Academy B-29

[Jure Miljevic]

Hi, Levin

Just as Bob said in one of his posts, initial secrecy surrounding nuclear bombings assured that waters remain muddled even today. I have Monogram's B-29, slatted to be built as Enola Gay, though I would much prefer something more colourful like Bockscar, Straight Flush or The Great Artiste. Still, as my goal is to build the model as it looked during and not after the mission in question, due to lack of photos my choices are quite limited. Cheers

Jure

[Levin]

I have just started building and a WIP so if anyone is interested, here is the link:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235006194-172-academy-b-29-enola-gay/

[sloegin57]

That Washington may have fought you back a bit, Woody, but is was a fabulous thing when you finished. I'd forgotten about it so that was a welcome reminder.

I quite agree WIP. I am very surprised that the article was not Pinned as It was of the same high Quality (capital 'Q') as other pinned builds.

I have it printed out for when I get around to doing one of mine, ( found a bunch of AM decals in the stash recently), but I have an IDAF B.377 to complete first.

Top marks Woody.

Dennis

[KRK4m]

Beware though that some may have been A's, which I think had longer span wings compared to the (no suffix) B-29.

That's a very important point - this difference in wing span is visible only in technical data sheets and it concerns the area where the wings mate the fuselage. I'm not sure whether Academy (and the ancient Airfix) kit represents the B-29A or th "bare 29". It is also not clear whether all later variants (B-50s, C-97s and civil 377s) followed the B-29 or B-29A solution there. Also it remains unclear (for me at least) which variant has been reverse-engineered by the Soviets in their Tu-4, as both B-29s and -29As had been captured by them in the Far East, Does anybody have any photos or factory drawings concerning this area?

Cheers

Michael

[bobgpw]

The B-29A had a wingspan 12 inches greater than other variants. The B-29A was built at Renton and utilised a stub wing box in the centre section with the wings attached at the fuselage stubs. Other B-29's had their wings joined at the fuselage centreline. The Renton wings weighed more and had reduced centre fuel tank capacity. I can only assume that the nature of the sub-assemblies made production more efficient.

The General H H Arnold Special (B-29) was the aircraft that Tupolev completely disassembled in order to "reverse engineer" the aircraft. The other interned B-29's were used as reference aircraft and crew trainers. I believe that Tupolev used their own wing aerofoil section instead of the Boeing 117 and had to make many other changes in order to copy the aircraft. Some of the issues involved converting from US imperial measurements to Russian metric standards, which caused production tooling problems.

[Jure Miljevic]

According to Steve Page's book Boeing B-29 Superfortress (Crowood) other significant changes engineered into Tu-4 included different gauge aluminum and magnesium skin, Shvetsov ASh-73TK engines (developed from unspecified Wright engine and not from R-3350) with VZ-A-3 propellers, and of course Soviet defence armament from 12,7-mm UBT machine guns to B-20E 20-mm cannons and finally NS-23 23-mm cannons. Bomber's wingspan is given as 141,3 ft or 43,08 m. Shvetsov engines produced 200 hp more than R-3350 and Tu-4 had lower empty weight, but higher maximum take-off weight. The book gives thickness of Tu-4 skin as varying from 0,031-in to 0,7-in; the latter one is clearly a typo and should probably read as 0,07-in. While I found no information about it, I assume skin had been probably produced from different, Soviet developed alloys. According to the book B-29 skin gauge had been 0,0625-in and that would explain lower empty weight of Tu-4 compared to B-29. I have some doubts about uniformed skin of the US bomber, as on less stressed parts its added strength would be wasted while still increasing plane's overall weight. However, if that had been the case, such substantial skin gauge changes warranted complete re-calculation of Tu-4, no mean feat in times when logarithmic rulers ruled supreme. Cheers

Jure

[KRK4m]

ASh-73 was nothing more than double-row variant of the ASh-62 (licenced R-1820 Cyclone). It shared the 156 mm piston diameter with R-1820, R-2600, ASh-82 and R-3350, but featured the intermediate 170 mm stroke (155 in ASh-82, 160 in R-2600 and R-3350, 175 in ASh-62). Supposedly the lone B-29A that fell into Soviet hands was so severely damaged and crash-landed, that they decided to copy the (no suffix) B-29, of which they captured three intact. Thus Tu-4 wing span (and centre fuselage joint) follow the original B-29 (and not the B-29A). Same applies to the B-50 and C-97/B377 leaving the B-29A as the only one featuring the stub wing box.

Nevertheless I still haven't seen the photos (or even drawings) explaining this 12" span difference. Moreover all the 1/72 Academy kits of Superfortress (#02111, 02113, 02154, 02173, 12413, 12517 and 12528) are labelled as B-29A ! Of course their wings are the same as for the C-97 and B-50 kits by Academy

Cheers

Michael

Edited July 30, 2016 by KRK4m

[Abakan]

One thing I would like to know is if I can build a normal B29 out of Academys KB29 kit. I know it will miss the bomb bay. Buteverything else should be there, right?

[KRK4m]

Looking at the serials of Academy B-29s 90% of them cover the standard (no suffix) B-29 of Bell, Martin or Boeing Wichita production. Thus "B-29A" label on each box is spurious. There's one exception, however - kit #12517 includes decals for four early Wichita-built B-29s (42-6223, 6242, 6251 and 6254) plus one Renton-built B-29A (42-93828). With no difference in wings of course

So maybe Joe Baugher http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b29_4.htmlis right, stating that : "... The B-29 had employed a two-piece wing center section that was bolted together at the center line and which was installed as a single unit passing entirely through the fuselage and supporting the engine nacelles. The B-29A used a very short stub center section that did not project beyond the fuselage sides, being only 47.75 inches wide on either side of the center line or almost eight feet in total. Each pair of engine nacelles was fitted to a separate short section of wing. The outer wing panels were attached at the same point on B-29s and B-29As alike. These wing changes were internal only, and there were no external differences visible in the wing root area, except for the overwing panelling on the fuselage Contrary to what has been posted elsewhere, this change did not give the B-29A an additional foot of wingspan as compared to the B-29..."

And this is the reason I'm looking for the photos or even drawings showing the fuselage/wing crossing area of both B-29 and B-29A.

Cheers

Michael

Edited July 31, 2016 by KRK4m

[bobgpw]

I've got the William Wolf B-29 book and he gives the skin thickness as 0.1875" or 3/16" in old money. Certainly at the wing root the skin was at its thickest, running out to 0.032" at the tips.

I don't know if Soviet alloys were comparable to US ones, but by the end of WW2, Boeing had moved from 24ST to 75ST alloy for the B-50.

In 1/72 scale I can live with the scale 12" wingspan differences, and I haven't checked my 1/48 B-29's yet either!

[bobgpw]

Looking at the serials of Academy B-29s 90% of them cover the standard (no suffix) B-29 of Bell, Martin or Boeing Wichita production. Thus "B-29A" label on each box is spurious. There's one exception, however - kit #12517 includes decals for four early Wichita-built B-29s (42-6223, 6242, 6251 and 6254) plus one Renton-built B-29A (42-93828). With no difference in wings of course

So maybe Joe Baugher http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_bombers/b29_4.htmlis right, stating that : "... The B-29 had employed a two-piece wing center section that was bolted together at the center line and which was installed as a single unit passing entirely through the fuselage and supporting the engine nacelles. The B-29A used a very short stub center section that did not project beyond the fuselage sides, being only 47.75 inches wide on either side of the center line or almost eight feet in total. Each pair of engine nacelles was fitted to a separate short section of wing. The outer wing panels were attached at the same point on B-29s and B-29As alike. These wing changes were internal only, and there were no external differences visible in the wing root area, except for the overwing panelling on the fuselage Contrary to what has been posted elsewhere, this change did not give the B-29A an additional foot of wingspan as compared to the B-29..."

And this is the reason I'm looking for the photos or even drawings showing the fuselage/wing crossing area of both B-29 and B-29A.

Cheers

Michael

You may well be right Michael! All the references I have show the B-29A as having a 142'3" wingspan, but the acid test would be to check "Fifi" as she is a 29A. The Renton wing must have required a major redesign and I believe that it was used on the B-50 (which shared the B-29 wingspan of 141'3"). Logic dictates therefore that the B-29A/B-29D (B-50) probably have the same wingspan and that the "extra 12 span" may well be an error.

You learn something new every day...

Bob

[JWM]

On 29.06.2016 at 10:08 PM, Jure Miljevic said:

Bombers of 509th Composite Group carried very interesting nose arts, but bear in mind that the only B-29 which actually carried it on missions was Paul Tibbets' Enola Gay. All the rest, including Bock's Car nose art and Pumpkin operational practice missions markings on other bombers had been added post-war.

Hi,

I am trying to finish my B29, which stay at the shelf of doom since Christmas 2014.

 I want to do "Bokscar". I would like to clarify my doubts about markings details.  I found photo of nose section which description suggests that it is Bokscar, but there is no small "77" . It is sure that the nose art was done after Nagasaki mission (since there is a atom "mushroom" cloud on it) - but why there is no "77"? Second is emblem on the tail. It is triangle in decals (as in museum) but on photos it cound be R or arrow in circle. And what about red belt? Any sure info on this?

