Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:59 AM - Re: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! (Ron Davis)
2. 01:13 AM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Ron Davis)
3. 06:46 AM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Roger Kemp M.D.)
4. 08:06 AM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Mark Davis)
5. 08:24 AM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Roger Kemp M.D.)
6. 08:49 AM - no battery (Jerry Painter)
7. 08:51 AM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Herb Coussons)
8. 08:55 AM - Re: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! (Brian Lloyd)
9. 09:02 AM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Brian Lloyd)
10. 09:08 AM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Roger Kemp M.D.)
11. 09:09 AM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Brian Lloyd)
12. 09:09 AM - Re: no battery (Roger Kemp M.D.)
13. 09:14 AM - Here's to the genius designers (Brian Lloyd)
14. 09:42 AM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Mark Davis)
15. 10:19 AM - Re: Re: Re: N923YK (Kurt Howerton)
16. 10:49 AM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Roger Kemp M.D.)
17. 10:49 AM - TICO Airshow (cjpilot710@aol.com)
18. 11:17 AM - Re: Re: Re: N923YK (doug sapp)
19. 11:18 AM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Mark Davis)
20. 12:15 PM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Roger Kemp M.D.)
21. 12:21 PM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
22. 01:02 PM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Mark Davis)
23. 01:07 PM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Mark Davis)
24. 02:35 PM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
25. 02:37 PM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
26. 02:44 PM - Re: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
27. 02:58 PM - Re: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
28. 03:29 PM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Mark Davis)
29. 03:33 PM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Mark Davis)
30. 03:59 PM - Re: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
31. 04:22 PM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
32. 06:10 PM - CJ OV Module from Aeroelectric (Craig Winkelmann, CFI)
33. 06:34 PM - Best Aerobatic Aircraft (Craig Winkelmann, CFI)
34. 07:12 PM - Re: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! (Brian Lloyd)
35. 08:18 PM - Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... (Roger Kemp M.D.)
36. 08:20 PM - Re: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! (Dave Laird)
37. 08:26 PM - Re: Best Aerobatic Aircraft (Roger Kemp M.D.)
38. 09:06 PM - Re: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! (Brian Lloyd)
39. 09:09 PM - Re: Best Aerobatic Aircraft (Brian Lloyd)
40. 09:38 PM - Overvoltage (darn), Alternator for the CJ (Elmar Hegenauer)
41. 10:04 PM - Re: Best Aerobatic Aircraft (Jorgen Nielsen)
42. 10:43 PM - Chinese markings (peter waddington)
43. 11:00 PM - Re: Best Aerobatic Aircraft (Jan Mevis)
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: | WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! |
and now, Mark, all you need to do is go through and rebut Brian's points, p
oint by point, then Brian will get mad and leave the list for a year. It's
deja vu all over again.> Subject: Yak-List: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a M
ark & Brian discussion! > Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:50:44 -0500> From: mark
.bitterlich@navy.mil> To: yak-list@matronics.com> > --> Yak-List message po
sted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitte
rlich@navy.mil>> > The subject was written to warn the people that get bore
d from reading> "Mark and Brian" discussions. Now you can't say you were no
t warned! > > If you went this far, .. Be advised that this is a discussion
on> Alternators and Generators. More of the same. Interesting to few but>
the very dedicated electronic types. > > > Ok Brian... I'm going to take so
me pot shots here, and the YAK readers> will take it in the shorts from bor
edom I am sure! :-) > > Double >>'s from me. > Single >'s from Brian. > No
>'s, this reply. > > > >> P.s. Another little tidbit between Alternators an
d Generators.> >>> >> 1. If your batteries ever go totally dead in the air
or on the > >> ground... I mean zero or really LOW battery voltage.... And
the > >> alternator is not already on-line... It will never turn on.> > >No
t entirely true. Self-exciting alternators will. > >Even a regular alternat
or will come on line if you can get all the > >loads off the bus first.> >
True. Now name a light civil aircraft with a self-exciting alternator> inst
alled. The small B&C PMG "Alternator" will in fact do that. It> also has no
field input winding as you know. It uses permanent magnets.> Yes, the "Alt
ernators" on the EA-6B Prowler have a PMG winding as well> that is then use
d to excite the main field. These are indeed> self-exciting and it is agree
d that such models exist. These are 3> phase 30 KVA models by the way. And
yes, I have 38 years experience> working with self exciting alternators, (H
ANDS ON Brian) but I have yet> to see one on a Cessna. If the readers of th
is list want to discuss the> power generating systems on a 747, then heck y
es! However, sorry... not> on the YAK LIST and not on the Chevy in your gar
age either. > > As far as a "regular" alternator coming on line with all lo
ads> removed..... I'd like to see it done please. I went out to my 68 Camar
o> and tried it. It did not work. I went out to a Cessna 180 (1974 model)>
and it did not work. Then a 182, then a Piper 140, then a YAK-52TW. No> che
ese. I suspect that what you are suggesting is connecting a wire> jumper di
rectly from the output to the field. Impossible to do> in-flight, and not a
bright thing to do on the ground. If I am wrong> here, please correct me.
Never-the-less, I tried exactly that and it> failed to work. > > So yes, ag
ain with respect, your point in theory is entirely valid.> However, I do no
t consider it to be Germaine unless you can point to> exactly which make an
d model of aircraft, or even automobile that you> actually made it work on.
> > >> It needs a little juice to get it going so to speak.> > >That is tr
ue. OTOH the reason that the generator comes on-line without> the battery i
s the residual > >magnetism in the field. > > I concur, and a generator doe
s not come from the factory that way. It> has to be "FLASHED" in order to s
tart working the very first time.> Agreed, some manufactures' did that for
you back in the day. Depending> on how long it "sat" it sometimes still nee
ded it upon installation. > > >The alternator has the same thing. > > Defin
e what you mean by the "same thing". An alternator NEVER needs to> be "flas
hed" coming out of the box. It does NOT rely on self-induced> magnetism, an
d it is not a design FEATURE.... Except.... On very special> models usually
found on commercial or military aircraft designed for the> express purpose
of running WITHOUT any kind of battery at all. > > >You can see this by di
sconnecting the 'B' lead, putting a voltmeter on> it, and spinning up the a
lternator. > >You will get some output. It should be enough to excite the f
ield to> bootstrap the alternator to full > >output as long as nothing else
is using that output. As I said, that is> how a self-exciting alternator >
>gets going. And most internally-regulated alternators are self> exciting.
> > Interesting theory. How much does that meter load the output do you> th
ink? Yes, I am sure you can get some voltage on a meter. In my recent> expe
rience, not enough current to get the field excited though. It did> not wor
k on any test I ran. As you pointed out, there are a lot of "1> wire" alter
nators out there. I have one on my 68 Camaro... A 100 amp> alternator. It d
oes NOT self-excite. Period. > > >But there is another issue. Neither a gen
erator system nor an> alternator system should > >be operated without a bat
tery in the circuit. > > I assume we have now jumped back to common general
aviation aircraft,> because only a very few modern tactical military aircr
aft have ANY kind> of battery even installed! Granted some do have APU's. H
owever, take> the whole A-6 product line for example. No battery except for
> activating a spin assist circuit, and their alternators run the whole> ai
rcraft without a problem....no batteries needed. > > This is an example of
"reverse nit-picking" and I admit it. Point is,> some systems were designed
to be operated with a battery and some> without. Some alternators can self
excite, most can not. Discussions> then need to stay targeted on one thing
at a time. > > ANYWAY....Yes, I agree.... On models designed to run with a
battery it> is true that it is inadvisable to run the system without one.
Unless> maybe your life is at stake. Say, IFR at night. Or, as a young Mari
ne> trying to get back to the base after his battery had been stolen out of
> his car and no money to buy a new one, and too honest to swipe someone> e
lse's. A 12 volt lantern battery WILL excite a car alternator enough> to ge
t it going. Been there, done that, have the tea-shirt. Drove 500> miles bac
k to the base exactly that way. > > >The battery is needed to stabilize the
voltage. Without it you have> nothing to absorb the > >excess output when
you load-dump. Neither an alternator nor a generator> can change its > >out
put suddenly. It takes time for the magnetism in the field to ramp> up or r
amp down > >with a field current change. (Current lags voltage in an induct
or if> you want to get technical.) > > Yes... I am familiar with AC theory
Brian... And yes I remember ELI the> ICE man. But... You kind of make it so
und like without the battery,> everything will self-destruct. > > >That mea
ns that, without a battery, turn off the landing light and> watch the alter
nator or > >generator create an over voltage event.> > Better yet, leave it
on and watch it tend to smooth out voltage> excursions. :-)> > That said,
I went out to my YAK-50 last night and disconnected the> battery. I then st
arted it. I then ran up the engine to about 50 % and> called the tower and
flew it around the pattern with no battery> connected. Nothing burnt out. E
verything worked fine. It was not much> of a risk really. On a flight a few
years ago I blew the battery fuse> in flight. Well... Actually the fuse ho
lder fell apart... But same> thing. I never even knew it until I idled the
engine down and> everything in the cockpit went dead. > > This morning I we
nt out to my old piece of junk Renault Alliance. I> started the car. I then
rev'ed the engine up to 2000 RPM and> disconnected the battery. It took tw
o people to pull this stunt off. I> then drove it around the block. Nothing
bad happened. Of course I did> not have a $10,000 Avionics Stack fired up
either. > > >Now we have said WAY more about alternators and generators tha
n anyone> else wanted to hear. ;-)> > Probably so. > > Mark Bitterlich> > P
.s. Here is my opinion, and I have tried it. If you are flying around> and
suspect you have a bad battery, DO NOT TURN OFF THE ALTERNATOR to> check yo
ur battery voltage, it very well might not come back on with> zero, or even
near zero battery voltage. It is also entirely possible> that the aircraft
will be subject to inductive voltage kicks from> operating that alternator
without a battery (as Brian pointed out).> These might even be high enough
to cause equipment damage under the> right conditions. As the pilot in com
mand, you'll have to make the> decision which possibility is worse for you.
However, my testing> confirms that if you turn off the alternator with a d
ead battery,> turning it back on will accomplish nothing unless you are luc
ky enough> to have just a little something left in the battery to excite th
e> alternator allowing it to get back on line. > > Next, regardless of alte
rnator OR generator, if either is on-line and> you have a bad battery, the
power you DO generate will power the landing> gear motor, will run all your
lights, and HOPEFULLY will not damage your> avionics. Given the tests I ju
st ran in my aircraft, I would not> hesitate to do it. And yes, the tower r
eported bad hum in my> transmissions. However my little Apollo 360 GPS hung
in there without a> hick-up. > > P.p.s. And Brian, I am not saying you are
WRONG in any way. I am> saying that it is easy to switch back and forth be
tween discussing> apples and oranges during any kind of electronic discours
e of this> nature. Apples remain apples and oranges remain orange. However,
when> you put them in the same bowl, we need to be careful not to act like
========================> _
===============> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_0120
08
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: | Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in performance. A foot note nee
ds to added on price point: it's an exponential curve. An Su-31 is maybe 5
% better than a Yak 55 and costs three times as much. If you want to win i
n unlimited, you will need the 5% improvement in performance and you will n
eed to PAY big time to get. The Yak 50 and 55 are at very good points in t
he price/performance curve, but if your only concern is performance you'll
need to move way up the price curve.
As far as airshows and competition, the former is show business, meant to d
azzle and entertain. It is unrelated to competition which is the archane,
and dull as dishwater, persuit of technical perfection.> Subject: RE: Yak-L
ist: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008
15:36:21 -0500> From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> To: yak-list@matronics.com
t, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>> > No way Doc. The 50 is far fro
m being the best Aerobatic Mount... And I> say that owning one. For doing A
IRSHOWS, it may very well be one of the> best. Hang a 400HP motor on it wit
h a good three bladed prop and look> out! However for pure aerobatics I bel
ieve of all the Russian models,> the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed
by the 26, and right there> equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a tiny
notch down, and this is> of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55, and c
lose to that.. The 54.> The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of them fl
ying and you hardly> ever see one at anything other than airshows. > > The
difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply night and day. Of> course... So
is the freaking price! > > Getting the best bang for the buck, I would clea
rly put the 55 and 50> first. > > Sadly, I think we are about to see the en
d of the day where Russian> designs dominate. A lot of models have either s
topped production, or> are now asking SERIOUS prices. > > Mark Bitterlich>
> > -----Original Message-----> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com>
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp> M.D.>
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34> To: yak-list@matronics.com> Subject
: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...> > Ohhhh....
...Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!! Being one of the few and> the proud...t
he YAK-50!> > Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio boys....a well...t
he girls> too!> > Doc> > > > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com> [ma
ilto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis> Savarese>
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM> To: yak-list@matronics.com> Subje
ct: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...> > > > Ric
k,> > I'll respond to the question AND start the debate - "....who does akr
o> best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no comparison. Yak 52 wins> hands
down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!> > Dennis> > > > ----- Original M
essage ----- > > From: Rick Basiliere <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net> > > To
: yak-list@matronics.com > > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM> > Sub
ject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and> Oshkosh...> > > >
Drew;> > > > Thanks for all you and the other organizers of Red Star have>
done. I was one of the earlier originals with coming on board with Bud> in
'96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have kept some of Bud's Yak> "magazines
" crude in comparison to our slick color mag now but it> brings back great
memories. > > > > All of you out there...a big thanks - the organization is
> working. We haven't had a good - who does akro best, Yak or CJ? in a> whi
le - that one has hopefully died a gruesome death.> > > > Respectfully, Ric
k b> > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Drew <mailto:lacloudc
haser@yahoo.com> > > To: yak-list@matronics.com> > Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59
AM > > Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and> Oshkosh...>
> > > Folks,> > > > I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter dated> Wi
nter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"> > > > In that f
irst edition, page 1, the editor Bud Harrell> asked this question:> > > > "
...Will there be a Yak association like the T-34> association? I cannot ans
wer that question. For now, we may be too few,> and too far flung..."> > >
> He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those days and> had some 23 pilots
respond to this proposal to organize, out of a> distribution list of 47 ow
ners. > > > > For many of you, the founding of the Yak Pilots Club and> evo
lution to the RedStar Pilots Association, has been a positive> addition to
your interest in these aircraft and this great past time.> The RPA (RedStar
) is a unified all-aircraft aviators association, it was> about the pilots
flying, and not about one type specific aircraft or> another - the name cha
nge proposal itself was done to cement that> concept not long after a Yak 5
2 pilot called up before coming to a> California fly-in we were forming in
2001 and said "This ain't one of> those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they jus
t refer to as 'Yak' is it?".> No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal t
o forever remove such an> incorrect perception among aircraft owners of Eas
tern Block aircraft> (and beyond, RPA membership is open to pilot-owners wh
o simply commit to> the goals of training and fun). > > > > I've heard that
the Yak 52 is 30 years old this year?> The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats r
eally important, as is being pointed> out by Condor [pres] to the volunteer
s and seen through the agressive> refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read
in this quarters Red Alert, is> the realization that the RPA is 15 years o
ld - and this event is a> National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE associ
ations membership and> it's collective accomplishments and evolution. > > >
> RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and Yak> anniversaries in specia
lty publications, mass formations and other> venues, but this event is gett
ing a lot of planning effort (and RPA> treasury and sponsor money) to suppo
rt the pilots and members equally,> doesn't matter what you fly or drive.>
> > > And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow their> association...from
23 in 1993 to well over 450 today.> > > > Food for thought,> > > > Drew> >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?
Yak-List">http://www.matronics.> com/Navigator?Yak-List> href="http://for
ums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com> > href="http://www.matron
ics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c> > > > http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Yak-List> http://forums.matronics.com> http://www.matronics
======> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!-Play the word scramble challenge with sta
r power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_ja
n
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: | Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
Ron,
You are absolutely correct as is Mark on this point. However, for shear ass
fun on a truly inexpensive basis in a stead that just plain kick ass turns
heads when fired up, taxied by, and doing fly-bys the YAK 50 is your
machine. Now yes for the truly sublime expense of it, move up to a Su 31 but
to me for looks and a plain ass sexy A/C , the Sukios nor the YAK 55 have
that appeal. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If I wanted to
just plain ass turn Ben Franklins to noise in a truly kick ass airplane at
an ungodly expense, then I would buy that demilitarized F-16A that appears
occasionally in Trade-a-plane! Now from firsthand experience, that is truly
a "KICK ASS" plane. Down- right expensive to operate though at over
$6000/hour now! Granted, there are a few MIG 29's floating around too that
can be had for a song! Again, cost is going to kick your but unless you are
the Collins Foundation or the likes of.
Also, since I don't do air shows (except rarely when I get together with
bunch of my old squadron mates at our reunion about every three years) or
compete, this is purely for fun and to escape from some of the stress in my
life!
So for pure ass fun of flying in an economical to operate War-bird, pick
your poison. CJ6 (rolls to slow for my taste), the YAK-52 (have one and
enjoy flying her), or the YAK-50 (have one and absolutely love flying it).
Not to ignore the others but I have no experience with them either. I have
left the smokers intentionally out of this also except for my comments about
the 16 and 29.
Now If I were to seriously consider buying a smoker, then the L-39 is on my
list simply because of acquisition cost. Its' short field capability on a
hot day suxs and it reminds me of an F-84 in that it is a runway loving hog
on a warm day!
An A-4 Scooter is also on that list! In the scheme of things, it is a very
simple smoker to own and operate but not from a cost perspective. Now I
have gone an opened the door on who has the best Smoker with writing all
this bs.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:11 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in performance. A foot note
needs to added on price point: it's an exponential curve. An Su-31 is maybe
5% better than a Yak 55 and costs three times as much. If you want to win
in unlimited, you will need the 5% improvement in performance and you will
need to PAY big time to get. The Yak 50 and 55 are at very good points in
the price/performance curve, but if your only concern is performance you'll
need to move way up the price curve.
As far as airshows and competition, the former is show business, meant to
dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to competition which is the archane,
and dull as dishwater, persuit of technical perfection.
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best Aerobatic Mount... And I
> say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it may very well be one of the
> best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good three bladed prop and look
> out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of all the Russian models,
> the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by the 26, and right there
> equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a tiny notch down, and this is
> of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55, and close to that.. The 54.
> The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of them flying and you hardly
> ever see one at anything other than airshows.
>
> The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply night and day. Of
> course... So is the freaking price!
>
> Getting the best bang for the buck, I would clearly put the 55 and 50
> first.
>
> Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of the day where Russian
> designs dominate. A lot of models have either stopped production, or
> are now asking SERIOUS prices.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
> M.D.
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
> Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!! Being one of the few and
> the proud...the YAK-50!
>
> Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio boys....a well...the girls
> too!
>
> Doc
>
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> Savarese
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I'll respond to the question AND start the debate - "....who does akro
> best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no comparison. Yak 52 wins
> hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Rick Basiliere <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Drew;
>
>
>
> Thanks for all you and the other organizers of Red Star have
> done. I was one of the earlier originals with coming on board with Bud
> in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have kept some of Bud's Yak
> "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick color mag now but it
> brings back great memories.
>
>
>
> All of you out there...a big thanks - the organization is
> working. We haven't had a good - who does akro best, Yak or CJ? in a
> while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome death.
>
>
>
> Respectfully, Rick b
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
>
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter dated
> Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
>
>
>
> In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud Harrell
> asked this question:
>
>
>
> "...Will there be a Yak association like the T-34
> association? I cannot answer that question. For now, we may be too few,
> and too far flung..."
>
>
>
> He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those days and
> had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to organize, out of a
> distribution list of 47 owners.
>
>
>
> For many of you, the founding of the Yak Pilots Club and
> evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association, has been a positive
> addition to your interest in these aircraft and this great past time.
> The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft aviators association, it was
> about the pilots flying, and not about one type specific aircraft or
> another - the name change proposal itself was done to cement that
> concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called up before coming to a
> California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and said "This ain't one of
> those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just refer to as 'Yak' is it?".
> No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to forever remove such an
> incorrect perception among aircraft owners of Eastern Block aircraft
> (and beyond, RPA membership is open to pilot-owners who simply commit to
> the goals of training and fun).
>
>
>
> I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old this year?
> The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really important, as is being pointed
> out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and seen through the agressive
> refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in this quarters Red Alert, is
> the realization that the RPA is 15 years old - and this event is a
> National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE associations membership and
> it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>
>
>
> RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and Yak
> anniversaries in specialty publications, mass formations and other
> venues, but this event is getting a lot of planning effort (and RPA
> treasury and sponsor money) to support the pilots and members equally,
> doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
>
>
>
> And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow their
> association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450 today.
>
>
>
> Food for thought,
>
>
>
> Drew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
&====================
>
>
>
_____
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star
power. Play now!
<http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan>
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: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
Doc,
I'm with you on the Scooter. The only problem with them is needing
a huffer to crank it up. The ultimate A-4 would be Super Fox with a
J52-P408. Better than one to one at low fuel weights on a basic engine
jet and a 720 degree/sec. roll rate can't be beat!
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D.
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Ron,
You are absolutely correct as is Mark on this point. However, for
shear ass fun on a truly inexpensive basis in a stead that just plain
kick ass turns heads when fired up, taxied by, and doing fly-bys the YAK
50 is your machine. Now yes for the truly sublime expense of it, move up
to a Su 31 but to me for looks and a plain ass sexy A/C , the Sukios nor
the YAK 55 have that appeal. I know beauty is in the eye of the
beholder. If I wanted to just plain ass turn Ben Franklins to noise in
a truly kick ass airplane at an ungodly expense, then I would buy that
demilitarized F-16A that appears occasionally in Trade-a-plane! Now
from firsthand experience, that is truly a "KICK ASS" plane. Down- right
expensive to operate though at over $6000/hour now! Granted, there are a
few MIG 29's floating around too that can be had for a song! Again, cost
is going to kick your but unless you are the Collins Foundation or the
likes of.
Also, since I don't do air shows (except rarely when I get together
with bunch of my old squadron mates at our reunion about every three
years) or compete, this is purely for fun and to escape from some of
the stress in my life!
So for pure ass fun of flying in an economical to operate War-bird,
pick your poison. CJ6 (rolls to slow for my taste), the YAK-52 (have one
and enjoy flying her), or the YAK-50 (have one and absolutely love
flying it). Not to ignore the others but I have no experience with them
either. I have left the smokers intentionally out of this also except
for my comments about the 16 and 29.
Now If I were to seriously consider buying a smoker, then the L-39 is
on my list simply because of acquisition cost. Its' short field
capability on a hot day suxs and it reminds me of an F-84 in that it is
a runway loving hog on a warm day!
An A-4 Scooter is also on that list! In the scheme of things, it is a
very simple smoker to own and operate but not from a cost perspective.
Now I have gone an opened the door on who has the best Smoker with
writing all this bs.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:11 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in performance. A foot
note needs to added on price point: it's an exponential curve. An Su-31
is maybe 5% better than a Yak 55 and costs three times as much. If you
want to win in unlimited, you will need the 5% improvement in
performance and you will need to PAY big time to get. The Yak 50 and 55
are at very good points in the price/performance curve, but if your only
concern is performance you'll need to move way up the price curve.
As far as airshows and competition, the former is show business, meant
to dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to competition which is the
archane, and dull as dishwater, persuit of technical perfection.
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best Aerobatic Mount... And
I
> say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it may very well be one of
the
> best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good three bladed prop and
look
> out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of all the Russian
models,
> the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by the 26, and right there
> equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a tiny notch down, and this
is
> of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55, and close to that.. The
54.
> The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of them flying and you
hardly
> ever see one at anything other than airshows.
>
> The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply night and day. Of
> course... So is the freaking price!
>
> Getting the best bang for the buck, I would clearly put the 55 and
50
> first.
>
> Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of the day where Russian
> designs dominate. A lot of models have either stopped production, or
> are now asking SERIOUS prices.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
> M.D.
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
>
> Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!! Being one of the few
and
> the proud...the YAK-50!
>
> Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio boys....a well...the
girls
> too!
>
> Doc
>
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> Savarese
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I'll respond to the question AND start the debate - "....who does
akro
> best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no comparison. Yak 52 wins
> hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Rick Basiliere <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Drew;
>
>
>
> Thanks for all you and the other organizers of Red Star have
> done. I was one of the earlier originals with coming on board with
Bud
> in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have kept some of Bud's Yak
> "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick color mag now but it
> brings back great memories.
>
>
>
> All of you out there...a big thanks - the organization is
> working. We haven't had a good - who does akro best, Yak or CJ? in a
> while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome death.
>
>
>
> Respectfully, Rick b
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
>
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter dated
> Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
>
>
>
> In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud Harrell
> asked this question:
>
>
>
> "...Will there be a Yak association like the T-34
> association? I cannot answer that question. For now, we may be too
few,
> and too far flung..."
>
>
>
> He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those days and
> had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to organize, out of a
> distribution list of 47 owners.
>
>
>
> For many of you, the founding of the Yak Pilots Club and
> evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association, has been a positive
> addition to your interest in these aircraft and this great past
time.
> The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft aviators association, it
was
> about the pilots flying, and not about one type specific aircraft or
> another - the name change proposal itself was done to cement that
> concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called up before coming to a
> California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and said "This ain't one
of
> those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just refer to as 'Yak' is
it?".
> No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to forever remove such
an
> incorrect perception among aircraft owners of Eastern Block aircraft
> (and beyond, RPA membership is open to pilot-owners who simply
commit to
> the goals of training and fun).
>
>
>
> I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old this year?
> The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really important, as is being
pointed
> out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and seen through the
agressive
> refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in this quarters Red
Alert, is
> the realization that the RPA is 15 years old - and this event is a
> National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE associations membership
and
> it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>
>
>
> RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and Yak
> anniversaries in specialty publications, mass formations and other
> venues, but this event is getting a lot of planning effort (and RPA
> treasury and sponsor money) to support the pilots and members
equally,
> doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
>
>
>
> And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow their
> association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450 today.
>
>
>
> Food for thought,
>
>
>
> Drew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
&====================
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with
star power. Play now!
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhtt
p://www.matronics.com/contribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/20/2008 10:26 AM
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
Yes Sir! I believe that was the engine they put in the Blues!
Sweat little jet!
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Doc,
I'm with you on the Scooter. The only problem with them is needing a
huffer to crank it up. The ultimate A-4 would be Super Fox with a J52-P408.
Better than one to one at low fuel weights on a basic engine jet and a 720
degree/sec. roll rate can't be beat!
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Ron,
You are absolutely correct as is Mark on this point. However, for shear ass
fun on a truly inexpensive basis in a stead that just plain kick ass turns
heads when fired up, taxied by, and doing fly-bys the YAK 50 is your
machine. Now yes for the truly sublime expense of it, move up to a Su 31 but
to me for looks and a plain ass sexy A/C , the Sukios nor the YAK 55 have
that appeal. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If I wanted to
just plain ass turn Ben Franklins to noise in a truly kick ass airplane at
an ungodly expense, then I would buy that demilitarized F-16A that appears
occasionally in Trade-a-plane! Now from firsthand experience, that is truly
a "KICK ASS" plane. Down- right expensive to operate though at over
$6000/hour now! Granted, there are a few MIG 29's floating around too that
can be had for a song! Again, cost is going to kick your but unless you are
the Collins Foundation or the likes of.
Also, since I don't do air shows (except rarely when I get together with
bunch of my old squadron mates at our reunion about every three years) or
compete, this is purely for fun and to escape from some of the stress in my
life!
So for pure ass fun of flying in an economical to operate War-bird, pick
your poison. CJ6 (rolls to slow for my taste), the YAK-52 (have one and
enjoy flying her), or the YAK-50 (have one and absolutely love flying it).
Not to ignore the others but I have no experience with them either. I have
left the smokers intentionally out of this also except for my comments about
the 16 and 29.
Now If I were to seriously consider buying a smoker, then the L-39 is on my
list simply because of acquisition cost. Its' short field capability on a
hot day suxs and it reminds me of an F-84 in that it is a runway loving hog
on a warm day!
An A-4 Scooter is also on that list! In the scheme of things, it is a very
simple smoker to own and operate but not from a cost perspective. Now I
have gone an opened the door on who has the best Smoker with writing all
this bs.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:11 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in performance. A foot note
needs to added on price point: it's an exponential curve. An Su-31 is maybe
5% better than a Yak 55 and costs three times as much. If you want to win
in unlimited, you will need the 5% improvement in performance and you will
need to PAY big time to get. The Yak 50 and 55 are at very good points in
the price/performance curve, but if your only concern is performance you'll
need to move way up the price curve.
As far as airshows and competition, the former is show business, meant to
dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to competition which is the archane,
and dull as dishwater, persuit of technical perfection.
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best Aerobatic Mount... And I
> say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it may very well be one of the
> best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good three bladed prop and look
> out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of all the Russian models,
> the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by the 26, and right there
> equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a tiny notch down, and this is
> of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55, and close to that.. The 54.
> The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of them flying and you hardly
> ever see one at anything other than airshows.
>
> The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply night and day. Of
> course... So is the freaking price!
>
> Getting the best bang for the buck, I would clearly put the 55 and 50
> first.
>
> Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of the day where Russian
> designs dominate. A lot of models have either stopped production, or
> are now asking SERIOUS prices.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
> M.D.
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
> Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!! Being one of the few and
> the proud...the YAK-50!
>
> Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio boys....a well...the girls
> too!
>
> Doc
>
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> Savarese
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I'll respond to the question AND start the debate - "....who does akro
> best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no comparison. Yak 52 wins
> hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Rick Basiliere <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Drew;
>
>
>
> Thanks for all you and the other organizers of Red Star have
> done. I was one of the earlier originals with coming on board with Bud
> in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have kept some of Bud's Yak
> "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick color mag now but it
> brings back great memories.
>
>
>
> All of you out there...a big thanks - the organization is
> working. We haven't had a good - who does akro best, Yak or CJ? in a
> while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome death.
>
>
>
> Respectfully, Rick b
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
>
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter dated
> Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
>
>
>
> In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud Harrell
> asked this question:
>
>
>
> "...Will there be a Yak association like the T-34
> association? I cannot answer that question. For now, we may be too few,
> and too far flung..."
>
>
>
> He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those days and
> had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to organize, out of a
> distribution list of 47 owners.
>
>
>
> For many of you, the founding of the Yak Pilots Club and
> evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association, has been a positive
> addition to your interest in these aircraft and this great past time.
> The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft aviators association, it was
> about the pilots flying, and not about one type specific aircraft or
> another - the name change proposal itself was done to cement that
> concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called up before coming to a
> California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and said "This ain't one of
> those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just refer to as 'Yak' is it?".
> No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to forever remove such an
> incorrect perception among aircraft owners of Eastern Block aircraft
> (and beyond, RPA membership is open to pilot-owners who simply commit to
> the goals of training and fun).
>
>
>
> I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old this year?
> The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really important, as is being pointed
> out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and seen through the agressive
> refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in this quarters Red Alert, is
> the realization that the RPA is 15 years old - and this event is a
> National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE associations membership and
> it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>
>
>
> RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and Yak
> anniversaries in specialty publications, mass formations and other
> venues, but this event is getting a lot of planning effort (and RPA
> treasury and sponsor money) to support the pilots and members equally,
> doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
>
>
>
> And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow their
> association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450 today.
>
>
>
> Food for thought,
>
>
>
> Drew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
&====================
>
>
>
_____
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star
power. Play now!
<http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_____
Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM
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 |
|
A little automotive non-pertinent FWIW history but probably of no interes
t:
I remember when Chrysler introduced alternators on their cars, '57 or '58
I
think it was. Part of the sales pitch was the car would run just fine wi
th
the battery removed. And so they did. I have no opinion or expertise
whatsoever on this subject and can't remember what I ate for lunch yester
day
Jerry Painter
chief pilot, CFI, A&P, airport bum,
permanent latrine orderly &c.
Wild Blue Aviation
Arlington Municipal Airport (KAWO)
Hangar A-6
19203 59th Dr. NE
Arlington, WA 98223
425-876-0865
JP@FlyWBA.com
http://www.FlyWBA.com
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: | Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
No one has mentioned the mono-wing aerobatic designs such as the Edge,
Extras, etc - and the Eastern European Zlin 50 the CAP etc. The same
price/performance argument applies there too. Doc did mention the
looks of the 50 over the SU31 and the Yak 55 - but all I have to say
is the sound of the radials is enough to own one over any of the other
aerobatic planes with Lycomings. The horizontal 6 cylinders and the
smaller props sound like they about to be thrown out of the plane and
they sound they working at 110% to get the performance out of them,
whereas the M14's sound like they are just rolling along with a nice
deep rumble even though we may run them at 90-100% doing acro. So
from the ground they make such an impression...
Herb
On Feb 21, 2008, at 3:10 AM, Ron Davis wrote:
> I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in performance. A foot
> note needs to added on price point: it's an exponential curve. An
> Su-31 is maybe 5% better than a Yak 55 and costs three times as
> much. If you want to win in unlimited, you will need the 5%
> improvement in performance and you will need to PAY big time to
> get. The Yak 50 and 55 are at very good points in the price/
> performance curve, but if your only concern is performance you'll
> need to move way up the price curve.
>
> As far as airshows and competition, the former is show business,
> meant to dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to competition which
> is the archane, and dull as dishwater, persuit of technical
> perfection.
>
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
> > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> > From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
> >
> > No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best Aerobatic Mount...
> And I
> > say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it may very well be one
> of the
> > best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good three bladed prop and
> look
> > out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of all the Russian
> models,
> > the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by the 26, and right there
> > equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a tiny notch down, and
> this is
> > of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55, and close to that..
> The 54.
> > The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of them flying and you
> hardly
> > ever see one at anything other than airshows.
> >
> > The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply night and day. Of
> > course... So is the freaking price!
> >
> > Getting the best bang for the buck, I would clearly put the 55 and
> 50
> > first.
> >
> > Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of the day where Russian
> > designs dominate. A lot of models have either stopped production, or
> > are now asking SERIOUS prices.
> >
> > Mark Bitterlich
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
> > M.D.
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
> >
> > Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!! Being one of the few
> and
> > the proud...the YAK-50!
> >
> > Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio boys....a well...the
> girls
> > too!
> >
> > Doc
> >
> >
> >
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> > Savarese
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> > I'll respond to the question AND start the debate - "....who does
> akro
> > best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no comparison. Yak 52 wins
> > hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Rick Basiliere <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
> >
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
> >
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> > Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Drew;
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for all you and the other organizers of Red Star have
> > done. I was one of the earlier originals with coming on board with
> Bud
> > in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have kept some of Bud's Yak
> > "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick color mag now but it
> > brings back great memories.
> >
> >
> >
> > All of you out there...a big thanks - the organization is
> > working. We haven't had a good - who does akro best, Yak or CJ? in a
> > while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome death.
> >
> >
> >
> > Respectfully, Rick b
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
> >
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
> >
> > Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> > Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter dated
> > Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
> >
> >
> >
> > In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud Harrell
> > asked this question:
> >
> >
> >
> > "...Will there be a Yak association like the T-34
> > association? I cannot answer that question. For now, we may be too
> few,
> > and too far flung..."
> >
> >
> >
> > He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those days and
> > had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to organize, out of a
> > distribution list of 47 owners.
> >
> >
> >
> > For many of you, the founding of the Yak Pilots Club and
> > evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association, has been a positive
> > addition to your interest in these aircraft and this great past
> time.
> > The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft aviators association,
> it was
> > about the pilots flying, and not about one type specific aircraft or
> > another - the name change proposal itself was done to cement that
> > concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called up before coming to a
> > California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and said "This ain't one
> of
> > those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just refer to as 'Yak' is
> it?".
> > No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to forever remove such
> an
> > incorrect perception among aircraft owners of Eastern Block aircraft
> > (and beyond, RPA membership is open to pilot-owners who simply
> commit to
> > the goals of training and fun).
> >
> >
> >
> > I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old this year?
> > The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really important, as is being
> pointed
> > out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and seen through the
> agressive
> > refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in this quarters Red
> Alert, is
> > the realization that the RPA is 15 years old - and this event is a
> > National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE associations membership
> and
> > it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
> >
> >
> >
> > RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and Yak
> > anniversaries in specialty publications, mass formations and other
> > venues, but this event is getting a lot of planning effort (and RPA
> > treasury and sponsor money) to support the pilots and members
> equally,
> > doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
> >
> >
> >
> > And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow their
> > association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450 today.
> >
> >
> >
> > Food for thought,
> >
> >
> >
> > Drew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
> .
> > com/Navigator?Yak-List
> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> >
> > href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> > http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >
> &====================
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge
> with star power. Play now!
>
>
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: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! |
On Feb 21, 2008, at 12:56 AM, Ron Davis wrote:
> and now, Mark, all you need to do is go through and rebut Brian's
> points, point by point, then Brian will get mad and leave the list
> for a year. It's deja vu all over again.
Hey, thanks for the vote of confidence Ron. I am sure you and I will
be best-buds over brewskis in nothing flat.
Mark can do what he wants and rebut what he wants. It doesn't change
the facts. What I wrote is correct and documented by others. You can
look it up. Heck, you can even test it and prove it to yourself so it
doesn't matter who you want to believe.
As for getting mad and leaving, mostly I reach a point where I get
tired of the mailing lists I am on. The same discussions go on, mostly
between the same people (including me). The noobs ask the same
questions and get the same answers. My attempt to remedy that
situation was met with outright hostility. So I decided to go do
something else. By now I know the email addresses of the people I need
to ask if I need real information about the Yak or CJ so I don't need
the list.
For me the list is just a social thing and occasionally I can help
someone like Craig who wanted to know something about his generator.
Mark provided great specific detail in earlier messages and I provided
background that I hoped would bring the forest back into view. It
feels good to be able to help someone. But if it gets to the point
where the feeling is too negative, well, I have better things to do
with my life. I have people who want to learn to fly, people who want
to learn to fly better, and I have little people who want to learn
about science and engineering. That is a whole lot more rewarding than
arguing with someone who hasn't done their homework.
(BTW, I am not referring to Mark in this. I know Mark has done his
homework and I actually enjoy this sort of mental sparring. I know I
have to have it sooo right that Mark can't trip me up on anything. ;-)
Does that help you understand me a little better Ron? And please
understand, I do not harbor any hard feelings. If and when we meet,
the first beer *is* on me.
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brianl AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
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: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:02 AM, Mark Davis wrote:
> Doc,
> I'm with you on the Scooter. The only problem with them is
> needing a huffer to crank it up. The ultimate A-4 would be Super
> Fox with a J52-P408. Better than one to one at low fuel weights on
> a basic engine jet and a 720 degree/sec. roll rate can't be beat!
Ed Heinemann was a f'n genius. He knew how to build a toy!
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brianl AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
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: | Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
Concure.Aint Nothing Like A RADIAL. The HISS of a SMOKER just does not do
it. Now a Viper Standing on the LOUD PEDAL With 5 Stages of blower cooking @
480 50 ft off the deck on a low pass does stir my blood! Almost as much as
the F-4 stepping on the loud pedal!
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Herb Coussons
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
No one has mentioned the mono-wing aerobatic designs such as the Edge,
Extras, etc - and the Eastern European Zlin 50 the CAP etc. The same
price/performance argument applies there too. Doc did mention the looks of
the 50 over the SU31 and the Yak 55 - but all I have to say is the sound of
the radials is enough to own one over any of the other aerobatic planes with
Lycomings. The horizontal 6 cylinders and the smaller props sound like they
about to be thrown out of the plane and they sound they working at 110% to
get the performance out of them, whereas the M14's sound like they are just
rolling along with a nice deep rumble even though we may run them at 90-100%
doing acro. So from the ground they make such an impression...
Herb
On Feb 21, 2008, at 3:10 AM, Ron Davis wrote:
I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in performance. A foot note
needs to added on price point: it's an exponential curve. An Su-31 is maybe
5% better than a Yak 55 and costs three times as much. If you want to win
in unlimited, you will need the 5% improvement in performance and you will
need to PAY big time to get. The Yak 50 and 55 are at very good points in
the price/performance curve, but if your only concern is performance you'll
need to move way up the price curve.
As far as airshows and competition, the former is show business, meant to
dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to competition which is the archane,
and dull as dishwater, persuit of technical perfection.
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best Aerobatic Mount... And I
> say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it may very well be one of the
> best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good three bladed prop and look
> out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of all the Russian models,
> the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by the 26, and right there
> equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a tiny notch down, and this is
> of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55, and close to that.. The 54.
> The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of them flying and you hardly
> ever see one at anything other than airshows.
>
> The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply night and day. Of
> course... So is the freaking price!
>
> Getting the best bang for the buck, I would clearly put the 55 and 50
> first.
>
> Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of the day where Russian
> designs dominate. A lot of models have either stopped production, or
> are now asking SERIOUS prices.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
> M.D.
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
> Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!! Being one of the few and
> the proud...the YAK-50!
>
> Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio boys....a well...the girls
> too!
>
> Doc
>
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> Savarese
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I'll respond to the question AND start the debate - "....who does akro
> best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no comparison. Yak 52 wins
> hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Rick Basiliere <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Drew;
>
>
>
> Thanks for all you and the other organizers of Red Star have
> done. I was one of the earlier originals with coming on board with Bud
> in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have kept some of Bud's Yak
> "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick color mag now but it
> brings back great memories.
>
>
>
> All of you out there...a big thanks - the organization is
> working. We haven't had a good - who does akro best, Yak or CJ? in a
> while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome death.
>
>
>
> Respectfully, Rick b
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
>
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter dated
> Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
>
>
>
> In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud Harrell
> asked this question:
>
>
>
> "...Will there be a Yak association like the T-34
> association? I cannot answer that question. For now, we may be too few,
> and too far flung..."
>
>
>
> He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those days and
> had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to organize, out of a
> distribution list of 47 owners.
>
>
>
> For many of you, the founding of the Yak Pilots Club and
> evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association, has been a positive
> addition to your interest in these aircraft and this great past time.
> The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft aviators association, it was
> about the pilots flying, and not about one type specific aircraft or
> another - the name change proposal itself was done to cement that
> concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called up before coming to a
> California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and said "This ain't one of
> those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just refer to as 'Yak' is it?".
> No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to forever remove such an
> incorrect perception among aircraft owners of Eastern Block aircraft
> (and beyond, RPA membership is open to pilot-owners who simply commit to
> the goals of training and fun).
>
>
>
> I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old this year?
> The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really important, as is being pointed
> out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and seen through the agressive
> refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in this quarters Red Alert, is
> the realization that the RPA is 15 years old - and this event is a
> National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE associations membership and
> it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>
>
>
> RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and Yak
> anniversaries in specialty publications, mass formations and other
> venues, but this event is getting a lot of planning effort (and RPA
> treasury and sponsor money) to support the pilots and members equally,
> doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
>
>
>
> And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow their
> association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450 today.
>
>
>
> Food for thought,
>
>
>
> Drew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
&====================
>
>
>
_____
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star
power. Play now!
<http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution
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: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Herb Coussons wrote:
> No one has mentioned the mono-wing aerobatic designs such as the
> Edge, Extras, etc - and the Eastern European Zlin 50 the CAP etc.
> The same price/performance argument applies there too. Doc did
> mention the looks of the 50 over the SU31 and the Yak 55 - but all I
> have to say is the sound of the radials is enough to own one over
> any of the other aerobatic planes with Lycomings. The horizontal 6
> cylinders and the smaller props sound like they about to be thrown
> out of the plane and they sound they working at 110% to get the
> performance out of them, whereas the M14's sound like they are just
> rolling along with a nice deep rumble even though we may run them at
> 90-100% doing acro. So from the ground they make such an
> impression...
So true. But then comes the $64 question: who are you doing it for,
you or them?
And I don't know about you but I am finding that I don't like pulling
more than 5G anymore. I am no longer in a place where the airplane is
the limiting factor. Yak-50 sounds pretty spiffy to me.
That being said, my next airplane is going to be an SF-260. I'll
provide details as to why if anyone is interested.
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brianl AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
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 |
|
Jerry,
It's called CRS syndrome! Can't Remember Shit! Us Ol Farts seem to suffer
from it more these days!
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Painter
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:46 AM
Subject: Yak-List: no battery
A little automotive non-pertinent FWIW history but probably of no interest:
I remember when Chrysler introduced alternators on their cars, '57 or '58 I
think it was. Part of the sales pitch was the car would run just fine with
the battery removed. And so they did. I have no opinion or expertise
whatsoever on this subject and can't remember what I ate for lunch
yesterday.
Jerry Painter
chief pilot, CFI, A&P, airport bum,
permanent latrine orderly &c.
Wild Blue Aviation
Arlington Municipal Airport (KAWO)
Hangar A-6
19203 59th Dr. NE
Arlington, WA 98223
425-876-0865
JP@FlyWBA.com
<http://www.flywba.com/> http://www.FlyWBA.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: | Here's to the genius designers |
You know, we love all these airplanes. Someone should say thank-you to
the designers who made them possible.
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brianl AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
Doc,
P408's and the slats bolted up to avoid asymetric deployment while
36" wingtip to canopy!
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D.
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Yes Sir! I believe that was the engine they put in the Blues!
Sweat little jet!
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:03 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Doc,
I'm with you on the Scooter. The only problem with them is
needing a huffer to crank it up. The ultimate A-4 would be Super Fox
with a J52-P408. Better than one to one at low fuel weights on a basic
engine jet and a 720 degree/sec. roll rate can't be beat!
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D.
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
Ron,
You are absolutely correct as is Mark on this point. However, for
shear ass fun on a truly inexpensive basis in a stead that just plain
kick ass turns heads when fired up, taxied by, and doing fly-bys the YAK
50 is your machine. Now yes for the truly sublime expense of it, move up
to a Su 31 but to me for looks and a plain ass sexy A/C , the Sukios nor
the YAK 55 have that appeal. I know beauty is in the eye of the
beholder. If I wanted to just plain ass turn Ben Franklins to noise in
a truly kick ass airplane at an ungodly expense, then I would buy that
demilitarized F-16A that appears occasionally in Trade-a-plane! Now
from firsthand experience, that is truly a "KICK ASS" plane. Down- right
expensive to operate though at over $6000/hour now! Granted, there are a
few MIG 29's floating around too that can be had for a song! Again, cost
is going to kick your but unless you are the Collins Foundation or the
likes of.
Also, since I don't do air shows (except rarely when I get together
with bunch of my old squadron mates at our reunion about every three
years) or compete, this is purely for fun and to escape from some of
the stress in my life!
So for pure ass fun of flying in an economical to operate War-bird,
pick your poison. CJ6 (rolls to slow for my taste), the YAK-52 (have one
and enjoy flying her), or the YAK-50 (have one and absolutely love
flying it). Not to ignore the others but I have no experience with them
either. I have left the smokers intentionally out of this also except
for my comments about the 16 and 29.
Now If I were to seriously consider buying a smoker, then the L-39
is on my list simply because of acquisition cost. Its' short field
capability on a hot day suxs and it reminds me of an F-84 in that it is
a runway loving hog on a warm day!
An A-4 Scooter is also on that list! In the scheme of things, it is
a very simple smoker to own and operate but not from a cost perspective.
Now I have gone an opened the door on who has the best Smoker with
writing all this bs.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:11 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in performance. A foot
note needs to added on price point: it's an exponential curve. An Su-31
is maybe 5% better than a Yak 55 and costs three times as much. If you
want to win in unlimited, you will need the 5% improvement in
performance and you will need to PAY big time to get. The Yak 50 and 55
are at very good points in the price/performance curve, but if your only
concern is performance you'll need to move way up the price curve.
As far as airshows and competition, the former is show business,
meant to dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to competition which is
the archane, and dull as dishwater, persuit of technical perfection.
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best Aerobatic Mount...
And I
> say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it may very well be one
of the
> best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good three bladed prop and
look
> out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of all the Russian
models,
> the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by the 26, and right
there
> equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a tiny notch down, and
this is
> of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55, and close to that..
The 54.
> The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of them flying and you
hardly
> ever see one at anything other than airshows.
>
> The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply night and day. Of
> course... So is the freaking price!
>
> Getting the best bang for the buck, I would clearly put the 55 and
50
> first.
>
> Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of the day where
Russian
> designs dominate. A lot of models have either stopped production,
or
> are now asking SERIOUS prices.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger
Kemp
> M.D.
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
>
> Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!! Being one of the few
and
> the proud...the YAK-50!
>
> Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio boys....a well...the
girls
> too!
>
> Doc
>
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A.
Dennis
> Savarese
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I'll respond to the question AND start the debate - "....who does
akro
> best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no comparison. Yak 52 wins
> hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Rick Basiliere <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Drew;
>
>
>
> Thanks for all you and the other organizers of Red Star have
> done. I was one of the earlier originals with coming on board with
Bud
> in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have kept some of Bud's Yak
> "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick color mag now but it
> brings back great memories.
>
>
>
> All of you out there...a big thanks - the organization is
> working. We haven't had a good - who does akro best, Yak or CJ? in
a
> while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome death.
>
>
>
> Respectfully, Rick b
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
>
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter dated
> Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
>
>
>
> In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud Harrell
> asked this question:
>
>
>
> "...Will there be a Yak association like the T-34
> association? I cannot answer that question. For now, we may be too
few,
> and too far flung..."
>
>
>
> He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those days and
> had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to organize, out of a
> distribution list of 47 owners.
>
>
>
> For many of you, the founding of the Yak Pilots Club and
> evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association, has been a positive
> addition to your interest in these aircraft and this great past
time.
> The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft aviators association,
it was
> about the pilots flying, and not about one type specific aircraft
or
> another - the name change proposal itself was done to cement that
> concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called up before coming to a
> California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and said "This ain't one
of
> those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just refer to as 'Yak' is
it?".
> No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to forever remove such
an
> incorrect perception among aircraft owners of Eastern Block
aircraft
> (and beyond, RPA membership is open to pilot-owners who simply
commit to
> the goals of training and fun).
>
>
>
> I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old this year?
> The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really important, as is being
pointed
> out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and seen through the
agressive
> refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in this quarters Red
Alert, is
> the realization that the RPA is 15 years old - and this event is a
> National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE associations membership
and
> it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>
>
>
> RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and Yak
> anniversaries in specialty publications, mass formations and other
> venues, but this event is getting a lot of planning effort (and
RPA
> treasury and sponsor money) to support the pilots and members
equally,
> doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
>
>
>
> And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow their
> association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450 today.
>
>
>
> Food for thought,
>
>
>
> Drew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
&====================
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge
with star power. Play now!
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhtt
p://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Yak-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums
.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.m
atronics.com/c
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhtt
p://www.matronics.com/contribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/21/2008 11:05 AM
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 |
|
Thought I'd share a photo of our newly acquired aircraft:
http://cj6.scitechsys.com/node/107
K
Kurt Howerton wrote:
>
> Wow! This is great!
>
> I'll keep all this in mind and I'll definitely drop by here soon!
>
> K
>
> Kregg Victory wrote:
>>
>> Brian, Kurt and all,
>>
>> I have a Yak and CJ friendly shop at Reid Hillview (KRHV) in San Jose, CA.
>> Current I am in the final stages of a glass panel front and rear of my -52.
>> Also with many other mods. Also a -50 which is next in line for some
>> enhancements.
>>
>> Anyone is welcome to stop by, visit chat about Yaks, and CJ. We also are
>> form qualified and fly some ACM as well.
>>
>> Kregg Victory
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:24 AM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Re: N923YK
>>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 17, 2008, at 6:52 AM, Kurt Howerton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Close - Watts-Woodland, CA - O41
>> Kurt:
>>
>> We have two Redstar aircraft, a Yak-52 and a CJ6A (and another CJ6A
>> when my project is done), at Cameron Park -- O61. We also have two
>> SNJs, two T-28s, a T-34, and a Swift as well, all FAST-trained and all
>> who actively go out and practice formation. We can almost always put
>> up a two-ship and most times can get a four-ship formation flight with
>> just a little notice if someone is interested.
>>
>> In addition I am a CFI who specializes in transition training in both
>> the CJ6A and the Yak-52. I also teach spins, upset recovery,
>> formation, and basic aerobatics. I will be happy to provide recurring
>> training, systems training, and flight reviews in your CJ should you
>> feel the need.
>>
>> Feel free to give me a call and then pop on over. We are only about 20
>> minutes away.
>>
>> --
>> Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
>> brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
>> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>>
>> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
>> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>>
>> PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
>> PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
Mark,
Was it not he J58 that the Blues had? I understand the P408 mod now.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Doc,
P408's and the slats bolted up to avoid asymetric deployment while 36"
wingtip to canopy!
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Yes Sir! I believe that was the engine they put in the Blues!
Sweat little jet!
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Doc,
I'm with you on the Scooter. The only problem with them is needing a
huffer to crank it up. The ultimate A-4 would be Super Fox with a J52-P408.
Better than one to one at low fuel weights on a basic engine jet and a 720
degree/sec. roll rate can't be beat!
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Ron,
You are absolutely correct as is Mark on this point. However, for shear ass
fun on a truly inexpensive basis in a stead that just plain kick ass turns
heads when fired up, taxied by, and doing fly-bys the YAK 50 is your
machine. Now yes for the truly sublime expense of it, move up to a Su 31 but
to me for looks and a plain ass sexy A/C , the Sukios nor the YAK 55 have
that appeal. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If I wanted to
just plain ass turn Ben Franklins to noise in a truly kick ass airplane at
an ungodly expense, then I would buy that demilitarized F-16A that appears
occasionally in Trade-a-plane! Now from firsthand experience, that is truly
a "KICK ASS" plane. Down- right expensive to operate though at over
$6000/hour now! Granted, there are a few MIG 29's floating around too that
can be had for a song! Again, cost is going to kick your but unless you are
the Collins Foundation or the likes of.
Also, since I don't do air shows (except rarely when I get together with
bunch of my old squadron mates at our reunion about every three years) or
compete, this is purely for fun and to escape from some of the stress in my
life!
So for pure ass fun of flying in an economical to operate War-bird, pick
your poison. CJ6 (rolls to slow for my taste), the YAK-52 (have one and
enjoy flying her), or the YAK-50 (have one and absolutely love flying it).
Not to ignore the others but I have no experience with them either. I have
left the smokers intentionally out of this also except for my comments about
the 16 and 29.
Now If I were to seriously consider buying a smoker, then the L-39 is on my
list simply because of acquisition cost. Its' short field capability on a
hot day suxs and it reminds me of an F-84 in that it is a runway loving hog
on a warm day!
An A-4 Scooter is also on that list! In the scheme of things, it is a very
simple smoker to own and operate but not from a cost perspective. Now I
have gone an opened the door on who has the best Smoker with writing all
this bs.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:11 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in performance. A foot note
needs to added on price point: it's an exponential curve. An Su-31 is maybe
5% better than a Yak 55 and costs three times as much. If you want to win
in unlimited, you will need the 5% improvement in performance and you will
need to PAY big time to get. The Yak 50 and 55 are at very good points in
the price/performance curve, but if your only concern is performance you'll
need to move way up the price curve.
As far as airshows and competition, the former is show business, meant to
dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to competition which is the archane,
and dull as dishwater, persuit of technical perfection.
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best Aerobatic Mount... And I
> say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it may very well be one of the
> best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good three bladed prop and look
> out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of all the Russian models,
> the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by the 26, and right there
> equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a tiny notch down, and this is
> of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55, and close to that.. The 54.
> The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of them flying and you hardly
> ever see one at anything other than airshows.
>
> The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply night and day. Of
> course... So is the freaking price!
>
> Getting the best bang for the buck, I would clearly put the 55 and 50
> first.
>
> Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of the day where Russian
> designs dominate. A lot of models have either stopped production, or
> are now asking SERIOUS prices.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
> M.D.
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
> Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!! Being one of the few and
> the proud...the YAK-50!
>
> Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio boys....a well...the girls
> too!
>
> Doc
>
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> Savarese
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I'll respond to the question AND start the debate - "....who does akro
> best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no comparison. Yak 52 wins
> hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Rick Basiliere <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Drew;
>
>
>
> Thanks for all you and the other organizers of Red Star have
> done. I was one of the earlier originals with coming on board with Bud
> in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have kept some of Bud's Yak
> "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick color mag now but it
> brings back great memories.
>
>
>
> All of you out there...a big thanks - the organization is
> working. We haven't had a good - who does akro best, Yak or CJ? in a
> while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome death.
>
>
>
> Respectfully, Rick b
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
>
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter dated
> Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
>
>
>
> In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud Harrell
> asked this question:
>
>
>
> "...Will there be a Yak association like the T-34
> association? I cannot answer that question. For now, we may be too few,
> and too far flung..."
>
>
>
> He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those days and
> had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to organize, out of a
> distribution list of 47 owners.
>
>
>
> For many of you, the founding of the Yak Pilots Club and
> evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association, has been a positive
> addition to your interest in these aircraft and this great past time.
> The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft aviators association, it was
> about the pilots flying, and not about one type specific aircraft or
> another - the name change proposal itself was done to cement that
> concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called up before coming to a
> California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and said "This ain't one of
> those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just refer to as 'Yak' is it?".
> No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to forever remove such an
> incorrect perception among aircraft owners of Eastern Block aircraft
> (and beyond, RPA membership is open to pilot-owners who simply commit to
> the goals of training and fun).
>
>
>
> I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old this year?
> The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really important, as is being pointed
> out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and seen through the agressive
> refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in this quarters Red Alert, is
> the realization that the RPA is 15 years old - and this event is a
> National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE associations membership and
> it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>
>
>
> RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and Yak
> anniversaries in specialty publications, mass formations and other
> venues, but this event is getting a lot of planning effort (and RPA
> treasury and sponsor money) to support the pilots and members equally,
> doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
>
>
>
> And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow their
> association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450 today.
>
>
>
> Food for thought,
>
>
>
> Drew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
&====================
>
>
>
_____
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star
power. Play now!
<http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_____
Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_____
Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
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 |
|
All you RPA pilots in Florida with a week-end free on March 14-16. The TICO
(TIX) airshow is looking for pilots to fly in their show on those dates.
I normally fly in this show but my schedule this year is sort of screwed up
and I might not make it.
Call the VAC at 321-268-1941 and get them to FAX you the info fill out form.
They usually pay for fuel flown at TICO - plus to and from your home field.
Since it was very close for me to fly into each day, I have not used the
hotels in many years but I think they still pay for them or get you the cheapest
rates available.
Has always been a neat little show and a little nicer since the "wicked
witch" A---e has left. Good winter warm-up spot for the formation stuff.
Kin Terry is the other and most likely best contact 386-405-4822 (cell). He
can give you greater detail than I at this point.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Kurt,
Good looking machine!
I briefly was looking over your web page about your CJ and noted your
comment about the stock exhaust. It has been our experience that the main
problem with the short amount of time we can expect to get out of the syste
m
is caused by our lack of useage. In China where these aircraft are flown
continually day after day these sustems last for a long, long time. Becaus
e
we fly so little the systems rust away on the insides and soon fail. the
failure mode is normally first the lower left, then the lower right then th
e
upper left. The balance of the system lasts for many, many hours. To solv
e
this problem I had the factory in China make me entire systems out of
stainless steel. These systems are made on the very same forms as the old
steel systems so every part is interchangeable. What this means to you is
that you can change the "wear" parts to stainless steel as they fail becaus
e
the staniless parts are 100% interchangeable with the sotck steel parts.
This saves you a bunch of $ and pervents you from having to throw away the
remaining perfectly good exhaust parts.
About exhaust gas from the leaking exhaust entering the cockpit:
This is largly a "wives tail", the exhaust gasses which enter the cockpit
are comming in via the rear canopy skirt and the opening in the floor board
s
via the wheel wells. In flight the interior of the cockpit is a low
pressure area when compaired to the pressure of the gasses and air flowing
accross the aircraft canopys an aircraft skin. Because of this any exhaus
t
gasses in the area are quickly sucked into the cockpit. A ram air (for
summer use) will help to make the inside and outside pressure close to equa
l
will stop the gasses from entering the cockpit. A exhaust system with a
cabin heat muff will help do the same thing during the winter months if you
r
flying in the colder weather. Sealing the cabin floor and the wheel wells
helps also, but the problem will never be totally solved until you cause th
e
cabin pressure to equal or exceed the outside pressure.
Thanks for letting us see your bird, will you be at OSH this year? I'll be
there along with most of the other west coasters. We hope to fly out in on
e
big gaggle.
Feel free to give me a call if you need parts or help, office number is
509-826-4610
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Kurt Howerton <kurt@scitechsys.com> wrote
:
>
> Thought I'd share a photo of our newly acquired aircraft:
>
> http://cj6.scitechsys.com/node/107
>
> K
>
> Kurt Howerton wrote:
> >
> > Wow! This is great!
> >
> > I'll keep all this in mind and I'll definitely drop by here soon!
> >
> > K
> >
> > Kregg Victory wrote:
> kregg@balancemyprop.com>
> >>
> >> Brian, Kurt and all,
> >>
> >> I have a Yak and CJ friendly shop at Reid Hillview (KRHV) in San Jose,
> CA.
> >> Current I am in the final stages of a glass panel front and rear of my
> -52.
> >> Also with many other mods. Also a -50 which is next in line for some
> >> enhancements.
> >>
> >> Anyone is welcome to stop by, visit chat about Yaks, and CJ. We also
> are
> >> form qualified and fly some ACM as well.
> >>
> >> Kregg Victory
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> >> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
> >> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:24 AM
> >> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Re: N923YK
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Feb 17, 2008, at 6:52 AM, Kurt Howerton wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Close - Watts-Woodland, CA - O41
> >> Kurt:
> >>
> >> We have two Redstar aircraft, a Yak-52 and a CJ6A (and another CJ6A
> >> when my project is done), at Cameron Park -- O61. We also have two
> >> SNJs, two T-28s, a T-34, and a Swift as well, all FAST-trained and all
> >> who actively go out and practice formation. We can almost always put
> >> up a two-ship and most times can get a four-ship formation flight with
> >> just a little notice if someone is interested.
> >>
> >> In addition I am a CFI who specializes in transition training in both
> >> the CJ6A and the Yak-52. I also teach spins, upset recovery,
> >> formation, and basic aerobatics. I will be happy to provide recurring
> >> training, systems training, and flight reviews in your CJ should you
> >> feel the need.
> >>
> >> Feel free to give me a call and then pop on over. We are only about 20
> >> minutes away.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
> >> brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
> >> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
> >>
> >> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . .
> .
> >> =97 Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry
> >>
> >> PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
> >> PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6
C
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
Always Yakin,
Doug Sapp
Phone 509-826-4610
Fax 509-826-3644
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
Doc,
I believe all of the later Scooters had some version of the J52
except for some late models modified for export. Most were P6 or P8.
The early Skyhawks had J65 W 20's in them.
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D.
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:46 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Mark,
Was it not he J58 that the Blues had? I understand the P408 mod now.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:39 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Doc,
P408's and the slats bolted up to avoid asymetric deployment
while 36" wingtip to canopy!
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D.
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
Yes Sir! I believe that was the engine they put in the Blues!
Sweat little jet!
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:03 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
Doc,
I'm with you on the Scooter. The only problem with them is
needing a huffer to crank it up. The ultimate A-4 would be Super Fox
with a J52-P408. Better than one to one at low fuel weights on a basic
engine jet and a 720 degree/sec. roll rate can't be beat!
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D.
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
Ron,
You are absolutely correct as is Mark on this point. However, for
shear ass fun on a truly inexpensive basis in a stead that just plain
kick ass turns heads when fired up, taxied by, and doing fly-bys the YAK
50 is your machine. Now yes for the truly sublime expense of it, move up
to a Su 31 but to me for looks and a plain ass sexy A/C , the Sukios nor
the YAK 55 have that appeal. I know beauty is in the eye of the
beholder. If I wanted to just plain ass turn Ben Franklins to noise in
a truly kick ass airplane at an ungodly expense, then I would buy that
demilitarized F-16A that appears occasionally in Trade-a-plane! Now
from firsthand experience, that is truly a "KICK ASS" plane. Down- right
expensive to operate though at over $6000/hour now! Granted, there are a
few MIG 29's floating around too that can be had for a song! Again, cost
is going to kick your but unless you are the Collins Foundation or the
likes of.
Also, since I don't do air shows (except rarely when I get
together with bunch of my old squadron mates at our reunion about every
three years) or compete, this is purely for fun and to escape from some
of the stress in my life!
So for pure ass fun of flying in an economical to operate
War-bird, pick your poison. CJ6 (rolls to slow for my taste), the YAK-52
(have one and enjoy flying her), or the YAK-50 (have one and absolutely
love flying it). Not to ignore the others but I have no experience with
them either. I have left the smokers intentionally out of this also
except for my comments about the 16 and 29.
Now If I were to seriously consider buying a smoker, then the L-39
is on my list simply because of acquisition cost. Its' short field
capability on a hot day suxs and it reminds me of an F-84 in that it is
a runway loving hog on a warm day!
An A-4 Scooter is also on that list! In the scheme of things, it
is a very simple smoker to own and operate but not from a cost
perspective. Now I have gone an opened the door on who has the best
Smoker with writing all this bs.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:11 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in performance. A foot
note needs to added on price point: it's an exponential curve. An Su-31
is maybe 5% better than a Yak 55 and costs three times as much. If you
want to win in unlimited, you will need the 5% improvement in
performance and you will need to PAY big time to get. The Yak 50 and 55
are at very good points in the price/performance curve, but if your only
concern is performance you'll need to move way up the price curve.
As far as airshows and competition, the former is show business,
meant to dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to competition which is
the archane, and dull as dishwater, persuit of technical perfection.
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best Aerobatic Mount...
And I
> say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it may very well be one
of the
> best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good three bladed prop and
look
> out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of all the Russian
models,
> the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by the 26, and right
there
> equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a tiny notch down, and
this is
> of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55, and close to that..
The 54.
> The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of them flying and you
hardly
> ever see one at anything other than airshows.
>
> The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply night and day. Of
> course... So is the freaking price!
>
> Getting the best bang for the buck, I would clearly put the 55
and 50
> first.
>
> Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of the day where
Russian
> designs dominate. A lot of models have either stopped
production, or
> are now asking SERIOUS prices.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger
Kemp
> M.D.
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
>
> Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!! Being one of the
few and
> the proud...the YAK-50!
>
> Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio boys....a well...the
girls
> too!
>
> Doc
>
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A.
Dennis
> Savarese
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I'll respond to the question AND start the debate - "....who
does akro
> best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no comparison. Yak 52
wins
> hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Rick Basiliere <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Drew;
>
>
>
> Thanks for all you and the other organizers of Red Star have
> done. I was one of the earlier originals with coming on board
with Bud
> in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have kept some of Bud's
Yak
> "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick color mag now but
it
> brings back great memories.
>
>
>
> All of you out there...a big thanks - the organization is
> working. We haven't had a good - who does akro best, Yak or CJ?
in a
> while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome death.
>
>
>
> Respectfully, Rick b
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
>
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter dated
> Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
>
>
>
> In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud Harrell
> asked this question:
>
>
>
> "...Will there be a Yak association like the T-34
> association? I cannot answer that question. For now, we may be
too few,
> and too far flung..."
>
>
>
> He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those days and
> had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to organize, out of
a
> distribution list of 47 owners.
>
>
>
> For many of you, the founding of the Yak Pilots Club and
> evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association, has been a positive
> addition to your interest in these aircraft and this great past
time.
> The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft aviators
association, it was
> about the pilots flying, and not about one type specific
aircraft or
> another - the name change proposal itself was done to cement
that
> concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called up before coming to
a
> California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and said "This ain't
one of
> those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just refer to as 'Yak' is
it?".
> No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to forever remove
such an
> incorrect perception among aircraft owners of Eastern Block
aircraft
> (and beyond, RPA membership is open to pilot-owners who simply
commit to
> the goals of training and fun).
>
>
>
> I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old this year?
> The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really important, as is being
pointed
> out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and seen through the
agressive
> refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in this quarters Red
Alert, is
> the realization that the RPA is 15 years old - and this event is
a
> National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE associations
membership and
> it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>
>
>
> RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and Yak
> anniversaries in specialty publications, mass formations and
other
> venues, but this event is getting a lot of planning effort (and
RPA
> treasury and sponsor money) to support the pilots and members
equally,
> doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
>
>
>
> And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow their
> association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450 today.
>
>
>
> Food for thought,
>
>
>
> Drew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
&====================
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge
with star power. Play now!
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhtt
p://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Yak-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums
.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.m
atronics.com/c
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhtt
p://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Yak-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums
.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.m
atronics.com/c
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhtt
p://www.matronics.com/contribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
2/21/2008 11:05 AM
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
Thanks.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Doc,
I believe all of the later Scooters had some version of the J52 except
for some late models modified for export. Most were P6 or P8. The early
Skyhawks had J65 W 20's in them.
