LAK-12 Question

Man, I hate clubs that discourage x-country flying. Our little club,
Southern Eagles Soaring, flying out of LaGrange, Georgia, USA, whole
heartedly encourages x-country, badge, and contest flying. One of the
first flights of our "new" two-place glass bird resulted in a honest cow
pasture landout. Of course, we were not too thrilled about the towplane
landing out in a cow pasture...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm totally with Wally on XC flying with the club. I've been taking
students out for 100K or longer flights. They get a chance to see
things from a totally different prospective. Wally, you forgot to
mention that we were doing a triangle speed run for the second time
that day, after we had broken the Georgia record. It least this time
it was a 3,500 foot field, and it didn't even have any emu's!

kirk.stant wrote:
BG,

I think what we have here is a difference in our "english". US usage
of aggressive vs conservative. Different points on a range of
approaches to a task. Foolhardy or Impulsively, or even carelessly &
dangerously would be beyond aggressive on the scale.

I think of aggressive when I tilt the balance of rewards vs risk in
the direction of risk (in this case, landing out, not damage/injury).
Conservative is avoiding the risk of landing out at any cost, usually
due to logistics of a retrieve.

US use of term aggressive may be cultural, come to think about it...

Changing the subject, it's interesting that you have the same problem
we have of clubs not liking XC flights. There really seems to be two
types of glider pilots out there, at times!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

Hi Kirk

As I said probably semantics.
Have been actively working on getting some of our members to fly a little
further. Limited success so far, but I am painfully persistent...

We definitely have a few kinds of glider pilots. Broadly the goldfish bowl types
and the XC types. Wild variation in other attributes within the groups. For
example the highest risk taker and most likely candidate for a BIG moment in a
glider - feels the danger represented by outlanding is too high to risk, and
flies very limited XC in very conservative mode. Then does low level aerobatics
and redline wormburners over the runway at home. One has to wonder.

Inadvertently changed my signature there when I re-installed my news reader -
have to fix it.

Bruce

kirk.stant wrote:
BG,

I think what we have here is a difference in our "english". US usage
of aggressive vs conservative. Different points on a range of
approaches to a task. Foolhardy or Impulsively, or even carelessly &
dangerously would be beyond aggressive on the scale.

I think of aggressive when I tilt the balance of rewards vs risk in
the direction of risk (in this case, landing out, not damage/injury).
Conservative is avoiding the risk of landing out at any cost, usually
due to logistics of a retrieve.

Good catch, Kirk. Another way to put it when talking about doing
something: "conservatively" implies the outcome is very predictable;
"aggressively" implies it is moderately predictable; foolhardy,
impulsively, etc implies the outcome can be anything.

BG is right that we balance the risks (generally a landout) and costs
(money, time, pleasure) against our goals for each flight. For example,
I believe:

-Many pilots are attracted to contests because the retrieve process is
already set up and they are expected to fly aggressively. It frees them
from the usual concerns of organizing a retrieve and the potential
embarrassment of landing out.

-Some pilots are attracted to 30:1 gliders because they can fly them
aggressively and still be retrieved easily, cheaply, and quickly. Look
at some of the 1-26 pilots who are very aggressive in their flying and
make great flights, but with manageable retrieves; put the same pilot in
a 25 meter glider and it'd take days to retrieve them - not practical or
fun for a lot of pilots.

-A big attraction of a motorglider is it allows a pilot to fly
aggressively on every flight, but enjoy the conservative pilot's
outcome: home in time for beer and pizza!

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

"BG" wrote in message
...
kirk.stant wrote:
BG,

I think what we have here is a difference in our "english". US usage
of aggressive vs conservative. Different points on a range of
approaches to a task. Foolhardy or Impulsively, or even carelessly &
dangerously would be beyond aggressive on the scale.

I think of aggressive when I tilt the balance of rewards vs risk in
the direction of risk (in this case, landing out, not damage/injury).
Conservative is avoiding the risk of landing out at any cost, usually
due to logistics of a retrieve.

US use of term aggressive may be cultural, come to think about it...

Changing the subject, it's interesting that you have the same problem
we have of clubs not liking XC flights. There really seems to be two
types of glider pilots out there, at times!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

Hi Kirk

As I said probably semantics.
Have been actively working on getting some of our members to fly a little
further. Limited success so far, but I am painfully persistent...

We definitely have a few kinds of glider pilots. Broadly the goldfish bowl
types and the XC types. Wild variation in other attributes within the
groups. For example the highest risk taker and most likely candidate for a
BIG moment in a glider - feels the danger represented by outlanding is too
high to risk, and flies very limited XC in very conservative mode. Then
does low level aerobatics and redline wormburners over the runway at home.
One has to wonder.

Inadvertently changed my signature there when I re-installed my news
reader - have to fix it.

Bruce

One way to describe agressiveness is that a conservative pilot will fly M=2
on a 4 knot day and an agressive pilot may fly M=8 on a 4 knot day. With
flight analysis programs feeding NMEA data to PDA glide software you can
determine the McCready setting the pilot is using. I see a lot of very
successful pilots flying aggressively that way. These guys succeed because
they're very good at finding their next source of lift.

Another way to describe a conservative XC pilot is that he will always have
two 'known-safe" landing spots within gliding range using half his published
max L/D corrected for headwind/tailwind.

I'm conservative both ways.

I'm not sure what scares pilots most about landouts. I find that light
airplane pilots with a lot of XC experience are less stressed than those who
have rarely landed away from their home field. It's probably just fear of
the unknown - what they don't know is that airportrs are pretty much alike.

It's also possible instructors, knowingly or otherwise, have taught landing
patterns using landmarks near the home field. The student instinctively
knows the "red barn" he uses to turn base won't be there at another airfield
and that scares him. It's really great if a student can get experience
landing at several different fields.

Bill Daniels

"Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote in message
. ..
I'm not sure what scares pilots most about landouts. I find that light
airplane pilots with a lot of XC experience are less stressed than those
who have rarely landed away from their home field. It's probably just
fear of the unknown - what they don't know is that airportrs are pretty
much alike.


It's not other airports that create the pucker factor, no worries there.
It's the obstacle in the field that you couldn't see until you were on final
that makes me conservative. I've only had 5 'aux vaches' landouts and on
one of them there was an obstacle I didn't see until I was turning final.
The Mosquito can make a nice steep approach and I'd conserved my
altitude/options so all ended well. That surprise on final did reinforce my
conservatism.

Bill Daniels wrote:

Bruce

One way to describe agressiveness is that a conservative pilot will fly M=2
on a 4 knot day and an agressive pilot may fly M=8 on a 4 knot day. With
flight analysis programs feeding NMEA data to PDA glide software you can
determine the McCready setting the pilot is using. I see a lot of very
successful pilots flying aggressively that way. These guys succeed because
they're very good at finding their next source of lift.

An interesting observation. My experience with flying in regional and
national contests around the country is different: the best pilots don't
cruise much faster than the mediocre pilots, but gain their speed from a
better choice of where to fly (more lift, less sink), and are much more
selective about the thermals they take. The mediocre pilot takes that 4
knot thermal Bill mentions, but the good pilot waits for (and finds) the
6 knot thermal.

Another way the good pilot gets that high cross-country speed is by
staying out of trouble, mostly by recognizing a poor situation ahead in
time to handle it easily. The mediocre pilot isn't aware of the problem
as early.

Note that I'm using "good" and "mediocre" instead of "aggressive" and
"conservative". A good pilot can fly much faster than a mediocre pilot
and still be flying more conservatively.

Bill, how do you tell what MC setting a pilot is using from looking at a
flight trace? Perhaps you meant "a fairly steady cruise speed equivalent
to an MC setting of ..."? The good pilots I've flown with don't follow
an MC setting, but cruise at a fairly constant speed.


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:iQ40i.7879$XG1.4760@trndny07...
Bill, how do you tell what MC setting a pilot is using from looking at a
flight trace? Perhaps you meant "a fairly steady cruise speed equivalent
to an MC setting of ..."? The good pilots I've flown with don't follow an
MC setting, but cruise at a fairly constant speed.

Just change the McCready setting on the PDA software until the speed-to-fly
command matches what the pilot was doing. GPS_LOG can automatically set
McCready to the average of the last (n) thermals. If that results in a lot
of "slow down" indications, the pilot was overflying the conditions.

Actually, these pilot also fly at a pretty constant speed - 110 knots IAS.
(GPS_LOG also makes a pretty good guess at the IAS.)

Bill Daniels

I've owned my LAK-12 since 1998. I assemble it in the spring and leave
it on the ramp all season, putting it in the trailer in the fall. The
assembly process looks intimidating, but can be made easier.

This tip was passed on to me by a visiting Brit at Minden: With the
glider assembled, note the height of the main wheel off the ramp while
in the fuselage dolly, then measure the wing stand heights when they are
in position to remove all load from the spar locking pin. If you can
duplicate this configuration during each successive assembly, the spar
pin will slip right in after levering the wings together. He also
showed me how to lengthen the lever, for more leverage.

While it is true that your friends will all suddenly hear their wife
calling when you start to assemble your LAK-12, ignore them. I can get
mine assembled nearly completely on my own, using the factory wing
dolly. It's usually the last 3/4" of wing insertion where I need
someone to steady each tip while I lever it together.

It is accurate that each LAK-12 wing weighs 230# but remember that each
inner panel of a ASW-17 weighs 210#, which shows how much extra
complexity is required to produce a two piece wing. One piece wings are
an example of the KISS principle.

I found that towing my LAK-12 with a Dodge Grand Caravan plus tow
package, was the minimum acceptable vehicle. A Volvo wagon is marginal
above 50mph. A Chevrolet/GMC Subdivision is definitely better. I've
towed the 42' trailer empty behind a Honda Civic, which shocks the
Expedition owners towing jet skis.

The LAK-12 water ballast system (200 liters/50 gallons) has the easiest
fill/dump system that I've ever seen. No more wondering if the day is
going to be good enough to justify the effort of adding water. It fills
so quickly unattended that I can't complete washing the glider before
the ballast tanks become full. The polyurethane paint means it stands
up well to being tied down outside without covers. Polish it every few
seasons and it looks great.

I've been very happy with my LAK-12. It is very easy to fly which is
why the Soviet sport gliding federation would put newly licensed pilots
in it for XC training. Higher performance - fewer landouts. One thing
I learned from a Carl Herold XC camp is that gliders should be landed at
actual airstrips and not farm fields. I fly to keep a landable airstrip
within reach at all times. While I've not yet landed out, there have
been times where I've deviated to a landable airstrip with the plan that
I would either find lift and climb out to continue the task, or I would
land at the airstrip and call for a retrieve.

Best regards,
Ken
San Jose, CA

On May 12, 12:21 pm, Ken Ward wrote:
I've owned my LAK-12 since 1998. I assemble it in the spring and leave
it on the ramp all season, putting it in the trailer in the fall. The
assembly process looks intimidating, but can be made easier.

This tip was passed on to me by a visiting Brit at Minden: With the
glider assembled, note the height of the main wheel off the ramp while
in the fuselage dolly, then measure the wing stand heights when they are
in position to remove all load from the spar locking pin. If you can
duplicate this configuration during each successive assembly, the spar
pin will slip right in after levering the wings together. He also
showed me how to lengthen the lever, for more leverage.

While it is true that your friends will all suddenly hear their wife
calling when you start to assemble your LAK-12, ignore them. I can get
mine assembled nearly completely on my own, using the factory wing
dolly. It's usually the last 3/4" of wing insertion where I need
someone to steady each tip while I lever it together.

It is accurate that each LAK-12 wing weighs 230# but remember that each
inner panel of a ASW-17 weighs 210#, which shows how much extra
complexity is required to produce a two piece wing. One piece wings are
an example of the KISS principle.

I found that towing my LAK-12 with a Dodge Grand Caravan plus tow
package, was the minimum acceptable vehicle. A Volvo wagon is marginal
above 50mph. A Chevrolet/GMC Subdivision is definitely better. I've
towed the 42' trailer empty behind a Honda Civic, which shocks the
Expedition owners towing jet skis.

The LAK-12 water ballast system (200 liters/50 gallons) has the easiest
fill/dump system that I've ever seen. No more wondering if the day is
going to be good enough to justify the effort of adding water. It fills
so quickly unattended that I can't complete washing the glider before
the ballast tanks become full. The polyurethane paint means it stands
up well to being tied down outside without covers. Polish it every few
seasons and it looks great.

I've been very happy with my LAK-12. It is very easy to fly which is
why the Soviet sport gliding federation would put newly licensed pilots
in it for XC training. Higher performance - fewer landouts. One thing
I learned from a Carl Herold XC camp is that gliders should be landed at
actual airstrips and not farm fields. I fly to keep a landable airstrip
within reach at all times. While I've not yet landed out, there have
been times where I've deviated to a landable airstrip with the plan that
I would either find lift and climb out to continue the task, or I would
land at the airstrip and call for a retrieve.

Best regards,
Ken
San Jose, CA

boy if landing out is such a crime i should be on death row.

wrote:
On May 12, 12:21 pm, Ken Ward wrote:
SNIP

boy if landing out is such a crime i should be on death row.

My Std Cirrus is 36 years old now.
Was first owned by Ted Pearson - who won the 1971 Nationals with her. Subsequent
owners also flew hard. She has many flights 500km, and a few over 700km.
Consequently the number of outlandings in harsh South African veldt and ploughed
fields and all sorts of "interesting" places is impressive.
She has had both wingtips bashed, the gear doors ripped off, the belly scraped
and a couple of canopies broken. All minor damage that has been easily repaired.
Probably the worst damage was on an airfield landing when I damaged a wing
leading edge.

This glider has LIVED.

She is still pretty, flies well and I have the confidence that you have to
really try to break a well built sailplane. OK my impression is that maybe
Schempp-Hirth are stronger than average, but in my experience outlandings seldom
result in damage or injury.

Outlandings are not something to aspire to, but they are certainly no crime.
They are part of soaring. A consequence of having fun - and occasionally the
source of fun. An ex world champion at a contest was pointing out a plethora of
landable fields around the contest task area. When asked how he knew about them
his simple answer was that he had landed in most of them at least once...

So maybe outlandings are an indicator of success too - If you aren't making a
few, you aren't trying hard enough to be really fast. Which limits what you can
do. The logical conclusion of that line of reasoning is the guys who never leave
the airfield.