Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:08 AM - Re: Diagnosing and fixing a DG (Yak 52) (A. Dennis Savarese)
2. 04:44 AM - Re: Surging engine: CJ6A - HS6A (pnicholson)
3. 04:49 AM - Re: Diagnosing and fixing a DG (Yak 52) (A. Dennis Savarese)
4. 05:21 AM - Remove my name (Phillip Goswick)
5. 06:13 AM - V-530 Nuts (Anthony Hudacek)
6. 06:14 AM - Torque settings (Anthony Hudacek)
7. 06:19 AM - Re: Howard Pardue - NTSB Prelim (Bill Geipel)
8. 06:57 AM - (Richard Goode)
9. 07:21 AM - Re: Torque settings (A. Dennis Savarese)
10. 07:22 AM - Re: V-530 Nuts (A. Dennis Savarese)
11. 07:29 AM - Re: V-530 Nuts (George Coy)
12. 07:34 AM - Re: (Didier BLOUZARD)
13. 07:54 AM - Re: V-530 Nuts (Jill Gernetzke)
14. 10:40 AM - Re: Diagnosing and fixing a DG (Yak 52) (Steven Johnson)
15. 11:21 AM - Re: Surging engine: CJ6A - HS6A (Pete Fowler)
16. 11:35 AM - Re: Re: Surging engine: CJ6A - HS6A (Brian Lloyd)
17. 02:06 PM - Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? (jay wells)
18. 02:15 PM - Re: Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? (Jj)
19. 02:45 PM - Re: Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? (Brian Lloyd)
20. 03:17 PM - Re: Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? (A. Dennis Savarese)
21. 03:18 PM - Re: (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
22. 03:42 PM - Re: Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? (doug sapp)
23. 04:10 PM - Re: Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? (Cory Robin)
24. 04:32 PM - Re: Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? (cjpilot710@aol.com)
25. 06:49 PM - Re: Diagnosing and fixing a DG (Yak 52) (A. Dennis Savarese)
26. 07:44 PM - Re: Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
27. 07:47 PM - Re: (Roger Kemp M.D.)
28. 08:34 PM - Re: (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14 64E)
29. 11:04 PM - Re: (William Halverson)
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: Diagnosing and fixing a DG (Yak 52) |
I meant to day D10 "OR" a D6. Sorry.
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 4/10/2012 8:34 PM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> Swap the front and rear and see what happens. Most likely the rear AI
> has given up and your best bet would be to replace it. To my
> knowledge, there are no known repair facilities.
>
> An alternative would be to replace the front AI with a Dynon D10 and
> D6 and just leave the good one in the rear.
> Dennis
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-285-6263
> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
> www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
>
> On 4/10/2012 7:09 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>>
>> I took a GIB up last weekend and he informed me the DG in the back
>> cockpit was non-functional. Does anybody have any suggestions on the
>> best sequence of steps to diagnose what is wrong?
>>
>> Steven Johnson
>>
>> Yak 52 N9900x
>>
>> 0B5 Turners Falls, MA
>>
>> 413 522-1130
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
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: Surging engine: CJ6A - HS6A |
Thanks for the information so far gentlemen.
No fears, the plane has indeed been grounded.
I don't have a ton of hours so having an engine acting up over a national park
with nowhere to land didn't exactly make my day :-)
I'll start work on these suggestions and get back to you when I have diagnosed
the problem.
Thanks again,
Phil
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370513#370513
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: Diagnosing and fixing a DG (Yak 52) |
Stephen,
I just checked and West London Aero Club,
http://www.wlacrussianeng.co.uk/main.asp?ID=1 has AI's for sale. Click
on the link and then in the left column select Airframe Parts. It's at
the top of the list.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 4/11/2012 6:05 AM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> I meant to day D10 "OR" a D6. Sorry.
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-285-6263
> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
> www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
>
> On 4/10/2012 8:34 PM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> Swap the front and rear and see what happens. Most likely the rear
>> AI has given up and your best bet would be to replace it. To my
>> knowledge, there are no known repair facilities.
>>
>> An alternative would be to replace the front AI with a Dynon D10 and
>> D6 and just leave the good one in the rear.
>> Dennis
>>
>> A. Dennis Savarese
>> 334-285-6263
>> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
>> www.yak-52.com
>> Skype - Yakguy1
>>
>>
>> On 4/10/2012 7:09 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> I took a GIB up last weekend and he informed me the DG in the back
>>> cockpit was non-functional. Does anybody have any suggestions on the
>>> best sequence of steps to diagnose what is wrong?
>>>
>>> Steven Johnson
>>>
>>> Yak 52 N9900x
>>>
>>> 0B5 Turners Falls, MA
>>>
>>> 413 522-1130
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
Please remove my name from the email list. p.goswick@cox.net.
Phil Goswick
Sent from my iPhone
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 |
|
Does anyone know where I can buy new nuts and washers for my Yak hub? Any i
dea on the size would be great. Have a new hub coming, not sure about the n
uts though.=0A-=0AAnt.
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 |
|
Forgot to ask what is the torque setting for the V-530 hub. =0A-=0AAnt.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Howard Pardue - NTSB Prelim |
I rest my case. Nothing to add to the Yak list that anyone cares about. Is it breezy
up there?
Bill
On Apr 10, 2012, at 10:28 PM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14
64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
>
> Bill, I do not ascribe to your definition of the "right direction". I do not
acknowledge your opinion to be the "right" or the "wrong" one. Excuse me, but
who are you to tell me any darn thing? You're not. If you have some form
of technical expertise, then please offer it. If you want to tell others
how to go about flying and living their lives, then stop. Please. I will be
glad to do likewise.
>
> What I am saying is that I am sick and tired of people trying to tell others
how to go about flying MY airplanes on the YAK LIST. None of you folks have the
right to do so, and I am not looking for any of your opinions. Who are ANY
of you to tell me how to go about flying MY airplane? I paid for it, none of
you did, and good luck with trying to come up with a rationale that condones
you telling me any darn thing. Freaking control addicts.
>
> I did not ask for your opinion of safety. I did not ask for your opinion about
flying. So shut the heck up.
>
> Have I added my comments on things dealing with dead pilots, service members,
etc.?
>
> Yep. I have. In response to others that stuck their darn nose in where it does
not belong.
>
> SO STOP TELLING OTHER PEOPLE HOW YOU THINK THEY SHOULD FLY THEIR AIRPLANES!
>
> If people on this list.. me, you everyone else, can stop telling other people
how they should go about doing their businesses, this would be a much happier
place.
>
> Let's go back to HELPING each other and let's stay away from LECTURING each other.
And no folks, the "Safety" aspect just does not wash.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
> p..s I could be wrong, but I don't freaking think so.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Bill Geipel
> Sent: Tue 4/10/2012 8:12 PM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Howard Pardue - NTSB Prelim
>
>
>
>
> That is a step in the right direction. Thank you
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On Apr 10, 2012, at 4:03 PM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14
64E" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
>
>>
>> Glad you got this off your chest John.
>>
>> After careful consideration, I do not believe your message is worth my
>> time responding to.
>>
>> Mark Bitterlich
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Fischer
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 9:17
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Howard Pardue - NTSB Prelim
>>
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>> You seem to have lots of questions and even more answers (see your
>> emails below).
>> So I will answer one for you:
>>
>> Question: on 4-6-12 you asked when we all lost our manners.
>> Answer: You seem to be the only one using personnel attacks on posters!
>> Evidence: 04-06-12 attack against me, and 04-05-12 attack against Brian.
>>
>> (see below to remind you).
>> I am sure I can find more if I search through the
>> board.
>>
>> Statement: on 04-06-12 you said that more comments from you only make
>> the problem worse and you were out.
>> Response: Then today you post again! (can't seem to keep you mouth shut,
>>
>> can you!)
>>
>> On 04-05-12 you wrote "My common sense says to keep my mouth shut. My IQ
>>
>> says to keep my mouth shut. However, the retired Marine in me insists I
>> reply to this person. Above all, I am a retired Marine."
>>
>> I may be wrong, but I believe that the Marine Coprs teaches ethics,
>> which you seem to lack!
>> Perhaps, you need to return to the Corps and take more ethics classes if
>>
>> you with to tell people you are an ex-marine (and diminish respect for
>> your Corps!)
>>
>> Now with these comments, I am done answering your post (and since I have
>>
>> ethics and common sense, you will not hear from me again on these
>> matters).
>>
>> Laterrrrrrr
>> John Fischer
>>
>>
>> On 4/5/2012 8:58 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14
>> 64E wrote:
>>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
>> Point, MALS-14 64E"<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>>
>>> My common sense says to keep my mouth shut. My IQ says to keep my
>> mouth shut. However, the retired Marine in me insists I reply to this
>> person. Above all, I am a retired Marine. So here I go.
>>>
>>> Here's a straw poll.
>>>
>>> How many YAK List readers asked for Mr. Lloyds opinion on this pilots
>> death?
>>>
>>> How many Yak List readers needed another lecture from Mr. Lloyd on how
>> smart he is, and how dumb everyone else is?
>>>
>>> How many Yak List readers feel that his comments are inappropriate,
>> uncaring, show no compassion for a dead pilots family or friends, are
>> totally judgemental, and are based purely on his constant belief that
>> anything that comes out of his mouth must be true?
>>>
>>> Brian, take a hike. Again. Please. Your comments make me want to
>> puke. I am a retired service member, I have spent 42 years in service
>> to my country, and I am out here at Yuma Az. doing it again right now,
>> and I do not think that you have the slightest clue of what it means to
>> show compassion and honor to the service this man gave to YOUR country.
>> To you, none of that matters.
>>>
>>> Here's a big revelation for you. Sometimes the TRUTH does not matter.
>> REALLY. Sometimes it is about shutting your mouth and showing honor and
>> respect for others that deserve it. This is not saying that I admit to
>> your interpretation of "The Truth". Very simply, I do not. This is me
>> telling you that you need to shut your pie hole. You're a really great
>> high school teacher. Let's leave it at that. Now please DROP THIS
>> and move on to some other topic.
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/6/2012 12:04 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14
>> 64E wrote:
>>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
>> Point, MALS-14 64E"<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>>
>>> Thanks John,
>>>
>>> I am sure the family and friends of Mr. Pardue will be absolutely
>> delighted at the lessons you have espoused at the cost of his death ...
>> which you know absolutely nothing about.
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/6/2012 12:38 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14
>> 64E wrote:
>>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
>> Point, MALS-14 64E"<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>>
>>> And with that ... I'm out of this thread. More comments from me only
>> worsen the problem. Manners: When did we all lose them?
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>
>> On 4/9/2012 9:47 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14
>> 64E wrote:
>>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry
>> Point, MALS-14 64E"<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Accident occurred Wednesday, April
>> 04, 2012 in Breckenridge, TX Aircraft: Grumman F8F-1, registration:
>> N14HP Injuries: 1 Fatal.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
>> errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
>> report has been completed.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Enough said.
>>>
>>> Mark Bitterlich
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Mark, I am sorry to say but you are wrong on this one. IF you were flying
your Yak in total isolation in some strange country with no aviation
control, then, you might be right, and in those circumstances it would not
particularly matter how you fly, or, indeed, if you decided to destroy the
aeroplane and kill yourself. However, you don't, and what you do with your
aeroplane inevitably affects all of us.
The first simple fact is is that Yaks do not have a great safety record, to
an extent because of the way that they are flown; to an extent poor
maintenance, but insurance is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, and
if Yaks generally have a poor safety record, then it could be impossible to
insure, and in Europe that means impossible to fly - I suspect that would
the same in the US.
