21m tipped Lak 17b!

[Paul T[_4_]]

So Lak are producing a 21m tipped LAK 17B - so a glider you cn fly in 15,
18, and Open Class - will it be competetive in any?

[Sean F (F2)]

Damn right it will be!

I finished 5th overall in a lak17a (that's right, lak17"A"!) this year at 18m nationals. I am a very average, inexperienced and essentially new contest pilot. I seemed to keep up with 29's pretty well. I imagine the 17b (with its ability to to up to 1300 gross weight) will be far, FAR more "even" with the 29 that the 17a is. The 17a was initially designed as a 15m and is therefore limited to 1103 gross weight max.

http://www.ssa.org/ContestResults.asp?contestId=2224&ContestDetailId=7239&ContestName=18+Meter+Nationals

From what I have heard, the 17b is far more advanced than the 17a in almost all key aspects. The wing is entirely redesigned as 15/18 and not just 15 with 18 extensions as an afterthought as the 17a was... The airfoils are similar to the Diana 2. So I think it will do extremely well in 18 meter competition when in the hands of a strong pilot.

In 15 meter configuration, the 17a is very good, similar to an ASW 27 which it was designed to beat. The 17b is almost certainly better 15 meter configuration that the 17a with an entirely new wing winglets, new airfoils, a redesigned vertical stab, rudder and all new horizontal stab.

In 21 meter I suspect it will be very good (60:1, similar to the JS1) otherwise why would they bother? Will it compete with a Quintus or a Concordia? I highly doubt it, but it would be a hell of a glider for the $$$...

Sincerely,

Sean Fidler
F2, Lak17a #114

[Paul T[_4_]]

Hmm - it's just in most Europeans and Worlds the 17b has ended up at the
botttom of the score sheets. Maybe the pilots and not the plane?.
The JS1C seems to cut it (at least in the French mountains and Texas
weather, ) with Concordia's, Quintus - so why not a 21m Lak ? (don't know
if they are upping the max weight for the 21m version ala the JS1C.)

[Sean F (F2)]

They need a strong US (or Canadian) pilot RACING the glider in US contests. Period.

The Uvalde and Euro pilots have not been top shelf. JS1 is better connected and has many top pilots flying their hardware in contrast.

I agree the 21 meter version needs to be at 850 if it is going to be seriously competitive at a world level BUT...in the US east coast contest environment it would probably be just fine if it was not able to achieve 850.

I'll check and see what the specs say on the website...

[John Galloway[_1_]]

You mean 850Kg?

If a 21m Lak 17B were to have a wing area similar to the
12.25m2 of the JS1C 21m then at 850kg MAUW it would have a
wingloading of over 69kg/m2! I am not sure where the water
would go. With the JS1C 21m you need to fill the wings, the
21m tips, have fuselage tanks full of water or fuel and a not too
lightweight pilot to get to the MAUW 720kg and 59kg/m2

Furthermore an 21m Lak 17 is likely to have an even smaller
wing area (and ?less water capacity) because the 18m Lak has
a wing area of 10.32m2 compared to 11.21m2 for an 18m JS1.

John Galloway




At 15:32 21 October 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>They need a strong US (or Canadian) pilot RACING the glider
in US contests.
> Period.
>
>The Uvalde and Euro pilots have not been top shelf. JS1 is
better
>connected and has many top pilots flying their hardware in
contrast.
>
>I agree the 21 meter version needs to be at 850 if it is going
to be
>seriously competitive at a world level BUT...in the US east
coast contest
>environment it would probably be just fine if it was not able to
achieve
>850.
>
>I'll check and see what the specs say on the website...
>

[Paul T[_4_]]

No specs on the website yet - but announced on Blanik America site and in
the article on the Mini Lak on their news pages about the tips.

I'm presuming you can fly at 15. 18 and 21m with the same ship? Which will
probably make it a popular ship in the US- and agree with Sean re: bargain
and piloting points.

Upping to 850 kg probably not on- but maybe around the 650-700kg mark?
which would probably give it a similar wing loading to the JS1 with the
smaller wing area.

Now I wonder if the asg 29 is going to be tipped to 21m? (I know its a
tipped 27! and they have the ASH 31).



At 16:36 21 October 2013, John Galloway wrote:
>You mean 850Kg?
>
>If a 21m Lak 17B were to have a wing area similar to the
>12.25m2 of the JS1C 21m then at 850kg MAUW it would have a
>wingloading of over 69kg/m2! I am not sure where the water
>would go. With the JS1C 21m you need to fill the wings, the
>21m tips, have fuselage tanks full of water or fuel and a not too
>lightweight pilot to get to the MAUW 720kg and 59kg/m2
>
>Furthermore an 21m Lak 17 is likely to have an even smaller
>wing area (and ?less water capacity) because the 18m Lak has
>a wing area of 10.32m2 compared to 11.21m2 for an 18m JS1.
>
>John Galloway
>
>
>
>
>At 15:32 21 October 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>>They need a strong US (or Canadian) pilot RACING the glider
>in US contests.
>> Period.
>>
>>The Uvalde and Euro pilots have not been top shelf. JS1 is
>better
>>connected and has many top pilots flying their hardware in
>contrast.
>>
>>I agree the 21 meter version needs to be at 850 if it is going
>to be
>>seriously competitive at a world level BUT...in the US east
>coast contest
>>environment it would probably be just fine if it was not able to
>achieve
>>850.
>>
>>I'll check and see what the specs say on the website...
>>
>
>

[Sean F (F2)]

Paul,

I just got an email back from Vytas (owner of Lak factory). Here is his statement: "MAX mass remains 600 kg as 18 m class mass, as no space for more water."

That makes sense to me. I think there is ZERO chance the ASG29 will ever get 21 meter tips OR 800kg max weight as its wing is simply not designed for the loads (just like the 17b). Also, the 18 meter tips barely fit in the trailer. Makes me wonder how the Lak17b could fit all these wingtips in a trailer as well. Anyway, the requirement for a 21 meter single for Schleicher has been fulfilled by the ASG 31.

