Kee bird - what really happened ?
Mats Furucrona
Yesterday i saw a documentary about the attempt to recover the B29 Kee
Bird which made an emergency landing on Greenland - sadly the attempt
ended in disaster as a fire started on the takeoff attempt destroying
the plane.. the documentary left some questions unanswered though..
Was it really realistic to believe that the B29 could be made airworthy
in just 4 weeks ? (as stated in the documentary)
The impression i got wasn't of a professional recovery attempt, ie
assembling the propeller hubs on the beach without shelter with just an
oily rag to protect the hub from the sand.. one flight mech observed
that sand had entered between one blade and the hub - i didn't see
anyone taking it apart and cleaning it.
When they where closed down by the coming winter they did'nt cover the
engines and other vital parts to protect them from adverse weather -
just left the plane standing on the beach..
Please correct me if i'm wrong, i would hate to believe that the B29 was
destroyed because of a less than professional recovery attempt..also i
feel sorry for the family of the aviation mechanic who died in
complications after surgery for internal bleeding..
/Mats
Anders Pettersson
Hi,
I did also see the documentary (which was shown in Swedish television
14th of oct) and I did about the same observations as the previous
poster. Too sad, really.
/Anders
Finn Jorgensen
Are you *really* sure about the sand ?
I mean, Greeland is more like ice and snow. This is not Hawaii...:-)
Please remember, before you critizise, that this was extremely difficult
in the cold and that they did not dispose of much time, for the same reason.
OK, they made an error with that APU that caught fire, but I'd say that
restoring a plane back into flying condition in such a short time after
that many years in the middle of nowhere is quite a good job.
Why didn't all those who, afterwards, say that they did a bad job
go up there to do the job themselves ? Too tough, I suppose.
Finn (waiting for french tv to transmit this documentary)
--
Finn Bo Jorgensen, E-Mail : Finn.jo...@irisa.fr
IFSIC, bureau D268, Universite de Rennes I, Campus de Beaulieu
35042 RENNES CEDEX, FRANCE Tel : (33) 2 99 84 72 01
Anders Pettersson
In article <542nbd$h...@news.irisa.fr>, jorg...@irisa.fr (Finn Jorgensen) writes:
> Are you *really* sure about the sand ?
>
> I mean, Greeland is more like ice and snow. This is not Hawaii...:-)
Yes, definately sand. They used a mud strip to fly in personnel and
equipment. I mean, you really saw at was a mud strip, the Karaboos (sp?)
(the plane they used for supply flights) landing gear sometimes was buried in mud/sand/dirt.
> Please remember, before you critizise, that this was extremely difficult
> in the cold and that they did not dispose of much time, for the same reason.
> OK, they made an error with that APU that caught fire, but I'd say that
> restoring a plane back into flying condition in such a short time after
> that many years in the middle of nowhere is quite a good job.
>
OK, I didn't mean to critize the job done. But rather the time schedule.
It didn't feel right that after the plane had been sitting there for
50 years they had to rush things through to get the job finished on time.
In my opinion the plane could very well had been left during the winter
(which also happened eventually) and continue work the next year.
They could for example have done all job except mounting new engines and
propellors, left it well covered during the winter and then returned
the next year to complete the job.
As it finally turned out they returned next year and was once AGAIN
forced to work under time pressure because they decided to use the
lake as a runway, a lake which soon would begin to melt.
> Why didn't all those who, afterwards, say that they did a bad job
> go up there to do the job themselves ? Too tough, I suppose.
Well, as always, It's easy to critizise afterwards and although moaning
about the thing I still think that it was amazing to do all that job in
those conditions in such a short time. And one thing to remember as you
point out, it's been laying there for 50 years and nobody seemed interested
to deal with it until these guys came along.
But it is just so damn typical, things like these happens when you are
in a hurry. And they wouldn't have been in such a hurry if the project
had been just a little bit more realistically planned.
Planning to get all the job done within a month is a tough time scedule
to start with, when you then encounter serious delays early in the project
you GOT TO reconsider things. By not doing this, they qualified for being
'not so serious'. The same thing might still have happened in the end but
then they at least would have given it their best shot, not the second best.
And of course, if they would have managed they had been celebrated as heroes,
rich heroes, since they knew that a piece of flying B-29 could be sold at a
very high price. That was what it was all about, an investment in a high risk
project which didn't pay off as expected, right ? Let's hope that they could
find another interesting project, a project that will have a successful ending.
Because we all want to have more of these old machines flying.
/Anders
Mary Shafer
I'd have to say that under the circumstances, the recovery team did
the best they could. The conditions are very harsh in Greenland and
the team, being volunteers with real jobs, had a limited amount of
time and resources that they could spend on this. I daresay they
didn't act in any way out of the norm for the conditions under which
the B-29 was operated in WW II. We've heard the stories of WW II
operational conditions, with Spam cans being used to patch bullet
holes and so on (chewing gum and baling wire, you know).
Had it all worked out OK, we would have taken it for granted and never
considered all the adverse conditions they were working under. When
things get down and dirty, when it isn't a sunny spring day with all
the time and supplies in the world to do a job with, sometimes things
happen that, in retrospect, look peculiar. The word "kludge" was not
coined because of a single incident, after all.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Scott
In article <SHAFER.96O...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov> sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>From: sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
>Subject: Re: Kee bird - what really happened ?
>Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 15:39:00 GMT
>I'd have to say that under the circumstances, the recovery team did
>the best they could. The conditions are very harsh in Greenland and
>the team, being volunteers with real jobs, had a limited amount of
>time and resources that they could spend on this. I daresay they
>didn't act in any way out of the norm for the conditions under which
>the B-29 was operated in WW II. We've heard the stories of WW II
>operational conditions, with Spam cans being used to patch bullet
>holes and so on (chewing gum and baling wire, you know).
As someone that makes a living restoring WW2 aircraft I have to interject.
The majority of the work that was done on Kee Bird was nothing short of
amazing. I can tell you first hand that getting things up and running is a
monumental job even under the best of conditions. They did it under the worst.
But..... No matter how great the rest of the job was, wiring up that gas can
next to the APU was kinda stupid. Even more stupid was the flight engineer not
insisting that it be moved to somewhere safe. Postively idiotic is a pilot
doing high speed taxi runs on a bumpy frozen lake with a can of gas over a
running APU. All second guessing aside, it was a hair brained move on
everybodys part. Hell, I wouldn't even run my lawn mower like that. Everyone
is just lucky that it burned on the ground and not in the air.
I am really impressed with all work that went into getting the plane ready to
go. But, maybe next time they will do the WHOLE job right. I am sorry - that
plane burned because of the stupidity of those that were doing the recovery -
they are damn lucky to be alive.
Bill Garnett 842-0983 B1156 CHVPKB
For all you folks out there who have taken so much delight in berating Darryl
Greenameyer for risking his life and fortune in an attempt to recover the Kee
Bird...
I talked with a close friend of his at the Reno air races this year and
learned that Darryl has had to: store his unlimited racer project unfinished
in a warehouse; sell his home; and put his most beloved F9 Tigercat up for
sale to make ends meet. This on top of the loss of a close friend should be
enough for any of you.
If any of you had a clue you might be dangerous.
This is just the kind of thread that makes me drop out of this group for
months at a time.
Bill Garnett
bew...@chevron.com
P-51, Cadillac of the sky
Lou Haas
How much money did they piss away in the process, anybody know?
Anders Pettersson
Well, that's too bad for him. But he did it with his own will didn't he ??
It's like the stock market, you put in a lot of money at a calculated risk
and you know that there is no way to guarantee that you get the money back.
You could win, a lot, but could also loose it all. I can't really see why
a discussion like this would make you wanna drop out of the group. Defend
the restoration trial instead if you feel so much for it. BTW look at the
header "Kee bird - what really heppened ?", well that's what we are trying
to figure out. And as always when a tragedy like this happens we also try
to figure out how to avoid it the next time. And the answer in this case
seems to be to plan the whole damn operation a bit better.
/Anders
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lou Haas) said:
>How much money did they piss away in the process, anybody know?
Not enough to do a professional job, obviously.
--
Paul Tomblin, PP-ASEL _|_ Rochester Flying Club web page:
____/___\____ http://www.servtech.com/public/
___________[o0o]___________ ptomblin/rfc.html
ptom...@xcski.com O O O
Gary T. Craze
Good grief...I can't believe that this is being drug out again. Even
the headline of this topic ( "What Really Happened" ) is bogus.
This was hashed out over a year ago on here, and the consensus was that
Greenamyer and crew should be lauded for their super human efforts. I
won't waste time going into all the specifics, that's been done already.
The armchair quarterbacking will go on for years no doubt. But let me
see anyone else put up the amount of time and money (read sacrifice)
that these guys did, and I'd back you too.
It all boils down to economics, and Greenamyer planned the operation as
good as can be expected for the cash. A year ago all kinds of crazy
(read expensive) ideas were tossed around on here. But unless you've
got some government agency who wants to recover something at a loss for
historical sake alone (and there were NONE of these people I might add),
then the task of recovery goes to private restoration groups, who HAVE
to plan the operation fiscally.
