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

[Chuck Giese]

A friend just passed this along to me -- I haven't seen anything to confirm it, but I thought I'd pass it along to the forum:

"I just received info via Jack Erickson and Jim S. that the "17" had been refueled with jet fuel (kerosene) prior to take off instead of 100 oct gasoline. There was enough gas in the lines, carb, etc that enabled a take off. The pilot, which was very experienced in 17's, had power loss after take off and attempted a return to airport but was short of the runway causing the airplane to hit the VASI landing apparatus tower. Each engine is capable of about 1350 hp but was developing maybe only 3-400 hp. #4 is right side outboard engine. Apparently there was a need for supervision of the refueling which shouldn't be necessary. A tragic loss of life and a magnificent machine."

Updating.......

I have found a bit of forum talk about "perhaps it was fueled with Jet A," but it has always been countered with how that couldn't have happened. I don't know the source of the information above, nor who the two folks who were mentioned are, but that's pretty much what I've been able to find as I continue investigating this....

Didn’t they develop the Hoover nozzle to prevent this? The nozzle cannot fit into the gas opening. Also, I do not believe that anybody on the tour would have just walked away and let a line tech try to get up on a b-17 wing or up on a liberator wing.

I haven't measured it, but from pictures, it looks like the Hoover Nozzle would fit just fine in an unmodified B-17, or DC-3 fuel tank filler neck. Not say that's what happened because I don't know!

[Chuck Giese]

Duplicate

[whistlingdeath77]

Duplicate

Thank you chuck for you’re input. Even if somebody got that close to one of the planes with a jet a truck a Collings foundation member would have pumped the fuel themselves up on ladders etc. that’s what I’ve always seen. I’m sure the Hoover nozzle would have been noticed.

I’m just guessing here but if a b-17,( on run up,) if it had tainted fuel wouldn’t the rmps not reach where it should have?

[Fearless Tower]

A friend just passed this along to me -- I haven't seen anything to confirm it, but I thought I'd pass it along to the forum:

"I just received info via Jack Erickson and Jim S. that the "17" had been refueled with jet fuel (kerosene) prior to take off instead of 100 oct gasoline. There was enough gas in the lines, carb, etc that enabled a take off. The pilot, which was very experienced in 17's, had power loss after take off and attempted a return to airport but was short of the runway causing the airplane to hit the VASI landing apparatus tower. Each engine is capable of about 1350 hp but was developing maybe only 3-400 hp. #4 is right side outboard engine. Apparently there was a need for supervision of the refueling which shouldn't be necessary. A tragic loss of life and a magnificent machine."

Updating.......

I have found a bit of forum talk about "perhaps it was fueled with Jet A," but it has always been countered with how that couldn't have happened. I don't know the source of the information above, nor who the two folks who were mentioned are, but that's pretty much what I've been able to find as I continue investigating this....

Didn’t they develop the Hoover nozzle to prevent this? The nozzle cannot fit into the gas opening. Also, I do not believe that anybody on the tour would have just walked away and let a line tech try to get up on a b-17 wing or up on a liberator wing.

I haven't measured it, but from pictures, it looks like the Hoover Nozzle would fit just fine in an unmodified B-17, or DC-3 fuel tank filler neck. Not say that's what happened because I don't know!

Still highly unlikely as Mac apparently always personally fueled the airplane. They didn't let line guys fuel it.

[Speedy]

Duplicate

Thank you chuck for you’re input. Even if somebody got that close to one of the planes with a jet a truck a Collings foundation member would have pumped the fuel themselves up on ladders etc. that’s what I’ve always seen. I’m sure the Hoover nozzle would have been noticed.

I’m just guessing here but if a b-17,( on run up,) if it had tainted fuel wouldn’t the rmps not reach where it should have?

I have very deliberately stayed out of this discussion since the incident happened. I heard on the day of that it may have been a fueling incident, but again have resisted commenting on it. In this case, however, I want to chime in...because as an active duty Naval Aviator, while having a civilian FBO refuel my aircraft, the same thing happened...albeit instead of Jet A they filled it with 100LL, so it was the opposite with the nozzle fitting. I bring this up for two reasons...one, they were fueling it while I was pre-flighting the aircraft, and even though I specifically told them what I needed, they made the mistake and I did not catch it until it was too late. IT IS VERY EASY to be distracted enough with everything going on and assume that even after you've held someone by the hand, a mistake can be made. And second, unless the tanks in the aircraft were virtually empty, you would not see any immediate effect in the engine performance. Most likely there was enough fuel to do the start-up, run-up, take-off AND a couple minutes of flying before the density difference of 100LL and Jet A would mix enough to have a noticeable impact.

This whole thing is terribly tragic, but as the victim of a fueling mistake myself, it hits close to home. I still second-guess myself for that incident 26 years after the fact as to whether I could have/should have caught it earlier. I'm not making myself out to be a super-pilot here (there are many who would be more than willing to make fun of my short-comings), but if it happened to me, it could happen to anyone.

[whistlingdeath77]

I’ve never seen anybody BUT Mac fueling the plane. I’ve also never seen just a line tech refueling any of the aircraft by themselves. Usually it’s the volunteer on the ladder or wing refueling and the fbo member on the ground.

[thoots]

Just to chime in, I have a very comprehensive set of pictures from the plane's visit to my area last (not this) summer. Yes, there is Mac on a ladder working on an engine -- looks mostly like taking a cloth to it, cleaning some internal bit at the front of the engine. Then I have pictures of the fuel truck arriving. Then the two guys getting out of the truck. Then there's Mac up on top of the wing, presumably plugging the fuel line in. Then the truck moves to the other wing, and then Mac is up on that wing. Never do I see anyone else but Mac up on that plane.

However, this all happened very early in the morning, probably around an hour or two before the plane loaded with passengers and took off. There were very few other people on the tarmac, anywhere, this early. This was at Aurora State Airport in Aurora, Oregon -- a very small airport south of the Portland metropolitan area. Perhaps the proverbial polar opposite of Bradley.

[phil65]

Hartford is top notch....

Phil

[dougdrivr]

I'm having a hard time with the Jet fuel theory. I would think an experienced accident investigator would be able to tell that just from the smell of the accident site.

I keep coming back to this guys observation :

https://www.kptv.com/video-eyewitness-r ... b0666.html

The radio transmission indicated a problem with #4 engine. There appears to be a feathered engine embedded in the wall of a building at the crash site. Many people think that is #4. (how they are so totally sure of that, I don't know)

If the eyewitness is correct and they shutdown and feathered #4, when Mac was turning final and pushing three throttles to the max, he may have only had power on #1 and #2. It would be extremely confusing coming out of that base turn to final, expecting power out of three engines and only getting two (on the left side). If the airspeed wasn't above Vmc for two engines out on one side (which is probably quite high), the airplane would continue rolling to the right, even with full control deflection. The only way to stop that would be to reduce power on #1 and #2, which may explain why it settled into the approach lights.

It pains me to think that someone as highly experienced as Mac could be led down that path but it all happened in less time than it took to write this post.

[lucky52]

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

[airnutz]

Well then if Jet A was the contaminate, what is the possibility of the 100LL being contaminated before it went into 909. Highly unlikely...there would have been other complaints, but then again someone would have to be first?

[airnutz]

duplicate

Last edited by airnutz on Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[airnutz]

duplicate

Last edited by airnutz on Sun Oct 06, 2019 9:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[ZRX61]

Whenever these aircraft are getting ready for a flight, there are numerous people taking pics, I haven't seen one showing a JetA truck by the B17 yet.

[RyanShort1]

That's a fur piece from where the accident happened, just sayin'

Well, they've got this newfangled thing called the Internet that allows for some pretty fast, pretty widespread communication.

And I would make the point that the network of owners of flying B-17 airframes probably isn't a very big one.

Trust me, I know, but I'm also close to some similar networks that are NOT saying that, at least that I've heard.