Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:24 AM - stuff (cjpilot710@aol.com)
2. 04:48 AM - Re: brakes (A. Dennis Savarese)
3. 05:14 AM - Re: stuff (Ernie)
4. 07:39 AM - Copper strut valve gaskets (Ray P. Stallings)
5. 08:23 AM - Re: Brakes (Barry Hancock)
6. 08:37 AM - Re: (no subject) (Daniel Fortin)
7. 11:52 AM - air bottle SU-29 (Richard Basiliere)
8. 12:37 PM - Re: air bottle SU-29 (Doug Sapp)
9. 12:48 PM - Re: air bottle SU-29 (Rick Basiliere)
10. 01:09 PM - Need Air Intake for CJ (Jim Bernier)
11. 02:47 PM - Re: Re: Brakes (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
12. 02:54 PM - Re: brakes (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
13. 03:01 PM - Re: Rumors (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G)
14. 03:24 PM - Re: brakes (Doug Sapp)
15. 04:50 PM - Re: Re: Brakes (Brian Lloyd)
16. 04:52 PM - Re: Re: Brakes (Brian Lloyd)
17. 04:53 PM - Re: brakes (Brian Lloyd)
18. 07:16 PM - plugs (Bob Fitzpatrick)
19. 08:45 PM - Go figure (Barry Hancock)
20. 10:59 PM - Re: Rumors (Jerome Van Der Schaar)
21. 11:07 PM - Cool oil Painting (Jerome Van Der Schaar)
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: cjpilot710@aol.com
Troops,
It's 4am and I can't sleep. In a short while the alarm will go off and my
wife will take to me PHL for me to catch space available seat home.
June was quite a month. Lost a good fellow and fun member in a T-6 (Vern).
Spent 5 days changing out the bushing in the B-24 landing gear. Got a ride in
an Pitts S-12. Rode though some aerobatics in Hal's beautiful CJ-6 and feast
my eyes on his future grandchampion. Feathered my second big round engine in
42 years (first in 1962 in DC-3) when #4 craped out a master rod bearing on
the B-24 right at 200'. And watch my son get his Ph D.
The other thing I did was volunteer to do the RPA newsletter. I am now
asking stuff from you folks. Pilots and frustrated mechanics are mostly "visual"
people (they only understand only pictures) so I'll be needing lots of those.
I plan on included things like the minutes of Board meeting and our financial
status.
Alarm just went off!!! Got to go. More later>
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: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
The emergency air system on Yak 52's does power the brakes. Both the main
and emergency air systems going to the brake reducing valve (the common
point) in the 52 are isolated from each other by check valves.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Hancock" <radialpower@cox.net>
Subject: Yak-List: brakes
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <radialpower@cox.net>
>
> >
>
> A layman's perspective...
> >
> > Not wanting to argue but:
>
> Oh, let's! :)-
> >
> > 1. If you get a hyd. leak you usually notice it from the puddle of red
> > fluid
> > that gets your attention very fast.
>
> Unless the leak happens in flight. Ah, but then there's the backup
> system. OK, so that's two additional systems to fail and maintain.
>
> > With an air leak you don't usually
> > notice it because the system is huffing and puffing air in normal
> > operation.
> > When you DO notice it, it is usually HUGE. Installing a hyd. brake
> > system
> > allows these brakes to be completely separate from everything else.
>
> The emergency system is separate.
> > Further, one leak does not cause you to lose both brakes. (Of course
> > having
> > just one brake is no joy EITHER [smile])
>
> You'd need two leaks there also. One in each system.
>
> > It is also simple (no
> > proportional brake valve) and has easily available and cheap parts
> > replacement, and you use American Tires and wheels. Not recaps. Not
> > expensive tires that wear out quickly, etc.
>
> Why are retreads an issue. If they last, they last, right?
> >
> > 2. I was under the impression that the Emergency Bottle in YAKS only
> > allowed you to blow the gear down, not power the brakes. Am I wrong
> > about
> > that?
>
> I don't *think* that is correct in the Yaks, but I'm not a Yak driver.
> The emergency system on the CJ does power the brakes.
> >
> > 3. Having flown a YAK-50 that had a bad leak in the landing gear
> > actuator
> > (twice), I have seen how easy it is to lose ALL of the compressed air
> > in a
> > BIG hurry, such that the compressor can not keep up with it and the
> > reservoir empties faster than it can be filled. Result... no brakes.
>
> Sounds to me like a poorly maintained air system. A poorly maintained
> anything is gonna have issues, right?
