Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:17 AM - Re: Compressor woes (Gus Fraser)
2. 04:25 AM - Re: Compressor woes (A. Dennis Savarese)
3. 05:39 AM - Re: Compressor woes (Craig Payne)
4. 06:44 AM - Re: Compressor woes (A. Dennis Savarese)
5. 06:49 AM - Re: Compressor woes (Brian Lloyd)
6. 07:02 AM - Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 (Carl W Hays Enterprises)
7. 08:16 AM - Compressor woes (joe h)
8. 08:49 AM - Re: Compressor woes (A. Dennis Savarese)
9. 08:54 AM - Re: Compressor woes (Doug)
10. 09:32 AM - Re: Fred Ihlenburg Memorial Fly-In (Terry Calloway)
11. 09:50 AM - Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 (A. Dennis Savarese)
12. 12:38 PM - Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 (Mark Schrick)
13. 12:38 PM - New Paint (Frank Haertlein)
14. 01:54 PM - Re: New Paint (A. Dennis Savarese)
15. 02:22 PM - Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 (A. Dennis Savarese)
16. 03:18 PM - Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 (Bob Monzo)
17. 03:19 PM - Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 (Roy O. Wright)
18. 03:20 PM - Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 (William Halverson)
19. 03:20 PM - Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 (William Halverson)
20. 03:45 PM - Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 (A. Dennis Savarese)
21. 03:47 PM - Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 (A. Dennis Savarese)
22. 04:00 PM - Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 (A. Dennis Savarese)
23. 05:26 PM - Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 (Cy Galley)
24. 06:04 PM - Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 (A. Dennis Savarese)
25. 11:26 PM - Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 (William Halverson)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Gus Fraser <fraseg@comcast.net>
Bill,
In the compressor there is a shear pin that can go. It is there as a safety
measure to guard against the compressor getting stuck. If it does get stuck
the pin shears and stops damage to the accessory gear drive. I am not sure
exactly where the pin is as when it happened to me Mark Jeffries fixed it.
Mark, can you help ?
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tom Johnson
Subject: Yak-List: Compressor woes
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tom Johnson" <tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
Bill Blackwell and I think my Yak 52 has a busted compressor.
Lookin for tips and tests for:
1) operational checks
2) R&R tips
Tj
tjohnson@cannonaviation.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compressor woes |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Before you go removing the compressor, you can remove the output check valve
at the banjo fitting on the compressor. Clean it thoroughly and see what
happens.
As a test, you can remove the flare nut fitting going into the snot bottle.
Run the engine and put a finger over the end of the tube at the flare nut.
If it's working, you will feel the air pumping out. If not, ..............
Removing the compressor is not an easy task. Having the proper tools
specifically designed for removal and installation of the compressor is a
must. Contact George Coy for a tool kit that includes the tools for the
compressor. Be prepared for a lot of frustration.
Dennis Savarese
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Johnson" <tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Compressor woes
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Tom Johnson"
<tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
>
> Bill Blackwell and I think my Yak 52 has a busted compressor.
>
> Lookin for tips and tests for:
> 1) operational checks
> 2) R&R tips
>
> Tj
> tjohnson@cannonaviation.com
>
>
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: Compressor woes |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Craig Payne <cpayne@mc.net>
Tom,
A common compliant. My theory relates the nature of the start-up drill
to early compressor failures. Because the M9-F mag has fixed timing set
at 23 degrees BTDC; "kickback" is common, even with proper technique of
starter first, then mags.
When I used Chinese mags on the M-14P there were no such problems since
the start was only at 5-7 degrees BTDC. Smooth, with no kickback.
I'm not sure that opening the snot valve in flight helps extend
compressor life either, since it was designed to operate with back
pressure in the system. Opinions?
Craig Payne
Tom Johnson wrote:
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Tom Johnson" <tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
>
> Bill Blackwell and I think my Yak 52 has a busted compressor.
>
> Lookin for tips and tests for:
> 1) operational checks
> 2) R&R tips
>
> Tj
> tjohnson@cannonaviation.com
=====================================================================
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: | Re: Compressor woes |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
I concur with Craig's assessment of the possible cause of compressor
failures. I'm sure Tom doesn't have carnal knowledge of how the airplane
was started by it's previous owner or how many times the engine attempted to
run backwards because of improper starting techniques. Insuring the timing
is set correctly on both mags is also important in this situation.
As for opening the snot bottle during flight, that question can not be
properly answered without doing some extensive testing. But I do agree the
compressor was designed to run with backpressure. The output valve is
notorious for carboning up. If the former eastern block countries who
operated the Yak 52/M14P felt it would reduce potential compressor failures
by opening the snot bottle during flight, they would have installed a
cockpit control to do so. (Or the instructor would have made the student
exit the cockpit and open it during flight :-) ) Then again, maybe they just
didn't consider that since the engine would be removed at 500 hours anyway
for overhaul.
Dennis Savarese
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Payne" <cpayne@mc.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Compressor woes
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Craig Payne <cpayne@mc.net>
>
> Tom,
>
> A common compliant. My theory relates the nature of the start-up drill
> to early compressor failures. Because the M9-F mag has fixed timing set
> at 23 degrees BTDC; "kickback" is common, even with proper technique of
> starter first, then mags.
