|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> The Cafe >> B-17G crash /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1570075984 Message started by Eegore on 10/02/19 at 21:13:04 |
|
Title: B-17G crash Post by Eegore on 10/02/19 at 21:13:04 One of the few remaining B-17's Nine-O-Nine went down today. I am a member of the Collings Foundation group, I might have even posted about it before here. I have been on Nine-O-Nine multiple times, it is an amazing experience. Unfortunately the aircraft was manned with a full passenger load and 3 crew. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/10/02/world-war-ii-era-b-17-bomber-crashes-in-fireball/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/vintage-b-17-plane-crashes-erupts-flames-bradley-international-airport-n1061161 https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/us/connecticut-plane-crash-trnd/index.html |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by norm92de on 10/02/19 at 21:36:28 Eegore, I am surprised that the aircraft was unable to gain altitude. It should have been able to climb easily on 3. Perhaps the pilot was unable to feather the failed engine. So sad! |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by raydawg on 10/03/19 at 09:19:35 I would imagine these old gals are just slow to respond to the controls, and over-controlling is easily done. If you go and look at some of the old vintage videos of WW2, you can see where some of them crashed upon landing, after having suffered damage to components and systems in battle. We have some old aircraft up here, they are a thing to behold, considering the process that went into building them. When I retired, I was given a book, with all the aircraft, and the pioneers who built them, William E. Boeing, James S. McDonnel, James H. Kindelberger, Donald W. Douglas, Howard R. Hughes Jr. Pretty special stuff..... Sorry for your lost Egore. |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by verslagen1 on 10/03/19 at 09:36:40 2E2F322D79722425400 wrote:
You'd expect that in combat trim being able to take of with 9 or so, 2000 lbs of bombs and however much more in bullets that not having to carry that would be much easier in civilian life, but having a full load of passengers and all the amenities that required nowadays... a full load is just that and loss of an engine means returning with a full load of gas, not something they want to do. Sad that this happened in both a historical sense and its cost in human life. |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by norm92de on 10/04/19 at 16:11:46 That aircraft since it was on a local sightseeing flight would have been very light. Fuel for maybe 2hrs. No bombs, 4500lbs. No ammunition for the multiple 50 caliber guns. No 50 caliber guns. And no fuel to go from England to Berlin and back. The people on board represented a very small load. I cannot understand that it could not climb even with an engine out. The NTSB will get to the bottom of it but there will be a reason that it didn't climb. Possibly misfueling? :'( |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/04/19 at 16:28:06 Add up the start up, look stuff over, get clearance to taxi, run them up, check magnetos, and then dump fuel through those engines to get airborne,, yeah, some idiot probably got the wrong fuel in it. |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by Eegore on 10/05/19 at 08:14:16 The NTSB already checked the fuel and the FAA confirmed it was appropriate, its in the press release. Wouldn't the wrong fuel effect all engines and not just one? Typically you can smell the difference, especially in that open-air plane. |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by raydawg on 10/05/19 at 08:33:33 Eegore...she was returning back to the airfield, right....? The article reports 5 minutes of flight time, yes, she crashed at her departure airport, yes? |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by Eegore on 10/05/19 at 08:40:17 Yes it was the departure airport. They called in trouble with an engine and attempted to land. |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by norm92de on 10/05/19 at 10:52:48 If the NTSB has determined that the proper fuel was loaded. That is one thing less to be investigated. Very puzzling that the aircraft couldn't climb. Properly loaded even a two engine aircraft can climb on one engine. Talking about transport category aircraft only of course. Light aircraft are less able to perform but if the crew does the proper calculations before take off even they can climb on one. |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by raydawg on 10/05/19 at 12:23:17 I don't think climbing was the issue.... He knew he had a big enough problem to abort his flight, and had elevation to return safely, it was upon landing it seems that control was lost....yes? Did he come up short? Am I missing something? |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by verslagen1 on 10/05/19 at 12:32:20 Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by norm92de on 10/05/19 at 17:53:12 The question is why. The captain had reportedly 7000 hours in that type of aircraft, which is an enormous number. I flew for almost 50 years and can't even come close to that number in any single type. However, after takeoff pilots always go for altitude unless something prevents it. Altitude represents safety, in other words- options. Hitting the approach equipment was certainly not intended. My guess is that the crew were struggling to maintain altitude and failed. The big question is why. :'( |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by verslagen1 on 10/05/19 at 18:07:14 an overview with the flight path will probably tell us why. |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by Eegore on 10/06/19 at 14:31:03 One thing bout these planes if you have never seen them operate is they crawl out of the sky in comparison to modern aircraft. The airspeed I assume was rather low limiting options even further. Comments always heard in the observing crowd is how they look like they are moving in slow motion, or shouldn't be able to lift an aircraft that size at that speed etc. Its not known yet how much impacting the instrument system posts took part in the overall outcome but eventually the NTSB may figure it out. |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by raydawg on 10/06/19 at 14:53:13 I have seen many of these old gals fly, from when I was working outside AOG..... The word I think of, is they lumber lumber verb (1) lum·[ch8203]ber | \ [ch712]l[ch601]m-b[ch601]r \ lumbered; lumbering\ [ch712]l[ch601]m-[ch8203]b([ch601]-[ch8203])ri[ch331] \ Definition of lumber (Entry 1 of 3) intransitive verb 1: to move ponderously an elephant lumbering along the road The economy continues to lumber along. 2: RUMBLE lumbering machines They are not aerodynamically designed by today standards. I will still stay with my first guess, the pilot decided to abort, had elevation to return, and maybe clipped the equipment with his LG, which caused him to veer out of control once down. I surely don't know, but it appears the pilot had the craft under control, and was about to make a successful abort. I can also imagine him having so many things on his mind, demanding his attention, that it could be easy to miss that obstacle..... Trying to get her down with max runway to brake on, etc. |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by Eegore on 03/26/20 at 12:16:08 FAA stopped the Collings Foundation passenger flights. https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-rejects-collings-foundation-request-to-carry-passengers/ https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/march/26/faa-rejects-collings-foundation-petition |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by Eegore on 02/03/22 at 12:24:59 NTSB Final report. https://cdn.planeandpilotmag.com/2021/04/Report_ERA20MA001_100356_4_14_2021-1_00_18-PM.pdf "The pilot’s failure to properly manage the airplane’s configuration and airspeed after he shut down the No. 4 engine following its partial loss of power during the initial climb. Contributing to the accident was the pilot/maintenance director’s inadequate maintenance while the airplane was on tour, which resulted in the partial loss of power to the Nos. 3 and 4 engines; the Collings Foundation’s ineffective safety management system (SMS), which failed to identify and mitigate safety risks; and the Federal Aviation Administration’s inadequate oversight of the Collings Foundation’s SMS." Basically they didn't maintain the engines to spec, and Mac lowered the landing gear too early creating too much drag were the immediate causes. Lack of appropriate oversight and safety procedures was the catalyst. Personally I don't think a crew pilot should ever be in charge of maintenance and safety. They should collaborate, but there needs to be another set of eyes on all those mechanisms. |
|
Title: Re: B-17G crash Post by LANCER on 02/03/22 at 13:12:33 When you want to go drive something in the sky you WANT as many eyes as possible on every mechanism upon which your life depends. Then you Pray For Safety before you hop in. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |