Yak-52 Discussion Thread

Well, I don't think that you did your aerobatics at cruise power and I have no idea why you calculate a 30min reserve for a diversion when you are flying VFR.

 

At the max endurance power setting the Yak-52 needs 42L/hr so your example has not much to do with the actual Yak-52 range.

Hi Bbrz

30 Mins reserve is law here so safe we allow for 40 litres plus there is 12 litres for unusable. Then possible 4 litres for start, taxi and engine runup/ (it can take time to get the oil temp up for takeoff temperatures) and 4 litres for the take off climb to altitude. So maximum SAFE endurance is really only 60 litres and at 130NM / Hr at maximum endurance settings is 195NM \ 361km (depending on wind).

But what do I know :P

Hi Bbrz

 

30 Mins reserve is law here so safe we allow for 40 litres plus there is 12 litres for unusable. Then possible 4 litres for start, taxi and engine runup/ (it can take time to get the oil temp up for takeoff temperatures) and 4 litres for the take off climb to altitude. So maximum SAFE endurance is really only 60 litres and at 130NM / Hr at maximum endurance settings is 195NM \ 361km (depending on wind).

 

But what do I know :P

Aren't max range and max endurance different?

30 Mins reserve is law here....

But we are talking about DCS. Furthermore IRL military jets usually don't operate with a 30min reserve either.

Btw, if you are flying VFR and you don't file a flightplan, there's no way anyone can tell if you have used your 30min reserve or not ;)

Okay in the sim world, as you suggest... no big deal.

In the real world... one of my favorite quote about aircraft flying applies. "Aircraft bite fools."

Don't remove your options while still on the ground before you ever even get up in the air. Most aircraft accidents follow a chain of events that on the surface are initially pretty benign.

Deciding to not follow reserves requirements seems to you to be pretty benign. For experienced pilots that have had things go awry in the sky. Not. Also I wouldn't be out there recommending to pilots not to fly as required.

Flying rules and best practices have been learned at the cost of lives.

Okay in the sim world, as you suggest... no big deal.

 

In the real world... one of my favorite quote about aircraft flying applies. "Aircraft bite fools."

 

Also I wouldn't be out there recommending to pilots not to fly as required.

 

Flying rules and best practices have been learned at the cost of lives.

FYI, e.g. in many countries in Europe there are simply no minimum fuel requirements for VFR flying.

There's nothing foolish if you plan e.g. a 20min hop without a 30min reserve.

And even with trip, alternate, contigency, final reserve, taxi and extra fuel on board prior to the departure I've experienced a situation where we were commited to land, and this didn't have anything to do with foolishness.

There's nothing foolish if you plan e.g. a 20min hop without a 30min reserve.

Unless you arrive and there's a chunk of fog on the airport. nothing foolish is a stretch.

And even with trip, alternate, contigency, final reserve, taxi and extra fuel on board prior to the departure I've experienced a situation where we were commited to land, and this didn't have anything to do with foolishness.

I can't really understand what this means, can you clarify?

Thanks

1.Unless you arrive and there's a chunk of fog on the airport. nothing foolish is a stretch.

 

2.I can't really understand what this means, can you clarify?

1.I'd call it foolish to plan a flight without having the slightest clue about meteorology. If you don't know e.g. anything about spread you shouldn't fly at all.

Furthermore if your destination airport might get foggy it's foolish to plan with an alternate that's only a few minutes away from your destination because in many cases the whole area will be affected.

This shows one of the reasons why it is questionable to make the 30min a requirement. It can easily keep a bad pilot from thorough planning because he thinks that he is 'save' with a one-size-fits-all 30min reserve.

2.You can plan to carry fuel which covers all imaginable problems and despite this it can happen that you find yourself in a situation where you are commited to land because you don't have any fuel left to reach another airport. Even if this means that you might have to descend below the applicable minimum on your last approach.

The reserve requirements are there to stop people like yourself falling out of the sky.

The bottom line is, if you can carry spare fuel, why the hell wouldn't you? Weather is unpredictable. Airport closures happen for myriads reasons. What would you do if your destination was socked in, and the divert airport you so carefully planned for closes due to the runway surface breaking up? You have 10 minutes fuel reserve, and the nearest open airport is 15 minutes away? ATC would happily divert you because - of course, you'd never be so stupid as to take off without a minimum reserve of 30 mins!

Or do you absolutely guarantee that could never happen?

The reserve requirements are there to stop people like yourself falling out of the sky.... of course, you'd never be so stupid as to take off without a minimum reserve of 30 mins! Or do you absolutely guarantee that could never happen

I'm loving it when people call others stupid and foolish only because they apparently have little to no knowledge about RW aviation, meteorology, flight planning etc.

I'll try it once more. There are a lot of circumstances where your one-size-fits-all 30min reserve will not be enough. On the other hand if you fly from one grass airfield to another one which is 20min away there's no reason to take 30min extra fuel.

Maybe some GA pilots are 'planning' different. But once you get used to the fact that you arrive at your destination after 12hrs with 4min extra fuel left, you start thinking about realistic and useful fuel planning when doing GA flying as well.

