If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Kansas.com) Video B-29 "Doc" engine starts for the first time in 53 years   (videos.kansas.com) divider line 64
    More: Video  
•       •       •

10887 clicks; posted to Video » on 11 May 2009 at 6:55 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-05-11 07:12:54 AM  
My sister Enola says that's Gay
 
2009-05-11 07:19:51 AM  
I watched a discover channel program about one they pulled out of the bottom of a frozen lake somewhere and eventually got it started.

Wow, just wow
 
2009-05-11 07:23:57 AM  
I hope they oiled the cylinders and journals.

Seriously, the thing should have been dismantled. There could be a cracked ring in there, or a journal about to sieze--god knows what.

It would not be a happy event if they had ruined the crank or scored a cylinder

.
 
2009-05-11 07:28:31 AM  
i134.photobucket.com
 
2009-05-11 07:38:50 AM  
Those B-29s were pretty badass killing machines. Really high tech for their day.
 
2009-05-11 07:39:18 AM  
DistendedPendulusFrenulum isn't running on all cylinders.
 
2009-05-11 07:56:34 AM  
GurneyHalleck: Those B-29s were pretty badass killing machines. Really high tech for their day.

They're also great for use as a pirate TV station.
 
2009-05-11 08:33:17 AM  
RatOmeter:

DistendedPendulusFrenulum isn't running on all cylinders.

Turbines ain't got cylinders, biatch

.
 
2009-05-11 08:53:48 AM  
DistendedPendulusFrenulum: RatOmeter:

DistendedPendulusFrenulum isn't running on all cylinders.

Turbines ain't got cylinders, biatch

.


That's a Radial engine and it has 18 cylinders.

I'm pretty certain those mean knew about keeping them from seizing up.
 
2009-05-11 08:54:26 AM  
The Laughing Kookaburra: DistendedPendulusFrenulum: RatOmeter:

DistendedPendulusFrenulum isn't running on all cylinders.

Turbines ain't got cylinders, biatch

.

That's a Radial engine and it has 18 cylinders.

I'm pretty certain those mean knew about keeping them from seizing up.


biatch.
 
2009-05-11 08:56:12 AM  
wiimedia.ign.com

A comeback is like a yo-yo. You get knocked down, you gonna get right back up. And you may end up walkin' the dog.

/Join Club Nintendo today, Mac!
 
2009-05-11 08:57:59 AM  
The Laughing Kookaburra: DistendedPendulusFrenulum: RatOmeter:

DistendedPendulusFrenulum isn't running on all cylinders.

Turbines ain't got cylinders, biatch

.

That's a Radial engine and it has 18 cylinders.


That joke went over your head like a B-29 flying NOE.

The original joking insult was that DistendedPendulusFrenulum wasn't running on all cylinders, and he rejoined by implying that he was a turbine, and thus didn't have any cylinders.

Personally, I'm a pulsejet: All loud and vibraty-like. Just call me Flappy McFlapperson.
 
2009-05-11 08:58:20 AM  
GurneyHalleck: Those B-29s were pretty badass killing machines. Really high tech for their day.

It cost more to develop the B29 than the atomic bomb. You could say the ME 262 was the most advanced fighter of the war, but the B29 was easily the most advanced bomber of the war.

Link (new window)
 
2009-05-11 09:04:44 AM  
Meh....before Hurricane Ike I was on Galveston visiting the Lone Star Flight Museum and got to watch them start up and taxi out their B-29. Four of those engines at once...talk about sweet!
 
2009-05-11 09:06:25 AM  
Chuck Wagon: GurneyHalleck: Those B-29s were pretty badass killing machines. Really high tech for their day.

It cost more to develop the B29 than the atomic bomb. You could say the ME 262 was the most advanced fighter of the war, but the B29 was easily the most advanced bomber of the war.



No, it wasn't.
 
2009-05-11 09:07:17 AM  
dittybopper: The Laughing Kookaburra: DistendedPendulusFrenulum: RatOmeter:

DistendedPendulusFrenulum isn't running on all cylinders.

Turbines ain't got cylinders, biatch

.

That's a Radial engine and it has 18 cylinders.


That joke went over your head like a B-29 flying NOE.

