P-51D "Lou IV" and pilot lost
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P-51D "Lou IV" and pilot lost
Fatal torque roll on first solo.
At one time I estimated that the unbalanced torque transmitted through the engine mounts of a Merlin was 5000 lb-ft. and that the available P-51 aileron control moment could be exceeded easily below 90-100 kt IAS.
Sad loss of plane & pilot.
At one time I estimated that the unbalanced torque transmitted through the engine mounts of a Merlin was 5000 lb-ft. and that the available P-51 aileron control moment could be exceeded easily below 90-100 kt IAS.
Sad loss of plane & pilot.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tragic loss of an irreplaceable airframe.
Think of the scores, maybe hundreds of rookies who handled their first trips in this piece of history without wrecking it. Many only had a handful of flying hours before successfully coping, and then going right into combat...Over the last 55 years! How many must there have been?
But losing control due to well known torque effect on a go-around? Well, maybe, maybe not, but if so what instructional technique allowed that? Cos no way is that the aeroplane's fault. If so shame the instructor wasn't aboard too... Still, if you have to that, do it in Cessnas, not Mustangs! Please!
Think of the scores, maybe hundreds of rookies who handled their first trips in this piece of history without wrecking it. Many only had a handful of flying hours before successfully coping, and then going right into combat...Over the last 55 years! How many must there have been?
But losing control due to well known torque effect on a go-around? Well, maybe, maybe not, but if so what instructional technique allowed that? Cos no way is that the aeroplane's fault. If so shame the instructor wasn't aboard too... Still, if you have to that, do it in Cessnas, not Mustangs! Please!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the student had 100 hrs of T-6/Texan/Harvard time, as was the case with most P-51 transition pilots, I doubt that this would have happened. Most pilots of that era recall the T-6 (AT-6) taught them the most about flying, and was the best possible transition into higher performance ships.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agaricus bisporus - shame on your comments. Yes many did cope with the additional torque of the Merlin however many didnt even back in the 40's and 50's. Your comment that the instructor should of been in the aircraft as well brings you no credit at all.
barit1 - you apparently are aware of the unfortunete pilots history with regard to his previous experiance - if not dont speculate. The T6 route whilst expected is not the only way into the cockpit of a P51.
As far as I can recollect with books to hand is the LouIV was not a TF51 ie two lots of controls therefore Im presuming the 'student' must of carried out the initial landing, quite satisfactorily. The instructor could have only been advising as he would have had no input on the controls. This would not of been his first landing so again I presume the 'student' must of demonstrated some ability before being sent 'solo'.
The Stalion51 company is a good example of a controlled training enviroment and I know of several pilots who have taken advantage of it, one of which has less than 5 hrs T6 but is still an extreamly competent P51 pilot.
Remember someone died here, in horrible circumstances in a very public way.
barit1 - you apparently are aware of the unfortunete pilots history with regard to his previous experiance - if not dont speculate. The T6 route whilst expected is not the only way into the cockpit of a P51.
As far as I can recollect with books to hand is the LouIV was not a TF51 ie two lots of controls therefore Im presuming the 'student' must of carried out the initial landing, quite satisfactorily. The instructor could have only been advising as he would have had no input on the controls. This would not of been his first landing so again I presume the 'student' must of demonstrated some ability before being sent 'solo'.
The Stalion51 company is a good example of a controlled training enviroment and I know of several pilots who have taken advantage of it, one of which has less than 5 hrs T6 but is still an extreamly competent P51 pilot.
Remember someone died here, in horrible circumstances in a very public way.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not invent the T-6 connection, nor do I claim any great experience in the type, nor do I suggest it's the only way to prepare oneself for the Mustang.
I'm only pointing out the historical fact that a great majority of military pilots came to fly the P-51 via the T-6 (AT-6) route, and the ones I've talked to had high regard for the preparation it gave them. Therefore - based on this proven sequence of instruction - I conclude that this pilot probably would have benefitted from a similar syllabus.
I'm only pointing out the historical fact that a great majority of military pilots came to fly the P-51 via the T-6 (AT-6) route, and the ones I've talked to had high regard for the preparation it gave them. Therefore - based on this proven sequence of instruction - I conclude that this pilot probably would have benefitted from a similar syllabus.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes many did cope with the additional torque of the Merlin however many didn't even back in the 40's and 50's.
RAF military pilots of the 1940s were streamed into single seaters or multi-engine during basic flight training on Tiger Moths or Magisters, with single seat pilots going on to Harvards and multi-engines going on to Ansons. The fact that high performance single seat fighters could be a handful was well recognized and those who it was thought wouldn't hack it, were weeded out very early in the proceedings. Of those who made it all the way through flight training, only those with the best responses and finest control touch went onto single engine fighters. Even then many were 'chopped' from the course and never reached a squadron.
This policy remains in place to this day. Fast jet jockeys and 'pie eaters' are sorted out very early in the training process. In today's civil environment, if you can afford a part share in on old 'warbird' you can buy into the training to fly it and there's no 'chop' in these circumstances. Its a fact that not everyone has what it takes to fly a single seat fighter aircraft - vintage or new.
Last edited by Blacksheep; 30th Jul 2007 at 06:42.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One persons view
http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/pe..._195755-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/pe..._195755-1.html
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more with the article. Some airplanes can be flown "by the book" with relatively little technique required, and can be taken off, flown, landed and waved off by procedure only. But WWII (& earlier) vintage aircraft demanded a degree of "feel" or technique that is apparently often overlooked in flight instruction today.
My father instructed in all the SE trainers of WWII, and go-arounds were always practiced at a safe altitude to drill home the pecularities of the type. A T-6 or even a BT-13 would quickly roll inverted if full power were applied over the numbers.
I could make an analogy to playing a musical instrument; you can't write a procedure for playing a trumpet or violin. It's a matter of practicing the technique. Some people will "get it" and some won't.
My father instructed in all the SE trainers of WWII, and go-arounds were always practiced at a safe altitude to drill home the pecularities of the type. A T-6 or even a BT-13 would quickly roll inverted if full power were applied over the numbers.
I could make an analogy to playing a musical instrument; you can't write a procedure for playing a trumpet or violin. It's a matter of practicing the technique. Some people will "get it" and some won't.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,588
Received 443 Likes
on
235 Posts
Twenty years ago I flew with a very clever RAF navigator - I found out he had in fact written much of the information contained in the Navigation part of the RAF's Air Publications.
One day, he mentioned that he had once been a trainee RAF pilot but had withdrawn from training. Another time, after a few beers, he told me why.
He was night flying the Balliol T2 trainer (Merlin engined) when, during a low and slow go-around, it did a 720 degree torque roll for him and scared him half to death, although he escaped without crashing. He decided that someone was telling him something..
One day, he mentioned that he had once been a trainee RAF pilot but had withdrawn from training. Another time, after a few beers, he told me why.
He was night flying the Balliol T2 trainer (Merlin engined) when, during a low and slow go-around, it did a 720 degree torque roll for him and scared him half to death, although he escaped without crashing. He decided that someone was telling him something..
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bristol
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref Brian Abraham's link, my first thougt would be that at low rpm and full boost you would get more torque than at higher RPM.
As to the T6, I trained on them and instructed on the less powerful (400hp?) Piston Provost. Over one year I do not recall any accidents at our T6 school caused by torque roll, nor do I recall any problems personally. The one time I had to slam to full power was in a PP at very low IAS and I got much more yaw than roll.
Mind you, our Canadian instructors, with time on Mustangs, did consider torque roll to be a killer, but there you are talking 2000hp.
Dick Whittingham
As to the T6, I trained on them and instructed on the less powerful (400hp?) Piston Provost. Over one year I do not recall any accidents at our T6 school caused by torque roll, nor do I recall any problems personally. The one time I had to slam to full power was in a PP at very low IAS and I got much more yaw than roll.
Mind you, our Canadian instructors, with time on Mustangs, did consider torque roll to be a killer, but there you are talking 2000hp.
Dick Whittingham
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fife
Age: 87
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the less powerful (400hp?) Piston Provost
INTRODUCTION
The Provost T.I is an all-metal, low-wing monoplane
powered by a 550 b.h.p. Leonides 126 engine driving a
three-bladed, constant speed propeller.
