KA6E and Foka 4 comparable metal ships - Laister Nugget LP15

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

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.

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

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

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_________/

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_________/

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_________/

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_________/

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.

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 -