Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:06 AM - Re: Ultimate upgrage (Lisa Kingscott)
2. 03:55 AM - Re: Cool news (A. Dennis Savarese)
3. 03:57 AM - Re: More on tight patterns (Brian Lloyd)
4. 05:26 AM - Re: Ultimate upgrage (Gus Fraser)
5. 05:37 AM - Allison & Merlin (cpayne@mc.net)
6. 06:56 AM - Re: Allison & Merlin (A. Dennis Savarese)
7. 07:05 AM - What? (Barry Hancock)
8. 07:08 AM - Re: Allison & Merlin (Brian Lloyd)
9. 09:18 AM - Re: FAST (cjpilot710@aol.com)
10. 10:13 AM - Bear, Yak v. P-51 (Barry Hancock)
11. 11:22 AM - Parts (Ernie)
12. 11:35 AM - Re: FAST (Terry Calloway)
13. 11:39 AM - Re: Bear, Yak v. P-51 (Ernie)
14. 11:45 AM - Re: Re: FAST (Sam Sax)
15. 12:55 PM - V-12's (cpayne@mc.net)
16. 01:01 PM - turbine 18T (Mark Jefferies)
17. 05:19 PM - signing off (cjpilot710@aol.com)
18. 06:42 PM - Re: Parts (Desmor944@aol.com)
19. 07:11 PM - Re: Parts (Drew Blahnick)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ultimate upgrage |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Lisa Kingscott" <lisa@kingscott1.freeserve.co.uk>
There is another company in the Ukraine doing this. However, they replace all the
fabric with metal, including the whole tail, I believe. they also fit the newer
blown screen.
Cruise and VNE are supposed to be over 300mph from what I heard.
Lisa
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Lloyd
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Ultimate upgrage
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
At 07:29 PM 12/18/2002, you wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
>
>Just in case anyone gets the urge to put a turbo-prop on their plane.
>
>http://www.termikas.balt.net/news/news_images/n9.html
That looks like a Yak-18T airframe. Oh, I see, the URL label says "Yak-18
Turbo." The cruise speed of 173 kts is pretty anemic as is the 500 nm
range. Still, if you have a hankerin' for burning kerosene ...
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Ste 201
brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 +1.360.838.9669
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Of course I could easily be wrong. I got the info from a WWII person who
used to work on Allison engined aircraft. Here again, he could have been
blowing smoke too! But at least it makes for interesting conversation.
I have a aviation friend who has a Yak 9 with an Allison. I'll query him
and see what his response is. He also has an L39 which he flies when he
wants to ride in air conditioned comfort. Heck, as we used to say when I
was a kid driving my car with no a/c, "Yeah, it's got air conditioning.
It's the 4-60 model. Four windows down and 60 miles per hour".
Dennis Savarese
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Cool news
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
>
> At 10:23 PM 12/18/2002, you wrote:
> >--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
> >
> >".....the Allison engine is better built and longer lasting than the RR
> >Merlin."
> >Agreed, but still only 250-300 hours max TBO vs. 200 hrs. on the Merlin.
> >Yes, I know. That's a 50% improvement.
>
> Are you sure? I was under the very strong impression from several sources
> that the Allison was a 1200+ hour engine as opposed to 400 hours for the
> Merlin. Allisons were used in stationary power generation applications
> also and they ran for a long time. The reasons they didn't stay with the
> Allison in the P-51 were lower overall HP and poor up-high performance due
> to the single-stage supercharger. I felt this was not a problem because I
> do not expect to be doing any bomber escort duty at 40,000' and even with
> the lower HP, a P-51A is still likely to outperform my CJ6A.
>
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Ste 201
> brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
> +1.340.998.9447 +1.360.838.9669
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: More on tight patterns |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
At 12:37 AM 12/19/2002, you wrote:
>Strikes me that I may want to work on my CTAF description for the break,
>though. I've learned not to call, e.g. "Out of WISKE on the GPS to 18,"
>even though that's accurate, because 90% of the traffic in the pattern
>will have no idea what I'm talking about.
