Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: fuzeman on October 02, 2019, 10:13:47 AM
They did say it was a 17 People were taken to hospital.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: FLS on October 02, 2019, 10:18:36 AM
Airport is closed. Crashed on landing Runway 6.
Bradley Airport tweeted: “We can confirm that there was an accident involving a Collings Foundation World War II aircraft this morning at Bradley Airport. We have an active fire and rescue operation underway. The airport is closed. We will issue further updates as information becomes available.
The Collings Foundation had brought several planes to Bradley this week, including the B-17G that crashed. a B-24 –Liberator, a B-25, a P-51 – Mustang fighter, and a P-40 Warhawk.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Shuffler on October 02, 2019, 10:36:54 AM
She burned....... destroyed. Sad.......
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Maverick on October 02, 2019, 10:45:14 AM
:pray :frown:
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: turt21 on October 02, 2019, 10:50:03 AM
what a shame. Hope crew is OK.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Tracerfi on October 02, 2019, 10:53:23 AM
they stopped in my area a few weeks ago didn't know about it wish I knew I would have loved to see her before this as this is my favorite B17 we have her as a skin in game as well if you didn't know :(
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: PanosGR on October 02, 2019, 11:17:01 AM
The FAA said the craft went down at the end of Runway 6 at about 10 a.m local time
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: FLOOB on October 02, 2019, 11:59:29 AM
Looks like it was Nine O nine that crashed?
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: shotgunneeley on October 02, 2019, 12:59:51 PM
The 909 skin was our primary colors when flying with the 91st BG in game. She was a beautiful ship, terrible for the loss of life the news is saying now.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Shuffler on October 02, 2019, 01:04:47 PM
There were 3 crew, 10 passengers. One individual on the ground involved.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 02, 2019, 03:08:14 PM
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Meatwad on October 02, 2019, 03:55:29 PM
:cry
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Shuffler on October 02, 2019, 03:57:40 PM
Reports are that at least 5 are dead. There are more critical.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 02, 2019, 04:06:32 PM
Let’s hope the FAA doesn’t overreact and ban revenue rides in these airplanes again...
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Oldman731 on October 02, 2019, 04:19:31 PM
But shortly after takeoff, the pilot told air traffic control: "N93012 would like to return to the field." "What is the reason for coming back?" the controller asked. "You got No. 4 engine. We'd like to return, and blow it out," another pilot in the aircraft said. A pilot said he needed to land immediately, and the control tower diverted other jets that were about to land, the recording indicates.
Sounds like an engine fire. Right after takeoff. Not many good choices.
- oldman
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Busher on October 02, 2019, 05:01:42 PM
I agree but at the risk of being completely obtuse, I wonder when Boeing will be blamed for this one too.
But my prayers are with all those involved and their families.
I wonder if GAMA covers B-17s. :bolt:
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Puma44 on October 02, 2019, 07:16:30 PM
“A problem with the engine Homendy said the preliminary investigation revealed that the B-17 took off from the airports runway 6 at about 9:45 a.m. “At about 9:50 a.m. the crew contacted the tower and reported an issue with the airplane. We are looking into that report for further information. We know that the crew circled back to runway 6 and attempted to land on runway 6.” As it touched down, the airplane “impacted the instrument landing system stanchions, veered to the right, over a grassy area, over the taxiway and impacted the deicing facility," she said.”
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Devil 505 on October 02, 2019, 07:30:59 PM
Tragic.
:salute
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 02, 2019, 07:32:43 PM
“A problem with the engine Homendy said the preliminary investigation revealed that the B-17 took off from the airports runway 6 at about 9:45 a.m. “At about 9:50 a.m. the crew contacted the tower and reported an issue with the airplane. We are looking into that report for further information. We know that the crew circled back to runway 6 and attempted to land on runway 6.” As it touched down, the airplane “impacted the instrument landing system stanchions, veered to the right, over a grassy area, over the taxiway and impacted the deicing facility," she said.”
Ugh. That sucks so bad. :(
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Shuffler on October 02, 2019, 07:36:34 PM
Another witness said one engine was not operating. That was earlier today.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 02, 2019, 07:39:43 PM
Another witness said one engine was not operating. That was earlier today.
I read engine fire somewhere.
Liberty Bell was lost that way. Emergency landing in a field. Burned to the ground.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: saggs on October 03, 2019, 12:00:57 AM
Strange what people are saying about losing an engine as if that explains it all. Something else had to have been a major contributor in the accident chain. Losing 1 engine on 4 engine radial plane is a common occurrence, a 3 engine landing on a runway of that length should be routine and easy. Curious if when they blew the bottles it extinguished the fire or not, I imagine a lingering fire warning could have distracted the crew, loss of SA, landing way short if they hit the ILS stanchion.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: saggs on October 03, 2019, 12:12:04 AM
Strange what people are saying about losing an engine as if that explains it all. Something else had to have been a major contributor in the accident chain. Losing 1 engine on 4 engine radial plane is a common occurrence, a 3 engine landing on a runway of that length should be routine and easy. Curious if when they blew the bottles it extinguished the fire or not, I imagine a lingering fire warning could have distracted the crew, loss of SA, landing way short if they hit the ILS stanchion.
An engine fire is not something to be trifled with in a radial piston airplane like a B-17. It can turn catastrophic VERY fast. You can burn a wing spar to the failure point in a matter of a few minutes. It all depends upon the nature of the fire. Throw smoke into the cockpit and now you’ve got a big problem.
I also don’t recall anyone saying that an engine problem explained it all. None of us have the slightest clue what happened, just as the parrots squawking about the 737 Max during the early stages had no idea. We will find out more as we go along.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Shuffler on October 03, 2019, 08:25:04 AM
An engine fire is not something to be trifled with in a radial piston airplane like a B-17. It can turn catastrophic VERY fast. You can burn a wing spar to the failure point in a matter of a few minutes. It all depends upon the nature of the fire. Throw smoke into the cockpit and now you’ve got a big problem.
I also don’t recall anyone saying that an engine problem explained it all. None of us have the slightest clue what happened, just as the parrots squawking about the 737 Max during the early stages had no idea. We will find out more as we go along.
How true.....
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Busher on October 03, 2019, 09:54:40 AM
Strange what people are saying about losing an engine as if that explains it all. Something else had to have been a major contributor in the accident chain. Losing 1 engine on 4 engine radial plane is a common occurrence, a 3 engine landing on a runway of that length should be routine and easy. Curious if when they blew the bottles it extinguished the fire or not, I imagine a lingering fire warning could have distracted the crew, loss of SA, landing way short if they hit the ILS stanchion.
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 03, 2019, 09:56:41 AM
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.
Good point. The drag (and other adverse control/performance issues) from an unfeathered prop could be HUGE, especially if it is the left outboard.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Trev95 on October 03, 2019, 10:52:35 AM
I flew on Nine O' Nine last spring, very unfortunate. <S> I posted some pictures of my flight on the AH3 Facebook page.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 03, 2019, 11:36:47 AM
An engine fire is not something to be trifled with in a radial piston airplane like a B-17. It can turn catastrophic VERY fast.
Oh yes, I concur. Still unclear if there was a fire, it was my first thought when the crew said "got #4" "blow it out" on the radio. My mind went to "got" a fire and "blowing" the fire bottles. But with more info I think that that may have been an incorrect speculation.
Read today that the F.E. survived, I think that should make it a pretty straightforward investigation, as no one would know better then him what those engines where doing, and fuel testing shouldn't take long.
I happen to know a bit about big radial powered airplanes.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 03, 2019, 10:01:28 PM
Oh yes, I concur. Still unclear if there was a fire, it was my first thought when the crew said "got #4" "blow it out" on the radio. My mind went to "got" a fire and "blowing" the fire bottles. But with more info I think that that may have been an incorrect speculation.
Read today that the F.E. survived, I think that should make it a pretty straightforward investigation, as no one would know better then him what those engines where doing, and fuel testing shouldn't take long.
I happen to know a bit about big radial powered airplanes.
As do I, if you consider a PBJ-1J or T-28 big.
I posted the audio. I didn’t hear “blow it out” but I’ll listen again.
Hopefully the Engineer can sort it for us.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: saggs on October 03, 2019, 10:09:40 PM
Sure, it's all relative. Not as big as what I work on, but very very cool.
Did PBJs run 2800s?
EDIT: Really cool was a couple weeks ago we had the Silver Spitfire in our hangar for a few days, they're doing a "1st spitfire around the world" flight. Was neat to talk to the crew and pilots they had with it.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 04, 2019, 08:33:34 AM
Sure, it's all relative. Not as big as what I work on, but very very cool.
Did PBJs run 2800s?
EDIT: Really cool was a couple weeks ago we had the Silver Spitfire in our hangar for a few days, they're doing a "1st spitfire around the world" flight. Was neat to talk to the crew and pilots they had with it.
2600s but I forget the dash number. Maybe it will come to me.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Busher on October 04, 2019, 10:00:09 AM
If I can help, I believe it was the Wright R-2600-92.
My only radial time was R2800s on Convair 440s but that was 40 years ago.
Does anyone know from their knowledge of the accident airplane, was it still running the Wright 1830s or was it converted to the P&Ws?
Their website says Wright R-1820-97.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Morpheus on October 04, 2019, 02:48:30 PM
THIS Was a VERY VERY SAD WAY TO START A GORGEOUS MORNING IN MY HOME!!!! Granted this now this is old news but the news is still showing films of the burning and smoking wreck!! And to add to the sorrows for me this crash happened in basically my back yard because I live only several minutes from Bradley Airport. Yes I did and Im sure thousands of others bystanders have said prayers and wished that the seven who died are saved and their families are also blessed by our King Jesus Christ!
very very sad And to add to our sorrows of this loss this is far more than just a game this is the real deal and loss of actual life's. People truly really died and have paid the ultimate price for us all to watch these big old gorgeous bombers fly by grazing us all...
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: DmonSlyr on October 04, 2019, 02:51:04 PM
Such a terrible tragedy! My heart goes out to everyone involved.
Rumor out there that the plane could have been fueled with jet fuel.
What do y'all think about that?
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: streakeagle on October 04, 2019, 07:07:18 PM
Accidents happen. The airplanes are old and humans always make mistakes. Every warbird that is flying and continues to fly will eventually crash. I am ok with that. There are plenty of models, photos, and museum birds. The planes were built to fly. I say fly them until they die so as many people as possible can hear the sound of their engines and get a glimpse into the greatness of aviation history. I am the same way with cars. To me, it is a crime to keep airplanes and cars locked away as hangar/garage queens when they could be in the air or on the road doing what they were built to do and allowing future generations to get a first hand glimpse at an amazing past!
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Busher on October 04, 2019, 09:14:06 PM
Accidents happen. The airplanes are old and humans always make mistakes. Every warbird that is flying and continues to fly will eventually crash. I am ok with that. There are plenty of models, photos, and museum birds. The planes were built to fly. I say fly them until they die so as many people as possible can hear the sound of their engines and get a glimpse into the greatness of aviation history. I am the same way with cars. To me, it is a crime to keep airplanes and cars locked away as hangar/garage queens when they could be in the air or on the road doing what they were built to do and allowing future generations to get a first hand glimpse at an amazing past!
Agreed. But still kind of sad.
- oldman
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Puma44 on October 04, 2019, 09:46:53 PM
Such a terrible tragedy! My heart goes out to everyone involved.
Rumor out there that the plane could have been fueled with jet fuel.
What do y'all think about that?
I would think the crew, specifically the crew chief, would supervise and do the actual fueling. It’s hard to believe they would allow a jet fuel truck to pull up and not notice. Or, could a 100LL truck have been filled with jet fuel? Both things are an enormous stretch. The NTSB investigation results can’t come too soon.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Brooke on October 04, 2019, 11:02:35 PM
Always sad to see fatalities. In this case, also a blow to the Collings Foundation and it's national tours of giving rides in such planes.
I took a couple rides on their B-24 and one on their B-25, and have toured inside the B-17 several times, but not a ride on it. I count them as some of my most-treasured experiences.
Several players here have taken rides on that B-17.
Also, Columbo, former player here who passed away recently, was the pilot of the Collings B-17 for a while in his life.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: FBDragon on October 05, 2019, 12:32:11 AM
Always sad to see fatalities. In this case, also a blow to the Collings Foundation and it's national tours of giving rides in such planes.
I took a couple rides on their B-24 and one on their B-25, and have toured inside the B-17 several times, but not a ride on it. I count them as some of my most-treasured experiences.
Several players here have taken rides on that B-17.
Also, Columbo, former player here who passed away recently, was the pilot of the Collings B-17 for a while in his life.
I think he was primarily a pilot on the B-24.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Shuffler on October 05, 2019, 09:43:13 AM
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: davidpt40 on October 05, 2019, 06:39:08 PM
Per Airliners.net, the B-17 lost engine #3 and then #4 shortly after. I saw the flight tracker, the plane never got above 125mph (knts?). Struck multiple lights and an ILS stanchion coming in for a landing, which caused it to crash into the de-icing building.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Puma44 on October 05, 2019, 06:47:37 PM
Per Airliners.net, the B-17 lost engine #3 and then #4 shortly after. I saw the flight tracker, the plane never got above 125mph (knts?). Struck multiple lights and an ILS stanchion coming in for a landing, which caused it to crash into the de-icing building.
