B-29 Tragedy.

[Mhallie66]

Originally Posted by major_setback

At first I thought ..wtf, wtf, wtf...what are they doing!! Then later...oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...
..such a disappointment, such a waste!!
Who let those idiots do that???? Such a priceless machine in incompetent hands. Dear God!
I don't know what I feel more sad about...the fact that such a beautiful priceless machine is lost, or the fact that people will even do that. It was obviously liable to fail at some time in a first flight after so many years without proper maintenance...it was just very, very lucky that no one was killed.

Ohhhhhh, the lack of humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fooooooooooooooooooooooooooools!

Someone did die during this recovery mission (and his family could argue that he was killed, but that is a personal issue) and he was my father Rick Kriege. There was also a lot of prep work done starting with a mission to find the Kee Bird in 1993; rebuilding all four engines and the avionic controls (I learned how to solder in the spring of 1994 while helping my father with the controls); and if you have ever seen B-29 Frozen in Time you should know the rest of the story.

[Treetop64]

I'm still at a loss as to how these guys came up with the idea that they should actually start it up and attempt to fly the aircraft. What an incredibly delusional and irresponsible thing to do.

Originally Posted by Treetop64

I'm still at a loss as to how these guys came up with the idea that they should actually start it up and attempt to fly the aircraft. What an incredibly delusional and irresponsible thing to do.

There's really no reason to think the plane couldn't have made the flight. (I'm an aircraft mechanic and I've worked on a couple of B-29s, neither flying ). It had fresh engines and props, the turbo systems were basically deactivated and new control surfaces. What it boiled down to was they were flying it out that day or they had to leave it and dig it out the following summer. They were out of money, let alone over budget, so the decision was made to fly it out that day. They said they wanted 5000 ft (typical manual call out) of cleared ice even though the plane was stripped down (even the gear doors were off as they weren't going to retract the gear) and light on fuel. They only managed to get about 3500 ft cleared before they had to go and there was a slight wind blowing (I don't think they ever said how much) towards the lake (from their shore). It was decided they would takeoff into the wind requiring a turnaround on uncleared ice in the middle of the lake, which required some speed so they wouldn't get stuck. Like all other WW2 combat planes the nosewheel wasn't steerable, complicating the turnaround. Then the apu fuel tank/line came loose ...

Greenamyer hinted that in his "test run" downwind on the runway that the plane seemed to want to fly before he hit the brakes. That's the irony of the disaster. Looking at the flight manual (which lists takeoff weights only down to 90000 lbs, empty stock is 74500 lbs) it seems to me that, even with a tailwind of 15 mph, 3500 ft would have been enough for the aircraft in it's configuration (not on the charts, obviously) to get airborne (but we have no idea what power settings he was using due to engine and fuel constrictions, if any) ... and Greenamyer would have been a hero. To make the 5000 ft requirement hard it looks to me (interpolating the chart backwards as it only accounts for headwind) it seems they would have had to have a 40 mph tailwind (coincidentally making 3500 ft a requirement for heading into the wind). Looking at pics of the burning wreck there just doesn't seem to be that kind of wind at all. He just should have given it the gun straight away.

Oh, and as late as 2011 the aircraft hadn't sunk into the lake and yet no one had done anything to recover the wings or engines/props ... it seems to always come back to the money.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/5687592301/

Oh, and the Caribou that was used (N124DG) is sitting derelict again (it really hasn't been in any decent shape since the early '80s) ... poor thing.

[stugumby]

Dosnt a flyable aircraft have to have a registration and airworthyness certificate or something similar? Ownership,insurance all the regulatory rigamarole etc??

Saw this a couple of years ago and was struck by the zeal and enthusiasm but a seemingly total lack of proper resources/logistics etc, more of a bush pilot type of operation. if it would have worked and they flew it out who would have confiscated it upon landing, the faa, a foreign govt such as greenland etc? Norad on alert, fighters scrambled, who knows. But anywho a lot of talent misdirected or improperly applied thats for sure. Just like the burma spitfire project it seems.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by zipper

There's really no reason to think the plane couldn't have made the flight.

That would be agreeable if the machine was attended to properly and thoroughly, with sufficient resources. Problem is, it wasn't. As skilled as they were, these guys simply did not have the resources required to do a proper job in such a difficult environment, and they knew it from the start, but despite compounding risks they tried forcing it anyway. This may be acceptable if you're trying to get an old PT boat to run, but not for a large, complex aircraft that has been sitting idle for a half-century in a hostile environment. As tragic as it turned out, they were very fortunate things ended up the way they did, with the aircraft still on the ground.

You don't have to be a certified aircraft mechanic to see that the likelihood of an unhappy ending was high. Common sense had to prevail at some point...

Originally Posted by Treetop64

That would be agreeable if the machine was attended to properly and thoroughly, with sufficient resources. Problem is, it wasn't. As skilled as they were, these guys simply did not have the resources required to do a proper job in such a difficult environment, and they knew it from the start, but despite compounding risks they tried forcing it anyway. This may be acceptable if you're trying to get an old PT boat to run, but not for a large, complex aircraft that has been sitting idle for a half-century in a hostile environment. As tragic as it turned out, they were very fortunate things ended up the way they did, with the aircraft still on the ground.

You don't have to be a certified aircraft mechanic to see that the likelihood of an unhappy ending was high. Common sense had to prevail at some point...

My point, specifically, is the problem was not with the plane, it was the operation of it over rough ice. IF the plane had left the ground it almost certainly would have flown the trip to Thule without incident. You imply that simply because the plane had been derelict for decades meant it was doomed. No less than the engines, props, fuel pumps, batteries, control surfaces and some instruments had been changed, so what was to fly could hardly be described as entirely derelict.

On a side note, I witnessed a C185 fly from central Alaska to SE Washington with the aft fuselage held on solely by five pieces of 1/8in thick one inch angle iron of random lengths between 2 1/2 and 4 1/5 feet (on the outside of the fuselage) and rudder and elevator cables. The bolts had gotten so wobbly the tail moved around several inches and the pilot had run rudder trim full nose down and still had to prop his knee behind the yoke, adjusting trim with the seat adjuster for the last 1000 miles. When the plane landed the last time the spine sagged eight inches. I've got more...