Originally Posted by
pattern_is_full
That's a good spot.
However, the wingtip of a lightly-loaded B17 sits about
10-12 feet (3-3.8m) above the ground even when parked (just about where that gash is) - so the height of the gash doesn't mean the aircraft was still airborne. Not to mention any variation based on pitch or roll attitude (right wing high/low, tail down or still up). Don't judge by the height of the collapsed aircraft's other wing in that photo....
https://www.dailyrepublic.com/media-...17-crowds-005/
I agree. I should have pointed out that the height of that wingtip "on the gear" was probably close to the height of the gash. What I can't understand is that the aircraft apparently bled little speed after it touched down, and rolled on for a little over 2,000 ft. before violently impacting objects in the de-icing area. The right hand swerve from the touchdown point (reportedly near the runway centerline) could be due to damage to the main gear resulting from the impacts with the glide slope (VASI?) /approach structures ... or perhaps due to power up on the functioning engines. I think the major potential flaw in my "go-around" theory is why in the world such an experienced pilot would elect to go around after having hit runway approach structures? There was plenty of runway left ahead of him. I guess when the NTSB figures out the reason for the swerve to the right, we'll have gone a long way to understanding this crash. I also want to admit that notwithstanding my "theory" on this crash, I still don't have enough information to understand what went wrong on 909's last flight. God Bless those who perished on her.
The "flight engineer" survived, and it will be interesting to hear what he has to say about events. The other surviving PAX are obviously aviation-oriented (some are even pilots), and their input will also be most valuable.
Regards,
Grog