What to do with L-13?

What ever became of our SSA and the "government liaison and support we pay
so dearly for with the high dues and fees?
Isn't this what we all belong for? where is their support and chain rattling
with the FAA to get this issue resolved?
tim


wrote in message
news:8062526.4081.1336051011893.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbkv21...
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.

I was told: You are the SSA, it is up to you to do something, we are
just volunteers.


Better yet... where is the protests and letters to the FAA docket
during the comments period last year? 200 L-13's onthe registry, ONE
THIRD of the trainer fleet, yet only 27 comments from like 9 people? 4
comments from yours truly;

aerodyne

Tim,

Steve Northcraft has done and is doing a superb job as the SSA's point
man on the L-13. He's spent a huge amount of time working with the
FAA to find a solution owners can live with. I'm sure he would like
nothing better than to be able to announce a solution which would make
everyone happy.

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.

The problem isn't just coming up with a well engineered a solution,
that can be done. It's coming up with one which is economically
feasible for a 50 year old glider which will be worth only around
$12,000 after it's fixed - a $15,000 fix for a $12,000 glider is a non-
starter. That's a very tough nut to crack since the paperwork alone
is likely to cost that much. It's possible, even probable, no such
solution can be found. There is no SSA political action which can, or
should, overcome that. Unfortunately, the L-13's, like the war
surplus wooden trainers of the 1950's, may be history.

I agree that losing over 180 L-13 trainers hit the US soaring movement
hard. In the same time period, the fleet of 2-33's has dropped to 131
active gliders, probably due to age. It appears we have half as many
airworthy trainers today as we did 50 years ago. Today, right now, we
need at least 300 new trainers and if the LetsGoGliding program really
takes off, we could need 400.

If someone is thinking of backing a US glider manufacturer, now would
be the time.

Bill Daniels





On May 3, 5:16*pm, "Tim Mara" wrote:
What ever became of our SSA and the "government liaison and support we pay
so dearly for with the high dues and fees?
Isn't this what we all belong for? where is their support and chain rattling
with the FAA to get this issue resolved?
tim

wrote in message

news:8062526.4081.1336051011893.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbkv21...
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.

"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

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.

"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.