If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
LAK-12 or a Jantar, and which model Jantar?
Haven't flown either one, but have flown the ASW17, and liked it.
Would like to avoid gel coat issues. Thanks all, Rich |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
If you have flown a 17 why would you want either of
the others. My 17 is finished in acrylic but not for sale. At 07:12 18 July 2005, Rich wrote: Haven't flown either one, but have flown the ASW17, and liked it. Would like to avoid gel coat issues. Thanks all, Rich |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I found the 17 we owned a little cramped, but a great performer. If I
find one that's painted I'll consider it. Rich |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Don Johnstone wrote: If you have flown a 17 why would you want either of the others. My 17 is finished in acrylic but not for sale. Cost! LAK 12's available in the West are all generally newer than 1992 with some as late as 1998. A used LAK 12 would generally be in better condition than a Nimbus 2 or ASW 17 and also be a lot cheaper. A good, used ~8 year old LAK 12 will generally cost less than a 15m German Glider ~20-25 years old or a ~25-30 year old ASW 17 or Nimbus 2. Jantars usually go for a little more than a LAK 12 but not as much as the German aircraft. Most Western LAK 12's on the market have had their original Russian glide computers and radios replaced by more modern Western instruments. Downside of the LAK 12 and the early Jantars are the single piece wings and resultant long, heavy trailers. Upside is more water ballast and epoxy or polyurethane finishes which should be more durable than gel coats. My LAK 12 was recently repaired and painted after being damaged in the hangar. The AP doing the repair commented a number of times how well the aircraft is built. The aircraft now has a beautiful, white polyurethane finish which is far more attractive than the original, dull, slightly beige epoxy finish. I love flying my LAK 12 but rigging it is a pain. I keep it rigged in a hangar but not everybody has hangar space for 20m gliders. At least a Nimbus can have the outer panels removed and then fit it in a smaller hangar. Clinton LAK 12 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the input, I didn't know about the one piece wings. Did
that ever change, what serial number, and subsequent? Rich |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
rich wrote:
Thanks for the input, I didn't know about the one piece wings. Did that ever change, what serial number, and subsequent? No, all LAK-12s have single piece wings. After having failed, a number of times, to avoid being in the vicinity when ASW-17s and LAK-12s are ready to be assembled, I'll say that the inner section of a 17 wing is somewhat more awkward and tiring to hold up than an entire 12 wing... Marc |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I owned a 17 for about 10 years. I can tell you from personal
experience that the 17 is very easy to rig IF you have a good system and appropriate rigging aids. There is no reason to be holding a 17 inner panel for any longer than it takes to get it on a nice stable wing stand. When both inner panels are inserted and resting on stands, you just adjust the height of the fuselage with the ramp jack till the holes line up. You will then be able to insert the pins with one finger, no struggling. What is true of any glider but most certainly with the big ships, if it doesn't go together easily, something is not in the right place. Find and fix the problem, a bigger hammer is not the answer. Don't fight with it, and on the big ships, use two wing stands and keep your friends. Bob Marc Ramsey wrote: rich wrote: Thanks for the input, I didn't know about the one piece wings. Did that ever change, what serial number, and subsequent? No, all LAK-12s have single piece wings. After having failed, a number of times, to avoid being in the vicinity when ASW-17s and LAK-12s are ready to be assembled, I'll say that the inner section of a 17 wing is somewhat more awkward and tiring to hold up than an entire 12 wing... Marc |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Robert Backer wrote:
I owned a 17 for about 10 years. I can tell you from personal experience that the 17 is very easy to rig IF you have a good system and appropriate rigging aids. Which is true of any big wing glider, including the LAK-12... Marc |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Robert Backer wrote: I owned a 17 for about 10 years. I can tell you from personal experience that the 17 is very easy to rig IF you have a good system and appropriate rigging aids. Which is true of any big wing glider, including the LAK-12... Marc Hear Hear! Also true of my Open Cirrus (only 17.7m, but with *huge* spars tested to 15g by the German LBA without breaking them). It takes one minute of handling per wing to get it onto trestles (maximum). Then a further minute to line everything up (no lifting here), at which point it all slides into place. No-one runs away when I'm rigging. I can't believe that even 15m pilots don't have two wing stands - some don't even have one! A simple dolly to take the wing root while you're swinging the wing round means that I don't have to lift the heavy end for more than 10 seconds at a time. By the way, aluminium step ladders with a piece of pipe insulation taped to the top hoop make excellent, light and stable stands for very little money. This lot can't cost more than 50 bucks max, plus a couple of hours to make the dolly. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
To add to that there is no lifting of the main panels
except to put them in the wing dolly which then swivels and is at the right height to 'drive' it into the fuselage. A small lift then to get it onto the trestle to free the dolly for the other wing. I can rig my 17 on my own with very little difficulty although I admit it is easier with 2. I admit the cockpit of the 17 is on the small size, as are most AS gliders but I am 6'1' 210 lbs and with a slim seat back I am very cosy. The thing that swings it for me is the stunning handling with a good performance, again common to all Gerhard Waibel designed gliders. A real bonus, it will climb in the rain, which the Kestrel would not. At 19:42 18 July 2005, Chris Reed wrote: Marc Ramsey wrote: Robert Backer wrote: I owned a 17 for about 10 years. I can tell you from personal experience that the 17 is very easy to rig IF you have a good system and appropriate rigging aids. Which is true of any big wing glider, including the LAK-12... Marc Hear Hear! Also true of my Open Cirrus (only 17.7m, but with *huge* spars tested to 15g by the German LBA without breaking them). It takes one minute of handling per wing to get it onto trestles (maximum). Then a further minute to line everything up (no lifting here), at which point it all slides into place. No-one runs away when I'm rigging. I can't believe that even 15m pilots don't have two wing stands - some don't even have one! A simple dolly to take the wing root while you're swinging the wing round means that I don't have to lift the heavy end for more than 10 seconds at a time. By the way, aluminium step ladders with a piece of pipe insulation taped to the top hoop make excellent, light and stable stands for very little money. This lot can't cost more than 50 bucks max, plus a couple of hours to make the dolly. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|