Thanks for watching everyone! If you can please support the channel so I can keep making these videos. Become a channel supporter and/or please give the video a thumbs-up :) Now I've got to work out which video comes next? Maybe the B-24 or the YC-14?
@@PaulStewartAviation Paul, I appreciate you've probably stayed in a few airport low cost hotels for our benefit. If the YC-14 is cost advantageous that's probably my vote. Boeing needs to be reminded, now more than ever, it used to do great things.
the smaller aircraft had more utility in secondary roles whereas the 36 was quickly superceded in its primary role and was way too big and complex to adapt to tanker, awacs, test platform, etc. with the unique exception of flying nuclear reactor...
The B-36 was put into the role of strategic bombing of a EUROPEAN adversary from bases in the CONUS in an era where interceptors had about DOUBLED their top speeds and increased their service ceilings by about 15,000 feet, nearly THREE miles from what was the capability of the Germans, Italians, and Japanese ca. 1942. It was still not easily intercepted due to the high altitudes it could achieve, and its impressive bomb load still made it useful. But damn, when you have to change out 336 spark plugs after EVERY sortie, that gets rather expensive and maintenance-intensive! There was but one variant of the B-36, the XC-99, of which but ONE example was produced; it was used by the US NAVY as a transport, and did well. Simply one expensive big bird, when other cargo planes like the C-118, C-121, and C-124 Globemaster II ("Old Shakey") in the "recip" era were available and less expensive to keep flying. As jet bombers replaced the B-29s, some of which were converted into tankers, and the B-36s, the latter, due to their high ceiling, found some extended life in a "Featherweight" conversion for the high-altitude recon role. Stripped of defensive armament and some crew, these RB-36s were still all but impossible for the MiG-15s and MiG-17s of the V-VS to intercept. Indeed, the Soviets prioritized SAM development, and also developed specialized high-altitude interceptors to discourage USAF high-altitude overflights and also to defend higher-priority strategic targets, starting with the ill-fated La-250. Later, they introduced the Tu-28 "Fiddler", the Sukhoi Su-15 "Flagon", and the Yakolev Yak-28 "Firebar", but by the time all those birds entered Soviet service, the RB-36s had been retired in favor of the RB-47 and the U-2.
If we look at history and location. The men and women born from 1900-1960 and when they were in the US, they got to do things nearly unbelievable. My grandfather was born in 1889. I have his draft notice for WW1 and on the back page it said he was 4F too old to be trained. When he was born, most of the people alive only traveled by foot to church and school. They spent most of their life living wishing 5 miles of their family home. Grandpa said that everything changed during WW2 and wealth became common. He and my grandmother lived until the 1980’s. They went from almost nothing different from the 1800’s to the nation using Space shuttles. It’s amazing that the B-29 was only used from 44-60. The F-4 Phantom began flying in 1959 and Japan finally retired their F-4’s while Turkey and Greece still operate the F-4’s. It’s just amazing how fast technology has advanced.
I am glad you decided to review the B-50. The airplane it was derived from could be regarded as the most revolutionary aircraft for its time that wasn’t powered by jets. The B-50 was the final and most advanced version of the B-29 so you could consider it the last hurrah for this propeller driven strategic bomber.
As some have described, perhaps even Paul in this channel, when the B-29 was new it was so advanced it might have been a spaceship from another planet. And in such short order, even this super-upgraded version was out of date!
I've been a student of military aircraft for decades but for some reason I was totally unaware of the B-50. Thank you for an extremely informative video about it and its place in the evolution from propeller-driven bombers to jet bombers. BTW, my dad was in the USAF from 1951-1955 and was stationed at Davis-Monthan AFB. I was born in Tucson. Dad was a clerk-typist. He used to brag that "I flew Royal typewriters at 50,000 feet." Funny guy... I'm sure he saw these planes every day when he went to work.
In 1966, I was stationed with the 6486th Air Base Wing at Hickam AFB, Hawaii. We had at that time an RB-50 was was being operated as a weather rec aircraft. I had no idea at the time, it was last of its kind. Shortly after that, I was send to Ben Hoa AB with the 3rd TAC Fighter Wing. I don't know if the B-50 flew again, but back then it seemed everything had propellers, so I never gave it much thought. A long time ago, and the RB-50 and the rest of her kind are all gone.
My Dad was a Master Sargeant in charge of the guns of a B 50 the crew called El Boracho, flew out of Texas and also Guam where he was stationed in around 47 48 i believe, he said they would go on very long flights.
Maybe I was the only person confused by wondering how a B-50 was different from a B-29. Thank you for a great program that explains the differences so well.
It was always a treat at Battle of Britain air displays to see a KB-50J towing its formation of B-66, F-100 and F-101 all plugged in or at least pretending to be.
One of my friends with whom I sang in choir was the CO of the first B-50 squadron. He would tell how he was given a B-25 in Sicily and told to head home, as the war in Europe was over. he made it, via Morocco, Brazil, Puerto Rico and then home.
One mustn't forget it's precursor was incredibly advanced and was rumoured it's development costs exceeded that of the "Manhatten" project . The B50 just happened to be bigger and better until jet power signalled it's demise . Thankyou
I suppose there are not many other viewers of this fine video who have actually watched the KB-50J in operation. I was an USAF armorer stationed in Germany 1961-1964, and periodically went to Wheelus AFB in Libya on temporary duty. Under the desert Sun I watched an occasional KB-50J using all 11,000 feet of the runway struggling to get airborne with a full load of fuel. I have pictures of many of the fighter types, F-84, F-86, F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, cargo planes, mainly C-124, C-130, plus C-118s, and amphibious aircraft such as the SA-16 that all came and went at Wheelus, but I don't think I took pictures of the KB-50J. I do have pictures of the propeller from the wreck of the B-24 Lady Be Good that was at the base of the flag pole at Wheelus. It was an interesting place to be.
