Boeing on a Barge ...

[JohnB]

My guess...
Landing damage at Boeing field, being taken by barge to the Renton B-29 factory for repairs.

It's the only scenario that makes any sense.

Last edited by JohnB on Sun Jan 11, 2015 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Taigh Ramey]

Years ago I remember seeing a film that I think was taken at Boeing Field. It was a film shot from the right side of the runway of a B-29 taking off. As the takeoff roll progresses the aircraft appears to pivot on the right main gear and start veering to the right toward. The cameraman. The right wing tip starts dragging as the aircraft starts heading straight at the camera. You can see that the aileron on the right wing, the wing dragging on the ground, is fully deflected up thus pinning the wing to the ground.

The story was that the ailerons were rigged backwards at the factory and that this was the initial takeoff roll after being built.

The film cuts out with the Superfirtress heading right at the camera. I always wondered what came next like the camera hitting the ground to record a pair of heels quickly getting smaller. What happened to the aircraft and did everyone come through okay?

Now I wonder if this photo of the B-29 on a barge might be the same aircraft?

A couple of other observations is the upper aft turret does appear normal as if the dome, gun fairing and guns were removed. Strange that there is no obvious upper forward turret or opening. Also the damage to the left hotizontal stab. You can see all of the airframe parts on the back of the barge.

Very cool photo and mystery which I'm sure will be solved by the WIX brain trust

[hang the expense]

Cub, I think you may be correct.

[Chris Brame]

Went through accident listings on the AAIR site going back from June 30 to June 15, 1944 with no luck - no B-29 incidents in that area. Accident-report.com lists B-29 42-93860 as ditched off Puget Sound, but that was on August 19, 1944.

[DaveG]

I too miss the Inspector for this kind of stuff. I did find this link that suggests that the picture was taken on June 30, 1944:
http://research.archives.gov/description/298878

[Cubs]

Cub, I think you may be correct.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Couple of things to ponder, also:
*(removed one item)
*why are all these people gathered around anyway? I know, I know, a B-29 didn't come through the locks everyday, but...
*There also appears to be a police officer just forward of the aircraft.
* The tug boat is facing the "wrong way" to push the barge to Renton. (I'm not a ship's master so I don't know if there is any significance to the position of the tug. That may be normal.)

To be objective, I have to admit that a landing overrun is very likely, like John B mentioned.
I retract the part about the upper turret sheared. Looks like it was carefully removed.
The no.2 engine oil cooler, inlet thingy is smashed. Not sure how that occurred with my scenario.

[DH82EH]

As usual, some great observations.
I just revisited the pic in question and noticed that there are no outer wing panels. Hmmm....
Makes me think it's definitely not a flying accident.
Lots of bent propeller blades (on top, weird). Definitely not while turning.
Smashed H-stab.

A real noggin scratcher.

Andy

[RyanShort1]

I dunno. I think that the cockpit cover makes it likely an accident.

[seagull61785]

Landing damage at Boeing field, being taken by barge to the Renton B-29 factory for repairs.

If this is a likely scenario, and it could well be, then there could be two 'types' of damage to the aircraft.

a) Damage sustained as a result of an airfield mishap,

and

b) Intentional 'damage' to prepare it for the voyage along the canal.

If you Google the 'Hiram M Chittenden Locks' where this photo was taken you will discover one of the website links that shows a schematic of the locks and it will become apparent that to successfully transit through the locks your barge 'cargo' had to conform to a maximum width, or else it would foul the steep wall of the locks as the water sank down to the lower level. Hence it is likely that the removal of both of the outer wing panels and one side of the horizontal stabiliser (I call it the port tailplane) would be necessary to make it fit (my point at b) - intentional damage. These wing and tail parts may be seen on the barge at the rear after removal. It makes sense that they would accompany the aircraft to the repair shop (difficult to test fly with a shorter span after repair).

So my guess is that the apparent damage is a mixture of both a) and b). Could have been initially damaged by something as simple as a tractor towing it into a hangar entrance or structure that was too low for it, which might account for the fin and/or bent top props.

My two cents worth.

Barry

[B29Gunner]

Any ideas what this was about? This is where The Inspector would have been the man with the theory. His contributions to WIX are missed for sure.

That would be 42-93860! She went for a swim in Puget Sound after a fire broke out during a test flight (the crew got out with only minor injuries). The airframe was barged back to Renton, where it was written off, and then it ended up at the B-29 School at Boeing Field. She was christened "The Seagull" and utilized for training purposes by the students until the end of the war.

