B-17G #44-83872 "Texas Raiders" and a P-63F KingCobra #43-111719 were involved in a mid-air collision during the Wings Over Dallas airshow for the Veteran's Day weekend in Dallas earlier this afternoon. Both aircraft were owned by the Commemorative Air Force.

It once again brings up the discussion between the aspects of preservation (in terms of static display vs. operation), safety, maintenance, and practices. (Something that is faced not only in railroad preservation, but therefore bringing up here.)

This is not the first incident in recent years involving vintage military aircraft during airshows and other operations.

From the CBS article,

"The NTSB said then that it had investigated 21 accidents since 1982 involving World War II-era bombers, resulting in 23 deaths."

This is the third major accident involving a B-17 in the last decade-plus; the B-17G #44-85734 "Liberty Belle" made an emergency landing following an onboard fire (which consumed/severely damaged almost the entire frame) in June 2011 at Oswego, IL; and the B-17G #44-83575 (as #42-31909 "Nine-O-Nine") was destroyed during an emergency landing following engine trouble in October 2019 at Windsor Locks, CT.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/world-war-ii-planes-collision-crash-air-force-wings-over-dallas-event-dallas-executive-airport-texas/

Going to hear more about this crash, maybe pilot error, but the last several bomber crashes have been pretty much criminal disregard for existing repair standards. They have been getting by with crap for so long, that they now think it is OK.

In US commercial scheduled aviation, you have to go back to 2010 to exceed the total number of deaths this ONE crash caused. At one point, went 8 years straight without a single fatality. The existing, known practices work. And it's not the age or design of these aircraft causing the issue.....

B17 was flying fine, P-63 seemed to aim for it and crashed into the bomber at the middle, both planes went down in pieces, with the 17 exploding on impact. Somebody wasn't looking where they were going.
Tragic.

Alan

Again, I will say it: preservationists need to stop treating irreplaceable pieces of historical significance like playthings.

You're either preserving it or you're using it.

You can't do both.

So, let's see: We must stop flying historical aircraft because of their historical value? Then why not stop running steam locomotives?

This crash was because of the error of a pilot, which has NOTHING to do with the airworthiness of either aircraft. While there may be some questions regarding the maintenance of some of these aircraft, it is not responsible to lump them all into one lack of maintenance class.

Should we judge all steam locomotives because of Gettysburg?

Should we judge all operators and their crews because of a mistake at Strasburg?

I enjoy operational steam locomotives, but I also enjoy seeing and hearing the older aircraft in operation.

Just like there is nothing like the sight and sounds of a steam locomotive in operation, there is also nothing like the sound of a radial aircraft engine or the Rolls Royce Merlin in a P-51.

Because at the rate things are going there will be no more flyable B-17s in a decade.

That's not preserving history.

I’d say it’s not that simple. Your point is certainly true regarding the historic fabric but there is more to the picture than a hunk of cold metal. The only way to preserve the entire essence of the thing including sights, sounds, smells, capabilities and experience is going to be to operate it. The future of preservation probably depends largely on having operating examples. I doubt I’d care one bit about railway museum pieces had I not experienced steam excursions to peak my interest.

So we should should stop flying all B17s because if we don’t there will no B17s flying????? That makes a lot of sense.

And in a decade or two, the human knowledge of how to fly these planes will be lost forever and forever. For that matter, the human knowledge, the trades, skills and tricks, of how to repair and make new parts will be lost forever and forever as well. At that point, you can throw all the tools and parts away.

That's not preserving history.

Using a historic artifact for its intended purpose =/= to wrecklessly using it "as a play thing". If that's all you think of the operational use of equipment, you're completely missing the point.

Nobody is currently using a flying WW2 bomber for national defense. Therefore it is NOT bring used for its original purpose.

What is the point that I'm missing?

There are plenty of other options for preserving that knowledge that does not require the huge risk to original artifacts. Documentation. Simulation. Building a reproduction. Etc...

They may not be cheap. And they may not be as much "fun". But they do result in the preservation of irreplaceable artifacts while flying "demonstration flights" doesn't.

Yes it does if the purpose of preserving these things is to ensure they continue to exist in the future.

And if the goal ISN'T to ensure they exist in the future than it's not really preservation, is it?

No, it really doesn’t make sense. There are over 40 B17s preserved, 8 of which are airworthy. Even if we lost all 8 tomorrow the B17 continues to exist in the form you propose. Grounding the flying examples just renders them extinct as living airworthy planes for the sake of stuffing and mounting their corpses.

If you haven't noticed, the basic design element and job of a WW2 bomber above all else is to FLY.

As to the point you're missing, it's that there's two basic way to preserve an item of historical note. Treat it as an "artifact" where the goal is to ensure the continued existence and/or appearance of the "orginal material" as the item sits for study and posterity. The second way is to use and use up the item as it would have been doing its orginal purpose, where parts and pieces of it may need to be replaced as necessary. Neither is a clearly correct way of continuing its essential existence, unless you'd like to have the ship of Thesis debate.

An artifact kept operational will, in my opinion, tend to draw more interest, and has a means of providing a service to "earn its keep" to pay for the resources that will keep it around, and offers the context of the experience that a static piece cannot offer. Sure, that might not be the actual B-17 wing skin that flew over Europe in the 40s, but by replacing it we can offer the experience (as close as we can get) to what our ancestors had, and that is important to understanding and obtaining context for world, culture, and time which they existed in. Find me a WW2 vet or historian that will tell us we're better off with every one of these grounded, I'll wait.

Sure, the operational examples have a possibility of being lost or damged, but that is a risk worth taking, just as much as we run the risk of losing them in a roof collapse or fire at the static museum. In reality, the life expectancy of all matter in the universe will eventually be zero.

As always, Ed, you can't seem to fathom the nuance of situations like these where a combination of BOTH of these ways are the key to the future of both the artifacts we have and the collective interest that makes its preservation worthwhile, and THAT is "what you're missing".