Some of you must have some pictures of pre- **** up Duxford in the 70s.
Wow, you can almost feel the love in this thread!
Just the landing at Duxford, although I believe it flew into Mildenhall first, then on to Duxford where it remained grounded.
And is now ‘Hawg Wild’ in the AAM. This nose art was I believe spotted under the mish-mash paint/primer/metal ‘scheme’ as recovered from China Lake.
Do you know the date of recovery?
That’s the fella. Thanks all for the replies. It might be a helicopter, but it’s still more interesting than the usual things you find in car parks. Cars, oiks etc.
From the IWM caption:
B-29A-BN serial number 44-61748 was built at Renton, Washington in 1944 and served with several USAAF and USAF units. During the Korean War it was assigned to the 307th Bomb Wing and operating from Okinawa flew bombing raids against communications targets. The aircraft was later acquired by the US Navy for experimental work and eventually stored at China Lake, California. The aircraft was flown to Duxford in March 1980.
From our files:
Built at the Boeing plant at Renton, Washington and was accepted by the United States Air Force in May 1945. It wa initially allocated to the 421st Base Unit, 4th Air Force, then to the 410th Base Unit, Air Transport Base and subsequently to the 3040th Aircraft Storage Squadron, Air Material Command. In February 1952 it was allocated to the 9th Air Base Group and in March it joined the 307th Bomb Group, Far East Air Force at Kadena Air Force Base on Okinawa. The 307th Bomb Group was one of the groups that took part in the bombing of Korea by the allies before returning to the USA in July 1953. In October 1954 the aircraft returned to the 3040th Aircraft Storage Squadron. It was subsequently converted to a T29A trainer in 1955 and joined the 4750th Air Defence Wing at Yuma County Airport, Arizona. In November 1956 it was sent to the Naval Weapons Centre, China Lake, California, as a target tug and was subsequently parked in open storage in the desert. In October 1977 the Museum learnt of the existence of several B29’s parked in the open at China Lake and in 1979 the United States Navy generously offered to donate one of them to the Museum. Feasibility studies showed that it would be cheaper and preferable to restore the aircraft to flying condition and fly it to Duxford rather than to dismantle and transport by sea. A potentially airworthy aircraft was chosen and a contractor sought to carry out the work necessary to restore the aircraft sufficiently to fly it back to the UK. The contractor, Aero Services of Tuscon, Arizona who had previous experience restoring two other B29’s, one of which flew out to join the Confederate Air Force Museum at Harlington, Texas, took six months to complete the work required. The Imperial War Museum’s Chief Engineer, Geoff Bottomley was the man overseeing the work and locating original spare parts for the aircraft. After additional work and test flights had taken place at Mojave, California and Tucson, Arizona, the aircraft then started the 7,000 mile flight to its future home, landing at Duxford on the 2 March 1980.
Hope that helps.
Some people have no sense of humour.
Oh, I know. Luckily, I work in the museum sector and post here, so I get extra sense-of-humour rations issued at the beginning of each month.
The ball turret can cause a lot of damage if a wheels up landing was needed, normally breaking the back of the plane.
These were normally jettisoned if the situation arose, not really practicle these days, there is probably a EU legislation somewhere about it.
Probably something about not dropping several hundred kilos of metal and glass onto unsuspecting members of the public or their property…
AirSpace or whatever it’s called….????
Q.E.D. It’s more tone than anything. I see you’ve edited though, which I appreciate.
Whizz-bang software……. :rolleyes:
Hardly, plain old Autocad or Microstation, as 90%+ of Architectural practices in the UK will be using one of the other, chances are whichever one it is the Engineers will be using the other one :rolleyes:
Cross sections added would have given a clearer picture, rather than just a mutli-level plan :rolleyes:
Depending on whether they used ACAD or Microstation, 3D would be fun though, but it would take a while to put all the aircraft into 3D Studio Max though in addition to the building….. 😉
The analysis model of the roof loading will look much more interesting 😎
What’s with all the rolly eyes Mr Firebird? If it’s more powerful than CorelDraw, it’s ‘whizzbang’ to me. I’m no marketing man, I’m here for my own interest. That said, I’d appreciate it if we could have at least one thread or even post relating to AirSpace, or the IWM, or any museum for that matter, without attracting the apparently obligatory and supremely unhelpful sarcastic comments.
I can’t quite get my head around the problem with having the restoration/storage area at the end by the door. The permanent airspace exhibits will be as ‘permanent’ as those in the AAM, and presumably the conservation area will have ‘exhibits’ come and go- so does this not mean it makes perfect sense to arrange the building as in the plans?
Erm, discuss 🙂
When, for instance the Victor and what remains of the Shackleton are restored (Is it still a fuselage ‘walk through’, with the wings stored elsewhere?)- will the front area become an extension to the airspace exhibition?
Thanks for the replies so far- watching with interest!
You can’t get your head around it because there is no problem with that arrangement. A redisplay, should it be required, would involve tractoring those aeroplanes out of the front area, followed by those exhibits that require moving. I’m not clear on future plans for the front area, but as far as I know it will initially be used to get what we can under cover.
I believe the forward blank ‘apron’ area will be available to accomodate those future conservation projects that do not yet have access to funding and resources, but clearly even this space is limited. However, with all of the AirSpace aircraft installed, the existing hangar space (H5, parts of H4 etc etc) will be available for a reshuffle to ensure maximum ‘undercoverage’.
Ah, that makes sense (I’d guess the Hastings tail is also not sat on the Sunderland wing 😉 ).
Layered images on Photoshop- yep, been there done that with all of the associated shouting/swearing..
Is there a 1:72 scale model of Air Space like the one built prior to the building of the AAM? I’d guess 3D CAD systems have taken over from an architects point of view. The only ones I have seen have just a couple of aircraft in though, looking a bit empty.
Not to give away any trade secrets, but I spent a couple of hours over Christmas cutting out tiny little exhibit-shaped bits of card…. but that was for visualisation purposes for the intermediate-sized objects; the aircraft planning you see online was indeed done with some sort of whizz-bang software. And all the overlaps were fine on those; it must be in the translation to the clickable ‘hangar tour’ that the problem crept in.
Damn, our secret Duxford Skunk Works anti-gravity plates are out in the open! Now I’ll have to kill you…
Seriously though, the plan on my wall shows the wing below the Sunderland tail and the nose above the Viscount. I don’t know what software was used to compile the layout but my guess is that the Vulcan ‘object’ got shifted out of the correct layer (a la CorelDraw). I’ll point it out to those who can correct it.
The STOVL model’s canopy looks to have less rearward visibility than the Harrier, presumably due to the siting of the lift fan. Might this be a problem/disadvantage?
Thanks to Swiss Mustang for the photos of 9246. I’d like to take copies for the IWM history files if that’s OK. And if you have any more I’d be happy to see those also!
In fact, any photos people have of current IWM exhibits, we’re pleased to accept in either hardcopy or electronic form. You can reach me at jfergusonATiwmDOTorgDOTuk
The Lambeth Mustang was with the USAAF in 1945 and went to Canada in 1951 according to our records.