![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don Johnstone wrote: If you have flown a 17 why would you want either of the others. My 17 is finished in acrylic but not for sale. Cost! LAK 12's available in the West are all generally newer than 1992 with some as late as 1998. A used LAK 12 would generally be in better condition than a Nimbus 2 or ASW 17 and also be a lot cheaper. A good, used ~8 year old LAK 12 will generally cost less than a 15m German Glider ~20-25 years old or a ~25-30 year old ASW 17 or Nimbus 2. Jantars usually go for a little more than a LAK 12 but not as much as the German aircraft. Most Western LAK 12's on the market have had their original Russian glide computers and radios replaced by more modern Western instruments. Downside of the LAK 12 and the early Jantars are the single piece wings and resultant long, heavy trailers. Upside is more water ballast and epoxy or polyurethane finishes which should be more durable than gel coats. My LAK 12 was recently repaired and painted after being damaged in the hangar. The AP doing the repair commented a number of times how well the aircraft is built. The aircraft now has a beautiful, white polyurethane finish which is far more attractive than the original, dull, slightly beige epoxy finish. I love flying my LAK 12 but rigging it is a pain. I keep it rigged in a hangar but not everybody has hangar space for 20m gliders. At least a Nimbus can have the outer panels removed and then fit it in a smaller hangar. Clinton LAK 12 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|