Talk:Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Photo of Wee Willie

The photo with the caption: "B-17G-15-BO "Wee Willie", 322d BS, 91st BG, after direct flak hit on her 128th mission.[120]" is not genuine. It is a mirror image of a photograph that appeared on the front page of the April 12, 1945 "Stars and Stripes". The plane is in fact "Moonlight Mission" (43-38606), shot down over Oranienberg, April 10, 1945 by German ME262 ace Walter Schuck. (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Walter_Schuck)

Bowers was just plane lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.111.56 (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Bomber defense

"This durability, together with the large operational numbers in the Eighth Air Force and the fame achieved by the Memphis Belle, made the B-17 a key bomber aircraft of the war. Other factors such as combat effectiveness and political issues also contributed to the B-17's success.[119]"

Someone who's read the ref needs to disentangle the different kinds of success - as a weapon, as a product that managed to get made in huge numbers alongside the B-24, and the B-17's place in the public mind as an expression of US military power. I suspect the source work is clearer than the text above.

In its current form the passage assigns more importance to the Memphis Belle's fame than to the B-17's combat effectiveness. This needs fixing.

'political issues' - too vague

Regards to all, Notreallydavid (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The Luftwaffe

The Me 262's rockets could be fired outside the range of defensive bomber fire, but wasn't the MK 108 a low-velocity weapon with a fairly short range? Notreallydavid (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Political issues ?

"Other factors such as combat effectiveness and political issues also contributed to the B-17's success.". The political issue thing as it is stated is meaningless without an explanation of what the ssues were and why relevant. Rcbutcher (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ball turret size

It would be helpful if the article included the diameter of the ball turret, especially the inside diameter! (I can't find this information anywhere.)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.216.11.5 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

The ball turret used in the B-17 and the B-24 (retractable version) was made by Sperry Corporation (formerly Sperry Gyroscope). Post war Sperry underwent a number of reorganizations which reflected its increased diversification. The documentation for the ball turret, which was made completely obsolete by another defensive system invented by General Electric for the B-29 project, was probably inherited by Sperry Flight Systems Company of Phoenix AZ, which in turn was absorbed by Honeywell Aerospace in the 1980s.

Another source of inquiry might be the Commemorative Air Force, which operates two flyable B-17Gs. Since both of the planes had non-military careers after the war correct defensive gun stations, including the ball, had to be re-installed by the restoration craftsmen. It's unimaginable to me that the owners of those aircraft can't supply us with the needed information if they are contacted and asked politely. Try operations@cafhq.org. ENScroggs 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a specific article, BALL TURRET, And that might to a better place to talk specifics. I seem to recall an OD of 40 - 42". there are good station drawings in inches of the B-24. The ball is between 461 and 506 stations ant that would include the ring. So my recall seems in the ball park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:A5B0:D75:79B8:7F2D:719F (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

gun positions

part of what makes the B-17 compelling is its huge number of manned guns. Searching for where the guns were in the 13-gun configuration is difficult in this article's current form... it should be in the summary section of the article. Maybe a diagram? brain 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

an ARMAMENT section in the article would address this issue and could also give links to turret articles. Similar article have such a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:A5B0:D75:79B8:7F2D:719F (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Long range fighter impact

I made several edits to correct statements which perpetuated a myth that has grown up around the advent of the P-51 in 1944, hopefully without changing the general tenor of what was there. 8AF lost 700 bombers to fighters in all of 1943 and curtailed deep penetration missions after 2d Schweinfurt. It lost 1124 bombers to fighters in the first six months of 1944 alone (and 1516 for the year), including 60+ on three missions in March and April. Three groups of P-51s began deep escort during Big Week but did not become pre-eminent in fighter combat until April. However 7 groups of P-47s began using 150-gallon drop tanks during Big Week and scored heavily against the Luftwaffe, as they had in November and December 1943. Claims were 873 Jan-Feb-Mar (about 550 of them to P-47s) and 1110 Apr-May-Jun (about 700 P-51). VIII FC went to a "zone defense", so to speak, for protecting the bombers, sending groups to sectors along the route of the bomber stream to patrol while the bombers flew through it. Until May 1944 more than half these fighters were P-47s (and there were 3 groups of P-38s also). Throw into the mix the strafing of German airfields as well. It was a combined effort of all the 8AF fighters that defeated the Luftwaffe, not just the P-51. (The total split was roughly 900 to 1100 in favor of P-51s) Its effect was long-term, as group after group converted to the Mustang, but by D-Day the Luftwaffe was defeated.--Buckboard 02:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked it, but I'm pretty sure you'll find that Rheinmetall was an independent entity at this time and had no formal association with Borsig until much later - I would tip the 1990s! As far as I remember, both eventually became part of the Thyssen conglomerate.78.48.41.41 (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The 9th AF 354th FG pioneered the Merlin engined P-51B in Europe (EAME) during late 1943 and before the end of the year was detached to VIII FC for long range escort of the heavies. The 1944 date above is incorrect as are some other accounts in the post rendering the comments dubious as to the timing of events.

The system was called a relay system where the escorts handed off to eachother at rendezvous points. Take offs and time to rendezvous were planned to close tolerences. A rendezvous missed by only a few minutes could create a disastrous opportunity for interception.

Increased force structure and ops tempo did result in high losses in April and May 1944. one must becareful as to when absolute losses and when loss rates are used in analysis. Each has a valid use. misuse can give erronious impressions or support false theories and arguements..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02C:F80A:B312:ABF1:259F:DF6E (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Much as I loved his prose as a lad, Martin Caiden's "history" should be taken with much NaCl - Caiden was a yarnspinner who never let "facts" get in the way of his tale. A notable example of his misinformation was his identification of the surviving "The War Lover" B-17 as later used as a camera ship on "Dr. Strangelove" in 1963. This was so stated in "Everything But the Flak", and then repeated in other histories as "fact". And yet, when the extended DVD of Kubrick's classic was released in the 2000s, a documentary shows that the camera ship was IGN B-17 F-BEEA, an aircraft that had NOTHING to do with the 1962 film. You are so warned.

Mark Sublette (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy that. I'm deleting the sentence in question. Perhaps someone will find the the original Caidin source at which time it would be possible to say "Martin Caidin said in xx that the B-17 was called "Queen of the Bombers."" Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

My first Caidin was Cyborg (novel) in '72. Very much a yarnspinner's tale and quite enjoyable. Of course, that was back when US$6M seemed like a reasonable amount to spend on bionics for one man. ... o_O ... Much later, I read "A Torch To The Enemy" about the firebombing of Japan, a subject which doesn't need any kind of fictionalization for it to burn vividly in the mind. Still, I should reread that book to see if Caidin stretches history or pulls sources out of his Selectric. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Martin Caidin was a US Army Air Forces intelligence specialist who was assigned to Fifth Air Force HQ in Japan after the war and was assigned to go through them and write a history. He had access to information other authors didn't. SamMcGowan (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That may be so, but as serious archival sources, Caiden's writings are lacking in any footnotes or ways of substantiating his statements. Mark Sublette (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The WARTIME STORY OF THE 19th Bg, A Queen Dies Hard;C.R. WinterLikely has as much to with the appellation Queen being associated with the B-17 as anything.

Citations and references

There appears to be multiple errors in the cite styles, I have tweaked a few as a start. I intend to correct them little by little. Comments? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC).

using the style manual as the guideline? If not, please direct us to the format guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:A5B0:D75:79B8:7F2D:719F (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Cost in today's dollars

It would be interesting to see a little historical context on the cost of the plane. Unless the reader is familiar with cost of other items during WWII, and typical annual salaries, the figure of $238,329 is a little misleading. Running one of the standard historical conversion programs ( http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ ) the B-17 works out to no less than $2.7 million, each (perhaps $6.4 million would be the upper limit). What's also impressive is the total cost of B-17s (again, making broad assumptions, just to get a ballpark figure). The article states 12,731 were built. That makes the grand cost total between $34 billion and $81 billion.

The B-17s may have been a bargain, but that's still a daunting figure.

Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Unit prices for the b-17 dropped considerably over the production runs and differed by factory so a cost multipled by the total quantity is not reppresentative of reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02C:F80A:B312:ABF1:259F:DF6E (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Missing content?

• Bombload

The article doesn't seem to have much on the bombload of the Fortress, not so much how much and how far but the type and number of bombs that could be carried.

• Construction

The Design and development section has the development but is low on content about construction (spars, subdivision, stressed skin etc, crew positions)

Are these areas worth addressing?GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

usual practice is general description, e.g. all metal, with fabric control surfaces; cantilever flying surfaces and retractable landing gear The fuselage contains X main subsections; ditto wings, much as suggested above. brief but concur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:A5B0:D75:79B8:7F2D:719F (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed update

As stated below this is a great article on the B-17 and we are to contribute to updates and improvements. However when I try someone always removes my update. If you are the author can you please tell why and what your objections are to my updates. Adding mention of an aircraft as worthy as the Swamp Fire should not be objectionable If so, you are the first to do so. If I was suppose to seek permission. i saw no place or mention of it anywhere and regret the Faux Paux. contact info swampfire1944@gmail.com

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody1947 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your additions, because it did not appear to meet notability standards - why is this one aircraft out of 12,000 notable? The only source given is a self published site and as such does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Nigel Ish (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

see birdsall Famous Fortresses as a impartial resolution. I recall it includes swamp Fire among the dozen or so feature. there is an ongoing issue here in that the editors are locked into reliance on some poor references and unaware of much of the better ones. the B-25 article suffers the same shortcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:A5B0:D75:79B8:7F2D:719F (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

B-17 on a gas station.

The first picture here shows a B-17 on top of a gas station called "The Bomber". hipspics freewebspace com/gas/gas.html I wonder what became of that plane. Bizzybody (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

oh please...not so subtle publicity ploy. topic covered at Fans of the B-17 and you can even find were to send money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:A5B0:D75:79B8:7F2D:719F (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The gas station is gone, and there is a restaurant in its place. The plane is being dismantled with the intent of restoring it, but I fon't know where.RogerInPDX (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting quoted range/bombload specs ?

"Range: 2,000 mi (1,738 nmi, 3,219 km)with 2,700 kg (6,000 lb) bombload" "Long range missions (≈800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)". Huh ? Are we talking in one case about round-trip distance and in the other one-way distance ? Even then the numbers are not consistent. Do the people who copy in this stuff ever think about what it means ? Rcbutcher (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My late father was in the 15th Air Force located at Foggia, Italy, and he said the trip back to base (flying south) was always quicker than the trip to the target (flying north) because without its bomb load and half its fuel gone, the plane was much lighter. additionally, the prevailing winds were to the south. Point being that many factors went into determining speed and endurance.RogerInPDX (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's talk about some of the recent changes that are taking place

This comment strikes me as needing clarification: "article has issues". This seems to be the pattern already established by unreferenced edits in Consolidated B-24 Liberator and North American B-25 Mitchell articles. I have a concern that there are also numerous copy-viols taking place. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Bill you have been deleting changes as rapidly as I was making them. after about eight such instances, and due to the extensive amount of error in the article, I followed precedent by adding summarily that the article had issues. you inference that the changes were copyright infringement is totally without substance. Moreover, the article makes extensive use of very old reference which are now generally accepted as being flawed and in many cases, internally in conflict. this article too, has many self-contradictions. It also sufferers in common with the B-25 article an inflated, bias-based emphasis on the RCAF as a primary user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:A5B0:D75:79B8:7F2D:719F (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Generally most users dont like massive changes to articles without discussion, as each point has to be checked, making small and citable changes is prefered as it talk page discussion. Also you say "generally accepted as being flawed" you will need to provide evidence of this as we only require a source to be reliable. MilborneOne (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

your rules prohibit me from substantiating the flaws of Bowers other than what I have already suggested. Cross-check Bowers against Freeman/Osborne...Story. The latter has some flaws but it is much more reflective of the state of art ( which your rule prohibit citing). Bowers is basically 1963 research of west coast factory records. it ignores Dayton, and the National capital area and Maxwell's holding. it is outdated methodology and it excludes the many processes the AAF USED TO MET ITS REQUIREMENTS IN THE OPTIMUM balance of quality and quantity. Summary; when you doubt me, check Freeman. Its now in the BIBLIOGRAPHY.

let's make it clear that the wholesale reverting of my edits was an act of vandalism. that proper proceedure is to tag citation needed. the author can then insertion the citation OR provided it and any explanation on the Talk page has I have. Let s be specific, Milboure one was the vandal who even after being advised to review the wiki policy, proceeded to follow his own misconceptions instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:C48D:E0E:9F1C:7AA1:3C8A (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I take from the lack of further responses that the issue is now resolved in favor of the G-10-DL DESIGNATION and that the F-70 to 85 records are now understood to be based on factory planning documents, not on production and acceptance records.=B-17F-DL==

ref: Joe Baugher, 1942 USAAF Serial Numbers (42-001 to 42-30031) at 42-2964 c/n 7900 thru 42-3562 c/n 8498 are 599 B-17-DL. Some are listed as modified to G series. Freeman/Osborne and many official prima facia documents end the B-17F at the end of block 65 (529ea.) Baugher list 42-3563 c/n 8499 as a B-17G. The 605 quantity in the article is unsupported by AAF S/N lists. Recommendation: delete 605 ; add 529 or 599. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02A:20AE:94E9:D51A:9E2F:F0CF (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Other F & G subtotals adjustment are neede to maintain 12,731 total

Note that Baugher has been explicitly rejected as a reliable source suitable for use as a reference on Wikipedia and should therefore not be used.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The 605 total is support by a reliable sources for the number of B-17F-DLs built (Bowers, Peter M. Boeing Aircraft Since 1916) it is also supported by Andrade's U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials so from what I can see 529 or even 599 are wrong. What evidence have you that they are wrong. Also note the B-17F-DL batch doesnt stop at 42-3562 which accounts for the other six aircraft. Also as Nigel has said Baugher is not a reliable source but it also lists 605. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

According to Bowers (p. 300), the other six B-17F-DLs were 42-33714/33715 (c/n 8500/01) and 42-33717/20 (c/n8503/8506). Francillion's McDonnell Douglas Aircraft since 1920 also lists these six aircraft as Fs, with the first 2 F-80-DLs and the last 4 F-85-DLs.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The implication of what is being cited here is that weeks into B-17G production, Douglas inserted B-17F Iinto the production line. Bower's book was based on Boeing factory data without regard to program changes it has been superceded decades ago. But don t rely on me. I also cited Roger Freeman. See his 1998 work pages 26, 55, 98 and 176 et seq. As I have said before, the article cites superceded references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00B:954A:9170:AE3B:EA7:8125 (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean they started producing 17Gs at the end of the 17F production rather than the other way around which is perfectly logical. Still not sure why you think the 605 is actually wrong as a number of sources support it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

What I questioned is the insertion of B-17F in serial number progress among G production. That is were Bowers erroneously is gaining six (6) F series. The six along with surrounding production begame B-17G. That is why the 605 figure is wrong and the facts support the opposite. That is, a F-DL quantity below 600. The 529 figure is correct but I d take 599 as a step in the right direction. however, you made my point, F were not after G as Bowers' list infers.

Yes but what we are saying is at the end of the F production they started to build Gs something that is not unusual, have you evidence that 42-37714/15/17/18/19/20 were not built as Fs as other multiple sources indicate? MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh and despite all the requests you still are unable to sign your posts, I am not sure why you cant follow a simple request but it make you appear confrontational. MilborneOne (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Milborneone, you checked Freeman? or are you just ignoring my citations? there is NO requirement to sign input here, if there were you would not be seeing this. your requests are unauthorized infrigments on my privacy and of questionable motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:C48D:E0E:9F1C:7AA1:3C8A (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

summary: While not flawless, the best reference for this is Freeman /Osborne; ...Story ( see elsewhere), 1999, 2nd ed. See esp. pages 54 & 55. The last F-DL was 42-3482. The first was 2964 (pg87). The difference in the ordinals is 529 each (4=1; 2=9 ordinally). The difference in accounts between 71 and 80 B-17G in the first 600 DL is the treatment of the 482BG H2X chin installations by Rome Air Depot, NY USA withassistance from GE (NY) and M.I.T. (MA). See ...Story, pg.98. and Bishop,...Triangle, pg 220 et seq & pg 243 (photo). Your continued citing of earlier 20th century refs has been previously acknowledged as inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:C48D:E0E:9F1C:7AA1:3C8A (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Pre-Dec 1941 Deliveries

