Yak 54 - any good?

[maehhh]

Saw one of these neat machines recently standing on the apron of a small airfield (in Germany). Sadly I didn't see it flying but I have to admit there was something about this thing that really got me (probably the 400hp radial engine haha :} ).

Has anyone here some experience with this neat machine? How is it compared to lets say an Extra? How good/bad is it with maintenance? Of what quality is the Russian engineering? The few I find for sale don't seem too expensive... so where is the catch?

There's rarely anything to find in the www so any input is much appreciated!

Cheers
maehhh

[maehhh]

What a pitty is there really nobody out there with some yak experience??

[Flyingmac]

Have a look at how many Yak 54s there are on the UK register.

[Wide-Body]

The catch is that you can not put it on the UK register. :sad:

Love Wide

[maehhh]

Thanks for the hint I would probably never have realized that since I'm not based in the UK ;)

I know it is a rare bird but still there must be quite a few Yak 50, 52, 54 or 55 flying around Europe. There must be some knowledge around here or at least a hint where to got to :confused:

[markkal]

I am a Sukhoi 29 owner for 20 years now, I have never flown a Yak 54 but owned a yak Technoavia SP 55 which bears a nearly identical wing and the same engine.

The Yak 54 is an all metal construction cantilever wing; Its performance (Roll rate /Vertical penetration) is far from that of a Su-29. BUT it is a wonderfully easy and forgiving airplane to fly; Easy to master with appropriate training and with a tailwheel experience. It's tremendous value for $$$$$.

It handles like a fighter and its an excellent airshow performer.

It's only limitation is that it could not compete in unlimited aerobatic category but in good hands is a great performer. It's heavier and less agile than a Sukhoi.

It requires patience and time to keep it flying, like a vintage car it needs care and attention. The radial engine is wonderful and delivers tons of torque with an orgasmic sound.

Consider minimum consumption in reduced cruise 55/60 lit/hour. Aerobatics 80/100 litters.

The issue may be registration, you may be able to pass it experimental. If you are mechanically inclined and you can get a good deal, think about it seriously
You will not be disappointed....

[maehhh]

Hi markkal,

thanks a lot this is exactly the stuff I was looking for! Sounds indeed like a great airplane!

However this one thing worries me

It requires patience and time to keep it flying, like a vintage car it needs care and attention.

Is this the nice way for saying "attention - high maintenance cost!" ??


The issue may be registration, you may be able to pass it experimental.

I think in fact most Yaks over here are registered as experimental.

Cheers
maehhh

[yakker]

maehhh, talk to Richard Goode he will tell you all you need to know.

Russian aircraft for sale in the West (http://www.russianaeros.com/)

[markkal]

Hi Maehhh,

Scheduled maintenance is not the issue, Vedneyev engines are very reliable and strong. But forget about going to the airfield, pull out the plane sit in, fire it up the engine and go.

You must drain lower cylinders from all gravity accumulated oil, you have draining plugs or draining caps to remove, . turning the prop on a radial engine requires a feel and knowledge do be done properly, hydraulic lock can come in many forms, as resistance to turning , even without resistance oil accumulated con seep back inside intake manifolds if intake valve opens and be sucked in after engine fires ( Tailwheels Yaks and Sukhois, are sitting tail low and bottom intake manifolds are below intake valves).

Then the air system requires a spare air bottle and manifold for recharge in case of too many missed starts, Fuel priming for start has to be mastered and understood to successfully start engine especially when warm.
Engine management notably cylinder temperatures require constant monitoring in flight. 30 seconds at take off power with gills left closed can result in cooking the engine.

Nothing serious but it requires attention and time, then better have some manual skills to change high tension wirings, oil and fuel lines, tyres and brakes, spark plugs..get trained and be ready if you don't want to get stuck and grounded. Many things you can do yourself, may be time consuming but worth it; if you have to rely on a technician, then be prepared to disburse $$$$$$$.

No big deal if you are mechanically inclined and have some manual skills and some training, after all owning and driving a Norton or an Harley or a Guzzi in the sixties this was daily bread !!

[Blind Squirrel]

Oh, dear God, the Moto Guzzi! Don't remind me. Went like a bat out of hell on the rare occasion that it was in a good mood, but if you looked at it funny, it sat down and sulked for two days straight.

You used to be able to pick one up second-hand for a song. Those who did found out why -- the hard way.

[markkal]

Guzzi's, Morini's, Mini's (Leyland) when it was damp or raining, with moisture inside magneto distributor, it was a nightmare!!!

[Silvaire1]

Guzzis are reliable: my '79 has about 100,000 of the hardest miles I could manage in my youth and has never been rebuilt, still runs the original clutch, doesn't leak oil etc.

There really is some similarity with M14 aircraft engines - better for owners with aptitude and interest.

[maehhh]

markkal,

thanks again for your very detailed information! :ok:

[Ultranomad]

Despite Markkal calling it easy and forgiving, Yak-54 is not viewed this way in its country of origin. In a typical aerobatic training program in Russia, the student would first learn aerobatics in a Yak-52, then take up advanced training in a 54, from which one could then easily switch to an aerodynamically similar 55.

[thing]

Guzzi's, Morini's, Mini's (Leyland) when it was damp or raining, with moisture inside magneto distributor, it was a nightmare!!! Hondas were no different in the 70's. The first thing you did was ditch the plug caps and put a set of Lodge's on.

[n5296s]

Just flew a Yak 54 for the first time today, supposedly the only one in the US (N154DB). Lots of fun! Easy to fly though a bit squirrelly until you get then hang of it (so I'm told - I did not get the hang of it in our one hour flight!) Did a bunch of acros, nothing fancy, just the usual +G stuff. It will snap at the drop of a hat (tiny bit of back stick during a roll for example), but the handling is benign. I didn't do the landing so I can't comment on that. Apparently the glide ratio is worse than the Pitts, which is hard to believe, but it didn't seem as dramatic as the Pitts.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I used to fly a Yak52 and it has a lot in common with my Guzzi 1200 Griso. Both sound lovely, both have oodles of character and a bottomless pit of power. Hondas are like spamcans in comparison. They do the job but you die of boredom! :ok:

[India Four Two]

Apparently the glide ratio is worse than the Pitts, which is hard to believe,

I did several hours in a Yak 52 in NZ a couple of years ago (in between some Vampire flying :E ) and it was great fun. I agree with SSD's comments on the power. It's the only piston-engined aircraft that I have flown, where I've felt a push in the back as I opened the throttle on take-off.

My instructor demonstrated a forced-landing from the overhead. The nose-angle and the ROD were jaw-dropping. I would want a lot of dual practice before trying that solo. The Vampire was a piece of cake, by comparison.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Ah yes! I've only felt that 'push in the back' when power is increased in the air in 2 aeroplanes - Concorde and the Yak 52!

And yes again - one of the things that amazed me when checking out in the '52 was the prodigious descent rate with power off, fine pitch, flaps and gear down. When Martin first demonstrated it at the downwind / base turn (level with the numbers!) I didn't think we'd land in the same county, never mind on that runway down there between the wing root and the cockpit side.

But demanding though the '52 can be, especially if you screw up aerobatic manouvres (it has a propensity to spin in interesting ways), it's a pussycat to land. In fact as long as the pilot holds the nosewheel off for as long as possible the beast lands itself!

[maehhh]

Many thanks for the recent posts.

I am still on the hunt for some wings and still indecisive whether to go for something Russian (preferably the '54) or some older Extra 300.

I'm pretty sure both have their advantages. The Extra is probably somewhat more expensive initially but seems on the other hand a little more predictable
in terms of running costs, required maintenance and resale value since it is certified and quite common over here. The Yak 54 is on the other hand a little
cheaper to buy initially and it makes this amazing noise while looking somewhat exotic!

Regarding seating and interior the Extra looks somewhat more comfortable to me than the Yak but I will find that out first hand in the near future.

Gonna be a tough choice, it is a lot of money after all... :uhoh:


Cheers
maehhh

[ChickenHouse]

YAKs are great fun planes, but under EU legislation they are a pain in the butt. There are only a few registers, where it does make sense to operate them. I have two friends, one with a YAK-50 and another with a -54, both are telling dramatic stories with maintenance and airworthiness paperwork. There where times when Lithuanian register was the way to go for them, then some changes to San Marino register, but whatever you do - it is a complicated matter to get permit to fly. And if something goes wrong with papers, you are dead in the water - the friends -50 is now grounded for more than three years due to paperworks issues (and from what I hear this is not uncommon for Yaks).

[maehhh]

Wow that sounds scary! Stuff like this is why I slightly lean towards the Extras....

[markkal]

Chickenhouse you nailed it there..

I have a SU-29 grounded because of this.
EASA has made it possible to register such planes under a C of A.

The amount of paperwork needed is so huge, and the maintenance facilities (Can't publish names here) EASA approved both paperwork and maintenance so bad, that in the end you don't get what you pay for, if you are lucky to get your plane back without cosmetic damage done during careless maintenance.

These aircraft are almost exclusively operated by private owners. They are not used for training, They have stall speeds and wing loadings often incompatible with General Aviation certification requirements. Spares are difficult if impossible to find (Sukhoi's) other than engine parts. There an an insignificant number of them around, and there is no company or factory back up to issue SB,s, mod's, improvements.

The paranoia of EASA for regulations it's that they will provide for certification under CofA for aircrafts which, because of the issues above, belong Experimental category, so to make them fit into the "Certified category", they embark into endless amendments, and produce so much waivers, that it ends up as a joke, a sad and expensive joke for owners...

Another example how bureaucracy has lost touch with realities, leading to a dead end. This is what happens when regulations are drafted by lawyers in the light of potential litigation prevention and not by qualified people.

[ChickenHouse]

One more thing: beware of YAK with fitted autopilot! All I know are illegal and the fastest way to get grounded ...