Jump to content

Talk:Boeing B-29 Superfortress/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hansell

Where is a mention of General Haywood Hansell?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.22.138 (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Quibbles

The B-24 and B-17 pilot's manuals have extensive charts and graphs giving optimum power settings, how are the B-29 charts so much more extensive, as claimed?

The term "silverplate" was originally the codeword for "highest priority for raw materials". It was given generically to the B-29 project. I doubt if it was in any way specific to the A-bomb carrier conversion project.

There's very little or no mention of the B-29 successor, the B-50, basically a B-29 with R-4360 engines.

B-50 is a separate article. The comment about power charts comes from a cited source quoting an experienced pilot who operationally flew the aircraft you mentioned. I suspect he knows what he is talking about. - Emt147 Burninate! 23:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Surviving airframes

Why not subsume the "airworthy aircraft" section into a larger section mentioning (or listing) some or all (maybe not all) of the B-29s which survive instead?

A262 20:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent idea, feel free to go ahead with it. Ingoolemo talk 23:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

OK - I did that. Also modfified the B-29 users section - There was no mention of the US Navy or the Chinese / Russians and their Tu-4s but this now looks a little messy. A262 16:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Airworthy Aircraft

Under the heading Current Airworthy Aircraft, a contributor made the comment that the NMUSAF were, "considering restoring Bockscar to airworthy condition". I believe the author was in error in his report. I too have been through the Museum website and have found no evidence of factual support of this statement. The museum has made the comment referring to their efforts in preservation of the inventory as, "restoring airplanes and other items to an attractive and original appearance" or, post-restoration of the RB-47H as "factory fresh", but "airworthy condition" escapes me in my understanding of the museum's purpose. Can the author direct me to a NMUSAF source in order to substantiate his(her) comment? Inquiring minds would like to know... fliguy 20:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

October 2nd, 2007 ... One B-29 "Fifi" is currently registered as "airworthy", but is presently grounded due to costly engine problems. Current status is 80% of the money has been raised for repairs.[9] Three other B-29 projects are being restored for flight.[citation needed] Another 25 confirmed B-29s are preserved at various museums worldwide, along with known wreck sites of three more.

^ Do we have any updates on this??? -Ryan Thompson 07:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese

Don't the Chinese use a Soviet B-29 knockoff?

The Chinese use (or used) the Russian-built Tu4. There are versions with turboprop powerplants. I will look into it further and edit when necessary--Efrasnel 08:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio by Fiddlers Green?

This article's content is mostly a copy of the same as the content at http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Boeing-B29/info/info.htm

Heh, look at the history of this page - you can see each paragraph being built incrementally. Most likely Fiddlers Green is using our content without crediting us. Stan 05:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spelling Convention

As the B-29 was a US built bomber (though used worldwide), should this page be edited with US spelling styles instead of British styles? (defense/defence, caliber/calibre, analyze/analyse, etc.) or left mixed as is?

No article should ever be left mixed. Current convention is this: articles that are firmly American-related should use American spelling, articles that are firmly British-related should use British spelling, and all others should follow the spelling conventions used by the first author. This is mainly because we have been unable to come to a consensus regarding which form of spelling to use. →Iñgōlemo← talk 17:30, 24 February 2005 (UTC)

Early history

I've expanded and corrected the early history based on material from Superfortress by Curtis LeMay and Bill Yenne. According to Lemay and Yenne, the Model 322 was a failed project, and the B-29 derived indirectly from the Y1B-20. This is exactly the opposite of what our article said before, so if there are sources that disagree with LeMay and Yenne, we should do some additional research. Isomorphic 09:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe the article meant to say that it evolved from the Model 322. And it didn't discount indirect derivation from the Y1B-20, so I don't think we need more research. →Iñgōlemo← talk 20:18, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
As long as you're OK with the current version, we're fine. Isomorphic 06:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's probably safe to say that my version was too ambiguous. Thus, we are indeed fine.

