Jump to content

P-63 collides with a B-17 "Texas Raiders" over Texas


Teamski
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sis saw this half an hour ago and we've been sitting here looking. It was the "Texas Raiders" that crashed. So sad. For the people in it, for the people who had to see it, for the families, for the people having to deal with it . . . Praying for everyone. 

 

Sis and I got to see this plane about 15 years ago when it spent a week at our local tiny airport. We spent hours on board this plane while it was there for tours! So sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheCrustyBosun

Lord, have mercy. Absolutely horrific. Tremendously sad. This particular aircraft holds a special place in my heart. I’ve been watching Texas Raiders at shows since I was kid. Having grown up in Southeast Texas, I considered her our “local” B-17. She was my introduction to warbirds and the first one I ever crawled into. 
 

Oh, hear us when we lift our prayer, For those in peril in the air. Amen. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a needless waste.  The CAF website says there are only 5 airworthy B17s flying, now there's 4.   First saw the old Confederate Air Force 50 years ago at Transpo '72 at Dulles.  They had a few fatalities at that air show, notably one of the Air Force Thunderbirds.  The pilot punched safely but winds blew his chute into the crash inferno.  I wonder how long the CAF operated this plane that crashed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheCrustyBosun
2 hours ago, aerialbridge said:

What a needless waste.  The CAF website says there are only 5 airworthy B17s flying, now there's 4.   First saw the old Confederate Air Force 50 years ago at Transpo '72 at Dulles.  They had a few fatalities at that air show, notably one of the Air Force Thunderbirds.  The pilot punched safely but winds blew his chute into the crash inferno.  I wonder how long the CAF operated this plane that crashed. 

CAF has owned and operated the aircraft since 1972. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like the B-17 was flying dead straight along with some others and the Kingcobra just comes down right into the tail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I blame the air boss as much as the pilot.  If you watch the spectator view video, you will see that the P-63 was following another fighter across the flight path of the B-17.  This should have never happened and that comes down to the flight planning of the event.  That P-63F was one of only two ever built.  The B-17 was one of the few airworthy.  Both lost because of complacency.

 

-Ski

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Teamski said:

I blame the air boss as much as the pilot.  If you watch the spectator view video, you will see that the P-63 was following another fighter across the flight path of the B-17.  This should have never happened and that comes down to the flight planning of the event.  That P-63F was one of only two ever built.  The B-17 was one of the few airworthy.  Both lost because of complacency.

 

-Ski

In my opinion, this was a tragic loss and blame should not be placed without knowing the facts. 

 

..Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what a terrible accident - I pray for the families and hopefully because of this, I still hope they fly these beautiful pieces of our history.

my favorite picture from the reading air show - I hope the Yankee Lady WILL still fly!!

 

 

013.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time has come to reconsider flying many of these aircraft. The human loss aside, all too many irreplaceable aircraft are being lost. At least they could restrict it to one plane in the air at a time instead of so many buzzing about together. The P63 pilot seems to have lost sight of the 17 on his turn radius, or else he had another problem.

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By looking at the footage, the P63 was going too fast and descending on the turn. Bad traffic control and/or pilot judgement from the looks of it. He must have seen the 17 before getting so close that he could not see under him. Was he trying to follow the P51 that passed over just previously? We may never know for sure. What a horrible shame. This did not have to happen.

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tragic! It was like watching the Challenger explode all those years ago. Prayers to the families and friends. We have an airshow in Geneseo, NY yearly and I remember once, probably in the '70s, they had 8 or 9 flying B-17's. I'll have to dig out my old movies. An amazing sight, never I imagine, to be seen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, everyone, wait for the facts before you all jump to conclusions.

I am gut punched just like everyone else.

It is easy to speculate, but consider the families before you start shooting from the hip.

I ask as pilot who has flown in over fifty airshows, please remember the loss and as for the rest…wait till all the facts are in.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TheCrustyBosun said:

CAF has owned and operated the aircraft since 1972. 

