Forgotten Hope Public Forum
Off-Topic => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Lupin on 14-06-2011, 02:06:18
-
A sad day.
"Seven crew members and volunteers walked away without serious injury after a World War II "Flying Fortress" bomber crashed and burned in a cornfield southeast of Aurora Municipal Airport on Monday, June 13, officials say. The B-17, christened the "Liberty Belle," took off from the airport at 9:30 a.m. and made an emergency landing in a cornfield near Highway 71 and Minkler Road in Oswego after the pilot reported an engine fire, according to Sugar Grove Fire Chief Marty Kunkle. "
http://www.wgnradio.com/news/chi-110613-b17-plane-crash-pictures,0,1427081.photogallery
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/video?id=8187335
(http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/8564/pb110613libertybelle13p.jpg)
-
That poor bomber D: I'm glad nobody died.
-
yeah, good that nobody died or even got injured. there are still 43 B17 bombers preserved, of which only 13 can fly though - its a shame.
*edit: still a pretty high number if you think about other relics of ww2 - for example just 2 Ju87 stukas are left in a good condition
-
There goes another part of history... :(
-
oooooooh my tikky tikker
The feeling....i got the same feeling with that ME109 wich crashed a few years ago, and that hurricane...
ooooh
IT IS SAD DAY
-
NEVA FORGET!
:P
-
Don't mean to sound harsh, but thank god it wasn't one of the Lancs.
-
If people can rebuild a historic wooden ship gutted by fire, I think that they can rebuild a metal aeroplane (even if it never flies again).
-
they should star building old tanks again, using the blueprints from that time, it wouldnt be the same, but at least you could end with king tigers in more museums all around the world ^^
-
Reminds me of the spanish 111 that whent down a few years ago... unfortunately iirc that was the last one flying. :-\
Sad sight though seeing that old girl burn. :'(
-
they should star building old tanks again, using the blueprints from that time, it wouldnt be the same, but at least you could end with king tigers in more museums all around the world ^^
Costs a shitload of money that unfortunately no one is willing to give. Museums usually don't even have enough money to restore old tanks, let alone build new ones.
-
That type of work (at least in Belgium) is done with volunteers and there money, and sometimes the army chippes in a few euro's or gives some soldiers to help out.
Problem with aluminium is that is melts easily, nothing will be salvageable i think, (where i burned) you will have to do a total rebuild, and that will be very very expensive.
-
If people can rebuild a historic wooden ship gutted by fire, I think that they can rebuild a metal aeroplane (even if it never flies again).
I'm not sure, pretty much the only things left are half of the wings and the tail.
(http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/1647/pb110614ww2bomberdaphotq.jpg)
-
That makes me sad. :-\
-
That is total hull loss, only the tail gunner windows are alright i think, the rest is beyond salvageable.
Engine number 3 and 4 (right wing) have a little chance, really don't know after what happened with that sudden propeller break. Probably broke the gear box and shaft altogether.
-
Don't companies make records of their designs? Can't you recreate them or is that too costly?
-
Don't companies make records of their designs? Can't you recreate them or is that too costly?
Some blueprints are lost or damaged over time before copies can be made, some are much too expensive to reproduce, and there was one other reason that I had for this, but I got distracted by '1000 Ways to Die' and forgot it.
-
This particular B-17 with prod number S/N 44-85734 was used as a turboprop engine testbed. Making it looked like this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Pratt-Whitney_T-34_B-17_testbed_NAN10-50.jpg)
It was later rebuilt into the current "Liberty Belle" we know.
Don't companies make records of their designs? Can't you recreate them or is that too costly?
That is just too costly, I think DLFreporter can explain it better.
You have to make a metal stamper to produce the fuselage and parts. Not to mention outdated production method that was too costly for today's standard. Now the instruments/avionics and engines part, everything might not be historically accurate, even for the material used. Probably it would be the costliest and most sophisticated B-17 ever produced.
Otherwise, it would look like this Dc-3:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basler_BT-67
Re-engined with turboprop and new avionics. ;D
-
one would imagine that with current production method would make the construction of an old vehicle cheaper than what it costed 60 years ago.
-
one would imagine that with current production method would make the construction of an old vehicle cheaper than what it costed 60 years ago.
Of course modern production methods would be much cheaper, if you intended to produce thousands or even tens of thousands of them, as they did in WW2 (12 731 B-17's were made). For building a single replica, though, you would still have to create the same custom moulds, tools and perhaps machinery you would need for a full-scale production run, so the unit price would be prohibitively expensive. Economies of scale, you know.
-
mm I see, well, i sucked at economics so.. xD.
-
they should star building old tanks again, using the blueprints from that time, it wouldnt be the same, but at least you could end with king tigers in more museums all around the world ^^
That is good use of our remaining resources.
-
one would imagine that with current production method would make the construction of an old vehicle cheaper than what it costed 60 years ago.
Of course modern production methods would be much cheaper, if you intended to produce thousands or even tens of thousands of them, as they did in WW2 (12 731 B-17's were made). For building a single replica, though, you would still have to create the same custom moulds, tools and perhaps machinery you would need for a full-scale production run, so the unit price would be prohibitively expensive. Economies of scale, you know.
WE WILL SIMPLY HAVE TO BUILD THOUSANDS THEN!
-
one would imagine that with current production method would make the construction of an old vehicle cheaper than what it costed 60 years ago.
Of course modern production methods would be much cheaper, if you intended to produce thousands or even tens of thousands of them, as they did in WW2 (12 731 B-17's were made). For building a single replica, though, you would still have to create the same custom moulds, tools and perhaps machinery you would need for a full-scale production run, so the unit price would be prohibitively expensive. Economies of scale, you know.
WE WILL SIMPLY HAVE TO BUILD THOUSANDS THEN!
YYYEEAAHHH
-
It could be restored. I remember seeing a bit of old rusty engine and a few planks of wood from a Zero in the resteration shed at Duxford that they were gonna do up. Just takes time and lots of donations.