Discussion in 'Living History' started by Martin Bull, Oct 2, 2019.
Very bad news.
Fatalities Reported After Vintage B-17 Flying Fortress Crashes at Connecticut Airport
Just read this from another source and was going to post it here. Sad story
Doubt it was engine failure...four engine aircraft shouldn't go down like that (unless contaminated fuel) - Some other structural failure perhaps?
That was a heartbreak when I saw it was this plane. Also sad for those who died in the crash and those burned.
Pilot reported engine failure, several witnesses reported hearing popping noises and seeing smoke.
Not a lot of solid information to go on, but, yeah, it could have happened that way.
I crawled though that old girl this past summer.
Vintage B-17 bomber makes fiery fatal landing in Connecticut, seven killed
"the crew contacted the air traffic control tower five minutes later to report a problem, ..........During the crew’s attempt to land back at the airport, the plane struck stanchions near a runway and careened across a grassy area and a taxiway before striking a de-icing facility................
I'm not comfortable with speculating on causes at a time like this, but should point out that although many multi-engine WWII aircraft could fly with faulty or disabled engines, to 'lose' an engine at take-off is always a major problem. There simply isn't sufficient momentum or lift available to get out of trouble.
Whatever the reason, I have to say that I find the loss of this much-loved warbird, with such large loss of life, very distressing.
It is sad and distressing. The loss of life paramount but the loss of a B-17 a terrible thing in itself. One crashed making "Memphis Bell", A movie not worth the loss of the plane, IMHO. I got to climb trough B-17's, 24s, 25's and even a 29 as a child at local airshows,.......Craig AFB, Selma, Al, in the '40s and '50s, Took a flight in "Nine o'Nine" in Corvallis, Oregon probably 20-25 years ago. I would not buy a ticket, $300, but my sweet wife and daughter did for me. I was with Jeff, our Jeff, going through "Nine O' Nine" her in Auburn, $500 now. Such a sad event. I remember watching oil dripping out of the engines when she landed. A bad day .................................Gaines
Very sad situation. I can’t post the article because it was in my local Chambersburg newspaper, at the bottom of the article it was printed, “ The Collings Foundation said the same plane in Wednesday’s accident also crashed in 1987 at an air show near Pittsburgh, injuring several people. It was later repaired.” It is a tragic, sorrowful happening and I am so sorry for the victims, their families and friends. Personally, and no sarcasm intended, I would never get into one of those vintage aircraft except to tour it on the runway.
909 also landed with one landing gear up back in the mid 90s...Nebraska, IIRC.
A 17 can fly with one engine out, but this was at takeoff, and could not climb.
The bad engine may not have been the fatal cause - I can think of a few others. But, it appears to be where the chain of events starts.
I thought contaminated fuel immediately. Waiting for the final report.
Not fuel contamination per se...As I would think that all 4 engines would have problems. Further, none of the other aircraft flying had problems, so I doubt fuel contamination. However, there has been speculation that she might have been refuelled with Jet A. While #4 engine went first, one or more others may have gone on the approach, leaving her too low and slow, thus coming in short.
And while the rest of us wait for the evidence and are cautious in our speculations I see that a Connecticut politician has not waited but leapt into the middle of the thing.
All speculative, but I've read claims that she lost 2 additional engines while on final approach.
B-17 crash raises questions about vintage plane safety
I may have taken my son in that plane some years ago when they toured Alaska. He had recently watched Memphis Belle, so crawling around that aircraft was a high point of his young life.
As for concerns about the safety of old aircraft, I think they should leave it up to the experts instead of knee-jerk political posturing like this ass, Blumenthal. Thinking of Alaska and vintage aircraft puts me in mind of the DeHavilland Beaver which aren't much younger than that B-17. There are a thousand or more Beavers still flying in the bush of Canada and Alaska, and they are simply irreplaceable. Some communities would be pretty much cut off without the Beaver. No other aircraft can haul the loads of that plane or land in the tiny runways of those communities. They're old. They fly. At any rate, vintage doesn't mean unsafe. Not in my mind at least...
I have to bow before the in-depth knowledge demonstrated by the 'lawyer specializing in crash litigation' quoted by the Cleveland Daily Banner in the link above, regarding the operation of vintage aircraft.
'The engines are old - with no new parts being manufactured for decades'.
I guess the entire hi-tech cottage industry supplying Rolls-Royce Merlin parts ( for example) doesn't count.....