Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:25 AM - Re: M14P mixture adjustment? (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD)
2. 10:10 AM - Stall warning (Chris Ober)
3. 11:22 AM - Re: MT Prop TBO (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD)
4. 11:33 AM - Re: MT Prop TBO (Kregg Victory)
5. 11:37 AM - AirVenture '14 / Pneumatic Puzzle Solved? (Rico Jaeger)
6. 11:38 AM - Re: MT Prop TBO (Doug Zeissner)
7. 11:45 AM - Re: MT Prop TBO (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD)
8. 12:02 PM - Re: MT Prop TBO (Todd McCutchan)
9. 12:06 PM - Re: MT Prop TBO (George S. Coy)
10. 12:10 PM - Re: YAK sac (Bill1200)
11. 12:17 PM - Re: MT Prop TBO (Pilotdog57)
12. 12:18 PM - Re: AirVenture '14 / Pneumatic Puzzle Solved? (Robin Hou)
13. 12:36 PM - Re: M14P mixture adjustment? (DaBear)
14. 01:44 PM - Re: MT Prop TBO (Todd McCutchan)
15. 06:13 PM - Re: AirVenture '14 / Pneumatic Puzzle Solved? (Roger Kemp)
16. 07:48 PM - Re: MT Prop TBO (Dale)
17. 08:29 PM - MT Prop TBO - Whirlwind Is The Way To Go (Sam Sax)
18. 10:42 PM - Re: Re: MT Prop TBO (Todd McCutchan)
19. 11:14 PM - Re: Re: MT Prop TBO (Jan Mevis)
20. 11:29 PM - Re: AirVenture '14 / Pneumatic Puzzle Solved? (Jan Mevis)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | M14P mixture adjustment? |
Bear,
Have you checked the calibration on your oil temp sending probe?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DaBear
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 3:46 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14P mixture adjustment?
I wanted to get back to you Mark, Thanks for your thoughts, I didn't know
that about the flat engines. As to engine temps, however I'm not seeing
the same thing.
I understand what you are saying regarding very RICH engines. However, I'm NOT
having any problem seeing CHT's at 380-400 deg F (M14p manual says 428degF max
continuous CHT temp) at level cruise. If I'm not careful, the chts can rise
fast on climb out. The engine gets warm enough. I'm seeing OIL temp rise through
engine of 25-26C but typically in cruise still only see 124 deg F oil temp
and that is with CHTs at 380-390 deg F. I really wouldn't want to run the
M14P at 400-428 deg F even though the book says its ok.
So why the low OIL temps when CHT's are in the normal range?
I typically run at 2400RPM and full throttle on climb, 2400RPM and an inch back
from full throttle for everything else.
Bear
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 6:31 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14P mixture adjustment?
--> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Bear,
Regarding your design premises for flat engines, keep in mind this is only
true for those with a wet sump. For those with a dry sump, which is a
whole lot of them, such as the GSO-480 series for example, they too have an external
oil tank where most of the oil is outside of the engine case.
Just something to keep in mind. I also fly a UTVA-66 with a dry sump
GSO-480 with an auto-mixture adjust pressure carb. I can control EGT, and
thus CHT and oil temp with a simple push of the throttle by a VAST amount.
If I keep RPM up high (3200 or so) and pull the throttle back to say 38 inches
(this is a blown engine remember, with max manifold of 48 inches), I
can run the EGT's right up into the danger area in seconds. I control CHT
and Oil Temp with the throttle... and that was an interesting lesson to learn believe
me.
I do not have the external temperature equipment that you have on my M-14P.
That said, oil temperature in M-14 engines flying aerobatics using the standard
probe locations and standard stock instrumentation has ALWAYS been an issue (meaning
they tend to run very high), and many attempts have been made to address
this in all models, such as cooler relocation, bigger coolers, wing root changes
to add the oil cooler there, etc.
Personally, my YAK-50 in hot weather will run the oil temp right into the
red if you let it. Such as on an extended climb. This is true for every
YAK and Sukhoi I have ever dealt with.
So your statement that the oil runs so cool as to not even boil off the water runs
counter to every single experience I have had with these engines.
The only time I have seen anything near to what you are talking about is
when the engines are run WAY WAY RICH. The amount of fuel you dump into
this engine makes a HUGE HUGE difference on engine temperature very much the
same as the UTVA-66. And the carbs between the two are very similar in the
way they work.
For my airplane, speed is the main issue. If I run high power settings in the
summer, I have to push the nose over and get some speed to get the oil
temp down. However, I am climbing at 85% or HIGHER at full throttle.
Yeah, I know a lot of folks like to baby these engines and that is fine, but
I have found them to run better when I push them hard. So far .....at over
800 hours, the only engine issues I have had were with leaded up exhaust valves
and that is when I was trying to be ever so careful with the engine.
Of course MMO fixed all that ....... but I think personally it was because I started
running the engine a lot harder and kept it hot. That opinion and 2 cents
might buy you a glass of water, however that is what I do, and it
works for me. As for anyone else.... you're on your own. :-)
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] on behalf of DaBear [dabear@damned.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14P mixture adjustment?
Disclaimer NOTE: I'm just typing while my mind thinks, this is my opinion, not
an opinion of an expert. Although, I AM an expert ON my opinions. :)
In the flat engines, the oil is mostly in the engine and a little is in cooler.
In the CJ and Yak oil is mostly in the oil tank, with a little in
the engine and a little in the oil cooler. Therefore, the system has lower
temp oil overall through the process. It could be that the temp probe for
the flat engine is in the engine or on the outlet side. I couldn't get the
outlet side oil temps anywhere near 240DegF.
Also interesting is that in these engines, Housai, M14P and now my M14PF, it has
been extremely difficult to impossible to get the oil temp on the outbound side
of the engine up to 212deg F to "boil off" any water/condensation from the
oil. The oil temps in the system tend to run cold even in the heat of summer.
For example, running a week or so ago with OAT around 90DegF, Altitude around
2-3k feet, airspeed at 145-150kts, power at max continuous, oil inlet temps
were 124degF with oil cooler door closed.
Oil outlet only got to 170degF. The oil cooler was changed (New) as of 800 hours
ago, so it is warn. I'm running 25w60 . Climb up to 9-12k of altitude and
power back a little and its hard to keep the oil temps above 115degF
For people running the M14P and PF in the summer. What are you seeing for CHT
temps on initial take off, cruise, climb? What are the power settings you are
using when seeing these tempts?
Bear
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Todd McCutchan
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: M14P mixture adjustment?
Max sustain 167 F and max 15 min is 185 F vs my recommended 170 F and max continuous
240 F.
That seeks like a big difference.
Is it due to Russian oil or radial engine?
Todd McCutchan
T-34A & Yak-50
Cell: (260) 402-1740
E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com<mailto:todd@fastaircraft.com>
www.fastaircraft.com<http://www.fastaircraft.com/>
On Jul 9, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Robin Hou
<rmhou@yahoo.com<mailto:rmhou@yahoo.com>> wrote:
Bear's listed oil temps are the recommended minimum, not maximum. The format makes
the "Min" easy to miss.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 10:00 AM, Todd McCutchan <todd@fastaircraft.com<mailto:todd@fastaircraft.com>> wrote:
Why are oil temps so much lower than flat six engines? Is this a radial difference
or a Russian oil difference?
On my IO-520 in my T-34 max oil is 240 F with 170 recommended.
Todd McCutchan
T-34A & Yak-50
Cell: (260) 402-1740
E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com<mailto:todd@fastaircraft.com>
www.fastaircraft.com<http://www.fastaircraft.com/>
On Jul 9, 2014, at 9:12 AM, "DaBear"
<dabear@damned.org<mailto:dabear@damned.org>> wrote:
Just a reminder about Oil and CHT Temps ... here is the info from the M14P manual.
Oil Temps
Engine Inlet
C
C
F
F
Recommended
50
65
122
149
Min Permissible
40
104
Max Sustain
75
167
Max 15 Min
85
185
Max Delta in/Out
50
122
32
CHT
32
Recommended
140
190
284
374
Min
120
248
Min Prolonged
140
284
Max Prolonged
220
428
Max 15 Min
240
464
That is the recommendation from the folks that built the M14P. I recommend
keeping CHTs well below 400 for engine life. But operation is up to you.
Bear
From:
owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.c
om> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
om> Goode
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14P mixture adjustment?
200 is acceptable in the climb, but I would not want more than that. In passing,
the temperature senders on the sparking plugs are not that accurate, and it
is worth cleaning them and the seat on the cylinder well, and also, possibly,
moving the sender to another cylinder to check.
You refer to a "bleed jet" - to avoid confusion the Russian manual calls it a suction
jet. It is made in sizes of 1.3 mm to 2.0 mm, and by virtue of being a
compensating jet a smaller jet richens the mixture. It affects the engine at
medium and full power settings but not at idle. It does make a big difference
to cylinder head temperatures, and indeed to fuel consumption. We recommend to
owners to change the jets between summer and winter, and to use the biggest jet
that is compatible with engine temperatures being acceptable.
I don't understand what you mean by the jets being "in series". There is only one.
Changing them is easy, and the jet has its size stamped in very small letters on
the end.
We have stocks of all the commonly used sizes.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com<http://www.russianaeros.com/>
From:
owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.c
om> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
om> Painter
Sent: 09 July 2014 12:06
Subject: Yak-List: M14P mixture adjustment?
Got a Yak-18T that shows head temps of 200 gage on initial climb. Seems a bit
high tho it cools down at cruise power. Have not yet verified gage accuracy. Am
wondering if its running a bit lean. I don't see a full power enrichment circuit
in the carburetor dwgs or any adjustment other than bleed air jets (apparently
in series which makes no sense) in the main circuit plus an adjustment on
the AMC diaphragm rod. So I have a few questions: 1) does anyone have bleed
air jet sets for sale? 2) are the jets actually in series? 3) Do the jets affect
the idle, main or full power circuits? How do you establish a baseline in order
to evaluate changes made to the mixture short of a flow bench?
Jerry Painter
Wild Blue Aviation
FlyWBA@gmail.com<mailto:FlyWBA@gmail.com>
FlyWBA.com<http://flywba.com/>
425-876-0865
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com<http://forums.matronics.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be clean.
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com<http://forums.matronics.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D========================
===================
ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
D========================
===================
//forums.matronics.com<http://forums.matronics.com/>
D========================
===================
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D========================
===================
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-Li="nofollow" target="_blank"
href="http://www.matronics.com/contributi=
D========================
===================
ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
D========================
===================
//forums.matronics.com
D========================
===================
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D========================
===================
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
< - List Contribution Web Site -
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
My stall warning turns on intermittently turning on the battery switch. It will
work for a few weeks then next flight, nothing. Any thoughts?
Chris
Sent from my iPhone
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 |
|
DZ said: "Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with
TBO"
I am not totally sure even on a Standard Category aircraft you are "required" to
comply with a recommended time between overhaul are you?
That said, Airframe Directives are another story entirely.
If an Experimental Exhibition aircraft has say and ENGINE that is certified, or
a PROP that is certified, then those major assemblies do not become "Experimental"
simply because they are put on an airplane that is in that category. Let
me stick with what I know and say that my UTVA-66 that has a certified Lycoming
GSO-480B1J6 engine and a certified Hartzell prop. Both of those pieces are
subject to AD's and if an AD is written, then I as the owner must comply with
the AD or the INTENT of the AD. As for what "intent" means, let's say I replaced
one of the two mags with an approved electronic ignition. If an AD came
out on that mag, I would be OK, since I complied with the intent of the AD by
replacing the mag under question with something else. So if you put a CERTIFIED
prop on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you must comply with all airframe directives
for that prop.
This is 99.9% useless information because our M-14 and Housai engines and props
were NEVER certified, so the whole kit and ka-boodle of the YAK, CJ, Sukhoi aircraft
line is Experimental and everything DZ said concerning our particular
aircraft is spot on. I also BELIEVE that the MT-9-260 prop series was never
certified, but I am not SURE of that. If they are, then AD compliance is mandatory,
but I don't think TBO's are.
Comments from Walt or anyone else with more experience are welcome.
Mark
----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pilotdog57
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: MT Prop TBO
Wow- makes one wonder what the requirements are for the 3 blade Whirlwind is in
that regard.
Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with TBO- but
that may not sit well with MT on future service needs.
DZ
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:49 PM, Byron Fox <byronmfox@gmail.com> wrote:
Many of us are running MT props on our Yak 50/52s and M-14P converted CJs.
I starting thinking about our MT prop today. So, I went to MT's web site and looked
at the listed TBOs.
Scrolled down to page 5 of the TBO PDF file to find the list of MT prop/M-14P
combinations. All indicate 1,000 hours or 72 months.
Not a pleasant surprise. We're about 12+ months away albeit with only 500+ hours.
Local MT approved prop shop prices the overhaul at $6,100. Aghhh!
Blitz Fox
415-307-2405
D============================================
ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
D============================================
//forums.matronics.com
D============================================
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D============================================
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 |
|
If anyone in California is interested in purchasing a new MT prop, I can save you
money and I can install and balance it for you also.
Contact me off line
Thanks,
Kregg Victory
Victory Aero
2502 John Montgomery Dr.
San Jose, CA 95148
408-836-5122
www.victoryhangar.com
www.balancemyprop.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 11:21 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: MT Prop TBO
--> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
DZ said: "Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with
TBO"
I am not totally sure even on a Standard Category aircraft you are "required" to
comply with a recommended time between overhaul are you?
That said, Airframe Directives are another story entirely.
If an Experimental Exhibition aircraft has say and ENGINE that is certified, or
a PROP that is certified, then those major assemblies do not become "Experimental"
simply because they are put on an airplane that is in that category. Let
me stick with what I know and say that my UTVA-66 that has a certified Lycoming
GSO-480B1J6 engine and a certified Hartzell prop. Both of those pieces are
subject to AD's and if an AD is written, then I as the owner must comply with
the AD or the INTENT of the AD. As for what "intent" means, let's say I replaced
one of the two mags with an approved electronic ignition. If an AD came
out on that mag, I would be OK, since I complied with the intent of the AD by
replacing the mag under question with something else. So if you put a CERTIFIED
prop on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you must comply with all airframe directives
for that prop.
This is 99.9% useless information because our M-14 and Housai engines and props
were NEVER certified, so the whole kit and ka-boodle of the YAK, CJ, Sukhoi aircraft
line is Experimental and everything DZ said concerning our particular
aircraft is spot on. I also BELIEVE that the MT-9-260 prop series was never
certified, but I am not SURE of that. If they are, then AD compliance is mandatory,
but I don't think TBO's are.
Comments from Walt or anyone else with more experience are welcome.
Mark
----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pilotdog57
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: MT Prop TBO
Wow- makes one wonder what the requirements are for the 3 blade Whirlwind is in
that regard.
Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with TBO- but
that may not sit well with MT on future service needs.
DZ
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:49 PM, Byron Fox <byronmfox@gmail.com> wrote:
Many of us are running MT props on our Yak 50/52s and M-14P converted CJs.
I starting thinking about our MT prop today. So, I went to MT's web site and looked
at the listed TBOs.
Scrolled down to page 5 of the TBO PDF file to find the list of MT prop/M-14P
combinations. All indicate 1,000 hours or 72 months.
Not a pleasant surprise. We're about 12+ months away albeit with only 500+ hours.
Local MT approved prop shop prices the overhaul at $6,100. Aghhh!
Blitz Fox
415-307-2405
D============================================
ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
D============================================
//forums.matronics.com
D============================================
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D============================================
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: | AirVenture '14 / Pneumatic Puzzle Solved? |
Hi=2C All!
I just wanted to send out a big THANK YOU to all who stopped-by to introduc
e themselves / chat at OSH. Having a Warbird on the field at EAA was the re
alization of a lifelong dream for me - made even better by some great peopl
e pulling me into their circles. Redstar representation was respectable in
the air and on the ground=2C AEROSTARS ROCKED THE HOUSE (as usual) and I wa
s very proud to be (remotely) associated w/ it all!
For those of you who followed my many pneumatic trials and tribulations=2C
I believe I have finally found the answer. If you are able to recall=2C I b
rought my Yak home on a trailer from New Jersey to Central WI in November
=2C 2011. It had suffered a substantial engine fire. I believed at the time
I had purchased a firewall-back project and I would now need to find a sui
table FWF. But when we started cleaning it up=2C things looked more promisi
ng than we'd originally thought. Compression was solid and after a carb=2C
oil / fuel pump rebuild=2C ignition upgrade and all new hoses and wiring=2C
we had our 1st successful engine run on Easter Sunday=2C 2012. A few month
s later the plane was test flown by 2 local Yak pilots who said the pneumat
ic system was not meeting operational needs. After cleaning the fittings an
d de-gunking as much as possible=2C there was still no noticeable recharge
on ground-runs. I replaced the compressor w/ a recently rebuilt unit I purc
hased from a private party. After 1:40 of flight time=2C the compressor des
troyed itself. It sheared the four (4) studs that hold the compressor cylin
der to the base - and sent a snowfall of magnesium shavings into my oil sys
tem - as well as "painted" the entire right wing root and fuselage in oil.
We landed without incident. Convinced I had bought a bad compressor=2C I se
nt my original out to be rebuilt. After an oil change and screen-check=2C w
e fired up again and that compressor failed after 40 minutes of flight time
. We again had a safe landing. Same thing: the cylinder separated from the
base - actually shearing the studs - and there were magnesium shavings ever
ywhere=2C oil bath=2C etc. This time the compressor blew off the top segmen
t that retains the filter=2C as well as ripped through the safety wire hold
ing the output fittings and these parts were ejected and lost in flight. Th
ese were signs of a very violent demise. I sent out both compressors and th
ere were enough good parts to build one (1) functional compressor. I also s
ent out the shear coupling and "crucifix" off the firewall to verify the in
tegrity of the check valves=2C pop-off valve and air filter. Upon its retur
n=2C I re-installed it all and ran it on the ground=2C and it also started
to come apart. The cylinder had - once again - began to separate from the b
ase of the compressor. Although we caught it early=2C on the ground=2C and
this time the hold-down nuts had only begun to de-thread. I sent out that c
ompressor and it was reassembled and deemed airworthy. This time I also rep
laced the drive gear and shear coupling - thinking maybe there was some bad
geometry there - seeing as how there had been a fire and all - and the pri
or wrenching on the aircraft seemed both minimal and questionable. After a
few ground runs=2C the compressor held up - but there was no evidence of th
e air recharging. Once again=2C I started pulling air lines to confirm clea
r passage. All were good and there was no sign of any cracks=2C etc. I pull
ed the compressor AGAIN (Sadly - I have this routine DOWN!) to verify that
the shear coupling was intact. It was. There was no sign of any "hydro-lock
" - the popular analysis from many. There was no sign of oil starvation - t
he 2nd most popular off-site diagnosis. I then went through all the firewal
l components. The LAST item I pulled off and checked was the in-line air fi
lter at the bottom of the firewall cluster. The dime-sized "wafer" element
contained within was 100% blocked shut with an oily=2C rigid=2C carbon depo
sit. No air was capable of passing through it. For those unfamiliar w/ the
system=2C this filter is THE filter for the pneumatic system. It would appe
ar my Yak had suffered a "stroke." I pulled the element and temporarily re-
installed the filter housing. Upon run-up=2C there was an immediately notic
eable movement of the air gauge - the system was charging. I installed a ne
w element. Where as before=2C I never exceeded 1:40 of run time without the
compressor committing suicide=2C now - after 39 hours of issue-free run /
flight time=2C I feel reasonably safe in saying this was likely the cause o
f my many problems...a $17 air filter element. I believe it was constricted
when the plane came home. So some air was passing. And as the constriction
tightened=2C so did the life expectancy of the compressor diminish.
In sharing this info w/ a few other owners=2C the feedback was about a 70/3
0 split between "congrats" and "there's no way that was the problem." All I
can offer is my compressor finally seems content to both take off AND land
w/ the rest of the aircraft. I submit this info to the list in a humble at
tempt to possibly aid anyone encountering similar frustrations and consider
able cost. I am not in the league of many who truly "know" these planes - b
ut I have learned much simply through asking=2C experimenting and determina
tion. I was told several times by very qualified parties=2C "You are screwi
ng something up." I wish it had been that simple. I would've happily eaten
crow to abbreviate this nearly 2-year=2C expensive and frustrating trouble-
shooting journey. But suffice to say=2C I am THRILLED it would appear I fin
ally have a functional aircraft. Parking N21YK in Warbirds at OSH was a per
sonal victory that I would be hard-pressed to adequately put into words. It
was a wonderful experience to - at last - NOT be looking in from the outsi
de.
Next quest: FAST CARD! :)
Cheers=2C Y'all!
Rico Jaeger
915 S. 11th Ave.
Wausau=2C WI. 54401
715.529.7426
//
1966 Cessna 150F ^/---//-X
N8558G //
//
1992 Yakovlev Yak 52 ^/---//-X
N21YK //
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 |
|
Good points- maybe some versions of MT Props that we run on our M14Ps are certified
because of European regulations?
Don't know if that affects us in the States?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:20 AM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
wrote:
>
>
> DZ said: "Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply
with TBO"
>
> I am not totally sure even on a Standard Category aircraft you are "required"
to comply with a recommended time between overhaul are you?
>
> That said, Airframe Directives are another story entirely.
>
> If an Experimental Exhibition aircraft has say and ENGINE that is certified,
or a PROP that is certified, then those major assemblies do not become "Experimental"
simply because they are put on an airplane that is in that category.
Let me stick with what I know and say that my UTVA-66 that has a certified Lycoming
GSO-480B1J6 engine and a certified Hartzell prop. Both of those pieces
are subject to AD's and if an AD is written, then I as the owner must comply with
the AD or the INTENT of the AD. As for what "intent" means, let's say I replaced
one of the two mags with an approved electronic ignition. If an AD came
out on that mag, I would be OK, since I complied with the intent of the AD
by replacing the mag under question with something else. So if you put a CERTIFIED
prop on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you must comply with all airframe directives
for that prop.
>
> This is 99.9% useless information because our M-14 and Housai engines and props
were NEVER certified, so the whole kit and ka-boodle of the YAK, CJ, Sukhoi
aircraft line is Experimental and everything DZ said concerning our particular
aircraft is spot on. I also BELIEVE that the MT-9-260 prop series was never
certified, but I am not SURE of that. If they are, then AD compliance is mandatory,
but I don't think TBO's are.
>
> Comments from Walt or anyone else with more experience are welcome.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> ----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pilotdog57
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 1:14 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: MT Prop TBO
>
> Wow- makes one wonder what the requirements are for the 3 blade Whirlwind is
in that regard.
> Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with TBO- but
that may not sit well with MT on future service needs.
>
> DZ
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:49 PM, Byron Fox <byronmfox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Many of us are running MT props on our Yak 50/52s and M-14P converted CJs.
>
>
> I starting thinking about our MT prop today. So, I went to MT's web site and
looked at the listed TBOs.
>
>
> Scrolled down to page 5 of the TBO PDF file to find the list of MT prop/M-14P
combinations. All indicate 1,000 hours or 72 months.
>
>
> Not a pleasant surprise. We're about 12+ months away albeit with only 500+
hours. Local MT approved prop shop prices the overhaul at $6,100. Aghhh!
>
> Blitz Fox
> 415-307-2405
>
>
> D============================================
> ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> D============================================
> //forums.matronics.com
> D============================================
> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> D============================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Has to be certified in the States for it to matter to us. Europe is its own bag
of worms.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Zeissner
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: MT Prop TBO
Good points- maybe some versions of MT Props that we run on our M14Ps are certified
because of European regulations?
Don't know if that affects us in the States?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:20 AM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
wrote:
>
> --> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> DZ said: "Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply
with TBO"
>
> I am not totally sure even on a Standard Category aircraft you are "required"
to comply with a recommended time between overhaul are you?
>
> That said, Airframe Directives are another story entirely.
>
> If an Experimental Exhibition aircraft has say and ENGINE that is certified,
or a PROP that is certified, then those major assemblies do not become "Experimental"
simply because they are put on an airplane that is in that category.
Let me stick with what I know and say that my UTVA-66 that has a certified Lycoming
GSO-480B1J6 engine and a certified Hartzell prop. Both of those pieces
are subject to AD's and if an AD is written, then I as the owner must comply with
the AD or the INTENT of the AD. As for what "intent" means, let's say I replaced
one of the two mags with an approved electronic ignition. If an AD came
out on that mag, I would be OK, since I complied with the intent of the AD
by replacing the mag under question with something else. So if you put a CERTIFIED
prop on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you must comply with all airframe directives
for that prop.
>
> This is 99.9% useless information because our M-14 and Housai engines and props
were NEVER certified, so the whole kit and ka-boodle of the YAK, CJ, Sukhoi
aircraft line is Experimental and everything DZ said concerning our particular
aircraft is spot on. I also BELIEVE that the MT-9-260 prop series was never
certified, but I am not SURE of that. If they are, then AD compliance is mandatory,
but I don't think TBO's are.
>
> Comments from Walt or anyone else with more experience are welcome.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pilotdog57
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 1:14 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: MT Prop TBO
>
> Wow- makes one wonder what the requirements are for the 3 blade Whirlwind is
in that regard.
> Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with TBO- but
that may not sit well with MT on future service needs.
>
> DZ
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:49 PM, Byron Fox <byronmfox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Many of us are running MT props on our Yak 50/52s and M-14P converted CJs.
>
>
> I starting thinking about our MT prop today. So, I went to MT's web site and
looked at the listed TBOs.
>
>
> Scrolled down to page 5 of the TBO PDF file to find the list of MT prop/M-14P
combinations. All indicate 1,000 hours or 72 months.
>
>
> Not a pleasant surprise. We're about 12+ months away albeit with only 500+
hours. Local MT approved prop shop prices the overhaul at $6,100. Aghhh!
>
> Blitz Fox
> 415-307-2405
>
>
> D============================================
> ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> D============================================
> //forums.matronics.com
> D============================================
> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> D======================
> =====================
>
>
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 |
|
Generally speaking:
- AD's are mandatory for all aircraft regardless of certification basis. Som
e experimental aircraft can be exempted with a letter from the FAA
- Unless an aircraft is used for commercial passenger carrying or rental TBO
's (calendar and time) as well as SB's are recommendations only.
- I am not currently aware of any AD's on MT props.
Todd McCutchan
T-34A & Yak-50
Cell: (260) 402-1740
E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com
www.fastaircraft.com
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 8:20 PM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitt
erlich@navy.mil> wrote:
>
bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> DZ said: "Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comp
ly with TBO"
>
> I am not totally sure even on a Standard Category aircraft you are "requir
ed" to comply with a recommended time between overhaul are you?
>
> That said, Airframe Directives are another story entirely.
>
> If an Experimental Exhibition aircraft has say and ENGINE that is certifie
d, or a PROP that is certified, then those major assemblies do not become "E
xperimental" simply because they are put on an airplane that is in that cate
gory. Let me stick with what I know and say that my UTVA-66 that has a cert
ified Lycoming GSO-480B1J6 engine and a certified Hartzell prop. Both of th
ose pieces are subject to AD's and if an AD is written, then I as the owner m
ust comply with the AD or the INTENT of the AD. As for what "intent" means,
let's say I replaced one of the two mags with an approved electronic igniti
on. If an AD came out on that mag, I would be OK, since I complied with the
intent of the AD by replacing the mag under question with something else. S
o if you put a CERTIFIED prop on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you must comply w
ith all airframe directives for that prop.
>
> This is 99.9% useless information because our M-14 and Housai engines and p
rops were NEVER certified, so the whole kit and ka-boodle of the YAK, CJ, Su
khoi aircraft line is Experimental and everything DZ said concerning our par
ticular aircraft is spot on. I also BELIEVE that the MT-9-260 prop series w
as never certified, but I am not SURE of that. If they are, then AD compli
ance is mandatory, but I don't think TBO's are.
>
> Comments from Walt or anyone else with more experience are welcome.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> ----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@ma
tronics.com] On Behalf Of Pilotdog57
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 1:14 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: MT Prop TBO
>
> Wow- makes one wonder what the requirements are for the 3 blade Whirlwind i
s in that regard.
> Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with TBO
- but that may not sit well with MT on future service needs.
>
> DZ
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:49 PM, Byron Fox <byronmfox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Many of us are running MT props on our Yak 50/52s and M-14P converted C
Js.
>
>
> I starting thinking about our MT prop today. So, I went to MT's web sit
e and looked at the listed TBOs.
>
>
> Scrolled down to page 5 of the TBO PDF file to find the list of MT prop
/M-14P combinations. All indicate 1,000 hours or 72 months.
>
>
> Not a pleasant surprise. We're about 12+ months away albeit with only 5
00+ hours. Local MT approved prop shop prices the overhaul at $6,100. Aghhh!
>
> Blitz Fox
> 415-307-2405
>
>
> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
> ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
> //forums.matronics.com
> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>
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 |
|
There are still some MT3 hubs out there.
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Todd McCutchan
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: MT Prop TBO
Generally speaking:
- AD's are mandatory for all aircraft regardless of certification basis.
Some experimental aircraft can be exempted with a letter from the FAA
- Unless an aircraft is used for commercial passenger carrying or rental
TBO's (calendar and time) as well as SB's are recommendations only.
- I am not currently aware of any AD's on MT props.
Todd McCutchan
T-34A & Yak-50
Cell: (260) 402-1740
E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com
www.fastaircraft.com
On Aug 4, 2014, at 8:20 PM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD"
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
DZ said: "Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to
comply with TBO"
I am not totally sure even on a Standard Category aircraft you are
"required" to comply with a recommended time between overhaul are you?
That said, Airframe Directives are another story entirely.
If an Experimental Exhibition aircraft has say and ENGINE that is
certified, or a PROP that is certified, then those major assemblies do
not become "Experimental" simply because they are put on an airplane
that is in that category. Let me stick with what I know and say that my
UTVA-66 that has a certified Lycoming GSO-480B1J6 engine and a certified
Hartzell prop. Both of those pieces are subject to AD's and if an AD is
written, then I as the owner must comply with the AD or the INTENT of
the AD. As for what "intent" means, let's say I replaced one of the two
mags with an approved electronic ignition. If an AD came out on that
mag, I would be OK, since I complied with the intent of the AD by
replacing the mag under question with something else. So if you put a
CERTIFIED prop on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you must comply with all
airframe directives for that prop.
This is 99.9% useless information because our M-14 and Housai engines
and props were NEVER certified, so the whole kit and ka-boodle of the
YAK, CJ, Sukhoi aircraft line is Experimental and everything DZ said
concerning our particular aircraft is spot on. I also BELIEVE that the
MT-9-260 prop series was never certified, but I am not SURE of that.
If they are, then AD compliance is mandatory, but I don't think TBO's
are.
Comments from Walt or anyone else with more experience are welcome.
Mark
----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pilotdog57
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: MT Prop TBO
Wow- makes one wonder what the requirements are for the 3 blade
Whirlwind is in that regard.
Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with
TBO- but that may not sit well with MT on future service needs.
DZ
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:49 PM, Byron Fox <byronmfox@gmail.com> wrote:
Many of us are running MT props on our Yak 50/52s and M-14P converted
CJs.
I starting thinking about our MT prop today. So, I went to MT's web
site and looked at the listed TBOs.
Scrolled down to page 5 of the TBO PDF file to find the list of MT
prop/M-14P combinations. All indicate 1,000 hours or 72 months.
Not a pleasant surprise. We're about 12+ months away albeit with only
500+ hours. Local MT approved prop shop prices the overhaul at $6,100.
Aghhh!
Blitz Fox
415-307-2405
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
<========================
==; - The Yak-List Email Forum
-m/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List===
=================
_ &n-->
http://www.matronic==================
===== <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
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 |
|
the YAK sac that fits in the rear compartment of 52
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427965#427965
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 |
|
Maybe the question that Blitz needs an answer to is how MT would view his fu
ture service if he does not comply with TBO?
Sent from my iPad
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Todd McCutchan <todd@fastaircraft.com> wrote:
>
> Generally speaking:
>
> - AD's are mandatory for all aircraft regardless of certification basis. S
ome experimental aircraft can be exempted with a letter from the FAA
>
> - Unless an aircraft is used for commercial passenger carrying or rental T
BO's (calendar and time) as well as SB's are recommendations only.
>
> - I am not currently aware of any AD's on MT props.
>
> Todd McCutchan
> T-34A & Yak-50
> Cell: (260) 402-1740
> E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com
> www.fastaircraft.com
>
>
>
>> On Aug 4, 2014, at 8:20 PM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bit
terlich@navy.mil> wrote:
>>
.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>
>> DZ said: "Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to com
ply with TBO"
>>
>> I am not totally sure even on a Standard Category aircraft you are "requi
red" to comply with a recommended time between overhaul are you?
>>
>> That said, Airframe Directives are another story entirely.
>>
>> If an Experimental Exhibition aircraft has say and ENGINE that is certifi
ed, or a PROP that is certified, then those major assemblies do not become "
Experimental" simply because they are put on an airplane that is in that cat
egory. Let me stick with what I know and say that my UTVA-66 that has a cer
tified Lycoming GSO-480B1J6 engine and a certified Hartzell prop. Both of t
hose pieces are subject to AD's and if an AD is written, then I as the owner
must comply with the AD or the INTENT of the AD. As for what "intent" mean
s, let's say I replaced one of the two mags with an approved electronic igni
tion. If an AD came out on that mag, I would be OK, since I complied with t
he intent of the AD by replacing the mag under question with something else.
So if you put a CERTIFIED prop on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you must compl
y with all airframe directives for that prop.
>>
>> This is 99.9% useless information because our M-14 and Housai engines and
props were NEVER certified, so the whole kit and ka-boodle of the YAK, CJ, S
ukhoi aircraft line is Experimental and everything DZ said concerning our pa
rticular aircraft is spot on. I also BELIEVE that the MT-9-260 prop series
was never certified, but I am not SURE of that. If they are, then AD comp
liance is mandatory, but I don't think TBO's are.
>>
>> Comments from Walt or anyone else with more experience are welcome.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>>
>> ----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Pilotdog57
>> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 1:14 AM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: MT Prop TBO
>>
>> Wow- makes one wonder what the requirements are for the 3 blade Whirlwind
is in that regard.
>> Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with TB
O- but that may not sit well with MT on future service needs.
>>
>> DZ
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:49 PM, Byron Fox <byronmfox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Many of us are running MT props on our Yak 50/52s and M-14P converted C
Js.
>>
>>
>> I starting thinking about our MT prop today. So, I went to MT's web si
te and looked at the listed TBOs.
>>
>>
>> Scrolled down to page 5 of the TBO PDF file to find the list of MT pro
p/M-14P combinations. All indicate 1,000 hours or 72 months.
>>
>>
>> Not a pleasant surprise. We're about 12+ months away albeit with only 5
00+ hours. Local MT approved prop shop prices the overhaul at $6,100. Aghhh!