I read elsewhere they made the runway but then veered off.
I am quite surprised there aren’t a dozen videos of it online already. Surely there is at least some surveillance video that will show what happened if not why.
Edit in: NTSB spox says they hit approach lights 1000 feet short.
Let this be a reminder to any of you big airplane drivers who think of “ducking under” on a visual. Approach light stanchions are frangible but they can ruin your day any way, and while YOU might be above them your airplane may not be.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Oldman731 on October 05, 2019, 11:26:39 PM
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Shuffler on October 06, 2019, 08:03:31 PM
Man oh man......
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: DaddyAce on October 06, 2019, 10:34:37 PM
Wow, just caught up on this tragic news! I toured that bird a couple times, and caught a ride on their B-24 and logged an hour flight time in their TF-51-D "Toulouse Nuts". What a sad loss, and those poor families!
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Puma44 on October 14, 2019, 10:06:35 AM
I asked a friend who is typed in the B-17 what his take is on the incident. He said a possible scenario could be a shut down of the wrong engine with the bad engine still windmilling unfeathered. He said the drag would be a big issue. In answer to my question, he said it would be controllable with two on the same side properly feathered and shut down. He said other than the possibility of being misfueled (which the NTSB has recently said that wasn’t the case) there’s not much word on the street.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Puma44 on October 15, 2019, 04:50:07 PM
By all accounts, there is nothing out of the ordinary about the crew or the airplane. Both pilots had accumulated over 36,000 hours of flying - so experience isn't an issue. Lead pilot was also an airplane mechanic, and the other was an instructor and flight engineer - so quite the talented aircrew.
Engines 1,2, and 3 had 0 hours of operation since overhaul, while engine 4 had over 800 hours since last revision. I'm sure that is where they'll focus. It also looks like flaps were retracted on landing - not sure if that was an issue though it was tough to determine the exact status as the cabin and majority of the wings were destroyed by the post-crash fire. No concerns over fuel either.
Still sad about the loss of life and of the beautiful warbird. :(
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 15, 2019, 06:39:53 PM
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I am more afraid of a 70+ year old pilot than a 70+ year old airplane. Could the former be an issue? Possibly. Am I saying it is? No. But I’ve seen it before.
I can’t see a reason why a B-17 at well-below combat weight cannot climb on three engines with one feathered.
The issue is hitting the ground/approach lights well short of the runway. Why?
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Puma44 on October 15, 2019, 10:59:53 PM
By all accounts, there is nothing out of the ordinary about the crew or the airplane. Both pilots had accumulated over 36,000 hours of flying - so experience isn't an issue. Lead pilot was also an airplane mechanic, and the other was an instructor and flight engineer - so quite the talented aircrew.
Engines 1,2, and 3 had 0 hours of operation since overhaul, while engine 4 had over 800 hours since last revision. I'm sure that is where they'll focus. It also looks like flaps were retracted on landing - not sure if that was an issue though it was tough to determine the exact status as the cabin and majority of the wings were destroyed by the post-crash fire. No concerns over fuel either.
Still sad about the loss of life and of the beautiful warbird. :(
If I read it correctly, number four was feathered and number three was somewhere between feathered and low pitch. That could have increased drag to a point that they couldn’t hold the 500’ agl that they had and drifted down until initial contact with the approach lights 1,000’ from the runway, increasing drag/airspeed decay more until touchdown 500’ from the runway. The question is what caused the right hand drift to final impact,.......blown tire, collapsed gear, wing drop at touchdown, etc, etc?.......So many questions.
It would be interesting to see what the throttle quadrant looked like at the end. They certainly didn’t have altitude and time to deal with what caused the initial engine problem.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 16, 2019, 10:28:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 16, 2019, 10:32:49 AM
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...
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Mister Fork on October 16, 2019, 03:19:04 PM
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?
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 16, 2019, 03:55:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Puma44 on October 16, 2019, 04:41:40 PM
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?
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Mister Fork on October 16, 2019, 05:36:28 PM
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.... :(
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 16, 2019, 10:45:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: davidpt40 on October 17, 2019, 04:25:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: FLS on October 17, 2019, 11:30:02 AM
Any chance that the one prop blade feathered on #3 was causing reduced thrust which was blamed on #4 running rough?
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: davidpt40 on October 17, 2019, 04:17:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Puma44 on October 17, 2019, 04:39:41 PM
No flaps landing with low power seems odd too. :headscratch:
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.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 17, 2019, 06:35:04 PM
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.
I don't mean low power setting, I meant low power as indicated by the inability to climb or reach the runway.
I know flaps add drag but they add more lift than drag for typically the first 50% of extension. So obviously not landing flaps but a little flap extension might have helped. Just speculating, not criticizing the pilots.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 18, 2019, 01:00:08 AM
I don't mean low power setting, I meant low power as indicated by the inability to climb or reach the runway.
I know flaps add drag but they add more lift than drag for typically the first 50% of extension. So obviously not landing flaps but a little flap extension might have helped. Just speculating, not c :mad:riticizing the pilots.
Flaps do not help in this situation. Flaps add drag. Saying they add more lift than drag for the first X percent of extension is a nice talking point (it borders on the dogmatic) but is overly simplistic--and not generally accurate. Regardless, adding lift also creates drag. Drag is the enemy in this circumstance. You must get the airplane cleaned up and accelerated to the final segment speed in a jet or L/D Max in a piston (Vyse, etc.). Flaps absolutely would not have helped in the emergency condition this airplane faced unless the goal was to land off-airport.
I have a ton of time in high performance piston twins like the Baron, 310, 340, 414, 421, etc. (as well those of lower performance like the Cougar and Seminole) and can think of nary a one where I wanted flaps out during an attempt to climb with an inoperative engine. This airplane was in similarly dire straits. Even with three good engines flaps would only be used when landing was assured, if at all.
As for power, I suspect they had the thing firewalled. The issue wasn't power output, by my best guess, it was drag due to a windmilling prop or something along those lines. See Busher's statement regarding the C-130.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: davidpt40 on October 18, 2019, 04:29:02 AM
I don't mean low power setting, I meant low power as indicated by the inability to climb or reach the runway.
I know flaps add drag but they add more lift than drag for typically the first 50% of extension. So obviously not landing flaps but a little flap extension might have helped. Just speculating, not criticizing the pilots.
You bring up an interesting point. If both engines 3 and 4 were disabled (though I think Puma's idea of the prop simply feathering due to being torn off the wing is more likely), the pilot would have to keep the airspeed up. Even with the giant vertical stabilizer the B-17 has, below a certain speed it can't handle the yaw of two engines being out on the same wing.
Both engines 3 and 4 were torn from the right wing. One ended up in the deicing tank, another in the deicing building.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: FLS on October 18, 2019, 06:58:04 AM
The communication with the tower sounded like they thought they had three good engines and would make the runway.
Well they were wrong, weren't they? And they remained clean wing because that was what was required to make the runway.
A landing assured judgment in this case would not be made until VERY short final, buy which point configuring would violate stabilized approach criteria. Land with what you have set is the general principle. Changing the configuration down low can cause bad things to happen without sufficient altitude to recover.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Mister Fork on October 18, 2019, 09:52:53 AM
Vraciu - following Occam's razor approach, it would be easiest to surmise that they lost an engine and following Busher's point if you can't feather the engine because of a failure, you're now in a negative climb rate.
Then it's just a math exercise. What's going against them? 1. The B-17 engines are as aerodynamic as a shoebox. 2. The B-17 airplane itself an aerodynamic model from the late 1930s 3. The aircraft was at 500' and Altitude = Energy 4. Based on Busher's comment on the C-130, the B-17 had just 500' of energy to turn around, and re-line-up for final.
Unfortunately, the math didn't add up to a successful probable landing. :(
It does beg the question... these old birds... is it worth it to keep them flying like this knowing how vulnerable they are when things go wrong? Old design = little room for issues?
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 18, 2019, 09:55:06 AM
A fair assessment.
As for risk, what's life without it? I say fly them until they can't be flown any longer. History is alive through these machines. That's priceless in my view.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: mikeWe9a on October 18, 2019, 10:25:41 AM
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.
Having one blade feathered isn't a prop control problem - the blades don't change pitch independently, but are all tied together with a large gear in the hub. Either that gear or the base of the prop blade had to shear off the large interlocking teeth to allow that blade to twist out of alignment with the others. I believe that the report stated that the feathered blade was broken off near the tip, so it is possible that the change in pitch happened after the blade struck something during the crash (approach light framework, etc.).
