Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:18 AM - M14 (c w)
2. 06:43 AM - Re: BMA EFIS (cjpilot710@aol.com)
3. 07:10 AM - Control Surface Modifications (Richard Goode)
4. 07:11 AM - M14P Engines (Richard Goode)
5. 08:12 AM - Re: BMA EFIS (Ernest Martinez)
6. 10:54 AM - Re: M14 (Richard Basiliere)
7. 11:37 AM - Re: Control Surface Modifications (Doug Sapp)
8. 11:48 AM - Geo Baker Aviation? (Doug Sapp)
9. 12:13 PM - Re: Control Surface Modifications (Herb Coussons)
10. 12:41 PM - Re: Control Surface Modifications (Brian Lloyd)
11. 05:26 PM - Re: Control Surface Modifications (Roger Doc Kemp)
12. 05:30 PM - Re: M14 (Tim & Jessie Windsor)
13. 06:06 PM - Aluminum Control Surfaces VS Ceconite (Stits) (Frank Haertlein)
14. 06:46 PM - Re: M14P Engines (Samuel Sax)
15. 07:03 PM - Re: M14P Engines (A. Dennis Savarese)
16. 09:03 PM - Re: M14P Engines (Roger Doc Kemp)
17. 09:10 PM - Re: Geo Baker Aviation? (Cliff Umscheid)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: c w <pilotcraig2001@yahoo.com>
I still have 6 M14s left.
Craig
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
In a message dated 8/3/2005 2:04:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
erniel29@gmail.com writes:
> Pappy,
>
> How are you making out with your EFIS Sport? The reason I ask, is that
> a friend here, is having a hell of a time with his EFIS 1, bad
> documentation, wrong specs, things flat dont work, etc.
>
> Ernie
>
Ernie,
What problem I had was with a lose connection in side the box. Once I seated
the plug it gave me all the right colors. The one thing that is wrong is the
template dimensions for the panel cutout. The mounting holes are very close
tolerances to the sides.
The real problem is when you go to change the flash card for updates, you
need to take the whole unit out of the panel and take the top on the box off.
This can be a real pain with some installation (mine).
I guess the documentation stinks, but I'm one of those guys who usually don't
read it anyway. :}
Pappy
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: | Control Surface Modifications |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Goode" <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
In response to Steve Dalton, there is absolutely nothing wrong with metalized control
surfaces =96 many of the world=92s production aeroplanes have them.=20
In terms of the new Aerostar Yak-52TW etc., it seems that the change to metalized
surfaces has been a bit problematic =96 but this is nothing to do with the
concept of metalized control surfaces.
My concern is of UNQUALIFIED people adding weight onto control surfaces without
appropriate analysis, and, most importantly, without subsequent flutter tests.
This is the critical issue.
As for Aerostar, I am sure they would have gone through this process before metalizing
the control surfaces of their current aircraft.=20
Richard Goode
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Mob: +44 (0) 7768 610389
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
dangerous content by the http://www.invictawiz.com
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Goode" <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
In reply to Steve Dalton's letter.
The simple position is as follows:
Aerostar in Romania was supplied with the raw castings/forgings to make engines.
These all came from the Voronezh Mechanical Plant in Voronezh, Russia.=20
VMP have not made a new engine in its entirety since 1994. (This excludes a handful
of the new M9F (430/450) engines made for the Russian Team Sukhois).
HOWEVER, VMP have all jigs and tooling, and indeed are making a number of new components
today.
It is absolutely correct to say that no one is TODAY making totally new engines.
VMP are going to make new engines, and clearly have the technical ability to do
so having produced the vast majority of M14Ps that already are in service.
It is a very good point that there are no current manufacturers of bought-in items
such as carburettors and magnetos.
Further there are many M14P powered aircraft in the West; a significant amount
from the home-builder market, and without doubt both overhauled and new engines
will be available well into the future. However the prices will not be the
same as we have grown complacent about!
Richard Goode
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Mob: +44 (0) 7768 610389
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
dangerous content by the http://www.invictawiz.com
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
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: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
Thanks for the input.
Ernie
On 8/5/05, cjpilot710@aol.com <cjpilot710@aol.com> wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: cjpilot710@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 8/3/2005 2:04:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> erniel29@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> > Pappy,
> >
> > How are you making out with your EFIS Sport? The reason I ask, is that
> > a friend here, is having a hell of a time with his EFIS 1, bad
> > documentation, wrong specs, things flat dont work, etc.