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:46 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Mark,
Was it not he J58 that the Blues had? I understand the P408 mod now.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:39 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Doc,
P408's and the slats bolted up to avoid asymetric deployment while 36"
wingtip to canopy!
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Yes Sir! I believe that was the engine they put in the Blues!
Sweat little jet!
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Doc,
I'm with you on the Scooter. The only problem with them is needing a
huffer to crank it up. The ultimate A-4 would be Super Fox with a J52-P408.
Better than one to one at low fuel weights on a basic engine jet and a 720
degree/sec. roll rate can't be beat!
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Ron,
You are absolutely correct as is Mark on this point. However, for shear ass
fun on a truly inexpensive basis in a stead that just plain kick ass turns
heads when fired up, taxied by, and doing fly-bys the YAK 50 is your
machine. Now yes for the truly sublime expense of it, move up to a Su 31 but
to me for looks and a plain ass sexy A/C , the Sukios nor the YAK 55 have
that appeal. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If I wanted to
just plain ass turn Ben Franklins to noise in a truly kick ass airplane at
an ungodly expense, then I would buy that demilitarized F-16A that appears
occasionally in Trade-a-plane! Now from firsthand experience, that is truly
a "KICK ASS" plane. Down- right expensive to operate though at over
$6000/hour now! Granted, there are a few MIG 29's floating around too that
can be had for a song! Again, cost is going to kick your but unless you are
the Collins Foundation or the likes of.
Also, since I don't do air shows (except rarely when I get together with
bunch of my old squadron mates at our reunion about every three years) or
compete, this is purely for fun and to escape from some of the stress in my
life!
So for pure ass fun of flying in an economical to operate War-bird, pick
your poison. CJ6 (rolls to slow for my taste), the YAK-52 (have one and
enjoy flying her), or the YAK-50 (have one and absolutely love flying it).
Not to ignore the others but I have no experience with them either. I have
left the smokers intentionally out of this also except for my comments about
the 16 and 29.
Now If I were to seriously consider buying a smoker, then the L-39 is on my
list simply because of acquisition cost. Its' short field capability on a
hot day suxs and it reminds me of an F-84 in that it is a runway loving hog
on a warm day!
An A-4 Scooter is also on that list! In the scheme of things, it is a very
simple smoker to own and operate but not from a cost perspective. Now I
have gone an opened the door on who has the best Smoker with writing all
this bs.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:11 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in performance. A foot note
needs to added on price point: it's an exponential curve. An Su-31 is maybe
5% better than a Yak 55 and costs three times as much. If you want to win
in unlimited, you will need the 5% improvement in performance and you will
need to PAY big time to get. The Yak 50 and 55 are at very good points in
the price/performance curve, but if your only concern is performance you'll
need to move way up the price curve.
As far as airshows and competition, the former is show business, meant to
dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to competition which is the archane,
and dull as dishwater, persuit of technical perfection.
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best Aerobatic Mount... And I
> say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it may very well be one of the
> best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good three bladed prop and look
> out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of all the Russian models,
> the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by the 26, and right there
> equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a tiny notch down, and this is
> of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55, and close to that.. The 54.
> The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of them flying and you hardly
> ever see one at anything other than airshows.
>
> The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply night and day. Of
> course... So is the freaking price!
>
> Getting the best bang for the buck, I would clearly put the 55 and 50
> first.
>
> Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of the day where Russian
> designs dominate. A lot of models have either stopped production, or
> are now asking SERIOUS prices.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
> M.D.
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
> Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!! Being one of the few and
> the proud...the YAK-50!
>
> Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio boys....a well...the girls
> too!
>
> Doc
>
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> Savarese
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I'll respond to the question AND start the debate - "....who does akro
> best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no comparison. Yak 52 wins
> hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Rick Basiliere <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Drew;
>
>
>
> Thanks for all you and the other organizers of Red Star have
> done. I was one of the earlier originals with coming on board with Bud
> in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have kept some of Bud's Yak
> "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick color mag now but it
> brings back great memories.
>
>
>
> All of you out there...a big thanks - the organization is
> working. We haven't had a good - who does akro best, Yak or CJ? in a
> while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome death.
>
>
>
> Respectfully, Rick b
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
>
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter dated
> Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
>
>
>
> In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud Harrell
> asked this question:
>
>
>
> "...Will there be a Yak association like the T-34
> association? I cannot answer that question. For now, we may be too few,
> and too far flung..."
>
>
>
> He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those days and
> had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to organize, out of a
> distribution list of 47 owners.
>
>
>
> For many of you, the founding of the Yak Pilots Club and
> evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association, has been a positive
> addition to your interest in these aircraft and this great past time.
> The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft aviators association, it was
> about the pilots flying, and not about one type specific aircraft or
> another - the name change proposal itself was done to cement that
> concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called up before coming to a
> California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and said "This ain't one of
> those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just refer to as 'Yak' is it?".
> No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to forever remove such an
> incorrect perception among aircraft owners of Eastern Block aircraft
> (and beyond, RPA membership is open to pilot-owners who simply commit to
> the goals of training and fun).
>
>
>
> I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old this year?
> The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really important, as is being pointed
> out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and seen through the agressive
> refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in this quarters Red Alert, is
> the realization that the RPA is 15 years old - and this event is a
> National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE associations membership and
> it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>
>
>
> RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and Yak
> anniversaries in specialty publications, mass formations and other
> venues, but this event is getting a lot of planning effort (and RPA
> treasury and sponsor money) to support the pilots and members equally,
> doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
>
>
>
> And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow their
> association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450 today.
>
>
>
> Food for thought,
>
>
>
> Drew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
&====================
>
>
>
_____
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star
power. Play now!
<http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_____
Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_____
Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_____
Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
Mark & Doc, I believe that the A-4M also had self start capability.
Mark
P.s. I think we may have finally gone too far with the J-52. There are
more than a few cases of the 4 1/2 bearing going out causing
catastrophic failure. Pretty sure that was what caused all four to
eject from an EA-6B near Guam last week.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 14:17
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Doc,
I believe all of the later Scooters had some version of the J52
except for some late models modified for export. Most were P6 or P8.
The early Skyhawks had J65 W 20's in them.
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:46 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
Mark,
Was it not he J58 that the Blues had? I understand the P408 mod
now.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:39 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
Oshkosh...
Doc,
P408's and the slats bolted up to avoid asymetric
deployment while 36" wingtip to canopy!
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries
and Oshkosh...
Yes Sir! I believe that was the engine they put in the
Blues!
Sweat little jet!
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:03 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries
and Oshkosh...
Doc,
I'm with you on the Scooter. The only problem with
them is needing a huffer to crank it up. The ultimate A-4 would be
Super Fox with a J52-P408. Better than one to one at low fuel weights
on a basic engine jet and a 720 degree/sec. roll rate can't be beat!
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Kemp M.D.
<mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:42 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Ron,
You are absolutely correct as is Mark on this
point. However, for shear ass fun on a truly inexpensive basis in a
stead that just plain kick ass turns heads when fired up, taxied by, and
doing fly-bys the YAK 50 is your machine. Now yes for the truly sublime
expense of it, move up to a Su 31 but to me for looks and a plain ass
sexy A/C , the Sukios nor the YAK 55 have that appeal. I know beauty is
in the eye of the beholder. If I wanted to just plain ass turn Ben
Franklins to noise in a truly kick ass airplane at an ungodly expense,
then I would buy that demilitarized F-16A that appears occasionally in
Trade-a-plane! Now from firsthand experience, that is truly a "KICK ASS"
plane. Down- right expensive to operate though at over $6000/hour now!
Granted, there are a few MIG 29's floating around too that can be had
for a song! Again, cost is going to kick your but unless you are the
Collins Foundation or the likes of.
Also, since I don't do air shows (except rarely
when I get together with bunch of my old squadron mates at our reunion
about every three years) or compete, this is purely for fun and to
escape from some of the stress in my life!
So for pure ass fun of flying in an economical
to operate War-bird, pick your poison. CJ6 (rolls to slow for my taste),
the YAK-52 (have one and enjoy flying her), or the YAK-50 (have one and
absolutely love flying it). Not to ignore the others but I have no
experience with them either. I have left the smokers intentionally out
of this also except for my comments about the 16 and 29.
Now If I were to seriously consider buying a
smoker, then the L-39 is on my list simply because of acquisition cost.
Its' short field capability on a hot day suxs and it reminds me of an
F-84 in that it is a runway loving hog on a warm day!
An A-4 Scooter is also on that list! In the
scheme of things, it is a very simple smoker to own and operate but not
from a cost perspective. Now I have gone an opened the door on who has
the best Smoker with writing all this bs.
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:11 AM
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
anniversaries and Oshkosh...
I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in
performance. A foot note needs to added on price point: it's an
exponential curve. An Su-31 is maybe 5% better than a Yak 55 and costs
three times as much. If you want to win in unlimited, you will need the
5% improvement in performance and you will need to PAY big time to get.
The Yak 50 and 55 are at very good points in the price/performance
curve, but if your only concern is performance you'll need to move way
up the price curve.
As far as airshows and competition, the former
is show business, meant to dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to
competition which is the archane, and dull as dishwater, persuit of
technical perfection.
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best
Aerobatic Mount... And I
> say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it
may very well be one of the
> best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good
three bladed prop and look
> out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of
all the Russian models,
> the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by
the 26, and right there
> equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a
tiny notch down, and this is
> of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55,
and close to that.. The 54.
> The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of
them flying and you hardly
> ever see one at anything other than airshows.
>
> The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply
night and day. Of
> course... So is the freaking price!
>
> Getting the best bang for the buck, I would
clearly put the 55 and 50
> first.
>
> Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of
the day where Russian
> designs dominate. A lot of models have either
stopped production, or
> are now asking SERIOUS prices.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
> M.D.
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
> Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!!
Being one of the few and
> the proud...the YAK-50!
>
> Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio
boys....a well...the girls
> too!
>
> Doc
>
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> Savarese
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I'll respond to the question AND start the
debate - "....who does akro
> best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no
comparison. Yak 52 wins
> hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Rick Basiliere
<mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Drew;
>
>
>
> Thanks for all you and the other organizers of
Red Star have
> done. I was one of the earlier originals with
coming on board with Bud
> in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have
kept some of Bud's Yak
> "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick
color mag now but it
> brings back great memories.
>
>
>
> All of you out there...a big thanks - the
organization is
> working. We haven't had a good - who does akro
best, Yak or CJ? in a
> while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome
death.
>
>
>
> Respectfully, Rick b
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
>
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter
dated
> Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The
CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
>
>
>
> In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud
Harrell
> asked this question:
>
>
>
> "...Will there be a Yak association like the
T-34
> association? I cannot answer that question.
For now, we may be too few,
> and too far flung..."
>
>
>
> He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those
days and
> had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to
organize, out of a
> distribution list of 47 owners.
>
>
>
> For many of you, the founding of the Yak
Pilots Club and
> evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association,
has been a positive
> addition to your interest in these aircraft
and this great past time.
> The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft
aviators association, it was
> about the pilots flying, and not about one
type specific aircraft or
> another - the name change proposal itself was
done to cement that
> concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called
up before coming to a
> California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and
said "This ain't one of
> those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just
refer to as 'Yak' is it?".
> No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to
forever remove such an
> incorrect perception among aircraft owners of
Eastern Block aircraft
> (and beyond, RPA membership is open to
pilot-owners who simply commit to
> the goals of training and fun).
>
>
>
> I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old
this year?
> The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really
important, as is being pointed
> out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and
seen through the agressive
> refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in
this quarters Red Alert, is
> the realization that the RPA is 15 years old -
and this event is a
> National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE
associations membership and
> it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>
>
>
> RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and
Yak
> anniversaries in specialty publications, mass
formations and other
> venues, but this event is getting a lot of
planning effort (and RPA
> treasury and sponsor money) to support the
pilots and members equally,
> doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
>
>
>
> And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow
their
> association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450
today.
>
>
>
> Food for thought,
>
>
>
> Drew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
&====================
>
>
>
________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word
scramble challenge with star power. Play now!
<http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_
jan>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________
Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________
Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________
Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
Yeah they did. But they had an extra 2,000# of avionics and assorted junk
on them and wouldn't outperform an E or F model with a -8 engine so I was
told by a USMC type Mike driver. Part of that weight must've been the
starting system.
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:18 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Mark & Doc, I believe that the A-4M also had self start capability.
>
> Mark
>
> P.s. I think we may have finally gone too far with the J-52. There are
> more than a few cases of the 4 1/2 bearing going out causing
> catastrophic failure. Pretty sure that was what caused all four to
> eject from an EA-6B near Guam last week.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 14:17
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
> Doc,
> I believe all of the later Scooters had some version of the J52
> except for some late models modified for export. Most were P6 or P8.
> The early Skyhawks had J65 W 20's in them.
>
> Mark Davis
> N44YK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:46 AM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
> Mark,
>
> Was it not he J58 that the Blues had? I understand the P408 mod
> now.
>
> Doc
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:39 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
> Doc,
>
> P408's and the slats bolted up to avoid asymetric
> deployment while 36" wingtip to canopy!
>
>
> Mark Davis
>
> N44YK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:21 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries
> and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Yes Sir! I believe that was the engine they put in the
> Blues!
>
> Sweat little jet!
>
> Doc
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:03 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries
> and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Doc,
>
> I'm with you on the Scooter. The only problem with
> them is needing a huffer to crank it up. The ultimate A-4 would be
> Super Fox with a J52-P408. Better than one to one at low fuel weights
> on a basic engine jet and a 720 degree/sec. roll rate can't be beat!
>
>
> Mark Davis
>
> N44YK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Roger Kemp M.D.
> <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:42 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Ron,
>
> You are absolutely correct as is Mark on this
> point. However, for shear ass fun on a truly inexpensive basis in a
> stead that just plain kick ass turns heads when fired up, taxied by, and
> doing fly-bys the YAK 50 is your machine. Now yes for the truly sublime
> expense of it, move up to a Su 31 but to me for looks and a plain ass
> sexy A/C , the Sukios nor the YAK 55 have that appeal. I know beauty is
> in the eye of the beholder. If I wanted to just plain ass turn Ben
> Franklins to noise in a truly kick ass airplane at an ungodly expense,
> then I would buy that demilitarized F-16A that appears occasionally in
> Trade-a-plane! Now from firsthand experience, that is truly a "KICK ASS"
> plane. Down- right expensive to operate though at over $6000/hour now!
> Granted, there are a few MIG 29's floating around too that can be had
> for a song! Again, cost is going to kick your but unless you are the
> Collins Foundation or the likes of.
>
> Also, since I don't do air shows (except rarely
> when I get together with bunch of my old squadron mates at our reunion
> about every three years) or compete, this is purely for fun and to
> escape from some of the stress in my life!
>
> So for pure ass fun of flying in an economical
> to operate War-bird, pick your poison. CJ6 (rolls to slow for my taste),
> the YAK-52 (have one and enjoy flying her), or the YAK-50 (have one and
> absolutely love flying it). Not to ignore the others but I have no
> experience with them either. I have left the smokers intentionally out
> of this also except for my comments about the 16 and 29.
>
> Now If I were to seriously consider buying a
> smoker, then the L-39 is on my list simply because of acquisition cost.
> Its' short field capability on a hot day suxs and it reminds me of an
> F-84 in that it is a runway loving hog on a warm day!
>
> An A-4 Scooter is also on that list! In the
> scheme of things, it is a very simple smoker to own and operate but not
> from a cost perspective. Now I have gone an opened the door on who has
> the best Smoker with writing all this bs.
>
> Doc
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:11 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
> I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in
> performance. A foot note needs to added on price point: it's an
> exponential curve. An Su-31 is maybe 5% better than a Yak 55 and costs
> three times as much. If you want to win in unlimited, you will need the
> 5% improvement in performance and you will need to PAY big time to get.
> The Yak 50 and 55 are at very good points in the price/performance
> curve, but if your only concern is performance you'll need to move way
> up the price curve.
>
> As far as airshows and competition, the former
> is show business, meant to dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to
> competition which is the archane, and dull as dishwater, persuit of
> technical perfection.
>
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> > From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
> >
> > No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best
> Aerobatic Mount... And I
> > say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it
> may very well be one of the
> > best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good
> three bladed prop and look
> > out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of
> all the Russian models,
> > the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by
> the 26, and right there
> > equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a
> tiny notch down, and this is
> > of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55,
> and close to that.. The 54.
> > The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of
> them flying and you hardly
> > ever see one at anything other than airshows.
> >
> > The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply
> night and day. Of
> > course... So is the freaking price!
> >
> > Getting the best bang for the buck, I would
> clearly put the 55 and 50
> > first.
> >
> > Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of
> the day where Russian
> > designs dominate. A lot of models have either
> stopped production, or
> > are now asking SERIOUS prices.
> >
> > Mark Bitterlich
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
> > M.D.
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> >
> > Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!!
> Being one of the few and
> > the proud...the YAK-50!
> >
> > Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio
> boys....a well...the girls
> > too!
> >
> > Doc
> >
> >
> >
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> > Savarese
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> > I'll respond to the question AND start the
> debate - "....who does akro
> > best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no
> comparison. Yak 52 wins
> > hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Rick Basiliere
> <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
> >
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
> >
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and
> > Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Drew;
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for all you and the other organizers of
> Red Star have
> > done. I was one of the earlier originals with
> coming on board with Bud
> > in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have
> kept some of Bud's Yak
> > "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick
> color mag now but it
> > brings back great memories.
> >
> >
> >
> > All of you out there...a big thanks - the
> organization is
> > working. We haven't had a good - who does akro
> best, Yak or CJ? in a
> > while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome
> death.
> >
> >
> >
> > Respectfully, Rick b
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
> >
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
> >
> > Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and
> > Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter
> dated
> > Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The
> CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
> >
> >
> >
> > In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud
> Harrell
> > asked this question:
> >
> >
> >
> > "...Will there be a Yak association like the
> T-34
> > association? I cannot answer that question.
> For now, we may be too few,
> > and too far flung..."
> >
> >
> >
> > He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those
> days and
> > had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to
> organize, out of a
> > distribution list of 47 owners.
> >
> >
> >
> > For many of you, the founding of the Yak
> Pilots Club and
> > evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association,
> has been a positive
> > addition to your interest in these aircraft
> and this great past time.
> > The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft
> aviators association, it was
> > about the pilots flying, and not about one
> type specific aircraft or
> > another - the name change proposal itself was
> done to cement that
> > concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called
> up before coming to a
> > California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and
> said "This ain't one of
> > those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just
> refer to as 'Yak' is it?".
> > No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to
> forever remove such an
> > incorrect perception among aircraft owners of
> Eastern Block aircraft
> > (and beyond, RPA membership is open to
> pilot-owners who simply commit to
> > the goals of training and fun).
> >
> >
> >
> > I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old
> this year?
> > The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really
> important, as is being pointed
> > out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and
> seen through the agressive
> > refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in
> this quarters Red Alert, is
> > the realization that the RPA is 15 years old -
> and this event is a
> > National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE
> associations membership and
> > it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and
> Yak
> > anniversaries in specialty publications, mass
> formations and other
> > venues, but this event is getting a lot of
> planning effort (and RPA
> > treasury and sponsor money) to support the
> pilots and members equally,
> > doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
> >
> >
> >
> > And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow
> their
> > association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450
> today.
> >
> >
> >
> > Food for thought,
> >
> >
> >
> > Drew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> > com/Navigator?Yak-List
> >
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> >
> >
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> > http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >
> &====================
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word
> scramble challenge with star power. Play now!
> <http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_
> jan>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> ________________________________
>
>
> Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> ________________________________
>
>
> Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
>
>
> --
> 11:05 AM
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
Mark,
Did the engine blow up and just take out hydraulics or did it go
through the "ballistic bulkhead" between engine bays and take out the other
engine? Not training flight crews in A-4's and knowing how to treat a
rough running J52 might start showing up in Prowler accidents before they're
all retired.
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:18 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Mark & Doc, I believe that the A-4M also had self start capability.
>
> Mark
>
> P.s. I think we may have finally gone too far with the J-52. There are
> more than a few cases of the 4 1/2 bearing going out causing
> catastrophic failure. Pretty sure that was what caused all four to
> eject from an EA-6B near Guam last week.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 14:17
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
> Doc,
> I believe all of the later Scooters had some version of the J52
> except for some late models modified for export. Most were P6 or P8.
> The early Skyhawks had J65 W 20's in them.
>
> Mark Davis
> N44YK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:46 AM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
> Mark,
>
> Was it not he J58 that the Blues had? I understand the P408 mod
> now.
>
> Doc
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:39 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
> Doc,
>
> P408's and the slats bolted up to avoid asymetric
> deployment while 36" wingtip to canopy!
>
>
> Mark Davis
>
> N44YK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:21 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries
> and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Yes Sir! I believe that was the engine they put in the
> Blues!
>
> Sweat little jet!
>
> Doc
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:03 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries
> and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Doc,
>
> I'm with you on the Scooter. The only problem with
> them is needing a huffer to crank it up. The ultimate A-4 would be
> Super Fox with a J52-P408. Better than one to one at low fuel weights
> on a basic engine jet and a 720 degree/sec. roll rate can't be beat!
>
>
> Mark Davis
>
> N44YK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Roger Kemp M.D.
> <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:42 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Ron,
>
> You are absolutely correct as is Mark on this
> point. However, for shear ass fun on a truly inexpensive basis in a
> stead that just plain kick ass turns heads when fired up, taxied by, and
> doing fly-bys the YAK 50 is your machine. Now yes for the truly sublime
> expense of it, move up to a Su 31 but to me for looks and a plain ass
> sexy A/C , the Sukios nor the YAK 55 have that appeal. I know beauty is
> in the eye of the beholder. If I wanted to just plain ass turn Ben
> Franklins to noise in a truly kick ass airplane at an ungodly expense,
> then I would buy that demilitarized F-16A that appears occasionally in
> Trade-a-plane! Now from firsthand experience, that is truly a "KICK ASS"
> plane. Down- right expensive to operate though at over $6000/hour now!
> Granted, there are a few MIG 29's floating around too that can be had
> for a song! Again, cost is going to kick your but unless you are the
> Collins Foundation or the likes of.
>
> Also, since I don't do air shows (except rarely
> when I get together with bunch of my old squadron mates at our reunion
> about every three years) or compete, this is purely for fun and to
> escape from some of the stress in my life!
>
> So for pure ass fun of flying in an economical
> to operate War-bird, pick your poison. CJ6 (rolls to slow for my taste),
> the YAK-52 (have one and enjoy flying her), or the YAK-50 (have one and
> absolutely love flying it). Not to ignore the others but I have no
> experience with them either. I have left the smokers intentionally out
> of this also except for my comments about the 16 and 29.
>
> Now If I were to seriously consider buying a
> smoker, then the L-39 is on my list simply because of acquisition cost.
> Its' short field capability on a hot day suxs and it reminds me of an
> F-84 in that it is a runway loving hog on a warm day!
