Ugly Glider

[Mike125]

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the Slngsby T-53B
listed for sale on W&W has to be one of the homliest gliders I've ever
seen. Still outperforms the slightly less ugly 2-33 (which I'll likely
be flying soon), though.

Mike
ASW15

[[email protected]]

On May 8, 6:49*am, Mike125 > wrote:
> I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the Slngsby T-53B
> listed for sale on W&W has to be one of the homliest gliders I've ever
> seen. Still outperforms the slightly less ugly 2-33 (which I'll likely
> be flying soon), though.
>
> Mike
> ASW15

Yeah, but it's CHEAP (if you don't count the time to fix the rudder).

[Mike125]

On May 8, 11:11*am, wrote:
> On May 8, 6:49*am, Mike125 > wrote:
>
> > I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the Slngsby T-53B
> > listed for sale on W&W has to be one of the homliest gliders I've ever
> > seen. Still outperforms the slightly less ugly 2-33 (which I'll likely
> > be flying soon), though.
>
> > Mike
> > ASW15
>
> Yeah, but it's CHEAP (if you don't count the time to fix the rudder).

Agreed. Actually, very cheap. I'd rather be flying in an ugly glider
that I can afford than dreaming about a 50:1 that I'll never have.
After all, its the view from the inside looking out that counts. On
the up side - other, more critical, pilots will see and avoid.

Mike

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Mike125 wrote:
>On May 8, 11:11Â*am, wrote:
>
> On the up side - other, more critical, pilots will see and avoid.
>
>Mike

Or be repulsed.

yeah that glider is prettttyy homely.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/soaring/200805/1

[sisu1a]

On May 8, 6:49 am, Mike125 > wrote:
> I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the Slngsby T-53B
> listed for sale on W&W has to be one of the homliest gliders I've ever
> seen. Still outperforms the slightly less ugly 2-33 (which I'll likely
> be flying soon), though.
>
> Mike
> ASW15

Although that example of the T-53 on W&W may qualify as the ugliest
glider in town (the misplaced attempt at patriotism doesn't help this
aesthetically challenged bird either - as usual -), I don't think the
TYPE qualifies as the ugliest. Look at this this pic of a T-53 with a
'normal' canopy on it: http://www.airplane-pictures.net/image3364.html
You see, there is hope for this glider as a type. (but I agree that
THIS example is particularly homely)

There is no such mod you can do to a 2-33 that makes it look THAT much
better, bringing it back into the forefront runner-up as the ugliest
type, IMHO. I'm sure there's uglier out there...

Paul

[[email protected]]

Usually, I'd say looks don't matter.

but having flown this type, I have to say it flies like it looks...

;-)

aerodyne

[raulb]

At first I thought this was about me and I wondered what a photo of me
was doing on W&W. Then I noticed he didn't say "pilot." So then I
thought it must be about my glider, a Slingsby T-31. Then I looked at
W&W and saw Mike is actually talking about one of those beautiful (for
Slingsby) Phoenix gliders.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. After all, some might say
Mike's ASW-15 is ugly--especially compared to my beautiful LS-1c. ;^)

On May 8, 6:49*am, Mike125 > wrote:
> I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the Slngsby T-53B
> listed for sale on W&W has to be one of the homliest gliders I've ever
> seen. Still outperforms the slightly less ugly 2-33 (which I'll likely
> be flying soon), though.
>
> Mike
> ASW15

[Mike125]

> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. *After all, some might say
> Mike's ASW-15 is ugly--especially compared to my beautiful LS-1c. *;^)



ASW 15? Ugly? Surely, you jest! Of course, if all you ever see is the
bottom of an ASW 15 from a distance you can be forgiven.

