Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:14 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Hans Oortman)
2. 01:06 AM - Re: Re: Yakmen in New Zealand??Need advice (Richard Goode)
3. 05:22 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (A. Dennis Savarese)
4. 05:38 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Jan Mevis)
5. 05:56 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Ernest Martinez)
6. 06:45 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (DaBear)
7. 06:45 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (DaBear)
8. 07:29 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (A. Dennis Savarese)
9. 08:38 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD)
10. 09:42 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (\)
11. 09:50 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (DaBear)
12. 10:50 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Dan Payne)
13. 10:54 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Todd McCutchan)
14. 10:55 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (doug sapp)
15. 10:55 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (bill wade)
16. 11:03 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Ernest Martinez)
17. 11:04 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Byron Fox)
18. 11:10 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (A. Dennis Savarese)
19. 11:16 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (doug sapp)
20. 11:18 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (doug sapp)
21. 11:20 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Ernest Martinez)
22. 11:21 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Ernest Martinez)
23. 11:22 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Jeff)
24. 11:27 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks ()
25. 11:46 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Richard Hess)
26. 11:54 AM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Richard Hess)
27. 01:27 PM - Re: Yak-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 03/02/15 (james shaner)
28. 01:27 PM - Re: Yak-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 03/02/15 (james shaner)
29. 01:46 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Todd McCutchan)
30. 02:10 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (John Nolan)
31. 06:09 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Roger Kemp)
32. 06:16 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Roger Kemp)
33. 06:18 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (George Coyantonov2)
34. 06:21 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Roger Kemp)
35. 06:27 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Roger Kemp)
36. 06:33 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Brett Grooms)
37. 07:00 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Walter Lannon)
38. 07:29 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Brett)
39. 07:44 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Tom Elliott)
40. 08:07 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Dan Payne)
41. 08:19 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Walter Lannon)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Doug,
If it is a =B3drop in replacement=B2 I will certainly be interested in one for
my YAK52.
Hans Oortman
PH-YAK
Op 03-03-15 01:18, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> schreef:
> All,
> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am
> considering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to repl
ace
> the current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find.- The n
ew SS
> tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be certi
fied
> at 900 to 1000 psi.- These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expensi
ve
> should be in fact a "lifetime tank", the last one you should ever have to
> purchase.- Right now cost for a new, albeit old stock standard steel tank
> which was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00.- The new SS
tanks
> would be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each.- In order to p
rice
> them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit
to a
> total of 60 tanks.- Due to the rather large initial investment I am looki
ng
> for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
>
> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emergenc
y
> tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 als
o.
>
> Looking forward to your comments.
>
> Best from Omak,
> Doug and Kathleen
>
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yakmen in New Zealand??Need advice |
Great - I think you will find it very helpful. His own 52 is, I believe, now
at sea on its way to New Zealand.
Let me know if I can help with any Yak or engine related issue.
With regards
Richard
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ZUDSJ
Sent: 03 March 2015 05:39
Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yakmen in New Zealand??Need advice
Thanks Richard. Have been in email contact with him :D
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438907#438907
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
FWIW, there are a few things I believe should be considered if one were
to simply change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf
technology. First, it may not be cheaper in a long run when you factor
in the cost of fabricating a new hold down; de-riveting the original
hold downs, re-riveting the removed rivets, and finally drilling and
riveting in the new hold downs. Second, the placement of the Scuba tank
most likely will have an affect on weight and balance thus requiring a
either an aircraft re-weighing or at a minimum, calculation of the new
weight, balance and CG of the airplane. Third, the weight of the Scuba
tank must be taken into account for structural considerations when
designing the hold down and the placement of the tank.
Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's Ops Limits, I believe
it does say any major modifications require approval of the FSDO. Now
you've got the FAA involved. You may not consider it a major
modification, but don't discount the insurance issue, should an accident
or incident occur. From FAA Order 8130.2G under the section covering
Experimental Exhibition:
The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received in
writing, prior
to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major change as defined
by 14 CFR 21.93 in
order to determine whether new operating limitations will be required.
The FSDO response
should be entered in the aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA
Aircraft Registration Branch,
AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 for recording in
the aircrafts
permanent records.
FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
(a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of
this section, changes in type design are
classified as minor and major. Aminor change is one that has no
appreciable effect on the weight, balance,
structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other
characteristics affecting the airworthiness
of the product. _All other changes are major changes_.
Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents
governing the issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and
Operating Limitations of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function
replacement tanks are THE best solution, by far, IMHO.
A. Dennis Savarese
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
>
> I have to agree with the Scuba idea. Dont manufacture a new tank,
> change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
> cheaper. It would work for the main and emergency. If you used
> scuba tanks youd only have to change how they were mounted and the
> connection to the system.
>
> Bear
>
> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ernest
> Martinez
> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
> *To:* yak-list
> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> Aluminum scuba tanks are designed to be used in salt water, can be
> hydro tested at any scuba shop, can be replaced for $200, are rated
> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a looooooooong time before a tank
> corroded to the point where it couldn't be used to contain 750 PSI.
>
> I understand the allure of a direct replacement so you don't need to
> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking about these new
> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
>
> Is that correct Doug??
>
> Ernie
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank Stelwagon
> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>> wrote:
>
> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel tanks,
> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the
> aluminum air filter case.
>
> Frank
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>
> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
> **
> **
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> **
> * *
> *
>
>
> *
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Hi Dennis,
Your remarks also apply for European EASA country.
I doubt that the CAA authorities of the European countries where Yak's are
flying under Annexe II law, would accept scuba bottles as a replacement.
A newly-made, high-quality air bottle with the same dimensions would be
much easier to get approved.
And even then, quite some arguing will be necessary.
Jan
On 03/03/15 14:21, "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
><dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
>FWIW, there are a few things I believe should be considered if one were
>to simply change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf
>technology. First, it may not be cheaper in a long run when you factor
>in the cost of fabricating a new hold down; de-riveting the original
>hold downs, re-riveting the removed rivets, and finally drilling and
>riveting in the new hold downs. Second, the placement of the Scuba tank
>most likely will have an affect on weight and balance thus requiring a
>either an aircraft re-weighing or at a minimum, calculation of the new
>weight, balance and CG of the airplane. Third, the weight of the Scuba
>tank must be taken into account for structural considerations when
>designing the hold down and the placement of the tank.
>
>Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's Ops Limits, I believe
>it does say any major modifications require approval of the FSDO. Now
>you've got the FAA involved. You may not consider it a major
>modification, but don't discount the insurance issue, should an accident
>or incident occur. From FAA Order 8130.2G under the section covering
>Experimental Exhibition:
>
>The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received in
>writing, prior
>to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major change as defined
>by 14 CFR 21.93 in
>order to determine whether new operating limitations will be required.
>The FSDO response
>should be entered in the aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA
>Aircraft Registration Branch,
>AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 for recording in
>the aircrafts
>permanent records.
>
>FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
>
> 21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
>(a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of
>this section, changes in type design are
>classified as minor and major. Aminor change is one that has no
>appreciable effect on the weight, balance,
>structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other
>characteristics affecting the airworthiness
>of the product. _All other changes are major changes_.
>
>Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents
>governing the issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and
>Operating Limitations of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function
>replacement tanks are THE best solution, by far, IMHO.
>
>A. Dennis Savarese
>334-546-8182 (mobile)
>www.yak-52.com
>Skype - Yakguy1
>
>On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
>>
>> I have to agree with the Scuba idea. Dont manufacture a new tank,
>> change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
>> cheaper. It would work for the main and emergency. If you used
>> scuba tanks youd only have to change how they were mounted and the
>> connection to the system.
>>
>> Bear
>>
>> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ernest
>> Martinez
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
>> *To:* yak-list
>> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>
>> Aluminum scuba tanks are designed to be used in salt water, can be
>> hydro tested at any scuba shop, can be replaced for $200, are rated
>> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a looooooooong time before a tank
>> corroded to the point where it couldn't be used to contain 750 PSI.
>>
>> I understand the allure of a direct replacement so you don't need to
>> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking about these new
>> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
>>
>> Is that correct Doug??
>>
>> Ernie
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank Stelwagon
>> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>> wrote:
>>
>> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel tanks,
>> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the
>> aluminum air filter case.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>>
>> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>> * *
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>> **
>> **
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>> **
>> * *
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
All good points Dennis. Though I wonder how many folks have contacted
their FSDO after adding long range tanks, doing M-14 conversions,
installing electronic ignitions and auto plug conversions.
I did a little searching last night, and better than scuba tanks are
composite SCBA tanks used for emergency breathing apparatus. Very light
weight, not prone to corrosion, and very similar in size to the original
main tank, so the original mounts might be useable. The emergency bottle is
still a bit of a challenge. But considering how many of our planes have
modified battery boxes, a tank mount for a 10 pound bottle doesn't seem so
daunting.
Granted, stainless OEM replacement tanks are the best option, albeit
expensive. My only concern with them is that not being DOT approved, it
will be as difficult to find someone to hydro check them, as the original
tanks.
Ernie
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015, Jan Mevis <jan.mevis@informavia.be> wrote:
> <javascript:;>>
>
> Hi Dennis,
>
> Your remarks also apply for European EASA country.
> I doubt that the CAA authorities of the European countries where Yak's ar
e
> flying under Annexe II law, would accept scuba bottles as a replacement.
> A newly-made, high-quality air bottle with the same dimensions would be
> much easier to get approved.
> And even then, quite some arguing will be necessary.
>
> Jan
>
>
> On 03/03/15 14:21, "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> ><dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net <javascript:;>>
> >
> >FWIW, there are a few things I believe should be considered if one were
> >to simply change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf
> >technology. First, it may not be cheaper in a long run when you factor
> >in the cost of fabricating a new hold down; de-riveting the original
> >hold downs, re-riveting the removed rivets, and finally drilling and
> >riveting in the new hold downs. Second, the placement of the Scuba tank
> >most likely will have an affect on weight and balance thus requiring a
> >either an aircraft re-weighing or at a minimum, calculation of the new
> >weight, balance and CG of the airplane. Third, the weight of the Scuba
> >tank must be taken into account for structural considerations when
> >designing the hold down and the placement of the tank.
> >
> >Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's Ops Limits, I believe
> >it does say any major modifications require approval of the FSDO. Now
> >you've got the FAA involved. You may not consider it a major
> >modification, but don't discount the insurance issue, should an accident
> >or incident occur. From FAA Order 8130.2G under the section covering
> >Experimental Exhibition:
> >
> >The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received in
> >writing, prior
> >to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major change as defined
> >by 14 CFR =C2=A7 21.93 in
> >order to determine whether new operating limitations will be required.
> >The FSDO response
> >should be entered in the aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA
> >Aircraft Registration Branch,
> >AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 for recording in
> >the aircraft=C4=85s
> >permanent records.
> >
> >FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
> >
> >=C2=A7 21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
> >(a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of
> >this section, changes in type design are
> >classified as minor and major. A=C5=9A=C5=9Aminor change=C4=85=C4=85 is
one that has no
> >appreciable effect on the weight, balance,
> >structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other
> >characteristics affecting the airworthiness
> >of the product. _All other changes are =C5=9A=C5=9Amajor changes=C4=85
=C4=85_.
> >
> >Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents
> >governing the issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and
> >Operating Limitations of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function
> >replacement tanks are THE best solution, by far, IMHO.
> >
> >A. Dennis Savarese
> >334-546-8182 (mobile)
> >www.yak-52.com
> >Skype - Yakguy1
> >
> >On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
> >>
> >> I have to agree with the Scuba idea. Don=C4=85t manufacture a new tan
k,
> >> change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
> >> cheaper. It would work for the main and emergency. If you used
> >> scuba tanks you=C4=85d only have to change how they were mounted and t
he
> >> connection to the system.
> >>
> >> Bear
> >>
> >> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com <javascript:;>
> >> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com <javascript:;>] *On Behalf
> Of *Ernest
> >> Martinez
> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
> >> *To:* yak-list
> >> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
> >>
> >> Aluminum scuba tanks are designed to be used in salt water, can be
> >> hydro tested at any scuba shop, can be replaced for $200, are rated
> >> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a looooooooong time before a tank
> >> corroded to the point where it couldn't be used to contain 750 PSI.
> >>
> >> I understand the allure of a direct replacement so you don't need to
> >> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking about these new
> >> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
> >>
> >> Is that correct Doug??
> >>
> >> Ernie
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank Stelwagon
> >> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <javascript:;> <mailto:
> pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <javascript:;>>> wrote:
> >>
> >> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel tanks,
> >> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the
> >> aluminum air filter case.
> >>
> >> Frank
> >>
> >> * *
> >>
> >> * *
> >>
> >> *et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
> >>
> >> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
> >>
> >> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> >>
> >> * *
> >>
> >> * *
> >> * *
> >> **
> >> **
> >> **
> >> **
> >> **
> >> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
> >> **
> >> **
> >> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> >> **
> >> **
> >> **
> >> **
> >> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> >> **
> >> * *
> >> *
> >>
> >>
> >> *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
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 |
|
First, let me say I support Doug, always have, always will. He has supported this
community for decades.
Agreed, there are a few things that need to be considered to change to SCUBA. However,
let's start with the cost of new bottles. If I have to replace the main,
I'm close to needing to replace the emergency, thats $700 each or $1400.
Now, let's consider that Doug designs and builds a replacement hold down for 2
scuba bottles and the air connections. Worst case it's probably around $200 (for
60 sets - let's play apples to apples). Then we add it up...
$200 --- Hold down and connection
$320 ---- 4 hours for removal and install
$400 ---- 2 SCUBA bottles
$ 80 --- 1 hour for new W&B
As to the paperwork in the US. I could argue that there is no appreciable effect
on W&B, etc. however, let's say there is and you have to/want to submit the
paperwork, No different than the paperwork for the upgraded engine, fuel tanks,
smoke system, etc.
Come on, better tanks, MUCH higher safety margin since the tanks support 3k air
pressure. You can go with aluminum tanks which would weigh about the same.
So the big concern is attachment and structural support. Please remember what
used to be there in the form of radio, etc.
Or $1,000 for a system that is better than before, easier to maintain, and now
cheaper and easier to test and replace. Remember, you take the tank to the local
dive shop for annual testing if you want and find a problem go get a new tank
for less than HALF of the cost of an old CJ/Yak tank.
Come on, we've modified these planes from one end to the other. M14P/PF, new exhaust,
oil shut off, larger aluminum water trap, pre-oiler, fuel tanks, smoke
systems, etc. and on and on. We've done that to improve performance, improve
safety, and make it easier and safer to maintain.
Replacing a tank with a more expensive tank with no other improvements....at least
really, seriously, think about an improvement
No offense was intended in the above post, please don't take any. They are your
airplanes. Make your own decision.
Thanks,
Bear
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
--> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
FWIW, there are a few things I believe should be considered if one were to simply
change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology. First,
it may not be cheaper in a long run when you factor in the cost of fabricating
a new hold down; de-riveting the original hold downs, re-riveting the removed
rivets, and finally drilling and riveting in the new hold downs. Second, the
placement of the Scuba tank most likely will have an affect on weight and balance
thus requiring a either an aircraft re-weighing or at a minimum, calculation
of the new weight, balance and CG of the airplane. Third, the weight of
the Scuba tank must be taken into account for structural considerations when
designing the hold down and the placement of the tank.
Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's Ops Limits, I believe it does
say any major modifications require approval of the FSDO. Now you've got the
FAA involved. You may not consider it a major modification, but don't discount
the insurance issue, should an accident or incident occur. From FAA Order
8130.2G under the section covering Experimental Exhibition:
The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received in writing, prior
to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major change as defined by
14 CFR 21.93 in order to determine whether new operating limitations will be
required.
The FSDO response
should be entered in the aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA Aircraft Registration
Branch, AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 for
recording in the aircrafts permanent records.
FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
(a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of this section,
changes in type design are classified as minor and major. Aminor change
is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength,
reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting
the airworthiness of the product. _All other changes are major changes_.
Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents governing the
issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Limitations
of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function replacement tanks are THE best
solution, by far, IMHO.
A. Dennis Savarese
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
>
> I have to agree with the Scuba idea. Dont manufacture a new tank,
> change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
> cheaper. It would work for the main and emergency. If you used
> scuba tanks youd only have to change how they were mounted and the
> connection to the system.
>
> Bear
>
> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ernest
> Martinez
> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
> *To:* yak-list
> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> Aluminum scuba tanks are designed to be used in salt water, can be
> hydro tested at any scuba shop, can be replaced for $200, are rated
> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a looooooooong time before a tank
> corroded to the point where it couldn't be used to contain 750 PSI.
>
> I understand the allure of a direct replacement so you don't need to
> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking about these new
> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
>
> Is that correct Doug??
>
> Ernie
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank Stelwagon
> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>> wrote:
>
> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel tanks,
> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the
> aluminum air filter case.
>
> Frank
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>
> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
> **
> **
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> **
> * *
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
Last point, just did some QUICK searching. Aluminum bottles are going
to cost less than $150 each and weigh less than 25lbs empty, some as
low as 15lbs. Go fiber and it will cost a little more and weigh even
less. So the W&B changes are extremely small.
Fly safe and Have fun.
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Martinez
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
All good points Dennis. Though I wonder how many folks have contacted
their FSDO after adding long range tanks, doing M-14 conversions,
installing electronic ignitions and auto plug conversions.
I did a little searching last night, and better than scuba tanks are
composite SCBA tanks used for emergency breathing apparatus. Very light
weight, not prone to corrosion, and very similar in size to the original
main tank, so the original mounts might be useable. The emergency bottle
is still a bit of a challenge. But considering how many of our planes
have modified battery boxes, a tank mount for a 10 pound bottle doesn't
seem so daunting.
Granted, stainless OEM replacement tanks are the best option, albeit
expensive. My only concern with them is that not being DOT approved, it
will be as difficult to find someone to hydro check them, as the
original tanks.
Ernie
On Tuesday, March 3, 2015, Jan Mevis <jan.mevis@informavia.be
<mailto:jan.mevis@informavia.be> > wrote:
<javascript:;> >
Hi Dennis,
Your remarks also apply for European EASA country.
I doubt that the CAA authorities of the European countries where Yak's
are
flying under Annexe II law, would accept scuba bottles as a replacement.
A newly-made, high-quality air bottle with the same dimensions would be
much easier to get approved.
And even then, quite some arguing will be necessary.
Jan
On 03/03/15 14:21, "A. Dennis Savarese" <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net
<javascript:;> >
wrote:
><dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net <javascript:;> >
>
>FWIW, there are a few things I believe should be considered if one were
>to simply change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf
>technology. First, it may not be cheaper in a long run when you factor
>in the cost of fabricating a new hold down; de-riveting the original
>hold downs, re-riveting the removed rivets, and finally drilling and
>riveting in the new hold downs. Second, the placement of the Scuba
tank
>most likely will have an affect on weight and balance thus requiring a
>either an aircraft re-weighing or at a minimum, calculation of the new
>weight, balance and CG of the airplane. Third, the weight of the Scuba
>tank must be taken into account for structural considerations when
>designing the hold down and the placement of the tank.
>
>Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's Ops Limits, I
believe
>it does say any major modifications require approval of the FSDO. Now
>you've got the FAA involved. You may not consider it a major
>modification, but don't discount the insurance issue, should an
accident
>or incident occur. From FAA Order 8130.2G under the section covering
>Experimental Exhibition:
>
>The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received in
>writing, prior
>to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major change as
defined
>by 14 CFR =C2=A7 21.93 in
>order to determine whether new operating limitations will be required.
>The FSDO response
>should be entered in the aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA
>Aircraft Registration Branch,
>AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 for recording in
>the aircraft=C4=85s
>permanent records.
>
>FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
>
>=C2=A7 21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
>(a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of
>this section, changes in type design are
>classified as minor and major. A=C5=9A=C5=9Aminor change=C4=85=C4=85 is
one that has no
>appreciable effect on the weight, balance,
>structural strength, reliability, operational characteristics, or other
>characteristics affecting the airworthiness
>of the product. _All other changes are =C5=9A=C5=9Amajor
changes=C4=85=C4=85_.
