Talk:Convair B-36 Peacemaker/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

World War II and after

The first para. makes no sense. Since the intended purpose was to reach Japan, what has V-E got to with it? It's far more important to note that first delivery was some weeks after V-J day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.18.129 (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Engine oil

Each had a 100 U.S. gallon (380 L) tank, but the tank was sometimes insufficient, and the engine would have to be shut down.

Last night I read in Jenkins' "Magnesium Overcast" that the jet engines had this problem. IIRC the exact wording was "engine operating time was limited by the amount of oil carried." I haven't seen references to the recips having to be shut down because the oil tank went dry.

I have read of an R-4360 having to be shut down because its oil ran out. Oil consumption sometimes led to B-36 missions being aborted. But I have never seen anything about oil and the J47. In fact, I have never read anything about jet engines consuming any oil whatsoever.132.181.160.42 00:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The oil tank for each R-4360 had a volume of 190 U.S Gallons, so for a 14 hour mission with say half the contents remaining the oil consumption would be around 7 U.S. Gallons per hour per engine. As Mr Yenkostates later, gas turbine engines generally consume a lot less, but engines for expendable target drones usually use total loss oil systems, where oil is not re-circulated and is either burnt or dumped overboard after use.

FYI: Sometimes Jet Fuel is refered to as "kerosene" or "kerosene oil". --gstoner007@yahoo.com (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Jet engines all consume oil. My experience as a mechanic is with GE CF6-50s, which use around a quart every two to three hours of flight time. This loss is from leakage through the labyrinth seals along the mainshaft(s), as well as at the rear scavange pump. Part of the walk-around for an inbound aircraft is checking engine oil levels, and replenishing to the proper levels. Radial aircraft engines, though, are notorious for using MUCH more oil. Generally measured in gallons per flight per engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrYenko (talk • contribs) 07:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture

The picture currently in place can never be loaded by my computer, and once I access the B-36 article, all other pictures become un-loadable. Should I change it?--→Iñgólemo←

I think you're the only one. You might be better off working out why your computer has problems with this image. What OS/browser combo are you running? —Morven 07:47, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

I use a Windows 2000 Business edition, with Microsoft Internet Explorer. The internet connexion is via an SB4100 Cable Modem. --→Iñgólemo←

It sounds like this may be your problem: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=817177

Lovely buggy M$ software. —Morven 20:00, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds right. Whenever I get on this page, the loading progress bar always stops at about 40%.--→Iñgólemo← 22:58, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

"Placeholder engines"

What on earth are ""placeholder" engines"? →Iñgōlemo← ^talk donate 03:44, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)

I meant that they were only temporary, until they could be replaced by the intended engines. —Morven 05:04, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thrust/weight units

Someone recently changed thrust/weight from a unitless form to lbf/lb and N/kg. According to WikiProject Aircraft policy with regards to specifications, this should be expressed as a ratio (see WP:Air and Template:Airspec-imp). Because weight (not mass, weight) is a measure of gravitational force, it should be measured in the same units used to measure the thrust of the engines. When thrust is divided by weight, you are left with a ratio. Expressing it in a unitless ratio form is useful in a number of ways. For example, if the ratio is higher than one, the aircraft is powerful enough to climb vertically upwards.

If you still think that the units of this statistics should be changed, it should probably be discussed on the talk page (WT:Air) of WikiProject Aircraft, rather than here. That way, we can re-examine policy for all articles, not just this one. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 04:28, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Congratulations

To all who helped this become a featured article, congratulations. That any of my early rewrite survives amazes me; thank you all for fixing all the errors I left in. —Morven 09:48, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Lead

Please reduce Wikipedia:Lead, 3 paras is the maximum size. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Table format

File:B36-table.png

Hey anonymous, I figured out the problem with the table. I checked the display in MSIE/Windows, and I see that it doesn't support the CSS properly. Other browsers display the table something like this screen shot from Safari.

In the long run, I'd like to make the "standard" table format a lot better than it is. All the grid lines are usually unnecessary, and just distract from the content. I'll have to give this more thought. —Michael Z. 2005-11-3 21:12 Z

Anonymous was me. The particular computers I was using get a read timeout nearly all the time, so I don't always bother with logging in.

With regards to the format, I see where you're coming from. The advantage with the "class=wikitable" markup is that it's simpler and that everyone can read it, not just the ones with real web browsers. The disadvantage, as you said, is that your format looks better. I prefer the wikitable format because, much as I hate myself for saying this, we do need to ensure that the microserfs can read Wikipedia also. Anyway, I'll leave the judgement on which format to use up to you. Ingoolemo ^talk 06:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have rewritten nearly every sentence of this article and extensively reorganized its content, a labor of love, to be sure; this Baby Boomer has vivid childhood memories of the Cold War. I've added some links and take responsibility for explaining why mounting a R-4360 engine in a pusher configuration made it more likely that it would catch fire. I have also added text explaining why the B-36 was a key technology of the early Cold War and its nuclear arms race: there is no point to building the H-bomb unless you can deliver it. I was never in the Service, nor am I an aerospace engineer. Hence those of you more expert than I should feel free to correct and expand my work.132.181.160.42 00:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm planning a rewrite of my own in a few weeks. Because you put so much work into the article, I'll be sure to include a detailed explanation of why I made the changes I did. Ingoolemo ^talk 22:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Too long?

Note that Wikipedia gently complains that the article might be too long. I've tried to address that a bit, but dare not throw out anything researched by others. Philip Meguire

That is a standard system message generated when an article's source (the wiki text you see when you click the 'edit' tab) approaches or exceeds 32 kB. In the past, this has prevented users with 'now-seldom-used browsers' from editing articles; because of the edit links next to section headings, this problem is largely gone. Wikipedia:Article size advises that '[a limit of 32 kB] is considered to have stylistic value in many cases'. However, this is just a rough guideline. If an article can be written with reasonably long sections and subsections that cover most of its various topics and subtopics, than it should probably be left alone—even if it exceeds the 32 kB limit. Remember, the limit is just a number; it's the readability and the stylistic virtues that really matter. Ingoolemo ^talk 06:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it happens. It's no big deal. --Apyule 16:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A horsepower rating for the J47.

I would like a better grasp of the extent to which power was increased by adding 4 J47s. This requires coming up with a power rating for both the R-4360 and the J47 having the same units. Recips are rated, very conventionally, in units of horsepower. Turbojets are rated in foot-pounds. Now Horsepower = (foot-lbs x velocity in feet/min )/33,000. What velocity to use? I propose the maximum cruising velocity of the B-36J, 660km/hr, which translates to 36,700 ft/min. The factor that converts foot-lbs into horsepower is then 36700/33000 = 1.11. Hence a J47 delivers 5200 x 1.11 = 5770hp. If I am correct, the 4 J47s delivered about 23000 hp. Meanwhile, the R-4360s delivered 6x3800 = 22,800 hp. This suggests that adding the J47s neatly doubled the power of the B-36. I suspect that this increase in power is too much, and that the velocity figure of 36,700 ft/min is too high. But moving forward here will require advice from someone out there.132.181.160.42 01:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't get distance from aircraft's speed since you are not factoring in the contribution of the "six turning," the drag, etc. To get the hp for J47, you have to know its shaft torque and rpm, same as for turboprop and turboshaft engines. I'm not sure there's a simple way to figure out torque from thrust.

Besides that, I think you are going about the whole idea backwards. You need to figure out total thrust, not total horsepower. Here's why: In a prop engine, hp (torque, really) is sent through reduction gearboxes to the propeller whose rotating blades generate lift which is basically thrust. So you need to figure out the thrust generated by the propellers and compare that with thrust provided by the J47s. For prop thrust, you need to know the airfoil characteristics and propeller speeds of B-36 props, so that you can figure out lift. I hope you like math. :) Emt147 05:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The math is but arithmetic; this is really an exercise in old fashioned aeronautical engineering. Instead of coming up with a horsepower for the J47, let me propose a foot-poundage for the R-4360, as follows. I have no way of finding out the rpm of any turbojet. But the R-4360 is a simpler kettle of fish: the propeller tips were just subsonic. Given that the propeller diameter was 19' 6", that translates to 1025rpm. I also know that the propeller speed was half the engine speed. Hence the R-4360 cruised at a little over 2000rpm. From that fact, and the fact that the R-4360 was rated at 3,800hp, can I back out a foot-poundage for the R-4360? If yes, then I'm home free, because the J47 was rated at 5200 foot-pounds.132.181.160.42 01:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

---

The following info, from aerospaceweb.org, cannot be correct.

