Our club (NJ - USA) has folded and we still have an L-13 taking up space. Before I call the local scrap yard I thought I'd ask if anyone might be interested in buying it at scrap value with the dreams of getting airworthy again. We also have an open trailer for it that will be available separately if the bird goes to the junk yard. mikefaddenathotmail.com.

On May 3, 7:16*am, wrote:
> Our club (NJ - USA) has folded and we still have an L-13 taking up space. Before I call the local scrap yard I thought I'd ask if anyone might be interested in buying it at scrap value with the dreams of getting airworthy again. We also have an open trailer for it that will be available separately if the bird goes to the junk yard. mikefaddenathotmail.com.

Convert the cockpit to a flight simulator?

Giant scale RC.

"No sir, that's a *model* you saw flying last weekend. Yes, indeed we
do tow it with an L-19 and we used to use it as a sailplane, but it's
just an RC model now. Oh, the radio gear and servos go home with one
of the club members. Yes, we've kept the cockpit original for
realism and old time's sake. No, of course I can't show you how the
servos hook up, that's proprietary to the guy that built them. No,
absolutely we won't show you, this isn't a a civil aircraft any
longer, it's just a model. No, my lawyer says we don't have to... you
don't have jurisdiction over models."

:-)

T8

On Thursday, May 3, 2012 9:16:51 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> Our club (NJ - USA) has folded and we still have an L-13 taking up space. Before I call the local scrap yard I thought I'd ask if anyone might be interested in buying it at scrap value<

My condolences. This sadly reminds me of euthanizing my devoted old dog.

Open up the wing, wrap the spar with Kevlar and carbon fiber/epoxy and
carbon rod top and bottom.
Lots of info on this at many web sites. Reassemble the wing. Do a 10G
sandbag test.
Document everything and ask for an experimental certificate from your
local FAA.
Or call it an L-13plus and go fly.

On May 3, 10:19*am, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
> Giant scale RC.
>
> "No sir, that's a *model* you saw flying last weekend. *Yes, indeed we
> do tow it with an L-19 and we used to use it as a sailplane, but it's
> just an RC model now. *Oh, the radio gear and servos go home with one
> of the club members. *Yes, we've kept the *cockpit original for
> realism and old time's sake. *No, of course I can't show you how the
> servos hook up, that's proprietary to the guy that built them. *No,
> absolutely we won't show you, this isn't a a civil aircraft any
> longer, it's just a model. *No, my lawyer says we don't have to... you
> don't have jurisdiction over models."
>
> :-)
>
> T8

Hmmmmm!
Does the FAA have jurisdiction over UAVs or is it DOD?

On May 3, 9:33*am, soartech > wrote:
> Open up the wing, wrap the spar with Kevlar and carbon fiber/epoxy and
> carbon rod top and bottom.

I once designed a wing that used a carbon rod wing spar and aluminum
skins. In order to make the spar stiff enough so that the wing skins
did not yield and buckle within the limit load envelope, the spar
needed four times the amount of carbon dictated by the strength
requirements. Basically, I would have had to make the carbon spar as
stiff as the aluminum spar it was intended to replace. That carbon
spar would still have been lighter than its aluminum equivalent, but
would have been much pricier. In the end, I went with composite skins
and only twice the amount of carbon rod dictated by strength, and it
worked out great.

Regardless, designing a retrofit that uses a carbon fiber spar but
retains the aluminum parts and detail design of the rest of the
structure would be a substantial undertaking with a lot of risk and
potential for heartache. I think it would be better to invest the time
and effort into a new training sailplane design more effectively
optimized for the current realities of soaring flight training.

Thanks, Bob K.

Apart from being bad advice on many fronts with this particular wing
design....

You can't go experimental to circumvent an AD.

aerodyne

What ever became of our SSA and the "government liaison and support we pay
so dearly for with the high dues and fees?
Isn't this what we all belong for? where is their support and chain rattling
with the FAA to get this issue resolved?
tim


> wrote in message
news:8062526.4081.1336051011893.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbkv21...
Our club (NJ - USA) has folded and we still have an L-13 taking up space.
Before I call the local scrap yard I thought I'd ask if anyone might be
interested in buying it at scrap value with the dreams of getting airworthy
again. We also have an open trailer for it that will be available separately
if the bird goes to the junk yard. mikefaddenathotmail.com.

