B-17 crash outside Hartford

Several of these warbirds have gone down over the years. It's a little unnerving when you're looking at a list of them. Statistically, though, they're way safer than any other bird of their type (except maybe an airliner) for the amount of hours put into them.
Time was, cowboy types would get WW2 planes (especially fighters) and wind up lawn-darting them, but that's not happening nearly as much as operating them becomes a rich person's interest with groups owning most of them now.

p51 said:

Several of these warbirds have gone down over the years. It's a little unnerving when you're looking at a list of them. Statistically, though, they're way safer than any other bird of their type (except maybe an airliner) for the amount of hours put into them.
Time was, cowboy types would get WW2 planes (especially fighters) and wind up lawn-darting them, but that's not happening nearly as much as operating them becomes a rich person's interest with groups owning most of them now.

Click to expand...

The recently departed Paul Allen was one such rich person. Going only on what I’ve read, it seems that his collection of WWII warplanes isn’t nearly the largest but is among the most impressive due to the quality of the restorations and the desirability of the individual aircraft.

tonyb said:

The recently departed Paul Allen was one such rich person. Going only on what I’ve read, it seems that his collection of WWII warplanes isn’t nearly the largest but is among the most impressive due to the quality of the restorations and the desirability of the individual aircraft.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but Allen decided it was best not to try to fly them himself (smart man).
The first P-51 I flew on was owned by a guy who was type-rated but told the pilot he got to fly the thing that each time the owner landed it, he almost soiled himself in terror. Eventually, he tired of it and had someone with jet fighter experience fly it for him.
Back when you could pick up a fighter plane for not a fortune, people were doing all kinds of stupid stuff with them, and dying spectacularly in them while doing stuff they weren't trained for.

^^^^
Isn’t it that “general” aviation — meaning aircraft operated by private, largely hobbyist flyers — is waaaay deadlier than commercial aviation?

Pilot error appears to be the primary reason. Chalk that up to inexperience and lack of training.

jacketquest said:

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)

Click to expand...

From your video it appears that not only is there a bombardier station in the nose turret, but he is flanked by two machine guns. Would appear to be crowded there. Or perhaps the gunner sits in between the two machine guns in what I initially thought to be the bombardier's station, and the bombardier's station is elsewhere?

I rode on her a few years ago. The crew seemed extremely professional at the time; I know the restorers put in something like 20k hours to get her fixed. Iirc this particular 17 had previously been responsible for photographing nuclear detonations...that's pretty telling of the hurdles these folks have to go through in the restoration process. RIP all.

Saw this in the news. I was saddened by the loss ofl ife, obviously, though I did guiltily also think what a shame about the loss of an important historical artefact. I guess a lot of the ethivcla and safety questions will always be bigger around the bombers rather than the single-seat fighters becuase of the capacity to carry passengers.

Maeks you think, though, about how commonplace this sort of thing must have been back in the day. My paternal grandfather was a relief driver at an airfield in Belfast during the war. Him and his father both - one day, they were in a car when a plane came in low to crashland, and it ripped the roof off the car above their heads. Six inches lower and they'd both have been decapitated; as it was, the plane hit a canteen building and killed several soliders, wounding more. The doctor years later speculated that the shock could have been enough to bring on the diabetes he was plagued by later in life. I was too young when he died to get all the details (though Herself has since found online copies of news reports of what we believe to have been the incitdent), but I often wondered about the crew of the plane and their experience. Turning back to the US Bomber, the bit of Memphis Belle that always sticks with me is when the rookie crew of 'Mother and Child' go down screaming... Makes you realise just how vulnerable those kids (which is what the vast majority of them really were) were. Sherman certainly wasn't wrong.

Lean'n'mean said:

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

Click to expand...

I can see it being stopped over here first, givne the strong health and safety culture. Not sure of there are any bombers that sell trips in the UK? I know there's a very rare twin-seat (trainer) Spitfire still operational that you can buy a trip in - it was featured a few years ago in a fantastic documentary about the Spitfire and the BoB with Euan MaGregor and his brother (the latter being an actual RAF pilot in the present day).

LizzieMaine said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've always wondered what it would have been like to be in one in flight. I've stood on the ground and watched the BoB Memorial Flight go over head. Just one bomber (a Lancaster, I think?), couple of Spitfires and a Hurrican or two. THe noise... I can't begin to imagine the terror that must have inspired in civilians in Dresden and wherever else to hear hundreds of them flying in, knowing what was coming. There's something unsettling about watchnig a bomber fly over head even knowing it's non 'on operation'. I think I'd take the risk of a flight if I knew it was a professional pilot, though if it ever came down to a full on volenti non fit injura situation, I doubt I'd take the risk. (My other half signed herself away like that years ago in Thailand when she went to pet tigers, but these days I think neither of us would take certain risks because of the other.)

LizzieMaine said:

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.

Click to expand...

TBH, I'm sort of surprised it isn't one of those things where some sort of professional licence is required - particularly given they're taking up all comers as paying punters, evne if it is a non-profit.

But then look what happened a few years ago with a commercial helicopter pilot in the Grand Canyon. Flying is simply inherently dangerous. We forget sometimes nowadays, I think, that with these older, simpler craft that while they had plenty of Daedaluses, there was also many an Icarus.

Without casting any aspersions absent evidence, the notion of pilot error does often make me feel less concerned about potential repeats than were it equipment failure. I guess that's one reason so many cases push for the former.

@Edward: He would have needed at a minimum a commercial license as he was taking pax for hire. That's the way it was when I was flying and I doubt it has changed much. The next level up is an ATR, and I doubt he would have needed that level, but then things could have changed since I was in the know.

If I remember correctly, the B-17 was the first 4 engine airplane to be able to successfully engage in all aspects of flight if an engine was lost. While it is possible to fly, and land, on only three engines, it evidently isn't an easy task. He was on short final, close to touchdown, when the airplane clipped an ILS beacon on the ground. I doubt this pilot had ever attempted an engine out landing during training. Unlike military and airline pilots, emergency procedures aren't practiced over and over again. He had probably been briefed on the proper landing techniques and perhaps engaged in some flight at altitude with an engine out.

So I see it as a probable failure in training rather than strictly pilot failure.

I am reminded of the crashes we had during extreme conditions, such as night flying with no visible horizon and no lights on the ground when we were attempting to get out a soldier in the mountains who was bleeding to death. To make it even more difficult, the tracers were coming up at us. It is seldom one simple event that causes a crash, but a "cascade of events." Usually the accident report concludes. "The cause of this crash was pilot error. The requirements of the mission exceeded the ability of the aircraft commander." I always thought that was terribly unfair.

Makes sense; I would agree that "pilot error" is useful in that it qualifies that it wasn't a failure of the technology, but it does indeed seem unduly prejudicial for it to imply that the pilot was to blame for events that he would not have been expected to train for. I should think some recognition of this sort of factor would be at least small comfort to the families of those who died, especially the family of the pilot who have to cope with their loss compounded by the suggestion of blame where that is unfair.

Peacoat said:

From your video it appears that not only is there a bombardier station in the nose turret, but he is flanked by two machine guns. Would appear to be crowded there. Or perhaps the gunner sits in between the two machine guns in what I initially thought to be the bombardier's station, and the bombardier's station is elsewhere?

Click to expand...

Hi Peacoat,

I believe that is indeed the bombardier's station and the guns on the sides are "cheek" guns that were installed on later models. My understanding is that the navigator operated the left or right gun.