Blanik L-13

[Boise Pilot]

Like about 300 US Blanik L-13 sailplane owners, I have a ship that will probably never fly again. Just trying to find out what other owners are doing with their hangar queens. I know of one where the owners took it apart, separating the aluminum from the steel for sale to metal recyclers. From what I heard, the time and effort involved put their hourly income at about half of the min. wage level.
Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic ideas?

[Matt Herron Jr.]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:28:29 PM UTC-8, Boise Pilot wrote:
> Like about 300 US Blanik L-13 sailplane owners, I have a ship that will probably never fly again. Just trying to find out what other owners are doing with their hangar queens. I know of one where the owners took it apart, separating the aluminum from the steel for sale to metal recyclers. From what I heard, the time and effort involved put their hourly income at about half of the min. wage level.
>
> Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic ideas?

The cockpits would make awesome Condor simulator platforms to promote soaring with the under 24 crowd. once converted, they could be sold to soaring sites for training too. I am a mechanical engineer, so I might be talked into donating some time to this type of project. I live in Menlo Park, CA. I bet most real controls could be hooked up to a gutted joystick...


Anyone else interested?

Matt

[Bob Kuykendall]

Probably the most realistic idea I've heard yet is retrofitting L23
wings to L13s and seeking an STC for the combination. That's probably
a lot more cost-effective, though a lot less fun, than developing new
composite wings for L23.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:44:56 PM UTC-7, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:28:29 PM UTC-8, Boise Pilot wrote:
>
> > Like about 300 US Blanik L-13 sailplane owners, I have a ship that will probably never fly again. Just trying to find out what other owners are doing with their hangar queens. I know of one where the owners took it apart, separating the aluminum from the steel for sale to metal recyclers. From what I heard, the time and effort involved put their hourly income at about half of the min. wage level.
>
> >
>
> > Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic ideas?
>
>
>
> The cockpits would make awesome Condor simulator platforms to promote soaring with the under 24 crowd. once converted, they could be sold to soaring sites for training too. I am a mechanical engineer, so I might be talked into donating some time to this type of project. I live in Menlo Park, CA. I bet most real controls could be hooked up to a gutted joystick...
>
>
>
>
>
> Anyone else interested?
>
>
>
> Matt

I've been campaigning for the flight simulator solution for a long time. I think it's the perfect answer of what to do with old Blaniks. Flight sim "cockpit building" is a developing hobby much like model railroads used to be and a small industry has built up around it supplying things like instruments and force feedback equipment.

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 2:45:05 PM UTC-7, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> Probably the most realistic idea I've heard yet is retrofitting L23
>
> wings to L13s and seeking an STC for the combination. That's probably
>
> a lot more cost-effective, though a lot less fun, than developing new
>
> composite wings for L23.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

Not a bad idea but would a "frankenblanik" would be worth as much when finished as it would cost?

[Matt Herron Jr.]

Just have to try one to find out. any volunteers? Any dead Blaniks near Menlo Park? I have a long driveway...

How about DYI conversion plans free, or cheap! Laser and CNC router patterns, wiring diagrams, component sourcing, etc. But would it be too weird to fly a blank with the performance of an ASW27b?

Matt

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Feb 20, 2:37*pm, "Matt Herron Jr." > wrote:

> How about *DYI *conversion plans free, or cheap! *Laser and CNC router patterns,
> wiring diagrams, component sourcing, etc.

That sounds like fun! I'll go make some popcorn... :)

[[email protected]]

At around 2000hrs. total time: hold on to it and wait for the AD&C mod to be approved by the FAA (like it has been by many other national airworthiness authorities) or sell it very cheaply to someone in a country where it has already been approved.

If it's at more than 3000 or 4000 hours already the flying life given by the mod probably wouldn't be economically feasible given the cost versus remaining flying hours.

If it's at 5000 hours (or more) - scrap it after pulling any good parts off of it (oleo, wheel, instruments, possibly some miscellaneous small parts). 5000 hours is the current maximum authorized total airframe time with no further aerobatics even if you put the $12-15K into carrying out the AD&C mod.

Following the factory's website I don't see much hope for them coming up with an alternate solution anytime soon.

[son_of_flubber]

I'd like to see somebody make a small electricity generating windmill from an L-13. Convert lift to rotary motion. I guess you would need two left or two right wings to make it work.

