US Glider Fleet, Imports vs Exports, additions vs subtractions
Cul...@aol.com
What's happnin' with the US Registry active glider, motorglider fleet,
Ladies and Gentlemen?
Any one out there care to venture their impressions, feelings, observations,
actual facts, or speculation ?
In some years there have been many US Registered gliders sold and sent to
foreign nations to their purchasers.
Thus, these were lost from the US glider fleet registry, and probably had a
removal from US registration efficiently done at export, along with issuance
of the Export Certificate of Airworthiness .
These are accountable I should think except for the fact that probably there
is not an easy way to retrieve the data from FAA Civil Aircraft Registry.
Bet it is not sortable by list of aircraft type gliders, removed from US
aircraft registry . Or gliders, added to US aircraft registry. Probably
reported in the midst of civil aircraft removed from registry and just
mentions make and model, not category Glider so that it would take a
knowledgable eye to discern. May or may not mention that they were exported.
Is this the case, SSA statistical gurus?
Not readily available by easy sort method?
Exports of US registered gliders was very active in the time when US Currency
was weak against European currencies.
The US Dollar has recovered somewhat and is probably relatively strong now,
though not as high in exchange rate as it was about 1982 - 84 (forgive me, my
memory is not good on this).
Are we gaining more than we are losing now, imports vs exports?
What net difference, gain in imports over export numbers of gliders ?
Then factor in whether the fleet is growing when losses from damage or
destruction or permanent storage and deterioration take them out of the fleet?
Are more than 5 gliders per year added to the US glider fleet registry by
homebuilders?
Does anyone out there in U.S.A. know how many gliders (gliders or
motorgliders) are coming in to US Aircraft glider fleet Registry per year
by import into US, or by construction in US?
Also, how many gliders are leaving US registry by export or destruction?
Understand that aircraft may leave actual US glider fleet without notice of
destruction (or deterioration to permanent non flying status) to US Aircraft
Registry. Is this possible you ask? Yes, I think so, no matter what regs
say.
Also, stored gliders are not reported, and are inactive and may go into
disrepair without removal from US Aircraft registry butn effectively become
losses to the total glider fleet in US. Look in your hangar rafters, in
garages, in barns, I have seen many old gliders crunched or whole, probably
never de-registered, but they have effectively died a silent glider death of
neglect or dropped project status by owner's age, health, or changes of
life of the owners.
So, venture a SWAG,,,, are we gainin or losin ? Is there really any way of
knowing what's happening?
Dancing on clouds,
Keep it up!
Jim Culp USA
B Lacovara
"The Complete Listing of Gliders 2000". (Available from SSA, Knauff & Grove, &
Wings & Wheels.) This includes the entire U.S. registration of gliders,
statistics, and used glider prices.
Here is a quick overview:
In the U.S. as of 1/1/2000 -
4,725 Production gliders registered
935 Limited production or homebuilts
-----------------------------------------------------
5,660 Total U.S. Glider Fleet
U.S. Glider Sales in 1999 -
429 Used gliders changed hands
76 New gliders entered service
An average of 70 new gliders/yr have entered service in the U.S. over the last
5-years.
It does appear that the U.S. glider fleet is slowly growing. There are very few
glider exports from the U.S. basically because of the the strength of the
dollar. While it can be a good deal importing used gliders, it doesn't make
sense to buy a U.S. export when one can buy less expensively elsewhere.
The data available in the "Complete Listing of Gliders 2000" will give you a
good picture of the U.S. fleet.
Bob Lacovara
Michael
> An average of 70 new gliders/yr have entered service in the U.S. over the
last
> 5-years.
That's a very useful statistic, but it fails to take into accout a feature
peculiar to aircraft - there is no need to renew federal registrations.
> It does appear that the U.S. glider fleet is slowly growing.
In fact we don't know any such thing. It is extremely rare for any aircraft
to be entirely removed from the registry unless it is totally parted out.
There is no enforceable requirement to do it, and there is no advantage
to doing it, and it makes the aircraft that much more difficult to sell.
When an aircraft is declared a total loss by the insurance company,
that does not mean it goes off the register. Quite often it will be sold
very cheaply to someone who plans on restoring it. More often than
not, the person buying realizes that he got in WAY over his head,
and tries to sell the 'project' for what he has in it. Of course that
is way more than it's worth. So it sits.
I personally know of several gliders that are sitting, damaged and not
repaired, rotting away. Some may eventually be restored to flying
condition; most will never fly again.
The big question to be asked - do we lose more or less than 70 a
year to that limbo status? I know we lose some. There are several
of them around the glider club I belong to.
Michael
B Lacovara
peculiar to aircraft - there is no need to renew federal registrations.>>>
That is correct. There are no available sources of data to determine the number
of aircraft that are rendered unflyable.
The registration numbers, however are growing. In 1996 there were 5,159
registered gliders, compared to 5,660 in 2000. At an average growth rate of 70
new gliders being imported per year, that accounts for 5,509, and possibly the
balance of 151 are homebuilts.
While it is difficult to get a handle on, the fact that there are currently 501
more registered gliders than in 1996 seems to lead to the conclusion that the
fleet is indeed growing slowly. It doesn't sound plausable that we are trashing
more than 100 gliders a year.
Bob
Bob
Michael
> That is correct. There are no available sources of data to determine the
number
> of aircraft that are rendered unflyable.
Actually, there are sources of data - insurance companies - but they are
understandably reluctant to share.
> The registration numbers, however are growing. In 1996 there were 5,159
> registered gliders, compared to 5,660 in 2000. At an average growth rate
of 70
> new gliders being imported per year, that accounts for 5,509, and possibly
the
> balance of 151 are homebuilts.
I suspect part of the balance may be imported used gliders. It's not as
rare a practice as one might think. Homebuilding, I'm sure, also accounts
for some, as does the manufacture of purpowe-built racers certified in the
experimental - exhibition and air racing category. One of the best
deals in a used glider out there is the purchase of an experimental that
was built to race but is no longer competitive - assuming you can deal
with the handling quirks.
> While it is difficult to get a handle on, the fact that there are
currently 501
> more registered gliders than in 1996 seems to lead to the conclusion that
the
> fleet is indeed growing slowly. It doesn't sound plausable that we are
trashing
> more than 100 gliders a year.
Actually, given my experience (admittedly limited) it sounds altogether too
plausible. I've been involved in soaring less than three years. I belong
to a
relatively large club of over 100 people, with about two dozen gliders based
on the field. This is what I've seen:
Homebuilt, wrecked in off-field landing (by highly experienced pilot),
beyond repair. Still registered.
Blanik L-23, stall-spin from a rope break, beyond repair. Still registered.
Blanik L-23, landed downwind, might be repairable - and might not.
AFAIK, written off as a total loss. Still registered.
Schweitzer 2-33, failed annual due to unserviceable fabric and airframe
corrosion, repairable, but has been out of service two years. Has been
bought by an A&P who planned to restore it, has been sold since, may
never fly again.
Homebuilt, taken out of service due to wood condition issues, has been
'restored' by an amateur, still hasn't flown. I've looked at it - I
wouldn't
fly it either.
Some others were damaged in a hangar collapse and may yet be
written off, but that was a freak event.
So here we are - five that will likely never fly again, in less than three
years, at just one club. Every place I go that has glider activity seems
to have several gliders that "will be restored" but are quite obviously
never going to fly again, so I suspect that what I have seen is not
atypical.
If the active (as in - has current annual, flew within the past year)
fleet of gliders numbers so much as 3000, I'd be impressed. My
guess is that half the ships on the registry are unairworthy, and that
we're losing more than 100 a year - not always in spectacular
accidents. More often, it will be a glider that gets taken out of
service for restoration and never flies again.
Michael
Walt Konecny
B Lacovara <blac...@aol.comxspam> wrote in message
news:20010226152101...@ng-mg1.aol.com...
> That is correct. There are no available sources of data to determine the
number
> of aircraft that are rendered unflyable.
>
> The registration numbers, however are growing. In 1996 there were 5,159
> registered gliders, compared to 5,660 in 2000. At an average growth rate
of 70
> new gliders being imported per year, that accounts for 5,509, and possibly
the
> balance of 151 are homebuilts.
>
> While it is difficult to get a handle on, the fact that there are
currently 501
> more registered gliders than in 1996 seems to lead to the conclusion that
the
> fleet is indeed growing slowly. It doesn't sound plausable that we are
trashing
> more than 100 gliders a year.
In reviewing the Fed's databases, I see that there have been 178 REPORTED
glider crashes in the US during the past 5 years. Of course, some of those,
or maybe even most of them were repairable, but whether they were actually
repaired and flying again or not, we don't know. Also, I'm willing to bet
that a lot of glider crashes which don't result in serious injury of
fatality are not reported. If someone has a relatively cheap glider,
doesn't insure for hull value, trashes it on a bad landing, trailering
accident, etc, they will probably not report it. Why would they want to
subject themselves to the scrutiny and paperwork?
As far as adding recent homebuilts to the fleet..what are we talking
here - - a fistful of Spirits, Falcons and maybe 2 Monerais? Maybe a couple
of wooden ones which maybe or not get flown and then are stored forever?
Maybe some folks are still building HP stuff.
I hope the following is not representative of the accuracy of the databases,
but......
Since 1/1/83 there have been five glider crashes in Utah, which resulted in
fatalities, and in which the gliders were destroyed to the point that they
were scrap, maybe a couple of salvagable parts, but that's about it. Here's
some info:
1984 BG 12/16 fatal (1) not on database
1985 LS-3 fatal (1) still registered
1986 IS 29B2 fatal (2) still carried in database under "Sale Pending"
1986 RS15 fatal (1) doesn't even list record of accident, strange,
considering the, for lack of a better word, "entertaining" nature of the
crash.
1995 1-26 fatal (1) not on database
So, here our gider population appears overstated by 150%. Three out of five
still recorded in the registry.
I also know of about 7 or 8 gliders in the northern Utah area which still
carry registration, but haven't been flown in over 10 years, and will likely
never fly.
Yes, I'm sure the glider population is growing, especially during times of
decent currency exchange rates, however probably not at the rate we think it
is. Some years back, when the Dollar was weak, there were some in the US
who made a business of bleeding our inventory by sending lots of good stuff
out of the country.
wk
Walt Konecny
Walt Konecny <wkon...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:o9Bm6.6173$Jb2.4...@news.uswest.net...
> 1986 IS 29B2 fatal (2) still carried in database under "Sale Pending"
That should be IS28B2
wk
Bob Kuykendall
>Maybe some folks are still building HP stuff.
They are.
Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com
==============================================================
Posted via Glider Pilot Network > http://www.gliderpilot.net
Host: h29s103a81n47.user.nortelnetworks.com
==============================================================
Walt Konecny
Bob Kuykendall <REMOVE_TO...@hpaircraft.com> wrote in message
news:97f1am$ojspv$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
Best choice for a homebuilt glider. Then and now. If I were going to build
one, that would be my choice.
.....and please, no hatemail from the three of you who have successfully
built and flown some ASC stuff, or the one who has built and survived a
flight in a Monisomething, or the one who hasn't had to bail out of a
Windrose, or the one thinking of building a low performance
taillesssomethingorother which can be flown after sundown, or.....
wk
Al
"Walt Konecny" <wkon...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:UlEm6.7240$Jb2.6...@news.uswest.net...
Dan Cromer
If you want to have an impact on assisting import of economical
L-13 gliders to the US, add your approval to the DOT Document Management
System for docket item 8471. Go to http://dms.dot.gov/search/, enter
8471 in the Docket Number field, and click the Search button to get
information about the entry. Click the ES button at the
top to start your online submission of your comment.
Basically the issue is that Termikas, USA wants to import L-13s
that have been reconditioned in Lithuania. These gliders are otherwise
eligible for FAA Standard Category airworthiness certificate, except that
neither the manufacturer (LET) or Czech Republic CAA will provide a
statement that the gliders were manufactured in accordance with required
airworthiness standards. Their reasons for withholding the statement are
obvious, as these reconditioned L-13s are serious competition for
currently-manufactured new gliders. However, the L-13s under discusion
were manufactured in the same series of serial numbers as those receiving
FAA approval for standard category.