>
> When I used Chinese mags on the M-14P there were no such problems since
> the start was only at 5-7 degrees BTDC. Smooth, with no kickback.
>
> I'm not sure that opening the snot valve in flight helps extend
> compressor life either, since it was designed to operate with back
> pressure in the system. Opinions?
>
> Craig Payne
>
> Tom Johnson wrote:
> >
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Tom Johnson"
<tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
> >
> > Bill Blackwell and I think my Yak 52 has a busted compressor.
> >
> > Lookin for tips and tests for:
> > 1) operational checks
> > 2) R&R tips
> >
> > Tj
> > tjohnson@cannonaviation.com
> =====================================================================
>
>
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: | Re: Compressor woes |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Craig Payne wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Craig Payne <cpayne@mc.net>
>
> Tom,
>
> A common compliant. My theory relates the nature of the start-up drill
> to early compressor failures. Because the M9-F mag has fixed timing set
> at 23 degrees BTDC; "kickback" is common, even with proper technique of
> starter first, then mags.
>
> When I used Chinese mags on the M-14P there were no such problems since
> the start was only at 5-7 degrees BTDC. Smooth, with no kickback.
>
> I'm not sure that opening the snot valve in flight helps extend
> compressor life either, since it was designed to operate with back
> pressure in the system. Opinions?
I agree, opening the snot valve in flight is a waste of time and energy. It
doesn't save anything. I also like your point about the mags. Makes sense.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Suite 201
brian@lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 - voice +1.360.838.9669 - fax
GMT-4
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: | Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Carl W Hays Enterprises" <yakparts@simplyweb.net>
Group,
I was contacted by a Yak 52 owner yesterday with a host of questions about
the spar strap bulletin. I referred back to Mark Jeffrie's post on 19 April 2003
and visited the link he suggested. What I have never seen is the actual documented
cases of Yak 52s with wing failures (with or without the spar strap
kit), justifying this Service Bulletin on the Yak 52. I know of three Yak 50s
with failures, but no Yak 52s. How many documented failures of Yak 52 wings
are there: 1. In the +5, -3 g wings (no spar strap, of course)? 2. In the
+7, -5 g wings with no spar strap kit?
The Russians design limit is +100%: a 7g wing must withstand 14 g's. The
FAA is + 50%: a 7g wing must withstand 10.5 g's.
I would like to see the hard data on this bulletin, if anyone has it.
Best regards,
Jill Gernetzke
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: joe h <joeh@shaw.ca>
Another thing to check is the air pressure filter, if the "snot" bottle is not
drained after each flight, oil
can migrate to the filter. The new type (longer) one has silica gel beads as well
as the felt pads, these
can be contaminated/plugged with oil restricting the air flow.
Joe Howse
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: Compressor woes |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
True Joe and an excellent suggestion since the 52 has only 1 pneumatic
filter on the entire system. Unlike the CJ of course. That's why I
suggested Tom remove the input line to the snot bottle, run the engine, and
see if the compressor is pumping air out. The output valve on the
compressor is a major culprit due to carbon build up. I'd check it out
before I tackle removing the compressor.
Dennis Savarese
----- Original Message -----
From: "joe h" <joeh@shaw.ca>
Subject: Yak-List: Compressor woes
> --> Yak-List message posted by: joe h <joeh@shaw.ca>
>
> Another thing to check is the air pressure filter, if the "snot" bottle is
not drained after each flight, oil
> can migrate to the filter. The new type (longer) one has silica gel beads
as well as the felt pads, these
> can be contaminated/plugged with oil restricting the air flow.
>
> Joe Howse
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compressor woes |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Listers and lurkers,
To "properly" install the M14B in the mini yak I wanted to take advantage of
the Yak 18T exhaust cabin heater, I also found I was missing the blast tube
for the air compressor. Both tubes were ordered from my faithful Latvian
vendor and after waiting forever it seemed, both blast tubes arrived with a
mess of other Yak 18T exhausts, shutters assemblies etc. During
installation I noticed that the blast tube for the air compressor is very
different than the type used previously on Yaks and CJ's. The new style
blast tube has a lid or hood which covers the top of the filter area and
directs the cooler "ram air" into the filtered intake of the compressor as
well as over the external cooling fins of the compressor body. With the
old style blast tube the compressor lives off the hot oily air inside the
engine cowl and ram air is directed only to the external cooling fins. When
asked, the Russians told me that they have found that the oil mist in the
engine compartment was collecting on the filter, once saturated it was being
sucked in and carbonized by the compressor's heat, building up on the poppet
valve and causing failures. They also mentioned that the introduction of
the cooler air would also cause the compressors to last much longer. They
noted that the number one cause of compressor problems was due to our not
changing the filters at proper intervals. I promptly ordered 100 of the
filters!! All steps in the right direction, but will not help much if your
engine has a tendency to kick back. I am told that the M14B has a clutch
type unit rather than a shear pin. Anyone out there know anything about
this?
Always yakin,
Doug Sapp
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Compressor woes
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
> I concur with Craig's assessment of the possible cause of compressor
> failures. I'm sure Tom doesn't have carnal knowledge of how the airplane
> was started by it's previous owner or how many times the engine attempted
to
> run backwards because of improper starting techniques. Insuring the
timing
> is set correctly on both mags is also important in this situation.
>
> As for opening the snot bottle during flight, that question can not be
> properly answered without doing some extensive testing. But I do agree
the
> compressor was designed to run with backpressure. The output valve is
> notorious for carboning up. If the former eastern block countries who
> operated the Yak 52/M14P felt it would reduce potential compressor
failures
> by opening the snot bottle during flight, they would have installed a
> cockpit control to do so. (Or the instructor would have made the student
> exit the cockpit and open it during flight :-) ) Then again, maybe they
just
> didn't consider that since the engine would be removed at 500 hours anyway
> for overhaul.
> Dennis Savarese
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Craig Payne" <cpayne@mc.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Compressor woes
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: Craig Payne <cpayne@mc.net>
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > A common compliant. My theory relates the nature of the start-up drill
> > to early compressor failures. Because the M9-F mag has fixed timing set
> > at 23 degrees BTDC; "kickback" is common, even with proper technique of
> > starter first, then mags.
> >
> > When I used Chinese mags on the M-14P there were no such problems since
> > the start was only at 5-7 degrees BTDC. Smooth, with no kickback.
> >
> > I'm not sure that opening the snot valve in flight helps extend
> > compressor life either, since it was designed to operate with back
> > pressure in the system. Opinions?
> >
> > Craig Payne
> >
> > Tom Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Tom Johnson"
> <tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
> > >
> > > Bill Blackwell and I think my Yak 52 has a busted compressor.
> > >
> > > Lookin for tips and tests for:
> > > 1) operational checks
> > > 2) R&R tips
> > >
> > > Tj
> > > tjohnson@cannonaviation.com
> > =====================================================================
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Re: Fred Ihlenburg Memorial Fly-In |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Terry Calloway" <TCalloway@datatechnique.com>
Walt,
I'll be there. Flying in with Rodger, Kilo and Jim Griffin from Tulsa.
tc
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
I am fairly certain the spar strap, SB 107, does not change or alter the
wing loading whatsoever. It's "purpose in life" was to increase the
supposed "service life" of the airplane to 5000 hours. SB's 59 and 60
strengthen the main spar enabling it to RETAIN it's +7, -5 G loading.
Dennis Savarese
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl W Hays Enterprises" <yakparts@simplyweb.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Carl W Hays Enterprises"
<yakparts@simplyweb.net>
>
>
> Group,
>
> I was contacted by a Yak 52 owner yesterday with a host of questions
about the spar strap bulletin. I referred back to Mark Jeffrie's post on 19
April 2003 and visited the link he suggested. What I have never seen is the
actual documented cases of Yak 52s with wing failures (with or without the
spar strap kit), justifying this Service Bulletin on the Yak 52. I know of
three Yak 50s with failures, but no Yak 52s. How many documented failures
of Yak 52 wings are there: 1. In the +5, -3 g wings (no spar strap, of
course)? 2. In the +7, -5 g wings with no spar strap kit?
>
> The Russians design limit is +100%: a 7g wing must withstand 14 g's.
The FAA is + 50%: a 7g wing must withstand 10.5 g's.
>
> I would like to see the hard data on this bulletin, if anyone has it.
>
> Best regards,
> Jill Gernetzke
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
Dennis,
YOU ARE 100% correct !!!!! That is all SB #107 is there for. Many people
get confused about this point. Thank you for clarifying to the group.
Mark Schrick
Yak 52
San Jose, Ca
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of A. Dennis
Savarese
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
I am fairly certain the spar strap, SB 107, does not change or alter the
wing loading whatsoever. It's "purpose in life" was to increase the
supposed "service life" of the airplane to 5000 hours. SB's 59 and 60
strengthen the main spar enabling it to RETAIN it's +7, -5 G loading.
Dennis Savarese
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl W Hays Enterprises" <yakparts@simplyweb.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Carl W Hays Enterprises"
<yakparts@simplyweb.net>
>
>
> Group,
>
> I was contacted by a Yak 52 owner yesterday with a host of questions
about the spar strap bulletin. I referred back to Mark Jeffrie's post on 19
April 2003 and visited the link he suggested. What I have never seen is the
actual documented cases of Yak 52s with wing failures (with or without the
spar strap kit), justifying this Service Bulletin on the Yak 52. I know of
three Yak 50s with failures, but no Yak 52s. How many documented failures
of Yak 52 wings are there: 1. In the +5, -3 g wings (no spar strap, of
course)? 2. In the +7, -5 g wings with no spar strap kit?
>
> The Russians design limit is +100%: a 7g wing must withstand 14 g's.
The FAA is + 50%: a 7g wing must withstand 10.5 g's.
>
> I would like to see the hard data on this bulletin, if anyone has it.
>
> Best regards,
> Jill Gernetzke
>
>
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Frank Haertlein <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Here she is in all her new glory! Not fully finished yet but close.
http://home.earthlink.net/~yak52driver/new_paint.html
Frank
N911OM
>
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: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Great looking airplane Frank! Best of luck with her.
Fly safe,
Dennis Savarese
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Subject: Yak-List: New Paint
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Frank Haertlein
<yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Here she is in all her new glory! Not fully finished yet but close.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~yak52driver/new_paint.html
>
> Frank
> N911OM
>
>
> >
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
FWIW, I have also just finished visiting the NTSB site and read each and
every YAK 52 accident on record. None occurred before 1996 and clearly NONE
were due to wing spar failures.
On another note, when talking about primary trainers like the YAK 52, I was
just reading an auction ad for a few Cessna 152's and 172's. Some of the
172's WHICH ARE STILL AIRWORTHY, had (ready for this) 17,000+ hours. Yes,
17,000! Now given the fact that many (not all) 172's spent much of their
life as trainers, would anyone like to challenge the structural integrity of
a YAK 52 at 1000 hours or even 5000 hours with or without SB107 versus a
150/152 with an national average of around 8500 hours or a 172 with 17,000
hours? Which one would you have more confidence in it's structural
integrity?
Dennis Savarese
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
>
> Dennis,
>
> YOU ARE 100% correct !!!!! That is all SB #107 is there for. Many people
> get confused about this point. Thank you for clarifying to the group.
>
> Mark Schrick
> Yak 52
> San Jose, Ca
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> Savarese
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
> I am fairly certain the spar strap, SB 107, does not change or alter the
> wing loading whatsoever. It's "purpose in life" was to increase the
> supposed "service life" of the airplane to 5000 hours. SB's 59 and 60
> strengthen the main spar enabling it to RETAIN it's +7, -5 G loading.
> Dennis Savarese
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl W Hays Enterprises" <yakparts@simplyweb.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Carl W Hays Enterprises"
> <yakparts@simplyweb.net>
> >
> >
> > Group,
> >
> > I was contacted by a Yak 52 owner yesterday with a host of questions
> about the spar strap bulletin. I referred back to Mark Jeffrie's post on
19
> April 2003 and visited the link he suggested. What I have never seen is
the
> actual documented cases of Yak 52s with wing failures (with or without
the
> spar strap kit), justifying this Service Bulletin on the Yak 52. I know
of
> three Yak 50s with failures, but no Yak 52s. How many documented failures
> of Yak 52 wings are there: 1. In the +5, -3 g wings (no spar strap, of
> course)? 2. In the +7, -5 g wings with no spar strap kit?
> >
> > The Russians design limit is +100%: a 7g wing must withstand 14
g's.
> The FAA is + 50%: a 7g wing must withstand 10.5 g's.
> >
> > I would like to see the hard data on this bulletin, if anyone has
it.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jill Gernetzke
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bob Monzo" <yakpilot@wideopenwest.com>
Sometime ago I recall reading the first Yak-52 spar modification (taking the
airplane from +5/-3 to +7/-5) resulted from an accident in Lithuania in
which a student and instructor had a wing failure. However, I do not recall
any of the details.
Bob M.
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
> FWIW, I have also just finished visiting the NTSB site and read each and
> every YAK 52 accident on record. None occurred before 1996 and clearly
NONE
> were due to wing spar failures.
>
> On another note, when talking about primary trainers like the YAK 52, I
was
> just reading an auction ad for a few Cessna 152's and 172's. Some of the
> 172's WHICH ARE STILL AIRWORTHY, had (ready for this) 17,000+ hours. Yes,
> 17,000! Now given the fact that many (not all) 172's spent much of their
> life as trainers, would anyone like to challenge the structural integrity
of
> a YAK 52 at 1000 hours or even 5000 hours with or without SB107 versus a
> 150/152 with an national average of around 8500 hours or a 172 with 17,000
> hours? Which one would you have more confidence in it's structural
> integrity?
> Dennis Savarese
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
> >
> > Dennis,
> >
> > YOU ARE 100% correct !!!!! That is all SB #107 is there for. Many
people
> > get confused about this point. Thank you for clarifying to the group.
> >
> > Mark Schrick
> > Yak 52
> > San Jose, Ca
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> > Savarese
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> >
> >
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
> >
> > I am fairly certain the spar strap, SB 107, does not change or alter the
> > wing loading whatsoever. It's "purpose in life" was to increase the
> > supposed "service life" of the airplane to 5000 hours. SB's 59 and 60
> > strengthen the main spar enabling it to RETAIN it's +7, -5 G loading.
