Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:59 AM - Red Star (Drew Blahnick)
2. 03:16 AM - Re: Nomex or No Nomex (Brian Lloyd)
3. 05:43 AM - Re: Key West Routes (Ernie)
4. 06:49 AM - Re: Red Star (KingCJ6@aol.com)
5. 07:37 AM - Aircraft Insurance (Yakjock)
6. 08:19 AM - Re: Re: (owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com)
7. 08:34 AM - AUX tank for Yak 52 behind the back seat compartment (Mark Schrick)
8. 08:37 AM - Pop off sea (owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com)
9. 08:37 AM - Re: (A. Dennis Savarese)
10. 08:53 AM - Re: Key West Routes (Bob Fitzpatrick)
11. 09:39 AM - Re: AUX tank for CJ (Robert Mortara)
12. 09:55 AM - Re: Yak-List Digest: 29 Msgs - 08/08/03 (Skipsly@aol.com)
13. 10:16 AM - Re: AUX tank for CJ (Jim Ivey)
14. 10:28 AM - Re: Re: AUX tank for CJ (Mark Schrick)
15. 11:06 AM - I told you?? Don't think so. (Doug)
16. 11:07 AM - Re: Yak 18 (Doug)
17. 11:07 AM - Re: AUX tank for CJ (Doug)
18. 11:16 AM - Yak 55m baggage compartment (Wes Warner)
19. 12:19 PM - Re: AUX tank for CJ (Doug)
20. 01:01 PM - Re: Key West Routes (Deon Esterhuizen)
21. 03:14 PM - Re: Pop-off gasket (Wes Warner)
22. 04:08 PM - Re: Yak 18 (Janet Davidson)
23. 06:22 PM - Re: Yak 18 (Brian Lloyd)
24. 07:15 PM - Re: AUX tank for CJ (Sam Sax)
25. 07:29 PM - Re: AUX tank for CJ (Jim Selby)
26. 07:31 PM - Key West Routes (Sam Sax)
27. 08:05 PM - Re: Yak 18 (Walt Lannon)
28. 08:30 PM - aux tanks for CJ (Jim Griffin)
29. 09:59 PM - Cj-6A Aux tanks (Frank Stelwagon)
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: "Drew Blahnick" <aapilot@adelphia.net>
Folks,
Members of the YPA and not:
I have recieved 100% support in private e-mails concerning evolving the YPA in to an inclusive aircraft owners association which includes a name change to Red Star Aircraft Owners Association as outlined in the transitional brief at: http://www.allredstar.com/The_Cockpit.asp
I have recieved nearly 100% support on these issues, but I'm looking for those
who haven't wrote in.
I have recieved no negative feedback about evolving the board of directors in to
a geographically-fair electoral representative body (regional based) for the
membership as seen in other national/international organizations (I am including
Canadian and other delegates to the board in the plan laid down in the transitional
brief)
Please, before we move to the ballot process, I would like to hear your input, visit http://www.allredstar.com/The_Cockpit.asp
POSITIVE or NEGATIVE. That's right, if you support the brief, please let me know
- if not, let me know as well!
Please e-mail me with your thoughts at drewblahnick@hotmail.com
I will be in the desert for about 10 days and will enjoy hearing from you down
there (let's not kidd around, it sucks down there)
Thanks for listening,
Drew
Drew Blahnick
All Red Star
310.386.9181
"Communism: Lousy Politics - Excellent Airplanes!"
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: Nomex or No Nomex |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
dabear wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "dabear" <dabear@damned.org>
>
> Brian,
>
> Just so you know, there will be a maximum life of all Nomex flight
> suits allowed to be worn at YPA/ARS events. Since Nomex no longer
> give appropriate protection after 4 washings or exposure to the sun,
> 1 year or 4 washings is the maximum allowed.
No problem. I don't wash mine. I am partial to that crisp, stand-on-its-own-two-feet
feeling. I wouldn't want to compromise the fire-retardant capabilities
of my Nomex flight suit.
> Pilots and GIBs will
> have to provide documentation on the current washing level and
> purchase date prior to entering the cockpit at a YPA event. This is
> for your protection. It is not just a YPA rule, it is a good idea.
That is as it should be. 'Chutes have to be repacked ever 120 days. They have
a little card that tells when it was repacked. Each Nomex flight suit should
be required to have its certification as well. And since we can't count on pilots
to tell the truth (I know pilots who actually fly with parachutes that have
gone more than 120 days since repack even though we all know that at 121 days
the 'chute will no longer function) I move that the YPA require certification
from an independent testing lab that the Nomex suit actually provides fire
retardancy. But annual testing may be too long between tests. The pilot could
have washed it repeatedly within that time frame. I propose semiannual testing
as that would provide more safety margin. And after all 180 days is better
than 120 days.
> Note: the above message was sarcasm, please treat the message as
> such.
I know, you are just trying to cover your ass. You don't don't want to be castigated
for speaking the truth so you couch it in terms of humor. It is sad when
people are afraid to speak out because they fear that the group will attack
their views.
<humor mode off>
When I moved down here I stored or got rid of much of my clothing. The master
cabin of my boat has two linear feet of closet space. I discarded my suits and
kept one navy blue blazer for "formal" business attire. Regardless, my Nomex
flight suit, flight jacket, and combat boots came with me. When I have my ferry
tank in the cockpit of my Comanche I fly with a Nomex flight suit even tho'
it is a spam can. I value my skin.
But I think there is a move afoot to use the flight suit as a YPA "badge of professionalism".
