05.01.2019 Test of the Rise 4, part 1

Last modification: 03 May 2020

I was finally able to test the new Air Design Rise 4 (size M)!


1. Introduction
2. Test conditions
3. Takeoff
4. The Rise 4 in thermal: a machine!
5. Speed ​​and glide
6. Landing
7. Analysis of the test report and accessibility
8. Conclusion

Warning: I am and have been an Air Design team pilot for several years.
In this test, I nevertheless try to be as impartial and critical as possible (see also accessibility
). The brand lets me write completely freely.

Regarding my pilot experience, I have flown since 2014 on Alpha 5 (69 h, 112 flights), Tequila 4 (203 h, 144 flights) and Rise 3 (132 h, 74 flights). I love cross country and hike & fly.


Here are the technical data of the Rise 4, compared to the Rise 3:

Technical data of the Rise 4 compared to the Rise 3(Source: https://ad-gliders.com, February 2020).

Value	Rise 4	Rise 3	Difference
Flat area (m²)	25,91	25,91	0,00
Projected area (m²)	22,04	21,98	0,06
Flat span (m)	12,39	12,42	-0,03
Projected span (m)	9,95	10,00	-0,05
Flat aspect ratio	5,92	5,95	-0,03
Projected aspect ratio	4,49	4,55	-0,06
Numer of cells	53,00	49,00	4,00
Weight (kg)	4,52	4,24	0,28
V-TRIM/V-MAX (km/h)	38/55	38/55
LTF/EN category	B	B
Takeoff weight (kg)	85-105	85-105

The Rise 4 therefore has, compared to the Rise 3:

• A slightly lower aspect ratio.
• A little higher weight (I measured an actual weight of the Rise 4 with risers of 4.65 kg at home).
• A few more cells, which goes in the direction of increased performance (smoother surface).
• Identical takeoff weight and flat surface.
• A slightly larger projected area, which indicates an increased vault.

The aspect ratio remains important for a B +, but the designer Stefan Stiegler has shown that he masters maximum safety for large aspect ratios, this is one of the "Air Design" characteristics.

I flew more than 130h on the Rise 3, and it was particularly wise for a B +, whith a high passive safety (see the detailled test report and video).

Here is what the brand says about the new features of the Rise 4 (Source: https://ad-gliders.com, February 2020):
"The increase of performance was mainly achieved by a modified profile and refined inner structures.
We added some cells for more profile consistency and chose material optimized to get a light canopy resulting in a low glider weight. Still, passive safety is striking higher than you would expect in this class.
The trailing edge looks optically cleaned by adding a brake-raff system.
The new designed riser has got a B-C control which is effectively working throughout the whole speed range.
We also added to the accelerator RONSTAN ball-bearing pulleys for a soft feeling at the speed bar."

To summarize, the technical data and communication show a clear trend of 1) Even more performance and 2) More passive safety. Let’s see!


When these lines were written, I have been flying the Rise 4 for less than 2 months.
In that time, I flew 5 flights, including a ballistic flight and an "improved" ballistic flight with weak thermals, as well as several thermal flights for a total of 6h15. This also included several Hike & Flys.
The flights took all place in the Vosges mountains, in January and early February 2020.
The conditions were exceptionally generous for the Vosges mountains at that period of the year, with ceilings up to 1700 m (450 m over take-off).
The thermal conditions were variable, ranging from very weak thermals to spring-like, narrow and turbulent thermals.
My takeoff weight varied between 100 and 104 kg and the used harness was a Neo Stay Up pod harness.


The takeoff with the glider is easy in light winds, the glider rises well.
This was particularly visible during a particular takeoff after a walk of more than 2 hours, with 90° wind orientation at the takeoff, rough terrain and snow: half of the pilots had to give up after several attempts. At the first attempt,the Rise 4 rised half closed toward the wind, opened completely very fast and it was then very easy to turn towards the slope and start in a few step.
Using reverse launch in moderate wind, no shooting behaviour was observed, and the Rise 4 seems easier to control on the ground than the 3.
On the ground, it's fun to play with the Rise 4 and simple to keep the glider overhead. I have to get used to the pressure of the breaks, which seems weaker than on the Rise 3.

In flight, you immediately notice the increased handling of the Rise 4 compared to the Rise 3! One possible negative point of the Rise 3 was its tendency to always turn flat/wanting to fly flat again: due to that caraterisitic of the Rise 3, it was sometimes hard to stay in small, strong cores, especially with harnesses having a low turn authority.

This is no longer the case for the Rise 4, which turns with a very short radius. It is also much easier to keep a constant turn. The brake pressure seems softer than on the R3, which will require some adaptation from my side..

Concerning the climbing performance, in my view, three things are (much) more important then the pure sink rate:

1. The way the glider informs about the air mass and thermals:
   in this area, the R4 provides very good information on the air mass and the activity in front and on the sides. Information are given by the brakes and the risers, even with a tight chest strap setting. The leading edge will always search for and accelerate towards the thermal, which seems to be a caracteristic of this new profile.
   This glider is clearly a thermal sniffer, which is very important in weak thermals.
2. The ability to keep/stay in a constant turn:
   The turn of the R4 is very homogeneous, even in badly organized thermals. It is a big improvement compared to the Rise 3 which, although very performant in thermal, tended to flatten the turn again at the slightest error, which required to restart the turn at the cost of efficiency.
   On the Rise 4, the pilots' imperfections are better tolerated, and entering/conducting the turn seems easier to me.
3. The ability to take a given turn angle rapidly, and to hold it to make the core:
   the handling of the Rise 4 is clearly improved compared to the previous version: it is very easy to bank swiftly the glider and turn in a very small space! This leaded to some problems during these first flights, since the other gliders turned much larger around the core.
   This often obliged me to flatten the turn in these situations, but this is also linked to the other pilots around and their flying style.

The Rise 4 is therefore at the top on these 3 points, which makes it super efficient in thermal.
These qualities are illustrated in the following video (turn the sound on!), where we can clearly see the immediate entry into the turn following a short break impulse with little or no weight shifting, and the constant turn:


These characteristics make it easy to be at the top of the gaggles, even among EN-C or D gliders. The negative points of the Rise 3 (handling in strong thermals, flattening out of the turn) have been erased, and the positive points (information on the air mass, thermal entry, general performance) further improved.


The glide looks very good but should be compared to other gliders in thermal conditions on longer flights. More information on this in late spring.
In terms of speed, there is a minimum of +10 km / h between the neutral position and fully accelerated. There too, additionnal hours of cross country in different conditions are needed to be more precise.


For the landing, nothing special to report. The gliders makes beautiful flairs when you let him speed.
Its handling is a pleasure close to the ground, and it also seems to tolerate low speeds as good as the R3:



The study of the test report for the Rise 4 in size M (download here) by air turquoise shows:

• At max takeoff weight (105 kg): 7 Bs and 79 As
• At min takeoff weight (85 kg): 6 Bs and 80 As

And more in detail:

• One B for the rising behavior on takeoff at max weight (105 kg).
• One B for reopening after frontal collapse of approximately 30% of the chord at minimum weight, since the glider takes between 3 and 5 seconds to reopen on its own (max limit for A = 3s).
• One B for reopening after frontal collapse of approximately 50% of the chord at min and max weight, since the glider takes between 3 and 5 seconds to reopen on its own.
• One B for reopening after accelerated frontal collapse at min weight, because the glider takes between 3 and 5 seconds to reopen on its own.
• One B for the stall exit at maximum weight, because the glider dives forward with an angle between 30 ° and 60 ° (maximum limit for A = less than 30 °).
• One B for reopening after large asymmetrical collapse at min and max weight, because the glider changes direction between 90 ° and 180 ° before reopening and / or dives / rolls from 15 ° to 45 °.
• One B for reopening after large asymmetrical accelerated collapse at minimum and maximum weight, because the glider changes direction between 90 ° and 180 ° before reopening and / or dives / roll from 15 ° to 45 °
• One B for the exit of a maintained spin at minimum weight, because the spin stops after a rotation between 90 ° and 180 ° (max limit for A = less than 90 °).
• One B for the big ears at max weight, because it takes an action from the pilot to repoen in less than 3 seconds.
• One B for big ears at max weight, because it takes an action from the pilot so that they come out in less than 3 seconds.

On the paper, there are therefore no major differences compared to the Rise 3 for the passive safety part.

In flight and after these first hours of flight, I find the new profile a little more aggressive, it seems that it requires a little more attention and presence to control it in rough conditions.
It is quite possible that the trim setting still moves a little during the first hours, and that the glider/profile loses some speed / aggressiveness.
During the first flight, I released the breaks in a rough thermal to move my camera ( what a bad idea !!!) and film my flight companion. The glider therefore came out of the thermal and immediately warned me that it will shoot hard. Unfortunately, I needed some seconds to release the camera and grab the braks through the muffles which resulted in a frontal collapse. It reopend in a heartbeat. My flight companion was able to film part of the reopening (credit: Eric G.):


I draw two lessons from that event: the glider warns clearly and early enough of what will happen (confirmed also on other flights), and the collapses seem just as easy to manage as on the Rise 3 (to be confirmed).

One last positive point is that the glider does not at all have a tendency to go negative/spin, despite the fact that I have often lowered the inner hand quite low in thermal (without necessarily releasing the outside break), being still used to the feeling of the R3's breaks. .


In conclusion, the R4 is easy to take off and land. In thermal, the overall performance, turn cohesion and especially the handling were further improved, it is a thermal machine. It seems for the moment a little more aggressive in thermal, but offers a very good passive safety. I can't wait to do the first big cross-country flight with it!

Summary