RAF B-29 Washingtons
Air Britain did a book on it (The Washington File), albeit only 36 pages - like most AB type books it's a history of the service of each individual airframe, with a selection of photos. It's been OOP since the 80s, but you can pick them up second hand
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An AEO I flew with on the Vulcan had flown on Washingtons. He said that coming back to base with all 4 engines still working was so rare that they made a certain number of 4-engine landings a BTR (monthly requirement)!
No B-29 story would be complete without mentioning Neil Armstrongs single engine landing. he was co-pilot on a trip to drop the D-558-2 research aircraft. Approaching 30,000' the #4 had a prop runaway which came off and sliced through #3, which lost throttle control and instrumentation so was shut down, #2 was also hit. #1 was shut down because of torque, even with just #2 running it required both pilots on the rudder, even at low power. The D-558 pilot asked not to be dropped because of fuel pressure control problems, but was dropped in any event, which was fortunate as the prop on its path to hitting #2 passed through the bomb bay where the 558 had been slung, also severing the command pilots pitch and roll controls. Neil was the only one with a full set of functioning aerodynamic controls.
Megan,
thanks for the correction. My recall from Bridgeman's book was at fault although he did have a 'don't drop' drop ! Can anyone confirm or otherwise that the B29 engines as reverse engineered by the USSR were more reliable than the originals when fitted to the TU4 ?
thanks for the correction. My recall from Bridgeman's book was at fault although he did have a 'don't drop' drop ! Can anyone confirm or otherwise that the B29 engines as reverse engineered by the USSR were more reliable than the originals when fitted to the TU4 ?
Megan,
thanks for the correction. My recall from Bridgeman's book was at fault although he did have a 'don't drop' drop ! Can anyone confirm or otherwise that the B29 engines as reverse engineered by the USSR were more reliable than the originals when fitted to the TU4 ?
thanks for the correction. My recall from Bridgeman's book was at fault although he did have a 'don't drop' drop ! Can anyone confirm or otherwise that the B29 engines as reverse engineered by the USSR were more reliable than the originals when fitted to the TU4 ?
Last edited by ancientaviator62; 6th May 2021 at 13:04. Reason: duplicate
Einar Enevoldson (Nasa test pilot who held various time-to-height records in the rocket assisted F-104 that Yeager wrote off) told me he was once scheduled as the second 'warm body' to occupy the right hand seat of the B-52 dropping a lifting body as he was on that program, on the run -in for the drop the 'real pilot' was operating a variety on switches when a voice said 'OK then, goodbye' - their attached vehicle was no longer attached. Einar still holds the World glider gain-of-height record with Steve Fossett , his passing away last month is a great loss to aviation.
(Apologies for the thread creep).
(Apologies for the thread creep).
Can anyone confirm or otherwise that the B29 engines as reverse engineered by the USSR
Bit late into this thread but was a bit confused by the title.
Surely the Washington was the B-50 and the B-29, the Superfortress. It certainly was when I was spotter in the middle 50s.
The main differences were increased fuselage length, of course bigger engines and a substantial increase to the size of the rudder.
I instructed with a chap who had flown them in the late 50s, who later converted on to Valiants at Gaydon.
Can somebody confirm or disprove ?
Thanks.
Surely the Washington was the B-50 and the B-29, the Superfortress. It certainly was when I was spotter in the middle 50s.
The main differences were increased fuselage length, of course bigger engines and a substantial increase to the size of the rudder.
I instructed with a chap who had flown them in the late 50s, who later converted on to Valiants at Gaydon.
Can somebody confirm or disprove ?
Thanks.
Bit late into this thread but was a bit confused by the title.
Surely the Washington was the B-50 and the B-29, the Superfortress. It certainly was when I was spotter in the middle 50s.
The main differences were increased fuselage length, of course bigger engines and a substantial increase to the size of the rudder.
I instructed with a chap who had flown them in the late 50s, who later converted on to Valiants at Gaydon.
Can somebody confirm or disprove ?
Thanks.
Surely the Washington was the B-50 and the B-29, the Superfortress. It certainly was when I was spotter in the middle 50s.
The main differences were increased fuselage length, of course bigger engines and a substantial increase to the size of the rudder.
I instructed with a chap who had flown them in the late 50s, who later converted on to Valiants at Gaydon.
Can somebody confirm or disprove ?
Thanks.
I thought they just had the B-29s as Washingtons.
Sleeve Wing, here's a photograph of the B-50D Washington, a follow-on to the B-29 Superfortress. Note the nacelle modifications, underwing tanks, and vertical stabilizer height increase:
- Ed
- Ed
Sleeve Wing, the USA was the only operator of the B-50, they did deploy to the UK though. The Washington was the name given to the B-29 when in service with the RAF. Both the B-29 and B-50 were called the Superfortress by the USA.
Every flying display in which the USAF participated in the UK up to the early '60s would include a KB50J towing an F100, F101 and RB66.
