"Aluminum Overcast" damaged by gear collapse

[James Robinson]

The B-17 bomber owned by the Experimental Aircraft Assn. was damaged
yesterday at Van Nuys airport when its main gear collaped.

From the videos on TV, you could see its tail wheel firmly on the
ground, when the main gear retracted, and the aircraft dropped onto the
runway. The crew must had had that sinking feeling about then. It slid
perhaps 50 feet or so on its belly.

The media seems to like to say it made a belly landing, or a rough
landing, but it was apparent that it had already landed, and was simply
completing the rollout, and was preparing to turn off when it happened.

Anyway, here's a link to their web site, where they have a short
description of the incident:

http://www.b17.org/

And a typical media story:

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2129868,00.html

I couldn't find the video clip, but I assume it will appear online
sometime today.

I hope they can get it flying again soon.

[David H]

James Robinson wrote:

> The B-17 bomber owned by the Experimental Aircraft Assn. was damaged
> yesterday at Van Nuys airport when its main gear collaped.
>
> From the videos on TV, you could see its tail wheel firmly on the
> ground, when the main gear retracted, and the aircraft dropped onto the
> runway. The crew must had had that sinking feeling about then. It slid
> perhaps 50 feet or so on its belly.
>
> The media seems to like to say it made a belly landing, or a rough
> landing, but it was apparent that it had already landed, and was simply
> completing the rollout, and was preparing to turn off when it happened.

Sad to hear. I hope they get it flying again soon - but most of all I
hope the do plan to keep it flying (as opposed to removing it from flying
status, as happened to a notable B-17 around here). Yes, these planes are
valuable treasures, but some of them need to keep flying.

David Herman
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
N6170T 1965 Cessna 150E
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

[HECTOP]

This is THE Aluminum Overcast:
http://www.fairwings.net/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=87

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com



"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> The B-17 bomber owned by the Experimental Aircraft Assn. was damaged
> yesterday at Van Nuys airport when its main gear collaped.
>
> From the videos on TV, you could see its tail wheel firmly on the
> ground, when the main gear retracted, and the aircraft dropped onto the
> runway. The crew must had had that sinking feeling about then. It slid
> perhaps 50 feet or so on its belly.
>
> The media seems to like to say it made a belly landing, or a rough
> landing, but it was apparent that it had already landed, and was simply
> completing the rollout, and was preparing to turn off when it happened.
>
> Anyway, here's a link to their web site, where they have a short
> description of the incident:
>
> http://www.b17.org/
>
> And a typical media story:
>
> http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2129868,00.html
>
> I couldn't find the video clip, but I assume it will appear online
> sometime today.
>
> I hope they can get it flying again soon.

[gatt]

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> The B-17 bomber owned by the Experimental Aircraft Assn. was damaged
> yesterday at Van Nuys airport when its main gear collaped.

Didn't Nine-O-Nine have a landing gear collapse at Van Nuys a few years ago?

I remember getting their newsletter about it but a websearch brings up
mainly the original WWII plane.

-c

[MLenoch]

>Didn't Nine-O-Nine have a landing gear collapse at Van Nuys a few years ago?
>

9-0-9 had a long landing incident in PA where it went off the end of the
runway. Its repairs took more than a year.
VL

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 06 May 2004 13:42:11 -0700, David H > wrote:

>Sad to hear. I hope they get it flying again soon - but most of all I
>hope the do plan to keep it flying (as opposed to removing it from flying
>status, as happened to a notable B-17 around here). Yes, these planes are
>valuable treasures, but some of them need to keep flying.
>
>David Herman
>Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
>N6170T 1965 Cessna 150E
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
>http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

I know that the airplane's name "Aluminum Overcast" is meant to imply
a large airplane, but during WWII, it meant something entirely
different. The fighter pilots had be carefull about flying underneath
the bomber formations because there was considerable danger from being
hit by falling parts from all the bombers being blown apart. They
called it the "aluminum overcast."

Corky Scott

[MLenoch]

>I know that the airplane's name "Aluminum Overcast" is meant to imply
>a large airplane, but during WWII, it meant something entirely
>different. The fighter pilots had be carefull about flying underneath
>the bomber formations because there was considerable danger from being
>hit by falling parts from all the bombers being blown apart. They
>called it the "aluminum overcast."
>
>Corky Scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The first time I saw a B-24 in the air, I got 'target' fixation. The big
silvery beast was so awesome in appearance, I forgot about the closure rate
(albeit slow) when joining up on the wing. I had to shove my nose down to
avoid co-mingling aluminum parts. I just kept thinking "Wow, all that aluminum
would make a lot of pots and pans".
VL

[Pat]

James Robinson > wrote in message >...
> The B-17 bomber owned by the Experimental Aircraft Assn. was damaged
> yesterday at Van Nuys airport when its main gear collaped.
>






Am I the only one who finds it a bit "suspicious" that both main gear
collapsed on this bird? If I recall correctly, they are two
independant systems. The common link would be in the cockpit... right
next to the flaps switch. Anyone else think that perhaps the gear
were inadvertantly retracted (pilot attempting to retract flaps)
rather than a mechanical failure...???

-Pat

[Peter R.]

Pat ) wrote:

> Anyone else think that perhaps the gear
> were inadvertantly retracted (pilot attempting to retract flaps)
> rather than a mechanical failure...???

As someone who has just started flying a retractable gear aircraft, I admit
that I thought that, too, since grabbing the correct handle is always on my
mind. But, since my speculation tends to be incorrect, I quickly thought
of something else. :)

--
Peter

[G.R. Patterson III]

Pat wrote:
>
> James Robinson > wrote in message >...
> > The B-17 bomber owned by the Experimental Aircraft Assn. was damaged
> > yesterday at Van Nuys airport when its main gear collaped.
> >
>
> Am I the only one who finds it a bit "suspicious" that both main gear
> collapsed on this bird? If I recall correctly, they are two
> independant systems. The common link would be in the cockpit... right
> next to the flaps switch.

According to the Pilot Training Manual, the gear activation switch is located between
the recognition light switches and the landing light switches. It is not particularly
close to the flap switch. The flap switch is isolated, is not part of a row of
switches (as is the gear switch), and it has side guards to make it easy to
differentiate between it and other controls. Personally, I think the LG switch should
be the one that's isolated and guarded, but ....

> Anyone else think that perhaps the gear
> were inadvertantly retracted (pilot attempting to retract flaps)
> rather than a mechanical failure...???

I doubt it. I think an electrical problem is much more likely on a 60 year old plane.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Dale]

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:


>
> According to the Pilot Training Manual, the gear activation switch is located
> between
> the recognition light switches and the landing light switches. It is not
> particularly
> close to the flap switch. The flap switch is isolated, is not part of a row
> of
> switches (as is the gear switch), and it has side guards to make it easy to
> differentiate between it and other controls. Personally, I think the LG
> switch should
> be the one that's isolated and guarded, but ....

Both the gear and flap switches are toggle switches, they are within a
couple inches of each other on the center console. On the B-17 I flew
the gear switch had a cover that had to be lifted to activate the
rectraction. Even so our procedure was for the NFP to touch the flap
switch and say "Confirm flaps?"..the FP then would check to be sure the
flap switch was selected and reply "Flaps confirmed"...then and only
then would the flaps be retracted.


> I doubt it. I think an electrical problem is much more likely on a 60 year
> old plane.

The gear on the -17 are electrical. Each gear has it's own
motor...nothing ties the left side to the right side. The only common
item is the gear switch. The only failure I can think of that would
cause the gear to retract would be a failure in the switch that closed
the switch. The most likely failure would be human.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[gatt]

"Peter R." > wrote in message

> As someone who has just started flying a retractable gear aircraft, I
admit
> that I thought that, too, since grabbing the correct handle is always on
my
> mind. But, since my speculation tends to be incorrect, I quickly thought
> of something else. :)

I strongly doubt that's what happened, but the LG switch on a B-17 leaves
room for that possibility. Used to volunteer with the bird that's at
Evergreen in McMinnville now and out at the hangar we'd turn on the master
switch to open the bomb bay when veterans were coming through, and the chief
mechanic warned us repeatedly not to hit the landing gear switch because it
was live.

-c

[Dima Volodin]

James Robinson wrote:
>
> The B-17 bomber owned by the Experimental Aircraft Assn. was damaged
> yesterday at Van Nuys airport when its main gear collaped.

Discovery Wings has just had a feature about "Aluminum Overcast"'s
restoration :-(

:-(


Dima

[Buff5200]

I watched the crash video frame-by-frame. The right main wheel appeared to
separate from the gear 1/10 second before the right main gear collapsed.
Then the left main gear collapsed, a few tenths after the right main.

Looks to me as if the right gear wheel axle may have failed.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>Pat wrote:
>
>
>>James Robinson > wrote in message >...
>>
>>
>>>The B-17 bomber owned by the Experimental Aircraft Assn. was damaged
>>>yesterday at Van Nuys airport when its main gear collaped.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Am I the only one who finds it a bit "suspicious" that both main gear
>>collapsed on this bird? If I recall correctly, they are two
>>independant systems. The common link would be in the cockpit... right
>>next to the flaps switch.
>>
>>
>
>According to the Pilot Training Manual, the gear activation switch is located between
>the recognition light switches and the landing light switches. It is not particularly
>close to the flap switch. The flap switch is isolated, is not part of a row of
>switches (as is the gear switch), and it has side guards to make it easy to
>differentiate between it and other controls. Personally, I think the LG switch should
>be the one that's isolated and guarded, but ....
>
>
>
>>Anyone else think that perhaps the gear
>>were inadvertantly retracted (pilot attempting to retract flaps)
>>rather than a mechanical failure...???
>>
>>
>
>I doubt it. I think an electrical problem is much more likely on a 60 year old plane.
>
>George Patterson
> If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Buff5200 wrote:
>
> I watched the crash video frame-by-frame.

Got a URL?

> The right main wheel appeared to
> separate from the gear 1/10 second before the right main gear collapsed.
> Then the left main gear collapsed, a few tenths after the right main.

If the gear collapsed suddenly, then it was not inadvertently raised on the ground.
Retraction is by a screw mechanism and takes a few seconds.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Mike O'Malley]

"Dima Volodin" > wrote in message
...
> James Robinson wrote:
> >
> > The B-17 bomber owned by the Experimental Aircraft Assn. was damaged
> > yesterday at Van Nuys airport when its main gear collaped.
>
> Discovery Wings has just had a feature about "Aluminum Overcast"'s
> restoration :-(
>
> :-(

Looks like they'll be able to get another few seasons out of it...

:-(

[Kyle Boatright]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Buff5200 wrote:
> >
> > I watched the crash video frame-by-frame.
>
> Got a URL?
>
> > The right main wheel appeared to
> > separate from the gear 1/10 second before the right main gear collapsed.
> > Then the left main gear collapsed, a few tenths after the right main.
>
> If the gear collapsed suddenly, then it was not inadvertently raised on
the ground.
> Retraction is by a screw mechanism and takes a few seconds.
>
> George Patterson
> If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

I don't know how the retraction system works, so I 'm asking..

1) Isn't the screw jack "sized" for air loads, with some sort of over
center mechanism to handle the ground loads?

2) If that's the case, does the gear retraction mechanism have enough power
to pull the gear back "under center" (?) while the aircraft is on the
ground?

3) Would the screw jacks fail in this case?

What I'm getting at is if someone flipped the wrong switch, could that
explain the collapse of both mains, and explain why there are <apparently>
broken screw jacks on both mains? Otherwise, I find it extremely unlikely
that both gear systems (they are independant, right?) would have a similar
mechanical failure at the same time...

KB

[Dale]

In article >,
"Kyle Boatright" > wrote:


> 1) Isn't the screw jack "sized" for air loads, with some sort of over
> center mechanism to handle the ground loads?

No "over center" lock.

> 2) If that's the case, does the gear retraction mechanism have enough power
> to pull the gear back "under center" (?) while the aircraft is on the
> ground?

Again, no "over center" lock. Yes, you can retract the gear on the
ground. On the B-17 I flew there was a "weight on wheels" switch to
prevent this but this was an add-on and might not be on all B-17s flying
today.

> 3) Would the screw jacks fail in this case?

I don't know.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[G.R. Patterson III]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> 1) Isn't the screw jack "sized" for air loads, with some sort of over
> center mechanism to handle the ground loads?

No. The screw jack pushes against a knee-joint mechanism. The "hip" of this joint is
attached to the firewall bulkhead and the "ankle" is attached to the bottom of the
oleo strut. When the gear is full up, the joint is bent up into the housing and the
screw mechanism is fairly short. When the gear is down, the knee-joint is straight,
and the screw mechanism extended. The screw mechanism is also attached to the
bulkhead in such a manner that it is horizontal when the gear is up.

> What I'm getting at is if someone flipped the wrong switch, could that
> explain the collapse of both mains, and explain why there are <apparently>
> broken screw jacks on both mains?

I doubt it. If someone raised the gear on the ground, the plane would just settle on
the wheels. Keep in mind that this mechanism was designed to handle at least 4 tons
more than this particular aircraft weighed at the time of the incident. On the other
hand, these things are ancient, so it might be possible.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dima Volodin wrote:
>
> James Robinson wrote:
> >
> > The B-17 bomber owned by the Experimental Aircraft Assn. was damaged
> > yesterday at Van Nuys airport when its main gear collaped.
>
> Discovery Wings has just had a feature about "Aluminum Overcast"'s
> restoration :-(

Well, now they can turn it into a series. :-(

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[muff528]

After discussing the incident with my father, who served as Flight Engineer
during WWII, he mentioned that part of his job as FE (at least on his crew)
was to manually check and lock the gear after they were deployed even if the
pilot's indicator said they were locked. He said that on more than one
occasion they were not locked. Also I wonder if it's possible that on the
Aluminum Overcast only one gear "really" failed and the other then collapsed
because of unusual stresses. ?

"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> The B-17 bomber owned by the Experimental Aircraft Assn. was damaged
> yesterday at Van Nuys airport when its main gear collaped.
>
> From the videos on TV, you could see its tail wheel firmly on the
> ground, when the main gear retracted, and the aircraft dropped onto the
> runway. The crew must had had that sinking feeling about then. It slid
> perhaps 50 feet or so on its belly.
>
> The media seems to like to say it made a belly landing, or a rough
> landing, but it was apparent that it had already landed, and was simply
> completing the rollout, and was preparing to turn off when it happened.
>
> Anyway, here's a link to their web site, where they have a short
> description of the incident:
>
> http://www.b17.org/
>
> And a typical media story:
>
> http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2129868,00.html
>
> I couldn't find the video clip, but I assume it will appear online
> sometime today.
>
> I hope they can get it flying again soon.

[James Robinson]

I found some photos of the resulting damage. There are also some
comments at the bottom of the page that suggest the screw jacks failed,
as they are both broken in half:

http://www.beechcraft.org/b17-accident/

Also a link to the local TV station video:

http://tinyurl.com/2njqf

[James Robinson]

muff528 wrote:
>
> Also I wonder if it's possible that on the Aluminum Overcast only
> one gear "really" failed and the other then collapsed because of
> unusual stresses. ?

Anything's possible, but as I recall from the video, the aircraft
flopped down on the runway as a result of something happening to both
gear at the same time. You'd think if one failed, that the other would
hold things up for a time before failing itself. I don't recall that
happening. However, I only saw the video once, and might be mistaken.

[Jay Honeck]

Thanks for the links -- sickening though they were.

Boy, both gear just COLLAPSE -- apparently without any provocation. It sure
makes you wonder what could cause such a thing.

It going to require tearing down all four engines, four 3-blade props, and
untold hours rebuilding/replacing the ball and nose turrets to get that
beautiful old bird flying again. What a shame.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"James Robinson" > wrote in message
...
> I found some photos of the resulting damage. There are also some
> comments at the bottom of the page that suggest the screw jacks failed,
> as they are both broken in half:
>
> http://www.beechcraft.org/b17-accident/
>
> Also a link to the local TV station video:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2njqf

[G. Burkhart]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Buff5200 wrote:
> >
> > I watched the crash video frame-by-frame.
>
> Got a URL?

Try this...
http://kcbs.dayport.com/launcher/2643/

It was listed on here...
http://cbs2.com/video/

[Ben Jackson]

In article <d4dnc.7165$536.1423430@attbi_s03>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>It going to require tearing down all four engines,

Are you really worried about a catastrophic failure when you've got
3 other engines?

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
James Robinson > wrote:

> I found some photos of the resulting damage. There are also some
> comments at the bottom of the page that suggest the screw jacks failed,
> as they are both broken in half:
>
> http://www.beechcraft.org/b17-accident/
>
> Also a link to the local TV station video:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2njqf

It is more likely that the screw jacks failed as a result of an
inadvertant throwing of the retraction switch. It isn't the first time
that has happened, and probably not the last!

[Jay Honeck]

> Are you really worried about a catastrophic failure when you've got
> 3 other engines?

Are you saying that they won't have to tear down those engines?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dale]

In article <PFqnc.57728$kh4.3413686@attbi_s52>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:


> Are you saying that they won't have to tear down those engines?

I don't know about the Aluminum Overcast engines but the Nine O Nine hit
a runway sign (one of those big lighted ones made of heavy aluminum) at
Long Beach a couple of years ago with the #2 prop putting a little ding
in the prop. They dressed the prop and checked the crankshaft runout
and the FAA blessed 'em to keep flying...no teardown. Granted, the gear
collapse did more damage to the prop, but when the 909 hit she was still
at a pretty good power setting.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Jay Honeck]

> I don't know about the Aluminum Overcast engines but the Nine O Nine hit
> a runway sign (one of those big lighted ones made of heavy aluminum) at
> Long Beach a couple of years ago with the #2 prop putting a little ding
> in the prop. They dressed the prop and checked the crankshaft runout
> and the FAA blessed 'em to keep flying...no teardown. Granted, the gear
> collapse did more damage to the prop, but when the 909 hit she was still
> at a pretty good power setting.

I'm no mechanic, but looking at the video I would think that the weight of
the plane coming down on those prop blades, imparting such a bending force
on the prop hubs, would require a tear down.

Not to mention the cowlings being crushed into the bottom row of cylinders,
and the exhaust system being broken off.

Did 909's engine actually stop when it hit the sign, or did it keep running?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Buff5200]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>Buff5200 wrote:
>
>
>>I watched the crash video frame-by-frame.
>>
>>
>
>Got a URL?
>
>
Sorry, no URL, just TiVo.

>
>

[MLenoch]

>I'm no mechanic, but looking at the video I would think that the weight of
>the plane coming down on those prop blades, imparting such a bending force
>on the prop hubs, would require a tear down.

Being radial engines, the situation is different. They may indeed not require
an overhaul, but rather only an inspection. Because the engines 'hit' at low
r.p.m., there may not be any damage. This has happened before on similar
nose-overs stoppage of T-6/SNJ aircraft engines. The engine shops call the
shots on the requirements usually.
VL

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:NLenc.1443$pY1.126737@attbi_s51...
> In article <d4dnc.7165$536.1423430@attbi_s03>,
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
> >
> >It going to require tearing down all four engines,
>
> Are you really worried about a catastrophic failure when you've got
> 3 other engines?
>
On a 747 flight to Europe, the pilot came on the PA and said "Folks, we've
lost an engine, but we have three other engines, so it will merely take
another hour to reach our destination.". Later he comes on again and says,
"Folks we've lost another engine, so it'll take two more hours." Still later
he comes on and says "Folks, we've lost another engine, so now it'll take
four more hours." A little old lady in back of the plane spouts out "Boy, if
we lost another engine were going to be up here ALL DAY!"

[Rick Durden]

George,

CAF is already saying the copilot pulled the gear up when he went for
the flaps, despite being told to keep his hands off the flap switch
until off the runway. On that B-17 the switches are within inches of
each other and the gear switch is not guarded.

Shades of the old Bonanzas.

sigh

All the best,
Rick

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> Pat wrote:
> >
> > James Robinson > wrote in message >...
> > > The B-17 bomber owned by the Experimental Aircraft Assn. was damaged
> > > yesterday at Van Nuys airport when its main gear collaped.
> > >
> >
> > Am I the only one who finds it a bit "suspicious" that both main gear
> > collapsed on this bird? If I recall correctly, they are two
> > independant systems. The common link would be in the cockpit... right
> > next to the flaps switch.
>
> According to the Pilot Training Manual, the gear activation switch is located between
> the recognition light switches and the landing light switches. It is not particularly
> close to the flap switch. The flap switch is isolated, is not part of a row of
> switches (as is the gear switch), and it has side guards to make it easy to
> differentiate between it and other controls. Personally, I think the LG switch should
> be the one that's isolated and guarded, but ....
>
> > Anyone else think that perhaps the gear
> > were inadvertantly retracted (pilot attempting to retract flaps)
> > rather than a mechanical failure...???
>
> I doubt it. I think an electrical problem is much more likely on a 60 year old plane.
>
> George Patterson
> If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Rick Durden > wrote:
>
>CAF is already saying the copilot pulled the gear up when he went for
>the flaps, despite being told to keep his hands off the flap switch

I just went through some mail and realized that on the day of the gear
collapse I got two fliers for this summer's Aluminum Overcast tour. I
guess I don't need to add those dates to my calendar. :(

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Not to mention the cowlings being crushed into the bottom row of cylinders,
> and the exhaust system being broken off.

Because the gear doesn't completely retract, the cowlings can't ever hit the ground
on a B-17. This is also the case with the DC-3. Looking at the damage photos, the
cowlings appear to be intact.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Jay Honeck]

> Being radial engines, the situation is different. They may indeed not
require
> an overhaul, but rather only an inspection. Because the engines 'hit' at
low
> r.p.m., there may not be any damage.

That is indeed great news!

Thanks for sharing the wisdom, Vlado.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> On a 747 flight to Europe, the pilot came on the PA and said "Folks, we've
> lost an engine, but we have three other engines, so it will merely take
> another hour to reach our destination.". Later he comes on again and says,
> "Folks we've lost another engine, so it'll take two more hours." Still
later
> he comes on and says "Folks, we've lost another engine, so now it'll take
> four more hours." A little old lady in back of the plane spouts out "Boy,
if
> we lost another engine were going to be up here ALL DAY!"

*groan*

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

Putting it simply, "Something broke." Rapid drop to the ground. Too bad. I
have flown on her. I hope they get her back in the air.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.677 / Virus Database: 439 - Release Date: 5/5/2004

[atis118]

This was a real shame...I was back from a two hour training flight and
was in the traffic pattern when this happened. The tower controller
announced that there was a B-17 on two mile final for 16R so that we
could all enjoy seeing this bird come in. I was abeam the B-17's
touchdown spot when she landed, from 1000' up I didn't see the gear
collapse, it just seemed to stop rolling very quickly. I had a feeling
something was up when all of us in the pattern were issued go-arounds,
Van Nuys has two runways, but they closed both for Emergency vehicle
access. After about 10 minutes I was cleared to land on the the other
runway and rolled past the B-17. I hope they can fix her up, she is
even more beautiful in person then on video.

Greg King
N2957F


James Robinson > wrote in message >...
> The B-17 bomber owned by the Experimental Aircraft Assn. was damaged
> yesterday at Van Nuys airport when its main gear collaped.
>
> From the videos on TV, you could see its tail wheel firmly on the
> ground, when the main gear retracted, and the aircraft dropped onto the
> runway. The crew must had had that sinking feeling about then. It slid
> perhaps 50 feet or so on its belly.
>
> The media seems to like to say it made a belly landing, or a rough
> landing, but it was apparent that it had already landed, and was simply
> completing the rollout, and was preparing to turn off when it happened.
>
> Anyway, here's a link to their web site, where they have a short
> description of the incident:
>
> http://www.b17.org/
>
> And a typical media story:
>
> http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2129868,00.html
>
> I couldn't find the video clip, but I assume it will appear online
> sometime today.
>
> I hope they can get it flying again soon.

[Big John]

Jay

In military if you hit a prop at idle you coudl put a new prop on and
check tracking, etc and then do an oil change and fly (over field) for
several hours (5 maybe) and land and chck the screens. If nothing in
screens they would release the engine back in service.

Forget the rpm that if you exceeded then it was an engine change
(maybe 1200????).

You of course ran the engine some on ground before flying it to
determine it's condition for test flight..

So on the '17 if the engines were in idle they might get away with
just prop repairs???? and sheet metal.

Long time ago in a land far away.

Big John

On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:49:35 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Are you really worried about a catastrophic failure when you've got
>> 3 other engines?
>
>Are you saying that they won't have to tear down those engines?

[Big John]

mlenoch

Should have read all the posts before I posted but you are 100%
correct.

Big John


On 09 May 2004 16:04:15 GMT, (MLenoch) wrote:

>>I'm no mechanic, but looking at the video I would think that the weight of
>>the plane coming down on those prop blades, imparting such a bending force
>>on the prop hubs, would require a tear down.
>
>Being radial engines, the situation is different. They may indeed not require
>an overhaul, but rather only an inspection. Because the engines 'hit' at low
>r.p.m., there may not be any damage. This has happened before on similar
>nose-overs stoppage of T-6/SNJ aircraft engines. The engine shops call the
>shots on the requirements usually.
>VL

[MLenoch]

>So on the '17 if the engines were in idle they might get away with
>just prop repairs???? and sheet metal.
>
>Long time ago in a land far away.
>
>Big John

John, not so far away. This is still done today. Hopefully this will be the
case for this B-17.
VL

[Big John]

mlenoch

Dollars to donuts they pulled the gear up. Looked like a 'classical'
inadvertent retraction.

Forget which bird, but flaps and gear controls were side by side and
not too different shaped. To prevent inadvertent retraction the rule
was you came to a full stop after clearing R/W and then looked down
and retracted the flaps. This pulling flaps up by feel while moving
was a invitation to disaster.

Big John


On 11 May 2004 00:11:32 GMT, (MLenoch) wrote:

>>So on the '17 if the engines were in idle they might get away with
>>just prop repairs???? and sheet metal.
>>
>>Long time ago in a land far away.
>>
>>Big John
>
>John, not so far away. This is still done today. Hopefully this will be the
>case for this B-17.
>VL

[Dale]

In article >,
Big John > wrote:


> Dollars to donuts they pulled the gear up. Looked like a 'classical'
> inadvertent retraction.
>
> Forget which bird, but flaps and gear controls were side by side and
> not too different shaped. To prevent inadvertent retraction the rule
> was you came to a full stop after clearing R/W and then looked down
> and retracted the flaps. This pulling flaps up by feel while moving
> was a invitation to disaster.

On the Fortress I was flying the gear and flap switches were both simply
toggle switches...with the gear switch being a "guarded" switch.
Procedure was at least two crew had to confirm your finger was on the
flap switch before activating.

Knowing the gear system I can't think of a reason/way for both to fail
together. Sad, but these things do happen.

Luckily they are tough old birds...the only limit to getting her in the
air will be money.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[William W. Plummer]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Big John > wrote:
>
>
> > Dollars to donuts they pulled the gear up. Looked like a 'classical'
> > inadvertent retraction.
> >
> > Forget which bird, but flaps and gear controls were side by side and
> > not too different shaped. To prevent inadvertent retraction the rule
> > was you came to a full stop after clearing R/W and then looked down
> > and retracted the flaps. This pulling flaps up by feel while moving
> > was a invitation to disaster.
>
> On the Fortress I was flying the gear and flap switches were both simply
> toggle switches...with the gear switch being a "guarded" switch.
> Procedure was at least two crew had to confirm your finger was on the
> flap switch before activating.
>
> Knowing the gear system I can't think of a reason/way for both to fail
> together. Sad, but these things do happen.
>
> Luckily they are tough old birds...the only limit to getting her in the
> air will be money.

Are there not "squat" switches that prevent the gear from being raised if
the plan is on the ground?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Rick Durden wrote:
>
> George,
>
> CAF is already saying the copilot pulled the gear up when he went for
> the flaps, despite being told to keep his hands off the flap switch
> until off the runway.

It's interesting then that as of this morning, the EAA's position is still "We are
using that new video to help us understand exactly what happened. Our emphasis,
naturally, is on the landing gear and discovering why it malfunctioned".

They seem to be a little slow getting the word.

Thanks,
George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> 1) Isn't the screw jack "sized" for air loads, with some sort of over
> center mechanism to handle the ground loads?

Thinking about it some more, you're probably right in a way. Although there isn't any
over-center mechanism, there would normally be little pressure on the screw mechanism
once that knee joint section straightens out. It's probably sized to keep the joint
straight and can't take the load when the joint begins to fold.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Dale]

In article <t74oc.69315$0H1.6524917@attbi_s54>,
"William W. Plummer" > wrote:


>
> Are there not "squat" switches that prevent the gear from being raised if
> the plan is on the ground?


Originally no, but on the 909 a squat switch had been added. It sets
low on the left gear leg, soaked in Wright radial oil <G> and I wouldn't
trust it for a second.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Robert M. Gary]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> James Robinson > wrote:

> It is more likely that the screw jacks failed as a result of an
> inadvertant throwing of the retraction switch. It isn't the first time
> that has happened, and probably not the last!

The 172 drivers may snicker but those of us that drive retracts will
never make comments about gear ups. (knocking on any piece of wood I
can find).

-Robert

[gatt]

"atis118" > wrote in message

>After about 10 minutes I was cleared to land on the the other
> runway and rolled past the B-17. I hope they can fix her up, she is
> even more beautiful in person then on video.

A B-17 itself going to be taken out by something as simple as a gear-up
landing; the issue will probably be whether they can afford to do so, and
whether they can insure it afterward.

Sad. Hell of a ride for the passengers. I was in the tail of the Evergreen
B-17 a few years ago when Portland tower cleared a commuter jet to land at
the perpendicular runway (28L). We came in over the river and the pilot
tried to throttle up and go around, but the ol' bird wasn't going to do it.
We cleared the intersection and then he locked the brakes. The left main
seized up and the airplane careened nearly off the side of the runway, the
tail feeling as if was going to come around, as the back filled with smoke
from the rear tire. I was raised by a B-17 vet, which made it strange.

The pilot--a 747 captain--wrestled the old hoss back onto the centerline and
brought it in none worse for the wear. Got the whole thing on video from
the tail gunner's position somewhere.

-c

[gatt]

"William W. Plummer" > wrote in message

> Are there not "squat" switches that prevent the gear from being raised if
> the plan is on the ground?

Not on a B-17.

-c

[gatt]

"Dale" > wrote in message news:me-

> Again, no "over center" lock. Yes, you can retract the gear on the
> ground. On the B-17 I flew there was a "weight on wheels" switch to
> prevent this but this was an add-on and might not be on all B-17s flying
> today.

The B-17 I was most recently involved with didn't have such a switch and the
engineer gave us specific warning not to bump the landing gear switch, ever.
(The master had to be on, but for safety we always assumed it was.)

-c

[G.R. Patterson III]

Rick Durden wrote:
>
> CAF is already saying the copilot pulled the gear up when he went for
> the flaps, despite being told to keep his hands off the flap switch
> until off the runway.

As of today, EAA still denies this. They state that videos indicate that the gear was
not completely down when the plane landed.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Dale]

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:


> As of today, EAA still denies this. They state that videos indicate that the
> gear was
> not completely down when the plane landed.

I guess that's possible. Would have to be a real good quality video
since you'd have to be able to see if the scissor is overcenter.

And, if they weren't down and locked the crew either wasn't doing their
job or their procedures were bad. You can look at the gear from the
cockpit and tell if it is locked down. That was our procedure on gear
extension...a visual check that the gear was down and locked.

And again, might odd that both gear suffered the same failure at the
same time since they are separate systems....only common thing being the
switch in the cockpit. And just because one gear fails there is no
reason for the "good" gear to collapse....lots of cases of B-17s landing
with only one gear down.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dale wrote:
>
> And again, might odd that both gear suffered the same failure at the
> same time since they are separate systems....only common thing being the
> switch in the cockpit.

Only thing I can think of is that both motors quit prematurely.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[gatt]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message .
>
> Only thing I can think of is that both motors quit prematurely.

Noticed that it looks like the ball turret remained intact. That's very
interesting.
My father's crew had a close call coming back from Gdynia, Poland in 1943
straight out of every B-17 movie made afterward; mains blown out by flak,
ball turret jammed, plane coming home low on fuel and they had crossed the
Wash before they managed to get the guy out; as soon as they landed, wheels
up, the PAO had them formed up in front of an undamaged airplane for a
photo.

Interesting to know that Fred Holt might have survived anyway.

-c

[G.R. Patterson III]

gatt wrote:
>
> Interesting to know that Fred Holt might have survived anyway.

Key word is "might". With "Aluminum Overcast", the gear collapse happened when the
plane was traveling at most 30 mph. I'd say there would probably be a big difference
if that turret hits the runway at about 90.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.