Which bomber had a greater wingspan: The Boeing B-29 Superfortress or the Beardmore Inflexible?

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 01/30/2020 at 12:35 • Filed to: wingspan, planes you've (probably) never heard of, Planelopnik

7

20

If you picked the Beardmore Inflexible, you would be right. And not by just a little bit. The wingspan of the super-high-tech Superfortress measures 141 feet 3 inches, while the inflexible Inflexible beat that mark by more than 16 feet, stretching out to 157 feet 3 inches. That’s even slightly greater than a Boeing 767-300.

The Inflexible was an experimental bomber that took its maiden flight on March 5, 1928 and got its name from its !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! construction, which Beardmore, a Scottish company known more for building ships, licensed from the German airplane builder Rohrbach. Fully loaded, the Inflexible weighed in at a whopping 37,000 pounds, which turned out to be no match for its three !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! V-12 engines.

Not only were the Inflexible’s wings longer than the B-29, its wheels were also bigger. Much bigger. In fact, all that remains of the Inflexible is one of its giant wheels, which resides in the Science Museum in London. Underpowered and oversized, just one Inflexible was ever built, and it was scrapped in 1930.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

For more stories about aviation, aviation history, and aviators, visit !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . For more aircraft oddities, visit !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Demon-Xanth knows how to operate a street. > ttyymmnn 01/30/2020 at 12:45

5

Those handling characteristics looked...not great.

ttyymmnn > Demon-Xanth knows how to operate a street. 01/30/2020 at 12:47

0

I imagine it was a bitch in a crosswind. Still, handling characteristics were said to be pretty good. It’s built like a glider. 

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > ttyymmnn 01/30/2020 at 13:18

1

Crazy how not even twenty years later we got a plane with double the wingspan and ten times the tonnage airborne.

ttyymmnn > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 01/30/2020 at 13:41

2

airborne

Barely.... And the mighty Merlin was just 5 years off. My favorite example of the speed of aircraft development is about the X-1. When the X-1 broke the sound barrier, Orville Wright was still alive. From first flight to supersonic in one man’s lifetime. 

WilliamsSW > ttyymmnn 01/30/2020 at 14:17

0

Big wings probably need a big rudder, I would think. 

BaconSandwich is tasty. > ttyymmnn 01/30/2020 at 14:22

3

I'd be curious to know what they were hoping to accomplish with it. When I see wings like that, I think high altitude.

ttyymmnn > WilliamsSW 01/30/2020 at 14:26

1

I’m no aerodynamicist, but this isn’t exactly a small vertical stabilizer. Looks like they tried to augment it, too.

ttyymmnn > BaconSandwich is tasty. 01/30/2020 at 14:28

3

I’m not sure they really knew what they were doing. I’m not convinced they saw long thin wings as an altitude thing the way we understand it now. What they were looking for, I think, was something that could carry a heavy load, which this couldn’t. As one author wrote about the Inflexible, “Well, at least it can fly.”

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > ttyymmnn 01/30/2020 at 14:29

1

We’re now as far from Yuri Gagarin’s spaceflight as it was from the Wright Fl yer’s historic flight.

BaconSandwich is tasty. > ttyymmnn 01/30/2020 at 14:32

0

I guess when you are doing something you have never done before, and there's no one to tell you otherwise, it's hard to know if you are doing things right.

ttyymmnn > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 01/30/2020 at 14:41

1

Have we progressed a similar distance? I’m not so sure.

ttyymmnn > BaconSandwich is tasty. 01/30/2020 at 14:43

4

And that is exactly why what the Wrights achieved is so amazing. They were basically  writing textbooks on aerodynamics as they went along. But there was never an attitude of “Let’s just see if this works.” Their science was rigorous, as was their experimentation. 

WilliamsSW > ttyymmnn 01/30/2020 at 15:26

1

Hard to tell maybe, from the original photos it looked small to me.

I’m no aerodynamics expert either, but I think longer wings tend to increase adverse yaw, which is typically offset by rudder application. There are other ways to do it though, and aileron design can help reduce it too. 

ttyymmnn > WilliamsSW 01/30/2020 at 15:39

0

It also trips me out how they built such big aircraft back in the day and the pilots still sat out in the weather. 

ttyymmnn > WilliamsSW 01/31/2020 at 08:48

1

O/T, but I came across this yesterday. Thought you might be interested.

(18Dec49) (N86501) Chicago weather was reported: ceiling 300 feet, visibility 1-1/2 miles with moderate fog and smoke, and wind west-southwest at 8 mph. The ILS approach was abandoned at the captains discretion and he started another. On this second approach the aircraft was observed to touchdown approximately 3,200 feet from the approach end of the runway. From this point, it traveled the remaining 2,530 feet of the runway, traveled 875 feet beyond the far end of runway 13R and went through a heavy chain link fence, crossed a parking lot and struck a billboard and a large ornamental stone pillar before coming to rest on Cicero Avenue in front of the Acme Bar and Grill. (White Castle is there, today) Some of the passengers probably got out of the plane and walked right into the bar, no doubt.

Comment: In those days, a 300 foot ceiling for that type aircraft and that airline required using the airport’s only full ILS approach, which was on Runway 13R (now 13C). No other MDW runways had full ILS at that time, although you could fly the localizer back course to 31L (now 31C). So on the day of this crash, 13R ILS involved a tailwind. Runway 31L was the better orientation for the wind, but at 300 foot ceiling, TWA no could do. Still, an 8 mph tailwind does not justify touching down 3,200 feet down the runway! ( flickr )

Looks similar to that SWA accident.

WilliamsSW > ttyymmnn 01/31/2020 at 12:16

0

Yes it certainly does - Midway isn’t an airport you want to land at with a tailwind.

ttyymmnn > WilliamsSW 01/31/2020 at 12:21

1

But it’s never windy in Chicago....

Many years ago, I was traveling  to Toledo through ORD. I got on my connection, one of those little Embraer flying pencils. As we pushed back, the winds were so strong that the plane was rocking back and forth. After sitting there for a few minutes, the captain came on the PA and said, “It’s too windy. I’m not flying today.” So I rented a car and drove, rather than wait for the charter bus the airline was arranging.

WilliamsSW > ttyymmnn 01/31/2020 at 12:35

1

I’m sure you probably know origin of the term “Windy City” has absolutely nothing to do with the wind.

It’s weird that Midway’s only ILS at the time was to 13R. That’s probably the least useful direction for Chicago. 31 or 22 would have made far more sense. Now, there are obstacle clearance issues for 22, and it doesn’t have an ILS even today. But why not 31, I wonder?

Only Vespas... > ttyymmnn 01/31/2020 at 13:38

1

Did you watch that landing in the insert video? Hardly a stabilized approach... and almost buried a wingtip on the roll out. The pilot was pumping the rudder pedals the whole way...on the edge of controllability. She looks like one of those rubber band balsa airplanes that used to end up on the neighbor’s roof . Oh yeah, that name...Inflexi ble? That’s like terrible for something that flies.  Other than that?  Um...nice wheels.

ttyymmnn > Only Vespas... 01/31/2020 at 14:01

0

Any landing you can walk away from?