Warbird Information Exchange

Friends

How did propellers blades get bent without wiping out the AN/APQ-7 Eagle radar or the nose?



Aviation Archaeology has this B-17G-80-DL 44-83460 assigned to the 64th AAF BU (Andrews Field) (H.Q. Continental Air Forces) with category 4 damage from a landing accident at Patterson Field, Ohio on October 21, 1945 where the photo is taken.

What do you all think?

Thanks

Tom

Tom, it looks like the wing is not sitting square with the fuselage anymore, so possibly the supports failed and it is still hanging askew on the damaged struts. I have no better explanation unless the mains were partially extended and they helped support the airplane as it settled. The propellers aren't bent to the extent they usually are in a full-on bellyflop.

Interesting photo!
Scott

looks to me like the tips of the blades are bent forwards, so perhaps the aircraft was stationary (engines running) when the gear started to retract (brakes on), causing the aircraft to move backwards in relationship to the ground due to the swing geometry of the u/c? Could also explain the lack of heavy damage to the airframe.

greg v.

Prop blades bent forward, are indicative of engines that were producing power at the time of the strike.

_________________
Curtis Block

I've seen too many airplanes destroyed by the term "Static Restoration."

Correct.
My first guess was a go around when they realized the gear was not down. Just a guess though.

It reminds me of a story from a commuter airline I used to work for years ago that had a similar incident. The aircraft was the Beech 1900D model. It has composite prop blades. Painted on the back of the blade at about half the length of the blade (at station 42 if memory serves) is a small line used as a common reference point for measuring blade angles. Anyway, one night a crew is out conducting flight training including single engine work. During a single engine holding maneuver prior to conducting an approach they obviously had one power lever pulled back to simulate a failed engine but because of the aircraft systems this also activated the gear warning horn. To silence the horn the instructor pulled the gear warning CB. The single engine approach was made and a landing attempted. They decided to go around when they figured out all that extra strange noise was the props hitting the runway. A go-around was executed. They flew the pattern, dropped the gear and landed without further incident. Post flight inspection showed they had ground the props off to almost the station 42 reference line. The running joke after the incident was a joke answer to the oral question "What is the line on the back of the prop blades for?" "That is the minimum blade remaining to go around."
I don't remember the disposition of either the Instructor or Student.

Absolutely. One of the 'what really happens, not what you think should happen' tests. Very common when someone gets a bit low over the drink, although the report for this one indicates otherwise.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Spill it James.

What do you know?

_________________
Curtis Block

I've seen too many airplanes destroyed by the term "Static Restoration."

Oh, sorry. I see, re-reading my post, it sounds like I'm implying this a/c hit the water - not my intent - I know nozzing about ziz.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I just thought you had the report for it.

_________________
Curtis Block

I've seen too many airplanes destroyed by the term "Static Restoration."

I suspect it is because the MLG wheels extend below the engine nacelles when fully retracted.

Or, perhaps the pilot realized his gear was up when the props hit on landing, and managed to get airborne and land again using the wheels instead of the props.
Had a twin Cessna do this recently. Pieces of prop blades cut through the cabin and caused some substantial damage.

Just had a SE Cessna gear up at ABQ. Apparently the pilot departed with a towbar still attached to the nose gear. The gear bound up on retraction. He managed to get the mains down, but wise men convinced him to retract them and do a standard belly landing, to avoid cartwheeling.

Wow!

Appling the power and pulling the plane up at the same time as the props are hitting the runway.

What a piece of flying!

Tom

Arent the two outer engines higher up? They might not have been as severely damaged, if at all.

#1 prop looks to be OK....

Nope, no last minute go-around, just the left main landing gear motor burned out and the emergency hand crash torque tube broken (possibly from being turned the wrong way) so they elected to do a gear up landing.

_________________
Craig Fuller
AAIR Aviation Archaeological Investigation & Research
www.AviationArchaeology.com

Craig Fuller has all the good stuff on mishaps! Thanks Craig

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.