BLANIK L-13 AD Status

[Tim Hanke]

Current Status of the Blanik L-13 SPAR AD Grounding?

Does anyone know what the current status of the Blanik L-13 Eddy
Current testing procedure is? Has the University of Prague developed
this procedure for LET’s review?

It is my understanding the clubs of the Czech Republic have been
flying the L-13’s by claiming hardship to the Czech Federal
Government. This doesn’t help the situation, as there is no pressure
being applied against the LET Factory.

Thanks for any information you may be able to provide.

Tim Hanke
Adirondack Soaring Group, Inc.
Saratoga Springs, NY USA

[Bob Kuykendall]

[subject edited to address wider concerns]

I wouldn't hold my breath on any kind of satisfactory resolution to
this. My sense is that the Blanik was designed for an operational
environment where it was expected to be crashed before approaching the
end of its 3000 hour lifetime. Absent the Soviet-era air defense
infrastructure that needed them as introductory trainers, and was also
desperate for Western cash, there's no hope of seeing any more at
affordable prices.

About the best we could do is resolve not to buy any LET or Blanik
products on the general principle that they do not support their old
products, so we cannot expect them to support new ones. Unfortunately,
LET seems to have so little connection to the earlier company that
actually built all those two-seaters that they couldn't really care
less about them. In fact, in today's risk-averse aviation environment,
it is probably in their best interest to sweep as many of them out of
the sky as it can. Furthermore, most of us already don't buy LET
products, and it seems to have had little effect on the situation.

The situation begs the wider questions, where do we get new glider
pilots if trainers become so scarce and expensive? If we let the cost
of soaring instruction rise with the burdened price of training
gliders, who will want to even start? Do we let the commercial,
consumerist, invisible hand of the marketplace sweep our sport from
the sky? Or is there some legitimate way to subvert the laws of supply
and demand?

Thanks, Bob K.

[Mike[_28_]]

This is strictly second hand info but I know someone who was told by a
non-destructive test engineer that, even if they approve some sort of
eddy current test, it would likely cost several thousand (I think the
number was "5" but I'm not sure) to do the test. The cost was
attributed to the type of machine necessary to do the test. From what
I understand, the location of potential cracks is buried deep inside
the wing and normal equipment can't do it. On top of that it would
likely be a recurring AD. This particular engineer, citing liability
concerns, said he wouldn't do the test even if he had the equipment
and could get the price. We were offered $5000 for ours before the AD
came out and we were a little insulted by the offer.

[Tim Hanke]

On Feb 3, 9:19*am, Tim Hanke > wrote:
> Current Status of the Blanik L-13 SPAR AD Grounding?
>
> Does anyone know what the current status of the Blanik L-13 Eddy
> Current testing procedure is? Has the University of Prague developed
> this procedure for LET’s review?
>
> It is my understanding the clubs of *the Czech Republic have been
> flying the L-13’s by claiming hardship to the Czech Federal
> Government. This doesn’t help the situation, as there is no pressure
> being applied against the LET Factory.
>
> Thanks for any information you may be able to provide.
>
> Tim Hanke
> Adirondack Soaring Group, Inc.
> Saratoga Springs, NY USA

[Tim Taylor]

On Feb 3, 2:30*pm, Tim Hanke > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 9:19*am, Tim Hanke > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Current Status of the Blanik L-13 SPAR AD Grounding?
>
> > Does anyone know what the current status of the Blanik L-13 Eddy
> > Current testing procedure is? Has the University of Prague developed
> > this procedure for LET’s review?
>
> > It is my understanding the clubs of *the Czech Republic have been
> > flying the L-13’s by claiming hardship to the Czech Federal
> > Government. This doesn’t help the situation, as there is no pressure
> > being applied against the LET Factory.
>
> > Thanks for any information you may be able to provide.
>
> > Tim Hanke
> > Adirondack Soaring Group, Inc.
> > Saratoga Springs, NY USA

Tim,

Never say "Thanks for any information you may be able to provide" on
this forum. Ask for factual information otherwise you get all the
"sky is falling" and "I heard from a friend of a friend" reports that
add nothing to the conversation.

I would suggest calling or e-mailing the SSA government liaison, the
FAA representative in charge of the AD and daily calling the US
representative of Blaink until we get additional details such as the
proposed inspection plan, the current status of the testing and a
tentative date of when the testing will be done.

I would guess we may need to form a group or several groups to
purchase the correct probe and then send them to those that need it to
help reduce the cost of inspection.

[Ken Latam]

There are enuff Home Builder's out there, what is stopping us from reverse
enginering the wing and doing a wood spar and built up rib's. By using all
the factory fitting's and linkage's,it should not be that much heart
ache.

Ken

[Bruce Hoult]

On Feb 4, 5:57*am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> The situation begs the wider questions, where do we get new glider
> pilots if trainers become so scarce and expensive? If we let the cost
> of soaring instruction rise with the burdened price of training
> gliders, who will want to even start?

I don't think that's a big problem. Most people seem to get solo by
about 40 flights and 10 hours of air time. At our current club rates,
that's about NZ$2500 (US$2000) for tows and NZ$600 (US$450) for hire
of a DG1000 at casual rates [1]. A glider that we could hire out for
half the hourly rate would save less than 10% of the total (and I
didn't even include club membership fees, logbook and other training
material, landing fees).

The equation changes if you're using a winch for training but 1) US
clubs don't use winches, and 2) the Blanik was never the trainer of
choice for a winch operation.

[1] in fact you'd pay less via one or other bulk-buy scheme: either
the "prepay to solo" scheme, or the NZ$900/year "all you can eat
scheme".

[GM]

On Feb 3, 10:18*pm, Bruce Hoult > wrote:
>
>

>>> The equation changes if you're using a winch for training but 1) US
clubs don't use winches, and 2) the Blanik was never the trainer of
choice for a winch operation. <<<


1) not quite true: winching is regaining some popularity in the US and
there are currently around 35 winches in operation used mainly for
primary training.
2) not quite true: pretty much all L-13 I have seen in operation in
Europe were used primarily in winch operations with the Y-bridle.

U. Neumann

[GM]

On Feb 3, 7:36*pm, Ken Latam > wrote:
> There are enuff Home Builder's out there, what is stopping us from reverse
> enginering the wing and doing a wood spar and built up rib's. By using all
> the factory fitting's and linkage's,it should not be that much heart
> ache. *
>
> Ken

I like that idea! Form a Blanik interest group to pool some cash.
Build a simplified wing without the complex Fowler-flaps and an
updated airfoil. How about a composite wing to get over that metal
fatigue issue? That would breath new life into the old bird.

U. Neumann

[Marc]

On Feb 3, 8:57*am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> The situation begs the wider questions, where do we get new glider
> pilots if trainers become so scarce and expensive? If we let the cost
> of soaring instruction rise with the burdened price of training
> gliders, who will want to even start? Do we let the commercial,
> consumerist, invisible hand of the marketplace sweep our sport from
> the sky? Or is there some legitimate way to subvert the laws of supply
> and demand?

www.retroplane.net/forum/download.php?id=496

What if they had based the design on the K13, rather than the K18?
I've spent the last 5 years designing a low cost winch (yes, I'm slow,
but I'm almost ready to cut metal, really), and am acutely aware of
the fact that there aren't a lot of decent low cost training gliders
left to go along with our winch...

Marc

[Marc]

On Feb 4, 12:29*am, Marc > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:57*am, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
>
> > The situation begs the wider questions, where do we get new glider
> > pilots if trainers become so scarce and expensive? If we let the cost
> > of soaring instruction rise with the burdened price of training
> > gliders, who will want to even start? Do we let the commercial,
> > consumerist, invisible hand of the marketplace sweep our sport from
> > the sky? Or is there some legitimate way to subvert the laws of supply
> > and demand?
>
> www.retroplane.net/forum/download.php?id=496
>
> What if they had based the design on the K13, rather than the K18?
> I've spent the last 5 years designing a low cost winch (yes, I'm slow,
> but I'm almost ready to cut metal, really), and am acutely aware of
> the fact that there aren't a lot of decent low cost training gliders
> left to go along with our winch...
>
> Marc

Hmm,

I hate posting via Google, I can't make links work anymore. That was
a link to an article on the Edgeley EA9 Optimist glider, a K18 clone
with 80% of the components laser cut from pre-cured Fibrelam honeycomb
sheets. Try again:

http://tinyurl.com/45kd3ah

Marc

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 08:38 04 February 2011, Marc wrote:
>On Feb 4, 12:29=A0am, Marc wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 8:57=A0am, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>>
>> > The situation begs the wider questions, where do we get new glider
>> > pilots if trainers become so scarce and expensive? If we let the
cost
>> > of soaring instruction rise with the burdened price of training
>> > gliders, who will want to even start? Do we let the commercial,
>> > consumerist, invisible hand of the marketplace sweep our sport from
>> > the sky? Or is there some legitimate way to subvert the laws of
supply
>> > and demand?
>>
>> www.retroplane.net/forum/download.php?id=3D496
>>
>> What if they had based the design on the K13, rather than the K18?
>> I've spent the last 5 years designing a low cost winch (yes, I'm
slow,
>> but I'm almost ready to cut metal, really), and am acutely aware of
>> the fact that there aren't a lot of decent low cost training gliders
>> left to go along with our winch...
>>
>> Marc
>
>Hmm,
>
>I hate posting via Google, I can't make links work anymore. That was
>a link to an article on the Edgeley EA9 Optimist glider, a K18 clone
>with 80% of the components laser cut from pre-cured Fibrelam honeycomb
>sheets. Try again:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/45kd3ah
>
>Marc

Edgeley did have a two seater on the drawing board - Edgeley EA10 - was
going to be produced for the Faulkes Flying Foundation.
However don't think marketing was his strong point -hence no sales on
the EA9, and no development of the EA10.

[Tim Hanke]

On Feb 3, 9:19*am, Tim Hanke > wrote:
> Current Status of the Blanik L-13 SPAR AD Grounding?
>
> Does anyone know what the current status of the Blanik L-13 Eddy
> Current testing procedure is? Has the University of Prague developed
> this procedure for LET’s review?
>
> It is my understanding the clubs of *the Czech Republic have been
> flying the L-13’s by claiming hardship to the Czech Federal
> Government. This doesn’t help the situation, as there is no pressure
> being applied against the LET Factory.
>
> Thanks for any information you may be able to provide.
>
> Tim Hanke
> Adirondack Soaring Group, Inc.
> Saratoga Springs, NY USA

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 3, 11:08*pm, GM > wrote:

> 2) not quite true: pretty much all L-13 I have seen in operation in
> Europe were used primarily in winch operations with the Y-bridle.


All my USA winch launches in the L-13 also used the bridle. It works
well but is a bit more tricky to hook up that a more common Tost CG
hook. There was nothing I was aware of about the characteristics of
the L-13 on a bridle that made it unsuitable for winch training.

Andy

[Andrew Corrigan]

At 12:39 04 February 2011, Tim Hanke wrote:
>On Feb 3, 9:19=A0am, Tim Hanke wrote:
>> Current Status of the Blanik L-13 SPAR AD Grounding?
>>
>> Does anyone know what the current status of the Blanik L-13 Eddy
>> Current testing procedure is? Has the University of Prague developed
>> this procedure for LET=92s review?
>>
>> It is my understanding the clubs of =A0the Czech Republic have been
>> flying the L-13=92s by claiming hardship to the Czech Federal
>> Government. This doesn=92t help the situation, as there is no pressure
>> being applied against the LET Factory.
>>
>> Thanks for any information you may be able to provide.
>>
>> Tim Hanke
>> Adirondack Soaring Group, Inc.
>> Saratoga Springs, NY USA
>
>

Tim,

To answer your question "No I don't know what LET is doing."

But, I do know this. If you have a L13 as a trainer, the 2011 training
season is in jeopardy! The reason I say this is the amount of time
between now and the start of the season vs. the duration it will take to
get a clean bill of health for you L13.

The process to get a clean bill of health will involve activities like
this:

-LET completes the prototype testing
-They submit the test method to EASA for approval
-New AD issued
-FAA accepts this AD
-Locate a certified Aviation NDE tech to perform the test
-They manufacture the eddy current probe. (It might be custom)
-Then they perform the test.

If there are no defects found, then you will be able to fly. But, the
process stated above will take a long time and it won't be done by the
begining of the 2011 flying season.

My recommendation to you is that you contact another glider training
organization and make arrangements for your group to temporarily learn
there. This way you won't loose the 2011 season.

Regarding my knowledge with Non Destructive Examination (NDE), the company
I work for builds nuclear power generating equipment. We do a lot of NDE
testing with Eddy Current and Xray. I'm not the NDE expert, but I know
what is involved with developing a prototype Eddy Current system and what
is involved with the execution of the test. I seriously doubt L13's will
be flying at the begining of this coming season.

Good Luck,

Andrew

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 06:17 04 February 2011, GM wrote:
>
>I like that idea! Form a Blanik interest group to pool some cash.
>Build a simplified wing without the complex Fowler-flaps and an
>updated airfoil. How about a composite wing to get over that metal
>fatigue issue? That would breath new life into the old bird.

And while we're at it, why not design and build an improved fuselage with
better visibility and some comfort designed in? Do that, and the Blanik
will be the bird it should have been from the beginning.

Jim Beckman

[Andrew Corrigan]

At 12:39 04 February 2011, Tim Hanke wrote:
>On Feb 3, 9:19=A0am, Tim Hanke wrote:
>> Current Status of the Blanik L-13 SPAR AD Grounding?
>>
>> Does anyone know what the current status of the Blanik L-13 Eddy
>> Current testing procedure is? Has the University of Prague developed
>> this procedure for LET=92s review?
>>
>> It is my understanding the clubs of =A0the Czech Republic have been
>> flying the L-13=92s by claiming hardship to the Czech Federal
>> Government. This doesn=92t help the situation, as there is no pressure
>> being applied against the LET Factory.
>>
>> Thanks for any information you may be able to provide.
>>
>> Tim Hanke
>> Adirondack Soaring Group, Inc.
>> Saratoga Springs, NY USA
>
>

Tim,

To answer your question "No I don't know what LET is doing."

But, I do know this. If you have a L13 as a trainer, the 2011 training
season is in jeopardy! The reason I say this is the amount of time
between now and the start of the season vs. the duration it will take to
get a clean bill of health for you L13.

The process to get a clean bill of health will involve activities like
this:

-LET completes the prototype testing
-They submit the test method to EASA for approval
-New AD issued
-FAA accepts this AD
-Locate a certified Aviation NDE tech to perform the test
-They manufacture the eddy current probe. (It might be custom)
-Then they perform the test.

If there are no defects found, then you will be able to fly. But, the
process stated above will take a long time and it won't be done by the
begining of the 2011 flying season.

My recommendation to you is that you contact another glider training
organization and make arrangements for your group to temporarily learn
there. This way you won't loose the 2011 season.

Regarding my knowledge with Non Destructive Examination (NDE), the company
I work for builds nuclear power generating equipment. We do a lot of NDE
testing with Eddy Current and Xray. I'm not the NDE expert, but I know
what is involved with developing a prototype Eddy Current system and what
is involved with the execution of the test. I seriously doubt L13's will
be flying at the begining of this coming season.

Good Luck,

Andrew

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Feb 3, 4:36*pm, Ken Latam > wrote:

> There are enuff Home Builder's out there, what is stopping us from reverse
> enginering the wing and doing a wood spar and built up rib's. By using all
> the factory fitting's and linkage's,it should not be that much heart
> ache. *

I think that the trouble there is that these days wood offers a
relatively poor value proposition in terms of strength and stiffness
per unit dollar. That is especially true when torsional stiffness is
as important as it is on the Blanik. The forward sweep means that the
structure is closer to divergence than would be an unswept wing.

[Ken Latam]

>I think that the trouble there is that these days wood offers a
>relatively poor value proposition in terms of strength and stiffness
>per unit dollar. That is especially true when torsional stiffness is
>as important as it is on the Blanik. The forward sweep means that the
>structure is closer to divergence than would be an unswept wing.
>

If I were to redo the L-13 wing,first thing would be to remove the forward
sweep and use a strait leading edge with the taper on the trailing edge.
And leave off the wingtip torpedo's,maybe have 45degree winglet's
instead. It will need to go thru the whole certification process anyway so
may as well make change's to simlpify the build.

Ken

[Tony V]

Ken Latam wrote:

> If I were to redo the L-13 wing,first thing would be to remove the forward
> sweep....


The forward sweep is there so that the main spar does not go through the
rear seat - which would annoy the occupant. :-) Losing the forward sweep
would require a redesign of the fuselage.

Tony

[vaughn[_3_]]

"Ken Latam" > wrote in message
...
>
> If I were to redo the L-13 wing,first thing would be to remove the forward
> sweep and use a strait leading edge with the taper on the trailing edge.

Will this new straight wing design have the CL as far forward as the original
forward swept wing? Because otherwise I believe you may need to slide the main
spar carry-through forward into the rear cockpit. Sounds a bit uncomfortable for
the CFIG!

As always, the devil is in the details.

Vaughn

[sisu1a]

> If I were to redo the L-13 wing,first thing would be to remove the
forward
> sweep and use a strait leading edge with the taper on the trailing edge.
> And leave off the wingtip torpedo's,maybe have 45degree winglet's
> instead.

Pretty sure the forward sweep is a C/G thing, useful cockpit load and
all... also takes the place of washout, but the C/G thing is more of
a challenge to design around. Agreed on the topedos though. If someone
made a decent composite wing for the L-13, it really should work well.
Plain flaps instead of complicated/ineffective fowlers, and simple
Horner tips...

-paul

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Feb 6, 8:37*pm, sisu1a > wrote:
> *> If I were to redo the L-13 wing,first thing would be to remove the
> forward
>
> > sweep and use a strait leading edge with the taper on the trailing edge..
> > And leave off the wingtip torpedo's,maybe have 45degree winglet's
> > instead.
>
> Pretty sure the forward sweep is a C/G thing, useful cockpit load and
> all... *also takes the place of washout, but the C/G thing is more of
> a challenge to design around. Agreed on the topedos though. If someone
> made a decent composite wing for the L-13, it really should work well.
> Plain flaps instead of complicated/ineffective fowlers, and simple
> Horner tips...
>
> -paul

Once you've made -- and certified -- a new composite wing to bolt on
to the ungodly uncomfortable cockpit (metal bar right through the
small of the back??) and constantly damaged tailwheel of the L-13, why
not go the whole 9 yards and put a new composite fuselage to go with
it.... and reinvent the ASK21.

Really guys, I've heard some nutty ideas on r.a.s, but this must take
the cake. Don't you think the eddy current test or even rebuilding the
whole darn spar might be a bit cheaper and quicker to certify than
designing and building a whole new wing on which to hang 30 year old
fuselages?

John Cochrane

[Ken Latam]

>Really guys, I've heard some nutty ideas on r.a.s, but this must take
>the cake. Don't you think the eddy current test or even rebuilding the
>whole darn spar might be a bit cheaper and quicker to certify than
>designing and building a whole new wing on which to hang 30 year old
>fuselages?
>
>John Cochrane
>

Mabe you can convince Schweizer to release a new ship called the 2-35 to
go with the single seat 1-35.

Ken

[BruceGreeff]

If sanity prevailed John, this would not be R.A.S.

L13 was a great asset. Because it was REALLY cheap for what it was. I
regret that is likely to be a thing of the past now. Even if they get
them flying again the inspections will push the cost up substantially.

So I think we have to get past the denial and accept that the training
fleet just lost a LOT of primary trainers around the world. No matter
how low performance, or relatively uncomfortable - the L13 has been a
valuable part of the soaring fleet offering cheap, relatively robust
training at very low cost.

Problem is - what else is available that makes a good primary trainer?

The Twin Astir is getting old, K13 is a better ab-initio trainer, but
even older - and both are out of production for decades...

K21 is similar performance, docile to a fault and very expensive.
DuoDiscus is magnificent, but hardly an ab-initio.

LAK20 might be interesting, otherwise you are left with the DG1000 club
or PW6...

Looks like there is a big investment period going to be required. Where
the money comes from will be left as an exercise for the economist. All
of the above are going to cost $100K-$170k ex factory.

So - My "little club" is hoping to find an affordable Grob. (But there
are only 12 members, and few have pennies to spare.) the Grob 103 is a
disaster to derig and trailer, but the L13 was as bad if not worse. The
big club is congratulating itself on selling their L13 a couple of years
ago, but the three G103s are nearly 30 years old...

So - I can understand the desperation, but building new wings for the
Blanik is on the far side of credible as a solution.

As an aside - we only ever had to retrieve the Blanik once in the last
ten years. Landed 800m short of the runway, on the other side of the
stream. Took 5 hours to retrieve...

Cheers
Bruce ;-)

On 2011/02/07 5:04 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, > wrote:
>> > If I were to redo the L-13 wing,first thing would be to remove the
>> forward
>>
>>> sweep and use a strait leading edge with the taper on the trailing edge.
>>> And leave off the wingtip torpedo's,maybe have 45degree winglet's
>>> instead.
>>
>> Pretty sure the forward sweep is a C/G thing, useful cockpit load and
>> all... also takes the place of washout, but the C/G thing is more of
>> a challenge to design around. Agreed on the topedos though. If someone
>> made a decent composite wing for the L-13, it really should work well.
>> Plain flaps instead of complicated/ineffective fowlers, and simple
>> Horner tips...
>>
>> -paul
>
> Once you've made -- and certified -- a new composite wing to bolt on
> to the ungodly uncomfortable cockpit (metal bar right through the
> small of the back??) and constantly damaged tailwheel of the L-13, why
> not go the whole 9 yards and put a new composite fuselage to go with
> it.... and reinvent the ASK21.
>
> Really guys, I've heard some nutty ideas on r.a.s, but this must take
> the cake. Don't you think the eddy current test or even rebuilding the
> whole darn spar might be a bit cheaper and quicker to certify than
> designing and building a whole new wing on which to hang 30 year old
> fuselages?
>
> John Cochrane

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

[Mike Schumann]

On 2/7/2011 9:12 AM, BruceGreeff wrote:
> If sanity prevailed John, this would not be R.A.S.
>
> L13 was a great asset. Because it was REALLY cheap for what it was. I
> regret that is likely to be a thing of the past now. Even if they get
> them flying again the inspections will push the cost up substantially.
>
> So I think we have to get past the denial and accept that the training
> fleet just lost a LOT of primary trainers around the world. No matter
> how low performance, or relatively uncomfortable - the L13 has been a
> valuable part of the soaring fleet offering cheap, relatively robust
> training at very low cost.
>
> Problem is - what else is available that makes a good primary trainer?
>
> The Twin Astir is getting old, K13 is a better ab-initio trainer, but
> even older - and both are out of production for decades...
>
> K21 is similar performance, docile to a fault and very expensive.
> DuoDiscus is magnificent, but hardly an ab-initio.
>
> LAK20 might be interesting, otherwise you are left with the DG1000 club
> or PW6...
>
> Looks like there is a big investment period going to be required. Where
> the money comes from will be left as an exercise for the economist. All
> of the above are going to cost $100K-$170k ex factory.
>
> So - My "little club" is hoping to find an affordable Grob. (But there
> are only 12 members, and few have pennies to spare.) the Grob 103 is a
> disaster to derig and trailer, but the L13 was as bad if not worse. The
> big club is congratulating itself on selling their L13 a couple of years
> ago, but the three G103s are nearly 30 years old...
>
> So - I can understand the desperation, but building new wings for the
> Blanik is on the far side of credible as a solution.
>
> As an aside - we only ever had to retrieve the Blanik once in the last
> ten years. Landed 800m short of the runway, on the other side of the
> stream. Took 5 hours to retrieve...
>
> Cheers
> Bruce ;-)
>
> On 2011/02/07 5:04 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, > wrote:
>>> > If I were to redo the L-13 wing,first thing would be to remove the
>>> forward
>>>
>>>> sweep and use a strait leading edge with the taper on the trailing
>>>> edge.
>>>> And leave off the wingtip torpedo's,maybe have 45degree winglet's
>>>> instead.
>>>
>>> Pretty sure the forward sweep is a C/G thing, useful cockpit load and
>>> all... also takes the place of washout, but the C/G thing is more of
>>> a challenge to design around. Agreed on the topedos though. If someone
>>> made a decent composite wing for the L-13, it really should work well.
>>> Plain flaps instead of complicated/ineffective fowlers, and simple
>>> Horner tips...
>>>
>>> -paul
>>
>> Once you've made -- and certified -- a new composite wing to bolt on
>> to the ungodly uncomfortable cockpit (metal bar right through the
>> small of the back??) and constantly damaged tailwheel of the L-13, why
>> not go the whole 9 yards and put a new composite fuselage to go with
>> it.... and reinvent the ASK21.
>>
>> Really guys, I've heard some nutty ideas on r.a.s, but this must take
>> the cake. Don't you think the eddy current test or even rebuilding the
>> whole darn spar might be a bit cheaper and quicker to certify than
>> designing and building a whole new wing on which to hang 30 year old
>> fuselages?
>>
>> John Cochrane
>

