There it is with my other 18-inchers. A 24 oz. WWII by Rajkumar, and a 15 oz. Chitlangi hybrid by Khadka.
Now that I have one, I'm going to say these new ones should be called the Super CAK, and the old prototype should be called something else.
Actually, the WWIII might be a better name for that one.The new Super CAKs are really nothing like what everyone seems to have expected, based on the appearance and weight. It is heavy. 18.5" long, 45 ounces, and it balances about 3.5" ahead of the bolster. It's right about at the upper end of what I can swing one-handed, if I'm not already tired. But it's definitely not excessively heavy or slow, especially not for someone with stronger wrists than me (I have extremely slender forearms, and bad tendinitis).
Closest thing I have is a 31.5", 43 oz. short Tibetan made by Bura. Balance point on that is 4.5" ahead of the guard. From what I understand, Tarwars handle pretty similarly to the short Tibetans, though I've never owned a Tarwar, sadly. So anyone with a Tarwar should be able to follow along, too. Anyway, comparing the SCAK to the Tibetan is... really hard. Same weight, similar balance, and yet... the Tibetan is definitely balanced as a pure fighting blade. It's much more responsive to very quick, small movements, like if you were trying to parry or feint. Yet if you wind up for a real swing, the SCAK is much faster, and hits much harder. You'd think the length and balance would mean the opposite (at least I would). In any case, I'd say they're about equal in terms of overall handling (anyone with a sword made by Bura should know what a high compliment that is). The SCAK isn't a 100% fighter, true, but both of these swords are, in their own ways, about as maneuverable as 2.75 pounds of steel can be made to be.
Wish I had a genuine Khadka bonecutter to compare it to, but looking at the super-light Chitlangi, I do see some similarity in the design philosophy and overall balance. Also the edge geometry. It seems to share the relatively thin edge that the prototype had. My calipers say 0.19" thick at the start of the primary bevel, despite the whopping 0.46" thick spine at the base. The featherweight is 0.17", in comparison (and the WWII is a paper-thin 0.15", as a WWII should be), while the katana I'm always comparing to is 0.20" in the equivalent spot, right at the cutting area. So the Super CAK is sort of like a mullet, maybe!
Crowbar in the back, razor in the front. I don't think I'll be naming it "Mullet," though, even if the front half of the blade reminds me of the front half of a fish. Final observation, fit and finish on this is easily the best I've ever seen on an HI, tying with my Bura Dukti sword with a carved dragon handle. Very shiny, very consistent, polished all the way to the bolster (and then the bolster, exposed chirua tang, and buttcap are all mirror-polished too), and with only about a 1" wire edge that I had to knock off.
I might try to get some better photos later, if I'm not feeling all lazy and stuff.
It compliments my Mateba Autorevolver pretty well, with mirror-polished metal and dark, slightly stripy wood.