The article cited two numbers in consecutive paragraphs. I combinedthe two and keep the more specific number (155). However it is not correct. There were 134 early Fortress and the first order of the E series was 277. Of the 277 Osborne (...Story, pg 73 et seq) shows 41-2393 to 435 (ordinal) delivered through 11/30/41. That is 43 . Added to 134 equals 177. Is this sufficent to delet the 155 and its reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B015:DD4:3232:F319:6B5B:1ABA (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

advice & references

My advice is: A. that whomever has access to the stored copy, print a copy and retain it as a reference. B. if you are feeling generious, provide a link here at talk to the stored copy so others can reference. C. take a hard look at you article outline checking for chonology, redundency and continuity. D. question every sentence referenced to Bowers, Dr. F. , Hess and any modeler focused series. Compare them to Freeman/Osborne and OFFICIAL USAF books on the AAF. Realize that Osborne is compresive body of work based on the Indivdual Aircraft Record Card of each of the 12,730 B-17. ( the 299 was not one...inspite of Bowers' claim) E. Check the section heading against the contents. be sure the section is on point; has a topic sentence and a summary. remove the passive voice and be sure the six interagatives get answered in the process. F. CONSIDER Freeman; ...Story, 1998 your most reliable commerical reference. Bishop ; ... Triangle, also is excellent. And see Fortresses Against the Sun for the Pacific War. G. read Davis; Spaatz, Air War In Europe. It also has extracts in it from the AAF STATISTIC Summary. H. The offical between the war history, the official 7 vol AAF history: AAF CHRONOLOGY; AAF Study 62 on mod centers; Maurer Units, Maurer Squadrons; and Army series Holley should also be in the bibliography and be your primary sources.

The article uses very poor references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02F:B257:9505:79F7:7AE9:55ED (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

" The Definitive B-17G"

The article parargraph with no date ( by the time) on the definitive G series is near uesless. While Douglas staggered waists at block G -25 in late Nov '43, Vega did not do so until their block 50 in June '44. The azimuth tail inconjuction with the stagged waist can be found on G-30-DL #133 by United in Dec 43 but again not on a Vega until the following June. By the time Vega reached this "definiative" configuration, there would be 700 planes delivered until the radio compartment gun went away. So the "definitive G" at Vega, who producded the last B-17G in Aug '45, lasted only only seven months between early June 44 to early Jan 45. Eight more months followed. So the "13 gun definitive G" of the article in reality was an interim form, only briefly universal throughout the BVD. These are the documented facts supported by specifics.

REFERENCES

if and when my edits are restored I will submit about eight offical USAF historical publications on the AAF AND THREE PUBLISHED COMMERCIAL books ( caps unintended) that would be most reliable and relevant. Then Bowers, Hess, Dr. F and the in Action Authors can be compared for accuracy, or better yet, removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:C48D:E0E:9F1C:7AA1:3C8A (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Passive voice

the passive voice is not an acceptable practice in informational and technical writting. "The change was made maliciously" is passive voice. note who, when,where, and how much are not present; only what, and adverbally, how, not specifically how ( by typing).

In the active voice and encyclopedic writting, the sentence would read, "Milbourneone reverted the text at the B-17 article, in deference to protocols, sometime overnight, May 18/19, 2015", for example.

Appeal

Can an administrator revert the article to last nights version? milbourne one did not follow the protocle at for questioning citations. moreover he deleted many changes where I followed protocol and provided explanations and references I/A/W the eestablished policy. his proper action would have been to use the information to create or update the references ( see instructions at citation needed). please revert the article to 6AM GMT 19 May 2015 version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:C48D:E0E:9F1C:7AA1:3C8A (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Misson symbols

The SB prefix to Bomber type designation was used in WWII however it was not used for the ASR role. It was used in for the (sea) search and attack role, e.g. SB-24. The SB mission symbol prefix for what was by then SAR (Search and Rescue) did not come about until circa 1947 or 48. The wartime Air Sea Rescue (ASR) B-17 were the H series. See addendum in Fahey 1946 edition of U.S. Army Aircraft 1926 - 1946. Once more I will emphasize Bowers is a highly unreliable reference for B-17 research. I don't know how to make that clearer, perhaps a straffing run by an ETO F-51, I mean P-51.

vandalism!

I note there has been wholesale vandlism to the article this morning resulting in it becoming an anecdotal collection of misinformation. I trust the vandal is proud of his distruction. I expected as much. it doesn t however make two ordes of E into one, turn the introduction of the SB mission symbol from 1947 to April 45 or make true a whole lot of other nonsense in the article arising from poor research and reliance on poor refernces. No concern here. I have my own B-17 site were people can find reality while this one is managed into inaccuracy by revengful vandals of high selfimportance in a kingdom of ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:C48D:E0E:9F1C:7AA1:3C8A (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

B-17B Orders

Regardless of the reference, the statement that suggest an order of 10 was intended to equip two (2) bomb groups is ludicrous. At that time a bomb group consisted of a HQ Sq, three (3) BS and a RSq. Ten planes would cover a cadre of only oneplane per Squadron in two groups; or alternately, one Bomb Squadron and a Group HQ squadron, not two groups. Even at half strength, ten planes would cover half a Group, ot two. Even combined with the 12 YB-17, the inventory could not field two groups. The total B-17B orders were 39 in five serial number batches ( the total is not in the paragraph but is in the table.) This is a spurious refence unless the specific of the intended units materialize. Recommend the reference and statement be deleted; and a sentence about the total qty of the B series ordered inserted.

The B-17 & the Radar War

The remaining big ommission in the article is the B-17 role in the AAF use of RADAR. It impacts nearly every section of Article. The CBO WAS NOT EXACTLY EXECUTED ( caps unintended) as presented. The USSTAF operational shortcomings were reversed as much by RADAR as by long range escort. Many hundreds of B-17 had H2X.

The 6 , 40 , 43, 5 ,11 and 28 Bg(s) used search radar. The B-17 equipped the 18 & 19th Antisubmarine Squadrons and the 4th Sea Search Sq.

If we can can reach an understanding on how to up the quality of the article, this is the last major part of the B-17 overview that should be added. If we can reach agreement, I ve done about all I can. This is a sincere and positive recommendation intended make the article a more overview. No ill purposes are contained nor inferred.

citation needed tags

Nigle , please refresh yourself on the citation needed procedure. it explicited says the info can be discussed on the talk page and the citation completed by someone else. moreover, you are questioning information that is explained.

tonnage dropped

The introduction includes a statement that the B-17 dropped more bombs than any other aircraft. no reference is included. moreover, the measure was almost certainly not in bombs dropped but rather in bomb tonnage. once the citation is found, it should be checked for the unit of measure and the article amended to include the reference and correct the measure if needed.

Boeing Production record?

Who can cite the date this occured? I have the Boeing B-17 peak production month and also the Willow Run peak. Is this a single plant figure? Douglas who was the top US producer by airframe pounds (Holley) was ,in 1942, producing the B-17, B-24 & C-54 simultaniously along with the twin engine A-20 and C-47 family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00B:954A:9170:AE3B:EA7:8125 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Fiscal years WWII

US GOVERNMENT fiscal years ran from 1 Jul to 30 Jun in the era including WWII and its lead up, i.e. the Fortress era of 35-45. The ending date set FY. Thus FY 40 ran 1 Jul 1939 to 30 Jun 1940. The Air Corps/AAF A/c s/n carried an FY COMPONENT ( Fahey, U.S. Army Aircraft 1926 -1946). The FY represents the fiscal year of the order funds. This is not necessarily the CY of production. Thus 40-2042 thru 2079 and 40-3059 thru 3100 were FY 40 orders. This is self evident besides fiting here in the chronological order. The TW0 FY 41 B-17E orders were sequenced 2393 -2669 and 9011 - 9245. again, this is self evident. ref: Freeman;...Story, cited previously.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00B:954A:9170:AE3B:EA7:8125 (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

code names

Code names of WWII era are normally shown in upper case, e.g. OVERLORD. That is distinctive but can give a "message" look to the writing. What is the preference here?

While on this subject, I believe the article implies or imparts a greater scope to POINTBLANK. I recall it applied to the Aircraft inventories in the air, on the ground and in the factories but not other target system such as oil, transportation and general industry. Can anyone cite a reference for the broader use in the article?

Pacific War

The section on the Pacific War is misplaced. The C, D and first batch E are pre-war and as early as Dec 1941. If the intent is to move from the RAF use to the ETO, THE PACIFIC WAR should precede both. In any event, it should not follow EUROPE.

moreover, consider the headings of War againt Japan and War against Germany which are used in official histories for the Asian- Pacific and EAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B015:DD4:3232:F319:6B5B:1ABA (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

references and bibliography

I am not seeing The B-17 Flying Fortress Story by R.A. Freeman with D. Osborne in the bibliography and references. That is unfortunate. it contains the individual histories of nearly all the 12,731 Fortresses. it also gives an overview of the orders in the early phases of the B-17 program. I am a novice to Wiki editing but not to masters level writing. So if someone could search this Arms & Armour 1998/1999 book (ISBN 1 85409 522 6) on the web and add it to the bibliography, the sentence by requests for citations might become unnecessary. for certain, not nearly every sentence in the article carries a citation nor would that be good practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01E:9645:9D41:C01A:AFEA:FC0D (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just adding the book to the bibliography on its own is of little use - the information still should be properly cited in the text.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

To follow your standard, sir, would require every sentence to be supported by a reference. Whatever artifical standard for footnoting you aspire to has caused you to have lost sight of the objective. You are defending outdated referenced in prefernce over newer, better works. It is flat earth thinking. You have lost a valuable set of eyes. If you think this article is of higher standard that Baugher's work you are delusional. Lastly, the best way to cover a lack of specifics is to write it the passive voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00B:954A:9170:AE3B:EA7:8125 (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, it is not difficult. Please refer to my comment below on references, also note we never claim that this article is a higher standard than anything else and like Baugher wikipedia is not a reliable source. MilborneOne (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

initial operations vs 1943 CBO

There is an errant at the end of the section Initial Operations that fits chronologically with the discussion in Combined Bomber Offense. It should be moved in my opinion. The whole CBO discussion should be relocated to the discussion on European operations. there remains widespread redundancies and scattered chronology thru much of the article. Can we discuss a solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00B:954A:9170:AE3B:EA7:8125 (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop randomly moving things about in the article until you learn how to cite things properly. At the moment you are moving and changing text without adjusting the cited sources, meaning that the text is no longer properly sourced. This is misleading to the reader.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not moving text. If I were, I would not have typed this recommendation to have a pararaph move. nor am I inserting refernces so I am not the one causing any resequuencing of reference. I hope you can understand that.

You need to start signing your posts 2600 so we know who is leaving messages, it explains how on the edit window, thanks.MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

can we please discuss the outline of the article and removing the redundencies?

I am being dilgent in not moving section, but rather requesting review of the outline. see Pacific War comment above were I recommended a move. to repeat, if I were moving things, these request would not be being made. How about you take a hard look at the article as a whole and make notes on the redundencies? That would be a better start to getting to alleviating reader confusion. Once again, I repeat I have not moved paragraphs nor inserted reference. I note some footnotes have been accumulated at the end of sentences however that wasn t done by me.

You insert text into the middle of statements that were supported by references (i.e. the footnotes), but the information you add is not supported by the reference and you are not providing any alternative - thus misleading the reader and reducing the article by claiming that sources say things that they don't.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No sir. the information is support in the article itself. once again, I emphasis that the article need to be reviewed as a whole. you sentence by sentence , myopic review is the cause of redundancies and internal conflicts in the article. I have fifty years plus experience in this subject an am up to date on which sources are reliable and whic are not. read. carefully what I said. I am not saying to rely on myresearch. I am emphasizing that I know the origins and dates of the references and which are rehashing and which are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00B:954A:9170:AE3B:EA7:8125 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure how many times we have to tell you to sign you posts, its not difficult you just add four ~~~~ at the end of your text, it just annoys other users. I think you have a fundemental problem in understanding how wikipedia uses reliable references and the cites that information, perhaps have a read of Wikipedia:Citing sources. Although not required for the obvious statement most sentences are already referenced, you cant just add extra information without adding a new citation. This article has been developed over many years and as we have already said we are a bit sensitive to large changes until we understand what the changes imply. So bringing them up on the talk page and discussing them is a good start, introducing large changes in the article is not a good way. We are all happy to listen and any crticism can only improve the article but take it slowly understand how we work and I am sure we can improve the article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

wiki permits anonymous submissions and does not necessarily require the submitter to actually format the footnote references, so let s put the shoe on ther other foot and mutually acknowledge that your perspective in not Wiki policy. There are privacy matters driving my decision to post ananomously. With that out of the way we can talk about the situation with the article.

1. It has major organizational shortcomming. some can be identified from examing the outline as it existed two weeks ago. other can be spotted by noting the drift of topic from the organizational titles. 2. As I found it, the article used the passive voice to excess. the passive voice avoids the need to be factual abou who, what, where, when,why and how much. You need to understand the article is poorly presented. 3. the article drifts into a competitive mode with the B-24 far too prominently and unnecessarily. 4. the refernces used are outdated and inaccurate. 5. the article does not refelct the method the AAF USED TO MET ITS REQUIRMENTS, but rather resorts to an iconic frame of mind.

I would like to know where it says you are exempt from adding references and citations or for the matter signing your posts. MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

read my discussion on citation tabs. youre the expert.

No nobody here is an expert and nobody has said you are exempt from adding citations to reliable sources, perhaps as you clearly are not taking any notice of what is being said to you and your complete inability to do a simple task like sign your posts, I am not sure this is the right place for you. It is probable best to close these discussions as they clearly are not going anywhere. This is the bit were we all sign like this -> MilborneOne (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I am make a sincere effort to help. You state viz a viz exemption is puzzleing. Not mention of exemption came from me. you read things to your interpretation. obvious you as you admit, are unaware of the standard policy on citations.

Unreferenced changes

I have rolled the article back to remove the unreferenced and sometimes badly structured changes, can users please discuss changes and provide references as appropriate, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just protected this article to provide time to settle this content dispute. From briefly reviewing the IP editor's changes, many of them appear to have merit. However, references are needed (please see WP:PROVEIT), and care should be taken with existing references. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have provided all references that were properly requested and have done so I/a/w with the alternate procedure at the citation needed tag instructions. I am not trying to be adversarial however I repeat , milborneone is acting outside the protocols and is miscaracterizing the inputs. I have provided specific references when requested and have provided general guidelines for improving the article. thank you for your attention to this matter. Since the milbourne one actions were outside protocol and he knew so, having been so advised, and reference to protocol provided, I request the roll back be to the version that followed protocols ( mine...6AM GMT 19 May will work). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:C48D:E0E:9F1C:7AA1:3C8A (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please revisit topic F-DL clearer understanding of the circumstance at play. I have provided an expanded explanation but the essence was already provided and stubbornly rejected by folks here through reliance on outdated sources. I had previously cautioned about the references too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:C48D:E0E:9F1C:7AA1:3C8A (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

An extremely large precent of this issue is the continued reliance on Bowers. Check the cites. The shoes is really on the other foot. it is not that my statements are substaniate. it is that the article is based upon unresearched works long ago. disproven. because you don t allow prima facia research I can t use much of what I have. But I can tell you how the books match up to the research and Bowers just doesn t. I know his methods and they were flawed. I ve directed you to superior reference, not perfect but largely adequate, and Osborne is superb. but no one here is willing to chheck the refs. to ask me to verify every sentence that conflictts with Bowers is just not a apractical request, nor does it comply with wiki challang proceedures. we are in the area of challanges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B003:C48D:E0E:9F1C:7AA1:3C8A (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

the solution here is very simple. The "roll back" did not follow Wiki protocol which is to tag text in question with citation needed (see instructions for citation needed tags).. Secondly, the same reference also allows an alternate procedure for responding to citation needed tag by providing the explanation on the talk page. I have done so, sometimes even in advance. WIKI has not proceedure to tagg a illinformed text as citation superseded however the talk page can be used and I have done so. Lastly, the Wiki site describes itself as feed mostly by " anonymous volunteers" and permits anonymous edits so that issue is extranious to the content issue and moot. The conclusion is the roolback was improper and the freeze out in the the reverted form was noncompliant with wiki policies. the proper action is to reinstate my edits.

Note also the F-DL ISSUE HAS BEEN FULLY documented as 529 the 605 been shown to include 76 B-17G production with four(4) from the new G order. No F 70 or 75 left the factory so configued and no F-80 or 85 were inserted in Aug/Sept G series production. delete old ref so proper changes can be made at the F&G totals and DL LINES.

when can i expect to see my version of the article properly restored?, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We dont have a concept of "my version" but changes can be made if they are properly referenced, dont get added to already referenced sections without providing a new reference and anybody who request such changes needs to follows the wikipedia norm of signing posts, random unsigned text dumps on this page will just get ignored. MilborneOne (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

by my version I was referring to the article version which contained numerious edits I made, not claiming the article as mine. Milborne continues to act. contray to Wiki protocol which DOES NOT require signingin (obviously) and explicitly acknowledges "anonymous volunteers" as its mainstay. Iam becoming very annoyed by the tolerence of milborneone's nonconforming redirections contray to. protocol. He has a misconception of "properly reference" altough the protocol has pointed out several times. As to distrubing references, he has already acknolgede that I have not distrubed refernces. moreover, I have requested the removal of the Bowers references that are interupting moe complete edits as I maintain them undistrurbed. As I ve mentioned, the is no procure other than talk page to request removal of antiquated reference. His characterization of edits as dumps demonstrates his vendictive personality and his use of the passive voice precludes identification of who is ignoring the inputs anIif that individual has proper authority to do so. by acnowledging that I have provided quatities of explanations does demonstrate my effort to comply with the alternate procedure Wiki endorses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe that you dont really understand what is being asked of you with respect to providing references and signing your posts, and it appears that there may be a competence issue. Not signing your posts gives an impression that you dont want to co-operate with other users. The requirements for references and citations have been explained to you a number of times. Other editors here are willing to help you improve the articles which is everybodies goal, but until you understand how wikipedia works we are going to continue to have issues. One editor has already abandoned trying to help because of your refusal to listen. Have a cup of tea and read Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia and perhaps when you have a better understanding there may be a chance to start again. And also note nobody has said you cant be an anonymous user. although it helps with hopping IPs to have a user name so others know they are dealing with the same person it is a personal choice. MilborneOne (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

suggesting my incompetence doesn t warm my tea. So moving on, let ' s see what I don't understand. It is not the signing issue. Anonymous edits are routine & permitted. it is not referencing. I ve been following the proceedure at the citation needed tag. It is not a competency issue in context or content. And your insinuation that anonymity and competency are related is illogical. Moreover, I explained my reason.

The disconnect he is simple. I provide references and theose or ignored, or replies comes as if the reference was not cited.

The overarching disconnect is that the article used outdated references and is largely written in a non-factual manner relying on antidotial quotes and dotted profusely with not attributional passive voice. No sir, I get it. I understand you may want to help. Thank you. You can help by restoring the version from the 19th and by deleting the Bower references. I ve requested this several times and it just isn t happening. I ve complied with all mandatory requirements. so what can you do to be more helpful? Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

OK I was trying to help but if you fail to understand a simple request (which is also at the top and bottom of every edit window) to sign your posts (which has nothing to do with anonymous edits), and for some reason will not use the Edit protected template then there is little hope, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

you are deflecting from the issue. the article is what shows no hope ifI it continues is run the way it is. if you read other recommendation here the trend is clear. the suggestions are irnored or the suggestor ridiculed. this is not a problem with me. it existed befor and continues to exists.

once again, the signature is moot. yet you keep bringing it up. The template Iis not applicable either. I looked.

The decisions here is do you want an article based on old information that was NEVER accurate; or alternatively, do you want the help of one one of the world's top researchers of the AAF, its metods, management, operations and particularily, the development of its bomber programs? Yep, not a time to humble, I am laying it out so you realize the opportunity being lost. In closing, I repeat, the SME does NOT have to become a Wiki expert. the tag instructions make that explicitly clear. it is you who is not following protocol.

The topic of this post is unreferenced changes. that was not true. you can t stay on topic. protocol was followed by me but not by you. moreove it isn t clear you even have the authority to speak for Wiki in these matters.

Don' t draw me as incopperative. the shoe is clearly on your foot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02E:478F:2D0D:79B5:4922:2D03 (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The above post is entirely unhelpful. Wikipedia is based around consensus-based editing (please see WP:CONSENSUS) and material being supported by references to reliable sources (please see WP:V). Declaring yourself an expert and dismissing the views of other editors is not acceptable. If you are "one one of the world's top researchers of the AAF", I'd imagine that you'd be highly familiar with the referencing standards and collaborative approaches which historians are expected to apply in their work, and the same principles also apply here on Wikipedia. Please drop the attitude, and provide references to reliable sources to substantiate your changes. Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2015

(UTC)

Consensus building is indeed not happening here. Go to the top of this post to discover the underlying issue. edits were removed although either a) no request for citation was made; b) a talk issue had been opened on the content and no objections raised; c) a talk issue responded to a request for citation and no objections were made; or d) the talk topic addressed the issue of outdated references and the rebuttals again referenced the same citations. Consensus builting can't happen under conditions as these were dialogue continually moves to issues of anonymity instead of historical content. Moreover, and most directly to point, when edits are deleted without prior citation needed tag and allowance for a response, protocol disolves.

B-17 42-5964

This plane is an example of what came between the YB-40 and the Douglas August production. It is a Vega from United in June /July 1943. A photo is miscaptioned (of course) on pg 117 of Bowers' Fortress In The Sky. It proves the present closure to your YB-40 is not exactly correct. It also proves Bowers didn t know much beyond the factories' role. Lastly, it is a visual reminder of how much work you have ahead of you to catch up to the state of the art on the history of the B-17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02F:B257:9505:79F7:7AE9:55ED (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Article Changes

Just to remind users that changes to the article can be requested by using the Template:Edit protected template, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

this is for indefinitely protected articles. That is not the case here. not procedure on concensus as required by that OPTION is set forth here and, most importantantly, I get the impression that Milborneone is not the authority here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC) .

Bowers vs Freeman

there are those here that are not making use, for whatever reason, of the references I have been digently providing. By ignoring the Freeman references those individuals remain in a misinformed status and therefore continue to rely on Bowers which was discredited when new and superceded at least by the end of the last century. that those individuals choose of their own accord to ignore the references supplied is beyond my control. However their actions do not properly deminish the validity of my imput in the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Big Picture

Using 21 Century technlogy to disseminate infinitely more widely information that was surplanted near the end of the 20th Century is not a service; it is a disservice. By relying on Bowers in deference to much better works from '98, 99 and the new century, what is being accomplished is counterproductive to knowledge transfer. So if somehow you think reverting my edits is preserving the mission here, you have lost sight of the Big Picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I take from the lack of response that the issue is now resolved in favor of the G-10-DL DESIGNATION and that the F-70 to 85 records are now understood to be based on factory planning documents, not on production and acceptance records.

42-37714 -720

714 : 401 Bg allocation to 351 BG. Bishop, pg 209/210 as G. 715 : 100 BG, G, Sugar Foot, Osborne as G, pg 176. 716: as G, 95 & 96 BG(s), ibid. RTN US, RFC Kingman. 717: 305 Bg, G, ibid. RTN US RFC Kingman. Bishop, pg 171 as G. 718: 92 BG; trsf 306 BG REF. Bishop.pg 179 as G 719: 381 BG. MIA , Bishop, pg. 272 as G. 720: 306 BG. MIA , Bishop, pg 179 as G NONE AS B-17F- 80/85-DL. 529 ea B-17F-DL is substantiated by two more sources by this info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B011:E9AC:665A:7D3:42:987E (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus building

There is a conspicuous absence of dialogue related to content on this talk page. the editors are focused on administriva. Had there been any in evidence of consensus building, I would agree with some of the remarks here on protocol. Instead what is in evidence is a near total absence of dialogue on content issue. That indicates a lack of protocol and random deletions preceded my arrival and continues to undermine article improvements.

