B-29 Engineering Flight book

And still accurate.

Ive seen some studies that show the use of slide rules and other analog displays conveys information to the average user far more effectively than digital.

This might be of interest to some of you. FiFi has had engine problems and the CAF has come up with a novel solution to replace them.

"For those of you interested in some further details about what we have planned for FIFI's re-engine project, I offer the following...

As with most projects that so many people have an interest in, there have been some welcome questions regarding what we have planned and why we chose the engines we have, where they came from, what they were on, how old they are, etc. We will be utilizing parts from the R-3350-95W and the R-3350-26WD engines in order to make our own engine for the B-29. Perhaps we should call it the R-3350-B29. One of the things I find interesting about this business is that we are able to make great airplanes even better. This requires some ingenuity and exploration. Sometimes plans work without a hitch, other times there are problems that have to be worked out. It's this reason that I must say that although we are very happy with our current plans, we are also very interested in hearing input from others that may bring up an issue we haven't foreseen. We are prepared to make whatever small adjustments we need in order to make this project a safe and reliable one.

The reason we chose the -95W engines are because we have them. In fact, we already have nine of them. They are a late (1965 or so) manufactured engine that went on AC-119K Gunships (attack version of the Boxcar). These are turbo-compound engines that are very similar to the DC-7 engine and were rated at 3,500 horsepower. We obviously cannot use the turbo compound portion of these engines, as they simply would not fit in the B-29 cowlings nacelles.

This is where the -26WD engine comes in. This engine is what was used on the Douglas Skyraider. This particular dash number was manufactured from the early 1960's until the early to mid 1970's (depending on what information you read). These were EXCELLENT engines, just ask any Skyraider pilot or Sea Fury racer at Reno. The reason we need them is because the power section, blower section, and accessory section will simply bolt right up to our existing B-29 engine mounts. This will save us tremendous amounts of time since we won't have to design, test, and manufacture new engine mounts.

We plan on using the "guts," cylinders, and nosecase of the -95W in the "block" of the -26WD so that we can fabricate a strong and reliable engine with the least amount of work and money. We have no intention of trying to use the full 3500 horsepower of the -95W engine, as the B-29 airframe simply was not designed to take that kind of power. In addition, we intend on using the stock B-29 propellers, so we could not turn this "new" engine of ours up high enough to get that horsepower anyway.

Our estimates show the following:
Takeoff setting: 2,400 rpm and 44" of manifold pressure (roughly 2,400 h.p.)
Cruise setting: 2,000 rpm and 30" of manifold pressure. This is the same power setting that we use now and the same setting that the engine builders recommend for cruise flight. This should allow for the engines to be operated in a "normal" capacity, while still allowing more horsepower across the board. This is obviously an important figure when figuring the safety of flight if we were to lose an engine.

Since our takeoff power is merely the normal METO power of the -95W engine, we could (in theory) fly at that power setting for sustained periods of time. Again, not a bad thing to have if we were not flying on all four engines...plenty of "reserve power."

We will more than likely also see an increase in cruising speed for lower altitudes. At 30"/2000rpm the props will be turning faster than our old cruising prop speeds. FIFI will definitely have a different (more powerful) sound as well. Higher blower ratios should give us better cruising altitude capabilities too, if needed. We may have to clip the wings on Diamond LIL so she can keep up (grin).

Our first plan of attack is to build up a mock up that will include the external parts of our proposed engine, installed in a B-29 nacelle and cowling. Jeff Abbott is building up this "dummy" engine, while Kermit Weeks was kind enough to allow us to borrow the nacelle and cowling to save us time. Nelson Ezell will be working with this mock up to start with the fabrication of a new exhaust system and cowling modifications.

I could go on and on about this engine combination and if you'd like some more info on it, I'd be happy to get into more detail. As always, we very much appreciate any input you or any of our Squadron members or Warbird buffs might have. We have not thought of everything, but I can assure you, we have been thinking of everything we can.

Regards,
Gary Austin
Crew Chief, B-29/B-24 Squadron
Commemorative Air Force:

Wow that is very intersting.

Interesting stuff syscom!

Real interesting - I'm wondering if they are going to de-rate them or just hold back on power (keep to 2,400 rpm and 44" of manifold pressure) at take off?

I read this on the sallyann B29 website.

