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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
deleted
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.
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...
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
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Just an update on the B-17 crash for all interested.
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.
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.
Very sad. It underlines the hazards of operation of a nearly 80-year old aircraft.
Yes, horrible for the lives lost, sad for the loss of an irreplaceable airplane.
That is horrible and sad at so many levels.
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
Interesting. Makes me think of two anteaters out for a stroll.
Its not a war plane but could be since it is supposed to launch space rockets.
https://www.stratolaunch.com/
This was my introduction to the Schienenwolf/Schwellenpflug, one of the more effective methods of derailing trains. (Apparently invented not in Germany, but in Czechoslovakia in the '30s as a method of track maintenance!)
If you are familiar with the Army studies of 'how not to derail a train' you will recognize the key advantages of this device in the short term.
War Damage to Italian Railways
BOB WITHORN Did the 50 cal need to hit a steam loco square on go through? Seems an angled shot would bounce off the boiler. . . . See, back to trains.
Did the 50 cal need to hit a steam loco square on go through? Seems an angled shot would bounce off the boiler. . . . See, back to trains.
Probably not. The fighters doing the strafing would have had the guns loaded with a mix of armor-piercing and tracer rounds. A .50 cal round hitting the boiler at a shallow angle may have bounced off, but the majority would have penetrated with no problem. And remember those armor-piercing rounds were intended to penetrate light armor, I don't think boiler steel would have been an issue.
I believe I posted a link to a spec sheet on .50 cal rounds earlier on August 9th. You might find it interesting.
Here's an interesting fact. Given the amount of metal on the modern battlefield of the time, even the infantry were issued ammunition in the ratio of 80% armor-piercing, 20% tracer, in the European Theater anyway. "Ball" ammunition was hardly used at all.
Yes, the French built the Maginot Line--and the German troops went around the end of it.
Johnny
When you watch the WWII videos of straffing trains, notice that the planes normally attacked the locomotive. This disabled the train without endangering the refugees or POW's who may be riding the train. Also note that when the gunfire hit the steam engine boiler it would cause steam to billow from the locomotive. Once the boiler is ruptured, steam pours into the firebox, frying the crew and eventually stopping the train. Steam does escape from the bullet holes but often the bullet makes multiple holes in the interior tubes.
The lesson here is don't drive steam engines in a war.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.