That it isn't. A pilot is professional by his or her thoughts
and actions, not by anything he/she carries or wears. Whether or not you wear
a flight suit is not likely to impact your insurance no matter how much an organization
states that it is for the purposes of increasing safety.
I admit, there have been many times in the dead heat of summer I have flown my
CJ with shorts, tee-shirt, athletic shoes ... and a parachute. I have engaged
in both aerobatics and formation activities wearing the above "uniform." I was
more concerned with my comfort and mental performance than I was with having
to survive a flash-fire in the cockpit. In the heat of summer I am far more
concerned with having my performance decreased by heat and dehydration than I
am with a flash-fire in the cockpit. From that point-of-view requiring a Nomex
flight suit is likely to be more dangerous than allowing someone to operate
an aircraft without it.
"But race car drivers and military pilots are required to wear them," you say.
"Doesn't that mean you are safer wearing them?" Maybe not. Race car drivers
are literally enclosed by their fuel tanks. An impact and concomitant rupture
of the fuel tank is something that is far more likely with a race-car driver
than a Yak driver. Military pilots fly in combat and their cockpits are air
conditioned. Heat stroke and dehydration are less likely while fire in the cockpit
is more likely. I don't expect anyone to shoot holes in or expose my CJ6A
to explosive devices. I don't need the same level of protection against flash
fires that they do.
So *think* and ask yourself the real reason for using any piece of gear in the
cockpit.
<humor mode back on>
But if the YPA persists in requiring Nomex flight suits, I know where I can get
a pink one made. It will go with my original call-sign ("pinky") and it will
do a good job of making a mockery of the "flight suit as professional image"
concept. On the other hand, it may make it difficult for me to put together a
4-ship to lead ...
<humor mode off>
Drew, Barry, and others: stop trying to be meddlesome, busybody, little old ladies.
Provide an environment where people can learn as much as they can and can
polish their skills so they can be safer pilots but leave the final decision
as to what to wear up to them. If people really wanted a small group to tell
them how to live their lives, Saddam and the Soviet Union would still be running
things.
--
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 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: Key West Routes |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
Craig,
I have usually taken the direct route to Key West, you're only over Florida
bay for about 20 min. Anad Naples makes a good fuel stop before you proceed
over the water. The route to Marathon is much less time over water and I
preferr going to Marathon since there is more to do there from a water
sports perspective. Key West is mainly for drinking and night life. You can
always rent a car in Marathon and drive to Key west in about 40 minutes and
its a very scenic ride. If you're into diving or snorkeling you will find
the upper and middle keys has a lot more to offer.
It is very common for folks to fly over the most amount of land to Marathon,
then fly over the islands to Key West, the colors are incredible.
Ernie
----- Original Message -----
From: <cpayne@joimail.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Key West Routes
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "cpayne@joimail.com" <cpayne@joimail.com>
>
> Floridian Aviators,
>
> I am comtemplating a trip down to Key West with the Missus
> in the CJ. Point of origin is Lakeland. Looking at the
> charts I notice 3 Victor airways on the west coast cross a
> whole lotta water and exit, then re-enter the ADIZ. When I
> asked my Missus whether she preferred fighting sharks or
> 'gators, she screamed "Sharks!", so I guess it's the gator
> route which hugs the shore and stays inside the ADIZ.
>
> The stretch along the west coast of the everglades looks
> mighty barren. The plan is to hop down to Marathon first,
> then west to KEYW. I remember that airliner that got
> swallowed whole in the 'glades a few years ago. Is there a
> better route? Do folks transit to the East coast first and
> follow the chain of islands out?
>
> Craig "single engine and no floats" Payne
>
>
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: KingCJ6@aol.com
Drew. I'm in for RSAOA. (Angle Of AttacK??)
Dave
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: | Aircraft Insurance |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Yakjock" <Yakjock@msn.com>
A couple of brief thoughts:
Insurance companies are in the business of spreading risk not taking it. A well
run company will spread the cost of losses among its policyholders as well as
the cost of building a reasonable reserve to cover exceptional losses. The
lower our losses over time, the lower our costs. Conversely, if losses increase
the companies should charge more, not exit the market. We are all in this
together.
Secondly, it is up to each of us to keep ourselves insurable. If one's medical,
BFR, aircraft annual or other flight requirement is not current it is probable
that the company will decline coverage. I'm discussing some light hail damage
with the insurance company. The first thing they wanted to look at was my
and the airplane's currency.
BTW, both Tom Johnson at Cannon and the insurance company have been great to work
with.
Hal
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:
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re:
Does anyone have info on an extra fuel tank that goes behind the seat?
Aubrey Price
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 |
|
| Subject: | AUX tank for Yak 52 behind the back seat compartment |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
Aubrey,
I bought the US patent and plans from Carl Schols many years ago.
The tank holds just under 15 US gallons and can be installed in around 15
hours. Gives the Yak 52 over 2.5 hours range and 300nm distance with 30
minute reserve.
George Coy does all of my welding of the tanks for me.
Hope that helps.
Mark (SHREK) Schrick
YAK Driver, Inc
Western USA Dealer for AEROSTAR (Yak 52TW/W)
966 Wallace Drive
San Jose, CA 95120
(408) 323-5150 phone/fax
(408) 391-6664 cell
www.yakdriver.com <http://www.yakdriver.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
Subject:
--> Yak-List message posted by:
From: Aubrey Price <aprice@vartec.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re:
Does anyone have info on an extra fuel tank that goes behind the seat?
Aubrey Price
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by:
Subject: Pop off sea
I have a pop off that is bad. I noticed an replacement seal listed on
yak-52.com. It was made from a clear plastic anti skid pad ( 10 mm ). The
piece said they had been running it with no problems. I tried it and
inspected it after on hour of flight. It shows signs of melting. Any ideas??
Aubrey Price
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: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Contact George Coy at Gesoco, 802-868-5633. He now makes them and sells
them. Carl Schels of Eagle River Wisconsin was the original designer of the
system. I have had one in my airplane for over 5 years (original Carl
Schels unit). Works extremely well and gives you about another 1 hour of
flying time. Thus the 52 becomes a 2:30 hour flying time airplane with 30
minute reserve. More than enough time to hand fly the airplane.
It's approximately 14.5 gallons. The pump and associated components are
mounted in the left wing root area where and it is T'd into the flexible
fuel line coming from the left main tank to the junction below the front
seat in the cockpit. Manual switch controls the pumping. Special panel
with the switch and light comes with the kit and is mounted neatly about the
primer pump. Best part about the system is it is non-intrusive into the
original wing design. Total weight including the tank is about 18 lbs. if
I'm not mistaken.
Dennis Savarese
----- Original Message -----
From: <owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com>
> --> Yak-List message posted by:
>
> From: Aubrey Price <aprice@vartec.net>
> To: "'yak-list@matronics.com'" <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re:
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:19:02 -0500
>
> Does anyone have info on an extra fuel tank that goes behind the seat?
> Aubrey Price
>
>
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: Key West Routes |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bob Fitzpatrick <rmfitz@direcway.com>
Craig,
It's been a while since we flew the Piper to Key West but the thing i
remember was flying over the gulf it looked like you could always ditch next
to a boat. Over the everglades there are only potential crash sites
inhabited by hostile critters and nearly inaccessable to rescue. Your call,
have a gay time on KW.
bob
----- Original Message -----
From: <cpayne@joimail.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Key West Routes
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "cpayne@joimail.com" <cpayne@joimail.com>
>
> Floridian Aviators,
>
> I am comtemplating a trip down to Key West with the Missus
> in the CJ. Point of origin is Lakeland. Looking at the
> charts I notice 3 Victor airways on the west coast cross a
> whole lotta water and exit, then re-enter the ADIZ. When I
> asked my Missus whether she preferred fighting sharks or
> 'gators, she screamed "Sharks!", so I guess it's the gator
> route which hugs the shore and stays inside the ADIZ.
>
> The stretch along the west coast of the everglades looks
> mighty barren. The plan is to hop down to Marathon first,
> then west to KEYW. I remember that airliner that got
> swallowed whole in the 'glades a few years ago. Is there a
> better route? Do folks transit to the East coast first and
> follow the chain of islands out?
>
> Craig "single engine and no floats" Payne
>
>
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: "Robert Mortara" <rob@robinhill.com>
What about for the CJ. What is available for extended tanks?
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: | Re: Yak-List Digest: 29 Msgs - 08/08/03 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Skipsly@aol.com
In a message dated 08/09/2003 3:58:58 AM Atlantic Daylight Time,
yak-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
>
> I'm with Skip (who has been castigated for his helmet). I have a US Navy
> deck helmet It works with DC headsets it is cheap ($40 on Ebay) and is made
> of Kevlar. It has a panel on the front and back and provides great
> protection. The FAA quote the figure of 90% of injuries sustained after
> emergency landing are head injuries. Of course there are those amongst us
> who will say that we lack a certain sartorial eloquence but hey at least we
> get to buy a few more beers with the money we save.
>
>
I've always said that Gus is an exceptionally perceptive and squared away
chap!
Sly
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: AUX tank for CJ |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Jim Ivey <jim@jimivey.com>
Robert:
First off, I'm no expert on what's out there. But, there are three
systems I have seen. The first one is auxiliary wing tanks that are
installed inboard of the main tanks in the wing stub area. They are a
neat installation but are an extreme amount of work. I saw Bill
Blackwell installing some and it looked like the process would take more
time than assembling the rest of the aircraft. Yakity Yaks markets
these modifications and I understand they are also available from
somebody else (Doug?).
The second system I have seen are a pair of drop tanks made from pods
under the wings attached at the hard points. The only one I have seen
was in photos down in Australia and I believe they were originally
designed by the factory to hold chemicals for their crop-spraying
version of the CJ-6. They look amazingly cool despite being ponderously
exposed.
The third system I have seen are fuselage-mounted auxiliary tanks like
in my CJ. My airplane has a 22gal auxiliary tank located aft of the
baggage area where the previous radio rack area is located (above and
aft of the battery). It has it's own fuel gauge and has worked
flawlessly for me. The aircraft is placarded against aerobatics of any
kind with fuel in the aux tank. I use it strictly for long
cross-countries. I think Bob Wagstaff down in Laporte, TX installed
these early in the CJ importation and assembly game.
Jim Ivey
Robert Mortara wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Robert Mortara" <rob@robinhill.com>
>
>
>What about for the CJ. What is available for extended tanks?
>
>
>
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: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
Jim Selby (Ca) or Doug Sapp (Washington) have the CJ extended
tanks covered for the group. I only have to focus on the YAK
aircraft and M-14P engines.
