B-29 Tragedy.

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.