Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Fly320s on October 02, 2019, 11:00:02 AM

Title: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Fly320s on October 02, 2019, 11:00:02 AM
https://www.wfsb.com/news/b-crash-leads-to-fire-at-bradley-airport/article_d514bd24-e51d-11e9-b6ac-47e02ec67428.html

Just happened an hour ago.  Bradley airport is currently closed.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: TommyGunn on October 02, 2019, 11:03:38 AM
Ouch.  Another classic warbird, lost. :'(
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Ben on October 02, 2019, 11:06:55 AM
Is that the one from the Liberty Foundation? Damn. I almost took a ride on it when they stopped here a few months ago, but I didn't find out the plane was here until the day of the flights.

Wonder if they had passengers or they were just flying into the airport? Anyway, sad thing.  =(
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 02, 2019, 11:09:37 AM
Oh damn. Hope all the crew got out okay. Sounds like at least one has been lifeflighted to a nearby hospital.

If it's the Collings Foundation B-17g then it was probably Nine-O-Nine. Collings got her back in the mid 1980s. If memory serves, she was used as a forest fire tanker before they got her. I kinda remember something about being part of nuclear testing after WW2. Instrument carrier, maybe?

Brad
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: BobR on October 02, 2019, 01:36:57 PM
The news is reporting 13 people on board, 3 crew, 10 Pax so it sounds like it was one of their fund raising flights. :(

bob
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Doggy Daddy on October 02, 2019, 02:31:57 PM
Article in link needs moar paragraph breaks.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: 230RN on October 02, 2019, 03:33:27 PM
All sympathy and empathy for the victims' families.

Terrible about the total loss of another old warbird.

David Prescott's interview was very interesting.

Son2 and I toured the insides of "Fifi" at a Centennial Airport show and I have a picture of him sitting in the copilot's seat.  It was a very memorable thing, and I am so glad that such great efforts are made to keep those old birds flying.

Terry <snif>

REF (Includes picture):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-O-Nine

Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: RocketMan on October 02, 2019, 07:27:37 PM
It was Nine-O-Nine, and she is a total loss.  Worse yet is that seven are reported dead and one or two more might not make it.  The crash crew reported that it took a couple of hours to reach the cockpit, so I'm guessing pilot and copilot didn't survive.
Pilot reported #4 engine was having problems about five minutes after takeoff, and that he needed to return to the airport.  The crash occurred on landing.  A couple of observers on the ground commented on a clanking noise coming from the plane as it passed by.  I wonder if they lost a jug or two on #4.
Single-engine-out performance of the B-17 is pretty decent, so I am betting there were other complications that led to the crash.
We returned from a show in Madera, CA one year in Sentimental Journey and had to shut down #3 en route due to low oil pressure.  We had no problems other than arriving in Mesa, AZ after dark in a plane without lights.
There were two other occasions that I am aware of when they lost jugs on an engine in flight and still made it back down safely.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: WLJ on October 02, 2019, 07:39:17 PM

Single-engine-out performance of the B-17 is pretty decent, so I am betting there were other complications that led to the crash.
We returned from a show in Madera, CA one year in Sentimental Journey and had to shut down #3 en route due to low oil pressure.  We had no problems other than arriving in Mesa, AZ after dark in a plane without lights.
There were two other occasions that I am aware of when they lost jugs on an engine in flight and still made it back down safely.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it would seem the resulting yaw wouldn't be as severe in the case of losing power on an inboard engine vs an outboard engine.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: RocketMan on October 02, 2019, 07:47:05 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but it would seem the resulting yaw wouldn't be as severe in the case of losing power on an inboard engine vs an outboard engine.

True, but from the reports they had managed to get it turned around and headed back to the airport and lined up for a landing.  The pictures I saw seemed to indicate it had veered left on landing for some reason, coming to a stop in among a bunch of storage tanks full of deicing fluid.  However, those pictures weren't from far enough away to show a slide or skid pattern across the field, so I could be wrong.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: 230RN on October 03, 2019, 02:46:48 AM
Those things seem to have been legendary in their ability to make it back after extreme battle damage. So it's kind of odd if it was flyable until ground contact.  Any aerial shots showing skidmarks?  I noticed you asked about that, too.  Could the bad engine have suddenly caught again and added yaw at just exactly the worst time?  You'd think the first thing would have been to feather the prop.  The pilot was an airline pilot, which implies jets, which I guess just spin down if anything goes goofy, but I'm no expert.