Hope that helps,
Mark
(408) 391-6664 cell
Mark Schrick
966 Wallace Drive
San Jose, CA 95120
(408) 323-5150(H) or (408) 391-6664 (Car)
>--- Original Message ---
>From: "Robert Mortara" <rob@robinhill.com>
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Date: 8/11/03 8:38:55 AM
>
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Robert Mortara" <rob@robinhill.com>
>
>
>What about for the CJ. What is available for extended tanks?
>
>
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: | I told you?? Don't think so. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Jim Partington wrote:
>You told me you were getting out of the business, but I forgot who you passed
off to. I need a set of >main landing gear hoses and a landing light. I would
really like to find a source of pneumatic fittings.
Jim,
Who in the world told you that I was getting out of the CJ parts business?? At
this time I have over 200K worth of new parts in stock, with more on the way.
No Jim, I am here for the long run, not going anywhere. I hope to build this
into the perfect business, one in which I can do what I love to do, which is
play with CJ's and my Yak 18 in my retirement, which is about 5 years away (less
than that if the slump in the flower business does not go away). Anyway,
do not fear I am not "going out of the business".
I have the landing light and the hoses in stock, give me some part numbers (if
you have a set of parts books) or give me a call @ 509-826-4610, and I'll get
the parts going to you.
I am in fact, and unless something drastic happens will be,
Always yakin,
Doug Sapp
----- Original Message -----
From: James Partington
To: Doug Sapp
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 6:22 AM
Subject: parts
Hi,
You told me you were getting out of the business, but I forgot who you passed
off to. I need a set of main landing gear hoses and a landing light. I would
really like to find a source of pneumatic fittings.
thanks Jim
318 537 3445
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: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Tom............and for the umpteenth time Pappy,
This list is great because of its ability to pull from the opinions of our
community, allowing us to draw our own conclusions about a given topic.
Having said that I would also like to say that I do not entirely disagree
with Jim, I just have in my opinion a bit more of what I see as a logical
answer, albeit a somewhat less colorful answer to your question. My answer
in short is that the CJ6 and the CJ6A are the logical "evolutionary
progression of the type" This argument always eventually boils down to what
actually constitutes a totally new aircraft.
But I would have to ask:
Did they use a huge number of item from previous models? Yes they did.
Did they come up with the concept of the bent wing? No, they copied the
idea, but they increased the angle.
Did they use an totally new airfoil, No they copied an existing Clark
airfoil, but the result was a better wing for the intended mission. I can
find no evidence that they did ANY testing of new airfoils.
Did they utilize a totally new canopy system? No just changed the shape,
otherwise they copied the existing Russian system keeping all the rails,
moving parts and pcs the same as previous Russian models.
Did they change the gear, yes This one change has to be the most noteworthy
improvement but this is IMHO simply the expected progression of the line,
driven in part by the lack of fossil fuels developing in China at the time.
Lets talk about the engine, its mount,cowling, and shutters. The first Yak
18 A appeared in Russia well before 1957. In fact if your go to
http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/albania/yak-18a.htm you will be told that
the Albanian's took delivery of their first 2 Yak 18A aircraft in 1953!!
Several years BEFORE the production of the first CJ6. The engine the
Chinese used, the manner in which the engine is mounted (mount legs), the
position of the mount legs on the firewall, the lack of a real firewall,
shutter system and the cowling are exactly like the CJ6, or should I say in
this area, the CJ6 is exactly like the Yak 18A. In fact most of the parts
are interchangeable with those of the CJ6. Yes, the Chinese did attempt to
use a different engine system initially, but when it turned out to be
inadequate, they again simply copied the Russians. Lest we forget the tail,
consider that the rounded "pumpkin seed" tail was the "signature" of
A.S.Yakovlev, considering this fact and the deteriorating relations between
Moscow and Beijing, would you expect the Chinese to put this tail on their
aircraft?? Consider that previous to 1956 or 7 the Chinese had no aviation
manufacturing of their own at all. Every scrap of technology came from the
Russians. The few CJ5 aircraft which were "built in China" were simply
assembled from Russian parts. My CJ5 is a prime example as most every part
in it bears a Russian stamp, and it was one of the last ones made in China
in 1956. I do not find it hard to believe that the Chinese, seeing the
inherent problems with having to continue to be dependent on the Russians
and the existing available Russian aircraft, did in fact (on their own)
engineer a all metal basic fuselage. And using the Yak 18A as a basis they
vastly improved the aircraft in the areas which best filled their mission
needs. But I do not think these improvements, even thought they were
sweeping and have resulted in a fantastic aircraft qualify the aircraft to
be called a totally new aircraft, but then it is not a copy either, it is in
my mind the logical evolutionary next step in the "growing" of the aircraft.
If you are of the ilk that says that if they used the Yak 18 as a model,
then its a copy, well you have a basis for an argument, but on the other
hand if your position is that because they changed the airfoil, the tail and
the gear, and got rid of most all the fabric constitutes a totally new
aircraft, well you (as we have seen) have a good argument also. It's all a
matter of your opinion of what constitutes a totally new aircraft, and
rather your cup is half full or half empty.
One last question. Are the Chinese both good engineers and inveterate
copiers? I would suggest that they are both, but thier past history has
seen them be more the former than the latter, but you make up your own mind.
Always yakin,
Doug Sapp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Johnson" <tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Yak 18
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Tom Johnson"
<tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
>
> Is the Nanchang basically a copy of the Yakovlev model 18 design?
>
> Or did the Chinese redesign the aircraft from scratch??
>
>
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: AUX tank for CJ |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Robert,
I have a aux fuel system that is installed in the wing stub of the CJ. 16.5
gallons on each side. Installation takes two guys about a week. The system
itself is very simple, no valves, pumps, or complex systems. I have not
kept track of the number of my aux systems flying today, but I would guess
it to be about 15 to 20. Drop me a line if you need further info or photos.
There is also a mod done by Victoria Air Maint. which adds 6 gallons to each
tank, cost per gallon is high but installation is easier. Another option
would be the 25 gallon K.W. Aviation aux fuel tank which fits in the baggage
compartment. Not my choice because of my aversion about having all that
fuel in the cockpit with me. Hope this helps.
Always yakin,
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Mortara" <rob@robinhill.com>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: AUX tank for CJ
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Robert Mortara" <rob@robinhill.com>
>
>
> What about for the CJ. What is available for extended tanks?
>
>
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: | Yak 55m baggage compartment |
Mail-Followup-To: Wes Warner <wes@lppcs.com>,
--> Yak-List message posted by: Wes Warner <wes@lppcs.com>
This is just for anyone that is interested. I have a baggage compartment
that I made in my 55m, and these are the pics of it...
http://outerlimits.ath.cx/~ufo/planes/2333F/mods/Baggage_Compartment/
If anyone has any questions about it, please feel free to ask.
Wes
--
Time to go to... Group Therapy.
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: AUX tank for CJ |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
As you may have noticed I'm catching up on my emails today.
> Jim wrote:
> First off, I'm no expert on what's out there. But, there are three
> systems I have seen. The first one is auxiliary wing tanks that are
> installed inboard of the main tanks in the wing stub area. They are a
> neat installation but are an extreme amount of work. I saw Bill
> Blackwell installing some and it looked like the process would take more
> time than assembling the rest of the aircraft.
It takes 2 guys 1 week. But you end up with new skin on the top and bottom
of the aft section of the stub wing. The skins in question are normally
pretty rough anyway. I think if you look at the cost per gallon, and the
safety factor of having the fuel where it belongs, you will find it hard to
beat.
Just to set the record straight, the aux tanks mounted in the wing stub is
my mod, always was always will be, Yakity bought some sets of early tanks
from me, installed them properly, then decided to do it themselves, and
that's a whole other story not one which I will discuss on the list.
> The second system I have seen are a pair of drop tanks made from pods
> under the wings attached at the hard points. The only one I have seen
> was in photos down in Australia and I believe they were originally
> designed by the factory to hold chemicals for their crop-spraying
> version of the CJ-6. They look amazingly cool despite being ponderously
> exposed.
Yes, I forgot to mention this system ,Vern Hupp just installed a set of
these, very cool. Although I have to wonder about gear ups or off airport
landings. Yes I agree... were not supposed to do those. Vern, if your out
there, tell us about the tanks. Aerobatics? total fuel? cost?
Always yakin,
Doug Sapp
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Deon Esterhuizen" <desterhuizen@hyphos360.com>
I agree with Ernie - but, if you go to Key West, get fuel at Naples -
Key West is VERY expensive.
Deon.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ernie [mailto:ernest.martinez@oracle.com]
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Key West Routes
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
Craig,
I have usually taken the direct route to Key West, you're only over
Florida
bay for about 20 min. Anad Naples makes a good fuel stop before you
proceed
over the water. The route to Marathon is much less time over water and I
preferr going to Marathon since there is more to do there from a water
sports perspective. Key West is mainly for drinking and night life. You
can
always rent a car in Marathon and drive to Key west in about 40 minutes
and
its a very scenic ride. If you're into diving or snorkeling you will
find
the upper and middle keys has a lot more to offer.
It is very common for folks to fly over the most amount of land to
Marathon,
then fly over the islands to Key West, the colors are incredible.
Ernie
----- Original Message -----
From: <cpayne@joimail.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Key West Routes
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "cpayne@joimail.com"
<cpayne@joimail.com>
>
> Floridian Aviators,
>
> I am comtemplating a trip down to Key West with the Missus
> in the CJ. Point of origin is Lakeland. Looking at the
> charts I notice 3 Victor airways on the west coast cross a
> whole lotta water and exit, then re-enter the ADIZ. When I
> asked my Missus whether she preferred fighting sharks or
> 'gators, she screamed "Sharks!", so I guess it's the gator
> route which hugs the shore and stays inside the ADIZ.
>
> The stretch along the west coast of the everglades looks
> mighty barren. The plan is to hop down to Marathon first,
> then west to KEYW. I remember that airliner that got
> swallowed whole in the 'glades a few years ago. Is there a
> better route? Do folks transit to the East coast first and
> follow the chain of islands out?
>
> Craig "single engine and no floats" Payne
>
>
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: Pop-off gasket |
Mail-Followup-To: Wes Warner <wes@lppcs.com>, yak-list@matronics.com
--> Yak-List message posted by: Wes Warner <wes@lppcs.com>
Aubrey,
I had a problem like this before. I made a new insert out of the
orange silicone engine baffling. I have since replaced my valves with
American ones.
HTH,
Wes
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 08:37:11AM -0700, owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by:
>
> From: Aubrey Price <aprice@vartec.net>
> To: "'yak-list@matronics.com'" <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Pop off sea
> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:36:33 -0500
>
> I have a pop off that is bad. I noticed an replacement seal listed on
> yak-52.com. It was made from a clear plastic anti skid pad ( 10 mm ). The
> piece said they had been running it with no problems. I tried it and
> inspected it after on hour of flight. It shows signs of melting. Any ideas??
