The Boeing B-54; Ultimate Superfortress

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Don't forget to click the link to get your free seven day trial with Blinkest: www.blinkist.com/militarymatters

[@bwcdevices3028]

Congrats on getting such a great sponsor - great vids, keep up the good work!

[@DavidOfWhitehills]

You forgot Benny Hill's boyscout salute. And all the Dad's Army ones, esp that standout saluter, Barbara Windsor.

[@chazndave]

Fantastic video! One small thing…you referred to the Convair B36 as the Peacekeeper; it was the Peacemaker

[@shauny2285]

Hi Ed. If you are looking for suggestions, how about the Martin B-10 or Boeing B-9 bombers? I doubt many have heard of them.

[@Farweasel]

@@chazndave He *always* gets one of those in Sir. I'm beginning to suspect its a bit like cartographers putting a lake on the wrong side of the road or something as a kind of provenance thing?

[@terrydepew1252]

I was fortunate to have met and talked with Curtis Lemay nearly every Sunday one summer at the old South Coast gun club off the end of Jeffery road in Irvine California back around 1977-78 or so. I was in my early twenties and did not know much of what this old warrior had done. But I did know Lemay had commanded the B29 campaign in the pacific and since the B29 was one of my favorite bombers of WWII, I Leaned in close because he was hard of hearing and we were on a shooting range and enthusiastically asked Lemay about the B29. To my chagrin he furrowed his brow and said they were troublesome, rushed into service before they were ready. He told me they lost more B29s and crews to mechanical issues, engine fires and other teething problems than they ever lost over Japan to the enemy. Well that burst my bubble! He told me early on when they started operations out of bases in china each B29 had to fly 4 missions over the hump to supply itself with enough fuel and bombs for one mission over Japan. He said that is where a lot of B29s were lost. I remember him saying something about later operations out of the Marianas where he ordered all armament but the tail guns removed and ordered the incendiary missions flown much lower than 30,000 feet where they previously had poor results. He said the crews did not like those orders but he made them do it anyway. I recently read on Wikipedia that Lemay flew lead in them early low level raids over Japan as he had done over Europe in B17's. Lead from the front. A true Warrior. So it comes as no surprise to me after watching Ed Nash's vidio that Lemay who had the previous year, taken over command of Strategic Air Command did not want or need the B54. He had B36's, B47's and B52's in growing numbers. As another aside, a Marine gunny sergeant from nearby El Toro Marine Corp air station told me one day referring to Lemay that "That Old Man is probably the best pistol shot on this range right now". I saw Lemay's pistol case open on the shooting bench and it contained 5 or 6 1911 pistols. Lemay told me some were one offs from an air force armory tool room. When I asked Lemay to shoot my new series 70 Gold Cup he obliged. He said it would not shoot accurately. Then he told me by chance he would be in New York the coming week and would be stopping by the Colt factory in Hartford and that he would relate his experience with a "New" series 70 Gold Cup to whoever he was going there to see. Which led to it being sent back to Colt with a note from me to a certain person stating that this is the pistol Lemay had shot, Please fix it. Which they did. Still got it. Still shoots straight too. Since that summer I have learned much more about Curtis Lemay. You can read on Wikipedia about most of his exploits. I am forever "kicking" myself for not knowing that in 1938 he flew as lead navigator with a group of B17s on a pre war good will tour to Buenos Aries. Missions over Germany in B17s. Dangerous ones like Regensburg. I would have asked him about commanding SAC. B36s etc. But alas all I knew of his exploits then was that he was in command of the pacific B29s. Missed opportunity to hear first hand of history that I can only read about now. One more tidbit about B50s. Years ago I once ran across an older gent that related he had spent most of his entire enlistment in the Air Force replacing burned up exhaust stacks and spark plugs on KB50s that were used to refuel early jet fighters inflight. He told me the KB50 would have to have the throttles wide open while flying in a very shallow down hill configuration to be going fast enough to keep the jets from stalling while refueling. I don't know if all 28 exhaust stacks on an R-4360 would burn off and need replaced but that engine had 56 spark plugs x 4 ! That sounds like a lot of scraped knuckles in tight places to me.

[@Paiadakine]

That’s a great story. I was a member of the south coast gun club shooting skeet leagues, starting around 82-83 till they closed because of the 241 toll road.

[@danielbower1679]

Thank you for the unique information talking with General Le May

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

I took a chemistry class from a professor who had been a B-36 pilot. He said after every flight, someone had to get up on high ladders with two buckets -- one with new spark plugs, one for the dead ones he replaced. 6 engines times 56 spark plugs to check! He didn't say how many were replaced after each flight, but it must have been a few.