[janice stowers]

On Feb 20, 6:59*pm, son_of_flubber > wrote:
> I'd like to see somebody make a small electricity generating windmill from an L-13. *Convert lift to rotary motion. *I guess you would need two left or two right wings to make it work.

Now would you like to hear a really sad story, Here on my local
airport in a hanger is a L-13 with only 28hrs on it and knowing it
will never fly again.

[Bill D]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:43:28 PM UTC-7, janice stowers wrote:
> On Feb 20, 6:59*pm, son_of_flubber > wrote:
>
> > I'd like to see somebody make a small electricity generating windmill from an L-13. *Convert lift to rotary motion. *I guess you would need two left or two right wings to make it work.
>
>
>
> Now would you like to hear a really sad story, Here on my local
>
> airport in a hanger is a L-13 with only 28hrs on it and knowing it
>
> will never fly again.

Take good care of that one. If a fix ever appears, it's one of the few likely to be worth the expense. If so, those still flyable may become classics. Take it apart, wrap it in plastic and store it in a dry climate.

[[email protected]]

"Now would you like to hear a really sad story, Here on my local
airport in a hanger is a L-13 with only 28hrs on it and knowing it
will never fly again."

If that L-13 really has 28hrs. T.T. on it and is in the like new condition that 28hrs. suggest... Well, the only thing stopping me from buying it, bringing it to Canada, getting the AD&C mod done to it and having it back in the air is the trifling matter of having a bank account with about $4.78 in it right now!

[Eric Munk]

At 03:43 21 February 2013, janice stowers wrote:
>On Feb 20, 6:59=A0pm, son_of_flubber wrote:
>> I'd like to see somebody make a small electricity generating windmill
>fro=
>m an L-13. =A0Convert lift to rotary motion. =A0I guess you would need
two
>=
>left or two right wings to make it work.
>
>Now would you like to hear a really sad story, Here on my local
>airport in a hanger is a L-13 with only 28hrs on it and knowing it
>will never fly again.
>

Do the EASA approved STC and sell it to Europe. Or sit it out until the STC
gets FAA approval. It will be worth the trouble.

[jack gilbert]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:28:29 PM UTC-5, Boise Pilot wrote:
> Like about 300 US Blanik L-13 sailplane owners, I have a ship that will probably never fly again. Just trying to find out what other owners are doing with their hangar queens. I know of one where the owners took it apart, separating the aluminum from the steel for sale to metal recyclers. From what I heard, the time and effort involved put their hourly income at about half of the min. wage level.
>
> Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic ideas?

I'm thinking of shortening the fuselage and making it into my very own casket.

[Peter von Tresckow]

jack gilbert > wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:28:29 PM UTC-5, Boise Pilot wrote:
>> Like about 300 US Blanik L-13 sailplane owners, I have a ship that will
>> probably never fly again. Just trying to find out what other owners are
>> doing with their hangar queens. I know of one where the owners took it
>> apart, separating the aluminum from the steel for sale to metal
>> recyclers. From what I heard, the time and effort involved put their
>> hourly income at about half of the min. wage level.
>>
>> Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic ideas?
>
> I'm thinking of shortening the fuselage and making it into my very own casket.

So why hasn't the EASA mod not been approved by the FAA??? I thought with
all that EASA crap in the old country this stuff once approved by one body
would be accepted by the other???

Peter

[Tony[_5_]]

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:47:20 AM UTC-6, vontresc wrote:
> jack gilbert > wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:28:29 PM UTC-5, Boise Pilot wrote:
>
> >> Like about 300 US Blanik L-13 sailplane owners, I have a ship that will
>
> >> probably never fly again. Just trying to find out what other owners are
>
> >> doing with their hangar queens. I know of one where the owners took it
>
> >> apart, separating the aluminum from the steel for sale to metal
>
> >> recyclers. From what I heard, the time and effort involved put their
>
> >> hourly income at about half of the min. wage level.
>
> >>
>
> >> Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic ideas?
>
> >
>
> > I'm thinking of shortening the fuselage and making it into my very own casket.
>
>
>
> So why hasn't the EASA mod not been approved by the FAA??? I thought with
>
> all that EASA crap in the old country this stuff once approved by one body
>
> would be accepted by the other???
>
>
>
> Peter

The FAA requested more info and it hasn't been provided.

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

Anyone used an L-13 as a starting point for an experimental (glider or
power)?

[son_of_flubber]

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:04:04 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
> Anyone used an L-13 as a starting point for an experimental (glider or
>
> power)?

There's this

http://tinyurl.com/baptr9c

[Vaughn]

On 2/21/2013 12:44 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:04:04 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
>> >Anyone used an L-13 as a starting point for an experimental (glider or
>> >
>> >power)?
> There's this
>
> http://tinyurl.com/baptr9c

And this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZjYJQ8JAZA

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Feb 21, 1:02*am, Eric Munk > wrote:

> Do the EASA approved STC and sell it to Europe. Or sit it out until the STC
> gets FAA approval. It will be worth the trouble.

What I'd do is try to sell the glider into an EASA region without
doing the STC. The glider would not command so great a price that way,
but I would not have to bear the risk that the glider would not pass
the inspection prerequisite to the modification, nor the risk that the
glider thus modified would not command a price that covers the cost of
the modification.

In aviation, the risk is often the most expensive thing, sometimes
even more so than labor hours or carbon fiber.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 02/21/2013 12:04 PM, Wallace Berry wrote:
> Anyone used an L-13 as a starting point for an experimental (glider or
> power)?
>
The factory at one point was building the VIVAT version...

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/type.php?p=739

[[email protected]]

There is a new factory service bulletin about testing the spar caps of unmodified L-13 Blaniks to ascertain the quality of their metallurgy.

http://www.let.cz/files/file/podpora/bulletiny/L13/116a_L13_en.pdf

I'd say that if your L-13 passes the eddy current test described in the bulletin, all hope is not lost yet. The factory seems to continue its investigations.

[Martin Gregorie[_5_]]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:44:23 -0500, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:

> On 02/21/2013 12:04 PM, Wallace Berry wrote:
>> Anyone used an L-13 as a starting point for an experimental (glider or
>> power)?
>>
> The factory at one point was building the VIVAT version...
>
> http://www.airplane-pictures.net/type.php?p=739

I remember seeing one on the glider field at Sazena in 1997, along with a
hangar-full of assorted L-13s and an Antonov A-15 - in short, a hangar
full of metal aircraft.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Nigel Pocock[_2_]]

Stick an old motor (harley davidson?) on the front and some R/C gear in it
and flog them to military as drones or targets

[Bill D]

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:29:29 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> There is a new factory service bulletin about testing the spar caps of unmodified L-13 Blaniks to ascertain the quality of their metallurgy.
>
>
>
> http://www.let.cz/files/file/podpora/bulletiny/L13/116a_L13_en.pdf
>
>
>
> I'd say that if your L-13 passes the eddy current test described in the bulletin, all hope is not lost yet. The factory seems to continue its investigations.



"Finding nonconforming mechanical characteristics of
the material on the L13 Blanik sailplane in operation"

That sounds new and ominous to me.

[Boise Pilot]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:23:15 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> At around 2000hrs. total time: hold on to it and wait for the AD&C mod to be approved by the FAA (like it has been by many other national airworthiness authorities) or sell it very cheaply to someone in a country where it has already been approved.
>
>
>
> If it's at more than 3000 or 4000 hours already the flying life given by the mod probably wouldn't be economically feasible given the cost versus remaining flying hours.
>
> The last word from the FAA which was obtained by the SSA indicated that it would be a real stretch if the European fix will ever be approved here. To compound the problem it looks like there would be more questions about the rest of the aircraft's life expectancy since the wings that broke were not near the 5,000 hours. Don't think a large number were repaired in Europe according to my inquiries when there last spring.

>
> If it's at 5000 hours (or more) - scrap it after pulling any good parts off of it (oleo, wheel, instruments, possibly some miscellaneous small parts). 5000 hours is the current maximum authorized total airframe time with no further aerobatics even if you put the $12-15K into carrying out the AD&C mod.
>
>
>
> Following the factory's website I don't see much hope for them coming up with an alternate solution anytime soon.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:28:29 AM UTC+10, Boise Pilot wrote:
> Like about 300 US Blanik L-13 sailplane owners, I have a ship that will probably never fly again. Just trying to find out what other owners are doing with their hangar queens. I know of one where the owners took it apart, separating the aluminum from the steel for sale to metal recyclers. From what I heard, the time and effort involved put their hourly income at about half of the min. wage level.
>
> Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic ideas?

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:28:29 AM UTC+10, Boise Pilot wrote:
> Like about 300 US Blanik L-13 sailplane owners, I have a ship that will probably never fly again. Just trying to find out what other owners are doing with their hangar queens. I know of one where the owners took it apart, separating the aluminum from the steel for sale to metal recyclers. From what I heard, the time and effort involved put their hourly income at about half of the min. wage level.
>
> Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic ideas?

I'm modifying one to a motorised configuration - but AFTER incorporating the life extension STC modification

[Dan Marotta]

The Southwest Soaring Museum in Moriarty, NM, USA will be putting an HP-11
on top of a pole any day now. It will be free to rotate into the wind.

Maybe you *can* still use that L-13 for a similar project, though hopefully,
it can be restored to flight.


> wrote in message
...
On Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:28:29 AM UTC+10, Boise Pilot wrote:
> Like about 300 US Blanik L-13 sailplane owners, I have a ship that will
> probably never fly again. Just trying to find out what other owners are
> doing with their hangar queens. I know of one where the owners took it
> apart, separating the aluminum from the steel for sale to metal recyclers.
> From what I heard, the time and effort involved put their hourly income at
> about half of the min. wage level.
>
> Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic ideas?

[Bill D]

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:54:32 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:28:29 AM UTC+10, Boise Pilot wrote:
>
> > Like about 300 US Blanik L-13 sailplane owners, I have a ship that will probably never fly again. Just trying to find out what other owners are doing with their hangar queens. I know of one where the owners took it apart, separating the aluminum from the steel for sale to metal recyclers. From what I heard, the time and effort involved put their hourly income at about half of the min. wage level.
>
> >
>
> > Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic ideas?

Many "cockpit builders" are looking for real cockpits to convert to a realistic flight simulator.

[Peter Higgs]

>> > Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic
>ideas=
>?

If you have three of them, you could make two wind turbines... One that
rotates clockwise, and the other that would rotate anti-clockwise.
Should be good for a few kilowatt, in a stiff breeze.

[son_of_flubber]

On Saturday, April 27, 2013 4:05:29 PM UTC-4, Peter Higgs wrote:
> >> > Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic
>
> >ideas=
>
> >?
>
>
>
> If you have three of them, you could make two wind turbines... One that
>
> rotates clockwise, and the other that would rotate anti-clockwise.
>
> Should be good for a few kilowatt, in a stiff breeze.

I would really like to see someone do this and then of course the spar could be tested to failure. If you incorporated some strain gauges and a logger that would also measure the power output and speed, then you might get some curious data (especially if it failed after 200 hours).

You would only need two gliders I think. Nothing wrong with a two bladed windmill is there?

[Terry McKinley]

At 20:05 27 April 2013, Peter Higgs wrote:
>
>>> > Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic
>>ideas=
>>?
>
>If you have three of them, you could make two wind turbines... One that
>rotates clockwise, and the other that would rotate anti-clockwise.
>Should be good for a few kilowatt, in a stiff breeze.
>
>
all UK blanik L13 are scrapped We had three VectisGlidingClub.co.uk
real shame they just were not worth the £12000 cost of repair each

[GM]

> Nothing wrong with a two bladed windmill is there? <

For low powered wind turbine generators, two bladed types are still used. For taller towers and higher outputs, three bladed ones are the state of the art. One has to watch for the cyclic changes in loads (once per rev.) between the blades in the vertical (= high load) and horizontal (= lower load) position. This can excite the tower and fatigue the structure, which is never a good thing.

Uli

[JetAerospace]

I'm interested in the forward fuselage. I do a lot of experimental airframe design and ergonomics it difficult to get right sometimes. Everything from the wing forward would be really nice to have. The full canopy, flight controls, seats... That is all great stuff for reference. I might even be able to reuse the sticks and a few other little cockpit bits....

How much are you hopping to get? Where is it located?

Michael
Central California

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:28:29 PM UTC-8, Boise Pilot wrote:
> Like about 300 US Blanik L-13 sailplane owners, I have a ship that will probably never fly again. Just trying to find out what other owners are doing with their hangar queens. I know of one where the owners took it apart, separating the aluminum from the steel for sale to metal recyclers. From what I heard, the time and effort involved put their hourly income at about half of the min. wage level.
>
> Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic ideas?