I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't even know this existed! I knew about superfortresses running sniffing missions and used with atomic testing but assumed they were all B-29. Thanks Paul
Hi Paul as always another delightful and interesting Doco keep them coming .The B50 what a beautiful aircraft and a brilliant design it was way ahead of its time and a brilliant service record and very reliable as. Cheers Kurt
Besides this I’ve only heard of the b50 once and I love planes. I’ve been learning about planes for years now but I still love learning new ones. Thanks 👍👍👍
Fascinating video! Thank you for making this one. I saw a B-50 on static display at Tinker AFB in Oklahoma City. I thought it was a B-29 at first, but it seemed too small to be that and that was when I learned first that this plane existed.
So many interesting info and details in every plane tour. Will you be planning to relelase videos also from the other planes that usually are displayed in the background inside the museums?
You showed a photo of a B 29 fuselage at Chino air museum that was modified to look like a B50 .I was there as the nose plexiglass was modified so as the museum could claim it as a record holder B50 .
@@PaulStewartAviation You'll notice it's got the 'D' type nose, which the original Lucky Lady II didn't have. So it's either a different plane or a later modification. Just guessing, of course. When I did the B-50 for Microsoft's Flight Simulator X I included both versions. Unfortunately, this great video wasn't available to me then :)
I think there is one. In large sections. At the Planes of Fame Museum, in Chino CA. It even has the squadron's mascot painted on the pilot's side of the fuselage. It should be in the bone yard.
Keep in mind that only remote-controlled aircraft flew through the radioactive clouds. The B29 was designed BEFORE WWII and built in 1942. The B36 was also designed pre-war, with range to reach Europe from the USA if the UK fell. FYI: the B17 was in production before the war.
A "flock" of unarmed (decreased weight for the long over-water flight) B-17s from the US Mainland were expected to land on Hickam Field, Territory of Hawaii, on December 7th, 1941. The Japanese attackers were, at first thought by American radar operators, to be the B-17s. They were, sadly, wrong. Things went downhill from there.
Thank you. I never heard of the B-50 before today. B-36, B-47, yes, but usually this history, the stretch before the B-52, is barely covered. Incidentally, with the B-36, I remember reading the crews called it "the bucket of bolts" because of the intense amount of maintenance necessary after every flight.
The ultimate superfortress was never finished. The B54. Also, if you know about the tupolev TU4, the Soviet b29 copy. They continued developing variants and the cockpit and bomberdiers spot was continued to be used all the way to the early TU95s.
The 3350 engines on the original B-29 were definitely a problem especially with overheating made worse by overloading of the aircraft on the first raids on Japan. The later 'Silverplate' versions had the new R-3350-41 engines installed which were fuel injected and had the new fully reversible propellers along with other enhancements which made a big difference especially when they carried one 10,000 lb bomb.
I first knew about the B -50 after first seeing the one at Castle AFB Museum in California about 25 years ago. At that time l didn't know how far development was taken beyond the basic B-29. From this video l now understand it was taken far beyond what l learned on that visit 25 years ago. Anyway so now do a video on the dive bomber that sunk the Yamato. From the guy you met in DC last year at both air and space museums and revealed to you the existence of the glorious god forsaken SB2C Helldiver
Yes. Two. One at Fagan Fighter Museum in Minnesota, very recently restored to flying condition. The other belonging to the Commerative Air Force in Texas. As far as l know they are the only Helldivers still flying. If you ever did a video about them l suggest you title it something like ' The Dive Bomber that sunk the Yamato'. Otherwise you may not garner much interest. I am partial to them because my father flew them in WW2. He learned the war ended by radio call during a mission to dive bomb Japan. They jettisoned their bombs over the water and flew back to CV 18 USS Wasp. Anyway great video about the B 50 Supersteroidfortress. Keep up the great work and know that l click off AI voiced videos as fast l recognize them.
Designating the B-29D with the new series B-50 was a move to justify funding of a "new" aircraft. In some ways, the B-50 was indeed "new" over the B-29 it replaced, with a taller empennage and the uprated P&W Wasp Major engines. Largely a POV discussion. Years later, there was a revision of the B-52, the "H" model, which, like the B-50 WRT to the B-29, had a different tail section, upgraded ECM and navigation, and the quad fifties in the tail replaced with an M61 "Vulcan" 20 mm rotary cannon. I believe this version had the tail gunner not in the tail from the get -go, a modification that was made to the "G" models during scheduled depot maintenance at Tinker AFB's ALC from having him in a separate tail gunner's compartment. Since the majority of bombing missions were anticipated to be done at night, the lessons of "Black Tuesday" over Korea in 1951 still fresh in the mind of the Air Force when the B-52 was being developed, the later models and the "D" models, when they received their programmed depot maintenance, had the low-light-level TV system to aid the gunner, along with a tail cone radar. Aside from the tactical benefit of having the tail gunner with the ECM operator in the main cabin, it was realized that the days of visual aiming of defensive armament were long past. As for the B-50s, they entered service with SAC in 1948, General LeMay knowing full well that they were a stop-gap until the faster jet bombers were produced. The Soviet V-VS had few aircraft that could reach the altitude necessary to intercept the B-50s and RB-50s, the latter making routine photo recon missions over the USSR; which had numerous radar coverage gaps along its long borders, especially its Arctic coastline. Ironically, the main "interceptor" used by the V-VS was the Lend-Lease supplied P-47 "Thunderbolt", which supercharged P&W R-2800 radial engine gave it a ceiling of 42, 000 feet, more than enough to catch the B-50 with its max ceiling being 37,000 feet. The Soviets were running