"user314" (user314)
10/02/2019 at 14:17 • Filed to: None
2
17|
"user314" (user314)
10/02/2019 at 14:17 • Filed to: None | 2
| 17 |
The Collings Foundation’s B-17 !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! this morning in Connecticut after apparently experiencing engine troubles after t a ke-off. 14 people were said to be on the WWII-era bomber, which struck a de-icing area after attempting to land around 10am this morning. At least five people are dead, with several more taken to area hospitals.
ttyymmnn
> user314
10/02/2019 at 14:33 |
|
Shit.
SBA Thanks You For All The Fish
> user314
10/02/2019 at 14:42 |
|
Always saddened by these stories... we’ll stand by for more details and hope there are survivors.
|
user314
> ttyymmnn
10/02/2019 at 14:43 |
|
Yeah. As macabre as it sounds, I wish that second pic was a bit bigger so you could see it more clearly. Aside from the tail and left wing, the plane is gone.
facw
> user314
10/02/2019 at 14:44 |
|
Not good. I was hoping there were only a couple pilots and one or two support people on board. With 14 on board, I would not be at all shocked if that death toll continues to rise. The report I read said one person was taken to the hospital by helicopter , while another five were taken by ambulance, so we can hope that those five are not seriously injured (since it wasn’t bad enough to fly them to a trauma center).
One report I saw said a witness said one of the propellers wasn’t spinning, presumably indicating something seized. I’d have assumed that a B-17 with no bomb load would have ample power to fly on three engines, but a failure at low speed and low altitude can make a mess of things quickly.
Chariotoflove
> user314
10/02/2019 at 15:00 |
|
They weren't the safest things in the world when new, were they? This is a tragedy.
|
facw
> Chariotoflove
10/02/2019 at 15:11 |
|
Yeah, a bit silly to worry about maximum reliability on a four-engine plane that’s more likely to get shot down or crashed by a quickly trained and inexperienced pilot than suffer a mechanical failure. Now, even if they are lovingly maintained (and some of these groups are cash strapped enough that I’m sure there’s a temptation to cut corners, though I have no idea if that’s the case with Collins), they are now 75 years old. It’s always going to be a bit dangerous to fly them.
|
Chariotoflove
> facw
10/02/2019 at 15:27 |
|
I wasn’t even questioning that were built solidly and were mechanically reliable, although that assessment of quality control makes sense. I was rather thinking that safety measures in a craft like this cran ked out as fast as they could make them were pretty minimal. Probably everything in the design that could be spared to increase payload capability was.
|
user314
> user314
10/02/2019 at 15:36 |
|
|
ttyymmnn
> Chariotoflove
10/02/2019 at 15:37 |
|
I guess, in a way, this illustrates just how remarkably safe modern aviation has become. If you look back to the 1930s (the B-17 took its maiden flight in 1935), plane crashes were a pretty common occurrence. Of course, that was down to many factors like poorer weather prediction, nascent airport facilities, primitive radar, all of that. But perhaps it’s somewhat of a miracle, borne of meticulous servicing, that this aircraft hadn’t crashed yet. We lost another WWII-era aircraft last year when Bluebonnet Belle crashed here in TX.
|
Chariotoflove
> ttyymmnn
10/02/2019 at 15:39 |
|
Agreed. I’ m of two minds about these old birds. On the one hand, it does my heart good to see them still flying and educating young generations. On the other hand, there are only so many hours left in those old airframes. It’s always a tragedy to lose one, even if no lives are lost with it.
WilliamsSW
> facw
10/02/2019 at 15:53 |
|
If you’ve ever seen one of these WWII- era bombers take off, it’s a * very* different look than when a jet takes off.
They don’t really use much runway, but they don’t really rotate the nose much at all - they just * slowly* rise from the earth. VERY slowly.
Tl; Dr - their wings generate a lot of lift, but they do NOT have a lot of excess power.
|
ttyymmnn
> Chariotoflove
10/02/2019 at 15:56 |
|
We should probably rethink giving rides, though that is a big fund raiser for the restorers.
|
facw
> user314
10/02/2019 at 16:26 |
|
Slightly bigger shots :
I’m guessing some of the right wing/fuselage must have ended up in that building/tent thing given the damage, and because yeah there’s really not much left in the visible area.
|
Chariotoflove
> ttyymmnn
10/02/2019 at 16:56 |
|
Have waivers for everyone to sign is all you can do. Donors need to be courted.
Tristan
> Chariotoflove
10/02/2019 at 21:12 |
|
I work on tired aircraft from the ‘70s and ‘80s every day. I can't even imagine how difficult it must be to keep a 75 year old aircraft flying.
DipodomysDeserti
> ttyymmnn
10/02/2019 at 22:36 |
|
Took my class to the airforce museum at Falcon Field. They’ll take you up in the old trainers for $350. After hearing the pilot tell me how hard they are to fly and how many English trainees were buried in the cemetery nearby, I figured that was a bad idea.
Dusty Ventures
> facw
10/03/2019 at 00:03 |
|
Most likely the rest of the plane was burned down to nothing in the fire. A post crash fire can turn even a relatively minor crash into a complete loss of an airframe.
Case in point, this AN-26 crash landed in Sudan in 2017. 45 people onboard, only minor injuries.
