B-17 Hartford/Bradley

An open discussion of aviation safety related issues.

Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 5322
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby 3WE » Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:54 pm

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/world- ... nnecticut/

Total plagiarizing of Eric's post there.

And, Concur :(

I am beginning to share flyboy's slight disdain for the operation of war-birds.

(Hopefully, Flyboy is not bothered by my use of "disdain" and feels I was somewhat approximately correct about his feelings.)
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4056
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby flyboy2548m » Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:33 pm


(Hopefully, Flyboy is not bothered by my use of "disdain" and feels I was somewhat approximately correct about his feelings.)
You're exactly correct about my feelings. These things should have been parked in 1950.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
elaw
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:01 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby elaw » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:17 am

Do you feel that way about all planes that have reached the age of 5 years or only certain ones?
HR consultant, Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4056
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby flyboy2548m » Thu Oct 03, 2019 1:39 am

Do you feel that way about all planes that have reached the age of 5 years or only certain ones?
5 years?
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
elaw
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:01 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby elaw » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:02 am

The plane that crashed was built in 1945, you said it should have been parked in 1950. 1950-1945=5 years.
HR consultant, Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4056
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby flyboy2548m » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:18 am

The plane that crashed was built in 1945, you said it should have been parked in 1950. 1950-1945=5 years.
Ah! I see what you mean now. The issue is not even so much the age itself as the fact that these airplanes were never meant to have much of a shelf life. Aviation was developing so rapidly back then that this particular aircraft was pretty obsolescent on the day it was rolled out of the factory what with the much more capable B-29 already being in service. Moreover, these are not airplanes in the traditional sense. These are weapons systems that were meant to operate as a part of a much bigger weapons system. They were designed to fight their war only to be replaced by better weapons systems (which is exactly what happened). They were certainly never meant to be joyridden nearly 80 years later.

Read my thoughts in this thread over another B17 crash.


http://www.airdisaster.info/viewtopic.p ... 89b1319752
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
elaw
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:01 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby elaw » Thu Oct 03, 2019 12:06 pm

I suppose they really weren't meant to have a "shelf life" at all!

Their primary mission was to fly into enemy territory and drop large things that explode. If the plane could be reused and/or its occupants all survived, that was a plus. Never mind that the aircraft safety standards of the day (in the sense that if you fly in one you have an x% chance of dying) were nowhere near what they are today.

The counterargument might be that the engineering state-of-the-art when those things were built is nothing like what it is today, especially in the areas of metallurgy and failure analysis. So if the people rebuilding an old plane have the right skills and motivation and budget, they might be able to identify and mitigate failure modes that were not anticipated way back when.

And then there's piloting. While the folks behind the control columns are probably qualified (and experienced) enough to fly those planes under normal circumstances, they're flying a plane that's probably 100x as likely to experience a failure as, say, an A320. And they probably have 1/10 the training to deal with those failures.
HR consultant, Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 5322
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby 3WE » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:09 pm

Quote = Eric
Consideration A, B, C, D
Another consideration is that shouldn't there be adequate, if-not-robust, procedures, regulations and standards to assure that there are not undue risks with this...that Flyboy's and 3BS's new, slight disdain for these operations are just FEELINGS and not_objective criteria?

I know, the safety DATA may say otherwise.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
elaw
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2014 7:01 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby elaw » Thu Oct 03, 2019 2:22 pm

I saw a little about this on the local news last night, and sure enough there was some politician-type acting all outraged and saying "We need to have oversight over these flights!"

I wanted to whack him upside the head and tell him "Hey, McFly, we ALREADY have oversight over aircraft and aviation and everything even remotely connected to same". Granted, this particular aspect of aviation is "special" and maybe needs a little more careful watching, but geez...
HR consultant, Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4056
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby flyboy2548m » Thu Oct 03, 2019 3:04 pm

I suppose they really weren't meant to have a "shelf life" at all!

Their primary mission was to fly into enemy territory and drop large things that explode. If the plane could be reused and/or its occupants all survived, that was a plus. Never mind that the aircraft safety standards of the day (in the sense that if you fly in one you have an x% chance of dying) were nowhere near what they are today.

The counterargument might be that the engineering state-of-the-art when those things were built is nothing like what it is today, especially in the areas of metallurgy and failure analysis. So if the people rebuilding an old plane have the right skills and motivation and budget, they might be able to identify and mitigate failure modes that were not anticipated way back when.

And then there's piloting. While the folks behind the control columns are probably qualified (and experienced) enough to fly those planes under normal circumstances, they're flying a plane that's probably 100x as likely to experience a failure as, say, an A320. And they probably have 1/10 the training to deal with those failures.
In any event, these are not supposed to be toys for fat-walleted geezers who are trying to relive someone else's glory days. Sounds harsh, but it is what it is.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 5322
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby 3WE » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:16 pm

In any event, these are not supposed to be toys for fat-walleted geezers who are trying to relive someone else's glory days. Sounds harsh, but it is what it is.
A little bit narrow.

We also tend to like to see big, old-low tech stuff operate.

Yes, we may not think it all the way through, but it's cool to simply watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztHvPfYWtXo
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Not_Karl
Posts: 2642
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby Not_Karl » Thu Oct 03, 2019 4:28 pm

Yes, we may not think it all the way through, but it's cool to simply watch.
It's all fun until a boiler explodes and millions did die a fiery death.
Junior Janitor, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Environmental Poisoning Assurance department.

"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 5322
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby 3WE » Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:19 pm

It's all fun until a boiler explodes and millions did die a fiery death.
I am pretty certain about this: In the case of a rejected takeoff and application of emergency brake, there is ZERO PSI straight to every last brake controller! (Ok, maybe 15 PSI for the more pedantic ones in this bunch).
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 5322
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby 3WE » Fri Oct 04, 2019 12:18 am

Speculation of causes.

Fueled with Jet fuel OR onboard fire.

Evidence: Non-descript problem very shortly after takeoff followed by unsuccessful return. OR a strange text that it was hot in the plane
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.

User avatar
Not_Karl
Posts: 2642
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
Location: Buenos Aires

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby Not_Karl » Fri Oct 04, 2019 5:36 am

So if the people rebuilding an old plane have the right skills and motivation and budget, they might be able to identify and mitigate failure modes that were not anticipated way back when.
Imagine when, 80 years from now, they fix the 737 Max... It's a shame Airbus' crappy composites will be long dissolved by then.
Junior Janitor, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Environmental Poisoning Assurance department.

"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.

User avatar
flyboy2548m
Posts: 4056
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
Location: Ormond Beach, FL

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby flyboy2548m » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:16 pm

In any event, these are not supposed to be toys for fat-walleted geezers who are trying to relive someone else's glory days. Sounds harsh, but it is what it is.
A little bit narrow.
If anything, not narrow enough. Pilot was 75, copilot was 71.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"

-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.

User avatar
3WE
Posts: 5322
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:37 pm
Location: Flyover, America

Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley

Postby 3WE » Fri Oct 04, 2019 2:36 pm

If anything, not narrow enough. Pilot was 75, copilot was 71.
Noted with sincerity.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.


Return to “Aviation Safety Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests