Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

and other stuff up in the air
tankanic
G-Sergeant Major
G-Sergeant Major
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 6:41 am
Location: Kentucky

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by tankanic » Mon Oct 21, 2019 10:57 am

NTSB also reported that the flaps were in the retracted position. I am not a pilot, and maybe I don't understand the terminology, but retracted flaps means the flaps were not in the correct landing position making it much harder to produce enough lift at a low speed, correct?
from the article:
The landing gear was extended and measurement of the left and right wing flap jackscrews corresponded to a flaps retracted setting,” the NTSB reports. Overall control continuity was established by NTSB investigators at the scene.
M29
M5A1
M18
M16A1


Wolfman
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 6863
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:25 am
Location: Tipton,In.

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by Wolfman » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:41 am

You are correct, Tank. On a normal landing, the flaps are extended to help increase lift at the lower approach speeds. This would be with full available engine power to counteract the drag created by extended flaps and keep the approach airspeed up.
In 909's case. They were short on engine power and coming in low and short of the runway, so the flaps were left up, to keep induced drag low, to try and extend the approach and make the runway.
Another factor I thought of, that may have played into this. The aircraft was slowing down in an attempt to stretch the approach. The slower the aircraft got, the less effective the rudder was getting and at the last, the pilots may not have been able to keep the aircraft lined up with the runway. Most of the thrust was being developed on the left side.
Still speculation on my part.
Hope that answers your question, Tank.
Mike Wolford
CJ-2A
VEP GPW
Comm./Inst. SEL
AOPA ( 50 yrs)
EAA ( 49 yrs)
4th Inf. Div. - 5th Inf. Div. - 2nd Armor Div. - CIB

tankanic
G-Sergeant Major
G-Sergeant Major
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 6:41 am
Location: Kentucky

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by tankanic » Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:39 am

So you think the flaps were intentionally left retracted? I guess that makes sense to reduce drag and once they were about to touch down, extend the flaps? I figured once they were that close 2 or 3 engines wouldn't have made much of a difference, they could have glided in. either way, what a terrible loss. I had the opportunity to fly on Aluminum Overcast about 5 years ago and it was one of the most exciting things I have ever done.
M29
M5A1
M18
M16A1

Wolfman
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 6863
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:25 am
Location: Tipton,In.

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by Wolfman » Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:36 am

That would be my guess. But that brings up another question.
If they were low and losing power, why would they fly a standard or extended landing pattern ??
The report said they were in, and never left a standard, right hand pattern.
In the situation they were in, shortening the down wind leg of the pattern, to keep the base leg closer to the approach end of the runway and with a short final approach would have been better, in my opinion. Once you lose altitude with little or no power, it is gone. Not like they were trying to lose altitude.
The report said they hit approach lights 1000 ft. short and hit the ground 300 ft. short of the end of the runway. Sounds like they flew a std. approach.
?????
Glad you enjoyed the flight in Aluminum Overcast.
Mike Wolford
CJ-2A
VEP GPW
Comm./Inst. SEL
AOPA ( 50 yrs)
EAA ( 49 yrs)
4th Inf. Div. - 5th Inf. Div. - 2nd Armor Div. - CIB

Av8er
G-Command Sergeant Major
G-Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:28 pm
Location: New Windsor, NY, USA

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by Av8er » Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:35 am

Wolfman wrote:
Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:36 am
That would be my guess. But that brings up another question.
If they were low and losing power, why would they fly a standard or extended landing pattern ??
The report said they were in, and never left a standard, right hand pattern.
In the situation they were in, shortening the down wind leg of the pattern, to keep the base leg closer to the approach end of the runway and with a short final approach would have been better, in my opinion. Once you lose altitude with little or no power, it is gone. Not like they were trying to lose altitude.
The report said they hit approach lights 1000 ft. short and hit the ground 300 ft. short of the end of the runway. Sounds like they flew a std. approach.
?????
Glad you enjoyed the flight in Aluminum Overcast.
Educated guess. They started out at 500 feet and were already down to 300 feet by mid-field downwind. So, they they had probably already traded some altitude for airspeed, no one would want to be at 300 feet on downwind by choice. They were also making right hand turns into two engines that were not producing any power, which you would normally try to avoid, so they were likely trying to making wide turns to reduce drag and maintain airspeed. As you said, once they lost the airspeed they weren’t going to get it back, and there was no option of going around. They likely ran out of airspeed and altitude.

Here is a link to the EAA training manual which discusses two and three engine approaches. Both procedures call for flaps at 1/3 before turning base leg. Apparently, the flaps were retracted. So, why would a highly experienced crew ignore the procedure, or was there another reason the flaps were not extended? Hopefully, the NTSB investigation will explore the lift/drag and stall speed characteristics for the flap settings. On most aircraft the minimum flap settings provide more lift than drag along with reducing the stall speed.

https://www.eaa.org/~/media/files/eaa/f ... manual.pdf
1943 Ford GPW #113639 USA-20385133
1943 RIA M3A4 Hand Cart

Wolfman
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 6863
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:25 am
Location: Tipton,In.

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by Wolfman » Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:54 am

That is quite a link, AV8r. Did not realize it was available. All 150 plus pages.
I admit, I did not read the whole thing.
Maybe I can get back to it on a cold winter day, with a fresh pot of coffee. Looked like some really interesting stuff ! At least to me. 8)
My guess it is above the non-flying folks head.
Mike Wolford
CJ-2A
VEP GPW
Comm./Inst. SEL
AOPA ( 50 yrs)
EAA ( 49 yrs)
4th Inf. Div. - 5th Inf. Div. - 2nd Armor Div. - CIB

User avatar
Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 26829
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Jeep Heaven

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by Chuck Lutz » Tue Oct 29, 2019 12:28 pm

In all those WWII videos of returning B17s all shot up on two engines (especially on the same wing), they appear to pretty much have a straight in approach dialed in as the near the airport and they had enough altitude to make it to the runway. I would have to believe that trying to turn a four-engine plane around for an emergency landing with so little altitude was the heart of the problem. While setting "flaps UP" would be SOP for this type of problem (not enough altitude to maneuver), they would have to drop a wing to make a tight turn thereby losing even more altitude.

This was a combination of things that started with engine #3 and went south from there....the flight engineer may be able to add to this chain of events...tragedy though for all aboard and their families watching from the tarmac.
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3-C 1947

GI.
Sergeant Major [E-9]
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:21 pm
Location: Marietta GA.

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by GI. » Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:22 pm

Chuck, You are right, from the many pic's we've all seen of the B-17's returning from bombing missions in WW-2 and the major battle damage some of them had, it's easy to see that a B-17 can fly with a lot of problems with the exception of one.
That's just the way it is. Sad.
67 M-151A1

User avatar
W. Winget
LTC, U.S. Army
LTC, U.S. Army
Posts: 4438
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 10:37 am
Location: USA, Virginia, Carrollton
Contact:

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by W. Winget » Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:36 am

Time was a big factor in WWII, after being hit, they had the "rest of the flight" (hours) to figure out the best way to keep it moving in the direction they wanted. The Collins crew had minutes...not enough time to read or thumb through the emergency procedures.
And factor in equipment near but off the runway, had it not been parked there.....
V/R W Winget
Looking for 1918 Standard B 'Liberty' truck parts

Cal.Bar
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 3:49 pm
Location:

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by Cal.Bar » Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:54 am

GI. wrote:
Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:22 pm
Chuck, You are right, from the many pic's we've all seen of the B-17's returning from bombing missions in WW-2 and the major battle damage some of them had, it's easy to see that a B-17 can fly with a lot of problems with the exception of one.
That's just the way it is. Sad.
Yep, and that's why my money is, in the end, going to be on pilot error.

User avatar
Tapper02
G-Major
G-Major
Posts: 837
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 12:59 am
Location: Collierville, TN
Contact:

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by Tapper02 » Thu Dec 24, 2020 3:02 pm

NTSB report is out:

https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=100356

Here are a couple of analytical videos...differing views on which engine was the failed one though:

Blancolirio channel
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3dD98IqEUk
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HNsQuLrOqg

FlyWire channel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3p-hGR3ZyY
1944 Autocar M3A1 Halftrack
1944 Schelm Bros. M10 Ammunition Trailer

MVPA # 30507

GPW1263
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:18 am
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by GPW1263 » Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:02 pm

Just a little anecdote to help keep things in perspective.

My wife and I eloped and were married on the 9-0-9, in the air, in WWII uniforms. Nuptials took place in the radio shack and we said "I Do" just as we broke through the cloud layer and into the sun.

After that and after touring the aircraft, we made our way to the Honeymoon Suite (the bombardier's position) and sat there through not one, but TWO power dives followed by TWO low-level high speed passes straight down the runway of San Antonio International while the tower kept the traffic in the pattern. We made multiple passes because apparently a lot of people didn't have their cameras ready. Quite a thrill in all respects.

My point is, there were people on that aircraft when it crashed and while the incident report will go into great detail about the whys and the wherefores, let us not forget those folks.

The 9-0-9 was a fine bird. Sad to find her gone. Sadder still about the loss of life.

Cheers,
GPW1263

jesse
G-Lieutenant Colonel
G-Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:26 am
Location: Albuquerque

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by jesse » Sun Dec 27, 2020 1:41 pm

The gasoline used in the planes during WWII produced a lot more power than todays LL100.

GPW1263
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:18 am
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by GPW1263 » Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:40 am

I will add to my earlier post. Aviation was always a big thing in our family and my hard-working father usually had more than one aircraft at a time so I have been in a variety of birds, from a lowly 1942 Meyers OTW to the slippery fast Mooney and quite a variety of Cessna aircraft and that doesn't include other aircraft we would rent or where my Dad would fly right seat in multi-engine stuff. Dad never rushed to get any aircraft off the ground. He had left high school after his junior year, joined the Army and had become a paratrooper. So, the idea of falling from a great height had been impressed upon him at a young age. From dipping the tanks for water (which, as a kid, was always my job and I never failed to get AvGas on me chiefly because I loved the smell of it) to running up the engine and checking those magnetos, there was always a very precise and methodical series of checks. If anything was amiss, we didn't go. End of story. Dad loved his life and loved his kids and safety always began BEFORE the engines came to life.

In the postmortem of the 909, testimony from persons having no interest in where, or upon whom blame might be placed, indicated that pre-flight procedures before that final take-off appeared to be something of a rushed job.

The day I was married on the 909 (many years ago) I recall listening and watching the preflight which took place at a normal pace. Once we loaded, I could even hear the pilot and co-pilot going over the preflight checklist...that is, until those big engines came to life and then all that could be heard was the rise and fall of RPMs as the mags were checked. I listened and even counted them off in my head because that was always a big marker for me as a kid riding with my father. With my father, mag checks always took place at the intersection of the taxiway; at the end of the runway, just before we rolled. Fremont Progress Airport had an exceptionally long runway and taxiing down there was always a long and boring stroll. Why taxi all the way to the end? Because, why waste valuable recovery space if the bottom falls out. Why do mag checks at the end of the runway? Because a lot of bad things can happen between the hangar and take-off.

A lot went wrong in the 909 scenario and it began even before the wheels started turning, according to the report. Whether you are earth bound or have wings to fly there's an important lesson in this for all of us.

Cheers,
GPW1263

Tim Shanteler
G-Second Lieutenant
G-Second Lieutenant
Posts: 510
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:20 pm
Location: Tyngsboro, MA

Re: Collins Nine O Nine Crashes at Bradley

Post by Tim Shanteler » Mon Dec 28, 2020 9:19 am

Nice post.
Tim

1945 WC-57 81674456
1944 WC-52 81750129
1945 MB 430629
1943 Ford GPW133609
1943 Ben Hur 0347395 (Gertstenlager)


Post Reply

Return to “Warbirds - Wanted, For Sale (NO AUCTION or EBAY) and Knowledge Base”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests