LAK-12 Question

[Doug Hoffman]

I have noticed over the years that this glider sells for what seems to
be a very low price given that it is a near 50:1 glider. But I notice
lately that there are also some for sale on Wings & Wheels with
relatively low total time:

320 hours $21k
260 hours $20k
200 hours $15k

Other than the obvious issues of dealing with a more cumbersome glider
to assemble, ground-handle, and store, is there some other inherent
problem with these gliders? I would expect to see a lot more hours on
gliders of this vintage, and a higher price for gliders of this
performance.

TIA

-Doug

[kirk.stant]

I have a little time in a friend's Lak-12 flying XC out of Turf, AZ.

Nice glider, if a little crude compared to similar German offerings.
But everything works.

Cockpit is big and comfortable, except for a "roger hook" type thingy
at the rear of the canopy that would probably have put a dent in my
noggin on a hard landing - but then I sat way back with the backrest
removed. No real comfort issues during several 3- 4 hour flights.

Flies nice, but it is a 20 meter ship, so adverse yaw is an issue.
Real good weak weather ship. Never got to fly it ballasted, but
chasing my friends in their 15 meter/std ships, I would gain on climbs
and lose on fast long glides in typical strong AZ conditions - exactly
what you would expect for an unballasted 20 m ship. On weak days, it
would easily outclimb smaller ships, and late afternoon/evening final
glides were wonderful - felt like you could go forever!.

Landing took some care due to adverse yaw and long wings. Also, wheel
is too far aft (IMHO), so it is easy to put on nose using the
effective wheel brake (very un-german in that respect!).

Now the bad part. ONE PIECE WINGS. Real heavy to rig/derig, huge
trailer.

So solve the rigging issue (one man rig, lots of friends, hangar) and
it's really got a lot of bank for the buck!

I think it would be a great ship for the midwest (lots of runways/big
fields to land in) but I worried about landing out in small narrow
desert strips with it.

If offered, I would fly one again in a heartbeat!

Kirk
LS6-b "66"

[Mike the Strike]

Kirk is right on with his description. It appears very similar in
most respects to the Jantar-1 (19m), which I did own and fly.

When I drove my trailer on to the field, all rigging volunteers
instantly disappeared! When I got a hangar, it proved an enjoyable
ship to own and fly. I suspect the same is true of the LAK-12.

I wouldn't consider it if you're going to rig every day before flying.

Mike

[Ken Ward]

I've owned my LAK-12 since 1998. I assemble it in the spring and leave
it on the ramp all season, putting it in the trailer in the fall. The
assembly process looks intimidating, but can be made easier.

This tip was passed on to me by a visiting Brit at Minden: With the
glider assembled, note the height of the main wheel off the ramp while
in the fuselage dolly, then measure the wing stand heights when they are
in position to remove all load from the spar locking pin. If you can
duplicate this configuration during each successive assembly, the spar
pin will slip right in after levering the wings together. He also
showed me how to lengthen the lever, for more leverage.

While it is true that your friends will all suddenly hear their wife
calling when you start to assemble your LAK-12, ignore them. I can get
mine assembled nearly completely on my own, using the factory wing
dolly. It's usually the last 3/4" of wing insertion where I need
someone to steady each tip while I lever it together.

It is accurate that each LAK-12 wing weighs 230# but remember that each
inner panel of a ASW-17 weighs 210#, which shows how much extra
complexity is required to produce a two piece wing. One piece wings are
an example of the KISS principle.

I found that towing my LAK-12 with a Dodge Grand Caravan plus tow
package, was the minimum acceptable vehicle. A Volvo wagon is marginal
above 50mph. A Chevrolet/GMC Subdivision is definitely better. I've
towed the 42' trailer empty behind a Honda Civic, which shocks the
Expedition owners towing jet skis.

The LAK-12 water ballast system (200 liters/50 gallons) has the easiest
fill/dump system that I've ever seen. No more wondering if the day is
going to be good enough to justify the effort of adding water. It fills
so quickly unattended that I can't complete washing the glider before
the ballast tanks become full. The polyurethane paint means it stands
up well to being tied down outside without covers. Polish it every few
seasons and it looks great.

I've been very happy with my LAK-12. It is very easy to fly which is
why the Soviet sport gliding federation would put newly licensed pilots
in it for XC training. Higher performance -> fewer landouts. One thing
I learned from a Carl Herold XC camp is that gliders should be landed at
actual airstrips and not farm fields. I fly to keep a landable airstrip
within reach at all times. While I've not yet landed out, there have
been times where I've deviated to a landable airstrip with the plan that
I would either find lift and climb out to continue the task, or I would
land at the airstrip and call for a retrieve.

Best regards,
Ken
San Jose, CA

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by Ken Ward
I've owned my LAK-12 since 1998. I assemble it in the spring and leave
it on the ramp all season, putting it in the trailer in the fall. The
assembly process looks intimidating, but can be made easier.
This tip was passed on to me by a visiting Brit at Minden: With the
glider assembled, note the height of the main wheel off the ramp while
in the fuselage dolly, then measure the wing stand heights when they are
in position to remove all load from the spar locking pin. If you can
duplicate this configuration during each successive assembly, the spar
pin will slip right in after levering the wings together. He also
showed me how to lengthen the lever, for more leverage.
While it is true that your friends will all suddenly hear their wife
calling when you start to assemble your LAK-12, ignore them. I can get
mine assembled nearly completely on my own, using the factory wing
dolly. It's usually the last 3/4" of wing insertion where I need
someone to steady each tip while I lever it together.
It is accurate that each LAK-12 wing weighs 230# but remember that each
inner panel of a ASW-17 weighs 210#, which shows how much extra
complexity is required to produce a two piece wing. One piece wings are
an example of the KISS principle.
I found that towing my LAK-12 with a Dodge Grand Caravan plus tow
package, was the minimum acceptable vehicle. A Volvo wagon is marginal
above 50mph. A Chevrolet/GMC Subdivision is definitely better. I've
towed the 42' trailer empty behind a Honda Civic, which shocks the
Expedition owners towing jet skis.
The LAK-12 water ballast system (200 liters/50 gallons) has the easiest
fill/dump system that I've ever seen. No more wondering if the day is
going to be good enough to justify the effort of adding water. It fills
so quickly unattended that I can't complete washing the glider before
the ballast tanks become full. The polyurethane paint means it stands
up well to being tied down outside without covers. Polish it every few
seasons and it looks great.
I've been very happy with my LAK-12. It is very easy to fly which is
why the Soviet sport gliding federation would put newly licensed pilots
in it for XC training. Higher performance -> fewer landouts. One thing
I learned from a Carl Herold XC camp is that gliders should be landed at
actual airstrips and not farm fields. I fly to keep a landable airstrip
within reach at all times. While I've not yet landed out, there have
been times where I've deviated to a landable airstrip with the plan that
I would either find lift and climb out to continue the task, or I would
land at the airstrip and call for a retrieve.
Best regards,
Ken
San Jose, CA

boy if landing out is such a crime i should be on death row.

[Bruce]

<SNIP>

Post by c***@gmail.com
boy if landing out is such a crime i should be on death row.

My Std Cirrus is 36 years old now.
Was first owned by Ted Pearson - who won the 1971 Nationals with her. Subsequent
owners also flew hard. She has many flights >500km, and a few over 700km.
Consequently the number of outlandings in harsh South African veldt and ploughed
fields and all sorts of "interesting" places is impressive.
She has had both wingtips bashed, the gear doors ripped off, the belly scraped
and a couple of canopies broken. All minor damage that has been easily repaired.
Probably the worst damage was on an airfield landing when I damaged a wing
leading edge.

This glider has LIVED.

She is still pretty, flies well and I have the confidence that you have to
really try to break a well built sailplane. OK my impression is that maybe
Schempp-Hirth are stronger than average, but in my experience outlandings seldom
result in damage or injury.

Outlandings are not something to aspire to, but they are certainly no crime.
They are part of soaring. A consequence of having fun - and occasionally the
source of fun. An ex world champion at a contest was pointing out a plethora of
landable fields around the contest task area. When asked how he knew about them
his simple answer was that he had landed in most of them at least once...

So maybe outlandings are an indicator of success too - If you aren't making a
few, you aren't trying hard enough to be really fast. Which limits what you can
do. The logical conclusion of that line of reasoning is the guys who never leave
the airfield.

[kirk.stant]

There is nothing wrong with landing out - as others have stated, it's
like falling down while skiing!

But one has to really weight the risk of damage (glider and/or
property) against the rewards when choosing WHERE to landout. Where
you are in the world, as well as what you are flying, has a lot to do
with what you can accept as a reasonable landing field.

In my glider (an LS6) I prefer not to land in a pasture. I will
accept a plowed/short crop field, if necessary. But I try to always
have an airstrip (anything from an abandoned WW2 field on up) within
range during non-race XC flights - it's just not worth the risk to
land in a potentially rough strip with my landing speed and small
wheel.

In Arizona, when away from the cultivated valleys, there are huge
areas where you can only landout on airstrips. Otherwise, you will
break your glider. Easy decision there - stay high, fly smart, keep
your options open. Here near St Louis, Illinois is all one big farm
field, with airfields and farmer strips every 15 miles, it seems, so
one can push a lot lower and still have a really good place to land.
But with a modern 40/1 ship, little reason to not make it to a nice
safe airfield, with an airconditioned lounge, cute line girls, etc.
(still waiting for that last bit...).

If I was flying a 1-26, or K-8, then my range of suitable landout
locations would undoubtedly be larger, due to the slower approach
speed and tough skid/wheel gear setup. Then again, I might need to
landout more often!

Do I landout less this way? Not really, I still average about 6
landouts a season - they just are all on nice airfields or farmer's
airstrips, where I can usually get an aero retrieve back to the club
field.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Eric Greenwell]

Post by Bruce
She has had both wingtips bashed, the gear doors ripped off, the belly
scraped and a couple of canopies broken. All minor damage that has been
easily repaired.

That's the first time I've heard a broken canopy called "minor damage"
and "easily repaired".

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by Eric Greenwell

Post by Bruce
She has had both wingtips bashed, the gear doors ripped off, the belly
scraped and a couple of canopies broken. All minor damage that has been
easily repaired.

That's the first time I've heard a broken canopy called "minor damage"
and "easily repaired".
--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes"http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org

yes i suppose that is another major benifit of flying a lousy
performance glider, shorter retrieves!!! just a reminder to the
crowd, my experience XC flying is based solely out of Central Iowa,
where selecting a suitable field to land in is usually as easy as
turning into the wind and landing straight ahead. especially in the
spring/summer. I have flown some pretty low altitude cross countries
in June/July with 3 feet tall soybeans and 10 feet tall corn filling
most of these fields and it is tricky but you just tread lightly and
keep a hay or alfalfa field below you. you can see some of my flight
reports from these flights (and others) at www.knightglider.com/flightreports.htm
I think that soaring has an unrealized and untapped resource in the
midwest. while the thermal strength is weak compared to many places
of the country, and cloudbase is much lower, the landout options are
infinitely better. this area could provide excellent cross country
training opportunities for the national XC camps by allowing them to
try to go out on days where the soaring is only so-so and still be
reassured that they wont break anything.

the only damage i have ever done landing out is a rip in the fabric
when the nose dug in after landing. both were due to soft fields and
probably some overagression braking. it is part of the sport though.
i try to avoid cut corn fields, with the stalks still a foot or two
tall sticking in every which direction. overly rough fields,
obviously, are undesirable. however, fabric is easy to repair.

[Bruce]

Post by Eric Greenwell

Post by Bruce
She has had both wingtips bashed, the gear doors ripped off, the belly
scraped and a couple of canopies broken. All minor damage that has
been easily repaired.

That's the first time I've heard a broken canopy called "minor damage"
and "easily repaired".

Hi Eric

MAybe I should have said - non-structural damage.

To replace a canopy takes a free blown transparency and about 12 hours work. One
week of evenings to remind you of your sins. Total cost ~10 aerotows.


So far so good - partner has broken the canopy, but I dont wear hats with
buttons on top...

Cheers
Bruce

[Shawn]

snip

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Ken Ward
I've been very happy with my LAK-12. It is very easy to fly which is
why the Soviet sport gliding federation would put newly licensed pilots
in it for XC training. Higher performance -> fewer landouts. One thing
I learned from a Carl Herold XC camp is that gliders should be landed at
actual airstrips and not farm fields. I fly to keep a landable airstrip
within reach at all times. While I've not yet landed out, there have
been times where I've deviated to a landable airstrip with the plan that
I would either find lift and climb out to continue the task, or I would
land at the airstrip and call for a retrieve.
Best regards,
Ken
San Jose, CA

boy if landing out is such a crime i should be on death row.

You'd have been lynched with a piece of old tow rope by now. ;-)


Shawn

[Eric Greenwell]

Post by c***@gmail.com
boy if landing out is such a crime i should be on death row.

Only if you were doing in a LAK 12, because you'd be farther away and
much harder to remove from the field. In fact, you'd probably still be
sitting in field #7, waiting for the retrieve crew that will never come...

I notice some pilots use "landout" to mean "landing somewhere besides my
home airfield", even if they land at a large, paved, airport. I call
that "landing away" when I land on an airport/airstrip; a "landout" is
landing something else, like a farmer's field or a road.

[kirk.stant]

Post by Eric Greenwell
I notice some pilots use "landout" to mean "landing somewhere besides my
home airfield", even if they land at a large, paved, airport. I call
that "landing away" when I land on an airport/airstrip; a "landout" is
landing something else, like a farmer's field or a road.

Eric, I consider it a landout anytime someone don't land at their
intended destination "because the wind quit". My feeling is that with
the performance (and cost) of today's gliders, a true landout "au
vaches" is rapidly becoming unacceptably risky in many ships. And
mostly unnecessary.

The key is where you intend to land; I may change my goal inflight, so
the resulting landing away from the home field wouldn't be a landout
anymore. I once changed my destination from Turf, Az - my takeoff
point - to Parowan, Ut., while over the Grand Canyon - that flight was
definitely not a landout!

You set a task and try hard to complete it. If you are unable to,
then you are forced to landout - and if you are unable to keep a
suitable landing field in range, then perhaps you'll landout off-
field.

Semantics...It's all great, whatever you call it!

Kirk
66

[Stewart Kissel]

I googled this topic and could not find previous threads
on RAS, but I suspect they exist. I would expect most
experiences are similiar to mine...helped put the huge
wings on, but no time flying the bird. It would be
my experience that if one of these landed out in a
field where self-riggers would not operate...it would
be 3-4 strong friends to get it into a trailer. Assembly/disassem
bly reminded me of a Grob 103, although on hardtop
with self rigging gear and a good trailer I suspect
things would be much easier.

[Bill Daniels]

Post by Stewart Kissel
I googled this topic and could not find previous threads
on RAS, but I suspect they exist. I would expect most
experiences are similiar to mine...helped put the huge
wings on, but no time flying the bird. It would be
my experience that if one of these landed out in a
field where self-riggers would not operate...it would
be 3-4 strong friends to get it into a trailer. Assembly/disassem
bly reminded me of a Grob 103, although on hardtop
with self rigging gear and a good trailer I suspect
things would be much easier.

Frank Whiteley, who owns a LAK-12, and I have discussed this.

If the one-man rigging system used "gate hinge" type root dolleys on the
trailer, then the wings could be swung out ~45 degrees to the
trailer/fuselage before the Udo-type wing dolly was attached to the wing CG.
Then, the wheels of the wing dolly needn't roll more than 4-6 feet when
rigging/derigging. One could pack a sheet of plywood to lay on soft ground
for the wing dolly wheels to roll on. That way, even if you landed in a
soft plowed field, rigging aids would still work.

Bill Daniels

[Eric Greenwell]

Post by Bill Daniels
If the one-man rigging system used "gate hinge" type root dolleys on the
trailer, then the wings could be swung out ~45 degrees to the
trailer/fuselage before the Udo-type wing dolly was attached to the wing CG.
Then, the wheels of the wing dolly needn't roll more than 4-6 feet when
rigging/derigging. One could pack a sheet of plywood to lay on soft ground
for the wing dolly wheels to roll on. That way, even if you landed in a
soft plowed field, rigging aids would still work.

If it's a soft plowed field, would you be able to get a heavy 40 foot
long trailer to the glider? And get it out when it's even heavier with
the glider in it? It wouldn't work around here in eastern Washington
state as the vehicles would get stuck, and many farmers would not like
the car and trailer on their plowed field.

I've never helped carry a Lak 12 out of a field, though it might be fun
to be the guy taking the pictures of the retrieve! Maybe Doug should
call all the people selling the Lak 12 and ask them why they are selling it.

[Bill Daniels]

Post by Bill Daniels
If the one-man rigging system used "gate hinge" type root dolleys on the
trailer, then the wings could be swung out ~45 degrees to the
trailer/fuselage before the Udo-type wing dolly was attached to the wing
CG. Then, the wheels of the wing dolly needn't roll more than 4-6 feet
when rigging/derigging. One could pack a sheet of plywood to lay on soft
ground for the wing dolly wheels to roll on. That way, even if you
landed in a soft plowed field, rigging aids would still work.

If it's a soft plowed field, would you be able to get a heavy 40 foot long
trailer to the glider? And get it out when it's even heavier with the
glider in it? It wouldn't work around here in eastern Washington state as
the vehicles would get stuck, and many farmers would not like the car and
trailer on their plowed field.

Is there any real difference between a 30 foot trailer and a 40 foot in this
situation? It's also worth pointing out that with the LAK's performance, it
shouldn't arise often.

Obviously, driving into a soft field is a bad idea that should be avoided if
possible but it's been done successfully. The LAK is heavier than, say, a
3-piece wing BG-12 or a Skylark 4, but I've helped get those out of plowed
fields. I recall some pilots carrying a 1000' spool of rope and a pulley
block to gently pull gliders to a gate where they could be derigged without
putting the trailer on the field.

The LAK WILL be more of a problem in retrieves but if you think about it you
can deal with it. The LAK is not as bad as my old Lark IS28b2 and I could
rig it solo..

Bill Daniels

[Doug Hoffman]

Thanks for all of the feedback, guys. The weak lift performance is
certainly a plus here in Michigan. The downside issues are food for
thought. Paying for a hangar so it could be left rigged is out of the
question for me. Although I currently use an Udo dolly on my 15-meter
ship and that dolly is marvelous. It may make the LAK-12 assembly/
disassembly task acceptable.

Regards,

-Doug

[Eric Greenwell]

Post by Bill Daniels

If it's a soft plowed field, would you be able to get a heavy 40 foot long
trailer to the glider? And get it out when it's even heavier with the
glider in it? It wouldn't work around here in eastern Washington state as
the vehicles would get stuck, and many farmers would not like the car and
trailer on their plowed field.

Is there any real difference between a 30 foot trailer and a 40 foot in this
situation?

I would expect a much larger and heavier trailer to be a much bigger
problem. The tow car has got to pull a lot harder, with a greater risk
digging into the soft dirt, You can't manhandle it as easily if it gets
stuck.

Post by Bill Daniels
It's also worth pointing out that with the LAK's performance, it
shouldn't arise often.

That depends on the pilot ^:) - nobody needs to land in a field if it's
important not to, and at 20 meters, many airports and private strips are
unusable. The fear of a difficult retrieve or damage when landing on a
small airport makes the pilot fly more conservatively, which reduces his
soaring pleasure, and I suspect that factor is about half of the reason
these gliders are so cheap. The other half is the irritation of dealing
with them on the ground, or paying for a hangar.

Post by Bill Daniels
The LAK WILL be more of a problem in retrieves but if you think about it you
can deal with it.

Agreed! A prospective owner should consider the hassles and if there are
acceptable solutions to them, and not be let the "bang for the buck"
figure crowd out consideration of these issues.

