Budd RB-1 Conestoga - An Innovative Failure
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 07. 2023
- Buy my book: amzn.to/3preYyO
Sources for this video can be found at the relevant article on:
militarymatters.online/
If you like this content please consider buying me a coffee or else supporting me at Patreon:
ko-fi.com/ednashmilitarymatters
/ ednash
The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement. - Věda a technologie
You get the feeling there was a good aircraft lurking in there which never had the chance to burst out of the chrysalis.
Agreed, this is one of those designs that had it gotten produced at the start of WW2 the kinks may have been ironed out. By the time it was around to test out the demand was gone.
Tough for a train😊 car manufacturer to be taken seriously by legacy aircraft manufacturers. Too bad. The design had real promise. It just needed a chance to iron out the issues.
It seems it was under powered. Replacing the engines with something more powerful would fix that and hopefully the problem with the exhausts falling off. The range was very short so it would also need more fuel tanks. The more powerful engines would be heavier as would the fuel load. That would reduce the payload, but that was good so it probably wouldn't be a problem. The other problems hinted at would also need to be fixed. Quite a lot of work - and after WWII there was a lot of cheap aircraft around so probably not much of a market for this. A shame as it was a forward-looking design - but it was spoiled by a basic mistake of choosing engines that were too small.
@@evaluateanalysis7974 in some parts of the world those surplus c-47 planes are still serving people on a daily basis.
She was only a little early like a lot of good things we aren't quite ready for yet. 😉
This thing looks like something produced after a psychic dream - the designer apparently saw a vision of the 1960s, and then set about trying to build it using 1940s technology.
Look up the Armstrong Whitworth Argosy…
Budd produced is first stainless steel aircraft in 1931, the BB-1 (it still exists - having spent the last 90 years as an outdoor museum display).
The Fleetwings Sea Bird did see more made.
There's another weirdly innovative transport aircraft from about the same time period: the Arado Ar 232.
A "Conestoga Wagon" was a large covered wagon used during the pioneer era in the US.
The ripples in the stainless steel along the side even sort of look like a wagon's canvas stretched over its bows.
“Come hither, Conestoga…”
As a Pennsylvanian I happy to see this aircraft getting some attention. It is named after the Conestoga wagon, the semi trucks of their day. Built by the German settlers in the area, the Pennsilfaanisch Deitsch, who lived near the Conestoga River. Thanks for the great content, as always.
German immigrants
@@Invading-Specious ?
Conestoga wagons were the Cadillacs of covered wagons. They were built to float over streams. They were in business early on -- 1717 -- in Pennsylvania. The name comes from the local indigenous folk. Sometimes 8 horses or 12 oxen were needed to pull them.
RB-1 would be the Navy BuAero's designation meaning Transport, Budd, 1st iterition. If they had bought it, the USAAF designation would be C-93.
I think if the airplane had been upgraded to R-2600 powerplants, it might have had a go. B-25 had R-2600s. The C-46 Curtiss Commando had R-2800s. So did the B-26 Martin Marauder. When North American Aviation engineers tried R-2800s on the B-25, it excelled when flown by NAA test pilots. When the AAF test pilot assigned to the project tried to fly it, he flew the wings off it. Literally. Tragically. So maybe not R-2800s. [NAA's next design, the XB-28 had R-2800s and looked suspiciously like the Marauder. It came along too late. The Jet Age had dawned.]
I live in Tucson. I will look for the Budd Conestoga at the Pima Air Museum. Not the season to visit the museum in high summer. Temps are in the high hundreds during daylight, and PASM is closed at night.
Nice video. I'd seen pix, but never knew the full story.
Caulk the wagon and float it across!
MrJones has died of dysentery.
My mother was a WAVE in the Navy during WW2. She worked on aircraft engines. When I was young she used to tell me of the planes she worked on like the F6F Hellcats, The twin-tailed Cessna trainers, F4U Corsairs, and R4Ds (C-47s) "…and planes that looked like that." she would say pointing to a C-130.
I always thought she was mistaken and she could not remember the name of the plane she was talking about. I didn't know of a WW2 plane that looked like a C-130 until years later when I learned of the Budd and that they were at one of the places Mom was stationed. I called her up and asked her if she ever worked on an RB-1 and she yelled out "Budd! That's it!" She remembered. lol
At first glance I assumed this was from the early to mid ‘50s! Very advanced thinking in terms of layout, shame about the steel. Still, if it had been tried 5 years later with a turbo prop, Buds could have had something notable.
C123 Provider maybe?
Dick Rossi, one of the founders of Flying Tiger Airlines, told me that while it was a major mistake for them to buy the Budds, they did serve a purpose in getting the airline started. His transport of choice was the C-46 Commando.
They just needed more power I suspect
Took the tram tour at Pima a couple weeks ago. There are hundreds of classic aircraft out in the "yard", so only a select few get a stop and a short description. The Conestoga is one of those.
What an amazing, far-sighted piece of design. So very often, if a designer who's not bound by the conventions of what 'should be' is given a clean sheet of paper, inspiration emerges.
Bit of trivia: The US Govt didn't just order the airplanes. The US also paid for ASAP construction of a new assembly line in Bustleton, Philadelphia. The bulk of Red Lion Road plant (also paid for by the US and managed by Budd) was producing munitions, the new wing made airplanes. After the war the company bought the property from the govt at (very well discounted) cost and made it their primary coach-building plant. It was closed in 1987 and demolished quite recently. If you google Bustleton, Philadelphia there's still a large rough field in the middle of a suburb... this is it.
This channel is so underrated; I have no idea why it doesn't have 2 or 3 times the number of subscribers given the quality content and steady output.
Consider this comment my contribution to the algorithm gods!
I've visited the Conestoga at the Pima Air Museum here in Tucson several times. I was pleased to see your video covering this aircraft.
Shape is similar to the post war Bristol Freighter built in the UK. The Bristol was a tail dragger though with fixed gear, cargo door was built into the bulbous nose section. Some of the Bristols had a very long life. They served in the RCAF, RAAF & RNZAF. There was even a civilian airline that ran them across the channel to France, you could load up your car.
They served through to 1978 flying across cook Strait between the North and South Islands of New Zealand.
The Bristols were said to be 20,000 rivets flying in formation...
the 4 engined Argosy "bigger brother".... 40,000
I knew I had seen this plane fairly recently (5-6 years). When Ed said Pima Air Museum, I remembered. It sits in the rehab yard along with a dozen or so other aircraft.
This is a cool looking aircraft. A revelation in assault transport planes. This and the German Gigant were the progenitors of the modern battlefield transport aircraft.
it wasn't 2000lb heavier due to steel, it had a greater wingspan, wing area, length, payload, etc. and when you put small engines on that, it makes it go slower and not work as well as a lighter smaller plan using the same engines.
I have flown on Flying Tiger Airlines in 1958. Sill have my ticket! Not sure what plane type though. I was a baby.
What a pity they didn't try a) fitting more powerful engines or b) creating a four engined variant. So much potential! (Totally off topic Ed, but I've just started your book and so far I'm finding it fascinating. Thanks!)
At that time the Wasp Engine was pretty much the top of the line and being widely used, it made for much better logistical support in repair. Had it been built of Aluminum that along would have probably saved it from the scrap heap and permitted design changes to improve it's safety.
I stumbled into it at Pima, wondering WTF is that!? Structurally it was in pristine condition. Rows and rows of dark spot welds where you expect to see rivets. Paper thin skins. My first thought, and probably the biggest stumbling block to the concept besides the excess weight, was "How the hell do you repair the structure of that thing in the field?".
Looks like the lovechild of an Argosy and a Hercules!
Love it.
If only it could have had 4 engines and be built from aluminium
Stainless steel has the same strength to weight ratio as aluminium alloy. Being much thinner it is however less stiff.
