Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:30 AM - Re: Yak 50 Air Bottle Failure (pop off valve) (Kevin Pilling)
2. 04:19 AM - Re: LOAs and Type Ratings (FOUGAPILOT@aol.com)
3. 04:35 AM - Re: LOAs and Type Ratings (A. Dennis Savarese)
4. 04:48 AM - Re: LOAs and Type Ratings (Brian Lloyd)
5. 04:53 AM - Re: Yak 50 Air Bottle Failure (Kevin Pilling)
6. 07:21 AM - Re: LOAs and Type Ratings (Jon Boede)
7. 07:30 AM - Re: LOAs and Type Ratings (Jon Boede)
8. 08:27 AM - Yak 50 Air Bottle Failure......Yak 52 air system & Oxygen (Carl W Hays Enterprises)
9. 08:59 AM - Re: Yak 50 Air Bottle Failure......Yak 52 air system & (Brian Lloyd)
10. 02:07 PM - Cleaning, inspecting, and repairing CJ6A air bottles (Brian Lloyd)
11. 08:54 PM - parachutes, flight suits, and personality issues (Alan Cockrell)
12. 08:54 PM - parachutes, flight suits, and personality issues (Alan Cockrell)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak 50 Air Bottle Failure (pop off valve) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Kevin Pilling" <kjpilling@btclick.com>
The pop off , was and is still is 'popping off' at 45 Bar.
The failure was entirely due to rust degradation of the tank internally
Externally the tank was in A1 condition but internally (now very easily
inspected!) it was poor.
I think the manufacturer calls for 5 yearly testing and that would have been
next year,. that's taking the start date for the interval as the Russian
overhaul date of 1999.
Whilst I have no complaints with any other aspect of the aircrafts condition
upon delivery, this tank obviously slipped through the net and I suspect
others will have too.
I am not absolutely sure but I believe the test standard is two and a half
times the normal 50 bar operating pressure.
But check that out yourself before any testing.
kp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak 50 Air Bottle Failure (pop off valve)
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
>
>
> Kevin,
> Do you know if the pop off valve failed ? If that happened then the bottle
> could have over pressured, it was sat on the ground long enough for some
> serious pressure to build up. If you can could you have it tested and
report
> to the group ?
>
> Gus
>
>
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: LOAs and Type Ratings |
--> Yak-List message posted by: FOUGAPILOT@aol.com
You are correct Ernie, but there is more. I have obtained an ETR without
LOAs. I am told if you can prove to the FAA that you are experienced and
qualified on a specific type, they will issue an ETR. Dick Hanusa is the man.
He
can be reached at (414) 486-2940, but unfortunately he can only issue an ETR in
person
Cheers.
Dan
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: LOAs and Type Ratings |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Hey Brian, you have that problem too? I found using one foot to pry the
other out works pretty good for me. Although it is a little rough on the
gums sometimes. -)
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: LOAs and Type Ratings
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
>
> Jon Boede wrote:
>
> > There's probably not a tool specifically designed for removing my foot
> > from my mouth. :-)
>
> If you find it, I need two. I manage all to often to manage to stuff both
my feet in my mouth at the same time.
>
> --
>
> 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOAs and Type Ratings |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
> Hey Brian, you have that problem too?
hahahahahahaha you ARE funny! Yeah, I seem to have that problem too. You know
how some people's brain gets ahead of their mouth? Well, my fingers get ahead
of my brain. %)
> I found using one foot to pry the
> other out works pretty good for me. Although it is a little rough on the
> gums sometimes. -)
Let me try that. %)
--
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 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: Yak 50 Air Bottle Failure |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Kevin Pilling" <kjpilling@btclick.com>
You may just re appraise your thoughts on that when you see the pictures !
kp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak 50 Air Bottle Failure
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
<yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Dennis;
> I heard the seats in the 52 are made of titanium. Was told to try and
> drill them if I don't believe it! I would think that this would give
> some measure of protection to the GIB.