>
> An A-4 Scooter is also on that list! In the
> scheme of things, it is a very simple smoker to own and operate but not
> from a cost perspective. Now I have gone an opened the door on who has
> the best Smoker with writing all this bs.
>
> Doc
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:11 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
> I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in
> performance. A foot note needs to added on price point: it's an
> exponential curve. An Su-31 is maybe 5% better than a Yak 55 and costs
> three times as much. If you want to win in unlimited, you will need the
> 5% improvement in performance and you will need to PAY big time to get.
> The Yak 50 and 55 are at very good points in the price/performance
> curve, but if your only concern is performance you'll need to move way
> up the price curve.
>
> As far as airshows and competition, the former
> is show business, meant to dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to
> competition which is the archane, and dull as dishwater, persuit of
> technical perfection.
>
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> > From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
> >
> > No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best
> Aerobatic Mount... And I
> > say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it
> may very well be one of the
> > best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good
> three bladed prop and look
> > out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of
> all the Russian models,
> > the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by
> the 26, and right there
> > equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a
> tiny notch down, and this is
> > of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55,
> and close to that.. The 54.
> > The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of
> them flying and you hardly
> > ever see one at anything other than airshows.
> >
> > The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply
> night and day. Of
> > course... So is the freaking price!
> >
> > Getting the best bang for the buck, I would
> clearly put the 55 and 50
> > first.
> >
> > Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of
> the day where Russian
> > designs dominate. A lot of models have either
> stopped production, or
> > are now asking SERIOUS prices.
> >
> > Mark Bitterlich
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
> > M.D.
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> >
> > Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!!
> Being one of the few and
> > the proud...the YAK-50!
> >
> > Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio
> boys....a well...the girls
> > too!
> >
> > Doc
> >
> >
> >
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> > Savarese
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> > I'll respond to the question AND start the
> debate - "....who does akro
> > best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no
> comparison. Yak 52 wins
> > hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Rick Basiliere
> <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
> >
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
> >
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and
> > Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Drew;
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for all you and the other organizers of
> Red Star have
> > done. I was one of the earlier originals with
> coming on board with Bud
> > in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have
> kept some of Bud's Yak
> > "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick
> color mag now but it
> > brings back great memories.
> >
> >
> >
> > All of you out there...a big thanks - the
> organization is
> > working. We haven't had a good - who does akro
> best, Yak or CJ? in a
> > while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome
> death.
> >
> >
> >
> > Respectfully, Rick b
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
> >
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
> >
> > Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and
> > Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter
> dated
> > Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The
> CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
> >
> >
> >
> > In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud
> Harrell
> > asked this question:
> >
> >
> >
> > "...Will there be a Yak association like the
> T-34
> > association? I cannot answer that question.
> For now, we may be too few,
> > and too far flung..."
> >
> >
> >
> > He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those
> days and
> > had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to
> organize, out of a
> > distribution list of 47 owners.
> >
> >
> >
> > For many of you, the founding of the Yak
> Pilots Club and
> > evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association,
> has been a positive
> > addition to your interest in these aircraft
> and this great past time.
> > The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft
> aviators association, it was
> > about the pilots flying, and not about one
> type specific aircraft or
> > another - the name change proposal itself was
> done to cement that
> > concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called
> up before coming to a
> > California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and
> said "This ain't one of
> > those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just
> refer to as 'Yak' is it?".
> > No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to
> forever remove such an
> > incorrect perception among aircraft owners of
> Eastern Block aircraft
> > (and beyond, RPA membership is open to
> pilot-owners who simply commit to
> > the goals of training and fun).
> >
> >
> >
> > I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old
> this year?
> > The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really
> important, as is being pointed
> > out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and
> seen through the agressive
> > refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in
> this quarters Red Alert, is
> > the realization that the RPA is 15 years old -
> and this event is a
> > National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE
> associations membership and
> > it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and
> Yak
> > anniversaries in specialty publications, mass
> formations and other
> > venues, but this event is getting a lot of
> planning effort (and RPA
> > treasury and sponsor money) to support the
> pilots and members equally,
> > doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
> >
> >
> >
> > And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow
> their
> > association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450
> today.
> >
> >
> >
> > Food for thought,
> >
> >
> >
> > Drew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> > com/Navigator?Yak-List
> >
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> >
> >
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> > http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >
> &====================
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word
> scramble challenge with star power. Play now!
> <http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_
> jan>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> ________________________________
>
>
> Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> ________________________________
>
>
> Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
>
>
> --
> 11:05 AM
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
I've stood on the flight deck mere feet away from F-4's, F-14's, RA-5's,
etc. burner included. I have to say that the aircraft who's engines
vibrated mye teeth and hurt my nose more than any other was the EA-6B
with two J-52 P408's. They are just UGLY loud. Not a really nice
sound.... Not impressive like burner... Just stinking LOUD. Their
exhaust noise is simply painful.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
M.D.
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:06
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Concure...Aint Nothing Like A RADIAL. The HISS of a SMOKER just does not
do it. Now a Viper Standing on the LOUD PEDAL With 5 Stages of blower
cooking @ 480 50 ft off the deck on a low pass does stir my blood!
Almost as much as the F-4 stepping on the loud pedal!
Doc
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Herb Coussons
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
No one has mentioned the mono-wing aerobatic designs such as the Edge,
Extras, etc - and the Eastern European Zlin 50 the CAP etc. The same
price/performance argument applies there too. Doc did mention the looks
of the 50 over the SU31 and the Yak 55 - but all I have to say is the
sound of the radials is enough to own one over any of the other
aerobatic planes with Lycomings. The horizontal 6 cylinders and the
smaller props sound like they about to be thrown out of the plane and
they sound they working at 110% to get the performance out of them,
whereas the M14's sound like they are just rolling along with a nice
deep rumble even though we may run them at 90-100% doing acro. So from
the ground they make such an impression...
Herb
On Feb 21, 2008, at 3:10 AM, Ron Davis wrote:
I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in performance. A foot note
needs to added on price point: it's an exponential curve. An Su-31 is
maybe 5% better than a Yak 55 and costs three times as much. If you
want to win in unlimited, you will need the 5% improvement in
performance and you will need to PAY big time to get. The Yak 50 and 55
are at very good points in the price/performance curve, but if your only
concern is performance you'll need to move way up the price curve.
As far as airshows and competition, the former is show business, meant
to dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to competition which is the
archane, and dull as dishwater, persuit of technical perfection.
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> --> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best Aerobatic Mount... And I
> say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it may very well be one of
> the best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good three bladed prop and
> look out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of all the Russian
> models, the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by the 26, and right
> there equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a tiny notch down, and
> this is of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55, and close to
that.. The 54.
> The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of them flying and you hardly
> ever see one at anything other than airshows.
>
> The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply night and day. Of
> course... So is the freaking price!
>
> Getting the best bang for the buck, I would clearly put the 55 and 50
> first.
>
> Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of the day where Russian
> designs dominate. A lot of models have either stopped production, or
> are now asking SERIOUS prices.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
> M.D.
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
> Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!! Being one of the few and
> the proud...the YAK-50!
>
> Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio boys....a well...the girls
> too!
>
> Doc
>
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> Savarese
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I'll respond to the question AND start the debate - "....who does akro
> best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no comparison. Yak 52 wins
> hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Rick Basiliere <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Drew;
>
>
>
> Thanks for all you and the other organizers of Red Star have done. I
> was one of the earlier originals with coming on board with Bud in '96,
> so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have kept some of Bud's Yak "magazines"
> crude in comparison to our slick color mag now but it brings back
> great memories.
>
>
>
> All of you out there...a big thanks - the organization is working. We
> haven't had a good - who does akro best, Yak or CJ? in a while - that
> one has hopefully died a gruesome death.
>
>
>
> Respectfully, Rick b
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
>
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter dated Winter 1993 Vol 1,
> No 1. and titled "The CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
>
>
>
> In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud Harrell asked this
> question:
>
>
>
> "...Will there be a Yak association like the T-34 association? I
> cannot answer that question. For now, we may be too few, and too far
> flung..."
>
>
>
> He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those days and had some 23
> pilots respond to this proposal to organize, out of a distribution
> list of 47 owners.
>
>
>
> For many of you, the founding of the Yak Pilots Club and evolution to
> the RedStar Pilots Association, has been a positive addition to your
> interest in these aircraft and this great past time.
> The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft aviators association, it
> was about the pilots flying, and not about one type specific aircraft
> or another - the name change proposal itself was done to cement that
> concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called up before coming to a
> California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and said "This ain't one of
> those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just refer to as 'Yak' is it?".
> No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to forever remove such an
> incorrect perception among aircraft owners of Eastern Block aircraft
> (and beyond, RPA membership is open to pilot-owners who simply commit
> to the goals of training and fun).
>
>
>
> I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old this year?
> The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really important, as is being
> pointed out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and seen through the
> agressive refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in this quarters
> Red Alert, is the realization that the RPA is 15 years old - and this
> event is a National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE associations
> membership and it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>
>
>
> RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and Yak anniversaries in
> specialty publications, mass formations and other venues, but this
> event is getting a lot of planning effort (and RPA treasury and
> sponsor money) to support the pilots and members equally, doesn't
> matter what you fly or drive.
>
>
>
> And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow their association...from 23
> in 1993 to well over 450 today.
>
>
>
> Food for thought,
>
>
>
> Drew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
> c
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
&====================
>
>
>
________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with
star power. Play now!
<http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_
jan>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
ntribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
Remember the LCpl that stole one out of El Toro and took it for a joy
ride?
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 16:00
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Yeah they did. But they had an extra 2,000# of avionics and assorted
junk on them and wouldn't outperform an E or F model with a -8 engine so
I was told by a USMC type Mike driver. Part of that weight must've been
the starting system.
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:18 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Point,
> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Mark & Doc, I believe that the A-4M also had self start capability.
>
> Mark
>
> P.s. I think we may have finally gone too far with the J-52. There
are
> more than a few cases of the 4 1/2 bearing going out causing
> catastrophic failure. Pretty sure that was what caused all four to
> eject from an EA-6B near Guam last week.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 14:17
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
> Doc,
> I believe all of the later Scooters had some version of the J52
> except for some late models modified for export. Most were P6 or P8.
> The early Skyhawks had J65 W 20's in them.
>
> Mark Davis
> N44YK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:46 AM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
> Mark,
>
> Was it not he J58 that the Blues had? I understand the P408 mod
> now.
>
> Doc
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:39 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
> Doc,
>
> P408's and the slats bolted up to avoid asymetric
> deployment while 36" wingtip to canopy!
>
>
> Mark Davis
>
> N44YK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:21 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries
> and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Yes Sir! I believe that was the engine they put in the
> Blues!
>
> Sweat little jet!
>
> Doc
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:03 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries
> and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Doc,
>
> I'm with you on the Scooter. The only problem with
> them is needing a huffer to crank it up. The ultimate A-4 would be
> Super Fox with a J52-P408. Better than one to one at low fuel weights
> on a basic engine jet and a 720 degree/sec. roll rate can't be beat!
>
>
> Mark Davis
>
> N44YK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Roger Kemp M.D.
> <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:42 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Ron,
>
> You are absolutely correct as is Mark on this
> point. However, for shear ass fun on a truly inexpensive basis in a
> stead that just plain kick ass turns heads when fired up, taxied by,
and
> doing fly-bys the YAK 50 is your machine. Now yes for the truly
sublime
> expense of it, move up to a Su 31 but to me for looks and a plain ass
> sexy A/C , the Sukios nor the YAK 55 have that appeal. I know beauty
is
> in the eye of the beholder. If I wanted to just plain ass turn Ben
> Franklins to noise in a truly kick ass airplane at an ungodly expense,
> then I would buy that demilitarized F-16A that appears occasionally
in
> Trade-a-plane! Now from firsthand experience, that is truly a "KICK
ASS"
> plane. Down- right expensive to operate though at over $6000/hour now!
> Granted, there are a few MIG 29's floating around too that can be had
> for a song! Again, cost is going to kick your but unless you are the
> Collins Foundation or the likes of.
>
> Also, since I don't do air shows (except rarely
> when I get together with bunch of my old squadron mates at our reunion
> about every three years) or compete, this is purely for fun and to
> escape from some of the stress in my life!
>
> So for pure ass fun of flying in an economical
> to operate War-bird, pick your poison. CJ6 (rolls to slow for my
taste),
> the YAK-52 (have one and enjoy flying her), or the YAK-50 (have one
and
> absolutely love flying it). Not to ignore the others but I have no
> experience with them either. I have left the smokers intentionally out
> of this also except for my comments about the 16 and 29.
>
> Now If I were to seriously consider buying a
> smoker, then the L-39 is on my list simply because of acquisition
cost.
> Its' short field capability on a hot day suxs and it reminds me of an
> F-84 in that it is a runway loving hog on a warm day!
>
> An A-4 Scooter is also on that list! In the
> scheme of things, it is a very simple smoker to own and operate but
not
> from a cost perspective. Now I have gone an opened the door on who
has
> the best Smoker with writing all this bs.
>
> Doc
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:11 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
> I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in
> performance. A foot note needs to added on price point: it's an
> exponential curve. An Su-31 is maybe 5% better than a Yak 55 and
costs
> three times as much. If you want to win in unlimited, you will need
the
> 5% improvement in performance and you will need to PAY big time to
get.
> The Yak 50 and 55 are at very good points in the price/performance
> curve, but if your only concern is performance you'll need to move way
> up the price curve.
>
> As far as airshows and competition, the former
> is show business, meant to dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to
> competition which is the archane, and dull as dishwater, persuit of
> technical perfection.
>
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> > From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
> >
> > No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best
> Aerobatic Mount... And I
> > say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it
> may very well be one of the
> > best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good
> three bladed prop and look
> > out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of
> all the Russian models,
> > the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by
> the 26, and right there
> > equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a
> tiny notch down, and this is
> > of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55,
> and close to that.. The 54.
> > The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of
> them flying and you hardly
> > ever see one at anything other than airshows.
> >
> > The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply
> night and day. Of
> > course... So is the freaking price!
> >
> > Getting the best bang for the buck, I would
> clearly put the 55 and 50
> > first.
> >
> > Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of
> the day where Russian
> > designs dominate. A lot of models have either
> stopped production, or
> > are now asking SERIOUS prices.
> >
> > Mark Bitterlich
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
> > M.D.
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> >
> > Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!!
> Being one of the few and
> > the proud...the YAK-50!
> >
> > Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio
> boys....a well...the girls
> > too!
> >
> > Doc
> >
> >
> >
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> > Savarese
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> > I'll respond to the question AND start the
> debate - "....who does akro
> > best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no
> comparison. Yak 52 wins
> > hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Rick Basiliere
> <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
> >
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
> >
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and
> > Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Drew;
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for all you and the other organizers of
> Red Star have
> > done. I was one of the earlier originals with
> coming on board with Bud
> > in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have
> kept some of Bud's Yak
> > "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick
> color mag now but it
> > brings back great memories.
> >
> >
> >
> > All of you out there...a big thanks - the
> organization is
> > working. We haven't had a good - who does akro
> best, Yak or CJ? in a
> > while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome
> death.
> >
> >
> >
> > Respectfully, Rick b
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
> >
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
> >
> > Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and
> > Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter
> dated
> > Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The
> CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
> >
> >
> >
> > In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud
> Harrell
> > asked this question:
> >
> >
> >
> > "...Will there be a Yak association like the
> T-34
> > association? I cannot answer that question.
> For now, we may be too few,
> > and too far flung..."
> >
> >
> >
> > He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those
> days and
> > had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to
> organize, out of a
> > distribution list of 47 owners.
> >
> >
> >
> > For many of you, the founding of the Yak
> Pilots Club and
> > evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association,
> has been a positive
> > addition to your interest in these aircraft
> and this great past time.
> > The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft
> aviators association, it was
> > about the pilots flying, and not about one
> type specific aircraft or
> > another - the name change proposal itself was
> done to cement that
> > concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called
> up before coming to a
> > California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and
> said "This ain't one of
> > those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just
> refer to as 'Yak' is it?".
> > No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to
> forever remove such an
> > incorrect perception among aircraft owners of
> Eastern Block aircraft
> > (and beyond, RPA membership is open to
> pilot-owners who simply commit to
> > the goals of training and fun).
> >
> >
> >
> > I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old
> this year?
> > The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really
> important, as is being pointed
> > out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and
> seen through the agressive
> > refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in
> this quarters Red Alert, is
> > the realization that the RPA is 15 years old -
> and this event is a
> > National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE
> associations membership and
> > it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and
> Yak
> > anniversaries in specialty publications, mass
> formations and other
> > venues, but this event is getting a lot of
> planning effort (and RPA
> > treasury and sponsor money) to support the
> pilots and members equally,
> > doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
> >
> >
> >
> > And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow
> their
> > association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450
> today.
> >
> >
> >
> > Food for thought,
> >
> >
> >
> > Drew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> > com/Navigator?Yak-List
> >
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> >
> >
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> > http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >
> &====================
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word
> scramble challenge with star power. Play now!
>
<http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_
> jan>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> ________________________________
>
>
> Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> ________________________________
>
>
> Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
>
>
> --
> 11:05 AM
>
>
Message 26
| 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: | WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! |
I am sure I speak for Brian as well when I say that questions are always
welcomed. I can't promise an answer, but I would bet between the two of
us we could come close. If they will bore everyone else, please direct
them to either: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil or
markbitterlich@embarqmail.com
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Walter Lannon
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 22:47
Subject: Re: Yak-List: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian
discussion!
Well, I for one do not get bored reading "Mark and Brian" discussions.
You both know much more than I do on this subject and I have been
restoring and maintaining Warbird types for at least 40 years.
Probably because I'm too old to know any better I have nothing but
positive things to say about the Bendix Eclipse generator, carbon pile
regulator and control units used in these aircraft.
There are questions I would like to put to you but since these are
specific to the above systems I would bore everyone else so will pass.
Keep up the good work.
Cheers;
Walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 2:50 PM
Subject: Yak-List: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion!
Point,
> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> The subject was written to warn the people that get bored from reading
> "Mark and Brian" discussions. Now you can't say you were not warned!
>
> If you went this far, .. Be advised that this is a discussion on
> Alternators and Generators. More of the same. Interesting to few but
> the very dedicated electronic types.
>
>
> Ok Brian... I'm going to take some pot shots here, and the YAK readers
> will take it in the shorts from boredom I am sure! :-)
>
> Double >>'s from me.
> Single >'s from Brian.
> No >'s, this reply.
>
>
>>> P.s. Another little tidbit between Alternators and Generators.
>>>
>>> 1. If your batteries ever go totally dead in the air or on the
>>> ground... I mean zero or really LOW battery voltage.... And the
>>> alternator is not already on-line... It will never turn on.
>
>>Not entirely true. Self-exciting alternators will.
>>Even a regular alternator will come on line if you can get all the
>>loads off the bus first.
>
> True. Now name a light civil aircraft with a self-exciting
alternator
> installed. The small B&C PMG "Alternator" will in fact do that. It
> also has no field input winding as you know. It uses permanent
magnets.
> Yes, the "Alternators" on the EA-6B Prowler have a PMG winding as well
> that is then used to excite the main field. These are indeed
> self-exciting and it is agreed that such models exist. These are 3
> phase 30 KVA models by the way. And yes, I have 38 years experience
> working with self exciting alternators, (HANDS ON Brian) but I have
yet
> to see one on a Cessna. If the readers of this list want to discuss
the
> power generating systems on a 747, then heck yes! However, sorry...
not
> on the YAK LIST and not on the Chevy in your garage either.
>
> As far as a "regular" alternator coming on line with all loads
> removed..... I'd like to see it done please. I went out to my 68
Camaro
> and tried it. It did not work. I went out to a Cessna 180 (1974
model)
> and it did not work. Then a 182, then a Piper 140, then a YAK-52TW. No
> cheese. I suspect that what you are suggesting is connecting a wire
> jumper directly from the output to the field. Impossible to do
> in-flight, and not a bright thing to do on the ground. If I am wrong
> here, please correct me. Never-the-less, I tried exactly that and it
> failed to work.
>
> So yes, again with respect, your point in theory is entirely valid.
> However, I do not consider it to be Germaine unless you can point to
> exactly which make and model of aircraft, or even automobile that you
> actually made it work on.
>
>>> It needs a little juice to get it going so to speak.
>
>>That is true. OTOH the reason that the generator comes on-line without
> the battery is the residual
>>magnetism in the field.
>
> I concur, and a generator does not come from the factory that way. It
> has to be "FLASHED" in order to start working the very first time.
> Agreed, some manufactures' did that for you back in the day.
Depending
> on how long it "sat" it sometimes still needed it upon installation.
>
>>The alternator has the same thing.
>
> Define what you mean by the "same thing". An alternator NEVER needs
to
> be "flashed" coming out of the box. It does NOT rely on self-induced
> magnetism, and it is not a design FEATURE.... Except.... On very
special
> models usually found on commercial or military aircraft designed for
the
> express purpose of running WITHOUT any kind of battery at all.
>
>>You can see this by disconnecting the 'B' lead, putting a voltmeter on
> it, and spinning up the alternator.
>>You will get some output. It should be enough to excite the field to
> bootstrap the alternator to full
>>output as long as nothing else is using that output. As I said, that
is
> how a self-exciting alternator
>>gets going. And most internally-regulated alternators are self
> exciting.
>
> Interesting theory. How much does that meter load the output do you
> think? Yes, I am sure you can get some voltage on a meter. In my
recent
> experience, not enough current to get the field excited though. It
did
> not work on any test I ran. As you pointed out, there are a lot of "1
> wire" alternators out there. I have one on my 68 Camaro... A 100 amp
> alternator. It does NOT self-excite. Period.
>
>>But there is another issue. Neither a generator system nor an
> alternator system should
>>be operated without a battery in the circuit.
>
> I assume we have now jumped back to common general aviation aircraft,
> because only a very few modern tactical military aircraft have ANY
kind
> of battery even installed! Granted some do have APU's. However, take
> the whole A-6 product line for example. No battery except for
> activating a spin assist circuit, and their alternators run the whole
> aircraft without a problem....no batteries needed.
>
> This is an example of "reverse nit-picking" and I admit it. Point is,
> some systems were designed to be operated with a battery and some
> without. Some alternators can self excite, most can not. Discussions
> then need to stay targeted on one thing at a time.
>
> ANYWAY....Yes, I agree.... On models designed to run with a battery it
> is true that it is inadvisable to run the system without one. Unless
> maybe your life is at stake. Say, IFR at night. Or, as a young
Marine
> trying to get back to the base after his battery had been stolen out
of
> his car and no money to buy a new one, and too honest to swipe someone
> else's. A 12 volt lantern battery WILL excite a car alternator enough
> to get it going. Been there, done that, have the tea-shirt. Drove 500
> miles back to the base exactly that way.
>
>>The battery is needed to stabilize the voltage. Without it you have
> nothing to absorb the
>>excess output when you load-dump. Neither an alternator nor a
generator
> can change its
>>output suddenly. It takes time for the magnetism in the field to ramp
> up or ramp down
>>with a field current change. (Current lags voltage in an inductor if
> you want to get technical.)
