Talk:Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 → Barling Bomber –

• The current title reflects an obscure name that was never used in connection with the operation of this aircraft. The purpose of the title is to make the article easy for researchers to locate. All references cited refer to the aircraft as the "Barling Bomber", and the National Museum of the United States Air Force display on the aircraft identifies the aircraft ONLY as the "Barling Bomber". It is never refered to by the name in the title. Ken keisel (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - The Whitman-Lewis XNBL-1 is the official designation for the aircraft, and appears to be used by the National Museum of the United States Air Force here. Gordon Swanborough and Peter M Bowers' United States Military Aircraft since 1909 duscusses the aircraft under the heading Engineering Division/Witteman Lewis/"Barling" NBL-1. An article in the March/April 2002 issue of Air Enthusiast is titled "Flying Battleship: Walter H Barling and the Wittemann-Lewis NBL-1.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Barling Bomber may be appropriate as as COMMONNAME, but the references that come up in a Google search make it clear that "obscure name that was never used" is not a suitable rationale for moving the article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Also oppose per http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/win02/notam3.pdf, showing official designation as current title, as pointed out below.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Favor - The names "Barling Bomber", "Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1", and "Wittemann-Lewis NBL-1" are all official names for the aircraft, and equally correct. The Witteman-Lewis Company never produced another aircraft, and went out of buisness before the bomber became operational, while Barling continued developing aircraft for the military throughout the 1920s. This is similar to the situation with the "Gotha Go-229" vs. "Horton Ho-229" which was decided in favor of using the name of the designer, not the manufacturer. During the aircraft's operation it was only referred to as the "Barling Bomber", as the earlier name had become irrelevant with the closing of the company. It was referred to as the "Barling" during exhibition flights, and in articles in the press. In an interesting footnote, it was the obscurity of the earlier name that allowed Gen. "Hap" Arnold to get away with destroying the aircraft when congress wanted the "Barling Bomber" preserved. Because there are several possible titles to consider, is important to be sensitive to the needs of researchers who are looking up the aircraft. All the major publications I have found that describe the aircraft list and index it under the name "Barling Bomber", including those from the U.S. Air Force Press. The Air Force Museum displays a tire under the name "Barling Bomber". Faced with three possible names for the article it seems clear that the title should be the one that it is by far best known. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mild Oppose Based on the arguments posed above, "Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1" and "Wittemann-Lewis NBL-1" as the "official" names being synonymous with the type, it is usual to consider the manufacturer, designation as the most commonly used official title, while "Barling Bomber" has the ring of a "press (media)" invention, especially prior to the manufacture/production of the aircraft. The reason for my mild oppose is that the National Museum of the United States Air Force uses: "Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber", making a mash-up of all the names. I would propose that the Barling Bomber name is discussed in the article followed by a disclaimer note that deals with the naming of the bomber and refers to some of the minutia that is given here in this discussion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC). Upon reflection and seeing that perhaps a compromise position is tenable, I would Support the Whittman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber designation, since it does reflect the current military thinking in regards to nomenclature as well as preserving the original name that is derived from its designer and chief proponent, Walter Barling. I also note that a redirect already exists that links the "Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1" to the "Barling Bomber." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC). Despite the additional following dialogue, I will stick with how the USAF NOW interprets the title/designation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

This is a real weird one, because apparently the military dropped the name "Witteman-Lewis" from the aircraft's name after they went out of business. There seems to have been a big blow-up over who was to pay the cost overruns, and the military abandoned the company to its fate, and removed their name from the aircraft. After that it simply became known as the "Barling", with the designation left off as well. By then it was obvious that there wouldn't be another one, and the plane took on its own identity. It was the military, though, not the press who first called it the Barling Bomber. I think it's safe to say that anyone looking up the aircraft will be searching for "Barling Bomber" and in this case making that the title is completely appropriate. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support There are 168 Google Book results for "Barling Bomber", compared to 6 for "Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1". There are also 16 results for "XNBL-1 bomber" that do not refer to "Barling Bomber". World's Worst Aircraft calls it, The Barling-Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 "Barling Bomber". Great Book of Bombers says, Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 'Barling Bomber'. In short, "Barling Bomber" is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. The official name issue is quite murky, so I don't see a basis to use some other name. Editors are opposing the proposed name because it sounds like something that the media might have invented, although it was in fact an official army designation? Have I got that right? Kauffner (talk) 06:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Opppose we dont normally move aircraft articles to nicknames, Barling Bomber redirects here so it is not a problem. A clear explanation in the lead is all that is needed. Bit like moving Avro Lancaster to Lancaster Bomber or Boeing 747 to Jumbo Jet. MilborneOne (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Opppose - per Bzuk and Milb1. - BilCat (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The text on the museum's site alternates between "Barling Bomber" and "XNBL-1". It's like there was a committee decision to give the two names equal treatment. How is that a reason to vote one way or the other? How about "Barling Bomber XNBL-1"? The would follow the spirit of what the museum is doing while keeping the name to a reasonable length. Kauffner (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:AIR/NC naming conventions, we name aircraft articles according to the m-d-n format (manufacturer-designation-official name). "Barling Bomber" was not official as far as I can tell, but on rare occaspions we have included unofficial names in the titles, such as with Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. As a compromise, I would accept Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber as the title, with "Barling Bomber" in quotes in the Lead and infobox title. But it's not my top preference. - BilCat (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner, "Barling Bomber XNBL-1" would be fine with me, as the important thing here is that most researchers will be looking for the words "Barling Bomber" in the article's title. BilCat, the WP:AIR/NC is not a standard that article titles are forced to conform with, it is only the suggested method of naming. This particular aircraft conforms to the same convention applied to the Horten Ho 229 article. In the case of experimental aircraft it is often more correct to name the aircraft after the designer, not the manufacturer. In this particular case that is doubly true, as the manufacturer went out of buisness before the aircraft was operational, and the designer continued to design aircraft for another decade. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's just a guideline, but you need a clear consesnus to use another format, and you don't have that yet. Btw, if Horten Ho 229 were at Horten Bomber Ho 229, you might have a point. But it's not. "Barling XNBL-1" would be the equivilent. - BilCat (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I just returned from the Air Force achives at Wright-Pat. They located the plane's original 1923 U.S. Army aircraft specifications book. It identifies it as the "Barling Bomber". No mention of the Wittman-Lewis name anywhere in the book. Bzuk, I will send you a copy of the scans I tomorrow. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeez, I hope you don't consider me the sane one in this bunch... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Oh, no! You're just the only one I have an email address for. LOL! I'm just glad to be able to resolve the issue with actual documentation. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope we can take "Barling Bomber" out of quotation marks now. Based on WP:AIR/NC, the article title should be Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber. Wouldn't that be ridiculous? Kauffner (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's what happens when you let a committee make decisions! There shouldn't be any more challenges to the name "Barling Bomber". I obtained and scanned the actual War Department performance report dated 1924 for the aircraft. It identifies the airplane only as the "Barling Bomber", and on some pages uses the subheading "NBL-1" and "P-303". It is not up to us to name it, only to report accurately what it was named. I'm sorry if the name doesn't fit nicely into Wikipedia's naming convention, but you can't change it just to satisfy a Wikipedia rule. The document makes it clear that it's name has always officially been the "Barling Bomber", with or without "NBL-1" and "P-303" on the end. I will be glad to forward my scans of the document to anyone why asks. Can we put an end to this discussion, or are there still people who want to re-name it, 90 years later? - Ken keisel (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

So if it an official name then it appears it should be Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 Barling Bomber, interestingly it proves it was the NBL-1 not the XNBL-1. MilborneOne (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing the name in the article while this discussion is still open is not the best thing to do. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the name as it appears in the text, and added a supporting official government reference. The article's title is what were discussing here. The point that people seem to be missing is that the aircraft was named the Barling Bomber before it was put up for bids to construct it. I found the original bid specification manual that was offered to prospective bidders identifying it as the Barling Bomber. Whitman-Lewis merely won the contract to build the Barling Bomber. That is what the official Air Force documentation reveals. Again, sorry if it doesn't fit into Wikipedia's naming convention, but we shouldn't let the tail wag the dog. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are the images being referenced above:

