Collings Foundation B17 crashes on landing

[tcar]

Originally Posted by pmax

How many replacements of these historical birds are left ?

There are 40 plus B-17's still in existence. 9 or so are flying with another 5-6 being restored to flyable condition....


B-24's.... there are 2 flyable, Collings has one and Commemorative AF has one. There are another 10-11 in existence.

[pmax]

Originally Posted by tcar

There are 40 plus B-17's still in existence. 9 or so are flying with another 5-6 being restored to flyable condition....


B-24's.... there are 2 flyable, Collings has one and Commemorative AF has one. There are another 10-11 in existence.

Not many at all...

at some point, preservation has to take precedence since accidents and loss will happen.

[KNS]

Originally Posted by pmax

Not many at all...

at some point, preservation has to take precedence since accidents and loss will happen.

Unless it's a rare, one-of-kind, fly them all as long as possible. There are already plenty in museums that will never fly again. There is no comparison between a static display and a flying piece of history.

[rcooled]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

You can to a walk through the bombers while they are on the ground for $12.

Did this when they were out here a few years ago. Very cool indeed...

[pmax]

I'll speculate that this one had engine trouble causing it to miss the runway.

Looks like the last B-17 crash in 2011 was also due to engine trouble, fire from a fuel leak due to a fractured weld ...
I'll agree with earlier comments that the statistics do not bode well here.

Further examination of the fuel tank was conducted by the NTSB materials laboratory. A longitudinal crack, about 7.2 inches in length, was located along the center of the weld seam. The fracture surface features were consistent with fatigue, consistent with a progressive failure at the weld seam. The sealant in the vicinity of the aft two repair bolts was thin and the cured sealant did not conform to the inside shape of the C-channel. The sealant along the remainder of the repair had adhered to the fuel tank and provided full coverage over the weld seam. Additionally, the cured sealant along this portion of the repair conformed to the inside shape of the C-channel.
...
https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20110613X14032&ntsbno=CEN11FA383&akey=1

[tcar]

Originally Posted by pmax

I'll speculate that this one had engine trouble causing it to miss the runway..

NTSB has already said, several months ago, that #3 and #4 props (R side) were both feathered (engines not running).

The fuel quality checked out OK (no water or contaminants).

Also, FWIW, the flaps were not extended.

[john70t]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

Collings, along with several other non profits, offer flights to the public. $475 for the B24 flight of about 30 minutes. B25 is $425. P51 (2 seat trainer) is 2400 for 30 minutes and 3400 for an hour. They plan on hitting over 100 cities in the 2020 tour.

I think the flights should be longer.
A lot of wear-n-tare is from full throttle and landing stresses.
The extra fuel cost would be marginalized to the entire flight.
They were made for cruising for 10+ hours.

This may not conform with the program intentions, market viability, or total costs of upkeep though.

[greglepore]

Originally Posted by tcar

NTSB has already said, several months ago, that #3 and #4 props (R side) were both feathered (engines not running).

The fuel quality checked out OK (no water or contaminants).

Also, FWIW, the flaps were not extended.

We know that one engine was out, they radioed that. We don't know that the second feathered prop was out, or by mistake.

[greglepore]

Uggh

[Sooner or later]

Ugh is right.

When I flew on Nine O Nine the flight engineer was a girl. Prior to take off I asked her how she got the job. Did she have any credentials. Nope, nuttin, I just asked to do it and got the job.

When I flew on their B24 a few years later we were required to be seated and buckled in during landing. But it wasn't enforced. There were several people standing looking out the side opening when we landed. Not that the seat belts would have done much good since they were 1945 era.

[Scott Douglas]

Wow, that video doesn't sound good for the Collings Foundation.


(FWIW, I have a rain gauge just like the one in the video - behind the guy mounted on the deck rail)

[svandamme]

It doesn't make sense to me to have 2 pilots , both well over seventy.
I could understand 1 of them being over seventy, backed up by a younger captain in command.
Somebody with good reflexes and military or civil aviation background.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not against old people flying
But I am questioning the sanity of having them flying big old planes with a lot of passengers...

[crustychief]

[crustychief]

[Fast Freddy 944]

Originally Posted by Sooner or later

Here are a couple of crappy pictures when I flew in NineO Nine. I have videos that I can't find.

WOW! What a beauty! Thats a shame....

[Fast Freddy 944]

Originally Posted by greglepore

Uggh

Oh man! Not good!

[Sooner or later]

When I flew in it I sat immediately behind the pilots. Sitting on the floor backed up to their seats (a little lower level). I am sure the two on those seats didn't make it.

We were never giving any emergency exit instructions. No one checked our seatbelts. I had to show the girl I took on the flight how to operate hers. Our "flight engineer " was a young girl. I asked her how she got the job. "I just showed up and asked for it".

I few years later I flew on their B24. Similar pre flight safety measage. Upon landing the "flight engineer " didn't even get everyone seated and belted in. Some were standing and looking out as we landed.

The flights were terrific. I would still do them again. They still send me their annual magazine.

[Fast Freddy 944]

In Texas we have the confederate airforce which has some beautiful large ww-2 birds, I think a b17g? I cant rember. But I got to see them on a static display.

[Nostril Cheese]

What was the service life intended to be on a B17? I've seen pictures of them returning to bases all shot up, missing pieces, etc.. I imagine they were designed to be repaired quickly rather than long term airframe life?

[RNajarian]

The B17s were designed well before WWII broke out, first test flight 1935. I don’t think they were intended to be disposable like the Liberty Ships were. The fact they came back all shot up was a testimony to how rugged they were.