>
> Yes... I am familiar with AC theory Brian... And yes I remember ELI
the
> ICE man. But... You kind of make it sound like without the battery,
> everything will self-destruct.
>
>>That means that, without a battery, turn off the landing light and
> watch the alternator or
>>generator create an over voltage event.
>
> Better yet, leave it on and watch it tend to smooth out voltage
> excursions. :-)
>
> That said, I went out to my YAK-50 last night and disconnected the
> battery. I then started it. I then ran up the engine to about 50 %
and
> called the tower and flew it around the pattern with no battery
> connected. Nothing burnt out. Everything worked fine. It was not
much
> of a risk really. On a flight a few years ago I blew the battery fuse
> in flight. Well... Actually the fuse holder fell apart... But same
> thing. I never even knew it until I idled the engine down and
> everything in the cockpit went dead.
>
> This morning I went out to my old piece of junk Renault Alliance. I
> started the car. I then rev'ed the engine up to 2000 RPM and
> disconnected the battery. It took two people to pull this stunt off.
I
> then drove it around the block. Nothing bad happened. Of course I
did
> not have a $10,000 Avionics Stack fired up either.
>
>>Now we have said WAY more about alternators and generators than anyone
> else wanted to hear. ;-)
>
> Probably so.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
> P.s. Here is my opinion, and I have tried it. If you are flying
around
> and suspect you have a bad battery, DO NOT TURN OFF THE ALTERNATOR to
> check your battery voltage, it very well might not come back on with
> zero, or even near zero battery voltage. It is also entirely possible
> that the aircraft will be subject to inductive voltage kicks from
> operating that alternator without a battery (as Brian pointed out).
> These might even be high enough to cause equipment damage under the
> right conditions. As the pilot in command, you'll have to make the
> decision which possibility is worse for you. However, my testing
> confirms that if you turn off the alternator with a dead battery,
> turning it back on will accomplish nothing unless you are lucky enough
> to have just a little something left in the battery to excite the
> alternator allowing it to get back on line.
>
> Next, regardless of alternator OR generator, if either is on-line and
> you have a bad battery, the power you DO generate will power the
landing
> gear motor, will run all your lights, and HOPEFULLY will not damage
your
> avionics. Given the tests I just ran in my aircraft, I would not
> hesitate to do it. And yes, the tower reported bad hum in my
> transmissions. However my little Apollo 360 GPS hung in there without
a
> hick-up.
>
> P.p.s. And Brian, I am not saying you are WRONG in any way. I am
> saying that it is easy to switch back and forth between discussing
> apples and oranges during any kind of electronic discourse of this
> nature. Apples remain apples and oranges remain orange. However,
when
> you put them in the same bowl, we need to be careful not to act like
> they are the same fruit. My 2 cents anyway.
>
>
>
Message 27
| 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: | WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! |
Actually it was not me that drove Brian away last time. It was people
who made ridiculous replies to his very sound logic and hard truths.
That said the only person I am going to correct in this message is you,
thank you very much and have a nice day and all that stuff.
As an aside, there is a very basic truth between Brian and myself. I
respect this gentleman's knowledge and I have never heard him espouse a
single viewpoint that did not make sense and was not based on excellent
logic and theory. Every single time I have expressed a different point
of view than Brian, and we have these detailed discussions, I have
walked away with a different or broadened perspective on the matter.
Not once EVER has he made me angry. I feel that he has some respect for
my ability in this field as well. It is clear to both of us that what
each has learned has been accomplished with a lot of sweat and hard
work, to say nothing about experience. It is both our profession and
our hobby. I could go on, but the real truth is that neither Brian nor
myself will ever walk away mad at each other from a simple difference in
view on a particular facet or aspect of electronics. EVERY time that I
find myself not in agreement with Brian, the FIRST thing that comes to
my mind is: "What does he know that I do not?" The second thing is:
"Be careful in case you are getting ready to make a fool out of yourself
here".
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:56
Subject: RE: Yak-List: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian
discussion!
and now, Mark, all you need to do is go through and rebut Brian's
points, point by point, then Brian will get mad and leave the list for a
year. It's deja vu all over again.
> Subject: Yak-List: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian
discussion!
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:50:44 -0500
> From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> --> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> The subject was written to warn the people that get bored from reading
> "Mark and Brian" discussions. Now you can't say you were not warned!
>
> If you went this far, .. Be advised that this is a discussion on
> Alternators and Generators. More of the same. Interesting to few but
> the very dedicated electronic types.
>
>
> Ok Brian... I'm going to take some pot shots here, and the YAK readers
> will take it in the shorts from boredom I am sure! :-)
>
> Double >>'s from me.
> Single >'s from Brian.
> No >'s, this reply.
>
>
> >> P.s. Another little tidbit between Alternators and Generators.
> >>
> >> 1. If your batteries ever go totally dead in the air or on the
> >> ground... I mean zero or really LOW battery voltage.... And the
> >> alternator is not already on-line... It will never turn on.
>
> >Not entirely true. Self-exciting alternators will.
> >Even a regular alternator will come on line if you can get all the
> >loads off the bus first.
>
> True. Now name a light civil aircraft with a self-exciting alternator
> installed. The small B&C PMG "Alternator" will in fact do that. It
> also has no field input winding as you know. It uses permanent
magnets.
> Yes, the "Alternators" on the EA-6B Prowler have a PMG winding as well
> that is then used to excite the main field. These are indeed
> self-exciting and it is agreed that such models exist. These are 3
> phase 30 KVA models by the way. And yes, I have 38 years experience
> working with self exciting alternators, (HANDS ON Brian) but I have
> yet to see one on a Cessna. If the readers of this list want to
> discuss the power generating systems on a 747, then heck yes! However,
> sorry... not on the YAK LIST and not on the Chevy in your garage
either.
>
> As far as a "regular" alternator coming on line with all loads
> removed..... I'd like to see it done please. I went out to my 68
> Camaro and tried it. It did not work. I went out to a Cessna 180 (1974
> model) and it did not work. Then a 182, then a Piper 140, then a
> YAK-52TW. No cheese. I suspect that what you are suggesting is
> connecting a wire jumper directly from the output to the field.
> Impossible to do in-flight, and not a bright thing to do on the
> ground. If I am wrong here, please correct me. Never-the-less, I tried
> exactly that and it failed to work.
>
> So yes, again with respect, your point in theory is entirely valid.
> However, I do not consider it to be Germaine unless you can point to
> exactly which make and model of aircraft, or even automobile that you
> actually made it work on.
>
> >> It needs a little juice to get it going so to speak.
>
> >That is true. OTOH the reason that the generator comes on-line
> >without
> the battery is the residual
> >magnetism in the field.
>
> I concur, and a generator does not come from the factory that way. It
> has to be "FLASHED" in order to start working the very first time.
> Agreed, some manufactures' did that for you back in the day. Depending
> on how long it "sat" it sometimes still needed it upon installation.
>
> >The alternator has the same thing.
>
> Define what you mean by the "same thing". An alternator NEVER needs to
> be "flashed" coming out of the box. It does NOT rely on self-induced
> magnetism, and it is not a design FEATURE.... Except.... On very
> special models usually found on commercial or military aircraft
> designed for the express purpose of running WITHOUT any kind of
battery at all.
>
> >You can see this by disconnecting the 'B' lead, putting a voltmeter
> >on
> it, and spinning up the alternator.
> >You will get some output. It should be enough to excite the field to
> bootstrap the alternator to full
> >output as long as nothing else is using that output. As I said, that
> >is
> how a self-exciting alternator
> >gets going. And most internally-regulated alternators are self
> exciting.
>
> Interesting theory. How much does that meter load the output do you
> think? Yes, I am sure you can get some voltage on a meter. In my
> recent experience, not enough current to get the field excited though.
> It did not work on any test I ran. As you pointed out, there are a lot
> of "1 wire" alternators out there. I have one on my 68 Camaro... A 100
> amp alternator. It does NOT self-excite. Period.
>
> >But there is another issue. Neither a generator system nor an
> alternator system should
> >be operated without a battery in the circuit.
>
> I assume we have now jumped back to common general aviation aircraft,
> because only a very few modern tactical military aircraft have ANY
> kind of battery even installed! Granted some do have APU's. However,
> take the whole A-6 product line for example. No battery except for
> activating a spin assist circuit, and their alternators run the whole
> aircraft without a problem....no batteries needed.
>
> This is an example of "reverse nit-picking" and I admit it. Point is,
> some systems were designed to be operated with a battery and some
> without. Some alternators can self excite, most can not. Discussions
> then need to stay targeted on one thing at a time.
>
> ANYWAY....Yes, I agree.... On models designed to run with a battery it
> is true that it is inadvisable to run the system without one. Unless
> maybe your life is at stake. Say, IFR at night. Or, as a young Marine
> trying to get back to the base after his battery had been stolen out
> of his car and no money to buy a new one, and too honest to swipe
> someone else's. A 12 volt lantern battery WILL excite a car alternator
> enough to get it going. Been there, done that, have the tea-shirt.
> Drove 500 miles back to the base exactly that way.
>
> >The battery is needed to stabilize the voltage. Without it you have
> nothing to absorb the
> >excess output when you load-dump. Neither an alternator nor a
> >generator
> can change its
> >output suddenly. It takes time for the magnetism in the field to ramp
> up or ramp down
> >with a field current change. (Current lags voltage in an inductor if
> you want to get technical.)
>
> Yes... I am familiar with AC theory Brian... And yes I remember ELI
> the ICE man. But... You kind of make it sound like without the
> battery, everything will self-destruct.
>
> >That means that, without a battery, turn off the landing light and
> watch the alternator or
> >generator create an over voltage event.
>
> Better yet, leave it on and watch it tend to smooth out voltage
> excursions. :-)
>
> That said, I went out to my YAK-50 last night and disconnected the
> battery. I then started it. I then ran up the engine to about 50 % and
> called the tower and flew it around the pattern with no battery
> connected. Nothing burnt out. Everything worked fine. It was not much
> of a risk really. On a flight a few years ago I blew the battery fuse
> in flight. Well... Actually the fuse holder fell apart... But same
> thing. I never even knew it until I idled the engine down and
> everything in the cockpit went dead.
>
> This morning I went out to my old piece of junk Renault Alliance. I
> started the car. I then rev'ed the engine up to 2000 RPM and
> disconnected the battery. It took two people to pull this stunt off. I
> then drove it around the block. Nothing bad happened. Of course I did
> not have a $10,000 Avionics Stack fired up either.
>
> >Now we have said WAY more about alternators and generators than
> >anyone
> else wanted to hear. ;-)
>
> Probably so.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
> P.s. Here is my opinion, and I have tried it. If you are flying around
> and suspect you have a bad battery, DO NOT TURN OFF THE ALTERNATOR to
> check your battery voltage, it very well might not come back on with
> zero, or even near zero battery voltage. It is also entirely possible
> that the aircraft will be subject to inductive voltage kicks from
> operating that alternator without a battery (as Brian pointed out).
> These might even be high enough to cause equipment damage under the
> right conditions. As the pilot in command, you'll have to make the
> decision which possibility is worse for you. However, my testing
> confirms that if you turn off the alternator with a dead battery,
> turning it back on will accomplish nothing unless you are lucky enough
> to have just a little something left in the battery to excite the
> alternator allowing it to get back on line.
>
> Next, regardless of alternator OR generator, if either is on-line and
> you have a bad battery, the power you DO generate will power the
> landing gear motor, will run all your lights, and HOPEFULLY will not
> damage your avionics. Given the tests I just ran in my aircraft, I
> would not hesitate to do it. And yes, the tower reported bad hum in my
> transmissions. However my little Apollo 360 GPS hung in there without
> a hick-up.
>
> P.p.s. And Brian, I am not saying you are WRONG in any way. I am
> saying that it is easy to switch back and forth between discussing
> apples and oranges during any kind of electronic discourse of this
> nature. Apples remain apples and oranges remain orange. However, when
> you put them in the same bowl, we need to be careful not to act like
> they are the same fruit. My 2 ce=======================
&g=
>
>
>
________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Get it now!
<http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_01
2008>
Message 28
| 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 n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
I'd forgotten all about it!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Remember the LCpl that stole one out of El Toro and took it for a joy
> ride?
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 16:00
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Yeah they did. But they had an extra 2,000# of avionics and assorted
> junk on them and wouldn't outperform an E or F model with a -8 engine so
> I was told by a USMC type Mike driver. Part of that weight must've been
> the starting system.
>
> Mark Davis
> N44YK
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:18 PM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Point,
>> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>
>> Mark & Doc, I believe that the A-4M also had self start capability.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> P.s. I think we may have finally gone too far with the J-52. There
> are
>> more than a few cases of the 4 1/2 bearing going out causing
>> catastrophic failure. Pretty sure that was what caused all four to
>> eject from an EA-6B near Guam last week.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 14:17
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>>
>> Doc,
>> I believe all of the later Scooters had some version of the J52
>> except for some late models modified for export. Most were P6 or P8.
>> The early Skyhawks had J65 W 20's in them.
>>
>> Mark Davis
>> N44YK
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:46 AM
>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
>> Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> Was it not he J58 that the Blues had? I understand the P408 mod
>> now.
>>
>> Doc
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:39 AM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
>> Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>>
>> Doc,
>>
>> P408's and the slats bolted up to avoid asymetric
>> deployment while 36" wingtip to canopy!
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark Davis
>>
>> N44YK
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>>
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:21 AM
>>
>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries
>> and Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes Sir! I believe that was the engine they put in the
>> Blues!
>>
>> Sweat little jet!
>>
>> Doc
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:03 AM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries
>> and Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>>
>> Doc,
>>
>> I'm with you on the Scooter. The only problem with
>> them is needing a huffer to crank it up. The ultimate A-4 would be
>> Super Fox with a J52-P408. Better than one to one at low fuel weights
>> on a basic engine jet and a 720 degree/sec. roll rate can't be beat!
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark Davis
>>
>> N44YK
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Roger Kemp M.D.
>> <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>>
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:42 AM
>>
>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
>> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron,
>>
>> You are absolutely correct as is Mark on this
>> point. However, for shear ass fun on a truly inexpensive basis in a
>> stead that just plain kick ass turns heads when fired up, taxied by,
> and
>> doing fly-bys the YAK 50 is your machine. Now yes for the truly
> sublime
>> expense of it, move up to a Su 31 but to me for looks and a plain ass
>> sexy A/C , the Sukios nor the YAK 55 have that appeal. I know beauty
> is
>> in the eye of the beholder. If I wanted to just plain ass turn Ben
>> Franklins to noise in a truly kick ass airplane at an ungodly expense,
>> then I would buy that demilitarized F-16A that appears occasionally
> in
>> Trade-a-plane! Now from firsthand experience, that is truly a "KICK
> ASS"
>> plane. Down- right expensive to operate though at over $6000/hour now!
>> Granted, there are a few MIG 29's floating around too that can be had
>> for a song! Again, cost is going to kick your but unless you are the
>> Collins Foundation or the likes of.
>>
>> Also, since I don't do air shows (except rarely
>> when I get together with bunch of my old squadron mates at our reunion
>> about every three years) or compete, this is purely for fun and to
>> escape from some of the stress in my life!
>>
>> So for pure ass fun of flying in an economical
>> to operate War-bird, pick your poison. CJ6 (rolls to slow for my
> taste),
>> the YAK-52 (have one and enjoy flying her), or the YAK-50 (have one
> and
>> absolutely love flying it). Not to ignore the others but I have no
>> experience with them either. I have left the smokers intentionally out
>> of this also except for my comments about the 16 and 29.
>>
>> Now If I were to seriously consider buying a
>> smoker, then the L-39 is on my list simply because of acquisition
> cost.
>> Its' short field capability on a hot day suxs and it reminds me of an
>> F-84 in that it is a runway loving hog on a warm day!
>>
>> An A-4 Scooter is also on that list! In the
>> scheme of things, it is a very simple smoker to own and operate but
> not
>> from a cost perspective. Now I have gone an opened the door on who
> has
>> the best Smoker with writing all this bs.
>>
>> Doc
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:11 AM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
>> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>>
>> I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in
>> performance. A foot note needs to added on price point: it's an
>> exponential curve. An Su-31 is maybe 5% better than a Yak 55 and
> costs
>> three times as much. If you want to win in unlimited, you will need
> the
>> 5% improvement in performance and you will need to PAY big time to
> get.
>> The Yak 50 and 55 are at very good points in the price/performance
>> curve, but if your only concern is performance you'll need to move way
>> up the price curve.
>>
>> As far as airshows and competition, the former
>> is show business, meant to dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to
>> competition which is the archane, and dull as dishwater, persuit of
>> technical perfection.
>>
>> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
>> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>> > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
>> > From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> >
>> Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>> >
>> > No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best
>> Aerobatic Mount... And I
>> > say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it
>> may very well be one of the
>> > best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good
>> three bladed prop and look
>> > out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of
>> all the Russian models,
>> > the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by
>> the 26, and right there
>> > equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a
>> tiny notch down, and this is
>> > of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55,
>> and close to that.. The 54.
>> > The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of
>> them flying and you hardly
>> > ever see one at anything other than airshows.
>> >
>> > The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply
>> night and day. Of
>> > course... So is the freaking price!
>> >
>> > Getting the best bang for the buck, I would
>> clearly put the 55 and 50
>> > first.
>> >
>> > Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of
>> the day where Russian
>> > designs dominate. A lot of models have either
>> stopped production, or
>> > are now asking SERIOUS prices.
>> >
>> > Mark Bitterlich
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
>> On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
>> > M.D.
>> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
>> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
>> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>> >
>> > Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!!
>> Being one of the few and
>> > the proud...the YAK-50!
>> >
>> > Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio
>> boys....a well...the girls
>> > too!
>> >
>> > Doc
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
>> On Behalf Of A. Dennis
>> > Savarese
>> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
>> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
>> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Rick,
>> >
>> > I'll respond to the question AND start the
>> debate - "....who does akro
>> > best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no
>> comparison. Yak 52 wins
>> > hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
>> >
>> > Dennis
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >
>> > From: Rick Basiliere
>> <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
>> >
>> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> >
>> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
>> >
>> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
>> anniversaries and
>> > Oshkosh...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Drew;
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks for all you and the other organizers of
>> Red Star have
>> > done. I was one of the earlier originals with
>> coming on board with Bud
>> > in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have
>> kept some of Bud's Yak
>> > "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick
>> color mag now but it
>> > brings back great memories.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > All of you out there...a big thanks - the
>> organization is
>> > working. We haven't had a good - who does akro
>> best, Yak or CJ? in a
>> > while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome
>> death.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Respectfully, Rick b
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >
>> > From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
>> >
>> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> >
>> > Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
>> >
>> > Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
>> anniversaries and
>> > Oshkosh...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter
>> dated
>> > Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The
>> CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud
>> Harrell
>> > asked this question:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "...Will there be a Yak association like the
>> T-34
>> > association? I cannot answer that question.
>> For now, we may be too few,
>> > and too far flung..."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those
>> days and
>> > had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to
>> organize, out of a
>> > distribution list of 47 owners.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > For many of you, the founding of the Yak
>> Pilots Club and
>> > evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association,
>> has been a positive
>> > addition to your interest in these aircraft
>> and this great past time.
>> > The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft
>> aviators association, it was
>> > about the pilots flying, and not about one
>> type specific aircraft or
>> > another - the name change proposal itself was
>> done to cement that
>> > concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called
>> up before coming to a
>> > California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and
>> said "This ain't one of
>> > those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just
>> refer to as 'Yak' is it?".
>> > No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to
>> forever remove such an
>> > incorrect perception among aircraft owners of
>> Eastern Block aircraft
>> > (and beyond, RPA membership is open to
>> pilot-owners who simply commit to
>> > the goals of training and fun).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old
>> this year?
>> > The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really
>> important, as is being pointed
>> > out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and
>> seen through the agressive
>> > refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in
>> this quarters Red Alert, is
>> > the realization that the RPA is 15 years old -
>> and this event is a
>> > National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE
>> associations membership and
>> > it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and
>> Yak
>> > anniversaries in specialty publications, mass
>> formations and other
>> > venues, but this event is getting a lot of
>> planning effort (and RPA
>> > treasury and sponsor money) to support the
>> pilots and members equally,
>> > doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow
>> their
>> > association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450
>> today.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Food for thought,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Drew
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
>> > com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> >
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> >
>> >
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> > http://forums.matronics.com
>> > http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> >
>> &====================
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>> Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word
>> scramble challenge with star power. Play now!
>>
> <http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_
>> jan>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
>> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>> Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
>> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>> Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>
>>
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
>> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 11:05 AM
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 29
| 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 n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
My hearing will never be the same either! The worst was standing beside
the runway for FCLP's when they were taking off. Twice as loud as an A-6.
You could easily tell that your body was made mostly of water because you
could feel it moving inside you. The short tailpipes canted outboard made
it even worse.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:32 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> I've stood on the flight deck mere feet away from F-4's, F-14's, RA-5's,
> etc. burner included. I have to say that the aircraft who's engines
> vibrated mye teeth and hurt my nose more than any other was the EA-6B
> with two J-52 P408's. They are just UGLY loud. Not a really nice
> sound.... Not impressive like burner... Just stinking LOUD. Their
> exhaust noise is simply painful.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
> M.D.
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:06
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
> Concure...Aint Nothing Like A RADIAL. The HISS of a SMOKER just does not
> do it. Now a Viper Standing on the LOUD PEDAL With 5 Stages of blower
> cooking @ 480 50 ft off the deck on a low pass does stir my blood!
> Almost as much as the F-4 stepping on the loud pedal!
>
> Doc
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Herb Coussons
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:49 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
> No one has mentioned the mono-wing aerobatic designs such as the Edge,
> Extras, etc - and the Eastern European Zlin 50 the CAP etc. The same
> price/performance argument applies there too. Doc did mention the looks
> of the 50 over the SU31 and the Yak 55 - but all I have to say is the
> sound of the radials is enough to own one over any of the other
> aerobatic planes with Lycomings. The horizontal 6 cylinders and the
> smaller props sound like they about to be thrown out of the plane and
> they sound they working at 110% to get the performance out of them,
> whereas the M14's sound like they are just rolling along with a nice
> deep rumble even though we may run them at 90-100% doing acro. So from
> the ground they make such an impression...
>
> Herb
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2008, at 3:10 AM, Ron Davis wrote:
>
>
> I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in performance. A foot note
> needs to added on price point: it's an exponential curve. An Su-31 is
> maybe 5% better than a Yak 55 and costs three times as much. If you
> want to win in unlimited, you will need the 5% improvement in
> performance and you will need to PAY big time to get. The Yak 50 and 55
> are at very good points in the price/performance curve, but if your only
> concern is performance you'll need to move way up the price curve.
>
> As far as airshows and competition, the former is show business, meant
> to dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to competition which is the
> archane, and dull as dishwater, persuit of technical perfection.
>
>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
>> From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>
>> --> Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>
>> No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best Aerobatic Mount... And I
>
>> say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it may very well be one of
>> the best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good three bladed prop and
>> look out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of all the Russian
>> models, the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by the 26, and right
>
>> there equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a tiny notch down, and
>> this is of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55, and close to
> that.. The 54.
>> The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of them flying and you hardly
>
>> ever see one at anything other than airshows.
>>
>> The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply night and day. Of
>> course... So is the freaking price!
>>
>> Getting the best bang for the buck, I would clearly put the 55 and 50
>> first.
>>
>> Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of the day where Russian
>> designs dominate. A lot of models have either stopped production, or
>> are now asking SERIOUS prices.
>>
>> Mark Bitterlich
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
>> M.D.
>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>>
>> Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!! Being one of the few and
>> the proud...the YAK-50!
>>
>> Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio boys....a well...the girls
>> too!
>>
>> Doc
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
>> Savarese
>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>>
>> Rick,
>>
>> I'll respond to the question AND start the debate - "....who does akro
>
>> best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no comparison. Yak 52 wins
>> hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Rick Basiliere <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
>>
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>
>> Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
>>
>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>>
>> Drew;
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for all you and the other organizers of Red Star have done. I
>> was one of the earlier originals with coming on board with Bud in '96,
>
>> so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have kept some of Bud's Yak "magazines"
>
>> crude in comparison to our slick color mag now but it brings back
>> great memories.
>>
>>
>>
>> All of you out there...a big thanks - the organization is working. We
>> haven't had a good - who does akro best, Yak or CJ? in a while - that
>> one has hopefully died a gruesome death.
>>
>>
>>
>> Respectfully, Rick b
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
>>
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>
>> Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
>>
>> Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter dated Winter 1993 Vol 1,
>
>> No 1. and titled "The CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
>>
>>
>>
>> In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud Harrell asked this
>> question:
>>
>>
>>
>> "...Will there be a Yak association like the T-34 association? I
>> cannot answer that question. For now, we may be too few, and too far
>> flung..."
>>
>>
>>
>> He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those days and had some 23
>> pilots respond to this proposal to organize, out of a distribution
>> list of 47 owners.
>>
>>
>>
>> For many of you, the founding of the Yak Pilots Club and evolution to
>> the RedStar Pilots Association, has been a positive addition to your
>> interest in these aircraft and this great past time.
>> The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft aviators association, it
>> was about the pilots flying, and not about one type specific aircraft
>> or another - the name change proposal itself was done to cement that
>> concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called up before coming to a
>> California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and said "This ain't one of
>> those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just refer to as 'Yak' is it?".
>> No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to forever remove such an
>> incorrect perception among aircraft owners of Eastern Block aircraft
>> (and beyond, RPA membership is open to pilot-owners who simply commit
>> to the goals of training and fun).
>>
>>
>>
>> I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old this year?
>> The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really important, as is being
>> pointed out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and seen through the
>> agressive refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in this quarters
>> Red Alert, is the realization that the RPA is 15 years old - and this
>> event is a National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE associations
>> membership and it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>>
>>
>>
>> RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and Yak anniversaries in
>> specialty publications, mass formations and other venues, but this
>> event is getting a lot of planning effort (and RPA treasury and
>> sponsor money) to support the pilots and members equally, doesn't
>> matter what you fly or drive.
>>
>>
>>
>> And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow their association...from 23
>
>> in 1993 to well over 450 today.
>>
>>
>>
>> Food for thought,
>>
>>
>>
>> Drew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
>> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/
>> c
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
> &====================
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with
> star power. Play now!
> <http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_
> jan>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/co
> ntribution
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
Message 30
| 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: | WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! |
>If you have an internally-regulated alternator with the internal
>VR powered from a diode trio from the stator, your alternator will
>self- excite. Every IR alternator so wired I have tried did
self-excite.
>I have done this with GM Delco, Ford Autolite, and Motorola.
I must be doing something wrong. I went out to my Camaro... And I have
no idea who made it... Other than the fact that is the single wire type.
I started the engine and revved the engine up and then pulled the + wire
off the battery. The Alternator stayed on and powered the car. I then
lowered engine RPM to idle and the engine died. What am I doing wrong
that you obviously are doing right?
>As with all steel armature pole pieces, if you apply a magnetic field
>for a long period of time it will become at least partially magnetized
>permanently. The residual magnetism in the armature will induce voltage
>in the stator. That voltage may be (probably is) less than battery
voltage
>so you would never see enough output to charge the battery. But it is
enough
>to turn on the internal VR which will then shunt the small available
current
>into the field. This will increase the output which then increases the
current
>in the field. This positive feedback process continues until the unit
is fully
>on-line.
I understand the concept, agree with your reasons why. I could not make
it work.
What really bothers me is that I tried it a lot, so I clearly am doing
something different than you are, and I would like to know what. My
conclusion at this point is that since you say it works for you, and I
can not get it to work for me, than I must be doing something different
from you and obviously wrong. My only conclusion is that I have somehow
left a load on the alternator to the point where it can not achieve your
stated end stage. On the airplanes, I started the engine and removed
the + wire off the battery as well. I then again pulled the throttle to
idle and lost all electrical. I THOUGHT I had all electrical turned off
in the aircraft under test, but I must have been in error?
>So I find your negative results very surprising. Every internally-
>regulated alternator I have used that is self-powered through the
>diode trio connected to the stator (independent of the normal diode
>bridge that feeds output to the B lead) has been self-exciting in
>the manner I have described.
I believe you. I have not seen it happen. I am perplexed. If I am
wrong, that's ok. However I would like to know why.
>'Taint theory.
Ok... I know that Brian. I thought I was sure of my facts. Now you
have me questioning them. Ok... I am going to get an alternator and
belt drive it with an electric motor and run tests on what I can get out
of the blasted thing. It may have to wait until I get back from Iraq.
I have all my interest right now targeted on building a multiple LNB
rack for an FTA dish.
>Tap the diode trio.
I did NOT do that!
Alright... On my Camaro, I will disconnect the Alternator single wire
and leave it hanging. I will start the motor and rev it up and see if I
can get any output. I will leave the wire dangling with ZERO load. I
did not do that last time and possibly that is why I can not duplicate
what you clearly have seen happen yourself.
-----------------------------------------------
>Sure, you can do it. If your loads remain relatively constant
>everything will work out fine without a battery. Even a honkin'
>big capacitor will do the trick. But if you take the battery out
>of the circuit, leave the alternator on, bring up the load with
>lights, pitot heat, butt-warmer, etc., and then turn off some
>large load, the output of the alternator will go a lot higher
>than you want for a short period of time. This is called a
>load-dump incident and you need something to absorb the extra
>output.
>But even some spam-can electrical systems can run without a battery.
>I believe some of the Beechcraft are designed to run from their
>alternators without the battery on-line. It all depends on how
>you design the system.
>But as a rule of thumb, running your electrical system in your
>car or GA aircraft (or CJ or Yak) without the battery on-line,
>you are asking for problems. Maybe not this time or the next but
>if you keep doing it, it will bite you in the butt some day.
---------------------------------------------------
We're on the same page here 100%.
>I am saying that without the battery to provide a load for the
>momentary overvoltage situation caused by load-dump, you will
>get a big spike, the energy content of which is a function of
>the inductance of the field.
No argument here either. It is the same reason (in general) that diodes
are placed across the coils on relays.
I left out your article on regulator theory. I've always heard it being
explained as an "overshoot" caused by an immediate load reduction. I
think your explanation is better than most that I've read, and I did not
intend to infer that load dump was anything but real or that it could
not damage avionics.
Load dump is real, however the damage to Avionics can be greatly reduced
or eliminated with some simple care.
>Doesn't your Yak-50 use a B&C PM alternator?
No... All stock. Big ole heavy 3 KW 28 volt gen gen.
>They work differently and they will not exhibit load-dump effect.
Understood. Their "field" is pretty much a constant as I see it.
>You need an alternator or generator with a field circuit.
>Also, the larger the alternator, the more profound the effect.
>You might see load-dump effect with a small field-circuit
>alternator but you will find that the energy in the spike
>is not enough to be a problem.
>
>Hell, I would expect a PM alternator (dynamo) to run just fine without
a battery.
Concur.
>But lets say you are still running the stock generator. I would not
>expect a load-dump event in your Yak-50. You aren't switching big
>loads off. You don't have anything like a landing-gear motor.
>Repeat your experiment, this time with the landing light and pitot-heat
on.
>Turn them both off at the same time. I betcha you get a GOOD spike.
I intentionally avoided doing exactly that of course. My intent was not
to say you were wrong, simply to say that it could be done if one was
even remotely careful. Sadly, I do not have a landing light. Fact is
the electrical load on a 50 is so trivial it is rather ridiculous to
have that monster generator in there in the first place.
>And you probably did not create a load-dump.
>That is where the problem arises. Do that again
>and remove a big load, e.g. turn off the headlights.
>Put a 'scope on the bus. It will make a believer out of you.
I did not mean in any way to trivialize the possible damage from voltage
spikes achieved by turning off highly inductive loads in an aircraft
with the battery disconnected. What I meant to get across was that
using the knowledge given by knowledge of the theory, that one could
indeed operate with a dead battery and get away with it with little to
no damage using care.
>Mark, I like you. You are one of the few people in
>this world I have discussions like this with. But in
>this case, for better or for worse, I am right about
>this. Go look up "load dump".
Well, I like you too! :-) Better yet, I trust your judgment. I never
meant to argue with you about load dumping. I portrayed my point of
view poorly if you left with that impression and I am sorry. Your
points are all valid and I do not disagree with any of them. I do admit
that I got the wrong impression from what you were saying too. All
small points really.
>Oh, and I stand by the self-exciting alternator too. ;-)
Yeah yeah... Well you have me doubting myself on that one as well.
Bothers the living hell out of me that I might have done something
wrong. I will figure that out.... I did run the tests... Nothing
worked. So, I must be doing something wrong if you are doing the same
darn thing and it DOES work. When my tests failed, my conclusion was
not that your theory was wrong, only that there must not be enough
current available from the residual magnetism to get it all going. I'll
do it again. I can see where I might be able to get the car example to
work. I can not see what I did wrong that caused the aircraft not to
work.
>For externally-regulated alternators, this is 100% true. This means
almost all aircraft.
WAIT! Are you saying I was right about the aircraft? So in reality the
only test that runs counter to your example is the car alternator on my
Camaro? Really?
>Ah, landing gear. When the gear is finally down and the gear
>motor shuts off, look for one mutha' big-ass load-dump event.
>The dump it takes may be in your $20,000 glass PFD. ;-)
Yep. I agree that would be the biggest spike you would be likely to
achieve. Good point.
>> P.p.s. And Brian, I am not saying you are WRONG in any way.
>Ah, good. Because I *am* right.
Yep, you USUALLY are. HA!
> <sigh> And here I thought *I* was the most anal-retentive, pedantic
asshole on this list!
I guess you were wrong about that! :-)
Which brings to mind the quote: "I once thought I made a mistake, but I
was in error"
Next question: Are you currently doing ANYTHING with your ham ticket?
Other than encouraging others I mean. I also wonder how many of the
list readers here are licensed hams?
Mark
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
I can't go into this at this time Mark. Sorry.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 16:06
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Mark,
Did the engine blow up and just take out hydraulics or did it go
through the "ballistic bulkhead" between engine bays and take out the
other
engine? Not training flight crews in A-4's and knowing how to treat a
rough running J52 might start showing up in Prowler accidents before
they're all retired.
Mark Davis
N44YK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:18 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
Point,
> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Mark & Doc, I believe that the A-4M also had self start capability.
>
> Mark
>
> P.s. I think we may have finally gone too far with the J-52. There
are
> more than a few cases of the 4 1/2 bearing going out causing
> catastrophic failure. Pretty sure that was what caused all four to
> eject from an EA-6B near Guam last week.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 14:17
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
> Doc,
> I believe all of the later Scooters had some version of the J52
> except for some late models modified for export. Most were P6 or P8.
> The early Skyhawks had J65 W 20's in them.
>
> Mark Davis
> N44YK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:46 AM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
> Mark,
>
> Was it not he J58 that the Blues had? I understand the P408 mod
> now.
>
> Doc
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:39 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
> Oshkosh...
>
>
> Doc,
>
> P408's and the slats bolted up to avoid asymetric
> deployment while 36" wingtip to canopy!
>
>
> Mark Davis
>
> N44YK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:21 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries
> and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Yes Sir! I believe that was the engine they put in the
> Blues!
>
> Sweat little jet!
>
> Doc
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:03 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries
> and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Doc,
>
> I'm with you on the Scooter. The only problem with
> them is needing a huffer to crank it up. The ultimate A-4 would be
> Super Fox with a J52-P408. Better than one to one at low fuel weights
> on a basic engine jet and a 720 degree/sec. roll rate can't be beat!
>
>
> Mark Davis
>
> N44YK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Roger Kemp M.D.
> <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:42 AM
>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Ron,
>
> You are absolutely correct as is Mark on this
> point. However, for shear ass fun on a truly inexpensive basis in a
> stead that just plain kick ass turns heads when fired up, taxied by,
and
> doing fly-bys the YAK 50 is your machine. Now yes for the truly
sublime
> expense of it, move up to a Su 31 but to me for looks and a plain ass
> sexy A/C , the Sukios nor the YAK 55 have that appeal. I know beauty
is
> in the eye of the beholder. If I wanted to just plain ass turn Ben
> Franklins to noise in a truly kick ass airplane at an ungodly expense,
> then I would buy that demilitarized F-16A that appears occasionally
in
> Trade-a-plane! Now from firsthand experience, that is truly a "KICK
ASS"
> plane. Down- right expensive to operate though at over $6000/hour now!
> Granted, there are a few MIG 29's floating around too that can be had
> for a song! Again, cost is going to kick your but unless you are the
> Collins Foundation or the likes of.
>
> Also, since I don't do air shows (except rarely
> when I get together with bunch of my old squadron mates at our reunion
> about every three years) or compete, this is purely for fun and to
> escape from some of the stress in my life!
>
> So for pure ass fun of flying in an economical
> to operate War-bird, pick your poison. CJ6 (rolls to slow for my
taste),
> the YAK-52 (have one and enjoy flying her), or the YAK-50 (have one
and
> absolutely love flying it). Not to ignore the others but I have no
> experience with them either. I have left the smokers intentionally out
> of this also except for my comments about the 16 and 29.
>
> Now If I were to seriously consider buying a
> smoker, then the L-39 is on my list simply because of acquisition
cost.
> Its' short field capability on a hot day suxs and it reminds me of an
> F-84 in that it is a runway loving hog on a warm day!
>
> An A-4 Scooter is also on that list! In the
> scheme of things, it is a very simple smoker to own and operate but
not
> from a cost perspective. Now I have gone an opened the door on who
has
> the best Smoker with writing all this bs.
>
> Doc
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:11 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
> I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in
> performance. A foot note needs to added on price point: it's an
> exponential curve. An Su-31 is maybe 5% better than a Yak 55 and
costs
> three times as much. If you want to win in unlimited, you will need
the
> 5% improvement in performance and you will need to PAY big time to
get.
> The Yak 50 and 55 are at very good points in the price/performance
> curve, but if your only concern is performance you'll need to move way
> up the price curve.
>
> As far as airshows and competition, the former
> is show business, meant to dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to
> competition which is the archane, and dull as dishwater, persuit of
> technical perfection.
>
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
> > From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
> >
> > No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best
> Aerobatic Mount... And I
> > say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it
> may very well be one of the
> > best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good
> three bladed prop and look
> > out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of
> all the Russian models,
> > the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by
> the 26, and right there
> > equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a
> tiny notch down, and this is
> > of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55,
> and close to that.. The 54.
> > The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of
> them flying and you hardly
> > ever see one at anything other than airshows.
> >
> > The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply
> night and day. Of
> > course... So is the freaking price!
> >
> > Getting the best bang for the buck, I would
> clearly put the 55 and 50
> > first.
> >
> > Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of
> the day where Russian
> > designs dominate. A lot of models have either
> stopped production, or
> > are now asking SERIOUS prices.
> >
> > Mark Bitterlich
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
> > M.D.
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> >
> > Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!!
> Being one of the few and
> > the proud...the YAK-50!
> >
> > Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio
> boys....a well...the girls
> > too!
> >
> > Doc
> >
> >
> >
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> > Savarese
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> > I'll respond to the question AND start the
> debate - "....who does akro
> > best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no
> comparison. Yak 52 wins
> > hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Rick Basiliere
> <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
> >
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
> >
> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and
> > Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Drew;
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for all you and the other organizers of
> Red Star have
> > done. I was one of the earlier originals with
> coming on board with Bud
> > in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have
> kept some of Bud's Yak
> > "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick
> color mag now but it
> > brings back great memories.
> >
> >
> >
> > All of you out there...a big thanks - the
> organization is
> > working. We haven't had a good - who does akro
> best, Yak or CJ? in a
> > while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome
> death.
> >
> >
> >
> > Respectfully, Rick b
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
> >
> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
> >
> > Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
> >
> > Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
> anniversaries and
> > Oshkosh...
> >
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter
> dated
> > Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The
> CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
> >
> >
> >
> > In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud
> Harrell
> > asked this question:
> >
> >
> >
> > "...Will there be a Yak association like the
> T-34
> > association? I cannot answer that question.
> For now, we may be too few,
> > and too far flung..."
> >
> >
> >
> > He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those
> days and
> > had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to
> organize, out of a
> > distribution list of 47 owners.
> >
> >
> >
> > For many of you, the founding of the Yak
> Pilots Club and
> > evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association,
> has been a positive
> > addition to your interest in these aircraft
> and this great past time.
> > The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft
> aviators association, it was
> > about the pilots flying, and not about one
> type specific aircraft or
> > another - the name change proposal itself was
> done to cement that
> > concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called
> up before coming to a
> > California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and
> said "This ain't one of
> > those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just
> refer to as 'Yak' is it?".
> > No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to
> forever remove such an
> > incorrect perception among aircraft owners of
> Eastern Block aircraft
> > (and beyond, RPA membership is open to
> pilot-owners who simply commit to
> > the goals of training and fun).
> >
> >
> >
> > I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old
> this year?
> > The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really
> important, as is being pointed
> > out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and
> seen through the agressive
> > refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in
> this quarters Red Alert, is
> > the realization that the RPA is 15 years old -
> and this event is a
> > National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE
> associations membership and
> > it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and
> Yak
> > anniversaries in specialty publications, mass
> formations and other
> > venues, but this event is getting a lot of
> planning effort (and RPA
> > treasury and sponsor money) to support the
> pilots and members equally,
> > doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
> >
> >
> >
> > And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow
> their
> > association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450
> today.
> >
> >
> >
> > Food for thought,
> >
> >
> >
> > Drew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> > com/Navigator?Yak-List
> >
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> >
> >
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> > http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >
> &====================
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word
> scramble challenge with star power. Play now!
>
<http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_
> jan>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> ________________________________
>
>
> Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
> ________________________________
>
>
> Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
> com/Navigator?Yak-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
>
>
> --
> 11:05 AM
>
>
Message 32
| 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: | CJ OV Module from Aeroelectric |
CJ Owners:
Bob has not produced these yet. It is fully designed. All of us with generators
should have this.
Here is the link to the design of the unit:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9011/9011-700-1C.pdf
Ping Bob on my post to the Matronics Aeroelectic List if you are interested.
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=165502#165502
Message 33
| 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: | Best Aerobatic Aircraft |
OK, I'll stick my neck out with this one.....MX2. Have you guys read about this plane? All carbon fiber, two-place, 400+ deg/sec roll, +/- 14gs. Check it out at www.mx2aircraft.com.
Continuing to stick my neck out....the Pitts S1 is probably the BEST price performer
of any aircraft capable of competition aerobatics.
On the list also is the Giles, Extra, Edge 540, and Pitts S2C. Of course, if you
want to take someone along, the MX2, Extra, and Pitts S2C are the planes of
choice.
OK, none of these have round engines. As for the 50, it was a great airplane in
its day and is a good price performer. The Sukhoi is also a stellar aircraft
even though it is late 80s, early 90s technology. Technology (and prices) have
moved on.
Oh, if only the bank account were larger!!
Craig
PS - am I excommunicated from the list since my choices have flat engines?? :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=165505#165505
Message 34
| 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: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! |
On Feb 21, 2008, at 3:56 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E wrote:
>> If you have an internally-regulated alternator with the internal
>> VR powered from a diode trio from the stator, your alternator will
>> self- excite. Every IR alternator so wired I have tried did
> self-excite.
>> I have done this with GM Delco, Ford Autolite, and Motorola.
>
> I must be doing something wrong. I went out to my Camaro... And I
> have
> no idea who made it... Other than the fact that is the single wire
> type.
> I started the engine and revved the engine up and then pulled the +
> wire
> off the battery. The Alternator stayed on and powered the car. I
> then
> lowered engine RPM to idle and the engine died. What am I doing wrong
> that you obviously are doing right?
No idea. It could be a bad diode trio that won't produce enough output
to keep the internal VR alive without the idiot-light or the on/off
line from the ignition switch. Check your diode trio.
>> in the stator. That voltage may be (probably is) less than battery
> voltage
>> so you would never see enough output to charge the battery. But it is
> enough
>> to turn on the internal VR which will then shunt the small available
> current
>> into the field. This will increase the output which then increases
>> the
> current
>> in the field. This positive feedback process continues until the unit
> is fully
>> on-line.
>
> I understand the concept, agree with your reasons why. I could not
> make
> it work.
Hey, stuff happens. If you feel motivated, pull the back case off and
test the main diode bridge (6 diodes) and the diode trio.
> What really bothers me is that I tried it a lot, so I clearly am doing
> something different than you are, and I would like to know what. My
> conclusion at this point is that since you say it works for you, and I
> can not get it to work for me, than I must be doing something
> different
> from you and obviously wrong.
Some alternators do get the power for their internal regulators from
an external supply. You may just have a bad one or two. You would be
amazed at just how many alternators are running around out there with
burned out diodes and other problems.
> My only conclusion is that I have somehow
> left a load on the alternator to the point where it can not achieve
> your
> stated end stage. On the airplanes, I started the engine and removed
> the + wire off the battery as well. I then again pulled the
> throttle to
> idle and lost all electrical. I THOUGHT I had all electrical turned
> off
> in the aircraft under test, but I must have been in error?
Well, the generator will drop off-line at low RPM. An alternator
should produce enough output to keep itself alive. OTOH, if it is
marginal its output might drop low enough that it stops working too.
It all depends.
>> So I find your negative results very surprising. Every internally-
>> regulated alternator I have used that is self-powered through the
>> diode trio connected to the stator (independent of the normal diode
>> bridge that feeds output to the B lead) has been self-exciting in
>> the manner I have described.
>
> I believe you. I have not seen it happen. I am perplexed. If I am
> wrong, that's ok. However I would like to know why.
So would I. I am guessing it is something about that particular
alternator.
>> 'Taint theory.
>
> Ok... I know that Brian. I thought I was sure of my facts. Now you
> have me questioning them. Ok... I am going to get an alternator and
> belt drive it with an electric motor and run tests on what I can get
> out
> of the blasted thing. It may have to wait until I get back from Iraq.
