@@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.
Not to mention they would have been entered service around the same time. An aircraft normally took about 3 years to go from first flight to in service. Given the B-47 had its first flight in 1947, they would have entered service around the same time, or at least within 2 years of each other. The B-54 would have had around a 50% greater bomb load, but it could still have been intercepted by a late-WW2 fighter. And the B-36 just outclassed it completely except in range, which is the one and only thing the B-54 would have had on both of them. But given the B-54's extreme obsolescence even before entering service, it was for the best.
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.
If you ever make it out west a day spent wandering around Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson is a day well spent. Their B-36 is out in the open where you can really get a sense of how big of an aircraft they are.
@@butchs.4239 I've been to the USAF museum in Dayton and Prima county muesem and going to Prima this spring on a bucket list Route 66 trip. We'll detour to Tucson at Flagstaff . Looking forward to the trip, however the B36 was HUGE and could fly a long way, but Too SLOW and impossible to defend/survive. Thank goodness that the B47 and B52 came along and we didn't have to use B 54 or B 36 against the migs in combat.
@Wizard6 I been there a couple of times and still need to go back for the Boneyard tour. I'd add the B-47 to the list of types that thankfully never saw combat. It only had one mission, and while I believe had the order come down it would have done it successfully, the aircrews knew it was a one way trip.
I've seen the B-36 at Castle and it just seemed smaller than what I thought it would of been. Sure it's a larger airframe but when it's kinda by itself you just can't gauge it's size. If they ever do get the funding to build that cover hopefully they'll move the aircraft around a bit just to show how much bigger it actually is.
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
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
You should feel that some of the legendariness of those old ships rubbed off and surround you. My Dad was a Braniff A&P and I got radial engine knowledge with my mother's milk (Did you know 4360 power cases all had interchangeable/identical front and rear flanges? Sort of like how you can "reverse" an unreversible electric motor = swap it end-for-end!) Lol people ask me how long I been a mechanic and I tell them since my conception!
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.
No Man, I agree with you about the B36 & B54. I was" slooooow " in 9th grade Algebra too and experienced a few meltdowns/crash and burns with the 9th grade girls too. LOL!
Interesting case of “convergent evolution” with the Soviet attempts to squeeze the maximum possible range out of basically the same B-29 airframe and its derivatives, like Tu-80 and Tu-85, which paved the way to the Tu-95 Bear.
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
when I was a teen my mothers husband who was in the airforce at the time took me threw a hanger to look at all the black hawks being assembled at the time that arrived in Australia
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 😊
For all of you arguing the point , Official government acknowledged cost of : Developing the B29 $ 3 Billion ! The Manhattan project $ 1.9 Billion ! Yes the B 29 cost more than the Bomb it eventually dropped WHY ? The project begun covertly ( to avoid the wrath of the anti-war and isolationist lobbies ) during the inter-war years ,when the inevitably of the coming war and despite our neutrality , the likelihood that we would be drawn into it . On the assumption Europe would fall it would need the range to attack from the periphery , and in line with the dictum bombers had to fly higher and faster than the fighters ( the ones it was designed to it did , but by the time it flew not ) , it needed new more powerful engines (with super or turbo chargers)than were available , to reach the altitude and speed requirements , the first of the from the drawing board up projects . The altitudes also required oxygen(new tech. at the time) and a pressurized cabin (a still needing to be developed ) , and that in turn necessitated remotely targeted turrets (a manned turrets would NOT be possible to pressurize ) that needed guns that would operate unattended something else that was design up , and adding parallax to the gunnery equations would make hitting a moving target pure luck , the solution to that was developing an airborne computer a novel idea at the time ( war time secrecy had the enigma code broken on both sides of the pond , the computers that flew on each B 29 was superior to the one in Dayton that cracked it ) again purposely designed for this airplane (although adapted for use in submarines too , if the torpedoes worked as well as the computers ... but that's another story) in the air over Japan the B 29 had the highest kill ratio of ANY aircraft ! And the radar that was still a theoretical curiosity when the design began , was so above top secret that the air corp.and later air force air brushed the radar-pods out of all photographs released well into the cold war ! Even the Rayon belted radial tires were a first for the 29 . And probably the biggest reason for the higher cost all these scratch from concept to production developments , The airplane's development took more than a decade longer than the bomb's ! So YES it cost more !
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.
It wasn't revealed until 2019, but the big bulb in front was actually an early microwave popcorn popper. Those long distance flights got boring, and you can't watch a movie without popcorn
In looking at this airplane, it looks like the B 47 and B 52 came along just in time. I wonder what the top and criusing speed was supposed to be. Looks like this would be a great target for Migs and glad they didn't build it. The B36's were just a bigger target that maybe could fly a little farther, but could have been a death trap against Migs with out friendly fighters to protect it.
Another awesome video love the videos Paul keep it up I don’t know if you like tanks but if you ever go to Britain you should go to the tank museum has the only Driving Tiger 131 in the world held about an hour or 2 south of RIAT Airshow or the tank museum near PARKES
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.
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 👍
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.
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.
@@keithammleter3824It worked for the F/A-18 Super Hornet Same designation as the Hornet, yet they're not the same aircraft, not even an upgrade. Two seperate airframes with the most commonality being from bolt on parts, yet it just looked like the smaller Hornet, and kept the same designation
No , by the late 1950s it was understood bombers we're being replaced by icbm's like convair atlas and few years later minuteman not because of surface to air missiles
I wonder what the pressure differential was in the B29. Modern aircraft normally limit this to a cabin altitude of 8000' but I imagine, with the large rounded windows on the B29 nose, the pressure differential must have been lower, perhaps compensated for by supplemental oxygen. It is interesting to see the extremities the development of piston-powered propeller aircraft reached before the entire technology collapsed with the advent of jet engines.
One could argue the most expensive was still the Manhattan Project. Due to the fact that at the time it's role was as a strategic bomber. The main reason it was cancelled was that SAC went with the Convair B-36. Could it have done more? Doubtful as it's operating cost was far too high to use it as a multi-role bomber.
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.
I always wondered why Boeing and the air corps didn't install turbo props on the B-50 (I only just now learned there had been a B-54) instead of using recip engines...There were plenty of aircraft using turbo props for years by then...
Paul--another winning, "thinking person's" vid. How about a B-70? It's at National Museum of the United States Air Force. From Wikipedia: "The Valkyrie became the museum's signature aircraft, appearing on Museum letterhead, and even appearing as the chief design feature for the museum's restaurant, the Valkyrie Cafe."
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
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.
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!
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!
Interesting Video...kinda weird that the B54's nomenclature was "above" the B52. Also, I am leery of the Video's Claim that the B29 work was the most expensive WWII Program.
It's a shame they didn't finish one enough to place it in a museum but at the time, hardly anyone was thinking about a huge aviation museum and the B32 dominator. was scrapped too. Even into the 1960s, Bill Halsey desperately tried to get the Enterprise saved for a museum ship but she was scrapped.
Honestly, it's just as well it was canceled. Its competitors were the B-36 Peacemaker, B-47 Stratojet, and, in the very near future, the B-52. Normally it takes about 3 years from first flight to in service. Other than range, it was completely inferior to the B-36 with less than half the bomb load. It had around a 50% greater bomb load than the B-47, but could have still been intercepted by a late-WW2 aircraft. The B-47 actually had a chance of getting to its target, unlike the B-54 which would have been outdated on arrival.
This project looks like Boeing tried to stretch the B-29 platform several bridges too far. Not wanting to redesign the wing for jets, but then basically redesigning it anyway is just a prime example.
@@oxcart4172but the Tu-4 copy was known to be substantially worse than the original B-29 because the Soviets couldn't make everything in the B-29 to spec. Also they did a bunch of imperial to metric conversion that didn't exactly work out well. So, no, it was not the perfected version.
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.
Just goes to show you, if the wings provide lift and the engines enough power to overcome drag, you can put anything in the air. What was Boeing thinking? Jet engines were the future at the end of WWII. This looks like a mismatch of parts left over from a B-29, B-17 and whatever else was in the scrapyard.
Hey Paul, you need more distance between your lips and the mic. The sound is overdriven in the lows and low mids. (Pay attention to the “boom” effect.) Try a large diaphragm mic with cutoff (you seem to be hitten the desk?). 🙂
Hey mate, really appreciate the feedback. I am struggling with the voice recording. I've just bought a new Rode nt-usb+ microphone with a pop filter and I was hoping it might be an improvement but it doesn't seem to be. I do try and sit about 30 cm from the microphone but then it's a struggle to read the script on my screen haha. I'm happy for more feedback, though. feel free to email me at pstewart001@gmail.com if you have any further suggestions about the voice recording. Cheers
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.
Absolutely! There was incredible advances in aircraft design over just a few years. I still recall seeing the B-36 for the first time at Pima air and space museum and it was sitting near the KJ-50 to contrast.
