Horror.
The Collings Foundation's B-17 crashed at Bradley Airport near Hartford CT this morning. Here's the story as of now...
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Firefighters-Respond-to-Incident-Involving-Plane-at-Bradley-Airport-561969581.html
That is horrible and sad at so many levels.
Yes, horrible for the lives lost, sad for the loss of an irreplaceable airplane.
Very sad. It underlines the hazards of operation of a nearly 80-year old aircraft.
Quite true Charlie. However it'll be weeks or months before the accident investigation's complete and published. Who knows what caused this? Mechanical failure, structural failure, or plain old pilot error? We can only wait and see.
Flintlock76Quite true Charlie. However it'll be weeks or months before the accident investigation's complete and published. Who knows what caused this? Mechanical failure, structural failure, or plain old pilot error? We can only wait and see.
One report was that there was a engine explosion shortly before the crash and the plane was trying to return to the airport to make an emergency landing.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Just an update on the B-17 crash for all interested.
https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/B-17-crash-probe-Something-went-wrong-on-14488738.php?src=sthpcp
There's a discussion on RyPN regarding the cross-relevance of this incident to steam fantrip operations, so it can be thought of as a relevant topic here. One of the 'timeless topics' in preservation is whether to safeguard historic fabric with eternal plinthing -- see Mallard or the streamlined German class 05 -- or risk heavy damage by operating it. A considerable part of the 'money' involved in the freeing of 576 from Centennial Park is escrow to ensure that no matter how serious an accident or wreck may occur, the locomotive will be cosmetically restored and returned for display to the City.
It appears the flight engineer is among the initial survivors, so we may learn what part the engine failure actually had on this.
Current (7:00pm Thursday) word is that the ILS strike is the cause; it seems to have caused catastrophic damage to the cockpit resulting in the unguided behavior after touchdown. Engine failure was only a circumstantial reason for prompt return to airport. My heart goes out to everyone concerned.
Flintlock76Just an update on the B-17 crash for all interested. https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/B-17-crash-probe-Something-went-wrong-on-14488738.php?src=sthpcp
The amazing thing is that anyone survived.
BaltACDThe amazing thing is that anyone survived.
The plane reportedly hit some ILS structures before piling into the de-icing facilities. I saw a report that they were trying for runway 6. Given where they ended up (N 41.93160 W 72.69206), I suspect they weren't on a conventional approach.
Because the original B-17s weren't really set up for passenger, or even sight-seeing service, I would suspect that there may have been seating behind the cockpit area which may have helped with survivability.
Two firefighters who were aboard as passengers survived, according to reports.
You can listen to the fire radio traffic here: https://www.statter911.com/2019/10/03/fire-department-radio-traffic-from-deadly-b-17-crash-in-connecticut/
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
The best spot for seating would probably be near the radio operator's post or in the bomb bay. Almost anywhere else would be too tight, including the navigator's post just in front of the cockpit.
Judging by the design of the tail gunner's post, the wreckage appears to have been a B-17E or B-17F.
deleted
It was a B-17G, built in April of 1945 by the Douglas Aircraft Company, BuNo 44-83575, and restored (eventually) as "Nine-0-Nine," which flew from February 1944 to April 1945, 140 missions without an abort or loss of a crewman, but was scrapped post-war.
How do I know this? I just found my souvenir booklet from "Nine-0-Nine's" visit to Richmond a number of years ago. I was in it, but didn't fly on it. Not that I didn't want to, but it was a bit pricey.
The Collings Foundation B-24 was here at the same time. This airplane was built in August 1944 and turned over to the RAF in October of the same year. It operated in the Pacific Theater, then post-war was given to the Indian Air Force who flew it until 1968.
Runway 06 is the longest runway at Bradley. There is a mountain range west and in line with that runway that prevents flying normal left hand pattern altitudes. Have not heard if the B-17 took off from RW 13 or RW 06. With engine #4 giving a problem that would mean turning the aircraft into the dead engine to land on RW 06. Turning into a dead engine has problems and "IF" the pilot banked right wing down too much lift may have been lost on the right wing causing right wing to stall.
Prop aircraft get some lift from propeller wash which is something always taught. The lockheed electra L-188 it was a very definite problem. You never let an Electra dead engine wing down and Vmc ( minimum control speed ) was consequemtly increased as well. Now how much if any lift from the engine of a B-17 have no knowledge. Anyone know ?
blue streak 1You never let an Electra dead engine wing down and Vmc ( minimum control speed ) was consequently increased as well.
Was this not due primarily to the paddle-blade propeller drag and potential spoiling of airflow over the leading edge, even feathered, causing loss of lift? I'd be concerned if Vmc were determined including any induced lift from engines, just as I would for an aircraft using upper-surface blowing that suffered a low-speed low-altitude engine problem on one side.