>
>Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents
>governing the issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and
>Operating Limitations of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function
>replacement tanks are THE best solution, by far, IMHO.
>
>A. Dennis Savarese
>334-546-8182 (mobile)
>www.yak-52.com <http://www.yak-52.com>
>Skype - Yakguy1
>
>On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
>>
>> I have to agree with the Scuba idea. Don=C4=85t manufacture a new
tank,
>> change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
>> cheaper. It would work for the main and emergency. If you used
>> scuba tanks you=C4=85d only have to change how they were mounted and
the
>> connection to the system.
>>
>> Bear
>>
>> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com <javascript:;>
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com <javascript:;> ] *On
Behalf Of *Ernest
>> Martinez
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
>> *To:* yak-list
>> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>
>> Aluminum scuba tanks are designed to be used in salt water, can be
>> hydro tested at any scuba shop, can be replaced for $200, are rated
>> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a looooooooong time before a tank
>> corroded to the point where it couldn't be used to contain 750 PSI.
>>
>> I understand the allure of a direct replacement so you don't need to
>> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking about these new
>> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
>>
>> Is that correct Doug??
>>
>> Ernie
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank Stelwagon
>> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <javascript:;>
<mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <javascript:;> >> wrote:
>>
>> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel
tanks,
>> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the
>> aluminum air filter case.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>>
>> *tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com> *
>>
>> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>> * *
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>> **
>> **
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>> **
>> * *
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
FORUMS -
_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Yes, they are your airplanes and each will do as he wants. Yes,
countless modifications have been done to these airplanes without any
ill effect. I guess I'm just more skeptical than many, particularly
with regards to structural integrity of the airframe under loadon these
30-40 year old airplanes. I'm pretty sure a Scuba tank of the same
volume, not pressure, is going to weigh a whole lot more than the
original tank or a SS replacement tank. That would entail a stronger
support system, especially when one takes into account G loading. That
is why I eluded to structural considerations.
But, to each his own. I too support Doug and in this case, support his
direct replacement SS tank even if it costs a bit more.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 3/3/2015 8:37 AM, DaBear wrote:
>
> First, let me say I support Doug, always have, always will. He has supported
this community for decades.
>
> Agreed, there are a few things that need to be considered to change to SCUBA.
However, let's start with the cost of new bottles. If I have to replace the
main, I'm close to needing to replace the emergency, thats $700 each or $1400.
>
> Now, let's consider that Doug designs and builds a replacement hold down for
2 scuba bottles and the air connections. Worst case it's probably around $200
(for 60 sets - let's play apples to apples). Then we add it up...
> $200 --- Hold down and connection
> $320 ---- 4 hours for removal and install
> $400 ---- 2 SCUBA bottles
> $ 80 --- 1 hour for new W&B
>
> As to the paperwork in the US. I could argue that there is no appreciable effect
on W&B, etc. however, let's say there is and you have to/want to submit the
paperwork, No different than the paperwork for the upgraded engine, fuel
tanks, smoke system, etc.
>
>
> Come on, better tanks, MUCH higher safety margin since the tanks support 3k air
pressure. You can go with aluminum tanks which would weigh about the same.
So the big concern is attachment and structural support. Please remember what
used to be there in the form of radio, etc.
>
> Or $1,000 for a system that is better than before, easier to maintain, and now
cheaper and easier to test and replace. Remember, you take the tank to the
local dive shop for annual testing if you want and find a problem go get a new
tank for less than HALF of the cost of an old CJ/Yak tank.
>
> Come on, we've modified these planes from one end to the other. M14P/PF, new
exhaust, oil shut off, larger aluminum water trap, pre-oiler, fuel tanks, smoke
systems, etc. and on and on. We've done that to improve performance, improve
safety, and make it easier and safer to maintain.
> Replacing a tank with a more expensive tank with no other improvements....at
least really, seriously, think about an improvement
>
> No offense was intended in the above post, please don't take any. They are your
airplanes. Make your own decision.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bear
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:22 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> --> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> FWIW, there are a few things I believe should be considered if one were to simply
change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology. First,
it may not be cheaper in a long run when you factor in the cost of fabricating
a new hold down; de-riveting the original hold downs, re-riveting the removed
rivets, and finally drilling and riveting in the new hold downs. Second,
the placement of the Scuba tank most likely will have an affect on weight and
balance thus requiring a either an aircraft re-weighing or at a minimum, calculation
of the new weight, balance and CG of the airplane. Third, the weight
of the Scuba tank must be taken into account for structural considerations when
designing the hold down and the placement of the tank.
>
> Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's Ops Limits, I believe it does
say any major modifications require approval of the FSDO. Now you've got
the FAA involved. You may not consider it a major modification, but don't discount
the insurance issue, should an accident or incident occur. From FAA Order
8130.2G under the section covering Experimental Exhibition:
>
> The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received in writing, prior
to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major change as defined by
14 CFR 21.93 in order to determine whether new operating limitations will be
required.
> The FSDO response
> should be entered in the aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA Aircraft
Registration Branch, AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 for
recording in the aircrafts permanent records.
>
> FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
>
> 21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
> (a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, changes in type design are classified as minor and major. Aminor change
is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength,
reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting
the airworthiness of the product. _All other changes are major changes_.
>
> Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents governing
the issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Limitations
of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function replacement tanks are THE best
solution, by far, IMHO.
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
> www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
> On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
>> I have to agree with the Scuba idea. Dont manufacture a new tank,
>> change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
>> cheaper. It would work for the main and emergency. If you used
>> scuba tanks youd only have to change how they were mounted and the
>> connection to the system.
>>
>> Bear
>>
>> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ernest
>> Martinez
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
>> *To:* yak-list
>> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>
>> Aluminum scuba tanks are designed to be used in salt water, can be
>> hydro tested at any scuba shop, can be replaced for $200, are rated
>> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a looooooooong time before a tank
>> corroded to the point where it couldn't be used to contain 750 PSI.
>>
>> I understand the allure of a direct replacement so you don't need to
>> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking about these new
>> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
>>
>> Is that correct Doug??
>>
>> Ernie
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank Stelwagon
>> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>> wrote:
>>
>> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel tanks,
>> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the
>> aluminum air filter case.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>>
>> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>> * *
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>> **
>> **
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>> **
>> * *
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
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 |
|
I totally support Doug, and I am not going to put any scuba tanks into my Yak-50,
thank you very much anyway. Although Bear/Ernie, if you come up with a plan
and a kit for installing them, I'd love to see it. Nothing wrong with a "Plan
B".
That said, this is not an "either/or" situation. To those that swear by scuba
tanks then run with it yourselves, but please don't minimize the ideas and plans
of others by so doing.
Just saying.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
--> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
Yes, they are your airplanes and each will do as he wants. Yes,
countless modifications have been done to these airplanes without any
ill effect. I guess I'm just more skeptical than many, particularly
with regards to structural integrity of the airframe under loadon these
30-40 year old airplanes. I'm pretty sure a Scuba tank of the same volume, not
pressure, is going to weigh a whole lot more than the original tank or a SS replacement
tank. That would entail a stronger support system, especially when one
takes into account G loading. That is why I eluded to structural considerations.
But, to each his own. I too support Doug and in this case, support his direct
replacement SS tank even if it costs a bit more.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 3/3/2015 8:37 AM, DaBear wrote:
>
> First, let me say I support Doug, always have, always will. He has supported
this community for decades.
>
> Agreed, there are a few things that need to be considered to change to SCUBA.
However, let's start with the cost of new bottles. If I have to replace the
main, I'm close to needing to replace the emergency, thats $700 each or $1400.
>
> Now, let's consider that Doug designs and builds a replacement hold down for
2 scuba bottles and the air connections. Worst case it's probably around $200
(for 60 sets - let's play apples to apples). Then we add it up...
> $200 --- Hold down and connection
> $320 ---- 4 hours for removal and install
> $400 ---- 2 SCUBA bottles
> $ 80 --- 1 hour for new W&B
>
> As to the paperwork in the US. I could argue that there is no appreciable effect
on W&B, etc. however, let's say there is and you have to/want to submit the
paperwork, No different than the paperwork for the upgraded engine, fuel
tanks, smoke system, etc.
>
>
> Come on, better tanks, MUCH higher safety margin since the tanks support 3k air
pressure. You can go with aluminum tanks which would weigh about the same.
So the big concern is attachment and structural support. Please remember what
used to be there in the form of radio, etc.
>
> Or $1,000 for a system that is better than before, easier to maintain, and now
cheaper and easier to test and replace. Remember, you take the tank to the
local dive shop for annual testing if you want and find a problem go get a new
tank for less than HALF of the cost of an old CJ/Yak tank.
>
> Come on, we've modified these planes from one end to the other. M14P/PF, new
exhaust, oil shut off, larger aluminum water trap, pre-oiler, fuel tanks, smoke
systems, etc. and on and on. We've done that to improve performance, improve
safety, and make it easier and safer to maintain.
> Replacing a tank with a more expensive tank with no other
> improvements....at least really, seriously, think about an improvement
>
> No offense was intended in the above post, please don't take any. They are your
airplanes. Make your own decision.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bear
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> Savarese
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:22 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> --> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> FWIW, there are a few things I believe should be considered if one were to simply
change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology. First,
it may not be cheaper in a long run when you factor in the cost of fabricating
a new hold down; de-riveting the original hold downs, re-riveting the removed
rivets, and finally drilling and riveting in the new hold downs. Second,
the placement of the Scuba tank most likely will have an affect on weight and
balance thus requiring a either an aircraft re-weighing or at a minimum, calculation
of the new weight, balance and CG of the airplane. Third, the weight
of the Scuba tank must be taken into account for structural considerations when
designing the hold down and the placement of the tank.
>
> Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's Ops Limits, I believe it does
say any major modifications require approval of the FSDO. Now you've got
the FAA involved. You may not consider it a major modification, but don't discount
the insurance issue, should an accident or incident occur. From FAA Order
8130.2G under the section covering Experimental Exhibition:
>
> The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received in writing, prior
to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major change as defined by
14 CFR 21.93 in order to determine whether new operating limitations will be
required.
> The FSDO response
> should be entered in the aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA Aircraft
Registration Branch, AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 for
recording in the aircrafts permanent records.
>
> FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
>
> 21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
> (a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, changes in type design are classified as minor and major. Aminor change
is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength,
reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting
the airworthiness of the product. _All other changes are major changes_.
>
> Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents governing
the issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Limitations
of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function replacement tanks are THE best
solution, by far, IMHO.
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
> www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
> On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
>> I have to agree with the Scuba idea. Dont manufacture a new tank,
>> change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
>> cheaper. It would work for the main and emergency. If you used
>> scuba tanks youd only have to change how they were mounted and the
>> connection to the system.
>>
>> Bear
>>
>> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ernest
>> Martinez
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
>> *To:* yak-list
>> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>
>> Aluminum scuba tanks are designed to be used in salt water, can be
>> hydro tested at any scuba shop, can be replaced for $200, are rated
>> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a looooooooong time before a tank
>> corroded to the point where it couldn't be used to contain 750 PSI.
>>
>> I understand the allure of a direct replacement so you don't need to
>> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking about these new
>> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
>>
>> Is that correct Doug??
>>
>> Ernie
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank Stelwagon
>> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>> wrote:
>>
>> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel tanks,
>> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the
>> aluminum air filter case.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>>
>> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>> * *
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>> **
>> **
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
I love this list! At seeing Doug's proposal, I thought - -"There goes good
old Doug, looking after us guys - AGAIN". Than I see Dead Bear's & The Gee
k's scuba idea, ( modernist both ) and read Dennis concerns. Now at least
I have something to think about when it comes time to make that decision (
sooner most likely than later ). It nice to have a "plan B". C Plan anyon
e? ;-)
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
-----Original Message-----
From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD, WD <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 10:38 am
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
I totally support Doug, and I am not going to put
any scuba tanks into my Yak-50, thank you very much anyway. Although
Bear/Ernie, if you come up with a plan and a kit for installing them, I'd
love
to see it. Nothing wrong with a "Plan B".
That said, this is not an
"either/or" situation. To those that swear by scuba tanks then run with it
yourselves, but please don't minimize the ideas and plans of others by so
doing.
Just saying.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics
.com]
On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:29 AM
To:
yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
--> Yak-List
message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
-->
<dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
Yes, they are your airplanes and each will do
as he wants. Yes,
countless modifications have been done to these airplanes
without any
ill effect. I guess I'm just more skeptical than many,
particularly
with regards to structural integrity of the airframe under loadon
these
30-40 year old airplanes. I'm pretty sure a Scuba tank of the same
volume, not pressure, is going to weigh a whole lot more than the original
tank
or a SS replacement tank. That would entail a stronger support system,
especially when one takes into account G loading. That is why I eluded to
structural considerations.
But, to each his own. I too support Doug and in
this case, support his direct replacement SS tank even if it costs a bit
more.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-546-8182
(mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 3/3/2015 8:37 AM, DaBear
wrote:
>
>
First, let me say I support Doug, always have, always will. He has support
ed
this community for decades.
>
> Agreed, there are a few things that need to be
considered to change to SCUBA. However, let's start with the cost of new
bottles. If I have to replace the main, I'm close to needing to replace th
e
emergency, that=99s $700 each or $1400.
>
> Now, let's consider that Doug
designs and builds a replacement hold down for 2 scuba bottles and the air
connections. Worst case it's probably around $200 (for 60 sets - let's pla
y
apples to apples). Then we add it up...
> $200 --- Hold down and connection
>
$320 ---- 4 hours for removal and install
> $400 ---- 2 SCUBA bottles
> $ 80
--- 1 hour for new W&B
>
> As to the paperwork in the US. I could argue that
there is no appreciable effect on W&B, etc. however, let's say there is and
you
have to/want to submit the paperwork, No different than the paperwork for
the
upgraded engine, fuel tanks, smoke system, etc.
>
>
> Come on, better tanks,
MUCH higher safety margin since the tanks support 3k air pressure. You can
go
with aluminum tanks which would weigh about the same. So the big concern i
s
attachment and structural support. Please remember what used to be there i
n the
form of radio, etc.
>
> Or $1,000 for a system that is better than before,
easier to maintain, and now cheaper and easier to test and replace. Rememb
er,
you take the tank to the local dive shop for annual testing if you want and
find
a problem go get a new tank for less than HALF of the cost of an old CJ/Yak
tank.
>
> Come on, we've modified these planes from one end to the other.
M14P/PF, new exhaust, oil shut off, larger aluminum water trap, pre-oiler,
fuel
tanks, smoke systems, etc. and on and on. We've done that to improve
performance, improve safety, and make it easier and safer to maintain.
>
Replacing a tank with a more expensive tank with no other
> improvements....at
least really, seriously, think about an improvement
>
> No offense was
intended in the above post, please don't take any. They are your airplanes
.
Make your own decision.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bear
>
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
>
Savarese
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:22 AM
> To:
yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> -->
Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
> -->
<dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> FWIW, there are a few things I believe
should be considered if one were to simply change the hold down and connect
or
and use off the shelf technology. First, it may not be cheaper in a long r
un
when you factor in the cost of fabricating a new hold down; de-riveting the
original hold downs, re-riveting the removed rivets, and finally drilling a
nd
riveting in the new hold downs. Second, the placement of the Scuba tank mo
st
likely will have an affect on weight and balance thus requiring a either an
aircraft re-weighing or at a minimum, calculation of the new weight, balanc
e and
CG of the airplane. Third, the weight of the Scuba tank must be taken into
account for structural considerations when designing the hold down and the
placement of the tank.
>
> Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's
Ops Limits, I believe it does say any major modifications require approval
of
the FSDO. Now you've got the FAA involved. You may not consider it a majo
r
modification, but don't discount the insurance issue, should an accident or
incident occur. From FAA Order 8130.2G under the section covering Experime
ntal
Exhibition:
>
> The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received
in writing, prior to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major ch
ange
as defined by 14 CFR =C2=A7 21.93 in order to determine whether new operati
ng
limitations will be required.
> The FSDO response
> should be entered in the
aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch,
AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 for recording in the
aircraft=99s permanent records.
>
> FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
>
> =C2=A7
21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
> (a) In addition to changes in
type design specified in paragraph (b) of this section, changes in type des
ign
are classified as minor and major. A=98=98minor change=99
=99 is one that has no
appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability
,
operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the
airworthiness of the product. _All other changes are =98=98majo
r changes=99=99_.
>
>
Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents governi
ng
the issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Limitat
ions
of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function replacement tanks are THE be
st
solution, by far, IMHO.
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
>
www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
> On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
>> I
have to agree with the Scuba idea. Don=99t manufacture a new tank,
>> change the
hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
>> cheaper. It would
work for the main and emergency. If you used
>> scuba tanks you=99d only have
to change how they were mounted and the
>> connection to the system.
>>
>>
Bear
>>
>> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ernest
>>
Martinez
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
>> *To:* yak-list
>>
*Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>
>> Aluminum scuba tanks are
designed to be used in salt water, can be
>> hydro tested at any scuba shop,
can be replaced for $200, are rated
>> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a
looooooooong time before a tank
>> corroded to the point where it couldn't be
used to contain 750 PSI.
>>
>> I understand the allure of a direct replacement
so you don't need to
>> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking
about these new
>> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
>>
>> Is that
correct Doug??
>>
>> Ernie
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank
Stelwagon
>> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>>
wrote:
>>
>> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel
tanks,
>> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at
the
>> aluminum air filter case.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> *
*
>>
>> * *
>>
>>
*et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>>
>>
*tp://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>>
*_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *
*
>> * *
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>>
*http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>> **
>> **
>>
*http://forums.matronics.com*
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>>
*http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>> **
>> * *
>> *
>>
>>
>>
*
>
>
- The Yak-List Email Forum -
browse
Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
Forums!
http://forums.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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 |
|
Minimize the ideas and plans of others? I thought we were discussing the merits
of each side in a mature fashion.
Sorry for minimizing anyone...
Count me out, I'm outta here
-----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: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
--> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
I totally support Doug, and I am not going to put any scuba tanks into my Yak-50,
thank you very much anyway. Although Bear/Ernie, if you come up with a plan
and a kit for installing them, I'd love to see it. Nothing wrong with a "Plan
B".
That said, this is not an "either/or" situation. To those that swear by scuba
tanks then run with it yourselves, but please don't minimize the ideas and plans
of others by so doing.
Just saying.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
--> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
Yes, they are your airplanes and each will do as he wants. Yes,
countless modifications have been done to these airplanes without any
ill effect. I guess I'm just more skeptical than many, particularly
with regards to structural integrity of the airframe under loadon these
30-40 year old airplanes. I'm pretty sure a Scuba tank of the same volume, not
pressure, is going to weigh a whole lot more than the original tank or a SS replacement
tank. That would entail a stronger support system, especially when one
takes into account G loading. That is why I eluded to structural considerations.
But, to each his own. I too support Doug and in this case, support his direct
replacement SS tank even if it costs a bit more.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 3/3/2015 8:37 AM, DaBear wrote:
>
> First, let me say I support Doug, always have, always will. He has supported
this community for decades.
>
> Agreed, there are a few things that need to be considered to change to SCUBA.
However, let's start with the cost of new bottles. If I have to replace the
main, I'm close to needing to replace the emergency, thats $700 each or $1400.
>
> Now, let's consider that Doug designs and builds a replacement hold down for
2 scuba bottles and the air connections. Worst case it's probably around $200
(for 60 sets - let's play apples to apples). Then we add it up...
> $200 --- Hold down and connection
> $320 ---- 4 hours for removal and install
> $400 ---- 2 SCUBA bottles
> $ 80 --- 1 hour for new W&B
>
> As to the paperwork in the US. I could argue that there is no appreciable effect
on W&B, etc. however, let's say there is and you have to/want to submit the
paperwork, No different than the paperwork for the upgraded engine, fuel
tanks, smoke system, etc.
>
>
> Come on, better tanks, MUCH higher safety margin since the tanks support 3k air
pressure. You can go with aluminum tanks which would weigh about the same.
