Sunday, May 2, 2021



Finally my first Nearbirds harness! 

The Vibe is Nearbirds relatively moderate light harness

I flew the L size, with an M pod. My height is 1.81cm and 73 kg. It fits perfectly.  

At first look, the materials used are tough and look like a high-end product! The construction is very neat! I was surprised by the very well-constructed harness!  

Lots of adjustments on the Vibe! Immense adjustments I would say! 5 straps from each side to ensure that your body fits perfectly. Everything was thought of on this harness. It feels like the designer is really out of this world or should I say into the harness world!  This harness looks and feels like no other harness. The design and love of perfection were deeply incarnated into that harness. From the easy reach, side zipper for water release, water ballast, anti-G, perfected adjustment little detail…etc…  It strongly feels to me, that this harness was built after a long talk with top pilots…

 The legs are naturally supported. The sitting position is comfortable for the back. Not as comfortable as the Impress 4. Close enough, but different. The feel is slightly harder and more precise than the Impress 4 on the body. I personally prefer that kind of feel, rather than a super smooth floppy feel. It is a matter of taste. It resembles the Genie light3, X-rated 6, body feel, but the roll movements are less pronounced on the Vibe. The ABS red ball adjustments could make it more stable and limit the bodyweight shift. In the release position, it carves smoothly the thermal cores and enables the body to shift better.  So adjust to your liking!  In the closed position, it resembles the Delight 3 harness roll comfort. So pretty comfortable. 

The Vibe weight shift authority when ABS is released is efficient like the Genie Race 4 for example.  

It comes with a 3 step speed system. 

Conclusion: The Vibe is a very interesting, comfortable to fly, and well-built harness. As we all have different body shapes, like longer or shorter legs, etc…the Vibe adjustments widen the gap to fit any pilot body configuration and find the right amount of comfort. A must test fly! 

Tuesday, April 27, 2021

SKYMAN CrossAlps 2 - 24


Skyman Cross 2 Alps 24 

Skyman released their 2021 light EN-C. The CrossAlps 2.  I have here the site 24 and I flew it at 93 all up.

The workmanship on that glider looks very neat.  The light cloth seems the same used on the first version. There are some stainless steel small anchors in the leading edge to prevent the glider is sliding on snowy take-offs. 

The construction looks perfect. The risers are minimalistic, colorful, and properly sewed. (see pic) 

There are 2 A’s, 2 B’s, and 2 C’s! 

Launching the CrossAlps is super easy, even in nil wind. It comes up smoothly and evenly. 

Flying the size 24 at 93 felt very good in overall conditions.  The Cross Alps despite its aspect ratio has a nice authority on the brakes! In this test, I will compare it with the Alpina 4 and mainly the Savage because of the same aspect ratio of 6.5. And will talk also about the difference between the first version and the new one. 

I found out that the CrossAlps can be steered narrower in thermals with a higher authority on the brakes than the Savage.  The A4 felt slightly more maneuverable than the CrossAlps, but it has an aspect ratio of 6.0.

The brakes travel felt shorter than the Savage similarly loaded, and similar to the Delta 4 MS in travel lengths. 

The CrossAlps is a maneuverable glider. My C comparison is updated for the little details if needed. 

In turbulence, the CrossAlps seems also more comfortable to fly than the Savage, and very close to the very comfortable A4 MS. Overall the CrossAlps seems very forgiving and quite manageable for its aspect ratio. The pitch movements are nearly absent, and the roll is very manageable and I could say quite tame for the C category. 

Climb rate> Flying the CrossAlps next to The Artik 6 which has an excellent climb rate, showed me that the CrossAlps is matching the best C’s, even in very weak thermals. I was impressed by the good efficiency of thermals. Probably even slightly better than the first version which had a very nice climb rate.  

Loading it at 95 would enhance the authority in turbulent air and with a neutral pitch, the CrossAlps will climb very well.

Gliding power> I made a few runs next to my reference Cs. The new CrossAlps 2 has I think a complete whole point or more over the 1st version at trim speed.  And close to the good ones in the C category.

 Pushing the speed bar at max, on the CrossAlps gave me around 11 km/h over trim, and could match the Savage top speed.  The pressure is moderate. The glide at trim and at top speed is also mentioned in my C comparison if pilots do want to look for smaller details. 

Big ears with the outer A’s are big, just because there’s only 2 A ’S. They are unstable and a bit difficult to maintain. 

Landing is easy and eventful with a nice flair to land it in tight places. 

Conclusion:  I think Skyman has made a much calmer CrossAlps than the first version. The authority on the brakes is also smoother, less sharp, more forgiving. The ears were better on the first version. The climb rate matches the first version, but the glide is very much improved at trim.  Overall the CrossAlps 2 is a more friendly user glider than the first version. Longer flights with probably 60% less workload than the 1st one! 

Sunday, April 4, 2021

ADVANCE Sigma 11 - 22 & 24

ADVANCE Sigma 11 24

I received two Sigma 11 in sizes 22 and 24. 

Launching behavior on the S11 22 at 85 all up, and on the S11 24  at 94 all up is about the same. The glider rises effortlessly in light wind and when the glider passes 80 % it accelerates a bit. A touch on the brakes to keep it overhead is needed and the take-off on both sizes is quick.

At first, let's talk about the size 24.

The S11 size 24 (85-100) flown at 93 all up, flies well at that weight in all conditions, and later I found out that at 97 would be great in strong air. The overall movements of the S11 seem more dampened than the S10, especially the pitch behavior. The S11 pitch seems very calm and neutral in 80 % of the conditions.  The roll movement is also quite more dampened than the S10. Overall its seems to give very little in pilot demand for the C category. I think after test flying the Alpina 4 MS, the S11 24 overall movements are even calmer in the moderate conditions I flew in.  

While the S10 had a little spice, the S11, 24 is calmer in moderate conditions. 

The brake pressure is on the moderate side, slightly less pressure than the Delta 4 and much less than the Artik 6. To describe the linear feel and brake travel to the other C’s, I could say, that the Alpina 4 and the S10 had slightly longer brake travel, the Artik 6, 23 has shorter brake travel, than the S11, 24.  

The brake authority is high on the S11, 24 as the pilot can swiftly carve the glider in the air, and it is difficult to miss a thermal core. 

In biting through the air the leading edge seems to slow just a little before entering at 93 all up, but it enters with high efficiency. At 97 I found that the S11 24 has even a better efficiency into the wind.

Gliding next to a Delta 4 MS at 93 all up, I could confirm that the S11 24 at 93 has the around 95 % the same gliding power at trim and even at the S11, 24 top speed with overlapping pulleys.  The Delta 4 MS had still one centimeter to push. Like the S11,24 goes to 100, and 7 kilos were missing!  then the top speed will increase if loaded at the top. 

Again and again, gliding with very good C’s confirmed my findings that the S11, size 24 shares equally the best gliding of the C category. 

The climb rate of the S 11 size 24 flown at 93, in weak air seems also very good, as I was also next to my friends on their C gliders trying to see if there are any differences. Under the S11 the movements in very weak air ( +0.2 m/s) are very little in roll and pitch, and concentration is needed to feel the rising air.

 In stronger cores, it seems that the S11, 24 climbs also really well, among the best C’s in that matter.   

S11 size 22, 75/87 flown at 85 all up with a Genie light 3 M.The take-off is very easy as the glider inflates really well even in nil wind. In stronger wind, it goes up fast and a dab on the brake is needed to keep it overhead. The turning behavior with the Genie 3 is excellent. An excellent turning ability I can say! I could turn very tight with high precision. The smaller size of course is more dynamic in turns. One day the conditions were really tough at higher altitudes, and in turbulent strong cores, I felt that the S11 size 22 has a slight front pitch and the controls on the brakes lighten a bit even when pulling them at waist height sometimes.  A good high B pilot reported that day when flying next to me that the conditions were quite demanding and weird. The S11 kept a solid structure in those bad conditions without even a single collapse. But it kept me busy in the air, and I could have preferred a higher authority and linear “harder feel” on the brakes rather than a light feel, to control it in those specific and strong conditions.  I thought that I must top land and take another C to compare, but I was high and far to get back. 

