21m tipped Lak 17b!

So Lak are producing a 21m tipped LAK 17B - so a glider you cn fly in 15,
18, and Open Class - will it be competetive in any?

Damn right it will be!

I finished 5th overall in a lak17a (that's right, lak17"A"!) this year at 18m nationals. I am a very average, inexperienced and essentially new contest pilot. I seemed to keep up with 29's pretty well. I imagine the 17b (with its ability to to up to 1300 gross weight) will be far, FAR more "even" with the 29 that the 17a is. The 17a was initially designed as a 15m and is therefore limited to 1103 gross weight max.

http://www.ssa.org/ContestResults.as...eter+Nationals

From what I have heard, the 17b is far more advanced than the 17a in almost all key aspects. The wing is entirely redesigned as 15/18 and not just 15 with 18 extensions as an afterthought as the 17a was... The airfoils are similar to the Diana 2. So I think it will do extremely well in 18 meter competition when in the hands of a strong pilot.

In 15 meter configuration, the 17a is very good, similar to an ASW 27 which it was designed to beat. The 17b is almost certainly better 15 meter configuration that the 17a with an entirely new wing winglets, new airfoils, a redesigned vertical stab, rudder and all new horizontal stab.

In 21 meter I suspect it will be very good (60:1, similar to the JS1) otherwise why would they bother? Will it compete with a Quintus or a Concordia? I highly doubt it, but it would be a hell of a glider for the $$$...

Sincerely,

Sean Fidler
F2, Lak17a #114

Hmm - it's just in most Europeans and Worlds the 17b has ended up at the
botttom of the score sheets. Maybe the pilots and not the plane?.
The JS1C seems to cut it (at least in the French mountains and Texas
weather, ) with Concordia's, Quintus - so why not a 21m Lak ? (don't know
if they are upping the max weight for the 21m version ala the JS1C.)

They need a strong US (or Canadian) pilot RACING the glider in US contests. Period.

The Uvalde and Euro pilots have not been top shelf. JS1 is better connected and has many top pilots flying their hardware in contrast.

I agree the 21 meter version needs to be at 850 if it is going to be seriously competitive at a world level BUT...in the US east coast contest environment it would probably be just fine if it was not able to achieve 850.

I'll check and see what the specs say on the website...

You mean 850Kg?

If a 21m Lak 17B were to have a wing area similar to the
12.25m2 of the JS1C 21m then at 850kg MAUW it would have a
wingloading of over 69kg/m2! I am not sure where the water
would go. With the JS1C 21m you need to fill the wings, the
21m tips, have fuselage tanks full of water or fuel and a not too
lightweight pilot to get to the MAUW 720kg and 59kg/m2

Furthermore an 21m Lak 17 is likely to have an even smaller
wing area (and ?less water capacity) because the 18m Lak has
a wing area of 10.32m2 compared to 11.21m2 for an 18m JS1.

John Galloway




At 15:32 21 October 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
They need a strong US (or Canadian) pilot RACING the glider
in US contests.
Period.

The Uvalde and Euro pilots have not been top shelf. JS1 is
better
connected and has many top pilots flying their hardware in
contrast.

I agree the 21 meter version needs to be at 850 if it is going
to be
seriously competitive at a world level BUT...in the US east
coast contest
environment it would probably be just fine if it was not able to
achieve
850.

I'll check and see what the specs say on the website...

No specs on the website yet - but announced on Blanik America site and in
the article on the Mini Lak on their news pages about the tips.

I'm presuming you can fly at 15. 18 and 21m with the same ship? Which will
probably make it a popular ship in the US- and agree with Sean bargain
and piloting points.

Upping to 850 kg probably not on- but maybe around the 650-700kg mark?
which would probably give it a similar wing loading to the JS1 with the
smaller wing area.

Now I wonder if the asg 29 is going to be tipped to 21m? (I know its a
tipped 27! and they have the ASH 31).



At 16:36 21 October 2013, John Galloway wrote:
You mean 850Kg?

If a 21m Lak 17B were to have a wing area similar to the
12.25m2 of the JS1C 21m then at 850kg MAUW it would have a
wingloading of over 69kg/m2! I am not sure where the water
would go. With the JS1C 21m you need to fill the wings, the
21m tips, have fuselage tanks full of water or fuel and a not too
lightweight pilot to get to the MAUW 720kg and 59kg/m2

Furthermore an 21m Lak 17 is likely to have an even smaller
wing area (and ?less water capacity) because the 18m Lak has
a wing area of 10.32m2 compared to 11.21m2 for an 18m JS1.

John Galloway




At 15:32 21 October 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
They need a strong US (or Canadian) pilot RACING the glider
in US contests.
Period.

The Uvalde and Euro pilots have not been top shelf. JS1 is
better
connected and has many top pilots flying their hardware in
contrast.

I agree the 21 meter version needs to be at 850 if it is going
to be
seriously competitive at a world level BUT...in the US east
coast contest
environment it would probably be just fine if it was not able to
achieve
850.

I'll check and see what the specs say on the website...

I flew beside the two Lak17Bs at Uvalde.
In my opinion the ASG29 (thanks Al) I flew was better.
I am not an Aeronautical engineer but to my eye the winglet and
winglet/wing interface just looked wrong. Dr Maughmer or others could
probably fix that.
A 21M version at the right wing loading would be possibly good per $ but
the
EB29 will eat it up in weak weather and the JS1 eat it up everywhere else.
IMO
Tom





t 21:35 20 October 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
Damn right it will be! =20

I finished 5th overall in a lak17a (that's right, lak17"A"!) this year at
1=
8m nationals. I am a very average, inexperienced and essentially new
conte=
st pilot. I seemed to keep up with 29's pretty well. I imagine the 17b
(w=
ith its ability to to up to 1300 gross weight) will be far, FAR more
"even"=
with the 29 that the 17a is. The 17a was initially designed as a 15m
and
=
is therefore limited to 1103 gross weight max.

http://www.ssa.org/ContestResults.asp?
contestId=3D2224&ContestDetailId=3D72=
39&ContestName=3D18+Meter+Nationals

From what I have heard, the 17b is far more advanced than the 17a in
almost=
all key aspects. The wing is entirely redesigned as 15/18 and not just
15=
with 18 extensions as an afterthought as the 17a was... The airfoils
are
=
similar to the Diana 2. So I think it will do extremely well in 18 meter
c=
ompetition when in the hands of a strong pilot. =20

In 15 meter configuration, the 17a is very good, similar to an ASW 27
which=
it was designed to beat. The 17b is almost certainly better 15 meter
conf=
iguration that the 17a with an entirely new wing winglets, new airfoils,
a
=
redesigned vertical stab, rudder and all new horizontal stab. =20

In 21 meter I suspect it will be very good (60:1, similar to the JS1)
other=
wise why would they bother? Will it compete with a Quintus or a
Concordia?=
I highly doubt it, but it would be a hell of a glider for the $$$...

Sincerely,

Sean Fidler
F2, Lak17a #114

Tom,

With all due respect ;-), I believe the Lak17b's you flew against in Uvalde were Lak17b FES models (Front Engine Sustainer, http://lak.lt/index.php?option=com_c...&Itemi d=136).

The 17b FES has a folding propeller system on its nose which, even though fairly slick, still has a few square inches of square structure in the airflow as well as two 18' propeller blades. This is especially disruptive when at higher speeds in flying locations such as Uvalde Texas.

The FES version of the 17b should actually have a decent handicap for this reason, not a penalty over a pure glider as the US rules currently. The US handicap committee has not thought this one out very well in my opinion. The 17b FES should have a fairly decent handicap advantage over the pure version, not vice versa based purely on the gross weight.

The pure version of the 17b would produce a different story from you I imagine. I believe it would give a 29 a hell of a problem based on the way the Lak17a performs against them this year at the US Nationals, 5th place... (http://www.ssa.org/ContestResults.as...ter+Nationals).

Also the pilots flying the 17b's in Uvalde were, admittedly, not the "creme of the Uvalde crop." They were there to have fun mainly and to show off the new FES system. If you put two evenly matched pilots into a 29 and a pure 17b, I imagine it would come down to the pilot and not the glider. Not a bad thing considering the Lak17b is a far less expensive glider, even with the impressive FES system added.

Its all about fun, and arguing about glider performance for me is just that, fun. So don't take this too seriously. I think the Lak is not given a fair shake by many. It is a very nice glider for the money and worth serious consideration by those looking for a versatile 15/18 and now even a 21 meter glider which has the option to use FES.

Sean
F2


On Monday, November 4, 2013 5:00:38 AM UTC-5, Tom Claffey wrote:
I flew beside the two Lak17Bs at Uvalde.

In my opinion the ASG29 (thanks Al) I flew was better.

I am not an Aeronautical engineer but to my eye the winglet and

winglet/wing interface just looked wrong. Dr Maughmer or others could

probably fix that.

A 21M version at the right wing loading would be possibly good per $ but

the

EB29 will eat it up in weak weather and the JS1 eat it up everywhere else..

IMO

Tom











t 21:35 20 October 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:

Damn right it will be! =20



I finished 5th overall in a lak17a (that's right, lak17"A"!) this year at

1=

8m nationals. I am a very average, inexperienced and essentially new

conte=

st pilot. I seemed to keep up with 29's pretty well. I imagine the 17b

(w=

ith its ability to to up to 1300 gross weight) will be far, FAR more

"even"=

with the 29 that the 17a is. The 17a was initially designed as a 15m

and

=

is therefore limited to 1103 gross weight max.



http://www.ssa.org/ContestResults.asp?

contestId=3D2224&ContestDetailId=3D72=

39&ContestName=3D18+Meter+Nationals



From what I have heard, the 17b is far more advanced than the 17a in

almost=

all key aspects. The wing is entirely redesigned as 15/18 and not just

15=

with 18 extensions as an afterthought as the 17a was... The airfoils

are

=

similar to the Diana 2. So I think it will do extremely well in 18 meter

c=

ompetition when in the hands of a strong pilot. =20



In 15 meter configuration, the 17a is very good, similar to an ASW 27

which=

it was designed to beat. The 17b is almost certainly better 15 meter

conf=

iguration that the 17a with an entirely new wing winglets, new airfoils,

a

=

redesigned vertical stab, rudder and all new horizontal stab. =20



In 21 meter I suspect it will be very good (60:1, similar to the JS1)

other=

wise why would they bother? Will it compete with a Quintus or a

Concordia?=

I highly doubt it, but it would be a hell of a glider for the $$$...



Sincerely,



Sean Fidler

F2, Lak17a #114

If the price is right they would be a great glider - with or without FES.
Whether they would be competitive in an un-handicapped comp is another
issue. (The last 20% of price probably gives 1% of performance!)
Tom


At 22:34 04 November 2013, Sean F F2 wrote
Tom,

With all due respect ;-), I believe the Lak17b's you flew against in
Uvalde=
were Lak17b FES models (Front Engine Sustainer,
http://lak.lt/index.php?op=
tion=3Dcom_content&task=3Dview&id=3D23&Itemid=3D1 36). =20

The 17b FES has a folding propeller system on its nose which, even though
f=
airly slick, still has a few square inches of square structure in the
airfl=
ow as well as two 18' propeller blades. This is especially disruptive
when=
at higher speeds in flying locations such as Uvalde Texas.

The FES version of the 17b should actually have a decent handicap for
this
=
reason, not a penalty over a pure glider as the US rules currently. The
US=
handicap committee has not thought this one out very well in my opinion.

=
The 17b FES should have a fairly decent handicap advantage over the pure
ve=
rsion, not vice versa based purely on the gross weight.

The pure version of the 17b would produce a different story from you I
imag=
ine. I believe it would give a 29 a hell of a problem based on the way
the=
Lak17a performs against them this year at the US Nationals, 5th place...
(=
http://www.ssa.org/ContestResults.asp?
contestId=3D2224&ContestDetailId=3D72=
39&ContestName=3D18+Meter+Nationals).=20

Also the pilots flying the 17b's in Uvalde were, admittedly, not the
"creme=
of the Uvalde crop." They were there to have fun mainly and to show off
t=
he new FES system. If you put two evenly matched pilots into a 29 and a
pu=
re 17b, I imagine it would come down to the pilot and not the glider.
Not
=
a bad thing considering the Lak17b is a far less expensive glider, even
wit=
h the impressive FES system added.

Its all about fun, and arguing about glider performance for me is just
that=
, fun. So don't take this too seriously. I think the Lak is not given a
f=
air shake by many. It is a very nice glider for the money and worth
seriou=
s consideration by those looking for a versatile 15/18 and now even a 21
me=
ter glider which has the option to use FES.

Sean
F2=20


On Monday, November 4, 2013 5:00:38 AM UTC-5, Tom Claffey wrote:
I flew beside the two Lak17Bs at Uvalde.
=20
In my opinion the ASG29 (thanks Al) I flew was better.
=20
I am not an Aeronautical engineer but to my eye the winglet and=20
=20
winglet/wing interface just looked wrong. Dr Maughmer or others
could=20
=20
probably fix that.
=20
A 21M version at the right wing loading would be possibly good per $
but
=20
the=20
=20
EB29 will eat it up in weak weather and the JS1 eat it up everywhere
else=
..
=20
IMO
=20
Tom
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
t 21:35 20 October 2013, Sean F F2 wrote:
=20
Damn right it will be! =3D20
=20

=20
I finished 5th overall in a lak17a (that's right, lak17"A"!) this year
a=
t
=20
1=3D
=20
8m nationals. I am a very average, inexperienced and essentially new
=20
conte=3D
=20
st pilot. I seemed to keep up with 29's pretty well. I imagine the
17b
=20
(w=3D
=20
ith its ability to to up to 1300 gross weight) will be far, FAR more
=20
"even"=3D
=20
with the 29 that the 17a is. The 17a was initially designed as a 15m
=20
and
=20
=3D
=20
is therefore limited to 1103 gross weight max.
=20

=20
http://www.ssa.org/ContestResults.asp?
=20
contestId=3D3D2224&ContestDetailId=3D3D72=3D
=20
39&ContestName=3D3D18+Meter+Nationals
=20

=20
From what I have heard, the 17b is far more advanced than the 17a in
=20
almost=3D
=20
all key aspects. The wing is entirely redesigned as 15/18 and not
just
=20
15=3D
=20
with 18 extensions as an afterthought as the 17a was... The airfoils
=20
are
=20
=3D
=20
similar to the Diana 2. So I think it will do extremely well in 18
mete=
r
=20
c=3D
=20
ompetition when in the hands of a strong pilot. =3D20
=20

=20
In 15 meter configuration, the 17a is very good, similar to an ASW 27
=20
which=3D
=20
it was designed to beat. The 17b is almost certainly better 15 meter
=20
conf=3D
=20
iguration that the 17a with an entirely new wing winglets, new
airfoils,
=20
a
=20
=3D
=20
redesigned vertical stab, rudder and all new horizontal stab. =3D20
=20

=20
In 21 meter I suspect it will be very good (60:1, similar to the JS1)
=20
other=3D
=20
wise why would they bother? Will it compete with a Quintus or a
=20
Concordia?=3D
=20
I highly doubt it, but it would be a hell of a glider for the $$$...
=20

=20
Sincerely,
=20

=20
Sean Fidler
=20
F2, Lak17a #114
=20

On Monday, November 4, 2013 4:34:41 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
The 17b FES has a folding propeller system on its nose which, even though fairly slick, still has a few square inches of square structure in the airflow as well as two 18' propeller blades. This is especially disruptive when at higher speeds in flying locations such as Uvalde Texas. The FES version of the 17b should actually have a decent handicap for this reason, not a penalty over a pure glider as the US rules currently. The US handicap committee has not thought this one out very well in my opinion. The 17b FES should have a fairly decent handicap advantage over the pure version, not vice versa based purely on the gross weight.

I am not a direct player in the US Handicapping, but how would you explain this statement on the FES website:

"Idaflieg Flight performance testing of FES succesfully completed! It is confirmed that drag is like having installed bugwipers."

Link to report: http://idaflieg.wordpress.com/2012/0...rmessprojekte/

It won't impact me one way or the other, but maybe if you translated the article and showed them there is a small but measureable performce hit, they will adjust the HC of the FES version. Bug wipers not permitted in US Sports Class, of course.