[Frank Whiteley]

Post by Doug Hoffman
I have noticed over the years that this glider sells for what seems to
be a very low price given that it is a near 50:1 glider. But I notice
lately that there are also some for sale on Wings & Wheels with
320 hours $21k
260 hours $20k
200 hours $15k
Other than the obvious issues of dealing with a more cumbersome glider
to assemble, ground-handle, and store, is there some other inherent
problem with these gliders? I would expect to see a lot more hours on
gliders of this vintage, and a higher price for gliders of this
performance.
TIA
-Doug

Tried to reply twice earlier but neither have showed up yet. Seems to
happen on the weekends.

For those interested in buying, join the Yahoo group LAK12 and review
some of the items there.

The LAK-12 flies fine. I haven't flown mine with water yet, but a
couple of owners report that ballast makes it a different, and even
better, glider. There are a couple of size considerations if you
have a long torso or big feet. Both can be accommodated to some
extent. It is pretty heavy, flapped, and I suspect some low-time in
glider owners haven't been comfortable in it and didn't get much
practice. The rigging effort required due to the poor trailer setup
probably limited the amount of hours they were able to get and
resulted in some intimidation regarding XC flying for others. The
LAK12 is a niche glider, comparable to the Nimbus 2, ASW-17, and
Kestrel 19, so attractive only to a smaller part of the market.

Rigging and the trailer are real issues, owing in part to the 230lb
wing panels and the poor trailer setup. Anyone considering buying one
should budget for some trailer modifications. Doing so will relieve
much of the problem. Domestic trailer replacement would cost about
$8000 plus rigging. I understand some of the trailers have structural
problems, and from what I've heard I suspect from excessive snow
loads. The rigging issues are largely part of the trailer design and
the wing root dollies. I've modified my door and rails with scissors
jacks and have replaced the aft trailer supports with longer sections
to reduce the fore and aft slope of the trailer dramatically and to
keep the fuselage dolly on the tracks to avoid the tail lift to get
the wheel down. Apart from that, the trailer tows well behind my F150
and the surge brakes work fine. The suspension is trailing torsion
arm with shock. The sprung section is steel, not rubber. It smooths
out the bumps. I think one owner had a suspension member fail.

I use an Udo dolly, which is not quite right for this glider. The
next stage will involve modifying the axle and inner wheel wells then
adding another stabilizing track and modified root dollies and a new
wing dolly. After that, I expect the glider with become one person
rig with no heavy lifting. I can rig now with one other person,
mostly for stabilizing the wings while moving them in and out of the
trailer. The scissors jacks help with the spigot and spar pin
alignments which are critical for assembly and finally with raising
and lower the gear. Taking a couple of extra minutes with alignment
before pulling the wings together makes it pretty easy. The real hard
part is lifting the wings in and out of the trailer saddles atop the
wheel wells and at the tip. It's the trailer design that's kept
people from flying them much XC or frequently enough to be really
comfortable with it.

I suspect several of the owners may have been low time glider drivers
and possibly first time private owners. This is my seventh glider and
I had rigged one a few times before and knew what the pitfalls were.
I've already solved some of the rigging issues and hope to finish the
rest before long. I've rigged and derigged a lot of glider types over
the years. The handbook for the LAK-12 says it can be rigged by 3-4
in 10 minutes. True, if it's the same crew each time, but where will
you find that these days? But that also means a lot of lifting. So
far I haven't heard about too many where the owners have taken time to
fix the short comings of the trailer and rigging issues. It's
doable. Have a peek in the lak12 yahoo group.

Plus side
Good forward and all around visibility.
Excellent performance. Thermals dry down around 41-42kts.
Tall undercarriage. Same oleo strut as Blaniks. Positive lock in up
and down position. Medium effort to raise and lower. Good wheel
brake with stick handle.
Two 12AH battery boxes for all those gadgets.
Good access to all controls and fittings.
Ballast system appears both well designed and functions fine from what
I'm told.
Ventilation.

So-so side
In board sections are flaps only. Out board sections are flaperons.
Tail emits a tone when thermaling on several, like blowing over the
top of a beer bottle.
Canopy is not strut supported, but held in open position by over-
center lock.
Original canopies are screwed, not glued, to frame.

Down side
Trailer design
Wing root dollies

Frank Whiteley

[Clint]

I fly a LAK-12 and love it. It is however kept rigged in a hanger.
Rigging is a pain if the guy in charge is clueless - but with time and
preparation - it can be made a lot less painless. Use wing stands
until ready for the final line-up and push and save the wingmans back.

It is easy and nice to fly empty - and very fast when loaded. Have a
few +500km flights in mine including a flight of almost 8 hours. There
is something very satisfying about 170km final glides.

It is also very strong and solid. Things are well put together. Mine
had a slightly off-white epoxy finish which should never crack. It has
subsequently been painted with a polyurethane paint which should also
be hard wearing and it has a glossy white colour. The control hook-ups
are a pleasure to use. And the canopy that locks into the open
position actually works very well. The fittings in the factory trailer
are also solid and the glider is very secure in the trailer. The
trailer is very long (12.5m) and weighs just over a ton loaded. I tow
it with a Landrover Freelander (2.0 TDI) and can tow comfortably at
the national speed limit (120km/h). The trailer has plenty of ground
clearance and towing out of rough fields is not a major issue.