>>
>> Blitz Fox
>> 415-307-2405
>>
>>
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>> ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <========================
==; - The Yak-List Email Forum -m/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List===============
==========================
====
>>
>> _ &n--> http://www.matronic========
==========================
=============
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 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: AirVenture '14 / Pneumatic Puzzle Solved? |
Congrats!=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Monday, August 4, 2014 11:48 AM, Rico Jaeger <rockn
pilot@hotmail.com> wrote:=0A =0A=0A=0A =0AHi, All!=0A=0AI just wanted to se
nd out a big THANK YOU to all who stopped-by to introduce themselves / chat
at OSH. Having a Warbird on the field at EAA was the realization of a life
long dream for me - made even better by some great people pulling me into t
heir circles. Redstar representation was respectable in the air and on the
ground, AEROSTARS ROCKED THE HOUSE (as usual) and I was very proud to be (r
emotely) associated w/ it all!=0A=0AFor those of you who followed my many p
neumatic trials and tribulations, I believe I have finally found the answer
. If you are able to recall, I brought my Yak home on a trailer from New Je
rsey to Central WI in November, 2011. It had suffered a substantial engine
fire. I believed at the time I had purchased a firewall-back project and I
would now need to find a suitable FWF. But when we started cleaning it up,
things looked more promising than we'd originally thought. Compression was
solid and after a carb, oil / fuel pump rebuild, ignition upgrade and all n
ew hoses and wiring, we had our 1st successful engine run on Easter Sunday,
2012. A few months later the plane was test flown by 2 local Yak pilots wh
o said the pneumatic system was not meeting operational needs. After cleani
ng the fittings and de-gunking as much as possible, there was still no noti
ceable recharge on ground-runs. I replaced the compressor w/ a recently reb
uilt unit I purchased from a
private party. After 1:40 of flight time, the compressor destroyed itself.
It sheared the four (4) studs that hold the compressor cylinder to the bas
e - and sent a snowfall of magnesium shavings into my oil system - as well
as "painted" the entire right wing root and fuselage in oil. We landed with
out incident. Convinced I had bought a bad compressor, I sent my original o
ut to be rebuilt. After an oil change and screen-check, we fired up again a
nd that compressor failed after 40 minutes of flight time. We again had a s
afe landing. Same thing: the cylinder separated from the base - actually sh
earing the studs - and there were magnesium shavings everywhere, oil bath,
etc. This time the compressor blew off the top segment that retains the fil
ter, as well as ripped through the safety wire holding the output fittings
and these parts were ejected and lost in flight. These were signs of a very
violent demise. I sent out both compressors and there were enough
good parts to build one (1) functional compressor. I also sent out the she
ar coupling and "crucifix" off the firewall to verify the integrity of the
check valves, pop-off valve and air filter. Upon its return, I re-installed
it all and ran it on the ground, and it also started to come apart. The cy
linder had - once again - began to separate from the base of the compressor
. Although we caught it early, on the ground, and this time the hold-down n
uts had only begun to de-thread. I sent out that compressor and it was reas
sembled and deemed airworthy. This time I also replaced the drive gear and
shear coupling - thinking maybe there was some bad geometry there - seeing
as how there had been a fire and all - and the prior wrenching on the aircr
aft seemed both minimal and questionable. After a few ground runs, the comp
ressor held up - but there was no evidence of the air recharging. Once agai
n, I started pulling air lines to confirm clear passage. All were
good and there was no sign of any cracks, etc. I pulled the compressor AGA
IN (Sadly - I have this routine DOWN!) to verify that the shear coupling wa
s intact. It was. There was no sign of any "hydro-lock" - the popular analy
sis from many. There was no sign of oil starvation - the 2nd most popular o
ff-site diagnosis. I then went through all the firewall components. The LAS
T item I pulled off and checked was the in-line air filter at the bottom of
the firewall cluster. The dime-sized "wafer" element contained within was
100% blocked shut with an oily, rigid, carbon deposit. No air was capable o
f passing through it. For those unfamiliar w/ the system, this filter is TH
E filter for the pneumatic system. It would appear my Yak had suffered a "s
troke." I pulled the element and temporarily re-installed the filter housin
g. Upon run-up, there was an immediately noticeable movement of the air gau
ge - the system was charging. I installed a new element. Where as
before, I never exceeded 1:40 of run time without the compressor committin
g suicide, now - after 39 hours of issue-free run / flight time, I feel rea
sonably safe in saying this was likely the cause of my many problems...a $1
7 air filter element. I believe it was constricted when the plane came home
. So some air was passing. And as the constriction tightened, so did the li
fe expectancy of the compressor diminish.=0A=0AIn sharing this info w/ a fe
w other owners, the feedback was about a 70/30 split between "congrats" and
"there's no way that was the problem." All I can offer is my compressor fi
nally seems content to both take off AND land w/ the rest of the aircraft.
I submit this info to the list in a humble attempt to possibly aid anyone e
ncountering similar frustrations and considerable cost. I am not in the lea
gue of many who truly "know" these planes - but I have learned much simply
through asking, experimenting and determination. I was told several times b
y very qualified parties, "You are screwing something up." I wish it had be
en that simple. I would've happily eaten crow to abbreviate this nearly 2-y
ear, expensive and frustrating trouble-shooting journey. But suffice to say
, I am THRILLED it would appear I finally have a functional aircraft. Parki
ng N21YK in Warbirds at OSH was a personal victory that I would be hard-pre
ssed to adequately put into words. It
was a wonderful experience to - at last - NOT be looking in from the outsi
de.-=0A=0ANext quest: FAST CARD! :)=0A=0ACheers, Y'all!=0A=0ARico Jaeger
=0A915 S. 11th Ave. - - - - - - - - -=0AWausau, WI. 54401
- --=0A715.529.7426 - - - - - - - - - -=0A-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - //=0A1966 Cessna 150F
-------------------------
-- ^/---//-X=0AN8558G - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -//=0A- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- //-------------- =0A1992 Yakovlev Yak 52-
---^/---//-X=0AN21YK - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - -//=0A-----------------
-------------------------
=================
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: | M14P mixture adjustment? |
I have not, both have been working fine for 3+ years. Also, I doubt that
both would have gone bad. Since the delta between them hasn't changed in 2
years, I can't see that it is both probes.
I'm not the only one I've heard with the issue. I know of at least 2 others
that run their M14PF (in a TW and a 52), get med-high CHTs, but the Oil
temps are low.
However, I'll figure out a way to check them, just to be sure. That is why
I asked it here.
Thanks,
Bear
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV NAVAIR, WD
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 12:24 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14P mixture adjustment?
--> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Bear,
Have you checked the calibration on your oil temp sending probe?
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DaBear
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 3:46 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14P mixture adjustment?
I wanted to get back to you Mark, Thanks for your thoughts, I didn't know
that about the flat engines. As to engine temps, however I'm not seeing
the same thing.
I understand what you are saying regarding very RICH engines. However, I'm
NOT having any problem seeing CHT's at 380-400 deg F (M14p manual says
428degF max continuous CHT temp) at level cruise. If I'm not careful, the
chts can rise fast on climb out. The engine gets warm enough. I'm seeing
OIL temp rise through engine of 25-26C but typically in cruise still only
see 124 deg F oil temp and that is with CHTs at 380-390 deg F. I really
wouldn't want to run the M14P at 400-428 deg F even though the book says its
ok.
So why the low OIL temps when CHT's are in the normal range?
I typically run at 2400RPM and full throttle on climb, 2400RPM and an inch
back from full throttle for everything else.
Bear
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bitterlich, Mark G
CIV NAVAIR, WD
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 6:31 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14P mixture adjustment?
--> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Bear,
Regarding your design premises for flat engines, keep in mind this is only
true for those with a wet sump. For those with a dry sump, which is a
whole lot of them, such as the GSO-480 series for example, they too have an
external oil tank where most of the oil is outside of the engine case.
Just something to keep in mind. I also fly a UTVA-66 with a dry sump
GSO-480 with an auto-mixture adjust pressure carb. I can control EGT, and
thus CHT and oil temp with a simple push of the throttle by a VAST amount.
If I keep RPM up high (3200 or so) and pull the throttle back to say 38
inches (this is a blown engine remember, with max manifold of 48 inches), I
can run the EGT's right up into the danger area in seconds. I control CHT
and Oil Temp with the throttle... and that was an interesting lesson to
learn believe me.
I do not have the external temperature equipment that you have on my M-14P.
That said, oil temperature in M-14 engines flying aerobatics using the
standard probe locations and standard stock instrumentation has ALWAYS been
an issue (meaning they tend to run very high), and many attempts have been
made to address this in all models, such as cooler relocation, bigger
coolers, wing root changes to add the oil cooler there, etc.
Personally, my YAK-50 in hot weather will run the oil temp right into the
red if you let it. Such as on an extended climb. This is true for every
YAK and Sukhoi I have ever dealt with.
So your statement that the oil runs so cool as to not even boil off the
water runs counter to every single experience I have had with these engines.
The only time I have seen anything near to what you are talking about is
when the engines are run WAY WAY RICH. The amount of fuel you dump into
this engine makes a HUGE HUGE difference on engine temperature very much the
same as the UTVA-66. And the carbs between the two are very similar in the
way they work.
For my airplane, speed is the main issue. If I run high power settings in
the summer, I have to push the nose over and get some speed to get the oil
temp down. However, I am climbing at 85% or HIGHER at full throttle.
Yeah, I know a lot of folks like to baby these engines and that is fine, but
I have found them to run better when I push them hard. So far .....at over
800 hours, the only engine issues I have had were with leaded up exhaust
valves and that is when I was trying to be ever so careful with the engine.
Of course MMO fixed all that ....... but I think personally it was because I
started running the engine a lot harder and kept it hot. That opinion and 2
cents might buy you a glass of water, however that is what I do, and it
works for me. As for anyone else.... you're on your own. :-)
Mark
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] on behalf of DaBear
[dabear@damned.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14P mixture adjustment?
Disclaimer NOTE: I'm just typing while my mind thinks, this is my opinion,
not an opinion of an expert. Although, I AM an expert ON my opinions. :)
In the flat engines, the oil is mostly in the engine and a little is in
cooler. In the CJ and Yak oil is mostly in the oil tank, with a little in
the engine and a little in the oil cooler. Therefore, the system has lower
temp oil overall through the process. It could be that the temp probe for
the flat engine is in the engine or on the outlet side. I couldn't get the
outlet side oil temps anywhere near 240DegF.
Also interesting is that in these engines, Housai, M14P and now my M14PF, it
has been extremely difficult to impossible to get the oil temp on the
outbound side of the engine up to 212deg F to "boil off" any
water/condensation from the oil. The oil temps in the system tend to run
cold even in the heat of summer. For example, running a week or so ago with
OAT around 90DegF, Altitude around 2-3k feet, airspeed at 145-150kts, power
at max continuous, oil inlet temps were 124degF with oil cooler door closed.
Oil outlet only got to 170degF. The oil cooler was changed (New) as of 800
hours ago, so it is warn. I'm running 25w60 . Climb up to 9-12k of
altitude and power back a little and its hard to keep the oil temps above
115degF
For people running the M14P and PF in the summer. What are you seeing for
CHT temps on initial take off, cruise, climb? What are the power settings
you are using when seeing these tempts?
Bear
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Todd McCutchan
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: M14P mixture adjustment?
Max sustain 167 F and max 15 min is 185 F vs my recommended 170 F and max
continuous 240 F.
That seeks like a big difference.
Is it due to Russian oil or radial engine?
Todd McCutchan
T-34A & Yak-50
Cell: (260) 402-1740
E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com<mailto:todd@fastaircraft.com>
www.fastaircraft.com<http://www.fastaircraft.com/>
On Jul 9, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Robin Hou
<rmhou@yahoo.com<mailto:rmhou@yahoo.com>> wrote:
Bear's listed oil temps are the recommended minimum, not maximum. The format
makes the "Min" easy to miss.
On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 10:00 AM, Todd McCutchan
<todd@fastaircraft.com<mailto:todd@fastaircraft.com>> wrote:
Why are oil temps so much lower than flat six engines? Is this a radial
difference or a Russian oil difference?
On my IO-520 in my T-34 max oil is 240 F with 170 recommended.
Todd McCutchan
T-34A & Yak-50
Cell: (260) 402-1740
E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com<mailto:todd@fastaircraft.com>
www.fastaircraft.com<http://www.fastaircraft.com/>
On Jul 9, 2014, at 9:12 AM, "DaBear"
<dabear@damned.org<mailto:dabear@damned.org>> wrote:
Just a reminder about Oil and CHT Temps ... here is the info from the M14P
manual.
Oil Temps
Engine Inlet
C
C
F
F
Recommended
50
65
122
149
Min Permissible
40
104
Max Sustain
75
167
Max 15 Min
85
185
Max Delta in/Out
50
122
32
CHT
32
Recommended
140
190
284
374
Min
120
248
Min Prolonged
140
284
Max Prolonged
220
428
Max 15 Min
240
464
That is the recommendation from the folks that built the M14P. I recommend
keeping CHTs well below 400 for engine life. But operation is up to you.
Bear
From:
owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.c
om> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
om> Goode
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: M14P mixture adjustment?
200 is acceptable in the climb, but I would not want more than that. In
passing, the temperature senders on the sparking plugs are not that
accurate, and it is worth cleaning them and the seat on the cylinder well,
and also, possibly, moving the sender to another cylinder to check.
You refer to a "bleed jet" - to avoid confusion the Russian manual calls it
a suction jet. It is made in sizes of 1.3 mm to 2.0 mm, and by virtue of
being a compensating jet a smaller jet richens the mixture. It affects the
engine at medium and full power settings but not at idle. It does make a big
difference to cylinder head temperatures, and indeed to fuel consumption. We
recommend to owners to change the jets between summer and winter, and to use
the biggest jet that is compatible with engine temperatures being
acceptable.
I don't understand what you mean by the jets being "in series". There is
only one.
Changing them is easy, and the jet has its size stamped in very small
letters on the end.
We have stocks of all the commonly used sizes.
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com<http://www.russianaeros.com/>
From:
owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com<mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.c
om> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jerry
om> Painter
Sent: 09 July 2014 12:06
Subject: Yak-List: M14P mixture adjustment?
Got a Yak-18T that shows head temps of 200 gage on initial climb. Seems a
bit high tho it cools down at cruise power. Have not yet verified gage
accuracy. Am wondering if its running a bit lean. I don't see a full power
enrichment circuit in the carburetor dwgs or any adjustment other than bleed
air jets (apparently in series which makes no sense) in the main circuit
plus an adjustment on the AMC diaphragm rod. So I have a few questions: 1)
does anyone have bleed air jet sets for sale? 2) are the jets actually in
series? 3) Do the jets affect the idle, main or full power circuits? How do
you establish a baseline in order to evaluate changes made to the mixture
short of a flow bench?
Jerry Painter
Wild Blue Aviation
FlyWBA@gmail.com<mailto:FlyWBA@gmail.com>
FlyWBA.com<http://flywba.com/>
425-876-0865
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com<http://forums.matronics.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be clean.
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com<http://forums.matronics.com/>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D========================
===================
ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
D========================
===================
//forums.matronics.com<http://forums.matronics.com/>
D========================
===================
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D========================
===================
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-Li="nofollow" target="_blank"
href="http://www.matronics.com/contributi=
D========================
===================
ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
D========================
===================
//forums.matronics.com
D========================
===================
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D========================
===================
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
http://forums.matronics.com
< - List Contribution Web Site -
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
In my past experience it makes no difference.
Besides, MT proper is unlikely to be the ones overhauling. An authorizes pro
p repair shop would be.
Sometimes items well past TBO have much larger repair bills so the shops are
usually tickled to see over TBO items.
Todd McCutchan
T-34A & Yak-50
Cell: (260) 402-1740
E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com
www.fastaircraft.com
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 9:16 PM, Pilotdog57 <pilotdog57@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe the question that Blitz needs an answer to is how MT would view his f
uture service if he does not comply with TBO?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Aug 4, 2014, at 12:00 PM, Todd McCutchan <todd@fastaircraft.com> wrote
:
>>
>> Generally speaking:
>>
>> - AD's are mandatory for all aircraft regardless of certification basis. S
ome experimental aircraft can be exempted with a letter from the FAA
>>
>> - Unless an aircraft is used for commercial passenger carrying or rental T
BO's (calendar and time) as well as SB's are recommendations only.
>>
>> - I am not currently aware of any AD's on MT props.
>>
>> Todd McCutchan
>> T-34A & Yak-50
>> Cell: (260) 402-1740
>> E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com
>> www.fastaircraft.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 4, 2014, at 8:20 PM, "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bi
tterlich@navy.mil> wrote:
>>>
k.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>>
>>> DZ said: "Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to co
mply with TBO"
>>>
>>> I am not totally sure even on a Standard Category aircraft you are "requ
ired" to comply with a recommended time between overhaul are you?
>>>
>>> That said, Airframe Directives are another story entirely.
>>>
>>> If an Experimental Exhibition aircraft has say and ENGINE that is certif
ied, or a PROP that is certified, then those major assemblies do not become "
Experimental" simply because they are put on an airplane that is in that cat
egory. Let me stick with what I know and say that my UTVA-66 that has a cer
tified Lycoming GSO-480B1J6 engine and a certified Hartzell prop. Both of t
hose pieces are subject to AD's and if an AD is written, then I as the owner
must comply with the AD or the INTENT of the AD. As for what "intent" mean
s, let's say I replaced one of the two mags with an approved electronic igni
tion. If an AD came out on that mag, I would be OK, since I complied with t
he intent of the AD by replacing the mag under question with something else.
So if you put a CERTIFIED prop on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft, you must compl
y with all airframe directives for that prop.
>>>
>>> This is 99.9% useless information because our M-14 and Housai engines an
d props were NEVER certified, so the whole kit and ka-boodle of the YAK, CJ,
Sukhoi aircraft line is Experimental and everything DZ said concerning our p
articular aircraft is spot on. I also BELIEVE that the MT-9-260 prop serie
s was never certified, but I am not SURE of that. If they are, then AD com
pliance is mandatory, but I don't think TBO's are.
>>>
>>> Comments from Walt or anyone else with more experience are welcome.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@
matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pilotdog57
>>> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 1:14 AM
>>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: MT Prop TBO
>>>
>>> Wow- makes one wonder what the requirements are for the 3 blade Whirlwin
d is in that regard.
>>> Being that we are Experimental there is no legal reason to comply with T
BO- but that may not sit well with MT on future service needs.
>>>
>>> DZ
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:49 PM, Byron Fox <byronmfox@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Many of us are running MT props on our Yak 50/52s and M-14P converted
CJs.
>>>
>>>
>>> I starting thinking about our MT prop today. So, I went to MT's web s
ite and looked at the listed TBOs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Scrolled down to page 5 of the TBO PDF file to find the list of MT pr
op/M-14P combinations. All indicate 1,000 hours or 72 months.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not a pleasant surprise. We're about 12+ months away albeit with only
500+ hours. Local MT approved prop shop prices the overhaul at $6,100. Aghh
h!
>>>
>>> Blitz Fox
>>> 415-307-2405
>>>
>>>
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D
>>> ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D
>>> //forums.matronics.com
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D
>>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <========================
==; - The Yak-List Email Forum -m/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List===============
==========================
====
>>>
>>> _ &n--> http://www.matronic=======
==========================
==============
>>
>>
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> "3D"courier" new,courier"="">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-Lis
t
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> //forums.matronics.com
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 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: AirVenture '14 / Pneumatic Puzzle Solved? |
Rico,
Welcome to The YAK wrench bending club. Nothing surprises me on these damned
things now. Had to punch a hole in mine because I could not get the housing
parts to separate! Heating it only caught it on fire and sear the element t
urning the gunk in it to a solid carbon sheet. Luckily did not try flying it
like that.
The usual suspects did not have a replacement housing. The replacement filte
r element was useless without a replacement housing. Have not spent the time
to change out to the CJ pop off, and check valves. Yes, they do work but yo
u have to alter the addell clamp arrangement.
Doc
Sent from my iPad
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 1:35 PM, Rico Jaeger <rocknpilot@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, All!
>
> I just wanted to send out a big THANK YOU to all who stopped-by to introdu
ce themselves / chat at OSH. Having a Warbird on the field at EAA was the re
alization of a lifelong dream for me - made even better by some great people
pulling me into their circles. Redstar representation was respectable in th
e air and on the ground, AEROSTARS ROCKED THE HOUSE (as usual) and I was ver
y proud to be (remotely) associated w/ it all!
>
> For those of you who followed my many pneumatic trials and tribulations, I
believe I have finally found the answer. If you are able to recall, I broug
ht my Yak home on a trailer from New Jersey to Central WI in November, 2011.
It had suffered a substantial engine fire. I believed at the time I had pur
chased a firewall-back project and I would now need to find a suitable FWF. B
ut when we started cleaning it up, things looked more promising than we'd or
iginally thought. Compression was solid and after a carb, oil / fuel pump re
build, ignition upgrade and all new hoses and wiring, we had our 1st success
ful engine run on Easter Sunday, 2012. A few months later the plane was test
flown by 2 local Yak pilots who said the pneumatic system was not meeting o
perational needs. After cleaning the fittings and de-gunking as much as poss
ible, there was still no noticeable recharge on ground-runs. I replaced the c
ompressor w/ a recently rebuilt unit I purchased from a private party. After
1:40 of flight time, the compressor destroyed itself. It sheared the four (
4) studs that hold the compressor cylinder to the base - and sent a snowfall
of magnesium shavings into my oil system - as well as "painted" the entire r
ight wing root and fuselage in oil. We landed without incident. Convinced I h
ad bought a bad compressor, I sent my original out to be rebuilt. After an o
il change and screen-check, we fired up again and that compressor failed aft
er 40 minutes of flight time. We again had a safe landing. Same thing: the c
ylinder separated from the base - actually shearing the studs - and there we
re magnesium shavings everywhere, oil bath, etc. This time the compressor bl
ew off the top segment that retains the filter, as well as ripped through th
e safety wire holding the output fittings and these parts were ejected and l
ost in flight. These were signs of a very violent demise. I sent out both co
mpressors and there were enough good parts to build one (1) functional compr
essor. I also sent out the shear coupling and "crucifix" off the firewall to
verify the integrity of the check valves, pop-off valve and air filter. Upo
n its return, I re-installed it all and ran it on the ground, and it also st
arted to come apart. The cylinder had - once again - began to separate from t
he base of the compressor. Although we caught it early, on the ground, and t
his time the hold-down nuts had only begun to de-thread. I sent out that com
pressor and it was reassembled and deemed airworthy. This time I also replac
ed the drive gear and shear coupling - thinking maybe there was some bad geo
metry there - seeing as how there had been a fire and all - and the prior wr
enching on the aircraft seemed both minimal and questionable. After a few gr
ound runs, the compressor held up - but there was no evidence of the air rec
harging. Once again, I started pulling air lines to confirm clear passage. A
ll were good and there was no sign of any cracks, etc. I pulled the compress
or AGAIN (Sadly - I have this routine DOWN!) to verify that the shear coupli
ng was intact. It was. There was no sign of any "hydro-lock" - the popular a
nalysis from many. There was no sign of oil starvation - the 2nd most popula
r off-site diagnosis. I then went through all the firewall components. The L
AST item I pulled off and checked was the in-line air filter at the bottom o
f the firewall cluster. The dime-sized "wafer" element contained within was 1
00% blocked shut with an oily, rigid, carbon deposit. No air was capable of p
assing through it. For those unfamiliar w/ the system, this filter is THE fi
lter for the pneumatic system. It would appear my Yak had suffered a "stroke
." I pulled the element and temporarily re-installed the filter housing. Upo
n run-up, there was an immediately noticeable movement of the air gauge - th
e system was charging. I installed a new element. Where as before, I never e
xceeded 1:40 of run time without the compressor committing suicide, now - af
ter 39 hours of issue-free run / flight time, I feel reasonably safe in sayi
ng this was likely the cause of my many problems...a $17 air filter element.
I believe it was constricted when the plane came home. So some air was pass
ing. And as the constriction tightened, so did the life expectancy of the co
mpressor diminish.
>
> In sharing this info w/ a few other owners, the feedback was about a 70/30
split between "congrats" and "there's no way that was the problem." All I c
an offer is my compressor finally seems content to both take off AND land w/
the rest of the aircraft. I submit this info to the list in a humble attemp
t to possibly aid anyone encountering similar frustrations and considerable c
ost. I am not in the league of many who truly "know" these planes - but I ha
ve learned much simply through asking, experimenting and determination. I wa
s told several times by very qualified parties, "You are screwing something u
p." I wish it had been that simple. I would've happily eaten crow to abbrevi
ate this nearly 2-year, expensive and frustrating trouble-shooting journey. B
ut suffice to say, I am THRILLED it would appear I finally have a functional
aircraft. Parking N21YK in Warbirds at OSH was a personal victory that I wo
uld be hard-pressed to adequately put into words. It was a wonderful experie
nce to - at last - NOT be looking in from the outside.
>
> Next quest: FAST CARD! :)
>
> Cheers, Y'all!
>
> Rico Jaeger
> 915 S. 11th Ave.
> Wausau, WI. 54401
> 715.529.7426
> //
> 1966 Cessna 150F ^/---//-X
> N8558G //
> //
> 1992 Yakovlev Yak 52 ^/---//-X
> N21YK //
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 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 |
|
When MT blades are overhauled they are only done in Germany from what I understand.
The blades are stripped, inspected, repaired, re-glassed, painted and a
new stainless edge is installed and your time starts over.. The Hub can be overhauled
in the states and all service bulletins are complied with and there are
some of those. At overhaul all the seals , bolts and basically anything that
get wear or tightened is replaced.
I got the distinct impression that if you needed a repair after TBO that would
not happen per a agreement with MT. Same as the Russian MT , No Service at all
on those. Someone can correct me but that is what I ran into.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427994#427994
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: | MT Prop TBO - Whirlwind Is The Way To Go |
That is one of several reasons to go Whirlwind!!
The Whirlwind 3 Blade composite propeller service interval is 400 hours or 5
years and costs less than $1K... The hub gets an overhaul and time gets
reset to 0 hours since OH. Prop blades are inspected and buffed. If no
damage to blade, no work needed. If needed, that is done at additional cost
(they are very reasonable).