[@gerrynightingale9045]

*Lemay was certainly a 'True Warrior'...his brilliant tactics of 'set fire to Japan and burn to death every man/woman/child CIVILIAN' was truly a 'stroke of genius!'* ____________ *Tell me...do you regret not having an 'ass-baby' with him?* *Because your 'Story-Time' certainly reads that way!* *The ultimate in 'Daddy Worship' from a submissive homosexual*

[@Yosemite-George-61]

I read somewhere that Le May did not like the B-54 primarily because the outrigger meant that all bases taxi ways had to be enlarged to accommodate the wide track (at great cost) and that the B-54 did not have much room for development. (Somewhere else in USA around 1954, they were flying a Constellation fitted with T-34 turboprop engines that went 479 mph how fast would have the B-54 airframe go with T-34s?) Ok but... that didn't seem to hurt the B-52 with his enormous outrigger track...

[@paulkirkland3263]

Well done Ed - this is genuinely the first time I've ever heard of the B-54. Great video; your channel is coming along nicely.

[@Neilistic1001]

Ditto!

[@merlin51h84]

Ditto!

[@Farweasel]

Indeed, but ............ Its all a bit weird 'though really, given Boeing's own B47 Stratojet had its first flight in 1947

[@dwaneanderson8039]

Same here, but that's not surprising, being that it got cancelled before they even finished the prototype.

[@bikersoncall]

@@dwaneanderson8039 :) I didn't know of the B54 , nor the fact that it didn't exist.

[@donjones4719]

Something left out of the B-29 and B-54 weight tables: the mass of all the mechanics needed to change all those spark plugs!

[@RMJTOOLS]

What about the poor bastard at the Champion spark plug cleaner cleaning and gapping all the plugs?

[@allangibson2408]

@@RMJTOOLS They just fitted new spark plugs. This is the US Military we are taking about.

[@mikepette4422]

omg yes

[@loboheeler]

Same R-4360 type engine as the B-50, so no additional spark plugs. The turbo exhaust jet is interesting.

[@ralfie8801]

They still had jobs changing 6 sets of them in each B-36 every time it landed somewhere.

[@paulfrantizek102]

Boeing hardly had reason to be angry, they were about to mint serious coin selling USAF B47s, B52s, and C135 variants (for the obtuse, military 717 derivatives like C135, KC135, RC135, EC135, etc).

[@rojaunjames747]

how do i get said coins

[@ussniagara9196]

@@rojaunjames747 it’s a saying, they didn’t actually mint coins, it means they made a lot of money

[@rkentblackwood]

heh

[@ussniagara9196]

@@micheal6898 Actually no, B-52s are built in house by Boeing

[@paulfrantizek102]

@@ussniagara9196 Plus all the $$$ they made selling upgrades over the years. The idea that Boeing didn't do well off of the B52 is a bit ridiculous.

[@dave.of.the.forrest]

Damn I've read a lot about this subject but never heard about the B-54 until today. Thank you!!!

[@vice88]

@The Trooper Why would they?

[@johnbockelie3899]

I've heard of the B 50 bomber, but never the B 54.

[@grumblesa10]

My was a flight engineer on B29s, he flew some of the last missions over Japan, and Korea (until they were withdrawn). Then was assigned to WB-50s (the weather recon version). It was that aircraft that the B29's tendency to catch fire caught up with him. He survived it fortunately for me:)

[@sr7129]

And here I was thinking I was semi knowledgeable about military aircraft. Ed does it again

[@DRAGONSLAYER1220]

Don't ya just hate it when he does that to us?😂

[@xkgbciax5286]

well think real hard watch the vid 1 more time it was a prototype do you know how many prototypes no one has ever heard about you go from 29 to 54 and its the same plane do some math

[@DomTheDumb]

I'd never even heard of the B-54 lmao and I've heard of a lotta planes. Amazing video as usual, Ed

[@mikepette4422]

same thing here Ed really brings up a lot of things I missed even in the planes i have heard of but its really nice to hear of planes I had no idea existed

[@DRAGONSLAYER1220]

The only reason I knew of the B-54 is that I once had a book on US bomber aircraft of the 20th century, which covered ALL bombers...even the ones that never got past prototype stage and those that never got past the drawing board.

[@Deviation4360]

In Graham Whites book on the R-4360 engine a whole chapter is devoted to the engines development for the B-54. The engines were tested in a modified B-50 and essentially they found that the R-4360's where operating to within an inch of death producing those 4,500 ponies at altitude. The back pressure of the immense exhaust system for the VDT's also started to melt the exhaust valves and over load the valve system in general.

