Collings Foundation B-17G 909 Has Crashed :-( 10/2/2019

[Kyleb]

What are the chances they put jet fuel in ?

Phil

The NTSB’s initial samples found 100 LL in the right tanks.

[Warbird Kid]

What are the chances they put jet fuel in ?

Phil

The NTSB’s initial samples found 100 LL in the right tanks.

This was a worry of mine as well after being suggested by somebody. Glad to hear that they were able to identify that and narrow the window of what could have gone wrong.

[airnutz]

"....aircraft such as the B-17 face "significant" maintenance challenges with the older engine and hydraulic systems not using original manufactured, but fabricated, parts in order to keep flying.

...that have to meet the spec of the original part using modern metallurgy and machining techniques. Machining has come a long way from the 40's. Tolerances that were at that time almost impossible to meet are commonplace today. The replacement parts being made today either meet or far exceed anything made in the 40's. But hey, lets make it sound like some hillbilly is hacking together some sub-standard parts out in his woodshed instead. ...I know which aviation lawyer I'm NOT calling if I ever need one. Idiot.

THIS..ditto. Not to mention from a maintenance aspect these machines are fawned over by their crews and they have the benefit of decades of hindsight in care practices.
A sad loss of people and a wonderful bird, hopefully cooler heads will prevail...

As for the fuel, yes initially revealed as proper fuel further tests were to be conducted.

[Mark Allen M]

From Senator Blumenthal:
"I am deeply concerned that these vintage aircraft, decades old, some of them having been involved in crashes before, are still flying," Blumenthal told Fox News. "Until we know exactly what caused this crash, a major tragedy, whether it was a defect in the machine or some problem with maintenance or flying. There should be very serious scrutiny over these planes before they're allowed back in the air."

Did anyone here not see this coming?

Although not my conclusion, it's no surprise to hear this type of response from anyone understandably not involved with or interested in 'decades old' airplanes. Nine out of ten people today more than likely have no idea what a B-17 is and what it's history was. 75 year old history is fast becoming "ancient history" and WW2 history is slowly becoming only known as fabricated CGI history.

It's like with many things. If you have no interest in it's existence, then you feel no loss by it's extinction.

Blumenthal's a politician. His response is expected and predictable. Nothing new.

[exhaustgases]

"....aircraft such as the B-17 face "significant" maintenance challenges with the older engine and hydraulic systems not using original manufactured, but fabricated, parts in order to keep flying.

...that have to meet the spec of the original part using modern metallurgy and machining techniques. Machining has come a long way from the 40's. Tolerances that were at that time almost impossible to meet are commonplace today. The replacement parts being made today either meet or far exceed anything made in the 40's. But hey, lets make it sound like some hillbilly is hacking together some sub-standard parts out in his woodshed instead. ...I know which aviation lawyer I'm NOT calling if I ever need one. Idiot.

THIS..ditto. Not to mention from a maintenance aspect these machines are fawned over by their crews and they have the benefit of decades of hindsight in care practices.
A sad loss of people and a wonderful bird, hopefully cooler heads will prevail...

As for the fuel, yes initially revealed as proper fuel further tests were to be conducted.

And with a machinist back ground, machining modern aircraft parts, yes, with the now time much more modern metallurgy and the instrumentation to check that those materials for proper chemical or metals content, as well as many more years of proven heat treating and stress relieving techniques, the "fabricated" parts now will more than meet or exceed what was in the past. And to that fellow writing that, wasn't someone "fabricating" those original parts back in the 40's? That was a just wow comment, by someone that knows nothing about manufacturing. These newer made parts can be checked (inspected) with accuracy that was not available back in the day, it would have been very difficult to check areas with compound radius surfaces in those days, today there are computerized machines to do that, and most average shops have them. I do now see more of a problem with the people putting the parts together. I don't think the engine overhauls are what they were in the old days. In the war days the brand new engines were assembled then test run, then taken apart, all parts inspected, reassembled, and tested again then wrapped and boxed to be shipped. All we have to do is remember what Gary Austin said about Precision. Just saying.

[lucky52]

What caused the wing fire in "Liberty Bell" ?

[ZRX61]

I know how unreliable eyewitness accounts can be, but this one struck me as disturbing. The fact that the guy knows what a B-17 is elevates his credibility but add to knowledge of how the engines are numbered, makes his statement alarming. The crew clearly stated they were having a problem with #4.

https://www.kptv.com/video-eyewitness-r ... b0666.html

Seems to be fairly certain about the location of #3... tends to indicate issues with two engines.

[ZRX61]

What caused the wing fire in "Liberty Bell" ?

IIRC, cracked weld in a fuel tank allowing fuel to pool in the wing, not sure what ignited it.

[Kyleb]

Deleted.

Last edited by Kyleb on Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[WIXerGreg]

What caused the wing fire in "Liberty Bell" ?

An airplane maintenance logbook entry, dated February 24, 2011, at 2,474.7 hours TTAF, noted that the aluminum fuel tanks had been removed from the airplane, and that the rubber fuel bladder liners were removed from the tanks. The aluminum tanks were subsequently welded to close the bladder liner mounting relief holes and re-installed into the airplane. An operational check of the fuel tank modification did not reveal any anomalies and the airplane was returned to service. There was no corresponding Major Repair and Alteration (FAA form 337) on file with the airplane records. The mechanic that conducted the work noted that the fuel bladders were degrading and occasionally clogging the fuel sumps.

The final maintenance logbook entry was dated June 13, 2011, the day of the accident. The entry noted a repair to the inboard end of the no. 1 main fuel tank. A subsequent leak check did not reveal any anomalies and the airplane was returned to service.

The mechanic who accomplished the fuel tank repair reported that he had examined the no. 1 fuel tank the day before the accident because of a fuel leak. He determined that the leak was due a 3-inch crack that was located in the weld bead at the bottom edge of the tank near the sump drain valve. The fuel leak was repaired by installing 5 bolts through the fuel tank flange. An aluminum C-channel was then installed with sealant over the fuel tank flange.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.avia ... 383&akey=1

[lucky52]

Thank for the answer.

[K5DH]

I wore my Nine-O-Nine crew T-shirt to work today. A small tribute to the dead, the injured, and the airplane. It wasn't much, but it was at leaast something.

[Mark Allen M]

I wore my Nine-O-Nine crew T-shirt to work today. A small tribute to the dead, the injured, and the airplane. It wasn't much, but it was at leaast something.

FWIW ... it was a LOT to a lot of people who care I'm sure and it was an honorable thing to do.

[bgp429]

Really have nothing to add about this tragic loss other than someone that understands what the B17 did and was. I hope the ride programs continue. Very sad for those who lost friends or relatives. My condolences.

[eze240]

A terrible accident....I feel for those involved and their families....
As tragic as this is....
The very real problem....the real danger....is uninformed opportunistic politicians who are now ready to "make something happen " to correct a non-existent problem....
Just a cursory glance at news reports, the various comments and this discussion shows that....a certain type of political creatures are already working to capitalize on this tragedy to push their agenda....
Bet on the probability that we will see a general ban on passengers of any sort on anything that's older than say 30 years, is a "warbird", etc....
Bet on a very rapid rise in liability insurance rates...especially for older aircraft....
Bet on a demand/requirement for more inspections, shorter intervals, etc..
Bet on a political move try to "ban" operation of any aircraft over 30 years or so..
Did I miss anything?