Got to go through that plane a couple years ago when the tour was at a local airport.
They gave rides in the P51...but way out of my price range.
That bomber was a rude awakening for us that were too young to have been in WWII. Gave justification to why my dad's generation is referred to as "The Greatest Generation"....IN MY OPINION.
Sorry to see the plane end up like this.....prayers for the people and their families that perished along with it.
Engine 4 was shut down and the prop feathered. He only had 3/4 the power he was used to, and likely due to that was low on the approach so hit the lights.
Seems normal except for the part where it crashed. Could somebody translate this?
Not "normal" at all.
The plane was at 500 feet just after takeoff. "one of the pilots reported to ATC that he wanted to return to the airport. At that time, the airplane was about 500 ft above ground level."
When asked why he reported a rough running engine (#4) "The controller then asked for the reason for the return to the airport, and the pilot replied that the airplane had a “rough mag”on the No. 4 engine."
Pilot made his final approach too low and hit runway landing lights 1,000 feet before the end of the runway and then hit the ground 500 feet before the end of the runway.
"the airplane struck approach lights about 1,000 ft prior to the runway, then contacted the ground about 500 ft prior to the runway before reaching runway 6. It then veered right off the runway before colliding with vehicles and a deicing fluid tank about 1,100 ft right of the center of the runway threshold."
Investigation showed that the aircraft flaps were in the retracted, (UP), position when they should always be down for landing.
"The wreckage came to rest upright and the majority of the cabin, cockpit, and right wing were consumed by post impact fire. The landing gear was extended and measurement of the left and right wing flap jackscrews corresponded to a flaps retracted setting."
Flaps up contributed to a faster sink rate of the aircraft and precipitated hitting the runway lights.
Summary: Pilot Error
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-17-2019).]
Flaps up contributed to a faster sink rate of the aircraft and precipitated hitting the runway lights.
Summary: Pilot Error
I was talking to a friend today who told me about bringing his Cessna 210 in with a loose injector line. He was low on power and kept his landing gear up until the last possible moment, and never put his flaps down, in order to keep enough speed and altitude to make it to the runway. When he told me this, I asked him about the B-17. He said that the pilot probably did the right thing. My friend is a VERY experienced pilot.
I was talking to a friend today who told me about bringing his Cessna 210 in with a loose injector line. He was low on power and kept his landing gear up until the last possible moment, and never put his flaps down, in order to keep enough speed and altitude to make it to the runway. When he told me this, I asked him about the B-17. He said that the pilot probably did the right thing. My friend is a VERY experienced pilot.
His experience is in B-17s no doubt.
B-17s had / have no problem being completely flyable, and landable, with a single engine out, even with two engines shut down.
Unless, and until, a more detailed report is published that includes an official cause determination, I'm sticking with my opinion.
"There are a lot of factors here. It may be a mechanical issue it or may not be,” NTSB board member Jennifer Homendy said Friday afternoon. Though investigators have been working since Wednesday afternoon, they have not speculated on the cause of the crash and it could be a year or more before an official determination is made."
He has been a pilot and instructor, both military and professional, fixed wing and helo, his entire life and is in his seventies. When it comes to aviation, I trust him.
Flaps add induced drag but, more importantly, lift at slow speed. Crashing short of the runway with flaps up is self critiquing.
Is there any reason or circumstance where he might want to keep the flaps up? I thought landing without flaps sounded odd, until my conversation today. Now, I wonder.
I just don't want to think an experienced pilot would make such a mistake.
The only things I have flown were a couple of sailplanes and one parachute.
The conversation stemmed from a discussion of how the human mind reacts when things go wrong. He told me of a student who reacted successfully, but unconventionally; followed by his own story. That is when I brought up the B-17.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 10-21-2019).]
If there were two feathered props then you would think the tower would have noticed. It was daylight. We will need to wait for the investigation results to know for certain. I wonder if the tower has a video camera?
I have read speculation that there should be some amateur video, given the nature of the event. I read an article today in "Flying" that also suggested that the flaps could have been up to reduce drag.
Because of my career in trucking safety, I have read more accident investigation reports, and seen more video and photos than I would have preferred, from law enforcement, engineers, coroners and amateurs. I always want to know what went wrong.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 10-22-2019).]
Lowered flaps will give you more lift at low speeds...but they also give you more drag. He may have been too low with not enough power to use them. Being down on power by much, I can see the pilot leaving flaps up to try and keep his speed up. I have made approaches at higher than normal speeds many times without using flaps in singles. Usually this was as a convenience to airport traffic to get me on the ground faster and out of the way of other traffic. I would come in hotter, and pull power and dump flaps at last minute and drop right on the runway. No reason not to do this if you only need 2,000 feet of an 11,0000 foot runway. Towers love you for it at big commercial airports like Dulles, DFW and John Glenn. Id have to read an actual B17 flight manual for emergency procedures to know if leaving them retracted would be ok or not on this particular plane.
I can understand leaving the flaps up to a certain point. However, if you hit the approach lights 1000’ feet short of the runway then the flaps in the up position are the proverbial teets on a boar. Useless decorations. Also consider the aircraft had enough forward momentum to continue up to the deice tank.
[This message has been edited by Hudini (edited 10-24-2019).]
It reads to me like he was trying for a long flat approach to the numbers instead of being high and aiming for the 1/3rd point. Likely got distracted by something inside and drifted low. There was 2 guys at the controls and neither of them noticed the altitude. That points to being focused on something else.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 10-24-2019).]
Actually, it wasn't that many days ago that I was talking to someone who was a passenger on that same B-17, a couple or so years ago, when it was part of an air show or aviation exhibition in this area. His flight was a birthday or anniversary present from his wife. He knew about the crash and that is why the subject came up.
I had checked into it, just thinking "maybe", but I didn't want to part with the money that was listed online as the ticket price.
I think it was called "Wings of Freedom."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-24-2019).]
I can understand leaving the flaps up to a certain point. However, if you hit the approach lights 1000’ feet short of the runway then the flaps in the up position are the proverbial teets on a boar. Useless decorations. Also consider the aircraft had enough forward momentum to continue up to the deice tank.
Those tanks are just to the right of the south end of runway 6. It looks like he barely made it over the fence. Could he have still been in a turn at that point?
I think the ME262 (trainer?) that rinselberg posted belongs to the same people.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 10-24-2019).]
Yes he could have been turning a very short final and clipped a light with a wingtip. Anyone know the runway length? Maybe he was trying to land on brick one and misjudged his wingspan. I am still thinking he should have put flaps down once over the lights. Maybe he just forgot them in the moment. It’s been done before.
Yes he could have been turning a very short final and clipped a light with a wingtip. Anyone know the runway length? Maybe he was trying to land on brick one and misjudged his wingspan. I am still thinking he should have put flaps down once over the lights. Maybe he just forgot them in the moment. It’s been done before.
The runway is 9,500' long. He was only 300' up midfield on the downwind leg, so he still had 4,000' ahead before turning it around. There are building and such to his right the entire way. I am amazed that he made it as far as he did. I read that he was the most experienced B-17 pilot in the world.
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
There are houses, trees and a river all around. He had no alternative.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 10-24-2019).]
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.
So any speed he saved by keeping the flaps up was lost by putting the gear down.