> > Dennis Savarese
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Carl W Hays Enterprises" <yakparts@simplyweb.net>
> > To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> >
> >
> > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Carl W Hays Enterprises"
> > <yakparts@simplyweb.net>
> > >
> > >
> > > Group,
> > >
> > > I was contacted by a Yak 52 owner yesterday with a host of
questions
> > about the spar strap bulletin. I referred back to Mark Jeffrie's post
on
> 19
> > April 2003 and visited the link he suggested. What I have never seen is
> the
> > actual documented cases of Yak 52s with wing failures (with or without
> the
> > spar strap kit), justifying this Service Bulletin on the Yak 52. I know
> of
> > three Yak 50s with failures, but no Yak 52s. How many documented
failures
> > of Yak 52 wings are there: 1. In the +5, -3 g wings (no spar strap, of
> > course)? 2. In the +7, -5 g wings with no spar strap kit?
> > >
> > > The Russians design limit is +100%: a 7g wing must withstand 14
> g's.
> > The FAA is + 50%: a 7g wing must withstand 10.5 g's.
> > >
> > > I would like to see the hard data on this bulletin, if anyone has
> it.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jill Gernetzke
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roy O. Wright" <roy@wright.org>
Well, the 172 is not aerobatic! <g>
I wonder what the useful life is for aerobatic aircraft?
I heard that originally the Yak 50 had a 50 (yes, fifty)
hour service life.
Or better yet, what's the service life of an aircraft with
similar construction and mission to the -52 (T-6,...)?
From my reading, Aluminum airframes should be good for
20,000+ hours, assuming proper maintenance and corrosion
treatment. I've notice that some warbird experts are
advocating fairly extensive overhauls on 50+ year old
airframes (new skins, new ribs, etc.).
Have fun,
Roy
At 04:21 PM 5/22/2003 -0500, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
>FWIW, I have also just finished visiting the NTSB site and read each and
>every YAK 52 accident on record. None occurred before 1996 and clearly NONE
>were due to wing spar failures.
>
>On another note, when talking about primary trainers like the YAK 52, I was
>just reading an auction ad for a few Cessna 152's and 172's. Some of the
>172's WHICH ARE STILL AIRWORTHY, had (ready for this) 17,000+ hours. Yes,
>17,000! Now given the fact that many (not all) 172's spent much of their
>life as trainers, would anyone like to challenge the structural integrity of
>a YAK 52 at 1000 hours or even 5000 hours with or without SB107 versus a
>150/152 with an national average of around 8500 hours or a 172 with 17,000
>hours? Which one would you have more confidence in it's structural
>integrity?
>Dennis Savarese
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
>>
>> Dennis,
>>
>> YOU ARE 100% correct !!!!! That is all SB #107 is there for. Many people
>> get confused about this point. Thank you for clarifying to the group.
>>
>> Mark Schrick
>> Yak 52
>> San Jose, Ca
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of A. Dennis
>> Savarese
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
>>
>>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>>
>> I am fairly certain the spar strap, SB 107, does not change or alter the
>> wing loading whatsoever. It's "purpose in life" was to increase the
>> supposed "service life" of the airplane to 5000 hours. SB's 59 and 60
>> strengthen the main spar enabling it to RETAIN it's +7, -5 G loading.
>> Dennis Savarese
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Carl W Hays Enterprises" <yakparts@simplyweb.net>
>> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
>>
>>
>> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Carl W Hays Enterprises"
>> <yakparts@simplyweb.net>
>> >
>> >
>> > Group,
>> >
>> > I was contacted by a Yak 52 owner yesterday with a host of questions
>> about the spar strap bulletin. I referred back to Mark Jeffrie's post on
>19
>> April 2003 and visited the link he suggested. What I have never seen is
>the
>> actual documented cases of Yak 52s with wing failures (with or without
>the
>> spar strap kit), justifying this Service Bulletin on the Yak 52. I know
>of
>> three Yak 50s with failures, but no Yak 52s. How many documented failures
>> of Yak 52 wings are there: 1. In the +5, -3 g wings (no spar strap, of
>> course)? 2. In the +7, -5 g wings with no spar strap kit?
>> >
>> > The Russians design limit is +100%: a 7g wing must withstand 14
>g's.
>> The FAA is + 50%: a 7g wing must withstand 10.5 g's.
>> >
>> > I would like to see the hard data on this bulletin, if anyone has
>it.
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> > Jill Gernetzke
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
',,'',,'',,',,'
Roy Wright 512.378.1234 mailto:royw@cisco.com
Cisco Systems import com.cisco.std-disclaimer
"Experience is the thing you get the moment after you needed to have it."
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: William Halverson <william@netpros.net>
Of course the other thing is ... how many people drving C150/152's
routinely wear parachutes?
;-)
Bill
A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
>FWIW, I have also just finished visiting the NTSB site and read each and
>every YAK 52 accident on record. None occurred before 1996 and clearly NONE
>were due to wing spar failures.
>
>On another note, when talking about primary trainers like the YAK 52, I was
>just reading an auction ad for a few Cessna 152's and 172's. Some of the
>172's WHICH ARE STILL AIRWORTHY, had (ready for this) 17,000+ hours. Yes,
>17,000! Now given the fact that many (not all) 172's spent much of their
>life as trainers, would anyone like to challenge the structural integrity of
>a YAK 52 at 1000 hours or even 5000 hours with or without SB107 versus a
>150/152 with an national average of around 8500 hours or a 172 with 17,000
>hours? Which one would you have more confidence in it's structural
>integrity?
