 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rvfltd(at)televar.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject: Facts mam, just the facts |
 |
|
Guys:
This from "Yakovlev Aircraft since 1924" Bill Gunston and Yefim Gordon.
In the past both have been researchers for "Janes All the Worlds
Aircraft" and have several excellent books on early Russian aviation.
Mr. Gordon has helped me with the proper colors and other information
about the first prototype Yak 18. I do have contact info for him if
anyone wants to "Yak" with him, he speaks fair English and seems to be
eager to talk Yaks.
On page 118 lower left hand paragraph under Yak 18A:
"The Yak 18A, which according to some documents was originally
designated as the Yak 20, was in production at Arsenyev from 1957 to 1961."
It goes on to say that a total of 927 where built Arsenyev and another
1796 were built under license in China. Yes, that's right China!
So, it is incorrect to state that the CJ predates the 18A. However it
is reasonable to assume that the CJ6 was the logical evolution of the
type, and the Chinese having a penchant for copying simply improved upon
the design, keeping the basic size and shape. I think this is
believable because the aircraft did in fact not change shape except for
the removal of Yakolev's signature pumpkin seed tail.
Always Yakin,
Doug
Brian Lloyd wrote:
| Quote: |
On Aug 22, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Dale wrote:
>
>
> YAK 18A
>
> http://www.yak-aviation.com/18a_aircraft.html
Yes, the rumors abound about which came first. If the Chinese are to
be believed, the CJ6A predates the Yak-18A.
But what inspired what is really not the issue. The issue is whether
one is a "copy" of the other. The huge differences make is pretty
clear that neither is a copy of the other.
--
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
|
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dabear(at)damned.org
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:52 pm Post subject: Facts mam, just the facts |
|
|
CJ6A a copy of the Yak-18A? Exact Copy No.
CJ6A designed from scratch without influence? NO Chance
Much improved on the Yak-18A design yes. It is much improved over the
18A. They changed the airfoil, used metal wings/tail instead of
tube/fabric. The engine cowl design is not the only thing that used
from the 18A.
The CJ6A is a great airplane. The Chinese built a great airplane.
However, they didn't design it from scratch.
Dabear
owned and flew Yak-52, CJ6A, and Yak-Chang
Doug Sapp wrote:
| Quote: |
Guys:
This from "Yakovlev Aircraft since 1924" Bill Gunston and Yefim
Gordon. In the past both have been researchers for "Janes All the
Worlds Aircraft" and have several excellent books on early Russian
aviation. Mr. Gordon has helped me with the proper colors and other
information about the first prototype Yak 18. I do have contact info
for him if anyone wants to "Yak" with him, he speaks fair English and
seems to be eager to talk Yaks.
On page 118 lower left hand paragraph under Yak 18A:
"The Yak 18A, which according to some documents was originally
designated as the Yak 20, was in production at Arsenyev from 1957 to
1961."
It goes on to say that a total of 927 where built Arsenyev and another
1796 were built under license in China. Yes, that's right China!
So, it is incorrect to state that the CJ predates the 18A. However it
is reasonable to assume that the CJ6 was the logical evolution of the
type, and the Chinese having a penchant for copying simply improved
upon the design, keeping the basic size and shape. I think this is
believable because the aircraft did in fact not change shape except
for the removal of Yakolev's signature pumpkin seed tail.
Always Yakin,
Doug
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Dale wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> YAK 18A
>>
>> http://www.yak-aviation.com/18a_aircraft.html
> Yes, the rumors abound about which came first. If the Chinese are to
> be believed, the CJ6A predates the Yak-18A.
>
> But what inspired what is really not the issue. The issue is whether
> one is a "copy" of the other. The huge differences make is pretty
> clear that neither is a copy of the other.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
> brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
>
> PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
> PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
>
|
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cjpilot710(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject: Facts mam, just the facts |
|
|
In a message dated 8/22/2007 7:08:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rvfltd(at)televar.com writes:
I've never been perfectly impressed Janes All the Worlds Aircraft. I've seen to many guys send in data on an 'original' aircraft design that was obviously built from popular plans. A "Joe Dokes Special" was really a plans built copy of a Pitts or something like that. I don't feel their are always 100% correct.
The Chinese themselves claim they built under license 376 CJ-5 or Yak-18. The first Yak 18A was designated the "Yak-18U" after modifications it was designated the 18A. The Chinese never built Yak-18As. This came from a Yakovlev web site, if I remember right. The 18A predates the CJ-6.
