One less B-17 flying.

Absolutely tragic, but as everybody else has said, nothing to do with the fact these were old planes, everything to do unfortunately with pilot error.. I've been doing lots of clicking and reading this morning, and one theory is that the king cobra was known for terrible visibility anyway, looks like he was doing a high G turn, probably to head down the length of the runway, and at the angle he was at he would have had zero visibility of the B-17. Still 100% pilot error.  As somebody else said, unbelievable what those young men went through 75+ years ago.

This is the B-17 out of Conroe. I remember seeing it at a previous show.

https://montgomerycountypolicereporter.com/b-17-flying-fortress-makes-conroe-home/

I am surprised they did this at Dallas Executive Airport. There is a major regional shopping center right down the road, it's also near two major freeways and a golf course, not to mention lots of apartment complexes and single family homes nearby, all within the city limits of Dallas. They crashed on airport property. It could have been worse.

Gary said:

I think the King Cobra  jockey may have been trying to ...

I hope that you are never in a position to fully understand how inappropriate your comment was.

The guy flying the P-63 might not have even seen the B-17. The wing was in the way. One reason I like high wing Cessnas. 

Also, things happen very fast when you are flying over 200 miles per hour. 

This was "Fifi"?  I used to work with a bunch of confederate/commemorative air force guys. Pilot and ground crew/mechanics who were around Brazoria County, TX. Just damn. Damn damn. 
 

Lots of old timers in the CAF.  I saw one pilot come in for landing and maybe forgot to lower the gear. He crept low, lil lower, lil lower and BRRRRRRRR as the tips of the prop hit the runway. Amazingly he pulled it up, flew around for re-attempt and landed safely.  This was at the deland airport where CAF keeps a few birds. 

In reply to TJL (Forum Supporter) :

Not FiFi which is a B 29. 

Here is one of the planes destroyed in this crash.

https://mississippitoday.org/2019/03/05/a-rare-bird-p-63f-kingcobra/

According to this article it is one of only two P-63Fs built and the prototype crashed.

Now there are none. The article also said it was insured for a lot of money.

It had also been almost continuously flying since the 40's  which is rare for a warbird.  It was even an air racer at one point.  The only difference with the F model BTW was the larger tail.

As a correction, the P63 did not use the Merlin.  It was initially intended to, but they used later version of the Allison (same as P38, P40 etc) with a two stage supercharger and water injection.

Here is a summary of it's many many looks:   https://www.aerialvisuals.ca/AirframeDossier.php?Serial=59735

1946 Cleveland Air Races

1971

1982

Jay_W said:

This is one of those occasions where absolutely no one should be speculating what happened and what the pilots should have done different. This is a horrible nightmare and none of us have a clue and we should grieve and wait for the NTSB report. 

Absolutely.  

There have been similar discussions in railroad preservation: Where is the line between demonstrating a historical artifact in operation and just playing with a giant toy? Does the value of having an operational example to show people outweigh the risk and wear-and-tear and damage to the original historical fabric? No one has been able to give a definitive answer either way.

I would argue, in the case of planes, having them flying is far more impactful.  You get to experience them in something somewhat close to how they where used (fewer 19 year old flying them of course).  Unlike trains () you can even fly them over cities etc, so people do not have to travel to see them, they can come to the people.

For those who don't know, the CAF, which I believe this is their home airport, was essentially the originators for a flying museum.  They have been doing this for a very long time.  Long enough that some of their original pilots actually flew the planes in the war!

I would also say though, as the rarity of a plane increases, there certainly should be some risk assessment in the possibility of loosing it.  E.g. if someone wanted to get the Spruce Goose flying, I would say that is a bad idea.

Although this is clearly a bad example of it.  The accident rate of these planes in WWII was actually rather high.  One third of the aircrew killed in WWII where killed in accidents (both training and operational)!   Of course, most of this danger was related to the circumstances they flew in and of course the 19 year olds that where flying them I am sure contributed to that.  They can be easy planes to make mistakes it, and sometimes 19 year olds aren't the best at avoiding mistakes (!)

The media here in Dallas keeps repeating the fact that these planes did not have flight data recorders on board with one person even saying they should be required on all planes. Could you even hook something like this up to a plane with 1940s technology without a whole lot of work?