> >
> > 4. It is very easy to start a YAK-50 or 52 without opening the main
> > air
> > valve. Result: No brakes.... and aircraft moving ahead that is
> > essentially
> > out of control. Pilot error yes.... also aided by brake design.
>
> Good point.
>
> >
> > 5. Hydraulic fluid used in aircraft brakes (such as the old 5606) is
> > not a
> > corrosive, being a petroleum based substance, however it is a
> > carcinogen
> > which could be considered worse I suppose.
>
> It does eat at rubber pretty good...
> >
> > 6. Hyd. brakes easily work as well as the air brakes, and allow a much
> > finer
> > level of control than the air brakes using a differential valve to
> > port air
> > to each wheel. As an example, Segei Boriak once told me that very few
> > Russian pilots ever wheel landed the Yak-50. He seemed surprised when
> > I
> > said it was easy and I did it all the time. Then I admitted that I had
> > hyd.
> > toe brakes and he laughed and said: "OH, that explains it".
> >
> > 7. How many brake handle and cable failures have we heard of in the
> > 50 and
> > 52's & CJ's?
>
> I don't know of any failures with properly replaced cables and
> stainless brake handles...
>
> > On
> > the other hand, a hyd. brake conversion, while not cheap, does address
> > some
> > safety issues in a very effective way and has the other benefits that I
> > listed above.
>
> I guess that's the main issue here, cost. Sure hyd. brakes are nice in
> some respects, but it's not without it's drawbacks...the biggest one
> being you'll have as much in the brake system as you will in the
> engine, prop, and avionics combined.
>
> But like you say, hey, it's your money. I replaced all the pneumatic
> lines and electrical in my entire airplane, so sanity isn't one of my
> strong suits!
>
> Also, you have a Yak-50. I am jealous... which accounts for my reason
> to "argue" with you in the first place. ;)-
>
> Barry
>
>
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: "Ernie" <ernest.martinez@oracle.com>
Writing for the news letter aye??? I hope you bought a spell checker.
Ernie
P.S. Still waiting for my prop seals.
----- Original Message -----
From: <cjpilot710@aol.com>
Subject: Yak-List: stuff
> --> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
>
> Troops,
> It's 4am and I can't sleep. In a short while the alarm will go off and my
> wife will take to me PHL for me to catch space available seat home.
>
> June was quite a month. Lost a good fellow and fun member in a T-6
(Vern).
> Spent 5 days changing out the bushing in the B-24 landing gear. Got a
ride in
> an Pitts S-12. Rode though some aerobatics in Hal's beautiful CJ-6 and
feast
> my eyes on his future grandchampion. Feathered my second big round engine
in
> 42 years (first in 1962 in DC-3) when #4 craped out a master rod bearing
on
> the B-24 right at 200'. And watch my son get his Ph D.
>
> The other thing I did was volunteer to do the RPA newsletter. I am now
> asking stuff from you folks. Pilots and frustrated mechanics are mostly
"visual"
> people (they only understand only pictures) so I'll be needing lots of
those.
> I plan on included things like the minutes of Board meeting and our
financial
> status.
>
> Alarm just went off!!! Got to go. More later>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Copper strut valve gaskets |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ray P. Stallings" <JetJockey@alumni.utexas.net>
Does anyone have a source for the soft copper gaskets that go on the Chinese
(possibly Russian also) strut valves? Looks like they are 16mm ID, 20mm OD.
The OD is critical since they fit down inside the recess in the gear struts.
Ray
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: Barry Hancock <radialpower@cox.net>
>>>
>
>> Oh, let's! :)-
>
> Normally, I don't... but if you really WANT to... I'm up for it, as
> long as
> it doesn't get personal! :-)
Well, this list is famous for it, but one of the two major players has
left the building <sigh>, it was entertaining...for a little while.
>
>
>>> 1. If you get a hyd. leak you usually notice it from the puddle of
>>> red
>>> fluid
>>> that gets your attention very fast.
>
>> Unless the leak happens in flight. Ah, but then there's the backup
>> system. OK, so that's two additional systems to fail and maintain.
>
>
> Excuse me: When was the last time you applied your brakes at 10,000
> feet to
> make sure they were working? Better yet, how could you tell?
No no, my point is if you have a failure (leak) on the ground you can
catch it, but if it's in the air with a hydraulic system you most
likely won't catch it, or if you do there's nothing to be done about
it...except find a long runway with a direct headwind.