Info on ASG31 ---> http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/produkte/ash31/ash31_main_e.htm

The 31, as with most motor gliders, has too much wing loading in 18 meter configuration when flying in weak lift. It is better at 21 meters where it can go to 700 kg and 10.8 lbs/sqft wing loading (no, not 800!). Min wing loading looks to be about 8.82 (with a 200 lb pilot) in 18 meter and 8.09 in 21 meter.

Hope this helps to answer your questions on the Schleicher's.

Sean


On Monday, October 21, 2013 1:20:15 PM UTC-4, Paul T wrote:
> No specs on the website yet - but announced on Blanik America site and in
>
> the article on the Mini Lak on their news pages about the tips.
>
>
>
> I'm presuming you can fly at 15. 18 and 21m with the same ship? Which will
>
> probably make it a popular ship in the US- and agree with Sean re: bargain
>
> and piloting points.
>
>
>
> Upping to 850 kg probably not on- but maybe around the 650-700kg mark?
>
> which would probably give it a similar wing loading to the JS1 with the
>
> smaller wing area.
>
>
>
> Now I wonder if the asg 29 is going to be tipped to 21m? (I know its a
>
> tipped 27! and they have the ASH 31).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 16:36 21 October 2013, John Galloway wrote:
>
> >You mean 850Kg?
>
> >
>
> >If a 21m Lak 17B were to have a wing area similar to the
>
> >12.25m2 of the JS1C 21m then at 850kg MAUW it would have a
>
> >wingloading of over 69kg/m2! I am not sure where the water
>
> >would go. With the JS1C 21m you need to fill the wings, the
>
> >21m tips, have fuselage tanks full of water or fuel and a not too
>
> >lightweight pilot to get to the MAUW 720kg and 59kg/m2
>
> >
>
> >Furthermore an 21m Lak 17 is likely to have an even smaller
>
> >wing area (and ?less water capacity) because the 18m Lak has
>
> >a wing area of 10.32m2 compared to 11.21m2 for an 18m JS1.
>
> >
>
> >John Galloway
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >At 15:32 21 October 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>
> >>They need a strong US (or Canadian) pilot RACING the glider
>
> >in US contests.
>
> >> Period.
>
> >>
>
> >>The Uvalde and Euro pilots have not been top shelf. JS1 is
>
> >better
>
> >>connected and has many top pilots flying their hardware in
>
> >contrast.
>
> >>
>
> >>I agree the 21 meter version needs to be at 850 if it is going
>
> >to be
>
> >>seriously competitive at a world level BUT...in the US east
>
> >coast contest
>
> >>environment it would probably be just fine if it was not able to
>
> >achieve
>
> >>850.
>
> >>
>
> >>I'll check and see what the specs say on the website...
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >

[Sean F (F2)]

Blanik America leaves a little to be desired in terms of website quality, for sure ;-)

For that matter, all the glider manufacturers websites are fairly poor to be honest.

Sean

On Monday, October 21, 2013 2:36:51 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Paul,
>
>
>
> I just got an email back from Vytas (owner of Lak factory). Here is his statement: "MAX mass remains 600 kg as 18 m class mass, as no space for more water."
>
>
>
> That makes sense to me. I think there is ZERO chance the ASG29 will ever get 21 meter tips OR 800kg max weight as its wing is simply not designed for the loads (just like the 17b). Also, the 18 meter tips barely fit in the trailer. Makes me wonder how the Lak17b could fit all these wingtips in a trailer as well. Anyway, the requirement for a 21 meter single for Schleicher has been fulfilled by the ASG 31.
>
>
>
> Info on ASG31 ---> http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/produkte/ash31/ash31_main_e.htm
>
>
>
> The 31, as with most motor gliders, has too much wing loading in 18 meter configuration when flying in weak lift. It is better at 21 meters where it can go to 700 kg and 10.8 lbs/sqft wing loading (no, not 800!). Min wing loading looks to be about 8.82 (with a 200 lb pilot) in 18 meter and 8.09 in 21 meter.
>
>
>
> Hope this helps to answer your questions on the Schleicher's.
>
>
>
> Sean
>
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2013 1:20:15 PM UTC-4, Paul T wrote:
>
> > No specs on the website yet - but announced on Blanik America site and in
>
> >
>
> > the article on the Mini Lak on their news pages about the tips.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm presuming you can fly at 15. 18 and 21m with the same ship? Which will
>
> >
>
> > probably make it a popular ship in the US- and agree with Sean re: bargain
>
> >
>
> > and piloting points.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Upping to 850 kg probably not on- but maybe around the 650-700kg mark?
>
> >
>
> > which would probably give it a similar wing loading to the JS1 with the
>
> >
>
> > smaller wing area.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Now I wonder if the asg 29 is going to be tipped to 21m? (I know its a
>
> >
>
> > tipped 27! and they have the ASH 31).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > At 16:36 21 October 2013, John Galloway wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >You mean 850Kg?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >If a 21m Lak 17B were to have a wing area similar to the
>
> >
>
> > >12.25m2 of the JS1C 21m then at 850kg MAUW it would have a
>
> >
>
> > >wingloading of over 69kg/m2! I am not sure where the water
>
> >
>
> > >would go. With the JS1C 21m you need to fill the wings, the
>
> >
>
> > >21m tips, have fuselage tanks full of water or fuel and a not too
>
> >
>
> > >lightweight pilot to get to the MAUW 720kg and 59kg/m2
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >Furthermore an 21m Lak 17 is likely to have an even smaller
>
> >
>
> > >wing area (and ?less water capacity) because the 18m Lak has
>
> >
>
> > >a wing area of 10.32m2 compared to 11.21m2 for an 18m JS1.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >John Galloway
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >At 15:32 21 October 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >>They need a strong US (or Canadian) pilot RACING the glider
>
> >
>
> > >in US contests.
>
> >
>
> > >> Period.
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>The Uvalde and Euro pilots have not been top shelf. JS1 is
>
> >
>
> > >better
>
> >
>
> > >>connected and has many top pilots flying their hardware in
>
> >
>
> > >contrast.
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>I agree the 21 meter version needs to be at 850 if it is going
>
> >
>
> > >to be
>
> >
>
> > >>seriously competitive at a world level BUT...in the US east
>
> >
>
> > >coast contest
>
> >
>
> > >>environment it would probably be just fine if it was not able to
>
> >
>
> > >achieve
>
> >
>
> > >>850.
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >>I'll check and see what the specs say on the website...
>
> >
>
> > >>
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >

[gliderstud]

Sean I'll raise my hand if you find one to fly ;)

[Muttley]

On Saturday, October 19, 2013 4:46:54 PM UTC+1, Paul T wrote:
> So Lak are producing a 21m tipped LAK 17B - so a glider you cn fly in 15,
>
> 18, and Open Class - will it be competetive in any?

