I have owned a G109B for 30 years, initially as a syndicate and now as sole owner. Although I agree with much that has posted, I do not share his conclusions. (I expect you will say "of course").

Here is re re-post from earlier in this thread:

"The wing section is much thicker on the 109A, and pretty poor IMHO.
The A will spin of a 50kt turn, and don't ever think of attempting a
take-off with water on the wings. I saw one go through the upwind
boundary because the under surface got wet from long grass during taxying.
It has a 2 litre Limbach engine, while the 109B has 2.5 litre."

My G109B has been used primarily for soaring (3800 aiframe hours / 1850 engine) and has motored to the European Alps on 17 occasions, where the conditions are rather better than in the UK. Having said that, it has done 100 hours for 20 engine in most recent years in UK.

I have never spun off a turn, even thermalling down to 42 kts. It could do with a bit more rudder power to overcome the adverse yaw at high roll rates, making it reluctant to turn, but a chunk of opposite aileron gets the turn going nicely once the desired bank angle is achieved.

I mostly "bump start" the engine when preparing to land, but the best technique is to dive to 80kts while exercising the prop between feathered and coarse to find the sweet spot.

My model does not have the wheel brakes activated by the airbrakes, being a later mod-state (post Sno. 6340), but although the toe brakes are very effective you would be hard pressed to get the tail up, especially on grass.

My one-man wing folding attachment means I can store it in its shed after every flight. The time taken to do this is the same as that required to fit wing and fuselage covers, making it the best option.