Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:28 AM - 18 T lifetime and maintenance (Richard Goode)
2. 01:57 AM - Re: European registration/certification (Etienne Verhellen)
3. 02:57 AM - Re: 18 T lifetime and maintenance (Didier BLOUZARD)
4. 06:57 AM - Re: 18 T lifetime and maintenance (Vic)
5. 07:15 AM - Re: Re: 18 T lifetime and maintenance (Richard Goode)
6. 07:37 AM - Re: Re: 18 T lifetime and maintenance (Didier BLOUZARD)
7. 10:45 AM - Re: 18 T lifetime and maintenance (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD)
8. 01:33 PM - Re:The Phil Procedure or How I Reduced My Intake Oil Drainage (Cpayne)
9. 02:01 PM - Re: Re:The Phil Procedure or How I Reduced My Intake Oil Drainage (Roger Kemp)
10. 02:20 PM - Re: Re:The Phil Procedure or How I Reduced My Intake Oil Drainage (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD)
11. 02:41 PM - Re: Re:The Phil Procedure or How I Reduced My Intake Oil Drainage (A. Dennis Savarese)
12. 03:34 PM - Re: Oil drain down (Cpayne)
13. 04:19 PM - Re: 18 T lifetime and maintenance (Didier Blouzard)
14. 06:43 PM - Re: Re:The Phil Procedure or How I Reduced My Intake Oil Drainage (Roger Kemp M.D.)
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: | 18 T lifetime and maintenance |
I am not supporting the actions of EASA, and certainly the current
proposals, which seem to be about to become requirements are, I feel, far
too demanding, even although some significant concessions have been made.
Having said that, it is not EASA who has unilaterally "reduced the lifetime
to 3500 hours". All they have done is to speak to the manufacturer (and,
George, there are a few design people left on the light aircraft side of
Yakovlev!), And asked what the maintenance programme should be, and Yakovlev
replied that they should be a total overhaul at 1000 hours! And of course,
they are the manufacturer and must be the ultimate authority for this,
however absurd that might seem to someone used to a Western approach for
light aircraft maintenance.
So, for the time being, we don't have to follow the total programme, which
included, every 1000 hours or six years, total re-fabric; mandatory repaint;
undercarriage and retraction system overhaul; fuel and oil system removal
and overhaul; all instruments and avionics removed and overhauled etc etc.
Nevertheless it will be a lot more arduous than we expect for a Western
aircraft, which is somewhat ironic since I personally believe that the 18 T
is much better made than most aircraft.
I have official paper from the Smolensk factory, confirming the "life" of
the 18 T, which of course they manufactured, at 5000 hours. But the simple
fact is that they were not the designers, and have never had access to
design information.
Richard
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
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: European registration/certification |
Richard,
Same goes 50/52 for UK registered Yakovlev AIRFRAME ...
Yak-52 :
http://www.yakuk.com/MPD1998-017R5.pdf
and Yak-50 :
http://www.yakuk.com/MPD2002-009R1.pdf
and THEN 750-500-500-500 on the Vedneyev M-14P ENGINE ...
We are looking to buy a Yak-50 (I know you know a good one :D)
but I will probably only go ahead if the LAA gets involved with Yaks.
Anyone who has a 50 for sale (anywhere), please get in touch :
janie@yak52.fr
Cheers.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/62283880@N04/7888625966/in/photostream/lightbox/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=394193#394193
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: 18 T lifetime and maintenance |
Richard
Would it help if we set up a delegation of all Yak18T proprietors and go for
a meeting with Duessing in order to propose him a way of doing?
I feel that we are in great danger of being economically groused.
Duessing is not stupid and Perhaps by going to see him we can arrange someth
ing
Particularly when we know that even in Russia they don't follow Yakovkev req
uirements....
Another question is could we negotiate with the FAA in USA to put all our 18
T under N reg?
Would this be a possibility?
There are inspectors and mech structures in Europe.?
Thanks for your efforts
Kind regards
Didier Blouzard
+33 6 5184 4802
Le 13 f=C3=A9vr. 2013 =C3- 10:26, "Richard Goode" <richard.goode@russianae
ros.com> a =C3=A9crit :
> I am not supporting the actions of EASA, and certainly the current proposa
ls, which seem to be about to become requirements are, I feel, far too deman
ding, even although some significant concessions have been made.
>
> Having said that, it is not EASA who has unilaterally "reduced the lifetim
e to 3500 hours". All they have done is to speak to the manufacturer (and, G
eorge, there are a few design people left on the light aircraft side of Yako
vlev!), And asked what the maintenance programme should be, and Yakovlev rep
lied that they should be a total overhaul at 1000 hours! And of course, they
are the manufacturer and must be the ultimate authority for this, however a
bsurd that might seem to someone used to a Western approach for light aircra
ft maintenance.
>
> So, for the time being, we don't have to follow the total programme, which
included, every 1000 hours or six years, total re-fabric; mandatory repaint
; undercarriage and retraction system overhaul; fuel and oil system removal a
nd overhaul; all instruments and avionics removed and overhauled etc etc. Ne
vertheless it will be a lot more arduous than we expect for a Western aircra
ft, which is somewhat ironic since I personally believe that the 18 T is muc
h better made than most aircraft.
>
> I have official paper from the Smolensk factory, confirming the "life" of t
he 18 T, which of course they manufactured, at 5000 hours. But the simple fa
ct is that they were not the designers, and have never had access to design i
nformation.
>
> Richard
>
> Richard Goode Aerobatics
> Rhodds Farm
> Lyonshall
> Hereford
> HR5 3LW
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
> www.russianaeros.com
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: 18 T lifetime and maintenance |
Hi Richard,
when you look at the web pages of Smolensk there is still the 7000 hours "lifetime"
shown for the 18 T. Only advertising ?? And even that seems very conservative
to me taking into account loads of C 150s with 15000 or more hours under
their belt being of much lighter build. I say no one at EASA was even near to
an 18T to qualify for assessing lifetimes. But for maintenance companies shorter
overhaul times offer great business options. The big drawback will be that
under these conditions many owners will try to get rid of these aircraft and
no prospective buyer will be found so end of business !
Thinking of the new batch of 18 Ts produced in the past few years for some authorities
I just dont believe they would have accepted an aircraft with that
high running costs due to extremely short overhaul times. I suspect there are
more truths than are openly available.
I still have to see what is contained in these TO 1000 or 2000 overhauls. If
this was about corrosion inspections as published recently for older Cessnas
I could live with that but definitely no way to accept anything near to strip
downs.
Vic
http://www.smaz.ru/eng/avia/jak18t.php
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=394197#394197
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 18 T lifetime and maintenance |
As I said before, Smolensk has no design authority since they are only the
manufacturer, and as far as EASA are concerned they are irrelevant! For
EASA, the only thing that counts is the designer i.e. Yakovlev.
I know a lot about the batch of sixty 18T for the Russian Ministry of
Transport. This was a government deal; the Russians did not want to use
Western aircraft for reasons of national pride; no one was interested in
operating costs.
I will separately send you the 1000/2000 hour maintenance from Yakovlev, as
first suggested. You will see how demanding they are! Fortunately a lot of
the tougher requirements have now been deleted.
Richard
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vic
Sent: 13 February 2013 14:55
Subject: Yak-List: Re: 18 T lifetime and maintenance
Hi Richard,
when you look at the web pages of Smolensk there is still the 7000 hours
"lifetime" shown for the 18 T. Only advertising ?? And even that seems very
conservative to me taking into account loads of C 150s with 15000 or more
hours under their belt being of much lighter build. I say no one at EASA was
even near to an 18T to qualify for assessing lifetimes. But for maintenance
companies shorter overhaul times offer great business options. The big
drawback will be that under these conditions many owners will try to get rid
of these aircraft and no prospective buyer will be found so end of business
!
Thinking of the new batch of 18 Ts produced in the past few years for
some authorities I just dont believe they would have accepted an aircraft
with that high running costs due to extremely short overhaul times. I
suspect there are more truths than are openly available.
I still have to see what is contained in these TO 1000 or 2000 overhauls.
