@@PaulStewartAviation He's Bad, Bad, Paul Stewart, madder than ole King Kong, meaner than a junkyard dog,....and..um.. slightly illiterate in math...no, scratch that part....
@@NoManClatuer-pd8ck With tribute to Jim Croce (r,i,p,), who met his premature end at Cado Mills, Texas in '73 in a Beech BE-18 (a "Twin Beech"), an aircraft type in which I logged many, many hours in the "left front seat" (R-985 recip and also the P&W PT-6 turboprop conversion, both the original taildragger and the later tri-gear versions), and the aircraft (the AT-11) that trained all of the pilots who went on to fly all of the "B"-series aircraft, including the B-29, back in the day. My uncle, Ed Granger, was a USAAF multiengine flight instructor during WW-2 who taught "newbie" multiengine student pilots, just off the AT-6, their intro to multi-engine flying, beginning with the horrible Curtiss AT-9, then the Beech AT-11, and then later went on to be an advanced multiengine instructor on the B-25 at Little Rock (Arkansas) AAF.👍🇺🇸
Cancelling the B-54 might have ruffled a few feathers at Boeing, but they had plenty of other work to keep the lines running. And as mentioned, the B-47 was right around the corner.
I once watched nearly everyone they had in Florida from the end of the runway from a 56 Chevrolet while My Uncle unloaded gravel from railway cars to extend the runway for B-52's, it looked like a 100 took off. We sat there bored (my brother and I) and all of a sudden here they came. I have no idea how many there really were, I was only 6, one of the most amazing things I have ever seen except for a Space shuttle main engine running for ten minutes sometimes at 110% throttle, made it rain for miles and parted the clouds in Mississippi where they test them. Ran wild dear from the woods, they stood beside us the whole time it ran.
Very well commented, no repeating, no "I'll talk about that later in this video", clear language, good and well told story. And a very interesting subject, I did not know about those models. Nice pictures as well! Big thumbs up from me!!
Yea, pistons engines were getting silly at this point and overly complex leading to not only high maintenance but also lots of breakages, it was just too much, at this point jet engines weighed half as much and were producing twice the power.
I did not appreciate how *massive* the B-36 is until I experienced it at the USAF museum in person. What an incredible machine even by today's standards let alone when it was made.
The B-36 was controversial as part of the Navy vs Air Force struggle throughout the early 1950's. The Navy claimed the B-36 would fail it's mission, which was thankfully never used. A fascinating era with lots of backstory.
Was at Edwards AFB in CA in 1964 when the B-50 was still flying. the engines were P&W 4360's and 4 jet engines in 2 pods. The sound was amazing. I was a mechanic 6515th OMS on a TB-58 Hustler that was chase for the X-70
For context the Canberra was 18 months away from entering service and the Jet age was advancing rapidly. So many technologies and weapons reached their peak at the point of obsolescence after the end of WW2
I can still remember as a kid playing outside at school and being overflown by three B-36s heading to land at Kelly AFB. The ground shook and so did all of us kids!
I went looking for the pic of the jet engine under the aircraft (before the video ended) and also came across the type with the two front gun mounts. I assumed incorrectly from the pic that it was the same type. What I'm here to say is your dedication to fact-checking is really impressive. You're not out to make a quick video full of other people's incorrect information and thus you are not adding to some of the loads of incorrect 'facts' that are out there 👍
At 1:45 Paul stated ""the Air Force didn't show much interest in the B-29D but when renamed the B-50 it sounded much newer and it was more exciting." Huh? Wot? These designations were allocated by the US Department of Defense/USAAF/USAF, not the manufacturer. This would be like you or me looking at a dreary old Datsun then calling it a Nippy New Dart and getting excited - except one would hope the USAF would be a lot more objective. I'm quite sure that anyone who mattered in the USAF knew perfectly well what the airplane was, regardless of what they themselves called it. Boeing called it the Model 474 Ultra Fortress. The B-29 was the Model 345. The B-36 design was initiated during WW2 as the USAAF wanted the ability to bomb Germany from US bases in case Germany invaded Britain, but that never happened, and the B-36 became a long range strategic bomber in case of war against the USSR. The later B-54 with it similar range would have been an alternative in case the B-36 didn't work out. But the Soviets developed SAMs and the MiG-15 jet fighter, rendering slow propellor aircraft such the B-36 and B-54 useless. The USAF changed to high speed jet bombers (B-47, B-52) instead.