Manual inside page

Barling Manual cover

FWiW, these images are here temporarily. Bzuk (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Nobody is disputing it was called the Barling Bomber and when it was put out to contract it was built by Witteman and given the official designation NBL-1 hence Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 Barling Bomber. It appears from what you say that the original specification describes it as "Barling Bomber" (or perhaps the "The Barling Bomber" which is before it was ordered by the Army or built by anybody and it is clear that the name stuck. Doesnt mean the other names are wrong. Interestingly on the pages shown somebody had to add Witteman-Lewis to make it clear that they were talking about so clearly is proof that the name was used by the Army. MilborneOne (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A good way to look at this is that Consolidated Aircraft designed the B-24, but Ford built a large number of them. The military didn't change the name to "Ford B-24" when it gave Ford a contract to build them. The name stayed with the designing firm. In 1920 it was still possible for an individual to be the designing firm. In this case that was Barling. He didn't build any himself, but when the contract was awarded to Whitman-Lewis the military didn't change the name of the designing firm, just as they didn't take away Consolidated's name from the B-24. Using your line of reasoning we would have an article titled "Consolidated Ford B-24", but we don't, and by the same convention we shouldn't have an article titled "Barling Whitman-Lewis NLB-1". As for the notation on the cover, that was handwritten on the cover and not part of the book's text, hense it is irrelevant. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The really pedantic would say the Barling was working for the Army Engineering Division so the alternate would be the Engineering Division NBL-1 Barling Bomber, but these are just circular arguments my oppose still stands but I would support Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 Barling Bomber, also note that Barling Bomber redirect here anyhow. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

MilborneOne, claiming "you really dont like Witteman for some reason" is an accusation of Bias, and a violation of rules of etiquette. Unless you have evidence to support you claim please remove this accusation, or I will have no choice but to post the violation to a board, and you could be blocked. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I have removed the statement it was not meant as an accusation. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to make it clear that it makes no difference to me what the military called it. They could have called it the "Flying Pink Elephant FPE-1", and it would make no difference to me. What matters is that the article be titled "Flying Pink Elephant FPE-1". The purpose of an encyclopedia is to document what others have done, not correct their mistakes. If the military made a mistake calling the airplane the Barling Bomber than any efforts we make to fix that mistake alters the history of the subject. The documentation in the Air Force archives make it clear that the militay called the airplane the Barling Bomber, and sometimes the NLB-1, or P-303. Those are the only names we should be calling it. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

BilCat has stated above that the aircraft should continue to be named the "Whittman-Lewis" because "Per WP:AIR/NC naming conventions, we name aircraft articles according to the m-d-n format (manufacturer-designation-official name)". Since the Air Force documents clearly state that the aircraft's only official name was "Barling NLB-1, P-303", and the name "Whittman-Lewis" was never used in connection with this aircraft it would appear that the reason for maintaining the aircraft's current name is to satisfy WP:AIR/NC naming convention. Based on what has been stated here the consnesus of editors is that it is necessary to use the Whittman-Lewis name instead of the aircraft's actual name because the WP:AIR/NC naming convention must be followed. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My concern here is that the voting is heading toward a name that violates Wikipedia naming guidelines; namely Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is described with the statement "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The name "Barling Bomber NBL-1, P-303" has been verified in official government documents from the aircraft's operating era as the aircraft's only name. The name "Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1" has not been cited in any official military records of the aircraft. That name appears to have been fabricated by authors at a later date. On this matter Wikipedia states "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question." Official War Department records for the aircraft are by far a more reliable, published source than third-party articles. This is stated as "In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." The aircrafts technical specifications report would qualify under this guideline. Third-party articles would not fall under this qualification. A second area of concern is that the title "Whittman-Lewis" violates the rules of Wikipedia:Article titles, namely the rule stating "Naturalness – What title(s) are readers most likely to look for in order to find the article? Which title(s) will editors most naturally use to link from other articles? Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English." As Kauffner has previously pointed out "There are 168 Google Book results for "Barling Bomber", compared to 6 for "Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1". When a consensus will violate Wikipedia's own policies, as is the case here, the consensus must be challanged. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's do a tally first for the various options:

• Barling Bomber: 2 votes
• Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1: 5 votes
• Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber: 2 votes. Is that how everyone makes the count? FWiW, using the business model of consensus where all parties can agree to an accord, this is the next question to be placed, can all parties accept a designation as Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 or a compromise as Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber? Bzuk (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

