B-17 crash outside Hartford

I’m mildly surprised that no one else (of whom I’m aware) has posted the news of the B-17 that crashed yesterday after taking off from BDL, killing seven of the 13 people aboard.

I’ll leave it to those better versed on such matters to weigh in on the wisdom of using these old warplanes for the entertainment of civilians.

According to the account I read, the lost plane was one of 18 remaining B-17s certified for flight.

I'm pretty sure that's the plane that's visited our local transportation museum several times over the years. It always looked well-maintained, but with equipment that old and originally built under rush conditions, you never can tell.

I’ve been told (again, I welcome the input of those with more direct knowledge) that because the B-17 cabins were not pressurized, and therefore not subjected to the expansion and contraction stresses more modern aircraft endure, that the B-17 airframes are themselves quite durable.

Still, though, I’d think they would be subject to metal fatigue. I hear those WWII vintage bombers shake, rattle and roll.

This is very tragic. I took a flight on that same B-17 when the Wings of Freedom Tour was at Moffett a couple years ago. In the back of my mind, I had some misgivings about the safety of such vintage aircraft but had always wondered what it was like to fly in them so went ahead. It was an amazing experience. So sorry to hear of the crash and loss of life. I wonder if there will be new legislation to halt such events going forward?

Maybe it is comparing apples to oranges, but it reminds me of all those old vintage DC-3s that are still in service. I suppose we are in uncharted waters as to just how long all these various old birds can keep taking passengers up.

^^^^
In Seattle, where B-17s were made, a person can find opportunities for flying aboard such old planes. I never once availed myself if it in the 46 years I lived there.

How was the flight itself, jacketquest? Loud? Shaky? I hear that the cabins made little provision for creature comforts.

It was crazy loud but surprisingly smooth, which I guess they had to be for precision bombing. The cabin is quite cramped. They let us move around to different locations including the nose turret which has the best views.

Sample vid (sorry for the crappy camera work)

^^^^
Looks like a memorable experience.

Do you mind disclosing what it cost?

I believe it was $450 for a 30 minute flight.

BTW for jacket fans, I wore an original Bronco 29191 russet A-2. Just felt right.

Tiki Tom said:

just how long all these various old birds can keep taking passengers up.

Click to expand...

jacketquest said:

I believe it was $450 for a 30 minute flight.

Click to expand...

Who will be foolish enough to kill the Iron bird that lays the golden eggs ?

jacketquest said:

I believe it was $450 for a 30 minute flight.
...

Click to expand...

According to multiple sources, the aircraft was (is) the property of the Collings Foundation, a not-for-profit based in Massachusetts.

Maintaining and operating aircraft is costly. Seventy-five-plus-year-old warplanes present additional financial challenges of their own, I’d imagine.

You have to wonder just how much can be done with these planes. They were never meant to have long lives, and I can't imagine they were designed with any kind of durability in mind the way a commercial airliner has to be, not when they had to stamp them out one after another on deadlines. They were essentially disposable goods, intended to do a job and then be junked. That any of them survive at all is remarkable, but how long can they keep flying when they have to eventually reach the end of any kind of practical design life? I've seen this plane up close, and it was an impressive sight -- but I wouldn't go up in one if you paid me.

I recall WWII era images of B-17s returning to base all shot up, looking like returning salmon that had just swam through a colony of sea lions. Big chunks bitten out of their sides, but still they flew. Or swam. Not for long, of course, but in both cases long enough to get the job done.

tonyb said:

I’ve been told (again, I welcome the input of those with more direct knowledge) that because the B-17 cabins were not pressurized, and therefore not subjected to the expansion and contraction stresses more modern aircraft endure, that the B-17 airframes are themselves quite durable.

Still, though, I’d think they would be subject to metal fatigue. I hear those WWII vintage bombers shake, rattle and roll.

Click to expand...

You're right that fatigue failure is the enemy - one source of which in modern aircraft is the number of pressurization and depressurization cycles.
Look up "Aloha Airlines 737 fatigue failure" and you'll see a very scary sight. I won't give it away but it's worth the price of admission just to see it. (By coincidence, I plan to show my engineering classes pictures of that exact aircraft tomorrow and discuss why it happened.)
also, if you follow aviation news they announced just one day ago that they had found structural fatigue cracks in other 737's.
This may worry you a bit if you fly, but unlike steel, which stops experiencing decreases in strength as a function of the number of stress cycles, aluminum gets weaker and weaker as the number of cycles of stress increases. (aluminum has no "endurance limit"). Eventually it will break...

