Will the Blanik L-23's join the L-13's reaching their end as well?

[ls3p...@gmail.com]

I'm considering buying one, but hesitant to do so in regards to the L-13's being permanently grounded. I have a lot of people telling me that the problems the FAA had with the L-13, are now transferring over to its sister ship, the L-23. And that the L-23's are soon to be completely worthless.

I have an opportunity to buy one for very cheap, almost too good to be true. Are people giving these away now to avoid the inevitable?

Looking for any answers.

[son_of_flubber]

I heard from a very reliable source that a well maintained L-23 was sold in the USA in past month for $45,000 within 48 hours of being posted.

A "too good to be true price" can be a red flag for fraud. For example, there was a recent post on RAS concerning a rebuilt 2 place Puch being sold from Poland to USA with no disclosure of the major accident damage being made by the seller.

[Bill D]

The L-23 has a 6000 hour airframe life (POH Page 2-9) which may be reduced by dual flight, aerobatics, winch launch or use of wing tip extensions. Given the L-13 experience, there's reason to think it may be hard to get a life extension. You need to set aside $7.50 - $10 per flight hour for deprecation so there's funds available to buy a new glider when the clock runs out on the old one.

To set a price, subtract the logged hours from 6000 to prorate the price less wear and tear. i.e. a glider with 5999 hours would be worth very little. Keep in mind some operators may not have logged all flight time to evade the life limit so if the logs look fishy, walk away.

From my experience, insurance companies are reluctant to pay for repairs to an L-23 so they will total the glider for even minor damage. Premiums reflect this.

[Tony]

> From my experience, insurance companies are reluctant to pay for repairs to an L-23 so they will total the glider for even minor damage. Premiums reflect this.

Shouldn't that be a function of the insured value and cost of repair??

[Bill D]

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 8:10:30 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
> > From my experience, insurance companies are reluctant to pay for repairs to an L-23 so they will total the glider for even minor damage. Premiums reflect this.
>
>
>
> Shouldn't that be a function of the insured value and cost of repair??

Of course, but I think you'll find insurance companies are very reluctant to insure an L-23 for large amounts. Repair shops are reluctant to take on an L-23 since OEM sheet metal alloys and factory approved repair methods have to be used. Insurance companies like to keep things simple so they just total the glider.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:14:25 AM UTC-6, ls3p...@gmail.com wrote:

The L-23 is not an L-13. Some L-13's were returned to the factory for modification of the wing root and designated L-13A1, essentially the wing modification employed in the L-23. Those were granted a 5000 hour service life by EASA and returned to service. The STC is similar to that work. As noted in another post, the service life is 6000 hours, modified by usage, configuration, and launch method. That service life is based on 35 percent dual, 65 percent solo, which is a rather funny profile for a trainer.

Frank Whiteley

[Bill D]

One can either get mad at LET for unreasonably restricting the lifespan of our gliders or respect them for being honest about the safe lifespan of their gliders. I prefer knowing the life limits up front rather than taking chances with an airframe whose manufacturer made no information available.

Take the airframe life as it is and plan purchase decisions accordingly.