John Firth
February 6th 04, 12:45 AM
In the early 60 s , a kind member at MASA more or less gave me carte
blanche to fly his unmodifed LK 10 when ever I wanted; as I was BGA
trained and spin aware, I expored it's stall behavior; it dropped a wing
so viciously that I did not let it autorotate. It had Clark Y section
and no washout as I recall. Did a few croscountries in it including running
a cold front squall line with resultant outlanding.
I thought it a reasonably well harmonised glider with very modest performance.
it would be interesting to revisit some of these early impressions.
John Firth
+ >> >
>> >It would be hard to put reliable data together, but I suspect there are
>> >other glider types whose numbers have been depleted by fatal spins to an
>> >even larger percentage than the Puchacz. The 2-32 and LK-10 come to
> mind.
>> >I seem to recall it being said that 75% of the LK-10's original numbers
> were
>> >lost in spins that killed the pilot. I also remember the IDENTICAL
>> >discussion about the LK-10 as we are having about the Owl.
>> >
>> >Rather than blame the glider, I would point the finger at training that
>> >doesn't equip pilots with the skills needed to fly these gliders.
>> >
>> >Bill Daniels
>>
>>
>> I have quite a few hours in a flat topped LK-10. It was the second
>> glider type I flew and the first I flew in a contest. Yes, there were
>> concerns about the LK-10 spinning/recovery. It was never deliberately
>> spun and I think all were so concerned nobody ever even let it get to
>> the incipient stage.
>> I think it met its end on an outlanding, something to do with a fence
>> and a ditch, no injuries, not worth repairing.
>>
>> As the LK-10 was designed as a military training glider in wartime I
>> can believe it may have had less than ideal flight characteristics
>> and it may well have killed many inexperienced, hastily trained
>> cadets. This may be regarded as acceptable by the military in wartime.
>>
>> Is this acceptable for civilians in peacetime?
>>
>> I just re-read the chapter by Leighton Collins at the back of "Stick
>> and Rudder". It is called "The Dangers of the Air". Highly relevant to
>> these spin threads and training. It was written in 1946 and we seem to
>> have learned little.
>>
>> Given that the dangers of spinning from a failed launch, on base or
>> final, from low thermalling or in a gaggle are all well known and
>> understood and we all agree that this shouldn't be done ever then the
>> problem becomes not spin recovery but absolute prevention of
>> unintentional spins.
>>
>> Most pilots seem to manage this at least with most modern gliders.
>> What is it about either some gliders or the training that results in
>> some not "getting it"?
>>
>> Mike Borgelt
>>
>
> Interesting. There aren't many of us left who flew the LK-10. Did you fly
> one in OZ or in the US? My primary trainer was a "double-bubble" flat
> topped LK-10. N22U once graced the cover of the cross country chapter of
> the SSA soaring handbook.
>
> I once heard Jack Laister tell that the LK-10 was itself a modification of
> his "Yankee Doodle" single place competition glider designed while he was a
> teenager. The US military asked him to design a two-place trainer in the
> early 1940's. Jack said he just straightened out the gull wings and
> stretched the fuselage behind the wing to make room for a rear cockpit and
> the Yankee Doodle became the military LK-10 or TG-4.
>
> I spun both N22U and another LK-10 still in the original configuration.
> Both left no doubt that mis-handling them would kill. I sometimes had the
> hair-raising feeling that the glider was actively trying to kill me. That
> experience left me with a wariness of low and slow flying that is still with
> me. I'd like to see that wariness passed along to a new generation of
> pilots. I think it saved my life on several occasions and might save some
> of theirs too.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
--
What is the meaning of life? Life is trial by computer
blanche to fly his unmodifed LK 10 when ever I wanted; as I was BGA
trained and spin aware, I expored it's stall behavior; it dropped a wing
so viciously that I did not let it autorotate. It had Clark Y section
and no washout as I recall. Did a few croscountries in it including running
a cold front squall line with resultant outlanding.
I thought it a reasonably well harmonised glider with very modest performance.
it would be interesting to revisit some of these early impressions.
John Firth
+ >> >
>> >It would be hard to put reliable data together, but I suspect there are
>> >other glider types whose numbers have been depleted by fatal spins to an
>> >even larger percentage than the Puchacz. The 2-32 and LK-10 come to
> mind.
>> >I seem to recall it being said that 75% of the LK-10's original numbers
> were
>> >lost in spins that killed the pilot. I also remember the IDENTICAL
>> >discussion about the LK-10 as we are having about the Owl.
>> >
>> >Rather than blame the glider, I would point the finger at training that
>> >doesn't equip pilots with the skills needed to fly these gliders.
>> >
>> >Bill Daniels
>>
>>
>> I have quite a few hours in a flat topped LK-10. It was the second
>> glider type I flew and the first I flew in a contest. Yes, there were
>> concerns about the LK-10 spinning/recovery. It was never deliberately
>> spun and I think all were so concerned nobody ever even let it get to
>> the incipient stage.
>> I think it met its end on an outlanding, something to do with a fence
>> and a ditch, no injuries, not worth repairing.
>>
>> As the LK-10 was designed as a military training glider in wartime I
>> can believe it may have had less than ideal flight characteristics
>> and it may well have killed many inexperienced, hastily trained
>> cadets. This may be regarded as acceptable by the military in wartime.
>>
>> Is this acceptable for civilians in peacetime?
>>
>> I just re-read the chapter by Leighton Collins at the back of "Stick
>> and Rudder". It is called "The Dangers of the Air". Highly relevant to
>> these spin threads and training. It was written in 1946 and we seem to
>> have learned little.
>>
>> Given that the dangers of spinning from a failed launch, on base or
>> final, from low thermalling or in a gaggle are all well known and
>> understood and we all agree that this shouldn't be done ever then the
>> problem becomes not spin recovery but absolute prevention of
>> unintentional spins.
>>
>> Most pilots seem to manage this at least with most modern gliders.
>> What is it about either some gliders or the training that results in
>> some not "getting it"?
>>
>> Mike Borgelt
>>
>
> Interesting. There aren't many of us left who flew the LK-10. Did you fly
> one in OZ or in the US? My primary trainer was a "double-bubble" flat
> topped LK-10. N22U once graced the cover of the cross country chapter of
> the SSA soaring handbook.
>
> I once heard Jack Laister tell that the LK-10 was itself a modification of
> his "Yankee Doodle" single place competition glider designed while he was a
> teenager. The US military asked him to design a two-place trainer in the
> early 1940's. Jack said he just straightened out the gull wings and
> stretched the fuselage behind the wing to make room for a rear cockpit and
> the Yankee Doodle became the military LK-10 or TG-4.
>
> I spun both N22U and another LK-10 still in the original configuration.
> Both left no doubt that mis-handling them would kill. I sometimes had the
> hair-raising feeling that the glider was actively trying to kill me. That
> experience left me with a wariness of low and slow flying that is still with
> me. I'd like to see that wariness passed along to a new generation of
> pilots. I think it saved my life on several occasions and might save some
> of theirs too.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
--
What is the meaning of life? Life is trial by computer