B-17 Nine-O-Nine crashes in Connecticut

[lebanon]

Sad news.

WWII-era plane crashes in Connecticut - CNN (https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/world-war-ii-plane-crash-connecticut/index.html)

[JDNSW]

There seems to be little information so far on the possible cause of the accident, although the report that it was not gaining altitude suggests an engine problem. A pure guess at this time is that one engine failed, and the aircraft groundlooped during the landing, perhaps the result of being unable to feather the prop on a dead engine.

I don't have any real idea of what the ground handling is like on this 1930s design, but (as a pilot endorsed on tailwheel aircraft) I can see how this could happen. And not too sure about the use of a bomber as what seems essentially a passenger aircraft - it seems to have been carrying about ten paying passengers.

[Bigbjorn]

I had three short flights in Collings Foundation WW2 aircraft from Santa Ana airport in LA. The foundation tours the USA regularly selling joy flights. I was in a B17, B24, B25. We flew a dangerous daylight mission to bomb Port of Long Beach escorted by the foundations P51[bigsmile1]. Passengers just climb in and sit on cushions on the floor. WW2 aircrew must have been skinny little guys. I could not fit down the hatch in the B17 from the pilot's position to the nose and it was a very tight squeeze down the narrow catwalk between the bomb racks from the waist guns to the cockpit. My favourite was the B25 Mitchell.

There are numbers of WW2 aircraft flying in the USA. One small country airport I saw, between Bakersfield and Visalia hosted a B17, F4U Corsair, and an F4 Phantom all in civilian livery. Also there is a business there that restores/refurbishes ex-forces C130 Hercules for resale as civilian aircraft. There is a private collection and airstrip in Utah that has probably 20 WW2 aircraft and boasts they all can fly and do so. My favourites were their Griffon-Mustang and Corsair with a four row "corn cob" radial installed. These two probably equate to sprint cars or AA Fuelers in motor sport terms. Money, money, money.

[p38arover]

I could not fit down the hatch in the B17 from the pilot's position to the nose and it was a very tight squeeze down the narrow catwalk between the bomb racks from the waist guns to the cockpit. My

In Seattle, I had a flight in a B25 and a B17. In the B17, I was in the bombardier's position.

Pic taken at take-off:

154681

[Pickles2]

I had three short flights in Collings Foundation WW2 aircraft from Santa Ana airport in LA. The foundation tours the USA regularly selling joy flights. I was in a B17, B24, B25. We flew a dangerous daylight mission to bomb Port of Long Beach escorted by the foundations P51[bigsmile1]. Passengers just climb in and sit on cushions on the floor. WW2 aircrew must have been skinny little guys. I could not fit down the hatch in the B17 from the pilot's position to the nose and it was a very tight squeeze down the narrow catwalk between the bomb racks from the waist guns to the cockpit. My favourite was the B25 Mitchell.

There are numbers of WW2 aircraft flying in the USA. One small country airport I saw, between Bakersfield and Visalia hosted a B17, F4U Corsair, and an F4 Phantom all in civilian livery. Also there is a business there that restores/refurbishes ex-forces C130 Hercules for resale as civilian aircraft. There is a private collection and airstrip in Utah that has probably 20 WW2 aircraft and boasts they all can fly and do so. My favourites were their Griffon-Mustang and Corsair with a four row "corn cob" radial installed. These two probably equate to sprint cars or AA Fuelers in motor sport terms. Money, money, money.
"Griffon Mustang" sounds good to me.
Pickles.

[Bigbjorn]

"Griffon Mustang" sounds good to me.
Pickles.

It did sound good too. I was told the "corn cob" F4U was faster with an actual excess of power that the airframe could not use. The P51 had a highly modified engine for air pylon racing and had propellor problems in that it needed more prop to use the available horsepower but mounting same was quite an engineering challenge. The operation blends their own fuel mix. 115/145 leaded Avgas was no longer available. They were using a "secret blend" of 100LL Avgas, "octane improver" which I suspected was Benzol/Toluene or similar with some methanol, and tetra-ethyl lead. I was surprised to find one can buy tetra-ethyl lead there (and here nowadays). I had an intro to the billionaire owner who took pleasure in showing off his toys to foreign visitors. Very nice guy, personable and hospitable. The operation had bigger and better machine shop and toolroom than most factories in Australia. Sorry, but photography was not permitted.

[VladTepes]

Very sad and tragic.
Poor buggers.

[Old Farang]

As is usual with these "accidents" the keyboard experts jump right in. If you weed out the chaff from the grain in the following, there are some sensible comments:

B17 crash at Bradley - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/626003-b17-crash-bradley.html)

In another life I did some flying in the US(I have an FAA licence), and some of the antics they get up to would see an Australian licence cancelled, along with a court case.

In part of the link post much is made of why the crew did not declare an emergency, which MAY very well have saved all of them. RIP.

[Hugh Jars]

As is usual with these "accidents" the keyboard experts jump right in. If you weed out the chaff from the grain in the following, there are some sensible comments:

B17 crash at Bradley - PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/626003-b17-crash-bradley.html)

In another life I did some flying in the US(I have an FAA licence), and some of the antics they get up to would see an Australian licence cancelled, along with a court case.

In part of the link post much is made of why the crew did not declare an emergency, which MAY very well have saved all of them. RIP.

Yes, there are plenty of armchair experts over there. So many, that after almost 2 decades of membership I haven’t been over there for about 3 years. It’s really a waste of space.

[JDNSW]

About the only pertinent new information I got out of that lot was that it seems it landed short, as it struck part of the approach lighting, perhaps supporting the possibility of losing an engine plus unable to feather. But also consistent with a fuel issue.

[Old Farang]

Yes, there are plenty of armchair experts over there. So many, that after almost 2 decades of membership I haven’t been over there for about 3 years. It’s really a waste of space.
Hmm, they are not all "over there"!

[Tins]

https://youtu.be/5YN4QAdji7Y

[JDNSW]

From this it seems that N04 was shut down and feathered, but for some non-obvious reason, the plane was not performing as well as it should have on three engines, resulting in undershooting the runway. Not suggested in this account, but I wonder if the propeller damage to No3 was the result of impact on the approach lighting.

With only 1 and 2 providing thrust and trying to drag it onto the runway, a right swing is not surprising, but the question remains - why low and slow?

[Tins]

From this it seems that N04 was shut down and feathered, but for some non-obvious reason, the plane was not performing as well as it should have on three engines, resulting in undershooting the runway.

"Not suggested in this account, but I wonder if the propeller damage to No3 was the result of impact on the approach lighting. "
That was my take, based only on this report, which seems to say that the tip of No3 was found 700 metres back.


With only 1 and 2 providing thrust and trying to drag it onto the runway, a right swing is not surprising, but the question remains - why low and slow?



Low and slow, no flaps ( sure, I get the drag thing, but lift is important too ). Tipping we won't know for more than a year.

[Hugh Jars]

You have to think about the one or more engines inoperative performance certification for the type. Transport category aeroplanes MUST perform to a certain standard. In Australia, CAO 20.7.1B is the governing document. I don’t know what the equivalent FAR is.

There’s a chance that the B17, being a military aircraft, was not (and didn’t need to be) certified to perform following an engine failure. I don’t know.

Back in the 80’s a Super Kingair crashed into the sea wall at the end of RWY34 Sydney during an air-return on one engine. It was found that the company (Advance Airlines) was doing unauthorised and incorrectly executed reduced-power takeoffs. When conducted correctly, you will get the required climb performance should an engine fail at V1.

This mob was using an unapproved technique, and when the engine quit, the aircraft failed to perform (not unexpected, in hindsight). The long-short of it is that maximum continuous power was not set on the good engine, the aircraft did not perform as required, and it hit the sea wall, killing all on board. The irony is that they crashed only a few feet below the top of the wall. Had the correct procedure been followed, over 10 people would be still around today.

So what does this have to do with the B17, you ask? It didn’t seem to perform too well on 3 engines, and crashed short of the runway on return, just like the Kingair, so is there a parallel?

The aircraft had 3 zero hour (rebuilt) engines. I have 3 questions:
1. Was normal takeoff power used, or did the crew ‘baby’ the engines (less power) because they were freshly rebuilt?
2. If the crew did use less than takeoff power, did they set max continuous power on the 3 new engines following the failure of #4?
3. Were the 3 rebuilt engines defective in some way, and not capable of delivering the required power?

Just a few factors that *might* have contributed to the prang...

[JDNSW]

Yes, that would be the sort of thing I would be thinking of.

Worth noting though that the B17 is a 1930s design (1935 first flight), and I would be very surprised if engine out performance was even considered in its specifications. It had four of the most powerful available engines, simply to provide enough power to meet the speed, range and payload specified, although Boeing claimed it was the first combat aircraft that could continue its mission after one engine failed. This would have been a result of the total power needed to meet the specifications, rather than a design issue.

Not really relevant, but the prototype was destroyed when it crashed on its second evaluation flight - taking off with control locks in place will do that!

As more powerful engines became available, these were fitted - but MTOW went up along with the increased power, and also defensive armament and hence parasitic drag was also increased. By modern standards these are very 'dirty' aircraft.

[bob10]

Well this is a video of the aircraft a month before the crash. I sincerely none in the video were involved in the crash.


YouTube (https://youtu.be/95Z6j559Px0)