Briegleb 12B - Opinions?

As always, my standard advice about buying homebuilt aircraft remains:

1. Recognize that every builder has different sensibilities and
standards of workmanship, and adheres to the designer's plans to a
different degree. Some homebuilts make me proud to be a fellow
tool-bearing mammal. Others make me feel unsafe just walking under
them. Most are somewhere in the middle. Caveat emptor, and your
mileage may vary.

2. Have it pre-buy inspected by someone familiar with the type;
preferably someone who is familiar with the blueprints and can
recognize deviations from the plans. Don't buy an airplane
sight-unseen unless you've considered and prepared for the possible
worst-case scenarios.

3. Be aware that, if you're not willing and able to work on it
yourself, it will likely be no less expensive to own than a factory
aircraft. Depending on who you hire to work on it, it could be
substantially more expensive.

4. Get familiar with the 14 CFR (or relevant national) rules regarding
amateur-built experimentals. The most salient points a Anybody can
work on them; but the annual condition inspection must be signed off
by an IA, an A&P, or the holder of the repair(person) certificate.

That said, I'd like to address some of the points that Tim Mara raises
in his post on a branch of this thread. For the most part, I tend to
agree with him, but I'd like to elaborate a bit on his ideas:

most pilots who would have the experience
and enough knowledge to reasonably safely
fly one also have enough experience and
knowledge to know they no long want to fly one....

It depends. It took me several years to consistently fly to the edges
of my HP-11's potential. Expanding on that, most actual glider
_pilots_ have the skills and techniques to handle the average
homebuilt sailplane. For most well-established homebuilt designs, the
skills and aeronautical knowledge that got you a private pilot rating
will probably suffice. Based on what friends have told me, that
includes a properly built and tested BG-12. Glider _drivers_ and other
sub-par variations on the theme, on the other hand, may find
themselves slightly challenged. That said, I allow as that I prefer to
see better-than-average piloting skills in HP-18 transitions. The
uber-reclined seating, the side-stick, and the Schrederon flaps are
three new experiences all at once, and if you get behind the ship late
in the game it can be hard to catch up.

I owned 2 BG12's back when I was more
in the former category....I would not want
one today...

Not that we'd expect him to, what with Tim being a big-shot sailplane
dealer and all these days...

...you have to remember they are all
experimental, and are all homebuilt,
without any requirement to use
aircraft grade material or hardware,

That's pretty much covered in Part 1 of my standard advice. The good
news is that experienced folks can generally tell aircraft materials
just by looking at them. The nuts and bolts are yellow cad plated, and
the bolts have the X on the head. And in my experience, US sailplane
homebuilders generally stick with AN-type hardware since they can get
it from AS&S or Wicks for less than nuts and bolts at the local
hardware store. Also, many homebuilts are specifically designed with
extra strength margins to account for the use of less than top-grade
materials. Many such designs actually specify relatively low-grade
materials in the plans.

Going off on a tangent, in contrast to the US AN-style aircraft
hardware used in most homebuilts, the hardware used in European
sailplanes is very hard to grade and identify by inspection. There are
many different systems of plating, drive types, head stamps, and
thread pitches to deal with.

without the requirement to have to
inspections completed by A&I's,

However, as I've written elsewhere, they have to be inspected by
either an A&P or the holder of a prepair[person] certificate. Of
which, as I've written elsewhere, I prefer to use the A&P or AI. I
continue to believe that anyone who built an airplane cannot view it
with the impartiality necessary to inspect it properly.

... and of course have no FAA support
through the issuance of AD's or service
bulletins to warn of potential failures...

Yes, the FAA generally takes a hands-off approach to homebuilts. But
the same applies to many factory-built European ships licensed as
Experimental, Racing and Experimental, Exhibition.

For most experimental types, though, there are type-specific
organizations that compile and distribute safety and service
bulletins. The HPs, for instance, have a strong network centered on
Wayne Paul's Schreder Sailplane Designs Web site. There are several
safety and service bulletins on the site, and regular exchanges on the
Internet email forum about operational concerns. There are similar
Internet fora for the Duster, BG-12, and other designs.

... I think a BG12 or a Monerai would make a
terrific Wind Tee at a local gliderport!

Well, maybe for a while. But assembled out in the elements, a BG would
only give a few years of such service.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

Did'nt one of these come apart about 4 years ago when the flaps failed and
seperated inflight

the pilot a young man was killed IIRC.

Dont buy this junk there are better ships out there that are less dangerous.
These 60/70's homebuilts are cheap for a reason pay some more and live
longer!!

Al

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
om...
As always, my standard advice about buying homebuilt aircraft remains:

1. Recognize that every builder has different sensibilities and
standards of workmanship, and adheres to the designer's plans to a
different degree. Some homebuilts make me proud to be a fellow
tool-bearing mammal. Others make me feel unsafe just walking under
them. Most are somewhere in the middle. Caveat emptor, and your
mileage may vary.

2. Have it pre-buy inspected by someone familiar with the type;
preferably someone who is familiar with the blueprints and can
recognize deviations from the plans. Don't buy an airplane
sight-unseen unless you've considered and prepared for the possible
worst-case scenarios.