Right. IFR-rated pilots who fly out of an airport probably know the
intersections that define the approach but no one else does. Even "inbound
at the final approach fix" is confusing.
>Calling "On the overhead break to 18," as I've heard people call, strikes
>me as no different. It's all about blending in and helping everyone be smart.
I make the following calls. Assume I am landing on runway 36 at Fonebone
airport with left traffic/circuit for the sake of discussion.
1. Fonebone traffic, Yak 1234X, three miles south for upwind pattern
entry, Fonebone traffic.
2. Fonebone traffic, Yak 1234X, one mile south for upwind pattern entry
runway 36 with left overhead break, Fonebone traffic.
3. Fonebone traffic, Yak 1234X, overhead in the left break for left
close-in traffic runway 36, Fonebone traffic.
(perform all downwind GUMPS actions, e.g. fuel system, undercarriage,
mixture, prop, gill louvers, oil cooler shutter, flaps, etc.)
4. (at the abeam point/perch) Fonebone traffic, Yak 1234X, turning left
base runway 36, Fonebone traffic.
I do not make any other calls until I turn off the runway unless I have to
go around.
The advantage to the above calls is that, even if the listener doesn't know
what a "left break" is, the rest of the call clearly identifies where I am
so there is no ambiguity or confusion.
IMHO the upwind pattern entry is safer than the "standard" 45 degree to
downwind since you are able to see the entire pattern while are overhead
without conflicting with any other traffic. Most of my "close encounters"
have occurred where the 45 joins the downwind. But that is another story.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Ste 201
brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 +1.360.838.9669
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Ultimate upgrage |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Gus Fraser <fraseg@comcast.net>
I think the one that is coming here to the NE is out of Shaty (sp?) anyway
it is due here in a couple of months. Point taken about the length of the
tail. I imagine it is the same as aircraft with big noses do not hammerhead
very well due to hull profile drag. I guess that a bigger moment is achieved
by either moving the tail back or fitting bigger control surfaces. I can't
wait to see it. I have heard that there is a 52 planned with the same mod.
The trouble will be range. While it would make a great air show machine it
would not be practical for much else due to range.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
cjpilot710@aol.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Ultimate upgrage
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
In a message dated 12/18/2002 7:15:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
fraseg@comcast.net writes:
> If things work out I may be able to take this to OSH next year. Apparently
> it is coming into the US in a couple of months.
> Take off at 50 % power point up until bored or out of Jet A
> Gus
Gus,
Becareful with that thing.
A number of years ago, I worked on a homebuilt design of a scaled down
Spitfire. The engine I was contemplating put in there was quite lite for
the
airframe and in order to get the weight and balance correct, I needed to
extend the nose. The numbers fell in OK, but an aerodynamicist friend
insisted on studying the stability of the new setup. He found that the
airframe became very unstable with the lengthen nose. I.E. lengthen nose -
lengthen tail.
I take it someone has already done some flight testing with the Yak, but I
bet she don't handel the same.
I hope you can get it to MTW/ OSH. Would be cool to have it on the flight
line.
Jim Goolsby
cjpilot710@aol.com
386-467-3313 voice
386-467-3193 fax
386-503-9820cell
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin 1759
"With my shield, or on it"
Trojan Warriors BC
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Allison & Merlin |
--> Yak-List message posted by: cpayne@mc.net
Guys,
With "Rollie Fingers" or valve actuator conversion, and Dash 9 banks &
heads, the Merlin can see 1200-1500 hours if you keep the boost down.
That said, the Allison has fewer parts, is built stronger and is capable
of efficient cruise settings that let a P-40 get down to 38GPH.
For a sport plane, the connoisseur's choice is an Allison. BTW, the version
used in the P-38 is capable of high altitude performance.
Craig Payne
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
At 10:23 PM 12/18/2002, you wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
>".....the Allison engine is better built and longer lasting than the RR
>Merlin."