The way that old planes can keep going for so long is that they have mechanics who locate the cracks as they form and repair/replace parts to keep the plane going. (at least they are supposed to)
A good friend did engineering consulting on plane crashes and he referred to airplanes as collections of spare parts flying in formation.

Yes, I’m familiar with that 737 that had a large upper section of fuselage torn away in flight. It borders on miraculous that only one person died as a result and that the aircraft landed safely.

Gotta wonder how many pieces of those few remaining WWII era warplanes are of more recent manufacture, and at what cost those planes are repaired and maintained. Fabricating replacement parts one at a time has just gotta be spendy.

As an aside, I have on a few occasions been in the Boeing Spare Parts Distribution Center just north of Seattle-Tacoma Int’l Airport. (That location facilitates getting those parts quickly aboard flights heading where they are urgently needed. Airplanes sitting idle is not the way to profitability in the airline business.) I can’t imagine that Boeing concerns itself with replacement parts for B-17s, though. Of the 12,000 and some made in the 1930s and ’40s, only 45 examples remain (according to presumably reliable sources), of which 17 are certified for flight, according to one source, and only nine, according to another.

A photo of the wreck intoday's Boston Globe is pretty gruesome. Pretty much the entire plane was incinerated to ashes with the exception of part of the tail and half of one wing.

An item in the accompanying story gave me pause. The pilot was 75 years old. Granted, he was described as the most experienced living B17 pilot, but I don't think I'd care to get into a 75 year old plane with a 75 year old pilot.

From what I've gathered, they lost their #4 engine on takeoff, didn't declare an emergency and asked the tower to go around and land right away. While doing so, for whatever reason they go too low, struck the mast of a ILS beacon, struck the ground just before the end of the runway, skidded hard right and struck a building next to their de-icing tanks. Though flammable, those tanks did not cook off but the bird's fuel tanks did. Nothing left but the tail and pilot's side wing beyond the # 1 engine.
The NTSB found a large piece of Perspex on the ground at the base of that mast, which could only come off the nose, the ball turret or the landing lights on the wings. Everyone in the nose was killed, so figuring out what happened will take a long time for the NTSB.
I've flown in that bird as well as in formation with it on several occasions back in the 90s. As a lifetime member of the 91st BG association (for which that bird was painted), I have an special attachment to her. Thankfully, though, I didn't know anyone killed in this tragic accident.
Here is video from some of my rides in/alongside the 909 in the 1990s:

I have long said that someday, there’d be a high-profile crash of a WW2 airplane or one that killed enough people that the FAA would put their foot down on granting rides on these planes to anyone but the actual crew. I sure hope this won't be that event. The FAA already said anyone flying a restored military jet has to have working ejection seats and official training in their use (which is impossible for civilians as there are no FAA-approved ejection seat training facilities outside of the military, who wouldn’t let a civilian use them) if you’re taking anyone but the pilot or owner up. That stopped jet war bird rides, and they could easily declare something like that to keep people off restored WW2 planes if they really wanted to. All it’ll take is the wife of one of these poor folks killed in front of a Senate committee demanding it of the FAA so it never happens again. In a way this is made worse by the reputation of the people flying this plane. This was not considered some “Bubba operation”, as the Collings Foundation has a good reputation.
There has to be video of the plane coming in and maybe even video of the crash. Airports have cameras all over the place these days, and I refuse to accept no cameras caught the crash or anything leading up to it. I’d rather not watch it, once it comes out, though. I don’t want to see seven people die horribly and the end of my favorite B-17.
One passenger was smart enough to wear Nomex and didn’t get to badly hurt. When I flew on these, I usually wore my Nomex suit, one I had for exactly that purpose, with some patches for the various planes I’d flown on...

p51 said:

From what I've gathered, they lost their #4 engine on takeoff, didn't declare an emergency and asked the tower to go around and land right away. While doing so, for whatever reason they go too low, struck the mast of a ILS beacon, struck the ground just before the end of the runway, skidded hard right and struck a building next to their de-icing tanks. Though flammable, those tanks did not cook off but the bird's fuel tanks did. Nothing left but the tail and pilot's side wing beyond the # 1 engine.
The NTSB found a large piece of Perspex on the ground at the base of that mast, which could only come off the nose, the ball turret or the landing lights on the wings. Everyone in the nose was killed, so figuring out what happened will take a long time for the NTSB.
I've flown in that bird as well as in formation with it on several occasions back in the 90s. As a lifetime member of the 91st BG association (for which that bird was painted), I have an special attachment to her. Thankfully, though, I didn't know anyone killed in this tragic accident.
Here is video from some of my rides in/alongside the 909 in the 1990s:

