User talk:B17FE

Welcome!

Hello, B17FE, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. BilCat (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Okay, I have primary source material for the fact that the remote turret on the B-17E was a Sperry, not a Bendix. How can I get this information to you? The Bendix thing has been mentioned for years but it is not right.

Please help me with...

B17FE (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this is going to be a puzzling and frustrating response to you, but you cannot correct Wikipedia by reference to primary sources (are these even considered "published"?) when the majority of secondary sources have an error. You have offered your information on the talk page of the article, but I don't think you'll be able to get the changes made to the article itself until the information you know has been published elsewhere. This all follows from the Wikipedia policy of no original research. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sperry remote turret

I am probably posting in too many places but this is a first for me so please bear with me. I can provide primary source documentation to back up the fact that the remote turret on the B-17E was a Sperry unit. I would like to correct the long held misconception about the E remote turret. I need to know how to get JPEG files from my computer and let the editor (BilCat I believe) see them. I think I have the signature thing right finally!

Thank you,

Karl Hauffe B17FE (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I’m definitely not an expert on this either but I think I can provide something. We need a link to the file, so either use an external link to the picture, or upload it to Wikipedia using the WP:File Upload Wizard. as for getting JPEG files from your computer, I think that can be found with a google search. I’m also letting BilCat know about this. Thanks! PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 03:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it seems you are trying to use primary sources. You should probably read No original research. PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 03:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

I guess I do not understand why accurate, primary source information can't be used. I thought the whole idea was to provide accurate information for people. I see various books being quoted, why is it I cannot quote the manual or show the Boeing drawings? The manuals are available as are the drawings. This is verifiable information. Is it permissible to quote a primary resource? For instance, the B-17E Pilots Manual (01-20EE-1) on page 113 says "A Sperry No. 645705D remote-sighted power turret is mounted in the bottom of the fuselage just aft of the radio compartment." It goes on the identify the airplanes that had the remote Sperry and the Sperry ball. I am just trying to learn how to correct old inaccurate information. I do not believe I am violating any rules here but perhaps someone can straighten me out. I have read the information on sources and think I am within the guidelines. Just need to be able to show the resources I am referring to.

B17FE (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See, I told you it might be confusing.

I looked up reference 57 in the article in question but I could not immediately see past the first page. I presume that the person who originally added the Bendix reference to the article got it from this reference, but I can't verify it, because it seems it would have appeared on the following page. So that's the information that you want to challenge.

I also see that copies of the B-17E Pilot's Manual are available for sale and I think that qualifies them as a published source. I don't have access to one, but it sounds like you do.

I would expect that the pilot's manual and blueprints you have access to describe the situation after the Sperry units were used in production. This situation, all by itself, does not refute the claim that earlier in the design or production phase, Bendix units were used, later replaced by Sperry, since that's a detail that would not necessarily be present in your documents.

This situation captures fairly well why we prefer to use secondary sources. Primary sources may not tell the whole story and extracting the whole story from researching across multiple primary sources is what constitutes the forbidden original research.

I was able to find some definite information, though not necessarily from a source we can use, about the Bendix vs Sperry turret issue: At https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/b-17e.htm we have the line The Bendix turret was replaced by a Sperry ball turret starting with the 113th B-17E built. If this leads you to any further sources that we can use, please feel free to edit the article or request changes on the talk page. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bendix and Sperry turrets were not interchangeable, completely different in the way they operated and were installed. Sorry, but the secondary information is wrong. The turret (or remains of it) that was found with the airplane referred to as "Swamp Ghost" which is on display at the Pacific Aviation Museum at Pearl Harbor is the Sperry. At no time did the B-17E have the Bendix. How do I prove a negative if folks do not believe what Boeing and the Army Air Force said? There are no official documents or photos showing Bendix turrets in B-17Es. Someone made an assumption years ago and nobody ever bothered to follow up on it. I can show photos of the Bendix and the Sperry which show they were completely different units. Also, the structure required to mount the Bendix is quite substantial. Here is a link to a discussion about the turret issue, perhaps this will help: https://inchhighguy.wordpress.com/2018/11/18/the-b-17e-and-the-myth-of-the-bendix-ventral-turret/ If you look at the turret domes you can see that the Sperry had a much flatter bottom while the Bendix was more rounded.

I would also like to throw this out there: If you do an online search for 41-2488, you will see it has the Sperry (flat bottomed) turret. This was the 96th of 113 B-17E's built.

I did some further research and found a photo of 41-2501, the last E built with the remote turret. And it clearly has the Sperry flat bottomed turret (comparatively speaking, the Bendix is much more rounded). The argument that it could have had the Bendix installed later is illogical. First, there would be no reason to do so in the middle of a war and second, the structural changes would require a massive effort, again, not something that would be worth undertaking at the time. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Boeing_B-17E_Fortress_41-2504_Panama_1942.jpg

Study #54 from the USAF Historical Research Agency, pg 132 of the pdf file, pg 107 of the document, spells out the use of the Sperry remote turret for the first 113 B-17E's. https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/51-100/AFD-090529-108.pdf

Compare how round the Bendix turret dome is: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5e/d1/20/5ed1206190f50bdc39c5b568a776a564.jpg to the Sperry turret dome on 2501.

B17FE (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B17FE (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot lead the way in "correcting" this information. The correction needs to appear in a reliable secondary source first. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So false secondary information takes precedence over proven primary information? All secondary sources with absolutely no factual backing are considered good sources? That is not good research. There is not one spec of proof, a photo, an official document, an installation drawing that the Bendix story is true. Only secondary information. How does one correct decades of bad information? Did you follow any of the links I posted? The one from the USAF Historical Research Agency should surely qualify as a reliable secondary source.

B17FE (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Wikipedia depends on what can be verified in secondary sources. "Truth" is not something we try to adjudicate on Wikipedia.

I looked at the document you posted. It has a lot of detail, but I do see on the page marked 107 that "113" number, indicating a plan to change turrets from one Sperry design to another. I think you can venture to use that document as a source. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a loss as to where to go from here. I have proof of what I am presenting yet no one seems to want to address it. I am told I need to come up with secondary sources. Problem is, they are wrong. Even secondary sources had to come up with primary source material yet there is absolutely no material or photos to back up the secondary sources claims. The B-17 at the Pacific Aviation Museum has the actual turret and on the turret is the Sperry data plate. Which I would post here if I was allowed to do so.

Okay, this does not make sense to me: "This situation captures fairly well why we prefer to use secondary sources. Primary sources may not tell the whole story and extracting the whole story from researching across multiple primary sources is what constitutes the forbidden original research." Every one of those secondary sources had primary sources and were original research at one point.

In addition the study #54 from the USAFHRA, I have another secondary source. The 50th Anniversary book about the B-17 put out by the Boeing Museum of Flight and written by the B-17 guru at Boeing, Peter M. Bowers, states on pg 23 "The first 112 B-17E's had a remotely-controlled Sperry belly turret that was sighted by a periscope in a clear plastic dome behind it."

I am trying to abide by the rules here, am I getting anywhere? It would be nice to clear up this long held incorrect information.

B17FE (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B17FE (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B17FE, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi B17FE! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)