cumeo could have 2 km/h faster. The glide at top speed is close to the high end mentioned gliders, but what i discovered flying the Iota 2 25 that differs is the super stability at top speed ! I mean it’s really stable, and i couldn’t know the difference in behavior between flying at trim and at top speed because it felt the same, but with a wind that increases…The C handles are a nice way to control the glider in high speed, but since the iota 2 25 is so stable at speed, i don’t see that it will be used much  ;-)  Of course in strong conditions, they will.. :-)

Ears are stable and reopen quite normally.
Induced asymmetries are soft and going keeping course is easy and also counter steering. Frontals are a bit deep, horse shoeing a bit, slightly dynamic than the M5 ones, but they open very fast, and it seems they fulfill the B certification requirements.

Conclusion:
The Iota 2 25 was mainly created for XC use with a good and educated roll feedback for any good B pilot. The overall comfort is high. The trim speed will enable efficient ridge crossings in turbulent air as well as the use of the speed bar which is light to moderate, with a more sold structure, and totally usable.
Overall gliding performance and especially climb rate are strongly implemented into this XC machine.
Video soon...
Cheers,
Ziad

PS: I’ll update my B comparison in the next days, for more details. 

Skywalk Cumeo XS

Skywalk Cumeo XS 
  
After the beautiful Chili 4 XS, here’s the light version called Cumeo. 
After test flying many wings I’m now more and more convinced that even with the same glider technical details, gliders with lighter materials, will have different feel with sometimes enhanced performance or sometimes much less ! 
I’m no engineer to debate on that, but i’m positively sure and the reality of things is well shown. 
In the following review, the Cumeo will show its true identity. 
  
Launching the Cumeo is as easy as a school wing… 
  
In the air: 
I flew the Cumeo from 90 to 95. In strong conditions, 93, 95 would be superb. At 90 all up if flies beautifully in moderate conditions. 
  
Handling: 
Compared to a Chili 4 XS, with similar load the brake pressure is lighter on the Cumeo with slightly longer travel. Nevertheless, the agility is very present. I could place the Cumeo inside the thermal very precisely. The Cumeo feels more tamed and very subtle to fly than the Chili 4 XS with same load ! The Cumeo XS also gave me a high degree of flying pleasure that i could describe as (a walk in the park eating my best ice-cream ;-) ) 
  
Climb rate:   
Flying the Cumeo at 95, I could strongly confirm that it’s still a floater! In very weak conditions, the Cumeo even loaded does real catch those tiny lifts. At 90, it’s a thermal beast!  Even in wider conditions, the Cumeo still pushes forward entering those cores with ease and a smoothness feel. 
  
Glide angle: 
I flew the Cumeo XS next to the Mentor 5 S, Chili 4 XS, Iota 2 25, to conclude after many glide comparisons “and it took me a while”… That the Cumeo is definitely among the best ones in that matter especially if I want to consider top end speed glide ! 
In fact IMHO, it sits right on ‘top’ next to the glide contenders if going in a speed chase. Doing some glides in turbulent air, the Cumeo seems also very efficient, and probably slightly more than a Chili 4 XS  (slight margin) May be because it doesn’t have the pitch behavior of it’s ‘regular cloth’ sister. 
  
Speed: 
The Cumeo has a slightly increased top speed above the Chili 4 XS if both are fully loaded. 
  
Big ears are very stable. Much better than the Chili 4 XS. They reopen quickly. 
Landing in narrow zones is one of the Cumeo strong points. It can be slowed quite well. 
  
Conclusion: 
Yep…It’s a positive test…The Cumeo XS deserved it very well…It is very obvious that if a glider is relatively easy for a high B, loaded with top end performance characteristics, light to carry, handles like a dream, soft in reactions, a highly balanced B glider, and can get you efficiently on any XC would not be highly recommended. It is ! 
In today’s market, there are very nice high B gliders from different manufacturers. The top 3-4 holds a very close and sometimes insignificant difference in overall performance. But what differs is the feeling, satisfaction, and the sensations you get when you are flying a special one. I’m sure, the Cumeo will be among those ! 
Now it seems that I wrote too much…i know…Sometimes i get carried away  :-) So please forget what I just wrote ! But I will be very intrigued if you, the interested pilots, looking for a high B ‘light’ glider, would test fly the Cumeo XS from 90 to 95, and comment back… 
That would be quite interesting :-) 

