---------------------------------------------------------- Yak-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 02/15/05: 22 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:46 AM - Re: Airworthiness Certification (Daniel Fortin) 2. 05:34 AM - Re: Airworthyness Certification (A. Dennis Savarese) 3. 05:58 AM - Re: Airworthyness Certification (Frank Haertlein) 4. 07:08 AM - Re: Airworthyness Certification (A. Dennis Savarese) 5. 07:52 AM - Re: Airworthiness Certification (Dave Sutton) 6. 08:04 AM - Re: Airworthiness Certification (Ernest Martinez) 7. 08:22 AM - Re: Airworthiness Certification (Dave Sutton) 8. 08:36 AM - Non-Commercial Posting (Dave Sutton) 9. 09:46 AM - Re: Non-Commercial Posting (Ernest Martinez) 10. 11:19 AM - Question on accident (Bitterlich GS11 Mark G) 11. 11:35 AM - Re: Question on accident (Ernest Martinez) 12. 11:41 AM - sutton (Bill Geipel) 13. 11:42 AM - Red Star (Ernest Martinez) 14. 11:46 AM - Re: Question on accident (Jon Boede) 15. 12:33 PM - Re: sutton (Ernest Martinez) 16. 02:09 PM - MTV3 Spinner parts (TC Johnson) 17. 02:35 PM - Re: Red Star (cpayne@joimail.com) 18. 02:47 PM - Re: Re: Red Star (cjpilot710@aol.com) 19. 04:56 PM - Re: Airworthyness Certification (Greg Young) 20. 05:20 PM - Re: Airworthiness Certification (Frank Haertlein) 21. 06:59 PM - Usage Guidelines... (Matt Dralle) 22. 07:55 PM - Re: Airworthyness Certification (Frank Haertlein) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:46:09 AM PST US From: "Daniel Fortin" Subject: RE: Yak-List: Airworthiness Certification --> Yak-List message posted by: "Daniel Fortin" Certification is painful. A few years back, we tried to get our FWP149D certified in Canada based on its Italian and German type certificate. Most ICAO states will accept certification from other countries at various level. In Canada, when certifying an Italian/German type, one need to complete a small list of items to complete and did not include any flight testing. The list in itself is somewhat small, but it the case of the FockeWulf turned out to be impossible to complete. One thing needed in any certification process in "Continuous Airworthiness Support" from the manufacturer. In our case, the manufacturer was "Focke Wulf" which has gone under, and the designer "Piaggio" wouldn't give us the time of day. Certification bares a fair amount of responsibilities on them and they simply decided having an airplane they had not produced for around 30years certified in Canada was not worth the time they would have to invest. Can I blame them? Not really. Now in the case of a Russian/Romanian built airplane, I would imagine the list be somewhat longer and would involved some flight testing. Our fee for the FWP149D would have been around $3000Ca for the certification process with no guaranty of success. In the case of a longer certification process one can only imagine the costs in tens of thousands. The good news is this "type certification" is for all airplanes of the same type. My understanding is once an airplane obtains type certification it is applicable to all airplane of the same type. If you want more official information, I suggest you call the FAA!!!!! But not your local FSDO, he is most likely clueless. The FAA has a certification branch somewhere on Long Island. You can probably get more accurate information from them. Hope this helps, Dan >From: "Frank Haertlein" >Reply-To: yak-list@matronics.com >To: >Subject: Yak-List: Airworthiness Certification >Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:20:59 -0800 > >--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" > > >Yaksters >Is it possible to get my ex-military, Russian designed and Romanian >built YAK-52 certified in the normal category? And, if it is possible, >does that certification then apply to all other YAK-52's built the same >way in the same factory? > >Maybe I should phrase it a different way. They made the Cessna 337 for >the military as well as for the civilian use. One is certified normally >and the other is a warbird. Can you subsequently certify the warbird >version so it will live the same life as the civilian version as regards >the rules of normal certification? > >How about the P-51? If I had 5 million dollars to get my personally >owned P-51 certified to normal category does that then apply only to my >P-51 or does that then apply to all others built the same way in the >same factory? > >Thanks in advance >Frank >YAK-52 >N9110M >L71 > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:34:13 AM PST US From: "A. Dennis Savarese" Subject: Re: Yak-List: Airworthyness Certification --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" Frank, One other issue to think about. Should your Yak 52 receive certification as other than Experimental, all the terrific maintenance you have been doing (unless you are already an A&P) and all the simple, consumable parts you purchase from various non-aircraft-parts-manufacturers goes away. For example, that means EVERY 1.6 mm cotter pin you use must also be FAA/PMA approved as well. Dennis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Haertlein" Subject: Yak-List: Airworthyness Certification > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" > > Yaksters > Is it possible to get my ex-military, Russian designed and Romanian > built YAK-52 certified in the normal category? And, if it is possible, > does that certification then apply to all other YAK-52's built the same > way in the same factory? > > Maybe I should phrase it a different way. They made the Cessna 337 for > the military as well as for the civilian use. One is certified normally > and the other is a warbird. Can you subsequently certify the warbird > version so it will live the same life as the civilian version as regards > the rules of normal certification? > > How about the P-51? If I had 5 million dollars to get my personally > owned P-51 certified to normal category does that then apply only to my > P-51 or does that then apply to all others built the same way in the > same factory? > > Thanks in advance > Frank > YAK-52 > N9110M > L71 > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:58:54 AM PST US From: "Frank Haertlein" Subject: RE: Yak-List: Airworthyness Certification --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" Dennis I had a discussion with someone who assumes he knows what he's talking about. He tells me that there is a P-51 somewhere that is certified in the normal category (the owner having spent 5 million to get it certified here in the US). From what I know about the certification process, if one aircraft is certified, that certification then applies to all of the same model aircraft built by that company. It stands to reason then that a certified P-51 would mean all P-51's built the same way would have that certification. AND! He says, that is the reason P-51's command such a high price as compared to other warbirds! He also says it's possible to personally finance certification of my YAK-52 into the normal category (if I have enough money to do it) and that the certification would then apply only to my aircraft and no others in the fleet. I could then sell the certification to others like you might sell plans for an STC'd part. Frankly, it sounds like a load of bull so I wanted to get second opinions. I've never hear of a normal category P-51 or a normal category warbird. What do you think? Thanks in advance Frank YAK-52 N9110M L71 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:08:27 AM PST US From: "A. Dennis Savarese" Subject: Re: Yak-List: Airworthyness Certification --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" Frank, Please don't misread me. I am certainly not disagreeing with you about obtaining a Standard Airworthiness Certificate and certifying the aircraft in the Normal category. My only question is why would you want to do that when the cost of ownership, excluding the certification cost, would go up substantially? In checking the P-51 registrations, many are certified as Experimental Exhibition. Some are certified as Experimental, Amateur Built (interesting?!) and some I see are certified Limited. There is also the Experimental, Racing certified aircraft as well. I finally found one that says Standard. It is registered in FL, BUT the registration is listed as "revoked". But Standard is not a Category. It is a type of airworthiness certificate, the same as ours, which is a Special airworthiness certificate. The Standard airworthiness certificate categories are: Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, Commuter, Transport, Manned free balloons, Special classes. One of the key issues is the following statement as found on the FAA's web site under Determine Aircraft Eligibility. "... The FAA has completed an inspection of the aircraft and determined that the aircraft conforms to its FAA-approved type design." The operative words are "FAA-approved type design". If one wanted to pursue the Import Aircraft airworthiness certificate approval, according to the FAA web site, a bilateral agreement must exist. You can dig through that stuff if you want to. But I don't think that a bilateral agreement between the US and either Russia or Romania existed when the Yak 52's were designed and manufactured nor is there one today that would cover the Yak 52. Today there are some bilateral agreements between the US and Romania and Russia, but they are VERY limited as you will see if you dig through the stuff. Dennis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Haertlein" Subject: RE: Yak-List: Airworthyness Certification > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" > > Dennis > I had a discussion with someone who assumes he knows what he's talking > about. He tells me that there is a P-51 somewhere that is certified in > the normal category (the owner having spent 5 million to get it > certified here in the US). From what I know about the certification > process, if one aircraft is certified, that certification then applies > to all of the same model aircraft built by that company. It stands to > reason then that a certified P-51 would mean all P-51's built the same > way would have that certification. AND! He says, that is the reason > P-51's command such a high price as compared to other warbirds! > > He also says it's possible to personally finance certification of my > YAK-52 into the normal category (if I have enough money to do it) and > that the certification would then apply only to my aircraft and no > others in the fleet. I could then sell the certification to others like > you might sell plans for an STC'd part. Frankly, it sounds like a load > of bull so I wanted to get second opinions. I've never hear of a normal > category P-51 or a normal category warbird. What do you think? > > Thanks in advance > Frank > YAK-52 > N9110M > L71 > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:52:21 AM PST US From: "Dave Sutton" Subject: RE: Yak-List: Airworthiness Certification --> Yak-List message posted by: "Dave Sutton" The bottom line for the USA: The aircraft (and its engine, its propeller, and all of its components) must have been manufactured in accordance with a US Type Certificate. This means that even if you went through the certification process of receiving type approval for the airframe, engine, and prop as per the requirements of FAR Part 23, and got TSO approval for all of the installed components in the airplane (instruments, radios, and all other components), the Type Certificate would only cover aircraft manufactured *after* the issuance of the certificate. Retroactive certification of any one aircraft serial number made before type certificate approval is completed is not possible in the US system. I don't even want to go into what it takes to do a type certificate for an aircraft: I do that work for a living as a contract test pilot, so trust me on this: The type certificate process starts with the first blueprint and ends with a flight test program that can take a year for a light aircraft. Every material specification, every calculation, every dimension, must be in accordance with the requirements of the AC Certification branch and FAR 23 (for a light aircraft). Things like the specific alloy of the aluminum, etc., must be of the correct specs. It would be absolutely impossible to certificate the Yak without starting with a clean sheet of paper. That goes for the engine too. You need the entire cooperation of the designer of the aircraft and proving conformity after the design has been done is impossible. And then, for what advantage? The need to do every small modification with a Form 337? Want to put in a smoke system? Good luck. Nice little EFIS? Ditto. There are so many *disadvantages* to having an airplane certified under standard category that those of us who have gotten used to Experimental Certification never want to go back! There is one way, however.......... (there always is, if you want it badly enough) Under DOT Regulation 375, titled "The Navigation of Foreign Civil Aircraft" you will find that a foreign registered aircraft licensed by an ICAO signatory state, that was manufactured in an ICAO signatory state, and that is flown by a pilot licensed in the nation of registry or a US pilot may operate here in the USA. This is the regulation that allows, for example, a Canadian aircraft to be operated here, or a Ukrainian AN-25 to bring in freight to New York, or similar. For non-commercial operations, there is no time limit to its stay (!!). Witness the mirror image: Many N registered aircraft operating indefinitely in Europe and Latin America. This regulation is the mechanism by which the USA meets it obligations under the Chicago Convention, which is where all of the different countries agreed to respect each others certificates and which became the foundation of the ICAO agreement. I have personally operated several aircraft here in the US under foreign license (Yak-50 for one), and it's been no problem. I have been ramp checked by the FAA and they agreed: No sweat. Many AN-2's are operated here like this, especially in Alaska where they are owned by a fishing camp that provides "non commercial" transportation with them. You can actually even do commercial operations (parachuting) with them legally, along as the *crews* are US citizens. That comes under the various cabotage agreements. To do this, one establishes a corporation in the foreign country, and has the aircraft owned by that corporation. Typically, I hire an attorney in that country to be my agent, and to register and run the corporation. The aircraft must be maintained in accordance with the requirements of the country of registry. In many other countries, the certificate of airworthiness is renewed every year, so make sure you have an agent who can do that for you as well. You may need to bring in a foreign mechanic to do the re-certification inspection. Generally, we only do this when the aircraft would be so adversely affected by running under US Experimental that it would be worthless (AN-2, LET-410, etc). If you run a commercial skydiving operation and need an AN-2, it's worth it. For a Yak, the hassle is far more than it's worth. Plus, don't forget: Once it's standard category in the foreign nation, you cannot treat it like an experimental any longer (no new smoke system, EFIS, propane cannons, or whatever other stuff you want to do). Been there, done that. If anyone needs more assistance, contact me through the website. We do consulting on this and many other subjects of interest to the community and can recommend countries of register, and agents to assist. I believe that we were the first operator to use this regulation to our advantage, and have a great deal of experience with this system. Respectfully, Dave Sutton www.RedStarAviation.org ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:04:24 AM PST US From: Ernest Martinez Subject: Re: Yak-List: Airworthiness Certification --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez Read the Read the List rules, "No Commercial Advertising on this list" Ernie > Been there, done that. If anyone needs more assistance, contact me > through the website. We do consulting on this and many other subjects of > interest to the community and can recommend countries of register, and > agents to assist. I believe that we were the first operator to use this > regulation to our advantage, and have a great deal of experience with > this system. > > Respectfully, > > Dave Sutton > > www.RedStarAviation.org > > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:22:27 AM PST US From: "Dave Sutton" Subject: RE: Yak-List: Airworthiness Certification --> Yak-List message posted by: "Dave Sutton" Dear Ernie: Read the Red Star Aviation mission statement: "To provide, in a non-commercial environment, facilities, expertise, and vehicles to enable the highest quality warbird flight training available worldwide. To constantly strive to increase the level of safety in the Warbird community, and to freely offer our expertise without financial consideration. To preserve our Aviation Heritage by preserving the aircraft of the Cold War Era, and to facilitate their continued operation by ensuring that there are pilots properly qualified to demonstrate them to the public in years to come.. To provide a trusted organization, to whom any operator can feel free to turn, for assistance in any aspect of Warbird Operation. To save human life by performing this mission. We're a non-commercial organization and provide our services for free. If you are an expert on DOT regulations, please feel free to continue to add to the discussion, and I will also. Thanks, Dave Sutton www.RedStarAviation.