B17 crashed in CT today

[Fly320s]

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.

[TommyGunn]

Ouch.  Another classic warbird, lost.

[Ben]

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.  

[Brad Johnson]

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

[BobR]

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

[Doggy Daddy]

Article in link needs moar paragraph breaks.

[230RN]

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

[RocketMan]

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.

[WLJ]

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.

[RocketMan]

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.

[230RN]

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.

[RocketMan]

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.

[WLJ]

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.

[WLJ]

Also wonder if some fault prevented him from feathering #4. That would greatly increase the drag on that side.

[Jamisjockey]

Hate to see it.  I think this bird was due to come to KHEF this weekend for an airshow.

[230RN]

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

[HankB]

And during WWII, many Flying Forts made it back to base, shot to pieces.

Wonder what really went wrong to make this one crash.

[Brad Johnson]

From what I'm reading, it had a history of incidents. Makes you wonder about both maintenance and piloting.

Brad

[Jamisjockey]

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

[WLJ]

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

If true

[MechAg94]

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.

[BobR]

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

[WLJ]

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?

[Brad Johnson]

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

[HankB]

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?