DG-100 vs Std Libelle - opinions wanted

[Senna Van den Bosch]

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.)

[Ross[_3_]]

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

[[email protected]]

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/Documentation/DG/DG100/images/FLIGHT%20TEST%20EVALUATION%20OF%20THE%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

[SoaringXCellence]

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/Documentation/DG/DG100/images/FLIGHT%20TEST%20EVALUATION%20OF%20THE%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

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

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 are:

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

[[email protected]]

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

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

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/libelle/h201_notes.html



--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[[email protected]]

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

[Senna Van den Bosch]

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/Documentation/DG/DG100/images/FLIGHT%20TEST%20EVALUATION%20OF%20THE%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.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

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

[[email protected]]

If you think of differential in terms of a ratio, yours is a bit less than 2:1, my DG202 is 2:1.
In my days of F3B model flying, I used up to 4:1 for thermalling, and still got adverse yaw, reqiring rudder mixed in.
For the speed task, flown at a very low angle of attack, no differential. With electronic control mixing, a lot of options open
such as flap to elevator (cruising) and elevator to flap (Thermaling) mixing.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 05:24:09 -0700, davidlawley wrote:

> If you think of differential in terms of a ratio, yours is a bit less
> than 2:1, my DG202 is 2:1.
> In my days of F3B model flying, I used up to 4:1 for thermalling, and
> still got adverse yaw, reqiring rudder mixed in.
>
You were obviously involved with another part of the model world than I
was. Flew C/L when I was a kid and then moved in to single channel RC. I
gave up RC just about the time that proportional radios appeared because
I'd got involved with competitive Free Flight, mostly F1A gliders and
1/2A / F1J power.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Senna Van den Bosch]

Op woensdag 4 april 2018 23:57:57 UTC+2 schreef Martin Gregorie:
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 05:24:09 -0700, davidlawley wrote:
>
> > If you think of differential in terms of a ratio, yours is a bit less
> > than 2:1, my DG202 is 2:1.
> > In my days of F3B model flying, I used up to 4:1 for thermalling, and
> > still got adverse yaw, reqiring rudder mixed in.
> >
> You were obviously involved with another part of the model world than I
> was. Flew C/L when I was a kid and then moved in to single channel RC. I
> gave up RC just about the time that proportional radios appeared because
> I'd got involved with competitive Free Flight, mostly F1A gliders and
> 1/2A / F1J power.
>
>
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

I have no clue where this is going to be honest :)

[AS]

>
> I have no clue where this is going to be honest :)

To bring this back to the original thread: before settling on the DG, look into the service contract aspect surrounding older DG/LS models. Streifeneder still provides service, advise and parts to Libelle owners without a binding service contract.
I know because I owned a H301 for 30 years....

Uli
'AS'

[Senna Van den Bosch]

Op donderdag 5 april 2018 13:01:09 UTC+2 schreef AS:
> >
> > I have no clue where this is going to be honest :)
>
> To bring this back to the original thread: before settling on the DG, look into the service contract aspect surrounding older DG/LS models. Streifeneder still provides service, advise and parts to Libelle owners without a binding service contract.
> I know because I owned a H301 for 30 years....
>
> Uli
> 'AS'

I have been told to stay away from the H301 Libelle because of many reasons, is this true? As you have owned one for 30 years you could probably have the best opinion on this.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 02:35:30 -0700, Senna Van den Bosch wrote:

> Op woensdag 4 april 2018 23:57:57 UTC+2 schreef Martin Gregorie:
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 05:24:09 -0700, davidlawley wrote:
>>
>> > If you think of differential in terms of a ratio, yours is a bit less
>> > than 2:1, my DG202 is 2:1.
>> > In my days of F3B model flying, I used up to 4:1 for thermalling, and
>> > still got adverse yaw, reqiring rudder mixed in.
>> >
>> You were obviously involved with another part of the model world than I
>> was. Flew C/L when I was a kid and then moved in to single channel RC.
>> I gave up RC just about the time that proportional radios appeared
>> because I'd got involved with competitive Free Flight, mostly F1A
>> gliders and 1/2A / F1J power.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>
> I have no clue where this is going to be honest :)

Just a slightly technical model flying discussion, mainly about the
differences in desirable control response between remotely flown models
and full-size gliders. Adverse yaw is something that is easy to deal with
in full-size if your rudder is powerful enough: by and large we just do
it without needing to concentrate on flying a coordinated turn, but when
you're flying an RC glider thats almost specked out above you, its easier
if you can thermal using just one stick instead of juggling both of them.

