"Franken-Fortress"
Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:24 am
The only thing more daunting than the $1.5mil for the B-29 project is the 3 to 6 million it would cost to restore one to mission capable flight status
Thinking outside of the box, I came upon an idea and wondered if it could be done?
There is at least one B-29 Superfortress currently for sale and a whole bunch of ex-tanker C-97's that are in at least ferriable shape. You can pick up a flying C-97 for about a 100 grand.
How economically could a B-29 be put back into the air if the goal was to make it a flying restoration? Couldn't you swap engines, props, landing gear, airworthy flight controls, fuel cells, avionics, etc.
Could a B-29 be restored for less than a million bucks if the owner was "OK" with mid time engines and props, no pressurization or auto pilot, VFR only, no oxygen, or working guns, Norden bomb sights, and bombay doors?
The CAF's B-29 was flown in this manner for a number of years. Could it be done?
Thinking outside of the box, I came upon an idea and wondered if it could be done?
There is at least one B-29 Superfortress currently for sale and a whole bunch of ex-tanker C-97's that are in at least ferriable shape. You can pick up a flying C-97 for about a 100 grand.
How economically could a B-29 be put back into the air if the goal was to make it a flying restoration? Couldn't you swap engines, props, landing gear, airworthy flight controls, fuel cells, avionics, etc.
Could a B-29 be restored for less than a million bucks if the owner was "OK" with mid time engines and props, no pressurization or auto pilot, VFR only, no oxygen, or working guns, Norden bomb sights, and bombay doors?
The CAF's B-29 was flown in this manner for a number of years. Could it be done?
Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:31 am
Not a bad idea, but I believe the C-97 is has more in common with the B-50 than the B-29. But then again, who wouldn't want to see B-50 fly again?!!!
Jerry
Jerry
Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:40 am
I think a B-50 would be awesome!! but sadly, this kind of project is much like homerepairs - the more into it you get the bigger it always grows!
Tom P.
Tom P.
Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:34 pm
It would be nice to see these aircraft (the two B-29's at Aero-Trader, the B-50 Lucky Lady II, B-29 Fertyle Myrtle) assembled into aircraft again - even if they never fly again. I hate to see them laying around in pieces.
Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:17 pm
Hi There,
About the only thing in common between a KC-97 and a B-29 is their "genetics". The KC-97 is a B-29 with soooooooooooo many steroids it's unbelievable. It is a nice thought to think that somehow you could put the two together. But kinda unrealistic IMO.
Paul
About the only thing in common between a KC-97 and a B-29 is their "genetics". The KC-97 is a B-29 with soooooooooooo many steroids it's unbelievable. It is a nice thought to think that somehow you could put the two together. But kinda unrealistic IMO.
Paul
Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:29 pm
Okay, So the firewall forward idea "might work for the B-50 but not for the B-29 because the B-29 has R-3350's and the B-50 and KC-97 have the 4360's. What about the P2V Neptune engines and accessories? They are dirt cheap and you could swap engines, props, etc.
I checked the wingspan of the B-29 and the C-97 and they are both exactly 141' 3" . Surely there are numerous commonalities!
Would it be possible to take a flyable KC-97 , demate the fuselage and replace it with the B-50 fuselage and tail that are for sale?
I checked the wingspan of the B-29 and the C-97 and they are both exactly 141' 3" . Surely there are numerous commonalities!
Would it be possible to take a flyable KC-97 , demate the fuselage and replace it with the B-50 fuselage and tail that are for sale?
Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:38 am
from joe baugher:
Looks like it would be a better effort to restore a b-50 to a flyable b-50 than to a b-29.
regards,
t~
The B-50 was externally quite similar to the B-29, but a momentary glance was sufficient to tell the difference between the two aircraft. The traditional 24 ST aluminum structure of the B-29 was replaced by the newer 75 ST, which resulted in a wing that was 16 percent stronger than the wing of the B-29 and 600 pounds lighter. The 3500 hp R-4360 Wasp Major engines gave a power increase of 59 percent. The new engine installation was the primary external feature distinguishing the B-50 from the B-29, with the oil cooler being pulled further back on the lower part of the nacelle. Increased weight resulted in a requirement for larger flaps and a higher vertical tail. The new higher tail was first tested on B-29-35-BW serial number 42-24528, which had been assigned to Seattle Experimental Flight Test. The tall vertical tail could be folded down to permit storage in standard USAF hangars. Other features included hydraulic rudder boost and nose wheel steering, faster acting undercarriage retracting mechanism, and electrical de-icing of the pilots' window through the use of conductive NESA glass. The wings and empennage were de-iced thermally by having the exhaust from three combustion heaters flow through hollow double-wall structures in the leading edges of the aerodynamic surfaces. The propellers had a reversible pitch, which allowed the use of engine power as an aid to braking on short or wet runways. There was also some rearrangement of the crew. Despite the overall similarity of the two aircraft, only about 25 percent of the B-50 parts were interchangeable with B-29 parts.
Looks like it would be a better effort to restore a b-50 to a flyable b-50 than to a b-29.
regards,
t~
Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:45 pm
I did some checking and the YC-97 was started in 1944 and was based on the B-29. It shared wings empennage and tail surfaces with the B-29 design. I believe the first batch of C-97A's also had these in common.
The B-50 and C-97 were design continuations of the B-29 and the B-50 was originally going to be called the B-29D. The latter B-50's and C-97s had the wings redesigned to make them lighter and stronger . Same with the landing gear. The length of the B-29 and B-50 are identical. Coincidence? The fuselage of the C-97 is about 10 feet longer. Probably had a plug section added much as the C-141's did. Probably aft of the wing to help the CG. (Just a guess)
I think some of the surviving KC-97's will end up being scrapped and I wish there was some way they could be donors to get a couple more B-29's airworthy. Even with the biger stronger engines I think it could be accomodated. It's called reduced power on takeoff. The C-130H's in my old unit had to use less than available in most conditions. (too much torque) Increased weight? still far below gross ramp weight. Rudder size- again depends horsepower and torque applied.
Look at all the Carvairs, Guppy's , and other adaptations of large aircraft accomplihed in the past.
The B-50 and C-97 were design continuations of the B-29 and the B-50 was originally going to be called the B-29D. The latter B-50's and C-97s had the wings redesigned to make them lighter and stronger . Same with the landing gear. The length of the B-29 and B-50 are identical. Coincidence? The fuselage of the C-97 is about 10 feet longer. Probably had a plug section added much as the C-141's did. Probably aft of the wing to help the CG. (Just a guess)
I think some of the surviving KC-97's will end up being scrapped and I wish there was some way they could be donors to get a couple more B-29's airworthy. Even with the biger stronger engines I think it could be accomodated. It's called reduced power on takeoff. The C-130H's in my old unit had to use less than available in most conditions. (too much torque) Increased weight? still far below gross ramp weight. Rudder size- again depends horsepower and torque applied.
Look at all the Carvairs, Guppy's , and other adaptations of large aircraft accomplihed in the past.
Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:47 pm
I did some checking and the YC-97 was started in 1944 and was based on the B-29. It shared wings empennage and tail surfaces with the B-29 design. I believe the first batch of C-97A's also had these in common.
The B-50 and C-97 were design continuations of the B-29 and the B-50 was originally going to be called the B-29D. The latter B-50's and C-97s had the wings redesigned to make them lighter and stronger . Same with the landing gear. The length of the B-29 and B-50 are identical. Coincidence? The fuselage of the C-97 is about 10 feet longer. Probably had a plug section added much as the C-141's did. Probably aft of the wing to help the CG. (Just a guess)
I think some of the surviving KC-97's will end up being scrapped and I wish there was some way they could be donors to get a couple more B-29's airworthy. Even with the biger stronger engines I think it could be accomodated. It's called reduced power on takeoff. The C-130H's in my old unit had to use less than available in most conditions. (too much torque) Increased weight? still far below gross ramp weight. Rudder size- again depends horsepower and torque applied.
Look at all the Carvairs, Guppy's , and other adaptations of large aircraft accomplihed in the past.
The B-50 and C-97 were design continuations of the B-29 and the B-50 was originally going to be called the B-29D. The latter B-50's and C-97s had the wings redesigned to make them lighter and stronger . Same with the landing gear. The length of the B-29 and B-50 are identical. Coincidence? The fuselage of the C-97 is about 10 feet longer. Probably had a plug section added much as the C-141's did. Probably aft of the wing to help the CG. (Just a guess)
I think some of the surviving KC-97's will end up being scrapped and I wish there was some way they could be donors to get a couple more B-29's airworthy. Even with the biger stronger engines I think it could be accomodated. It's called reduced power on takeoff. The C-130H's in my old unit had to use less than available in most conditions. (too much torque) Increased weight? still far below gross ramp weight. Rudder size- again depends horsepower and torque applied.
Look at all the Carvairs, Guppy's , and other adaptations of large aircraft accomplihed in the past.
Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:58 pm
The comparison between the two could be like before and after pics of Bane (from Batman) 