B17 909 crash.

[harv]

Saw it on the news this morning. Ernie called me and confirmed it was 909. Almost 5 yrs ago, I spent4 days with her. Some injuries but no news on how bad or how many......harv

[Jeff]

Oh DAMN, another airframe lost............I sure hope the Boffins don't get on the no flying old planes band wagon again....................... glad to hear no one id dead..... any clue as to what wen amiss?

[Jeff]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/world-war-ii-era-aircraft-crashes-at-bradley-international-airport-in-connecticut-injuries-reported

NOPE Nothing left.....

[Clunkmeister]

The “Ground them all!” Comments have started along with the “civilians have no business getting their hands on these weapons of war” outcries.  

It happens every time there’s even so much as a busted wingtip on the hangar door. 

[crazypoet]

This is sad news!  I hope first for those on board that their injuries are minor, and second that there's noting that isn't repairable on 909 herself!

[Clunkmeister]

There's word out there that at least two have died and several others are in hospital. Thoughts and Prayers for those involved.

[crazypoet]

I just saw the pics - this is a devastating loss, and my heart goes out to the entire aviation community at this loss, above and beyond whatever injuries may have been sustained.

I have had the privilege of two flights on board the EAA's Aluminum Overcast - those memories are pure magic.  Losing 909 feels like a gut-punch, not least because of the number of people who will no longer have an opportunity to with the experiences of our parents and grandparents in this elegant, powerful, but also vulnerable aircraft 

[crazypoet]

13 on board - 10 passengers and three crew

one person on the ground was injured as well

still no word on specific injuries.  There were fatalities and as of a few minutes ago, word that five people had been transported to hospitals (6 were reported earlier, now they’re saying five)

my heart goes out to each and all of them

[harv]

Even better reason to build my B17 as 909. I loved this aircraft !.....harv

[Jeff]

So the comments about "weapons of war"...................... does that mean there should be no old airplanes, no old rusty tanks, no medieval armor, no ancient swords, no old castles , and no ROCKS??????????????  ALL weapons of war.................. absolute nonsense, and I wish those folks would keep out of such things......we MUST keep and preserve this sort of thing, and hats off to those who press on keeping these valuable artifacts alive, keeps memories alive, keeps our history alive, and keeps those lost alive....................... sad news no matter the useless political statements made, this was a real part of our history and they were REAL people on board........ it is with deep sadness we had to witness this........ bless them all......

[Clunkmeister]

Exactly, Jeff. And even a more absurd arguement here. It's an old time airplane. That's it. It's not a weapon of war anymore. It's been demiled, all guns, armor plate, bombing wquipment, and all other war making equipment has been long since removed.  It's now just an old airplane painted up in vintage colors.  

People who carry on like that are just looking for the next cause du jour to hang their hats on.  

[smitty44]

5 dead, more expected as only three are in hospital from what I just read.  

[crazypoet]

4 minutes ago, smitty44 said:

5 dead, more expected as only three are in hospital from what I just read.  

14 injuries, including one on the ground.  Assuming that all of the injured were treated at the hospital, could be up to 8 fatalities as they say that they treated six.

I'm hoping that it's "only" five and that the other three injured didn't require treatment beyond on-site first-aid... 

[FME erk]

Reminds me of the B17 that failed to take off during the filming of the Memphis Belle in 1988, crashed but no fatalities. I was there and your heart is in your mouth.

My heart and prays go out to those on board, they were living the dream of flying in such an iconic aircraft

[smitty44]

12 minutes ago, crazypoet said:

14 injuries, including one on the ground.  Assuming that all of the injured were treated at the hospital, could be up to 8 fatalities as they say that they treated six.

I'm hoping that it's "only" five and that the other three injured didn't require treatment beyond on-site first-aid... 

Just read three transported, five dead, and they cant even get to the front of the plane where the crew was..

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/at-least-5-killed-in-crash-of-world-war-ii-era-plane-at-conn-airport/ar-AAIbsMc?ocid=spartandhp

[GusMac]

Sad news. Hope the casualties are low but it doesn't look good.

[Wumm]

A tragic event, on so many levels.

3 hours ago, Clunkmeister said:

Exactly, Jeff. And even a more absurd arguement here. It's an old time airplane. That's it. It's not a weapon of war anymore. It's been demiled, all guns, armor plate, bombing wquipment, and all other war making equipment has been long since removed.  It's now just an old airplane painted up in vintage colors.  

People who carry on like that are just looking for the next cause du jour to hang their hats on.  

I think in fairness, often the criticism stems from the nature of the aircraft involved. Military types are built to different tolerances than pure Passenger aircraft, and safety factors are sometimes sacrificed in the name of performance. Furthermore, at least in this Country, it's a grey area so far as regulations go... There was a recent example here where an Individual was on a Joyflight on his birthday in a former Military training aircraft; he was killed along with the Pilot, who it turned out had let his Commercial Licence lapse at the time of the accident.

Not equating this example to the Nine-O-Nine crash, merely highlighting a reason why people can sometimes react in the manner they do.

My thoughts and prayers to all those involved.

[Clunkmeister]

Now they’re saying seven dead, and like Smitty said, they can’t even get to the front of the aircraft. 

