ASW 24B or DG 303 Acro?

[[email protected]]

I am in the market for a first glass ship and both these gliders are
available locally and at my target price range.

I would appreciate any feedback concerning the relative pros and cons
of each.

[Mal]

Have not flown the ASW 24B so I cannot compare!

Have flown the DG303Acro, DG 808S and ASW 28-18E

Flying a ASW20B in comps in November

Found this for you.

http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/tm-300-e.html

Alexander Schleicher ASW 24

- Background information on the original -

The ASW 24 was designed by Schleicher's Gerhard Waibel, with Delft
University professor Loek Boermans undertaking the role of aerodynamicist.
The prototype made its first flight in 1987, having entered serial
production later the same year. It nominally remained in production until
2000, although only a score were built in the mid-to-late nineties.

It entailed a large development effort, as it was a complete departure from
the preceding ASW 19 and pioneered several successful innovations. The
fuselage, airfoils, wings and empennage were completely new, as well as many
systems, e.g. the electrical ballast management. The structure employed a
large amount of the then still exotic carbon fibre. The OSTIV Award-winning
safety cockpit made use of an organic shape, tall sidewalls, crumple zones
and exotic aramid fibres for crash protection. A large wheel with a disc
brake and a large canopy with excellent visibility were other strong points
of the type.

The ASW 24 was moderately successful in competitions. It won a single World
Championship in 2001, fourteen years after its market launch. As the
contemporary LS7, the ASW 24 overstretched the technology available at the
time: it has excellent performance in the cruise but less so in the slow
flight range. The higher-than-usual thermalling speed revealed itself a
disadvantage in the typical competition gaggles, and its performance
degrades significantly when subject to turbulence, rain or wing
contamination.

According to World Champion Sarah Steinberg, it needs to be always
proactively flown in thermals, thus imposing a higher workload upon the
pilot. Notwithstanding, the aesthetically pleasing ASW 24 is a comfortable,
safe and pleasant sailplane with high cross-country performance that remains
competitive up to national championship level in most countries.

The fuselage of the ASW 24 was the basis, with small modifications, for the
subsequent ASW 27, ASW 28 and ASG 29. It was superseded in production by the
ASW 28.


Technical Data:

- Length 6.55 m
- Height 1.3 m
- Wingspan 15 m
- Wing area 10.00 m²
- Empty weight ca. 230 kg
- Water ballast 155 kg (ASW 24)
160 kg (ASW 24B)
- Maximum take off 500 kg
- Wing loading ca. 31.0 - 50.0 kg/m²
- Minimum sink rate ca. 0.55 m/s at 31 kg/m²
- Best glide ratio ca. 43 (ASW 24)
ca. 44 (ASW 24B)

[Francisco De Almeida]

The text quoted by Mal gave me a slight 'dej=E1-vue' until I remembered =
having written it for Wikipedia. I based the comments on handling and =
performance on the advice of Sarah Steinberg (won a World Championships =
flying an ASW24) and Afandi Darlington (professional aerodynamicist, =
member of the British gliding team).

In a direct comparison, the DG300/303 climbs very well and the ASW24 =
runs very well. The later climbs well, too, if properly flown. Overall, =
the ASW24 has better performance.

Both have relatively thick leading edges, which makes them more prone to =
bug contamination than more recent designs.

The DG300/303 is one of those gliders that can be thermalled on the =
verge of stall, with the stick against the lap. The ASW24 requires a =
sensitive touch and monitoring the speed in thermals.

The DG300's elevator is a bit oversensitive in the flare when above the =
correct speed. This is the only handling quirk I can recall.

The ASW24 is very easy to rig. The DG-300 wings are a little heavier and =
the wing root shape makes rigging sightly clumsy - not much of an issue =
if using a rigging device. Both have fully automatic connections.

The ASW24's ballast system is very fancy but has given trouble in some =
ships. Electrics and water do not seem to mix well.

The undercarriages of early DG's did catch the unwary once every while, =
although I believe this has been solved in the 303 and later DG's. The =
gelcoat finish is reputed to be durable.

The cockpits are both large but designed along very different lines. The =
ASW24 has tall sidewalls, the DG is the opposite but has a rather flimsy =
backrest. Try them out and see which fits you better.