'nuff said...
regards,
Gary
--
Gary T. Craze
Visit The Glass Cockpit at:
http://rampages.onramp.net/~gcraze/
Visit Compaq on the World Wide Web at:
http://www.compaq.com
Drop me an email at: gcr...@bangate.compaq.com
Compaq Computer Corp. Houston, TX
Technology Planning, Portable Division
|Comments are my own and do not reflect |
|those of Compaq Computer Corporation |
Anders Pettersson
In article <326630...@bangate.compaq.com>, "Gary T. Craze" <gcr...@bangate.compaq.com> writes:
>
> Good grief...I can't believe that this is being drug out again. Even
> the headline of this topic ( "What Really Happened" ) is bogus.
>
The reason it is 'dragged out' again is because it was shown on television
this week. So excuuuse me for commenting on something YOU already have
discussed enough. Everything isn't shown at tv at the same time over the
entire globe as you know.
/Anders
Pete Plassmann
This just adds reasons to include Darryl Greenameyer on my personal list
of heroes.
Mary Shafer
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996 12:01:50 GMT, ptom...@compass.xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) said:
P> In a previous article, bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lou Haas) said:
>How much money did they piss away in the process, anybody know?
P> Not enough to do a professional job, obviously.
Money and professionalism are not closely correlated.
Unprofessional people are just as unprofessional on a large budget
and professional people are still professional on a shoestring.
Throwing money on a project isn't a guarantee of success; I'd think
anyone with an interest in military aviation would have figured that
out by now. Examples are left to the readers to provide.
(Actually, there are times when I think too much money leads to
failure, but it's a second-order effect; projects with too much money
have high visibility and that gives too many people too much
investment in the project to ever step back and assess it
realistically. Aphorisms like "pouring money down a rathole" don't
come out of nowhere, after all.)
Mats Furucrona
Gary T. Craze <gcr...@bangate.compaq.com> wrote:
> Anders Pettersson wrote:
<large snip for brevity>
>
> Good grief...I can't believe that this is being drug out again. Even
> the headline of this topic ( "What Really Happened" ) is bogus.
>
> This was hashed out over a year ago on here, and the consensus was that
> Greenamyer and crew should be lauded for their super human efforts. I
> won't waste time going into all the specifics, that's been done already.
A year ago i didn't have acess to usenet and besides the documentary was
shown on swedish television this week so Kee Bird was all news to
me..never heard about it before
regards/Mats
Mats Furucrona
Anders Pettersson <eua...@eua.ericsson.se> wrote:
<snip>
>
> As it finally turned out they returned next year and was once AGAIN
> forced to work under time pressure because they decided to use the
> lake as a runway, a lake which soon would begin to melt.
That's just the point i was trying to make, it looked to me like they
had limited resources and time at their disposal and therefore gambled
on the premise that all it would take to get the a/c flying was new
engines, props and tires (the documentary doesn't mention any other
parts replaced (i assume that they did a thorough check on hydraulics,
electrics etc) apart from putting new fabric on some control surfaces
>
> > Why didn't all those who, afterwards, say that they did a bad job go up
> > there to do the job themselves ? Too tough, I suppose.
>
> Well, as always, It's easy to critizise afterwards and although moaning
> about the thing I still think that it was amazing to do all that job in
> those conditions in such a short time. And one thing to remember as you
> point out, it's been laying there for 50 years and nobody seemed
> interested to deal with it until these guys came along.
>
Yes and their effort should be applauded but i still don't understand
why they planned such a tight schedule and and tried to rush things BTW
i didn't quit get what happened with the APU when they tried to take
off, the narrator said that it came loose as the plane hit some large
snow ridges while taxiing to the makeshift runway causing the fire in
the tail section, when the pilot discovered it it was too late..
They also stated that the B29 didn't have nosewheel steering and would
have to be kept in a straight run by throttle control and side rudder..
i find it hard to believe that the B29 was designed that way or had the
nosewheel steering failed ? If one of the main wheels had got stuck in a
snowdrift or a hole it must have been very difficult to control the
aircraft..
/Mats
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) said:
>On Thu, 17 Oct 1996 12:01:50 GMT, ptom...@compass.xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) said:
>
>P> In a previous article, bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lou Haas) said:
>>How much money did they piss away in the process, anybody know?
>
>P> Not enough to do a professional job, obviously.
>
>Money and professionalism are not closely correlated.
>
>Unprofessional people are just as unprofessional on a large budget
>and professional people are still professional on a shoestring.
Yes, but the excuse I've heard time and time again for why they did all those
god-awful shortcuts and kluges (including the one that caused the fire) was
that they were running out of time and didn't have enough money to come back
the next year. That's the same excuse they gave for not just airlifting it
out to a nice warm hangar in Thule or where-ever where they could have done
the job right - no money.
So there is one less potential B-29 in the world, and some guy died, all
because Greenmeyer(sp?) had dollars in his eyes, but not in his pockets. If
he'd just left it on the ice until somebody with the capital to do it right
came along, the aviation community would have been that much better off, and
there would have been one less family crying at a graveside.
I just thank god that they didn't get it in the air, or a whole planeful of
them would probably have died - if not from the APU, then from some other
stupid kludge.
Brian Jones
> As someone that makes a living restoring WW2 aircraft I have to interject.
> The majority of the work that was done on Kee Bird was nothing short of
> amazing. I can tell you first hand that getting things up and running is a
> monumental job even under the best of conditions. They did it under the worst.
>
> But..... No matter how great the rest of the job was, wiring up that gas can
> next to the APU was kinda stupid. Even more stupid was the flight
engineer not
> insisting that it be moved to somewhere safe. Postively idiotic is a pilot
> doing high speed taxi runs on a bumpy frozen lake with a can of gas over a
> running APU. All second guessing aside, it was a hair brained move on
> everybodys part. Hell, I wouldn't even run my lawn mower like that. Everyone
> is just lucky that it burned on the ground and not in the air.
>
> I am really impressed with all work that went into getting the plane ready to
> go. But, maybe next time they will do the WHOLE job right. I am sorry - that
> plane burned because of the stupidity of those that were doing the recovery -
> they are damn lucky to be alive.
Absolutely on the button. If you can't do it right don't do it. Leave it
to somebody who can.
--
Email jo...@vi.rl.ac.uk (Brian Jones)
Gary T. Craze
Anders Pettersson wrote:
>
> In article <326630...@bangate.compaq.com>, "Gary T. Craze" <gcr...@bangate.compaq.com> writes:
> >
> > the headline of this topic ( "What Really Happened" ) is bogus.
> >
>
> this week. So excuuuse me for commenting on something YOU already have
> discussed enough. Everything isn't shown at tv at the same time over the
> entire globe as you know.
>
> /Anders
Sorry, didn't bother to read your geographical heading. Any you're
right, it was shown in the U.S. multiple times about about a year ago.
I was commenting more on people's negative opinions on the Greenamyer
project, which I believed to be incorrect. Of course, I respect all
opinions.... ( I just don't have to like them !! <grin>
Charles K. Scott
In article <1996101520...@157-5.ppp.algonet.se>
fu...@algonet.se (Mats Furucrona) writes:
> Was it really realistic to believe that the B29 could be made airworthy
> in just 4 weeks ? (as stated in the documentary)
> The impression i got wasn't of a professional recovery attempt, ie
> assembling the propeller hubs on the beach without shelter with just an
> oily rag to protect the hub from the sand.. one flight mech observed
> that sand had entered between one blade and the hub - i didn't see
> anyone taking it apart and cleaning it.
> When they where closed down by the coming winter they did'nt cover the
> engines and other vital parts to protect them from adverse weather -
> just left the plane standing on the beach..
> Please correct me if i'm wrong, i would hate to believe that the B29 was
> destroyed because of a less than professional recovery attempt..also i
> feel sorry for the family of the aviation mechanic who died in
> complications after surgery for internal bleeding..
> /Mats
Hard to say. What do you suggest for the people to have done? Build a
hangar? Lots of money was just not available to throw around. Sure it
would have been nice to fly in lots of shelters or flown the props out
for a sanitary rebuild, but they had neither the time, equipment or
money to do that.
As to leaving the plane standing there for the winter, that's what it
did since it landed there in the 1950's without lots of damage. What's
one more winter after so many? The engines aren't going to be harmed.
As to why the airplane burned, there are several stories, we may never
know for sure. People say that the APU which is supposed to be running
during taxi and takeoff was being fueled by a jerry can of gas, wired
up with coat hangars and that during the taxi to the runway it tipped
over onto the APU. Others have said that this isn't true that the can
had a fuel line, it wasn't just an open can and that the vibration
yanked the fuel line off.
I'll repeat what a friend of mine stated. He couldn't believe that
they actually tried to taxi the thing to the runway instead of using
the bulldozer to pull it there. The tiny amount of ground clearance on
those huge props is scary.
But they did taxi, the "taxiway" such as it was, was very rough and
there was a LOT of vibration and a fire broke out in the aft fuselage.
In retrospect, could they have done it differently? Sure, but then so
could almost any endeavor. Please don't underestimate the adversity of
the conditions and location.
Corky Scott
David Lesher
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>Throwing money on a project isn't a guarantee of success; I'd think
>anyone with an interest in military aviation would have figured that
>out by now. Examples are left to the readers to provide.
>(Actually, there are times when I think too much money leads to
>failure, but it's a second-order effect; projects with too much money
>have high visibility and that gives too many people too much
>investment in the project to ever step back and assess it
>realistically. Aphorisms like "pouring money down a rathole" don't
>come out of nowhere, after all.)
AMEN......
I am familiar with some classified big-budget non-aviation engineering
jobs. The bigger the dollars, the more fingers in the pie; the
more fingers in it, the more it MUST work or SES level types have
to explain why not; so they throw MORE money at a weak idea.
Plus, the bigger the budget, the more wasted time on justifying what
is going on. This is the Dilbert Syndrome -- if your project is late,
add daily progress review sessions.
And then, since you are late anyhow, what's a few more megabux?
Of COURSE it is vital to The World as We Know It -- if it was not,
would the Deputy Undersecretary/ Assistant Director have told the Hill
it was? No way!
Public example - DIVAD or whatever the Sgt. York was.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, Charles...@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) said:
>As to leaving the plane standing there for the winter, that's what it
>did since it landed there in the 1950's without lots of damage. What's
>one more winter after so many? The engines aren't going to be harmed.
EXACTLY! So if they didn't have the money and time to spend to do it right,
they should have damn well left it there for somebody who *did* have the time
and money.
Bill Garnett 842-0983 B1156 CHVPKB
In article (Paul Tomblin) writes:
> That's the same excuse
> they gave for not just airlifting it out to a nice warm hangar in Thule
> or where-ever where they could have done the job right - no money.
>
you would have "airlifted" a B-29 to a nice warn hanger in Thule. Please make
sure you cover
weather
weight
dimensions
fuel
aircraft required
governmental clearances
time frame
tools
soil conditions
water
food
clothing
housing
and anything else you might need.
My bet is you don't know anything about B-29s like how big they are or how
much they weigh or how big the pieces would be if you took one apart or what
tools would be required to do that or what kind of tools you would need, or
how you would fit it into what kind of aircraft or what kind of runway would
be required for that aircraft or even what the weather is like in Greenland.
Having followed Darryl's achievements in aviation for a long time, I have
nothing but respect for the man and his associates.
Brian Trosko
Bill Garnett 842-0983 B1156 CHVPKB <bew...@mailmaster.chvpkh.chevron.com> wrote:
: in a warehouse; sell his home; and put his most beloved F9 Tigercat up for
: enough for any of you.
: This is just the kind of thread that makes me drop out of this group for
: months at a time.
Well, I can certainly sympathize with the man, but as the song goes you
pays your money and you takes your chances.
I have nothing but admiration for what it took to actually restore the
plane to working, flyable order. I also have nothing but disdain for the
negligence which led to the APU fire and destruction of the plane. I'm
sorry one guy died, and I sure wouldn't want to have to start selling
large chunks of my property to make ends meet, but my sympathies end
there.
If a guy walked into a casino, plunked 100,000 dollars down at a blackjack
table, hit on 19 and busted, should I feel sorry for him?
If Daryl didn't want to face the possibility of failure and its results,
he should've stayed where it was warm.
Brian "And, better him than me" Trosko
Steinar Bang
>>>>> "Gary T. Craze" <gcr...@bangate.compaq.com>:
> I was commenting more on people's negative opinions on the Greenamyer
> project, which I believed to be incorrect. Of course, I respect all
> opinions.... ( I just don't have to like them !! <grin>
Hum... yes, I caught part of that showing on swedish TV (get it on my
cable). What I reacted to wasn't their knowledge of the aircraft. It
was their approach to, and disregard for arctic conditions.
It sort of reminded me of the german foot tourist, my mother's cousin
brought, almost forcibly down from the mountain, when he was up one
last trip to look to his cabin for the winter.
This tourist had planned to walk the length of the Norwegian/Swedish
border on foot, without proper equipment, in late, late autumn.
- Steinar
Lou Haas
I beg to differ! He screwed himself and others out of a shitload
of money which he can never recoup at his age. Reminds me of a
neighbor who sold his house too to buy a Western Auto franchise.
You guessed it: house and Western Auto franchise kaputt, too old
to make another fortune, end of story!
Bruce Barr
>EXACTLY! So if they didn't have the money and time to spend to do it right,
>they should have damn well left it there for somebody who *did* have the time
>and money.
>
>
>--
>Paul Tomblin, PP-ASEL _|_ Rochester Flying Club web page:
> ____/___\____ http://www.servtech.com/public/
> ___________[o0o]___________ ptomblin/rfc.html
>ptom...@xcski.com O O O
Unfortunately, the Warbird restoration biz has no
supermillinaires/billionaires who feel like spending gobs of money to
save part of our history. Bill Gates, are you listening?? Aaron
Spelling?? $100 million for a house?? Give me a fucking break.
Colonel Bruce Barr Confederate Air Force
Alan K. Sumrall
I assume Mr. Greenameyer is one of the type A personalities that we
can either love or hate but rarely something in between. These
personalities can be found in all walks of life...they are the doers of
great deeds and/or the cause of great disasters...but, unlike most of us
they make life interesting. Greenameyer has the guts to do and has done
what most of us can only dream about...he lost the gamble on the Kee
Bird but had he succeeded he would have been a hero.
If it weren't like men like Greenameyer who at least try, we
wouldn't have a warbird heritage today. Most of us do nothing to
support the "industry" due to other priorities and limited resources.
The attempt to capture the Kee-bird was a tribute to free-enterprize and
adventure with the risks with commensurate reward that type-A's love so
much. The loss of Kee-bird, in the broad perspective was no great loss
(it wasn't doning any good where it was), but had it been regained and
brought home then it would have been a gain for all of us.
Was Lindbergh (a comparable type to Greenameyer), a genius, a hero,
or a fool? Maybe a little bit of both. Were Wooster/Davis and
Nuggesser/Coli less the heros because they failed? They are forgotten
today while Lindbergh is the legend. Had Lindbergh fallen asleep or his
single engine failed and he crashed in the Atlantic he would be unknown
today. Had he failed many would have decried his attempt as silly.
To me, like a lot of the Warbird crowd, especially the racers,
Greenameyer is a swashbuckler of sorts...he is what he is. He isn't a
politician but a gambler. Murphy's law got him on Kee-bird because the
attempt wasn't thorough enough (but perhaps he was as thorough as time
and conditions permited)...but who could have even gotten as far as
Greenameyer? He rolled the dice this time and lost (along with others)
but at least they tried, just as those have tried to bring home the
Swamp Ghost but have failed. At least they tryed.
I can't criticize someone for trying and failing...I can only shrug
my shoulder and say, better luck next time. There are still airplanes to
find and recover.
Go get 'em Daryl, if not for yourself, for us. You make life
extremely interesting and put color into many otherwise drab lives.
Al Sumrall
Gord Beaman
>Al Sumrall
<nothing snipped>
I totally agree with you Al, very well said.
--
Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada.
Gary T. Craze
This about exactly summarizes the feelings I have, but had trouble
putting to words. Many thanks Al......
rgds,
Gatt
When I watched the show I remembered the restoration based on an article
I had read during the interim between summers--back when things were
going well. So when I watched the show, I had the notion that they ol'
bird had made it. I remember dropping my cup of coffee at the end of
the show. I had to go for a walk.
The reason I say this is because even when I was under the impression
that the bomber ended up coming home safe, it still seemed like a stupid
idea. Maybe that adds objectivity to my belief.
The aviation history community had such a rare, pristine, precious
opportunity. I have seen the wreckage of a B-17E brought out here to
the Tillamook hangar from Greenland. It can be done. It seems to me
that the plane should have been disassembled and flown or floated to
some nice sunny spot in Florida or Texas or somewhere where the notion
of flying a wreck could have been undertaken with less hazard.
Granted, Greenmeyer is broke. That is tragic, and I felt some of his
loss watching him see his dream sink in the ice. The fact is, though,
one other person is dead and a priceless element of history is gone
forever. Maybe it would have cost more to truck in to a hangar. It's
hard to weigh that cost against somebody who died because he tried too
hard to get the bird running by winterfall. Funding can be found.
Relics and lives cannot be replaced.
I applaud Greenmeyer (and his crew!) for such a momentous endeavor, but
even before I knew the outcome it had all the trappings of Hollywood
movie script. Somehow, though, there had to be less risk, less drama
involved. Greenmeyer has lost his fortune. He's done more with warbirds
than I ever will so I have a hard time sympathizing with that. The
experience alone is irrevokable. Friends and love ones greive a dead,
dedicated enthusiast, and the worldwide aviation community greives the
senseless loss of yet another unique treasure.
Somehow, "at least he tried" doesn't fix any of that.
Chris Gattman
Portland, Oregon
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, "Alan K. Sumrall" <a...@livingston.net> said:
>much. The loss of Kee-bird, in the broad perspective was no great loss
>(it wasn't doning any good where it was), but had it been regained and
Well, there is where I will always disagree with the majority of you. A B-29
sitting on the ice in Greenland is like an archeological site. Far better in
my mind to let it sit until it can be "dug" properly, than to ruin it by
attempting a rush job. The world's supply of B-29s is pretty damn small, and
thanks to this half-assed rush job, it just got smaller by one.
But then I suppose you probably support the people who snuck onto a friend of
mine's farm in the middle of the night, dug up a thousands of year old indian
midden with a bulldozer looking for sellable relics, and destroyed a valuable
archeological site. After all, "it wasn't doning[sic] any good where it was".
Bill Garnett
> >As to leaving the plane standing there for the winter, that's what it
> >did since it landed there in the 1950's without lots of damage.