3. Be aware that, if you're not willing and able to work on it
yourself, it will likely be no less expensive to own than a factory
aircraft. Depending on who you hire to work on it, it could be
substantially more expensive.

4. Get familiar with the 14 CFR (or relevant national) rules regarding
amateur-built experimentals. The most salient points a Anybody can
work on them; but the annual condition inspection must be signed off
by an IA, an A&P, or the holder of the repair(person) certificate.

That said, I'd like to address some of the points that Tim Mara raises
in his post on a branch of this thread. For the most part, I tend to
agree with him, but I'd like to elaborate a bit on his ideas:

most pilots who would have the experience
and enough knowledge to reasonably safely
fly one also have enough experience and
knowledge to know they no long want to fly one....

It depends. It took me several years to consistently fly to the edges
of my HP-11's potential. Expanding on that, most actual glider
_pilots_ have the skills and techniques to handle the average
homebuilt sailplane. For most well-established homebuilt designs, the
skills and aeronautical knowledge that got you a private pilot rating
will probably suffice. Based on what friends have told me, that
includes a properly built and tested BG-12. Glider _drivers_ and other
sub-par variations on the theme, on the other hand, may find
themselves slightly challenged. That said, I allow as that I prefer to
see better-than-average piloting skills in HP-18 transitions. The
uber-reclined seating, the side-stick, and the Schrederon flaps are
three new experiences all at once, and if you get behind the ship late
in the game it can be hard to catch up.

I owned 2 BG12's back when I was more
in the former category....I would not want
one today...

Not that we'd expect him to, what with Tim being a big-shot sailplane
dealer and all these days...

...you have to remember they are all
experimental, and are all homebuilt,
without any requirement to use
aircraft grade material or hardware,

That's pretty much covered in Part 1 of my standard advice. The good
news is that experienced folks can generally tell aircraft materials
just by looking at them. The nuts and bolts are yellow cad plated, and
the bolts have the X on the head. And in my experience, US sailplane
homebuilders generally stick with AN-type hardware since they can get
it from AS&S or Wicks for less than nuts and bolts at the local
hardware store. Also, many homebuilts are specifically designed with
extra strength margins to account for the use of less than top-grade
materials. Many such designs actually specify relatively low-grade
materials in the plans.

Going off on a tangent, in contrast to the US AN-style aircraft
hardware used in most homebuilts, the hardware used in European
sailplanes is very hard to grade and identify by inspection. There are
many different systems of plating, drive types, head stamps, and
thread pitches to deal with.

without the requirement to have to
inspections completed by A&I's,

However, as I've written elsewhere, they have to be inspected by
either an A&P or the holder of a prepair[person] certificate. Of
which, as I've written elsewhere, I prefer to use the A&P or AI. I
continue to believe that anyone who built an airplane cannot view it
with the impartiality necessary to inspect it properly.

... and of course have no FAA support
through the issuance of AD's or service
bulletins to warn of potential failures...

Yes, the FAA generally takes a hands-off approach to homebuilts. But
the same applies to many factory-built European ships licensed as
Experimental, Racing and Experimental, Exhibition.

For most experimental types, though, there are type-specific
organizations that compile and distribute safety and service
bulletins. The HPs, for instance, have a strong network centered on
Wayne Paul's Schreder Sailplane Designs Web site. There are several
safety and service bulletins on the site, and regular exchanges on the
Internet email forum about operational concerns. There are similar
Internet fora for the Duster, BG-12, and other designs.

... I think a BG12 or a Monerai would make a
terrific Wind Tee at a local gliderport!

Well, maybe for a while. But assembled out in the elements, a BG would
only give a few years of such service.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

unfortunately, I'm afraid that most potential buyers for BG12's or similar
typically "cheap" gliders are there because they are new to gliding and
looking for a cheap glider...

Well, blush, that's me.

From a financial point of view, I think one is better off
with a "popular" glider. If a glider costs 25-50% less
than a popular Grob 102, 1-34, 1-35, PW-5, Russia, 1-26,
PIK-20, etc, then it seems likely you're not only going
to have a tough time finding parts, insurance, inspections,
but you'd also have a hard time finding someone to buy the
darn thing in the future.

Buying and selling gliders which trade briskly seems a much
better bet. Assuming you sell the glider for the same
money you buy it, the expense is the interest on invested
capital and the higher cost of insurance. There is a
real cost here ($500-1500 yearly). On the other hand you
may have to keep a weirdo glider on the market for a year
to sell it where the higher priced, popular glider sells
in a month.

I know a fine competition pilot who wants to sell his 2-22
and his Duster, but is having trouble finding anyone with
such exotic taste within reasonable towing distance.
Boy I bet he'd like that half of his garage back...

If price is the problem, I'd say get a "popular" glider
in a partnership, syndicate, or club. If you've ever
seen a bunch of women clucking over a newborn, you
know what it'd feel like to be a newly purchased
"popular" glider...

Group:

What an amazing bunch of folks. I thank each of you for your thoughtful and
reasoned advice.

If anyone knows of a good old Ka6 or Ka7 or similar ship in a mildly damaged
or otherwise reasonably restorable condition feel free to write to me
directly. Remove the parentheses from my email address.

Thanks again, all of you.

Curt
East Texas, USA

Earlier, someone named Al wrote:

Did'nt one of these come apart about
4 years ago when the flaps failed and
seperated inflight
the pilot a young man was killed IIRC.

Yes, it's a matter of public record. It was one of three fatal BG-12
inflight failures in the last few years. The accidents of note a

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...12X21782&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...08X08572&key=1

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...08X07996&key=1

The first of those three is the one "Al" cites. The NTSB determined
that the probable cause was excess speed beyond the flap deployment
speed. I worked at the 2003 Standard Nationals with the late pilot's
father, and our conversations had no small impact on my way of
thinking about the safety and nature of homebuilt soaring.

The second accident was due to the failure of a control push-pull tube
element on a ferry flight, the impending nature of which would
probably have been evident even in a very casual inspection. One of
the conditions of the ferry permit was an inspection of the aircraft
by an A&P or similar, but there was no evidence that the inspection
was performed.

The third accident was a wing separation after several pitch
excursions at relatively high speed. The aircraft was substantially
heavier than max gross, with a CG out of the aft end of the CG
envelope.

Dont buy this junk there are better ships
out there that are less dangerous.
These 60/70's homebuilts are cheap
for a reason pay some more and live
longer!!

There are also better ships out there that are more expensive and
_more_ dangerous.

But that aside, I have to agree with the general consesus that the
social and economic landscape of soaring has changed so that many
homebuilt gliders are very far out of their original context. These
days, a walk through the ocean of most souls would scarcely get your
feet wet.

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Earlier, "Eggs" wrote:

If anyone knows of a good old Ka6
or Ka7 or similar ship in a mildly
damaged or otherwise reasonably
restorable condition...

You just missed a K8 on eBay. I posted it on HomeSail. It went for
$76:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...tegory=26 439

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.

look at the Wings & Wheels Want-ads on
http://wingsandwheels.com/want_ads.htm
there are a few K6's, K7's and K8's there as well as most other types
offered for sale.
tim

"Eggs" wrote in message
t...
Group:

What an amazing bunch of folks. I thank each of you for your thoughtful
and
reasoned advice.

If anyone knows of a good old Ka6 or Ka7 or similar ship in a mildly
damaged
or otherwise reasonably restorable condition feel free to write to me
directly. Remove the parentheses from my email address.

Thanks again, all of you.

Curt
East Texas, USA

Don't think I didn't look longingly at that auction several times, Bob, and
although it doubtless added temendously to someone's parts bin, 4423 miles
seemed a bit of a drive to come fetch it!!

But thanks for trying to cheer me up. wink What I really want is an HP-24
kit for Christmas.

Curt

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
om...
Earlier, "Eggs" wrote:

If anyone knows of a good old Ka6
or Ka7 or similar ship in a mildly
damaged or otherwise reasonably
restorable condition...

You just missed a K8 on eBay. I posted it on HomeSail. It went for
$76:


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...tegory=26 439

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.

I am a beliver in affordable soaring and six friends and i are in the
process of buying a BG-12A, it sounds a little crazy to buy a wood
glider built over 20 years ago but it will only cost us 625 apiece and
will make flying cheap for us. The condition is a real factor and this
one has been stored inside and has a woping 165 hours so why not? It
is a cheap way to go.

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:3fcfa962$1@darkstar...
unfortunately, I'm afraid that most potential buyers for BG12's or similar
typically "cheap" gliders are there because they are new to gliding and
looking for a cheap glider...

Well, blush, that's me.

From a financial point of view, I think one is better off
with a "popular" glider. If a glider costs 25-50% less
than a popular Grob 102, 1-34, 1-35, PW-5, Russia, 1-26,
PIK-20, etc, then it seems likely you're not only going
to have a tough time finding parts, insurance, inspections,
but you'd also have a hard time finding someone to buy the
darn thing in the future.

Buying and selling gliders which trade briskly seems a much
better bet. Assuming you sell the glider for the same
money you buy it, the expense is the interest on invested
capital and the higher cost of insurance. There is a
real cost here ($500-1500 yearly). On the other hand you
may have to keep a weirdo glider on the market for a year
to sell it where the higher priced, popular glider sells
in a month.

I know a fine competition pilot who wants to sell his 2-22
and his Duster, but is having trouble finding anyone with
such exotic taste within reasonable towing distance.
Boy I bet he'd like that half of his garage back...

If price is the problem, I'd say get a "popular" glider
in a partnership, syndicate, or club. If you've ever
seen a bunch of women clucking over a newborn, you
know what it'd feel like to be a newly purchased
"popular" glider...

six friends and i are in the
process of buying a BG-12A, it sounds a little crazy

I would ask, what is the experience level of each member of your group? Flying
a flap-only ship can be a real exciting experience, especially in unskilled
hands.

Your statement It
is a cheap way to go. May be a very prophetic


JJ Sinclair