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest Martinez Subject: Re: Yak-List: Airworthiness Certification --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez Read the Read the List rules, "No Commercial Advertising on this list" Ernie > Been there, done that. If anyone needs more assistance, contact me > through the website. We do consulting on this and many other subjects of > interest to the community and can recommend countries of register, and > agents to assist. I believe that we were the first operator to use this > regulation to our advantage, and have a great deal of experience with > this system. > > Respectfully, > > Dave Sutton > > www.RedStarAviation.org > > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:36:46 AM PST US From: "Dave Sutton" Subject: Yak-List: Non-Commercial Posting --> Yak-List message posted by: "Dave Sutton" My dear friend Ernie points out that we are not supposed to make commercial posts. Just to clarify: Red Star Aviation is a group of strictly unpaid volunteer consultants who assist Warbird operators with expert level advice and do so without compensation. In the specific area of aircraft certification, the question that was posed regarding the certification of the Yak-52, our volunteer consultant assigned to a member requesting further information would be this man, who out subject matter expert on aircraft certification: +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Capt. Robert Stoney, USN (ret). A retired Naval Aviator and former Commanding Officer of the United States Naval Test Pilot School, Bob is currently serving as a Test Pilot for the FAA's Wichita Aircraft Certification Office where he has been a project pilot for the certification of the Hawker Horizon, Cessna's Sovereign and CJ-3, the Garmin G1000 Avionics suite and numerous other programs. Bob's previous flight experience includes 22 years as a Naval Aviator and Test Pilot, including tours as the Chief Flight Instructor and Commanding Officer of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School, where he was qualified to instruct in every fixed-wing aircraft from gliders, to tail-draggers, to fast jets and the P-3 Orion. Bob achieved a Master's Degree from the Naval Postgraduate School in Aeronautical Engineering. He has accumulated 6500 flight hours in over 150 different models and holds FAA Airline Transport (with 7 type ratings), glider and seaplane ratings. Bob's personal interests include sailing, soaring, and coaching. Bob has flown the Fouga Magister, L-39, and several other Classic Jets. He is a Member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots +++++++++++++++++++++++++ I would say that having FREE direct contact with a current FAA Test Pilot working for the AC Certification Branch, who was the former CO of the USN Test Pilot School, and to have this man be willing to give FREE advice would be something that the community might find of value. One might with to visit the "Leadership" portion of our website to see who else offers to assist *you*, for no charge whatsoever. Our only goal is to offer professional level assistance to those who wish to obtain it. If you do not wish to obtain this information, feel free to not read what we write! Since we do not charge for our services, you cannot complain about it.... ;-) Respectfully, Dave Sutton www.RedStarAviation.org ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:46:03 AM PST US From: Ernest Martinez Subject: Re: Yak-List: Non-Commercial Posting --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez I am not your dear friend! On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:36:13 -0500, Dave Sutton wrote: > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Dave Sutton" > > My dear friend Ernie points out that we are not supposed to make > commercial posts. Just to clarify: ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 11:19:26 AM PST US From: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G Subject: Yak-List: Question on accident --> Yak-List message posted by: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G Mr. Sutton, Just my own 2 cents if you will, with a question and comment. One of the list members of this group asked a question about certification of a YAK-52. You mentioned that your organization supports efforts in that regard. I think everyone "got that" and can go look themselves and read about all your goals and intent. Nothing wrong with letting everyone know about another site on the Internet that they can go to for expert advice on issues that they may want more information on. After all, to each his own. Interestingly enough, there are a whole slew of experts on this site too. The total knowledge and experience represented in the people that read and write to this list-server is very impressive and generates a "sum that is greater than the individual parts situation" if you will. I am sure that if your organization wants to learn and benefit from the knowledge base represented here, that they can peruse the historical data base of stored messages. For my own part, I went to your Web Site and read it from front to back. It is....a very impressive read. I got to the section about the start of it all, and the historical perspective and I found your article about the YAK-18T and the horrible crash where peoples lives were lost and you survived. I am sorry anyone died, but I was left not understanding the issue involved completely. As an member of many accident investigations teams while in the military I would like to learn from this event, and if possible would like to ask one question if I may, and ... let me apologize in advance for asking... but it is just something that struck me and I had to mention it: In this article (included below) you mentioned that you were being given a demonstration ride. You also mention that the owners had never flown the airplane in the year that they owned it, but had started it twice without clearing the oil from the cylinders and had thus badly damaged the number 5 connecting rod. You also say that the owners never even questioned what was happening when you cleared the oil from the cylinders before the mishap flight, as they were apparently too embarrassed to let you know that they didn't understand what you were doing or to admit that they had never done it themselves. The two people in question were killed in the accident on that very same flight. Ok, here is my question: If the two owners never knew to clear the engine of oil before starting it, and they never admitted this to you, even when they saw you do it while pre-flighting the aircraft on the accident flight... and then they died when the crash happened on that very flight when the engine failed..... How in the world do you know that they knew nothing about clearing the oil, and that they had started it twice without clearing the engine at all? If they did not tell you, then who did? If someone else told you, isn't that hear-say evidence? I mean, your article says: [The owners] "apparently too embarrassed to let [you] know that they didn't understand what [you] [were] doing or to admit that they had never done it themselves" "never even questioned what was happening when [you] cleared the oil from the cylinders before the mishap flight" What I have learned from operating M-14 engines is that you can bend a Con-Rod and it can fail on the very next flight, or go another 100 hours and then fail. It is next to impossible to predict just exactly WHEN it is going to fail. Based on that experience, it seems to me that the engine in your ill-fated YAK-18T could have been damaged by anyone, anywhere, and that it might be less than fair to put that failure off on two men who did not know to clear the engine of oil, that fact which I can't figure out how you determined anyway? Regardless, you might want to re-write that article so as to put to rest the questions of observers who when they read it, appear to see a situation where 2 plus 2 equals 5 (per se). Sincerely, Mark Bitterlich -------------------------------------------- In 1996, a change occurred in the focus and mission of Red Star Aviation. This was due to a defining event that took place in Dave Suttons' life: He almost died. Dave was purchasing a new airplane for the Red Star collection, a Yak-18T, and was being given a demonstration ride by the sellers, who were two brothers. On the demonstration