We have two of these L-13s at the North Florida Soaring Society,
Herlong Airport near Jacksonville, Florida, currently flying under
experimental category. They are in excellent shape and used frequently.
It would be great to have our gliders and others like them available in
standard category.
Dan
On 25 Feb 2001 Cul...@aol.com wrote:
>
> What's happnin' with the US Registry active glider, motorglider fleet,
> Ladies and Gentlemen?
>
> Any one out there care to venture their impressions, feelings, observations,
> actual facts, or speculation ?
>
> In some years there have been many US Registered gliders sold and sent to
> foreign nations to their purchasers.
>
> Thus, these were lost from the US glider fleet registry, and probably had a
> removal from US registration efficiently done at export, along with issuance
> of the Export Certificate of Airworthiness .
>... snip
Greybeard
B.) The US is not the repository for everyone elses runout junk, repainted
or not.
C.) More could be accomplished by trying to put some limits on the lawyers,
courts, and other cesspool scum that are now making it almost impossible for
a domestic builder to compete economically.
Sorry, dude. Second hand, second rate isn't the way I want the US seen. I
would rather see the 1-26 go back into production, at least then you could
get a new one.
Greybeard
Dan Cromer <da...@afn.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101022...@freenet6.afn.org...
Walt Konecny
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101022...@freenet6.afn.org...
> Colleagues,
> If you want to have an impact on assisting import of economical
> L-13 gliders to the US, add your approval to the DOT Document Management
> System for docket item 8471. Go to http://dms.dot.gov/search/, enter
> 8471 in the Docket Number field, and click the Search button to get
> information about the entry. Click the ES button at the
> top to start your online submission of your comment.
> Basically the issue is that Termikas, USA wants to import L-13s
> that have been reconditioned in Lithuania.
Explain to us again why we want more 30 year old East European tin in the
US?
>Their reasons for withholding the statement are
> obvious, as these reconditioned L-13s are serious competition for
> currently-manufactured new gliders.
You can't seriously believe those are any competition whatsoever for
currently manufactured gliders! How often do you hear of a potential buyer
wringing his and and wrestling with the decision over whether to buy a 30
year old piece of tin, or a Duo Discus? If you're suggesting that they
compete with production of the L-23, that may be correct, but it's up to the
manufacturer to keep his production running, which may be difficult if some
opt for the old tin. They have a responsibility to keep their portion of
the factory operating, they have no responsibility whatsoever to help a
fourth or fifth level reseller to make a profit.
> We have two of these L-13s at the North Florida Soaring Society,
> Herlong Airport near Jacksonville, Florida, currently flying under
> experimental category. They are in excellent shape and used frequently.
> It would be great to have our gliders and others like them available in
> standard category.
Why? All that sounds sort of self serving.
BTW, for many $$ less than they want for the L-13, you can buy a Lark
IS28B2, a much better machine.
wk
Raphael Warshaw
Do you have a financial interest in this? If yes, it would be nice to
disclose it. It would be interesting to know something more about the
facility doing the remanufacturing and qualifications, proceedures, etc..
How do they check for corrosion? If spare parts are installed, where to
they come from and/or how are they made/certified?
Raphael Warshaw
Claremont, CA
Raphael Warshaw
Claremont, CA
Raphael Warshaw
"Raphael Warshaw" <r...@wdds.com> wrote in message
news:97jo7k$oc4$1...@madmax.keyway.net...
Almost forgot - how do they verify the flight hours or is the clock reset to
zero?
Raphael Warshaw
Claremont, CA
Wallace Berry
<grey...@mwci.net> wrote:
Well, many clubs need 2-seat trainers. Have you looked for a trainer
recently? Almost nothing available for under $40k except poorly
maintained junk. Many clubs cannot afford a Duo-Discus or even a used
K-21. Even when clubs can afford to buy a K-21, they can't afford to
insure it. Blanik L-13s and L-23s are about the best gliders for
training new pilots. New L-23s cost upwards of $40K. A refurbed L-13,
such as the ones these posts refer to, are less than half that price.
