Northrop N9M crash

[murphyaa]

I just heard that the only existing Northrop N9M flying wing crashed and was destroyed today.
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=224245

I feel sorry for the loss of the pilot and a piece of aviation history.

This is why I've always been of the opinion that rare historical aircraft should be preserved in a non-flying status. Now, a rare piece of aviation history is nothing but scraps and ashes.

[Isaac]

I saw a blurb on the news about a plane crashing into a prison, but did not even pay attention since I thought it had something to do with supplying contraband to a prisoner.


What a tragedy.

I saw this plane on multiple times when I visited that museum.
Here pics I took in 2016:


I am of the same opinion and that is do not fly old historical planes. Keep them preserved on the ground, or build an externally similar replica.


Isaac

[RyanShort1]

Originally Posted by Isaac

I saw a blurb on the news about a plane crashing into a prison, but did not even pay attention since I thought it had something to do with supplying contraband to a prisoner.


What a tragedy.

I saw this plane on multiple times when I visited that museum.
Here pics I took in 2016:
Attachment 382848Attachment 382849

I am of the same opinion and that is do not fly old historical planes. Keep them preserved on the ground, or build an externally similar replica.


Isaac

Old historical planes can get lost on the ground, too...

San Diego Air & Space Museum - Historical Balboa Park, San Diego

It's the owners' right to fly it, and it's just an object. The pilot is a worse deal.

[whulsey]

Ryan, agree with you to a point since a lot of similar discussion goes on in vintage racing. The problem with aircraft is they hit the ground and what (or who)ever is there. An hour later that yard would have had a lot of people in it.

[dhanners]

The loss of life is tragic, and I'm glad nobody on the ground was hurt.

As thrilling as it is to see a B-17 flypast, I, too, think most of these airplanes should be static displays. Part of the problem -- and this is borne out if you read NTSB reports of Commemorative Air Force crashes -- is that while we may just view them as piston-driven airplanes, they are still high-performance aircraft. The men who were flying them back in World War II were guys in their 20s who had quick reflexes.

Some of the older guys who got in the cockpit over the past few years may have racked up hundreds or thousands of hours of flight time, but they're still old guys flying planes built for the reflexes of a 22-year-old.

That's certainly not to say that is what happened here, but it's happened in the past.

[panzerlite]

Maybe Gates, Bezos or Musk would pop for a rebuild? (Heck they could do it out of their pocket money.)

[murphyaa]

Originally Posted by dhanners

The loss of life is tragic, and I'm glad nobody on the ground was hurt.

As thrilling as it is to see a B-17 flypast, I, too, think most of these airplanes should be static displays. Part of the problem -- and this is borne out if you read NTSB reports of Commemorative Air Force crashes -- is that while we may just view them as piston-driven airplanes, they are still high-performance aircraft. The men who were flying them back in World War II were guys in their 20s who had quick reflexes.

Some of the older guys who got in the cockpit over the past few years may have racked up hundreds or thousands of hours of flight time, but they're still old guys flying planes built for the reflexes of a 22-year-old.

That's certainly not to say that is what happened here, but it's happened in the past.

I did read the report on the N9M crash, and based on witness reports, it did exactly what flying wings are famous for, and why they didn't go into mainline service until digital fly-by-wire made controlling them easier.

[akula06]

Originally Posted by dhanners

The loss of life is tragic, and I'm glad nobody on the ground was hurt.

As thrilling as it is to see a B-17 flypast, I, too, think most of these airplanes should be static displays. Part of the problem -- and this is borne out if you read NTSB reports of Commemorative Air Force crashes -- is that while we may just view them as piston-driven airplanes, they are still high-performance aircraft. The men who were flying them back in World War II were guys in their 20s who had quick reflexes.

Some of the older guys who got in the cockpit over the past few years may have racked up hundreds or thousands of hours of flight time, but they're still old guys flying planes built for the reflexes of a 22-year-old.

That's certainly not to say that is what happened here, but it's happened in the past.

Fittingly, I heard of the loss of the N9M after an afternoon flight of the Colling's Foundation B-17 Nine O Nine.

The wing is a big loss. I'm glad I got to see it fly a couple years back in Camarillo.

[Butelczynski]

I agree with Aaron but for another reason.

Older warbirds were never designed and build with 100 years airframe lifespan.They were rarely expected to be in service past maybe couple of years and in some cases far shorter.

It was jet age technologies that made planes last decades but then they required constant supervision,checks and maintenance.

I can't imagine loss of for example either of Avro Lancasters or B-29s.Taxing condition-yes,not flying.

[RyanShort1]

Originally Posted by Butelczynski

I agree with Aaron but for another reason.

Older warbirds were never designed and build with 100 years airframe lifespan.They were rarely expected to be in service past maybe couple of years and in some cases far shorter.

It was jet age technologies that made planes last decades but then they required constant supervision,checks and maintenance.

I can't imagine loss of for example either of Avro Lancasters or B-29s.Taxing condition-yes,not flying.

How many airframe (not powerplant) failures of warbirds, again? And Reno racers don't count.