norske.fly(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2022 7:57 am Post subject: Yak-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 02/26/22 |
 |
|
Great advice, Greg! Fly the airplane for a year and enjoy it in all its steam-powered glory, John. As Clouddog says you'll probably find that there's something else you'll need before an IFR panel. And the gyro that's in it, if working, is perfectly capable of getting you through a cloud layer on a radar penetration if you get caught out over the top of an overcast. Don't ask me how I know that. For all the years I flew Delta 777's with its swanky glass, I found it a treat to get into my unmodified CJ-6 and fly it "old style." Have fun!
Skip Ranger Slyfield
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:52 AM Yak-List Digest Server <yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)> wrote:
[quote]*
=========================
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=html&Chapter=2022-02-26&Archive=Yak
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter=2022-02-26&Archive=Yak
=======================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
=======================
----------------------------------------------------------
Yak-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Sat 02/26/22: 4
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:17 AM - Accident report from Australia (Stressmerchant)
2. 01:09 AM - Re: Accident report from Australia (Richard Goode)
3. 02:01 AM - Re: Accident report from Australia (Stressmerchant)
4. 08:57 AM - Re: Yak-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 02/25/22 (Greg Wrobel)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 12:17:45 AM PST US
Subject: Accident report from Australia
From: "Stressmerchant" <mike_beresford(at)yahoo.co.uk (mike_beresford(at)yahoo.co.uk)>
After several years, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) have finally
issued the report for the Yak-52 accident in off Brisbane. I've attached a copy
to this post.
I guess the investigation was unlikely to find a definitive cause, given that there
was no recorded flight data, the impact was not witnessed, and a significant
amount of the wreckage was not recovered. Having said that, I am a little
disappointed in the report, especially given the length of time it took to be
released.
Two aspects do interest me. The one is the issue of the fatigue life of the aircraft.
My understanding was that the fatigue life is extended through the maintenance
program and specific inspections. Noting the report statement that "At
the time of publication, and with the exception of some aircraft that have been
modified to a tail-wheel configuration, the remaining Yak-52s registered in
Australia had exceeded their airframe life", ATSB seem to assume that no inspections
have been taking place.
The second is the issue of the bellcrank. My understanding was that the aluminium
bellcrank required a recurring inspection, but that the requirement for the
inspection terminated if a steel bellcrank was fitted. The ATSB report suggests
that the inspection is required irrespective of the bellcrank fitted. Could
someone who has more knowledge of the requirement comment in this?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=506150#506150
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ao_2019_027_final_105.pdf
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
Time: 01:09:48 AM PST US
From: "Richard Goode" <richard.goode(at)russianaeros.com (richard.goode(at)russianaeros.com)>
Subject: RE: Accident report from Australia
Hello Mike,
I think I'm right in saying that the yak-list can't accept attachments, but I'd
be most grateful if you could send me an email with that attachment.
Then in terms of fatigue life that is interesting. If they are saying that all
52 in Australia have exceeded their airframe life, one would assume that they
are all being grounded. The practicality is that the situation is possibly correct
in that in original Russian legislation, the 52 had a 600 hour airframe "life".
To an extent this is due to the fact that the aircraft sat at one airfield
and did nothing but aerobatics and sometimes it quite hard G. But also that
they were employing 250 million people in a quasi-military environment and needed
work for them. So after 600 hours every aircraft would go back to a manufacturing
factory; totally dismantled to its components and then rebuilt as a
new aircraft. When we started importing them into Europe (and indeed elsewhere)
we initially used a very "Mickey Mouse" registration which had no legal validity,
but the various aviation authorities accepted them for about 14 years before
clamping down.
And of course the 52 is non-certified, and therefore there is no internationally
accepted paperwork for the aircraft allowing it to automatically be registered
in any country. So it is totally up to the local aviation authorities in each
country whether to allow it to fly there. In the UK we have strange, but very
helpful part of our aviation legislation whereby any aircraft that is airworthy
and "ex-military" will be given a "permit to fly" i.e. restricted certification.
But after a while UK CAA realised that there was the 600 hour "lifetime"
affecting all 52 and were we going to follow it? Clearly that would have been
economically absurd, so we organised a series of meetings between ourselves;
UK CAA and Yakovlev in Moscow, which after a lot of discussion ended up with
a new system of lifetime whereby every aircraft had a detailed inspection every
600 hours or 15 years.
This meant that engine was removed; wings removed tail et cetera but only sufficiently
to be able to NDT test all the structural parts. And of course a variety
of other checks on different parts of the aircraft, but dramatically less than
the total reconstruction which the Russians did. In terms of cost, this rather
depends who does it, but around 7000, so not absurd every 15 years. And,
for the time being, there has been a 3500 hour limit, but with a general understanding
that that could be extended.
But clearly owners in Australia need to have the situation clarified, in case there
is suddenly some edict grounding the aircraft! However many countries in
Europe, and indeed elsewhere have followed the UK 52 lifetime procedures.
For the bellcrank, for strange reasons, the Russians, I believe, never made it
mandatory to change but strongly advised. Then, in terms of how this is interpreted
comes down to the fact that there is no international legislation for a
52 and it's up to each individual country to make up their own rules. But certainly
the understanding is that if still aluminium it must be regularly checked
but, I believe, is steel that requirement stops.
RICHARD GOODE AEROBATICS
Rhodds Farm, Lyonshall, Hereford, HR5 3LW, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1544 340120 Fax: +44 (0)1544 340129
e-mail: richard.goode(at)russianaeros.com (richard.goode(at)russianaeros.com)
www.russianaeros.com
WORLD LEADERS IN RUSSIAN SPORTING AIRCRAFT & ENGINES
In partnership with Aerometal Kft, Hungary.
--
| | - The Matronics Yak-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