Comment - isn't "Barling Bomber" a bit ambiguous on its own? The Tabor was a "Barling bomber". GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I have already said that Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 Barling Bomber would be an acceptable. also note that although this move discussion has not concluded Ken keisel has raised this discussion as problem at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to add the evidence above appears to indicate than the aircraft was designated NBL-1 rather than XNBL-1. Also note that P-303 is not part of the name it the the McCook Field project number, in most cases it is painted on the aircraft although I have not seen any evidence of it in this case, it is clearly nothing to do with the name. MilborneOne (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to answer the accusation that the naming convention encourages the use of fictious names please refer to http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/win02/notam3.pdf an official document Commonly refered to as the NBL-1 (night bombardment, long distance) or Barling Bomber (after its inventor, Walter Barling) and designated the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1, it was the Army's first long range bomber. MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be many names it could be referred to and one would still know what is meant. The "Witteman-Lewis NBL-1 Barling Bomber" comes across as a right mash-up of them. A bit like referring to the Churchill tank as "Tank, Infantry, Mk IV (A22) Churchill tank". The project manual above doesn't help due to the military propensity for writing lots of things in all-capitals - it could be "Barling bomber". Are there any more combinations we've missed? GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Barling Bomber" is both the common name and the one used by the army. I direct you to the Air and Space Power Journal article posted by MilborneOne just above. This is entitled, "The Barling Bomber". The U.S. Air Force is the most acronym-happy organization on the planet, yet here they use the acronym-free form of the name. It is not for us to be renaming aircraft because we think their names sound too informal. Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation (1980) calls this aircraft a "Barling NBL-1", so that's another possibility. I hope we can get the manufacture's name out of the article title since so few sources use it. Kauffner (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Repeating arguments is not productive, I have recorded your preference in the voting above. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

The most important thing here is accuracy, and that the name be the name actually given to the plane by the military at the time it was in service. It is essential that this name not be a name created merely to meet a naming convention that arose later. Bzuk, Kauffner is not really repeting his argument, he is adding additional evidence in support of it. Thus far no one has presented any official documents from the aircraft's operation that support the use of the words "Witteman-Lewis" in the aircraft's name (and I'm sure they have been trying). Documentation has been submitted that exceeds the quality usually used for reference in these matters. It clearly identifies the aircraft as the "Barling Bomber NBL-1". I would argue that this group has done a better job of researching this aircraft's name than the authors of the references we are citing. Until official operational documents are found that use the name "Witteman-Lewis", that name must be considered fictional, and deleted from the aircraft's title. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to see that National Museum of United States Air Force uses the name Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber [1] so they clearly dont believe that the name is fictional, in fact being used by a reliable government source then it would make a good name for this article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The Air Force Museum has an extensive display on the aircraft, with artifacts. It identifies the aircraft as the "Barling Bomber". There is no mention of the name "Whittman-Lewis". When I spoke with the guide in the WWI area he had never heard of the aircraft referred to as anything but the "Barling Bomber". - Ken keisel (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this move discussion now as we have clearly no-consensus for change to Barling Bomber, it may be better to open a new discussion if Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber is considered to be a better name, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur on closing the discussion. I do think that Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber is a suitable compromise that address all the names and designations while still following the recomended m-d-n format. - BilCat (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you really see any point? You know there are several people who will oppose it on the grounds it contradicts all the official Air Force documentation. - Ken keisel (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I really do see a point. As Milb1 stated, Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber is used by the NMUSASF, so there is USAF precedence that matches WPAIR's "fictional" m-d-n format. - BilCat (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

No, that actually doesn't count, as the NMUSASF website is handled by a civilian employee of the restoration team (who I will be talking to shortly). I wouldn't want you to base your argument on something that will likely be changed before this discussion is over. The Museum displays the aircraft solely as the Barling Bomber. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

So half of the museum is reliable and the other is not! not sure why the employee who writes the fact sheets is any more or less reliable than the man/woman who writes the signs! - Support change to Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber it is reliable referenced by both the usaf museum and loads of other references and adds the name Barling Bomber which answers the original request. Can we close this now and move on, am I repeating myself, thought so, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently only the info that Ken can exert influence on at the NMUSAF is reliable. I think that even mentioning such a things disquailfies his input here as a Conflict of interest. BilCat (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just come across an authoritative article on the aircraft in Air Classics that devotes an entire page to the debate over the name and like all the participants above have been saying (yes, ALL the editors involved), the issue of names was driving everyone batty from the beginning. What had been done was "tacit" acceptance of "Barling Bomber" as a name, even to the extent that the US army painted that on the rudder but what was also stated was that once production started, that the usual designation of manufacturer should predominate, although the company disappears soon after completing its work. Due to the unusual circumstances of the aircraft being destroyed, a reversion to the original name took place which was not truly an official one, it just happened that something had to be used, with both "Barling NB-1" and "Barling Bomber" applied. FWiW, this is obviously one of those infamous "exceptions to the rule" situation and I would like to end the debate by asking for a "show of hands" for:

• Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 Barling Bomber: Accept, with a healthy dose of explanation in the article regarding the name issue. Bzuk (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

I'd rather you added the change of names/designations into the article first, then I'd have somehing more to go on before formulating an opinion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick response: I believe that editors were waiting for a resolution of the controversy over names before making a major revision to the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clarification

At the moment we have

"Two pilots set in separate cockpits either side of the fuselage, while a bombardier sat in the nose. One or two flight engineers sat behind the cockpits to help tend the engines, a first for any aircraft. A radio operator and a navigator were seated next to them."[Allen p70][Flight 1923 p749-750]

Could someone with access to the Allen book (or others) clarify the situation with respect to the seating arrangements. Flight uses "cockpit" singular but it could be referring to a single pilot's cockpit rather than one cockpit for the both. (I guessing that if it is seperate cockpits, it left room between and below for the bombardier and or access to the front gun position). Secondly that the position of the flight engineers was novel. Flight mentions the controls behind the pilots, as was the case in the Tabor which unsurprisingly it resembles in many ways, but does not note it as unusual. I'm beginning to think the Flight reference is to some respects superfluous if its not contradictory. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The statement above from Allen is completely false. The only this that was novel was the necessity of a flight engineer to monitor the engines during flight. This was the first aircraft to require a flight engineer in order to operate. The flight engineer(s) sat in the nose below the cockpit. The aircraft was so noisy it was necessairy to have a small chalk board to write on for the flight engineer to communicate with the pilot. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There are two distinct pilot's cockpits (or to be more precise, positions), one on either side of the nose with some structure (i.e. a roof) between them- this is clear from photographs in Allen. What exactly is completely false in the statement about flight engineers?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The mistake is the statement "Flight mentions the controls behind the pilots". If you look at photos of the cockpits you will see that there was no stations behind the pilots. The pilots and bombardier sat in separate openings on top, while the flight engineer (usually one) and radio operator sat below the cockpit inside the aircraft in its nose. In this position they were well forward of the cockpit. There is an excellent photo of the port flight engineer's station in the Air Force book I reference. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Engineering Division

