B - 17 crash in Connecticut.

[slimt]

several witnesses have said they saw one engine not running. one said that the others were missing. Now if you've never heard radials, you might mistake a good running engine for having a miss. This sounds like a fuel problem since it affected all the engines. One of the B-17 Facebook groups is saying there is a report of jet fuel mistakenly have been used to refuel Nine O Nine

Jet fuel? Wouldnt that clog up the whole system? That wouldnt be good

 

[Basket case]

not at all

 

[BeepBeepRR]

They mentioned that the plane went right. I almost bet the wing clipped something and redirected the plane into the deicing building. Something would have had to re-direct its path. I thought I had pictures of the Nine-O-Nine but I have pictures of the Thunderbird.

 

[Ceedawg]

Pretty sure these planes are better maintained than your daily driver.. Just like a fuel pump in your car it can happen at any time. I doubt the age of the plane has anything to do with it. How safe would you feel knowing that most of the commercial airline planes date back to the 70's not saying that is 100% true but I'm sure some of them are old too. Also, The C130 planes you see flying around have been in the air since the 50's they get retrofitted and sent back up.

First let me say I love these old planes. What I was implying is they’re made of aluminum, which will stress fatigue over time, cracks. I’m sure the mechanical parts ARE well maintained, pilots top notch. Metal fatigue is what takes most commercial planes out of service today. I see nothing wrong with flying them but no passengers. The pilots know what they’re getting into. A bad loss all around. If any new regulations arise it’s because of those passengers being killed not the plane or pilots.

 

[Basket case]

These planes are inspected regularly. Several years ago one of the flying B-17s was undergoing restoration and a crack was found in the main wing spar. The FAA (IIRC) mandated that all B-17s had to have this spar inspected, which required removal of the wings.

 

[BeepBeepRR]

First let me say I love these old planes. What I was implying is they’re made of aluminum, which will stress fatigue over time, cracks. I’m sure the mechanical parts ARE well maintained, pilots top notch. Metal fatigue is what takes most commercial planes out of service today. I see nothing wrong with flying them but no passengers. The pilots know what they’re getting into. A bad loss all around. If any new regulations arise it’s because of those passengers being killed not the plane or pilots.

These planes undergo a pretty thorough rebuild. This particular plane was restored several times over its life time. Its apparent to me that it was not a structural issue as much as a mechanical issue. So to say the airframe is an issue is irrelevant to the crash at hand. This plane had mechanical issues plain and simple. Now I read someones post here that said Jet fuel might be the suspect. Well if thats the case then its an error on the person who refueled the plane. Still not a structural issue. These planes were notorious for taking extreme damage and still making it home.

This is one of the more extreme damaged planes I have seen. According to the article the navigator and nose gunner were killed instantly but the plane still made it home. Not sure how factual this article is.. This picture could have been taken when it was on its way down. I honestly cant see how the pilot could have survived this.

 

[BeepBeepRR]

Just found this image of the same Nine-O-Nine running off the runway. This plane has 3 I think former incidents under its life span. You can read about those here.

https://beavercountian.com/content/...t-in-beaver-county-has-crashed-in-connecticut

 

[Basket case]

That's not far from me. I remember going up and seeing her after they got her back up top.

 

[BeepBeepRR]

Here are some more "made it home birds" to read about.
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/

 

[Ceedawg]

These planes undergo a pretty thorough rebuild. This particular plane was restored several times over its life time. Its apparent to me that it was not a structural issue as much as a mechanical issue. So to say the airframe is an issue is irrelevant to the crash at hand. This plane had mechanical issues plain and simple. Now I read someones post here that said Jet fuel might be the suspect. Well if thats the case then its an error on the person who refueled the plane. Still not a structural issue. These planes were notorious for taking extreme damage and still making it home.

View attachment 844443
View attachment 844444
View attachment 844445
View attachment 844446
This is one of the more extreme damaged planes I have seen. According to the article the navigator and nose gunner were killed instantly but the plane still made it home. Not sure how factual this article is.. This picture could have been taken when it was on its way down. I honestly cant see how the pilot could have survived this.
View attachment 844448

I never said it was a “structural” issue for the crash. I stated my opinion on these planes based on facts, latter

 

[BeepBeepRR]

I never said it was a “structural” issue for the crash. I stated my opinion on these planes based on facts, latter

"What I was implying is they’re made of aluminum, which will stress fatigue over time, cracks."

Not getting into a pissing contest. Just saying those were your words. So by anyone who would read that they would think you were implying the airframe.. As it is made out of aluminum.

 

[Ceedawg]

"What I was implying is they’re made of aluminum, which will stress fatigue over time, cracks."

Not getting into a pissing contest. Just saying those were your words. So by anyone who would read that they would think you were implying the airframe.. As it is made out of aluminum.

go back and read each of my posts, again, then read what I was replying to. Never once did I say or “implied” cracks caused the crash.

 

[BeepBeepRR]

76 year old planes should not fly to often, to many things can fail

First let me say I love these old planes. What I was implying is they’re made of aluminum, which will stress fatigue over time, cracks. I’m sure the mechanical parts ARE well maintained, pilots top notch. Metal fatigue is what takes most commercial planes out of service today. I see nothing wrong with flying them but no passengers. The pilots know what they’re getting into. A bad loss all around. If any new regulations arise it’s because of those passengers being killed not the plane or pilots.

I never said it was a “structural” issue for the crash. I stated my opinion on these planes based on facts, latter

go back and read each of my posts, again, then read what I was replying to. Never once did I say or “implied” cracks caused the crash.

All of your posts are above.

From the looks of it the only thing you spoke of was metal fatigue and cracks. The entire aircraft is made up of aluminum Hence when you speak of metal fatigue you are speaking of the entire aircraft. These planes and the funding to keep them flying are dependent on rides given in these planes. That's what pays for the maintenance and upkeep. If I had the cash I would ride in one of these planes any day. Its all good and the fact that we all dig these planes is cool. Right/wrong either way they are opinions and we are all certainly entitled to our own. As with anyone who rides in these planes has to sign a waver I'm sure. So the passengers know what they are getting into as well.

 

[BeepBeepRR]

Update from their website for Collings

https://www.collingsfoundation.org/flight-experiences/

Statement from the Collings Foundation
Our thoughts and prayers are with those who were on that flight and we will be forever grateful to the heroic efforts of the first responders at Bradley.

The Collings Foundation flight team is fully cooperating with officials to determine the cause of the crash of the B-17 Flying Fortress and will comment further when details become known.

 

[Ceedawg]

76 year old planes should not fly to often, to many things can fail

First let me say I love these old planes. What I was implying is they’re made of aluminum, which will stress fatigue over time, cracks. I’m sure the mechanical parts ARE well maintained, pilots top notch. Metal fatigue is what takes most commercial planes out of service today. I see nothing wrong with flying them but no passengers. The pilots know what they’re getting into. A bad loss all around. If any new regulations arise it’s because of those passengers being killed not the plane or pilots.

I never said it was a “structural” issue for the crash. I stated my opinion on these planes based on facts, latter

go back and read each of my posts, again, then read what I was replying to. Never once did I say or “implied” cracks caused the crash.

All of your posts are above.

From the looks of it the only thing you spoke of was metal fatigue and cracks. The entire aircraft is made up of aluminum Hence when you speak of metal fatigue you are speaking of the entire aircraft. These planes and the funding to keep them flying are dependent on rides given in these planes. That's what pays for the maintenance and upkeep. If I had the cash I would ride in one of these planes any day. Its all good and the fact that we all dig these planes is cool. Right/wrong either way they are opinions and we are all certainly entitled to our own. As with anyone who rides in these planes has to sign a waver I'm sure. So the passengers know what they are getting into as well.

Since you won’t let this die and must have the last word, do you have any understanding of metal fatigue? Aluminum (when flexed) work hardens over time, once hard it stops flexing then it WILL CRACK unless it’s annealed or replaced, has every piece been replaced or just patched? As for the passengers, see how many lawyers jump on those cases with that waver. Hope the owners have good insurance.
Sorry this exchange has taken away from this terrible tragedy.

 

[BeepBeepRR]

Well you are correct this has taken a weird turn. Anyhow, to answer your question yes I know that aluminum/metal can only take so much before it becomes brittle. I am fully aware of how materials have a breaking point. But then again YOU were not talking about the structure of the plane.. LOL I'm done you can have your thoughts.. I'll keep mine. If it turns out that the plane crashed due to a structural issue I will eat my hat. Wait I mean "fatigued" aluminum... Whew that one almost got away.. Have a good night Ceedawg Im just razzin... Its all good.

 

[miller]

Unfortunately, updates, or what actually happened, to cause it to leave the runway, might not happen. Too much of a loss, not much of the plane left.

Too many different things could have happened. Unknowns. Main gear failure, flat tire, on and on, all the way to pilot error. #4 engine was out, but not a reason, the airplane could not have landed, safely.

We lost an engine on the B-25, once. Had to toss 13 jumpers out (too much of a load, on one engine), a little more work, but landed fine. Even had to fly a circuit around the field, until all the jump team was safely on the ground, first!

Kinda hope there's a witness, to fill in the blanks. Until then...

 

[BeepBeepRR]

I'm sure there is surveillance video around I mean we do live in a Big Brother society. It will surface at some point.

 

[BeepBeepRR]

As I suspected. The plane hit some sort of landing instrument probably a runway light assembly causing it to veer right across the runway and into the building. Possibly due to being under powered and not able to make the runway.

"During the landing attempt, officials said the plane hit a landing instrument station, veered to the right, crossed the runway, and then struck a de-icing facility."

As a result here are the names of all that tragically lost their lives.

• 
  
  
  • Ernest McCauley, 75 - Pilot, from Long Beach, CA
  • Michael Foster, 71 - Co-Pilot, from Jacksonville, FL
  • David Broderick, 56 - passenger from West Springfield, MA
  • Gary Mazzone, 66, - passenger from Broad Brook, CT
  • James Roberts, 48 - passenger from Ludlow, MA
  • Robert Riddell, 59 - passenger from East Granby, CT
  • Robert Rubner, 64 - passenger from Tolland, CT

 

[BeepBeepRR]

NTSB responds to the inspections questions on this plane.

https://www.wfsb.com/news-conferenc...deo_ba0e6c8e-67c3-5cb0-a918-9c07e26d0643.html