Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:35 AM - Re: Break-in Procedure for 285 hp Housai tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,USER_IN_WHITELIST (Brian Lloyd)
2. 12:26 PM - Re: CJ Tiedowns (KingCJ6@aol.com)
3. 04:34 PM - Re: Break-in Procedure for 285 hp Housai tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.55 (Walt Lannon)
4. 05:10 PM - Re: Spins (Jerry Painter)
5. 05:55 PM - Re: Break-in Procedure for 285 hp Housai tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,USER_IN_WHITELIST (Brian Lloyd)
6. 07:12 PM - (jackron@att.net)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Break-in Procedure for 285 hp Housai tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,USER_IN_WHITELIST |
version=2.55
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Walt Lannon wrote:
> Phillips aviation oils are all mineral, not synthetic but they contain
> viscosity modifiers and (except for the -M) ashless dispersant additives.
Yes, that is why I prefer them.
> A paragraph in P&W S.B. #1183 (Approved Oils) leads one to the conclusion
> that these additives detract from the hot end properties.
How old is that SB? I haven't read it. Does it address the current crop of available
oils and viscosity stabilizers?
Regardless, given that the first 4 hours have been completed already, I suspect
that the choice of oil at this point is not of any particular consequence.
> This paragraph recommends the use of Grade 1120 (SAE60) rather than 1100
> (SAE50) in all P&W engines using additive type oils.
>
> First oil change during break-in should be at about 10 hours with a full
> check of screens, sump & filter if installed.
More often is better.
> The Chinese overhauled engines I have installed were factory test run for 4
> to 5 hrs and were well started on break-in. They were not a problem.
That is what I would expect too. My technique is aimed at an engine that has never
been run at all. The first couple of hours are critical and if the engine
has been run in the stand for 4-5 hours, the bulk of the break-in has already
occurred. Now the pilot just has to run the engine hard to keep from screwing
it up.
--
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 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: KingCJ6@aol.com
Batman - this sounds great. Does the unit come with a Corinthian leather
padded traveling case? Also, I assume the tie down ropes are pure 100% Chinese
virgin silk (color coordinated) given the price, but is a velvet sash included
in the package??
Dave
In a message dated 7/9/2003 7:51:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Yakjock@msn.com
writes:
> I bought a new set of ground anchors from Flyties in Aptos, CA
> (831-688-6951). Expensive at $130 or so, but I liked his idea and felt it was
> justified. Three stainless pins go through a hard rubber anchor at 120 degree
> intervals for each of three anchors.
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: Break-in Procedure for 285 hp Housai tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,USER_IN_WHITELIST |
version=2.55
tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SUBJ_HAS_SPACES,
USER_IN_WHITELIST
version=2.55
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walt Lannon" <lannon@look.ca>
Hi Brian;
The last revision to the P&W oil S.B. is 1988 and includes all the brands,
multi-grades & ashless dispersants and straight.
Aeroshell has done more tweaking of their W15W50 since then to try and
improve its properties. Phillips hjas not changed except for the
introduction of the -M.
As you may recall from previous posts I use and recommend Phillips 25W60 for
all radials. I do not recommend and would not use W15W50 in any radial
engine. Possibly it is better now than it was 15 years ago but it is an
expensive experiment in a 10 gal oil tank.
From personal experience I believe P&W have it right, 25W60 will provide hot
end properties at least equal to straight SAE50. 20W50 and W15W50 may not
regardless of the oil company's claims.
Cheers
Walt
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Break-in Procedure for 285 hp Housai
tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.55
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
>
> Walt Lannon wrote:
> > Phillips aviation oils are all mineral, not synthetic but they contain
> > viscosity modifiers and (except for the -M) ashless dispersant
additives.
>
> Yes, that is why I prefer them.
>
> > A paragraph in P&W S.B. #1183 (Approved Oils) leads one to the
conclusion
> > that these additives detract from the hot end properties.
>
> How old is that SB? I haven't read it. Does it address the current crop
of available oils and viscosity stabilizers?
>
> Regardless, given that the first 4 hours have been completed already, I
suspect that the choice of oil at this point is not of any particular
consequence.
>
> > This paragraph recommends the use of Grade 1120 (SAE60) rather than 1100
> > (SAE50) in all P&W engines using additive type oils.
> >
> > First oil change during break-in should be at about 10 hours with a full
> > check of screens, sump & filter if installed.
>
> More often is better.
>
> > The Chinese overhauled engines I have installed were factory test run
for 4
> > to 5 hrs and were well started on break-in. They were not a problem.
>
> That is what I would expect too. My technique is aimed at an engine that
has never been run at all. The first couple of hours are critical and if
the engine has been run in the stand for 4-5 hours, the bulk of the break-in
has already occurred. Now the pilot just has to run the engine hard to keep
from screwing it up.
>
> --
>
> 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 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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter" <wild.blue@verizon.net>
Doug,
Didn't see you at Peter's last nite--or the Granleys. Guess they've gone
to another show. I was hoping to talk more to them about spins.
Another time. I can't be there tonite--honeydos.
Back to spins. I don't make any claims for skill or experience, but I
have spun many airplanes many times and never had a (serious) problem.
When I started flying Yak-52's I was a little concerned about their
reputation for entering unintentional flat spins power on, particularly
out of hammerheads, and the fact that several well known, experienced,
capable pilots had been killed in them. Incidentally, the factory
"placards" new -52's (W's and TW's)--uncertified airplanes even in their
home countries--against flat spins, in the pilot's manual (not exactly a
"placard" in FAA-speak). Don't know what the designers, factory, DOSAAF
or similar organizations said about the military models, which are
slightly different. I know several people who've had good scares
spinning "spinnable" airplanes and, again, I make no claims. I had
never done inverted or flat spins before I got a -52. But I like doing
spins and lazy acro.
So, I did what I think we all agree is the sensible thing. I went
looking for training. I watched Yak-52 training videos. I read books.
I talked to someone I knew was fully conversant with the airplanes: Bud
Granley. I was surprised by his response (which is why I mentioned it).
Don't spin it says Bud. I have a lot of respect for Bud. We don't know
each other well and we've never flown together so he may have been
trying to keep me (a presumably inept, inexperienced pilot--smart guess)
out of trouble, but I took him at his word. Various things prevented me
from flying with Bud, so that didn't work out. Coincidentally, a year
or so later two good men were killed in his -52. Sounds like it wasn't
really a spin accident, was avoidable and not the airplane's fault, but
it happened. Would additional training have saved them? I assume Bud
had confidence in their ability and had probably given them some
instruction or he wouldn't have let them fly his airplane. Mike had
already survived one accident, so I suppose he was a little more
cautious than when younger. Alex probably had military training in
-52's. Am I a better pilot than they were? I don't know, but I doubt
it. Especially now that I can't see, am getting old, fat, dumb, ugly
and stupid. Howzabout you? We're not getting paid to be test pilots.
Don't think anyone would hire me and this is not a good field for the
self-employed.
Anyway, to continue my story, I went looking for and got some more
training in aerobatics and especially flat and inverted spins, in a
Pitts, not exactly a -52, but which I'd never flown before and always
wanted to. Is it legal to give or get spin--or any other training in a
CJ or -52? And pay/get paid for it? "Qualified" instructors usually
expect to get paid. Can you train someone/be trained in your airplane
or does it have to be/can it be their airplane? Does anyone offer it?
Does the EAA have to be involved? I don't quite understand the FAA
position at the moment--maybe I should say I'm a little confused and
that is definitely part of the problem--can anyone out there help?
So, I was in Phoenix and hooked up with Budd Davisson in Scottsdale and
we flew his S-2A. Lots of fun. But he didn't want to spin it. We
talked about Art Scholl and his accident, which was in an S-2A. Budd
felt about his S-2A about like I did about my -52. Budd has a lot of
experience in Pittses, flying and instructing. I think he is not only
"qualified," but smart, too, especially flying with some unknown like
me. He referred me to another instructor at Deer Valley (whose name
escapes me--Sonny _____--maybe somebody out there knows him--a fearless
fellow and terrific pilot) and we did flat and inverted flat spins in
his S-2C. More fun. Impressive rate of rotation and rate of descent.
Three full turns to recover. "Low" altitude may mean almost "any"
altitude. A Pitts may not be a Yak, but you can't say they're
unresponsive, heavy on the controls or untested.
I still haven't spun a -52. Not sure I ever will (OK, OK, I hear the
heckles already!). CJ-6's really don't spin, at least not for long. I
haven't tried to spin one inverted, accelerated or power on--and don't
intend to. A few weeks ago two more people were killed in Utah spinning
a -52. Now a widow has a beautiful Stearman for sale. Sad. We worry
about the wings on older -52's, which are +7, -5. Never heard much
concern for or discussion of G-limits on CJ's, which are almost all way
higher time than -52's. I know of CJ's with stress cracking in wing
skins. Are there any Nanchang factory bulletins? Decent manuals?
Fortunately, there are bulletins and manuals (sort of) for -52's. Never
heard of wings coming off a -52, bulletins or no. But people flat spin
them, "placards" or not, intentionally and unintentionally.
Yak-52's are terrific airplanes, that's why I have one. I love CJ's and
hope to get another one. But I'm much more careful about spins in -52's
than I ever was in my CJ. And I've loved my -52's. I've never seen a
nicer -52 or CJ than the ones I have/had (though I know there are many
nice -52's and CJ's out there) and I've had full confidence in them.
Mostly. Love those airplanes, especially the CJ. My wife and kids
loved it. I loved to give rides in it, including spins and acro and it
was even pretty good for x-c. But I am concerned about lurking dragons.
Lots of people are doing mods on their CJ's and -52's, including me. Do
the mods affect spin recovery? What does the Nanchang factory say about
spinning CJ's? Mods? My experience with the Aerostar folk (Yak-52
mfr.) as a dealer for them does not bolster my confidence in -52's.
When I was a student pilot I wanted spin training, and got it. Got more
for my CFI. Took aerobatic instruction. Like lazy aerobatics, have
given a little acro instruction but make no claims. I've given lots of
spin training. Never had a problem. I head about Beggs' techniques, so
I read his book. He says C-150's and Citabrias have modes that don't
respond to the usual techniques. Maybe that's why CFI's and their
students get killed in spin training and the mfrs./FAA are a little
sensitive. Beggs has explored the subject way more than me, so I'll
believe him for now. I've done lots of instructing in C-150's and
Citabrias including lots of spins. Us Yaksters are living in an
"experimental exhibition" world without the benefit of testing by Gene
Beggs, the support of the FAA, military, the designers or factory with
our CJ's and -52's.
I, too, have friends who died in perfectly good airplanes. Tested the
limits a few times myself. That's why I am much more careful than I
used to be.
Jerry Painter
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug [mailto:rvfltd@televar.com]
Subject: Spins
Jerry wrote:
> Sad truth is a lot of very capable, proficient pilots have been killed
> doing INTENTIONAL spins in airplanes they've spun many times. Too
many
> in our favorite airplanes, especially Yak-52's.
You have left out the key phrase here "close to the ground" To condemn
all intentional spins, I believe is as big of a mistake as practicing
them close to the ground. If you have questions about your aircraft's
performance in various configurations get some dual from a qualified
instructor.
From high altitudes, too. I'm not condemning spins. I am condemning
generalizations, flippant remarks, irresponsibility and complacency,
including the common belief that because you've had training/experience,
you're immune. Yak-52's are placarded against flat spins, and
apparently, enter them easily at inopportune times, but people keep
doing them. The point is, if a skilled professional can get killed
doing something entered with engineering support, extensive testing,
experience and forethought and after lots and lots of practice, how much
more dangerous is an intentional or unintentional spin done by you or me
in an airplane type with a checkered/unknown history? What about a
rookie? I'm not a rookie. But, as they say, don't try this at home.
What I'm saying is spins are dangerous and seldom treated with the
respect they require. And training is not always the answer. Would
additional training and preparation have saved Art Scholl? The "close
to the ground part" is not necessarily the operative condition. What is
a "qualified" instructor? The FAA says I'm a qualified instructor. Not
bloody likely when it comes to spins in Yak-52's or CJ's. Is anyone?
What do the designers/factory say on the matter? How can you be
"qualified" in an airplane with no data? Was Art Scholl qualified in
S-2A's? In spins there lie terra incognita. Contrary to what I usually
say, the FAA is probably right to license these airplanes as
"experimental exhibition." (Another subject altogether.)
I don't want to explore their "Unusual Characteristics."
