Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mora on May 06, 2004, 08:19:16 AM
-
A sad sight. (http://kcbs.dayport.com/viewer/viewerpage.php?Art_ID=2643&tf=kcbsviewer.tpl)
-
It's a sturdy plane, it will fly again.
Looking the video seems that the structure have no mayor damage, only engines and engines supports.
....And paint of the belly.
:)
-
dont ferget ball turret and integrety of thos bomb bay dorrs prolly be down 6 mo to a year
-
Originally posted by WilldCrd
dont ferget ball turret and integrety of thos bomb bay dorrs prolly be down 6 mo to a year
Well, yeah, maybe more.
-
Originally posted by mora
A sad sight. (http://kcbs.dayport.com/viewer/viewerpage.php?Art_ID=2643&tf=kcbsviewer.tpl)
that is a sad sight. I saw aluminum overcast a few years ago at an airshow, drove about 3 hours just to see it.
thankful that the gear didnt collapse on landing
-
Ouch...wow, fortuneately that happened at a very slow speed
-
Can I blame Ripsnort for working for a company that designs a POS gear system? :p
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Can I blame Ripsnort for working for a company that designs a POS gear system? :p
You have my permission
-
Doesn't it seem that both landing gears failed at the same time?
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Doesn't it seem that both landing gears failed at the same time?
Yea, good point. I wonder if hydraulics failed altogether or the gear simply didnt lock?
-
Plus rebuilding each of the 4 engines due to the propstrike
-
Originally posted by AcId
Plus rebuilding each of the 4 engines due to the propstrike
I'm not sure if they need to be rebuild? At least during the wartime it was usually just new props and back to the sky, ofcourse the runway material is also a factor.
-
Heck, just the props are going to cost a fortune.
-
If I was the pilot, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable flying her unless the engines were tore down and inspected. I dunno, I'm no expert but I would think there is a slight chance for internal engine damage under those conditions.
Just my opinion though.
-
Originally posted by gofaster
Can I blame Ripsnort for working for a company that designs a POS gear system? :p
Yeah! Why can't those Boeing cretens design a plane that'll still fly after only 60 years? Amatures!:p
-
If the prop shafts bent, they're going to have to tear down the engines.
I loved that airplane...I hope they get 'er fixed.
-
Originally posted by AcId
If I was the pilot, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable flying her unless the engines were tore down and inspected. I dunno, I'm no expert but I would think there is a slight chance for internal engine damage under those conditions.
Just my opinion though.
I'm sure the engines are disassembled in this case, the price of the operation is small compared to the cost of new props. In wartime it was a little different. I'm currently reading a book about one of our bomber squadrons, and it describes several cases of Blenheim and JU-88 belly landings, usually they just replaced the props and maybe gave some hammer to the fuselage.
-
Originally posted by mora
I'm sure the engines are disassembled in this case, the price of the operation is small compared to the cost of new props.
Not to mention the cost pilots and passengers' lives lost if the engines / stress points fail at altitude.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Yea, good point. I wonder if hydraulics failed altogether or the gear simply didnt lock?
B-17 gear is lowered by an electric motor connected to a screwjack which estends the gear. The only hydraulics on the entire B-17 are the brakes.
-
Same one that stopped at DVT a few weeks ago. Very sad, but I have confidence in the EAA's ability to repair it.
-
Originally posted by Naso
It's a sturdy plane, it will fly again.
Looking the video seems that the structure have no mayor damage, only engines and engines supports.
....And paint of the belly.
:)
That aircraft will be grounded a minimum of 18 mos. and require $600000.00 minimum to repair. All four engines suddenly stopped, which means all the cranks will be suspect. That alone without parts is $ 50k an engine. Next 4 props, $25k a pop. Now, the gear collapsed, which means the 2 inboard nacelles will more than likely have severe damage and require rebuild, and seeings the forward spar runs right underneath each gear leg, the chances of it taking damage are very high. Both lower wing (2 on each side) attach angles will have come in contact with the ground, meaning the wings come off and they are inspected. My bet is they will find cracks and corrosion in those areas meaning further work. Lastly, the fuselage. The b-17 bombbay's main structure is a box like structure with a fore to aft catwalk in the center (major structure) Most likely, these areas will have survived intact with the exception of the center catwalk structure, (which will most likely have crushed) but will require a major inspection (NDT that ilk) but, the surrounding sheetmetal, including the bb doors will most likely be a writeoff. The lower fuselage from nose to waist will have to be rebuilt with major work in the ball area and under the cockpit. This said, that aircraft is MAJORLY messed up. My personal bet (hope I am wrong) is that she does not fly for 3 yrs and requires over a million in repairs. Frankly, the EAA does not have the funds right now for this.
-
didnt the FAA have a directive a while back on b17 wing spars? Thought that grounded a bunch of um.
-
Don't they have an insurance?
-
Originally posted by Dnil
didnt the FAA have a directive a while back on b17 wing spars? Thought that grounded a bunch of um.
That AD is a completely BS AD construed by one individual in the warbird community to try and ensure that all B-17's would havbe to come to him to be inspected, well, guess what it back fired, and is instead costing each owner roughly $250k each time the frequency dictates, and no one uses that idiot for the work. Too date, no reasons have been found to ground ANY of the 17's in compliance with the AD. If I was at work, I would post the AD's specifics, but as I am not, I can not. ANyways, Mr. AD is going to end up getting his in the end, because he is very close to pushing an unairworthy aircraft out the door as air worthy, and I have it on good authority, thats when the FAA is going to nail him to the cross. Good riddance too! :mad:
-
Originally posted by mora
Don't they have an insurance?
Hull insurance probably, but it will have a limited repayment of like $250k, thats tops. Warbird insurance is sky high, over $30k a year for a B-25 with Limited Hull Insurance. I believe a 17 quoted at that repayment is over 45k, but I may be wrong. Either, most owners carry liability insurance, and self insure the hull...
-
"DUDE!
My Father is a television repair man. He has this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it"
-
I CANT BELEIVE IT. I saw that plane on our ramp here at edwards just yesturday. I had no Idea it was the one that crashed
-
Reviewing the film, it sure looks like a catastrophic failure in the right gear first. The left side starts to settle when the left gear takes the whole weight of the airplane just before it collapsed too. What is odd is that the airplane is nowhere near its maximum weight when being flown on passenger flights.
I was privilaged to have flown on this airplane with several former B-17 aircrew and one "Rosie the Riveter."
Aluminum Overcast flight photos (http://www.avphoto.com/B17/)
MiG
-
The left side starts to settle when the left gear takes the whole weight of the airplane just before it collapsed too.
The left gear never takes the full load of the plane. The load carried by the right gear just gets transferred to the right wing.
It looks almost like someone put the gear selector to "up".
ra
-
Wow! I just took my three boys and meself to fly in it couple weeks ago. The brakes sure squeeled then. My wife will have a cow when I tell her.
-
Damn. :(
Of course it's gonna cost a lot of money to repair it. But I *think* Naso's point was that the damage is minor compared to many accidents involving warbirds and they are still able to rebuilt them.
A B-17 that comes to mind is the Collins foundations Nine-o-Nine which overshot the runway and ended up in a steep revine. It took a lot of time, money and effort to rebuilt it but still of course it was done. Repairing Aluminum Overcast will be picnic compared to that.
IMO far bigger loss than money will be possible original parts which might have to replaced with new ones. That brings the originality % down and IS a big loss.
I wish I sometimes have the money to go visit these air shows and musems to see them live! :)
-
Bummer. :(
I saw the Aluminum Overcast during summer 2002. Beautiful plane!
Camo
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
Damn. :(
Of course it's gonna cost a lot of money to repair it. But I *think* Naso's point was that the damage is minor compared to many accidents involving warbirds and they are still able to rebuilt them.
A B-17 that comes to mind is the Collins foundations Nine-o-Nine which overshot the runway and ended up in a steep revine. It took a lot of time, money and effort to rebuilt it but still of course it was done. Repairing Aluminum Overcast will be picnic compared to that.
IMO far bigger loss than money will be possible original parts which might have to replaced with new ones. That brings the originality % down and IS a big loss.
I wish I sometimes have the money to go visit these air shows and musems to see them live! :)
I disagree, as I happened to work at the facility that did that repair, (FYI it was Beaver Creek PA) anyways, AO (Aluminum Overcast) took some very serious structural damage from the accident, and may be out as long as three years, from what I am told...
-
Aluminum Overcast! You were a true hero and the very definition of a patriot!
We will never forget!