The original joking insult was that DistendedPendulusFrenulum wasn't running on all cylinders, and he rejoined by implying that he was a turbine, and thus didn't have any cylinders.

Personally, I'm a pulsejet: All loud and vibraty-like. Just call me Flappy McFlapperson.


Upon second read, you are right. I sit corrected. I fail at reading.

Carry on.
 
2009-05-11 09:09:00 AM  
The Laughing Kookaburra:
Upon second read, you are right. I sit corrected. I fail at reading.

Carry on.


Don't feel bad, I came within 3.2 milliseconds of making the very same mistake.
 
2009-05-11 09:31:24 AM  
dittybopper: GurneyHalleck: Those B-29s were pretty badass killing machines. Really high tech for their day.

They're also great for use as a pirate TV station.


S&M TV for the win!!!
 
2009-05-11 10:02:57 AM  
That was pretty cool, but this is the coolest discovery so far!

Tank found buried in Russian Bog, started up after 56 years!

http://www.vincelewis.net/t34.html
 
2009-05-11 10:05:32 AM  
dittybopper: No, it wasn't.

How about the most advanced REAL bomber of the war? The Ar-234 was a tech demo. It could carry 3,000 lb of bombs about 600 miles, the B-29 could carry 20,000 lb 3,200 miles. The Superfort was an amazing aircraft (when its engines didn't catch fire and explode...)
 
2009-05-11 10:15:31 AM  
dittybopper: Chuck Wagon: GurneyHalleck: Those B-29s were pretty badass killing machines. Really high tech for their day.

It cost more to develop the B29 than the atomic bomb. You could say the ME 262 was the most advanced fighter of the war, but the B29 was easily the most advanced bomber of the war.



No, it wasn't.


dittybopper: Chuck Wagon: GurneyHalleck: Those B-29s were pretty badass killing machines. Really high tech for their day.

It cost more to develop the B29 than the atomic bomb. You could say the ME 262 was the most advanced fighter of the war, but the B29 was easily the most advanced bomber of the war.



No, it wasn't.


Would you also argue that the Arado Ar 234 is more advanced than the B36A, B and C?
 
2009-05-11 10:18:44 AM  
The engines had a notoriously short operating life -- one of the main reasons only a very few superforts are still flying around is because it is such a pain to find parts of the engines -- the boneyards are starting to run low. They are very impressive to see fly though. If you've never seen the liberator, the fortress or superfort flying around, I highly suggest hitting up the air show at Nellis AFB.

Perhaps it is some weird gene memory from my grandpa and my uncle (who was at Pearl Harbor) but when they flew a Zero by (and I didn't know one was up) I nearly ducked out of sheer reaction.
 
2009-05-11 10:38:54 AM  
---- add seven subtract eleven.

Obscure?
 
2009-05-11 10:40:45 AM  
dittybopper: It cost more to develop the B29 than the atomic bomb. You could say the ME 262 was the most advanced fighter of the war, but the B29 was easily the most advanced bomber of the war.


No, it wasn't.



Hardly. Jet engines were an improvement but that was a long way from being competitive with a heavy bomber using a high power Pratt & Whitney radial. Range and warload were utter crap.
 
2009-05-11 10:56:56 AM  
Guysmiley: dittybopper: No, it wasn't.

How about the most advanced REAL bomber of the war? The Ar-234 was a tech demo. It could carry 3,000 lb of bombs about 600 miles, the B-29 could carry 20,000 lb 3,200 miles. The Superfort was an amazing aircraft (when its engines didn't catch fire and explode...)


One was a light bomber (the Arado), and the other a heavy bomber (B-29).

Different missions, therefore different forms, but I don't think anyone would argue that the Ar-234 wasn't a "real bomber", because that would be like saying the B-26 wasn't a "real bomber" because it was roughly comparable to the AR-234 (somewhat longer range, but *MUCH* slower, and 4,000 lbs of bombs vs. 3,300 for the Arado).

Also, they weren't a "tech demo". They were in mass production and they were used operationally, just not in great numbers because of supply and manufacturing problems that late in the war.
 
2009-05-11 10:59:48 AM  
I hope there weren't any zombies in that B-29... glowing green...
 
