Talk:Republic-Ford JB-2

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Page name

The name of this article is doubly erronious; while the JB-2 and Loon were essentially the same weapon, the JB-2 was not named "Loon", and the "Loon" was not the JB-2! The U.S. Army Air Force version of the missile was designated 'JB-2', while the Navy version was 'Loon' (with a variety of designations added to the name). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The image attached to this article is of the V-1 flying bomb, and not the loon. I am fairly sure US armament manufacturers did not put German designations on the weapon casing.

Maybe not, but US museums trying to set up a WWII exhibit do. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Loon"

Does Loon derive from balloon? --Helium4 (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more likely to be Loon, the bird. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Loon" aka "Diver" in UK, or perhaps more specifically the Paccific Loon (Gavia pacifica) is a typical USN missile name of the period. Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Republic-Ford JB-2. 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) 04:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diff'rent strokes

This site puts the number built at 1292, & says all were by Willys-Overland (calling it a "well-kept secret). True? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although they had a sub-contract to build the airframes perhaps Republic built the first 99 themselves ? MilborneOne (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This paper https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/5517/JB2%20Thesis%20Final.pdf;sequence=1 says that Willys-Overland built 1292 of the 1382 JB2 produced. They didnt build the engines, control systems or boosters. MilborneOne (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. That page does say Ford built the pulsejets, & I had a suspicion W-O was building airframes (only) to licence. I learn something new every day. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Differences from the V-1

This article states "The JB-2 had nothing more advanced than what the Germans had already placed aboard their V-1 for guidance." This is most incorrect. The United States concluded that the V-1 was hopelessly inaccurate. The JB-2 had a radio beacon for tracking by a SCR-584 radar or another air or sea-born substitute. A radio command guidance system was used which ultimately provided greatly improved accuracy. See: Worrell, Kenneth P., Evolution of the Cruise Missile, Air University Press, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, 1985, pg 65. Also see: Stumpf, David K., Regulus: America's First Nuclear Submarine Missile, Turner Publishing Company, 1996. The last flight at Holloman in October 1948. See: Tagg, Martin D. We Develop Missiles, Not Air, The Legacy of Early Missile, Rocket, Instrumentation, and Aeromedical Research Development at Holloman Air Force Base, Holloman Air Force Base Cultural Resource Publication No. 2, 1995., pg 93. Please excuse me for being picky but correction of this article is in order. Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:So fix it. BilCat (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History and Sources

As always I prefer published sources to online ones. Books seldom return a 404. Also someone accessing the Wikipedia might be at the first stage of some serious research. Under any circumstances most online sources on early rocketry seldom provide sufficient background to understand what happened. In the case of the JB-2 the dispute over who would control missiles was a hot issue in the Pentagon for the next decade. It was an essential portion of the JB-2 program. Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed a couple of typos in your edits in the "Postwar testing" section, but I think paragraphs 1 and 4 there need to be reconciled somehow since paragraph 4 still reads like "the former Alamogordo Army Air Field" had not been mentioned earlier. Mark Taylor (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to revise as little as possibile. I did delete some erronious material someone had "learned" from an unreliable source. I did not correct any spelling previous authors had made. I shall review and adjust as per better sources. Mark Lincoln (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shipping assets

"At one point proponents envisioned 75,000 JB-2s planned for production. This was absurd as it would have competed with the established manned bomber forces for sealift from America to Europe. It was estimated that the presumed launch rate of JB-2s would consume 25% of available shipping."

Wouldn't the entire point of a guided cruise missile be that it would replace the manned bombers to a large extent so they could vastly reduce the number of young men they have to send on dangerous bombing missions over enemy territory? Surely they could ship a single JB-2 in the space it took to ship four 1,000lb bombs, which is four 1,000lb bombs that don't need to be flown over the enemy capital by young men. Is that not the main reason the Fi 183 was invented in the first place, to replace manned bomber flights? With the number of normal bombs they managed ship (and the vast number of things that they didn't strictly need or ever use) 75,000 flying bombs doesn't seem that unreasonable. Especially since they could probably be ferried over in aircraft as well. Idumea47b (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]