> >What's one more winter after so many? The engines aren't going to
> >be harmed.
>
Jim Dincau
ptom...@compass.xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>
> Well, there is where I will always disagree with the majority of you. A B-29
> sitting on the ice in Greenland is like an archeological site. Far better in
> my mind to let it sit until it can be "dug" properly, than to ruin it by
> attempting a rush job. The world's supply of B-29s is pretty damn small, and
> thanks to this half-assed rush job, it just got smaller by one.
>
> But then I suppose you probably support the people who snuck onto a friend of
> mine's farm in the middle of the night, dug up a thousands of year old indian
> midden with a bulldozer looking for sellable relics, and destroyed a valuable
> archeological site. After all, "it wasn't doning[sic] any good where it was".
There is absolutely no comparison, the origin, history, purpose and
utility of the B-29 is fully documented in print and film. There is
no 'archeolgy' required merely a little research. To compare it with
attempting to achieve the same insight into the history of a pre
historic people is nonesense.
Don Stuart
Does anyone have any information about the Russian Yak-28 which
crashed in the Havel lake in Berlin in April 1966?
I'm interested mainly in the cause. There were several rumours at the
time and a number of press articles have recently appeared speculating
on various aspects of the incident.
E-mail me if you have any useful info
Rob de Bie
In article <84600616...@donstu.demon.co.uk>,
dst...@donstu.demon.co.uk says...
I have heard that this aircraft took off from Eberswalde-Finow (or Finow
for short). The crew ejected soon after take-off, but the plane flew on
to crash in West-Berlin. That's all I've heard, and I have no documents
to prove it.
Rob
TheWright1
In article <5442ff$1...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
bo...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Lou Haas) writes:
>How much money did they piss away in the process, anybody know?
>
>
not that it is any of your business, but it is at least $500,000. What
the final costs will is totally unknown.
cheers,
tim "I was there" wright
TheWright1
In article <544vun$k...@euas20.eua.ericsson.se>, eua...@eua.ericsson.se
(Anders Pettersson) writes:
>In article <961016223...@146.27.32.170>,
>bew...@mailmaster.chvpkh.chevron.com (Bill Garnett 842-0983 B1156 CHVPKB)
>writes:
>> For all you folks out there who have taken so much delight in berating
>Darryl
>> Greenameyer for risking his life and fortune in an attempt to recover
the
>Kee
>> Bird...
>>
>> I talked with a close friend of his at the Reno air races this year and
>> learned that Darryl has had to: store his unlimited racer project
>unfinished
>> in a warehouse; sell his home; and put his most beloved F9 Tigercat up
for
>> sale to make ends meet. This on top of the loss of a close friend
should be
>
>> enough for any of you.
>>
>> If any of you had a clue you might be dangerous.
>>
>> This is just the kind of thread that makes me drop out of this group
for
>> months at a time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bill Garnett
>> bew...@chevron.com
>> P-51, Cadillac of the sky
>>
>
>Well, that's too bad for him. But he did it with his own will didn't he
??
>It's like the stock market, you put in a lot of money at a calculated
risk
>and you know that there is no way to guarantee that you get the money
back.
>You could win, a lot, but could also loose it all
>. I can't really see why
>a discussion like this would make you wanna drop out of the group. Defend
>the restoration trial instead if you feel so much for it.
.....I have to admit you have a point.
> BTW look at the
>header "Kee bird - what really heppened ?", well that's what we are
trying
>to figure out. And as always when a tragedy like this happens we also try
>to figure out how to avoid it the next time.
......The part I want to address follows
> And the answer in this case
>seems to be to plan the whole damn operation a bit better.
>
>/Anders
....what would you have done different? Would you have thought to use a
ship to get all your gear up there? Would you have stuck through all the
red tape? Would you have thought of all the hundreds of parts we took
along? I mean, what the hell do you want? Perfection? OK, I admit it.
It wasnt perfect. Does that make you feel better? That plane sat out
there for 50 years and no one knew how to get it out of there. And
somebody came up with a plan. Let me remind you, NOBODY had ever done
this before. At least NASA gets to make their moon shots on an
incremental development program. Darryl didn't have that luxuray. Nor
did he have unlimited money NOR did he have an unlimited time frame
(established by the various government bodies) in which to complete the
project. WAKE UP WORLD! You have no idea how much YOU DONT KNOW!
TheWright1
In article <1996101520...@157-5.ppp.algonet.se>, fu...@algonet.se
(Mats Furucrona) writes:
>Was it really realistic to believe that the B29 could be made airworthy
>in just 4 weeks ?
....nope. It wasnt. We spent about 8 weeks on the first trip and two
weeks on the last. If the weather and the Air Force not been such a
problem, it would have worked much quicker. In fact, the 4 weeks might
had been possible.
(as stated in the documentary)
>The impression i got wasn't of a professional recovery attempt, ie
>assembling the propeller hubs on the beach without shelter with just an
>oily rag to protect the hub from the sand.. one flight mech observed
>that sand had entered between one blade and the hub - i didn't see
>anyone taking it apart and cleaning it.
....as a photographer, I don't rate as a wrench. But I do know experts
when I see them and there were quite a few of them on this project. Rick
was a genius as a mechanic and Vern was just as amazing. There were few
weak links on this project.
>When they where closed down by the coming winter they did'nt cover the
>engines and other vital parts to protect them from adverse weather -
>just left the plane standing on the beach..
....I wish to correct you. We did cover the engines as best we could.
Unfortunately, the Arctic has very little trouble dispatching any kind of
fabric material.
>Please correct me if i'm wrong, i would hate to believe that the B29 was
>destroyed because of a less than professional recovery attempt
...if there was a better group of qualified people, I wish you would tell
me who they are. If you check into the histories of the folks involved,
you would see what I mean.
>..also i feel sorry for the family of the aviation mechanic who died in
>complications after surgery for internal bleeding..
>/Mats
... The loss of Rick was the real tragedy here. He was a good man and I
am proud to have known him. I didn't cry when the Kee Bird burned, but
there were a few of us who did when Rick was taken away on the stretcher.
TheWright1
In article <542nbd$h...@news.irisa.fr>, jorg...@irisa.fr (Finn Jorgensen)
writes:
Let me begin by saying: I WAS THERE! I am a photographer and I was on
assignment there for both trips.
>Are you *really* sure about the sand ?
.....yep. Sand. You see, we were so far north, there was no vegetation
and therefore no soil. The area is one big glacier and you should know
what you find along the edges of glaciers.
)
>Please remember, before you critizise, that this was extremely difficult
>in the cold and that they did not dispose of much time, for the same
reason.
>OK, they made an error with that APU that caught fire, but I'd say that
>restoring a plane back into flying condition in such a short time after
>that many years in the middle of nowhere is quite a good job.
.....I agree
>Why didn't all those who, afterwards, say that they did a bad job
>go up there to do the job themselves ? Too tough, I suppose.
....I think you are right. There always lots of folks who could have done
it better. They just didn't try.
TheWright1
In article <548cae$o...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
Charles...@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
>As to why the airplane burned, there are several stories, we may never
>know for sure. People say that the APU which is supposed to be running
>during taxi and takeoff was being fueled by a jerry can of gas, wired
>up with coat hangars and that during the taxi to the runway it tipped
>over onto the APU. Others have said that this isn't true that the can
>had a fuel line, it wasn't just an open can and that the vibration
>yanked the fuel line off.
I covered this already but I will say it again:
The APU fuel tank...I say again...FUEL TANK...was indeed suspended from
the ceiling following the failure of the fuel pump. The APU was supposed
to have been shut down once the engines were started. There is
disagreement among the crewmembers on whether or not the APU was shut
down. I cant recall myself. We figured that the tank broke loose during
the taxiing and gas spilled onto the hot exhaust manifold. Darryl and the
flight engineer agree that the aircraftr would have been airborne if 10
degrees of flap had been selected.
>I'll repeat what a friend of mine stated. He couldn't believe that
>they actually tried to taxi the thing to the runway instead of using
>the bulldozer to pull it there. The tiny amount of ground clearance on
>those huge props is scary.
....I have to agree with this in spirit. I was amazed that Darryl taxiied
as fast as he did over an unprepared surface.
>But they did taxi, the "taxiway" such as it was, was very rough and
>there was a LOT of vibration and a fire broke out in the aft fuselage.
>In retrospect, could they have done it differently? Sure, but then so
>could almost any endeavor. Please don't underestimate the adversity of
>the conditions and location.
....thanks.
TheWright1
In article <DzHu0...@xcski.com>, ptom...@compass.xcski.com (Paul
Tomblin) writes:
>In a previous article, Charles...@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
said:
>>As to leaving the plane standing there for the winter, that's what it
>>did since it landed there in the 1950's without lots of damage. What's
>>one more winter after so many? The engines aren't going to be harmed.
>
>EXACTLY! So if they didn't have the money and time to spend to do it
right,
>they should have damn well left it there for somebody who *did* have the
time
>and money.
Paul,
you know so little of what went on it amazes me that you pontificate the
way you do. Chill out man.
Tim "I was there" Wright
TheWright1
In article <whd8ye3...@norne.metis.no>, Steinar Bang
<ste...@bang.priv.no> writes:
>yes, I caught part of that showing on swedish TV (get it on my
>cable). What I reacted to wasn't their knowledge of the aircraft. It
>was their approach to, and disregard for arctic conditions.
