P51 not fun due to so many problems.

"Btw arent take offs performed at full power anyway for any other planes ??"

As a RL pilot I can tell you that I've never taken off with anything less than full power. Partial power on take off is a great way to go into a stall when you raise the nose! Why would anyone do that? You push the throttles forward, and you keep your hands on them to prevent any chance of them rolling back on you during take off.

Because pilots aren't particularly risk taking with their very vintage multi-million dollar aircraft and engines

Because pilots aren't particularly risk taking with their very vintage multi-million dollar aircraft and engines

 

Trying to baby it into the air is more likely to crash it than actually flying it properly. I doubt that's SOP for most people. It just seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do. If you can't afford to takeoff safely at full power, then you can't afford the plane in the first place. It's just illogical across the board.

 

Not saying nobody does that... but I would consider that poor judgment for anyone that does.

I've heard vintage P-51s use something like 45"-50" MAP on takeoff because they're much lighter nowadays since they're not carrying any weaponry. Just what I've heard though.

And oh, BTW, just had an engine jam after having run on WEP for just a minute. The temps were on green all the time. This admittedly seems a bit suspicious.

What i've seen to days p-51 takes off 50-61" yes some of them still use full power for take off i think 50 is most common power setting, And second yes modern p-51s are much lighter no guns no ammo no heavy ass radios from ww2 on board.

Second engines are filled with modern oils, burn modern fule, those are no longer contributing to create troubles at low power operation of the engine.

Spitfire goes to +8lbs (my preference), I've heard others say 12lbs. Depends on who you ask

 

In pilots notes for mkIX full 18 lbs boost is available for take off but normal take off is 12lbs at 3000rpm.

When plane is designed to use partial power for take off ok, but when manual says full power then i use full power.

Edited December 23, 2019 by grafspee

And oh, BTW, just had an engine jam after having run on WEP for just a minute. The temps were on green all the time. This admittedly seems a bit suspicious.

 

I just stay away from WEP :)

"Btw arent take offs performed at full power anyway for any other planes ??"

As a RL pilot I can tell you that I've never taken off with anything less than full power. Partial power on take off is a great way to go into a stall when you raise the nose! Why would anyone do that? You push the throttles forward, and you keep your hands on them to prevent any chance of them rolling back on you during take off.

 

To reduce powerful prop effects on taildraggers? Took a quick look at wartime POHs/FMs for Spit IX, XIV and Bf-109G2. All of them tell pilots to takeoff at reduced settings, manual for XIV specifically mentioning "swing and crab" tendency to be avoided by doing so (though it also says 12 lbs could be used when taking off with "heavy loads", otherwise 7 is recommended).

 

Trying to baby it into the air is more likely to crash it than actually flying it properly. I doubt that's SOP for most people. It just seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do. If you can't afford to takeoff safely at full power, then you can't afford the plane in the first place. It's just illogical across the board.

 

Not saying nobody does that... but I would consider that poor judgment for anyone that does.

 

Sir, we've recently seen on these forums a vid of pilot comparing real TF-51 to its DCS and Il-2 representations, in which he clearly explains that restored Mustangs are restricted to using up to 55" as a standard MAP on takeoffs nowadays. Apparently fuel is reason for restriction. Not to mention Kermit weeks showing us on his excellent vids how he uses 46" and 55" in his -D and -C Mustangs respectively. I always read about restored warbirds being operated with less than full rated settings, it seems to be the norm in the industry.

 

Reno racers are obvious exception, but they don't use Avgas 100LL so they can afford excessive settings (I doubt during takeoffs, though).

In pilots notes for mkIX full 18 lbs boost is available for take off but normal take off is 12lbs at 3000rpm.

 

Some people call for only 8, which is also plenty for takeoff. Also depends on how much runway is available. I'd push 12 on most of Normandy's fields, but I haven't flown Normandy regularly (hopefully will change with a new mission on BS).

 

P-51 (late) manual did call for full throttle on takeoff, but this was a wartime manual.

Additionally I've found this, which I don't recall seeing in DCS:

But then again I don't go half-throttle on start-up

Edited December 23, 2019 by Magic Zach

Because restored planes are much lighter, i don't think that modern fuel is worse then fuel from 1940s

P-51 is designed for full power take off

Spitfire MKIX for 12lbs etc etc when manual allowing taking off with less power then ok.

Statment that modern p-51 cant take off with full power is a myth, they can, check p-51 called "Quick Silver"

But not extend this discussion to war.

I still don't fully understand that someone have this engine seizure in flight when i don't.

Edited December 23, 2019 by grafspee

Some people call for only 8, which is also plenty for takeoff. Also depends on how much runway is available. I'd push 12 on most of Normandy's fields, but I haven't flown Normandy regularly (hopefully will change with a new mission on BS).

 

P-51 (late) manual did call for full throttle on takeoff, but this was a wartime manual.

Additionally I've found this, which I don't recall seeing in DCS:

But then again I don't go half-throttle on start-up

 

 

Full power take off is just safer.

Edited December 23, 2019 by grafspee

Its about throttle opening rate, when you slam throttle to fast which i don't do at all.

 

I think this case apply when you throttle too quick from idle rpm.

My bad, I should have given context. The paragraph above the one pictured says the usual “throttle must be opened 1 inch...”. With this paragraph beneath it, the throttle position is with regards to start-up, not once started. It suggests that if the throttle is set (anywhere, bit vague) beyond 1" for startup, the prop may kick back.

My bad, I should have given context. The paragraph above the one pictured says the usual “throttle must be opened 1 inch...”. With this paragraph beneath it, the throttle position is with regards to start-up, not once started. It suggests that if the throttle is set (anywhere, bit vague) beyond 1" for startup, the prop may kick back.

 

When i have read to the point "for starting...." i got the message. I saw couple of times when prop kick back at start up. I think you don't need to open half to make it happen it could be 1-2" more then manual says.

I don't think that anyone would attempt starting with throttle half open.

Edited December 23, 2019 by grafspee

When i have read to the point "for starting...." i got the message. I saw couple of times when prop kick back at start up. I think you don't need to open half to make it happen it could be 1-2" more then manual says.

I don't think that anyone would attempt starting with throttle half open.

Half throttle was to be a drastic attempt try to initiate it in DCS, IF it's possible in DCS, which I don't think it is.

Half throttle was to be a drastic attempt try to initiate it in DCS, IF it's possible in DCS, which I don't think it is.

I can tell you what would happen, engine would start, took the throttle and took off :)

It happen to me that i started engine with throttle fully open in DCS :) T-5 T-4 T-3 ENGINE IGNITION T-2 T-1 AND LIFT OFF APOLLO 11 CLEARED THE TOWER :p

Edited December 23, 2019 by grafspee

 

Reno racers are obvious exception, but they don't use Avgas 100LL so they can afford excessive settings (I doubt during takeoffs, though).

 

Yes take offs are done at 3000 rpm and 61" you don't need more that that

Racing are done at 3250 or more and 120" and more but race modified engines has little common with war service time engines.

this is what happen when you slam throttle in griffon powered spitfire :) 03:00

Edited December 23, 2019 by grafspee

Engine in dcs don't care about oil or coolant temp it will take the throttle all day long.Engine will get damage but if it comes to combustion it will not change, cold or hot doesn't matter.

Yes take offs are done at 3000 rpm and 61" you don't need more that that

Racing are done at 3250 or more and 120" and more but race modified engines has little common with war service time engines.

this is what happen when you slam throttle in griffon powered spitfire :) 03:00

 

I've seen this one before. In the video, it looks like there was brake pressure applied, rather than power alone. Also the pilot does not have the stick back until the tail had undesirably raised. This also wasn't a firewalled throttle, the reports say he pushed his throttle to +6lbs.

It was also the pilot's first time in the Spitfire.

Edited December 23, 2019 by Magic Zach
additional info

The bottom line: At the end of WW2 the P-51 had a 11 to 1 kill ratio.

the P-51 had a 11 to 1 kill ratio.

 

Yeah, but this wasn't because the LW AC were inferior, it was because there were so few of them. The Mustang was a good aircraft, no doubt, but so were the late-model Biffers and Fockes.

Edited December 23, 2019 by msalama

The bottom line: At the end of WW2 the P-51 had a 11 to 1 kill ratio.

 

Yes becouse for single german plane there was 20-30 allied planes

I've seen this one before. In the video, it looks like there was brake pressure applied, rather than power alone. Also the pilot does not have the stick back until the tail had undesirably raised. This also wasn't a firewalled throttle, the reports say he pushed his throttle to +6lbs.

It was also the pilot's first time in the Spitfire.

 

Yes, this video filtered through the forum already once about a year ago.

 

It cause was pilot error, but not that the pilot used the wrong technic, but that he didn't do it quite right.

 

With the Griffon you are supposed to put the tail up as early as possible. I'm not 100% sure, but IIRC it was to avoid P-factor and gyroscopic precession when pushing to full throttle, so nose up first. The griffon is just a monster of an engine for the airframe. Anyway, so you're supposed to use the brakes to raise the tail before the elevators alone could do it. The pilot was a bit overzealous with the brakes and nosed the prop into the ground. I can't imagine it was his first time in this spit. Maybe his first time presenting at a show with this one.

And oh, BTW, just had an engine jam after having run on WEP for just a minute. The temps were on green all the time. This admittedly seems a bit suspicious.

 

Yeah, it's hard to replicate reliably because it seems random. But one thing that seems consistant is that the engine will fail at some point after you use WEP no matter what.

 

I have tested twice recently. A few days ago it took about 10 minutes after using WEP for the engine to die. A month earlier I ran out of fuel before the engine stopped. Though I bet if I waited on the ground after the flight the engine would have died at some point. Even if it was shutdown.

I've seen this one before. In the video, it looks like there was brake pressure applied, rather than power alone. Also the pilot does not have the stick back until the tail had undesirably raised. This also wasn't a firewalled throttle, the reports say he pushed his throttle to +6lbs.

It was also the pilot's first time in the Spitfire.

 

i would say that he used too much brakes for too long, also notice how high the tail was before he reacted, experiance seems to be a factor, also its worth looking at other spitfire videos of them taking off and landing, they almost always seems to do it with the tail just below the level position to avoid a prop strike.

 

Remember pilots, being too coy with the controls is just as dangers as being too firm with them.

edit: got a few hours in the moth and that demands the tail be up as well however that being said its a fine line between too little and too much.

 

I do wonder what power setting it was really at, it didnt sound like it was at a particually high power setting.

 

one thing i havent heard anyone mention is the way the brakes actually work, if he is low time on airframe its safe to assume there may of been a moment of hesitation on the brakes, its important to note how they work. bare in mind that to taxi you actually have to pull the brake lever in, the opposite of most modern aircraft with toe brakes, this style is more akin to soviet style aircraft. there could of been a moment where he wasnt sure if he needed to pull the lever or let it out but this is all just speculation.

Edited December 24, 2019 by zcrazyx