Briegleb 12B - Opinions?

[Eggs]

Hey ya'll,

Any opinions/experience regarding the Briegleb 12B?

As always, I look to the vastness of your communal experience and appreciate
willingness to share it with others. This is a great group.

Curt

[Tim Mara]

unfortunately, I'm afraid that most potential buyers for BG12's or similar
typically "cheap" gliders are there because they are new to gliding and
looking for a cheap glider...and most pilots who would have the experience
and enough knowledge to reasonably safely fly one also have enough
experience and knowledge to know they no long want to fly one.... I owned 2
BG12's back when I was more in the former category....I would not want one
today, nor would I like to see anyone without a lot of experience and skill
flying these type s today....aside from that, you have to remember they are
all experimental, and are all homebuilt, without any requirement to use
aircraft grade material or hardware, without the requirement to have to
inspections completed by A&I's, usually built by armatures as their first
and only attempt at building an airplane, and of course have no FAA support
through the issuance of AD's or service bulletins to warn of potential
failures..but on the other hand, I think a BG12 or a Monerai would make a
terrific Wind Tee at a local gliderport!
tim
"Eggs" > wrote in message
t...
> Hey ya'll,
>
> Any opinions/experience regarding the Briegleb 12B?
>
> As always, I look to the vastness of your communal experience and
appreciate
> willingness to share it with others. This is a great group.
>
> Curt
>
>

[Eggs]

"Tim Mara" > wrote in message
. ..

> unfortunately, I'm afraid that most potential buyers for BG12's or similar
> typically "cheap" gliders are there because they are new to gliding and
> looking for a cheap glider...

Well, <blush>, that's me.

> and most pilots who would have the experience
> and enough knowledge to reasonably safely fly one also have enough
> experience and knowledge to know they no long[er] want to fly one....

Seems several people have had nice things to say about these little wooden
puppies in RAS over the years. Is there anything in particular that would
make this the case, aside from performance?

> ... nor would I like to see anyone without a lot of experience and skill
> flying these types today....

Is this because of the handling/performance characteristics or because of a
fear of sub-standard construction techniques/materials?

> are all experimental, and are all homebuilt, without any requirement to
use
> aircraft grade material or hardware, without the requirement to have to
> inspections completed by A&I's, usually built by armatures as their first
> and only attempt at building an airplane, and of course have no FAA
support
> through the issuance of AD's...

This, of course, is true of any homebuilt aircraft. I guess anyone who buys
instead of building runs a certian risk. The one I'm looking at was built in
1963 which makes it only a slight bit younger than me. If it's in no better
shape than I am...

On the other hand, some of these were built from kits produced by Gus
Briegleb, some from plans. Is there anyway to reliably determine the
heritage of a particular experimental aircraft?

> failures..but on the other hand, I think a BG12 or a Monerai would make a
> terrific Wind Tee at a local gliderport!
> tim

Maybe a windsock from Sporty's would be a better investment. Anyone else
have any insight?

JJ? John? Bob? Ventus4? You guys have things to say about almost everything.

I am looking for a "cheap" plane. For starters, at least. Like everything
else I get involved with, whatever I get will likely end up costing me a
Citation at some point. (No, I can't afford one.)

Thanks, group.

Curt
East Texas, USA

[Marc Ramsey]

Eggs wrote:
> I am looking for a "cheap" plane. For starters, at least. Like everything
> else I get involved with, whatever I get will likely end up costing me a
> Citation at some point. (No, I can't afford one.)

What are your goals in the next 3 or 4 years, flying around the airport,
cross-country, contests? Where do you live? How much would you like to
spend? Do you know anyone that might be willing to partner with you in
the purchase of a used ship?

Marc

[Eggs]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
. com...

> What are your goals in the next 3 or 4 years, flying around the airport,
> cross-country, contests? Where do you live? How much would you like to
> spend? Do you know anyone that might be willing to partner with you in
> the purchase of a used ship?
>
> Marc

Marc,

I live in East Texas, so far East I could toss a rock into Arkansas from my
office window. Assuming my office had a window. I anticipate flying around
the airport here until I get bored. There seems to be only one glider
operation nearby. If the clouds are right, and myself and my bird are up to
the challenge, I'll probably want to try some short XC. Honestly, I don't
aspire to entering the Nationals or trying to break any world records.

As to cost, I don't want to spend more than fifty thousand and my wife
doesn't want me to spend more than fifty. Dollars. Seriously, I simply want
to fulfill two old dreams... building (or restoring) a glider with my
father, and to get my ticket - glider. I might even move on to airplanes in
that I can pretend the expense serves a more useful 'purpose' than mere
recreation.

The BG-12 seems to have a pretty decent L/D for a wooden homebuilt. Very
light wing loading would doubtless make for poor penetration, but like I
said, no contests are planned. Assuming this one is built OK, it claims a
considerably better L/D and payload than either the Duster or Woodstock and
it can be purchased for less that the cost of materials to build either of
those. Plus, it's built.

And, no, I don't think I'll find a partner for a real glider. Everyone
around here that I talk to about flying a plane without an engine seems to
think I've lost whatever remained of my mind.

Sigh.

Curt

[tango4]

10000 Euro will buy you a Libelle in Europe, there's a club libelle for sale
for under E6000 that needs a new gelcoat. Regel that with your dad, a much
better bet! The other alternative is ( shock/ horror ) one of the Marske
flying wings, manufacturer still liquid and available for advice, parts and
support.

Best bet is to buy a complete aircraft and restore a sailboat with your
dad - much safer!

Ian


"Eggs" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
> . com...
>
> > What are your goals in the next 3 or 4 years, flying around the airport,
> > cross-country, contests? Where do you live? How much would you like to
> > spend? Do you know anyone that might be willing to partner with you in
> > the purchase of a used ship?
> >
> > Marc
>
> Marc,
>
> I live in East Texas, so far East I could toss a rock into Arkansas from
my
> office window. Assuming my office had a window. I anticipate flying around
> the airport here until I get bored. There seems to be only one glider
> operation nearby. If the clouds are right, and myself and my bird are up
to
> the challenge, I'll probably want to try some short XC. Honestly, I don't
> aspire to entering the Nationals or trying to break any world records.
>
> As to cost, I don't want to spend more than fifty thousand and my wife
> doesn't want me to spend more than fifty. Dollars. Seriously, I simply
want
> to fulfill two old dreams... building (or restoring) a glider with my
> father, and to get my ticket - glider. I might even move on to airplanes
in
> that I can pretend the expense serves a more useful 'purpose' than mere
> recreation.
>
> The BG-12 seems to have a pretty decent L/D for a wooden homebuilt. Very
> light wing loading would doubtless make for poor penetration, but like I
> said, no contests are planned. Assuming this one is built OK, it claims a
> considerably better L/D and payload than either the Duster or Woodstock
and
> it can be purchased for less that the cost of materials to build either of
> those. Plus, it's built.
>
> And, no, I don't think I'll find a partner for a real glider. Everyone
> around here that I talk to about flying a plane without an engine seems to
> think I've lost whatever remained of my mind.
>
> Sigh.
>
> Curt
>
>

[Marc Ramsey]

Eggs wrote:
> The BG-12 seems to have a pretty decent L/D for a wooden homebuilt. Very
> light wing loading would doubtless make for poor penetration, but like I
> said, no contests are planned. Assuming this one is built OK, it claims a
> considerably better L/D and payload than either the Duster or Woodstock and
> it can be purchased for less that the cost of materials to build either of
> those. Plus, it's built.

I've never flown a BG-12, nor do I know much about them. I'll suggest
some other choices in the under $10,000 range, that may be better
choices for your early soaring experiences.

Dusters show up on the market periodically, they are much better
handling gliders, and the construction techniques are somewhat less
error prone. Looking at the SSA classifieds, there is a Ka8 in
Louisiana that needs restoration, a sweet flying wood and steel tube
glider that would be great for around the airport and short
cross-country flights. The 1-26 (all metal) has similar performance, is
also lots of fun, there are hundreds of them around, and an active group
of people who race them and can help out with tips and finding parts.
For better performance, look for a K6E (wood) or a 1-23 (metal).

If you're willing to spend in the $10,000 to $15,000 range, your options
open up a bit more, including the 1-34 (metal), and some of the early
standard class glass gliders, like the Standard Libelle and Standard Cirrus.

The advantage of all of these gliders is that when it comes time to
sell, you'll probably get back every penny you paid, if not more.

The best places to look for used gliders in the US are:

http://www.wingsandwheels.com/want_ads.htm
http://www.ssa.org/Classifieds/
http://gliderforum.com/

Marc

[JJ Sinclair]

Hi Curt,
I try to stay out of this kind of discussion because anything I say will tread
on someone's toes. But,you went trolling for me, so here goes.

The BG-12 is (was) a good machine in its day, but that *day* was a long time
ago. The first thing I would determine is; How has it been stored for all those
years? Moisture is the arch enemy of wood and east Texas is a bit on the wet
side, isn't it? I don't want to scare you off, but BG-12's have come apart in
recent years due to undetected, wood rot.

The next problem, in my mind would be the flaps only, configuration (see recent
discussion on ras.) A good friend of mine built and flew a BG-12 for years and
he told me, He never knew where that sucker was going on landing. I'm not
bad-mouthing flaps, but they do take a bit of getting used to and low time
pilots don't need to be presented with something new, come landing time.

The BG-12 wing is heavy and you may find your friends hiding when they see you
start to assemble your new prize possession. Other than that, She's Cherry. I
personally would think a Duster is a better choice, but have someone who knows
what he's looking at, inspect for the dreaded, Wood Rot.
JJ Sinclair

[Nolaminar]

Get a ka-8 or ka-6.
Great sailplane to overhaul. Look good, fly well and they have resale.
GA

[Tim Mara]

a far, far better bet would be to buy a factory manufactured AND Certified
design....I cannot say enough on how important it is to have a design that
has a track record, and a record that can be tracked (the FAA only issues
AD's on certified aircraft). Also having a glider produced by a real
aircraft manufacturer at the very least should have aircraft grade
materials, engineering, and a rigorous flight testing program.
If you're seriously interested in restoring a glider the Vintage Sailplane
Association is a good place to look for gliders or sellers who may have or
others that may know of good projects to sell for low cost and even good
older designs that you can have now that are already in airworthy condition.
Too often I see buyers look only at L/D as a basis for their buying
decision, but in a glider if you want to go someplace you have to be able to
stay up too.....for beginners it's pretty hard to beat gliders like K6's or
K8's as entry level "Sailplanes", these will cover a lot of ground if you
fly them like K6's and K8's....a bit slower than some, but they fly very
nice, are quite forgiving and when you do end up landing out can do so
slowly, predictably and safely.....and if you're going to fly locally like
you said it makes little difference how much territory you cover if it's all
in one place!
tim


>
> I live in East Texas, so far East I could toss a rock into Arkansas from
my
> office window. Assuming my office had a window. I anticipate flying around
> the airport here until I get bored. There seems to be only one glider
> operation nearby. If the clouds are right, and myself and my bird are up
to
> the challenge, I'll probably want to try some short XC. Honestly, I don't
> aspire to entering the Nationals or trying to break any world records.
>
> As to cost, I don't want to spend more than fifty thousand and my wife
> doesn't want me to spend more than fifty. Dollars. Seriously, I simply
want
> to fulfill two old dreams... building (or restoring) a glider with my
> father, and to get my ticket - glider. I might even move on to airplanes
in
> that I can pretend the expense serves a more useful 'purpose' than mere
> recreation.
>
> The BG-12 seems to have a pretty decent L/D for a wooden homebuilt. Very
> light wing loading would doubtless make for poor penetration, but like I
> said, no contests are planned. Assuming this one is built OK, it claims a
> considerably better L/D and payload than either the Duster or Woodstock
and
> it can be purchased for less that the cost of materials to build either of
> those. Plus, it's built.
>
> And, no, I don't think I'll find a partner for a real glider. Everyone
> around here that I talk to about flying a plane without an engine seems to
> think I've lost whatever remained of my mind.
>
> Sigh.
>
> Curt
>
>

[Bob Kuykendall]

As always, my standard advice about buying homebuilt aircraft remains:

1. Recognize that every builder has different sensibilities and
standards of workmanship, and adheres to the designer's plans to a
different degree. Some homebuilts make me proud to be a fellow
tool-bearing mammal. Others make me feel unsafe just walking under
them. Most are somewhere in the middle. Caveat emptor, and your
mileage may vary.

2. Have it pre-buy inspected by someone familiar with the type;
preferably someone who is familiar with the blueprints and can
recognize deviations from the plans. Don't buy an airplane
sight-unseen unless you've considered and prepared for the possible
worst-case scenarios.

3. Be aware that, if you're not willing and able to work on it
yourself, it will likely be no less expensive to own than a factory
aircraft. Depending on who you hire to work on it, it could be
substantially more expensive.

4. Get familiar with the 14 CFR (or relevant national) rules regarding
amateur-built experimentals. The most salient points are: Anybody can
work on them; but the annual condition inspection must be signed off
by an IA, an A&P, or the holder of the repair(person) certificate.

That said, I'd like to address some of the points that Tim Mara raises
in his post on a branch of this thread. For the most part, I tend to
agree with him, but I'd like to elaborate a bit on his ideas:

> most pilots who would have the experience
> and enough knowledge to reasonably safely
> fly one also have enough experience and
> knowledge to know they no long want to fly one....

It depends. It took me several years to consistently fly to the edges
of my HP-11's potential. Expanding on that, most actual glider
_pilots_ have the skills and techniques to handle the average
homebuilt sailplane. For most well-established homebuilt designs, the
skills and aeronautical knowledge that got you a private pilot rating
will probably suffice. Based on what friends have told me, that
includes a properly built and tested BG-12. Glider _drivers_ and other
sub-par variations on the theme, on the other hand, may find
themselves slightly challenged. That said, I allow as that I prefer to
see better-than-average piloting skills in HP-18 transitions. The
uber-reclined seating, the side-stick, and the Schrederon flaps are
three new experiences all at once, and if you get behind the ship late
in the game it can be hard to catch up.

> I owned 2 BG12's back when I was more
> in the former category....I would not want
> one today...

Not that we'd expect him to, what with Tim being a big-shot sailplane
dealer and all these days... :)

> ...you have to remember they are all
> experimental, and are all homebuilt,
> without any requirement to use
> aircraft grade material or hardware,

That's pretty much covered in Part 1 of my standard advice. The good
news is that experienced folks can generally tell aircraft materials
just by looking at them. The nuts and bolts are yellow cad plated, and
the bolts have the X on the head. And in my experience, US sailplane
homebuilders generally stick with AN-type hardware since they can get
it from AS&S or Wicks for less than nuts and bolts at the local
hardware store. Also, many homebuilts are specifically designed with
extra strength margins to account for the use of less than top-grade
materials. Many such designs actually specify relatively low-grade
materials in the plans.

Going off on a tangent, in contrast to the US AN-style aircraft
hardware used in most homebuilts, the hardware used in European
sailplanes is very hard to grade and identify by inspection. There are
many different systems of plating, drive types, head stamps, and
thread pitches to deal with.

> without the requirement to have to
> inspections completed by A&I's,

However, as I've written elsewhere, they have to be inspected by
either an A&P or the holder of a prepair[person] certificate. Of
which, as I've written elsewhere, I prefer to use the A&P or AI. I
continue to believe that anyone who built an airplane cannot view it
with the impartiality necessary to inspect it properly.

> ... and of course have no FAA support
> through the issuance of AD's or service
> bulletins to warn of potential failures...

Yes, the FAA generally takes a hands-off approach to homebuilts. But
the same applies to many factory-built European ships licensed as
Experimental, Racing and Experimental, Exhibition.