The designation change was to fool Congress, who might have not been excited by another iteration of a B-29, but might go for the B-54. It had worked for the B-50, already.
@@HootOwl513 That sounds quite plausible. Politicians can be pretty dumb. A bit unethical by the Department of Defense though. The long range bomber acquisition question was mired in a rivalry between the USAAF and the Navy. Both thought they should have the sole responsibility for delivering nuclear weapons. It was part of both services believing they should the biggest most prestigious service. That's the sort of thing politicians would have been sensitive to. It could have influenced Congress on funding the B-54 either way, but the typical reaction of politicians faced with inter-service rivalry is to try and keep them equal. So, "new" is better.
Technically the final variant of B-29 Superfortress is Tupolev Tu-85, a de facto flying test lab for development of Tu-95. But combination of both Tu-85 and B-54 sounds like a cool US bomber for some alternate reality like Wolfenstein.
Periscope, they left those Bombardiers up there to take the head on's from fighters behind glass way too long. They never needed that position, he could have been buried in the fuselage and had a periscope to target with.
My father was a USAAF B-29 navigator 1944-1945. He died in 2016 age 94. He saved - and I have - his original flight jacket with squadron insignia. My son and I visited (did not fly on) FIFI at Boire Field in Nashua NH in 2018. My family are Friends Of Doc.
Amazing how at that very time, the beginning of jet propulsion and swept wings, these piston engine prop guys kept with the bigger is better mantra, if it is correct to call it that. But damn those planes were beautiful.
Charles Bronson operated the guns in a B29 over Japan in WW2 . As a kid I fell in love with the Bird when I saw the Movie the last flight of Noah's Ark 😊
Thanks for clarifying that those two forward gun blisters /pods on the B-29 s-68 project *aren't related to the b-54* Also this is just me but, *the stepped greenhouse cockpit on the b-36 prototype looked better* than the production version
Boeing was doing the B-47, started work on the B-52, was doing the KC-97, was in preliminary work on the future 707, and working on first generation cruise missiles. I'm convinced LeMay cancelled the B-54 so Boeing's engineers could get some sleep
It was a very busy time for bomber manufacturers All different size bombers, medium & heavy, prop & jet, straight or swept wings. Lots of new equipment, with radars more guns and heavier bomb loads! I know of B-29s, B-50s, but never a B-54! The anti-aircraft missle & jet fighters of USSR changed the "War Sky"! Would have been interesting plane!! What could have been???? Thank for your research & video!
In a way - Boeing may have been relieved to know the B-54 was to be scrapped. It gave them the opportunity to focus their time and energy on the B-52 design.
Agreed. Any more time on the B-54 would have clearly become a waste as the 47 and 52 development progressed. It really was a whole generation of design behind them.
First time I saw a B-50 was at Castle Air Museum in the late 1970s. I thought it was a second B-29 in their collection until I saw those huge air intakes below the engines. Until then I did not know the variant even existed.
Very interesting. The brass keeps making new demands for this and that modification and then reject the aircraft when the price goes through the roof. Basically, they need to start again anyway with an entirely new airplane.
So Curtis LeMay wanted the B-36? That's hilarious. After the B-36 entered service, he was scathing of it. Rightly so, the B-36 was basically dud that would never have reached target - the lumbering great thing would have been shot down.
@@PaulStewartAviation LeMay preferred the B-36 in 1949 before it entered service, as it was bigger and could carry a bigger bomb load. And, it has been said, because the cost would make the USAF supreme over the USN. But in service, the B-36 was a disaster - too high a fault rate, too prone to catch fire, and too difficult to maintain mission ready. LeMay was very vocal about that.
Stirling effort on a raher esoteric Boeing project get in touch when next in WA as I have earned another Masters and we could chat on other matters . Wishing you and al those precious to you compliment of theseason
![Digital Circus Episode 4 [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/abZtsmMUbJo/mqdefault.jpg)
CORRECTION: at 06:02 I meant to say that 4500hp = 3355kWs instead of 300 hundred. Please support my channel so that I can learn how to count... :)
@@PaulStewartAviation He's Bad, Bad, Paul Stewart, madder than ole King Kong, meaner than a junkyard dog,....and..um.. slightly illiterate in math...no, scratch that part....
