Author Topic: Harrison Ford Crashes Ryan PT-22 on Golf Course (Read 4278 times)

Jocassee · « **on:** March 05, 2015, 11:00:46 PM »

Aviation buffs, it's OK to shed a few tears. The man is OK, airplane not so much.

article:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/03/05/small-plane-crashes-onto-venice-golf-course/

plane:
http://i.imgur.com/Ody5dIX.jpg

Doggy Daddy · « **Reply #1 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:07:07 PM »

Might wanna double check that first link.

You owe me dinner now. I'll take bacon with a side of bacon.

Doggy Daddy · « **Reply #2 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:07:50 PM »

Quote from: Jocassee on March 05, 2015, 11:00:46 PM

Aviation buffs, it's OK to shed a few tears. The man is OK, airplane not so much.

article:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/03/against-meals-breakfast-lunch-dinner

plane:
http://i.imgur.com/Ody5dIX.jpg

added to preserve the evidence.

41magsnub · « **Reply #3 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:08:09 PM »

Quote from: Jocassee on March 05, 2015, 11:00:46 PM

Aviation buffs, it's OK to shed a few tears. The man is OK, airplane not so much.

article:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/03/against-meals-breakfast-lunch-dinner

plane:
http://i.imgur.com/Ody5dIX.jpg

Did he skip a few meals, then crash the plane?

Scout26 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:17:52 PM »

Looks like he didn't repair his divots....

41magsnub · « **Reply #5 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:23:39 PM »

Fly, yes. Land, no.

Jocassee · « **Reply #6 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:24:31 PM »

Ha! Fixed it...sorry to foist Mother Jones on you

Doggy Daddy · « **Reply #7 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:33:50 PM »

Quote from: Jocassee on March 05, 2015, 11:24:31 PM

Ha! Fixed it...sorry to foist Mother Jones on you

Spoilsport.

Jocassee · « **Reply #8 on:** March 05, 2015, 11:35:26 PM »

Quote from: Doggy Daddy on March 05, 2015, 11:33:50 PM

Spoilsport.

I just figured, why postpone the thread drift. Why not start the drift in the OP?

Doggy Daddy · « **Reply #9 on:** March 06, 2015, 12:07:48 AM »

Quote from: Jocassee on March 05, 2015, 11:35:26 PM

I just figured, why postpone the thread drift. Why not start the drift in the OP?

Genius!

Keep your bacon.

I am not worthy.

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #10 on:** March 06, 2015, 12:22:32 AM »

Close one. If he'd skragged himself that could have screwed up the Bladerunner sequel.

vaskidmark · « **Reply #11 on:** March 06, 2015, 12:38:46 AM »

Didn't bother reading anything. Too busy wracking my brain trying to remember if this was the same brand of plane we discuussed earlier that came with the built-in parachute.

Yes? No?

stay safe.

Jocassee · « **Reply #12 on:** March 06, 2015, 12:52:57 AM »

Quote from: vaskidmark on March 06, 2015, 12:38:46 AM

Didn't bother reading anything. Too busy wracking my brain trying to remember if this was the same brand of plane we discuussed earlier that came with the built-in parachute.

Yes? No?

stay safe.

80 year old airframe (the plane, not the pilot) so I'm going with "no."

I actually saw a PT-22 in flight once when I was a kid. Even though it was a couple thousand feet up it was very distinctive. A very beautiful aircraft.

230RN · « **Reply #13 on:** March 06, 2015, 01:19:15 AM »

Glad the outlook on Ford is improving.

That's one pretty little plane. Love the engine cowling.

Is that a rotary engine on that plane? This pic looks like it's not...

http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/PT-22-aerial-01-comp.jpg

But this one looks like it is:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Ryan_PT-22_Recruit_N46502_OTT_2013_02.jpg

I thought they quit building rotaries in the twenties to mid-thirties.

The wiki article on it says the regular engine ran rough, but was reliable and the fuel was fed to it by gravity... interesting in light of Ford calling in an engine failure.

Terry

41magsnub · « **Reply #14 on:** March 06, 2015, 10:07:30 AM »

Quote from: Jocassee on March 06, 2015, 12:52:57 AM

80 year old airframe (the plane, not the pilot) so I'm going with "no."

The pilot is approaching 80...

brimic · « **Reply #15 on:** March 06, 2015, 10:24:57 AM »

heard about that yesterday on the way home from work. My first thought was did he have the Indiana Jones score playing as he was crashing?

KD5NRH · « **Reply #16 on:** March 06, 2015, 10:31:50 AM »

Quote from: 230RN on March 06, 2015, 01:19:15 AM

The wiki article on it says the regular engine ran rough, but was reliable and the fuel was fed to it by gravity... interesting in light of Ford calling in an engine failure.

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.

From the looks of it, he came pretty close to making an ideal emergency landing, but I'm guessing either hitting the tree on approach or finding a soft spot in the ground ended him up standing it on the nose at some point.

freakazoid · « **Reply #17 on:** March 06, 2015, 12:05:54 PM »

Quote from: 230RN on March 06, 2015, 01:19:15 AM

Glad the outlook on Ford is improving.