> >
> > Ernie
> >
>
> Ernie,
>
> What problem I had was with a lose connection in side the box. Once I seated
> the plug it gave me all the right colors. The one thing that is wrong is the
> template dimensions for the panel cutout. The mounting holes are very close
> tolerances to the sides.
>
> The real problem is when you go to change the flash card for updates, you
> need to take the whole unit out of the panel and take the top on the box off.
> This can be a real pain with some installation (mine).
>
> I guess the documentation stinks, but I'm one of those guys who usually don't
> read it anyway. :}
>
> Pappy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Basiliere" <BasiliereR@ci.boulder.co.us>
Craig;
How much? My bud that flys SU-26 is looking hard. His name is Don
Nelson, of Unlimited competition and airshow "fame".
Thanks, Rick
>>> pilotcraig2001@yahoo.com 8/5/2005 1:18:01 AM >>>
--> Yak-List message posted by: c w <pilotcraig2001@yahoo.com>
I still have 6 M14s left.
Craig
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Control Surface Modifications |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug Sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Richard,
I normally would not say this on the list but it needs to be said. What you
think qualifies an individual to do a specific task may be quite different
in the UK than here in the US. Most every new idea in aviation today from
VG's to the new ignition systems came from the US experimental aircraft
community. Very few of the contributors were or are in your definition,
"qualified engineers" (hell the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics). If
we waited for the engineers, and or the FAA to bless the popular mods of
today we would have a long wait indeed. The Skunk Works mentality is shared
by many of the US contingent of the EAA and I am happy to say that the
feeling is alive and well within the Yak community today. But Sadly, when
looking at the many recent advancements I can think of none, not one, that
comes from the UK, why is that? We, here in the US, by our very nature are
a bunch of experimenters and entrepreneurs all trying to build a better
mouse trap, it's all part of who we are. We are brash upstarts, modifiers,
and in many cases just idealistic dam fools, but we keep on trying, that's
what makes this a great country. (please excuse the flag waving)
You mention Aerostar and say that "you are sure". Why are you are sure??
It's nice that you have such confidence in them but the truth is that you
don't really know! All you really know is that you would like to think, and
you hope that they did the testing. They are playing to a experimental
market, not a certified market, IMHO their motivation to do complete testing
may be different than that of Cessna, Beech or Piper. Consider the first
TW's, they did very little or no testing on load factors for the attach
brackets for the new tail wheel modification. This is evidenced by the fact
(not opinion or supposition) that the first aircraft had many problems with
poor construction methods which led to weakness and structural failures in
the tail wheel attachment area, and metalized control surfaces cracked
within a very few hours. All this would tend to make one believe that these
first aircraft were rushed into service without proper research or actual
long term flight testing. To their credit however most problems were
quickly rectified. My point here is that we do not actually know to what
extent Aerostar has gone to to test for flutter, so why post unless you are
sure that they have even done the testing? My research shows that at least
on the early TW's they simply have pop riveted (yes pop riveted) metal skins
to the stock standard fabric control surface, rather they changed the weight
of the bob weight is unknown to me at this time, but I have inquiries out to
gather this information. My guess is that they metalized the surfaces, flew
that aircraft and found no problems and shipped them out. Again that is my
guess, and is not fact at this writing.
I agree with you, this is a critical issue, technical in nature, and as such
there is little or no room for wild eyed conjecture. You are looked upon as
being an authority on Yaks, when you say "I am sure" it tends to take the
weight of truth. So if you post to the list on items of such a critical
nature please do us all a service and post what you know to be fact, if not
fact, state it that way. I also think it better to post to the originator
of the post who would be Barry Hancock at WWW, and not feed the rumor mill
with information that you "think" is correct.
Anyone wishing to comment or anyone that has good factual information that
would help shed light on the issue and thusly make the whole project safer,
please respond to either Barry or myself off list.
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard Goode
Subject: Yak-List: Control Surface Modifications
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Goode"
<richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
In response to Steve Dalton, there is absolutely nothing wrong with
metalized control surfaces =96 many of the world=92s production aeroplanes
have them.
In terms of the new Aerostar Yak-52TW etc., it seems that the change to
metalized surfaces has been a bit problematic =96 but this is nothing to do
with the concept of metalized control surfaces.
My concern is of UNQUALIFIED people adding weight onto control surfaces
without appropriate analysis, and, most importantly, without subsequent
flutter tests. This is the critical issue.
As for Aerostar, I am sure they would have gone through this process before
metalizing the control surfaces of their current aircraft.
Richard Goode
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Mob: +44 (0) 7768 610389
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
dangerous content by the http://www.invictawiz.com
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
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: | Geo Baker Aviation? |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug Sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
Could someone out there either give me the phone number for Geo Baker
Aviation or get word to them to call me @ 509-826-4610. Many thanks.
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Control Surface Modifications |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Herb Coussons <drc@wscare.com>
I can tell you that TW concerns are not always thought out well by
the factory.
At OSH this year our oil cooler relocation from the belly to the wing
was admired heavily by Christian Dragoi from the factory.
He said when he figures out which cooler is in the wing "we steal it"
- not re-engineer it.
Imagine in general aviation having a pilot rebuild a major system on
a Cessna /Piper/Beech and have the factory walk up and say "I like
it, we'll start doing it that way" I would say that Aerostar is very
much an experimental aircraft company. This does not mean anything
derogatory - I'm glad we aren't paying certified prices for our
ships. I think they are better designed, stronger, better
performance etc for less than half the money of anything certified in
the USA. But I do not think all the flight test data exists behind
the design either. (Doug, I said "I think" NOT "I am sure")
I am now the joke of the local field - in addition to the YAK I have
a Wilga - you know the Polish experimental. I even think the Poles
had a more methodical design process than the Romanians/Russians.
Neat plane.
Anyway - I hope the factory steals our design to improve the TW oil
cooler - it only validates our work. $12,000 out of our pockets to
get the right design. Available in kit form - $2900. Consistent oil
temps of 150-155 C. Even on the long OSH taxi at 90F outside temp
max oil temp was 160 C.
Looks cool, works great (see pics in archive)
We have flight tested to extreme now - all manuevers including
inverted spins, and gyroscopic acro - tumbling etc. +7 to -3 G's.
Now about 50 hours of flight with half of that acro.
I love experimental - !!
Herb
On Aug 5, 2005, at 1:36 PM, Doug Sapp wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug Sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
>
> Richard,
> I normally would not say this on the list but it needs to be said.
> What you
> think qualifies an individual to do a specific task may be quite
> different
> in the UK than here in the US. Most every new idea in aviation
> today from
> VG's to the new ignition systems came from the US experimental
> aircraft
> community. Very few of the contributors were or are in your
> definition,
> "qualified engineers" (hell the Wright brothers were bicycle
> mechanics). If
> we waited for the engineers, and or the FAA to bless the popular
> mods of
> today we would have a long wait indeed. The Skunk Works mentality
> is shared
> by many of the US contingent of the EAA and I am happy to say that the
> feeling is alive and well within the Yak community today. But
> Sadly, when
> looking at the many recent advancements I can think of none, not
> one, that
> comes from the UK, why is that? We, here in the US, by our very
> nature are
> a bunch of experimenters and entrepreneurs all trying to build a
> better
> mouse trap, it's all part of who we are. We are brash upstarts,
> modifiers,
> and in many cases just idealistic dam fools, but we keep on trying,
> that's
> what makes this a great country. (please excuse the flag waving)
>
> You mention Aerostar and say that "you are sure". Why are you are
> sure??
> It's nice that you have such confidence in them but the truth is
> that you
> don't really know! All you really know is that you would like to
> think, and
> you hope that they did the testing. They are playing to a
> experimental
> market, not a certified market, IMHO their motivation to do
> complete testing
> may be different than that of Cessna, Beech or Piper. Consider the
> first
> TW's, they did very little or no testing on load factors for the
> attach
> brackets for the new tail wheel modification. This is evidenced by
> the fact
> (not opinion or supposition) that the first aircraft had many
> problems with
> poor construction methods which led to weakness and structural
> failures in
> the tail wheel attachment area, and metalized control surfaces cracked
> within a very few hours. All this would tend to make one believe
> that these
> first aircraft were rushed into service without proper research or
> actual
> long term flight testing. To their credit however most problems were
> quickly rectified. My point here is that we do not actually know
> to what
> extent Aerostar has gone to to test for flutter, so why post unless
> you are
> sure that they have even done the testing? My research shows that
> at least
> on the early TW's they simply have pop riveted (yes pop riveted)
> metal skins
> to the stock standard fabric control surface, rather they changed
> the weight
> of the bob weight is unknown to me at this time, but I have
> inquiries out to
> gather this information. My guess is that they metalized the
> surfaces, flew
> that aircraft and found no problems and shipped them out. Again
> that is my
> guess, and is not fact at this writing.
