B17 crash at Bradley
Not precicely sure why my R-1820 posts were deleted.
Sorry I wasted time writing them.
Many thousands of dollars spent learning what I was trying to convey, so just fine if you all want to go ahead with heresy instead...
Sorry I wasted time writing them.
Many thousands of dollars spent learning what I was trying to convey, so just fine if you all want to go ahead with heresy instead...
Originally Posted by 421dog
Not precicely sure why my R-1820 posts were deleted.
Sorry I wasted time writing them.
Many thousands of dollars spent learning what I was trying to convey, so just fine if you all want to go ahead with heresy instead...
Sorry I wasted time writing them.
Many thousands of dollars spent learning what I was trying to convey, so just fine if you all want to go ahead with heresy instead...
Originally Posted by Global Aviator
As Porter says, yep I would jump on a Collings aircraft any day.
To see these fabulous historic aircraft in the sky is amazing. If your ever in doubt get yourself to Oshkosh.
One question I have and in no way am I being negative to the crew. I ask about older pilots flying and potential issues. How heavy on the controls is the B17 in emergencies? As we get older we can loose some of our strength and dexterity.
In most countries in commercial ops over xx age can not fly together.
I am the first to put my hand up and say I would love to learn from pilots this experienced.
As I said in no way am I having a go at the crew.
To see these fabulous historic aircraft in the sky is amazing. If your ever in doubt get yourself to Oshkosh.
One question I have and in no way am I being negative to the crew. I ask about older pilots flying and potential issues. How heavy on the controls is the B17 in emergencies? As we get older we can loose some of our strength and dexterity.
In most countries in commercial ops over xx age can not fly together.
I am the first to put my hand up and say I would love to learn from pilots this experienced.
As I said in no way am I having a go at the crew.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by maxter
Please try again. Hopefully you kept a copy. Many love to understand the facts and history
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Looking for the signals square at LHR
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years ago, I flew from Pompano in "Fuddy Duddy", the EAA's B17. I happily would have flown in this aircraft regardless of its condition and considerations of personal safety. To be able do so was a singular privilege, given that the aircraft represented so much effort and sacrifice in a war which I remember but in which I was too young to participate.
I am contemptuous of the Australian advocating withdrawal of old machines from public conveyance. The B17 was a bomber, a weapon of war and never intended as a passenger carrier, so expecting the two roles in some way to be analogous is just silly. Any prospective passenger, unless totally half-witted, would understand the difference and make a judgement accordingly. To deny this sort of experience to those who would benefit from it as a function of our risk-averse, nannying, pseudo safety culture is quite wrong.
I'm deeply saddened by the loss of these people and an aircraft that did so much to win the freedom we take for granted today.
I am contemptuous of the Australian advocating withdrawal of old machines from public conveyance. The B17 was a bomber, a weapon of war and never intended as a passenger carrier, so expecting the two roles in some way to be analogous is just silly. Any prospective passenger, unless totally half-witted, would understand the difference and make a judgement accordingly. To deny this sort of experience to those who would benefit from it as a function of our risk-averse, nannying, pseudo safety culture is quite wrong.
I'm deeply saddened by the loss of these people and an aircraft that did so much to win the freedom we take for granted today.
Don’t, unfortunately have a copy.
100LLworks at 41”MP,
blower shift at 10K needed to maintain cruise (1850 and 30”)
fly a t28-c a lot, and am typed in a super pby so have more than a little experience with the mills in question.
100LLworks at 41”MP,
blower shift at 10K needed to maintain cruise (1850 and 30”)
fly a t28-c a lot, and am typed in a super pby so have more than a little experience with the mills in question.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbubba says:
My experience in flying four-engine jets has always been a case of EXCESS fuel burn with an engine shutdown, and I had never heard of any crews shutting down "one or two motors at a time to save gas."
"I've flown four-engine planes where we shut down one or two motors at times to save gas".
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GlueBall
Airbubba says:
My experience in flying four-engine jets has always been a case of EXCESS fuel burn with an engine shutdown, and I had never heard of any crews shutting down "one or two motors at a time to save gas."
My experience in flying four-engine jets has always been a case of EXCESS fuel burn with an engine shutdown, and I had never heard of any crews shutting down "one or two motors at a time to save gas."
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GlueBall
Airbubba says:
My experience in flying four-engine jets has always been a case of EXCESS fuel burn with an engine shutdown, and I had never heard of any crews shutting down "one or two motors at a time to save gas."
My experience in flying four-engine jets has always been a case of EXCESS fuel burn with an engine shutdown, and I had never heard of any crews shutting down "one or two motors at a time to save gas."
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GlueBall
Airbubba says:
My experience in flying four-engine jets has always been a case of EXCESS fuel burn with an engine shutdown, and I had never heard of any crews shutting down "one or two motors at a time to save gas."
My experience in flying four-engine jets has always been a case of EXCESS fuel burn with an engine shutdown, and I had never heard of any crews shutting down "one or two motors at a time to save gas."
