Re: Libelle 201 query

[Ommadawn]

I guess what Im mostly concerned with is how big can a guy be and still
fit into the Libelle cockpit. Would 6'2" be too tall?




--
Ommadawn

[t...@adirondacksoaring.com]

It is all about proportions and shoulder width. We have a member 6'-3" that owns a Libelle and loves it. Suggest you sit in one. Not sure where you are located but, we have 5 that are privately owned in our club in Saratoga Springs, NY.

Tim Hanke

Adirondack Soaring

[Ross]

I am 6' and fly mine with a racing canopy. Not a great deal of room round my head, but it is comfortable.

[Steve Leonard]

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 7:50:53 AM UTC-6, t...@adirondacksoaring.com wrote:
> It is all about proportions and shoulder width. We have a member 6'-3" that owns a Libelle and loves it. Suggest you sit in one. Not sure where you are located but, we have 5 that are privately owned in our club in Saratoga Springs, NY.
>
> Tim Hanke
>
> Adirondack Soaring
>

As Tim said, it is all in your proportions. I fly a Libelle with a low profile (racing) canopy. Just under 6'2", about 225 lbs, 34 inch inseam pants, and wearing a Strong backpack parachute. Seatback all the way back, rudder pedals all the way forward, touching lots of places, but not hard, and still have wiggle room after flying for a bit.

OK, it really isn't a "Libelle", but the FJ-1. It is a 201 cockpit, though.

Steve Leonard

[Kevin Christner]

> OK, it really isn't a "Libelle", but the FJ-1. It is a 201 cockpit, though.

Great article on the FJ-1 in last months Soaring with part 2 coming up. May be the best article I've read in Soaring in years. Bravo.

[Steve Leonard]

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 at 10:18:38 AM UTC-6, Kevin Christner wrote:
> > OK, it really isn't a "Libelle", but the FJ-1. It is a 201 cockpit, though.
>
> Great article on the FJ-1 in last months Soaring with part 2 coming up. May be the best article I've read in Soaring in years. Bravo.

Thank Pat Philbrick, Alan Bikle, and Fred Jiran. They did all the work on the plane and the article!

[JS]

Tall and broad shouldered seems the toughest combination.
I hope it works for you, the Libelle is one of the nicest gliders to fly.
Jim

[chip.b...@gmail.com]

I'm was 6'3" and 175 lbs. when flying mine for some years. Very comfortable even for long flights. In addition to overall height and shoulder width, another parameter is torso-to-height ratio: i.e., how long are your legs vs. upper body? It's less a factor for Libelles than for, say, the original Ventus/Discus cockpit. Mine had the raised canopy but the backrest was all the way back so my head was actually aft of the top of the bubble. I tried a low-profile canopy once and couldn't quite fit in. As others have said, the best way is to try one on. The parachute can make a huge difference so bring several with you. In my ASW 24, for example, the only chutes that work are very thin behind the shoulders with more bulk in the lumbar region, exactly the opposite of some chutes. The one I wore in the Libelle was an old Navy backpack that was almost certainly thicker than what I've used since then.

IIRC, the factory-approved water ballast system had some plumbing secured to the wing root rib in the leading edge (i.e., the fill port and connection to the dump tubes). I suppose those could squeeze one's shoulders a bit. Many (most?) early 201s (i.e, top and bottom surface dive brakes, balsa-core wings, small elevator) weren't retrofitted with the factory water system and instead used owner-provided barbed connectors for the tank tubes exiting the wing roots that didn't cause a shoulder clearance problem. Brings back memories!

Chip Bearden

[Ommadawn]

Thanks for the comprehensive feedback chaps.
I cant actually try out the glider as it is 2300Km away.
I will be making an epic road trip to check her out.
I will fit, as I'm not really big, but my buddy was the one I was
concerned about. He is about 6"1 and 100Kg.
Sounds like it won't be an issue for him.
If she checks out ok I will be hauling her home.
I hope to become a regular contributor to this forum, even if its just
to ask dumb newbie type questions, as this will be my first private
sailplane.
I have a significant history of hang gliding, RC model soaring and FPV
piloting.
I'm in Adelaide South Australia.
Cheers
Frank.




--
Ommadawn

[JS]

Frank, to get the excitement up have a look at these H201 Libelle flights by my friend Bob Dircks at Lake Keepit. One was just shy of 1000 points on OLC.
In 2013 when I finally completed a declared 1000k, my second favourite flight of the year was a 500k triangle in the 201B.
Jim

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightbook.html?sp=2016&st=olcp&rt=olc&pi=47926

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 5:43:05 PM UTC-8, Ommadawn wrote:

> I'm in Adelaide South Australia.
> Cheers
> Frank.
>

> Ommadawn

[Martin Gregorie]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:26:44 +0000, Ommadawn wrote:

> I have a significant history of hang gliding, RC model soaring and FPV
> piloting.
>

How will you be launching your Libelle?

I ask because its *essential* that you get properly briefed by a current
Libelle pilot before you winch it. You may also find these notes useful:

http://www.gregorie.org/gliding/libelle/h201_notes.html


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Ommadawn]

'Martin Gregorie[_5_ Wrote:
> ;918404']On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 22:26:44 +0000, Ommadawn wrote:
> -

> I have a significant history of hang gliding, RC model soaring and FPV
> piloting.

> -

> How will you be launching your Libelle?
>
> I ask because its *essential* that you get properly briefed by a current
>
> Libelle pilot before you winch it. You may also find these notes useful:
>
> http://www.gregorie.org/gliding/libelle/h201_notes.html
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

I'm partway through my XC road trip epic to see this bird. Just covered
1000km today, and same again tomorrow, then another 250 odd km next day.
Alone in a country motel room...
I just hope it will be worth it.
Thanks for the links JS. I see the Libelle pops up in pics in the
latest AG mag too.
My club uses winch launch. I had already discovered the Libelle notes,
thanks for the pointer though Martin. I actually did my Silver C in a
Club Libelle back in 1980. That had a parallelogram stick, and a
tendency to pop the nose on launch. The winch launch procedure was to
hold the stick full forward against the stop until she un-stuck, then
gradually rotate.
I imagine the 201 may be similar, but without the brilliant TE airbrakes
of the clubby. My club used to own a 201, way back in the day, but I
never got into it. My brother in law ended up buying it from the club.
The one I am going to look at was built in 1973. When did they stop
using balsa sandwich? Is there any simple way to see if this one is
composed of balsa? Is there a complete list of serial numbers? I found
one for the Cirrus, listing the reg history of every one built, or lost
in accidents.
Cheers guys.
The epic continues. Watch this space...




--
Ommadawn

[JS]

Frank, Tom Gilbert would be a good source of information like the change from balsa. Was it with the "B" version?
Jim

[Martin Gregorie]

On Sun, 31 Jan 2016 10:15:02 +0000, Ommadawn wrote:

> The winch launch procedure was to
> hold the stick full forward against the stop until she un-stuck, then
> gradually rotate.
>

Fairly close to what I do, then.

> I imagine the 201 may be similar, but without the brilliant TE airbrakes
> of the clubby. My club used to own a 201, way back in the day, but I
> never got into it. My brother in law ended up buying it from the club.
> The one I am going to look at was built in 1973. When did they stop
> using balsa sandwich?
>

I don't know the date, but from memory that was about s/n 192 but may
have been spread over more gliders. The balsa replacement was quite
gradual over at least 10 gliders - something like wings first, then stab,
followed by fin and finally control surfaces. I think the transition was
completed with s/n 321. This is also the point when the H.201 officially
became an H.201B.

The old and new tailplanes differ in size (difficult to spot unless you
kave both the compare) and in LE radius. The old tailplane has a fairly
sharp LE - 10-12mm radius while the new B-series tailplane has quite a
blunt LE, which I'd guess is at least 12mm in radius.

> Is there a complete list of serial numbers?
>

Not that I know.

Try Glasfaser, http://www.streifly.de/

They have owned the type certificates since Glasflugel folded, maintain
the TN/AD list and are generally helpful and friendly to deal with. Their
English is excellent too.

[Nick Gilbert]

Hi Frank,

There are several Standard Libelles in South Australia, including a few at Gawler, and at least one at Stonefield. I'm sure the owners of these gliders would have been more than happy for you to have a sit in one to see how you fit. I am guessing you are likely at Balaklava.

For what it's worth, I'm 6 foot 3 & quite meaty, and I flew a Libelle for many years. If anything, the biggest issue was related to my feet rather than the size of the cockpit. Some people find them to be quite narrow across the shoulders as the cockpit walls taper inwards at the top, but deceptively long.

My Libelle was a combination of 2 - early production wings combined with late production fuselage. My wings were balsa core and had upper & lower surface brakes. I don't believe the switch to foam core was intended to modernise the glider, more to solve a material sourcing problem.

