If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
What to do with L-13?
The Aircraft Design And Certification modification is applicable in
Canada (I'm surprised that it's not approved in the U.S. yet as usually a method approved by the agency which controls the original type approval for compliance with an A.D. issued by the same agency is accepted by other governments as a matter of course) but so far as I have been able to determine no one has had it done. Possibly if you had an L-13 with no more than 2000 hours and which was otherwise in very good shape and well equipped it might be worth doing. In Canada the factory life limits and life limit extensions were applied as an A.D. so my club sold it's last two L-13's several years ago for around $4000 with trailers when they reached 4250 hours. At that point it seemed that the cost and work involved in pursuing one last extension wasn't really worth it. It hurt to sell them but we had been depreciating them based on zero residual value at 3750 hours so at least we were ready for it. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
What to do with L-13?
ASM wrote: On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:16:51 AM UTC-7, wrote: Our club (NJ - USA) has folded and we still have an L-13 taking up space. Before I call the local scrap yard I thought I'd ask if anyone might be interested in buying it at scrap value with the dreams of getting airworthy again. We also have an open trailer for it that will be available separately if the bird goes to the junk yard. mikefaddenathotmail.com. Possibility: http://soaringcafe.com/2012/04/world...ilplanes-dead/ The lack of funds in the US soaring movement, compared to UK, always surprises me. Admittedly I live in the circuit of one of the UK's largest clubs, where ASK21s are the standard training ship and a Duo Discus is used for advanced tuition, but I doubt there are many clubs using anything less than an ASK13. I owned a share in an L13 many years ago. Fine for local soaring and no doubt good for basic training, but its performance fell way behind that of an ASK13, and possibly even the ASK7. If you really need a cheap trainer, especially if you value struts like the 2-33, how about a Slingsby T21 ? They are virtually giving them away here. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
What to do with L-13?
On May 4, 5:44*am, Gilbert Smith wrote:
ASM wrote: On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:16:51 AM UTC-7, wrote: Our club (NJ - USA) has folded and we still have an L-13 taking up space. Before I call the local scrap yard I thought I'd ask if anyone might be interested in buying it at scrap value with the dreams of getting airworthy again. We also have an open trailer for it that will be available separately if the bird goes to the junk yard. mikefaddenathotmail.com. Possibility:http://soaringcafe.com/2012/04/world...ilplanes-dead/ The lack of funds in the US soaring movement, compared to UK, always surprises me. Actually, there's no lack of funds but there is a widespread lack of understanding of the effects of inflation. If 1960's prices for gliders are inflated into today's funds, the prices are seen to be about the same - but today, you get a much better glider for those funds. To someone who remembers spending less than $10,000 for a new trainer in the 1960's, $115,000 seems like a lot of money when, in fact, the two prices represent about the same value. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
What to do with L-13?
"Bill D" wrote in message ... The L-13 wasn't grounded because of some bureaucratic bungling. There are very real and serious structural problems with the wing. These problems require an engineering solution proven to be safe. The L-13 has a standard airworthiness certificate and any fix must completely restore the aircraft to that standard. Simply splicing in some more metal and hope it works isn't an option. That's what you get with a standard airworthiness certificate. Not completely correct. ...yes "A" Blanik failed but it was also a poorly documented glider with a questionable record and questionable condition and being flown likely outside the limitations when came apart during some form of aerobatic flight. The Blaniks had several overhaul inspections at intervals to extend the life limits at each occasion based on the overhaul done at that time.I know few Blaniks here ever got these overhauls done and clubs and operators in the USA do have very poor record keeping not just on Blaniks but on all other types as well. and most owners had Blaniks because they assumed being metal they could be tied out (bad idea for any glider or airplane IMHO) but there should be a reasonable inspection for well documented Blaniks that would allow them to be operated safely even if they limited the use to non-aerobatic as it is my understanding unless I am completely wrong they can be operated in the Czech Republic having passed this inspection. A reasonably good inspection conducted by an A&I (who has proven to the FAA that he knows already what he's doing to get his certificate) should be sufficient... What we have done is effectively put most clubs and operators in a fix and not the Blaniks that make up the largest training glider fleet . Now to operate a club we go back into the past and drum up more 222's, 233's K7's and Berfalkes that no one wanted 2 years ago and sell them for gold....and if anyone thinks these don't have a greater risk of failing than many of the "well cared for" Blaniks they probably need to more inspecting of these gliders before they sign them off the next time too. tim |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
What to do with L-13?
On May 4, 3:03*pm, "Tim Mara" wrote:
"Bill D" wrote in message ... The L-13 wasn't grounded because of some bureaucratic bungling. *There are very real and serious structural problems with the wing. *These problems require an engineering solution proven to be safe. *The L-13 has a standard airworthiness certificate and any fix must completely restore the aircraft to that standard. *Simply splicing in some more metal and hope it works isn't an option. *That's what you get with a standard airworthiness certificate. Not completely correct. ...yes "A" Blanik failed but it was also a poorly documented glider with a questionable record and questionable condition and being flown likely outside the limitations when came apart during some form of aerobatic flight. The Blaniks had several overhaul inspections at intervals to extend the life limits at each occasion based on the overhaul done at that time.I know few Blaniks here ever got these overhauls done and clubs and operators in the USA do have very poor record keeping not just on Blaniks but on all other types as well. and most owners had Blaniks because they assumed being metal they could be tied out (bad idea for any glider or airplane IMHO) but there should be a reasonable inspection for well documented Blaniks that would allow them to be operated safely even if they limited the use to non-aerobatic as it is my understanding unless I am completely wrong they can be operated in the Czech Republic having passed this inspection. A reasonably good inspection conducted by an A&I (who has proven to the FAA that he knows already what he's doing to get his certificate) should be sufficient... What we have done is effectively put most clubs and operators in a fix and not the Blaniks that make up the largest training glider fleet . Now to operate a club we go back into the past and drum up more 222's, *233's K7's and Berfalkes that no one wanted 2 years ago and sell them for gold....and if anyone thinks these don't have a greater risk of failing than many of the "well cared for" Blaniks they probably need to more inspecting of these gliders before they sign them off the next time too. tim Could you provide some references on the condition of the failed glider, Tim? My understanding was it was a fairly low time glider with good records showing it had all the required overhaul/inspections which is why the accident was treated so seriously by EASA. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
What to do with L-13?
"I owned a share in an L13 many years ago. Fine for local soaring and
no doubt good for basic training, but its performance fell way behind that of an ASK13, and possibly even the ASK7" Huh? The book polars for both the ASK-13 and L-13 are nearly identical. Does that mean that one of them is incorrect? Given that the Johnson tests of the L-23 and L-33 were very close to the book polars I would think that the L-13 factory data would be fairly accurate too. Does that mean that the Schleicher book polar significantly understates the performance of the ASK-13? I also note that the DAeC handicap used by the OLC is 79 for the ASK-13 and 78 for the L-13, short wing L-23 and Ka-7. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|