B17 Liberty Belle Down – All Okay

Thank you for that, at least I can pass it on now.

N390TH

The Randsburg Corp of Portland, Oregon registered it as N817BR on July 13, 1999. Don Brooks and the Liberty Foundation of Atlanta, Georgia acquired it in 2003, registered it as N390TH

http://www.air-and-space.com/Boeing%20B-17G%20Liberty%20Belle.htm

Slightly off topic I know but can anyone enlighten me as to the civil registration? I would not normally ask but someone else asked me if I knew and I said I would try to find out.

It may be different in the USA but in the UK there are two parts to aviation insurance. One is the Third Party and Passenger liability, which is compulsory and “Hull” insurance which isn’t. The Third Party is based on weight and the Hull insurance is usually a percentage of the assessed value. Think in terms of Third Party, Fire and Theft and Comprehensive for cars. I know some warbird owners don’t take hull losses cover because of the cost.

So what would the aircraft’s insurance cover in this case? What are you actually insuring on these warbirds – the plane itself, or just the passengers/crew on board?

I suspect I may have hijacked this thread, but I’ll finish up quickly!! The only time we’ll let anything ‘burn out’ is when the decision has been made the structure is too far gone for an internal firefight. For instance, several rooms at the rear of a house well involved are not reason enough to abandon all hope of saving the structure. A house that’s totally involved, and breathing on its own through the roof….well, it’s asking for trouble sending firefighters inside to fight it. “Surround and drown” becomes the strategy.

You’re right, Bomberboy, there is a point to be reached where you have to deem the house unsaveable…….a terrible decision to make.

Once again, thanks folks for the votes of appreciation. Now, let’s talk about old aeroplanes……….

FN, I am aware at other incidents, that once it is ascertained by the firefighters that no life is under threat, there is indeed less emphasis on protecting items of property per-se and whilst this is unfortunate, I agree wholeheartedly with the ethos of letting something burn out, so long as a greater threat is not created by not attempting to extinguish the fire, and/or it is possible to have a fairly good realistic safe chance of achieving reduced loss of property by extinguishing the fire.

We should indeed not expect for someone to put greater risk on their own life in difficult or impossible circumstances, just so as to save some of ones personal property and where further life is not at risk.

Bomberboy

It really doesn’t matter if the airplane is a classic warbird, that’s not the firefighter’s job to judge; to him or her, it’s an “old airplane” filled with fuel. Nobody signed on to protect it “no matter what obstacles in their way.” I loathe couch potatoes who presume to tell me how to do my job as a pilot, and I’m sure firefighters feel the same way.

Thank you for the understanding words, Wilk. I have been a career firefighter for 24 years with the Metropolitan Fire Brigade here in Melbourne. We work by the code of “Life and Property” – in that order.

It’s awfully easy to sit back and confidently type things like ‘in that respect they failed to do their job’ when you weren’t there, and have only a rudimentary understanding of what the true circumstances were. I can assure all here all those firefighters on-scene would have been torn by anguish as they watched the B17 burn.

However SUE THEM! sets all sorts of terrible precedents. Do I risk my life because I’m a firefighter, or because I’ll get sued if I don’t? I’m afraid that if an angry propery owner stated he was going to sue me because he didn’t think I was inside his burning house for long enough, it would be a case of “oh well, you better add attempted murder to the legal documents, too”.

Thanks again to all for being in the firefighters’ corner.

Matt

I am afraid the structural damage (although severe) is not the problem. Structure can be replaced, as shown after the ‘Albatross’ damage. It will be the heat damage to the (little) remaining structure that will prove to be the end of this airframe I would say.

all is not lost.. this was Liberty Belle in 1979 after a Grummon Albatross was whipped up by a tornado and landed on N5111N before it became Liberty Belle

Not many warbirds have….. Skins get brittle and are replaced, lots of structure is renewed, know of one spit rebuild (and it was complete more or less when started) that retained the data plate and a leading edge skin, most if not all of the remaining structure was brand new.

