This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:57 pm
i agree, saftey for the crews and personel is first. Then the aircraft, which i'm happy that the inspections are being done to prevent such a terrible loss of liberty belle
Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:48 pm
lmritger wrote:Very smart on multiple levels, and the CAF has my appreciation and support for going the extra mile just to double check their own aircraft. Good show, folks.
Lynn
In the Air Force, I seem to recall the term is a "Safety Stand Down"
Scott
Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:41 am
Hello Scott, a funny story the recollections from the Jolly Roger's....
The point I was trying to share, was during the crucial planning and execution of gathering up ALL the material and equipment needed to recover the B-29 Kee Bird, the people running the show decided, allegedly, that a pallet of beer was more of a priority than counting up the fire extinguishers and making sure they had more than enough in the event of an unforeseen catastrophe. They were operating far out from any other point of civilisation. The flights in by a STOL ship, I think a De Havilland Caribou??? needed to use every single once of available space, and available fuel to fly the supply flights, to maximise the requirements of the project. I think it was mentioned more than once, how much it was costing to mount the recovery so every penny being sponsored for the recovery needed to be used wisely.... so, like I said before, I was really saddened, and yes angered, to see the plane go up in smoke from what was a small and containable fire initially, all because they didnt have extinguishers...no extinguishers... but cans of beer. A very short sighted piece of planning. Weighing it all up, beer? or, Extinguishers? I would have said the tightness of the budget and, knowing they were far from any help if something went wrong, they really should have made the latter choice and loaded one of those supply flights with a pallet of extinguishers, and left the beer back home till they had succeeded in flying Kee Bird out and to safety.
I hope any other similar recovery attempts that are made from inaccessible places of the world, will take such things into account. I'd hate to see a repeat of the '29 Kee Bird all over again.
Ian
Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:11 am
Turns out is NOT the CAF- John Hess.
It is a Delta Airline Captain with the same moniker.
What are the odds?
SPANNER
Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:43 am
Obergrafeter wrote:And as we all know the people in Midland are B-17 experts.........much more than the Wings that operate the aircraft, especially Texas Raiders having just come out of a 7 year rebuild.
Are you serious? You have an issue with this because...? Never mind....
Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:54 am
Red Tail and Ober and anybody else listening...
It NEVER hurts to have somebody (even Midland

) call you out and make you make double sure you are as good to go as you think you are.
"Go-itis" has probably killed more pilots and destroyed more planes than we will ever know.
Keep 'em Flying Safely!
SPANNER
Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:05 pm
Over the years ,one thing that has always concerned me is almost 70 year old rubber bladder type fuel tanks.They have to be degraded and getting more so over time,dont they? rubber turns into something resembling rock over time. am I wrong? also one other point about Kee Bird. I have ranted about this screwup numerous times here on wix.They musta forgotten to atleast put bailing wire to hold down the APU.maybe beer drinking had something to do with this oversight. Still bums me out as does LB
Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:08 pm
SPANNERmkV wrote:Red Tail and Ober and anybody else listening...
It NEVER hurts to have somebody (even Midland

) call you out and make you make double sure you are as good to go as you think you are.
"Go-itis" has probably killed more pilots and destroyed more planes than we will ever know.
Keep 'em Flying Safely!
SPANNER
And I am solidly in that corner. Appears as though Ober is not. Am currious as why.
John
Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:12 pm
Jigs Bumper wrote:Hello Scott, a funny story the recollections from the Jolly Roger's....
The point I was trying to share, was during the crucial planning and execution of gathering up ALL the material and equipment needed to recover the B-29 Kee Bird, the people running the show decided, allegedly, that a pallet of beer was more of a priority than counting up the fire extinguishers and making sure they had more than enough in the event of an unforeseen catastrophe. They were operating far out from any other point of civilisation. The flights in by a STOL ship, I think a De Havilland Caribou??? needed to use every single once of available space, and available fuel to fly the supply flights, to maximise the requirements of the project. I think it was mentioned more than once, how much it was costing to mount the recovery so every penny being sponsored for the recovery needed to be used wisely.... so, like I said before, I was really saddened, and yes angered, to see the plane go up in smoke from what was a small and containable fire initially, all because they didnt have extinguishers...no extinguishers... but cans of beer. A very short sighted piece of planning. Weighing it all up, beer? or, Extinguishers? I would have said the tightness of the budget and, knowing they were far from any help if something went wrong, they really should have made the latter choice and loaded one of those supply flights with a pallet of extinguishers, and left the beer back home till they had succeeded in flying Kee Bird out and to safety.
