New Build B-17

[Bongo252]

Hey Scott,

So FAA legalize and gobblygook aside, is the FAA saying that if the plane was designed to carry and drop bombs, it cant carry paying passengers? Sounds like a lot of hair splitting to me. Of course, it IS a government agency so.....

[terveurn]

I thought I had heard that before but it almost seemed a bit farfetched. So as long as you have this teeny little plate attached to what could be a totally new airframe, the aircraft can be considered the authentic item?

So many questions so many answers

OK, to start, one of the dataplate Hurricanes currently flying is assigned to a Hurricane that crashed in the Pacific Ocean, a whole bunch of the others that came from the framed plaque were burned after the farmers got their hardware and tires.

Scott -- yeah officially vs wink wink nudge nudge -- actually Scott, I believe Boeing did get a Limited Category for a passenger (ie executive version) of the B-17, which would have pulled it out of the Experimental Category; just like NAA got the Limited Category for the Executive Version of the B-25.

If you wanted a real Civilian B-17 with no Limited or Experimental Rating then look no further the B-17 42-32076 STIG VIKING which made numerous trips to the United States from Britain with paying passengers on a regularly scheduled route (I can imaging what the FAA would have done if TWA or a start-up airline wanted to register a Felix-17)

So FAA legalize and gobblygook aside, is the FAA saying that if the plane was designed to carry and drop bombs, it cant carry paying passengers? Sounds like a lot of hair splitting to me. Of course, it IS a government agency so.....

history lesson - a majority of the late 1940's to 1960 Russian and Chinese airliners were based on the B-29 and a lot of the aeroflop transports were allowed to carry passengers from the United States to Baltic nations and Russia, so technically the FAA did look the other way. A lot of ex AT-11 (C-45 with an attitude) were convered by Beech to standard Twin Beech configuration and used for feeder routes with full registration.

The FAA never officially states that a aircraft designed to carry bombs can not carry passengers, they just want those systems deactivated (or at least managed) -- The FAA now after the 909 crash has been doing a lot of rethink about this whole honor flight system with a lot more looking into maintenance items (and how it is preformed)

[aerovin2]

The B-17 was not designed to 1935 commercial certification standards as far as performance and equipment. Without going through the certification process it will not receive what is equivalent to the "NC" registration. The Limited Type Certificate was a compromise that allowed non-conforming surplus warplanes to be operated privately and carry passengers. There is no way the CAA would have let the B-17 be used in paying-passenger service without the certification process, which it could never have met without a substantial re-design (Uh...the Boeing 307).

That the Danes and Swedes did it is immaterial to the CAA requirements for U.S. certified airplanes. TWA never intended to fly its B-17 for anything other than route evaluation and, possibly, weather research. TWA had Boeing do the work to modify the B-17 to meet the Limited certificate requirements and it received the first Limited certificate (LTC-1) issued on a surplus airplane. TWA is still the holder of record of the LTC even though the company is long gone. I believe the Limited program was frozen in 1948, and no new types were entered into that program.

However, most of the B-17s currently flying have the Limited type certificate as they are modified to conform with the original 1946 LTC. The type data sheet as maintained by the FAA can be found here: https://www.aerovintage.com/wp-content/ ... /LTC-1.pdf

Airplanes such as the C-45 and other variants could be modified to conform with the Standard Type of the Beech 18 and if it did so, then it could operated under those rules and have an "NC" type certification'registration. The best example of this is the C-47/DC-3 conversions done after the war to allow military C-47s to operate as airliners.

Lot of nuances there and no doubt a few slipped through the cracks that should technically not have. However, the CAA and the FAA usually do their due diligence. It can be a fine line...stick too close the regs and nothing flies. Wiggle room is allowed until something bad happens.

[aerovin2]

And as an aside, the Living History Flight Experience is an exception to the regulations to allow the flight experiences. These are all local flights…nothing enroute…and the operations are specifically regulated. The 2019 B-17 crash revealed weaknesses in FAA oversight. The requirements were established but the operator may not have been following the requirements and the FAA may not have been verifying that the operator was following them.

[terveurn]

Scott

With regard to the Boeing's Executive Version, it was different then the TWA Certification - Boeing never submitted the paperwork for their LTC (this would have been a full rebuild by Boeing) which would have included sleeper beds, executive conference room ect. Boeing figured who would want a expensive relativly short range four-engine executive transport (they did miss the mark on cargo conversions however).

The TWA LTC-1 was essentially a way of getting any and all ex military B-17F & G's into the civilian market. Technically (refer back to the LTC for the P-40) the B-17E (and earlier models), the B-17's built by Douglas and Lockheed and the ex USN PB-1's are NOT covered by this LTC (note the heading is for BOEING B-17F and G) so any other models that want to be airworthy have to be considered Experimental (and this would screw-up the civilian market) -- which bring me back to the P-40 Specifications where it was very popular that P-40E's were either just listed a P-40 or Listed as P-40N's to avoid the experimental rating (which brings us back to the CAF's B-17 crash -- note on the NTSB report she is clearly listed as a Boeing B-17G and not a Douglas PB-1W [though technically since Boeing now owns Douglas she was a Boeing B-17]).

"The requirements were established but the operator may not have been following the requirements and the FAA may not have been verifying that the operator was following them."

That is the understatement of the year regarding this crash in 2019, a lot of pencil whipping, mx checks delayed, something about shutting down the wrong engine, failure to troubleshoot before landing (what was the big rush to land what was essentially an airworthy machine) --> I could go on with what the FAA cited.

"That the Danes and Swedes did it is immaterial to the CAA requirements for U.S. certified airplanes"

I'll disagree with you on this one - foreign built and operated machines that want to either operate / and or be sold in the United States have/has to be approved by the CAA / FAA. As a foreign air carrier, the Felix F-17's (42-32076 and her sisters) got away with this, with the CAA's blessing, as a very short stop gap measure until real aircraft could be acquired. My postulation was what hoops would the CAA throw around, if SAAB wanted to go into the selling these ships on the open market.

[Bongo252]

Wow, what a maze! So the FAA considers a Vega built B-17 different to a Douglas or Boeing product. How do the various modification centers that existed figure into this?

[aerovin2]

The FAA uses wiggle room since all the flying B-17s are either Douglas or Lockheed built and most are operated under that Limited Type Certificate. And since the Douglas and Lockheed B-17s were built under a Boeing license to Boeing specs, it is a short jump.

And the block production process is how the mod centers kept track of things. A B-17G-95-DL designation told the mod centers all they needed to know about what mods were applicable.

[Bongo252]

Just read that Michael Schumacher's Ferrari F1 car from 2003 at auction went for $15 million!!! I like F1 and have gone to a few races......but 15 MILLION!!!!!!??????? Damn! I want a bit more metal for my buck.

[terveurn]

The FAA uses wiggle room since all the flying B-17s are either Douglas or Lockheed built and most are operated under that Limited Type Certificate. And since the Douglas and Lockheed B-17s were built under a Boeing license to Boeing specs, it is a short jump.

Scott

Again, a disagreement -- Boeing does not own nor can it licence anything regarding the B-17 - all it owns is the trademark "Flying Fortress"

Like any government contract, there is two parts - The government puts out a contract for say a heavy bomber, a group of manufactures get together to put both a proposal then a prototype (ie the Design stage). The government then buys the best design at which time they award a contract (to the lowest bidder) to produce the item (Production).

All rights belong to the government and they can award a contract to say a totally different manufacturer then those who designed and produced the prototype -- Boeing had several aircraft they designed (in the 1920's) given to another manufacture who low balled the contract.

Now to Answer Bongo252's question -- yes, the Lockheed and Douglas B-17's are different then the Boeing built ships. a lot of major sub assemblies are different in dimensions, tolerences and placement of accessories.