Mike
ASW 15

[Lucky Klassen]

On May 8, 11:24*am, Mike125 > wrote:
> On May 8, 11:11*am, wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 6:49*am, Mike125 > wrote:
>
> > > I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the Slngsby T-53B
> > > listed for sale on W&W has to be one of the homliest gliders I've ever
> > > seen. Still outperforms the slightly less ugly 2-33 (which I'll likely
> > > be flying soon), though.
>
> > > Mike
> > > ASW15
>
> > Yeah, but it's CHEAP (if you don't count the time to fix the rudder).
>
> Agreed. *Actually, very cheap. I'd rather be flying in an ugly glider
> that I can afford than dreaming about a 50:1 that I'll never have.
> After all, its the view from the inside looking out that counts. On
> the up side - other, more critical, pilots will see and avoid.
>
> Mike

50:1 that you'll never have? Have you looked at a Lak-12? Great
performance for CHEAP! You might lose a few friends at the gliderport
when it's time to rig but a few trailer mods will fix that.

[[email protected]]

> 50:1 that you'll never have? Have you looked at a Lak-12? Great
> performance for CHEAP!

There's a LAK-12 on W&W for $15k. Then add how much for the refinish
job?

(sigh) I can't even afford this... should try to sell off the kids,
then I'd have more money for flying.

[sisu1a]

On May 9, 11:59 am, wrote:
> > 50:1 that you'll never have? Have you looked at a Lak-12? Great
> > performance for CHEAP!
>
> There's a LAK-12 on W&W for $15k. Then add how much for the refinish
> job?
>
> (sigh) I can't even afford this... should try to sell off the kids,
> then I'd have more money for flying.

I've seen that Lak 12 (it's been tied out on the flight line
atTehachapi for a long time, but removed for winters) and although
it's finish is far from perfect, it doesn't look all that bad. It
probably knocks it's L/D way down to like 47 or something.

List the family on Cragslist and you can jack the price a little more
since the buyer won't have to pay shipping.

Paul

[noel.wade]

On May 9, 11:59*am, wrote:
> > 50:1 that you'll never have? Have you looked at a Lak-12? Great
> > performance for CHEAP!
>
> There's a LAK-12 on W&W for $15k. *Then add how much for the refinish
> job?
>
> (sigh) I can't even afford this... should try to sell off the kids,
> then I'd have more money for flying.

John -

There's always syndicates or partnerships!

Oh, and in case $4k makes a difference: My Russia AC-4a is available
for $11k (not yet on W&W, but it will be soon). The Urethane is
yellowing (Moscow doesn't make great paint), but overall its in good
condition... Sure its got short wings, but it has automatic control
hookups, one pin for the wing, one pin for the tail, only ~70 lbs per
wing panel, climbs like an angel, and handles like a sports-car. Can
you say _any_ of those things about the LAK-12?? :-)

Take care,

--Noel

[Ed Winchester]

sisu1a wrote:
> On May 9, 11:59 am, wrote:
>
>>> 50:1 that you'll never have? Have you looked at a Lak-12? Great
>>> performance for CHEAP!
>>>
>> There's a LAK-12 on W&W for $15k. Then add how much for the refinish
>> job?
>>
>> (sigh) I can't even afford this... should try to sell off the kids,
>> then I'd have more money for flying.
>>
>
> I've seen that Lak 12 (it's been tied out on the flight line
> atTehachapi for a long time, but removed for winters) and although
> it's finish is far from perfect, it doesn't look all that bad. It
> probably knocks it's L/D way down to like 47 or something.
>
> List the family on Cragslist and you can jack the price a little more
> since the buyer won't have to pay shipping.
>
> Paul
>
Except for the fact that it offends your sense of esthetics, I don't
think a bad finish affects performance that much. At Tom Knauff's
Soaring Symposium in State College, PA this march a noted aerodynamicist
(whose name I forget) said that laminar flow was maintained even with a
certain amount of surface roughness. He said that the limit was about
the equivalent of 40 grit sandpaper. Now there's an LS3 that you will
see on OLC out of Blairstown, NJ almost every day the ridge is working,
and he does more miles than anybody. And that glider has the worst
finish I've ever seen flying. And he kicks everybody's butt.

Buy the LAK-12 if it's performance you're after.

Ed

[Cats]

On May 9, 7:59*pm, wrote:
<snip>
>
> (sigh) I can't even afford this... should try to sell off the kids,
> then I'd have more money for flying.

Send the kids out to work and confiscate their wages, so long as they
more than cover the cost of keeping them!

[Ian]

On 8 May, 14:49, Mike125 > wrote:
> I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the Slngsby T-53B
> listed for sale on W&W has to be one of the homliest gliders I've ever
> seen.

As I recall, the T53B was designed to meet a set of rather eccentric
criteria from the Air Training Corps. Who then went out and bought
Grobs ...

Ian

[Bob Kuykendall]

On May 11, 2:21*am, Ian > wrote:
> As I recall, the T53B was designed to meet a set of rather eccentric
> criteria from the Air Training Corps. Who then went out and bought
> Grobs ...

...Which, as I recall, proceeded to show distress at the spar spigots
under the Corps winching-intensive program...

Bob K.

[[email protected]]

>
> Buy the LAK-12 if it's performance you're after.
>
My biggest concern with any glider is two-fold:
1) Will I fit in? I'm 6'3 and fairly wide.
2) Will it handle my weight? I'm 250 pounds. Granted, I'm slowly
dropping my weight, aiming for 220 pounds. Still, that's the top end
of a lot of ships.

I fit nicely in a Blanik L-33 (well, a bit tight on shoulders, and 1/2
inch of headroom before I bang the canopy); and no parachute. But for
my first bird (if I can ever afford one), I'd like to have a bit
better legs for cross-country.

[Bruce]

Same physical spec fits in Std Cirrus OK...

Some others are as big. I think you would have no problem in the LAK if I look
at the local owner.

Bruce

wrote:
>> Buy the LAK-12 if it's performance you're after.
>>
> My biggest concern with any glider is two-fold:
> 1) Will I fit in? I'm 6'3 and fairly wide.
> 2) Will it handle my weight? I'm 250 pounds. Granted, I'm slowly
> dropping my weight, aiming for 220 pounds. Still, that's the top end
> of a lot of ships.
>
> I fit nicely in a Blanik L-33 (well, a bit tight on shoulders, and 1/2
> inch of headroom before I bang the canopy); and no parachute. But for
> my first bird (if I can ever afford one), I'd like to have a bit
> better legs for cross-country.

[Frank Whiteley]

On May 11, 8:45 pm, wrote:
> > Buy the LAK-12 if it's performance you're after.
>
> My biggest concern with any glider is two-fold:
> 1) Will I fit in? I'm 6'3 and fairly wide.
> 2) Will it handle my weight? I'm 250 pounds. Granted, I'm slowly
> dropping my weight, aiming for 220 pounds. Still, that's the top end
> of a lot of ships.
>
> I fit nicely in a Blanik L-33 (well, a bit tight on shoulders, and 1/2
> inch of headroom before I bang the canopy); and no parachute. But for
> my first bird (if I can ever afford one), I'd like to have a bit
> better legs for cross-country.

Depends on whether you have long legs or long torso. You'd best try
one on. Seat back may be trimmed or removed. Big feet are also
something of an issue, but the heel cups on the rudder pedals can be
removed. A BGA/LAK factory communication states adding 3kg to the
tail allows a cockpit load of 130kg.

There's a group, lak12, on yahoo groups for discussion if you're
really interested.

[Frank Whiteley]

On May 11, 11:01 pm, Bruce > wrote:
> Same physical spec fits in Std Cirrus OK...
>
There's a Std Cirrus coming on the market soon.

[XYZ]

Noel.

You forgot about how easy it is to find a place to land and meet new
friends.
Smaller works well there.
But the LAK go's like a missile.
Have a great day
Scott

"noel.wade" > wrote in message
news:d7bc70b9-6035-4561-9b7b-
Oh, and in case $4k makes a difference: My Russia AC-4a is available
for $11k (not yet on W&W, but it will be soon). The Urethane is
yellowing (Moscow doesn't make great paint), but overall its in good
condition... Sure its got short wings, but it has automatic control
hookups, one pin for the wing, one pin for the tail, only ~70 lbs per
wing panel, climbs like an angel, and handles like a sports-car. Can
you say _any_ of those things about the LAK-12?? :-)

Take care,

--Noel