B29-Superfortress : B-29 SuperFortress is a mailing list dedicated to the amazing flying machine, the B-29 Superfortress.


crowther@southwind.net wrote:
Earl and all,
When I mentioned formation flying, I was thinking of a loose formation, like that on the attached picture (courtesy of John Potenza, Jr.) But from your comments, I can see that this appears to be a picture taken as they were approaching the target - since they were over land. Also, as you point out, with the timing and length of the missions, at least part of the mission was at night - or in bad weather - both times when you would not want to be flying formation. (Although I read a book once about helicopter pilots in Vietnam who flew in formation using the instrument panel lights of the lead chopper for reference.) In the night mining missions, there was not even a need to even stay together - except to watch out for each other.
So it appears that the amount and time of formation flying depended on:
1. The type of mission.
2. The time of the mission
3. The number of planes involved (sometimes a whole wing, sometimes a squadron)
Although I was thinking only of North Field, I also appreciate hearing comparisions from Saipan and Korea (and elsewhere). They highlight other factors that come into play, such as the impact of having fewer runways (a problem on Saipan and West Field).
Once again, I learn that there is no simple answer!
Phil


ejohnson435@cfl.rr.com wrote:


For Phil Crowther:

Let me explain a little about flying from Tinian to Japan. In the early part of the war from the Mariannas the B-29's fornmed in formation shortly after take-off and flew the 1,500 miles to Japan in loose formation. This took about six plus hours and was very tiring for the pilots. Further, it required an "afternoon" bomb-drop because the first six-hours had to be in "daylight" so the pilots could see each other and the weather in the afternoons over Japan was not as good as in the mornings.

So what happened? They gave up on the long, tiring formation flying to get to Japan and flew individually to a "rendevous point" off the coast of Japan where the formation leader began a "race-track circle" and the other planes were "supposed" to find the leader and join up in formation.

Well, you guessed it! That didn't work very well either. Navigators had a hard time "finding" the rendevous point out over the water and a lot of times they got into a formation of B-29's that belonged to another Group who may be going to the same target but with a different "aiming point". It probably even happened that they hooked up with a formation from another Group that could have had a completely different target.

While the larger tail identification markings did help they did not completely solve the problem. Thus, daylight bombing began to take a "backseat" to night fire-bombing where it was an individual airplane all the way. But you still saw other airplanes enroute or even over the target during a fire-raid since the fires provided lots of light over the cities. In fact, there were mid-air collisions on some fire raids and lots of "near-misses".

Hope this helps.

Earl Johnson
9th Group, Circle X
North Field, Tinian

Good info, thanks.

Interesting stuff syscom!

In another thread, a discussion has been going on about the B29 and the "huge" bombs like the grand slam.

I asked a question about this in the B29 forum and here is an interesting reply. As others come in, I will post them too.

("Mike Frey" <mike21b@dejazzd.com>)
After WW2, the Grand Slam bomb was used with B-29s for practice bombing in Germany, to see if the bomb was capable of breaking through the heavily fortified submarine pens in Bremen. These particular missions had non-explosive "Grand Slam" bombs. US Military had former German POWs retrieve them (dig them out of the earth) so that they could be refitted with fins and reused.

This information comes directly from Phil Guay, my flight instructor, who was assigned to this activity after the Pacific war ended.

The Grand Slam appears to be the original "bunker buster" type bomb and had a few variations over the years.

Interesting. I knew they were tested but did not know they were tested in Europe.

The American Experience | Fly Girls | The WASP and the B-29

In the summer of 1944, the 25-year-old U.S. Lieutenant Colonel Paul W. Tibbets had a problem. He was in charge of training pilots on the Army Air Forces' newest, biggest and most complicated bomber yet, and the task was turning out to be much more onerous than he'd anticipated. Tibbets' men were putting up unprecedented resistance. In point of fact, the pilots had every reason to be wary. The B-29 was not only much larger and heavier than any bomber the U.S. had flown before, it also hadn't gone through the years of operational testing to which Boeing had subjected its predecessor the B-17. Initially engine fires were one of the major problems. The planes' Wright engines were often called the Wrong engines. Part of the trouble could be traced to the engine cowlings that were too tight and often caused fires even before the planes had taken off. Although engine improvements were made over time, fires remained a problem throughout World War II.

wasps image Tibbets decided that the way to convince the men to fly the plane was to show that women could do it. The young Colonel recruited Dora Dougherty and Dorothea Moorman to be his demo pilots. Dougherty remembers that at that point, she had never even been in a four-engine plane before. Tibbets did not warn his new recruits of the engine fire problem. Instead he trained them to take off without the standard power checks. After three days, the colonel decided his women pilots were ready for their demonstration. For several days, Dougherty and Johnson ferried pilots, crew chiefs and navigators from the very-heavy-bomber base at Alamogordo, New Mexico across the state. Tibbets' plan was a terrific success: After watching the women fly the four-engine bomber, the men stopped complaining about the plane. Air Staff Major General Barney Giles brought the demonstrations to an abrupt halt after just a few days, telling Tibbets that the women were "putting the big football players to shame." Giles was also worried that an accident would unleash tremendous adverse publicity. The two women were sent back to Eglin Field, Florida, and never flew a B-29 again. But the plane they'd demonstrated went on to play a decisive role in the Allied victory in World War II.