Maybe what is needed is a two place glider home-built kit that clubs
could build. Is there any chance we could get Dick VanGrunsven
interested in this? He's a glider enthusiast.

--
Mike Schumann

[Frank Whiteley]

>
> Maybe what is needed is a two place glider home-built kit that clubs
> could build. *Is there any chance we could get Dick VanGrunsven
> interested in this? *He's a glider enthusiast.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

The Peregrine project has failed to date. Although they had PMA
privileges, they failed to get manufacturing certification. This
requires building three under FAA inspection. Unfortunately, this
means if the FAA balks at something, they leave and you have to wait
for their next visit. Because of funding, FAA will visit at most
three times in a year. The problem is that it could take a year, two,
or three to complete. If you run out of money or lose your lease, you
have to start over. PMA is for a particular facility as set up. You
can't simply move to another location as I understand it. Owning the
TC is only a starting point.

Part of the problem was that the TC utilized Polish aluminum and
Russian steel. Though they agreed, materials substitution required
significant and expensive engineering changes.

More recently, commercial money has not been available. Would it
make sense to substitute equivalent, locally available, materials and
submit a 'new design' for LSA certification? An LSA glider can be
used to train for the full certificate. Not useful as a ride glider,
but clubs could certainly make use of such a glider for training.
They might then also revive their initial project, a different design,
as a TC'd design.

When the tooling was put into storage, the assembly line could turn
out one glider per week, once workers were trained.

Just thinking outside the box,

Frank Whiteley

[Tim Mara]

The New HpH Twn Shark is coming.....Last week I spoke to HpH and they
already have deposits for 10 of these gliders.and it's not expected to be
available until probably 2012......but at under 80,000 EU a ready to fly
40/1 17.5M "club" glider with flaps and retract is going to be a hard one to
beat!
http://www.hph.cz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=129&Itemid=114&lang=en
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com



"Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
...

>
> Maybe what is needed is a two place glider home-built kit that clubs
> could build. Is there any chance we could get Dick VanGrunsven
> interested in this? He's a glider enthusiast.
>
> --
> Mike Schumann

The Peregrine project has failed to date. Although they had PMA
privileges, they failed to get manufacturing certification. This
requires building three under FAA inspection. Unfortunately, this
means if the FAA balks at something, they leave and you have to wait
for their next visit. Because of funding, FAA will visit at most
three times in a year. The problem is that it could take a year, two,
or three to complete. If you run out of money or lose your lease, you
have to start over. PMA is for a particular facility as set up. You
can't simply move to another location as I understand it. Owning the
TC is only a starting point.

Part of the problem was that the TC utilized Polish aluminum and
Russian steel. Though they agreed, materials substitution required
significant and expensive engineering changes.

More recently, commercial money has not been available. Would it
make sense to substitute equivalent, locally available, materials and
submit a 'new design' for LSA certification? An LSA glider can be
used to train for the full certificate. Not useful as a ride glider,
but clubs could certainly make use of such a glider for training.
They might then also revive their initial project, a different design,
as a TC'd design.

When the tooling was put into storage, the assembly line could turn
out one glider per week, once workers were trained.

Just thinking outside the box,

Frank Whiteley

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5857 (20110208) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5857 (20110208) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 8, 12:10*pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> The New HpH Twn Shark is coming..

Maybe, but the URL provided seems to be to a restricted access site
requiring a login. Is there another URL for details of the TS?

Andy

[Tim Mara]

the pages for the HpH Twin Shark sailplanes are on

the URL is
http://www.hph.cz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=129%3A304ts&Itemid=114&lang=en
on that page you should see
a.. 304TS
a.. 304TS

try clicking on the second link.......I don't know why the first page has a
user password required but I'm sure if you wmail HpH you'll give you one to
get on that page

the page is in Czech Langauge also but you can get the jest of it with any
free translation websites also...translations aren't word for word but good
nuff! try
http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=Czech&to=English
tim

--
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com


"Andy" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 8, 12:10 pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> The New HpH Twn Shark is coming..

Maybe, but the URL provided seems to be to a restricted access site
requiring a login. Is there another URL for details of the TS?

Andy

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 5857 (20110208) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com





__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5857 (20110208) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Ventus_a]

If sanity prevailed John, this would not be R.A.S.

L13 was a great asset. Because it was REALLY cheap for what it was. I
regret that is likely to be a thing of the past now. Even if they get
them flying again the inspections will push the cost up substantially.

So I think we have to get past the denial and accept that the training
fleet just lost a LOT of primary trainers around the world. No matter
how low performance, or relatively uncomfortable - the L13 has been a
valuable part of the soaring fleet offering cheap, relatively robust
training at very low cost.

Problem is - what else is available that makes a good primary trainer?

The Twin Astir is getting old, K13 is a better ab-initio trainer, but
even older - and both are out of production for decades...

K21 is similar performance, docile to a fault and very expensive.
DuoDiscus is magnificent, but hardly an ab-initio.

LAK20 might be interesting, otherwise you are left with the DG1000 club
or PW6...

Looks like there is a big investment period going to be required. Where
the money comes from will be left as an exercise for the economist. All
of the above are going to cost $100K-$170k ex factory.

So - My "little club" is hoping to find an affordable Grob. (But there
are only 12 members, and few have pennies to spare.) the Grob 103 is a
disaster to derig and trailer, but the L13 was as bad if not worse. The
big club is congratulating itself on selling their L13 a couple of years
ago, but the three G103s are nearly 30 years old...

So - I can understand the desperation, but building new wings for the
Blanik is on the far side of credible as a solution.

As an aside - we only ever had to retrieve the Blanik once in the last
ten years. Landed 800m short of the runway, on the other side of the
stream. Took 5 hours to retrieve...

Cheers
Bruce ;-)

On 2011/02/07 5:04 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
On Feb 6, 8:37 pm, wrote:
If I were to redo the L-13 wing,first thing would be to remove the
forward

sweep and use a strait leading edge with the taper on the trailing edge.
And leave off the wingtip torpedo's,maybe have 45degree winglet's
instead.

Pretty sure the forward sweep is a C/G thing, useful cockpit load and
all... also takes the place of washout, but the C/G thing is more of
a challenge to design around. Agreed on the topedos though. If someone
made a decent composite wing for the L-13, it really should work well.
Plain flaps instead of complicated/ineffective fowlers, and simple
Horner tips...

-paul

Once you've made -- and certified -- a new composite wing to bolt on
to the ungodly uncomfortable cockpit (metal bar right through the
small of the back??) and constantly damaged tailwheel of the L-13, why
not go the whole 9 yards and put a new composite fuselage to go with
it.... and reinvent the ASK21.

Really guys, I've heard some nutty ideas on r.a.s, but this must take
the cake. Don't you think the eddy current test or even rebuilding the
whole darn spar might be a bit cheaper and quicker to certify than
designing and building a whole new wing on which to hang 30 year old
fuselages?

John Cochrane

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

Talking of landouts close to home with trainers, a couple of years ago in Auckland, New Zealand we had a Krosno KR 03 land across the road from the strip. It was from a winch cable break and the instructor waited for the student to make a decision about straight ahead or an abbreviated circuit. Oops. . .too much time deciding so into the field straight ahead. The retrieve was easy. They dropped the fence in the field, took the winch back down the runway some and launched the glider back onto the airfield LOL. Wish I'd been there on the day to see that one

Colin

[Tony V]

Ventus_a wrote:


> Talking of landouts close to home with trainers, a couple of years ago
> in Auckland, New Zealand we had a Krosno KR 03 land across the road from
> the strip. It was from a winch cable break and the instructor waited
> for the student to make a decision about straight ahead or an
> abbreviated circuit. Oops. . .too much time deciding so into the field
> straight ahead. The retrieve was easy. They dropped the fence in the
> field, took the winch back down the runway some and launched the glider
> back onto the airfield LOL. Wish I'd been there on the day to see that


A good lesson. I pulled the rope on a student at 250 AGL when my club
was operating at the Pepperell MA airport. There are a line of trees at
the end of the runway but beyond was a 1500 ft long hay field - which I
walked several times a year. Anyway, the student took a long time to
decide which way to turn and then only banked it 20 degrees or so. I
just kept my mouth shut. By the time he rolled out on the rwy heading he
said "I don't think that we're going to make it". He was right. We
landed in the hay stopping just short of the trees, pulled the glider
back onto the airport property via a connecting dirt road. The Pawnee
pulled up and we took off in the other direction. Sure, I could have
coached him and got him back to the airport, but I think that he learned
a lot more from this experience.

