Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:26 AM - Re: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening (Jay Land)
2. 05:31 AM - Re: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening (A. Dennis Savarese)
3. 06:33 AM - This month's Sport Aviation (Janet Davidson)
4. 06:51 AM - Re: Get out or you're dead! (Robert Starnes)
5. 06:55 AM - Re: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening (Ernest Martinez)
6. 07:30 AM - Re: Get out or you're dead! (cjpilot710@aol.com)
7. 07:41 AM - AYS (cjpilot710@aol.com)
8. 07:50 AM - Re: [SPAM] - Re: Waycross Ground School - Thursday (Jay Land)
9. 08:17 AM - Re: [SPAM] - Re: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening - Email found in subject (Ernest Martinez)
10. 09:34 AM - getting out (Jerry Painter)
11. 10:04 AM - Emergency exits (Lee Taylor)
12. 10:40 AM - Yak 50 and 52 rudder cable tunnels (Roger Baker)
13. 11:00 AM - Re: Emergency exits (A. Dennis Savarese)
14. 11:06 AM - Seat Harnesses (Barry Hancock)
15. 11:56 AM - I am a pilot. (Tim Gagnon)
16. 12:51 PM - Re: Yak 50 and 52 rudder cable tunnels (p.goswick)
17. 12:51 PM - Re: Yak 50 and 52 rudder cable tunnels (p.goswick)
18. 01:15 PM - Im a pilot (Tim Gagnon)
19. 05:42 PM - Re: Get out or you're dead! (Frank Haertlein)
20. 05:44 PM - Bail Out!? (Mark Williamson)
21. 07:21 PM - Re: Bail Out!? (Gus Fraser)
22. 08:17 PM - Bail Out (NapeOne@aol.com)
23. 08:59 PM - Re: Bail Out!? (Ron Davis)
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: | Re: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Jay Land <jland@popeandland.com>
What are everyone's plans with the weather outlook for Thursday and Friday?
I am looking at getting to Waycross late Wed afternoon and looks like Thurs
might be ok through early afternoon. Friday is a 50% chance of rain and
thunderstorms and Sat and Sun look fine.
Jay
> From: Shane Golden <scgsmg@direcway.com>
> Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:25:22 -0500
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Shane Golden <scgsmg@direcway.com>
>
> How about we move the ground school to Thursday (13 Jan) evening after
> sunset(Over beer and pizza)? I believe most are planning to arrive on
> Thursday. This way we have the ground school out of the way and should be
> able to get 3-4 more sorties in on Friday. If this is a major problem for
> anyone let me know.
>
>
> Shane Golden
>
> 803-532-9063
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <DSAVARESE@ELMORE.RR.COM>
Here in central Alabama the weather forecast for Thurs. is pretty poor.
Weather permitting, I'm planning on arriving before noon on Thurs. However,
with the severe thunderstorms prediction and possible tornadoes, I may not
be able to get there until Friday.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Land" <jland@popeandland.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Jay Land <jland@popeandland.com>
>
> What are everyone's plans with the weather outlook for Thursday and
Friday?
>
> I am looking at getting to Waycross late Wed afternoon and looks like
Thurs
> might be ok through early afternoon. Friday is a 50% chance of rain and
> thunderstorms and Sat and Sun look fine.
>
> Jay
>
> > From: Shane Golden <scgsmg@direcway.com>
> > Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:25:22 -0500
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Yak-List: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening
> >
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: Shane Golden <scgsmg@direcway.com>
> >
> > How about we move the ground school to Thursday (13 Jan) evening after
> > sunset(Over beer and pizza)? I believe most are planning to arrive on
> > Thursday. This way we have the ground school out of the way and should
be
> > able to get 3-4 more sorties in on Friday. If this is a major problem
for
> > anyone let me know.
> >
> >
> > Shane Golden
> >
> > 803-532-9063
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | This month's Sport Aviation |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Janet Davidson" <gbvfx@hotmail.com>
"Flight Behind the Great Wall" I haven't even read the article yet, but
there's a nice picture of a CJ-5 amongst other airplanes... Happy reading!
Janet
Ph: 920 232 9238
email: gbvfx@hotmail.com
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Get out or you're dead! |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Robert Starnes <a35plt@yahoo.com>
I have read that one of the reasons jets/ high
performance A/C have ejection seats was because many
of the early jets were unrecoverable once a spin was
allowed to develop. Spiun recovery procedure in
aircraft such as the F-8 was to punch out! The theory
was also that the G forces in a spin would work to pin
a pilot in a cockpit and also inhibit the separation
of the canopy from the airplane, even if the canopy
release was pulled. Thus the introduction of explosive
canopies and ejection seats. Remember, the early
ejection seats were extraction systems that merely
removed the pilot from the airplane, after exiting the
A/C the ripcord still had to be pulled on the chute.
We have come along way with zero-zero seats with
multiple pull handles, primacorded canopies, etc.
After assisting the NTSB with the CJ crash in
Edgewood, Texas where the pilot snagged a guy wire in
cruise flight and the wing DID NOT separate from the
airplane, I don't know of any CJ wing failures. I say
that as a Bonanza owner in addition to my CJ
interests, so I am someone very interested in this
wing failure stuff. Anytime you want to punch out of
the bottom of a cloud at 300 knots and yank back on
the stick, something is probably gonna break. Let off
on the CJ digs, we all know you can't help it because
yours is smaller...;-)
-Robert Starnes
--- Frank Haertlein <yak52driver@earthlink.net> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Getting out!
>
> Yakinators...............
>
> Just got my new chutes and tried them out in the 52.
> They are very
> comfortable and allow freedom of movement for all
> normal cockpit
> functions.
>
> There seems to be a problem though. As someone on
> this list previously
> suggested, "you should put on your chute and
> practice getting in and out
> of your airplane".
>
> For me, getting in isn't the problem, it's getting
> out! With 17 pounds
> of chute strapped to my a$$ while its harnessed over
> the shoulders and
> thighs it would seem that the chute backing (the
> part that connects the
> seat-pack with the shoulder straps) works to inhibit
> my ability to get
> out of the plane. Maybe there's some technique here
> I'm unaware of.
>
> Getting out without the chute is easy enough. It's
> when I try to get out
> with the chute that it seems the backing works to
> seriously inhibit my
> ability to raise myself up and out of the seat.
>
> We've all read or heard about the T-34 guys going in
> with their birds
> even though they had chutes. As suggested, the FAA
> implies that the
> right wing of both airplanes wrapped themselves over
> the canopy. This
> suggests the pilots were unable to get out as they
> were blocked by the
> wing. Realistically, there is no way for the FAA to
> know this for sure.
> I'm not entirely convinced that, in both cases, the
> right wings wrapping
> themselves around the canopy and thus served to
> inhibit their leaving
> the airplane.
>
> I suspect it may be difficult, yeah near impossible,
> to get out of an
> airplane with a wing missing. Could it be that the
> gyroscopic forces may
> be enough to "pin" you in? Couple that with a chute
> that makes it more
> difficult to lift yourself out of the seat and I
> wonder if it's at all
> possible to save yourself while twirling around
> without a wing. Just
> what is the truth here?
>
> Given that getting out of a twirling airplane is
> difficult enough, just
> how much does the type of chute you have enter into
> that equation? My
> gut instinct is that the seat pack chute will make
> it more difficult
> than other types of chute designs to get out of the
> airplane.
>
> Keep in mind that I realize the unlikelihood of a 52
> wing breaking but
> there is always that remote chance.......especially
> so with the T-34 or
> CJ6 gumps.
>
> Your opinion is welcome!
>
> Frank
> N9110M
> YAK-52
> L71
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Yak-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
Are you still planing on bringing both planes????
Ernie
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:24:17 -0500, Jay Land <jland@popeandland.com> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Jay Land <jland@popeandland.com>
>
> What are everyone's plans with the weather outlook for Thursday and Friday?
>
> I am looking at getting to Waycross late Wed afternoon and looks like Thurs
> might be ok through early afternoon. Friday is a 50% chance of rain and
> thunderstorms and Sat and Sun look fine.
>
> Jay
>
> > From: Shane Golden <scgsmg@direcway.com>
> > Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:25:22 -0500
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Yak-List: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening
> >
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: Shane Golden <scgsmg@direcway.com>
> >
> > How about we move the ground school to Thursday (13 Jan) evening after
> > sunset(Over beer and pizza)? I believe most are planning to arrive on
> > Thursday. This way we have the ground school out of the way and should be
> > able to get 3-4 more sorties in on Friday. If this is a major problem for
> > anyone let me know.
> >
> >
> > Shane Golden
> >
> > 803-532-9063
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Get out or you're dead! |
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
According to folks I know very involved with the T-34 wing failures, one
video (mounted on vertical stab) showed the failed wing crushing the cockpit
killing both pilot right away. At this point I don't even ejection seats would
have helped. It has been demonstrated many times that the slip stream can pen
a
pilot in an open hatch. One of the most heart braking pictures I've even seen
is a B-24 on fire. The airplane is straight and level, fire completely
engulfs the airframe from the leading edge of the wing to the rear. If you look
closely, you can see a crew member, in the top hatch just forward of the top
turret. He is pressed against the hatch with his arms held out to his sides, his
head back against the turret. He can't move because of the slip stream.
This is in an airplane that only does 180 mph in cruise. As a jump plane pilot
at one point, I can tell you, we slowed way down, very near stall, so jumpers
could climb on to the step and stay there. Try sticking you arm out the
cockpit of a Yak or CJ in cruise.
The problems a pilot and passenger face are slip stream and G forces. As far
as getting out of a Yak or CJ, the light slim back packs that acro pilots
wear would be better as far as maneuvering around in the cockpit to get out.
Otherwise everyone will face the problem of slim stream and G loads, that is if
you're not ready dead.
Pappy
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: cjpilot710@aol.com
Troops,
As soon as I finish this message, I'm double checking weather, and starting
engine for AYS to do set up. Anyone who needs to get a hold of me do so over
my cell phone. 386-503-9820
See Ya.
Pappy
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 |
|
Evening - Email found in subject
| Subject: | Re: Waycross Ground School - Thursday |
Evening - Email found in subject
--> Yak-List message posted by: Jay Land <jland@popeandland.com>
Yep- assuming I get a ride to get the jet
> From: "Ernest Martinez" <erniel29@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:55:08 -0500
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: [SPAM] - Re: Yak-List: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening -
> Email found in subject
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
>
> Are you still planing on bringing both planes????
