Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:43 AM - Re: Yak 52 article in latest Warbirds Magazine (Gus Fraser)
2. 05:17 AM - "Analysis of an Accident" - So where is the analysis? (A. Dennis Savarese)
3. 07:10 AM - EAA Article (Bob Monzo)
4. 07:59 AM - EAA Article (Dr. Robert Schroeder)
5. 10:07 AM - Re: EAA Article (Jorgen Nielsen)
6. 10:26 AM - EAA Warbirds (Tom Johnson)
7. 10:31 AM - re smoke system (Tom Noonan)
8. 12:31 PM - fairings (Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd)
9. 01:19 PM - Re: EAA Article (Daniel Fortin)
10. 01:58 PM - Re: EAA Article (Richard Basiliere)
11. 02:00 PM - Prop Balancing (Doug Thayer)
12. 02:53 PM - Hearts and Minds (Graeme Frew)
13. 03:01 PM - Re: Hearts and Minds (jay reiter)
14. 04:49 PM - Re: EAA Warbirds (cpayne@joimail.com)
15. 05:23 PM - Re: EAA Warbirds (Gus Fraser)
16. 06:19 PM - Re: Prop balancing (KevLCo@aol.com)
17. 07:10 PM - We been "porked" (Frank Haertlein)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yak 52 article in latest Warbirds Magazine |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
I am going to ring Bob Warner(EVP EAA) and Mike Schlosh(President Warbirds)
today and complain about this article as I know both of them. I am going to
find some NTSB reports on T34s and send them along for possible printing.
In a year when Tom is trying to head off insurance increases then this is
not what we need from a "Friendly" group like EAA.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tom Johnson
Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 article in latest Warbirds Magazine
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tom Johnson" <tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
I can't begin to explain how disappointed I am with the latest Safety
article in March 2004 EAA Warbirds.
You reprinted a Final NTSB report on Yak 52 accident in January of 2003.
No other analysis or recommendations or opinions or comments???
You could have called me, I own a Yak 52 , and provide insurance for most of
the Yak52s in the country.
I would have told you about the FOD protection Cover most people have
installed.
The Russian tricks to verify the airplane is clean.
Our initiative to get pilots to check their airplanes and take pro-active
measures to eliminate the problem.
Instead there was just a simple NTSB report with no actual research into the
problem or recommendations.
You missed a fine opportunity educate the community about these great
airplanes.
You also published a picture of a formation flight and the pilot is not even
facing the photo ship.
You've really made all Yak52 pilots look bad.
We in the Yak community are very disappointed about this unfortunate
article.
I, for one, expected more.
**********************************
Thomas Johnson
Cannon Aviation Insurance
1983 Yak 52
Tel: 800-851-2997
Fax: 480-951-1455
Cell: 602-628-2701
E: tjohnson@cannonaviation.com
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | "Analysis of an Accident" - So where is the analysis? |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
Dear Kim Rosenlof and Fred Womack,
As a member of the EAA WBA (0022175) and the Redstar Pilots Association and
most importantly a YAK 52 owner and pilot, I am extremely disappointed in
your magazines publication of the NTSB report on the YAK 52 crash in Utah in
2003 without the so called "Analysis of an Accident".
Your insensitivity to the YAK 52 owners and pilots as members of the warbird
community borders on treating our rather substantial group, once again, as
"step children". If you or your staff had engaged in any research
whatsoever, outside of simply taking the NTSB report and publishing it, you
would have found there ARE ways of preventing future occurrences of this
tragedy. Yes, safety to the YAK 52 pilot/owner is extremely important.
Readily available is a FOD prevention cover kit designed to potentially help
reduce or even eliminate the FOD problem which can cause the elevator
bellcrank to jam as we in the YAK community are so keenly aware of. You can
view the FOD prevention cover at www.yak-52.com and click on the FOD
PREVENTION button.
I personally have absolutely no objection to the WBA printing the NTSB
report. That definitely needed to be done. But without even the slightest
hint of helping the readers understand what can be learned from this tragedy
and what can prevent future occurrences, you have clearly done a serious
disservice to your members, the YAK 52 owners and potential owners and all
readers of the WBA magazine.
I certainly expected more.