...I think your comment on the regard for arctic conditions is valid.
Having spent a lot of time outdoors on assignments, I was bothered by the
lack of concern for the environment and the risks it can pose.
cheers,
tim wright
TheWright1
In article <326AC5...@livingston.net>, "Alan K. Sumrall"
<a...@livingston.net> writes:
>I assume Mr. Greenameyer is one of the type A personalities that we
>can either love or hate but rarely something in between.
...you are correct.
< These
>personalities can be found in all walks of life...they are the doers of
>great deeds and/or the cause of great disasters...but, unlike most of us
>they make life interesting. Greenameyer has the guts to do and has done
>what most of us can only dream about...he lost the gamble on the Kee
>Bird but had he succeeded he would have been a hero.
.....correct again. I'd love to know how the posting would have changed
if we had succeeded. I can think of one poster who would probably be
singing his praises higher than all others.
> If it weren't like men like Greenameyer who at least try, we
>wouldn't have a warbird heritage today. Most of us do nothing to
>support the "industry" due to other priorities and limited resources.
>The attempt to capture the Kee-bird was a tribute to free-enterprize and
>adventure with the risks with commensurate reward that type-A's love so
>much. The loss of Kee-bird, in the broad perspective was no great loss
>(it wasn't doning any good where it was), but had it been regained and
>brought home then it would have been a gain for all of us.
.....well put.
> Was Lindbergh (a comparable type to Greenameyer), a genius, a hero,
>or a fool? Maybe a little bit of both. Were Wooster/Davis and
>Nuggesser/Coli less the heros because they failed? They are forgotten
>today while Lindbergh is the legend. Had Lindbergh fallen asleep or his
>single engine failed and he crashed in the Atlantic he would be unknown
>today. Had he failed many would have decried his attempt as silly.
> To me, like a lot of the Warbird crowd, especially the racers,
>Greenameyer is a swashbuckler of sorts...he is what he is. He isn't a
>politician but a gambler. Murphy's law got him on Kee-bird because the
>attempt wasn't thorough enough (but perhaps he was as thorough as time
>and conditions permited)...but who could have even gotten as far as
>Greenameyer? He rolled the dice this time and lost (along with others)
>but at least they tried, just as those have tried to bring home the
>Swamp Ghost but have failed. At least they tryed.
> I can't criticize someone for trying and failing...I can only shrug
>my shoulder and say, better luck next time. There are still airplanes to
>find and recover.
> Go get 'em Daryl, if not for yourself, for us. You make life
>extremely interesting and put color into many otherwise drab lives.
>
>Al Sumrall
....way to go, Al.
TheWright1
In article <Dzn39...@xcski.com>, ptom...@compass.xcski.com (Paul
Tomblin) writes:
>Well, there is where I will always disagree with the majority of you. A
B-29
>sitting on the ice in Greenland is like an archeological site. Far
better in
>my mind to let it sit until it can be "dug" properly, than to ruin it by
>attempting a rush job. The world's supply of B-29s is pretty damn small,
and
>thanks to this half-assed rush job, it just got smaller by one.
>
>
First of all, it wasnt' the "rush job" as you suggest. This project went
on for YEARS. The time spent in Greenland is only a small part in
comparison to the time spent on organizing and preparing. And I take
offense at your "half-assed" comment. Do have any idea (of course not)
how much effort it takes to get a bulldozer, a helicopter and 10,000
gallons of gasoline to Thule? You have no idea of the logistical
considerations in this project or the amount of paperwork hassle to get as
far as Darryl did.
OK. so it didnt' work. must make you feel real good to sit there and say
"I told you so." And if Darryl had brought it back, I bet you'd been one
of the ones singing his praises the loudest. And just one other thing,
before you go accusing me of protecting Darryl because he is my
friend...let me let you in on one little secret: Darryl and I don't like
each other and we arent friends. I respect him for much of what he has
done and I condemn him for other things he has done. And that includes
the Kee Bird.
so be it. so what have you accomplished? Anything?
TheWright1
In article <961021193...@146.27.32.170>,
bew...@mailmaster.chvpkh.chevron.com (Bill Garnett) writes:
>> >As to leaving the plane standing there for the winter, that's what it
>> >did since it landed there in the 1950's without lots of damage.
>> >What's one more winter after so many? The engines aren't going to
>> >be harmed.
>>
>Really!? Then why did they change them out at the outset of this
expedition?
>
>
>
Darryl gave consideration to using the original engines. Part of the
reason not to use them was the fact that all of them had suffered prop
strikes. Plus, given the time frames we had to work with, it was decided
that it would be faster and safer to use engines that had been tested in
controlled conditions and were proven to have no additional damage.
You might be interested to know that during the survey trip in 1993, the
Number one engine was successfully started. It ran horribly, and with
bent props, but it did run. That was one factor in the decision to try
and fly it.
cheers,
tim wright
TheWright1
In article <1996101719...@125-2.ppp.algonet.se>, fu...@algonet.se
(Mats Furucrona) writes:
> BTW
>i didn't quit get what happened with the APU when they tried to take
>off, the narrator said that it came loose as the plane hit some large
>snow ridges while taxiing to the makeshift runway causing the fire in
>the tail section, when the pilot discovered it it was too late..
....first of all, the APU fuel pump failed several days prior to the fire.
To test the engines, the APU had to be working to generate the current to
start the motors. When the pump failed, the tank was suspended from the
ceiling to provide gravity flow. It was never meant to stay in place for
the eventual flight.
....second. the APU was supposed to be shut down once the engines were
started. The guy responsible for that SWEARS he shut it down and others
SWEAR they heard it running as it taxiied out.
...third. Nobody knew Darryl would be taxiing as fast as he did. If
anybody had known what Darryl was planning ( I doubt Darryl knew it
himself) the tank would have been secured. My tentmate on that trip was
one of the lead mechanics and he was almost ill over it. He told me that
he had been meaning to secure the thing for days but other items were
higher on the priority at the time. In other words, there were plans to
correct that situation but it feel through the cracks.
>They also stated that the B29 didn't have nosewheel steering and would
>have to be kept in a straight run by throttle control and side rudder..
>i find it hard to believe that the B29 was designed that way or had the
>nosewheel steering failed ?
....there was no nosewheel steering designed for the aircraft.
> If one of the main wheels had got stuck in a
>snowdrift or a hole it must have been very difficult to control the
>aircraft..
...This part of Greenland gets very little snow. Believe it or not, it is
as dry as the desert. And the winds are very strong there. In many
places, the lake surface was bare ice due to the wind but there were no
"holes". And there wasnt much there in terms of drifts with a foot deep
being the maximum. When I walked the lake several days prior to the
flight, the average depth was 4-5". But you do have a point. Darryl
should have been much more carefull in his taxiing. In my opinion, he
went way too fast.
Very few airplane crashes are laid to one single error. This is no
exception. A string of events combined in just the right order to create
a disaster. As Darryl later said, "how can you think of everything?" I
dont know the answer to that. But I will tell you this: I was impressed
with just how much he did think of.
cheers,
tim "I was there" Wright
TheWright1
In article <542sdg$9...@euas20.eua.ericsson.se>, eua...@eua.ericsson.se
(Anders Pettersson) writes:
>
>In article <542nbd$h...@news.irisa.fr>, jorg...@irisa.fr (Finn Jorgensen)
>writes:
>> Are you *really* sure about the sand ?
>>
>> I mean, Greeland is more like ice and snow. This is not Hawaii...:-)
>
>
>Yes, definately sand. They used a mud strip to fly in
.....sorry guys, it was sand. very loose sand at times.
>personnel andequipment. I mean, you really saw at was a mud strip, the
Karaboos (sp?)
>(the plane they used for supply flights) landing gear sometimes was
buried in
>mud/sand/dirt.
....yep. The gear had a nasty tendancy to dig into the loose sand
especially when the aircraft was being turned around. The worst occassion
was when the bulldozer was flown in. It vastly overloaded the Caribou and
the flaps jamed in the up positon. When that was discovered, Darryl didnt
have enough fuel to go back to Thule so he had to land at the crash site
doing 90 knots instead of 60. The rest you know.
>> Please remember, before you critizise, that this was extremely
difficult
>> in the cold and that they did not dispose of much time, for the same
>reason.
>> OK, they made an error with that APU that caught fire, but I'd say that
>> restoring a plane back into flying condition in such a short time after
>> that many years in the middle of nowhere is quite a good job.
........thank you. I agree
>
>
>OK, I didn't mean to critize the job done. But rather the time schedule.
>It didn't feel right that after the plane had been sitting there for
>50 years they had to rush things through to get the job finished on time.
>In my opinion the plane could very well had been left during the winter
>(which also happened eventually) and continue work the next year.
>They could for example have done all job except mounting new engines and
>propellors, left it well covered during the winter and then returned
>the next year to complete the job.
.....the big job was chaning the new engines. The rest was peanuts. Once
the engines were done, the job was 75% done.
>As it finally turned out they returned next year and was once AGAIN
>forced to work under time pressure because they decided to use the
>lake as a runway, a lake which soon would begin to melt.
....look, forget this time pressure stuff. The plane was ready. Yes,
some corners were cut. But a lack of time was not really the factor.
