Overall not quite as good as the L13. The stall/spin isn't quite as
good as the L13, both of our L23's would drop one wing consistently
and needed a bit of into spin aileron to hold the spin, wheras both
our old beat up L13's didn't favour either wing at the stall and would
hold the spin with neutral aileron. The L23 tailwheels looked stronger
than the L13's but actually gave us more trouble (cracked bulkhead,
bent tail fairing). I didn't find the control harmony as nice as the
L13. Maybe the T-tail was a mistake. I notice that when they wanted to
build an aerobatic glider (the L13AC) they returned to the
conventional tail. Visibility, especially with the newer one piece
canopy is superior to the L13. Ventilation? well nothing beats the
windscreen scoop on the L13. The airbrakes are lighter to operate on
the L23 thanks to the differentially sized upper and lower panels. We
have had parachutes custom made for the L13 and L23 seats and these go
a long way to alleviating the pain-in-the-back seats on them. We just
got a new one with tip extensions to replace one destroyed in a storm
but we haven't flown it yet. According to a graph in the maintenance
manual the 6000hr. airframe life is reduced to 3500hrs. if the glider
is always flown with the tip extensions in place. LET was selling us
life extensions on the L13's but have recently stopped. If someone can
explain to me exactly what structural problem results in these
aircraft becoming unserviceable at a certain number of hours please
tell me. At the moment I'm starting to think that LET just compared
the revenue from a life time extension (a few hundred dollars) to that
from selling a new glider.