Talk:Boeing B-54

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing B-54 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Aircraft

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: Aviation / North America / United States C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Suggested merger

Suggest this be merged with the B-50, since it was a proposed variant that was never completed. --Colputt 00:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I came here specificially for the B-54. That's because I'm interested in the engineering, rather than in the USAF procurment program. There were defense contracts and the B-54 was named, marketed, engineered and flown: it's just that the USAF never bought any. The B-54 had anti-skid braking, and may have been the first Boeing design to have that. B-54 was near the end-point of development of the B-29, but they aren't the same aircraft. For me, just having the listing is valuable, even when it says that there isn't much to say. Why should I have to search through a B-50 (or B29/50/54) article to find that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Years later, I would say it's obvious that the articles should be merged. There is almost no information here that is not included in the B-50 article. 2600:1000:B110:7E6:C021:4D14:27FC:B67 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

I just read over the article and wonder:

1)- Why it was never merged per discussion?, and
2)- How it achieved a B-class rating with what seems to be fundamentally flawed and conflicting content?

The B-54 was apparently cancelled in the production stage (not sure how far in) and never flew. The lead states: "The Boeing B-54 was an American strategic bomber" also with "the prototype was canceled before completion, and the aircraft was never flown."

The wording and any definition would be that the plane "never" actually existed yet the article presents that it did------ but---- not really, and is presented on a list article, but was not actually a completed prototype or experimental aircraft. The definition of "prototype" would be A full scale working model so "the plans were scraped" or "the intended prototype was cancelled".

There was discussions that this article be merged to Boeing B-50 Superfortress and that specifications are mostly (except intended added length, wing-span, and engines) the same so I am perplexed. It seems obvious the B-50 "might" deserve a B-class rating (I didn't evaluate it), but it is clear this article should not, and should be merged into a section with prose containing the specification differences. It is my opinion (shared by others) that not everything that has a few references actually deserves an article. Otr500 (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A suggestion (B-50 Superfortress) was also made to merge a long time back. Three editors there weighed in with all agreeing but one had some reservations because "they DID cut-metal for it.". Otr500 (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]