Talk:Ryan PT-22 Recruit

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

PT-11 Recruit

I've seen references to a plane named PT-11 Recruit. Is this a misprint or a real aircraft? Drutt 22:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a perfect answer but my reference books do not show that the Consolidated PT-11 had a given name. It was an early 1930s biplane trainer. MilborneOne 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved

I have moved this page to bring its name into alignment with the convention used on other USAAF/USAAC/USAF pages.NiD.29 (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger?

Now I am wondering if maybe this page and the page for the Ryan ST should be merged? It isn't like either page is overly long, and the PT-22 was just one version of the ST used for training.NiD.29 (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question! I think the key question is does it make sense to keep them separate? - Ahunt (talk) 11:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of them vary much specification-wise - the engine (inline vs radial) was the only real difference. I'll leave it up to you since you're doing all the work but it seems to me they should merged. Certainly I've seen other aircraft pages that had more differences (Stinson Reliant for instance) loaded onto one page than they would be if they were. The Ryan ST page even has a section for the PT-22 already.NiD.29 (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do seem to have enough text for two article right now, so it is debatable either way. I am kind of on the fence myself, so let's see what other editors have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK - sounds good to me.NiD.29 (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

The "Profile" has a lot more information, but I think the main materials are interesting not only technically, but because they give the very shiny fuselage and duller wings. My Lotus Seven, for example, cannot attain such a shine, because its surface is hard aluminum alloy. Alclad has pure (soft) aluminum surfaces that can be shined to a mirror finish and does not corrode quickly. David R. Ingham (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is typical for US aircraft (Alclad) vs UK aircraft (Birmabright, an aluminium-magnesium alloy). UK aircraft were never as popularly polished as US aircraft were – it's not just the weather that's the reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Ford

Should we add the 5 March 2015 crash of Harrison Ford with his ST3 KR ? [1] --Stone (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, as it does not meet the inclusion criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]