Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

B17 crash at Bradley

Old 3rd Oct 2019, 23:59
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Apple Maggot Quarantine Area
Age: 44
Posts: 66
Originally Posted by eggplantwalking View Post
Exactly as it should have been with the number 4 engine not producing power. The crew had compensated correctly with trim for the loss of the engine power with LH rudder trim to reduce rudder forces; making control of the aircraft more manageable.
The aircraft in the aerial photo with the deflected trim tab has all four engines running. It is not a photo of the aircraft on the day of the accident. You can tell that it was not taken in Hartford, CT due to the terrain and vegetation. There are no mountains or sagebrush in Hartford.
slacktide is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 00:46
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 111
Speaking of fuel. I am fairly certain that those radial engines were not originally designed to burn today's available 100LL. What about that?
Lake1952 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 01:23
  #103 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 59
Posts: 4,767
I have deleted the political posts referring to what B-17's did during the war years. That history is not relevant to this sad event. Let's keep the discussion to the present time events please....
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 01:36
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by Lake1952 View Post
Speaking of fuel. I am fairly certain that those radial engines were not originally designed to burn today's available 100LL. What about that?
The Collings folks fly these rigs A LOT. They understand modern fuel.
w1pf is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 01:57
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10
1. Can any of the former B17 crewmewbers here confirm that with two engines out a Fort will not accelerate (much less climb) if the airspeed is below 115-120 MPH? Not suggesting that was an issue here, but it would be a seldom seen gotcha. I read such was the case years ago when I was flying a C-45 and wondered if the Twin Beech had a similar surprise. It didn't, because that drag hole occurred near or below Vmc, apparently. (Anyway, a Beech 18 definitely wouldn't climb with two engnes out.)

2. Also, does anyone have a handle on the performance curves for these birds with the turbochargerers uninstalled? Used to be, according the Dash One, you'd push the balls to the wall, and then adjust MP with the turbo wheel to 47.5" MP for54,000 max gross takeoff. So at a typical 45-47,000 pounds ride gross would a conservative 41" without a turbo be equivalent?
Tailspin45 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 01:59
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by Lake1952 View Post
Speaking of fuel. I am fairly certain that those radial engines were not originally designed to burn today's available 100LL. What about that?
Virtually every round engine alive today flies with 100LL and with FAA approval.

I was aghast when NTSB guy said, "I'm not sure, but I think 100LL is approved for reciprocating engines blah blah blah." What cave has he lived in for the last 30 years?
Tailspin45 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 02:05
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted by Lake1952 View Post
Speaking of fuel. I am fairly certain that those radial engines were not originally designed to burn today's available 100LL. What about that?
What about it? Not sure about the dash number of the 1820 on B-17s. Many of them were certified on 91/98. The current blue 100LL is still 100/130 octane just without the lead. Tetraethyl lead is a lubricant added to the fuel. The fleet of R1820s, R1830s and R2800s in the US has been running on 100LL for decades. We were limited to a few less inches of MAP and lost 100 HP using 100/130 or 100LL in a 2800 instead of 108/135. In the 1820-80 series engines, which were a later variant than what’s on a B-17 I seem to recall it was 50 less HP a side.

Last edited by MarkerInbound; 4th Oct 2019 at 02:17.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 02:11
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: MCG
Posts: 173
One question that should of been asked at the NTSB presser, The engine in suspect could you determine
wether the prop was in the full fine or the feathered position? Very simply question ( but the reporters probably
don't know much about aircraft systems so it was never asked.)
Turnleft080 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 02:12
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by w1pf View Post
The Collings folks fly these rigs A LOT. They understand modern fuel.
Well, I hope so. 115/145 avgas is A LOT different than 100LL.
CUTiger78 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 02:13
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 7
"Flight Engineer"???

I find it a bit troubling that the "flight engineer" only held a student pilot certificate.
CUTiger78 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 02:43
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,862
Originally Posted by CUTiger78 View Post
I find it a bit troubling that the "flight engineer" only held a student pilot certificate.
The flight engineer title came from the State Police casualty list. Ms. Homendy referred to him as a loadmaster in the latest NTSB briefing. Some early news reports referred to the third crewmember as a steward.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 03:05
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,862
Originally Posted by Tailspin45 View Post
Virtually every round engine alive today flies with 100LL and with FAA approval.

I was aghast when NTSB guy said, "I'm not sure, but I think 100LL is approved for reciprocating engines blah blah blah." What cave has he lived in for the last 30 years?
Dr. Bower is an aeronautical engineer, not a pilot. It's been a long time since I've flown a piston plane, I would double check before I gave a definitive answer about 100LL as well. Seems like years ago when I pumped gas red was 80/87 octane, green was 100/130. Or, was it the other way around, I never could remember...
Airbubba is online now  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 03:15
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Denver
Age: 53
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by CUTiger78 View Post
I find it a bit troubling that the "flight engineer" only held a student pilot certificate.
In most of the world the FE was never a pilot, only the US would have junior pilots fly as FE before they “upgraded” to pilot.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 03:20
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,862
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
In most of the world the FE was never a pilot, only the US would have junior pilots fly as FE before they “upgraded” to pilot.
But as a required crewmember the FE would have a license, right?

The B-17 didn't require a flight engineer but its civilian derivative the 307 Stratoliner did I believe.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 03:26
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Denver
Age: 53
Posts: 73
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
Last year at an airshow my wife wanted to buy me a ride on one of these warbirds but I declined. Early in my aviation career I was nearly killed by a P-51 that cartwheeled on landing in a crosswind. I was standing on the ramp and the prop broke off and went in front of me, the fuselage slid behind me inverted and started to burn. We were unable to rescue the two occupants. The backseater was a spectator who came out to the airport and was offered a free ride by the owner. I would have taken the ride if it was offered to me that day.

Are these warbirds in the experimental category? Is there a B-17 type rating even though there was never a civilian version (e.g. the C-130 and the L-382)? Are these rides Part 91? Or are they something else since money changes hands? Are they like the shoe selfie helo rides or are they more regulated?

I'm guessing that there is no requirement for a CVR or FDR even though the plane carries 10 paying pax, has four engines and weighs over 40,000 pounds.
not just the plane. Both pilots were born during wwII too.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 03:42
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
But as a required crewmember the FE would have a license, right?

The B-17 didn't require a flight engineer but its civilian derivative the 307 Stratoliner did I believe.
Both the B-17 & B-24 HAD a flight engineer. Maybe they didn't REQUIRE an FE, but the Army Air Corps sure put one on as a required crewmember.
CUTiger78 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 03:44
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post


In most of the world the FE was never a pilot, only the US would have junior pilots fly as FE before they “upgraded” to pilot.
Yes, but those junior pilots flying as FE had an FE certificate - recip, turboprop, turbojet, as appropriate.
CUTiger78 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 03:56
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 92
not just the plane. Both pilots were born during wwII too.
Both the captain and the aircraft were 75 years old.
MichaelKPIT is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 05:21
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 195
More details from the news..

The Connecticut Air National Guard says an airman who was aboard a B-17 bomber that crashed in Connecticut opened a hatch that allowed some passengers to escape a fire.

The Guard said Thursday the airman has training and experience in handling emergencies on aircraft.

After the crash Wednesday morning at Hartford’s Bradley International Airport, he used flame-retardant flight gloves he had brought with him to open the hatch.

The airman suffered injuries and has been recovering at home since his release from a hospital Wednesday evening.

The airman is currently command chief for the 103rd Airlift Wing. His name was not released.
The FE survived. If he remembers the minutes leading up to the accident no doubt his statements will shed light for the investigators to determine probable cause and contributing factors that led to the undershoot and loss of control after striking the (guessing) localizer equipment.

I'm also guessing that "Uttering Phraseology not approved by the PPRuNe R/T Posse" won't be among the findings in their report.
PukinDog is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2019, 06:09
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
The flight engineer title came from the State Police casualty list. Ms. Homendy referred to him as a loadmaster in the latest NTSB briefing. Some early news reports referred to the third crewmember as a steward.
In a plane like the B-17 the flight engineer is critical. I was wondering about the statement that there was only three crew.
RickNRoll is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.