Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:29 AM - vidio files (Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd)
2. 12:46 AM - so... (Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd)
3. 04:00 AM - In all her glory. (Frank Haertlein)
4. 04:30 AM - Steen Aero Lab (Gus Fraser)
5. 04:30 AM - Re: In all her glory. (Gus Fraser)
6. 09:05 AM - CJ6 Pilot seat (jay reiter)
7. 09:31 AM - Re: Wing Fatigue ()
8. 09:45 AM - Re: Re: Wing Fatigue (Daniel Fortin)
9. 05:24 PM - Re: Re: Wing Fatigue (Gus Fraser)
10. 07:07 PM - Re: Re: Wing Fatigue (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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd" <mark@yakuk.com>
Luke, you may like to try these links
http://www.yakuk.com/img/EVORA.MOV this is 38 megs so you need ADSL for sure!!
http://www.yakuk.com/downloads.htm and this page has a number of shorter links to mpeg files.
another link http://www.yakuk.com/img/Lomcovak.mpeg
this one is nice with evocative music http://www.yakuk.com/img/Evora1.MOV
they are mainly in www.quicktime.com format.
good luck, mark.
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Luke Sadler" <luke@soundcentre.com.vu>
Mark J,
Do have any web sites that show your demo/airshow flights in the yak 52 for
us to watch?
Regards
Luke
YAKOVLEV aircraft sales
Mark Jefferies
Chief pilot and managing director YAK UK Ltd
Lt Gransden Airfield
Sandy, Beds
SG19 3BP
England
EGMJ 52'10N 000'10W
mark@yakuk.com
www.yakuk.com tel:
fax:
mobile: +44 1767 651156
+44 1767 651157
+44 7785 538 317
Signature powered by Plaxo Want a signature like this?
Add me to your address book...
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Jefferies YAK UK Ltd" <mark@yakuk.com>
so........USA does have trade barriers (subtle) still. I was only trying to help
people that have this chute so I got the packing manual translated, its an important
subject. So guessing at packing usually works with an experienced rigger
but who knows there may be a little snip of critical info in the manual.
If the chute is good enough for a 800 kph ejection I am sure it meets FAA standards
and will have a part/ drawing number. Why does no one "certify" the chute
then?
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
The manual might be interesting reading, but doesn't alter the fact that
Russian/Chinese chutes have no TSO, nor NAF/AAF/AN drawing number as
required by FAR 91.307 (e) for them to be sat upon in a flying airplane in
the US.
YAKOVLEV aircraft sales
Mark Jefferies
Chief pilot and managing director YAK UK Ltd
Lt Gransden Airfield
Sandy, Beds
SG19 3BP
England
EGMJ 52'10N 000'10W
mark@yakuk.com
www.yakuk.com tel:
fax:
mobile: +44 1767 651156
+44 1767 651157
+44 7785 538 317
Signature powered by Plaxo Want a signature like this?
Add me to your address book...
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: | In all her glory. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
OK, Boys,
Here she is in all her flopped glory :(
http://home.earthlink.net/~yak52driver/flopped.html
Frank
N9110M
YAK-52 (From the Yakovlev flying tank factory!)
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: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
Does anyone live near Palm Bay, FL ?
If so I have been talking to Steen Aero Lab (makers of the Pitts s1C kit)
and they are keen to build a smoke oil tank for me that will fit in the
passenger seat with a quick disconnect fitting. I figure that this gives
great utility, especially if it is strong enough for my 110 lb wife to sit
on.
If you do live near and have a 52 they would really like to see a Yak to
take some measurements and to take some pictures.
Who knows, maybe you will come away with a good idea ?
They also do nozzles and fittings including a 28V pump.
Thanks in advance
Gus
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: | In all her glory. |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
WHat a sad start to the day, we feel your pain Frank, hope she is back up
soon.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Frank Haertlein
Subject: Yak-List: In all her glory.
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
<yak52driver@earthlink.net>
OK, Boys,
Here she is in all her flopped glory :(
http://home.earthlink.net/~yak52driver/flopped.html
Frank
N9110M
YAK-52 (From the Yakovlev flying tank factory!)
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: "jay reiter" <jmreiter@adelphia.net>
Has any one looked into modifying the fuselage and equipment shelf aft of the pilot
to tilt the seat to accommodate a tall pilot with chute?