[@user-ex4si2md6r]

😮 WOW that's scary 😱

[@brettbuck7362]

The real takeaway was that once you had a turbocharger, and a PRT, the pistons/valves/reciprocating parts were just a liability - hence a jet. Compress the air, add heat by burning fuel, then use the expansion to drive a compressor.

[@Deviation4360]

I see your point however I feel a piston engines logical conclusion is not to become a jet engine. It is a branch of ICE all on its own, and one that still has plenty of retrospective growth left even in aeronautical use. The Wankel rotary is more amenable to your conclusion now with its seal problems mostly cured.@@brettbuck7362

[@peterschmidt8287]

Actually the 4360 engine was developed for the B-50.

[@Deviation4360]

@@peterschmidt8287 Yes sorry I meant the VDT equiped R-4360's were designed for the B-54.

[@JK-rv9tp]

Great work Ed. It would be interesting to do a deep dive on the B-29's fire control system, something nobody has done that I can see so far. Far beyond remote control, it was a true, although crude, "fly-by-wire" control system, just not flight controls. The gunner aimed, and his sight sent voltages representing sight azimuth, elevation, and target range (by the gunner sizing the sight reticle) to a central computer via Selsyn synchros in the sight head, the computer took the information and applied half a dozen adjustments to the signals to correct for this, that and the other thing (lead, turret/gunner parallax, ballistic characteristics, altitude, temperature, true airspeed, etc), before sending its own voltage signals to Selsyns in the turret to aim the turret. The gunner pointed at and tracked the target, but the computer electrically pointed the guns somewhere else, where it calculated where they should be pointing to get hits based on the target's location provided by the gunner. Modern fly-by-wire does more or less the same thing.

[@Hopeless_and_Forlorn]

Been a long term since I have seen anyone use the term, Selsyn. They were fascinating devices. They have practically disappeared from modern aircraft, but some position transmitters still use synchro technology to transmit angular information to computerized boxes, where they are promptly converted to digital values before use.

[@duncanhamilton5841]

Le May was right - they would have been entering service around the time the Valiant, Vulcan, and Victor were first flying. That would have made them look very old indeed

[@jackroutledge352]

Indeed. And they would have faced mig-15s, 17s and later 19s too. They would have been sitting ducks. Incredible really that they even considered this, with the b-36 coming into service, and with the b-47 and 52 shortly behind.

[@michaelwong4303]

The V's might be jet powered, but did they have greater bombload than the prop-powered B54? Besides the V's would be facing the even mightier B52, which is STILL in regular service today, but the V's have long gone... Don't try to compare with 🇺🇸, because the fact is, no one can...

[@duncanhamilton5841]

@@michaelwong4303 talk about missing the point. The V bombers would have made the B-54 look very old fashioned. They were a Gen 1.5 jet bombers, as was the B-52. The only reason the B-52 is still in service is not because of inherent greatness (although it is a great design), but because since Linebacker there's not been much need for a replacement.

[@gort8203]

@Aqua Fyre They were not "too scared to fly low", they were flying the mission under existing doctrine that the B-29 had in fact been designed for, which was high altitude daylight precision bombing. That profile had nothing to do with being scared, as the British could attest to because they were "too scared" to operate that way themselves, and advised the 8th Air Force to also bomb in the dark because it was safer. Lemay did not show the B-29 crews "how it was done", Lemay threw away existing USAAF doctrine on how it was done and created a new way of doing it. The new way was driven by analysis of the targets and the atmospheric conditions extant over them.

[@dougthompson1598]

@Aqua Fyre it does make one wonder what the plan would have been had he been lost on that low-level mission.

[@joaoonda]

I´m quite impressed that the USAF ordered the B-54 when they already had the B-36 in production at the time. Great video as always!

[@merlin51h84]

I'd imagine the RB54 would have been more capable than the B36 in the reconnaissance role. Then again, the Republic Rainbow would have a better bet for that role. I'd imagine a lot cheaper too.

[@joaoonda]

@@merlin51h84 well, yeah but, he only talks of the bomber role of the aircraft, not reconnaissance or aerial refueling...

[@Mishn0]

Politics and money.

[@aussievaliant4949]

Don't forget the B47. No tears for Boeing, they had a few projects 'on the go' at the time.

[@Thelivewire64]

Don't forget what the enemy had or were designing either! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-16

[@Thelivewire64]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95

[@mikepette4422]

boeing had so mnay advanced planes it makes me wonder why they even were bothering with the b-54c so yeah it seems like pure greed...i feel no sorrow for them

[@aussievaliant4949]

@@Thelivewire64 correct!