I need to find one to film :) I’m off to europe to film a mig-25 next year but sadly its hard to get close to the other soviet planes due to the ukraine war.
CORRECTION: at 06:02 I meant to say that 4500hp = 3355kWs instead of 300ish 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.
@@aerotube7291 On account of your accent I couldn't quite make out what you said, but also on account of your accent it sounded right.
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.
Not to mention they would have been entered service around the same time. An aircraft normally took about 3 years to go from first flight to in service. Given the B-47 had its first flight in 1947, they would have entered service around the same time, or at least within 2 years of each other. The B-54 would have had around a 50% greater bomb load, but it could still have been intercepted by a late-WW2 fighter. And the B-36 just outclassed it completely except in range, which is the one and only thing the B-54 would have had on both of them. But given the B-54's extreme obsolescence even before entering service, it was for the best.
Previously unaware of this specific offspring of the B-29. Interesting stuff. :)
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.
If you ever make it out west a day spent wandering around Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson is a day well spent. Their B-36 is out in the open where you can really get a sense of how big of an aircraft they are.
@@butchs.4239 I've been to the USAF museum in Dayton and Prima county muesem and going to Prima this spring on a bucket list Route 66 trip. We'll detour to Tucson at Flagstaff . Looking forward to the trip, however the B36 was HUGE and could fly a long way, but Too SLOW and impossible to defend/survive. Thank goodness that the B47 and B52 came along and we didn't have to use B 54 or B 36 against the migs in combat.
@Wizard6 I been there a couple of times and still need to go back for the Boneyard tour. I'd add the B-47 to the list of types that thankfully never saw combat. It only had one mission, and while I believe had the order come down it would have done it successfully, the aircrews knew it was a one way trip.
I've seen the B-36 at Castle and it just seemed smaller than what I thought it would of been. Sure it's a larger airframe but when it's kinda by itself you just can't gauge it's size. If they ever do get the funding to build that cover hopefully they'll move the aircraft around a bit just to show how much bigger it actually is.
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
Compare that Boeing to today's Boeing
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
You should feel that some of the legendariness of those old ships rubbed off and surround you. My Dad was a Braniff A&P and I got radial engine knowledge with my mother's milk (Did you know 4360 power cases all had interchangeable/identical front and rear flanges? Sort of like how you can "reverse" an unreversible electric motor = swap it end-for-end!) Lol people ask me how long I been a mechanic and I tell them since my conception!
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!!
@@piergaay cheers! I like to get the facts across with minimal fluff.
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!
Everyday is 0ne word 🤦.Gee Zeus 🙁
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.
No Man, I agree with you about the B36 & B54. I was" slooooow " in 9th grade Algebra too and experienced a few meltdowns/crash and burns with the 9th grade girls too. LOL!
Interesting case of “convergent evolution” with the Soviet attempts to squeeze the maximum possible range out of basically the same B-29 airframe and its derivatives, like Tu-80 and Tu-85, which paved the way to the Tu-95 Bear.
Another great video, even though it was just photos. I don't recall hearing of this plane previously.
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
Another excellent video on a fascinating topic! Thank you very much Sir!
Fantastic, Paul. You shed light on projects I had never suspected they existed. Congratulations!
Awesome pictures, thanks for posting
Nice work! Thank you, Paul.
Fascinating story. Many thanks for issuing it.
I enjoyed & collected brief information of a rare aircraft....❤❤❤
Great stuff as ever matey!
Who's Matey?
@ British saying for friend I.e mate
This is the first time I heard about the updated Stratofort. SAMs would have loved these.
Excellent coverage of this planned aircraft.
Interesting video Paul! Please do more aviation history videos!
Thanks Paul, a great piece of What if
Excellent video Paul, much appreciated 👏
We had a KB-50 station in my squadron in Weisbaden GR. It was a upgrade of a B-29.
1965
Fantastic history lesson. Thanks!
when I was a teen my mothers husband who was in the airforce at the time took me threw a hanger to look at all the black hawks being assembled at the time that arrived in Australia
Great video!!
Glad you enjoyed it!
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 😊
For all of you arguing the point ,
Official government acknowledged cost of :
Developing the B29 $ 3 Billion !
The Manhattan project $ 1.9 Billion !
Yes the B 29 cost more than the Bomb it eventually dropped
WHY ?
The project begun covertly ( to avoid the wrath of the anti-war and isolationist lobbies ) during the inter-war years ,when the inevitably of the coming war and despite our neutrality , the likelihood that we would be drawn into it .