2009-05-11 11:00:09 AM  
Devin172:
Hardly. Jet engines were an improvement but that was a long way from being competitive with a heavy bomber using a high power Pratt & Whitney radial. Range and warload were utter crap.


That's because it wasn't a heavy bomber. It was a light bomber. That doesn't mean it wasn't a bomber.

You are saying "Hey, that apple isn't the tastiest fruit because it's not a citrus fruit", a distinction that wasn't made in the original statement about oranges being the tastiest fruit.
 
2009-05-11 11:00:56 AM  
Fano: I hope there weren't any zombies in that B-29... glowing green...

That only happens in B-17's.
 
2009-05-11 11:06:11 AM  
Members only jacket at 5 seconds
 
2009-05-11 11:07:37 AM  
006andahalf: The engines had a notoriously short operating life -- one of the main reasons only a very few superforts are still flying around is because it is such a pain to find parts of the engines -- the boneyards are starting to run low. They are very impressive to see fly though. If you've never seen the liberator, the fortress or superfort flying around, I highly suggest hitting up the air show at Nellis AFB.

Perhaps it is some weird gene memory from my grandpa and my uncle (who was at Pearl Harbor) but when they flew a Zero by (and I didn't know one was up) I nearly ducked out of sheer reaction.


Are R3350s particularly worse than other contemporary radials (break more, or less common)?

Heard getting hundreds of gallons of 115/145 octane is a hassle too...
 
2009-05-11 11:37:47 AM  
One of my small pleasures in life is that my den is near a small airport that is home to several T-34 Trainers and as a result, on warm weekends with good weather, I'll hear the steady drone of their radial engines cruisin' nearby
 
2009-05-11 11:41:11 AM  
dittybopper: Also, they weren't a "tech demo". They were in mass production and they were used operationally, just not in great numbers because of supply and manufacturing problems that late in the war.

Like every other German "superweapon" of WWII they were a fart in a hurricane. Mass production? 200 airframes? Hardly.
 
2009-05-11 11:54:00 AM  
WTF is up with all the circa-70s facial hair?
 
2009-05-11 11:54:32 AM  
Anyone else notice that the engine runs backwards? Prop was going the wrong way.

Oops?
 
2009-05-11 12:04:09 PM  
Guysmiley: dittybopper: Also, they weren't a "tech demo". They were in mass production and they were used operationally, just not in great numbers because of supply and manufacturing problems that late in the war.

Like every other German "superweapon" of WWII they were a fart in a hurricane. Mass production? 200 airframes? Hardly.


In bombed out, war ravaged Germany? It counts. They would have made more if they could have.

But you are right, there weren't anywhere near enough of them to make a difference, which is not a reflection on how advanced they were.
 
2009-05-11 12:04:55 PM  
SacriliciousBeerSwiller: WTF is up with all the circa-70s facial hair?

That is not a radial question.
 
2009-05-11 12:05:09 PM  
Zumaki: Anyone else notice that the engine runs backwards? Prop was going the wrong way.

Oops?


Nah- it's turning the correct direction. Watch while the starter is running.
The "backwards" illusion while the engine's running is caused by the video camera's frame rate not being the same as the prop's rotation rate.
 
2009-05-11 12:07:28 PM  
Zumaki: Anyone else notice that the engine runs backwards? Prop was going the wrong way.

Oops?


Strobe artifact of the camera I think. When it starts turning over it's going the right way.
 
2009-05-11 12:08:26 PM  
scn095: Nah- it's turning the correct direction. Watch while the starter is running.
The "backwards" illusion while the engine's running is caused by the video camera's frame rate not being the same as the prop's rotation rate.


Or what scn095 said. :)
 
2009-05-11 01:19:22 PM  
"Don't make them like they used to."

Also, Members Only jacket at 4 secs in. Pimp.
 
