Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:37 pm
gary, i heard the same that greenamyer 's left over garbage mess wore out the welcome for future salvors.
Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:30 pm
spriso wrote:I always wondered why they did not pull the remains back to what would be the shoreline...
After reviewing the photos on the Corbis website by photographer Tim Wright, I guess that it would not have been possible to tow the remains without damaging the props...
There are a bunch of amazing before and after the fire photos of the Kee Bird here:
http://www.corbis.com
Search "Kee Bird" and it will give you 6-pages of images.
Michael
Definitely the best collection of photos on this sad tale.
Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:42 pm
I think ima gunna cry....all over again 
Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:59 pm
gregv wrote:I can only deduce that it was egos at work, or they had watched too many "Salvage 1" episodes on tv.
A man literaly worked himself to death and a time-capsule was destroyed; next time, just call the pros.
My two cents.
I think you are oversimplifying this. Just how would you truck this aircraft out? I think that flying it out, while risky, was a worthwhile pursuit. You can always second guess after the fact, but they were very close to pulling it off.
If they hadn't tried, then who would have taken the risk instead? It would still be sitting there and I would have had no chance of ever seeing it at an airshow. Just like Glacier Girl, the recovery story is probably more important than the reason the plane was out there.
I don't know the medical aspects of this death, but is Greenameyer responsible? Everyone involved had to know the risks of an effort like that. You can't just dial 911 out there after all. Nobody can work me to death unless I want to. The schedule was dictated by the weather window I think, not by Greenameyer's "selfish desires." I wish he would have succeeded and I applaud the herculean effort.
Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:10 pm
bdk wrote:I wish he would have succeeded and I applaud the herculean effort.
Here, here!
Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:19 pm
Rick, the mechanic, was injured when a piece of equipment hit him, he refused treatment, and went on working. When he did not get better after several days they took him out, but it was too late. It was Rick's choice, not Greenimeyers. To all those that say they screwed, yea they did, but they at least tried, which is more than alot of people do.
Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:47 pm
bdk wrote:gregv wrote:I can only deduce that it was egos at work, or they had watched too many "Salvage 1" episodes on tv.
A man literaly worked himself to death and a time-capsule was destroyed; next time, just call the pros.
My two cents.
I think you are oversimplifying this. Just how would you truck this aircraft out? I think that flying it out, while risky, was a worthwhile pursuit. You can always second guess after the fact, but they were very close to pulling it off.
If they hadn't tried, then who would have taken the risk instead? It would still be sitting there and I would have had no chance of ever seeing it at an airshow. Just like Glacier Girl, the recovery story is probably more important than the reason the plane was out there.
I don't know the medical aspects of this death, but is Greenameyer responsible? Everyone involved had to know the risks of an effort like that. You can't just dial 911 out there after all. Nobody can work me to death unless I want to. The schedule was dictated by the weather window I think, not by Greenameyer's "selfish desires." I wish he would have succeeded and I applaud the herculean effort.
Good points. If I may rebut:
Why did the risk have to be taken? The aircraft did not seem to be in any immediate danger, and would probably be still sitting there in the exact same condition if nobody had bothered it; why the rush? Because they made the effort no-one will see it at an airshow, ever.
Sorry if that came out wrong, but I wasn't suggesting that Greenameyer was directly responsible for the unfortunate death; having said that, who was ultimately in charge of crew safety?
Trucking it out? Nope, I was thinking more along the lines of taking it apart and flying it out in suitable STOL capable cargo aircraft, after a proper runway had been prepared.
Yes, I am oversimplifying the ordeal. Yes, it would have been very cool if they had pulled it off. Yes, it was a herculean effort, which I do applaud, and I also truly wish they had pulled it off. I just wish that a less risky method of recovery had been chosen, or at least more stress had been put on the historical value of the aircraft, rather than on the potential impact & drama of a successful "flying out" recovery.
Once again, just my opinion, and not intended to offend anyone.
Greg V.
Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:17 pm
I think the main point is, the recovery seasons were not very long.
They would work one season and have to leave, then come back the next season and make of for the time it sat in the cold then try to get more done before they had to leave, then come back again and make up for time it sat, then try and get ahead again.
Thier plan was good, yet a very unfortunate incident happened with the fuel spill from the APU and then it caught on fire.
Trucking it out was probably out of the question, flying it out in pieces was probably the same story.
They would work one season and have to leave, then come back the next season and make of for the time it sat in the cold then try to get more done before they had to leave, then come back again and make up for time it sat, then try and get ahead again.
Thier plan was good, yet a very unfortunate incident happened with the fuel spill from the APU and then it caught on fire.
Trucking it out was probably out of the question, flying it out in pieces was probably the same story.
Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:34 pm
Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Without someone's effort, we wouldn't have seen it either. Were these the "right" people? We'll never know. Maybe they would have been the only ones regardless.gregv wrote:Why did the risk have to be taken? The aircraft did not seem to be in any immediate danger, and would probably be still sitting there in the exact same condition if nobody had bothered it; why the rush? Because they made the effort no-one will see it at an airshow, ever.
Sorry if that came out wrong, but I wasn't suggesting that Greenameyer was directly responsible for the unfortunate death; having said that, who was ultimately in charge of crew safety?
Trucking it out? Nope, I was thinking more along the lines of taking it apart and flying it out in suitable STOL capable cargo aircraft, after a proper runway had been prepared.
Yes, I am oversimplifying the ordeal. Yes, it would have been very cool if they had pulled it off. Yes, it was a herculean effort, which I do applaud, and I also truly wish they had pulled it off. I just wish that a less risky method of recovery had been chosen, or at least more stress had been put on the historical value of the aircraft, rather than on the potential impact & drama of a successful "flying out" recovery.
The rush was the weather window of opportunity and I suspect the permits they got for the recovery which are not indefinite. I believe they worked on it for two years, installed overhauled engines and recovered control surfaces, replaced tires, etc. I suppose they could have done a ground-up restoration out there but the logistics are a nightmare... You have to balance the return on investment. They risked, they lost. You can reduce risk by doing more, but what is the next thing on this list to do for risk reduction? Would it have been the APU fuel line or something else? It is difficult to second guess.
I would guess that the individual is responsible for their own safety. Who else? If the individual was not responsible, then the courts will decide who was. I suspect that reasonable measures were taken. If someone is injured but doesn't want to communicate the extent of their injuries, then they made a choice.
I don't think you could move a B-29 in pieces with anything smaller than a C-5 Galaxy unless you used a chain saw to disassemble it first. No chance to landing a C-5 out there. I think their plan was reasonable and the only cost effective method to get it out of there. After all, the USAF had abandoned any chance of recovery because it was not economically feasible for what THEY, the US government, perceived the value to be.
What historical value? Again, the history would have primarily been that associated with the recovery. You can't attach a historical value beyond a commercial value if nobody can afford the recovery. The USAF has plenty of B-29s, it is the civilian sector that has the shortage. In my opinion it is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it (or invest in the recovery). Busybodies on this site need to stop assigning emotional value on other people's behalf for things they have no means to exercise control over. That may sound harsh, but don't tell me what color I have to paint my P-51 or that I shouldn't race it. They made the effort, they waded through the politics to get permission, they took the risk.
Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:03 pm
BDK
again, good points. I have to say that I agree with most of what you have said.
However, this is a discussion forum, so with the exception of those present who are warbird owners and are discussing only their own aircraft, we are all "busybodies" by definition, and quite frankly I take exception to being referred to as one.
To my recollection, I have not told you how to paint your Mustang, nor not to race it. I am merely expressing my reasonable thoughts and views on a controversial topic.
thanks
Greg V.
again, good points. I have to say that I agree with most of what you have said.
However, this is a discussion forum, so with the exception of those present who are warbird owners and are discussing only their own aircraft, we are all "busybodies" by definition, and quite frankly I take exception to being referred to as one.
To my recollection, I have not told you how to paint your Mustang, nor not to race it. I am merely expressing my reasonable thoughts and views on a controversial topic.
thanks
Greg V.
Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:20 pm
Personally, I think that anyone who has been involved with the disassembly and move of a large aircraft would realize that taking the aircraft apart and moving it is just not as easy said as done. We disassembled a P2V-3W Neptune and it took several months of constant work, and this was in civilization where you have everything you need for as long as you need it and you don't have to fly in supplies and equipment. The Neptune was also damaged in shipping to the point where it will take probably $100,000 in sheet metal work to get it back to where it was. It also took 4 40 foot trailer loads to move it. The B-29 is much more complex assembly wise and twice as big as the P2V-3W.
