Crashing a '12

Mike Hessington wrote:
You are confused.

I have visited the LAK factory. As a result of this
visit I can't agree with you views on 'over engineering'
of LAKs.

No, he's not confused. You are. The LAK-12 is an over-engineered tank.
I've seen a LAK-12 make it through a botched takeoff with a few
scratches, that would have reduced many other gliders to a pile of
debris. With all that over-engineering, the one-piece wing of the
LAK-12 weighs only a few pounds more than the inner panel of the similar
ASW-17 wing.

The LAK 17/19 is under engineered. The spars appear
flimsy and the cockpit has no real protection at all.
In fact, one of them broke up at low level during
a test flight and just about killed the pilot.

The LAK-17/19 are entirely new designs that have nothing much to do with
the 12. The the spar looks flimsy because it is made of pultruded
carbon rods. It is as strong or stronger than wings made using
traditional composite spar techniques. The 17/19 cockpit area has
several layers of Kevlar. It is not a "safety" cockpit like the newer
Schleicher and DG designs, but it is certainly safer than many older
German designs.

I believe the LAK-16 that crashed had a traditional spar...

If I had to crash a glider I would want to be sitting
in an ASW27 or 28.

I agree, I wish I could afford one.

The Germans calculate, design and test in order to
get things right. Over engineering is fine if you
are building tanks, not gliders.

The LAK-17/19 have several innovative design/safety features that the
Germans haven't managed to pick up on with all of their fine
engineering. I have some real issues with the factory about their
post-sale support, but I think the basic structural design of the
LAK-17A we own is as good as the DG-303, Ventus B, ASW-20B, and Duo
Discus (which was among those needing spar repair, BTW) I've also owned.
I've flown my LAK-17A in some of the strongest conditions in the
world, and it hasn't broken up on me yet...

Marc