2009-05-11 01:32:30 PM  
006andahalf 2009-05-11 10:18:44 AM
Could just be reflex, how low was he flying?
I know the Blue Angels love pulling that trick. The announcer calls the incoming direction for the first several minutes of the show, so everybody gets used to it...
"And now approaching from the right, the diamond formation!"
*everybody looks to the right-four aircraft fly by wingtip to wingtip*
"Crossing over center, the double pass 90 degree twist!"
*half the people look left, half the people look right, and each see two a side that pass each other close aboard in the center, snapping from wings-horizontal to wings-vertical at the last second. Announcer gets a bit of a giggle from setting up what looks to be retards watching a tennis match*
"And now approaching from the right, the overtake!"
*crowd looks to the right. Flight of two approaching, one visible coming up from behind. Wait that's only--"
*BOOOOOOOOOOM*-the fourth jet makes an approach from stage REAR and hits his afterburners when directly overhead, everybody ducks (even though he's hundreds of feet up, not close enough to even hit the crowd with jetwash) and the announcer laughs his ass off.
 
2009-05-11 01:38:05 PM  
Tweeker: 006andahalf: The engines had a notoriously short operating life -- one of the main reasons only a very few superforts are still flying around is because it is such a pain to find parts of the engines -- the boneyards are starting to run low. They are very impressive to see fly though. If you've never seen the liberator, the fortress or superfort flying around, I highly suggest hitting up the air show at Nellis AFB.

Perhaps it is some weird gene memory from my grandpa and my uncle (who was at Pearl Harbor) but when they flew a Zero by (and I didn't know one was up) I nearly ducked out of sheer reaction.

Are R3350s particularly worse than other contemporary radials (break more, or less common)?

Heard getting hundreds of gallons of 115/145 octane is a hassle too...


Actually, yeah, they did wear out a bit faster than contemporary radials, which is why parts are become harder to come by. Part of the problem was the design which restricted airflow, which caused overheating and premature wear and when designers noticed the problem, they let it go, figuring it would be easier and faster to just replace engines as they went. Eventually it was fixed but too late for WWII combat ops.

From the wiki: "frequent replacement of the uppermost five cylinders (every 25 hours of engine time) and the entire engines (every 75 hours)"
 
2009-05-11 01:48:29 PM  
Ishidan: 006andahalf 2009-05-11 10:18:44 AM
Could just be reflex, how low was he flying?


It wasn't like the blues doing that whole thing bringing in the solos from aft. The zero just came from stage left, probably about 400-500 feet, banked maybe 35 degrees to that the red circles were easily visible.
 
2009-05-11 05:14:59 PM  
How many cup holders does it have?
 
2009-05-11 06:42:37 PM  
I've run into a couple of the old-timers working on that plane the past few years...I'm looking forward to seeing it up close and personal soon.
 
2009-05-11 06:55:15 PM  
"First time in 53 years?" It says right in the article that the engine had been fired up already earlier in the week. What's with the misleading headlines, Drew? There've been a few in past days.
 
2009-05-11 07:51:47 PM  
I worked on getting "Doc" off of China Lake Naval Station weapons range, so I'm getting a kick...
 
2009-05-11 08:05:02 PM  
www.centennialofflight.gov
 
2009-05-12 03:48:25 AM  
Also, Members Only jacket at 4 secs in. Pimp.



Nice eye. Wish I had mine from the 80's
 
2009-05-12 03:57:54 AM  
dittybopper: Chuck Wagon: GurneyHalleck: Those B-29s were pretty badass killing machines. Really high tech for their day.

It cost more to develop the B29 than the atomic bomb. You could say the ME 262 was the most advanced fighter of the war, but the B29 was easily the most advanced bomber of the war.

No, it wasn't.


Yes, it was, by any objective measure. Sure, the Arado was turbine powered, but that was about the only thing it had over the American bombers, technologically. And powerplants aren't everything.

The B-29 was the first to have pressurized crew areas. It was the first to have remotely-operated radar-assisted defensive weapons systems. It was even the first to have computer-assisted targeting systems:

img17.imageshack.us



The Arado had a combat range of under 700 miles while the B-29 had a range of over 3,000 miles while carrying six times the payload.

As for the article itself: cool stuff! That's a Wright R-3350, which was the original, highly problematic power plant for the B-29. The Pratt & Whitney R-4360, which was used later on, was far superior. I'd love to see one of those babies fired up in person.

/piston engine geek

For any other geeks, check out these two books. They're two of the most amazing historical technology texts you'll ever come across.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report