Warbird Information Exchange

With the lake continuing to shrink every year...the B-29 today sits in about ~85 feet of water. Assuming no drastic short term changes in climate, by this summer its expected to be in about ~65 ft of water, next summer ~40 ft of water. Does anyone think there will be a recovery effort to preserve whats there? We're getting close to snorkel depth...it be a shame if the looters started tearing pieces off of it.

For the purposes of discussion: Who would recover it and why? Other than saving "everything," aren't there more readily available examples on dry land in the USG historical inventory? I suspect the "looters" would be best to identify what remains of value at the wreck site.

I would imagine Wendover would kill to acquire this B-29 if possible.

_________________
Keep Em' Flying,
Christopher Soltis
Dedicated to the preservation and education of The Sikorsky Memorial Airport

CASC Blog Page: http://ctair-space.blogspot.com/
Warbird Wear: https://www.redbubble.com/people/warbirdwear/shop

Chicks Dig Warbirds.......right?

Humm - well, thats a TAD extreme but yes, we'd love to get a B-29 back in the 393rd Squadron hangar (the "Enola Gay" hangar)

It is my understanding that the Lake Mead B-29 is a National Park resource now and that pretty much precludes it from ever being recovered. I would rather see the museum here be able to offer our hangar space to a B-29 currently on display outside - several come to mind.

Tom P.

Sounds like the same situation for the Atka B-24D in Alaska. Completely moronic situation in my opinion. Both of these aircraft should be recovered. But of course cost comes to mind.

_________________
Keep Em' Flying,
Christopher Soltis
Dedicated to the preservation and education of The Sikorsky Memorial Airport

CASC Blog Page: http://ctair-space.blogspot.com/
Warbird Wear: https://www.redbubble.com/people/warbirdwear/shop

Chicks Dig Warbirds.......right?

Lake Mead is a source for drinking water for Las Vegas and L.A. There is a strong argument for getting the B-29 out of there as it probably still has a lot of fuel, oil and hydraulic fluid onboard as well as lead acid batteries, lead paint, etc. It's the right thing to do and maybe Taras could handle the job.

The park should be reasonable and trade it out for something of value to all park visitors. I'd argue that only a small percentage of park visitors are scuba qualified.

It is a danger to public waters and drinking supply considering all of the fuel and oil. And few more years of water loss puts it in the depths of a boat strike to spill something.

_________________
"They done it, they done it, damned if they ain't flew." December 17, 1903

We - anyone - would spend a TON of money to recover her and then get it looking decent again. Here is a link to the website with info on the crash and current site https://www.nps.gov/lake/learn/historic-lake-mead-b-29.htm

The planes back is broken and I am assuming it would present a restoration nightmare as well as a recovery operation.

Tom P.

Even a static display would be better than laying down there covered in mud and zebra mussels. Experts broke the Fw-200 during recovery and after many years, she's back together.

_________________
"They done it, they done it, damned if they ain't flew." December 17, 1903

Has Kermit Weeks' spare B-29 project been sold yet? Seems like a better preservation candidate.

How about the POF B-50? They have enough parts to assemble a complete static display and it is an historic airframe. Might be procurable if the right offer was made.

Sorry if my questions don't fit the preferred narrative but there is a lot of risk in recovering an aircraft in Lake Mead..

I would think the B-29 Aero Trader offered for sale as a project would be a more sensible and viable candidate for anyone in the market for a B-29, but perhaps the allure of recovery would be enough for someone to invest the time and money. Not that I wouldn't want to see the Lake Mead B-29 recovered, but there are other paths to B-29 ownership that require a lot less red tape and navigating government bureaucracy.

_________________
Matt

Solely for purposes of discussion.... It was previously mentioned that the B-29 is owned my the Park Service. The bomber sits at 970ft elevation, and las vegas is sucking water from 860 ft. Within a couple more years, the bomber will be on dry land. So what happens? some are saying just leave it sit there. Others are saying they'd like to see it pulled out. I dont see how if the bomber is stitting on dry land, or close to it, the NPS just lets it sit out in the open.

"I'd argue that only a small percentage of park visitors are scuba qualified."....

Phil

_________________
A man's got to know his limitations.

i dont think some are getting the point. 20 years ago the bomber was in 300 ft of water. Today its in 85 feet of water. In a couple years is will be on dry land, less than a two mile hike from the Echo Bay gas station.

i dont think some are getting the point. 20 years ago the bomber was in 300 ft of water. Today its in 85 feet of water. In a couple years is will be on dry land, less than a two mile hike from the Echo Bay gas station.