The text quoted by Mal gave me a slight 'dej=E1-vue' until I remembered =
having written it for Wikipedia. I based the comments on handling and =
performance on the advice of Sarah Steinberg (won a World Championships =
flying an ASW24) and Afandi Darlington (professional aerodynamicist, =
member of the British gliding team).

In a direct comparison, the DG300/303 climbs very well and the ASW24 =
runs very well. The later climbs well, too, if properly flown. Overall, =
the ASW24 has better performance.

Both have relatively thick leading edges, which makes them more prone to =
bug contamination than more recent designs.

The DG300/303 is one of those gliders that can be thermalled on the =
verge of stall, with the stick against the lap. The ASW24 requires a =
sensitive touch and monitoring the speed in thermals.

The DG300's elevator is a bit oversensitive in the flare when above the =
correct speed. This is the only handling quirk I can recall.

The ASW24 is very easy to rig. The DG-300 wings are a little heavier and =
the wing root shape makes rigging sightly clumsy - not much of an issue =
if using a rigging device. Both have fully automatic connections.

The ASW24's ballast system is very fancy but has given trouble in some =
ships. Electrics and water do not seem to mix well.

The undercarriages of early DG's did catch the unwary once every while, =
although I believe this has been solved in the 303 and later DG's. The =
gelcoat finish is reputed to be durable.

The cockpits are both large but designed along very different lines. The =
ASW24 has tall sidewalls, the DG is the opposite but has a rather flimsy =
backrest. Try them out and see which fits you better.

In the end, both are excellent gliders, well built and easy to fly. If =
you are racing-minded, the ASW24 will probably give you more pleasure in =
the long run in spite of needing a little more effort to master, while =
the DG also has a lot going for it.