Jumbo Tanker Accident

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:17:30 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote in
:


What puzzles me is why, when the PIC finds that he is unable to
control the torque, he doesn't reduce the power? Or is the power
application so swift that there isn't time to react to the torque
roll?

Commercial pilots are taught to apply power smoothly (slowly), it
would seem that there would be time to do that in this sort of
situation. Am I wrong?

No, you're right, and that is exactly how it should be done; quickly but
extremely smoothly, with adequate rudder and aileron applied together.
As for what's "puzzling you"; in these airplanes you don't get the
luxury of finding out you can't control the torque on a go-around. By
that time it's way too late, and reducing the power may not be an option
due to the flight configuration and/or circumstances.

You mean, if you see that the rudder is against the stop, and you're
starting to roll further to the right, you can't reduce the power to
counter the torque induced roll? What would happen? You'd at least
land/crash on the mains instead of the canopy, wouldn't you?

You get one shot in these airplanes to do it right; just one.

To do it right, perhaps. But if you're out of control, you still have
some options other than letting the torque flip you over, don't you?
Or is there too much inertia with that big prop to expect a throttle
reduction to reduce torque fast enough to prevent it from rolling you
inverted?

The way to control torque in the Mustang is to know exactly the conditions
that will cause the issue and take the proper steps to prevent it from
happening.
Dudley Henriques

Okay. But once the PIC realizes that s/he's going to "scratch the
paint," the PIC's mind set should be to minimize the potential injury.
Wouldn't cartwheeling be preferable to landing on your head?

What is approach speed for a P-51 anyway?