>Dennis Savarese
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: William Halverson <william@netpros.net>
Of course the other thing is ... how many people driving C150/152's
routinely wear parachutes?
;-)
Bill
A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
>FWIW, I have also just finished visiting the NTSB site and read each and
>every YAK 52 accident on record. None occurred before 1996 and clearly NONE
>were due to wing spar failures.
>
>On another note, when talking about primary trainers like the YAK 52, I was
>just reading an auction ad for a few Cessna 152's and 172's. Some of the
>172's WHICH ARE STILL AIRWORTHY, had (ready for this) 17,000+ hours. Yes,
>17,000! Now given the fact that many (not all) 172's spent much of their
>life as trainers, would anyone like to challenge the structural integrity of
>a YAK 52 at 1000 hours or even 5000 hours with or without SB107 versus a
>150/152 with an national average of around 8500 hours or a 172 with 17,000
>hours? Which one would you have more confidence in it's structural
>integrity?
>Dennis Savarese
>
Message 20
| 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: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Yes the 172 is not certified as aerobatic, but it is approved for certain
aerobatic maneuvers while in the utility category, including spins. I
wonder how many students got close to or even exceed the utility category g
loading on the 172 of +4.4 positive and -1.6 (I may be slightly off on that
one). Heck, some of the landings made on these airplanes probably exceeded
the limits, particularly in the standard category with a +3.8 positive
limit.
Now equate that same scenario to a 52 with +7 and -5. How many times have
any of us flown the airplane at it's limits no less exceeding either of
those limits?
Based on a discussion on the subject of SB107 with a very, very
knowledgeable individual (whose name is intentionally withheld here)
concerning YAK 52's, this mod was based on an estimated 50% of the
airplane's life being spent in hard aerobatics. Well that is absolutely
unheard of for YAK 52's here in the US. We baby these airplanes compared to
the way they were treated and flown and in no way engage in hard aerobatics
50% of the time that we fly them.
I guess one could next discuss the T-34 structural integrity right?
Dennis Savarese
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy O. Wright" <roy@wright.org>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Roy O. Wright" <roy@wright.org>
>
> Well, the 172 is not aerobatic! <g>
>
> I wonder what the useful life is for aerobatic aircraft?
> I heard that originally the Yak 50 had a 50 (yes, fifty)
> hour service life.
>
> Or better yet, what's the service life of an aircraft with
> similar construction and mission to the -52 (T-6,...)?
>
> From my reading, Aluminum airframes should be good for
> 20,000+ hours, assuming proper maintenance and corrosion
> treatment. I've notice that some warbird experts are
> advocating fairly extensive overhauls on 50+ year old
> airframes (new skins, new ribs, etc.).
>
> Have fun,
> Roy
>
> At 04:21 PM 5/22/2003 -0500, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
> >--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
> >
> >FWIW, I have also just finished visiting the NTSB site and read each and
> >every YAK 52 accident on record. None occurred before 1996 and clearly
NONE
> >were due to wing spar failures.
> >
> >On another note, when talking about primary trainers like the YAK 52, I
was
> >just reading an auction ad for a few Cessna 152's and 172's. Some of the
> >172's WHICH ARE STILL AIRWORTHY, had (ready for this) 17,000+ hours.
Yes,
> >17,000! Now given the fact that many (not all) 172's spent much of their
> >life as trainers, would anyone like to challenge the structural integrity
of
> >a YAK 52 at 1000 hours or even 5000 hours with or without SB107 versus a
> >150/152 with an national average of around 8500 hours or a 172 with
17,000
> >hours? Which one would you have more confidence in it's structural
> >integrity?
> >Dennis Savarese
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
> >To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> >
> >
> >> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
> >>
> >> Dennis,
> >>
> >> YOU ARE 100% correct !!!!! That is all SB #107 is there for. Many
people
> >> get confused about this point. Thank you for clarifying to the group.
> >>
> >> Mark Schrick
> >> Yak 52
> >> San Jose, Ca
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> >> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> >> Savarese
> >> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> >>
> >>
> >> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
> >>
> >> I am fairly certain the spar strap, SB 107, does not change or alter
the
> >> wing loading whatsoever. It's "purpose in life" was to increase the
> >> supposed "service life" of the airplane to 5000 hours. SB's 59 and 60
> >> strengthen the main spar enabling it to RETAIN it's +7, -5 G loading.
> >> Dennis Savarese
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Carl W Hays Enterprises" <yakparts@simplyweb.net>
> >> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> >> Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> >>
> >>
> >> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Carl W Hays Enterprises"
> >> <yakparts@simplyweb.net>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Group,
> >> >
> >> > I was contacted by a Yak 52 owner yesterday with a host of
questions
> >> about the spar strap bulletin. I referred back to Mark Jeffrie's post
on
> >19
> >> April 2003 and visited the link he suggested. What I have never seen
is
> >the
> >> actual documented cases of Yak 52s with wing failures (with or without
> >the
> >> spar strap kit), justifying this Service Bulletin on the Yak 52. I
know
> >of
> >> three Yak 50s with failures, but no Yak 52s. How many documented
failures
> >> of Yak 52 wings are there: 1. In the +5, -3 g wings (no spar strap,
of
> >> course)? 2. In the +7, -5 g wings with no spar strap kit?
> >> >
> >> > The Russians design limit is +100%: a 7g wing must withstand 14
> >g's.
> >> The FAA is + 50%: a 7g wing must withstand 10.5 g's.
> >> >
> >> > I would like to see the hard data on this bulletin, if anyone has
> >it.
> >> >
> >> > Best regards,
> >> > Jill Gernetzke
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> ',,'',,'',,',,'
> Roy Wright 512.378.1234 mailto:royw@cisco.com
> Cisco Systems import com.cisco.std-disclaimer
> "Experience is the thing you get the moment after you needed to have it."
>
>
Message 21
| 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: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
And your point is............?
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Halverson" <william@netpros.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> --> Yak-List message posted by: William Halverson <william@netpros.net>
>
> Of course the other thing is ... how many people driving C150/152's
> routinely wear parachutes?
>
> ;-)
>
> Bill
>
>
> A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>
> >--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
> >
> >FWIW, I have also just finished visiting the NTSB site and read each and
> >every YAK 52 accident on record. None occurred before 1996 and clearly
NONE
> >were due to wing spar failures.
> >
> >On another note, when talking about primary trainers like the YAK 52, I
was
> >just reading an auction ad for a few Cessna 152's and 172's. Some of the
> >172's WHICH ARE STILL AIRWORTHY, had (ready for this) 17,000+ hours.
Yes,
> >17,000! Now given the fact that many (not all) 172's spent much of their
> >life as trainers, would anyone like to challenge the structural integrity
of
> >a YAK 52 at 1000 hours or even 5000 hours with or without SB107 versus a
> >150/152 with an national average of around 8500 hours or a 172 with
17,000
> >hours? Which one would you have more confidence in it's structural
> >integrity?
> >Dennis Savarese
> >
>
>
Message 22
| 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: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
The airplane was ORIGINALLY certified to +7, -5. SB's 59 and 60 were
implemented to RETAIN the original +7, -5 G load limits. If the airplane
did not have SB 59 and 60 during an airframe overhaul, it's structural
limits were reduced to +5, -3 until such time as 59 and 60 were installed.
Although unimportant, I don't recall the precise date (''87, 88 or '89 I
think) when 59 and 60 were released, thus influencing the reduction to
+5, -3 if they were not installed.
Dennis Savarese
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Monzo" <yakpilot@wideopenwest.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bob Monzo" <yakpilot@wideopenwest.com>
>
> Sometime ago I recall reading the first Yak-52 spar modification (taking
the
> airplane from +5/-3 to +7/-5) resulted from an accident in Lithuania in
> which a student and instructor had a wing failure. However, I do not
recall
> any of the details.
>
> Bob M.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
> >
> > FWIW, I have also just finished visiting the NTSB site and read each and
> > every YAK 52 accident on record. None occurred before 1996 and clearly
> NONE
> > were due to wing spar failures.
> >
> > On another note, when talking about primary trainers like the YAK 52, I
> was
> > just reading an auction ad for a few Cessna 152's and 172's. Some of
the
> > 172's WHICH ARE STILL AIRWORTHY, had (ready for this) 17,000+ hours.
Yes,
> > 17,000! Now given the fact that many (not all) 172's spent much of
their
> > life as trainers, would anyone like to challenge the structural
integrity
> of
> > a YAK 52 at 1000 hours or even 5000 hours with or without SB107 versus a
> > 150/152 with an national average of around 8500 hours or a 172 with
17,000
> > hours? Which one would you have more confidence in it's structural
> > integrity?
> > Dennis Savarese
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
> > To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> >
> >
> > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
> > >
> > > Dennis,
> > >
> > > YOU ARE 100% correct !!!!! That is all SB #107 is there for. Many
> people
> > > get confused about this point. Thank you for clarifying to the group.
> > >
> > > Mark Schrick
> > > Yak 52
> > > San Jose, Ca
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> > > Savarese
> > > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> > >
> > >
> > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
> > >
> > > I am fairly certain the spar strap, SB 107, does not change or alter
the
> > > wing loading whatsoever. It's "purpose in life" was to increase the
> > > supposed "service life" of the airplane to 5000 hours. SB's 59 and 60
> > > strengthen the main spar enabling it to RETAIN it's +7, -5 G loading.
> > > Dennis Savarese
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Carl W Hays Enterprises" <yakparts@simplyweb.net>
> > > To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> > > Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Carl W Hays Enterprises"
> > > <yakparts@simplyweb.net>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Group,
> > > >
> > > > I was contacted by a Yak 52 owner yesterday with a host of
> questions
> > > about the spar strap bulletin. I referred back to Mark Jeffrie's post
> on
> > 19
> > > April 2003 and visited the link he suggested. What I have never seen
is
> > the
> > > actual documented cases of Yak 52s with wing failures (with or
without
> > the
> > > spar strap kit), justifying this Service Bulletin on the Yak 52. I
know
> > of
> > > three Yak 50s with failures, but no Yak 52s. How many documented
> failures
> > > of Yak 52 wings are there: 1. In the +5, -3 g wings (no spar strap,
of
> > > course)? 2. In the +7, -5 g wings with no spar strap kit?