You say "Why did the risk have to be taken? The aircraft did not seem to be in any immediate danger, and would probably be still sitting there in the exact same condition if nobody had bothered it; why the rush? Because they made the effort no-one will see it at an airshow, ever. " What good would a time capsule in the middle of the frozen tundra do for anyone. Under this logic why would anyone ever recover anything, why not just let Swamp Ghost sit in the jungle and rot away, after all now pieces of it are missing etc.
In the 1970's my father bought a B-25J back in Omaha, NE and a year later drove a truck load of parts back there with Tony Ritzman and after Carl and Tony and my father working on it for a couple of months they flew it home. Was that the smartest thing to do, was that the "safest" thing to do? Who knows, but I can tell you this the aircraft was pretty pieced together but Bill Muszala flew it home to CA in the snow and ice. If they would have decided there was too much risk involved it would have been scrapped out like that other B-25 that was sitting at the field right next to it.
I guess Kermit Weeks must be reckless too under this logic because he attempted to fly Fertile Myrtle home from Oakland but only after Mechanical problems did he decide to disassemble and truck the aircraft. Do you have any idea how much it costs to have a C5, Skycrane, or anything else move an aircraft?
Did they gamble and loose? Yes. Does it make me sick to my stomach to know that the aircraft is destroyed? Yes. Does it make me feel the same way every time an aircraft is lost? Yes. The fact is it could have just as easily been a pristine restored B-26 or P-38 or any of the other perfectly restored rare aircraft that have been destroyed over the years. Until you are willing to shell out your own $ to take on a project like this I think it is hard to throw stones at those who are willing to lay it all on the line to get things like this done.
You say "Why did the risk have to be taken? The aircraft did not seem to be in any immediate danger, and would probably be still sitting there in the exact same condition if nobody had bothered it; why the rush? Because they made the effort no-one will see it at an airshow, ever. " What good would a time capsule in the middle of the frozen tundra do for anyone. Under this logic why would anyone ever recover anything, why not just let Swamp Ghost sit in the jungle and rot away, after all now pieces of it are missing etc.
In the 1970's my father bought a B-25J back in Omaha, NE and a year later drove a truck load of parts back there with Tony Ritzman and after Carl and Tony and my father working on it for a couple of months they flew it home. Was that the smartest thing to do, was that the "safest" thing to do? Who knows, but I can tell you this the aircraft was pretty pieced together but Bill Muszala flew it home to CA in the snow and ice. If they would have decided there was too much risk involved it would have been scrapped out like that other B-25 that was sitting at the field right next to it.
I guess Kermit Weeks must be reckless too under this logic because he attempted to fly Fertile Myrtle home from Oakland but only after Mechanical problems did he decide to disassemble and truck the aircraft. Do you have any idea how much it costs to have a C5, Skycrane, or anything else move an aircraft?
Did they gamble and loose? Yes. Does it make me sick to my stomach to know that the aircraft is destroyed? Yes. Does it make me feel the same way every time an aircraft is lost? Yes. The fact is it could have just as easily been a pristine restored B-26 or P-38 or any of the other perfectly restored rare aircraft that have been destroyed over the years. Until you are willing to shell out your own $ to take on a project like this I think it is hard to throw stones at those who are willing to lay it all on the line to get things like this done.
Last edited by rwdfresno on Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:40 pm
You know, I just don't know enough about the other ways that they could have gotten it out of there. If they hadn't of had that apu set up the way they did, or if they had turned off the APU after start up, we would be having a whole different conversation right now. I can't slam them because it took balls to try it, and they darn near pulled it off. If anything else she came back to life for a while. I hate the ending of the story, but we also lost a man on that deal.
Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:49 pm
First;
On moving the thing...from what I understand a B-29 has a huge wing spar that extends through the fuselage and cannot be detached from the wing.
Look at "Doc's" wing...it's all one piece.
http://home.att.net/%7Esallyann4/wing-at-boeing.jpg
Secondly;
I agree with Mustangdriver. They got in a hurry, something that is driven into all of our heads not to do around airplanes.
They took the chance, did all this great work, made huge sacrifices and then they got in a hurry and botched the APU thing.
That's what sux.
Get-home-itis has killed many people and destroyed many airplanes over the years.
On moving the thing...from what I understand a B-29 has a huge wing spar that extends through the fuselage and cannot be detached from the wing.
Look at "Doc's" wing...it's all one piece.
http://home.att.net/%7Esallyann4/wing-at-boeing.jpg
Secondly;
I agree with Mustangdriver. They got in a hurry, something that is driven into all of our heads not to do around airplanes.