However the majority of four engine heavies have airframe structure and skinning that’s ‘as built’ / from original service. The financial benefits and structural loadings (hence reconstruction requirements) of prestige single-seat fighters do not translate to the 1940s era four-engine bombers and transports, or even the majority of twin-engine transports.

There are two sorts of such heavies – some, like the Belle, rebuilt after lying fallow for many years with a degree of new-build structure, and the others which have been in relatively continuous use, flying, without significant structural replacement post service (such as Sally B).

From memory, only PA474 has been taken out of service for surgery of the level of wing-spar replacement, and even in that Lancaster’s case, a remarkable amount of the structure isn’t ‘new’.

…they would change a wing and the old one would go for repair, …

Indeed. Again, though, I would draw a distinction between a ‘new old stock’ contemporary part replacement as against modern fabricated replacement parts.

For example most DC-3s or C-47s will have had major parts replaced; wings, empennage, etc. But those replacement parts are only rarely modern metal. The majority are cannibalised from other Daks built around the same time as the recipient airframe.

Another regular misunderstanding is between the wear and repair in use and post-use restoration. In service repair or replacement is part of the aircraft’s service history, post service repair or replacement isn’t, and has a different significance regarding the aircraft’s originality.

That’s why static museum preservation is important, as major parts don’t need to be replaced to keep the thing flying, with a loss of genuine originality (1940s Supermarine riveting standards can be assessed, from aircraft like the IWM or AWM Spitfires, rather than 1990s Historic Flying Ltd rivet work, from numerous modern fliers). That’s not to say flyers don’t have a role and importance – they do.

Regards,

It is a terrible shame about this lovely old aeroplane. Just great that everyine managed to get out!- And I managed to avoid seeing it’s death throes until just now!^^^

Terrible news, very sad to read it – I cherish the pictures taken of me standing in her at Dux in ’08, sad end for a inspiring and graceful piece of engineering.

I’m guessing not a whole lot of WWII vintage metal was in the fuselage

Not many warbirds have….. Skins get brittle and are replaced, lots of structure is renewed, know of one spit rebuild (and it was complete more or less when started) that retained the data plate and a leading edge skin, most if not all of the remaining structure was brand new.

If you think about it, even wartime ones are not original, damage to wings etc, they would change a wing and the old one would go for repair, you just have to look at the B17 Patches or Patches 2 to see the amount that could be replaced.

Yes i believe it was the former turboprop testbed at kissimee,took a lot of man hours to restore.

You are correct. It was a surplus plane that was returned to Boeing for conversion into a model 299Z with an aft cockpit. It was “destroyed” by a Tornado in 1979 while in a museum (a Grumman Albatross broke its back).
I’m guessing not a whole lot of WWII vintage metal was in the fuselage.

For LB, her main centre (the backbone main structure of the aeroplane and the majority of the wings) has well and truly gone and so I cant see how just some of the tail section and the potential use of the four engines and wing tips would constitute a rebuild as the bulk of the aeroplane does not exist to rebuild in the strict sense of the word.

That’s never stopped Mustang or Spitfire rebuilds. :diablo:
There is at last one flying Mustang outthere that was rebult after a fatal, I can’t see how any of it’s fuselage was reused.

I agree, if it was just the front fuselage, I could see a rebuild (since Brook’s other B-17 will have a new build front as does the one under restoration in Urbana, Ohio), but with the center section gone, that’s another matter.
However, theer used to be a couple of center sections in storage…I don’t know if they’ve been used or reserved for other restorations.

Maybe the best thing to do with the useable parts of Liberty Belle’s remains is use them in the rebuild of Don Brooks’ other B-17 (44-83790 I think), the one that was recovered from a lake in Canada

Found this pic online…

Tragic though it is the airframe is gone. The crew are safe which is the main thing. hurrah!

In my view they could use the wreckage to make a pretty darn good wartime diorama. Get some wartime fire crew kit and vehicles, blood vaggons and tired air/groundcrew and you’d have a pretty good exhibit illustrating the groundcrew sections that never get the credit they deserve and also illustrating the dangers the crews faced.

Just my 2p’s worth

Well said Stepwilk.
In my many years working on the roads, it was always the people looking on who knew how to do the job better, quicker and with fewer men.