Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:59 AM - Re: making of a Fighter Pilot (Cpayne)
2. 06:42 AM - Re: Yak/CJ Spar inspections (Jon Boede)
3. 07:00 AM - Re: SNIMTA_SPAM Yak-List Digest (Barry Hancock)
4. 07:03 AM - Re: T-34 Article in Aviation Consumer (Ernest Martinez)
5. 07:51 AM - insurance & ACM (Jon Boede)
6. 11:00 AM - T-6, T-34 (Jerry Painter)
7. 11:31 AM - oil pressure (brian olofsson)
8. 11:57 AM - Re: oil pressure (A. Dennis Savarese)
9. 01:16 PM - L-39 v 29 (Roger Doc Kemp)
10. 03:23 PM - Re: L-39 v 29 (A. Dennis Savarese)
11. 03:31 PM - Re: T-6, T-34 (Ernest Martinez)
12. 03:56 PM - Re: T-6, T-34 (A. Dennis Savarese)
13. 04:10 PM - Re: Re: SNIMTA_SPAM Yak-List Digest (Ron Davis)
14. 08:21 PM - Re: L-39 v 29 (Roger Doc Kemp)
15. 08:22 PM - Re: T-6, T-34 (Roger Doc Kemp)
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: making of a Fighter Pilot |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Cpayne <cpayne@joimail.com>
Doc says:
> It takes us 18 MO. to mint a
> steely eyed young fledgling fighter pilot (wing man). That is with
> "clubbing the baby seals" 5 days a week for 24 weeks. That includes giving
> them a Friday night off at the "big house for Crud, chasing bar flies, bat
> hangings, and in general killing brain cells" to blow off steam.
Jeezz, and I washed out at the eye exam, now I see what I missed.
Becoming a Marine is much easier, just train a little bit, add some
disciple and a few fire fights...
Craig Payne
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: Yak/CJ Spar inspections |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@email.net>
I was talking with a T-34 owner about the AD and such and his recanting
the FAA position on the T-34 AD suggests that the FAA is still in
pathological denial about the fact that METAL CAN FAIL WHEN ABUSED.
This is evidenced by the fact that they continue to focus their attention
on WHERE the metal was located (in the wing spar of a T-34) instead of HOW
it was treated (subjected to repeated stress most likely in excess of the
design assumptions).
Of course, the alternative is to ground all airplanes containing metal
that's been abused. No, too many people would complain. Or, don't ground
any airplanes because you don't know. No, that could affect your job. :-)
Jon
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Vance Cochrane <vec@ecochrane.com>
>
> With all this discussion revolving around ACM in these airplanes I
> don't think anyone has mentioned spar inspections. I have 2 questions
> regarding this.
> [1] How easy is it to inspect the spar?
> [2] How easy is it to get to the wing attach bolts, and can they be
> easily removed for a magnaflux inspection?
> --
> Vance Cochrane Email: vec@ecochrane.com
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SNIMTA_SPAM Yak-List Digest |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
On Jun 23, 2005, at 11:58 PM, Ron Davis wrote:
> Really? The last time I was at Deer Valley (about a year ago) there
> were
> two canibalized hulks there, three or four flat-tired, leaking
> derelicts,
> and an L-39MS that you hadn't been able to even start let alone fly.
> You
> guys have made trememdous progress. How big is your maintenance staff?
Gee, "Ron", that's a nice picture you paint, if not inaccurate. There
is one flat-tired ZA on the ramp that is not ours, it is a former
customers that is going through a nasty divorce and we can't touch
it...as much as it kills me to see it sit there and rot. I'm dying to
go put air in the tires, but we've been told not to touch it. We have
5 aircraft that are in various stages of restoration, 4 of which will
be done by the end of the year. We then have 2 more flying company
aircraft, one for sale and one is on it's way to Chino for the Shared
Squadrons program. The rest are customers aircraft that we maintain.
The MS as a model, as I'm sure your aware, has fuel controller issues.
The plane was delivered to us in a trade and came with a host of
problems. We corrected all the problems and then the aircraft was
sold.
As for our maintenance staff, we have 3 full time guys. I'm headed to
Romania next month to secure a contract with Aerostar to have 2-4 full
time specialists at our new home in Chino. These guys are also well
versed in Yaks and our new service center will be available for Yak and
CJ servicing in a few months. I'll keep everyone on the list posted as
to when factory service, parts, and support is available.
> And just for the record, what are the N-numbers of the ten that are
> cabable
> of flying today?
Board numbers are 03, 04, 50, 74, 106, 112, 114, 144, and 147...20 and
26 are close to flyable...whoops, that's 11. Next time you're out on
the DVT ramp, take a better look, perhaps with your bifocals cleaned
this time.
And just out of curiosity, "Ron," why is it that you've never responded
to my off-list emails...and just exactly what is your involvement in
the Yak/CJ community? Gotta love the internet....
Barry
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: T-34 Article in Aviation Consumer |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
Obviously I didnt mention all the improvements of the 39 over the 29
since I didnt want to muddle the Yak list with a lot of Jet noise. But
you emphasized my point that there are a lot more systems to maintain.
Also everything else is BIGGER! Tail dolly's, engine stands, wing
stands, jacks. All of which I have for my airplane, except for the
wing stands. The L-39 C holds the same amount of fuel as my 29 1300
litres. with about a 25 GPH les burn per hour, and about 35 knots more
in cruise, and its sweet spot is around 25k ft compared to the 29's
17,500 ft. So you can get about another 100 miles in range (just
guesstimating here).
Take a ZA and now you're paying for 2000 LBS more weight, and all that
extra fuel you can take in the drop tanks goes to the drag induced by
them and the additional weight of the airplane.
I just checked the latest Circular posted on the CJAA site and they
have removed the table which list the manufacturers TBO times based on
serial numbers, but the maintenance program still says that owners are
not approved to exceed manufacturers TBO recomendations. And as I
understand, all FSDO's will insist on the standard maintenance
program.
Bottom line 39 is a great plane but those improvements come at a
price. Larger hangar, more expensive and much larger ground support
equipment, lot more expensive systems to break etc.
I also agree about market factors, look in trade-a-plane at how many
29's are for sale and how many 39's are for sale. There are just as
many 29's in the country as 39's if not more. 29 owners are more apt
to keep there $60k airplane than those poor slobs who paid 3 to 400k
for their airplanes, and now cant unload them for 250.
I tend to fly about 1 hr per month now because of fuel prices. I
generally dont go more than 30 miles from the airfield, nor more than
6500 ft. I dont reallt need all the gizmo's. The 29 is a great if
thats going to be your standard flight profile. On the other hand if
you're going to fly lots of cross country over 300 miles and need to
carry baggage, and you need something in your hangar that wont clash
with your Porche, then get a 39.
Ernie "Fire in the Hole" Martinez
On 6/24/05, Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Barry Hancock <barry@flyredstar.org>
>
> Gang,
>
> While Ernie was certainly not throwing grenades (this time... ;) ),
> there's a little more difference between the L-29 and the L-39 than has
> been stated. Without getting into specifics (contact me off list if
> you're interested), here's some more info:
>
> True, the L-29 is a more affordable aircraft to purchase and parts are
> cheap. The market simply dictates the price...there's a reason L-29's
> are inexpensive. To put it simply, the designers of the L-39 took
> everywhere the -29 fell short and made substantial improvements. Not
> only does the -39 has much better ergonomics (raised rear seat, roomy
> cockpit that can easily accommodate a 6' back seater, climate control
> system, etc.), it has automatic backup systems (loose electrical? The
> APU automatically extends, etc.) and triple redundancy in important
> areas. ABS is no small matter when you're talking about 8-10,000 lbs
> and a touch down speed of almost 100 kts. All emergency systems on the
> -39 are much improved, and there's a full annunciator panel with
> caution and warning lights for just about everything that could go
> wrong. The range of the -29 is about half that of the -39. Then
> there's 2 axis electric trim V. a manual elevator trim on the -29.
> This is just the short list.
>
> As far as cost of operation, over the course of 50 hours per year
> (which is average for active jet warbird pilots) and all things being
> equal your total bill (hull insurance aside) is going to be pretty
> close to even. They both have their place, but the overall experience
> of the L-39 is in a different class than the -29...and it should be as
> the technologies employed are almost 2 decades apart.