flight, the engine failed catastrophically after takeoff and the Yak was forced-landed into a dense forest. The two brothers, who were the owners and sellers, were killed. Dave was critically injured and spent the better part of the next year healing and learning to walk again. He also spent the next year contemplating to following questions: What could have been done differently? What link in the error chain could have been broken that day, or the week before, or the year before, in order to have stopped this mishap from occurring?" How can I get this message out to the Warbird community?" Dave's research showed that the owners of the Yak had been sold the airplane "sight unseen" by an unscrupulous dealer, even though they were obviously not going to be able to operate it. This was due to the fact that both of the brothers who had purchased the Yak had lost the fingers on their right hands in a gasoline fire years before, thus making it impossible for them to use the hand-operated brakes or taxi the Yak-18. The seller who brought it to them had flown it up from Georgia (after cashing their check for an airplane that they had bought sight-unseen!) and had dropped it off and left without taking even an hour to help the new owners learn to preflight it. Nobody ever told the new owners that they needed to clear the oil from the cylinders of a radial engine before starting it, so they never did. The new owners had never flown the airplane in the year that they owned it, but had started it twice without clearing the oil from the cylinders and had thus badly damaged the number 5 connecting rod. The owners never even questioned what was happening when Dave cleared the oil from the cylinders before the mishap flight, as they were apparently too embarrassed to let him know that they didn't understand what he was doing or to admit that they had never done it themselves. On the mishap flight, the connecting rod failed, the engine failed instantly, and there was no place but the forest to go. Here is the final result of the error chain: A series of factors had lined up wrong, nobody had ever looked out for the buyers of this exotic airplane, and they were killed. Upon reflection, the actual reason for the mishap became clear. It was obvious that the mishap occurred because, when they purchased the Yak-18T: -----Original Message----- From: Dave Sutton [mailto:pilots@nac.net] Subject: Yak-List: Non-Commercial Posting --> Yak-List message posted by: "Dave Sutton" My dear friend Ernie points out that we are not supposed to make commercial posts. Just to clarify: Red Star Aviation is a group of strictly unpaid volunteer consultants who assist Warbird operators with expert level advice and do so without compensation. In the specific area of aircraft certification, the question that was posed regarding the certification of the Yak-52, our volunteer consultant assigned to a member requesting further information would be this man, who out subject matter expert on aircraft certification: +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Capt. Robert Stoney, USN (ret). A retired Naval Aviator and former Commanding Officer of the United States Naval Test Pilot School, Bob is currently serving as a Test Pilot for the FAA's Wichita Aircraft Certification Office where he has been a project pilot for the certification of the Hawker Horizon, Cessna's Sovereign and CJ-3, the Garmin G1000 Avionics suite and numerous other programs. Bob's previous flight experience includes 22 years as a Naval Aviator and Test Pilot, including tours as the Chief Flight Instructor and Commanding Officer of the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School, where he was qualified to instruct in every fixed-wing aircraft from gliders, to tail-draggers, to fast jets and the P-3 Orion. Bob achieved a Master's Degree from the Naval Postgraduate School in Aeronautical Engineering. He has accumulated 6500 flight hours in over 150 different models and holds FAA Airline Transport (with 7 type ratings), glider and seaplane ratings. Bob's personal interests include sailing, soaring, and coaching. Bob has flown the Fouga Magister, L-39, and several other Classic Jets. He is a Member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots +++++++++++++++++++++++++ I would say that having FREE direct contact with a current FAA Test Pilot working for the AC Certification Branch, who was the former CO of the USN Test Pilot School, and to have this man be willing to give FREE advice would be something that the community might find of value. One might with to visit the "Leadership" portion of our website to see who else offers to assist *you*, for no charge whatsoever. Our only goal is to offer professional level assistance to those who wish to obtain it. If you do not wish to obtain this information, feel free to not read what we write! Since we do not charge for our services, you cannot complain about it.... ;-) Respectfully, Dave Sutton www.RedStarAviation.org ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:35:21 AM PST US From: Ernest Martinez Subject: Re: Yak-List: Question on accident --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez As I understand it, Dave Canavo was called to do the pre-buy on the Yak-18T, when he heard the engine he immediately knew that there was something wrong with the engine, and suspected a bent rod. He told them not to buy the plane and he left. The brothers intent on buying this airplane must have decided to get a second opinion. Ernie On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:20:34 -0500, Bitterlich GS11 Mark G wrote: > --> Yak-List message posted by: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G > > Mr. Sutton, > > Just my own 2 cents if you will, with a question and comment. > > One of the list members of this group asked a question about certification > of a YAK-52. You mentioned that your organization supports efforts in that > regard. I think everyone "got that" and can go look themselves and read > about all your goals and intent. Nothing wrong with letting everyone know > about another site on the Internet that they can go to for expert advice on > issues that they may want more information on. After all, to each his own. > > Interestingly enough, there are a whole slew of experts on this site too. > The total knowledge and experience represented in the people that read and > write to this list-server is very impressive and generates a "sum that is > greater than the individual parts situation" if you will. I am sure that if > your organization wants to learn and benefit from the knowledge base > represented here, that they can peruse the historical data base of stored > messages. > > For my own part, I went to your Web Site and read it from front to back. It > is....a very impressive read. I got to the section about the start of it > all, and the historical perspective and I found your article about the > YAK-18T and the horrible crash where peoples lives were lost and you > survived. I am sorry anyone died, but I was left not understanding the issue > involved completely. > > As an member of many accident investigations teams while in the military I > would like to learn from this event, and if possible would like to ask one > question if I may, and ... let me apologize in advance for asking... but it > is just something that struck me and I had to mention it: > > In this article (included below) you mentioned that you were being given a > demonstration ride. You also mention that the owners had never flown the > airplane in the year that they owned it, but had started it twice without > clearing the oil from the cylinders and had thus badly damaged the number 5 > connecting rod. > > You also say that the owners never even questioned what was happening when > you cleared the oil from the cylinders before the mishap flight, as they > were apparently too embarrassed to let you know that they didn't understand > what you were doing or to admit that they had never done it themselves. The > two people in question were killed in the accident on that very same flight. > > Ok, here is my question: > > If the two owners never knew to clear the engine of oil before starting it, > and they never admitted this to you, even when they saw you do it while > pre-flighting the aircraft on the accident flight... and then they died when > the crash happened on that very flight when the engine failed..... > > How in the world do you know that they knew nothing about clearing the oil, > and that they had started it twice without clearing the engine at all? If > they did not tell you, then who did? If someone else told you, isn't that > hear-say evidence? > > I mean, your article says: [The owners] "apparently too embarrassed to let > [you] know that they didn't understand what [you] [were] doing or to admit > that they had never done it themselves" "never even questioned what was > happening when [you] cleared the oil from the cylinders before the mishap > flight" > > What I have learned from operating M-14 engines is that you can bend a > Con-Rod and it can fail on the very next flight, or go another 100 hours and > then fail. It is next to impossible to predict just exactly WHEN it is > going to fail. Based on that experience, it seems to me that the engine in > your ill-fated YAK-18T could have been damaged by anyone, anywhere, and that > it might be less than fair to put that failure off on two men who did not > know to clear the engine of oil, that fact which I can't figure out how you > determined anyway? > > Regardless, you might want to re-write that article so as to put to rest the > questions of observers who when they read it, appear to see a situation > where 2 plus 2 equals 5 (per se). > > Sincerely, > > Mark Bitterlich > > -------------------------------------------- > > In 1996, a change occurred in the focus and mission of Red Star Aviation. > This was due to a defining event that took place in Dave Suttons' life: He > almost died. Dave was purchasing a new airplane for the Red Star collection, > a Yak-18T, and was being given a demonstration ride by the sellers, who were > two brothers. On the demonstration flight, the engine failed > catastrophically after takeoff and the Yak was forced-landed into a dense > forest. The two brothers, who were the owners and sellers, were killed. Dave > was critically injured and spent the better part of the next year healing > and learning to walk again. He also spent the next year contemplating to > following questions: > > What could have been done differently? > > What link in the error chain could have been broken that day, or the week > before, or the year before, in order to have stopped this mishap from > occurring?" > > How can I get this message out to the Warbird community?" > > Dave's research showed that the owners of the Yak had been sold the airplane > "sight unseen" by an unscrupulous dealer, even though they were obviously > not going to be able to operate it. This was due to the fact that both of > the brothers who had purchased the Yak had lost the fingers on their right > hands in a gasoline fire years before, thus making it impossible for them to > use the hand-operated brakes or taxi the Yak-18. The seller who brought it > to them had flown it up from Georgia (after cashing their check for an > airplane that they had bought sight-unseen!) and had dropped it off and left > without taking even an hour to help the new owners learn to preflight it. > Nobody ever told the new owners that they needed to clear the oil from the > cylinders of a radial engine before starting it, so they never did. The new > owners had never flown the airplane in the year that they owned it, but had > started it twice without clearing the oil from the cylinders and had thus > badly damaged the number 5 connecting rod. The owners never even questioned > what was happening when Dave cleared the oil from the cylinders before the > mishap flight, as they were apparently too embarrassed to let him know that > they didn't understand what he was doing or to admit that they had never > done it themselves. On the mishap flight, the connecting rod failed, the > engine failed instantly, and there was no place but the forest to go. Here > is the final result of the error chain: A series of factors had lined up > wrong, nobody had ever looked out for the buyers of this exotic airplane, > and they were killed. > Upon reflection, the actual reason for the mishap became clear. It was > obvious that the mishap occurred because, when they purchased the Yak-18T: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Sutton [mailto:pilots@nac.net] > To: yak-list@matronics.com > Subject: Yak-List: Non-Commercial Posting > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Dave Sutton" > > My dear friend Ernie points out that we are not supposed to make > commercial posts. Just to clarify: > > Red Star Aviation is a group of strictly unpaid volunteer consultants > who assist Warbird operators with expert level advice and do so without > compensation. In the specific area of aircraft certification, the > question that was posed regarding the certification of the Yak-52, our > volunteer consultant assigned to a member requesting further information > would be this man, who out subject matter expert on aircraft > certification: > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Capt. Robert Stoney, USN (ret). A retired Naval Aviator and former > Commanding Officer of the United States Naval Test Pilot School, Bob is > currently serving as a Test Pilot for the FAA's Wichita Aircraft > Certification Office where he has been a project pilot for the > certification of the Hawker Horizon, Cessna's Sovereign and CJ-3, the > Garmin G1000 Avionics suite and numerous other programs. Bob's previous > flight experience includes 22 years as a Naval Aviator and Test Pilot, > including tours as the Chief Flight Instructor and Commanding Officer of > the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School, where he was qualified to instruct in > every fixed-wing aircraft from gliders, to tail-draggers, to fast jets > and the P-3 Orion. Bob achieved a Master's Degree from the Naval > Postgraduate School in Aeronautical Engineering. He has accumulated 6500 > flight hours in over 150 different models and holds FAA Airline > Transport (with 7 type ratings), glider and seaplane ratings. Bob's > personal interests include sailing, soaring, and coaching. Bob has flown > the Fouga Magister, L-39, and several other Classic Jets. He is a Member > of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > I would say that having FREE direct contact with a current FAA Test > Pilot working for the AC Certification Branch, who was the former CO of > the USN Test Pilot School, and to have this man be willing to give FREE > advice would be something that the community might find of value. > > One might with to visit the "Leadership" portion of our website to see > who else offers to assist *you*, for no charge whatsoever. Our only goal > is to offer professional level assistance to those who wish to obtain > it. If you do not wish to obtain this information, feel free to not read > what we write! Since we do not charge for our services, you cannot > complain about it.... ;-) > > Respectfully, > > Dave Sutton > > www.RedStarAviation.org > > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:41:17 AM PST US From: Bill Geipel Subject: Yak-List: sutton --> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Geipel Ernie, Play nice. dave doesn't have any dear or any kind of friends. Can you imagine waking up evry morning and realizing that you can't find 2 people in the world that would say anything good about you. And now he is on the Yak list. The only Yak he ever flew was the one he crashed and killed some innocent people. But I'm sure we will here some great response. He is the only civilian pilot that flew more hours than me and I fly for the airlines which is about 800 hours a year. I guess back seat simulator time counts as PIC??? I can hardley wait for that response. Test Pilot? Submit a program (that you actually flew) and the application?? Is that all it takes? I'm in. I'll bet that damn Ernie still hasn't memorized the pressurization schedule for the L-29. Shame on Ernie. I'm sure dave will straighten you out. After all he is a L-29 check pilot. I'll bet he has even flown one. Once. I of course being the professional that I am, have memorized the pressurization schedule of the Yak-52. I would be happy to share that info for free of course, with anyone whishing to become a better astronaut. dave, jump in here anytime you feel regarding astronaut training and shuttle test pilot school. Oh to be the Ace-of-the-Base! How I wish it were me. But then if it were I, who then would I turn to for answers? God, perhaps? I'm sure He also calls dave for advice. Enough fun for now, I'm off to Mumbai. Stay tuned for more exciting adventures. By the way, I love my Yak. I have 1 set of jacks, skiis!!, new air pump, and some other misc. parts for sale. TTFN ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 11:42:40 AM PST US From: Ernest Martinez Subject: Yak-List: Red Star --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RedStarAviation/contrac.HTML Hmmm, doesnt look like a non-profit org from here. Ernie ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 