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.

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.

I used to share your concerns about wooden ships. However, in the 25
years that I've been aviating, I've run into more structural problems
with metal aircraft than with wood or plastic. Metal ships seem to get
more abuse, both in flight and from poor storage (tied out). I've been
inside the wings of a number of wood aircraft and have yet to see a
problem that would have compromised the aircraft in flight. The wood in
the wings of our Ka-8, which is at least 45 years old, looked as if it
were new when we removed the fabric to recover it.

However, as to your question about the Nugget. I've heard that they are
great ships, but a little heavy for weak conditions.

Someone suggested a Schwiezer 1-23. The 1-23 D through H15 models are
truly great ships, good for weak conditions. They are not fun to
assemble however. Also, they tend to develop cracks in the wing and tail
skins from "oil canning".

My advice would be to get yourself a Ka-6 and go have fun!

--
Take out the airplane for reply

Wallace Berry writes:

I used to share your concerns about wooden ships. However, in the 25
years that I've been aviating, I've run into more structural problems
with metal aircraft than with wood or plastic. Metal ships seem to get
more abuse, both in flight and from poor storage (tied out). I've been
inside the wings of a number of wood aircraft and have yet to see a
problem that would have compromised the aircraft in flight. The wood in
the wings of our Ka-8, which is at least 45 years old, looked as if it
were new when we removed the fabric to recover it.

Which raises an important point: with modern Dacron covering systems,
and a good trailer or hangar, it's possible, and tempting, to leave
the fabric on for 20 or 30 years. But they should be recovered much
more often than that, to allow you to inspect the structure and fix
all the popped glue joints. For example, 20 years is probably too
long, see http://www.tux.org/~milgram/k8.html.


However, as to your question about the Nugget. I've heard that they are
great ships, but a little heavy for weak conditions.

Someone suggested a Schwiezer 1-23. The 1-23 D through H15 models are
truly great ships, good for weak conditions. They are not fun to
assemble however. Also, they tend to develop cracks in the wing and tail
skins from "oil canning".

My advice would be to get yourself a Ka-6 and go have fun!

--
Take out the airplane for reply

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_________/