I don't remember if the Electra expressly used DBE like the Airbus A400M, and anyone with distinctive competence (like Backshop's brother) may have a better opinion on this whole issue.
Overmod There's a discussion on RyPN regarding the cross-relevance of this incident to steam fantrip operations, so it can be thought of as a relevant topic here. One of the 'timeless topics' in preservation is whether to safeguard historic fabric with eternal plinthing -- see Mallard or the streamlined German class 05 -- or risk heavy damage by operating it. A considerable part of the 'money' involved in the freeing of 576 from Centennial Park is escrow to ensure that no matter how serious an accident or wreck may occur, the locomotive will be cosmetically restored and returned for display to the City. It appears the flight engineer is among the initial survivors, so we may learn what part the engine failure actually had on this. Current (7:00pm Thursday) word is that the ILS strike is the cause; it seems to have caused catastrophic damage to the cockpit resulting in the unguided behavior after touchdown. Engine failure was only a circumstantial reason for prompt return to airport. My heart goes out to everyone concerned.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Antenna array for the instrument landing system. Nose of the B-17 hit part of this hard enough to knock out the Plexiglas. What I suspect is that subsequent damage either ruined the controls or injured the pilot-in-command, or the shock of the impact caused them to lose focus during the subsequent ground run.
I'm now hearing that the aircraft initially struck the ground almost a quarter-mile short, which indicates to me that it was critically low when the decision was made to go around. It will not be good sales for the WD-40 people if the 'bad' engine was the one that was sprayed to displace moisture...
A B-17 is a very difficult aircraft to land in the sense that its heavy airfoil section and taildragging stance make it love to keep flying in ground effect as the tail drops. That won't be helpful if you're off the runway axis or trying to ground-loop into the side with a dead engine at the time. Or if your pilots or controls, for any reason, aren't up to the task of bleeding off airspeed while maintaining proper angle of attack... or, as here, handling a ground run.
There is what appears to be a little confusion in the log data, but it shows a relatively sharp descent from 800' to 600' (which is about ground level at that part of Bradley) with the vario, possibly lagged, showing 750fpm in the seconds before initial ground contact. This occurred more or less quickly after the aircraft speed bled off to 106mph, which makes me suspect a wing stall; indicated airspeed only rose to 115 at ground contact.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N93012/history/20191002/1348Z/KBDL/KBDL/tracklog
Damn it, how I hate to say this, but...
If the eventual cause of the crash was a short-landing resulting in an impact with the ILS mast, than what we may have here is a case of pilot error. Bear with me.
A B-17 should have no problem flying on three engines, especially one that isn't combat loaded. During the war it wasn't unusual at all for a "Fort" to come home on three engines, sometimes two, and two on one wing for that matter. They say it was unbelieveable the amount of damage a B-17 could take and keep flying.
With the #4 engine burning it's understandable the pilot wanted to get on the ground immediately. That sense of urgency may have led him led him to that short approach and ultimate disaster.
Old West gunfighters had a saying, "Take your time fast!" meaning know what you have to do and do it, but not so quickly you forget the fundimentals.
Monday-morning quarterbacking, I know, and I don't like to do it. The only way we'll know the sequence of events and what really happened is when the NTSB report is published. And hopefully it won't be so verbose and turgid (like some I've seen) it puts us all to sleep.
Some articles are questioning whether a 75 year old man should have been flying the plane to begin with. I don't know, there's "75" and "75", if you follow my meaning. Some 75 year olds are older, or younger, than others.
Flintlock76If the eventual cause of the crash was a short-landing resulting in an impact with the ILS mast, than what we may have here is a case of pilot error.
From what I could determine, he never got the plane above 800 feet, which means 200-odd feet above terrain. How much of the turnback he accomplished before the airspeed bled off to 106mph, I can't tell, but thereafter he recorded first 375 down vario then 750 in 10-second intervals, which I think is consistent with stall and typical recovery attempt from it ... but he was too low for much to matter.
An issue for the NTSB will be whether he could stretch his glide without making the turn or other maneuver that resulted in the sharp descent. It shouldn't be difficult for them to produce a 'video' timeline that shows the aircraft in 3D including its attitude, relative to the line of the runway and showing what might be determined as the likely recovery flightpath.
"Technically", of course, a landing that short isn't anything but pilot error unless utterly unavoidable. But just as there's 75 and 75, there's pilot error and pilot error, and there is still the likelihood that the ILS damage incapacitated one or both pilots in some meaningful sense during the (substantial) time of the subsequent slide, causing what may have been a recoverable incident into this catastrophe.
Flintlock76 Some articles are questioning whether a 75 year old man should have been flying the plane to begin with. I don't know, there's "75" and "75", if you follow my meaning. Some 75 year olds are older, or younger, than others.
There are very sound reasons why there is a mandatory retirement age for airline pilots: 65 for domestic flights, 60 international.
https://I'mwww.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/10/15/b-17-crash-ntsb-says-plane-crashed-short-runaway/3984865002/
Preliminary NTSB report link in article
Thank you Charlie.
As I read the (preliminary) report, it looks to me like pilot error, i.e. he misjudged his approach and was landing short, leading to the collision with the landing light system which caused the disaster.
Caused by unfamiliarity with the airport? We'll have to wait for the full report.
charlie hebdo Flintlock76 Some articles are questioning whether a 75 year old man should have been flying the plane to begin with. I don't know, there's "75" and "75", if you follow my meaning. Some 75 year olds are older, or younger, than others. There are very sound reasons why there is a mandatory retirement age for airline pilots: 65 for domestic flights, 60 international.
Pilots in commercial aviation face many more challenges and stresses that do the volunteer pilots for the Collings Foundation. Pilots do not have their licenses invalidated by age alone - all (to my knowledge) pilot licenses have a physical examination component that must be passed.
BaltACD charlie hebdo Flintlock76 Some articles are questioning whether a 75 year old man should have been flying the plane to begin with. I don't know, there's "75" and "75", if you follow my meaning. Some 75 year olds are older, or younger, than others. There are very sound reasons why there is a mandatory retirement age for airline pilots: 65 for domestic flights, 60 international. Pilots in commercial aviation face many more challenges and stresses that do the volunteer pilots for the Collings Foundation. Pilots do not have their licenses invalidated by age alone - all (to my knowledge) pilot licenses have a physical examination component that must be passed.
Years back, I was watching a show about Jimmy Doolittle, he was still alive at the time, and he said that "If the flying you do is light aircraft, and your health stays good, you can probably fly until you're 100. But if you're flying high-performance aircraft the day's going to come when you have to be honest with yourself and realise you're just not physically up to it anymore."
And I'd consider a B-17 to be a high-performance aircraft.
Again, there's "75" and "75," but I do have to wonder.
Not pointing fingers or condemning, just thinking out loud.
Flintlock76 Thank you Charlie. As I read the (preliminary) report, it looks to me like pilot error, i.e. he misjudged his approach and was landing short, leading to the collision with the landing light system which caused the disaster. Caused by unfamiliarity with the airport? We'll have to wait for the full report.
It Can Happen, and occcasionally does happen!
Some may recall a similar "OOPS" that happened in the Wichita area, about a year, OR MAYBE, it might have been a couple of years back?? A Boeing Dreamlifter was making a scheduled pick up at the Spirit Plant here. {Spirit shares a part of the local airbase here.] It was being flown by a contract crew, Their runway shares a similar vector, with a runway at a local general aviation airport; seperation is something like 5 miles(?). They successfully landed the Dreamlifter, BUT they landed on a much shorter runway and nowhere near the structure need for an aircraft of the size of a Dreamlifter. { see link @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Dreamlifter } After a few day of preparations...The Dreamlifter took off; and returned back to the runway it had been intended to originally land on. and picked up the load that it had been scheduled for. Some friends of mine that witnessed the take off said they were reminded of the 1969 Forrestal launches of that USMC C-130 from the Carrier's flight deck.
There were, at one time, several B-52's at Chanute AFB (the maintenance school was there). It was my understanding that they were all flown there. One was in a hangar, the others were outside, on display.
The runways at Chanute are too short to land a B-52, much less to allow one to take off. I heard that at least one overshot the runway on landing.
None are visible in satellite photos now. I imagine they were scrapped in place.
If the runways were too short to land at Chanute, how did they get there intact?
1. B-17s are a performance aircraft and a lot trickier to fly a 75-year old four engine bomber than a civilian Cessna.
2. The guys who originally flew B-17s were not over 60.
charlie hebdoIf the runways were too short to land at Chanute, how did they get there intact?
Very light (and probably stripped); full flaps, high AOA in flare (perhaps with added power to hold the descent angle) and then very quick brake accompanied with winding off the flaps as soon as 'committed' to landing wheels-on. I'd also suspect that use of drag chutes would factor into this even if the aircraft weren't being flown there 'permanently'; see about 1:55 in the [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnH9GbFum-k]test aircraft footage here[/quote]. Probably some banging down on the undercarriage, perhaps even to the point of gear damage or burst tires (remember the strange landing gear these planes had)
Interesting that I don't think the B-52 has any sort of reverse thrust.
Suspect you could actually get that aircraft (stripped, light, and with minimal fuel to reach a tanker) out of a strip as short as Chanute with appropriate RATO. Wouldn't want to have to design, let alone approve, the clusters necessary, or the hardpoint improvements to take them, lest we find that here too 'cluster' be only half a word...
charlie hebdo If the runways were too short to land at Chanute, how did they get there intact?
Pilots have gotten aircraft down on runways (or other places, for that matter) where "The Book" says it's not possible to do so. It's been done.
But on the other hand, flying them out of there again can be another matter entirely.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.