Libelle suitability for beginners

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...aring/eIBf9rqE
n9A

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...aring/eIBf9rqE
n9A

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...aring/eIBf9rqE
n9A

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 00:00:27 +0000, Martin Gregorie wrote:

Not quite: 201s were entirely balsa until s/n 110 (mine is 82). The
transition from the all-balsa 201 with no water and both-surface
airbrakes to the 201B with all-foam surfaces, top-surface airbrakes and
water bags as standard started with s/n 111 and was complete at s/n 182.

I should have added a warning I was given about 201s with double surface
brakes: If you're forced to land out on long, thick grass or crop, try to
put the brakes away just before dropping into the long stuff or you may
find the lower brakes severely bent, though I suspect that remembering to
do this may be a stretch and this may make getting it into the trailer
'interesting'.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 01:13:34 -0800, son_of_flubber wrote:

At 170 pounds with chute, I've never had any bouncing or kiting problems
with the Junior trimmed for 60 knots during takeoff. In the Junior I fly
that is notch 4/10, with 1/10 being full aft trim. YMMV, but I don't
think that it is at all fair to suggest that the Junior is prone to PIO
on takeoff.

I'm 56kg without a 'chute and use notch 7/10 for both take-off and
landing - thats 55 kts - in calm conditions. Works for both aero tow and
winch. We're taught "55kts + half windspeed for approach" and, yes I have
used a 70kt approach in a Junior on a rather lively day - and had the
base leg quite close to the threshhold!

Its also worth noticing the fixed trim tabs on the elevator. AFAICT they
don't do anything much under 70 kts, but are there to 'hint' to a new
solo pilot that he maybe doesn't want to fly as fast as he's going - by
the time you get to 90kts in a Junior the stick is pushing back at you
quite hard. Vne is 116kts.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

On Saturday, February 15, 2020 at 2:44:57 PM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
Another 'Club Class' glider to consider is the SZD 51-1. The Junior is benign, built to sustain hard landings, has very effective airbrakes, it slips, PU painted at the factory (no gel coat liability), fun to fly well-harmonized controls, and designed from the ground up to be a single seat trainer. Limited aerobatics permitted.

Things that may or may not matter are 1)it has a somewhat upright seating position, so pilots with long trunks may not have enough head height. 2)a wing dolly is recommended.

Of the 261 built, there are only 7 Juniors in the USA, and 4 are club owned. So Juniors are rarely offered for sale.

Why are you discussing the Junior when the topic is specifically about the Std Libelle?
UH

On Sunday, February 16, 2020 at 3:30:06 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
"Not recommended for inexperienced pilots (from Gliding Safety - by
Derek Piggott)
The Libelle
The beauty of the Libelle is the light weight of the wings and the ease of

rigging and derigging. However, it is not for you unless you have
already made a few field landings and are an above-average pilot.
Although it is nice and easy to fly, the airbrakes are ineffective
compared with those on most other machines-an extra 5 knots on the
approach and you will be in the far hedge or the next field! Because of
these airbrakes, you must be able to side-slip quickly and accurately
while using full airbrake on the final approach. With less experienced
pilots, it is inevitable that the occasional approach will end up a little

high or fast, and only a quick side-slip can prevent an overshoot and an
expensive accident.

The Libelle suffers a serious loss of performance and buffets badly
unless it is flown accurately. This is probably due to the sharply pointed

top of the fuselage which causes a breakaway of the airflow if the glider
is flown with the slightest slip or skid. Having a short, stubby fin and
rudder, the Libelle is also not as directionally stable as later machines,

and this makes it more difficult to fly accurately than most other types.

In the air it is docile and pleasant to fly, but the poor airbrakes make
it
unsuitable for an inexperienced pilot. Larger pilots may find the cockpit
avery snug fit, as the top is rather narrow."

Many years ago there was a Libelle 201(b?) at the RAFGSA Centre when it was located at RAF Bicester. It was purchased by the Nuffield Trust and also had a plaque stating 150hrs P1 required.

Just an observation.

Frank Whiteley

On Mon, 17 Feb 2020 04:08:09 -0800, Frank Whiteley wrote:

Many years ago there was a Libelle 201(b?) at the RAFGSA Centre when it
was located at RAF Bicester. It was purchased by the Nuffield Trust and
also had a plaque stating 150hrs P1 required.

The GSA bought two 201s, built in 1969, arrived in UK 1970. One was flown
in the Marfa WGC. I own the other one.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

On Sunday, 16 February 2020 12:30:04 UTC+2, Paul T wrote:
"Gliding Safety" by Derek Piggott, A&C Black (1991) page 109.
Std Libelle not recommended for "inexperienced pilots", e.g., unless
you've already made a few field landings and are an "above average"
pilot.

I would recommend Std.Libelle to any inexperienced pilot. Just fly it close to the airfield for few dozen hours, practice side slip and short landings.. Then you are not inexperienced anymore. The glider itself is pleasant to fly and not dangerous at all. Most glass ship from 60's had weak airbrakes, you learn to adjust your landing pattern accordingly after few flights. I dont understand what's the deal with avoiding some types because you can not do anything you want right away without any training or practise.

The Libelle is a true "classic" glider.

The only negative I was told is a weak boom subseptible to damage during off field landings if the glider drags a wingtip and gets sideways. Had that happen to one at our field.

Any truth to that?