In the end, both are excellent gliders, well built and easy to fly. If =
you are racing-minded, the ASW24 will probably give you more pleasure in =
the long run in spite of needing a little more effort to master, while =
the DG also has a lot going for it.

[Udo Rumpf]

The ASW 24 is excellent value.

The B model has a number of improvements. The original
24's were update as far as they could be. Make sure It has an updated
winglet, as it is important to realize the performance of the glider.

The ASW24 has the safety cockpit design and it's
designer was recognised and won a prestige's award for his work.

It's handling characteristics are excellent,
in terms of response to control inputs, as well as maintaining speed
in thermals without excessive attention.
You will have nice handling with the C of G in the mid range
but when water is added, the C of G moves ahead and the speed control
needs more attention. Even there it may not be an issue as my flying
friend, a number of time Canadian Nat's champion, has a 24 as well and
he has flown with the C of G forward then he would like due to his weight
and he reports fine handling.
Still, I found the aft C of G beneficial. The handling becomes more nimble,


As for Contest performance the difference is only a factor when flying in
very strong conditions. If the average contest speed is below 65 m/h
( I am conservative it may be higher) I say the pilot skill is a factor,
above that the newer gliders have a slight advantage. Climb performance
is on par with the newer gliders.

Udo

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I am in the market for a first glass ship and both these gliders are
> available locally and at my target price range.
>
> I would appreciate any feedback concerning the relative pros and cons
> of each.
>

[[email protected]]

Not a comparison, but you should search this newsgroup for comments on
the DG-303. I posted comments recently for somebody buying a used
DG-303. iIm very happy with mine, there are some things you should be
aware of and/or make sure has been done to the glider.

Regards

Darryl Ramm

[Herb]

I somewhat disagree with Udo's comments on the '24 regarding handling.
After buying the late Clem Bowman's glider I flew it for about 5 years.
He moved on to the Genesis. Although I liked the performance in glide
which seemed on par with an LS8 when ballasted, the handling when
climbing left a lot to be desired. It took me about 2 years to fly the
glider in a way that made me comfortable and that was up to my own
standards. This was a model without the increased leading edge radius
on the outboard panels, btw. (Udo calls it the 'B' model). When
climbing in weak thermals with an ASW 24B I noticed that I could not
keep up.
Take-off without extended air brakes for the first couple of hundred
feet is not recommended, aileron response in general is slow. I once
ran off the runway with water in the wings because the wing runner let
go too soon (again those tiny ailerons).
Very comfortable cockpit, visibility of the older models somewhat
restricted due to the high side wall.

Herb, J7

Udo Rumpf wrote:
> The ASW 24 is excellent value.
>
> The B model has a number of improvements. The original
> 24's were update as far as they could be. Make sure It has an updated
> winglet, as it is important to realize the performance of the glider.
>
> The ASW24 has the safety cockpit design and it's
> designer was recognised and won a prestige's award for his work.
>
> It's handling characteristics are excellent,
> in terms of response to control inputs, as well as maintaining speed
> in thermals without excessive attention.
> You will have nice handling with the C of G in the mid range
> but when water is added, the C of G moves ahead and the speed control
> needs more attention. Even there it may not be an issue as my flying
> friend, a number of time Canadian Nat's champion, has a 24 as well and
> he has flown with the C of G forward then he would like due to his weight
> and he reports fine handling.
> Still, I found the aft C of G beneficial. The handling becomes more nimble,
>
>
> As for Contest performance the difference is only a factor when flying in
> very strong conditions. If the average contest speed is below 65 m/h
> ( I am conservative it may be higher) I say the pilot skill is a factor,
> above that the newer gliders have a slight advantage. Climb performance
> is on par with the newer gliders.
>
> Udo
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >I am in the market for a first glass ship and both these gliders are
> > available locally and at my target price range.
> >
> > I would appreciate any feedback concerning the relative pros and cons
> > of each.
> >

[Udo Rumpf]

Herb,
I am only talking about the 24 that has been modified to a B model
or the 24B it self and in either case with the Nixon winglet.
and none of the issue you mentioned came up.
No body I know flies the original 24 .
which I was told displayed some of the things you mentioned.
Please do not continue the chatter about the 24 B with the Nixon winglet can
not climb, this has been resolved 10 years ago or more.
Udo.



"Herb" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I somewhat disagree with Udo's comments on the '24 regarding handling.
> After buying the late Clem Bowman's glider I flew it for about 5 years.
> He moved on to the Genesis. Although I liked the performance in glide
> which seemed on par with an LS8 when ballasted, the handling when
> climbing left a lot to be desired. It took me about 2 years to fly the
> glider in a way that made me comfortable and that was up to my own
> standards. This was a model without the increased leading edge radius
> on the outboard panels, btw. (Udo calls it the 'B' model). When
> climbing in weak thermals with an ASW 24B I noticed that I could not
> keep up.
> Take-off without extended air brakes for the first couple of hundred
> feet is not recommended, aileron response in general is slow. I once
> ran off the runway with water in the wings because the wing runner let
> go too soon (again those tiny ailerons).
> Very comfortable cockpit, visibility of the older models somewhat
> restricted due to the high side wall.
>
> Herb, J7
>
> Udo Rumpf wrote:
>> The ASW 24 is excellent value.
>>
>> The B model has a number of improvements. The original
>> 24's were update as far as they could be. Make sure It has an updated
>> winglet, as it is important to realize the performance of the glider.
>>
>> The ASW24 has the safety cockpit design and it's
>> designer was recognised and won a prestige's award for his work.
>>
>> It's handling characteristics are excellent,
>> in terms of response to control inputs, as well as maintaining speed
>> in thermals without excessive attention.
>> You will have nice handling with the C of G in the mid range
>> but when water is added, the C of G moves ahead and the speed control
>> needs more attention. Even there it may not be an issue as my flying
>> friend, a number of time Canadian Nat's champion, has a 24 as well and
>> he has flown with the C of G forward then he would like due to his
>> weight
>> and he reports fine handling.
>> Still, I found the aft C of G beneficial. The handling becomes more
>> nimble,
>>
>>
>> As for Contest performance the difference is only a factor when flying in
>> very strong conditions. If the average contest speed is below 65 m/h
>> ( I am conservative it may be higher) I say the pilot skill is a
>> factor,
>> above that the newer gliders have a slight advantage. Climb performance
>> is on par with the newer gliders.
>>
>> Udo
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >I am in the market for a first glass ship and both these gliders are
>> > available locally and at my target price range.
>> >
>> > I would appreciate any feedback concerning the relative pros and cons
>> > of each.
>> >
>

[chipsoars]

Udo Rumpf wrote:
> Herb,
> I am only talking about the 24 that has been modified to a B model
> or the 24B it self and in either case with the Nixon winglet.
> and none of the issue you mentioned came up.
> No body I know flies the original 24 .
> which I was told displayed some of the things you mentioned.
> Please do not continue the chatter about the 24 B with the Nixon winglet can
> not climb, this has been resolved 10 years ago or more.
> Udo.
>
>
>
> "Herb" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >I somewhat disagree with Udo's comments on the '24 regarding handling.
> > After buying the late Clem Bowman's glider I flew it for about 5 years.
> > He moved on to the Genesis. Although I liked the performance in glide
> > which seemed on par with an LS8 when ballasted, the handling when
> > climbing left a lot to be desired. It took me about 2 years to fly the
> > glider in a way that made me comfortable and that was up to my own
> > standards. This was a model without the increased leading edge radius
> > on the outboard panels, btw. (Udo calls it the 'B' model). When
> > climbing in weak thermals with an ASW 24B I noticed that I could not
> > keep up.
> > Take-off without extended air brakes for the first couple of hundred
> > feet is not recommended, aileron response in general is slow. I once
> > ran off the runway with water in the wings because the wing runner let
> > go too soon (again those tiny ailerons).
> > Very comfortable cockpit, visibility of the older models somewhat
> > restricted due to the high side wall.
> >
> > Herb, J7
> >
> > Udo Rumpf wrote:
> >> The ASW 24 is excellent value.
> >>
> >> The B model has a number of improvements. The original
> >> 24's were update as far as they could be. Make sure It has an updated
> >> winglet, as it is important to realize the performance of the glider.
> >>
> >> The ASW24 has the safety cockpit design and it's
> >> designer was recognised and won a prestige's award for his work.
> >>
> >> It's handling characteristics are excellent,
> >> in terms of response to control inputs, as well as maintaining speed
> >> in thermals without excessive attention.
> >> You will have nice handling with the C of G in the mid range
> >> but when water is added, the C of G moves ahead and the speed control
> >> needs more attention. Even there it may not be an issue as my flying
> >> friend, a number of time Canadian Nat's champion, has a 24 as well and
> >> he has flown with the C of G forward then he would like due to his
> >> weight
> >> and he reports fine handling.
> >> Still, I found the aft C of G beneficial. The handling becomes more
> >> nimble,
> >>
> >>
> >> As for Contest performance the difference is only a factor when flying in
> >> very strong conditions. If the average contest speed is below 65 m/h
> >> ( I am conservative it may be higher) I say the pilot skill is a
> >> factor,
> >> above that the newer gliders have a slight advantage. Climb performance
> >> is on par with the newer gliders.
> >>
> >> Udo
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> >I am in the market for a first glass ship and both these gliders are
> >> > available locally and at my target price range.
> >> >
> >> > I would appreciate any feedback concerning the relative pros and cons
> >> > of each.
> >> >
> >

