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

[marine air]

I’ve seen Jet A tanker trucks burning in Afghanistan and they poured thick black columns of smoke for an hour . I’ve only seen small airplanes crash and the a gas usually puts out a huge black and grey mushroom cloud with an accompanying wall of flames that burns very quickly.nhas anyone seen a large piston engine twin burn and can comment?
Also, there are a few more thoughts on fuel contamination. Typically the avgas trucks are much smaller than the jet A TEUCKS. How I was taught was to co firm on the truck what it is. Also smell it as it goes in. Stay with the truck during refueling and visually see how many gallons went in the plane .
A few FBO’s have small jet A trucks similar to a gas trucks. These are used for Helicopters and anything else that doesn’t have SPR like Cessna Citation I’s , early King Airs, etc. I always fuel myself or stay with the plane during refueling. It’s possible that the smaller Avgas truck, which is labeled Avgas could’ve been refueled with Jet A. It’s also possible that the large storage tank 2 to 10,000 gallons typically was refueled from the tanker truck with JetA and thought they were putting Avgas into the Avgas fuel truck.
Last, was the B-17 using fuel from this airport or the previous airport fuel stop. It’s common practice to tanker fuel. So the FAA and NTSB will quickly ascertain if fuel is a suspect or can be eliminated from possible causes.

[marine air]

I’ve seen Jet A tanker trucks burning in Afghanistan and they poured thick black columns of smoke for an hour . I’ve only seen small airplanes crash and the a gas usually puts out a huge black and grey mushroom cloud with an accompanying wall of flames that burns very quickly.nhas anyone seen a large piston engine twin burn and can comment?
Also, there are a few more thoughts on fuel contamination. Typically the avgas trucks are much smaller than the jet A TEUCKS. How I was taught was to co firm on the truck what it is. Also smell it as it goes in. Stay with the truck during refueling and visually see how many gallons went in the plane .
A few FBO’s have small jet A trucks similar to a gas trucks. These are used for Helicopters and anything else that doesn’t have SPR like Cessna Citation I’s , early King Airs, etc. I always fuel myself or stay with the plane during refueling. It’s possible that the smaller Avgas truck, which is labeled Avgas could’ve been refueled with Jet A. It’s also possible that the large storage tank 2 to 10,000 gallons typically was refueled from the tanker truck with JetA and thought they were putting Avgas into the Avgas fuel truck.
Last, was the B-17 using fuel from this airport or the previous airport fuel stop. It’s common practice to tanker fuel. So the FAA and NTSB will quickly ascertain if fuel is a suspect or can be eliminated from possible causes.

[aerovin]

I’m of the opinion that this speculation about the airplane being fueled with Jet-A is barking up the wrong tree. Do a google search on “Liberty Belle burning” and look at what kind of smoke burning avgas produces. The NTSB will have some factual information released shortly in a preliminary report that might provide some real answers.

[aerovin]

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.

And, for what it is worth, RWY 6 does not have a VASI system. There is a four-box PAPI system installed on the left side of the runway about 900 feet down the runway from the threshold. (Both PAPI and VASI serve the same purpose: provide a visual glide slope indication.) In any event, there is no such thing as a “VASI landing apparatus tower.”

It appeared from the NTSB video footage that the airplane hit approach light stanchions short of RWY 6.

And the standard R-1820-97 engines installed on B-17Gs produce a maximum of 1,200 hp.

[whistlingdeath77]

Well whatever the reason is or was I just want the Collings foundation to know I am here for them. B-17 aluminum overcast just landed at kbaf Barnes in Westfield, Ma. I’m going over there to show support for the warbird community.

[Mark Allen M]

Well whatever the reason is or was I just want the Collings foundation to know I am here for them. B-17 aluminum overcast just landed at kbaf Barnes in Westfield, Ma. I’m going over there to show support for the warbird community.

I'm sure the Collings Foundation folks are quite proud of you and grateful you are a part of their family. They especially need you now.

Your the type of person the Warbird Community needs. Keep up your great work.

[Matt Gunsch]

I don't believe it was jet fuel contamination, I have never seen anyone other than crew members fuel a large plane, I know the last large warbird I crewed, The Flight of the Phoenix C-119, I would not want someone who was not familiar with the aircraft walking around on top of it. If they were thinking it was jet fuel contamination, they would have been draining the tanks of the 24, 25, P-40 and P-51.
As to what happens when Jet A is mixed with 100LL, all you have to do is look up AD 95-26-02, it involved a fuel tank leak that contaminated 100LL with Jet A, unluckily it occurred during a fly-in/airshow and a large number of engines were destroyed and overhauled because of the resulting low octane detonation damage. It was the first and so far only time a AD was issued using N numbers.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... enDocument

[whistlingdeath77]

Well whatever the reason is or was I just want the Collings foundation to know I am here for them. B-17 aluminum overcast just landed at kbaf Barnes in Westfield, Ma. I’m going over there to show support for the warbird community.

