Blanik L-13

Prison yard, more likely. Didn't the FAA approve a fix for these L13's? I think this is another "let me buy your Blanik for pennies so I can profit from my immorality". Forgive me if I'm wrong.
http://home.nwi.net/~blanikam/ba/news.htm

No, the FAA has not approved a repair. There is an EASA approval but the last word I got from "those in the know" the license holder was going to approach the FAA to get the approval done. A big part of that approval is that all repair individuals have to be trained by the group having the approval in Europe. The first thought was that interested USA repair personnel would go there to be trained and then the FAA would be approached for approval.. Allegedly there were no USA repair shops that jumped on that idea. Supposedly, now the plan is to get FAA approval first and hopefully train USA repair personnel here not in Europe. This is still a work in progress and realistically, the longer it goes the less likely it will happen.





Prison yard, more likely. Didn't the FAA approve a fix for these L13's? I think this is another "let me buy your Blanik for pennies so I can profit from my immorality". Forgive me if I'm wrong.
http://home.nwi.net/~blanikam/ba/news.htm

The AMOC (alternative method of compliance) for FAA Project AT00794CE-G may indeed take time to resolve. My intention was to caution US owners of affected L-13's that some people that are offering to purchase these "gate exhibits" on the cheap may in fact be planning on "flipping" these gliders for a huge margin if returned to service via an AMOC, thereby taking advantage of those who may not have received the notice. For example, the two offers posted on RAS, and , are suspiciously first-timers here. On the other hand, they could both be quite innocent. I owned an L-13 and sold it in the late 90's but still feel quite bad for the new owner who later had to ground it. It may already be too late for some, unfortunately.

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 3:26:08 PM UTC-7, Duster wrote:
The AMOC (alternative method of compliance) for FAA Project AT00794CE-G may indeed take time to resolve. My intention was to caution US owners of affected L-13's that some people that are offering to purchase these "gate exhibits" on the cheap may in fact be planning on "flipping" these gliders for a huge margin if returned to service via an AMOC, thereby taking advantage of those who may not have received the notice. For example, the two offers posted on RAS, and , are suspiciously first-timers here. On the other hand, they could both be quite innocent. I owned an L-13 and sold it in the late 90's but still feel quite bad for the new owner who later had to ground it. It may already be too late for some, unfortunately.

"A huge margin" on a Blanik, that's a laugh!
Jim

At 23:26 27 April 2017, JS wrote:
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 3:26:08 PM UTC-7, Duster wrote:
The AMOC (alternative method of compliance) for FAA Project
AT00794CE-G
m=
ay indeed take time to resolve. My intention was to caution US owners of
af=
fected L-13's that some people that are offering to purchase these "gate
ex=
hibits" on the cheap may in fact be planning on "flipping" these gliders
fo=
r a huge margin if returned to service via an AMOC, thereby taking
advantag=
e of those who may not have received the notice. For example, the two
offer=
s posted on RAS, and , are
suspiciously=
first-timers here. On the other hand, they could both be quite innocent.
I=
owned an L-13 and sold it in the late 90's but still feel quite bad for
th=
e new owner who later had to ground it. It may already be too late for
some=
, unfortunately.

"A huge margin" on a Blanik, that's a laugh!
Jim

A 6500 euro parts kit excluding several weeks of labour. One done at a
nearby club ended in a bill that was more than the insurance value of the
aircraft. Huge margin, indeed.

With the huge margins maybe a derivative market of Lark calls and puts will develop.

The latest update on the Blanik America site is October 2016 but it seems hopeful:

http://home.nwi.net/~blanikam/ba/news.htm

I live in Canada where the AD&C modification is already approved but the expense of the work coupled with the 5000 hour airframe limit seems to have resulted in few L-13's being made airworthy again. A really nice, very low time L-13 might be an economically viable project though. Personally if I had the time and money to do it I probably would, just as a labor of love. I have a special place in my heart for the L-13, sorely miss flying them and it was a sad day when my club sold our last one. The L-23 we still have is a fine glider but it just doesn't have the same appeal for me.

On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 1:35:23 AM UTC-6, wrote:
The latest update on the Blanik America site is October 2016 but it seems hopeful:

http://home.nwi.net/~blanikam/ba/news.htm

I live in Canada where the AD&C modification is already approved but the expense of the work coupled with the 5000 hour airframe limit seems to have resulted in few L-13's being made airworthy again. A really nice, very low time L-13 might be an economically viable project though. Personally if I had the time and money to do it I probably would, just as a labor of love. I have a special place in my heart for the L-13, sorely miss flying them and it was a sad day when my club sold our last one. The L-23 we still have is a fine glider but it just doesn't have the same appeal for me.

http://www.aircraftdc.de/images/prod...002-Mar-12.pdf describes the increase to 5000hr life over the original 3750hr. It also appears to remove the 35% dual limit (which also exists for the L-23). So, amortizing the cost over the remaining life may make economic sense for L-13 with 2000hrs TTAF or less. Whether it makes financial sense is another question based on the user. The repair may be become much less attractive for those approaching 3000hrs TTAF. I've seen L-13's with three N-number shadows on the component parts, so I suspect there may be basic airframes with 2000hrs, but sporting a 4000hr wing. When first grounded I collected information on the L-13's in the US. There were about 190 on the FAA registry and possibly 90-100 that were being actively flown. At least a couple of sites had several hulks for spares, so there were several "composite" airframes out there. I'm not aware of any L-13A1's that may have been imported into the US. Those were the L-13's that LET had already modifed/replaced the root sections and extended the life to 5000hrs. Those were returned to service by EASA without the AD&C modification. I don't think the FAA considered this, but again, there may not be any in the US, so it would be moot. Unfortunately those couldn't be identified by serial number, but only buy inspecting the differential rivet pattern associated with the modification. I recall the RAFGSA did not pursue this as their L-13 fleet aged.

Frank Whiteley

On Sunday, 7 May 2017 00:45:49 UTC+10, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 1:35:23 AM UTC-6, wrote:
The latest update on the Blanik America site is October 2016 but it seems hopeful:

http://home.nwi.net/~blanikam/ba/news.htm

I live in Canada where the AD&C modification is already approved but the expense of the work coupled with the 5000 hour airframe limit seems to have resulted in few L-13's being made airworthy again. A really nice, very low time L-13 might be an economically viable project though. Personally if I had the time and money to do it I probably would, just as a labor of love.. I have a special place in my heart for the L-13, sorely miss flying them and it was a sad day when my club sold our last one. The L-23 we still have is a fine glider but it just doesn't have the same appeal for me.

http://www.aircraftdc.de/images/prod...002-Mar-12.pdf describes the increase to 5000hr life over the original 3750hr. It also appears to remove the 35% dual limit (which also exists for the L-23). So, amortizing the cost over the remaining life may make economic sense for L-13 with 2000hrs TTAF or less. Whether it makes financial sense is another question based on the user. The repair may be become much less attractive for those approaching 3000hrs TTAF. I've seen L-13's with three N-number shadows on the component parts, so I suspect there may be basic airframes with 2000hrs, but sporting a 4000hr wing. When first grounded I collected information on the L-13's in the US. There were about 190 on the FAA registry and possibly 90-100 that were being actively flown. At least a couple of sites had several hulks for spares, so there were several "composite" airframes out there. I'm not aware of any L-13A1's that may have been imported into the US. Those were the L-13's that LET had already modifed/replaced the root sections and extended the life to 5000hrs. Those were returned to service by EASA without the AD&C modification. I don't think the FAA considered this, but again, there may not be any in the US, so it would be moot. Unfortunately those couldn't be identified by serial number, but only buy inspecting the differential rivet pattern associated with the modification. I recall the RAFGSA did not pursue this as their L-13 fleet aged.

Frank Whiteley

My L13A1, VH-GPS, has a 12000hr life, or as I use it on winch, 11250hrs. It was modified to L13A1 back in the 80's here in Australia.

Cheers

Mark

I recall flying Blanik Let 13s in England back in the late 1980s.

I am currently building a Storch and wondered whether anyone knows where anyone might be scrapping a L13 with the push button central boss inspection cover. I need six of the 100 mm diameter type for my wings.

Any suggestions for sources in the Uk would be much appreciated thanks D