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-2141 office
334-546-8182 cell
www.yak-52.com
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bob Monzo" <yakpilot@wideopenwest.com>
Obviously, the EAA used the NTSB report in total as a feature article without any
additional commentary. This is either laziness on the part of the editors
or an intentional act to discredit Yak-52s. I believe the last paragraph of report/article
was completely subjective and wrong. It basically states the Russians
used cheaper parts that are more prone to failure. Can this further from
the truth? The airplane and its components are all overbuilt, work well and
are not prone to failure. In the seven years and 700 hours I have owned and
flown my Yak, the only Russian component that has failed and was replaced was
the air compressor after 600 hours of service. On the other hand, some of the
western components that were added such as the Whelan lights, altimeters and
airspeed indicators, Ceconite fabric on the rudder and elevator, ELT, and the
motorized clean kit have required regular maintenance or have outright failed
and have had to be replaced. In the case of the motorized clean kit, it was
completely removed after one of its aluminum lines broke causing the loss of most
of the oil before an emergency landing was made. By the way, the Russian
engine never wavered during this trauma caused by a western system that was supposedly
added to protect it.
Besides the letters we may write to the EAA as individuals, Redstar needs to respond
as the organization that represents our interests. Just printing one or
two of our letters in the Mail Call section is not sufficient. Redstar must
push for another feature article that addresses the fixes we are undertaking
as owners to solve this FOD problem as well as the many virtues and fun factor
of the Yak-52. The fact remains that these are safe, robust, dependable and
fun airplanes that will not break the bank.
Bob M.
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: "Dr. Robert Schroeder" <firedog@visi.com>
I would like to second the Monzo motion to have Red Star aggressively speak
on behalf of the Yaks and CJ's.
These AC's are rugged/tough birds. Their design is anything but inferior (as
suggested by the Spam Can Lobby).
IT maybe time for a frontal assault in educating the EAA world on systems
and component robustness.
All the best.hopefully see you all at Castle.
Robert Schroeder
CJ driver
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: "Jorgen Nielsen" <jorgen.nielsen@mweb.co.za>
Agreed on all points and I would like to add my 2c worth.
With attention to detail, emptying pockets, keeping count of tools,
thorough pre-flights including the slapping of fuselage and checking for
FOD, I believe the "problem" or risk is minimal. If I didn't, I would
not fly.
Re the cheaper parts etc., I have co-owned several western aircraft.
All pipers. All were drains on the pocket in terms of breakages &
maintenance. I have experienced turbo failure, gear failure, fuel pump
failure, vacuum pump failure (just love partial panel), asi failure,
etc. etc. Those were failures, many more items faulty discovered during
annuals and fixed or replaced.
The Yak's build quality is I believe better, and certainly not subject
to so called cheap parts. Quite the opposite. They were not built in a
commercially competitive environment, with cost cutting a major part of
business, and each manufacturer trying to bring products to market at a
price that would facilitate sales. How many western aircraft
manufacturers have had financial problem, chapter 11, outright
bankruptcy, etc? Or should that read, are their any that haven't?
How many western aircraft are delivered with custom tool kits,
comprehensive manuals (ok, so they in Russian), all components with
their own "passports", all documents nicely bound and in leather cases,
tow bar, covers, spares kit, etc? The Yaks are. I don't think thats
consistent with the cheaper parts philosophy, but rather a quality
approach.
Whats the TBO on western aerobatic engines that are flown hard?
So that's my South African 2c, which is worth approx 0.28 US cents...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Monzo
Subject: Yak-List: EAA Article
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bob Monzo" <yakpilot@wideopenwest.com>
Obviously, the EAA used the NTSB report in total as a feature article
without any additional commentary. This is either laziness on the part
of the editors or an intentional act to discredit Yak-52s. I believe
the last paragraph of report/article was completely subjective and
wrong. It basically states the Russians used cheaper parts that are
more prone to failure. Can this further from the truth? The airplane
and its components are all overbuilt, work well and are not prone to
failure. In the seven years and 700 hours I have owned and flown my
Yak, the only Russian component that has failed and was replaced was the
air compressor after 600 hours of service. On the other hand, some of
the western components that were added such as the Whelan lights,
altimeters and airspeed indicators, Ceconite fabric on the rudder and
elevator, ELT, and the motorized clean kit have required regular
maintenance or have outright failed and have had to be replaced. In the
case of the mo! torized clean kit, it was completely removed after one
of its aluminum lines broke causing the loss of most of the oil before
an emergency landing was made. By the way, the Russian engine never
wavered during this trauma caused by a western system that was
supposedly added to protect it.
