KA6E and Foka 4 comparable metal ships - Laister Nugget LP15

[Matthieu]

Dear expert soaring pilots,

What would be a nice metal equivalent of the KA6E or Foka 4?

I am asking because those ships are 40+ years old now and I am
concerned about the aging wood... Should I be concerned?

Is there any relevant metal alternative to those ships? I would also be
interested in any clues in terms of pricing.

I am a 5'6'' and 137 lbs pilot. What I love about those 2 ships (apart
of their outstanding behaviors and performances) are the narrow - low
cockpit and their light weight for soft-weak conditions flying. I am
flying out of Hope British Columbia.

Last Monday I discovered a nice sexy looking plane on Jean airport in
Nevada; metal and good aspect ratio. The only comment I have concerns
the large and high cockpit size. Other than that this ship is very sexy
and seems robust.

It is a Laister Nugget LP15. Do you know any other metal ships
comparable to the Laister Nugget?

Thanks for all information and advises you could give to the private
owner wanabee I am.

Matt

[[email protected]]

Let me get this straight, you're complaining that the LP15's cockpit is
too big? That's a complaint I have not heard before about any glider.

[Bob Whelan]

Matthieu wrote (w. snips)...

> What would be a nice metal equivalent of the KA6E or Foka 4?
>
> I am asking because those ships are 40+ years old now and I am
> concerned about the aging wood... Should I be concerned?

Peace of mind would seem to incompatible w. structural concern of any kind,
regardless of validity. (FWIW, I've never been able to talk myself into
flying wood ships. Wood I trust...but those glue joints are another mental
matter!)
- - - - - -

> Is there any relevant metal alternative to those ships? I would also be
> interested in any clues in terms of pricing.
>
> I am a 5'6'' and 137 lbs pilot. What I love about those 2 ships (apart
> of their outstanding behaviors and performances) are the narrow - low
> cockpit and their light weight for soft-weak conditions flying. I am
> flying out of Hope British Columbia.
>
<snip>
> It is a Laister Nugget LP15. Do you know any other metal ships
> comparable to the Laister Nugget?

You might research HP-14's, which would seem to meet your low wingloading &
low cost desires...and which are also flaps-only ships like the Nugget. All
are homebuilt/experimental save for the (very few) HP-14C's built by
Slingsby. I'd characterize the cockpit as OK for long lanky types, but
somewhat constricted for beamy sorts. Mine fit this 5'9", 140 lb pilot
nicely. Actually, the whole HP series is worth a look if you're OK w.
flaps. The -14 happened to be the last of Dick Schreder's 'purely riveted'
construction birds; later models tended toward bonded wing skins. All have
well-deserved (IMHO) reputations for structural integrity.

Have fun!

Regards,

Bob Whelan

[Jack]

I flew a Ka-6 a few years ago. Except for the extremely tight seating,
I loved it. t was one of the nicest flying sailplanes I've ever been
in. The truth is that cellulose fibers (wood) have no set life span. I
wouldn't be afraid to buy either of the wood ships you've mentioned. I
would not be afraid of the Nugget, either. I built most of an HP-14 and
think they're fine ships. I have a Pik-20B that I think does pretty
well in light lift, with the flaps and ailerons dropped 8 degrees, it
does nicely in 1 to 2 knot lift, if I was patient enough to stay in
it... I usually make a few circles and go bombing off looking for 5+. I
have been able to stay with just about anyone else in thermals and do
better than most I've encountered.

Enjoy,

Jack Womack

[Bruce]

Bob Whelan wrote:
> Matthieu wrote (w. snips)...
>
>
>>What would be a nice metal equivalent of the KA6E or Foka 4?
>>
>>I am asking because those ships are 40+ years old now and I am
>>concerned about the aging wood... Should I be concerned?
>
>
> Peace of mind would seem to incompatible w. structural concern of any kind,
> regardless of validity. (FWIW, I've never been able to talk myself into
> flying wood ships. Wood I trust...but those glue joints are another mental
> matter!)
> - - - - - -
>
<SNIP>

My experience - if it was done well originally you never have a problem again.
If I compare the loose rivets and other problems on the L13s that fly at our
club to the wood wing Scheibe ships there is no comparison. Have seen a student
land a Bergfalke on the main wheel and one wingtip - the Scheibe survived a
spectacular groundloop with the only damage to the wing being a hole where the
tip wheel pulled out - try that in metal...

--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.
-+-
\_________0_________/

[01-- Zero One]

Bob, et. Al.,

The question remains... what about the glue joints and other
extra-material aspects of aging wood ships?

Larry
Zero One



" > wrote in message
:

> Bob Whelan wrote:
> > Matthieu wrote (w. snips)...
> >
> >
> >>What would be a nice metal equivalent of the KA6E or Foka 4?
> >>
> >>I am asking because those ships are 40+ years old now and I am
> >>concerned about the aging wood... Should I be concerned?
> >
> >
> > Peace of mind would seem to incompatible w. structural concern of any kind,
> > regardless of validity. (FWIW, I've never been able to talk myself into
> > flying wood ships. Wood I trust...but those glue joints are another mental
> > matter!)
> > - - - - - -
> >
> <SNIP>
>
> My experience - if it was done well originally you never have a problem again.
> If I compare the loose rivets and other problems on the L13s that fly at our
> club to the wood wing Scheibe ships there is no comparison. Have seen a student
> land a Bergfalke on the main wheel and one wingtip - the Scheibe survived a
> spectacular groundloop with the only damage to the wing being a hole where the
> tip wheel pulled out - try that in metal...
>
> --
> Bruce Greeff
> Std Cirrus #57
> I'm no-T at the address above.
> -+-
> \_________0_________/

[F.L. Whiteley]

Alas, resorcinal glues, unlike wood, have a limited service life.
Reportedly this is about 40 years or so. I seem to recall some issues with
a few K-6 aft frames at about 25-30 years. But that may depend on how they
were stored also. Regluing is an option. Each wooden wing recover process
I've had the opportunity to peak into has also involved the re-gluing of
several rib parts and stringers. Perhaps some of those who've restored
vintage gliders might comment further on the life of older glues and modern
glue developments.

Frank Whiteley

01-- Zero One wrote:

> Bob, et. Al.,
>
> The question remains... what about the glue joints and other
> extra-material aspects of aging wood ships?
>
> Larry
> Zero One
>
>
>
> " > wrote in message
> :
>
>> Bob Whelan wrote:
>> > Matthieu wrote (w. snips)...
>> >
>> >
>> >>What would be a nice metal equivalent of the KA6E or Foka 4?
>> >>
>> >>I am asking because those ships are 40+ years old now and I am
>> >>concerned about the aging wood... Should I be concerned?
>> >
>> >
>> > Peace of mind would seem to incompatible w. structural concern of any
>> > kind,
>> > regardless of validity. (FWIW, I've never been able to talk myself
>> > into
>> > flying wood ships. Wood I trust...but those glue joints are another
>> > mental matter!)
>> > - - - - - -
>> >
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> My experience - if it was done well originally you never have a problem
>> again. If I compare the loose rivets and other problems on the L13s that
>> fly at our club to the wood wing Scheibe ships there is no comparison.
>> Have seen a student land a Bergfalke on the main wheel and one wingtip -
>> the Scheibe survived a spectacular groundloop with the only damage to the
>> wing being a hole where the tip wheel pulled out - try that in metal...
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Greeff
>> Std Cirrus #57
>> I'm no-T at the address above.
>> -+-
>> \_________0_________/

[GM]

Let me throw in my five cents: as a student pilot, I helped to rebuild
our club's Ka-6, Ka-8's and Ka-13, which were already pretty old back
then and had racked up some hours in a rough club operation. Apart from
one aft fuselage bulkhead separating from the skin on the Ka-6 due to
constant mishandling (lifting and pushing on the elevator), I have not
seen any structural problems with the glued joints. Very old ships
built with Kasein (a milk protein based glue, similar to 'Elmer's wood
and paper glue') have a problem if allowed to become wet over and over
again. This glue tends to dissolve or be eaten by a fungus. The factory
built ships were glued with a phenolic resin glue (one brand name was -
or still is - 'Aerodux'), and that stuff does seem to hold up very
well.
Personnaly, I would prefer a wooden ship over a metal ship when flying
the wave. The buying decision wood vs. metal has to be based on what
you are planning to do with the ship, i.e. tie down outside or derig /
store in trailer or a dry hangar.

