Warbird Information Exchange

Several years ago I spent alot of time working on Chinese CJ-6's. They were easy to work on, parts are cheap and available, it had a nice radial engine, and only used between 12-14 GPH. (versus@50GPH for a T6!)
Everyone that had one loved the plane. They are affordable, in the 60-100 thousand dollar range. the fact that it was a nose dragger actually was a plus for most pilots, because they didn't have to worry about it too much if they went a month or two without flying it, it wouldn't try and bite like a t-6 or stearman.
so why didn't the CJ and Yak 52 ever become wildly popular?

_________________
All I did was press this red button here...

AFAIK, they are very popular, in the UK, New Zealand, Australia etc. where there are sizable, active, populations of them.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

And in the US too. I recall at Oshkosh a few years ago there were only one or two examples, this year there were legions of them celebrating a type anniversary.

_________________
Warbird Colour - Authentic historic aircraft finishes http://www.warbirdcolour.co.uk

Their group put up 50 in a mass flyby at OSH this past summer.
(Do they have any affectionate nicknames? 'Riceburner'?, etc.?)
(T-6 fuel burn flight plan: 30-35 gph at 25"&1800rpm.)
Thx,
VL

The Yak 52 has proved very popular over here in the UK. Not so much the CJ-6 though.

Regarding the comparison to the T-6 is very apt. Certainly in the UK the arrival of the low cost and user friendly Yaks went a large way to demolishing the T-6 market over here. That said, I've been fortunate to have time in both and each has their good points - you can do things in a Yak that would cause a T-6 a major headache. On balance though, I'll take a T-6 any day without a moments thought!

G

_________________
BURMA! Sorry, I panicked

I would say both (CJ-6 and Yak-50/52) are "very" popular here in the US. The one thing that scares people off a bit from owning them is finding someone qualified or willing to work on them.

While they are certainly easy to work on, there are a few idiosyncrasies with them, particularly with maintenance of the air system and stock electrical system. It's not something your average spam-can A&P is going to be familiar with. Most guys I know with Yaks do almost all their own maintenance.

Up until last year, nearly every Yak and CJ was subjected to Ops Limits imposed by the FAA, which basically defined a "proficiency area" of 250 or 500 nm that somewhat limited what you could do with the aircraft (and not risk getting busted). However, these restrictions have just been lifted.

They also have fairly short range, ~200 nm with reserves. However, there are a number of mods you can do to add more fuel.

In the US, the CJ-6 seems to be more popular, and there is more support behind upgrading it etc. The CJ-6 is roomier inside, "prettier", and a better cross country ship than the Yak-52, but the Yak-52 is a significantly better aerobatic mount (and the Yak-50 is a much better aerobatic ship then the Yak-52).

In the UK, there is more support behind the Yak-52, but it is almost impossible to register a CJ-6 there (almost all Yaks in the UK are operating with Lithiuanian registration.)

Parts historically have been dirt cheap and easily available, but that has changed over the last 5 years with the rise in the Euro and the drying up of old NOS parts in the former USSR. It remains to be seen what the parts situation will be in the years to come, particularly in the face of growing Russian aggression against the former Soviet states.

What does "CJ" stand for? Chinese Junk (thanks Taigh!!!)
"notayak" CJ pilots are pretty sensitive about the differences!!

probably think of a few more later

jim

There used to be one at my local airport at KBVI. The owner was really cool, and would offer to take people up for free if he had an empty seat.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Director

Jim, other than the joke side of it, I believe it's the Chinese designation for Trainer of some classification. "J" is common as the prefix for their fighters, so I have a feeling it means something like "Fighter Trainer".

Another plus for the CJ is that the Nanchang factory is building new parts for these aircraft because of how popular they are, so you're able to get (relatively) inexpensive replacements for the aircraft now whereas much of the T-6 supply is NOS and dwindling, causing the prices to slowly rise.

Every T-6 pilot I've talked to who's flown a CJ-6 has been impressed and the only real problem I've heard are the two mentioned previously - air system and electrical. The reasons for that are simple - gear is pneumatic as are the brakes and if the nitrogen leaks out or is used up, you've got problems. I think many of the electrical problems have been worked out, so it's not as much of a problem as it used to be.

Also, as the CJ's are still "Experimental" category aircraft, I wouldn't worry about having an A&P work on it if you got one if you have any mechanical ability. Saves the cost and the problem of finding one that will work on it.

Better not service the system with nitrogen, or you'll have hard starting problems as well. Nitrogen doesn't burn, so it makes starting an engine on a CJ or Yak dang near impossible, since they utilize the same pnuematic system to start the engine as the brakes, gear, and flaps.

Gary

I haven't flown one, but I know some Yaks, are great for acro. As for the CJ, I only know of one in our area and it is owned by a guy, that in my opinion is a first class bum, and I know what I am talking about. He used to own a Stearman, which he wrecked a few times. So I haven't been in a CJ.

But in any case you have a Communist built airplane and the main draw is that they are cheap, not that they are real important historically.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

I fly a T-6 and a Yak 52. Both are good airplanes. The Yak has very short legs--200 nm. (There are tank modifications for this) It is a bit cramped inside. Their is almost no baggage room (just the hat rack behind the backseater and the orginal battery compartment if the battery was relocated)

But it handles very well and will do almost any acro that the average guy wants. It is also "reasonable" from the cost standpoint to operate. We flew one from Houston to OSH this summer and it burned right at 13.5 gph and required 6 stops between the 2 cities. If you understand and respect the differences between a western and eastern airplane, you can enjoy both. Taxiing the Yak has a bit of a learning curve. I like both..

_________________
John Cotter

Looks good in a scheme like this...



http://www.worldwidewarbirds.com/CJ6_entry.html

Not sure about the AVG paint though, but at least it is Chinese markings!

_________________
.
.
Sure, Charles Lindbergh flew the plane... but Tom Rutledge built the engine!

Visit Django Studios online or Facebook!

Yea that is pretty bad...the underside should be baby blue!

I've flown a CJ a few times and I enjoyed it. I do remember hearing a few criticize the airplane because it isn't as tough (structurally) as say, a Harvard or a Navion.

Jim

They're very popular in Canada too. Very much so in fact.

They do have the draw of being ex-military and cheap, that's for sure, and good on gas like mentioned before.

I suppose you could say that it may not appear that popular because it is the lower end of warbird aircraft. It's like comparing a mid-80's Toyota with a '57 Chevy Belair. Sure the Toyota is cheaper to buy, maintain, and operate, but at a car show the Chevy will get the attention and praise.

Needless to say, I've never had the chance to go up in a Yak/CJ-6 but would sure like to someday.

My two cents.

David M.