Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:50 AM - extra fuel (Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd)
2. 04:23 AM - Re: Crash in England (Gus Fraser)
3. 05:23 AM - Re: extra fuel (A. Dennis Savarese)
4. 05:51 AM - Re: extra fuel (Brian Lloyd)
5. 06:26 AM - Re: extra fuel (Aeroconcept)
6. 06:43 AM - Re: extra fuel (A. Dennis Savarese)
7. 06:55 AM - Re: extra fuel (A. Dennis Savarese)
8. 07:41 AM - Re: Crash in England (Walt Fricke)
9. 11:16 AM - Re: extra fuel (Walt Lannon)
10. 11:29 AM - Re: Air leak - Don't have much more hair to pull out. (N4829T@aol.com)
11. 11:42 AM - Re: Re: extra fuel (Mark Schrick)
12. 01:22 PM - Re: extra fuel (cjpilot710@aol.com)
13. 01:27 PM - Re: extra fuel (cjpilot710@aol.com)
14. 01:30 PM - Re: extra fuel (A. Dennis Savarese)
15. 02:47 PM - Re: Re: extra fuel (Mark Schrick)
16. 03:49 PM - Re: CJ undercarriage door hinge (Doug)
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: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd" <mark@yakuk.com>
ref Extra fuel in the Y52.
We do, our UK CAA, YDB, LY CAA approved conversion gives 82 lts per side extra
fuel, 280 total on the a/c, that's 70 US galls. All internal and in the wings.
The problem is this is fitted at overhaul. It does not restrict the a/c limits
other than when tanks are in use. i.e. fuel in AUX tanks and no aeros.
Personally the rear seat option I would not favour for fire risk reasons initially
then limitations on C of G.
Mark J
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "sfrench" <sfrench@starband.net>
>
>
> Anyone know who does extended fuel tanks for a Yak 52 that has the basic
> 31 gallon tanks.....Stan French
Best regards
Mark Jefferies
Managing director YAK UK Ltd
+ Little Gransden Airfield, Sandy, Beds SG19 3BP, England.
* mark@yakuk.com
: www.yakuk.com
( +44 (0)1767 651156 Office
( +44 (0)1767 651157 Fax
( +44 (0)7785 538 317 Mobile
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: | Crash in England |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
Walt,
Great to see you back in the air, time to put the stagger wing back to bed.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Walt Fricke
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Crash in England
--> Yak-List message posted by: Walt Fricke <walterfricke@yahoo.com>
I flew my Yak-50 for the first time today in 3 months. It just came out of
the shop. I found three foreign objects in the fuselage including a
screwdriver. Can't blame the mechanics. While it may not be their job to
leave stuff there. It's OURS to find it. Bak Yakin!
Gus Fraser <fraseg@comcast.net> wrote:--> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus
Fraser"
The link got truncated by the mail list Try this
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafe
ty_024587.hcsp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Gus Fraser
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Crash in England
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser"
A previous accident in England, the results are in, CHECK FOR LOOSE
ARTICLES. It seems strange that they do not emphasis this in the
recommendations.
See link below for details
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafe
ty_024587.hcsp
Thanks
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Gus Fraser
Subject: Yak-List: Crash in England
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser"
http://www.camberley.co.uk/story.asp?intid=150&txtpaper
Please slap the bottom of your tail cone to check for loose articles. If you
hear any noise clean it out before flying.
Gus Fraser
---------------------------------
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
With regards to fire risk, as you already know, we carry fuel in the
fuselage with the 5.5 liter header tank under the rear floor. So that
argument doesn't hold up. Yes, the internal modifications to the wings are
available during overhaul, but for those who already own a 52 and would like
the additional fuel, it's a mute point. Plus, as many of us have seen, wet
wings leak.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd" <mark@yakuk.com>
Subject: Yak-List: extra fuel
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd"
<mark@yakuk.com>
>
> ref Extra fuel in the Y52.
> We do, our UK CAA, YDB, LY CAA approved conversion gives 82 lts per side
extra fuel, 280 total on the a/c, that's 70 US galls. All internal and in
the wings. The problem is this is fitted at overhaul. It does not restrict
the a/c limits other than when tanks are in use. i.e. fuel in AUX tanks and
no aeros.
