Another question. Does using modern alloys result in a replica in the sense of an accurate reconstruction or a new model and what modern metals do you want to use? I'm sure you could create a new B-29 with titanium, but is that really a B-29? Ditto for the instrumentation. Are you going to recreate the period appropriate gauges? How about modern polymers instead of rubber in tires?

Locomotives have an advantage over airplanes. Extra weight and overbuilding are virtues; not a fault.

The whole issue of the planes falling apart is speculative. Aircraft are supposed to be examined for cracks and fatigue issues. But have any of them went down to age issues? This one appears to be a loss of situational awareness, a deviation from established procedure, or perhaps a lack of established procedure, that would of had the same outcome if they were both brand new modern aircraft.

The 2019 crash was caused by poor maintenance, which caused loss of power to the point the aircraft could not climb, which is pretty sad on an aircraft which historically, could climb on three engines and limp on two. Age wasn't really a factor, parts for repair were available, and the problem was well known to the crew, who chose to ignore them and keep operating. Same thing would of happened on a brand new aircraft, that had equipment failures improperly addressed.

The situation will inevitably arise when vintage craft are retired permanently because of too many such cracks, wholesale replacement of such parts will happen, or we will start seeing such craft falling apart mid-air if someone insists on continued flying. (Or until the first one does, and the rest are grounded by FAA or NTSB orders or something, or insurance becomes unobtainable.)

It's not "if," it's "when."

So, is a replica a feasible option if "flying" the craft is deemed so essential to getting people interested and "experiencing" it? Ditto more steam loco replicas?

There are steam locos and some passenger cars out there that have been retired for essentially the same thing as we're speculating with planes: Cracks, firebox too thin, too expensive to ultrasound the trucks every couple years, you name it. And how many diesels that ran in preservation are now retired because of "unobtanium" parts?

I don't think anybody here or anyway suggested this incident or any others are the result of metal fatigue; there was clearly a collision. I would think if there was a condemnable defect in the airframe; it wouldn't be certified for operation and might be sent to a museum for display.

It is certainly possible that there was a lost of situational awareness; there's also the possibility a failure of one or more control surfaces or something with engine ; or a medical issue, a combination of issues or something as of yet unknown. Watching the incident on video is disconcerting as you realize the enormous odds of that direct hit collision as opposed to clipping a wing or a near miss.

An airman's perspective

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C342dfNPCyg

That is a great video, he does a superb job of explaining the flight patterns for the air show and how the fighter pilot could have lost situational awareness of the bomber while he was in the banking left turn. Thanks very much for posting that.

PC

Thanks for the information about about that "Masters of the Air" production. I wasn't aware of that series being made, The 100th BG WW2 base at Thorpe Abbotts is only about 25 miles away from where I live and have visited the Airfield Museum there a number of times.



On the general subject of keeping historic aircraft flying rather than static (or ground running) exhibits, I did actually end up taking a flight in the EAA owned B17 Aluminum Overcast back in 2011 whilst on a long tour round the Mid-West by car. Even the 30 min or so noise and vibration on fairly leisurely flight out of Madison, WI, that I did was the sort of experience that brought it home to you what a 6-8 hour mission into Europe at high altitude with others trying to shoot you down was like for the aircrews at the time.
As long as the skills and proper maintenance facilities too keep them in an airworthy state are available and used, I don't see any problem with keeping them flying, though, like most things, the increasing costs of maintenance may eventually reduce the numbers left in operating condition.

Hello,

Found this video also. What struck me was how tight and how crowded the air space was during this particular part of the show. First impression appears to be the fighter pilot did not see the B-17 at all as it was under the fighter’s belly amidst the banking left turn. He may have only seen the B-17 until just at the point of impact.

This was a parade of sorts? So many planes, a herd of fighters flying faster than a herd of bombers in a narrow 3-D airspace? Not the chaos of actual battle but plenty busy.

As Clint Eastwood once stated a Dirty Harry, ‘A man has got to know his limitations’. Humanity iis far from perfect. The more sophisticated and complex the machines and environments we create, our skill sets have to rise with these complex challenges.

Very humbling and sobering.

When you run your snowmobile fast enough at night that you have reached the limit of your beam in an instant…..consider slowing down, the random deer will cross at some point.

[As a footnote, did I recall in my materials class that aluminum has a finite fatigue life? (No endurance limit stress?) If so, how do they keep airframes like a B-17s & B-52s going? Replacement?]

Regards,

Randy

I don't understand how this industry is insurable now. I keep hearing how it's near cost prohibitive to run steam due to the insurance cost and from what I can tell steam's safety record (while not perfect) is orders of magnitude better than vintage aircraft operation.

Anyhow related to that to me the answer of if these amazing machines should be operated is a pretty obvious no. Just because it's clear that there isn't the will to do it safely. When there's an exceptionally poor safety record spanning decades I think it's time to face the facts that its not going to improve.

