B17 or B29? - from a purely aesthetic perspective

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

For me it would be the B17 without a shadow of a doubt. It's such a beautiful aircraft. The B29 on the other hand looks like it was assembled overnight from pieces they found lying around. I never could warm to it - and I've seen both flying over Texas!

Obviously just a personal opinion, but how do others feel about the two?

[treadigraph]

I've always been quite drawn to the B-29 - I remember being so pleased to get a first - rather brief - glimpse of Hawg Wild at Duxford while driving past in a coach in 1980! Better still seeing Fifi flying at Midland 20 years later.

Incidentally, I was amazed to realise recently that I've seen all five B-29s that have flown under civil registrations - apart from the two above, a rather tatty Doc at Inyokern just after she was dragged out of China Lake, Tallichet's B-29 which is now preserved at March AFB, and the forward fuselage of Kermit's Fertile Myrtle at Tamiami - don't think the rest of it was there, if it was it was well hidden! Kee Bird doesn't count as it didn't fly!

I do like the B-17 as well...

[Quemerford]

Do you mean SAAB B17 (no hyphen) or Boeing B-17 (with a hyphen)?

[treadigraph]

I have a strong suspicion that a SAAB B17 has never flown in Texas; though of course we were lucky enough to have SE-BYH at Duxford once or twice.

[Quemerford]

No idea. But for sure if you say 'B17' you aren't talking about anything built in the US of A.

[ex82watcher]

Well,for what it's worth, I'll add another vote for the B-17.It's the hemispherical front end that puts me off the B-29,though I appreciate aesthetics weren't at the top of the list when it came to design requirements.

[DaveReidUK]

No idea. But for sure if you say 'B17' you aren't talking about anything built in the US of A.

Unless you are using the (Boeing) B-17's ICAO Type Designator: "B17". :O

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

Kee Bird doesn't count as it didn't fly!

I saw the documentary about the Kee Bird. Very sad and I have to say the "recovery" team did not appear in a good light


...and yes WITH a hyphen then (sigh) :ugh:

[tdracer]

That Kee Bird Documentary was fascinating but heartbreaking to watch.
While I like the look of the B-29, there is something iconic about the B-17. Both are far better looking than the B-24 - it's just plain ugly.

[rcsa]

I wonder if Joe Sutter was paying a little homage to the B-17 when he designed the 747?

[DaveReidUK]

Well they both have 4 engines ... :O

[Duchess_Driver]

Lancaster....?

but seriously, B-17 later models. The prototype tail was too thin and therefore out of proportion.

[Less Hair]

At least the Soviet Union and China preferred the looks of the B-29 especially the looks of it's bomb bay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4

[Asturias56]

B29 every time

[BEagle]

I was fortunate enough to have a good look round both the B-17 and B-29 at Houston during an 'airsho' once. The B-17 seemed much more primitive inside and would have been pretty cramped in the flight deck area with an upper turret fitted. Whereas the B-29 was more spacious, but I didn't try the crawlway! There was an interesting chart in the gunners' area which was an aid to diagnosing engine faults by the colour and volume of smoke! Was it a fire, supercharger failure, oil leak or what? The rear gunner's position in the B-17 was pretty tight, but must have been really tight for someone dressed in full flying kit!

The CAF were kind enough to allow me on board 'Fifi' during the engine starting sequence and would have taken me flying, but this wasn't long after the B-26 accident.

B-17 or B-29? Actually, for me it's the B-36! Before the jets were added, that is. A really huge aeroplane; Revell made a 1/72nd scale model of it and even that had a 38" wingspan!

[treadigraph]

I had a look inside Kermit's B-17 when visiting Polk City. Climbing up through the aircraft from the rear door to the cockpit, I remember remarking to an American fellow visitor "what an incredibly cramped space to go to war in...". He agreed! For some reason "Memphis Belle" had given me an impression of quite a lot of room inside...

I've got 1/48 scale kits of most Allied WWII types which I might build one day - the B-29 has been "tape assembled" in the past and it is big! I believe there was a vacform 1/48 B-36... Friend has built a 1/48 C-133 (https://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal10/9601-9700/gal9692-C-133-Aibara/00.shtm) which is... big enough...

[ex82watcher]

One of the students on my ATCO cadet course went out to the US straight after the PPl phase,to do some cheap flying when there were $2.40 to the £,and while there was allowed to climb inside a B36,at Davis Monthan I think.Unfortunately,he was later 'chopped',and soon after,killed flying an Islander in Vanuatu.