>
> Personally the rear seat option I would not favour for fire risk reasons
initially then limitations on C of G.
>
> Mark J
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "sfrench" <sfrench@starband.net>
> >
> >
> > Anyone know who does extended fuel tanks for a Yak 52 that has the basic
> > 31 gallon tanks.....Stan French
>
> Best regards
> Mark Jefferies
>
> Managing director YAK UK Ltd
> + Little Gransden Airfield, Sandy, Beds SG19 3BP, England.
> * mark@yakuk.com
> : www.yakuk.com
> ( +44 (0)1767 651156 Office
> ( +44 (0)1767 651157 Fax
> ( +44 (0)7785 538 317 Mobile
>
>
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: Brian Lloyd <brian@lloyd.com>
A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
> With regards to fire risk, as you already know, we carry fuel in the
> fuselage with the 5.5 liter header tank under the rear floor. So that
> argument doesn't hold up. Yes, the internal modifications to the wings are
> available during overhaul, but for those who already own a 52 and would like
> the additional fuel, it's a mute point. Plus, as many of us have seen, wet
> wings leak.
Are they wet wings or tanks installed in bays constructed when the wings are off?
I didn't get the impression they were wet wings. On the other hand, if you
do proseal right, it works really well.
With the fuel plumbing, pumps, etc., in the cockpit already, extra fuel in the
cockpit is indeed a moot point. Also, I like the idea of moving the CG farther
aft (within limits of course) when flying single pilot.
--
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Aeroconcept" <aeroconcept@worldonline.fr>
Dear Dennis,
With all respect, the difference is sizeable between 5,5 liters under
your feet and 90 liters behind your back! The Yak-52 capacity is a step
forward from the Yak-50's original 55 liters, both being exclusively or
mostly aerobatic aircraft. To date, two "official" wet wing designs
exist, albeit not the "leaking" kind since you must be referring to
early versions developed in Lithuania. Shakhty factory has produced an
improved design with total capacity of 265 liters which so far has shown
no leak after a year of operations. As a further step, Yakovlev has
developed a wing redesign including taking off the original aluminium
tanks known to crack, yielding a total fuel capacity of 230 liters, as a
part of Yak-52M upgrade program. Both designs are similar in one point:
no aerobatics beyond the MTOW of 1315 kg. The Shakhty design is easier
to implement outside an overhaul facility since the wing redesign does
not affect the key structure points such as the front spar. Yet in both
cases, a fully equipped maintenance centre should take a responsibility
for such an upgrade.
Ilia Palamodov
WorldWide agents for Shakhty OH factory
Aeroconcept Trading
1, place Paul Verlaine
92100 Boulogne FRANCE
Web:www.aero-concept.com
Phone +33145345468/+33614487585
Fax +33145345617
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
Savarese
Subject: Re: Yak-List: extra fuel
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
With regards to fire risk, as you already know, we carry fuel in the
fuselage with the 5.5 liter header tank under the rear floor. So that
argument doesn't hold up. Yes, the internal modifications to the wings
are
available during overhaul, but for those who already own a 52 and would
like
the additional fuel, it's a mute point. Plus, as many of us have seen,
wet
wings leak.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd" <mark@yakuk.com>
Subject: Yak-List: extra fuel
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd"
<mark@yakuk.com>
>
> ref Extra fuel in the Y52.
> We do, our UK CAA, YDB, LY CAA approved conversion gives 82 lts per
side
extra fuel, 280 total on the a/c, that's 70 US galls. All internal and
in
the wings. The problem is this is fitted at overhaul. It does not
restrict
the a/c limits other than when tanks are in use. i.e. fuel in AUX tanks
and
no aeros.
>
> Personally the rear seat option I would not favour for fire risk
reasons
initially then limitations on C of G.
>
> Mark J
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "sfrench" <sfrench@starband.net>
> >
> >
> > Anyone know who does extended fuel tanks for a Yak 52 that has the
basic
> > 31 gallon tanks.....Stan French
>
> Best regards
> Mark Jefferies
>
> Managing director YAK UK Ltd
> + Little Gransden Airfield, Sandy, Beds SG19 3BP, England.
> * mark@yakuk.com
> : www.yakuk.com
> ( +44 (0)1767 651156 Office
> ( +44 (0)1767 651157 Fax
> ( +44 (0)7785 538 317 Mobile
>
>
==
==
http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report
==
==
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: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
To my knowledge and based on what I have seen (as in the 52 W and TW) they
create wet wing tanks. No additional "cans" in the wings unfortunately.
The problems that I have seen with Prosealed tanks is most likely due to the
original vent system on the 52. On my airplane for example, which as most
people know has a dark green exterior paint color, when it sits in the sun
for awhile, the fuel/vapor expands and she begins to vent fuel overboard
with the tanks more than half full. She vented almost 5 gallons once over a
3 day period. However, the tanks were full when this happened.
Regardless, as I said the fuel WILL dump overboard when it sits in the sun
with more than half full tanks.
With the expansion and contraction of the non-standard wet wing tanks and
the existing vent system which is designed specifically for the existing
metal tanks, a Prosealed fuel tank vented into the existing system tends to
expand and contract, thus causing cracking around the seams. Although I do
agree a properly Prosealed tank should not leak, if the vent system is not
taken into account when building the wet wing tank PLUS the fact that the
vent system must also support aerobatic flight, leaks will more than likely
occur. That is one of the primary reasons I am not a proponent of wet wing
tanks in the 52. I may end up being all alone on this one, but based on the
problems people have experienced with them, I simply elect not to recommend
them because it is far too time consuming trying to fix something when the
design is questionable. And it never ends and it's unfair to the ultimate
owner.
In my case where a customer wishes to order an overhauled YAK 52 with "a
thousand gallons of gas" (as I call it), I ask them to please sign a release
that removes me from the responsibility of repairing any problems, including
leaks, that may occur with the installation/modification of the standard
wing with wet wing tanks.
With regards to CG, when the Russian ADF, Flight Recorder and ADF selector
panels and ADF antenna (which is about 6-7 Lbs. by itself and directly below
the rear seat) are removed from the aircraft (and are at least 12-15 inches
further after of the aux tank location), the CG is well within spec.
Quite honestly there really is no perfect solution to more gas in the 52.
So for those of us who own 52's, this aux tank is the least complicated to
install; is non-intrusive into the wings; pumps fuel into the same flexible
fuel line that the left wing tank fuel flows through; has it's own vent
system; fills from the outside though a standard aviation type fuel filler;
and it works. Mine has worked perfectly for over 5 years.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: extra fuel
> --> 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>
> >
> > With regards to fire risk, as you already know, we carry fuel in the
> > fuselage with the 5.5 liter header tank under the rear floor. So that
> > argument doesn't hold up. Yes, the internal modifications to the wings
are
> > available during overhaul, but for those who already own a 52 and would
like
> > the additional fuel, it's a mute point. Plus, as many of us have seen,
wet
> > wings leak.
>
> Are they wet wings or tanks installed in bays constructed when the wings
are off? I didn't get the impression they were wet wings. On the other
hand, if you do proseal right, it works really well.
>
> With the fuel plumbing, pumps, etc., in the cockpit already, extra fuel in
the cockpit is indeed a moot point. Also, I like the idea of moving the CG
farther aft (within limits of course) when flying single pilot.
>
> --
>
> 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 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
IIla,
Thank you for enlightening me on the new designs. I have not had the
privilege of seeing these new designs functioning here in the US. If and
when I do have the opportunity to observe the maintenance-free longevity and
the integrity of these new designs, I will be more than happy to encourage
potential YAK 52 owners to order them.
I am sure these redesigns are well engineered by both Yakovlev and Shakhty.
But for an existing YAK 52 owner here in the US, more than likely either
solution would be cost prohibitive and with an extensive down time.