???

I also caught, I think from David Prescott's interview, that one ground person was killed or injured in the accident.  Any futher word on this?

Terry, 230RN

FYI:
 (Surviving aircraft)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_Boeing_B-17_Flying_Fortresses

(Black Box)
According to Prescott, the electronics on that old an aircraft would not support Black Box technology.  There was no Black Box on the plane, but some information can be gleaned from other sources like stuck instruments and the like as well as maintenance records, ATC records, etc.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: RocketMan on October 03, 2019, 05:43:42 AM
Comparing videos of the impact site with overheads on Google Earth, it almost seems as though the B-17 crossed over the end of runway 6 and slammed down into the deicing tank farm.  He may not have been lined up with the runway at all.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: WLJ on October 03, 2019, 08:33:40 AM
Just speculation at this point but it could of been a fuel issue, or Murphy, that effected the other same side engine just as they were landing. Low and slow on approach that's bad news.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: WLJ on October 03, 2019, 08:37:41 AM
Also wonder if some fault prevented him from feathering #4. That would greatly increase the drag on that side.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 03, 2019, 10:14:34 AM
Hate to see it.  I think this bird was due to come to KHEF this weekend for an airshow.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: 230RN on October 03, 2019, 12:50:07 PM
RocketMan, above:

"The pictures I saw seemed to indicate it had veered left on landing for some reason, coming to a stop in among a bunch of storage tanks full of deicing fluid. "

That's why I conjectured a sudden re-start of the engine without feathering.  Would tend to make it veer left, like a left brake or wheel lockup.  But it's all pie in the sky at this point anyhow.  It is engaging to speculate, though, so there's that excuse.

Terry
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: HankB on October 03, 2019, 03:28:07 PM
And during WWII, many Flying Forts made it back to base, shot to pieces.

Wonder what really went wrong to make this one crash.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 03, 2019, 04:04:12 PM
From what I'm reading, it had a history of incidents. Makes you wonder about both maintenance and piloting.

Brad
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 03, 2019, 04:35:29 PM
The rumor going around is someone fed her Jet A on their last fueling.

Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: WLJ on October 03, 2019, 04:55:48 PM
The rumor going around is someone fed her Jet A on their last fueling.



If true

(https://oi1179.photobucket.com/albums/x383/WLJohnson1/Forum%20stuff/go23UMa_zps7g0m2aix.gif)
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: MechAg94 on October 03, 2019, 05:12:19 PM
Would the engines even work on that fuel?  Okay, apparently they did for a little while, but I would have thought it would be obvious the engines didn't sound right.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: BobR on October 03, 2019, 05:15:22 PM
Would the engines even work on that fuel?  Okay, apparently they did for a little while, but I would have thought it would be obvious the engines didn't sound right.

We had that happen to a plane that refueled at one of our small airports, he got about 2 miles before the aviation fuel in the carbs/lines ran out and it became Jet 1A, he crashed.

bob
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: WLJ on October 03, 2019, 05:18:06 PM
Would the engines even work on that fuel?  Okay, apparently they did for a little while, but I would have thought it would be obvious the engines didn't sound right.

No, but there are multiple tanks on those things. There may have been enough gas in the tank to keep the engine(s) running for while or at least poorly.
Wonder if the port wing was filled with gas and the starboard wing JP?
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Brad Johnson on October 03, 2019, 06:48:18 PM

The rumor going around is someone fed her Jet A on their last fueling.


Yeah, that'd do it.

You'd think the ground crew would notice the wrong fuel truck sitting next to her, though. Kinda hard not to notice the giant "100 Octane Only" decal next to the fuel fills, too.

Brad
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: HankB on October 03, 2019, 06:57:48 PM
Yeah, that'd do it.

You'd think the ground crew would notice the wrong fuel truck sitting next to her, though. Kinda hard not to notice the giant "100 Octane Only" decal next to the fuel fills, too.