Hi,

Having watched Chip Bearden rack up the points on the NJ/PA Governors
cup competition last year, I can state that flown well, the 24 can be
competitive.

Chip F

[[email protected]]

I've probably been flying a '24 longer than most (I bought mine in
early 1992) and absolutely believe it's still competitive,
notwithstanding the occasional compliment I get about making an "older
generation" glider go well. :)

I agree with Udo that the issue about climb performance with the proper
winglets (here in the U.S., Nixon or M&H) should have been resolved
long ago. Mine (with Hank Nixon's winglets--a direct swap for the
factory tips) climbs with almost anything and, unlike most, I've never
made the "B" modification to the outer wing leading edge. Hank assures
me it will climb even better with the "B" mod (a less sharp leading
edge) with no loss in cruise performance. But I believe nothing comes
for free, however, and since I can already stay with most in a thermal
and outclimb many, I've elected not to tempt fate at cruising speeds by
making a change.

As for the '24's reputed difficulty with microturbulence (promoted by
the factory in their effort to sell '28s and mouthed repeated by
non-24-flying pilots everywhere), I charge that off to marketing or to
mysterious European-only weather. :)

Note that my comments address only the '24 as I've not flown a DG 303.

In the "plus" column is the performance, high strength, good handling
(I took mine to a contest after one flight), and visibility. Worthy of
special note are the safety cockpit and landing gear. I haven't tested
the former but I hit a buried rock with the wheel once and was amazed
and gratified at how Gerhard Waibel's landing gear design absorbed the
energy progressively without injury or other damage to the structure.
The glider is also light (125 lbs/wing) and assembles very quickly; I
rig mine solo with a special wingstand in about the same time as I can
with another person.

The factory ballast system is questionable but every ship that came
into the U.S. was fitted with aftermarket ballast tanks and
conventional valves so that should also be a non-issue.

In the "could be improved" column are two things. It's true that you
have to work a little harder to thermal this glider. Proper winglets
make it a lot more tolerant, but I suspect it will take most of us a
few more hours to make the '24 go right than, say, for a Discus.

The second thing is the dive brakes. They are only adequate in my
opinion. I sideslip my '24 with full dive brakes almost every landing
because that's the best way to make it come down fast in a short field
landing. The LS gliders have better brakes. I can't comment on the
Discus or DG designs.

The proven high-durability DG gel coat would be an advantage. My gel
coat is showing its age now after 14 years although mostly in color
around the seams; there's very little crazing yet. As with all
composite gliders, condition of the gel coat has an enormous effect on
the value.

You probably can't go wrong with either glider, but they are aimed at
two slightly different niches in the soaring market. If you know which
one you're in, the decision should be easy.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

[Herb]

Udo,

I never said the 24B with Nixon winglets cannot climb, read my post. I
said stay away from the non-modified ones.
Since I won a couple of Regionals in this glider, I must have figured
out how to fly it, btw. Did I mention it runs with the latest ships
just fine? Oh yeah, I think I did!

Herb, J7

[[email protected]]

One more nice thing about the '24 that's not so well known: I'm
told--and it has been my experience--that it has one of the most stable
wings of any composite glider. Having owned an LS 3 for a long time and
sanded/filled the wings three times as the structure shrank to form
slight flat spots over the spar caps (with a significant effect on
performance), I've been amazed at how little the '24 wings have changed
in 14 years.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

[Andy]

Same for the 19. Pitty Schleicher forgot how to do that!

Andy