Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

In defense of CJs

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

ph451(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 6:04 pm Post subject: In defense of CJs

[quote][b] [quote][b]

dsavarese0812(at)bellsout
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 6:16 pm Post subject: In defense of CJs

Here we go.....

 Dennis

 [quote]   ---

wdjester(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:01 am Post subject: In defense of CJs

gheez, how about a little poetic  license...

 [quote]   ---

cjpilot710(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 5:35 am Post subject: In defense of CJs

Oh No Goatboy.  You've crossed a line here.  I've yet seen a Yak out run a CJ.  You don't fight to the other guy's strength.  You kill with your own.  AC101 "Boots"

    

   Pappy

 

 

   

 

 

   --

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 1:36 pm Post subject: In defense of CJs

Well of course as a YAK-50 owner, I have to weigh in here.  It is not

really accurate for folks to use the term "Yak" in a general sort of

way.  There is a ton of difference in the performance between the YAK-52

(all models), the YAK-50, the YAK-54 and the YAK-55.  



What is Vne on the CJ ???   Is it above about 285 MPH?  I don't think

so.  So, yes.... the YAK-50 can outrun the CJ in a dive.  Kind of like

the P-47 Thunderbolt.  It could run away from just about anything in a

dive.  The YAK-50 can easily out dive the CJ.  



What is maximum level speed at full throttle of the CJ-6 ??  The YAK-50

claims 200 mph straight and level.  Personally, I have never seen that.

On a perfect day, I have achieved a measured 197 mph WFO, and that means

intentionally exceeding the maximum full power output time limitations.

That's with the 360 HP M-14P and a stock Russian paddle blade prop.



The YAK-50 has a better thrust to weight ratio and can indeed fight in

the vertical far better than the CJ.  It also has a higher roll rate,

and higher G limitations, although it is not very smart to run it up to

9 G's anymore.  



Of course there is always the matter of pilot skills, and his or her

knowledge of tactics, and I agree with Pappy 100%.  You don't fight to

the other guy's strengths!  ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.  



For what it is worth, I do indeed tend to go vertical with any opponent

when I know my vertical penetration is going to greatly exceed that of

my opponent.  As far as it working only in a canned setup with a

cooperating bogey, I would go back to actual accounts of WW-II with the

written stories of actual fighter pilots going against Jap Zero's.  This

tactic was used very effectively against American pilots in the

beginning of the war and accounted for a lot of lost American aircraft,

until our aircraft improved enough to where the roles were reversed.  We

initially countered their aircraft handling superiority with "tactics"

designed to force them into fighting to our strengths, just like Pappy

said.  



Any Yak can be defeated by any CJ, given the right circumstances.

However, the performance of the YAK-50 in a dogfight is vastly superior

to the CJ-6.  This is not a matter of pride of ownership (well, OK...

maybe a little) but really is a simple matter of just looking at the

numbers.  



The YAK-50 has a higher rate of climb, a higher thrust to weight ratio,

better vertical penetration, better roll rate, and higher G limitations.

It is a purpose built aerobatic aircraft.  The CJ does not have any of

these strengths.  All that said, put the right guy into the CJ and he

will probably beat the YAK-50 every time.  But given equal pilot skill

and knowledge levels, I don't honestly see how a CJ-6 could ever beat a

YAK-50.  



Mark Bitterlich

--

N642K

Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 84

Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:21 pm Post subject: Re: In defense of CJs

You will probably beat me up in your Yak.  I'll still be smiling.  I have a back seater, a hundred pounds of beer, luggage and probably your weekend laundry onboard.

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:46 am Post subject: In defense of CJs

That is ABSOLUTELY true!  



You also have a lot of RANGE....   After 160 NM or so, I am running on

fumes.  



Mark

--

richard.goode(at)russiana
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:51 am Post subject: In defense of CJs

Mark-you need long range wing-tanks in the 50!!!

Richard Goode Aerobatics

Rhodds Farm

Lyonshall

Hereford

HR5 3LW

United Kingdom



Tel:   +44 (0) 1544 340120

Fax:  +44 (0) 1544 340129

www.russianaeros.com

I'm currently in Sri Lanka but this Mail is working,and my local phone is 

+94 779 132 160.

---

mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest

Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 10:36 am Post subject: In defense of CJs

Richard, I now also have a UTVA-66.  



I have also realized I can't afford two airplanes.  But I can't stand to

part with either!  



So.... long range tanks, new paint job, M-14PF mod, MT9-260 prop...

etc., are kind of out of reach.  Big sigh.  



Mark

--

barryhancock

Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 285

Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:23 am Post subject: Re: In defense of CJs

Just to take what Mark was saying about the -50 a step further.  The Yak-50 is the absolute, unequivocal king of the hill for piston aircraft in BFM (did I just use that acronym out loud?!?).  Planes like the Extra, Marchetti SF260, Panzel, I-3/E-3, etc. have all tried, and walked away with new found respect for the -50.  



Pappy, the only way a CJ stands a chance in a neutral fight with a -50 is limiting the -50 to below 70% power, gear out, and one mag off... -



Happy fighting, err, flying!



Barry

_________________
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
www.worldwidewarbirds.com

kingcj6(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:02 am Post subject: In defense of CJs

Barry - I suspect a backseater wiith a .45 Thompson in a CJ would even the odds...but wait, a -50 doesn't have a back seat!

    

   Dave

 

     	  Quote: 	
		   	  Quote: 	
		  Pappy, the only way a CJ stands a chance in a neutral fight with a -50 is 

limiting the -50 to below 70% power, gear out, and one mag off... -



Happy fighting, err, flying!



Barry 	
	


 

 

   

 

 

   --

rick(at)rvairshows.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:03 am Post subject: In defense of CJs

I wonder what the Yak 50 could do against a range of even higher performance aircraft than you have mentioned , such as a SU 26 or MXS or even an Edge 540.  Any one have any experience with these three?

Rick Volker 

---

barryhancock

Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 285

Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:48 am Post subject: Re: In defense of CJs

Hi Rick,



Yes, Su26, Panzel, etc., the symmetrical airfoil of modern aerobatic aircraft bleeds energy much faster than the -50 wing.  The result is a higher sustained G for the -50, a higher potential energy state, recovers energy much quicker, etc.  Initial turn rate for the modern aircraft is probably higher, but that advantage is quickly lost to a lower energy state.  This is why the modern aerobatic aircraft are well, aerobatic aircraft and the -50 is the most highly coveted dogfighter around....



Happy aggressive cooperative aerobatics,



Barry

_________________
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
www.worldwidewarbirds.com

ph451(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:20 pm Post subject: In defense of CJs

You still have to fly it.



--- On Fri, 1/7/11, barryhancock <bhancock(at)worldwidewarbirds.com> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

From: barryhancock <bhancock(at)worldwidewarbirds.com>

Subject: Re: In defense of CJs

To: yak-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 6:48 PM



 --> Yak-List message posted by: "barryhancock" <bhancock(at)worldwidewarbirds.com (bhancock(at)worldwidewarbirds.com)>



Hi Rick,



Yes, Su26, Panzel, etc., the symmetrical airfoil of modern aerobatic aircraft bleeds energy much faster than the -50 wing.  The result is a higher sustained G for the -50, a higher potential energy state, recovers energy much quicker, etc.  Initial turn rate for the modern aircraft is probably higher, but that advantage is quickly lost to a lower energy state.  This is why the modern aerobatic aircraft are well, aerobatic aircraft and the -50 is the most highly coveted dogfighter around....



Happy aggressive cooperative aerobatics,



Barry



--------

Barry Hancock

Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.

(909)  606-4444

www.worldwidewarbirds.com





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.phpwww.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.========================http://forums.msp;            - List Contribution Web Sbsp;                     > http





	


         [quote][b]

barryhancock

Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 285

Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:23 pm Post subject: Re: In defense of CJs

Umm.....ready left.



You are right, the drawing board is of little consequence when the fight is on....but my real world observation and experience is that the -50 is without peer and will make even an average guy an above average threat against anything other than another -50.  



I'm done...

_________________
Barry Hancock
Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.
www.worldwidewarbirds.com

viperdoc(at)mindspring.co
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:41 pm Post subject: In defense of CJs

Yep. 120 Klicks in the vertical  un loaded on it's back turning inside it's ass. Thrust vectoring eat your heart out. Now, that's nose authority.

Doc



Sent from my iPad



On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:16 PM, Paul Hamlin <ph451(at)yahoo.com (ph451(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:



[quote]You still have to fly it.



--- On Fri, 1/7/11, barryhancock <bhancock(at)worldwidewarbirds.com (bhancock(at)worldwidewarbirds.com)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

From: barryhancock <bhancock(at)worldwidewarbirds.com (bhancock(at)worldwidewarbirds.com)>

Subject: Re: In defense of CJs

To: [url=mailto:yak-list(at)matronics.com]yak-list(at)matronics.com (yak-list(at)matronics.com)[/url]

Date: Friday, January 7, 2011, 6:48 PM



 --> Yak-List message posted by: "barryhancock" <[url=mailto:bhancock(at)worldwidewarbirds.com]bhancock(at)worldwidewarbirds.com (bhancock(at)worldwidewarbirds.com)[/url]>



Hi Rick,



Yes, Su26, Panzel, etc., the symmetrical airfoil of modern aerobatic aircraft bleeds energy much faster than the -50 wing.  The result is a higher sustained G for the -50, a higher potential energy state, recovers energy much quicker, etc.  Initial turn rate for the modern aircraft is probably higher, but that advantage is quickly lost to a lower energy state.  This is why the modern aerobatic aircraft are well, aerobatic aircraft and the -50 is the most highly coveted dogfighter around....



Happy aggressive cooperative aerobatics,



Barry



--------

Barry Hancock

Worldwide Warbirds, Inc.

(909)  606-4444

www.worldwidewarbirds.com





Read this topic online here:



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.phpwww.matronics.com/Navigator?Yak-List" target=_blank>http://www.matronics.========================http://forums.msp;            - List Contribution Web Sbsp;                     > http





[/url] 	
[url=http://www.matronics.com/contribution]

          	  Quote: 	
		  

	


[b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Yak-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

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