Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:13 AM - Re: Yak-52 heavy spar (Richard Goode)
2. 07:28 AM - Re: Yak-52 heavy spar (tjyak50)
3. 10:14 AM - Re: Re: Yak-52 heavy spar (Richard Goode)
4. 05:58 PM - Re: Re: Yak-52 heavy spar (vectorwarbirds@aol.com)
5. 06:35 PM - Re: Yak-52 heavy spar (Royden Heays)
6. 09:38 PM - Re: Yak-52 heavy spar (Herb Coussons)
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: Yak-52 heavy spar |
The "simplistic notion" is that there is something called a "heavy spar"
that makes a 52 safe to fly hard.I'm simply making it clear that there
is a range of mandatory SB's that you must have to fly a 52 to its
design limits.
Yes ,I have discussed the whole issue of 52[and50/55] structural
integrity for many hours over a number of meetings with Dimitry Dratch
[Yak chief designer for light aircraft] and his designers in Moscow.
They had no vested interest to imagine or create problems that did not
exist,and each structural SB was brought about by a specific problem
across a huge fleet [1200] of aircraft.
107SB is a complex issue but the point that it was issued to make money
is absurd!It came out in 1990 when Yak was well funded,and importantly
they would get NO money from it since they did not make the 107 kits!
You are correct,and there have been no total failures in 52s,BUT there
have been a wide variety of serious problems begining-and I have seen
the reports and photos.The reason that the 52 remained safe was the
introduction of the SBs.Also because few pilots fly them at their design
limits-AND because most 52s have been modified.
If you have any doubts about the seriosness of the approach of Yak,you
should consider the history of the 50,with 4 fatal crashes due to
structural problems,and many more prevented by very diligent inspections
and,of course a raft of SBs.
Richard
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Baker
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Yak-52 heavy spar
Richard,
Nice of you to chime in on this matter, but you did not answer
the mans question. I don't think I quite follow you when you say "It is
a great pity that this simplistic notion still continues". To what
"simplistic notion" were your referring?
I would be interested in knowing what the "number of structural
problems" that emerged actually were. Does anyone (such as yourself)
have a verified list of the actual structual problems that are supposed
to have been occuring on Yak 52's? If so, is there any independant
verification that these problems were truly occuring in the real world.
I do know the trail that led to Bulletin #107 and from that, I
believe that bulletin 107 is nonsense....written in an attempt to raise
some money at the bureau in those dark days of the early to mid 90's
when they had no funding from anybody. If you know different, I would
appreciate hearing about it.
So far as I know, NO Yak 52, with or without the wing attach and
spar carry through modifications mandated by 59 and 60, has crashed due
to structural failure.
Roger Baker
On Aug 29, 2008, at 9:41 AM, Richard Goode wrote:
I see there is another enquiry about how to identify the heavy spar
on the Yak-52.
It is a great pity that this simplistic notion still continues.
To confirm:
Yak-52 is a very tough aeroplane but when it began being flown hard,
a number of structural problems emerged. As they emerged, Yakovlev
instituted a series of mandatory Service Bulletins to allow the
aeroplane to continue to fly at the same G limits.
Unfortunately, many aeroplanes have not been modified; some logbooks
have been falsified etc.
There are actually 114 Service Bulletins, of which many are trivial.
Our view is that there are 31 serious structural Bulletins, which
really should be installed on any 52s doing aerobatics at more than
(say) 4G.
The list of these important Bulletins is as follows:
9 48 71
18 53 72
28 54 75
34 59 80
36 60 82
37 62 92
38 66 93
41 67 99
45 69 100
47 70 106
107
The critical wing Bulletins are:
59 for stronger wing mountings
60 for stronger centre section
107 ' external (underneath) spar-strap
59 and 60 came out together in 1987 and 107 in 1991
So the practicality is that an aeroplane built after the middle of
1991 SHOULD have all SBs incorporated.
Also, any aeroplanes incorporating 107 are almost certainly
incorporating all earlier Bulletins.
107 can be identified by being a metal plate, about 4=92 long,
bolted under the wing to the main spar, but proud of the under-wing
surface.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
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
ontribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by http://www.invictawiz.com
and is believed to be clean.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-52 heavy spar |
Richard:
The tone of your email implies that we, U.S. Americans..., are unfamiliar with
the modifications of the Yak 52.
When a person uses the term "Heavy Spar" what they mean (generally) is Service
Bulletin 59 and 60.
Service Bulletin 59 and 60 clearly are more massive (slightly greater weight) and
also increase overall strength and hence we assign the adjective "Heavy".
It is a colloquialism of sorts.
In my opinion, a Yak 52 with the "Heavy Spar" is indeed safe to fly "hard".
Many others, possibly including yourself, agree with me (us).
Perhaps your misunderstanding is due to the language barrier between this American
Yak-list and your native language in the U.K.
Have a nice weekend.
Tom Johnson (signed).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 1603#201603
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: Yak-52 heavy spar |
Again,this is too simplistic!The SBs subsequent to 59 & 60 are there
because there have been real problems with the structure when flown at
the design limits.You can be sure that EVERY 52 that was flown in the
East was flown at or very near these limits.
Also,I have seen various Logs saying that the 52 concerned had the
various SBs embodied whe they had not,and unless you really know what to
look for,it is very hard to know if they have or not.
If a 52 has not had ALL the SBs embodied my firm conviction is that it
should not be flown hard.I do not consider a 52 with only 59 & 60 to be
fully modified.
It is possible that I am over-cautious but I did spend 4 months in one
hospital bed after airframe failure [not a Yak],and I would not wish
that on anyone.I have also spent a lot of time with the Yakovlev
designers,and I am sure that every SB is there because it is needed IF
the plane is flown as was intended!!
Richard
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
----- Original Message -----
From: tjyak50
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:27 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yak-52 heavy spar
Richard:
The tone of your email implies that we, U.S. Americans..., are
unfamiliar with the modifications of the Yak 52.
When a person uses the term "Heavy Spar" what they mean (generally) is
Service Bulletin 59 and 60.
Service Bulletin 59 and 60 clearly are more massive (slightly greater
weight) and also increase overall strength and hence we assign the
adjective "Heavy". It is a colloquialism of sorts.
In my opinion, a Yak 52 with the "Heavy Spar" is indeed safe to fly
"hard".
Many others, possibly including yourself, agree with me (us).
Perhaps your misunderstanding is due to the language barrier between
this American Yak-list and your native language in the U.K.
Have a nice weekend.
Tom Johnson (signed).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 1603#201603
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the http://www.invictawiz.com
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-52 heavy spar |
Richard,
I for one appreciate your knowledge and advice on this matter, I feel as you do
that you cannot be too safe.? As we are looking for a 52 to add to our Nanchang
stable your, as well as others, experience and real world problems have helped
us greatly, and I just want you to know that there are many of us out here
that listen carefully to what you and others have to say.? And I for one take
those things to heart.? Fly Safe Comrade and thank you!!
Gary Bunn
Vector Warbirds USA
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Goode <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
Sent: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:12 am
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: Yak-52 heavy spar
Again,this is too simplistic!The SBs
subsequent to 59?& 60 are there because there have been real problems
with the structure when flown at the design limits.You can be sure that EVERY 52
that was flown in the East was flown at or very near these limits.
Also,I have seen various Logs saying that
the 52 concerned had the various SBs embodied whe they had not,and unless you
really know what to look for,it is very hard to know if they have or
not.
If a 52 has not had ALL the SBs embodied my
firm conviction is that it should not be flown hard.I do not consider a 52 with
only 59 & 60 to be fully modified.
It is possible that I am over-cautious but I
did spend 4 months in one hospital bed after airframe failure [not a Yak],and I
would not wish that on anyone.I have also spent a lot of time with the Yakovlev
designers,and I am sure that every SB is there because it is needed IF the plane
is flown as was intended!!
Richard
?
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5
3LW
United Kingdom
?
Tel:?? +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax:? +44 (0) 1544
340129
www.russianaeros.com
----- Original Message -----
From:
tjyak50
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:27
PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yak-52 heavy
spar
Richard:
The
tone of your email implies that we, U.S. Americans..., are unfamiliar with the
modifications of the Yak 52.??
When a person uses the term
"Heavy Spar" what they mean (generally) is Service Bulletin 59 and 60.?
Service Bulletin 59 and 60 clearly are more massive (slightly greater
weight) and also increase overall strength and hence we assign the adjective
"Heavy".? It is a colloquialism of sorts.
In my opinion, a Yak 52
with the "Heavy Spar" is indeed safe to fly "hard".
Many others, possibly
including yourself, agree with me (us).
Perhaps your misunderstanding
is due to the language barrier between this American Yak-list and your native
language in the U.K.
Have a nice weekend.
Tom Johnson
(signed).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 1603#201603
http://www.matronicsnbsp;?????????????;
via the Web
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
generous
bsp;???????????????????
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This
message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by the http://www.invictawiz.com
MailScanner,
and is believed to be
clean.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Yak-52 heavy spar |
Hello Richard,
Do you have a similar list of SB's for the Yak 55M that you could post,
and
if yes, do you have each one of them available in English
Royden Heays
Vancouver BC
Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Goode
Sent: 29 Aug 2008 9:41 AM
Subject: Yak-List: Yak-52 heavy spar
I see there is another enquiry about how to identify the heavy spar on
the
Yak-52.
It is a great pity that this simplistic notion still continues.
To confirm:
Yak-52 is a very tough aeroplane but when it began being flown hard, a
number of structural problems emerged. As they emerged, Yakovlev
instituted
a series of mandatory Service Bulletins to allow the aeroplane to
continue
to fly at the same G limits.
Unfortunately, many aeroplanes have not been modified; some logbooks
have
been falsified etc.
There are actually 114 Service Bulletins, of which many are trivial.
Our view is that there are 31 serious structural Bulletins, which really
should be installed on any 52s doing aerobatics at more than (say) 4G.
The list of these important Bulletins is as follows:
9 48 71
18 53 72
28 54 75
34 59 80
36 60 82
37 62 92
38 66 93
41 67 99
45 69 100
47 70 106
107
The critical wing Bulletins are:
59 for stronger wing mountings
60 for stronger centre section
107 - external (underneath) spar-strap
59 and 60 came out together in 1987 and 107 in 1991
So the practicality is that an aeroplane built after the middle of 1991
SHOULD have all SBs incorporated.
Also, any aeroplanes incorporating 107 are almost certainly
incorporating
all earlier Bulletins.
107 can be identified by being a metal plate, about 4' long, bolted
under
the wing to the main spar, but proud of the under-wing surface.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
<http://www.russianaeros.com> www.russianaeros.com
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 heavy spar |
Yes you mentioned the 50 and the 55 in a previous email - i would ask
for the same info for the 55 and others on the list may want to see a
list for the 50.
Thanks,
herb
On Aug 30, 2008, at 8:34 PM, Royden Heays wrote:
> Hello Richard,
>
> Do you have a similar list of SB=92s for the Yak 55M that you could
> post, and if yes, do you have each one of them available in English
>
> Royden Heays
> Vancouver BC
> Canada
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> ] On Behalf Of Richard Goode
> Sent: 29 Aug 2008 9:41 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak-52 heavy spar
>
>
> I see there is another enquiry about how to identify the heavy spar
> on the Yak-52.
> It is a great pity that this simplistic notion still continues.
>
> To confirm:
>
> Yak-52 is a very tough aeroplane but when it began being flown hard,
> a number of structural problems emerged. As they emerged, Yakovlev
> instituted a series of mandatory Service Bulletins to allow the
> aeroplane to continue to fly at the same G limits.
>
> Unfortunately, many aeroplanes have not been modified; some logbooks
> have been falsified etc.
> There are actually 114 Service Bulletins, of which many are trivial.
> Our view is that there are 31 serious structural Bulletins, which
> really should be installed on any 52s doing aerobatics at more than
> (say) 4G.
>
> The list of these important Bulletins is as follows:
>
>
> 9 48 71
> 18 53 72
> 28 54 75
> 34 59 80
> 36 60 82
> 37 62 92
> 38 66 93
> 41 67 99
> 45 69 100
> 47 70 106
> 107
>
> The critical wing Bulletins are:
>
> 59 for stronger wing mountings
> 60 for stronger centre section
> 107 ' external (underneath) spar-strap
>
> 59 and 60 came out together in 1987 and 107 in 1991
> So the practicality is that an aeroplane built after the middle of
> 1991 SHOULD have all SBs incorporated.
>
> Also, any aeroplanes incorporating 107 are almost certainly
> incorporating all earlier Bulletins.
>
> 107 can be identified by being a metal plate, about 4=92 long, bolted
> under the wing to the main spar, but proud of the under-wing surface.
>
>
> Richard Goode Aerobatics
> Rhodds Farm
> Lyonshall
> Hereford
> HR5 3LW
> United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
> www.russianaeros.com
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
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! --
|