Warbird Information Exchange

To make a fine but important distinction, Liberty Belle was not a crash but rather an off-field landing with a subsequent uncontrollable fire.

The biggest risk for passengers on such vintage aircraft is a crash-landing or off-airport landing, according to Slack, due to the possibility of post-impact fires because of how the aircraft's fuel tanks are structured and the "lack of crashworthy design." The aircraft's older fuel compartment system is not designed for modern standards, which leaves those on board, particularly at risk if there is a rupture that allows the "volatile" fuel to disperse, according to Slack.
Though nothing should overshadow the loss of life, prayers for those involved.

"Not designed for modern standards?"

Our TBM still has self-sealing fuel tanks in it, and I'd take that ANY DAY in a minor / moderate crash or impact versus a wet wing!

And in general as far as a "crashworthy" design is concerned, these things are absolute tanks compared to general aviation aircraft. They were designed knowing they'd be shot at and (likely) face off-field landings or ditchings.

For example if you flip over in a low-wing plane like a bonanza and slide or impact anything - there's zero guarantee that the passenger portion of the fuselage will remain intact (as far as the passenger-occupying areas go) - but most military aircraft (well, single-engined ones especially) have the hoist / roll-over frame portions around the canopy that virtually guarantee protection in a roll-over - at least on the TBM.

Whatever went wrong, 909 made it back to the airfield at very low altitude and didn't go down into a neighborhood... the pilots were trying.

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."

A friend of mine with JSC (Houston) at NASA emailed me yesterday asking if I knew anyone on board (thankfully, no, I replied) as he knew I'd flown with Collings aircraft a few times in the past. He said they actually had a long discussion about these aircraft from this incident, as they study all kinds of accidents to see what can be learned (for example, they have a case study on a partial boiler explosion on a steam locomotive in PA in the 90s, for which the same NASA person asked me to prepare some bullet points for a presentation he was giving on safety as he wasn't familiar with how a locomotive boiler works). He said that while everyone there knew that WW2 planes were still being flown, none realized that they were taking on pax for flights. They'd all assumed those were crew/owner-only flights all this time.

Yeah, I'd like to know what this Slack guy thinks of Cirrus fuel tanks...

Did anyone here not see this coming?

The calls for stopping these experience flights (and, depending on how Mr. Blumenthal's statements are read, possibly warbird flights in general?) are sadly beginning...
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."

From a warbird owner/lawyer:

Those who step on board the vintage aircraft may not know or realize the unique risks that come with the planes that were never intended to be used for civilian tour flights, according to Michael Slack a former NASA engineer, a licensed pilot and aviation attorney with Slack Davis Sanger.

"We have a real disconnect between original purpose and the contemporary purpose," Slack said Thursday. Slack, who owns his own World War II-era plane, a North American T-6 Texan trainer, told Fox News that 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.

The biggest risk for passengers on such vintage aircraft is a crash-landing or off-airport landing, according to Slack, due to the possibility of post-impact fires because of how the aircraft's fuel tanks are structured and the "lack of crashworthy design." The aircraft's older fuel compartment system is not designed for modern standards, which leaves those on board, particularly at risk if there is a rupture that allows the "volatile" fuel to disperse, according to Slack.
Though nothing should overshadow the loss of life, prayers for those involved.

"....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.