30min extra fuel...that would be around 6000 Liters on a 747......

And again, in many countries this is not a requirement.

Btw, when towing gliders, do you refuel when there's only 30min of fuel left?

Back to topic?

Do you think the Yak-52 will be released with or soon after 2.5 is published? The screenshots seem to suggest it is already in an advanced state of development.

I think it will be released at least one month after the Hornet so June 2018.

Remember tha CEII is planned for Q1 2018 and it's a plane almost ready, for this reason i'm saying the first plane of 2018 will be CEII (before April), then F/A-18 (circa May) and then Yak (I suppose June/July 2018 ).

If you think i'm pessimistic remember that three planes in half year is not bad for DCS standards (all 2017 saw 2 planes).

If we are lucky the Yak-52 might be an ED incentive and it will be released together with 2.5 and for 2.5 only.... ;)

I'm loving it when people call others stupid and foolish only because they apparently have little to no knowledge about RW aviation, meteorology, flight planning etc.

 

I'll try it once more. There are a lot of circumstances where your one-size-fits-all 30min reserve will not be enough. On the other hand if you fly from one grass airfield to another one which is 20min away there's no reason to take 30min extra fuel.

 

Maybe some GA pilots are 'planning' different. But once you get used to the fact that you arrive at your destination after 12hrs with 4min extra fuel left, you start thinking about realistic and useful fuel planning when doing GA flying as well.

 

30min extra fuel...that would be around 6000 Liters on a 747......

 

And again, in many countries this is not a requirement.

 

Btw, when towing gliders, do you refuel when there's only 30min of fuel left?

I take it New Zealand isn't where you do your flying? If you re-read the posts, the statement was that in NEW ZEALAND there is a rule dictating that they have to fly with a 30 minute reserve of fuel. The "in many countries" proviso doesn't apply in HIS circumstances, so where are you going with this?

It doesn't matter a jot whether you fly where you fly. He has a reserve in order to comply with his aviation law. If you flew in New Zealand, you'd be bound by that rule too, whether in a jumbo jet, or a microlight. If you are towing gliders in New Zealand, see the above statement!

I think perhaps you might reconsider whether the statement - "you'd be stupid to fly without a 30 minute reserve of fuel". Because frankly, anyone who flouts aviation law isn't what anyone would describe as "wise".

What is possible, and what isn't possible depend on a lot of factors. Ignore any of them at your peril. In this case, you seem to have somewhat lost, or ignored, the plot!

I'm loving it when people call others stupid and foolish only because they apparently have little to no knowledge about RW aviation, meteorology, flight planning etc.

 

I'll try it once more. There are a lot of circumstances where your one-size-fits-all 30min reserve will not be enough. On the other hand if you fly from one grass airfield to another one which is 20min away there's no reason to take 30min extra fuel.

 

Maybe some GA pilots are 'planning' different. But once you get used to the fact that you arrive at your destination after 12hrs with 4min extra fuel left, you start thinking about realistic and useful fuel planning when doing GA flying as well.

 

30min extra fuel...that would be around 6000 Liters on a 747......

 

And again, in many countries this is not a requirement.

 

Btw, when towing gliders, do you refuel when there's only 30min of fuel left?

Im curious to wich exactly is your country. A 30 minutes reserve is standard for most ICAO members. And im prety sure a 747 pilot would never plan a trip with only 4 min reserve, yes, they would take the extra 6000 liters for very obvious reasons. A runway can be closed by many things other than meteorological conditions. And even if your country doesnt require you to have such reserve, it doesnt matter if you are planing on flying to one wich does have said requirement.

But of course you really want a Chang rather than a YUK :)

1.I'd call it foolish to plan a flight without having the slightest clue about meteorology. If you don't know e.g. anything about spread you shouldn't fly at all.

 

Furthermore if your destination airport might get foggy it's foolish to plan with an alternate that's only a few minutes away from your destination because in many cases the whole area will be affected.

 

This shows one of the reasons why it is questionable to make the 30min a requirement. It can easily keep a bad pilot from thorough planning because he thinks that he is 'save' with a one-size-fits-all 30min reserve.

 

2.You can plan to carry fuel which covers all imaginable problems and despite this it can happen that you find yourself in a situation where you are commited to land because you don't have any fuel left to reach another airport. Even if this means that you might have to descend below the applicable minimum on your last approach.

1.A The reserve is to stop the idiots who don't plan from slamming into the ground.

1.B In the area that i live (lots of rivers and lakes and mountains) fog can be extremely localized, not saying its a good idea to plan a flight with an alternate a few minutes away.

1.C Remember, your saying there is nothing foolish about making a 20 min hop without reserve.

2. Yeah, thats the point, you want to take as many holes out of the swiss cheese as you can, and if that means a rule-of-thumb "catch all" for the once a month $100 hamburger people, then i am all for it.

P.S.

Thanks for clarifying

(but yeah, this is kinda OT)

Question for Wags or for SithSpawn to put forward:

Are we going to see some preview videos of the Yak like for the Hornet?

