Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:10 AM - Re: Yak 52 Question from Australia (Richard Goode)
2. 02:57 AM - Re: Yak 52 Question from Australia (John B)
3. 06:31 AM - Re: Yak 52 Question from Australia (Byron M Fox)
4. 07:52 AM - Re: Yak 52 Question from Australia (George S. Coy)
5. 05:45 PM - Yak-18T Part (Patrick Ashura)
6. 07:44 PM - Re: Yak-18T Part (A. Dennis Savarese)
7. 11:02 PM - Re: Yak-18T Part (Didier BLOUZARD)
8. 11:03 PM - Re: Yak-18T Part (Didier BLOUZARD)
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: | Yak 52 Question from Australia |
I agree with various postings from others, but I feel there is a need to
emphasise that this is not a simple issue. The practicality is that the
52 is a tough aircraft, but in Russian DOSAAF service was flown
extremely hard, and of course almost every flight was an aerobatic one.
In consequence various structural problems occurred, and to each
Yakovlev came up with a service bulletin to ensure structural integrity.
Unfortunately I hear too often people saying that their 52 "has the
heavy spar", and is therefore cleared for any form of aerobatics! If
only it were so simple. YDB issued a total of 114 service bulletins for
the 52 =93 the majority of these being relatively trivial;
referring to changes in the paperwork and so forth. But there are a
number of these that we view as being critical for safety, and not just
referring to the wing structure.
So the important ones are 18 =93 elevator counterweight; 28
=93 elevator counterweight bolts; 37 =93 aileron mounting;
59 (see below) =93 wing attachment brackets; 60 (see below)
=93 wing centre section; 66 =93 bigger spar bolts; 70
=93 rudder mass balance; 80 =93 plate on rear spar; 87
=93 reinforcement of rear spar; 107 (again the below) =93
external spar strap.
Of these the critical ones are 59 and 60 =93 strengthening the
wing mountings and the centre section, and 107.
The UK CAA has taken this whole issue seriously, and has had discussions
with YDB, and now divides 52 is into four categories:
Without 59 and 60 =93 limited to +5 - 3G, non-aerobatic and total
airframe life 1000 hours.
With 59 and 60 =93 +7.5- 5G; no flick (snap) manoeuvres and
airframe life 5000 hours from new.
With 59/60 and 107 =93 again the same G limits, but fully
aerobatic and also 5000 hours airframe life.
The fourth category is effectively the same as the third, and refers to
later aircraft (114 series and later) which had all these modifications
installed during manufacture.
Aircraft can be modified =93 although there is now a significant
problem to obtain the 59 and 60 modification kits, and then move to a
higher category. Also, the 59 and 60 modifications can only be installed
using proper jigs and equipment, whereas 107, although quite complicated
because of many different bolt sizes can be installed by a competent
maintenance organisation.
I hope this helps!
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Byron M Fox
Sent: 06 July 2016 15:40
Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Question from Australia
"I have a question that you guys may be able to help with: It seems
there are some Yak-52s that have a lower G rating than others, and
apparently (whether this is an Australian thing or not) are placarded
with "No Aerobatics". Are you aware of this, and if so are there any
mods that are used in the States to beef up the wing/center section on
these planes? Apparently, the wings can be sent to Yak (Aerostar?) for
reinforcing but that's all we're aware of."
Thanks!
Best regards,
Mark Awad
Chief Executive Officer
Australian Warbirds Association Ltd
mark.awad@australianwarbirds.com.au
Blitz Fox
415-307-2405
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
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: Yak 52 Question from Australia |
Richard-
This is a very good explanation. Thank you.
On another subject, do you have any weight and balance data for the Yak 55M
?
Thank you!
John Bergeson
On Thursday, July 7, 2016, Richard Goode <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
wrote:
> I agree with various postings from others, but I feel there is a need to
> emphasise that this is not a simple issue. The practicality is that the 5
2
> is a tough aircraft, but in Russian DOSAAF service was flown extremely
> hard, and of course almost every flight was an aerobatic one. In
> consequence various structural problems occurred, and to each Yakovlev ca
me
> up with a service bulletin to ensure structural integrity.
>
>
> Unfortunately I hear too often people saying that their 52 "has the heavy
> spar", and is therefore cleared for any form of aerobatics! If only it we
re
> so simple. YDB issued a total of 114 service bulletins for the 52
=93 the
> majority of these being relatively trivial; referring to changes in the
> paperwork and so forth. But there are a number of these that we view as
> being critical for safety, and not just referring to the wing structure.
>
>
> So the important ones are 18 =93 elevator counterweight; 28
=93 elevator
> counterweight bolts; 37 =93 aileron mounting; 59 (see below)
=93 wing
> attachment brackets; 60 (see below) =93 wing centre section; 66
=93 bigger spar
> bolts; 70 =93 rudder mass balance; 80 =93 plate on rear spar;
87 =93
> reinforcement of rear spar; 107 (again the below) =93 external spar
strap.
>
>
> Of these the critical ones are 59 and 60 =93 strengthening the wing
> mountings and the centre section, and 107.
>
>
> The UK CAA has taken this whole issue seriously, and has had discussions
> with YDB, and now divides 52 is into four categories:
>
>
> Without 59 and 60 =93 limited to +5 - 3G, non-aerobatic and total a
irframe
> life 1000 hours.
>
>
> With 59 and 60 =93 +7.5- 5G; no flick (snap) manoeuvres and airfram
e life
> 5000 hours from new.
>
>
> With 59/60 and 107 =93 again the same G limits, but fully aerobatic
and also
> 5000 hours airframe life.
>
>
> The fourth category is effectively the same as the third, and refers to
> later aircraft (114 series and later) which had all these modifications
> installed during manufacture.
>
>
> Aircraft can be modified =93 although there is now a significant pr
oblem to
> obtain the 59 and 60 modification kits, and then move to a higher categor
y.
> Also, the 59 and 60 modifications can only be installed using proper jigs
> and equipment, whereas 107, although quite complicated because of many
> different bolt sizes can be installed by a competent maintenance
> organisation.
>
>
> I hope this helps!
>
>
> Richard Goode Aerobatics
>
> Rhodds Farm
>
> Lyonshall
>
> Hereford
>
> HR5 3LW
>
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
>
> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
>
> www.russianaeros.com
>
>
> *From:* owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com');>
> [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com');>] *O
n
> Behalf Of *Byron M Fox
> *Sent:* 06 July 2016 15:40
> *To:* LIst Yak
> *Subject:* Yak-List: Yak 52 Question from Australia
>
>
> "I have a question that you guys may be able to help with: It seems ther
e
> are some Yak-52s that have a lower G rating than others, and apparently
> (whether this is an Australian thing or not) are placarded with "No
> Aerobatics". Are you aware of this, and if so are there any mods that ar
e
> used in the States to beef up the wing/center section on these planes?
> Apparently, the wings can be sent to Yak (Aerostar?) for reinforcing but
> that's all we're aware of."
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Mark Awad
>
> Chief Executive Officer
>
> Australian Warbirds Association Ltd
>
> mark.awad@australianwarbirds.com.au
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mark.awad@australianwarbirds.com.au');>
>
>
> Blitz Fox
>
> 415-307-2405
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, 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: Yak 52 Question from Australia |
Thanks for taking the time, Richard. Thorough explanation.
Blitz Fox
415-307-2405
> On Jul 7, 2016, at 2:09 AM, Richard Goode <richard.goode@russianaeros.com>
wrote:
>
> I agree with various postings from others, but I feel there is a need to e
mphasise that this is not a simple issue. The practicality is that the 52 is
a tough aircraft, but in Russian DOSAAF service was flown extremely hard, a
nd of course almost every flight was an aerobatic one. In consequence variou
s structural problems occurred, and to each Yakovlev came up with a service b
ulletin to ensure structural integrity.
>
> Unfortunately I hear too often people saying that their 52 "has the heavy s
par", and is therefore cleared for any form of aerobatics! If only it were s
o simple. YDB issued a total of 114 service bulletins for the 52 =93 t
he majority of these being relatively trivial; referring to changes in the p
aperwork and so forth. But there are a number of these that we view as being
critical for safety, and not just referring to the wing structure.