Many of the Lak 17 FES flown in the European competitions were the A Models
I believe the B version is an improvement.

[Sean F (F2)]

On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 4:30:30 AM UTC-4, Muttley wrote:
> On Saturday, October 19, 2013 4:46:54 PM UTC+1, Paul T wrote:
>
> > So Lak are producing a 21m tipped LAK 17B - so a glider you cn fly in 15,
>
> >
>
> > 18, and Open Class - will it be competetive in any?
>
>
>
> Many of the Lak 17 FES flown in the European competitions were the A Models
>
> I believe the B version is an improvement.

Great point Muttley!!!

[Sean F (F2)]

Muttley,

Great point. Mostly, 17a's have been converted to FES in Europe. There are far more 17a's competing than 17b's at this point worldwide. 17b's are sometimes confused for 17a's in the registration sheets because 17b's are fairly rare.

Not sure how many are in North America. I only know of 3 or 4 at this point. I do not know if any have competed (regional or national US competition) outside the Uvalde Worlds in the USA to date (those where non US pilots).

I am thinking about purchasing one, although I am also thinking of purchasing a 29. I think there is one other competitive Canadian who is thinking of a 17b as well. Would be interesting to see them compete in the US against the others.

One thing is getting a proper handicap for the FES vs. non FES (pure) version in the US. The propeller on the FES injures performance 1-2.5% depending on speed. As it stands now the US has not made a handicap for FES equipped gliders.....................hint, hint, hint handicap committee.........As it stands you have absolutely NO performance degradation in your handicapping. Only the gross weight is factored. This is unfair.

Sean
F2



On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 4:30:30 AM UTC-4, Muttley wrote:
> On Saturday, October 19, 2013 4:46:54 PM UTC+1, Paul T wrote:
>
> > So Lak are producing a 21m tipped LAK 17B - so a glider you cn fly in 15,
>
> >
>
> > 18, and Open Class - will it be competetive in any?
>
>
>
> Many of the Lak 17 FES flown in the European competitions were the A Models
>
> I believe the B version is an improvement.

[Paul T[_4_]]

Sorry - tounge in cheek comment about the 29 - I'm English. The problem
with ASH 31 (not ASG 31) is the motor and too much wing area -it was
designed more as a recreational self launcher than a competitive ship

Looks like the JSIc will be the best bang for the buck if your serious re:
competing in both 18 and Open Class - the Lak 17b maybe for 15 and 18m?
(depending on what the Ventus 2 replacement will be like!- but that'll
probably cost a lot more)

The JS1C certainly seems competetive with the Quintus and EB29 which cost a
fair bit more - but your also paying for the ability to self launch I geuss
with the latter two.

But I like the concept of a ship that can be flown at 3 diffferent spans!
Did Vytas say it can be flown at 15, 18, and 21m?



At 18:36 21 October 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>Paul,
>
>I just got an email back from Vytas (owner of Lak factory). Here is his
>st=
>atement: "MAX mass remains 600 kg as 18 m class mass, as no space for
>more=
> water."
>
>That makes sense to me. I think there is ZERO chance the ASG29 will ever
>g=
>et 21 meter tips OR 800kg max weight as its wing is simply not designed
>for=
> the loads (just like the 17b). Also, the 18 meter tips barely fit in
the
>=
>trailer. Makes me wonder how the Lak17b could fit all these wingtips in
a
>=
>trailer as well. Anyway, the requirement for a 21 meter single for
>Schleic=
>her has been fulfilled by the ASG 31. =20
>
>Info on ASG31 --->
>http://www.alexander-schleicher.de/produkte/ash31/ash31_=
>main_e.htm
>
>The 31, as with most motor gliders, has too much wing loading in 18 meter
>c=
>onfiguration when flying in weak lift. It is better at 21 meters where
it
>=
>can go to 700 kg and 10.8 lbs/sqft wing loading (no, not 800!). Min wing
>l=
>oading looks to be about 8.82 (with a 200 lb pilot) in 18 meter and 8.09
>in=
> 21 meter.
>
>Hope this helps to answer your questions on the Schleicher's.
>
>Sean=20
>
>
>On Monday, October 21, 2013 1:20:15 PM UTC-4, Paul T wrote:
>> No specs on the website yet - but announced on Blanik America site and
in
>>=20
>> the article on the Mini Lak on their news pages about the tips.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> I'm presuming you can fly at 15. 18 and 21m with the same ship? Which
>wi=
>ll
>>=20
>> probably make it a popular ship in the US- and agree with Sean re:
>bargai=
>n
>>=20
>> and piloting points.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Upping to 850 kg probably not on- but maybe around the 650-700kg mark?
>>=20
>> which would probably give it a similar wing loading to the JS1 with the
>>=20
>> smaller wing area.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Now I wonder if the asg 29 is going to be tipped to 21m? (I know its a
>>=20
>> tipped 27! and they have the ASH 31).
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> =20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> At 16:36 21 October 2013, John Galloway wrote:
>>=20
>> >You mean 850Kg? =20
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >If a 21m Lak 17B were to have a wing area similar to the=20
>>=20
>> >12.25m2 of the JS1C 21m then at 850kg MAUW it would have a=20
>>=20
>> >wingloading of over 69kg/m2! I am not sure where the water=20
>>=20
>> >would go. With the JS1C 21m you need to fill the wings, the=20
>>=20
>> >21m tips, have fuselage tanks full of water or fuel and a not too=20
>>=20
>> >lightweight pilot to get to the MAUW 720kg and 59kg/m2
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >Furthermore an 21m Lak 17 is likely to have an even smaller=20
>>=20
>> >wing area (and ?less water capacity) because the 18m Lak has=20
>>=20
>> >a wing area of 10.32m2 compared to 11.21m2 for an 18m JS1.
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >John Galloway
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >At 15:32 21 October 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>>=20
>> >>They need a strong US (or Canadian) pilot RACING the glider=20
>>=20
>> >in US contests.
>>=20
>> >> Period.
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >>The Uvalde and Euro pilots have not been top shelf. JS1 is=20
>>=20
>> >better
>>=20
>> >>connected and has many top pilots flying their hardware in=20
>>=20
>> >contrast. =20
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >>I agree the 21 meter version needs to be at 850 if it is going=20
>>=20
>> >to be
>>=20
>> >>seriously competitive at a world level BUT...in the US east=20
>>=20
>> >coast contest
>>=20
>> >>environment it would probably be just fine if it was not able to=20
>>=20
>> >achieve
>>=20
>> >>850.
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >>I'll check and see what the specs say on the website...
>>=20
>> >>
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >
>

[Sean F (F2)]

Yep, 17b can be flown in all 3 spans if you want to lug all those tips around! Maybe even 4 (13.5)....! I think that glider is just a 17b with a cap on the base wing?

JS1c is an awesome, proven machine for sure. Sorry on the ASH ;-).

Sean

[SoarerUno]

When clean, LAK goes like mothe..XXXXX. Beats V2 side by side on fast glide every time. Tried it dozens of times. Any rain or impurity, it suffers a lot and V2 climbs away as well as glides to sunset.

[Tom Claffey]

I flew beside the two Lak17Bs at Uvalde.
In my opinion the ASG29 (thanks Al) I flew was better.
I am not an Aeronautical engineer but to my eye the winglet and
winglet/wing interface just looked wrong. Dr Maughmer or others could
probably fix that.
A 21M version at the right wing loading would be possibly good per $ but
the
EB29 will eat it up in weak weather and the JS1 eat it up everywhere else.
IMO
Tom





t 21:35 20 October 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>Damn right it will be! =20
>
>I finished 5th overall in a lak17a (that's right, lak17"A"!) this year at
>1=
>8m nationals. I am a very average, inexperienced and essentially new
>conte=
>st pilot. I seemed to keep up with 29's pretty well. I imagine the 17b
>(w=
>ith its ability to to up to 1300 gross weight) will be far, FAR more
>"even"=
> with the 29 that the 17a is. The 17a was initially designed as a 15m
and
>=
>is therefore limited to 1103 gross weight max.
>
>http://www.ssa.org/ContestResults.asp?
contestId=3D2224&ContestDetailId=3D72=
>39&ContestName=3D18+Meter+Nationals
>
>From what I have heard, the 17b is far more advanced than the 17a in
>almost=
> all key aspects. The wing is entirely redesigned as 15/18 and not just
>15=
> with 18 extensions as an afterthought as the 17a was... The airfoils
are
>=
>similar to the Diana 2. So I think it will do extremely well in 18 meter
>c=
>ompetition when in the hands of a strong pilot. =20
>
>In 15 meter configuration, the 17a is very good, similar to an ASW 27
>which=
> it was designed to beat. The 17b is almost certainly better 15 meter
>conf=
>iguration that the 17a with an entirely new wing winglets, new airfoils,
a
>=
>redesigned vertical stab, rudder and all new horizontal stab. =20
>
>In 21 meter I suspect it will be very good (60:1, similar to the JS1)
>other=
>wise why would they bother? Will it compete with a Quintus or a
>Concordia?=
> I highly doubt it, but it would be a hell of a glider for the $$$...
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Sean Fidler
>F2, Lak17a #114
>

[Sean F (F2)]

Tom,

With all due respect ;-), I believe the Lak17b's you flew against in Uvalde were Lak17b FES models (Front Engine Sustainer, http://lak.lt/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=136).

The 17b FES has a folding propeller system on its nose which, even though fairly slick, still has a few square inches of square structure in the airflow as well as two 18' propeller blades. This is especially disruptive when at higher speeds in flying locations such as Uvalde Texas.

The FES version of the 17b should actually have a decent handicap for this reason, not a penalty over a pure glider as the US rules currently. The US handicap committee has not thought this one out very well in my opinion. The 17b FES should have a fairly decent handicap advantage over the pure version, not vice versa based purely on the gross weight.

The pure version of the 17b would produce a different story from you I imagine. I believe it would give a 29 a hell of a problem based on the way the Lak17a performs against them this year at the US Nationals, 5th place... (http://www.ssa.org/ContestResults.asp?contestId=2224&ContestDetailId=7239&ContestName=18+Meter+Nationals).

Also the pilots flying the 17b's in Uvalde were, admittedly, not the "creme of the Uvalde crop." They were there to have fun mainly and to show off the new FES system. If you put two evenly matched pilots into a 29 and a pure 17b, I imagine it would come down to the pilot and not the glider. Not a bad thing considering the Lak17b is a far less expensive glider, even with the impressive FES system added.

Its all about fun, and arguing about glider performance for me is just that, fun. So don't take this too seriously. I think the Lak is not given a fair shake by many. It is a very nice glider for the money and worth serious consideration by those looking for a versatile 15/18 and now even a 21 meter glider which has the option to use FES.

