I know..

I have experienced that with one of my friends that was killed in his plane.

People like yourself and mudeagle have so much knowledge and experience in the aviation world. Which unfortunately means you are touched by events like this far more than the average person. I would find it hard climbing back in the cockpit.

MudEagle knows so much more than me.  He is a gold mine of knowledge in this stuff.  As is a few other members.  OscarDeuce,  SquatchAV8 and some others that haven't dropped in yet.

The P-63 pilot is also clearly visible. Directly up from the very least stabilizer below the debris that makes the slight arch.

I know.  

He is still in his seat.

If you look around on YouTube, you'll quickly find out that there's about one GA or Part 135 fatal accident a day, and almost all mid-airs, like this one, happen in day VFR conditions.  Supposedly the FAA is starting to put more emphasis on "see and avoid" although what they can actually do about it apart from evangelizing is unclear to me.

They are pushing ADS-B and TCAS.

My Dad and Mom flew in the UH-1 yesterday at the Stuart Airshow.

They flew in the 17 2 years ago that went down last year.

Remember when the Collins Foundation lost Nine O Nine? Looks like they found a replacement.

https://www.collingsfoundation.org/aircrafts/boeing-b-17g-flying-fortress-2/

I flew in a Legacy missile security Huey wayyyy back in the day as a kid.  I would love to fly in one again.

I'm all for it as long as they maintain this one properly.

The P-63 pilot didn't even see the B-17 before he was in it. There was a timing/position error and I doubt he was the sole cause as it was a chain of unfortunate events.

Wasn't 9 o 9 attributed to getting the wrong fuel and crashing after takeoff?

Well... ADS-B Out is already a requirement pretty much everywhere, with a few exceptions for planes like Cubs with no electrical systems and the seemingly ever shrinking Class G airspace.  Since ADS-B Out is a requirement, having ADS-B In capability just seems like a smart idea to have.  Not sure how well TCAS will go over with the GA community.  Sounds like an expensive add on, although I'm sure the avionics manufacturers and the A&Ps will be very happy.

Poor maintenance of engine ignition systems resulting in engine(s) failing, then poor airmanship getting slow and crashing it.

That was the theory when the crash happened. What actually happened was one guy that was trying to do too much, so his maintenance procedures started getting sloppy. There was also warning signs that were ignorantly dismissed the day of the crash.

Reddit user Admiral Cloudberg writes pretty good crash summaries. Here’s his write up on the Nine O Nine crash:
https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-last-mission-the-crash-of-the-b-17-nine-o-nine-5644e1c35a85

Edit: The article is worth reading just to learn about the why, how, and regulations imposed on the groups that fly warbirds.

My best friend died in a car crash…never thought about giving up driving…

Thanks for the link.

Car crashes have a much higher rate of survival than airplane crashes.

Cars are designed to crash… airplanes, not so much.

Are y’all seeing a higher resolution version of that image than what was posted? It just looks like a blurry jumble of debris to me, I can’t see the details being discussed. I’m not doubting your assessments, my eyes just don’t see something and think “that’s the pilot”.
Fuck this sucks

He was responding to the comment about having a hard time climbing back in the plane after losing friends in a plane crash.  

Open the pic in discussion in a new window and zoom in on it.  CTRL and scroll.  

That’s correct I understood his comment just fine.  Not sure what you’re getting at.

Attached File

He was being sarcastic/facetious.  I was just pointing that out.  

Jesus you can see the co pilot has his headset on, and one arm hanging on.

I guess I didn’t see the sarcasm.  I read it as “why would you be afraid to get into the cockpit after a friend died, my friend died in a car crash and I am not scared of driving.”

My rebuttal was that you’re much more likely to die in an airplane crash, than a car crash.

So, whatever.

Sigh..  


Didn't mean to trigger you..  I wasn't poking fun at you.  You are directing your anger/frustration at me for some reason.  

You’re mistaken, there’s no anger and nothing is directed at you.  

Fair enough then.  Lost in translation..  


 

Texas Raiders B-17 bomber at Wings over Houston 2022

What's left of them, maybe. The fighters prop chewed up that entire section, up to just behind the cockpit. At least it would have been instantaneous for them.

The Superforts were underpowered from the factory, notwithstanding all the teething problems that the R-3350s had. We could fill an entire separate thread with that discussion, but the end result is that currently Doc and Fifi both run a hybrid modified version of the 3350 that was custom built by Anderson Airmotive in the last 15 years.

That engine is the power section and nose case off the late 3350 that was on the Super Connie (which has a slower prop RPM than the original B-29 3350), combined with the aft section off the Skyraider. This changes the engine over from fuel injection to a Bendix pressure carb, switches out the 2-stage supercharger for a single stage, and eliminates the turbos. This mod was made for safety, reliability, and longevity for the weights and altitudes that the 29s are flying at currently (e.g. lighter and lower altitude), but did not appreciably change the power output of the engines. That mod has been wildly successful with respect to both reliability and longevity -- we are approaching a "normal" overhaul time on one of our engines currently, and that one is going to be changed out over this winter maintenance cycle. Fifi's pilots from the old days would be astonished how many hours we get out of the current engines.

The result is that we still run "full" power takeoffs (44" of MP and 2400 RPM) even with 100LL, although full power on these modified engines is less than the wartime power the original engines ran (somewhere in the neighborhood of 55"). Yes, that's partly because of running 100LL instead of 115/145. There's another discussion to be had about full power vs reduced power takeoffs in radials, but that's for another thread.

A typical ride flight weight is in the #95,000 range, which is well short of Boeing's max gross and the weights that the AAF was running during either WWII or Korea. As mentioned earlier, we climb out very shallow on takeoff in order to quickly accelerate out to 190, which gives a much better/safer climb.

I wouldn't consider the B-24 similarly underpowered. Takeoff power is 47" and 2700 RPM in the Liberator, and it climbs observably better at typical ride and airshow weights (usually under #50,000).

The Liberator is much more comfortable to fly than the B-29 with one or two engines out, but I'm sure some of that also has to do with two rudders in the 24 giving you a lower Vmc. Despite the size of the vertical and the rudder on the B-29, it still isn't enough. There's a reason they made it taller on the B-50 and on the KC-97 when they hung the bigger engines.

Regarding the engine change, one of our previous B-29 Flight Engineers (who also happens to be the CAF Historian, Brad Pilgrim) wrote this about the modded 3350 engines Fifi and Doc run:

"The original engines (R-3350-57) were unreliable due to poor cylinder cooling. Poor fuel distribution due to poor design of the internal supercharger. Nose case gears were inadequate for the horse power output of the engine. All of this resulted in engine failures. On FIFI we were lucky to get 100 hours out of an engine before it failed and we weren't flogging it like the military did. The hybrid engines were built out of the last version of the R-3350 designed, the -89, -95. These engines had a totally different cylinder design which improved the cooling by about 40%. The nose case gearing was redesigned to be more robust. The internal supercharger was redesigned to improve fuel distribution. The exhaust on the -57 engines front row cylinders exhausted forward in to an exhaust collector ring which contributed to the cooling problem. The later version of the engine exhausted to the rear, that is why a new exhaust system needed to be designed and built.

The term hybrid engine comes from the fact that the new engines are built from two different versions of the late model engines. The nose case and power sections are combined with the aft accessory section from a -26 (Skyraider) engine. The -26 uses a carburetor instead of a fuel injection system, and also bolts right up to the original B-29 engine mounts, so the engine mounts do [not] need to be modified. The engine cowling needs to be modified to use the different cooling baffles, which direct the airflow around the cylinders. The new engines are also operated at a reduced power setting. The nose case gearing, which drives the propeller shaft, is different from the original -57 engine in that it turns the propeller faster. As a result the engine is only turning 2,400 rpm vs the original 2,800 rpm. If the propeller was turned faster it would result in the propeller tip speed to exceed the speed of sound. With the lower rpm, the wear and tear on the engine is less and the engine runs cooler. With the combination of 2,400 rpm and 44 inches manifold pressure the new engines produce approximately 2,200 horsepower, the same as the original -57 engines."

thank you for that insight

That photo was taken a fraction of a second after impact.