>Agreed, but still only 250-300 hours max TBO vs. 200 hrs. on the Merlin.
>Yes, I know. That's a 50% improvement.
Are you sure? I was under the very strong impression from several sources
that the Allison was a 1200+ hour engine as opposed to 400 hours for the
Merlin. Allisons were used in stationary power generation applications
also and they ran for a long time. The reasons they didn't stay with the
Allison in the P-51 were lower overall HP and poor up-high performance due
to the single-stage supercharger. I felt this was not a problem because I
do not expect to be doing any bomber escort duty at 40,000' and even with
the lower HP, a P-51A is still likely to outperform my CJ6A.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Ste 201
brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 +1.360.838.9669
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Allison & Merlin |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Wow Craig! You are a wealth of information. I must say I'm impressed.
Dennis Savarese
----- Original Message -----
From: <cpayne@mc.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Allison & Merlin
> --> Yak-List message posted by: cpayne@mc.net
>
> Guys,
>
> With "Rollie Fingers" or valve actuator conversion, and Dash 9 banks &
> heads, the Merlin can see 1200-1500 hours if you keep the boost down.
> That said, the Allison has fewer parts, is built stronger and is capable
> of efficient cruise settings that let a P-40 get down to 38GPH.
>
> For a sport plane, the connoisseur's choice is an Allison. BTW, the
version
> used in the P-38 is capable of high altitude performance.
>
> Craig Payne
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
>
> At 10:23 PM 12/18/2002, you wrote:
> >--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
> >
> >".....the Allison engine is better built and longer lasting than the RR
> >Merlin."
> >Agreed, but still only 250-300 hours max TBO vs. 200 hrs. on the Merlin.
> >Yes, I know. That's a 50% improvement.
>
> Are you sure? I was under the very strong impression from several sources
> that the Allison was a 1200+ hour engine as opposed to 400 hours for the
> Merlin. Allisons were used in stationary power generation applications
> also and they ran for a long time. The reasons they didn't stay with the
> Allison in the P-51 were lower overall HP and poor up-high performance due
> to the single-stage supercharger. I felt this was not a problem because I
> do not expect to be doing any bomber escort duty at 40,000' and even with
> the lower HP, a P-51A is still likely to outperform my CJ6A.
>
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Ste 201
> brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
> +1.340.998.9447 +1.360.838.9669
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <radialpower@cox.net>
On Wednesday, December 18, 2002, at 11:58 PM, Brian wrote:
> My only concern is that my Internet access may
> become spotty over the next three weeks while my boat is out of the
> water
> in the BVI and I may not have access to a phone line. Still, you can
> reach
> me at my phone number below.
Mr. IT (that's internet technology) doesn't have high speed SAT phone
modem service? :)
Have fun, and watch out for those pesky pirates!
Barry
Barry Hancock
All Red Star
(949) 300-5510
radialpower@cox.net
www.allredstar.com
"Communism - Lousy Politics, Great Airplanes!"
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Allison & Merlin |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
At , you wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: cpayne@mc.net
>
>Guys,
>
>With "Rollie Fingers" or valve actuator conversion, and Dash 9 banks &
>heads, the Merlin can see 1200-1500 hours if you keep the boost down.
>That said, the Allison has fewer parts, is built stronger and is capable
>of efficient cruise settings that let a P-40 get down to 38GPH.
>
>For a sport plane, the connoisseur's choice is an Allison.
That was my take on it too.
>BTW, the version used in the P-38 is capable of high altitude performance.
Yeah, it had outboard turbonormalization, a big help.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Ste 201
brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 +1.360.838.9669
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
Hay gang.
I need to know who flew with John Finley and I during S&F last year, when we
took the Chinese delication for a formation ride out of BOW. I was flying
lead in Mike Filucci 's CJ.
Jim Goolsby
cjpilot710@aol.com
386-467-3313 voice
386-467-3193 fax
386-503-9820cell
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin 1759
"With my shield, or on it"
Trojan Warriors BC
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Bear, Yak v. P-51 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <radialpower@cox.net>
> But still $300k
> when its all said done isnt bad for a new fighter. Still out of my
> league
> price wise.
There's a new dog on the block and it is, performance/economy/purchase
price/ease of operation/supportability wise superior to P-51's, inline
Yaks, and most anything else you want to include in the piston fighter
game. It is a Yak-3 with an R-2000 engine. Heretofore, the way to do
this was to convert a Yak-11 by moving the cockpits back and using a
different canopy. This, by the way, is an authentic setup that saw
action in WWII. As of early next year, new built Yak-3 airframes will
be available and ready for either an R-2000 or Ash- engine. It's a bit
of an oversimplification, but these engines are essentially M14P's on
steroids from an operational standpoint. This plane will outperform
anything in it's class - including P-51's and inline Yaks - at a
fraction of the operating cost, 1000 nmi range on internal fuel, has
relatively docile departure characteristics, good ground handling, and
looks and sounds AWESOME. The fit and finish on these airplanes is top
quality, unlike the new-build Yaks that are currently available which
are a bit rough by American standards. Price with radios, etc., is
gonna be in the $350-$400K range and is sure to be an appreciating asset
as the warbird world becomes better acquainted with the performance of
these airplanes. If you or anyone you know of is interested, please
contact me off list and I can point you in the right direction.
>
> While I was chatting with the nice man from Shade Tree Aviation I had
> mentioned
> that I fly a CJ and he proceeded to tell me that sometime in Feb he
> will be announcing
> a new quick build kit plane that he might be selling. Its an F8 Bear
> Cat powered by an M-14!! It wont be 100% scale replica but about the
> size of
> a CJ. He called this his entry level kit, so I'm assuming that it will
> be affordable.
Yeah, this is interesting. I like how you say he says "might" be
selling it. This was initially a Part 23 certified airplane (which
meant standard category classification), and now Jack Wickersham is
picking up where Bob Hannah left off. Skip Holm, the designer, is a bit
of an enigma. Last I checked, the prototype had flown successfully but
there was no factory to build the kits and Part 23 certification was not
going to happen. Holm kept making promises to Hannah (the then US rep)
but none have come true. At last check they, Bear Aerospace, were
looking for non-refundable deposits....this when they did not even have
a place to build the kits! I guess there are people out there who are
gullible, but this doesn't seem like a viable business plan. To me it
seems rather optimistic at this point to announce selling something that
is not yet being built. FWIW, I echo Brian's sentiments on
Wickersham....Shadetree Aviation is a rather fitting name.
>
> He has all his planes made by a factory in Russia, I'm not sure which.
> I'd love
> to take a look at some of his planes to check out the fit and finish.
They're made in Czechloslovakia, and the fit and finish are, uh, not
good.
>
> Ernie
Ernie, you can't fly the overhead break at Leeward???
Cheers,
Barry
Barry Hancock
All Red Star
(949) 300-5510
radialpower@cox.net
www.allredstar.com
"Communism - Lousy Politics, Great Airplanes!"
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
I know this is the Yak list, but there is no traffic on the Czech list, and I know
there are some Jet owners on here, so please excuse my indulgence.
Does anyone have any contacts for L-29 parts. I need the Grease head that fits
on the original russian grease fitting (same as onthe CJ also), and I need the
external hydraulic oil ports so I can hook up a mule.
Any help world be greatly appreciated.
Ernie
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Terry Calloway" <TCalloway@datatechnique.com>
What?
>>> cjpilot710@aol.com 12/19/02 11:17AM >>>
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
Hay gang.
I need to know who flew with John Finley and I during S&F last year,
when we
took the Chinese delication for a formation ride out of BOW. I was
flying
lead in Mike Filucci 's CJ.
Jim Goolsby
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bear, Yak v. P-51 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
Yes I can, but the downwind pattern is still over baseline, there is an
inside pattern but thats for low and slow guys here like the Stermans and
the J3's and such.