Wumm, I agree on ex military aircraft to some extent.  I flew the C-46 for a living, and it’s a totally competent freighter will few vices that can’t be mastered with in type training. The B-17 was flown for decade as an extremely reliable and capable crop sprayer and firebomber. 

 But I also have plenty of T-6 time. That aircraft will bite the sloppy, poorly skilled, and untrained. Treat it poorly and it’ll kill you dead so fast you won’t even see it coming.

I’m no jet or high performance guy, so I have no clue on those, although I’ve heard that if you master the T-6, you can fly anything. Now I DO believe that because I don’t think it’s possible for any normal human to truly master the T-6. You can just get good enough to keep it from killing you, but master it? Yeah right.

[Clunkmeister]

I do hope that public rides in these aircraft continue.  The various B-17s, Lancs, B-24s, 25s, and 29s have safely flown many thousands of people over the years with nary so much as a scratch. This tragedy will hurt, and maybe the FAA will look a bit closer for a bit, but I expect they’ll find first class operations at every one of these organizations.

Collings is a first class operation and I expect no issues will be found. I expect that they’ll eventually replace Nine O Nine and get back in the B-17 game.

In related news, one thing perked up my ears.  

The commercial pilot eyewitness specifically stated that Nine O Nine lost her number three engine on takeoff. That’s the starboard inner engine which he personally stated was smoking badly.  The pilot of Nine O Nine specifically broadcast that he had problems with number FOUR engine. Eyewitnesses to the approach reported hearing very sick and unhealthy engine sounds which would make sense if number three was still turning. It is very, very easy to misidentify a bad engine on takeoff and shut down the wrong engine.  On a twin, you’re now a glider, on the B-17 losing both on one side means you now have a very big problem. Manageable, but less so if you don’t know what you’re dealing with. That will definitely explain why he couldn’t gain altitude. You’d have to hold a boot full of rudder at that low speed and takeoff power setting. I’d say they did well just getting her around the pattern and lined up on final.  It sounds like he hit the approach and threshold lights just short of the runway, then veered off onto the grass. That’s happened to more than a few folks over the years.

 

Even with bombs gone and half empty tanks, wartime bombers had a tough time even maintaining altitude on two. 

[Drifter]

Very very sad.  RIP. 

[Sir Desmond Glazebrook]

It's a bloody awful day. Bloody awful.

[Bomber_County]

Thoughts and prayers with the families and the historic flying community.

[CrankyCrafstman]

7 dead...there were 13 on board, the Pilot, Co-pilot, flight Engineer and 10 passengers plus one person on the ground. I think Ernie my prove to be right, because it sounds like he touched down and tge veered off the runway to the right into the de-icing shed.

Ron G 

[CrankyCrafstman]

On 10/3/2019 at 1:18 AM, Clunkmeister said:

I do hope that public rides in these aircraft continue.  The various B-17s, Lancs, B-24s, 25s, and 29s have safely flown many thousands of people over the years with nary so much as a scratch. This tragedy will hurt, and maybe the FAA will look a bit closer for a bit, but I expect they’ll find first class operations at every one of these organizations.

Collings is a first class operation and I expect no issues will be found. I expect that they’ll eventually replace Nine O Nine and get back in the B-17 game.

In related news, one thing perked up my ears.  

The commercial pilot eyewitness specifically stated that Nine O Nine lost her number three engine on takeoff. That’s the starboard inner engine which he personally stated was smoking badly.  The pilot of Nine O Nine specifically broadcast that he had problems with number FOUR engine. Eyewitnesses to the approach reported hearing very sick and unhealthy engine sounds which would make sense if number three was still turning. It is very, very easy to misidentify a bad engine on takeoff and shut down the wrong engine.  On a twin, you’re now a glider, on the B-17 losing both on one side means you now have a very big problem. Manageable, but less so if you don’t know what you’re dealing with. That will definitely explain why he couldn’t gain altitude. You’d have to hold a boot full of rudder at that low speed and takeoff power setting. I’d say they did well just getting her around the pattern and lined up on final.  It sounds like he hit the approach and threshold lights just short of the runway, then veered off onto the grass. That’s happened to more than a few folks over the years.

 

Even with bombs gone and half empty tanks, wartime bombers had a tough time even maintaining altitude on two. 

The preliminary report is in and it sounds like you maybe right Ernie. They found the #4 engine on top of the de-icing building with all three blades feathered and the #3 engine was found in the building with one blade feathered and missing part of the end from when it hit. Thats both engines out on the starboard comming in at three hundred feet and into a righthand wind. Not good!

Ron G 

[Clunkmeister]

57 minutes ago, CrankyCrafstman said:

The preliminary report is in and it sounds like you maybe right Ernie. They found the #4 engine on top of the de-icing building with all three blades feathered and the #3 engine was found in the building with one blade feathered and missing part of the end from when it hit. Thats both engines out on the starboard comming in at three hundred feet and into a righthand wind. Not good!

Ron G 

Sad news indeed. #4 was most likely ok.   Witnesses to the bomber on short final said that at least one engine was at a high power setting and that they heard the sound of one engine eating itself up and trying to tear itself to pieces. 

It’s sad, but it happens.