 

Darn,  Wonder if it flew at Transpo  which was 5/27- 6/4/72 and I saw it there 50 years ago?  I live not far from Fullerton Airport and get to see a lot of historic planes fly over my house.  Last week I was digging dirt in my yard and a beautiful formation of  4  WW2 training aircraft flew right over but I didn't have my cellphone.  Should have washed the dirt off and grabbed the cell because it flew right over again about 20 minutes later.   Of course, the second time,  genius ran inside and by the time I washed the clay off and grabbed the phone again and ran out, I got a nice pic of the blue sky.   4th of July our block party was treated to a B17, Spitfire, C-47 and a couple other types fly randomly fly over in loose formation.   Blame aside, somebody said they've lost 3  B17s the last few years.   Do they keep flying them as they did in this show until there are none?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, phantomfixer said:

It is not our responsibility to regulate these aircraft, that is between the aircraft owner/organization  and FAA….

 

I agree absoulutly with your statment. Having said that the cost of insurance and the maintence required will affect the viabilty of flying warbirds, as it should in a freemarket economy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Persian Gulf Command

In 1996 the USS Constitution had completed a multi-million-dollar restoration intended to restore the physical strength to the nearly 200-year-old warship.  In 1996 she set sale out of Boston Harbor and sailed to Marblehead, MA, essentially entering open water sailing downwind powered by her sails for the first time in 116 years. The trek lasted about an hour.  When USS Constitution was returned to her dock in Charlestown Navy Yard she was assessed, and it was discovered there was structural displacement of the beams in her hull. The U.S. Navy decided that it was best that the ship would remain in Boston Harbor and not venture out into open waters again.  Although USS Constitution sailed for ~15 minutes, downwind, in commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, she stayed in the Harbor.

 

The point I'm making here is these (Naval/Air) craft are not only rare (sometimes unique) but precious to our National Heritage. They need to be treated well and cared for with great prudence.  If someone wants to use them for acrobatic stunts or to provide the thrill of flying in such craft to the public, then please build replicas and use these modern versions for the thrill or experience. Anyone who feel this would be too expensive, I feel, is just confirming my intended summation!

 

 Case in point, I have two M1 Garands. One is a rebuilt example using a mixture of appropriate but different revision dated parts the other is a correct 1/43 rifle. I like to shoot but will only feed rounds to my rebuild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw they released the names of the guys who were in the crash. Said the pilot of the B-17 has been flying that B-17 with the CAF for 30 years. I bet he had more B-17 hours than a lot of WWII guys! Maybe not crammed like some of the WWII guys, but sure must be in the running!

 

Personally, I think it is amazing they still fly. I understand about their rarity and all, but there are a lot of B-17s on static display and being restored, compared with the few that are running. Ground the few, and you just add a few into the number of static ones. We saw "Texas Raiders" and "Sentimental Journey" twenty-odd years ago. got to see them fly, got to tour them on the ground. Actually, we heard "Sentimental Journey" from our house and thought it wasn't the norm two-seaters and commercial jets. Rushed outside and recognised the shape and the four of us jumped in the car and followed it all the way to the local airport where it was coming for a few days! You can see them in a museum, and you can watch them in movies, but experiencing them actually flying is like nothing you can ever put into words. So, I don't think I come down for not flying them anymore at all. I do think they could limit planes in the air. You could see another bomber way behind the B-17, and that seemed fine, as they couldn't possibly overtake the one in front. But I do think that cross-over flying probably could be dispensed with. Seeing that Kingcobra at the end - something must have happened or something. That plane should never have been that close and turning while losing that altitude when planes were coming in the opposite direction. So sad for everyone involved and impacted. Been praying for everyone ever since. And for all the people (and kids) who saw it. I mean, three seconds and the B-17 goes from flying straight and perfect to a fireball on the ground. Really brought it home about when you read about those bombers being shot down or losing their tails, etc during WWII. A lot faster than you tend to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they want to fly WW2 airplanes how about reproducing them and fly modern reproductions?

 

The originals can be maintained on the ground and preserved.