Uli Neumann


F.L. Whiteley wrote:
> Alas, resorcinal glues, unlike wood, have a limited service life.
> Reportedly this is about 40 years or so. I seem to recall some issues with
> a few K-6 aft frames at about 25-30 years. But that may depend on how they
> were stored also. Regluing is an option. Each wooden wing recover process
> I've had the opportunity to peak into has also involved the re-gluing of
> several rib parts and stringers. Perhaps some of those who've restored
> vintage gliders might comment further on the life of older glues and modern
> glue developments.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>
> 01-- Zero One wrote:
>
> > Bob, et. Al.,
> >
> > The question remains... what about the glue joints and other
> > extra-material aspects of aging wood ships?
> >
> > Larry
> > Zero One
> >
> >
> >
> > " > wrote in message
> > :
> >
> >> Bob Whelan wrote:
> >> > Matthieu wrote (w. snips)...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>What would be a nice metal equivalent of the KA6E or Foka 4?
> >> >>
> >> >>I am asking because those ships are 40+ years old now and I am
> >> >>concerned about the aging wood... Should I be concerned?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Peace of mind would seem to incompatible w. structural concern of any
> >> > kind,
> >> > regardless of validity. (FWIW, I've never been able to talk myself
> >> > into
> >> > flying wood ships. Wood I trust...but those glue joints are another
> >> > mental matter!)
> >> > - - - - - -
> >> >
> >> <SNIP>
> >>
> >> My experience - if it was done well originally you never have a problem
> >> again. If I compare the loose rivets and other problems on the L13s that
> >> fly at our club to the wood wing Scheibe ships there is no comparison.
> >> Have seen a student land a Bergfalke on the main wheel and one wingtip -
> >> the Scheibe survived a spectacular groundloop with the only damage to the
> >> wing being a hole where the tip wheel pulled out - try that in metal...
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bruce Greeff
> >> Std Cirrus #57
> >> I'm no-T at the address above.
> >> -+-
> >> \_________0_________/

[Matthieu]

If it can improve performance while fitting a small format pilot,
that's not a bad thing to optimize - reduce the waste of space. My
humble opinion.

wrote:
> Let me get this straight, you're complaining that the LP15's cockpit is
> too big? That's a complaint I have not heard before about any glider.

[stephanevdv]

My club has some problems with a Ka-8. It seems the gluing of the spar
and the torsion box has been done with better glue than that of the
ribs. It has been done with another glue type: dark brown for the
former (probably Aerodux), yellow/very light brown for the latter
(Kaurit?). The latter type of glue seems to fail easily nowadays.

However, metal structures are known to fail, too, and often without
warning, by metal fatigue. Normally, sailplanes are made over strong in
critical metal components, just to allow for this phenomenon, but it's
not foolproof.

> Let me get this straight, you're complaining that the LP15's cockpit
> is too big? That's a complaint I have not heard before about any
> glider.

And yet, the Schempp-Hirth people are producing their "a" model
fuselage (Discus a, Ventus a) for that reason, some competition pilots
complaining that by making their cockpits too big (like the Standard
Cirrus), they were wasting possible aerodynamical advantages... These
fuselages are advertised for slim pilots not bigger than 1.75 m.


--
stephanevdv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

[Matthieu]

I can do both, trailer or outside. I am more security oriented. I don't
want to put the ship into aerobatics but still want to feel safe in
rough air.

[Bruce]

stephanevdv wrote:
> My club has some problems with a Ka-8. It seems the gluing of the spar
> and the torsion box has been done with better glue than that of the
> ribs. It has been done with another glue type: dark brown for the
> former (probably Aerodux), yellow/very light brown for the latter
> (Kaurit?). The latter type of glue seems to fail easily nowadays.
There was / is a general AD out for the Ka range of gliders to check all of the
joints (presumably where the lighter glue is) To my knowledge there have been
three failures of Ka wings due to glue joint failure. Two were on overpowered
winch launches, the third one the pilot lost much of his starboard wing behind
the airbrakes in flight, but landed safely. This appears to be a problem
specific to the glue used on these gliders, their storage conditions and their
structure.

Phenolic glues, like the more modern composites have a very long life. All
phenolic resins are black or brown, strong but not terribly flexible. The latest
epoxy resins are enormously strong, and seem to have indefinite life. They glue
buildings together with the stuff these days.

The main indicators of glue problems seem to be if the joints have been subject
to moisture over a long time.

>
> However, metal structures are known to fail, too, and often without
> warning, by metal fatigue. Normally, sailplanes are made over strong in
> critical metal components, just to allow for this phenomenon, but it's
> not foolproof.
>
>
>>Let me get this straight, you're complaining that the LP15's cockpit
>>is too big? That's a complaint I have not heard before about any
>>glider.
>
>
> And yet, the Schempp-Hirth people are producing their "a" model
> fuselage (Discus a, Ventus a) for that reason, some competition pilots
> complaining that by making their cockpits too big (like the Standard
> Cirrus), they were wasting possible aerodynamical advantages... These
> fuselages are advertised for slim pilots not bigger than 1.75 m.
>
And I am eternally grateful to Klaus Holighaus for the armchair in my Std
Cirrus, even if it loses a little on L/D...

>
> --
> stephanevdv
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
> - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -
>


--
Bruce Greeff
Std Cirrus #57
I'm no-T at the address above.

[Ian Johnston]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 12:39:20 UTC, "01-- Zero One" >
wrote:

> The question remains... what about the glue joints and other
> extra-material aspects of aging wood ships?

I think the only glue I'd worry about would be casein, and I doubt if
that has been used much for fifty years. Cascamite (urea-formaldehyde)
and everything since are plastics: they'll out perform and out live
the wood their attached to.

Ian

--

[David Walsh]

Matt,

Hum, "metal equivalent of the KA6E"
In North America, how about:

SGS 1-23 ~10K$
SGS 1-34 ~15K$
SGS 1-36 ~16K$
Let L-33 ~24K$


You can look these gliders up here:

http://www.sailplanedirectory.com/ndxtype.htm


- David
ps Please don't take my suggested prices too seriously.


Matthieu wrote:
> Dear expert soaring pilots,
>
> What would be a nice metal equivalent of the KA6E or Foka 4?
>
> I am asking because those ships are 40+ years old now and I am
> concerned about the aging wood... Should I be concerned?
>
> Is there any relevant metal alternative to those ships? I would also be
> interested in any clues in terms of pricing.
>
> I am a 5'6'' and 137 lbs pilot. What I love about those 2 ships (apart
> of their outstanding behaviors and performances) are the narrow - low
> cockpit and their light weight for soft-weak conditions flying. I am
> flying out of Hope British Columbia.
>
> Last Monday I discovered a nice sexy looking plane on Jean airport in
> Nevada; metal and good aspect ratio. The only comment I have concerns
> the large and high cockpit size. Other than that this ship is very sexy
> and seems robust.
>
> It is a Laister Nugget LP15. Do you know any other metal ships
> comparable to the Laister Nugget?
>
> Thanks for all information and advises you could give to the private
> owner wanabee I am.
>
> Matt
>

[Robin Birch]

In message >, Bruce
> writes
>stephanevdv wrote:
>> My club has some problems with a Ka-8. It seems the gluing of the spar
>> and the torsion box has been done with better glue than that of the
>> ribs. It has been done with another glue type: dark brown for the
>> former (probably Aerodux), yellow/very light brown for the latter
>> (Kaurit?). The latter type of glue seems to fail easily nowadays.
The light brown glue is similar to casein. There were some produced
with both but most were one or the other. The dark brown aerodux ones
are later.
>There was / is a general AD out for the Ka range of gliders to check
>all of the joints (presumably where the lighter glue is) To my
>knowledge there have been three failures of Ka wings due to glue joint
>failure. Two were on overpowered winch launches, the third one the
>pilot lost much of his starboard wing behind the airbrakes in flight,
>but landed safely. This appears to be a problem specific to the glue
>used on these gliders, their storage conditions and their structure.
>
The earlier Ka gliders used a glue called Kaulac or Kaurit (Forgive the
spelling as I can't remember the correct one). This was similar to
casein with all of the drawbacks that casein has. If they are stored
damp then they will, after some time fail. At some point in the Ka6
production they switched to Aerodux, or something like it, and the glue
won't fail until a long time after the wood.

Recently in the uk there have been a series of mandatory inspections for
all early Ka (K4, 6, 7, 8 don't know about 13) types. This was
triggered in part by a fatal accident involving a Ka7, some of the
checks preceded this. These checks haven't, as far as I know, thrown up
many problems and the most likely causes of most problems have been
traced to bodged repairs rather than glue/wood deterioration.

I have just repaired/rebuilt a 1952 aircraft (T31) that had several
bodged repairs made from Aerodux but through poor joint prep the joints
were very weak. In older aircraft that have accumulated repairs this is
a more likely source of failure rather than the original construction.

>Phenolic glues, like the more modern composites have a very long life.
>All phenolic resins are black or brown, strong but not terribly
>flexible. The latest epoxy resins are enormously strong, and seem to
>have indefinite life. They glue buildings together with the stuff these
>days.
>

>The main indicators of glue problems seem to be if the joints have been
>subject to moisture over a long time.
>
Yes, the point of failure has changed over time though. With pre
synthetic glues the most likely failure was the glue itself (glue rot
and so on) whilst today it is more likely to be the wood through damp or
poor glue adhesion through poor joint preparation.

Cheers

Robin

>> However, metal structures are known to fail, too, and often without
>> warning, by metal fatigue. Normally, sailplanes are made over strong in
>> critical metal components, just to allow for this phenomenon, but it's
>> not foolproof.
>>

>>>Let me get this straight, you're complaining that the LP15's cockpit
>>>is too big? That's a complaint I have not heard before about any
>>>glider.
>> And yet, the Schempp-Hirth people are producing their "a" model
>> fuselage (Discus a, Ventus a) for that reason, some competition pilots
>> complaining that by making their cockpits too big (like the Standard
>> Cirrus), they were wasting possible aerodynamical advantages... These
>> fuselages are advertised for slim pilots not bigger than 1.75 m.
>>
>And I am eternally grateful to Klaus Holighaus for the armchair in my
>Std Cirrus, even if it loses a little on L/D...
>
>> --
>> stephanevdv
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
>> - A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -
>>
>
>

--
Robin Birch

[COLIN LAMB]

Aluminum suffers from fatigue failure. Some of the Beech D-18 and Bonanza
spars failed from fatigue.

It also suffers from corrosion. I recall an Ercoupe that lost a wingspar
because mouse urine had corroded it.

Glues have been used to make violins for centuries and I have never heard of
one coming apart. But, they are not left outside for 40 years, either. The
stresses caused by the string tension may be as high as that caused by wave
flying.

It is possible to pull the wings off almost any ship.

Colin

[Wallace Berry]

I used to share your concerns about wooden ships. However, in the 25
years that I've been aviating, I've run into more structural problems
with metal aircraft than with wood or plastic. Metal ships seem to get
more abuse, both in flight and from poor storage (tied out). I've been
inside the wings of a number of wood aircraft and have yet to see a
problem that would have compromised the aircraft in flight. The wood in
the wings of our Ka-8, which is at least 45 years old, looked as if it
were new when we removed the fabric to recover it.

However, as to your question about the Nugget. I've heard that they are
great ships, but a little heavy for weak conditions.

Someone suggested a Schwiezer 1-23. The 1-23 D through H15 models are
truly great ships, good for weak conditions. They are not fun to
assemble however. Also, they tend to develop cracks in the wing and tail
skins from "oil canning".

My advice would be to get yourself a Ka-6 and go have fun!

--
Take out the airplane for reply

[John Sinclair]

Good point on the metal ships, didn't the Nugget have
a problem with corrosion in its fuselage ballast tank?
JJ

At 20:30 06 June 2005, Wallace Berry wrote:
>I used to share your concerns about wooden ships. However,
>in the 25
>years that I've been aviating, I've run into more structural
>problems
>with metal aircraft than with wood or plastic. Metal
>ships seem to get
>more abuse, both in flight and from poor storage (tied
>out). I've been
>inside the wings of a number of wood aircraft and have
>yet to see a
>problem that would have compromised the aircraft in
>flight. The wood in
>the wings of our Ka-8, which is at least 45 years old,
>looked as if it
>were new when we removed the fabric to recover it.
>
>
>However, as to your question about the Nugget. I've
>heard that they are
>great ships, but a little heavy for weak conditions.
>
>Someone suggested a Schwiezer 1-23. The 1-23 D through
>H15 models are
>truly great ships, good for weak conditions. They are
>not fun to
>assemble however. Also, they tend to develop cracks
>in the wing and tail
>skins from 'oil canning'.
>
>My advice would be to get yourself a Ka-6 and go have
>fun!
>
>--
>Take out the airplane for reply
>

[[email protected]]

Wallace Berry > writes:

> I used to share your concerns about wooden ships. However, in the 25
> years that I've been aviating, I've run into more structural problems
> with metal aircraft than with wood or plastic. Metal ships seem to get
> more abuse, both in flight and from poor storage (tied out). I've been
> inside the wings of a number of wood aircraft and have yet to see a
> problem that would have compromised the aircraft in flight. The wood in
> the wings of our Ka-8, which is at least 45 years old, looked as if it
> were new when we removed the fabric to recover it.

Which raises an important point: with modern Dacron covering systems,
and a good trailer or hangar, it's possible, and tempting, to leave
the fabric on for 20 or 30 years. But they should be recovered much
more often than that, to allow you to inspect the structure and fix
all the popped glue joints. For example, 20 years is probably too
long, see http://www.tux.org/~milgram/k8.html.

>
> However, as to your question about the Nugget. I've heard that they are
> great ships, but a little heavy for weak conditions.
>
> Someone suggested a Schwiezer 1-23. The 1-23 D through H15 models are
> truly great ships, good for weak conditions. They are not fun to
> assemble however. Also, they tend to develop cracks in the wing and tail
> skins from "oil canning".
>
> My advice would be to get yourself a Ka-6 and go have fun!
>
> --
> Take out the airplane for reply