[@Mishn0]

@@Thelivewire64 Did you know that the Tu-16 had the exact same fuselage cross-section as the B-29, ahem, I mean Tu-4?

[@dalecomer5951]

The "fix" for the B-29 was the B-29C with redesigned, vastly improved R3350 engines with some of the improvements of the B-29D such as the longer wing coupled with the experience with the SILVERPLATE aircraft which demonstrated that most of the heavy, complex defensive armament wasn't needed. They wouldn't have needed the B-36. Thankfully, Curtis Le1May had a big thing for jets.

[@moggridge1]

@7:07 Convair B-36 Peacemaker, not "Peacekeeper" I think? Very interesting video, thanks.

[@crankychris2]

"Six turning and four burning."

[@soaringvulture]

@@crankychris2 More often, it was "two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking and two more unaccounted for".

[@disabldfirefiter]

Thank you for this story of the B-54! I don't know how I missed knowing about it. I spent five years as an Air Force firefighter in the 70s, in SAC, mostly around B-52s, at Loring AFB, Maine and Andersen AFB, Guam.

[@KitKabinet]

Never heard about the B-54 before. It's just great to find out about planes like this on your channel!

[@DavidLLambertmobile]

Considering how the robust, durable ✈️ B52s lasted from around 1945 to 2023-2024 says a lot! I was unaware of B54s. You'd think by mid 1960s or Air ops in 🇻🇳 the USAF would want B54s.

[@foreverpinkf.7603]

Thank you for this introduction. Never heard of this bomber.

[@Pugiron]

I lived right beside the Austin Airport private plane section in the 90's when they parked the last flying B-29 there. It was huge compared to anything else there but could not opperate out of the modern Jet Liner facilities.

[@Dave174385]

I used to impress my friends by telling them 'that's not a B-29, that's a B-50'. I'm not feeling so smug now. I never heard of the development of this aircraft. It looks like it would have been a beast, but still a sparrow compared to the B-36. Thanks for the video - very informative and since I learned something new this was a good day.

[@bikersoncall]

Thank you for not insulting us by omitting Feet and HP, much appreciated!!

[@jdwht2455]

It looks like I'm with most others that never heard of a B-54. I have seen one, and many years later forgot which, a B-29 or B-50 that GE used to have for developmental items (remotely controlled gun turrets for one) at the Schenectady, NY County Airport. It would occasionally cruise overhead, which of course us kids would then enjoy. The Superfort hanger is still in service with an aircraft museum

[@lukemurley]

Hi Ed. Just finished reading your book, Desert Sniper. Would highly recommend.

[@pauldulworth2768]

It’s what I learn after I think I know everything that counts. And with every video you post I learn more. Many thanks.

[@theharbinger2573]

Well that is a plane I've never heard of and don't remember them even mentioning at the Wright Patt AFB Museum. I saw a 29, and a 36 and 52. They may have had a B-50 out in one of the hangars, it was raining heavily the day I went, so I stayed in the main museum area.

[@Mishn0]

I think the museum at Offut has a KB-50 at least. That's the SAC museum. Pima probably does too.

[@Ettrick8]

Thanks I've never heard of the B54 before and it's story was fascinating

[@MrArgus11111]

If LeMay cancels your bomber program it deserved to be cancelled. He was a very technically minded officer and was a bomber pilot himself.

[@DonPatrono]

yeah, when he was not busy proposing to nuke the moon, make nuclear-bomb-equipped bombers constantly make donuts over the arctic circle in case russians got antsy, support MacArthur's idea of nuking China to stop it from interfering in the Korean war, trying to shut down the US ICBM capability because it would impede his bombers, trying to shut down the CIA's spy planes programs of the U2 and Oxcart because they would divert funding and Lockheed Martin's attention from his experimental XB70 Valkyre supersonic bomber (a doomed project), and making B49 bombers equipped with SIGINT and ELINT devices play the chicken game with Soviet air defences skirting Russian air space (and when inquired about possible political repercussions he simply replied with "With a bit more luck we could have started WW3"), he did care about all his pilots (fighters, bombers, cargo etc) know his mettle about using bombers to keep air superiority and missile deterrence.... ....and he also was reputedly a friend of Eugene Stoner, and the first proponent of acquring the AR15 to arm the USAF security forces, so if the M16 and later the M4 exist and if the AR15 has become the most prolific firearm family, it is mostly thanks to him

[@Legitpenguins99]

Just thank God he never got his hands on nukes. That man reveled in civilian casualties in a way that would have had him executed in he was german

[@fredschultz6468]

Ed, you are an ace aviation historian and congrats on being able to get so much co-operation from Boeing.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Thanks Fred 😁

[@davidhess6593]

There was nothing about strategic bombing that Curtis LeMay didn't understand.

[@brianbrengle9933]

You are one of my Go 2 guys when it comes to aviation history relative to lesser known or forgotten aircraft types. While watching your video on the Boeing B-54, I decided to look back at the 1946 beginnings of the Boeing B-52. I recognize that the B-54 & B-52 are not directly competitively related in the sense of a fly-off competition. I looked into the competitors against the B-52 as it's development program adapted to each change in specifications regarding what the USAF required the aircraft to do. What interested me were these competing designs in the following list. - Boeing Model 462 (the winner - 3 variants) - Convair Long Range Heavy Bombardment Airplane (forward swept wing bomber depicted on cover) - Martin Model 216 (”flying aircraft carrier” - 2 variants) - Martin Model 232 (description only) - Douglas Very Long Range Bomber C (VLRB-C - 2 variants) - Douglas Model 1112 (heavy bomber derivative of XB-42 - 3 variants) - Douglas Model 1155 (interim jet bomber derived from DC-6 - 2 variants) - Douglas Model 1211 (giant swept wing turboprop bomber - 40 variants) - Bonus drawings of Douglas X-3 Stiletto photo reconnaissance aircraft mounted under a B-36 and Douglas impressions of the Boeing B-52 (2 variants). In the future, can you address the aircraft that were in competition with Boeing's B-52?

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

If I can find enough information on them, certainly!

[@rickb1973]

Regarding defensive armament, I know its just a mock-up, but at 5:37.......So four .50 cals, an apparent rear facing radome, and what's that tube? And rear facing radar, monitored by who? The rear gunner? But he can only engage when they get into .50 cal range?....Which is maybe even a bit closer, because of the airspeed.

[@prsearls]

I thought I was pretty savvy about Air Force aircraft during the late 1940s-1950s. I've never heard of the B-54 but I think General LeMay was right in choosing the B-36. It filled an important period during the formation of SAC until replaced by the B-47 and B-52.

[@104thDIVTimberwolf]

Close on the B-36. It was the Peacemaker, not Peacekeeper. The Peacekeeper was the ICBM that was intended to replace the Minuteman systems beginning in the late 1970s.

[@petergouldbourn2312]

What a fascinating video. I love this channels output. 🇬🇧

[@markjosephbudgieridgard]

Absolutely love these videos the research Ed does is amazing. The B 54 looked absolutely beautiful what a shame that one was never completed and took to the skies.... 👍

[@chargrams9906]

MY DAD WAS A FLIGHT ENGINEER ON 29’s.HE WAS AN ACE MECHANIC AND SPENT HIS ENTIRE ENLISTMENT ONTHE ROSEWELL NM. BASES TROUBLE SHOOTING ENGINE PROBLEMS! WAS SCHEDULED FOR OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENT,IN SEPTEMBER,BUT THE BOMB CANCELED THAT! THAT IS PROBABLY WHY I AM HERE!

[@jimramsey8887]

An excellent resumé of the US Bomber policy in the post war years and an aeroplane of which I was not aware. Thanks very much. Ed

[@turkey0165]

Interesting and entertaining video pertaining to the Boeing B-54 ! General LeMay knew the Jets were the future for SAC!

[@carltonstidsen8806]

It wasn't the cost of development , but the cost of each airframe ($600,000 in 1943 Dollars) times the number of airframes built at the five plants (4500 + ) ran the total cost of the ENTIRE Program past the cost of the Manhattan Project .

[@SithLord2066]

Last time I was this early, Boeing made good airplanes.

[@timothyirwin8974]

Hey, that's my chihuahua!

[@crankychris2]

that WAS a long time ago, before the Douglas days.

[@dannycarter1966]

Most of Boeing's designs were very pleasing to the eye, especially the B50.

[@sdk4422]

Very good job sir!!! I have been an aviation fan for years and never heard of it!!!

[@aeropapa99]

I'm a big fan of "what might have been" aircraft. Thanks for letting me know of one that I missed.

[@TheStig_TG]

Same! or experimental aircraft like the B-70

[@johnosbourn4312]

Just so you know, the name of the B-36 was Peacemaker, not Peacekeeper; that name was given to the LGM-118 ICBM, which was first known only as the MX.

[@metalmadsen]

Never heard about this plane before. Thanks for another great video mate.