11:46:59 AM PST US Subject: Re: Yak-List: Question on accident From: "Jon Boede" --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" Is this the accident where two people get killed and the PIC repored that he had exactly 0.0 hours time in type to the NTSB? The co-pilot had 1.5 hours in type so one wonders who was demonstrating what to whom. Jon > --> Yak-List message posted by: Bitterlich GS11 Mark G > > > Mr. Sutton, > > Just my own 2 cents if you will, with a question and comment. > > One of the list members of this group asked a question about certification > of a YAK-52. You mentioned that your organization supports efforts in > that > regard. I think everyone "got that" and can go look themselves and read > about all your goals and intent. Nothing wrong with letting everyone know > about another site on the Internet that they can go to for expert advice > on > issues that they may want more information on. After all, to each his own. > > Interestingly enough, there are a whole slew of experts on this site too. > The total knowledge and experience represented in the people that read and > write to this list-server is very impressive and generates a "sum that is > greater than the individual parts situation" if you will. I am sure that > if > your organization wants to learn and benefit from the knowledge base > represented here, that they can peruse the historical data base of stored > messages. > > For my own part, I went to your Web Site and read it from front to back. > It > is....a very impressive read. I got to the section about the start of it > all, and the historical perspective and I found your article about the > YAK-18T and the horrible crash where peoples lives were lost and you > survived. I am sorry anyone died, but I was left not understanding the > issue > involved completely. > > As an member of many accident investigations teams while in the military I > would like to learn from this event, and if possible would like to ask one > question if I may, and ... let me apologize in advance for asking... but > it > is just something that struck me and I had to mention it: > > In this article (included below) you mentioned that you were being given a > demonstration ride. You also mention that the owners had never flown the > airplane in the year that they owned it, but had started it twice without > clearing the oil from the cylinders and had thus badly damaged the number > 5 > connecting rod. > > You also say that the owners never even questioned what was happening when > you cleared the oil from the cylinders before the mishap flight, as they > were apparently too embarrassed to let you know that they didn't > understand > what you were doing or to admit that they had never done it themselves. > The > two people in question were killed in the accident on that very same > flight. > > > Ok, here is my question: > > If the two owners never knew to clear the engine of oil before starting > it, > and they never admitted this to you, even when they saw you do it while > pre-flighting the aircraft on the accident flight... and then they died > when > the crash happened on that very flight when the engine failed..... > > How in the world do you know that they knew nothing about clearing the > oil, > and that they had started it twice without clearing the engine at all? If > they did not tell you, then who did? If someone else told you, isn't that > hear-say evidence? > > I mean, your article says: [The owners] "apparently too embarrassed to let > [you] know that they didn't understand what [you] [were] doing or to admit > that they had never done it themselves" "never even questioned what was > happening when [you] cleared the oil from the cylinders before the mishap > flight" > > What I have learned from operating M-14 engines is that you can bend a > Con-Rod and it can fail on the very next flight, or go another 100 hours > and > then fail. It is next to impossible to predict just exactly WHEN it is > going to fail. Based on that experience, it seems to me that the engine > in > your ill-fated YAK-18T could have been damaged by anyone, anywhere, and > that > it might be less than fair to put that failure off on two men who did not > know to clear the engine of oil, that fact which I can't figure out how > you > determined anyway? > > Regardless, you might want to re-write that article so as to put to rest > the > questions of observers who when they read it, appear to see a situation > where 2 plus 2 equals 5 (per se). > > Sincerely, > > Mark Bitterlich > > -------------------------------------------- > > > In 1996, a change occurred in the focus and mission of Red Star Aviation. > This was due to a defining event that took place in Dave Suttons' life: He > almost died. Dave was purchasing a new airplane for the Red Star > collection, > a Yak-18T, and was being given a demonstration ride by the sellers, who > were > two brothers. On the demonstration flight, the engine failed > catastrophically after takeoff and the Yak was forced-landed into a dense > forest. The two brothers, who were the owners and sellers, were killed. > Dave > was critically injured and spent the better part of the next year healing > and learning to walk again. He also spent the next year contemplating to > following questions: > > What could have been done differently? > > What link in the error chain could have been broken that day, or the week > before, or the year before, in order to have stopped this mishap from > occurring?" > > How can I get this message out to the Warbird community?" > > Dave's research showed that the owners of the Yak had been sold the > airplane > "sight unseen" by an unscrupulous dealer, even though they were obviously > not going to be able to operate it. This was due to the fact that both of > the brothers who had purchased the Yak had lost the fingers on their right > hands in a gasoline fire years before, thus making it impossible for them > to > use the hand-operated brakes or taxi the Yak-18. The seller who brought it > to them had flown it up from Georgia (after cashing their check for an > airplane that they had bought sight-unseen!) and had dropped it off and > left > without taking even an hour to help the new owners learn to preflight it. > Nobody ever told the new owners that they needed to clear the oil from the > cylinders of a radial engine before starting it, so they never did. The > new > owners had never flown the airplane in the year that they owned it, but > had > started it twice without clearing the oil from the cylinders and had thus > badly damaged the number 5 connecting rod. The owners never even > questioned > what was happening when Dave cleared the oil from the cylinders before the > mishap flight, as they were apparently too embarrassed to let him know > that > they didn't understand what he was doing or to admit that they had never > done it themselves. On the mishap flight, the connecting rod failed, the > engine failed instantly, and there was no place but the forest to go. Here > is the final result of the error chain: A series of factors had lined up > wrong, nobody had ever looked out for the buyers of this exotic airplane, > and they were killed. > Upon reflection, the actual reason for the mishap became clear. It was > obvious that the mishap occurred because, when they purchased the Yak-18T: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Sutton [mailto:pilots@nac.net] > To: yak-list@matronics.com > Subject: Yak-List: Non-Commercial Posting > > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Dave Sutton" > > My dear friend Ernie points out that we are not supposed to make > commercial posts. Just to clarify: > > Red Star Aviation is a group of strictly unpaid volunteer consultants > who assist Warbird operators with expert level advice and do so without > compensation. In the specific area of aircraft certification, the > question that was posed regarding the certification of the Yak-52, our > volunteer consultant assigned to a member requesting further information > would be this man, who out subject matter expert on aircraft > certification: > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Capt. Robert Stoney, USN (ret). A retired Naval Aviator and former > Commanding Officer of the United States Naval Test Pilot School, Bob is > currently serving as a Test Pilot for the FAA's Wichita Aircraft > Certification Office where he has been a project pilot for the > certification of the Hawker Horizon, Cessna's Sovereign and CJ-3, the > Garmin G1000 Avionics suite and numerous other programs. Bob's previous > flight experience includes 22 years as a Naval Aviator and Test Pilot, > including tours as the Chief Flight