Std. Libelle vs Club Libelle

Hi all,

I was wondering if there is a big difference between the Std. Libelle and Club Libelle in things as performance, thermalling and comfort for long flights.
Offcourse you can have your Std.Libelle equipped with fuselage wing fairings, winglets, racing canopy, aileron fences, and air extraction.
And on the other hand a Club Libelle with retracable gear (1-2 as far as I know), winglets, aileron fences and air extraction.
Thanks in advance for your awnsers.

Regards,
Lars

On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 23:53:00 -0700, larsvanbreemen00 wrote:

I was wondering if there is a big difference between the Std. Libelle
and Club Libelle in things as performance, thermalling and comfort for
long flights.

I have a 201 Libelle and a friend at the club has a 205 Club Libelle:

- Club libelle has a bigger cockpit. 201s are generally a long enough
cockpit for most pilots but too narrow for some (specially those with
wide shoulders.

- Club Libelle is a fixed undercarriage with a rather tail main wheel:
this one was modified to raise the main and lower the tail-wheel last
winter to improve take-off behaviour. That's an approved mod.

- not much performance difference.

- much better rear field of view from the 201

- 205 has a hinged canopy.
201 is a lift-off canopy.

- 205 has better TE airbrakes

- both have the same single pin wing rigging system (single central pin)
and the Clubby owners tell me rigging is difficult with the wing high
up under the turtle-back behind the cockpit. 201 rigging is much easier
because everything is out in the open behind the seat. Just like a
Kestrel.

- on the 201 all controls except ailerons self-connect. Connecting the
ailerons is straightforward and easy.

- Haven't rigged the 205 Clubby so can't comment except to say that its
ailerons must self connect because there's no obvious access for manual
connection of ailerons and brakes.

I'm off the the field now, so can check that - if I remember!

And to the better performance of the 201 S.Libelle the 205 Club Libelle
was 2 times European Club class champion with Ralf Fischer! Against
LS, DG`s, ASW`s, Pegase`s and and.......!

On Sat, 17 Aug 2019 07:20:45 +0000, Martin Gregorie wrote:

- on the 201 all controls except ailerons self-connect. Connecting the
ailerons is straightforward and easy.

- Haven't rigged the 205 Clubby so can't comment except to say that its
ailerons must self connect because there's no obvious access for
manual connection of ailerons and brakes.

I'm off the the field now, so can check that - if I remember!

Back home again: the 205 owners confirm that both airbrakes and ailerons
are self connecting on the Club Libelle.

I have 200+ hours in a Club Libelle 205 at SOSA in Ontario--the first glider I owned. I found it a pleasant medium performance glider (34:1).

Despite the carryover of the Libelle name it doesn't much resemble the 201. The design owes more to the Glasflugel Hornet and Mosquito. Roomy cockpit, T-tail, fixed gear, and trailing edge dive brakes which allow steep approaches. Easy to rig and derig.

Mine had crazed gelcoat, later refinished by a subsequent owneer.

Flew a few contests and did my 300k in it then traded up to an LS4. Good memories.

Ian IN

We had a Club-Libelle (H205) in our club and I did my first 300h of cross country gliding with it.

Performancewise it is very similar to an unballasted Standard-Libelle due to a higher base wingloading of usually ~33-34kg/m². Club-Libelles have an empty weight of 230-240kg, which is 30-40kg more than a Standard-Libelle. This offsets the penalty of the fixed gear compared to an H201 in a glide. The 205 climbs very well which may be a result of the wings being mounted high on the fuselage. The wing geometry of both 201 and 205 is the same, but the 205 introduced the trailing-edge airbrakes. Unlocking the airbrakes causes a slight positive flap deflection which helps the 205 to climb even better and slightly improves aileron effectiveness. I found the 205 to be overall comparable to gliders like an ASW15 or LS1-c.