I would like to make a land yacht out of a Blanik, using the wings instead of a sail to generate propulsion. Please contact me if you know of a derelict Blanik that I could obtain for this purpose. best regards, Niels in Corvallis, Ore.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Monday, July 15, 2013 11:13:33 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:28:29 PM UTC-8, Boise Pilot wrote:
>
> > Like about 300 US Blanik L-13 sailplane owners, I have a ship that will probably never fly again. Just trying to find out what other owners are doing with their hangar queens. I know of one where the owners took it apart, separating the aluminum from the steel for sale to metal recyclers. From what I heard, the time and effort involved put their hourly income at about half of the min. wage level.
>
> >
>
> > Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic ideas?
>
>
>
> I would like to make a land yacht out of a Blanik, using the wings instead of a sail to generate propulsion. Please contact me if you know of a derelict Blanik that I could obtain for this purpose. best regards, Niels in Corvallis, Ore.

You may find something closer, but check with Ronald Piercy, Rainbow Flying Services, in Moses Lake, WA.

Frank Whiteley

[son_of_flubber]

On Tuesday, July 16, 2013 1:13:33 AM UTC-4, wrote:

> I would like to make a land yacht out of a Blanik, using the wings instead of a sail to generate propulsion. Please contact me if you know of a derelict Blanik that I could obtain for this purpose. best regards, Niels in Corvallis, Ore.

This sounds like a great project, please report back on your progress and post on youtube. A friend who soars also has an ice boat which I imagine would be similar to your prairie schooner.

[[email protected]]

L 13 Blanik wanted

Guys, if you have a L-13 Blanik that cannot fly because of the AD, and want to sell it, please send me email at gao@ gao . name. I wish to buy one for display.

[Duster]

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 4:57:51 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> L 13 Blanik wanted
>
> Guys, if you have a L-13 Blanik that cannot fly because of the AD, and want to sell it, please send me email at gao@ gao . name. I wish to buy one for display.

Yea, sure...bah humbug to you..better yet, they should go to this link to get theirs resuscitated! Good chance these Blaniks will get new life.

http://www.blanik.aero/customer-support

[son_of_flubber]

A Slovenian friend told me yesterday that a lot of the European L-13s were sold to Russia cheap (+/- $US 4000), and that they're being flown there without modification. He said that a large part of the motivation to ground them was to boost sales of new gliders.

This is TOTAL HEARSAY of course, and Slovenians have a unique perspective on German influence and actions across a wide array of issues.

I'm interested to see whether any wings fall off the unmodified L-13s that are still flying.

He also said that the one that crashed had been abused and flown overweight..

I've no idea if any of this is true, but it is at least an interesting rumor.

[Charles Longley]

I had a long talk with Boise Pilot last night mostly about buying the 1-35 on Wings and Wheels. The conversation moved to his L-13 which piqued my interest. I am associated with an aerospace engineering company that specializes in serious sheet metal projects. The one picture I've seen of the factory mod looks relatively straightforward. I am trying to gauge how many L-13's are left in the US. And how much interest there is in resurrecting them.

[Duster]

FAA registry shows there are over 100 L13's registered, but that's probably a conservative number. Has the FAA come out with the final AMOC?

For a video of the factory solution for those grounded

http://home.nwi.net/%7Eblanikam/ba/news.htm

[Frank Whiteley]

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-7, Charles Longley wrote:
> I had a long talk with Boise Pilot last night mostly about buying the 1-35 on Wings and Wheels. The conversation moved to his L-13 which piqued my interest. I am associated with an aerospace engineering company that specializes in serious sheet metal projects. The one picture I've seen of the factory mod looks relatively straightforward. I am trying to gauge how many L-13's are left in the US. And how much interest there is in resurrecting them.

Been a while since I looked at the issue. Before the FAA started requiring renewals there were about 190 on the FAA registry. However, a few people, clubs had multiple airframes for parts. A local L-13, before repainting, had three N-numbers showing on various locations. I'm sure several are similar, sporting wings and things from other airframes. That could be a potential issue in returning some to service. However many are still on the registry, my guessimate at the time of grounding was that about 90 were in serviceable condition. 2-3 people had just restored/repaired examples and were ready to return to service. Several had only a few hundred hours. At the prospect of recovering 2000 or more hours of service life at a reasonably recoverable cost might be of interest to a few.

Frank Whiteley

[Bruce Hoult]

On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 7:59:38 PM UTC+3, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-7, Charles Longley wrote:
> > I had a long talk with Boise Pilot last night mostly about buying the 1-35 on Wings and Wheels. The conversation moved to his L-13 which piqued my interest. I am associated with an aerospace engineering company that specializes in serious sheet metal projects. The one picture I've seen of the factory mod looks relatively straightforward. I am trying to gauge how many L-13's are left in the US. And how much interest there is in resurrecting them.
>
> Been a while since I looked at the issue. Before the FAA started requiring renewals there were about 190 on the FAA registry. However, a few people, clubs had multiple airframes for parts. A local L-13, before repainting, had three N-numbers showing on various locations. I'm sure several are similar, sporting wings and things from other airframes. That could be a potential issue in returning some to service. However many are still on the registry, my guessimate at the time of grounding was that about 90 were in serviceable condition. 2-3 people had just restored/repaired examples and were ready to return to service. Several had only a few hundred hours. At the prospect of recovering 2000 or more hours of service life at a reasonably recoverable cost might be of interest to a few.

The L-13 is, after all, better than the majority of training gliders in use in the USA.

[Duster]

FYI, regarding the possible FAA AMOC: Here is a recent response to an inquiry someone made to the SSA and posted elsewhere. The authors names have been removed, but this is a direct quote:

XXXX,

Ken Sorenson asked me to respond to your inquiry regarding the status of the Blanik L-13.

To date, the FAA has not approved any modification which would allow the Blanik L-13 to return to service in the US. Private (as in unofficial, off-the-record) discussions between the SSA and individuals within the FAA lead us to believe that it is doubtful that the FAA will ever approve one, as they raised concerns that came to light as a result of the fatal accident which resulted in the grounding. Their concerns center around the original basis of structural certification of the aircraft, issues which they raised but which have never been addressed/resolved by the certifying agency.

Having said that, attached is a recent letter (October, 2015) from Blanik Aircraft CZ via Blanik America to the L-13 owners of record. I will note that the FAA has not - as of this writing - approved this modification. As stated in the letter, the modification would extend (not add) the airframe life to 6000 hours. So if your airframe has over 6000 hours, it would not be eligible for modification.

Regards,

XXXX XXXX

[[email protected]]

I'm looking to purchase a Blanik 13 for decoration in my yard

[Tim Taylor]

On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:11:56 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> I'm looking to purchase a Blanik 13 for decoration in my yard

Location would be helpful.

[Craig Funston]

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 4:51:43 PM UTC-7, Tim Taylor wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:11:56 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > I'm looking to purchase a Blanik 13 for decoration in my yard
>
> Location would be helpful.

Front yard or back yard?

[PGS]

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 7:51:43 PM UTC-4, Tim Taylor wrote:
> On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 9:11:56 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> > I'm looking to purchase a Blanik 13 for decoration in my yard
>
> Location would be helpful.


"Location would be helpful."

I would assume front yard......

[Duster]

Prison yard, more likely. Didn't the FAA approve a fix for these L13's? I think this is another "let me buy your Blanik for pennies so I can profit from my immorality". Forgive me if I'm wrong.
http://home.nwi.net/~blanikam/ba/news.htm

[Boise Pilot]

No, the FAA has not approved a repair. There is an EASA approval but the last word I got from "those in the know" the license holder was going to approach the FAA to get the approval done. A big part of that approval is that all repair individuals have to be trained by the group having the approval in Europe. The first thought was that interested USA repair personnel would go there to be trained and then the FAA would be approached for approval.. Allegedly there were no USA repair shops that jumped on that idea. Supposedly, now the plan is to get FAA approval first and hopefully train USA repair personnel here not in Europe. This is still a work in progress and realistically, the longer it goes the less likely it will happen.





> Prison yard, more likely. Didn't the FAA approve a fix for these L13's? I think this is another "let me buy your Blanik for pennies so I can profit from my immorality". Forgive me if I'm wrong.
> http://home.nwi.net/~blanikam/ba/news.htm

[Duster]

The AMOC (alternative method of compliance) for FAA Project AT00794CE-G may indeed take time to resolve. My intention was to caution US owners of affected L-13's that some people that are offering to purchase these "gate exhibits" on the cheap may in fact be planning on "flipping" these gliders for a huge margin if returned to service via an AMOC, thereby taking advantage of those who may not have received the notice. For example, the two offers posted on RAS, and , are suspiciously first-timers here. On the other hand, they could both be quite innocent. I owned an L-13 and sold it in the late 90's but still feel quite bad for the new owner who later had to ground it. It may already be too late for some, unfortunately.

[JS]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 3:26:08 PM UTC-7, Duster wrote:
> The AMOC (alternative method of compliance) for FAA Project AT00794CE-G may indeed take time to resolve. My intention was to caution US owners of affected L-13's that some people that are offering to purchase these "gate exhibits" on the cheap may in fact be planning on "flipping" these gliders for a huge margin if returned to service via an AMOC, thereby taking advantage of those who may not have received the notice. For example, the two offers posted on RAS, and , are suspiciously first-timers here. On the other hand, they could both be quite innocent. I owned an L-13 and sold it in the late 90's but still feel quite bad for the new owner who later had to ground it. It may already be too late for some, unfortunately.

"A huge margin" on a Blanik, that's a laugh!
Jim

[Eric Munk]

At 23:26 27 April 2017, JS wrote:
>On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 3:26:08 PM UTC-7, Duster wrote:
>> The AMOC (alternative method of compliance) for FAA Project
AT00794CE-G
>m=
>ay indeed take time to resolve. My intention was to caution US owners of
>af=
>fected L-13's that some people that are offering to purchase these "gate
>ex=
>hibits" on the cheap may in fact be planning on "flipping" these gliders
>fo=
>r a huge margin if returned to service via an AMOC, thereby taking
>advantag=
>e of those who may not have received the notice. For example, the two
>offer=
>s posted on RAS, and , are
>suspiciously=
> first-timers here. On the other hand, they could both be quite innocent.
>I=
> owned an L-13 and sold it in the late 90's but still feel quite bad for
>th=
>e new owner who later had to ground it. It may already be too late for
>some=
>, unfortunately.
>
>"A huge margin" on a Blanik, that's a laugh!
>Jim

A 6500 euro parts kit excluding several weeks of labour. One done at a
nearby club ended in a bill that was more than the insurance value of the
aircraft. Huge margin, indeed.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

With the huge margins maybe a derivative market of Lark calls and puts will develop.

[[email protected]]

The latest update on the Blanik America site is October 2016 but it seems hopeful:

http://home.nwi.net/~blanikam/ba/news.htm

I live in Canada where the AD&C modification is already approved but the expense of the work coupled with the 5000 hour airframe limit seems to have resulted in few L-13's being made airworthy again. A really nice, very low time L-13 might be an economically viable project though. Personally if I had the time and money to do it I probably would, just as a labor of love. I have a special place in my heart for the L-13, sorely miss flying them and it was a sad day when my club sold our last one. The L-23 we still have is a fine glider but it just doesn't have the same appeal for me.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 1:35:23 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> The latest update on the Blanik America site is October 2016 but it seems hopeful:
>
> http://home.nwi.net/~blanikam/ba/news.htm
>
> I live in Canada where the AD&C modification is already approved but the expense of the work coupled with the 5000 hour airframe limit seems to have resulted in few L-13's being made airworthy again. A really nice, very low time L-13 might be an economically viable project though. Personally if I had the time and money to do it I probably would, just as a labor of love. I have a special place in my heart for the L-13, sorely miss flying them and it was a sad day when my club sold our last one. The L-23 we still have is a fine glider but it just doesn't have the same appeal for me.

http://www.aircraftdc.de/images/produkte/blanik/ADxC%20Customerinfo%20Blanik%2002-Mar-12.pdf describes the increase to 5000hr life over the original 3750hr. It also appears to remove the 35% dual limit (which also exists for the L-23). So, amortizing the cost over the remaining life may make economic sense for L-13 with 2000hrs TTAF or less. Whether it makes financial sense is another question based on the user. The repair may be become much less attractive for those approaching 3000hrs TTAF. I've seen L-13's with three N-number shadows on the component parts, so I suspect there may be basic airframes with 2000hrs, but sporting a 4000hr wing. When first grounded I collected information on the L-13's in the US. There were about 190 on the FAA registry and possibly 90-100 that were being actively flown. At least a couple of sites had several hulks for spares, so there were several "composite" airframes out there. I'm not aware of any L-13A1's that may have been imported into the US. Those were the L-13's that LET had already modifed/replaced the root sections and extended the life to 5000hrs. Those were returned to service by EASA without the AD&C modification. I don't think the FAA considered this, but again, there may not be any in the US, so it would be moot. Unfortunately those couldn't be identified by serial number, but only buy inspecting the differential rivet pattern associated with the modification. I recall the RAFGSA did not pursue this as their L-13 fleet aged.

