Eighteen Year Restoration - Then This

[Richman]

I'm talking about warbird owners. I don't see them selling their planes because fuel prices have gone up.

There’s all kinds of owners.

 

[Adler]

Yes, that's essentially the core take-away from the Snyder report.

Even in a time when it was far more common for the average private pilot to have some kind of taildragger experience, just as today essentially all of the (very high number) of the accidents were pilot error of the sort that they were just not able to handle something that high performance. It was a lot of tiger to grab by the tail without the type of lead-in experience we're talking about, and the low cost to enter gave lots of opportunity to observe datapoints for safety reports.

In many ways, today's very high operations, maintenance, and insurance costs keep the barrier to entry pretty high, so there's a natural filter now. As with everywhere in modern life, it is the bankers and insurers who are effectively providing the guardrails...and still we get over-financed and under-trained pilot/owners combining for things like this:

But, back to the other point from above, new people are needed to play, so many times it is necessary to stick out a hand to help out someone who might have the aptitude but is superficially intimidated to take the first steps.

Didn't Robin Olds do something like this...during his first unauthorized flight in a Mustang...with zero training?

 

[Hacker15e]

I do understand that the new G100UL fuel has better detonation qualities than 100LL, so some warbirds may be able to go back to full power.

Who do you know who is running less than full power take offs due to fuel?

 

[Richman]

Who do you know who is running less than full power take offs due to fuel?

Place I worked when driving heilos. S-58 with the original R-2800 in the nose. They were restricted on TO power due to a lack of 115/145. Several other folks I've spoken with speak of operational restrictions due to using 100LL vs 115/145. Some may be able to mitigate it with something like water/meth injection, but the most common theme I head from these folks was simply operating at reduced MP.

 

[Roger Roger]

Who do you know who is running less than full power take offs due to fuel?

I thought I’d read that in reading about some of the bombers and transports at least, perhaps I’m getting that confused with the removal of turbochargers to reduce maintenance.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

The skill and support capability has dried up for these airplanes. This is a now a game for the rich with a fair amount of “fluck you” money.

Bingo.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Didn't Robin Olds do something like this...during his first unauthorized flight in a Mustang...with zero training?

Someone drove one in and flipped it over in Camarillo on his first *supervised* solo P-51 flight not all that long ago following whatever initial qualification steps he went through too, so even the people doing it “right” occasionally still blow it.

Hence why the insurance companies are doing insurance things. Same thing to lesser severity with GA twins.

 

[Hacker15e]

Place I worked when driving heilos. S-58 with the original R-2800 in the nose. They were restricted on TO power due to a lack of 115/145. Several other folks I've spoken with speak of operational restrictions due to using 100LL vs 115/145. Some may be able to mitigate it with something like water/meth injection, but the most common theme I head from these folks was simply operating at reduced MP.

There was definitely a period of time in the late 90s and early 2000s where it was sort of in vogue for some folks to do reduced power takeoffs. In my experience most of that is gone by now.

As teardowns and rebuilds occurred on those engines, the conditions of the internals validated that the lack of use of the fuel enrichment valve on takeoff (a byproduct of using reduced power) was causing abnormal wear through higher EGTs and cylinder head temps.

So I don’t really know of anyone who is doing reduced power operations with 100LL currently. When I was first learning to fly the B-25 in the early 00s, Randy Sohn was on a crusade to eliminate reduced power operations, and I learned some of that from him. The current CAF units that I fly with both use standard power for takeoffs. @tlewis95 @Inverted what did you guys use with Collings?

“Or else, commonly heard, ”This 100LL is lower in octane than 100/130 so I need to reduce the power because of it!” Again, just another example of an Old Wives' Tale leading to misguided thinking – and (likely) more unintended results!” -Sohn

“Also, a perusal of the Pratt & Whitney / Curtiss-Wright / Bendix-Stromberg / military / airline handbooks of that era dealing with this exact problem may prove to be truly instructive! In addition, P&W published a letter/operating bulletin to all operators back in xxxx. This letter stated very specifically that – while they realized that in the past some operators may have misconstrued P&W’s policy – they specifically wanted it known that they DID NOT support or condone in any way the use of reduced takeoff power. They then went on to list several reasons where they saw very definite problems if a reduced manifold pressure was used on takeoff in a misguided/misinformed attempt to “baby the engine”.” - Sohn

Radial Engine Operation Techniques That Can Shorten Cylinder Life -

Warbird Notes

 

[knot4u]

There was definitely a period of time in the late 90s and early 2000s where it was sort of in vogue for some folks to do reduced power takeoffs. In my experience most of that is gone by now.

As teardowns and rebuilds occurred on those engines, the conditions of the internals validated that the lack of use of the fuel enrichment valve on takeoff (a byproduct of using reduced power) was causing abnormal wear through higher EGTs and cylinder head temps.