Again you will be aware of certification and registration issues in Europe,
and today there is no long-term solution to fly Yak-50 and 52 in Germany;
France; Holland; Belgium, and other countries. These aircraft are not
certificated, and the National Authorities do not want to go out of their
way to create legal systems for them to be able to fly, although we are
hopeful that this can be organised. BUT, if there is an excuse that these
planes have a poor safety record, are generally crashing - in whatever part
of the world - then that would be used as an excuse not to give them
airworthiness paperwork.
The bottom line is that how we fly our aircraft does greatly affect other
people.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
<http://www.russianaeros.com> www.russianaeros.com
<br />--
<br />This message has been scanned for viruses and
<br />dangerous content by the
<a href="http://www.invictawiz.com/"><b>MailScanner</b></a>,
<br />and is believed to be clean.
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: Torque settings |
Prop nut torque specs:
1042 Inch pounds, 87 foot pounds
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 4/11/2012 8:12 AM, Anthony Hudacek wrote:
> Forgot to ask what is the torque setting for the V-530 hub.
> Ant.
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
Try Jill at M14P. She may have them.
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 4/11/2012 8:10 AM, Anthony Hudacek wrote:
> Does anyone know where I can buy new nuts and washers for my Yak hub?
> Any idea on the size would be great. Have a new hub coming, not sure
> about the nuts though.
> Ant.
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
We stock the locking tabs, seals and other bits for the V530 Propeller.
George Coy
MotorstarNA
714 Airport Rd.
Swanton VT 05488
802-868-5633 off
802-363-5782 cell
802-868-4465 Fax
george.coy@gmail.com
http://motorstarna.com/
SKYPE george.coy
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Anthony Hudacek
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 9:11 AM
Subject: Yak-List: V-530 Nuts
Does anyone know where I can buy new nuts and washers for my Yak hub? Any
idea on the size would be great. Have a new hub coming, not sure about the
nuts though.
Ant.
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: e: Yak-List: |
Not only what Richard says is true but it is reflected othe behavior of our E
uropean CAA.
I would add that not only the way we fly is I
Portent for all of us but also the way we maintain our plane also affect all
the community.
An for the very same reasons that Richard is saying regarding the fact that t
hey are not certificated and not known outside of Russia is a good reason to
behave in all matters of our life with our planes. Our CAA have ears and ey
es and they don't want to be involved in any risks.
So I will say that the way we behave affect a lot of people.
Didier Blouzard
+33(0)6 2424 3672
Le 11 avr. 2012 =C3- 15:53, "Richard Goode" <richard.goode@russianaeros.co
m> a =C3=A9crit :
> Mark, I am sorry to say but you are wrong on this one. IF you were flyin
g your Yak in total isolation in some strange country with no aviation contr
ol, then, you might be right, and in those circumstances it would not partic
ularly matter how you fly, or, indeed, if you decided to destroy the aeropla
ne and kill yourself. However, you don=99t, and what you do with you
r aeroplane inevitably affects all of us.
>
> The first simple fact is is that Yaks do not have a great safety record, t
o an extent because of the way that they are flown; to an extent poor mainte
nance, but insurance is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, and if Ya
ks generally have a poor safety record, then it could be impossible to insur
e, and in Europe that means impossible to fly =93 I suspect that would
the same in the US.
>
> Again you will be aware of certification and registration issues in Europe
, and today there is no long-term solution to fly Yak-50 and 52 in Germany;
France; Holland; Belgium, and other countries. These aircraft are not certi
ficated, and the National Authorities do not want to go out of their way to c
reate legal systems for them to be able to fly, although we are hopeful that
this can be organised. BUT, if there is an excuse that these planes have a
poor safety record, are generally crashing =93 in whatever part of th
e world =93 then that would be used as an excuse not to give them airw
orthiness paperwork.
>
> The bottom line is that how we fly our aircraft does greatly affect other p
eople.
>
> Richard Goode Aerobatics
> Rhodds Farm
> Lyonshall
> Herefordshire
> HR5 3LW
> United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
> www.russianaeros.com
>
> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the I
nvictawiz MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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 |
|
I have them. Contact me offlist.
From: A. Dennis Savarese [mailto:dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:20 AM
Cc: M-14P, Inc. / Jill R. Gernetzke
Subject: Re: Yak-List: V-530 Nuts
Try Jill at M14P. She may have them.
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 4/11/2012 8:10 AM, Anthony Hudacek wrote:
Does anyone know where I can buy new nuts and washers for my Yak hub? Any
idea on the size would be great. Have a new hub coming, not sure about the
nuts though.
Ant.
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: | Diagnosing and fixing a DG (Yak 52) |
It is the DG, not the AI. Does that change your response?
Steven Johnson
Yak 52 N9900x
0B5 Turners Falls, MA
413 522-1130
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:47 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Diagnosing and fixing a DG (Yak 52)
--> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
Stephen,
I just checked and West London Aero Club,
http://www.wlacrussianeng.co.uk/main.asp?ID=1 has AI's for sale. Click on
the link and then in the left column select Airframe Parts. It's at the top
of the list.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 4/11/2012 6:05 AM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> I meant to day D10 "OR" a D6. Sorry.
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-285-6263
> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
> www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
>
> On 4/10/2012 8:34 PM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> Swap the front and rear and see what happens. Most likely the rear
>> AI has given up and your best bet would be to replace it. To my
>> knowledge, there are no known repair facilities.
>>
>> An alternative would be to replace the front AI with a Dynon D10 and
>> D6 and just leave the good one in the rear.
>> Dennis
>>
>> A. Dennis Savarese
>> 334-285-6263
>> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
>> www.yak-52.com
>> Skype - Yakguy1
>>
>>
>> On 4/10/2012 7:09 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> I took a GIB up last weekend and he informed me the DG in the back
>>> cockpit was non-functional. Does anybody have any suggestions on the
>>> best sequence of steps to diagnose what is wrong?
>>>
>>> Steven Johnson
>>>
>>> Yak 52 N9900x
>>>
>>> 0B5 Turners Falls, MA
>>>
>>> 413 522-1130
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Surging engine: CJ6A - HS6A |
When the housai is too lean, it surges. High altitude lean surge is normal if it's
over-leaned.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370551#370551
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: Surging engine: CJ6A - HS6A |
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Pete Fowler <pfdesign1@cox.net> wrote:
>
> When the housai is too lean, it surges. High altitude lean surge is normal
> if it's over-leaned.