  
Ps: I always mention that other sizes could be similar and sometimes could be different. Please respect the loads under any glider. A glider flown at mid weight or less will (surely) have other feeling and results. 
IMHO, I think that loading a glider beyond 75 % of its weight range will make you a pilot rather than a passenger. 
Happy flights :-)

BGD Lynx M

I tested the BGD Cure 2 years ago, and as i recall, it gave me a very nice feeling of handling and performance. I tested the BGD Cure, 2 years ago, and as i recall, it gave me a very nice feeling of handling and performance. It had a nice glide, close enough to the best C's of the moment. May be the trim speed and top speed were a bit low.

I received some emails about test flying the light version of the Cure ! But unfortunately BGD didn't want to sell me the Lynx or any other glider… ! They seem deeply affected by earlier criticism ! ;-) Again, no soup for me :-)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svSGKJFSl-8

That Lynx in M size was sent by the effort of a ‘great’ friend, who bought it 3 weeks earlier ! And was so kind to bring it over for a test !

Here’s the test of the light version of the Cure named ‘Lynx’. Actually it seems that BGD worked a bit differently on the Lynx, changing the lines for thinner and more racy ones, and possibly some fine tuning.

Launching the Lynx is totally easy ! i mean, there’s no 6.7 aspect ratio glider launches that easy ! In nil wind, or moderate wind conditions, the Lynx doesn’t need any special technique.

I flew the Lynx M (75-95) from 90 to 94 all up.  In the air, first turn and i’m already enchanted by that beautiful turning behavior ! The Lynx has a moderate to short reaction on the brakes, with very smooth pressure, and linear response ! The authority on the brakes are perfect on that glider ! There’s no hard point in the brake travel and response ! Before the second flight, i readjusted the brakes with less 2 cm, keeping a gap of 10 cm between the pulleys and the brake handles at trim speed. Now it’s more than perfect on my X-rated 6.

Compared to the Cure, the Lynx felt easier and smoother to fly. There’s no awkward pitch back or forward, just the necessary movements upon entering thermals. The roll is also quite dampened and well balanced. If i’m going to compare the Lynx to the Cayenne 5 which was my ‘reference’ for a C for the last 2 years, and with the new Sigma 10, and Delta 3 MS, i can begin to say that the Lynx with its aspect ratio, is as easy to fly as the Sigma 10 ! I was really impressed ! The handling and the way to turn the glider feel very intuitive and could be described as an extension to the pilots arms and feels way more connective and subtle than the D3 handling. It ressembles the C5 precise handling, but with a lighter response and ‘slightly’ longer travel.

The Cayenne 5 XS needs more active piloting, in turbulent stuff and the feel under it is sharper in reactions compared to the Lynx! That’s totally insane, and you probably think i drank a bottle of wine before writing the review ! :-)  Nooo, I didn’t…yet…Not even a soup  ;-) 

You have to fly the Lynx to feel and experience what i just wrote.
Now every pilot who reads my tests knows how much i appreciate a good handling glider. The Lynx is one of them. It’s a wonderful toy to play around !  The Trango X-race, the Cayenne 5 XS, The Sigma10, and now the Lynx has joined this group of excellence when it comes to handling, with a new Lynx ingredient ’smoothness’ .

Glide performance:

I made a few long glides with three different gliders. The Delta 3 MS, the cayenne 5 XS, the Sigma 10 25. It seems that the Lynx similarly loaded to a Cayenne 5 XS (94) showed a slight faster trim for the Lynx, and 3 km/h faster at top speed compared to the C5. The TAS (true air speed) read 40 km/h at trim and 55 km/h at full bar. Taken at 1700 m ASL . As for the glide angle at trim speed, and after a 7 km glide in moving conditions, all gliders arrived more or less at the same height…Knowing that the air was moving, i couldn’t comment if any glider had a visual advantage at trim speed !  If i want to be super precise, i would make a comment about the Delta 3 and Sigma 10 being slightly efficient on bar on head wind glides over the C5 and Lynx. On the Lynx, i was more than happy to see that it was quite competitive that day with the company of the top C gliders of the moment. I don’t think i needed more, flying the Lynx !  Applying bar, the glide ratio is similar to the C5 at +7 km/h over trim for both.

