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

[Mike Banks]

Craig McBurney from Connecticut Corsair has been interviewed several times regarding this situation. Craig flew the 'All American' and '909' for Collings for a number of years in the 90's. The "jump to conclusions" mentality of one of our Connecticut senators is unfortunate. Keeping these aircraft flying in remembrance of those before us is near and dear to us all.

https://www.theday.com/article/20191006/NWS12/191009571

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/on-air/a ... 32622.html

https://fox61.com/2019/10/06/piolt-refl ... -was-lost/

[whistlingdeath77]

Craig McBurney from Connecticut Corsair has been interviewed several times regarding this situation. Craig flew the 'All American' and '909' for Collings for a number of years in the 90's. The "jump to conclusions" mentality of one of our Connecticut senators is unfortunate. Keeping these aircraft flying in remembrance of those before us is near and dear to us all.

https://www.theday.com/article/20191006/NWS12/191009571

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/on-air/a ... 32622.html

https://fox61.com/2019/10/06/piolt-refl ... -was-lost/

Blumenthal lies about being in Vietnam and now he wants to take charge of warbirds. Did he care a week ago about past military aviation? I think we all know the answer to that one

[Fearless Tower]

In B-17 lingo, what does "blow out" mean in reference to the # 4 engine(if I heard that recording right)?

Can't say for 100% certainty, but it may have to do with condensation in the magnetos.

It is not uncommon in high humidity environments for condensation to get inside those mags and blowing them out with compressed air to dry them out before starting is the typical practice. There are reports in the media from a spouse of a passenger that they had been having trouble initially starting number 4 and the passenger told their spouse they were blowing moisture out of the engine. Again, that is not an unusual practice for those airplanes and I wouldn't read too much into that as a cause for the accident.

So, to provide a possible answer to your question; it may be that the crew thought the issue they were having with number 4 was moisture in the mags and they wanted to return to again try to blow them out. That also might explain why they initially did not sound particularly concerned/declaring an emergency.

[phil65]

From conversations with some of those guys on their stops here in NC over the last few years, the turbos on the B-17 were safety-wired/ non-functional. The ones on the B-24 are fully functional, and I was told they use them on every takeoff/ climb out.

That's what a pilot for the B-24 told me on Sep. 7.

Phil

[phil65]

https://explorewesternmass.com/event/th ... o-of-1979/

Almost 40 years to the day....

Phil

[WIXerGreg]

Collings' website came back up today if anybody else wants to head over and spend some money with them. I have some B-17 and 24 stuff on the way!

[whistlingdeath77]

Collings' website came back up today if anybody else wants to head over and spend some money with them. I have some B-17 and 24 stuff on the way!

I’ll be going with my friend to the battle for the airfield event this weekend in support of the Collings foundation

[bcmj]

I just purchased a 909 shirt & sign saying keep them fly!
Never had the honor of flying in any of Collings planes, but took a couple of walk thurs on 909 and Witchcraft when they visited are local airport. Talking with them was great, Collings Foundation people were great and very friendly. I would love to take a flight with them soon!
Proudly KEEP THEM FLYING!

[Nathan]

I know it's too early to speculate, but as Collings has the former Evergreen G model, I wonder if they'll paint her as 909?
.

I honestly hope 909 is rebuilt. Liberty Belle is coming up nicely that was almost a total loss so i dont see why whats left of 909 cant be made into a new b-17. I would hope that anyone that has B-17 parts would donate them to CF.

[marine air]

It can’t be rebuilt. Honestly, they could take the insurance money and buy one out of a museum . One thought would be to take the insurance money and buy that B-24/LB30 project and build up a second B-24.
Nine o Nine received double jeopardy. One it smashed into the building and tanks at a high rate of speed , deforming the shape of the aircraft. 2) a truly massive fire. The Liberty Bell project has a lot more to go on and they have a second B-17 project recovered from the bush.

[Ed Likes]

Iam in shock as to what took place with 909. I was on vacation when I found out about this terrible tragedy. Iam a Plane Sponsor with the Collings Foundation, and did my bit to help keep 909 flying. I have flown in 909 several times in the last 8 years. I didn't know MAC real well, but I will tell you he was first class all the way. In 2018 I had my picture taken with MAC in Akron OH. after we landed. a picture that means the world to me.
Regarding the Collings Foundation they are a fantastic organization period. I know that the entire organization is in mourning for those that lost there lives, ,and that 909 is gone. This was the 30th year for the Collings Aircraft to be on tour. In those 30 years 909 and other Collings Aircraft educated the public about the role these aircraft played in WW2. MAC I know was passionate about bringing 909 to city after city for the last 20 years. These aircraft helped win WW2 and the way of life we enjoy today. My friends who know me know that I will sum this up by saying what I always say, and this goes to the Collings Foundation in particular. KEEPEM FLYIN.

[GarryW]

I'm speaking beyond my knowledge here, but are not the turbos on aircraft used to maintain power at high altitude (where warbirds no longer fly)?
Unlike a turbo'd automobile where the boost is for a burst of acceleration on demand.
Still a terrible tragedy- I'm sure that the pilots did their best.

While I'm not an aerospace engineer or A&P mechanic, that's only partially correct. I worked with stationary turbo diesel engines for years which while they never flew (on purpose), they are quite similar in operation. Turbos pressurize the intake tract when the engine is under load. In the case with my experience with industrial equipment, the engine was under load constantly while its power was being utilized...much in the same way aircraft engines operate. Automobiles are a different animal as you are only substantially loading the engine during acceleration or while towing a heavy load. Most times, most of the force keeping a car going down the road is the inertia of a 1+ ton vehicle rolling down the pavement, only a small amount of the energy the engine is capable of generating is being used (very light loading). In an aircraft, the engine has a constant, fairly high load that depends on several things like the pitch of the props or the angle of attack of the aircraft. The turbos are always supplementing the engine. The altitude comes into play since the air pressure is less the higher you go. The turbo helps to minimize that differential but as you go higher, the engine will still lose power...just not at as great of a rate. That said, a turbocharged engine that is rated at 1200hp I am assuming is rated at 1200hp on the ground...the higher you go, that number will still decline. For sake of discussion, at 20,000 ft a 1200hp normally aspirated engine may only be generating 800hp. Turbocharge that same engine and it will make 1000hp at altitude. If I'm incorrect, please someone with more knowledge correct me...I'm just going off what I've read and my understanding of physics as a mechanical engineer.

That said, the people claiming "Well, in WWII B-17's were able to make it back to base on 2 engines" is a bit of a logical fallacy. With fully operational turbos even at sea level, they had quite a bit more power than the warbirds flying today with disabled turbochargers. However, I'm sure in WWII configuration, even a bomber coming back after a bomb run was still significantly heavier than the aircraft flying today. Its all a balance of lift and thrust vs. drag and gravity (weight)...more to the point, there are more variables than just "if 'x', then 'y'".

[EstorilM]

I'm speaking beyond my knowledge here, but are not the turbos on aircraft used to maintain power at high altitude (where warbirds no longer fly)?
Unlike a turbo'd automobile where the boost is for a burst of acceleration on demand.
Still a terrible tragedy- I'm sure that the pilots did their best.

While I'm not an aerospace engineer or A&P mechanic, that's only partially correct. I worked with stationary turbo diesel engines for years which while they never flew (on purpose), they are quite similar in operation. Turbos pressurize the intake tract when the engine is under load. In the case with my experience with industrial equipment, the engine was under load constantly while its power was being utilized...much in the same way aircraft engines operate. Automobiles are a different animal as you are only substantially loading the engine during acceleration or while towing a heavy load. Most times, most of the force keeping a car going down the road is the inertia of a 1+ ton vehicle rolling down the pavement, only a small amount of the energy the engine is capable of generating is being used (very light loading). In an aircraft, the engine has a constant, fairly high load that depends on several things like the pitch of the props or the angle of attack of the aircraft. The turbos are always supplementing the engine. The altitude comes into play since the air pressure is less the higher you go. The turbo helps to minimize that differential but as you go higher, the engine will still lose power...just not at as great of a rate. That said, a turbocharged engine that is rated at 1200hp I am assuming is rated at 1200hp on the ground...the higher you go, that number will still decline. For sake of discussion, at 20,000 ft a 1200hp normally aspirated engine may only be generating 800hp. Turbocharge that same engine and it will make 1000hp at altitude. If I'm incorrect, please someone with more knowledge correct me...I'm just going off what I've read and my understanding of physics as a mechanical engineer.

That said, the people claiming "Well, in WWII B-17's were able to make it back to base on 2 engines" is a bit of a logical fallacy. With fully operational turbos even at sea level, they had quite a bit more power than the warbirds flying today with disabled turbochargers. However, I'm sure in WWII configuration, even a bomber coming back after a bomb run was still significantly heavier than the aircraft flying today. Its all a balance of lift and thrust vs. drag and gravity (weight)...more to the point, there are more variables than just "if 'x', then 'y'".

I think you're on the right track, perhaps minus the power addition any of the turbosuperchargers would contribute during sea level operations.

Generally speaking, aviation engines use forced induction to "see" sea level pressures at nearly all altitudes. Since these engines are already supercharged (as part of the core design, in the case/block) there really isn't much "boost" that can be applied to these things at sea level, at least not in these engines built for reliability and longevity over all-out air-racer style performance.

There are certain circuits in the carbs that have to be activated (kinda like opening the secondaries on a car carburetor) which can only happen at certain manifold pressures (and is critical for correct engine operation / air fuel ratios, doesn't really mean they need that much power).

I can pretty much tell you for a fact that these B-17s with disabled turbosuperchargers are still incredibly over-powered beasts in their current roles. Dropping the armor, bombs, oxygen systems, primitive avionics and radio/nav equipment, etc probably leaves these things about 10,000lbs under their original gross / MTOW but that's just a WILD guess on my part. I know our TBM is about 6,000lbs under its original gross wartime weight and that's for a single-engined carrier plane!

In any event, at sea level BDL sits at an altitude of 173' AMSL.. those engines will essentially be generating their rated horsepower regardless of modifications to the turbos (there may have been some slight boost settings used for takeoff, but at sea level that may require higher-octane fuels and certainly cuts the life of the engines somewhat). Again though - considering the weight of the plane, it's not even worth mentioning.

[p51]

Collings' website came back up today if anybody else wants to head over and spend some money with them. I have some B-17 and 24 stuff on the way!

Thanks for the suggestion. I was hoping to catch up to them to get a new 909 t-shirt. As they won't likely be making any more, so I went to the site and ordered a shirt and one patch for each plane that I've flown on...

[eze240]

Coming from a fueling background, if the aircraft was not fitted with reduced size fuel caps, it could well fit the Hoover nozzle for Jet A in it.... I seriously doubt that scenario, due to the fact that someone would have noted the Jet placards on the truck, etc.....
There is another possibility.....it's remotely possible that the truck itself could have been filled improperly with Jet.... The trucks come in a variety of sizes and shapes, if they use a "bottom" type fill system for both AV gas and Jet, it is possible that a poorly trained/inexperienced operator could mix it up, I don't recall off hand if there was a difference in size of such fill nozzles for both fuel types...however, the nozzles are the same size for Jet for filling the truck and connecting to the aircraft....
There's also the possibility that it both types of fuel are "top" loaded, using an overhead hose system, etc... An inexperienced operator could mix up the loading of the truck from this direction as well...