Frank Whiteley

[FNQ Mark]

On Sunday, 7 May 2017 00:45:49 UTC+10, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 1:35:23 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> > The latest update on the Blanik America site is October 2016 but it seems hopeful:
> >
> > http://home.nwi.net/~blanikam/ba/news.htm
> >
> > I live in Canada where the AD&C modification is already approved but the expense of the work coupled with the 5000 hour airframe limit seems to have resulted in few L-13's being made airworthy again. A really nice, very low time L-13 might be an economically viable project though. Personally if I had the time and money to do it I probably would, just as a labor of love.. I have a special place in my heart for the L-13, sorely miss flying them and it was a sad day when my club sold our last one. The L-23 we still have is a fine glider but it just doesn't have the same appeal for me.
>
> http://www.aircraftdc.de/images/produkte/blanik/ADxC%20Customerinfo%20Blanik%2002-Mar-12.pdf describes the increase to 5000hr life over the original 3750hr. It also appears to remove the 35% dual limit (which also exists for the L-23). So, amortizing the cost over the remaining life may make economic sense for L-13 with 2000hrs TTAF or less. Whether it makes financial sense is another question based on the user. The repair may be become much less attractive for those approaching 3000hrs TTAF. I've seen L-13's with three N-number shadows on the component parts, so I suspect there may be basic airframes with 2000hrs, but sporting a 4000hr wing. When first grounded I collected information on the L-13's in the US. There were about 190 on the FAA registry and possibly 90-100 that were being actively flown. At least a couple of sites had several hulks for spares, so there were several "composite" airframes out there. I'm not aware of any L-13A1's that may have been imported into the US. Those were the L-13's that LET had already modifed/replaced the root sections and extended the life to 5000hrs. Those were returned to service by EASA without the AD&C modification. I don't think the FAA considered this, but again, there may not be any in the US, so it would be moot. Unfortunately those couldn't be identified by serial number, but only buy inspecting the differential rivet pattern associated with the modification. I recall the RAFGSA did not pursue this as their L-13 fleet aged.
>
> Frank Whiteley

My L13A1, VH-GPS, has a 12000hr life, or as I use it on winch, 11250hrs. It was modified to L13A1 back in the 80's here in Australia.

Cheers

Mark

[[email protected]]

I recall flying Blanik Let 13s in England back in the late 1980s.

I am currently building a Storch and wondered whether anyone knows where anyone might be scrapping a L13 with the push button central boss inspection cover. I need six of the 100 mm diameter type for my wings.

Any suggestions for sources in the Uk would be much appreciated thanks D

[Tor Olav Steine]

onsdag 20. februar 2013 kl. 22:44:56 UTC+1 skrev Matt Herron Jr.:
> On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:28:29 PM UTC-8, Boise Pilot wrote:
> > Like about 300 US Blanik L-13 sailplane owners, I have a ship that will probably never fly again. Just trying to find out what other owners are doing with their hangar queens. I know of one where the owners took it apart, separating the aluminum from the steel for sale to metal recyclers. From what I heard, the time and effort involved put their hourly income at about half of the min. wage level.
> >
> > Not many museums want one and tad big for a wind vane. realistic ideas?
> The cockpits would make awesome Condor simulator platforms to promote soaring with the under 24 crowd. once converted, they could be sold to soaring sites for training too. I am a mechanical engineer, so I might be talked into donating some time to this type of project. I live in Menlo Park, CA. I bet most real controls could be hooked up to a gutted joystick...
>
>
> Anyone else interested?
>
> Matt

[Tor Olav Steine]

onsdag 20. februar 2013 kl. 22:45:05 UTC+1 skrev Bob Kuykendall:
> Probably the most realistic idea I've heard yet is retrofitting L23
> wings to L13s and seeking an STC for the combination. That's probably
> a lot more cost-effective, though a lot less fun, than developing new
> composite wings for L23.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

Hi, where are you. We need Blanik fuselages for simulators. We are building one now, and we are good at it. Norway.

[Tony[_7_]]

On Saturday, November 7, 2020 at 4:04:01 PM UTC-5, Tor Olav Steine wrote:
> onsdag 20. februar 2013 kl. 22:45:05 UTC+1 skrev Bob Kuykendall:
> > Probably the most realistic idea I've heard yet is retrofitting L23
> > wings to L13s and seeking an STC for the combination. That's probably
> > a lot more cost-effective, though a lot less fun, than developing new
> > composite wings for L23.
> >
> > Thanks, Bob K.
>
> Hi, where are you. We need Blanik fuselages for simulators. We are building one now, and we are good at it. Norway.

If you've got a clean specimen the factory mod seems quite viable, especially if you team up with others for shipping!