@@NoManClatuer-pd8ck
With tribute to Jim Croce (r,i,p,), who met his premature end at Cado Mills, Texas in '73 in a Beech BE-18 (a "Twin Beech"), an aircraft type in which I logged many, many hours in the "left front seat" (R-985 recip and also the P&W PT-6 turboprop conversion, both the original taildragger and the later tri-gear versions), and the aircraft (the AT-11) that trained all of the pilots who went on to fly all of the "B"-series aircraft, including the B-29, back in the day. My uncle, Ed Granger, was a USAAF multiengine flight instructor during WW-2 who taught "newbie" multiengine student pilots, just off the AT-6, their intro to multi-engine flying, beginning with the horrible Curtiss AT-9, then the Beech AT-11, and then later went on to be an advanced multiengine instructor on the B-25 at Little Rock (Arkansas) AAF.👍🇺🇸
Didn't you say 340?, or do I need to learn how to listen lol....great video, the amount of early tech in these planes is phenomenal.
@conradinhawaii7856 Ty. That's some serious heritage and knowledge. This channel has a lot of good eggs.
Previously unaware of this specific offspring of the B-29. Interesting stuff. :)
Cancelling the B-54 might have ruffled a few feathers at Boeing, but they had plenty of other work to keep the lines running. And as mentioned, the B-47 was right around the corner.
Not to mention the mighty B-52.
I once watched nearly everyone they had in Florida from the end of the runway from a 56 Chevrolet while My Uncle unloaded gravel from railway cars to extend the runway for B-52's, it looked like a 100 took off. We sat there bored (my brother and I) and all of a sudden here they came. I have no idea how many there really were, I was only 6, one of the most amazing things I have ever seen except for a Space shuttle main engine running for ten minutes sometimes at 110% throttle, made it rain for miles and parted the clouds in Mississippi where they test them. Ran wild dear from the woods, they stood beside us the whole time it ran.
As the number indicates, the B-54 program postdated the B-52…
It was a fallback option.
Very well commented, no repeating, no "I'll talk about that later in this video", clear language, good and well told story.
And a very interesting subject, I did not know about those models. Nice pictures as well!
Big thumbs up from me!!
Love learning about these “might have been” projects!
Thank you for a fascinating "might have been" history lesson from 1948-1949; excellent captioning on the photographs which have survived.
I'd never heard of it. Every day a schoolday!
I bet the '54 would have been slower than me in 9th grade Algebra and just as prone to meltdowns when anything as pointy as Jennifer "miller" flew by.
Underrated statement.
@russcole5685 ty
Yea, pistons engines were getting silly at this point and overly complex leading to not only high maintenance but also lots of breakages, it was just too much, at this point jet engines weighed half as much and were producing twice the power.
@@dukecraig2402 Thoughtful and well put.
Fantastic, Paul. You shed light on projects I had never suspected they existed. Congratulations!
I did not appreciate how *massive* the B-36 is until I experienced it at the USAF museum in person. What an incredible machine even by today's standards let alone when it was made.
The B-36 was controversial as part of the Navy vs Air Force struggle throughout the early 1950's. The Navy claimed the B-36 would fail it's mission, which was thankfully never used. A fascinating era with lots of backstory.
Nice work! Thank you, Paul.
Fascinating story. Many thanks for issuing it.
Was at Edwards AFB in CA in 1964 when the B-50 was still flying. the engines were P&W 4360's and 4 jet engines in 2 pods. The sound was amazing. I was a mechanic 6515th OMS on a TB-58 Hustler that was chase for the X-70
Interesting video Paul! Please do more aviation history videos!
I enjoyed & collected brief information of a rare aircraft....❤❤❤
Excellent coverage of this planned aircraft.
For context the Canberra was 18 months away from entering service and the Jet age was advancing rapidly. So many technologies and weapons reached their peak at the point of obsolescence after the end of WW2
Excellent video Paul, much appreciated 👏
It was an interesting idea but the plane was already obsolete by the B-36 and B-47 in 1947!
I can still remember as a kid playing outside at school and being overflown by three B-36s heading to land at Kelly AFB. The ground shook and so did all of us kids!
I went looking for the pic of the jet engine under the aircraft (before the video ended) and also came across the type with the two front gun mounts. I assumed incorrectly from the pic that it was the same type. What I'm here to say is your dedication to fact-checking is really impressive. You're not out to make a quick video full of other people's incorrect information and thus you are not adding to some of the loads of incorrect 'facts' that are out there 👍
Cheers! I know I make mistakes but I, like all of you, am hear to learn about these incredible aircraft. :)
At 1:45 Paul stated ""the Air Force didn't show much interest in the B-29D but when renamed the B-50 it sounded much newer and it was more exciting." Huh? Wot?
