Is this an overlooked backcountry type?

+7/-5G, operates out of unimproved strips of say 1,000 feet, massively overbuilt, used to be able to compete at advanced/unlimited.

Hey,

I think the Yak 18 would be a better choice as it has room for 4+ lots of cargo. the 18 is essentially the yak 52 modified for civilian pilot training but has the same aerobatic performance capabilities.

If you really want a Russian back country plane of steroids look at the AN2.

I flew the 52, and the 55 and the Su26 in Russia a few times in the 80's. We had a big grass field and everything was tied down outside with a tarp over the cockpit. No runway, the mgr would go out in the morning a put a couple of flag poles in the ground to tell you where to take off from and where to land. If you didn't touch down on the spot you'd get some friendly advice to either land where you were told or maybe you were in the wrong sport. The 52 was kinda complex, retract gear, compressed air start, compressed air brakes, flaps, cowl flaps, a clock the size of a dinner plate. There's one or two around here now but I only see them do maybe the same aerobatics as a Citabria. Even the Russians were a little spooked to pull too many "g" with them, though it was their standard intermediate class aerobatic aircraft. I would class it as a sport airplane, maybe a semi-warbird. Most of the ones I saw had a nosewheel, the TW models are pretty rare. Some of the older Yak-50 were taildraggers and were quite a bit more capable for aerobatics. Lots of -18's and the Chinese copy CJ6 here though. Same charm as a T-6 but everything on a smaller scale, including fuel burn and cost.

http://www.yak-52.com/faqs.htm

http://www.flywba.com/id48.html

For back country work it would be like a J3 or Stearman; can get in and out, but not ideal.

The TD is a converted 52, so you have limited fuel (120L @ 1L a minute cruise fuel burn) and like said earlier, completely pneumatic systems; brakes, flaps, gear and starter. The TW (Western) has an updated wing with fully retracting gear, larger fuel tanks (240L) western gauges and Cleveland brakes. The front cockpit is also 4" longer. But it still has pneumatic flaps, gear and starter.

The big disadvantage, at least in the US, is there's only a couple sources for parts, and knowledgeable mechanics. It's built like a tank, which is good and bad. Hella strong and sout, but over built when you have to replace one minor part. You have to think like a Russian and realize labor is cheap there, so unlike your SuperCub that takes very little preventive maintnenance, you do a lot more on a more frequent schedule to the Yak. For example, it says to pull the prop blades and grease the ball bearings in the hub every annual, and rebuild the gear locks every couple. Valves lash also need checking every 25 or 50 hours. The air system can become problematic is not taken care of, and if you botch the start a couple times or leave the air valve on, the system runs low and you're SOL. Most carry a small SCUBA bottle in their airplane as part of their emergency tool kit. Propping one is a pain in the ass.

It's has a short, flat wing that makes it a bit of a ground hog, but nice for basic Acro. Be sharp when it gets slow; it requires positive spin correction and won't come out on its own. Early aircraft have a weaker wing that is limited to +5 I think. Fuel endurance is the big drawback, but there are several kits for extra bladders or tanks that make it more useful. You can lose a fair amount of weight by swapping out the radio equipment; the ADF alone weighs about 20lbs and all the OEM equipment runs off an inverter. So an avionics upgrade could save 50+lbs.

All in all, they're a fun airplane and if you get a chance, fly one. But to own it; for every hour flying, figure 2-4 working on it.

nkh