BLANIK L-13 AD Status

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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=c...id=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

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

the pages for the HpH Twin Shark sailplanes are on

the URL is
http://www.hph.cz/index.php?option=c...id=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/fre...ech&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