→Iñgōlemo← talk 21:15, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Operational history

There is a problem with last sentence of the first paragraph. It states that "77 out of 98 planes launched from India bombing the railroad shops in Bangkok (5 B-29s were lost to non-battle causes)." 98-77 != 5.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.61.238 (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Were the other loses battle-related? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.241.200 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

For those who would like more pictures, you might be interested in Commons:B-29 Superfortress. Ingoolemo talk 21:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

bibleography

What does "Superfortress! Accessed on January 15, 2006." mean?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by David R. Ingham (talk • contribs) 07:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Superfortress family

I was thinking, since there are so many derivatives of the basic B-29, perhaps we should do this with a template rather than a "Related" list? If so, should it be in "box" form? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 06:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I meant to talk about this earlier. In my opinion, the Tu-4, C-97, and 377 are relevant examples of related developments. But the others are stretching it, especially the Russian planes—which weren't even designed by the same engineers—and the Super Guppy—developed more than twenty years later.
Here are some suggestions:
Derivatives of the B-29

XB-39 Superfortress
XB-44 Superfortress
B-50 Superfortress
C-97 Stratofreighter
Boeing 377
Pregnant Guppy
Super Guppy
Mini Guppy
Tupolev Tu-4
Tupolev Tu-70
Tupolev Tu-75
Tupolev Tu-80
Tupolev Tu-85


Derivatives of the B-29 Superfortress

XB-39 Superfortress - XB-44 Superfortress - B-50 Superfortress - C-97 Stratofreighter - Boeing 377 - Pregnant Guppy - Super Guppy - Mini Guppy - Tupolev Tu-4 - Tupolev Tu-70 - Tupolev Tu-75 - Tupolev Tu-80 - Tupolev Tu-85


If I can suggest my variant:


Of course proper category can be added into template as well as some other related articles. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 15:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been a template on the page for a while now, template:B-29 family. - BillCJ 16:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Bill, it seems I'm blind. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 18:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mass burnings

When the B-29s devastated large Japanese cities and wrecked the Japanese industry, Japanese observers described the anguishing scenes as mass burnings. The term "mass burning" is used by some authors as an alternative term to holocaust.

So is the term "Pearl Harbor". - BillCJ 01:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I coulda swore...

...the B-29's had 20mm cannon in the turrets. Can someone look this up? Deathbunny 00:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Another very good source for B-29 history is Kenneth P. Werrell, 'Blankets of Fire'-Smithsonian Press, 1996.The Initial B-29 had one 20mm cannon in the tail position along with 2 50 cal machine guns. This weapon was deleted in the field and on the subsequent B-29A to save weight and increase payload and range. At the same time, however, 2 more 50 cal guns were added to the top foward turret. The Japanese. like the Germans, perfered a frontal attack. Also, the much troubled remote gun system apparently never worked terribly well. Fortunately the Japanese Air Force was out of fuel and could never mount the resistance that the GAF could have in late 1944. Tha B-29 was never in combat against the Me-262. The jet fighter that forced the Superfortress into exclusively night operations was the Mig-15 over North Korea in 1951.G Gogel 14:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The 20mm was removed from the tail primarily because of the dramatic variance in the trajectory of the 20mm projectile vs. the 50 cal. They could not come up with the proper fire solution for both of them.., so the 20 mm went. --B29bomber (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Airworthy? 3, 1, or 0?

Maybe I don't know what the term "airworthy" technically means, but the section on surviving aircraft, within its first 3 sentences, seems to give 3 different numbers. Can someone who knows about this subject clear up the contradictions? Thanks. ColinClark 21:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Colin, The original editor, I assume, was trying to dfferentiate between the cosmetically restored aircraft from the 3 a/c that has (or will be) restored to full flight status. "Fifi" has been flying for many years but is undergoing major repair at this time; but still categorized in this article as "airworthy". As for "Doc", it is being restored in Wichita to flight-status for the past 4 or so years; status of its condition is on its webpage. As for the 3rd 29, Col. Weeks has been working on "Fertile Myrtle" since the parts were hauled out of China Lake back in Dec of 86; it's status is unknown. My opinion, FM is not notable at this time... I am hoping someone will come forward to give us an update on FM. The mentioning of FM can be left in or removed... IDM... "it don't matter". (Side note, 3 B-29s were taken out of China Lake at the same time, "TSq54" for Lowry Heritage Museum/Wings Over the Rockies, and 2 others for Weeks.) Hope that clarifies your question. If you have any facts or references, plz helpout here. I may copy the FM paragraph and insert here on the Talk page, until we have a good reference for its status; then we can re-add it to the main article. Best regards, LanceBarber 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I've updated the article to be consistent with this information (saying none are currently airworthy), though the whole section was recently removed. I think that's a shame because a lot of information was lost which is not included in the new page about survivors.ColinClark 07:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Temporarily the survivors are in the new article: Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors where there is a major discussion going on about the "survivors" list, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors... then down at the very bottom of the discussion there is a draft page of revised version, see: User:Piotr Mikołajski/Test01. Feel free to add your vote and your comments. LanceBarber 07:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Combat radius

Article has a number for combat radius - 3250 miles. At the same time one of sources [1] points out - 3250 miles is a max range at 25,000 feet with 5000 pound bomb load and practical radius is 1600-1800 miles. Range and radius are different and I believe it is an error in the article. --Tigga en 08:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Kansas Page started

Using as a basis an article in the July 1981 issue of "Airpower" I've started a page on the "Battle of Kansas". If anyone else wants to help out, please feel free to do so. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This page has been renamed "B-29 Superfortress: the Battle of Kansas", which is much better. I've also added a paragraph to the main B-29 Superfortress page on the B-29 armament which, I was surprised to note, was only mentioned in passing. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

First pressurised bomber

Apparently not: that was the Junkers Ju 86. Would presumably be the first allied pressurised bomber. --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point being made, the crew was in a fully pressurized fuselage compared to the Ju 86 where only a portion of the interior was sealed and pressurized. Only the Ju 86P variant could be described as an example of a pressurized aircraft whereas the B-29 was designed from the outset to utilize the advantages of this type of system. I am removing the invisible tag at this point and unless it is put in another area, the statement made is quite correct. The B-29 crew had the ability to move about in a fully pressurized environment, the first time that was available to a bomber crew. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC).
Well, fair enough, but I suggest that this is made clear in the article and I am not sure that I can fully see the distinction that you are drawing. Given that the Ju 86 had a crew of 2 and a pressurised cabin, they too must have had 'the ability to move about in a fully pressurized environment'. Would it not be more accurate to put in something like this: In 1938, Boeing introduced the Boeing 307, the first production aircraft to feature a pressurised cabin. Subsequently, in 1940 the Germans retrofitted a batch of Junkers Ju 86 medium bombers with pressurised cabins in order to allow them to fly beyond a fighter's ceiling. The B-29, however, was designed at the outset to be a fully pressurised heavy bomber, and in this respect it was the first in the world.--Major Bonkers (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, look at the revision I made in the text and then revise with your new addition of information. Remember to use "two" instead of "2" in the passage. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC).
Ok, will do now. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Ah-ha - see someone's already beaten me to it! --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Grand Slam or Earthquake?

Which name was used most for the 22,000 lb bomb? I had only heard Grand Slam until seeing Earthquake here. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

internment

Of course one can intern aircraft, or any other materiel - just read the Hague Convention. As a more recent example, the Falklands Black Buck Vulcan that diverted to Brazil was interned.

Have we really got to the point where one edit-warring intransigent with a history of confrontational edits from a position of blatant ignorance is sufficient reason to start abandoning whole relevant and important sections of history? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a big problem with the simpler statement in the lead and more precise but consice information in the section below, with the more detailed discussion at the TU-4 article. I've replaced the TU-4 paragraph with a condensed version from the TU-4 article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Taking it out of the lead is fine - it's a big history on a complex plane, I could quite happily move the whole Tu-4 out of the lead. However the way in which an "Ally" deliberately "confiscated" a major new weapon for long enough to copy it for use against its maker is complicated and does require explanation somewhere, an explanation that only makes sense in terms of both realpolitik as motivation and strict legal interpretations of internment as justification. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well said! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

B-29 Introduction

Is "8 May, 1944" the real introdution date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin3210 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Project cost $3B or what?

Several sources mention that the project required 3 billion in 1945 US dollars to complete. The multiplication of 3970 aircraft with $639,188 yields $2.5B, so what was the actual cost of each aircraft? Phillip S. Meilinger in Airwar wrote that the project was "around $3 billion" and that each aircraft was therefore about $639,000. To me, this sounds like $2.5B. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Data table deletion explanation

During the FAC discussion, a user pointed out that the data table is superfluous. I have to agree; it is also no longer the current format for specifications etc. If you disagree, insert the data table back in. There's nothing stopping you from doing so, and I won't revert it. •→Iñgólemo←• 02:07, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)

Alright, you didn't go for it. But I think the data table should be deleted. It's no longer current format, and a good deal of its information is blank. •→Iñgólemo←• 02:30, 26 October 2004 (UTC)

Start-class

I've dropped this article to start-class for lack of inline citations. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wunderwaffe

