You don't say how you determined the exposure. You really can't use
the camera meter. Try another test using the exposure recommendations
provided with the film. Then for other situations just bracket.
Anything in shade will require much longer exposures even though a
regular meter will only show 3 or 4 stops difference. This is because
there is no IR coming from the blue sky.
If you are in the woods the IR is much brighter than the meter because
the foliage reflects IR and appears almost white.

I take it you set the camera's metering system at 50
and fired away.

A red filter passes IR with little light loss but visible
light is attenuated by 3-stops.  The camera's meter only
sees in the visible.  Hence the film is ~3 stops overexposed.
This explanation is simplified but gets to the gist of the
matter.

You will have to experiment to find a suitable ASA setting/
exposure correction factor for IR film in _your_
camera/light meter/lens/filter. None of these are specified
for IR and each combination will work a bit differently.

And after you get that down pat the correction factor you
need to apply to your camera's meter will vary with
the subject matter, weather conditions, time of day,
season and weather.

Name of the game is to bracket your exposures.  IR tends to
produce contrasty results so bracketing by 1/2 stops for
2 stops around nominal isn't unusual.

Google for IR photography ...

You overexposed the film. set the meter to about 200 or 400. The meter
reads through the filter, so you don't add the filter factor to the ISO.

I would agree with the testing under controlled conditions.  When I first
started using it, I followed a lot of suggestions I read on line in various
places and I was quite unhappy with the results.

Then I  shot one or two rolls of 36 exposures  pickingd 2 or 3 scenes with
different kinds of light (open sunlight, mottled light in woods, etc).  For
each of these scenes, started with a high ASA (like 600 or 1000) and shot a
series of brackets exposures keeping the fstop steady and allowing the
camera's meter to adjust only the exposure times.  Then I repeated the same
thing with a number of lower asa settings .  (I am using a much denser red
filter than you are).  I ended up with 12 or 24 "trials" of each different
scene.  When I did my contact prints, it was pretty obvious what ASA setting
my camera would need with this film.  This gave me a starting point for
future use of the film.  It was a bit time consuming, but so was the time
and money I wasted on  the first few rolls I "winged" and came up with
garbage.  I still bracket 1 or 2 stops on either side of the "baseline"
exposures whenever I shoot this film (I had good luck developing in ID-11 at
the higher end of the recommended times).
Sam

You ran afoul of the classic exposure problem with IR film.  Kodak's
tech note on the film talks about it pretty clearly.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f13/f13.jhtml

When Kodak says High Speed (as in Hie) they mean it.  The stuff is
FAST.  In daylight scenes you might want to expose it like ASA 500 or
1000 film.  But you can't trust your meter because the meter isn't
reading IR.

I always found film IR to be slightly more trouble than it's worth.
Getting the film in the first place was a problem, then, has it been
stored correctly?
Shooting IR meant I had to wait for the perfect day - bright direct
sunshine in the earlier morning or later afternoon. Chemistry was
usually difficult to obtain and exposure compensation as well as
processing time was a pain in the neck.

Having heard digital was much easier a few years ago, I've been
experimenting with that. Results so far have been good but not great.
Due to the density of the R72 exposure times were a second or more
meaning any wind ruined a shot of trees - ivy worked a lot better. Also
de-saturation in Photoshop proved a problem - some favour partial
de-saturation leaving a reddish tinge, some complete de-saturation and
yet others favour using channels to produce a blueish tinge.
While I'm not advocating a total switch from film to digital, I am
saying that trying the more 'esoteric' forms of photography (IR and  
stereoscopy - the most popular) digital seems to make it much easier
than film.