These designations were allocated by the US Department of Defense/USAAF/USAF, not the manufacturer.
This would be like you or me looking at a dreary old Datsun then calling it a Nippy New Dart and getting excited - except one would hope the USAF would be a lot more objective.
I'm quite sure that anyone who mattered in the USAF knew perfectly well what the airplane was, regardless of what they themselves called it.
Boeing called it the Model 474 Ultra Fortress. The B-29 was the Model 345.
The B-36 design was initiated during WW2 as the USAAF wanted the ability to bomb Germany from US bases in case Germany invaded Britain, but that never happened, and the B-36 became a long range strategic bomber in case of war against the USSR. The later B-54 with it similar range would have been an alternative in case the B-36 didn't work out. But the Soviets developed SAMs and the MiG-15 jet fighter, rendering slow propellor aircraft such the B-36 and B-54 useless. The USAF changed to high speed jet bombers (B-47, B-52) instead.
Thanks for the extra comments
The designation change was to fool Congress, who might have not been excited by another iteration of a B-29, but might go for the B-54. It had worked for the B-50, already.
@@HootOwl513 That sounds quite plausible. Politicians can be pretty dumb. A bit unethical by the Department of Defense though.
The long range bomber acquisition question was mired in a rivalry between the USAAF and the Navy. Both thought they should have the sole responsibility for delivering nuclear weapons. It was part of both services believing they should the biggest most prestigious service. That's the sort of thing politicians would have been sensitive to. It could have influenced Congress on funding the B-54 either way, but the typical reaction of politicians faced with inter-service rivalry is to try and keep them equal. So, "new" is better.
Technically the final variant of B-29 Superfortress is Tupolev Tu-85, a de facto flying test lab for development of Tu-95.
But combination of both Tu-85 and B-54 sounds like a cool US bomber for some alternate reality like Wolfenstein.
the tu95 is the last b-29. its the same fuselage.
Great stuff as ever matey!
Who's Matey?
@ British saying for friend I.e mate
Periscope, they left those Bombardiers up there to take the head on's from fighters behind glass way too long. They never needed that position, he could have been buried in the fuselage and had a periscope to target with.
Fair to say it was a victim of technology advancing too fast?
This is the first time I heard about the updated Stratofort. SAMs would have loved these.
7:55 the tail gun turret looks like a Dalek. "Enemy fighters! Exterminate!"
Thank You from Susa, Italy. If I remember, B-56 would be a four-engine version of B-47.
I'd have liked to see a (more) swept wing on that - and jet engines. Be fun to see essentially a jet powered modernized B-29.
Sortta like a B-52
My father was a USAAF B-29 navigator 1944-1945. He died in 2016 age 94. He saved - and I have - his original flight jacket with squadron insignia. My son and I visited (did not fly on) FIFI at Boire Field in Nashua NH in 2018. My family are Friends Of Doc.
Amazing how at that very time, the beginning of jet propulsion and swept wings, these piston engine prop guys kept with the bigger is better mantra, if it is correct to call it that. But damn those planes were beautiful.
Charles Bronson operated the guns in a B29 over Japan in WW2 .
As a kid I fell in love with the Bird when I saw the Movie the last flight of Noah's Ark 😊
Yep, the B-36 makes more sense seeing the competition. It did drive Boeing toward the B-47 and B-52, though.
Arguably, the perfected version of the B-29 was the Tu-95!
Um….
@PaulStewartAviation
I read somewhere that the fuselage (and maybe some other parts) were derived from the Russian Tu-4 copy!
Boeing: we have B-29D
Military: meh, boring
Boeing: new paint and change number.
Military: SO MANY COOLAGE!
Thanks for clarifying that those two forward gun blisters /pods on the B-29 s-68 project *aren't related to the b-54*
Also this is just me but, *the stepped greenhouse cockpit on the b-36 prototype looked better* than the production version
Crazy to think the design was concurrent with the B-52 (though which at the time was a turboprop design.)
Boeing was doing the B-47, started work on the B-52, was doing the KC-97, was in preliminary work on the future 707, and working on first generation cruise missiles. I'm convinced LeMay cancelled the B-54 so Boeing's engineers could get some sleep
It'd be nice to see how the B52 fit in the design heritage here.