One of the major reasons is location (location, location) - Boeing built B-17s in the cold, wet north Washington state, Douglas and Lockheed are built in hot desert climite of southern california.... metal expands when it gets hot, contracts when cold. Even very small changes in metal temperature during drilling of the skins can result in part having different tolerences and not being readily interchangable.

There were several 8th AF groups that would swap b-17's from one unit to another so that they were all flying Boeing built B-17s vs Douglas Built B-17 as it made maintenance easier. Same with Lockheed, you will find that Lockheed b-17 all tended to goto a different Aif Force (the 15th) vs Douglas and Boeing going to England.

as mentioned if the FAA wanted to be strict with inforcing the rules (as Scott is well aware), then if a government document specifies Boeing B-17 F or G, then that aircraft they are looking at better be a Boeing built B-17 F or G or the possiblities can either be a fine or grounding (with a heafty fine) - the last Boeing B-17 that was airworthy was N17F which is currently grounded in the Boeing museum.

[Bongo252]

How historically noted is that about units trading aircraft to acquire common makes? I had never heard that happening and while it makes sense its news to me!

-Always learning something!

[menards2]

Interesting thread. While there is some new-build projects going on, and the NMUSAF is completely uninterested in releasing any airframes...what about current examples currently in storage? I believe a B-17 is currently in storage in Paris, also Pink Lady is currently grounded, isnt there also an example in storage in Brazil? It would be interesting if a deal could be worked out that sent Pink Lady to Conroe and that group there could perform the required restoration work needed on the airframe & components.

[terveurn]

Interesting thread. While there is some new-build projects going on, and the NMUSAF is completely uninterested in releasing any airframes...what about current examples currently in storage? I believe a B-17 is currently in storage in Paris, also Pink Lady is currently grounded, isnt there also an example in storage in Brazil? It would be interesting if a deal could be worked out that sent Pink Lady to Conroe and that group there could perform the required restoration work needed on the airframe & components.

Pink Lady is not grounded - she is fully airworthy and registered, just not flown (too expensive gasoline, insurance and the Euro regulations that anything over a certain weight classification is considered commercial {or some fancy regulations}), but the owners do not want to sell (and not too sure if France would issue an export licence). The other B-17 in storage is for the French Air Force (for somesort of aeronautical museum and is also a combat worthy claimed B-17).

Brazil is another ball of cats - one SB-17 is on external display the other is in deep storage pending a planned Brazilian air force museum (which has been planned for 25 (?) years or so, Brazil also has several P-47's (I keep hearing between 3 and with some of them being combat veterans (with one being burned in 1990's under a peaceful protest. Brazil is also interesting is they direct purchased their aircraft and they were not lend-lease so they could tell the USAF to pound salt when USAF demanded them to be returned.

Now the Air Farce Museum (I hate the term NMUSAF as this museum covers then entire history of the Army Signal Corps, USAAC, USAAF and only then USAF). The Air Farce Museum would rather see the aircraft rot then sell (see McGuire P-38 and Bong P-38numerous B-17s on gate guards etc) - however (and a big however) if you have something interesting the USAF wants, they will trade (so go find a B-32).

Dover AFB when they were making Baby air worthy in the 1980's butcher the hell out of a lot of these airframes - cutting cables and structural members instead of unbolting and disconnecting at junction boxes so any restorations to flight (alone with 60 years of corrosion) would leave you back to square-one, building and developing new jigs would be cheaper then a zero time restoration to airworthy.

But, once again, who wants a brand new B-17 at 10-million each (you would need a production run of 5 ~ 10 for a reasonable return on time and money) (a production of B-24's would also need a higher level of expertise then the B-17 as the B-24 was more advanced(1930 vs 1939 technology)).

Todays generation of kiddies have zero interest in aviation history and the people with the deep money that collected warbirds could not care to invest that type of money in replicas (see Tallimouk <sp> collection) - most collectors want a historic warbird which is why the Me 262 and Flug Werk Fw 190's really did not find a nich market place (but a heavily corroded spitfire or pile of Hurrican parts is considered collectable).

got me back on my soap box <g>