B-29A 44-61966 Does anyone have any info?

[Edward Sheetmetalhands]

B-29A 44-61966 Was wondering if anyone had any info or pictures of this bird? I bought the autopilot for it, it has the a/c serial stamped on the removal tag. I was told it was named Raiden's Maiden but have been unable to turn up any information on it.

[rreis]

this list http://www.abcdlist.nl/boeing_seattle_02.html

gives

C/n Type Line Regs
11443 B-29A-55-BN xxx 44-61966

but Raiden's Maiden, in google (probably you already did this) gives another two A/C

42-6265 Raiden Maiden, 42-65276 Raiden Maiden II

( example: http://www.neam.org/profile.asp?ID=445

and

http://home.att.net/~sallyann2/b29-498group-sort.html

and

http://www.20thaf.org/groups/ac%20data/468th_AC.htm
)

and is that the a/c s/n or the part s/n ... ?

[Edward Sheetmetalhands]

99% sure that is the a/c serial, though there is a chance I could be corrected. Thanks for the info on the two predecessors; my googling only turned up part of that. Googling-Your Mileage May Vary-YMMV

[Edward Sheetmetalhands]

One bump before I give up. Just wondering if anyone had any history info on this aircraft, or possibly a photo or reclaimation (scrapping) information.

[Second Air Force]

Edward,

That airplane could easily have been reassigned to the RAF as a Washington. I recently stumbled onto a cross-reference of AF serials to RAF serials of all Washingtons and the website had info on what happened to most of the airframes. The vast majority were "repatriated" to the United States for further use or disposal. Not all A models in that block were Washingtons, but a large number were.

Scott

[Edward Sheetmetalhands]

Scott,

Thanks for the information about the RAF, I would have never thought to look there. I have now saved those websites to my favorites.

The first is more complete than the second. Looks like some of her sister ships definitely went to the RAF!

http://community-2.webtv.net/B29BOMBER/ ... alNumbers/

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b29_13.html

Tim aka Edward

[Django]

That is interesting. I had no idea the RAF operated B-29s.

[Second Air Force]

Your first link is the one I was thinking of, Tim.

Last time we were at Maxwell I ran across the documents that outline the post-war Silverplate/Saddletree/GEM B-29 modification program. When the USAF decided on the number and configuration of Superforts they wanted converted to strategic (nuclear-armed) configuration it was decided that all Silverplate/Saddletree mods would be done to Wichita-built airframes in order to standardize equipment. The Martin, Bell, and Renton airplanes were used for conventional bombing, training, tankers, etc, and the RAF got a bunch of B-29As. The A carries a bit less fuel than a standard B-29 due to the wing center section design, and it was felt that the RAF was closer to potential targets so could "get by" with a little shorter combat radius.

Scott

[Edward Sheetmetalhands]

Last time we were at Maxwell I ran across the documents that outline the post-war Silverplate/Saddletree/GEM B-29 modification program. When the USAF decided on the number and configuration of Superforts they wanted converted to strategic (nuclear-armed) configuration it was decided that all Silverplate/Saddletree mods would be done to Wichita-built airframes in order to standardize equipment. The Martin, Bell, and Renton airplanes were used for conventional bombing, training, tankers, etc, and the RAF got a bunch of B-29As. The A carries a bit less fuel than a standard B-29 due to the wing center section design, and it was felt that the RAF was closer to potential targets so could "get by" with a little shorter combat radius.

Scott

Yeah, I always liked the design of the Wichita wing (left and right joined at BodyLine zero with tapered spar caps overlapping), vs the Renton "let's build a box and stick 'em to the side of the fuselage". I always wondered what all went into that decision, and if it had anything to do with the facility originally being designed to produce flying boats and also having an overlap of B-17 to B-29 production. It seems like they painted themselves into a corner on that one. That evolutionary split continued forward on that path with the modeling based on that assumption. Now the 787 has rework ongoing to fix that area. Had they joined the wing at zero within the confines of the body the cfrp strips could have been continuous from the wingtip to the center of the a/c.

Thanks for the info about the additional fuel, I did not know that. I read that even with the additional 6 inches of wingspan from the A version that pilots had remarked the performance (handling/speed) was negligible.

[Second Air Force]

I think the fuel difference was only 300 gallons or so, not a huge amount, but a definite consideration for extra-long range missions.

I've often wondered if the PBB-1 design had something to do with the Renton wing design for the B-29. I have never seen anything to confirm why they redesigned the center section.

Scott