I think that Yak-52 will fit right in with the other trainers. It will also be the most modern full fidelity Redfor aircraft (fixed wing). Im quite sure that a lot of players will be intrested in buying it for training, light attack (hopefully) freeflight and aerobatics.

 

Has DCS Yak-52 been confirmed, or is it just rumors at this point?

I know you meant thatas tongue in cheek , but Modern alone doesnt mean its got better capabilities. You could say the Mig21Bis is the most capable full fidelity redforce fixed wing jet as of now, and could be seen as more "modern" because it has alot of avionics that a Yak52 doesnt.

Technically it entered service in 1972 before the Yak52. but its got some 1980s tech. ( R60M missiles) which came around after the Yak52 introduction.

If anything can it can hold a record is a for being the first Russian propeller driven aircraft in DCS.

I remember seeing the Yak-52 being offered for sale for around £32k, back then it was £1k less than I paid for my car, they were not expensive ... tho the running cost might have been a little higher than the car, but in hindsight not by much :huh:

I did look in to it at the time, finish getting my PPL and then get the Yak, I was way to busy with work at the time and needed the car more so than an aircraft but I was tempted :)

PS. on reflection the Yak gets better gas mileage than the car ever did :megalol:

I own all ED modules (Ka-50, A-10C, L-39, FC3, CA), except ww2 modules and additional maps, since I'm not interested in ww2 planes and I play only 1.5.8 stable (nevada map will be my next purchase after 2.5 upgrade). What I like of ED modules is that they are fully supported for a long time, and over time they have become almost features complete and bug free. According to what you can read on the forum, the same can not be said for some 3rd party modules, and this has prevented me to buy any of them; maybe one day I'll try one (I'm attracted a lot by av-8b, M2000c and viggen, but I'm afraid not to find the same accuracy and support of ED modules). So I can say that I will surely buy the Yak-52, since this is the first modern (not ww2) prop plane available for DCS and is done directly from ED, so a quality assurance. In that way I could fly a prop plane (acrobatic too!) in the same environment in which I fly a-10c, without looking a fish out of water like with a ww2 plane. For the right price, for me an instant buy.

When it gets closer to release, I am sure they will do a video or two.

That would mean the Yak is way behind the Hornet and will be released at a (much) later point? :(

I own all ED modules (Ka-50, A-10C, L-39, FC3, CA), except ww2 modules and additional maps, since I'm not interested in ww2 planes and I play only 1.5.8 stable (nevada map will be my next purchase after 2.5 upgrade). What I like of ED modules is that they are fully supported for a long time, and over time they have become almost features complete and bug free. According to what you can read on the forum, the same can not be said for some 3rd party modules, and this has prevented me to buy any of them; maybe one day I'll try one (I'm attracted a lot by av-8b, M2000c and viggen, but I'm afraid not to find the same accuracy and support of ED modules). So I can say that I will surely buy the Yak-52, since this is the first modern (not ww2) prop plane available for DCS and is done directly from ED, so a quality assurance. In that way I could fly a prop plane (acrobatic too!) in the same environment in which I fly a-10c, without looking a fish out of water like with a ww2 plane. For the right price, for me an instant buy.

ID suggest you give 3rd parties a chance since most of them have met ED's production standards, and do fix and support products.

Belsimtek has complete modules. They are a direct partner with ED. And even have the office in the same building from what ive heard.

Razbam M2000C has pretty minor bugs by this point , only major missing feature is A/G mapping. Cant do anything about it until ED finishes the Hornet and releases A/G code, however its not that big a deal since the M2000 is primarily a A2A fighter/interceptor with secondary attack capabilities, not a true multirole fighter like say the F/A18. Other projects simply need time to be bug free. Av8b is also promising but its also unfair to judge given its still fresh out of an Early access release.

even ED's F/a18C hornet will have lots of features missing at alpha release. and wont be fully complete for some time. I think there are plenty of good 3rd party devs suporting thier products .

heatblur, the guys who made the Viggen are great, and are undertaken a much more ambitious project the F14.

There are only a minimal amount of Groups that have fallen under ED's standards but it a very small minority. ( wont name shame, especially since there are white knights, but the community members can obviously deduce)

I do not want to go off-topic, but:

Belsimtek modules I like most are F5 and the Huey (Korea era planes are in some way too "old" for my tastes). Maybe the F5 is features complete; I've read a lot of good things about the Huey, but it's from april 2013 that it's fully released and still no multicrew operations as they had promised, and maybe at this point we won't never see. L-39 is out from february 2016 and has its multicrew operations.

Razbam M2000c maybe is good, but when f-18 will be fully out of beta I don't think they will take a plane out for nearly two years to add A/G mapping that is only a minor feature in a pure interceptor like m2000c. But that would be a minor issue; I've read something about radar randomly losing lock, is this more relevant bug solved? Av-8b is promising but still too alpha testing stuff for me.

Viggen too is very promising and is maybe the type of plane I like most (low altitude supersonic strike missions, a swedish tornado ids-like) but maybe it's too early to demand it complete.