SGS 2-33 VS Blanik L-23; maintenance issues
jeff rothman
L-23s. I understand Blaniks can be a pain to work on. Does anyone have
experience working on both types? If so, could you give me a comparison of
the amount and cost of maintenance required for the L-23 VS the 2-33? We are
also considering the Perigrine (Krosno)
Thanks,
-Jeff
F.L. Whiteley
"jeff rothman" <roth...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:r2KW9.287039$FT6.48...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
a bit weak, so plan on periodic replacement (they are cheap). FWIW, in our
environment I'd guess every 6-9 months would be adequate, YMMV. We are
handling our L-23 'very gently' WRT turning on the ground and landings. We
do not push it backwards at all. Though the 'donuts' are cheap, but there
is some labor penalty to shaping and replacing them and daily inspections
are a bit awkward. However, to allow one to collapse will result in damage
to the tail fairing at considerably greater expensive and time of repair.
Other maintenance has been virtually non-existent to date. We've been
operating ours since 8/2001. Our 2-33 has been very light on maintenance,
however, it's getting close to needing recovering. AFAIK, the 2-33 has no
service life limits. L-23 is 6000 hours in straight aerotow operations.
This varies slightly depending on whether it is ground launched or flown
with the extended tips option. These times must be logged separately and
will affect service life.
We also operate a 2-33 and require ab-initios to complete their first five
solos in same unless there is some overriding reason for them in to solo in
the L-23. Tallness is one consideration. So far, nothing has happened to
affect the utility of the 2-33. We have had some cracked panels and fabric
patched over the years. Corrosion may be a bigger problem in some
locations. We hangar our 2-33 and are in a low humidity environment. If
you are tying down outside, you can expect the L-23 interior to degrade over
time.
The L-23 soars better, spins better, is more comfortable, and is quieter
than the 2-33. Ours does spin better in one direction than the other. We
have a fund going to replace the L-23 seat belts, which are inferior, from a
utility aspect, as supplied. We passed the hat at the safety meeting the
other day and $96 was collected on the first pass, so the opinion is shared
(especially since only 1/2 the members were there). Actually, it isn't the
belts as much as the releases that are a nuisance IMVHO. We are in the
process of adding EDS O2 systems front and rear. We've added a MicroAir
radio.
As we have a number of members that ground launch, the L-23 is likely the
best performer on the ground launch and we did order ours with a TOST cg
hook to replace the bridle fittings. Personally I consider this a worthwhile
option if buying new. We were getting 2300-2700agl New Year's day into a
moderate headwind. Our G-103 does about as well, but it's just now back
online after getting its 3000-hour inspection, so I can't say what it might
have done in the same conditions. Past experience was similar though. The
2-33 doesn't ground launch very well due to the nose hook. The L-23
penetration allows for more soaring opportunities per launch.
Frank Whiteley
Colorado
F.L. Whiteley
"F.L. Whiteley" <gre...@greeleynet.com> wrote in message
news:3e2b93b9$0$183$7586...@news.frii.net...
the glider back to the factory for an extensive overhaul when the limits are
reached. Also, our L-23 has the castoring tailwheel, there is another
option which also is unsuited for pushing backwards. There is a tailwheel
dolly option and apparently a lifting bar option, neither of which we have.
We use a sling for lifting the tail.
Frank
wyvern
to L23's and yes there were a lot of opinions back then. Today if we were to
tell the club we were selling the L23's to go back to 2-33's there would be
a riot.
As Frank pointed out you MUST replace the rubber donuts regularly (twice a
year $30? per set). Our club was suppose to replace them in the early spring
(after sitting out all winter) and mid to late season. Like most clubs
information gets left behind as new people come along. More times than not
it would not get done and some one would notice the glider riding on it's
frame rather than the tail wheel. In the 12 years of operation we had to
have the tail bulkhead repaired once on each glider. Keep in mind we treat
our Blaniks rough. They live outside year round through ice and snow in the
winter. With the 2-33's we were for ever recovering the fuselages or fixing
tail feathers. The Blaniks have been relatively maintenance free. We teach
held off landings and feel it is a far better trainer than the 2-33 for our
needs (please, I have heard all the pros and cons). They have performed as
our basic trainers for 12 years. They have taught cross country flight,
flown in contest, aerobatics, and a new generation of wire launch pilots.
NONE, of which could have been done in a 2-33.
jw
Bill Daniels
"wyvern" <gli...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:YwWW9.18262$4u5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Did you have any instructors and/or students that couldn't handle the
transition to the L-23? I'd be interested in hearing about that.