So the big concern is attachment and structural support. Please remember what
used to be there in the form of radio, etc.
>
> Or $1,000 for a system that is better than before, easier to maintain, and now
cheaper and easier to test and replace. Remember, you take the tank to the
local dive shop for annual testing if you want and find a problem go get a new
tank for less than HALF of the cost of an old CJ/Yak tank.
>
> Come on, we've modified these planes from one end to the other. M14P/PF, new
exhaust, oil shut off, larger aluminum water trap, pre-oiler, fuel tanks, smoke
systems, etc. and on and on. We've done that to improve performance, improve
safety, and make it easier and safer to maintain.
> Replacing a tank with a more expensive tank with no other
> improvements....at least really, seriously, think about an improvement
>
> No offense was intended in the above post, please don't take any. They are your
airplanes. Make your own decision.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bear
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> Savarese
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:22 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> --> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> FWIW, there are a few things I believe should be considered if one were to simply
change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology. First,
it may not be cheaper in a long run when you factor in the cost of fabricating
a new hold down; de-riveting the original hold downs, re-riveting the removed
rivets, and finally drilling and riveting in the new hold downs. Second,
the placement of the Scuba tank most likely will have an affect on weight and
balance thus requiring a either an aircraft re-weighing or at a minimum, calculation
of the new weight, balance and CG of the airplane. Third, the weight
of the Scuba tank must be taken into account for structural considerations when
designing the hold down and the placement of the tank.
>
> Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's Ops Limits, I believe it does
say any major modifications require approval of the FSDO. Now you've got
the FAA involved. You may not consider it a major modification, but don't discount
the insurance issue, should an accident or incident occur. From FAA Order
8130.2G under the section covering Experimental Exhibition:
>
> The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received in writing, prior
to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major change as defined by
14 CFR 21.93 in order to determine whether new operating limitations will be
required.
> The FSDO response
> should be entered in the aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA Aircraft
Registration Branch, AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 for
recording in the aircrafts permanent records.
>
> FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
>
> 21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
> (a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, changes in type design are classified as minor and major. Aminor change
is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength,
reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting
the airworthiness of the product. _All other changes are major changes_.
>
> Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents governing
the issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Limitations
of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function replacement tanks are THE best
solution, by far, IMHO.
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
> www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
> On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
>> I have to agree with the Scuba idea. Dont manufacture a new tank,
>> change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
>> cheaper. It would work for the main and emergency. If you used
>> scuba tanks youd only have to change how they were mounted and the
>> connection to the system.
>>
>> Bear
>>
>> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ernest
>> Martinez
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
>> *To:* yak-list
>> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>
>> Aluminum scuba tanks are designed to be used in salt water, can be
>> hydro tested at any scuba shop, can be replaced for $200, are rated
>> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a looooooooong time before a tank
>> corroded to the point where it couldn't be used to contain 750 PSI.
>>
>> I understand the allure of a direct replacement so you don't need to
>> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking about these new
>> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
>>
>> Is that correct Doug??
>>
>> Ernie
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank Stelwagon
>> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>> wrote:
>>
>> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel tanks,
>> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the
>> aluminum air filter case.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>>
>> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>> * *
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>> **
>> **
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>> **
>> * *
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
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: Main Air Tanks |
Let's think "objectively"...
Doug is offering a product that will be a direct replacement part.
That means during the next annual inspection, instead of pulling, cleaning, inspecting,
treating, and reinstalling the tank...you simply pull the old out & install
the new Doug Sapp supplied item. DONE.
I don't know how much your time is worth, but if somebody brings me an airplane
to "refit/remount/reconnect" a new system...I'm going to charge a lot more than
$700.
Just my $.02
Keep 'em Flyin',
Dan Payne
Owner, Pilot, A&P-IA
(423)-544-8946
Eagle Works Aviation
Dallas Bay Skypark
1824 E Crabtree Road
Hixson, TN 37343
"Where Airworthiness Means Business!"
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 12:50 PM, DaBear <dabear@damned.org> wrote:
>
>
> Minimize the ideas and plans of others? I thought we were discussing the merits
of each side in a mature fashion.
>
> Sorry for minimizing anyone...
>
> Count me out, I'm outta here
>
>
>
> -----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: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:37 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> --> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> I totally support Doug, and I am not going to put any scuba tanks into my Yak-50,
thank you very much anyway. Although Bear/Ernie, if you come up with a
plan and a kit for installing them, I'd love to see it. Nothing wrong with a
"Plan B".
>
> That said, this is not an "either/or" situation. To those that swear by scuba
tanks then run with it yourselves, but please don't minimize the ideas and plans
of others by so doing.
>
> Just saying.
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:29 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> --> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> Yes, they are your airplanes and each will do as he wants. Yes,
> countless modifications have been done to these airplanes without any
> ill effect. I guess I'm just more skeptical than many, particularly
> with regards to structural integrity of the airframe under loadon these
> 30-40 year old airplanes. I'm pretty sure a Scuba tank of the same volume, not
pressure, is going to weigh a whole lot more than the original tank or a SS
replacement tank. That would entail a stronger support system, especially when
one takes into account G loading. That is why I eluded to structural considerations.
>
> But, to each his own. I too support Doug and in this case, support his direct
replacement SS tank even if it costs a bit more.
> Dennis
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
> www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
>> On 3/3/2015 8:37 AM, DaBear wrote:
>>
>> First, let me say I support Doug, always have, always will. He has supported
this community for decades.
>>
>> Agreed, there are a few things that need to be considered to change to SCUBA.
However, let's start with the cost of new bottles. If I have to replace the
main, I'm close to needing to replace the emergency, thats $700 each or $1400.
>>
>> Now, let's consider that Doug designs and builds a replacement hold down for
2 scuba bottles and the air connections. Worst case it's probably around $200
(for 60 sets - let's play apples to apples). Then we add it up...
>> $200 --- Hold down and connection
>> $320 ---- 4 hours for removal and install
>> $400 ---- 2 SCUBA bottles
>> $ 80 --- 1 hour for new W&B
>>
>> As to the paperwork in the US. I could argue that there is no appreciable effect
on W&B, etc. however, let's say there is and you have to/want to submit
the paperwork, No different than the paperwork for the upgraded engine, fuel
tanks, smoke system, etc.
>>
>>
>> Come on, better tanks, MUCH higher safety margin since the tanks support 3k
air pressure. You can go with aluminum tanks which would weigh about the same.
So the big concern is attachment and structural support. Please remember what
used to be there in the form of radio, etc.
>>
>> Or $1,000 for a system that is better than before, easier to maintain, and now
cheaper and easier to test and replace. Remember, you take the tank to the
local dive shop for annual testing if you want and find a problem go get a new
tank for less than HALF of the cost of an old CJ/Yak tank.
>>
>> Come on, we've modified these planes from one end to the other. M14P/PF, new
exhaust, oil shut off, larger aluminum water trap, pre-oiler, fuel tanks, smoke
systems, etc. and on and on. We've done that to improve performance, improve
safety, and make it easier and safer to maintain.
>> Replacing a tank with a more expensive tank with no other
>> improvements....at least really, seriously, think about an improvement
>>
>> No offense was intended in the above post, please don't take any. They are
your airplanes. Make your own decision.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bear
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
>> Savarese
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:22 AM
>> To: yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>
>> --> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> FWIW, there are a few things I believe should be considered if one were to simply
change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology. First,
it may not be cheaper in a long run when you factor in the cost of fabricating
a new hold down; de-riveting the original hold downs, re-riveting the removed
rivets, and finally drilling and riveting in the new hold downs. Second,
the placement of the Scuba tank most likely will have an affect on weight and
balance thus requiring a either an aircraft re-weighing or at a minimum, calculation
of the new weight, balance and CG of the airplane. Third, the weight
of the Scuba tank must be taken into account for structural considerations when
designing the hold down and the placement of the tank.
>>
>> Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's Ops Limits, I believe it
does say any major modifications require approval of the FSDO. Now you've got
the FAA involved. You may not consider it a major modification, but don't discount
the insurance issue, should an accident or incident occur. From FAA Order
8130.2G under the section covering Experimental Exhibition:
>>
>> The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received in writing, prior
to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major change as defined
by 14 CFR 21.93 in order to determine whether new operating limitations will
be required.
>> The FSDO response
>> should be entered in the aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA Aircraft
Registration Branch, AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 for
recording in the aircrafts permanent records.
>>
>> FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
>>
>> 21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
>> (a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of this
section, changes in type design are classified as minor and major. Aminor change
is one that has no appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength,
reliability, operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting
the airworthiness of the product. _All other changes are major changes_.
>>
>> Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents governing
the issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Limitations
of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function replacement tanks are THE best
solution, by far, IMHO.
>>
>> A. Dennis Savarese
>> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
>> www.yak-52.com
>> Skype - Yakguy1
>>
>>> On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
>>> I have to agree with the Scuba idea. Dont manufacture a new tank,
>>> change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
>>> cheaper. It would work for the main and emergency. If you used
>>> scuba tanks youd only have to change how they were mounted and the
>>> connection to the system.
>>>
>>> Bear
>>>
>>> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ernest
>>> Martinez
>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
>>> *To:* yak-list
>>> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>>
>>> Aluminum scuba tanks are designed to be used in salt water, can be
>>> hydro tested at any scuba shop, can be replaced for $200, are rated
>>> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a looooooooong time before a tank
>>> corroded to the point where it couldn't be used to contain 750 PSI.
>>>
>>> I understand the allure of a direct replacement so you don't need to
>>> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking about these new
>>> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
>>>
>>> Is that correct Doug??
>>>
>>> Ernie
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank Stelwagon
>>> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel tanks,
>>> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the
>>> aluminum air filter case.
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>> * *
>>>
>>> * *
>>>
>>> *et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>>>
>>> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>>>
>>> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>>
>>> * *
>>>
>>> * *
>>> * *
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>>> **
>>> **
>>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> **
>>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>> **
>>> * *
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Scuba is not an option in a Yak 50, not sure about a 52.
Todd McCutchan
T-34A & Yak-50
Cell: (260) 402-1740
E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com
www.fastaircraft.com
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:28 AM, A. Dennis Savarese <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.ne
t> wrote:
>
uth.net>
>
> Yes, they are your airplanes and each will do as he wants. Yes, countles
s modifications have been done to these airplanes without any ill effect. I
guess I'm just more skeptical than many, particularly with regards to struc
tural integrity of the airframe under loadon these 30-40 year old airplanes.
I'm pretty sure a Scuba tank of the same volume, not pressure, is going to w
eigh a whole lot more than the original tank or a SS replacement tank. That w
ould entail a stronger support system, especially when one takes into accoun
t G loading. That is why I eluded to structural considerations.
>
> But, to each his own. I too support Doug and in this case, support his di
rect replacement SS tank even if it costs a bit more.
> Dennis
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
> www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
>> On 3/3/2015 8:37 AM, DaBear wrote:
>>
>> First, let me say I support Doug, always have, always will. He has suppo
rted this community for decades.
>>
>> Agreed, there are a few things that need to be considered to change to SC
UBA. However, let's start with the cost of new bottles. If I have to replac
e the main, I'm close to needing to replace the emergency, that=99s $7
00 each or $1400.
>>
>> Now, let's consider that Doug designs and builds a replacement hold down f
or 2 scuba bottles and the air connections. Worst case it's probably around
$200 (for 60 sets - let's play apples to apples). Then we add it up...
>> $200 --- Hold down and connection
>> $320 ---- 4 hours for removal and install
>> $400 ---- 2 SCUBA bottles
>> $ 80 --- 1 hour for new W&B
>>
>> As to the paperwork in the US. I could argue that there is no appreciabl
e effect on W&B, etc. however, let's say there is and you have to/want to su
bmit the paperwork, No different than the paperwork for the upgraded engin
e, fuel tanks, smoke system, etc.
>>
>>
>> Come on, better tanks, MUCH higher safety margin since the tanks support 3
k air pressure. You can go with aluminum tanks which would weigh about the s
ame. So the big concern is attachment and structural support. Please remem
ber what used to be there in the form of radio, etc.
>>
>> Or $1,000 for a system that is better than before, easier to maintain, an
d now cheaper and easier to test and replace. Remember, you take the tank t
o the local dive shop for annual testing if you want and find a problem go g
et a new tank for less than HALF of the cost of an old CJ/Yak tank.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Many thanks to all of you who were kind enough to give thier opinions and
comments about the SS tanks:
Questions:
Would they be direct replacement: Yes. Building new racks and restraining
clamps just is not worth the time or effort IMHO. Also, I fear that it
won't be long before the insurance companies tumble to the fact that many
of our aircraft are modified without following the current FAA guidelines
and use that fact to keep from paying claims. Also and most important is
the fact the the current rackage is tested and works, why would I want to
re engineer it and take on that responsibility myself?
Carbon fiber/Kevlar/Stainless Steel: I have requested bids from several
mfg's in several different materials, but to date SS seems to be the best
way to go.
Not DOT approved: That is not an issue now, why would it be an issue with
the SS tanks???
Which tanks will be made first: CJ6 main tanks will be the first to be
available.
Will we do Yak 52 and 50 tanks also: Yes but first we have to obtain a
sample of both. Any one out there who might have a non airworthy Yak 50 or
52 main air tank which we could use?? I would be happy to pay what ever is
fair. The sooner we can obtain the samples the sooner we can make this
happen.
Again, thank you all for your opinions, good bad or indifferent, they are
all important to me.
Best from Omak,
Doug
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:18 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am
> considering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to
> replace the current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find.
> The new SS tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and
> be certified at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while
> fairly expensive should be in fact a "lifetime tank", the last one you
> should ever have to purchase. Right now cost for a new, albeit old stock
> standard steel tank which was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about
> $450.00. The new SS tanks would be of current mfg and would cost about
> $700.00 each. In order to price them at this price I would have to order
> them in 20 at a time and commit to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather
> large initial investment I am looking for a show of hands of who would be
> interested if I did stocked them.
>
> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emergency
> tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 also.
>
> Looking forward to your comments.
>
> Best from Omak,
> Doug and Kathleen
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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: Main Air Tanks |
Keep in mind that the paint gun industry has carbon fiber bottles for there
shooting pleasure, smaller lighter high pressure why reinvent what can be
bought?=C2-Certified country's can buy our used bottles for the cost of i
nstall win - winBill Wade
=C2- From: A. Dennis Savarese <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
th.net>
Yes, they are your airplanes and each will do as he wants.=C2- Yes,
countless modifications have been done to these airplanes without any
ill effect.=C2- I guess I'm just more skeptical than many, particularly
with regards to structural integrity of the airframe under loadon these
30-40 year old airplanes. I'm pretty sure a Scuba tank of the same
volume, not pressure, is going to weigh a whole lot more than the
original tank or a SS replacement tank. That would entail a stronger
support system, especially when one takes into account G loading.=C2- Tha
t
is why I eluded to structural considerations.
But, to each his own.=C2- I too support Doug and in this case, support hi
s
direct replacement SS tank even if it costs a bit more.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-546-8182 (mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 3/3/2015 8:37 AM, DaBear wrote:
>
> First, let me say I support Doug, always have, always will.=C2- He has
supported this community for decades.
>
> Agreed, there are a few things that need to be considered to change to SC
UBA. However, let's start with the cost of new bottles.=C2- If I have to
replace the main, I'm close to needing to replace the emergency, that
=99s $700 each or $1400.
>
> Now, let's consider that Doug designs and builds a replacement hold down
for 2 scuba bottles and the air connections.=C2- Worst case it's probably
around $200 (for 60 sets - let's play apples to apples).=C2- Then we add
it up...
> $200 --- Hold down and connection
> $320 ---- 4 hours for removal and install
> $400 ---- 2 SCUBA bottles
> $=C2- 80 --- 1 hour for new W&B
>
> As to the paperwork in the US.=C2- I could argue that there is no appre
ciable effect on W&B, etc. however, let's say there is and you have to/want
to submit the paperwork,=C2- No different than the paperwork for the upg
raded engine, fuel tanks, smoke system, etc.
>
>
> Come on, better tanks, MUCH higher safety margin since the tanks support
3k air pressure.=C2- You can go with aluminum tanks which would weigh abo
ut the same.=C2- So the big concern is attachment and structural support.
=C2- Please remember what used to be there in the form of radio, etc.
>
> Or $1,000 for a system that is better than before, easier to maintain, an
d now cheaper and easier to test and replace.=C2- Remember, you take the
tank to the local dive shop for annual testing if you want and find a probl
em go get a new tank for less than HALF of the cost of an old CJ/Yak tank.
>
> Come on, we've modified these planes from one end to the other.=C2- M14
P/PF, new exhaust, oil shut off, larger aluminum water trap, pre-oiler, fue
l tanks, smoke systems, etc. and on and on.=C2- We've done that to improv
e performance, improve safety, and make it easier and safer to maintain.
> Replacing a tank with a more expensive tank with no other improvements...
.at least really, seriously, think about an improvement
>
> No offense was intended in the above post, please don't take any.=C2- T
hey are your airplanes.=C2- Make your own decision.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bear
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:22 AM
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> --> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> FWIW, there are a few things I believe should be considered if one were t
o simply change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technolog
y.=C2- First, it may not be cheaper in a long run when you factor in the
cost of fabricating a new hold down; de-riveting the original hold downs, r
e-riveting the removed rivets, and finally drilling and riveting in the new
hold downs.=C2- Second, the placement of the Scuba tank most likely will
have an affect on weight and balance thus requiring a either an aircraft r
e-weighing or at a minimum, calculation of the new weight, balance and CG o
f the airplane.=C2- Third, the weight of the Scuba tank must be taken int
o account for structural considerations when designing the hold down and th
e placement of the tank.
>
> Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's Ops Limits, I believe
it does say any major modifications require approval of the FSDO.=C2- Now
you've got the FAA involved.=C2- You may not consider it a major modific
ation, but don't discount the insurance issue, should an accident or incide
nt occur.=C2- From FAA Order 8130.2G under the section covering Experimen
tal Exhibition:
>
> The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received in writing
, prior to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major change as de
fined by 14 CFR =C2=A7 21.93 in order to determine whether new operating li
mitations will be required.
> The FSDO response
> should be entered in the aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA Aircr
aft Registration Branch, AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 7
3125 for recording in the aircraft=99s permanent records.
>
> FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
>
> =C2=A7 21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
> (a) In addition to changes in type design specified in paragraph (b) of t
his section, changes in type design are classified as minor and major. A
=98=98minor change=99=99 is one that has no appreciabl
e effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliability, operatio
nal characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the airworthiness o
f the product. _All other changes are =98=98major changes
=99=99_.
>
> Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents gover
ning the issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Li
mitations of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function replacement tanks
are THE best solution, by far, IMHO.
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
> www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
> On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
>> I have to agree with the Scuba idea.=C2- Don=99t manufacture a n
ew tank,
>> change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
>> cheaper.=C2- It would work for the main and emergency.=C2- If you us
ed
>> scuba tanks you=99d only have to change how they were mounted and
the
>> connection to the system.
>>
>> Bear
>>
>> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ernest
>> Martinez
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
>> *To:* yak-list
>> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>
>> Aluminum scuba tanks are designed to be used in salt water, can be
>> hydro tested at any scuba shop, can be replaced for $200, are rated
>> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a looooooooong time before a tank
>> corroded to the point where it couldn't be used to contain 750 PSI.
>>
>> I understand the allure of a direct replacement so you don't need to
>> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking about these new
>> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
>>
>> Is that correct Doug??
>>
>> Ernie
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank Stelwagon
>> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>> wrote:
>>
>>=C2- =C2- =C2- The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as th
e steel tanks,
>>=C2- =C2- =C2- corrosion.=C2- It would take longer but would happ
en - look at the
>>=C2- =C2- =C2- aluminum air filter case.