[@andrewdrabble8939]

Very informative video. Knew of the B-50 as I have a model kit of one in my kit stash but must admit the B-54 is a new one on me.

[@pauld6967]

At the start of the video you mentioned changes between the B-50 and the B-29. If memory serves, the B-50 also had a taller tail than the B-29.

[@bassmith448bassist5]

I have never heard of this aircraft before. Thank you Ed for bringing this awesome plane to light!!!!

[@timgosling6189]

A great summary. I have to say that prototype in the pictures looks more like a mock-up than something that might one day fly. As you say it was left behind by the dawn of the jet age, and given the work Boeing were doing at that same time on their B-47 and B-52 contracts they had little reason to be disappointed.

[@sonnyburnett8725]

As a kid in the late fifties and early sixties I can still remember the sound of 4 engine planes flying high overhead. You could hear them for miles and miles or several minutes.

[@McRocket]

You did it again! Never even heard of the B-54 before now (that I know of). Thank you. Also, before you mentioned it earlier. I never would have guessed that the B-29 cost more than the Manhattan Project. ☮

[@silentone11111111]

I love failed projects stuff. So many what if’s. Very interesting. Thanks 😊

[@AlexDahlseid2002]

The B-29/B-50 saw further development from the Americans as the iconic 377 Stradocruiser airliner which debuted in 1947 and the 377 Stradocruiser was adapted from C-97 Stradofreighter which was the cargo version of the B-29 Superfortress and Soviets did the Tu-85 which would lead to Tu-95 “Bear”.

[@greglittell9109]

I read a story about B-29 development, I believe it was WWII magazine, that stated that a machine shop in New Jersey got the contract to produce exhaust cam rings for the Wright R-3350. It posited that a German sympathizer employee may have purposely machined the lobe "off" by just enough to cause the overheating problems the engine was experiencing.

[@bertg.6056]

The B-47 preceded the B-52, and was a groundbreaking aircraft.

[@Mishn0]

I think the most amazing thing about the B-47 project was how fast they built so many of them. 2000 in just a couple of years.

[@Hopeless_and_Forlorn]

Exactly. I once had the opportunity to closely examine a B-47, and I was amazed at the technological leaps it incorporated so soon after WWII. And its performance was amazing for its time. No wonder it was used for clandestine spy flights over Soviet territory.

[@francisbusa1074]

But only a medium. Great plane though.

[@soaringvulture]

The B-47 was, unfortunately, literally a "groundbreaking" aircraft. A large number of them crashed, usually because of insufficient pilot training combined with a lack of understanding about the handling of a big jet airplane at that time.

[@bertg.6056]

@@soaringvulture Swept wings and pylon-mounted engines provided a steep learning curve.

[@turtek12]

Was there ever consideration for mounting a turboprop or even turbojet to the B-29 fuselage?

[@msmeyersmd8]

Amazing that he keeps finding significant airplanes that I've never even heard of.

[@elizabethbell4697]

Excellent video about this amazing aircraft. I would love to build this beast in 1/72 scale.

[@fredtedstedman]

as a child I had a book with a photo of B-54 , but have never seen any other reference to it !! Engines are a give away ( like Stratocruiser .) -taller tail too ?

[@fooman2108]

One major improving of the b50 who is it they wouldn't Catch Fire seemingly random basically whenever you would start the engines! There's a piece of footage of the B-29 warming up for a raid going to Japan and tinian with a river of oil rolling out of the bottom of one of the engine cowling and before it could make it to the end of the runway that engine cowling is on fire and the fire trucks are in Pursuit! The crew escaped without harm they push the airplane into the bay in the Ordnance one-off totaling the airplane! My friend's dad was the crew chief on that aircraft.

[@Redhand1949]

My late father flew WB-29s, KB-29s and KB-50J's during his 26 years as a USAF pilot. You might want to do a piece on the KB-50Js, which had SIX engines - four P&W R-4360s plus two jet engines under the wings. Aerial refueling of jet fighters (F-100s) and bombers (B-66s) among other aircraft was especially dangerous from these tankers due to the vastly different performance envelopes of the prop-driven and jet aircraft.

[@PMARC14]

The KB-50j is some insane diesel punk looking craft with the combined jets and propellers. Thanks for introducing me to such an interesting aircraft.