[pax britanica]

Any special reason as to why the B29 had the He 111 style nose. never a good look in my opinion.

I think nose aside the B29 is the better-looking plane , the B-17 with those 50cals poking out all over the place looks more warlike than the slender remote barbettes an the B29 clever as they were

[Bergerie1]

Because the crew compartments were pressurised - one in the front and one in the tail joined by a runnel.

[Rory57]

B-29 was pressurised and the hemispherical nose is the optimum shape to withstand the pressure within the cylindrical fuselage.
Almost all other pressurised aircraft have some sort of pointy-bit in front of their hemispherical part (pressure bulkhead) which disguises the gas-cylinder shape so obvious in the B-29.
I had an interesting look around Lucky Lady, the “ around the world” B-50 fuselage at Chino. Possible to stand in the bomb bay and look into the cockpit through the hatch in the rear cockpit pressure bulkhead where the tube connecting cockpit to the rear pressure bay had been.
Aesthetically? A draw for me.
B-17 still has something of the aviation golden-age about it. Style, glamour, comfort etc.
B-29 / B-50 looks every inch the modern weapon without compromise that it was.

[B2N2]

As far as cockpits from the inside I’d have to go with the B-29.....
Externally...? B-17 is a gorgeous aircraft and the B-29 is just plain Jane utilitarian.
Was allowed to crawl around a B-17 in Texas nice and seriously donked my head trying to get into the cockpit.
I do believe the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon was modeled after the -29


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x530/image_82f6043db9df7fa42c58b3c9eacccd05d9bae80a.jpeg

[tdracer]

I had a look inside Kermit's B-17 when visiting Polk City. Climbing up through the aircraft from the rear door to the cockpit, I remember remarking to an American fellow visitor "what an incredibly cramped space to go to war in...". He agreed! For some reason "Memphis Belle" had given me an impression of quite a lot of room inside...

Back on July 4, 1976 (the USA bi-centennial), Colorado Springs managed to get the Commemorative Air Force to visit (it was the "Confederate" Air Force back then - before that became politically incorrect) - and it took about half a second to convince my WWII veteran dad to go up there for the day. Based on shows like "Twelve O'clock High", always though of the B-17 as a big aircraft so I was shocked how small it was when I actually looked in one. About 30 years later I took a flight on the Collings Foundation B-17 'Nine-O-Nine' (yes, the one that crashed in Connecticut a few years back) - a very memorable experience (and yes, it's small inside).

Whereas the B-29 was more spacious, but I didn't try the crawlway! I toured Fifi about five years ago when it was in Everett - I would have liked to taken a flight by my wife vetoed spending the money (it was around $1,000 - the B-17 had been about $400). It is huge inside - especially compared to the B-17.
I used to work with a guy that had been a bomber pilot during WWII although he was never in combat. His job was to ferry built bomber aircraft around the US. He said that on the B-29, the crew would spend the absolute minimum of time in the tunnel - if there was a sudden depressurization for whatever reason, anyone in that tunnel would be shot out like a bullet :eek:.

I do believe the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon was modeled after the -29
Yes, it was - and the scenes of the Imperial "TIE Fighters" attacking the Falcon were based on films of German fighters attacking American bomber formations. Oh, and the scene of the rebels attacking the Death Star was based on 'Dam Busters'.
https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/air-battles-became-star-wars-1-180975832/

[tonytales]

Growing up in WWII (I was 10 in 1944) the B-17 was an American icon. When the B-29 came out it was awesome. Both airplanes looked huge in the films and pictures I saw. I made Strombecker wooden model kits of both. Never saw a B-29 in my youth but there was a B-17 parked at KLGA.
Later, starting as a licensed mech in 1954 I thought Supper Connies and DC-6/7 were big. Never liked the look of the B-377 Stratocruiser but when working it I thought it was very big. Then the jets, first B.707, then DC-8 - wow. Then EAL leased three PAA B747 and they were mindblowing. Now I knew what big meant. And the tail engine on a DC-10, now I knew what High was.
On my first trips to Udva Hazy and Pima Air Museum I was amazed how small both the B-17 and the B-29 now looked. I had been spoiled.
The B-17 is almost a flying wing. The wing is a big proportion of the aircraft. The B-29 had a more elegant extended wing. And now, long retired, I see pictures of B-737 with insignificant wings stretched out (I managed two -200 models once) I assume are only needed to mount control surfaces. :O
I still vote for the B-17.