> > > >
> > > > The Russians design limit is +100%: a 7g wing must withstand
14
> > g's.
> > > The FAA is + 50%: a 7g wing must withstand 10.5 g's.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to see the hard data on this bulletin, if anyone
has
> > it.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Jill Gernetzke
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 23
| 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: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Point is they don't have to as they are structurally sound.
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Halverson" <william@netpros.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> --> Yak-List message posted by: William Halverson <william@netpros.net>
>
> Of course the other thing is ... how many people driving C150/152's
> routinely wear parachutes?
>
> ;-)
>
> Bill
>
>
> A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>
> >--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
> >
> >FWIW, I have also just finished visiting the NTSB site and read each and
> >every YAK 52 accident on record. None occurred before 1996 and clearly
NONE
> >were due to wing spar failures.
> >
> >On another note, when talking about primary trainers like the YAK 52, I
was
> >just reading an auction ad for a few Cessna 152's and 172's. Some of the
> >172's WHICH ARE STILL AIRWORTHY, had (ready for this) 17,000+ hours.
Yes,
> >17,000! Now given the fact that many (not all) 172's spent much of their
> >life as trainers, would anyone like to challenge the structural integrity
of
> >a YAK 52 at 1000 hours or even 5000 hours with or without SB107 versus a
> >150/152 with an national average of around 8500 hours or a 172 with
17,000
> >hours? Which one would you have more confidence in it's structural
> >integrity?
> >Dennis Savarese
> >
>
>
Message 24
| 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: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Ok. I give up!
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Point is they don't have to as they are structurally sound.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Halverson" <william@netpros.net>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: William Halverson <william@netpros.net>
> >
> > Of course the other thing is ... how many people driving C150/152's
> > routinely wear parachutes?
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
> >
> > >--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
> > >
> > >FWIW, I have also just finished visiting the NTSB site and read each
and
> > >every YAK 52 accident on record. None occurred before 1996 and clearly
> NONE
> > >were due to wing spar failures.
> > >
> > >On another note, when talking about primary trainers like the YAK 52, I
> was
> > >just reading an auction ad for a few Cessna 152's and 172's. Some of
the
> > >172's WHICH ARE STILL AIRWORTHY, had (ready for this) 17,000+ hours.
> Yes,
> > >17,000! Now given the fact that many (not all) 172's spent much of
their
> > >life as trainers, would anyone like to challenge the structural
integrity
> of
> > >a YAK 52 at 1000 hours or even 5000 hours with or without SB107 versus
a
> > >150/152 with an national average of around 8500 hours or a 172 with
> 17,000
> > >hours? Which one would you have more confidence in it's structural
> > >integrity?
> > >Dennis Savarese
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 25
| 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: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: William Halverson <william@netpros.net>
I was waiting for someone to take the bait ...
Actually, my point [I'm the guy who made the post] was that given the
safety record Dennis researched, I'd feel much safer in a YAK-52 - with
or without the wing spar fix - with a 'chute on than I would in a C150.
Probably watch how fast I was pulling G's if the spar wasn't fixed ...
But then what the hell, I fly a Yak-55 upside down for fun ... and on
that point [upside down flying] am I the only guy who thinks the Hooker
harness needs an adjustment in Yaks? The crotch belt has too much
length in it ... I can't figure out how to shorten it up enough ... any
ideas greatly appreciated!
Bill Halverson
A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
>Ok. I give up!
>Dennis
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
>
>>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>>
>>Point is they don't have to as they are structurally sound.
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "William Halverson" <william@netpros.net>
>>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 52 Service Bulletin 107
>>
>>>--> Yak-List message posted by: William Halverson <william@netpros.net>
>>>
>>>Of course the other thing is ... how many people driving C150/152's
>>>routinely wear parachutes?
>>>
>>>;-)
>>>
>>>Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>>>
>>>>--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>>>>
>>>>FWIW, I have also just finished visiting the NTSB site and read each and every
YAK 52 accident on record. None occurred before 1996 and clearly NONE were
due to wing spar failures.
>>>>
>>>>On another note, when talking about primary trainers like the YAK 52, I was
just reading an auction ad for a few Cessna 152's and 172's. Some of the 172's
WHICH ARE STILL AIRWORTHY, had (ready for this) 17,000+ hours. Yes, 17,000!
Now given the fact that many (not all) 172's spent much of their life as trainers,
would anyone like to challenge the structural integrity of a YAK 52 at
1000 hours or even 5000 hours with or without SB107 versus a 150/152 with an
national average of around 8500 hours or a 172 with 17,000 hours? Which one would
you have more confidence in it's structural integrity?
>>>>Dennis Savarese
>>>>
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! --
|