YAK52 information
 

I am researching the costs of operating a YAK52 with a view to forming a group. Can anyone help with some of these questions?
If used for aeros, how many hrs would you expect from the engine and prop?
What are the average maintenance costs of an annual inspection?
How reliable is it in terms of component failures?
What are the advantages/disadvantages of keeping it on the LY or RA reg?
How reliable is the pneumatic system?
Hope you can help - cheers

Buy this months pilot magasine for an interesting article on the Yak 52.

Never mind the cost, think of the aggrevation. I watch the guys in the next hangar to me with a yak 52.First bust a gut pulling out, second bust another gut turning the prop thro nine blades, get in, find the last guy used the air, get out, recharge air. Go flying (not for very long), come back and spend hours cleaning the oil off the airframe, bust a gut pushing it back in hangar.

Never buy an aircraft you cannot easily push around yourself. If you want max bang for you buck and min agro, buy a Pitts

Have flown and aerobatted both the Y52 and a Pitts.

The YAK allegedly cost £100/hr to operate out of N Weald.

My Pitts isn't cheap to run BUT it is cheaper to operate than a club 152.

Curtis's wee baby wins hands down.

Shaggy Sheep Driver - what do you think?

Stik

Firken L

I own and operate a 52 based at North Weald. In terms of aeros affecting engine life, the short answer is that the aeroplane was designed to teach basic flying and aeros to pilots in Eastern Europe. Aeros do not reduce the TBO times, which, for the RA and LY register are 750 hours from new, then every 500 hours.

Obviously this is shorter than the average Lycoming, but then new replacement engines can be had for £10k fitted. Which is better than a comparable Lycoming or Continental. For this you get 360hp and nine cylinders. Whilst this burns more fuel (up to 80 litres per hour at full aerobatic power), the reliablity of the engines is superb - unlike fragile 4 pot Lycomings, if you are unlucky enough to lose a cylinder, the Vedneyev M14 is most likely to just keep on running. Their reputation for robust operation is excellent. After all, they were designed for use in Eastern Europe - in extreme of temperature that simply do not occur in the UK - well, perhaps it IS wetter here!! So I would not be too concerned if I were you about the robustness or otherwise of the componentry. However, they require careful temperature management. You can destroy them very quickly if you cook them or indeed if you run them hard before they have warmed up. So if you are buying, get your engineer to assess whether or not there is any evidence of temperature mismanagement.

Average costs of the annual are circa £1800 -£2000.
In terms of advantages of LY or RA register, the cost of annuals and general compliance with rules etc is cheaper on those registers than for the Permit to Fly UK register. And there are fewer mods to incorporate as well. So set up and periodic costs are reduced.

The Pneumatic system works very well. It does require maintenance and, if you do not fly for extended periods of time, air can bleed out so that you need to re-charge it before you have sufficient to start the engine. Once it starts of course, the engine drives a compressor. The biggest problem with the pneumatic system in the UK is pilots getting into their aircraft and forgetting to turn it on. Sometimes there is enough charge in the system to start the engine with the air off, but you then will probably have no brakes - or worse, might take off and have no gear operating air...so TURN IT ON!

Obviously I am biased towards Yaks - "Flickoff" has a different view - fair enough. Either you absolutely love the radial, with its foibles like pulling the engine through (which will only "bust a gut" if you are particularly wimpish) to remove any accumulated oil in the lower cylinders - the quid pro quo is huge reserves of power, reliability, torque and a sound that no Lycoming will ever replicate; or you hate it and would rather just jump in and turn the key. If you fall into the latter category, do not buy into a Yak.

Costs are certainly higher than a Pitts in terms of fuel used. But the base cost is far cheaper and the quality of the overall aeroplane is, IMHO, superior - the whole package is incredibly robust (+7 / -5) and certainly "overbuilt".

Your choice!



[This message has been edited by Southern Cross (edited 19 February 2001).]

Firken L

E-mail me if you are interested in buying into a 52.

Thanks to those who replied.
Southern Cross - Your info has been especially useful in working out potential fixed and running costs. I'm based in Co Durham so N Weald would be too far away to have an aircraft share at, thanks anyway. I suppose the next move would be to go and fly one, I've heard good reports of Skytrace at Halfpenny Green, anybody been?

Interesting point about the pneumatic system,I remember being at Sleap a couple of years ago and seeing one taxi straight into the fuel pumps,the prop then threw a deckchair up about 50' which then came crashing down onto a Laser 200's canopy !OWW.
I'd imagine that the lady in question never forgot to turn the air on again.
Another thing I've witnessed with a YAK 52 is a wheels up landing,apparently it was designed to be able to do this,the one I saw rolled along the ground just lovely,the only damage being a substantially shortened prop but being wood it did not shock load the engine - very clever !!!!!
I wonder why the Ruskies used pneumatic systems so much,was it somthing to do with the cold ?
Anyway Firkin, get a Yak the noise footprint/sound is far superior,just go to Little Gransden,AWESOME :)

Take a look at......

www.yakuk.co.uk

Firken L

I flew with Gennady at Skytrace. I would highly recommend him for instruction. He not only knows the 52 inside out but can offer both ab initio training and advanced aerobatic training to a very high standard. You will be a much better pilot as a result of flying with him.