Stainless steel aircraft did exist - a couple of seaplane designs did use stainless steel.
Having engines that didn’t catch fire would have helped but equally the stainless steel airframe wouldn’t burn so that’s a plus.
In layout it looks very like the de Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou (designated CV-2 and later C-7 in the US). It was used by 21 countries other than Canada.
I ve seen this plane a number of times at the excellent Pima Air Museum and wondered about it's history.
Thank you for answering a great many questions.
If you want to see what an alluminium version of this would look like, just take a look at the C-123 Provider, developed from an assault glider, originally built by Chase towards the end of WWII. Piston engines, high wing, tricycle undercarriage, flat load bed, it's got all the same features, and in the same timeframe too.
C-123s were used in South East Asia by Air America, but they added jet engine pods to the wings, outboard of the recip nacelles.
Once the aluminum shortage was solved the military should have sent this design to a major manufacturer to be built in aluminum. The design layout was so superior to anything flying or on the drawing boards.
Who do you think stole the design features for immediate postwar cargo aircraft...sorry "copied the ideas Budd demonstrated".........
This aircraft immediately brought to mind the Dehavilland Caribou. Similar mission and profile, though the Caribou is much lighter and has STOL capability. The Conestoga is a good example of the innovation you can get when people on the periphery of an industry do a purpose-specific design of their own, without people looking over their shoulder saying "you can't do it that way".
RAAF had good run with Caribou n it’s was baby Hercules ‘Spartan’ but never going be good as Caribou.
This was the standard cargo aircraft of the Royal Newfoundland Air Force, or so it was claimed in a modelling forum, on the 1st of April a few years ago.
The Budd Conestoga was the airplane that got Flying Tigers line off the ground. This group was absorbed by Federal Express in 1989, a ~~HUGE~~ financial gain for all the FT pilots! Federal Express eventually got an ALPA contract that was easily three times as lucrative for the Flying Tigers pilots. The one time that bought out pilots not only kept their jobs, but came out way way ahead!
Thanks! Every time I think I’ve seen them all…
Take away the use of stainless steel and a few design adjustments and this had a lot of potential. Just the additional weight placed it in a precarious state. Had this come off the design boards of the other major air transport companies I'd bet we'd be looking at this in at least as good as the C-47. Keep in mind the C-47 had it's own limits and certainly the cargo door design of the Conestoga would have been a real blessing during and after WWII
So glad at least one survived, also considering that only a handful were built to begin with!
Pima Air and Space is the coolest museum in the country. Hundreds of aircraft, many only survivors like this and they allow dogs
❤ GREAT VIDEO❤ I WORK FOR FLYING TIGERS 1982 1984 , OPERATIN IN THE DC 8 ❤ THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES❤ SALUDOS
Even if I wouldn't be subscriber already - every video with "an innovative failure" is to be watched as soon as I read ir
I'm always so happy to hear that such forgotten aircraft have surviving models that people get to see. It's so sad when such an interesting story gets sent to the scrapyard
I saw this just a few weeks ago when i was out at Pima. Holding up very well!
The XB-70 was also made of mostly stainless steel, but for completely different reasons. It still amazes me how well the material can work in an aircraft.
Or spacecraft- SpaceX Starship.
Also the X15.
@@tracylemme1375 Inconel-X 750 is a bit more exotic than what we typically consider stainless steel, but I guess it still counts
@@cpt_bill366 Agreed. The point I wanted to make is not all aircraft need be built with aluminum.
@@bobcastro9386 Preceded by the Atlas rocket some 70 years earlier. Nothing new under the Sun.
It was a brand new design, of course it would have teething issues. I suspect not many once you get larger engines and trimming issues, you'd have a star.
With R-2800 engines and a bit more development, it would have worked out.
I've seen the Conestoga at Pima and appreciate the explanation.
I've seen one of these at Pima museum.
Not surprised they were durable. There’s a saying among railroaders: Budd don’t break.
Buddy also built the Pioneer aircraft, the only one is on a pylon outside a university in PA if I remember right. It was a license built copy of a marchetti.
Thanks for this. I saw this when i visited the Pima Air Museum in Arizona. Strange indeed.
At least one partial example survives.
So many *_unique_* aircraft -- the Blohm & Voss BV-141 immediately comes to mind -- are gone for good.
The less nazi stuff that survives, the better.
Did someone at De Havilland Canada look at it and think "...what if we made it in aluminium?"
All the big boys of aviation did....and they designed accordingly.
The US definitely solved their aluminum supply issues by the end of the war, and then had to get rid of the excess. Our US house, built in 1946, has forced air heating ducts made of shiny hard aircraft grade aluminum. Awesome stuff. The house is nowhere hear any aircraft plants, so the surplus aluminum was apparently released to the general construction market.
At 1:24 the rather unique photo shows P-40'S on the production line, AND a parallel production line (to the left) of P-47's. It is no secret that Curtis built a run of Thunderbolts but this is the first actual photo of this that I have ever seen. The poor old RB-1 was seriously homely but not anywhere near as ugly as some aircraft that actually saw service. One wonders why it was built at all though, seeing that the U.S. had a number of very good transport aircraft designs already in production. Rather than create a whole new design, would it not have been quicker and cheaper to start with an existing, proven design , adapting it to the new structural material and increased weight?
The reason was given: construction to be of non-essential material not otherwise in short supply.
Just like the Mosquito bomber from D Havilland....
the Budd used a material that was not in short supply for production of essential war machines.
The Mosquito was wood and used glues plus microwave cooking to keep the structure together..
the Budd used stainless steel "welded" together...
Hey thanks for the video, the basic design of this aircraft looks great. Stainless steel is not a very good material for aircraft building it tends to be prone to cracking and hardening under varying stress. Unless they had some special grade of stainless steel which didnt have those issues. Pity they never built this with the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp. It sounds like more power would have helped this aircraft a lot.
Railroad cars are subject to pretty much continuous dynamic stress, so it may be that Budd knew a solution.
Man what a shame, its looks almost like a C-130 already. If only it was teethed out properly, just imagine how much equipment can be given during the daring air supply missions in Yugoslavia and China.
Best flying rail car ever!
Cool looking and very innovative! So glad one still survives , never seen this type before so thanks very much!
What’s next - Chase XCG-20 by chance? 👍🏻😄
This plane is to modern cargo planes what a baby is to a grown human. Not just in being innovative, but just think of the evolution of the aesthetics that came along with the development since this.
One of my favorites....really ...I'm being serious👍👍👍
So similar in concept to the DHC - 4 Caribou of Cold War era fame. They saw extensive use as well.
I saw one at Pima Air/Space Museum in Tucson Arizona.
Never heard of it before, thanks!
I see Ed's been on the bong again
Ed - I remember a passage years ago about Stuart tanks in New Guinea being transported to airfields. The turrets were removed and the chassis was cut lengthwise to be able to be carried within the aircraft hold. The tanks were then welded together and reassembled. I just can’t find the reference anymore.
With all due respect, I'm guessing you may have seen that in a novel and are mis-remembering it. I've made that mistake before. I find it hard to imagine them having the facilities on New Guinea to weld a tank back together and reassemble it, even the light Stuart.
@@donjones4719 It might have been some of the History Channel’s so-called “History”.
Thanks mate.. I love forgotten aircraft.!
Thanks Ed. Another amazing find !
Truly informative. Thank you.
Thx for the Budd RB-1 Vid.
Another forgotten Transport please Arado 232 "Tausendfüssler" !
Fascinating. Great piece of work.
"I Worked for SKY WAY!" Think I still have jacket in my closet.
