Goldinthecreek wrote:Question for Zplot and others actually flying a Lake,
What are your thoughts on the visibility/seating position?

I am a pretty short guy....5'6" I find the visibility to be good. Seating position feels natural to me. Initially, you feel that you sit unnervingly low in the water, but once you warm up to it, it's fun.

Goldinthecreek wrote:PROP POSITION?
Watching the Video here about off airport operations in a trike a lot of it is about keeping debris out of the prop and the rest of the plane and avoiding prop strikes. Lake seems to have solved that problem but does it actually change the way you operate off pavement?

I have not operated it off pavement yet (other than water), and no, other than the opposite pitch/power tendencies, I wouldn't say the prop position is much of a factor for "debris" for back country ops. Your limitation in that scenario, if you wish to land on non-paved land, will be your tire size.
Now, prop position as related to operations in general, is a big factor. Briefly mentioned by me and others here....
Because the thrust line is located 6' above your head, funny things happen when you make large power changes. A large quick power bump for a go-around pushes the nose down, and abruptly cutting the power has your nose pitching up. It's not really a big deal, but, subconsciously, your muscle memory is prepared for the opposite scenario.

About one of the most fun things you can do in a Lake is step-taxxing....it's basically a very maneuverable fast boat on the water, and a total hoot when done right. When done wrong, yeah, you can dig in a sponson and kartwheel.

Because of these two things, insurance companies, the Lake Owner's Club, and myself, recommend you go out there and checked out in a Lake before you buy one....just so you can be exposed to these nuances.

ZP

I've operated two Lake LA-200's and they are wonderful aeroplanes. Once you learn their nuances like your hydraulic pressure pump has to run and cut out before you measure the hydraulic fluid. They are very tolerant of big loads, I've flown at MTOW quite a bit. Two up they are off the water as quick as my J3-90 on EDO 1320's. They can handle rough water quite well, it's up to how big your balls are I think. I know I could turn downwind when a 172-180hp on Wip 2300's had to sail. They really kick ass as a two-place aeroplane with the back seats out. You've got a lot of room in there for gear. They are excellent in IMC. They are excellent in crosswinds. They will ramp on shores that a regular amphib won't. The bat wings and VG's don't work well in harmony, and Paul Furnee would have always said the VG's rule on their own. I bow down to the knowledge of the late Paul Furnee, he could make them dance. If you haven't read the free book, Go To Hull by Steve Reep it's just a great read. I think my ideal Lake would be the 200-EP, with the Renegade fuel tanks.

The only downside is my wife didn't like the back seat. On the plus side, there is a photo on Facebook of Pamela Anderson sitting happily in the back seat. I think they are a great buy!

I had seriously considered a Lake a few years back. Started by reading as much info as I could find on the bird and even went as far as joining the Lake owner's club to gain some further in depth knowledge.
I think over the years, the Lake ended up getting a bad reputation for it's characteristics that were ultimately a lack of pilot training in most instances.
Long story short, I ended up going with the tried and true C-180 on EDO 2870's. I still think the Lake would've been a good choice....but probably would've had some regrets compared to the 180...guess one will never know!

Earlier, I had trouble posting a photo from my Google Drive,

Here's another attempt at it.

This was us at Manatee Springs a few weeks ago.

Docking is tricky but it's not impossible at all, it's just different.

this is just the personal opinion of someone with NO experience whatsoever...but- I think you'd be hard pressed to find an uglier airplane. I wouldn't want to taxi up to an airport in it. AGAIN, just my personal opinion. They may be wonderful flying machines overall, but the look does not spark a passion within me to have one.

losbright1 wrote:this is just the personal opinion of someone with NO experience whatsoever...but- I think you'd be hard pressed to find an uglier airplane. I wouldn't want to taxi up to an airport in it. AGAIN, just my personal opinion. They may be wonderful flying machines overall, but the look does not spark a passion within me to have one.

Then I have to assume that you'd run as fast and as hard as possible away from a SeaBee! Although I don't have a desire for a Lake right now, I'd have to say that I think they're quite attractive in appearance. Eyes of the beholder, and all that.

Cary

Oh oh, just wait a minute please I'm going to make some popcorn

Cary wrote:
Then I have to assume that you'd run as fast and as hard as possible away from a SeaBee! Although I don't have a desire for a Lake right now, I'd have to say that I think they're quite attractive in appearance. Eyes of the beholder, and all that.

Cary

Yes, although the Seabee does not place the engine Waaaaaay above the cockpit like the Lake. I think that is the part that I don't like. Maybe an Icon A5 though..that looks like a fun little aircraft.

Carlos

One of the strangest things about co-owning a lake, is trying to explain to non-pilot people what it is.

Q What is it?
"It's a lake, that lands on lakes",

Q Why is it called a Lake
"Lake is just the name",

Q Can it also land at regular airports
"Yes it also lands on land",

Q But if its a flying boat how does it also land on land?
"It also has wheels"

I've probably had that conversation about 20 times, it usually ends in needing a photo, then the inevitable "Why is the engine on top"


It's an interesting airplane for sure! Very fun to own.

That sounds like the famous “Who’s on first” skit from many years ago! LOL

It put new meaning into the slogan, Make it a Laker

To be technically correct, the Lakes are NOT "Flying boats" by definition. A Flying boat has no landing gear, though they may be equipped with beaching gear when in water.

The PBY was originally a flying boat. When landing gear was added, it became an amphibian.

All the Lake aircraft are amphibians by definition.

The Sea Bee had the capability of landing in water and removing the landing gear, thus making the airplane a flying boat. Increased the useful load substantially.

And, for the record, I think the Lake is a nice looking airplane. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say.

MTV

No issues with the ascetics of a Laker at all and I'd welcome the opportunity to fly, with knowledgeable guidance in the other seat !!!!

MANY years ago there was a Lake Amphib at Lake Hood parked on the ramp that had no retractable gear to speak of, only beaching mains and some sort of tailwheel. Rumor has it it was the only one from the factory that was built without landing gear. It was for sale for a while. Last I saw the wings were pulled off it and it was all packed on a trailer headed out. Might google it to see if there is any info on it.

Speaking of "beaching gear"....
the other day I saw a GO-480 powered Seabee with the first set of oversized tires I think Ive ever seen on one.
850x10 Airtracs on Gar Aero wheel adapters, made it look really good..
The owner told me that he likes to land in the water, then walk it up onto shore,
and that the standard small tires aren't much good unless there's a boat ramp handy.
The bigger tires handled sandy or otherwise soft beaches just fine.
He also said he didn't notice any reduction in the blinding cruise speed the Seabee is noted for.

Not mentioned above is the fact that Lakes do not do well in rough water. They never are out on the water on windy days....

I failed to grab the tail number, but if anyone in the south east is looking for Lake instruction, I recently saw this one at Western Carolina Regional (RHP).

The piece of paper said that the owner offered instruction, and if you called the FBO, they could likely help you get in touch.