The C steering system is very easy to use and very efficient to hold the glider movements in a moderate active air while on the bar! The leading edge seems more resistant to collapse than the S10 and it felt so smooth. I let the glider fly in front of me many times, without any issues. The induced frontals and asymmetries on the size 24 are easy to recover. Big ears are stable and reopen alone on both sizes.  The top speed with overlapping pulleys is around 14 km/h over trim.  For more information, I did update my C comparison for both sizes. 

Conclusion:  The Sigma 11 doesn’t have long rods, yet it is compact enough especially the size 24 in moderate to strong air. The overall solidity is more present on the new version. The handling and overall feel seem tamer in moderate air. The size 22 needs a bit more pilot control in heavy weather.  The turning abilities are superb, and the pleasure feel is high. The difference in brake authority between the S 10 and S 11 is that the S11 turns quicker with the less applied amount of brakes. The overall feedback is slightly less on the S11. Overall, it is a smoother glider to fly. I need to fly the size 24 more on strong summer days in order to be more precise, but the snow is still covering our high mountain range.  A light, compact to pack, high-performance C glider is awaiting you to test fly it :-) 

Saturday, March 20, 2021

BGD Base 2

BGD Base 2 M

After the Cure 2 EN-C here is the new Base 2 from BGD. The new generation BGD gliders seems to be developed with very good software, a new designer ‘Tom Lolies’ and it seems that they are quite different from the past creations.

My friend lends me his new glider, and I flew it from 92 to 96 all up.  Launching the Base 2 in nil wind requires a steady pull. It slows a bit at 45 degrees, and a little more pull to get overhead. The inflation in more than 5 km/h is easy and the take-off is immediate. 

I flew the Base 2 on several occasions, and once with the company of two Rook 3 MS at the same load for all 3 gliders! 94,95 all up. 

The brake pressure is on the moderate side. A bit longer than the Rook 3 or the Rush 5  but reactive and linear.  The turning behavior is quite good, with good agility for a high B while having a very calm character.  I could turn the Base 2 inside any thermal while lowering slightly further the brakes in order to get a tight radius. Overall, I can say it has a very balanced turning ability, with no diving in turns and relatively a flat turn.  At 95 all up, I could apply only 15 cm of the brake, and guide the Base 2 in an efficient flat turn, in weak conditions. 

In weak thermals, it seems that the Base 2 has a very good float ability, that enables it to climb really well in the weak stuff even loaded at max weight!   Facing a mellow valley breeze the pitch movements are absent and the Base 2 rises effortlessly and moves forward in the airmass. In stronger conditions, the Base 2 pitch back a little but still climbs very well when I flew it at 92 all up.  That’s is why I felt that the Base2 needs to be loaded at the top all the time for good efficiency in the air, and while loading it, it still delivers one of the best climb rates in the high B category.  The glider feels big, and very calm, even near the top and that’s why loading it at max felt much better.  

Talking a bit about the pleasure in flight, I can say that the Base 2 handling and brake authority allows a newcomer to the high B category to understand and cope better under that machine while having fun. As for expert pilots who desire a direct feel and more dynamics on a high B, they will still feel the reactive brakes but probably will miss a shorter and sharper feel. But I think 90 % of high B pilots would be very happy with the handling and turning behavior. 

The Base 2 comfort in roll and pitch is very high! I sensed that I’m flying a low B glider in that matter. The Base 2 despite the 5.7 AR, absorbs very well the turbulence and the overall movements in active air are present, informative, very dampened, and very calm. The Base 2 delivers a smooth ride all along in XC condition.  The Rook 3 has more pronounced feedback in overall conditions.  It resembles the Rush 5 in calm behavior. 

The trim speed with the same loading as the two Rook 3 beside me is slightly higher on the Base2. The gliding in moving air done more than 4 times and 5 km glide while the Rooks pushed slightly on the bar to match my trim speed, showed me exactly the same glide as my reference in the high B category. The full-speed glide of the Base 2 which seems to have a shorter distance between pulleys, has the same top speed as the Rooks. The glide at full speed showed me also very close gliding results after 5 km the rooks arrived 5m higher…So practically the same and insignificant. 

While at bar, it seems that the C steering is quite smooth, efficient, and easy to use, and I was able to control the glider quite well with total tranquility in most conditions. 

Big ears are easy to hold, stable, efficient, with around -3m/s with bar. The releasing of the ears will enable the Base 2 to reopen by itself in a gradual and smooth way. 

Conclusion: With the new Base 2, the BGD team has succeeded to raise the level of their products as they did on the Cure 2. BGD managed to produce a very comfortable high B, with good handling and top-end overall performance in both climb and glide. I believe that those new high B’s can get their owners to new dimensions and long XC flights while being easy and relaxing to fly. That combination of performance and accessibility is the strong point of the Base 2, and I think it will be quite interesting and rewarding for pilots to test fly it.  But please remember to load it at the top or even at 96 to feel the efficiency in overall conditions. 

BGD Base S at 85 all up

A few words flying the Base 2 S at 85 all up with the new Genie light 3. 

My friend just got him, but as he was busy today, I had the privilege to test fly it! :-) 

The Base S rises easily without any hardpoint. Take-off is immediate. 

I flew in some difficult stable conditions below the inversion, and then I got some two good thermals that pierced the inversion. I will mainly comment on the handling of the S size. The brake travel is moderate, not too short nor too long. A bit longer than the 777 R-Light S. A Bit less than the Swift 5 S, and more firm. 

The pressure on the brakes is firm and not moderately light like the Swift, but very linear and precise. The Base 2 S is more dynamic to fly than the M size which is logical. That little more dynamic feel is what I really wanted from the Base 2 M!  Incredibly perfect feedback and agility! The feedback comes from the risers, not the brakes, in a polite way that enables the high B pilot to follow the movements. 

Getting the super narrow thermals was super-pleasurable, as I could place the Base S exactly where I wanted. The pitch movement of the leading edge is super neutral, with the feeling that the Base 2 S is going through that airmass quite efficiently!  I like that trim speed, quite fast for a high B! The accurate feedback and the glider response in the airmass feel like a higher-rated glider!   In all those tricky, and turbulent conditions I never had any tip collapse. I think flying the Base 2 M or S at max load is the way to go. I didn’t feel any problem in weak thermals, and I felt that I’m gliding quite efficiently at that load. 

Friday, March 19, 2021

Ozone Alpina 4 S and MS

 I already test flew the Alpina 4 in ML size, a bit further down in the posts. 

Here are the S and MS sizes.

I flew both sizes, the S at 85 and the MS at 93 all up. The difference between the A4 and the Delta 4 MS for example is a better launching behavior, mainly due to the lighter materials. The A4 rises better than the Delta 4. The maneuverability and agility are the same, but probably the Alpina 4 has a slightly smoother feel, and the brake's authority seems lighter and felt a bit more linear. 

The overall performance is the same as the Delta 4 in the same size, and also the speed. The S size feels naturally more dynamic, and quite agile.  In turbulent air, the A4 seems to inform the pilot smoothly and accurately better the airmass than the Delta 4. Perhaps it is the light materials, but for me, I was really satisfied by the steering ability and feel of the A4. The differences are really small but noticeable...

Friday, January 1, 2021

Triple Seven King 2 MS (80-97)

Triple Seven King 2  MS (80-97)

The King 2 is Triple Seven 2021 EN-D glider with an aspect ratio of 7.0 

Rods are everywhere from the leading edge to the trailing edge, even on the tips! A selection of thin unsheathed lines all across the gallery. 

Very little openings on the shark nose leading edge all across the span.

The A risers on that King 2 are shorter than the B and C ones. 

Inflation in nil wind is a challenge! So difficult to get it overhead. I tried to move my hands 20 cm higher, holding the lines. When doing so, pulling upward toward the sky as if you are helping the leading edge to rise is the best option to do. Now it is a little bit better. You need a long take off if there’s no wind! 

Inflating the glider at more than 15km/h and holding the lines higher is good. A slow rise that fills the cells and Hop you go.

Flying the King 2 MS at different loads showed me afterward that 97-98 is the optimum weight to fly it.  So i flew the King 2 MS at 97-98 in different conditions with my X rated 6 harness.

In the air the King 2 brake authority depends on the roughness of the air, when it is moderate, the King 2 can be steered perfectly into the core. The King 2 has a relatively short brake travel to steer it in the air. It is not very linear, but agile. I mean it turns quite fast if you apply the brakes, with a short no very linear feel through them. The pressure on the brakes is moderate and harden a bit after 20 cm, but I didn’t use it on all my flights. 

When it is strong disorganized and turbulent, the energy inside the glider will prevent a coordinated and swift authority on the brakes. It needs more time and application to replace it into the core. But overall it is ok. I can confirm that in most moderate air, the King 2 is an agile glider for its 7 aspect ratio.

The trim speed is very fast! In fact the trim speed at 97 matches the speed of the M7 MS (80-95) at 94 with the pilot pushing almost half the speed bar !!!  It is fast. 

Flying it in very weak thermals next to the M7 was a bit difficult to maintain the same height as it is really fast at trim to catch those very light thermals. Slowing it on the brakes won’t really matter. It is better to let it fly. But overall it stays quite ok in super light conditions waiting for the next well-built thermal to go higher. In stronger thermals, the King 2 climbs really fast. The fast trim speed helps a lot in entering that updraft quickly and move upwards slightly better than the M7. 

Gliding in the very calm air next to a similarly loaded M7 showed a little difference in gliding power for the King 2, knowing that the M7 was accelerating to match the King 2 trim speed. That difference in calm air is very little. At full bar in calm air, the same differences occurred. It is only in moving air and in headwind good XC conditions, that the King 2 showed its potential. 

Moving forward and digging faster the airmass and upward rising through the air is toward the King 2.   

The top speed is around 58 km/h taken at 900 ASL. The pressure of the speed bar is slightly hard on the second bar, but still fair. 

The B/C system can be used with ease while applying the speed bar. Smooth and efficient.

The King 2 can be considered a relatively comfortable EN-D glider. It needs more active pilot control than a Mantra 7 for example, but less than the Peak 5 for sure. And also, probably slightly less than the Zeno. 

The King 2 work in itself in turbulent air. It pitches forward slightly but doesn’t go far ahead. The roll movements are also present but comfortable close enough to a Zeno. 

Ears are doable with the outside A’s and are stable. with good sink rate. The re-inflation needs a pilot application to pump them out. Ears are also doable with the C3, and also efficient, and reopen quickly. The sink rate in both A’s and C’s are around 2.5 m/s with a little bar. 

Wing overs are super high, as it can loop only after the second turn!!! Lots of energy ! 

Conclusion:  The King 2 is made for big air and XC conditions. I don’t think any pilot will fly that glider only in very weak and stable air…It will do fine, but that’s not its strongest point. The King 2 potential is for those big windy days,  high bases, and fast transitions. The 3 line configuration of the King 2 helps a lot in getting that compact feel in strong and rough air which isn’t present yet on 2 liners. 

The overall performance of the 3 liners EN-D King 2 is reducing a little bit more the big gap of performance between the 3 liners and the 2 liners.  

Tuesday, December 29, 2020

NIviuk Artik 6 23

NIVIUK Artik 6 23

I was lucky to get that Artik 6 quickly that time! As it was impossible to purchase it from Niviuk. I’m surrounded by good positive people worldwide Smile
The Artik 6 has a nice construction. Every detail is very well finished. The risers, the sewing, the cloth…everything seems neat and well built. The Artik 6 is slightly lighter than the Delta 4. The glider’s weight sits between the Delta 4 and the Alpina 4.
Taking off at 87 all up on the size 23 (70/90) with a GIN light 3 harness is really easy. No hardpoint, no surge, just good-mannered inflation.
After some hours, it seems that the Artik 6 is as comfortable as the Delta4 MS. The pitch movements are totally absent, and the Artik 6 enters gently the rising air in moderate conditions. In stronger cores, the Artik 6 pulls you slightly toward the thermal, which is a really nice feature to my taste! The roll movements are also quite dampened and resemble the Delta 4 ones. The Artik 6 with a 6.3 aspect ratio is not busy to fly a glider. On the contrary, it is a very accessible C glider. What I really liked is the ability to cut through the airmass and move forward quite efficiently! The Artik 6 slides through the airmass with very good efficiency in gliding power.
For overall comfort, the Artik 6 is much more comfortable to fly than the Cure 2 and similar to the Delta 4.