[@Redhand1949]

@@PMARC14 My Dad flew KB-50Js with the 622nd Aerial Refuelling Squadron stationed at England AFB in Alexandria, La from 1960-64. They were a wild bunch of "old air force" types, hard drinkers and hard-flying aviators. I remember one "Air Force Day" at the Base (we lived on Base Housing) when a KB-50 did a fly-by along the main runway with all four props feathered and only the two jets on the wings keeping it in the air. My father explained afterward that, actually, it was only the auxiliary power unit in the tail keeping the A/C up because with the props feathered the APU was the sole source of electrical power for the jet engine fuel pumps. And yes, it made quite an impression on the crowd of onlookers. Other vivid memories I have were of unit detachments returning to the Base from lengthy TDYs (temporary duty) assignments at places like Bermuda or the Azores where they would fly in support of fighter deployments from the USA to Europe. They would meet over the ocean and refuel F-100s and other jets in transit. England AFB was the home of an F-100 fighter wing too, and when they returned from deployments they would fly over the base in echeloned flights of four with one aircraft after the other doing a vertical bank and turn into the landing pattern. My point is that when the KB-50s came home from these deployments they did exactly the same thing! You would see a lumbering quartet of these six engine monsters flying the same type of echelon formation and one by one making the same vertical (or near-vertical) banking turns so that they came into landing pattern at the proper intervals. That was something to see, too, and to know that your Dad was in the left cockpit seat of one of them was "memorable," shall we say. Ultimately the KB-50Js were withdrawn from service because they became too dangerous to fly. Although the P&W R-4360s were far more reliable than the Wright R-3350s on the B-29s, occasionally they did catch fire, resulting in abandonment of the aircraft in flight when the fire extinguishers failed. One of my father's friends was killed that way flying home from the Azores. Other aircraft simply blew up in flight, presumably due to leakage of fuel in the bomb-bay fuel tanks. Or, the A/C came apart in flight due to structural failure from metal fatigue. So, even these peacetime missions had real risks. When the KB-50s were withdrawn from service the USAF Tactical Air Command lost their refueling capability and the mission was transferred to the Strategic Air Command's KC-97s or KC-135 jet tankers (I forget which). It was the end of a relatively short-lived era in aviation history. Then came the Vietnam war, which is another chapter altogether. Sorry to record my own memories like this in cyberspace, but if I don't write about it, who's going to know?

[@lancehymers4674]

@@Redhand1949 - my father was a veteran too (WWII Lancaster bombers), and his war stories are getting pretty fuzzy. To make sure that my kids don’t forget MY war stories, I’ve been writing my memoirs using the Storyworth service. I’m not shilling for them, I just think it’s an awesome idea - at the end, they print a hardcover book for you.

[@peterschmidt8287]

I was a member of both 429th and 431st squadrons, we lost 1 aircraft but due to a stupid mistake by an inexperienced crew chief! Nothing wrong with 4360 engines if properly serviced, yes, fuel injection nozzles were a constant issue to keep from leaking fuel. When we added the 2 J-47 engines it increased our refueling speed to over 350 knots, with capability to go over 400 knots! Big mistake by General Lemay to deactivate Tactical air command refueling squadrons. I oversaw the modification of the first C-135 to a Kc-135 in Birmingham, Alabama in 1958,59 and then we did the reverse engineering out at Boing in Renton, Washington. New KC-46 will be configured with prob and droug on wingtips and a boom off the tail, we did this for the first KC-135,8658.

[@PurpleDreki]

Even though it was over shadowed by the B-36, I think it was an amazing plane! The engines were amazing! So much was going on transitioning to jet engines.

[@elliotdryden7560]

Great stuff. Been into this sort of thing my whole life and never heard of the B-54. What a super channel!

[@michaelmartinez1345]

This B-54 was shaping up to become a great plane, but there were other planes with higher, more technically advanced capabilities that would make the B-54 obsolete by the time production started... This story reminds me of several companies that built large reciprocating engine aircraft that were instantly upstaged by the prop-jet and pure-jet powered planes that would fly anywhere from 50% - 100% faster than the recip. engined planes, and had engines that could operate a far longer time between overhauls.. But kudo's to the engineers who designed these planes.... They were BEAUTIFUL.....

[@jehoiakimelidoronila5450]

Boeing when it calculated Ultrafortress' expected range: "it's over *9000!!!* "

[@331SVTCobra]

Fun fact: a new aluminum alloy allowed the B-29's wings to be just as strong but weigh significantly less. The resulting model was to be the B-29D. But the war was over and congress didn't want to build B-29Ds if we already had lots of surplus B-29 Bs and Cs. Thus the B-29D was renamed the B-50.

[@kdrapertrucker]

Really surprised the B-50 didn't get turboprops later in life.

[@rexmyers991]

Great narrative on a forgotten project. Good research, also. Thanks

[@allgood6760]

Thanks for this I never heard of this plane ✈️👍

[@blasterelforg7276]

Twice the hosepower and almost twice the bomb load over the B-29. However the writing was on the well and everything was going jet.