Besides the letters we may write to the EAA as individuals, Redstar
needs to respond as the organization that represents our interests.
Just printing one or two of our letters in the Mail Call section is not
sufficient. Redstar must push for another feature article that
addresses the fixes we are undertaking as owners to solve this FOD
problem as well as the many virtues and fun factor of the Yak-52. The
fact remains that these are safe, robust, dependable and fun airplanes
that will not break the bank.
Bob M.
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
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: "Tom Johnson" <tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
Bill Fisher, Executive Director of EAA Warbirds called me today.
Bill said they certainly never meant to "pick on" any particular plane, and in
retrospect feels they could have done a better job with this article.
The magazine is already printed so there is nothing more than can be done about
it.
Except to devote ink in the next issue to restore our reputation to glory.
Moving forward, they are committed to turn a positive spin on the situation and
make room for us in the next publication to present the other side of the coin.
(Actually due to production concerns, it would probably be the May issue).
He was very accomodating and wants us to know they appreciate and need our support.
So . . . our voice was heard loud and clear.
I for one am ready to put down the hatchet and pick up the pen.
This will be a great opportunity to tell it like we see it.
Since we have a clean slate, .. I'd like to see issues address such as:
FOD prevention and detection.
Quality and durability of parts . . the FAA report implied Yaks were made of cheap,
low quality parts.
This drives me NUTS!~ I've NEVER replaced a single part on my Yak, except for
a compressor, which could have been put back on with a new drive, and also assorted
rubber seals and things. If you've worked on a Yak, you know the parts
are wonderful pieces of machinery.
Safety and Training - Our RPA syllabus . . .Approved Spin Training . . Formation
and ACM training, etc. .
Not sure how best to coordinate, send me your thoughts and I'll try to package
them up for discussion.
Beware the wrath of a MaD Yak~!
TJ
**********************************
Thomas Johnson
Cannon Aviation Insurance
1983 Yak 52
Tel: 800-851-2997
Fax: 480-951-1455
Cell: 602-628-2701
E: tjohnson@cannonaviation.com
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: "Tom Noonan" <noonan@berk.com>
For all of you who were interested in the smoke system the other day I
finally have their web page address which includes some video and a catalog
for pricing. Seems they are not as expensive as I remembered. The web page
address is http://www.members.aol.com/krindustriesinc/myhomepage/
hope this helps.
Tom Noonan
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: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd" <mark@yakuk.com>
Gents, we manufacture fairings, so they are supplied un drilled. YAK 52 & 50 in
glass, wings and tailplane.
I am just going abroad and at home now so don't have the price list to hand, do
mail me and I will revert on Monday with prices if anyone is interested.
cheers, MJ
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Lennox Properties-Office" <lennoxlimited@earthlink.net>
Anybody out there have any undrilled top wing fairings for right hand wing for
YAK 52 (two short one long)?
Thanks
Jim Enkema
Best regards
Mark Jefferies
: Managing director YAK UK Ltd
Little Gransden Airfield, Sandy, Beds SG19 3BP, England.
( +44 (0)1767 651156 Office + 651157 fax
( +44 (0)7785 538 317 Mobile
: Conditions/ terms of business
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: "Daniel Fortin" <fougapilot@hotmail.com>
If my memory serves me right, the Northern Lights Aerobatic Team changed
their engine every 2 airshow seasons, which is somewhere 800hrs.
Dan Fortin
>From: "Jorgen Nielsen" <jorgen.nielsen@mweb.co.za>
>Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Yak-List: EAA Article
>Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:02:34 +0200
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jorgen Nielsen"
><jorgen.nielsen@mweb.co.za>
>
>Agreed on all points and I would like to add my 2c worth.
>
>With attention to detail, emptying pockets, keeping count of tools,
>thorough pre-flights including the slapping of fuselage and checking for
>FOD, I believe the "problem" or risk is minimal. If I didn't, I would
>not fly.
>
>Re the cheaper parts etc., I have co-owned several western aircraft.
>All pipers. All were drains on the pocket in terms of breakages &
>maintenance. I have experienced turbo failure, gear failure, fuel pump
>failure, vacuum pump failure (just love partial panel), asi failure,
>etc. etc. Those were failures, many more items faulty discovered during
>annuals and fixed or replaced.
