Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OT: Sad day in aviation: Collings B17 has crashed

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

  • aostling
    replied
    My father, Roy Ostling, grew up in Seattle. After graduating from UW with a BSME he started working for Boeing in 1937. His first year was spent on the drawing board in the Red Barn (Plant 1). When WWII production ramped up he worked on the B17, and after 1941 he was a supervisor. He retired in 1977 after forty years at Boeing.

    In 1992, at age 77, he learned about the restoration project of 42-29782, a B17-F. He drove down to the Museum of Flight, introduced himself, and asked if they needed additional help. They were quite surprised -- for a year or more they had been poring over blueprints, almost all of which had Roy's approval signature. They were quite happy to have him as a consultant to the team. He went there at least once a week until the first flight, in 1995.

    He never flew on a B17 during his career. As far as I know, neither did the three other Boeing engineers, carpool neighbors in our Magnolia neighborhood. He could have flown on the restored plane, but he chose not to.

    He did get three coffee cups for his sons. Here is the one I see every morning before facing the new day. I just rinsed it out so it is wet. (Nobody in Phoenix bothers to dry anything.)


    Click image for larger version

Name:	B17 coffee cujp.jpg
Views:	185
Size:	253.2 KB
ID:	1938783





    Last edited by aostling; 04-16-2021, 12:21 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tlfamm
    replied
    {Reactivating old thread}

    The NTSB has released its report on the B-17 crash at Bradley Airport, Connecticut on Oct 2, 2019.

    Press release:
    https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-rele...20210413a.aspx

    Report (PDF download; 24 pages, 5.6 MB):
    https://u7061146.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/...glEDEnmwS8Q-3D

    Leave a comment:


  • lugnut
    replied
    Being from the era of the B-17, I can only remember seeing one in the air and one on the ground. The WWII war birds are in a league of their own. It is sad to see one of the few left destroyed. I was unable to read the story of this crash, so I don't know if those on board was lost or not. Sad day in aviation history.

    Leave a comment:


  • john hobdeclipe
    replied
    Well, I'm both sad and very angry to read this.

    But glad that I got to fly in both of these bombers when I did.

    Leave a comment:


  • danlb
    replied
    I read that report too. So sad that someone used safety wire to restrain the cable from the magneto to keep it from shorting to the head. They inadvertently caused the short that they were trying to prevent. The second magneto on that engine was barely working.

    It's amazing that the plane felt like it was running smooth enough to take off.

    Leave a comment:


  • J Tiers
    replied
    Originally posted by tlfamm View Post
    @ J Tiers "BTW, the lnk to the FAA report is to Scribd, which requires you to sign up with them to see anything."

    I'm able to see all 7 pages of the document without payment - maybe this is my one and only freebie?
    I tried it a third time, and that time it did indeed let me see the text. Go figure.....

    Leave a comment:


  • tlfamm
    replied
    @ J Tiers "BTW, the lnk to the FAA report is to Scribd, which requires you to sign up with them to see anything."

    I'm able to see all 7 pages of the document without payment - maybe this is my one and only freebie?

    Leave a comment:


  • J Tiers
    replied
    I have read that in "general aviation", the majority of engine problems occur within 50 to 100 hours of a significant overhaul. One could ask "what kind of overhaul increases the chance of an engine problem?", and I am told that the answer is "most of them".

    The story seems to be that whenever you mess with an engine that has been running, there is a chance of fouling something up. And unless there are two people working and cross-checking, mess-ups may easily go undetected until the aircraft is flying.

    A "poor safety culture" would tend toward things being left undone, and mess-ups being undetected, lack of testing, etc. And maybe the boss-man (presumably an A&P with inspection cert) instructing the mechanic to not do something, omit a check, etc.

    BTW, the lnk to the FAA report is to Scribd, which requires you to sign up with them to see anything.
    Last edited by J Tiers; 03-26-2020, 08:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • vectorwarbirds
    replied
    Originally posted by danlb View Post
    I can't let my wife read this. She'll never let me take a ride for charity at an air show again.

    From a previous post: Engine Nos. 1, 2, and 3 had 0 hours since major overhaul shortly before the crash. What kind of overhaul does not include spark plug maintenance?

