On May 29, 4:40*pm, Bill D wrote:
On May 29, 2:18*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:









On May 28, 9:01*pm, Bill D wrote:

There will most likely be a fix eventually but the cost is probably
not going to be what people are hoping for. *(I hope I'm wrong about
that.) *Please try not to shoot the messenger.

I was talking to several folks at a soaring event this weekend, and I
had been on the bandwagon of "ditch the L-13s and lets buy something
new" for awhile... *But their comments really made me see this in a
new light: *We've been considering the L-13 a $10k - $20k airplane,
and the idea of dumping $10k - $15k into it for a fix seems "wrong"
because its such a huge percentage of the airplane's value. *BUT,
there's another way to look at it. *Instead of considering the "street
value" of the L-13, try considering the cost of the L-13 repair in
contrast with the next-better alternative; which is either a Grob-103
or something like a TST-14 "Bonus" or SZD "Perkoz":
G-103 = Roughly $35k+ (also likely to be high-time and parts are ??)
TST-14 = Unknown, but gotta be at _least_ $60k+ I'm guessing
SZD "Perkoz" = Looks like a sweet setup and cheaper than an ASK-21,
but its still ~$85k (public quotes of 65,000 euros)

So in light of THOSE costs, dropping $10k - $15k on a Blanik is a hell
of a lot cheaper.

Of course, its still just a short-term fix. *Like our aging membership
issues, we find ourselves in a hole. This time around its equipment
and finances. *The US Soaring scene leaned on tired 2-33's (and
L-13's) for way too long and did not do a good job of building
infrastructure or making stepwise investments in better equipment. *So
now we have to try to dig ourselves out of a mess. *I sincerely hope
that more clubs do a better job of long-term financial planning than
they have done over the last 20 years; it seems that few people
consider charging enough money to put aside funds for re-covering,
buying new gear, or any other multi-year goals.

On the topic of longer-term solutions, I would love to see what the
new Lea County State Bank trainer loans look like. *With the EAA and
some aviation-oriented banks I can get 7-15 year loan terms on both
finished aircraft and even un-built KITS. *It seems that similar
financing should be available for sailplanes, with long terms given
the lengthy service-life that our aircraft experience.

I am also curious if any clubs have self-financed new equipment (by
taking out loans from members)? *Getting ~15 members to each pony up
$5k - $10k at 5% interest would get you a new trainer. *And promising
individuals a ~5% return on their money is a hell of a lot better than
most CDs or Money-Market accounts these days; and even better than
some stock portfolios! :-P

In the "I wish..." column, I'd love to see a non-Euro-currency country
out there building an inexpensive (say $50k - $60k) trainer. *The
aerodynamics nowadays are well-understood so it should be easy to make
something simple that has no "bad habits". *I've always been told that
its the tooling and labor costs - especially the labor costs - that's
the issue. *So shouldn't it be possible to get a known group of
aerodynamic and mechanical engineers together to make a solid design,
and then fabricate the darned thing in a region with lower labor
costs? I'm thinking South America, India, or another area where
technically-oriented people live and they can put something together
without major quality-control concerns... Seems like it should be
possible (see: Embraer, or some of the aerospace contracting that's
done in the Asia-Pacific region). *Of course, Windward performance
comes to mind for a "local" solution. *I'm sure they have a few
Duckhawk orders to process right now, but I wonder if Windward could
switch from PrePreg to some simpler fiberglass & kevlar layups and
operate cheaply enough to put out a reasonably-priced trainer that's
sold in US Dollars?

OK, enough wishing for now...

--Noel
P.S. *I am sure a few people are thinking about chiming in and saying
that a trainer has to be metal because it needs to be tied out. *My
only response is: If you can get the trainer down to a reasonable
price, you can afford a couple of extra thousand dollars for a nice
set of covers. *Also, Polyurethane is probably a good idea (to make
repainting/refinishing easier over the next couple of decades), no?

Answering your 'PS' first, I fly ASK-21's which are so incredibly easy
to rig, we rig them every morning and put them back in their trailers
every night. *As an old geezer, I've rigged two of them with a couple
of teenage CAP cadets to help. *Covered trailers are "hangars on
wheels" which dramatically extend airframe life.

Now, let's say L-13's are now worthless. *If you could repair them for
$10k, you have a $10k glider which seems like a good deal. *But, it
would be a 1955 design with a 400Lb payload and probably a 1,500 hour
life remaining and no possibility of extensions. *OTOH, you could use
that $10k for a down payment on an ASK-21 with an 484 Lb payload and
a18,000 hour life and charge an extra $10/hr for debt service 'til the
loan is paid off. *But then, I'm kinda partial to ASK-21's as trainers.

Bill,

Let's do the back of the envelope calculations. $10k down and finance
$90k at 4.5% for 10 years. I show a monthly payment of $932. How big
of a club do you need to support the debt? We had just got to 12
members when the Blanik AD hit and were paying off the $13K we owned
on the Blaink. How does a club this size handle any of the
alternatives?

As I said there was a window of opportunity for the SSA to show true
leadership and value to the soaring community. I contacted the SSA
director for government relationship and was told there was nothing
they were doing. Not sure what you claim they have done since but we
have seen no results so far. I called the SSA president and was
told there was nothing that the SSA could do.

The SSA could have:
1. Formed a task force to work on the problem. Many tried to
volunteer at the time and were told it was an LET and EASA problem.
2. Provided the task force with the authority and backing of the SSA
to
do two things.
a. Work with the FAA, EASA and LET to coordinate a solution that
would work in the USA.
b. Encourage a group of US engineers to develop a solution that
could be done within our system and meet the FAA requirements. We
were told originally that the solution must be done by LET and EASA,
but in later conversions with the FAA we have been told that a US
developed solution would be fine. The parts for the current solution
are only about $1000, the rest is just trying to recover cost for a
private firm that has developed one solution. If this had been done
by a SSA group we could likely do the fix for under $2000 per plane.
There have been many older non-flying glider that have been offered
for testing and we have many engineers that were willing to work on
the problem.

Our club was just reaching critical mass and was beginning to draw
many new members to the SSA and soaring. We don't have the resources
currently to make the step up to a $60 to $100K trainer. The Grobs for
the most part lack a useful load for training. The 2-22 and 2-33 lack
the capability to be useful for soaring. The Blanik is/was a very
valuable tool for allowing smaller clubs to grow large enough to step
up to the next level. I hope designers and glider pilots like Richard
VanGrunsven might consider designing a kit that can be built by a club
for $25K that will provide a 35:1 trainer.