NTSB Releases Preliminary Report on Crash of B-17 Nine-O-Nine

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 10/16/2019 at 14:59 • Filed to: wingspan, Planelopnik

1

11

The B-17 Flying Fortress !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!   !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! shortly after takeoff from Bradley International Airport in Connecticut on October 2. Pilot Ernest McCauley and copilot Michael Foster were killed, along with five passengers. A total of 13 were on board at the time. While the report doesn’t do much more than paint as accurate a picture as possible of the events of that day, there are tantalizing bits about the type of fuel that was used that day, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , that the pilot reported a “rough mag” (magneto) on the #4 engine, and that the propeller blades on the #3 engine were at or near feather at the time of the crash. It’s possible that they had actually lost both engines on the starboard side when they struck approach lights while trying to return to the airport. The final report is still more than a year away.

The preliminary report can be read !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

facw > ttyymmnn 10/16/2019 at 15:11

0

Flaps retracted seems weird to me. I never had any multi-engine training so maybe there’s a reason that would be better with asymmetric thrust, but when you crash well short of the runway, it seems like maybe that extra lift would have been helpful. If lowering the flaps was the right thing to do, I wonder if it was a situation where they were so distracted by the engine issue that they neglected the basics (wouldn’t be the first time a pilot has been caught by that trap).

ttyymmnn > facw 10/16/2019 at 15:14

0

I’ve got even less stick time than you (meaning zero) so it’s impossible for me to make any suggestions here. Some commenters on FlightAware suggested that the 100LL avgas was not a high enough octane for those old engines, but the NTSB indicated that the fuel was appropriate. Sounds like they really had their hands full up there. RIP.

facw > ttyymmnn 10/16/2019 at 15:28

1

Yeah, I think in the presser the gave after the accident NTSB said these engines were certified much lower octane fuel (maybe even 87?). If they didn’t find contaminants, I’d guess the fuel was not an issue.

MOARPower > ttyymmnn 10/16/2019 at 15:41

1

I was at the airport the day of the crash and had noticed the aircraft taxiing around the runway and in flight as it flew past the terminal. Of course not knowing what was going on, but just seeing the aircraft at a low altitude on a side of the terminal that I normally would not see an aircraft it seemed to be having trouble climbing. This is all relative as most of the aircraft are modern jet aircraft, not WWII prop driven aircraft, so just about anything would appear to be slow, and I would certainly not think it would climb at the same rate. At that point it must have been circling around to make an approach to land as from my vantage point it was just above tree top level. It is sad that people lost their lives that day, but I am sure that the pilot/crew were  doing everything in their power to try to land safely.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > ttyymmnn 10/16/2019 at 15:46

1

Could be like Unbroken and in the panic  the wrong engine is feathered causing a spin

AlfaCorse > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 10/16/2019 at 16:10

0

That’s what I was thinking, problem with #4 and they accidentally feathered #3, all of a sudden no power on the starboard wing and potentially full power on the port side, would be very hard to manage especially at low airspeeds. Feathering the wrong engine was the cause of the TransAsia 235 crash , although that was a twin.

TheRealBicycleBuck > facw 10/16/2019 at 16:10

2

Flaps significantly decrease the glide ratio. Standard procedure when facing an engine-out situation is to keep the flaps up until you know that you’ve made the runway and then deploy them only if you really need them to slow down.

facw > TheRealBicycleBuck 10/16/2019 at 16:20

0

Don’t they only decrease the glide ratio if you go slower? If you maintain speed they should lengthen it as far as I know (you will have to increase throttle of course to overcome the additional drag). If you are in a single engine aircraft and lose power not deploying the flaps make sense to be because you won’t glide as far with them, but it’s not clear to me that that’s true if you aren’t gliding.

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 10/16/2019 at 18:59

2

Wild, Mild Take: the pilot feathered #4, then instinctively feathered the farthest-right prop lever, #3. Similar to when a pilot pushes the gear lever down to make sure the gear lever is down.

TheRealBicycleBuck > facw 10/16/2019 at 20:19

0

I see the disconnect here. I was under the impression that they were having engine issues and power wasn’t available. In that situation, adding flaps would have been the wrong course of action because they didn’t have power to compensate for the additional drag.

facw > TheRealBicycleBuck 10/16/2019 at 20:25

1

It’s unclear what the power situation was. It sounds like they lost at least one engine, but on a lightly loaded 4-engine strategic bomber, it really doesn’t seem like the loss of a single engine should be enough to bring down the aircraft, especially once they got off the ground safely. It’s possible they had both engines on that wing out, which would certainly make things nastier, both in terms of power, and asymmetric thrust. It will be interesting to see the final report.