Whirlwind will never tell you "Oh Sorry - we're not supporting or even
touching your prop". You don't have to ship (as in expensive) to another
country for service either...
They're in OH, I am in South Florida - most everyone of you is closer to
them than me... :)
I did a "Product Review" video on my Whirlwind 3 blade prop a couple of
years ago - if you haven't seen it yet and thinking about getting a 3 blade
prop for your M-14P, you may want to see it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sFFD_XNpa4
Sam Sax
Miami, FL
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 10:47 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Re: MT Prop TBO
When MT blades are overhauled they are only done in Germany from what I
understand. The blades are stripped, inspected, repaired, re-glassed,
painted and a new stainless edge is installed and your time starts over..
The Hub can be overhauled in the states and all service bulletins are
complied with and there are some of those. At overhaul all the seals ,
bolts and basically anything that get wear or tightened is replaced.
I got the distinct impression that if you needed a repair after TBO that
would not happen per a agreement with MT. Same as the Russian MT , No
Service at all on those. Someone can correct me but that is what I ran
into.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427994#427994
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 |
|
This is very interesting!!!
So an MT prop beyond TBO is just trash then?
I will drop an email to MT to see about a more official word.
Todd McCutchan
T-34A & Yak-50
Cell: (260) 402-1740
E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com
www.fastaircraft.com
> On Aug 5, 2014, at 4:47 AM, "Dale" <dale@frii.com> wrote:
>
>
> When MT blades are overhauled they are only done in Germany from what I un
derstand. The blades are stripped, inspected, repaired, re-glassed, painted
and a new stainless edge is installed and your time starts over.. The Hub c
an be overhauled in the states and all service bulletins are complied with a
nd there are some of those. At overhaul all the seals , bolts and basically
anything that get wear or tightened is replaced.
> I got the distinct impression that if you needed a repair after TBO that w
ould not happen per a agreement with MT. Same as the Russian MT , No Servic
e at all on those. Someone can correct me but that is what I ran into.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427994#427994
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
>
>
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 |
|
I have an MT prop that has been serviced by an agent of MT in the UK, no
problem, with the full consent of Straubing.
But the RUSSIAN made MT props, that's another story (cfr Richard Goode).
MT Germany refuses to repair or overhaul them because of license fee issues.
BR,
Jan
From: Todd McCutchan <todd@fastaircraft.com>
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Re: MT Prop TBO
This is very interesting!!!
So an MT prop beyond TBO is just trash then?
I will drop an email to MT to see about a more official word.
Todd McCutchan
T-34A & Yak-50
Cell: (260) 402-1740
E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com
www.fastaircraft.com <http://www.fastaircraft.com>
On Aug 5, 2014, at 4:47 AM, "Dale" <dale@frii.com> wrote:
>
> When MT blades are overhauled they are only done in Germany from what I
> understand. The blades are stripped, inspected, repaired, re-glassed, painted
> and a new stainless edge is installed and your time starts over.. The Hub can
> be overhauled in the states and all service bulletins are complied with and
> there are some of those. At overhaul all the seals , bolts and basically
> anything that get wear or tightened is replaced.
> I got the distinct impression that if you needed a repair after TBO that would
> not happen per a agreement with MT. Same as the Russian MT , No Service at
> all on those. Someone can correct me but that is what I ran into.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=427994#427994
>
>
>
>
> p://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator=
> ============================================================================bs
> p; - List Contribution Web Site -p; -Matt Dralle, List
> Admin.
> =====================================================
>
>
>
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: AirVenture '14 / Pneumatic Puzzle Solved? |
Thanks for sharing!
From: Rico Jaeger <rocknpilot@hotmail.com>
<yak52rs@nnex.net>
Subject: Yak-List: AirVenture '14 / Pneumatic Puzzle Solved?
Hi, All!
I just wanted to send out a big THANK YOU to all who stopped-by to introduce
themselves / chat at OSH. Having a Warbird on the field at EAA was the
realization of a lifelong dream for me - made even better by some great
people pulling me into their circles. Redstar representation was respectable
in the air and on the ground, AEROSTARS ROCKED THE HOUSE (as usual) and I
was very proud to be (remotely) associated w/ it all!
For those of you who followed my many pneumatic trials and tribulations, I
believe I have finally found the answer. If you are able to recall, I
brought my Yak home on a trailer from New Jersey to Central WI in November,
2011. It had suffered a substantial engine fire. I believed at the time I
had purchased a firewall-back project and I would now need to find a
suitable FWF. But when we started cleaning it up, things looked more
promising than we'd originally thought. Compression was solid and after a
carb, oil / fuel pump rebuild, ignition upgrade and all new hoses and
wiring, we had our 1st successful engine run on Easter Sunday, 2012. A few
months later the plane was test flown by 2 local Yak pilots who said the
pneumatic system was not meeting operational needs. After cleaning the
fittings and de-gunking as much as possible, there was still no noticeable
recharge on ground-runs. I replaced the compressor w/ a recently rebuilt
unit I purchased from a private party. After 1:40 of flight time, the
compressor destroyed itself. It sheared the four (4) studs that hold the
compressor cylinder to the base - and sent a snowfall of magnesium shavings
into my oil system - as well as "painted" the entire right wing root and
fuselage in oil. We landed without incident. Convinced I had bought a bad
compressor, I sent my original out to be rebuilt. After an oil change and
screen-check, we fired up again and that compressor failed after 40 minutes
of flight time. We again had a safe landing. Same thing: the cylinder
separated from the base - actually shearing the studs - and there were
magnesium shavings everywhere, oil bath, etc. This time the compressor blew
off the top segment that retains the filter, as well as ripped through the
safety wire holding the output fittings and these parts were ejected and
lost in flight. These were signs of a very violent demise. I sent out both
compressors and there were enough good parts to build one (1) functional
compressor. I also sent out the shear coupling and "crucifix" off the
firewall to verify the integrity of the check valves, pop-off valve and air
filter. Upon its return, I re-installed it all and ran it on the ground, and
it also started to come apart. The cylinder had - once again - began to
separate from the base of the compressor. Although we caught it early, on
the ground, and this time the hold-down nuts had only begun to de-thread. I
sent out that compressor and it was reassembled and deemed airworthy. This
time I also replaced the drive gear and shear coupling - thinking maybe
there was some bad geometry there - seeing as how there had been a fire and
all - and the prior wrenching on the aircraft seemed both minimal and
questionable. After a few ground runs, the compressor held up - but there
was no evidence of the air recharging. Once again, I started pulling air
lines to confirm clear passage. All were good and there was no sign of any
cracks, etc. I pulled the compressor AGAIN (Sadly - I have this routine
DOWN!) to verify that the shear coupling was intact. It was. There was no
sign of any "hydro-lock" - the popular analysis from many. There was no sign
of oil starvation - the 2nd most popular off-site diagnosis. I then went
through all the firewall components. The LAST item I pulled off and checked
was the in-line air filter at the bottom of the firewall cluster. The
dime-sized "wafer" element contained within was 100% blocked shut with an
oily, rigid, carbon deposit. No air was capable of passing through it. For
those unfamiliar w/ the system, this filter is THE filter for the pneumatic
system. It would appear my Yak had suffered a "stroke." I pulled the element
and temporarily re-installed the filter housing. Upon run-up, there was an
immediately noticeable movement of the air gauge - the system was charging.
I installed a new element. Where as before, I never exceeded 1:40 of run
time without the compressor committing suicide, now - after 39 hours of
issue-free run / flight time, I feel reasonably safe in saying this was
likely the cause of my many problems...a $17 air filter element. I believe
it was constricted when the plane came home. So some air was passing. And as
the constriction tightened, so did the life expectancy of the compressor
diminish.
In sharing this info w/ a few other owners, the feedback was about a 70/30
split between "congrats" and "there's no way that was the problem." All I
can offer is my compressor finally seems content to both take off AND land
w/ the rest of the aircraft. I submit this info to the list in a humble
attempt to possibly aid anyone encountering similar frustrations and
considerable cost. I am not in the league of many who truly "know" these
planes - but I have learned much simply through asking, experimenting and
determination. I was told several times by very qualified parties, "You are
screwing something up." I wish it had been that simple. I would've happily
eaten crow to abbreviate this nearly 2-year, expensive and frustrating
trouble-shooting journey. But suffice to say, I am THRILLED it would appear
I finally have a functional aircraft. Parking N21YK in Warbirds at OSH was a
personal victory that I would be hard-pressed to adequately put into words.
It was a wonderful experience to - at last - NOT be looking in from the
outside.
Next quest: FAST CARD! :)
Cheers, Y'all!
Rico Jaeger
915 S. 11th Ave.
Wausau, WI. 54401
715.529.7426
//
1966 Cessna 150F ^/---//-X
N8558G //
//
1992 Yakovlev Yak 52 ^/---//-X
N21YK //
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! --
|