Yak 52 aerobatics

[beet1e]

I've just enjoyed a Yak 52 aerobatic performance not far from my house, and I didn't even see it...

... but oh, the sound of that thing! From what I know, the engine is quite low revving, and the plane has a wooden paddle prop. Just hearing one pass overhead is wonderful. But when they do loops, there's a sensational low pitch rumble that sounds like no other plane as it goes over the top.

The Yak52 was used as a Russian trainer. The engine power settings were, I believe, expressed in percentages to prepare the pilots for flying jets. The fuel endurance was only 2½ hours - to stop the Russian pilots from defecting to the West. The plane used lots of pneumatics for flaps/gear etc.

This pic shows the Yak 52 in flight. The gear is retracted, but it was designed like that so that it wouldn't be the end of the world if the pilot forgot to lower it for landing - maybe a busted prop?

Anyone here know any more about the Yak52?




The only other planes I could recognise without seeing are Concorde (for obvious reasons) and Boeing 777, which sounds rather different from other airliners - I don't know why.

[SunTracker]

Oh man that plane is ugly

[CyranoAH]

There's an association of Yak52 owners here in Spain, Jacob 52 (http://www.jacob52.es). They get together to do formation flying (12 Yak52s in all), pretty impressive stuff taking into account they are not professionals.

It wouldn't surprise me that the Yak you saw was Nigel Willson's:

http://www.webwizards.btinternet.co.uk/displaypilot/videos.html

From what I know, the Yak52 is a good choice for up to advanced aerobatics for people who want a fighter-like two-seater with good handling characteristics and --very-- easy landings.

Oh, and if you think a endurance of 2 and a half hours is not much, the czech Moravan Zlin Z-50 I fly has 45 minutes endurance in full-acro configuration. I guess Checoslovaquia was much closer to the "western countries" and so 1h30 would be enough to defect

Oh and it's muuuuch prettier



Daniel

[ra]

I got a ride in one a few years back.  It's very solid, with an axe-handle stick and big rivets everywhere.  The brakes are pneumatic so when you taxi there is all kinds of weezing noise.  The controls were much more responsive than the wallowing GA aircraft I'm used to.  The thing I most remember was the Russian artificial horizon, which seems to work the opposite of Western ones.

ra

[Boroda]

I had a chance to fly 20min in Yak-52 with an instructor, together with Flying Barans who have won over 20 hours at different IL-2 championships. Unfortunately the cloud layer was only 200m high, so he didn't show me any aerobatics, but I have made one circle over the airfields myself. It's uncomfortable to see instructor in a forward cabin put his hands on a dashboard while you try to keep 170-190m by altimeter

What surprised me was that it's very sencitive on the stick, but I have nothig to compare it with. Another thing is that it's too small for a person 190cm tall. I adjusted the pedal screw to the longest position - and still when the instructor made a left barrel roll my leg got stuck between stick and throttle.

http://www.saitek.ru/fotos/01.07.03/149.jpg
http://www.saitek.ru/fotos/01.07.03/157.jpg

[B17Skull12]

the 777 has the new british rolls royace engine.  that is why it sounds funny.

[beet1e]

Originally posted by B17Skull12
the 777 has the new british rolls royace engine.  that is why it sounds funny.

An old friend of mine, a baggage handler at ORD, the choice of engines was by airline, not by plane type. Thus, an American airliner might have P&W engines, but the same aircraft type, operated by BA or Virgin might have the RR engines. This guy knew when a British plane was pulling up to the gate because of the different engine sound.

Boroda - nice pics!