>>
>>=C2- =C2- =C2- Frank
>>
>>=C2- =C2- =C2- *=C2- *
>>
>>=C2- =C2- =C2- *=C2- *
>>
>>=C2- =C2- =C2- *et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Ya
k-List*
>>
>>=C2- =C2- =C2- *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>>=C2- =C2- =C2- *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>
>>=C2- =C2- =C2- *=C2- *
>>
>> *=C2- *
>> *=C2- *
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>> **
>> **
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>> **
>> *=C2- *
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
S -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Doug,
I have wanted to hydro check my tanks using local sources, and gave up
after calling around 20 places across Fl. No one wanted to touch a non DOT
bottle, not to mention the fact that they didn't have any way to attach
their fittings to the bottle.
Ernie
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:54 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Many thanks to all of you who were kind enough to give thier opinions and
> comments about the SS tanks:
>
> Questions:
> Would they be direct replacement: Yes. Building new racks and restraining
> clamps just is not worth the time or effort IMHO. Also, I fear that it
> won't be long before the insurance companies tumble to the fact that many
> of our aircraft are modified without following the current FAA guidelines
> and use that fact to keep from paying claims. Also and most important is
> the fact the the current rackage is tested and works, why would I want to
> re engineer it and take on that responsibility myself?
>
> Carbon fiber/Kevlar/Stainless Steel: I have requested bids from several
> mfg's in several different materials, but to date SS seems to be the best
> way to go.
>
> Not DOT approved: That is not an issue now, why would it be an issue with
> the SS tanks???
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Sigh.....No good deed goes unpunished, Doug.
Blitz Fox
415-307-2405
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 10:54 AM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Many thanks to all of you who were kind enough to give thier opinions and c
omments about the SS tanks:
>
> Questions:
> Would they be direct replacement: Yes. Building new racks and restraining
clamps just is not worth the time or effort IMHO. Also, I fear that it won
't be long before the insurance companies tumble to the fact that many of ou
r aircraft are modified without following the current FAA guidelines and use
that fact to keep from paying claims. Also and most important is the fact t
he the current rackage is tested and works, why would I want to re engineer i
t and take on that responsibility myself?
>
> Carbon fiber/Kevlar/Stainless Steel: I have requested bids from several m
fg's in several different materials, but to date SS seems to be the best way
to go.
>
> Not DOT approved: That is not an issue now, why would it be an issue with
the SS tanks???
>
> Which tanks will be made first: CJ6 main tanks will be the first to be av
ailable.
>
> Will we do Yak 52 and 50 tanks also: Yes but first we have to obtain a sa
mple of both. Any one out there who might have a non airworthy Yak 50 or 52
main air tank which we could use?? I would be happy to pay what ever is fa
ir. The sooner we can obtain the samples the sooner we can make this happen
.
>
> Again, thank you all for your opinions, good bad or indifferent, they are a
ll important to me.
>
> Best from Omak,
> Doug
>
>
>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:18 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All,
>> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am con
sidering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace th
e current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new SS
tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be certifi
ed at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expensi
ve should be in fact a "lifetime tank", the last one you should ever have to
purchase. Right now cost for a new, albeit old stock standard steel tank w
hich was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tank
s would be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to pr
ice them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit
to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am lo
oking for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
>>
>> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emergenc
y tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 also
.
>>
>> Looking forward to your comments.
>>
>> Best from Omak,
>> Doug and Kathleen
>>
>>
>> et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>
>
>
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 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Doug,
As an FYI, the 52 and 50 main air tanks are not the same size. The 50's tank just
a bit smaller than the 52's.
Dennis
________________________________
From: doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
Many thanks to all of you who were kind enough to give thier opinions and comments
about the SS tanks:
Questions:
Would they be direct replacement: Yes. Building new racks and restraining clamps
just is not worth the time or effort IMHO. Also, I fear that it won't be long
before the insurance companies tumble to the fact that many of our aircraft
are modified without following the current FAA guidelines and use that fact
to keep from paying claims. Also and most important is the fact the the current
rackage is tested and works, why would I want to re engineer it and take on
that responsibility myself?
Carbon fiber/Kevlar/Stainless Steel: I have requested bids from several mfg's
in several different materials, but to date SS seems to be the best way to go.
Not DOT approved: That is not an issue now, why would it be an issue with the
SS tanks???
Which tanks will be made first: CJ6 main tanks will be the first to be available.
Will we do Yak 52 and 50 tanks also: Yes but first we have to obtain a sample
of both. Any one out there who might have a non airworthy Yak 50 or 52 main air
tank which we could use?? I would be happy to pay what ever is fair. The
sooner we can obtain the samples the sooner we can make this happen.
Again, thank you all for your opinions, good bad or indifferent, they are all important
to me.
Best from Omak,
Doug
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:18 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
>Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am considering
taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace the current
std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new SS tanks will
be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be certified at 900 to
1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expensive should be
in fact a "lifetime tank", the last one you should ever have to purchase. Right
now cost for a new, albeit old stock standard steel tank which was manufactured
in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tanks would be of current
mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to price them at this price
I would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit to a total of 60 tanks.
Due to the rather large initial investment I am looking for a show of hands
of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
>
>
>Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emergency tank
and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 also.
>
>
>Looking forward to your comments.
>
>
>Best from Omak,
>Doug and Kathleen
>et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Ernie,
A search of the yak list will give you at least two places to have your
tanks checked, one out here on the west coast and another in Columbus NB.
I will be happy to send you the info if you cannot find it.
Doug
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doug,
>
> I have wanted to hydro check my tanks using local sources, and gave up
> after calling around 20 places across Fl. No one wanted to touch a non DOT
> bottle, not to mention the fact that they didn't have any way to attach
> their fittings to the bottle.
>
> Ernie
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:54 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Many thanks to all of you who were kind enough to give thier opinions and
>> comments about the SS tanks:
>>
>> Questions:
>> Would they be direct replacement: Yes. Building new racks and
>> restraining clamps just is not worth the time or effort IMHO. Also, I fear
>> that it won't be long before the insurance companies tumble to the fact
>> that many of our aircraft are modified without following the current FAA
>> guidelines and use that fact to keep from paying claims. Also and most
>> important is the fact the the current rackage is tested and works, why
>> would I want to re engineer it and take on that responsibility myself?
>>
>> Carbon fiber/Kevlar/Stainless Steel: I have requested bids from several
>> mfg's in several different materials, but to date SS seems to be the best
>> way to go.
>>
>> Not DOT approved: That is not an issue now, why would it be an issue
>> with the SS tanks???
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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: Main Air Tanks |
Dennis,
That is what I have come to understand also, hence the request for a core
to use as a sample.
Thanks much,
Doug
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 11:00 AM, A. Dennis Savarese <
dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Doug,
> As an FYI, the 52 and 50 main air tanks are not the same size. The 50's
> tank just a bit smaller than the 52's.
> Dennis
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com>
> *To:* yak-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 3, 2015 12:54 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> Many thanks to all of you who were kind enough to give thier opinions and
> comments about the SS tanks:
>
> Questions:
> Would they be direct replacement: Yes. Building new racks and restraining
> clamps just is not worth the time or effort IMHO. Also, I fear that it
> won't be long before the insurance companies tumble to the fact that many
> of our aircraft are modified without following the current FAA guidelines
> and use that fact to keep from paying claims. Also and most important is
> the fact the the current rackage is tested and works, why would I want to
> re engineer it and take on that responsibility myself?
>
> Carbon fiber/Kevlar/Stainless Steel: I have requested bids from several
> mfg's in several different materials, but to date SS seems to be the best
> way to go.
>
> Not DOT approved: That is not an issue now, why would it be an issue with
> the SS tanks???
>
> Which tanks will be made first: CJ6 main tanks will be the first to be
> available.
>
> Will we do Yak 52 and 50 tanks also: Yes but first we have to obtain a
> sample of both. Any one out there who might have a non airworthy Yak 50 or
> 52 main air tank which we could use?? I would be happy to pay what ever is
> fair. The sooner we can obtain the samples the sooner we can make this
> happen.
>
> Again, thank you all for your opinions, good bad or indifferent, they are
> all important to me.
>
> Best from Omak,
> Doug
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:18 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am
> considering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to
> replace the current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find.
> The new SS tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and
> be certified at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while
> fairly expensive should be in fact a "lifetime tank", the last one you
> should ever have to purchase. Right now cost for a new, albeit old stock
> standard steel tank which was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about
> $450.00. The new SS tanks would be of current mfg and would cost about
> $700.00 each. In order to price them at this price I would have to order
> them in 20 at a time and commit to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather
> large initial investment I am looking for a show of hands of who would be
> interested if I did stocked them.
>
> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emergency
> tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 also.
>
> Looking forward to your comments.
>
> Best from Omak,
> Doug and Kathleen
>
> *
>
> et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List>
> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
This is the last thing I'm going to say on the subject. I never bad mouthed
Doug's idea, and said from the beginning it is the overall best solution. I
just inquired on whether alternatives were feasible.
Whats the point of this list if one can't discuss shit like this without
getting ones head bit off?
This us vs them crap is stupid, not much has changed in 12 years.
Ernie
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Byron Fox <byronmfox@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sigh.....No good deed goes unpunished, Doug.
>
> Blitz Fox
> 415-307-2405
>
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 10:54 AM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Many thanks to all of you who were kind enough to give thier opinions and
> comments about the SS tanks:
>
> Questions:
> Would they be direct replacement: Yes. Building new racks and restraining
> clamps just is not worth the time or effort IMHO. Also, I fear that it
> won't be long before the insurance companies tumble to the fact that many
> of our aircraft are modified without following the current FAA guidelines
> and use that fact to keep from paying claims. Also and most important is
> the fact the the current rackage is tested and works, why would I want to
> re engineer it and take on that responsibility myself?
>
> Carbon fiber/Kevlar/Stainless Steel: I have requested bids from several
> mfg's in several different materials, but to date SS seems to be the best
> way to go.
>
> Not DOT approved: That is not an issue now, why would it be an issue with
> the SS tanks???
>
> Which tanks will be made first: CJ6 main tanks will be the first to be
> available.
>
> Will we do Yak 52 and 50 tanks also: Yes but first we have to obtain a
> sample of both. Any one out there who might have a non airworthy Yak 50 or
> 52 main air tank which we could use?? I would be happy to pay what ever is
> fair. The sooner we can obtain the samples the sooner we can make this
> happen.
>
> Again, thank you all for your opinions, good bad or indifferent, they are
> all important to me.
>
> Best from Omak,
> Doug
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:18 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All,
>> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am
>> considering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to
>> replace the current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find.
>> The new SS tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and
>> be certified at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while
>> fairly expensive should be in fact a "lifetime tank", the last one you
>> should ever have to purchase. Right now cost for a new, albeit old stock
>> standard steel tank which was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about
>> $450.00. The new SS tanks would be of current mfg and would cost about
>> $700.00 each. In order to price them at this price I would have to order
>> them in 20 at a time and commit to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather
>> large initial investment I am looking for a show of hands of who would be
>> interested if I did stocked them.
>>
>> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ
>> emergency tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the
>> Yak 52 also.
>>
>> Looking forward to your comments.
>>
>> Best from Omak,
>> Doug and Kathleen
>>
>> *
>>
>> et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List>
>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
> *
>
> D============================================
> ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List>
> D============================================
> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
> D============================================
> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
> D============================================
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Thanks Doug.
Ernie
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is the last thing I'm going to say on the subject. I never bad
> mouthed Doug's idea, and said from the beginning it is the overall best
> solution. I just inquired on whether alternatives were feasible.
>
> Whats the point of this list if one can't discuss shit like this without
> getting ones head bit off?
>
> This us vs them crap is stupid, not much has changed in 12 years.
>
> Ernie
>
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Byron Fox <byronmfox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sigh.....No good deed goes unpunished, Doug.
>>
>> Blitz Fox
>> 415-307-2405
>>
>> On Mar 3, 2015, at 10:54 AM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Many thanks to all of you who were kind enough to give thier opinions and
>> comments about the SS tanks:
>>
>> Questions:
>> Would they be direct replacement: Yes. Building new racks and
>> restraining clamps just is not worth the time or effort IMHO. Also, I fear
>> that it won't be long before the insurance companies tumble to the fact
>> that many of our aircraft are modified without following the current FAA
>> guidelines and use that fact to keep from paying claims. Also and most
>> important is the fact the the current rackage is tested and works, why
>> would I want to re engineer it and take on that responsibility myself?
>>
>> Carbon fiber/Kevlar/Stainless Steel: I have requested bids from several
>> mfg's in several different materials, but to date SS seems to be the best
>> way to go.
>>
>> Not DOT approved: That is not an issue now, why would it be an issue
>> with the SS tanks???
>>
>> Which tanks will be made first: CJ6 main tanks will be the first to be
>> available.
>>
>> Will we do Yak 52 and 50 tanks also: Yes but first we have to obtain a
>> sample of both. Any one out there who might have a non airworthy Yak 50 or
>> 52 main air tank which we could use?? I would be happy to pay what ever is
>> fair. The sooner we can obtain the samples the sooner we can make this
>> happen.
>>
>> Again, thank you all for your opinions, good bad or indifferent, they are
>> all important to me.
>>
>> Best from Omak,
>> Doug
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:18 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am
>>> considering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to
>>> replace the current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find.
>>> The new SS tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and
>>> be certified at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while
>>> fairly expensive should be in fact a "lifetime tank", the last one you
>>> should ever have to purchase. Right now cost for a new, albeit old stock
>>> standard steel tank which was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about
>>> $450.00. The new SS tanks would be of current mfg and would cost about
>>> $700.00 each. In order to price them at this price I would have to order
>>> them in 20 at a time and commit to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather
>>> large initial investment I am looking for a show of hands of who would be
>>> interested if I did stocked them.
>>>
>>> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ
>>> emergency tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the
>>> Yak 52 also.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to your comments.
>>>
>>> Best from Omak,
>>> Doug and Kathleen
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List>
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>> *
>>
>> D============================================
>> ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List>
>> D============================================
>> //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
>> D============================================
>> ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
>> D============================================
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Doug,
I'm interested.
Jeff Deuchar
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 11:54 AM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Many thanks to all of you who were kind enough to give thier opinions and c
omments about the SS tanks:
>
> Questions:
> Would they be direct replacement: Yes. Building new racks and restraining
clamps just is not worth the time or effort IMHO. Also, I fear that it won
't be long before the insurance companies tumble to the fact that many of ou
r aircraft are modified without following the current FAA guidelines and use
that fact to keep from paying claims. Also and most important is the fact t
he the current rackage is tested and works, why would I want to re engineer i
t and take on that responsibility myself?
>
> Carbon fiber/Kevlar/Stainless Steel: I have requested bids from several m
fg's in several different materials, but to date SS seems to be the best way
to go.
>
> Not DOT approved: That is not an issue now, why would it be an issue with
the SS tanks???
>
> Which tanks will be made first: CJ6 main tanks will be the first to be av
ailable.
>
> Will we do Yak 52 and 50 tanks also: Yes but first we have to obtain a sa
mple of both. Any one out there who might have a non airworthy Yak 50 or 52
main air tank which we could use?? I would be happy to pay what ever is fa
ir. The sooner we can obtain the samples the sooner we can make this happen
.
>
> Again, thank you all for your opinions, good bad or indifferent, they are a
ll important to me.
>
> Best from Omak,
> Doug
>
>
>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:18 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All,
>> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am con
sidering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace th
e current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new SS
tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be certifi
ed at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expensi
ve should be in fact a "lifetime tank", the last one you should ever have to
purchase. Right now cost for a new, albeit old stock standard steel tank w
hich was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tank
s would be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to pr
ice them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit
to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am lo
oking for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
>>
>> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emergenc
y tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 also
.
>>
>> Looking forward to your comments.
>>
>> Best from Omak,
>> Doug and Kathleen
>>
>>
>> et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>
>
>
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 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Doug,
Put my name on the list.
---- doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
> All,
> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am
> considering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to
> replace the current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find.
> The new SS tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and
> be certified at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while
> fairly expensive should be in fact a "lifetime tank", the last one you
> should ever have to purchase. Right now cost for a new, albeit old stock
> standard steel tank which was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about
> $450.00. The new SS tanks would be of current mfg and would cost about
> $700.00 each. In order to price them at this price I would have to order
> them in 20 at a time and commit to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather
> large initial investment I am looking for a show of hands of who would be
> interested if I did stocked them.
>
> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emergency
> tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 also.
>
> Looking forward to your comments.
>
> Best from Omak,
> Doug and Kathleen
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Me too :-)
Richard Hess
C 404-964-4885
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Jeff <rocketerf1@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> I'm interested.
>
> Jeff Deuchar
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Mar 3, 2015, at 11:54 AM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Many thanks to all of you who were kind enough to give thier opinions and
comments about the SS tanks:
>>
>> Questions:
>> Would they be direct replacement: Yes. Building new racks and restrainin
g clamps just is not worth the time or effort IMHO. Also, I fear that it wo
n't be long before the insurance companies tumble to the fact that many of o
ur aircraft are modified without following the current FAA guidelines and us
e that fact to keep from paying claims. Also and most important is the fact
the the current rackage is tested and works, why would I want to re enginee
r it and take on that responsibility myself?
>>
>> Carbon fiber/Kevlar/Stainless Steel: I have requested bids from several m
fg's in several different materials, but to date SS seems to be the best way
to go.
>>
>> Not DOT approved: That is not an issue now, why would it be an issue wit
h the SS tanks???
>>
>> Which tanks will be made first: CJ6 main tanks will be the first to be a
vailable.
>>
>> Will we do Yak 52 and 50 tanks also: Yes but first we have to obtain a s
ample of both. Any one out there who might have a non airworthy Yak 50 or 5
2 main air tank which we could use?? I would be happy to pay what ever is f
air. The sooner we can obtain the samples the sooner we can make this happe
n.
>>
>> Again, thank you all for your opinions, good bad or indifferent, they are
all important to me.
>>
>> Best from Omak,
>> Doug
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:18 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> All,
>>> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am co
nsidering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace t
he current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new S
S tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be certif
ied at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expens
ive should be in fact a "lifetime tank", the last one you should ever have t
o purchase. Right now cost for a new, albeit old stock standard steel tank w
hich was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tank
s would be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to pr
ice them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit
to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am lo
oking for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
>>>
>>> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emergen
cy tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 als
o.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to your comments.
>>>
>>> Best from Omak,
>>> Doug and Kathleen
>>>
>>>
>>> et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank">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
>> 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=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 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Me too :-)
Richard Hess
C 404-964-4885
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Jeff <rocketerf1@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> I'm interested.
>
> Jeff Deuchar
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Mar 3, 2015, at 11:54 AM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Many thanks to all of you who were kind enough to give thier opinions and
comments about the SS tanks:
>>
>> Questions:
>> Would they be direct replacement: Yes. Building new racks and restrainin
g clamps just is not worth the time or effort IMHO. Also, I fear that it wo
n't be long before the insurance companies tumble to the fact that many of o
ur aircraft are modified without following the current FAA guidelines and us
e that fact to keep from paying claims. Also and most important is the fact
the the current rackage is tested and works, why would I want to re enginee
r it and take on that responsibility myself?
>>
>> Carbon fiber/Kevlar/Stainless Steel: I have requested bids from several m
fg's in several different materials, but to date SS seems to be the best way
to go.
>>
>> Not DOT approved: That is not an issue now, why would it be an issue wit
h the SS tanks???
>>
>> Which tanks will be made first: CJ6 main tanks will be the first to be a
vailable.
>>
>> Will we do Yak 52 and 50 tanks also: Yes but first we have to obtain a s
ample of both. Any one out there who might have a non airworthy Yak 50 or 5
2 main air tank which we could use?? I would be happy to pay what ever is f
air. The sooner we can obtain the samples the sooner we can make this happe
n.
>>
>> Again, thank you all for your opinions, good bad or indifferent, they are
all important to me.
>>
>> Best from Omak,
>> Doug
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:18 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> All,
>>> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am co
nsidering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace t
he current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new S
S tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be certif
ied at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expens
ive should be in fact a "lifetime tank", the last one you should ever have t
o purchase. Right now cost for a new, albeit old stock standard steel tank w
hich was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tank
s would be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to pr
ice them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit
to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am lo
oking for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
>>>
>>> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emergen
cy tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 als
o.
>>>
>>> Looking forward to your comments.
>>>
>>> Best from Omak,
>>> Doug and Kathleen
>>>
>>>
>>> et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>> _blank">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
>> 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=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 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Yak-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 03/02/15 |
I would buy one for Yak 52
> Date: Tue=2C 3 Mar 2015 00:03:38 -0800
> From: yak-list@matronics.com
> To: yak-list-digest@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 03/02/15
>
> *
>
> ========================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ========================
>
> Today's complete Yak-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the Yak-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=h
tml&Chapter 15-03-02&Archive=Yak
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=t
xt&Chapter 15-03-02&Archive=Yak
>
>
> ========================
=======================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ========================
=======================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Yak-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Mon 03/02/15: 13
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 01:00 PM - M14P Stainless Steel Exhaust System (jetjockey)
> 2. 04:19 PM - Main Air Tanks (doug sapp)
> 3. 05:02 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Todd McCutchan)
> 4. 05:07 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Roger Kemp)
> 5. 05:20 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (migfighter42)
> 6. 05:24 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Ernest Martinez)
> 7. 05:26 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Dan Payne)
> 8. 05:35 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Frank Stelwagon)
> 9. 05:38 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Dave Jester)
> 10. 05:43 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Ernest Martinez)
> 11. 07:29 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (DaBear)
> 12. 08:03 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Walter Lannon)
> 13. 09:39 PM - Re: Yakmen in New Zealand??Need advice (ZUDSJ)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 01:00:08 PM PST US
> Subject: Yak-List: M14P Stainless Steel Exhaust System
> From: "jetjockey" <jetjockey@alumni.utexas.net>
>
>
> My buyer for the M14 exhaust turned out to be a deadbeat and never sent p
ayment
> so I have relisted the exhaust system on Ebay. If you know of anyone in
need
> of a brand new system=2C please let them know about this please.
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/201299199984?item 1299199984&viewitem=&vxp=mt
r
>
> Thanks=2C
> Ray
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438885#438885
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 04:19:42 PM PST US
> Subject: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
> From: doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com>
>
> All=2C
> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am
> considering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to
> replace the current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find
.
> The new SS tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company a
nd
> be certified at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while
> fairly expensive should be in fact a "lifetime tank"=2C the last one you
> should ever have to purchase. Right now cost for a new=2C albeit old sto
ck
> standard steel tank which was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about
> $450.00. The new SS tanks would be of current mfg and would cost about
> $700.00 each. In order to price them at this price I would have to order
> them in 20 at a time and commit to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rathe
r
> large initial investment I am looking for a show of hands of who would be
> interested if I did stocked them.
>
> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emergenc
y
> tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 als
o.
>
> Looking forward to your comments.
>
> Best from Omak=2C
> Doug and Kathleen
>
> ________________________________ Message 3 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:02:02 PM PST US
> From: Todd McCutchan <todd@fastaircraft.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> I would be interested in an alternative for the Yak 50 as well (main and
eme
> rgency bottles).
>
> Todd McCutchan
> T-34A & Yak-50
> Cell: (260) 402-1740
> E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com
> www.fastaircraft.com
>
>
> > On Mar 2=2C 2015=2C at 5:18 PM=2C doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wro
te:
> >
> > All=2C
> > Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am c
ons
> idering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace
the
> current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new
SS t
> anks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be certif
ied
> at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expens
ive
> should be in fact a "lifetime tank"=2C the last one you should ever have
to p
> urchase. Right now cost for a new=2C albeit old stock standard steel tan
k whi
> ch was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tan
ks w
> ould be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to pr
ice
> them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit
to
> a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am lo
oki
> ng for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
> >
> > Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emerge
ncy
> tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 al
so.
>
> >
> > Looking forward to your comments.
> >
> > Best from Omak=2C
> > Doug and Kathleen
> >
> >
> 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 4 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:07:27 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
> From: Roger Kemp <f16viperdoc@me.com>
>
> Doug=2C
> I'm interested.
> Doc
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Mar 2=2C 2015=2C at 6:18 PM=2C doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wro
te:
> >
> > All=2C
> > Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am c
ons
> idering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace
the
> current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new
SS t
> anks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be certif
ied
> at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expens
ive
> should be in fact a "lifetime tank"=2C the last one you should ever have
to p
> urchase. Right now cost for a new=2C albeit old stock standard steel tan
k whi
> ch was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tan
ks w
> ould be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to pr
ice
> them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit
to
> a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am lo
oki
> ng for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
> >
> > Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emerge
ncy
> tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 al
so.
>
> >
> > Looking forward to your comments.
> >
> > Best from Omak=2C
> > Doug and Kathleen
> >
> >
> 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 5 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:20:59 PM PST US
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
> From: migfighter42 <migfighter42@gmail.com>
>
> RG91ZywKCkkgd291bGQgYmUgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpbiBhIHNldCBmb3IgdGhlIFlhayA1Mi4KC
kJp
> bGwgQ3VsYmVyc29uClJlZCBTdGFyIEFlcm8gU2VydmljZXMKCjxkaXY+LS0tLS0tLS0gT3JpZ
2lu
> YWwgbWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLS0tLTwvZGl2PjxkaXY+RnJvbTogZG91ZyBzYXBwIDxkb3Vnc2Fwc
Gxs
> Y0BnbWFpbC5jb20+IDwvZGl2PjxkaXY+RGF0ZTowMy8wMi8yMDE1ICA2OjE4IFBNICAoR01UL
TA2
> OjAwKSA8L2Rpdj48ZGl2PlRvOiB5YWstbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIDwvZGl2PjxkaXY+Q
2M6
> ICA8L2Rpdj48ZGl2PlN1YmplY3Q6IFlhay1MaXN0OiBNYWluIEFpciBUYW5rcyA8L2Rpdj48Z
Gl2
> Pgo8L2Rpdj5BbGwsCkR1ZSB0byByYXBpZGx5IGVzY2FsYXRpbmcgcHJpY2VzIGZvciBtYWluI
GFp
> ciB0YW5rcyBvdXQgb2YgQ2hpbmEgSSBhbSBjb25zaWRlcmluZyB0YWtpbmcgb24gYSBwcm9qZ
WN0
> IHRvIHByb2R1Y2UgYSBzdGFpbmxlc3Mgc3RlZWwgdGFuayB0byByZXBsYWNlIHRoZSBjdXJyZ
W50
> IHN0ZCBzdGVlbCB0YW5rcyB3aGljaCBhcmUgZ2V0dGluZyByYXRoZXIgaGFyZCB0byBmaW5kL
iAg
> VGhlIG5ldyBTUyB0YW5rcyB3aWxsIGJlIGJ1aWx0IGJ5IGEgbGljZW5zZWQgdGFuayBtYW51Z
mFj
> dHVyaW5nIGNvbXBhbnkgYW5kIGJlIGNlcnRpZmllZCBhdCA5MDAgdG8gMTAwMCBwc2kuICBUa
GVz
> ZSBuZXcgc3RhaW5sZXNzIHN0ZWVsIHRhbmtzIHdoaWxlIGZhaXJseSBleHBlbnNpdmUgc2hvd
Wxk
> IGJlIGluIGZhY3QgYSAibGlmZXRpbWUgdGFuayIsIHRoZSBsYXN0IG9uZSB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkI
GV2
> ZXIgaGF2ZSB0byBwdXJjaGFzZS4gIFJpZ2h0IG5vdyBjb3N0IGZvciBhIG5ldywgYWxiZWl0I
G9s
> ZCBzdG9jayBzdGFuZGFyZCBzdGVlbCB0YW5rIHdoaWNoIHdhcyBtYW51ZmFjdHVyZWQgaW4gd
Ghl
> IDgwJ3Mgb3IgOTAncyBpcyBhYm91dCAkNDUwLjAwLiAgVGhlIG5ldyBTUyB0YW5rcyB3b3VsZ
CBi
> ZSBvZiBjdXJyZW50IG1mZyBhbmQgd291bGQgY29zdCBhYm91dCAkNzAwLjAwIGVhY2guICBJb
iBv
> cmRlciB0byBwcmljZSB0aGVtIGF0IHRoaXMgcHJpY2UgSSB3b3VsZCBoYXZlIHRvIG9yZGVyI
HRo
> ZW0gaW4gMjAgYXQgYSB0aW1lIGFuZCBjb21taXQgdG8gYSB0b3RhbCBvZiA2MCB0YW5rcy4gI
ER1
> ZSB0byB0aGUgcmF0aGVyIGxhcmdlIGluaXRpYWwgaW52ZXN0bWVudCBJIGFtIGxvb2tpbmcgZ
m9y
> IGEgc2hvdyBvZiBoYW5kcyBvZiB3aG8gd291bGQgYmUgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpZiBJIGRpZCBzd
G9j
> a2VkIHRoZW0uCgpTaG91bGQgZW5vdWdoIGZvbGtzIHN0ZXAgZm9yd2FyZCB3ZSB3aWxsIGFsc
28g
> YmUgc3RvY2tpbmcgdGhlIENKIGVtZXJnZW5jeSB0YW5rIGFuZCBpZiBkZW1hbmQgaXMgdGhlc
mUg
> d2Ugd2lsbCBsb29rIGludG8gU1MgdGFua3MgZm9yIHRoZSBZYWsgNTIgYWxzby4KCkxvb2tpb
mcg
> Zm9yd2FyZCB0byB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnRzLgoKQmVzdCBmcm9tIE9tYWssCkRvdWcgYW5kIEthd
Ghs
> ZWVuCgoKXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09P
T09
> PT09PT09PT09PT0KXy09ICAgICAgICAgIC0gVGhlIFlhay1MaXN0IEVtYWlsIEZvcnVtIC0KX
y09
> IFVzZSB0aGUgTWF0cm9uaWNzIExpc3QgRmVhdHVyZXMgTmF2aWdhdG9yIHRvIGJyb3dzZQpfL
T0g
> dGhlIG1hbnkgTGlzdCB1dGlsaXRpZXMgc3VjaCBhcyBMaXN0IFVuL1N1YnNjcmlwdGlvbiwKX
y09
> IEFyY2hpdmUgU2VhcmNoICYgRG93bmxvYWQsIDctRGF5IEJyb3dzZSwgQ2hhdCwgRkFRLApfL
T0g
> UGhvdG9zaGFyZSwgYW5kIG11Y2ggbXVjaCBtb3JlOgpfLT0KXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly93d
3cu
> bWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbS9OYXZpZ2F0b3I/WWFrLUxpc3QKXy09Cl8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09P
T09
> PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09Cl8tPSAgICAgICAgI
CAg
> ICAgIC0gTUFUUk9OSUNTIFdFQiBGT1JVTVMgLQpfLT0gU2FtZSBncmVhdCBjb250ZW50IGFsc
28g
> YXZhaWxhYmxlIHZpYSB0aGUgV2ViIEZvcnVtcyEKXy09Cl8tPSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vZm9yd
W1z
> Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20KXy09Cl8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09P
T09
> PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09Cl8tPSAgICAgICAgICAgICAtIExpc3QgQ29udHJpY
nV0
> aW9uIFdlYiBTaXRlIC0KXy09ICBUaGFuayB5b3UgZm9yIHlvdXIgZ2VuZXJvdXMgc3VwcG9yd
CEK
> Xy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLU1hdHQgRHJhbGxlLCBMaXN0IEFkb
Wlu
> LgpfLT0gICAtLT4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL2NvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbgpfLT09P
T09
> PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09P
QoK
>
> ________________________________ Message 6 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:24:25 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
> From: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
>
> Doug=2C
>
> Why not just manufacture an adapter to connect to scuba bottles? Not to
> mention you could get aluminum scuba tanks that weigh a lot less.
>
> Ernie
>
> On Mon=2C Mar 2=2C 2015 at 8:05 PM=2C Roger Kemp <f16viperdoc@me.com> wro
te:
>
> > Doug=2C
> > I'm interested.
> > Doc
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Mar 2=2C 2015=2C at 6:18 PM=2C doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wro
te:
> >
> > All=2C
> > Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am
> > considering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to
> > replace the current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to fi
nd.
> > The new SS tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company
and
> > be certified at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while
> > fairly expensive should be in fact a "lifetime tank"=2C the last one yo
u
> > should ever have to purchase. Right now cost for a new=2C albeit old s
tock
> > standard steel tank which was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about
> > $450.00. The new SS tanks would be of current mfg and would cost about
> > $700.00 each. In order to price them at this price I would have to ord
er
> > them in 20 at a time and commit to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rat
her
> > large initial investment I am looking for a show of hands of who would
be
> > interested if I did stocked them.
> >
> > Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emerge
ncy
> > tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 a
lso.
> >
> > Looking forward to your comments.
> >
> > Best from Omak=2C
> > Doug and Kathleen
> >
> > *
> >
> > D=======================
====================
> > ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List <http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Yak-List>
> > D=======================
====================
> > //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
> > D=======================
====================
> > ot=3B">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/
contribution>
> > D=======================
====================
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________ Message 7 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:26:21 PM PST US
> From: Dan Payne <dantpayne@icloud.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> Interested
>
> Keep 'em Flyin'=2C
>
> Dan Payne
> Owner=2C Pilot=2C A&P-IA
> (423)-544-8946
>
> Eagle Works Aviation
> Dallas Bay Skypark
> 1824 E Crabtree Road
> Hixson=2C TN 37343
>
> "Where Airworthiness Means Business!"
>
>
> > On Mar 2=2C 2015=2C at 7:18 PM=2C doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wro
te:
> >
> > All=2C
> > Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am c
ons
> idering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace
the
> current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new
SS t
> anks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be certif
ied
> at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expens
ive
> should be in fact a "lifetime tank"=2C the last one you should ever have
to p
> urchase. Right now cost for a new=2C albeit old stock standard steel tan
k whi
> ch was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tan
ks w
> ould be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to pr
ice
> them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit
to
> a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am lo
oki
> ng for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
> >
> > Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emerge
ncy
> tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 al
so.
>
> >
> > Looking forward to your comments.
> >
> > Best from Omak=2C
> > Doug and Kathleen
> >
> >
> 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 8 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:35:40 PM PST US
> From: "Frank Stelwagon" <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel tanks=2C
> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the aluminum
> air filter case.
>
> Frank
>
> ________________________________ Message 9 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:38:11 PM PST US
> From: Dave Jester <wdjester@cox.net>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> I am in for a 52 Tank.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Mar 2=2C 2015=2C at 6:41 PM=2C Todd McCutchan <todd@fastaircraft.com
> wrote:
> >
> > I would be interested in an alternative for the Yak 50 as well (main an
d e
> mergency bottles).
> >
> > Todd McCutchan
> > T-34A & Yak-50
> > Cell: (260) 402-1740
> > E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com
> > www.fastaircraft.com
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Mar 2=2C 2015=2C at 5:18 PM=2C doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wr
ote:
> >>
> >> All=2C
> >> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am
con
> sidering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace
th
> e current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new
SS
> tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be cert
ifi
> ed at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expe
nsi
> ve should be in fact a "lifetime tank"=2C the last one you should ever ha
ve to
> purchase. Right now cost for a new=2C albeit old stock standard steel t
ank w
> hich was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS t
ank
> s would be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to
pr
> ice them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and com
mit
> to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am
lo
> oking for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked the
m.
> >>
> >> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emerg
enc
> y tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 a
lso
> ..
> >>
> >> Looking forward to your comments.
> >>
> >> Best from Omak=2C
> >> Doug and Kathleen
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
=3
> D=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
=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=3
D
> 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=3B">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
=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 10 ___________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:43:38 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
> From: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
>
> Aluminum scuba tanks are designed to be used in salt water=2C can be hydr
o
> tested at any scuba shop=2C can be replaced for $200=2C are rated for 400
0 PSI=2C
> so it would be a looooooooong time before a tank corroded to the point
> where it couldn't be used to contain 750 PSI.
>
> I understand the allure of a direct replacement so you don't need to worr
y
> about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking about these new tanks with t
he
> same form factor as stock.
>
> Is that correct Doug??
>
> Ernie
>
> On Mon=2C Mar 2=2C 2015 at 8:34 PM=2C Frank Stelwagon <pfstelwagon@earthl
ink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel tanks=2C
> > corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the aluminu
m
> > air filter case.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________ Message 11 ___________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 07:29:03 PM PST US
> From: "DaBear" <dabear@damned.org>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> I have to agree with the Scuba idea. Don=99t manufacture a new
> tank=2C change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf
> technology cheaper. It would work for the main and emergency. If you
> used scuba tanks you=99d only have to change how they were mounted
> and the connection to the system.
>
>
> Bear
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
> Martinez
> Sent: Monday=2C March 02=2C 2015 8:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
>
> Aluminum scuba tanks are designed to be used in salt water=2C can be hydr
o
> tested at any scuba shop=2C can be replaced for $200=2C are rated for 400
0
> PSI=2C so it would be a looooooooong time before a tank corroded to the
> point where it couldn't be used to contain 750 PSI.
>
>
> I understand the allure of a direct replacement so you don't need to
> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking about these new tanks
> with the same form factor as stock.
>
>
> Is that correct Doug??
>
>
> Ernie
>
>
> On Mon=2C Mar 2=2C 2015 at 8:34 PM=2C Frank Stelwagon
> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net> > wrote:
>
> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel tanks=2C
> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the aluminum
> air filter case.
>
>
> Frank
>
>
> et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 12 ___________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 08:03:59 PM PST US
> From: "Walter Lannon" <wlannon@shaw.ca>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> I installed new tanks at restoration of my CJ and charged the emergency
> tank with nitrogen. Also do a top up after annual annual emergency
> gear swing. Hopefully this tank should remain free of corrosion.
>
> Walt
>
> From: doug sapp
> Sent: Monday=2C March 02=2C 2015 4:18 PM
> Subject: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> All=2C
> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am
> considering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to
> replace the current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to
> find. The new SS tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing
> company and be certified at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel
> tanks while fairly expensive should be in fact a "lifetime tank"=2C the
> last one you should ever have to purchase. Right now cost for a new=2C
> albeit old stock standard steel tank which was manufactured in the 80's
> or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tanks would be of current mfg and
> would cost about $700.00 each. In order to price them at this price I
> would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit to a total of 60
> tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am looking for a
> show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
>
> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ
> emergency tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the
> Yak 52 also.
>
> Looking forward to your comments.
>
> Best from Omak=2C
> Doug and Kathleen
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 13 ___________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 09:39:53 PM PST US
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yakmen in New Zealand??Need advice
> From: "ZUDSJ" <waferflex@gmail.com>
>
>
> Thanks Richard. Have been in email contact with him :D
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438907#438907
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Yak-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 03/02/15 |
I would buy one for Yak 52
> Date: Tue=2C 3 Mar 2015 00:03:38 -0800
> From: yak-list@matronics.com
> To: yak-list-digest@matronics.com
> Subject: Yak-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 03/02/15
>
> *
>
> ========================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ========================
>
> Today's complete Yak-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the Yak-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=h
tml&Chapter 15-03-02&Archive=Yak
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=t
xt&Chapter 15-03-02&Archive=Yak
>
>
> ========================
=======================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ========================
=======================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Yak-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Mon 03/02/15: 13
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 01:00 PM - M14P Stainless Steel Exhaust System (jetjockey)
> 2. 04:19 PM - Main Air Tanks (doug sapp)
> 3. 05:02 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Todd McCutchan)
> 4. 05:07 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Roger Kemp)
> 5. 05:20 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (migfighter42)
> 6. 05:24 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Ernest Martinez)
> 7. 05:26 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Dan Payne)
> 8. 05:35 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Frank Stelwagon)
> 9. 05:38 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Dave Jester)
> 10. 05:43 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Ernest Martinez)
> 11. 07:29 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (DaBear)
> 12. 08:03 PM - Re: Main Air Tanks (Walter Lannon)
> 13. 09:39 PM - Re: Yakmen in New Zealand??Need advice (ZUDSJ)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 01:00:08 PM PST US
> Subject: Yak-List: M14P Stainless Steel Exhaust System
> From: "jetjockey" <jetjockey@alumni.utexas.net>
>
>
> My buyer for the M14 exhaust turned out to be a deadbeat and never sent p
ayment
> so I have relisted the exhaust system on Ebay. If you know of anyone in
need
> of a brand new system=2C please let them know about this please.
