I flew on this B-17 about a year and a half ago. Sad for the passengers and crew on board.
I flew on this B-17 about a year and a half ago. Sad for the passengers and crew on board.
Man, I hate to see this happen. Our local air museum used to have several warbirds that were flown on a weekly basis. They pulled the plug about 10-15 years ago. As I understand it, it was a combination of factors. First, the planes themselves were becoming more and more difficult to maintain. Although they were meticulous in their maintenance (as I'm sure the Collings Foundation was), EVERY SINGLE COMPONENT in these aircraft had exceeded their expected life span. Every piece of wire, every fastener, every spar, EVERYTHING. I never heard it officially confirmed, but according to a friend who worked in the maintenance shop, one of the last times their Corsair flew, over 100 rivets popped. Second, qualified pilots were becoming harder and harder to find. They simply aren't training new pilots to operate high powered piston engine aircraft, and those with adequate training were mostly ex-military and were being aged out of flight status. Finally, as I understand it, insurance had become effectively unobtainable. Unfortunately, I doubt the Collings Foundation will survive this. Apparently, according to one of the articles I read, there have been several incidents with B-17's in the last several years, which means they will be wrecked in the inevitable lawsuit(s). As much as I love the sound of a military radial engine and the sight of these great airplanes in flight, it might be time for it to stop.
RIP to all the lost.
The Yankee Air Museum here in Michigan, is still flying its B-17 and B-25 bombers. I would hate to see them stop, but the maintenance hours to flying hour ratio increases constantly.
https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/b17-tragedy/159651/page1/
Here's the thread on the crash from a couple days ago. I suppose at some point in the future there may be no WW2 aircraft still flying. That would be a shame.
kazoospec said:...Our local air museum used to have several warbirds that were flown on a weekly basis. They pulled the plug about 10-15 years ago. As I understand it, it was a combination of factors. First, the planes themselves were becoming more and more difficult to maintain....
I am not quite as concerned as you are. Yes, these planes are very old, but very few of them (probably none) that are flying would be even close to "original". They have been meticulously rebuilt. Yes, the spars are original in most cases, but these planes live much easier lives then they did in the military. DC3's have been fly FOREVER, and live much harder lives then these planes, and are not considered unsafe. Fire fighting planes have had some serious issues, but they live VERY hard lives.
The bombers lack the ammo, oxygen systems, a lot of the fuel and of course the bombs they would normally carry. The fighters are even lighter, with the ammo, the armor making up a large percentage of savings. They both generally run without turbos (when they had them) and are run a much lower power setting (no war emergency power). One reason of course is they will mostly run on fuel with at least 15 points less octane then they might have in WWII.
The engines that are in most all of these planes (PW radials and Packard build Merlins) are some of the most robust reliable engine built (especially when not pushed too hard). Part wise, with the ability to re-create so much now, I am not sure that is a huge issue. The hard to create part (cases etc) are not really wear parts. It it of course expensive, but these things are worth so much now, it's more reasonable (think old Ferrari vs cheap MG)
Pilot wise, that is not a big concern that I see. There are no original pilots around anymore and not really a shortage of ex-military pilots who would jump at the chance of flying any of these. Yes, some can be tricky to fly, and way more challenging then an F16, but a high time pilot should be up for the challenge and certainly a better option then the 19 year olds that originally jumped into these.
One aspect that might be a concern are these "tour" aircraft that see a LOT more flight time then a typical warbird (which realistically are not flown that much). Just by that alone, you can expect more failures. There may be a need to step up inspections / requirements for such aircraft. As they say, FAA requirements are many time written in blood, and if they find any significant issues with this crash that might be the case.
One aspect that might have created an issue with this plane is that, as noted, the engine are normally pretty de-rated, running without turbos and at lower octane which gives them less available power in emergency. I don't know if the turbos would have added much at this altitude (use mainly for altitude compensation) but I am sure there was some lack of power compared to the original configuration.
Anyway, I hope to still see them fly. Like the old cars, I would rather see them get dinged up driving them on the road then gathering dust in a building not doing what they are designed to do.
I have little to add to Aircooled’s comprehensive post other than forecasting that the final nail in the coffin will likely be the ever decreasing societal tolerance for risk.
The warbirds safety may be held fairly constant over time but on a relative measure, it will appear to be increasingly unacceptable due to the continuous reduction in tolerance. See also motorcycles, allowing humans to operate any kind of vehicle publicly, etc.
You'll need to log in to post.