The flight charecteristics of the 205 are better than the 201 in free flight, mainly because of a more powerful rudder and a longer fuselage, which helps with overall flight stability. It shares the empennage with the 206 Hornet and 303 Mosquito. It's also not that easy to get a 205 departing into a spin. But the ailerons of the 205 are of the same ineffective design like the 201 and 206. Winglets help with that.

However, I would not consider a 205 to be a good glider for beginners or low-time pilots, mainly due to demanding take-off characteristics. On winch launches, it has a tendency to jump into the air and drop a wing. Ground runs of aerotows are also demanding due to the poor aileron effectiveness. Both issues were reduced in later serial numbers through an even lower main gear and a modified tail wheel mounting which made the tail stay a bit higher on the ground. The angle of attack while on the ground was simply a bit too high in the beginning.

On the pro-side, the 205s are well built and the construction was ahead of its days in several points: It was the first glider introducing the Hänle-type self connectors for aileron and airbrakes. It also introduced the trailing-edge airbrakes, which are very effective but require a proper introduction by someone who understands how they work. The aileron and elevator control system is quite sophisticated with the intention to make it insensitive to vertical acceleration in gusts. The 205 has an access hatch underneath the control system in the fuselage which simplifies maintenance. You can also fit an oxygen system without sacrificing space in the baggage compartment.

Rigging may be a bit tricky if the spar stubs are not aligned properly. Wings are pulled together with the help of a rigging tool like with the 201 and 206. On the other hand, the wings are quite light (~60kg) and all controls are self-connecting.

The 205 is a good ship to learn cross country flying and it's fun to fly once you got used to it. But it was not well liked in our club due to the demanding winch launch characteristics. People also did not like the airbrakes that much, mainly because they work differently than what they knew from other club gliders.

Cheers
Christoph

I owned Club Libelle SN 159, along with a partner that was a newly minted private pilot.

I think his initial flights took a little getting used to, but he didn't take long to get it sorted out. The major issue was the need to use the flap/airbrakes as described in the handbook; they're not used like standard spoilers.

I felt that it was one of the nicest flying gliders (out of over 25 types flown). The cockpit is a delight, especially compared to the 201 or 301 Libelle. Longer and wider, in fact, I regretted selling it to the partner and may still buy it back!

There is a wheel fairing and winglets available from Streifeneder. I might go that route if I buy it back.

Mike B.

On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 13:13:57 -0700, christoph.barniske wrote:

However, I would not consider a 205 to be a good glider for beginners or
low-time pilots, mainly due to demanding take-off characteristics. On
winch launches, it has a tendency to jump into the air and drop a wing.
Ground runs of aerotows are also demanding due to the poor aileron
effectiveness. Both issues were reduced in later serial numbers through
an even lower main gear and a modified tail wheel mounting which made
the tail stay a bit higher on the ground. The angle of attack while on
the ground was simply a bit too high in the beginning.

That is fixable for the early ones - its a Glasfaser-supported
modification as I said earlier. The 205 at my club was modified last
winter and the syndicate member who pushed for the mod says it has helped
take-off behaviour a lot.

Me? I'll stick with my early (balsa in the wing-skins, upper+lower
surface airbrakes) 201. The only glider I've flown that comes near it for
sheer flying pleasure is a Pegase 90 (later model than the Pegase 101
variants with all controls self connecting).

I found the 205 to be easy to fly and easy to rig. The brakes were very easy to use too.
It makes me wonder about the skill level of those who found and difficulty, my 17 year old son has the same view.
Best of all, it’s not as ugly as the 201, the most overrated old glider.

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:37:41 PM UTC-7, Charlie Quebec wrote:
I found the 205 to be easy to fly and easy to rig. The brakes were very easy to use too.
It makes me wonder about the skill level of those who found and difficulty, my 17 year old son has the same view.
Best of all, it’s not as ugly as the 201, the most overrated old glider.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder...IMO the 201 or 301 are one of the most beautiful glass gliders ever made, and they handle as well as they look.. I think few would disagree.