The Air Service Engineering Division was not involved in the design of the Barling Bomber in any way. The Barling Bomber was designed by Walter Barling under direction of Billy Mitchell. The aircraft's parts were constructed by Whittman-Lewis. The parts were shipped by rail to the Fairfield Air Depot, where they were ssembled by employees of the Depot, and mechanics from nearby Wilbur Wright Field. At no point was the Engineering Division, which was at McCook Field, ivolved in the design or assembly. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Ken! I've also corrected the name of the builder in the article to what you stated above. I'm not sure how the false name of "Witteman-Lewis" got into the article, but since you're never wrong, and don't need to cite sources to back up your points, "Whittman-Lewis" must be correct. - BilCat (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected the name back to Wittemann-Lewis, I appreciate it is not the same as the article name and that needs to be discussed at some point but it is clearly the name of the company. MilborneOne (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse the minor disruption to make a point :) Since you were the one who suggested Engineering Division as the design entity, any trhoughts on that? - BilCat (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that the Engineering Division were not involved in the design or assembly of the aircraft. Reliable sources say that Barling was working for the Engineering Division when he designed the aircraft and it is common to see the aircraft described as the Engineering Division NBL-1 in some sources. Also note that it was the ED who issued the specification to get the aircraft built. Hard to believe that the ED as customer were not involved in some way with the assembly, and it is also hard to believe that Charles Wittemann and his people were not around when the bomber was assembled, they did have a contract to build and assemble. It is also hard to believe that Barling designed the bomber at home and then gave the plans to his mate Mitchell, Mitchell then went to the Engineering Division and said I got some foreigner to design a big bomber can you get somebody to build it, oh by the way I dont want you to be involved in any design changes or have anything to do with the assembly, you can come and get it and test it when it is finished", no sorry dont buy that. MilborneOne (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of good articles and descriptions on this aircraft. Perhaps the two best are the Air Force's own book "Home Field Advantage", and Mary Ann Johnson's book "McCook Field 1917-1927". Both discuss this very issue. Mitchell went to Barling because he had previously designed a bomber very similar to the type Mitchell was looking for. He gave Barling the specs he wanted and Barling designed the aircraft. Mitchell pushed the design through the Air Service appropriations committee, and the aircraft, known as the Barling NBL-1, was offered for bidding. A group of investors in New Jersey saw an opportunity and formed the Wittman-Lewis Company to gain the contract, expecting to receive a production contract after the first examples were delivered. When the aircraft encountered serious cost-overruns and the Air Service made it clear they had no intention of buying more, Wittman-Lewis folded before the aircraft was even flying. There is no indication that Wittman-Lewis was in a position to send anyone to Dayton to help build the plane, as they were going out of buisness at that point. It is clear from the books that the Engineering Division had nothing to do with this aircraft. In fact, it appears that they judged it a failed design early on, and carefully avoided having contact with it. The aircraft was never flown to McCook Field. The best that can be said about the Barling and the Engineering Division is that the Barling flew over the Engineering Division a few times. I have RS that clearly state that the aircraft was never at McCook Field. That alone is more than sufficient to disqualify any claim that the Engineering Division was involved in the design. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand you believe what your sources are saying despite the obvious factual errors in your summary, but as the reliable sources contradict each other you are unlikely to accept any challenges to your view from other reliable sources and I am unlikely to believe your sources so really we are wasting our time here, thanks for your contributions. MilborneOne (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Witteman-Lewis was in existence in 1917 which is two years before the completion of the Tabor. Mitchell might have identified Barling as a possible designer before the Tabor met with its unfortunate end, it seems rather ahead of the game for him to get Barling on board before the formation of Witetman-Lewis and Barling had parted company with Tarrant. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to come in at this juncture, but wouldn't the issue be resolved by simply providing a relevant reference source? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC).

That's easy. From 1917 until 1927 the Engineering Division operated at McCook Field. Both the Air Forces book "Home Field Advantage", and Mary Ann Johnson's book "McCook Field 1917-1927" state that the Barling Bomber never visited McCook Field. It's just my opinion, but I would say that the Engineering Division avoided having anything to do with the plane. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is not a WP:reliable source. The Air and Space Power Journal, on the other hand, is. "In 1920 the Army Engineering Division issued specifications for a large triplane bomber to the Witteman-Lewis Company of Teterboro, New Jersey. Commonly referred to as the NBL-1 (night bombardment, long distance) or Barling Bomber (after its inventor, Walter Barling) and designated the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1, it was the Army's first long-range night bomber."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that the U.S. Air Force is a more reliable source on its aircraft than the Air and Space Power Journal. Once Witteman-Lewis was awarded the contract it was the Engineering Division's responsibility to send them the plans. That doesn't mean the Engineering Division was involved in creating the design. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to comment on the assertion that the NBL-1 never visited McCook an article in "Air Classics" July 1983 shows a picture of the aircraft in a hangar at McCook with the note that they had to build a special hanger at McCook field to house the aircraft It notes after the aircraft was shipped to Dayton it had to wait for a building to be built and work on final assembly resumed in the Summer of 1923 in a temporary hangar. This contradicts the article which says it was built and first flown from Wilbur Wright Field in Fairfield. Anybody have any reliable sources on this? MilborneOne (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1

I agree with Kauffner in his post, to a point. He stated: "World's Worst Aircraft calls it, The Barling-Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1 "Barling Bomber".". This is true on pg. 32's page title. However, on pg 4., it is called Barling NBL-1. As the book states, there were to be two prototypes; one day and one night. As other books state, the day prototype (NBL-1) was canceled.

The prototype that was built was built by Witteman-Lewis, and was given the Army designation of XNBL-1 for a night bomber. So, the proper title is Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1.

Where Barling comes in is that Walter H. Barling, one of the designers who worked for W.G. Tarrant and helped design the Tarrant Tabor, another disaster, relocated to the U.S. and designed the Witteman-Lewis XNBL-1. The plane came to be called "Barling Bomber". The press called it "Mitchell's Folly" (after Billy Mitchell the U.S.Army Air Service General and most vocal advocate of strategic airpower). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intellectual Searcher (talk • contribs) 01:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)