Historic B-17 Lost

[Randy]

AP – Smoke billows from a World War II-era B-17 bomber after it burned following an emergency landing in a …
– Mon Jun 13, 6:21 pm ET
OSWEGO, Ill. – A World War II bomber made what appeared to be an emergency landing in a cornfield Monday and all seven people on board escaped before it was consumed by fire, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.
"The plane departed the airport, noted an emergency and the pilot made what appears to be an emergency landing, after which the plane was consumed by fire," FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory said in an email. None of the passengers were injured.
The accident happened right after the plane took off from the Aurora Municipal Airport and the plane landed in an Oswego cornfield outside Chicago, Cory said. The National Transportation Safety Board is now investigating the incident.
Jim Barry, who lives in a nearby subdivision, told the Chicago Tribune he heard a low-flying plane and looked to see it. The engine on the bomber's left wing was on fire, he said.
"Not a lot of flames, just more smoke than flames," Barry said.
The pilot reported a fire shortly after taking off, Sugar Grove Fire Chief Marty Kunkle said.
"He attempted to make a return to the airport, but couldn't make it so he put it down in a corn field," Kunkel told the Chicago Sun-Times.
Firefighters from Oswego, Sugar Grove and Plainfield responded to the scene. Fire officials said they were having difficulty getting to the aircraft because of wet fields.
The B-17 Flying Fortress was made in 1944. Authorities say it is registered to the Liberty Foundation in Miami.
An email to the Liberty Foundation from The Associated Press seeking confirmation wasn't immediately returned.

[Randy]

Here's another photo. It was called the Liberty Belle.

[Randy]

[olroy2044]

It is amazing that the crew walked away from that crash landing. It is a testament to the sturdy design and forgiving flight characteristics of the B-17 that this happened a lot during the war, when these aircraft made it home when literally shot to pieces. I am saddened by the loss of a valuable artifact, but at the end of the day, it was a mechanical object, but the people it brought safely to land are priceless.

I have seen that aircraft at airshows, and probably have photos of it in the vast land of "Somewhere."

Roy

[mickeyobe]

It is sad.
Yet another piece of history has vanished from view.

I wonder if it might not be wise to take one airplane of every make and model that still survives in whatever country it may be and ground it permanently. Preserve it as a precious, irreplaceable artifact of our history.

I am glad the crew survived.

Mickey

[photax]

I`ve seen it at the evening news, truly a sad story. But thank godness the passengers walked away unhurt. Yesterday a Good-Year blimp cought fire in the air somewhere in Germany. The pilot managed to get it 2 meter over the ground, so the 5 passengers could jump down, they survived without injuries. Because of the weight loss, the blimp climbed very fast and finally burned up totally. The pilot dies, I think that he is a hero.

MIK

[daveh]

Certainly some fire. It is good the crew and passengers all escaped although it's sad news of the pilot in Germany. It was definitely a heroic act on his part. I'm sure the same is true of the pilot (and other) of the B17. I suppose it's just the luck of the draw who escapes unhurt and who doesn't in situations like these.

[PeterW]

Sad to lose an historic aeroplane, but good that the crew survived. Thankfully it wasn't over an urban area.

Mickey,
Your sentiment about preserving an example of every aircraft is a nice one but not, I'm sorry to say, a very practical one for many reasons.

A major one is cost. Setting up and maintaining a museum of any sort is a very expensive business, with the day to day running costs of an aircraft museum probably greater than many if only because of the space and number of staff needed.

Almost all "advanced" industrialised countries have a number of museums or heritage centres wholly or partly funded by the national government or by local government. Others including some large so-called third-world countries have huge game reserves or national parks where wild life can live and roam in their natural habitat.

All these things cost money, and in times of recession and cuts in public spending such places rank lower in the funding stakes than money spent on the health, housing and general standard of living of the people.

Then, not everyone is interested in aircraft. So why not have the same mandatory preservation of the "last survving" model of car, bus, fire engine, railway locomotive, rail rolling stock, ship, steam engine, printing press, radio, television, computer, clock, watch and, indeed, camera? The list is almost endless.

All these things, and many more, have their enthusiasts and, in many cases, small "Enthusiast Society" museums staffed by volunteer members of the Society.

Once preservation and display became mandatory and not voluntary I fear that much of the unpaid selfless labour would fade away, and the museums with it.

PeterW

[olroy2044]

Being the inquisitive sod that I am I looked up the website of the group that owned and operated the downed B-17. It appears that while it was definitely an "emergency" landing, it was far from being a "crash" landing. It was a controlled and on-speed landing that was accomplished successfully. Take a look at this link for (as Paul Harvey used to say) "the rest of the story." It is enlightening!

www.libertyfoundation.org/index.html

Roy

[olroy2044]

Setting up and maintaining a museum of any sort is a very expensive business, with the day to day running costs of an aircraft museum probably greater than many if only because of the space and number of staff needed.

I can definitely speak to the truth of that statement, Peter. As museums go, ours here in Chico is quite small. Our outdoor display area covers less than an acre of ground. In that small area we have several aircraft on static display. None are currently flying, although some need only to be serviced and inspected, and they could be flown. All are exposed to the elements, as there is no hanger space available, and no money to pay for it if it were. When foul weather approaches, there is a concerted team effort that takes place to check all the tie-downs, cover the aircraft with tarps, make sure that canopies and cockpits are secure, and control surfaces locked. Even then, despite our best efforts, we have had aircraft damaged. It is only through dedicated volunteer efforts and donated materials and money that the damage is repaired.

Aircraft by nature are built of light-weight materials, and require constant upkeep to even keep them in decent condition for display, let alone maintain them in flying condition.

The only subsidy that we receive from a public entity (other than the obvious support of the USAF with the donation of the T-33 and the F-15 that is coming) is the rent-free use of the outdoor plot. This is prime ground, right at the base of the control tower. All they ask in return is that we supply the upkeep and maintenance, bear the cost of insurance, and keep the museum open to the public.

Roy

[nikonbob]

We saw both events on TV while traveling and can only say that at least the B-17 saw her end while doing what she was built to do, flying, instead of slowly rotting away in a field somewhere. I would also add that keeping an aircraft on static display is no guarantee of safety either. The CWH lost a few historic aircraft a number of years ago in a hanger fire and were just able to save the Lancaster from that same hanger.

The pilot of the Goodyear Blimp was a credit to his profession for being able to save his passengers lives. Unfortunately this was at the cost of his own.

Bob

[Deleted]

So sad. One of the highlights of my life has been a flight on a B-17. As to getting everyone down safely--that's the difference between the prop planes of 60-70 years ago and the aircraft of today. Very doubtful that you could put a modern jet aircraft of any size (well maybe an A-10) down in one piece on its wheels in a farm field. I suspect even an F15 fighter weighs more than a B-17 and lands at 200 mph.

Wayne

[grenouille]

Thought I'll share part of my past here. The nearest I got to see a flying fortress is one of its undercarriage. Must have been in 44.
My dad with me and some of the residents in our area went to a field nearby where an undercarriage of the flying fortress was put on display by the Japanese occupying forces.

Hye