I had no idea, but restoration of B-29 "Doc" is underway in Wichita, Kansas.

http://www.b-29doc.com/

http://www.johnweeks.com/b29/b29doc.html







[This message has been edited by BaitShack (edited 7/24/2013 3:44p).]

She looks funny without guns.

And engines I guess.

Where are the engine mounts?

quote:

---

And engines I guess.

---

I guess it's not in "flyable" status yet.

You can see part of the outboard engine mount - the semi-spherical structure under the wing. The inboard engine nacelle will go where the landing gear is.

Yes, I've been following this. That picture above is way dated, she's a lot further along. She was rescued from the same graveyard at the China Lake weapons test range where the CAF got FIFI.

This is a beautiful airplane and they're basically rebuilding her within a city block of where she was built originally.

Gorgeous!

quote:

---

Gorgeous!

---

On the other hand, the unanimous, hands-down winner of the Award for Most Plug-Ugly Bomber of the War (US) is given to ...



Consolidated B-32 Dominator

(and you thought the B-24 was homely ...)

They are getting pretty close now.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gorgeous!

---

On the other hand, the unanimous, hands-down winner of the Award for Most Plug-Ugly Bomber of the War (US) is given to ...



Consolidated B-32 Dominator

(and you thought the B-24 was homely ...)

---

I suggest you take a look at the B-18 Bolo

That's one beautiful bird! My grandfather worked on B29's on Tinian - supposedly my grandmother has pics of Enola Gay and the bomb but haven't confirmed

As an aside, he came back and eventually bought Strearmans and started crop dusting. I asked my grandmother when I was a kid why he didn't join the CAF and she said he didn't want to have anything to do with anything associated with an "air force" - story was he got washed out of flight school by a Yankee and resented it ever since

Sunday's were always the best days to hang out with him. He'd have buddies over for the big Sunday supper and afterwards they'd sit and talk about flying Corsairs Mitchell's and Hellcats.

My uncle has just bought a Stearman as a sort of tribute to my grand father - can't wait to go up with him. At one time an airline pilot was angling to hangar his Yale at my uncle's field - hope that works out!


Thanks for posting! Brings back a lot of memories

quote:

---

I suggest you take a look at the B-18 Bolo

---

I'll second that motion!

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gorgeous!

---

On the other hand, the unanimous, hands-down winner of the Award for Most Plug-Ugly Bomber of the War (US) is given to ...



Consolidated B-32 Dominator

(and you thought the B-24 was homely ...)

---

I suggest you take a look at the B-18 Bolo

---

Don't know if I'd call it the ugliest, but it certainly wasn't going to win any beauty contests:

low speed taxi test.

My recollection is that the B-29 was rushed into service with many unresolved technical problems, including very unreliable engines. Any idea if the restored models had those issues resolved during their modern rebuild?

quote:

---

My recollection is that the B-29 was rushed into service with many unresolved technical problems, including very unreliable engines. Any idea if the restored models had those issues resolved during their modern rebuild?

---

Engines overheated because the cowlings were so tight/close fitted. If they were stationary on the ground or at slow speeds while airborne for long periods and their cowl flaps were not open all the way, they were toast literally and figuratively. Saw that in a 1944 USAAF training video on start up procedures for B-29.

quote:

---

My recollection is that the B-29 was rushed into service with many unresolved technical problems, including very unreliable engines. Any idea if the restored models had those issues resolved during their modern rebuild?

---

The engines are hybrids, combining the front bank of cylinders from an original Wright R-3350, with the rear cylinder bank from a later production version of said engine as used in the AD-1 Skyraider. The result is an engine that appears cosmetically correct when viewed from the front, yet one that is far more powerful and reliable, thanks to use of the rear cylinder bank from the more refined later production R-3350.

Thanks! Any resulting performance improvements? (altitude, range, speed, climb?)

You are talking about the modern planes, not the WWII version, correct?

As I understand, they are using 1950s radials that are much more reliable and fire proof, as well as higher HP. Combined with no bomb loads, lower fuel loads, no armor, no guns and ammo, I hear that Fifi performs very well

Thank you very much for sharing that. My grandfather was stationed on Tinian and the navigator on a B-29. I wish I had as many memories of his stories as you do of your grandfather but he died when I was in the 1st grade.

Most of the stories I heard were passed on through my grandmother but one of the things I do remember was about the fuel range issues you alluded to and how that was one of my grandfather's biggest job's as navigator to chart their course efficiently as he could. I remember her recalling him describing planes crashing just off the shore of Tinian, in sight of the runway as they ran out of fuel. Makes me wish I had a Sunday afternoon to listen to him tell more stories like that.

I suspect that part of the "fuel/range" problem was a result of not understanding the "jet stream", which had been theorized since the late 30's but not really observed or understood until we started B-29 operations in the Pacific. Here is a good link that describes what happened:

Sorry I can't post excepts from the link. I have been having real trouble with copy and paste on texags (and other issues as well, which they confirmed are bugs in the system they are working to fix). Basically, the B-29s were encountering unexpected 170kt headwinds enroute to Japan, which played havoc with their fuel consumption calculations during their initial operations.

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/reports/wxfacts/The-Discovery-of-the-Jet-Stream.htm

interesting. Did they not have issues in the ETO also or were the ceilings too low?

I've never read the B29 operated in the ETO

Issues including the jet stream at planned altitude forced them down to 12,000 feet - Gen LeMay had Boeing and the Air Corps redevelop flight profile for lower altitudes. Stripped Guns and personnel to increase load and range - my wife's grandfather was a flight engineer for Boeing at the time and that was one of his projects he participated in during the war

quote:

---

interesting. Did they not have issues in the ETO also or were the ceilings too low?

---

The huge distances in the PTO were the problem I think. And if they hit the jet stream in the ETO, it was a tailwind to the target

My recollection is bombing inaccuracy caused by high winds is primarily what pushed the B-29 down lower, not fuel consumption. Lemay eventually defaulted to firebombing whole cities from 5,000 feet because they simply couldn't consistently hit targets from altitude.

Apologies ja86 - looks like Canyonag understood you were referring to the ETO in general

740, should have worded differently I guess. You're right it was all about accuracy. But you still had to make it back to Saipan - and once they went down to 5,000'-8,000' (12,000'+ at night) they increased bomb load so getting every last drop of fuel for the return home was important (but not the reason for the change in altitude)

Anyway most of my info is based off the memory of a 95 yo man! His efforts were specific to maximizing payload and range/fuel efficiency

Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess