Ryan PT-22 First Flight

I’m going to check with Bob Williams on the flap question. As far as I know he’s never had any trouble with them (this is his 3rd PT-22). In particular I’m going to ask about the flap ratchet construction.

As a general rule we in the Colonies tend to introduce flap a “notch at a time”, which helps to sort out if there’s a problem with asymetrical flap extension. I would tend to subscribe to the camp that if you have flaps it is better to deploy them than to not.

The L-39 has had a similiar problem with asymetrical flaps, which has led to the extension of T/O flaps on downwind followed by full flaps on final, instead of the more common practice of dumping all the flaps as you roll off the perch.

That’s great, thanks for the answer.
Like you said, the flaps don’t do a heck of a lot so “if ya don’t use ’em, they don’t break” philosophy would apply.

I’m going to try and contact an owner of a PT down here in NZ and see if I can score a ride in one. Always loved these aircraft and it would just be awesome if I can pull it off.

Cheers
TNZ

The trouble is that the Ryan PT22 is a certificated aeroplane in the States with a Standard category certificate of airworthiness as opposed to the experimental category. As such the holder of the type certificate, whoever that now is, needs to approve the modification change of material through an STC modification approved by the FAA. It is easier if the aeroplane is on a UK PFA administered permit to fly as is Hairyplanes example but the change still needs engineering approval to be done.
Hope this helps explain the situation.
Cheers,
Trapper 69

The problem with the flap as I was told by Bob was that the ratchet wheel was brass working against steel and it wore out fairly quickly so to avoid problems we flew it flapless and saved flap for any possible forced landing. Though I do agree the type glides like a toilet block constructed of granite blocks anyway.

Could that ratchet wheel be remanufactured in a more resilient material, or is it not worth the bother ?

TNZ

What a lovely resoration. A real credit to all concerned.
I have flown four out of the five PT22 in the UK – all while flying with either Bob Mitchell’s collection or as part of “PT Flight” which was his brainchild. Great aeroplanes all of them but the PT22 was the real sports car of the trainers. Have a couple of hair raising stories but not for now.
The problem with the flap as I was told by Bob was that the ratchet wheel was brass working against steel and it wore out fairly quickly so to avoid problems we flew it flapless and saved flap for any possible forced landing. Though I do agree the type glides like a toilet block constructed of granite blocks anyway.
I well remember Bob’s, then, partner the late Hilary Mitchell giving some really graceful solo aerobatic displays in the first example in his collection. Happy days.
Cheers,
Trapper 69

I believe the Dutch had some of the in-line engine model (STM) on floats.
I don’t know if any were in the East Indies.

You’re right, the Dutch used the STM model. Apparently when the Jpanaese overrun the East Indies they got destroyed but 34 did manage to escape to Australia and were used by the RAAF.

Too often these pilots are overlooked as they did a sterling job just trying to get the aircraft out of the country and not get killed.
Okay, the aircraft aren’t as glamorous as a Spitfire or Mustang but they were equally as important to the war effort, IMO.

TNZ

Wasn’t there a recorded case where a PT-22 was in battle with a Zero, I think it eventually got shot down but made life difficult for the jap pilot.

I believe the Dutch had some of the in-line engine model (STM) on floats.
I don’t know if any were in the East Indies.

Wasn’t there a recorded case where a PT-22 was in battle with a Zero, I think it eventually got shot down but made life difficult for the jap pilot.

Great Plane

Anyone know how many are flyable in the US?

Years ago I remember seeing something in Flying Magazine that hinted that they were a bit of a handfull on the ground and a lot had been damaged in ground loops. Any truth to that?

It will always be a favorite of mine because my dad did his primary training in one fefore moving up to Flying Fortresses in the 15th AF. 🙂

Ah, if only we had your lovely grass airstrip to fly from here in Midwest America…

The use of flaps on the PT-22 is due to the fact that we tend to do wheel landings, and lowering the flaps helps with getting the nose down for the proper deck angle. This is especially nice in a cross wind on our narrow (40 ft wide) runway. On rollout the flaps are retracted and the tail settles nicely. By lowering them a click at a time you can get a feel for their operation. They probably don’t help a great deal, but we do use them.

As for engine failures in the PT-22, well, I was advised that if you lost the engine, lower the nose and see what was directly in front of you…cause that’s where you’re going to land.

I remember seeing one display at Halfpenny Green in the early 80s – any idea which machine this would have been? One of the Cosford “hangar queens” referred to above?

Great, thanks for the reply HP !!!!!