I cannot get mine to spin - at the stall it just wallows around - or
the nose drops and the glider accelerates. It loops very easily. High-
speed flypasts are spectacular with the long wings.

All in all a great machine. I inherited an ASW-20 and had to decide
which aircraft to keep - as value wise they where the same. The LAK is
however 16 years newer and in far better condition. So it was goodbye
to the ASW-20.

Clinton
LAK 12 S/N 6229

[c***@gmail.com]

50:1?
Land Out?

huh?????????

[Eric Greenwell]

Post by c***@gmail.com
50:1?
Land Out?
huh?????????

If you fly conservatively (well within the boundaries of your skill and
glider's performance), you will rarely, if ever, land out; conversely,
if you fly aggressively, you will land out often. The pilot determines
the risk of landing out, not the glider. The performance of the glider
will determine how far away from home the landout occurs. An aggressive
pilot with a Cherokee will land out conveniently close to home and be
retrieved in time for dinner, but an aggressive pilot in a Lak 12 might
not be retrieved until the next day, cold and hungry.

[BG]

Eric referred to aggression level being a predictor of landout probability.

It is possibly semantics but to me aggression equates to pushing the limits
without consideration. An approach that generally results in running out of
height and ideas at some point. Even in a contest you have to finish tasks if
you want to score well, so there is a careful cognitive process of assessment of
conditions, personal and equipment performance and acceptable risk of landout to
determine how hard you push. When racing I generally have little to lose so I
can take risks - the top positions in the pack will be more averse to a landout,
because that will demote them. The winning by not losing idea of George Moffatt.

Same applies to personal flying. We should be balancing risk and goals
analytically.

My club is averse to XC flying, it is very hard to get anyone to retrieve you.
Since not getting retrieved is at best inconvenient and could be bad for your
health, I have to fly conservatively most of the time.

74 flights and 145 hours in my Std Cirrus - 1:37 on a GOOOD day. One land out,
at another airfield. With a nearly two hour average - including the winch
launches at sunset for a hangar landing, you can see I am generally flying in XC
weather. But the conservative flying style means I have only a couple of 300+ km
flights. We have pilots who own 1:29 performance ships that have never landed
out in >10 years of flying. Clearly glider performance is not a predictor of
landout probability.

Conversely, flying in regional contests I can (and do) take a lot more risk in
terms of land out. My flying has improved, as a result. I really believe that
glider pilots should be encouraged to explore the performance capabilities of
their aircraft. I disagree with the aggressive word though, to me this is all
about developing judgement. In this context aggression would be referring to
Instrumental aggression (aggression directed towards obtaining some goal,
considered to be a learned response to a situation - care of wikipedia.)
I would prefer to think of setting a risk level - What is possible today, and
what risk of landout can I accept? As a measure - I tend to be below the half
way position in contests. With my conservative flying meaning I fail to exploit
the conditions and capabilities fully. I generally share this area with the
other mis-judgers, either too conservative or trying too hard. (aggressive if
you like)

Now. I know Eric is a very experienced XC pilot so some opinions please.

Should we be landing out frequently enough to account for luck only, or more?
Should we ever intentionally fly aggressively as per the definition of aggression?

[kirk.stant]

BG,

I think what we have here is a difference in our "english". US usage
of aggressive vs conservative. Different points on a range of
approaches to a task. Foolhardy or Impulsively, or even carelessly &
dangerously would be beyond aggressive on the scale.

I think of aggressive when I tilt the balance of rewards vs risk in
the direction of risk (in this case, landing out, not damage/injury).
Conservative is avoiding the risk of landing out at any cost, usually
due to logistics of a retrieve.

US use of term aggressive may be cultural, come to think about it...

Changing the subject, it's interesting that you have the same problem
we have of clubs not liking XC flights. There really seems to be two
types of glider pilots out there, at times!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[Berry]

Post by kirk.stant
BG,
I think what we have here is a difference in our "english". US usage
of aggressive vs conservative. Different points on a range of
approaches to a task. Foolhardy or Impulsively, or even carelessly &
dangerously would be beyond aggressive on the scale.
I think of aggressive when I tilt the balance of rewards vs risk in
the direction of risk (in this case, landing out, not damage/injury).
Conservative is avoiding the risk of landing out at any cost, usually
due to logistics of a retrieve.
US use of term aggressive may be cultural, come to think about it...
Changing the subject, it's interesting that you have the same problem
we have of clubs not liking XC flights. There really seems to be two
types of glider pilots out there, at times!
Cheers,
Kirk
66

Man, I hate clubs that discourage x-country flying. Our little club,
Southern Eagles Soaring, flying out of LaGrange, Georgia, USA, whole
heartedly encourages x-country, badge, and contest flying. One of the
first flights of our "new" two-place glass bird resulted in a honest cow
pasture landout. Of course, we were not too thrilled about the towplane
landing out in a cow pasture...