Brad
Duh, it's JET fuel, and JETS are more powerful than propeller planes, so it's gotta be at least 100 octane, right?  :facepalm:
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: WLJ on October 03, 2019, 07:01:23 PM
Yeah, that'd do it.

You'd think the ground crew would notice the wrong fuel truck sitting next to her, though. Kinda hard not to notice the giant "100 Octane Only" decal next to the fuel fills, too.

Brad

Hope a little humor is not inappropriate at this point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EHDBJFoZL4
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 04, 2019, 07:43:40 AM
Yeah, that'd do it.

You'd think the ground crew would notice the wrong fuel truck sitting next to her, though. Kinda hard not to notice the giant "100 Octane Only" decal next to the fuel fills, too.

Brad


Attention to detail, or lack thereof, is a killer in this industry.

Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: HeroHog on October 04, 2019, 01:53:19 PM
Hope a little humor is not inappropriate at this point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EHDBJFoZL4

This is what came to my mind: https://youtu.be/AgjA_iXEr3A  :rofl:
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: 230RN on October 07, 2019, 05:21:18 PM
Additional late details.  Who, rescue attempts, ground reports, etc.

https://apnews.com/cdd09aa19ff344ee82a73b79ea00c8e1
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Hawkmoon on October 07, 2019, 06:28:13 PM
Additional late details.  Who, rescue attempts, ground reports, etc.

https://apnews.com/cdd09aa19ff344ee82a73b79ea00c8e1

Not really anything new. The article dates to last Thursday. Is there anything current in the way of updates?
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: 230RN on October 07, 2019, 06:45:19 PM
Perhaps you can find a later one.  I don't expect anything to come from the investigators until they make a final report, whenever.  I guess that's standard procedure. The link says they're looking at that engine.  (Of course.  Duh.)
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: RocketMan on October 08, 2019, 10:51:09 AM
There may have been some last minute maintenance to one of the engines.  The wife of one of the victims, Robert Ridell, reported that her husband had texted her: “This doesn’t bode well, the pilot shut off the engine and has left his seat,” as he waited for the B-17 to take off.
The B-17 apparently took off 40 minutes behind schedule.
Story is here. (https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/10/stories-of-devastating-loss-and-heroism-emerged-from-the-b-17-bomber-crash-at-bradley-international-airport/)
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: 230RN on October 08, 2019, 04:58:26 PM
A walkaround by NTSB

https://youtu.be/DIjWv0lcLz0
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: BobR on October 08, 2019, 06:46:37 PM
That is a shame. Other than a couple of control surfaces and trim tabs there isn't much left to salvage. It's callous but hell I feel kind of sad the B17 is gone, it can't be replaced, the people other than to family probably won't be missed nearly as much if at all.  =|

bob
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: 230RN on October 08, 2019, 09:12:03 PM
20 minutes NTSB news conference.

https://youtu.be/19vJ27Q5WSg

Jennifer Homindy (sp?) did a great job in handling the questions.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Devonai on October 10, 2019, 05:45:05 PM
I work on the Air Guard base on the west side of the airport; I was 1/4 mile away at my desk when this happened.  I had speculated that the aircraft may have impacted either the perimeter fence or landing lights, and it seems I was right.  :(
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Jamisjockey on October 10, 2019, 06:19:24 PM
https://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-bradley-b-17-crash-mitchell-melton-released-from-hospital-20191009-lapaprst4fb5tmga2thspnrjd4-story.html

Hit the approach lights.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Andiron on October 10, 2019, 09:25:33 PM
Sen. Richard Blumenthal wants to know why passengers were even "allowed" to go for a ride on a B17:

https://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-blumenthal-faa-probe-deadly-b-17-crash-bradley-20191007-flz6vy6bi5hmrpzty6i6wilmle-story.html#nt=interstitial-manual

*expletive deleted*ck you, Dick,  Die in an avgas fueled fire.  This is an awful enough thing already without you piping in that "that shouldn't even be legal".

Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: RocketMan on October 11, 2019, 08:42:19 AM
Sen. Blumenthal has once again proven himself to be a political opportunist and a despicable human being.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Devonai on October 11, 2019, 03:27:51 PM
Quit making personal decisions about your safety and follow the directions of your elected overlords.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: RocketMan on October 19, 2019, 02:47:24 PM
The NTSB released its preliminary report (initial factual findings) last week on the crash.  Story here (https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/ntsb-releases-prelim-info-on-collings-b-17-crash/?MailingID=192&utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Preliminary+NTSB+Information+on+B-17+Crash+Is+Out%2C+SyberJet+SJ30i+Flies+++Stratolaunch+Has+a+New+Owner&utm_campaign=Prelim+NTSB+Report+on+B-17+Crash%2C+SyberJet+SJ30i+Flies+++Stratolaunch+Has+a+New+Owner+-+Wednesday+October+16%2C+2019) on AVWeb.

A pdf of the NTSB report is here. (https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20191002X11326&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=MA)
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: WLJ on October 19, 2019, 03:03:39 PM
The NTSB released its preliminary report (initial factual findings) last week on the crash.  Story here (https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/ntsb-releases-prelim-info-on-collings-b-17-crash/?MailingID=192&utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Preliminary+NTSB+Information+on+B-17+Crash+Is+Out%2C+SyberJet+SJ30i+Flies+++Stratolaunch+Has+a+New+Owner&utm_campaign=Prelim+NTSB+Report+on+B-17+Crash%2C+SyberJet+SJ30i+Flies+++Stratolaunch+Has+a+New+Owner+-+Wednesday+October+16%2C+2019) on AVWeb.

A pdf of the NTSB report is here. (https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20191002X11326&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=MA)

Quote
Examination of the left-side engines (Numbers 1 and 2) suggest they were still making power at the time of impact while the investigators found that the Number-3 engine’s propeller had one blade that was “impact damaged and near the feather position. The other two blades appeared in a position between low pitch and feather.” Moreover, the report confirms that “… all three propeller blades on the No. 4 engine appeared in the feather position.” The NTSB notes that both engines on the left wing and the inboard right-side engine had been overhauled at the previous annual, around 270 hours prior to the accident. The Number 4 engine had 1106 hours since major overhaul at the time of the crash

Looks like both starboard engines failed. My guess from the feathered positions, and the rough mag call, first #4 and then on final approach #3  
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: WLJ on October 19, 2019, 03:15:28 PM
Quote
At that time, the airplane was about 500 feet above ground level (agl) on the right crosswind leg of the airport traffic pattern for runway 6. The approach controller verified the request and asked if the pilot required any assistance, to which he replied no. The controller then asked for the reason for the return to the airport, and the pilot replied that the airplane had a ‘rough mag’ on the No. 4 engine.

Mag = Magneto
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: 230RN on October 19, 2019, 05:22:10 PM
General information:

No longer really that relevant, since the 9-0-9 preliminary investigation revealed no evident fuel mixup*.  However, acording to this (dated 15 Oct 2019) there was a fatal at the Kokomo Indiana airport due to a fuel mixup:

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/misfueling-likely-cause-of-recent-aerostar-crash/

Since the 9-0-9 crash, this old groundlubber has been wondering how come they didn't use different mating nozzles for the different fuels.

Well, duh, they do, but this popped out at me from the article cited in this post:

Quote
The normal checks and balances are bolstered by the design of Jet A fuel nozzles, which are built to not fit into the filler ports of piston aircraft. Nevertheless, according to the NTSB prelim, “The [FBO] employee said that he was able to orientate [sic] the different shaped nozzle (relative to the 100 low lead fuel truck nozzle) from the Jet A fuel truck by positioning it 90 degrees over the wing fuel tank filler necks and about 45 degrees over the fuselage filler necks. He said the he initially spilled about one gallon of fuel during refueling and adjusted his technique so subsequent fuel spillage was minimal.”

Italics mine.

Hooooleee excrement !


Attention to detail, or lack thereof, is a killer in this industry.

And sometimes, even protective details can be defeated by a dedicated jerk.

Terry

* "According to the NTSB’s initial report [on the 9-0-9 crash]: 'On the morning of the accident flight, an airport lineman at BDL assisted the loadmaster as he added 160 gallons of 100LL aviation fuel to the accident airplane. The lineman stated that the accident airplane was the first to be fueled with 100LL fuel that day.'"
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: BobR on October 20, 2019, 12:47:16 AM
We also had a wrong fuel crash here in Spokane a while back.

Quote
To avoid fueling errors, it’s common for jet fuel pumps to have nozzles that won’t fit into the tanks of piston-engine planes. Western Aviation has not returned calls asking whether those nozzles are in use at Felts Field.[/quote}

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/mar/11/preliminary-report-confirms-wrong-fuel-spokane-pla/

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/08/piper-pa-46-350p-malibu-mirage-c-gvzw.html

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20150222X75521&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=LA

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/jul/01/lawsuit-attendant-who-refueled-plane-that-crashed-/


bob
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: 230RN on October 20, 2019, 07:19:46 AM
Thanks, BobR.

From BobR's last link above ("Therrell" was the person who did the refueling in that accident of 22 Feb 2015):

Quote
Therrell was an employee of Western Aviation, Felts Field’s fuel concessionaire. The lawsuit claims he had a history of drug problems that should have precluded him from getting the job. It claims Western Aviation hired him because his uncle, Tim Gump, owns the company.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/jul/01/lawsuit-attendant-who-refueled-plane-that-crashed-/
(Note the word "claims.")

In that link, I was also tragically amused at the concept of people using "rogue nozzles" on the fuel delivery lines.  Good grief.

Terry
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: RocketMan on October 20, 2019, 04:00:44 PM
There is something that I have been wondering about since I read the NTSB initial report.  It looks like problems developed with both #3 and #4 motors prior to the crash landing.  It seemed odd initially that simultaneous failures would happen on that wing.  Then I remembered back to my days with Sentimental Journey in Arizona.  During my time with the CAF we were concerned about the self-sealing fuel tanks on our B-17.  SJ still had the original self-sealing tanks that were installed when she was built.  The concern was that the tanks would degrade as they aged and the sealant would migrate into the tanks and eventually clog the fuel system.
We were discussing replacing the tanks with non-self-sealing tanks made of aluminum.  It would have been very spendy to do it even back then as the tanks would have been completely custom units.  Not to mention the laborious task of removing the original tanks and replacing them with the new units.  It would have been a months long project for an all-volunteer group at the time.
I wonder if "909" still had the self-sealing tanks installed from when she was manufactured?  If so, they were probably getting pretty rough by this point.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: 230RN on October 22, 2019, 10:12:59 PM
^ Would multiple parallel easily replaced / flushed fuel filters have cured that problem?

Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: RocketMan on October 23, 2019, 07:03:34 AM
^ Would multiple parallel easily replaced / flushed fuel filters have cured that problem?

Technically speaking it probably would have solved the issue, but I doubt it would have been a practical solution.  The fuel filters would have required space that was easily accessible for regular servicing, and the interiors of B17 wings aren't very accessible.
There are large panels on the underside of a B17 wing held in place by screws.  They are removable, but they are also structural components that contribute strength to the wing.  Because of this, special jacks must be placed at several points under the wing whenever the panels are removed.  The panels are only removed for major servicing of the aircraft.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Boomhauer on October 23, 2019, 11:57:57 AM
Hey rocket man did y’all look at commissioning Goodyear for some custom rubber fuel tanks to replace the original self sealing tanks? Dad had to replace the fuel tanks in our Cessna and that’s who made them
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: 230RN on October 23, 2019, 12:40:32 PM
Well, filters don't need to be near the tanks... they can be just before the engine, for that matter.  

One objection I might have is that soluble matter (if any) from the sealing bladders would get through the filters, then deposit in the carbs as the spray evaporated.  But after 77 years, I reckon all the solubles (if any) in the bladders would have been carried away long ago.

If it isn't the fuel after all, I'm betting on the impulse magnetos.  Maybe they ran out of impulse (weak springs?) and they can't quite give the same "snap."

Seems to me something like that would explain the shutdown, the fiddling with the engine, and the final "go" decision.  And I think they said the port engines were overhauled, but not the starboard ones, no?