Anything a human body is doing at that moment is involuntary and a result of the inertial forces of the impact. The crew probably hasn't even perceived that there is something occurring yet, much less be "hanging on".

Exactly this, well said.

I hope so. I hope you guys are right. I hope they never knew what happened.  

Not to mention shutting down the wrong engine.

Good post over in the Aviation forum thread, a re-post from a YouTube video comment, saying that the P-63 was too far aft out of position as he made his base turn coming back to the showline, and the air boss was letting him get back into position with his "overtake" comment.

Two things seem to be true here:

- The air boss believed the P-63 pilot had the B-17 in sight, and that he could/would avoid it in maneuvering to close up his position on the Mustangs, and

- The P-63 pilot didn't expect the B-17 to be where it was, when it was.

Out of respect for the people in this thread who knew these men I wish people would refrain from comments like this.

Airplanes very much are designed 'to crash'.  The difference in design philosophy is rooted in the situation where V_min (minimum permissible speed) of a car is zero.

Very sad thing to happen.   Everyone loves airshows.  Everyone is touched by this.  Hard to imagine seeing it IRL.  

Proud to write: I expected you to write that simply because the Connie obviously had engines that had gotten it right.  I didn't expect the Sryraider part, though.

You're a genuine asset to this site.

I am a volunteer at a warbird museum and have worked on and flown in B17s, C47s and lots of other warbirds.  I have flown L-birds doing circuits in and before airshows and @mudeagle is spot on with his analysis and comments on deconfliction.  I have had MUCH closer calls flying into fly-in breakfasts than I have ever had at an airshow.  

This whole thing just breaks my heart.  I have too many friends in this business.  The reality is people make mistakes, mechanical failures happen and sometimes the human body fails us. God knows the number of our days and when it is your time it simply is.  I am praying for the families that lost loved ones in this tragedy it hits too close to home.

Just one more comment to the poster above on ADSB being required almost everywhere.  That simply isn't true.  Our 172 doesn't have it and we can fly all over the place with out it.  You can't fly within 30 nm of some really big airports.  You can fly fairly close (5nm) to medium size airports and can land at the rest. I do think there needs to be more focus placed back on see and avoid.  Keep your eyes out of the cockpit.

The "poor airmanship" discussion could fill its own thread.

Pilot inflating his experience and falsifying his hours. Complete lack of CRM in not identifying/verifying the engine. Flying the pattern into the dead engine(s). Flying the pattern at/below two engine Vmc. Attempting to go-around after hitting short.

Just a master class in what not to do.  And I say that as someone who has personally had my performance in a SAM threat reaction in Iraq used as an example of "what not to do" by the USAF Weapons School.  :)

That was the portion of the mod required for ditching the fuel injection and going to the PR-58 carburetor as well as keeping the stock B-29 engine mounts.



Thanks, I appreciate it...but I'm just another dude who happens to fly planes and like guns.

There were a lot of planes in the air.  They were probably doing their Tora Tora Tora show.  They really just fly a huge oval over and over with plenty of space between each other.  It looks like chaos from the ground to the general public but it's not.  Think NASCAR during a caution lap but everyone spaced out.  

I'm betting P-63 cut the pattern short.  

I've probably seen that exact B-17 do that Tora Tora Tora show several times.

The Tora show had already been flown earlier in the day.

This incident took place during the "bomber parade" portion of the show.

Attached File

Yeah, if a radial isn't leaking oil, there's no oil in it...

I always try to go to this show but I was home with a bad knee this time.

My wife, and my son and I are just simply heartbroken.

For the pilots.

For the families.

For the CAF folks.

For the loss of such an historic aircraft.

I've been watching that same B-17 fly since about 1968 when it was still
painted white with red stripes.

P-63 pilot was a friend of a former co-worker. Said he was a great guy.

So awful.