[cfinn]

Post by Berry
Man, I hate clubs that discourage x-country flying. Our little club,
Southern Eagles Soaring, flying out of LaGrange, Georgia, USA, whole
heartedly encourages x-country, badge, and contest flying. One of the
first flights of our "new" two-place glass bird resulted in a honest cow
pasture landout. Of course, we were not too thrilled about the towplane
landing out in a cow pasture...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I'm totally with Wally on XC flying with the club. I've been taking
students out for 100K or longer flights. They get a chance to see
things from a totally different prospective. Wally, you forgot to
mention that we were doing a triangle speed run for the second time
that day, after we had broken the Georgia record. It least this time
it was a 3,500 foot field, and it didn't even have any emu's!

[BG]

Post by kirk.stant
BG,
I think what we have here is a difference in our "english". US usage
of aggressive vs conservative. Different points on a range of
approaches to a task. Foolhardy or Impulsively, or even carelessly &
dangerously would be beyond aggressive on the scale.
I think of aggressive when I tilt the balance of rewards vs risk in
the direction of risk (in this case, landing out, not damage/injury).
Conservative is avoiding the risk of landing out at any cost, usually
due to logistics of a retrieve.
US use of term aggressive may be cultural, come to think about it...
Changing the subject, it's interesting that you have the same problem
we have of clubs not liking XC flights. There really seems to be two
types of glider pilots out there, at times!
Cheers,
Kirk
66

Hi Kirk

As I said probably semantics.
Have been actively working on getting some of our members to fly a little
further. Limited success so far, but I am painfully persistent...

We definitely have a few kinds of glider pilots. Broadly the goldfish bowl types
and the XC types. Wild variation in other attributes within the groups. For
example the highest risk taker and most likely candidate for a BIG moment in a
glider - feels the danger represented by outlanding is too high to risk, and
flies very limited XC in very conservative mode. Then does low level aerobatics
and redline wormburners over the runway at home. One has to wonder.

Inadvertently changed my signature there when I re-installed my news reader -
have to fix it.

Bruce

[Bill Daniels]

Post by BG

Post by kirk.stant
BG,
I think what we have here is a difference in our "english". US usage
of aggressive vs conservative. Different points on a range of
approaches to a task. Foolhardy or Impulsively, or even carelessly &
dangerously would be beyond aggressive on the scale.
I think of aggressive when I tilt the balance of rewards vs risk in
the direction of risk (in this case, landing out, not damage/injury).
Conservative is avoiding the risk of landing out at any cost, usually
due to logistics of a retrieve.
US use of term aggressive may be cultural, come to think about it...
Changing the subject, it's interesting that you have the same problem
we have of clubs not liking XC flights. There really seems to be two
types of glider pilots out there, at times!
Cheers,
Kirk
66

Hi Kirk
As I said probably semantics.
Have been actively working on getting some of our members to fly a little
further. Limited success so far, but I am painfully persistent...
We definitely have a few kinds of glider pilots. Broadly the goldfish bowl
types and the XC types. Wild variation in other attributes within the
groups. For example the highest risk taker and most likely candidate for a
BIG moment in a glider - feels the danger represented by outlanding is too
high to risk, and flies very limited XC in very conservative mode. Then
does low level aerobatics and redline wormburners over the runway at home.
One has to wonder.
Inadvertently changed my signature there when I re-installed my news
reader - have to fix it.
Bruce

One way to describe agressiveness is that a conservative pilot will fly M=2
on a 4 knot day and an agressive pilot may fly M=8 on a 4 knot day. With
flight analysis programs feeding NMEA data to PDA glide software you can
determine the McCready setting the pilot is using. I see a lot of very
successful pilots flying aggressively that way. These guys succeed because
they're very good at finding their next source of lift.

Another way to describe a conservative XC pilot is that he will always have
two 'known-safe" landing spots within gliding range using half his published
max L/D corrected for headwind/tailwind.

I'm conservative both ways.

I'm not sure what scares pilots most about landouts. I find that light
airplane pilots with a lot of XC experience are less stressed than those who
have rarely landed away from their home field. It's probably just fear of
the unknown - what they don't know is that airportrs are pretty much alike.

It's also possible instructors, knowingly or otherwise, have taught landing
patterns using landmarks near the home field. The student instinctively
knows the "red barn" he uses to turn base won't be there at another airfield
and that scares him. It's really great if a student can get experience
landing at several different fields.

Bill Daniels

[SAM 303a]

Post by Bill Daniels
I'm not sure what scares pilots most about landouts. I find that light
airplane pilots with a lot of XC experience are less stressed than those
who have rarely landed away from their home field. It's probably just
fear of the unknown - what they don't know is that airportrs are pretty
much alike.

It's not other airports that create the pucker factor, no worries there.
It's the obstacle in the field that you couldn't see until you were on final
that makes me conservative. I've only had 5 'aux vaches' landouts and on
one of them there was an obstacle I didn't see until I was turning final.
The Mosquito can make a nice steep approach and I'd conserved my
altitude/options so all ended well. That surprise on final did reinforce my
conservatism.

[Eric Greenwell]

Post by Bill Daniels

Bruce

One way to describe agressiveness is that a conservative pilot will fly M=2
on a 4 knot day and an agressive pilot may fly M=8 on a 4 knot day. With
flight analysis programs feeding NMEA data to PDA glide software you can
determine the McCready setting the pilot is using. I see a lot of very
successful pilots flying aggressively that way. These guys succeed because
they're very good at finding their next source of lift.

An interesting observation. My experience with flying in regional and
national contests around the country is different: the best pilots don't
cruise much faster than the mediocre pilots, but gain their speed from a
better choice of where to fly (more lift, less sink), and are much more
selective about the thermals they take. The mediocre pilot takes that 4
knot thermal Bill mentions, but the good pilot waits for (and finds) the
6 knot thermal.

Another way the good pilot gets that high cross-country speed is by
staying out of trouble, mostly by recognizing a poor situation ahead in
time to handle it easily. The mediocre pilot isn't aware of the problem
as early.

Note that I'm using "good" and "mediocre" instead of "aggressive" and
"conservative". A good pilot can fly much faster than a mediocre pilot
and still be flying more conservatively.

Bill, how do you tell what MC setting a pilot is using from looking at a
flight trace? Perhaps you meant "a fairly steady cruise speed equivalent
to an MC setting of ..."? The good pilots I've flown with don't follow
an MC setting, but cruise at a fairly constant speed.

[Bill Daniels]

Post by Eric Greenwell
Bill, how do you tell what MC setting a pilot is using from looking at a
flight trace? Perhaps you meant "a fairly steady cruise speed equivalent
to an MC setting of ..."? The good pilots I've flown with don't follow an
MC setting, but cruise at a fairly constant speed.

Just change the McCready setting on the PDA software until the speed-to-fly
command matches what the pilot was doing. GPS_LOG can automatically set
McCready to the average of the last (n) thermals. If that results in a lot
of "slow down" indications, the pilot was overflying the conditions.

Actually, these pilot also fly at a pretty constant speed - 110 knots IAS.
(GPS_LOG also makes a pretty good guess at the IAS.)

Bill Daniels

[Eric Greenwell]

Post by kirk.stant
BG,
I think what we have here is a difference in our "english". US usage
of aggressive vs conservative. Different points on a range of
approaches to a task. Foolhardy or Impulsively, or even carelessly &
dangerously would be beyond aggressive on the scale.
I think of aggressive when I tilt the balance of rewards vs risk in
the direction of risk (in this case, landing out, not damage/injury).
Conservative is avoiding the risk of landing out at any cost, usually
due to logistics of a retrieve.

Good catch, Kirk. Another way to put it when talking about doing
something: "conservatively" implies the outcome is very predictable;
"aggressively" implies it is moderately predictable; foolhardy,
impulsively, etc implies the outcome can be anything.

BG is right that we balance the risks (generally a landout) and costs
(money, time, pleasure) against our goals for each flight. For example,
I believe:

-Many pilots are attracted to contests because the retrieve process is
already set up and they are expected to fly aggressively. It frees them
from the usual concerns of organizing a retrieve and the potential
embarrassment of landing out.

-Some pilots are attracted to <30:1 gliders because they can fly them
aggressively and still be retrieved easily, cheaply, and quickly. Look
at some of the 1-26 pilots who are very aggressive in their flying and
make great flights, but with manageable retrieves; put the same pilot in
a 25 meter glider and it'd take days to retrieve them - not practical or
fun for a lot of pilots.

-A big attraction of a motorglider is it allows a pilot to fly
aggressively on every flight, but enjoy the conservative pilot's
outcome: home in time for beer and pizza!

[kirk.stant]

Post by c***@gmail.com
50:1?
Land Out?
huh?????????

You need to come check out some Arizona flyin'. There are times and
places when you are cruising in the mid teens, and you can't SEE
anyplace good to land down below!

And if you are down below 10k ft, you start sweating a landout...still
without seeing anyplace good to land...

Yeah, 50/1 sure is nice at times!

Kirk
66

[c***@gmail.com]

fly the cherokee conservatively and you'll land out close to home...

[Francisco De Almeida]

Post by Frank Whiteley
Tail emits a tone when thermaling on several, like blowing over the
top of a beer bottle.

Frank, does your LAK have mylar seals for the rudder? I had a LAK once, =
and cured this with Streifeneder 'Kombi' tape.

We used to joke that the tail "moooed" to remind you to stay away from =
outlandings (vacada, aux vaches, K=FChe treffen.... sorry, it doesn't =
work in English).

Doug, there is an interesting thread about the LAK-12 at =
www.gliderforum.com.

Regards,

[Frank Whiteley]

On May 8, 3:27 am, Francisco De Almeida

Post by Francisco De Almeida

Post by Frank Whiteley
Tail emits a tone when thermaling on several, like blowing over the
top of a beer bottle.

Frank, does your LAK have mylar seals for the rudder? I had a LAK once, =
and cured this with Streifeneder 'Kombi' tape.
We used to joke that the tail "moooed" to remind you to stay away from =
outlandings (vacada, aux vaches, K=FChe treffen.... sorry, it doesn't =
work in English).
Doug, there is an interesting thread about the LAK-12 at =www.gliderforum.com.
Regards,

'Mooing' is an appropriate description of the sound. Yes, mine has
mylar on the rudder.

Frank