Another 737 down

[perdue3]

You don’t know the meaning of the word ETERNITY until you try to fly one of those from the RGV of Texas up to Dallas during a Blue Norther.   

 

Faster than what I am used to.

[FLS]

I can think of a time when they were perfect and did not make a mistake, at the help of Lloyd Stearman no doubt.

(Image removed from quote.)

Boeing B-52 flying since 1952. Last one made in 1962... still in combat.

Whooooooshh right over your head.

What do you imagine I missed?

[Toad]

STA is very nice, great airplane  STM, the derivative PT-22, not so much. Has it’s own ground loop problem along with nasty spin characteristics. Abrupt and tight, like a drill bit after 3 turns. Not enough rudder to get it out after 5 turns. It is an exhilarating experience at just 3 turns  I speak from experience

[perdue3]

STA is very nice, great airplane  STM, the derivative PT-22, not so much. Has it’s own ground loop problem along with nasty spin characteristics. Abrupt and tight, like a drill bit after 3 turns. Not enough rudder to get it out after 5 turns. It is an exhilarating experience at just 3 turns  I speak from experience

STM is a military version of the STA, right? Both had Menasco's and same wing, and both are Ryan ST's. The A had the bigger Menasco, the B was one place, and the M was fitted for a machine gun? The PT-22, for the most part, was fitted with a Kinner. As you say, not as good. Are you referring to the Kinner powered PT-22's or Menasco powered PT-22's?

The Menasco PT-22's could not have been all that different from an STA. Maybe they had the supercharged 150?

[Toad]

Yeah I should be more specific. STM wasn’t tough enough for Military training  They quickly made changes and the -22 was the result. Not sure if wing NACA design changed that much other than additional sweep. Never researched any other wing changes

 “The Menasco power plant was quickly replaced with the more powerful and reliable Kinner radial engine. Gone too were the elegant wheel pants, which were found to hinder daily undercarriage inspections. Thicker alumi-clad skin, a heavier engine, and beefier landing gear all added weight. These modifications drastically changed the center of gravity, necessitating the wings be swept rearward four degrees in compensation. The resulting aircraft was indeed tougher, but the Ryan PT-22 now claimed a higher wing loading and in the process had developed a cadre of bad habits, giving it the narrowest margin of safety for any trainer of that era”

[Vraciu]

Faster than what I am used to.

What would that be, a J-3? 

[DmonSlyr]

Another singer pop star from Brazil dies in a plane crash. So many singers gone to plane crashes...who wants to count? This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. What are the odds?

[perdue3]

What would that be, a J-3? 

Luscombe 8E, no need to poke fun.

[perdue3]

Yeah I should be more specific. STM wasn’t tough enough for Military training  They quickly made changes and the -22 was the result. Not sure if wing NACA design changed that much other than additional sweep. Never researched any other wing changes

 “The Menasco power plant was quickly replaced with the more powerful and reliable Kinner radial engine. Gone too were the elegant wheel pants, which were found to hinder daily undercarriage inspections. Thicker alumi-clad skin, a heavier engine, and beefier landing gear all added weight. These modifications drastically changed the center of gravity, necessitating the wings be swept rearward four degrees in compensation. The resulting aircraft was indeed tougher, but the Ryan PT-22 now claimed a higher wing loading and in the process had developed a cadre of bad habits, giving it the narrowest margin of safety for any trainer of that era”

In all honesty, the Menasco was not a great engine. From a military perspective, it is quite obvious why the wheelpants and strut covers were removed. It is also quite reasonable to replace the engine. In my opinion, at that point why not find a more suitable aircraft? The PT-22 definitely was not the most popular trainer anyway. I just prefer the STA to the PT-19 is all 



Know what I mean?

[Toad]

The STA is an extremely beautiful airplane, no question. When I was looking they were $100K or more. Parts, either airframe or engine were rare and expensive. The Menasco doesn't have the reliability of a Ranger, not by a long shot; pretty important in very old single engine aircraft.

The PT-22 is the dead sexiest of the three major WW2 basic trainers IMO. When I was looking they were ~$65k and the Kinner Master Rod was the weakest point of the aircraft. Master Rods were damn hard to find if you could find one at all. I think somebody eventually had a very small number made. Not sure of the status now. Rest of the parts are kinda tough too. The other thing I found off-putting for me was that at my height, half my face was above the rear windscreen in flight. This means bugs would smack you in your face and head at 90 mph. Very tight cockpit for a 6' 2" guy too.

The PT-19 is without doubt the easiest of the 3 trainers to fly, land in high crosswinds and also maintain. I bought mine for $30k with about 180 hours after complete strip down to frame and restore. Parts for engine and airframe are still relatively available compared to the Ryans. The cockpit is very roomy, even for big folks. The windscreen protects your face. The view, compared to Stearman is unbelievably better but then so is the view from a Ryan.

So, if I were a multi-millionaire, I'd have an STA. Probably wouldn't fly it much though. The -19? A blast to fly and a workhorse. I flew mine a bunch. Worst situation I was in was probably the day I got caught by surprise rain/thunderstorms the weather liar had not predicted. Even then the worry was the rain stripping the varnish off the Sensenich prop. It handled a MAJOR crosswind on a grass strip without a bit of trouble. I was glad I wasn't in a Stearman that day!

[perdue3]

My first flight instructor got a chance to fly a PT-19 in Georgia, said it was probably best handling airplane he ever had a hold of. I used to have an R/C PT-19, but I got a little sick of the engine on it and sold it. Now, I have an R/C STA lol.

I know the PT-19 would be more efficient and less costly than a Stearman, but I don't know if I have ever dreamed about a PT-19. I certainly would prefer a Ranger to any Menasco. My uncle has a Fairchild 24R project that I am hoping will fly one day. The PT-22 is pretty, but the YPT-16 is far more sexy in my opinion. 

[Toad]

I have some time in a Fairchild 24 too. The guy that restored my PT-19 had one of those, along with a Ranger powered Great Lakes. We went flying in the 24. A very nice airplane. Even has roll up/down side windows like a car. Pretty easy to land.

My problem with a Stearman is the view just sucks. It's all wings, struts and wires. In a PT-19 or a PT-22 it's like being in a convertible with the top down. The "the long, delirious, burning blue" and "the wind-swept heights" are right there . Doing rolls and lazy 8s and loops with your vision unencumbered is just a superfine experience.

I love open cockpit and the more open the better. 

[Vraciu]

Luscombe 8E, no need to poke fun.

If I was poking fun at anything it was the speed of a Stearman.   Luscombes are perfectly fine airplanes.

[Vraciu]

The STA is an extremely beautiful airplane, no question. When I was looking they were $100K or more. Parts, either airframe or engine were rare and expensive. The Menasco doesn't have the reliability of a Ranger, not by a long shot; pretty important in very old single engine aircraft.

The PT-22 is the dead sexiest of the three major WW2 basic trainers IMO. When I was looking they were ~$65k and the Kinner Master Rod was the weakest point of the aircraft. Master Rods were damn hard to find if you could find one at all. I think somebody eventually had a very small number made. Not sure of the status now. Rest of the parts are kinda tough too. The other thing I found off-putting for me was that at my height, half my face was above the rear windscreen in flight. This means bugs would smack you in your face and head at 90 mph. Very tight cockpit for a 6' 2" guy too.

The PT-19 is without doubt the easiest of the 3 trainers to fly, land in high crosswinds and also maintain. I bought mine for $30k with about 180 hours after complete strip down to frame and restore. Parts for engine and airframe are still relatively available compared to the Ryans. The cockpit is very roomy, even for big folks. The windscreen protects your face. The view, compared to Stearman is unbelievably better but then so is the view from a Ryan.

So, if I were a multi-millionaire, I'd have an STA. Probably wouldn't fly it much though. The -19? A blast to fly and a workhorse. I flew mine a bunch. Worst situation I was in was probably the day I got caught by surprise rain/thunderstorms the weather liar had not predicted. Even then the worry was the rain stripping the varnish off the Sensenich prop. It handled a MAJOR crosswind on a grass strip without a bit of trouble. I was glad I wasn't in a Stearman that day!

Man, I dunno.  I always found the -22 to be hideous.   Liked the -26 so much more.

[Busher]

Luscombe 8E, no need to poke fun.

I got quite a bit of time in an 8F when I was a kid (50+ years ago). Could you enlighten me (read remind an old man) how the 8E and 8F differ?