Collings B-17 Crash

[seesul]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

Some rumours have it trying to land of 3 engines which according to test reports and pilot's manual should pose no problems (a B-17 will fly easily on 2 engines out). On the other hand, one rumour suggests that only 1 engine was operational at the time of the crash.

Yes when you have altitude and speed. Don't forget they faced the problem right after the take off and turned back so they were flying at a very low speed. And with 13 people aboard.

[Jukka Juutinen]

13 people on board is very little in terms of loading. Reports suggest that it was flying with 1 engine out. With low loading like it was likely now, it should pose no problem to fly and climb on 3. To me it seems the pilot got distracted for some reason and did not note the obstacles ahead.

[RSwank]

A preliminary NTSB report: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...=HTML&IType=MA

And a couple of articles about the report:

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/...gs-b-17-crash/

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...7-crash-emerge


It appears that on the return to the airport they hit approach lights 1000 feet short of the runway and hit the ground 500 feet before the runway threshold.

Some interesting comments also on both the number 3 and number 4 engines propeller positions. Also flap positions.

Here is a video on Flying a B-17: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL-zRFEt9lI

Landing procedures start at about the 18 minute mark.

So, did they first feather the wrong engine (#3) instead of #4? Were the flaps set properly for landing?

[RSwank]

The FAA has gotten involved. (NTSB is apparently still investigating.)

FAA ruling (downloadable pdf file):

https://www.regulations.gov/document...001-11089-1673


A couple of stories about the decision:

https://www.flyingmag.com/story/news...s-permissions/


https://www.courant.com/news/connect...fui-story.html