A Survior of the Budd RB-1 Fiasco

Recent issues of the AAHS Journal contained articles authored by Ms. Nancy C. Heslop and Dr. Michael Watter concerning the Budd RB-1 Conestoga and the Naval Air Test Center at Patuxent River, Maryland.(1, 2, 3) These articles contain events that have plagued me for 71 years. Ms. Heslop and Dr. Watter have opened a stainless steel can of RB-1 worms. There are errors in their accounts that need correction. These errors are not due to them but may be the result of poor record keeping by the U.S. Navy.(4) The recorded dates of several RB-1 accidents do not agree with my recollection of what happened.

The RB-1 saga began with the Budd Co., manufacturers of
stainless steel railroad cars, automobile bodies and one small seaplane.5 Apparently they were able to influence the U.S. government that a growing shortage of aluminum emphasized the need to substitute stainless steel for aircraft. Earlier, Budd had acquired the patents for “shot welding,” a form of spot welding done over a very short time.(6, 7) This process protects the structural strength of austenitic stainless steel so that it retains its rust resistant properties.(8) In fact, the shot welding technique was used to build the Savoia BB-1 amphibian for the Savoia Co. of Italy in 1932.(9)

Clearly, Budd had advanced knowledge of how to use stainless steel in a variety of ways. Did they have the knowhow to design and manufacture an airplane to compete with the Douglas R4D or the Curtiss R5C? The decision to produce the RB-1 may have been a desperate attempt by Budd to survive through WWII.

According to Dr. Watter, he said he led Budd’s design, production and flight parade.(10) He created an odd shape for the RB-1. An obligation of an aircraft designer is to minimize the drag of an aircraft.(11) The bulbous, rather than a teardrop, nose on the RB-1 was a lift/drag ratio reducer. The blunter the body, the greater the drag.(12) The fuselage had a flat bottom so that it could land safely on water. The high wing design provided ground clearance, placing the fuselage close to the ground for boarding and loading. It also provided ground clearance for the propellers and easy access to the rear cargo ramp. Dihedral on the horizontal stabilizer avoided turbulence from the wings and propellers. These were all positive features on the RB-1. But why did they use the same Pratt & Whitney R-1183-92 Twin Wasp engines used on the Douglas R4D? The empty R4D weighed 3,186 lbs. less than the stainless steel RB-1.(13) The low engine power and extra weight were partly responsible for the long takeoff run of the RB-1. Even the range of the RB-1 was half that of the R4D.(14) Were all of these faults worth . . .