Mike
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 18, 2019, 10:41:59 AM
Having one blade feathered isn't a prop control problem - the blades don't change pitch independently, but are all tied together with a large gear in the hub. Either that gear or the base of the prop blade had to shear off the large interlocking teeth to allow that blade to twist out of alignment with the others. I believe that the report stated that the feathered blade was broken off near the tip, so it is possible that the change in pitch happened after the blade struck something during the crash (approach light framework, etc.).
Mike
This has been my thinking as well. The one blade being out of synch with the other two has to be the result of the impact, not something that occurred in flight. To be otherwise would mean something extremely remote.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Wolfala on October 18, 2019, 12:48:29 PM
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.
Thought experiment since we have a fairly completely modeled B-17 laying around doing nothing but getting shot up. Why not just can 2 engines at a sea level airport and see how it flies or doesn’t.
Then do another and can the #4 and roll back the #3 to idle. See what happens.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 18, 2019, 01:08:41 PM
Thought experiment since we have a fairly completely modeled B-17 laying around doing nothing but getting shot up. Why not just can 2 engines at a sea level airport and see how it flies or doesn’t.
Then do another and can the #4 and roll back the #3 to idle. See what happens.
Not a bad idea just to see. The accident airplane was probably a bit lighter than ours is, but still worth a shot.
Can we duplicate the weather conditions?
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Wolfala on October 18, 2019, 01:24:00 PM
Not a bad idea just to see. The accident airplane was probably a bit lighter than ours is, but still worth a shot.
Can we duplicate the weather conditions?
Temperature was 23°C (73°F) - the same as our engine environment. Wind was calm. 25% fuel load is a good equivalency. B-17 normal 100% load is 6435L (1700 gallons). They did add 605L of fuel (160 gallons) but it is not reported on what was already in the tanks.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Vraciu on October 18, 2019, 03:09:25 PM
Sounds good, guys. Couldn't hurt to try it.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Wolfala on October 18, 2019, 03:17:03 PM
The only reason I’m saying this is because I’m pretty sure that this is the only high Fidelity model of a B-17 in existence on the planet. And I’m pretty sure but not 100% the Dale and company when they modeled it we’re still using primary source information from the guys we actually flew the diddlying thing. So if anything this is a better representation then anything the NTSB can come up with
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: fuzeman on March 27, 2020, 08:45:39 PM
Update: The Living History Flight Experience Exemption for the Collings Foundation has been revoked by the FAA. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkxVSnx1Utg
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Oldman731 on March 27, 2020, 10:20:54 PM
This update had already been posted. Pretty nasty review by the FAA. The foundation has some serious issues.
yup.
That aircraft should of never been certified to fly. Engines were a disaster maintenance wise. Probably why it crashed just loosing one engine.
Title: Re: BREAKING - B-17G bomber crashed near Hartford
Post by: Red37 on April 01, 2020, 01:50:41 PM
I'm assuming were talking about B-17 Nine'O'nine I was just walking and crawling in some spots through that aircraft. Colling's came to Las Vegas... well Henderson Executive (KHND) to show off the B-17, B-24, B-25, P-40, and TF-51. In any case I should have paied to fly in her and see the Hoover Dam a little bit of the grand canyon and this nutty town I was born in. Would have been nice to have had my dad's Canon EOS... whatever very expensive camera and take pictures from the view out a B-17G. I do have VERY HIGH quality pictures I took that day of all the planes and a video of TF-51 "Toolose Nuts' starting up, taxi and take off into the blue not to return I waited hours to see it land. However it was not to return (they said it was going to California, I'm assuming Chino cause the canopy developed a crack.)
I get so hurt when we lose these irreplaceable special aircraft especially being in the plane a month or so before the fatal accident. Smelling the smells, running my hand across the skin, just the whole experience that comes from these magnificent pieces of history, American made history gives a true aviator a feeling that nothing else can give and I'm blessed I got to enjoy it while it lasted. Now the family's are going to sue Colling's Foundation to death literally, I went to see the airplanes everytime they came to town, proudly paying for my ticket and picked up a book or some memorable item they had for sale to help the foundation out. This last, and I MEAN LAST time I bought a Squadron Signal P-51 book for my model making.
I'm happy that we can discuss the accident here and I agree the tip of the prop doesn't feather and give way. It was only after the collision with something the prop was damaged, no way that prop had metal fatigue or any other problem. I saw it up close a month before and all the propellers looked brand new! Only a minute amount of normal paint chipping/debris on the leading edges. I met the men who kept these birds flying, the crew chief (if I'm saying that right) for the liberator said they rarely go above 5000 ft and never put stress on the aircraft or fly in bad weather.
My heart goes out to ALL involved including the plane.