 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mark.bitterlich(at)navy.m
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2015 12:18 pm Post subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: First time buyer of a Yak 52 or Nancha |
 |
|
Having 900 hours in a T-34B, and 1000 or so in a YAK-50 (but none in a CJ-6 I am sad to report), I will say this.
The T-34 has much more room, has a fairly high Vne, and uses all American parts (thus they are available), but they are not cheap, the FAA is keeping a close eye on them after a wing off light came on during that incident where some idiots were teaching dog-fighting skills to wanna-be's in airframes with many many thousands of hours on them yanking well over the max G limit of +6/-4 (at the time). That required one of several different kinds of spar mods and inspections.
They are EASY to fly, have 3 axis trim and with 50 gallons have a decent range. The controls are balanced well, and include anti-servo's on the control surfaces. Many have engines upgraded to 520 or 550's with 3 bladed props. Needed, because with the stock 470, they were pretty much a dog at 2950 pounds gross. They will do aerobatics, but they do not maintain energy (when stock), and you have to constantly be aware of your degrading energy state. Many rudders have been sorta bent by folks doing snaps at too high an entry speed, and a lot of them have magnesium control surfaces, which need to be hawked carefully for corrosion. Some of have been re-skinned to aluminum. By the way, inverted flight in a T-34 is limited to something like 15 seconds. They use a dry sump engine and a 3 gallon oil tank. The oil is not returned to the tank when inverted and if you are not careful and roll upright after too long inverted without reducing to idle, you can actually do amazing things to the prop... like have it come off.
The landing gear is tough, hard to hurt, and will take huge amounts of punishment. I saw one landed in a plowed field with no damage. They are extremely stable for formation flying and have excellent vis. Basically the T-34 will always be my most favorite airplane to own, overall....but that comes at a pretty darn steep price.
I'd say the aerobatic capability of the CJ is in the same ball-park as the T-34. Cockpits are MUCH smaller, but can be modified. Both are trainers and had the same goals in mind, so their design features are on a par with each other. The CJ-6 is by FAR the more beautiful aircraft, and MUCH cheaper to own, and ... hey, it's got a radial! Like the T-34, the CJ is also somewhat underpowered, but is a stable formation platform.
But to continue ... there are the YAK's and also the SU-29 if you have money. The SU-29 beats them all in my opinion. Again, small cockpits, but has range and will rip your lips off. It is the Ferrari of two seaters until you get to heavy iron and it does better aerobatics than anything else discussed.
The YAK-52 has slightly bigger cockpits than the CJ, but less fuel. Slower than the CJ-6, but with comparable pilots will eat the CJ-6 alive in a dog fight, simply because it has more energy and is designed for it. It is a tractor of a Russian airplane. Has some spin characteristics that need to be experienced with an instructor, but not anything dangerous once you learn what's up. It was built to be an advanced trainer, meaning advanced aerobatics. It will even do tumbles.
So if you ever think of getting serious about aerobatics, or dog-fighting, etc., etc., the YAK-52 is really the best choice. It can go cross country, but with more fuel stops and as I said is slower than the CJ. If you're a tall guy that likes a roomy cockpit and does not want an Experimental Category aircraft, the T-34 is the best choice. The CJ is middle ground in all catagories. It does everything, but is simply not the BEST at everything, but again, I think it is one of the best looking aircraft out there, and if I could fit into the darn thing, would probably own one, but with an M-14 installed!
Single seaters like the 50, 55, 26, 31, etc., are a whole different category so need not be mentioned.
Mark
p.s. I will always LOVE the electric landing gear with manual emergency crank in the T-34 better than the pneumatic mess in the CJ's and Yaks. Simple and reliable and nothing LEAKS! 
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] on behalf of skyjockey [mixxalot(at)yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2015 11:35 AM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: First time buyer of a Yak 52 or Nanchang CJ-6
I need to fly in a CJ6 and T34 to make the decision!
--------
warbird and lover of all things that go fast and upside down!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=451416#451416
| | - 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
Joined: 21 Jan 2011
Posts: 92
Location: Warrenton, VA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2015 1:11 pm Post subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: First time buyer of a Yak 52 or Nancha |
|
|
Mark,
I've owned the Yak-52 and the CJ6, the 52 does NOT have a bigger cockpit
than the CJ6. Maybe you meant to say the 50. BTW, with the rudder
peddle mods and the malcom hood, you would fit in the CJ6. The CJ6 is
a completely different airplane when the M14p is added and i have
roughly 300 hours in the Yak-52 (2 years ownership), and 600-900 hours
in the Stock CJ6 and M14P(f) CJ6 respectively. The CJ6 is a much better
formation plane then the 52, the 52 is a much better acro plane. In my
not so humble opinion.
Bear
On 12/26/2015 3:05 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD wrote:
| Quote: |
Having 900 hours in a T-34B, and 1000 or so in a YAK-50 (but none in a CJ-6 I am sad to report), I will say this.
The T-34 has much more room, has a fairly high Vne, and uses all American parts (thus they are available), but they are not cheap, the FAA is keeping a close eye on them after a wing off light came on during that incident where some idiots were teaching dog-fighting skills to wanna-be's in airframes with many many thousands of hours on them yanking well over the max G limit of +6/-4 (at the time). That required one of several different kinds of spar mods and inspections.
They are EASY to fly, have 3 axis trim and with 50 gallons have a decent range. The controls are balanced well, and include anti-servo's on the control surfaces. Many have engines upgraded to 520 or 550's with 3 bladed props. Needed, because with the stock 470, they were pretty much a dog at 2950 pounds gross. They will do aerobatics, but they do not maintain energy (when stock), and you have to constantly be aware of your degrading energy state. Many rudders have been sorta bent by folks doing snaps at too high an entry speed, and a lot of them have magnesium control surfaces, which need to be hawked carefully for corrosion. Some of have been re-skinned to aluminum. By the way, inverted flight in a T-34 is limited to something like 15 seconds. They use a dry sump engine and a 3 gallon oil tank. The oil is not returned to the tank when inverted and if you are not careful and roll upright after too long inverted without reducing to idle, you can actually do amazing t!
hings to the prop... like have it come off.
The landing gear is tough, hard to hurt, and will take huge amounts of punishment. I saw one landed in a plowed field with no damage. They are extremely stable for formation flying and have excellent vis. Basically the T-34 will always be my most favorite airplane to own, overall....but that comes at a pretty darn steep price.
I'd say the aerobatic capability of the CJ is in the same ball-park as the T-34. Cockpits are MUCH smaller, but can be modified. Both are trainers and had the same goals in mind, so their design features are on a par with each other. The CJ-6 is by FAR the more beautiful aircraft, and MUCH cheaper to own, and ... hey, it's got a radial! Like the T-34, the CJ is also somewhat underpowered, but is a stable formation platform.
But to continue ... there are the YAK's and also the SU-29 if you have money. The SU-29 beats them all in my opinion. Again, small cockpits, but has range and will rip your lips off. It is the Ferrari of two seaters until you get to heavy iron and it does better aerobatics than anything else discussed.
The YAK-52 has slightly bigger cockpits than the CJ, but less fuel. Slower than the CJ-6, but with comparable pilots will eat the CJ-6 alive in a dog fight, simply because it has more energy and is designed for it. It is a tractor of a Russian airplane. Has some spin characteristics that need to be experienced with an instructor, but not anything dangerous once you learn what's up. It was built to be an advanced trainer, meaning advanced aerobatics. It will even do tumbles.
So if you ever think of getting serious about aerobatics, or dog-fighting, etc., etc., the YAK-52 is really the best choice. It can go cross country, but with more fuel stops and as I said is slower than the CJ. If you're a tall guy that likes a roomy cockpit and does not want an Experimental Category aircraft, the T-34 is the best choice. The CJ is middle ground in all catagories. It does everything, but is simply not the BEST at everything, but again, I think it is one of the best looking aircraft out there, and if I could fit into the darn thing, would probably own one, but with an M-14 installed!
Single seaters like the 50, 55, 26, 31, etc., are a whole different category so need not be mentioned.
Mark
p.s. I will always LOVE the electric landing gear with manual emergency crank in the T-34 better than the pneumatic mess in the CJ's and Yaks. Simple and reliable and nothing LEAKS!
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] on behalf of skyjockey [mixxalot(at)yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2015 11:35 AM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: First time buyer of a Yak 52 or Nanchang CJ-6
I need to fly in a CJ6 and T34 to make the decision!
--------
warbird and lover of all things that go fast and upside down!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=451416#451416
|
| | - 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: Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:14 am Post subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: First time buyer of a Yak 52 or Nancha |
|
|
Dead Bear,
I been waiting YEARS to hear you say that! Heheheheheh
Pappy
In a message dated 12/26/2015 4:12:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, dabear(at)damned.org writes:
| Quote: | --> Yak-List message posted by: "DaBear(at)damned.org" <dabear(at)damned.org>
Mark,
I've owned the Yak-52 and the CJ6, the 52 does NOT have a bigger cockpit
than the CJ6. Maybe you meant to say the 50. BTW, with the rudder
peddle mods and the malcom hood, you would fit in the CJ6. The CJ6 is
a completely different airplane when the M14p is added and i have
roughly 300 hours in the Yak-52 (2 years ownership), and 600-900 hours
in the Stock CJ6 and M14P(f) CJ6 respectively. The CJ6 is a much better
formation plane then the 52, the 52 is a much better acro plane. In my
not so humble opinion.
Bear
On 12/26/2015 3:05 PM, Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD wrote:
| Quote: | --> Yak-List message posted by: "Bitterlich, Mark G CIV NAVAIR, WD" <mark.bitterlich(at)navy.mil>
Having 900 hours in a T-34B, and 1000 or so in a YAK-50 (but none in a CJ-6 I am sad to report), I will say this.
The T-34 has much more room, has a fairly high Vne, and uses all American parts (thus they are available), but they are not cheap, the FAA is keeping a close eye on them after a wing off light came on during that incident where some idiots were teaching dog-fighting skills to wanna-be's in airframes with many many thousands of hours on them yanking well over the max G limit of +6/-4 (at the time). That required one of several different kinds of spar mods and inspections.
They are EASY to fly, have 3 axis trim and with 50 gallons have a decent range. The controls are balanced well, and include anti-servo's on the control surfaces. Many have engines upgraded to 520 or 550's with 3 bladed props. Needed, because with the stock 470, they were pretty much a dog at 2950 pounds gross. They will do aerobatics, but they do not maintain energy (when stock), and you have to constantly be aware of your degrading energy state. Many rudders have been sorta bent by folks doing snaps at too high an entry speed, and a lot of them have magnesium control surfaces, which need to be hawked carefully for corrosion. Some of have been re-skinned to aluminum. By the way, inverted flight in a T-34 is limited to something like 15 seconds. They use a dry sump engine and a 3 gallon oil tank. The oil is not returned to the tank when inverted and if you are not careful and roll upright after too long inverted without reducing to idle, you can actually do amazing!
t!
|
| Quote: | hings to the prop... like have it come off.
The landing gear is tough, hard to hurt, and will take huge amounts of punishment. I saw one landed in a plowed field with no damage. They are extremely stable for formation flying and have excellent vis. Basically the T-34 will always be my most favorite airplane to own, overall....but that comes at a pretty darn steep price.
I'd say the aerobatic capability of the CJ is in the same ball-park as the T-34. Cockpits are MUCH smaller, but can be modified. Both are trainers and had the same goals in mind, so their design features are on a par with each other. The CJ-6 is by FAR the more beautiful aircraft, and MUCH cheaper to own, and ... hey, it's got a radial! Like the T-34, the CJ is also somewhat underpowered, but is a stable formation platform.
But to continue ... there are the YAK's and also the SU-29 if you have money. The SU-29 beats them all in my opinion. Again, small cockpits, but has range and will rip your lips off. It is the Ferrari of two seaters until you get to heavy iron and it does better aerobatics than anything else discussed.
The YAK-52 has slightly bigger cockpits than the CJ, but less fuel. Slower than the CJ-6, but with comparable pilots will eat the CJ-6 alive in a dog fight, simply because it has more energy and is designed for it. It is a tractor of a Russian airplane. Has some spin characteristics that need to be experienced with an instructor, but not anything dangerous once you learn what's up. It was built to be an advanced trainer, meaning advanced aerobatics. It will even do tumbles.
So if you ever think of getting serious about aerobatics, or dog-fighting, etc., etc., the YAK-52 is really the best choice. It can go cross country, but with more fuel stops and as I said is slower than the CJ. If you're a tall guy that likes a roomy cockpit and does not want an Experimental Category aircraft, the T-34 is the best choice. The CJ is middle ground in all catagories. It does everything, but is simply not the BEST at everything, but again, I think it is one of the best looking aircraft out there, and if I could fit into the darn thing, would probably own one, but with an M-14 installed!
Single seaters like the 50, 55, 26, 31, etc., are a whole different category so need not be mentioned.
Mark
p.s. I will always LOVE the electric landing gear with manual emergency crank in the T-34 better than the pneumatic mess in the CJ's and Yaks. Simple and reliable and nothing LEAKS!
________________________________
From: owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com [owner-yak-list-server(at)matronics.com] on behalf of skyjockey [mixxalot(at)yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2015 11:35 AM
To: yak-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: First time buyer of a Yak 52 or Nanchang CJ-6
--> Yak-List message posted by: "skyjockey" <mixxalot(at)yahoo.com>
I need to fly in a CJ6 and T34 to make the decision!
--------
warbird and lover of all things that go fast and upside down!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=451416#451416
>================================================nbsp; (And Get Some AWESOME FREE to find Gifts nbsp; List k you for p; -Matt Dralle, List ======================== e ties Day ================================================ - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ================================================ - List Contribution Web Site sp; ===================================================
|
|
| | - 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