Very informative !! I just love these PT22’s to bits.
I’ve been told that the Menasco powered STM (I think that’s right ??) is quite cantankerous compared to it’s radial engined cousin.
The engine is a handful apparently.

Any thoughts ?

Cheers
TNZ

Operating a PT22

My guess is that the operating costs of a PT22 versus a Harvard are but a fraction.

The 22 does indeed burn approximately 10 Imp gallons per hour. I run it on 80/87 though which is a bit of an ouch at £7 per gallon.

My aircraft is well sorted – new wires etc. etc. and is a real sweety so, touch wood, I havent had any big bills yet.

The engine is described as a ‘boat anchor’ in the Airbum report and with some justification I reckon – a really solid piece of engineering.

My engine is the later one with self-oiling rockers so not bother on that score.

The regular gotcha with a radial is of course hydraulic damage to the lower cyllinder(s) that can occur with the inevitable oil seepage. No problem on the Ryan – there is an oil tap below the oil tank. Turn it on immediately before flight (if you forget, you won’t get to the hold…!) and then off immediately afterwards. A clean start every time.

Advice here – Do what we do and hang a substantial flag on the oil tap. Leave the flap open and the flag streaming for all to see. In this way you will never forget the oil tap.

Mine has a non-standard(?) Kigass Primer and this is a real bonus. Speaking to the guy at Breighton, his doesn’t have one and his starts seem to be a much more protracted affair, especially when hot.

The other non-standard feature that I suspect most Ryans now have is C150 wheels and hydraulic brakes. Mine are just superb and trouble-free, unlike the earlier drums.

Flaps – An unnecessary risk as AB has pointed out. Forget them. My guess is that they were fitted just for the training and actually do very little.

My final strong advice for any PT22 pilot is to practice engine failures and learn how limited your options are – it really does glide like a block of flats. Carb heat is very important too – the Kinner is an ice-maker.

I can’t wait to fly it again. The best bang for my bucks so far!

HP

It’s nice to see another PT-22 in the air – congratulations all round – what a pretty aeroplane it is!!!.

A question: I notice from the pics that the flaps were used for landing. When Hairyplane picked up his PT-22 the previous owner advised against using the flaps in flight. A failure of the ratchet can cause one side to retract leaving the aircraft in an uncontrollable roll – the reason for many crashes, apparently. The flaps make little difference to the landing distance, so there’s no need to use ’em. Certainly, we haven’t used the flaps on Hairy’s PT and we’ve had no sig probs with landing wrt aircraft handling or landing distance. Any thoughts from PT owners/drivers, or anybody else?

A

Oooo. Robbo. Look at da wing! Eees gotta gun, and sickbags – and he’s ready to use or have em used.

Here’s a nice up close piccy of the Kinner in all it’s glory…

Thanks for the info.

I couldn’t imagine the rocker box lubrication being particularily difficult as they’re easy to get at what with the barrels and heads stuck out uncowled.

A great aircraft, one I would definitely like to own one day.

Are the PT-22’s costly to run ?
ie maintenance after flights etc, relative to , say, a T-6 ?

Well, everything’s relative. The T-6 burns about 25 Gallons Per Hour. We’ll get Peter to tell us exactly, but my guess would be around 10 GPH for the Kinner in the PT-22.

As for maintenance, they’re both pretty good if they’re well sorted to begin with. One of the models of Kinner requires lubrication of the rocker boxes every 5 hours or so. I believe this is on the R-55. Again, I will defer to Peter or anyone else with more practical experience than me.

The thing I like most about the T-6 is that it’s always ready to fly. When I owned the T-28 it was 10 hours maintenance for every flight hour (plus another hour to clean). The T-6 just goes and goes and goes.

At the risk of offending Tiger Moth enthusiasts or Stearman fans, I think the PT-22 is probably the best looking primary trainer of the war years.*
Its tightly cowled engine case and wheel pants really evoke the style of the 30s.

* The Tiger Moth, though attractive, is more like a 1920s design…no wonder considering its lineage…and the Stearman is good looking,very purposeful, but lacks the “art deco” style.

I couldn’t agree with you more !!

PT-22

At the risk of offending Tiger Moth enthusiasts or Stearman fans, I think the PT-22 is probably the best looking primary trainer of the war years.*
Its tightly cowled engine case and wheel pants (on its civil version) really evoke the style of the 30s.

* The Tiger Moth, though attractive, is more like a 1920s design…no wonder considering its lineage…and the Stearman is good looking,very purposeful, but lacks the “art deco” style.