out of spares for their Thunderbolts, and had to work clandestine deals with the other US WWII-era allies that also had these aircraft to keep theirs flying. But once the MiG-15 entered service, the paradigm had changed entirely, as the MiG, like the German Me262 before it, only even more so, had a huge speed advantage over its adversary. The only thing that limited the MiG for intercepting B-50s and later B-47s was its fairly short range; it had to be prioritized to "defend" high-value targets. After "Black Tuesday" in 1951, daytime missions of both B-29s serving in Korea and RB-50s elsewhere were scrubbed due to the obvious high risk. The B-47 entered service late in 1951, and a specially modified bird for recon performed the first mission over hostile territory late in 1952. As B-47s entered service with SAC, both as bombers and recon birds, the B-50s were relegated to secondary roles or taken to the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan AFB. However, as the need for aerial refueling was becoming obvious, but the new jet tanker, the KC-135, would be several years away, the versions of the original B-29 were converted, with the KB-29s appearing in 1948; the KC-97 "Stratofreighter" in 1951, and the KB-50 in 1956. The latter two usually had two GE J47 turbojets added outboard of the piston engines for takeoff and "burst" speed, to either catch the aircraft they intended to rendez-vous with, or in execution of the refueling maneuver with the tanker "heavy" and the fueled aircraft "light", as often the difference between the top speed of the KC-97 or KB-50s and the STALL SPEED of the jets they were "gassing up" wasn't all that much! A typical method was to, in order to gain some extra speed, start at a fairly high altitude, about 30,000 feet, and make a gradual descent during the refuel procedure, to, say, about 10,000 feet! The KB-50s served until about 1965, when too many of them were being grounded due to metal fatigue in the wing roots! The KC-97s served until 1978 with Air Guard units, giving this type a career of over 25 years!
@@warwicksmith-es7go Not only different engine (4 bank versus 2 bank, as you pointed out) but also a different manufacturer, Pratt & Whitney versus Wright. The R-4360 engine was nicknamed "The Flying Corncob" due to, in order to facilitate air cooling for the rearward banks, they were staggered in a helical arrangement. This engine was still prone to overheating. Also, even though air-cooled engines, especially radial configurations, are made with "loose" tolerances as compared to a liquid-cooled one, the R-4360 was especially "loose", making it rather noisy with piston slap. They had a significant thirst for OIL, which often proved a limiting factor for range! My Dad, who served 20 years in the Air Force and worked with KB-50s, on their way out, noted how the "solution" was simply to carry 3-4 55 GALLON drums of engine oil; the flight engineer would pump them into the recip engines during flight, as oil could be fed to them from the fuselage. One advantage, though, of this high oil consumption was that the engine friction was reduced, which cut down on the heat build-up, and the oil itself was an effective "coolant". The DISADVANTAGE was for the ground crew chief, as he and his men had to change out the spark plugs with a "fresh" (often the other set that'd been de-greased, cleaned, and gapped) set after EVERY sortie. For the B-36 and variants, with SIX of these engines, that meant 336 plugs had to be changed! One can imagine the working conditions for doing maintenance work on the "Aluminum Overcast" at those "Northern Tier" bases during the winter! Shelters to at least shield the ground crew from biting arctic winds were improvised, but performing maintenance work was GRUELING and labor-intensive on those big birds...a reason they were retired once the jet bombers were in service.
"You'll get to fly the B-50 in our new air force. You can fly recon missions where if you make an emergency landing you'll be disavowed, you can fly ferret missions directly provoking adversary fighter pilots with shoot to kill orders and you can also fly THROUGH nuclear fallout!!!!!" Well sign me up bubba.
I wonder if the B-54 would've kept the name Superfortress. The Boeing fortress bombers are the B-17 Flying Fortress, the B-29 / B-50 Superfortress, and the B-52 Stratofortress. If Boeing ever builds another strategic bomber, it would cool to give it a new "fortress" name, like Ultrafortress, or Hyperfortress, or something.
Paul, since you're always going to this museum, maybe you should move to Tucson, Arizona. 😂 Hehe 😅 ...or are the videos from this museum a product of one long trip? 🤔Thanks for the great videos.
Are you serious right now?!?!?!?!? How did my aviation loving fanatical junkie nerd ass never hear of this 🤷🏻♂️ Do you have a day job or do you just travel around doing this? This is amazing. Your tour of the Peacemaker is still one of my favorite videos ever. If you have a day job I give you all the props in the world. If not I am so insanely jealous I could never look you in the eye 😂😂😂
Cheers mate, I really loved filming the B-36 and eternally grateful to the SAC museum for letting me film inside it. No this is just a hobby. I have a regular job and film these during my leave. If the finances can work, I am looking at dropping 1 day of work per week to edit this videos. Including the researching, drafting and editing they probably take a few days to prepare (they're much longer and more detailed than my vids a few years ago).
A problem they had with the B-50s, when they first went into squadron service, was that they lost several on takeoff, killing all on board. This had not been a problem in the test units, just squadron service. Then one day, a B-50 lost an engine on takeoff. The flight engineer, who handled much of the engine controls, went to shove all the mixture controls into Auto Rich to ensure maximum power from the remaining engines, only to remember one of the many differences between the B-29 and the B-50 ... they reversed the mixture quadrant, so that what had been Auto Rich was now Idle Cutoff, which would stop all the engines. He rammed the mixture control to the proper location, and the bomber lived to fly another day. Problem solved!
The proposed B-54 would have been the ultimate Superfortress. But it was also a dead end. Maybe if they had dropped the R-4360s in favor of turboprops. Just think the B-54 was proposed when Boeing was working on the B-47. And the B-52 was in the wings.
