Good News For B-29 "FiFi"

Jeez! How could i forget him….

I think the chap who co founded microsoft spends his time having some of the rarest warbirds around restored to flight (correct me if im wrong), his name escapes me, but i think its been discussed here before, A Focke-Wulf 190D “dora” i think has been given an “airworthy” restoration, Im not sure if she will ever fly though.

Paul Allen

Always good to know, that other aircraft can be made airworthy.

I guess there are not many groups (or persons) that can finance a B-29 operation. why arent Bill Gates a warbird buff :p

I can’t remember seeing any oficial US memorial flight, but does the US government give any support to FiFi, or other warbird operations?

I think the chap who co founded microsoft spends his time having some of the rarest warbirds around restored to flight (correct me if im wrong), his name escapes me, but i think its been discussed here before, A Focke-Wulf 190D “dora” i think has been given an “airworthy” restoration, Im not sure if she will ever fly though.

Always good to know, that other aircraft can be made airworthy.

I guess there are not many groups (or persons) that can finance a B-29 operation. why arent Bill Gates a warbird buff :p

I can’t remember seeing any oficial US memorial flight, but does the US government give any support to FiFi, or other warbird operations?

..

Wikipedia mentions 3 other (besides FiFi) B-29 in restoration projects, does anyone know anything about them (well, one is Doc)?

There is more then three that can be returned to flight,

Besides the three already mention there are the following tow,

44-84084 B-29B owned by Kermit Weeks and for sale its located in open dry storage in Borrengo Springs Calf.

44-83905 KB-29P located in a gravel pit at Eielson AFB this a stripped airframe but there is enough part out their to rebuild it.

Also their is allot to of parts out there that could be used to build up one or two more complete airframes

Im not familiar with US aviation law and procedures. Do you not have to have an airworthy aircraft to get a reg?

Then at least it was considered airworthy in 1987.

I checked the N reg and N29KW is still valid.

However here is “Fertile Myrtle”. It might be a “whole” aircraft, but its stored in sections in various places.

http://www.johnweeks.com/b29/b29fof.html

No you don’t have to have an airworthy aircraft to get a N#. As for Fertile Myrtle when kermit purchase it he was going to fly it back to Miami but do to allot of reason he decide to have it taken apart and moved by Worldwide Aircraft Recovery Ltd.

Im not familiar with US aviation law and procedures. Do you not have to have an airworthy aircraft to get a reg?

Then at least it was considered airworthy in 1987.

I checked the N reg and N29KW is still valid.

However here is “Fertile Myrtle”. It might be a “whole” aircraft, but its stored in sections in various places.

http://www.johnweeks.com/b29/b29fof.html

I think i read about some engine issues, along the lines of “FiFi”, but due to some agreement with Boeing (while they still provided housing), they had to use 100% historical B-29 engines. Boeing insisted.

Thus they were unable to go in with the “new-build” FiFi combination engines, which basically is a combination of two different 3350 engines (I can’t get more technical here, as i don’t remember).

Unfortunatly things went a tad ascrew from there…..

Wikipedia mentions 3 other (besides FiFi) B-29 in restoration projects, does anyone know anything about them (well, one is Doc)?

according to wikipedia kermit weeks owns a B29 thats on the civil register,

(quote from wikipedia)
“P2B-1S BuNo 84029

Formerly B-29-95-BW 45-21787 “Fertile Myrtle” which carried the Douglas D-558-II Skyrocket research aircraft was donated to an aviation museum in Oakland, California in 1984. It was sold to the Kermit Weeks Fantasy of Flight Museum, Miami, Florida, and is on the US Civil register as N29KW. Multiple airframes were acquired from the US Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, California.[3]”

Why would they do that? Makes no sense.
Unless, they’re concernbed about liability…and having the original engines so if something happened they coould say it was USAAF/USAF “approved”.
But even that doen’t make much sense.

Need a new corporate sponsor…how about Northrop-Grumman/EADS? I hear they’ve got a huge new contract. :rolleyes:

I found the place where i got the info:

Posted by Retroaviation (who seems well connected with CAF FiFi) on WIX.

“But if you remember correctly, b29driver, I personally spoke with Tony Mazzolini about them going in with us on the re-engine project we’re working on, and he said that he was bound to an agreement with Boeing to build Doc as “completely original as possible.” There will be a few odds and ends that won’t be original, but he said that he and the Boeing folks had no interest in what we were doing regarding FIFI’s engines.

I think it would be a great thing to see both airplanes in the air, but something’s got to change in the Doc camp for that to happen. Getting FIFI back in the air is a big enough challenge, but it WILL happen. I hope the Doc crew can work out the situation they’re currently in and get back to work on it again someday soon. “

I think i read about some engine issues, along the lines of “FiFi”, but due to some agreement with Boeing (while they still provided housing), they had to use 100% historical B-29 engines. Boeing insisted.

Why would they do that? Makes no sense.
Unless, they’re concernbed about liability…and having the original engines so if something happened they coould say it was USAAF/USAF “approved”.
But even that doen’t make much sense.

Need a new corporate sponsor…how about Northrop-Grumman/EADS? I hear they’ve got a huge new contract. :rolleyes:

I think i read about some engine issues, along the lines of “FiFi”, but due to some agreement with Boeing (while they still provided housing), they had to use 100% historical B-29 engines. Boeing insisted.