[@ericstromberg9608]

6:50 Was LeMay a fan of the B-52s, though?

[@bieknijst2449]

Ed, are you getting enough sleep mate? This is already the third video in 3 days. Not that I'm complaining, they are great! Thank you!

[@alexander1485]

ive seen 1 of the 2 flying still! (B-29 SuperFortresss)

[@Ob1sdarkside]

Never heard of this one, great vid. Great to see you're getting sponsored, well deserved.

[@rodjones482]

Thank you very much for this most interesting and informative video. I'd never heard of the B54 until now! Thanks once again!

[@bassmith448bassist5]

Would've loved to see at least a prototype built and flown. Gorgeous airplane!!!

[@vascoribeiro69]

They had their Soviet equivalents, the Tu-4 (B-29) and the prototypes Tu-80 and Tu-85, thus ending with the Tu-95 Bear still in use today like the B-52.

[@TAllyn-qr3io]

Is incredible how much wealthier war makes people.

[@cnfuzz]

there was a variable discharge turbine and T-35 gas turbine mockup for the convair b36 wich would alter the pusher engine configuration

[@4fanintexas]

Great video. Just one very minor correction. The Convair B-36 was called the Peacemaker, not the Peace Keeper. Not a big deal and you're right. The B-36 really did make the B-54 unnecessary.

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

Lol yes, kicking myself over that. But it's not an Ed Nash video without at least one mistake :)

[@avnrulz]

Boeing: The ultimate B-29 is our B-54. USSR: Hold my beer...

[@carltonstidsen8806]

The Soviets continued to develop the concept , though , eventually evolving the design into the Tupolev TU-95 "Bear"

[@mrblootered198]

Thanks for another dose of interesting aviation Ed 👍🏼 Video on the B-36 perhaps?

[@EdNashsMilitaryMatters]

On the list...eventually :)

[@bikersoncall]

I've never heard of the B54, I do remember the B52's ,but that was a New Wave rock group. :)

[@zackwatson755]

Nice video! A video about the Soviet B-29 derivatives would be cool.

[@TheMelbournelad]

I always love how the B-29 cost more than the A bomb. Also shows how many resources the USA had to co develop the two most expensive weapons at the same time in WW2.

[@Mishn0]

I'm honestly curious, do those statics only figure on the program development costs or does it include the cost of building the thousands of B-29s compared to the cost of building only three A bombs?

[@TheMelbournelad]

@@Mishn0 yes. The $3 billion amount in the money of the time was for development and production. The estimated cost of the Manhattan project was around the $2 billion mark for all the associated construction and research to make the materials for the bombs.

[@carlrichards5207]

Excellent presentation.

[@davidbarnsley8486]

I too had no idea about the existence of this beauty 👍👍

[@neilturner6749]

😃that would be because it never actually “existed”.

[@manricobianchini5276]

Ed, you're doing a great job, buddy!

[@paoloviti6156]

How interesting this video regarding the B-54! I must say that that altrough I have a quite good knowledge about American airplanes I never heard about the B-54! It could have been an interesting bomber but general Curtis's LeMay was correct to cancel the production of this bomber as he realised that it was already obsolete before being putted in production. Thanks for sharing this interesting video and I just subscribed 👍👍

[@PaulP999]

What is that black dome above the rear fifties? tail warning radar? radar assisted gun aim?

[@LA_Commander]

A place for the gunner to stick his head

[@jehoiakimelidoronila5450]

Hey thanks for making a video about the "ultra fortress"!

[@warhawk4494]

Great video as always on a interesting subject. Never heard of this bomber before.

[@waynegood9233]

The B-54 looks like a B-36 and I have seen one in person at a air show in Wichita about in 1959

[@DiegoPatriciodelHoyo]

Great video, didn't know this one.

[@steve1311]

The B-50 bomber was a long range heavy plane. It fits in here somewhere. My father flew it during the Korean War.

[@giancarlogarlaschi4388]

This aircraft with its massive long wings could be a fantastic R/C slope glider !

[@simonmcowan6874]

That once again was a very interesting post, thumbs up to Boeing for their assistance.

[@Manco65]

Another example of wanting to build a weapon system based on a war that was over. Lemay might have been an "AH" to some but he was a realist in his thinking. We already had enough aircraft that were obsolete by the time they they entered service back then

[@patrickwalsh2884]

Those darn early T-Nukes were huge and needed a huge bomb bay and the rest. Bring on the B-36.