That's one pretty little plane. Love the engine cowling.

Is that a rotary engine on that plane? This pic looks like it's not...

http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/PT-22-aerial-01-comp.jpg

But this one looks like it is:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Ryan_PT-22_Recruit_N46502_OTT_2013_02.jpg

I thought they quit building rotaries in the twenties to mid-thirties.

The wiki article on it says the regular engine ran rough, but was reliable and the fuel was fed to it by gravity... interesting in light of Ford calling in an engine failure.

Terry

Pretty.
Also, I think you got the links switched.

roo_ster · « **Reply #18 on:** March 06, 2015, 12:33:02 PM »

Quote from: 230RN on March 06, 2015, 01:19:15 AM

Glad the outlook on Ford is improving.

That's one pretty little plane. Love the engine cowling.

Is that a rotary engine on that plane? This pic looks like it's not...

http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/PT-22-aerial-01-comp.jpg

But this one looks like it is:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Ryan_PT-22_Recruit_N46502_OTT_2013_02.jpg

I thought they quit building rotaries in the twenties to mid-thirties.

The wiki article on it says the regular engine ran rough, but was reliable and the fuel was fed to it by gravity... interesting in light of Ford calling in an engine failure.

Terry

Air cooled rotary airplane motors were used through WWII, IIRC.

Guy at the renegade RC plane field scratch-built one with balsa, ply, and covering. 6' WS. Beautiful. He built it scale, so it did not fly as well as it could have, but it sure was pretty flying by.

230RN · « **Reply #19 on:** March 06, 2015, 12:36:48 PM »

"Also, I think you got the links switched."

No, the first one, in the air, you can clearly see the cylinders while the prop is blurred. In the second one, if you zoom in on the nose, the cylinders are blurred and look like they're turning with the prop.

"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? And yeah, any number of things could have caused it. The net's a little thin on the engine. but I was a little rushed in my lookups:

"Powerplant: 1 Ã— Kinner R-540, 160 hp (120 kW)"

But there were variations on the engine with the different plane models.

This is sorta like us analyzing an ND, but curiosity dictates discussion and speculation. I guess I ought to wait until the FAA releases the info.

Terry, groundlubber, but fascinated with aviation, 230RN

REF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_PT-22_Recruit

ETA Good info on the rotaries, RC, thanks. Posted right after/during your post.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 06, 2015, 01:03:03 PM »

I find it amazing that he was first attended to by doctors that happened to be playing on the golf course. Who would have thought to find doctors at a golf course.

230RN · « **Reply #21 on:** March 06, 2015, 01:05:45 PM »

Ford on his passion for flying:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/harrison-ford-passion-flying-29434747

It seemed a little slow loading; I guess everyone's looking at it.

This is an older one in the cockpit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsgiEubacT0

Terry "I share his passion, but not his semicircular canals," 230RN

RocketMan · « **Reply #22 on:** March 06, 2015, 01:06:31 PM »

Quote from: roo_ster on March 06, 2015, 12:33:02 PM

Air cooled rotary airplane motors were used through WWII, IIRC.

Air cooled radial airplane motors were used through WWII. Rotary motors, not so much. A rotary motor looks outwardly similar to a radial engine, but is much different in actuality. Shortly after WWI rotary motors were considered obsolete and radial engine technology became dominant.
Rotary motors had a several major drawbacks, especially in aviation applications where they saw the most use. Among others, they use very inefficient 'total loss' oiling system, and the mass of the entire motor rotating around its fixed crankshaft caused serious stability problems a lot of the aircraft that they powered.

freakazoid · « **Reply #23 on:** March 06, 2015, 01:16:48 PM »

Quote from: 230RN on March 06, 2015, 12:36:48 PM

"Also, I think you got the links switched."

No, the first one, in the air, you can clearly see the cylinders while the prop is blurred. In the second one, if you zoom in on the nose, the cylinders are blurred and look like they're turning with the prop.

You said this about the first link.

Quote

Is that a rotary engine on that plane? This pic looks like it's not...

You can see the cylinders because it is a rotary engine?

Edit -

Quote from: RocketMan on March 06, 2015, 01:06:31 PM

Air cooled radial airplane motors were used through WWII. Rotary motors, not so much. A rotary motor looks outwardly similar to a radial engine, but is much different in actuality. Shortly after WWI rotary motors were considered obsolete and radial engine technology became dominant.
Rotary motors had a several major drawbacks, especially in aviation applications where they saw the most use. Among others, they use very inefficient 'total loss' oiling system, and the mass of the entire motor rotating around its fixed crankshaft caused serious stability problems a lot of the aircraft that they powered.

Aha, I think this is where I am getting confused. I was thinking radial, when you was saying rotary.

230RN · « **Reply #24 on:** March 06, 2015, 01:17:47 PM »

^ 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?

News:

Author Topic: Harrison Ford Crashes Ryan PT-22 on Golf Course (Read 4278 times)