User Panel
Quoted: I flew on the Nine O Nine about 15 years ago. It was incredibly cool. When it was still on the ground, someone commented to the flight mechanic that the engines leaked a lot of oil. His response was "if they ain't leaking, that means there isn't any". View Quote If a radial engine doesn't have an oil leak it will manufacture its' own leak. Some museum aircraft that had their engines drained years ago still have oil catch pans under them. |
|
I think they're about to be sucked dry of funds due to a wrongful death lawsuit. That sucks as last I was tracking they had an airworthy F-4 and F-100.
|
|
Quoted: Yep. I like this one too. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/261993/serveimage__21__jpeg-1336294.JPG View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The airframe didn't fail. Only the engine did. Do you think it'd be OK to fly these airframes but with new engines? BTW, people with knowledge of such things agree they're safe to fly. But, for the sake of healthy debate, lets ignore that fact. I want to go down the road of using age as a reason to ground an aircraft. I like where you head is. A B-17 with four PT6s would be great. Good God... *shivers* That would be a sin against God. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/66085/B17Dart_jpg-1336190.JPG I feel like you shit in my mouth with that picture. Just couldn't get the taste to go away until I used this for mouthwash. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/261993/Screenshot_20200327-113925_Photos_jpg-1336259.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/261993/Screenshot_20200327-113935_Photos_jpg-1336261.JPG They used them as a test bed for lots of odd stuff. Testing the motor for the A-1 Skyraider here I think. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/1670/b-17_test_jpg-1336291.JPG Yep. I like this one too. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/261993/serveimage__21__jpeg-1336294.JPG It’s better without the stupid photoshop. |
|
Quoted: It’s better without the stupid photoshop. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/64912/A54D3B5E-1334-4FE2-BC11-D2D5E3859B93-1336324.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The airframe didn't fail. Only the engine did. Do you think it'd be OK to fly these airframes but with new engines? BTW, people with knowledge of such things agree they're safe to fly. But, for the sake of healthy debate, lets ignore that fact. I want to go down the road of using age as a reason to ground an aircraft. I like where you head is. A B-17 with four PT6s would be great. Good God... *shivers* That would be a sin against God. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/66085/B17Dart_jpg-1336190.JPG I feel like you shit in my mouth with that picture. Just couldn't get the taste to go away until I used this for mouthwash. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/261993/Screenshot_20200327-113925_Photos_jpg-1336259.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/261993/Screenshot_20200327-113935_Photos_jpg-1336261.JPG They used them as a test bed for lots of odd stuff. Testing the motor for the A-1 Skyraider here I think. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/1670/b-17_test_jpg-1336291.JPG Yep. I like this one too. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/261993/serveimage__21__jpeg-1336294.JPG It’s better without the stupid photoshop. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/64912/A54D3B5E-1334-4FE2-BC11-D2D5E3859B93-1336324.jpg Damnit.. Why do you have to ruin my fun. |
|
Quoted: I feel like you shit in my mouth with that picture. Just couldn't get the taste to go away until I used this for mouthwash. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/261993/Screenshot_20200327-113925_Photos_jpg-1336259.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/261993/Screenshot_20200327-113935_Photos_jpg-1336261.JPG View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The airframe didn't fail. Only the engine did. Do you think it'd be OK to fly these airframes but with new engines? BTW, people with knowledge of such things agree they're safe to fly. But, for the sake of healthy debate, lets ignore that fact. I want to go down the road of using age as a reason to ground an aircraft. I like where you head is. A B-17 with four PT6s would be great. Good God... *shivers* That would be a sin against God. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/66085/B17Dart_jpg-1336190.JPG I feel like you shit in my mouth with that picture. Just couldn't get the taste to go away until I used this for mouthwash. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/261993/Screenshot_20200327-113925_Photos_jpg-1336259.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/261993/Screenshot_20200327-113935_Photos_jpg-1336261.JPG I apologize posting the photo of such an abomination unto the Lord and appreciate you exorcising it with the Allison powered concept. |
|
Quoted: He's credited as having the most experience flying B-17s. He's not credited (that I'm aware of) as having the most experience wrenching on them. There's a lot of knowledge walking around out there about these aircraft. There's more than enough to provide safe oversight. This was not the first time, nor will it be the last, that a common engine failure is mismanaged into a full blown crash. It'll happen to aircraft of any era. The age of this aircraft didn't have a damn thing to do with this crash. View Quote There is no such thing as "common engine failure". It was poor maintenance per the report, ignored by the pilot. Human error. That's why more than one person needs to make the call. Leaving everything in the hands of one man is foolhardy. |
|
|
Quoted: First thing I thought of was "there are B-52 airframes from the 1950s still flying." View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Heck, my jet is only 15 years younger and is still fighting our nation's wars. First thing I thought of was "there are B-52 airframes from the 1950s still flying." Close - see Above. The H’s are the only ones flying. |
|
Quoted: The youngest B-52 I ever flew was built in 1961. The oldest was built less than 10 years after the end of WWII. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Heck, my jet is only 15 years younger and is still fighting our nation's wars. The youngest B-52 I ever flew was built in 1961. The oldest was built less than 10 years after the end of WWII. There are still plenty of 1957 KC-135s in service. |
|
Quoted: There is no such thing as "common engine failure". It was poor maintenance per the report, ignored by the pilot. Human error. That's why more than one person needs to make the call. Leaving everything in the hands of one man is foolhardy. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: He's credited as having the most experience flying B-17s. He's not credited (that I'm aware of) as having the most experience wrenching on them. There's a lot of knowledge walking around out there about these aircraft. There's more than enough to provide safe oversight. This was not the first time, nor will it be the last, that a common engine failure is mismanaged into a full blown crash. It'll happen to aircraft of any era. The age of this aircraft didn't have a damn thing to do with this crash. There is no such thing as "common engine failure". It was poor maintenance per the report, ignored by the pilot. Human error. That's why more than one person needs to make the call. Leaving everything in the hands of one man is foolhardy. You're not a pilot, are you. There are common engine failures. Especially if you're flying radials. The most common is caused by fuel starvation. Another common one is pilot induced by securing the wrong engine after an in-flight failure. Regardless of what causes the failure, when the motor stops producing power the securing procedure for all piston aircraft is pretty much the same. Identify, verify, feather. Here's where we get into the real cause of the crash and where your statement is approaching accuracy. It was human error. But not just with the mechanics side of this, the piloting mistakes is what killed them when the pilot flying didn't identify, verify, feather correctly. It might've been questionable maintenance that led to engine #4 failing. But that alone shouldn't cause a crash. An engine failure is an easily survivable event. I've had 2 myself. @Samuse has had multiple in radial aircraft, as have others here. We're alive because we followed the memory items for in flight engine failure. What you initially said that kicked this conversation off was, "Being the most experienced doesn't mean shit when nobody else can check your ego/integrity/processes. No oversight means one person." There's absolutely no indication that this guy was doing work that no one else can cross-check. There's quite a few people that are capable of that with these aircraft. And there's no indication that this guy was working on this aircraft without the work being checked. It's too much work for one person to maintain a B-17. Collings has a team of mechanics and pilots that kept that plane flying. The most experienced one happened to be the one that made the errors that led to this crash. Even though he's gone now, B-17s will continue to be operated by experts that know what they're doing. |
|
Don't remember who it was but someone on here was pretty adamant about one of these older bombers being too dangerous to fly.
Wish I could remember more but he really nailed it in this case. |
|
Quoted: Just a reminder I had a bell crank pin shear while pulling into my driveway on my willys. I drove into the yard on accident and stopped quickly. I had been driving 45 right before that on the highway. Antique stuff is scary. View Quote That is one of my biggest fears on my '47 Willys. |
|
To the numerous tough guys with their "" life is full of risks" bullshit. Yep, you take your own life in your hands from when you get up in the morning. Without being able to absorb some risks, you would be paralyzed.
I take a personal risk driving every day. But I take as much risk out of it by maintaining my car and not driving like a asshole. All I can do is rely on others doing the same. I rely on a surgeon to know what he's doing. If we all do our part, the risk is minimized during a procedure. But again, no risks is nearly impossible. Everyone knows flying in the most advanced of aircraft still has a modicum of risk that you have to assume if you want to fly. And flying on a 70yr old bomber would make anyone understand those risks will probably increase. All I would expect is that the owners of the plane did everything thing they reasonably could to minimize that risk. They clearly did not from either a proper maintenance angle, a pilot capability angle or both. Whichever it was, one of my very best friends and former coworker died on that plane that day. I will forever have a picture of him on my phone that he sent me right before takeoff from his seat. He was so excited as this was a bucket list item since his recent retirement. He asked three more of our friends to go that day but thank God they just couldn't make it. I don't demand these planes be grounded. I do demand that the people who fly and maintain them know what the fuck they are doing. That didnt happen and my friend and other passengers paid for that with their lives. |
|
Quoted: You do it regardless. What experience do you have flying and working on aircraft? View Quote None, I worked as a GSE mechanic at an FBO for 11 years and talked with our a/c mechanics now & then but I’m not an a/c mechanic. But why do you do it regardless if the hours are low? Is there a reason besides it’s something you just do while you have everything apart, like replacing hoses, belt, and thermostat when replacing a water pump? What if you just put new hoses, belt, and thermostat on 3 months ago? |
|
B 17 'Nine-O-Nine Crash UPDATE 27 March 2020 |
|
|
Quoted: Each engine is and prop are on their own schedule and performance analysis. The Collings Foundation doesn't rebuild any engine or engine accessory . That is left to FAA licensed shops, there is no shoestring budget. If a copnent is needed the aircraft gets it. 30 years of operation with NO mishap should tell you something. Unfortunately one day things went really bad. Mac was far from being a "clown", he babied 909 and was constantly working, prodding and tinkering with it when he wasn't flying her. View Quote No, that aircraft's condition was shabby because the people caring for it had become complacent at best, and criminally negligent at worst. |