My club had one of these refurbed L-13s (imported by a different
individual. It was beautiful and checked out essentially as new when
inspected by a Blanik knowledgable AI. It would have been as close to
perfect for our club as possible. Would had what was, for all practical
purposes a new glider for about $18K. Unfortunately, after several
months of trying, we were unable to get it certified in the U.S. for
the very situation referenced in the DOT item 8471. The seller had to
take it back. Now we are looking at importing a K-13 or Blanik from
Germany.
Hell, I've flown at least one of every model 1-26. Done cross countries
and flown contests in them. Landed out in pea patches in them. Done 5
hour flights and aerobatics in them. I like 1-26s, but even a runout
Blanik is a better glider than a new 1-26. And how would a new 1-26 be
better than a refurbed old one? I bet most 1-26 fans would rather have
a real nice A model than a new E anyday.
Wallace Berry
<wkon...@uswest.net> wrote:
> You can't seriously believe those are any competition whatsoever for
> currently manufactured gliders! How often do you hear of a potential buyer
> wringing his and and wrestling with the decision over whether to buy a 30
> year old piece of tin, or a Duo Discus? If you're suggesting that they
> compete with production of the L-23, that may be correct, but it's up to the
> manufacturer to keep his production running, which may be difficult if some
> opt for the old tin. They have a responsibility to keep their portion of
> the factory operating, they have no responsibility whatsoever to help a
> fourth or fifth level reseller to make a profit.
>
> > We have two of these L-13s at the North Florida Soaring Society,
> > Herlong Airport near Jacksonville, Florida, currently flying under
> > experimental category. They are in excellent shape and used frequently.
> > It would be great to have our gliders and others like them available in
> > standard category.
>
> Why? All that sounds sort of self serving.
>
> BTW, for many $$ less than they want for the L-13, you can buy a Lark
> IS28B2, a much better machine.
>
> wk
I believe the argument is in fact referring to the L-13s competing with
new production L-23s, not with sales of Duos. Of course those who can
afford to purchase and insure a Duo aren't in the market for a old
L-13. However, there are a lot of clubs out there, mine included, that
would love to get our hands on a reasonable priced L-13, either already
in this country or imported. There is just a real shortage of used
training gliders in reasonable condition in the U.S. There wouldn't be
if we could all afford to buy and insure gliders that cost a minimum of
$40K.
I don't blame the Blanik manufacturers for trying to protect their
market. But it is not the FAA and DOT's place to do it for them. The
authorities have it in their power to allow the imported Blaniks to be
flown here as certificated aircraft.
Having flown a couple of Larks I can say that I would be pleased for my
club to have one. However, I think that a Blanik would make a much
better trainer for my club (as do the club instructors). By the way,
don't the Larks face a life limit issue that requires dealing with lots
of bureaucracy?
Bob Kuykendall
I know that down some other branches of this thread, there's a lot of nattering and gromishing about why we don't need a bunch of old silver commie ships in the US. One of the arguments, of course, is that it would introduce unfair competition with domestic manufacturers.
Well, as a domestic manufacturer of sailplane parts and subassemblies, I'd like to weigh in on the side of the prospective importer.
Two-seat gliders of the performance levels that makes them good trainers are getting a little scarce in the US. Scarce means expensive. Expensive makes them expensive to insure and operate. Expensive to operate scares away potential soaring pilots who are 18-34, have the free time it takes to thoroughly enjoy soaring, but not the kind of disposable income that it takes to take the full ride on the Marrakech express.
Well, guess what? Those kids we're scaring away are our future. They are the folks who will become devoted to our sport, and later in life will be driven to extremes of upward mobility in order to partake of it to the utmost. Some of them will express their love of soaring with resourcefulness and inventiveness rather than dollars; those are my customers for new HP kits.
The system may already be broken. The numbers coming in on my survey indicate that we are dangerously lacking in the 18-34 demographic that drives so many mid- and later-life pursuits. The sport of Soaring may be like the thermal that has broken away from it's source, and is pulling its tail up after it. And I may have gotten there just too late and just too low to take a ride on it.
So we let in a bunch of old European ships that I can't possibly compete with in the sub-30:1 certificated two-seat bracket. Fine by me; you couldn't drag me into that market without a locomotive or a half meg of seed cash.
So some of them might be sort of ratty under the new paint. Over here we gots this thing called uh Ann-you-all inspection, where an IA signs her or his reputation against the ship's condition. And guess what? That inspectron gets paid here in the US, with US dollars.
And yes, no doubt there's potential for some of these ships to have hidden defects that will reveal themselves only in service. Well, that's no different from any other ship or class of ships. At least, with the old L-13, there's enough of a service record that we know where to watch out for trouble. With new designs, you have to start from scratch, and learn an entirely new set of weaknesses.
Overall, I think that as long as they are operated responsibly, the plusses of letting those ships over here outweigh the minusses. I wouldn't relish the thought of placing myself between the post-Soviet mafias and some easy strong-arm dollars, but anyone who wants to go there has my blessing.
Bob K.
Wallace Berry
<REMOVE_TO...@hpaircraft.com> wrote:
> I know that down some other branches of this thread, there's a lot of
> nattering and gromishing about why we don't need a bunch of old silver commie
> ships in the US. One of the arguments, of course, is that it would introduce
> unfair competition with domestic manufacturers.
>
> Well, as a domestic manufacturer of sailplane parts and subassemblies, I'd
> like to weigh in on the side of the prospective importer.
>
> Two-seat gliders of the performance levels that makes them good trainers are
> getting a little scarce in the US. Scarce means expensive. Expensive makes
> them expensive to insure and operate. Expensive to operate scares away
> potential soaring pilots who are 18-34, have the free time it takes to
> thoroughly enjoy soaring, but not the kind of disposable income that it takes
> to take the full ride on the Marrakech express.
>
> Well, guess what? Those kids we're scaring away are our future. They are the
> folks who will become devoted to our sport, and later in life will be driven
> to extremes of upward mobility in order to partake of it to the utmost. Some
> of them will express their love of soaring with resourcefulness and
> inventiveness rather than dollars; those are my customers for new HP kits.
>
>
Very well said Bob.
As for the condition of the L-13s that this thread is wound around: My
club, Southern Eagles Soaring, bought one of the refurbed L-13s a
couple of years ago (from a different individual than the ones
importing them now). It was a beautiful ship and checked out to be in
essentially as new condition by those knowledgeable of Blaniks.
Unfortunately, the bureacracy would not yield on the certification and
we had to let it go back. So know we are looking at buying a Blanik or
Ka-13 out of Europe.
What are the chances that the thought of someone importing "old wood"
will piss some people off even more than "old tin"?
Walt Konecny
news:280220011714265829%ber...@acesag.auburn.edu...
> As for the condition of the L-13s that this thread is wound around: My
> club, Southern Eagles Soaring, bought one of the refurbed L-13s a
> couple of years ago (from a different individual than the ones
> importing them now). It was a beautiful ship and checked out to be in
> essentially as new condition by those knowledgeable of Blaniks.
> Unfortunately, the bureacracy would not yield on the certification and
> we had to let it go back.
Why couldn't you get Experimental on it and operate it that way? I thought
only Commercial operations couldn't use Experimental certification.
So know we are looking at buying a Blanik or
> Ka-13 out of Europe.
Why? There are usually L-13, Lark IS28B2 and a handful of 2-33 listed in
the SSA classifieds.
> What are the chances that the thought of someone importing "old wood"
> will piss some people off even more than "old tin"?
Nobody's "pissed off" if someone wants to import anything. Just don't ask
all other soaring pilots to make the case for someone who wants to make a
profit for themselves, by peddling it as a "benefit" to all of soaring. If
there's really that kind of market for it here, the case would have been
made a long time ago.
wk
Greybeard
> recently?
About a month ago.
> It would have been as close to
> perfect for our club as possible. Would had what was, for all practical
> purposes a new glider for about $18K. Unfortunately, after several
> months of trying, we were unable to get it certified in the U.S. for
> the very situation referenced in the DOT item 8471. The seller had to
> take it back. Now we are looking at importing a K-13 or Blanik from
> Germany.
Having had some close calls in the shop with metal fatigue that two very
experienced people saw no external signs of, that would be the first thing
to bother me. Granted, metal fatigue normally shows some external signs,
but not always. 3000 feet off the ground isn't a good time to discover that
something critical has finally given up. I don't know that it has happened,
but neither do I know it hasn't.
>
> I like 1-26s, but even a runout
> Blanik is a better glider than a new 1-26.
And by the same token, none of the Blaniks have the carrying capacity of a
2-32 either. What the hell does that prove? That machine "A" is better
than machine "B" is strictly a matter of viewpoint.
> And how would a new 1-26 be
> better than a refurbed old one? I bet most 1-26 fans would rather have
> a real nice A model than a new E anyday.
Won't argue that, although mine is an E. But what's to say that if they had
continued production, that maybe someone might not have developed a little
more efficient wing even though it would have meant compromising the
original design principles? The 1-26 was designed to be simple and
uncomplicated, without bad habits, and I think that the Schweizers did very
well.
The basic problem isn't blocking imports from flying with any given
classification, but it's more from our legal system looking at the
manufacturers as the "deep pocket", and lawyers only too willing to sue for
any reason, real or imagined. To look to other countries for a solution to
what is a basic internal problem is to insure that it will never go away.
Get the shysters reined in so the manufacturers know that they can produce
their products and not get sued for everyone elses stupidity, and I think
that something mass produced could happen again.
Greybeard
Dan Cromer
I'm not asking "all soaring pilots" to do anything. I'm saying that,
1) in my opinion, it would be better for the sport of soaring in the
U.S. if many comparatively inexpensive (US$22,500) refurbished L-13
Blaniks were available for purchase as training/club gliders with
Standard Category airworthiness certificate; and 2) many gliders
otherwise manufactured in the same series as gliders eligible for FAA
Standard Category are prevented from getting the airworthiness
certificate by lack of statement from manufacturer or civil aviation
authority in country of origin for business case or political reasons.
Regardless of your opinion, I encourage you to contribute to the public
input by making a comment to the document management system of DOT.
I have instructed in or given commercial rides in SGS 2-22, 2-32, 2-33,
LET L-13, L-23, ASK-13, Grob G-103, and Japanese Mita III-2. Of all
these, I (and this is just a personal preference) happen to prefer the
L-13 over the others for training when all things are considered; I
think it has better visibility from the back than L-23, which is fairly
close second and much better performer with extended wingtips, but also
more expensive. One day I will, but so far I haven't flown a Duo-Discus
-- but it's out of the same cost league of the others anyway.
This thread actually started with a question about the status of
soaring in the U.S. and whether we're gaining more gliders or losing
them as years go by. I don't want the sport to die in the U.S. and I
don't want soaring to be the sport of an elite high-disposable-income
few, not for personal financial gain -- and I don't have any business
relationship with the company asking for FAA waiver -- but for the joy
of soaring that I'd like to share with others.
Dan
Dan Cromer
Dan
>
F.L. Whiteley
on importing these for this type of use. You just can't use them for
commercial flights. If ride giving is a significant revenue stream for your
club, then I can understand not wanting to do this. Give the rides in the
2-33 then.
Furthermore, I believe that life extensions, special spar work, etc were
required (at least at some point in time) to be done at the LET factory as a
condition for approval. This may not apply to these gliders, or it might,
which could be part of the reason why the export C of A is not available.
There may be some skepticism that the claimed time is accurate, considering
the vintage. I'd suspect the log books. Had the gliders been returned to
the factory for refurbishing and inspection, I doubt there would be an
issue.
The price is way too high without the factory's endorsement and high even
with it IMHO. The use of the term 'economical' in the subject is highly
subjective. Shop around in other markets, you might be surprised.
Frank
Colorado
Robertmudd1u
the LET factory is willing to overhaul these gliders to factory standard and
issue an export airworthiness certificate. This would allow them to be licensed
in the STD, category in the States.
It sound like the path any responsable manufactuer of aircraft would take.
Naturally this will cost money and therefore cut into the importer's margin.
Robert Mudd
Eric Greenwell
wkon...@uswest.net says...
Did you consider the Russia AC-4K kit when you thought about choices
for homebuilt gliders? It seems at least as attractive as an HP.
--
Remove REMOVE from my e-mail address to reply
Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)