B-17 crash (1943)

[JohnB]

It was an off airport landing due to an emergency.

I can't imagine why you'd land a four-engined bomber off-airport unless it was an emergency.

As far as leaving emotion out of it, I used the word crash instead of mishap or event in a passing reference to the loss, and I'm jumped on like a flak-damaged B-17 over Germany.
Sorry if it offended you. I diodn't realize it was such a touchy subject....
Try being less emotional.

[51fixer]

It was an off airport landing due to an emergency.

I can't imagine why you'd land a four-engined bomber off-airport unless it was an emergency.

As far as leaving emotion out of it, I used the word crash instead of mishap or event in a passing reference to the loss, and I'm jumped on like a flak-damaged B-17 over Germany.
Sorry if it offended you. I diodn't realize it was such a touchy subject....
Try being less emotional.

To be clear-
The landing did not cause any damage to the A/C.
It was performed with landing gear and flaps extended.
How can the landing then be described as a crash or an accident.
In short the destruction of the A/C had a cause other than its return to earth.
Lots of people visit this site to gather facts. Lets be factual in how we describe things.
Emotions in check, class dismissed.

[The Inspector]

Veering back to the center of this, do we know where this B-17 accident back in 1943 happened? Or has the original poster taken a powder?

[JohnB]

It was performed with landing gear and flaps extended.
How can the landing then be described as a crash or an accident.

Thanks for the absolution.

But it's still an accident...a mechanical fault caused an off airport landing. The fault was not planned and was unexpected.
When an aircraft mishap is caused by a technical problem, it's still called an accident.

[muddyboots]

hey guys I have some pencils on my desk. You can arrange them after you're done picking nits.

[CoastieJohn]

Not that I know much about anything really.....but how an "event" is classified by the authorities (FAA, NTSB, Military, etc) effects several things. In the case of civilian aircraft....I can see the type of classification driving which way an insurance company would go.

Back on focus.....seems Dec 12th and 13th 1943 was a tough two days for B-17's. For the B-17 experts....is that statiscally about average?

[bipe215]

Not that I know much about anything really.....but how an "event" is classified by the authorities (FAA, NTSB, Military, etc) effects several things. In the case of civilian aircraft....I can see the type of classification driving which way an insurance company would go.

Back on focus.....seems Dec 12th and 13th 1943 was a tough two days for B-17's. For the B-17 experts....is that statiscally about average?

No, there were days that were much worse. Go to aviation archaeology.com and scroll through the monthly databases. The number of accidents and battle related losses are staggering, both stateside and overseas.

Steve

[TonyM]

Not that I know much about anything really.....but how an "event" is classified by the authorities (FAA, NTSB, Military, etc) effects several things. In the case of civilian aircraft....I can see the type of classification driving which way an insurance company would go.

Back on focus.....seems Dec 12th and 13th 1943 was a tough two days for B-17's. For the B-17 experts....is that statiscally about average?

No, there were days that were much worse. Go to aviation archaeology.com and scroll through the monthly databases. The number of accidents and battle related losses are staggering, both stateside and overseas.

Steve

Approximately 335 B-17 aircraft were lost in fatal accidents in the US during 1941-1945. There were scores lost in non-fatal accidents too.
Approximately 540 B-24 aircraft were lost in fatal accidents in the US during 1941-1945. There were scores lost in non-fatal accidents too.

According to my research, over 15,500 US Army Air Forces personnel were killed in accidents in the continental US during 1941-1945.

Stats for 1943 US Army Air Forces accidents in the US:

2,270 Fatal Accidents
5,634 Fatalities
473 Serious injuries
574 Minor injuries
2,538 Aircraft damaged or destroyed

That is just the Army in the US in 1943; those numbers do not include USN, USMC, USCG, or Civilian losses.

1944 was almost as bad.

[airnutz]

[quote="Chuck Giese"/] Minor correction. While it was indeed a hugh loss this summer, it wasn't a B-17 crash. It was one of the better landings that I've been aboard for...[/quote]


To me any aircraft loss while moving is basically a crash[/quote]

But the loss occurred after they were no longer moving. The Belle had an onboard fire and the crew executed a successful off-field landing. All aboard successfully departed the aircraft and THEN she burned due to the lack of available fire suppression support.

If fire suppresion equipment had been available and used to success, are you saying the landing or incident would be categorized as a "crash", John?

If there was no fire and she arrived at her destination, the passengers departed and then she burned due to an unknown cause...would that be a "crash"?

Just my .02..

[TonyM]

FYI:

If the B-17 was involved in an "operational" accident, that is, an accident as a result of combat ops or battle damage, the vast majority of times it will not show up in the accident record.

TM

[Chappie]

Pond's, Evergreen's, Pink Lady and the MoF/Richardson B-17F are all examples of active flyers now grounded. How long before Fuddy Duddy goes the same way? And then there are the losses of the IGN example in 1989 and Liberty Belle this year.

What are the reasons for these groundings?


Chappie

[Mike]

Pond's, Evergreen's, Pink Lady and the MoF/Richardson B-17F are all examples of active flyers now grounded. How long before Fuddy Duddy goes the same way? And then there are the losses of the IGN example in 1989 and Liberty Belle this year.

What are the reasons for these groundings?


Chappie

For various reasons the owners decided to park them up rather than fly them. Pink Lady was reportedly grounded due to the age of the flight and ground crews, Evergreen don't seem interested in flying any of their collection (like Kalamazoo, much of Weeks' collection, Yanks, etc). The Palm Springs Museum got into a legal dispute with the Pond family after Bob's death, effectively grounding all the Pond-owned aircraft in the Museum, and from what I have seen and heard the Museum really don't have the infrastructure to operate many airworthy aircraft anyway. The Lyon Museum only fly their stuff once or twice a year, I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped altogether at some point. MoF in Seattle don't even display their B-17 to the public (except for a couple of months this summer), let alone fly it, but keep it locked in a shed on Boeing Field.

[tom d. friedman]

this is a touchy subject........ everybody doesn't want to see them prang or crash / but deep down who wouldn't want to see them fly??? it's a question of emotion. there are some birds so rare i ponder "shooting craps" in flying them. others that sit static we all dream........ it's a doubled edged sword.

[Chappie]

For various reasons the owners decided to park them up rather than fly them. Pink Lady was reportedly grounded due to the age of the flight and ground crews, Evergreen don't seem interested in flying any of their collection (like Kalamazoo, much of Weeks' collection, Yanks, etc). The Palm Springs Museum got into a legal dispute with the Pond family after Bob's death, effectively grounding all the Pond-owned aircraft in the Museum, and from what I have seen and heard the Museum really don't have the infrastructure to operate many airworthy aircraft anyway. The Lyon Museum only fly their stuff once or twice a year, I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped altogether at some point. MoF in Seattle don't even display their B-17 to the public (except for a couple of months this summer), let alone fly it, but keep it locked in a shed on Boeing Field.

Thanks for that Mike. Such a shame that an individual or musuem would ground a perfectly airworthy aircraft instead locating or trading for a non-airworthy example. And the deal with Pink Lady....ah...train younger crews!


Chappie

[Dan Jones]

One point to consider though is that many of today's flying airplanes probably wouldn't exist at all had they not been allowed to fly. There wouldn't be the rescues, restorations, reproductions, and resurrections that we regularly see happening today because people wouldn't put that kind of money and effort into solely static display airplanes.