It's one of those questions......is the Condor a joy because of it vintage or in spite of it
In both modern and vintage aircraft there are aircraft that are a joy to fly and those that are not, some of the vintage that are not nice to handle have their own magic about them (Auster and dH82a spring to mind), I cannot think of any modern types that in my mind have any sort of magic in spite of their handling though some like the RVs have a magic because of the handling. IMHO the Condor is a type that just handles well.
I've flown 3-figure types, and think that I've had the training and experience to compare them meaningfully.
I no longer have a share in one, but I have an extremely high regard for the Condor as I think it has crisp well balanced controls, and stability and speed-range characteristics that make it easy to fly safely, and moderately challenging to fly well. That works very well for me as a combination, and I was sorry to see ours go.
Aircraft design is not an exact science, but to be fair it's one that's been well understood for a long time. The Condor is an aeroplane that got it right from the viewpoint of maintainability, running costs and handling - with adequate if not exactly sparkling performance, when some other types have seen designers perhaps a bit less energetic in ensuring that they got it right.
The main thing I'd change is the canopy, which I never liked very much, and in a perfect world I'd have it in modern composites - as I said when I started this thread back whenever. But so long as you can hangar it, and aren't too lazy in your handling - it's a joy to own and fly. I like to believe that the designers got it right deliberately rather than by accident - but the state of the science was good enough at that time to design an aeroplane this good deliberately.
I am Spartacus, and so is my co-pilot.