Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Any CJ-6A, YAK-52, Chipmunk owners on here?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    KSNK
    Posts
    1

    Any CJ-6A, YAK-52, Chipmunk owners on here?

    I'm currently an owner of a 71' Piper PA-28 140/160. I'm also now thinking about picking up a mil trainer of some sort. I'm looking for 2 place tandem plane mainly for formation flying with some basic warbird acro. capabilities. Also be a plus if there is a place to throw a weekends worth of baggage.

    If anyone knows any other options please list them, I'm not finding a whole lot on any other planes that fit in this category on the net.

    Yak-52, looks to be my favorite right now. From what I can find though, it drinks tons of fuel and oil. Doesn't have a long range but seems to be the most "fun". I haven't found any "real" numbers but it looks like this plane will also be the hardest on the pocket book. Price of the basic planes look to start around 65K.

    CJ-6A, not at powerful as the Yak and not rated as great w/ acro either (not too big of an issue for me, I don't think). Doesn't burn as much fuel and has larger tanks. I've read that it's better suited for someone who is wanting to do a lil' more x-country in their plane. Bummed that you can't fly inverted like you can in the Yak though. Prices I've found look to be starting around 60K.

    DHC-1, Flat out not one that really catches my eye... It doesn't have a round engine. HAHA Least amount of HP and looks to struggle the most on acro. - will do it though... I don't even have a clue as to what the cost of the plane is, can't find any for sale?

  2. #2
    A friend and I bought 2 CJ6's in 2001 and had them shipped to us and we put them together and licensed them. It is a great flying airplane with simple systems and easy to maintain. Does nice gentleman aerobatics about the same things you can do in a T-6. The Housai engine is smooth and one of the nicest radials I have flown. My partner only had 150hrs in Cessnas and was very comfortable in the airplane after a 25hr insurance required check out. The only thing the YAK 52 does better is more advanced acro. The CJ cruises 145kts on 13gph as opposed to the YAK at 110kts on 18gph. I sold mine in 2005 but looking at current prices for really nice CJs I am really tempted to get another one. One other thing is if you have any friends with T-6s the CJ will wax them in a dogfight. Let me know if you need more info. Don

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,520
    The Chipmunk is a great looking and flying plane, it is said to handle like a baby Spitfire. So if you don't need that other 1500 hp or so, this is a great one.
    I have not flown that many with the original Gypsy engine, only a bit at sea level where it was more than adequate. There are some reengined with 260 h? Lycoming that have plenty of punch for acro.

    I have not flown any of the C J/Yak stuff, but I have heard that they are good for acro; especially the Yak 52, and they are cheap if you don't mind buying a plane from a country where they think dog is a food, not a pet.

    Another alternative, especially since you want a real baggage compartment and to go somewhere on occaison is a T-34.
    It is super easy to fly and land, good for and approved for acro including brief inverted, and can go cross coutry. I flew my stock 225 hp one from Colo, to Oregon, California, Oshkosh, Texas, Florida, and even the Bahamas and many places in between, as well as over 14, 000 foot mountains. It will cruise at 150 k at 13 gph, somewhat faster for the 260 or 285 hp. engine ones. I would expect them to advance in value over the years, and I'd guess more so than the CJs.
    I don't know of an easier plane to land, and can use most any runway. Stall at VSO is 48 knots, so you can land on very short runways, less than 1800 feet and probably fine in up to 20 knot crosswinds. It is in the utility category, and thus built to 6 g positive and 3 g negative.
    34s had a spar inspection AD, too long to go into here, but should be long since taken care of in any flying now.

    There is a very large and active T-34 group with lot's of fly ins and formation training.
    It's only real drawback is that it is more expensive, about low $1oos for a basic one and up over $200 if you want to play with some computer on the panel.
    And it was built by gun owning, Republican votin real Amerkins!

    Looks are somewhat subjective, but I think the Chip is the best looking and the T-34 next, despite the nosewheel. I've never quite adjusted to the looks of the CJ/Yak nosewheel ones.
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 11-01-2012 at 11:49 AM.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    The Chipmunk is a great looking and flying plane, it is said to handle like a baby Spitfire. So if you don't need that other 1500 hp or so, this is a great one.
    I have not flown that many with the original Gypsy engine, only a bit at sea level where it was more than adequate. There are some reengined with 260 h? Lycoming that have plenty of punch for acro.

    I have not flown any of the C J/Yak stuff, but I have heard that they are good for acro; especially the Yak 52, and they are cheap if you don't mind buying a plane from a country where they think dog is a food, not a pet.

    Another alternative, especially since you want a real baggage compartment and to go somewhere on occaison is a T-34.
    It is super easy to fly and land, good for and approved for acro including brief inverted, and can go cross coutry. I flew my stock 225 hp one from Colo, to Oregon, California, Oshkosh, Texas, Florida, and even the Bahamas and many places in between, as well as over 14, 000 foot mountains. It will cruise at 150 k at 13 gph, somewhat faster for the 260 or 285 hp. engine ones. I would expect them to advance in value over the years, and I'd guess more so than the CJs.
    I don't know of an easier plane to land, and can use most any runway. Stall at VSO is 48 knots, so you can land on very short runways, less than 1800 feet and probably fine in up to 20 knot crosswinds. It is in the utility category, and thus built to 6 g positive and 3 g negative.
    34s had a spar inspection AD, too long to go into here, but should be long since taken care of in any flying now.

    There is a very large and active T-34 group with lot's of fly ins and formation training.
    It's only real drawback is that it is more expensive, about low $1oos for a basic one and up over $200 if you want to play with some computer on the panel.
    And it was built by gun owning, Republican votin real Amerkins!

    Looks are somewhat subjective, but I think the Chip is the best looking and the T-34 next, despite the nosewheel. I've never quite adjusted to the looks of the CJ/Yak nosewheel ones.


    Here are three of the best tandem seat aerobatic planes currently available on the civilian market, in my personal opinion. Bill summed it up quite well. Frankly, it comes down to personal preference. The DHC1 is the best handling aircraft I have in my logbook so far, utterly delightful to fly, so is the CJ6. For me, the Yak 52 is the best, but it is purely a personal preference. I had a share in one for a couple of years and only sold it as I had gone thirds in a single seat Pitts which we are rebuilding from the groundup - my interest is aerobatic competition flying and so the Pitts is far better value for money than the other three. However, for an aeroplane to take your friends up for a few loops and roll, you can't go wrong with the Yak or CJ although personally, the Yak is a much better aircraft.

    The only suggestion I'd have, is a Christen Eagle II? I haven't flown one but I understand they are user friendly Pitts S2A. Nothing like the 'experience' to fly compared to the smells and sound you get in a CJ, Yak or Chippy but still affordable upside down fun with a bit more every day practicality than a Pitts.

    cheers
    Andy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •