Nine O Nine, the Collings Foundation B-17 crashed this morning at the airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: parabellum,

Fox just announced that 6 people were taken to the hospital but nothing regarding fatalities.

Jim

quote:

Nine O Nine, the Collings Foundation B-17

Thats terrible hope that they all make it, lost another icon of history

Your thread title is pretty weak, bro. Just saying.

Ah, crap.

Six hospitalized; no mention of other survivors. That plane could have had a dozen passengers, plus at least 2 crew. . . *



*I don't know what 'normal' was for this plane, but I flew on a much smaller B-25, and there were 10 of us on board (total).

Sad event; hope all injured recover.
I believe this is the same plane I flew in twice many years ago. This and a B-25 ( if memory serves) use to come to Brainard Field in Hartford annually for a air show.

Locally, we're hearing there were 13 on board and six transported to the hospital. Two dead is the first number we're hearing concerning casualties.

The plane crashed a couple hundred yards from the threshold of RWY 6 near the de-icing area.

Well damn, I just flew in that a few weeks back when the group was in Cape May, NJ.

Boattrash, I must echo Balzé Halzé’s comment: I was extremely disturbed to open what I thought was a benign link to find that an iconic plane on which I had ridden (6/6/06) had crashed and there were deaths.
You can go back to your original post, open it, and edit the title to let readers know that this is a tragedy. Please do so.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
Boattrash, I must echo Balzé Halzé’s comment: I was extremely disturbed to open what I thought was a benign link to find that an iconic plane on which I had ridden (6/6/06) had crashed and there were deaths.
You can go back to your original post, open it, and edit the title to let readers know that this is a tragedy. Please do so.

I would agree that the thread title is...lacking. There have been enough recent reminders about properly worded thread titles that it really shouldn't have to be explained again.

Some of my flying buddies and myself know one of the Collings Foundation's P-40 Warhawk pilots...trying to find out now if he also flies the B-17.

Prayers and thoughts for the victims and their families and friends.

Just had B-17 "Texas Raider" fly in an air show here 2 weeks ago.

My father and I took a tour a few years ago. His brother flew 33 missions as PIC of B-17's at the end of WWII.

A tragic loss.

The "Nine-0-Nine". I have seen it fly over my house several times. That's so sad.

These planes should stop flying, or soon, there will be none left.

Yeah, I know, that's heresy. Tough. Preserve these planes, or soon, there will be no more.

There are 15+ in non-flying status in museums.

Not saying they should keep flying, but aviation is an unforgiving business and if this accident is due to aircraft age / fatigue, it might be something to consider.

To that end, I’ve always wondered why not just build a “new” B-17, and leave the originals to be preserved.

It’s obviously 1940s technology. Is there something that prevents people from just using the schematics to build new versions of these old warbirds? Is it just the cost? Instead of whatever a new, private twin engine aircraft costs, why not just buy a “new” B-25, for example, with a modern passenger cabin, etc?

Sorry for the slight thread drift, and sorry for the loss of the aircraft and lives. I live less than a mile from an airport that hosts these type of warbirds every year. The B-17 that normally comes here is a different one, though, with the silver not OD skin color

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
These planes should stop flying, or soon, there will be none left.

Yeah, I know, that's heresy. Tough. Preserve these planes, or soon, there will be no more.

My understanding is that these were rebuilt by volunteers with state of the art materials.

As much as I've enjoyed seeing these warbirds at airshows, I agree that it's time to retire them. The demographics of the crowd are different and very few of the spectators even appreciate what they are seeing. That wasn't the case 25 years ago when there were quite a few WWII vets in attendance.

quote:

Originally posted by Kevbo:
To that end, I’ve always wondered why not just build a “new” B-17, and leave the originals to be preserved.

It’s obviously 1940s technology. Is there something that prevents people from just using the schematics to build new versions of these old warbirds? Is it just the cost? Instead of whatever a new, private twin engine aircraft costs, why not just buy a “new” B-25, for example, with a modern passenger cabin, etc?

Sorry for the slight thread drift, and sorry for the loss of the aircraft and lives. I live less than a mile from an airport that hosts these type of warbirds every year. The B-17 that normally comes here is a different one, though, with the silver not OD skin color.

About a hundred years ago, in a past life, I used to work in the vintage airplane restoration business, as well as fly some.

I have friends/aquaintances in the vintage aircraft restoration business...but I also know a man who created a company that builds painstakingly close replicas of vintage aircraft and many of his planes, some airworthy, are displayed in some prominent aviation museums.

There is an outfit in New Zealand that builds accurate new replicas of WW I airplanes.

In both the above examples they source original parts/ materials when able, and then fabricate what parts they can't. In some cases they discovered that fabricating new stronger parts sometimes lead to other parts or design failures that were incurred "downstream" from the new or improved part.

Yes, if someone had enough money to throw at the project, you could build a brand new one...it's possible.

But there is a pride, a nostalgia, a living connection to flying vintage airplanes...and both the pilots and the passengers enjoy the history they are flying. There are no shortage of passengers clamoring to fly in old airplanes and War Birds.

In many cases, the ticket prices passengers are willing to pay to fly in these old War Birds not only cover the operational and maintenance costs, but in some cases are used to help defray the eventual restoration costs.

It might be prudent to display a few non-airworthy rare airplanes in museums, but count me among those who is opposed to never flying these historical machines built to fly.

When I flew in the B17 over Labor Day Weekend, I remember the P51 was having some difficulties getting going. The passenger was in the P51 ($650 for a ride) and the engine seemed to be acting up. As it was going to take off, it pulled over to the side and then mechanics started working on it a bit until it was ready to take off.

I remember thinking that if I was that passenger, I would have been shitting myself. I hope they’re not sacrificing safety for the revenue made to get a ride in these things.

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
When I flew in the B17 over Labor Day Weekend, I remember the P51 was having some difficulties getting going. The passenger was in the P51 ($650 for a ride) and the engine seemed to be acting up. As it was going to take off, it pulled over to the side and then mechanics started working on it a bit until it was ready to take off.

I remember thinking that if I was that passenger, I would have been shitting myself. I hope they’re not sacrificing safety for the revenue made to get a ride in these things.

Planes, and not just vintage ones, get "cranky" sometimes. Some engines you get to know and have to figure out how to start under varying conditions. Many pilots and crews have dealt with this over the years of aviation.

Used to work on a Piper Commanche that loved to fly and run well...but once you shut the hot engine down it did not want to restart. After 10-20-30 minutes or so, sometimes after slight adjustments, we'd get her fired up again and she ran fine.

Hot humid days vs. cool dry days require different engine starting sequences sometimes. I used to work my ass off hand-propping some stubborn radial engines on hot humid days.

The idea that a professional pilot would risk a passenger's safety, the safety of spectators, let alone their own safety...to say nothing of the the investment in time and money into the plane, and the liability...just for revenue is...well, let's just call it remote.