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/201299199984?item 1299199984&viewitem=&vxp=mt
r
>
> Thanks=2C
> Ray
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438885#438885
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 04:19:42 PM PST US
> Subject: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
> From: doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com>
>
> All=2C
> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am
> considering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to
> replace the current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find
.
> The new SS tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company a
nd
> be certified at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while
> fairly expensive should be in fact a "lifetime tank"=2C the last one you
> should ever have to purchase. Right now cost for a new=2C albeit old sto
ck
> standard steel tank which was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about
> $450.00. The new SS tanks would be of current mfg and would cost about
> $700.00 each. In order to price them at this price I would have to order
> them in 20 at a time and commit to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rathe
r
> large initial investment I am looking for a show of hands of who would be
> interested if I did stocked them.
>
> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emergenc
y
> tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 als
o.
>
> Looking forward to your comments.
>
> Best from Omak=2C
> Doug and Kathleen
>
> ________________________________ Message 3 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:02:02 PM PST US
> From: Todd McCutchan <todd@fastaircraft.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> I would be interested in an alternative for the Yak 50 as well (main and
eme
> rgency bottles).
>
> Todd McCutchan
> T-34A & Yak-50
> Cell: (260) 402-1740
> E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com
> www.fastaircraft.com
>
>
> > On Mar 2=2C 2015=2C at 5:18 PM=2C doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wro
te:
> >
> > All=2C
> > Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am c
ons
> idering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace
the
> current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new
SS t
> anks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be certif
ied
> at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expens
ive
> should be in fact a "lifetime tank"=2C the last one you should ever have
to p
> urchase. Right now cost for a new=2C albeit old stock standard steel tan
k whi
> ch was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tan
ks w
> ould be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to pr
ice
> them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit
to
> a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am lo
oki
> ng for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
> >
> > Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emerge
ncy
> tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 al
so.
>
> >
> > Looking forward to your comments.
> >
> > Best from Omak=2C
> > Doug and Kathleen
> >
> >
> 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 4 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:07:27 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
> From: Roger Kemp <f16viperdoc@me.com>
>
> Doug=2C
> I'm interested.
> Doc
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Mar 2=2C 2015=2C at 6:18 PM=2C doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wro
te:
> >
> > All=2C
> > Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am c
ons
> idering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace
the
> current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new
SS t
> anks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be certif
ied
> at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expens
ive
> should be in fact a "lifetime tank"=2C the last one you should ever have
to p
> urchase. Right now cost for a new=2C albeit old stock standard steel tan
k whi
> ch was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tan
ks w
> ould be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to pr
ice
> them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit
to
> a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am lo
oki
> ng for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
> >
> > Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emerge
ncy
> tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 al
so.
>
> >
> > Looking forward to your comments.
> >
> > Best from Omak=2C
> > Doug and Kathleen
> >
> >
> 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 5 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:20:59 PM PST US
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
> From: migfighter42 <migfighter42@gmail.com>
>
> RG91ZywKCkkgd291bGQgYmUgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpbiBhIHNldCBmb3IgdGhlIFlhayA1Mi4KC
kJp
> bGwgQ3VsYmVyc29uClJlZCBTdGFyIEFlcm8gU2VydmljZXMKCjxkaXY+LS0tLS0tLS0gT3JpZ
2lu
> YWwgbWVzc2FnZSAtLS0tLS0tLTwvZGl2PjxkaXY+RnJvbTogZG91ZyBzYXBwIDxkb3Vnc2Fwc
Gxs
> Y0BnbWFpbC5jb20+IDwvZGl2PjxkaXY+RGF0ZTowMy8wMi8yMDE1ICA2OjE4IFBNICAoR01UL
TA2
> OjAwKSA8L2Rpdj48ZGl2PlRvOiB5YWstbGlzdEBtYXRyb25pY3MuY29tIDwvZGl2PjxkaXY+Q
2M6
> ICA8L2Rpdj48ZGl2PlN1YmplY3Q6IFlhay1MaXN0OiBNYWluIEFpciBUYW5rcyA8L2Rpdj48Z
Gl2
> Pgo8L2Rpdj5BbGwsCkR1ZSB0byByYXBpZGx5IGVzY2FsYXRpbmcgcHJpY2VzIGZvciBtYWluI
GFp
> ciB0YW5rcyBvdXQgb2YgQ2hpbmEgSSBhbSBjb25zaWRlcmluZyB0YWtpbmcgb24gYSBwcm9qZ
WN0
> IHRvIHByb2R1Y2UgYSBzdGFpbmxlc3Mgc3RlZWwgdGFuayB0byByZXBsYWNlIHRoZSBjdXJyZ
W50
> IHN0ZCBzdGVlbCB0YW5rcyB3aGljaCBhcmUgZ2V0dGluZyByYXRoZXIgaGFyZCB0byBmaW5kL
iAg
> VGhlIG5ldyBTUyB0YW5rcyB3aWxsIGJlIGJ1aWx0IGJ5IGEgbGljZW5zZWQgdGFuayBtYW51Z
mFj
> dHVyaW5nIGNvbXBhbnkgYW5kIGJlIGNlcnRpZmllZCBhdCA5MDAgdG8gMTAwMCBwc2kuICBUa
GVz
> ZSBuZXcgc3RhaW5sZXNzIHN0ZWVsIHRhbmtzIHdoaWxlIGZhaXJseSBleHBlbnNpdmUgc2hvd
Wxk
> IGJlIGluIGZhY3QgYSAibGlmZXRpbWUgdGFuayIsIHRoZSBsYXN0IG9uZSB5b3Ugc2hvdWxkI
GV2
> ZXIgaGF2ZSB0byBwdXJjaGFzZS4gIFJpZ2h0IG5vdyBjb3N0IGZvciBhIG5ldywgYWxiZWl0I
G9s
> ZCBzdG9jayBzdGFuZGFyZCBzdGVlbCB0YW5rIHdoaWNoIHdhcyBtYW51ZmFjdHVyZWQgaW4gd
Ghl
> IDgwJ3Mgb3IgOTAncyBpcyBhYm91dCAkNDUwLjAwLiAgVGhlIG5ldyBTUyB0YW5rcyB3b3VsZ
CBi
> ZSBvZiBjdXJyZW50IG1mZyBhbmQgd291bGQgY29zdCBhYm91dCAkNzAwLjAwIGVhY2guICBJb
iBv
> cmRlciB0byBwcmljZSB0aGVtIGF0IHRoaXMgcHJpY2UgSSB3b3VsZCBoYXZlIHRvIG9yZGVyI
HRo
> ZW0gaW4gMjAgYXQgYSB0aW1lIGFuZCBjb21taXQgdG8gYSB0b3RhbCBvZiA2MCB0YW5rcy4gI
ER1
> ZSB0byB0aGUgcmF0aGVyIGxhcmdlIGluaXRpYWwgaW52ZXN0bWVudCBJIGFtIGxvb2tpbmcgZ
m9y
> IGEgc2hvdyBvZiBoYW5kcyBvZiB3aG8gd291bGQgYmUgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpZiBJIGRpZCBzd
G9j
> a2VkIHRoZW0uCgpTaG91bGQgZW5vdWdoIGZvbGtzIHN0ZXAgZm9yd2FyZCB3ZSB3aWxsIGFsc
28g
> YmUgc3RvY2tpbmcgdGhlIENKIGVtZXJnZW5jeSB0YW5rIGFuZCBpZiBkZW1hbmQgaXMgdGhlc
mUg
> d2Ugd2lsbCBsb29rIGludG8gU1MgdGFua3MgZm9yIHRoZSBZYWsgNTIgYWxzby4KCkxvb2tpb
mcg
> Zm9yd2FyZCB0byB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnRzLgoKQmVzdCBmcm9tIE9tYWssCkRvdWcgYW5kIEthd
Ghs
> ZWVuCgoKXy09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09P
T09
> PT09PT09PT09PT0KXy09ICAgICAgICAgIC0gVGhlIFlhay1MaXN0IEVtYWlsIEZvcnVtIC0KX
y09
> IFVzZSB0aGUgTWF0cm9uaWNzIExpc3QgRmVhdHVyZXMgTmF2aWdhdG9yIHRvIGJyb3dzZQpfL
T0g
> dGhlIG1hbnkgTGlzdCB1dGlsaXRpZXMgc3VjaCBhcyBMaXN0IFVuL1N1YnNjcmlwdGlvbiwKX
y09
> IEFyY2hpdmUgU2VhcmNoICYgRG93bmxvYWQsIDctRGF5IEJyb3dzZSwgQ2hhdCwgRkFRLApfL
T0g
> UGhvdG9zaGFyZSwgYW5kIG11Y2ggbXVjaCBtb3JlOgpfLT0KXy09ICAgLS0+IGh0dHA6Ly93d
3cu
> bWF0cm9uaWNzLmNvbS9OYXZpZ2F0b3I/WWFrLUxpc3QKXy09Cl8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09P
T09
> PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09Cl8tPSAgICAgICAgI
CAg
> ICAgIC0gTUFUUk9OSUNTIFdFQiBGT1JVTVMgLQpfLT0gU2FtZSBncmVhdCBjb250ZW50IGFsc
28g
> YXZhaWxhYmxlIHZpYSB0aGUgV2ViIEZvcnVtcyEKXy09Cl8tPSAgIC0tPiBodHRwOi8vZm9yd
W1z
> Lm1hdHJvbmljcy5jb20KXy09Cl8tPT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09P
T09
> PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09Cl8tPSAgICAgICAgICAgICAtIExpc3QgQ29udHJpY
nV0
> aW9uIFdlYiBTaXRlIC0KXy09ICBUaGFuayB5b3UgZm9yIHlvdXIgZ2VuZXJvdXMgc3VwcG9yd
CEK
> Xy09ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgLU1hdHQgRHJhbGxlLCBMaXN0IEFkb
Wlu
> LgpfLT0gICAtLT4gaHR0cDovL3d3dy5tYXRyb25pY3MuY29tL2NvbnRyaWJ1dGlvbgpfLT09P
T09
> PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09PT09P
QoK
>
> ________________________________ Message 6 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:24:25 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
> From: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
>
> Doug=2C
>
> Why not just manufacture an adapter to connect to scuba bottles? Not to
> mention you could get aluminum scuba tanks that weigh a lot less.
>
> Ernie
>
> On Mon=2C Mar 2=2C 2015 at 8:05 PM=2C Roger Kemp <f16viperdoc@me.com> wro
te:
>
> > Doug=2C
> > I'm interested.
> > Doc
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Mar 2=2C 2015=2C at 6:18 PM=2C doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wro
te:
> >
> > All=2C
> > Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am
> > considering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to
> > replace the current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to fi
nd.
> > The new SS tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company
and
> > be certified at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while
> > fairly expensive should be in fact a "lifetime tank"=2C the last one yo
u
> > should ever have to purchase. Right now cost for a new=2C albeit old s
tock
> > standard steel tank which was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about
> > $450.00. The new SS tanks would be of current mfg and would cost about
> > $700.00 each. In order to price them at this price I would have to ord
er
> > them in 20 at a time and commit to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rat
her
> > large initial investment I am looking for a show of hands of who would
be
> > interested if I did stocked them.
> >
> > Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emerge
ncy
> > tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 a
lso.
> >
> > Looking forward to your comments.
> >
> > Best from Omak=2C
> > Doug and Kathleen
> >
> > *
> >
> > D=======================
====================
> > ist"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List <http://www.matronics
.com/Navigator?Yak-List>
> > D=======================
====================
> > //forums.matronics.com <http://forums.matronics.com>
> > D=======================
====================
> > ot=3B">http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/
contribution>
> > D=======================
====================
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________ Message 7 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:26:21 PM PST US
> From: Dan Payne <dantpayne@icloud.com>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> Interested
>
> Keep 'em Flyin'=2C
>
> Dan Payne
> Owner=2C Pilot=2C A&P-IA
> (423)-544-8946
>
> Eagle Works Aviation
> Dallas Bay Skypark
> 1824 E Crabtree Road
> Hixson=2C TN 37343
>
> "Where Airworthiness Means Business!"
>
>
> > On Mar 2=2C 2015=2C at 7:18 PM=2C doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wro
te:
> >
> > All=2C
> > Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am c
ons
> idering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace
the
> current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new
SS t
> anks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be certif
ied
> at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expens
ive
> should be in fact a "lifetime tank"=2C the last one you should ever have
to p
> urchase. Right now cost for a new=2C albeit old stock standard steel tan
k whi
> ch was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tan
ks w
> ould be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to pr
ice
> them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit
to
> a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am lo
oki
> ng for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
> >
> > Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emerge
ncy
> tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 al
so.
>
> >
> > Looking forward to your comments.
> >
> > Best from Omak=2C
> > Doug and Kathleen
> >
> >
> 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 8 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:35:40 PM PST US
> From: "Frank Stelwagon" <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel tanks=2C
> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the aluminum
> air filter case.
>
> Frank
>
> ________________________________ Message 9 ____________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:38:11 PM PST US
> From: Dave Jester <wdjester@cox.net>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> I am in for a 52 Tank.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Mar 2=2C 2015=2C at 6:41 PM=2C Todd McCutchan <todd@fastaircraft.com
> wrote:
> >
> > I would be interested in an alternative for the Yak 50 as well (main an
d e
> mergency bottles).
> >
> > Todd McCutchan
> > T-34A & Yak-50
> > Cell: (260) 402-1740
> > E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com
> > www.fastaircraft.com
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Mar 2=2C 2015=2C at 5:18 PM=2C doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wr
ote:
> >>
> >> All=2C
> >> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am
con
> sidering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace
th
> e current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new
SS
> tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be cert
ifi
> ed at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expe
nsi
> ve should be in fact a "lifetime tank"=2C the last one you should ever ha
ve to
> purchase. Right now cost for a new=2C albeit old stock standard steel t
ank w
> hich was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS t
ank
> s would be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to
pr
> ice them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and com
mit
> to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am
lo
> oking for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked the
m.
> >>
> >> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emerg
enc
> y tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 a
lso
> ..
> >>
> >> Looking forward to your comments.
> >>
> >> Best from Omak=2C
> >> Doug and Kathleen
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
=3
> D=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
=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=3
D
> 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=3B">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
=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 10 ___________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 05:43:38 PM PST US
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
> From: Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com>
>
> Aluminum scuba tanks are designed to be used in salt water=2C can be hydr
o
> tested at any scuba shop=2C can be replaced for $200=2C are rated for 400
0 PSI=2C
> so it would be a looooooooong time before a tank corroded to the point
> where it couldn't be used to contain 750 PSI.
>
> I understand the allure of a direct replacement so you don't need to worr
y
> about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking about these new tanks with t
he
> same form factor as stock.
>
> Is that correct Doug??
>
> Ernie
>
> On Mon=2C Mar 2=2C 2015 at 8:34 PM=2C Frank Stelwagon <pfstelwagon@earthl
ink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel tanks=2C
> > corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the aluminu
m
> > air filter case.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
> ________________________________ Message 11 ___________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 07:29:03 PM PST US
> From: "DaBear" <dabear@damned.org>
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> I have to agree with the Scuba idea. Don=99t manufacture a new
> tank=2C change the hold down and connector and use off the shelf
> technology cheaper. It would work for the main and emergency. If you
> used scuba tanks you=99d only have to change how they were mounted
> and the connection to the system.
>
>
> Bear
>
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
> Martinez
> Sent: Monday=2C March 02=2C 2015 8:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
>
> Aluminum scuba tanks are designed to be used in salt water=2C can be hydr
o
> tested at any scuba shop=2C can be replaced for $200=2C are rated for 400
0
> PSI=2C so it would be a looooooooong time before a tank corroded to the
> point where it couldn't be used to contain 750 PSI.
>
>
> I understand the allure of a direct replacement so you don't need to
> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking about these new tanks
> with the same form factor as stock.
>
>
> Is that correct Doug??
>
>
> Ernie
>
>
> On Mon=2C Mar 2=2C 2015 at 8:34 PM=2C Frank Stelwagon
> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net> > wrote:
>
> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel tanks=2C
> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at the aluminum
> air filter case.
>
>
> Frank
>
>
> et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> tp://forums.matronics.com
> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 12 ___________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 08:03:59 PM PST US
> From: "Walter Lannon" <wlannon@shaw.ca>
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> I installed new tanks at restoration of my CJ and charged the emergency
> tank with nitrogen. Also do a top up after annual annual emergency
> gear swing. Hopefully this tank should remain free of corrosion.
>
> Walt
>
> From: doug sapp
> Sent: Monday=2C March 02=2C 2015 4:18 PM
> Subject: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> All=2C
> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am
> considering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to
> replace the current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to
> find. The new SS tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing
> company and be certified at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel
> tanks while fairly expensive should be in fact a "lifetime tank"=2C the
> last one you should ever have to purchase. Right now cost for a new=2C
> albeit old stock standard steel tank which was manufactured in the 80's
> or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tanks would be of current mfg and
> would cost about $700.00 each. In order to price them at this price I
> would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit to a total of 60
> tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am looking for a
> show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
>
> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ
> emergency tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the
> Yak 52 also.
>
> Looking forward to your comments.
>
> Best from Omak=2C
> Doug and Kathleen
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 13 ___________________________
_________
>
>
> Time: 09:39:53 PM PST US
> Subject: Yak-List: Re: Yakmen in New Zealand??Need advice
> From: "ZUDSJ" <waferflex@gmail.com>
>
>
> Thanks Richard. Have been in email contact with him :D
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438907#438907
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Main Air Tanks |
Thunderbird Cylinder in Phoenix. $25 per tank.
http://www.thunderbirdcylinder.com/
Todd McCutchan
T-34A & Yak-50
Cell: (260) 402-1740
E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com
www.fastaircraft.com
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Ernest Martinez <erniel29@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> I have wanted to hydro check my tanks using local sources, and gave up aft
er calling around 20 places across Fl. No one wanted to touch a non DOT bott
le, not to mention the fact that they didn't have any way to attach their fi
ttings to the bottle.
>
> Ernie
>
>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 1:54 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Many thanks to all of you who were kind enough to give thier opinions and
comments about the SS tanks:
>>
>> Questions:
>> Would they be direct replacement: Yes. Building new racks and restrainin
g clamps just is not worth the time or effort IMHO. Also, I fear that it wo
n't be long before the insurance companies tumble to the fact that many of o
ur aircraft are modified without following the current FAA guidelines and us
e that fact to keep from paying claims. Also and most important is the fact
the the current rackage is tested and works, why would I want to re enginee
r it and take on that responsibility myself?
>>
>> Carbon fiber/Kevlar/Stainless Steel: I have requested bids from several m
fg's in several different materials, but to date SS seems to be the best way
to go.
>>
>> Not DOT approved: That is not an issue now, why would it be an issue wit
h the SS tanks???
>
>
>
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 30
| 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: Main Air Tanks |
Doug,
I'm in!
Why risk a large investment to save a few dollars.
Regards,
John Nolan
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 2, 2015, at 6:18 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All,
> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am cons
idering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace the
current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new SS t
anks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be certified
at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expensive
should be in fact a "lifetime tank", the last one you should ever have to p
urchase. Right now cost for a new, albeit old stock standard steel tank whi
ch was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tanks w
ould be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to price
them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit to
a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am looki
ng for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
>
> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emergency
tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 also.
>
> Looking forward to your comments.
>
> Best from Omak,
> Doug and Kathleen
>
>
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 31
| 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: Main Air Tanks |
Plan C? Hydraulic conversion and electric starter....
Doc
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 11:41 AM, "\"" <cjpilot710@aol.com> <cjpilot710@aol.com
> wrote:
>
> I love this list! At seeing Doug's proposal, I thought - -"There goes goo
d old Doug, looking after us guys - AGAIN". Than I see Dead Bear's & The Gee
k's scuba idea, ( modernist both ) and read Dennis concerns. Now at least I
have something to think about when it comes time to make that decision ( so
oner most likely than later ). It nice to have a "plan B". C Plan anyone?
;-)
>
> Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD, WD <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
> To: yak-list <yak-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 10:38 am
> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>
> I totally support Doug, and I am not going to put
> any scuba tanks into my Yak-50, thank you very much anyway. Although
> Bear/Ernie, if you come up with a plan and a kit for installing them, I'd
love
> to see it. Nothing wrong with a "Plan B".
>
> That said, this is not an
> "either/or" situation. To those that swear by scuba tanks then run with i
t
> yourselves, but please don't minimize the ideas and plans of others by so
> doing.
>
> Just saying.
>
> Mark
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronic
s.com]
> On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:29 AM
> To:
> yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> --> Yak-List
> message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
> -->
> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> Yes, they are your airplanes and each will do
> as he wants. Yes,
> countless modifications have been done to these airplanes
> without any
> ill effect. I guess I'm just more skeptical than many,
> particularly
> with regards to structural integrity of the airframe under loadon
> these
> 30-40 year old airplanes. I'm pretty sure a Scuba tank of the same
> volume, not pressure, is going to weigh a whole lot more than the original
tank
> or a SS replacement tank. That would entail a stronger support system,
> especially when one takes into account G loading. That is why I eluded to
> structural considerations.
>
> But, to each his own. I too support Doug and in
> this case, support his direct replacement SS tank even if it costs a bit
> more.
> Dennis
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-546-8182
> (mobile)
> www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
> On 3/3/2015 8:37 AM, DaBear
> wrote:
> >
> >
> First, let me say I support Doug, always have, always will. He has suppor
ted
> this community for decades.
> >
> > Agreed, there are a few things that need to be
> considered to change to SCUBA. However, let's start with the cost of new
> bottles. If I have to replace the main, I'm close to needing to replace t
he
> emergency, that=99s $700 each or $1400.
> >
> > Now, let's consider that Doug
> designs and builds a replacement hold down for 2 scuba bottles and the air
> connections. Worst case it's probably around $200 (for 60 sets - let's pl
ay
> apples to apples). Then we add it up...
> > $200 --- Hold down and connection
> >
> $320 ---- 4 hours for removal and install
> > $400 ---- 2 SCUBA bottles
> > $ 80
> --- 1 hour for new W&B
> >
> > As to the paperwork in the US. I could argue that
> there is no appreciable effect on W&B, etc. however, let's say there is an
d you
> have to/want to submit the paperwork, No different than the paperwork fo
r the
> upgraded engine, fuel tanks, smoke system, etc.
> >
> >
> > Come on, better tanks,
> MUCH higher safety margin since the tanks support 3k air pressure. You ca
n go
> with aluminum tanks which would weigh about the same. So the big concern i
s
> attachment and structural support. Please remember what used to be there i
n the
> form of radio, etc.
> >
> > Or $1,000 for a system that is better than before,
> easier to maintain, and now cheaper and easier to test and replace. Remem
ber,
> you take the tank to the local dive shop for annual testing if you want an
d find
> a problem go get a new tank for less than HALF of the cost of an old CJ/Ya
k
> tank.
> >
> > Come on, we've modified these planes from one end to the other.
> M14P/PF, new exhaust, oil shut off, larger aluminum water trap, pre-oiler,
fuel
> tanks, smoke systems, etc. and on and on. We've done that to improve
> performance, improve safety, and make it easier and safer to maintain.
> >
> Replacing a tank with a more expensive tank with no other
> > improvements....at
> least really, seriously, think about an improvement
> >
> > No offense was
> intended in the above post, please don't take any. They are your airplane
s.
> Make your own decision.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bear
> >
> >
> > -----Original
> Message-----
> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> >
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
> >
> Savarese
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:22 AM
> > To:
> yak-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
> >
> > -->
> > -->
> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
> >
> > FWIW, there are a few things I believe
> should be considered if one were to simply change the hold down and connec
tor
> and use off the shelf technology. First, it may not be cheaper in a long r
un
> when you factor in the cost of fabricating a new hold down; de-riveting th
e
> original hold downs, re-riveting the removed rivets, and finally drilling a
nd
> riveting in the new hold downs. Second, the placement of the Scuba tank m
ost
> likely will have an affect on weight and balance thus requiring a either a
n
> aircraft re-weighing or at a minimum, calculation of the new weight, balan
ce and
> CG of the airplane. Third, the weight of the Scuba tank must be taken int
o
> account for structural considerations when designing the hold down and the
> placement of the tank.
> >
> > Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's
> Ops Limits, I believe it does say any major modifications require approval
of
> the FSDO. Now you've got the FAA involved. You may not consider it a maj
or
> modification, but don't discount the insurance issue, should an accident o
r
> incident occur. =46rom FAA Order 8130.2G under the section covering Exper
imental
> Exhibition:
> >
> > The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received
> in writing, prior to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major c
hange
> as defined by 14 CFR =C2=A7 21.93 in order to determine whether new operat
ing
> limitations will be required.
> > The FSDO response
> > should be entered in the
> aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch,
> AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 for recording in th
e
> aircraft=99s permanent records.
> >
> > FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
> >
> > =C2=A7
> 21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
> > (a) In addition to changes in
> type design specified in paragraph (b) of this section, changes in type de
sign
> are classified as minor and major. A=98=98minor change=99
=99 is one that has no
> appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliabilit
y,
> operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the
> airworthiness of the product. _All other changes are =98=98maj
or changes=99=99_.
> >
> >
> Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents govern
ing
> the issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Limita
tions
> of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function replacement tanks are THE b
est
> solution, by far, IMHO.
> >
> > A. Dennis Savarese
> > 334-546-8182 (mobile)
> >
> www.yak-52.com
> > Skype - Yakguy1
> >
> > On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
> >> I
> have to agree with the Scuba idea. Don=99t manufacture a new tank,
> >> change the
> hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
> >> cheaper. It would
> work for the main and emergency. If you used
> >> scuba tanks you=99d only have
> to change how they were mounted and the
> >> connection to the system.
> >>
> >>
> Bear
> >>
> >> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> >>
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ernest
> >>
> Martinez
> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
> >> *To:* yak-list
> >>
> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
> >>
> >> Aluminum scuba tanks are
> designed to be used in salt water, can be
> >> hydro tested at any scuba shop,
> can be replaced for $200, are rated
> >> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a
> looooooooong time before a tank
> >> corroded to the point where it couldn't be
> used to contain 750 PSI.
> >>
> >> I understand the allure of a direct replacement
> so you don't need to
> >> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking
> about these new
> >> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
> >>
> >> Is that
> correct Doug??
> >>
> >> Ernie
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank
> Stelwagon
> >> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel
> tanks,
> >> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at
> the
> >> aluminum air filter case.
> >>
> >> Frank
> >>
> >> *
> *
> >>
> >> * *
> >>
> >>
> *et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
> >>
> >>
> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
> >>
> >>
> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> >>
> >> * *
> >>
> >> *
> *
> >> * *
> >> **
> >> **
> >> **
> >> **
> >> **
> >>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
> >> **
> >> **
> >>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> >> **
> >> **
> >> **
> >> **
> >>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> >> **
> >> * *
> >> *
> >>
> >>
> >>
> *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - The Yak-List Email Forum -
> browse
> Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> more:
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> Forums!
> http://forums.matronics.com
> - List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
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 32
| 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: Main Air Tanks |
Doug,
I have a 50 main tank. Will call you tomorrow if I get a chance. Need to tal
k to you about some other parts anyway.
Doc
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 12:54 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Many thanks to all of you who were kind enough to give thier opinions and c
omments about the SS tanks:
>
> Questions:
> Would they be direct replacement: Yes. Building new racks and restraining
clamps just is not worth the time or effort IMHO. Also, I fear that it won
't be long before the insurance companies tumble to the fact that many of ou
r aircraft are modified without following the current FAA guidelines and use
that fact to keep from paying claims. Also and most important is the fact t
he the current rackage is tested and works, why would I want to re engineer i
t and take on that responsibility myself?
>
> Carbon fiber/Kevlar/Stainless Steel: I have requested bids from several m
fg's in several different materials, but to date SS seems to be the best way
to go.
>
> Not DOT approved: That is not an issue now, why would it be an issue with
the SS tanks???
>
> Which tanks will be made first: CJ6 main tanks will be the first to be av
ailable.
>
> Will we do Yak 52 and 50 tanks also: Yes but first we have to obtain a sa
mple of both. Any one out there who might have a non airworthy Yak 50 or 52
main air tank which we could use?? I would be happy to pay what ever is fa
ir. The sooner we can obtain the samples the sooner we can make this happen
.
>
> Again, thank you all for your opinions, good bad or indifferent, they are a
ll important to me.
>
> Best from Omak,
> Doug
>
>
>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:18 PM, doug sapp <dougsappllc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> All,
>> Due to rapidly escalating prices for main air tanks out of China I am con
sidering taking on a project to produce a stainless steel tank to replace th
e current std steel tanks which are getting rather hard to find. The new SS
tanks will be built by a licensed tank manufacturing company and be certifi
ed at 900 to 1000 psi. These new stainless steel tanks while fairly expensi
ve should be in fact a "lifetime tank", the last one you should ever have to
purchase. Right now cost for a new, albeit old stock standard steel tank w
hich was manufactured in the 80's or 90's is about $450.00. The new SS tank
s would be of current mfg and would cost about $700.00 each. In order to pr
ice them at this price I would have to order them in 20 at a time and commit
to a total of 60 tanks. Due to the rather large initial investment I am lo
oking for a show of hands of who would be interested if I did stocked them.
>>
>> Should enough folks step forward we will also be stocking the CJ emergenc
y tank and if demand is there we will look into SS tanks for the Yak 52 also
.
>>
>> Looking forward to your comments.
>>
>> Best from Omak,
>> Doug and Kathleen
>>
>>
>> et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>
>
>
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 33
| 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: Main Air Tanks |
Actually guys we did make a hydraulic conversion for the gear and electric c
onversion for the flaps to eliminate the air system in the yard 52. Airplan
e headed V-8 diesel engine and no chance for a pneumatic system.
George
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Roger Kemp <f16viperdoc@me.com> wrote:
>
> Plan C? Hydraulic conversion and electric starter....
> Doc
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Mar 3, 2015, at 11:41 AM, "\"" <cjpilot710@aol.com> <cjpilot710@aol.co
m> wrote:
>>
>> I love this list! At seeing Doug's proposal, I thought - -"There goes go
od old Doug, looking after us guys - AGAIN". Than I see Dead Bear's & The Ge
ek's scuba idea, ( modernist both ) and read Dennis concerns. Now at least I
have something to think about when it comes time to make that decision ( so
oner most likely than later ). It nice to have a "plan B". C Plan anyone?
;-)
>>
>> Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD, WD <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>> To: yak-list <yak-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 10:38 am
>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>
>> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>
>> I totally support Doug, and I am not going to put
>> any scuba tanks into my Yak-50, thank you very much anyway. Although
>> Bear/Ernie, if you come up with a plan and a kit for installing them, I'
d love
>> to see it. Nothing wrong with a "Plan B".
>>
>> That said, this is not an
>> "either/or" situation. To those that swear by scuba tanks then run with i
t
>> yourselves, but please don't minimize the ideas and plans of others by so
>> doing.
>>
>> Just saying.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matroni
cs.com]
>> On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:29 AM
>> To:
>> yak-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>
>> --> Yak-List
>> message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
>> -->
>> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>>
>> Yes, they are your airplanes and each will do
>> as he wants. Yes,
>> countless modifications have been done to these airplanes
>> without any
>> ill effect. I guess I'm just more skeptical than many,
>> particularly
>> with regards to structural integrity of the airframe under loadon
>> these
>> 30-40 year old airplanes. I'm pretty sure a Scuba tank of the same
>> volume, not pressure, is going to weigh a whole lot more than the origina
l tank
>> or a SS replacement tank. That would entail a stronger support system,
>> especially when one takes into account G loading. That is why I eluded t
o
>> structural considerations.
>>
>> But, to each his own. I too support Doug and in
>> this case, support his direct replacement SS tank even if it costs a bit
>> more.
>> Dennis
>>
>> A. Dennis Savarese
>> 334-546-8182
>> (mobile)
>> www.yak-52.com
>> Skype - Yakguy1
>>
>> On 3/3/2015 8:37 AM, DaBear
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> First, let me say I support Doug, always have, always will. He has suppo
rted
>> this community for decades.
>> >
>> > Agreed, there are a few things that need to be
>> considered to change to SCUBA. However, let's start with the cost of new
>> bottles. If I have to replace the main, I'm close to needing to replace t
he
>> emergency, that=99s $700 each or $1400.
>> >
>> > Now, let's consider that Doug
>> designs and builds a replacement hold down for 2 scuba bottles and the ai
r
>> connections. Worst case it's probably around $200 (for 60 sets - let's p
lay
>> apples to apples). Then we add it up...
>> > $200 --- Hold down and connection
>> >
>> $320 ---- 4 hours for removal and install
>> > $400 ---- 2 SCUBA bottles
>> > $ 80
>> --- 1 hour for new W&B
>> >
>> > As to the paperwork in the US. I could argue that
>> there is no appreciable effect on W&B, etc. however, let's say there is a
nd you
>> have to/want to submit the paperwork, No different than the paperwork f
or the
>> upgraded engine, fuel tanks, smoke system, etc.
>> >
>> >
>> > Come on, better tanks,
>> MUCH higher safety margin since the tanks support 3k air pressure. You c
an go
>> with aluminum tanks which would weigh about the same. So the big concern
is
>> attachment and structural support. Please remember what used to be there
in the
>> form of radio, etc.
>> >
>> > Or $1,000 for a system that is better than before,
>> easier to maintain, and now cheaper and easier to test and replace. Reme
mber,
>> you take the tank to the local dive shop for annual testing if you want a
nd find
>> a problem go get a new tank for less than HALF of the cost of an old CJ/Y
ak
>> tank.
>> >
>> > Come on, we've modified these planes from one end to the other.
>> M14P/PF, new exhaust, oil shut off, larger aluminum water trap, pre-oiler
, fuel
>> tanks, smoke systems, etc. and on and on. We've done that to improve
>> performance, improve safety, and make it easier and safer to maintain.
>> >
>> Replacing a tank with a more expensive tank with no other
>> > improvements....at
>> least really, seriously, think about an improvement
>> >
>> > No offense was
>> intended in the above post, please don't take any. They are your airplan
es.
>> Make your own decision.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Bear
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original
>> Message-----
>> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> >
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
>> >
>> Savarese
>> > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:22 AM
>> > To:
>> yak-list@matronics.com
>> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>> >
>> > -->
>> > -->
>> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>> >
>> > FWIW, there are a few things I believe
>> should be considered if one were to simply change the hold down and conne
ctor
>> and use off the shelf technology. First, it may not be cheaper in a long
run
>> when you factor in the cost of fabricating a new hold down; de-riveting t
he
>> original hold downs, re-riveting the removed rivets, and finally drilling
and
>> riveting in the new hold downs. Second, the placement of the Scuba tank m
ost
>> likely will have an affect on weight and balance thus requiring a either a
n
>> aircraft re-weighing or at a minimum, calculation of the new weight, bala
nce and
>> CG of the airplane. Third, the weight of the Scuba tank must be taken in
to
>> account for structural considerations when designing the hold down and th
e
>> placement of the tank.
>> >
>> > Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's
>> Ops Limits, I believe it does say any major modifications require approva
l of
>> the FSDO. Now you've got the FAA involved. You may not consider it a ma
jor
>> modification, but don't discount the insurance issue, should an accident o
r
>> incident occur. =46rom FAA Order 8130.2G under the section covering Expe
rimental
>> Exhibition:
>> >
>> > The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received
>> in writing, prior to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major c
hange
>> as defined by 14 CFR =C2=A7 21.93 in order to determine whether new opera
ting
>> limitations will be required.
>> > The FSDO response
>> > should be entered in the
>> aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch,
>> AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 for recording in t
he
>> aircraft=99s permanent records.
>> >
>> > FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
>> >
>> > =C2=A7
>> 21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
>> > (a) In addition to changes in
>> type design specified in paragraph (b) of this section, changes in type d
esign
>> are classified as minor and major. A=98=98minor change=99
=99 is one that has no
>> appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliabili
ty,
>> operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the
>> airworthiness of the product. _All other changes are =98=98ma
jor changes=99=99_.
>> >
>> >
>> Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents gover
ning
>> the issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Limit
ations
>> of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function replacement tanks are THE b
est
>> solution, by far, IMHO.
>> >
>> > A. Dennis Savarese
>> > 334-546-8182 (mobile)
>> >
>> www.yak-52.com
>> > Skype - Yakguy1
>> >
>> > On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
>> >> I
>> have to agree with the Scuba idea. Don=99t manufacture a new tank,
>> >> change the
>> hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
>> >> cheaper. It would
>> work for the main and emergency. If you used
>> >> scuba tanks you=99d only have
>> to change how they were mounted and the
>> >> connection to the system.
>> >>
>> >>
>> Bear
>> >>
>> >> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>> >>
>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ernest
>> >>
>> Martinez
>> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
>> >> *To:* yak-list
>> >>
>> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>> >>
>> >> Aluminum scuba tanks are
>> designed to be used in salt water, can be
>> >> hydro tested at any scuba shop,
>> can be replaced for $200, are rated
>> >> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a
>> looooooooong time before a tank
>> >> corroded to the point where it couldn't be
>> used to contain 750 PSI.
>> >>
>> >> I understand the allure of a direct replacement
>> so you don't need to
>> >> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking
>> about these new
>> >> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
>> >>
>> >> Is that
>> correct Doug??
>> >>
>> >> Ernie
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank
>> Stelwagon
>> >> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel
>> tanks,
>> >> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at
>> the
>> >> aluminum air filter case.
>> >>
>> >> Frank
>> >>
>> >> *
>> *
>> >>
>> >> * *
>> >>
>> >>
>> *et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>> >>
>> >>
>> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>> >>
>> >>
>> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>> >>
>> >> * *
>> >>
>> >> *
>> *
>> >> * *
>> >> **
>> >> **
>> >> **
>> >> **
>> >> **
>> >>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>> >> **
>> >> **
>> >>
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>> >> **
>> >> **
>> >> **
>> >> **
>> >>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>> >> **
>> >> * *
>> >> *
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> *
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - The Yak-List Email Forum -
>> browse
>> Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
>> more:
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>> Forums!
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> - List Contribution Web Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> 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
>> 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=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 34
| 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: Main Air Tanks |
Ah, but it is. Dee Conger did it with his 50 about 5 years ago. He is using p
ony tanks if memory serves.
Doc
Sent from my iPad
> :
>
> Scuba is not an option in a Yak 50,
>
> Todd McCutchan
> T-34A & Yak-50
> Cell: (260) 402-1740
> E-mail: todd@fastaircraft.com
> www.fastaircraft.com
>
>
>
>
Message 35
| 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: Main Air Tanks |
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 8:17 PM, George Coyantonov2 <george.coy@gmail.com> wrot
e:
>
> Actually guys we did make a hydraulic conversion for the gear and electric
conversion for the flaps to eliminate the air system in the yard 52. Airpl
ane headed V-8 diesel engine and no chance for a pneumatic system.
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Roger Kemp <f16viperdoc@me.com> wrote:
>>
>> Plan C? Hydraulic conversion and electric starter....
>> Doc
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>> On Mar 3, 2015, at 11:41 AM, "\"" <cjpilot710@aol.com> <cjpilot710@aol.c
om> wrote:
>>>
>>> I love this list! At seeing Doug's proposal, I thought - -"There goes g
ood old Doug, looking after us guys - AGAIN". Than I see Dead Bear's & The G
eek's scuba idea, ( modernist both ) and read Dennis concerns. Now at least
I have something to think about when it comes time to make that decision ( s
ooner most likely than later ). It nice to have a "plan B". C Plan anyone?
