Collings Foundation B-17G '909' crashed

[aeropilot]

During a passenger ride flight at Hartford, CT early this morning.

All 13 on board got out before a/c consumed by fire, 3 of the 13 injured.

It was this aircraft that I got my B-17G passenger ride in back in 2007 in California.

[Eric Mc]

Sad to hear. That's the second preserved B-17 to be destroyed in an accident in recent years.

[MartG]

Very sad, though at least there were no fatalities

https://whdh.com/news/at-least-6-injured-in-fiery-...

[MarkwG]

According to the latest, there were fatalities sadly.

[Matt Harper]

At least 5, sadly.

I too had a passenger flight in Nine-O-Nine at Sebring FL in 2005.

Bad news all round.

[The Brummie]

Now confirmed as 7 fatalities.

The ATC recording of the last moments has been leaked/released. Seems that they had an issue with engine no 4 & were returning to the airport as a priority.

Sadly they didn’t make it.

RIP.

[Baby Shark doo doo doo doo]

Awful Latest number of reported deaths is 7, and obviously the aircraft is beyond repair.

Was only looking at photos of one of its ‘original’ rescue schemes (99) yesterday and thinking how wonderful it is to have so many airworthy B17s.

Dick Blumenthal now calling for all WW2 aircraft to be grounded

[eldar]

ash73 said:

These vintage planes should be put in a museum, imo. Another one gone.

Can't they build modern replicas to fly about in?

Do the same with all those unsafe old cars, motorcycles and houses?

[hutchst]

And politicians.

[Riley Blue]

A tragic accident in which seven died, let's keep comments respectful.

RIP to them all.

[Gargamel]

eldar said:

Do the same with all those unsafe old cars, motorcycles and houses?

Unlikely to be the same consequences if an old car fails to start, or if the engine fails. Which I think you already know.

20 people were killed in the Ju Air crash in Switzerland, another seven here. Should these aircraft be operating commercial passenger flights ?

I think the question is valid, even if we don’t like to contemplate the possibility that this is no longer a good idea.

[Laurel Green]

I thought this might be of interest: Tragic B-17 Bomber Crash: What the News Isn't Saying.

Thoughts are with all concerned.

[Eric Mc]

It's no better or worse an idea than it ever was.

Why do some people seem to react in such a way when something like this happens? Are you suggesting that ALL activities that imply some risk should be stopped because of that risk. What an awful world that would be.

I think keeping warbirds flying should be encouraged - with some exceptions, The only time when I think an old aircraft should perhaps not fly or fly very, very rarely and in restricted circumstances is when that particular airframe may be the last airworthy example in the world or be of extreme historic value or rarity.

As for carrying passengers, the vast bulk of passengers who fly in older aircraft are enthusiasts who have a good idea as to the difference between the aeroplane they are getting into compared to a modern Airbus.

And finally, at what point do you designate an aeroplane "old" and permanently ground it? Are you suggesting that Dragon Rapides, Tiger Moths, Harvards etc (of which there are quite a few around) should not be flown or, at least, not be allowed to take a passenger?
Indeed, you would probably not like the idea of a 1962 Piper Cherokee or Cub being allowed to fly or carry passengers.

[anonymous-user]

Gargamel said:

eldar said:

Do the same with all those unsafe old cars, motorcycles and houses?

Unlikely to be the same consequences if an old car fails to start, or if the engine fails. Which I think you already know.

20 people were killed in the Ju Air crash in Switzerland, another seven here. Should these aircraft be operating commercial passenger flights ?

I think the question is valid, even if we don’t like to contemplate the possibility that this is no longer a good idea.

Not that different to old cars really. If you crash an old car (or worse, crash a new car into an old car) then there is an enormously higher probability of serious injury or death. Yes, there are loads of minor things that can go wrong with a car that don't result in a catastrophic event, but there are also lots of things that can / do.

Banning "dangerous" things is ridiculous, as long as the people who are taking part are explicitly aware of the risk, i have no issue. For example, i would suggest that anyone getting on to a B-17 is going to have a good idea what they are getting into. Precisely none of them are going to expect modern airline levels of safety. And whilst the exact probability of any given event are difficult to accurately determine (due to the low sample number with only a few classic planes flying compared to say modern flights in the commercial sector), the overall level of risk is i'm going to suggest, reasonably easy for anyone to establish, and if they think those risks unacceptable, simply to not get onto that plane....

For example, in the history of air shows, you'll find that several multiples more people have been killed driving to those airshows to spectate that have every been killed at those shows (either on the ground or in the air) and yet precisely no-one suggests that we ban driving for this reason.......

[Gargamel]

I merely pose the question about whether they should continue to take passengers. I have no desire to see anything banned, and love to see these planes fly.

Its a tragic accident.

[300bhp/ton]

ash73 said:

I think it's a bit daft taking 10 passengers on a B17, but my main concern is the rarity of the aircraft not the risk to the people. Future generations won't be able to enjoy them if we keep crashing them.

That is a pretty dreadful view to have. If it wasn't for people preserving them and getting them flying, there probably wouldn't have been any left anyway.

ash73 said:

I can understand people wanting to see them in the sky, why not build a replica with modern technology or just install more reliable engines?

For the simple reason it would be fake. Did you not see the panda scene in Fierce Creatures?

[Dr Jekyll]

ash73 said:

I think it's a bit daft taking 10 passengers on a B17, but my main concern is the rarity of the aircraft not the risk to the people. Future generations won't be able to enjoy them if we keep crashing them.

I can understand people wanting to see them in the sky, why not build a replica with modern technology or just install more reliable engines?

The only way future generations can really appreciate them is if they keep flying. Even sticking an aircraft in a museum doesn't guarantee it's survival, but a lot of historic aircraft only exist today because owners wanted to fly them and were therefore prepared to go to an enormous about of trouble and expense to restore and preserve them.

[Eric Mc]

ash73 said:

I think it's a bit daft taking 10 passengers on a B17, but my main concern is the rarity of the aircraft not the risk to the people. Future generations won't be able to enjoy them if we keep crashing them.

I can understand people wanting to see them in the sky, why not build a replica with modern technology or just install more reliable engines?

There are more warbird aircraft flying today than at any point since the mid 1960s. So your argument is flawed. Having an active and thriving warbird industry helps encourage the restoration (and sometimes, recreation) of older aircraft. "Banning" them from flying would kill the industry.

Installing "modern" engines on a recreation is done sometimes (such as the Mersserschmitt 262 recreations that were built a number of years ago). But, on the whole, an important aspect of warbirds are the engines they were powered by and the noise they made. Putting some sort of modern equivalent (which often doesn't exist anyway) would destroy that aspect of the experience of seeing them flying.

Finally, many of the "old" engines installed in warbirds are actually quite new in that they may have been built in period but will have been completely stripped and overhauled in recent times with replacement components which effectively make them "new build" engines. Indeed, some of these "new build" engines are much more reliable and efficient than they would have been in period.

Luckilly, most people adopt a sensible approach to this. Warbird flying is actually a booming activity - and long may it continue.

[dr_gn]

The Brummie said:

Now confirmed as 7 fatalities.

The ATC recording of the last moments has been leaked/released. Seems that they had an issue with engine no 4 & were returning to the airport as a priority.

Sadly they didn’t make it.

RIP.

There must be more to it than that? Surely an un-loaded B-17 should be OK with 3 engines.

[Eric Mc]

I was thinking that too. It looks like the pilot(s) were unable to keep it on the runway after they touched down. I wonder what the wind conditions were at the time.

They might have been better doing what often happened in World War 2, belly it onto the grass.