>
I wasn't going to say anything but this has been my experience as well. I
suspect it has to do with the carburetor mixture calibration changing at
different air-flow rates. Recalibrating the carb on a flow bench would
probably solve this problem and allow lean-of-peak operation.
But I am not 100% positive that I am right. As I said, it requires the use
of a flow bench to check.
--
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 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: | Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? |
Dear fellow Yak listers:=0A=0AAs an all too frequent lurker I can't help we
ighing in on the flying is a "privilege" vs. right discussion that comes up
repeatedly from time to time and resurfaced again with the Pardue accident
.=0A=0AIt boils down to this:- the FAA and Administration (DOT, TSA, etc.
) have long asserted that a flying and a pilot's license is a "privilege."
- This use of the term in this manner by the FAA is, in my opinion, legal
ly incorrect and plainly infensible.- A privilege is legally defined as a
benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person beyond the common advantage of ot
her citizens;-such privileges are-typically legally waivable by the own
er or holder (attorney-client privilege, doctor-patient privilege, executiv
e privilege, marital privilege, privilege against self incrimination; or mo
re commonly, the "privileged" class).- Sometimes it is used in a more com
mmon manner to describe a right granted by others that is revocable at the
will of the grantor (e.g., the privilege to pass across the lands of anothe
r).=0A=0AI'm not sure where the misuse of the term with regard to flying st
arted but the FAA has asserted that flying is "privilege" as long as I have
been a pilot, some 30 years.- =0A=0AThere is no support for the FAA's po
sition in the law.- A pilot certificate is a government issued "license,"
not a "privilege."=0A=0AThe Supreme Court and the other U.S. Court have lo
ng and correctly recognized that a pilot's license is a protected property
"right" that may not be infringed without due process of law.- It is well
established in the law that individuals have a property interest in govern
ment issued licenses and permits.- See Illinois v. Batchelder, 463 US 111
2, 1116 (1983)(driver's license); Mackey v. Montrym, 442 US 1, 10 n.7 (1979
)(same); Tur v. FAA, 4 F.3d 766, 769 (9th Cir. 1993)(airman certificate); P
astrana v. United States, 746 F.2d 1447, 1450 (11th Cir. 1984).- The revo
cation or suspension of a pilot's license, or airman certrificate, implicat
es a consitutionally protected property interest and that interest may not
be impaired in an arbitrary manner or without notice and hearing and upon s
ubstantial evidence.- The importance of the protected interest is enhance
d when one's vocation or advocation is involved (think commercial pilot lic
ense).=0A=0AI have had the past "privilege" of representing the United Stat
es (and the FAA) in federal courts as a U.S. Department of Justice HQ Aviat
ion Branch attorney and continue to practice aviation law today in another
institution.- I have been practicing and flying for over 25 years and hav
e argued this issue a number of times, including not too long ago in the U.
S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.- The federal judges don't even bl
ink before treating pilot's licenses as a protected right and affording app
ropriate individual constitutional protections.- The FAA is usually repre
sented in federal court by the Department of Justice.- You may hear FAA a
ttorneys spout off outside of court about flying being a "privilege," but I
do not recall ever hearing Department of Justice attorneys use that langua
ge, especially-before Judges in federal court.- =0A=0AI tell the FAA at
torneys that I deal with every chance I get (now that I am out of governmen
t) that they are flat wrong to describe flying as a "privilege."=0A=0AYou c
an argue about whether the FAA enforcement process could be handled better,
but when FAA enforcement cases are subject to federal court review (as eve
ry enforcement case can-be if the pilot chooses to push it), the FAA is s
trictly held to due process standards.- I recently had an ATP-revocatio
n case thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals (for the 9th Circuit) for fa
ilure to follow due process.- Such a result is not that unusual.=0A=0AFly
ing is a constitutionally protected right (thanks to God and our founders)
and in my view we will get more respect from federal officials, the public
and the FAA if we start treating it as such.=0A=0AHope this helps.=0A=0AJay
Wells, JD, LLM, CFI=0A1983 CJ6A=0A=0A[PS - this is not a soliciatation.-
I don't take private clients.- Disclaimer: Nor is it legal advice - your
situaiton may differ.]
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: Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? |
Mr Wells,
Well played!
Jj
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 11, 2012, at 4:03 PM, jay wells <bultaco956@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear fellow Yak listers:
>
> As an all too frequent lurker I can't help weighing in on the flying is a "
privilege" vs. right discussion that comes up repeatedly from time to time a
nd resurfaced again with the Pardue accident.
>
> It boils down to this: the FAA and Administration (DOT, TSA, etc.) have l
ong asserted that a flying and a pilot's license is a "privilege." This use
of the term in this manner by the FAA is, in my opinion, legally incorrect a
nd plainly infensible. A privilege is legally defined as a benefit or advan
tage enjoyed by a person beyond the common advantage of other citizens; such
privileges are typically legally waivable by the owner or holder (attorney-
client privilege, doctor-patient privilege, executive privilege, marital pri
vilege, privilege against self incrimination; or more commonly, the "privile
ged" class). Sometimes it is used in a more commmon manner to describe a ri
ght granted by others that is revocable at the will of the grantor (e.g., th
e privilege to pass across the lands of another).
>
> I'm not sure where the misuse of the term with regard to flying started bu
t the FAA has asserted that flying is "privilege" as long as I have been a p
ilot, some 30 years.
>
> There is no support for the FAA's position in the law. A pilot certificat
e is a government issued "license," not a "privilege."
>
> The Supreme Court and the other U.S. Court have long and correctly recogni
zed that a pilot's license is a protected property "right" that may not be i
nfringed without due process of law. It is well established in the law that
individuals have a property interest in government issued licenses and perm
its. See Illinois v. Batchelder, 463 US 1112, 1116 (1983)(driver's license)
; Mackey v. Montrym, 442 US 1, 10 n.7 (1979)(same); Tur v. FAA, 4 F.3d 766, 7
69 (9th Cir. 1993)(airman certificate); Pastrana v. United States, 746 F.2d 1
447, 1450 (11th Cir. 1984). The revocation or suspension of a pilot's licen
se, or airman certrificate, implicates a consitutionally protected property i
nterest and that interest may not be impaired in an arbitrary manner or with
out notice and hearing and upon substantial evidence. The importance of the
protected interest is enhanced when one's vocation or advocation is involve
d (think commercial pilot license).
>
> I have had the past "privilege" of representing the United States (and the
FAA) in federal courts as a U.S. Department of Justice HQ Aviation Branch a
ttorney and continue to practice aviation law today in another institution.
I have been practicing and flying for over 25 years and have argued this is
sue a number of times, including not too long ago in the U.S. Court of Appea
ls for the DC Circuit. The federal judges don't even blink before treating p
ilot's licenses as a protected right and affording appropriate individual co
nstitutional protections. The FAA is usually represented in federal court b
y the Department of Justice. You may hear FAA attorneys spout off outside o
f court about flying being a "privilege," but I do not recall ever hearing D
epartment of Justice attorneys use that language, especially before Judges i
n federal court.
>
> I tell the FAA attorneys that I deal with every chance I get (now that I a
m out of government) that they are flat wrong to describe flying as a "privi
lege."
>
> You can argue about whether the FAA enforcement process could be handled b
etter, but when FAA enforcement cases are subject to federal court review (a
s every enforcement case can be if the pilot chooses to push it), the FAA is
strictly held to due process standards. I recently had an ATP revocation c
ase thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals (for the 9th Circuit) for failur
e to follow due process. Such a result is not that unusual.
>
> Flying is a constitutionally protected right (thanks to God and our founde
rs) and in my view we will get more respect from federal officials, the publ
ic and the FAA if we start treating it as such.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Jay Wells, JD, LLM, CFI
> 1983 CJ6A
>
> [PS - this is not a soliciatation. I don't take private clients. Disclai
mer: Nor is it legal advice - your situaiton may differ.]
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? |
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:03 PM, jay wells <bultaco956@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Flying is a constitutionally protected right (thanks to God and our
> founders) and in my view we will get more respect from federal officials,
> the public and the FAA if we start treating it as such.
>
Thank you Jay. Clear, succinct, and well stated.
--
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 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: | Re: Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? |
VERY well written and very informative Jay. Thank you for your posting.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 4/11/2012 4:03 PM, jay wells wrote:
> Dear fellow Yak listers:
> As an all too frequent lurker I can't help weighing in on the flying
> is a "privilege" vs. right discussion that comes up repeatedly from
> time to time and resurfaced again with the Pardue accident.
> It boils down to this: the FAA and Administration (DOT, TSA, etc.)
> have long asserted that a flying and a pilot's license is a
> "privilege." This use of the term in this manner by the FAA is, in my
> opinion, legally incorrect and plainly infensible. A privilege is
> legally defined as a benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person beyond
> the common advantage of other citizens; such privileges are typically
> legally waivable by the owner or holder (attorney-client privilege,
> doctor-patient privilege, executive privilege, marital privilege,
> privilege against self incrimination; or more commonly, the
> "privileged" class). Sometimes it is used in a more commmon manner to
> describe a right granted by others that is revocable at the will of
> the grantor (e.g., the privilege to pass across the lands of another).
> I'm not sure where the misuse of the term with regard to flying
> started but the FAA has asserted that flying is "privilege" as long as
> I have been a pilot, some 30 years.
> There is no support for the FAA's position in the law. A pilot
> certificate is a government issued "license," not a "privilege."
> The Supreme Court and the other U.S. Court have long and correctly
> recognized that a pilot's license is a protected property "right" that
> may not be infringed without due process of law. It is well
> established in the law that individuals have a property interest in
> government issued licenses and permits. See Illinois v. Batchelder,
> 463 US 1112, 1116 (1983)(driver's license); Mackey v. Montrym, 442 US
> 1, 10 n.7 (1979)(same); Tur v. FAA, 4 F.3d 766, 769 (9th Cir.
> 1993)(airman certificate); Pastrana v. United States, 746 F.2d 1447,
> 1450 (11th Cir. 1984). The revocation or suspension of a pilot's
> license, or airman certrificate, implicates a consitutionally
> protected property interest and that interest may not be impaired in
> an arbitrary manner or without notice and hearing and upon substantial
> evidence. The importance of the protected interest is enhanced when
> one's vocation or advocation is involved (think commercial pilot license).
> I have had the past "privilege" of representing the United States (and
> the FAA) in federal courts as a U.S. Department of Justice HQ Aviation
> Branch attorney and continue to practice aviation law today in another
> institution. I have been practicing and flying for over 25 years and
> have argued this issue a number of times, including not too long ago
> in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The federal judges
> don't even blink before treating pilot's licenses as a protected right
> and affording appropriate individual constitutional protections. The
> FAA is usually represented in federal court by the Department of
> Justice. You may hear FAA attorneys spout off outside of court about
> flying being a "privilege," but I do not recall ever hearing
> Department of Justice attorneys use that language, especially before
> Judges in federal court.
> I tell the FAA attorneys that I deal with every chance I get (now that
> I am out of government) that they are flat wrong to describe flying as
> a "privilege."
> You can argue about whether the FAA enforcement process could be
> handled better, but when FAA enforcement cases are subject to federal
> court review (as every enforcement case can be if the pilot chooses to
> push it), the FAA is strictly held to due process standards. I
> recently had an ATP revocation case thrown out by the U.S. Court of
> Appeals (for the 9th Circuit) for failure to follow due process. Such
> a result is not that unusual.
> Flying is a constitutionally protected right (thanks to God and our
> founders) and in my view we will get more respect from federal
> officials, the public and the FAA if we start treating it as such.