Compare with the C-130, the Fairchild C-123 Provider might have been might have made a better comparison against the Budd RB-1 Conestoga, which was used in the Vietnam War for forward logistics transport of supplies, and as a militarized 'crop duster' to apply deflowerment along major transportation routes. (and still haven't seen a good writeup on, hint hint...)
While looking on a CZcams variable of a Marine designated variant of the B-25 performing both landing and takeoff from a Carrier, but further development was dropped because of the US rapid advancement in the Pacific theaters, I remember that the first carrier deployment of a long range twin piston engine bomber was the AJ Savage which was developed for use as the first US Navy bomber for the nuclear strike role !!!, and I still haven't seen a good writeup on as well
At Pima, you can see that the stainless skin is incredibly thin....like paper.
I explored the abandoned Budd factory in Philadelphia about six years ago. Amazing place but very gutted unfortunately.
The Red Lion plant was turned into a golf course right?
We’re you in another plant closer to the city?
In Philly, Hunting Park Avenue .
@@rolandtamaccio3285 The RB1's were built at the Red Lion Road plant in NE Philly, I worked at that plant for a few yers before transferring down to Hunting Park. Although I didn't work for Budd why the made the planes, I did work many of the men who did build them. The tail sections for the planes were built down on Hunting Park and then shipped up to Red Lion. At one time I had photos of the tails being shipped. A group of the planes were given to USSR, who actually had pilots come into the plant and fly them out. The RB1 was not the only aircraft Budd made. Their first one, "The Pioneer", was the first all stainless steel aircraft. This plane is still display outside the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia.
Prototype for the Bristol Car Freighter and even the Argosy ( which had the nickname of the whistling t*t) needed 4 engines
🏆excellant video on a unique plane, thanks.
There is one on display at Pima Air and Space Museum at Tucson AZ. Weird aircraft.
Thanks Mr Nash....
Still fun to watch!
As a USAF C-27 pilot, I can appreciate this design.
i saw what's left of one of the prototypes at pima air and space in tuscon! it's really cool
Tailplane is very reminiscent of the Hercules
When, as a young Marine, I transferred to Okinawa in 1980, the charter DC-8 was a Flying Tigers airplane. How would you like flying from LA to refuel in Alaska and on to Okinawa in an airliner in which you could smoke......a single aisle airliner. (LOL)
It was "gas"....
Wow! I saw the one at Pima a few years back and always wondered what in the hell it was. Thanks for making this video!
Well written video, imho.
Thank you.
☮
Interesting video! I'd heard of this airplane but never saw one. Too bad the engineers at Budd couldn't or wouldn't partner with someone at Douglas, Boeing or North American. Maybe someone over at Sikorsky would have helped them solve some of these weight/power and manufacturing process problems.
Very clever and futuristic
A great very interesting video about an aircraft I knew nothing about.What was that Flying Tigers Company?Were those fliers in China?It ain't no summer without Mr.Ed's video.Have a good one.
Also- The museum in Tucson actually DOES have the tail and wings in the back lot! I can only speculate why they have never re-attached them.
Funny you should say so. I was at Pima this morning and had a chat with one of the employees who was in the process of restoring a BF-109. I looked at the Conestoga and thought about its current state, but never thought to ask about it. In fact, I didn't know what it was until just getting home and finding this video recommended for my viewing. So strange.
Looks like it heavily influenced the C123 design! Then the C130.
What a shame that they were stuck with the double wasp. From the crash photos, a lot of them look like they were controlled and I'd think more HP would have helped in some circumstances. I wonder if loading was a problem..
An extremely innovative aircraft.
It would be interesting to see a flying example for air shows and the demonstration of this aircraft.
A retrofit of powerful turboprop engines would give it much better performance but would not be original of course.
It really was a forerunner of the ubiquitous C 130 Hercules.
As soon as i heard it was made of stainless steel i knew why it never succeeded!
Stainless steel was not all easy to come by!
To bad it was not redesigned with aluminum!
Excellent.
I think it's a pretty cool looking aircraft. I like the raised cockpit. It looks like it could have been upgraded to turboprops.
Looks like an airplane from the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon.
Great video! Ive seen the remains of the plane at Pima air and Space, interesting to see up close... or what remains of it !
Are you saying Shot or Spot welding and the only, Shot weld is a cold shot welding, As a 69yr old Brit motor-mechanic and auto- electrician, who mainly used acetylene welding(labour intensive in prep, but better than the cost of a battery or alternator)I could stick and tig weld but I was a dab hand at using off-cuts of mild sheet I didn't often need rod
Solid content.
Not surprisingly, the front looks very much like some of the early high-speed trains.
Of course it survived crashes and the survivor is still in good condition.
There's a saying amongst American railfans that the only truly permanent structures are the Pyramids and Budd railcars.
TY 🙏🙏
Ed, keep your hands off Stalingrad or research it thouroughly.! There were various reasons why the air supply was doomed to fail. It was always the question of insufficient air drops or nothing at all, and everybody involved knew it. For all the failures of the Luftwaffe, Stalingrad wasn't one of them. The failure was to have that army encircled, which in no particular order can be blamed on Hitlers planning and interventions, the already miserable logistics situation in the South and the inability of German intelligence (or ideological neglection) to detect the concentration of Russian forces. Forces which had been detected by the Luftwaffe, btw.
Other than that, very good as usual. 🙂
''Shot-welding?'' OK -- must be a British-ism. In the US we call it Spot Welding. The fusing of same metal parts to each other with a high voltage surge at electrode crimper points. I'm on the same page, now [3:25] please go on...
More like a Budd-ism. I've always seen it referred to as "shot-welding" when reading about Budd (in books written in the US).
@@00Zy99 Well OK. I stand corrected. Budd may have had their own proprietary welding process that I'm unaware of. I had an Aviation Sheet Metal shop class in high school, mostly with aluminum. Stainless steel I never worked with. But we were shown the spot-welder in the shop.
"Bad news, your plane is prone to engine fires. Good news, its made of stainless steel so the wings wont melt and fall off!"
Stainless steel weakens when it gets really really hot.....
the wings might fold up rather than melt off but it would probably still ruin your pilots' day....
Nice to not have to worry about corrosion. A dud in it's day, with 1940s tech, but maybe they were onto something? Bet it had good fatigue resistance too.
Depends on the stainless steel alloy, 300 series probably about like Al alloys, 400 series would be much better.
@michaelcohen904
6 days ago (edited)
Great subject and coverage Ed! I've seen the Pima Conestoga (and I'm guessing every av'n history nut caught within it's "300 mile radius gravitational field for av'n nerds). It's remarkable for the entire surface of the aircraft being uniformly pocked like a golf ball (on a larger scale) with ~½" to 1" permanent minor dents.
I don't know the official explanation, but the Engineer in me says while the CRES skin might be designed to have equivalent to aircraft Aluminum 2024 or 7075 stress allowables, the much thinner SS skin meant much reduced (but still airworthy) allowables in moment (local inelastic deformation resistance). This woud appear as surface pockmarks that aluminum could withstand. (More apologies here, skip if Mech Tech isn't your thing) but bread-and-butter simple 1st year undergrad is "σ=m*I/y" -- meaning stress=(moment) x (moment of inertia) divided by (leverage arm, where leverage arm is ½ skin thickness).
The very thin SS skin is much more vulnerable to permanent deformation marks from just minor local "taps".
OK, I understand. I'm going back to posting in the Mechanical Engineering Times. Thanks Ed! (edit -- to clean up my "simple" yet plug stupid tech error.)
One would think, if the US suddenly found sufficient aluminium supplies, someone could have suggested this particularly useful and practical design should be built from it, instead of the heavier stainless.
By that time the big boys had copied the ideas....and were incorporating them in their designs.
No use trying to compete with that....
Then there is the RB-1's wooden counterpart: the Curtiss-Wright C-76 Caravan.