B-17 Hartford/Bradley
Moderators: FrankM, el, Dmmoore
B-17 Hartford/Bradley
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.)
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.
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4391
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
You're exactly correct about my feelings. These things should have been parked in 1950.
(Hopefully, Flyboy is not bothered by my use of "disdain" and feels I was somewhat approximately correct about his feelings.)
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
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.
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4391
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
5 years?Do you feel that way about all planes that have reached the age of 5 years or only certain ones?
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
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.
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4391
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
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.The plane that crashed was built in 1945, you said it should have been parked in 1950. 1950-1945=5 years.
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.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
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.
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.
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
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?Quote = Eric
Consideration A, B, C, D
I know, the safety DATA may say otherwise.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
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...
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.
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4391
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
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.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.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
A little bit narrow.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.
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.
- Not_Karl
- Previously banned for not socially distancing
- Posts: 4178
- Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
- Location: Bona Nitogena y otra gaso, Argentina
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
It's all fun until a boiler explodes and millions did die a fiery death.Yes, we may not think it all the way through, but it's cool to simply watch.
International Ban ALL Aeroplanies Association, founder and president.
"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.
"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
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).It's all fun until a boiler explodes and millions did die a fiery death.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
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
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.
- Not_Karl
- Previously banned for not socially distancing
- Posts: 4178
- Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:12 pm
- Location: Bona Nitogena y otra gaso, Argentina
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
Imagine when, 80 years from now, they fix the 737 Max... It's a shame Airbus' crappy composites will be long dissolved by then.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.
International Ban ALL Aeroplanies Association, founder and president.
"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.
"I think, based on the types of aircraft listed, you're pretty much guaranteed a fiery death."
- Contemporary Poet flyboy2548m to a Foffie.
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4391
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
If anything, not narrow enough. Pilot was 75, copilot was 71.A little bit narrow.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.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
Noted with sincerity.If anything, not narrow enough. Pilot was 75, copilot was 71.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
A couple of updates...
Preliminary report is out: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... m&IType=MA
And one aviation speakist's take on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YN4QAdji7Y
I have to say if this accident were caused (or mostly caused) by damp magnetos, that is pathetic. I understand the value of keeping things historically correct, but ignition-system design has progressed a lot in the last 80 years. Water is not an issue for modern ignition systems, and maybe some newer technology should be applied in the case of aircraft like these.
Preliminary report is out: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... m&IType=MA
And one aviation speakist's take on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YN4QAdji7Y
I have to say if this accident were caused (or mostly caused) by damp magnetos, that is pathetic. I understand the value of keeping things historically correct, but ignition-system design has progressed a lot in the last 80 years. Water is not an issue for modern ignition systems, and maybe some newer technology should be applied in the case of aircraft like these.
HR consultant, Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
Valid point, but is the octagonal redundancy worth anything?
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4391
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
He's more painful to listen to than Les Stature is to read.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4391
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
Sure, because there are all manner of solid-state ignition STCs available for these engines...
I have to say if this accident were caused (or mostly caused) by damp magnetos, that is pathetic. I understand the value of keeping things historically correct, but ignition-system design has progressed a lot in the last 80 years. Water is not an issue for modern ignition systems, and maybe some newer technology should be applied in the case of aircraft like these.
"Lav sinks on 737 Max are too small"
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
Of course not, but better plug wires and gaskets/seals would not be a big stretch - technologically or costwise.
HR consultant, Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems, Inc.
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
Here is the NTSB announcement of the investigation from April 13, 2021:
Pilot’s Actions, Maintenance Issues, Ineffective Safety Management System and Oversight, all Contributed to Fatal Crash of Historic B-17 Airplane
Excerpt:
The NTSB determined the probable cause of the accident was the pilot's failure to properly manage the airplane's configuration and airspeed following a loss of engine power. Safety issues found during this investigation were discussed during a March 23, 2021, public board meeting on Part 91 revenue passenger-carrying operations.
The Word War II-era Boeing B-17G airplane had just departed Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, Oct. 2, 2019, on a “living history flight experience" flight with 10 passengers when the pilot radioed controllers that the airplane was returning to the field because of an engine problem. The airplane struck approach lights, contacted the ground before reaching the runway and collided with unoccupied airport vehicles; the majority of the fuselage was consumed by a post-crash fire.
Flightpath data indicated that during the return to the airport the landing gear was extended prematurely, adding drag to an airplane that had lost some engine power. An NTSB airplane performance study showed the B-17 could likely have overflown the approach lights and landed on the runway had the pilot kept the landing gear retracted and accelerated to 120 mph until it was evident the airplane would reach the runway.
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-release ... 0413a.aspx
Pilot’s Actions, Maintenance Issues, Ineffective Safety Management System and Oversight, all Contributed to Fatal Crash of Historic B-17 Airplane
Excerpt:
The NTSB determined the probable cause of the accident was the pilot's failure to properly manage the airplane's configuration and airspeed following a loss of engine power. Safety issues found during this investigation were discussed during a March 23, 2021, public board meeting on Part 91 revenue passenger-carrying operations.
The Word War II-era Boeing B-17G airplane had just departed Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, Oct. 2, 2019, on a “living history flight experience" flight with 10 passengers when the pilot radioed controllers that the airplane was returning to the field because of an engine problem. The airplane struck approach lights, contacted the ground before reaching the runway and collided with unoccupied airport vehicles; the majority of the fuselage was consumed by a post-crash fire.
Flightpath data indicated that during the return to the airport the landing gear was extended prematurely, adding drag to an airplane that had lost some engine power. An NTSB airplane performance study showed the B-17 could likely have overflown the approach lights and landed on the runway had the pilot kept the landing gear retracted and accelerated to 120 mph until it was evident the airplane would reach the runway.
https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-release ... 0413a.aspx
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
flyboy, insightful and ahead of the game, as always.If anything, not narrow enough. Pilot was 75, copilot was 71.
Commercial Pilot, Vandelay Industries, Inc., Plant Nutrient Division.
- flyboy2548m
- Posts: 4391
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Ormond Beach, FL
Re: B-17 Hartford/Bradley
The only thing worse than being wrong is being right about things about which you'd much rather be wrong.flyboy, insightful and ahead of the game, as always.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.
-TeeVee, one of America's finest legal minds.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests