Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

B-17 Crash

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10th Oct 2019, 17:41
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
[QUOTE=jimjim1;10589190]I agree - Snowflake - rubbish. There seem to be more with a death wish than ever.

....

Nothing wrong there, no passengers were harmed. That's where some of our fighter pilots come from.

I for one enjoy my life of freedom to take known risks
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 17:10
  #82 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 1,603
Received 40 Likes on 27 Posts
NTSB Preliminary Accident Report

https://www.scribd.com/document/430402311/NTSB-Accident-Preliminary-Report#from_embed
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2019, 23:42
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 2,319
Received 24 Likes on 16 Posts
Knowing absolutely zip about the B-17 - a few questions.
With that number of people on board, and fuel load - how close would they be to MTOW? (which wiki tells me is 65,000lbs for the G model).
160 gals of 100LL @ 6lbs per gallon = 960lbs of fuel weight?
13 (I think) POB @ 140lbs per average person = roughly 2000lbs?
I know that's a very back of the envelope calculation, but it's a WW2 Bomber - designed to carry a heavy payload - I'm trying to understand why one engine out would see them struggling to make the airfield.
Extra drag from the dead prop, combined with the payload?
Had always thought one engine out on a four engined bomber such as this didn't necessarily mean a critical loss of control.
Happy to be enlightened.
And I should add - no intention to cast any blame on the pilots - just wondering.

Last edited by tartare; 16th Oct 2019 at 09:04.
tartare is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 13:24
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,737
Received 77 Likes on 39 Posts
Originally Posted by tartare
Knowing absolutely zip about the B-17 - a few questions.
With that number of people on board, and fuel load - how close would they be to MTOW? (which wiki tells me is 65,000lbs for the G model).
160 gals of 100LL @ 6lbs per gallon = 960lbs of fuel weight?
13 (I think) POB @ 140lbs per average person = roughly 2000lbs?
I know that's a very back of the envelope calculation, but it's a WW2 Bomber - designed to carry a heavy payload - I'm trying to understand why one engine out would see them struggling to make the airfield.
Extra drag from the dead prop, combined with the payload?
Had always thought one engine out on a four engined bomber such as this didn't necessarily mean a critical loss of control.
Happy to be enlightened.
And I should add - no intention to cast any blame on the pilots - just wondering.
No bombs, no 'real' guns, no .50 cal ammo, no high altitude oxygen equipment, no armour plating, no heavy WW2 radio equip etc., and only 3 more people on board than its designed combat crew of 10, I don't think '909' was anywhere near MTOW, even if it had had full tanks.
More interesting is the info in the report that may have indicated that engine No.3 was almost feathered at time of impact?
4 out and 3 on the way out or almost out for whatever reason would have made life more difficult at the low level they were already at?
GeeRam is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 18:47
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 4,660
Received 68 Likes on 43 Posts
Should have gone for RW33 from downwind on 06 if #3 was not co-operating......
sycamore is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 21:49
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 2,319
Received 24 Likes on 16 Posts
True GeeRam.
OK - if 3 was also on the way out, then they definitely had a big problem with power and asymmetric flight.
Not good.
tartare is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.