Aluminum Overcast bellied in at Van Nuys

[414Flyer]

I think I saw that plane flying yesterday. I was at the Santa Barbara tanker base, getting a load of retardant and fueling the plane, and saw a B-17 and B-24 fly over the field in formation at pattern altitude.

 

[captainv]

the plane can fly again, if they want it to. all it takes is time and money. and if there's one thing EAA has in abundance, it's vounteers willing to give their time.

Kermit Weeks had a B-17 in Homestead that got trashed by Hurrican Andrew. the winds picked it up and threw it 1/2 mile away. much more significant damage that Aluminum Overcast. it's taken half of forever, but Tom Reilly rebuilt it at his shop in Kissimmee....

 

[SteveR]

That plane will fly again. If they can rebuild fighters from just a data plate then you know if will be rebuilt.

Sure they CAN do it. You could build another 13,000 of them if you wanted, AND if you have the spare cash. It isn't as simple as cutting/machining a few ribs and spars. That thing has a LOT of damage, and there aren't spare parts B-17 scattered around the country like there are fighter parts. When they take a data plate and "rebuild" a fighter, they are really taking parts from a bunch of planes and putting them together. ALuminum Overcast will probably need enough parts fabricated to BUILD an entire P-51. Doable, but not easy, and far from cheap.

What they need to do is get Bill Gates interested. I swear, if I was Bill Gates, I would own half of the warbirds in existence.

 

[captainv]

When they take a data plate and "rebuild" a fighter, they are really taking parts from a bunch of planes and putting them together. ALuminum Overcast will probably need enough parts fabricated to BUILD an entire P-51. Doable, but not easy, and far from cheap.

i see your point, but we're not rebuilding a fighter from scratch here. this isn't a total rebuild. we're talking about engines, props mainly, plus some fairly minor damage from landing on its belly. this is a fully functional B-17 - shoot, they can probably fix the damage from the existing parts.

anybody been to Tom Reilly's museum at KISM? last time I went, he had a stack of twisted metal the size of a semi trailer. had a postcard of a P-38 sittting on it. the wreckage had been found on a tiny island off Alaska. they said it would take 2 years, $2.5 million to get her flying again. Amazing...

 

[FlightTraker]

Go to www.eaa.org and read on....if anyone has the resources to rebuild the aircraft, it is the EAA.



FlightTraker

 

[OtterFO]

The EAA does have the resources to rebuild the -17, Also the aircraft is insured. I dont know if they will be able to insure it after the rebuild though.


To answer the earlier question about the superchargers. As far as I know they are installed, but disabled.

 

[pilotyip]

Turbo chargers

I believe that there are only two B-17’s flying with original turbochargers. I fly one of those and it is the YAF’s Yankee Lady; the system works just like it did out of the factory. Set climb or cruise power and it maintains the Manifold Pressure setting as you change altitude or speed. It is like the first auto throttle.

 

[mudkow60]

Kinda' sadly ironic that the History Channel is having a show on the B-17 and its role in the European theater. Sometimes we (I) forget the men and machines that helped win the war, and it makes it even more sad when both are lost.

 

[AAsRedHeadedbro]

Until Monday morning at about 9:30 AM I had never seen a B-24 nor a B-17 fly. EVER!! I was on the 5 Freeway down near San Diego when I watched the B-24 fly over my head at about 1,000 feet. Right behind it, maybe a mile, was the B-17. I couldn't believe my eyes. Like I said, I'd never seen either of the types airborne, yet there they were. What a beautiful sight!

I was really stunned to see the video of the B-17 pop its gear up on the rollout. Sad.

I have no doubt that it will fly again.

 

[SteveR]

i see your point, but we're not rebuilding a fighter from scratch here. this isn't a total rebuild. we're talking about engines, props mainly, plus some fairly minor damage from landing on its belly. this is a fully functional B-17 - shoot, they can probably fix the damage from the existing parts.

I would say the most extensive damage is to the fuselage, and I doubt the damage is that minor. The fuselage and the wings absorbed nearly a 5' drop of 35,000+ lbs, there is going to be significant damage, and not just on the bottom of the plane. See those wings bounce? There is a good chance that cracked parts all through the wings...everything will have to be inspected. There is probably significant damage to the wings & their trusses, and they will have to tear the entire thing apart to ensure airworthiness. Fabricating all of those trusses, all of the ribs, etc., will take a huge amount of money.

Pictures of the B-17 I work on: http://www.wotelectronics.com/flying/B-17/

That is the bombay. Most likely, the entire structure in the bottom is demolished. Wing trusses are likely demolished also. Those parts will have to be fabricated or scavenged.

A lot of these structural members are probably toast:

The one thing that might save them a lot is that the tires stick out in the slip stream a little. That had to greatly lessen the blow to the structure. However, it also had to cause massive damage to the gear structure and everything around it when the plane fell. When the gear collapsed, all of those struts went somewhere they aren't supposed to be: