groundpounder wrote:
I have always found it interesting how B-17 and B-24 WWll combat veterans are literally worth their weight in gold and then some, but the B-29 WWll combats vets don't seem to be any more highly regarded than a Korea era or an atomic test aircraft. Left on display outside, unrestored, in parts and pieces, is it just me or is this really the case?
Some truth to the B-29 not faring very well post war. Besides the Enola Gay, there did not seem to be much of an interst in preserving any combat vets. I understand the Bock's car (Nagasaki strike aircraft) almost didn't survive due to the common misunderstanding between it and the Great Artiste (Sweeney's nomral aircraft) . If not for the airframes that survived at China Lake the B-29 survivor list would be even much smaller than it is.
Real shame more of the combat B-29's were not identified for preservation. "Thumper" or others would have been great. Fact is most were very worn out and had little use in the civilian market, unlike the B-17's which served on as frieght haulers, sprayers etc. B-29's were likely too complex and expensive to operate by companies hauling freight on marginal profits. Few B-29's made it out of storage. More B-17's and B-24's did.
I wonder if part of the allure of the B-17 (and a lesser extent the B-24) was the exposure they had to the public. They were in service for longer periods of the war and perhaps were more "glamorous" to the public with many highly published raids, and many more roles in war movies than the B-29 had. The Europen theatre also seems to have more interest for many. Most identify the B-17 as "the" American bomber of WWII. While this is no ways settles what was the "best" or detracts from the brave crews and accolades of other types, the B-29 did not have the same exposure. The B-29 did what was required and did it well.
I also think the open gunner postions, and manned turrets had more appeal to the imagination of the public than the more sterile B-29 environment.
I also wonder if the type of warfare the aircraft were used in effected their ultimate attractivenss for preservation? The B-29 served for a shorter time in WWII. By 1944 and 1945, the public was growing tired of the war and the fire-bombings of Japan perhaps subconsciouly were not something to commemorate. The atomic strikes may have been the same way. Korea was truly the forgotten war and would have done little to improve the desire to preserve more airfames.
Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of the B-29 and am not trying to disparage anything about their crews, their use or the aircraft, just trying to ID some of the reasons we do not see more around today.