https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight ... /KPHF/KPHF

Just did one.

I am not understanding what you're trying to say.
But the jet warbirds use the overhead almost exclusively.

The vast majority of my "warbird" flying is done at towered airports... and by definition, well within the regulations. "Works great, lasts long time."

Nothing to do with regulations, jets or towers. Just wondering about piston engine treatment during low MP and high indicated airspeeds with sudden power reductions. There are a lot of variations in techniques apparently but with some mentioning idle power and pulling to bleed off speed after near VNE arrival. It just goes against everything I've ever been taught, read or practiced for getting good service from piston engines. Flat, round, geared, turbocharged etc. Thrust bearing problems. Detuning counterweights. Quill shaft failures, Supercharger problems. These all were concerns.

I've always used slow power reductions sometimes over many min descending from high altitude and avoided reverse loading the propeller and crankshaft. Minimize temp rate of change where possible and usually positive load on the crank all the way to the flare. But I watch geared large radials and V12s make formation breaks at airshows so I was just wondering how this works out. For example I found warm weather 160 mph descent from 12,500 maintaining 20" and 1800 RPM popped cylinder heads off the barrels on the Beech 18 but 24" did not. This was after a fairly long jump run at low power which should have helped stabilize everything after the climb. CHT was just fine during climb. Jump club switched pilots after I was flying it after a few hundred hours and went back to 20" for descent. Cylinder head to barrel failures followed soon after. It was not the cylinders it was the operation of the engines causing the failures.

But formation slot pilots seem to be all over the place with power settings sometimes violently to hold position so I guess it's not really an issue. Or is this masked by using a shorter TBO?

If it works it works. I'm not changing how I operate but just curious about the thought process.

Sounds like it could be a difference in missions requiring different operating techniques, which may in the end be tougher on one set of engines than another requiring more maintenance or even changing out components or entire engines at different times.
Ron Fellows drives the same C8 Stingrays that I do, but their cars require a whole different level of maintenance than mine.

I guess in the descriptions of various break techniques maybe clarify if your flying a Jet or piston. It makes a difference in how to manage power settings.

Roberts description of the T-28 MP setting and speeds was a good example

The medium term average power doesn't change much during most formation flying and brief adjustments to power can't cause rapid CHT changes even if you're concerned about shock cooling. There are times when large rapid throttle movement occurs but that's generally the result of someone making a mistake. AFaIK the only undesirable consequence of rapid throttle movement is a slight increase in wear on the pins supporting the torsional vibration dampers on the crankshaft. Such actions also "detune" the dampers briefly which could increase the torsional stress in the crank but that takes time to build up too.

I was digging through some old files that came with the SNJ we bought. I found this gem from an early 90’s issue of Warbirds Magazine that seemed relevant. Should be the last word on the matter, but I’m certain it won’t be.

I’m not referencing anything but memory, exceeding 250 below ten is an aircraft requirement not a military free pass. DC 10, MD 11 clean min maneuver speed exceeds 250 so do some other planes. That makes it legal.

You are correct, in the MD11 we exceed 250 below 10 at higher gross weights. In the USAF we could only exceed 250 below 10 when needed for aircraft performance. Overseas you could often get clearance for high speed below ten and then we could come up initial as fast as we wanted. Of course, if you were too obnoxious, the base commander could close the overhead pattern. Happened at Incirlik when some Marine EA-6bs came up initial at close to 500 knots at 2 am. Overhead NOTAMed closed the next day. EA-6bs have got to be among the most obnoxiously annoying sounding jets I’ve ever heard. Aside from the Tweet.

Probably a lot depends on the plane and pilot. I have attached a couple of really crude photos (copied from a DVD made from a VHS tape many years ago) taken from the back seat of Bob Love's P-51 as we were approaching Livermore. It was really bumpy (so the video quality is terrible) and he signaled with his left hand that he was going to do an overhead break (which he always did coming home in his Mustang). This was in May of 1986 after a 30 minute ride. He pulled up so sharply I saw spots before my eyes.

I should upload the video to Youtube someday and post the link here.

I recently heard from one of my former co-workers that management has decided to not allow any more overhead approaches at KAUS. This a result of the incident with the Citation and F18s.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transpor ... ivate-jet/

Geeezzz..

Hit a paywall with this...

Dan

of course it's legal. Some pilot's just can't manage energy and need a crutch. Like someone up above complaining about low gear speed in a T34. If you can't slow down a T34 and land without drama, that's a sign that it's time to quit flying and take up crochet.