Bill Daniels
JC Cunningham
mechanism. I got very nice FAA approved belts, with lap and shoulder
padding for $150.00 a set from Hooker Harness. We'll worth just in
the time savings of not having to explain to passenger how to get the
old belts on and off.
They will custom make them for you in about a week. They have a
number of different colors you can choose from.
Hooker Harness can be reached at:
Hooker Harness Inc.
Work: 815-233-5478
Fax: 815-233-5479
1322 S. Harlem St.
Suite B
Freeport, IL 61032
P.S. I have no association with Hooker Harness. I just think they
make an excellent product at a reasonable price.
"F.L. Whiteley" <gre...@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>
> We
>have a fund going to replace the L-23 seat belts, which are inferior, from a
>utility aspect, as supplied. We passed the hat at the safety meeting the
>other day and $96 was collected on the first pass, so the opinion is shared
>(especially since only 1/2 the members were there). Actually, it isn't the
>belts as much as the releases that are a nuisance IMVHO. We are in the
>process of adding EDS O2 systems front and rear. We've added a MicroAir
>radio.
>
>Frank Whiteley
>Colorado
>
BTIZ
there is a memo on the xxx web page ( wish I could find it) about the L-23
and pushing it backwards across uneven ground (grass/dirt).
The spring mechanism that supports the swiveling tailwheel is stressed
(sprung) for forward motion on takeoff and landing, not for swiveling around
and pushed backwards. The memo states that damage can occur to the tailwheel
attach mechanism if pushed backwards on uneven ground.
The same memo stated that the vertical fin should not be used for a handhold
while pushing backwards, I believe the "side stresses" would loosen the
attachment points over time.
We have the full swivel tail and the tail lift bar on the L-23, turn it
around and push forward on uneven ground.
TZ
"jeff rothman" <roth...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:r2KW9.287039$FT6.48...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
wyvern
doing basic training in the L23 allowed us to transition pilots into glass a
hell of a lot quicker.
Bill Daniels
lurkers who think the L-23 is way too hot for average pilots. I agree with
you completely.
Bill Daniels
"wyvern" <gli...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:HQZW9.761507$P31.556228@rwcrnsc53...
Christian Husvik
> You wrote what I hoped you would write. My question was on behalf of a few
> lurkers who think the L-23 is way too hot for average pilots.
What, the L-23 is er... _hot_?? :-o Well, that was certainly news to
me. LOL
The only thing I do not appreciate is the rather poor visibility in the
rear seat compared to gliders like ASK-13 and ASK-21. But I guess it is
adequate if you lean forward a bit and use your eyes.
Christian 8-)
Blandine Washington
http://www.soaringsafety.org/safetyadvisory01-1.PDF
"BTIZ" <bnosp...@lvcm.com> wrote in message news:<WDYW9.29195$Ji6.1...@news2.west.cox.net>...
Tony Verhulst
> The only thing I do not appreciate [about the L23] is the rather poor visibility in the
> rear seat compared to gliders like ASK-13 and ASK-21. But I guess it is
> adequate if you lean forward a bit and use your eyes.
After instructing in 2-33s for years, I welcomed the much improved rear
seat visibility of the L-13 and L-23. I guess it's all relative. A 2-33
is a poor choice for teaching a student to thermal in a gaggle.
Tony V "6N"
BTIZ
TZ
"Blandine Washington" <bwba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7a96fae.03012...@posting.google.com...
Tim
Although I have no other gliders to compare to, the
L23 was easy to fly in all respects.
Tim
"Bill Daniels" <n22...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b0hqee$81l$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
nowhere
had been through a fence and had other "adventures" before we got it.
Someone mentioned corrosion. I wouldn't worry about it. We leave ours
tied down outside all season in a very wet environment and it doesn't
have any. Our oldest L13 (4300hrs, nearly 30 yers old) is treated the
same and it's fine too. We do "100 hour inspections" which basically
consist of opening all the access panels up and then cleaning and
lubing everything. No big deal.
The only problem I've seen (and that rarely) with people coming into
the club who have only flown 2-33's is that sometimes they overbrake
on rollout and put the nose down. Since the 2-33 rests on it's nose on
the ground this is understandable. People who haven't trained on the
2-33 sometimes do this as well.
F.L. Whiteley
"nowhere" <now...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:ad4b9842.03012...@posting.google.com...
I'm making a couple of assumptions here for something I don't quite
understand. There appears to be some special schedule of inspections for
the L-13. However, it's not quite clear from this that these inspections
clear the L-13 past its 3750 hour service limit. Care to comment?
At one time, I understood that life extensions were only achieved following
a return of the L-13 to the factory for some special inspections and
restoration. Does the special inspection schedule ameliorate this? It
appears that the GFA may allow this somehow. What about the USA?
Frank Whiteley
Colorado
nowhere
be taken as gospel around my club) that the life limit doesn't apply
to L13's in the U.S. and that like most aircraft you continue to fly
them as long as they pass the annual. Here in Canada the LET factory
has to approve operating over the stated limit. Essentially what seems
to happen is your Aircraft Maintenance Engineer checks some things out
according to factory instructions (and it's really not much to do) you
send the paperwork to LET with money and they approve the ship for
operation for a period of time that seems to depend upon how much you
pay. Our oldest L13 is at over 4400 hours and still flys beautifuly.
Nicer than the L23 we used to have in fact (which we bought new) or
the L23 that replaced that one when it decided to go flying all by
itself in a storm (NEVER skimp on tie down anchors!)
Nyal Williams
2-33, I'd like to point out a couple of boneheaded
engineering points on the L-23.
1. That stupid bar at the back of the seat pan has
damaged more tailbones than any other glider you can
find.
2. It was idiotic to make a glider this tail heavy
and forbid people to push it backward or sideways;
why didn't they beef up that swivel tailwheel so it
would take the loads?
3. Why did they not route the tow release for the
back seat such that the divebrakes handle could be
turned upward like the one in the front seat? I have
been repeatedly kneecapped by overzealous students
who jump in and start jerking the spoiler handle and
the stick around in their attempt to do a control check
without warning me what they are about to do!
Otherwise, it is a good trainer.
Jeff Banks
I learned to fly in a Blanik L-13 years ago (1977) We here in Alaska
just got a new L–23 for Civil Air Patrol and fly it with our L-13 and
ASK-21. We sold one of our 2-33's last year.
I have never been a fan of the 2-33 for primary training because it is
out of date in flying characteristics. I find it is much better to
start new students in the Blanik or ASK-21 from the start. Later they
can check out in a 2-33 with ease. I find it a waste of training time
to do the 2-33 first then "upgrade" to the current fleet. (Although
many other clubs believe other wise.)
Replacing the 2-33 is a very good decision IMHO.
There is alot of metal vs fiberglass urban myths out there. They both
need to be mantained and repaired for many different reasons. I
personaly like fiberglass and composite gliders, and I think most
glider pilots would rather fly a glider made from the latest
generation manufacturing materials. There are new paints and waxes
that keep the composites protected from UV. Our Blaniks have picked
up a few dents and bent metal over time that the ASK-21 seems to be
resilient to. We have removed the term "glass" glider and often call
the K-21 a "plastic" glider. The canopy system opens and closes in a
way that reduces canopy damage (although there is a reflective mode
that will cause a fire) The wheels are strong and the brake is very
good. The tail wheel is strong and we can teach proper two point tail
low landings. The Blanik has a weak tail and you must land with the
main wheel first. (There is an option to get a fixed tail wheel like
the ASK-21 and I think the USAF academy ordered theirs with that
option.)
The Blanik has a very soft riding main gear and handles rough turf
nicely. It does require maintenance attention as it has an oleo strut
that must be charged with an expensive special tool. Hard landings
with a flat strut are costly to repair. If you need a glider that
spins easiely then the Blanik is a good choice. They all seem to spin
best to the left and will drop the wing if the stall is aggravated
with down aileron on the lowering wing. (This makes me nervous with
inexperience students, however it maybe just the glider to do stall
training with for that reason.) If you have large over 190lb 90kg
pilots the Blanik will be at or over gross when flying two pilots. (I
am told the newest L-23's have a GW increase) The ASK-21 will carry
two 240lb 110kg pilots with no problem.
I do not know anything about the Krosno.
If the club has the capital I would strongly encourage the ASK-21. It
is a classic case of you get what you pay for.
Take Care
Jeff Banks
Alaska Mountain Soaring Association
C.Fleming
Vaughn Simon
"Jeff Banks" <j...@mtaonline.net> wrote in message
news:8d6cad7a.03012...@posting.google.com...
> I do not know anything about the Krosno.
Now reincarnated as the Peregrine, production to start soon in Florida.
http://www.peregrinesailplane.com/
F.L. Whiteley
"Nyal Williams" <REMOVE_TO_REPL...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b0vb1i$tn8il$1...@ID-49798.news.dfncis.de...