Sean
F2


On Monday, November 4, 2013 5:00:38 AM UTC-5, Tom Claffey wrote:
> I flew beside the two Lak17Bs at Uvalde.
>
> In my opinion the ASG29 (thanks Al) I flew was better.
>
> I am not an Aeronautical engineer but to my eye the winglet and
>
> winglet/wing interface just looked wrong. Dr Maughmer or others could
>
> probably fix that.
>
> A 21M version at the right wing loading would be possibly good per $ but
>
> the
>
> EB29 will eat it up in weak weather and the JS1 eat it up everywhere else..
>
> IMO
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> t 21:35 20 October 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>
> >Damn right it will be! =20
>
> >
>
> >I finished 5th overall in a lak17a (that's right, lak17"A"!) this year at
>
> >1=
>
> >8m nationals. I am a very average, inexperienced and essentially new
>
> >conte=
>
> >st pilot. I seemed to keep up with 29's pretty well. I imagine the 17b
>
> >(w=
>
> >ith its ability to to up to 1300 gross weight) will be far, FAR more
>
> >"even"=
>
> > with the 29 that the 17a is. The 17a was initially designed as a 15m
>
> and
>
> >=
>
> >is therefore limited to 1103 gross weight max.
>
> >
>
> >http://www.ssa.org/ContestResults.asp?
>
> contestId=3D2224&ContestDetailId=3D72=
>
> >39&ContestName=3D18+Meter+Nationals
>
> >
>
> >From what I have heard, the 17b is far more advanced than the 17a in
>
> >almost=
>
> > all key aspects. The wing is entirely redesigned as 15/18 and not just
>
> >15=
>
> > with 18 extensions as an afterthought as the 17a was... The airfoils
>
> are
>
> >=
>
> >similar to the Diana 2. So I think it will do extremely well in 18 meter
>
> >c=
>
> >ompetition when in the hands of a strong pilot. =20
>
> >
>
> >In 15 meter configuration, the 17a is very good, similar to an ASW 27
>
> >which=
>
> > it was designed to beat. The 17b is almost certainly better 15 meter
>
> >conf=
>
> >iguration that the 17a with an entirely new wing winglets, new airfoils,
>
> a
>
> >=
>
> >redesigned vertical stab, rudder and all new horizontal stab. =20
>
> >
>
> >In 21 meter I suspect it will be very good (60:1, similar to the JS1)
>
> >other=
>
> >wise why would they bother? Will it compete with a Quintus or a
>
> >Concordia?=
>
> > I highly doubt it, but it would be a hell of a glider for the $$$...
>
> >
>
> >Sincerely,
>
> >
>
> >Sean Fidler
>
> >F2, Lak17a #114
>
> >

[Tom Claffey]

If the price is right they would be a great glider - with or without FES.
Whether they would be competitive in an un-handicapped comp is another
issue. (The last 20% of price probably gives 1% of performance!)
Tom


At 22:34 04 November 2013, Sean F F2 wrote
>Tom,
>
>With all due respect ;-), I believe the Lak17b's you flew against in
>Uvalde=
> were Lak17b FES models (Front Engine Sustainer,
>http://lak.lt/index.php?op=
>tion=3Dcom_content&task=3Dview&id=3D23&Itemid=3D136). =20
>
>The 17b FES has a folding propeller system on its nose which, even though
>f=
>airly slick, still has a few square inches of square structure in the
>airfl=
>ow as well as two 18' propeller blades. This is especially disruptive
>when=
> at higher speeds in flying locations such as Uvalde Texas.
>
>The FES version of the 17b should actually have a decent handicap for
this
>=
>reason, not a penalty over a pure glider as the US rules currently. The
>US=
> handicap committee has not thought this one out very well in my opinion.

>=
>The 17b FES should have a fairly decent handicap advantage over the pure
>ve=
>rsion, not vice versa based purely on the gross weight.
>
>The pure version of the 17b would produce a different story from you I
>imag=
>ine. I believe it would give a 29 a hell of a problem based on the way
>the=
> Lak17a performs against them this year at the US Nationals, 5th place...
>(=
>http://www.ssa.org/ContestResults.asp?
contestId=3D2224&ContestDetailId=3D72=
>39&ContestName=3D18+Meter+Nationals).=20
>
>Also the pilots flying the 17b's in Uvalde were, admittedly, not the
>"creme=
> of the Uvalde crop." They were there to have fun mainly and to show off
>t=
>he new FES system. If you put two evenly matched pilots into a 29 and a
>pu=
>re 17b, I imagine it would come down to the pilot and not the glider.
Not
>=
>a bad thing considering the Lak17b is a far less expensive glider, even
>wit=
>h the impressive FES system added.
>
>Its all about fun, and arguing about glider performance for me is just
>that=
>, fun. So don't take this too seriously. I think the Lak is not given a
>f=
>air shake by many. It is a very nice glider for the money and worth
>seriou=
>s consideration by those looking for a versatile 15/18 and now even a 21
>me=
>ter glider which has the option to use FES.
>
>Sean
>F2=20
>
>
>On Monday, November 4, 2013 5:00:38 AM UTC-5, Tom Claffey wrote:
>> I flew beside the two Lak17Bs at Uvalde.
>>=20
>> In my opinion the ASG29 (thanks Al) I flew was better.
>>=20
>> I am not an Aeronautical engineer but to my eye the winglet and=20
>>=20
>> winglet/wing interface just looked wrong. Dr Maughmer or others
could=20
>>=20
>> probably fix that.
>>=20
>> A 21M version at the right wing loading would be possibly good per $
but
>>=20
>> the=20
>>=20
>> EB29 will eat it up in weak weather and the JS1 eat it up everywhere
>else=
>..
>>=20
>> IMO
>>=20
>> Tom
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> t 21:35 20 October 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
>>=20
>> >Damn right it will be! =3D20
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >I finished 5th overall in a lak17a (that's right, lak17"A"!) this year
>a=
>t
>>=20
>> >1=3D
>>=20
>> >8m nationals. I am a very average, inexperienced and essentially new
>>=20
>> >conte=3D
>>=20
>> >st pilot. I seemed to keep up with 29's pretty well. I imagine the
17b
>>=20
>> >(w=3D
>>=20
>> >ith its ability to to up to 1300 gross weight) will be far, FAR more
>>=20
>> >"even"=3D
>>=20
>> > with the 29 that the 17a is. The 17a was initially designed as a 15m
>>=20
>> and
>>=20
>> >=3D
>>=20
>> >is therefore limited to 1103 gross weight max.
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >http://www.ssa.org/ContestResults.asp?
>>=20
>> contestId=3D3D2224&ContestDetailId=3D3D72=3D
>>=20
>> >39&ContestName=3D3D18+Meter+Nationals
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >From what I have heard, the 17b is far more advanced than the 17a in
>>=20
>> >almost=3D
>>=20
>> > all key aspects. The wing is entirely redesigned as 15/18 and not
just
>>=20
>> >15=3D
>>=20
>> > with 18 extensions as an afterthought as the 17a was... The airfoils
>>=20
>> are
>>=20
>> >=3D
>>=20
>> >similar to the Diana 2. So I think it will do extremely well in 18
>mete=
>r
>>=20
>> >c=3D
>>=20
>> >ompetition when in the hands of a strong pilot. =3D20
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >In 15 meter configuration, the 17a is very good, similar to an ASW 27
>>=20
>> >which=3D
>>=20
>> > it was designed to beat. The 17b is almost certainly better 15 meter
>>=20
>> >conf=3D
>>=20
>> >iguration that the 17a with an entirely new wing winglets, new
airfoils,
>>=20
>> a
>>=20
>> >=3D
>>=20
>> >redesigned vertical stab, rudder and all new horizontal stab. =3D20
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >In 21 meter I suspect it will be very good (60:1, similar to the JS1)
>>=20
>> >other=3D
>>=20
>> >wise why would they bother? Will it compete with a Quintus or a
>>=20
>> >Concordia?=3D
>>=20
>> > I highly doubt it, but it would be a hell of a glider for the $$$...
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >Sincerely,
>>=20
>> >
>>=20
>> >Sean Fidler
>>=20
>> >F2, Lak17a #114
>>=20
>> >
>

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, October 22, 2013 1:42:22 PM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Yep, 17b can be flown in all 3 spans if you want to lug all those tips around! Maybe even 4 (13.5)....! I think that glider is just a 17b with a cap on the base wing?


Can I get a 13.5 meter option too? That would be awesome!

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, November 4, 2013 4:34:41 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> The 17b FES has a folding propeller system on its nose which, even though fairly slick, still has a few square inches of square structure in the airflow as well as two 18' propeller blades. This is especially disruptive when at higher speeds in flying locations such as Uvalde Texas. The FES version of the 17b should actually have a decent handicap for this reason, not a penalty over a pure glider as the US rules currently. The US handicap committee has not thought this one out very well in my opinion. The 17b FES should have a fairly decent handicap advantage over the pure version, not vice versa based purely on the gross weight.

I am not a direct player in the US Handicapping, but how would you explain this statement on the FES website:

"Idaflieg Flight performance testing of FES succesfully completed! It is confirmed that drag is like having installed bugwipers."

Link to report: http://idaflieg.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/montag-20-8-berliner-sondermessprojekte/

It won't impact me one way or the other, but maybe if you translated the article and showed them there is a small but measureable performce hit, they will adjust the HC of the FES version. Bug wipers not permitted in US Sports Class, of course.

[[email protected]]

Yes. You can fly 13.5 as well!

[[email protected]]

Good point on the article but the HC committee should be smart enough to figure these obvious things out on their own. It's as if they did not think about or research this glider in any way vs a pure glider.

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 11/07/2013 8:14 AM, wrote:
> Yes. You can fly 13.5 as well!
>
According to an article I read (Gliding International I think) you will
not be able to fly 13.5/15/18/21. The 13.5 will have a different
fuselage than the prototype, in order to keep within class limitations.

Luke

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

> According to an article I read (Gliding International I think) you will
>
> not be able to fly 13.5/15/18/21. The 13.5 will have a different
>
> fuselage than the prototype, in order to keep within class limitations.
>
>
>
> Luke

Article posted on company website at http://lak.lt/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=581&Itemid=145.

DD

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 7, 2013 8:16:56 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Good point on the article but the HC committee should be smart enough to figure these obvious things out on their own. It's as if they did not think about or research this glider in any way vs a pure glider.

Having worked as part of the US handicap subcommittee for many years, I would as the writer where the data for this "obvious" thing would be located? The factory claims minimal loss of performance. I would be inclined to agree. If an owner was to request a review by the HC, and provide basis for requesting it, I'm sure it would be looked at. A rough guess would be it may reduce cross country speed by a tenth of a percent or two. That would make a scoring error of a couple points a day.
UH

[Sean F (F2)]

On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:31:19 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Thursday, November 7, 2013 8:16:56 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
Hank,

I have heard the performance is degraded 1% at low speeds and 2% at high speeds from the factory. I have also heard as much as a 2-4% degradation was found on a recent non factory sponsored test.

The airflow of the Lak17b FES is clearly disturbed at the nose and that turbulence very likely impacts the wing root slightly, more at higher speeds. I would take a bet that claimed only .1% performance impact. I am almost certain that it is much more than that. It just takes a simple look at the system itself to see the disturbance that is created by the root of the propellers when folded, not to speak of the 18 inch propeller blades lying on the fuselage nose when folded back in gliding flight. They have done a wonderful job trying to make it clean, but that folding propeller it is not perfect by any means.

Here is a thought! If the ASG29 had FES as a standard offering I can bet the handicap adjustment would be under more serious consideration!

A handicap adjustment for the Lak17b is absolutely needed in the US. The fact that their IS a performance impact IS NOT DEBATABLE. The only debate is how much.

Here are some photo's that clearly show the structure of the folding propeller system and its impact to the airflow: https://www.google.com/search?q=front+electric+sustainer&safe=off&espv=210&es_sm=119&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Cbx7Uvn5COr4yQHLyYCgAg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1706&bih=781


> > Good point on the article but the HC committee should be smart enough to figure these obvious things out on their own. It's as if they did not think about or research this glider in any way vs a pure glider.
>
>
>
> Having worked as part of the US handicap subcommittee for many years, I would as the writer where the data for this "obvious" thing would be located? The factory claims minimal loss of performance. I would be inclined to agree. If an owner was to request a review by the HC, and provide basis for requesting it, I'm sure it would be looked at. A rough guess would be it may reduce cross country speed by a tenth of a percent or two. That would make a scoring error of a couple points a day.
>
> UH

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, November 7, 2013 11:22:21 AM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> On Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:31:19 AM UTC-5, wrote: > On Thursday, November 7, 2013 8:16:56 AM UTC-5, wrote: > Hank, I have heard the performance is degraded 1% at low speeds and 2% at high speeds from the factory. I have also heard as much as a 2-4% degradation was found on a recent non factory sponsored test. The airflow of the Lak17b FES is clearly disturbed at the nose and that turbulence very likely impacts the wing root slightly, more at higher speeds. I would take a bet that claimed only .1% performance impact. I am almost certain that it is much more than that. It just takes a simple look at the system itself to see the disturbance that is created by the root of the propellers when folded, not to speak of the 18 inch propeller blades lying on the fuselage nose when folded back in gliding flight. They have done a wonderful job trying to make it clean, but that folding propeller it is not perfect by any means. Here is a thought! If the ASG29 had FES as a standard offering I can bet the handicap adjustment would be under more serious consideration! A handicap adjustment for the Lak17b is absolutely needed in the US. The fact that their IS a performance impact IS NOT DEBATABLE. The only debate is how much. Here are some photo's that clearly show the structure of the folding propeller system and its impact to the airflow: https://www.google.com/search?q=front+electric+sustainer&safe=off&espv=210&es_sm=119&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Cbx7Uvn5COr4yQHLyYCgAg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1706&bih=781 > > Good point on the article but the HC committee should be smart enough to figure these obvious things out on their own. It's as if they did not think about or research this glider in any way vs a pure glider. > > > > Having worked as part of the US handicap subcommittee for many years, I would as the writer where the data for this "obvious" thing would be located? The factory claims minimal loss of performance. I would be inclined to agree. If an owner was to request a review by the HC, and provide basis for requesting it, I'm sure it would be looked at. A rough guess would be it may reduce cross country speed by a tenth of a percent or two. That would make a scoring error of a couple points a day. > > UH

From the FES web site:
We developed a special very light carbon fibre foldable propeller. The propeller opens quickly using centrifugal force when rotation starts. It has 1.0m in diameter and each blade weighs only 240 grams. The blades are slightly bent to take the shape of the front surface of the fuselage. During propeller folding, pitch of blades is automatically reduced when they rotate closer to the fuselage. Additional drag of the folded propeller is really minimal as proved by accurate Idaflieg flight performance measurements.

Obviously it would be useful for an interested party to provide the Idaflieg data to the handicap committee so that an appropriate adjustment could be made.
That would certainly take my WAG or Sean's "I have heard" info out of the picture. It certainly is a cool approach to the sustainer issue.
UH

[JS]

Seems like an interesting multi-span glider.
Without having flown one, have to wonder how the Lak feels compared to the familiar handling of AS or JS.
Too bad it isn't possible to enter 13.5m comps too. The ASG29 and V2Cx could also have 13.5 tips fitted. The ASW17B was fun in 15m, And an inexpensive mod if there ever was one.
Jim

[Dan Marotta]

As to handling, I have about 650 hours flying the LS-6a and find the LAK-17a
(about 350 hours, so far) to be every bit as pleasant and responsive to the
controls. It also has a better rudder.


"JS" > wrote in message
...
> Seems like an interesting multi-span glider.
> Without having flown one, have to wonder how the Lak feels compared to the
> familiar handling of AS or JS.
> Too bad it isn't possible to enter 13.5m comps too. The ASG29 and V2Cx
> could also have 13.5 tips fitted. The ASW17B was fun in 15m, And an
> inexpensive mod if there ever was one.
> Jim

[[email protected]]

>
> Here is a thought! If the ASG29 had FES as a standard offering I can bet the handicap adjustment would be under more serious consideration!

Sean, you just have to stop with the unsubstantiated allegations of unethical behavior by the US handicap committee. Have you approached them directly about the FES handicap? Have you provided them any data they can use? Have you been rejected in a request for a handicap adjustment? Or are you just sitting at your computer imagining some big anti-LAK conspiracy by the evil lords of the handicap committee? C'mon, for once be reasonable. It's going to be a long winter.

John Cochrane.

[BruceGreeff]

Master Cochrane, it is a lost cause!

In the great dictionary:
In the entry for "Oxymoron" it says cf- "The reasonable contest pilot"

Bruce

(For those who don't get humour - see the entry for irony.)

On 2013/11/09 10:09 PM, wrote:
>>
>> Here is a thought! If the ASG29 had FES as a standard offering I can bet the handicap adjustment would be under more serious consideration!
>
> Sean, you just have to stop with the unsubstantiated allegations of unethical behavior by the US handicap committee. Have you approached them directly about the FES handicap? Have you provided them any data they can use? Have you been rejected in a request for a handicap adjustment? Or are you just sitting at your computer imagining some big anti-LAK conspiracy by the evil lords of the handicap committee? C'mon, for once be reasonable. It's going to be a long winter.
>
> John Cochrane.
>

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

[Paul T[_4_]]

Links to 3d views of 21m Lak but still no mention of specs on Laks or any
of it;s dealers websites. Uk dealer doesn't even mention a 21m version!

http://s210261850.on...r/lak-17-21.pdf

[J. Nieuwenhuize]

At least one appears to be flying:
https://www.facebook.com/lzdesign.si/photos/pcb.330904183727265/330903453727338/?type=1

With a FES installed as well.

[Renny[_2_]]

On Monday, June 9, 2014 12:42:56 PM UTC-6, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
> At least one appears to be flying:
>
> https://www.facebook.com/lzdesign.si/photos/pcb.330904183727265/330903453727338/?type=1
>
>
>
> With a FES installed as well.

There are also some photos on the LAK website at:

http://lak.lt/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=581&Itemid=145

It appears that the maiden flight with the 21 meter wings took place on May 30, 2014!

[[email protected]]

Have they gotten around to obtaining an EASA type certificate for the 17B FES yet?

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, October 19, 2013 at 8:46:54 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
> So Lak are producing a 21m tipped LAK 17B - so a glider you cn fly in 15,
> 18, and Open Class - will it be competetive in any?

I am looking at a very nice LAK-17A and a very nice ASW-27 (lot more $$). I heven't seen any LAK-17B's on the used market. For a low time new glider pilot (have a commercial glider add-on and CFIG rating, but no contest experience) looking for a fun, reasonably good performing glider would the 17A be much of a downgrade from the 17B if I go the LAK route?

[KEN]

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 1:24:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Saturday, October 19, 2013 at 8:46:54 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
> > So Lak are producing a 21m tipped LAK 17B - so a glider you cn fly in 15,
> > 18, and Open Class - will it be competetive in any?
>
> I am looking at a very nice LAK-17A and a very nice ASW-27 (lot more $$). I heven't seen any LAK-17B's on the used market. For a low time new glider pilot (have a commercial glider add-on and CFIG rating, but no contest experience) looking for a fun, reasonably good performing glider would the 17A be much of a downgrade from the 17B if I go the LAK route?

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-4, KEN wrote:
> On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 1:24:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 19, 2013 at 8:46:54 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
> > > So Lak are producing a 21m tipped LAK 17B - so a glider you cn fly in 15,
> > > 18, and Open Class - will it be competetive in any?
> >
> > I am looking at a very nice LAK-17A and a very nice ASW-27 (lot more $$). I heven't seen any LAK-17B's on the used market. For a low time new glider pilot (have a commercial glider add-on and CFIG rating, but no contest experience) looking for a fun, reasonably good performing glider would the 17A be much of a downgrade from the 17B if I go the LAK route?

Two used LAK-17B FES on http://www.segelflug.de/osclass/index.php?page=search&sCategory=139 (also one 17a).

Dan

[Dan Marotta]

I put 600+ hours on my LAK-17a before selling it and it was the best
flying ship I've ever flown. I've also got over 600 hours in the LS-6a
which is also a superb flying ship.

Since I'm not a contest pilot, I can't say how it would perform against
a '27 though I've beaten them and been beaten by them, as well. It's
the pilot, not the ship, that wins contests anyway. You will get more
pleasure for your dollar than any other plastic glider I can think of.

On 8/1/2016 7:08 AM, Dan Daly wrote:
> On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-4, KEN wrote:
>> On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 1:24:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 19, 2013 at 8:46:54 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
>>>> So Lak are producing a 21m tipped LAK 17B - so a glider you cn fly in 15,
>>>> 18, and Open Class - will it be competetive in any?
>>> I am looking at a very nice LAK-17A and a very nice ASW-27 (lot more $$). I heven't seen any LAK-17B's on the used market. For a low time new glider pilot (have a commercial glider add-on and CFIG rating, but no contest experience) looking for a fun, reasonably good performing glider would the 17A be much of a downgrade from the 17B if I go the LAK route?
> Two used LAK-17B FES on http://www.segelflug.de/osclass/index.php?page=search&sCategory=139 (also one 17a).
>
> Dan

--
Dan, 5J

[Renny[_2_]]

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 10:05:14 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> I put 600+ hours on my LAK-17a before selling it and it was the best
> flying ship I've ever flown. I've also got over 600 hours in the LS-6a
> which is also a superb flying ship.
>
> Since I'm not a contest pilot, I can't say how it would perform against
> a '27 though I've beaten them and been beaten by them, as well. It's
> the pilot, not the ship, that wins contests anyway. You will get more
> pleasure for your dollar than any other plastic glider I can think of.
>
> On 8/1/2016 7:08 AM, Dan Daly wrote:
> > On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 9:04:01 AM UTC-4, KEN wrote:
> >> On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 1:24:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, October 19, 2013 at 8:46:54 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
> >>>> So Lak are producing a 21m tipped LAK 17B - so a glider you cn fly in 15,
> >>>> 18, and Open Class - will it be competetive in any?
> >>> I am looking at a very nice LAK-17A and a very nice ASW-27 (lot more $$). I heven't seen any LAK-17B's on the used market. For a low time new glider pilot (have a commercial glider add-on and CFIG rating, but no contest experience) looking for a fun, reasonably good performing glider would the 17A be much of a downgrade from the 17B if I go the LAK route?
> > Two used LAK-17B FES on http://www.segelflug.de/osclass/index.php?page=search&sCategory=139 (also one 17a).
> >
> > Dan
>
> --
> Dan, 5J

Agree with Dan (5J) 100%. I have a 17b FES and it is an excellent flying ship and a great value for the money. I have flown with Dan as he flew his 17a and also with another local 17a at Moriarty and they are really outstanding performers (the pilots were also fairly "decent") and they too are an excellent value for the money. Now, there are only a few 17b gliders in the US and I have yet to see an FES version come up for sale (as the owners are apparently pretty happy), so a 17a would be an excellent choice and there are (I believe) two 17a ships currently for sale in the US on Wings & Wheels (one at Moriarty). If you want a sustainer, on W&W there is also a 17aT and a 17bT advertised. Thx - Renny

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 1:24:34 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Saturday, October 19, 2013 at 8:46:54 AM UTC-7, Paul T wrote:
> > So Lak are producing a 21m tipped LAK 17B - so a glider you cn fly in 15,
> > 18, and Open Class - will it be competetive in any?
>
> I am looking at a very nice LAK-17A and a very nice ASW-27 (lot more $$). I heven't seen any LAK-17B's on the used market. For a low time new glider pilot (have a commercial glider add-on and CFIG rating, but no contest experience) looking for a fun, reasonably good performing glider would the 17A be much of a downgrade from the 17B if I go the LAK route?

I would definitely choose the 27.

[swinkelj]

Why?

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 1:55:17 PM UTC-4, swinkelj wrote:
> Why?

Handling, safety, track record, performance...