BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford

[Vraciu]

Still can’t believe there is no video.

How’s the FE doing?   He may be the key to unraveling this one. 

I don’t think they have any solid decision on what No. 3 propeller was doing yet. 

[Vraciu]

A close friend with years of C130 experience commented to me that a Herc will fly on one engine with 3 feathered, but it won't fly on 3 engines if the prop on one failed engine isn't or can't be feathered. With the lack of CVR and FDR information, I hope videos surface to help the NTSB.

This comment remains extremely relevant.     If No. 4 was feathered and No. 3 had some other issue taking it to a bad prop position...

[Mister Fork]

This comment remains extremely relevant.     If No. 4 was feathered and No. 3 had some other issue taking it to a bad prop position...

Valid point on the engine if it couldn't be feathered - it's hard to speculate what caused the issue - engine 4 with 800+ hours or engine with 0 hours before overhaul. And if indeed the 4 or 3 couldn't be feathered (or both) then it was just a math game then.

I suspect the throttle quad was burnt/melted beyond any post-crash inspection possibilities. But I could be wrong and they just have a charred/burnt cockpit.

I'm with Vraciu - the FE will definitely tell the story on this for us as long as he can remember what happened.

Another point, even with 36'000 hours of flying, there isn't much info on how many hours in the B-17 both had. If we're talking just a couple hundred, then we're dealing with an inexperienced in-type crew are we not?

[Vraciu]

Valid point on the engine if it couldn't be feathered - it's hard to speculate what caused the issue - engine 4 with 800+ hours or engine with 0 hours before overhaul. And if indeed the 4 or 3 couldn't be feathered (or both) then it was just a math game then.

I suspect the throttle quad was burnt/melted beyond any post-crash inspection possibilities. But I could be wrong and they just have a charred/burnt cockpit.

I'm with Vraciu - the FE will definitely tell the story on this for us as long as he can remember what happened.

Another point, even with 36'000 hours of flying, there isn't much info on how many hours in the B-17 both had. If we're talking just a couple hundred, then we're dealing with an inexperienced in-type crew are we not?

Well, they’re probably more experienced than the average crew that flew them in WWII, both in and out of type, BUT..........    A whole lot of hours spread out over a long period of time isn’t the same as a smaller amount in concentrated form, for good or bad, and an 18-year old has advantages in the physical department a 71- or 75-year old doesn’t.   

Guess we will see. 

Also, these engines are not run hard.    They can go a couple thousand hours without a major overhaul in theory.   

[Puma44]

Valid point on the engine if it couldn't be feathered - it's hard to speculate what caused the issue - engine 4 with 800+ hours or engine with 0 hours before overhaul. And if indeed the 4 or 3 couldn't be feathered (or both) then it was just a math game then.

I suspect the throttle quad was burnt/melted beyond any post-crash inspection possibilities. But I could be wrong and they just have a charred/burnt cockpit.

I'm with Vraciu - the FE will definitely tell the story on this for us as long as he can remember what happened.

Another point, even with 36'000 hours of flying, there isn't much info on how many hours in the B-17 both had. If we're talking just a couple hundred, then we're dealing with an inexperienced in-type crew are we not?

The PIC reportedly had 7300 hours in B-17s, the highest amount ever.  Haven’t seen a number of B-17 hours for the SIC, but he was ATP rated and had type ratings in several airliners.  So, no lack of experience between the two.  Question remains, what went so terribly wrong so fast?

[Mister Fork]

The PIC reportedly had 7300 hours in B-17s, the highest amount ever.  Haven’t seen a number of B-17 hours for the SIC, but he was ATP rated and had type ratings in several airliners.  So, no lack of experience between the two.  Question remains, what went so terribly wrong so fast?

Wow. That's higher than WWII veteran pilots for the B-17.  Even more than most B-17 pilots here. Something must of went terribly wrong....

[Vraciu]

Wow. That's higher than WWII veteran pilots for the B-17.  Even more than most B-17 pilots here. Something must of went terribly wrong....

Yeah, but hours alone don’t always tell the whole story.   Not saying that’s the case in this instance.   

Sharpest B-17 Driver I ever saw was Van Skiles of Houston who was the lead pilot of “Texas Raiders” for many many years.    Just an amazing airman. 

[davidpt40]

Looks like you guys are already talking about it, but here is a short video on the NTSB preliminary report:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YN4QAdji7Y

Magnetos on engine number 4 may have been wet.  Crew was seen spraying them with air or nitrogen before the flight.  Plane never got above 500'.  Pilots reported they needed to return to the field due to engine 4 running rough.  The tower called them and asked if they needed assistance.  "No".  It was taking a long time for the plane to return to the field, the tower called them again.  At this time the B-17 was at a mere 300' AGL.  The pilot said they were working on it (returning to the field).  On final, the plane was so low that it struck the landing lights and ILS.  It landed short of the runway, though lined up for it.  Gear was down, flaps were up.  At almost the runway marker lines, the plane (on the ground now) veered to the right and struck the deicing tank and building 1100' to the right.  #4 engine was found to be completely feathered.  #3 engine was found to have 1 propellor blade feathered (strange).  Fuel checked out to be 100 octane low lead gas.  Fuel truck was checked too.

There is video footage of the plane crashing, but it hasn't been released yet.  For some odd reason, this plane just got way too low and slow.

[FLS]

Any chance that the one prop blade feathered on #3 was causing reduced thrust which was blamed on #4 running rough?

[davidpt40]

Any chance that the one prop blade feathered on #3 was causing reduced thrust which was blamed on #4 running rough?

Good question.  It's usually a series of things that cause an accident.  Wet magnetos were definitely a problem.  Maybe something malfunctioned on engine #3 also, at least on the prop controls.

[Puma44]

Any chance that the one prop blade feathered on #3 was causing reduced thrust which was blamed on #4 running rough?

Wonder if that one blade in a feathered position could have been a result of crash impact? 

If partially feathered in flight, for what ever reason, could have also created drag that they certainly didn’t need.

[FLS]

No flaps landing with low power seems odd too.   

[Vraciu]

No flaps landing with low power seems odd too.   

No flaps/reduced flaps is the correct configuration with two of four in trouble.   Adding flaps would have put them in the weeds sooner.    The goal is to minimize drag until landing is assured. 

The power was likely reduced after they made the runway.   

[Vraciu]

Wonder if that one blade in a feathered position could have been a result of crash impact? 

If partially feathered in flight, for what ever reason, could have also created drag that they certainly didn’t need.

I was initially leaning toward the former.   As I stated, they don’t know yet what number three was doing—or at least haven’t announced it. 

[Puma44]

No flaps landing with low power seems odd too.   

Flaps would have added more drag that they couldn’t afford to have any more of.