>
>The Yak's build quality is I believe better, and certainly not subject
>to so called cheap parts. Quite the opposite. They were not built in a
>commercially competitive environment, with cost cutting a major part of
>business, and each manufacturer trying to bring products to market at a
>price that would facilitate sales. How many western aircraft
>manufacturers have had financial problem, chapter 11, outright
>bankruptcy, etc? Or should that read, are their any that haven't?
>
>How many western aircraft are delivered with custom tool kits,
>comprehensive manuals (ok, so they in Russian), all components with
>their own "passports", all documents nicely bound and in leather cases,
>tow bar, covers, spares kit, etc? The Yaks are. I don't think thats
>consistent with the cheaper parts philosophy, but rather a quality
>approach.
>
>Whats the TBO on western aerobatic engines that are flown hard?
>
>So that's my South African 2c, which is worth approx 0.28 US cents...
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Monzo
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: EAA Article
>
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bob Monzo" <yakpilot@wideopenwest.com>
>
>Obviously, the EAA used the NTSB report in total as a feature article
>without any additional commentary. This is either laziness on the part
>of the editors or an intentional act to discredit Yak-52s. I believe
>the last paragraph of report/article was completely subjective and
>wrong. It basically states the Russians used cheaper parts that are
>more prone to failure. Can this further from the truth? The airplane
>and its components are all overbuilt, work well and are not prone to
>failure. In the seven years and 700 hours I have owned and flown my
>Yak, the only Russian component that has failed and was replaced was the
>air compressor after 600 hours of service. On the other hand, some of
>the western components that were added such as the Whelan lights,
>altimeters and airspeed indicators, Ceconite fabric on the rudder and
>elevator, ELT, and the motorized clean kit have required regular
>maintenance or have outright failed and have had to be replaced. In the
>case of the mo! torized clean kit, it was completely removed after one
>of its aluminum lines broke causing the loss of most of the oil before
>an emergency landing was made. By the way, the Russian engine never
>wavered during this trauma caused by a western system that was
>supposedly added to protect it.
>
>Besides the letters we may write to the EAA as individuals, Redstar
>needs to respond as the organization that represents our interests.
>Just printing one or two of our letters in the Mail Call section is not
>sufficient. Redstar must push for another feature article that
>addresses the fixes we are undertaking as owners to solve this FOD
>problem as well as the many virtues and fun factor of the Yak-52. The
>fact remains that these are safe, robust, dependable and fun airplanes
>that will not break the bank.
>
>Bob M.
>
>
>==
>direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>==
>==
>==
>
>
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Basiliere" <BasiliereR@ci.boulder.co.us>
Azat Zaydullin, (my akro CFI) #5 for the NL for the last two of their
seasons had at least one "new" lycoming break on him. One as he was
doing tumbles at Sun'nFun, dead sticked in. I think, at least in Azat's
experience, engines were replaced as they broke - not on a time or date
related schedule. Although Andre' probably did have a schedule in
place.
BTW, Azat related to me that the Extra with the US engine was more
maintenance intensive than any of the Yak's or Sukhoi that he ever flew.
Again, the main reason for using the Extra by the NL was because of
it's US "Certification" , I believe if they could have given media rides
(compensation) in SU-29 they would have used them.
Respectfully, Rick
>>> fougapilot@hotmail.com 3/9/2004 2:19:39 PM >>>
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Daniel Fortin"
<fougapilot@hotmail.com>
If my memory serves me right, the Northern Lights Aerobatic Team
changed
their engine every 2 airshow seasons, which is somewhere 800hrs.
Dan Fortin
>From: "Jorgen Nielsen" <jorgen.nielsen@mweb.co.za>
>Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
>To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: Yak-List: EAA Article
>Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 20:02:34 +0200
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jorgen Nielsen"
><jorgen.nielsen@mweb.co.za>
>
>Agreed on all points and I would like to add my 2c worth.
>
>With attention to detail, emptying pockets, keeping count of tools,
>thorough pre-flights including the slapping of fuselage and checking
for
>FOD, I believe the "problem" or risk is minimal. If I didn't, I
would
>not fly.
>
>Re the cheaper parts etc., I have co-owned several western aircraft.
