Weak starter on a MEP? No prob: use this old hat-trick

@Antonio great recommendation. Full power run ups also stress undercarriage, in addition to potentially picking up a nasty propeller nick, or blowing stones onto the tailplane.

Full power run ups

And are just not possible on most adequately powered TDs
My own steed lifts its tail (full rear stick) starting with 2‘300 rpm, so the WOT checks are done whilst on the take-off run… T&Ps good = immediate reduction from whatever MP/2’700 to a standard 23/23, or 24/24 if hot/heavily loaded, and the take-off is just continued

That is because it is not certified

If it was, the brakes would be capable of holding it at full power.

I know an old 7xx pilot who once started up one engine, then while it was running removed the starter motor and screwed it onto another engine whose starter motor packed up. I don’t remember the type but probably a 747.

I know many pilots tell wind stories but I am certain all those from this guy are 100% good

A Pitts S2C is certified, with 260 HP and an empty weight of 1155 lbs. Think you can do a full power run up without it tipping on its nose? Maybe One normally ties the tail down if that’s what’s needed.

What I think is amazing about the video is that the torque produced by relative wind on the propeller at relatively low speed is enough turn the 46 liter engine though its sequence of compression strokes and light it off. It hard to for me to imagine it being so.

I thought it was a turboprop, but with a direct drive engine like a Garrett, not a PT6.

Re the Pitts, maybe it’s a different category.

My friend here who has flown just about everything told me about using the auto lean feature on the R-2800 engines on an R6D (Navy DC-6). I had asked him how the heck you manage four large radials simultaneously and that was his example….

As @Dan explained, you don’t typically use full throttle for runups on a tailwheel aircraft, whether it’s certified or not. You also BTW don’t want the brakes to be too powerful, the ideal is just enough to hold it for run up without great pedal pressure. I overhauled the tiny cable operated (non-hydraulic) brakes on my certified Luscombe with OEM but modern manufacture Cleveland linings etc and they were great if you were careful. Unfortunately however the guys I sold it to put it on its back within a week, through hitting the brakes too hard when they ran off the runway. There was plenty of room, they could have just let it go straight on the grass but the stupid United Airlines captain who was flying let his pride get in the way. Regardless, powerful brakes on a tailwheel aircraft can be a hazardous thing.

Silvaire wrote:

you don’t typically use full throttle for runups on a tailwheel aircraft, whether it’s certified or not.

Thanks @Silvaire. @Peter probably missed the (full rear stick) in my post
My brakes being Clevelands, of the same types as installed on many a certified airplane, will, or rather would, hold full power, thank you

@Peter you may miss the point here. The brakes will prevent wheel rotation at full power, but the consequence of that is that rotation will happen around the axle / wheel bearing interface and thus the thing tips on its nose. The best brakes in the world can’t prevent that.

I’ve never applied full throttle against the brakes in a taildragger. The C90 in the Vagabond we run up to 1800rpm per the Continental manual, and I would be nervous about applying full throttle – even with only 90hp vs 521kg. In the RV I simply wouldn’t dare.

You should learn to fly a taildragger, just for the experience. It makes everyone a better pilot.

Perhaps that certification requirement does not apply to taildraggers