>Gene Beggs' book is a
> must read for anyone serious about the subject. I saw Art Scholl do
his
> trademark 27 turn inverted flat spin many times at low altitude--who
> would guess he would die in that airplane in an inverted flat spin?
Art Scholl died in a inverted flat spin into the ocean while practicing
his airshow routine. Again doing intentional spins at low altitude. I
don't want to sound cold but this was his business, he well knew the
risks.
Actually, he was filming for a movie, in his S-2A, an airplane he had
performed the same maneuver in many, many, many, many times. I don't
know what altitude, but doubt it was "low." He made a radio call saying
he was in an inverted flat spin and had a "problem," but apparently no
description of the problem. And he wasn't just an "airshow" or "movie"
pilot, he was also a world-class, champion competition pilot. Way
better than me and probably better than any of us reading the Yak list.
If you think airshow pilots are intentionally doing maneuvers whose
outcome they're uncertain of, I think you're mistaken. The altitude is
a secondary concern. Risky? Dangerous? Of course. Uncertain of the
outcome? NFW.
> When you know someone who is a much more capable pilot than yourself
has
> been killed doing a maneuver you've done in the same kind of airplane
it
> makes you a little more humble.
And well it should, for if we do not learn from others mistakes, we are
doomed to repeat them ourselves. (we need to tell the folks in
Washington that:>)
There is a big difference between a CFI/trainee doing a three turn spin
or a student being demonstrated/demonstrating entries and recoveries in
a C-150 or Citabria and doing intentional or unintentional spins,
especially inverted flat spins, in an "experimental" airplane.
Especially in an airplane you're unsure of, regardless of certification,
training or experience, which is the definition of "experimental." Even
C-150's and Citabrias, to say nothing of Pittses and Yak-52's, have
killed more than a few. I know of no exceptions. Train, yes, even
student pilots, but avoid spins--and every other maneuver--unless you
are absolutely certain of the outcome.
>Too many good people have been killed
> to make blanket statements about spins being stable maneuvers, that
> they should be part of every REAL pilot's training, that only wimps
> avoid them etc. etc.
Jerry, if you think my reference to the fact that I had to do a 3 turn
spin and recover on a heading was bravado or bragging your are dead
wrong. I have lost two friends to spin accidents, both pilots simply
got behind the aircraft and failed to recognize the problem in time to
save themselves. One accident took the life of the pilot, his wife and
their 10 month baby. Had they had spin training, learned the procedures
they just might of had a chance to live to fly another day, but they did
not have the training, did not see the signs, so they paid the maximum
price. No one has posted any reference to wimps or REAL pilots. If my
strong opinion on the topic offends you I am honestly sorry, but in my
opinion if you don't do everything in your power to learn as much as you
can about how your aircraft will respond in all of its various
configurations, you are in fact short changing your self and your gib,
who ever he/she may be on the day when/if it happens to you.
I agree completely. But there is a void out there, especially regarding
Yaks and CJ's, which is my whole point. Test at your own risk--you may
be the first to try something that's never done before.
Generalizations, flippant, casual and denigrating remarks make no
positive contribution. This is a serious subject.
As Beggs notes, some of our most popular trainers
> (Citrabrias, C-150's) have modes that do not respond to normal
recovery
> techniques and every year a few discover the problem and sacrifice
their
> lives.
If we know it to be fact, then we should either know those "modes" and
placard against them or better yet further our knowledge and learn the
correct method of recovery from a qualified instructor. To do anything
less would be to just "wink" at the problem which you know to be real
and dangerous. It was not an intentional spin that took the lives of
my friends, it was their lack of knowledge about the aircraft they were
flying. In the case of Art Scholl and every other airshow pilot who has
died doing what they loved I would have to suggest to you that they were
"in the business" to take risks and like a good friend once said "if you
continue to get into the lions cage every day, sooner or later you will
get bit". While this adage applies best to the air show pilot it also
applies to a lesser degree to us all.
The factory (and I think Yakovlev, too) "placards" Yak-52's against flat
spins. So I don't want to try one, though I want to know as much as I
can learn about them, especially knowing spins are a concern. I don't
think much of Aerostar, but I'll take their word on this one. What do
the Nanchang factory folk say? Anything? Chinese military? Is there
any authoritative data? People keep spinning -52's and CJ's,
intentionally and unintentionally. Some get killed. It's possible no
one has ever seen the lion that waits to bite YOU.