They took the chance, did all this great work, made huge sacrifices and then they got in a hurry and botched the APU thing.
That's what sux.
Get-home-itis has killed many people and destroyed many airplanes over the years.
Wed Feb 14, 2007 3:29 am
I followed the Kee Bird story closely ever since a story in the old "Air Classics" from the 1970's.I remember the shock and hurt that I felt when I first learned of the fire and destruction of the airplane.I was working at the port of Los Angeles at the time and I was spending alot of time and money at an aviation bookstore in the city of Lomita at the time.It was from there that I learned of the Kee Bird's demise from a friend who was one of the owners son's.It was a very exciting and very disappointing time for me and I wouldnt trade it forthe world.too bad for Mr.Greenamayer and Co. He is and will always be one of my hero's,despite his F-up with the Kee Bird.Long Live Darryl G!
Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:01 am
Okay, the APU in a B-29 is not just used to crank the engines. The only hydraulic system in the airplane is for the brakes, and they are powered by a large, electric motor that is attached to a hydraulic pump (simple terms there). The reason that you don't shut the APU off while taxiing, is because when the engines are at low rpm's, the generators on the engines are "off line" and do not charge the aircraft battery. The aircraft battery does not have enough "poop" to keep the hydraulic power pack assembly running multiple times, so the APU is required to stay running for that reason. It also helps assist the generators (6 in all...two on each outbd engine, 1 on each inbd engine) while the gear and flaps are coming up and down. It requires 460 amps to raise the gear on the B-29 and 270 for the flaps, since they are electric too. 
The procedure is to shut the APU down on the "after takeoff" checklist and turn it back on during the "in range" checklist (when getting near your landing airport).
Now, I get probably as many questions about why those APU's just "spontaneously burn airplanes up" than just about anything else asked about the B-29, ever since the Kee Bird documentary. It's true that the APU's are little two cylinder, gas engines, that get quite warm back in their little compartments, but the killer for the Kee Bird was the fact that they the fuel pump had quit working for their APU and they decided to "fix" that by hanging a gas can up from the top of the fuselage with a coat hanger. That worked great for a while, as the fuel just gravity fed into the APU. However, when the airplane was taxied over the moguls and rough terrain, the coat hangar broke and the full can of fuel dumped on the hot APU. We all know what happened from there.
How do I know this? Well, I've had two of the crew members of that episode tell me the identical story.
I have modified FIFI's electrical system to keep us from having to use the APU any longer. I have simply added, in effect, two more aircraft batteries to the system and it works great! The APU is still operational, and if we were to somehow lose power to all three batteries, we'd still have the APU as a back up. The biggest problem with the APU's for us hasn't been fires (thank goodness), but rather, keeping the dang things running. They're one of the most cantakerous little engines I've ever dealt with. Not as bad as the ones that spin the propellers, but close.
Sorry for the rant, y'all, but I just wanted to try to at least clear up some of that part of the story.
Gary
The procedure is to shut the APU down on the "after takeoff" checklist and turn it back on during the "in range" checklist (when getting near your landing airport).
Now, I get probably as many questions about why those APU's just "spontaneously burn airplanes up" than just about anything else asked about the B-29, ever since the Kee Bird documentary. It's true that the APU's are little two cylinder, gas engines, that get quite warm back in their little compartments, but the killer for the Kee Bird was the fact that they the fuel pump had quit working for their APU and they decided to "fix" that by hanging a gas can up from the top of the fuselage with a coat hanger. That worked great for a while, as the fuel just gravity fed into the APU. However, when the airplane was taxied over the moguls and rough terrain, the coat hangar broke and the full can of fuel dumped on the hot APU. We all know what happened from there.
How do I know this? Well, I've had two of the crew members of that episode tell me the identical story.
I have modified FIFI's electrical system to keep us from having to use the APU any longer. I have simply added, in effect, two more aircraft batteries to the system and it works great! The APU is still operational, and if we were to somehow lose power to all three batteries, we'd still have the APU as a back up. The biggest problem with the APU's for us hasn't been fires (thank goodness), but rather, keeping the dang things running. They're one of the most cantakerous little engines I've ever dealt with. Not as bad as the ones that spin the propellers, but close.
Sorry for the rant, y'all, but I just wanted to try to at least clear up some of that part of the story.
Gary