Restored WWII 'Liberty Belle' B-17 forced to land in cornfield, destroyed by fire

[Ought Six]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,5852034.story





Another priceless piece of history, gone.

[Sysiphus]

How awful - glad no one was hurt. Improperly seated fuel or oil line, perhaps?

[CanadaSue]

I read this in an online paper earlier today. I'll admit my eyes got misty. Bad enough we're losing our stalwart vets quickly now. To lose the still working kit they used is another irreplaceable loss.

I'm glad no one was killed.

[Glockd]

Chuck Yeager wrote an article a couple years back lamenting the loss of aircraft. It was called "Quit Wasting Warbirds" and it included his opinion that too many rich playboy types were buying surplus aircraft as a status symbol (aka Tom Cruise's purchase of a P-51 Mustang) and crashing them because of too little time, too much ego, etc. I wont claim that this is the cause here, but I do question the need to continue to fly these old girls on donated funds only. Are they making enough just to keep it in the air so some can strut around claiming "I fly a B-17" or "I rode in one once", rather than raising the money to insure the finest maintenance possible and flying far fewer flights? I don't know, but I would much rather pay a few bucks (as I have in the Conferderate Air Force's B-17 - and yes, it was the Conferderate Air Force when I toured) to crawl inside a static airframe hundreds of times rather than pay to see one once and have it crash the next day.

Fortunately, I have stood only feet away while those Wright Cyclones spooled up and she taxi'd past (another perk of my service time that I really miss - Airshows) but hearing those engines up close and seeing one roll out beats the hell out of never seeing one at all. Limit them all to engine run ups, short test flights and some high speed taxiing, before they are all gone. 15 year old me would beat the shit out of 43 year old me for even suggesting that, but the dwindling numbers speak for themselves.

[Ought Six]

Originally Posted by Glockd

Chuck Yeager wrote an article a couple years back lamenting the loss of aircraft. It was called "Quit Wasting Warbirds" and it included his opinion that too many rich playboy types were buying surplus aircraft as a status symbol (aka Tom Cruise's purchase of a P-51 Mustang) and crashing them because of too little time, too much ego, etc. I wont claim that this is the cause here, but I do question the need to continue to fly these old girls on donated funds only. Are they making enough just to keep it in the air so some can strut around claiming "I fly a B-17" or "I rode in one once", rather than raising the money to insure the finest maintenance possible and flying far fewer flights? I don't know, but I would much rather pay a few bucks (as I have in the Conferderate Air Force's B-17 - and yes, it was the Conferderate Air Force when I toured) to crawl inside a static airframe hundreds of times rather than pay to see one once and have it crash the next day.

Fortunately, I have stood only feet away while those Wright Cyclones spooled up and she taxi'd past (another perk of my service time that I really miss - Airshows) but hearing those engines up close and seeing one roll out beats the hell out of never seeing one at all. Limit them all to engine run ups, short test flights and some high speed taxiing, before they are all gone. 15 year old me would beat the shit out of 43 year old me for even suggesting that, but the dwindling numbers speak for themselves.

That is, of course, a long-time ongoing debate among those who preserve these aircraft. What I would like to see it people getting together to create exact reproductions (yes, I know how expensive that would be) so we can enjoy the 'flying history' without risking these irreplaceable historical artifacts.

[Auburn Boy]

It's a shame to lose the only flying items left. But as time goes by, it can hardly be helped.

Original spare parts are getting herder to find to rebuild them with these days..,