Ernie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Hancock" <radialpower@cox.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Bear, Yak v. P-51
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <radialpower@cox.net>
>
> > But still $300k
> > when its all said done isnt bad for a new fighter. Still out of my
> > league
> > price wise.
>
> There's a new dog on the block and it is, performance/economy/purchase
> price/ease of operation/supportability wise superior to P-51's, inline
> Yaks, and most anything else you want to include in the piston fighter
> game. It is a Yak-3 with an R-2000 engine. Heretofore, the way to do
> this was to convert a Yak-11 by moving the cockpits back and using a
> different canopy. This, by the way, is an authentic setup that saw
> action in WWII. As of early next year, new built Yak-3 airframes will
> be available and ready for either an R-2000 or Ash- engine. It's a bit
> of an oversimplification, but these engines are essentially M14P's on
> steroids from an operational standpoint. This plane will outperform
> anything in it's class - including P-51's and inline Yaks - at a
> fraction of the operating cost, 1000 nmi range on internal fuel, has
> relatively docile departure characteristics, good ground handling, and
> looks and sounds AWESOME. The fit and finish on these airplanes is top
> quality, unlike the new-build Yaks that are currently available which
> are a bit rough by American standards. Price with radios, etc., is
> gonna be in the $350-$400K range and is sure to be an appreciating asset
> as the warbird world becomes better acquainted with the performance of
> these airplanes. If you or anyone you know of is interested, please
> contact me off list and I can point you in the right direction.
> >
> > While I was chatting with the nice man from Shade Tree Aviation I had
> > mentioned
> > that I fly a CJ and he proceeded to tell me that sometime in Feb he
> > will be announcing
> > a new quick build kit plane that he might be selling. Its an F8 Bear
> > Cat powered by an M-14!! It wont be 100% scale replica but about the
> > size of
> > a CJ. He called this his entry level kit, so I'm assuming that it will
> > be affordable.
>
> Yeah, this is interesting. I like how you say he says "might" be
> selling it. This was initially a Part 23 certified airplane (which
> meant standard category classification), and now Jack Wickersham is
> picking up where Bob Hannah left off. Skip Holm, the designer, is a bit
> of an enigma. Last I checked, the prototype had flown successfully but
> there was no factory to build the kits and Part 23 certification was not
> going to happen. Holm kept making promises to Hannah (the then US rep)
> but none have come true. At last check they, Bear Aerospace, were
> looking for non-refundable deposits....this when they did not even have
> a place to build the kits! I guess there are people out there who are
> gullible, but this doesn't seem like a viable business plan. To me it
> seems rather optimistic at this point to announce selling something that
> is not yet being built. FWIW, I echo Brian's sentiments on
> Wickersham....Shadetree Aviation is a rather fitting name.
> >
> > He has all his planes made by a factory in Russia, I'm not sure which.
> > I'd love
> > to take a look at some of his planes to check out the fit and finish.
>
> They're made in Czechloslovakia, and the fit and finish are, uh, not
> good.
> >
> > Ernie
>
> Ernie, you can't fly the overhead break at Leeward???
>
> Cheers,
>
> Barry
> Barry Hancock
> All Red Star
> (949) 300-5510
> radialpower@cox.net
> www.allredstar.com
> "Communism - Lousy Politics, Great Airplanes!"
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Sam Sax" <cd001633@mindspring.com>
Jim,
It was I, your humble wingman...
The delegation leader sent me a few pictures of their experience in BOW -
they loved it! Did you get some as well?
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all of our comrades!
Sam Sax
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
cjpilot710@aol.com
Subject: Yak-List: Re: FAST
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
Hay gang.
I need to know who flew with John Finley and I during S&F last year, when we
took the Chinese delication for a formation ride out of BOW. I was flying
lead in Mike Filucci 's CJ.
Jim Goolsby
cjpilot710@aol.com
386-467-3313 voice
386-467-3193 fax
386-503-9820cell
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin 1759
"With my shield, or on it"
Trojan Warriors BC
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: cpayne@mc.net
Dennis,
I hang around in the pits at Reno and lust *real hard* for a V-12.
Someday? Meanwhile I have managed to enhance the performance of my
lowly, piece of poop Nanchang so that it:
- Is faster than a speeding LoPresti Mooney
- Is able to leap over climbing T-6's in a single zoom
- Is more powerful than a big-engine T-34
It's a Bird, it's a Plane....it's a NanYak.
Craig Payne
Re: Yak-List: Allison & Merlin
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Wow Craig! You are a wealth of information. I must say I'm impressed.
Dennis Savarese
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Jefferies" <mark@yakuk.com>
look what had to be changed when the V12 was removed from the dornier C36 and replaced
with a Lycoming T-53 1,300 SHP turbine, now UR talking long noses!!!
www.yakuk.com/c36.htm
> If things work out I may be able to take this to OSH next year. Apparently
> it is coming into the US in a couple of months.
> Take off at 50 % power point up until bored or out of Jet A
> Gus
Gus,
Becareful with that thing.
A number of years ago, I worked on a homebuilt design of a scaled down
Spitfire. The engine I was contemplating put in there was quite lite for the
airframe and in order to get the weight and balance correct, I needed to
extend the nose. The numbers fell in OK, but an aerodynamicist friend
insisted on studying the stability of the new setup. He found that the
airframe became very unstable with the lengthen nose. I.E. lengthen nose -
lengthen tail.
I take it someone has already done some flight testing with the Yak, but I
bet she don't handel the same.
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
keith.goolsby@eds.com, gaf127enl@msn.com, MDSHELLEY@aol.com,
yakjock@msn.com, linedog@peoplepc.com, walterfricke@yahoo.com,
finleycj6@juno.com, BDorsey777@aol.com, wildf15c@hotmail.com,
rvfltd@televar.com, Swifty305@aol.com, tcalloway@datatechnique.com,
paulcfitzgerald@attbi.com, mason.t@worldnet.att.net, radialpower@cox.net,
davedris@inet.net, pino1@compuserve.com, RAre406906@aol.com,
CEParaiso@aol.com, JGoolsby@umaryland.edu, artziggy6@yahoo.com,
moreira_thais@hotmail.com, vicky@shippei.com, WINDSURFE@aol.com,
paraisoam@surfbest.net, EdrisDee@aol.com, Ckelso17@earthlink.net
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
Well, gang,
I am signing off for the Christmas holidays. Heading north to Delaware and
#1 grandson. After Christmas it's south (way south) to Belo Horizonte,
Brazil to be with #2 grandson. We'll get back on January 5th.
I'll be out of touch for the most part, so if you really need to talk to me
note my cell phone number which will be good until after Christmas.
I want to wish you all the very best of a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year,
Happy Hanukkah, and may peace and joy be yours.
And God bless the United States of America.
Jim Goolsby
cjpilot710@aol.com
386-467-3313 voice
386-467-3193 fax
386-503-9820cell
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin 1759
"With my shield, or on it"
Trojan Warriors BC
KKK
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Desmor944@aol.com
Ernie
I bought a standard Alemite Button Head Coupler (Grainger stock number
4ZT33-7 @ $12). A little work with a Dremmel tool to put a slight radius on
it to match the dome of the foreign fitting (US fittings are flat top) and it
works just fine. Comes with a zerk type connection so it just plugs into the
end of a standard grease gun.
Rich Desmond
N19CJ
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Drew Blahnick" <aapilot@adelphia.net>
Earnie, go here, they 'may' have it in stainless, but they have them, call
em up...
http://yakmetric.tripod.com/
Drew
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Parts
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
>
> I know this is the Yak list, but there is no traffic on the Czech list,
and I know there are some Jet owners on here, so please excuse my
indulgence.
>
> Does anyone have any contacts for L-29 parts. I need the Grease head that
fits on the original russian grease fitting (same as onthe CJ also), and I
need the external hydraulic oil ports so I can hook up a mule.
>
> Any help world be greatly appreciated.
>
> Ernie
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|