If this was about corrosion inspections as published recently for older
Cessnas I could live with that but definitely no way to accept anything near
to strip downs.
Vic
http://www.smaz.ru/eng/avia/jak18t.php
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=394197#394197
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 18 T lifetime and maintenance |
Richard
If you could copy me with the 1000/2000 please I would appreciate.
Thank you very much
Didier Blouzard
+33 6 5184 4802
Le 13 fvr. 2013 16:13, "Richard Goode" <richard.goode@russianaeros.com> a crit
:
>
> As I said before, Smolensk has no design authority since they are only the
> manufacturer, and as far as EASA are concerned they are irrelevant! For
> EASA, the only thing that counts is the designer i.e. Yakovlev.
>
> I know a lot about the batch of sixty 18T for the Russian Ministry of
> Transport. This was a government deal; the Russians did not want to use
> Western aircraft for reasons of national pride; no one was interested in
> operating costs.
>
> I will separately send you the 1000/2000 hour maintenance from Yakovlev, as
> first suggested. You will see how demanding they are! Fortunately a lot of
> the tougher requirements have now been deleted.
>
> Richard
>
> Richard Goode Aerobatics
> Rhodds Farm
> Lyonshall
> Hereford
> HR5 3LW
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
> www.russianaeros.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vic
> Sent: 13 February 2013 14:55
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: 18 T lifetime and maintenance
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> when you look at the web pages of Smolensk there is still the 7000 hours
> "lifetime" shown for the 18 T. Only advertising ?? And even that seems very
> conservative to me taking into account loads of C 150s with 15000 or more
> hours under their belt being of much lighter build. I say no one at EASA was
> even near to an 18T to qualify for assessing lifetimes. But for maintenance
> companies shorter overhaul times offer great business options. The big
> drawback will be that under these conditions many owners will try to get rid
> of these aircraft and no prospective buyer will be found so end of business
> !
> Thinking of the new batch of 18 Ts produced in the past few years for
> some authorities I just dont believe they would have accepted an aircraft
> with that high running costs due to extremely short overhaul times. I
> suspect there are more truths than are openly available.
> I still have to see what is contained in these TO 1000 or 2000 overhauls.
> If this was about corrosion inspections as published recently for older
> Cessnas I could live with that but definitely no way to accept anything near
> to strip downs.
>
> Vic
> http://www.smaz.ru/eng/avia/jak18t.php
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=394197#394197
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | 18 T lifetime and maintenance |
I looked into registering a Yak under a stateside N number (Experimental Exhibition)
and then operating if overseas.
A few things came up.
You would first have to ship the aircraft to the United States and fly off the
necessary Phase 1 testing process before you could move it to Phase 2 and then
ship it back overseas.
Next, the aircraft would have to have a home base in the United States.
All scheduled mechanical inspections are supposed to be done at the home base.
Waivers are indeed allowed, with an explanation. However, the work has to be
done by an FAA approved A&P mechanic. Foreign qualifications and ratings are
not permitted, even if the guy was a Russian Master Mechanic (as in Vladimir).
You have to obtain the U.S. FAA quals.
TEMPORARY operation of a U.S. registered aircraft in another country is permitted,
but once again you run into the other countries rules and regs along with
the FAA's. .
The FAA is not very interested in having operational authority for an aircraft
it has no control over in another country and the general feel I got was that
they also were not interested in the problems aircraft owners might have in other
countries. After all, it is "another country".
If you are really interested in tackling that subject, my best advice to you Didier
is to NOT contact the FAA. Never ask the FAA a question that you do not
know the answer to already. Instead, contact the U.S. Experimental Aircraft Association
and pay attention to what they tell you. If their answer is "no way",
then believe it.
Mark Bitterlich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Didier BLOUZARD
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:53
Subject: Re: Yak-List: 18 T lifetime and maintenance
Richard
Would it help if we set up a delegation of all Yak18T proprietors and go for a
meeting with Duessing in order to propose him a way of doing?
I feel that we are in great danger of being economically groused.
Duessing is not stupid and Perhaps by going to see him we can arrange something
Particularly when we know that even in Russia they don't follow Yakovkev requirements....
Another question is could we negotiate with the FAA in USA to put all our 18T under
N reg?
Would this be a possibility?
There are inspectors and mech structures in Europe.?
Thanks for your efforts
Kind regards
Didier Blouzard
+33 6 5184 4802
Le 13 fvr. 2013 10:26, "Richard Goode" <richard.goode@russianaeros.com> a crit
:
I am not supporting the actions of EASA, and certainly the current proposals,
which seem to be about to become requirements are, I feel, far too demanding,
even although some significant concessions have been made.
Having said that, it is not EASA who has unilaterally "reduced the lifetime to
3500 hours". All they have done is to speak to the manufacturer (and, George,
there are a few design people left on the light aircraft side of Yakovlev!),
And asked what the maintenance programme should be, and Yakovlev replied that
they should be a total overhaul at 1000 hours! And of course, they are the manufacturer
and must be the ultimate authority for this, however absurd that might
seem to someone used to a Western approach for light aircraft maintenance.
So, for the time being, we don't have to follow the total programme, which included,
every 1000 hours or six years, total re-fabric; mandatory repaint; undercarriage
and retraction system overhaul; fuel and oil system removal and overhaul;
all instruments and avionics removed and overhauled etc etc. Nevertheless
it will be a lot more arduous than we expect for a Western aircraft, which is
somewhat ironic since I personally believe that the 18 T is much better made
than most aircraft.
I have official paper from the Smolensk factory, confirming the "life" of the
18 T, which of course they manufactured, at 5000 hours. But the simple fact is
that they were not the designers, and have never had access to design information.
Richard
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
==================================
//www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
==================================
cs.com
==================================
matronics.com/contribution
==================================
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:The Phil Procedure or How I Reduced My Intake Oil Drainage |
Interesting procedure, but I suspect that any pump pressure bleeds off rather quickly.
A better method is to position #1 cylinder to TDC. That way, all of the
pistons in the lower half are pulled "down". Much less drainage. One way to
set the prop to that position is to look through a gearbox window...IF you have
an M-14P Series II engine with an access panel that can be replaced with a window.
If you have a Huosai or an M-14P Series I engine and are going to park the airplane
for more than a week, I suggest pulling the front plug out of #1 and finding
TDC that way. It matters not whether it is on the compression stroke or power
stroke.
Craig Payne
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:The Phil Procedure or How I Reduced My Intake Oil Drainage |
You can also put a clear PCV drain hose on the sump drain and drain it into a 5
gal. fuel can. That way any oil draining past the oil pump check valve is emptied
from the sump before it overflows into the the lower most 4 cylinders. That
way the minimal amount of drainage from the upper part of the cylinder can
easily be cleared from the cylinders with the pull through.
Doc
-----Original Message-----
>From: Cpayne <cpayne@joimail.com>
>Sent: Feb 13, 2013 3:30 PM
>To: yak-list <yak-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Yak-List: Re:The Phil Procedure or How I Reduced My Intake Oil Drainage
>
>
>Interesting procedure, but I suspect that any pump pressure bleeds off rather
quickly. A better method is to position #1 cylinder to TDC. That way, all of the
pistons in the lower half are pulled "down". Much less drainage. One way to
set the prop to that position is to look through a gearbox window...IF you have
an M-14P Series II engine with an access panel that can be replaced with a
window.
>
>If you have a Huosai or an M-14P Series I engine and are going to park the airplane
for more than a week, I suggest pulling the front plug out of #1 and finding
TDC that way. It matters not whether it is on the compression stroke or power
stroke.
>
>Craig Payne
>
>
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: | Re:The Phil Procedure or How I Reduced My Intake Oil Drainage |
Craig,
I have seen the M-14 window deal a few times in the past, and it has always made
me slightly curious. Here's what I mean and maybe you can enlighten me.
The way oil gets into the exhaust stacks, and thus drains out onto the ground,
or into the bucket, or .. whatever ... is because it gets into the cylinder(s)
and then comes out an open exhaust valve. Agreed?
OK, so if we position the #1 cylinder to TDC making sure "of the pistons in the
lower half are pulled "down", I am assuming the goal here is to try and make
sure the lower cylinders have their exhaust valves closed, so that the oil can't
leak out. Or is something else going on that I am not aware of?
Assuming it has to do with keeping the exhaust valves closed, then one has to ask
how the oil got into the cylinders to begin with?
The oil that gets into the cylinders HAS to come from the crankcase right?
Typically, the sump fills up first and eventually the oil will backflow past the
piston rings and down into the lower cylinders.
A problem (or "feature" if you will) of stock M-14 piston rings is that they expand
(a lot) with heat. Thus the clearances have to be set loose when you install
them. This aggravates the problem with oil bleeding past the rings and into
the cylinders. American made pistons and rings helps fix this problem, but
to continue.......
Another well known problem besides oil leaking out all over the tarmac is ... oil
NOT leaking out all over the tarmac and instead becoming trapped within the
cylinders because the valves are all closed. This sets up the owner for the
infamous "Hydraulic Lock" problem. Somehow, oil in the cylinders has to be let
out before we start pushing a piston towards TDC, or else we are looking at
bending a rod. Pull the spark plugs, drain it, etc.
So OK! If we're in agreement up to this point, my question is: "How exactly does
putting the #1 cylinder to TDC *PREVENT* oil from getting past the rings and
into the cylinders?"
My thought is that it does not. And what really ends up happening by doing this
procedure is that drainage through the exhaust will indeed probably be greatly
reduced, but at the same time, the chance for hydraulic lock is greatly increased.
Which means of course, you have to pull the spark plugs to be sure.
Which means of course, all that oil you saved from draining out the exhaust stacks,
now drains out the spark plug holes.
What am I missing here?
Mark
p.s. Yes Doc, the hose on the sump drain is a good idea. Some folks have connected
that hose you are talking about to a built in electric pump (mounted on
the firewall) which pumps the sump oil back into the main oil tank. Periodic
use of this method during longer down times prevents the oil from ever reaching
the point where it can flow into the lower cylinders. Pretty complicated method,
which means modifying the sump drain, which means increasing the chance
for mechanical failure of the sump drain, which means the engine runs out of oil
in flight. Ugh. If the sump oil is drained with a hose (Doc's email) into
a clean container, it can be poured right back into the main oil tank I would
think.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cpayne
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 16:31
Subject: Yak-List: Re:The Phil Procedure or How I Reduced My Intake Oil Drainage
Interesting procedure, but I suspect that any pump pressure bleeds off rather quickly.
A better method is to position #1 cylinder to TDC. That way, all of the
pistons in the lower half are pulled "down". Much less drainage. One way to
set the prop to that position is to look through a gearbox window...IF you have
an M-14P Series II engine with an access panel that can be replaced with a window.
If you have a Huosai or an M-14P Series I engine and are going to park the airplane
for more than a week, I suggest pulling the front plug out of #1 and finding
TDC that way. It matters not whether it is on the compression stroke or power
stroke.
Craig Payne
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re:The Phil Procedure or How I Reduced My Intake Oil Drainage |
Thanks to Buddy Moman who came up with this sump drain with a quick
disconnect fuel quick disconnect valve, all one has to do when the
engine is shut down (of course) is open the sump drain, re-connect the
removable portion of the quick disconnect valve with the hose on it into
the oil drain container and the oil problem of draining into the sump
and out the exhaust stacks is basically eliminated. Keeps potential
hydraulic locks to virtually nil.
I've installed several of these and they really work. About $50 worth
of parts. Here's the quick disconnect valve.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/quickdisline.php?clickkey=26013
Doc's method does exactly the same thing and also works great.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-285-6263
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 2/13/2013 4:17 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD wrote:
>
> Craig,
>
> I have seen the M-14 window deal a few times in the past, and it has always made
me slightly curious. Here's what I mean and maybe you can enlighten me.
>
> The way oil gets into the exhaust stacks, and thus drains out onto the ground,
or into the bucket, or .. whatever ... is because it gets into the cylinder(s)
and then comes out an open exhaust valve. Agreed?
>
> OK, so if we position the #1 cylinder to TDC making sure "of the pistons in the
lower half are pulled "down", I am assuming the goal here is to try and make
sure the lower cylinders have their exhaust valves closed, so that the oil can't
leak out. Or is something else going on that I am not aware of?
>
> Assuming it has to do with keeping the exhaust valves closed, then one has to
ask how the oil got into the cylinders to begin with?
>
> The oil that gets into the cylinders HAS to come from the crankcase right?
>
> Typically, the sump fills up first and eventually the oil will backflow past
the piston rings and down into the lower cylinders.
>
> A problem (or "feature" if you will) of stock M-14 piston rings is that they
expand (a lot) with heat. Thus the clearances have to be set loose when you install
them. This aggravates the problem with oil bleeding past the rings and
into the cylinders. American made pistons and rings helps fix this problem,
but to continue.......
>
> Another well known problem besides oil leaking out all over the tarmac is ...
oil NOT leaking out all over the tarmac and instead becoming trapped within the
cylinders because the valves are all closed. This sets up the owner for the
infamous "Hydraulic Lock" problem. Somehow, oil in the cylinders has to be
let out before we start pushing a piston towards TDC, or else we are looking at
bending a rod. Pull the spark plugs, drain it, etc.
>
> So OK! If we're in agreement up to this point, my question is: "How exactly
does putting the #1 cylinder to TDC *PREVENT* oil from getting past the rings
and into the cylinders?"
>
> My thought is that it does not. And what really ends up happening by doing this
procedure is that drainage through the exhaust will indeed probably be greatly
reduced, but at the same time, the chance for hydraulic lock is greatly increased.
Which means of course, you have to pull the spark plugs to be sure.
Which means of course, all that oil you saved from draining out the exhaust
stacks, now drains out the spark plug holes.
>
> What am I missing here?
>
> Mark
>
> p.s. Yes Doc, the hose on the sump drain is a good idea. Some folks have connected
that hose you are talking about to a built in electric pump (mounted on
the firewall) which pumps the sump oil back into the main oil tank. Periodic
use of this method during longer down times prevents the oil from ever reaching
the point where it can flow into the lower cylinders. Pretty complicated
method, which means modifying the sump drain, which means increasing the chance
for mechanical failure of the sump drain, which means the engine runs out of
oil in flight. Ugh. If the sump oil is drained with a hose (Doc's email) into
a clean container, it can be poured right back into the main oil tank I would
think.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cpayne
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 16:31
> To: yak-list
> Subject: Yak-List: Re:The Phil Procedure or How I Reduced My Intake Oil Drainage
>
>
> Interesting procedure, but I suspect that any pump pressure bleeds off rather
quickly. A better method is to position #1 cylinder to TDC. That way, all of
the pistons in the lower half are pulled "down". Much less drainage. One way to
set the prop to that position is to look through a gearbox window...IF you have
an M-14P Series II engine with an access panel that can be replaced with a
window.
>
> If you have a Huosai or an M-14P Series I engine and are going to park the airplane
for more than a week, I suggest pulling the front plug out of #1 and finding
TDC that way. It matters not whether it is on the compression stroke or
power stroke.
>
> Craig Payne
>
>
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: Oil drain down |
What's missing here is the fact that it works. Theory is one thing, results are
another. Some Russians (Jurgis Kairys) have practiced this for years. Works
for me too, no hydro lock yet and reduced drainage with pull through. Ask Pappy,
he has one of my prototypes installed.
You can just catch it or ... you can slow it down and then catch a little, I do
both.
Craig Payne
>So OK! If we're in agreement up to this point, my question is: "How exactly
does
>putting the #1 cylinder to TDC *PREVENT* oil from getting past the rings and
>into the cylinders?"
>
>My thought is that it does not. And what really ends up happening by doing this
>procedure is that drainage through the exhaust will indeed probably be greatly
>reduced, but at the same time, the chance for hydraulic lock is greatly increased.
>Which means of course, you have to pull the spark plugs to be sure.
>Which means of course, all that oil you saved from draining out the exhaust stacks,
>now drains out the spark plug holes.
>
>
>What am I missing here?
>
>
> Mark
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: | Re: 18 T lifetime and maintenance |
OK OK
that was a try. But I do understand. God bless America!!!
Our best chance is that Richard succeed in his negociations with EASA
and we'll do all we can to support him
If not than I'll have to move to USA with my plane !!!
Thanks Mark
Best regards
Didier
2013/2/13 Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>:
>
> I looked into registering a Yak under a stateside N number (Experimental Exhibition)
and then operating if overseas.
>
> A few things came up.
>
> You would first have to ship the aircraft to the United States and fly off the
necessary Phase 1 testing process before you could move it to Phase 2 and then
ship it back overseas.
>
> Next, the aircraft would have to have a home base in the United States.
>
> All scheduled mechanical inspections are supposed to be done at the home base.
Waivers are indeed allowed, with an explanation. However, the work has to
be done by an FAA approved A&P mechanic. Foreign qualifications and ratings are
not permitted, even if the guy was a Russian Master Mechanic (as in Vladimir).
You have to obtain the U.S. FAA quals.
>
> TEMPORARY operation of a U.S. registered aircraft in another country is permitted,
but once again you run into the other countries rules and regs along with
the FAA's. .
>
> The FAA is not very interested in having operational authority for an aircraft
it has no control over in another country and the general feel I got was that
they also were not interested in the problems aircraft owners might have in
other countries. After all, it is "another country".
>
> If you are really interested in tackling that subject, my best advice to you
Didier is to NOT contact the FAA. Never ask the FAA a question that you do not
know the answer to already. Instead, contact the U.S. Experimental Aircraft
Association and pay attention to what they tell you. If their answer is "no
way", then believe it.
>
> Mark Bitterlich
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Didier BLOUZARD
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:53
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: 18 T lifetime and maintenance
>
> Richard
> Would it help if we set up a delegation of all Yak18T proprietors and go for
a meeting with Duessing in order to propose him a way of doing?
> I feel that we are in great danger of being economically groused.
>
> Duessing is not stupid and Perhaps by going to see him we can arrange something
> Particularly when we know that even in Russia they don't follow Yakovkev requirements....
>
> Another question is could we negotiate with the FAA in USA to put all our 18T
under N reg?
> Would this be a possibility?
> There are inspectors and mech structures in Europe.?
>
> Thanks for your efforts
>
> Kind regards
>
> Didier Blouzard
> +33 6 5184 4802
>
> Le 13 fvr. 2013 10:26, "Richard Goode" <richard.goode@russianaeros.com> a crit
:
>
>
> I am not supporting the actions of EASA, and certainly the current proposals,
which seem to be about to become requirements are, I feel, far too demanding,
even although some significant concessions have been made.
>
>
> Having said that, it is not EASA who has unilaterally "reduced the lifetime
to 3500 hours". All they have done is to speak to the manufacturer (and,
George, there are a few design people left on the light aircraft side of Yakovlev!),
And asked what the maintenance programme should be, and Yakovlev replied
that they should be a total overhaul at 1000 hours! And of course, they are
the manufacturer and must be the ultimate authority for this, however absurd
that might seem to someone used to a Western approach for light aircraft maintenance.
>
>
> So, for the time being, we don't have to follow the total programme,
which included, every 1000 hours or six years, total re-fabric; mandatory repaint;
undercarriage and retraction system overhaul; fuel and oil system removal
and overhaul; all instruments and avionics removed and overhauled etc etc. Nevertheless
it will be a lot more arduous than we expect for a Western aircraft,
which is somewhat ironic since I personally believe that the 18 T is much better
made than most aircraft.
>
>
> I have official paper from the Smolensk factory, confirming the "life"
of the 18 T, which of course they manufactured, at 5000 hours. But the simple
fact is that they were not the designers, and have never had access to design
information.
>
>
> Richard
>
>
> Richard Goode Aerobatics
>
> Rhodds Farm
>
> Lyonshall
>
> Hereford
>
> HR5 3LW
>
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
>
> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
>
> www.russianaeros.com
>
>
> ==================================
> //www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> ==================================
> cs.com
> ==================================
> matronics.com/contribution
> ==================================
>
>
--
____________________________
Didier BLOUZARD
Directeur Gnral DATEXIS
Portable : +33 6 51 84 48 02
Email: didier.blouzard@gmail.com
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:The Phil Procedure or How I Reduced My Intake Oil Drainage |
Mark," drain it into a clean container and put the ok back into the tank" is exactly
what I do
Doc
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 13, 2013, at 4:17 PM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
wrote:
>
> Craig,
>
> I have seen the M-14 window deal a few times in the past, and it has always made
me slightly curious. Here's what I mean and maybe you can enlighten me.
>
> The way oil gets into the exhaust stacks, and thus drains out onto the ground,
or into the bucket, or .. whatever ... is because it gets into the cylinder(s)
and then comes out an open exhaust valve. Agreed?
>
> OK, so if we position the #1 cylinder to TDC making sure "of the pistons in the
lower half are pulled "down", I am assuming the goal here is to try and make
sure the lower cylinders have their exhaust valves closed, so that the oil can't
leak out. Or is something else going on that I am not aware of?
>
> Assuming it has to do with keeping the exhaust valves closed, then one has to
ask how the oil got into the cylinders to begin with?
>
> The oil that gets into the cylinders HAS to come from the crankcase right?
>
> Typically, the sump fills up first and eventually the oil will backflow past
the piston rings and down into the lower cylinders.
>
> A problem (or "feature" if you will) of stock M-14 piston rings is that they
expand (a lot) with heat. Thus the clearances have to be set loose when you install
them. This aggravates the problem with oil bleeding past the rings and
into the cylinders. American made pistons and rings helps fix this problem,
but to continue.......
>
> Another well known problem besides oil leaking out all over the tarmac is ...
oil NOT leaking out all over the tarmac and instead becoming trapped within the
cylinders because the valves are all closed. This sets up the owner for the
infamous "Hydraulic Lock" problem. Somehow, oil in the cylinders has to be
let out before we start pushing a piston towards TDC, or else we are looking at
bending a rod. Pull the spark plugs, drain it, etc.
>
> So OK! If we're in agreement up to this point, my question is: "How exactly
does putting the #1 cylinder to TDC *PREVENT* oil from getting past the rings
and into the cylinders?"
>
> My thought is that it does not. And what really ends up happening by doing this
procedure is that drainage through the exhaust will indeed probably be greatly
reduced, but at the same time, the chance for hydraulic lock is greatly increased.
Which means of course, you have to pull the spark plugs to be sure.
Which means of course, all that oil you saved from draining out the exhaust
stacks, now drains out the spark plug holes.
>
> What am I missing here?
>
> Mark
>
> p.s. Yes Doc, the hose on the sump drain is a good idea. Some folks have connected
that hose you are talking about to a built in electric pump (mounted on
the firewall) which pumps the sump oil back into the main oil tank. Periodic
use of this method during longer down times prevents the oil from ever reaching
the point where it can flow into the lower cylinders. Pretty complicated
method, which means modifying the sump drain, which means increasing the chance
for mechanical failure of the sump drain, which means the engine runs out of
oil in flight. Ugh. If the sump oil is drained with a hose (Doc's email) into
a clean container, it can be poured right back into the main oil tank I would
think.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cpayne
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 16:31
> To: yak-list
> Subject: Yak-List: Re:The Phil Procedure or How I Reduced My Intake Oil Drainage
>
>
> Interesting procedure, but I suspect that any pump pressure bleeds off rather
quickly. A better method is to position #1 cylinder to TDC. That way, all of
the pistons in the lower half are pulled "down". Much less drainage. One way to
set the prop to that position is to look through a gearbox window...IF you have
an M-14P Series II engine with an access panel that can be replaced with a
window.
>
> If you have a Huosai or an M-14P Series I engine and are going to park the airplane
for more than a week, I suggest pulling the front plug out of #1 and finding
TDC that way. It matters not whether it is on the compression stroke or
power stroke.
>
> Craig Payne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|