>
> Ernie
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:24:17 -0500, Jay Land <jland@popeandland.com> wrote:
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: Jay Land <jland@popeandland.com>
>>
>> What are everyone's plans with the weather outlook for Thursday and Friday?
>>
>> I am looking at getting to Waycross late Wed afternoon and looks like Thurs
>> might be ok through early afternoon. Friday is a 50% chance of rain and
>> thunderstorms and Sat and Sun look fine.
>>
>> Jay
>>
>>> From: Shane Golden <scgsmg@direcway.com>
>>> Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:25:22 -0500
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Yak-List: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening
>>>
>>> --> Yak-List message posted by: Shane Golden <scgsmg@direcway.com>
>>>
>>> How about we move the ground school to Thursday (13 Jan) evening after
>>> sunset(Over beer and pizza)? I believe most are planning to arrive on
>>> Thursday. This way we have the ground school out of the way and should be
>>> able to get 3-4 more sorties in on Friday. If this is a major problem for
>>> anyone let me know.
>>>
>>>
>>> Shane Golden
>>>
>>> 803-532-9063
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening - |
Email found in subject
--> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
Well, how many other jets are coming? I had gotten a friend to bring
my CJ up while I bring up the Jet, but I'm not going to bother if I'm
going to be the only Jet there.
Ernie
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:50:14 -0500 Evening - Email found in subject,
Jay Land <jland@popeandland.com> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Jay Land <jland@popeandland.com>
>
> Yep- assuming I get a ride to get the jet
>
> > From: "Ernest Martinez" <erniel29@gmail.com>
> > Reply-To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> > Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:55:08 -0500
> > To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: [SPAM] - Re: Yak-List: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening -
> > Email found in subject
> >
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
> >
> > Are you still planing on bringing both planes????
> >
> > Ernie
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:24:17 -0500, Jay Land <jland@popeandland.com> wrote:
> >> --> Yak-List message posted by: Jay Land <jland@popeandland.com>
> >>
> >> What are everyone's plans with the weather outlook for Thursday and Friday?
> >>
> >> I am looking at getting to Waycross late Wed afternoon and looks like Thurs
> >> might be ok through early afternoon. Friday is a 50% chance of rain and
> >> thunderstorms and Sat and Sun look fine.
> >>
> >> Jay
> >>
> >>> From: Shane Golden <scgsmg@direcway.com>
> >>> Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >>> Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 17:25:22 -0500
> >>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >>> Subject: Yak-List: Waycross Ground School - Thursday Evening
> >>>
> >>> --> Yak-List message posted by: Shane Golden <scgsmg@direcway.com>
> >>>
> >>> How about we move the ground school to Thursday (13 Jan) evening after
> >>> sunset(Over beer and pizza)? I believe most are planning to arrive on
> >>> Thursday. This way we have the ground school out of the way and should be
> >>> able to get 3-4 more sorties in on Friday. If this is a major problem for
> >>> anyone let me know.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Shane Golden
> >>>
> >>> 803-532-9063
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
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 |
|
IMItemGuid: {0420FD59-7303-4366-AF17-E5D05A826F3D}
0.44 FORGED_OUTLOOK_TAGS Outlook can't send HTML in this format
0.26 UPPERCASE_25_50 message body is 25-50% uppercase
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter" <wild.blue@verizon.net>
Frank,
Have tried getting out of a Pitts? -52's and CJ's are ballroom size by
comparison. I can't get into a Pitts with a chute on and I'm not that
big--6'0" and 200lbs. Getting out? Pray for adrenalin and flimsy cockpit
coaming! I used to have Hooker double belts and pad with ratchets in my
-52, but didn't really like them--uncomfortably wide and cut off the blood
to my legs! I liked the ratchet tho--that glued to the seat feeling was
great. The Silver double belt setup looks like the belts are stacked
instead of side x side. Inasmuch as the reason for the second belt is fail
safe in case you don't get the main belt properly hooked up, maybe that's
more comfortable and just as good. It only has to keep you in the seat
while you discover you're not really hooked up...
BTW, have you seen the video of the TA-4 that gets hit by a drop tank off an
F-18? The TA-4 loses half of the starboard wing--which exits the
territory--and proceeds to tumble in a fireball. The vid I've seen isn't
real clear, but the story is both guys got out. Not pretty.
Jerry Painter
=09
<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id809&lang9> ">
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: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
Re: Bailing out.
Been teaching high-performance acro for many years, one instance
where I probably should have gotten out.
Just musing at this point, but----
There is almost no justification for getting out of a plane that
is still in one piece---unless it is totally out of control, which was
my situation. (uncontrollable inverted spin that recovered only after a
7,500' altitude loss). Almost any CONTROLLED crash is survivable, if
done properly. Getting out puts you in the danger of 1. being hurt in
the process (getting hit by the plane or prop is a BIG risk), and 2.
chute malfunction.
If you REALLY do need to get out, (my case, or a plane that has
come apart), you probably won't be able to.
First off, the plane will be flailing around so violently that
you would have a tremendous problem handling the workload required and
forces,
Second, the forces are probably so instantaneously violent that
you will be unconscious.
My feeling after all these years of doing that kind of stuff?
If you need to get out, you probably won't. In my case, it honestly
never occurred to me while it was happening. I was too busy trying to
fly the plane. And if it had, I probably would have tried too late, and
wouldn't have succeeded anyway. The forces were pretty severe.
Remember you DO have to PHYSICALLY get out! The military doesn't spend
all that money on ejection seats for no good reason.
All the above said, if the circumstance does present itself, you
certainly do need to keep fighting, and TRY. DON'T EVER GIVE UP! And
mentally practicing the procedure is VERY important. During the
occurrence IS NOT the time to figure out how to do it.
Lee Taylor
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: | Yak 50 and 52 rudder cable tunnels |
0.00 FROM_HAS_MIXED_NUMS From": yak-list@matronics.com
--> Yak-List message posted by: Roger Baker <f4ffm2@adelphia.net>
Hello 50 and 52 people,
Below is the translated DOSAAF text directive modifying/removing the
rudder cable tunnels in the cockpits of Yak 52 and 50 airplanes.
> To Chairmen of the Central Committees of DOSAAF of the Union Republics,
> Counties and Oblasts DOSAAF Committees of the Russian Federation,
>
> To Heads of Aviation DOSAAF Organizations,
>
> To Head of Shahty Aviation Factory of DOSAAF
>
>
> It is necessary to redesign safety covers of the cables of the rudder flight
> control in order to achieve higher flight safety standards.
>
> For this purpose, removal and modification of the safety covers should be
> performed on all "YAK-50" and "YAK-52" aircraft as per the attached sketch.
>
> This modification should be reflected in the aircraft logbook as follows:
>
> "Safety covers of control cables R.N. have been redesigned as per Report
> # 481103-002VP and this Directive # 2/7-1150."
>
>
> Signature ________ Date ___________
> of Engineer
>
>
> After the above mentioned modification has been performed and on condition of
> execution of Bulletin 2-50-053 DK, the flights on "YAK-50" aircraft are
> permitted.
>
>
> Temporary Deputy Head of UAP and AS
> Central Committed of DOSAAF of the USSR Y.N Utkin
>
> reg # 2/7-1150
>
> May 19, 1981
>
As you can see, the text simply says modify the things...not how to do
it. I have the diagram that shows what to do....and will email it (as a
.jpg file) to anybody that needs it. Just drop me a note off list.
Roger Baker
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: Emergency exits |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <DSAVARESE@ELMORE.RR.COM>
Excellent words of wisdom Lee. Thanks for sharing it.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
Subject: Yak-List: Emergency exits
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Lee Taylor" <leetay@comcast.net>
>
> Re: Bailing out.
>
> Been teaching high-performance acro for many years, one instance
> where I probably should have gotten out.
> Just musing at this point, but----
> There is almost no justification for getting out of a plane that
> is still in one piece---unless it is totally out of control, which was
> my situation. (uncontrollable inverted spin that recovered only after a
> 7,500' altitude loss). Almost any CONTROLLED crash is survivable, if
> done properly. Getting out puts you in the danger of 1. being hurt in
> the process (getting hit by the plane or prop is a BIG risk), and 2.
> chute malfunction.
> If you REALLY do need to get out, (my case, or a plane that has
> come apart), you probably won't be able to.
> First off, the plane will be flailing around so violently that
> you would have a tremendous problem handling the workload required and
> forces,
> Second, the forces are probably so instantaneously violent that
> you will be unconscious.
>
> My feeling after all these years of doing that kind of stuff?
> If you need to get out, you probably won't. In my case, it honestly
> never occurred to me while it was happening. I was too busy trying to
> fly the plane. And if it had, I probably would have tried too late, and
> wouldn't have succeeded anyway. The forces were pretty severe.
> Remember you DO have to PHYSICALLY get out! The military doesn't spend
> all that money on ejection seats for no good reason.
>
> All the above said, if the circumstance does present itself, you
> certainly do need to keep fighting, and TRY. DON'T EVER GIVE UP! And
> mentally practicing the procedure is VERY important. During the
> occurrence IS NOT the time to figure out how to do it.
>
> Lee Taylor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
On Jan 11, 2005, at 11:58 PM, Yak-List Digest Server wrote:
> I concur. Hooker is simply the best. If they'd let me, I have one in
> my
> car...
>
Gang, Hooker builds a nice harness. Good customer service, good
quality product. I have put them in every airplane I've owned. That
being said Allen Silver has a nice set up as well, and it's worth
looking into to compare....
http://www.pia.com/silver/acrobelt.htm
Allen is a Master rigger and jumper who's been in the business a LONG
time. His bailout seminars are not to be missed...he's been at All Red
Star each of the past 3 years and it's always given to a full house.
IMO, whatever harness you choose, the ratchet is worth the extra
investment and slight hassle if you are going to do any type of
aerobatics....