For most experimental types, though, there are type-specific
organizations that compile and distribute safety and service
bulletins. The HPs, for instance, have a strong network centered on
Wayne Paul's Schreder Sailplane Designs Web site. There are several
safety and service bulletins on the site, and regular exchanges on the
Internet email forum about operational concerns. There are similar
Internet fora for the Duster, BG-12, and other designs.

> ... I think a BG12 or a Monerai would make a
> terrific Wind Tee at a local gliderport!

Well, maybe for a while. But assembled out in the elements, a BG would
only give a few years of such service.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[Al]

Did'nt one of these come apart about 4 years ago when the flaps failed and
seperated inflight

the pilot a young man was killed IIRC.

Dont buy this junk there are better ships out there that are less dangerous.
These 60/70's homebuilts are cheap for a reason pay some more and live
longer!!

Al

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
om...
> As always, my standard advice about buying homebuilt aircraft remains:
>
> 1. Recognize that every builder has different sensibilities and
> standards of workmanship, and adheres to the designer's plans to a
> different degree. Some homebuilts make me proud to be a fellow
> tool-bearing mammal. Others make me feel unsafe just walking under
> them. Most are somewhere in the middle. Caveat emptor, and your
> mileage may vary.
>
> 2. Have it pre-buy inspected by someone familiar with the type;
> preferably someone who is familiar with the blueprints and can
> recognize deviations from the plans. Don't buy an airplane
> sight-unseen unless you've considered and prepared for the possible
> worst-case scenarios.
>
> 3. Be aware that, if you're not willing and able to work on it
> yourself, it will likely be no less expensive to own than a factory
> aircraft. Depending on who you hire to work on it, it could be
> substantially more expensive.
>
> 4. Get familiar with the 14 CFR (or relevant national) rules regarding
> amateur-built experimentals. The most salient points are: Anybody can
> work on them; but the annual condition inspection must be signed off
> by an IA, an A&P, or the holder of the repair(person) certificate.
>
> That said, I'd like to address some of the points that Tim Mara raises
> in his post on a branch of this thread. For the most part, I tend to
> agree with him, but I'd like to elaborate a bit on his ideas:
>
> > most pilots who would have the experience
> > and enough knowledge to reasonably safely
> > fly one also have enough experience and
> > knowledge to know they no long want to fly one....
>
> It depends. It took me several years to consistently fly to the edges
> of my HP-11's potential. Expanding on that, most actual glider
> _pilots_ have the skills and techniques to handle the average
> homebuilt sailplane. For most well-established homebuilt designs, the
> skills and aeronautical knowledge that got you a private pilot rating
> will probably suffice. Based on what friends have told me, that
> includes a properly built and tested BG-12. Glider _drivers_ and other
> sub-par variations on the theme, on the other hand, may find
> themselves slightly challenged. That said, I allow as that I prefer to
> see better-than-average piloting skills in HP-18 transitions. The
> uber-reclined seating, the side-stick, and the Schrederon flaps are
> three new experiences all at once, and if you get behind the ship late
> in the game it can be hard to catch up.
>
> > I owned 2 BG12's back when I was more
> > in the former category....I would not want
> > one today...
>
> Not that we'd expect him to, what with Tim being a big-shot sailplane
> dealer and all these days... :)
>
> > ...you have to remember they are all
> > experimental, and are all homebuilt,
> > without any requirement to use
> > aircraft grade material or hardware,
>
> That's pretty much covered in Part 1 of my standard advice. The good
> news is that experienced folks can generally tell aircraft materials
> just by looking at them. The nuts and bolts are yellow cad plated, and
> the bolts have the X on the head. And in my experience, US sailplane
> homebuilders generally stick with AN-type hardware since they can get
> it from AS&S or Wicks for less than nuts and bolts at the local
> hardware store. Also, many homebuilts are specifically designed with
> extra strength margins to account for the use of less than top-grade
> materials. Many such designs actually specify relatively low-grade
> materials in the plans.
>
> Going off on a tangent, in contrast to the US AN-style aircraft
> hardware used in most homebuilts, the hardware used in European
> sailplanes is very hard to grade and identify by inspection. There are
> many different systems of plating, drive types, head stamps, and
> thread pitches to deal with.
>
> > without the requirement to have to
> > inspections completed by A&I's,
>
> However, as I've written elsewhere, they have to be inspected by
> either an A&P or the holder of a prepair[person] certificate. Of
> which, as I've written elsewhere, I prefer to use the A&P or AI. I
> continue to believe that anyone who built an airplane cannot view it
> with the impartiality necessary to inspect it properly.
>
> > ... and of course have no FAA support
> > through the issuance of AD's or service
> > bulletins to warn of potential failures...
>
> Yes, the FAA generally takes a hands-off approach to homebuilts. But
> the same applies to many factory-built European ships licensed as
> Experimental, Racing and Experimental, Exhibition.
>
> For most experimental types, though, there are type-specific
> organizations that compile and distribute safety and service
> bulletins. The HPs, for instance, have a strong network centered on
> Wayne Paul's Schreder Sailplane Designs Web site. There are several
> safety and service bulletins on the site, and regular exchanges on the
> Internet email forum about operational concerns. There are similar
> Internet fora for the Duster, BG-12, and other designs.
>
> > ... I think a BG12 or a Monerai would make a
> > terrific Wind Tee at a local gliderport!
>
> Well, maybe for a while. But assembled out in the elements, a BG would
> only give a few years of such service.
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.
> http://www.hpaircraft.com