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

You could have one that recorded inertial data (pitch / roll / yaw rate and degree, altitude change and rate) pretty easily.  Recording the control inputs and throttle position(s) would require a lot more work.

Duke said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

You could have one that recorded inertial data (pitch / roll / yaw rate and degree, altitude change and rate) pretty easily.  Recording the control inputs and throttle position(s) would require a lot more work.

The actual fabrication would be similar to putting brake pressure or steering angle sensors on a race car for a data system and wouldn't take all that long.  I suspect the paperwork to certify it to a level that the FAA would approve would take a thousand times longer, though.

That said, I don't really see the point.  FDRs are primarily there so that lessons can be learned and fixes applied to the rest of the fleet, and I can't really see how that applies with a B17.

Installing such equipment is relatively straightforward. Getting the FAA to sign off on it...is not.

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

Duke said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum 

That said, I don't really see the point.  FDRs are primarily there so that lessons can be learned and fixes applied to the rest of the fleet, and I can't really see how that applies with a B17.

There are probably 8 more still flying in the world. 

11GTCS said:

As cool as I think vintage warbirds are I’m wondering if it’s time to reconsider flying them in air shows.  There were some survivors of Collings Foundation B-17 that crashed in Hartford CT several years ago, sadly I don’t think that will be the case with this one.

The Collings Foundation wreck was their own fault. The B-17 had a lot of mechanical issues and a long history of poor maintenance that caught up with them. I've also read accounts of guys who rode in their B-24 that was in similar condition. They had an engine that was an absolute catastrophe, so they would start and run it on takeoff and landing but shut it off the entire time they were flying because it was in such poor shape. They also got slapped with a pretty hefty fine for doing unauthorized flights with their P-51. 

There's a group in PA that has been restoring a P-61 'Black Widow' to flying condition, and there are but four of them left in the world. The USAF Museum and the air and space museum at Dulles and a museum in China have the third. One could make an argument (and several have, including vets and historians) that the type is too rare to risk 'lawn darting' a quarter of all the surviving airplanes just so that a handful of people ever get airborne in one and is only seen in the air at a few east coast airshows.

Terrible tragedy for all. 

As for whether they should fly or not.... I was lucky in the late 80's to have attended an airshow outside of Memphis Tennessee when they re-dedicated the Memphis Belle at Mud Island. That show had 5 of the last flyable B-17's, a B-24, a couple B-25's and several P-51's and P40's. Seeing, hearing and FEELING that many R-1820/1830's flying overhead in formation was .... unable to be adequately described in written form. I can only imagine what it would have been like to hear hundreds of those things taking off and heading to drop bombs over war ravaged Europe.

Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:

There are probably 8 more still flying in the world. 

And at this point it's likely that all of them are so different from each other that anything you would learn from a data recorder on one is meaningless on the others.

Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:

.. I've been doing lots of clicking and reading this morning, and one theory is that the king cobra was known for terrible visibility anyway....

I wanted to comment on this and note that the King Cobra actually has VERY good visibility for a warbird, and much better than most all civilian planes.  You can see by the pictures above that mid-mounted engine give far better over the nose visibility than most any warbird (except maybe the P38).  The forward position of the cockpit also give very good visibility forward and below, much better than most low wing planes. As the picture shows above, you can pretty much look straight down from the cockpit, which is unheard of in a low wing plane.

The canopy is not as good a bubble (like the late P47 / P51) but is still very good, especially compared to any early "fastback" style planes, and certainly wildly better than any Cessna or Piper.

Anyway, the internets going to "internet".... he says on the internet....

And yes, not sure what flight data recorder will tell you.  I can't imagine it would be of any use here unless there was a control problem (not likely).  Just the news, "newsing".   Some of the discussion of aviation related thing on the news are um... ill-informed to say the least.

P-63 Kingcobra Walkaround

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruoDK2MlAlg

It was said that this P-63 was the plane involved in the collision.

That's definitely the same plane:  Military serial #: 43-11719

https://www.aerialvisuals.ca/AirframeDossier.php?Serial=59735

The B17 is this one:

https://www.aerialvisuals.ca/AirframeDossier.php?Serial=31451

Also a plane that has been flying almost continuously since 1945.  Actually a Navy plane in service.  PB-1W, essentially a very very early version of the AWACS.  Bought from the military in 1957 for areal surveying, for $17,000  (a 58 Corvette started at $3100), so about $180,000 in todays money. About the price of a used Cessna 172!  new ones are at least twice that!