> Aubrey Price
--
Time to go to... Group Therapy.
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Janet Davidson" <gbvfx@hotmail.com>
Doug
Reading this email conversation made me think about asking you for advice
(yet again!).
During airventure Adam won a custom paint scheme for an aircraft, which he
gave to me to use! I'm now trying to do some research into original
military Chinese paint schemes, and wondered if you, with all your research
etc, have any suggestions?
My original plan was to have the Nanchang painted the winter after bringing
it here, but with the lack of employment (for me), I didn't feel I could
justify such an expense when I should be spending money on more safety
related issues. Hopefully I will be able to earn money before I am much
older, and can then get the plane painted!
Thank you,
Janet
Ph: 920 232 9238
email: gbvfx@hotmail.com
>From: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
>Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 18
>Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 10:58:54 -0700
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
>
>Tom............and for the umpteenth time Pappy,
>
>This list is great because of its ability to pull from the opinions of our
>community, allowing us to draw our own conclusions about a given topic.
>Having said that I would also like to say that I do not entirely disagree
>with Jim, I just have in my opinion a bit more of what I see as a logical
>answer, albeit a somewhat less colorful answer to your question. My answer
>in short is that the CJ6 and the CJ6A are the logical "evolutionary
>progression of the type" This argument always eventually boils down to
>what
>actually constitutes a totally new aircraft.
>
>But I would have to ask:
>
>Did they use a huge number of item from previous models? Yes they did.
>Did they come up with the concept of the bent wing? No, they copied the
>idea, but they increased the angle.
>Did they use an totally new airfoil, No they copied an existing Clark
>airfoil, but the result was a better wing for the intended mission. I can
>find no evidence that they did ANY testing of new airfoils.
>Did they utilize a totally new canopy system? No just changed the shape,
>otherwise they copied the existing Russian system keeping all the rails,
>moving parts and pcs the same as previous Russian models.
>Did they change the gear, yes This one change has to be the most noteworthy
>improvement but this is IMHO simply the expected progression of the line,
>driven in part by the lack of fossil fuels developing in China at the time.
>Lets talk about the engine, its mount,cowling, and shutters. The first Yak
>18 A appeared in Russia well before 1957. In fact if your go to
>http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/albania/yak-18a.htm you will be told that
>the Albanian's took delivery of their first 2 Yak 18A aircraft in 1953!!
>Several years BEFORE the production of the first CJ6. The engine the
>Chinese used, the manner in which the engine is mounted (mount legs), the
>position of the mount legs on the firewall, the lack of a real firewall,
>shutter system and the cowling are exactly like the CJ6, or should I say in
>this area, the CJ6 is exactly like the Yak 18A. In fact most of the parts
>are interchangeable with those of the CJ6. Yes, the Chinese did attempt to
>use a different engine system initially, but when it turned out to be
>inadequate, they again simply copied the Russians. Lest we forget the
>tail,
>consider that the rounded "pumpkin seed" tail was the "signature" of
>A.S.Yakovlev, considering this fact and the deteriorating relations between
>Moscow and Beijing, would you expect the Chinese to put this tail on their
>aircraft?? Consider that previous to 1956 or 7 the Chinese had no aviation
>manufacturing of their own at all. Every scrap of technology came from the
>Russians. The few CJ5 aircraft which were "built in China" were simply
>assembled from Russian parts. My CJ5 is a prime example as most every part
>in it bears a Russian stamp, and it was one of the last ones made in China
>in 1956. I do not find it hard to believe that the Chinese, seeing the
>inherent problems with having to continue to be dependent on the Russians
>and the existing available Russian aircraft, did in fact (on their own)
>engineer a all metal basic fuselage. And using the Yak 18A as a basis they
>vastly improved the aircraft in the areas which best filled their mission
>needs. But I do not think these improvements, even thought they were
>sweeping and have resulted in a fantastic aircraft qualify the aircraft to
>be called a totally new aircraft, but then it is not a copy either, it is
>in
>my mind the logical evolutionary next step in the "growing" of the
>aircraft.
>
>If you are of the ilk that says that if they used the Yak 18 as a model,
>then its a copy, well you have a basis for an argument, but on the other
>hand if your position is that because they changed the airfoil, the tail
>and
>the gear, and got rid of most all the fabric constitutes a totally new
>aircraft, well you (as we have seen) have a good argument also. It's all a
>matter of your opinion of what constitutes a totally new aircraft, and
>rather your cup is half full or half empty.
>
>One last question. Are the Chinese both good engineers and inveterate
>copiers? I would suggest that they are both, but thier past history has
>seen them be more the former than the latter, but you make up your own
>mind.
>
>
>Always yakin,
>Doug Sapp
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tom Johnson" <tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Yak-List: Yak 18
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Tom Johnson"
><tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
> >
> > Is the Nanchang basically a copy of the Yakovlev model 18 design?
> >
> > Or did the Chinese redesign the aircraft from scratch??
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Doug wrote:
> If you are of the ilk that says that if they used the Yak 18 as a model,
> then its a copy, well you have a basis for an argument, but on the other
> hand if your position is that because they changed the airfoil, the tail and
> the gear, and got rid of most all the fabric constitutes a totally new
> aircraft, well you (as we have seen) have a good argument also. It's all a
> matter of your opinion of what constitutes a totally new aircraft, and
> rather your cup is half full or half empty.
