OT: B17 Nine-O-Nine is gone, very sad....

[trader_4]

She crashed during an emergency return to the airport, following an engine failure on take-off at Bradley Intl Airport in CT. I saw here here in NJ many times over the years. One of only about ten still flying. Last time was about 6 weeks ago when she was at the local airport. They must have added ADS-B recently because this time I could track her on FightAware, heading up to Sandy Hook and returning. On FlightAware it showed Boeing B17-G, you don't see that every day. I watched her fly over my house here many times, the unmistakeable roar of those four Wright engines roaring, we'd run outside to catch a glimpse. A few years ago, I was privileged to enjoy a ride. Yesterday morning as soon as they said a B-17 had crashed in CT, I knew it was very likely Nine-O-Nine. Now, after having survived 140 combat missions in WWII, sadly she is gone. My sympathies to the crew and passengers lost. I hope the Collings Foundation manages to recover from this tragedy and is able to continue their Wings of Freedom Tours.

[Leon]

I think a Boxer/Rottweiler mix would produce a dog roughly 3 times larger than a Pitt Bull. I put them on the large end of the small sized dog group or small end of the medium sized dog group. I have a small female Chocolate Lab that is larger than the typical Pitt Bull.

[gfretwell]

I got to walk through it here in Ft Myers and I tried to get a flight but they were entirely booked. Cool old planes. I am curious what brought it down. That was a tough old bird known for getting home with big chunks of the flight surfaces blown away..

[Ed Pawlowski]

Sad indeed. Tragic to lose some lives of course, but that was quite a plane. I was aboard it but only on the ground a few years back. Shame to have a piece of history gone.

[Home Guy]

Surprising that it couldn't stay in the air with 3 out of 4 engines, given that it would have been pretty light - no bombs and all.

You mean you paid for the ride.

I understand this plane made the rounds at varioud airports, and you paid anywhere from $250 to $750 (depending on where in the plane you could afford) for a what - maybe 20 minute ride?

I also understand that this particular plane was made at the end of the war and didn't actually see any combat.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Operational cost of a B-17 is about $3000 per hour. Guzzles about 200 gallons of fuel and 10 gallons of oil per hour. So yeah, a real enthusiast would pay that for the experience. They day I wanted to fly they were sold out.

My favorite plane of all times though is a P-51D Mustang. Truly one of the best planes ever built.

[Scott Lurndal]

I think the DC-3 would probably win "best plane ever built" title.

Personally, the P-51D is nice, but the P-38 is the bomb. (and the spitter ain't half bad...)

[trader_4]

Yes, something more had to be involved, either additional mechanical issues or pilot error. I thought the same thing, the plane would have no bomb load, only a fraction of full fuel capacity. Also there is probably some less gear too. Even fully loaded it could fly on three engines.

I just saw the list of the victims, the pilot was Ernest McCauley, 75, 7300 hours in the B-17 alone. They said he was likely the most experienced B-17 pilot in the world. Co-pilot was a 71 year old former Navy pilot capt, later pilot for Northwest. McCauley I recognized, used to see him here most years. One year I saw him on a small ladder, working on one of the engines, with a maintenance manual open on a small table. So I guess he was rated as a mechanic too.

There are some reports now that they were working on an engine on the ground just prior to the flight. Doesn't necessarily mean anything, but NTSB will be interested in what that was about.

It's about 30 mins. I think it was $350 or $400 back then, now it's $450. Just one price though. Some years I've seen them give free rides to WWII vets, some had to be lifted into the plane.

You're right. I got mislead by false information on the net. The original 909 flew 140 combat missions, this one never flew in combat. They used the number of the original. This one did have some interesting history. After the war it sat in NV at at atomic testing site. It was contaminated and had to sit for several years before it was safe to clean up and put to use again.

[Sam Hill]

I agree with you about the P-38. :-)

If you haven't read it, find a copy of "The Last Dogfight" by Martin Caidin, fiction, published in 1974. Lightnings and Zeroes...

[trader_4]

Read some more new info. According to people on the ground, including family/friends of people who were on the flight, the takeoff was delayed because they were having trouble starting one engine. One person said they shut off the other engines, the pilot came out and they were working on that engine, using a black tank to blow air into it. One of the ground crew told them no worries, it will be fine once they get it started. That is consistent with the pilot's communication with the tower when he requested to return. When asked why, he said they needed to "blow out the number four engine". So, theory is that they were having trouble starting it, thought it was due to moisture overnight and were blowing it out with air?? to dry it out. It's possible that something else was actually wrong with it. For one thing, you wouldn't think just sitting overnight it should be able to get wet enough that it wouldn't start, it wasn't a rainy night or bad AFAIK. And then if it did start and was running OK, you'd think that between their trying to dry it out and then the engine warming up, all the air moving through it through takeoff, etc, it would be OK. And no explanation why they couldn't gain altitude or land it successfully with 3 engines.

Now there is renewed focus on whether having these flights is a good idea, with the usual morons, like Senator Blumenthal opening their yappers. I saw one lawyer already blowing BS, a newspaper had to issue a correction. He claimed parts are no longer available for these planes, (which is only partly true). Some are still available, some can be substituted, some are specially fabricated. The other thing wrong was the claim that there are no people still living who flew these or worked on them when they were new. For parts for this one, I had asked the pilot who died in this crash about what they do for tires. He said that Goodyear (I think it was G, could have been another major US tire manufacturer) has a facility in Brazil that still has the molds and makes them as needed. Obviously that's done just to support planes like this, not for profit.

Here is what they are now up against:

Before Wednesday's crash, vintage World War II-era bombers are listed as having been involved in 21 accidents investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board since 1982, when its database began. Three were B-17Gs. All those crashes killed 23 and injured one before the latest accident is included.

To Jennifer Homendy, who is leading the NTSB crash-investigation team in Hartford, the toll was already too high — especiallysince her standard for a safe plane is zero incidents.

"I think 21 incidents is tragic and 23 deaths is completely unacceptable," she said in an interview.

So, in 38 years they have been 21 accidents and 23 fatalities. First question is how does that compare with the record of all general aviation over the same period? We just had a couple of helicopter accidents, both involving deaths, in NYC in the last few years. Maybe we should stop helicopter flights? Seeing this from someone leading an investigation at NTSB is something I've never seen before. She's already blaming the plane and specific type of flights before they even do an investigation.

[gfretwell]

As long as people understand the risk, what business is it of the government to tell them how they die? I am still curious how this plane went down but it is not really going to be one bad engine. As light as these planes are (no guns, ammo or bomb load) they would run all day on two as long as they weren't on the same wing. Even then a good pilot could bring it home, as shown many times in WWII.

[trader_4]

I agree. Only issue would be that they could crash into an apartment building and kill 20 people there. But I think if you look at the history of the vintage plane crashes, that isn't what's happening.

I am still curious how this

Yes, it's still a mystery. One thing that can and does frequently happen on a multi-engine plane is that the pilot mishandles the engine loss, eg they incorrectly believe it's the right engine that failed, so they shut down the left engine by mistake. You also have to feather the failed engine quickly, to reduce the drag. But with two very experienced pilots you would think they could correctly handle it. And it was in the air long enough to circle around, giving them time to do the correct procedure, even if initially they got something wrong. Which like you say, would mean something very wrong besides one engine out. But it appears for some reason the plane could not gain altitude or even adequately maintain it. One thing hampering the investigation will be there is no data recorder or voice recorder. On the plus side, all the wreckage is there in one place, pretty much mostly intact.

An engine failure would be low on my list of concerns about the safety of these. I'd be more worried about the failure of a cable or similar with the control surfaces, a structural failure due to corrosion or fatigue, or a fire.

[Ed Pawlowski]

That was my thought. If even three or all four engines failed he should have been able to control it better.

[trader_4]

IDK that control was the problem. He circled and was on final approach. It looks like there just wasn't enough airspeed to keep it in the air, the first contact was with the approach lights, 1000 ft short of the runway threshold. After that in went off course and then into the building.

[gfretwell]

These guys were very experienced pilots but maybe too "experienced". They may have had an old man brain fart.

[Ed Pawlowski]

Depending on what he hit, that can be a big problem. He can dead stick if reasonably flat but at 1000 feet could have been obstacles. OTOH, if a couple of engines were running he should have been able to stay up. Hopefully they have some witnesses or even video.

[trader_4]

I wonder if they slowly got lulled into thinking having some difficulty starting these engines is normal, thinking it's just moisture from over night, while it was something else? Even moisture, you wouldn't think should cause this, unless it was some unusual atmospherics, eg it had been cold then suddenly got warm and humid. I mean if it takes blowing air around the engine to get it going, what is the confidence level that it's then safe to proceed to takeoff immediately? After ten minutes of warming up? You'd think that between idling for a few minutes, then the taxi, with the engine warm, if it's moisture, it would be gone. I'd trust that with my mower or car, with an airplane, not so much.

I wonder if after takeoff the engine was partially running and instead of following the engine out procedure, they tried to keep it going and got too focused on that. Or if it was running pretty well as they returned, but as they turned for the runway, it then died completely? It's still capable of flying, but you do have to do the right procedure, mainly feathering the failed engine prop. And if they thought it was working, or partially working and it went dead right near the end, that would be a worst case scenario, as opposed to treating it as a failed engine earlier. But none of that accounts for the reports it was flying very low, and the pilot saying he was unable to gain altitude.

Another thought. We agree these planes should have plenty of power to fly fine on three engines. That assumes they are all running correctly, turbochargers working, etc. But I wonder how often they actually push them and see that they are capable of full emergency power? Or because they are old and they don't want to stress them, do they only exercise them at lower power levels and then when they needed the other three, something wasn't right with one or more of them too?

We'll find out, they have the engines. Must be interesting at the NTSB, they have to analyze everything from the latest airliners to vintage aircraft.

[trader_4]

The NTSB has released the preliminary report on the B-17 crash:

Some of the interesting points:

From the wreckage, looks like #1 and #2 engines showed damage consistent with them running normally at impact.

#4 was feathered, which is consistent with the crew reporting trouble with that engine.

#3 raises questions. It showed that one blade was in the feathered position, the other two between low pitch and feathered. Some of that I guess could be due to the damage, but overall, it suggests that engine was set to minimal power, unless the pitch changed due to impact. They also recovered a blade tip from #3 700 ft away, similar to blade tips from #1 and #2, which shows that it was running and I guess at a similar speed. If the pitch was set low/feathered and it was at minimal power, why?

Maybe most significant, it says the jackscrews for the flaps were in the retracted position. That seems wrong. Is it possible these two highly experienced pilots were so focused on the engines, that they forgot to extend the flaps and the plane stalled? Or if you're having power problems and minimal altitude, since the flaps would increase the drag, are you better off holding off on flaps until the last minute in a situation like that? Seems like that's a catch 22. Flaps enable it to fly at lower speed, but they also increase the drag, so more power is required. So, do they help or hurt? But if they were going to apply flaps, even if you were waiting to the last minute, they were just 1000 ft from the runway.

Also, the pilot was the safety officer for the Collings Foundation.