> Hope this helps.
> Jay Wells, JD, LLM, CFI
> 1983 CJ6A
> [PS - this is not a soliciatation. I don't take private clients.
> Disclaimer: Nor is it legal advice - your situaiton may differ.]
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
Ok.
Point taken.
Thanks Richard.
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Richard Goode
Sent: Wed 4/11/2012 9:53 AM
Subject: Yak-List:
Mark, I am sorry to say but you are wrong on this one. IF you were flying your
Yak in total isolation in some strange country with no aviation control, then,
you might be right, and in those circumstances it would not particularly matter
how you fly, or, indeed, if you decided to destroy the aeroplane and kill
yourself. However, you don't, and what you do with your aeroplane inevitably
affects all of us.
The first simple fact is is that Yaks do not have a great safety record, to an
extent because of the way that they are flown; to an extent poor maintenance,
but insurance is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, and if Yaks generally
have a poor safety record, then it could be impossible to insure, and in Europe
that means impossible to fly - I suspect that would the same in the US.
Again you will be aware of certification and registration issues in Europe, and
today there is no long-term solution to fly Yak-50 and 52 in Germany; France;
Holland; Belgium, and other countries. These aircraft are not certificated,
and the National Authorities do not want to go out of their way to create legal
systems for them to be able to fly, although we are hopeful that this can be
organised. BUT, if there is an excuse that these planes have a poor safety record,
are generally crashing - in whatever part of the world - then that would
be used as an excuse not to give them airworthiness paperwork.
The bottom line is that how we fly our aircraft does greatly affect other people.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com <http://www.russianaeros.com/>
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the Invictawiz
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
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: Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? |
Geeze, a interesting, informative, timely post which is not angry
or inflammatory, a very unique and most welcome post indeed.
Thanks Jay, well done!
Doug Sapp
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:14 PM, A. Dennis Savarese <
dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> VERY well written and very informative Jay. Thank you for your posting.
> Dennis
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-285-6263
> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
> www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
>
> On 4/11/2012 4:03 PM, jay wells wrote:
>
>> Dear fellow Yak listers:
>> As an all too frequent lurker I can't help weighing in on the flying is a
>> "privilege" vs. right discussion that comes up repeatedly from time to time
>> and resurfaced again with the Pardue accident.
>> It boils down to this: the FAA and Administration (DOT, TSA, etc.) have
>> long asserted that a flying and a pilot's license is a "privilege." This
>> use of the term in this manner by the FAA is, in my opinion, legally
>> incorrect and plainly infensible. A privilege is legally defined as a
>> benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person beyond the common advantage of
>> other citizens; such privileges are typically legally waivable by the owner
>> or holder (attorney-client privilege, doctor-patient privilege, executive
>> privilege, marital privilege, privilege against self incrimination; or more
>> commonly, the "privileged" class). Sometimes it is used in a more commmon
>> manner to describe a right granted by others that is revocable at the will
>> of the grantor (e.g., the privilege to pass across the lands of another).
>> I'm not sure where the misuse of the term with regard to flying started
>> but the FAA has asserted that flying is "privilege" as long as I have been
>> a pilot, some 30 years.
>> There is no support for the FAA's position in the law. A pilot
>> certificate is a government issued "license," not a "privilege."
>> The Supreme Court and the other U.S. Court have long and correctly
>> recognized that a pilot's license is a protected property "right" that may
>> not be infringed without due process of law. It is well established in the
>> law that individuals have a property interest in government issued licenses
>> and permits. See Illinois v. Batchelder, 463 US 1112, 1116 (1983)(driver's
>> license); Mackey v. Montrym, 442 US 1, 10 n.7 (1979)(same); Tur v. FAA, 4
>> F.3d 766, 769 (9th Cir. 1993)(airman certificate); Pastrana v. United
>> States, 746 F.2d 1447, 1450 (11th Cir. 1984). The revocation or suspension
>> of a pilot's license, or airman certrificate, implicates a consitutionally
>> protected property interest and that interest may not be impaired in an
>> arbitrary manner or without notice and hearing and upon substantial
>> evidence. The importance of the protected interest is enhanced when one's
>> vocation or advocation is involved (think commercial pilot license).
>> I have had the past "privilege" of representing the United States (and
>> the FAA) in federal courts as a U.S. Department of Justice HQ Aviation
>> Branch attorney and continue to practice aviation law today in another
>> institution. I have been practicing and flying for over 25 years and have
>> argued this issue a number of times, including not too long ago in the U.S.
>> Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The federal judges don't even blink
>> before treating pilot's licenses as a protected right and affording
>> appropriate individual constitutional protections. The FAA is usually
>> represented in federal court by the Department of Justice. You may hear
>> FAA attorneys spout off outside of court about flying being a "privilege,"
>> but I do not recall ever hearing Department of Justice attorneys use that
>> language, especially before Judges in federal court.
>> I tell the FAA attorneys that I deal with every chance I get (now that I
>> am out of government) that they are flat wrong to describe flying as a
>> "privilege."
>> You can argue about whether the FAA enforcement process could be handled
>> better, but when FAA enforcement cases are subject to federal court review
>> (as every enforcement case can be if the pilot chooses to push it), the FAA
>> is strictly held to due process standards. I recently had an ATP
>> revocation case thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals (for the 9th
>> Circuit) for failure to follow due process. Such a result is not that
>> unusual.
>> Flying is a constitutionally protected right (thanks to God and our
>> founders) and in my view we will get more respect from federal officials,
>> the public and the FAA if we start treating it as such.
>> Hope this helps.
>> Jay Wells, JD, LLM, CFI
>> 1983 CJ6A
>> [PS - this is not a soliciatation. I don't take private clients.
>> Disclaimer: Nor is it legal advice - your situaiton may differ.]
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>
>
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: Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? |
RE: Jay Wells..
THAT is fresh air my friends!
fly RedStar
Cory.
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: Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? |
So my license is better than a privilege - - - its a right? Yep. Thank
our Founding Fathers for that.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby (shit 57 years as a pilot, and I still haven't figured
out the regs) :-]
In a message dated 4/11/2012 7:10:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
crobin@skyvantage.com writes:
RE: Jay Wells..
THAT is fresh air my friends!
fly RedStar
Cory.
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Diagnosing and fixing a DG (Yak 52) |
Only to the point that you should swap the front and rear instruments
and test. BUT are you absolutely certain the person in the rear cockpit
understood the DG is a slave gyro and the heading is not able to set as
with a standard DG found in most GA airplanes?
Since the front and rear instruments are driven by the same equipment,
if the rear is not reading correctly or the same as the front, then one
could assume the instrument head in the rear is bad. You may be able to
find a replacement head. Some of the Yak owners have removed the AI's,
DG's and inverters from the airplane and also removed the equipment that
drives the slave compass system and replaced everything with Dynon D10's
or D6's units front and rear. In addition to upgrading to modern
electronic instrumentation, the weight loss approaches 70 lbs.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 4/11/2012 12:36 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Steven Johnson"<sajdds@comcast.net>
>
> It is the DG, not the AI. Does that change your response?
>
> Steven Johnson
> Yak 52 N9900x
> 0B5 Turners Falls, MA
> 413 522-1130
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:47 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Diagnosing and fixing a DG (Yak 52)
>
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
> --> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> Stephen,
> I just checked and West London Aero Club,
> http://www.wlacrussianeng.co.uk/main.asp?ID=1 has AI's for sale. Click on
> the link and then in the left column select Airframe Parts. It's at the top
> of the list.
> Dennis
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-285-6263
> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
> www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
>
> On 4/11/2012 6:05 AM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
>> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> I meant to day D10 "OR" a D6. Sorry.
>>
>> A. Dennis Savarese
>> 334-285-6263
>> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
>> www.yak-52.com
>> Skype - Yakguy1
>>
>>
>> On 4/10/2012 8:34 PM, A. Dennis Savarese wrote:
>>> --> Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
>>> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>>>
>>> Swap the front and rear and see what happens. Most likely the rear
>>> AI has given up and your best bet would be to replace it. To my
>>> knowledge, there are no known repair facilities.
>>>
>>> An alternative would be to replace the front AI with a Dynon D10 and
>>> D6 and just leave the good one in the rear.
>>> Dennis
>>>
>>> A. Dennis Savarese
>>> 334-285-6263
>>> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
>>> www.yak-52.com
>>> Skype - Yakguy1
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/10/2012 7:09 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>>>> I took a GIB up last weekend and he informed me the DG in the back
>>>> cockpit was non-functional. Does anybody have any suggestions on the
>>>> best sequence of steps to diagnose what is wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Steven Johnson
>>>>
>>>> Yak 52 N9900x
>>>>
>>>> 0B5 Turners Falls, MA
>>>>
>>>> 413 522-1130
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right? |
Concur.
"Fly your own airplane".
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of cjpilot710@aol.com
Sent: Wed 4/11/2012 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Pardue/Breckenridge - Flying is a right, . . .. right?
So my license is better than a privilege - - - its a right? Yep. Thank our Founding
Fathers for that.
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby (shit 57 years as a pilot, and I still haven't figured out
the regs) :-]
In a message dated 4/11/2012 7:10:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, crobin@skyvantage.com
writes:
RE: Jay Wells..
THAT is fresh air my friends!
fly RedStar
Cory.
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
Richard,
We in the colonies really are damned lucky to have the experimental show cat
egory. Safe operation of our aircraft should always be at the top of our lis
t of actions we take before and during our flight operations. We live and fl
y in a self cleaning oven that proves every so often that rules can be broke
n or bent but the laws of physics are laws that can never be broken. It does
not matter how old or how experienced we are. If you break the laws of phys
ics then be prepared to pay the ultimate price. If that happens, the self cl
eaning oven will have claimed another.
There are bold pilots and there are old pilots but there are no old bold pil
ots. Its' your ass bust it if you like but don't F#%=82=AC it up for me.
Doc
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 11, 2012, at 8:53 AM, "Richard Goode" <richard.goode@russianaeros.com
> wrote:
> Mark, I am sorry to say but you are wrong on this one. IF you were flyin
g your Yak in total isolation in some strange country with no aviation contr
ol, then, you might be right, and in those circumstances it would not partic
ularly matter how you fly, or, indeed, if you decided to destroy the aeropla
ne and kill yourself. However, you don=99t, and what you do with you
r aeroplane inevitably affects all of us.
>
> The first simple fact is is that Yaks do not have a great safety record, t
o an extent because of the way that they are flown; to an extent poor mainte
nance, but insurance is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, and if Ya
ks generally have a poor safety record, then it could be impossible to insur
e, and in Europe that means impossible to fly =93 I suspect that would
the same in the US.
>
> Again you will be aware of certification and registration issues in Europe
, and today there is no long-term solution to fly Yak-50 and 52 in Germany;
France; Holland; Belgium, and other countries. These aircraft are not certi
ficated, and the National Authorities do not want to go out of their way to c
reate legal systems for them to be able to fly, although we are hopeful that
this can be organised. BUT, if there is an excuse that these planes have a
poor safety record, are generally crashing =93 in whatever part of th
e world =93 then that would be used as an excuse not to give them airw
orthiness paperwork.
>
> The bottom line is that how we fly our aircraft does greatly affect other p
eople.
>
> Richard Goode Aerobatics
> Rhodds Farm
> Lyonshall
> Herefordshire
> HR5 3LW
> United Kingdom
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
> www.russianaeros.com
>
> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the I
nvictawiz MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
You're absolutely right Doc (and Richard too). It would probably be a good idea
to petition the FAA to prohibit Experimental Exhibition Catagory aircraft from
participating in Aerobatic Competition. Also in Aerobatic Practice. Also
from Formation Flying. Also in Airshow Flying. Also in any aerobatics below
1500 feet. Also in Air Racing. Safe operation of our aircraft should always
be at the top of our list of actions we take before and during flight operations.