The XB-29 airframe used for static testing was also rebuilt by the students at the school and was named the "Silver Ghost," because it was a B-29 that "technically did not exist." It was built only for static testing and never had a AAF serial number. The airframe was practically destroyed during testing and what the students accomplished in rebuilding her was quite a remarkable achievement! All of the repairs were airworthy and they say she could have easily flown. They did taxi her though, which is pretty amazing considering what the airframe looked like when it arrived at the school!

[B29Gunner]

Years ago I remember seeing a film that I think was taken at Boeing Field. It was a film shot from the right side of the runway of a B-29 taking off. As the takeoff roll progresses the aircraft appears to pivot on the right main gear and start veering to the right toward. The cameraman. The right wing tip starts dragging as the aircraft starts heading straight at the camera. You can see that the aileron on the right wing, the wing dragging on the ground, is fully deflected up thus pinning the wing to the ground.

The story was that the ailerons were rigged backwards at the factory and that this was the initial takeoff roll after being built.

The film cuts out with the Superfirtress heading right at the camera. I always wondered what came next like the camera hitting the ground to record a pair of heels quickly getting smaller. What happened to the aircraft and did everyone come through okay?

Taigh, that was XB-29 No. 3 with Colonel Jake Harmon at the controls. Boeing had not cleared the ship for flight yet, but Harmon intended to do some taxi runs and "hop" her off the runway in preparation for the first test flight in the coming days. After the incident, it was discovered that the aileron cables in the control columns were incorrectly installed, which resulted in the reversal of the control inputs. How no one caught that before hand is beyond me, and the irony is that Harmon was present at Wright Field when the Model 299 (B-17 prototype) crashed in 1935 because the gust locks were not unlocked (Harmon helped pull Les Tower, Boeing's Chief Test Pilot, and Major Pete Hill out of the burning wreckage, but both would succumb to their injuries). The XB-29 was quickly repaired and "officially" flown by Harmon eight days later.

[Mark Allen M]

And there you go! ... Another one solved.

[sandiego89]

... and a B-29 doesn't get much squeaky cleaner that this one(s) .... Isn't 'DOC' going to look like one of these? As in factory fresh? No markings?

Some great work! I too would have though more prop damage with a ditching. I voted over run before the mystery was solved.

Can anyone please explain the difference in the shinny aluminum and the dull material that shows up so well in this shot Mark supplied? I am talking about the duller section that comprises most of the upper wing skin that extends from the fuselage, and goes about out to star markings on the wing. This same material goes up over the mid fuselage band. Why does this band of material go over the fuselage? IIRC correctly this section of wing and fusealge was build as a unit. Different material? Different grade of aluminum? treated/painted? I am aware that the B-36 used magnesium for the non-pressurized sections and aluminum for the pressurized sections, giving a very obvious dull (magnesium) and shinny (aluminum) difference.

[Cubs]

Hold on there, fellas. Not so fast.
Couple of things:
1. Why did they bother to put the main gear down? It wasn't ditched that way.
2. The date of the photo would be wrong. (which does happen very often, I know.)
3. Why cover the cockpit? I assume the cover was to protect the sensitive cockpit instruments from the common Seattle rains. No need for a protective cover if the plane sat in water for a couple of days, prior to being lifted out.

[sandiego89]

1. Why did they bother to put the main gear down? It wasn't ditched that way.
2. The date of the photo would be wrong. (which does happen very often, I know.)
3. Why cover the cockpit? I assume the cover was to protect the sensitive cockpit instruments from the common Seattle rains. No need for a protective cover if the plane sat in water for a couple of days, prior to being lifted out.

You could drop the mains mechanically when she is free of the water and hanging from a crane above the barge. Gives a better resting point, reduces damage (they still may have been thinking salvage before a write off determination), helps clear the barge gear (I beams above the barge deck) and enough clearnance to clear the canal walls they knew they would have to transit. Looks like she would hit the lock sides if she were flat on the deck on her belly. No reason not to drop the gear if you can.

Even if sitting in the water for a bit covering the damaged nose would make sense. Do not want to advertise/show damage to a front line aircraft. The Norden bomb site and other parts of the B-29 were sensitve, and they knew they would be transiting public spaces. So perhaps not to keep the rain off the already wet parts, but to keep prying eyes away. Easy to throw a tarp over it- I would be surprised if they didn't.