LAK-12 Question

wrote:

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

snip

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.


You'd have been lynched with a piece of old tow rope by now. ;-)


Shawn

There is nothing wrong with landing out - as others have stated, it's
like falling down while skiing!

But one has to really weight the risk of damage (glider and/or
property) against the rewards when choosing WHERE to landout. Where
you are in the world, as well as what you are flying, has a lot to do
with what you can accept as a reasonable landing field.

In my glider (an LS6) I prefer not to land in a pasture. I will
accept a plowed/short crop field, if necessary. But I try to always
have an airstrip (anything from an abandoned WW2 field on up) within
range during non-race XC flights - it's just not worth the risk to
land in a potentially rough strip with my landing speed and small
wheel.

In Arizona, when away from the cultivated valleys, there are huge
areas where you can only landout on airstrips. Otherwise, you will
break your glider. Easy decision there - stay high, fly smart, keep
your options open. Here near St Louis, Illinois is all one big farm
field, with airfields and farmer strips every 15 miles, it seems, so
one can push a lot lower and still have a really good place to land.
But with a modern 40/1 ship, little reason to not make it to a nice
safe airfield, with an airconditioned lounge, cute line girls, etc.
(still waiting for that last bit...).

If I was flying a 1-26, or K-8, then my range of suitable landout
locations would undoubtedly be larger, due to the slower approach
speed and tough skid/wheel gear setup. Then again, I might need to
landout more often!

Do I landout less this way? Not really, I still average about 6
landouts a season - they just are all on nice airfields or farmer's
airstrips, where I can usually get an aero retrieve back to the club
field.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

wrote:


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

Only if you were doing in a LAK 12, because you'd be farther away and
much harder to remove from the field. In fact, you'd probably still be
sitting in field #7, waiting for the retrieve crew that will never come...

I notice some pilots use "landout" to mean "landing somewhere besides my
home airfield", even if they land at a large, paved, airport. I call
that "landing away" when I land on an airport/airstrip; a "landout" is
landing something else, like a farmer's field or a road.

--
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

Bruce wrote:

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.

That's the first time I've heard a broken canopy called "minor damage"
and "easily repaired".

--
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

On May 13, 2:05 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Bruce wrote:
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.

That's the first time I've heard a broken canopy called "minor damage"
and "easily repaired".

--
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" atwww.motorglider.org

yes i suppose that is another major benifit of flying a lousy
performance glider, shorter retrieves!!! just a reminder to the
crowd, my experience XC flying is based solely out of Central Iowa,
where selecting a suitable field to land in is usually as easy as
turning into the wind and landing straight ahead. especially in the
spring/summer. I have flown some pretty low altitude cross countries
in June/July with 3 feet tall soybeans and 10 feet tall corn filling
most of these fields and it is tricky but you just tread lightly and
keep a hay or alfalfa field below you. you can see some of my flight
reports from these flights (and others) at www.knightglider.com/flightreports.htm
I think that soaring has an unrealized and untapped resource in the
midwest. while the thermal strength is weak compared to many places
of the country, and cloudbase is much lower, the landout options are
infinitely better. this area could provide excellent cross country
training opportunities for the national XC camps by allowing them to
try to go out on days where the soaring is only so-so and still be
reassured that they wont break anything.

the only damage i have ever done landing out is a rip in the fabric
when the nose dug in after landing. both were due to soft fields and
probably some overagression braking. it is part of the sport though.
i try to avoid cut corn fields, with the stalks still a foot or two
tall sticking in every which direction. overly rough fields,
obviously, are undesirable. however, fabric is easy to repair.

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Bruce wrote:

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.


That's the first time I've heard a broken canopy called "minor damage"
and "easily repaired".

Hi Eric

MAybe I should have said - non-structural damage.

To replace a canopy takes a free blown transparency and about 12 hours work. One
week of evenings to remind you of your sins. Total cost ~10 aerotows.


So far so good - partner has broken the canopy, but I dont wear hats with
buttons on top...

Cheers
Bruce

I notice some pilots use "landout" to mean "landing somewhere besides my
home airfield", even if they land at a large, paved, airport. I call
that "landing away" when I land on an airport/airstrip; a "landout" is
landing something else, like a farmer's field or a road.

Eric, I consider it a landout anytime someone don't land at their
intended destination "because the wind quit". My feeling is that with
the performance (and cost) of today's gliders, a true landout "au
vaches" is rapidly becoming unacceptably risky in many ships. And
mostly unnecessary.

The key is where you intend to land; I may change my goal inflight, so
the resulting landing away from the home field wouldn't be a landout
anymore. I once changed my destination from Turf, Az - my takeoff
point - to Parowan, Ut., while over the Grand Canyon - that flight was
definitely not a landout!

You set a task and try hard to complete it. If you are unable to,
then you are forced to landout - and if you are unable to keep a
suitable landing field in range, then perhaps you'll landout off-
field.

Semantics...It's all great, whatever you call it!

Kirk
66