L33

[Jack]

I'm contemplating the purchase of a used Blanik L33 Solo, as an upgrade from
my 1-26E, and seeking advice concerning the type.


Jack

[Tony Verhulst]

Jack wrote:
> I'm contemplating the purchase of a used Blanik L33 Solo, as an upgrade
> from my 1-26E, and seeking advice concerning the type.

Excellent handling, IMHO. Control forces are light and well harmonized.
More so than other gliders, do not get slow close to the ground.

Tony V.

[Tony Verhulst]

> Excellent handling, IMHO. Control forces are light and well harmonized.
> More so than other gliders, do not get slow close to the ground.

Oh yeah, one more thing - do not get an L33 with a factory paint job.
Get either bare aluminum or one painted by some one else. LET has not
figured out how to paint aluminum, judging by all the painted L33s and
L23s i've seen. Here are some shots of my club's L33 before we
refinished it.

Tony V

http://home.comcast.net/~tony.verhulst/PICS/Misc/DSCN2165.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~tony.verhulst/PICS/Misc/DSCN2166.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~tony.verhulst/PICS/Misc/DSCN2167.JPG

[Jack]

Tony Verhulst wrote:

> http://home.comcast.net/~tony.verhulst/PICS/Misc/DSCN2165.JPG
> http://home.comcast.net/~tony.verhulst/PICS/Misc/DSCN2166.JPG
> http://home.comcast.net/~tony.verhulst/PICS/Misc/DSCN2167.JPG

U G G L E E E !

Thanks for the warning.


Jack

[rich]

Jack, I'd like to talk about the getting your E.
Rich

[Shawn]

Tony Verhulst wrote:
>
>> Excellent handling, IMHO. Control forces are light and well
>> harmonized. More so than other gliders, do not get slow close to the
>> ground.
>
>
> Oh yeah, one more thing - do not get an L33 with a factory paint job.
> Get either bare aluminum or one painted by some one else. LET has not
> figured out how to paint aluminum, judging by all the painted L33s and
> L23s i've seen. Here are some shots of my club's L33 before we
> refinished it.
>
> Tony V
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~tony.verhulst/PICS/Misc/DSCN2165.JPG
> http://home.comcast.net/~tony.verhulst/PICS/Misc/DSCN2166.JPG
> http://home.comcast.net/~tony.verhulst/PICS/Misc/DSCN2167.JPG

Wow! Looks they painted it with cheap interior latex. :-p

[Albert Gold]

Jack wrote:
> I'm contemplating the purchase of a used Blanik L33 Solo, as an upgrade
> from my 1-26E, and seeking advice concerning the type.
>
>
> Jack

Jack,

I have a fair amount of time in my club's L-33, the same one that Tony
Verhulst talks about in his post, and find it a very pleasant ship to
fly. BTW, it's been refinished since the snapshots he posted.

The cockpit is roomy and comfortable, the visibility and ergonomics are
excellent and it's very quiet. It's probably not for a beginner because
of it's stall and spin characteristics. You might want to look up the
Dick Johnson review of it that appeared in Soaring some years ago and is
archived on the SSA web site. Opening the air brakes all the way
increases the stall speed by SEVEN kts.!

Fly safe,

Al
Discus B, PC

[Larry Watkins]

I have a 2000 L33. It has a gentle stall with lots of warning. The paint is
still perfect. Lots of fun to fly.
LW

[Tony Verhulst]

>> .... LET has not
>> figured out how to paint aluminum, judging by all the painted L33s and
>> L23s i've seen. Here are some shots of my club's L33 before we
>> refinished it.
>>
>> Tony V
>>
>> http://home.comcast.net/~tony.verhulst/PICS/Misc/DSCN2165.JPG
>> http://home.comcast.net/~tony.verhulst/PICS/Misc/DSCN2166.JPG
>> http://home.comcast.net/~tony.verhulst/PICS/Misc/DSCN2167.JPG
>
>
> Wow! Looks they painted it with cheap interior latex. :-p

We have a painted L23 (2, actually, sort of... we need a fuselage) that
look bad too - although not as bad as the L33 pictured above. I don't
understand it. Painting aluminum is hard but the Cessnas and Pipers have
figured it out - not LET, though.

A dedicated crew stripped the L33 down to bare metal over the winter,
buffed it up, and put some red trim on. It now looks great and,
interesingly, it's suddenly become one of the more popular ships to fly.

Tony V.

[Bill Daniels]

"Tony Verhulst" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> We have a painted L23 (2, actually, sort of... we need a fuselage) that
> look bad too - although not as bad as the L33 pictured above. I don't
> understand it. Painting aluminum is hard but the Cessnas and Pipers have
> figured it out - not LET, though.
>

Painting aluminum correctly adds considerable weight. Possibly LET skipped
the etching primer prep coat to save weight.

There's a clear coat aluminum protectant once used by the Airstream Trailer
people that looked good for many years and could be renewed at a reasonable
cost. I wonder if that could be a solution for old aluminum gliders.

Bill Daniels

[David Walsh]

I have a 94 model that's been tied out in the North Carolina Sun for 10
years. The paint has lost much of its shine and there are some "fish
eye" bubbles especially on the horizontal stabilizer, but the paint is
all still intact, and it waxes up quite nicely. Nothing at all like
the paint (or lack of paint) on Tony's example. That's the worst paint I
have ever seen on anything. That being said, I now keep my glider in a
T-hanger.

If I were ordering a new L-33, I think I would order it unpainted or
maybe with just the trim paint.


Regards,
David Walsh

Jack wrote:
> I'm contemplating the purchase of a used Blanik L33 Solo, as an upgrade
> from my 1-26E, and seeking advice concerning the type.
>
>
> Jack

[Michael]

Well, there's nothing wrong with the L-33. It's all metal (except for
some control surfaces), so can be kept assembled and tied down (I
assume this is what made the 1-26E attractive to you). It's quite
docile, has reasonable performance for a metal ship, and in general is
a pretty sensible ship for a club or a pilot with low total time who
doesn't want to mess with assembling and disassembling after every
flight and doesn't have a hangar available.

The downside is - and this is of course subjective - it's not really
much fun to fly. It doesn't have the light touch of the 1-26, or its
ability to thermal on a fart. On the other hand, it doesn't really
penetrate well either, so it's hard to consider it a serious XC
machine. Sure, you can fly XC in it, and people do - but the same is
true of the 1-26. I'm not sure the trade is enough of a step up to
make the it worthwhile.

Also, for some reason I recall thinking that your total time was pretty
high. If so, and if you must have metal (I assume for assembled
outside storage), I would seriously consider one of the HP's instead.
Significantly better performance at less cost and all metal (no fabric)
so even better for outside tiedown. Not the hot tip for someone with
50 hours total time (handling is a bit challenging) but no big deal at
500 hours.

Michael

[Jack]

Michael wrote:

> [The L-33 is] all metal...so can be kept assembled and tied down...
> and...is a pretty sensible ship for...a pilot with low total time who
> doesn't want to mess with assembling and disassembling after every flight
> and doesn't have a hangar available.

I like the all-metal part, so that I can leave it out for a weekend
whenever possible, but the real reason for needing to part with the
wonderful 1-26E is that the wings are getting heavier with each passing
year, and I can't assemble without a helper or two. This is partially a
fault of the open trailer design and partially just me getting older, in
addition to the design of the 1-26. I enjoy flying it, and if it unloaded,
assembled, disassembled, and loaded as easily as a modern design
combination, I'd stick with it indefinitely as the price cannot be beat.
It's the most flying fun I've ever had for so little money, and going to any
type that did not handle as well in the air would be a disappointment.

Another consideration is dues, insurance, storage and operating expenses
which will not change much, so the actual cost of a 50 percent performance
boost is not huge. However, if I could leave the 1-26 assembled in a hangar
I would not consider parting with it for the foreseeable future.


> ...I recall thinking that your total time was pretty high. If so, and if
> you must have metal...I would seriously consider one of the HP's instead.

> Not the hot tip for someone with 50 hours total time...but no big deal at
> 500 hours.

Total time is ~20,000 hrs, the usual military/airline/private stuff; but, my
glider time is ~35 hours (2-33 and 1-26), so I am not embarrassed being seen
in low performance sailplanes. Hey, I'm still getting used to the idea of
flying beyond gliding range of the glider port -- I have done it a few times
when conditions were very good.

Consideration is also being given to the 1-36 and the PW-5, and the PW-5 is
a strong contender. If a ship is easy enough to assemble/disassemble and has
an enclosed trailer, I don't mind putting it together every day of a
three-day weekend. I hope to get checked out in the Club's PW-5 this season
and that will aid the decision process.

Either way, it's good to have a glider of my own.


Jack

[Tony Verhulst]

> Consideration is also being given to the 1-36 and the PW-5, and the PW-5
> is a strong contender. If a ship is easy enough to assemble/disassemble
> and has an enclosed trailer, I don't mind putting it together every day
> of a three-day weekend. I hope to get checked out in the Club's PW-5
> this season and that will aid the decision process.

OK, now we see what your needs are. If you want L33 performance and ease
of assembly and light wings are important, you need not look further
than the Russia AC-4, IMHO. If you do plan on rigging the ship a lot,
the desirability of a decent clam shell trailer can not be over-emphasized.

> Either way, it's good to have a glider of my own.

You Bet!

Tony V. LS-6b "6N"
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

[M B]

The AC-4 is extremely light and easy to assemble.
And the
trailers are tiny compared to the bigger span ships.

But the 15 meter ships didn't seem like a huge weight/disassembly
step up. Enough to consider it, but
my goodness, the gliders less than 10-15 years old
seem pretty well set up for disass3embly.

The 304c got a few purchasers locally. I haven't had
a chance to assemble/disassemble one, though. I'm
not a flap guy (I'm a non-flap 'tilter') but there
is a cz variant with flaps also, I believe. 150# wings
aren't exactly lightweight, though.

I really like to help assemble gliders when I can to
get a feel for what the wings weigh. I suggest you
spend a day at a gliderport 'volunteering.' It seems
like a lot of people actually LIKE help putting the
wings on or off :)

Good luck! Of course you can always go the other way
and get metal, and leave it out in the weather instead...

At 22:00 13 July 2005, Jack wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>
>> [The L-33 is] all metal...so can be kept assembled
>>and tied down...
>> and...is a pretty sensible ship for...a pilot with
>>low total time who
>> doesn't want to mess with assembling and disassembling
>>after every flight
>> and doesn't have a hangar available.
>
>I like the all-metal part, so that I can leave it out
>for a weekend
>whenever possible, but the real reason for needing
>to part with the
>wonderful 1-26E is that the wings are getting heavier
>with each passing
>year, and I can't assemble without a helper or two.
>This is partially a
>fault of the open trailer design and partially just
>me getting older, in
>addition to the design of the 1-26. I enjoy flying
>it, and if it unloaded,
>assembled, disassembled, and loaded as easily as a
>modern design
>combination, I'd stick with it indefinitely as the
>price cannot be beat.
>It's the most flying fun I've ever had for so little
>money, and going to any
>type that did not handle as well in the air would be
>a disappointment.
>
>Another consideration is dues, insurance, storage and
>operating expenses
>which will not change much, so the actual cost of a
>50 percent performance
>boost is not huge. However, if I could leave the 1-26
>assembled in a hangar
>I would not consider parting with it for the foreseeable
>future.
>
>
>> ...I recall thinking that your total time was pretty
>>high. If so, and if
>> you must have metal...I would seriously consider one
>>of the HP's instead.
>
>> Not the hot tip for someone with 50 hours total time...but
>>no big deal at
> > 500 hours.
>
>Total time is ~20,000 hrs, the usual military/airline/private
>stuff; but, my
>glider time is ~35 hours (2-33 and 1-26), so I am not
>embarrassed being seen
>in low performance sailplanes. Hey, I'm still getting
>used to the idea of
>flying beyond gliding range of the glider port -- I
>have done it a few times
>when conditions were very good.
>
>Consideration is also being given to the 1-36 and the
>PW-5, and the PW-5 is
>a strong contender. If a ship is easy enough to assemble/disassemb
>>le and has
>an enclosed trailer, I don't mind putting it together
>every day of a
>three-day weekend. I hope to get checked out in the
>Club's PW-5 this season
>and that will aid the decision process.
>
>Either way, it's good to have a glider of my own.
>
>
>Jack
>
Mark J. Boyd

[Doug Snyder]

Buy a SparrowHawk !

Should be easy to assemble/disassemble.

They're pretty expensive but I'm willing to live vicariously through
you !

Doug

[David Walsh]

"it's not really much fun to fly".........

Wow, Hard to believe a knowledgeable glider pilot could express such an
opinion about L-33's.