There is a 10 cm gap before the action on the trailing edge which is quite normal, and then a refined pilot can steer it with only 5 -10 centimeters! This is quite a nice brake authority on the Artik 6. The pressure in that 10 cm is moderate. A little more brake length is needed in stronger air or sharper thermals. The Artik 6 can be turned in a very narrow core! The agility is exquisite! especially with that Genie light 3 harness. I really liked the way it turns into thermals. The second part after the 10 cm has a moderate to slightly harder brake pressure, but still very acceptable with a reassuring feel. Overall I can say that the Artik 6 handling and thermal ability are very subtle and pleasurable. As I said earlier, a sensible pilot could steer it smoothly into the air. No need to pull the brakes too long, but if done they are also forgiving.
For example, the braking length to react is much shorter than a Cure 2, or even the Delta 4. Just to give you an idea. There is a more smooth and linear feel on the Cure 2 within the brake range. The Artik 6 is slightly closer to the D4 in those terms of brake feel.
The pressure on the brakes should be measured by a scale...But I’m still trying to do it. Anyway, the pressure on the brakes of the Artik 6 is slightly higher than the Cure 2 and probably similar to the Delta 4 at the first 10 cm part.
Flying the Artik 6 23 at 87 all up, showed me that even in the weakest thermals the Artik 6 has a very good float ability. The climb in weak stuff is very efficient. The Artik 6 doesn’t dive in turns when pulling the first 10 cm part, rather than flat on the same spot! After some flying in weak stuff next to my reference C, it is clear that the Artik 6 has a very good float ability that puts it at the top of that category.
Really efficient…

Gliding through the air next to my reference C glider, showed me also impressive gliding capabilities at trim and also the full bar! At half to the full bar, a pilot will have the performance of the best C’s of today.
It seems that the Artik 6 performs better in moving air, when it can dig through the airmass move forward, and climb. A very good gliding machine for XC.
I have to mention also that pushing the first 2-3 cm on the speed bar surely increases the speed by 2 to 3 km/h, but it seems that the sink rate doesn’t decrease! So I found that gliding slightly above the trim is very beneficial for the glide.
The speed system has a C2B pulley system, that you can use while on bar. The C2B pressure is moderate, smooth to use, and efficient. The speed bar got me +16 km/h over the trim with a very good solid structure.
The Artik 6 matches the top speed of the Delta 4 with probably even a tiny edge! (Both gliders are exactly similarly loaded)
Finally inducing ears on the Artik 6 is easy and stable. I like that feature as it is also efficient to use.
What can I say…that I’m still trying to find any lesser than good points but in vain… Just because pilots would say…We only read positive comments! how boring it is !!!!
Sorry to disappoint …That Artik 6 is just ‘perfect’ !! *Try it for yourselves at the right loads!!! *

Conclusion: Test flying new machines will always result in good or lesser good comments and I really hope that one day “some” manufacturers will understand that outcome and move forward without shooting the messenger. This time I got a special and complete product, rare to find.
The Artik 6 is definitely the best Artik ever produced. Why ??? Just because it scores 9 over 10 in everything. Climb, glide, speed, stable ears, easy take-off, easy landing, high comfort, great usability, a pleasure to fly, superb agility, relatively light to carry… Against all odds, the truth has to be said clearly. The Niviuk R&D department has outdone itself.
Niviuk R&D team managed to deliver the most complete C glider in pilot demands. I test flew the size 23 and I can ‘only’ confirm that size test, flown from 85 to 89 all up. (Harness Gin Light 3 M size)
I strongly suggest test flying the Artic 6 but at a convenient load! Probably near 85% of the weight range should be in order for every pilot not to miss that beautiful and efficient machine.
Happy new year! Smile

UPDATE> Just noticed on windy days (+20km/h) when gliding upwind even loaded at the top, the A6 23 has a slight tendency to pitch back a bit when encountering a thermal and slowing down. A feeling of getting pinned a bit...