The article says that B-29 were only used in the Pacific. This is false, I remember reading that B-29 suffered losses over Germany because their remote controlled turrets were too slow to track the 880km/h fast Me-262 jetfighter, which could shred the B-29 with its strong 4x30mm cannon armament. 213.178.109.36 21:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect. If you have read about this, it would only be in fiction. (it's possible that B-17 turrets were too slow to track them, however). —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
One B-29 was sent to Europe in the spring of 1944 as a feint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bernard Biales (talk • contribs).
According to Wheeler[2], the commander in charge of bombing Europe was initially pleased to see the new developments, but lost interest because of the expence and time needed to retool existing airfields for the B-29—he did not consider the retooling worth the trouble because his B-17s and B-24s were quite up to the task of bombing Europe. If you have a source that proves otherwise, however, feel free to share it. It's very easy to be in error when making negative categorical statements. Ingoolemo talk 02:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Wheeler, Keith (1982). Bombers over Japan. Virginia Beach, Virginia: Time-Life Books. ISBN 0809434296.
Most of the UK bomber airfields were capable of taking the B-29, as the airfields built after 1942 had been designed to operate aircraft up-to and including the B-29, which was known at that time to be under development. See Class A airfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.208 (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This bomber remains the best

The B-29 was the bomber used during Bombing of Tokyo in World War II.In a single night, in 1945, more than 120,000 japaneses were killed in Tokyo;the most terrible bombing, in all times.Agre22 (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)agre

Actually, the Dresden Fire Raids were far worse - an unarmed, open city with more than 200,000+ civilian died vs Tokyo which was a legitament target. Davegnz (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If you're spltting hairs, a single plane, the Enola Gay, was the deadliest plane-to-body-count raid in history, followed by Bocks Car a few days later. But then again, we were at war. Compare to the Rape of Nanking and the Holocaust for a little morality check if you want to talk about 'terrible.' --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
US bomb loads on Japan were only 8,000lb per-bomber, rising to a maximum of 10,000lb for the B-29 when it was using the airfields nearest to Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.8 (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The Dresden death toll is now claimed to be much lower for example

Alex Abella's "Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire" says 25,000. I am unaware of Dresden or any other WW II German city being declared an "open city". The military value of striking Dresden was questioned during the planning of the strike and ever since. Especially since the raids failed to take out the rail system which was of clear military value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.15 (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No Guns, No Ammo thus Bigger Bomb Loads, but what does the Top Gunner say?

'"It Made a Lot of Sense to Kill Skilled Workers": The Firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945' by Thomas R. Searle in January 2002 The Journal of Military History (available through JSTOR, if you have JSTOR access http://www.jstor.org/stable/2677346) has a discussion of the March 9-10 attack and on page 113 cites a book coauthored by LeMay for his changing the B-29 tactics for March 9-10 and his not informing his superiors.

Page 114 credits 25% of the bombs dropped due to removing gunners, guns and ammo. It credits another 25% to flying low and single file. More bombs, because less fuel is needed. His source seems to be a USAF official history ("The Army Air Forces in World War II" editors Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate, USAF Historical Division.)

Roger Sandstedt, a B-29 Top Gunner (and an author of a self-published B-29 book) provides some interesting comments on the above article, in his letter to the editor, in the July 2002 issue of The Journal of Military History p972-974. In particular, he confirms no guns, no ammo and no gunners (except some as rear observers) for March 9-10 and two other raids, but then he says the practice ended. He says that with the availability of Iwo Jima the need to save fuel was gone and the limiting factor was no more incendiary bombs could fit in the bomb bays. Searle provides a response.

No mention of the Collbohm (or Raymond-Collbohm-Wells) report by either of these sources. But then according to Kaplan removing armor was a later and more limited event. No mention of where LeMay got his ideas for March 9-10.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.15 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Normal B-29 bomb loads against Japan were 8,000lb, rising to 10,000lb right at the end of the war as airfields nearer Japan became available.

'Controversy' section

the 'controversy' section adds nothing to the main story of the B29. It is clearly some pointless sidelight put in by some interested party. I have removed it. If you're thinking about re-adding it, I suggest adding it as a "see also" link in a seperate article as it has basically zero to do with the acutal aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.255.221 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Memorials

The following:

"A B29 "Overexposed" converted for reconnaissance crashed in the Peak District on Bleaklow Moor in the UK in 1948 killing the 13 crew. The wreckage is spread over an area of approximatey 50 metres and many large components are recognisable, including the four engines and some under carriage. The site is visible on Google Earth. The site is now marked with a memorial stone and a number of poppies and crosses adorn the site. Photographs of this site can be seen here on Flickr"

was removed as not being notable. This decision could of been handled differently. The text can be moved to Talk for discussion. I suggest that noting memorials of aircraft crash sites would be notable. As it takes many volunteers, possible governmental agencies, land owners and surviving family members of the aircraft crew to take upon themselves to erect a memorial for the crew, plus the expenses involved in this endeavor is quite sizable. Whether the aircraft crash site was military, military during a war, commercial, or the crash sites of "9-11" are all notable, as human deaths should not be valued as notable or not notable by one person. Another scenario, there are over 800+ military aircraft crash sites just in Colorado alone, all are identified in a crash site database. Of those 800+ site, I know of 3 known memorials erected or identified in public facility. Known memorials are just as important and notable as the aircraft identified in "aircraft on display" or "survivor" sections.