Sincerely,
David Walsh


Michael wrote:
> Well, there's nothing wrong with the L-33. It's all metal (except for
> some control surfaces), so can be kept assembled and tied down (I
> assume this is what made the 1-26E attractive to you). It's quite
> docile, has reasonable performance for a metal ship, and in general is
> a pretty sensible ship for a club or a pilot with low total time who
> doesn't want to mess with assembling and disassembling after every
> flight and doesn't have a hangar available.
>
> The downside is - and this is of course subjective - it's not really
> much fun to fly. It doesn't have the light touch of the 1-26, or its
> ability to thermal on a fart. On the other hand, it doesn't really
> penetrate well either, so it's hard to consider it a serious XC
> machine. Sure, you can fly XC in it, and people do - but the same is
> true of the 1-26. I'm not sure the trade is enough of a step up to
> make the it worthwhile.
>
> Also, for some reason I recall thinking that your total time was pretty
> high. If so, and if you must have metal (I assume for assembled
> outside storage), I would seriously consider one of the HP's instead.
> Significantly better performance at less cost and all metal (no fabric)
> so even better for outside tiedown. Not the hot tip for someone with
> 50 hours total time (handling is a bit challenging) but no big deal at
> 500 hours.
>
> Michael
>

[Jack]

Doug Snyder wrote:
> Buy a SparrowHawk !
>
> Should be easy to assemble/disassemble.
>
> They're pretty expensive but I'm willing to live vicariously through
> you !


I'd be glad to accept donations, and in return mail out a free video of me
smiling to each benefactor.


Jack

[rich]

Stay with the gteen pickle Jack, but pink?
Rich

[Michael]

> Total time is ~20,000 hrs, the usual military/airline/private stuff; but, my
> glider time is ~35 hours (2-33 and 1-26), so I am not embarrassed being seen
> in low performance sailplanes.

The reason I mentioned total time is this - I don't generally recommend
an HP to someone with low total time because the handling is somewhat
challenging - more so than is normal for a glider. However, someone
with a reasonable amount of airplane time would have no problem with it
(and certainly someone with hours in 5 digits including military time
would not find the handling challenging). The advantage is this - you
get a ship with reasonable XC performance (35:1 and up, depending on
model, and much better penetration than you're going to get in any of
the other gliders you are considering) in an all-metal ship that can be
kept assembled and tied down. It's not really a good choice for a
glider-only pilot, because someone with enough experience to deal with
the handling usually won't be satisfied with the performance (it won't
match a modern glass ship) and a 50-hour pilot is usually going to have
problems with the takeoffs and landings (a friend of mine bought his
HP-18 at 50 hours and ground looped it at least half a dozen times
before he learned to fly it). However, it is a great choice for a
transition pilot. I think it would be ideal for you.

The 1-26E can be kept tied down outside, but it's not ideal. The
control surfaces are fabric, so they will deteriorate. I agree with
you about the flying qualities of the 1-26 - it's great fun. I think
you will find the L-33 disappointing by comparison; I know I did. It's
a shame you don't have a hangar available - the Ka-8 is like a 1-26,
only more so - just as light on the controls as the 1-26 but with
better feel, and a much better soaring ship. If you ever have the
chance to fly one, take it. But it's wood, so outside storage is a
problem, and it's just as much of a pain to assemble as the 1-26 if not
more so.

If you're going to assemble and disassemble daily, I don't really see
any advantage to a metal ship. A PW-5 or Russia would make a lot of
sense (note - I haven't flown either, so can't comment on the flying
qualities) but why not something like a Libelle? I would not recommend
an HP if you are going to assemble and disassemble daily - those wings
are HEAVY.

Michael

[Wayne Paul]

The "Schreder Sailplane Designs" web site
(http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder) is a good source for HP/RS sailplane
information. It is a repository of data provided by various HP/RS owners
and builders.

The following articles contain information that will be valuable to anyone
considering purchasing a HP or RS sailplane:
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Stories/Preparing_for_first_HP_flight.htm
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Large-span_flaps.html
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Stories/Schreder_on_Flaps.htm
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Construction/Inspections/HP-RS_Annual_Inspection.htm

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"


