Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:48 AM - ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms (Drew B)
2. 06:27 AM - Re: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms (Richard Hess)
3. 06:56 AM - Re: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms (Kurt Howerton)
4. 08:00 AM - Re: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms (Brian Lloyd)
5. 09:53 AM - Re: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
6. 10:03 AM - Re: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms (George Coy)
7. 10:13 AM - Re: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms (Kregg Victory)
8. 12:08 PM - Re: Barry's concerns (barryhancock)
9. 12:25 PM - Re: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms (Bill Geipel)
10. 12:33 PM - RPA discussions on the Yak-list (barryhancock)
11. 01:21 PM - Re: RPA discussions on the Yak-list (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
12. 03:30 PM - Re: RPA discussions on the Yak-list (Brian Lloyd)
13. 03:46 PM - Re: RPA discussions on the Yak-list (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
14. 04:17 PM - Re: RPA discussions on the Yak-list (Brian Lloyd)
15. 04:42 PM - Re: RPA discussions on the Yak-list (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
16. 05:01 PM - Re: RPA discussions on the Yak-list (cjpilot710@aol.com)
17. 06:20 PM - Re: RPA discussions on the Yak-list (Roger Kemp M.D.)
18. 07:00 PM - Re: RPA discussions on the Yak-list (Gary Gabbard)
19. 07:04 PM - Re: RPA discussions on the Yak-list (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
20. 07:34 PM - Chinese Flight Helmets (Elmar & Manuela Hegenauer)
21. 08:01 PM - Update on My New Whirlwind 3 Blade Prop (Sam Sax)
22. 08:13 PM - Re: RPA discussions on the Yak-list (Brian Lloyd)
23. 08:55 PM - Re: Chinese Flight Helmets (Kurt Howerton)
24. 09:20 PM - Re: Chinese Flight Helmets (Javier Carrasco)
25. 09:20 PM - Re: Chinese Flight Helmets (Javier Carrasco)
26. 11:31 PM - Re: Update on My New Whirlwind 3 Blade Prop (Jan Mevis)
27. 11:42 PM - Calculation of C of G in percentage MAC (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: | ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms |
Bill, et all: The RPA Forum has some code issues logging in, I emailed with
our IT guy, I would let some of this get worked through, otherwise folks
may get frustrated and give up.
Brian,
I hope you read Part I of my open letter to this list, while I can not
recall all your efforts in that letter, I noted both of your basic concerns
you posted about your contribution, and I would like to go on the record
now, again, that I was well aware of how the "old guard" (your descriptor)
was reacting to you.
For the record, Brian asked to teach the ground school and I OKed that at
ARS, he was intelligent, highly motivated and technically accurate (while
the content provided via the old YPA manual was not as comprehensive
detailed as your current RPA material, Brian as you can imagine knew the
material).
I witnessed, and was a part of (you were not Brian) a conversation I was
not comfortable then, or now, concerning yourself and I relate to it in
Part I. Enough said.
This is not a condemnation of any one person, and it can happen anywhere in
the RPA; As an example, I know of a highly intelligent CJ owner, and huge
volunteer in aviation programs outside the RPA, but (I suspect) his
proclivity to speak up openly about what is wrong in an attempt t make your
organization function better (for you), and perhaps his lack of a military
aviators credentials (my hunch only) resulted in a flurry of RPA emails
painting him in a negative light that was highly short sighted and
unwarranted. His attitude and motivation to learn is one of the best I've
come across.
I would like to make an obvious call; this is a *civilian* aviation
organization. Some of the activities we do originated in/are employed by
the military and I'm a huge sponsor of you learning from their technical
material (i.e. your AF/Navy sourced RPA manual). But If there is a
qualitative difference in a mans (or woman) ability to brief a flight, lead
a flight, demonstrate situational awareness as a wingman, execute brevity
on the radio in formation, deliver a seminar (public speaking), organize
"troops" at a fly-in or any other skill sets seen often in the RPA via your
fly-ins, than *all* this should say to all military aviators in the RPA is
simply this; this is your opportunity to help others.
By the way, every trick and scrape of knowledge I learned about operating
in the civilian airspace or turning a wrench on a CJ6 came from a lawyer,
general contractor, dentist, flower importer, etc....Having said that, you,
me and everyone has to be willing to listen when someone is trying to help
us with a nugget of knowledge or advice; it goes back to that age old
saying, "park your ego at the door". We all struggle with that skill set
don't we...
A recommendation was made a few years back to the BoD that the next RPA
president should be a military aviator, I wrote some of the national
directors that I disagreed, strongly. There should be NO such filter,
except ones desire and proposed agenda for the membership, as long as the
RPA functions under effective bylaws, the selection of good stewardship of
a civilian organization should be color blind. We are not leading troops or
planes in to battle, we are developing, managing and producing membership
services (websites, magazines, internet newsletters, clothing sales,
training documents, instructor development, fly-in support, etc.)
And if you read my letter on this list, our bylaws are badly in need of the
BoDs attention in 2012; I am now certain the anachronistic (did I just use
that word correctly Brian) role of "president" should end after this
administration in favor of a Chairman of the Board, accountable and from
that Board.
--
*Strive for one knee down in life, but never two!*
*(ancient racing proverb I probably just made up)*
*
*
*
*
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: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms |
Drew,
Thanks for all the info. I would like to piggyback on your comment about it
being a civilian organization as it relates to the tactical comments from
some earlier posts.
I may have been one of the first to question us doing tactical events. I ha
d a near miss doing one of these exercises at Waycross a few years ago. It
sobered me as to the risks and made me question what the organization itsel
f should be endorsing.
I also flew in a 24-ship at Oshkosh some years ago. High winds and an overw
orked airboss made for a less than pleasant experience. Again, I began to q
uestion what we are doing as an organization.
My company does lots of maintenance and training for some third world air f
orces. We in essense have a contract with the US State Dept. They control w
hat we are approved to do. Much of what we freely share at RPA and CJAA I a
m prohibited from teaching overseas. Interesting, eh?
My point is that we have a very wide variety of experience levels in our co
mmunity. Some of us have done all the tactical stuff in our previous lives,
some have not. I believe an individual instructor should choose what level
to teach someone based on that person's skills, experience, and desires. F
ormation and tactical flying makes you a better pilot, period.
However, the emphasis should be on basics. A guy who can barely hang on the
wing in 2 or 4-ship has no business being in a 24-ship. A guy who can't do
extended trail without parking in the lead's six and sucking up his wake t
urbulence has no business doing tactical maneuvering.
Everyone can and should strive for perfection in the basics and then contin
ue to practice and learn new things. However, there is a real risk to RPA p
ublishing and endorsing high level activities. I promise any accident can a
nd will come back to bite us. I believe we can deal with this kind of activ
ity on a local level.
Anyway, sorry for being long winded but I love you guys and this flying so
much that I hate to see safety being compromised in any way. What we do is
already a high risk activity. It is up to us to manage that risk so that we
have the pleasure of this privilege for a long time to come.
Cheers
Richard Hess
C 404-964-4885
-----Original Message-----
From: Drew B <dblahnick@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Jan 4, 2012 8:49 am
Subject: Yak-List: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms
Bill, et all: The RPA Forum has some code issues logging in, I emailed with
our IT guy, I would let some of this get worked through, otherwise folks m
ay get frustrated and give up.
Brian,
I hope you read Part I of my open letter to this list, while I can not reca
ll all your efforts in that letter, I noted both of your basic concerns you
posted about your contribution, and I would like to go on the record now,
again, that I was well aware of how the "old guard" (your descriptor) was r
eacting to you.
For the record, Brian asked to teach the ground school and I OKed that at A
RS, he was intelligent, highly motivated and technically accurate (while th
e content provided via the old YPA manual was not as comprehensive detailed
as your current RPA material, Brian as you can imagine knew the material).
I witnessed, and was a part of (you were not Brian) a conversation I was no
t comfortable then, or now, concerning yourself and I relate to it in Part
I. Enough said.
This is not a condemnation of any one person, and it can happen anywhere in
the RPA; As an example, I know of a highly intelligent CJ owner, and huge
volunteer in aviation programs outside the RPA, but (I suspect) his procliv
ity to speak up openly about what is wrong in an attempt t make your organi
zation function better (for you), and perhaps his lack of a military aviato
rs credentials (my hunch only) resulted in a flurry of RPA emails painting
him in a negative light that was highly short sighted and unwarranted. His
attitude and motivation to learn is one of the best I've come across.
I would like to make an obvious call; this is a *civilian* aviation organiz
ation. Some of the activities we do originated in/are employed by the milit
ary and I'm a huge sponsor of you learning from their technical material (i
.e. your AF/Navy sourced RPA manual). But If there is a qualitative differe
nce in a mans (or woman) ability to brief a flight, lead a flight, demonstr
ate situational awareness as a wingman, execute brevity on the radio in for
mation, deliver a seminar (public speaking), organize "troops" at a fly-in
or any other skill sets seen often in the RPA via your fly-ins, than *all*
this should say to all military aviators in the RPA is simply this; this is
your opportunity to help others.
By the way, every trick and scrape of knowledge I learned about operating i
n the civilian airspace or turning a wrench on a CJ6 came from a lawyer, ge
neral contractor, dentist, flower importer, etc....Having said that, you, m
e and everyone has to be willing to listen when someone is trying to help u
s with a nugget of knowledge or advice; it goes back to that age old saying
, "park your ego at the door". We all struggle with that skill set don't we
...
A recommendation was made a few years back to the BoD that the next RPA pre
sident should be a military aviator, I wrote some of the national directors
that I disagreed, strongly. There should be NO such filter, except ones de
sire and proposed agenda for the membership, as long as the RPA functions u
nder effective bylaws, the selection of good stewardship of a civilian orga
nization should be color blind. We are not leading troops or planes in to b
attle, we are developing, managing and producing membership services (websi
tes, magazines, internet newsletters, clothing sales, training documents, i
nstructor development, fly-in support, etc.)
And if you read my letter on this list, our bylaws are badly in need of the
BoDs attention in 2012; I am now certain the anachronistic (did I just use
that word correctly Brian) role of "president" should end after this admin
istration in favor of a Chairman of the Board, accountable and from that Bo
ard.
--
Strive for one knee down in life, but never two!
(ancient racing proverb I probably just made up)
-= - The Yak-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
-
-========================
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-
-========================
-= - List Contribution Web Site -
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-========================
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: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms |
All -
The key to the RPA forums is to be logged in to the RPA site before
choosing "forums" on the "members" menu. The integration is a bit clunky
and you may have to pick the menu item again, although it seems to work
fine most of the time.
Like everyone else, I have limited time to volunteer to this. Don't wait
for it to be perfect.
--
Kurt Howerton
W: 916.355.3968
M: 530.312.1299
Sent from my phone
On Jan 4, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Drew B <dblahnick@gmail.com> wrote:
Bill, et all: The RPA Forum has some code issues logging in, I emailed with
our IT guy, I would let some of this get worked through, otherwise folks
may get frustrated and give up.
Brian,
I hope you read Part I of my open letter to this list, while I can not
recall all your efforts in that letter, I noted both of your basic concerns
you posted about your contribution, and I would like to go on the record
now, again, that I was well aware of how the "old guard" (your descriptor)
was reacting to you.
For the record, Brian asked to teach the ground school and I OKed that at
ARS, he was intelligent, highly motivated and technically accurate (while
the content provided via the old YPA manual was not as comprehensive
detailed as your current RPA material, Brian as you can imagine knew the
material).
I witnessed, and was a part of (you were not Brian) a conversation I was
not comfortable then, or now, concerning yourself and I relate to it in
Part I. Enough said.
This is not a condemnation of any one person, and it can happen anywhere in
the RPA; As an example, I know of a highly intelligent CJ owner, and huge
volunteer in aviation programs outside the RPA, but (I suspect) his
proclivity to speak up openly about what is wrong in an attempt t make your
organization function better (for you), and perhaps his lack of a military
aviators credentials (my hunch only) resulted in a flurry of RPA emails
painting him in a negative light that was highly short sighted and
unwarranted. His attitude and motivation to learn is one of the best I've
come across.
I would like to make an obvious call; this is a *civilian* aviation
organization. Some of the activities we do originated in/are employed by
the military and I'm a huge sponsor of you learning from their technical
material (i.e. your AF/Navy sourced RPA manual). But If there is a
qualitative difference in a mans (or woman) ability to brief a flight, lead
a flight, demonstrate situational awareness as a wingman, execute brevity
on the radio in formation, deliver a seminar (public speaking), organize
"troops" at a fly-in or any other skill sets seen often in the RPA via your
fly-ins, than *all* this should say to all military aviators in the RPA is
simply this; this is your opportunity to help others.
By the way, every trick and scrape of knowledge I learned about operating
in the civilian airspace or turning a wrench on a CJ6 came from a lawyer,
general contractor, dentist, flower importer, etc....Having said that, you,
me and everyone has to be willing to listen when someone is trying to help
us with a nugget of knowledge or advice; it goes back to that age old
saying, "park your ego at the door". We all struggle with that skill set
don't we...
A recommendation was made a few years back to the BoD that the next RPA
president should be a military aviator, I wrote some of the national
directors that I disagreed, strongly. There should be NO such filter,
except ones desire and proposed agenda for the membership, as long as the
RPA functions under effective bylaws, the selection of good stewardship of
a civilian organization should be color blind. We are not leading troops or
planes in to battle, we are developing, managing and producing membership
services (websites, magazines, internet newsletters, clothing sales,
training documents, instructor development, fly-in support, etc.)
And if you read my letter on this list, our bylaws are badly in need of the
BoDs attention in 2012; I am now certain the anachronistic (did I just use
that word correctly Brian) role of "president" should end after this
administration in favor of a Chairman of the Board, accountable and from
that Board.
--
*Strive for one knee down in life, but never two!*
*(ancient racing proverb I probably just made up)*
*
*
*
*
*
*
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: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms |
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Drew B <dblahnick@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill, et all: The RPA Forum has some code issues logging in, I emailed
> with our IT guy, I would let some of this get worked through, otherwise
> folks may get frustrated and give up.
>
> Brian,
>
> I hope you read Part I of my open letter to this list,
>
Drew, I read all four parts. Even though I am not now part of the RPA, I am
interested in what happens, even if my interest is purely intellectual.
While I currently have a [non-flying] CJ6A, my intention is to sell it and
eventually replace it with an SF-260, which also seems to come under the
purvey of RPA.
> while I can not recall all your efforts in that letter, I noted both of
> your basic concerns you posted about your contribution, and I would like to
> go on the record now, again, that I was well aware of how the "old guard"
> (your descriptor) was reacting to you.
>
> For the record, Brian asked to teach the ground school and I OKed that at
> ARS, he was intelligent, highly motivated and technically accurate (while
> the content provided via the old YPA manual was not as comprehensive
> detailed as your current RPA material, Brian as you can imagine knew the
> material).
>
> I witnessed, and was a part of (you were not Brian) a conversation I was
> not comfortable then, or now, concerning yourself and I relate to it in
> Part I. Enough said.
>
Yes, it can be tough to try to hold to the "high ground" and still try to
advance the goals of a group organization when personalities and politics
raise their ugly heads. I am sure you found yourself in a no-win situation.
But I would have undoubtedly been much much more flexible and accommodating
had you explained then. I am no different than anyone else; when I work
hard and do a good job, I want someone to recognize same and say, "Good
job."
> This is not a condemnation of any one person, and it can happen anywhere
> in the RPA; As an example, I know of a highly intelligent CJ owner, and
> huge volunteer in aviation programs outside the RPA, but (I suspect) his
> proclivity to speak up openly about what is wrong in an attempt t make your
> organization function better (for you), and perhaps his lack of a military
> aviators credentials (my hunch only) resulted in a flurry of RPA emails
> painting him in a negative light that was highly short sighted and
> unwarranted. His attitude and motivation to learn is one of the best I've
> come across.
>
> I would like to make an obvious call; this is a *civilian* aviation
> organization. Some of the activities we do originated in/are employed by
> the military and I'm a huge sponsor of you learning from their technical
> material (i.e. your AF/Navy sourced RPA manual). But If there is a
> qualitative difference in a mans (or woman) ability to brief a flight, lead
> a flight, demonstrate situational awareness as a wingman, execute brevity
> on the radio in formation, deliver a seminar (public speaking), organize
> "troops" at a fly-in or any other skill sets seen often in the RPA via your
> fly-ins, than *all* this should say to all military aviators in the RPA is
> simply this; this is your opportunity to help others.
>
Spot on.
>
> By the way, every trick and scrape of knowledge I learned about operating
> in the civilian airspace or turning a wrench on a CJ6 came from a lawyer,
> general contractor, dentist, flower importer, etc....Having said that, you,
> me and everyone has to be willing to listen when someone is trying to help
> us with a nugget of knowledge or advice; it goes back to that age old
> saying, "park your ego at the door". We all struggle with that skill set
> don't we...
>
> A recommendation was made a few years back to the BoD that the next RPA
> president should be a military aviator, I wrote some of the national
> directors that I disagreed, strongly. There should be NO such filter,
> except ones desire and proposed agenda for the membership, as long as the
> RPA functions under effective bylaws, the selection of good stewardship of
> a civilian organization should be color blind. We are not leading troops or
> planes in to battle, we are developing, managing and producing membership
> services (websites, magazines, internet newsletters, clothing sales,
> training documents, instructor development, fly-in support, etc.)
>
I agree and I do not understand the mind set. While the CJ6A and Yak-52
(and similar aircraft) have been used by military organizations, the
technology and operating parameters are no different than similar civilian
aircraft. I am sure that we would like to perceive ourselves as "a cut
above" because we fly these aircraft, the reality is, these aircraft are in
no way more difficult to fly nor do they require special procedures outside
those used to fly aircraft produced by Cessna, Piper, or Beechcraft.
Lastly, the rules and airspace in which we fly are civil, not military.
So, if we are really a civil organization flying civil planes, what *would*
set us apart from the run-of-the-mill civil pilot? I think that the answer
is what you are alluding to -- skill, knowledge, and professionalism. To be
honest, I am more impressed by the owner of a C-150 who knows every nut,
bolt, rivet, and wire in his airplane, and who has developed the skill to
fly it to its absolute limits safely, than I am with an ex-military pilot
who sustains his ego with hair-raising stories of near-death and mayhem
caused by poor decision making, an abundance of power, and
an indestructible airframe.
>
> And if you read my letter on this list, our bylaws are badly in need of
> the BoDs attention in 2012; I am now certain the anachronistic (did I just
> use that word correctly Brian)
>
:-) It works.
> role of "president" should end after this administration in favor of a
> Chairman of the Board, accountable and from that Board.
>
And you may even want to consider structuring more on the order of a
confederation of active and independent local organizations. The EAA does
well with its mix of central presence for lobbying the FAA and Congress,
while the bulk of activity goes on in the local chapters. Just a thought.
And thank you for your posting Drew. I appreciate it.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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: | ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms |
Gents, putting it very simply, this discussion does not belong here.
Please take it off-net and keep it between yourselves. I have held off
on this for awhile, because ... well, I am trying to be polite, but
enough is enough.
Does not matter how the YAK-List got created, it was never synonymous
with RPA.
So please, ..... nicely, respectfully.... enough.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:57
Subject: Re: Yak-List: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Drew B <dblahnick@gmail.com> wrote:
Bill, et all: The RPA Forum has some code issues logging in, I
emailed with our IT guy, I would let some of this get worked through,
otherwise folks may get frustrated and give up.
Brian,
I hope you read Part I of my open letter to this list,
Drew, I read all four parts. Even though I am not now part of the RPA, I
am interested in what happens, even if my interest is purely
intellectual. While I currently have a [non-flying] CJ6A, my intention
is to sell it and eventually replace it with an SF-260, which also seems
to come under the purvey of RPA.
while I can not recall all your efforts in that letter, I noted
both of your basic concerns you posted about your contribution, and I
would like to go on the record now, again, that I was well aware of how
the "old guard" (your descriptor) was reacting to you.
For the record, Brian asked to teach the ground school and I
OKed that at ARS, he was intelligent, highly motivated and technically
accurate (while the content provided via the old YPA manual was not as
comprehensive detailed as your current RPA material, Brian as you can
imagine knew the material).
I witnessed, and was a part of (you were not Brian) a
conversation I was not comfortable then, or now, concerning yourself and
I relate to it in Part I. Enough said.
Yes, it can be tough to try to hold to the "high ground" and still try
to advance the goals of a group organization when personalities and
politics raise their ugly heads. I am sure you found yourself in a
no-win situation. But I would have undoubtedly been much much more
flexible and accommodating had you explained then. I am no different
than anyone else; when I work hard and do a good job, I want someone to
recognize same and say, "Good job."
This is not a condemnation of any one person, and it can happen
anywhere in the RPA; As an example, I know of a highly intelligent CJ
owner, and huge volunteer in aviation programs outside the RPA, but (I
suspect) his proclivity to speak up openly about what is wrong in an
attempt t make your organization function better (for you), and perhaps
his lack of a military aviators credentials (my hunch only) resulted in
a flurry of RPA emails painting him in a negative light that was highly
short sighted and unwarranted. His attitude and motivation to learn is
one of the best I've come across.
I would like to make an obvious call; this is a *civilian*
aviation organization. Some of the activities we do originated in/are
employed by the military and I'm a huge sponsor of you learning from
their technical material (i.e. your AF/Navy sourced RPA manual). But If
there is a qualitative difference in a mans (or woman) ability to brief
a flight, lead a flight, demonstrate situational awareness as a wingman,
execute brevity on the radio in formation, deliver a seminar (public
speaking), organize "troops" at a fly-in or any other skill sets seen
often in the RPA via your fly-ins, than *all* this should say to all
military aviators in the RPA is simply this; this is your opportunity to
help others.
Spot on.
By the way, every trick and scrape of knowledge I learned about
operating in the civilian airspace or turning a wrench on a CJ6 came
from a lawyer, general contractor, dentist, flower importer,
etc....Having said that, you, me and everyone has to be willing to
listen when someone is trying to help us with a nugget of knowledge or
advice; it goes back to that age old saying, "park your ego at the
door". We all struggle with that skill set don't we...
A recommendation was made a few years back to the BoD that the
next RPA president should be a military aviator, I wrote some of the
national directors that I disagreed, strongly. There should be NO such
filter, except ones desire and proposed agenda for the membership, as
long as the RPA functions under effective bylaws, the selection of good
stewardship of a civilian organization should be color blind. We are not
leading troops or planes in to battle, we are developing, managing and
producing membership services (websites, magazines, internet
newsletters, clothing sales, training documents, instructor development,
fly-in support, etc.)
I agree and I do not understand the mind set. While the CJ6A and Yak-52
(and similar aircraft) have been used by military organizations, the
technology and operating parameters are no different than similar
civilian aircraft. I am sure that we would like to perceive ourselves as
"a cut above" because we fly these aircraft, the reality is, these
aircraft are in no way more difficult to fly nor do they require special
procedures outside those used to fly aircraft produced by Cessna, Piper,
or Beechcraft. Lastly, the rules and airspace in which we fly are civil,
not military.
So, if we are really a civil organization flying civil planes, what
*would* set us apart from the run-of-the-mill civil pilot? I think that
the answer is what you are alluding to -- skill, knowledge, and
professionalism. To be honest, I am more impressed by the owner of a
C-150 who knows every nut, bolt, rivet, and wire in his airplane, and
who has developed the skill to fly it to its absolute limits safely,
than I am with an ex-military pilot who sustains his ego with
hair-raising stories of near-death and mayhem caused by poor decision
making, an abundance of power, and an indestructible airframe.
And if you read my letter on this list, our bylaws are badly in
need of the BoDs attention in 2012; I am now certain the anachronistic
(did I just use that word correctly Brian)
:-) It works.
role of "president" should end after this administration in
favor of a Chairman of the Board, accountable and from that Board.
And you may even want to consider structuring more on the order of a
confederation of active and independent local organizations. The EAA
does well with its mix of central presence for lobbying the FAA and
Congress, while the bulk of activity goes on in the local chapters. Just
a thought.
And thank you for your posting Drew. I appreciate it.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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: | ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms |
Ahmen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Gents, putting it very simply, this discussion does not belong here.
Please take it off-net and keep it between yourselves. I have held off
on this for awhile, because ... well, I am trying to be polite, but
enough is enough.
Does not matter how the YAK-List got created, it was never synonymous
with RPA.
So please, ..... nicely, respectfully.... enough.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:57
Subject: Re: Yak-List: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Drew B <dblahnick@gmail.com> wrote:
Bill, et all: The RPA Forum has some code issues logging in, I
emailed with our IT guy, I would let some of this get worked through,
otherwise folks may get frustrated and give up.
Brian,
I hope you read Part I of my open letter to this list,
Drew, I read all four parts. Even though I am not now part of the RPA, I
am interested in what happens, even if my interest is purely
intellectual. While I currently have a [non-flying] CJ6A, my intention
is to sell it and eventually replace it with an SF-260, which also seems
to come under the purvey of RPA.
while I can not recall all your efforts in that letter, I noted
both of your basic concerns you posted about your contribution, and I
would like to go on the record now, again, that I was well aware of how
the "old guard" (your descriptor) was reacting to you.
For the record, Brian asked to teach the ground school and I
OKed that at ARS, he was intelligent, highly motivated and technically
accurate (while the content provided via the old YPA manual was not as
comprehensive detailed as your current RPA material, Brian as you can
imagine knew the material).
I witnessed, and was a part of (you were not Brian) a
conversation I was not comfortable then, or now, concerning yourself and
I relate to it in Part I. Enough said.
Yes, it can be tough to try to hold to the "high ground" and still try
to advance the goals of a group organization when personalities and
politics raise their ugly heads. I am sure you found yourself in a
no-win situation. But I would have undoubtedly been much much more
flexible and accommodating had you explained then. I am no different
than anyone else; when I work hard and do a good job, I want someone to
recognize same and say, "Good job."
This is not a condemnation of any one person, and it can happen
anywhere in the RPA; As an example, I know of a highly intelligent CJ
owner, and huge volunteer in aviation programs outside the RPA, but (I
suspect) his proclivity to speak up openly about what is wrong in an
attempt t make your organization function better (for you), and perhaps
his lack of a military aviators credentials (my hunch only) resulted in
a flurry of RPA emails painting him in a negative light that was highly
short sighted and unwarranted. His attitude and motivation to learn is
one of the best I've come across.
I would like to make an obvious call; this is a *civilian*
aviation organization. Some of the activities we do originated in/are
employed by the military and I'm a huge sponsor of you learning from
their technical material (i.e. your AF/Navy sourced RPA manual). But If
there is a qualitative difference in a mans (or woman) ability to brief
a flight, lead a flight, demonstrate situational awareness as a wingman,
execute brevity on the radio in formation, deliver a seminar (public
speaking), organize "troops" at a fly-in or any other skill sets seen
often in the RPA via your fly-ins, than *all* this should say to all
military aviators in the RPA is simply this; this is your opportunity to
help others.
Spot on.
By the way, every trick and scrape of knowledge I learned about
operating in the civilian airspace or turning a wrench on a CJ6 came
from a lawyer, general contractor, dentist, flower importer,
etc....Having said that, you, me and everyone has to be willing to
listen when someone is trying to help us with a nugget of knowledge or
advice; it goes back to that age old saying, "park your ego at the
door". We all struggle with that skill set don't we...
A recommendation was made a few years back to the BoD that the
next RPA president should be a military aviator, I wrote some of the
national directors that I disagreed, strongly. There should be NO such
filter, except ones desire and proposed agenda for the membership, as
long as the RPA functions under effective bylaws, the selection of good
stewardship of a civilian organization should be color blind. We are not
leading troops or planes in to battle, we are developing, managing and
producing membership services (websites, magazines, internet
newsletters, clothing sales, training documents, instructor development,
fly-in support, etc.)
I agree and I do not understand the mind set. While the CJ6A and Yak-52
(and similar aircraft) have been used by military organizations, the
technology and operating parameters are no different than similar
civilian aircraft. I am sure that we would like to perceive ourselves as
"a cut above" because we fly these aircraft, the reality is, these
aircraft are in no way more difficult to fly nor do they require special
procedures outside those used to fly aircraft produced by Cessna, Piper,
or Beechcraft. Lastly, the rules and airspace in which we fly are civil,
not military.
So, if we are really a civil organization flying civil planes, what
*would* set us apart from the run-of-the-mill civil pilot? I think that
the answer is what you are alluding to -- skill, knowledge, and
professionalism. To be honest, I am more impressed by the owner of a
C-150 who knows every nut, bolt, rivet, and wire in his airplane, and
who has developed the skill to fly it to its absolute limits safely,
than I am with an ex-military pilot who sustains his ego with
hair-raising stories of near-death and mayhem caused by poor decision
making, an abundance of power, and an indestructible airframe.
And if you read my letter on this list, our bylaws are badly in
need of the BoDs attention in 2012; I am now certain the anachronistic
(did I just use that word correctly Brian)
:-) It works.
role of "president" should end after this administration in
favor of a Chairman of the Board, accountable and from that Board.
And you may even want to consider structuring more on the order of a
confederation of active and independent local organizations. The EAA
does well with its mix of central presence for lobbying the FAA and
Congress, while the bulk of activity goes on in the local chapters. Just
a thought.
And thank you for your posting Drew. I appreciate it.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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: | ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms |
I guess that means we can all pull up our pants and go home
...............................
Kregg Victory
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of George Coy
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 9:58 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms
Ahmen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms
--> Point,
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Gents, putting it very simply, this discussion does not belong here.
Please take it off-net and keep it between yourselves. I have held off on
this for awhile, because ... well, I am trying to be polite, but enough is
enough.
Does not matter how the YAK-List got created, it was never synonymous with
RPA.
So please, ..... nicely, respectfully.... enough.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:57
Subject: Re: Yak-List: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Drew B <dblahnick@gmail.com> wrote:
Bill, et all: The RPA Forum has some code issues logging in, I
emailed with our IT guy, I would let some of this get worked through,
otherwise folks may get frustrated and give up.
Brian,
I hope you read Part I of my open letter to this list,
Drew, I read all four parts. Even though I am not now part of the RPA, I am
interested in what happens, even if my interest is purely intellectual.
While I currently have a [non-flying] CJ6A, my intention is to sell it and
eventually replace it with an SF-260, which also seems to come under the
purvey of RPA.
while I can not recall all your efforts in that letter, I noted both
of your basic concerns you posted about your contribution, and I would like
to go on the record now, again, that I was well aware of how the "old guard"
(your descriptor) was reacting to you.
For the record, Brian asked to teach the ground school and I OKed
that at ARS, he was intelligent, highly motivated and technically accurate
(while the content provided via the old YPA manual was not as comprehensive
detailed as your current RPA material, Brian as you can imagine knew the
material).
I witnessed, and was a part of (you were not Brian) a conversation I
was not comfortable then, or now, concerning yourself and I relate to it in
Part I. Enough said.
Yes, it can be tough to try to hold to the "high ground" and still try to
advance the goals of a group organization when personalities and politics
raise their ugly heads. I am sure you found yourself in a no-win situation.
But I would have undoubtedly been much much more flexible and accommodating
had you explained then. I am no different than anyone else; when I work hard
and do a good job, I want someone to recognize same and say, "Good job."
This is not a condemnation of any one person, and it can happen
anywhere in the RPA; As an example, I know of a highly intelligent CJ owner,
and huge volunteer in aviation programs outside the RPA, but (I
suspect) his proclivity to speak up openly about what is wrong in an attempt
t make your organization function better (for you), and perhaps his lack of
a military aviators credentials (my hunch only) resulted in a flurry of RPA
emails painting him in a negative light that was highly short sighted and
unwarranted. His attitude and motivation to learn is one of the best I've
come across.
I would like to make an obvious call; this is a *civilian* aviation
organization. Some of the activities we do originated in/are employed by the
military and I'm a huge sponsor of you learning from their technical
material (i.e. your AF/Navy sourced RPA manual). But If there is a
qualitative difference in a mans (or woman) ability to brief a flight, lead
a flight, demonstrate situational awareness as a wingman, execute brevity on
the radio in formation, deliver a seminar (public speaking), organize
"troops" at a fly-in or any other skill sets seen often in the RPA via your
fly-ins, than *all* this should say to all military aviators in the RPA is
simply this; this is your opportunity to help others.
Spot on.
By the way, every trick and scrape of knowledge I learned about
operating in the civilian airspace or turning a wrench on a CJ6 came from a
lawyer, general contractor, dentist, flower importer, etc....Having said
that, you, me and everyone has to be willing to listen when someone is
trying to help us with a nugget of knowledge or advice; it goes back to that
age old saying, "park your ego at the door". We all struggle with that skill
set don't we...
A recommendation was made a few years back to the BoD that the next
RPA president should be a military aviator, I wrote some of the national
directors that I disagreed, strongly. There should be NO such filter, except
ones desire and proposed agenda for the membership, as long as the RPA
functions under effective bylaws, the selection of good stewardship of a
civilian organization should be color blind. We are not leading troops or
planes in to battle, we are developing, managing and producing membership
services (websites, magazines, internet newsletters, clothing sales,
training documents, instructor development, fly-in support, etc.)
I agree and I do not understand the mind set. While the CJ6A and Yak-52 (and
similar aircraft) have been used by military organizations, the technology
and operating parameters are no different than similar civilian aircraft. I
am sure that we would like to perceive ourselves as "a cut above" because we
fly these aircraft, the reality is, these aircraft are in no way more
difficult to fly nor do they require special procedures outside those used
to fly aircraft produced by Cessna, Piper, or Beechcraft. Lastly, the rules
and airspace in which we fly are civil, not military.
So, if we are really a civil organization flying civil planes, what
*would* set us apart from the run-of-the-mill civil pilot? I think that the
answer is what you are alluding to -- skill, knowledge, and professionalism.
To be honest, I am more impressed by the owner of a
C-150 who knows every nut, bolt, rivet, and wire in his airplane, and who
has developed the skill to fly it to its absolute limits safely, than I am
with an ex-military pilot who sustains his ego with hair-raising stories of
near-death and mayhem caused by poor decision making, an abundance of power,
and an indestructible airframe.
And if you read my letter on this list, our bylaws are badly in need
of the BoDs attention in 2012; I am now certain the anachronistic (did I
just use that word correctly Brian)
:-) It works.
role of "president" should end after this administration in favor of
a Chairman of the Board, accountable and from that Board.
And you may even want to consider structuring more on the order of a
confederation of active and independent local organizations. The EAA does
well with its mix of central presence for lobbying the FAA and Congress,
while the bulk of activity goes on in the local chapters. Just a thought.
And thank you for your posting Drew. I appreciate it.
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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: Barry's concerns |
I remember that first MTW clinic. It remains one of my fondest flying memories.
I still remember doing fly-bys between Bratwursts at the BBQ. I fell in love
with formation flying and the camaraderie of guys that wanted to have fun with
their planes at that event. I have been fortunate, especially as a civilian,
to move through the ranks to a patched formation instructor. I have lead a
24 ship formation over Airventure, lead a 4-ship of F/A-18's in an L-39, and many
other flying accomplishments that would not have happened without my involvement
in this community. I am grateful for all of it and the selfless hard work
of dedicated volunteers who helped me and countless others along the way.
And I've tried to give back as best I can.
It is unfortunate that economic factors make MTW/OSH less appealing for those far
away. Despite the tough economic times, however, the RPA has apparently grown
to over 500 members, and has over $20k (nearly $30k?) in the kitty. That's
terrific. But those kind of resources demand accountability to membership.
It begs questions that we do not have answers to: What is happening with that
money? Is it being used to fund regional events? Create training videos? Increase
standardization through dedicated instructor clinics (not just formation)?
Etc., etc. What? Why? Why not?
I'm told that there are approximately 130 current FAST cards in the association.
For argument's sake let's suppose that it is actually double that. That still
leaves 50% of the membership interested in things other than formation. Is
the association giving them the same kind of support they are giving to the formation
crowd? Not even close. Why? In my opinion it is due to both the culture
that exists in leadership and by-laws that allows that culture to dominate
(as Drew has pointed out elsewhere).
To me, this is a club running under the guise of an association. I think they
either go back to calling it a club, or run it like an association.
Get involved, fellas, and at least make your voice heard. $45 may only cover a
20 minute acro hop, but the value and potential of your membership goes far beyond
that. It's up to us to make it so.
Barry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362417#362417
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: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms |
Mark,
Go figure, u and I agree on this.
Bill
On Jan 4, 2012, at 10:01 AM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14
64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
>
> Gents, putting it very simply, this discussion does not belong here.
> Please take it off-net and keep it between yourselves. I have held off
> on this for awhile, because ... well, I am trying to be polite, but
> enough is enough.
>
> Does not matter how the YAK-List got created, it was never synonymous
> with RPA.
>
> So please, ..... nicely, respectfully.... enough.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 10:57
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: ARS and Brian Lloyd, and RPA comms
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Drew B <dblahnick@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bill, et all: The RPA Forum has some code issues logging in, I
> emailed with our IT guy, I would let some of this get worked through,
> otherwise folks may get frustrated and give up.
>
> Brian,
>
> I hope you read Part I of my open letter to this list,
>
>
> Drew, I read all four parts. Even though I am not now part of the RPA, I
> am interested in what happens, even if my interest is purely
> intellectual. While I currently have a [non-flying] CJ6A, my intention
> is to sell it and eventually replace it with an SF-260, which also seems
> to come under the purvey of RPA.
>
>
> while I can not recall all your efforts in that letter, I noted
> both of your basic concerns you posted about your contribution, and I
> would like to go on the record now, again, that I was well aware of how
> the "old guard" (your descriptor) was reacting to you.
>
> For the record, Brian asked to teach the ground school and I
> OKed that at ARS, he was intelligent, highly motivated and technically
> accurate (while the content provided via the old YPA manual was not as
> comprehensive detailed as your current RPA material, Brian as you can
> imagine knew the material).
>
> I witnessed, and was a part of (you were not Brian) a
> conversation I was not comfortable then, or now, concerning yourself and
> I relate to it in Part I. Enough said.
>
>
> Yes, it can be tough to try to hold to the "high ground" and still try
> to advance the goals of a group organization when personalities and
> politics raise their ugly heads. I am sure you found yourself in a
> no-win situation. But I would have undoubtedly been much much more
> flexible and accommodating had you explained then. I am no different
> than anyone else; when I work hard and do a good job, I want someone to
> recognize same and say, "Good job."
>
>
>
> This is not a condemnation of any one person, and it can happen
> anywhere in the RPA; As an example, I know of a highly intelligent CJ
> owner, and huge volunteer in aviation programs outside the RPA, but (I
> suspect) his proclivity to speak up openly about what is wrong in an
> attempt t make your organization function better (for you), and perhaps
> his lack of a military aviators credentials (my hunch only) resulted in
> a flurry of RPA emails painting him in a negative light that was highly
> short sighted and unwarranted. His attitude and motivation to learn is
> one of the best I've come across.
>
> I would like to make an obvious call; this is a *civilian*
> aviation organization. Some of the activities we do originated in/are
> employed by the military and I'm a huge sponsor of you learning from
> their technical material (i.e. your AF/Navy sourced RPA manual). But If
> there is a qualitative difference in a mans (or woman) ability to brief
> a flight, lead a flight, demonstrate situational awareness as a wingman,
> execute brevity on the radio in formation, deliver a seminar (public
> speaking), organize "troops" at a fly-in or any other skill sets seen
> often in the RPA via your fly-ins, than *all* this should say to all
> military aviators in the RPA is simply this; this is your opportunity to
> help others.
>
>
> Spot on.
>
>
>
> By the way, every trick and scrape of knowledge I learned about
> operating in the civilian airspace or turning a wrench on a CJ6 came
> from a lawyer, general contractor, dentist, flower importer,
> etc....Having said that, you, me and everyone has to be willing to
> listen when someone is trying to help us with a nugget of knowledge or
> advice; it goes back to that age old saying, "park your ego at the
> door". We all struggle with that skill set don't we...
>
> A recommendation was made a few years back to the BoD that the
> next RPA president should be a military aviator, I wrote some of the
> national directors that I disagreed, strongly. There should be NO such
> filter, except ones desire and proposed agenda for the membership, as
> long as the RPA functions under effective bylaws, the selection of good
> stewardship of a civilian organization should be color blind. We are not
> leading troops or planes in to battle, we are developing, managing and
> producing membership services (websites, magazines, internet
> newsletters, clothing sales, training documents, instructor development,
> fly-in support, etc.)
>
>
> I agree and I do not understand the mind set. While the CJ6A and Yak-52
> (and similar aircraft) have been used by military organizations, the
> technology and operating parameters are no different than similar
> civilian aircraft. I am sure that we would like to perceive ourselves as
> "a cut above" because we fly these aircraft, the reality is, these
> aircraft are in no way more difficult to fly nor do they require special
> procedures outside those used to fly aircraft produced by Cessna, Piper,
> or Beechcraft. Lastly, the rules and airspace in which we fly are civil,
> not military.
>
> So, if we are really a civil organization flying civil planes, what
> *would* set us apart from the run-of-the-mill civil pilot? I think that
> the answer is what you are alluding to -- skill, knowledge, and
> professionalism. To be honest, I am more impressed by the owner of a
> C-150 who knows every nut, bolt, rivet, and wire in his airplane, and
> who has developed the skill to fly it to its absolute limits safely,
> than I am with an ex-military pilot who sustains his ego with
> hair-raising stories of near-death and mayhem caused by poor decision
> making, an abundance of power, and an indestructible airframe.
>
>
>
> And if you read my letter on this list, our bylaws are badly in
> need of the BoDs attention in 2012; I am now certain the anachronistic
> (did I just use that word correctly Brian)
>
>
> :-) It works.
>
>
> role of "president" should end after this administration in
> favor of a Chairman of the Board, accountable and from that Board.
>
>
> And you may even want to consider structuring more on the order of a
> confederation of active and independent local organizations. The EAA
> does well with its mix of central presence for lobbying the FAA and
> Congress, while the bulk of activity goes on in the local chapters. Just
> a thought.
>
> And thank you for your posting Drew. I appreciate it.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
> 3191 Western Dr.
> Cameron Park, CA 95682
> brian@lloyd.com
> +1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
> +1.916.877.5067 (USA)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | RPA discussions on the Yak-list |
Some have commented, and I suppose many have thought, "why is a discussion about
issues concerning the RPA on the Yak-list?"
When I made the decision to write my "open letter," I wanted it-to be just that.
Not just a letter to members (there was no forum for that, anyway), but to prospective
members, past members, and non-members alike to address issues that
ultimately effect every Red Star owner/operator at some level, and do it in the
most conspicuous place possible. The Yak-List, for better or worse, is that
place for our community.
My intention was/is to raise awareness and hopefully generate discussion and action
on issues that are, or potentially can be, affecting ownership and operation
in our community.
I believe that this is an appropriate forum for these discussions and is well within
the usage guidelines.
Regards,
Barry
--------
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
(877) 869-6458
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362418#362418
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: | RPA discussions on the Yak-list |
Barry, you don't need to mince words.
I asked you to please take this discussion off the YAK-List. As a
member of the YAK-List for over a decade, and as a financial contributor
to it as well, I do not think the discussion of a funded and chartered
organizations internal problems and solutions belong on the YAK-List.
Every single time I have been asked to stop a discussion of something
*I* happened to think was relevant, I have agreed to do so, and as you
well know, I have been asked to do so more than once. Now the shoe is
on the other foot, and I am asking you to please stop. You have used
the YAK-List to accomplish the goal of notifying many members of the RPA
with the problems and issues as you see them. So done is done, you have
accomplished your goal and good ... I am glad that is the case, and you
will please notice I did not complain about those postings.
Now the discussion is moving into a history lesson of Red Star, who did
what to who and when, and how much fun you had, or did not have in the
past, and how you can correct that to have a good organization in the
future. You have gone from "notification" to "history" to "problems
with the rules and by-laws" and ..... enough already.
Just because a person owns a YAK or a CJ, does not mean they should rush
right out and become a member of Red Star, or should be treated to what
we have been reading here of late.
I am sure that some Red Star members like being able to use the YAK-List
as their own property. I have also seen where other Red Star members
agree that this discussion should go elsewhere.
Please listen to the desires of other members of the YAK List and
regardless of what you happen to personally think of the issue, take it
elsewhere out of respect for the feelings of other YAK-List members.
That is what I do, and have done when faced with the same dilemma, and I
submit to you Sir, that it would be the right thing for you to do as
well.
Thank you.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of barryhancock
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 3:29 PM
Subject: Yak-List: RPA discussions on the Yak-list
<bhancock@worldwidewarbirds.com>
Some have commented, and I suppose many have thought, "why is a
discussion about issues concerning the RPA on the Yak-list?"
When I made the decision to write my "open letter," I wanted it-to be
just that. Not just a letter to members (there was no forum for that,
anyway), but to prospective members, past members, and non-members alike
to address issues that ultimately effect every Red Star owner/operator
at some level, and do it in the most conspicuous place possible. The
Yak-List, for better or worse, is that place for our community.
My intention was/is to raise awareness and hopefully generate discussion
and action on issues that are, or potentially can be, affecting
ownership and operation in our community.
I believe that this is an appropriate forum for these discussions and is
well within the usage guidelines.
Regards,
Barry
--------
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
(877) 869-6458
www.worldwidewarbirds.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=362418#362418
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RPA discussions on the Yak-list |
But how do you really feel about this Mark?
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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: | RPA discussions on the Yak-list |
Oh, I simply believe that others should do the exact same thing that I
have been asked to do in the past. :-)
Meaning, I am no different than Barry. I have no moral "high ground".
I have gotten into some discussions in the past that had no business on
the Yak-List.
In fact, more than a few. :-)
But when I was asked to stop, I stopped. Even though personally I
wanted very strongly to continue.
That's how I REALLY feel about it Brian, and you just can't imagine how
much I wanted to restart the "discussion" about Flight Suits and the RPA
when you mentioned it... but I did not. But darn... I REALLY wanted to!
:-)
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: RPA discussions on the Yak-list
But how do you really feel about this Mark?
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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: RPA discussions on the Yak-list |
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
> That's how I REALLY feel about it Brian, and you just can't imagine how
> much I wanted to restart the "discussion" about Flight Suits and the RPA
> when you mentioned it... but I did not. But darn... I REALLY wanted to!
> :-)
Oh, I am sure that, if we put our minds to it, we can come up with a new
and burning question for discussion. ;-)
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RPA discussions on the Yak-list |
On Wednesday, January 04, 2012 7:13 PM Brian Lloyd said:
"Oh, I am sure that, if we put our minds to it, we can come up with a
new and burning question for discussion. ;-) "
And that is exactly why I am asking to please let's not go there. Let's
PLEASE not stir this pot. PLEASE! I've looked inside Pandora's Box and
I know what is inside, and it's getting ready to come out. Just trying
to warn the general public. But this has already apparently cost me a
very good friendship, so WTF, OVER.
Mark
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: | Re: RPA discussions on the Yak-list |
HeHeHe He I get it!! You're about MMO!!!!!
Pappy
In a message dated 1/4/2012 7:42:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
mark.bitterlich@navy.mil writes:
--> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point,
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
On Wednesday, January 04, 2012 7:13 PM Brian Lloyd said:
"Oh, I am sure that, if we put our minds to it, we can come up with a
new and burning question for discussion. ;-) "
And that is exactly why I am asking to please let's not go there. Let's
PLEASE not stir this pot. PLEASE! I've looked inside Pandora's Box and
I know what is inside, and it's getting ready to come out. Just trying
to warn the general public. But this has already apparently cost me a
very good friendship, so WTF, OVER.
Mark
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RPA discussions on the Yak-list |
Will MMO uncork the BOD?
Doc
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 4, 2012, at 6:57 PM, cjpilot710@aol.com wrote:
> HeHeHe He I get it!! You're about MMO!!!!!
> Pappy
>
> In a message dated 1/4/2012 7:42:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mark.bitte
rlich@navy.mil writes:
ALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> On Wednesday, January 04, 2012 7:13 PM Brian Lloyd said:
>
> "Oh, I am sure that, if we put our minds to it, we can come up with a
> new and burning question for discussion. ;-) "
>
> And that is exactly why I am asking to please let's not go there. Let's
> PLEASE not stir this pot. PLEASE! I've looked inside Pandora's Box and
> I know what is inside, and it's getting ready to come out. Just trying
> to warn the general public. But this has already apparently cost me a
> very good friendship, so WTF, OVER. sp; ies ay - MATRONICS WE
B FORUMS - List Contribution Web Site p;
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RPA discussions on the Yak-list |
If they drink it !!!! Gary G.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 4, 2012, at 18:15, "Roger Kemp M.D." <viperdoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Will MMO uncork the BOD?
> Doc
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jan 4, 2012, at 6:57 PM, cjpilot710@aol.com wrote:
>
>> HeHeHe He I get it!! You're about MMO!!!!!
>> Pappy
>>
>> In a message dated 1/4/2012 7:42:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mark.bitt
erlich@navy.mil writes:
MALS-14 64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 04, 2012 7:13 PM Brian Lloyd said:
>>
>> "Oh, I am sure that, if we put our minds to it, we can come up with a
>> new and burning question for discussion. ;-) "
>>
>> And that is exactly why I am asking to please let's not go there. Let's
>> PLEASE not stir this pot. PLEASE! I've looked inside Pandora's Box and
>> I know what is inside, and it's getting ready to come out. Just trying
>> to warn the general public. But this has already apparently cost me a
>> very good friendship, so WTF, OVER. sp; ies ay - MATRONICS W
EB FORUMS - List Contribution Web Site p;
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
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: | RPA discussions on the Yak-list |
Oh my gosh. Good one Pappy.
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of cjpilot710@aol.com
Sent: Wed 1/4/2012 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: RPA discussions on the Yak-list
HeHeHe He I get it!! You're about MMO!!!!!
Pappy
In a message dated 1/4/2012 7:42:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, mark.bitterlich@navy.mil
writes:
On Wednesday, January 04, 2012 7:13 PM Brian Lloyd said:
"Oh, I am sure that, if we put our minds to it, we can come up with a
new and burning question for discussion. ;-) "
And that is exactly why I am asking to please let's not go there. Let's
PLEASE not stir this pot. PLEASE! I've looked inside Pandora's Box and
I know what is inside, and it's getting ready to come out. Just trying
to warn the general public. But this has already apparently cost me a
very good friendship, so WTF, OVER. sp; ies ay - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
- List Contribution Web Site p;
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: | Chinese Flight Helmets |
Anybody has ever tried one of these?
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Jet-Pilot-Flight-Open-Motorcycle-Black-Helmet-Mask-/180643539958?pt=Apparel_Merchandise&hash=item2a0f31abf6
Are they worth the effort and
costs to have them equipped with
an American GA communication system?
cheers
Elmar
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: | Update on My New Whirlwind 3 Blade Prop |
A quick update on my experience with the new Whirlwind 3 blade all composite
propeller.
I have been flying this propeller on my M-14P powered CJ6-A for over three
months now. Simply put - I love it!! Their first 3 blade propeller
(wood/composite - I call it Generation 1) is still a great performing prop,
one that I have been flying for over 10 years but this new model (Generation
2) takes the cake!! Mind you that I am not the engineer type and didn't
perform a comprehensive, scientifically correct test - I am sharing with you
my findings based on my actual hands-on experience flying it. and pardon
me, if I sound a little over-excited.
Needless to say, the new design is flat out gorgeous (in my opinion of
course) - the large diameter of 102" and sleek, military style looks and
large spinner really makes it perfectly proportioned for the CJ6/Yak
aircraft.
The first thing you'll notice, right out of the box is the amazing quality
of Whirlwind's workmanship - that is no real surprise for anyone that is
familiar with their work or flying the stock V-530 propeller that they
reconditioned. The finish and attention to details is incredible.
Naturally, I expected that this propeller would impress me on the very first
flight as I am used to the excellent performance of their "Generation 1"
propeller. Well, I must tell you - I was not disappointed. On takeoff, the
acceleration was very impressive as was initial and sustained climb. One
point I noticed right away was the near perfect balance and minimal
vibrations through the in -flight rpm range - no dynamic balance was done at
the time. The only rpm range with higher vibrations was from 1400 to 1700
rpm, a range I don't spend much time in.
On takeoff I had to push more left rudder than I was used to - I assume it's
the greater 'P factor' effect due to the wider cord of this design. In
cruise, the prop was smooth and response crisp at all rpm changes and flight
attitudes. It is in the vertical axis that this propeller shines! Vertical
penetration is noticeably better in this design as was evident to me when
performing maneuvers like hammerheads and climbing rolls. A specific
example: on top of a 4 G Immelman (inverted) I ended up 8 kts faster than
before (same altitude, entry speed and G pull); again, not a scientific
experiment - only what I've experienced...
Another realm in which this propeller shines is Formation. I fly a lot of
formation (when not doing acro) and really enjoy the quick acceleration when
I change positions or if I get sucked a bit. Deceleration is amazingly
crisp as well and very useful to me in Formation when coming in with 'gusto'
and need to slow down fast so not to overshoot Lead - this large blade acts
like an air brake when quickly pulling the throttle back.
I have taken quite a few pictures ( a couple attached) and several in-flight
videos of the prop and am working on making a short video clip that will be
in a format of a "Product Review" and will post it on YouTube. As soon as I
have the video ready on YouTube, I'll shoot another post to let you all know
J
Thanks for listening,
Sam Sax
CJ-6A
Miami, FL
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: RPA discussions on the Yak-list |
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM, <cjpilot710@aol.com> wrote:
> **
> HeHeHe He I get it!! You're about MMO!!!!!
>
No, I am working on something WAAAAY better than MMO, multi-vis oil, AND
flight suits all rolled into one! Just wait ...
(hee hee hee)
--
Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN/J79BPL
3191 Western Dr.
Cameron Park, CA 95682
brian@lloyd.com
+1.767.617.1365 (Dominica)
+1.916.877.5067 (USA)
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: Chinese Flight Helmets |
Yup - got two. One for me and one for the wife.
Oregon Aero electronics. They work great and cost less than 1/2 what I
could find an HGU for.
--
Kurt Howerton
W: 916.355.3968
M: 530.312.1299
Sent from my phone
On Jan 4, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Elmar & Manuela Hegenauer <samira.h@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> Anybody has ever tried one of these?
>
> http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Jet-Pilot-Flight-Open-Motorcycle-Black-Helmet-Mask-/180643539958?pt=Apparel_Merchandise&hash=item2a0f31abf6
>
> Are they worth the effort and
> costs to have them equipped with
> an American GA communication system?
>
> cheers
>
> Elmar
>
>
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: | Re: Chinese Flight Helmets |
Hi Elma,
-
Not sure if they are worth the effort,
-
For-one thing, weight, they look havy. also they look too tall, not a fit
for our Yaks (you'll scratch the canopy).
-
Over three months I- bought a fiber glass HGU-33 for 300$ in perfect usab
le condition. Also from Ebay I upgraded the cables to have a quick disconne
ct for an extra 45$.
-
If you need to get off the plane in a hurry you may not have time to unplug
the headset, so get a quick disconnet from Gibsons and Barns (or e-bay).
-
The lightest helmet you can get is the HGU-55. But I really can't tell the
difference between the 2 they are really light.
-
My 2 cents.
-
Javier N54245H
Yak-55m
--- On Wed, 1/4/12, Elmar & Manuela Hegenauer <samira.h@shaw.ca> wrote:
From: Elmar & Manuela Hegenauer <samira.h@shaw.ca>
Subject: Yak-List: Chinese Flight Helmets
>
Anybody has ever tried one of these?
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Jet-Pilot-Flight-Open-Motorcycle-Black-Helmet-Mask-/
180643539958?pt=Apparel_Merchandise&hash=item2a0f31abf6
Are they worth the effort and
costs to have them equipped with
an American GA communication system?
cheers
Elmar
le, List Admin.
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chinese Flight Helmets |
Hi Elma,
-
Not sure if they are worth the effort,
-
For-one thing, weight, they look havy. also they look too tall, not a fit
for our Yaks (you'll scratch the canopy).
-
Over three months I- bought a fiber glass HGU-33 for 300$ in perfect usab
le condition. Also from Ebay I upgraded the cables to have a quick disconne
ct for an extra 45$.
-
If you need to get off the plane in a hurry you may not have time to unplug
the headset, so get a quick disconnet from Gibsons and Barns (or e-bay).
-
The lightest helmet you can get is the HGU-55. But I really can't tell the
difference between the 2 they are really light.
-
My 2 cents.
-
Javier N54245H
Yak-55m
--- On Wed, 1/4/12, Elmar & Manuela Hegenauer <samira.h@shaw.ca> wrote:
From: Elmar & Manuela Hegenauer <samira.h@shaw.ca>
Subject: Yak-List: Chinese Flight Helmets
>
Anybody has ever tried one of these?
http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Jet-Pilot-Flight-Open-Motorcycle-Black-Helmet-Mask-/
180643539958?pt=Apparel_Merchandise&hash=item2a0f31abf6
Are they worth the effort and
costs to have them equipped with
an American GA communication system?
cheers
Elmar
le, List Admin.
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: | Update on My New Whirlwind 3 Blade Prop |
Very nice!
What about the pricing? Comparable to the three-bladed MT prop? (also
something like 102 inches).
Jan
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Sax
Sent: donderdag 5 januari 2012 4:58
Subject: Yak-List: Update on My New Whirlwind 3 Blade Prop
A quick update on my experience with the new Whirlwind 3 blade all composite
propeller.
I have been flying this propeller on my M-14P powered CJ6-A for over three
months now. Simply put - I love it!! Their first 3 blade propeller
(wood/composite - I call it Generation 1) is still a great performing prop,
one that I have been flying for over 10 years but this new model (Generation
2) takes the cake!! Mind you that I am not the engineer type and didn't
perform a comprehensive, scientifically correct test - I am sharing with you
my findings based on my actual hands-on experience flying it. and pardon
me, if I sound a little over-excited.
Needless to say, the new design is flat out gorgeous (in my opinion of
course) - the large diameter of 102" and sleek, military style looks and
large spinner really makes it perfectly proportioned for the CJ6/Yak
aircraft.
The first thing you'll notice, right out of the box is the amazing quality
of Whirlwind's workmanship - that is no real surprise for anyone that is
familiar with their work or flying the stock V-530 propeller that they
reconditioned. The finish and attention to details is incredible.
Naturally, I expected that this propeller would impress me on the very first
flight as I am used to the excellent performance of their "Generation 1"
propeller. Well, I must tell you - I was not disappointed. On takeoff, the
acceleration was very impressive as was initial and sustained climb. One
point I noticed right away was the near perfect balance and minimal
vibrations through the in -flight rpm range - no dynamic balance was done at
the time. The only rpm range with higher vibrations was from 1400 to 1700
rpm, a range I don't spend much time in.
On takeoff I had to push more left rudder than I was used to - I assume it's
the greater 'P factor' effect due to the wider cord of this design. In
cruise, the prop was smooth and response crisp at all rpm changes and flight
attitudes. It is in the vertical axis that this propeller shines! Vertical
penetration is noticeably better in this design as was evident to me when
performing maneuvers like hammerheads and climbing rolls. A specific
example: on top of a 4 G Immelman (inverted) I ended up 8 kts faster than
before (same altitude, entry speed and G pull); again, not a scientific
experiment - only what I've experienced...
Another realm in which this propeller shines is Formation. I fly a lot of
formation (when not doing acro) and really enjoy the quick acceleration when
I change positions or if I get sucked a bit. Deceleration is amazingly
crisp as well and very useful to me in Formation when coming in with 'gusto'
and need to slow down fast so not to overshoot Lead - this large blade acts
like an air brake when quickly pulling the throttle back.
I have taken quite a few pictures ( a couple attached) and several in-flight
videos of the prop and am working on making a short video clip that will be
in a format of a "Product Review" and will post it on YouTube. As soon as I
have the video ready on YouTube, I'll shoot another post to let you all know
J
Thanks for listening,
Sam Sax
CJ-6A
Miami, FL
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: | Calculation of C of G in percentage MAC |
I have to make a weight report of my Yak 50.
No big deal calculating the C of G, once the plane has been put onto
balances.
But what I also need is a conversion to % MAC and I don't have the exact
position of the 0 % MAC.
The Russians published an MAC of 1,64 meters for the Yak 50.
I know the methods to calculate the MAC, but it's quite a job.
Just hoping that someone more knowledgeable than I already has done it?
There are several spreadsheets circulating on the Internet but as you could
expect, they do not agree .
BR,
Jan
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! --
|