Remember, the original plan was to finish the job the first summer. When
it became apparent that would not happen, everyone accepted that the job
would be finished the next spring. AND IT WAS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT
THE WORK WAS 95% DONE AT THE END OF THE FIRST TRIP. The second trip
didn't have that much to be done.
>
>> Why didn't all those who, afterwards, say that they did a bad job
>> go up there to do the job themselves ? Too tough, I suppose.
....you got that right.
>Well, as always, It's easy to critizise afterwards and although moaning
>about the thing I still think that it was amazing to do all that job in
>those conditions in such a short time. And one thing to remember as you
>point out, it's been laying there for 50 years and nobody seemed
interested
>to deal with it until these guys came along.
...so very true.
>But it is just so damn typical, things like these happens when you are
>in a hurry. And they wouldn't have been in such a hurry if the project
>had been just a little bit more realistically planned.
...so tell me, what would you have planned differently? Considering the
logistics involved, I think it was organized pretty damn well.
>Planning to get all the job done within a month is a tough time scedule
>to start with, when you then encounter serious delays early in the
project
>you GOT TO reconsider things. By not doing this, they qualified for being
>'not so serious'.
.....bullshit. I never met a group of more serious folks.
The same thing might still have happened in the end but
>then they at least would have given it their best shot, not the second
best.
.....this comment shows how little you know.
>And of course, if they would have managed they had been celebrated as
heroes,
>rich heroes, since they knew that a piece of flying B-29 could be sold at
a
>very high price. That was what it was all about, an investment in a high
risk
>project which didn't pay off as expected, right ? Let's hope that they
could
>find another interesting project, a project that will have a successful
>ending.
>Because we all want to have more of these old machines flying.
.....boy. You got that last sentance right.
cheers,
tim wright
TheWright1
In article <961016223...@146.27.32.170>,
bew...@mailmaster.chvpkh.chevron.com (Bill Garnett 842-0983 B1156 CHVPKB)
writes:
>If any of you had a clue you might be dangerous.
>
>This is just the kind of thread that makes me drop out of this group for
>months at a time.
funny, same thing happened to me.
cheers,
tim "I was there" wright
Charles K. Scott
> >As to leaving the plane standing there for the winter, that's what it
> >did since it landed there in the 1950's without lots of damage.
> >What's one more winter after so many? The engines aren't going to
> >be harmed.
In article <961021193...@146.27.32.170>
bew...@mailmaster.chvpkh.chevron.com (Bill Garnett) writes:
> Really!? Then why did they change them out at the outset of this expedition?
Just a guess but probably because it had been out there for forty years
or so. One winter is one thing, forty winters entirely another.
Corky Scott
AND...@vm.sc.edu
In article <54p1lc$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
thewr...@aol.com (TheWright1) writes:
>In article <548cae$o...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
>Charles...@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
>
>>I'll repeat what a friend of mine stated. He couldn't believe that
>>they actually tried to taxi the thing to the runway instead of using
>>the bulldozer to pull it there. The tiny amount of ground clearance on
>>those huge props is scary.
>....I have to agree with this in spirit. I was amazed that Darryl taxiied
>as fast as he did over an unprepared surface.
and if you've ever operated a narrow track dozer you will have experienced
how fast they will dig into soft soil (snow or sand... ever try riding a bike
in the sand???). If they would have used the dozer to break it loose from
the frozen ground, it would have probably spun itself down and then they would
have ended up with a stuck plane with a stuck dozer in front of it... I've done
it and to "unstuck" a stuck dozer, you need alot of shovels or another piece
of equipment heavy enough to pull it out and one with enough traction so it
won't spin down.
I applaud the efforts of Darryl and the rest of the crew on the attempt to
rescue the KeeBird... everyone can be a Monday Morning Quarterback... it takes
a real man to go out and attempt to do what he/they did.
Lee
lee.aa...@sc.edu
Mats Furucrona
TheWright1 <thewr...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Very few airplane crashes are laid to one single error. This is no
> exception. A string of events combined in just the right order to create
> a disaster. As Darryl later said, "how can you think of everything?" I
> dont know the answer to that. But I will tell you this: I was impressed
> with just how much he did think of.
>
> cheers,
> tim "I was there" Wright
Thanks for setting things straight for me, i realize now that the
documentary gave a false picture of the recovery attempt...this is what
i wanted from my original post, the story from someone involved in the
project../Mats
TheWright1
I guess you missed some of the earlier posts. I was there when all of
this happened so let me respond point by point.
>>>I'll repeat what a friend of mine stated. He couldn't believe that
>>>they actually tried to taxi the thing to the runway instead of using
>>>the bulldozer to pull it there. The tiny amount of ground clearance on
>>>those huge props is scary.
>....I have to agree with this in spirit. I was amazed that Darryl
taxiied
>as fast as he did over an unprepared surface.
>But you need to know that the bulldozer they used very narrow tracks on
it
>and if you've ever operated a narrow track dozer you will have
experienced
>how fast they will dig into soft soil (snow or sand... ever try riding a
bike
>in the sand???).
....first, the dozer had no problems with the snow. It loved it. You
have to understand that the snow amounts there are minimal. This part of
Greenland is as dry as a desert. The only drifts that I saw of any
consequence were directly underneath the airplane where it sat all winter.
Out on the lake, the snow was actually blown clear off the ice in places.
And the ice on the lake had to be at least 6'feet thick. I remember
standing on a spot swept clean of snow by the wind and studying cracks in
the ice that far down. It was so spooky looking down that I weirded out
and later refused to walk across the bare spots as I felt I was going to
fall through....(even though I knew I wouldn't, it still unhinged me a
bit).
So in brief, there was NO DANGER of the dozer bogging down in lake
snow. In fact, it never bogged down anywhere in the snow. That stuff was
so hard you could tunnel through it.....I know because that's how I found
a lot of the gear during the second trip. While Darryl was getting the
dozer running, I was digging like a mole finding all the stuff buried
under the wing AND under five feet of very hard snow. The lake had an
average of 4" of snow on it with minor drifts up to a foot or so. No
more.
Even then, you could stand on a drift and not sink into it.
> If they would have used the dozer to break it loose from
>the frozen ground, it would have probably spun itself down and then they
>would have ended up with a stuck plane with a stuck dozer in front of
it...
.....but that didnt happen. the snow wasnt that deep and the ground under
it was as hard as concrete. This was a NONE issue. The Kee Bird had no
trouble at all taxiing under its own power once the wheels broke free of
the parking spot. I might add that it took takeoff power to break that
grip.
>I applaud the efforts of Darryl and the rest of the crew on the attempt
to
>rescue the KeeBird... everyone can be a Monday Morning Quarterback... it
>takes a real man to go out and attempt to do what he/they did.
....I agree. I was there and I certainly felt out of my league.
cheers,
tim "I was there" wright
.
Kim Christensen
thewr...@aol.com (TheWright1) wrote:
>In article <542sdg$9...@euas20.eua.ericsson.se>, eua...@eua.ericsson.se
>(Anders Pettersson) writes:
>
>>
>>In article <542nbd$h...@news.irisa.fr>, jorg...@irisa.fr (Finn Jorgensen)
>>writes:
>>> Are you *really* sure about the sand ?
>>>
>>> I mean, Greeland is more like ice and snow. This is not Hawaii...:-)
>>
>>
>>Yes, definately sand. They used a mud strip to fly in
>.....sorry guys, it was sand. very loose sand at times.
>
> >personnel andequipment. I mean, you really saw at was a mud strip, the
>Karaboos (sp?)
>>(the plane they used for supply flights) landing gear sometimes was
>buried in
>>mud/sand/dirt.
>....yep. The gear had a nasty tendancy to dig into the loose sand
>especially when the aircraft was being turned around. The worst occassion
>was when the bulldozer was flown in. It vastly overloaded the Caribou and
>the flaps jamed in the up positon. When that was discovered, Darryl didnt
>have enough fuel to go back to Thule so he had to land at the crash site
>doing 90 knots instead of 60. The rest you know.
Whoa, whoa, Tim. Don't discredit Roger. AFAIK _he_ made that spectacular
no-flapper.
Roger did his best to make the Caribou flights reasonably safe, while Darryl
would load it up with everything he could close the doors on, regardless of
weight: "Negative single engine service ceiling? Who cares. It's got two
engines, doesn't it?"
Cheers,
Kim "I was there (briefly) too" Christensen
Kim Christensen
fu...@algonet.se (Mats Furucrona) wrote:
>Thanks for setting things straight for me, i realize now that the
>documentary gave a false picture of the recovery attempt...this is what
>i wanted from my original post, the story from someone involved in the
>project../Mats
IMHO the NOVA documentary was excellent.
It is an extremely difficult task to tell the _complete_ story of the project,
in just 50 minutes of clean good-natured family entertainment, yet they
succeeded quite well.
Seeing the film crew in action, gave me a much greater respect and
appreciation of the hard work of documentary film making.
--
Kim Christensen
thewr...@aol.com (TheWright1) wrote:
>In article <1996101520...@157-5.ppp.algonet.se>, fu...@algonet.se
>(Mats Furucrona) writes:
>
>>Was it really realistic to believe that the B29 could be made airworthy
>>in just 4 weeks ?
>
>....nope. It wasnt. We spent about 8 weeks on the first trip and two
>weeks on the last. If the weather and the Air Force not been such a
>problem, it would have worked much quicker. In fact, the 4 weeks might
>had been possible.
Right on.
I would only give Darryl 50% of the blame; for underestimating the arctic
climate, and not spending just a little more on equipment.
The other 50% of the blame goes to the Air Force et al. at Thule for doing
everything short of physical sabotage, to foil the project.
Unlike the folks in this newsgroup, all but a handful in Thule had no interest
at all in old airplanes, and didn't understand how anybody else could have such
a passion. They actually thought the Keebird was just a get-rich-quick scheme
for middle aged playboys, and that every single participant would make a
fortune, if they succeeded. The prevailing attitude at Thule was: "What other
motivation but money could there possibly be? It just can't be that interesting
to see an old airplane, a propeller plane even, restored to flying condition.
Who cares about old 'junk' airplanes."
While the recovery crew (and the film crew) were roughing it in tents at the
Keebird site, a lot of armchair-flying took place in the bars of Thule, by
people who had no clue whatsoever about airplanes and aviation.
Some, including the military officers whose cooperation the project depended
upon, actually *hated* Darryl with a passion and wanted to see him fail, doing
everything they could to make it difficult for him.
It made me sick to watch them gloat, every time Darryl was struck with bad luck.
Despite the joviality portrayed in the film, a lot of backstabbing took place
behind the cameras, between the the Keebird crew and the brass at Thule.
If the Air Force hadn't hated airplane enthusiasts in general, and Darryl in
particular, the problems would have been fewer.
__
Kim "I was there too" Christensen
TheWright1
In article <3271603e...@news.airmail.net>, av...@airmail.net (Kim
Christensen) writes:
>>....yep. The gear had a nasty tendancy to dig into the loose sand
>>especially when the aircraft was being turned around. The worst
occassion
>>was when the bulldozer was flown in. It vastly overloaded the Caribou
and
>>the flaps jamed in the up positon. When that was discovered, Darryl
didnt
>>have enough fuel to go back to Thule so he had to land at the crash site
>>doing 90 knots instead of 60. The rest you know.
>
>Whoa, whoa, Tim. Don't discredit Roger. AFAIK _he_ made that spectacular
>no-flapper.
Kim, I have FAR TOO MUCH respect for Roger's abilities to belittle him and
my posting was not meant to cast any negative light on him. I refer to
Darryl only because so few people even know that Roger was the one flying
PIC in the Caribou. Can you imagine the confusion that could get started?
For those of you who dont know, Roger Von Grote, relative of the famed
German ace Baron Von Richtoven (pardon my horrible misspelling), former
Air Force test pilot and former airline pilot, was the man in charge of
flying the Caribou. And he did a hell of a job. I can not say enough
nice things about Roger. He was a voice of reason in more than one
situation. He was also the first person who stood up and said, in so many
words, "enough is enough it is time to go home while we still can." And
he wasn't along on the last trip because the Caribou was left in Thule.
There is so much that happened that did not make it into the show or any
of the stories that has appeared. Roger, Vern, Cecilio, are truely unsong
heros. As is the poster to whom I am currently responding. Let me
explain this one.....
On one flight from Thule back to the Kee Bird, we lost a cylinder in the
Caribou just past the point of no return( lucky me I was aboard along with
20 55gallon barrels of gasoline). To make a long story very, very, short,
Kim (the poster to whom I responding) and his buddy Neils, flew a Cessna
172 from Thule to the Kee Bird to bring us a spare cyclinder to repair the
Caribou so we could all go home. The flight they made was nothing short
of miraculous in its own right. What they did, in my opinion, was just as
ballsy as anything that we did.
Kim and Neils took off not knowing that we were zero-zero at the crash
site. The clouds covered all the hills around us and the radios could not
make contact with Thule to tell them to head back. For hours Darryl tried
to reach Thule without success. Long about midnight, we gave up and just
prayed that they turned around on thier own. I remember sitting on the
ramp of the Caribou with Vern about 1am when we heard the sound of the
Cessna long before we saw its landing light. By the grace of God, the
cloud deck had lifted just a half hour before and closed in again about a
half hour after Kim and Neils landed. They didnt have enough gas to go
ANYWHERE if they hadn't found us. We used a GPS to navigate back and
forth to Thule. When Kim and Neils took off, their GPS went bellyup as
soon as they passed through 90knots airspeed (am I correct, Kim?). But
they navigated almost 300 hundred miles by pilotage and dead reckoning in
a part of the world where a compass is useless. If they had gone down,
they might not have been found in time...even if they survived a forced
landing.
So, I take my hat off to Kim and Neils and I publicly thank them again for
the hot coffee and food they brought. I cant tell you how excited we got
when we heard them coming and watched them land....only to freeze in
horror when it appeared they were headed for a ditch and a prop strike and
a collapsed gear. Luckily, they stopped just feet short of the ditch.
Lots of excitement for everyone. The thought of THREE broken aircraft up
there was just too much to consider.
With the Kee Bird, the Caribou and the Cessna, our little dirt strip had
more aircraft than the 10,000 foot runway at Thule. Which is another way
of saying that Thule is no longer a very busy place. Right, Kim?
>Roger did his best to make the Caribou flights reasonably safe, while
Darryl
>would load it up with everything he could close the doors on, regardless
of
>weight: "Negative single engine service ceiling? Who cares. It's got two
>engines, doesn't it?"
.... your memory is correct. Although the quote is unfamiliar. I can,
however, hear Darryl saying that in my mind's eye with that devilish
little grin of his.
Kim, I invite you to relate your recollections for all of us.
cheers,
tim
DenverD
In message <32736f0a...@news.airmail.net> - av...@airmail.net
(Kim Christensen)Sat, 26 Oct 1996 03:16:10 GMT writes:
>
---words by thewr...@aol.com (TheWright1) and fu...@algonet.se (Mats
Furucrona) snipped for bandwidth---
Hello Kim and interested readers,
I was there also....and I have a few thoughts on Kim's
characterization of the Air Force, and its attitude at Thule.
But, before beginning let me say that nothing here should be
considered as a "slam" on Kim, or anyone else in particular.......it
is just that different folks have different view on the same events.
My views are:
>
>I would only give Darryl 50% of the blame; for underestimating the arctic
>climate, and not spending just a little more on equipment.
The arctic climate does not need to be estimated. Factual data is
available freely and easily.
Anytime mission success or failure depends on the weather it is
(imho) best to plan for the worst possible conditions....and be happy
if they do not occur.
In this case, the conditions could have been 100 knots plus, for
three or four days straight....at a temp around +/-5 c..... with
visibility around three feet, or less, in blowing snow..........in
July. I really don't know if the crew was prepared physically, or
mentally, for that....
>
>The other 50% of the blame goes to the Air Force et al. at Thule for doing
>everything short of physical sabotage, to foil the project.
I doubt if anyone really WANTED the effort to fail....however, as a
taxpayer, I believe that it would have been inappropriate (and maybe
illegal) for folks on the government payroll to spend public money
(directly, or indirectly through serving/helping) a private
organization....
On the other hand, wouldn't it have been nice if the AF Museum (or
National Air and Space Museum) have decided that the use of public
funds WAS appropriate and funded the entire effort......and put the
ship somewhere safe for all...
>Unlike the folks in this newsgroup, all but a handful in Thule had no interest
>at all in old airplanes, and didn't understand how anybody else could have such
>a passion.
Well, do you happen to remember just how many aviator wings you saw
on the chest of those AF folks? When I first got to Thule (Jun 88)
there were TWO aviators (myself and the Airfield Ops guy)....EVERYONE
else were either Space Ops or some sort of supporting fuction
(security, transport, log, comm, etc, etc, etc)....if I'm not
mistaken, there was only ONE flyer (in uniform) there during the Kee
bird attempt...
Without stepping on the toes of all those VERY important guys and
gals in the support business let me say that SOME of them really
wanted to be aviators....and tried like the dickens to BE
aviators....and for one reason or another wound up being a
NON-aviator in a FLYING service...............and SOME of those folks
lost all interest in aviation, and (as you said very well) "had no
interest
at all in old airplanes, and didn't understand how anybody else could
have such
a passion."
Others not only lose interest, they become bitter about the whole
thing and spend the rest of their lives hating themselves for failing
to become aviators.....and openly (or covertly) hating the folks that
DID become what they could not...
The point here is, __IF__ the Kee bird rescue attempt needed AF
support it should have been from THE AF (THE one which lives in the
puzzle palace)....that is where a lot of the really successful,
influential and public-money-controling aviators hang out....(p.s.
you can spot them easily: they have wings on their chest and stars on
their shoulders)...
Showing up at Thule (with its less than one hundred AF folks...who
did NOT want to be there....and who already had more than a full time
job) and expecting anymore than what was served up.....well,
hmmmmmm.....maybe that sheds a different light on your view...
> They actually thought the Keebird was just a get-rich-quick scheme
>for middle aged playboys, and that every single participant would make a
>fortune, if they succeeded.
I absolutely agree that at least 90 percent of the Thule population
(military and civilian) felt that way.....except, I don't believe
many thought it would be quick, or easy, or successful...
That is NOT to say they wanted a failure.....I knew many who really
wanted to see that old bird land at Thule....they just were afraid it
wouldn't happen...my biggest (personal) fear was that I'd be standing
out there in the cold watching that graceful bird ALMOST make it
in......and have to then watch it burn...
> The prevailing attitude at Thule was: "What other
>motivation but money could there possibly be? It just can't be that interesting
>to see an old airplane, a propeller plane even, restored to flying condition.
>Who cares about old 'junk' airplanes."
Again, I have to this to Thule's lack of aviators...
>While the recovery crew (and the film crew) were roughing it in tents at the
>Keebird site, a lot of armchair-flying took place in the bars of Thule, by
>people who had no clue whatsoever about airplanes and aviation.
Again....non-aviators typically have no clue about airplanes....so?
>
>Some, including the military officers whose cooperation the project depended
>upon,
WHY did the project depend on the military officers at Thule?
In what way was their cooperation/service required?
Thule had no more than a dozen officers who could have had influence
to either help or hurt the project. (Yes, there were a few other
officers there...but they were Space Ops crews....BMEWS scope
watchers....they could neither hurt nor help the Kee Birds
project.....unless cheering or booing counts....)
What cooperation was required (that had been approved and funded by
the folks with the authority and responsibility to do that....NONE of
whom existed at Thule) that was not received?
Hmmmmm, I guess the folks out there with no idea about the Thule
manning are wondering how Thule gets by on so few folks. Simple, it
is a contractor operated base....Thule has about 700 contractors who
perform all the support functions, and less than 100 military who
perform the mission, provide security and observe/monitor the
contractors...
> actually *hated* Darryl with a passion and wanted to see him fail, doing
>everything they could to make it difficult for him.
>It made me sick to watch them gloat, every time Darryl was struck with bad luck.
I can't comment on this....I didn't stand in your shoes....and I
don't know but what you say is true.....
However, it is typically human nature to "gloat" as you say, or think
to yourself, 'I told you so....but you wouldn't listen'...
Some of the "struck with bad luck" was not really luck, just
unplanned for contingencies that would have
>Despite the joviality portrayed in the film, a lot of backstabbing took place
>behind the cameras, between the the Keebird crew and the brass at Thule.
I was not part of the brass at that time, so I don't know of which
you speak....
Do you consider it backstabbing if no support is given....when none
has been authorized?
Do you know that you could have had ALL the support in the
world....if you had just gone about getting it, the right way.....ALL
you had to do was pull out a check book.....there were around 600
contractors there who had around 12 free each day......of course,
they would have had to break the law (and risk criminal charges for
misappropriation/unauthorized use of public EQUIPMENT) if they helped
you by using AF equipment/supplies....
>
>If the Air Force hadn't hated airplane enthusiasts in general, and Darryl in
>particular, the problems would have been fewer.
Hmmmmm.....Let us first distinguish between "the Air Force" and
__individuals__ in AF uniforms with official AF duties and
responsibilites which took plenty of their time to perform....a LONG
way from home, family, etc.....
Then, lets wonder how the Keebird crew and Darryl might have gone
about alienating the folks there.....Did they show up at Thule with
the full backing of the US Government?
Did HQ AF supplement the manning at Thule to give it the capability
to provide you the logistical and support liaison you needed?
I recall you had difficulity with an aircraft radio....did the
Keebirds avionics technician fix it? Hmmmmmm, you say you didn't
have one of those with you ...hmmmm, no problem right.....just get
one of those blue suiters to fix it ...hmmmm, there are NO avionic
technicians in uniform at Thule...hmmmm, no problem, ...just have one
of those civilian technicians fix it during unpaid overtime.....WHOA
dude: First, very few of those Thule contractors are there because it
is a well secreted vacation spot.....Second, even the ones who are
there through love of country (didn't meet him/her) want to get paid
for overtime...Third, they can't fix what they don't have parts/tech
data for (unless they are lucky)....and finally, and previously
mentioned, they cannot use government purchased supplies/equipment
without approval from the appropriate government official.....and, as
far as I know, that approval authority did not exist at Thule....
Or, maybe I'm all wet.....did the Keebird project have a Support
Agreement with DoD, HQ AF, HQ Space Command, or the Space Wing? If
so, did it include onsite repair of aircraft radios.....
>
>__
>Kim "I was there too" Christensen
I also was there, and I saw it a little differently.....
Regards,
DenverD Robinson > Texan living in Denmark | A WarpSpeeder |
Hm: Den...@IBM.Net Ofc: Word...@IBM.Net | & |
Didn't proofread...I am NOT at work, yet!! | Team OS/2er |
Kim Christensen
thewr...@aol.com (TheWright1) wrote:
>... They didnt have enough gas to go
>ANYWHERE if they hadn't found us...
Sure we did. We may be ballsy, but not stupid. We made absolutely sure that
there was enough fuel to fly up there, look around for a while, and still fly
all the way back if the weather turned ugly, or if we didn't find anything.
> We used a GPS to navigate back and
>forth to Thule. When Kim and Neils took off, their GPS went bellyup as
>soon as they passed through 90knots airspeed (am I correct, Kim?). But
Yup. Lesson learned: Never use a sailor's GPS for flying.
>they navigated almost 300 hundred miles by pilotage and dead reckoning in
>a part of the world where a compass is useless. If they had gone down,
Pilotage isn't all that difficult with 30+ miles visibility and a coastline
within sight. And the sun and a watch is the best "compass" in the arctic,
in the summer.
>they might not have been found in time...even if they survived a forced
>landing.
That's why most of the payload was (and always was, and still is)
survival equipment, tools and food etc.
- That's one of the lessons Darryl apparently had never learned.
Did he sleep through survival training in the AF?
Again: we're not stupid, or deathdefying daredevils.
They fly single engines in Alaska all the time, with few problems.
"Always leave yourself an out."
--
Charles K. Scott
In article <1996101719...@125-2.ppp.algonet.se>
fu...@algonet.se (Mats Furucrona) writes:
> They also stated that the B29 didn't have nosewheel steering and would
> have to be kept in a straight run by throttle control and side rudder..
> i find it hard to believe that the B29 was designed that way or had the
> nosewheel steering failed ? If one of the main wheels had got stuck in a
> snowdrift or a hole it must have been very difficult to control the
> aircraft..
It is hard to believe but it really didn't have nosewheel steering, or
at least the early models did not. Some of the later ones might have.
I recall reading a memoire from a guy stationed in China (early B-29)
and he was very specific about lining up on the left side of the runway
and aiming for an imaginary point on the right side about a quarter of
the way down the runway. They'd run the engines up to full power,
release the brakes and then hope like crazy that they didn't have to
touch the brakes again during the takeoff roll to direct the airplane
because any touch of the brakes lost them speed and the temperature and
humidity were such that even a slight touch of the brakes might mean
the difference between takeoff and a fireball at the end of the runway.
The reason they aimed at the right side of the runway was because the
torque of the engines pulled them left after a while. By the time the
bomber had veered left and was nearing the left side of the runway, it
was hoped there was enough wind over the rudder so that it could be
used to swing them back to the center of the runway.
Fun huh?
Corky Scott
Gord Beaman
>>> Please remember, before you critizise, that this was extremely difficult
>>> in the cold and that they did not dispose of much time, for the same reason.
>>> OK, they made an error with that APU that caught fire, but I'd say that
>>> restoring a plane back into flying condition in such a short time after
>>> that many years in the middle of nowhere is quite a good job.
Just wanted to get my comments in here...I've had quite a
lot of experience in working/flying in the Arctic and I have
nothing but head shaking admiration for Daryll's group and
what they almost pulled off...that was one humungous almost
unbelieveable task...the Arctic is an incredibly hostile,
physically uncomfortable place to try to do anything
technical and changing four R3350 engines on a frozen lake
in the open with the Arctic wind howling up your nether
regions is a job I'd much rather contemplate than do...to
say the least. Those puppies weigh around 4000 pounds
each...incredible job, admirable, not to be critized IMO,
sad that it didn't succeed but still a very brave
undertaking.
Some people think Daryll did it for money but I doubt that
very much, again IMO money isn't valuable enough to put
yourself through the torture necessary to carry this off. Or
to even try.
I sympathize with the family and friends of the tech.
foreman who died in the attempt, it would seem that he gave
more of himself than was wise - the mark of true dedication
to the cause I'd say. He must have thought it was really
worthwhile. I think so too.
You know, it's sad that Kee Bird is dead but I think that as
humans we need an occasional big failure to measure our
successes against, without failures our successes become
meaningless don't they?. I think most of us who have
followed this rescue attempt will probably remember Kee Bird
more than if she were actually flying (albeit in a sad kind
of way)...RIP Kee Bird....
--
Gord Beaman
PEI, Canada.
Brian Jones
In article <32736f0a...@news.airmail.net>, av...@airmail.net (Kim
Christensen) wrote:
> I would only give Darryl 50% of the blame; for underestimating the arctic
> climate, and not spending just a little more on equipment.
>
> The other 50% of the blame goes to the Air Force et al. at Thule for doing
> everything short of physical sabotage, to foil the project.
That throws an interesting light on this subject. I've seen theTV
documentaries and followed the correspondence here but this aspect is new
to me. Lesson for next time?
--
Email jo...@vi.rl.ac.uk (Brian Jones)
Bill Mays]
I have seen the documentary twice now.
It is still sickening to see the B-29 burn.
However, being a hardware type, my main thoughts were
that that was a completely irreplacable loss.
Still, it is good it happened on the ground and everyone
got out.
Bill Mays Cinnaminson, NJ USA 08077
e-mail: may...@mosquito.com