>
> I agree with you, this is a critical issue, technical in nature,
> and as such
> there is little or no room for wild eyed conjecture. You are
> looked upon as
> being an authority on Yaks, when you say "I am sure" it tends to
> take the
> weight of truth. So if you post to the list on items of such a
> critical
> nature please do us all a service and post what you know to be
> fact, if not
> fact, state it that way. I also think it better to post to the
> originator
> of the post who would be Barry Hancock at WWW, and not feed the
> rumor mill
> with information that you "think" is correct.
>
> Anyone wishing to comment or anyone that has good factual
> information that
> would help shed light on the issue and thusly make the whole
> project safer,
> please respond to either Barry or myself off list.
>
> Always Yakin,
> Doug Sapp
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard Goode
> To: YAK USA LIST
> Subject: Yak-List: Control Surface Modifications
>
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Richard Goode"
> <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
>
> In response to Steve Dalton, there is absolutely nothing wrong with
> metalized control surfaces =96 many of the world=92s production
> aeroplanes
> have them.
>
>
> In terms of the new Aerostar Yak-52TW etc., it seems that the
> change to
> metalized surfaces has been a bit problematic =96 but this is
> nothing to do
> with the concept of metalized control surfaces.
>
>
> My concern is of UNQUALIFIED people adding weight onto control
> surfaces
> without appropriate analysis, and, most importantly, without
> subsequent
> flutter tests. This is the critical issue.
>
>
> As for Aerostar, I am sure they would have gone through this
> process before
> metalizing the control surfaces of their current aircraft.
>
>
> Richard Goode
>
>
> Richard Goode Aerobatics
> Rhodds Farm
> Lyonshall
> Herefordshire
> HR5 3LW
> United Kingdom
>
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
> Mob: +44 (0) 7768 610389
> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
> www.russianaeros.com
>
> dangerous content by the http://www.invictawiz.com
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Control Surface Modifications |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Doug Sapp wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug Sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
>
> Richard,
> I normally would not say this on the list but it needs to be said. What you
> think qualifies an individual to do a specific task may be quite different
> in the UK than here in the US. Most every new idea in aviation today from
> VG's to the new ignition systems came from the US experimental aircraft
> community. Very few of the contributors were or are in your definition,
> "qualified engineers" (hell the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics).
I am not sure that I totally agree with you Doug. There are innovations that
we are seeing in the experimental community but they are not really in areas
of aerodynamics. Materials, modeling, systems, and avionics, yes.
Aerodynamics, no.
VGs are not new. They have been around for many decades and have long been
used to extend the low speed part of the envelope, mostly on jets, but they
were the result of professional application of science and engineering.
The Wright Brothers may have been early and may have made their living fixing
bicycles, but they were consummate professional aeronautical engineers. Their
methods made them so. They approached flight in a dispassionate manner and
used formal scientific method and experimentation to separate fact from fancy.
As a result, they were successful where so many other failed. They may have
been amateurs in that they didn't make any money from it at first but they
were 100% professional engineers and scientists in their application.
> If
> we waited for the engineers, and or the FAA to bless the popular mods of
> today we would have a long wait indeed.
I agree with you on the FAA as they are mostly clueless. Most of the people
within that organization just don't know anything about airplanes anymore.
I think that you are wrong about engineering tho'. Burt Rutan, Dick
VanGrunsven, and Curtis Pitts are/were consummate engineers and they, among
others, have certainly led the experimental aircraft revolution. Amateur
aircraft building and professional engineering go hand-in-hand. They are most
definitely not mutually exclusive. The advantage we have here in the US is
that, in the experimental aircraft field, we can put good engineering to use
more rapidly than can people tied to FAA or CAA certification. That is how we
get rapid advances. But that in no way sidesteps the need for good engineering.
> The Skunk Works mentality is shared
> by many of the US contingent of the EAA and I am happy to say that the
> feeling is alive and well within the Yak community today. But Sadly, when
> looking at the many recent advancements I can think of none, not one, that
> comes from the UK, why is that?
They are too tightly regulated, even more so than with our FAA (which is bad
enough). That does not prevent Richard from making valid observations. A
government can regulate to the point where people can no longer act but that
does not prevent their brains from working. Richard brings up valid points.
> We, here in the US, by our very nature are
> a bunch of experimenters and entrepreneurs all trying to build a better
> mouse trap, it's all part of who we are. We are brash upstarts, modifiers,
> and in many cases just idealistic dam fools, but we keep on trying, that's
> what makes this a great country. (please excuse the flag waving)
This is not a political or geographic issue. You have chosen to offer a
product. Knowing the kinds of problems that a product like this *might* have,
Mike, Richard, and I have raised valid questions. We are not calling into
question your ability to do good work but we are asking for further
clarification on your methods for determining its safety and efficacy.
I have said two things:
1. there are problems associated with metalized control surfaces that must be
dealt with to ensure safety;
2. I do not see that the advantages are great enough to justify the effort
*FOR* *ME*.
Both of these statements are valid and true.
> My point here is that we do not actually know to what
> extent Aerostar has gone to to test for flutter, so why post unless you are
> sure that they have even done the testing? My research shows that at least
> on the early TW's they simply have pop riveted (yes pop riveted)
Well, they may have been something like Cherry-Max blind rivets. While those
look like pop-rivets, they are definitely best available practice for
attaching skins in an area that is inaccessible.
> metal skins
> to the stock standard fabric control surface, rather they changed the weight
> of the bob weight is unknown to me at this time, but I have inquiries out to
> gather this information. My guess is that they metalized the surfaces, flew
> that aircraft and found no problems and shipped them out. Again that is my
> guess, and is not fact at this writing.
And that may be so but that is not really the issue here. The discussion was
about the product that you and Barry are promulgating. What Aerostar is doing
is a bit of a red herring at the moment.
> I agree with you, this is a critical issue, technical in nature, and as such
> there is little or no room for wild eyed conjecture.
I agree with you 100% on this.
> You are looked upon as
> being an authority on Yaks, when you say "I am sure" it tends to take the
> weight of truth. So if you post to the list on items of such a critical
> nature please do us all a service and post what you know to be fact, if not
> fact, state it that way. I also think it better to post to the originator
> of the post who would be Barry Hancock at WWW, and not feed the rumor mill
> with information that you "think" is correct.
But we have no facts at the moment. We are at the point of early discussion.
We are asking questions, not condemning. We are saying, "gee, there could be a
problem with this. How have you dealt with the potential problems?" I do know
that metalizing control surfaces can reduce flutter margin and that people
have died from control surface flutter. Is it not reasonable to point that out
and then ask how you have ensured adequate flutter margin? That is just common
sense.
> Anyone wishing to comment or anyone that has good factual information that
> would help shed light on the issue and thusly make the whole project safer,
> please respond to either Barry or myself off list.
Why off list? Public discourse brings in ideas from other areas and may
short-circuit the process and lead to a better solution. It will certainly
elevate the level of education for everyone.
--
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brian-yak@lloyd.com Suite 201
http://www.lloyd.com St. Thomas, VI 00802
+1.340.998.9447 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Control Surface Modifications |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Doc Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Herb,
I do not have a TW and am only asking the question out of curiosity. What
does it do to the stall characteristics of the wing. At what A/S does it
stall? Does it come at about 8-10 kilometers/hr after onset of the buffet?
Does it snap to the right with full power at high alpha? How does it
recover?
Again, I am not questioning anybody's engineering intregrity or judgement.
Certainly the Oil cooler under the chin did not work out. Never knew why
they moved it from the wing root but the the TD is having it's own set of
problems too.
The good thing about our eastern bloc friends is they never threw out the
mousetrap to invent another one. They just keep refining it.
Viperdoc
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: "Tim & Jessie Windsor" <windsorsedge@ozemail.com.au>
Hi Craig
I am Yak 52 owner in Australia , what is your location and details of your
engines.
Best Regards,
Tim & Jessie Windsor
Windsor's Edge
McDonalds Rd
Pokolbin. NSW
Ph (02) 4998 7737
windsorsedge@ozemail.com.au
----- Original Message -----
From: "c w" <pilotcraig2001@yahoo.com>
Subject: Yak-List: M14
> --> Yak-List message posted by: c w <pilotcraig2001@yahoo.com>
>
> I still have 6 M14s left.
> Craig
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1187 (20050805) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
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: | Aluminum Control Surfaces VS Ceconite (Stits) |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Frank Haertlein" <yak52driver@earthlink.net>
Richard
Don't worry about some of the blowhards on this list. They may email you
off list chastising your posts about metal control surfaces but I'm here
to tell you your posts are appreciated.
One of the great things about this list is that it goes worldwide so any
bullsh!t posts are quickly known for what they are....bullsh!t. If it's
a technical discussion it belongs right here on the list out in the
open! Not behind closed doors (off list).
You just keep right on informing us of your opinions about anything YAK
and to hell with those who'd sell you snake oil.
Frank
N9110M
YAK-52
L71
PS I've seen numerous examples of metalized control surfaces on YAKS.
It's obvious that in time they get beat up and look like crap. On the
other hand, you can slam your fist into a Ceconite control surface, put
a huge dent in it and the next day see nothing wrong as the Ceconite
will "heal itself" to the point where you can't tell were the surface
was dented. I should know....I ran into a bench vise pushing my plane
into the hanger and put a severe creased in the left aileron. I figured
I would have to recover that control surface. The next day I couldn't
find where the damage was as the Ceconite had "healed itself". Let's see
aluminum do that!
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: "Samuel Sax" <cd001633@mindspring.com>
Does anyone know the story with the Helicopter version of the M-14P engines?
There were several advertised for sale a while ago, and were represented as
"practically identical powertrain and an easy conversion" to the stock M-14P
(a different nose bowl and gears). Has anyone here on the list worked on
these engines? if yes, what was the experience? Any Merit to the claim that
they can be converted (modified) to be a stock engine for fixed wing (read
Yak, CJ) aircraft flight?
Thanks in advance,
Sam Sax
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: M14P Engines |
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Sam,
Steve Culp in Louisiana was selling several of the helicopter engines. As
you know, Steve has been involved in Yak's and M14's for years and is quite
knowledgeable about them. I would suggest you contact Steve directly at
culpspecial@yahoo.com. I'm pretty sure he can elaborate on the conversion.
Good luck,
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Samuel Sax" <cd001633@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14P Engines
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Samuel Sax" <cd001633@mindspring.com>
>
> Does anyone know the story with the Helicopter version of the M-14P
> engines?
> There were several advertised for sale a while ago, and were represented
> as
> "practically identical powertrain and an easy conversion" to the stock
> M-14P
> (a different nose bowl and gears). Has anyone here on the list worked on
> these engines? if yes, what was the experience? Any Merit to the claim
> that
> they can be converted (modified) to be a stock engine for fixed wing (read
> Yak, CJ) aircraft flight?
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Sam Sax
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Roger Doc Kemp" <viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> [Original Message]
> From: Samuel Sax <cd001633@mindspring.com>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14P Engines
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Samuel Sax" <cd001633@mindspring.com>
>
> Does anyone know the story with the Helicopter version of the M-14P
engines?
Sam,
Google Culp Special experimental aircraft. Steve Culp has been importing
them and converting them. There is a difference in the RPM since it is not
geared like our M-14 P's. I understand you can take the nose case off our's
and transfer it to the helicopter version.
Sorry, but that is the extent of my knowledge base on the conversion.
Viperdoc
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Geo Baker Aviation? |
--> Yak-List message posted by: Cliff Umscheid <netmaster15@juno.com>
Doug,
George Baker's phone: 386-427- 2727
For CURTIS @ George's, Call 386-837-4073
If you fail to make connection call ME at 386 345 1861 ,I will patch you
through.
Cliff Umscheid
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 11:48:14 -0700 "Doug Sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
writes:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Doug Sapp" <rvfltd@televar.com>
>
> Could someone out there either give me the phone number for Geo
> Baker
> Aviation or get word to them to call me @ 509-826-4610. Many
> thanks.
>
> Always Yakin,
> Doug Sapp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|