> I have all my interest right now targeted on building a multiple LNB
> rack for an FTA dish.
Huh. I am pretty good at getting VSATs up and running. That's one of
the things I was doing in Nigeria when I was there. Need help? I could
stand to make a few bucks. ;-)
>> Tap the diode trio.
>
> I did NOT do that!
>
> Alright... On my Camaro, I will disconnect the Alternator single wire
> and leave it hanging. I will start the motor and rev it up and see
> if I
> can get any output. I will leave the wire dangling with ZERO load. I
> did not do that last time and possibly that is why I can not duplicate
> what you clearly have seen happen yourself.
Could be. I am thinking your alternator may not be completely healthy.
> We're on the same page here 100%.
>
>
>> I am saying that without the battery to provide a load for the
>> momentary overvoltage situation caused by load-dump, you will
>> get a big spike, the energy content of which is a function of
>> the inductance of the field.
>
> No argument here either. It is the same reason (in general) that
> diodes
> are placed across the coils on relays.
Well, not quite. It *IS* overshoot. It comes not from the VR response
time but rather the time it takes for the field to collapse. B-field
in the rotor stores energy. That energy sustains the field current for
some time after the VR turns it off. And it is worse with a clamping
diode.
> I left out your article on regulator theory. I've always heard it
> being
> explained as an "overshoot" caused by an immediate load reduction.
It is but it comes from the field not reducing instantly, not from the
VR.
> I
> think your explanation is better than most that I've read, and I did
> not
> intend to infer that load dump was anything but real or that it could
> not damage avionics.
> Load dump is real, however the damage to Avionics can be greatly
> reduced
> or eliminated with some simple care.
I agree.
>
>
>> Doesn't your Yak-50 use a B&C PM alternator?
>
> No... All stock. Big ole heavy 3 KW 28 volt gen gen.
>
>> They work differently and they will not exhibit load-dump effect.
>
> Understood. Their "field" is pretty much a constant as I see it.
Exactly.
>> Turn them both off at the same time. I betcha you get a GOOD spike.
>
> I intentionally avoided doing exactly that of course. My intent was
> not
> to say you were wrong, simply to say that it could be done if one was
> even remotely careful. Sadly, I do not have a landing light. Fact is
> the electrical load on a 50 is so trivial it is rather ridiculous to
> have that monster generator in there in the first place.
And with no significant loads you will never see load dump. I bet you
could run that all day without a battery and never have a problem.
>> And you probably did not create a load-dump.
>> That is where the problem arises. Do that again
>> and remove a big load, e.g. turn off the headlights.
>> Put a 'scope on the bus. It will make a believer out of you.
>
> I did not mean in any way to trivialize the possible damage from
> voltage
> spikes achieved by turning off highly inductive loads in an aircraft
> with the battery disconnected. What I meant to get across was that
> using the knowledge given by knowledge of the theory, that one could
> indeed operate with a dead battery and get away with it with little to
> no damage using care.
I agree with that. See, we are just a pair of agreeable chaps. Time
for a group hug!
>> Mark, I like you. You are one of the few people in
>> this world I have discussions like this with. But in
>> this case, for better or for worse, I am right about
>> this. Go look up "load dump".
>
> Well, I like you too! :-) Better yet, I trust your judgment. I
> never
> meant to argue with you about load dumping. I portrayed my point of
> view poorly if you left with that impression and I am sorry. Your
> points are all valid and I do not disagree with any of them. I do
> admit
> that I got the wrong impression from what you were saying too. All
> small points really.
As I have gotten older I find that I tend to not be completely clear
in my writing. I need to fix that.
>> Oh, and I stand by the self-exciting alternator too. ;-)
>
> Yeah yeah... Well you have me doubting myself on that one as well.
> Bothers the living hell out of me that I might have done something
> wrong. I will figure that out.... I did run the tests... Nothing
> worked.
I believe you. What's different? We need to figure that out, probably
off list. :-)
> So, I must be doing something wrong if you are doing the same
> darn thing and it DOES work. When my tests failed, my conclusion was
> not that your theory was wrong, only that there must not be enough
> current available from the residual magnetism to get it all going.
And that could be. Not all internally-regulated alternators are self-
exciting. Yours might not be.
> I'll
> do it again. I can see where I might be able to get the car example
> to
> work. I can not see what I did wrong that caused the aircraft not to
> work.
If you want to play with it, open up the back and add a wire to the
power input to the VR. Now you can see what is happening inside your
particular alternator.
>> For externally-regulated alternators, this is 100% true. This means
> almost all aircraft.
>
> WAIT! Are you saying I was right about the aircraft?
Spam cans, yeah.
> So in reality the
> only test that runs counter to your example is the car alternator on
> my
> Camaro? Really?
Well, I spend a lot of time in the experimental aircraft area. Most
use internally regulated automotive alternators and all that I have
said is true. I have never seen a production aircraft that flies under
a normal-category AC use an internally-regulated alternator until
recently. You can now get internally-regulated alternators from Plane
Power that are STC'd for many aircraft. I think they need an external
power source for the VR and field tho'. They probably won't self-excite.
>> Ah, landing gear. When the gear is finally down and the gear
>> motor shuts off, look for one mutha' big-ass load-dump event.
>> The dump it takes may be in your $20,000 glass PFD. ;-)
>
> Yep. I agree that would be the biggest spike you would be likely to
> achieve. Good point.
>
>>> P.p.s. And Brian, I am not saying you are WRONG in any way.
>
>> Ah, good. Because I *am* right.
>
> Yep, you USUALLY are. HA!
>
>> <sigh> And here I thought *I* was the most anal-retentive, pedantic
> asshole on this list!
>
> I guess you were wrong about that! :-)
Yeah, I guess I was. (hee hee)
> Which brings to mind the quote: "I once thought I made a mistake,
> but I
> was in error"
Oh hell, I am wrong all the time. I just don't let anybody know. ;-)
> Next question: Are you currently doing ANYTHING with your ham ticket?
> Other than encouraging others I mean. I also wonder how many of the
> list readers here are licensed hams?
I am on the air but mostly using it to teach the kids about
electricity and electronics. When I operate it is mostly PSK31. I am
planning to play with MFSK. I am also building a couple of little I/Q
transceivers using Tayloe mixers with all the modulation and
demodulation being done in software. Other than that, not much.
And I think we have gone as far as we reasonably can with this topic
on the Yak list. Let's continue privately.
--
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh... |
I even remember that. Seems this kid was a crew chief that wanted to go to
UPT but was turned down. He stole the jet to convince or to prove to his CO
that he could fly or something like that.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
I'd forgotten all about it!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:34 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> Remember the LCpl that stole one out of El Toro and took it for a joy
> ride?
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 16:00
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Yeah they did. But they had an extra 2,000# of avionics and assorted
> junk on them and wouldn't outperform an E or F model with a -8 engine so
> I was told by a USMC type Mike driver. Part of that weight must've been
> the starting system.
>
> Mark Davis
> N44YK
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E"
> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
> To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:18 PM
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>
>
> Point,
>> MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>
>> Mark & Doc, I believe that the A-4M also had self start capability.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> P.s. I think we may have finally gone too far with the J-52. There
> are
>> more than a few cases of the 4 1/2 bearing going out causing
>> catastrophic failure. Pretty sure that was what caused all four to
>> eject from an EA-6B near Guam last week.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 14:17
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>>
>> Doc,
>> I believe all of the later Scooters had some version of the J52
>> except for some late models modified for export. Most were P6 or P8.
>> The early Skyhawks had J65 W 20's in them.
>>
>> Mark Davis
>> N44YK
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:46 AM
>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
>> Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> Was it not he J58 that the Blues had? I understand the P408 mod
>> now.
>>
>> Doc
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:39 AM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries and
>> Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>>
>> Doc,
>>
>> P408's and the slats bolted up to avoid asymetric
>> deployment while 36" wingtip to canopy!
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark Davis
>>
>> N44YK
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Roger Kemp M.D. <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>>
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:21 AM
>>
>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries
>> and Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes Sir! I believe that was the engine they put in the
>> Blues!
>>
>> Sweat little jet!
>>
>> Doc
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:03 AM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft anniversaries
>> and Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>>
>> Doc,
>>
>> I'm with you on the Scooter. The only problem with
>> them is needing a huffer to crank it up. The ultimate A-4 would be
>> Super Fox with a J52-P408. Better than one to one at low fuel weights
>> on a basic engine jet and a 720 degree/sec. roll rate can't be beat!
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark Davis
>>
>> N44YK
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Roger Kemp M.D.
>> <mailto:viperdoc@mindspring.com>
>>
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:42 AM
>>
>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
>> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>>
>> Ron,
>>
>> You are absolutely correct as is Mark on this
>> point. However, for shear ass fun on a truly inexpensive basis in a
>> stead that just plain kick ass turns heads when fired up, taxied by,
> and
>> doing fly-bys the YAK 50 is your machine. Now yes for the truly
> sublime
>> expense of it, move up to a Su 31 but to me for looks and a plain ass
>> sexy A/C , the Sukios nor the YAK 55 have that appeal. I know beauty
> is
>> in the eye of the beholder. If I wanted to just plain ass turn Ben
>> Franklins to noise in a truly kick ass airplane at an ungodly expense,
>> then I would buy that demilitarized F-16A that appears occasionally
> in
>> Trade-a-plane! Now from firsthand experience, that is truly a "KICK
> ASS"
>> plane. Down- right expensive to operate though at over $6000/hour now!
>> Granted, there are a few MIG 29's floating around too that can be had
>> for a song! Again, cost is going to kick your but unless you are the
>> Collins Foundation or the likes of.
>>
>> Also, since I don't do air shows (except rarely
>> when I get together with bunch of my old squadron mates at our reunion
>> about every three years) or compete, this is purely for fun and to
>> escape from some of the stress in my life!
>>
>> So for pure ass fun of flying in an economical
>> to operate War-bird, pick your poison. CJ6 (rolls to slow for my
> taste),
>> the YAK-52 (have one and enjoy flying her), or the YAK-50 (have one
> and
>> absolutely love flying it). Not to ignore the others but I have no
>> experience with them either. I have left the smokers intentionally out
>> of this also except for my comments about the 16 and 29.
>>
>> Now If I were to seriously consider buying a
>> smoker, then the L-39 is on my list simply because of acquisition
> cost.
>> Its' short field capability on a hot day suxs and it reminds me of an
>> F-84 in that it is a runway loving hog on a warm day!
>>
>> An A-4 Scooter is also on that list! In the
>> scheme of things, it is a very simple smoker to own and operate but
> not
>> from a cost perspective. Now I have gone an opened the door on who
> has
>> the best Smoker with writing all this bs.
>>
>> Doc
>>
>>
>>
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Davis
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:11 AM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
>> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>>
>>
>>
>> I concur with your ranking of the aircraft in
>> performance. A foot note needs to added on price point: it's an
>> exponential curve. An Su-31 is maybe 5% better than a Yak 55 and
> costs
>> three times as much. If you want to win in unlimited, you will need
> the
>> 5% improvement in performance and you will need to PAY big time to
> get.
>> The Yak 50 and 55 are at very good points in the price/performance
>> curve, but if your only concern is performance you'll need to move way
>> up the price curve.
>>
>> As far as airshows and competition, the former
>> is show business, meant to dazzle and entertain. It is unrelated to
>> competition which is the archane, and dull as dishwater, persuit of
>> technical perfection.
>>
>> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
>> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>> > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:36:21 -0500
>> > From: mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
>> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> >
>> Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>> >
>> > No way Doc. The 50 is far from being the best
>> Aerobatic Mount... And I
>> > say that owning one. For doing AIRSHOWS, it
>> may very well be one of the
>> > best. Hang a 400HP motor on it with a good
>> three bladed prop and look
>> > out! However for pure aerobatics I believe of
>> all the Russian models,
>> > the Sukhoi 31 would be the best, followed by
>> the 26, and right there
>> > equal with the 26, probably the 29. Just a
>> tiny notch down, and this is
>> > of course debatable... Would be the YAK-55,
>> and close to that.. The 54.
>> > The 54 is very hard to judge... Very few of
>> them flying and you hardly
>> > ever see one at anything other than airshows.
>> >
>> > The difference between a 50 and a 31 is simply
>> night and day. Of
>> > course... So is the freaking price!
>> >
>> > Getting the best bang for the buck, I would
>> clearly put the 55 and 50
>> > first.
>> >
>> > Sadly, I think we are about to see the end of
>> the day where Russian
>> > designs dominate. A lot of models have either
>> stopped production, or
>> > are now asking SERIOUS prices.
>> >
>> > Mark Bitterlich
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
>> On Behalf Of Roger Kemp
>> > M.D.
>> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 14:34
>> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
>> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>> >
>> > Ohhhh.......Nooooo...YUUUUUU.....d'it'nntt!!
>> Being one of the few and
>> > the proud...the YAK-50!
>> >
>> > Now lets hear from the YAK 54/55 and Sukio
>> boys....a well...the girls
>> > too!
>> >
>> > Doc
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> > [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com]
>> On Behalf Of A. Dennis
>> > Savarese
>> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:16 AM
>> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
>> anniversaries and Oshkosh...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Rick,
>> >
>> > I'll respond to the question AND start the
>> debate - "....who does akro
>> > best, Yak or CJ? in a while". Answer - no
>> comparison. Yak 52 wins
>> > hands down. :-)))) OK. Let the "debate" begin!
>> >
>> > Dennis
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >
>> > From: Rick Basiliere
>> <mailto:discrab@earthlink.net>
>> >
>> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> >
>> > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:35 AM
>> >
>> > Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
>> anniversaries and
>> > Oshkosh...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Drew;
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks for all you and the other organizers of
>> Red Star have
>> > done. I was one of the earlier originals with
>> coming on board with Bud
>> > in '96, so 12 years for me now. Wow. I have
>> kept some of Bud's Yak
>> > "magazines" crude in comparison to our slick
>> color mag now but it
>> > brings back great memories.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > All of you out there...a big thanks - the
>> organization is
>> > working. We haven't had a good - who does akro
>> best, Yak or CJ? in a
>> > while - that one has hopefully died a gruesome
>> death.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Respectfully, Rick b
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >
>> > From: Drew <mailto:lacloudchaser@yahoo.com>
>> >
>> > To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> >
>> > Sent: 2/16/2008 9:41:59 AM
>> >
>> > Subject: Yak-List: Yak n CJ Aircraft
>> anniversaries and
>> > Oshkosh...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm sitting here with my copy of a newsletter
>> dated
>> > Winter 1993 Vol 1, No 1. and titled "The
>> CJ-6/Yak-18 Driver"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > In that first edition, page 1, the editor Bud
>> Harrell
>> > asked this question:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "...Will there be a Yak association like the
>> T-34
>> > association? I cannot answer that question.
>> For now, we may be too few,
>> > and too far flung..."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > He reffered to the CJ-6 as a Yak-18 in those
>> days and
>> > had some 23 pilots respond to this proposal to
>> organize, out of a
>> > distribution list of 47 owners.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > For many of you, the founding of the Yak
>> Pilots Club and
>> > evolution to the RedStar Pilots Association,
>> has been a positive
>> > addition to your interest in these aircraft
>> and this great past time.
>> > The RPA (RedStar) is a unified all-aircraft
>> aviators association, it was
>> > about the pilots flying, and not about one
>> type specific aircraft or
>> > another - the name change proposal itself was
>> done to cement that
>> > concept not long after a Yak 52 pilot called
>> up before coming to a
>> > California fly-in we were forming in 2001 and
>> said "This ain't one of
>> > those *$#@ CJ club get togethers they just
>> refer to as 'Yak' is it?".
>> > No, this is RedStar...and we made it a goal to
>> forever remove such an
>> > incorrect perception among aircraft owners of
>> Eastern Block aircraft
>> > (and beyond, RPA membership is open to
>> pilot-owners who simply commit to
>> > the goals of training and fun).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I've heard that the Yak 52 is 30 years old
>> this year?
>> > The CJ is 50 or maybe more. Whats really
>> important, as is being pointed
>> > out by Condor [pres] to the volunteers and
>> seen through the agressive
>> > refocus of Oshkosh 2008, as you will read in
>> this quarters Red Alert, is
>> > the realization that the RPA is 15 years old -
>> and this event is a
>> > National RedStar Celebration of the ENTIRE
>> associations membership and
>> > it's collective accomplishments and evolution.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > RPA ops at Oshkosh may highlight the CJ and
>> Yak
>> > anniversaries in specialty publications, mass
>> formations and other
>> > venues, but this event is getting a lot of
>> planning effort (and RPA
>> > treasury and sponsor money) to support the
>> pilots and members equally,
>> > doesn't matter what you fly or drive.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > And yes Bud, the community did indeed grow
>> their
>> > association...from 23 in 1993 to well over 450
>> today.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Food for thought,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Drew
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
>> > com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> >
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> >
>> >
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> > http://forums.matronics.com
>> > http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> >
>> &====================
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>> Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word
>> scramble challenge with star power. Play now!
>>
> <http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_
>> jan>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
>> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>> Release Date: 2/20/2008 10:26 AM
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
>> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>> ________________________________
>>
>>
>> Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>
>>
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.
>> com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Release Date: 2/21/2008 11:05 AM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 11:05 AM
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 36
| 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: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! |
Brian and Mark,
While I can appreciate someone who can assemble, or even spell, a
VSAT antenna, do either of you guys have
experience with a retro-encabulator? ;)
Please see the following video for fodder:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PtuqjFf7-N4
Most of what he says in the video reminds me of the language in some
of your posts! ;)
Enjoy,
Dave Laird
N63536 1983 CJ6A "Betty"
Dallas (ADS)
p.s. Brian I put a B&C alternator into Betty a couple of years
back....so she doesn't have your self excited Delco Truck Alternator
anymore!
Message 37
| 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: | Best Aerobatic Aircraft |
Obviously a deranged man. The only cure is to spend more time behind the
bone stimulating rumble of a M-14.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Winkelmann,
CFI
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 8:32 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Best Aerobatic Aircraft
OK, I'll stick my neck out with this one.....MX2. Have you guys read about
this plane? All carbon fiber, two-place, 400+ deg/sec roll, +/- 14gs.
Check it out at www.mx2aircraft.com.
Continuing to stick my neck out....the Pitts S1 is probably the BEST price
performer of any aircraft capable of competition aerobatics.
On the list also is the Giles, Extra, Edge 540, and Pitts S2C. Of course,
if you want to take someone along, the MX2, Extra, and Pitts S2C are the
planes of choice.
OK, none of these have round engines. As for the 50, it was a great
airplane in its day and is a good price performer. The Sukhoi is also a
stellar aircraft even though it is late 80s, early 90s technology.
Technology (and prices) have moved on.
Oh, if only the bank account were larger!!
Craig
PS - am I excommunicated from the list since my choices have flat engines??
:D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=165505#165505
Message 38
| 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: WARNING, DO NOT READ! It's a Mark & Brian discussion! |
On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:18 PM, Dave Laird wrote:
>
> Brian and Mark,
>
> While I can appreciate someone who can assemble, or even spell, a
> VSAT antenna, do either of you guys have
> experience with a retro-encabulator? ;)
>
> Please see the following video for fodder:
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=PtuqjFf7-N4
>
> Most of what he says in the video reminds me of the language in some
> of your posts! ;)
Jeez! The only difference is I use real words. Trust me, that makes it
MUCH harder for someone to twig to my BS.
--
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
Message 39
| 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: Best Aerobatic Aircraft |
On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:23 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
> >
>
> Obviously a deranged man. The only cure is to spend more time behind
> the
> bone stimulating rumble of a M-14.
Trog like fly. Trog like thing go round. Thing go round, Trog go up,
Trog go fast. Trog not care why thing go round. Trog not care that
thing go round be flat or round or make loud putt-putt noise.
Trog work on generator now.
--
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
Message 40
| 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: | Overvoltage (darn), Alternator for the CJ |
Ok, ok, after watching some of
my avionics have been slaughtered
recently by an overvoltage
surge, I am willing to switch
to an alternator system (sorry
Doug, can't spend any money
in your department until I've got
that misery solved).
So, WHERE can I procure an
approved conversion kit for the
CJ for a reasonable price (no arms
and legs please, I still need them for
flying).
Thanks in advance.
Regards
Elmar
Message 41
| 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: | Best Aerobatic Aircraft |
Round thing go putt putt - Trog be happy. Round thing be quiet, Trog be
sad.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Sent: 22 February 2008 07:07 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Best Aerobatic Aircraft
On Feb 21, 2008, at 8:23 PM, Roger Kemp M.D. wrote:
> >
>
> Obviously a deranged man. The only cure is to spend more time behind
> the
> bone stimulating rumble of a M-14.
Trog like fly. Trog like thing go round. Thing go round, Trog go up,
Trog go fast. Trog not care why thing go round. Trog not care that
thing go round be flat or round or make loud putt-putt noise.
Trog work on generator now.
--
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
Message 42
| 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: | Chinese markings |
We are having our CJ-6 stripped and painted at the moment. We are going for Chinese
military green/blue with Chinese star and bars. We cannot find a good reference
for the exact size and location of the original military markings. Any
help would be appreciated.
Thanks, guys
Pete
_________________________________________________________________
Message 43
| 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: | Best Aerobatic Aircraft |
What you state, is all very correct, Craig.
Now for fun flying, I prefer my Yak 50 over the Extra 300 that I also may
fly regularly. But if you want to do some competitive aerobatics (even
intermediate level, but certainly advanced; I don't even think about
unlimited) IMHO a Yak 52 and even a Yak 50 can't compete. The Yak 50 can
easily do a series of vertical rolls, but roll rate - even with shovels - is
way too slow. And the YAk 50 is so fast, that you've got to work hard to
stay in the box.
But my Yak 50 easily outclimbs an Extra 300L (without passenger). And I
still like the amazed looks of spectators when being airborne in no time
with my Yak 50. In an Extra 300L, you still have to wait for speed building
up, stick forward, and then rotate. Yak 50: just hold the stick, full
throttle and you take off before you know it.
I also agree with you about the Pitts. It's an adorable airplane. And every
landing with a Pitts is a challenge ....
Jan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig Winkelmann,
CFI
Sent: vrijdag 22 februari 2008 3:32
Subject: Yak-List: Best Aerobatic Aircraft
OK, I'll stick my neck out with this one.....MX2. Have you guys read about
this plane? All carbon fiber, two-place, 400+ deg/sec roll, +/- 14gs.
Check it out at www.mx2aircraft.com.
Continuing to stick my neck out....the Pitts S1 is probably the BEST price
performer of any aircraft capable of competition aerobatics.
On the list also is the Giles, Extra, Edge 540, and Pitts S2C. Of course,
if you want to take someone along, the MX2, Extra, and Pitts S2C are the
planes of choice.
OK, none of these have round engines. As for the 50, it was a great
airplane in its day and is a good price performer. The Sukhoi is also a
stellar aircraft even though it is late 80s, early 90s technology.
Technology (and prices) have moved on.
Oh, if only the bank account were larger!!
Craig
PS - am I excommunicated from the list since my choices have flat engines??
:D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=165505#165505
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! --
|