Periodic inspection and repair or replacement of of fatigued parts. I’ve heard it said that there’s not much original material in a B-52.

It was also found that the FAA Inspector hadn't been Inspecting the Collins B-17 regularly. And these aircraft are inspected by the owners regularly. The EAA's Aluminum Overcast has been undergoing repairs after a routine inspection found an issue.

My great grandfather was a radio operator on a B17 in Europe. They are very special planes to me.

My thinking is this: keep the ones that are flying now flying until they absolutely can't fly anymore, but don't restore any of the others to flyable condition. Doing so will give videographers and historical groups plenty of time to properly document B17s in operation, so when the time comes where there are none left flying, the videos and photographs can be shared/displayed along with the static planes in museums. That will also ensure that there are several surviving examples should additional crashes occur.

Not to mention the fact that many years from now, when the last flyable B17 is permanently withdrawn from service (considering they're allowed to continue after this event), the number of people who appreciate WWII planes or even know what a B17 is will be significantly smaller than it is now (I graduated high school in 2021; one of my last history assignments was to present to the class about B17s and my great grandfather's connection with them. Myself and the teacher were the only ones in the room who knew what a B17 was).

Thomas

The US Air Force Museum will not fly any of it's aircraft, so The Memphis Belle, restored, and indoors, will last forever, bare Armageddon. There are several museum's that will not fly their either, so the few that still do fly should continue to do so as long as the owners want to.

The Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum in Hamilton, Ontario flew its 4-engine Lancaster bomber to England in 2014!
https://www.classicwarbirds.co.uk/artic ... summer.php
They did have an engine problem over there and had to borrow an engine to get home!
I thought that was a bold undertaking, but it worked well.
The museum flies the Lanc all the time, although it is down right now for some servicing. It has been my understanding that the cockpit crew are not hobbyists, but are commercial pilots from the bigger passenger carriers.
CWHM flies several aircraft regularly.
https://www.warplane.com/
It just recently took ownership of a Spitfire that it hopes to have airworthy.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9206548/cana ... ree-craft/
For my money, it is one of the better museums. There are plenty of excellent static displays, and the staff do the mechanical work right there in the public areas. One can go in and see one of the Lanc's Rolls-Royce engines on the work stand.
Years ago, they had a fire in another hangar that cost them a Hurricane. I guess, no matter what you do, there will be perils.
That Lanc was stuffed and mounted for years at the former RCAF base in Clinton, Ontario. I recall seeing the fuselage being moved, slung under a heavy chopper. It was getting in poor shape on outdoor display, and now it can fly across the Atlantic. Amazing really.
One hopes and prays they don't have a crash. One hopes and prays that nobody has a crash. Like in railway preservation and operation, all operations have to be done at the highest professional level.

I have talked with someone who was on the ground in Dallas, and he said he's heard radio from the 'air boss,' the person in charge of the airspace in the show. I've heard that the air boss told the fighters to cut across the pattern to get ahead of the bombers. Keep in mind, this is third-hand, but I've heard this elsewhere as well. If that's accurate, then the CAF is in for some very bad times.
They actually did fly a B-17 once. The B-17G "Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby" which actually flew with the 91st Bomb Group was restored by a group at Dover AFB with USAF museum guidance and support, then it was flown to Dayton. They never flew it again, but yes, they have flown airplanes just a few times in the past.
The big problem here is that the FAA doesn't do that great a job with stuff like this. Imagine in this day and age that there could be enough trained people young enough to give reasonable guidance in maintenance and operation of planes built in the 1940s.
They do exist right now because there are lots of 30s and 40s planes still doing real work, such as DC-3s.
The FAA often scrambles to cover stuff like this. I knew of a guy who bought a Russian MIG fighter jet for an excellent price, then spent a small fortune trying to get it flyable. He had former Russian ground crew guys, and they all gave a thumbs up that she'd fly. The FAA inspectors kept saying they were understaffed to even sign off on the plane, then said they didn't even have any standard on paper to judge it against. Meanwhile, other MIGs were being flown by others who had no issues who got the FAA to give green lights for their MIGs. He never could get someone to sign off on the plane, and he eventually sold it later, to someone who got the FAA green light soon after.
This lunacy is how it all works.
And then, there's the planes.
You can't count on a group doing the right thing, nor the FAA providing correct oversight. The Collings B-17 crash proved this and anyone like me who's seen the operations of airplanes like this up close when the public isn't around can confirm there's often some odd things going on. There are huge pressures to get into the air (NASA calls it, "Go fever") and to be blunt, they're all volunteers. They all mean well but there's just not the oversight you'd see on an airliner or current military aircraft.
Don't forget for one moment that the CAF was founded on and prided itself on an attitude of "cowboys flying military airplanes." In recent years, they dropped this along with the "Confederate Air Force" tongue in cheek group name. I don't know if it's a coincidence, but these changes came soon after a series of high-profile accidents which destroyed several rare aircraft and killed their crews.