- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: B-17 collides/crashes with another plane at Dallas air show.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 3:23 pm to Adam4LSU
Posted on 11/14/22 at 3:23 pm to Adam4LSU
So at what point do they limit the flying time of these old birds? This particular B17 seems to have flown a lot from the discussions on here.
There's only so many left and this is the second airworthy B17 to be destroyed in the past ten years or so.
There's only so many left and this is the second airworthy B17 to be destroyed in the past ten years or so.
1
Posted on 11/14/22 at 3:27 pm to BuckyCheese
From Wiki:
I think those numbers don't account for the accident yesterday.
My guess is they'll keep flying them as long as they are airworthy. The accident yesterday had nothing to do with airworthiness.
quote:
Today, 45 planes survive in complete form, including 38 in the United States. Nine are airworthy.
I think those numbers don't account for the accident yesterday.
My guess is they'll keep flying them as long as they are airworthy. The accident yesterday had nothing to do with airworthiness.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 3:34 pm to wallowinit
quote:
The accident yesterday had nothing to do with airworthiness.
Have no idea why you think anything in my comment concerned this planes airworthiness and any role played in it's destruction.
The point is, there is a declining number of flyable examples due to crashes. Are those put in charge of maintaining these historical artifacts considering this or will they keep flying them into the ground?
The more often they fly, the more likely a bad ending occurs.
Like I said, this is the second flyable B17 destroyed in around ten years.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 3:36 pm to BuckyCheese
What difference does it make if they are airworthy if you aren't going to fly them?
Whole point of remaining airworthy is to fly and show them off.
Whole point of remaining airworthy is to fly and show them off.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 3:37 pm to fightin tigers
Always the extremes around here. No middle ground.
I didn't say never fly them. I said fly them LESS often.
I didn't say never fly them. I said fly them LESS often.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 3:39 pm to BuckyCheese
Again, what is the point of maintaining them if you aren't going to fly them.
They could fly once a year and still have a failure that makes them crash. Fly them while there are still people dedicated to flying and seeing them.
They could fly once a year and still have a failure that makes them crash. Fly them while there are still people dedicated to flying and seeing them.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 3:40 pm to fightin tigers
quote:
Again, what is the point of maintaining them if you aren't going to fly them.
They could fly once a year and still have a failure that makes them crash.
Like talking to a wall.
And you have zero understanding of probabilities.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 3:47 pm to BuckyCheese
I get the probabilities, I'm asking what is the point of keeping it airworthy if you aren't going to fly it because you are scared to lose it?
You're saying, fly it, just fly it less like there is some magical amount where the risk is zero...which that is when they aren't flying.
Why would they fly them less? They are made to fly. There are plenty examples of grounded ones.
You're saying, fly it, just fly it less like there is some magical amount where the risk is zero...which that is when they aren't flying.
Why would they fly them less? They are made to fly. There are plenty examples of grounded ones.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:02 pm to fightin tigers
Agreed. These planes are privately funded to keep them airworthy. Airshows and Fly-in's are necessary for donations. These plans cost a lot of money to maintain in both crew and parts.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:30 pm to Adam4LSU
Like having a dime piece at home but you don't stick your dick in her.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:38 pm to Adam4LSU
quote:
These plans cost a lot of money to maintain in both crew and parts.
The more you fly them the more maintenance costs as well.
Rebuilding four Wright Cyclone radials isn't cheap. Let alone just the regular maintenance.
*It was being flown a lot because the guys that flew it liked to fly it. Period.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 4:56 pm to BuckyCheese
In automotive terms, no one likes a trailer queen. Cars were meant to be driven, planes were meant to be flown. I applaud the elite enthusiasts who have the means to keep them as such.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 5:05 pm to BuckyCheese
The b17 really had nothing to do with the accident other then being the unlucky one there. With multiple engines and the way they are flown I doubt it’s very dangerous really, I mean compared to the fighters of the era.
I still don’t really understand and no one in this thread has discussed it, but what the original and ‘safe’ plan was? It was some sort of organized fly by right? Or did the fighters just wing it for lack of a better term? I mean I get that the p63 couldn’t see the B17 but at the same time he should have never been in a situation and an air show where there was a plane like that in his blind spots. So how’d he get there?
I still don’t really understand and no one in this thread has discussed it, but what the original and ‘safe’ plan was? It was some sort of organized fly by right? Or did the fighters just wing it for lack of a better term? I mean I get that the p63 couldn’t see the B17 but at the same time he should have never been in a situation and an air show where there was a plane like that in his blind spots. So how’d he get there?
Posted on 11/14/22 at 5:21 pm to flyAU
As an aviation lover it pains me to say this, but these old birds need to start being enjoyed on the ground. They aren't safe anymore.
I've been to Redbird airport many times and that accident was dangerously close to happening in a populated area.
I've been to Redbird airport many times and that accident was dangerously close to happening in a populated area.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 5:31 pm to H2O Tiger
quote:
They aren't safe anymore.
Jesus….
Posted on 11/14/22 at 5:37 pm to jorconalx
This has nothing to do with it being an old plane - it got rammed by another plane.
I flew on a B-17 in 2018 and it was one of the highlights of my life. My grandad was a pilot in WW2 and getting to ride in one was an once in a lifetime experience.
The conversation needs to be how do we make sure air shows properly deconflict airspace so this never happens again not should we be flying them.
I flew on a B-17 in 2018 and it was one of the highlights of my life. My grandad was a pilot in WW2 and getting to ride in one was an once in a lifetime experience.
The conversation needs to be how do we make sure air shows properly deconflict airspace so this never happens again not should we be flying them.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 5:38 pm to H2O Tiger
quote:
As an aviation lover it pains me to say this, but these old birds need to start being enjoyed on the ground. They aren't safe anymore.
I've been to Redbird airport many times and that accident was dangerously close to happening in a populated area.
Wrong.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 5:44 pm to baldona
quote:
The b17 really had nothing to do with the accident other then being the unlucky one there.
No shite? Tell me more. (Point out where anything about a mech failure, or something else, of the B17 was even intimated)
It still ended up a flaming grease spot on the ground. To be enjoyed no longer.
*Concerning the "trailer queen" comparison. Sure, cars are meant to be driven and planes are meant to be flown. High dollar classic cars are not used as daily drivers however. And rare WWII planes shouldn't be used as amusement park rides.
This post was edited on 11/14/22 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 11/14/22 at 6:05 pm to baldona
quote:
So how’d he get there?
It’s been covered, the p-63 pilot lost situational awareness. He didn’t know where he was in relation to other aircraft.
You can plan all you want, but if there is a deviation in the execution, incidents like this will happen.
Posted on 11/14/22 at 6:42 pm to H2O Tiger
quote:
but these old birds need to start being enjoyed on the ground. They aren't safe anymore.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Page 12 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News