Regards,
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aeroconcept" <aeroconcept@worldonline.fr>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: extra fuel
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Aeroconcept" <aeroconcept@worldonline.fr>
>
> Dear Dennis,
>
> With all respect, the difference is sizeable between 5,5 liters under
> your feet and 90 liters behind your back! The Yak-52 capacity is a step
> forward from the Yak-50's original 55 liters, both being exclusively or
> mostly aerobatic aircraft. To date, two "official" wet wing designs
> exist, albeit not the "leaking" kind since you must be referring to
> early versions developed in Lithuania. Shakhty factory has produced an
> improved design with total capacity of 265 liters which so far has shown
> no leak after a year of operations. As a further step, Yakovlev has
> developed a wing redesign including taking off the original aluminium
> tanks known to crack, yielding a total fuel capacity of 230 liters, as a
> part of Yak-52M upgrade program. Both designs are similar in one point:
> no aerobatics beyond the MTOW of 1315 kg. The Shakhty design is easier
> to implement outside an overhaul facility since the wing redesign does
> not affect the key structure points such as the front spar. Yet in both
> cases, a fully equipped maintenance centre should take a responsibility
> for such an upgrade.
>
> Ilia Palamodov
> WorldWide agents for Shakhty OH factory
> Aeroconcept Trading
> 1, place Paul Verlaine
> 92100 Boulogne FRANCE
> Web:www.aero-concept.com
> Phone +33145345468/+33614487585
> Fax +33145345617
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> Savarese
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: extra fuel
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
> With regards to fire risk, as you already know, we carry fuel in the
> fuselage with the 5.5 liter header tank under the rear floor. So that
> argument doesn't hold up. Yes, the internal modifications to the wings
> are
> available during overhaul, but for those who already own a 52 and would
> like
> the additional fuel, it's a mute point. Plus, as many of us have seen,
> wet
> wings leak.
> Dennis
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd" <mark@yakuk.com>
> To: "YAK USA LIST" <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Yak-List: extra fuel
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd"
> <mark@yakuk.com>
> >
> > ref Extra fuel in the Y52.
> > We do, our UK CAA, YDB, LY CAA approved conversion gives 82 lts per
> side
> extra fuel, 280 total on the a/c, that's 70 US galls. All internal and
> in
> the wings. The problem is this is fitted at overhaul. It does not
> restrict
> the a/c limits other than when tanks are in use. i.e. fuel in AUX tanks
> and
> no aeros.
> >
> > Personally the rear seat option I would not favour for fire risk
> reasons
> initially then limitations on C of G.
> >
> > Mark J
> >
> > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "sfrench" <sfrench@starband.net>
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyone know who does extended fuel tanks for a Yak 52 that has the
> basic
> > > 31 gallon tanks.....Stan French
> >
> > Best regards
> > Mark Jefferies
> >
> > Managing director YAK UK Ltd
> > + Little Gransden Airfield, Sandy, Beds SG19 3BP, England.
> > * mark@yakuk.com
> > : www.yakuk.com
> > ( +44 (0)1767 651156 Office
> > ( +44 (0)1767 651157 Fax
> > ( +44 (0)7785 538 317 Mobile
> >
> >
>
>
> ==
> ==
> http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report
> ==
> ==
>
>
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: | Crash in England |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Walt Fricke <walterfricke@yahoo.com>
Nah. I flew it yesterday too. I has a heater. For the next 9 months we need one
here in the tundra. But it was fun to go fly ol' "twitchy" again.
Gus Fraser <fraseg@comcast.net> wrote:--> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser"
Walt,
Great to see you back in the air, time to put the stagger wing back to bed.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Walt Fricke
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Crash in England
--> Yak-List message posted by: Walt Fricke
I flew my Yak-50 for the first time today in 3 months. It just came out of
the shop. I found three foreign objects in the fuselage including a
screwdriver. Can't blame the mechanics. While it may not be their job to
leave stuff there. It's OURS to find it. Bak Yakin!
Gus Fraser wrote:--> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus
Fraser"
The link got truncated by the mail list Try this
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafe
ty_024587.hcsp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Gus Fraser
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Crash in England
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser"
A previous accident in England, the results are in, CHECK FOR LOOSE
ARTICLES. It seems strange that they do not emphasis this in the
recommendations.
See link below for details
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafe
ty_024587.hcsp
Thanks
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Gus Fraser
Subject: Yak-List: Crash in England
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser"
http://www.camberley.co.uk/story.asp?intid=150&txtpaper
Please slap the bottom of your tail cone to check for loose articles. If you
hear any noise clean it out before flying.
Gus Fraser
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
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: "Walt Lannon" <lannon@look.ca>
There is no question that with the header tank in the fuselage (8 litres in
the CJ) a post crash fire will be fed by the remaining fuel no matter where
it is located - unless the wings have been torn off taking the bulk of the
fuel with them!
The question is one of survivability. One could argue that increasing the
fuel quantity in the fuselage will reduce the chance of getting out in time.
Unfortunately we have had some direct experience to support this premise. A
CJ crash into trees resulted in one wing tank being ruptured losing at least
some of its fuel and the header tank area being destroyed shortly
thereafter. The aircraft damage was severe and the rear seat occupant
suffered very serious injuries. The post crash fire started immediately,
reportedly in the header tank (rear cockpit) area. With the help of the
front seat occupant (whose injuries were less serious) both were able to
exit the wreckage with no burn injuries.
This would almost certainly have not been the case with a fuel tank behind
the rear seat. The occupant would likely have been soaked with fuel.
Survival chances about nil!
We are struck with the location of the header tank- a signifigant design
flaw, in my humble opinion- but we do have a choice about adding to the
problem.
Cheers;
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: extra fuel
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>
> With regards to fire risk, as you already know, we carry fuel in the
> fuselage with the 5.5 liter header tank under the rear floor. So that
> argument doesn't hold up. Yes, the internal modifications to the wings
are
> available during overhaul, but for those who already own a 52 and would
like
> the additional fuel, it's a mute point. Plus, as many of us have seen,
wet
> wings leak.
> Dennis
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd" <mark@yakuk.com>
> To: "YAK USA LIST" <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Yak-List: extra fuel
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd"
> <mark@yakuk.com>
> >
> > ref Extra fuel in the Y52.
> > We do, our UK CAA, YDB, LY CAA approved conversion gives 82 lts per side
> extra fuel, 280 total on the a/c, that's 70 US galls. All internal and in
> the wings. The problem is this is fitted at overhaul. It does not restrict
> the a/c limits other than when tanks are in use. i.e. fuel in AUX tanks
and
> no aeros.
> >
> > Personally the rear seat option I would not favour for fire risk reasons
> initially then limitations on C of G.
> >
> > Mark J
> >
> > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "sfrench" <sfrench@starband.net>
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyone know who does extended fuel tanks for a Yak 52 that has the
basic
> > > 31 gallon tanks.....Stan French
> >
> > Best regards
> > Mark Jefferies
> >
> > Managing director YAK UK Ltd
> > + Little Gransden Airfield, Sandy, Beds SG19 3BP, England.
> > * mark@yakuk.com
> > : www.yakuk.com
> > ( +44 (0)1767 651156 Office
> > ( +44 (0)1767 651157 Fax
> > ( +44 (0)7785 538 317 Mobile
> >
> >
>
>
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: Air leak - Don't have much more hair to pull out. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: N4829T@aol.com
I agree with Jim on this one. I have replaced my main air valve twice in the
fast four years... found the same results ..pitted and groved valve seat.
Living right on the coast doesn't help matters..
Good luck,
Jim Plumlee
N31103/CJ-6A
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: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
Walt,
I can appreciate your comments on not having fuel in the cockpit
area. But if you have not seen or understand the design of the
rear cockpit tank your concern is that of an option and not substaniated
with fact. If one would crash into a tree, the wings could catch
fire and you have a problem. The rear tank behind the seat that
George Coy builds has been tested, over 35 delivered with no
problems. The FAA has a letter stating the design to be sound
(George has shown me this letter).
If one is worried about fuel in the cockpit, the only safe alternative
is a glider.........
No to many Yak gliders out there. I have flown with this tank
in my Yak 52 and find it structurly sound, well engineered and
the only viable altternative to extra fuel for the Yak 52 that
is located in the US. If one could purchase a FRESH O/H in Europe
and place extra fuel in the wings, that is the second alternative.
The fuel tank is made to be used when a 2 1/2 hour flight is
to be made and is to be burned off (pardon the pun) first before
the mains. I have over 285 hours in my Yak 52 with over 20 legs
of using the extra fuel tank for cross country trips. Once the
system is set up and turned correctly it has provided the best
alternative on the market today. One needs to know what the limitations
are and obey them.
Hope this helps people that are interested and not scare away
people that want a alternative cross country aircraft that can
perform the job. Look into the facts, talk to people that fly
the tank and not from people that are might not have all the
facts or information.
Only you can decide what is right in your situation.
Good luck, keep flying safe out there. Good emails on the subject
but need to hear from "first hand users" or technical engineers
that help provide true risks or concerns with a particular design
alternative.
Stay safe and have fun.
PS. Saw the CJ formation team this weekend at Copperstate Fly-In.
Greg, Rich and ???? flew a great Vic, echelon, and close trail
on Saturday with smoke. Looked GREAT and tight. Nice showing
from the CJ guys of Deer Valley...........
Regards,
Mark "SHREK" Schrick
YAK 52 owner and rear seat AUX tank user
San Jose, Ca
Mark Schrick
966 Wallace Drive
San Jose, CA 95120
(408) 323-5150(H) or (408) 391-6664 (Car)
>--- Original Message ---
>From: "Walt Lannon" <lannon@look.ca>
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Date: 10/13/03 10:15:22 AM
>
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Walt Lannon" <lannon@look.ca>
>
>There is no question that with the header tank in the fuselage
(8 litres in
>the CJ) a post crash fire will be fed by the remaining fuel
no matter where
>it is located - unless the wings have been torn off taking the
bulk of the
>fuel with them!
>The question is one of survivability. One could argue that increasing
the
>fuel quantity in the fuselage will reduce the chance of getting
out in time.
>Unfortunately we have had some direct experience to support
this premise. A
>CJ crash into trees resulted in one wing tank being ruptured
losing at least
>some of its fuel and the header tank area being destroyed shortly
>thereafter. The aircraft damage was severe and the rear seat
occupant
>suffered very serious injuries. The post crash fire started
immediately,
>reportedly in the header tank (rear cockpit) area. With the
help of the
>front seat occupant (whose injuries were less serious) both
were able to
>exit the wreckage with no burn injuries.
>This would almost certainly have not been the case with a fuel
tank behind
>the rear seat. The occupant would likely have been soaked with
fuel.
>Survival chances about nil!
>
>We are struck with the location of the header tank- a signifigant
design
>flaw, in my humble opinion- but we do have a choice about adding
to the
>problem.
>
>Cheers;
>Walt
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: Yak-List: extra fuel
>
>
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
>>
>> With regards to fire risk, as you already know, we carry fuel
in the
>> fuselage with the 5.5 liter header tank under the rear floor.
So that
>> argument doesn't hold up. Yes, the internal modifications
to the wings
>are
>> available during overhaul, but for those who already own a
52 and would
>like
>> the additional fuel, it's a mute point. Plus, as many of
us have seen,
>wet
>> wings leak.
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd" <mark@yakuk.com>
>> To: "YAK USA LIST" <yak-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Yak-List: extra fuel
>>
>>
>> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd"
>> <mark@yakuk.com>
>> >
>> > ref Extra fuel in the Y52.
>> > We do, our UK CAA, YDB, LY CAA approved conversion gives
82 lts per side
>> extra fuel, 280 total on the a/c, that's 70 US galls. All
internal and in
>> the wings. The problem is this is fitted at overhaul. It does
not restrict
>> the a/c limits other than when tanks are in use. i.e. fuel
in AUX tanks
>and
>> no aeros.
>> >
>> > Personally the rear seat option I would not favour for fire
risk reasons
>> initially then limitations on C of G.
>> >
>> > Mark J
>> >
>> > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "sfrench" <sfrench@starband.net>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Anyone know who does extended fuel tanks for a Yak 52
that has the
>basic
>> > > 31 gallon tanks.....Stan French
>> >
>> > Best regards
>> > Mark Jefferies
>> >
>> > Managing director YAK UK Ltd
>> > + Little Gransden Airfield, Sandy, Beds SG19 3BP, England.
>> > * mark@yakuk.com
>> > : www.yakuk.com
>> > ( +44 (0)1767 651156 Office
>> > ( +44 (0)1767 651157 Fax
>> > ( +44 (0)7785 538 317 Mobile
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
Troops,
All the points brought up about fuel in cabins or fuselages are valid points,
and its obvious to be a safety concern. However lets look at the history of
aircraft. The first fuel tank laid right next to Wilber & Oval. Though out
WW1 & WW2, a very large number of aircraft (fighters mainly) had fuel in the
fuselage. Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang, Hellcat, just to name the more famous
ones. I hate to tell you how many hours I sat with a fuel tank nearly on my lap
in Cubs, Champs and in my Pitts.
