Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:58 AM - Re: Re: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please... (A. Dennis Savarese)
2. 05:27 AM - Re: Re: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please... (cjpilot710@aol.com)
3. 06:26 AM - Re: Re: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please... (david stroud)
4. 08:29 AM - Metal props vs composite (Hal)
5. 09:50 AM - Re: Rudder Pedal Mod Update 3/17 (Craig Winkelmann, CFI)
6. 12:23 PM - Re: Re: Yak 52 or CJ6? (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
7. 01:51 PM - OSH 2008 (cjpilot710@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please... |
Yes, that's true. If I'm not mistaken, it's the only 400 HP Chinese engine
in the US and he recently had some serious problems with the engine. Last I
heard a 400 HP Chinese engine was $40K+.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Winkelmann, CFI" <capav8r@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9:35 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...
> <capav8r@gmail.com>
>
> Drew:
>
> I believe Richard Hess is flying a CJ with the 400 HP Chinese engine.
> From what I understand from Barry, the engines are not cheap. With the
> dollar going into the tank at a fast rate, all things from the other side
> get more expensive!
>
> Craig
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170542#170542
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please... |
In a message dated 3/18/2008 7:58:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dsavarese@elmore.rr.com writes:
Has anyone every thought of an alternative engine? If indeed the Chinese
and M-14 engines become over priced (US dollar) and scariest, our airplanes
maybe sitting out as useless toys that are unsalable. How far away that is I
do
not know. With fuel prices heading only upward, at what point do we start
feeling the pinch and start sitting on the ground? We all have a limit at
some point.
Auto engines with newer designs of gear reduction systems are still being
perfected and are light years ahead in some aspects. It would change the
profile view of the CJ profoundly, BUT just might increase its performance as
dramatically.
Just something to think about or would we be committing sacrilege at the
alter of the radial engine? Me? I am a whore. I will fly anything. The
engine in an airplane is a means to an end. Flight. Yes, I love all the rest
of
it and hope it last forever. But in the end it is still flight.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
--> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
<dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Yes, that's true. If I'm not mistaken, it's the only 400 HP Chinese engine
in the US and he recently had some serious problems with the engine. Last I
heard a 400 HP Chinese engine was $40K+.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Winkelmann, CFI" <capav8r@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9:35 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...
> <capav8r@gmail.com>
>
> Drew:
>
> I believe Richard Hess is flying a CJ with the 400 HP Chinese engine.
> From what I understand from Barry, the engines are not cheap. With the
> dollar going into the tank at a fast rate, all things from the other side
> get more expensive!
>
> Craig
>
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please... |
Auto conversions won't save you money. There's a nice reliable setup for
a
Seabee and you can likely look at it at Sun n Fun next month, but the
setup
goes for about $60K. The Seabees actually park fairly close to the
Warbird area.
David Stroud Ottawa, Canada
C-FDWS Christavia
Fairchild 51 under construction
----- Original Message -----
From: cjpilot710@aol.com
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...
In a message dated 3/18/2008 7:58:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dsavarese@elmore.rr.com writes:
Has anyone every thought of an alternative engine? If indeed the
Chinese and M-14 engines become over priced (US dollar) and scariest,
our airplanes maybe sitting out as useless toys that are unsalable. How
far away that is I do not know. With fuel prices heading only upward,
at what point do we start feeling the pinch and start sitting on the
ground? We all have a limit at some point.
Auto engines with newer designs of gear reduction systems are still
being perfected and are light years ahead in some aspects. It would
change the profile view of the CJ profoundly, BUT just might increase
its performance as dramatically.
Just something to think about or would we be committing sacrilege at
the alter of the radial engine? Me? I am a whore. I will fly
anything. The engine in an airplane is a means to an end. Flight.
Yes, I love all the rest of it and hope it last forever. But in the end
it is still flight.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
<dsavarese@elmore.rr.com>
Yes, that's true. If I'm not mistaken, it's the only 400 HP Chinese
engine
in the US and he recently had some serious problems with the engine.
Last I
heard a 400 HP Chinese engine was $40K+.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Winkelmann, CFI" <capav8r@gmail.com>
To: <yak-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 9:35 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Doug, anyone, 400hp engines please...
> <capav8r@gmail.com>
>
> Drew:
>
> I believe Richard Hess is flying a CJ with the 400 HP Chinese
engine.
> From what I understand from Barry, the engines are not cheap.
With the
> dollar going into the tank at a fast rate, all things from the
other side
> get more expensive!
>
> Craig
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
3/17/08 10:48 AM
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: | Metal props vs composite |
I had a chance to fly Joe Howse's CJ with the Chinese 3 blade metal prop.
Smooth with good performance. However, IMHO having 1,200 hours or so flying
with the M14 and composite 3 blade props (first a Whirlwind and then an MT)
I prefer the composite to the metal.
The composite is very smooth (when balanced) with excellent performance. It
is lighter than the metal (which helps with CG - less weight in the stern),
it has been flown in a wide range of applications, there are a lot of them
in use and parts/maintenance are readily available.
My number one reason for not using metal is that the metal prop will lunch
your engine with any prop strike. As has been demonstrated a number of
times, the composite will shatter on impact and the probability is good that
the engine will survive unscathed.
(It is my understanding that the 52 paddle prop has "cut to" markings on the
blades that one can trim back to in the event of a gear up - and still fly
the plane. True??)
Batman
(With folks now stealing wire, art sculptures and any other metal they can
find to support various habits, would a big old metal prop be a target?
Kind of a feather in their nest?)
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Pedal Mod Update 3/17 |
Barry:
I beleive you are going to run the first set thru destructive testing and refitting
to the CJ. Keep us posted on the outcome.
Craig
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170675#170675
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak 52 or CJ6? |
Being in the 6'6" plus category I recommend to never trust what anyone
says. Go sit in each aircraft yourself and check.
Reason.... Height is a combination of leg length and torso height.
Depending on which dimension gives one that "real tall" definition
determines whether one can fit in a CJ or YAK-52.
I can fly neither, but do fit in a 50. Torso height is 48 inches. In a
CJ if I sit directly on the seat pan, I still have to turn my head to
the side to close the canopy.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of fougapilot
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 12:40
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yak 52 or CJ6?
jon wrote:
> First off I am 6'6" tall, the type of flying I want to do is basic
> aerobatics
Jon,
Being in the 6'4" club myself I would recommend a CJ. Nothing wrong with
a Yak, they are great airplanes, but like Sergei said "beeltz for 5'10"
18year old boyz".
The CJ is more suited for taller individuals and with the 4" extra leg
room promised by the rudder pedal kit (which I have coming but not tried
yet) will make this airplane very comfortable even in Xcountry.
As for aerobatics, true, the Yak kicks a CJ any day of the week. Still
the CJ is a good aerobatic platform and does everything (it is capable
of) very well. Plus it is a forgiving airplane.
My 0.02$
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170028#170028
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 |
|
Troops,
A little confusion here. If you are planning to stay in the dorms, not only
do you register on RPA's web site but it is best if you book with the UoW
separately.
The reason this was done is because we are planning our own transportation
(bus) and we've have booked rooms for our membership (45 at this point). Also
there has been staff changes at UoW and there may be some confusion
happening that we can't help. Make sure you tell them you are part of the RPA
(RedStar Pilots Association). They take all credit cards except the Discover
card.
You can contact them at:
Phone: (920) 424-3226 or (920) 424-0388
Fax: (920) 424-7422
Email: _uwoeaa@mio.uwosh.edu_ (mailto:uwoeaa@mio.uwosh.edu)
Conference Center University of Wisconsin GCC
208 Osceola Street
Oshkosh, WI 54901
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00030000000001)
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! --
|