Warbird Information Exchange

Gary how much would the re-engining change the B-29 in appearance? Would even an avid warbird fan be able to tell the differance at 200 yds? What about safety issues? Wouldn't the engine change be considered one of these?

warbird1...I spoke with Tony only about six or eight weeks ago. I believe the airplane was either already outside by then, or was about to be. He wanted our old engines for cores to be rebuilt (they have many cores that are mostly no good at all), and showed no interest in what we're doing with the new engines on FIFI.

Obergrafter...In therory, there will be no external difference in the original engine vs. the new engines we're putting on FIFI. The only thing the spectators might notice is that there isn't the quantity of oil and crud dripping out of the cowlings as before and that we shouldn't be working on them constantly.

I can't speak for the Doc folks as to why they do what they do, but it's my opinion that they should think about engines other than the stock ones. Of course, they have more important issues to consider right now...like finding some shelter for the airplane. I certainly wish them well.

Gary

I remember reading a LeMay interview some years back, that was in a newsletter or CAF publication. There was some shock noted in the publication, because he proceeded to really ream the B-29's reputation, and it was because of the engines. How ignorant to not want to do what the CAF is doing with Fifi.

John

Gary,
What are the differences between the original engines that where on the B-29 and the ones you are planing on using?
And what is the main thing causing failure?
When airframes are altered the aircraft is usually classified as experimental. I'm sure your B-29 is classified as that. On experimental home built aircraft anything goes engine wise, it can be a converted automobile engine of almost any sort, from VW, Corvair, Subaru, Chevrolets and the list goes on. These engines are in no way stock as from factory. So what is the deal? Are there different rules for something larger? I reiterate, the warbird community needs to meet the FAA and get some rules changed. I'm sure some of the old FAA guys are also into warbirds, so now is the time to do this before they all retire.

Regarding the stock -3350's vs. the Frankenstein proposed version. Do you have any data or numbers on estimates of man-hours per flight that they will save? Also, what is the reliability difference of the two? Any estimates on engine failures per so many hours, etc., or any other numbers data? I'm really interested in any hard data you have for either the stockers or the proposed version.

Thanks for the info, Gary!

One difference is in the cylinder design, the late version has a forged aluminum cylinder head verses a cast aluminum head, thus allowing better durability and better cooling due to an increased amount of cooling fins. I think the figure of 70% better cooling? With the forged heads the chance of a valve seat popping out were greatly diminished. The newer engines were flown by the airlines and they achieved a time before overhaul of about 1500-2000 hours verses about 50-200 for the old engines. the newer engines had a better reduction gear that was stronger. The gear case also had a provision for torque meters which allowed better engine control. Gary can give a much better description than me. I gave just the highlights. The YB-29J was the final version and they had the late model engines with a re-designed chin scoop for air induction, only five or six were built. They were nicknamed "Andy Gump". Perhaps Jack Cook can round up a photo or two? The horse power was increased from about 2200 to 2700 hp. using 100/130 gasoline.

I reckon I should start a whole new thread about our B-29's new engines, but first, I'll try to briefly answer your question about "what are the differences" between the old and new engines. The simplest and quickest way to answer that is to say that over time, as any manufacturer of any product, be it cars, boats, engines, or whatever, continues to produce a product, they make troublesome objects obsolete and introduce new parts and pieces to replace them. That being said, the latest model of 3350s that Wright produced do not have one single interchangable part with the engines that the B-29 came with. So over time they essentially redesigned the entire engine. That should speak volumes about what a piece of poop the -23 and -57 engines that were on the B-29's were...and still are.

What goes wrong with them? Everything. Nosecase gears, fuel injection nozzles, main bearings, valve guides, cylinder separations, etc. I generally think the R-3350 is one of the best engines ever built...HOWEVER the 3350's on the B-29 are without a doubt, the sorriest engines I've ever touched. You just never know what is going to be broken next and everything is a chore to repair or replace. That headache should go away with the installation of the new engines.

And engguy, our airplane is indeed in Experimental category (as Doc will be). We could put any engine we wish on here, within reason, and the FAA could care less (and by the way, they ARE on board with us on this engine change). So, it's not the FAA that is saying that Doc has to have the original engines, it's the partial owner of the airplane, Tony...and he says that Boeing required it when they agreed to have the airplane in their facility. Now whether Boeing is still requiring it or not, I don't know. I just know that Tony has shown no interest in working with us on the new engine program.

Gary

Here is the Andy Gump setup on the #2 position of the Flying Guinea Pig, the XB-29. This startup was the last one for her according to the records, she was dismantled at Seattle after this flight test series:


Here is B-29B Pacusan Dreamboat that set all kinds of records after the war. She's got the Andy Gump cowlings and cool paddle blade props, kind of reminds you of what was tried on Rare Bear a few years ago!


Scott

Keep it focused on DOC. Re-engine-ing FIFI should be it's own thread (it's important to)...

_________________
"Everyone wants to live here (New Jersey), evidenced by the fact that it has the highest population per capita in the U.S..."

Both aircraft are important to us WIX folk, rather keep talking about both of them, than neither of them .... IMHO!!!!! .......

As an ex B-29 pilot, I agree.

_________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all, that counts.

-002 was scrapped at McClellan, not Seattle. You might be thinking of the 4th XB-29?

_________________
~Trevor McIntyre
http://www.TrevorMcIntyre.com

Somewhere I have photos of Doc when she was still sitting in Inyokern......I really hope she doesn't return to that condition. Getting left to the elements like this certainly won't help.

_________________
Rob

B29Gunner,

I was going by this photo and caption from Chester Marshall's "B-29 Superfortress" book. The picture is credited to Boeing test pilot Bob Robbins, and since the airplane spent its life as a testbed for Boeing it made sense that they disposed of her. Perhaps the Air Forces took delivery at the end of the test program? At any rate, it's a shame that no one thought to preserve such a historic old bird.


And here is a photo of her with some of the Flight Test guys from Boeing taken toward the end of her service life:


Scott