Instructor and Commanding Officer of > the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School, where he was qualified to instruct in > every fixed-wing aircraft from gliders, to tail-draggers, to fast jets > and the P-3 Orion. Bob achieved a Master's Degree from the Naval > Postgraduate School in Aeronautical Engineering. He has accumulated 6500 > flight hours in over 150 different models and holds FAA Airline > Transport (with 7 type ratings), glider and seaplane ratings. Bob's > personal interests include sailing, soaring, and coaching. Bob has flown > the Fouga Magister, L-39, and several other Classic Jets. He is a Member > of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > I would say that having FREE direct contact with a current FAA Test > Pilot working for the AC Certification Branch, who was the former CO of > the USN Test Pilot School, and to have this man be willing to give FREE > advice would be something that the community might find of value. > > > One might with to visit the "Leadership" portion of our website to see > who else offers to assist *you*, for no charge whatsoever. Our only goal > is to offer professional level assistance to those who wish to obtain > it. If you do not wish to obtain this information, feel free to not read > what we write! Since we do not charge for our services, you cannot > complain about it.... ;-) > > > Respectfully, > > > Dave Sutton > > www.RedStarAviation.org > > ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 12:33:31 PM PST US From: Ernest Martinez Subject: Re: Yak-List: sutton --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez Bill, Thanks for coming out of the woodwork :) Ernie On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:40:55 -0600 (GMT-06:00), Bill Geipel wrote: > --> Yak-List message posted by: Bill Geipel > > Ernie, > > Play nice. dave doesn't have any dear or any kind of friends. Can you imagine waking up evry morning and realizing that you can't find 2 people in the world that would say anything good about you. > > And now he is on the Yak list. The only Yak he ever flew was the one he crashed and killed some innocent people. But I'm sure we will here some great response. > > He is the only civilian pilot that flew more hours than me and I fly for the airlines which is about 800 hours a year. I guess back seat simulator time counts as PIC??? I can hardley wait for that response. > > Test Pilot? Submit a program (that you actually flew) and the application?? Is that all it takes? I'm in. > > I'll bet that damn Ernie still hasn't memorized the pressurization schedule for the L-29. Shame on Ernie. I'm sure dave will straighten you out. After all he is a L-29 check pilot. I'll bet he has even flown one. Once. > > I of course being the professional that I am, have memorized the pressurization schedule of the Yak-52. I would be happy to share that info for free of course, with anyone whishing to become a better astronaut. dave, jump in here anytime you feel regarding astronaut training and shuttle test pilot school. > > Oh to be the Ace-of-the-Base! How I wish it were me. But then if it were I, who then would I turn to for answers? > God, perhaps? I'm sure He also calls dave for advice. > > Enough fun for now, I'm off to Mumbai. Stay tuned for more exciting adventures. > > By the way, I love my Yak. > > I have 1 set of jacks, skiis!!, new air pump, and some other misc. parts for sale. > > TTFN > > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 02:09:06 PM PST US From: "TC Johnson" Subject: Yak-List: MTV3 Spinner parts --> Yak-List message posted by: "TC Johnson" Anybody have any spinner parts or complete spinner for MTV3? (with new style hub). I have a new MTV9 spinner but it won't fit on my MTV3 with new style hub. Contact directly, off list to: tj@cannonaviation.com Tj ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 02:35:15 PM PST US From: "cpayne@joimail.com" Subject: Yak-List: Re: Red Star --> Yak-List message posted by: "cpayne@joimail.com" Just when things were getting dull and you thought it was safe to post to the list!! Geez, and I was wasting my spare time reading my new FAR/AIM. I love this list! Craig Payne ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 02:47:55 PM PST US From: cjpilot710@aol.com Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Red Star --> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com In a message dated 2/15/2005 5:35:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, cpayne@joimail.com writes: --> Yak-List message posted by: "cpayne@joimail.com" Just when things were getting dull and you thought it was safe to post to the list!! Geez, and I was wasting my spare time reading my new FAR/AIM. I love this list! Craig Payne Read the FAR/AIM?! What a waste of time! Better to fly. It's another beautiful day in Florida guys! Pappy ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 04:56:10 PM PST US From: "Greg Young" Subject: RE: Yak-List: Airworthyness Certification --> Yak-List message posted by: "Greg Young" Frank, You should also be clear what you're really asking... Obtaining a new type certificate is a monumental engineering task and when successful you get a Type Certificate number that represents the approved design. It's an asset that can be sold. "Conforming" to an existing Type Certificate is a lesser challenge. Conformity inspections are done all the time to resurrect basket cases or return foreign registered aircraft to US registration. Adding to the confusion is the rumor that North American obtained a civilian TC for P-51's and T-6's and produced some small number under those TC's. Getting a TC back then was far easier than now and given the military experience was probably obtained just by applying. I've never looked at the Type Certificate list to confirm the rumor. If true, those copies would have been built under a Production Certificate to conform to the TC and been given a Standard Airworthiness Certificate. In theory, any other airframe that conforms to the TC be recertified with a Standard AC. The rub is how you demonstrate comformity to the TC and what FSDO you have to satisfy. For the Yak, you would have to get a new TC either by re-engineering or reverse-engineering or a reciprocal agreement or some combination - big $$$. It's unlikely you could get a TC without some changes to the design. All of those changes would have to be incorporated for any old airframe to conform to the TC. And all that is before you ask why anyone would want to convert a perfectly good Experimental into a Certified model. Most people I know want to go the other way. The notable exception is going from Experimental-Exhibition to Limited where you lose some operating restrictions. Greg > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. > Dennis Savarese > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:07 AM > To: yak-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Airworthyness Certification > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" > --> > > Frank, > Please don't misread me. I am certainly not disagreeing with > you about obtaining a Standard Airworthiness Certificate and > certifying the aircraft in the Normal category. My only > question is why would you want to do that when the cost of > ownership, excluding the certification cost, would go up > substantially? > > In checking the P-51 registrations, many are certified as > Experimental Exhibition. Some are certified as Experimental, > Amateur Built > (interesting?!) and some I see are certified Limited. There > is also the Experimental, Racing certified aircraft as well. > I finally found one that says Standard. It is registered in > FL, BUT the registration is listed as "revoked". But > Standard is not a Category. It is a type of airworthiness > certificate, the same as ours, which is a Special > airworthiness certificate. > The Standard airworthiness certificate categories are: > Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, Commuter, Transport, Manned free > balloons, Special classes. > > One of the key issues is the following statement as found on > the FAA's web site under Determine Aircraft Eligibility. > "... The FAA has completed an inspection of the aircraft and > determined that > the aircraft conforms to its FAA-approved type design." The > operative > words are "FAA-approved type design". > > If one wanted to pursue the Import Aircraft airworthiness > certificate approval, according to the FAA web site, a > bilateral agreement must exist. > You can dig through that stuff if you want to. But I don't > think that a > bilateral agreement between the US and either Russia or > Romania existed when the Yak 52's were designed and > manufactured nor is there one today that would cover the Yak > 52. Today there are some bilateral agreements between the US > and Romania and Russia, but they are VERY limited as you will > see if you dig through the stuff. > Dennis > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frank Haertlein" > To: > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Airworthyness Certification > > > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" > > > > > Dennis > > I had a discussion with someone who assumes he knows what > he's talking > > about. He tells me that there is a P-51 somewhere that is > certified in > > the normal category (the owner having spent 5 million to get it > > certified here in the US). From what I know about the certification > > process, if one aircraft is certified, that certification > then applies > > to all of the same model aircraft built by that company. It > stands to > > reason then that a certified P-51 would mean all P-51's > built the same > > way would have that certification. AND! He says, that is the reason > > P-51's command such a high price as compared to other warbirds! > > > > He also says it's possible to personally finance certification of my > > YAK-52 into the normal category (if I have enough money to > do it) and > > that the certification would then apply only to my aircraft and no > > others in the fleet. I could then sell the certification to > others like > > you might sell plans for an STC'd part. Frankly, it sounds > like a load > > of bull so I wanted to get second opinions. I've never hear > of a normal > > category P-51 or a normal category warbird. What do you think? > > > > Thanks in advance > > Frank > > YAK-52 > > N9110M > > L71 ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 05:20:24 PM PST US From: "Frank Haertlein" Subject: RE: Yak-List: Airworthiness Certification --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" Ernie I learned allot from Dave's post and appreciate his insight and knowledge. Commercial advertising it is not! Besides, even if it were it would be appreciated as it relates to our type of flying problems. Frank N9110M YAK-52 L71 Read the List rules, "No Commercial Advertising on this list" Ernie ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 06:59:37 PM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: Yak-List: Usage Guidelines... --> Yak-List message posted by: Matt Dralle Dear Yak Listers... There have been some posts recently that - no matter how I read them - violate the intent of the List Usage Guidelines. I think everyone knows which posts I'm talking about and I don't intend to point any fingers. If you wouldn't say it to or about your mother, don't say it on the List. Let's keep it friendly. Thanks! Matt Dralle Yak-List Administrator ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 07:55:54 PM PST US From: "Frank Haertlein" Subject: RE: Yak-List: Airworthyness Certification --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" Greg, Dennis, Dave Thanks for your input. It lays to rest a bunch of rumors and has helped in understanding the maze of FAA regs. Frank N9110M YAK-52 L71 -----Original Message----- From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Young Subject: RE: Yak-List: Airworthyness Certification --> Yak-List message posted by: "Greg Young" Frank, You should also be clear what you're really asking... Obtaining a new type certificate is a monumental engineering task and when successful you get a Type Certificate number that represents the approved design. It's an asset that can be sold. "Conforming" to an existing Type Certificate is a lesser challenge. Conformity inspections are done all the time to resurrect basket cases or return foreign registered aircraft to US registration. Adding to the confusion is the rumor that North American obtained a civilian TC for P-51's and T-6's and produced some small number under those TC's. Getting a TC back then was far easier than now and given the military experience was probably obtained just by applying. I've never looked at the Type Certificate list to confirm the rumor. If true, those copies would have been built under a Production Certificate to conform to the TC and been given a Standard Airworthiness Certificate. In theory, any other airframe that conforms to the TC be recertified with a Standard AC. The rub is how you demonstrate comformity to the TC and what FSDO you have to satisfy. For the Yak, you would have to get a new TC either by re-engineering or reverse-engineering or a reciprocal agreement or some combination - big $$$. It's unlikely you could get a TC without some changes to the design. All of those changes would have to be incorporated for any old airframe to conform to the TC. And all that is before you ask why anyone would want to convert a perfectly good Experimental into a Certified model. Most people I know want to go the other way. The notable exception is going from Experimental-Exhibition to Limited where you lose some operating restrictions. Greg > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. > Dennis Savarese > Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:07 AM > To: yak-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Airworthyness Certification > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" > --> > > Frank, > Please don't misread me. I am certainly not disagreeing with > you about obtaining a Standard Airworthiness Certificate and > certifying the aircraft in the Normal category. My only > question is why would you want to do that when the cost of > ownership, excluding the certification cost, would go up > substantially? > > In checking the P-51 registrations, many are certified as > Experimental Exhibition. Some are certified as Experimental, > Amateur Built > (interesting?!) and some I see are certified Limited. There > is also the Experimental, Racing certified aircraft as well. > I finally found one that says Standard. It is registered in > FL, BUT the registration is listed as "revoked". But > Standard is not a Category. It is a type of airworthiness > certificate, the same as ours, which is a Special > airworthiness certificate. > The Standard airworthiness certificate categories are: > Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, Commuter, Transport, Manned free > balloons, Special classes. > > One of the key issues is the following statement as found on > the FAA's web site under Determine Aircraft Eligibility. > "... The FAA has completed an inspection of the aircraft and > determined that > the aircraft conforms to its FAA-approved type design." The > operative > words are "FAA-approved type design". > > If one wanted to pursue the Import Aircraft airworthiness > certificate approval, according to the FAA web site, a > bilateral agreement must exist. > You can dig through that stuff if you want to. But I don't > think that a > bilateral agreement between the US and either Russia or > Romania existed when the Yak 52's were designed and > manufactured nor is there one today that would cover the Yak > 52. Today there are some bilateral agreements between the US > and Romania and Russia, but they are VERY limited as you will > see if you dig through the stuff. > Dennis > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frank Haertlein" > To: > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Airworthyness Certification > > > > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" > > > > > Dennis > > I had a discussion with someone who assumes he knows what > he's talking > > about. He tells me that there is a P-51 somewhere that is > certified in > > the normal category (the owner having spent 5 million to get it > > certified here in the US). From what I know about the certification > > process, if one aircraft is certified, that certification > then applies > > to all of the same model aircraft built by that company. It > stands to > > reason then that a certified P-51 would mean all P-51's > built the same > > way would have that certification. AND! He says, that is the reason > > P-51's command such a high price as compared to other warbirds! > > > > He also says it's possible to personally finance certification of my > > YAK-52 into the normal category (if I have enough money to > do it) and > > that the certification would then apply only to my aircraft and no > > others in the fleet. I could then sell the certification to > others like > > you might sell plans for an STC'd part. Frankly, it sounds > like a load > > of bull so I wanted to get second opinions. I've never hear > of a normal > > category P-51 or a normal category warbird. What do you think? > > > > Thanks in advance > > Frank > > YAK-52 > > N9110M > > L71