The last time I applied my brakes in flight was when I wanted to slow
down really fast and subconsciously grabbed the brake handle! Also,
the air pressure gauge jumps a little when you squeeze the handle.
>> Sounds to me like a poorly maintained air system. A poorly maintained
>> anything is gonna have issues, right?
>
>
> No... excuse me but NO! I do not agree that an in-flight failure
> automatically insinuates "poor maintenance".
Well, I guess it's picking nits, but the failure rate of a properly
maintained system is very low. Most all of the various failures I've
seen in these aircraft come from neglect of some sort.
>
> your pneumatic operated actuators out of the aircraft and had them
> completely rebuilt? What about your hoses... both engine and
> pneumatic? Do
> you replace them without fail every 5 years? Just curious......
I have yet to have an airplane for 5 years, but I don't screw around
with maintenance. 50 and 100 hour inspections are included in my
maintenance program. Speaking of pneumatic maintenance, I hope
everyone removes and cleans/OH's their emergency check valves every two
years or 200 hours at a minimum. Doug Sapp has maintenance manuals
that outline the various inspections...well worth having.
>
> That aside.....The fact is, if you have one of the large rubber seals
> fail
> on a main landing gear actuator in a YAK-50, you will lose air very
> quickly.
> This has very little to do with how it was maintained, and a lot to do
> with
> just when a piece of rubber chooses that it is it's time to go.
This I have seen...and so has Drew. Unfortunately his "completely"
overhauled 50 did not include those rubber seals. That being said,
wouldn't regular replacement largely mitigate this problem?
>
> Regardless. Having flown both systems, I have had three problems that
> ended up causing low air and the possibility of lost braking action
> with
> pneumatic systems. I have not had one case of brake loss with the hyd.
> equipped 50.
I had an I-3 (for about 3 months). It had hydraulic brakes. 3 times I
lost effective braking power. I've never had any problems with low
braking power caused by low air pressure.
Touche! :)
>> I don't know of any failures with properly replaced cables and
>> stainless brake handles...
>
>
> And I don't know of any failures with a properly replaced pneumatic
> system
> with a hydraulic one especially since the modification REMOVES the
> brake
> handle and cable.
Uh, touche!
>
>> I guess that's the main issue here, cost. Sure hyd. brakes are nice
>> in
>> some respects, but it's not without it's drawbacks...the biggest one
>> being you'll have as much in the brake system as you will in the
>> engine, prop, and avionics combined.
>
>
> That is a very seriously exaggerated statement. Let's not even assume
> an MT
> 3 bladed prop... which goes for around 12 grand, or a new M-14PF ....
> 24
> grand, and an EFIS avionics system..... (wow). Let's instead just say
> a
> used old dinged up Russian prop...... 2 grand. A backyard rebuilt
> M-14P
> ... say 8 grand with hull, and a typical Russian radio... $500. Do
> you
> really think that hyd. brake conversion cost even close to TEN GRAND?
> No.
I was figuring the Baron set up.
>
> The axles are the hardest part. Figure $1000 MAXIMUM for each leg (I
> only
> have two). The rest comes right out of the homebuilt section of
> whatever
> catalog you want to pick. You're looking at a few thousand tops. I
> course
> I also am willing to do a lot of the work myself, so yes.. that
> reduces the
> price too.
Yes, I was including labor too. I'm really good at taking things
apart... :)
>
>> But like you say, hey, it's your money. I replaced all the pneumatic
>> lines and electrical in my entire airplane, so sanity isn't one of my
>> strong suits!
>
> Actually, I asked that very question earlier. I assume you used all
> Russian
> hoses and fittings, and that you will do it again in 5 years as is
> recommended?
For peace of mind I have American hoses and fittings where possible,
but yes, they will get replaced at regular intervals. Doesn't
everybody? I mean, that stuff can kill you....
> and it was indeed shocking to me.... there is more room for a tall
> person in
> a 50 than there is in any other model... except for maybe the Yak-55.
> I
> can't fit in Suke's, or CJ's or even a YAK-52. I guess I could take a
> hacksaw to my legs.....
Then you'd definitely need the pneumatic brakes!
Cheers,
Barry
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: "Daniel Fortin" <fougapilot@hotmail.com>
joeh@shaw.ca
>From: Vectorwarbirds@aol.com
>Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
>To: yak-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Yak-List: (no subject)
>Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 00:40:32 EDT
>
>--> Yak-List message posted by: Vectorwarbirds@aol.com
>
>Anybody know Joe Howse's email address?