>
> So the important ones are 18 =93 elevator counterweight; 28 =93
elevator counterweight bolts; 37 =93 aileron mounting; 59 (see below)
=93 wing attachment brackets; 60 (see below) =93 wing centre se
ction; 66 =93 bigger spar bolts; 70 =93 rudder mass balance; 80
=93 plate on rear spar; 87 =93 reinforcement of rear spar; 107 (aga
in the below) =93 external spar strap.
>
> Of these the critical ones are 59 and 60 =93 strengthening the wing m
ountings and the centre section, and 107.
>
> The UK CAA has taken this whole issue seriously, and has had discussions w
ith YDB, and now divides 52 is into four categories:
>
> Without 59 and 60 =93 limited to +5 - 3G, non-aerobatic and total ai
rframe life 1000 hours.
>
> With 59 and 60 =93 +7.5- 5G; no flick (snap) manoeuvres and airframe
life 5000 hours from new.
>
> With 59/60 and 107 =93 again the same G limits, but fully aerobatic a
nd also 5000 hours airframe life.
>
> The fourth category is effectively the same as the third, and refers to la
ter aircraft (114 series and later) which had all these modifications instal
led during manufacture.
>
> Aircraft can be modified =93 although there is now a significant pro
blem to obtain the 59 and 60 modification kits, and then move to a higher ca
tegory. Also, the 59 and 60 modifications can only be installed using proper
jigs and equipment, whereas 107, although quite complicated because of many
different bolt sizes can be installed by a competent maintenance organisati
on.
>
> I hope this helps!
>
> Richard Goode Aerobatics
> Rhodds Farm
> Lyonshall
> Hereford
> HR5 3LW
>
> Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
> Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
> www.russianaeros.com
>
> From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-yak-list-server@ma
tronics.com] On Behalf Of Byron M Fox
> Sent: 06 July 2016 15:40
> To: LIst Yak
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Question from Australia
>
> "I have a question that you guys may be able to help with: It seems there
are some Yak-52s that have a lower G rating than others, and apparently (wh
ether this is an Australian thing or not) are placarded with "No Aerobatics"
. Are you aware of this, and if so are there any mods that are used in the S
tates to beef up the wing/center section on these planes? Apparently, the w
ings can be sent to Yak (Aerostar?) for reinforcing but that's all we're awa
re of."
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Mark Awad
>
> Chief Executive Officer
>
> Australian Warbirds Association Ltd
> mark.awad@australianwarbirds.com.au
>
>
>
> Blitz Fox
> 415-307-2405
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
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: | Yak 52 Question from Australia |
Richard, I tried to be more general so other countries would not see and
start to adopt the British regulations. Our FAA defines aerobatics in a
way that you cannot even do a 1G roll legally.
George
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Goode
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 5:09 AM
Subject: RE: Yak-List: Yak 52 Question from Australia
I agree with various postings from others, but I feel there is a need to
emphasise that this is not a simple issue. The practicality is that the
52 is a tough aircraft, but in Russian DOSAAF service was flown
extremely hard, and of course almost every flight was an aerobatic one.
In consequence various structural problems occurred, and to each
Yakovlev came up with a service bulletin to ensure structural integrity.
Unfortunately I hear too often people saying that their 52 "has the
heavy spar", and is therefore cleared for any form of aerobatics! If
only it were so simple. YDB issued a total of 114 service bulletins for
the 52 =93 the majority of these being relatively trivial;
referring to changes in the paperwork and so forth. But there are a
number of these that we view as being critical for safety, and not just
referring to the wing structure.
So the important ones are 18 =93 elevator counterweight; 28
=93 elevator counterweight bolts; 37 =93 aileron mounting;
59 (see below) =93 wing attachment brackets; 60 (see below)
=93 wing centre section; 66 =93 bigger spar bolts; 70
=93 rudder mass balance; 80 =93 plate on rear spar; 87
=93 reinforcement of rear spar; 107 (again the below) =93
external spar strap.
Of these the critical ones are 59 and 60 =93 strengthening the
wing mountings and the centre section, and 107.
The UK CAA has taken this whole issue seriously, and has had discussions
with YDB, and now divides 52 is into four categories:
Without 59 and 60 =93 limited to +5 - 3G, non-aerobatic and total
airframe life 1000 hours.
With 59 and 60 =93 +7.5- 5G; no flick (snap) manoeuvres and
airframe life 5000 hours from new.
With 59/60 and 107 =93 again the same G limits, but fully
aerobatic and also 5000 hours airframe life.
The fourth category is effectively the same as the third, and refers to
later aircraft (114 series and later) which had all these modifications
installed during manufacture.
Aircraft can be modified =93 although there is now a significant
problem to obtain the 59 and 60 modification kits, and then move to a
higher category. Also, the 59 and 60 modifications can only be installed
using proper jigs and equipment, whereas 107, although quite complicated
because of many different bolt sizes can be installed by a competent
maintenance organisation.
I hope this helps!
Richard Goode Aerobatics
Rhodds Farm
Lyonshall
Hereford
HR5 3LW
Tel: +44 (0) 1544 340120
Fax: +44 (0) 1544 340129
www.russianaeros.com
From: owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-yak-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Byron M Fox
Sent: 06 July 2016 15:40
Subject: Yak-List: Yak 52 Question from Australia
"I have a question that you guys may be able to help with: It seems
there are some Yak-52s that have a lower G rating than others, and
apparently (whether this is an Australian thing or not) are placarded
with "No Aerobatics". Are you aware of this, and if so are there any
mods that are used in the States to beef up the wing/center section on
these planes? Apparently, the wings can be sent to Yak (Aerostar?) for
reinforcing but that's all we're aware of."
Thanks!
Best regards,
Mark Awad
Chief Executive Officer
Australian Warbirds Association Ltd
mark.awad@australianwarbirds.com.au
Blitz Fox
415-307-2405
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
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 |
|
Guys,
I need the pop off valve piston (with the rubber end) for my Yak-18T. It is a slightly
smaller diameter than the one for the '52. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
PJ Ashura
Sent from my iPad
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-18T Part |
I'm not sure this may be the answer because I personally do not know what t
he 18T pop off valve piston looks like.=C2- But it may be the same as the
one in the CJ6.=C2- Maybe Doug Sapp can post a photo of the pop off valv
e piston and you can compare it to what yours looks like?Dennis=C2-
From: Patrick Ashura <pjsales@me.com>
To: yak-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 8:43 PM
Subject: Yak-List: Yak-18T Part
Guys,
I need the pop off valve piston (with the rubber end) for my Yak-18T. It is
a slightly smaller diameter than the one for the '52. Any help would be gr
eatly appreciated!
PJ Ashura
Sent from my iPad
S -
WIKI -
-
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Yak-18T Part |
You may find it with Dennis or Jill.
Didier Blouzard
+33 6 5184 4802
> Le 8 juil. 2016 02:43, Patrick Ashura <pjsales@me.com> a crit :
>
>
> Guys,
>
> I need the pop off valve piston (with the rubber end) for my Yak-18T. It is a
slightly smaller diameter than the one for the '52. Any help would be greatly
appreciated!
>
> PJ Ashura
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
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: Yak-18T Part |
I think it may be the same as the 52
Didier Blouzard
+33 6 5184 4802
> Le 8 juil. 2016 =C3- 04:41, A. Dennis Savarese <dsavarese0812@bellsouth.
net> a =C3=A9crit :
>
> I'm not sure this may be the answer because I personally do not know what t
he 18T pop off valve piston looks like. But it may be the same as the one i
n the CJ6. Maybe Doug Sapp can post a photo of the pop off valve piston and
you can compare it to what yours looks like?
> Dennis
>
>
> From: Patrick Ashura <pjsales@me.com>
> To: yak-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 8:43 PM
> Subject: Yak-List: Yak-18T Part
>
>
> Guys,
>
> I need the pop off valve piston (with the rubber end) for my Yak-18T. It i
s a slightly smaller diameter than the one for the '52. Any help would be gr
eatly appreciated!
>
> PJ Ashurk-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-L
isthttp://forums.mat - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
> _ http://wiki.matro -Mats.com/contribution" target="
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution===========
==
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|