Moderator
In certain very restrictive conditions, yes, one or two engines might be shut down to conserve fuel in cruise flight. I expect that this would only be in an established cruise configuration, at altitude (allowing lots of room for a restart). I would extremely doubt that an antique former military airplane, particularly while carrying passengers, would ever have engines deliberately shut down in flight for reasons of economy.
It certainly serves the interest of preservation of these valuable historic assets to promote public participation, which might include experience flights. It's a fine line though, assuring an understanding of the possible increased risk in being a passenger on such a flight, as opposed to actually scaring people away. We don't want to scare people, but presenting the real facts of risk might do that. It is our moral responsibility to assure that potential passengers fairly know the risks. I am responsible for approving two now civilian certified former military airplanes to carry either passengers fully certified to do so, or crew only during restricted operations in a different role. Those crew members for restricted operations may still be new to flying, and are thus given a comprehensive briefing as to risks, and their duties as crew members - every person will have duties, which are real. No one has ever withdrawn following the briefings, which is nice, though as I conduct or witness at least some of these briefings, I assure that they meet the requirement of the flight authority I have endorsed.
I trust that the operator of the B-17 was providing reasonable briefings, and have no reason to think that they were lacking in any way. And, I'd believe that very eager passengers may see beyond "regular cautious understanding" for the opportunity to fly. But every now and then the worst outcome occurs, and reminds us to be thorough and realistic in our briefings of our passengers, to be as fair as possible. After more than twenty years of flying with me, and now following my being an a water flying accident, my wife chooses to no longer fly with me in the amphibian. I asked her what her reasoning was, and she replied: "having thought about it, now I'm not so sure that I could get my self out in a water crash if you could not help me.". A very fair, and considered answer, and I respect that from her. No pressure to her to fly with me, yes if she wants, no if not, she understands the risks, and I accept that.
Everything is a balance, sometimes it's a fine line. Understanding the risk is the first step.
It certainly serves the interest of preservation of these valuable historic assets to promote public participation, which might include experience flights. It's a fine line though, assuring an understanding of the possible increased risk in being a passenger on such a flight, as opposed to actually scaring people away. We don't want to scare people, but presenting the real facts of risk might do that. It is our moral responsibility to assure that potential passengers fairly know the risks. I am responsible for approving two now civilian certified former military airplanes to carry either passengers fully certified to do so, or crew only during restricted operations in a different role. Those crew members for restricted operations may still be new to flying, and are thus given a comprehensive briefing as to risks, and their duties as crew members - every person will have duties, which are real. No one has ever withdrawn following the briefings, which is nice, though as I conduct or witness at least some of these briefings, I assure that they meet the requirement of the flight authority I have endorsed.
I trust that the operator of the B-17 was providing reasonable briefings, and have no reason to think that they were lacking in any way. And, I'd believe that very eager passengers may see beyond "regular cautious understanding" for the opportunity to fly. But every now and then the worst outcome occurs, and reminds us to be thorough and realistic in our briefings of our passengers, to be as fair as possible. After more than twenty years of flying with me, and now following my being an a water flying accident, my wife chooses to no longer fly with me in the amphibian. I asked her what her reasoning was, and she replied: "having thought about it, now I'm not so sure that I could get my self out in a water crash if you could not help me.". A very fair, and considered answer, and I respect that from her. No pressure to her to fly with me, yes if she wants, no if not, she understands the risks, and I accept that.
Everything is a balance, sometimes it's a fine line. Understanding the risk is the first step.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
In certain very restrictive conditions, yes, one or two engines might be shut down to conserve fuel in cruise flight. I expect that this would only be in an established cruise configuration, at altitude (allowing lots of room for a restart).
A British Airways B-744 famously crossed the Atlantic LAX-LHR with an engine shutdown with pax onboard in 2005. They actually ended up in MAN due to fuel management issues. The FAA was not pleased, however.
In some four-engine (and three-engine) planes an engine out without fire or damage does not require an immediate landing.
I can see where the approach controller would want to know if the B-17 had to land immediately or if it could be sequenced with other traffic. As I noted previously, there may well be some missing transmissions in the LiveATC clips since the feeds were scanning more than one frequency. It does appear that the B-17 was given priority handling with the ARFF crew standing by.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by filejw
I feel for the people that work for Collings, a friend that works for them said its somber and sad.
Pilot delivers emotional message as Collings Foundation’s remaining historic planes leave Bradley Airport following deadly B-17 crash
All four of the Collings Foundation’s remaining historic airplanes flew out of Bradley International Airport on Saturday, days after one of the organization’s planes went down in a fiery crash that killed seven people and injured seven more.
On Wednesday, the foundation’s World War II-era B-17 Flying Fortress crashed 1,000 feet short of runway 6. On Saturday afternoon, a pilot of one of the foundation’s other historic planes prepared to leave Bradley from the same runway.
Before taking off, the pilot asked air traffic control if he could say a few words.