>All pipers. All were drains on the pocket in terms of breakages &
>maintenance. I have experienced turbo failure, gear failure, fuel
pump
>failure, vacuum pump failure (just love partial panel), asi failure,
>etc. etc. Those were failures, many more items faulty discovered
during
>annuals and fixed or replaced.
>
>The Yak's build quality is I believe better, and certainly not
subject
>to so called cheap parts. Quite the opposite. They were not built in
a
>commercially competitive environment, with cost cutting a major part
of
>business, and each manufacturer trying to bring products to market at
a
>price that would facilitate sales. How many western aircraft
>manufacturers have had financial problem, chapter 11, outright
>bankruptcy, etc? Or should that read, are their any that haven't?
>
>How many western aircraft are delivered with custom tool kits,
>comprehensive manuals (ok, so they in Russian), all components with
>their own "passports", all documents nicely bound and in leather
cases,
>tow bar, covers, spares kit, etc? The Yaks are. I don't think thats
>consistent with the cheaper parts philosophy, but rather a quality
>approach.
>
>Whats the TBO on western aerobatic engines that are flown hard?
>
>So that's my South African 2c, which is worth approx 0.28 US cents...
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Monzo
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: EAA Article
>
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bob Monzo"
<yakpilot@wideopenwest.com>
>
>Obviously, the EAA used the NTSB report in total as a feature article
>without any additional commentary. This is either laziness on the
part
>of the editors or an intentional act to discredit Yak-52s. I believe
>the last paragraph of report/article was completely subjective and
>wrong. It basically states the Russians used cheaper parts that are
>more prone to failure. Can this further from the truth? The
airplane
>and its components are all overbuilt, work well and are not prone to
>failure. In the seven years and 700 hours I have owned and flown my
>Yak, the only Russian component that has failed and was replaced was
the
>air compressor after 600 hours of service. On the other hand, some
of
>the western components that were added such as the Whelan lights,
>altimeters and airspeed indicators, Ceconite fabric on the rudder and
>elevator, ELT, and the motorized clean kit have required regular
>maintenance or have outright failed and have had to be replaced. In
the
>case of the mo! torized clean kit, it was completely removed after
one
>of its aluminum lines broke causing the loss of most of the oil
before
>an emergency landing was made. By the way, the Russian engine never
>wavered during this trauma caused by a western system that was
>supposedly added to protect it.
>
>Besides the letters we may write to the EAA as individuals, Redstar
>needs to respond as the organization that represents our interests.
>Just printing one or two of our letters in the Mail Call section is
not
>sufficient. Redstar must push for another feature article that
>addresses the fixes we are undertaking as owners to solve this FOD
>problem as well as the many virtues and fun factor of the Yak-52.
The
>fact remains that these are safe, robust, dependable and fun
airplanes
>that will not break the bank.
>
>Bob M.
>
>
>==
>direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>==
>==
>==
>
>
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: "Doug Thayer" <doug.thayer@charter.net>
Make sure you have the blade angles the same but...also look at the counterweights
and make sure that both counterweights are pushed all the way outboard on
the shaft as you tighten them down. Jill G. explained that as you tighten the
blade clamps they can work their way back away from the lip. That has been my
experience too. I frankly do not understand how after a prop is rebuilt it
would have exact the same balance as before. Just the slightest shift of the
counterwieghts or blades can make profound differences in the balance and it seems
to need to be rebalnced after a rebuild. The old position of the weights
will be close but not necesarily the same.
I've always set the blade angles off the aircraft on a bench. I use the mounting
bolts as leveling feet and get the hub completely level with a SMART TOOL level
especially perpendicular to the span of the prop.To Then I use a stiff metal
rule and a rubberband set at the proper station from the hub. I set the rule
on the backside of the prop and hold it in place with the rubber band wrapped
around the front side of the prop.That rule then is a base to put the level
on. If you use the prop itself it seems I get about 0.2 degree difference between
the leading and trailing edges of the prop due to its concave shape. I
guess you could use the same techniques with the prop on the airplane too.
Just some ideas...Tell us how it comes out.
Doug Thayer
YAK-52
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: | Hearts and Minds |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Graeme Frew" <gfrew@attglobal.net>
Hi there from N.Z.