OTOH, my view, with my F1A freeflight hat on, is that since the model is
doing its own thing (no external control allowed or closed-loop control
systems) I must set it up to automatically centre and stay centred in the
thermal I launched it in. Fortunately, we know how to do this (CG at 55%
chord, minimal fin area, crossed controls with the rudder balanced
against wash-in on the inner wingtip in the turn, trimmer to fly at min.
sink).


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Senna Van den Bosch]

Op donderdag 5 april 2018 13:04:20 UTC+2 schreef Martin Gregorie:
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 02:35:30 -0700, Senna Van den Bosch wrote:
>
> > Op woensdag 4 april 2018 23:57:57 UTC+2 schreef Martin Gregorie:
> >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 05:24:09 -0700, davidlawley wrote:
> >>
> >> > If you think of differential in terms of a ratio, yours is a bit less
> >> > than 2:1, my DG202 is 2:1.
> >> > In my days of F3B model flying, I used up to 4:1 for thermalling, and
> >> > still got adverse yaw, reqiring rudder mixed in.
> >> >
> >> You were obviously involved with another part of the model world than I
> >> was. Flew C/L when I was a kid and then moved in to single channel RC.
> >> I gave up RC just about the time that proportional radios appeared
> >> because I'd got involved with competitive Free Flight, mostly F1A
> >> gliders and 1/2A / F1J power.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
> >
> > I have no clue where this is going to be honest :)
>
> Just a slightly technical model flying discussion, mainly about the
> differences in desirable control response between remotely flown models
> and full-size gliders. Adverse yaw is something that is easy to deal with
> in full-size if your rudder is powerful enough: by and large we just do
> it without needing to concentrate on flying a coordinated turn, but when
> you're flying an RC glider thats almost specked out above you, its easier
> if you can thermal using just one stick instead of juggling both of them.
>
> OTOH, my view, with my F1A freeflight hat on, is that since the model is
> doing its own thing (no external control allowed or closed-loop control
> systems) I must set it up to automatically centre and stay centred in the
> thermal I launched it in. Fortunately, we know how to do this (CG at 55%
> chord, minimal fin area, crossed controls with the rudder balanced
> against wash-in on the inner wingtip in the turn, trimmer to fly at min.
> sink).
>
>
> --
> Martin | martin at
> Gregorie | gregorie dot org

Ah that explains it.

Would it be all right to buy a glider with just over 3000 hours with 3000h check done, in good condition, and still be quite sure to be able to fly it without issues? (When taking good care of it of course)

[AS]

On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 7:03:09 AM UTC-4, Senna Van den Bosch wrote:
> Op donderdag 5 april 2018 13:01:09 UTC+2 schreef AS:
> > >
> > > I have no clue where this is going to be honest :)
> >
> > To bring this back to the original thread: before settling on the DG, look into the service contract aspect surrounding older DG/LS models. Streifeneder still provides service, advise and parts to Libelle owners without a binding service contract.
> > I know because I owned a H301 for 30 years....
> >
> > Uli
> > 'AS'
>
> I have been told to stay away from the H301 Libelle because of many reasons, is this true? As you have owned one for 30 years you could probably have the best opinion on this.

Senna - that may be true for the fresh solo pilot. I would not recommend a 301 to someone who has not flown a few hours on similar 'slippery' glass ships. When I bought my 301, I had about 100 hours in LS1c, ASW-15, Cirrus and Std.Astir. The 301 assembles quickly and is a delight to fly but one has to keep some Libelle specific short-comings in mind, like the small rudder coupled with a short fuselage (I think others mentioned this before in this thread), the relatively weak spoilers despite of them being top & bottom on the 301, etc. The flaps are no issue as long as you use common sense. The wings were all built with a Balsa core but as long as you don't plan on tying her down outside for the season, that is no issue. Neither is repairability. Mine suffered leading edge damage but a qualified shop fixed it w/o any issues.
There are some weight and size limits to consider. If you are built like Arnold Schwarzenegger, the fuselage may feel a bit tight. I am 90kg/1.81m and fit nicely while still having the CG within the limits. Also, the 301 was never designed for water-ballast, despite many of them being retrofitted in the US with 'Smiley Bags' and raced that way in strong conditions.
The DGs are the next generation plastic, featuring more creature-comfort like the more reclined seating position, better visibility and probably more payload.
So, if you have some glass hours and can find a 301 in Europe (they are rare over there - only 111 were built and over 50 of them were sold into the US), I would not rule her out.
Hope that helps you in your decision making process.

Uli
'AS'

[Tango Whisky]

Le jeudi 5 avril 2018 13:38:02 UTC+2, Senna Van den Bosch a écritÂ*:
> Op donderdag 5 april 2018 13:04:20 UTC+2 schreef Martin Gregorie:
> > On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 02:35:30 -0700, Senna Van den Bosch wrote:
> >
> > > Op woensdag 4 april 2018 23:57:57 UTC+2 schreef Martin Gregorie:
> > >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 05:24:09 -0700, davidlawley wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > If you think of differential in terms of a ratio, yours is a bit less
> > >> > than 2:1, my DG202 is 2:1.
> > >> > In my days of F3B model flying, I used up to 4:1 for thermalling, and
> > >> > still got adverse yaw, reqiring rudder mixed in.
> > >> >
> > >> You were obviously involved with another part of the model world than I
> > >> was. Flew C/L when I was a kid and then moved in to single channel RC.
> > >> I gave up RC just about the time that proportional radios appeared
> > >> because I'd got involved with competitive Free Flight, mostly F1A
> > >> gliders and 1/2A / F1J power.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
> > >
> > > I have no clue where this is going to be honest :)
> >
> > Just a slightly technical model flying discussion, mainly about the
> > differences in desirable control response between remotely flown models
> > and full-size gliders. Adverse yaw is something that is easy to deal with
> > in full-size if your rudder is powerful enough: by and large we just do
> > it without needing to concentrate on flying a coordinated turn, but when
> > you're flying an RC glider thats almost specked out above you, its easier
> > if you can thermal using just one stick instead of juggling both of them.
> >
> > OTOH, my view, with my F1A freeflight hat on, is that since the model is
> > doing its own thing (no external control allowed or closed-loop control
> > systems) I must set it up to automatically centre and stay centred in the
> > thermal I launched it in. Fortunately, we know how to do this (CG at 55%
> > chord, minimal fin area, crossed controls with the rudder balanced
> > against wash-in on the inner wingtip in the turn, trimmer to fly at min..
> > sink).
> >
> >
> > --
> > Martin | martin at
> > Gregorie | gregorie dot org
>
> Ah that explains it.
>
> Would it be all right to buy a glider with just over 3000 hours with 3000h check done, in good condition, and still be quite sure to be able to fly it without issues? (When taking good care of it of course)

Yes.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Thu, 05 Apr 2018 04:38:00 -0700, Senna Van den Bosch wrote:

> Would it be all right to buy a glider with just over 3000 hours with
> 3000h check done, in good condition, and still be quite sure to be able
> to fly it without issues? (When taking good care of it of course)
>
That's pretty much my situation.

My H.201 Libelle had its 3000 hour check one year and 26 hours before I
bought it.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Dirk_PW[_2_]]

One item that wasn't brought up explicitly, but can't be ignored, is 'comfort'. Most people who buy their own glider have some aspirations to fly XC and/or fly for long durations (e.g. 4+ hours). It would be very unfortunate if you found out after purchasing the glider that you can only tolerate 2 hours in the ship. That being said, you can't go wrong with the DG in this department. It is extremely comfortable. You may want to get some feedback from other Libelle drivers w.r.t to flying comfort.

[Senna Van den Bosch]

Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 19:06:33 UTC+2 schreef Dirk_PW:
> One item that wasn't brought up explicitly, but can't be ignored, is 'comfort'. Most people who buy their own glider have some aspirations to fly XC and/or fly for long durations (e.g. 4+ hours). It would be very unfortunate if you found out after purchasing the glider that you can only tolerate 2 hours in the ship. That being said, you can't go wrong with the DG in this department. It is extremely comfortable. You may want to get some feedback from other Libelle drivers w.r.t to flying comfort.

Well, I currently bought a DG-100 and after testing it, it's actually very comfortable for me. I'm hoping to do long flights in it :)

[Michael Opitz]

At 18:16 13 April 2018, Senna Van den Bosch wrote:
>Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 19:06:33 UTC+2 schreef Dirk_PW:
>> One item that wasn't brought up explicitly, but can't be ignored, is
>'com=
>fort'. Most people who buy their own glider have some aspirations to
fly
>X=
>C and/or fly for long durations (e.g. 4+ hours). It would be very
>unfortun=
>ate if you found out after purchasing the glider that you can only
>tolerate=
> 2 hours in the ship. That being said, you can't go wrong with the DG
in
>t=
>his department. It is extremely comfortable. You may want to get
some
>feed=
>back from other Libelle drivers w.r.t to flying comfort.
>
>Well, I currently bought a DG-100 and after testing it, it's actually
very
>=
>comfortable for me. I'm hoping to do long flights in it :)
>

Oh yes, and wear dark shoes and socks, or you will get bright
reflections bothering your vision on the inside of the canopy. A little
price to pay for such a nice view..

RO

[Senna Van den Bosch]

Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 22:45:07 UTC+2 schreef Michael Opitz:
> At 18:16 13 April 2018, Senna Van den Bosch wrote:
> >Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 19:06:33 UTC+2 schreef Dirk_PW:
> >> One item that wasn't brought up explicitly, but can't be ignored, is
> >'com=
> >fort'. Most people who buy their own glider have some aspirations to
> fly
> >X=
> >C and/or fly for long durations (e.g. 4+ hours). It would be very
> >unfortun=
> >ate if you found out after purchasing the glider that you can only
> >tolerate=
> > 2 hours in the ship. That being said, you can't go wrong with the DG
> in
> >t=
> >his department. It is extremely comfortable. You may want to get
> some
> >feed=
> >back from other Libelle drivers w.r.t to flying comfort.
> >
> >Well, I currently bought a DG-100 and after testing it, it's actually
> very
> >=
> >comfortable for me. I'm hoping to do long flights in it :)
> >
>
> Oh yes, and wear dark shoes and socks, or you will get bright
> reflections bothering your vision on the inside of the canopy. A little
> price to pay for such a nice view..
>
> RO

I usually wear dark blue and in most gliders, I get slightly cold feet even with two pairs of socks, another reason I chose the DG :)

[Dan Marotta]

These are not very elegant looking, but they keep our feet warm at
sub-zero temperatures for hours while flying wave.Â* I wear them over
tennis shoes and regular socks.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01BE8I1SE/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

On 4/15/2018 4:50 AM, Senna Van den Bosch wrote:
> Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 22:45:07 UTC+2 schreef Michael Opitz:
>> At 18:16 13 April 2018, Senna Van den Bosch wrote:
>>> Op vrijdag 13 april 2018 19:06:33 UTC+2 schreef Dirk_PW:
>>>> One item that wasn't brought up explicitly, but can't be ignored, is
>>> 'com=
>>> fort'. Most people who buy their own glider have some aspirations to
>> fly
>>> X=
>>> C and/or fly for long durations (e.g. 4+ hours). It would be very
>>> unfortun=
>>> ate if you found out after purchasing the glider that you can only
>>> tolerate=
>>> 2 hours in the ship. That being said, you can't go wrong with the DG
>> in
>>> t=
>>> his department. It is extremely comfortable. You may want to get
>> some
>>> feed=
>>> back from other Libelle drivers w.r.t to flying comfort.
>>>
>>> Well, I currently bought a DG-100 and after testing it, it's actually
>> very
>>> =
>>> comfortable for me. I'm hoping to do long flights in it :)
>>>
>> Oh yes, and wear dark shoes and socks, or you will get bright
>> reflections bothering your vision on the inside of the canopy. A little
>> price to pay for such a nice view..
>>
>> RO
> I usually wear dark blue and in most gliders, I get slightly cold feet even with two pairs of socks, another reason I chose the DG :)

--
Dan, 5J

[Michael Opitz]

At 16:25 15 April 2018, Dan Marotta wrote:
>These are not very elegant looking, but they keep our feet warm at
>sub-zero temperatures for hours while flying wave.Â* I wear them over
>tennis shoes and regular socks.
>
>https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01BE8I1SE/ref=oh_aui_detail
page_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
>


Spray paint them black for a DG....

https://www.amazon.com/Tulip-Fabric-Spray-Paint-4oz-
Black/dp/B003PJB9O4

RO

[[email protected]]

Just can't let this go by. Our 201 Libelle was my first glass experience. I flew it for many years, including numerous XC and contest flights and for up to 8 hrs. Was always very comfortable, even with a bulky Navy surplus chute. I'm thin, but also 6'3". Ours had the tall canopy. I could not get in it with a short canopy.

Anyone shopping for a glider should do the research, yes, but that includes getting in the cockpits yourself.

Chip Bearden