Cheers

J-W

 

 

P.S.

One photo with red belt

Edited September 10, 2017 by JWM
added PS

[Greg in OK]

J-W, let's see if I can help.  First off, keep in mind that markings with the group were changed to keep things confused.  So a not to strange to se a "Circle R" or a "Triangle N" or other markings borrowed from other groups.

 

Here is a small article from the Air and Space museums website:

 

"Stan Harris of Brighton, Colorado, writes with a question about the Enola Gay, the Boeing B-29 Superfortress that dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945. 

 

Harris says he has three pictures of the bomber on Tinian island in the Northern Marianas (its takeoff point for the bomb run), and “in each of the pictures, it has a different fin flash on the vertical stabilizer. The three are: a black letter P, a circle-R, and a circle-arrow. Which is correct?” 

For the answer, we turned to Robert Krauss, historian for the 509^th Composite Group, the unit that carried out the nuclear bombing missions at the end of WWII. It was part of a ruse, according to Krauss. He writes: “The original tail markings of 509^th B-29s was a forward-pointing arrow in a circle. The tail markings of other Marianas-based bomb groups (which used letters) were substituted prior to August 6 to avoid easy recognition of 509^th planes. The Enola Gay tail marking was changed from the circle-arrow to circle-R, which was the marking for the 6^th Bomb Group, 313^th Wing, North Field, Tinian.” 

Krauss notes that while three B-29s of the 509^thdid have a square-P tail mark (which stood for the 39^th Bomb Group, 314^th Wing, North Field, Guam) while on Tinian, the Enola Gay was not among them. “The use of a square-P as a tail marking entailed painting a black square [and] leaving a white P in the center of the square,” he writes. The Enola Gay and other 509^th bombers also had the last two digits of their serial numbers painted on the nose and on the fuselage near the tail. The Enola Gay is number 82. 

Read more at http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/why-did-the-enola-gays-tail-markings-change-400569/#f8qM9UiILvSLaFr4.99"

 

Hopefully that helps some.

 

Greg in Oklahoma

[JWM]

Thank you Greg for that clearificatiom. It is about Enola guy and I am doing Bokscar, but I think it gives general background info on schemes. I appreciete.

Still I do not know about the red band which is seen on "77" (Boxcar). This is rather unususal marking... Any info on that? Was it over Nagasaki, or it was added like nose art later?

Cheers

J-W

 

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello, Jerzy

I believe red marking had been applied much later. I do not know if this also applies to the case of Bockscar, but bands in various colours had been painted on 509th Composite Group's and other aircraft during operation Crossroads.

Take a look at the photo on the bottom of the following link:

http://www.warbirdregistry.org/b29registry/b29-4427297.html

Cowling lips seems to be in darker colour, possibly red. Also, IIRC, there is also a photo of Bockscar with red bands just aft of cowling lips. These must have been applied sometime post-war as it seems that photo shows aircraft with propellers of ordinary variety, and not cuffed as they should have been during August 1945.

In your post you also included well-known photo, taken on Tinian, of Bockscar's tail with Enola Gay in the background. Note circular plate, used to blank out observation/air gunner's bubble transparency. On colour profiles, as well as on Academy box art, this plate is partially covered with the red band. There is no trace of this band on the photo in question.

Arrow in circle and aircraft names (although nose art had not yet been present at that time) had been removed for security reasons late in July 1945. Tail markings had been replaced by spurious markings of other bomb groups. On 9th August 1945 Bockscar (should have been Bock's Car after Captain Frederick Bock, who on that day flew The Great Artiste on photo and data collecting escort mission) had been marked with #77 and with N in black triangle on the tail. After the war arrow in circle had been again repainted on aircraft, although after retirement Bockscar had been first displayed with #89 and R in black ring. Today, on display in Wright-Patterson AF base museum, she sports immediate post-war markings: small 77 on the nose and and big 77 on the fuselage, nose art with five pumpkin mission markings above (the fourth one, Nagasaki in red, the rest in black) and arrow in circle on vertical tail.

Just in case you have not already found it yourself, there is plenty of information about Bockscar on the following link:

https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/bockscar/

Will browse through my book and try to find more about that elusive red band. Cheers

Jure

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello, Jerzy

Perhaps the following can help to explain part of confusion surrounding Bockscar markings.

For some time Bockscar had been stored in Davis Mountain AFB, marked with R in circle and #89 on the fuselage, but without small #89 on the nose and with Bockscar nose art. On 9th August 1945 Major Sweeney piloted Bockscar on Nagasagi mission. Nevertheless, the first official communique stated that Major Sweeney had flown his usual aircraft, The Great Artiste, marked with #89 and R in a circle. Perhaps personnel in Davis Mountain AFB relied on this erroneous information and in good faith restored the aircraft with correct Bockscar nose art, but with incorrect other markings. Cheers

Jure

[JWM]

Jure, many thanks for your explanations. It is a bit strange that so many changies (not well documented where and why happend) with machine so fameous...