If I might add some comment from the outside looking in. The guys who
imported my Nanchang and two others into Aussie in 1990 were the first of
type in their country (actaully I think the world) They had terrible
problems selling the other two as people would ring up, find out they were
Chinese, mutter something like 'I'm not buying something made in China" and
hang-up. The secret was to get their backsides strapped into the aeroplane
and then everything changed as they realised what we more enlightened souls
already know. The communists make a damn good aeroplane and a good value one
at that.
There is a lesson there. I would also suggest there is no mileage in
comparing our aeroplanes to other more problematic western types as it will
only serve to alienate those owners and bring the whole warbird operation
into suspicision from the general public. I understand there is a fringe
group trying to undermine your operation over there and the last thing you
need to do is give them ammo.
Just my thoughts and if it all sounds like crap well I only just got in from
L.A. and have had two hours sleep.
A well thought out group response as advocated over the last few days would
seem to be the best solution.
Blue skies to all.
Graeme Frew
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: Hearts and Minds |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "jay reiter" <jmreiter@adelphia.net>
Three cheers Graeme you are right
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graeme Frew" <gfrew@attglobal.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Hearts and Minds
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Graeme Frew" <gfrew@attglobal.net>
>
> Hi there from N.Z.
> If I might add some comment from the outside looking in. The guys who
> imported my Nanchang and two others into Aussie in 1990 were the first of
> type in their country (actaully I think the world) They had terrible
> problems selling the other two as people would ring up, find out they were
> Chinese, mutter something like 'I'm not buying something made in China"
and
> hang-up. The secret was to get their backsides strapped into the aeroplane
> and then everything changed as they realised what we more enlightened
souls
> already know. The communists make a damn good aeroplane and a good value
one
> at that.
>
> There is a lesson there. I would also suggest there is no mileage in
> comparing our aeroplanes to other more problematic western types as it
will
> only serve to alienate those owners and bring the whole warbird operation
> into suspicision from the general public. I understand there is a fringe
> group trying to undermine your operation over there and the last thing you
> need to do is give them ammo.
> Just my thoughts and if it all sounds like crap well I only just got in
from
> L.A. and have had two hours sleep.
>
> A well thought out group response as advocated over the last few days
would
> seem to be the best solution.
>
> Blue skies to all.
>
> Graeme Frew
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: EAA Warbirds |
--> Yak-List message posted by: cpayne@joimail.com
IMHO the real issue with the EAA Warbirds Magazine goes back
to Peter Moll's leaving. Peter worked night and day to both
direct the WOA corporation AND the magazine. Peter seemed to
just burn out, he even donated his weekends to Warbird work
parties and administered hammer to nail rather than sit in
the office. Since then WOA has split the jobs and contracted
the magazine editing out.
Results: Lots of "little" mistakes every month obviously
made by those who are not Warbirders or even aviation
people. That's just the magazine. Some WOA execs cop an
attitude about "Red Trash", I know 'cause that's what I
heard them say. Even with U.S. iron I can see a certain WOA
detachment from the woes the T-34 group is going through.
Lots of guys feeling tied to the (FAA) whipping post.
I wonder if they still want our airplanes in their airshows?
Craig Payne
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: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
I am pleased he called you as Bob (Warner) said that he would. Bob also told
me to pass onto the group that no bad feeling was intended by EAA to it's
members and that he will speak with the magazine. I have not yet heard from
Mike Schlos. Tom, as I said this morning I sent your mail as it best summed
up the general feeling. Looks like it worked.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tom Johnson
Subject: Yak-List: EAA Warbirds
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tom Johnson" <tjohnson@cannonaviation.com>
Bill Fisher, Executive Director of EAA Warbirds called me today.
Bill said they certainly never meant to "pick on" any particular plane, and
in retrospect feels they could have done a better job with this article.
The magazine is already printed so there is nothing more than can be done
about it.
Except to devote ink in the next issue to restore our reputation to glory.
Moving forward, they are committed to turn a positive spin on the situation
and make room for us in the next publication to present the other side of
the coin. (Actually due to production concerns, it would probably be the
May issue).
He was very accomodating and wants us to know they appreciate and need our
support.
So . . . our voice was heard loud and clear.
I for one am ready to put down the hatchet and pick up the pen.
This will be a great opportunity to tell it like we see it.
Since we have a clean slate, .. I'd like to see issues address such as:
FOD prevention and detection.
Quality and durability of parts . . the FAA report implied Yaks were made of
cheap, low quality parts.