> Without starting up the arguments over the L-23 vs.
> 2-33, I'd like to point out a couple of boneheaded
> engineering points on the L-23.
>
> 1. That stupid bar at the back of the seat pan has
> damaged more tailbones than any other glider you can
> find.
>
> 2. It was idiotic to make a glider this tail heavy
> and forbid people to push it backward or sideways;
> why didn't they beef up that swivel tailwheel so it
> would take the loads?
>
I think all would be unanimous with this one.
> 3. Why did they not route the tow release for the
> back seat such that the divebrakes handle could be
> turned upward like the one in the front seat? I have
> been repeatedly kneecapped by overzealous students
> who jump in and start jerking the spoiler handle and
> the stick around in their attempt to do a control check
> without warning me what they are about to do!
>
> Otherwise, it is a good trainer.
>
Don't forget that the front lap belt can be secured around the rear rudder
pedal(s). Of course, this will be discovered during the control check . . .
.
F.L. Whiteley
"Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimo...@att.net> wrote in message
news:iLZY9.4792$rq4.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Frank Whiteley
Bruce Hoult
"C.Fleming" <cjfl...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Do any clubs use a Grob 103 as a primary trainer? Any comments?
Several clubs here in New Zealand do.
Canterbury gliding club has been using Twin Astirs as primary trainers
for many years.
Wellington gliding club (my club) used to have three or four Blaniks,
got a used Twin Astir in 1995 and a second one several years ago, and
now has no Blaniks at all.
I know there are some 103's around as well, but I'm not quite sure where.
When I learned it was a very big jump from the Blanik to the club's
single-seaters (a Club Libelle and a Std Libelle) and you had to do a
*lot* of solo hours in the Blanik (15, IIRC) before you could convert.
It was so frustrating trying to compete with rides and training for time
in the Blaniks that I stopped flying for several years. Then the club
got an old K6CR and put *much* lower requirements to transition (5 hours
solo) -- which it turned out I already had.
Now the transition is from the Grob to a PW-5, which is nearly trivial.
I'm afraid I don't know how the maintainance is working out on the Grobs
compared to the Blaniks. I do know the Blaniks were getting very old
and were getting pretty expensive to maintain, with all the extra
inspections etc required once the first couple of hours extensions had
been reached.
-- Bruce
Craig Reynolds
primary training. A Blanik and a Ka7 round off the fleet nicely, and
are used for advanced training (full spins etc.) as well as ab initio.
Using all 3 types and an hour or 2 in the Super Falke gives a very good
all round and fairly 'glider-independent' training. The club singles
are 2 Single Astir's (102's) and a Jeans Astir.
That gives you experience on up to 6 types very early on in your
training.
One of the 103's has been recently refurbished, and kitted out for cross
country training.
Other private twins are available to the student by arrangement - Nimbus
4DM, Grob G109, Janus, Twin Astir (retract).
-----Original Message-----
From: Glider Pilot Network [mailto:w...@gliderpilot.net]
Sent: 27 January 2003 10:11 AM
To: Craig Reynolds
Subject: [r.a.s] Re: SGS 2-33 VS Blanik L-23; maintenance issues
------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroup: rec.aviation.soaring
Subject: Re: SGS 2-33 VS Blanik L-23; maintenance issues
Author: Bruce Hoult <br...@hoult.org>
Date/Time: 08:00 27 January 2003
------------------------------------------------------------
In article ,
"C.Fleming" wrote:
for many years.
been reached.
-- Bruce
------------------------------------------------------------
David Kinsell
"> Without starting up the arguments over the L-23 vs.
> 2-33, I'd like to point out a couple of boneheaded
> engineering points on the L-23.
.....
> 2. It was idiotic to make a glider this tail heavy
> and forbid people to push it backward or sideways;
> why didn't they beef up that swivel tailwheel so it
> would take the loads?
They can't do much about how heavy the tail is. It's
quite easy to put it down on the nose the way it is now,
particularly at low speed with not much elevator authority.
Our club has to teach to not use the brakes at low speed.
From a maintenance standpoint, that's the only time you ought
to be using them.
Offering a swivel tailwheel that can't take the stress of
being swiveled is borderline criminal. It's an absolute hog
to handle on the ground because of that. Not good for
training, which is the intended use of the thing.
Couple of other points, the rear canopy hinges backwards on
those stilts such that the two rear corners of the canopy frame
sit on the turtledeck. If that slips out of somebody's hand during
opening, no doubt there's going to be some real damage.
