Collins Foundation B-17 crashed at Bradley

[Trilisser]

1. 100LL has the same PN ratings as the 100/130, so wartime ratings still apply (and since this B-17G was portrayed as a bomber post-war tankers are irrelevant). Wartime B-17G engines were rated at 1200 hp on take-off with 100/130, therefore 100LL allows the same. H-series Cyclones allowed over 1400 hp on the same fuel.

2. Don't make the mistake of assuming that something wasn't done in WW2 because "modern practice" is different.

 

[Trilisser]

Mlflyer, you should check your sources as the R-2000 probably never used 73 octane fuel! Not even close.

Aa for the Ju 88 case, it should be noted that German engines usually had spark plug cleaning levers operable by the pilot. By operating these levers, ignition timing was altered to so that the increased temperature cleaned the plugs. So the story you quoted is not reliable.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Fortunately we have one of the mechanics/crew members of the Collins Foundation B-24 right here on this forum. He was on tour with them. If and when he is ready, and allowed to, I am sure he will fill us in on whatever details he may.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

100LL has the same PN ratings as the 100/130, so wartime ratings still apply (and since this B-17G was portrayed as a bomber post-war tankers are irrelevant). Wartime B-17G engines were rated at 1200 hp on take-off with 100/130, therefore 100LL allows the same. H-series Cyclones allowed over 1400 hp on the same fuel.

This plane was a tanker and flew heavily loaded. Tankers generally flew on 115/145 as long as it was available. Are you certain it didn't have H series engines fitted?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[MIflyer]

There was a USAAF pilot flying the Ju88, not a German one.

 

[model299]

The preliminary NTSB report has been published.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...D=20191002X11326&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=MA

My deepest sympathies and condolences to the families and friends of those who were lost or injured.

Back in the late nineties, when I was volunteer member of the Friday crew at the Planes of Fame museum at Flying Cloud airport in Eden Prairie Mn, the Collings planes paid a visit to our last major event before the museum was closed and the collection moved to Palm Springs.

When the event was done for the day on Friday and things had quieted down, the pilot of the B17 personally gave me a nose-to-tail tour of her. I remember sitting in the pilot's seat, and thinking to myself how "snug" it was in the cockpit. My Cruze has more room than that plane had. Because the B17 was my first "true love" and still is my favorite aircraft, it was an honor and a thrill. I cannot remember the name of the pilot, but I do remember what a nice guy he was. He treated me like we were old friends. I don't believe it had assumed the 909 livery yet.

The B24 was there as well, but it had lost an engine on its flight in from Florida, so it was grounded for the duration of the event while they waited for a replacement. As a result, there was such a long waiting list for the B17, I never got a chance to go up in her.

 

[MIflyer]

Summary of the Prelim NTSB Report. PDF Attached.

According to the NTSB's initial report: "On the morning of the accident flight, an airport lineman at BDL assisted the loadmaster as he added 160 gallons of 100LL aviation fuel to the accident airplane. The lineman stated that the accident airplane was the first to be fueled with 100LL fuel that day. According to preliminary air traffic control (ATC) data provided by the FAA, shortly after takeoff, at 0950, one of the pilots reported to ATC that he wanted to return to the airport. At that time, the airplane was about 500 feet above ground level (agl) on the right crosswind leg of the airport traffic pattern for runway 6. The approach controller verified the request and asked if the pilot required any assistance, to which he replied no. The controller then asked for the reason for the return to the airport, and the pilot replied that the airplane had a 'rough mag' on the No. 4 engine. The controller then instructed the pilot to fly a right downwind leg for runway 6 and confirmed that the flight needed an immediate landing."


Once handed back to the tower, the pilot was informed that the wind was calm and was cleared to landing on Runway 6. The pilot acknowledged and, according to the NTSB factual, the B-17 was just 300 feet above ground (AGL) on the midfield right downwind. "The tower controller asked about the airplane's progress to the runway and the pilot replied that they were 'getting there.'"


The B-17 contacted approach lights 1000 feet short of the runway and made ground contact 500 feet before the threshold. "It then veered right off the runway before colliding with vehicles and a deicing fluid tank about 1100 ft right of the center of the runway threshold. The wreckage came to rest upright and the majority of the cabin, cockpit, and right wing were consumed by postimpact fire. The landing gear was extended and measurement of the left and right wing flap jackscrews corresponded to a flaps retracted setting," the NTSB reports. Overall control continuity was established by NTSB investigators at the scene.