Who is in charge?

Who is in responsible for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02E:478F:2D0D:79B5:4922:2D03 (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

We are all responsible for the article collectively, hence the need to work with consensus and together. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I take from the lack of response that the issue is now resolved in favor of the G-10-DL DESIGNATION and that the F-70 to 85 records are now understood to be based on factory planning documents, no on production and acceptance records.=605 B-17F-DL== Of the 605 B-17F-DL claimed in the article table, the article fails to give how many had chin turrets. And when that question is examined, then questions arise about what the article says about the distinction between the F and G series. This is but one more example of how the whole of the article lacks cohension and how it fails in the six interagatives as the basis of good facts writting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B02E:478F:2D0D:79B5:4922:2D03 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

SB-17 ASR

See Freeman, ...Story page 60 -62 Note June 1948 date for revised mission prefixes (middle galley, pg 60). See MODIFICATIONS pg 61/62 for timeframe. See pg 62 " B-17H/SB-17", not reverse. See pg 63 for 1948 change of F-9 to RB-17 (reccon). RB in AAF meant restricted from first line duties as bomber..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:18AD:EED9:AD1F:CDF2:D0A5 (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

AMF MODS

The advanced, moderized fortress article is not happening. That is clear. So the wiki world will get the version based on 1960s Bowers factory research. Adios for now. I ll see if the climate is warmer in a few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B028:18AD:EED9:AD1F:CDF2:D0A5 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

42-37714 and others

• 42-37714 B-17F-80-DL
• 42-37715 B-17F-80-DL
• 42-37716 B-17G-10-DL
• 42-37717 B-17F-80-DL
• 42-37718 B-17F-80-DL
• 42-37719 B-17F-80-DL
• 42-37720 B-17F-80-DL
• 42-37721 onward are B-17G-10-DLs

Anybody know why our IP friend thinks that 42-37714 and others in the batch are B-17Gs when loads of reliable sources and Baugher say they are B-17F-80-DLs, the unsigned abbreviated text are hard to decipher without a degree in B-17 fan shorthand but can anybody else explain why nearly all of the reliable sources are wrong according to the IP. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Uncited reference noted. referencences displacing this notion have been supplied in the discussion of the F-DL AND OTHER TOPICS ( Freeman/Osborne; ...Story, 1998, numerious pages. moreove the idea that after weeks of producing the 71 G-1 & G-5 blocks, a mass production, final assembly line would disrupt production to insert six (6) F series is counterintuitive. You will some particular citations to assert you concept. I trust the answer serves you better than those you ignored before and satisfies you curiosities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B025:1FE8:65E0:DEA6:468E:D273 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

of the six, which had chin turrets? of the article, what does it say about what distinguishes, an F from a G? if its dawned on you I might HAVE PHOTOS AT HAND, YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT. anyway the question has been answered before and no one could prove my cites wrong.

nigle ish reprimanded me for using Joe Baugher as a source earlier on the this same topic, the B-17F-DL* end point. (*see related topic. ) need to literally get you act straight among yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B025:1FE8:65E0:DEA6:468E:D273 (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I take from the lack of response that the issue is now resolved in favor of the G-10-DL DESIGNATION and that the F-70 to 85 records are now understood to be based on factory planning documents, not on production and acceptance records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00F:563C:35C7:2CD9:3B84:73C (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

XB-15

It might be worth noting that the XBLR-1* was designed on its own timeline and the XB-15 first flew after the the Model 299. The long range bomber requirement and the XB-19 preceeded the four proposed B-29 - B-32 designs competition. it might be worth checking the impression the article infers in this regard. See Fahey on XBLR-1; see Hess and many others on XB-15 first flight(8/15/37). * jones, US bombers... Pg 36 et seq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B025:1FE8:94D1:40BA:9A79:BAA0 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

dead link

the F/G manual link goes to a deleted page.

Archiving

This page was in quite a mess (User talk:2600:1002:B025:1FE8:94D1:40BA:9A79:BAA0) had been adding latest posts to the top of the page instead of the bottom per convention. I have created two new archive pages and renamed (moved) the first one (from 'pre-FA') from a non-standard format as that was stopping the archive search box from appearing.

Most of the content remaining on this page is from the above user, would it be possible to add a collapsed content template for their unanswered comments for readability of everyone else's comments? I stopped short of doing it as I'm not an admin but would probably be within rights to do it.

No content has been altered and believe that I have not lost anything. Some of the recent posts may not quite be in chronological order as it's difficult to find the times from the unsigned template but hopefully things are better now, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. My device usually redirects me to the top of the page when I attempt to added to the end. Advice welcomed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00C:A763:CFB1:D008:56E5:135C (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

suggestion: If talk topic that have not responses were visibly identified and remained toward the end of the page, prehabs resolutions and consensus would be enhanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00C:A763:CFB1:D008:56E5:135C (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If you use the 'New section' tab at the top of the page it will automatically post new threads to the bottom of the page and prompt for a subject header. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, therein lies the problem. my view does not show a tab menu. It only shows a notice alarm bell, edit pencil and a star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00C:A763:CFB1:D008:56E5:135C (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User 2600 is editing from a mobile device so doesnt see the same as everybody else using "full size" site. It may be the reason why the additions end up in the wrong place and sometimes malformed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No maybe about it. As I said, I am not getting the prompts/icons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B00F:563C:35C7:2CD9:3B84:73C (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)