[Mark James Boyd]

>> unfortunately, I'm afraid that most potential buyers for BG12's or similar
>> typically "cheap" gliders are there because they are new to gliding and
>> looking for a cheap glider...
>
>Well, <blush>, that's me.

From a financial point of view, I think one is better off
with a "popular" glider. If a glider costs 25-50% less
than a popular Grob 102, 1-34, 1-35, PW-5, Russia, 1-26,
PIK-20, etc, then it seems likely you're not only going
to have a tough time finding parts, insurance, inspections,
but you'd also have a hard time finding someone to buy the
darn thing in the future.

Buying and selling gliders which trade briskly seems a much
better bet. Assuming you sell the glider for the same
money you buy it, the expense is the interest on invested
capital and the higher cost of insurance. There is a
real cost here ($500-1500 yearly). On the other hand you
may have to keep a weirdo glider on the market for a year
to sell it where the higher priced, popular glider sells
in a month.

I know a fine competition pilot who wants to sell his 2-22
and his Duster, but is having trouble finding anyone with
such exotic taste within reasonable towing distance.
Boy I bet he'd like that half of his garage back...

If price is the problem, I'd say get a "popular" glider
in a partnership, syndicate, or club. If you've ever
seen a bunch of women clucking over a newborn, you
know what it'd feel like to be a newly purchased
"popular" glider...

[Eggs]

Group:

What an amazing bunch of folks. I thank each of you for your thoughtful and
reasoned advice.

If anyone knows of a good old Ka6 or Ka7 or similar ship in a mildly damaged
or otherwise reasonably restorable condition feel free to write to me
directly. Remove the parentheses from my email address.

Thanks again, all of you.

Curt
East Texas, USA

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, someone named Al wrote:

> Did'nt one of these come apart about
> 4 years ago when the flaps failed and
> seperated inflight
> the pilot a young man was killed IIRC.

Yes, it's a matter of public record. It was one of three fatal BG-12
inflight failures in the last few years. The accidents of note are:

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X21782&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X08572&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X07996&key=1

The first of those three is the one "Al" cites. The NTSB determined
that the probable cause was excess speed beyond the flap deployment
speed. I worked at the 2003 Standard Nationals with the late pilot's
father, and our conversations had no small impact on my way of
thinking about the safety and nature of homebuilt soaring.

The second accident was due to the failure of a control push-pull tube
element on a ferry flight, the impending nature of which would
probably have been evident even in a very casual inspection. One of
the conditions of the ferry permit was an inspection of the aircraft
by an A&P or similar, but there was no evidence that the inspection
was performed.

The third accident was a wing separation after several pitch
excursions at relatively high speed. The aircraft was substantially
heavier than max gross, with a CG out of the aft end of the CG
envelope.

> Dont buy this junk there are better ships
> out there that are less dangerous.
> These 60/70's homebuilts are cheap
> for a reason pay some more and live
> longer!!

There are also better ships out there that are more expensive and
_more_ dangerous.

But that aside, I have to agree with the general consesus that the
social and economic landscape of soaring has changed so that many
homebuilt gliders are very far out of their original context. These
days, a walk through the ocean of most souls would scarcely get your
feet wet.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, "Eggs" > wrote:

> If anyone knows of a good old Ka6
> or Ka7 or similar ship in a mildly
> damaged or otherwise reasonably
> restorable condition...

You just missed a K8 on eBay. I posted it on HomeSail. It went for
$76:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2445107994&category=26439

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.

[Tim Mara]

look at the Wings & Wheels Want-ads on
http://wingsandwheels.com/want_ads.htm
there are a few K6's, K7's and K8's there as well as most other types
offered for sale.
tim

"Eggs" > wrote in message
t...
> Group:
>
> What an amazing bunch of folks. I thank each of you for your thoughtful
and
> reasoned advice.
>
> If anyone knows of a good old Ka6 or Ka7 or similar ship in a mildly
damaged
> or otherwise reasonably restorable condition feel free to write to me
> directly. Remove the parentheses from my email address.
>
> Thanks again, all of you.
>
> Curt
> East Texas, USA
>
>

[Eggs]

Don't think I didn't look longingly at that auction several times, Bob, and
although it doubtless added temendously to someone's parts bin, 4423 miles
seemed a bit of a drive to come fetch it!!

But thanks for trying to cheer me up. <wink> What I really want is an HP-24
kit for Christmas.

Curt

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
om...
> Earlier, "Eggs" > wrote:
>
> > If anyone knows of a good old Ka6
> > or Ka7 or similar ship in a mildly
> > damaged or otherwise reasonably
> > restorable condition...
>
> You just missed a K8 on eBay. I posted it on HomeSail. It went for
> $76:
>
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2445107994&category=26439
>
> Thanks, and best regards to all
>
> Bob K.

[JB]

I am a beliver in affordable soaring and six friends and i are in the
process of buying a BG-12A, it sounds a little crazy to buy a wood
glider built over 20 years ago but it will only cost us 625 apiece and
will make flying cheap for us. The condition is a real factor and this
one has been stored inside and has a woping 165 hours so why not? It
is a cheap way to go.

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:<3fcfa962$1@darkstar>...
> >> unfortunately, I'm afraid that most potential buyers for BG12's or similar
> >> typically "cheap" gliders are there because they are new to gliding and
> >> looking for a cheap glider...
> >
> >Well, <blush>, that's me.
>
> From a financial point of view, I think one is better off
> with a "popular" glider. If a glider costs 25-50% less
> than a popular Grob 102, 1-34, 1-35, PW-5, Russia, 1-26,
> PIK-20, etc, then it seems likely you're not only going
> to have a tough time finding parts, insurance, inspections,
> but you'd also have a hard time finding someone to buy the
> darn thing in the future.
>
> Buying and selling gliders which trade briskly seems a much
> better bet. Assuming you sell the glider for the same
> money you buy it, the expense is the interest on invested
> capital and the higher cost of insurance. There is a
> real cost here ($500-1500 yearly). On the other hand you
> may have to keep a weirdo glider on the market for a year
> to sell it where the higher priced, popular glider sells
> in a month.
>
> I know a fine competition pilot who wants to sell his 2-22
> and his Duster, but is having trouble finding anyone with
> such exotic taste within reasonable towing distance.
> Boy I bet he'd like that half of his garage back...
>
> If price is the problem, I'd say get a "popular" glider
> in a partnership, syndicate, or club. If you've ever
> seen a bunch of women clucking over a newborn, you
> know what it'd feel like to be a newly purchased
> "popular" glider...