Thrust (B-36B) 21,000 hp (15,660 kW) (B-36J) 38,460 hp (17,004 kW) plus 20,800 lb (92.5 kN)

Early versions of the R-4360 delivered 3000hp, consistent with a total of 21,000hp. But the most powerful version of the R-4360 delivered 4300hp, so that 6 such engines could have delivered at most 25,800hp, not 38,460hp as claimed. My tentative conclusion is that 38460 is the total horsepower of all 10 engines. If so, the 4 J47s delivered at least 38460-25800=12660hp, or 3165hp apiece.132.181.160.42 01:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the most powerful R-4360 used on a B-36 (apparently, the B-36 never used the most powerful variant) generated 3,800 hp, so the J47 should have generated something more like 3,900 hp given the power estimate you cite above. Both Joe Baugher's Encyclopedia of American Aircraft and the USAF Museum website cite a 3,800 hp figure for the B-36's engines. Ingoolemo ^talk 23:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop putting 38,000 hp back into the article or I will tag it with questionable information -- B-36 never had 38,000 hp for reasons detailed below. Please take 15 minutes to read the link and educate yourself. Emt147 02:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The exact figure reported in www.aerospaceweb.org is 38,460hp. This far exceeds the power of the 6 R-4360, any variant. But the number is unlikely to have come out of thin air. I presume it refers to the total horsepower of all 10 engines.

Thrust (B-36B) 21,000 hp (15,660 kW) (B-36J) 38,460 hp (17,004 kW) plus 20,800 lb (92.5 kN)

With all due respect to Aerospaceweb, I can't tell where they got this number. I don't think it's unreasonable to leave out unconfirmed controversial information of unknown origin until we get some answers. Emt147 03:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the horsepower of an aircraft that went out of service in 1959 really all that "controversial"? Is www.aerospace.org all that dubious?132.181.160.42 01:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

11/22 edits by Emt147

(The same engine powered the B-47.) Unless the B-47 was powered by avgas-burning J47s, this statement is incorrect. It also interrupts the flow of the article. The reader can find out what else used J47s by visiting that page.

That the J47 burned jet fuel (kerosene)when mounted in the B-47, and avgas when mounted in the B-36, is a distinction without a difference, a fact that does not render the statement incorrect. "Interrupting the flow" is a matter of opinion.

. Hence the B-36 in its later years is believed to have enjoyed about 38,000hp, Like I said before, this assertion is incorrect unless 3,800 x 6 is somehow equal to 38,000. Jet engines do not produce horsepower -- they produce thrust. Piston engines produce torque (which can be mathematically coverted to horsepower) which is used to turn propellers which produce thrust (technically, lift in the direction of flight). If you want to give the total power output of a B-36D, you have to talk in terms of thrust, not horsepower.

I invite you to calculate the total thrust produced by all 10 engines, and to incorporate that number into the article. In any event, [1] includes a horsepower calculation for the 747.

, probably a record for a mass-produced aircraft, and was probably the most important jet-piston hybrid aircraft ever made Violates the "neutral point of view" policy. Emt147 17:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Such "policies" I prefer to take with a grain of salt. I go to Wikipedia for relief from the pedantry of my day job :<) I trust no one doubts that (a) jet-piston hybrids were rare, and (b) the B-36 was a significant aircraft in its day.

I agree with these edits. The only way you can add the piston-engine and jet-engine portions together is in terms of thrust - which you can, indeed, convert into horsepower if you wish (since you can calculate the work being done). However, you can't use the piston engine's crankshaft horsepower in that equation, since the figure that can be directly compared is not that, but the thrust actually generated by the propeller.

The 'probably a record' and 'most important' could be in here if they were cited statements. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 17:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

For anyone interested, here's a good discussion of why you shouldn't try to do thrust to hp conversions and why you will totally fail even if you try. http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/propulsion/q0195.shtml

Why not attempt an hp to thrust conversion? At any event, thank you very much for this excellent link, where it is shown that a horsepower figure for an all-jet plane merely requires knowing its cruising speed, the associated throttle setting, and its maximum test stand thrust. The mixed mode engines of the B-36 complicate things, yet I remain optimistic about calculating a number for its total power or thrust. And I bet the total power will fall a little below 40,000hp.

The aerospaceweb article correctly indicates that published thrust for jet engines is obtained in ground testing, and that the actual thrust in flight is dependent on many factors and can be very different. Thus, to calculate the horsepower of J47 engines, you need to know two things:

1. Actual thrust produced by a J47 engine in flight
2. Maximum speed of a B-36 powered ONLY by the four J47 engines

Anything else is wild-ass guess and poorly done original research. Actual thrust of a J47 may have been measured somewhere but good luck finding it (and remember, it has to be the gasoline-burning version too!). Top speed with four J47s only may not even be available. It will be easier to work out the thrust produced by the propellers since propeller blade airfoil profile, pitch, and rotation speed are presumably recorded somewhere. Once you know the total thrust (6 props plus 4 jets), you can even convert it to total horsepower.

As a final note, if you do calculate the total horsepower, please cite your references (aerospaceweb specs page for B-36 is not a valid reference since they do not indicate their source of information) and show all math. Anything else will be tagged as dubious. So far, I've been presenting physics and the 40,000 hp proponents have been citing a single unverifiable website. Emt147 03:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The word probably in this context makes the statement subjective. Any "most important" claim is subjective by default. Ten engines is the most I can think of in a mass-produced aircraft, so I'll stick that back in. Emt147 17:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Subjectivity" is unavoidable in serious discourse, and thus should be embraced rather than shunned. Also, one man's "subjectivity" is another man's polite caution.

A good encyclopedia entry should have no author subjectivity at all. If you don't like the NPOV policy, don't write for Wikipedia. There are plenty of other mediums (webpages, books, internet forums, street corners, "fair and balanced" news networks) for expressing your own opinions. Emt147 03:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

XB-36 First Flight Picture

The picture does depict the XB-36, but I believe the very first flight was actually done with the gear down - standard practice at that time.

The image's source, a reputable USAF website, describes the photo as an image of the first flight. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The image link is now 404, but the first flight WAS conducted gear-down. The gear was damaged on landing and the aircraft veered off the runway. This is well-attested in various sources. 5/3/12 "skydaddy"

31 March 2006 edits by 202.36.179.65

Most of these style edits I am ok with except for the changes to the operation tom-tom information. The change to "...FICON project (redesignated JRB-36F), was also canceled after a few months because of the B-36's violent wingtip vortices" seems to imply that the project was canceled after a few months, which it was not. It was a few months AFTER the TIP TOW crash that it was canceled. Also, it was not the wingtip votices themselves that were violent, but the flight characteristics induced by them. Lastly, the edit to the survivors area probably needs to be discussed which brings up the point of number produced. If we include the reference to the remaining XC-99, then there were 385 produced, if we don't count the XC-99 as a B-36, then there were 384. I propose that it be counted because it was a B-36 off the line that was modified into a cargo version, just as the YB-60's are counted. Patrick Berry 15:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

USAF Museum B-36 Move

I happened to visit the USAF Museum about when they shuffling planes around in preperation for the new hangar. I was told they were going to remove the ends of the wings to get the B-36 out, as the hangar had been constructed over it. Alas I can't verify it. Anybody?

That was an interesting time to visit. I was there two consecutive weekends. The first weekend I toured the main museum hangars and was impressed by the B-36 and also with the XB-70 Valkyrie. The next weekend I went to the Experimental hangar and was stunned to find an XB-70. Wait, they only made two and one crashed. Where the .... did this one come from? Well they had moved it during the week, and I didn't get the memo.--J Clear 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The did not remove the ends of the wings to get it out, and the hanger was not constructed over it. When the plane was put into the Air Power Gallery in 1971, it was moved in before the end wall of the hanger was finished. So in 2003 when they moved it to its current location in the Cold War Gallery, they had to remove the end wall (or most of it) from the APG to get it out. At the time, the CWG wall had not been installed so that the B-36 could be placed therein.Patrick Berry 17:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems more likely. Wonder which docent was pulling my leg.--J Clear 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I remember where it was in the old building. The wingtips were very close the the wall on both sides, but I think they just had to be careful. I am a member of the Friends of the Air Force Museum, and maybe I can send an e-mail and find out. BTW, I remember seeing a photo of the dedication of that building in the early 70's with Richard Nixon speaking from the presidential podium right under the nose of the B-36. --rogerd 22:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed reference to "internet novel"

This seems to be a fannish reference at best. Removed from the article:

The B-36 has also featured in the internet novel The Big One, where it is used to drop nuclear weapons on Nazi Germany several years after a British capitulation, and in some of the spinn-off stories set in the same universe.

Minor typing error

Last sentence of the topic Engine Fires, "...eliminated the probem." I'm correcting it. --C6H12O6 07:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, but for something like that you rarely need to explain it on the talk page. Just fill out the edit summary.--J Clear 20:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on nuclear powered bomber

On display at Argonne West (an Idaho National Laboratories facility) there are two prototype nuclear engines for a nuclear powered bomber. There is a plaque that describes the project and mentions the B-36. The engines are next to the world’s first nuclear power plant, EBR-1 and both are open to the public.

• Image:DSCN1638.JPG

--Therobotbuilder 00:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I started to add this link to the "See Also" section:

• Convair X-6 proposed nuclear successor to the NB-36H, never built

... then thought better of it since you have a featured article and review coming up. I figured it was better to let the regular editors here figure out if they wanted it.--A. B. ^(talk) 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured article review

Convair B-36 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Gzkn 11:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

NMUSAF photo

We seem to be having a minor edit skirmish here over which image of the B-36 at the NMUSAF to show. I had put Image:B-36-NMUSAF-4.jpg, a commons image that I took in the survivors section and User:Signaleer keeps substituting Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg, a similar image that he downloaded from the museum's website. It is my contention that the commons image is sharper, has better color and definition of the nose area. Signaleer's main objection is that my "camera and photograph is inferior to the one provided by the USAF". I would appreciate it if other editors would state their preference on the two photos. Thanks. --rogerd 14:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The commons image is significantly sharper, but the color has a strange blue tint that is less than ideal, and I marginally prefer the angle on the USAF image. At the moment, I very slightly prefer the USAF image. Karl Dickman ^talk 22:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I just went into Adobe Photoshop Elements and adjusted the white balance and re-uploaded it. See if you think it is better now. Thanks for the feedback --rogerd 23:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that; the balance of my opinion now shifts in favour of your image. Karl Dickman ^talk 21:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the commons image. It is sharper. Of course I also prefer the black and white one that I had submitted, but I am biased on that one. Image:NMUSAF b-36.jpg ;) Patrick Berry 14:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your B&W image is good, but all of the other images in this article are B&W, I thought a little bit of color (not that the '36 is a peacock) would be a good contrast. --rogerd 23:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the commons image, but a gallery can always be made and if the USAF force image is public domain, it can be moved to commons.--MONGO 10:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as we are looking at images, I have also put Image:B-36-NMUSAF-5.jpg on commons, a little more wide angle, probably too much for this purpose, but I thought others might want to see it. --rogerd 05:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a slight consensus about the pic, maybe the revert skirmish could stop now?Patrick Berry 01:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What consensus? Are you refereing to the "majority" on this matter? That violates Wiki policy! Guess who owns and operates the museum? Does Rogerd?? I'm sure the explanation of an amateur photographer and his expertise is enough to suffice the qualifications of what photograph should be used to show the "survivor" of the B-36 at the museum. Just FYI, I'm not satisfied with the image that Rogered has provided--please refer to the statements above which I have provided. I would rather not see a photograph on this page versus this edit war. Because I will be relentless in revering this image and I believe my reasons for this is more valid than what Rogered thinks or others which support him. -Signaleer 18:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The National Museum of the United States Air Force is owned and operated by the United States Air Force. I don't have to guess. rogerd does not own said Museum. That being settled, ownership of the museum has nothing to do with which picture looks better. If you think that the 'explanation of an amateur photographer and his expertise is enough to suffice the qualifications of what photograph should be used to show the "survivor" of the B-36 at the museum' then why are you arguing? To which 'statements above' do you refer? I don't see any statements from you in the above discussion save your last post. I think, and a couple others have agreed, that rogerd's version is clearer than the Air Force version. The people taking pictures for the NMUSAF are not necessarily Air Force photographers with Air Force photo gear. They could be NMUSAF volunteers or civilians with a cheap digital. We have no way of knowing since the AF pic does not have the photo info in the JPG. I think the proof is in the pudding: which picture is less blurry? I say rogerd's is. -- Patrick Berry 19:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you, look at my photograph which I supplied http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg First and foremost, the image source is the United States Air Force. It is posted on the USAF.mil website, to assume that the photograph was taken by a military combat photographer versus a Department of Defense of Deptartment of the Air Force Civilian is a poor judgement on your part. These personnel (irregardless if military or civilian) work for the United States military and are professionals who get paid to take photographs. To make the assumption that it was taken by a "cheat digital" by a volunteer at the museum is nothing but an assumption. To say that you have the credentials of a professional photographer to make that call is asinine. -Signaleer

I made no assumption about who took the photograph. You did. I merely suggested that we have no way of knowing who took it. If you re-read what I wrote above I said they 'could be...'. At no time have I stated that I have the credentials of a professional photographer. Please refrain from personal attacks on me, lets keep this civil. --Patrick Berry 19:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused you said about making no assumptions you wrote that "The people taking pictures for the NMUSAF are not necessarily Air Force photographers with Air Force photo gear. They could be NMUSAF volunteers or civilians with a cheap digital. We have no way of knowing since the AF pic does not have the photo info in the JPG." So that is not an assumption?

Also taking into consideration that Rogered himself is not a military photographer and does not take photographs for the United States Department of Defense. His photograph is clearly more valid than the DOD's, himself being a civilian who has nothing to do with the military.

So you're not an expert on photographs yet you've taken it upon yourself to make the changes anyway because you said "I think, and a couple others have agreed, that rogerd's version is clearer than the Air Force version." So they must obviously too be subject matter experts. Thanks for the clarification. I must have misunderstood the entire concept. -Signaleer 19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No offense intended, but your posts make no sense. I can't follow your reasoning, logic or sentence structure so I have no further answers beyond what I have already posted. --Patrick Berry 19:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who wonders why I posted the above, see this diff: [2] --Patrick Berry 19:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to this comment, I re-read the article and re-written the document in order to reflect this. Patrick Berry is a professional and real trooper. -Signaleer 19:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So in response, you're going to cut off all communication. I thought that edit wars were supposed to be resolved and now you're going to stop further communications and a dialogue? That's against Wiki guidelines. -Signaleer 19:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not clear why this image keeps getting deleted. It's got good lighting (hard to do in an environment like that), it's clear, and the patron reading the material in the foreground gives a perspective of size. (And I am a professional, published aviation photographer!) Signaleer has not provided any legitimate reason for deleting it, other than he's trying to make a point. Akradecki 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Observation from B-36 page

Just an observation, I've noticed an overuse of citations needed throughout the article. Which I think is unnecessary and overused. --Signaleer 20:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree; since they are used indiscriminately without regard to the material in question, I think they're just vandalism. I've deleted them all and put a note at the beginning pointing people at the definitive history of the B-36 that confirms all the data within the article. Stuart Slade 17:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

When this article has its FA status pulled (which will be happening shortly), it will be for attitudes like these. The fact tags were added where citations are needed in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines as outlined in WP:CITE as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#References. The fact that you think that "pointing readers to the definitive reference" is sufficient shows that you are not familiar with these guidelines. You removing the fact tags does nothing to improve the article -- it will still grossly lack in citations. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

When the article was written, it was cited in accordance with the guidelines present at the time, which did not insist on showing inline sources for every claim but rather to make sure everything claimed in the article was found in one of the sources listed in the References section. At least when I was heavily involved in it, everything claimed was backed up in a source, but we do not have precise sources IDs for each fact. Someone could, theoretically, read through the listed sources and find which ones came from which source, and I'd imagine this will be done in time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Signaleer and Morven on this one. Many Wiki entries are written in the traditional encyclopedia style, namely a narrative with few or no footnotes or citations of any kind, followed by a short reference list. It is my impression that this style is controversial in only two sorts of Wiki entries, those dealing in current events (where I agree that meticulous referencing reduces the likelihood of defamation) and in military history (a subject that for some reason attracts more than its share of pedants!). Yet I would also welcome someone's finding the exact page in the exact book that verifies all the doubted sentences. I won't do it, if only because I cannot access a copy of Meyer Jacobsen's book.132.181.160.42 02:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

XNB-36H in 1983

An air-to-air left side view of the XNB-36H bomber aircraft and a B-29 Superfortress chase plane during research and development taking place at the Convair Plant. The XNB-36H carries an on board nuclear reactor to test radiation for crew and aircraft. The plane flows near the Fort Worth, Texas on 18 Aug 1983. http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DefenseLINK_Search/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DFSC8309332&JPGPath=/Assets/1983/Air_Force/DF-SC-83-09332.JPG wikifreund from Germany --80.128.41.67 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The last flight of any B-36 or variant was in 1959. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.193.3 (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC) "skydaddy" 5/3/12

Surviving B-36's

in 1993 i was a student at Texas Aero Tech in Dallas, Texas. one of our class projects included traveling to the former Carswell AFB in Ft. Worth to participate in the preperation of a B-36 for static display. i do not know the serial number of this particular aircraft or what became of it. does anyone have any idea if this is one of the listed survivors or if there are actually 5 1/2 surviving aircraft? Also, if i recall correctly, we were told that there was one in the lake off the end of the carswell runway. does anyone have any more information?