;-)
>>>
>>> Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD, WD <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>> To: yak-list <yak-list@matronics.com>
>>> Sent: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 10:38 am
>>> Subject: RE: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>>
>>> <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
>>>
>>> I totally support Doug, and I am not going to put
>>> any scuba tanks into my Yak-50, thank you very much anyway. Although
>>> Bear/Ernie, if you come up with a plan and a kit for installing them, I
'd love
>>> to see it. Nothing wrong with a "Plan B".
>>>
>>> That said, this is not an
>>> "either/or" situation. To those that swear by scuba tanks then run with
it
>>> yourselves, but please don't minimize the ideas and plans of others by s
o
>>> doing.
>>>
>>> Just saying.
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From:
>>> owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matron
ics.com]
>>> On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:29 AM
>>> To:
>>> yak-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>>
>>> --> Yak-List
>>> message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
>>> -->
>>> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>>>
>>> Yes, they are your airplanes and each will do
>>> as he wants. Yes,
>>> countless modifications have been done to these airplanes
>>> without any
>>> ill effect. I guess I'm just more skeptical than many,
>>> particularly
>>> with regards to structural integrity of the airframe under loadon
>>> these
>>> 30-40 year old airplanes. I'm pretty sure a Scuba tank of the same
>>> volume, not pressure, is going to weigh a whole lot more than the origin
al tank
>>> or a SS replacement tank. That would entail a stronger support system,
>>> especially when one takes into account G loading. That is why I eluded t
o
>>> structural considerations.
>>>
>>> But, to each his own. I too support Doug and in
>>> this case, support his direct replacement SS tank even if it costs a bit
>>> more.
>>> Dennis
>>>
>>> A. Dennis Savarese
>>> 334-546-8182
>>> (mobile)
>>> www.yak-52.com
>>> Skype - Yakguy1
>>>
>>> On 3/3/2015 8:37 AM, DaBear
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> First, let me say I support Doug, always have, always will. He has supp
orted
>>> this community for decades.
>>> >
>>> > Agreed, there are a few things that need to be
>>> considered to change to SCUBA. However, let's start with the cost of new
>>> bottles. If I have to replace the main, I'm close to needing to replace
the
>>> emergency, that=99s $700 each or $1400.
>>> >
>>> > Now, let's consider that Doug
>>> designs and builds a replacement hold down for 2 scuba bottles and the a
ir
>>> connections. Worst case it's probably around $200 (for 60 sets - let's p
lay
>>> apples to apples). Then we add it up...
>>> > $200 --- Hold down and connection
>>> >
>>> $320 ---- 4 hours for removal and install
>>> > $400 ---- 2 SCUBA bottles
>>> > $ 80
>>> --- 1 hour for new W&B
>>> >
>>> > As to the paperwork in the US. I could argue that
>>> there is no appreciable effect on W&B, etc. however, let's say there is a
nd you
>>> have to/want to submit the paperwork, No different than the paperwork f
or the
>>> upgraded engine, fuel tanks, smoke system, etc.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Come on, better tanks,
>>> MUCH higher safety margin since the tanks support 3k air pressure. You c
an go
>>> with aluminum tanks which would weigh about the same. So the big concer
n is
>>> attachment and structural support. Please remember what used to be ther
e in the
>>> form of radio, etc.
>>> >
>>> > Or $1,000 for a system that is better than before,
>>> easier to maintain, and now cheaper and easier to test and replace. Rem
ember,
>>> you take the tank to the local dive shop for annual testing if you want a
nd find
>>> a problem go get a new tank for less than HALF of the cost of an old CJ/
Yak
>>> tank.
>>> >
>>> > Come on, we've modified these planes from one end to the other.
>>> M14P/PF, new exhaust, oil shut off, larger aluminum water trap, pre-oile
r, fuel
>>> tanks, smoke systems, etc. and on and on. We've done that to improve
>>> performance, improve safety, and make it easier and safer to maintain.
>>> >
>>> Replacing a tank with a more expensive tank with no other
>>> > improvements....at
>>> least really, seriously, think about an improvement
>>> >
>>> > No offense was
>>> intended in the above post, please don't take any. They are your airpla
nes.
>>> Make your own decision.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > Bear
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > -----Original
>>> Message-----
>>> > From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> >
>>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
>>> >
>>> Savarese
>>> > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:22 AM
>>> > To:
>>> yak-list@matronics.com
>>> > Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>> >
>>> > -->
>>> > -->
>>> <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>>> >
>>> > FWIW, there are a few things I believe
>>> should be considered if one were to simply change the hold down and conn
ector
>>> and use off the shelf technology. First, it may not be cheaper in a lon
g run
>>> when you factor in the cost of fabricating a new hold down; de-riveting t
he
>>> original hold downs, re-riveting the removed rivets, and finally drillin
g and
>>> riveting in the new hold downs. Second, the placement of the Scuba tank
most
>>> likely will have an affect on weight and balance thus requiring a either
an
>>> aircraft re-weighing or at a minimum, calculation of the new weight, bal
ance and
>>> CG of the airplane. Third, the weight of the Scuba tank must be taken i
nto
>>> account for structural considerations when designing the hold down and t
he
>>> placement of the tank.
>>> >
>>> > Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's
>>> Ops Limits, I believe it does say any major modifications require approv
al of
>>> the FSDO. Now you've got the FAA involved. You may not consider it a m
ajor
>>> modification, but don't discount the insurance issue, should an accident
or
>>> incident occur. =46rom FAA Order 8130.2G under the section covering Exp
erimental
>>> Exhibition:
>>> >
>>> > The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received
>>> in writing, prior to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major
change
>>> as defined by 14 CFR =C2=A7 21.93 in order to determine whether new oper
ating
>>> limitations will be required.
>>> > The FSDO response
>>> > should be entered in the
>>> aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch,
>>> AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 for recording in t
he
>>> aircraft=99s permanent records.
>>> >
>>> > FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
>>> >
>>> > =C2=A7
>>> 21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
>>> > (a) In addition to changes in
>>> type design specified in paragraph (b) of this section, changes in type d
esign
>>> are classified as minor and major. A=98=98minor change
=99=99 is one that has no
>>> appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength, reliabil
ity,
>>> operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the
>>> airworthiness of the product. _All other changes are =98=98m
ajor changes=99=99_.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents gove
rning
>>> the issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and Operating Limi
tations
>>> of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function replacement tanks are THE
best
>>> solution, by far, IMHO.
>>> >
>>> > A. Dennis Savarese
>>> > 334-546-8182 (mobile)
>>> >
>>> www.yak-52.com
>>> > Skype - Yakguy1
>>> >
>>> > On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
>>> >> I
>>> have to agree with the Scuba idea. Don=99t manufacture a new tank
,
>>> >> change the
>>> hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
>>> >> cheaper. It would
>>> work for the main and emergency. If you used
>>> >> scuba tanks you=99d only have
>>> to change how they were mounted and the
>>> >> connection to the system.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> Bear
>>> >>
>>> >> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>> >>
>>> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Ernest
>>> >>
>>> Martinez
>>> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
>>> >> *To:* yak-list
>>> >>
>>> *Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>> >>
>>> >> Aluminum scuba tanks are
>>> designed to be used in salt water, can be
>>> >> hydro tested at any scuba shop,
>>> can be replaced for $200, are rated
>>> >> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a
>>> looooooooong time before a tank
>>> >> corroded to the point where it couldn't be
>>> used to contain 750 PSI.
>>> >>
>>> >> I understand the allure of a direct replacement
>>> so you don't need to
>>> >> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking
>>> about these new
>>> >> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
>>> >>
>>> >> Is that
>>> correct Doug??
>>> >>
>>> >> Ernie
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank
>>> Stelwagon
>>> >> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net>>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel
>>> tanks,
>>> >> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at
>>> the
>>> >> aluminum air filter case.
>>> >>
>>> >> Frank
>>> >>
>>> >> *
>>> *
>>> >>
>>> >> * *
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> *et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> *tp://forums.matronics.com*
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> *_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>> >>
>>> >> * *
>>> >>
>>> >> *
>>> *
>>> >> * *
>>> >> **
>>> >> **
>>> >> **
>>> >> **
>>> >> **
>>> >>
>>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>>> >> **
>>> >> **
>>> >>
>>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>>> >> **
>>> >> **
>>> >> **
>>> >> **
>>> >>
>>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>> >> **
>>> >> * *
>>> >> *
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> *
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - The Yak-List Email Forum -
>>> browse
>>> Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
>>> more:
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
>>> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>>> Forums!
>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>> - List Contribution Web Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> 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
>>> 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=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
>>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> 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=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 36
| 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: Main Air Tanks |
Quick question - What's the approx. cu ft of the main tank in a CJ?
Brett
Message 37
| 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: Main Air Tanks |
Main tank volume is 12 litres, Emerg. tank 3 lts.
Walt
-----Original Message-----
From: Brett Grooms
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
Quick question - What's the approx. cu ft of the main tank in a CJ?
Brett
Message 38
| 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: Main Air Tanks |
My Boyles law is a little rusty. What does the gas volume convert to in cubic feet?
Or more to the point, how many fills can you get from an 80 cu ft scuba bottle
at 3000psi? I'm guessing around 3???
Brett
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:59 PM, Walter Lannon <wlannon@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Main tank volume is 12 litres, Emerg. tank 3 lts.
>
> Walt
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Brett Grooms Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 6:33
PM To: yak-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> Quick question - What's the approx. cu ft of the main tank in a CJ?
> Brett
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 39
| 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 |
|
Why not most all diesel trucks, trains, have an air compressor. Needed
for the brakes.
Tom Elliott
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of George
Coyantonov2
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
Actually guys we did make a hydraulic conversion for the gear and
electric conversion for the flaps to eliminate the air system in the
yard 52. Airplane headed V-8 diesel engine and no chance for a
pneumatic system.
George
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Roger Kemp <f16viperdoc@me.com> wrote:
Plan C? Hydraulic conversion and electric starter....
Doc
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 3, 2015, at 11:41 AM, "\"" <cjpilot710@aol.com>
<cjpilot710@aol.com> wrote:
I love this list! At seeing Doug's proposal, I thought - -"There goes
good old Doug, looking after us guys - AGAIN". Than I see Dead Bear's &
The Geek's scuba idea, ( modernist both ) and read Dennis concerns. Now
at least I have something to think about when it comes time to make that
decision ( sooner most likely than later ). It nice to have a "plan B".
C Plan anyone? ;-)
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
-----Original Message-----
From: Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD, WD <mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
Sent: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 10:38 am
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
<mark.bitterlich@navy.mil>
I totally support Doug, and I am not going to put
any scuba tanks into my Yak-50, thank you very much anyway. Although
Bear/Ernie, if you come up with a plan and a kit for installing them,
I'd love
to see it. Nothing wrong with a "Plan B".
That said, this is not an
"either/or" situation. To those that swear by scuba tanks then run with
it
yourselves, but please don't minimize the ideas and plans of others by
so
doing.
Just saying.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
<mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com?> ]
On Behalf Of A. Dennis Savarese
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:29 AM
To:
yak-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
--> Yak-List
message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
-->
<dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
Yes, they are your airplanes and each will do
as he wants. Yes,
countless modifications have been done to these airplanes
without any
ill effect. I guess I'm just more skeptical than many,
particularly
with regards to structural integrity of the airframe under loadon
these
30-40 year old airplanes. I'm pretty sure a Scuba tank of the same
volume, not pressure, is going to weigh a whole lot more than the
original tank
or a SS replacement tank. That would entail a stronger support system,
especially when one takes into account G loading. That is why I eluded
to
structural considerations.
But, to each his own. I too support Doug and in
this case, support his direct replacement SS tank even if it costs a bit
more.
Dennis
A. Dennis Savarese
334-546-8182
(mobile)
www.yak-52.com
Skype - Yakguy1
On 3/3/2015 8:37 AM, DaBear
wrote:
>
>
First, let me say I support Doug, always have, always will. He has
supported
this community for decades.
>
> Agreed, there are a few things that need to be
considered to change to SCUBA. However, let's start with the cost of new
bottles. If I have to replace the main, I'm close to needing to replace
the
emergency, that=99s $700 each or $1400.
>
> Now, let's consider that Doug
designs and builds a replacement hold down for 2 scuba bottles and the
air
connections. Worst case it's probably around $200 (for 60 sets - let's
play
apples to apples). Then we add it up...
> $200 --- Hold down and connection
>
$320 ---- 4 hours for removal and install
> $400 ---- 2 SCUBA bottles
> $ 80
--- 1 hour for new W&B
>
> As to the paperwork in the US. I could argue that
there is no appreciable effect on W&B, etc. however, let's say there is
and you
have to/want to submit the paperwork, No different than the paperwork
for the
upgraded engine, fuel tanks, smoke system, etc.
>
>
> Come on, better tanks,
MUCH higher safety margin since the tanks support 3k air pressure. You
can go
with aluminum tanks which would weigh about the same. So the big
concern is
attachment and structural support. Please remember what used to be
there in the
form of radio, etc.
>
> Or $1,000 for a system that is better than before,
easier to maintain, and now cheaper and easier to test and replace.
Remember,
you take the tank to the local dive shop for annual testing if you want
and find
a problem go get a new tank for less than HALF of the cost of an old
CJ/Yak
tank.
>
> Come on, we've modified these planes from one end to the other.
M14P/PF, new exhaust, oil shut off, larger aluminum water trap,
pre-oiler, fuel
tanks, smoke systems, etc. and on and on. We've done that to improve
performance, improve safety, and make it easier and safer to maintain.
>
Replacing a tank with a more expensive tank with no other
> improvements....at
least really, seriously, think about an improvement
>
> No offense was
intended in the above post, please don't take any. They are your
airplanes.
Make your own decision.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bear
>
>
> -----Original
Message-----
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
<mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com?> ] On Behalf Of A. Dennis
>
Savarese
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 8:22 AM
> To:
yak-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>
> -->
Yak-List message posted by: "A. Dennis Savarese"
> -->
<dsavarese0812@bellsouth.net>
>
> FWIW, there are a few things I believe
should be considered if one were to simply change the hold down and
connector
and use off the shelf technology. First, it may not be cheaper in a
long run
when you factor in the cost of fabricating a new hold down; de-riveting
the
original hold downs, re-riveting the removed rivets, and finally
drilling and
riveting in the new hold downs. Second, the placement of the Scuba tank
most
likely will have an affect on weight and balance thus requiring a either
an
aircraft re-weighing or at a minimum, calculation of the new weight,
balance and
CG of the airplane. Third, the weight of the Scuba tank must be taken
into
account for structural considerations when designing the hold down and
the
placement of the tank.
>
> Finally, if one were to comply with the aircraft's
Ops Limits, I believe it does say any major modifications require
approval of
the FSDO. Now you've got the FAA involved. You may not consider it a
major
modification, but don't discount the insurance issue, should an accident
or
incident occur. From FAA Order 8130.2G under the section covering
Experimental
Exhibition:
>
> The cognizant FSDO must be notified, and its response received
in writing, prior to flying this aircraft after incorporation of a major
change
as defined by 14 CFR =C2=A7 21.93 in order to determine whether new
operating
limitations will be required.
> The FSDO response
> should be entered in the
aircraft's records and a copy sent the FAA Aircraft Registration Branch,
AFS-750, P.O. Box 25504, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 for recording in
the
aircraft=99s permanent records.
>
> FAR 21.93 defines a major change as:
>
> =C2=A7
21.93 Classification of changes in type design.
> (a) In addition to changes in
type design specified in paragraph (b) of this section, changes in type
design
are classified as minor and major. A=98=98minor
change=99=99 is one that has no
appreciable effect on the weight, balance, structural strength,
reliability,
operational characteristics, or other characteristics affecting the
airworthiness of the product. _All other changes are
=98=98major changes=99=99_.
>
>
Given these facts and assuming one does not disregard the documents
governing
the issuance of the Special Airworthiness Certificate and Operating
Limitations
of the airplane, Doug's form, fit and function replacement tanks are THE
best
solution, by far, IMHO.
>
> A. Dennis Savarese
> 334-546-8182 (mobile)
>
www.yak-52.com
> Skype - Yakguy1
>
> On 3/2/2015 9:28 PM, DaBear wrote:
>> I
have to agree with the Scuba idea. Don=99t manufacture a new
tank,
>> change the
hold down and connector and use off the shelf technology
>> cheaper. It would
work for the main and emergency. If you used
>> scuba tanks you=99d only have
to change how they were mounted and the
>> connection to the system.
>>
>>
Bear
>>
>> *From:*owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
>>
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
<mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com?> ] *On Behalf Of *Ernest
>>
Martinez
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 02, 2015 8:43 PM
>> *To:* yak-list
>>
*Subject:* Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>
>> Aluminum scuba tanks are
designed to be used in salt water, can be
>> hydro tested at any scuba shop,
can be replaced for $200, are rated
>> for 4000 PSI, so it would be a
looooooooong time before a tank
>> corroded to the point where it couldn't be
used to contain 750 PSI.
>>
>> I understand the allure of a direct replacement
so you don't need to
>> worry about mounting. I'm assuming Doug is talking
about these new
>> tanks with the same form factor as stock.
>>
>> Is that
correct Doug??
>>
>> Ernie
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Frank
Stelwagon
>> <pfstelwagon@earthlink.net <mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net
<mailto:pfstelwagon@earthlink.net?> >>
wrote:
>>
>> The Aluminum Scuba Tanks have the same problem as the steel
tanks,
>> corrosion. It would take longer but would happen - look at
the
>> aluminum air filter case.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> *
*
>>
>> * *
>>
>>
*et="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>>
>>
*tp://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>>
*_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *
*
>> * *
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>>
*http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List*
>> **
>> **
>>
*http://forums.matronics.com*
>> **
>> **
>> **
>> **
>>
*http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>> **
>> * *
>> *
>>
>>
>>
*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
- The Yak-List Email Forum -
browse
Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
Forums!
http://forums.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
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
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
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
Message 40
| 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: Main Air Tanks |
For what it's worth:
I own a 52 & 50. I fly aerobatics (the only reason I bought the airplanes).
That being said, I also own a Christen Eagle biplane, have owned an Extra 300,
and I yet to find a more reliable aerobatic mount more ready to go on a cold winter
day than a 52/50/CJ.
A drop in replacement at your next annual from Doug is the best thing I can imagine.
No hassle, no reengineering, etc.
$700 and you never have to worry about the damn thing again.
Obviously, in my opinion, the guys that don't pull G's are willing to retrofit
the scuba tanks. Those that fly the airplanes to their limits want "the real deal"
Hope to see you all at Sun N Fun...
Keep 'em Flyin',
Dan Payne
Owner, Pilot, A&P-IA
(423)-544-8946
Eagle Works Aviation
Dallas Bay Skypark
1824 E Crabtree Road
Hixson, TN 37343
"Where Airworthiness Means Business!"
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 10:27 PM, Brett <brettg101@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> My Boyles law is a little rusty. What does the gas volume convert to in cubic
feet?
>
> Or more to the point, how many fills can you get from an 80 cu ft scuba bottle
at 3000psi? I'm guessing around 3???
>
> Brett
>
>> On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:59 PM, Walter Lannon <wlannon@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Main tank volume is 12 litres, Emerg. tank 3 lts.
>>
>> Walt
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Brett Grooms Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015
6:33 PM To: yak-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
>>
>> Quick question - What's the approx. cu ft of the main tank in a CJ?
>> Brett
>
>
>
>
>
Message 41
| 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: Main Air Tanks |
Brett;
Mine is just as rusty.
12 Lts. = 0.42378 cu. ft. = 732.3 cu. in.
Walt
-----Original Message-----
From: Brett
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air Tanks
My Boyles law is a little rusty. What does the gas volume convert to in
cubic feet?
Or more to the point, how many fills can you get from an 80 cu ft scuba
bottle at 3000psi? I'm guessing around 3???
Brett
> On Mar 3, 2015, at 9:59 PM, Walter Lannon <wlannon@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Main tank volume is 12 litres, Emerg. tank 3 lts.
>
> Walt
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Brett Grooms Sent: Tuesday, March 03,
> 2015 6:33 PM To: yak-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: Yak-List: Main Air
> Tanks
>
> Quick question - What's the approx. cu ft of the main tank in a CJ?
> Brett
>
>
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! --
|