Related Primary Sources:

* Dora Dougherty's certificate of competence in the B-29
The American Experience | Fly Girls | Dora Dougherty's certificate of competence in the B-29

* Excerpt from Maintenance Bulletin No. 19
The American Experience | Fly Girls | Excerpt from Maintenance Bulletin No. 19

* Letter from Harry McKeown to Dora Dougherty Strother
The American Experience | Fly Girls | Letter from Harry McKeown to Dora Dougherty Strother

very good plan and i'm not supprised it worked..........

NEW DIGS FOR DOC
B-29 Superfortress leaves Boeing site
Aviation museum to raise funds for hangar
BY FRED MANN
The Wichita Eagle
Mike Hutmacher/The Wichita Eagle

The Restoration of "Doc"

Connie Palacioz beamed as the B-29 Superfortress named Doc, gleaming in the sunlight, rolled toward its new home at the Kansas Aviation Museum on Tuesday. One more milestone in Doc's history. "It's wonderful," said Palacioz, 82, a riveter at Boeing during World War II and one of the volunteers helping to restore the plane to airworthiness.

"I'd like to see it when it flies," she said. "We'll do our part. We have to keep the project going."

Palacioz was part of a crowd of about 75 people who watched the plane's move to the museum from Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, where volunteers have been renovating it since 2000.

Doc was one of more than 1,600 B-29s built in Wichita during World War II. It was part of a squadron of aircraft named after Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

The plane will sit outdoors at the museum until a temporary fabric shelter is built.

The museum's board will meet next month to plan a fundraising campaign for the shelter and a new 40,000-square- foot permanent hangar to house Doc and other restored vintage aircraft, said Teresa Day, museum director. The board also will establish a specific date to launch the campaign.

A temporary shelter will cost about $350,000, and a permanent hangar about $4 million, Day said.

Donations to the museum historically have come in fits and starts, primarily from individuals. A grassroots campaign started by local businessman Dawson Grimsley in 2004 raised just under $100,000, which was "a good start," Day said.

As Doc neared the museum on Tuesday, Cliff Gaston, project manager for the plane's owner, the United States Aviation Museum in Wickliffe, Ohio, kicked rocks aside and made sure the ground in front of the museum was clean and smooth.

"The tires are $1,859 apiece," he said.

Gaston hopes Doc doesn't have to sit out in the Kansas weather very long. With spring approaching, he worries about hailstorms.

"The upper skin is pretty soft," he said. "The wing is pretty solid, but the fuselage and horizontal and vertical stabilizers -- hail will just eat 'em up. That really bothers me."

Holes and openings in unfinished portions of the plane have been covered, said Jerry O'Connor, project manager in Wichita. Four trailers will store parts and tools near the plane so renovation work can continue in bad weather, he said.

The U.S. aviation museum has signed a seven-year lease to keep the plane at the museum, Day said.

A 4-foot chain-link fence will be placed around the plane today to prevent sightseers from touching it.

At night, the plane's security will be monitored by Boeing and McConnell Air Force Base, Day said.

Doc is at least a couple of years away from flying, volunteers said. It still needs fuel cells and its engines rebuilt.

But on Tuesday, just watching Doc roll along the ground was satisfying enough to those who have worked on the plane.

"It means a great deal to me," said Dori Almire, one of the volunteers on the project. "All my family was in the service during World War II, and I had an uncle in Guam who saw B-29s fly overhead all the time. It's part of history."

THE B-29 SET JAPAN'S CITIES ON FIRE!!But I do like the B-50,though!

Kid this is what I was talking about when I sent you a pm about being serious here. Come on!

ohka345 said:

THE B-29 SET JAPAN'S CITIES ON FIRE!![/IMG]

Click to expand...

It's called a war...

Yep and it is a side effect of loosing and feeling the effects of what you have inflicted on others...

ohka345's homework assignment for tonight.....

"Describe in detail the Imperial Japanese Armies attrocities in the Nanking incident of 1937"

What attrocities? Huh those are lies!

Heres a nice picture of a RAF B29.

This was posted by chris_howlett in the B29 forum.

Notice the wing dihedral (wing bending?).