Thus they were unable to go in with the “new-build” FiFi combination engines, which basically is a combination of two different 3350 engines (I can’t get more technical here, as i don’t remember).

Unfortunatly things went a tad ascrew from there…..

Wikipedia mentions 3 other (besides FiFi) B-29 in restoration projects, does anyone know anything about them (well, one is Doc)?

What i have heard is:

1. Coorporate restructure in Boeing, left the project without a hangar.

Correct

2. One of the primary owners died. Estate is being settled, and maybe the recievers don’t really care too much for warbirds (just a guess).

Yes but that not all of the story but I really can’t go into the whole thing because of certain legal items that are still being work out.

3. They failed to locate outside sponsors.

They really never had an outside sponsor other then Mr. Tallichet who was the man money person, all Boeing did was provide them a Hanger to work on it since at the tie it wasn’t being used that much.

4. They were unable to locate a suitable airport for the project. Hangar space with full workshop facilities at an airport/appron/hangar that can take the weight of B-29 operations are not cheap.

Correct there isn’t much space at the airport and the hangers that are there are already taken

It was rebuild to fly, and I really hope all the work put into “Doc” are not wasted. Those guys must have busted their A*** to get where they are now. Leaving it too long to continue, and they will have to do a part of it over again.

Yes it si going to be rebuild to flying, but all work has stop and the work that has been done already is showing signs that it will need to be redone do tot he weather. Its a shame that this has happen. I personally hope that it is sold by what I understand there have been folks who have ask about it who have the ways and means to rebuild her.

How come Doc wasn’t put back in the air? I appears to have had a very thorough rebuild for a static museum display aircraft.

It seems Scorpion89 knows a bit more about this than I, so maybe he could answer a bit deeper.

What i have heard is:

1. Coorporate restructure in Boeing, left the project without a hangar.

2. One of the primary owners died. Estate is being settled, and maybe the recievers don’t really care too much for warbirds (just a guess).

3. They failed to locate outside sponsors.

4. They were unable to locate a suitable airport for the project. Hangar space with full workshop facilities at an airport/appron/hangar that can take the weight of B-29 operations are not cheap.

It was rebuild to fly, and I really hope all the work put into “Doc” are not wasted. Those guys must have busted their A*** to get where they are now. Leaving it too long to continue, and they will have to do a part of it over again.

I was fortunate enough to be there when the DX B-29 flew in, all oil streaked and sounding rough. Having spent a few years outside, then parked in the AAM, I would be interested to know how live this one is. Presumably it hasn’t been checked over since it’s epic delivery flight, or has it, it would be nice to fill this mausoleum with some exhaust fumes, fanciful thought before hell freezes over.

Wasn’t it something to do with more corrosion around the wingspar area than had at first been believed? im still hoping she will fly again some day. Here’s fingers crossed!!! 🙂

In particular now that Doc has been put out in the cold:

http://www.b-29doc.com/

That was such a promising project, a great shame to see it fail…….:(

How come Doc wasn’t put back in the air? I appears to have had a very thorough rebuild for a static museum display aircraft.

Well done to all involved. I just wonder how they insure her, if Sally B and Pink lady have insurance problems. Mind you i would hope they would not have as daft a regulation as we do.

Keeping something of that size and age airworthy has to be the stuff of nightmares. Well done to all concerned.

This is indeed great news, and the CAF deserve all our support for undertaking the responsibilities of keeping such aircraft in the air for us to all to see.

I know the CAF has copped its share of criticism over the years, and I am not in a position to defend nor judge them on those issues.

But from afar over here in Australia, and from my own point of view, the CAF is seen to do a wonderful job, and without its early efforts in the 1950s and 60’s I wonder how many of these particular aircraft would have survived and indeed what the modern “Warbird” movement would look like today had the group not existed.

While the 1960’s Battle of Britain film may have saved a number of Spitfires and spanish ‘109’s and He111’s for posterity and flying operations, and certainly re-envigorated an interest in these wartime aircraft, I understand the CAF played a major role in supporting the flying etc, the same I understand is true of the Tora Tora movies, and without the full size flying aircraft the movies would have been a poor presentation of their respective stories, and perhaps had little effect on the interest in Warbirds.

Despite all that and in any case, I feel that while others have since worked to establish flying examples of the B24 and B29 – and many other rare and exotic aircraft, it is certainly hats of to the CAF to have taken on both, and achieved it, and all the other aircraft, along with being a pioneer and flag ship to the warbird movement world wide, all on a volunteer, not for profit basis.

I certainly feel they deserve all of our support and thanks

I personally hope to get over when the B29 is back in the air, and visit Fifi, ‘Lil, and Gary!

Regards

Mark Pilkington

without at doubt some of the best vintage aviation new we’ve had for a while, im not aware of it being posted on this forum, then again scorpion has the added advantage of living somewhere in america 🙂 how about her with PA474 the canadian lanc the CAF B-24 and Sally B? i know i would pay anything i had to see that!!!

While the above site would be cool, I do believe that they had FiFi,24A,CWH Lanc, and a 17 in formation one time way back in the late 80s. I will have to ask a certain Canuck Photo guy I know if he remembers it.