In some turbulent air, the Lynx gave me a quite comfortable ride, as the structure seems quite homogenous and filters any un-healthy movements! On the same air, more pilot energy is needed on the C5 XS. Flying the Lynx at 90-92 all up seems the optimum weight for the M size. At that weight, the Lynx still had that beautiful authority on the brakes with very good maneuverability.

Climb rate: I flew the Lynx in really weak conditions. Its definitely a floater! and very efficient in weak stuff. At 90 all up, it sniffs the thermals and won’t loose any climb. In stronger thermal conditions the Lynx climbs really well keeping that smooth homogenous feel. Even in punchy thermals, the Lynx can be steered very precisely, and the structure feels very coherent.

Big ears are stable, and efficient. 360’s are easy to get out without any disorder from the glider. Induced asymmetries are easy to maintain and to counter-steer. Landing in very narrow LZ is achieved by the linear brakes and glider efficiency.

Conclusion:  I enjoyed every moment flying the Lynx, and I really wish i could fly it again and again ! A must to test fly at its optimum weight ! I really don't know why BGD was so afraid to sell me that glider...It's a fairly nice glider ;-) ...

The overall package of performance and comfort puts the Lynx among the most interesting middle C’s on the market today. But above all, it’s the nice and subtle feel you get flying the Lynx that keeps those flying memories in a flying site or after a good XC, recalled happily after landing.

C comparison updated.

ADVANCE Omega X-Alps 2 size 23

ADVANCE Omega X-Alps 2 size 23 

After the excellent Sigma 10, which is as i said a complete C glider with 6.1 aspect ratio, here’s the Omega X-alps 2 in size 23 test flight.

Harness: X-rated 6 (my usual harness)  Total weight of 95 on the OXA 2 size 23 (80-97) 

Launching is easy for an aspect ratio of 7. Homogenous and steady rise, in 15 km/h with no overshooting if the pilot slightly control it by the brakes.

The days conditions were a bit shaky, and i must say that the X-Alps 2 is a relatively easy to control glider. Could be slightly more demanding to fly than an LM6 size SM loaded at 94 and less demanding than the Skywalk X-Alps 3 size XS at 96 all up.  

The Omega X-alps 2 slows a bit before entering the thermals even hands up. It only pitches back slightly on strong thermals.  But even when it slows down before entering, it slips through the thermal quite slowly. In the same air the Skywalk X-alps 3 surges forward with faster reactions. 

The handling and the way to steer the Omega X-alps 2 could be described as fairly agile. The OXA2 responds to pilots commands quite nicely, and it’s the feature that can give it’s pilot the authority in strong air staying in the core and being more controllable. 

In weak lift under 0.5 m/s ,both the Skywalk and the OXA 2 have similar climb. Between the three gliders, the LM6 seems floatier in very weak lifts. 

It doesn’t mean that the OXA 2 and X-alps 3 doesn’t climb…like many could misinterpret, and it’s not a question of better pilot also like some will comment later…It’s just that at the same weight loads, and same pilot skills, the LM6 hover slightly more in those very weak lifts, giving a slight floaty edge to reconnect to a slightly steadier thermal. 

It’s just the same case with the Delta 3 and Sigma10 in weak lift at the same loadings and pilot skills. The S10 will have that super slight ‘floatable edge’ hovering a bit for a better window to a slightly stronger thermal. But that’s too precise to hang on to…

The OXA2, climb very well in steady +1 m/s and over…thermals, and in fact the OXA 2 and the X-alps 3 will have the edge over the LM6 in quick climbs and surges. 

Gliding at trim speed, the OXA 2 has a slight faster trim than the LM6 but with a slight better glide angle especially gliding through a head wind. At bar, they seems similar. 

The C handles are a nice option to control the glider in turbulent air, and they are quite efficient in some moderate cases. 

SWING Arcus RS size S

Swing Arcus RS size S (75-95)

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.

Coupe Icare interviews

Triple Seven interview

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. 

SKYWALK X-Alps 3 size S

Skywalk X-Alps 3 size S (80-95) 

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.