Cheers,
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 |
|
Seal-Send-Time: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:54:29 -0500
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
Gang,
This is some funny stuff. Done by a couple of Viper drivers.
http://videos.f16techs.com/I'm%20a%20Pilot.wma<http://videos.f16techs.com/I'm%20a%20Pilot.wma>
Tim
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: Yak 50 and 52 rudder cable tunnels |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "p.goswick" <p.goswick@cox.net>
could you email the diagram about this
Thanks
Phil Goswick p.goswick@cox.net
Tulsa, Ok
Yak 52
N4117M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Baker" <f4ffm2@adelphia.net>
yak-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Yak 50 and 52 rudder cable tunnels
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Roger Baker <f4ffm2@adelphia.net>
>
> Hello 50 and 52 people,
>
> Below is the translated DOSAAF text directive modifying/removing the
> rudder cable tunnels in the cockpits of Yak 52 and 50 airplanes.
>
> > To Chairmen of the Central Committees of DOSAAF of the Union Republics,
> > Counties and Oblasts DOSAAF Committees of the Russian Federation,
> >
> > To Heads of Aviation DOSAAF Organizations,
> >
> > To Head of Shahty Aviation Factory of DOSAAF
> >
> >
> > It is necessary to redesign safety covers of the cables of the rudder
flight
> > control in order to achieve higher flight safety standards.
> >
> > For this purpose, removal and modification of the safety covers should
be
> > performed on all "YAK-50" and "YAK-52" aircraft as per the attached
sketch.
> >
> > This modification should be reflected in the aircraft logbook as
follows:
> >
> > "Safety covers of control cables R.N. have been redesigned as per
Report
> > # 481103-002VP and this Directive # 2/7-1150."
> >
> >
> > Signature ________ Date ___________
> > of Engineer
> >
> >
> > After the above mentioned modification has been performed and on
condition of
> > execution of Bulletin 2-50-053 DK, the flights on "YAK-50" aircraft are
> > permitted.
> >
> >
> > Temporary Deputy Head of UAP and AS
> > Central Committed of DOSAAF of the USSR Y.N Utkin
> >
> > reg # 2/7-1150
> >
> > May 19, 1981
> >
> As you can see, the text simply says modify the things...not how to do
> it. I have the diagram that shows what to do....and will email it (as a
> .jpg file) to anybody that needs it. Just drop me a note off list.
>
> Roger Baker
>
>
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: | Re: Yak 50 and 52 rudder cable tunnels |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "p.goswick" <p.goswick@cox.net>
could you send the diagram.
Thanks
Phil Goswick p.goswick@cox.net
Tulsa, Ok
Yak 52
N 4117M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Baker" <f4ffm2@adelphia.net>
yak-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Yak-List: Yak 50 and 52 rudder cable tunnels
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Roger Baker <f4ffm2@adelphia.net>
>
> Hello 50 and 52 people,
>
> Below is the translated DOSAAF text directive modifying/removing the
> rudder cable tunnels in the cockpits of Yak 52 and 50 airplanes.
>
> > To Chairmen of the Central Committees of DOSAAF of the Union Republics,
> > Counties and Oblasts DOSAAF Committees of the Russian Federation,
> >
> > To Heads of Aviation DOSAAF Organizations,
> >
> > To Head of Shahty Aviation Factory of DOSAAF
> >
> >
> > It is necessary to redesign safety covers of the cables of the rudder
flight
> > control in order to achieve higher flight safety standards.
> >
> > For this purpose, removal and modification of the safety covers should
be
> > performed on all "YAK-50" and "YAK-52" aircraft as per the attached
sketch.
> >
> > This modification should be reflected in the aircraft logbook as
follows:
> >
> > "Safety covers of control cables R.N. have been redesigned as per
Report
> > # 481103-002VP and this Directive # 2/7-1150."
> >
> >
> > Signature ________ Date ___________
> > of Engineer
> >
> >
> > After the above mentioned modification has been performed and on
condition of
> > execution of Bulletin 2-50-053 DK, the flights on "YAK-50" aircraft are
> > permitted.
> >
> >
> > Temporary Deputy Head of UAP and AS
> > Central Committed of DOSAAF of the USSR Y.N Utkin
> >
> > reg # 2/7-1150
> >
> > May 19, 1981
> >
> As you can see, the text simply says modify the things...not how to do
> it. I have the diagram that shows what to do....and will email it (as a
> .jpg file) to anybody that needs it. Just drop me a note off list.
>
> Roger Baker
>
>
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 |
|
Seal-Send-Time: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:05:10 -0500
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Tim Gagnon" <NiftyYak50@msn.com>
Lets try this again.
http://videos.f16techs.com/I'm%20a%20Pilot.wma<http://videos.f16techs.com/I'm%20a%20Pilot.wma>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Get out or you're dead! |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Robert said;
"Let off on the CJ digs, we all know you can't help it because
yours is smaller...;-)
Noted and filed Robert. It was meant tongue in cheek :)
But, hey! What's with this smaller stuff? Real men drive 52's :)
Frank
N9110M
YAK-52
L71
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert Starnes
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Get out or you're dead!
--> Yak-List message posted by: Robert Starnes <a35plt@yahoo.com>
I have read that one of the reasons jets/ high
performance A/C have ejection seats was because many
of the early jets were unrecoverable once a spin was
allowed to develop. Spiun recovery procedure in
aircraft such as the F-8 was to punch out! The theory
was also that the G forces in a spin would work to pin
a pilot in a cockpit and also inhibit the separation
of the canopy from the airplane, even if the canopy
release was pulled. Thus the introduction of explosive
canopies and ejection seats. Remember, the early
ejection seats were extraction systems that merely
removed the pilot from the airplane, after exiting the
A/C the ripcord still had to be pulled on the chute.