I was told: You are the SSA, it is up to you to do something, we are
just volunteers.


Better yet... where is the protests and letters to the FAA docket
during the comments period last year? 200 L-13's onthe registry, ONE
THIRD of the trainer fleet, yet only 27 comments from like 9 people? 4
comments from yours truly;

aerodyne

Tim,

Steve Northcraft has done and is doing a superb job as the SSA's point
man on the L-13. He's spent a huge amount of time working with the
FAA to find a solution owners can live with. I'm sure he would like
nothing better than to be able to announce a solution which would make
everyone happy.

The L-13 wasn't grounded because of some bureaucratic bungling. There
are very real and serious structural problems with the wing. These
problems require an engineering solution proven to be safe. The L-13
has a standard airworthiness certificate and any fix must completely
restore the aircraft to that standard. Simply splicing in some more
metal and hope it works isn't an option. That's what you get with a
standard airworthiness certificate.

The problem isn't just coming up with a well engineered a solution,
that can be done. It's coming up with one which is economically
feasible for a 50 year old glider which will be worth only around
$12,000 after it's fixed - a $15,000 fix for a $12,000 glider is a non-
starter. That's a very tough nut to crack since the paperwork alone
is likely to cost that much. It's possible, even probable, no such
solution can be found. There is no SSA political action which can, or
should, overcome that. Unfortunately, the L-13's, like the war
surplus wooden trainers of the 1950's, may be history.

I agree that losing over 180 L-13 trainers hit the US soaring movement
hard. In the same time period, the fleet of 2-33's has dropped to 131
active gliders, probably due to age. It appears we have half as many
airworthy trainers today as we did 50 years ago. Today, right now, we
need at least 300 new trainers and if the LetsGoGliding program really
takes off, we could need 400.

If someone is thinking of backing a US glider manufacturer, now would
be the time.

Bill Daniels





On May 3, 5:16*pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> What ever became of our SSA and the "government liaison and support we pay
> so dearly for with the high dues and fees?
> Isn't this what we all belong for? where is their support and chain rattling
> with the FAA to get this issue resolved?
> tim
>
> > wrote in message
>
> news:8062526.4081.1336051011893.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbkv21...
> Our club (NJ - USA) has folded and we still have an L-13 taking up space.
> Before I call the local scrap yard I thought I'd ask if anyone might be
> interested in buying it at scrap value with the dreams of getting airworthy
> again. We also have an open trailer for it that will be available separately
> if the bird goes to the junk yard. mikefaddenathotmail.com.

On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:16:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> Our club (NJ - USA) has folded and we still have an L-13 taking up space. Before I call the local scrap yard I thought I'd ask if anyone might be interested in buying it at scrap value with the dreams of getting airworthy again. We also have an open trailer for it that will be available separately if the bird goes to the junk yard. mikefaddenathotmail.com.

Possibility: http://soaringcafe.com/2012/04/world-class-sailplanes-dead/

On May 3, 11:06*am, Hartley Falbaum > wrote:
> On May 3, 10:19*am, Evan Ludeman > wrote:
>
> > Giant scale RC.
>
> > "No sir, that's a *model* you saw flying last weekend. *Yes, indeed we
> > do tow it with an L-19 and we used to use it as a sailplane, but it's
> > just an RC model now. *Oh, the radio gear and servos go home with one
> > of the club members. *Yes, we've kept the *cockpit original for
> > realism and old time's sake. *No, of course I can't show you how the
> > servos hook up, that's proprietary to the guy that built them. *No,
> > absolutely we won't show you, this isn't a a civil aircraft any
> > longer, it's just a model. *No, my lawyer says we don't have to... you
> > don't have jurisdiction over models."
>
> > :-)
>
> > T8
>
> Hmmmmm!
> Does the FAA have jurisdiction over UAVs or is it DOD?

Civil UAV, FAA has jurisdiction, an airworthy certificate, redundant
controls are currently required.
An RC private modeler? The AMA has recommend guidelines, that the FAA
accepts.
And FAA or I should say Homeland Security, still grounds RC models
with TFRs.