So I don’t really know of anyone who is doing reduced power operations with 100LL currently. When I was first learning to fly the B-25 in the early 00s, Randy Sohn was on a crusade to eliminate reduced power operations, and I learned some of that from him. The current CAF units that I fly with both use standard power for takeoffs. @tlewis95 @Inverted what did you guys use with Collings?

“Or else, commonly heard, ”This 100LL is lower in octane than 100/130 so I need to reduce the power because of it!” Again, just another example of an Old Wives' Tale leading to misguided thinking – and (likely) more unintended results!” -Sohn

“Also, a perusal of the Pratt & Whitney / Curtiss-Wright / Bendix-Stromberg / military / airline handbooks of that era dealing with this exact problem may prove to be truly instructive! In addition, P&W published a letter/operating bulletin to all operators back in xxxx. This letter stated very specifically that – while they realized that in the past some operators may have misconstrued P&W’s policy – they specifically wanted it known that they DID NOT support or condone in any way the use of reduced takeoff power. They then went on to list several reasons where they saw very definite problems if a reduced manifold pressure was used on takeoff in a misguided/misinformed attempt to “baby the engine”.” - Sohn

Radial Engine Operation Techniques That Can Shorten Cylinder Life -

Warbird Notes

You could double check with Slack but I'm fairly certain the Bearcat always used normal TO power on departure with 100LL. Of course occasionally a drum or two of VP Racing fuel would show up at the hangar and the the label simply stated Octane: 163+. That wasn't common and the TO would be normal, what power settings happened once it was airborne is something entirely seperate. I recall when the airplane left KVNY for the first Pheonix air races with either an L-29 or an L-39 as chase it had to slow down to let the jet catch up. I miss that airplane, Oso Raro, the baddest SOB in the valley.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

“Also, a perusal of the Pratt & Whitney / Curtiss-Wright / Bendix-Stromberg / military / airline handbooks of that era dealing with this exact problem may prove to be truly instructive! In addition, P&W published a letter/operating bulletin to all operators back in xxxx. This letter stated very specifically that – while they realized that in the past some operators may have misconstrued P&W’s policy – they specifically wanted it known that they DID NOT support or condone in any way the use of reduced takeoff power. They then went on to list several reasons where they saw very definite problems if a reduced manifold pressure was used on takeoff in a misguided/misinformed attempt to “baby the engine”.” - Sohn

Yeah, uh, since never.

Dry takeoff 55”/2700 RPM regardless of fuel grade, long, long ago.

 

[knot4u]

I’d bet once @ajm757 bought a Stearman his warbird desires would likely be satisfied.

 

[Hacker15e]

I’d bet once @ajm757 bought a Stearman his warbird desires would likely be satisfied.

It is surprising how much airmanship the Stearman demands…but she sure is fun!

 

[ajm757]

I’d bet once @ajm757 bought a Stearman his warbird desires would likely be satisfied.

I think I can afford it one day. Got to keep investing and set aside some. It's a big goal of mine to be part of the warbird crowd. Love the planes and the history behind them. This is a great thread.

 

[ajm757]

@Hacker15e What would be a good TW plane to get some time in before purchasing a Stearman or T-6? I have no tailwheel time. Thanks.

 

[NovemberEcho]

I learned more from flying a T-6 than any airplane I've ever flown.

well that is its purpose, hence the T.

Never did hear much about it until Mom bought a Honda, then holy hell you'd think she peed all over Jesus on the Cross

shoulda heard my German Jew grandmother when my mother rolled up in her new 1995 Jetta.

Who do you know who is running less than full power take offs due to fuel?

Delta 717’s

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Delta 717’s

Flexible/reduced/de-rated/what-the-freak-ever takeoffs actually consume more fuel. (If I’ve made this point to you already, my apologies.)

More expensive, however, is the wear and tear that “full blow” does to the hot section. Which is ALSO the point of reduced/derated climb settings, despite the fact that it is not the most fuel efficient way of doing stuff.

 

[Hacker15e]

@Hacker15e What would be a good TW plane to get some time in before purchasing a Stearman or T-6? I have no tailwheel time. Thanks.

Honestly, almost any of the entry-level taildraggers are good. I got most of my early TW time in a Champ and a Citabria, but I also built pre-T-6 time in an RV-8 and a PT-19.

 

[Hacker15e]

well that is its purpose, hence the T.

That's clever, but not his point.

There are *lots* of different military trainers out there, but the T-6/SNJ is considered *the* quintessential skill builder lead-in for the majority of the warbird world where literally all the others aren't.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Honestly, almost any of the entry-level taildraggers are good. I got most of my early TW time in a Champ and a Citabria, but I also built pre-T-6 time in an RV-8 and a PT-19.

PT-19s are a blast.

 

[ajm757]

So it sounds like I should purchase a TW plane to get comfortable. Then after a year or so, go for a Stearman or T-6. Thanks for all the advice so far.