The World War Two bomber that cost more than the atomic bomb

Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
7,266
Reaction score
22,621
Location
Pacific North-Wet
BBC article here.

...It was the most expensive and complex industrial project US industry had ever undertaken and would not be surpassed until the space programmes in the 1950s and 1960s... In today's money the aircraft, from design to completion, cost the equivalent of $55.6bn (£41.2bn).

...a new fire-control system calculated the gunners' aim using a radar that could account for both air temperature and bullet drop. It was the first time an aircraft had a gunsight that wasn't actually physically connected to the gun it is firing....

...The bombers had been built by hand because the factory was also making other aircraft on the assembly line, and the B-29s differed in hundreds of tiny details. No B-29 in those first batches weighed exactly the same, a worrying state for such a highly complicated aircraft. Only 20% of the "finished" aircraft could be flown out of the factory. Badly fitted windows and observation panels bled air or were distorted, and many electrical plugs in the plane's 16km (10 miles) of wiring didn't work properly... The work included fixing 568,000 electrical plugs and making dozens of changes to the aircraft's engines...

...One former flight engineer, Fred Carl Gardner [said] part of his job was to monitor the engine temperatures, scanning gauges with "red-lines" where the temperature became too hot. "On a hot day, I would watch those temperatures climb past the red-line to the very limit of the gauge," he wrote. "I had no idea how hot those cylinder heads got."
 
Register to hide this ad
Can't find pic of inside of a 29 but met both pilots that flew the A/C that dropped the bombs. Many do not know Alberry was Tibet's Co-Pilot on the first mission and he was Co- Pilot of Boc's Car for the second bomb drop.
Amazing A/C….
 

Attachments

  • 1FA284EA-72E7-457D-A07E-51112E4B0BC3.webp
    1FA284EA-72E7-457D-A07E-51112E4B0BC3.webp
    389.4 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
B29s could carry four times the bombs farther than B17s. Until Trinity, we were looking at having to drop large amounts of bombs on Japan and the 29s would do it more efficiently. We needed to end the war quickly one way or another or it was gonna cost alot of lives. Gambles were being taken to try to save those lives.
 
What's even funnier is reading about the Russians copying the B-29 to make the Tu-4 Bull. One story goes that Tupolev wanted to change certain things to ease production, like the skin near the aft end of the kite that tapered in thickness. I have no clue how Boeing did it, and Tupolev considered wasteful over engineering and wanted to simplify matters. Stalin told him no. Reverse engineering is a time consuming and expensive business, so who knows how much Stalin's request cost.

 
My father was a B 29 Flight Engineer during the Korean War. Originally stationed in Texas, where my Mother described roaches everywhere, and hail the size of golf balls wrecking their cars. He later was sent to Korea, and told me they had a couple close encounters with shrapnel, which could depressurize the aircraft. He had a B 29 in his flight shot down by a MIG, but they never had to deal with one directly. He didn't talk much about Korea, but he did refer to the B 29 as a "Great mechanical marvel". I don't know if the overheating problems with that airplanes engines were still an issue?

Larry
 
I have read that the AAC had some woman fly the B 29's just to show they were safe to fly..
If a woman could do it, well.....
I think they tried that with the early Marauder as well, to no avail. Men kept on trying to fly it too slowly in the pattern. In the end the Martin were obliged to crank in a chunk more wing incidence, which ruined it as a fast bomber. Aviation history is full of such foul ups. The original design of the Ju-88 was wicked fast. Fortunately for us, some numbskull insisted it be stressed for dive bombing.
 
My father-in-law (deceased) trained as a B-29 Flight Engineer near the end of WW2. The Army Air Corps was so short of B-29s for training, that B-24s were outfitted with engineering control panels from B-29s to train up the crews. War ended after he got trained up, so he spent the rest of service time shutting down aviation bases in Texas.
 
Bockscar, or BOCKSCAR, as one wishes. Alberry was the copilot; Maj. Sweeny was the PIC. My Seabee dad did the surveying for the atomic bomb pits and loading area. He had a photo of Enola Gay, but it's been lost.
Meant to type Co- Pilot as thats what his autograph says
 

Attachments

  • 41352558-2405-4ECE-855C-28D986941EB2.webp
    41352558-2405-4ECE-855C-28D986941EB2.webp
    297 KB · Views: 0
I've read the Army Air Corps took a big gamble on approving to put the B-29 into production. In peacetime it is likely the B-29 would have never been put into production because it had so many bugs.
That would be Army Air Force, not Army Air Corp, which essentially dissolved in June 1941 before our entry into WWII, replaced with Air Force.
 
I read that trying to copy the B-29 using the metric system gave the Russians fits....
What's even funnier is reading about the Russians copying the B-29 to make the Tu-4 Bull. One story goes that Tupolev wanted to change certain things to ease production, like the skin near the aft end of the kite that tapered in thickness. I have no clue how Boeing did it, and Tupolev considered wasteful over engineering and wanted to simplify matters. Stalin told him no. Reverse engineering is a time consuming and expensive business, so who knows how much Stalin's request cost.

 
The whole engine overheating problem was due to using carburetors for fuel delivery. Once fuel injected the engine reliability skyrocketed. Old memory but 5k hours service? The fuel distribution with carbs was impossible to get balanced mixtures to the individual cylinders. The lean cylinders overheated and basically melted the pistons. I think the Army Air Corps was made independent in 1947.
 
The whole engine overheating problem was due to using carburetors for fuel delivery. Once fuel injected the engine reliability skyrocketed. Old memory but 5k hours service? The fuel distribution with carbs was impossible to get balanced mixtures to the individual cylinders. The lean cylinders overheated and basically melted the pistons. I think the Army Air Corps was made independent in 1947.

Army Air Force, Army Air Corp changed in 41 as posted above. My Dad was in MAAF.
 

Attachments

  • CBDD0261-ECC2-41CC-AEA4-8554C3D0268B.webp
    CBDD0261-ECC2-41CC-AEA4-8554C3D0268B.webp
    190.1 KB · Views: 0
Does anyone know how many B-29's were actually produced by wars end? Was production continued after the war was over?
According to Wiki, they made 3970 of them with production continuing into 1946. The B50 which started being produced in 1947 was a modification of the B29 design. They built 370 B50s between '47 and '53.
 
Engine overheating was the major problem issue in the earlier B-29s. There were a multitude of causes, one being that heat transfer from the engine to thin air at high altitude was very poor. Switching to fuel injection from carburetors helped greatly. Some engine components were made of alloys high in magnesium and there are some instances in which those components actually caught fire in flight and could not be extinguished which at best resulted in a parachute ride for the crew. The first major crash of a B-29, which was into a large Seattle slaughterhouse killing around 30 people (including the flight crew), was caused by an engine fire resulting in wing failure. https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/24849

Kelly AFB here in San Antonio was the major USAF B-29 maintenance depot throughout the Korean War with thousands of workers going 24/7. There is no longer a Kelly AFB as such.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top