Tony

[YODSoar]

Hello all,

Is there any word on a possible Blanik fix that anyone has heard of
yet?
We were originally hoping to start flying in April but so far the new
'fix' AD that was supposed to come out in early March has not
materialized. As a L-13 is our club's only dual seater, this is a do-
or-fold type problem for us.

Cheers,
Mike - Cold Lake Soaring

[Tim Taylor]

On Mar 22, 9:38*am, YODSoar > wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Is there any word on a possible Blanik fix that anyone has heard of
> yet?
> We were originally hoping to start flying in April but so far the new
> 'fix' AD that was supposed to come out in early March has not
> materialized. As a L-13 is our club's only dual seater, this is a do-
> or-fold type problem for us.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike - Cold Lake Soaring

There are a lot of clubs around the world biting their fingernails
right now and waiting for some type of word.

This is a great example of:

1. How to not treat customers by Aircraft Industries and all the
representatives in each country.

2. A failure of leadership from each countries Soaring Organizations
to take a proactive stance and require weekly updates and details of
the proposed inspection from Aircraft Industries. I have requested
this from the SSA representatives and have found that they view
themselves as helpless.

I think the SSA should have given the authority to a task force or one
individual to directly communicate with Aircraft Industries, FAA and
EASA on a weekly basis to provide updates to all the users impacted by
the AD.

[Ken Latam]

Hi Mike. We were just about to lease the L-13 from the Grand Prairie club
(currently at Cu-Nim) when this nightmare started. After all these months
and no firm results, I personaly bit the bullet and purchased a KA-7,same
as the two that we had at the old LAHR Gliding Club, for our club. It may
not be the better performer of the two, but we are flying as soon as the
import C of A is done. I personaly don't see the L-13 issue being
resolved this year as there are just too many variables and no clear
direction from the powers that be. Your best option as I see it, is to see
if NPF will allow you to lease an aircraft untill your L-13 flying again.

Ken Latam
President
Southern Alberta Gliding Club

[[email protected][_2_]]

I suggest the last three posters on this thread (And all Blanik owners/
operators in the US) start to ping Vitek at Blanik America for updates
and answers. Virtual hand wringing on this board is futile.

Vitek does respond quickly to emails in my recent experience.

Aerodyne

"Bad things happen when good people do nothing"

[Ken Latam]

The point of my post was that because it's not a multibillion $$ aircraft
but a 50 year old glider thats ownd by people with small pocket's. It is
not a hight priority on any goverment agenda.

It's great that there is SOMETHING sent to the EASA, but how does that
help those of us that are not in Europe? My house was not built to Euro
specs,my truck was not built to Euro specs,and my Skylark 4,tho built in
England,had to meet Canadian standards before being issued a C of A.

My club was not willing to sit and wait for this issue to be resolved.
Thats why we went with the KA-7, and sugested that the other club see if
they can lease something other than an L-13 untill the issue is solved.

Ken

[Tim Taylor]

On Mar 22, 9:38*am, YODSoar > wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Is there any word on a possible Blanik fix that anyone has heard of
> yet?
> We were originally hoping to start flying in April but so far the new
> 'fix' AD that was supposed to come out in early March has not
> materialized. As a L-13 is our club's only dual seater, this is a do-
> or-fold type problem for us.
>
> Cheers,
> Mike - Cold Lake Soaring

As of march 21st

http://www.let.cz/files//File/standpoint_BLANIKgliders_march2011.pdf

"CURRENT SITUATION IN ACTIVITIES OF AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES, A.S. AIMED TO
THE RENEWAL OF
AIRWORTHINESS OF L-13 AND L-13A GLIDERS

In connection with the crash of the L 13 glider S/N 175117 in Austria
on 12th June 2010, EASA issued
the Airworthiness Directive No. AD 2010-0185, which mandates grounding
the whole fleet of gliders
L 13 and L 13A.
In previous statement of Aircraft Industries, a. s. from 30th
September 2010, our company announced
taking steps to the gliders airworthiness renewal, consisting of
development in cooperation with
Research and Testing Aviation Institute in Prague the Eddy current
inspection of wing critical area
focused on detection of potential occurrence of fatigue damage. With
regards to our intention to
avoid the modification of wing critical area and due to the demand for
highest reliability of inspection
method and necessity its thorough verification on number of testing
samples, it was technically and
time-consuming very demanding development. At this moment the
inspection method is practically
developed and we will present the results to EASA to receive approval
for the use of inspection for the
purpose of releasing L 13 gliders into operation.
In parallel, an independent design company is developing design
modification consisting
of strengthening of the L 13 glider wing critical area. As soon as the
organization receives EASA STC
approval and we get consent to publish more detailed information we
will post them on our website
www.let.cz.

Kunovice, 21st March 2011"