Talk:Northrop JB-1 Bat

Drastic Revision Required

I have made major revisions in this page. I have done so because this page contained errors and outright blunders such as "The United States Army Air Forces MX-543 program was initiated in September 1942 to use license-built versions of Frank Whittle’s jet engine (General Electric J31)."

I understand how little information is easily available on the actual engine of the JB-1A, the General Electric B-1. As a member of the Aircraft Engine Historical Society I recently inquired if they had any information on the GE B-1. They had nothing. My library contained more on the subject than the AEHS's. So I can understand how the prior authors of this Wikipage could easily come up with a totally erroneous assumption. Yet accurate information is available. Wolf gives the proper designation and power of the B-1, while Carpenter and D’Alesandro provide photos and diagrams of the B-1.

A number of the “sources” cited in the original Wikipedia entry were shaky at best.

Prior authors were aware of discrepancies such as “NOTE: The c. 1965 film's claim of an August 1943 "MX-543" flight (the date is restated by the 2007 "First Flights" USAF pdf) is inconsistent with the "late 1943" contract and Woodridge's claim that the 1st flight was in 1944.” Yet they the did not attempt to determine the truth.

There is the cited source "Northrop: The War Years". History of the Flying Wing. Century-of-Flight.com." An attempt to access the source returns a 404. Such a source is no source at all even if it was authored by a reputable author.

E.T Wooldridge wrote a book “Winged Wonders: The Story of the Flying Wings published by the Smithsonian Institute Press ISBN 978-087474670. It is a fine published survey of the history of flying wing designs. It will not go 404. Apparently it was never consulted.

Even such a good source as Pape & Campbell’s “North American Flying Wings” contains an obvious error on the date for the first flight of the JB-1 glider. That is a typo, a simple pressing of the key next to the proper one. It was not detected by the author and a proof reader and therefore went to press. Having spent over 30 years of my life owning a typography shop I understand typos. Cross checking of data and sources as well as simple reasoning revealed the truth. The JB-1, the creation of which resulted from the MX-543 program, could not have flown before the program started unless it was powered by a Flux Capacitor.

The cited source "First Flights at Edwards Air Force Base" Has also gone 404.

Searching Edwards AFB for “First Flights at Edwards Air Force Base” returned nothing. Using the US Air Force search engine for “First Flights at Edwards Air Force Base” produced nothing. The testing of the JB-1 glider was done at Rogers Dry Lake which was at the time part of Muroc Army Air Field. Muroc AAF eventually became Muroc Air Force Base and then Edwards Air Force Base in December 1949. The USAF apparently has forgotten about it.

Some 60 or so years after the first flight of a minor failure by a corporation which ceased to exist in 1994 occurred, some person compiled a web page “First Flights at Edwards Air Force Base.” Which has now vanished, gone 404. Search for the title and the best that you might come up with in 2021 is Aerofiles http://www.aerofiles.com/ff-eafb.html which gives the erroneous date of Aug 27, 1943 for the first flight of the JB-1. Then you might note that the last date that Aerofiles records is Sept 8, 1999. Anyone who has done historical research understands how errors may happen and be propagated. Aerofiles is a reputable source, compiled by reputable persons. What is the possibility that Aerofiles finding a list from an Air Force site then transcribed the information without ever realizing the error in a little known date in a historically insignificant program?

I am not attacking the prior authors of the Wikipedia entry Northrop JB-1 Bat. I am simply putting forth evidence of poor scholarship in their work. Online references may become no reference at all due to nothing more than a single keystroke on the delete key. Thus they cannot be considered “good” sources and should not be referenced unless no other source is available. Far more people use Wikipedia than use the Encyclopedia Britannica. Do we not owe those people the best research that we may do?

Mark Lincoln (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)