We have come along way with zero-zero seats with
multiple pull handles, primacorded canopies, etc.
After assisting the NTSB with the CJ crash in
Edgewood, Texas where the pilot snagged a guy wire in
cruise flight and the wing DID NOT separate from the
airplane, I don't know of any CJ wing failures. I say
that as a Bonanza owner in addition to my CJ
interests, so I am someone very interested in this
wing failure stuff. Anytime you want to punch out of
the bottom of a cloud at 300 knots and yank back on
the stick, something is probably gonna break. Let off
on the CJ digs, we all know you can't help it because
yours is smaller...;-)
-Robert Starnes
--- Frank Haertlein <yak52driver@earthlink.net> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein"
> <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
>
> Getting out!
>
> Yakinators...............
>
> Just got my new chutes and tried them out in the 52.
> They are very
> comfortable and allow freedom of movement for all
> normal cockpit
> functions.
>
> There seems to be a problem though. As someone on
> this list previously
> suggested, "you should put on your chute and
> practice getting in and out
> of your airplane".
>
> For me, getting in isn't the problem, it's getting
> out! With 17 pounds
> of chute strapped to my a$$ while its harnessed over
> the shoulders and
> thighs it would seem that the chute backing (the
> part that connects the
> seat-pack with the shoulder straps) works to inhibit
> my ability to get
> out of the plane. Maybe there's some technique here
> I'm unaware of.
>
> Getting out without the chute is easy enough. It's
> when I try to get out
> with the chute that it seems the backing works to
> seriously inhibit my
> ability to raise myself up and out of the seat.
>
> We've all read or heard about the T-34 guys going in
> with their birds
> even though they had chutes. As suggested, the FAA
> implies that the
> right wing of both airplanes wrapped themselves over
> the canopy. This
> suggests the pilots were unable to get out as they
> were blocked by the
> wing. Realistically, there is no way for the FAA to
> know this for sure.
> I'm not entirely convinced that, in both cases, the
> right wings wrapping
> themselves around the canopy and thus served to
> inhibit their leaving
> the airplane.
>
> I suspect it may be difficult, yeah near impossible,
> to get out of an
> airplane with a wing missing. Could it be that the
> gyroscopic forces may
> be enough to "pin" you in? Couple that with a chute
> that makes it more
> difficult to lift yourself out of the seat and I
> wonder if it's at all
> possible to save yourself while twirling around
> without a wing. Just
> what is the truth here?
>
> Given that getting out of a twirling airplane is
> difficult enough, just
> how much does the type of chute you have enter into
> that equation? My
> gut instinct is that the seat pack chute will make
> it more difficult
> than other types of chute designs to get out of the
> airplane.
>
> Keep in mind that I realize the unlikelihood of a 52
> wing breaking but
> there is always that remote chance.......especially
> so with the T-34 or
> CJ6 gumps.
>
> Your opinion is welcome!
>
> Frank
> N9110M
> YAK-52
> L71
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Yak-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
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 |
|
0.60 UPPERCASE_75_100 message body is 75-100% uppercase
0.51 PLING_QUERY Subject has exclamation mark and question mark
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Williamson" <yakk52@verizon.net>
It's interesting to look at the incidents in the ntsb database involving
pilots and passengers jumping from stricken aircraft. It is possible to
jump from an aircraft that has lost a wing, broken a control cable, run out
of fuel on final approach, caught fire or a perfectly good aircraft in which
the pilot has injured her arm!
www.ntsb.gov (search on parachuted or parachute - you might also restrict
the search to the last ten years or experimental aircraft to keep from
getting too many records - you'll pick up some skydiving accidents and
powered parachutes).
Here are a few of the more interesting stories that I came across:
CESSNA 150E - THE PILOT WAS COMPLETING A CROSS-COUNTRY TRIP WHEN HE LOST
ENGINE POWER ON FINAL APPROACH. ACCORDING TO THE FAA, HE TURNED THE AIRPLANE
AWAY FROM THE AIRPORT AND PARACHUTED FROM THE AIRCRAFT AT 'APPROXIMATELY 560
FEET AGL. THE PARACHUTE OPENED JUST PRIOR TO GROUND CONTACT, AND THE
AIRPLANE CRASHED IN THE BACKYARD OF A RESIDENCE.' THE PILOT STATED TO THE
FAA THAT HE THOUGHT HE HAD RUN OUT OF FUEL.
SUKHOI SU-29 - THE PILOT ROLLED THE AIRPLANE INVERTED, THEN UPRIGHT. THE
AIRPLANE PITCHED DOWN AND THE PILOT PULLED THE POWER BACK, HALF ROLLED THE
AIRPLANE, AND PUSHED THE CONTROL STICK FORWARD. WHEN THIS FAILED, THE PILOT
HALF ROLLED THE AIRPLANE AGAIN AND PULLED THE TRIM TAB IN AN ATTEMPT TO
CONTROL THE AIRPLANE'S RATE OF DESCENT. WHEN THIS HAD NO EFFECT, THE PILOT
JETTISONED THE CANOPY AND HE AND THE SAFETY PILOT BAILED OUT. A SIMILAR
INCIDENT HAD OCCURRED SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE THE ACCIDENT. THE INSTRUCTOR WHO
HAD GIVEN THE PILOT INSTRUCTION IN THE AIRPLANE SURMISED THAT UNBEKNOWNST TO
THE TWO PILOTS, THEY HAD PROBABLY OPERATED THE CONTROLS AGAINST EACH OTHER'S
INPUT.