On the assumption Europe would fall it would need the range to attack from the periphery , and
in line with the dictum bombers had to fly higher and faster than the fighters ( the ones it was designed to
it did , but by the time it flew not ) , it needed new more powerful engines (with super or turbo chargers)than were
available , to reach the altitude and speed requirements , the first of the from the drawing board up projects .
The altitudes also required oxygen(new tech. at the time) and a pressurized cabin (a still needing to be
developed ) , and that in turn necessitated remotely targeted turrets (a manned turrets would NOT be possible to pressurize ) that needed guns that would operate unattended something else that was design up , and adding parallax to the gunnery equations would make hitting a moving target pure luck ,
the solution to that was developing an airborne computer a novel idea at the time ( war time secrecy had the enigma code broken on both sides of the pond , the computers that flew on each B 29 was superior to the one in Dayton that cracked it ) again purposely designed for this airplane (although adapted for use in submarines too ,
if the torpedoes worked as well as the computers ... but that's another story) in the air over Japan the B 29 had the highest kill ratio of ANY aircraft !
And the radar that was still a theoretical curiosity when the design began , was so above top secret that the air corp.and later air force air brushed the radar-pods out of all photographs released well into the cold war !
Even the Rayon belted radial tires were a first for the 29 .
And probably the biggest reason for the higher cost all these scratch from concept to production developments ,
The airplane's development took more than a decade longer than the bomb's !
So YES it cost more !
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.
Thank You from Susa, Italy. If I remember, B-56 would be a four-engine version of B-47.
Yep, the B-36 makes more sense seeing the competition. It did drive Boeing toward the B-47 and B-52, though.
It was an interesting idea but the plane was already obsolete by the B-36 and B-47 in 1947!
If this had come afew years earlier when piston engines were still widely used, imagine walking through it in a museum
Very interesting!
It wasn't revealed until 2019, but the big bulb in front was actually an early microwave popcorn popper. Those long distance flights got boring, and you can't watch a movie without popcorn
7:55 the tail gun turret looks like a Dalek. "Enemy fighters! Exterminate!"
In looking at this airplane, it looks like the B 47 and B 52 came along just in time. I wonder what the top and criusing speed was supposed to be. Looks like this would be a great target for Migs and glad they didn't build it. The B36's were just a bigger target that maybe could fly a little farther, but could have been a death trap against Migs with out friendly fighters to protect it.
Another awesome video love the videos Paul keep it up I don’t know if you like tanks but if you ever go to Britain you should go to the tank museum has the only Driving Tiger 131 in the world held about an hour or 2 south of RIAT Airshow or the tank museum near PARKES
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.
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. :)
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
Thanks.
You're welcome
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.
New info. Thanks
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.
@@keithammleter3824It worked for the F/A-18 Super Hornet
Same designation as the Hornet, yet they're not the same aircraft, not even an upgrade. Two seperate airframes with the most commonality being from bolt on parts, yet it just looked like the smaller Hornet, and kept the same designation
No , by the late 1950s it was understood bombers we're being replaced by icbm's like convair atlas and few years later minuteman not because of surface to air missiles
I wonder what the pressure differential was in the B29. Modern aircraft normally limit this to a cabin altitude of 8000' but I imagine, with the large rounded windows on the B29 nose, the pressure differential must have been lower, perhaps compensated for by supplemental oxygen.
It is interesting to see the extremities the development of piston-powered propeller aircraft reached before the entire technology collapsed with the advent of jet engines.
B-54 soumds very much equivalent to the Tu-85, which was built solely as a prototype.
Crazy to think the design was concurrent with the B-52 (though which at the time was a turboprop design.)
One could argue the most expensive was still the Manhattan Project. Due to the fact that at the time it's
role was as a strategic bomber. The main reason it was cancelled was that SAC went with the Convair B-36.
Could it have done more? Doubtful as it's operating cost was far too high to use it as a multi-role bomber.
Wow!
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.
Nice work on this Vid!
I always wondered why Boeing and the air corps didn't install turbo props on the B-50 (I only just now learned there had been a B-54) instead of using recip engines...There were plenty of aircraft using turbo props for years by then...
Paul--another winning, "thinking person's" vid. How about a B-70? It's at National Museum of the United States Air Force. From Wikipedia: "The Valkyrie became the museum's signature aircraft, appearing on Museum letterhead, and even appearing as the chief design feature for the museum's restaurant, the Valkyrie Cafe."
Hi mate, yep I've done a video on the XB-70 already :)
@@PaulStewartAviation Thanks Paul--can I make one more pitch for the Hunting Pembroke?
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
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'd be nice to see how the B52 fit in the design heritage here.
Fair to say it was a victim of technology advancing too fast?
I wonder how the Boeing numbering system worked since this B-54 seems like it must have come before the B-52.
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.
I always thought the B-50 was the biggest baddest Superfortress
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!
Six Turning and 4 Burning for the B36.
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!
Interesting Video...kinda weird that the B54's nomenclature was "above" the B52.
Also, I am leery of the Video's Claim that the B29 work was the most expensive WWII Program.
1:08. Why are the propellers feathered?
It's a shame they didn't finish one enough to place it in a museum but at the time, hardly anyone was thinking about a huge aviation museum and the B32 dominator. was scrapped too. Even into the 1960s, Bill Halsey desperately tried to get the Enterprise saved for a museum ship but she was scrapped.
Honestly, it's just as well it was canceled. Its competitors were the B-36 Peacemaker, B-47 Stratojet, and, in the very near future, the B-52. Normally it takes about 3 years from first flight to in service. Other than range, it was completely inferior to the B-36 with less than half the bomb load. It had around a 50% greater bomb load than the B-47, but could have still been intercepted by a late-WW2 aircraft. The B-47 actually had a chance of getting to its target, unlike the B-54 which would have been outdated on arrival.
🤩
This project looks like Boeing tried to stretch the B-29 platform several bridges too far. Not wanting to redesign the wing for jets, but then basically redesigning it anyway is just a prime example.
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.
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!
@@oxcart4172but the Tu-4 copy was known to be substantially worse than the original B-29 because the Soviets couldn't make everything in the B-29 to spec. Also they did a bunch of imperial to metric conversion that didn't exactly work out well. So, no, it was not the perfected version.
@@oxcart4172there's a good Paper Skies video on this if you want to learn more if I remember right.
@@oxcart4172 Derived by way of the prototype-only Tu-85.
Boeing: we have B-29D
Military: meh, boring
Boeing: new paint and change number.
Military: SO MANY COOLAGE!
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.
7:24 “The larger wings necessitated a larger fuselage” ⇔ chicken & egg issue?
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.
👍👍👍
The USAF was supposedly investigating a nuclear powered aircraft in the late 1940s early 1950s. Obviously the technical issues made it unrealistic.
why was the B-47 not used in Korea??
Just goes to show you, if the wings provide lift and the engines enough power to overcome drag, you can put anything in the air. What was Boeing thinking? Jet engines were the future at the end of WWII. This looks like a mismatch of parts left over from a B-29, B-17 and whatever else was in the scrapyard.
Most expensive projects of WW2. A bomb sight, a bomber and a bomb.
Hey Paul, you need more distance between your lips and the mic. The sound is overdriven in the lows and low mids. (Pay attention to the “boom” effect.)
Try a large diaphragm mic with cutoff (you seem to be hitten the desk?). 🙂
Hey mate, really appreciate the feedback. I am struggling with the voice recording. I've just bought a new Rode nt-usb+ microphone with a pop filter and I was hoping it might be an improvement but it doesn't seem to be. I do try and sit about 30 cm from the microphone but then it's a struggle to read the script on my screen haha. I'm happy for more feedback, though. feel free to email me at pstewart001@gmail.com if you have any further suggestions about the voice recording. Cheers
So 22,000 horsepower ?
The final extrapolation of an obsolescent design.
I never saw a B-29 with 3 bladed props.
👌👌👌👍👍
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.
Nice
B29 MTO weight around 150k lbs
Ah yes, post war by 5 or so years and the B-29 is being recognized as a medium bomber. That would have surprised people in 39.
Absolutely! There was incredible advances in aircraft design over just a few years. I still recall seeing the B-36 for the first time at Pima air and space museum and it was sitting near the KJ-50 to contrast.
@PaulStewartAviation yes, where I am, we can see the B-36 next to the B-50 at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton. Incredible contrast in size.
Isn't there a B-50 in the National Museum of the USAF?
Yep and a few others around in museums. Check out my b-50 video :)
You could have paid for a lot of hamburgers & thick shakes fries with all that money spent on those a/c
How about something about the Tupolev Tu-4 ?
I need to find one to film :) I’m off to europe to film a mig-25 next year but sadly its hard to get close to the other soviet planes due to the ukraine war.
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.
you forgot tu-4(soviet copy of b-29)
You showed a b-47 at the end instead of a B-52
Yep I was talking about the b47