UPDATE 2 > The small dyneema lines on the whole upper galleries of the Artik 6 tends to shrink after some hours. It is best to get it for a trim after 30 hours.
My friends brakes also shrunk and the factory black dot on the brakes is now 6 cm above the pulley! after adjusting it.
Best to trim.

Thursday, November 19, 2020

FLOW Fusion Light S

FLOW Fusion Light S 

I already test flew the normal version of the Fusion in S and M size. Here’s the Fusion light version ion S size flown at 92 all up. There are loops on the C’s for that serial version, like the normal Fusion. 

Pulling on the A’s the Fusion light S comes up nicely above the pilot's head, with no effort at all. No hardpoint. In a strong breeze, a dab on the brakes to control it overhead. A really easy to inflate C glider. 

There’s a very neutral pitch feel under the Fusion light S in thermals. It enters the rising air very smoothly. The roll movements are very balanced. Quite comfortable without being too dampened. A slightly more feel than the Delta 4, but surely very comfortable to fly. I can say it felt smoother also. In the same air, where the Delta 4 could be sharper, the Fusion Light is slightly smoother with a good informative feel. 

The brake pressure is on the medium side(I’m trying to get a small scale to see how much tension (kg) on the brakes after a certain 360 turn, and it will be a new column included in the comparison tables hopefully soon).  

The Fusion Light S at 92 seems to have a relatively short, precise, and very good agility in the C category. It is a bit different than the normal version, with shorter brake inputs and more agility.  Coring thermals with the Fusion Light gave me some really nice moments, as it seems fluid inside thermals, with very good authority on the brakes to place the Fusion Light exactly where I wanted inside the core. The climb rate seems on top of that category, in weak thermals or in strong ones. The Fusion Light float ability is present and delivers smoothly its free performance for the C category pilot.

The overall movements in the air are very balanced and smooth enough to enjoy any thermal anywhere…In strong air, the Fusion Light needs control, but nothing more than a regular C pilot is required to have.  For example sometimes in moderate air, it feels as comfortable as the Delta 4 and probably smoother! The 6.3 AR Fusion Light is much easier to handle than the 6.4 AR Cure 2 for example and even easier to fly than the comfortable Artik 5. 

The glide at trim and accelerated seems also like the normal version which is also very good for the C category. The speed system has a relatively light pressure, and the new B pulley system is more manageable to control on the C’s with lighter pressure.  

 At bar, applying pressure on the wooden C risers bar will control most of the turbulence encountered, while having a cup of tea! …It is an easy, smooth, and enjoyable glider to fly for the C category. 

The top speed with pulleys overlapping is around +13 km/h over trim, with a very usable bar in turbulence. Ears are efficient and stable!  They reopened with a little pilot input. 360s are well balanced. Landing on tight spots is easy as the Fusion Light can be slowed quite well before the stall. Of course, the stall point is to be discovered in a safe environment. 

Induced asymmetric behaves like a school glider! 

I think after some 50 hours on the Fusion and releasing the C loops will have a big impact on the total efficiency of that glider. Just because the enhancement comes into wind transitions, as the Fusion with C released will surf much better the air and skip better the sinking air. Not because of the very little increased trim speed, but probably because of the ability to surf through better. The climb rate in the weak will still be very good and on top of that category. 


Flying the Fusion Light is a really cool,  rewarding experience. The handling is superb, the climb rate is among the best gliders in the C category. The glide capability is among the top 3 contenders. especially when the C loops are released.  Test flying it could lead to a long term relationship…  :-)

Saturday, October 10, 2020

OZONE Alpina 4 ML


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

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

Awaiting the MS and S size!

More to come soon...