ROLLADEN-SCHNEIDER LS3-A - A GLIDER COLLIDED WITH TERRAIN AFTER AN INFLIGHT
LOSS OF CONTROL. THE PILOT BAILED OUT OF THE GLIDER BEFORE IMPACT WITH THE
GROUND. THE PILOT INDICATED THE GLIDER ENCOUNTERED TURBULENCE. DURING THE
ENCOUNTER, THE PILOT'S HEAD STRUCK THE GLIDER CANOPY AND THE PILOT'S RIGHT
ARM WAS INJURED. THE PILOT STATED THAT SHE WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL THE PITCH
OF THE GLIDER AND ELECTED TO BAIL OUT. THE PILOT HAD DIFFICULTY EXITING THE
GLIDER DUE TO INJURIES. THE INJURY TO THE RIGHT ARM HAMPERED THE PILOT IN
RELEASING THE GLIDER CANOPY, RELEASING HER SEAT BELT, AND PULLING THE
PARACHUTE 'D-RING.' AFTER RELEASING THE CANOPY AND UNFASTENING THE SEAT BELT
WITH THE AID OF HER LEFT HAND, THE PILOT DEPLOYED HER PARACHUTE WHILE STILL
SEATED. THE PILOT LEANED FORWARD IN THE COCKPIT AND THE PILOT CHUTE
DEPLOYED. AS THE MAIN CHUTE INFLATED, THE PILOT WAS PULLED FROM THE GLIDER.
THE PILOT PARACHUTED SAFELY TO THE GROUND.
FISCHER STAR-LITE - THE OWNER/MANUFACTURER OF THE HOMEBUILT ACFT REPAIRED
THE HORIZONTAL STABILIZERS, THEN ASKED THE DESIGNER TO TEST FLY THE
AIRCRAFT. AFTER TAKEOFF, AT AN ALT OF APRX 7,000 FEET MSL, IN A NOSE LOW
ATTITUDE, AT 158 MPH ( 28 MPH GREATER THAN VNE) BOTH HORIZONTAL STABILIZERS
SEPARATED. THE NOSE OF THE AIRCRAFT PITCHED DOWN, AFTER WHICH THE WINGS
FAILED NEGATIVELY. THE PILOT PARACHUTED TO THE ROOF OF A HOUSE, THEN WAS
PULLED TO THE GROUND WHEN THE CANOPY WAS REINFLATED BY THE WIND. THE
AIRCRAFT COLLIDED WITH TERRAIN AND CAME TO REST NEAR A RESIDENCE WITH NO
PROPERTY DAMAGE. ACCORDING TO THE DESIGNER, THE OWNER SHOULD HAVE SEPARATED
THE TWO STABILIZERS INTO FOUR SECTIONS, APPLIED EPOXY TO THE INSIDE OF EACH,
AS WELL AS TO THE ALUMINUM SPAR, THEN ASSEMBLED THEM.
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 |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Gus Fraser" <fraseg@comcast.net>
I love the one about the SU-29 ;) Imagine figuring out that both had control
when you get on the ground how pissed would you be ?
Gus
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mark Williamson
Subject: Yak-List: Bail Out!?
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Mark Williamson" <yakk52@verizon.net>
It's interesting to look at the incidents in the ntsb database involving
pilots and passengers jumping from stricken aircraft. It is possible to
jump from an aircraft that has lost a wing, broken a control cable, run out
of fuel on final approach, caught fire or a perfectly good aircraft in which
the pilot has injured her arm!
www.ntsb.gov (search on parachuted or parachute - you might also restrict
the search to the last ten years or experimental aircraft to keep from
getting too many records - you'll pick up some skydiving accidents and
powered parachutes).
Here are a few of the more interesting stories that I came across:
CESSNA 150E - THE PILOT WAS COMPLETING A CROSS-COUNTRY TRIP WHEN HE LOST
ENGINE POWER ON FINAL APPROACH. ACCORDING TO THE FAA, HE TURNED THE AIRPLANE
AWAY FROM THE AIRPORT AND PARACHUTED FROM THE AIRCRAFT AT 'APPROXIMATELY 560
FEET AGL. THE PARACHUTE OPENED JUST PRIOR TO GROUND CONTACT, AND THE
AIRPLANE CRASHED IN THE BACKYARD OF A RESIDENCE.' THE PILOT STATED TO THE
FAA THAT HE THOUGHT HE HAD RUN OUT OF FUEL.
