A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Aluminum Overcast" damaged by gear collapse



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 6th 04, 01:25 PM
James Robinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Aluminum Overcast" damaged by gear collapse

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/0,1...129868,00.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.
  #2  
Old May 6th 04, 09:42 PM
David H
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #3  
Old May 6th 04, 10:05 PM
HECTOP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This is THE Aluminum Overcast:
http://www.fairwings.net/modules.php...p=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/0,1...129868,00.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.



  #4  
Old May 7th 04, 12:54 AM
gatt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #5  
Old May 7th 04, 04:16 AM
MLenoch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #6  
Old May 7th 04, 01:01 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #7  
Old May 7th 04, 02:29 PM
MLenoch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #8  
Old May 7th 04, 03:05 PM
Pat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #9  
Old May 7th 04, 03:46 PM
Peter R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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










  #10  
Old May 7th 04, 03:49 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EAA's B-17 "Aluminum Overcast" Gear collapse at Van Nuys airport BlakeleyTB Home Built 4 May 8th 04 06:15 AM
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. Bart Hull Home Built 1 November 24th 03 03:46 PM
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. Bart Hull Home Built 2 November 24th 03 06:23 AM
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. Bart Hull Home Built 0 November 24th 03 04:52 AM
Aluminum vs Fiberglass landing gear - Pro's and cons. Bart D. Hull Home Built 0 November 22nd 03 07:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.