[JJ Sinclair]

>six friends and i are in the
>process of buying a BG-12A, it sounds a little crazy

I would ask, what is the experience level of each member of your group? Flying
a flap-only ship can be a real exciting experience, especially in unskilled
hands.

Your statement>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It
>is a cheap way to go.<<<< May be a very prophetic


JJ Sinclair

[Wayne Paul]

JB,

What is the reason for so few hours?

Low time may not be a good thing. My experience with homebuilt sailplanes
indicates that a low number of logged hours my indeed be an indicator of
poor construction (not necessarily unsafe) or poor handling characteristics.

I purchase a low time HP-14 with about 150 hours for a very reasonable price
and have spent almost four years replacing items that I consider necessary
to make it airworthy. Only after this process has been completed will I
know if it will live up to the performance standards of other HP-14s.

The 800hr + HP-16 I use to own
(http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/HP-16/N16VP.html) was the real bargain
even though it cost twice as much as the HP-14.

Be very careful!

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

"JB" > wrote in message
om...
> I am a beliver in affordable soaring and six friends and i are in the
> process of buying a BG-12A, it sounds a little crazy to buy a wood
> glider built over 20 years ago but it will only cost us 625 apiece and
> will make flying cheap for us. The condition is a real factor and this
> one has been stored inside and has a woping 165 hours so why not? It
> is a cheap way to go.
>
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote in message
news:<3fcfa962$1@darkstar>...
> > >> unfortunately, I'm afraid that most potential buyers for BG12's or
similar
> > >> typically "cheap" gliders are there because they are new to gliding
and
> > >> looking for a cheap glider...
> > >
> > >Well, <blush>, that's me.
> >
> > From a financial point of view, I think one is better off
> > with a "popular" glider. If a glider costs 25-50% less
> > than a popular Grob 102, 1-34, 1-35, PW-5, Russia, 1-26,
> > PIK-20, etc, then it seems likely you're not only going
> > to have a tough time finding parts, insurance, inspections,
> > but you'd also have a hard time finding someone to buy the
> > darn thing in the future.
> >
> > Buying and selling gliders which trade briskly seems a much
> > better bet. Assuming you sell the glider for the same
> > money you buy it, the expense is the interest on invested
> > capital and the higher cost of insurance. There is a
> > real cost here ($500-1500 yearly). On the other hand you
> > may have to keep a weirdo glider on the market for a year
> > to sell it where the higher priced, popular glider sells
> > in a month.
> >
> > I know a fine competition pilot who wants to sell his 2-22
> > and his Duster, but is having trouble finding anyone with
> > such exotic taste within reasonable towing distance.
> > Boy I bet he'd like that half of his garage back...
> >
> > If price is the problem, I'd say get a "popular" glider
> > in a partnership, syndicate, or club. If you've ever
> > seen a bunch of women clucking over a newborn, you
> > know what it'd feel like to be a newly purchased
> > "popular" glider...

[Doug Hoffman]

> From: (JJ Sinclair)
>
>> six friends and i are in the
>> process of buying a BG-12A, it sounds a little crazy
>
> I would ask, what is the experience level of each member of your group?
> Flying
> a flap-only ship can be a real exciting experience, especially in unskilled
> hands.

I basically agree with this. But I would add that with proper preparation
and coaching it can be a very safe transition. In my case I flew my RS-15
after only 22 hours total flying anything. I had the excellent advice of
what to expect and how to approach the flaps-only glide path control from
the HP newsgroup and the HP website http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/ .
Might be worthwhile for this person to look at the same.

-Doug

[Dale and Rosemary Thompson]

On 30 Dec 2003 17:55:26 GMT, wrote:

>JJ wrote: " Flying a flap-only ship can be a real exciting experience, especially in unskilled hands."

On this one, JJ is absolutely right!!

Dale (With 20 years of 1-35 experience)


Rosemary

To reply by e-mail, remove the "Nospam" from my address