>
>Thanks
>GBunn
>
>
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: | air bottle SU-29 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Basiliere" <BasiliereR@ci.boulder.co.us>
Friends;
Air bottle in SU-29 has developed a leak...on the bottom. Don't have
her pulled out yet. Looks like a booger. I'm guessing corrosion (?) in
Colorado for 9 years? I'll let you know.
Does anyone know of a source of new bottles? Any tips for R&R on this
project? Looks like I'll have to cut the baggage compartment to
facilitate removal, disconnect the bellcrank to the up-down (up-down
while on ground anyway) thingy on tail.
Any and all help appreciated.
Rick B
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: | air bottle SU-29 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug Sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Richard,
Not a clue as to what you have there but I do have new bottles for the CJ6.
If you have a CJ nearby check it out or send me the measurements.
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard
Basiliere
Subject: Yak-List: air bottle SU-29
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Basiliere"
<BasiliereR@ci.boulder.co.us>
Friends;
Air bottle in SU-29 has developed a leak...on the bottom. Don't have
her pulled out yet. Looks like a booger. I'm guessing corrosion (?) in
Colorado for 9 years? I'll let you know.
Does anyone know of a source of new bottles? Any tips for R&R on this
project? Looks like I'll have to cut the baggage compartment to
facilitate removal, disconnect the bellcrank to the up-down (up-down
while on ground anyway) thingy on tail.
Any and all help appreciated.
Rick B
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: | air bottle SU-29 |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Rick Basiliere <discrab@earthlink.net>
Doug;
Thanks for the response. I'll measure the bottle after work today. I understand
it is the 6 liter bottle though.
Thanks, Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Sapp <rvfltd@televar.com>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: air bottle SU-29
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug Sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Richard,
Not a clue as to what you have there but I do have new bottles for the CJ6.
If you have a CJ nearby check it out or send me the measurements.
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard
Basiliere
Subject: Yak-List: air bottle SU-29
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Basiliere"
<BasiliereR@ci.boulder.co.us>
Friends;
Air bottle in SU-29 has developed a leak...on the bottom. Don't have
her pulled out yet. Looks like a booger. I'm guessing corrosion (?) in
Colorado for 9 years? I'll let you know.
Does anyone know of a source of new bottles? Any tips for R&R on this
project? Looks like I'll have to cut the baggage compartment to
facilitate removal, disconnect the bellcrank to the up-down (up-down
while on ground anyway) thingy on tail.
Any and all help appreciated.
Rick B
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: | Need Air Intake for CJ |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jim Bernier" <JBernier@dart.org>
Does anyone have an Air intake structure from a CJ that they wish to
sell. I really only need the cowling, part JH2-6841-00, screen, part
JH2-6842-00, and the screws, H2-6840-30. I already tried Doug.
Jim B
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: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
Thanks for the nice reply Barry. I will shorten this up as I can, even
though that is not proper etiquette for a "thread".
>> Excuse me: When was the last time you applied your brakes at 10,000
>> feet to
>> make sure they were working? Better yet, how could you tell?
>No no, my point is if you have a failure (leak) on the ground you can
>catch it, but if it's in the air with a hydraulic system you most
>likely won't catch it, or if you do there's nothing to be done about
>it...except find a long runway with a direct headwind.
You're absolutely correct. However, I was not recommending a complete
replacement of all the air systems in the aircraft, just the brakes were
under discussion in my mind. Brakes are not under pressure in flight and it
would be highly unusual to have a properly maintained brake system fail in
flight... no more, or no less so, than a pneumatic one might. In my
aircraft, what I was really espousing was that the brakes were not tied into
a horde of other systems that could INDEED fail in flight....I.E., "The
other pneumatic ones." Take the design of the YAK-50's emergency bottle for
example... it is NOT tied into the brakes. I am sure the idea was to keep
it totally separate and remove the capability for leaks "elsewhere" to
impact it's intent to GET THE GEAR DOWN in an emergency. The whole premise
of many systems in aircraft call for totally independent operation to
preclude one failure from taking the whole thing down. The Russian design
has a lot of things tied to you having air pressure available, which is why
there is an emergency bottle... but in my case, not for the brakes. That in
mind, how can anyone say that removing the brake system from this complex
system and turning it into a stand alone item fails to make it safer? KISS
applies.
>> No... excuse me but NO! I do not agree that an in-flight failure
>> automatically insinuates "poor maintenance".
>Well, I guess it's picking nits, but the failure rate of a properly
>maintained system is very low. Most all of the various failures I've
>seen in these aircraft come from neglect of some sort.
Define "properly maintained". And in who's eyes... yours? The FAA's? The
former USSR's? Some of these questions might better be left unasked.
>I have yet to have an airplane for 5 years, but I don't screw around
>with maintenance.
So you fly in expert Chinese mechanics to inspect and fix your aircraft?
Sorry... I couldn't resist.... but seriously, there are serious differences
between a CJ-6 (or a YAK-50) and a Cessna. How did you determine the person
DOING your maintenance was qualified?
My answer to that is: I get a Russian mechanic to do everything out of the
ordinary.
>> That aside.....The fact is, if you have one of the large rubber seals
>> fail
>> on a main landing gear actuator in a YAK-50, you will lose air very
>> quickly.
>This I have seen...and so has Drew. Unfortunately his "completely"
>overhauled 50 did not include those rubber seals. That being said,
>wouldn't regular replacement largely mitigate this problem?
Yes it would. But......When you have pulled both of those actuators out and
have rebuilt them you will fully understand why his "completely rebuilt 50"
failed to have that done. It is a very time consuming and pain-staking
operation, and there are some serious questions as to the quality of the new
seals that are being put in being that they are NOT "original".
>> Regardless. Having flown both systems, I have had three problems that
>> ended up causing low air and the possibility of lost braking action
>> with pneumatic systems.
>I had an I-3 (for about 3 months). It had hydraulic brakes. 3 times I
>lost effective braking power.
Obviously then, it was not properly maintained. Or... it had a bad design.
Sorry.... I am smiling by the way.
>I've never had any problems with low
>braking power caused by low air pressure.
>Touche! :)
You also have an emergency system that gives you backup capability. The
YAK-50 does not.
>> Do you really think that hyd. brake conversion cost even close to TEN
GRAND?
> I was figuring the Baron set up.
Regardless, I agree it is not cheap. Cheap to me is less than $1000. Over
$1000 starts to make me sit up straighter and pay attention.
>> But like you say, hey, it's your money. I replaced all the pneumatic
>> lines and electrical in my entire airplane, so sanity isn't one of my
>> strong suits!
You rewired the WHOLE AIRCRAFT? You replaced ALL of the pneumatic lines?
Ok... I admit it.... I'm impressed.
>>For peace of mind I have American hoses and fittings where possible,
>>but yes, they will get replaced at regular intervals. Doesn't
>>everybody? I mean, that stuff can kill you....
Actually no... everybody does not. In fact... I do not. So shoot me! I
have Vladimir look at them every year and if one even LOOKS like it might be
questionable, he replaces it. I admit that I could easily spend enough money
on preventative maintenance to absorb my whole flying budget.
>> and it was indeed shocking to me.... there is more room for a tall
>> person in a 50
>> I guess I could take a hacksaw to my legs.....
>Then you'd definitely need the pneumatic brakes!
Touch
I think this matter is clearly a draw.
Take care,
Mark
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: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
Thanks... I was wondering about that!
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: A. Dennis Savarese [mailto:adsavar@gte.net]
Subject: Re: Yak-List: brakes
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
The emergency air system on Yak 52's does power the brakes. Both the main
and emergency air systems going to the brake reducing valve (the common
point) in the 52 are isolated from each other by check valves.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Hancock" <radialpower@cox.net>
Subject: Yak-List: brakes
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <radialpower@cox.net>
>
> >
>
> A layman's perspective...
> >
> > Not wanting to argue but:
>
> Oh, let's! :)-
> >
> > 1. If you get a hyd. leak you usually notice it from the puddle of red
> > fluid
> > that gets your attention very fast.
>
> Unless the leak happens in flight. Ah, but then there's the backup
> system. OK, so that's two additional systems to fail and maintain.
>
> > With an air leak you don't usually
> > notice it because the system is huffing and puffing air in normal
> > operation.
> > When you DO notice it, it is usually HUGE. Installing a hyd. brake
> > system
> > allows these brakes to be completely separate from everything else.
>
> The emergency system is separate.
> > Further, one leak does not cause you to lose both brakes. (Of course
> > having
> > just one brake is no joy EITHER [smile])
>
> You'd need two leaks there also. One in each system.
>
> > It is also simple (no
> > proportional brake valve) and has easily available and cheap parts
> > replacement, and you use American Tires and wheels. Not recaps. Not
> > expensive tires that wear out quickly, etc.
>
> Why are retreads an issue. If they last, they last, right?