--gstoner007@yahoo.com 13:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

i withdraw this question as i have, upon further research, determined that: (1) B-36J, serial number 52-2827, the final B-36 built, named "The City of Fort Worth," was scrapped on 12 February 1959 and is now undergoing restoration and reassembly at the Pima Air & Space Museum in Tucson, Arizona.

this is the particular aircraft that i helped work on and that

(2) although a '36 did crash in the lake i have found references to it being removed...

I was at Chanute AFB, Rantoul, Illinois in August thru December 1959 where a B-36 was on outside static display. I was told that the plane was damaged when landing and a section of the fusalage was removed. Any info would interest me.Spidyer (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Spidyer lcwebb@comcast.net 21:20 24Feb09

The aircraft was never scrapped, it was decommissioned in 1959. Until the late 70's it was on display at Greater Southwest Airport. A succession of groups of volunteers had custody. At one point there were plans to return it to flight and all six engines were started and run (one at a time, as vandals had trashed the flight deck and stolen all but one set of engine instruments). The aircraft was disassembled and moved to Carswell in 1979. After several years it was disassembled again and moved to storage. [1]

Volunteers spent 20,000 hours restoring the interior to like-new condition in the hopes the aircraft could be reassembled and put on display in Ft. Worth. [1] But the city of Ft. Worth never "got behind" the project, and the USAF eventually gave custody to the Pima Air and Space Museum. Pima stripped and repainted the aircraft, replacing a lot of rotted magnesium skin in the process. [2]

[[3]] [[4]]

Syncronized Engines

This aircraft used to fly over my house periodically in the 1950's and it was quite loud, even at higher altitudes. I see no mention of it anywhere, but the six propeller engines seemed to be synchronized, i.e., each engine fired its pistons at the same time. This made for a low frequency loud rumble, a very unique sound and you could easily recognize it.

The sound would echo around the valley, sounding like a strange series of booming thunder claps. You could feel it in your chest and dishes and glasses would rattle in the cupboards. These were big and loud engines all singing in a deep base voice. Nothing else was so impressively massive or loud at such a distance.

--LovedTheB36 08:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the engines were actually synchronised but rather that (unlike many large aircraft) the flight engineers took care to match engine RPMs quite precisely. The B-36 needed a lot of in-flight care. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased to read this attempt at a technically informed discussion of the remarkable sound of the B-36. The Goleta web "museum" has a 15 second clip, taken from the movie Strategic Air Command (in which the B-36 was heavily featured). From that clip, and from my early childhood memories of hearing DC-6s, DC-7s, and Connies flying overhead, I surmise that the B-36 made an awesome noise like no other plane in history. (A DC-3 still flies over my house occasionally on weekends.) I emulate the sound of the B-36 on my keyboard synthesizer by putting it into string orchestra mode, then playing the lowest possible E-A-E chord and turning up the volume high. I even can tease out the gentle rolling beats!132.181.160.42 01:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations

The citations needed fact tags were again removed from the article because the editor thought they were over used "Removed two dozen "citation" notes. Citation not required for every single line of text, only controversial, dubious, or challenged statements per WP:VER." I am restoring them because WP:VER applies to the verifiability of sources, not citation, whereas WP:CITE and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#References DO apply and call for citation of: 1. Direct quotations of outside material, 2. Paraphase or other borrowing of ideas from an outside source, 3. Controversial or disputed statements, 4. Subjective or qualitative judgements, 5. Numerical quantities or statistics. --Chuck Sirloin 19:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There are presently 42 citation requests within this article. That is an obscene number.

WP:Cite states categorically "When to cite sources:"

* "When you add content. All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source."

* "Material that is, or is likely to be, challenged."

Surely no one is seriously challenging ALL of these points?

