Harrison Ford Crashes Ryan PT-22 on Golf Course

[RocketMan]

As I understand it, the PT-22 can be a bit of a handful for some pilots.  Kind of strange considering its use as a primary trainer in WWII.  A very skilled warbird pilot acquaintance of mine was killed many years ago when he crashed one of them.  The passenger in the back seat at the time was also a very skilled warbird pilot.  The crash was not due to any failure of the aircraft, IIRC.  It was flown into an attitude from which they just could not recover before it spun into the desert.

[230RN]

Rocketman, that's what I thought --that they quit using rotaries in the late twenties and thirties.

That great big gyroscope (the whole engine rotating) had a tendency to inhibit maneuverability.

But I still think that second image I posted shows a rotary engine.  Maybe it was a replacement engine?

BOY, this is a hot topic.

freakazoid and others, in a rotary engine, the whole engine rotates with the prop and the crankshaft is attached to the airframe.  They are radial engines, but don't confuse them with a regular radial engine where the crankshaft is attached to the prop instead of the airplane.

[RocketMan]

But I still think that second image I posted shows a rotary engine.  Maybe it was a replacement engine?

Nope, can't be.  The cylinders are poking out through holes in the cowling.  The cowling sure isn't rotating.

[RocketMan]

Ah, that's what I thought --that they quit using rotaries in the late twenties and thirties.

That great big gyroscope (the whole engine rotating) had a tendency to inhibit maneuverability.

But I still think that second image I posted shows a rotary engine.  Maybe it was a replacement engine?

BOY, this is a hot topic.

freakazoid, in a rotary engine, the whole engine rotates with the prop and the crankshaft is attached to the airframe.  They are radial engines, but don't confuse them with a regular radial engine.

Almost, but not quite.  The prop is connected to the main body of a rotary engine, not to the crankshaft.  Only the crankshaft is fixed to the airframe.

[230RN]

"freakazoid and others, in a rotary engine, the whole engine rotates with the prop and the crankshaft is attached to the airframe.  They are radial engines, but don't confuse them with a regular radial engine where the crankshaft is attached to the prop instead of the airplane."

Sorry, but I believe that's a 100% correct statement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvTdCIZVg7Y

Most of them did not have a throttling system and relied on a "hit and miss" arrangement for RPM regulation.

Don't confuse it with a Wankel rotary engine, as in the Mazda cars.

[RocketMan]

Sorry, but I believe that's a 100% correct statement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvTdCIZVg7Y

I think I see what may be causing the confusion.  In the YouTube video the shaft sticking out the front of the Gnome engine isn't the crankshaft.  It's just a shaft bolted to the front of the engine case.  That makes for a handy attachment of the propeller.
The actual crankshaft sticks out the back of a rotary motor and is fixed to the frame of whatever it is powering.

[freakazoid]

freakazoid, in a rotary engine, the whole engine rotates with the prop and the crankshaft is attached to the airframe.  They are radial engines, but don't confuse them with a regular radial engine.

That's exactly what I was doing. Realized it after RocketMans post.

"freakazoid and others, in a rotary engine, the whole engine rotates with the prop and the crankshaft is attached to the airframe.  They are radial engines, but don't confuse them with a regular radial engine where the crankshaft is attached to the prop instead of the airplane."

Sorry, but I believe that's a 100% correct statement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvTdCIZVg7Y

Don't confuse it with a Wankel rotary engine, as in the Mazda cars.

230RN is correct, he isn't talking about a Wankel engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

[RocketMan]

230RN is correct, he isn't talking about a Wankel engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

Yes, I know a Wankel rotary and the old aircraft rotary engines are completely different critters, similar only in name, not in function.
Again, in an old aircraft rotary motor, the crankshaft extends out the back.  The shaft extending from the front of an aircraft rotary motor is not the crankshaft, it's just a handy attachment for the prop.  It is rigidly fixed to the case of the motor, not to the crankshaft.

ETA:  By the way, I'm not trying to be contentious, just accurate.  No hard feelings here.

[robear]

Although 41magsnub already beat me to it, http://youtu.be/flXCWdhJnGY?t=7s

[KD5NRH]

"Could still be any number of things causing the engine to cut out.  Under the circumstances, I doubt he even got around to trying a restart."

Gee, did they even have starters on those?

Now that you mention it, maybe not, but I'm betting it's a fairly common aftermarket add on if it's not stock.  Either way, sounds like he was already low and slow when it quit, so all you can do at that point is look for the smoothest spot to put it down.

[230RN]

Whew.  This has been such a hot topic there's no wonder there's some confusion.  I even double-posted while trying to edit and answer someone else's question.

I know there's no "contention," but there's been some rapid post crossover confusion.

With that highly-polished "nose cone," I'm not sure you could tell whether the cowling was rotating or not.

In sum:

A "regular" radial aircraft engine has the engine case fixed to the airframe, and the prop attached to the crankshaft.  The whole engine does not rotate.

A "rotary" aircraft radial engine has the crankshaft attached to the airframe and the whole engine is connected to the propeller and the whole engine, with the prop, rotates.  In the beginning, this arrangement allowed for a lighter engine --that is, a better weight-to-power ratio.  At least, "back then."  Progressive engineering solutions for "regular" radial engines made this engine obsolete by the mid-thirties or so.  I am told that the original Gnome rotary engines were so precisely machined that one could crush a piston in one's hand.  These had to be overhauled frequently, and usually had no throttle.  

I do not think any of these engines were-self-starting, but had to have the prop turned by hand.  Once it got going, RPM was regulated by turning the ignition on and off.  This resulted in the stop-start phenomenon while maneuvering, giving the braap...pause... brapp sound typical of a lot of early airplanes.  I imagine, but do not know for sure, that if the "pause" was too long, the engine would stop rotating and you were screwed unless Superman flew out there in mid-air and gave it a spin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6xX0zSvp7w

A Mazda Wankel rotary engine is not a radial engine, but instead of pistons, has a central rotating displacement portion (rotor) which rotates, performing the functions of intake, compression, power, and exhaust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine

Don't feel bad about confusing the Wankel with the aircraft rotary engine.  They even say in that article: "The [Wankel] engine is commonly referred to as a rotary engine, although this name applies also to other completely different designs. "

Whew.

Terry

[RoadKingLarry]

What a bunch of wankels .

[230RN]

Sounds dirty without the umlaut.

[roo_ster]

Rotary vs radial.  Gotcha.  That said i think the plane with the cylinder poking out is a radial.  And the other is likely an inline of some sort.

[AJ Dual]

Damn Mynocks...

[Angel Eyes]