> >
> > 2. I was under the impression that the Emergency Bottle in YAKS only
> > allowed you to blow the gear down, not power the brakes. Am I wrong
> > about
> > that?
>
> I don't *think* that is correct in the Yaks, but I'm not a Yak driver.
> The emergency system on the CJ does power the brakes.
> >
> > 3. Having flown a YAK-50 that had a bad leak in the landing gear
> > actuator
> > (twice), I have seen how easy it is to lose ALL of the compressed air
> > in a
> > BIG hurry, such that the compressor can not keep up with it and the
> > reservoir empties faster than it can be filled. Result... no brakes.
>
> Sounds to me like a poorly maintained air system. A poorly maintained
> anything is gonna have issues, right?
> >
> > 4. It is very easy to start a YAK-50 or 52 without opening the main
> > air
> > valve. Result: No brakes.... and aircraft moving ahead that is
> > essentially
> > out of control. Pilot error yes.... also aided by brake design.
>
> Good point.
>
> >
> > 5. Hydraulic fluid used in aircraft brakes (such as the old 5606) is
> > not a
> > corrosive, being a petroleum based substance, however it is a
> > carcinogen
> > which could be considered worse I suppose.
>
> It does eat at rubber pretty good...
> >
> > 6. Hyd. brakes easily work as well as the air brakes, and allow a much
> > finer
> > level of control than the air brakes using a differential valve to
> > port air
> > to each wheel. As an example, Segei Boriak once told me that very few
> > Russian pilots ever wheel landed the Yak-50. He seemed surprised when
> > I
> > said it was easy and I did it all the time. Then I admitted that I had
> > hyd.
> > toe brakes and he laughed and said: "OH, that explains it".
> >
> > 7. How many brake handle and cable failures have we heard of in the
> > 50 and
> > 52's & CJ's?
>
> I don't know of any failures with properly replaced cables and
> stainless brake handles...
>
> > On
> > the other hand, a hyd. brake conversion, while not cheap, does address
> > some
> > safety issues in a very effective way and has the other benefits that I
> > listed above.
>
> I guess that's the main issue here, cost. Sure hyd. brakes are nice in
> some respects, but it's not without it's drawbacks...the biggest one
> being you'll have as much in the brake system as you will in the
> engine, prop, and avionics combined.
>
> But like you say, hey, it's your money. I replaced all the pneumatic
> lines and electrical in my entire airplane, so sanity isn't one of my
> strong suits!
>
> Also, you have a Yak-50. I am jealous... which accounts for my reason
> to "argue" with you in the first place. ;)-
>
> Barry
>
>
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: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
Sure, it is a F-MFAM That is: Made for a movie.
The carrier in question is CVN-72 (The Abraham Lincoln) and the aircraft
(per se) is from an upcoming movie called "Stealth"... out next summer? I
think so anyway. Wanna know the pilot? :-)
Mark
N50YK
-----Original Message-----
From: Kendel McCarley [mailto:kmmccarley@earthlink.net]
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Rumors
--> Yak-List message posted by: Kendel McCarley <kmmccarley@earthlink.net>
Looks cool. Ain't stealthy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Haertlein <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Rumors
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
<yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Yaksters,
You seen it here first :)
Let the Rumors begin!
Anyone want to tell me what the hell this is? Hehehehe :)
Click here http://home.earthlink.net/~yak52driver/rumors.html
Frank
N911OM
YAK-52
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: "Doug Sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Guys I have been following this with some interest, I find it hard to
believe that the emergency system in the 50 will not support breaking. My
Yak 18 which was built in 1956 and is many respects is the same as the 50,
has this capability. Are we sure that ALL 50's are constructed like this or
just your 50?? IMHO it makes little sense to set it up in this manner.
I'm afraid I'd be putting the diverter valve in if it were me.
Just my 5 cents worth.
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bitterlich GS11
Mark G
Subject: RE: Yak-List: brakes
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G
<BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
Thanks... I was wondering about that!
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: A. Dennis Savarese [mailto:adsavar@gte.net]
Subject: Re: Yak-List: brakes
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <adsavar@gte.net>
The emergency air system on Yak 52's does power the brakes. Both the main
and emergency air systems going to the brake reducing valve (the common
point) in the 52 are isolated from each other by check valves.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Hancock" <radialpower@cox.net>
Subject: Yak-List: brakes
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <radialpower@cox.net>
>
> >
>
> A layman's perspective...
> >
> > Not wanting to argue but:
>
> Oh, let's! :)-
> >
> > 1. If you get a hyd. leak you usually notice it from the puddle of red
> > fluid
> > that gets your attention very fast.
>
> Unless the leak happens in flight. Ah, but then there's the backup
> system. OK, so that's two additional systems to fail and maintain.
>
> > With an air leak you don't usually
> > notice it because the system is huffing and puffing air in normal
> > operation.
> > When you DO notice it, it is usually HUGE. Installing a hyd. brake
> > system
> > allows these brakes to be completely separate from everything else.
>
> The emergency system is separate.
> > Further, one leak does not cause you to lose both brakes. (Of course
> > having
> > just one brake is no joy EITHER [smile])
>
> You'd need two leaks there also. One in each system.
>
> > It is also simple (no
> > proportional brake valve) and has easily available and cheap parts
> > replacement, and you use American Tires and wheels. Not recaps. Not
> > expensive tires that wear out quickly, etc.
>
> Why are retreads an issue. If they last, they last, right?
> >
> > 2. I was under the impression that the Emergency Bottle in YAKS only
> > allowed you to blow the gear down, not power the brakes. Am I wrong
> > about
> > that?
>
> I don't *think* that is correct in the Yaks, but I'm not a Yak driver.
> The emergency system on the CJ does power the brakes.
> >
> > 3. Having flown a YAK-50 that had a bad leak in the landing gear
> > actuator
> > (twice), I have seen how easy it is to lose ALL of the compressed air
> > in a
> > BIG hurry, such that the compressor can not keep up with it and the
> > reservoir empties faster than it can be filled. Result... no brakes.
>
> Sounds to me like a poorly maintained air system. A poorly maintained
> anything is gonna have issues, right?
> >
> > 4. It is very easy to start a YAK-50 or 52 without opening the main
> > air
> > valve. Result: No brakes.... and aircraft moving ahead that is
> > essentially
> > out of control. Pilot error yes.... also aided by brake design.
>
> Good point.
>
> >
> > 5. Hydraulic fluid used in aircraft brakes (such as the old 5606) is
> > not a
> > corrosive, being a petroleum based substance, however it is a
> > carcinogen
> > which could be considered worse I suppose.
>
> It does eat at rubber pretty good...
> >
> > 6. Hyd. brakes easily work as well as the air brakes, and allow a much
> > finer
> > level of control than the air brakes using a differential valve to
> > port air
> > to each wheel. As an example, Segei Boriak once told me that very few
> > Russian pilots ever wheel landed the Yak-50. He seemed surprised when
> > I
> > said it was easy and I did it all the time. Then I admitted that I had
> > hyd.
> > toe brakes and he laughed and said: "OH, that explains it".
> >
> > 7. How many brake handle and cable failures have we heard of in the
> > 50 and
> > 52's & CJ's?
>
> I don't know of any failures with properly replaced cables and
> stainless brake handles...
>
> > On
> > the other hand, a hyd. brake conversion, while not cheap, does address
> > some
> > safety issues in a very effective way and has the other benefits that I
> > listed above.
>
> I guess that's the main issue here, cost. Sure hyd. brakes are nice in
> some respects, but it's not without it's drawbacks...the biggest one
> being you'll have as much in the brake system as you will in the
> engine, prop, and avionics combined.
>
> But like you say, hey, it's your money. I replaced all the pneumatic
> lines and electrical in my entire airplane, so sanity isn't one of my
> strong suits!
>
> Also, you have a Yak-50. I am jealous... which accounts for my reason
> to "argue" with you in the first place. ;)-
>
> Barry
>
>
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: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
Bitterlich GS11 Mark G wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
>
>
> Thanks for the nice reply Barry. I will shorten this up as I can, even
> though that is not proper etiquette for a "thread".
Hey everybody! I want you to notice that I stayed out of this one! (Well, until
now that is. :-)
I do want to make one comment: they are different systems with different failure
modes. Both have single points of failure. Neither appears to me to have a
significant advantage in reliability. YMMV.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
Bitterlich GS11 Mark G wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G <BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
>
>
> Thanks for the nice reply Barry. I will shorten this up as I can, even
> though that is not proper etiquette for a "thread".
I think you did a great job of cutting out the unnecessary stuff. You have to
leave some of it in there so people can follow the thread.
I do want to make one comment: they are different systems with different failure
modes. Both have single points of failure. Neither appears to me to have a
significant advantage in reliability. You should fly with whichever system suits
your fancy. YMMV.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
And in the CJ6A the emergency system powers the gear, brakes, AND flaps.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.360.838.9669 (fax)
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest.