These is no need to take these kinds of risks. People that take the kinds
of risks mentioned above that get involved in any kind of accident might very
well F#%K it up for me, and that is simply unacceptable.
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Roger Kemp M.D.
Sent: Wed 4/11/2012 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List:
Richard,
We in the colonies really are damned lucky to have the experimental show category.
Safe operation of our aircraft should always be at the top of our list of
actions we take before and during our flight operations. We live and fly in a
self cleaning oven that proves every so often that rules can be broken or bent
but the laws of physics are laws that can never be broken. It does not matter
how old or how experienced we are. If you break the laws of physics then be prepared
to pay the ultimate price. If that happens, the self cleaning oven will
have claimed another.
There are bold pilots and there are old pilots but there are no old bold pilots.
Its' your ass bust it if you like but don't F#%EUR it up for me.
Doc
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 11, 2012, at 8:53 AM, "Richard Goode" <richard.goode@russianaeros.com> wrote:
Mark, I am sorry to say but you are wrong on this one. IF you were flying your
Yak in total isolation in some strange country with no aviation control, then,
you might be right, and in those circumstances it would not particularly matter
how you fly, or, indeed, if you decided to destroy the aeroplane and kill
yourself. However, you don't, and what you do with your aeroplane inevitably
affects all of us.
The first simple fact is is that Yaks do not have a great safety record, to an
extent because of the way that they are flown; to an extent poor maintenance,
but insurance is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, and if Yaks generally
have a poor safety record, then it could be impossible to insure, and in
Europe that means impossible to fly - I suspect that would the same in the US.
Again you will be aware of certification and registration issues in Europe, and
today there is no long-term solution to fly Yak-50 and 52 in Germany; France;
Holland; Belgium, and other countries. These aircraft are not certificated,
and the National Authorities do not want to go out of their way to create legal
systems for them to be able to fly, although we are hopeful that this can be
organised. BUT, if there is an excuse that these planes have a poor safety
record, are generally crashing - in whatever part of the world - then that would
be used as an excuse not to give them airworthiness paperwork.
The bottom line is that how we fly our aircraft does greatly affect other people.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Herefordshire
HR5 3LW
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com <http://www.russianaeros.com/>
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the Invictawiz
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
==================================
//www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
==================================
cs.com
==================================
matronics.com/contribution
==================================
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: e: Yak-List: |
It occurs to me that both sides are right ... after all, we want to fly
like we want to as long as we can, right?
The question is how to do that, given we now live in a nation that is
one vote away from forcing us all to buy health care insurance. Recall
it's the same nation that gave the FAA the authority to regulate the
airways and airman privileges within states - something the framers
would have found .... extreme.
Marks' point harks back to the framers, too: hang together or hang
separately.
I recall hearing Denver died because his a/c had a weird tank switch in
it and while switching tanks he augered in. So damn sad. Could be the
Bearcat death may have some such explanation.
Until we get the facts, I'll vote for hanging together ... and after
that, too.
William Halverson
YAK55
On 4/11/2012 8:32 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14
64E wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV Det Cherry Point, MALS-14
64E"<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> You're absolutely right Doc (and Richard too). It would probably be a good idea
to petition the FAA to prohibit Experimental Exhibition Catagory aircraft
from participating in Aerobatic Competition. Also in Aerobatic Practice. Also
from Formation Flying. Also in Airshow Flying. Also in any aerobatics below
1500 feet. Also in Air Racing. Safe operation of our aircraft should always
be at the top of our list of actions we take before and during flight operations.
These is no need to take these kinds of risks. People that take the kinds
of risks mentioned above that get involved in any kind of accident might very
well F#%K it up for me, and that is simply unacceptable.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Roger Kemp M.D.
> Sent: Wed 4/11/2012 10:44 PM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List:
>
>
> Richard,
> We in the colonies really are damned lucky to have the experimental show category.
Safe operation of our aircraft should always be at the top of our list of
actions we take before and during our flight operations. We live and fly in
a self cleaning oven that proves every so often that rules can be broken or bent
but the laws of physics are laws that can never be broken. It does not matter
how old or how experienced we are. If you break the laws of physics then be
prepared to pay the ultimate price. If that happens, the self cleaning oven will
have claimed another.
> There are bold pilots and there are old pilots but there are no old bold pilots.
Its' your ass bust it if you like but don't F#%EUR it up for me.
> Doc
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 11, 2012, at 8:53 AM, "Richard Goode"<richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Mark, I am sorry to say but you are wrong on this one. IF you were flying
your Yak in total isolation in some strange country with no aviation control,
then, you might be right, and in those circumstances it would not particularly
matter how you fly, or, indeed, if you decided to destroy the aeroplane and kill
yourself. However, you don't, and what you do with your aeroplane inevitably
affects all of us.
>
>
>
> The first simple fact is is that Yaks do not have a great safety record, to
an extent because of the way that they are flown; to an extent poor maintenance,
but insurance is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, and if Yaks generally
have a poor safety record, then it could be impossible to insure, and in
Europe that means impossible to fly - I suspect that would the same in the US.
>
>
>
> Again you will be aware of certification and registration issues in Europe,
and today there is no long-term solution to fly Yak-50 and 52 in Germany; France;
Holland; Belgium, and other countries. These aircraft are not certificated,
and the National Authorities do not want to go out of their way to create legal
systems for them to be able to fly, although we are hopeful that this can
be organised. BUT, if there is an excuse that these planes have a poor safety
record, are generally crashing - in whatever part of the world - then that would
be used as an excuse not to give them airworthiness paperwork.
>
>
>
> The bottom line is that how we fly our aircraft does greatly affect other people.
>
>
>
> Richard Goode Aerobatics
>
> Rhodds Farm
>
> Lyonshall
>
> Herefordshire
>
> HR5 3LW
>
> United Kingdom
>
>
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
>
> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
>
> www.russianaeros.com<http://www.russianaeros.com/>
>
>
>
> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the Invictawiz
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>
>
>
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! --
|