“It’s difficult, but bear with us,” the pilot is heard saying in a recording of the conversation. “From everybody here, our crew and the entire Collings Foundation, we’re very appreciative and (have deep) sorrow for everything.”
In a brief message and with his voice sometimes breaking, the pilot addressed all of the airport workers and the families of those who were injured or killed in Wednesday’s crash.
Among the crash victims were pilot Ernest “Mac” McCauley and co-pilot Michael Foster.
Among the crash victims were pilot Ernest “Mac” McCauley and co-pilot Michael Foster.
“On a personal note — and I guess it’s even more difficult because we never do it — but we have to leave behind two of our friends, Mac and Mike, and our brothers and fellow crew," the pilot said.
After the pilot’s message, air traffic control cleared the plane to take off from runway 6.
After the pilot’s message, air traffic control cleared the plane to take off from runway 6.
Last edited by Airbubba; 9th Oct 2019 at 19:31.
Maritime surveillance aircraft routinely shut an engine down since they are operating on endurance, not range. They sometimes cage two engines. They even used to do this on piston transport based platforms: the Canadian Argus comes to mind, I always wondered about restarting cold-soaked radials after a long loiter in February.
Other types from the cold war would routinely shut down some propulsion: The P-2V and the B-36 come immediately to mind.
From memory, a 747-400 burns 8% more fuel on three engines, but in some cases less than flight plan with two shut down.
Other types from the cold war would routinely shut down some propulsion: The P-2V and the B-36 come immediately to mind.
From memory, a 747-400 burns 8% more fuel on three engines, but in some cases less than flight plan with two shut down.
Last edited by Australopithecus; 7th Oct 2019 at 09:05. Reason: Just discovered the Argus was Brittania based
Originally Posted by Airbubba
Actually, in the P-3 engines were normally shut down on station over the water, not in cruise. With one engine shut down minimum altitudes on station were normal, i.e. 300 feet AGL at night, 200 feet during the day. With two engines shut down the NATOPS minimum altitude was 1000 feet AGL. .
The P3 was a delight to fly, much more enjoyable than the P8, but you can't buck progress. The engine out performance was pretty good, One of my last arrivals in one was a 2 engine pass over the flag pole at VNE, at idle, (a gentle dive was involved) at the behest of the base commander. Post landing there was a reception at the bottom of the stairs. Took a long time before I poked my head out, and found the chief was happy not fuming. OEI was routine to the extent that one arrival my copilot forgot to restart #1 and I was torn between reminding him and letting him do his first ever engine out landing without knowing it. The bad angel won the day, and the co pilot became aware of the config only when we suggested that he needed to start the engine to go through the bird bath. One manoeuvre which the NATOPS was quite correct on was prohibiting asymmetric ditching drills. Having full flaps, two out on one side, and being about 60kts below the VMCA2 was less fun than it sounds. When the clown does a GA, the ride is spectacular but may not be for long.
These old birds are the heritage of the last 100 years, and I for one don't want to see restrictions added to them. I have operated 2 pre moratorium warbirds of my own, and it is always a pleasure to have given a ride to vets, their children and to the public so that there is some appreciation of what those that went before went through. It will be a sad day when the smoke and sound of the 1820/1830s and 2800's is missing. These aircraft bring into contrast the privilege position that exists today when passengers complain about lousy pretzels and cold coffee. In 1942, the kids flying these machines may have those complaints as well, but were facing somewhat more significant issues than the cost of additional baggage.
Re LL fuel, my donks were 86-R's not -B's, I misstated... For that engine it was curious how sensitive they were to icing, given a supercharger was in the induction system.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: United states
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by b1lanc
No, the early B-17s sent to the Philippines had FEs as did MG Caleb Haynes crop of B-17s in Task Force Aquila - that was pre-Doolittle in 1942. Scott (in his book God is My Co-Pilot pg. 39) references his engineer (and gunner in case of attack), Sgt.Aaltonen, standing behind the flight deck.
Originally Posted by eggplantwalking
and had formation throttles to make formation flying easier for single pilot manipulation.
Google does not seem to be helpful.
Thanks.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by eggplantwalking
Authors who write novels quite often get the facts wrong and mis-label just about anything. This seems to be the case here.
The responsibilities of a FE pre/early-war were not the same as those that evolved since with an FE sitting at a fixed station - on that we agree. That said, the FE's responsibility was largely the same regardless of where they were positioned - keep the ac flyable and let the pilots fly it. Your reference to the B-29 as the first is interesting as the XB-15 prototype (to which many of the model 345 and B-29 capabilities can trace their lineage to) did in fact have 4 engines serviceable in flight via tunnel, something Boeing also applied to their model 314 flying boat.
Below reads part of the Medal of Honor citation for Archibald Mathies - B-17 Flight Engineer. Your Dash One may not define the position, but the AAF clearly knew what it was:
"For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy in connection with a bombing mission over enemy-occupied Europe on February 20, 1944. The aircraft on which Sgt. Mathies was serving as flight engineer and ball turret gunner ..."
