It is very sad to see such a memorable airplane destroyed in a fire following a crash landing in a cornfield. But it is a great testimonial to the skill of the pilot that everyone on board survived:

http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/news/594 ... asure.html

PC

glad no one was hurt. damn shame to loose a beautiful warbird. but after seeing plenty of warbirds gathering dust in museums, the thrill of seeing and hearing one flying makes it all worthwhile.

very very sad, reminds me of all those WW2 photos of B17's downed in europe and the UK. I am sorry for the Liberty Belle foundation, its a tragic heartbreaking loss. Lets hope they get another going and return to the skies.

Which is exactly why some museums have made operational use of the steam locomotives in their collections a non-starter. I still think there is a difference between comparative low speed running of a K4s on the ground, an entirely different proposal from flying a B-17 at altitude. Very sad loss, indeed. Perhaps parts will be salvaged?

By no means would I ever claim any special knowledge or expertise, but the news videos seem to indicate that at best the engines might be the only things salvageable. The entire fueslage body behind the wings was basically gone. And that's before they do whatver needs to be done to dismantle the remains and get them out of the farmer's soybean field.

One report I heard last evening was a bit distressing, someone who had seen the aircraft on display reported that the crew had been discussing a fuel leak problem. The same person suggested that he had seen two "fuel leak puddles" under the engine. I'm sure the full NTSB report will divulge all, but it would be a sad thing if this had come to pass due to a problem of that nature, especially if it was known to the crew before taking to the air. We shall have to wait and see. At least no one was hurt.

I saw this plane during its visit to the Aviation Museum of Kentucky in Lexington in 2007. It was selling rides that day too. I vividly remember the plane dripping oil from multiple points. There were puddles of oil on the tarmac.

The B-17 was powered by four (4) Wright R-1820-97 radial engines. There is only one way to get an R-1820 to STOP leaking oil and that is to drain ALL the oil out of it. Oil puddles under 1820's is and was perfectly normal.

I live less than three miles from where this B17 came to its final resting place in Oswego, IL. Unfortunately, the media has chosen to describe the incident as a "crash" landing when it really was a hurried, controlled landing in a cornfield. The pilot did a great job of putting the old girl down in an area surrounded by housing complexes. The bad part of the landing was that it was not within a quarter of a mile of a roadway which contributed to the massive damage to the airframe. The fields were soft due to the amount of rain that the area has had recently and there was little access to where she stopped so fire fighting efforts were extremely hampered.

I walked in and photographed the remains last evening and it was truly a sad sight. Having worked on the Milwaukee Road 261 operation and restoration crew for the last 15 years or so, I was heartbroken to see the plane's charred and broken carcass in a farm field. This reminded me of the tragic fire that consumed Reading 2101 in her excursion prime. At least she survived as a non-operating artifact. As I walked away, I met a man and his wife walking towards the scene. All he could say was, "This is a terrible day". I knew exactly what he was saying. Only the Liberty Belle would not even survive as a static display.

Don C.

True Story...I took a ride on the B-17 "909" a few years back and as you fly along you can watch the oil stream back from the hub across the crankcase and oddly enough, it doesn't bother you at all, in fact I'd never felt so comfortable in an airplane. As tragic as this is, the crew did a great job landing the plane (it was not a crash landing) and getting the passengers off safely. Well Done.

Cheers, Dave

If a radial engine isn't leaking oil, you'd better bail out. Nature of the beast.

The group's website has been updated with some accident information.

http://www.libertyfoundation.org/index.html

As mentioned, it was not a crash-- the plane was not damaged by the perfectly controlled landing in a farmer's field. There was ample time to unload the passengers and even their bags(!)

Pics show the fire wasn't even that bad after landing. Fire crews were dispatched immediately, but the farm field the plane landed in was deemed too wet and soft to cross with fire trucks, so everyone just had to stand around and watch. Planes are no match for uncontrolled fires.

The whole thing reminds me of the failed restoration and subsequent destruction by fire of the WWII B-29 "Kee Bird"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kee_Bird

Darn right. It’s like grease on a locomotive’s main rods. You better see something there. There’s an old saying about radial engines, “If there ain’t no oil on it, there ain’t no oil IN it.” WW2 Jeeps also leak a little (I know because I have one in my garage). The saying there is that, “military vehicles don’t leak; they mark their territory.”
As for the B-17 landing (and yes, it WAS a landing, not a crash), the pilot landed in a wet, plowed field with an airplane that could have easily dug in on the main landing gear. Instead, the pilot got it on the ground on its gear, the crew got out with the passengers, all with no treatable injuries. The pilot could have chosen to go back to the field to save the airplane, risking the wing spars weakening and losing the wing (which would surely have killed everyone on board). Instead, he put it down in a field, something a B-17 probably hasn’t done in decades, almost ensuring the destruction of the aircraft by fire, to save those on board. With hindsight, the bomber was probably doomed because the nearest airport wouldn’t have had enough fire foam to put it out anyway. But the pilot couldn’t have known that at the time. Even though the plane was destroyed, the pilot almost certainly made the right call.
Why should you all care? I think there’s a lesson here that applies to any type of preservation. How ready are you all in the case of an emergency? Would any of you think to allow a locomotive or car to be destroyed while erring on the side of saving passengers? How would you handle something that requires action in moments, otherwise people might be killed? Granted, a derailment will unlikely kill (or even badly harm) any passengers, but how ready are you for a split-second decision if something goes wrong? Things like split switches, rail tampering, crown sheet problems (think of the incident at Gettysburg in 1996) and other things can happen in a second. How ready are your operators for something like that, or would you just stand there with a shocked expression, wondering how long it will take for 911 to respond and save the day?
If a crown sheet was about to completely fail and the crew somehow knew it, would they uncouple the locomotive and try to distance it from the rest of the train or get the passengers as far away as possible? How prepared are your crews for heart attacks, responding to derailed equipment on the line and away from roads? If you’re in an area that an ambulance couldn’t get to, what would you do?
I bring all this up because I know for sure that some pilots would have pushed that B-17 to get it back to the airport (they had three engines running, easily enough power to get back) and could have lost the wing in the process. Obviously the pilot is a very quick thinker or had thought it through before it happened. I’m betting on a little of both. How prepared would you be if something this catastrophic was about to happen to you?
There’s another saying among pilots, that many a pilot’s last words were, “Don’t worry, she’ll make it back…”

hmmm... Although tragic the wreckage could still conceivably be used as a mock up of a shot down plane. Although a tearable loss some history could still be saved this way.

A shame the firefighters didn't at least try. It wasn't like they would be risking their lives just because they might get stuck in the mud. In fact it doesn't look all that muddy at all...look at the photo on the foundation's website. The ground supported the aircraft very well.

Steve

Wouldn't have mattered. They only had water in those trucks, not the right type of foam for an AVGAS fire. Wouldn't have likely mattered if they were right next to the plane as it landed.