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: Wing Fatigue |
--> Yak-List message posted by: <radialpower@cox.net>
Byron, et.al.,
I too was compelled by the article...the same way I was by the Yak-52
article. The guy was full of facts but no practical solutions or insight into
how we can address the situation other than to contemplate our navels
(and other body parts). It was another "gee, thanks" article for which I'm
getting very frustrated at Warbirds magazine. They are supposed to
promote safety (which, to me, means giving practical solutions/
applications), but all I got out of that article is a bunch of hypotheticals
as it relates to our aircraft.
If I remember correctly, the Russians use a G-limit that is 50% of
structural failure (of a NEW wing). I don't recall what the Chinese
used...Pappy?
However, the article did indirectly highlight that if you are using your
aircraft in a higher G environment you need to make sure you are doing
a thorough preflight (inspecting structural integrity, working rivets, etc.)
every time you fly, and it would be wise to be on a 50 hour inspection
program, etc.
Now, take this information, your own cup, and a quarter to 7-Eleven, and
you just might get a cup of coffee.... :)
Cheers,
Barry
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: | Re: Wing Fatigue |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Daniel Fortin" <fougapilot@hotmail.com>
Wasn't there an article in the old Yak Pilot Club magazine about the CJ
design life and metal fatigue? If anyone has a copy of it, I sure would
like to read it.
Dan
>From: <radialpower@cox.net>
>Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: Re: Wing Fatigue
>Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:30:47 -0500
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: <radialpower@cox.net>
>
>Byron, et.al.,
>
>I too was compelled by the article...the same way I was by the Yak-52
>article. The guy was full of facts but no practical solutions or insight
>into
>how we can address the situation other than to contemplate our navels
>(and other body parts). It was another "gee, thanks" article for which I'm
>getting very frustrated at Warbirds magazine. They are supposed to
>promote safety (which, to me, means giving practical solutions/
>applications), but all I got out of that article is a bunch of
>hypotheticals
>as it relates to our aircraft.
>
>If I remember correctly, the Russians use a G-limit that is 50% of
>structural failure (of a NEW wing). I don't recall what the Chinese
>used...Pappy?
>
>However, the article did indirectly highlight that if you are using your
>aircraft in a higher G environment you need to make sure you are doing
>a thorough preflight (inspecting structural integrity, working rivets,
>etc.)
>every time you fly, and it would be wise to be on a 50 hour inspection
>program, etc.
>
>Now, take this information, your own cup, and a quarter to 7-Eleven, and
>you just might get a cup of coffee.... :)
>
>Cheers,
>
>Barry
>
>
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: Wing Fatigue |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
The Russians use a full 100% above structural failure as opposed to the US
standard of 50%. I was told that the reason for doing this was to account
for manufacture tolerances which are lower in Russian production.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
radialpower@cox.net
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Wing Fatigue
--> Yak-List message posted by: <radialpower@cox.net>
Byron, et.al.,
I too was compelled by the article...the same way I was by the Yak-52
article. The guy was full of facts but no practical solutions or insight
into
how we can address the situation other than to contemplate our navels
(and other body parts). It was another "gee, thanks" article for which I'm
getting very frustrated at Warbirds magazine. They are supposed to
promote safety (which, to me, means giving practical solutions/
applications), but all I got out of that article is a bunch of hypotheticals
as it relates to our aircraft.
If I remember correctly, the Russians use a G-limit that is 50% of
structural failure (of a NEW wing). I don't recall what the Chinese
used...Pappy?
However, the article did indirectly highlight that if you are using your
aircraft in a higher G environment you need to make sure you are doing
a thorough preflight (inspecting structural integrity, working rivets, etc.)
every time you fly, and it would be wise to be on a 50 hour inspection
program, etc.
Now, take this information, your own cup, and a quarter to 7-Eleven, and
you just might get a cup of coffee.... :)
Cheers,
Barry
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: Wing Fatigue |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Gus;
The design philosophy of almost anything you can care to mention is
partly based on the judgment of the designer and the criteria he is
working with. If I'm trying to design a part that is as light as
possible, using that as the main driver in my decision making process,
then I could consider other design factors secondary, say, the strength
of a part. If you can totally characterize the operational environment
of a given item you could design with margins as low a 1.1% of required
strength.
There is this almost unwritten rule or law of bigger, better, faster,
more powerful, lighter and cheaper that drives engineering decisions.