 

I can’t imagine what everyone concerned is going through, such a horrible thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Persian Gulf Command said:

In 1996 the USS Constitution had completed a multi-million-dollar restoration intended to restore the physical strength to the nearly 200-year-old warship.  In 1996 she set sale out of Boston Harbor and sailed to Marblehead, MA, essentially entering open water sailing downwind powered by her sails for the first time in 116 years. The trek lasted about an hour.  When USS Constitution was returned to her dock in Charlestown Navy Yard she was assessed, and it was discovered there was structural displacement of the beams in her hull. The U.S. Navy decided that it was best that the ship would remain in Boston Harbor and not venture out into open waters again.  Although USS Constitution sailed for ~15 minutes, downwind, in commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the War of 1812, she stayed in the Harbor.

 

The point I'm making here is these (Naval/Air) craft are not only rare (sometimes unique) but precious to our National Heritage. They need to be treated well and cared for with great prudence.  If someone wants to use them for acrobatic stunts or to provide the thrill of flying in such craft to the public, then please build replicas and use these modern versions for the thrill or experience. Anyone who feel this would be too expensive, I feel, is just confirming my intended summation!

 

 Case in point, I have two M1 Garands. One is a rebuilt example using a mixture of appropriate but different revision dated parts the other is a correct 1/43 rifle. I like to shoot but will only feed rounds to my rebuild.

 

I am a diehard B-17 enthusiast.. Was 13 when Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby rolled in to Dover AFB…I was able to see her during her first year at Dover 

 There has been discussions over the years about preserving these old war horses… 

These planes, the ones not in government museums and bases, no longer belong to the public, they are privately owned, most through non profits…. Often these planes are brought back to airworthiness mainly because of one man’s vision and life long commitment…..And are private property, operating under FAA regulations…it’s ok to have an opinion.. we all do … I’m sure most would understand if the owners voluntarily hangered their birds… but I don’t think they will.. nor should they have to

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, phantomfixer said:

 

I am a diehard B-17 enthusiast.. Was 13 when Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby rolled in to Dover AFB…

 There has been discussions over the years about preserving these old war horses… 

These planes, the ones not in government museums and bases, no longer belong to the public, they are privately owned, most through non profits…. Often these planes are brought back to airworthiness mainly because of one man’s vision and life long commitment…..And are private property, operating under FAA regulations…it’s ok to have an opinion.. we all do … I’m sure most would understand if the owners voluntarily hungered their birds… but I don’t think they will.. or should have to

 


Yep, it all comes down to personal property rights - whether anybody likes it or not, they “pay the cost to be the boss”.

 

And, I’d wager, if it wasn’t for their passion, incredible investment, and love for these beautiful gals, we’d conceivably have had zero airworthy B-17s for decades, and Mustangs, and Spitfires, etc...  
 

There are MANY that believe we should not be able to buy and sell medals, dog tags, uniforms, etc (“they belong in a museum”).  And we have conniptions every time that comes up.  
 

How can we take a position that they should not be flying these planes?  

 

One solution is to buy a flyable warbird and donate it to a museum for static display.  Please let me know where you send it, so I can maybe go see it…

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with everyone else, I was shocked by the tragic accident. RIP to those whose lives were lost, and condolences to the families and friends who have been left behind to deal with the utter shock and horror of that day. 

 

I reserve my opinion, but I will say that the future of such events will become cloudier as time moves forward. Many airports were originally built outside or on the edge of cities, and due to urban sprawl now find themselves surrounded by the cities they were once adjacent to. The citizens who share the land with them have in some cases raised concerns about events held over/near their property. I've heard of shows being canceled due to concerns of residents and businesses. Concerns about airshow safety have been around 100 years, but ultimately many people underestimate the wishes of the residents/businesses and property owners surrounding the event areas, as well as the insurance companies which underwrite them. It isn't unheard of for events to have been canceled due to insurance issues. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw an article last night that says Dan Ragan, the KW Vet who was on board, actually served on that B-17 when it was in the Navy!

 

https://tylerpaper.com/news/feel_good_features/korean-war-veteran-at-his-plane-in-tyler-67-years-after-the-war/article_8079b5e8-db4e-11eb-86c5-5712ae192768.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...