Examination of the left-side engines (Numbers 1 and 2) suggest they were still making power at the time of impact while the investigators found that the Number-3 engine's propeller had one blade that was "impact damaged and near the feather position. The other two blades appeared in a position between low pitch and feather." Moreover, the report confirms that "… all three propeller blades on the No. 4 engine appeared in the feather position." The NTSB notes that both engines on the left wing and the inboard right-side engine had been overhauled at the previous annual, around 270 hours prior to the accident. The Number 4 engine had 1106 hours since major overhaul at the time of the crash.


In a statement on the Collings Foundation website, the organization says, "Our thoughts and prayers are with those who were on that flight and we will be forever grateful to the heroic efforts of the first responders at Bradley. The Collings Foundation flight team is fully cooperating with officials to determine the cause of the crash of the B-17 Flying Fortress and will comment further when details become known."


As we reported previously, the Collings Foundation Nine-O-Nine, registered N93012, entered service in April 1945. It was purchased and restored by the foundation in 1986 after having spent time as an air-sea rescue aircraft, nuclear test subject and fire bomber. N93012 did not see combat but was named and painted to honor the original Nine-O-Nine, which completed 140 combat missions without an abort or loss of a crewman and dropped an estimated 562,000 pounds of bombs in WWII. The first Nine-O-Nine flew with the U.S. Army Air Forces 91st Bomb Group's 323rd Squadron. It was retired after the end of the war and scrapped.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Thank you for posting that. Does that mean the #3 engine was in the process of being feathered as well?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Thank you for posting that. Does that mean the #3 engine was in the process of being feathered as well?

Too early to tell. Impact damage such as that is not uncommon, and would require further analysis. It's real easy, I'm told, in a four engine airplane to misidentify the failed engine in a high stress situation such as an ambiguous malfunction right after liftoff. Add to that, it was a right-hand pattern, which means turning into the dead engine(s), a turn that may become near impossible to stop once it gets started. I bet it gets plenty of NTSB attention.

 

[Fishboy]

Prayers and wishes to the friends and families of the lost and injured. Thoughts also with the Collings family in this tragic time.

My first experience with the 909 was about 16 years ago. My wife and I were scheduled to go to Florida, where I always go fishing with her brother...a real joy for me. A dental issue resulted in her not being able to fly so the trip was canceled.

Knowing I was a little disappointed, she saw in the newspaper that the Collings Foundation was at an airfield across the valley and that rides were available on a B-17 or B-24. Knowing I had a thing for WW2 aircraft, the next thing I knew she was sending me out of the house with a reservation for a flight.

I arrived at Falcon Field in Mesa, AZ, and checked in. I spent a good 4 hours just walking through the 2 aircraft. Even more interesting was they had a WW2 B-17 pilot that used to fly Pathfinder missions there. It was incredible just hearing him talk about the B-17....the only plane he said he'd ever fly.

When it was time to board, I noticed that one of the passengers on my flight was an elderly lady in her 70s. We started talking about the experienc. She then shared with me and a few others that she had purchased the ride for her brother who had flown in B-17s based out of England during WW2. Unfortunately he had passed 2 weeks prior to the flight, so she was flying in his memory. Think we were all a little teary eyed as we boarded.

The flight was awesome, and I think I still have photos of her standing behind the pilot and co-pilot seats.

I know a lot of folks in the news media and politics have been questioning why folks are allowed to fly in vintage aircraft like this, following the accident in Connecticut. I just think back to that day and seeing the looks on the kids that were present looking at a B-17 take off, the stories from the WW2 veteran, and the look on the woman's face as she was helped out of the plane. Those moments are indescribable and magical and I will never forget them.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I know a lot of folks in the news media and politics have been questioning why folks are allowed to fly in vintage aircraft like this, following the accident in Connecticut. I just think back to that day and seeing the looks on the kids that were present looking at a B-17 take off, the stories from the WW2 veteran, and the look on the woman's face as she was helped out of the plane. Those moments are indescribable and magical and I will never forget them.

So what if it's a little more risky than a 7X7 or an AXXX? There's no such thing as "perfect" safety, and experiences such as this are worth the risk. I would undergo this minor risk any day in honor of those who undertook the ultimate risk day after day, back in the day, wouldn't you?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

I'm pretty depressed about what happened. I've flown on 909 when I was in college, and the accident occurred in my home state. I hope the cause can be found and closure given to the families of the lost.

 

[MIflyer]

When I told him about the loss of 909, a friend told me of the time he was standing in line to walk through the airplane and found he was next to a WWII B-17 waist gunner, saying how much he wanted to go back aboard one again. When they got up to the airplane the old waist gunner was stunned. He had flown on the real, original, 909!

 

[MIflyer]

From AvWEB:

Timing, as they say, is everything and the tragic crash of the Collings Foundation B-17 in Connecticut earlier this month came a month after it submitted its application for exemptions to various FAA rules that allow it to fly its collection of aircraft and carry paying passengers to help cover expenses. The group is now calling on its supporters to leave comments on the Federal Register notice to let the FAA know how important they think it is that the historic aircraft keep providing Living History Flight Experiences. "We need to let federal agencies know that the LHFE program is important to you and other American citizens as an educational tool," the organization said in its online appeal.


The crash of the historic bomber at Bradley International Airport, which killed seven of 13 aboard, prompted calls from some politicians to ban or restrict those kinds of flights but supporters say they're an important touchstone to the past and an inspiration to future generations of aviation industry professionals. "In the past week we have received many stories on how powerful and life-changing the tour has been for families and as we move forward, and we expect there are thousands more who have been touched by the Wings of Freedom Tour," the foundation said. Besides the B-17, the foundation has operated a B-24, B-25 and A-1E in passenger flights and done flight training on dual-seat P-51s and a P-40.


Specifically, at outlined in the PDF below of Collings' request, the foundation requests exemption from CFR 91.9, 91.315, 91.319(a), 199.5 (g) and 119.21. The first, 91.9 deals with placards and flight manuals, while 91.315 prohibits carrying passengers for hire in a limited category aircraft. 91.319(a) disallows carrying passengers for hire in experimental aircraft. The last two regulations are DOT rules related to meeting common carriage requirements.

 

[Snautzer01]

From AvWEB:

Timing, as they say, is everything and the tragic crash of the Collings Foundation B-17 in Connecticut earlier this month came a month after it submitted its application for exemptions to various FAA rules that allow it to fly its collection of aircraft and carry paying passengers to help cover expenses. The group is now calling on its supporters to leave comments on the Federal Register notice to let the FAA know how important they think it is that the historic aircraft keep providing Living History Flight Experiences. "We need to let federal agencies know that the LHFE program is important to you and other American citizens as an educational tool," the organization said in its online appeal.


The crash of the historic bomber at Bradley International Airport, which killed seven of 13 aboard, prompted calls from some politicians to ban or restrict those kinds of flights but supporters say they're an important touchstone to the past and an inspiration to future generations of aviation industry professionals. "In the past week we have received many stories on how powerful and life-changing the tour has been for families and as we move forward, and we expect there are thousands more who have been touched by the Wings of Freedom Tour," the foundation said. Besides the B-17, the foundation has operated a B-24, B-25 and A-1E in passenger flights and done flight training on dual-seat P-51s and a P-40.


Specifically, at outlined in the PDF below of Collings' request, the foundation requests exemption from CFR 91.9, 91.315, 91.319(a), 199.5 (g) and 119.21. The first, 91.9 deals with placards and flight manuals, while 91.315 prohibits carrying passengers for hire in a limited category aircraft. 91.319(a) disallows carrying passengers for hire in experimental aircraft. The last two regulations are DOT rules related to meeting common carriage requirements.

I do hope they can continue. Collings foundation and many others are the direct link to the recent past. And not just some pot pieces in the dirt but living and hopefully flying exhibits of modern history. One can not have a better example of it and let future generations learn about a conflict that has impact still today. This is much bigger then just some old planes flying.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

One can not have a better example of it and let future generations learn about a conflict that has impact still today. This is much bigger then just some old planes flying.

Sounds like some of those folks who want to ban re-enactments because they don't want to see Confederate flags "and a bunch of grey haired adolescents playing at cops 'n robbers with lethal toys that shouldn't be in civilian hands!" (Besides gun smoke stinks and contributes to global warming!)
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

I figure it'd be fine to keep the planes flying and carrying a few peopel -- I figure they should have to sign a waiver or release, which indicates they acknowledge the danger.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I figure it'd be fine to keep the planes flying and carrying a few peopel -- I figure they should have to sign a waiver or release, which indicates they acknowledge the danger.

You have always had to do that...

 

[Zipper730]

Then I see no problem whatsoever.

 

[seesul]

I figure it'd be fine to keep the planes flying and carrying a few peopel -- I figure they should have to sign a waiver or release, which indicates they acknowledge the danger.

I signed such a document back in 2010 when I got a chance to fly AT-6 over the Long Island. It didn´t change my decision. And this was the result. Experience of my life!