This was in the good old days, when we were allowed +8 lbs boost
and I believe it gave us the same bhp as the Harvard.Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Whittingham - If I'm reading the Merlin 22/24 power chart correctly, at sea level and 1800rpm max boost was +6 giving 675HP. At 3000rpm max boost was +18 giving 1620HP.
The formula is
Power(hp)=torque(ft.lbs)*rotational speed(rpm)/5252
I'll let you do the maths.
As an aside, before we went to the carrier for the first time the instructors showed a vid of prop operations on a carrier. One spectacular sight was the F4U's launching and immediately rolling in 60° of left bank on leaving the deck. We thought it just a little of the macho showing, but instructors advised it was torque in control and pilot was just along for the ride until a bit of airspeed was gained, and hence aileron control.
The formula is
Power(hp)=torque(ft.lbs)*rotational speed(rpm)/5252
I'll let you do the maths.
As an aside, before we went to the carrier for the first time the instructors showed a vid of prop operations on a carrier. One spectacular sight was the F4U's launching and immediately rolling in 60° of left bank on leaving the deck. We thought it just a little of the macho showing, but instructors advised it was torque in control and pilot was just along for the ride until a bit of airspeed was gained, and hence aileron control.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 52
Posts: 698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Face it...some folks would never get the hang of a Piper Cub
Yet again, well said - and so true.
(Tinpis - I am in great admiration of how you manage to speak my mind, but with about 150 less words than i would have used...
)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The formula is
Power(hp)=torque(ft.lbs)*rotational speed(rpm)/5252
Power(hp)=torque(ft.lbs)*rotational speed(rpm)/5252
(Note for the skeptic: crankshaft torque is reacted within the gearbox; prop torque is reacted in the engine mounts)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bristol
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corrct, barit, and Brian is talking about reduced boost in cruise conditions. The point about torque reaction on TOGA is that it is going to be at high boost, and under those conditions reducing RPM means that torque reaction will go up. Or look at it this way. At max boost and max RPM if you pull the prop lever back to reduce RPM you are setting a coarser pitch. This will generate more torque drag on the prop. Of course, reducing RPM may force a reduction in ehp, but not necesarily on the engine's ability to produce torque. Where do you get max torque in your car?
We need more numbers!
Dick W
We need more numbers!
Dick W
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Performance curves can usually be found in the engine TC reference data or acceptance criteria; I can't say I've seen any for the Merlins but someone doubtless has them in a bin somewhere.
And you're right about torque going up if a lower rpm is set - In fact that's how the prop governor is able to control rpm: it varies the load torque absorbed by the prop.
But shouldn't the old GUMPF check mean the prop is set to high rpm on approach? That does two things: 1) adds a bit of drag by placing the blades in flat pitch, and 2) makes for less to worry about on a touch-&-go or a waveoff.
And you're right about torque going up if a lower rpm is set - In fact that's how the prop governor is able to control rpm: it varies the load torque absorbed by the prop.
But shouldn't the old GUMPF check mean the prop is set to high rpm on approach? That does two things: 1) adds a bit of drag by placing the blades in flat pitch, and 2) makes for less to worry about on a touch-&-go or a waveoff.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bristol
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last thing I want to do is challenge a 38,000 hour pilot who has flown a Bearcat and survived, but I do not agree that it is better to set less than max rpm in preparation for a landing - because you need may need max rpm for the unintended abort. Barit is right about the drag on finals - good thing - with fully fine. We both think John Deakin has it wrong about the torque at lower rpm. I think, from my limited experience that mixture rich and prop to full fine are two checks that should be done downwind at the latest.
IMHO the real way to avoid torque stall incidents is to govern your throttle hand. It is self evident that the aircraft will have aileron authority to keep wings level at all flying speeds or the pilots notes would limit power permitted at low speed. Torque stall comes from an imbalance on the rates of application of power and aileron and rudder. It is a handling problem.
Dick W
IMHO the real way to avoid torque stall incidents is to govern your throttle hand. It is self evident that the aircraft will have aileron authority to keep wings level at all flying speeds or the pilots notes would limit power permitted at low speed. Torque stall comes from an imbalance on the rates of application of power and aileron and rudder. It is a handling problem.
Dick W