To build the aircraft entirely out of an aluminum monococque structure and to use
a different airfoil constitutes a lot of new engineering. Unless you started
with much of the same tooling and the same drawings, you are building a new
airplane.
Sure they use common parts because those are mass produced. If they had spares
for mags, compressors, generators, instruments, etc., that does not constitute
copying; that constitutes good sense. If you think that the wing straight center
section with dihedral outboard is a mark of copying then they could just
as well have been copying the AT-6/SNJ as it has the same structure. It just
makes sense for carrying through the gear loads on an unbroken spar section.
> One last question. Are the Chinese both good engineers and inveterate
> copiers? I would suggest that they are both, but thier past history has
> seen them be more the former than the latter, but you make up your own mind.
I have. The CJ6A certainly looks to me like a very different airplane from the
Yak-18A. They are outwardly very similar but very different structurally. Kind
of like the NASCAR racers: the body shape is that of a production car but
beyond the outer shape they are totally different critters.
--
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 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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Sam Sax" <cd001633@mindspring.com>
Jim, Folks,
Garry Pope of Miami, FL (TMB), has finally completed (painted) his auxiliary
external wing tanks - an absolute marvel of a job!
Some of you may recall seeing the installation already flying at Sun-n-fun
and the fly-out to Bin-Wa (Zellwood FL) a couple of years ago.
If I remember correctly, tank capacity is 13 gals each side, attached along
the outer edge (reinforced) of the fuel tank under-panel.
The detachable tanks hang on a fully enclosed pod with quick release attach
points. Tanks are shaped like bombs (fiberglass) and look like a factory
job. Looks great on the ground and even better in the air. You can expect
to see him and his newly black painted CJ at sun-n-fun 2004 if not elsewhere
sooner...
He can be reached at popesickel@mindspring.com.
Sam Sax
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Ivey
Subject: Re: Yak-List: AUX tank for CJ
--> Yak-List message posted by: Jim Ivey <jim@jimivey.com>
Robert:
First off, I'm no expert on what's out there. But, there are three
systems I have seen. The first one is auxiliary wing tanks that are
installed inboard of the main tanks in the wing stub area. They are a
neat installation but are an extreme amount of work. I saw Bill
Blackwell installing some and it looked like the process would take more
time than assembling the rest of the aircraft. Yakity Yaks markets
these modifications and I understand they are also available from
somebody else (Doug?).
The second system I have seen are a pair of drop tanks made from pods
under the wings attached at the hard points. The only one I have seen
was in photos down in Australia and I believe they were originally
designed by the factory to hold chemicals for their crop-spraying
version of the CJ-6. They look amazingly cool despite being ponderously
exposed.
The third system I have seen are fuselage-mounted auxiliary tanks like
in my CJ. My airplane has a 22gal auxiliary tank located aft of the
baggage area where the previous radio rack area is located (above and
aft of the battery). It has it's own fuel gauge and has worked
flawlessly for me. The aircraft is placarded against aerobatics of any
kind with fuel in the aux tank. I use it strictly for long
cross-countries. I think Bob Wagstaff down in Laporte, TX installed
these early in the CJ importation and assembly game.
Jim Ivey
Robert Mortara wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Robert Mortara" <rob@robinhill.com>
>
>
>What about for the CJ. What is available for extended tanks?
>
>
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jim Selby" <jimscjs@mbay.net>
CJ Group
There are two more or three more systems for fuel out there, I have
installed several add one's to the stock fuel tanks, an extension to the
stock fuel tanks are a 6 gallon extension on the outboard of your tanked,
this is an alum tank extension welded on to the existing tank, you have to
do a small rib mod, and install your original tanks back in, this gives you
total 12 gallons and no plumbing involved, the other is a 8 gallon each side
total 16 gallons put in the leading edge wing stub there are alum also or
could be made from comps its or a bladder type tank, the third is a 30
gallon center line tank on a bomb type rack, so there are several methods of
getting more fuel if needed.
Jim Selby
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Sam Sax
Subject: RE: Yak-List: AUX tank for CJ
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Sam Sax" <cd001633@mindspring.com>
Jim, Folks,
Garry Pope of Miami, FL (TMB), has finally completed (painted) his auxiliary
external wing tanks - an absolute marvel of a job!
Some of you may recall seeing the installation already flying at Sun-n-fun
and the fly-out to Bin-Wa (Zellwood FL) a couple of years ago.
If I remember correctly, tank capacity is 13 gals each side, attached along
the outer edge (reinforced) of the fuel tank under-panel.
The detachable tanks hang on a fully enclosed pod with quick release attach
points. Tanks are shaped like bombs (fiberglass) and look like a factory
job. Looks great on the ground and even better in the air. You can expect
to see him and his newly black painted CJ at sun-n-fun 2004 if not elsewhere
sooner...
He can be reached at popesickel@mindspring.com.
Sam Sax
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Ivey
Subject: Re: Yak-List: AUX tank for CJ
--> Yak-List message posted by: Jim Ivey <jim@jimivey.com>
Robert:
First off, I'm no expert on what's out there. But, there are three
systems I have seen. The first one is auxiliary wing tanks that are
installed inboard of the main tanks in the wing stub area. They are a
neat installation but are an extreme amount of work. I saw Bill
Blackwell installing some and it looked like the process would take more
time than assembling the rest of the aircraft. Yakity Yaks markets
these modifications and I understand they are also available from
somebody else (Doug?).
The second system I have seen are a pair of drop tanks made from pods
under the wings attached at the hard points. The only one I have seen
was in photos down in Australia and I believe they were originally
designed by the factory to hold chemicals for their crop-spraying
version of the CJ-6. They look amazingly cool despite being ponderously
exposed.
The third system I have seen are fuselage-mounted auxiliary tanks like
in my CJ. My airplane has a 22gal auxiliary tank located aft of the
baggage area where the previous radio rack area is located (above and
aft of the battery). It has it's own fuel gauge and has worked
flawlessly for me. The aircraft is placarded against aerobatics of any
kind with fuel in the aux tank. I use it strictly for long
cross-countries. I think Bob Wagstaff down in Laporte, TX installed
these early in the CJ importation and assembly game.
Jim Ivey
Robert Mortara wrote:
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Robert Mortara" <rob@robinhill.com>
>
>
>What about for the CJ. What is available for extended tanks?
>
>
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
---
Message 26
| 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>
Hey there, Craig,
Take it from a South Floridian for over 23 years - the prettiest rout from
Lakeland to Key West is along Florida West Coast - you will not have the
east coast congestion and Class B and C hassle (other than the Tampa, Ft.
Myers, Sarasota area). You will fly around Cape Florida (the southern tip
of the state) and over the keys to Marathon and than Key West - a gorgeous
route. You and the Mrs. (and any Red Star airplane lover will be very
welcome to visit us at Tamiami airport (TMB) and our Warbirds/vintage Air
Museum - www.wingsovermiami.com, and share a coup of coffee or lunch with
us - we are there almost every Saturday practicing formation flying or my
own acro routine.
Hope to see you soon,
Sam Sax
305.215.5599
Message 27
| 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 |
|
tests=ORIGINAL_MESSAGE,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
USER_IN_WHITELIST
version=2.55
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walt Lannon" <lannon@look.ca>
Hey Doug.
I have to agree with Brian re; CJ - progression or new design. As he noted
it is a totally different structure, wing design and main landing gear. That
they utilized existing systems in no way detracts from the CJ being an
indiginous Chinese design.
The wing does not use a modified (or any other adjective) Clark airfoil. It
is a classic NACA (now NASA) airfoil and airfoil blend from the 1940's
&1950's utilized on many American and other aircraft.
The primary airfoil is the NACA 230 series blending from 23016.5 (16.5 % C
thickness) at the center line through 23015 at the outer wing joint to a
NACA 4412 at the tip.
The high camber of the 4412 combined with 3 degs. of washout in the outer
panel result in the gentle stall characteristics the aircraft displays.
Brian, if we ever meet I think you owe me a beer for missing that one.
Cheers;
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak 18
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
>
> Doug wrote:
>
> > If you are of the ilk that says that if they used the Yak 18 as a model,
> > then its a copy, well you have a basis for an argument, but on the other
> > hand if your position is that because they changed the airfoil, the tail
and
> > the gear, and got rid of most all the fabric constitutes a totally new
> > aircraft, well you (as we have seen) have a good argument also. It's
all a
> > matter of your opinion of what constitutes a totally new aircraft, and
> > rather your cup is half full or half empty.
>
> To build the aircraft entirely out of an aluminum monococque structure and
to use a different airfoil constitutes a lot of new engineering. Unless you
started with much of the same tooling and the same drawings, you are
building a new airplane.
>
> Sure they use common parts because those are mass produced. If they had
spares for mags, compressors, generators, instruments, etc., that does not
constitute copying; that constitutes good sense. If you think that the wing
straight center section with dihedral outboard is a mark of copying then
they could just as well have been copying the AT-6/SNJ as it has the same
structure. It just makes sense for carrying through the gear loads on an
unbroken spar section.
>
> > One last question. Are the Chinese both good engineers and inveterate
> > copiers? I would suggest that they are both, but thier past history has
> > seen them be more the former than the latter, but you make up your own
mind.
>
> I have. The CJ6A certainly looks to me like a very different airplane
from the Yak-18A. They are outwardly very similar but very different
structurally. Kind of like the NASCAR racers: the body shape is that of a
production car but beyond the outer shape they are totally different
critters.
>
> --
>
> 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 28
| 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: | aux tanks for CJ |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jim Griffin" <jgriffint28@cox.net>
When Steve Culp built my CJ he placed a 30 gallon fuel tank and a 10 gal. smoke
tank just behind the baggage compartment with filler caps just behind the canopy.
This has since been changed to 40 gallons of fuel; not by me.It has a separate
fuel gauge which works well.
This gives a tremendous range but does affect the CG. We never do any acro with
ANY fuel in the Aux tanks. When flying with the baggage compartment full, aux
tank full, and a passenger heavier than the pilot, once you level off at cruise
it takes full forward trim and slight forward stick to fly straight and level.
You are back to normal trim at one hour off the tank.
I also found out on my trip back from OshKosh that it should not be held at a high
climb angle with only a third of a tank left. The engine stopped 10 feet above
a 8,000 thick cloud bank while trying to climb over it. Dropping the nose
and the wobble pump brought it back to life. It's straight and level from now
on with below half tanks in the aux fuel.You need to remember that when you add
things to your plane you are becoming a test pilot.
Keep em flyin
Jim Griffin
CJ6-A 273SC
Message 29
| 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 Stelwagon" <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>
You don't have to worry about attitude with Doug's tanks or the 6 gallon extra
modified stock tanks. Doug's tanks are the Cadillac of the aux tanks but they
do take extra time to install. No extra valves just another gage that shows both
tanks.
Frank
CJ-6A N23021
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! --
|