The rear rudder pedals are probably the worst part. Not only
can they be wrapped up by the seat belts, people get tired of
being kicked by the stupid things the entire flight. I can imagine
some front passenger dropping a water bottle or camera down
there and fouling the things.
People have said it flies more like fiberglass. True, you can do
two-point landings in it, but when you do, the tailwheel doesn't
last, so it's not really a good idea. People who claim it flies like
fiberglass apparently don't actually fly fiberglass.
Our club bought one new recently. It had been sitting in storage
for years, with the time-critical parts replaced by the factory before
delivery. After 7 months of moderate useage, the tailwheel collasped
on landing and we had to do some rivet repair to the tail section.
It's always had asymmetrical spin characteristics, fresh out of the box.
I suspect somewhere in the world there's a more poorly designed
glider, but I'm having trouble coming up with one. Any nominations???
Dave
Bill Daniels
"David Kinsell" <kin...@poboxyz.com> wrote in message
news:5uRZ9.85114$AV4.3128@sccrnsc01...
>
snip---
The L-23 has it's bad points, but it's far better than a 2-33 for training.
The back seat is a LOT more comfortable for the instructor than the 2-33.
> They can't do much about how heavy the tail is. It's
> quite easy to put it down on the nose the way it is now,
> particularly at low speed with not much elevator authority.
> Our club has to teach to not use the brakes at low speed.
> From a maintenance standpoint, that's the only time you ought
> to be using them.
>
Asking someone to sit on the front cockpit sides makes the tail a lot easier
to lift.
The brakes work pretty well if they are used while there is still enough
elevator authority to keep it off the nose. I can stop it in less room than
a G103 without putting it on the nose. It's all just a matter of pilot
training and technique.
> Offering a swivel tailwheel that can't take the stress of
> being swiveled is borderline criminal. It's an absolute hog
> to handle on the ground because of that. Not good for
> training, which is the intended use of the thing.
Here's a chance for some enterprising individual to get a STC for a
replacement fixed taillwheel. On the other hand, obtaining a factory tail
dolly would solve a lot of ground handling problems. Are there any used
ones for sale?
>
> Couple of other points, the rear canopy hinges backwards on
> those stilts such that the two rear corners of the canopy frame
> sit on the turtledeck. If that slips out of somebody's hand during
> opening, no doubt there's going to be some real damage.
So far, so good. The rear canopy is so obviously fragile that no one seems
to forget to handle it carefully. Maybe that's a good thing.
>
> The rear rudder pedals are probably the worst part. Not only
> can they be wrapped up by the seat belts, people get tired of
> being kicked by the stupid things the entire flight. I can imagine
> some front passenger dropping a water bottle or camera down
> there and fouling the things.
I forbid "hand carried luggage" in the front cockpit. If the front seat
belts are fouling the rear seat pedals, the "controls free and correct"
preflight check item should catch it. (If we instructors came in smaller
sizes, the rear pedals would be adjusted to their rearmost position which
would eliminate most of the interference.)
>
> People have said it flies more like fiberglass. True, you can do
> two-point landings in it, but when you do, the tailwheel doesn't
> last, so it's not really a good idea. People who claim it flies like
> fiberglass apparently don't actually fly fiberglass.
Well, it certainly flies more like glass than a 2-33. The L-23 does seem to
require a unique touchdown attitude. However, if a pilot can master the
"wheel landing" technique in the L-23, a tail low touchdown attitude
shouldn't be too hard to learn.
>
> Our club bought one new recently. It had been sitting in storage
> for years, with the time-critical parts replaced by the factory before
> delivery. After 7 months of moderate useage, the tailwheel collasped
> on landing and we had to do some rivet repair to the tail section.
> It's always had asymmetrical spin characteristics, fresh out of the box.
Looking at the failed rubber tailwheel parts, they seemed to be old and
stiff like they had been sitting around for quite a while. It's possible
that the initial failure was due to the age of the rubber more than the
rough treatment. The replacement parts have been in use for almost a year
and they still look fine.
It really seems that the asymmetrical spin characteristics are less now than
when new. It's probably that I am now used to it, but it seems more benign.
I LIKE the spin characteristics. It is useful to induce a checkout pilot
into an inadvertent spin entry. Practicing deliberate spins is useful but,
for a lasting impression, an inadvertent spin is hard to beat.
>
> I suspect somewhere in the world there's a more poorly designed
> glider, but I'm having trouble coming up with one. Any nominations???
I'd vote for the 2-33 as the worst.
Bill Daniels