L33

I'm contemplating the purchase of a used Blanik L33 Solo, as an upgrade from
my 1-26E, and seeking advice concerning the type.


Jack

Jack wrote:
> I'm contemplating the purchase of a used Blanik L33 Solo, as an upgrade
> from my 1-26E, and seeking advice concerning the type.

Excellent handling, IMHO. Control forces are light and well harmonized.
More so than other gliders, do not get slow close to the ground.

Tony V.

Jack wrote:
> I'm contemplating the purchase of a used Blanik L33 Solo, as an upgrade
> from my 1-26E, and seeking advice concerning the type.

Excellent handling, IMHO. Control forces are light and well harmonized.
More so than other gliders, do not get slow close to the ground.

Tony V.

"Tony Verhulst" <no@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:zYSdnWHJ3uNT2EnfRVn-hg@...
>

>
> We have a painted L23 (2, actually, sort of... we need a fuselage) that
> look bad too - although not as bad as the L33 pictured above. I don't
> understand it. Painting aluminum is hard but the Cessnas and Pipers have
> figured it out - not LET, though.
>

Painting aluminum correctly adds considerable weight. Possibly LET skipped
the etching primer prep coat to save weight.

There's a clear coat aluminum protectant once used by the Airstream Trailer
people that looked good for many years and could be renewed at a reasonable
cost. I wonder if that could be a solution for old aluminum gliders.

Bill Daniels

"Tony Verhulst" <no@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:zYSdnWHJ3uNT2EnfRVn-hg@...
>

>
> We have a painted L23 (2, actually, sort of... we need a fuselage) that
> look bad too - although not as bad as the L33 pictured above. I don't
> understand it. Painting aluminum is hard but the Cessnas and Pipers have
> figured it out - not LET, though.
>

Painting aluminum correctly adds considerable weight. Possibly LET skipped
the etching primer prep coat to save weight.

There's a clear coat aluminum protectant once used by the Airstream Trailer
people that looked good for many years and could be renewed at a reasonable
cost. I wonder if that could be a solution for old aluminum gliders.

Bill Daniels

I have a 94 model that's been tied out in the North Carolina Sun for 10
years. The paint has lost much of its shine and there are some "fish
eye" bubbles especially on the horizontal stabilizer, but the paint is
all still intact, and it waxes up quite nicely. Nothing at all like
the paint (or lack of paint) on Tony's example. That's the worst paint I
have ever seen on anything. That being said, I now keep my glider in a
T-hanger.

If I were ordering a new L-33, I think I would order it unpainted or
maybe with just the trim paint.


Regards,
David Walsh

Jack wrote:
> I'm contemplating the purchase of a used Blanik L33 Solo, as an upgrade
> from my 1-26E, and seeking advice concerning the type.
>
>
> Jack

I have a 94 model that's been tied out in the North Carolina Sun for 10
years. The paint has lost much of its shine and there are some "fish
eye" bubbles especially on the horizontal stabilizer, but the paint is
all still intact, and it waxes up quite nicely. Nothing at all like
the paint (or lack of paint) on Tony's example. That's the worst paint I
have ever seen on anything. That being said, I now keep my glider in a
T-hanger.

If I were ordering a new L-33, I think I would order it unpainted or
maybe with just the trim paint.


Regards,
David Walsh

Jack wrote:
> I'm contemplating the purchase of a used Blanik L33 Solo, as an upgrade
> from my 1-26E, and seeking advice concerning the type.
>
>
> Jack

Michael wrote:

> [The L-33 is] all metal...so can be kept assembled and tied down...
> and...is a pretty sensible ship for...a pilot with low total time who
> doesn't want to mess with assembling and disassembling after every flight
> and doesn't have a hangar available.

I like the all-metal part, so that I can leave it out for a weekend
whenever possible, but the real reason for needing to part with the
wonderful 1-26E is that the wings are getting heavier with each passing
year, and I can't assemble without a helper or two. This is partially a
fault of the open trailer design and partially just me getting older, in
addition to the design of the 1-26. I enjoy flying it, and if it unloaded,
assembled, disassembled, and loaded as easily as a modern design
combination, I'd stick with it indefinitely as the price cannot be beat.
It's the most flying fun I've ever had for so little money, and going to any
type that did not handle as well in the air would be a disappointment.

Another consideration is dues, insurance, storage and operating expenses
which will not change much, so the actual cost of a 50 percent performance
boost is not huge. However, if I could leave the 1-26 assembled in a hangar
I would not consider parting with it for the foreseeable future.


> ...I recall thinking that your total time was pretty high. If so, and if
> you must have metal...I would seriously consider one of the HP's instead.

> Not the hot tip for someone with 50 hours total time...but no big deal at
> 500 hours.

Total time is ~20,000 hrs, the usual military/airline/private stuff; but, my
glider time is ~35 hours (2-33 and 1-26), so I am not embarrassed being seen
in low performance sailplanes. Hey, I'm still getting used to the idea of
flying beyond gliding range of the glider port -- I have done it a few times
when conditions were very good.

Consideration is also being given to the 1-36 and the PW-5, and the PW-5 is
a strong contender. If a ship is easy enough to assemble/disassemble and has
an enclosed trailer, I don't mind putting it together every day of a
three-day weekend. I hope to get checked out in the Club's PW-5 this season
and that will aid the decision process.

