Laister LP-49 for low time pilot

[Jim Hultman]

There are few RAS comments on the Laister LP-49. In photos an ungainly
design, but does appear a reasonable transition ship for a low-timer; 31/1
LD, retractable gear, flaps, auto hookups, aluminum wing. How large is the
cockpit? Anyone here with LP-49 flying & rigging experience?

Jim Hultman

[soarer999]

I flew an LP-49 in the mid seventies--20 flights and 27+hrs. Our club
replaced a K-6E with the LP and I never really thought the LP measured
up to the K-6. The only good thing to be said for the LP is the metal
construction can weather the elements better. I do not remember any
difficulties with rigging but it has been a long time--30 years. Hard
to believe how time has passed. Lynn Wyman
Jim Hultman wrote:
> There are few RAS comments on the Laister LP-49. In photos an ungainly
> design, but does appear a reasonable transition ship for a low-timer; 31/1
> LD, retractable gear, flaps, auto hookups, aluminum wing. How large is the
> cockpit? Anyone here with LP-49 flying & rigging experience?
>
> Jim Hultman

[[email protected]]

N49LE (currently for sale) flew at my club for a few years. I never
flew it but helped rig and derig several times. It went together much
like any older metal ship: the wings weren't particularly heavy but it
helped to have two people on the root to keep it level fore and aft
while sliding it in place and there are several pins holding the wings
on. After rigging the turtledeck has to be installed and taped. More
fiddly and time consuming than a glass ship but not difficult. The
owner used to rig it and tie it down rather than rigging and derigging
every flight.

[[email protected]]

Jim Hultman wrote:
> There are few RAS comments on the Laister LP-49. In photos an ungainly
> design, but does appear a reasonable transition ship for a low-timer; 31/1
> LD, retractable gear, flaps, auto hookups, aluminum wing. How large is the
> cockpit? Anyone here with LP-49 flying & rigging experience?
>
> Jim Hultman,

I owned a LP-49 for a few years & put over 1400 hrs on it with 618
flights. Jack Laister, in my opinion, was a very good designer. I
believe it would be a very good ship for a low timer to transition
into. The cockpit was comfortable for my 185 lb.5ft 11" body. In it's
day it had a lot of features, spring loaded shock absorber retractable
landing gear, gear door went up inside the fuselage when the gear was
lowered. Two separate operations.Tailwheel retracted into the tail
cone at the same time gear was raised. The right materials were used in
the right place, molded fiber glass fuselage, aluminum wings & tail.
Wings tested to 12 g's. Stainless nose skid, simple brake system.
Trailing edge drive brakes where very effective. If I remember
correctly, it's been 26 years since I flew a 49, assembly although
not as easy as my 20, was not too bad.. The ship climbs like a home
sick angel. I highly recommend it.

Cliff Crader

[Jim Hultman]

Thanks for the comments! I went out to Walt's home in Perris, CA to look at
the Laister & discovered it has 0 hours. It was a kit he started, then had
no time for (he was a Continental Airlines captain). It was completed at the
Laister facility, then never flown. It's too small for me at 6'3". I doubt
anyone taller than 6'0" would be able to latch the canopy. Also, my
shoulders touched both canopy railings, but otherwise it felt similar to a
1-26.
Jim
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jim Hultman wrote:
> > There are few RAS comments on the Laister LP-49. In photos an ungainly
> > design, but does appear a reasonable transition ship for a low-timer;
31/1
> > LD, retractable gear, flaps, auto hookups, aluminum wing. How large is
the
> > cockpit? Anyone here with LP-49 flying & rigging experience?
> >
> > Jim Hultman,
>
> I owned a LP-49 for a few years & put over 1400 hrs on it with 618
> flights. Jack Laister, in my opinion, was a very good designer. I
> believe it would be a very good ship for a low timer to transition
> into. The cockpit was comfortable for my 185 lb.5ft 11" body. In it's
> day it had a lot of features, spring loaded shock absorber retractable
> landing gear, gear door went up inside the fuselage when the gear was
> lowered. Two separate operations.Tailwheel retracted into the tail
> cone at the same time gear was raised. The right materials were used in
> the right place, molded fiber glass fuselage, aluminum wings & tail.
> Wings tested to 12 g's. Stainless nose skid, simple brake system.
> Trailing edge drive brakes where very effective. If I remember
> correctly, it's been 26 years since I flew a 49, assembly although
> not as easy as my 20, was not too bad.. The ship climbs like a home
> sick angel. I highly recommend it.
>
> Cliff Crader
>