The whole point is that you are not supposed to crash an airplane. Even the
safest design airplane gives NO GUARANTY, if one strikes the earth harder than
landing gear's ultimate stress point. I've seen a P-51 catch fire in a
normal landing and I've seen an acro dive straight into the ground resulting in
a
huge fuel vapor cloud which in all rights should have exploded but didn't. I
had an aircraft designer friend, design a homebuilt with ALL fuel in the
outboard wings, for these very reasons of safety. What he didn't take into account
was, he was over stressing the wing in rolls, due the inertia of the fuel in
the wing tanks. His left wing unzipped at the front spar at 700' as he did a
flyby for his wife at home. The other wing departed before he hit the ground.
Those of you do put extra fuel the Yaks wing or any others please remember
this story and heed Yak's limits.
I personally would put open cell form in a fuel tank much as race car drivers
do. The idea being, 'if it don't splash, it may not explode' - - but it
still may burn.
You all had valid points but the most important in airplanes is "to touch the
earth as you would your lover. Gently, softly, tentatively and let the
passion linger". :}
Jim Goolsby
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin 1759
"With my shield, or on it"
Trojan Warriors BC
"The reason older men are like fine wine. When young, they are like grapes
until some woman stomps all over them."
Unknown older man.
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
In a message dated 10/13/2003 4:24:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
cjpilot710@aol.com writes:
> I personally would put open cell form in a fuel tank much as race car
> drivers
> do. The idea being, 'if it don't splash, it may not explode' - - but it
> still may burn.
>
> You all had valid points but the most important in airplanes is "to touch
> the
> earth as you would your lover. Gently, softly, tentatively and let the
> passion linger". :}
>
> Jim Goolsby
>
>
Navy pukes excluded of course. They just don't know better.
Jim Goolsby
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin 1759
"With my shield, or on it"
Trojan Warriors BC
"The reason older men are like fine wine. When young, they are like grapes
until some woman stomps all over them."
Unknown older man.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Excellent words of wisdom Pappy. Thanks very much.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: <cjpilot710@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: extra fuel
> --> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
>
> Troops,
> All the points brought up about fuel in cabins or fuselages are valid
points,
> and its obvious to be a safety concern. However lets look at the history
of
> aircraft. The first fuel tank laid right next to Wilber & Oval. Though
out
> WW1 & WW2, a very large number of aircraft (fighters mainly) had fuel in
the
> fuselage. Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang, Hellcat, just to name the more
famous
> ones. I hate to tell you how many hours I sat with a fuel tank nearly on
my lap
> in Cubs, Champs and in my Pitts.
>
> The whole point is that you are not supposed to crash an airplane. Even
the
> safest design airplane gives NO GUARANTY, if one strikes the earth harder
than
> landing gear's ultimate stress point. I've seen a P-51 catch fire in a
> normal landing and I've seen an acro dive straight into the ground
resulting in a
> huge fuel vapor cloud which in all rights should have exploded but didn't.
I
> had an aircraft designer friend, design a homebuilt with ALL fuel in the
> outboard wings, for these very reasons of safety. What he didn't take
into account
> was, he was over stressing the wing in rolls, due the inertia of the fuel
in
> the wing tanks. His left wing unzipped at the front spar at 700' as he
did a
> flyby for his wife at home. The other wing departed before he hit the
ground.
> Those of you do put extra fuel the Yaks wing or any others please remember
> this story and heed Yak's limits.
>
> I personally would put open cell form in a fuel tank much as race car
drivers
> do. The idea being, 'if it don't splash, it may not explode' - - but it
> still may burn.
>
> You all had valid points but the most important in airplanes is "to touch
the
> earth as you would your lover. Gently, softly, tentatively and let the
> passion linger". :}
>
> Jim Goolsby
>
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety,
> deserve neither liberty nor safety"
> Benjamin Franklin 1759
> "With my shield, or on it"
> Trojan Warriors BC
> "The reason older men are like fine wine. When young, they are like
grapes
> until some woman stomps all over them."
