Harrison Ford PT-22 accident

Bob - forgive me if you covered it in your book (it's #3 in my queue of reading material), but what was the "trickiest" airplane you ever flew? I know you're said that you love Stearman's, but anything stick out as requiring the most concentration/foresight/care to keep in the air?
Kurt

 

The airplane that I couldn't wait to get back on the field was an 85hp Globe Swift, I think that was in 1946-1947. Two people on an 85 degree day in the summer in Florida. Terrible. On the best end would be the Stearman, of course, and the Aviat Husky.
Don't worry about the book, it isn't required reading and you won't be tested in the morning. I haven't had much feedback on it but so far it has gotten five star revues on Amazon.

 

Another poor airplane was the Rearwin 90, it felt too heavy, unresponsive and a bit clumsy, but, of course, it was pre-war old design. Another really nice airplane was the 230 Continental powered Cardboard Connie---the Bellanca 230 Cruise Master? In the early 60's I went up in a Temco Swift with a 145 Cont. and it was a different and much better airplane than the old 85 hp Globe.

 

Given he's ok here is a link to other similar photo mashups.. https://www.facebook.com/OfficialPilotsLounge/photos/ms.c.eJw9zsENwDAIQ9GNKgeCMfsvVoWSHp~;4liBVJYWbEbCH7VSpjBnXaMvHoe6txjsYUf737m3l2Kx73jtWW~;yc4vHCusbZ740x~_59UvJN~_JIQ~-.bps.a.433574480101775.1073741865.236827433109815/668998853226002/?type=1&theater

 

85hp.... that must have been a true test of speed/altitude management!
Got this photo from Wikipedia. At least it's got a GREAT looking gauge panel.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I agree.

Funny pik.




Beautiful airplane.

 

I have to agree with you that Ford made a nice approach and landing. After seeing an overhead shot you can see that he threaded the needle a bit going between two rows of trees and he did flare to make a good touch down. The soft turf allowed the main gear to dig in and I imagine, put the Ryan on its nose.

 

I suppose any off-airport landing you survive is a good one. It's a shame what happened to that plane. I think the Recruit is one of the best looking planes ever made; up there with the Spitfire, Beech D17, and of course the C-5 Galaxy.

I seem to recall reading that the radials in the PT-22 were known for icing up. Is it possible for an carb to ice up at high power settings, such as those you would expect after takeoff?

 

Busted pelvis, broken ankle. Any landing you can walk away from, or even limp, or ride a stretcher and talk, is a good landing

 

I think he did some great piloting. Best wishes for recovery.

 

We finished restoring my PT-22 about 3 years ago. It is one of the best flying airplanes I have ever flown. It does have it's bad points, among them is the stall characteristics and the fact that the engine out speed is as high or higher then the cruise speed.

From my limited experience in the type, it looks like the crash landing was a remarkable example of flying skill. It looks like he threaded the needle through the trees and managed to fly it through the crash as far as possible (sound advice from Bob Hoover).

I rebuilt mine over a 9 year period and whenever we needed parts it was easier to buy a recently wrecked PT-22 rather then search for the parts. I ended up buying 3 of them for the parts we needed. The attachment of the shoulder harness was actually the most difficult part of the rebuild. It was a big problem between the mounting of the brackets and the legality of how we wanted to do it. I can't say for certain but I seem to remember that it did not have shoulder harnesses in the airplane when it was built.

I knew the one he was flying very well as the person who built it helped me with the rebuilding of my aircraft. We used hundreds of pictures from his rebuild to guide us in all of the small questions that cropped up.

The PT-22 that he crashed was in much worse condition before it was rebuilt the first time. After the rebuild it won Grand Champion at Oshkosh in 1998.

It was described as the best PT-22 restoration ever accomplished. I took great effort to try to make mine better then this one but since I never had it judged I never knew if mine was actually better or not.

I did text the original builder today that I was fairly certain I had the best restored PT-22 now by default. Definitely glad he will be OK and the aircraft can be rebuilt if someone wants to put forth the effort.

 

Would be cool to see pics of yours Mike!

What are the most common causes of motor failure with these? Fuel, air, spark, or broken metal I assume.

My dad had both hips and one knee replaced after 70, so hopefully Ford will be rebuilt stronger, faster, better. And the plane of course.

Think I'd at least have some more modern seats/belts/roll bars installed before I flew one of these old timers. Shouldn't have to intrude on the experience much.

Wonder if he had a gopro with him... Probably be instructional.

 

After reading several posts about the PT-22 and others I got to thinking (I do that every once in a while) that when I was working at the airport they had PT-13, PT-17, PT-19, PT-22, PT-23, and PT-26 and I got to fly them all. I liked them all, all flew smoothly, but I never felt comfortable in the PT-22. I guess I'm not a hot rock fighter jock material. Flying one again in the 60's didn't change my feelings about it, especially when there were two engine failure incidents in others. A member of our flying community had a "His and Her" arrangement with his wife. He flew a white Ryan STA and she flew a white PT-22 and she did it beautifully. Never had a problem, so maybe I'm the oddball.

 

sounds like there are more crashed then flying,sad

 

Only because he is OK.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

When I was a kid growing up near Lantana airport in Fla, we had a lot of aircraft that came down for the winter, and in those days almost all were just parked on the ramp for a couple of months and you could walk the line and look at all manner of cool airplanes in the three big hangars and on the ramp too.

There was one Ryan that was converted to a single place closed cockpit setup. It was painted black (very rare in those days), with a red stripe down the fuselage and spats. The cockpit was very nicely upholstered and there was a plaque that called it a "Ryan Ranger", probably meaning it had a ranger engine in it. I remember thinking it was as cool looking as a Mustang, probably one of the most beautiful airplanes I think I've ever seen.

This was in the days when warbirds were just old airplanes, and probably by now someone has converted it back to a trainer with yellow wings, but man that was one cool looking airplane, it just had that "ramp presence" of a 1930's race plane.

 

Most of the engine failures that I know of where due to people trying to fly airplanes that were sitting for a long time. I remember one of them had last been overhauled in the mid 50's and had sat for over 10 years.
So most have been the neglect of maintenance.

 

I went for a flight in the Inland Empire's CAF restored pt-22 and I remember Doug telling me--" It takes off at 90, it flies at 90, -and it lands at 90." Great time over lake Elsinore with the wind in my face. They were built at SMO in the forties.

Here's Harrison with waitress Victoria at the Mojave Voyager Cafe in January. He was flying an Otter (?) that day. He is a spokesman for EAA young Eagles program.

Best wishes on a speedy recovery.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Ford owns a DH Beaver... (among other planes) that's probably what he was flying.

 

I may have posted this before. I live a few miles from Kenmore Air where most of the restored and rebuilt Beavers are done.I visit them quite often and I was examining a Beaver sitting on the ramp nearing completion. As I looked at it I was sure that the engine was new, not rebuilt. The jugs were spotless and sparkled in the sunshine. The prop was the same, brand new. i asked the mechanic about the jugs and he verified that they were all new and the prop too. I asked where in hell did they find brand new unused jugs for an R985 and he told me that the owner had searched for and found some still in cosmolene and in original boxes. He also demanded the latest in radio and nav equipment. The airplane was the epitome of perfection and expense. I asked the mechanic who in hell had enough money to do something like that. Without looking up he said, " Harrison Ford. Who else?"

 

The PT-22 is a nice flying airplane and if you treat it right, in other words fly it the way it was designed to be flown you won't get hurt. You can't get into one of these with a Stearman mentality, they are two different planes altogether, their only similarities are that they were both PT's. Juan, the reason for the sweep back of the wings wasn't an old wives tale, they were intentionally swept back to get cadets ready for characteristic of heavier, higher wing loaded trainers and then fighters. But like the Stearman they cruise at 105 mph and 14 gph.

They were originally designed without the sweep back and the Army Air Corps rejected it because it was too stable and didn't fit the purpose so Ryan Aeronautics swept the wings back and that gave it the flying and stall characteristics they had in mind.

It'll climb out fine with an R56 Kinner but it ain't no kind of powerhouse, you have to think well ahead of it doing maneuvers and such. If you get it slow and uncoordinated it'll snap roll right now! It will not snap when you least expect it as I've read countless times over the years, unless you are not paying attention to it or are unfamiliar with it's flight characteristics. And why in hell would anyone climb into one NOT knowing what to expect, that would be just foolish.

They can make ice as any carbureted engine can, some do so more than others. I never had it happen in a 22 but an old SR9 Gullwing Stinson Reliant I used to fly was bad about making ice with a 300hp Lycoming. Must have been the shape or location of the intake I reckon. A little carb heat yielded instantaneous correction. The Ryan can dip off on a wing if it stalls especially on take off if you try to haul it off the ground before it's really ready to fly, the wind need only shift and you can be in trouble.

I loved flying that plane and it has always been my favorite, flew it all around the state of Washington one summer with Glen Cawley and loved every minute I logged. I saw a short video clip of the Ford mishap as he was gliding behind the trees and it looked to me by the way he was sinking and the speed he was going that the engine was not making power. He made a good forced landing and because the cockpit is so small even with your shoulder straps tight, with a hard landing it is entirely possible to whack your forehead on the wind screen. Kinda looked to me like he may have forced it down out of the flare early to keep from running out of room to roll out before he hit something harder than the ground...

Coming over the numbers at 80 is what I have always done and just hold it off and 3 point it around 60 or so; those oleo gear soak up a lot of energy if need be. Hope he's at home with his feet up drinking a beer right now and looking for Ryan parts.

 

Thanks, Tim for the good information. I'm not a PT-22 expert but I have known and flown with plenty who are and your comments ring true. The purposely designed sweepback is what I had always heard and it is effective. To kill some of the effectiveness of the Stearman's stability, stall strips were added to the lower wing to get it to stall instead of hanging on for dear life. I flew a crop duster that had the strips removed and it floated forever in a landing. The PT-19 was designed to fly like a heavier airplane and it could stall on you if you abused airspeed and AOA but not like the Ryan. The BT-13 had an absolutely flat wing with no twist and an almost symmetrical airfoil and again, it was designed to fly like a heavy fighter at low speed or react to ham-handedness at any speed. Agreed, any pilot should know the personality of the airplane that he or she is about to fly. If they don't, they should play with it a bit when they get some altitude.

 

Washington (AFP) - A faulty carburetor was to blame for the California crash of a vintage World War II training aircraft piloted by "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" star Harrison Ford, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said Thursday.

Ford, 73, a seasoned private pilot, sustained injuries when the Ryan PT-22 trainer that he was flying solo lost power on takeoff from Santa Monica airport on March 5, prompting him to make an emergency landing on a nearby golf course.

In a statement of probable cause, the NTSB said the two-seat aircraft suffered "a total loss of engine power during initial climb when the carburetor main metering jet became unsealed, which led to an extremely rich fuel-to-air ratio."

"Contributing to the accident was the lack of adequate carburetor maintenance instructions" for the silver and yellow monoplane that was built in 1942 and restored during the 1990s, during which the carburetor was rebuilt.

The NTSB also pointed to the cockpit shoulder harness, saying its improper installation contributed to the severity of Ford's injuries, which were not life-threatening.

A longtime aviation enthusiast, Ford owns several aircraft and claims more than 5,200 hours in his log book. He is certified to fly land planes, seaplanes and helicopters, according to an earlier NTSB factual report on the accident.

Ford has bounced back from his injuries, appearing at the Comic-Con festival in San Diego, California last month to promote the forthcoming "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," due out this December.