If the CJ was a copy of the Yak than their wings, gear etc would be interchangeable and of course they are not. The fact is they are as different as night and day. Shape the same yes. But so is the T-6, T-34, PT-23, PT-22, all 2 seat tandem, low wing, monoplane trainers. That's a wide net to cast over 'copies'. 
Jim "Pappy" Goolsby
| Quote: | --> Yak-List message posted by: Doug Sapp <rvfltd(at)televar.com>
Guys:
This from "Yakovlev Aircraft since 1924" Bill Gunston and Yefim Gordon.
In the past both have been researchers for "Janes All the Worlds
Aircraft" and have several excellent books on early Russian aviation.
Mr. Gordon has helped me with the proper colors and other information
about the first prototype Yak 18. I do have contact info for him if
anyone wants to "Yak" with him, he speaks fair English and seems to be
eager to talk Yaks.
On page 118 lower left hand paragraph under Yak 18A:
"The Yak 18A, which according to some documents was originally
designated as the Yak 20, was in production at Arsenyev from 1957 to 1961."
It goes on to say that a total of 927 where built Arsenyev and another
1796 were built under license in China. Yes, that's right China!
So, it is incorrect to state that the CJ predates the 18A. However it
is reasonable to assume that the CJ6 was the logical evolution of the
type, and the Chinese having a penchant for copying simply improved upon
the design, keeping the basic size and shape. I think this is
believable because the aircraft did in fact not change shape except for
the removal of Yakolev's signature pumpkin seed tail.
Always Yakin,
Doug
Brian Lloyd wrote:
| Quote: | --> Yak-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-1927(at)lloyd.com>
On Aug 22, 2007, at 2:34 PM, Dale wrote:
> --> Yak-List message posted by: "Dale" <hdinamic(at)qwest.net>
>
> YAK 18A
>
> http://www.yak-aviation.com/18a_aircraft.html
Yes, the rumors abound about which came first. If the Chinese are to
be believed, the CJ6A predates the Yak-18A.
But what inspired what is really not the issue. The issue is whether
one is a "copy" of the other. The huge differences make is pretty
clear that neither is a copy of the other.
--
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
|
|
Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian-1927(at)lloyd.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject: Facts mam, just the facts |
|
|
On Aug 22, 2007, at 4:05 PM, Doug Sapp wrote:
| Quote: | So, it is incorrect to state that the CJ predates the 18A. However
it is reasonable to assume that the CJ6 was the logical evolution
of the type, and the Chinese having a penchant for copying simply
improved upon the design, keeping the basic size and shape. I
think this is believable because the aircraft did in fact not
change shape except for the removal of Yakolev's signature pumpkin
seed tail.
|
* The Yak-18A uses a tube and fabric fuselage, the CJ6A is semi-
monocoque.
* The Yak-18A and the CJ6A have completely different airfoil sections.
Bushi Cheng claims he did the initial design for the CJ6A on a clean
sheet in 1957. He also said that the powers-that-be were not ready to
trust their own design team and took the conservative approach of
producing an existing design. Also, as Pappy said, there was the
engine issue. So it is completely possible that the Yak-18A was
produced in China completely independently of the design and
production of the CJ6A.
Have you ever looked at a Yak-18A Doug? It ain't the same animal.
--
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian-1927(at)lloyd.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:36 pm Post subject: Facts mam, just the facts |
|
|
On Aug 22, 2007, at 4:51 PM, DaBear wrote:
| Quote: |
CJ6A a copy of the Yak-18A? Exact Copy No. CJ6A designed from
scratch without influence? NO Chance
|
Without influence? *NO* airplane is designed without influence of
other aircraft.
| Quote: | Much improved on the Yak-18A design yes. It is much improved over
the 18A. They changed the airfoil, used metal wings/tail instead
of tube/fabric. The engine cowl design is not the only thing that
used from the 18A.
The CJ6A is a great airplane. The Chinese built a great airplane.
However, they didn't design it from scratch.
|
Then Bushi Cheng stood up and lied to us because he stated very
emphatically that they started with a clean sheet of paper. We asked
the question. Sure he had seen a Yak-18 as the Yak-18 and CJ-5 were
the same aircraft. He may have seen a Yak-18A. But the Yak-18 and
Yak-18A were definitely not the same aircraft, the CJ-5 and CJ-6A are
not the same aircraft, and the Yak-18A and CJ6A are not the same
aircraft.
--
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dabear(at)damned.org
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:57 am Post subject: Facts mam, just the facts |
|
|
Brian Lloyd wrote:
| Quote: | > (at)damned.org>
>
> CJ6A a copy of the Yak-18A? Exact Copy No. CJ6A designed from
> scratch without influence? NO Chance
Without influence? *NO* airplane is designed without influence of
other aircraft.
Then it wasn't a "Clean" sheet of paper design.
|
| Quote: |
> Much improved on the Yak-18A design yes. It is much improved over
> the 18A. They changed the airfoil, used metal wings/tail instead of
> tube/fabric. The engine cowl design is not the only thing that used
> from the 18A.
> The CJ6A is a great airplane. The Chinese built a great airplane.
> However, they didn't design it from scratch.
Then Bushi Cheng stood up and lied to us because he stated very
emphatically that they started with a clean sheet of paper. We asked
the question. Sure he had seen a Yak-18 as the Yak-18 and CJ-5 were
the same aircraft. He may have seen a Yak-18A. But the Yak-18 and
Yak-18A were definitely not the same aircraft, the CJ-5 and CJ-6A are
not the same aircraft, and the Yak-18A and CJ6A are not the same
aircraft.
Yes, and I don't like to be lied to.
|
Bushi Cheng stated very emphatically that they started with a clean
sheet of paper. He also stated that he didn't see the Yak18A in Russia
until after he designed the airplane.
I'm saying that is impossible that they designed the aircraft from
scratch (CLEAN sheet of paper).
Why is the wing bent in the same location as the Yak18?
Why isn't the wing strait, all the way out?
Why is the cowl design the same?
Why is the nose gear and shimmy damper the same?
Why is the antenna in the exact same place and shape?
Why is the oil cooler system the same layout?
Why is the cockpit layout very similar?
Why is the step on the wing the same?
Why is the landing light the same?
Why are the gills the same as the Yak-18A yet not like the Yak-18/CJ5?
I could go on.... Copy, no. Close, eh maybe. But they certainly took
the Yak-18A basic design and improved the hell out of it. And they
certainly didn't design it from a clean sheet of paper. Again, I don't
like to be lied to.
What I don't understand is why people think it takes away from the
CJ6A? It doesn't. The airplane stands on its own because it survived
and the other airplanes didn't. What other airplane design has been
manufactured for over 47 years? It is a great airplane, but the
designer(s) didn't do it on their own, with no influence from other
aircraft. And that is what Bush Cheng stated when he said he didn't see
the Yak-18A prior to his design and that he did it from a clean sheet of
paper.
Actually one thing I wish they had taken from the Yak-18A was the
ability to open the sides of the airplane and work on it. It would be
SOOOO much easier to work on the systems that way.
DaBear
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brian-1927(at)lloyd.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:52 am Post subject: Facts mam, just the facts |
|
|
On Aug 23, 2007, at 6:56 AM, DaBear wrote:
| Quote: |
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>> (at)damned.org>
>>
>> CJ6A a copy of the Yak-18A? Exact Copy No. CJ6A designed from
>> scratch without influence? NO Chance
>
> Without influence? *NO* airplane is designed without influence of
> other aircraft.
Then it wasn't a "Clean" sheet of paper design.
|
Sure it was. Clean-sheet means that you start drawing from a blank
sheet of paper and not start by copying any particular part of the
other aircraft. Certainly they had some constraints. They were using
the existing instruments, pneumatic components, avionics, and cockpit
layout. They were seeking very similar performance and handling
characteristics. They were presented with similar engines. There were
going to be great similarities as a result.
Here is an analogy. Given a set of market requirements, features, and
a price point, go design a car. I don't think that Ford and GM copy
each other but, damn, their cars are an awful lot alike at any give
price point. And I suspect that they too start with a clean sheet
with the exception that they perhaps decide to reuse certain
subassemblies like engines, drive trains, etc.
| Quote: | >> Much improved on the Yak-18A design yes. It is much improved
>> over the 18A. They changed the airfoil, used metal wings/tail
>> instead of tube/fabric. The engine cowl design is not the only
>> thing that used from the 18A.
>> The CJ6A is a great airplane. The Chinese built a great
>> airplane. However, they didn't design it from scratch.
>
> Then Bushi Cheng stood up and lied to us because he stated very
> emphatically that they started with a clean sheet of paper. We
> asked the question. Sure he had seen a Yak-18 as the Yak-18 and
> CJ-5 were the same aircraft. He may have seen a Yak-18A. But the
> Yak-18 and Yak-18A were definitely not the same aircraft, the CJ-5
> and CJ-6A are not the same aircraft, and the Yak-18A and CJ6A are
> not the same aircraft.
Yes, and I don't like to be lied to.
Bushi Cheng stated very emphatically that they started with a clean
sheet of paper. He also stated that he didn't see the Yak18A in
Russia until after he designed the airplane.
I'm saying that is impossible that they designed the aircraft from
scratch (CLEAN sheet of paper). Why is the wing bent in the same
location as the Yak18?
|
If you decide to use a single straight spar section to which to
attach the gear, you are going to get a similar structure if you
still want dihedral.
| Quote: | Why isn't the wing strait, all the way out?
|
Because you want dihedral to give the airplane more static stability.
After all, it is a trainer and you are going to teach newbies to fly
in it. Stability is a very desirable trait in a trainer as is the
ability to withstand students "dropping it in" from 15 feet. That
gear and the spar it is attached to needs to be hell-for-strong. The
single straight spar carry through is both very simple and very strong.
| Quote: | Why is the cowl design the same?
|
It is wrapped around an engine with the same dimensions.
| Quote: | Why is the nose gear and shimmy damper the same?
|
They already had them in stock and used them. There is no doubt that
the Yak-18A flew in China. There is also no doubt that the CJ6A did
not actually enter the inventory until something like 1963. By then
they may have decided to modify the design to use the same nose gear
assembly so as to reduce their spares requirements.
| Quote: | Why is the antenna in the exact same place and shape?
|
Antenna placement is a function of performance. It would not have the
same radiation pattern elsewhere. Or it could have been simpler than
that: it just looked OK there and they could use the same fittings
and wiring.
| Quote: | Why is the oil cooler system the same layout?
|
Because they use the same oil cooler? Ever looked inside a spam can?
There are a LOT of spam cans from different manufacturers who put the
same oil cooler in the same place on different different airplanes
from different manufacturers. Is that a copy?
| Quote: | Why is the cockpit layout very similar?
|
Standardization. The cockpits of the eastern bloc aircraft are all
very similar right up through the modern-day jets.
| Quote: | Why is the step on the wing the same?
|
Because people get up on the wing there and they had some left in stock.
| Quote: | Why is the landing light the same?
|
Because they had them in stock.
| Quote: | Why are the gills the same as the Yak-18A yet not like the Yak-18/CJ5?
|
Because it is a different engine.
| Quote: | I could go on.... Copy, no. Close, eh maybe. But they certainly
took the Yak-18A basic design and improved the hell out of it. And
they certainly didn't design it from a clean sheet of paper.
Again, I don't like to be lied to.
|
You can start with a clean sheet but still use a lot of components
you have in stock.
| Quote: | What I don't understand is why people think it takes away from the
CJ6A? It doesn't. The airplane stands on its own because it
survived and the other airplanes didn't. What other airplane
design has been manufactured for over 47 years? It is a great
airplane, but the designer(s) didn't do it on their own, with no
influence from other aircraft. And that is what Bush Cheng stated
when he said he didn't see the Yak-18A prior to his design and that
he did it from a clean sheet of paper.
|
In 1957 it is possible that he hadn't.
| Quote: | Actually one thing I wish they had taken from the Yak-18A was the
ability to open the sides of the airplane and work on it. It would
be SOOOO much easier to work on the systems that way.
|
You can't do that with a monocoque structure as the skin carries the
loads. If you build a steel frame skeleton the skins carry no load so
you can take them off without any effect on the structure. Oh, there
is a major structural difference between the aircraft!
Do you remember the baggage door on Betty? Bushi looked at it and
advised me that the structure might be compromised. He looked at all
the additional structure that had been put in to carry the loads
around the door and decided that it might be good enough but that
does point out a problem with monocoque construction.
I have now had several people question the veracity of Bushi Cheng. I
found him to be a delightful, intelligent, learned person in the area
of aviation and aerodynamics. He has all sorts of credentials for the
design of much larger and more complex aircraft than the CJ6A. I
certainly can see no reason why he should lie about that. Also, give
Pappy some credit for his search for the designer. Remember, the
people who pointed him to Bushi Cheng probably garnered no benefit
from doing so.
--
Brian Lloyd 3191 Western Drive
brian HYPHEN 1927 AT lloyd DOT com Cameron Park, CA 95682
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
PGP key ID: 12095C52A32A1B6C
PGP key fingerprint: 3B1D BA11 4913 3254 B6E0 CC09 1209 5C52 A32A 1B6C
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
