This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:08 pm
Hey Slats
Welcome to WIX
Thanks for sharing your story about meeting Gen. Tibbets. I can't imagine the emotional load he must have carried through his life.
Not that I disagree with the course of events, just heavy from a human perspective.
Sorry I don't have any info on the B-29 wreck you saw. No doubt someone here will. There are a lot of really knowledgeable folks here.
Andy Scott
Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:05 am
Does anyone actually have a picture of the b 29 that's sitting at the aircraft dump in Guam? I have seen it referenced everywhere but I can't find anymore info on it.
Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:34 pm
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.
Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:23 pm
You make a lot of good points there; there wasn't a lot of love for the B-29 for a long time. Besides China Lake, however, don't forget the examples that were rescued from the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in the early 1970s. They had a close call, too - when one of the higher-ups at the base was contacted about saving the vintage aircraft on the test range, his response was words to the effect of "We don't have any 'vintage aircraft' - just some old B-29s".
One other B-29 I was curious about was 44-69983, which was pulled out of China Lake intact in the late '70s only to end up derelict at Kingman, AZ. Were parts of it used to restore Miss America '62 at Travis, and if so, what's left of it?
Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:45 pm
I think there are so few B-29s due to the fact that they are BIG, had/have an atomic capability, and are expensive to operate. The B-17 is big of course but it was also used quite a bit in forest fire fighting and so there was more of an immediate economic use for the planes. The B-24 and the B-29 were just not suited to civilian use. The Privateer survived better for the same reason (IMHO). It seems to me that FIFI and DOC are the (or will be) the only flying examples in civilian hands of an atomic capable bomber - the Vulcan in the UK I guess also fits this catagory but sounds like it will not be much of a flyer in the future. No warbird is cheap to own/operate but the cost on a B-29 is staggering in fuel consumption alone!
My .02
Tom P.
Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:57 pm
Great discussion on the B-29 (my favorite aircraft). No disrespect to the awesome B-17, but the B-29 was a beautiful plane that I always thought deserved better. Fortunately, there are dome great restorations in-progress (NEAM, SAC Museum, DOC, etc.) but we have a long way to go as some airframes sit derelict and disassembled in long term storage with little hope of restoration in the near future (Fertile Myrtle, Borrego Springs, etc.). It would be nice to see a book written on survivors like the B-17 community has. Maybe someday...
Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:42 am
There is a surviving B-29 book in progress. Very slooooow progress!
Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:47 am
Never get tired of this topic. Here in GA I have seen the Dobbins B-29 up close and have been inside the Robins B-29 in 2007. Next on my "when I have nothing to do day" is to fly down to Cordele and see (and photograph) the B-29 parked there. Would prefer to make advance contact to whomever is the caretaker down there to see if some interior shots can be obtained. Any WIXers have a point of contact?
I know it is frustrating that more airframes weren't earmarked for preservation back in the day, but attitudes and perspectives were different - thank goodness they are better now. In fact, we need to be vigilant that appropriate airframes are being "preserved" today, particularly when they are destined to be non-flying statics. It's human nature to look back but we need to be mindful of the present and recent past: S-3's, A-7's, F-15's, C-130's, etc. In a strange twist of circular logic, some airplanes are not immediately preserved due to "budget" when, in fact, pickling the systems and getting it inside a museum asap will save mx & restoration expenses down the road. Different buckets of money I suppose ...
I digress. Love those B-29s.
Ken
Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:11 pm
I too have been fascinated with the B-29 for years, actually for decades. It began back in the mid-1950s when I was able to crawl thought the tunnel of a Superfortress at England AFB with my Cub Scout troop.
During the past year, I have had the privilege to see up close, and photograph, ten of the B-29 survivors around the country. Some of the photos I've taken are linked from this page ...
http://www.planesofthepast.com/b29-supe ... rcraft.htmI have a "to do list" of other Superfortress survivors that I hope to see during the coming year.
It is indeed a magnificent airplane, especially for its time. I salute those who designed it, built it, flew it and those who are making efforts to preserve the few that remain.
Sun Jun 30, 2013 5:36 am
Do you have pictures of the interiors and/or wheel wells? These kind of photos are great for those building models.
Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:10 am
Ken wrote:Never get tired of this topic.
Neither do I.
Planes of the Past, nice link, do you think the "lady of the lake" should be on your list. Would like to see that one pulled out,
I have 8 on my seen list- many more to go.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.