Jim, for what it's worth, mine was the first of 2 libelles that Bob Dircks owned, VH-GAK.

A 1973 build Libelle is likely to have foam core, the thicker & rounder tailplane, and top surface airbrakes only. Come to think of it, considering the fact that i'm an avid reader of gliding classified sites, and Libelles, I am fairly sure I know the one you are talking about. Considering it's serial number is in the late 450's I am certain it is as described above.

Cheers,

Nick Gilbert
Mosquito VH-GSG

[Skypilot]

Ommadawn;918503 Wrote:
> Its a B version, 1880 hours.
> You guessed it, Nick. I'm with BGC in SA.
> Any obvious things I should look for when inspecting a 43 YEAR OLD
> GLIDER!!!?

It's a good thing, the owner is as honest as the day is long. I will up
there this Saturday if you need anything

Justin




--
Skypilot

[Ommadawn]

> On Saturday, 30 January 2016 12:13:05 UTC+10:30, Ommadawn wrote:-

> Thanks for the comprehensive feedback chaps.
> I cant actually try out the glider as it is 2300Km away.
> I will be making an epic road trip to check her out.
> I will fit, as I'm not really big, but my buddy was the one I was
> concerned about. He is about 6"1 and 100Kg.
> Sounds like it won't be an issue for him.
> If she checks out ok I will be hauling her home.
> I hope to become a regular contributor to this forum, even if its just
> to ask dumb newbie type questions, as this will be my first private
> sailplane.
> I have a significant history of hang gliding, RC model soaring and FPV
> piloting.
> I'm in Adelaide South Australia.
> Cheers
> Frank.
>
>
>
>
> --

> Ommadawn-

Its a B version, 1880 hours.
You guessed it, Nick. I'm with BGC in SA.
Any obvious things I should look for when inspecting a 43 YEAR OLD
GLIDER!!!?

--
Ommadawn

[Nick Gilbert]

About the only thing of note would be AD compliance. There have been a couple of AD's requiring the purchase of parts from Streifeneder, but the 2 that spring to mind are old enough that they must have been completed (airbrake torque tube reinforcement & rudder yoke replacement). I recently bought a Glasflugel Mosquito from Western Australia and found that a 4-5 year old AD requiring the replacement of an elevator pushrod with a new part from Germany had not been completed.

What does it weigh? The paint looks original and with a no damage history it shouldn't have gained much. If it has been at an aerotow club the belly release may not be serviceable, although its not a big deal to make it so. Does it have ballast bags fitted? I note that no parachute or radio is specified in the ad, they may cost you a few thousand dollars if not included.

I don't think you can really go wrong at that price. As long as you fit in it.

Cheers,

Nick.

[Ommadawn]

Skypilot;918504 Wrote:
> It's a good thing, the owner is as honest as the day is long. I will up
> there this Saturday if you need anything
>
> Justin

I was hoping to hear something like that..
Thanks Justin. By Saturday I will be back in SA.




--
Ommadawn

[Eric Bick (ZN7)]

It was a great article, and I welcome more like it. Thanks for the kudos. Would be nice to get "letters to the editor" on occasion. That's how I know if we're on track, meeting members' interests.
Editor, Soaring Magazine.

[chip.b...@gmail.com]

AFAIK, the "B" model originally meant top surface only dive brakes, foam core wing, large tailplane, and provision for optional water ballast, including higher gross weight and (I'm reaching on this one) higher VNE. I don't know that many came over with ballast tanks so for most of us, that simply meant the drawing that showed where it was OK to cut holes in the main bulkhead and landing gear box for the dump tubes; we fitted U.S. bags and homemade valves and tubing.

Having said that, I believe that all it took to upgrade a 201 to a 201B was some paperwork, so seeing "B" on the documentation might not be definitive.

Chip Bearden

[Ommadawn]

Nick Gilbert;918531 Wrote:
> About the only thing of note would be AD compliance. There have been a
> couple of AD's requiring the purchase of parts from Streifeneder, but
> the 2 that spring to mind are old enough that they must have been
> completed (airbrake torque tube reinforcement & rudder yoke
> replacement). I recently bought a Glasflugel Mosquito from Western
> Australia and found that a 4-5 year old AD requiring the replacement of
> an elevator pushrod with a new part from Germany had not been
> completed.
>
> What does it weigh? The paint looks original and with a no damage
> history it shouldn't have gained much. If it has been at an aerotow club
> the belly release may not be serviceable, although its not a big deal to
> make it so. Does it have ballast bags fitted? I note that no parachute
> or radio is specified in the ad, they may cost you a few thousand
> dollars if not included.
>
> I don't think you can really go wrong at that price. As long as you fit
> in it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nick.
>
>