I have long said that someday, there’d be a high-profile crash of a WW2 airplane or one that killed enough people that the FAA would put their foot down on granting rides on these planes to anyone but the actual crew. I sure hope this won't be that event. The FAA already said anyone flying a restored military jet has to have working ejection seats and official training in their use (which is impossible for civilians as there are no FAA-approved ejection seat training facilities outside of the military, who wouldn’t let a civilian use them) if you’re taking anyone but the pilot or owner up. That stopped jet war bird rides, and they could easily declare something like that to keep people off restored WW2 planes if they really wanted to. All it’ll take is the wife of one of these poor folks killed in front of a Senate committee demanding it of the FAA so it never happens again. In a way this is made worse by the reputation of the people flying this plane. This was not considered some “Bubba operation”, as the Collings Foundation has a good reputation.
There has to be video of the plane coming in and maybe even video of the crash. Airports have cameras all over the place these days, and I refuse to accept no cameras caught the crash or anything leading up to it. I’d rather not watch it, once it comes out, though. I don’t want to see seven people die horribly and the end of my favorite B-17.
One passenger was smart enough to wear Nomex and didn’t get to badly hurt. When I flew on these, I usually wore my Nomex suit, one I had for exactly that purpose, with some patches for the various planes I’d flown on...

Click to expand...

Hopefully, a measured response of increased safety inspections/rules/regs (if any of that will truly help) and clear risk disclosures to civilians will be enough as mature adults should be able to make risk decisions for themselves. However, as you imply, if the "if one life can be saved" standard takes emotional hold, then it could be the end of civilian flying in these planes.

p51 said:

From what I've gathered, they lost their #4 engine on takeoff, didn't declare an emergency and asked the tower to go around and land right away. While doing so, for whatever reason they go too low, struck the mast of a ILS beacon, struck the ground just before the end of the runway, skidded hard right and struck a building next to their de-icing tanks. Though flammable, those tanks did not cook off but the bird's fuel tanks did. Nothing left but the tail and pilot's side wing beyond the # 1 engine.
The NTSB found a large piece of Perspex on the ground at the base of that mast, which could only come off the nose, the ball turret or the landing lights on the wings. Everyone in the nose was killed, so figuring out what happened will take a long time for the NTSB.
I've flown in that bird as well as in formation with it on several occasions back in the 90s. As a lifetime member of the 91st BG association (for which that bird was painted), I have an special attachment to her. Thankfully, though, I didn't know anyone killed in this tragic accident.
Here is video from some of my rides in/alongside the 909 in the 1990s:

I have long said that someday, there’d be a high-profile crash of a WW2 airplane or one that killed enough people that the FAA would put their foot down on granting rides on these planes to anyone but the actual crew. I sure hope this won't be that event. The FAA already said anyone flying a restored military jet has to have working ejection seats and official training in their use (which is impossible for civilians as there are no FAA-approved ejection seat training facilities outside of the military, who wouldn’t let a civilian use them) if you’re taking anyone but the pilot or owner up. That stopped jet war bird rides, and they could easily declare something like that to keep people off restored WW2 planes if they really wanted to. All it’ll take is the wife of one of these poor folks killed in front of a Senate committee demanding it of the FAA so it never happens again. In a way this is made worse by the reputation of the people flying this plane. This was not considered some “Bubba operation”, as the Collings Foundation has a good reputation.
There has to be video of the plane coming in and maybe even video of the crash. Airports have cameras all over the place these days, and I refuse to accept no cameras caught the crash or anything leading up to it. I’d rather not watch it, once it comes out, though. I don’t want to see seven people die horribly and the end of my favorite B-17.
One passenger was smart enough to wear Nomex and didn’t get to badly hurt. When I flew on these, I usually wore my Nomex suit, one I had for exactly that purpose, with some patches for the various planes I’d flown on...

Click to expand...

What besides pilot error might account for coming in too low and striking that mast?

I took a ride on it last year. Same pilot. When we went up, my dad splurged and took a ride up in the P-51. That pilot sadly crashed in that Northrop Flying Wing earlier this year. Unreal.