Liberty Belle B-17 fire question

[maxum96]

Was the cause of the fire ever determined on the Liberty Bell B-17 fire?

[Steve S]

Something got really hot next to something that was highly flammable.

[aerovin]

NTSB report has not yet been issued. Until it is, and possibly afterwards too, the cause of the fire is speculative.

[hang the expense]

Something got really hot next to something that was highly flammable.

Best answer so far.

[Wildchild]

Was the cause of the fire ever determined on the Liberty Bell B-17 fire?

Better question is how come the fire Dept. didnt drive there trucks onto the feild to stop the fire

[P51Mstg]

Mud too deep firetrucks sink.......

Mark H

[tinbender2]

Was the cause of the fire ever determined on the Liberty Bell B-17 fire?

Better question is how come the fire Dept. didnt drive there trucks onto the feild to stop the fire

They just washed em and didn't want to get dirt on the chrome


That was a sickening video to watch. I kept thinking what would have happened to them, if it had been a USAF aircraft at a SAC base during the cold war. Probably 10 years in Leavenworth.


So what if the trucks got stuck. Tell dispatch to send a big tow truck. They aren't going back in service until they extinguish the aircraft on fire, mop up, and replentish their water supply. Being towed might extend their down time by 5 minutes.

[Wildchild]

Mud too deep firetrucks sink.......

Mark H

The B-17 landed on the feild fine, how come they couldn't try to go out there?

And yea, so what if they get a truck stuck? Its not like quicksand

[mlenoch]

I flew over the carcass the next day. The B-17 touched down on the high portion of the field and rolled to the low spot. There was standing water in the field. That portion of the field was far from any main roads or access roads
There were mud tracks where the fire trucks attempted to get to the burning wreckage.
A fully loaded firetruck with STREET wheels could not move, nor could they winch it out of the mud.
There weren't any swamp boats to get to it (In Illinois - are you kidding?). They would have needed a tracked vehicle - bulldozer to pull the fire trucks close to the aircraft. But in this remote field, how many hours would it take to get the bulldozer on scene? The airframe burned up in a few hours.

The environment just plain old prevented the first responders from getting close to the aircraft.

From my view in the air, I am defending the fire crews. They just could not get their STREET trucks close to the aircraft. In this part of Illinois, the fire crews do not have all terrain vehicles.


VL

[Red Baaron]

Mud too deep firetrucks sink.......

Mark H

The B-17 landed on the feild fine, how come they couldn't try to go out there?

And yea, so what if they get a truck stuck? Its not like quicksand

It’s pretty simple actually. The trucks would have gotten stuck in the field if they had tried to go out to the airplane. At least one was stuck trying it. Had they buried all the trucks up to the running boards and then five miles down the road a bus full of nuns had crashed into an orphanage full of babies, what were they supposed to do then? The fire department wouldn’t have been able to answer the question about why they didn’t manage the risk to their equipment better. The question would have been why they were trying to save an empty airplane while nuns and kids were dying. A big part of the fire service is saving structures but a bigger part is saving lives. You don’t generally trade off structures for people. No matter how sad it was to watch the airplane burn up the fire department would not have been able to explain why there trucks were buried in the mud when there were no lives at risk but their equipment was.
People that aren’t versed in the business of the fire department will never understand it.
When the report comes out I’m willing to bet that the bigger question is going to be why the fuel tank was leaking?

[Wildchild]

From my view in the air, I am defending the fire crews. They just could not get their STREET trucks close to the aircraft. In this part of Illinois, the fire crews do not have all terrain vehicles.


VL

Mud too deep firetrucks sink.......

Mark H

The B-17 landed on the feild fine, how come they couldn't try to go out there?

And yea, so what if they get a truck stuck? Its not like quicksand

It’s pretty simple actually. The trucks would have gotten stuck in the field if they had tried to go out to the airplane. At least one was stuck trying it.

B-17= 37,000
1200 gal. truck=28,000

...

[bombadier29]

Chris I'm sure you are a smart kid but you don't seem to understand wheel loading and how it relates to area and weight. I'm assuming those numbers you have listed were the weights of the B-17 and fire trucks. Figure out the surface contact area of the tires and then figure out the weight on each wheel. You will be surprised at the results and it might make you understand why the B-17 wouldn't sink like the truck would.

It's like tundra tires on a bush plane versus standard tires.

[aerovin]

I flew over the carcass the next day. The B-17 touched down on the high portion of the field and rolled to the low spot. There was standing water in the field. That portion of the field was far from any main roads or access roads
There were mud tracks where the fire trucks attempted to get to the burning wreckage.
A fully loaded firetruck with STREET wheels could not move, nor could they winch it out of the mud.
There weren't any swamp boats to get to it (In Illinois - are you kidding?). They would have needed a tracked vehicle - bulldozer to pull the fire trucks close to the aircraft. But in this remote field, how many hours would it take to get the bulldozer on scene? The airframe burned up in a few hours.

The environment just plain old prevented the first responders from getting close to the aircraft.

From my view in the air, I am defending the fire crews. They just could not get their STREET trucks close to the aircraft. In this part of Illinois, the fire crews do not have all terrain vehicles.


VL

Never let the facts get in the way of outrage.

[Jollygreenslugg]

Red Baaron and Vlado have nailed it. The Fire Department's first priority is to save lives, then to stop a fire from causing follow-on damage, and only then, if possible, to save the structure that is burning, if it is feasible and safe to do so.

After assessing that 1) everyone was safely out of the B-17, 2) the fire wasn't going to spread, 3) the ground was too soft for their on-road vehicles, the Fire Department had no obligation to get their vehicles bogged trying to save someone's privately-owned aeroplane. Especially given that a busload of nuns could have crashed into an orphanage ten minutes later.

This argument was well and truly hashed out last time. I was attacked for being 'un-patriotic' but I don't think that's the case. The facts are sometimes lost in a sea of emotion.

Cheers,
Matt

[mlenoch]

Believe me, just as you feel, I thought it was incredulous that 'they' let the B-17 burn. I thought they really coulda done something to put out the fire or at least save much greater sections than what survived. How could they let it go, I thought as I motored over to the scene.

When I got overhead, the wet ground told the story. The little truck with the little water tank could not contain a fully engaged 100LL fire. The big trucks only had their own water supply on board...no more was available as the fire was so far from any hydrant, etc. The big trucks just couldn't get any closer without sinking in the mud. They did leave big trails in the mud where they had driven at the fire site.

Big loss.......but really big save: no one lost their lives. The big fire coulda happened in flight.

VL