I hope any other similar recovery attempts that are made from inaccessible places of the world, will take such things into account. I'd hate to see a repeat of the '29 Kee Bird all over again.
Ian
Thanks for the compliment, and I AGREE entirely with your reasoning about beer vs. fire protection equipment. (Maybe the beer was the carrot on the stick for the mechanics...lol...) BUT THEY SHOULDA THOUGHT ABOUT THE POSSABILITY OF FIRE!
Scott
Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:16 pm
agent86 wrote:Over the years ,one thing that has always concerned me is almost 70 year old rubber bladder type fuel tanks.They have to be degraded and getting more so over time,dont they? rubber turns into something resembling rock over time. am I wrong? also one other point about Kee Bird. I have ranted about this screwup numerous times here on wix.They musta forgotten to atleast put bailing wire to hold down the APU.maybe beer drinking had something to do with this oversight. Still bums me out as does LB
Rubber bladder tanks(actually rubber impregnated cloth) have a very finite life, and I am sure they have sourced replacements for those at this point. You can only keep them going so long, and i am certain 70 years is several lifetimes for them. Anybody know the replacement cycle for bladder tanks for WWII A/C?
As to Kee Bird, I understand it was an unsecured fuel tank for the APU, rather than the APU itself...
Scott
Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:25 pm
Robbie Roberts wrote:agent86 wrote:Over the years ,one thing that has always concerned me is almost 70 year old rubber bladder type fuel tanks.They have to be degraded and getting more so over time,dont they? rubber turns into something resembling rock over time. am I wrong? also one other point about Kee Bird. I have ranted about this screwup numerous times here on wix.They musta forgotten to atleast put bailing wire to hold down the APU.maybe beer drinking had something to do with this oversight. Still bums me out as does LB
Rubber bladder tanks(actually rubber impregnated cloth) have a very finite life, and I am sure they have sourced replacements for those at this point. You can only keep them going so long, and i am certain 70 years is several lifetimes for them. Anybody know the replacement cycle for bladder tanks for WWII A/C?
As to Kee Bird, I understand it was an unsecured fuel tank for the APU, rather than the APU itself...
Scott
Thats 2 pieces of bailing wire forgotten. "save the Budweiser,We might be sitting here on the Tundra for a few days!"
Wed Jun 15, 2011 1:08 pm
Robbie Roberts wrote:Rubber bladder tanks(actually rubber impregnated cloth) have a very finite life, and I am sure they have sourced replacements for those at this point. You can only keep them going so long, and i am certain 70 years is several lifetimes for them. Anybody know the replacement cycle for bladder tanks for WWII A/C?
Scott
The cycle was easy, get a new aircraft.
as to today use, I don't remember ever replacing a tank when I was on Sentimental Journey. The tanks used in the 17 are vastly different than the flexible bladders used in current production aircraft, they are basically big rubber drums, and just as flexible.
Wed Jun 15, 2011 1:28 pm
Great footage of Snoopy taking out the Red Baron,Mr Gunsch
Wed Jun 15, 2011 1:52 pm
agent86 wrote:Over the years ,one thing that has always concerned me is almost 70 year old rubber bladder type fuel tanks.They have to be degraded and getting more so over time,dont they? rubber turns into something resembling rock over time. am I wrong? also one other point about Kee Bird. I have ranted about this screwup numerous times here on wix.They musta forgotten to atleast put bailing wire to hold down the APU.maybe beer drinking had something to do with this oversight. Still bums me out as does LB
The original fuel cells are the self sealing type.
They are an on condition item. Based on inspection they are airworthy or not.
They are very durable, made up of several layers of material and last longer if used. If they sit empty and are exposed to direct sunlight they will deteriorate.
Being inside a wing they do not get exposed to sunlight and if consistently used with at least some fuel stored in them they tend to remain airworthy.
Do you know Goodyear Tires had airworthiness instructions for its aircraft tires and not one item included age? It spoke directly to vintage tires and the need for proper storage and care.
Be careful what items you speak of please.
Wed Jun 15, 2011 2:43 pm
I am definetly not against the increased inspection and maintenance on the CAF B-17s. It is just that the person(s) mandating it have never turned a wrench on a B-17. I think the two Wings are smart enough to have an increased vigilance on their own without being told by others to do so. Perhaps Spanner didn't have an increased program in effect yet, but I am sure that Walt, Spanner, and others would have done so without prodding however so gentile. Hope this answers your question Red Tail.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.