"Michael" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> The reason I mentioned total time is this - I don't generally recommend
> an HP to someone with low total time because the handling is somewhat
> challenging - more so than is normal for a glider. However, someone
> with a reasonable amount of airplane time would have no problem with it
> (and certainly someone with hours in 5 digits including military time
> would not find the handling challenging). The advantage is this - you
> get a ship with reasonable XC performance (35:1 and up, depending on
> model, and much better penetration than you're going to get in any of
> the other gliders you are considering) in an all-metal ship that can be
> kept assembled and tied down. It's not really a good choice for a
> glider-only pilot, because someone with enough experience to deal with
> the handling usually won't be satisfied with the performance (it won't
> match a modern glass ship) and a 50-hour pilot is usually going to have
> problems with the takeoffs and landings (a friend of mine bought his
> HP-18 at 50 hours and ground looped it at least half a dozen times
> before he learned to fly it). However, it is a great choice for a
> transition pilot. I think it would be ideal for you.
>
> The 1-26E can be kept tied down outside, but it's not ideal. The
> control surfaces are fabric, so they will deteriorate. I agree with
> you about the flying qualities of the 1-26 - it's great fun. I think
> you will find the L-33 disappointing by comparison; I know I did. It's
> a shame you don't have a hangar available - the Ka-8 is like a 1-26,
> only more so - just as light on the controls as the 1-26 but with
> better feel, and a much better soaring ship. If you ever have the
> chance to fly one, take it. But it's wood, so outside storage is a
> problem, and it's just as much of a pain to assemble as the 1-26 if not
> more so.
>
> If you're going to assemble and disassemble daily, I don't really see
> any advantage to a metal ship. A PW-5 or Russia would make a lot of
> sense (note - I haven't flown either, so can't comment on the flying
> qualities) but why not something like a Libelle? I would not recommend
> an HP if you are going to assemble and disassemble daily - those wings
> are HEAVY.
>
> Michael
>

[[email protected]]

The paint on our club's L33 looks bad (not as bad as the one in those
pictures though, yikes!). Part of the problem is that LET uses anodized
aluminium which is tricky to get paint to stick to. Excellent corrosion
resistance though. That doesn't forgive the brittle, chalky paint on
ours but it does help explain why it comes off so easily. We should
have ordered it in the plain anodized finish.

I found it fun to fly (more so than a 1-26 which I also enjoyed). Very
nimble and, perhaps surprising for a metal ship, dead quiet inside.
That said, I still found the PW-5 to be better. For one thing the low
speed handling of the PW seems better. The L33 just doesn't seem happy
below 50 knots.

If the main thing you're worried about is saving your back rigging and
derigging though just get a good one man assembly dolly like Udo
Rumpf's. I got one for my ship and I'm NEVER going back to doing it the
hard way!

[Jack]

rich wrote:

> Stay with the green pickle Jack, but pink?

What a great pear they make. ;)


Jack

[[email protected]]

How about the Silent 2? LD of 39:1 , wings that weight 75 Lbs,automatic
control connections and if you want it can later be converted to a self
launcher. Sounds better that a PW5 to me......

Jack wrote:
> rich wrote:
>
> > Stay with the green pickle Jack, but pink?
>
> What a great pear they make. ;)
>
>
> Jack

[[email protected]]

How about the Silent 2? LD of 39:1 , wings that weight 75 Lbs,automatic
control connections and if you want it can later be converted to a self
launcher. Sounds better that a PW5 to me......

Jack wrote:
> rich wrote:
>
> > Stay with the green pickle Jack, but pink?
>
> What a great pear they make. ;)
>
>
> Jack

[Stuart Grant]

Had an L-33 tied out in Miami sun and rain for two years no worse for
wear. I used Nufinish car wax on it at least twice a year and had
"Sunbrella" covers for the wings, canopy and tail fin (stored the
horizontal stab inside).

It was not very easy to get the wing pins in - but I didn't get much
practice with only about 6 or 7 assemblies in two years. I really don't
think I would want to assemble it for every flight.

When I flew it I weighed about 160 lbs and didn't use a chute. I
frequently thermalled it below 40 knots in small thermals. I think it
flew and landed great. I now fly a 1987 Discus B which goes together
very easily. Discii are known for their great handling and I think the
L-33 handled just as nice.

If you read the Dick Johnson review article you will see that the
reason the one he flew had a tendancy to spin was because it was a test
ship that had been flown faster than Vne and the wings had wrinkles.

The L33 was the first single place glider I ever flew and I had about
40 hours in gliders when I first flew it. I think it is safe for a
low-time pilot but maybe get a checkout from a CFIG. My CFIG (Burt
Compton) taught me to land it level on the main wheel - not tail first.
It has a strong shock-absorbed main wheel and I usually touched down at
a little below 40 knots - not full stall.

I think it was extremely well made and I had lots of fun in it. Lots of
pilots flew it in Miami and everyone liked it.