>
> Frank
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOAs and Type Ratings |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@email.net>
Does anybody else suspect that the ETR terminology was a back-door way (or
at least that was a side benefit) to hitch up LOA-able aircraft to the
phrase, "for which a type rating is required," that's scattered through
the FARs?
Perhaps someone started asking, loudly, whether an "experimental type
rating" was a kind of "type rating" in the legal sense ... and the FAA
actually foresaw the blizzard of pain that was going to create and did
something sensible (you know, "for a change").
Jon
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>
> ETR (experimental type rating) is easy to say and remember, but
> apparently they decided not to go with that terminology. Your license
> (which is properly called a pilot certificate) will say "authorized
> experimental aircraft" and then letters for the manufacturer and model
> number.
>
> Warbirds magazine has periodic updates on the program. So far there is
> no way to get one (that I know of) except to convert an LOA. The
> program for certifying instructors and check pilots isn't in place yet.
> Therefore, if you get trained now and get an LOA you can just ask for
> the ETR instead of paying for an expensive checkride. Why yes, now is a
> good time to get trained in all the jets and high power pistons you plan
> to fly in the forseeable future.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roy O. Wright" <roy@wright.org>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: LOAs and Type Ratings
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Roy O. Wright" <roy@wright.org>
>>
>> Where can I find info on the new ETRs?
>>
>> TIA,
>> Roy
>>
>>
>> ',,'',,'',,',,'
>> 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 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: | Re: LOAs and Type Ratings |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@email.net>
Keep in mind that you don't really need to go to an LOOA to get your
LOA... you can request that the FAA come out to the airport and ... well,
they're supposed to do more, but they wind up watching you do a couple of
touch-and-gos and then they write you an LOA and say, "Don't hurt
yourself". In the end it's always the FSDO that writes the LOA... an LOOA
just recommends you.
Also keep in mind that you can get a temporary LOA just for the asking, in
order to bone up for the demonstration in the previous paragraph.
If you talk fast enough and you have 100 hours in the aircraft it also
seems possible to get them to hand you an LOOA. Although I've heard Dick
Hanusa actively lament that LOOAs were, "given out like candy."
Over the next year or so is an excellent time to go beg or swap time with
anybody with an LOA-needin' aircraft. Rack up as many LOAs and LOOAs as
you can manage and then swap 'em for ETRs. There are a lot of people out
there doing this right now before the ETR thing kicks in completely and
LOAs go away... it's like Poke-e-mon -- collect 'em all. :-)
Jon
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
>
> Not exactly.......If you wish to fly an airplane which requires an LOA
> then you must go through the LOA checkride process through an approved
> LOOA holder. The FAA is converting LOA's to ETR's at certain events only
> (S&F, OSH and Reno) you must do it in person you cannot mail in your
> current LOA. There are only 2 people in the country knowledgeable about
> the process Disk Hanusa and I forget the other guys name. You cannot
> just ask for an ETR instead of an LOA.
>
> Ernie
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ron" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: LOAs and Type Ratings
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>>
>> ETR (experimental type rating) is easy to say and remember, but
>> apparently they decided not to go with that terminology. Your license
>> (which is properly called a pilot certificate) will say "authorized
>> experimental aircraft" and then letters for the manufacturer and model
>> number.
>>
>> Warbirds magazine has periodic updates on the program. So far there
>> is no way to get one (that I know of) except to convert an LOA. The
>> program for certifying instructors and check pilots isn't in place
>> yet. Therefore, if you get trained now and get an LOA you can just
>> ask for the ETR instead of paying for an expensive checkride. Why
>> yes, now is a good time to get trained in all the jets and high power
>> pistons you plan to fly in the forseeable future.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Roy O. Wright" <roy@wright.org>
>> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: LOAs and Type Ratings
>>
>>
>> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Roy O. Wright" <roy@wright.org>
>> >
>> > Where can I find info on the new ETRs?
>> >
>> > TIA,
>> > Roy
>> >
>> >
>> > ',,'',,'',,',,'
>> > 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 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: | Yak 50 Air Bottle Failure......Yak 52 air system & Oxygen |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Carl W Hays Enterprises" <yakparts@simplyweb.net>
Group,
Doug was so kind to point out the typo in my last post. It should have read
"40 atm" , not "4".
He also raised several good questions, to which I cannot fully answer. Namely,
why didn't the air system experience the explosion much earlier. One significant
factor may have been that the weather was cool. Don't ask the temperature....
I would have to go back and found out when parts were purchased.
The main air side of the system failed. Most of the main air side air lines
were blown into bits of shrapnel. The start solenoid was blown into several
pieces and the flex line to the air distrbutor burst. The air line to the main
air bottle burst right at the nut attaching the line to the bottle. He was
extremely lucky that the main air bottle didn't go, because he has the aux. fuel
tank that wraps around the rear seat installed.
I do not know how an over-pressure condition of the system would cause that
amount and type of damage.
Gotta go to work....
Jill
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: Yak 50 Air Bottle Failure......Yak 52 air system & |
Oxygen
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
Carl W Hays Enterprises wrote:
> He also raised several good questions, to which I cannot fully
> answer. Namely, why didn't the air system experience the explosion
> much earlier. One significant factor may have been that the weather
> was cool. Don't ask the temperature.... I would have to go back and
> found out when parts were purchased.
The temperature probably wouldn't make much difference.
Here is what I think happened. When they started filling with O2 there wasn't
enough pressure in the system to trigger uncontrolled combustion. When the oil
started to oxidize the metal would have acted as a heat sink to prevent the
process from accelerating into uncontrolled combustion. So even with that much
oxidizer in the system it still takes something to trigger the uncontrolled
combustion. A shockwave would have done it and I would guess that happened when
the start valve snapped open. At that point the intially shockwave was propelled
throughout the system by the now uncontrolled (explosive) combustion of
the oil in that intense oxidizer atmosphere.
Why didn't the tank go? My supposition on that is that the shockwave lost its
velocity and energy when it opened out into the larger cross-section area of the
tank. Another possibility is that there is some kind of screen there (is there?)
that could stop the reaction from progressing by cooling the flow at that
point.
I have read about similar types of explosive failures in breathing oxygen systems.
This type of flamefront tends to be somewhat hard on the lungs.
> I do not know how an over-pressure condition of the system would
> cause that amount and type of damage.
I can't imagine an overpressure situation doing this kind of damage either. I
believe that the original note said something about there being a ground run.
If the system were already up to the pressure of the pop-off valve the output
of the compressor would have gone out there and the system would still have virually
100% oxygen at 45 kg/cm
2.
Just remember the pictures of the early rocket tests if you are wondering about
oxidizing petrochemicals in a high-pressure pure O2 atmosphere.
--
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 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: | Cleaning, inspecting, and repairing CJ6A air bottles |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
For those interested in assessing the state of their air bottles, the CJ6A overhaul manual has the information you need at http://cj6.com/cj6_docs/PT-6%20Overhaul%20Manual/15%20Compressed%20Air%20Bottle.tif.
--
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 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: | parachutes, flight suits, and personality issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Alan Cockrell" <yakdriver@comcast.net>
Brian Loyd wrote:
>>>Or worse yet, you are a shit-hot ... uh, sorry ... "Sierra Hotel" pilot
and after UPT you get transferred to C-141s or CODs. Boooooring. No
testosterone there. These poor bus drivers (who don't know that the
weapons system in the F-22 was made by Sony) walk into the O-club and
there are the F-22 drivers talking about "tactics" and "angles" and
"vertical penetration". They don't realize that the discussion is really
about how to get into the pants of that babe unit at the end of the bar,
the one that has them so intimidated that they won't go anywhere near
her. So what are the bus drivers going to do? Start talking up how well
they nailed the localizer in their last hand-flown approach? Can you
THINK of a faster way to be labeled a girlie man? (Let's not even TALK
about these poor guys who get out and are now shagging the right seat of
a 737 for Noservice Airlines.) So we need a way to keep the machismo on
display. Enter Flight Wear! <<<
Brian,
This is an old post, but I've been out for a few days "shagging" the left seat
of a 737 and I'm compelled to comment on your musings. First, how did a discussion
about parachutes evolve into a discourse on pilot "manliness"? Nevertheless
the subject is fascinating and I'm glad you brought it up. I regret that you
belittle the many-motor driver, although I'm glad to see that your tease applies
to a broad spectrum including fighter pilots, one of which I used to be.
Frankly, I hate to see anyone run down a guy just because his machine doesn't
have an afterburner or teeth. Maybe it was his choice to fly a heavy, but most
often it wasn't and more often than you might believe those guys would love
to fly a turner-and-burner. Everybody has a place in aviation and every cockpit
is a noble and honorable one. The best philosophy ever proffered to me came
from a crusty old fighter colonel who advised me that, "whatever airplane you're
flying is a good airplane." And he meant every airplane--not just fighters.
He was right, and everybody who flies for Uncle has a right to take pride in
what they do.
But enough of that. Now, more relevant to the list, I'll comment on your obvservations
concerning the wearing of flight suits with a plethora of funny patches
by Yakkers. I share you amusement over Red Star's romance with the Nomex, while
acknowledging that flight suits make good sense for aerobatic/formation/BFM
type flying which I often do, yet I never wear one. Why? Because I didn't like
wearing them when I was a real fighter pilot. They're too hot in the summer,
and besides, the guys around the patch start thinking that you're some sort
of Walter Mitty if you wear one. But the biggest reason, is my buddy, Gordy Seuell,
doesn't wear one. (He also has a Y-52 in the hangar next door.) Gordy is
the quiet, unboasting, unassuming type that will wax your tail in a fight and
hang so tight on your wing he seems to be riveted out there. He's the kind you
never have to even brief a formation flight with. He's just there--predictable
and reliable. He flies in jeans and a pull-over. In cool weather he wears his
USAF A-1 leather jacket with no---zero---patches. He's just, Gordy. Yak driver
and former fighter pilot extradroidinaire. If only I could get him to a Red
Star fly-in, man, we'd raise some eyebrows.
Alan "Tidy Boy" Cockrell
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: | parachutes, flight suits, and personality issues |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Alan Cockrell" <yakdriver@comcast.net>
But consider the current state of the world. If you are a fighter pilot
in today's military forces you go up and when combat is imminent you
turn on the weapons system. Nowadays the funky 'P' shows up on the
weapons display and your headset utters the computer-generated and
distorted word "Playstation". Head down you manipulate the "joystick"
and all those buttons on the electronic throttle control. If you do it
right the display reads "Extra Game" and your headset plays the Star
Wars march. Do it wrong and the last thing you hear is the mournful
rising tone and see the words "Game Over." Not too manly that.
Or worse yet, you are a shit-hot ... uh, sorry ... "Sierra Hotel" pilot
and after UPT you get transferred to C-141s or CODs. Boooooring. No
testosterone there. These poor bus drivers (who don't know that the
weapons system in the F-22 was made by Sony) walk into the O-club and
there are the F-22 drivers talking about "tactics" and "angles" and
"vertical penetration". They don't realize that the discussion is really
about how to get into the pants of that babe unit at the end of the bar,
the one that has them so intimidated that they won't go anywhere near
her. So what are the bus drivers going to do? Start talking up how well
they nailed the localizer in their last hand-flown approach? Can you
THINK of a faster way to be labeled a girlie man? (Let's not even TALK
about these poor guys who get out and are now shagging the right seat of
a 737 for Noservice Airlines.) So we need a way to keep the machismo on
display. Enter Flight Wear!
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! --
|