Either way, it's good to have a glider of my own.


Jack

Michael wrote:

> [The L-33 is] all metal...so can be kept assembled and tied down...
> and...is a pretty sensible ship for...a pilot with low total time who
> doesn't want to mess with assembling and disassembling after every flight
> and doesn't have a hangar available.

I like the all-metal part, so that I can leave it out for a weekend
whenever possible, but the real reason for needing to part with the
wonderful 1-26E is that the wings are getting heavier with each passing
year, and I can't assemble without a helper or two. This is partially a
fault of the open trailer design and partially just me getting older, in
addition to the design of the 1-26. I enjoy flying it, and if it unloaded,
assembled, disassembled, and loaded as easily as a modern design
combination, I'd stick with it indefinitely as the price cannot be beat.
It's the most flying fun I've ever had for so little money, and going to any
type that did not handle as well in the air would be a disappointment.

Another consideration is dues, insurance, storage and operating expenses
which will not change much, so the actual cost of a 50 percent performance
boost is not huge. However, if I could leave the 1-26 assembled in a hangar
I would not consider parting with it for the foreseeable future.


> ...I recall thinking that your total time was pretty high. If so, and if
> you must have metal...I would seriously consider one of the HP's instead.

> Not the hot tip for someone with 50 hours total time...but no big deal at
> 500 hours.

Total time is ~20,000 hrs, the usual military/airline/private stuff; but, my
glider time is ~35 hours (2-33 and 1-26), so I am not embarrassed being seen
in low performance sailplanes. Hey, I'm still getting used to the idea of
flying beyond gliding range of the glider port -- I have done it a few times
when conditions were very good.

Consideration is also being given to the 1-36 and the PW-5, and the PW-5 is
a strong contender. If a ship is easy enough to assemble/disassemble and has
an enclosed trailer, I don't mind putting it together every day of a
three-day weekend. I hope to get checked out in the Club's PW-5 this season
and that will aid the decision process.

Either way, it's good to have a glider of my own.


Jack

The AC-4 is extremely light and easy to assemble.
And the
trailers are tiny compared to the bigger span ships.

But the 15 meter ships didn't seem like a huge weight/disassembly
step up. Enough to consider it, but
my goodness, the gliders less than 10-15 years old
seem pretty well set up for disass3embly.

The 304c got a few purchasers locally. I haven't had
a chance to assemble/disassemble one, though. I'm
not a flap guy (I'm a non-flap 'tilter') but there
is a cz variant with flaps also, I believe. 150# wings
aren't exactly lightweight, though.

I really like to help assemble gliders when I can to
get a feel for what the wings weigh. I suggest you
spend a day at a gliderport 'volunteering.' It seems
like a lot of people actually LIKE help putting the
wings on or off :)

Good luck! Of course you can always go the other way
and get metal, and leave it out in the weather instead...

At 22:00 13 July 2005, Jack wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>
>> [The L-33 is] all metal...so can be kept assembled
>>and tied down...
>> and...is a pretty sensible ship for...a pilot with
>>low total time who
>> doesn't want to mess with assembling and disassembling
>>after every flight
>> and doesn't have a hangar available.
>
>I like the all-metal part, so that I can leave it out
>for a weekend
>whenever possible, but the real reason for needing
>to part with the
>wonderful 1-26E is that the wings are getting heavier
>with each passing
>year, and I can't assemble without a helper or two.
>This is partially a
>fault of the open trailer design and partially just
>me getting older, in
>addition to the design of the 1-26. I enjoy flying
>it, and if it unloaded,
>assembled, disassembled, and loaded as easily as a
>modern design
>combination, I'd stick with it indefinitely as the
>price cannot be beat.
>It's the most flying fun I've ever had for so little
>money, and going to any
>type that did not handle as well in the air would be
>a disappointment.
>
>Another consideration is dues, insurance, storage and
>operating expenses
>which will not change much, so the actual cost of a
>50 percent performance
>boost is not huge. However, if I could leave the 1-26
>assembled in a hangar
>I would not consider parting with it for the foreseeable
>future.
>
>
>> ...I recall thinking that your total time was pretty
>>high. If so, and if
>> you must have metal...I would seriously consider one
>>of the HP's instead.
>
>> Not the hot tip for someone with 50 hours total time...but
>>no big deal at
> > 500 hours.
>
>Total time is ~20,000 hrs, the usual military/airline/private
>stuff; but, my
>glider time is ~35 hours (2-33 and 1-26), so I am not
>embarrassed being seen
>in low performance sailplanes. Hey, I'm still getting
>used to the idea of
>flying beyond gliding range of the glider port -- I
>have done it a few times
>when conditions were very good.
>
>Consideration is also being given to the 1-36 and the
>PW-5, and the PW-5 is
>a strong contender. If a ship is easy enough to assemble/disassemb
>>le and has
>an enclosed trailer, I don't mind putting it together
>every day of a
>three-day weekend. I hope to get checked out in the
>Club's PW-5 this season
>and that will aid the decision process.
>
>Either way, it's good to have a glider of my own.
>
>
>Jack
>
Mark J. Boyd