P-51A and P-51D

now I had heard that when you take off in a mustang you do not push full throttle right off the bat but ease her up slow and steady otherwise the sudden torque will send you veering off to the left. one pilot I know claims this happened to him causing him to snag the windsock off of the control tower...and he still had the windsock which he donated back to the groups museum. was it the same deal in the spit since they basically had the same engine? or is the whole thing just a hangar story???

bobbysocks said:

now I had heard that when you take off in a mustang you do not push full throttle right off the bat but ease her up slow and steady otherwise the sudden torque will send you veering off to the left. one pilot I know claims this happened to him causing him to snag the windsock off of the control tower...and he still had the windsock which he donated back to the groups museum. was it the same deal in the spit since they basically had the same engine? or is the whole thing just a hangar story???

Click to expand...

It certainly was the case for The XIV (and presumably XVIII). Not sure about the 20 Series Spits.

IIRC the Spitfire XIV was restricted to +9psi boost for take-off.

I have a friend flying Mustangs in Orlando and has told me that you are constantly increasing power during the roll. I think a Bearcat could takeoff at or close to full power.

Cheers,
Biff

Opening the throttle on any warbird is a steady increase in power until the desired manifold pressure is reached. Most Mustang operators use 55" as a max takeoff power. I can tell you there is a huge difference between 55" and 61" of manifold pressure. At 50" to 55" it is perfectly controllable with little drama...once the tail is off the ground it goes straight. You get above 55" and the first few times you do it is pretty exciting. The noise level is incredible...there is a marked increase in "pull", acceleration is awesome and you are holding/modulating right stick and right rudder throughout the entire takeoff. The Mustang...or any high powered piston type is all about proper training. The NTSB reports are full of those that don't...

Jim

Since I double posted I will add to what I said. If you increase the throttle too quickly you run the risk of a run away prop. The prop governor can only absorb the power so quick. There is also a lot of muscle memory involved. I've found myself pushing on the right rudder pedal before I start in on the throttle...you can feel the increase of air pressure on the rudder as you come up on the throttle, the rudder is effective right away. There are a lot of myths surrounding the Mustang...and the biggest one is that it is hard to fly or control

Imagine 85 gallons of fuel in the aft fuse tank, two external 110 gallon (or 160's) and taking off on a really hot day at Iwo Jima...

You would have a long time to think about it during the takeoff roll...

I never heard it was a bugger to fly but that it did have a few characteristics you better know about and respect. one of them being pushing the throttle to the wire too fast while quick taking off....or landing ( if you muff it up and have to go around ). the other being..doing a slow roll with the 85 gal tank still full...

BiffF15 said:

I have a friend flying Mustangs in Orlando and has told me that you are constantly increasing power during the roll. I think a Bearcat could takeoff at or close to full power.

Cheers,
Biff

Click to expand...

Biff if you have a friend who flies planes like that I would be hitting him up for ride or (in your case with time and experience) some stick time. the fuel is going to cost a small fortune but would be worth it...

Bobbysocks,
I wish! He flies them for hire with Stallion 51 down in Kississime, FL. It's not an inexpensive endeavor...
Cheers,
Biff

I would guess that the cost of the fuel is a relatively small consideration ... the insurance premium is another thing altogether !

I would bet. insuring something that is close to 1 million or more...is one thing, would think the premiums go way up if you are doing airshows.

You have fuel cost, engine overhaul reserve cost, insurance cost, and cost of consumables other than fuel, hangar, and more. Specialty tolls aren't cheap. If you own a P-38, you KNOW what I mean. The P-38 is the ONLY aircraft ion the entire world that uses that main-gear tire size. So, when you need tires, you call up ALL the other owners, find out who needs tires, and then call the manufacturers to see who will produce a one-off, small-run of P-38 main tires. That assumes you own the tire molds. A set is NOT cheap. And you typically only get get 40 landings out of one set on pavment. EVERYONE wishes they could fly off grass, but that is another entire cost line.

Props can cost upwards of $100,000 or more every five years for overhaul, whether they fly or not, depending on the prop. If you don't fly them, the cost is zero once you have one. Carburators can cost $5k or more every five years, whether they fly or not, IF it is airworthy. I guess it all depends on how much safety you desire, but you WILL have an airworthiness certificate if you fly it and that means all the necessary maintenance. It's worse by FAR if the aircraft is a former airline unit, because you have to do airline-level maintenance and have airline level flight crews. When I say "prop overhaul", I mean removal, disassembly, check and clean, and new seals, install, and balance. If you have a Curtiss Electric prop, you will need new brushes once in awhile. They ain't cheap, either, these days.

So it isn't likely for skinny-pocket people to fly most warbirds. Right now, a good P-40 is as expensive as a flying P-51 due to being rare. Want an original Mitsubishi Zero? We have the only one in the world that flies. That's rare, and rare translates into expensive per flying hour for a wide variety of reasons, most of which are usually not very obvious to the causal observer.

One of the most expensive is having a regular crew qualified to maintain and repair it. As any business owner knows, labor is usually right near the top of the expenses. Let the crew go, and it quickly gets unflyable. It might not be so bad if you have ONE warbird. But if you fly 2 or more, the crew is a vital part of operations. Continuity of crew is ALSO pretty important. You can handle an airshow almost on your own with a well-maintained warbird, assuming no breakdowns, but long-term operation requires more people.

GregP said:

The P-38 is the ONLY aircraft ion the entire world that uses that main-gear tire size. So, when you need tires, you call up ALL the other owners, find out who needs tires, and then call the manufacturers to see who will produce a one-off, small-run of P-38 main tires.

Click to expand...

That is not true...The Collings B-24 uses a P-38 main tire as a nosewheel tire. They work with P-38 operators during tire production runs. They get the diamond tread that looks great but depending on who is flying it tends to "cup" due to improper taxiing. It also goes out of balance and shakes like mad when retracting. They are not cheap, but no more than a B-25 main...3,500, depending on who you can get them from (carl).

On that same note the B-25 nosewheel is the same as a P-40 main...Desser Tire I believe still carries these. I forget what they cost but it was insignificant in the ride operation. Oil, Gas, Insurance, Starters, Generators, Boost Pumps, Induction Vibrators, Mags, Brakes, Heads and Banks, Entire Engines, Prop Overhauls, Tail wheel tires, cylinders, Prop Governors, Annual, Hangars (although the ride operation does not require hangars)...this is the ride operation. Museum aircraft still incur the same costs but the flight times per airframe are much lower and consumables listed above are not worn out as fast. As an example, Betty Jane was averaging 500 hours a year. It may use 1-2 boost pumps a year, 6 sets of tires, 4 sets of brakes, 1 starter, 2-3 mags and burn 55 gallons of gas an hour. Oil is negligable in the Mustang...we joked it was making oil...the Roush engine doesn't seem to burn it

jim

I believe a flight in a two seat spitfire which is take off, landing and about 10 minutes in the air costs £3500 about $4500.

Hi Jimh,

Never hear that one before, but have also never heard much of anything about B-24 operations today since they are so rare.

The fact that it is the only plane using that tire is what I heard from 3 different P-38 owners. I wonder of the B-24 actually used that tire or if they found out it fits later on? Not making a claim either way, just wondering. I wonder about serendipity tire fitments because a Bf 109 can use an F-86 tire, and the two are utterly unrelated in any way. The tread patterns are different, but the F-86 tire seems to work just fine for pavement operation. Our Ha.1112 Buchon is currently weearing F-86 tires. We also have P-51 tires with and without the crossed-pattern turf treads. Our P-51A uses the turf treads and the P-51Ds don't. Not sure exactly why.

Hey Greg,
Yes, that is stock for the B-24. There was a lot of inter-plane parts usage. The boost pumps, induction vibrators, props, generators...there is quite a list of items that work on all the airplanes. Conversely there are quite a few that don't as well. The B-24, B-17, and B-29 all share the same Main Wheels and Tires, although the B-29 had a newer designed brake assembly.

Interestingly, when we started operating the 262, research showed the nosewheel was that from the 109, including the brake assembly. The 262 is using a hybrid of modern jet wheels and brakes nowadays. Straight tread will outlast the diamond tread by about 50 landings. I always surmised that the more meat you leave on the tire the longer they will last. The diamonds look cool and are more authentic, but just don't last. Interestingly, retreads don't fit in the Mustang B/C well without squaring off edges. There is a slight difference in size of the wheel well of the D.

good stuff...just a rumor but I heard POF may be moving to Texas?

Jim

Heard that one myself, among others. Many things might be possible. I'll believe it when they announce it, though. Absolutely NO speculation there from me. I'm in the camp that wants them right here ... for personally selfish reasons. Great museum, great people, fun to be a part of it.

I knew many warbird items interchanged, particularly turbochargers, engines, props, oil coolers, starters, etc, but have never had a reason to start up a list of them since I don't own a warbird. I work on restoration for POF; currently on an O-47 (starboard stub wing just now) and am also a YP-59A crew member and occasionally help out with the Buchon and B-17 when things happen that way. Not being really tied to just ONE project is fun, occasionally.

When you said Me 262 and Bf 109 wheel, I am assuming main wheel from Bf 109. When the Stormbirds did their first flyable Me 262 replica, I thought the main wheel struts were from a Grumman S2F and they had issues with the uplock which caused the first accident that was rebuilt, or so they said when I was up there and went through their hangar. I did not follow up on what if anything replaced those struts since it didn't occur to me to get curious about it. When it flew without incident, I surmised the issue was fixed.

If I am not mistaken, many of our Merlins are Nixon engines and they run well. I COULD be wrong because Steve, Steve-O Jr, and several others are somewhat Merlin wizards themselves and may well have built their own. I know they have no shortage of expertise on which to draw - Steve-O builds up and works on racing Merlins for his Reno effort that have run quite well to date except for ONE engine issue 2 years ago, probably caused by cat fur . I think Steve could build one in the dark, blindfolded. I do have a friend here, Ken Wagner, who flies the P-51D Lady Alice and I know his Merlin came from Nixon and has run very well with no issues after a single issue right at the start that was fixed by Mke. I have never met a happier Mustang pilot than Ken. The guy is happy EVERY time I see him. It is a very positive hangar to be in anytime.

I'd be grinning, too, if I flew P-51 ... but the lottery is not really friendly as yet. So, I hope for a Harmon Rocket down the road, instead.

Cheers!