> Unknown older man.
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Schrick" <schrick@pacbell.net>
Pappy,
>You all had valid points but the most important in >airplanes
is "to touch the
>earth as you would your lover. Gently, softly, >tentatively
and let the
>passion linger". :}
BOY, that boy could sweet talk the pants off a CJ driver!!! Jim,
are you watching to much LIFE TV or reading to many Harlequin
novels..........
Good stuff on the AUX tanks. I have enjoyed mine for many years
and it helps me extend my range when traveling witht the CJ crowd.
Keep up the great work Jim......
Mark "SHREK" Schrick
Yak 52/50 owner
San Jose, Ca
Mark Schrick
966 Wallace Drive
San Jose, CA 95120
(408) 323-5150(H) or (408) 391-6664 (Car)
>--- Original Message ---
>From: cjpilot710@aol.com
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Date: 10/13/03 8:22:04 AM
>
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
>
>Troops,
>All the points brought up about fuel in cabins or fuselages
are valid points,
>and its obvious to be a safety concern. However lets look at
the history of
>aircraft. The first fuel tank laid right next to Wilber & Oval.
Though out
>WW1 & WW2, a very large number of aircraft (fighters mainly)
had fuel in the
>fuselage. Spitfire, Hurricane, Mustang, Hellcat, just to name
the more famous
>ones. I hate to tell you how many hours I sat with a fuel tank
nearly on my lap
>in Cubs, Champs and in my Pitts.
>
>The whole point is that you are not supposed to crash an airplane.
Even the
>safest design airplane gives NO GUARANTY, if one strikes the
earth harder than
>landing gear's ultimate stress point. I've seen a P-51 catch
fire in a
>normal landing and I've seen an acro dive straight into the
ground resulting in a
>huge fuel vapor cloud which in all rights should have exploded
but didn't. I
>had an aircraft designer friend, design a homebuilt with ALL
fuel in the
>outboard wings, for these very reasons of safety. What he didn't
take into account
>was, he was over stressing the wing in rolls, due the inertia
of the fuel in
>the wing tanks. His left wing unzipped at the front spar at
700' as he did a
>flyby for his wife at home. The other wing departed before
he hit the ground.
>Those of you do put extra fuel the Yaks wing or any others please
remember
>this story and heed Yak's limits.
>
>I personally would put open cell form in a fuel tank much as
race car drivers
>do. The idea being, 'if it don't splash, it may not explode'
- - but it
>still may burn.
>
>You all had valid points but the most important in airplanes
is "to touch the
>earth as you would your lover. Gently, softly, tentatively
and let the
>passion linger". :}
>
>Jim Goolsby
>
>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
safety,
>deserve neither liberty nor safety"
> Benjamin Franklin
1759
>"With my shield, or on it"
> Trojan Warriors
BC
>"The reason older men are like fine wine. When young, they
are like grapes
>until some woman stomps all over them."
> Unknown older
man.
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CJ undercarriage door hinge |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Jay,
I am sure that somewhere there is a stainless steel hinge that could be made
to work, but why reinvent the wheel, I carry the correct hinges in stock.
One thing to consider, the condition of your present hinges is most likely
the results of many, many years of little or no maintenance and very heavy
use. The steel hinges will last many years. IMHO trying to find a
stainless steel hinge that will fit properly, is a waste of time unless you
are younger than I think you are. :>)
Always yakin,
Doug Sapp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay McIntyre" <jayatnowra@hotmail.com>
Subject: Yak-List: CJ undercarriage door hinge
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jay McIntyre" <jayatnowra@hotmail.com>
>
> Hi all...
> Anyone got a part number for suitable replacement hinge stock (ideally
stainless) for the upper MLG door? The side that screws to the wing
structure needs to have a very broad width (at least 1 1/2 inch) in order to
pick up the two rows of screws.
> Thanks
>
>
> <EM>Regards, Jay</EM>
>
> P.S. see you at Classic Fighters 2005!
>
> <A href="http://www.classicfighters.co.nz/">www.classicfighters.co.nz
>
>
> Check out the Xtra gaming servers at <a
href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENNZ/2734??PS=">www.xtramsn.co.nz/gaming !
>
>
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! --
|