Harry Ford isn't a moron after all (PT-22 crash)

[Colonel]

Never mind.  Nothing to learn here, move along.



I'm just the only guy in North America that's
qualified to fly low-altitude aerobatics at
airshows in the PT-22.

Mine doesn't crash like Harry Ford's, so what
the fuck would I know?

It's important to make an effort to not learn
from the mistakes of others.  Got that.

[Colonel]

[quote]shoddy shoulder harness installation[/quote]

More common than you might think.  The
very expensive Cornell that was crashed
near here (mixture reversed) had the same
thing happen.  Pilot's heads went into the
dashboards during impact after the shoulder
harnesses failed.

Hell, I saw a show on TV where those doggie
car seatbelts were defective.  Every single
one of them broke during testing.

I fear that the basic engineering is lacking,
sometimes.  And adequate testing is not
there, either.

Remember when Al Haynes had a bad day,
because of an uncontained failure that
severed ALL THREE hydraulic system lines
that were run side-by-side?

Remember when an FAA ATC IFR center in
Illinois had a power failure, and the backup
generator wouldn't start?

As an engineer and pilot, I am deeply cynical
and am amazed when anything actually works.

An AME, on the other hand, will cling to his paperwork
and state that the maintenance manual, assembled
by engineers with the "help" of lawyers, can never
have any errors or omissions.

Uh huh.  Want me to scan in the Maule maintenance
manual?  Despite that, they do not fall out of the sky
on a regular basis.  Here's the Maule maintenance
manual:

[img]http://d2dslulmm3ln9j.cloudfront.net/as ... 3-1b2b.jpg[/img]

Especially with older stuff, it is naive to the point of
laughable to assume that the maintenance documentation
is going to be anywhere near the spoon-fed pablum that
Boeing and Airbus put out, that young AME's expect.


[quote]the resto shop did a crappy job putting her together[/quote]

Exactly the same problem with Whirlwind
props.  Approved prop shops not overhauling
them correctly, and they came apart in flight.
Not pretty.  Has happened more than once.

[Colonel]

[quote]wonder if one can ascribe some blame to the pilot[/quote]

That's a bit of a reach.  If his PT-22 had
actually flown regularly (even averaging
just 5 hrs per year) in the last 17 years,
the following would apply:

[img]http://reliabilityweb.com/ee-assets/my- ... RP_210.jpg[/img]

The "bathtub" curve tells us that he was
out of the infant mortality phase - if the
aircraft had been flown at all in the last
17 years.

I know the Kinner on the PT-22 does not
like to sit - the exhaust valves stick, probably
from the combination of abuse from a diet of
100LL, and from lack of use.

If Harry Ford's engine would actually run,
it must have had some hours on it in the
last 17 years - enough to stop the exhaust
valves from sticking, and it take it out of
the infant mortality.

Note that radial engines can be extremely
unreliable after overhaul, with a pronounced
bump on the curve for infant mortality.  Doesn't
matter who overhauls it, don't be surprised
if it lets go after a fresh overhaul.  You really
hold your breath, those first few hours.

[Colonel]

[quote]curiosity, are the carb jets on this engine something that one would typically look at during an annual[/quote]

Not to my knowledge.

[Strega]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Holley-419-Carb ... 7675.l2557... its not rocket appliances ricky...

I bet if the guy in the us that rebuilt it was an "engineer" like in Canuckistan,, he would have done it correctly  ;D


FYI almost every time we get the 340 back from the shop... something new is broken...