Further, the terms 'subjective', 'qualitative', 'paraphrase', 'numerical', 'statistics', and 'borrowing' are not even mentioned in WP:Cite. {Fallout11 12:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)}

Those particular words come from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#References of which this article is a part. In addition, I can see where a majority of that material could easily be challenged. Things like dates, statistics etc are continually challenged by different editors.--Chuck Sirloin 13:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Lot of info on B-36 in this old LIFE article: books.google.ca/books?id=004EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA46&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=true X2ca (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Photograph Dispute on the B-36 Article Page

This particular issue goes awhile back. I've done the suggested advice and let the situation cool down before I attempt to resolve this situation.

This is the problem, the user Rogerd has been trying to put his personal photograph on the B-36 article. He does not hide the fact that he took it since it is featured on his personal photograph gallery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rogerd/photo_gallery

I feel very strongly that he is bias towards his photograph versus the official U.S. Air Force photograph taken of the same aircraft, which in my opinion, is of better quality and is not crooked. In addition, this photograph does not show any museum spectators and does not obsecure the aircraft from view and shows more of the aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:060315-F-1234P-001.jpg

I feel that I was unfairly overwhelmed by his inner circle of users on Wiki and the dispute is still unresolved in my opinion.

-Signaleer 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Air Force version is obviously a better image. Fred Bauder 21:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Like Signaleer, I think the Rogerd version has a few things wrong with it: 1. There is a dude hanging out in the pic, 2. It is not very large and 3. It is at kind of a crooked angle. When I look at the USAF version, it seems 1. kind of blurry and 2. a bit overexposed. Those two things make the pics pretty even in my book and looking at them side by side, I would have to give slight preference to the AF photo based mainly on being able to see more detail because of size and extent of the pic. That particular plane looks like it would be difficult to get a good photograph of. Maybe we could convince the AF to move those other planes out of the way for a nicer pic? --Chuck Sirloin 21:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My preference is for Rogerd's, because it's clearer, and because there is someone in the photo, giving it a sense of scale. Akradecki 21:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a rehash of a previous discussion, and I only had prior history with one of the participants of that discussion. I don't exactly have an "inner circle". As I stated there, I felt that the other image was less sharp. The image that I took was taken closer up to show more detail of the nose. I feel that the man in the photo does not detract from the image but adds some reference for scale. It is interesting that Signaleer would bring this up at this time, on the same day that he somehow got miffed that I suggested to him that he could give more meaningful names to his uploads and perhaps use commons. I noticed that he got so upset about this that he started spamming the arbcom members about this silly little image dispute. --rogerd 21:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What does your suggestion have to do with this particular issue at hand. It doesn't. The truth and fact of the matter is that you are bias towards your photograph being used in the article in lieu of the official USAF photograph. --Signaleer 11:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I commented on this on the Village Pump (Assistance) request, but I'll comment here as well; I personally prefer Rogerd's version of the image over the USAF version. The AF picture is definitely out of focus slightly, and the front view of the plane doesn't really do it justice; the side view gives a better look at the fuselage and the markings. The person in the image provides a scale measurement, which all of my photography instructors in journalism school harped on for hours when discussing images of large things. Besides, it's a museum - having a person perusing the displays adds character. He's not blocking any key part of the aircraft in question. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is apparent that this particular issue will not be resolved. -Signaleer 12:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think both photos are equally valid, both of them being free (one of the main criteria) and approximately equal in quality and resolution. Personally, though, I would lean slightly toward the Air Force photo because of its wider perspective/view. However, that's just my personal opinion, and both photos look wonderful. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is my first time seeing this dispute and both pictures are good, but how about an alternative solution? I think this picture [[5]] is better than either of the other two. Jons63 14:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely the best of the three photograph in question, but it will take a bit of "shoehorning" to fit it into the article. FWIW Bzuk 15:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

Very nice! As for the shoehorning, how about a layout like Scaled Composites White Knight? It meets one of the exception criteria in the thumb sizing guidelines. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Awesome idea. Make it so! --Chuck Sirloin 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur- this layout will really work well. Good job, guys (and gals) Bzuk 16:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

I replaced the picture. Jons63 17:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I reverted and put the pic back big...see the note on your talk page. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was going crazy. It was suggested to do it like Scaled Composites White Knight and I followed that example and it kept changing back to the bigger size. Jons63 17:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)