Personally I would not recommend that a low time PPL jumps straight into a 52 without appropriate training. Its cheap insurance really!

www.yakclub.com
www.yakpilots.org
www.yakovlevs.com

formation combat and aeros with the yak. Yak50 is just like flying a fighter

Check out the Yak 52 article in this month's Pilot. It's excellent...

Hi there
On some of the points above http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gifulling heavy aircraft out of the shed shortens the flying day,generates unwanted sweat and reduces incentive to repeat the exercise.The noise,whilst pleasing to the aviating ear,does play into the hands of those who want to close down airfields.The air start system was,afaik,designed to reduce the need for ground servicing and to allow relatively untutored conscripts to maintain the aircraft.80 litres per hour at full chat is great fun until you have to shell out at IR£1.10/litre.
Still,I'll give one a go before too long.
regards
TDD

As well as the Pilot article, Today's Pilot have also done the YAK52 this month. Quick precis on:

http://www.todayspilot.co.uk/current_issue/6.html

Glad you guys like my 'Pilot' article on the '52 this month, guys.

If you've read it, you'll know my views. The 52 is an amazingly charismatic and powerful beast. I've not flown a Pitts, but IMHO it hardly has the 'prescence' of a 52. Nothing short of a Merlin sounds as good IMHO. Don't know haw Pitts aeros compare - anyone offer a comparison?

It has air start because it's designed to operate in VERY low temperatures. Batteries would just die, and any interia system, where a flywheel is run up then applied to the engine (a la Harvard) would probably result in metal shear in V low temps. The air system works well, but I must admit to feeling a bit vulnarable if away from base at a place with no top-up facilities. I would't fancy hand-swinging it if I managed to use all the air and still didn't start it.;~(

It is superbly engineered - only down side is high fuel consumtion at aeros power. But it's worth it!

I, too, have flown with Genna at Halfpenny Green. Highly recommended. That guy is THE Yak man in UK and will teach you loads.

Don't even think of jumping into a 52 without a very comprehensive check out. they are different!

It's my dream machine.

SSD

SSD

I have a goodly number of Pitts hours both S2 and S1 and a couple of hours in a 52. IMHO,the Pitts is an arial motorbike, strap iton and go, thing roll and it rolls, the whole lot more or less with the fingers of one hand. The 52 I found very heavy, a two handed job, especially in snaps and through inverted. You could say it was a man's machine, big and butch and very agricultural, but the fact that there are none at aero contests after about Standard level must say something. 52's are probably fine if your mission is to pretend you are in a fighter over France, but if you want serious aeros, buy a Pitts.

Flickoff

I think we are talking different things. Sure, the 52 is not a good competition machine above standard, but for me (who doesn't do competition aeros) what does that matter? It's the whole character of a big, manouveable, radial engined beast that appeals. It's like operating a warbird at a fraction the cost....

SSD

Those points seem entirely valid: the Pitts and the Yak don't seem directly comparable. I was very interested in a Yak for a while, for all the reasons mentioned here and in the magazine articles, but have gone for a Cap 10b instead, which is another option worth checking out if forming an aeros- oriented group. Expensive to buy but not so costly to run. Tony Bianchi had one for sale at Wycombe recently.

Flickoff is right - the 52 is comparatively heavy in the roll - more so than a Pitts, according to a friend of mine who has an S2A and has flown with me in my 52. I use two hands for rolls and flicks. I think that very well flown they could be competitive at Intermediate level but you would need to apply Gena levels of skill and aircraft familiarity- which few people have (and certainly not me!).

The aircraft does have plenty of other redeeming features though - formation aeros not least of all, with regular schools held at both North Weald and Compton Abbas.

By the way SSD, your description of starting made me wonder whether you were priming the cylinders sufficiently (?). I usually get a few more cylinders to light up immediately, but then every engine is different. Mine catches without even one blade turning - ie the starter turns the prop just to the first compression, it hesitates, (then mags to 1+2) and it catches straight away.

I enjoyed your article.

Cheers

Southern Cross

That description was for a cold engine in winter (worst case). Our aeroplane lives outside, and gets very cold in winter. You may be right in that it could be under-primed. But I'm paranoid about start-up engine fires. I know Mark Jeffries has made good business from owners who have over primed ;~(

BTW there was a reference to 'starting it with a welly and a rope' in the 'other' Yak 52 article in 'Today's Pilot'. Not as daft as it sounds - I've seen photos of old aeroplanes being started by slipping a leather pouch over the upper prop tip, to which is attached a rope. severel big chaps pull on the rope, the prop turns, the pouch slips off and is pulled clear as soon as the blade rotates downwards, and the engine starts. Might be a useful accessory in case you get caught away from base with no air?

Thanks for the kind comments.