A good citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bob Fitzpatrick <rmfitz@direcway.com>
Someone was looking for Russian plugs. I just replaced mine and have 18 un cleaned/un
tested plugs (60-300+hrs,all firing) that are going to land fill. If anyone
wants them i'll bring them to MTW/OSH. RSVP.
bob
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <radialpower@cox.net>
I don't want to take the time to go back and count, but anyone who has
been on this list for any length of time will know this is one of those
cyclical topics....NITROGEN!!!!!
<the entire subscription base gasps and moans>
Foundation:
OK, I have about 5 years and 400+ hours behind 4 different M14P/Housai
motors. In that time I have NEVER experienced a problem starting the
engine using nitrogen to charge the system. I have seen countless Yaks
and CJs started with Nitrogen. I have never seen it fail...until this
week.
Problem child:
Our esteemed RPA President brought his plane to Chino to be fitted with
an MT prop before heading east to its new home in Florida. Out of
respect for Drew's resulting new heartburn problem, I will not lament
its other woes since arriving here. Needless to say, a Russian
overhaul is not a US overhaul...period.
So, Drew flew the plane at CNO, did 211 (or was it 212?) circuits to
get comfortable landing the plane, and then pushed it into Steve's
hangar for the prop change. After fixing the "overhaul" problems, the
prop was on and the plane was ready to go. Steve pushed it out,
charged the system with nitrogen, and proceeded to spend the next two
days trouble shooting an engine that had zero problems the last time it
flew. I was there at the end of day two, watching Steve go from tears,
to a wrench throwing gorilla, to the most vulgar Hungarian I have ever
heard. Poor guy was at his wits end. The engine was getting fuel, the
mags were fine, cylinders were getting good sparks....literally nothing
left to trouble shoot.
"It can't be the Nitrogen, I start mine all the time that way and I've
never seen a plane not start using nitrogen," I said. Steve agreed,
"We do it all the time in Hungary." Well, it works with US nitrogen,
it works with Hungarian nitrogen. Perhaps it was the Chino nitrogen?
Do they fill their bottles directly from the dairy cow's arse? Oh
wait, that's methane.
Well, Steve calls Bill Blackwell yesterday and Bill reports the same
problem starting a CJ just last week. What fixed it? Normal air!
Keep in mind Bill is a guy that used to laugh at the notion that you
can't start our engines with Nitrogen. He's never had a problem with
it before, either. Vladimir would tell you the same thing...
OK, so I'm highly skeptical based on my experience, but what the heck,
it can't hurt.
So Steve calls me and I tell him to go over to my hangar (I hate it
when work gets in the way of watching other people's agony, err, fun!)
and grab my scuba bottle.
Long story short is it started...on the first blade!
Gang, we have had many email strings talking about this and some
(including myself) have scoffed at the notion that you cannot start
these engines with Nitrogen. I have just witnessed this first hand and
would like to apologize for discounting others assertion that Nitrogen
can cause difficulties with combustion. I just witnessed it with my
own eyes...well, sort of.
So, mechanical geniuses, explain this one....
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerome Van Der Schaar" <jvds30@hotmail.com>
www.darkhorizons.com/news04/040627b.php
Have a look at that one...
Jerome
www.yakkes.com
-------Original Message-------
From: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Rumors
--> Yak-List message posted by: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G
<BitterlichMG@cherrypoint.usmc.mil>
Sure, it is a F-MFAM That is: Made for a movie.
The carrier in question is CVN-72 (The Abraham Lincoln) and the aircraft
(per se) is from an upcoming movie called "Stealth"... out next summer? I
think so anyway. Wanna know the pilot? :-)
Mark
N50YK
-----Original Message-----
From: Kendel McCarley [mailto:kmmccarley@earthlink.net]
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Rumors
--> Yak-List message posted by: Kendel McCarley <kmmccarley@earthlink.net>
Looks cool. Ain't stealthy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Haertlein <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Rumors
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
<yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Yaksters,
You seen it here first :)
Let the Rumors begin!
Anyone want to tell me what the hell this is? Hehehehe :)
Click here http://home.earthlink.net/~yak52driver/rumors.html
Frank
N911OM
YAK-52
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cool oil Painting |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerome Van Der Schaar" <jvds30@hotmail.com>
Did find this Italian painter, well see for yourself:
http://www.yakkes.com/shop/painting.jpg
Cool huh?
Jerome
www.yakkes.com
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! --
|