> On Tuesday, 2 February 2016 00:13:05 UTC+10:30, Ommadawn wrote:-
> Nick Gilbert;918501 Wrote: -

> --
> Ommadawn--

> Its a B version, 1880 hours.
> You guessed it, Nick. I'm with BGC in SA.
> Any obvious things I should look for when inspecting a 43 YEAR OLD
> GLIDER!!!?
>
>
>
>
> --

> Ommadawn-iloting.

I'm in Adelaide South Australia.
Cheers
Frank.

After an exhausting 4 day, 4400km road trip, the 201B is now resting
comfortably in her new home. I hope to check her out this weekend.
Many thanks for the helpful feedback. Im sure I will have a heap more
questions as I explore the new toy.




--
Ommadawn

[Nick Gilbert]

Congrats! Looking forward to seeing some photos.

Nick.

[Ommadawn]

Nick Gilbert;919237 Wrote:
> Congrats! Looking forward to seeing some photos.
>
> Nick.

Not only pigeons come home...
I had no idea.
My Libelle actually started life at my very own gliding club, back in
the early '70s.
Its original owner was a member back then. It obviously went through a
number of owners and clubs all over Australia during the last 43 years.
Its then owner even loaned her to a Spanish pilot to fly in the Waikerie
World Championships back then.
The pic shows her at Balaklava GC when she was new, in early '70s.
The Blanik AP in the picture was the glider I soloed in, 1979. This
image holds special meaning for me. I left the club in late 1980, and
rejoined August 2015. Looks like we both have come home.
What goes around, comes around.


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Filename: CT with AP.jpg |
|Download: http://www.aviationbanter.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=80362|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+



--
Ommadawn

[JS]

A fantastic result, Frank!
Great photo, quite appropriate. Don't sleep with the Libelle every night, make time to watch "Zulu Romeo" again to look for CT.
Oops, sorry I didn't remember the right Gilbert.
Jim

[Nick Gilbert]

Looks good Frank. The undercarriage looks different to usual.

Out of curiosity, what instrumentation came with it? Is the water ballast serviceable?

You got the right Gilbert Jim :)

Nick.

[Ommadawn]

Nick, the belly release works, as it is used as part of the trailer
restraint system.
She is fitted for water, but the bags are removed. The last owner made
some new ones, but didn't fit them, as he wasn't happy with the result.
I have them now, but will not be installing. I don't like the idea of
winch launch failure, and a hurried landing with full wings. It comes
with an old radio that is functional, Flarm, and some sort of GPS nav
system I haven't even looked at yet. The instruments are old but
adequate for now. My club has 4 parachutes which rarely see the light of
day, as almost nobody flys the singles. I will use one of those for a
while.
I will definitely have another look at ZR again and see if I can spot
her!


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+



--
Ommadawn

[Nick Gilbert]

Sounds good.

As far as the water is concerned, Libelles only hold 50 litres anyway so it wouldn't be too much of an issue in the event of a launch failure. In my memory water in the Libelle didn't really make an enormous difference with performance, but it did make it feel a little less like a cork in the ocean in turbulent conditions.

As far as the Balaklava parachutes are concerned, I had custody of one of them over the summer, as Eric borrowed mine for the Junior Worlds.

Nick

[JS]

I fitted some larger water ballast bags in a 201B. It does go better, but somehow feels less lovely than a Libelle normally does... Felt more like other gliders!
Jim

[Martin Gregorie]

On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:51:16 +0000, Ommadawn wrote:

> She is fitted for water, but the bags are removed. The last owner made
> some new ones, but didn't fit them, as he wasn't happy with the result.
>

Another go-faster trick you might consider is fitting turbulators. This
used to add a point to the UK handicap (89 -> 90) though the latest
handicap list seems to have dropped the '+turbulator' handicap. Anyway,
its a full span zigzag mylar turbulator on the under surface just ahead
of the undercambered region. Has no effect at lower speeds, but stops
flow separation in the undercambered area at high speed - at least that's
what I was told. It was on my Libelle when I bought her and certainly
high speed cruise around 70-80 kts shows less height loss than I expected.

If you're interested, talk to Glasfaser, who can supply the tape and/or
fitting instructions.

[Ommadawn]

'Martin Gregorie[_5_ Wrote:
> ;919283']On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:51:16 +0000, Ommadawn wrote:
> -

> She is fitted for water, but the bags are removed. The last owner made
> some new ones, but didn't fit them, as he wasn't happy with the
> result.

> -

> Another go-faster trick you might consider is fitting turbulators. This
>
> used to add a point to the UK handicap (89 - 90) though the latest
> handicap list seems to have dropped the '+turbulator' handicap. Anyway,
>
> its a full span zigzag mylar turbulator on the under surface just ahead
>
> of the undercambered region. Has no effect at lower speeds, but stops
> flow separation in the undercambered area at high speed - at least
> that's
> what I was told. It was on my Libelle when I bought her and certainly
> high speed cruise around 70-80 kts shows less height loss than I
> expected.
>
> If you're interested, talk to Glasfaser, who can supply the tape and/or
>
> fitting instructions.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

Hi Martin,
That sounds almost too good to be true. Quite a simple mod for tangible
gains.
I assembled the bird today and had a good look at her. Everyone was
pleased with the choice. I'm a little short of achieving the skill
level to fly her just yet, but will work on that. I'm still bashing
around in the single Astir. Landings need attention. I have only been
back flying since late August, and solo again since mid November. No
need to rush.


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+



--
Ommadawn

[Martin Gregorie]

Yes, you'll find that landings do require attention because its
relatively weak brakes mean that a Libelle will float further and have
more of a tendency to balloon than most other gliders. For this reason
you'll see a lot of not fully held-off landings done with them: going for
a two point fully held-off landing is almost guaranteed to balloon until
you're fully up to speed with it.

Your early efforts to avoid ballooning a landing will probably result in
a main wheel landing with a tiny bounce. This is normal. FWIW there is
one other Libelle on my field. Its pilot almost always lands this
way, is an instructor, and has at least 5 years more years on type than I
have. I've worked on two-pointing mine 'just because I could' and can now
do that most times, but I've had mine for 10 years and have only managed
mostly two-pointing it for the last 4 years or so.

BTW, its useful get up to speed with slipped approaches. Libelles slip
beautifully with full brakes out and this gives a nice steep and
controllable approach when you need it.

[Ommadawn]

'Martin Gregorie[_5_ Wrote:
> ;919312']On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 11:22:12 +0000, Ommadawn wrote:
> -
> 'Martin Gregorie[_5_ Wrote:-

> ;919283']On Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:51:16 +0000, Ommadawn wrote:
> -
> She is fitted for water, but the bags are removed. The last owner made
> some new ones, but didn't fit them, as he wasn't happy with the
> result.
> -
> Another go-faster trick you might consider is fitting turbulators.
> This
>
> used to add a point to the UK handicap (89 - 90) though the latest
> handicap list seems to have dropped the '+turbulator' handicap.
> Anyway,
>
> its a full span zigzag mylar turbulator on the under surface just
> ahead
>
> of the undercambered region. Has no effect at lower speeds, but stops
> flow separation in the undercambered area at high speed - at least
> that's what I was told. It was on my Libelle when I bought her and
> certainly high speed cruise around 70-80 kts shows less height loss
> than I expected.
>
> If you're interested, talk to Glasfaser, who can supply the tape
> and/or
>
> fitting instructions.
>
>
> --

> martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |-

>
> Hi Martin,
> That sounds almost too good to be true. Quite a simple mod for
> tangible
> gains.
> I assembled the bird today and had a good look at her. Everyone was
> pleased with the choice. I'm a little short of achieving the skill
> level to fly her just yet, but will work on that. I'm still bashing
> around in the single Astir. Landings need attention. I have only been
> back flying since late August, and solo again since mid November. No
> need to rush.

> -

> Yes, you'll find that landings do require attention because its
> relatively weak brakes mean that a Libelle will float further and have
> more of a tendency to balloon than most other gliders. For this reason
> you'll see a lot of not fully held-off landings done with them: going
> for
> a two point fully held-off landing is almost guaranteed to balloon until
>
> you're fully up to speed with it.
>
> Your early efforts to avoid ballooning a landing will probably result in
>
> a main wheel landing with a tiny bounce. This is normal. FWIW there is
> one other Libelle on my field. Its pilot almost always lands this
> way, is an instructor, and has at least 5 years more years on type than
> I
> have. I've worked on two-pointing mine 'just because I could' and can
> now
> do that most times, but I've had mine for 10 years and have only managed
>
> mostly two-pointing it for the last 4 years or so.
>
> BTW, its useful get up to speed with slipped approaches. Libelles slip
> beautifully with full brakes out and this gives a nice steep and
> controllable approach when you need it.
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

Hi Martin,
I enquired of the previous owner, who fitted the winglets mod about 5
years ago. He told me that although there didn't seem to be any tangible
performance gains, the handling was another issue. Apparently the
winglets improve very low speed handling, giving a noticeable
improvement in roll response just ahead of stall. The other noticeable
change was a definite resistance to side slipping. I imagine this would
be a natural thing to expect when adding 'fins' to a wingtip. The long
moment arm of the wings would mean that even a small vertical area that
far out would resist yawing somewhat.
It will be interesting to see what he means. In any case she will remain
in the hangar until I have flown the wings off the club's Astir.


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+



--
Ommadawn

[Martin Gregorie]

On Sun, 07 Feb 2016 07:52:54 +0000, Ommadawn wrote:

> I enquired of the previous owner, who fitted the winglets mod about 5
> years ago. He told me that although there didn't seem to be any tangible
> performance gains, the handling was another issue. Apparently the
> winglets improve very low speed handling, giving a noticeable
> improvement in roll response just ahead of stall.
>

Fair comment. As far as I can tell winglets help at the low speed end of
the performance curve while undersurface turbulators and wing root
fairings improve the high speed performance.

The fairings would be nice because the airflow round the root of early
glass was often horrible and in some cases the wing planform made it even
worse. I thought about fitting fairings, but they are quite large and
would increase the root chord and/or the fuselage width (depending on how
you fit them and where you split them for wing removal), so it seemed
likely that using them would also mean a new trailer. Thats because mine
is a box trailer that was apparently designed on the principle of "pile
all the bits in as small an area as possible, draw a line around that
with a 50mm margin and that's the size of the trailer".


A link you may find interesting and that explains the above is:
http://www.betsybyars.com/guy/soaring_symposia/72-modif.html

I was also looking for another Will Schueman article - the one about how
he diagnosed the low speed airflow problems on his modified ASW-12 and
how he fixed them, but I can't find a link to it. I have a local copy,
but wanted to quote the URL of an online copy. Frank, if nobody comes up
with a link but you'd like to see the article, e-mail me (address is at
end of this post and I'll send you a copy.

[Ommadawn]

'Martin Gregorie[_5_ Wrote:
> ;919350']On Sun, 07 Feb 2016 07:52:54 +0000, Ommadawn wrote:
> -

> I enquired of the previous owner, who fitted the winglets mod about 5
> years ago. He told me that although there didn't seem to be any
> tangible
> performance gains, the handling was another issue. Apparently the
> winglets improve very low speed handling, giving a noticeable
> improvement in roll response just ahead of stall.

> -

Hi Martin, all,
Well, after putting some 20 hours in the club's Astir over the last 8
weekends, I finally got the nod to take up my Libelle. I think I nagged
the CFI enough that he let me go, just to get me off his back..

First flight was a 4 minute hop, as I didnt manage any lift. Second
launch saw me at cloudbase, 5300' within 12 minutes. I logged 2hrs 31 on
this flight and was exceeding glad and joyous! Choirs of angels sang. I
was applauded by passing eagles. I can see we are going to have a long
and fruitful relationship.
Thank you for all of your insightful and accurate feedback. I have read
and reread each post in this thread numerous times. As a result, my
maiden flight held some apprehension, but no anxiety.

Are you aware of anybody who has fitted canopy hinges to their 201?
I'm going through the mental exercise of trying to figure out a safe
method of rear hinges that allow a robust attachment, whilst still
engaging the locating pins.
The final setup would include a gas strut or 2.
If this mod could be adequately engineered, I think most owners would
consider implementing it. A kit could be an option.
Cheers,
Frank


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+



--
Ommadawn

[Martin Gregorie]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:06:27 +0000, Ommadawn wrote:

> First flight was a 4 minute hop, as I didnt manage any lift. Second
> launch saw me at cloudbase, 5300' within 12 minutes. I logged 2hrs 31 on
> this flight and was exceeding glad and joyous! Choirs of angels sang. I
> was applauded by passing eagles. I can see we are going to have a long
> and fruitful relationship.
>

Great! I'm pleased you had such a good flight and are enjoying your
Libelle.

> Are you aware of anybody who has fitted canopy hinges to their 201?
> I'm going through the mental exercise of trying to figure out a safe
> method of rear hinges that allow a robust attachment, whilst still
> engaging the locating pins.
>

The only ones I know of for sure was the Will Schueman modified Open
Libelle, and another H.301 in the UK which has a Schuemanised nose and
cockpit. As the fuselages and wing mounts of the H.201 and H.301 are
apparently near as dammit identical (I still haven't seen an H.301
outside of a photograph), presumably what works on an H.301 would also be
OK for an H.201.

WS extended the top of the fuselage forward to a little in front of the
wing LE. Probably this was as much so he could build decent wing fairings
onto the fuselage as anything, but it also meant that he halved the
length of the canopy. He hinged the new short canopy so it opened back on
top of the extended fuselage top. I think that halving the canopy's
length is about all you can do, though the resulting canopy could be
hinged at either end or even made to open sideways, but you'd still
probably need to extend the fuselage top forward to the read of the new
canopy and mating it to the wings would be hard because they currently
extend inwards far enough to let the canopy seal onto the wing's top
surfaces. Fixing that would, I think, need the new fuselage top to extend
down inside the wing roots so it wasn't impossibly fragile and then
adding root fairings would be a good idea, if only to make the result
look like a proper, well-thought-out job. I don't know what WS did there
because I've never seen drawings or photos of his modified H.301 with the
wings off (are there any?).

Another disadvantage is that his rearward view must be poor compared with
a standard Libelle - IMO any glider in which I can't see the tailplane
tips has poor rear vision while the Libelle is excellent in this respect:
I can just see my rudder waggle when I'm strapped in.

Hinging the existing canopy sideways wouldn't work at all because cockpit
rail-mounted hinges are so far below the wing's top surface that the
canopy would be prevented from opening at all and hinging it at front or
rear would leave such a long canopy to support that any attempt at
getting in or out without external help would either leave you trapped or
with a smashed canopy.

[Steve Leonard]

On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 4:30:25 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:

>
> WS extended the top of the fuselage forward to a little in front of the
> wing LE. Probably this was as much so he could build decent wing fairings
> onto the fuselage as anything, but it also meant that he halved the
> length of the canopy. He hinged the new short canopy so it opened back on
> top of the extended fuselage top.

Minor correction, Martin. WS did NOT hinge his canopy. It was still a lift off and set on the ground affair. JJ Sinclair modified the fuselage on a 301 Libelle, by completely changing the canopy and making it a two piece affair, more similar to the Kestrel with the front piece fixed, and the rear piece hinged at the back. Both did it to make improved wing root fairings.

I am guessing this is what you are asking about?

http://libelle.bugwiper.com/oyvxx_k.jpg

Steve Leonard

[JS]

Nice Libelle mod! Weight added is around the C/G. Uses the original latching mechanism? You can probably still open the canopy in flight.
Jim

[BobW]

On 3/22/2016 1:06 PM, Ommadawn wrote:

<Snip...>

> Hi Martin, all,
> Well, after putting some 20 hours in the club's Astir over the last 8
> weekends, I finally got the nod to take up my Libelle. I think I nagged
> the CFI enough that he let me go, just to get me off his back..
>
> First flight was a 4 minute hop, as I didnt manage any lift. Second
> launch saw me at cloudbase, 5300' within 12 minutes. I logged 2hrs 31 on
> this flight and was exceeding glad and joyous! Choirs of angels sang. I
> was applauded by passing eagles. I can see we are going to have a long
> and fruitful relationship.
> Thank you for all of your insightful and accurate feedback. I have read
> and reread each post in this thread numerous times. As a result, my
> maiden flight held some apprehension, but no anxiety.

Congratulations on a no-sweat transition to your new toy!!! Apprehension
without anxiety is "a good place to be" on any transition to a new-to-you
single-seat glider, in my opinion.

Bob W.

P.S. My sense is (inferring via RAS) you went about transitioning
intelligently...which usually has the desired result. (If you haven't yet,
sooner or later you'll experience the psychic pain of watching someone go
about such a transition UNintelligently, all too often with
"less-than-satisfactory" results...)

[Martin Gregorie]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:09:58 -0700, Steve Leonard wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 4:30:25 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
>
>> WS extended the top of the fuselage forward to a little in front of the
>> wing LE. Probably this was as much so he could build decent wing
>> fairings onto the fuselage as anything, but it also meant that he
>> halved the length of the canopy. He hinged the new short canopy so it
>> opened back on top of the extended fuselage top.
>
> Minor correction, Martin. WS did NOT hinge his canopy. It was still a
> lift off and set on the ground affair.
>

Thanks for the correction.

> JJ Sinclair modified the
> fuselage on a 301 Libelle, by completely changing the canopy and making
> it a two piece affair, more similar to the Kestrel with the front piece
> fixed, and the rear piece hinged at the back. Both did it to make
> improved wing root fairings.
>

That makes perfect sense. Thanks for the info.

> I am guessing this is what you are asking about?
>
> http://libelle.bugwiper.com/oyvxx_k.jpg
>

I wasn't asking, being happy with my Libelle as she stands, but Ommadawn
will find this interesting and I have a question or two about that rear
hinge.

- I'm guessing that it needs a spring to help the pilot swing it
up when he gets out. Is this right?

- Can the pilot close it without help and if so, how?
It looks like quite a stretch to get a grip on the frame when
you're in the glider.

- Were there any problems with the open canopy on a windy day?

[Ommadawn]

'Martin Gregorie[_5_ Wrote:
> ;923127']On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:09:58 -0700, Steve Leonard wrote:
> -

> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 4:30:25 PM UTC-5, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>

> -

> WS extended the top of the fuselage forward to a little in front of the
> wing LE. Probably this was as much so he could build decent wing
> fairings onto the fuselage as anything, but it also meant that he
> halved the length of the canopy. He hinged the new short canopy so it

> opened back on top of the extended fuselage top.-

>
> Minor correction, Martin. WS did NOT hinge his canopy. It was still a
> lift off and set on the ground affair.

> -
> Thanks for the correction.
> -

> JJ Sinclair modified the
> fuselage on a 301 Libelle, by completely changing the canopy and making
> it a two piece affair, more similar to the Kestrel with the front piece
> fixed, and the rear piece hinged at the back. Both did it to make
> improved wing root fairings.

> -

> That makes perfect sense. Thanks for the info.

> -

> I am guessing this is what you are asking about?
>
> http://libelle.bugwiper.com/oyvxx_k.jpg

> -

> I wasn't asking, being happy with my Libelle as she stands, but Ommadawn
>
> will find this interesting and I have a question or two about that rear
> hinge.
>
> - I'm guessing that it needs a spring to help the pilot swing it
> up when he gets out. Is this right?
>
> - Can the pilot close it without help and if so, how?
> It looks like quite a stretch to get a grip on the frame when
> you're in the glider.
>
> - Were there any problems with the open canopy on a windy day?
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

Steve, thank you VERY much for that image. I was hoping that someone had
done it already, so I know now that it is possible. The rear hinge mod
looks to be exactly what I would like to achieve. Im just surprised that
more people have not done it.
The amount of angle it opens to could be adjusted to make it accessible
from a seated position. I assume some sort of spring or preferably gas
strut would be included within the hinge mechanism. There is ample room
aft of the canopy within the hull. This region has significant
structural reinforcement to support additional hardware for a hinge
attachment. The canopy frame also appears to be sufficiently robust to
support some form of attachment. I will discuss this with an engineering
pal and see what input he has.


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+



--
Ommadawn

[Steve Leonard]

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 8:43:10 AM UTC-5, Ommadawn wrote:

>
> Steve, thank you VERY much for that image. I was hoping that someone had
> done it already, so I know now that it is possible. The rear hinge mod
> looks to be exactly what I would like to achieve. Im just surprised that
> more people have not done it.
> The amount of angle it opens to could be adjusted to make it accessible
> from a seated position. I assume some sort of spring or preferably gas
> strut would be included within the hinge mechanism. There is ample room
> aft of the canopy within the hull. This region has significant
> structural reinforcement to support additional hardware for a hinge
> attachment. The canopy frame also appears to be sufficiently robust to
> support some form of attachment. I will discuss this with an engineering
> pal and see what input he has.
>
>
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
>
> --
> Ommadawn

I believe he lost the space for an oxygen bottle (at least, the factory installation space) when he did that mod. Also, many easy ways to be able to lower the canopy while seated. Most notable being something like a leather cord that hangs down from the canopy into easy grasp range. You can find several other images, maybe of that same Libelle, with Google. You may also find pictures of a twin wheeled Libelle!

Link to a few shots of the one JJ modified.

https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/sold-the-hot-rod/103076/page1/

Steve Leonard

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

There are more photos of this on the Yahoo Libelle use group site.
UH

[rstut...@gmail.com]

I believe that glider resides at my club in upstate NY. If needed, I can get more specific pictures of it.