Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT: Sad day in aviation: Collings B17 has crashed

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    There's nothing wrong with a little speculation before the facts come out and in fact I think that's a very healthy mental exercise, but personally I will bite my tongue before putting out any kind of a statement as some kind of stamp of approval,
    is age a factor? yeah but there's exceptions to the rule, heck im one of them, at almost 6 decades im not supposed to be making kids in their 20's look slow on their bicycles lol it should not be happening,,,

    we also can't assume we know these guys personal lives - for all we know they spend time at the gym isolating the muscle groups it takes to fly one of these pigs and are taking that jelly fish supplement to help keep their mind sharp,,,

    I know enough about being called in to shops for analyzing premature engine failures and even crash forensics on vehicles to button my lips until they get a complete look at all the details, --- let the people do their jobs,

    I don't know the first thing about crash forensics in aviation, well, no that's not true, actually I do, the very first thing I would do is the most obvious, I would take a look at all the props, a dead engine's props will simply be bent straight back with maybe only one blade involved - an engine that was trying to help gain altitude will have all the props twisted in a bent back spiral, You can even know the approximate speed the engines were contributing with the bends and scuff marks...

    there's exceptions to every rule - like why would a reputable shop call in a high school drop-out to analyze engine parts that failed right after a rebuild or how a car crashed?...

    let the people do their jobs, the truth will come out.

    Comment


    • #62
      Edited, I must learn to not post out of boredom or in a bad mood.
      Last edited by RB211; 10-06-2019, 11:23 PM.

      Comment


      • #63
        Just saw this; "Pilot Ernest 'Mac' McCauley, 75, spent more than 7,300 hours flying the Boeing B-17G bomber".
        That's 3 1/2 years if he were to fly 40 hour weeks.
        My uncle working for American didn't fly 40 hours per month! He did have seniority then though.

        Don't know about the co-pilot but both were fit as well.
        Len

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by danlb View Post
          The Collins foundation gives rides at events to help support the effort. I recall my flight was a around $500, and for around $1000 I could have flown in a P51 Mustang.
          ...
          The P51 ride is now (or was) $2400 - $3400 for a 1 hour ride that includes hands-on flying.

          Comment


          • #65
            The B17 was seen coming in low over trees. It landed 1,000' short of the runaway and hit the ILS antenna array. Those aren't very tall. It sounds like it was basically out of power and trying to make it to the runway.

            https://youtu.be/KmnNO9dVGjg
            Zero's are important.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Bob Engelhardt View Post
              The P51 ride is now (or was) $2400 - $3400 for a 1 hour ride that includes hands-on flying.
              My son's previous employer is a friend of the Collings family, who wrangled him (son) a gratis ride on the B17 a dozen years ago. I don't think hands on controls was part of the deal, though.


              Edit: (another indication that the old memory is untrustworthy) it was over 20 years ago, and my son got a ride on the Collings' B24, not the B17.
              Last edited by tlfamm; 10-13-2019, 01:46 PM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Some one said he made the turn 4 miles out, base to final? Couldn't get above 800ft? Conflicting reports 13*200=2600 lbs. PIC had 7000 hours in B17's. Bizarre...

                Comment


                • #68
                  As a long time A&P, my bet as of now is on bad fuel/jet fuel in the tank(s).
                  The aircraft as operated is without bombs and likely very light weight.
                  Since the original design could maintain 2 engine flight at gross weight, a loss of even 2 engines should be no big deal at the bomb-less weight.
                  Since he had already made turn on downwind and base, he did have full authority control at that time.
                  Since he came up short of runway and apparently in line, he must have lost all power, meaning losing the remaining 3 engines.
                  Whats the chances of losing 1 engine,,,,,yup.
                  Whats the chances of losing the remaining 3 engines,,,,,,,go figure,
                  Bad fuel, or, no fuel.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Ringo View Post
                    ... he must have lost all power, meaning losing the remaining 3 engines.
                    ...
                    Surely the witnesses would have heard that.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Ringo it is where my speculation heads at too, some kind of systemic problem, these things did not have a "master computer" that controlled all ignition function and the like they most likely had double redundancy mags and plugs on each engine,

                      so what do they all share? the same fuel source ? although im not totally sure of that I would think at least one wing supplied for both that wings engines and loosing two on one side could be a bit of a problem, have no idea the layout but im sure some here do and can expand, so - wrong fuel or water in a batch... whatever - lots of possibilities...

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        The fuel in the remaining tanks was 100 octane, just what it was supposed to be..... preliminary info from the investigation via Juan Browne per above link.

                        Each engine has dual mags, and plugs, etc.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-1820_Cyclone
                        Last edited by J Tiers; 10-06-2019, 07:04 PM.
                        CNC machines only go through the motions

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by J Tiers View Post
                          The fuel in the remaining tanks was 100 octane, just what it was supposed to be..... preliminary info from the investigation via Juan Browne per above link.

                          Each engine has dual mags, and plugs, etc.

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-1820_Cyclone
                          Say what??
                          the fuel in remaining tanks is 100LL? really?
                          where is the evidence? the whole aircraft burned up, because the fuel itself was the fire.
                          whether it was Jetfuel, or 100LL, it all got consumed in the fire.
                          there is no fuel sample to take post accident

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            I believe they can tell the difference --- two totally different fuels and burn rates and residues...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Ringo View Post
                              Say what??
                              the fuel in remaining tanks is 100LL? really?
                              where is the evidence? the whole aircraft burned up, because the fuel itself was the fire.
                              whether it was Jetfuel, or 100LL, it all got consumed in the fire.
                              there is no fuel sample to take post accident
                              That seems not to be true. Some is not burned up. A big section of one wing is not burned, as per pic here:

                              https://www.courant.com/news/connect...c2a-story.html

                              And you can apparently tell the difference very easily, with a paper towel. Soak up some. Let it evaporate. If there is an oily residue, there is some JetA in it. There should not be ANY JetA in 100 octane.
                              CNC machines only go through the motions

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                ahh. the picture i saw the only part recognizable was the tail.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X