A while back I saw a TV program that included film of spin testing
F-18's. A military test pilot was trying every entry and spin mode they
could think of to try to discover anything unexpected and means of
dealing with the unexpected. Really interesting stuff. This was part
of a continuous testing program that was ongoing while the airplanes
were in service. The airplanes are already fully tested, accepted by
the military, in operational combat service, pilots thoroughly trained,
but they keep testing and training for new phenomena. I don't know what
the spin record of F-18's is, but I'd bet the military, like
professional airshow performers and competition aerobatics pilots, is
much more comprehensive with testing and training than the FAA
requirements or what is available to a Yak/CJ pilot. And while I'll bet
the military record is better than ours, I'd bet people still get killed
in spins in F-18's.
Nobody's paying me to be a test pilot and I'm not sure I'd want the job.
I'm getting old enough to want to die in my bed. And I like to spin
airplanes! But I'll let someone else do the testing and I'm not going
to spin any airplane I'm uncertain of. I'm not even sure about C-150's
and Citabrias any more.
>Cocksure attitudes do not a recovery technique make.
I could not agree with you more, but instruction, practice, and a full
working knowledge of our aircraft will go a long way to keeping us all
alive.
I agree. Nevertheless, spins are complex phenomena that deserve a lot
more respect than they get. Just because someone gets "training" and
practices doesn't mean sudden death is not a possibility. I'm a CFI,
have had a fair amount of training, have been instructing, off and on,
for thirty years, I've done lots of spins, including in CJ's and many
other airplanes, but I'm not going to spin or give anyone spin training
in a CJ (again--though I have), let alone in a -52. I don't think I'm
"qualified." I think Bud is right. Spins kill people and should be
avoided, especially by us weekenders in unknown airplanes. Get the
training etc. etc., but avoid spins. Like Bud says, recover at the
flick. Leave the serious stuff to trained professionals who are getting
paid. We are the test pilots for these "experimental" airplanes,
especially if they've been modified, and we're not qualified, paid or
supported. It's a dangerous job--don't mention it to your life
insurance agent.
The interesting part of all this is that what I started out to say was
that VG's really do work. That's something I would like to test on a
-52 or CJ. Maybe they can even help spin recoveries.
I'm going to post this to the list--hope you don't mind. Sorry to keep
floggin' the dog, but it's an important subject. Too many have already
died.
Keep Yakkin and be careful out there.
Hope to see you at Arlington.
Next year.
Always yakin,
Doug Sapp
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: Break-in Procedure for 285 hp Housai tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,USER_IN_WHITELIST |
version=2.55 tests=QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SUBJ_HAS_SPACES,
USER_IN_WHITELIST version=2.55
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Walt Lannon wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Walt Lannon" <lannon@look.ca>
>
> Hi Brian;
> The last revision to the P&W oil S.B. is 1988 and includes all the brands,
> multi-grades & ashless dispersants and straight.
> Aeroshell has done more tweaking of their W15W50 since then to try and
> improve its properties. Phillips hjas not changed except for the
> introduction of the -M.
Are you sure? They pulled it and then reintroduced it since then as I recall.
> As you may recall from previous posts I use and recommend Phillips 25W60 for
> all radials. I do not recommend and would not use W15W50 in any radial
> engine.
I would not recommend that either.
> Possibly it is better now than it was 15 years ago but it is an
> expensive experiment in a 10 gal oil tank.
No kidding and there are no real advantages since the temps aren't as high in radials
as they are in some high-performance turbocharged engines.
>>From personal experience I believe P&W have it right, 25W60 will provide hot
> end properties at least equal to straight SAE50. 20W50 and W15W50 may not
> regardless of the oil company's claims.
I used Phillips 20W50 in my Huosai until switching to 25W60 late in the game.
No problems. I never saw anything less than full oil pressure. Radial engines
have high gear pressures but lower temperatures overall. In this way they are
almost the antithesis of high-performance turbocharged engines. Regardless,
I doubt the Huosai engine has high anything. :
)
--
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: jackron@att.net
Does anyone know the dates of the fuction in Oliver BC. Thanks,
Ron Swanson
--
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! --
|