So i will do mine without red belt, no small 77s on nose, no nose art - but with three pumpkin missions I think

The below photo with all crew looks like a propaganda take made close to end-of the war  - certainly after 9th August attack (one more mission after is marked!) - interesting is lack of small 77s.

15 hours ago, JWM said:

 

Cheers

J-W

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

If it is a wartime photo the censors would have removed any numbers from the photo. To help keep production #'s a secret. Serials and other numbers were removed in wartime photo's

[72modeler]

On ‎7‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 1:25 PM, Jure Miljevic said:

Hi, Levin

Enola Gay certainly had two bomb bays as she had been equipped with radar, located between them and clearly visible on photos. Straight Flush had radar, too, as the infamous Emperor palace pumpkin bombing run had been made using one due to overcast. Same thing happened with Bockscar during Nagasaki bombing. Also, before the take-off for that mission, fuel transfer system for additional tank in aft bomb bay had been found inoperative, hence the diversion to Okinawa. I am almost certain that all Silverplate bombers had two bomb bays. Cheers

Jure

As Jure stated, all of the 65 Silverplate B-29's built had the standard twin bomb bays. The very first B-29 modified to carry an atomic bomb, 42-6259, was Boeing-built and under the code name Pullman, it was modified to have the skinning over the two bomb bays removed and a single 33-foot long  bomb bay with two doors was fitted to carry the Thin Man atomic device. Subsequently the Thin Man device was replaced with the Fat Man and Little Boy devices  which were much shorter, so all of the subsequent Silverplate B-29's, which were Martin-built, reverted back to the standard two bomb bays, with the bombs being carried in the front bomb bay and a 600-gallon fuel tank was fitted in the rear bomb bay. I have attached some links with interesting information on the Silverplate B-29's.

Mike

 

http://cybermodeler.com/history/silverpl/silverpl.shtml

 

http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/project-silverplate

 

https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/silverplate/

[Jure Miljevic]

Hello, Jerzy and Corsairfoxfouruncle

The photo above had been taken post-war in the USA, note the turbo-prop in the background. Unfortunately, to complete a B-29 kit as the Bockscar during the faithful 9th August mission, one have to omit the nose art and the pumpkin mission markings.

Take a look at the following link:

https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/9-august-1945/

It contains what appears to be a colour photo of Bockscar on Tinian, taken immediately post-war. Note the short horizontal stroke of the first digit in #77 on the nose. This digit, together with N in triangle on vertical tail, had been added at the end of July as a part of operational security effort to make 509th BG aircraft look less conspicuous. Also, note another photo of Bockscar in flight, again without the red fuselage band.

Check this Fat Man loading and Nagasaki detonation footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9v5sW6t0zI

It contains about 20 second long clip of Bockscar in flight, starting at about 8:22. No red fuselage band is visible. In my opinion, during the war bands had only been painted on 444th BG aircraft and not on four 509 Composite Group bombers, posing as such. However, post-war at least some 509 CG aircraft acquired some of these or similar markings; in September 1945 Enola Gay sported red vertical tail tip, common on 6th BG bombers, and Straight Flush had dark coloured, possibly red, fuselage band in 444th BG fashion painted. Cheers

Jure

 

[JWM]

10 hours ago, Jure Miljevic said:

The photo above had been taken post-war in the USA, note the turbo-prop in the background. Unfortunately, to complete a B-29 kit as the Bockscar during the faithful 9th August mission, one have to omit the nose art and the pumpkin mission markings.

Take a look at the following link:

https://www.thisdayinaviation.com/9-august-1945/

Many thanks Jure, I have not noticed this turboprop....

The link unfortunately does not work on my comp. The film is extremly interesting...

Cheers

J-W

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

Post war most likely. Though Im not sure if it is a turbo-prop ? It looks like a square tipped 3 blade prop from a C-54 or C-69 ? It could be a turbo just not sure ?

Edited September 11, 2017 by Corsairfoxfouruncle
Added

[JWM]

1 hour ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

It looks like a square tipped 3 blade prop from a C-54 or C-69 ? It could be a turbo just not sure ?

But no engine (radial) behind it. Just smooth cover behind spinner...

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

I see a gap between the spinner and nacelle. But as there is not enough of the aircraft showing and it really hasn't anything to do with the subject of the B-29. I say it really doesnt matter. I agree'd in my last post that it was post war so im all good.