T

On May 3, 6:16*am, wrote:
> Our club (NJ - USA) has folded and we still have an L-13 taking up space. Before I call the local scrap yard I thought I'd ask if anyone might be interested in buying it at scrap value with the dreams of getting airworthy again. We also have an open trailer for it that will be available separately if the bird goes to the junk yard. mikefaddenathotmail.com.

Offer it to the airport to mount on a stick for a wind sock.
(tetrahedron)

On May 3, 10:24*pm, T > wrote:
> On May 3, 6:16*am, wrote:
>
> > Our club (NJ - USA) has folded and we still have an L-13 taking up space. Before I call the local scrap yard I thought I'd ask if anyone might be interested in buying it at scrap value with the dreams of getting airworthy again. We also have an open trailer for it that will be available separately if the bird goes to the junk yard. mikefaddenathotmail.com.
>
> Offer it to the airport to mount on a stick for a wind sock.
> (tetrahedron)

See how many you can fit into a container and then ship them to
Australia?

On Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:33:42 AM UTC-6, soartech wrote:
> Open up the wing, wrap the spar with Kevlar and carbon fiber/epoxy and
> carbon rod top and bottom.
> Lots of info on this at many web sites. Reassemble the wing. Do a 10G
> sandbag test.
> Document everything and ask for an experimental certificate from your
> local FAA.
> Or call it an L-13plus and go fly.

I think an easier major modification towards an experimental certificate might be struts (which I suggested to MM long ago and was also suggest by some gent in Brazil).

It actually might look okay with struts;^)

On May 3, 9:25*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:33:42 AM UTC-6, soartech wrote:
> > Open up the wing, wrap the spar with Kevlar and carbon fiber/epoxy and
> > carbon rod top and bottom.
> > Lots of info on this at many web sites. Reassemble the wing. Do a 10G
> > sandbag test.
> > Document everything and ask for an experimental certificate from your
> > local FAA.
> > Or call it an L-13plus and go fly.
>
> I think an easier major modification towards an experimental certificate might be struts (which I suggested to MM long ago and was also suggest by some gent in Brazil).
>
> It actually might look okay with struts;^)

I think someone else said the FAA isn't going to allow an 'end run'
around the AD by converting it to an Experimental Airworthiness
Certificate - even with struts slapped on.

On Thursday, May 3, 2012 9:34:28 PM UTC-6, Bill D wrote:
> On May 3, 9:25*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:33:42 AM UTC-6, soartech wrote:
> > > Open up the wing, wrap the spar with Kevlar and carbon fiber/epoxy and
> > > carbon rod top and bottom.
> > > Lots of info on this at many web sites. Reassemble the wing. Do a 10G
> > > sandbag test.
> > > Document everything and ask for an experimental certificate from your
> > > local FAA.
> > > Or call it an L-13plus and go fly.
> >
> > I think an easier major modification towards an experimental certificate might be struts (which I suggested to MM long ago and was also suggest by some gent in Brazil).
> >
> > It actually might look okay with struts;^)
>
> I think someone else said the FAA isn't going to allow an 'end run'
> around the AD by converting it to an Experimental Airworthiness
> Certificate - even with struts slapped on.

Probably not, but there are provisions for taking certified aircraft to experimental following major modifications. Auto engine conversions come to mind.

Note that there were serial changes to the L-13 wing construction as the L-13 A1. Additionally some L-13's were modified to that standard. The design change was continued into the L-23. L-13 A1's and suitably modified L-13's were returned to service with new life limits up to 5,000 hours. See the EASA section of http://sites.google.com/site/blanikspar/ The AD issued 11 July 2011 superseded the previous four AD's. The Revision 1 of the STC on 28 Feb 2012 extended the life of the L-13s modified by the STC to 5,000 hours. It requires a hands on inspection to determine an L-13A1 or partially or fully modified L-13. Would be interesting to know how many are back on flight status in EASA countries and if any other countries have followed EASA's lead.

Frank Whiteley

> See how many you can fit into a container and then ship them to
> Australia?

That depends on powerful your compactor is and how small a cube of aluminum it can produce ;-)
If you melt them down first, 292kg of Al would be cube of only .108m^3 so I would say volume-wise, you could easily fit all 300 of them in one standard 20' container which has a volume of 1360cuft. The weight (87.6t) however may be more than what they allow to put into one box.

I know, that sounds heartless - I loved our Blechnik - until it's wing came off. It is a 50 year old design - R.I.P(ieces).

Uli

On May 3, 9:56*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2012 9:34:28 PM UTC-6, Bill D wrote:
> > On May 3, 9:25*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:33:42 AM UTC-6, soartech wrote:
> > > > Open up the wing, wrap the spar with Kevlar and carbon fiber/epoxy and
> > > > carbon rod top and bottom.
> > > > Lots of info on this at many web sites. Reassemble the wing. Do a 10G
> > > > sandbag test.
> > > > Document everything and ask for an experimental certificate from your
> > > > local FAA.
> > > > Or call it an L-13plus and go fly.
>
> > > I think an easier major modification towards an experimental certificate might be struts (which I suggested to MM long ago and was also suggest by some gent in Brazil).
>
> > > It actually might look okay with struts;^)
>
> > I think someone else said the FAA isn't going to allow an 'end run'
> > around the AD by converting it to an Experimental Airworthiness
> > Certificate - even with struts slapped on.
>
> Probably not, but there are provisions for taking certified aircraft to experimental following major modifications. *Auto engine conversions come to mind.
>

These aren't Experimental Homebuilt or Experimental Racing &
Exhibition - they're Experimental Engineering Test. Don't expect to
use one for flight instruction. I don't think this is a realistic
option.

The Aircraft Design And Certification modification is applicable in
Canada (I'm surprised that it's not approved in the U.S. yet as
usually a method approved by the agency which controls the original
type approval for compliance with an A.D. issued by the same agency is
accepted by other governments as a matter of course) but so far as I
have been able to determine no one has had it done. Possibly if you
had an L-13 with no more than 2000 hours and which was otherwise in
very good shape and well equipped it might be worth doing. In Canada
the factory life limits and life limit extensions were applied as an
A.D. so my club sold it's last two L-13's several years ago for around
$4000 with trailers when they reached 4250 hours. At that point it
seemed that the cost and work involved in pursuing one last extension
wasn't really worth it. It hurt to sell them but we had been
depreciating them based on zero residual value at 3750 hours so at
least we were ready for it.

ASM > wrote:

>On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:16:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>> Our club (NJ - USA) has folded and we still have an L-13 taking up space. Before I call the local scrap yard I thought I'd ask if anyone might be interested in buying it at scrap value with the dreams of getting airworthy again. We also have an open trailer for it that will be available separately if the bird goes to the junk yard. mikefaddenathotmail.com.
>
>Possibility: http://soaringcafe.com/2012/04/world-class-sailplanes-dead/

The lack of funds in the US soaring movement, compared to UK, always
surprises me. Admittedly I live in the circuit of one of the UK's
largest clubs, where ASK21s are the standard training ship and a Duo
Discus is used for advanced tuition, but I doubt there are many clubs
using anything less than an ASK13.
I owned a share in an L13 many years ago. Fine for local soaring and
no doubt good for basic training, but its performance fell way behind
that of an ASK13, and possibly even the ASK7.
If you really need a cheap trainer, especially if you value struts
like the 2-33, how about a Slingsby T21 ? They are virtually giving
them away here.

On May 4, 5:44*am, Gilbert Smith > wrote:
> ASM > wrote:
> >On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:16:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> >> Our club (NJ - USA) has folded and we still have an L-13 taking up space. Before I call the local scrap yard I thought I'd ask if anyone might be interested in buying it at scrap value with the dreams of getting airworthy again. We also have an open trailer for it that will be available separately if the bird goes to the junk yard. mikefaddenathotmail.com.
>
> >Possibility:http://soaringcafe.com/2012/04/world-class-sailplanes-dead/
>
> The lack of funds in the US soaring movement, compared to UK, always
> surprises me.

Actually, there's no lack of funds but there is a widespread lack of
understanding of the effects of inflation. If 1960's prices for
gliders are inflated into today's funds, the prices are seen to be
about the same - but today, you get a much better glider for those
funds.

To someone who remembers spending less than $10,000 for a new trainer
in the 1960's, $115,000 seems like a lot of money when, in fact, the
two prices represent about the same value.

"Bill D" > wrote in message
...

The L-13 wasn't grounded because of some bureaucratic bungling. There
are very real and serious structural problems with the wing. These
problems require an engineering solution proven to be safe. The L-13
has a standard airworthiness certificate and any fix must completely
restore the aircraft to that standard. Simply splicing in some more
metal and hope it works isn't an option. That's what you get with a
standard airworthiness certificate.

Not completely correct. ...yes "A" Blanik failed but it was also a poorly
documented glider with a questionable record and questionable condition and
being flown likely outside the limitations when came apart during some form
of aerobatic flight. The Blaniks had several overhaul inspections at
intervals to extend the life limits at each occasion based on the overhaul
done at that time.I know few Blaniks here ever got these overhauls done and
clubs and operators in the USA do have very poor record keeping not just on
Blaniks but on all other types as well. and most owners had Blaniks because
they assumed being metal they could be tied out (bad idea for any glider or
airplane IMHO) but there should be a reasonable inspection for well
documented Blaniks that would allow them to be operated safely even if they
limited the use to non-aerobatic as it is my understanding unless I am
completely wrong they can be operated in the Czech Republic having passed
this inspection. A reasonably good inspection conducted by an A&I (who has
proven to the FAA that he knows already what he's doing to get his
certificate) should be sufficient...
What we have done is effectively put most clubs and operators in a fix and
not the Blaniks that make up the largest training glider fleet . Now to
operate a club we go back into the past and drum up more 222's, 233's K7's
and Berfalkes that no one wanted 2 years ago and sell them for gold....and
if anyone thinks these don't have a greater risk of failing than many of the
"well cared for" Blaniks they probably need to more inspecting of these
gliders before they sign them off the next time too.
tim

On May 4, 3:03*pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> "Bill D" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> The L-13 wasn't grounded because of some bureaucratic bungling. *There
> are very real and serious structural problems with the wing. *These
> problems require an engineering solution proven to be safe. *The L-13
> has a standard airworthiness certificate and any fix must completely
> restore the aircraft to that standard. *Simply splicing in some more
> metal and hope it works isn't an option. *That's what you get with a
> standard airworthiness certificate.
>
> Not completely correct. ...yes "A" Blanik failed but it was also a poorly
> documented glider with a questionable record and questionable condition and
> being flown likely outside the limitations when came apart during some form
> of aerobatic flight. The Blaniks had several overhaul inspections at
> intervals to extend the life limits at each occasion based on the overhaul
> done at that time.I know few Blaniks here ever got these overhauls done and
> clubs and operators in the USA do have very poor record keeping not just on
> Blaniks but on all other types as well. and most owners had Blaniks because
> they assumed being metal they could be tied out (bad idea for any glider or
> airplane IMHO) but there should be a reasonable inspection for well
> documented Blaniks that would allow them to be operated safely even if they
> limited the use to non-aerobatic as it is my understanding unless I am
> completely wrong they can be operated in the Czech Republic having passed
> this inspection. A reasonably good inspection conducted by an A&I (who has
> proven to the FAA that he knows already what he's doing to get his
> certificate) should be sufficient...
> What we have done is effectively put most clubs and operators in a fix and
> not the Blaniks that make up the largest training glider fleet . Now to
> operate a club we go back into the past and drum up more 222's, *233's K7's
> and Berfalkes that no one wanted 2 years ago and sell them for gold....and
> if anyone thinks these don't have a greater risk of failing than many of the
> "well cared for" Blaniks they probably need to more inspecting of these
> gliders before they sign them off the next time too.
> tim

Could you provide some references on the condition of the failed
glider, Tim?

My understanding was it was a fairly low time glider with good records
showing it had all the required overhaul/inspections which is why the
accident was treated so seriously by EASA.

"I owned a share in an L13 many years ago. Fine for local soaring and
no doubt good for basic training, but its performance fell way behind
that of an ASK13, and possibly even the ASK7"

Huh? The book polars for both the ASK-13 and L-13 are nearly
identical. Does that mean that one of them is incorrect? Given that
the Johnson tests of the L-23 and L-33 were very close to the book
polars I would think that the L-13 factory data would be fairly
accurate too. Does that mean that the Schleicher book polar
significantly understates the performance of the ASK-13?

I also note that the DAeC handicap used by the OLC is 79 for the
ASK-13 and 78 for the L-13, short wing L-23 and Ka-7.