(Do you guys switch (test) the magnetos at idle, or at run-up RPM?  I can't remember.)

Terry, groundlubber in a nice soft armchair, 230RN

REF (You can hear the clunk-clunk of the impulse magnetos in a lot of radial engine startups):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_magneto#Impulse_coupling

(scroll to impulse coupling)
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: RocketMan on October 23, 2019, 05:37:36 PM
Hey rocket man did y’all look at commissioning Goodyear for some custom rubber fuel tanks to replace the original self sealing tanks? Dad had to replace the fuel tanks in our Cessna and that’s who made them.

It was a long time ago and I have slept a time or two since then.  I know we didn't pursue it very seriously at that time in the 80's as it was beyond our means both financially and in manpower.
It's possible that the Az Wing has since replaced the tanks, but I wouldn't know.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: RocketMan on October 23, 2019, 05:41:06 PM
(Do you guys switch (test) the magnetos at idle, or at run-up RPM?  I can't remember.)

I am pretty sure we always switched between mags at run up.  I do not recall what the acceptable RPM drop was between the mags.
I think I still have my CAF reprint of the B17 engineering manual around somewhere. (At least I hope I do.  It would be very disappointing if I lost it somewhere along the way.)  That info should be in the manual.

ETA:  Thinking about this, it's been over 30 years since I crewed Sentimental Journey.  Wow.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: WLJ on March 30, 2020, 08:15:35 AM
Updates

FAA revokes Living History Flight Experience Exemption for the Collings Foundation due to issues found in the maintenance and management of the crashed B-17.

B 17 'Nine-O-Nine Crash UPDATE 27 March 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkxVSnx1Utg

Poor Maintenance Could Have Led To Fatal B-17 Crash
https://hackaday.com/2020/03/28/poor-maintenance-could-have-led-to-fatal-b-17-crash/
Quote
   Regarding engine 4, to prevent the magneto “P” leads from separating from the
    magnetos, someone had attempted to rig the magneto leads in place with safety wire.

    Inspection and testing of engine 4 left magneto revealed the movement of the safety-wired lead caused grounding to the case, which rendered the magneto lead inoperative.

Further, all of the spark plugs in the number 3 and 4 engines were found to be fouled and had electrode gaps that were out of tolerance. From an examination of the aircraft’s maintenance records, it was also learned that an arcing and burned wire had been replaced without any investigative steps taken to find what caused the failure to begin with.

With basic maintenance tasks either not being performed or at least done incorrectly, the FAA has called into question the culture of safety at the Collings Foundation. The paper is careful not to directly accuse the Foundation or any of its staff with outright negligence, but the implication seems clear.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 30, 2020, 08:23:48 AM
Quote
Regarding engine 4, to prevent the magneto “P” leads from separating from the
magnetos, someone had attempted to rig the magneto leads in place with safety wire.

Inspection and testing of engine 4 left magneto revealed the movement of the safety-wired lead caused grounding to the case, which rendered the magneto lead inoperative.

That's not "poor maintenance".  That's *expletive deleted*ing criminal.
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: HeroHog on April 02, 2020, 06:32:19 AM
Jesus! Zip-Ties for that crap, people! Safety wire on rubber, plastic, Bakelite, or something carrying high-voltage electricity is a recipe for trouble, and in a plane or household wiring, possibly fatal!
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: MechAg94 on April 02, 2020, 10:28:54 AM
When I saw this, I was thinking "bailing wire".  I had to google it.  It isn't quite the same, but similar.  But used on electrical wires?  If I saw an electrician here try to rig something up they would use zip ties and/or a crap load of electrical tape. 
Title: Re: B17 crashed in CT today
Post by: RocketMan on April 02, 2020, 01:38:47 PM
It isn't unusual to safety wire connectors when they are made to accommodate it, and especially if they are used in a high vibration environment.  The R1820-97 engine in a B-17 is definitely a high vibration environment.
However, from reading the preliminary report, someone absolutely screwed the pooch on this one.  We safety wired a lot of connectors on the engine accessories, but not on the stuff listed in the report.  Stupid kills in an airplane.