I'm sure the Collings Foundation folks are quite proud of you and grateful you are a part of their family. They especially need you now.

Your the type of person the Warbird Community needs. Keep up your great work.

Thanks mark! I enjoy you’re posts very much

[whistlingdeath77]

Double post

[p51]

I know it's too early to speculate, but as Collings has the former Evergreen G model, I wonder if they'll paint her as 909?
Wasn't the original plan to have that B-17 painted as another 91st BG aircraft? I thought I'd read that somewhere but I might be wrong about that.
I do know that 44-85734 was going to be painted as "Outhouse Mouse" from the same squadron as 909 (the 323rd) but it later became the Liberty Belle and we all know her fate from there.

[GarryW]

...that have to meet the spec of the original part using modern metallurgy and machining techniques. Machining has come a long way from the 40's. Tolerances that were at that time almost impossible to meet are commonplace today. The replacement parts being made today either meet or far exceed anything made in the 40's. But hey, lets make it sound like some hillbilly is hacking together some sub-standard parts out in his woodshed instead. ...I know which aviation lawyer I'm NOT calling if I ever need one. Idiot.

THIS..ditto. Not to mention from a maintenance aspect these machines are fawned over by their crews and they have the benefit of decades of hindsight in care practices.
A sad loss of people and a wonderful bird, hopefully cooler heads will prevail...

As for the fuel, yes initially revealed as proper fuel further tests were to be conducted.

And with a machinist back ground, machining modern aircraft parts, yes, with the now time much more modern metallurgy and the instrumentation to check that those materials for proper chemical or metals content, as well as many more years of proven heat treating and stress relieving techniques, the "fabricated" parts now will more than meet or exceed what was in the past. And to that fellow writing that, wasn't someone "fabricating" those original parts back in the 40's? That was a just wow comment, by someone that knows nothing about manufacturing. These newer made parts can be checked (inspected) with accuracy that was not available back in the day, it would have been very difficult to check areas with compound radius surfaces in those days, today there are computerized machines to do that, and most average shops have them. I do now see more of a problem with the people putting the parts together. I don't think the engine overhauls are what they were in the old days. In the war days the brand new engines were assembled then test run, then taken apart, all parts inspected, reassembled, and tested again then wrapped and boxed to be shipped. All we have to do is remember what Gary Austin said about Precision. Just saying.

I too am in the manufacturing field...started in general assembly, to machining, to welding and metal fabricating, and now engineering (hands on...not suit and tie). Reading that about made me want to strangle the guy.

Just relying on probability and without too much speculation...based on the publicly known facts (pilot radioed issue with #4 engine and plane touching down on the runway approach, hit a stanchion and veered off into a building), something didn't allow the aircraft to generate enough thrust and allowed the plane to sink at an excessive rate. Everything else, including eyewitness accounts, is pure speculation. Whether it can be linked to fuel, a single component that caused a cascade effect, or something completely different will be uncovered by the NTSB investigation. It was foolish of this guy, especially as a lawyer and a pilot, to come out with this BS. All it does is fuel the fire certain politicians are already trying to fan the flames of...while being accelerated even more by the news media. There are just too many variables at play and this guy is trying to capture his 15 minutes of fame on the backs of 7 individuals who perished and 7 more who were injured. ...and lawyers wonder why they get a bad rap.

[GarryW]

And the standard R-1820-97 engines installed on B-17Gs produce a maximum of 1,200 hp.

Sort of a side thought here...I've read (specifically on currently flying P-38's) that the turbo/superchargers are usually disabled in order to decrease wear and tear on the engine as well as eliminating a maintenance intensive system. Is that a common practice on all vintage aircraft...B-17's included? I've seen the claims of "B-17's made it back to base in WWII on two engines..." and the arguments about it being different because they had the benefit of altitude. If the turbo/superchargers are normally disabled, that would be another difference...the engines wouldn't be generating as much power either. Not really trying to speculate one way or another, more just curious for my own knowledge.

[Matt_in_NC]

From conversations with some of those guys on their stops here in NC over the last few years, the turbos on the B-17 were safety-wired/ non-functional. The ones on the B-24 are fully functional, and I was told they use them on every takeoff/ climb out.

[p51]

From conversations with some of those guys on their stops here in NC over the last few years, the turbos on the B-17 were safety-wired/ non-functional.

They told me that once, years ago. I have also heard that from several other B-17 operators over the years.

[Mark Sampson]

I'm speaking beyond my knowledge here, but are not the turbos on aircraft used to maintain power at high altitude (where warbirds no longer fly)?
Unlike a turbo'd automobile where the boost is for a burst of acceleration on demand.
Still a terrible tragedy- I'm sure that the pilots did their best.