Very interesting!
6:02 umm 4500HP is 3355KW, not 340KW
Gosh I need to read my own notes better. I did have the correct number written down. Thanks for letting me know.
1:08. Why are the propellers feathered?
New info. Thanks
That nose and tail made the clean design look absolutely HORRIFIC…..😳😳😳😳
True, it looks like a teenager’s face (to quote jeremy clarkson 😂)
Quoting.
It was a very busy time for bomber manufacturers All different size bombers, medium & heavy, prop & jet, straight or swept wings. Lots of new equipment, with radars more guns and heavier bomb loads! I know of B-29s, B-50s, but never a B-54! The anti-aircraft missle & jet fighters of USSR changed the "War Sky"! Would have been interesting plane!! What could have been???? Thank for your research & video!
The USAF was supposedly investigating a nuclear powered aircraft in the late 1940s early 1950s. Obviously the technical issues made it unrealistic.
In a way -
Boeing may have been relieved to know the B-54 was to be scrapped.
It gave them the opportunity to focus their time and energy on the B-52 design.
Agreed. Any more time on the B-54 would have clearly become a waste as the 47 and 52 development progressed. It really was a whole generation of design behind them.
First time I saw a B-50 was at Castle Air Museum in the late 1970s. I thought it was a second B-29 in their collection until I saw those huge air intakes below the engines. Until then I did not know the variant even existed.
yes Castle air museum seems great and I'm keen to visit it. I was in Los Angeles a few months ago but the drive was too far.
The final extrapolation of an obsolescent design.
Nice work on this Vid!
Was it actually more expensive than The Manhatten Project?
Does anyone know how to watch “Stealing the Superfortress”? Amazing doc - can’t find it.
GIY.
How about something about the Tupolev Tu-4 ?
Very interesting. The brass keeps making new demands for this and that modification and then reject the aircraft when the price goes through the roof.
Basically, they need to start again anyway with an entirely new airplane.
Wow!
So 22,000 horsepower ?
So Curtis LeMay wanted the B-36? That's hilarious. After the B-36 entered service, he was scathing of it. Rightly so, the B-36 was basically dud that would never have reached target - the lumbering great thing would have been shot down.
I'm always happy to be corrected but multiple sources suggested that LeMay dislike the B-54 and preferred the B-36.
@@PaulStewartAviation LeMay preferred the B-36 in 1949 before it entered service, as it was bigger and could carry a bigger bomb load. And, it has been said, because the cost would make the USAF supreme over the USN. But in service, the B-36 was a disaster - too high a fault rate, too prone to catch fire, and too difficult to maintain mission ready. LeMay was very vocal about that.
thanks for the extra info
Radar guided, or assisted guns on bombers became a real thing. In the sky's over Vietnam a B52 shot down a fighter with its tail gun using radar.
why was the B-47 not used in Korea??
Nice
🤩
You showed a b-47 at the end instead of a B-52
Yep I was talking about the b47
Seeing how quickly the Russians reversed engineered the B 29 mustve been very disconcerting
The espionage department was probably the biggest and well funded department in the ussr.
👍👍👍
Curtis LeMay was correct
👌👌👌👍👍
You mean this cost more than the Atomic Bomb.
Yep
The B29 project did. All the other iterations were above and beyond.
Twice as much
Boeing was better off developing the Stratojet rather than wasting energy on an outdated warhorse.
B-29 most expensive? How about the Tu-4?
I don’t think anything was expensive in the USSR other than the leader’s palaces.
Boeing once used to build aircraft with pride an engineering excellence. How the mighty have fallen.
Has fallen.
And basically irrelevant.
Aren't Tonnes or Tons pronounced differently?! Great video however you say it!
I think it’s uk vs usa spelling
I would love to see someone build a B-54 and see what it could do.
Good luck with that!😅🤣
Go ahead, 'someone'.
@@kiereluurs1243 Do I look like I know how to mount a radial engine to a wing?
LeMay was right, again.
👍👍👍👍👍☕🍩
Stirling effort on a raher esoteric Boeing project get in touch when next in WA as I have earned another Masters and we could chat on other matters . Wishing you and al those precious to you compliment of theseason
I take it your Masters isn't in language arts. (The are 9 mistakes in your post)
No S..t.@@wintersbattleofbands1144
Before Boeing made planes to survive an atomic blast, now they make planes just unable to flight without losing half of their fuselage.