B-17G Liberty Belle (SN 44-85734) destroyed at air show

[helolumpy]

The reports say everyone got out OK with no injuries, which is good, but the aircraft is destroyed.

http://www.examiner.com/general-avi...s-shortly-after-takeoff-from-aurora-municipal

This website says there are (were) 15 B-17's left that are airworthy, that number is now down to 14... http://www.johnweeks.com/b17active/index.html

This link has pictures of the crashed aircraft.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20110613/news/706139928/photos/

 

[KBayDog]

Shitty. She'd visit Gillespie from time to time; it was always a pleasure to see her flying overhead. Everyone would run outside to catch a glimpse of her.

 

[statesman]

Glad every one got out... but thats a tragedy.

 

[yak52driver]

I was supposed to fly formation off of her at an airshow at Wright-Patterson a week from Friday. What a loss, but I'm glad everyone got out okay.

 

[Redux]

Shame, I'm glad it wasn't a Liberator.....even fewer of them around.

 

[Brunes]

Glad that everyone got out safe....but seeing the news footage of the wreckage sucked....Such a shame to lose a treasure like that.

 

[BusyBee604]

Shitty. She'd visit Gillespie from time to time; it was always a pleasure to see her flying overhead. Everyone would run outside to catch a glimpse of her.

I lived in Mesa, AZ for 25 years prior to moving to SanDogg in '06. My house was abuut 1/2 mile east of Mesa's Falcon Field, where B-17G "Sentimental Journey" is (was) owned & flown on the airshow circuit by the CAF. When the wind was right the takeoff/landing pattern brought her right over my pad at 500-1000 ft. No mistakin', you could hear that sweet unique engine roar especially on departure. NEVER heeard of any noise complaints either! Majestic flying history book.:hot_anima

About 10 years or so ago, she was badly damaged when she ran off a runway (somewhere?, not Mesa). Took several years of repair & mucho fundraising, but she finally came back and resumed her show appearances. Was still going strong in '06.:icon_hamm
BzB

 

[Sapper!]

I'm no aviator but i think it even more saddening that it looks like he landed it just fine, which I'm assuming is pretty difficult and dangerous. Then it burns up anyway.....life is far more important, it just seems like he was close yet still so far.

I had no idea the maint costs were that high either! Like the article said another feat of keeping the aircraft going was the financial arm of the whole project!

 

[HeyJoe]

Equally tragic and perhaps even more heartbreaking after so many years of effort to rescue this very rare bird

 

[jmcquate]

She was probably in the best condition of all of the Fortresses still flying. She got her crew safe back on the ground one more time.

 

[Pugs]

A few more details.

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

 

[Cron]

A few more details.

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

"There were high hopes that the fire would be extinguished quickly and the damage would be repairable. Those hopes were diminished as the fire trucks deemed the field too soft to cross due to the area’s recent rainfall. So while standing by our burning B-17 and watching the fire trucks parked at the field’s edge, they sadly watched the wing fire spread to the aircraft’s fuel cells and of course, you all have seen the end result. "

YGBSM...

 

[GroundPounder]

"There were high hopes that the fire would be extinguished quickly and the damage would be repairable. Those hopes were diminished as the fire trucks deemed the field too soft to cross due to the area’s recent rainfall. So while standing by our burning B-17 and watching the fire trucks parked at the field’s edge, they sadly watched the wing fire spread to the aircraft’s fuel cells and of course, you all have seen the end result. "

YGBSM...

I'll preface my comment s with the obvious disclaimer that I don't know all the ins and outs of the fire service, only what I have been able to observe by being in law enforcement for 21 years. I realize that there are reasons for what they do that I am ignorant of.

The fire service appears to have taken risk avoidance to higher and higher levels, with just this type of outcome. I remember in the past that firemen were much more likely to enter and extinguish a fire, whereas now they seem to be more concerned with keeping the fire from spreading to nearby buildings. Obviously you need to factor in personal danger when it comes to employing fireman, but in the end the job entails some danger that is unavoidable.

In this case, what is the worst that could have happened, the firetruck gets stuck?

 

[scoolbubba]

I'll preface my comment s with the obvious disclaimer that I don't know all the ins and outs of the fire service, only what I have been able to observe by being in law enforcement for 21 years. I realize that there are reasons for what they do that I am ignorant of.

The fire service appears to have taken risk avoidance to higher and higher levels, with just this type of outcome. I remember in the past that firemen were much more likely to enter and extinguish a fire, whereas now they seem to be more concerned with keeping the fire from spreading to nearby buildings. Obviously you need to factor in personal danger when it comes to employing fireman, but in the end the job entails some danger that is unavoidable.

In this case, what is the worst that could have happened, the firetruck gets stuck?

Yea. Sucks. Someone made a judgement call that it wasn't worth risking their truck getting stuck or damaged to try and stop what boils down to property loss, even if it is priceless.

It is what it is, but I'd be willing to bet if the plane didn't ground roll when they put it down on 2 tires, a fire truck would probably make it across the field fine.

 

[LFDtoUSMC]

I'll preface my comment s with the obvious disclaimer that I don't know all the ins and outs of the fire service, only what I have been able to observe by being in law enforcement for 21 years. I realize that there are reasons for what they do that I am ignorant of.

The fire service appears to have taken risk avoidance to higher and higher levels, with just this type of outcome. I remember in the past that firemen were much more likely to enter and extinguish a fire, whereas now they seem to be more concerned with keeping the fire from spreading to nearby buildings. Obviously you need to factor in personal danger when it comes to employing fireman, but in the end the job entails some danger that is unavoidable.

In this case, what is the worst that could have happened, the firetruck gets stuck?

I can’t speak to the ARFF guys. I wish they would have gone out there and put the fire out.

I can however speak to structural firefighting.

Both building construction and building contents (the fireload) have changed significantly over the last 30 years. Older stick built houses will stand up to fire longer than newer lightweight construction. Why use lightweight wood frame construction? Simple, it’s cheap. Nothing more, nothing less. Why do older houses stand up longer? The way they are put together. Older houses are constructed out of true 2x4 or larger dimension lumber and either nailed or screwed together. New construction uses smaller dimension lumber, lots of laminates, glues, and gang nails. A lot of the glues and laminates will begin to delaminate prior to having fire impinge them.

The simple version. Think of an old house as a big log on a fire. Think of a new house as a small log on a fire. Which burns quicker? The small one. And when the house falls down, we die. And to be honest. My first priority is going home in the morning to my family.

What about old houses you ask. Well, we fill those with much more stuff and we used to, and its different materials. Same as newer construction, lots of glues and laminates and plastics. They burn faster, hotter and with more dangerous smoke. These fires flash a whole lot faster. Usually before we even arrive.

Example:

If you have any questions. Feel free to ask. Finally something I can speak to on this board.