SUKHOI SU-29 - THE PILOT ROLLED THE AIRPLANE INVERTED, THEN UPRIGHT. THE
AIRPLANE PITCHED DOWN AND THE PILOT PULLED THE POWER BACK, HALF ROLLED THE
AIRPLANE, AND PUSHED THE CONTROL STICK FORWARD. WHEN THIS FAILED, THE PILOT
HALF ROLLED THE AIRPLANE AGAIN AND PULLED THE TRIM TAB IN AN ATTEMPT TO
CONTROL THE AIRPLANE'S RATE OF DESCENT. WHEN THIS HAD NO EFFECT, THE PILOT
JETTISONED THE CANOPY AND HE AND THE SAFETY PILOT BAILED OUT. A SIMILAR
INCIDENT HAD OCCURRED SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE THE ACCIDENT. THE INSTRUCTOR WHO
HAD GIVEN THE PILOT INSTRUCTION IN THE AIRPLANE SURMISED THAT UNBEKNOWNST TO
THE TWO PILOTS, THEY HAD PROBABLY OPERATED THE CONTROLS AGAINST EACH OTHER'S
INPUT.
ROLLADEN-SCHNEIDER LS3-A - A GLIDER COLLIDED WITH TERRAIN AFTER AN INFLIGHT
LOSS OF CONTROL. THE PILOT BAILED OUT OF THE GLIDER BEFORE IMPACT WITH THE
GROUND. THE PILOT INDICATED THE GLIDER ENCOUNTERED TURBULENCE. DURING THE
ENCOUNTER, THE PILOT'S HEAD STRUCK THE GLIDER CANOPY AND THE PILOT'S RIGHT
ARM WAS INJURED. THE PILOT STATED THAT SHE WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL THE PITCH
OF THE GLIDER AND ELECTED TO BAIL OUT. THE PILOT HAD DIFFICULTY EXITING THE
GLIDER DUE TO INJURIES. THE INJURY TO THE RIGHT ARM HAMPERED THE PILOT IN
RELEASING THE GLIDER CANOPY, RELEASING HER SEAT BELT, AND PULLING THE
PARACHUTE 'D-RING.' AFTER RELEASING THE CANOPY AND UNFASTENING THE SEAT BELT
WITH THE AID OF HER LEFT HAND, THE PILOT DEPLOYED HER PARACHUTE WHILE STILL
SEATED. THE PILOT LEANED FORWARD IN THE COCKPIT AND THE PILOT CHUTE
DEPLOYED. AS THE MAIN CHUTE INFLATED, THE PILOT WAS PULLED FROM THE GLIDER.
THE PILOT PARACHUTED SAFELY TO THE GROUND.
FISCHER STAR-LITE - THE OWNER/MANUFACTURER OF THE HOMEBUILT ACFT REPAIRED
THE HORIZONTAL STABILIZERS, THEN ASKED THE DESIGNER TO TEST FLY THE
AIRCRAFT. AFTER TAKEOFF, AT AN ALT OF APRX 7,000 FEET MSL, IN A NOSE LOW
ATTITUDE, AT 158 MPH ( 28 MPH GREATER THAN VNE) BOTH HORIZONTAL STABILIZERS
SEPARATED. THE NOSE OF THE AIRCRAFT PITCHED DOWN, AFTER WHICH THE WINGS
FAILED NEGATIVELY. THE PILOT PARACHUTED TO THE ROOF OF A HOUSE, THEN WAS
PULLED TO THE GROUND WHEN THE CANOPY WAS REINFLATED BY THE WIND. THE
AIRCRAFT COLLIDED WITH TERRAIN AND CAME TO REST NEAR A RESIDENCE WITH NO
PROPERTY DAMAGE. ACCORDING TO THE DESIGNER, THE OWNER SHOULD HAVE SEPARATED
THE TWO STABILIZERS INTO FOUR SECTIONS, APPLIED EPOXY TO THE INSIDE OF EACH,
AS WELL AS TO THE ALUMINUM SPAR, THEN ASSEMBLED THEM.
Message 22
| 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: NapeOne@aol.com
Would a thin back pack chute in a Yak 52 be ok? If it would be a good fit,
possibly easier egress?
David H.
Message 23
| 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: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
>CESSNA 150E - THE PILOT WAS COMPLETING A CROSS-COUNTRY TRIP WHEN HE LOST
>ENGINE POWER ON FINAL APPROACH. ACCORDING TO THE FAA, HE TURNED THE
>AIRPLANE
>AWAY FROM THE AIRPORT AND PARACHUTED FROM THE AIRCRAFT AT 'APPROXIMATELY
>560
>FEET AGL. THE PARACHUTE OPENED JUST PRIOR TO GROUND CONTACT, AND THE
>AIRPLANE CRASHED IN THE BACKYARD OF A RESIDENCE.' THE PILOT STATED TO THE
>FAA THAT HE THOUGHT HE HAD RUN OUT OF FUEL.
Well of course you need a parachute when you're flying an extraordinarily
high performance, high stall speed, high wing loading plane like a C-150.
There he was with no suitable landing place from horizon to horizon (except
the runway he was on final for) in a plane with several thousand pounds of
highly flammable fuel. That guy must have huge balls. Would you get in in
a plane like that with only a parachute, no hot seats? A C-150 is even
bigger and heavier than C-141, right?
There was a time when pilots knew how to do a deadstick landing. Actually I
guess pilots still know how, but airplane drivers don't necessarily know
how.
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! --
|