This drives me NUTS!~ I've NEVER replaced a single part on my Yak, except
for a compressor, which could have been put back on with a new drive, and
also assorted rubber seals and things. If you've worked on a Yak, you know
the parts are wonderful pieces of machinery.
Safety and Training - Our RPA syllabus . . .Approved Spin Training . .
Formation and ACM training, etc. .
Not sure how best to coordinate, send me your thoughts and I'll try to
package them up for discussion.
Beware the wrath of a MaD Yak~!
TJ
**********************************
Thomas Johnson
Cannon Aviation Insurance
1983 Yak 52
Tel: 800-851-2997
Fax: 480-951-1455
Cell: 602-628-2701
E: tjohnson@cannonaviation.com
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: Prop balancing |
--> Yak-List message posted by: KevLCo@aol.com
Thanks to all who responded with helpful tips and guidance in reference to my
vibration problem. Your experiences and guidance are what keep us all coming
back to the board.
A little recap of the events, just in case it may help someone else. As
previously stated, I had resealed the prop, both the dome/piston seals and the
blade root seals. I reassembled the prop/hub assembly with great care (I find
that I frustrate my employer with my determined thoroughness), and set the blade
angles to book value. There was a horrible vibration. I rechecked my work,
and asked a local old timer to do the same. We both came up with the same
result. There were no balancing weights to remove from the hub to begin with,
so
maybe I needed to add some on..... And with the help of an ACES vibration
analysis box and some new weight plates I made, I once again have a smooth
running engine that is the envy of the airfield.
I found several things that helped me through the problem, I'll cover them
briefly for anyone who might find them useful.
I had a problem of consistent results when checking the blade angles.
Jacking the aircraft enough to steady the ship during prop rotation seemed to take
out several tenths/degree of error from one reading to another. Each time a
blade angle was set, the value would deviate .1 or .2 after moving the prop
around. Again, I'm rather meticulous, and this was irritating.
While it's on jacks, might as well bring up the mains to level the hub face
to 90 deg. Math was never my best subject, and with the hub at 90 deg, the
blade angles were easier to interpret.
While tightening the counterbalance arms to secure the blade angles, I used
wooden wedges between the hub and counterbalance arms to keep them up against
the lip of the collar where they belong. Otherwise, there was an ongoing
struggle to tighten the arm, keep the balance arm up against the collar while not
messing up the blade angle I had just set up.
On the subject of tightening the counterbalance arms, completely torque them
each time you think you have the angle set, you may find that the process of
torqueing slightly changes the setting.
My Yak does not have a spinner, therefore guessing where to mount the balance
weights is an act of educated guesses. The weights are mounted to the prop
hub, around the blade mounting nut. When the test calls for weight 25 degrees
from the blade target, you have to use a guess as to where on the hub ring to
mount the weight. Normally, you would use the spinner bulkhead to mount the
weight right where the test calls for it. No such luxury for me. We seemed to
guess right the first time, I consider ourselves lucky.
We started with 1.4 Inches per second variation. That's pretty ugly. After
using the dynamic balancer, adding some weight here and there, we ended up
with just over .4 One can really feel the difference.
Again, thanks to all who responded on the board, and those that returned my
calls. Your experience and desire to assist others is what keeps our kind of
aviation going and growing.
Kevin
Las Vegas
N152YK
A&P/IA/CSEL/CMEL
e-i-e-i-o
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: | We been "porked" |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
The YAK accident report in Warbirds is a matter of fact statement
without much judgment to it....right? Isn't that what they tell you?
I can just hear it now..."OHH, we were just trying to inform our
readers!" If you believe that line of bull I've got the twin towers to
sell you!
Has anyone ever seen a similar report about ANY other airplane? If the
answer is "no" then it is obvious there is an extreme bias against our
airplanes.
Just curious, are the writers and editors of this article T-34 owners?
Are they owners of aircraft that would compete in the market for similar
aircraft to ours? Is the value of the planes they own coming down
because so many people are going to former eastern block aircraft? Is
their pool of buyers being hurt by people going to a stronger, safer and
less expensive to own and operate YAK-52's?
You be the judge but, please, do ask yourself a few questions......Why
are they trying to hurt YAK-52 owners? Why are they trying to trash our
airplanes?
Frank
YAK-52
N9110M
PS I feel sorry for those flying the rattle trap CJ6 (Nanchang) :)
They're next!
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! --
|