I recommend we can create a "Memorial" section and describe the memorial with reliable reference(s), possible photograph, if available. Respectfully submitted.LanceBarber (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
===> See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Memorials for WP level discussion. LanceBarber (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Captured Aircraft

Can we get a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.166.33 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Named ref placed in relevant spots. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the ever expanding media links sections could do with removing this is not a directory of external links or a replacement for a google search, any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've made a (semi)random cull of the Internet archive film links going by the film names trying to remove those that might be very similar. The rest fo the external links is very long and could also do with an axe wielded over them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in stated operational ceiling

The design and development section claims that "[i]n wartime, the B-29 was capable of flight up to 40,000 feet (12,000 m), but the specifications section lists its service ceiling as 33,600 ft (10,200 m). Meanwhile, Boeing's own website gives a ceiling of 31,850 ft, for an altitude discrepancy of a full mile and a half. Can anybody clear this up? Bendx (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the absolute altitude is often greater than the operational ceiling, based on factors such as loading/weight. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC).
I understand this much, but I'm skeptical that a maximum altitude of 40,000 ft "in wartime" is accurate. Even if it could reach such a height under a combat payload, could it be maintained for long enough to provide a reasonable defense against enemy fighters, as is stated? This article is also the only mention (reliable or otherwise) I can find anyplace that claims a ceiling anywhere near 40,000 ft. Bendx (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I have added a reference from the Boeing website of 31,850 ft. Bjmullan (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

merge proposal [[Boeing KB-29 into Boeing B-29 Superfortress

Please discuss the merge proposal here:- 18:01, November 27, 2011‎ User:Petebutt

I am deleting your merge suggestion on both pages, for lack of interest. Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

LeMay's orders

He did not order the removal of all armament from B-29's flying night missions. Ammunition was removed, but for the majority of the Bomb Groups operating out of Guam, Saipan and Tinian, the guns stayed in the aircraft. Except for the 315th and the 505th Composite Group, the remaining bomb groups had their guns up and through the war. Most of the ammunition was removed except for the TG. B29bomber (talk) 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to provide reliable sources for that claim. First- or second-hand knowledge is not verifiable per WP:V and WP:RS policies. - BillCJ (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Then how can you realiably say what you say here? The reference you have to LeMay just reverts to the 315th BW website. No proof there either. The statement should be removed. B29bomber (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
The real problem is that much of the entire article lacks proper references, in spite of the extensive bibliography listed below. This entire article needs an overhaul in regards to referencing; I personally have few books on the B-29 so it will be up to those who have written the bulk of the article to go back in and add the information. In the meantime I can see B29bomber's point - why single out his contribution as being "unreferenced" when much of the article follows the same pattern? Dismissing the information of an eyewitness should not be so easily done. I do know that I have read somewhere that Le May's orders were complied with by not loading ammunition, although the weapons, sights and turrets stayed - now I have to find the reference.Minorhistorian (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Was it actually Armor not Armaments that were removed from the B-29s?

Alex Abella's "Soldiers of Reason: The RAND Corporation and the Rise of the American Empire" talks about LeMay receiving a report recommending removal of armor from the B-29s and says that LeMay wrote that this improved the accuracy of the B-29s. No mention is made of removing armaments. No mention is made of who gave the order.

Oddly the documentary film "The Fog of War" has Robert McNamara saying that LeMay ordered the B-29s to fly low because they were not hitting their targets. He says the pilots knew this meant much greater odds of being shot down. Further MacNamara leaves one with the impression that the mass firebombing of Japanese cities was required because the B-29s couldn't hit their targets unless they struck in a mass formation and carpet bombed.

Abella's footnote to the B-29 discussion is "The Wizards of Armageddon" by Fred M. Kaplan page 43, but this seems to actually about LeMay's realization that he couldn't hit specific targets, just cities. It is actually page 57 that has the Collbohm (later president of the RAND Corporation) report recommending removing armor plating and retaining only the tail gun. Page 57 says this was only done close to the end of the war and only for one wing. It says LeMay reports to HQ that the resulting accuracy was the best. It is not explained how LeMay determined preciseness when firebombing a city in a mass attack. No mention is made of relative casualty and damage rates for the modified B-29's.

It would be good to have the original documents including the actual orders, analysis and reports of LeMay, McNamara, Collobohm etc. Who knows maybe even a RAND analysis? Of course, there is the question of whether you should believe what the reports say, but it is still worth knowing what they do say. 21:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.15 (talk)

====It is my understanding, from various sources, that the reason the B-29's could not hit their targets from a very high alitiude was the jet stream. Remember that these were gravity bombs and although the military meteorologists could predict wind speeds at a certain location, the jet stream flows at very high altitude and moves around.70.246.239.46 (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

First B-29 Superfortress combat mission

Bombing_of_Bangkok_in_World_War_II#First_B-29_Superfortress_combat_mission has been completely re-written, with contemporary sources, and should be incorporated here in lieu of

Forward base in China On 5 June 1944, B-29s raided Bangkok, in what is reported as a test before being deployed against the Japanese home islands. Sources do not report from where they launched, and vary as to the numbers involved — 77, 98, and 114 being claimed. Targets were Bangkok's Memorial Bridge and a major power plant. Bombs fell over two kilometres away, damaged no civilian structures, but downed some tram lines and destroyed both a Japanese military hospital and the Japanese secret police headquarters.

--Pawyilee (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Remote-controlled machine guns

The article says that the Superfortress had remote-controlled machine guns. Does anyone know how this system worked? Were the gun aimed by radar or did they have cameras mounted on them? How was the gunner able to aim the guns at enemy fighters via remote control?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Found the answer online at remote-controlled machine guns. There was a system consisting of a control box, a gunsight, and transfer switches. The sights seem to have been computer-controlled. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
There was an S-1 pedestal sight. A system of selsyns (synchros and resolvers, magic analogue servo motors, see [3]) are used to track the gun barbette so as to follow the sight, wherever the gunner points it.
The gunner had a simple sight that they point directly at the target. There's also a 2CH computer system that corrects the aim point for ballistics (bullets don't fly straight), lead (targets move) and parallax (the sight isn't in the same place as the barbette). This adjusts the position signal between the sight and the barbette, to adjust the aim point (the guns aren't pointing exactly where the sight points). Note that this is different from other reflector sight systems, where the target reticle is projected optically from mirrors controlled by gyroscopes (and magic) so that the gunner no longer aims directly at the target (although it looks to them as if they have), but their reticle has automatically been offset to compensate for lead.
An additional complication to the B-29 is that there were five barbettes controlled by gunners at five sighting stations. However these sighting stations could also switch to take over other barbettes, so that the gunner with the best sightline coulf engage. The A-26 Invader had a single sight and gunner controlling one of two barbettes at a time. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The atomic bombs

This section makes the claim that the bombs did little to end the war, as if this was a firm scholarly consensus -- which it is not; the issue is still hotly debated. If nothing else, this is badly unbalanced. --Yaush (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC) And don't forget the names of the cities they bombed- Hiroshima and Nagaski. There were two bombers when the first bomb was dropped-one actually dropped the bomb and the other carried scientists to measure the power and force of the bomb.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boeing B-29 Superfortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

B-29 Defensive Armament Not ordered "removed" by LeMay

Roger Sandstedt, a B-29 Top Gunner (and an author of a self-published B-29 book) provides some interesting comments on the above article, in his letter to the editor, in the July 2002 issue of The Journal of Military History p972-974. In particular, he confirms no guns, no ammo and no gunners (except some as rear observers) for March 9-10 and two other raids, but then he says the practice ended. He says that with the availability of Iwo Jima the need to save fuel was gone and the limiting factor was no more incendiary bombs could fit in the bomb bays. Searle provides a response.B29bomber (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

B-29 civilian airline use after WWII?

I don't know enough to alter the Wiki article for the B-29, but: the 1946 industrial film "Old Chinese Proverb: One Picture is Worth Ten Thousand Words" (viewable at the Prelinger Archive online) has, at the 13:00 mark, brief footage and voice-over of a civilian airline B-29 with "seating for 100" and sleeping berths for 36, with passengers loading at the airport, and interior shots as well (two seats on each side of the aisle). I didn't find any mention of this in the Wiki article...could someone check this all out and update appropriately? (just hoping to be useful)66.190.55.235 (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the B-29 has no civilian airline use perhaps some confusion with the Boeing 377 which has some bits similar to the B-29 and B-50. MilborneOne (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The film shows a brief sequence featuring the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser with the narrator saying: "It's the Boeing B-29 transformed for the air age." This is probably where the confusion resulted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC).
Agreed, I know of no use for the B-29 as a civilian airliner, post WWII, or any War.B29bomber (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd be amazed if any were. The Avro Lancaster was rebuilt as the Avro Lancastrian and developed as the Avro York for applications needing a four-engined long-range transport. However this has two major differences: they were needed in a hurry, so the first were conversions, not builds. Also they were unpressurised.
The B-29 was not used as the basis of a transport for a couple of years. The drive for it was not an urgent need for aircraft to use, but a need for Boeing to make and sell more aircraft from their idle wartime capacity. There would be little gain for Boeing from mere conversions, rather than new builds.
Secondly it was pressurised, and only made sense on long, high-altitude pressurised service (there were cheaper and more reliable Douglas designs to use unpressurised). The B-29 was only partially pressurised, in two compartments. Pressurising the bomb bay / passenger space as well would have been a major re-engineering.
AFAIK, the transport "B-29s", the C-97 Stratofreighter and the 377 Stratocruiser were near simultaneous, although post-war. They had a whole new fuselage design, one reason why they took so long, and had increasingly little B-29 in them, rather than B-50. The fuselage was one of the first "double bubble", as would be seen later on a number of militarised civilian designs, such as the Nimrod. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This sentence should be dragged in the yard and shot.

In early 1945, Major General Curtis Lemay, commander of XXI Bomber Command, the Marianas-based B-29-equipped bombing force — that resulted in the affected aircraft having as little defensive firepower as the atomic mission-intended Silverplate B-29 airframes — ordered most of the defensive armament and remote-controlled sighting equipment removed from the B-29s under his command so that they could carry greater fuel and bomb loads as a result of the change of role from high-altitude, daylight bombing with high explosive bombs to low-altitude night raids using incendiary bombs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.58.145 (talk)

Why? - BilCat (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Because it is incorrect. I have spoken to hundreds of B-29 veterans over the years from various bomb groups throughout the theater.., and the turrets and guns were not removed. Look at the photos of Saipan's Isley Field during the massive sortie of B-29's for the POW Supply Missions.., EVERYONE OF THEM HAS TURRETS AND .50 CALS.B29bomber (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Please provide reliable, published sources for such claims. Your say-so is not sufficient to remove sourced content. - BilCat (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Boeing B-29 Superfortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Myth of the tucker turret

I trimmed the claim that some or all B29 used the Tucker turret. The record seems to indicate that no tucker turrets were ever used in any USAAF aircraft. Geo Swan (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

"Accidents and incidents" section

The section contains a photo of a memorial about the B-29 that crashed in the Talkeetna Mountains in Alaska on 15 November 1957; however NOTHING about this is in the text/written part of the section nor anywhere else in the entry/article.

Why not? 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Because the accidents and incidents section is just a summary and that accident during a training mission is not particularly notable compared with all the other B-29 losses. We perhaps need a List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing B-29 Superfortress at some point but as wikipedia is a work in progress it is just another task that has not been looked at (also remember that about 450 aircraft were lost in combat during the war so it would be difficult to get the balance between combat losses and later accidents). MilborneOne (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boeing B-29 Superfortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing B-29 Superfortress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Errors ?

This article is off to a bad start when it begins with, "The B-29 Superfortress is a four-engine propeller-driven heavy bomber designed by Boeing that was flown primarily by the United States Air Forces in late-World War II/" This statement is wrong. There was no United States Air Force until 1947 . Before then it was called the army air core. Please correct. Arydberg (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Air Corps was replaced in 1941 by the "Army Air Forces" AAF. Rjensen (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
1n 1926 the Army Air Core was established. In 1941 it became the Amy Air Forces and in 1947 the US Air Force as a separate service was established. The article should be corrected. I would do it but two topic bans are enough. Wikipedia has it's own unique version of the truth. Arydberg (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Boy, I have a lot of trouble putting any faith in corrections suggested by somebody who can't spell "Corps!" 173.62.11.254 (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree, I agree! It is really pathetic when someone cannot spell "Corps" correctly (for the U.S. Army), especially after all of the history of the U.S. Army Air Corps, and the ground-based I Corps (especially in Korea), V Corps (in West Germany), VII Corps (in West Germany), the X Corps (10th Corps) (especially in Korea), U.S. Marine Corps, and many other Corps in the U.S. Army during WW II, in Western Europe, in the Pacific Theater, and in the Mediterranean Theater.
Furthermore, with a somewhat-different meaning, there are the Medical Corps, the Dental Corps, the Judge Advocate General Corps, the Signal Corps, the Supply Corps, the Artillery Corps, the Armored Corps, the Infantry Corps, the Paratrooper Corps, and the Special Operations Corps.47.215.183.159 (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Fortresses

Does this sentence make sense?