The americans never seem to get them running again. In britain, we sometimes get aircraft into taxiing condition if its too difficult to get them back into the air
The biggest reason for the B-50 designation instead of a B-29J or whatever it would have been was to get funding through congress. Congress was not as interested in a B29 upgrade but an all new B50 was able to get funding lol.
@@PaulStewartAviation As you said? Thanks for eloquent put down. I must have missed that. Sorry to have failed you, and myself. I took the time to go back after being so elegantly insulted and noticed no references towards what variant of the B-50 was being refueled in the video. In fact, the title of your video said B-50, no mention of doing all of the variants. In point of fact, you bounced around from one variant to another variation like a little girl playing jacks. Pickup one model, rapidly go to another, go to another, and then another, and finally back to the base model, I guess. Likely an editing issue. Yours, not mine.
At 4:10 I mentioned that the in-air refuelling versions had the jet engine. At 5:20 I specifically mentioned that the weather version doesn't have jets and include footage of one pointing out the lack of jets. Fair enough, though, I could have been clearer and will try to differentiate between models better in future videos :)
@@PaulStewartAviation OK, if you say so. When dealing with multiple models of something, I've found it easier for me and the viewers to organize materials by kind and to not bounce and skip around. Some people write a script and then go find photos. Flow is critical. Quite frankly, I don't know which models had aerial refueling or not? Which had jet engines? This was a B-50 story and most of us didn't know that base-model existed. Then the other models. Recon. Weather. Jet engines. Refueling in air. Lots of great photos and facts, thank you. But I would not pass any test at the end. You dazzled me with facts and photos. I was the kid in the candy store. Wonderful, but what facts were connected to what. I'm lost. Guess I'm just getting old.
The only B-50 model that had jets was the refueler KB-50J. The rest (B-50, WB-50, RB-50, EB-50) had to make due with just the upgraded piston engines. :) Refueler versions always begin with a K = KC-46, KC-135, KB-50...etc.
I disagree. The B-29 as used during WWII was not a success. It was plagued with engine fires, short engine life expectancy, runaway propellers and a vaunted bombsite that couldn't deal with the Jetstream or Japanese clouds. The bombing altitude was thus reduced to 8,000 ft. or less. Which in turn made the pressurized cabin unnecessary. Capture of the Philippines and Okinawa also negated the range value of the airplane. Finally, more B-29s were lost to operational causes than were lost to enemy fire.
Thanks for watching everyone! If you can please support the channel so I can keep making these videos. Become a channel supporter and/or please give the video a thumbs-up :) Now I've got to work out which video comes next? Maybe the B-24 or the YC-14?
@@PaulStewartAviation Paul, I appreciate you've probably stayed in a few airport low cost hotels for our benefit. If the YC-14 is cost advantageous that's probably my vote. Boeing needs to be reminded, now more than ever, it used to do great things.
@@PaulStewartAviation great channel
@@PaulStewartAviation YC-14!
Excellent as usual! It's fascinating that the B-29 and its derivatives seemed to outlast the B-36 in active service.
the smaller aircraft had more utility in secondary roles whereas the 36 was quickly superceded in its primary role and was way too big and complex to adapt to tanker, awacs, test platform, etc. with the unique exception of flying nuclear reactor...
The B-36 was put into the role of strategic bombing of a EUROPEAN adversary from bases in the CONUS in an era where interceptors had about DOUBLED their top speeds and increased their service ceilings by about 15,000 feet, nearly THREE miles from what was the capability of the Germans, Italians, and Japanese ca. 1942. It was still not easily intercepted due to the high altitudes it could achieve, and its impressive bomb load still made it useful. But damn, when you have to change out 336 spark plugs after EVERY sortie, that gets rather expensive and maintenance-intensive!
There was but one variant of the B-36, the XC-99, of which but ONE example was produced; it was used by the US NAVY as a transport, and did well. Simply one expensive big bird, when other cargo planes like the C-118, C-121, and C-124 Globemaster II ("Old Shakey") in the "recip" era were available and less expensive to keep flying. As jet bombers replaced the B-29s, some of which were converted into tankers, and the B-36s, the latter, due to their high ceiling, found some extended life in a "Featherweight" conversion for the high-altitude recon role. Stripped of defensive armament and some crew, these RB-36s were still all but impossible for the MiG-15s and MiG-17s of the V-VS to intercept. Indeed, the Soviets prioritized SAM development, and also developed specialized high-altitude interceptors to discourage USAF high-altitude overflights and also to defend higher-priority strategic targets, starting with the ill-fated La-250. Later, they introduced the Tu-28 "Fiddler", the Sukhoi Su-15 "Flagon", and the Yakolev Yak-28 "Firebar", but by the time all those birds entered Soviet service, the RB-36s had been retired in favor of the RB-47 and the U-2.
If we look at history and location. The men and women born from 1900-1960 and when they were in the US, they got to do things nearly unbelievable.
My grandfather was born in 1889. I have his draft notice for WW1 and on the back page it said he was 4F too old to be trained. When he was born, most of the people alive only traveled by foot to church and school. They spent most of their life living wishing 5 miles of their family home. Grandpa said that everything changed during WW2 and wealth became common. He and my grandmother lived until the 1980’s. They went from almost nothing different from the 1800’s to the nation using Space shuttles.
It’s amazing that the B-29 was only used from 44-60. The F-4 Phantom began flying in 1959 and Japan finally retired their F-4’s while Turkey and Greece still operate the F-4’s.
It’s just amazing how fast technology has advanced.
All through trial error, money to develop products etc. Not a believer in alien technology here. NECESSITY is the mother of invention!
I am glad you decided to review the B-50. The airplane it was derived from could be regarded as the most revolutionary aircraft for its time that wasn’t powered by jets. The B-50 was the final and most advanced version of the B-29 so you could consider it the last hurrah for this propeller driven strategic bomber.
As some have described, perhaps even Paul in this channel, when the B-29 was new it was so advanced it might have been a spaceship from another planet. And in such short order, even this super-upgraded version was out of date!
I've been a student of military aircraft for decades but for some reason I was totally unaware of the B-50. Thank you for an extremely informative video about it and its place in the evolution from propeller-driven bombers to jet bombers. BTW, my dad was in the USAF from 1951-1955 and was stationed at Davis-Monthan AFB. I was born in Tucson. Dad was a clerk-typist. He used to brag that "I flew Royal typewriters at 50,000 feet." Funny guy... I'm sure he saw these planes every day when he went to work.
Same
Re b50. I was stoked when I learned of it
I think the recon and weather versions were better remembered, but they all looked so much like a B-29, few thought otherwise.
@@emmgeevideo same with the b36 for me and later the superprops...man what an era for mechanical gearheads! Thanks youtube
Same for me. I never heard of the "B 50", until another channel mentioned it recently.
I live in Tucson. I've walked around this plane at the museum probably 10 times. Interesting aircraft. Needs a little TLC.
In 1966, I was stationed with the 6486th Air Base Wing at Hickam AFB, Hawaii. We had at that time an RB-50 was was being operated as a weather rec aircraft. I had no idea at the time, it was last of its kind. Shortly after that, I was send to Ben Hoa AB with the 3rd TAC Fighter Wing. I don't know if the B-50 flew again, but back then it seemed everything had propellers, so I never gave it much thought. A long time ago, and the RB-50 and the rest of her kind are all gone.
Best airplane channel on YT!
My Dad was a Master Sargeant in charge of the guns of a B 50 the crew called El Boracho, flew out of Texas and also Guam where he was stationed in around 47 48 i believe, he said they would go on very long flights.
Maybe I was the only person confused by wondering how a B-50 was different from a B-29. Thank you for a great program that explains the differences so well.
It is easy to get those two confused!
My late father-in-law flew the KB-50 in england. My husband still has his fathers logbook and the KB-50 Dash 1
Wow, what a great connection!
It was always a treat at Battle of Britain air displays to see a KB-50J towing its formation of B-66, F-100 and F-101 all plugged in or at least pretending to be.
One of my friends with whom I sang in choir was the CO of the first B-50 squadron. He would tell how he was given a B-25 in Sicily and told to head home, as the war in Europe was over. he made it, via Morocco, Brazil, Puerto Rico and then home.
Yeeah right 😂😂😂
Great video Paul! What an interesting plane!
One mustn't forget it's precursor was incredibly advanced and was rumoured it's development costs exceeded that of the "Manhatten" project . The B50 just happened to be bigger and better until jet power signalled it's demise . Thankyou
I suppose there are not many other viewers of this fine video who have actually watched the KB-50J in operation. I was an USAF armorer stationed in Germany 1961-1964, and periodically went to Wheelus AFB in Libya on temporary duty. Under the desert Sun I watched an occasional KB-50J using all 11,000 feet of the runway struggling to get airborne with a full load of fuel. I have pictures of many of the fighter types, F-84, F-86, F-100, F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105, cargo planes, mainly C-124, C-130, plus C-118s, and amphibious aircraft such as the SA-16 that all came and went at Wheelus, but I don't think I took pictures of the KB-50J. I do have pictures of the propeller from the wreck of the B-24 Lady Be Good that was at the base of the flag pole at Wheelus. It was an interesting place to be.
Great video Paul, 4 turning and 2 burning....
Another fantastic video.
Your work is outstanding!
Thank you very much!
I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't even know this existed! I knew about superfortresses running sniffing missions and used with atomic testing but assumed they were all B-29. Thanks Paul
I didn’t know it had jet engines. I thought only the B36 had props and jets
Hi Paul as always another delightful and interesting Doco keep them coming .The B50 what a beautiful aircraft and a brilliant design it was way ahead of its time and a brilliant service record and very reliable as. Cheers Kurt
Never heard of the B-50! I love WWII era aircraft but this one obviously escaped me. Thanks for this content!
Awesome overview as ever matey!
Besides this I’ve only heard of the b50 once and I love planes. I’ve been learning about planes for years now but I still love learning new ones. Thanks 👍👍👍
Your content is always factual, informative, and super entertaining 👌🏼 Thanks & keep it up.
Pima is a great museum, esp for historically significant one offs like the B52 X15 mothership
Yooooo! B-50! Very nice, but in opinion, the b-29 will always be more recognizable.
Also, if possible, could you do one on the B-24 Liberator?
Yep I’ve filmed the B-24 and just waiting to edit it :)
@@PaulStewartAviation nice
Cool show paul. These b-50s must be really rare. Only the two first gen b-29s are flying today. Cool to see them, thanks.
Another great video Paul!! Keep them coming!! Cheers Mate!
Wonderful program. So many interesting improvements.
Thanks for the B50 video as I’d never heard of this.
It’s a pretty interesting aircraft, isn’t it?
@@PaulStewartAviation yes from a historical perspective it’s been overlooked but you’ve corrected that.
Great video. Thank you so much for doing such a good job on these rare aircraft.
Glad you enjoyed it! I'm working on my Bell P-59 video at the moment.
Fascinating video! Thank you for making this one. I saw a B-50 on static display at Tinker AFB in Oklahoma City. I thought it was a B-29 at first, but it seemed too small to be that and that was when I learned first that this plane existed.
A great video Paul !
Informative and awesome video as usual, love your work. Thanks
So many interesting info and details in every plane tour. Will you be planning to relelase videos also from the other planes that usually are displayed in the background inside the museums?
Yep
You showed a photo of a B 29 fuselage at Chino air museum that was modified to look like a B50 .I was there as the nose plexiglass was modified so as the museum could claim it as a record holder B50 .
Really? My understanding is that that's the fuselage of the actual Lucky Lady 2 B-50.
@@PaulStewartAviation You'll notice it's got the 'D' type nose, which the original Lucky Lady II didn't have. So it's either a different plane or a later modification. Just guessing, of course. When I did the B-50 for Microsoft's Flight Simulator X I included both versions. Unfortunately, this great video wasn't available to me then :)
B-50 is my fave FSX plane, flown 1000s of hours in it over the years, ty for showing us this great plane
Thanks Paul. Another great video, this on the "forgotten" Superfortress. One wonders what the B-54 would have been called -- the Ultrafortress?
Lots of Wow's in this video.
I think there is one. In large sections. At the Planes of Fame Museum, in Chino CA. It even has the squadron's mascot painted on the pilot's side of the fuselage. It should be in the bone yard.
Yep, I've included that Planes of Fame aircraft in my video :)
Always Quality tours 👍👍👌👌
The Pima Air Museum in Tucson has a B50 on display that is a good museum to visit.
Yep, that’s the plane in this video
Keep in mind that only remote-controlled aircraft flew through the radioactive clouds.
The B29 was designed BEFORE WWII and built in 1942. The B36 was also designed pre-war, with range to reach Europe from the USA if the UK fell.
FYI: the B17 was in production before the war.
Thanks for the extra info
A "flock" of unarmed (decreased weight for the long over-water flight) B-17s from the US Mainland were expected to land on Hickam Field, Territory of Hawaii, on December 7th, 1941. The Japanese attackers were, at first thought by American radar operators, to be the B-17s. They were, sadly, wrong. Things went downhill from there.
Thank you. I never heard of the B-50 before today. B-36, B-47, yes, but usually this history, the stretch before the B-52, is barely covered. Incidentally, with the B-36, I remember reading the crews called it "the bucket of bolts" because of the intense amount of maintenance necessary after every flight.
@@WilliamMurphy-b6vthey also made a movie about them in '42/'43.
I saw a B-50 in 2013 at Castle Air Museum, California.
Great video
Nice report! Thx!
Like mating Dragonflies✈️... thanks Paul👍
The ultimate superfortress was never finished. The B54.
Also, if you know about the tupolev TU4, the Soviet b29 copy. They continued developing variants and the cockpit and bomberdiers spot was continued to be used all the way to the early TU95s.
The 3350 engines on the original B-29 were definitely a problem especially with overheating made worse by overloading of the aircraft on the first raids on Japan. The later 'Silverplate' versions had the new R-3350-41 engines installed which were fuel injected and had the new fully reversible propellers along with other enhancements which made a big difference especially when they carried one 10,000 lb bomb.
Thanks for this. There weren't louvers for the jet engines like they used on the B-36 were there?
The B29's rudder was pretty much useless below 80MPH during takeoff, the rudder height extension of the KB50 seems to indicate this was a design flaw.
Ive seen 4/5 of the B-50s just need to see the one at NMUSAF to complete the list
Excellent.
Amazing ! 🙂
Good show.
Another great video Paul. I did not know to much about this aircraft so a very interesting video. Keep them coming
I first knew about the B -50 after first seeing the one at Castle AFB Museum in California about 25 years ago. At that time l didn't know how far development was taken beyond the basic B-29. From this video l now understand it was taken far beyond what l learned on that visit 25 years ago. Anyway so now do a video on the dive bomber that sunk the Yamato. From the guy you met in DC last year at both air and space museums and revealed to you the existence of the glorious god forsaken SB2C Helldiver
Good to hear from you again! I’ll need to find one in good nick! Are you aware of any in the non-smithsonian museums?
Yes. Two. One at Fagan Fighter Museum in Minnesota, very recently restored to flying condition. The other belonging to the Commerative Air Force in Texas. As far as l know they are the only Helldivers still flying. If you ever did a video about them l suggest you title it something like ' The Dive Bomber that sunk the Yamato'. Otherwise you may not garner much interest. I am partial to them because my father flew them in WW2. He learned the war ended by radio call during a mission to dive bomb Japan. They jettisoned their bombs over the water and flew back to CV 18 USS Wasp. Anyway great video about the B 50 Supersteroidfortress. Keep up the great work and know that l click off AI voiced videos as fast l recognize them.
Designating the B-29D with the new series B-50 was a move to justify funding of a "new" aircraft. In some ways, the B-50 was indeed "new" over the B-29 it replaced, with a taller empennage and the uprated P&W Wasp Major engines. Largely a POV discussion. Years later, there was a revision of the B-52, the "H" model, which, like the B-50 WRT to the B-29, had a different tail section, upgraded ECM and navigation, and the quad fifties in the tail replaced with an M61 "Vulcan" 20 mm rotary cannon. I believe this version had the tail gunner not in the tail from the get -go, a modification that was made to the "G" models during scheduled depot maintenance at Tinker AFB's ALC from having him in a separate tail gunner's compartment. Since the majority of bombing missions were anticipated to be done at night, the lessons of "Black Tuesday" over Korea in 1951 still fresh in the mind of the Air Force when the B-52 was being developed, the later models and the "D" models, when they received their programmed depot maintenance, had the low-light-level TV system to aid the gunner, along with a tail cone radar. Aside from the tactical benefit of having the tail gunner with the ECM operator in the main cabin, it was realized that the days of visual aiming of defensive armament were long past.
As for the B-50s, they entered service with SAC in 1948, General LeMay knowing full well that they were a stop-gap until the faster jet bombers were produced. The Soviet V-VS had few aircraft that could reach the altitude necessary to intercept the B-50s and RB-50s, the latter making routine photo recon missions over the USSR; which had numerous radar coverage gaps along its long borders, especially its Arctic coastline. Ironically, the main "interceptor" used by the V-VS was the Lend-Lease supplied P-47 "Thunderbolt", which supercharged P&W R-2800 radial engine gave it a ceiling of 42, 000 feet, more than enough to catch the B-50 with its max ceiling being 37,000 feet. The Soviets were running out of spares for their Thunderbolts, and had to work clandestine deals with the other US WWII-era allies that also had these aircraft to keep theirs flying. But once the MiG-15 entered service, the paradigm had changed entirely, as the MiG, like the German Me262 before it, only even more so, had a huge speed advantage over its adversary. The only thing that limited the MiG for intercepting B-50s and later B-47s was its fairly short range; it had to be prioritized to "defend" high-value targets. After "Black Tuesday" in 1951, daytime missions of both B-29s serving in Korea and RB-50s elsewhere were scrubbed due to the obvious high risk.
The B-47 entered service late in 1951, and a specially modified bird for recon performed the first mission over hostile territory late in 1952. As B-47s entered service with SAC, both as bombers and recon birds, the B-50s were relegated to secondary roles or taken to the "boneyard" at Davis-Monthan AFB. However, as the need for aerial refueling was becoming obvious, but the new jet tanker, the KC-135, would be several years away, the versions of the original B-29 were converted, with the KB-29s appearing in 1948; the KC-97 "Stratofreighter" in 1951, and the KB-50 in 1956. The latter two usually had two GE J47 turbojets added outboard of the piston engines for takeoff and "burst" speed, to either catch the aircraft they intended to rendez-vous with, or in execution of the refueling maneuver with the tanker "heavy" and the fueled aircraft "light", as often the difference between the top speed of the KC-97 or KB-50s and the STALL SPEED of the jets they were "gassing up" wasn't all that much! A typical method was to, in order to gain some extra speed, start at a fairly high altitude, about 30,000 feet, and make a gradual descent during the refuel procedure, to, say, about 10,000 feet! The KB-50s served until about 1965, when too many of them were being grounded due to metal fatigue in the wing roots! The KC-97s served until 1978 with Air Guard units, giving this type a career of over 25 years!
It was.not an uprated engine but completely new. Radial engine with 4 banks of 7 cylinders
B29 2 banks of 9 cylinders
@@warwicksmith-es7go Not only different engine (4 bank versus 2 bank, as you pointed out) but also a different manufacturer, Pratt & Whitney versus Wright. The R-4360 engine was nicknamed "The Flying Corncob" due to, in order to facilitate air cooling for the rearward banks, they were staggered in a helical arrangement. This engine was still prone to overheating. Also, even though air-cooled engines, especially radial configurations, are made with "loose" tolerances as compared to a liquid-cooled one, the R-4360 was especially "loose", making it rather noisy with piston slap. They had a significant thirst for OIL, which often proved a limiting factor for range! My Dad, who served 20 years in the Air Force and worked with KB-50s, on their way out, noted how the "solution" was simply to carry 3-4 55 GALLON drums of engine oil; the flight engineer would pump them into the recip engines during flight, as oil could be fed to them from the fuselage. One advantage, though, of this high oil consumption was that the engine friction was reduced, which cut down on the heat build-up, and the oil itself was an effective "coolant".
The DISADVANTAGE was for the ground crew chief, as he and his men had to change out the spark plugs with a "fresh" (often the other set that'd been de-greased, cleaned, and gapped) set after EVERY sortie. For the B-36 and variants, with SIX of these engines, that meant 336 plugs had to be changed! One can imagine the working conditions for doing maintenance work on the "Aluminum Overcast" at those "Northern Tier" bases during the winter! Shelters to at least shield the ground crew from biting arctic winds were improvised, but performing maintenance work was GRUELING and labor-intensive on those big birds...a reason they were retired once the jet bombers were in service.
"You'll get to fly the B-50 in our new air force. You can fly recon missions where if you make an emergency landing you'll be disavowed, you can fly ferret missions directly provoking adversary fighter pilots with shoot to kill orders and you can also fly THROUGH nuclear fallout!!!!!" Well sign me up bubba.
I wonder if the B-54 would've kept the name Superfortress. The Boeing fortress bombers are the B-17 Flying Fortress, the B-29 / B-50 Superfortress, and the B-52 Stratofortress. If Boeing ever builds another strategic bomber, it would cool to give it a new "fortress" name, like Ultrafortress, or Hyperfortress, or something.
haha I like those names!
B-54 Megafortress
@@alanstevens1296 I think Megafortress was used in a technothriller novel about an experimental upgraded B-52.
@@RCAvhstape
Magnafortress?
Summafortress?
When my father was in the Air Force he worked on these and B-36's☺
My dad flew as a navigation instructor in a TB-50 out of Mather AFB when he was reactivated for the Korean War.
Thanks, great video
Is there a video coming about the YC-14 you show during your intro?
Yep :)
Paul, since you're always going to this museum, maybe you should move to Tucson, Arizona. 😂 Hehe 😅 ...or are the videos from this museum a product of one long trip? 🤔Thanks for the great videos.
Haha just two separate visits :)
Are you serious right now?!?!?!?!?
How did my aviation loving fanatical junkie nerd ass never hear of this 🤷🏻♂️
Do you have a day job or do you just travel around doing this? This is amazing. Your tour of the Peacemaker is still one of my favorite videos ever.
If you have a day job I give you all the props in the world.
If not I am so insanely jealous I could never look you in the eye 😂😂😂
Cheers mate, I really loved filming the B-36 and eternally grateful to the SAC museum for letting me film inside it.
No this is just a hobby. I have a regular job and film these during my leave. If the finances can work, I am looking at dropping 1 day of work per week to edit this videos. Including the researching, drafting and editing they probably take a few days to prepare (they're much longer and more detailed than my vids a few years ago).
A problem they had with the B-50s, when they first went into squadron service, was that they lost several on takeoff, killing all on board. This had not been a problem in the test units, just squadron service. Then one day, a B-50 lost an engine on takeoff. The flight engineer, who handled much of the engine controls, went to shove all the mixture controls into Auto Rich to ensure maximum power from the remaining engines, only to remember one of the many differences between the B-29 and the B-50 ... they reversed the mixture quadrant, so that what had been Auto Rich was now Idle Cutoff, which would stop all the engines. He rammed the mixture control to the proper location, and the bomber lived to fly another day. Problem solved!
Amazing B-29 has a distant Russian cousin the TU-95 still flying.
What happens if propeller tips break the speed of sound?
The proposed B-54 would have been the ultimate Superfortress. But it was also a dead end. Maybe if they had dropped the R-4360s in favor of turboprops. Just think the B-54 was proposed when Boeing was working on the B-47. And the B-52 was in the wings.
I never knew the B-50 could be air refuled.
Is that a P62 I see in the back ground near the beginning of this video.
Why are the props feathered on the B50.. would look a lot better if they weren't being a display aircraft
Have any vids on the Douglas C-117D?
I have a video on the DC-3 but not the specific C-117D i'm afraid.
I wonder where there any soviet plane flew over us territory ? Like the b50 and u2 that flew inside soviet ?
0:13 😂😅🤣 I'm sorry. I have no idea🤣but I'm certain the crew had a good name for it.
The car salesman😂
"Ferret mission." It later became known as "Wild Weasel."
im gonna call this the super duper fortress now
Strange how they were not used in Korea. Could have saved many lives.
USAF not changed over to SAC when ?
My dad use to fly the B-50 around the world ,nonstop, carrying an atomic bomb during the Cold War.
Superdooper fortress..
The americans never seem to get them running again. In britain, we sometimes get aircraft into taxiing condition if its too difficult to get them back into the air
I’m not sure about that. There’s B29s and 17s still flying.
@@PaulStewartAviation what I'm saying is that if they can't fly, in britain, they sometimes get them running instead
Yep fair enough. I was really fortunate to sit inside an Avro Vulcan during an engine run and taxi a few years ago.
The biggest reason for the B-50 designation instead of a B-29J or whatever it would have been was to get funding through congress. Congress was not as interested in a B29 upgrade but an all new B50 was able to get funding lol.
Heavy planes always have massive vertical stabilizers, or more than one lol
My step dad was an aerial cameraman on a B-50 durng the Bikini Atoll tests,
The plane being refeueled has no jet engines. Not a B-50? A weather-version, prototype, or B-29 variant.
As I said, only the KB-50 had jets. The B-50, rb-50 and wb-50 did not have jets.
@@PaulStewartAviation As you said? Thanks for eloquent put down. I must have missed that. Sorry to have failed you, and myself. I took the time to go back after being so elegantly insulted and noticed no references towards what variant of the B-50 was being refueled in the video. In fact, the title of your video said B-50, no mention of doing all of the variants. In point of fact, you bounced around from one variant to another variation like a little girl playing jacks. Pickup one model, rapidly go to another, go to another, and then another, and finally back to the base model, I guess. Likely an editing issue. Yours, not mine.
At 4:10 I mentioned that the in-air refuelling versions had the jet engine. At 5:20 I specifically mentioned that the weather version doesn't have jets and include footage of one pointing out the lack of jets. Fair enough, though, I could have been clearer and will try to differentiate between models better in future videos :)
@@PaulStewartAviation OK, if you say so. When dealing with multiple models of something, I've found it easier for me and the viewers to organize materials by kind and to not bounce and skip around. Some people write a script and then go find photos. Flow is critical. Quite frankly, I don't know which models had aerial refueling or not? Which had jet engines? This was a B-50 story and most of us didn't know that base-model existed. Then the other models. Recon. Weather. Jet engines. Refueling in air. Lots of great photos and facts, thank you. But I would not pass any test at the end. You dazzled me with facts and photos. I was the kid in the candy store. Wonderful, but what facts were connected to what. I'm lost. Guess I'm just getting old.
The only B-50 model that had jets was the refueler KB-50J. The rest (B-50, WB-50, RB-50, EB-50) had to make due with just the upgraded piston engines. :) Refueler versions always begin with a K = KC-46, KC-135, KB-50...etc.
ok so this is two vids today but...... look at those cowlings omg
😂
this plane was a reaction to the Russians reverse engineering a B-29.
B-29 superduper fortress😆
Not glass perspex / plastic..
I disagree. The B-29 as used during WWII was not a success. It was plagued with engine fires, short engine life expectancy, runaway propellers and a vaunted bombsite that couldn't deal with the Jetstream or Japanese clouds. The bombing altitude was thus reduced to 8,000 ft. or less. Which in turn made the pressurized cabin unnecessary. Capture of the Philippines and Okinawa also negated the range value of the airplane. Finally, more B-29s were lost to operational causes than were lost to enemy fire.
Next war thunder update?
The B-50 lives “operationally” today in 2024 in the form of the NASA Super Guppy transport aircraft. 👍😎👍🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
That’s based on the KC-97/Boeing 367/Boeing 377.
While that was derived from the B-50.. it has very little in common.
@@calvinnickel9995 The B-50 DNA is still there….and you can almost say B-29 DNA lives on in that plane too.
"D".
Why don’t American museum’s let people tour through the planes? It’s ridiculous 🙄
Because they’d be sued!
remember seeing one at mcdill afb 20 years ago...
👍👍👍👍💯☕🍩
Bitchen aircraft.