[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

NTSB Preliminary Accident Report

https://www.scribd.com/document/430402311/NTSB-Accident-Preliminary-Report#from_embed

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?

Should have gone for RW33 from downwind on 06 if #3 was not co-operating......

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.