(By-the-way, I can cite to you specific examples of planned obsolescence
by automotive engineers.....particularly in GM cars. It's designed to
produce revenue. Toyota is an example of engineering practices to
maximize operational life of a vehicle....but I digress).
Parts or material tolerances play a part in that decision making
process. If you have access to Finite Element Analysis (FEA) tools then
you can design a part with just enough strength to operate over its
expected design range. This makes the part lighter and maybe less
expensive. The use of composites may in fact cause an increase in parts
cost due to the high initial cost of the material and the labor
intensive nature of building parts out of it. It's all a balancing act
driven by your customer's needs, produce-ability, cost. Etc. Wouldn't it
be great to have 100% titanium fasteners in your aircraft? The problem
is you couldn't afford it.
If you don't have modern engineering tools for analysis of your parts
then you might use a combination of empirical experience and less
sophisticated analysis tools to design your parts. That will probly
result in a margin of excess strength in your design as you would tend
to manufacturing beefier parts. It would seem to me that this has been
the Russian design philosophy for their airplanes......particularly the
YAK-52 as personal experience has shown. Thank God for that as it gives
our airplanes that extra margin of strength when we face the unknowns of
typical aircraft usage. If anyone disagrees with that statement they are
invited to respond and offer an alternative viewpoint.
An added benefit of design philosophies requiring 100% more strength
than required is that it results in a longer lasting part. Add this up
with the superlative corrosion treatment provided for the YAK-52 and
it's easy to see that they meant the airplane to last awhile. Contrast
that with most American manufactured planes that have virtually no
corrosion proofing and parts designed with a lower margin (say only 50%
over design) and you have planes not designed to last too long. Our
aging fleet of American planes are fast approaching the scrap heap due
to corrosion, for example.
To be fair, beefier construction of planes like the YAK-52, do have
their faults. For example, the planes tend to be heavier and thus they
require more horsepower and fuel to pull them thru the air. To me that
is a small price considering the initial purchase price of an airplane.
I can absorb a slightly higher fuel cost much more readily than shelling
out hundreds of thousands of dollars for a new plane that won't last as
long, is a little faster and sips fuel a little less. Whoopeedee, the
$150,000 I saved by buying my YAK will buy allot of fuel.....maybe more
than I can use in my lifetime! But then again, I fly for pleasure not
business or profit. It's all a balancing act depending on your needs.
Bottom line is Yaks will be flying for a long time, probly longer than
your average spam can. Few people take them to plus 7 and minus 5 G's
every flight and they were designed to operate at those levels for 2000
hours (another conservative estimate buy the factory). What are the real
numbers? I don't think anyone really knows.......they just provide
educated guesses to be on the safe side. I suppose we could instrument
critical areas of our planes with accelerometers and record all G
loadings our planes are subject to and thus arrive at a very close
approximation of operating life. Maybe that's a real possibility given
the current state of our electronics......kind of an odometer for our
airplanes.......
Frank
N9110M
YAK-52
-----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: Re: Wing Fatigue
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
The Russians use a full 100% above structural failure as opposed to the
US standard of 50%. I was told that the reason for doing this was to
account for manufacture tolerances which are lower in Russian
production.
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
radialpower@cox.net
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Wing Fatigue
--> Yak-List message posted by: <radialpower@cox.net>
Byron, et.al.,
I too was compelled by the article...the same way I was by the Yak-52
article. The guy was full of facts but no practical solutions or
insight into how we can address the situation other than to contemplate
our navels (and other body parts). It was another "gee, thanks" article
for which I'm getting very frustrated at Warbirds magazine. They are
supposed to promote safety (which, to me, means giving practical
solutions/ applications), but all I got out of that article is a bunch
of hypotheticals as it relates to our aircraft.
If I remember correctly, the Russians use a G-limit that is 50% of
structural failure (of a NEW wing). I don't recall what the Chinese
used...Pappy?
However, the article did indirectly highlight that if you are using your
aircraft in a higher G environment you need to make sure you are doing a
thorough preflight (inspecting structural integrity, working rivets,
etc.) every time you fly, and it would be wise to be on a 50 hour
inspection program, etc.
Now, take this information, your own cup, and a quarter to 7-Eleven, and
you just might get a cup of coffee.... :)
Cheers,
Barry
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
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! --
|