    Dan
    A cheap one. Better question is who was the FAA IA inspector who was signing off the 100hr inspection and maintenance logbooks to approve for flight? And my answer is: the FAA is more interested in paperwork and pencil pushing that actual real time airframe and engine conditions, most of the time the inspector has no idea what they are looking at with old warbirds or odd equipment. Many times I have had to school them on our aircraft. Most just want to get done, get the paperwork in order and go to lunch.

    Leave a comment:


  • RB211
    replied
    Originally posted by danlb View Post
    I can't let my wife read this. She'll never let me take a ride for charity at an air show again.

    From a previous post: Engine Nos. 1, 2, and 3 had 0 hours since major overhaul shortly before the crash. What kind of overhaul does not include spark plug maintenance?

    Dan
    Exactly...

    Leave a comment:


  • danlb
    replied
    I can't let my wife read this. She'll never let me take a ride for charity at an air show again.

    From a previous post: Engine Nos. 1, 2, and 3 had 0 hours since major overhaul shortly before the crash. What kind of overhaul does not include spark plug maintenance?

    Dan

    Leave a comment:


  • RB211
    replied
    Originally posted by tlfamm View Post
    (reactivating old thread)

    Citing a poor safety culture, the FAA prohibits the Collings Foundation from carrying passengers:

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


    From the article:

    "An inspection of the bomber’s engines found problems significant enough to cause the FAA to question “whether the engines were inspected adequately and in accordance with the applicable maintenance requirements.”

    Specifically, the inspection found that magneto and ignition failures existed in the aircraft’s No. 4 engine. Magnetos, engine-driven electrical generators that produce voltage to fire the engine’s spark plugs, were not functioning properly. An attempt to jury rig one had left it inoperative, according to the report. A second magneto on the No. 4 engine, when tested, produced a weak or no spark to four of the nine cylinders it was supposed to fire."

    ...

    "Inspectors also found that all spark plugs required cleaning and that all of the electrode gaps were out of tolerance. Further engine inspection “indicated signs of detonation and associated damage," the decision reads."
    ...

    "An inspection of the No. 3 engine showed “all spark plug electrode gaps were out of tolerance, fouled, and revealed various signs of detonation." Inspection of the engine also revealed problems with the cylinders, according to the report."

    The FAA report can be read here:

    https://www.scribd.com/document/4533...ion#from_embed


    The final NTSB report on the accident is not yet complete.

    And who was the head mechanic? The Captain that died in the crash. Didn't know the guy so don't want to label him with "cowboy", but as far as being a mechanic, he did some pencil whipping. Dicking around with the magnetos? There's only a handful of guys in this country who are well respected to work on those old complex ones.

    Leave a comment:


  • tlfamm
    replied
    (reactivating old thread)

    Citing a poor safety culture, the FAA prohibits the Collings Foundation from carrying passengers:

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


    From the article:

    "An inspection of the bomber’s engines found problems significant enough to cause the FAA to question “whether the engines were inspected adequately and in accordance with the applicable maintenance requirements.”

    Specifically, the inspection found that magneto and ignition failures existed in the aircraft’s No. 4 engine. Magnetos, engine-driven electrical generators that produce voltage to fire the engine’s spark plugs, were not functioning properly. An attempt to jury rig one had left it inoperative, according to the report. A second magneto on the No. 4 engine, when tested, produced a weak or no spark to four of the nine cylinders it was supposed to fire."

    ...

    "Inspectors also found that all spark plugs required cleaning and that all of the electrode gaps were out of tolerance. Further engine inspection “indicated signs of detonation and associated damage," the decision reads."
    ...

    "An inspection of the No. 3 engine showed “all spark plug electrode gaps were out of tolerance, fouled, and revealed various signs of detonation." Inspection of the engine also revealed problems with the cylinders, according to the report."

    The FAA report can be read here:

    https://www.scribd.com/document/4533...ion#from_embed


    The final NTSB report on the accident is not yet complete.


    Last edited by tlfamm; 03-26-2020, 06:43 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RB211
    replied
    I have no clue what happened... It defies all probabilities. We may never know.

    Leave a comment:


  • J Tiers
    replied
    Juan Browne's comments on report

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YN4QAdji7Y

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X