How difficult were B29's to maintain?

[muddyboots]

It seems like they were such a complex piece of machinery that they were almost not worth the effort of flying them. I find the B29 to be one of the most beautiful aircraft of the war, but I always wonder just how much they cost, and whether we couldn't have kept island hopping until we were within B17 and B24 range--with the Japanese well hammered down as it almost was when the 29's started their thing, couldn't we have simply grabbed a couple of empty islands nearer the Japanese mainland, and flown fron them?

Or was it just more cost effective to fuel and maintain and crew those big suckers? Were they also an important part of our learning curve, what with all the gewgaws built into them? If I wasn't moving I would go dig a book up, but I am cleaning my shelves as it is.

[JDK]

I'm no expert, but it was the case the B-29 program was close to failure on occasion, due to the type's complexity.

Even without the Atomic bombs however, the B-29 proved effective, albeit in a different way (low level fire raising) to the design. Its service in the 1950s was also worth bearing in mind. Its atomic bomb capability 'justifies' the B-29 development, alone, I'd suggest.

A general point, MB, is that even then, the design lead-time meant the aircraft were designed for battles as yet un-imagined. The Pacific War lasted less than four years; in 1941 no one could see what warfare would look like in 1945. Yet American industry came up with one of the best ever 'crash' and production programes in history. Just have a look at the types the USAAF had in '41 compared to '45.

With a modern military appreciation, we tend to overlook the sheer pace of aviation development until 1950. (F'rinstance the F-15 first flew in 1972, it's still a viable aircraft. Using a 35 year old bomber in 1945 would give you the best of 1910, when they were hand throwing the bombs! )

We didn't know how we needed to use it, and it was hard to get right, but we were glad to have it.

Just some thoughts.

[tom d. friedman]

i'd say the upkeep effort was obviously worth it, the usaf up graded many b-29's to b-50's for use in korea & beyond, as well as the aerial tanker versions.

[JDK]

Certainly the Russians appreciated being able to skip the development phase!

[tom d. friedman]

good & valid point!!

[mustangdriver]

Certainly the Russians appreciated being able to skip the development phase!

The version they made had the tail made in the english system and the rest made in the metric system. When they tried to join the two halves, they did not fit. Also they copied the boeing logo in the rudder pedals.

[JDK]

The version they made had the tail made in the english system and the rest made in the metric system. When they tried to join the two halves, they did not fit. Also they copied the boeing logo in the rudder pedals.

Mmmm. I'd like a source on that. Sounds to me like some comforting American invented myths. Front end didn't match the back end? That's a bar-tale.

First 'the english System' would be 'Imperial measures', I presume - I can't see the Russians using it - They were using Metric. The issue was the B-29 was built in American materials and measures, which IIRC are a mixture of Imperial and US measures, none of which would work with Metric directly.

If the rudder pedals were cast, then using an original, logo and all, as a master for a sand mould makes sense, it's quick, and does the job. You'd have to physically remove the logo from the 'master' or within the mould - but why bother?

I don't know how B-29 pedals are made, but Vultee Vengeance pedals are cast (I think) from those I was looking at recently. Engineer input welcome!

From Wikipedia (usual cautions apply)

The Soviet Union used the metric system, thus 1/16th inch sheet aluminum and proper rivet lengths were unavailable. The corresponding metric-gauge metal was thicker; as a result the Tu-4 weighed more than the B-29, giving it less range and payload.

Interesting discussion (after the interesting article) here:
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/Tu-4.html

You choose your favourite myth from that lot!

On topic, the full history of the B-29 development and introduction to service was a pinnacle of mass achievement, effort and guts, overcoming numerous major setbacks and new problems. Because of the newness of 'whizzy' things like jets, IMHO the Boeing team didn't get the credit they deserved.

To answer MB's question another way, Boeing went from the 247, 299, B-17 to B-29 in very few years. Each was a major step upward in capability and complexity, yet utterly replaced the previous type (excepting the civil 247).

Regards,

[mustangdriver]

The version they made had the tail made in the english system and the rest made in the metric system. When they tried to join the two halves, they did not fit. Also they copied the boeing logo in the rudder pedals.

Mmmm. I'd like a source on that. Sounds to me like some comforting American invented myths. Front end didn't match the back end? That's a bar-tale.

First 'the english System' would be 'Imperial measures', I presume - I can't see the Russians using it - They were using Metric. The issue was the B-29 was built in American materials and measures, which IIRC are a mixture of Imperial and US measures, none of which would work with Metric directly.

If the rudder pedals were cast, then using an original, logo and all, as a master for a sand mould makes sense, it's quick, and does the job. You'd have to physically remove the logo from the 'master' or within the mould - but why bother?

I don't know how B-29 pedals are made, but Vultee Vengeance pedals are cast (I think) from those I was looking at recently. Engineer input welcome!

From Wikipedia (usual cautions apply)

The Soviet Union used the metric system, thus 1/16th inch sheet aluminum and proper rivet lengths were unavailable. The corresponding metric-gauge metal was thicker; as a result the Tu-4 weighed more than the B-29, giving it less range and payload.

Interesting discussion (after the interesting article) here:
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/Tu-4.html

You choose your favourite myth from that lot!

On topic, the full history of the B-29 development and introduction to service was a pinnacle of mass achievement, effort and guts, overcoming numerous major setbacks and new problems. Because of the newness of 'whizzy' things like jets, IMHO the Boeing team didn't get the credit they deserved.

To answer MB's question another way, Boeing went from the 247, 299, B-17 to B-29 in very few years. Each was a major step upward in capability and complexity, yet utterly replaced the previous type (excepting the civil 247).

Regards,

All of my info came from "Stealing the B-29".

[51fixer]

i'd say the upkeep effort was obviously worth it, the usaf up graded many b-29's to b-50's for use in korea & beyond, as well as the aerial tanker versions.

The B-50 was a different model. It wasn't an upgrade of an old B-29 converted into a B-50, but a complete new build bomber based on a version of the B-29D that had PW R-4360s.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-50.htm
Rich

[JDK]

All of my info came from "Stealing the B-29".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345961/

A TV program?

You do know that Hawkeye isn't a real person?

I hope I've made your late shift fun.

[mustangdriver]

You did JDK, you did. The TV show was made for the Discovery Channel, and very accurate, not one of those news type shows. Check out Dr. Apel's book about his time in a MASH unit. There also was a real tent named the Swamp that they lived in.

[famvburg]

Apparently the correct title being "Stealing the Superfortress". You trust a program put out by The History Channel or The Discovery Channel? Do you recall one part of that show where they talk about the Tu-4 & in the background footage they show the Ilyushin Il-22 taking off? (These are the same folks who consistently show SBDs bombing Pearl Harbor.) Also, IIRC, the Boeing logo was on the control wheel, not the rudder pedals. Was that info from the show too? I was so looking forward to that program & even taped it. As usual, it turned out such a usual disappointment, I think I even taped over the program. There are a couple of books out there on the Tu-4, at least one, anyway, done by someone who really does know his stuff. I don't think the production Tu-4s copied the Boeing logo, as the designers were so concerned with pleasing Stalin's wanting an 'exact' copy for the prototype. I guess one could say the Tu-4 was a success because its lineage ended with the Tu-95 Bear, considered by some as the 'ultimate' B-29 development.

All of my info came from "Stealing the B-29".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0345961/

A TV program?

You do know that Hawkeye isn't a real person?

I hope I've made your late shift fun.

[steve dickey]

I have the book from the Red Star series titled: Tupolev Tu-4, Soviet Superfortress by: Yefim Gorden & Vladimir Rigmant. Doesn't say anything about the authors but they both sound Russian to me. I don't remember a lot of details and will brush up on the book tonight. There was also an Air & Space mag article a few years back on the TU-4, I have it but don't know if I will try and dig it out or not.

[Jack Cook]

The TV show was made for the Discovery Channel, and very accurate, not one of those news type shows.

TV used to be accurate

[Second Air Force]

To find out how much fun it was to maintain the B-29 you only have to meet a veteran who was assigned to the engine detail. (Or talk to those who have worked on FIFI throughout the years). There were other problems, but the worst aspect of the '29 was the engine being locked into production before it was ready. General Arnold had committed to having the airplane in service in China by the early months of 1944, and Curtiss-Wright had to produce a less-than reliable engine before it was really ready. In addition, the cowling design was inadequate to cool the engine properly, a function of reducing drag to the greatest extent possible. I've interviewed engine guys assigned to the Second Air Force bases who said they almost never saw a B-29 return from a training mission with four fans turning. Frequent engine failures and short life plagued the airplane right up to today, hence Gary's re-engine program for FIFI.