>
> While I'm an obvious advocate of the -39, we can also supply overhauled
> L-29's to anyone interested... ;) They are both great trainer jets
> with straight up honest flying qualities and wonderful aircraft....from
> two different eras.
>
> Now, all that being said I'm really looking forward to the Rocky
> Mountain Fly In this weekend. Jeff Pritchard is being generous and
> letting me fly his stock CJ in the show....same set up as the first
> warbird I ever flew and I'm waxing nostalgic......
>
> Cheers,
>
> Barry
>
> Barry Hancock
> President/CEO
> Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
> 1-866-L39-JETS
> cell (949) 300-5510
> www.worldwidewarbirds.com
> www.sharedsquadrons.com
>
> On Jun 23, 2005, at 10:10 AM, Doug Sapp wrote:
>
> >
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
> >
> > You're almost correct. I was going to trade in my 29 for a 39. The 39
> > is more fuel efficient than the 39, otherwise, you're looking at a
> > whole lot more money with the 39.
> >
> > The 29 is so simple that annual inspections are a breeze, the 39
> > requires a lot more attention due to the increase in systems (APU, ABS
> > brakes, etc) and the costs for parts are WAY higer. Set of brakes
> > $4000, APU $12,000. An annual inspection for the 39 at International
> > Jets starts at around $4500.
> >
> > Then theres the time life limited parts on the 39 depending on the
> > serial number of the engine you have either a 300 hr, 750 hr or 1000
> > hr TBO, which means throw it away, since an overhaul is over a $100k
> > overseas, you can get a total of 3 150 hr increases with proper
> > documentation. New engine...north of $60k, whereas a 0 time L-29
> > engine can be had for about $9500.
> >
> > So the 29 is definately cheaper to own, but its all relative. And
> > aside from the great airconditioning, and cool electric seats, and
> > trim, and the looks of the 39, they fly pretty much the same.
> >
> > All that said, if money were no object, I'd prefer the 39.
> >
> > Ernie
> >
> > Ernie
> >
> > On 6/23/05, Roger Doc Kemp <viperdoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Doc Kemp"
> >> <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> >>
> >> That was what I was refering to earlier. They are about to bring some
> > heavy
> >> weights to an airfield near you. Once they catch wind of the Boys
> >> down at
> >> Lakeland. They are using Iscra's, a Canadian bird (Tudor, I think )
> >> and an
> >> L-39. They have it all covered except for the L-29. To answer Earnies
> >> question, since I just had a major wrestling match with my self over
> >> to or
> >> not to buy an L-39 or L-29. Ironically the operating cost was almost
> >> exactly the same.....$1200 (everything included, fuel for 2 hours,
> >> oil,
> >> wear and tear money for the engine kitty/ annual, and hangering).
> >> Decided
> > I
> >> could fly my YAK- 52 for a long time on what I would have payed for 1
> >> sortie in the L-39. Oh that did not include the payment on the loan
> >> or the
> >> liability insurance.
> >> Doc
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jon Boede" <jon@email.net>
Hey, Tom Johnson... :-)
With numerous simulated air combat school -induced deaths now, aren't the
insurance companies getting close to making "fighter pilot for a day"
"schools" economically unpalatable?
Jon
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 |
|
IMItemGuid: {C5065DF5-E631-4580-A7C2-11C7AABD25FF}
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter" <wild.blue@verizon.net>
Ron,
I agree with you completely. What I am advocating is a shared, central
source of information about our airplanes so that full access to all
technical and operating information is readily available. RPA seems like a
reasonable custodian and outlet, whether by download or purchase. The first
problem, as you note, is translation of the necessary documents. For better
or worse it's not gonna be the FAA "helping" us.
Right now all you have to do to start up a commercial "training" operation
is go to the EAA website and obtain a certificate from them (EAA). Hey,
I've got one myself. Great idea for "real" training in an Experimental
airplane, but there's always someone...and the rest of us will pay when the
doo hits the doorknob.
We DO NOT want to wait until someone gets killed, especially if they are
civilians on the ground or innocents who've paid for a thrill ride. That
will only place us square in the news media and FAA crosshairs. We've been
through that with the F-86 incident 35 years ago. Once is enough.
Assuring "airworthiness" (small "a") and proper maintenance seems like a
good place to start. Hair on fire and smokin' holes is great Hollywood, but
poor reality, especially if you have to pay the bill. Of course, you can
get killed straight and level, too.
Jerry Painter
=09
">
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: brian olofsson <brian060901@yahoo.com>
Oil pressure: should I be concerned? My gauge show's a solid 4 potatoes when cold
or at cruise rpm. After the oil get's to mid green on the temp. the pressure
drop's to 2 potatoes at idle. If oil is at the top of the green the pressure
might even drop to 1.6 or so. I was considering this normal but several folks
have told me their pressure does not drop at idle.
What's normal?? Brian P.S. I'm using straight 100w
Jerry Painter <wild.blue@verizon.net> wrote:
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter"
Ron,
I agree with you completely. What I am advocating is a shared, central
source of information about our airplanes so that full access to all
technical and operating information is readily available. RPA seems like a
reasonable custodian and outlet, whether by download or purchase. The first
problem, as you note, is translation of the necessary documents. For better
or worse it's not gonna be the FAA "helping" us.
Right now all you have to do to start up a commercial "training" operation
is go to the EAA website and obtain a certificate from them (EAA). Hey,
I've got one myself. Great idea for "real" training in an Experimental
airplane, but there's always someone...and the rest of us will pay when the
doo hits the doorknob.
We DO NOT want to wait until someone gets killed, especially if they are
civilians on the ground or innocents who've paid for a thrill ride. That
will only place us square in the news media and FAA crosshairs. We've been
through that with the F-86 incident 35 years ago. Once is enough.
Assuring "airworthiness" (small "a") and proper maintenance seems like a
good place to start. Hair on fire and smokin' holes is great Hollywood, but
poor reality, especially if you have to pay the bill. Of course, you can
get killed straight and level, too.
Jerry Painter
=09
">
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: oil pressure |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Brian,
Have you verified both front and rear cockpit instruments read the same?
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "brian olofsson" <brian060901@yahoo.com>
Subject: Yak-List: oil pressure
> --> Yak-List message posted by: brian olofsson <brian060901@yahoo.com>
>
> Oil pressure: should I be concerned? My gauge show's a solid 4 potatoes
> when cold or at cruise rpm. After the oil get's to mid green on the temp.
> the pressure drop's to 2 potatoes at idle. If oil is at the top of the
> green the pressure might even drop to 1.6 or so. I was considering this
> normal but several folks have told me their pressure does not drop at
> idle.
> What's normal?? Brian P.S. I'm using straight 100w
>
> Jerry Painter <wild.blue@verizon.net> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter"
>
>
> Ron,
>
> I agree with you completely. What I am advocating is a shared, central
> source of information about our airplanes so that full access to all
> technical and operating information is readily available. RPA seems like a
> reasonable custodian and outlet, whether by download or purchase. The
> first
> problem, as you note, is translation of the necessary documents. For
> better
> or worse it's not gonna be the FAA "helping" us.
>
> Right now all you have to do to start up a commercial "training" operation
> is go to the EAA website and obtain a certificate from them (EAA). Hey,
> I've got one myself. Great idea for "real" training in an Experimental
> airplane, but there's always someone...and the rest of us will pay when
> the
> doo hits the doorknob.
>
> We DO NOT want to wait until someone gets killed, especially if they are
> civilians on the ground or innocents who've paid for a thrill ride. That
> will only place us square in the news media and FAA crosshairs. We've been
> through that with the F-86 incident 35 years ago. Once is enough.
>
> Assuring "airworthiness" (small "a") and proper maintenance seems like a
> good place to start. Hair on fire and smokin' holes is great Hollywood,
> but
> poor reality, especially if you have to pay the bill. Of course, you can
> get killed straight and level, too.
>
> Jerry Painter
>
>
> =09
> ">
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Doc Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Jeez, didn't mean to stir up the muck on the Jets. I really did have a whale of
a wrestling match over the 39 vs 29 vs YAK-9. I at this time decided to put that
lust on hold for now. Incase the fire breathing JP4 drivers haven't noticed
sweet crude just hit $60/ barrell. That is what the financial guys were saying
would happen. It is not getting any cheaper to operate a jet period or an Allison
for that matter. As long as China and India continue to suck the basin
dry, These prices are here to stay for awhile. For now I 'll continue to fly my
YAK-52 and appreciate the $49 per sortie fuel bill. I still have a child in
college and I really do not need to go long distances fast. Besides, I still have
access to pointy nosed jets in the guard. And hey, they pay for the gas and
pay me to fly them to boot. I can't get a deal better than that anywhere. Maybe
when I make that final step out the door of the guard and retire, I'll revisit
this jet idea.
Barry and Ernie, thanks for all the info on the jets. Barry, your website for the
L-39 is great. Dude, you guys in Ca are truely walking in some rare air. When
I get this daughter out of "The Univ of Al", pay for her Mrs. degree, and
Wetumpka (08A) extends their runway to 6000 ft ( currently 3500) so I can use
the hanger I already own , I will revisit the Jet Idea. Maybe by then the fuel
prices will have stablized and operating the jets will be more affordable.
But until then for $1200-1500 / hour, I can buy a whole lot of Delta round trip
tickets, have an inflight drink, and use the head at 1.5 hours. Just do not
have the window seat with the panaromic view!
At least I will be supporting our failing airlines and Drew's salary (along with
a whole hoard of other RPA members and some of squadron buds too). Lets close
this thread out for now. I will contact you guys off-line when the time is
right for me to buy a jet or a YAK 9.
Doc
Roger "Doc" Kemp
viperdoc@mindspring.com
If it don't sound Round...Why listen?
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Doc,
08A has 5600 ft.......3000 paved and 2600 grass. The only problem is, to
use the entire runway will require the keen manipulation and coordination of
hands, feet, brains and of course the airplane because there is a 90 degree
dogleg in the 5600 foot runway at the juncture of the 3000' and 2600'. -)
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Doc Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Subject: Yak-List: L-39 v 29
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Doc Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> Jeez, didn't mean to stir up the muck on the Jets. I really did have a
> whale of a wrestling match over the 39 vs 29 vs YAK-9. I at this time
> decided to put that lust on hold for now. Incase the fire breathing JP4
> drivers haven't noticed sweet crude just hit $60/ barrell. That is what
> the financial guys were saying would happen. It is not getting any cheaper
> to operate a jet period or an Allison for that matter. As long as China
> and India continue to suck the basin dry, These prices are here to stay
> for awhile. For now I 'll continue to fly my YAK-52 and appreciate the $49
> per sortie fuel bill. I still have a child in college and I really do not
> need to go long distances fast. Besides, I still have access to pointy
> nosed jets in the guard. And hey, they pay for the gas and pay me to fly
> them to boot. I can't get a deal better than that anywhere. Maybe when I
> make that final step out the door of the guard and retire, I'll revisit
> this jet idea.
> Barry and Ernie, thanks for all the info on the jets. Barry, your website
> for the L-39 is great. Dude, you guys in Ca are truely walking in some
> rare air. When I get this daughter out of "The Univ of Al", pay for her
> Mrs. degree, and Wetumpka (08A) extends their runway to 6000 ft (
> currently 3500) so I can use the hanger I already own , I will revisit the
> Jet Idea. Maybe by then the fuel prices will have stablized and
> operating the jets will be more affordable. But until then for $1200-1500
> / hour, I can buy a whole lot of Delta round trip tickets, have an
> inflight drink, and use the head at 1.5 hours. Just do not have the
> window seat with the panaromic view!
> At least I will be supporting our failing airlines and Drew's salary
> (along with a whole hoard of other RPA members and some of squadron buds
> too). Lets close this thread out for now. I will contact you guys off-line
> when the time is right for me to buy a jet or a YAK 9.
>
> Doc
>
>
> Roger "Doc" Kemp
> viperdoc@mindspring.com
> If it don't sound Round...Why listen?
>
>
>
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: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
Good article in the latest Warbirds magazine about the T-34's and
abuse from commercial operators.
Ernie
On 6/24/05, Jerry Painter <wild.blue@verizon.net> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter" <wild.blue@verizon.net>
>
>
> Ron,
>
> I agree with you completely. What I am advocating is a shared, central
> source of information about our airplanes so that full access to all
> technical and operating information is readily available. RPA seems like a
> reasonable custodian and outlet, whether by download or purchase. The first
> problem, as you note, is translation of the necessary documents. For better
> or worse it's not gonna be the FAA "helping" us.
>
> Right now all you have to do to start up a commercial "training" operation
> is go to the EAA website and obtain a certificate from them (EAA). Hey,
> I've got one myself. Great idea for "real" training in an Experimental
> airplane, but there's always someone...and the rest of us will pay when the
> doo hits the doorknob.
>
> We DO NOT want to wait until someone gets killed, especially if they are
> civilians on the ground or innocents who've paid for a thrill ride. That
> will only place us square in the news media and FAA crosshairs. We've been
> through that with the F-86 incident 35 years ago. Once is enough.
>
> Assuring "airworthiness" (small "a") and proper maintenance seems like a
> good place to start. Hair on fire and smokin' holes is great Hollywood, but
> poor reality, especially if you have to pay the bill. Of course, you can
> get killed straight and level, too.
>
> Jerry Painter
>
>
> =09
> ">
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Yep! Sure was.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Martinez" <erniel29@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: T-6, T-34
> --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
>
> Good article in the latest Warbirds magazine about the T-34's and
> abuse from commercial operators.
>
> Ernie
>
> On 6/24/05, Jerry Painter <wild.blue@verizon.net> wrote:
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter" <wild.blue@verizon.net>
>>
>>
>> Ron,
>>
>> I agree with you completely. What I am advocating is a shared, central
>> source of information about our airplanes so that full access to all
>> technical and operating information is readily available. RPA seems like
>> a
>> reasonable custodian and outlet, whether by download or purchase. The
>> first
>> problem, as you note, is translation of the necessary documents. For
>> better
>> or worse it's not gonna be the FAA "helping" us.
>>
>> Right now all you have to do to start up a commercial "training"
>> operation
>> is go to the EAA website and obtain a certificate from them (EAA). Hey,
>> I've got one myself. Great idea for "real" training in an Experimental
>> airplane, but there's always someone...and the rest of us will pay when
>> the
>> doo hits the doorknob.
>>
>> We DO NOT want to wait until someone gets killed, especially if they are
>> civilians on the ground or innocents who've paid for a thrill ride. That
>> will only place us square in the news media and FAA crosshairs. We've
>> been
>> through that with the F-86 incident 35 years ago. Once is enough.
>>
>> Assuring "airworthiness" (small "a") and proper maintenance seems like a
>> good place to start. Hair on fire and smokin' holes is great Hollywood,
>> but
>> poor reality, especially if you have to pay the bill. Of course, you can
>> get killed straight and level, too.
>>
>> Jerry Painter
>>
>>
>> =09
>> ">
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: SNIMTA_SPAM Yak-List Digest |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
I've never responded because I've never seen an off-list e-mail from you. I
don't have any involvement in Yaks or CJs anymore. I sure love this list
though. It gives a lonely ex-pat living in a mud hut halfway around the
world something to do. Call it the "Brian" syndrome.
P.S. The reason I was surprised that you have 10 L-39s flying, aside from
my observations when I was out trying to peddle parts at Deer Valley, is
that the FAA only shows 6 L-39s registered to Worldwide as of last week.
>And just out of curiosity, "Ron," why is it that you've never responded
>to my off-list emails...and just exactly what is your involvement in
>the Yak/CJ community? Gotta love the internet....
>
>Barry
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: "Roger Doc Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
No problem. Just push hard left brake, pull throttle ideal on the left
motor, and go 100% on the right motor. Oh, forgot I don't have two motors
nor two screws.
Doc
> [Original Message]
> From: A. Dennis Savarese <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 6/24/2005 5:22:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: L-39 v 29
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
<dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>
> Doc,
> 08A has 5600 ft.......3000 paved and 2600 grass. The only problem is, to
> use the entire runway will require the keen manipulation and coordination
of
> hands, feet, brains and of course the airplane because there is a 90
degree
> dogleg in the 5600 foot runway at the juncture of the 3000' and 2600'. -)
> Dennis
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roger Doc Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> To: "yak-list" <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Yak-List: L-39 v 29
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Doc Kemp"
<viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> >
> > Jeez, didn't mean to stir up the muck on the Jets. I really did have a
> > whale of a wrestling match over the 39 vs 29 vs YAK-9. I at this time
> > decided to put that lust on hold for now. Incase the fire breathing JP4
> > drivers haven't noticed sweet crude just hit $60/ barrell. That is what
> > the financial guys were saying would happen. It is not getting any
cheaper
> > to operate a jet period or an Allison for that matter. As long as China
> > and India continue to suck the basin dry, These prices are here to stay
> > for awhile. For now I 'll continue to fly my YAK-52 and appreciate the
$49
> > per sortie fuel bill. I still have a child in college and I really do
not
> > need to go long distances fast. Besides, I still have access to pointy
> > nosed jets in the guard. And hey, they pay for the gas and pay me to
fly
> > them to boot. I can't get a deal better than that anywhere. Maybe when
I
> > make that final step out the door of the guard and retire, I'll
revisit
> > this jet idea.
> > Barry and Ernie, thanks for all the info on the jets. Barry, your
website
> > for the L-39 is great. Dude, you guys in Ca are truely walking in some
> > rare air. When I get this daughter out of "The Univ of Al", pay for her
> > Mrs. degree, and Wetumpka (08A) extends their runway to 6000 ft (
> > currently 3500) so I can use the hanger I already own , I will revisit
the
> > Jet Idea. Maybe by then the fuel prices will have stablized and
> > operating the jets will be more affordable. But until then for
$1200-1500
> > / hour, I can buy a whole lot of Delta round trip tickets, have an
> > inflight drink, and use the head at 1.5 hours. Just do not have the
> > window seat with the panaromic view!
> > At least I will be supporting our failing airlines and Drew's salary
> > (along with a whole hoard of other RPA members and some of squadron
buds
> > too). Lets close this thread out for now. I will contact you guys
off-line
> > when the time is right for me to buy a jet or a YAK 9.
> >
> > Doc
> >
> >
> > Roger "Doc" Kemp
> > viperdoc@mindspring.com
> > If it don't sound Round...Why listen?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Doc Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Well that's just dandy. This would be the month that the EAA forgot to send
my magazine. Dennis can you bring a copy to the hanger next time you come
out.
Doc
> [Original Message]
> From: A. Dennis Savarese <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 6/24/2005 5:56:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: T-6, T-34
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
<dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
>
> Yep! Sure was.
> Dennis
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ernest Martinez" <erniel29@gmail.com>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: T-6, T-34
>
>
> > --> Yak-List message posted by: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
> >
> > Good article in the latest Warbirds magazine about the T-34's and
> > abuse from commercial operators.
> >
> > Ernie
> >
> > On 6/24/05, Jerry Painter <wild.blue@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Jerry Painter" <wild.blue@verizon.net>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ron,
> >>
> >> I agree with you completely. What I am advocating is a shared, central
> >> source of information about our airplanes so that full access to all
> >> technical and operating information is readily available. RPA seems
like
> >> a
> >> reasonable custodian and outlet, whether by download or purchase. The
> >> first
> >> problem, as you note, is translation of the necessary documents. For
> >> better
> >> or worse it's not gonna be the FAA "helping" us.
> >>
> >> Right now all you have to do to start up a commercial "training"
> >> operation
> >> is go to the EAA website and obtain a certificate from them (EAA).
Hey,
> >> I've got one myself. Great idea for "real" training in an Experimental
> >> airplane, but there's always someone...and the rest of us will pay
when
> >> the
> >> doo hits the doorknob.
> >>
> >> We DO NOT want to wait until someone gets killed, especially if they
are
> >> civilians on the ground or innocents who've paid for a thrill ride.
That
> >> will only place us square in the news media and FAA crosshairs. We've
> >> been
> >> through that with the F-86 incident 35 years ago. Once is enough.
> >>
> >> Assuring "airworthiness" (small "a") and proper maintenance seems like
a
> >> good place to start. Hair on fire and smokin' holes is great
Hollywood,
> >> but
> >> poor reality, especially if you have to pay the bill. Of course, you
can
> >> get killed straight and level, too.
> >>
> >> Jerry Painter
> >>
> >>
> >> =09
> >> ">
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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! --
|