DG-100 vs Std Libelle - opinions wanted

Currently I have seen one of each for sale which are externally in perfect condition. However, the DG-100 has less hours and a single piece canopy.

The DG is cheaper but doesn't include FLARM and 8.33KHz radio, which are necessary.

Basically I have two questions, how much would a FLARM and 8.33KHz radio cost? Would you recommend the DG-100 or the Std Libelle as a first glider? (I currently fly our club's LS4 and Pegase, but not XC yet. I have flown ASK8 XC.)

Having owned 4 Libelle I would happily say it is a good first glider. If you can fly a Pegase and LS4 then you should be fine
8,33 radios are mandatory in Europe so assuming you are there then yes, you will need to invest. There are limited supplies and waiting times at the moment. Some shops still have 1 or 2 available. Prices for new ones start at €1000 and go up from there
Flarm is not as bad. €300 for an old version, €500 for something better and €910 for a new powerflarm
Just my 2 cents worth
Cheers

The DG will perform better, about 2 L/D points especially so when ballasted, has a higher max wing loading.

Libelle
LD 34.5
Max loading 35.7kg/sq M at
Empty weight 200Kg
Max weight 350kg

DG 100
LD 36.5
Max loading 38kg/sq m
Empty weight 230kg
Max weight 418kg

Libelles suffer from a lack of rudder authority when rolling quickly at low speed, but are easy to rig.
They also have balsa core wings, rather than foam.

Its worth reading Richard Johnsons flight test of the DG100.
https://scalesoaring.co.uk/GLASS/Doc...%20DG-101G.pdf
Fixed tail and elevator is the best model.
The fuselage is 800mm longer on the DG, the longer tail and larger rudder and elevator moment imparts good stability
If you fly a lot in weak conditions, lean towards the lighter weight Libelle.
Regards
Dave L

On Sunday, April 1, 2018 at 7:27:01 AM UTC-7, wrote:
The DG will perform better, about 2 L/D points especially so when ballasted, has a higher max wing loading.

Libelle
LD 34.5
Max loading 35.7kg/sq M at
Empty weight 200Kg
Max weight 350kg

DG 100
LD 36.5
Max loading 38kg/sq m
Empty weight 230kg
Max weight 418kg

Libelles suffer from a lack of rudder authority when rolling quickly at low speed, but are easy to rig.
They also have balsa core wings, rather than foam.

Only a the H301 Libelles were Balsa core and perhaps a few of the early 201s. All I have seen have been foam core.



Its worth reading Richard Johnsons flight test of the DG100.
https://scalesoaring.co.uk/GLASS/Doc...%20DG-101G.pdf
Fixed tail and elevator is the best model.
The fuselage is 800mm longer on the DG, the longer tail and larger rudder and elevator moment imparts good stability
If you fly a lot in weak conditions, lean towards the lighter weight Libelle.
Regards
Dave L

On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 07:26:59 -0700, davidlawley wrote:

Libelles suffer from a lack of rudder authority when rolling quickly at
low speed, but are easy to rig.
They also have balsa core wings, rather than foam.

Roger easy to rig. I haven't particularly noticed any lack of rudder
authority, but you're wrong about them all having balsa in their wing
skins. Whether they have balsa of foam depends on age, with the change-
over being spread over approximately 100 airframes:

s/n 1 - 84 had balsa/glass skins on all flying surfaces. There was a
gradual change from balsa to foam from s/n 85 to s/n 182, starting with
just the wings on s/n 85 and gradually progressing to all surfaces.

Other known differences a

s/n 1 - 94 had top and bottom surface airbrakes.
s/n 95 was the first to have only top surface airbrakes.

At some point the tailplane changed, with increased chord and a thicker
section, but I don't know what this happened - possibly s/n 182, which
was the first H.201B Std Libelle.

At s/n 321 an AD allowed all Std Libelles to be recertified as
B-series. This was a flight manual revision: there were no other changes.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

I thought the change ftom balsa was with the 201b, but wasnt certain.
The ones ive seen have all been balsa, with under over brakes.
Regards
Dave L

On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 00:19:37 -0700, davidlawley wrote:

I thought the change ftom balsa was with the 201b, but wasnt certain.
The ones ive seen have all been balsa, with under over brakes. Regards
Dave L

I don't remember exactly where I found that list detailing the change-
over stages from H.201 to H.201B, but it was almost certainly the
Technical notes list on the Glasfaser website. That has been revised
recently. The general sequence of the modifications that converted the
H.201 into an H.201B Std Libelle was correct, but the werk nrs at which
the changes were introduced have been revised. I've just updated my notes
to match Glasfaser's TN list. My notes are at:

https://www.gregorie.org/gliding/lib...201_notes.html



--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Hi Martin, read your notes, under handling point 3, you suggest that differential makes the down going aileron travel further than the upgoing one.
That is the opposite of normal differential, which has the upgoing aileron travel more than the downgoing one. The downgoing aileron produces more drag than the upgoing one.
This is why rudder is required to prevent adverse yaw.
Just sayin.
Regards
Dave L

Op zondag 1 april 2018 16:27:01 UTC+2 schreef :
The DG will perform better, about 2 L/D points especially so when ballasted, has a higher max wing loading.

Libelle
LD 34.5
Max loading 35.7kg/sq M at
Empty weight 200Kg
Max weight 350kg

DG 100
LD 36.5
Max loading 38kg/sq m
Empty weight 230kg
Max weight 418kg

Libelles suffer from a lack of rudder authority when rolling quickly at low speed, but are easy to rig.
They also have balsa core wings, rather than foam.

Its worth reading Richard Johnsons flight test of the DG100.
https://scalesoaring.co.uk/GLASS/Doc...%20DG-101G.pdf
Fixed tail and elevator is the best model.
The fuselage is 800mm longer on the DG, the longer tail and larger rudder and elevator moment imparts good stability
If you fly a lot in weak conditions, lean towards the lighter weight Libelle.
Regards
Dave L

Currently, the DG seems to be the best choice for me, performance, rigging and seating. I will go check one out at another local airfield and have a test flight in a DG-300 to see how it performs and how I'm seated.

On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 17:07:47 -0700, davidlawley wrote:

Hi Martin, read your notes, under handling point 3, you suggest that
differential makes the down going aileron travel further than the
upgoing one.

Yep - and I was wrong. Just looked at the data sheet, which shows a lot
of differential, but in the other direction: 20 degrees up, 12 down.
Moral: trust the data sheet, not ones imperfect recollection.

Thanks for spotting it. I've just updated the page by removing the
reference to aileron differential, but the rest of the comment about the
occurrence of aileron stalls matches my experience.

This is why rudder is required to prevent adverse yaw.

Indeed, and its still needed because even a 12 degree downward deflection
adds more drag than 20 degrees of upward deflection.

However, I still think that this year I'll fit a set of 35mm wingtip
skids. Mine has 12mm rubber blocks fitted which are a bit too short: a
fully deflected aileron can touch the ground.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org