|
Quoted: That has nothing to do with what I just said. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The only thing we seem to know here is they had a problem with the #4 engine. That alone shouldn't make that aircraft unflyable. It sounds as if the more direct reason for the accident was probably pilot error. What exactly makes you say that aircraft wasn't properly maintained? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There's a number of legitimate reasons. TBO for those is typically 1000 hours. That's a recommendation. The dead giveaway that they need it is when they start consuming oil at a significantly higher rate. But that one wasn't really due for it yet. And that's not too surprising . It's not uncommon that engines and props have significantly different amounts of hours on them. That foundation no doubt has a number of spare R-1820's to put on when the time is right. But none of this much matters. The engine problem didn't directly cause the crash. Those fly fine on 3 engines. Sounds like there may have been an error or two involved. That aircraft wasn't properly maintained. That has nothing to do with what I just said. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The only thing we seem to know here is they had a problem with the #4 engine. That alone shouldn't make that aircraft unflyable. It sounds as if the more direct reason for the accident was probably pilot error. What exactly makes you say that aircraft wasn't properly maintained? Because the areas of the aircraft I was able to check out visually obviously hadn't been touched. A visual inspection was completely unsat by every measure of aircraft maintenance schooling and experience I've had. |
|
Quoted: I like where you head is. A B-17 with four PT6s would be great. View Quote I would imagine a 17 with pt6's could be made to look sexy. The XB38 is sexy as hell. Attached File Attached File |
|
View Quote Oh. Disgusting! |
|
Quoted: Because the areas of the aircraft I was able to check out visually obviously hadn't been touched. A visual inspection was completely unsat by every measure of aircraft maintenance schooling and experience I've had. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There's a number of legitimate reasons. TBO for those is typically 1000 hours. That's a recommendation. The dead giveaway that they need it is when they start consuming oil at a significantly higher rate. But that one wasn't really due for it yet. And that's not too surprising . It's not uncommon that engines and props have significantly different amounts of hours on them. That foundation no doubt has a number of spare R-1820's to put on when the time is right. But none of this much matters. The engine problem didn't directly cause the crash. Those fly fine on 3 engines. Sounds like there may have been an error or two involved. That aircraft wasn't properly maintained. That has nothing to do with what I just said. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The only thing we seem to know here is they had a problem with the #4 engine. That alone shouldn't make that aircraft unflyable. It sounds as if the more direct reason for the accident was probably pilot error. What exactly makes you say that aircraft wasn't properly maintained? Because the areas of the aircraft I was able to check out visually obviously hadn't been touched. A visual inspection was completely unsat by every measure of aircraft maintenance schooling and experience I've had. I'm not saying you're wrong in this assertion. I don't know because I wasn't there and didn't see what you saw. So help us out here... What did you see that was clearly unsat? |
|
Quoted: I would imagine a 17 with pt6's could be made to look sexy. The XB38 is sexy as hell. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/183526/XB-38_engines_jpg-1337236.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/183526/XB-38_jpg-1337237.JPG View Quote From what I have read over the years it didn't go into production because the engines were needed for fighter aircraft and there wasn't enough left over for the bombers. Was that ever attempted with a B-24? |
|
Quoted: From what I have read over the years it didn't go into production because the engines were needed for fighter aircraft and there wasn't enough left over for the bombers. Was that ever attempted with a B-24? View Quote Not as far as I know. XB24 K Attached File |
|
Quoted: From what I have read over the years it didn't go into production because the engines were needed for fighter aircraft and there wasn't enough left over for the bombers. Was that ever attempted with a B-24? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I would imagine a 17 with pt6's could be made to look sexy. The XB38 is sexy as hell. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/183526/XB-38_engines_jpg-1337236.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/183526/XB-38_jpg-1337237.JPG From what I have read over the years it didn't go into production because the engines were needed for fighter aircraft and there wasn't enough left over for the bombers. Was that ever attempted with a B-24? I got to see and hear an airworthy Lancaster fly at Duxford and it was magnificent. The sound is pure sex. |
|
Quoted: I got to see and hear an airworthy Lancaster fly at Duxford and it was magnificent. The sound is pure sex. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I would imagine a 17 with pt6's could be made to look sexy. The XB38 is sexy as hell. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/183526/XB-38_engines_jpg-1337236.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/183526/XB-38_jpg-1337237.JPG From what I have read over the years it didn't go into production because the engines were needed for fighter aircraft and there wasn't enough left over for the bombers. Was that ever attempted with a B-24? I got to see and hear an airworthy Lancaster fly at Duxford and it was magnificent. The sound is pure sex. There is one in Winnipeg. I would love to see it. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.