The name "Superfortress" [...] carried on a series of names for Boeing-built bombers followed by the [Superfortress] [and other planes].
  1. The moniker "Superfortress" is left out, because that would have been an apparent contradiction. The sentence' author knows that, that's why it's the only one in the list where in alias for the link is used ([[B-50 Superfortress|B-50]]).
  2. The sentence fragment after "followed" is somewhat unattached.
  3. As for the articles, I'm not completely sure, but the B-50 got one, so the others should too.

So please think about changes to the article (even if you hate IPs) before you want to "revert to bad English" again. Please be constructive and do not damage Wikipedia. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The entire passage is rewritten, see changes. Please keep comments directed to the development of the article. (Remember WP:CIVIL.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC).
I think it is relevant to the development of the article if some editors make my work difficult by being disruptive.
FWIW, I don't think your version is better. To call the B-29 a "progenitor of a series" of planes streches it a bit, there are many planes with several variants. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
You've missed the point, the new revision does not continue the tenuous logic that the name "Superfortress" was continued. The fact that the name "fortress" continued on is superfluous and inaccurate as the moniker does not actually translate to the B-47 Stratojet which did not carry on the name. FwiW, in a lede, the salient points only are to be included and that is that the B-29 did spawn the numerous B-29 variants and led to the development of the B-50. Bzuk (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC).
I agree, I indeed missed this point. Glad you finally made it.
I'm a bit puzzled as to why you included said sections to your version of the lede if you thought them to be wrong. I agree with your reasoning, although again, I would not emphasize the fact that there are variants quite that much (apart from the B-50). Go ahead and change it. --91.55.207.102 (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
What has been written above is mostly jabberwocky. It is indeed a pertinent fact that Boeing DID produce a long series of bombers and related heavy airplanes of the USAAF and USAAF with related nicknames: B-17 Flying Fortress, B-29 Superfortress, B-50 Superfortress, and B-52 Stratofortress, along with the KB-29, RB-29, WB-29, KB-50, EB-50, RB-50, WB-50, etc. These overlapped with the Boeing "Strato" series: C-97 Stratofreighter, KC-97 Stratofreighter, B-47 Stratojet, EB-47, RB-47, WB-47, etc. KC-135 Stratotanker, EC-135, RC-135, NC-135, etc.47.215.183.159 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
When it comes to the numerical parts of the names, it is an interesting coincidence that the USAAF & USAF have had these three significant airplanes with the number "47": the B-47, C-47, and P-47. (These never have been significant ones: A-47, F-47, HH-47, KC-47, O-47, T-47, U-47, V-47, or X-47.) You have to know a little math to understand what a significant number that 47 is.47.215.183.159 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Completely incorrect about nonstop transpacific flights:

This is Completely incorrect about nonstop transpacific flights:
"first-ever nonstop flight from Japan to the U.S."
In 1931, Clyde Pangborn and Hugh Herndon, Jr., flew their "Miss Veedol" single engine airplane, nonstop, from Misawa, Japan, to Wenatchee, Washington. Their flight took 41 hours. See: Pangborn-Herndon Memorial Site
Their was an unrelated Hugh Herndon who was a British general in India. Also, his only son, a lieutenant colonel, was killed in combat in Normandy on June 7, 1944, the day after D-Day. 47.215.183.159 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead is a bit heavy

This last paragraph in the lead made my eyes glaze over:

A transport developed from the B-29 was the Boeing C-97 Stratofreighter, first flown in 1944, followed by its commercial airliner variant, the Boeing Model 377 Stratocruiser in 1947. This bomber-to-airliner derivation was similar to the B-17/Model 307 evolution. In 1948 Boeing introduced a tanker variant of the B-29 as the KB-29, followed by the Model 377-derivative KC-97 introduced in 1950. A heavily modified line of outsized-cargo variants of the Stratocruiser is the Guppy / Mini Guppy / Super Guppy, which remain in service today with operators including NASA.

Consider this one (mild) vote to demote some of this chicken scratch. — MaxEnt 02:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's an example of what the lead could use more of instead (cribbed from a random forum):

In B-29 Superfortress at War David Anderton gives the following stats:

B-29s carried out around 33,000 sorties with a loss rate of 1.38% which meant that about 450 aircraft were lost with all or part of their crew (how many were lost over Japan I cannot say). 11,026 fighter attacks reported over Japan. B-29s claimed 714 destroyed, 456 prob and 770 damaged.

The present lead is extremely light on service history. — MaxEnt 02:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_B-29_Superfortress/Archive_1&oldid=1252154410"