1966 as an aerial survey plane:

2010 at Thunder Over Michigan in Ypsilanti, Michigan.  I am posting this one because by the looks of the tails in the picture they had at least 6 B-17's there!  (near plane looks to be a B24)

In reply to NickD :

Replying to Nick in this case but to also all who’ve quote my earlier comment as well:

I’ve loved watching planes since I was a kid that lived less than a mile from the end of one of the runways of the former Naval Air Station in South Weymouth MA.   There was a squadron of P2 Neptune sub chasers stationed there along with an A4 Skyhawk training squadron.   The P2s had two great big radial piston engines plus two small jet engines to assist in takeoff, they would pass very close over our house on takeoff or landing depending on which way the wind was blowing.  The Navy was still flying their versions of the DC3 and DC6 back then so more than a few round engines passed over my head in the day.  I’ll still run outside to this day to try and get a look if I hear one.  

I was about 12 when I went to my first air show at the base, huge crowds, the Blue Angels, it was amazing.   Right up until a small plane that had been doing an aerobatic display entered a vertical climb and fell into a hammerhead stall far to low to the ground to recover.   It was a pretty sobering moment at 12 to put together that you’ve just watched someone die in real time.  Watching that video brought that moment right back.

I get that accidents happen and that life isn’t risk free.  I’m not a pilot and have no first hand knowledge of what it’s like to fly a high performance plane.  Maybe someone who is can explain why the fighter was anywhere near the B17 in the first place as I can’t see the logic. I know it was an accident and I’d hate to see these planes stop flying just as much as anyone else.   Point taken on the Collings Foundation and spotty maintenance, I also get this collision could have happened given similar circumstances regardless of type.  To clarify, I guess I’m questioning the plan of the air show more than the aircraft used.  

My suspicion is you are the right track with there was something wrong with the way this was being done.  I suspect it will be pretty easy to figure out the issues (e.g. having two different speed planes orbiting is bad enough, but if they had the fast planes on the inside, that is very bad, if that was the design).  

Having attended a number of Reno Air Races, mostly years ago, I have unfortunately witness a few myself.  It sucks.  There was another one this year (jet class) that I was watching online live, still sucks, especially when you can see it developing and know what is likely to happen.  It's even possible it will end the races, who knows (he did crash within the course well away from spectators though).

As a note for everyone.  The NTSB report will almost certain note some sort of pilot error in the report (e.g. failure to maintain a safe distance).   This is VERY common in NTSB reports because the pilot is ultimately responsible for his plane, to the extent that they can generally ignore any "rules" if they feel it puts the plane in a dangerous situation.  This should not really be interpreted necessarily as the pilot being the "cause", more along the lines of "they should have known better, or been more careful"

There is also a common saying that FAA rules are written with blood.  This is because many rules are the result of accidents and thus the reason why NTSB investigation are SUPER detailed and intense.  I would not be surprised to see new FAA regulations for airshow displays because of this (depending on the findings of course).

In reply to 11GTCS :

I lived in the military housing at South Weymouth in the early 1980s. I remember that our conversations would always pause mid-sentence, while the A4s were taking off. The ASW aircraft were P-3s (Turboprop) by the time I was there.

Maybe someone who is can explain why the fighter was anywhere near the B17 in the first place as I can’t see the logic.

At this point I don't think that anyone who was not directly involved can provide a good answer to that. Obviously they should not have been *that* close together. I flew helicopters in airshows and demonstrations in the military. Timing and position were always well rehearsed. Sequence and precision are vital with lots of individual aircraft and multiple elements moving through the display area.

I have been on scene immediately after crashes. My own and another where I was the guy who shut off the fuel pump and power as the aircraft was smoldering. I have several times waited by the radio as downed aircraft were located and then heard that there were fatalities and my friends were dead. 

I saw the videos and could guess what happened. I won't. Early guesses and reporting usually get the facts wrong. The best guess of the investigators will come out in time. Until the investigators or other participants in the demonstration make official public statements, speculation doesn't help.